1% MOSQUITO SYSIEMATICS VOL. 22. No. 3

TAXONOMIC CHANGES, REVISED OCCURRENCE RECORDS AND NOTES ON THE CULICIDAE OF THAILAND AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES. ”

B. A. H&RISON~, R. RATIXNARITHIKUL~, E. L. PEYTON~AND K. MONGKOLPANYA~

ABSTRACT. Publishedmosquito records for Thailand listedin the world mosquitocatalog and supplementsand in several recently publishedchecklists are reviewed and revisedbased upon specimensdeposited in the National Museum Natural History, Washington,DC, USA, and the Department of Medical Entomology, Armed Forces ResearchInstitute of Medical Sciences,Bangkok, Thailand. A total of 410valid species/subspeciesare consideredvalid records for Thailand. This represents63 more species/subspeciesthan listed in the world mosquito catalog and supplements,and 32 more valid species/subspeciesthan given in the most recent publishedchecklist for Thailand. Numerousolder speciesrecords were alsore-evaluated for possibleinclusion in the list. Distributionand collectiondata are providedfor the new records,with noteson the locationof the specimens.Notes and distributionextensions are also providedfor 34 important or rarely collectedspecies already known from Thailand. Five subspeciesare elevatedto species:Anopheles baileyi, An. nilgiricus, An. paraliae, Aedes greenii and Ae. leonis. Three species/subspeciesare synonymized:Aedes albotaeniatus mikiranus, Ae. greenii kanaranus andAe. hegneri. The distributionsof 8 speciesare restrictedto specificareas outside of Thailand:Anopheles aitkenii to India and Sri Lanka;An. filipinae to the Philippines; An. niZ@icus to southernIndia; Aedes aureostiatus to easternIndonesia and the New Guinea area;Ae. macdougalli to southernIndia and Sri Lanka;Ae. niveus to the Philippines;Uranotaenia maculipleura to Malaysia and Ur. recondita to southwesternIndia. A total of 164 referenceswere usedin decisionmaking and are cited to assistreaders.

INTRODUCTION of the Thailand fauna. Representativesof the other zoogeographicelements have not been categorizedexcept During the last5 years,lists of the mosquitoesoccurring for the Anopheles (Anopheles) (Harrison and Scanlon in certain regions (Miyagi et al. 1986) or all of Thailand 1975), and the relationshipsbetween the Thailand, Philip- (Apiwathnasorn1986, Tsukamoto et al. 1987) have been pine and Japanesefaunas (Tsukamoto et al. 1987). published. Tsukamoto et al. (1987) recorded 377 valid Regardlessof the currentsize of the Thailand mosquito speciesor subspeciesand 7 unnamedspecies in Thailand, fauna,many additional species remain undiscovered. Nearly which representsa 48.3% increaseover the 259 species every collection trip conducted by the Department of reported 31 years ago (Thurman 1959), and roughly12 % Medical Entomology,Armed ForcesResearch Institute of of the world mosquito fauna (Knight and Stone 1977, Medical Sciences@RIMS), Bangkok, produces new Knight 1978a,Ward 1984,Gaffigan and Ward 1985). This country records and/or new species. Many of these large concentrationof speciesoccurs in an area extending recordshave remained unpublished for years. This paper between6 ” and21 ”N latitude,that is roughly1,600 km long reports: (1) confirmed new country records for species and approximatelythe samesize asthe state of California basedon collectionsprior to 1982;(2) recently described in the United States. Such an abundanceof mosquito new species;(3) additionalinformation regardingspecies speciesis almostcertainly due to concentratedcollection recentlydetected and recordedin publishedliterature; (4) efforts and to the uniquegeographic location of Thailand notes,changes and/or new distributionrecords for certain in Asia. Mosquitoesoriginating from at least 5 separate uncommon or important species;and (5) comments/ zoogeographicelements or originsmay be found in Thai- correctionsfor certainrecords in the l&s of Apiwathnasorn land, i.e., (1) endemic,(2) Indian, (3) Chinese,(4) Malay- (1986), Miyagi et al. (1986) and Tsukamoto et al. (1987). Indonesian,and (5) speciesintroduced by man. Tsukamoto et al. (1987) list 54 species(14.1%) as endemicmembers MATERIALS AND METHODS

The collection of mosquito immature stages is the ‘Theviews of the authorsdo not purportto reflect the positionof the primary method usedby AFRIMS personnelduring bio- Department of the Army or the Department of Defense (para4-3), AR systematicfield surveysin Thailand. A majority of col- 360-S. lected larvae and pupae are reared to adults and the ‘Walter Reed BiosystematicsUnit, Department of Entomology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,Washington, DC 20307-5100 associated4th instar larval and pupal exuviae are pre- (addressfor reprints). served for study along with the adult. Any remaining “Department of Medical Entomology,US Army Medical Compo- immatures are preserved for slide preparation. Less nent, Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences,Rajvithi frequently, biting or landing collectionsare made with Road, Bangkok10400, Thailand. DECEMBER 1990 197 selectedfemales subsequently isolated for ovipositionand tion. The evaluationswere based on general mosquito productionof progenybroods. Every effort is madeto rear knowledgeavailable to the original author(s) at the time andidentify specimensduring the field surveysrather than the recordwas established, the recognizeddistributions of after the trips. This enablesthe systematiststo locate the speciesat present, and the tremendousincrease in the precise habitat(s) of uncommon speciesand to collect number of recognizedmosquito species since the records additional specimens. After the field surveys,curated were established. specimensare sorted and retained in the Department of Medical Entomology(APRIMS) collection,or sentto the RESULTS Walter Reed BiosystematicUnit (WRBU) for depositin the National Museumof Natural History (NMNH) collec- I. Confirmed new occurrence records for species in tionsat the MuseumSupport Center, SmithsonianInstitu- Thailand. tion, Washington,DC. Detailed collection records are maintainedby both organizationswith the specimensto There are 18 previously described species/subspecies provideprecise collection and habitat data. Personsinter- that we recoguize here as new to the Thailand fauna: estedin additionalbiological and collectiondata for spe- Anopheles (Ano.) lindesayi cameronensis Edwards,Aedes cieslisted herein shouldbase their requestson any collec- (Die.) fknciscoi Mattingly, Aedes (Fin.) ganapathi Col- tion numbersprovided here. less,Aedes (Fin.) inerrnis Colless, Ae&s (Fin.) jugraensis Records and information for speciesreported in this (Leicester),Aedes (Fin.) leonis Colless, Aedes (Fin.) lo- publicationare groupedinto 5 sections,as outlinedin the phoventralis (Theobald), Aedes (Fin.) novoniveus Bar- introduction. New distributionrecords are basedon all raud, Aedes (Fin.) pexus Colless, Aedes (Fin.) pseudoni- available specimens(including the exuviaeof larvae and veus (Theobald), Aedes (Fin.) subniveus Edwards,Aedes pupae) and were confirmed by comparisonwith voucher (Fin.) unicinctus Edwards,Aedes (Fin.) vanus Colless, specimensfrom the world mosquito collection in the Heizmannia (Mat.) catesi Lien, Uranotaenia (Ura.) hebes NMNH. Many of our new records are from the unpub- Barraud, Uranotaenia (Ura.) macfaranei Edwards, Ura- lishedidentifications and recordsof Dr. K.L. Knight, who notaenia (Ura.) micans Leicester,and Uranotaenia (Ura.) studiedthe Aedes (Finlaya) of SoutheastAsia for over 25 subnormalis Martini. More specifictaxonomic and collec- years. The specimensand Dr. Knight’s notes from that tion data are presentedbelow. study are located at the NMNH, and he has kindly con- 1. Anopheles (Anopheles) lindesayi cameronensis Ed- sented to their use in this paper. In a few cases,the wards. There are no previousrecords of membersof the specimensresponsible for recordsare no longer available LindesayiComplex from Thailand. Reid (1968), the last for examination,however, we are confidentin the identifi- major reviewer of An. lindesayi sensu lato recognized6 cationsentered into the collectionrecords for thosespe- subspeciesand one closelyrelated speciesdistributed as cies. follows: lindesayi Giles (northern India), 1. benguetensis The generic and subgenericabbreviations used are King (Philippines),1. cameronensis Edwards (peninsular thoseof Reinert (1975,1982). Abbreviationsused for the Malaysia),1. japonicus Yamada(Japan, Korea andPeople ’s immature stagesand exuviae are: pupal exuviae (Pe), Republic of China), 1. nilgiricus Christophers(southern larval exuviae(Le), pupa (P) and larva (L). India), 1. pleccau Koidzumi (Taiwan), and An. welling- The world mosquitocatalog of Knight andStone (1977) tonianus Alcock (peninsularMalaysia). Ma (1981) de- and supplements(Knight 1978a,Ward 1984,Gaffigan and scribeda new species,An. menglangensis, from Yunnan Ward 1985) servedas the basisfor the taxonomicnomen- Province,People ’s Republic of China, that is very similar clature and sequenceused here. Abbreviatedsubgeneric to wellingtonianus. We considerboth menglangensisand nameshave been includedto assistthe reader in following wellingtonianus to be members of the LindesayiComplex, the sequencein the catalog and supplements. Varietal as Reid (1968) consideredwellingtonianus identical to 1. names publishedprior to 1961 have been corrected to cameronensis exceptfor 2 adult characters. subspeciesper article 45g of the International Code of Anopheles lindesayi sensu stricto is recorded across ZoologicalNomenclature (1985). Distributionrecords for northernIndia to the Khasiand Jaintai Hills in Meghalaya speciesincluded in the world mosquitocatalog and supple- (Christophers1933) and Manipur (Mortimer 1946), the mentswere consideredof secondaryimportance and rec- northernpart of the Union of Myanmar ( = Burma) (Khin- ognizedby thoseauthors as incomplete due to the lack of Maung-Kyi 1971), Yunnan Province in the People’s Re- voucher specimensin recognized depositories. Conse- public of China (Robertson1940,194l) to the mountain- quently, certain records of speciesin Thailand were not ousupper reachesof the Red River in Vietnam (Touman- included in the catalog and supplements,as noted by off 1933). Anopheles 1. cameronensis and wellingtonianus Tsukamoto et al. (1987). In this publication we have are known only from the mountainouscentral highlands of cautiouslyevaluated certain older speciesrecords (in the peninsularMalaysia. Thailand is between the Union of absenceof Thailand specimens)for accuracyof identifica- Mvanmar andneninsular Malavsia. thus. the presenceof a 198 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3 member of the LindesayiComplex in Thailand shouldbe This specieswas found in associationwith the following expected. species: Anopheles (Ano.) baileyi Edwards,An. (Ano.) In 1978, 4 collectionsof a member of the Lindesayi bengalensis Puri, An. (Gel.) aconitus Doerritz, An. (Gel.) Complexwere made on the tallest mountainin Thailand, maculatus sensu lato, An. (Cel.) splendidus Koidzumi, Doi Inthanon, ChiangMai Province. Two of thesecollec- Culex (Cui.) sasai Kano, Nitahara and Awaya, Cx. (Cui.) tions also containedmembers of the GigasComplex (see sp.,Cx. (Cux.) edwardsi Barraud, &. (Cux.) fuscocephala p. 208-209). In 1981, an additional 16 collectionswere Theobald,Cx. (Cux.)jacksoni Edwards,Cx. (Cux.) mimet- made of Zindesayisensu Zato on Doi Inthanon,including 2 icus Noe, Cx. (Cux.) mimulus Edwards, CLU.(Cux.) whitei with the member of the GigasComplex. The elevationsfor Barraud,ti (Eum.) oresbiusHarbach and RattanarithikuI, the An. Zindesayisensu Zato collectionsranged from 1,270 Cx. (Lop.) aculeatus Colless, and Uranotaenia (Ura.) sp. to 2,540 m. A total of 468 specimens(18, 89,8Pe, 34Le, The live Zindesayilarvae were easily separatedfrom the 28P and 389L) were examined. ChiangMai, Chom Tong baikyi larvae, as the latter were unicolorousgray-brown, District, Doi Inthanon,collection 07892,4 July 1978,seep- while the former were bandedwith the head and segments agebog, 2,540 m, just belowradar station,(20L); colIection 5 and 10 pale yellow and the rest of the body dark brown. 07893,4 July 1978,seepage bog, 2,540 m, just below radar Rearing these larvae proved extremely difficult, as re- station,(lLe, lP, 33L); collection07894,4 July 1978,seep- ported by Reid (1968). Even thoughthe rearing facilities age bog, 2,540 m, just below radar station,(4?,4Pe, 9Le, were at 1,270m elevationand cold rain water wasused, few 5P, 60L); collection07895,4 July 1978,seepage bog, 2,540 specimenssurvived the pupal stage. However, in the m, just below radar station,(13L); collection07896,4 July natural habitatsZindesayi cameronensis was much more 1978,seepage bog, 2,540 m, just below radar station,(18, abundantand widely distributedon Doi Inthanon than 19, 2Pe, 2Le, 20L); collection 07906, 7 July 1978, flood baileyi. pool, 1,535m, (1L); collection08390,21 April 1981,stream The specimens(adults, pupae and larvae) from Doi poolsbelow seepagebog, 2,540 m, (lLe, lP, 13L); collec- Inthanon clearly showmore similarityto 1.cameronensis. tion 08391,21April 1981,stream pools below seepagebog, There are minor differencesbetween the Thai and Malay- 2,540 m, (lLe, lP, 33L); collection08396,23 April 1981, sian specimens,but they are not sufficient to recognize, streammargin below seepagebog, 2,530m, (lLe, lP, 1L); without further study, the Thai specimensas distinct. collection08399,23 April 1981, marshybog besidewater Accordingly,we have decidedto call it subspeciescamer- unit for radar station,2,530 m, (3L); collection08400, 23 onensis. April 1981, stream pool on right side of road going up, The previouslymentioned records of Zindesayi from betweenkm 43 - km 44 signposts,2,314 m, (3Le, 3P, 28L); Meghalaya and Manipur (India), Union of Myanmar, collection08401, rest the same as 08400, (7L); collection Yunnan Province (People’s Republic of China) and Viet- 08402,23Aprill981, streammargin and pockets with dead namdid not specifythe subspeciesinvolved. Therefore, we leaves,rest the same as 08400, (4Le, 4P, 9L); collection cannot be certain that they were referring to Zindesayi 08403, 23 April 1981, stream margin, rest the same as Giles. In fact, Kalaw (southernShan State) in the Union 08400, (9Le, 9P, 18L); collection 08404, 23 April 1981, of Myanmar (Khin-Maung-Kyi 1971) is the nearestrecord seepagepool besidestream, rest the sameas 08400, (24L); of “Zindesayi” to Doi Inthanon. These 2 sites are only collection 08405, 23 April 1981, stream bog, 1,633 m, approximately290 km apart, comparedto 1,600km apart beside road up Doi Inthanon, between km 36 - km 37 for Doi Inthanonand the 2.cameronensis sites in Malaysia. signposts,just before junction for road going to Mae Thus, the Yindesayi” specimensupon which the eastern Chaem, (28L); collection 08406, rest the same as 08405, Indian, Union of Myanmar and southern China records (4L); collection08408, rest the same as 08405, (lLe, 2P, were basedmay have been more similar to the Thai and 4L); collection08421, 24 April 1981,buffalo footprintsin Malaysiansubspecies than the nominotypicalsubspecies. seepagebog, 1,270 m, (1L); collection 08444, 27 April An examinationof 3 specimensin the NMNH from Viet- 1981,stream pool besideroad, rest the sameas 08405, (10, nam, collectedby Toumanoff, revealed they are closerto lPe, 1Le); collection08447,28 April 1981,stream margin, 1.pleccau. beside road between km 41 - km 42, 2,100 m, (13L); Ma andXu (1983), followingTanaka et al. (1979), were collection08448, rest the sameas 08447, (1?,16L); collec- unable to differentiate 1.japonicus from 2.pleccau, and tion 08449,rest the sameas 08447, (13L); collection08450, recommendedthat they be called “Zindesayi”. If synonymy rest the sameas 08447, (10, lPe, lLe, lP, 25L); collection is involvedin this situation,japonicus is the senior syno- 08452,28 April 1981, rest the same as08447 except 1,960 nym. The other 4 subspecies,viz., 1. Zindesayi,1. camer- m, (2L). onensis, 1. benguetensisand 2.nilgiricus are readily identi- The immature habitat for Zindesayi cameronensis in fied by morphologyas well as their distributions.In fact, Thailand essentiallyis identical to that usedby all mem- basedon an examinationand comparisonof the various bers of the Lindesayi Complex, i.e., cold clear water in life stagesof thesesubspecies and their type specimensin bogs,marshes, stream pools, seeps, etc, at highelevations. the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, we are DECEMBEREM 199 here elevating niZj@icus Christophers to species status. 5. Aedes (Fin.) jugraensis (Leicester). This specieswas Recently, Darsie and Pradhan (1990) reported niZ&iticus described from Jugra, Selangor, Malaysia by Leicester (as a subspecies of Zindesayi) from Nepal. Previous au- (1908). Knight (1968) re d escribed this species and listed thorities (Christophers 1933, Ramachandra Rao 1984) specimens seen from Indonesia (Java), Malaysia (Perak, considerednilgircus as restricted to southern India. Based Sabah and Selangor), the Philippines (Balabac Island) and on specimens examined we concur with the southern India Singapore. There are 7 males and 7 females of jugraensis distribution and cannot accept the Nepal record. Anopheles with associated larval and pupal exuviae from Ranong nilgincus’ is a southern Indian (not Sri Lankan) speciesthat Province, Thailand, in the NMNH. These specimens is readily differentiated from the other members of the (collections 02156 and 02165, 18 July 1%7) came from Lindesayi Complex by a substantial number of adult, pupal bamboo internodes. This species is easily recognized from and larval characters. the other members of the Chrysolineatus Group by the The members of the Lindesayi Complex exhibit nearly scutal acrostichal row of golden scales not forking just all of the attributes of a superspecies, i.e., a monophyletic anterior to the prescutellar space, but extending posteri- group of closely related and largely or entirely allopatric orly acrossthe prescutellar space as a median golden scale species (Mayr 1%9:52). We suspect that with additional row to the scutellum. study the current subspecies of Zindesayiwill prove to be 6. Aedes (Fin.) Zeonis Colless. Previously, Zeonis has full species. At this time, however, Zindesqi cameronensis been considered a subspecies of Ae. niveus (Ludlow) should be added to the list ofAnopheZes in Thailand, and known only from Malaysia and Singapore, as described by niZgiricusshould be listed as a species in the world catalog. Colless (1958). Colless considered Zeonisto be the “local 2. Aedes (Diceromyia) frQnciscoi Mattingly. Mattingly representative ofAe. niveus, closely resembling the Philip- (1959) described this species based on 2 specimens from pine type form in most features of its morphology.” We are Kampong Sireh, Selangor, Malaysia (holotype) and P. here elevating Zeonisto species status and agree with the Blakang Mati, Singapore (paratype). Reinert (1970) comment by Colless. There are specimens of Zeonis redescribedfranciscoi and discussedan additional 8 adults identified by K.L. Knight in the NMNH from the following (7 with larval and pupal exuviae) from Ratau Panjang, provinces of Thailand: Chumphon, Nakhon Nayok, Ra- Selangor, Malaysia. There is a single female offranciscoi nong, Surat Thani and Trang. K.L. Knight’s unpublished from Thailand in the NMNH with the following data: Surat study of the Niveus Group revealed that Ae. niveus sensu Thani Province, Ko Samui, Wat Sammut Song, Collection strict0 does not occur in Thailand. 03424-106, 2 January 1%9, 70 m, Kol and team. This 7. Aedes (Fin.) Zophoventralis(Theobald). Knight and specimen was reared from a bamboo cup set in a orchard Stone (1977) recorded this species from India and Paki- plantation. stan. However, the Pakistan listing is an oversight as the 3. Aedes (Finlaya) ganapathi Colless. This species was source for this was Barraud (1934), who listed “Eastern described by Colless (1958) based on specimens from Bengal (Chittagong),” now Bangladesh. There are 3 Pahang, Malaysia and additional specimens seen from specimens of Zophoventralisin the NMNH from Thailand. Selangor, Malaysia. Since thenganapathi has been consid- These specimens (29,ld) were collected in Phra Phutth- ered confmed to Malaysia, although Gould et al. (1968) abat, Sara Buri Province in central Thailand in 1962. reported specimens of a species nearganapathi from Surat These specimens key easily to Zophoventralisbased on the Thani Province in southern Thailand. There are speci- restriction of sternal scale tufts to sterna V-VII and the mens ofganapathi identified by K.L. Knight in the NMNH unusual character of broad white scales completely cover- from the following provinces of Thailand: Chumphon, ing the entire scutellum, and not localized to the 3 lobes as Surat Thani and Trat. The last province is in southeastern on related species. There are also several specimens of Thailand and is far removed from the other 2 southern Zophoventralisin the NMNH from Vietnam. provinces. Trat Province is adjacent to Kampuchea, sug- 8. Aedes (Fin.) novoniveus Barraud. This species was gesting the possible extension ofganapathi into that coun- described from the Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India, try. Colless (1958) suggested that ganapathi might be a by Barraud (1934). Colless (1959) redescribed novoniveus coastal species, and the 3 collection sites in Thailand are and reported specimens from Pahang (Fraser’s Hill) and either coastal or insular. Selangor, Malaysia, as well as the records from Assam, 4. Aedes (Fin.) inennis Colless. Colless (1958) de- Meghalaya and West Bengal (Barraud 1934). There are scribed this species from Singapore specimens, and re- specimens of novoniveus identified by K.L. Knight in the ported additional specimens from Selangor and Pahang NMNH from the following provinces of Thailand: Chiang states, peninsular Malaysia. There are specimens of iner- Mai, Chon Buri, Lampang, Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Si mis identified by K.L. Knight in the NMNH from the Thammarat and Ranong. following provinces of Thailand: Chiang Mai, Nakhon 9. Aedes (Fin.) pews Colless. Colless (1958) described Nayok, Nakhon Ratchasima, Narathiwat, Ranong and ptxus based on specimens from Sabah and Sarawak, Ma- Trang. laysia, and Singapore (holotype). There are specimens of 200 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VoL.22,N0.3

