New Methods of Classification. 15 



Previous to this Coquillett * laid great stress on the structure 

 <of the ungues, but as such closely related forms as fatigans and 

 dentatus have them different, it is evidently of no great value. 



SEPARATION OF CORETHRA, MOCHLONYX, ETC., 

 FROM THE CULICIDAE. 



Dr. Adolf Eysell in his paper, " Sind die Culiciden eine 

 Familie ? " (Archiv fur Schiffs-und Tropen-Hygiene, Bd. IX., 

 pp. 51-55, 1905), was the first to separate the Coretlirinae from 

 the family Culicidae, and raised them to the rank of a family, 

 Corethridae {Buschelmucken) which, on account of the structure of 

 the mouth, the absence of scale structure on wings, body, and 

 legs, and the peculiarities of their larvae is certainly correct. At 

 •the same time he places the Anophelines in a separate family, the 

 Anojphelidae. Although there are such marked differences between 

 the asiphonate larvae of the Anophelinae and the siphonate Culi- 

 ^inae we think that as in adult structure they so much agree, 

 and as we find such intermediate larval forms as Mansonia and 

 Taeniorhynchus they are best retained in this family, whilst 

 the Corethridae are completely separated on account of not only 

 (their larvae, but mainly the absence of the long piercing mouth 

 and the absence of scales in the adults. 



LUTZ'S GENERAL CLASSIFICATION. 



Dr. A. Lutz has adopted a new grouping of families and genera, 

 which seems to be based on excellent grounds. 



The table given here is taken from Lutz's work in " Mosquitos 

 <do Brasil " (Bourroul). 



There is one alteration I would propose — that is, excluding 

 the Culicimorphae entirely and raising them to family rank. If 

 this is done the term Corethridae should supersede Culicimorphae. 

 The classification by means of the relative lengths of palpi is, 

 however, not satisfactory, as we get so many intermediate forms, 

 such as Mimomyia, which is Aedine in general appearance, yet 

 the male has palpi more than half the length of the proboscis. 

 This genus then must surely come amongst Lutz's Heteropalpae 

 and not the Micropalpae. 



* Canad. Ento., p. 43 (1876), and Science XXIII., p. 313 (1906). 



