CULEX QTJINQTJEFASCIATFS 359 



flavipes as a distinct species and appears to have had several forms confused 

 under this name. At all events his material did not include the form here 

 considered, for he lays particular stress on the difference in the thoracic scales, 

 which in his specimens were minute, as in Culex smiilis. We omit the synonymy 

 indicated in connection with C. -flavipes by Theobald and Blanchard (Les 

 Moustiques, 358, 1905), as it seems to us to need further elucidation. 



Goeldi figures what he calls Gulex fatigans (Os Mosquitos no Para, plate i, 

 figs. 4 and 5), and, if his figures are correct, it is a different species from the 

 one known to us. We are, however, reluctant to believe that this can be so, and 

 would attribute the Joining of the abdominal bands to the lateral spots, shown 

 in his figure of the female, to an error, or to a variation that occasionally occurs. 

 Everything else that he says about the common house-mosquito of Para points 

 to its being identical with our Gulex quinquefasciatus. 



Theobald refers Wiedemann's Gulex wstuans (Aussereurop. zweifl. Insekten, 

 i, 11, 1828) and Meigen's Gulex pallipes (Syst. beschr. europ. zweifl. Ins., vii, 1, 

 1838) to the synonymy, but we are unable to see from the descriptions any 

 special resemblance to Gulex quinquefasciatus. We are consequently unwilling 

 to accept this synonymy until verified by a study of the types. Those of Gulex 

 pallipes are still preserved, according to Blanchard, in the Museum of Paris, 

 and those of G. wstuans still exist in Vienna. 



Blanchard places Culex anxifer Bigot (Ann. Soc. Bnt. France, ser. iii, vii, 

 117, pi. 2, fig. 1, 1859), from Madagascar, as a synonym of our species. The 

 description and the figure are both unrecognizable and Coquerel, in the ac- 

 companying remarks, clearly had a number of species confused, while his ac- 

 count of the habits will not apply to G. quinquefasciatus. 



The use of the name Gulex ciliaris is traceable to Skuse who referred speci- 

 mens to that species with a doubt. The identity of the true Gulex ciliaris of 

 Linnaeus does not seem well established, but in no case can it be referred to the 

 present species. Coquillett considered Gulex fatigans identical with Gulex 

 pipiens and to his identification is traceable the employment of the latter name 

 for the present species by various authors. 



The adults described as Gulex aikenii, subsequently changed to Gulex lach- 

 rimans owing to preoccupation of the name, prove to be Gulex quinquefasciatus. 

 The larvae were wrongly associated by the collector, and are found to be Gulex 

 similis, but their true adults represent a geographical race, as will be found dis- 

 cussed under Gulex similis. 



In general appearance Gulex quinquefasciatus closely resembles the more 

 northern Culex pipiens and on that account the two have been frequently con- 

 fused. It averages larger, although there is considerable variation in size. It 

 has a distinctly greyish appearance, the colors being brighter in Gulex pipiens. 

 This difference is particular pronounced in the thoracic vestiture which in GuJex 

 pipiens is a foxy red while in C. quinquefasciatus the greyish tint often gives it 

 an almost mouldy appearance. These differences, however, can not be relied 

 upon, as specimens of quinquefasciatus occur with the thorax foxy red ; we have 

 particularly noted this in the form from the west coast of Mexico (variety dip- 

 seticus) . The females of G. quinquefasciatus may usually be recognized by the 

 character of the abdominal banding, although this character is not absolutely 

 reliable. In Gulex pipiens all the bands are continuous and joined to the lateral 

 spots while in quinquefasciatus the first two or three bands are usually in- 

 terrupted at the sides, not joining the lateral spots, and more or less produced 

 medianly. These differences can, of course, be determined only with well-pre- 