pews identified by K.L. Knight in the NMNH from the 13. Aedes (Fin.) vanus Colless. This specieswas following provinces in Thailand: Chiang Mai, Nakhon describedfrom Singaporeby CoiIess(1958). Coiiessalso Nayok and Nakhon Ratchasima. mentioneda questionablespecimen from Selangor,Ma- 10. Aedks (Fin.) pseudoniveus (Theobald). Theobald laysia. Specimensfrom Ulu Langat, Selangor,Malaysia (1905) describedpseudoniveusfrom a female cohectedin were collectedby Rudnick et al. (1986) and confirmedby Singapore. ColIess (1959) redescribedthis speciesand K.L. Knight. There are alsospecimens of vanus identified reported specimensfrom Sabah and Selangor,Malaysia by K.L. Knight in the NMNH from the followingprovinces and Singapore. There are specimensof pseudoniveus of Thailand:Kanchanaburi, Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Ratch- identified by K.L. Knight in the NMNH from Lampang asimaand Trat. and Ranong provinces,Thailand. 14. Heizmannia (Mattingryi) catesi Lien. This species 11. Aedes (Fin.) subniveus Edwards. This specieswas was describedby Lien (1968) and used as the type by describedby Edwards (1922a) based on females from original designationfor a new genus,Mattinglya Lien. Sarawak, Malaysia (holotype) and Singapore. Barraud Subsequently,Mattingly (1970) reduced this genusto a (1934) consideredsubniveus a synonymof Ae. pseudoni- subgenusofHeizmannia Ludlow, andnoted that catesi was veus,however, CoIIess (1959) elevatedsubniveusto species recordedonly from Taiwan. During filariasisstudies in the statusbased on the lack of evidenceto confirm its synon- mid-1970s Gould et al. (1982) reported on numerous ymy withpseudoniveus. There are immature specimensof biting collectionsof forest mosquitoesmade in Sangkhla- subniveus from Thailand in the NMNH with the following buri District, KanchanaburiProvince. Two femalesfrom collection data: Trang Province, Muang District, collec- that study that are deposited in the NMNH collection tion TG-13,7 October 1964,tree hole, (lPe, 1Le); collec- clearly key to catesi. Both females fit the descriptionof tion TG-42,8 October 1964,tree hole, (1L). The reality of catesi very closely,except that one (07370) hasan alveolus a jungle cycleof denguevirus in Malaysia(Knudsen 1977) (setamissing) on the lower mesepimeron,which Mattingly and that subniveus is probablythe mosquitovector in that (1970) indicatedis not presenton catesi. We feel this seta jungle cycle (Rudnick et al. 1986) suggeststhat more is an anomalyon thisspecimen as the other female hasno interestand research should be consideredforsubniveus in evidenceof a seta(or alveolus)on the lower mesepimeron. Thailand. These2 femalesdo not fit the descriptionsof Hz. achaetae 12. Aedes (Fin.) unicinctus Edwards. Edwards(1922a) (Leicester) andHz. thelmae Mattingly, which alsooccur in describedthis species from the westernHimalayan locality Thailand, or Hz. discrepans (Edwards) andHz. tripunctata of Simla,HimachaI Pradesh,India, basedon a male reared (Theobald) from India which were placed in subgenus from a tree hole collection. Barraud (1934) describedthe Mattingyia by Reinert (1973a). Supportfor catesi to occur larvaand added eastern Himalayan records from Kurseong, in Thailand comes from Mattingly (1970) who reported West Bengal,India. There are 18 specimens(3& 49,9Pe that 3 other Heizmannia speciesdescribed by Lien (1968), and 2Le) of unicinctus in the NMNH from Thailand. andpreviously known only from Taiwan, occurredin Thai- These specimenshave the following data: Chanthaburi land, viz., chengi Lien, macdonaldi Mattingly ( = syn.nivi- Province,Khao Sai Dao, collection00873,15 March 1966, rostris Lien) and reidi Mattingly ( = syn.cheni Lien). The root hole, 1,300 m, (29, 3Pe, 2Le); collection 00874, 15 coilectiondata for the catesi specimensare: Kanchanaburi March 1966, tree hole, 1,300 m, (18,2?, 4Pe); collection Province, SangkhlaburiDistrict, Ban La Wa, collection 00880, 15 March 1966, tree hole, 1,300 m, (18, 1Pe); 07295, 24 October 1974, biting man in bamboo grove, cohection00892,17 March 1966,tree hole, 1,450m, (Id); 1430-1751h, 160 m, (lo); Ban Nong Plang Khong, collec- cohection00897,17 March 1966,tree hole, 1,633m, (1Pe). tion 07370,3November 1974,biting man in bamboogrove, The discoveryof thesespecimens in southeasternThailand 1400-1530h, 160 m, (19). on the third highestmountain in the countrysuggests that 15. Uranotaenia (Uranotaenia) hebes Barraud. An unicinctus shouldbe found on the mountainsin northern examinationof the Thurman collection and other Thai Thailand. The unicinctus specimensfound on Khao Sai specimensin the NMNH mosquitocollection revealed 17 [Soi] Dao apparently represent an isolated population specimensof this species(@, 18 genitalia,2?,2Pe, 3Le, existingin a high elevation- primary forest refugium. The 3L). Collectiondata for thesespecimens follows. Chianq Thailand specimensof unicinctus agree welI with the &&i: Doi Suthep,cohection T1092,19 March 1962,stream Himalayan specimens,except that the scutalpale scales pool, (19); cohectionT1307,5 June 1%2, restingin forest, are silver-whiteinstead of pale yellow. The larval charac- (Id); cohectionT1162,30 April 1%2, elephantfootprint, ters are very similar to thosedescribed by Barraud (1934). (lLe, 1L); collectionM416,15 January1953, pond deep in The pupa hasnot been describedpreviously, but appears valley woods, elevation 1,067 m, (2L); collection 405, 7 uniquein theAedes (Fin.) becauseseta 1-I is fan-like with January 1953, resting on tree, (1 slide with d genitalia, only 8 - 10 lightly aciculate branches(setae on 9 pupae adultlost); collection423,15 January1953, resting on tree, counted). Aedes (Fin.) reinerti Rattanarithikuland Harri- (18); cohection 462, 5 February 1953, (ti); cohection sonpupae have onIy 4 - 12 basalbranches, but eachbranch 05568, 10 December 1%9, stream pool, 640 m, (18, 19, is aciculate- dendriticbeyond the base. 2Pe, 1Le). Chanthaburi: Khao Sai [Soi] Dao Tai, collec- DECEMBERWO 201 tion 00886, 16 March 1966, seepagepool, 1,100 m, (18, 1Pe). SaraButi Ban Pukae,10 April 1970,resting in crab 1Le). The male genitaliaslide (collection405) from Doi hole, 30 m, (19). Udon Thani: collectionT5275,30 July Suthepwas incorrectly labeled as Ur. stricklandi Barraud 1%3, light trap, (2&19); collectionT5286,13 August1963, by Thurman. In addition,the 2 larvae in collectionM416 light trap, (s). For countingpurposes in the Appendix, were incorrectly labeled as recondita Edwards by Thur- we considermicans to be the sameas “ sp. 1 (near micans)” man. of Miyagi et al. (1986) and Tsukamoto et al. (1987). 16. Uranotaenia (Ura.) macfarlanei Edwards. This 18. Uranotaenia (Ura.) subnormalis Martini. Five specieshas on occasionbeen misidentifiedin Thailand as specimens(Id, 3?,1Le) of this specieswere found in the Ur. campestris Leicester, or as Ur. campestris var. zelena NMNH with the following collectiondata. Chanthaburi: Barraud. An examinationof the type specimensof macfar- Ban Bo Phu, collection00559,26 October 1965,Shannon lanei, campestis andvar.zeZena in the NHM [ = BM(NH)] trap, 20 m, (29). Narathiwat: Bue Mang, collectionNV39, by Peyton (1972) showedthat macfarlanei and campestis 16 January 1965, spring fed bog, (18, 1Le). Trat: Ko var. zelena were conspecific,with macfarzanei being the Chang, Khao Yai Yai, 12 December 1%7, resting on seniorsynonym. Although Knight andStone (1977) record vegetation,240 m, (19). the synonymyof Peyton (1972), they erred in listingvar. zelena in bold type insteadof italicsindicating synonymy. II. Recently described new species from Thailand. The entry in the list of mosquitoesfor Thailand shouldbe macfarlanei Edwards. Uranotaenia macfarlanei is one of Since Tsukamotoet al. (1987), 5 new specieshave been the most commonand widely distributedspecies in Thai- describedwith their type localities in Thailand. These land. It is representedin the NMNH andAFRIMS filesby speciesand their distributionsfollow. 176 separatecollections (5 adult and 171 immature) with 1. Anopheles (CeZZia)nemophilous was describedby 175 males, 176 females and slide mountsof 256Pe, 92Le Peytonand Ramalingam (1988). This speciesis the formal and 191L. It is known from 22 provincesof Thailand, in- recognitionfor the taxon previouslycalled “Frasers Hill cludingone or more border provincesin the south,north- Form” of balabacensis of many authors. The type locality east, southeastand west. for nemophilous is in PhangngaProvince in southern 17. Uranotaenia (Ura.) micans Lcicester. There is no Thailand. This specieshas been collectedin the following questionof the identity of this speciesin Thailand. We widely distributedprovinces of Thailand: Chanthaburi, have examined the type specimensof micans and Ur. Chon Buri, Kanchanaburi, Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Si bimaculiala Leicester in the NHM for comparisonwith Thammarat, Phangnga,Ranong, Songkhla and Tak. Thailandspecimens. We here confirmthe identificationof 2. Aedes (Fin.) mikrokopion was describedby Knight bimaculiala in southernThailand reportedby Iyengar and and Harrison (1988). This specieshad been recognizedin Menon (1956) throughthe examinationof their specimens the adult stagefor years,but adultsassociated with larval (59, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Tha Rua, 13 January 1952, and pupal exuviae did not become available until the Nipa marsh) depositedin the NHM. Apparently these Gould et al. (1982) frlariasisstudies in westernThailand. were misidentifiedas micans by Iyengar (1953). We also The type locality for mikrokopion is in Kanchanaburi confirm the identification of micans by Thurman and Province and additional collectionswere made in the Thurman (1955) based on the Thurman specimens(col- followingprovinces: Nakhon Nayok, Narathiwat, Phangnga lectionsMLT 121and MLT 126) from ChiangMai that are and Ranong. Specimensof this specieswere also exam- in the NMNH. Ninety-five specimens(26c?, 549, 12Pe, ined from the statesof Pahang,Perak, Perlis andSelangor, 3Le) of Ur. micans were examined,and havethe following Malaysia. collection data. Chianp Mai: Chang Kien, collection 3. Aedes (Fin.) reinerti wasdescribed by Rattanarithikul T1877, 2 November 1962, capturedresting, (19); collec- andHarrison (1988) from specimenscollected on 4 moun- tion T1485,14August 1962,captured resting, (lo); Chiang tainsin ChiangMai Province. This speciesis very similar Mai, collectionMLT 121,27 October 1952,light trap, (s, to Ae. formosensis Yamada, but can be differentiated in 39); collectionMLT 126, light trap, (Id, 10). --*Chon Buri* the adult, pupal and larval stages.Aedes reined is known Khao Mai Kheo, collection CL 25, 9 October 1963, cap- only from ChiangMai Province,and the type localityis on tured resting, (lo), Siricha; collection 800, 3 December Doi Inthanon, the tallest mountainin Thailand. 1957, biting man (2400-OlOO),(lo). Narathiwat: Khok 4. CuZex (Eumelanomyia) oresbius was describedby Kien, collection NV 60, 18 January 1965, coastalNipa Harbach and Rattanarithikul(l988) from specimenscol- swamp, (2s, 59, llPe, 3Le). Phra Nakhon: Bangkok, lected on Doi Inthanon, Chiang Mai Province. The rec- collection 10893, 17 November 1962,light trap, sea level, ords of Cu. macrostylus Sirivanakarn and Ramalingam (lo); collection10421,1962, light trap, sealevel, (lo); col- from Doi Inthanonby Miyagi et al. (1986) andTsukamoto lection 6993,6 July 1963,light trap, sealevel, (lo); collec- et al. (1987) actuallyrefer to this species.CuZex macrosty- tion LT-1-24, 1955, light trap, sea level, (lw, 339); No- Zusis not found in Thailand and currently is restrictedto vember-December1954, light trap, (5d,39). Phuket: Ban peninsularMalaysia. CuZexoresbius is known only from Borae; collection02550,l March 1968,swamp, 15 m, (Id, the type locality on Doi Inthanon. 202 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

