140 Psyche [August 



tinct," and Strickland^ while not agreeing with Christophers on 

 this point, after having given the differences in the two larvae, 

 says "the larva of ludlowi is therefore quite distinct from that of 

 rossi" and in a footnote adds "As a certain amount of confirma- 

 tion, we may note that if either hidloici or rossi had hatched out 

 of one of our breeding bottles, on examining the larvae remaining 

 in the bottles we found in every case, although we need not have 

 expected such favorable evidence, that they were of the type 

 which we now ascribe to the respective species." 



The description of Myzomyia parangensislias been comparatively 

 lately published, but specimens were sent to Edwards for compari- 

 son before its publication and his verdict was "This is quite unlike 

 any anopheline I have seen before. I suppose it comes nearest 

 to liidloivi.'' 



The status of these species seems to be that the anophelines 

 taken in the Philippines which closely resemble rossi are really 

 indefinita, and that hidlowi, and parangensis are established 

 species. 



When insects are connected with the transmission of disease 

 it is doubly important that the nomenclature should be as un- 

 clouded as possible, and it is hoped the above points may clear 

 some of the confusion which has existed concerning these species.^ 



DOES THE HOUSEFLY HIBERNATE AS A PUPA? 



By Harold Lyox, 

 Bussey Institution, Harvard University. 



The following experiments were conducted during the past 

 winter to determine if it were possible for the housefly to overwin- 

 ter in the pupal stage. Thirty-seven lots were obtained, each 



1 Strickland, C, The Comparative Morphology of the Anophelines Nyssomyzomyia ludlowi 

 Theob. and Nyssomyzomyia rossi Biles. Bull. Ento. Research., Vol. V, Pt. 4, March, 1915. 



2 Since this article was sent to the publisher Mr. Edwards writes that "the name christophersi 

 must be replaced by minimus, Theob. (described rather inaccurately from Hong Kong in 1901.)" 

 The species was afterward referred to Pyretophorus, under which genus it is placed in BuU. No. 

 4, Surgeon General's Office, p. 46. 



