IN ORIENTAL CULICIDAE. 231 



(c) Culex Group, 

 Culex, L. 



Syst. Nat. Ed. x (1758). 



29. Culex bitaeniorhynchus, Giles. 



Culex bitaeniorhynchus, Giles, J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Soc. xiii, p. 607 (May 

 1901). 



Taeniorhynchus acjer, Giles, Entom. xxxiv, p. 196 (July 1901). 



Taeniorhynchus tenax, Theo., Mon. Col. ii, p. 198 (Nov. 1901). 



Culex infula, Theo., Mon. Cul. i, p. 2 TO (Nov. 1901). 



Grabhamia ambigua, Theo., Mon. Cul. iii, p. 24 8 (1903). 



Grabhamia taeniarostris, Theo., Mon. Cul. iv, p. 299 (1907). 



Oculeomyia sarawaki, Theo., Mon. Cul. iv, p. 515 (1907). 



(?) Taeniorhynchus domesticus, Leic., Cul. of Malaya, p. 169 (1908). 

 (?) Culicelsa abdominalis, Taylor, Rept. Austral. Inst. Trop. Med., 1911, 

 p. 53 (1913). 

 Most of the above synonymy has already been given under C. ager, but is 

 printed again now in confirmation. I have recently discovered that Giles 

 originally described his species as Culex bitaeniorhynchus , so the name ager must 

 unfortunately be rejected. The abdomen bears a very variable amount of yellow 

 scaling, which is occasionally present at the bases as well as at the apices of some 

 of the segments. Leicester's T. domesticus is included here as a variety, but 

 further experience may show that it is entitled to specific rank ; however, the 

 name cannot coexist with the much earlier Culex domesticus, Germ. T. domesti- 

 cus, Leic, is only distinguishable from typical C bitaeniorhynchus by its much 

 blacker thorax. 



30. Culex sinensis (Theo.). 



Culex gelidus, var. sinensis, Theo., Mon. Cul. iii, p. 180 (1903). 



Leucomyia sinensis, Theo., Mon. Cul. v, p. 313 (1910). 



Culex sepositus, Leic, Cul. of Malaya, p. 152 (1908). 



Taeniorhynchus tenax, Leic. {nee Theo.), Cul. of Malaya, p. 167 (1908). 

 This is not, as I previously considered, a variety of the preceding, but is a 

 distinct species. It differs principally from C. bitaeniorhynchus in the entire 

 absence of any pale scales on the wing ; in the other species the wing is always 

 more or less mottled with light and dark scales. There are also other differences 

 between the two, e.g., in the scaling of the legs. The type of C. sepositus is lost, 

 but Leicester's description is unmistakeable. 



31. Culex epidesmus (Theo.). 



Taeniorhynchus epidesmus, Theo., Rec Ind. Mus. iv, p. 22 (1910). 



Taeniorhynchus luteoabdominalis, Theo., Rec Ind. Mus. iv, p. 23 (1910). 



Grabhamia ochracea, Theo., J. Econ. Biol, i, p. 35 (1905). 

 The name ochraceus is ineligible for this species, as Theobald had described a 

 Culex ochraceus previously to his Grabhamia ochracea, and although the former 

 species is now transferred to Ochlerotatus, its original location in Culex prevents 



32306 F 



