NOTULAE ENTOMOLOGICAE - Helda

116 NOTUI^AE ENTOMOI.OGICAE Xt,lll, 1963
Boaventura, 17.5. 1959, 2 (JcJ. Curral das Freiras-Vasco Gil, 8. 5. 1959, 3 (^(J,
1 $. Serra de Agua, 20.—21. 4. 1959, 1 cJ. Porto Moniz, 22. 4. 1959, 3 (JcJ. Bica
da Cana, 7. 5. 1959, 1
Tinades cinerea seems to be by far the commonest species of Trichoptera
in Madeira.
Distribution: Madeira.
Tinodes grisea Hag.
In the present material there are, besides ordinary cinerea specimens, also
some which are considerably larger than those. Tinodes grisea being hitherto
known in the female sex only and the chief distinguishing character being its
size, it is probable that these large specimens represent this species. The male
genitalia are very like those of cinerea. A definite distinguishing character seems
to be a very long and very slender process originating at the end of the first joint
of the inferior appendages, directed inward at right angles to this and curved
tailwards at the tip. (A similar process is present in Tinodes canariensis Hag.).
The processes of the penis are situated at the very base of it (in cinerea farther
away from it).
IMco Ruivo, 27.-29. 6. 1957, 1 1 $. Queimadas, 24.-26. 6. 1957, 1
14.-16. 5. 1959, 1 1 ?.
Distribution: Madeira.
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche maderensis Hag.
Queimadas, 24.-26. 5. 1959, 1 cJ.
Distribution: Madeira.
Li m nophilidae
Limnophilus affinis Curt.
Poiso-Arieiro, 19. 6. 1957, 1 $. Pico Ruivo, 27.-29. 6. 1957, 1 c?. 1 ?•
Distribution: Madeira, Europe, Iceland, Georgia, North Persia,
Amur Land.
Mesophylax oblitus Hag. forma brachyptera.
The description of this species was based on a pair collected by WOIJ.ASTON
in Madeira and which, according to a statement of MCIvACHIvAN, were deposited
in the British Museum. M0SEI.Y, however, mentions that only the female remains,
a fact which is confirmed by KIMMINS. »SCHMID states that the female is known
only from the descriptions of HAGEN and MCLACIII.AN. For some reason he seems
to be unaware of the existence of the type specimen in the British Museum.
Owing to the courtesy of Dr. KIMMINS I have had the opportunity to compare
drawings of the genitalia of the allotype with those of the specimen at hand.
They are rather alike, although in this specimen somewhat deformed by desiccation
or maybe by pressure of some kind. Thus the drawings of them in the
work of MCLACHIiAN seem to be somewhat inaccurate. In the male genitalia
there seem to be differences in compari.son with the type specimen, but these
may be due to the unsatisfactory drawings, a fact pointed out by MCLACHIvAN
himself. However, in spite of the close resemblance of the genitalia of the two