974 MOSQUITOES OF NORTH AMERICA 



prominent yellow spots on the costa and two small ones basally, the last at root 

 of wing; first the largest and extends on to the first long vein, the second is the 

 next largest and also extends on the first long vein, the third only exists on the costa, 

 also the small fourth and fifth basal ones; two small yellow spots on each side of 

 the third costal spot on the first vein and another near its base; two on the lower 

 branch of the first fork-cell and one at the base, two pale areas on its stem near the 

 cross- vein; third long vein with four yellow spots, a small one at the base and apex; 

 two small ones on the upper branch of the second fork-cell, one at the apex of lower 

 branch and one at base of the cell; three spots on upper branch of fifth, one at the 

 base of fork and half (basal) the lower branch yellow; three small yellow spots on 

 the sixth. 



First sub-marginal cell longer but no narrower than the second posterior cell, 

 its base much nearer the base of the wing, its stem half the length of the cell; 

 stem of the second posterior cell as long as the cell; supernumerary and mid cross- 

 veins close together; posterior longer than the mid about its own length distant 

 from it; fringe pale at the junction of each vein with the costa. 



Halteres with dusky stem and black knob. 



Length. — 6 mm. 



(^. Palpi elbowed, apical segments swollen, deep black, a narrow white band at 

 the elbow joint, white scales on one side near the apex and at the apex, penultimate 

 segment with a dense short tuft of brown hairs; antennae deep brown with pale 

 internodes, deep brown hairs with pale grey refiections. 



Tliorax and legs as in the $, but the hind legs show less banding. 



Wings with slightly different spotting, the third pale costal spot is broken by a 

 narrow black speck, and the base of the first and fourth veins are all creamy white, 

 there are also many pale scales on the third and the fringe has not any pale spots 

 after the upper branch of the fifth. Fore ungues very unequal, the larger biserrate; 

 mid and hind equal and simple. Claspers black, horny. 



Length. — 6 mm. 



Habitat. — Brazil (Dr. Lutz) ; Mexico (Nat. Mus. Hung. M. Biro?). 



Observations. — Described from three $'s and a (?• Dr. Lutz saw the specimens 

 for a few minutes and said they were Pyretophorus luteii, Cruz. They are certainly 

 not a Pyretophorus and belong to the genus described here, characterised by the 

 abnormal head scales. 



It differs from P. lutzii, Cruz, in first of all being a very black Anopheline and 

 not with a " fawn coloured " mesonotum as in that species; moreover, there are 

 no " erect bifurcated scales " on the occiput, nor is the abdomen " fawn " coloured. 

 In the c? also the larger ungues of the fore legs are bi- not uni-serrated. A great 

 part of Cruz's description of P. lutzii, however, agrees, and the two might easily be 

 confused unless examined microscopically. 



We have seen no specimens of the adult or larva of this species. 



Tropical America. 



Eeported from Eio de Janeiro, Brazil (Cruz), States of Amazonas, Eio de 

 Janeiro, Sao Paulo (Lutz) and Minas Geraes, Brazil (Peryassu) and also from 

 Mexico (Theobald). 



We follow Chagas in the synonymy. He explaias that Theobald was led into 

 error by Bourroul, who wrongly indicated forked scales as present on the head. 

 We note that Cruz, in the original description, indicates a black ring on the 

 fourth hind tarsal, while subsequent descriptions state that the last three joints 

 of the hind tarsi are wholly white; however, we feel bound to accept the 

 synonymy indicated by the Brazilian observers, as it is no doubt based upon 

 ample data. Theobald's reference to the occurrence of this species in Mexico is 

 indefinite and we doubt that it exists within the faunal region here considered. 

 It has not occurred to our collectors in Panama, where we should naturally 

 expect to find it if it extends at all into our region. We include it, however, on 

 the strength of Theobald's record. 



Considerable confusion exists, owing to the fact that several species of 

 Anopheles have been given the name luizii and placed in different genera. This 

 species was described by Cruz under the name Anopheles lutzii in a Brazilian 

 publication, which was overlooked by Theobald, who subsequently gave the same 

 specific name to another species (now called Anopheles boliviensis, as shown by 

 Knab, Ins. Insc. Menstr., i, 15, 17, 1913) . Both names have been retained under 

 different generic titles, but improperly so in any case, as both were originally 

 described in the same genus, and furthermore since we find these different genera 

 invalid. A third species of Anopheles {M anguinhosia lutzi Cruz) has since been 



