SPECIES OF CULEX AND ALLIED GENERA. 261 
5. C, thalassius, Theo., Rept. Liverp. S. Trop. Med., Mem. X, App. p. vil 
(1902) ; Mon. Cul. IIT, p. 168 (1903). 
Culex bifoliata, Theo., J. Econ. Biol. I, p. 31 (1905). 
Culicelsa accraensis, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 317 (1910). 
Ss neotaeniorhynchus, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 320 (1910). 
There is very little doubt that C. béfoliata is the same as C. thalassius, which 
is certainly conspecific with C. accraensis. The proboscis in both the specimens 
of C. bifoliata, contrary to Theobald’s statement, is distinctly banded. I have 
examined the ¢ genitalia in these two specimens, and also in a specimen from 
Accra, and can only detect one “foliate plate” in any of them. There appears 
to be no difference in the thoracic marking between C. accraensis and C. neotae- 
niorhynchus—at any rate not sufficient to warrant the retention of the latter 
name as a distinct variety. This name is rather misleading, as C. thalassius 
does not belong to the Culicelsa group, the type of which is C. taentorhynchus , 
Wied. 
Gambia ; 8. Nigeria ; Transvaal; Delagoa Bay. 
6. C. somaliensis, Neveu-Lemaire, Arch. Parasit. 10, p. 254 (1906). 
C. salus, Theo., Third Rep. Welle. Lab. p. 256 (1909). 
C. salsus, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 338 (1910). 
Very much like C. thalassius, but the first fork-cell is shorter and the femora 
are marbled. It bears an extremely close resemblance to the Indian C. micro- 
annulatus, and is quite possibly only a form of that species. As, however, I 
do not feel confident that they are the same—there is some difference in the shape 
and colour of the thoracic scales—I have not adopted the name microannulatus 
for the African species. The description of C. somaliensis agrees very well 
with specimens of C, salus, a large number of which have been received by the 
Entomological Research Committee from Somaliland. 
7. C. tigripes, Grandpré, Les Moustiques (1900). 
(?) C. concolor, R.-D., Mém. Soc. d’ Hist. Nat. Paris IV, p. 405 (1825). 
C. maculicrura, Theo., Mon. Cul. IT, p. 34 (1901). 
C. tigripes var. fusca, Theo., Mon. Cul. V, p. 394 (1910). 
This species is very distinct from all other African Culex on account of its 
large size and spotted legs. It is, however, closely related to the Oriental 
C. concolor, the only constant difference I can detect being in the relative length 
of the fork-cells : in C. tigripes Q the base of the first fork-cell is nearer the 
base of the wing than that of the second, while in C. concolor the bases of both 
are almost equidistant from the base of the wing, that of the second fork-cell 
being if anything nearer the wing-base than that of the first. C. (¢gripes is also 
on the whole a darker insect, with less yellow on the abdomen, though there is 
a great deal of variation in this respect in both forms, some specimens of 
C. concolor being as dark as any C. tigripes, and having hardly any yellow scales 
on the abdomen. The last joint of the ¢ palpi in C. figripes is generally dark, 
while in C. concolor it is nearly always light. Both forms have the same leg- 
markings, these being subject to some variation. Since there is this constant 
difference between the two forms (in neuration) I think C. tigripes must be 
regarded as a distinct species. To my mind it is an absolutely typical Culex. 
