Anopheles (Cellia) turkhudi Liston

Harbach, Ralph E. & Wilkerson, Richard C., 2023, The insupportable validity of mosquito subspecies (Diptera: Culicidae) and their exclusion from culicid classification, Zootaxa 5303 (1), pp. 1-184 : 78-80

Anopheles (Cellia) turkhudi Liston

subspecies telamali Saliternik & Theodor, 1942 —original combination: Anopheles turkhudi var. telamali (subspecific status by Harbach & Howard 2007). Distribution: Israel ( Saliternik & Theodor 1942).

subspecies turkhudi Liston, 1901 —original combination: Anopheles turkhudi . Distribution: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen ( Wilkerson et al. 2021).

Anopheles turkhudi sensu lato comprises the nominate form, subspecies telamali and four synonyms. It ranges from Nepal (Darsie & Pradham 1990), India, Bangladesh ( Bashar et al. 2013), southwestern Asia (not currently recorded, however, from Bahrain, Cyprus, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Qatar and the U.A.E. ( Glick 1992) and Saharan Africa ( Gillies & de Meillon 1968). The species is a member of the Cinereus Group ( Gillies & de Meillon 1968) of the Paramyzomyia Series ( Christophers & Barraud 1931), which also includes An. azevedoi Ribeiro, 1969 , An. cinereus Theobald, 1901a and An. hispaniola ( Theobald, 1903a) . Larvae of species of the Cinereus Group have laterally oriented palatal brushes and eggs without floats (see An. cinereus above). However, we are not certain this applies to the palatal brushes of An. azevedoi and An. hispaniola . Gillies & de Meillon (1968) noted for An. cinereus that the “eggs hang vertically in the water and sink readily. Loss of the float is thought to be adaptive to oviposition among the filamentous algae on which the larvae feed by means of specialized mouthparts.” Also, the larvae typically orient vertically, as do most non-anophelines, probably facilitated by lack of palmate setae on the first few abdominal segments. We also noted this combination of palatal brush orientation and eggs without floats in An. ( Ano .) rivadeneirai Levi-Castillo, 1945 (see above).

The nominotypical subspecies was described from a female from Ellichpur, India [Amaraoti District, Central Provinces; also called The Deccan]. The number of specimens examined was not stated; only the holotype is known ( Townsend 1990). In summary: Wing with six costal pale spots, including one at apex [basal] pale, prehumeral pale and accessory sector pale spots not present; vein R 1 with corresponding pale spots, lacking the humeral pale but including an accessory sector pale not continuous with the costa; vein M white-scaled at base; vein 1A with a single white-scaled area [size and position not stated]; pale fringe spots present at ends of all veins except 1A; maxillary palpus with three white bands at articulations of palpomeres 2–3, 3–4 and 4–5, apex of palpomere 5 dark [description stated pale spot present at middle of terminal segment but subsequent descriptions and illustrations show palpomere 5 dark apically, white basally; a key character]; thorax covered with white [slender] scales arranged in lines along median and sublateral areas, lateral areas with brown scales often tipped with white scales; legs dark except for white scales at apices of femora and tibiae .

Other characters mentioned in the literature for species in the Cinereus Group are as follow: Larvae with stout dorsal head setae, 2–4-C single, 5–7-C with few branches, 8-C single or double, and 9,10-M plumose; leaflets of the palmate setae short with irregular shoulders and short median filaments. Senevet (1931) described the lateral margin of the pupal paddle with short blunt tooth-like serration. There is variability of possible note on two wing veins: The costa with or without humeral and presector pale spots, and vein 1A either mostly pale with dark spots at ends, mostly dark-scaled or apical half dark with small basal dark spot.

Synonym An. azriki Patton, 1905 (synonymy with turkhudi by Edwards in Evans 1938) was described from the Aziriki spring near D’thala [West Aden Protectorate, Yemen]. It was distinguished as having five white scale spots on the costa, vein M with two black spots, one at base and the other at apex, and no pale fringe spots at the ends of primary veins. The observed lack of pale fringe spots can be explained by difficulty seeing them on a pale wing, especially without proper illumination. Edwards, in Evans (1938), stated: “The variety azriki according to Christophers [1933] differs from the type only in having the wing-fringe entirely dark, but the fringe-spots are in any case faint, and as suggested by Christophers, azriki is probably not a true variety, but merely another synonym.”

Synonym An. flaviceps Edwards, 1921c (synonymy with turkhudi by Edwards in Evans 1938) was described from Erkowit, Sudan. It was distinguished from turkhudi by having about five rather narrow aedeagal leaflets, instead of 12–15 broader ones; claspette with a more basally situated club than turkhudi sensu lato, with one seta about as long as the club and another smaller seta, in contrast to various descriptions of turkhudi , which have the claspette with one seta twice as long as the club and two much shorter setae.

Synonym An. persicus Edwards, 1921d (synonymy by Christophers 1933) was described from East Persia [ Iran]. Christophers dismissed the proposed name since its very short description was based on a single damaged male.

Synonym An. amutis de Burca, 1943 (synonymy by Gillies & de Meillon 1968) was described from a single male from Seganeiti, Eritrea. The corresponding larva, however, was a different species, An. squamosus Theobald, 1901a . De Burca noted that vein 1A was mainly pale and that pale fringe spots were absent. Male Anopheles are typically much paler than females, making comparison to Anopheles females problematic.

Subspecies telamali was collected at Tel Amal, Plain of Esdraelon, Israel and described based on characters from four larvae, one adult male and two females ( Saliternik & Theodor 1942). The authors compared the specimens to a single specimen of turkhudi from Chakdara, India [ Afghanistan] and to literature accounts by Puri (1931) and Iyengar (1930) as follow: Two white spots present on basal third of costa in the Indian specimen [humeral and presector pale spots], which are not found on telamali ; base of R 1 dark in the Indian specimen, base of R 1 white in telamali [not evident in illustration]; vein R 4+5 all dark in the Indian specimen, nearly all white in telamali [not evident in illustration]; well-defined white area in middle of 1A in the Indian specimen, but only four or five scattered white scales in telamali . Saliternik & Theodor (1942) noted that the male genitalia agreed with the illustration of Christophers (1915) except for the presence of many more aedeagal leaflets in telamali : “There are only 3 to 4 indicated in his figure while there are 10 to 11 in our specimen.” Additionally, the hindfemur of telamali was described (and illustrated) with “a well-defined white longitudinal stripe which ends a short distance before tip. On the other femora the white stripe is less clearly defined.” This last character was not mentioned as diagnostic, but we have not seen reference to it elsewhere. Regarding the male genitalia, it is obvious that Saliternik & Theodor erred when they stated that Christophers (1915) indicated the presence of three to four aedeagal leaflets in his figure of the male genitalia. Christophers’s figure (pl. XXIII, fig. 19), clearly diagrammatic, distinctly shows two apical leaflets on only one side of the aedeagus. In his brief description, he stated that the genitalia were “As in rhodesiensis ”, i.e. “Theca [aedeagus] Y shaped, with about four strongly chitinised leaflets, the inner, the longest, ·5 [0.5] of the length of the theca.” It is obvious that Saliternik & Theodor compared the total number of leaflets in their specimen, i.e. the sum of leaflets on both sides, with the number on one side (5–7) indicated in the descriptions and illustrations of Christophers (1915, 1933); thus, the number of leaflets does not distinguish subspecies telamali from the typical form of An. turkhudi .

Subspecies telamali has not been explicitly reported from Israel since the original description in spite of continued collecting ( Margalit et al. 1973; Margalit & Tahori 1974). However, the nominotypical form has been reported in some of the same publications. In addition, neither Mattingly & Knight (1956) nor Rodhain et al. (1977) mention telamali in their treatments. Glick (1992), in a key to adult female Anopheles from southwestern Asia and Egypt, stated in an explanatory note (no. 2) that “The variety An. (Cel.) turkhudi telamali described by Saliternik and Theodor (1942) from ‘Palestine’ was not seen during this study” and “J. Margalit (personal communication) feels that the status of An. turkhudi telamali as a valid subspecies may be in doubt.” Recently, Bromley-Schnur (2021), in an illustrated guide to the mosquitoes of Israel and neighboring areas, reiterated that the validity of subspecies telamali is doubtful and noted that An. turkhudi is rare in Israel and has not been found in the country since it was last identified as larvae collected in 1969 at Eine et Turabe Springs near the northwestern side of the Dead Sea ( Margalit et al. 1973).

Although further study could prove differently, we believe that subspecies telamali is a synonym of An. turkhudi [sensu lato]. However, variation reported from the wide geographical range of An. turkhudi suggests a species complex. We agree with the opinion of Gillies & de Meillon (1968) that “The discrepancy between the terminalia [genitalia] of specimens from Peninsular India and the rest of its distribution has already been noted, which raises the question as to whether Edwards, in Evans (1938), was correct in synonymizing flaviceps with turkhudi . It seems possible that specimens from the north-west of the Indian subcontinent and from Arabia and Africa may not be conspecific with the turkhudi of the Deccan.” Until further studies prove otherwise, telamali is here considered to be conspecific with the nominate species: telamali Saliternik & Theodor, 1942 , junior subjective synonym of Anopheles (Cellia) turkhudi Liston, 1901 . Consequently, “ Anopheles telamali ” should be removed from the list of species of Anopheles recorded in the Encyclopedia of Life.