244 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS [voL. 48 
Megarhina separata LyNcH-ARRIBALZAGA, 1891, Revista del Museo de 
La Plata, v. 2, pp. 133-134. 
Megarhinus separatus THEOBALD, 1901, Monograph of the Culicide, v. 1, 
Ppp. 219-221. 
Megarhina separata GILES, 1902, Handbook of the gnats or mosquitoes, 
2 ed., p. 270. 
Megarhinus hemorrhoidalis (in part), M. separatus BLANCHARD, 1905, 
Les Moustiques, pp. 222-223. 
Megarhinus separatus GoELDI, 1905, Os mosquitos no Para, pp. 124-127, 
Pl. NoU& Pi.'s, fie: ao. 
MEGARHINUS LYNCHI new name 
Megarhina hemorrhoidalis LyNCH-ARRIBALZAGA, 1891, Revista del Museo 
de La Plata, v. I, pp. 376-377. 
Megarhinus hemorrhoidalis THEOBALD, 1901, Monograph of the Culicide, 
v. I, pp. 222-223. 
Megarhina hemorrhoidalis (the male only) Gres, 1902, Handbook of 
the gnats or mosquitoes, 2 ed., p. 270. 
Megarhinus hemorrhoidalis BLANCHARD, 1905, Les Moustiques, p. 222. 
A critical examination of our specimens of Megarhinus with white 
tarsal markings shows that Mr. Coquillett, in his characterization of 
M. rutila and portoricensis,1 has included and confused a number 
of closely related species. Indeed, the entire literature on these 
forms is in a most unsatisfactory condition, as we shall point out in 
detail in the course of the following remarks. Doubtless the trouble 
has largely arisen through the use of scanty and damaged material, 
bit also through a lack of discrimination in the identification of the 
early descriptions. 
We now have before us no less than 60 specimens of Megarhinus 
with white tarsal markings, a larger number by far than has ever 
before been available together, and this study has brought to light 
the existence of a number of closely related species. Great confusion 
has been caused by basing the diagnosis on the tarsal markings with- 
out reference to sex. We find that when the sexual differences are 
taken into account the tarsal markings are a useful guide in the 
diagnosis of the species and are a much more constant character than 
has been supposed. The fact that among the material from the 
North American continent there were no females which would fit 
the diagnosis of portoricensis should have aroused suspicion, but the 
small number of female specimens available would account for this 
oversight. The material before us shows that no less than six distinct 
1A classification of the mosquitoes of North and Middle America. By. D. 
W. Coquillett. Technical Series, No. 11, U. S. Dept. Agric., Bureau of 
Ent., p. 14 (1906). 
