Aedes of the Philippines — Knight AND Hull 
475 
ternally, these two specimens appear unques- 
tionably to be conspecific with the specimen 
selected above as the type for uncm. They 
differ externally from Philippine uncus in the 
same manner described above for the female. 
Also, the terminalia, as figured by Edwards 
(1917, fig. 8d) shows some minor differences. 
Unfortunately, no notes were made of these 
differences so it is not possible to evaluate 
them now. 
In summary, it seems likely that the Philip- 
pine material may eventually be shown to be 
either subspecific to uncus, or a separate, close- 
ly related species. On the other hand, more 
extensive collecting in Malaya and the ad- 
joining portions of the Philippines may show 
the variations mentioned to be normal and 
intraspecific. This is the only fresh-water spe- 
cies of the Philippines with a distribution 
elsewhere, and it seems likely that this may 
be additional evidence to show that the Phil- 
ippine form is a distinct and endemic form. 
In examining the types of varietas Leicester, 
it was noted that externally the two female 
cotypes are similar to the female selected as 
type for uncus, in both general and specific 
characters. In these, the number of hairs on 
the anterior portion of the sternopleuron was 
slightly higher (and thus more intermediate 
with the Philippine material), being 10-12 in 
number. Although the terminalic mount avail- 
able was not too good, it appeared to resem- 
ble completely that of the female type of 
uncus. 
The male cotype of varietas is not con- 
specific with the females and is here regarded 
as the type for that species. It is a smaller 
species than uncus and has a general grayish- 
brown appearance, very small basolateral 
spots on the tergites, and delicate, thin hind 
tarsal claws. 
Aedes (Aedes) macrodixoa 
Dyar and Shannon 
1925. Aedes (Aedes) macrodixoa Dyar and 
Shannon, Insecutor Inscitiae Men- 
struus 13: 79 (1 male). Type locality: 
Philippines. Infanta, Tayabas Prov., 
Luzon. Type: Male (holotype) in 
U.S.N.M. Terminalia mounted. 
Adult and systematics treated by Laffoon 
(1946: 238). 
DISTRIBUTION: Literature records. Luzon: In- 
fanta, Tayabas Prov. Mindoro: San Jose. Ley- 
te: Tacloban. Mindanao: Mercedes, City of 
Zamboanga Prov. Parang. (Laffoon, 1946: 
239.) 
Unknown outside the Philippines. 
DISCUSSION: This species is apparently in- 
distinguishable externally from uncus and nu- 
hicolus. Laffoon (1946: 239) has pointed out 
that the female which Bohart (1945, fig. 52) 
identified and figured as macrodixoa is in ac- 
tuality dux. 
According to King and Hoogstraal (1947: 
125), the male from the upper Digoel River 
in southern Dutch New Guinea that was 
identified by Brug (1932: 79) as macrodixoa 
was probably neomacrodixoa King and Hoog- 
straal. 
Aedes (Aedes) nigrotarsis (Ludlow) 
I9O8. Pseudoskusea nigrotarsis Ludlow, Canad. 
Ent. 40: 52 (female). Type locality: 
Philippines. Infanta, Tayabas Prov., 
Luzon (Warriner). Type: Female (holo- 
type) in U.S.N.M. 
I9O8. Pseudoskusea medioUneata Ludlow. Ca- 
nad. Ent. 40: 332. Misidentification. 
Adult, larva, and systematics treated by 
Laffoon (1946: 239). 
DISTRIBUTION: Literature records. Luzon: In- 
fanta. Subic Bay, Zambales Prov.; Camp 
Nichols, Rizal Prov.; Calauan, Laguna Prov.; 
Quezon City, Manila Prov.; Wackwack; 
Manila, Manila Prov. Samar: Osmena. Jina- 
moc Island. Leyte: Tacloban. Abuyog. Min- 
danao: Zamboanga and San Ramon, City 
of Zamboanga Prov. (Laffoon, 1946: 240.) 
Leyte: Tolosa (Bick, 1949: 4). 
Unknown outside the Philippines. 
DISCUSSION: This species is closely related 
to indicus (Theobald), which is known only 
