12 
PSYCHE 
[Feljiuiiry 
I). cancer, if only these two possess such an angulation surely this may be considered 
as one of the unusual if not unique characters of the latter larva. 
x\s for the mandibles, I still believe these to be unique. I was careful, in view 
of possible di.scoveries, to say, ( Psyche, Feb. ’06, p. 19, last par.), in referring to the 
outer caudal angle of the mandible of other culicids than Deinocerifen that “in other 
mandibles, no jar an the writer can ancertain, this part forms an even, eontiimous 
eurv'e with the rest of the mandible body.” I had not then seen even the figure of C. 
vector. The straight, stiff, a])])arently spineless, (this is .strange, as at least one or two 
rudimentary spines, though often hard to find, are present even on smoothly rounded 
mandibles), little projection on the outer angle of the mandible of C'. vector is about 
as “.similar” to the bent, thumblike, somewhat flexible, long-spined appendage on 
the D. cancer mandible as is the atrophied .stump tail of a mandril to the prehen.sile 
caudal appendage of a South American monkey. Doubtless the projections are 
homologues. And, pray, on what are classifications l)ased if not on modifications 
of homologous structures ? Also, the outer angle of the mandible of C. vector is not, 
as in D. cancer, visible from above. The biting and other jiarts of the C. vector 
mandible are deciiledly of the Cule.v type, as may be plainly seen by comparing 
them with my figure of a typical Cule.v mandible, (P.syche, Feb. ’06, p. 11), and with 
the Deinoceriten manilible illustrated on p. 17. (This figure, by the way, is, b\ a 
misprint, wrongly designated as “ Maxilla of C. .wilinariun,” which is on p. 20). 
For the description of a variation of the marginal comb, which agrees with C. vector, 
read par. 2, col. I, p. 13, of the same number. 
I have, from the fir.st, regarded D. cancer as a ])rimitive type, and it is natural 
that later developed types should possess atrophied remnants of organs which were 
well developed in the more primitive forms (such for example, as the spines on the 
outer caudal angle of the mandible). I find this belief supported by ( )sten Sacken, 
who states that he considers the true Nemocera, to which the Culicidae belong, 
and most of which pos.sess numerous well developed sensory hairs on the antennae, 
as being a higher development than the Nemocera anomala, which have relatively 
bare antennae, (Ent. Mon. Mag., XXVII, ]>. 35). He lays great stress on the char- 
acters of eyes and antennae for forming superfamilies among the Di])tera. As in 
the true Nemocera the differentiation of eyes is reduced to a minimum, he gives to 
the antennal characters, especially the com])arative length and abundance of the 
hairs on the male as compared with the female antennae, the greatest importance. 
If, then, so great an authority considers antennal characters of this nature as of such 
moment in differentiating su/jcrfamilies, how much greater weight mu.st be given to 
the value of the same characters in the making of .vuM'ainilies. 