5. Topomyia (Suaymyia) suchariti was describedby sphyrusSubgroup (Peyton and Ramalingam1988, Peyton Miyagi andToma (1989). The larva of thisrare specieswas 1990) with at least 7 species,of which 5 are found in found in an erect green bamboo internode with a small Thailand. Fortunately, all of the latter are rather easily hole made by a beetle. The type locality is in Trak Nong sortedout becausea large number of voucherspecimens (Khao Makok) National Park, ChanthaburiProvince, in were preservedin variousagencies or museumsand were southeasternThailand. available to us for study. In addition, there are a few scattered specimensfrom earlier collections,and all of III. Additional information on species recently detected these,combined with recent studies,provide a more com- and published from Thailand. plete understandingof the distributionof each of the 10 specieswithin the country.They also help to further sort During the last 8 years several records of speciesin out early records. It has been amply documentedthat Thailand have been publishedwhich do not appear in balabacensis doesnot occuron the mainlandof Southeast Apiwathnasom(1986), Miyagi et al. (1986) andTsukamoto Asia (Peyton and Harrison 1979,198O;Peyton and Ramal- et al. (1987), or these recordswere publishedsince these ingam 1988;Peyton 1990). authors. Commentsregarding these speciesfollow. We have examined and confirmed 201 specimensof 1. Anopheles (eel.) leucosphyrusA. The only refer- leucosphymsA (3Od,489,57Pe, 45Le, 21L) in the NMNH encesto Zeucosphyrusin Thailandthat canbe confirmedas from Thailand,with the followingcollection data: Chum- referring to the LeucosphyrusComplex are Baimai et al. nhon: Pathiu, Ban Chong Mut #3, collection 08003, 13 (1988b) and Pe yt on and Ramalingam (1988). Both of Sept 78, biting man, 120 m, (29); Pathiu, Ban ChongMut theseare basedupon the collectionsreported here for the #3, collection08007(3), 18 September 1978, biting man, first time. Baimai et al. (1988b) determined through 120 m, (18, 19 parent, lPe, lLe, progeny); collection cytogeneticand crossingstudies that there were 2 allopa- 08007, same data, (59).,p- Nakhon Si Thammarat: Tung tric speciesinvolved in the present concept of Zeuco- Song, Tambon Nam Tok, collection TS39 (IQ), 1985, sphyrus,which they designatedZeucosphyrus A andB. The biting man, (g, 19, 5Pe, 5Le, 3L, progeny); collection letter A was applied to the Zeucosphyrusspecies found in TS104, June 1985, biting man, (M, 3Pe, 3Le, progeny); southernpeninsular Thailand, Malaysia,and Kalimantan, collectionTS301,lO November 1986,biting man, (Id, 49, Indonesia. The letter B wasapplied to Zeucosphyrussensu 5Pe, 5Le, progeny); Tung Yai, Ban Tham Phae Dan, sticto foundin Sumatra,Indonesia. These 2 species,along collectionTYOOl, 3-8 December 1985,biting man, (Z, 29, with An. balabacensis Baisasand An. introlatus Colless, 4Pe, 3Le, progeny); collection TY14, December 1985, belongto the LeucosphyrusComplex of the Leucosphyrus biting man, (19); collectionTY26, December 1985,biting Subgroupin the classificationscheme of Peyton (1990). man, (19); collectionTY23, December 1985,biting man, From available evidence it is clear that ZeucosphymsA (lPe, lLe, progeny). Narathiwat: Waeng, Collection does not extend northward into Thailand beyond ll”N, NV80, 12 February 1965, elephant footprint, (2c?,lPe, and consequentlyany previousreport of this speciesnorth 1Le); collection NV97, 2 March 1965, pool at margin of of this line almost certainly would pertain to one of the stream(29, lPe, 1Le); Waeng,Khau Lau, collection00445, membersof the Dims Complex, of which 4 are known to 7 September1965, elephant footprint, 75 m, (19); collec- occur above 11”N in Thailand. tion 00446,7 September1%5, elephantfootprints (3), 75 Considerableconfusion continues to surroundthe ear- m, (s, 29,4Pe, 2Le); collection00447,7 September1965, lier recordsof Zeucosphyrusin Thailand. Sincethis species elephantfootprints (6), 76 m, (39,lPe); collection00451, isa knownvectorof humanmalaria parasites in other parts 8 September 1%5, stream pool, 150 m, (1L); collection of SoutheastAsia, we believe it is important to clarify its 00465,8 September 1965,elephant footprint, 150 m, (18, statusin Thailand. Many of the early records of “Zeuco- 1Pe); collection00473,9 September1%5, flood pool, 230 sphyrus” are difficult to interpret becauseprior to Colless m, (3d, 2Pe, lLe, 12L). Phantzng: Ban Bang Kaeo, (1956,1957) everythingreported from Thailand and coun- collection08161,25 May 1980,sandy pool, bankof stream, triesto the north, eastand west of Thailandwas considered 400 m, (9d, 69,16Pe, 12Le); collection08162,25 May 1980, to be Zeucosphynrs.We now knowthat thesereports could very small,shallow, running stream, 400 m, (2d, 39,6Pe, have referred to any of 10 speciesin the Leucosphyrus 5Le, 1L); collection08163,25 May 1980,biting man, 400 m, Group that have sincebeen documentedfrom Thailand (lo); collection 08167, 26 May 1980, elephant footprint, (e.g., dims Peyton and Harrison, dirus speciesB to D, 520 m (1L);collection08190,29 May 1980,biting man, 300 hackeri Edwards, introlatus Colless, leucosphyms A, m, (19); collection08197,30 May 1980,biting man, 400 m, macatihuti Colless,nemophilous Peytonand Ramalingam (lo); collection08204, 31 May 1980, biting man, 400 m, andpujutensis Colless. Following Colless(1956, 1957) it (39); collection 08212, 2 June 1980, biting man, 400 m, waspossible to make clear distinctionsbetween all species, (29); collection 08223, 4 June 1980, biting man, 520 m, exceptthose treated as “balabacensis,” whichin Thailand (29); Ban Bang Ra Ko, collection 08167, 26 May 1980, we now know representthe Dims Complex of the Leuco- elephantfootprint, 520 m, (1L). Satun: Klaung Baraket, DECEMBER 1990 203

