150 
A Monograph of Culicidae. 
of the fork-cells differ, agreeing on the other hand with speci¬ 
mens of A. annularis from India in this respect. So similar are 
these insects that I take both with the Malay forms ( annularis) 
to be sub-species of Wiedemann’s A. Sinensis, and the probability 
is that Loew’s A. jpioius is the same. 
Specimens brought back by Major Ross from Calcutta, depo¬ 
sited in the British Museum, and for which Major Giles suggests 
the name nigerrimus, agree in many respects with the former, 
but there are slight differences in the scales from them ; but 
that point can only be settled when sufficient material is to hand, 
as the three types are too badly damaged to describe them in 
toto, and being types I am unable to dissect them to make pre- 
Wing of A. Sinensis. 
Wing of A. barbirostris. 
Wing of A. annularis. 
Wing of A. Indiensis. 
Wing of A. pseudopictus. 
Fig. 34. 
Wings of A. Sinensis and allies. (X. D.) 
parations. I believe, however, it will prove to be a distinct 
sub-species, uniting A. Sinensis with Van der Wulp’s A. bar¬ 
birostris, which is again so closely related to A. Sinensis that it 
can only be separated by a microscopic examination of the wings, 
when the scales (Plate A) will be found to be considerably 
broader and shorter than in the former, whilst the apical 
fringe of the wings is black, the disposition of the cross-veins 
different, the border-scales all black, whilst in the former they 
are yellow, and the palpi and proboscis more densely black 
scaled and more prominent. Although closely related and pre¬ 
senting such similar outward appearances, I think it must be 
considered a distinct species on account of the structural 
peculiarity of the scales. 
