234 F. W. EDWARDS — NEW SYNONYMY 



scales being rubbed off. It is evidently the same species as Theobald's C. annulus, 

 and from the description of C. biroi I should say there is no doubt that that is 

 also the same. Theobald regarded some specimens as a distinct species (which 

 he called C. sitiens) because he mistakenly supposed that there was no trace of 

 " banding " on the hind tarsi ; his description of the thoracic scales both of these 

 specimens and of C. annulus is rather misleading, as the colouring is uniform over 

 the greater part of the mesonotum. I have mounted the genitalia of the male 

 type of C. vishnui and find them identical with those of other specimens of this 

 species. The female specimen must be regarded as the type of C. vishnui, as 

 Theobald gives it precedence. 



36. Culex halifaxii, Theo. 



Culex halifaxii, Theo., Mon. Cul. iii, p. 231 (1903). 



Culex multimaculosus, Leic, Cul. of Malaya, p. 155 (1908). 

 I have compared the type of C. halifaxii with a series of Dr. Leicester's speci- 

 mens of C. multimaculosus, and find they are the same. Apart from the difference 

 in coloration between this species and C. concolor, there is a slight difference in 

 the male genitalia, and also, according to Dr. Leicester, in the larvae, so that the 

 two species are evidently distinct. This is rather surprising, as the exactly 

 parallel difference in coloration between the African C. tigripes and its variety 

 fuscus is not accompanied by any genital distinction, nor, as a matter of fact, 

 can I detect any difference between the male genitalia of C. tigripes and C. 

 concolor, although there is a constant difference in the neuration of the females. 

 The specimens recorded by Theobald from Queensland as C. tigripes are really 

 C. halifaxii, while those he has noted from various Oriental localities must be 

 either this species or C. concolor. Both may, and generally do, have the femora 

 distinctly spotted. 



37. Culex fuscocephalus, Theo. 



Culex fuscocephalus, Theo., Mon. Cul. iv, p. 420 (1907). 



(?) Culex minor, Theo., Kec. Ind. Mus. ii, p. 298 (1908). 



Culex taytayensis, Banks, Phil. J. Sci. iv, p. 545 (1909). 



Culex luteola, Theo., Mon. Cul. v, p. 378 (1910). 

 I have compared the types of C. fuscocephalus and C. luteola with paratypes 

 of C. taytayensis sent me by Mr. Banks, and find they are undoubtedly the same. 

 The abdominal tergites are pale-scaled at their edges, the pale patch extending 

 along the whole of the side of each segment, but broadening out somewhat towards 

 the apex. The description of the abdomen of C. minor does not quite fit in with 

 this, and as I have not yet examined a specimen this name is only included as a 

 doubtful synonym. 



Culiciomyia, Theo. 

 Mon. Cul. iv, p. 227 (1907). 



This is quite a well-marked group, as apart from the scale characters which 

 distinguish it from true Culex, there are certain characters of the male genitalia 

 which seem to be peculiar to this group and common to all its members. It may 

 therefore be justifiable to retain it as a distinct genus, 