Collection00527,20 September1965, seepage pool, 76 m naburi Province basedon electrophoreticdata, that also (1L). Songkhla:Sadao, Padang Besar, collection PB53,12 could be separatedfrom minimus A by morphological December 1986,biting man, (Id, 4?,5Pe, 4Le, 2L, prog- characterson the wing. Green et al. (1990) further defined eny, cytotyped,species A). Yala: KampongBaraket, 20 minimus C on the basis of electrophoretic characters, September1%5, seepagepool, 76 m, (1L). however,they determinedthat the wingcharacters used by The specimensfrom collectionslisted above from the Sucharitet al. (1988) for minimus C were not diagnostic provincesof Narathiwat and Yala during 1965 were not andled to a 37% identificationerror whenused to separate recognized as Zeucosphyruswhen fust collected and re- minimus A andminimus C. To date no reliable morpho- ported by ScanIonet al. (1%7). On the contrary, these logicalcharacters have been found to differentiatethese 2 specimenswere confusedwith specimensofAn. introlatus speciesin Thailand. Based on these findings and the whichwere presentin someof the samecollections. In the discoveryof minimus B, another member of the complex l%7 report it was stated:...“ several collectionsfrom the in Hainan Island, People’s Republic of China (Yu and Li Waeng District of Narathiwat Province included adults 1984),minimus Theobald mustbe deleted from the Thai- which could not be placed in either subspecies[balaba- land list of speciesand shouldbe replacedwith 2 species, censis balabacensis and balabacensis introlatus] with con- minimus A and minimus C. fidence. Most specimensfor which associatedlarval and 3. Aedes (Aedimorphus) Zowisii (Theobald). This spe- pupal skinswere availablewere identified asb. introlatus, cies was reported from Thailand as an associateof An. but a significantpercentage were intermediate. Speci- nemophilous (Peyton and Ramalingam1988). The identi- mensfrom thesecollections appeared to fit the criteria of ficationof Zowisiiwas made in the early 1960sand based on an intermediate population as outlined by Mayr et al. a singlefemale (GP-80). Reinert (1973b) reexaminedthat (1953), and lend further weightto Colless’ (1957) decision female and determinedthat the earlier identificationwas to regardintrolatus asa subspeciesof balabacensis. Addi- incorrect. He identified thisspecimen (in the NMNH ) as tional collectingwill be neededto define preciselythe line Ae. orbitae Edwards. Therefore, the record of Zowisii in of demarcationof the two subspecies.”In Scanlonet al. Thailand (Peyton and Ramalingam1988) is incorrect. (1968) this hypothesiswas reinforced by the following 4. Aedes (Fin.) ZitoreusColless. Gould et al. (1982) statement:...“where there are morphologicallydistinguish- recorded this speciesas collectedin KanchanaburiProv- able forms in different areas, the areas where the two ince during their filariasis studies. Aedes Zitoreus was forms meet or inter-gradeshould be studiedto see if there describedby Colless(1958) from Blakang Mati Island in has been interbreeding, as was done for balabacensis SingaporeHarbor. Collessalso examined a female that he balabacensis and b. introlatus in South Thailand (Scanlon consideredto be thisspecies from SelangorState, peninsu- et al. 1%7), or whether in fact they behaveas two species.” lar Malaysia,and consideredthis speciesto be influenced Reid (1968) restatesthe findingsof Scanlonet al. (1967) as: by extreme coastalenvironments or even the tidal zone. “This suggeststhat interbreedingdoes occur so that the The collection of this speciesin a mountainousvalley in two forms are subspecies(p. 403), but further investigation westernThailand suggeststhat Colless’ interpretation of is needed.” We state here unequivocallythat the very Zitoreusas being a coastalspecies was wrong. In addition specimensupon which the Scanlonet al. (l%7) studywas to the Kanchanaburirecord, there are also specimensof based represent 2 very distinct species,introlatus and Zitoreus identified by K.L. Knight in the NMNH from ZeucosphyrusA, and that eachis quite distinctin the adult, Ranong and Trang provinces. pupal and larval stagesand none suggestshybrid origin. 5. Aedes (Fin.) prominens (Barraud). Gould et al. Based on this information and the study of additional (1982) recordedthis species from KanchanaburiProvince material of introlatus, Hii et al. (1988) elevatedsubspecies in westernThailand. Knight and Stone (1977) listed the b. introlatus to speciesstatus. distributionofprominens asIndia (Assam,Meghalaya and 2. Anopheles (CeZ.) minimus Theobald. This species West Bengal), Indochina (Vietnam), China and Celebes hasbeen recordedfrom Thailand sinceBarnes (1923) and (Indonesia). Apparently the record of prominens from has been recognized as a primary vector of malaria in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Macdonald 1957) was over- Thailandsince Payung-Vejjasastra (1935). Harrison (1980) looked. As these recordssurround Thailand, it is logical conducteda 7-year morphologicalstudy of the membersof that prominens should occur in Thailand. There are the Myzomyia Series (includes minimus) and concen- confirmed specimensof prominens from Kanchanaburi, trated on variationsfound within eachspecies as well asthe NakhonNayok, Nakhon Ratchasima,Nan, Ranong,Surat overlap of variationsbetween the species. He found the Thani andTrang provincesin the NMNH, and thisspecies adultsof minimus highly variable,often havingthe pheno- shouldbe addedto the Thailand list of species. typic appearanceof severalof the other species,and iden- 6. Annigeres (Armigeres) maximus Edwards. Gould et tifiable by morphologyin the adult female at about the 90 al. (1982) listed less than 20 specimensof this species - 95% level. Sucharitet al. (1988) reported a new sibling collectedin KanchanaburiProvince in westernThailand. speciesin the Minimus Complex,species C, from Kancha- This specieswas described from Sumatra, Indonesia. 204 MOSQUXO SYSTEMATIC~ VOL. 22, No. 3

Macdonald(1957) reportedmaximusfrom SelangorState, 79,8Pe, 5Le, 1OL). Other speciesassociated with edwardsi Malaysia,and Knight and Stone (1977) listed its distribu- in thesehabitats were: Anopheles (Ano.) aberrans Harri- tion as Sumatraand Java (Indonesia) and Malaysia. The sonand Scanlon,An. (Ano.) bengalensis,An. (Ano.) linde- extensionnorthward into forestedwestern Thailand seems sayi cameronensis,An. (Cel.) aconitus, An. (Gel.) macula- logical. We have not found the specimenson which this tus s.l.,An. (Cei.) splendidus, Culex (Cui.) sasai, Ck (Cux.) record is based. jacksoni, Ck. (Cux.) mimulus, Cx. (CZU.) vishnui Theobald, 7. Annigeres (Arm.) moultoni Edwards. Gould et al. &. (Eum.) richei Klein, and Uranotaenia (Ura.) species. (1982) recordedthis species from KanchanaburiProvince The specimensof edwardsi from Thailand match the in western Thailand. More recently, Harbach and Rat- charactersfor this speciesprovided by Marks (1971) and tanarithikul(l988) recordedthis species as associatedwith Sirivanakarn(1976). Besidesthe postspiracularpatch of Cx. (Eum.) oresbius andAr. (Arm.) subalbatus (Coquillett) pale scales,the adultspossess complete pale stripeson the in a bamboo stump (here correctedto bananastump) on anterior surfacesof the femora and tibiae of the mid- and Doi Inthanon,Chiang Mai Provincein northernThailand. hindlegs,and pale scaleson the posterior margin of the That collection(07851) wasmade in 1978 at 1,500m and costa,frequently on the subcostaand infrequently on the containsa large series of adults reared with associated anterior margin of the radius. These pale scalesmay larval and pupalexnviae. A singlelarva was also collected extend only a short distancebeyond the remigium or out (07907) from a clay jar at 2,565 m on the top of Doi beyondthe subcosta-costajunction. The pupa hasseta 5- Int hanon. VII moderatelystout and long, and the larva exhibitsseta 8. Heizmannia (Heizmannia) taiwanensis Lien. Gould 1-X single and seta 1-S in 3 ventrolateral pairs (infre- et al. (1982) recorded this speciesfrom Kanchanaburi quently4) and2 dorsolateralpairs. A comparisonof these Province. No specimensare available to confirm this specimensof edwardsi with Thai specimensof Cx.barraudi record, although collection records 07020, 07021, 07022 Edwardsreveals they are distinctspecies, and supportsthe and 07023 made in July 1974 in SangkhlaburiDistrict of elevationof edwardsi to specieslevel by Marks (1971) and Kanchanaburirecord females of this speciesbiting man. Sirivanakarn(1976) after Bram (1967) synonymizeded- The specimensapparently were dissectedduring the Gould wardsi under barraudi. et al. filariasis study. Mattingly (1970) consideredtai- 10. C&x (Eum.) richei Klein. This specieswas col- wanensis to be confinedto Taiwan. However, asdiscussed lected on Doi Inthanon, Chiang Mai Province, and rede- under Hz. catesi (see p. 200), most of the Heizmannia scribedby Harbach and Mongkolpanya(1989). Previous found in Taiwan have also been found in Thailand. In to thesecollections, richei wasknown only from the holo- addition,one of us (BAH) collected a singlefemale (de- type male from Kampot Province, Democratic Kampu- positedin the NMNH) of taiwanensis in Perak State,Ma- chea (Klein 1970), and specimensreported from Fujian laysia in 1987. Lu and Gong (1986) described a new Province, People’s Republic of China (Xu 1984). The species,Ht. mengZianensi3,from YunnanProvince, People ’s Thailand specimenspermitted the first descriptionsof the Republic of China, whichis closelyrelated to taiwanensis. female, pupal and larval stagesof this rarely collected Althoughwe are convincedthe record of taiwanensis from species. Thailand is valid, this shouldbe confirmedby a compari- 11. Mansonia (Mansonioides) annulata Leicester. sonof Thailand specimenswith specimensor the descrip- Leicester (1908) describedthis speciesfrom Kuala Lum- tion of menglianensis and taiwanensis. pur, Selangor, Malaysia. Wharton (1%2) revised the 9. Cuk (C&x) edwardsi Barraud. Harbach and Mansonia of Malaysia and reported the distribution of Mongkolpanya(1989) listed this speciesas collected on annulata from Indonesia,Malaysia and the Philippines. Doi Inthanon in Chiang Mai Province. C&x edwardsi is Althoughannulata previouslyhas not been recorded from listedin Knight and Stone (1977) asoccurring in India, Sri Thailand, Gasset al. (1982,1983) reported this speciesto Lanka, New Guinea (Papua) and Queensland,Australia, be the dominantMansonia speciesin their study site in andCagampang-Ramos (1979) reportededwardsi on Luz- ChumphonProvince in southernThailand. There is only on Island, Philippines. Typically this speciesis reported a singlefemale of annulata in the NMNH from Thailand. from high elevations,however, one site in the Philippines This specimenis labelled: South of Thailand, September wasreported as500 ft. The specimensfrom Doi Inthanon, 14, 1962. Thailand, occurred in several collectionsbetween 1,270 and 1440m. Forty-one specimens(58, lo?, lOPe,6Le, and IV. Notes, changes and/or new distribution records for 1OL) are in the NMNH from the following collectionsin certain uncommon or important species in Thailand. Chiang Mai Province, Chom Thong District, Doi Intha- non, vicinity of Siriphum Waterfalls: collection07845,29 1. Anopheles (Ano.) abemans Harrison and Scanlon. June 1978, marshy seepagebog, 1,440 m, (18, 19, 1Pe); Previously,this specieswas recorded from Chanthaburi, collection08420,24 April 1981,buffalo footprintsin seep- ChiangMai, Chon Buri, Mae Hong Son, Nakhon Sawan, age bog, 1,270m, (29, lPe, 1Le); and collection08421,24 Phrae, Ranong,Songkhla and Trat provincesof Thailand April 1981,buffalo footprintsin seepagebog, 1,270m, (a, (Harrison and Scanlon1975) and from Malaysia (Cheong DECEMBERWO 205 and Mahadevan 1978, Reid 1979). In November 1979, provinces. More recently specimenswere collected as aberrans larvaewere collectedand reared from Huai Nong immaturesin Huai Kum, Chon Buri Province (1979) and Bon and Ban Phu Rat, Sai Yok District, Kanchanaburi in Ban Bang Ra Ko and Khao Nang Hong, Phangnga Province,western Thailand. Province (1980). Previously,immatures of tigertti have 2. Anopheles (Ano.) fragiris (Theobald). No additional been found only in freshwater crab holes,however, larvae specimensof this specieshave been reported from Thai- were found in a rock pool on Khao Nang Hong in Phangn- land since Harrison and Scanlon (1975). The listing of ga. There were numerouscrab holes from which tigertti jkagilis larvae associatedwith An. nemophilous larvae by immatureswere collectedadjacent to the rock pool. Peyton and Ramalingam(1988) wasbased on older mate- 6. Anopheles (Cel.) culicifacies B. See p. 209 for a rial from Nakhon Si Thammarat Province already re- discussionof thissibling species complex. Apparently only ported by Harrison and Scanlon (1975). This speciesis culicifacies B is knownfrom Thailand and it wasrecorded basicallyconfined to Malaysia, Indonesiaand the Philip- from Ayutthaya, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Chon Buri, pines,although it occursin southernThailand and south- Kanchanaburi,Lampang, Lamphun, Mae Hong Son, Nan ern Myanmar (Reid 1965). Recently,Darsie and Pradhan and Tak provincesby Harrison (1980). This specieswas (1990) recorded jkagilis from Nepal based on 2 males. alsocollected in 1980in Loei andUdon Thani provincesin However, Harrison and Scanlon (1975:153, 160) clearly northeasternThailand. pointed out that the number of basal stemsforming the 7. Anopheles (CeZ.) macarthuri Colless. Previously,this club on the dorsallobe of the claspetteinAn. aberrans and specieswas considered a subspeciesofAn. riparis King and An. bengalensisPuri overlappedwith those ofj?agiZisand Baisas,however, Hii et al. (1988) consideredmacarthuri to could not be usedto identify the malesof these3 species. be sufficientlydistinct morphologically and zoogeographi- The occurrenceoffragiris in Nepal, far removed from its tally to warrant speciesstatus. Scanlonet al. (1968) listed previously known distribution is highly doubtful. We macanhuri from Nakhon Si Thammarat, Narathiwat, considerthe recordoffragiris in Nepal (Darsie andPradhan Phatthalungand Trang provinces. Since then numerous 1990) as highly questionableand needing confirmation specimenshave been collectedin Phangnga,Phuket, Ra- basedon the more reliable immature charactersofftagiris. nong,Songkhla and Yala provinces.The immaturesof this 3. Anopheles (Ano.) kyondawensis Abraham. Besides speciesoften can be found in the thousandsin rock pools the originalcollection of thisspecies by Abraham (1947) in along usuallyshallow, hill/mountain streamsin southern Burma (now Union of Myanmar), the only other published Thailand, yet adultshave never been collectedbiting man record is basedon a singlelarva collectedfrom a freshwa- in Thailand. Researchersin Malaysia discoveredthat ter crab hole in Nan Province, Thailand (Harrison and adultsof this species(as ripark) are very abundantin the Scanlon 1975). In November 1979, another larva of this forest canopy(U.S. Army Medical ResearchUnit-Malay- specieswas collected from a streamwith many crab holes sia 1970) and may attempt to bite man in the canopy(U.S. along the margin in Huai Kop, Sai Yok District, Kancha- Army Medical ResearchUnit-Malaysia 1972). naburiProvince, western Thailand. The adultsand pupa of 8. Anopheles (Gel.) pampanai Buettiker and Beales. this speciesremain unknown. This uncommon member of the Minimus Group was 4. Anopheles (Ano.) separatus (Leicester). Harrison described from the Union of Myanmar (Burma) and and Scanlon(1975) reported this speciesfrom Narathiwat Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia), and was first re- and Trang provincesbased on specimensin the NMNH. ported in Thailand by Peyton and Scanlon(1966). Harri- The earlier reports of this speciesfrom Chon Buri and son(1980) examinedspecimens in the NMNH from Buri- Phra Nakhon (Bangkok) mentioned by Scanlon et al. ram, Chanthaburi, Chiang Mai, Lampang, Phayao and (1968) have not been verified. Their Chanthaburirecord PrachinBuri provinces. In 1980,immatures ofpampanai wasbased on a singlefemale bitingman (collection00574) were collectedand reared from streampools near the base on 6 October 1%5 between 1900- 2200 h in an orchardat of Phu Kradung,Loei Province,and from streammargins 20 m in Ban Tha Mai, Tha Mai District, Chanthaburi.This in Nong Bua Lumphu District of Udon Thani Province. specimenis non-extant. On 21 May 1979,42 females of 9. Anopheles (Cel.)philippinensis Ludlow. This species separatus were collectedbiting man between 1900-2100h hasbeen reported from all over Thailand (e.g., Scanlonet near an old tin pit at 100 m in Ban Nai SangMu-l, Takua al. 1968). However, since the removal of An. nivipes Pa District, PhangngaProvince. The characterizationof Theobald from synonymywithphilippinensis and its rees- separatus immaturesoccurring between the inner fringe of tablishmentto distinctspecies status (Reid 1%7), and the brackishwater inland to approximately100 m elevationin discoverythat “nivipes” is at least2 species,it hasbecome Malaysia (Hodgkin 1950) apparentlyalso appliesto this increasinglyevident that the NivipesComplex (seediscus- speciesin Thailand. sion of this siblingcomplex on p. 208) is more abundant 5. Anopheles (Ano.) tigertti Scanlonand Peyton. This and widely distributed in Thailand than philippinensis. rarely collectedspecies is known only from Thailand and Although only 85% of adults of philippinensis and the waslisted by Harrison and Scanlon(1975) asoccurring in Nivipes Complex speciescan be identified in the absence Chanthaburi,Nakhon Ratchasima,Prachin Buri and Tak of associatedlarval and pupal exuviae,when associated 206 MOSQUITO SYSTJZMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

