﻿246 F. W. EDWARDS — A KEY FOR DETERMINING THE 



p. 175). The fact that this differs from typical A. squamosus only in the absence 

 of the white pleural lines, would certainly seem to justify sinking it under that 

 species, yet it is hardly conceivable that larvae so different as those described by 

 Hill and Haydon and Newstead and Carter could be conspecific. Possibly some 

 confusion of adults has arisen. The character given for the separation of the 

 adults seems quite inadequate. 



6. A. maculicosta, Becker, Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, II, p. 69 (1903). 



Dr. Becker has kindly supplied me with the following additional notes on the 

 type : — " Thorax grey, not brown. Pleurae and sternum light grey, with red- 

 brown patches, not dark as in pharoensis. Abdomen : scales yellowish, no darker 

 scales on side and at the end of the abdomen and no broad scales sticking out- 

 wards on the borders. Femora and tibiae are quite yellow brown with some little 

 brown irregular patches, but not banded, the hind tarsi quite yellow-brown, their 

 base somewhat darker, the ends of them and the last joint yellow, not white. 

 Wings in general pictured like A. pharoensis. Length 3*5 mm., not 8 mm. 



44 After this I believe A. maculicosta is a species closely allied to A. pharoensis, 

 but differs in the ornamentation of the pleurae and the legs and the length of the 

 body." In spite of the differences indicated, I am inclined to think that A. 

 maculicosta was described from a small rather worn specimen of A. pharoensis. 

 The lateral projecting scales of the abdomen may well have been rubbed off, and 

 as to size, I can only say that I have seen no specimen of A. jiharoensis which 

 exceeded 6 mm. in length, and that they are often a good deal less. A. maculicosta 

 was described from Egypt, where A. pharoensis is common. 



7. A. Christyi, Newst. and Cart, (Neocellia), Ann. Trop. Med. V, p. 238 (1911). 

 A large mosquito resembling A. mauritianus in general appearance, but with 



more distinctly spotted wings and without white hind tarsi ; it is easily distinguished 

 with a lens by its scaly abdomen, the scales not forming lateral tufts. The dark 

 spots of the wings stain the membrane, so that even a denuded specimen would 

 be easy to recognise. 



Uganda ; British E. Africa (Njoro and Nairobi, T. J. Anderson). 



8. A. brunnipes, Theo. {Nyssorhynchvs), Mon. Cul. V, p. 64 (1910). 

 Angola. 



9. A. aureosquamiger, Theo. {Pyretophorus), Mon. Cul. IV, p. 73 (March 18, 



1907). 



Hill and Haydon in their description of A. natalensis make no mention of the 

 scales on the thorax. This may be only an omission, as there seem no other 

 characters to separate natalensis and aureosquamir/er. 



Transvaal. 



10. A. rufipes, Gough, Transvaal Dept. Agric, Kept. Gov. Vet. Bact. 1908-09, 



p. 119 (1910) (as var. of Nyssorhynchus pretoriensis). 

 Anopheles {Nyssorhynchus) watsoni, Edw., Bull. Ent. Res. II, p. 143 (1911), 

 (nee Pyretophorus watsonii, Leicester, 1908). 

 This species seems rather variable in the amount of white on the hind legs. 

 Specimens bred by Dr, Ingram at Bole, Gold Coast, have the white ring at the 



