Aedes of the Philippines — Knight and Hull 
473 
on external characters, but the terminalia are 
asymmetrical (Laffoon, 1946, fig. 14), One 
side is rather similar to adustus, while the other 
is very odd, showing some similarity to cam- 
pylostyhis and some to adustus. The larvae of 
campylostylus , hamistylus, and uncus were col- 
lected from this same pool. This specimen is 
in the U.S.N.M. 
While at the British Museum in 1946, the 
senior author compared a Philippine male 
specimen of adustus with the holotype male 
of andamanensts Edwards and made a note to 
the effect that the two were conspecific. Word 
of this was sent to Laffoon, and, after reviewing 
the problem, he replied that he had used the 
figure given by Barraud (1934, fig. 71g) for 
his concept of the male terminalia of anda- 
manensis. This figure shows three apical pro- 
cesses in addition to the tergal large one and 
is accordingly similar to johnsoni (differing, 
however, in the shape of the anterior fork 
elements of the dorsal large prolongation); 
and probably represents an undescribed spe- 
cies. No specimen that could have been used 
for this description was located in the col- 
lection of the B.M., so perhaps the specimen 
in question is still in the collection at Kasauli. 
Barraud (1934: 290) recorded seeing spec- 
imens of andamanensts from the Andamans, 
Assam, E. Bengal, and the Malabar Coast. 
Four of Barraud’s specimens from Assam are 
in the B.M., and an examination of the term- 
inalia of a male in this series showed it to be 
unlike his figure and completely similar to 
the type of andamanensts in lacking the third 
of the three apical processes below the large 
tergal prolongation. Therefore, Barraud’s fig- 
ure must have been made from either E. Ben- 
gal or Malabar Coast specimens. However, 
the identity of his species must remain un- 
known until someone has the opportunity 
of re-examining his material that is still at 
Kasauli. 
To return to the possibility of adustus being 
a synonym of andamanensts, Laffoon pointed 
out (in personal communication) that Ed- 
wards’ (1922, fig. 37) original figure showed 
a series of short hairs along the tergal-lateral 
margin of the basistyle, whereas adustus pos- 
sesses a group of about 10-15 long bristles 
tergal-laterally on the basistyle, and these are 
all arranged apically at the base of the tergal 
prolongation. No such group is shown in the 
figure given by Edwards. Other differences 
pointed out by Laffoon that might serve to 
separate the two species are the different shape 
of the anterior fork of the large apical pro- 
longation of the basistyle and the different 
form of the group of stout spines on the inner 
basal surface of the basistyle. Unfortunately, 
Lafifoon’s letter did not arrive until after the 
departure of the senior author from the B.M., 
and these possible points of difference have 
not been checked. So, for the present, adustus 
has been maintained as a valid species. 
Aedes (Aedes) margarsen Dyar and 
Shannon 
1925. Aedes {Aedes) margarsen Dyar and Shan- 
non, Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus 13: 
80 (males, females). Type locality: 
Philippines. Camp Eldridge, Laguna 
Prov., Luzon (Vasquez). Type: Male 
(lectotype) in U.S.N.M. 
Adult and larva described by Laffoon (1946: 
237). 
DISTRIBUTION: Literature records. Luzon: 
Camp Eldridge, Los Banos, and Calamias, 
Laguna Prov. Tungkong Manga, San Jose, 
Bulacan Prov. Subic Bay, Zambales Prov. San 
Anastacio. Mindoro: San Jose. (Laffoon, 
1946: 237.) 
Unknown outside the Philippines. 
DISCUSSION: The adult of this species is 
distinguishable from andamanensts, johnsoni, 
and adustus only in details of the male ter- 
minalia. The larva is apparently inseparable 
from the larva oi johnsoni. 
Aedes (Aedes) nubicolus Laffoon 
1945. Aedes {Aedes) uncus (Theobald). Bohart, 
Syn. Philippine Mosq., NavMed 580, 
p. 66 and fig. 50. Male only. 
