Aedes of the Philippines — Knight and Hull 
All 
As pointed out in the synonymic table, the 
female without terminalia separated is an un- 
determined species. It possesses broad scales 
on the scutellum and on ppn and lacks fine 
hairs on the mesepimeron. It is probably a 
Skusea species, but this point was not checked. 
Two female terminalia labeled as this spe- 
cies by Barraud in the British Museum collec- 
tion from the Andamans (ix. 1911. Chris- 
tophers) were examined and seemed to check 
satisfactorily with the types. 
The types of dturna and hatiensis were ex- 
amined and found to be hutleri , as previously 
indicated by Edwards and Barraud. Laffoon 
(1946: 245) had questioned the synonymy of 
hatiensis because Carter in his description said 
that the scutellar scales were similar to those 
covering the greater portion of the head, thus 
implying that they were broad. However, in 
examining the two Ha-tien specimens pinned 
under hutleri in the British Museum, it was 
found that both are pinned through the scu- 
tellum, making it now impossible to know 
what type of scales were present. It seems 
likely that the missing three specimens (two 
from Ha-tien and one from Saigon) had broad 
scutellar scales and were moved by a later 
worker (probably Edwards) to an Aedes spe- 
cies with broad scutellar scales. 
The types of umhrosus were studied, and the 
female terminalia was compared with that of 
a specimen from Palawan. No essential dif- 
ferences were found. No Philippine male 
specimen was available for direct comparison, 
but the type male terminalia was compared 
to the figure given by Laffoon (1946, fig. 1) 
and found to agree perfectly, except that the 
type specimen (only one had the terminalia 
mounted) had three proximated subapical 
spines instead of only two as figured by Laf- 
foon, had only 13-15 verticillate bristles on 
the antennal segments, and was somewhat 
smaller. No differences were found between 
the female type of umhrosus and the types of 
hutleri, diurna, and hatiensis. The Javan spec- 
imen mentioned in the original description of 
umhrosus was not seen in the British Museum. 
As pointed out by Laffoon (1946: 245), 
the male terminalia described and figured by 
Edwards (in Barraud, 1934, fig. 73e, f) as the 
male of hutleri is probably the male of lugu- 
hris. No Indian specimens of hutleri were seen 
in the British Museum. 
Subgenus Cancraedes Edwards 
1929. Cancraedes Edwards, Bui. Ent. Res. 20: 
342. Genotype: cancricomes Edwards 
(Andaman Islands). 
ADULT: Brownish species without special 
ornamentation. Palpi very short in both sexes. 
Vertex and scutellum all broad-scaled. Stout 
dorsocentral bristles present, but no acrosti- 
chals. Paratergite not scaled. Lower mese- 
pimeral bristles present. Tarsal claws simple 
in both sexes. Terminalia: Basistyle short, with 
a complex group of apical and subapical ap- 
pendages. Dististyle very short, simple, with- 
out articulated appendage. Claspettes absent. 
Mesosome divided, each lobe with an elon- 
gate spine externally. 
LARVA: The larva of only one species has 
been described. As in subgenus Aedes except: 
Comb with about 70 scales arranged in a 
patch. Ventral brush with about 8 tufts, all 
borne on a laterally connected barred area. 
Habitat, crab holes and pools in mangrove 
swamps. 
DISTRIBUTION: The four known species (a 
fifth species, kanarensis Edwards, 1934, was 
questioningly placed in this subgenus by the 
describer) are confined to the Oriental region. 
SYSTEMATICS: Except for kanarensis, this 
subgenus contains a very uniform group of 
species. A. kanarensis, which has not been 
included in the above subgeneric description, 
differs markedly from the other known spe- 
cies in the subgenus because of its scutal and 
tarsal pale scaling. 
Aedes (Cancraedes) miachaetessus 
Dyar and Shannon 
Fig. 12 
1925. Aedes {Skusea) miachaetessa Dyar and 
