S
1 4 4 BRITISH BLOOD-SUCKING FLIES
C. pulicaris L.
(Fig. 61, a)
Culex pulicaris Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. 10, 603.
Ceraiopogo7ipunciatus Meigen, 1804, Klass., i, 29
Culicoides cinerellus Kieffer, 1919, Ann. Mus. Nat. Hun- 17 40
Cuhcoidesflavipluma Kieffer, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Moselle 30 lo
C. pulicaris var. ocellaris Kieffer, Ann. Soc. Sei. Brüx., 40, 276. '
Tergite with the processes short, almost triangular, and slightly convergent,
membrane bare. Coxite with a conspicuous hump on inner side near base
this hump beanng dense, short, stiff pubescence, ventral roots short Style
curved, shghtly enlarged at the rounded tip. Aedeagus without a definL
antero-ventral margin, sclerotisation being confined mainly to the arch Parameres
long, angled near base, with a small tuft of fine hairs at tip
' ' t v l c a r ' T r ? " hy p o p y g i um between
typical 6. puhcaris and the variety punctatus {ocellaris).
FIG. 6l .-H7popygi a of Culicoides, ventral view : puHcarrs ; b, c, haloplnlus (b, Carnarvonshire •
c, Arran) ; d, delta.
C. halophilus Kieffer
(Fig. 61, b, c)
Culicoides halophilus Kieffer, 1924, Arch. Inst. Past., 2 404
Cuhcoides biclavatus Kieffer, 1924, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat.'Moselle 30 14
Cubcoidespidtcarisv7.T. C., Edwards, 1926, Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1926 406
Cuhcoidespuhcaris v^r. Go e t ghebue r , 1933, in Lindner's " Die Fliegen,'" Heleidae 46
Cuhcoidespuhcarrs^^^r.edwardsianus Go e t ghe b u e r , 1933, Bull. Soc. Ent. ielg., 73, 36^
Two specimens from different localities (Arran and Carnarvonshire) agree
in showing slight differences in hypopygial structure from specimens of ¿7
puhcarts examined : the processes of the tergite are longer, and the point of
the aedeagus is also longer. These small differences may be significant when
considered in conjunction with the differences in wing-markings and in breeding.
habits, the present form being apparently confined to saline or brackish-water
areas.
So far as may be judged from the descriptions Kieffer's names halophilus
and bzclavatus both apply to this form ; as regards halophilus Dr Goetghebuer
has reached the same conclusion as I have done. Whether halophilus was
GENITALIA OF CULICOIDES J
published before or after biclavatus it is at present impossible to say both
appearing late in the year 1924; the former name is adopted as being
more appropriate. ®
A species very closely related to iT. halophilus is ¿7. Aus t en, 1921,
of Palestme. This differs chiefly from C. halophilus in the more sharp^:
defined wmg-markmgs, much as C. puncticollis differs from C. rielhi ; in both
cases the two may be northern and southern forms of the same species.
Culicoides delta sp. n. (p. 48).
(Fig. bi,d)
C. Pulicaris D, Edwards, 1926, Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1926, 407.
The hypopygium of this species or variety is rather closely similar to that
of C. puhcaris^ In two of three specimens mounted there is one rather obvious
difference in that the processes of the tergite are much closer together, but in a
x a m i r d ^ T V 7 ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ specimens of C:pulicaris
s m t r o f the 7 K • - and narrower. Howver, in
^ci ot obvious differences in the hypopygia, I am inclined now to
t h f d t i . '' ' ^-P^^^^-ris and from C. impunctatus,
i e n s i v "f r "t by ^ aensity ot mac rot r i chia on the wing s . ^^ight diiference ir^
b u t l ^ ? ' " Go e t ghebue r ' s i^punctalus^
sent me b D C f f (^he type locality
"et rm ned ^^at his species is the one I had erroneously
determined as C. arcuatus Winnertz (see below).
C. impunctatus Goet.
(Fig. 60, c)
Culicoides impunctatus OotigX^thxitx, 1920, Mem. Mus Bel- 8
, , , , , , , , , , Edwards (....Winnertz), 1926, Trans^ E^t Soc. London, 406.
Hypopygium very similar to that of C. pulicaris, notably in the shape of
the processes of the tergite, the presence of dense short pubescence on L c h
of the inner sides of the coxites, and the fine hairs at the tips of the parameres •
hffers from C pulicaris in having the hump on the inner side of the coxfte
ess pronounced, and also in the broader aedeagus, and shorter parameres th
liffeiences are indefinite and are not always so pronounced as shown i^ the
% u r e s , but in spite of this I have no doubt of the distinctness of the snecies
tion as r ? ? determined in the British Museum collec-
^n figure I f " by Winnertz' s description
and figuie and confirmed by a paratype kindly lent from Bonn by Dr
tvo'e r ' v T T ' - ^he same as Staeger's p ict ipenL, the
type of which I examined in Copenhagen in 1923. Belgian spedmens sent by
Di. Goetghebuer as arcuatus agree with Winnertz's and Staeger's types