Mosquito
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.169153 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:78170ADA-B41E-4611-B129-DAC57E733DD5 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5674792 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/153CEB6E-8A64-FFAF-FEC0-D753FA10D33D |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Mosquito |
| status |
|
Key for the Identification of Fourth Stage Mosquito View in CoL View at ENA Larvae Associated with Dengue Virus Transmission in the South Pacific Islands and Australian Region
1. Head. Seta 1C stout and usually strongly hooked ( Fig. 65 View FIGURE 65 ); seta 4C usually caudad to seta 6C ( Fig. 66 View FIGURE 66 ). Abdomen. Siphon with acus ( Fig. 67 View FIGURE 67 ); comb scales more than 20, not in a single row, and each scale usually spatulate, fringed with short spinules ( Fig. 68 View FIGURE 68 ); ventral brush (4X) with 6 pairs of setae ( Fig.69 View FIGURE 69 ) ...................................... ............................................................................ Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus
Head. Seta 1C not stout ( Fig. 70 View FIGURE 70 ); seta 4C usually cephalad to seta 6C ( Fig. 71 View FIGURE 71 ). Abdomen. Siphon without acus ( Fig. 72 View FIGURE 72 ); comb scales less than 20, in a single row, and each scale not spatulate ( Fig. 73 View FIGURE 73 ); ventral brush (4X) with 4–5 pairs of setae ( Fig. 74 View FIGURE 74 ) .................................................................................................................... 2
2(1). Abdomen. Comb scales with stout, subapical spines or with multiple stout spines ( Fig. 75 View FIGURE 75 ) ................................................................................................................... 3
Abdomen. Comb scales without subapical spines or multiple stout spines ( Fig. 76 View FIGURE 76 ) 4
3(2). Abdomen. Anal segment, X, without strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 77 View FIGURE 77 ); saddle incomplete ( Fig. 78 View FIGURE 78 ); seta 1X about 0.7 saddle length ( Fig. 79 View FIGURE 79 ); ventral brush (4X) with 5 pairs of setae ( Fig. 80 View FIGURE 80 ) ............................................ Aedes(Stegomyia) aegypti View in CoL
Abdomen. Anal segment, X, with short, strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 81 View FIGURE 81 ); saddle complete ( Fig. 82 View FIGURE 82 ); seta 1X about 1.5 saddle length ( Fig. 83 View FIGURE 83 ); ventral brush (4X) with 4 pairs of setae ( Fig. 84 View FIGURE 84 ) ......................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) rotumae View in CoL
4(2). Abdomen. Saddle complete ( Fig. 85 View FIGURE 85 ) ....................................................................... 5
Abdomen. Saddle incomplete ( Fig. 86) .................................................................... 6
5(4). Head. Seta 6C double ( Fig. 87). Thorax. Seta 5M usually double ( Fig. 88 View FIGURE 88 ) ............ ............................................................................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) cooki View in CoL
Head. Seta 6C single ( Fig. 89 View FIGURE 89 ). Thorax. Seta 5M usually single ( Fig. 90 View FIGURE 90 ) .............. .................................................................................. Aedes (Stegomyia) polynesiensis View in CoL
6(4). Head. Seta 6C usually double ( Fig. 91 View FIGURE 91 ). Abdomen. Seta 4d X single ( Fig. 92 View FIGURE 92 ) ...... ....................................................................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus View in CoL
Head. Seta 6C single ( Fig. 93 View FIGURE 93 ). Abdomen. Seta 4d X double ( Fig. 94 View FIGURE 94 ) …............ 7
7(6). Abdomen. Anal segment, X, with short, strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 95 View FIGURE 95 ) ............. ....................................................................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris View in CoL
Abdomen. Anal segment, X, without strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 96) …............. 8
8(6). Abdomen. Seta 4c X usually single ( Fig. 97 View FIGURE 97 ) ................. Aedes (Stegomyia) hensilli View in CoL
Abdomen. Seta 4c X double ( Fig. 98) ....................... Aedes (Stegomyia) hebrideus View in CoL
Explanation of Notes
a Ochlerotatus notoscriptus adult has a small group of white scales at the lower caudal portion of the patch of dark scales on the pronotum. The prescutal lateral white line is always connected to posterior dorsocentral white line. There is a strongly developed patch of white scales in front of the wing root. The adults exhibit individual morphological variations in ornamentation. In New Zealand and Australia, adults have the scutum with light yellowish scales and welldeveloped dorsocentral anterior pale line. In New Caledonia, adults have the scutum with white scales and poorly developed anterior dorsocentral pale line.
b Aedes aegypti , the yellow fever mosquito, has a pair of white patches on the clypeus. The mesepimeron has separate white scale patches and the anterior portion of midfemur has a longitudinal white stripe.
c Aedes albopictus , the Asian tiger mosquito, can be distinguished from related species by the presence of broad flat white scales on the lateral margin of the scutum just before the level of wing root; other species (e.g. Aedes pseudoscutellaris ) has only narrow curved white scales in this position. When scutal markings are rubbed off, Ae. aegypti can easily be misidentified as Ae. albopictus . It can be distinguished by having separated white scale patches on the mesepimeron whereas they are connected in Ae. albopictus . The anterior portion of the midfemur has no longitudinal white stripe in Ae. albopictus .
d Aedes rotumae adults resemble Ae. upolensis Marks in the complete absence of a lower mesepimeral white scale patch, or with a very few mesipemeral white scales. Aedes rotumae can be distinguished from Ae. upolensis by having hindtarsomere 4 with basal 0.75 or more white. Aedes upolensis has hindtarsomere 4 with basal 0.60–0.70 white.
e Aedes hensilli can be distinguished from Ae. hakanssoni Knight and Hurlbut by the presence of white scale patches on all scutellar lobes, and usually with a few apical dark scales on midlobe. The hindfemur of Ae. henselli has white markings on the anterior surface tapering towards apex, and its hind tarsomere 5 is not entirely dark (only distal onehalf dark). The hindfemur of Ae. hakanssoni has white markings on the anterior surface sloping off ventrally towards apex, and its hindtarsomere 5 is entirely dark.
f Aedes scutellaris cannot be distinguished from Ae. hebrideus by using female adult morphological characters. Males of both species, however, can be separated morphologically. The male genitalia of Ae. scutellaris has a claspette with specialized setae at most twothirds as long as the largest tergal setae whereas the claspette setae are at least as long as the largest tergal setae in Ae. hebrideus .
g Aedes cooki has abdominal terga with incomplete subbasal white bands while Ae. polynesiensis has abdominal terga usually without subbasal white bands, but with subbasal white lateral patches.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.