C. juglandis Lee 44 C. nenuphar (Hbst.) 48 C. buchanani n. sp C. albicinctus Lee C. iowensis n. sp. C. retentus (Say) C. affinis Boh C. hicoriae n. sp C.falli Blatch 72 C. nivosus Lee C. seniculus Lee C. elegans (Say) C. hayesi n. sp C. aratus (Germ.) 88 C. tibialis n. sp 91 ILLINOIS BIOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS Leconte (1876) was the first American author to discuss the genus Conotrachelus. He separated it into four divisions, Division I consisting of parts A and B. In the appendix of the same publication Leconte amended his Division I, subdividing part B into two sections. The characters used to erect these groups are similar, except for modifications, to those used by the writer (p. 40). Leconte discussed twentyfour species in the text of his work, eleven of which were new. In the appendix, he described one other new species and stated that plagiatus n. sp. (p. 233) was a synonym of nivosus n. sp. (p. 229). The majority of the remaining thirteen species were redescribed, but several of them, such as anaglypticus (Say) and leucophaeatus Fahr., were only briefly mentioned. Leconte did not give any biological data, his discussion being confined to taxonomy and nomenclature. Champion (1904) published the most comprehensive work on this genus, but his study, with the exception of four species, posticatus Boh., leucophaeatus Fahr., anaglypticus (Say), and serpentinus (Klug), was mainly concerned with the Central American fauna. Champion discussed 188 species, the majority of which were new. The characters of previously described species were briefly mentioned and each new species was fully described. The descriptions and discussions of the species were in numerous instances supplemented by figures, many of which were colored. The type of key employed was similar to that of Schonherr, the final designation being to a group of species. Champion's key, however, was condensed in a unit instead of being scattered through the text as was the case with Schonherr's. Blatchley and Leng (1916) considered those species of Conotrachelus east of the Mississippi, treating twenty-eight, one of which was new. These authors followed Leconte's subdivisions of the genus, except that they listed them as Groups I to VI. All the species were redescribed and biological and distributional data were given. The most recent treatment of the genus is that by Mutchler and Weiss (1925).* These workers brought together the available biological data on the sixteen species occurring in New Jersey and discussed briefly the genus and these species, including a descriptive key to the latter. This paper is of much value for its biological discussions. The six previously mentioned treatments are the only comprehensive works pertaining to the entire genus. Other references, briefly discussed below, are limited to descriptions of new species or to one section of the genus.

LABORATORY rearing of Aedes aegypti 1 (L.) has been a common procedure among entomologists and other scientists for about 50 years. Many improvements in equipment and techniques have been developed (1-3), and production by these methods has proved ade¬ quate for studies using as many as several thousand specimens. Experiments on dispersal (4) and on control by release of sexually sterile males (5, 6), however, require the sustained production of millions of specimens. This paper describes equipment and procedures de¬ veloped during 1955 and 1956 for rearing broods of as many as 1.3 million larvae. Procedures Maintenance of adult colonies. The strain of A. aegypti used in the studies had been main¬ tained in the Technical Development Labora¬ tories of the Communicable Disease Center in Savannah, Ga., since 1944. Two laboratory rooms, each 10 by 13 by 10 feet and maintained at about 80°F. and 80 percent relative humi¬ dity, were required for the mass production of A. aegypti. One room was used for adult colonies, emergence cages, and egg storage. The second room contained the larval rearing trays.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract