DYAR-KNAB] MOSQUITOES IN GENUS MEGARHINUS 245 
forms have been included under the two specific names given above. 
Of these six species the only one that we can safely refer to any 
described species is M. rutila Coquillett, of which the type is before 
us. M. portoricensis was described by von Roder* from a single 
male and the description is not sufficiently detailed to warrant identi- 
fication without material from the type-locality. The three speci- 
mens, from widely separated localities, which Theobald had before 
him in drawing up his description of portoricensis? most likely rep- 
resent as many distinct species, while his supplementary remarks? 
doubtless apply to still another. Von Roder’s single male had the 
fourth segment of the hind tarsi only white, Theobald gives in his 
diagnosis of the species: “Legs steel blue, golden beneath the 
femora, penultimate tarsal joint white,’ and apparently meant to 
include all the legs. In his concluding “ observations” however, 
he says: “ The penultimate tarsal joint of the hind legs only is white 
in this species.” It remains to be seen if in the true portoricensis 
this is true for the female as well as the male. Of Mr. Theobald’s 
three specimens one was Walker’s M. ferox from Georgia.* This 
specimen, most likely a broken one, is certainly wrongly associated 
with portoricensis and in all probability is the M. septentrionalts 
described here. Certainly in the 50 specimens of Megarhinus from 
the North American continent now before us there is no specimen 
with only the hind tarsi marked with white. In all probability the 
two specimens from the island of St. Vincent, referred by Williston 
to portoricensis,® represent a distinct form. Of the material in our 
collection from three of the West Indian islands the specimens from 
each island represent a distinct species and it is safe to assume that 
specimens from other islands will likewise prove distinct. 
Neither can the Culex ferox of Wiedemann’® be placed with cer- 
tainty. The description is from a male in which the hind tarsi were 
absent. The third segment of the middle tarsi is white. In a sup- 
plementary note Wiedemann describes a male in the collection of Mr. 
von Winthem in Hamburg, which most likely was distinct from the 
previously described one. The fore legs were missing ; the second and 
third segments of the middle tarsi are white, and the fourth of the 
hind tarsi. Theobald translates this note and wrongly credits it to 
* Entomologische Zeitung., entom. Vereine Stettin., v. 46, p. 337 (1885). 
2 Monograph of the Culicide, v. 1, pp. 232-233 (1901). 
HES CRN Sy ibe Heoe 
“List of Dipterous insects in the British Museum, part 1, p. 1 (1848). 
5 Transactions Entom. Soc., London, 1896, p. 271. 
6 Aussereuropdische Zweifliigelige Insekten, v. 1, pp. I, 2 (1828). 
