162 
A Monograph of Culicidae. 
Arribalzaga describes it undoubtedly from the Argentine 
under the name dolosus, and, moreover, raises it to a new genus, 
Hcteronycha, which genus cannot hold, as it is a most typical 
Culex, closely related to C. pipiens , L., from which the genus was 
formulated. The description and figures of the different parts 
exactly agree with this species, which have been received from 
several parts of South America. Moreover, Dr. Lutz writes me 
he is sure the common night mosquito of Brazil is the same as the 
Indian species, which he has also found in the Sandwich Islands. 
In 1838 Meigen described a species under the name C. pallipes, 
from two poor specimens from Spain. Some specimens are in 
the Jardin des Plantes, but they are not those from which the 
original description was compiled. Meigen’s short description 
applies as far as it goes to Culex fatigans, and as that species 
occurs in Portugal, Gibraltar, &c., I think there is little doubt 
as to its identity. In the same w r ork that Wiedemann describes 
G. fatigans he describes C. aesluans from Brazil. The differences 
mainly lie in that in the latter “ the moderately clear brown 
thorax has one deeply tinted stripe,” and that “ in one specimen 
there is a trace of white banding on the tarsi.” The common 
mosquito of Brazil is undoubtedly C. fatigans , which Dr. Lutz 
tells me shows distinct traces of pale tarsal banding when 
immature. I therefore feel inclined to place aesiuans as a 
synonym of C. fatigans. 
Culex Macleayi, Skuse, differs only in the form of the two 
thoracic stripes from a typical C. fatigans , and after comparing 
the Australian specimens I am confident they are only local 
varieties of Wiedemann’s species. The same may be said of 
Skuse’s Culex sp. near ciliaris, called by Major Giles (Hand-Bk. 
Mosquitoes, p. 292) Culex Skusii. Skuse’s description agrees in 
all respects, except that there are four bare thoracic lines more 
or less parallel, and not curved as in C. Bancroftii (fasciatus ), but 
these lines are generally very indistinct, and in some specimens 
cannot be seen. The series I have examined vary much in 
colour, a point noticed by Skuse. 
I also feel certain that Wiedemann’s Culex pungens is synony¬ 
mous. Professor Howard kindly sent me specimens under this 
name, but they did not answer to Wiedemann’s description. On 
the other hand, his figure of C. pungens (Bull. No. 25, New 
Series, IT. S. Dept. Agri., p. 27, fig. 4, 1900) exactly resembles 
the common house mosquito. The genitalia of the £ is shown 