exuviae are present nearly 100% can be identified using the bamboo cup set out in a bamboo grove in 1974 in Ban La characters in Reid (1968). Based on adults with associated Wa, Sangkhlaburi District, Kanchanaburi Province. We larval and pupal exuviae we have found philippinensis in have been unable to locate the specimens of whartoni only 16 Thailand provinces: Chiang Mai, Chon Buri, reported by Gould et al. (1982). They were probably Chumphon, Kanchanaburi, Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Ratcha- dissected for the detection of filarial parasites. sima, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Phangnga, Phayao, Prachin 15. Aedes (Fin.) harinasutai Knight. Knight (1978b) Buri, Ranong, Rayong, Sara Buri, Surat Thani, Trat and described this speciesafter extensive epidemiological stud- Uthai Thani. Members of the Nivipes Complex have been ies (Harinasuta et al. 1970, Gould et al. 1982) revealed that confirmed from over 20 Thai provinces. it is the primary vector of subperiodic Wuchereria bancrofh ’ 10. Anopheles (CeZ.) stephensi Liston. Although this (Cobbold) to villagers along the Khwae Noi River in species is renowned in the Middle East and parts of India Sangkhlaburi District, Kanchanaburi Province. Until as a primary vector of human malaria parasites, in Thai- recently, harinasutai was known only from Kanchanaburi land it is rare and not considered a vector. Previously it was Province, however, work in Tak Province has revealed recorded only from Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai provinces another focus of this disease and its vector, harinasutai (Scanlon et al. 1968). Between 1969 - 81 additional adults (Khamboonruang et al. 1987). Aedes harinasutai is now and larvae were collected in Hang Dong District, Chiang known from 2 western Thailand provinces that border with Mai Province and Mae Hong Son and Mae Sariang Dis- Myanmar. tricts of Mae Hong Son Province. Immatures were col- 16. Aedes (Isoaedes) cavaticus Reinert. The monotypic lected in grassy stream pools, while adults were collected subgenus Isoaedes Reinert of Aedes is based on cavaticus, biting man and cattle and in a light trap. which was described from a single cave in Kanchanaburi 11. Anopheles (Cei.) varuna Iyengar. Thurman (1959) Province in western Thailand (Reinert 1979). In 1980 and initially reported this species from Thailand, but did not 1981, immature specimens of this species were collected retain specimens. In 1977 and 1978 specimens of this and reared from 2 additional limestone caves in Kancha- species were confirmed from Chiang Mai and Lampang naburi. These collections were made in Srisawad District provinces (Harrison 1980). In 1981 a large number of about 120 km northwest of the type locality. Adults with varuna adults were examined by us from Bo Phloi District, associated larval and pupal exuviae and 4th instar larvae Kanchanaburi Province, and immatures were collected are deposited in the AFRIMS collection from: Srisawad and reared from Ban Lat District, Phet Buri Province. The District, Ban La Mut, collection 08263, September 1980, Phet Buri specimens (collection 08557, 2L, collection from rock pool inside cave; Srisawad District, Tambol Tha 08562,19, lPe, lLe, 1L) are deposited in the NMNH. The Kradan, Ban Plai Huai Kaeng Riang Mu 3, Wat Tham addition of Kanchanaburi and Phet Buri extends the distri- Phra Tad (Cave), collections 09110-09112, June 1981, bution of varuna southward along the western border of pools in cave floor. We anticipate that as more collecting Thailand to the beginning of the peninsula. is done in limestone caves in western Thailand, the distri- 12. Aedes (Bothaella) helenae Reinert. Previously, bution of cavaticus will be extended to adjacent provinces Reinert (1973~) listed the distribution of this species as of Thailand. restricted to Chiang Mai, Lampang and Nan provinces in 17. Heizmannia (Mat.) thelmae Mattingly. This rarely northern Thailand. Knight and Harrison (1988) listed collected species was previously described and known only helenae as associated with Ae. mikrokopion in bamboo from Ban Chatri, Ranong Province in peninsular Thailand internodes from a July 1974 collection (06907) made in (Mattingly 1970). During the filariasis studies in Kancha- Ban Nong Plang Khong, Sangkhlaburi District, Kancha- naburi Province documented by Gould et al. (1982), nu- naburi Province. This extends the distribution of helenae merous Heizmannia species were collected. There are southward along the western border of Thailand. records for at least 8 females and one larva of thelmae 13. Aedes (Die.) iyengari Edwards. Previous records of collected during these studies in 1974. While 4 females this speciesin Thailand (Thurman 1959, Scanlon and Esah were apparently dissected at that time, the other 4 speci- 1%5, Reinert 1970) are based on specimens collected in mens were pinned. Two females in the AFRIMS collec- Chiang Mai Province in northern Thailand. In 1981, 2 tion came from collections 07034 and 07198, while 2 immature collections (08463,08464) of iyengariwere made females in the NMNH came from collections 07332 and and reared to adults from a hollow in a teak log in Ban Huai 07334. Females 07034 and 07332 came from Ban La Wa, Kha, Mae Hong Son Province in the northwest corner of while female 07198 came from Ban Kupadu and female Thailand. These adults, with their associated larval and 07334 came from Ban Nong Plang Khong. These 3 villages pupal exuviae, are in the NMNH. are in Sangkhlaburi District, Kanchanaburi Province in 14. Aedes (Die.) whartoni Mattingly. Reinert (1970) western Thailand. These 4 females clearly match the recorded this species from Lampang, Nan, Phangnga, description for thelmae (Mattingly 1970). Ranong and Tak provinces. Knight and Harrison (1988) 18. Cuba (Cux.) barraudi Edwards. In Bram (1967) this listed whartoni as associated with Ae. mikrokopion in a species was confused with Cx. edwardsi (see p. 204) in DECEMBER~~~O 207

