C. Strickland 
15 
Note on the species. 
There can be no doubt that this species, together with the members 
of James and Liston’s genus Patagiamyia and of Blanchard’s genus 
Myzorhynchus, forms one very distinct group in the Old World. In 
fact the group is so distinct that it is difficult to say to what other 
species of anopheline it has any affinity. It is characterised, firstly in 
the larva, by the j^resence of an antennal hair in all known species, and 
the internal clypeal hairs are close together; secondly, in the adult, by 
the possession of a tuft of scales on the patagia, and a very uniform 
wing-pattern, namely, a golden spot on the costa at the junction of the 
subcostal vein and another at the junction of the first longitudinal with 
the costa, this involving the upper branch of the second longitudinal. 
Another uniform character is the obovate shape of the wing-scales. 
Moreover the general facies, although incapable of exact definition, is 
very characteristic. All the members are jungle breeders. 
On the other hand James and Liston appear to see affinities between 
their Patagiamyia group of these species and the Anopheles group {sensu 
Meigen), and also between their MyzorhynGhus group {sensu restricto 
James and Liston) and the Christophersia group. There may be this 
affinity although it is difficult to see it, but in any case there seems to 
be very much more affinity between those authors’ Patagiamyia and 
Myzorhynchus species than between Anopheles on the one hand and 
Christophersia on the other, and this similarity should be reflected in a 
grouping under one name. 
It is another question whether it is advisable to form a sub-group 
for any of these myzorhynchoid species or to take them all as belonging 
to the genus Myzorhynchus Blanchai-d. But in the latter case the original 
definition of the genus should be emended, for at present it could not 
apply to asiatica or imtbrosus, for example. Certainly asiatica and 
wellingtoniana could be sepai’ated from the others in one group by reason 
of the well-marked tufts of scales on the femora, but this might be a 
conventional grouping, for I have seen a harhirustris with quite a well- 
marked clump of scales at the distal end of the femora; the scaling of 
the last abdominal segment of asiatica is not a distinctive character, as 
umhrosus sometimes is so scaled. If the sub-grouping however is kept, the 
definition of it will have to depend on the femoral scale-tufts. 
With regard to the other species of the group it seems difficult to 
know where to draw the line: James and Liston’s division into Pata¬ 
giamyia and Myzorhynchus cannot stand, as we have in Malaya a species 
