﻿134 
  F. 
  W. 
  EDWARDS. 
  

  

  Macedonia 
  : 
  Stavros, 
  near 
  Salonica, 
  1918, 
  1 
  $ 
  (type) 
  reared 
  from 
  larva 
  (Capt. 
  

   J. 
  Waterstori). 
  Morocco 
  : 
  1 
  $ 
  caught 
  on 
  horse 
  and 
  mule 
  outside 
  Fez, 
  v. 
  1909 
  

   (Major 
  C. 
  E. 
  P. 
  Fowler). 
  Algeria 
  : 
  1 
  $ 
  (Dr. 
  Sergent 
  ; 
  no 
  data). 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  a 
  male, 
  the 
  best 
  distinctive 
  character 
  which 
  can 
  be 
  adduced 
  

   is 
  the 
  presence 
  of 
  flat 
  scales 
  on 
  the 
  scutellum 
  ; 
  the 
  larva 
  also 
  is 
  very 
  different 
  from 
  

   that 
  of 
  0. 
  geniculatus, 
  hence 
  this 
  form 
  must 
  undoubtedly 
  be 
  regarded 
  as 
  specifically 
  

   distinct. 
  The 
  Moroccan 
  and 
  Algerian 
  specimens 
  have 
  the 
  flat 
  scutellar 
  scales, 
  but 
  

   in 
  thoracic 
  markings 
  appear 
  to 
  agree 
  with 
  typical 
  0. 
  geniculatus 
  ; 
  hence 
  they 
  are 
  

   somewhat 
  doubtfully 
  conspecific 
  with 
  the 
  type. 
  

  

  Gulex 
  apicalis, 
  Adams. 
  

  

  Culex 
  apicalis, 
  Adams, 
  Kans. 
  Univ. 
  Sci. 
  Bull, 
  ii, 
  p. 
  26 
  (1903). 
  

  

  Culex 
  territans, 
  Howard, 
  Dyar 
  & 
  Knab, 
  Monogr. 
  iii, 
  p. 
  293 
  (1915) 
  (nee 
  Walker). 
  

  

  Culex 
  territans, 
  Schneider, 
  Verh. 
  Natf. 
  Ver. 
  Bonn, 
  lxx, 
  p. 
  45 
  (1913). 
  

  

  Culex 
  hortensis, 
  Edwards, 
  Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag. 
  (3) 
  i, 
  p. 
  167 
  (1915) 
  (nee 
  Ficalbi). 
  

  

  Culex 
  saxatilis, 
  Dyar, 
  Insec. 
  Inscitiae 
  Menstr. 
  vii, 
  p. 
  36 
  (1919). 
  

  

  Culex 
  pyrenaicus, 
  Brolemann, 
  Ann. 
  Soc. 
  Ent. 
  France, 
  1918, 
  p. 
  427 
  (1919). 
  

  

  Specimens 
  of 
  C. 
  pyrenaicus 
  sent 
  me 
  by 
  Dr. 
  Villeneuve 
  from 
  Rambouillet, 
  France, 
  

   agree 
  in 
  almost 
  every 
  detail 
  with 
  North 
  American 
  specimens 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum, 
  

   the 
  only 
  distinction 
  discernible 
  being 
  that 
  the 
  harpagones 
  of 
  the 
  male 
  genitalia 
  

   are 
  more 
  noticeably 
  serrated 
  on 
  their 
  tips. 
  This 
  difference 
  is 
  so 
  minute 
  that 
  I 
  con- 
  

   sider 
  the 
  specific 
  identity 
  of 
  the 
  European 
  and 
  North 
  American 
  forms 
  to 
  be 
  

   unquestionable, 
  particularly 
  in 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  male 
  genitalia 
  vary 
  slightly 
  

   among 
  American 
  specimens. 
  

  

  The 
  species 
  can 
  be 
  readily 
  separated 
  in 
  both 
  sexes 
  from 
  C. 
  hortensis, 
  Fie, 
  by 
  the 
  

   white 
  spots 
  at 
  the 
  tips 
  of 
  the 
  hind 
  femora 
  and 
  tibiae 
  being 
  very 
  small 
  or 
  absent 
  ; 
  

   the 
  wing 
  scales 
  also 
  are 
  perceptibly 
  broader. 
  Capt. 
  J. 
  Waterston 
  has 
  recently 
  

   discovered 
  the 
  larvae 
  of 
  both 
  C. 
  apicalis 
  and 
  C. 
  hortensis 
  in 
  the 
  neighbourhood 
  of 
  

   Salonica, 
  and 
  from 
  an 
  examination 
  of 
  his 
  material 
  it 
  can 
  be 
  positively 
  stated 
  that 
  

   the 
  larva 
  figured 
  by 
  Schneider 
  is 
  that 
  of 
  C. 
  apicalis 
  and 
  not 
  of 
  C. 
  hortensis 
  as 
  I 
  

   suggested 
  in 
  1915. 
  

  

  Dyar, 
  in 
  the 
  paper 
  quoted, 
  discusses 
  the 
  synonymy 
  of 
  the 
  species, 
  and 
  from 
  the 
  

   evidence 
  he 
  adduces 
  I 
  should 
  certainly 
  conclude 
  that 
  C. 
  apicalis 
  is 
  the 
  correct 
  name 
  

   for 
  the 
  species, 
  C. 
  testaceus, 
  v. 
  d. 
  Wulp, 
  being 
  too 
  doubtful 
  to 
  be 
  made 
  use 
  of. 
  

  

  Culex 
  aurantapex, 
  Edw. 
  

  

  Culex 
  aurantapex, 
  Edwards, 
  Bull. 
  Ent. 
  Res. 
  v, 
  p. 
  74 
  (1914). 
  

  

  Taeniorhynchus 
  domesticus, 
  Leicester, 
  Cul. 
  of 
  Malaya, 
  p. 
  169 
  (1908) 
  (nee 
  Culex 
  

   domesticus, 
  Germar). 
  

  

  I 
  described 
  this 
  species 
  from 
  a 
  single 
  female 
  from 
  Nairobi. 
  Recently 
  a 
  female 
  and 
  

   three 
  males 
  reared 
  from 
  larvae 
  have 
  been 
  received 
  from 
  Dar-es-Salaam 
  (A. 
  W. 
  J. 
  

   Pomeroy). 
  Although 
  these 
  specimens 
  differ 
  from 
  the 
  type 
  in 
  having 
  slightly 
  broader 
  

   wing-scales 
  and 
  more 
  numerous 
  pale 
  scales 
  on 
  the 
  wings 
  and 
  legs, 
  there 
  seems 
  little 
  

   reason 
  to 
  doubt 
  their 
  specific 
  identity 
  with 
  the 
  Nairobi 
  example. 
  They 
  appear 
  to 
  

   agree 
  in 
  every 
  respect 
  with 
  specimens 
  of 
  Leicester's 
  T. 
  domesticus. 
  As 
  Leicester 
  

  

  