SPECIES OP CULEX AND ALLIED GENERA. 261 



5. C. thalassius, Theo., Eept. Liverp. S. Trop. Med., Mem. X, App. p. vii 



(1902) ; Mon. Cul. Ill, p. 168 (1903). 

 Culex bifoliata, Theo., J. Econ. Biol. I, p. 31 (1905). 

 CuUceha accraensis, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 317 (1910). 



„ neotaeniorhynchis, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 320 (1910), 

 There is very little doubt that C. hifoliata is the same as C. thalasshcs, which 

 is certainly conspecific with C. accraensis. The proboscis in both the specimens 

 of C. bifoliata, contrary to Theobald's statement, is distinctly banded. I have 

 examined the (^ genitalia in these two specimens, and also in a specimen from 

 Accra, and can only detect one " foliate plate " in any of them. There appears 

 to be no difference in the thoracic marking between C. accraensis and C. neotae- 

 niorhynchus — at any rate not sufficient to Warrant the retention of the latter 

 name as a distinct variety. This name is rather misleading, as G. thalassius 

 does not belong to the Culicelsa group, the type of which is C. taeniorhynchvs, 

 Wied. 



Gambia ; S. Nigeria ; Transvaal ; Delagoa Bay- 



6. C. somaliensis, Neveu-Lemaire, Arch. Parasit. 10, p. 254 (1906). 



C. salus, Theo., Third Rep. Welle. Lab. p. 256 (1909). 



C. salsus, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 338 (1910). 

 Very much like C. thalassius, but the first fork-cell is shorter and the femora 

 are marbled. It bears an extremely close resemblance to the Indian C. micro- 

 anniilatus, and is quite possibly only a form of that species. As, however, I 

 do not feel confident that they are the same — there is some difference in the shape 

 and colour of the thoracic scales — I have not adopted the name micro amiulatus 

 for the African species. The description of C. somaliensis agrees very well 

 with specimens of C. salus, a large number of which have been received by the 

 Entomological Research Committee from Somaliland. 



7. C. tigripes, Crandpre, Les Moustiques (1900). 



(?) C. concolor, R.-D., Mem. Soc. d'Hist. Nat. Paris IV, p. 405 (1825). 



C. maculicrura, Theo., Mon. Cul. II, p. 34 (1901). 



C. tigripes Yar. fusca, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 394 (1910). 

 This species is very distinct from all other African Ctclex on account of its 

 large size and spotted legs. It is, however, closely related to the Oriental 

 C. concolor, the only constant difference I can detect being in the relative length 

 of the fork-cells : in C. tigripes Q the base of the first fork-cell is nearer the 

 base of the wing than that of the second, while in C. concolor the bases of both 

 are almost equidistant from the base of the wing, that of the second fork-cell 

 being if anything nearer the wing-base than that of the first. G. tigripes is also 

 on the whole a darker insect, with less yellow on the abdomen, though there is 

 a great deal of variation in this respect in both forms, some specimens of 

 G. concolor being as dark as any G. tigripes, and having hardly any yellow scales 

 on the abdomen. The last joint of the (^ palpi in C. tigripes is generally dark, 

 while in G. concolor it is nearly always light. Both forms have the same leg- 

 markings, these being subject to some variation. Since there is this constant 

 differe|ace between the two forms (in neuration) I think G. tigripes must be 

 regarded as a distinct species. To my mind it is an absolutely typical Gulex. 



