No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 May 2012
In the August number of this journal, Mr. Coquillett has given his reasons for not accepting Culex inornatus as the proper name for the species which he has called C. consobrinus. He bases his claim for the name consobrinus on a supposed error of Desvoidy's in the indentification of pipiens, relying on the length mentioned, 3 lines, as proof that Desviody's species could not have been the real pipiens. My own article on the subject, in the July number, had intimated that Desvoidy had erred in the measurment given. Since then I find that Theobald (Mon. Culicidæ. II.; 135) gives 6 mm. as the maximum length of pipiens; this, of course, is equivalent to Desvoidy's 3 lines.