135 



THE MYZORHYNCHUS GROUP OF ANOPHEL1NE MOSQUITOS 



IN MALAYA. 



By C. Stkickland, M.A., B.C., Cantab., 



Travelling Medical Entomologist ; Federated Malay States. 



The object of the present paper is to make some remarks about certain of the 

 species and genera mentioned in Leicester's 'Monograph of the Culicidae of 

 Malaya' (1908), together with certain related species described by other authors. 

 I have paid special attention to Leicester's work because it remains the standard 

 book of reference on the mosquitos of Malaya. 



The species that will be dealt with are the following : — asiatica, sinensis, 

 annularis, minutus, vanus, barbirostris, umbrosus, pacditaeniatus, separatus and 

 albotaeniatus, which have all been mentioned by one author or another as coming 

 from Malaya. The genera which I propose to discuss are Myzorhynchus, 

 Lophoscelomyia, and Patagiamyia. 



The Validity of the Species.* 



The validity of asiatica, barbirostris, umbrosus, and sinensis is not disputed ; 

 but concerning the others there has been some doubt and a review of the subject 

 seems desirable. 



I. Paeditaeniatus, Leicester (1908). Concerning this species it must be 

 remarked that its sponsor, after weighing all the evidence, dismissed the doubt 

 that it was not a distinct species from sinensis : he said, " The larvae differ 

 constantly from those of M. sinensis. In the larva of M. sinensis each frontal 

 hair consists of a short thick stem supporting numerous stiff bristle-like hairs, in 

 M. peditaeniatus it is formed by a long thin stem which splits into a few, five or 

 six, fine hairs"; and of the adult fly he said, " The wing scaling also differs from 

 that of M. sinensis, as it is much darker and the contrast of the two colours is 

 more pronounced, and the lateral scales are broader. The posterior cross-vein is 

 much nearer the median in M. sinensis than in this mosquito "; and again, " In 

 sinensis the yellow scaling of the wing predominates and the brown scales are 

 more or less collected into small spots, while it is exactly the reverse in 

 peditaeniatus" 



Now these are definite enough arguments, yet James and Stanton (1911) do 

 not answer them, but on the ground that the leg-banding of sinensis (sensu 

 Leicesteri) is very variable and that therefore the broad leg-bands of paeditaeniatus 

 might be an extreme form of the leg-bands of sinensis, they reject paeditaeniatus 

 as a distinct Malay species. If only the fly itself had been concerned Leicester 

 himself would have probably called it sinensis, for he said, "The real reason for 

 separating them is the differences in the larvae." I agree ; for although the 

 distinctive wing-marking of paeditaeniatus and sinensis mentioned above, 

 which is given by Leicester, is certainly often seen, yet every intermediate type 



* The validity of the species is here considered on morphological grounds only. 



