136 C. STRICKLAND — THE MYZORHYNCHUS GROUP 



can be found. In one undoubted paeditaeniatus in my possession the wing-mark- 

 ing was even the exact reverse of Leicester's description, the wing-scaling being 

 largely yellow with brown spots ; and I have often seen sinensis with the scaling 

 of the wings very largely brown. The position of the cross-veins is quite as 

 variable also. The broad golden leg-bands of paeditaeniatus are again, as James 

 and Stanton also say, connected by every type of intermediate form with those of 

 sinensis. The costal spots are the same in both species, and the apical fringe 

 spot varies from a size similar to what it is in umbrosus to a broad band visible 

 to the naked eye, and this is not correlated at all with the amount of leg-banding. 

 We must therefore conclude that on morphological grounds it is impossible to 

 say that paeditaeniatus, if the imago only is considered, is a distinct species. 



We are then confronted by the difficulty that although the imagines of the two 

 species run into one another, yet only two types of larvae are known, according 

 to Leicester, one of which produces his paeditaeniatus fly and one his sinensis. 



Now if these larvae are really distinct and no intermediate forms exist between 

 them, it is enough reason to establish the validity of two species, even though the 

 imagines cannot be distinguished. But I surmise the as yet undiscovered 

 existence of larval intermediate forms which perhaps produce the fly inter- 

 mediate forms which Leicester has not described. 



Leicester's observation at any rate shows an interesting correlation between 

 larval and imaginal structure of extreme forms within a species. If he had not 

 stated that this correlation of structure was constant, we might have explained 

 his observation as illustrating the larval variability which Stanton (1911) has 

 found, but weighing all the evidence, I think that we are justified in assuming 

 that paeditaeniatus is the same species as sinensis. 



II. Annularis, Wulp (1884). It is perhaps unnecessary to mention this species, 

 as it has been generally regarded as synonymous with vanus. 



III. Vanus, Walk. (1860). This species appears in Theobald (1903 and 

 subsequently), but no writer on Malayan Anophelines has mentioned it. Forms 

 corresponding to Theobald's description certainly occur, but they are not distinct 

 from sinensis, being connected by every possible intermediate form, and the 

 species must therefore be sunk. 



IV. Minutus, Theo. (1903). The same remarks apply to this species as to 

 vanus, and it cannot therefore stand as a distinct species. 



V. Albotaeniatus, Theo. (1903). Theobald, Leicester, and Alcock, all give 

 this as a distinct species, but James and Stanton, after saying they have not seen 

 it, do not give it a place in their list of Malayan Anophelines. However, it is 

 perfectly distinct, and I have never seen intermediate forms between it and 

 umbrosus, its nearest relative. Besides myself, Dr. Watson of Klang, F.M.S., 

 has seen it on several occasions. 



VI. Separatus, Leic. (1908). Leicester gave definite reasons why he thought 

 this a distinct species from sinensis. He said " The points of distinction seem 

 constant, the brown mesonotum, white apical palpal joint, and predominant yellow 

 scaling distinguish it." James and Stanton later endorsed this view, but 

 Leicester's reasons, as a matter of fact, are not very satisfactory, for the points 

 of distinction from sinensis given by him seem to be rather points of resemblance 

 to his own description of sinensis ; although in another place he sa}'s, " This 