Thailand, thus the distribution records for barraudi in et al. (1986) and Tsukamoto et al. (1987) deserve addi- Thailand from Chiang Mai and Prachuap Khiri Khan tional comments or corrections. provinces maybe inaccurate. Sirivanakarn (1976) reported barraudi in Thailand only from Chiang Mai Province, and A. Comments/corrections for certain records in did not comment on the specimens from Prachuap Khiri Apiwathnasorn (1986) that were not treated by Tsukamoto Khan in Bram (1967). In 1980,a series of barraudi adults et al. (1987). were reared from larvae collected in Udon Thani Province 1. Anopheles (Ano.) aberrans Harrison and Scanlon was in northeastern Thailand. Thirty-three specimens (9d,29, listed as questionable for Malaysia, probably based on 12Pe, 7Le and 3L) are deposited in the NMNH from Udon statements in Harrison and Scanlon (1975). However, Thani Province, Nong Bua Lamphu District, Huai Sao Cheong and Mahadevan (1978) and Reid (1979) found Khua, collection 08324,21 October 1980, rockpool, 340 m. specimens of aberrans in the collections of the Institute for The only other species associated with barraudi in this Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur, the Natural History collection was a member of the Maculatus Complex of Museum and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Anopheles. As noted previously (Marks 1971), adults of Medicine, London, that confirm this speciesfrom peninsu- barraudi are considerably smaller than those of edwardsi, lar Malaysia. have more silvery scales on the scutum and have incom- 2. Anopheles (Ano.) aitkenii James was listed as occur- plete stripes on the anterior surface of the femora and ring in Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, tibiae of the mid- and hindlegs. The thinner and shorter with Indonesian records as questionable. Harrison and seta 5-W on the pupa readily separates barraudi from Scanlon (1975:150) restricted the distribution of aitkenii to edwardsi in that stage. Approximately 50% of the barraudi the Indian Subregion. This action was based on the larvae had at least one seta 1-X forked near the base, while discovery that certain male genitalia and larval characters this seta was invariably single on edwardsi larvae. The previously used to identify aitkenii were not diagnostic and larvae of barraudi from Udon Thani possess 3 pairs of could be found on certain specimens of An. aberrans and ventrolateral and 2 pairs of dorsolateral seta l-S, as do An. bengalensis Puri in northern Thailand. In addition, most of the edwardsi larvae from Chiang Mai Province. unique characters were discovered on aitkenii immatures Marks (1971) noted considerable variation in the pattern (Harrison, unpublished) that have not been found on any and numbers of seta 1-S on edwardsi and barraudi. Further member of the Aitkenii Group in Southeast Asia. study is needed to determine if the variation seen in seta l- 3. Anopheles (Ano.) insulaefiorum (Swellengrebel and S (particularly on edwardsi throughout its distribution) is Swellengrebel de Graaf) was listed as occurring in Burma, indicative of additional cryptic species. Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand 19. Uranotaenia (Pseudoficalbia) enigmatica Peyton. and Vietnam. Harrison and Scanlon (1974), however, Peyton (1977) described this species on the basis of 5 determined that the “insulaeflonrm” of the Philippines and adults, 2 whole larvae and 7 larval or pupal exuviae col- eastern Indonesia (Ambon and Ceram) was a distinct new lected from 2 crab holes in Nan Province, northern Thai- species,An.piZinotum, which they described. The records land. In 1978 an additional collection of enigmatica was of insuZaefZorumfrom Sulawesi, the Lesser Sunda Islands made from a crab hole over 1,000 km south of the type and the Molucca Islands still need confirmation as either locality in Nan. This collection resulted in 15 specimens insulaeflorum or pilinotum. Recently, Kulasekera et al. (ld, 49,4Pe, 4Le, lP, 1L) and had the following collection (1989) determined that the “insulaeforum” from Sri Lanka data: Chumphon Province, Ban Chong Om No. 4, collec- is a new species which they described as An. peytoni. tion 07955,7 September 1978, freshwater crab hole. 4. Anopheles (Gel.) balabacensis Baisas was listed as 20. Uranotaenia (Pfc.) gouldi Peyton and Klein. Peyton occurring in Borneo, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, (1977) listed this species in Thailand from the following Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. How- provinces: Chiang Mai, Chon Buri, Narathiwat, Phangnga ever, it clearly has been documented by morphology, and Trang. An additional 7 specimens (Z, 19, lPe, lLe, cytogenetics and crossing studies (Peyton and Harrison 2P) were collected in 1978 in peninsular Thailand with the 1979,198O; Baimai et al. 1984; Hii 1985,1986; Baimai 1988; following data: Chumphon Province, Ban Chong Mut, No. Peyton and Ramalingam 1988; Peyton 1990) that balaba- 3, collection 07999, 13 September 1978, from a seepage censis does not occur on mainland Southeast Asia. This hole. insular species is restricted to Indonesia (Java and Kali- mantan), Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) and the Philip- V. Comments/corrections for certain records in the pines (Balabac and Palawan islands). Anopheles introla- lists of Apiwathnasorn (19&S), Miyagi et al. (1986) tus, known from peninsular Malaysia and Thailand, was and Tsukamoto et al. (1987). elevated from a subspecies of balabacensis to species status by Hii et al. (1988). Anopheles balabacensis “Fras- Aside from more recently described new species and ers Hill Form” also was recently described as a new new species records for Thailand, certain species records species, An. nemophilous, by Peyton and Ramalingam in the recent publications of Apiwathnasorn (1986), Miyagi (1988). The remaining taxa on the mainland that previ- 208 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL.22,No.3 ouslymay have been called balabacensis are now consid- extendsonly a short distancenorth of the Kangar-Pattani ered membersof the Dirus Complex (Peyton and Rama- faunaland floral line (Whitmore 1984) alongthe border of lingam 1988, Peyton 1990). Thailand and Malaysia. 5. Anopheles (Cel.) minimus Theobald waslisted from 2. Anopheles (Ano.) lesteri paraliae Sandoshamwas Borneo, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, listedas collected in a rice field in ChiangMai Provincein Malaysia, the Philippines,Singapore, Thailand and Viet- northernThailand. As notedby Reid (1968) andHarrison nam. However, the recordsfor Borneo, Brunei, Indonesia and Scanlon (1975), lesteri paraliae is a low elevation and the Philippinesapply to An$avirostis (Ludlow), not inhabitantof brackishand peaty coastalwaters. During minimus (Harrison 1980). The listingof Singaporemust the preparationof Harrison andScanlon (1975) numerous be an error, as neitherflavirostrisnor minimus havebeen specimenspreviously identified as Zesteriparaliae from rice collectedfrom this island. In addition, sinceminimus is field habitatsin the central valley north of Bangkok and now knownto be a complexof at least3 siblingspecies (A, from the ChiangMai Valley were examinedand found to B, C), we are not certainwhich siblingactually represents be misidentifiedspecimens of An. pursati Laveran. We Theobald’s species. Preliminary evidence suggeststhat suspectthat the Miyagi et al. (1986) record of Zesteri minimus A is Theobald’s species. paraliae from Chiang Mai falls in this category, i.e., a 6. Anopheles (CeZ.) nivipes (Theobald) was listed only misidentificationof pursati. Anopheles pursati is fairly from Indonesiaand Malaysia. However, Reid (1967) used commonin the ChiangMai area, but wasnot recordedin specimensof nivipes from southernThailand, Burma and the collectionsof Miyagi et al. (1986). Malaysia when he elevated nivipes from synonymywith Harrison and Scanlon(1975) elected to retainparaliae An. philippinensis to speciesstatus. Also, Klein et al. as a subspeciesof Zesteri. Now we are convincedthat (1982) discussedthe colonizationof 2 strainsof nivrpes’ paraliae deservesspecies status, and it is elevatedto that from Nakhon Ratchasimaand Phrae provincesof Thai- statushere. Anophelesparaliae hasa distinctapical fringe land, and Klein et al. (1984) demonstrateda postmating spot on the wing, utilizes low elevation coastal(brackish sterilitybarrier in reciprocalcrosses between nivipes from and/or peaty) immature habitats and has an allopatric the NakhonRatchasima colony and aphilippinensis colony distribution with regard to the other members of the startedfrom specimensfrom RayongProvince. Although Lesteri Complex. The distributionofparaliae is restricted we currentlyhave confirmed specimensof “nivipes” from to coastalareas of Malaysia (peninsular,Sabah and Sara- at least22 widelyseparated provinces, the taxonomyof this wak), Brunei, Vietnam andThailand. Klein (1977) did not speciesis complicatedby the presenceof at least2 cryptic listparaliae from Kampuchea,although it almostcertainly (cytogenetic)species in the morphologicalspecies “nivi- existsthere. A more thoroughdiscussion of the biologyof pes” in Thailand (Green 19824,Baimai et al. 1984,Green this speciescan be found in Harrison and Scanlon(1975). et al. 1985). 7. Anopheles (Cel.)pampanai Buettiker andBeales was C. Comments/corrections for certain records in the listed from Burma, Cambodia and Thailand. Harrison checklist of Tsukamoto et al. (1987). (1980:103) confirmed the identity of a specimenof pam- 1. Anopheles (Ano.) aitkenii James was listed in an panai in the NMNH from Plei Djereng, Pleiku Province, uncertainstatus, with the suggestionthat earlier recordsof Vietnam. this speciesin Thailand may have been misidentifications of other speciesin the Aitkenii Group. That suggestionis B. Comments/corrections for certain records in the list correct(see Harrison andScanlon 1975: 150). Also, seethe of Miyagi et al. (1986). previous commentsabout aitkenii on p. 207 and delete 1. Anopheles (Ano.) donaldi Reid waslisted as collected aitkenii from considerationfor the Thai checklistof spe- in ChiangMai Provincein northernThailand. We feel this cies. is an identificationerror aspointed out by Harrison et al. 2. Anopheles (Ano.) gigas Giles wasreinstated in the list (1988). Previously, only a single confirmed female of of speciesfrom Thailand basedon specimensthe authors donaldi had been seen from Thailand (Harrison and collectedon Doi Inthanon, ChiangMai Province. Tsuka- Scanlon 1975), and that specimenwas from Narathiwat moto et al. (1987) consideredthe member of the Gigas Province in extreme southernThailand, nearly 1,500 km Complexin Thailand asgigas sensu Zato, noting that the 2 south of Chiang Mai. Anopheles donaldi is a Malaysian previousrecords from Thailand were doubtful. Actually, speciesthat is most common in central and southern gigas has been reported previously from Thailand as 3 peninsularMalalysia, Sabah and Sarawak, and in Kaliman- separateentities: (1) asAn. g&u var. formosus Ludlow,by tan, Indonesia. This is almost certainly a speciesthat Barnes (1923) who indicated he was uncertain of his identification; (2) asAn. gigas var. sumatrana Swellengre- be1and Rodenwaldt,by Thurman (1959), only notingthat 4Green, C.A. 1982. Population genetical studies in the genus specimen(s)were collectedbetween 1950 - 56; and (3) as Anopheles.Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. ofwitwatersrand, Johannesburg,South An. gigas baileyi Edwards,by Stojanovichand Scott (1966) Africa. 107pp. who includedgigasbaiZeyi (without further comment) in a DECEMBERWO 209

list and an illustratedkey to the Anopheles of Thailand. did mention a 1979 personalcommunication from M.L. The 2 former taxa were considereddoubtful records by Shresthainforming him thatgigas g&s andg&s simlensis Peytonand Scanlon(1966), Scanlonet al. (1968) and Rat- occurredin Nepal. We suspectthat the recordsof these tanarithikuland Harrison (1973). The restrictionof gigas different gigasmembers found in sympatryin Nepal are fomzosus to the Philippines(Reid 1968) andggas suma- due to inadequatekeys and taxonomicknowledge of the trana to Sumatra,Indonesia (Bonne-Wepster and Swellen- morphologyof the Gigas Complex. Only through thor- grebell953, Reid 1968), plus the absenceof gigasspeci- ough morphologicalstudies involving reared adultswith mens for examination,prompted Harrison and Scanlon associatedlarval and pupalexuviae can suchinadequacies (1975) to dropgigasfrom the Thailand list. be overcomeand recordscorrected. In 1978, larval specimensof a “gig,” member were Morphologically,the specimensof ‘gigaS” from Thai- collected by AFRIMS personnel from a sphagnumbog land agree very well with previous descriptionsof the near the top of Doi Inthanon, ChiangMai Province. This variouslife stagesof gigasbaileyi (Edwards 1929;Christo- collection site, at approximately2,540 m, is probably the phers1931,1933; Rice and Datta 1936). The morphologi- same site where Tsukamoto et al. (1987) found g&z.s cal uniformity of gigas baiZeyi over a wide distribution specimensin 1983. In 1981,additional specimens ofgigas (including many isolated collection sites) suggeststhis sensu Zato were collected on Doi Inthanon in the same taxon deservesspecies status. Accordingly,we are eleva- sphagnumbog and also in a stream bog area at a lower tingbaiZeyi Edwards to speciesstatus. The GigasComplex elevation. Based on the 1978 and 1981 collectionsand of Anopheles also exhibits all of the characteristicsof a rearings,forty-one specimens(I& 69,12Pe, 13Le, 5P and superspecies,as defined previouslyunder Zindesayion p. 4L) were examined from Chiang Mai Province, Chom 199. Anopheles g&as shouldbe removed from the Thai- Tong District, Doi Inthanon,collection 07892,4 July 1978, land list of species,and baiZeyishould be insertedinto the seepagebog, 2,540 m, just below radar station, (ld, 29, list. 4Pe, 4Le, 4P); collection07893,4 July 1978,seepage bog, 3. Anopheles (eel.) balabacensis introlatus CoUess was 2,540m just below radar station,(4?,4Pe, 4Le, 2L); collec- elevatedto full speciesstatus by Hii et al. (1988). Thor- tion 08399,23Aprill981, marshybog under trees, 2,530 m, ough morphologicalstudies of the speciesin the Leuco- justbelow radar station,(lLe, 1P); andcollection 08408,23 sphyrusGroup by ELP haveclearly shownintrolads to be April 1981, stream bog, 1,633 m, beside road up Doi another mainland SoutheastAsian speciesthat is quite Inthanon,between km 36 and km 37 signposts,just before distinct from balabacensis (also see earlier discussion junction for road going to Mae Chaem, (4Pe, 4Le, 2L). underAnopheles Zeucosphyms).The entry in the Thailand After a thoroughstudy of thesespecimens and compari- list shouldshow introlatus as a species. son(BAH) of the typesofgz&as, gigas var. baiZeyi,giga,svar. 4. Anopheles (CeZ.) culicifacies Giles wasrecorded from simlensis (James), g&as var. refutans Alcock and gigas Thailand,but no mentionwas made of this nameincluding crockeri Colless in the Natural History Museum in Sep- a complexof cytogeneticsibling species (Green and Miles tember 1989,the Thailand member of the GigasComplex 1980, Subbaraoet al. 1983, Subbarao1988). Apparently definitelyhas been identified asgisasbaileyi. The addition only one member occursin Thailand, whichis very similar of Thailand fits very well into the currentlyknown distribu- to culicifacies B (Green 1982’). Anopheles culicifacies B is tion of gigasbaileyi, i.e., Tibet, India, Burma, Formosa, most common in the Indian Subregionand extendswest- Indochina[Vietnam] and centralChina (Knight andStone erly into Pakistan. The other 3 species(A, C and D) are 1977). Anopheles g&s baiZeyi apparentlyis allopatricin alsofrom the Indian Subregion,with cuZici$aciesA extend- regard to the other members of the complex, with the ing further westonto the Arabian Peninsula.The Thailand possibleexception of an overlap with gigassimlensis in list shouldshow that culicijacies is a complexand that only Nepal. RamachandraRao et al. (1973) and Bhat (1975a) culicifacies B is known from Thailand. clearlydocumented onlygigar simlensis from Uttar Pradesh 5. Anopheles (CeZ.) dims Peyton and Harrison was State,west of Nepal, while onlysigasbaiZeyi was found east recordedfrom Thailand,but no mention is made that this of Nepal in Sikkim (Bhat 1975b). Earlier referenceslisting name currentlyincludes 7 siblingspecies, of which5 occur members of this complex in Nepal only mention “@&s” in Thailand (Peyton 1990). Besidesdims andAn. nemo- (Brydon et al. l%l, Shrestha 1966, RamachandraRao philous Peyton and Ramalingam,there are 3 undescribed 1984). However, Darsie and Pradhan (1990) have re- members in Thailand (dims B, C and D) that are well corded larvae of gigasgigas, gigas baileyi andgigas simlen- defmed morphologically,cytogenetically and by crossing sis from the same collectionin Nepal. These recordsare studies (Baimai 1988, Baimai et al. 1988a, Peyton and highly questionablebecause subspecies should not retain Ramalingam 1988). The Thailand list should show that morphologicallydistinctive characters in sympatry(Mayr dirus is a complex,with at least 3 additional undescribed 1969). Prior to Darsie and Pradhan(199O),gigasg@s has cryptic speciesknown in Thailand. been consideredas restrictedto southernIndia (Christo- phers 1933), althoughRamachandra Rao (1984:237-238) ‘See footnote on page 208. 210 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

