ART. 1, MOSQUITOES OF THE UNITED STATES—DYAR, 3 
We took the type to be the species mentioned by Lynch;-but Euro- 
pean writers consider the type to have been the species actually be- 
fore the author at the time. TZaeniorhynchus is thus considered a 
synonym (or subgenus) of Aédes by us; for the European writers 
the name replaces J/ansonia. 
Heteronycha as a synonym (or subgenus) of Aédes or of Culex. 
Lynch Arribalzaga described Heteronycha dolosa in such a way that 
it appears that he had a male Culex and a female Aédes before him, 
wrongly associated as one species. In the monograph, we restrict 
Heteronycha to the Aédes element, discussing the matter at length. 
It has since been poimted out to me that Heteronycha was pre- 
viously restricted to the Culea element, and by the principle of the 
first reviser we were not at liberty to take the action mentioned. 
However, the so-called previous revision consists only in the refer- 
ence to the synonymy of Heteronycha dolosa to Culex fatigans by 
Theobald.” There is not a word of explanation or of comment, and 
Lynch’s contrary diagnosis of the female is ignored. Moreover, the 
male before Lynch was not Culex fatigans, but a different species, 
since described as Culex bonariensis Bréthes. Therefore Theobald’s 
reference is wholly in error, the female which he calls fatigans being 
not a Culex, but an Aédes (Aédes lynchii Bréthes), while the male 
he calls fatégans is another species (bonariensis). Can a mere indi- 
cation of an erroneous synonymy be characterized properly as the 
work of the first reviser? If so Heteronycha should be a synonym of 
Culex. Otherwise the use of the name as a subgenus of Aédes as 
here done is indicated. 
Culex fatigans instead of Culex quinquefasciatus. The name 
quinquefasciatus is older than fatigans, but the identity of the 
former is called in question. No certain types exist. Say’s descrip- 
tion is brief, but is said by European writers to suggest an Ano- 
pheles, because, he says, “ body clothed with cinereous hair.” I do 
not think that at that time a fine distinction would be drawn between 
hairs of Anopheles and the narrow curved scales of Culex. The fact 
that Say says the legs are short and the abdomen banded would seem 
to exclude Anopheles and fix the present species, and also the decidu- 
ous mesonotal vestiture, which does not exist in Anopheles. 
In this paper the trinomial subspecific nomenclature has not been 
adopted. All subspecies are here classified as species; but where 
forms have been considered as subspecies the fact is mentioned in 
each case. 
The terminology of the parts of the male genitalia proposed by 
Edwards‘ has been adopted in this paper, superseding the one used 
® Mon. Culic., vol. 2, p. 151, 1901. 
Ann. Trop. Med. & Par., vol. 14, pp. 23-40, 1920. 
