CULEX CONSOBRINUS: A REJOINDER

J. M. Aldrich
1903 Canadian Entomologist  
In the August number of this journal, Mr. Coquillett has given his reasons for not acceptingCulex inornatusas the proper name for the species which he has calledC.consobrinus. He bases his claim for the nameconsobrinuson a supposed error of Desvoidy's in the indentification ofpipiens, relying on the length mentioned, 3 lines, as proof that Desviody's species could not have been the realpipiens. My own article on the subject, in the July number, had intimated that Desvoidy had erred in the
more » ... erred in the measurment given. Since then I find that Theobald (Mon. Culicidæ. II.; 135) gives 6 mm. as the maximum length ofpipiens; this, of course, is equivalent to Desvoidy's 3 lines.
doi:10.4039/ent35264-9 fatcat:o6hssx2gufglpdmtab6fx6aksq