6. Anopheles (Cel.) jilipinae Manalang was listed as a 202). Baimai et al. (1988b) determinedthat Zeucosphynrs misidentification. Before Harrison (1980), the extent of is a complexof at least 2 cytogeneticsibling species, with morphologicalvariation within and amongspecies in the only ZeucosphyrusA (non leucosphyncs Doe&z = B) Minimus Group waspoorly known. Variationsin the adult occurringin Thailand. The Thailand list of speciesshould morphologyof speciessuch as An. aconitus Doerritz,An. record ZeucosphyrusA as present in the country,but not flavirostris andAn. minimus are extensiveand often over- leucosphynrsDoenitz. lap with or mimic morphologicalpatterns that have classi- 10. Anopheles (CeZ.) ludlowae (Theobald) waslisted as cally defined the other members of the Group [e.g.,An. doubtful and needing further confirmation. Additional jXpinae,An .fruviatilis James,An. mangyanus (Banks)and confirmationis not necessary. The old records of “Zud- An. pampanai Buettiker and Beales]. Accordingly,infre- Zowi” by Barnes(1923), Barraud and Christophers(1931) quentrecords have been publishedof Philippinemembers and Thurman (1959) were based on misidentifiedspeci- of the group occurringin mainlandSoutheast Asian and mensof An. sundiacus (Rodenwaldt) asnoted by Scanlon even Indian subregioncountries. Harrison (1980) deter- et al. (1968). Anopheles ludlowae is an insularspecies, not mined that the immature stageshave the best diagnostic found on mainland SoutheastAsia, and should not be charactersfor differentiatingthe speciesin thisgroup, and includedin the Thailand list. all recordsin Harrison (1980) were basedon reared adults 11. Anopheles (Gel.) maculipalpis (Giles) waslisted as with associatedlarval and pupal exuviae. Despite occa- a probable misidentification. The early records (Barnes sionaladults in Thailand exhibitingmorphological charac- 1923,Barraud and Christophers1931) of maculipalpis in ters like the Philippine species(filipinae, jlavirostris and Thailand resulted from confusion regarding the names mangyanus), the pupae and larvae of these specimens macuZipaZpis,An.indiensis Theobald, 1903[non Theobald, clearly showed they were not these species. Thus, the 19011andAn. splendidus Koidzumi. Anopheles splendidus record offilipinae from Thailand (Thurman 1959) is con- is the correct name for the speciesin Thailand. Anopheles sidered invalid, as is the record of fizipinae from Nepal maculipalpis is confmedto the Afrotropical Region (Gil- (Pradhan and Brydon 1960, Darsie and Pradhan 1990). liesand de Meillon 1968),and should not be includedin the Anophelesfilipinae mustbe deletedfrom the Thailand and list of Thailand species. Nepal listsof species. 12. Anopheles (CeZ.) punctulatus Doenitz was listed in 7. Anopheles (Gel.) fruviatilis James was listed as a the doubtful/misidentificationsection. As noted by Tsu- doubtful species.Harrison (1980) found the situationfor kamoto et al. (1987), this speciesis confinedto the Austra- JluviatiZis in Thailand to be the same as that explained lasianand South Pacific regions. Anopheles punctulatus abovefor An. filpinae. Thus,fluviatiZis shouldbe deleted shouldnot be includedin the list of Thailand species. from considerationfor the Thailand list. 13. Anopheles (Cel.) ripari3 macarthun ’ Colless was 8. Anopheles (eel.) indefinitus (Ludlow) wastreated as listedas a subspecies.Hii et al. (1988) elevatedmacarthuti a resurrectionof a record. However, indejinitus hasbeen to specieslevel, and it shouldbe listed accordinglyin the recordedfrom Thailand sinceStanton (1920:334) and was Thailandlist (also see earlier discussion underAn. mac&ti includedin an earlier Thailand list (Scanlon et al. 1968) on p. 205). under An. subpictus Grassi, as var. malayensis Hacker, 14. Aedes (Cancraedes) curtipes Edwardswas listed as currently a synonymof indefinitus. This specieshas been an uncertainrecord becauseKnight and Stone (1977) and acknowledgedas presentin Thailand for years, although Apiwathnasorn(1986) listed cumpes’ as questionablein publisheddistribution records were not available. Kit- Thailand. Dyar and Shannon(1925) listed2 femalesfrom tayarak (1980)5 reported indefinitus from the following Koh [Ko] Kut, Trat Province when they describedAe. provincesof Thailand: Ayuthaya, Chachoengsao,Chon (Skusea) miachaetessa. Knight andHull (1953) reassigned Buri, Rayong and Sara Buri. The authorshave examined miachaetessa to subgenusCancraedes, but consideredthe and identified hundredsof specimensof indefinitus from 2 females from Koh [Ko] Kut to be representativesof Thailand. Specimensare in the NMNH and AFRIMS curtipes. Mattingly (1958) revised the subgenusCancr- collections. aedes and usedone of the 2 abovefemales to describeAe. 9. Anopheles (CeZ.) leucosphyrusDoenitz was listedas (Can.) kohkutensis Mattingly, and assignedthe second a doubtful record or misidentification. Baimai et al. female (actually from Ko Klum) to another new species, (1988b) and Pe yt on and Ramalingam (1988), however, Ae. (Can.) indonesiae Mattingly. Thus,both femalesfrom reported a member of the LeucosphyrusComplex from Thailand previouslyassigned to curtipes are now consid- Thailand,based on AFRIMS collectionsduring the last25 ered representativesof other species,andcurtipes hasbeen years (see specificinformation under Zeucosphynrson p. restricted to the Indonesian islandsof Borneo and Su- lawesi,and the Philippines(Mattingly 1958). Aedes curti- pes should not be included in the list of speciesfrom ’ Kittayarak,P. 1980.Intra-interspecific morphologicalvariations in Thailand. the SubpictusGroup ofAnopheZes inThailand. M.S. Thesis. Fat. Grad. 15. Aedes (Christophersiomyia) thomsoni (Theobald) Stud.,Mahidol Univ., Bangkok,Thailand. 142pp. wasincorrectly spelled in Tsukamoto et al. (1987). DECEMBER1990 211

16. Aedes (Fin.) alboniveus Barraud. Although the have determinedthat Doleschall’sspecies does not occur Thurman (1959) record of this speciesin Thailand was in Thailand. Aedes aureostiatus was described from overlookedby Knight and Stone (1977), Tsukamotoet al. Ambon Island just west of Irian Jaya (New Guinea), (1987) were correct in suggestingthat thisspecies needed Indonesia. Apparently, there is no type in existencefor to be added to the Thailand list of species. There are aureostriatus. There are 13 specimensin the NMNH from numerous specimensof alboniveus identified by K.L. New Guinea that match the descriptionof aureostriatus Knight in the NMNH from the following provincesof and that key easily to that speciesin Lee et al. (1982). Thailand: Chanthaburi,Chiang Mai, Lampang,Nakhon These specimensdo not match the supposedspecimens of Nayok and Prachin Buri. aureostiatus in the NMNH from Malaysia, the Philip- 17. Aedes (Fin.) albotaeniatus (Leicester) waslisted as pines,Sri Lanka and Thailand. Differences in at least 3 resurrectedby Tsukamotoet al. (1987). This wasprobably characterson adult femaleswill easilyseparate specimens due to the Gould et al. (1968) record of thisspecies on Ko from these4 countriesfrom aureostiatus, i.e., erect forked Samui, Surat Thani Provincebeing overlookedby Knight scaleson the head (Knight and Hull 1951), scutalanterior and Stone (1977) andApiwathnasorn (1986). Gould et al. dorsocentralrows of pale scales,and a scutalprealar patch (1982) also reported albotaeniatus from Kanchanaburi of pale scales. The next available name for the Indian- Province.Actually, there are specimensof albotaeniatus in SoutheastAsian speciesis greenii (Theobald), described the NMNH from the following provincesof Thailand: from Sri Lanka and currently considereda subspeciesof Chiang Mai, Kanchanaburi,Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Si aureostriatus. We are elevatinggreeniito speciesstatus to Thammarat, Phangnga,Ranong, Surat Thani, Tak and represent the speciespreviously called aureosttiatus in Trat. Edwards (1922a) describedmikiranus, a variety Malaysia, the Philippines,Sri Lanka and Thailand (see (now a subspecies)of albotaeniatus, basedon a different additional information under greenii on p. 212). Aedes scutal color pattern on specimensfrom the Mikir Hills, aureostiatus must be deleted from the Thailand list of Assam,India. Knight andStone (1977) list the distribution species.However, it remainsa valid speciesrestricted to of mikiranus as China and India. There are a substantial the eastern Indonesian/Australianregions. We are not number of specimensof mikiranus in the NMNH from addressingthe statusof the aureostiatus subspeciesokina- Thailand, and an even larger number of intermediates wanus Bohart, doonii Wattal, Bhatia and Kalra, and tai- (females mostly) between albotaeniatus and mikiranus. wanus Lien in this paper, other than to suggestthat they These intermediatesoccur in a south/north cline,from an may be more closelyrelated togreenii thanto aureostriatus. albotaeniatus-type scutumin the southto a mikiranus-type 19. Aedes (Fin.) chnstophersi Edwardswas listed as a scutumin the north (primarily in the females). Intermedi- doubtfulrecord becauseKnight and Stone (1977) did not atesbegin to appearin the southernprovinces of Phangnga includethe Thurman (1959) record. Gould et al. (1982) and Surat Thani and specimensapproximating mikiranus reported christophersi from KanchanaburiProvince, thus become increasinglycommon as you go north. In Chiang it shouldbe addedto the list of Thailand species. Mai Province the majority of adult females have the 20. Aedes (Fin.) dissimilis (Leicester) was listed as a mikiranus-type scutum. Because of this cline and the doubtfulrecord becauseKnight and Stone (1977) did not absenceof any other discerniblecharacters to separate includethe Thurman (1959) record. Gould et al. (1982) these2 nominal taxa, we considerssp. mikiranus nothing reported dissimilis from Kanchanaburi Province, and more than a clinal variation of albotaeniatus. There are Rattanarithikul and Harrison (1988) reported it from alsoseveral specimens of the mikiranus-type from Yunnan ChiangMai Province. The Chiang Mai specimenscame Province,People ’s Republicof China, and they are identi- from collection CM 132, in a tree hole on Doi Suthep. cal to the Chiang Mai specimens.Accordingly, we here Aedes dissimilis shouldbe added to the list of Thailand synonymizemikiranus under albotaeniatus, as it doesnot species. Reinert [Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 26(2):in war-rent subspeciesstatus. Aedes albotaeniatus is now press]has revised dissimilis and related species. Addi- recorded from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, People’s Re- tional records of dissimilis and closelyrelated speciesin public of China, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The Sri Lanka Thailand will appear in that publication. record of Senior White (1920) has not been confirmed 21. Aedes (Fin.) feegradei Barraud,originally described (Carter 1950;F.P. Amerasinghe1990, personal communi- from Burma, was includedin the list basedon the record cation) althoughit continuesto be listedas occurring in Sri of Scanlonand Esah (1965). There are 2 females in the Lanka (Jayasekeraand Chelliah 1981). NMNH from Doi Suthep, Chiang Mai Province that are 18. Aedes (Fin.) aureostriatus (Doleschall)was listed as identified asfeegradei. These females (T-1391, T-1393) a resurrectedspecies. Earlier this specieswas reported were collected in July 1962, presumably as part of the from ChiangMai Province (Scanlonand Esah 1965) and Scanlonand Esah study. Using the key in Barraud (1934) from Surat Thani Province(Gould et al. 1968). Recently, one female (T-1391) clearly has a row of white scaleson Rattanarithikul and Harrison (1988) reported additional the midline of the head and should be consideredAe. specimensfrom Chiang Mai Province. However, in this assamensis(Theobald), while the secondfemale (T-1393) study we have examined aureostriatus more closely and lacks a distinctmedian white scale row, but has several 212 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

scatteredpale scalesalong the midline. The secondfemale There are 6 specimensin the NMNH collectedby Causey couldbe consideredfeegrcrdei,however, we suspectit may in 1933with the followingdata: O.R. Causey,South Siam, be a variablespecimen of assamensis,which is abundantin August1933 (one specimenhas Trang on the label). These the ChiangMai area. In the absenceof other discernable specimensare labelledAedes hegneti, and have E. Thur- differencesbetween assamensis and feegradei femalesand man 1959determination labels on them. Our examination the lack of males or immatures of feegradei, we cannot of these revealed 2 specimenstoo oily and rubbed for resolve the record of feegradei in Thailand at this time. identification,while the remaining4 specimensare clearly Therefore, feegradei shouldremain in the list of Thailand Ae. macfarlanei (Edwards). A studyof Causey’soriginal species,but it is a questionablerecord that requiresconfir- descriptionof hegneti revealsit is a descriptionof macfar- mation basedon male genitaliaand/or immature charac- Zanei,with Causeyeven stating “ harpagoand tenth sternite ters. similar to thoseofAedes macfarzandi [sic].” Accordingly, 22. Aedes (Fin.) greenii (Theobald) wasnot includedin we here synonymizehegneti under macfarlanei, and elimi- Tsukamotoet al. (1987). As discussedon p. 211, we have nate an enigma that has bothered mosquito workers in determined that the specimenspreviously called aureo- Thailand for 53 years. Aedes hegneri must be removed stiatus in westernIndonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,Sri from the Thailand list of species. Lanka and Thailand actually representgreenii, here ele- 24. Aedes (Fin.) macdougalli Edwardswas listed as a vated from subspeciesstatus under aureostiatus to spe- doubtfulrecord becauseKnight and Stone (1977) did not cies. There is a large topotypiccollection of greenii from list the Thurman (1959) record. Actually, no additional Sri Lanka in the NMNH, and specimensfrom Malaysia, specimenshave been collectedin Thailand to confirm the the Philippinesand Thailand closelymatch those speci- Thurman record. There is a large topotypiccollection of mens. A variety of greenii was describedas ranaranus by macdougalli in the NMNH from Sri Lanka. An examina- Barraud (1924) from Kanara, Karwar (Malabar Strip) tion of thesespecimens revealed that macdougalli is very India. Edwards (1932) corrected this Zapsuscalami to distinctand easilyidentified from similar species,viz., Ae. kanaranus since the type localitywas Kanara. Althoughwe elsiae (Barraud),Ae. macfarlanei andAe. pseudotaeniatus have not seen specimensof greenii or kanaranus from (Giles). A thoroughsearch ofAedes (Finlaya) specimens India, we have seenspecimens matching kanaranus mixed (identified and undetermined)in the NMNH revealedno in with the normal greenii specimensfrom Malaysia,the macdougalli collectedfrom outsideof Sri Lanka. In fact, Philippinesand Thailand. The only describeddifference a substantialnumber of specimensfrom Malaysialabelled separatingkanaranus andgreenii is a variationin the pale macdougalli provedto be misidentifiedmacfarlanei. Based scalepattern on the scutum. Becauseof variationwe have on this studywe feel macdougalli does not occur in Thai- seenin the scutalscale pattern of greenii from Sri Lanka, land andmust therefore be removedfrom the Thailand list andbecausegreenii, kanamnus-like and intermediate speci- of species.Actually, macdougalli may be restrictedto Sri mens are found together, particularly in northern Thai- Lanka and southern India, and records from Sumatra land, we cannot supportthe retention of kanaranus as a (Indonesia) and the People’s Republic of China (Knight subspecies.We here synonymizekanaranus and consider and Stone 1977) probablyare basedon misidentifications. specimenspreviously identified as kanaranus as nothing 25. Aedes (Fin.) niveoides Barraud was listed as a more than morphologicalvariations of greenii. There are doubtfulrecord becauseKnight and Stone (1977) did not numerousspecimens ofgreenii in the NMNH from the fol- includethe Thurman (1959) record. Gould et al. (1982) lowing provincesof Thailand: Chanthaburi,Chiang Mai, collectedhundreds of specimensof thisspecies biting man Chon Buri, Kanchanaburi, Lampang, Nakhon Nayok, in SangkhlaburiDistrict, KanchanaburiProvince in west- Nakhon Ratchasima,Nakhon Si Thammarat, Phangnga, ern Thailand. Knight and Harrison (1988) list this species Phuket,Surat Thani, Tak andTrang. Aedesgreenii mustbe ascollected biting in associationwithAe. (Fin.) harinasutai addedto the Thailand list of species. andAe. (Fin.) mikrokopion in a bamboogrove in the above 23. Aedes (Fin.) hegneti Causeywas listed as a valid area. Confirmed specimensfrom Chiang Mai, Kancha- speciesby Tsukamoto et al. (1987). This specieswas naburi, Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Nan, describedby Causey(1937a) from 8 malesand 4 females Phangnga,Ranong and Trat provincesare in the NMNH. reared from larvae collected in rock pools in “Chang Aedes niveoides shouldbe added to the Thailand list of Siam” [probably Chong, Trang Province], with the type mosquitospecies. specimenslisted as depositedin the U.S. National Mu- 26. Aedes (Fin.) niveus (Ludlow) waslisted asa species seum. Unfortunately, the types for hegneri were never recorded from Thailand basedon the records of Causey receivedby the NMNH and they are presumedlost, along (1937a) and Scanlonand Esah (1%5). After studyingthe with the type of Anopheles bulkleyi Causey. Since the NiveusGroup of Aedes (Fin.) for over twenty years, K.L. original description,the identity of hegneri has been a Knight considersniveus restrictedto the Philippines,and puzzle to taxonomistsworking in Thailand, althoughthe Ae. Zeonis(see p. 199) asthe speciespreviously identified record of hegneti in Thailand has been continued(Thur- asniveus in Thailand.Aedes niveus mustbe removedfrom man 1959,Knight and Stone 1977,Tsukamoto et al. 1987). the Thailand list of species. DECEMBER 1990 213

27. Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pulcritarsis (Rondani). Snow identified by a preliminary key provided by S. Rama- (1986) correctedthe spellingof the name for this species lingam. Based on these references,kesseli has been col- from pulchritarsis to pulcritarsis (the original spelling). lectedin the followingprovinces of Thailand ChiangMai, Although Snow primarily corrected the spelling of an Kanchanaburiand Surat Thani. Actually, it is probably Orthopodomyia species,he mentionedAedes pulcritarsis. widespreadthroughout the lower elevationsof Thailand, The original Thailand record for this speciescame from where it is probably confusedwith Ar. subalbatus (Co- specimen(s)collected in light traps (Thurman and Thur- quillett). With the description of kesseli, no evidence man 1955). No additional specimensof pulcritarsis have remainsfor the occurrenceof durhami in Thailand. sincebeen collectedin Thailand. BecausepuZcritarsisis a 34. Armigeres obturbans (Walker) waslisted as present Palaearcticspecies with the nearestconfirmed specimens in Thailand basedon the records of Causey(1937b) and from Kashmir,Pakistan (Barraud 1934),we are convinced Iyengar (1953). Thurman (1958) determined that the that the Thurman record is basedon a misidentification. commonArmigeres specieson mainlandSoutheast Asia is Accordingly,puZcritarsis shouldbe deletedfrom the Thai- Ar. subalbatus (Coquillett), which is the obturbans of land list. Barraud(1934) andmost other authors(net Walker 1859). 28. Aedes (Stegomyia) edwardsi Barraud was listed Thurman alsothought that the useof the name obturbans from Thailand basedon specimensidentified as this spe- sensu Walker should be restricted to specimensfrom cies from Ko Samui, Surat Thani Province (Gould et al. around the type locality (Sulawesi),if it was used at all. 1968). Huang (1977), however,determined that edwardsi Following this work, Stone et al. (1959) consideredAr. is only knownfrom the AndamanIslands, India. Thus, the obturbans (Walker) a nomen dubium. Knight and Stone specimensof edwardsi reported by Gould et al. (1968) (1977) also listed this name as a nomen dubium. Having must be consideredmisidentifications [probably of Ae. this statusmeans the name is not availablefor taxonomic gardnerii imitator (Leicester) - see Huang (1977) for rec- purposes.Accordingly, the nameAr. obturbans (Walker) ords of gardnerii imitator taken on Ko Samui during the mustbe deleted from the Thailand list. Gould et al. study].Accordingly, edwardsi mustbe deleted 35. Heizmannia (Hez.) greenii (Theobald) waslisted as from the Thailand list. a doubtful record. The record of Causey (1937b) was 29. Aedes (Stg.) gardnerii imitator (Leicester). The first repeatedby Thurman (1959) who provided a description publishedrecord of thisspecies in Thailandwas Mattingly and noted that this species“ should occur” in northern (1%5). Harrison et al. (1972) reported thisspecies in Ang Thailand. Mattingly (1970) consideredthe Thailand rec- Thong, Lop Buri and Sara Buri provinces. ord asbased on misidentificationsand thoughtgreenii was 30. Aedes (Stg.) pseudalbopictus (Borel). The first confined to southern India and Sri Lanka. Recently, publishedrecord of this speciesin Thailandwas Harrison Amerasinghe(1989) redescribedgreeniibased on Sri Lan- et al. (1972) from Ang Thong and Nakhon Sawanprov- kan (topotypic) specimensand noted “the evidencepoints inces. to greenii being restricted to Sri Lanka and southern 31. Aedes (Stg.) scutellaris malayensis Colless. The India.” Amerasinghealso made the following comment record of Ae. scutellaris (Walker) from Surat Thani Prov- about the Thailand record: “Thurman’s (1959) record of ince by Gould et al. (1968) was a misidentification.Their greenii from Thailand is definitely not this species,as the specimensactually represented malayensis. Huang (1972) postpronotumis describedas dark-scaled(pale-scaled in elevated malayensis to speciesstatus; however, Colless true greenii).” Thus,greenii shouldnot be includedin the (1973) felt it should be retained as a subspeciesuntil Thailand list of species. decisiveevidence was accrued. The current consensus, 36. Cults (Cux.) comutus Edwards was listed as a with which we concur, recognizesmahzyensis as a valid doubtful speciesin Thailand. Sirivanakarn (1976) lists species(Dev 1987). Thus, malayensis shouldappear as a comutus from India and Pakistan. The old record of this speciesin the Thailand list, and scutellaris should be speciesin Thailand (Thurman 1959) shouldbe considered removed from the list. a misidentification(Bram 1%7), and corn&us shouldnot 32. Aedes (Stg.) subalbopictus Barraud. Huang (1972, be includedin the list of Thailand species. 1979) determined that subaZbopictusis confinedto India. 37. Culex (CU.) theileri Theobald was listed as a The recordsof this speciesfrom Thailand (Thurman 1959, doubtful speciesin Thailand because the specimenon Scanlonand Esah 1965, Gould et al. 1968)must be consid- whichthe recordwas based (Thurman 1959) wasidentified ered misidentificationsand subalbopictus mustbe deleted by Bram (1967) as Cx. annulus Theobald, now a synonym from the Thailand list. of Cx. vishnui Theobald. Culex theileri has a very wide 33. Armigeres (Arm .) kesseli Ramalingam(1987) was distribution(Barraud 1934, Harbach 1988) and seemsto includedin the list of speciesbased on previousreferences be most common in parts of Africa, the Mediterranean (Thurman 1959,Scanlon and Esah 1965, Gould et al. 1968) area and southwesternAsia, however,it doesextend east- to Ar. durhami Edwards occurring in Thailand. The ward acrossnorthern India into Assam,Myanmar (North- specimensresponsible for the listing of “Ar. sp. (near ern Shan States) and the southwesternportion of the subalbatus)” in Gould et al. (1982:562) were kesseli as People’s Republic of China.The nearestconfirmed speci- 214 MOSQUITOSY~TEMATIC~ VOL. 22, No. 3

men of theileri to Thailand is the holotypeof synonymfi. mined by Bram and Rattanarithikul(1%7). Sirivanakarn pettigrewii Theobald,which came from Assam State,north- (1977b) determinedthat this speciesis known only from eastern India. Consideringthe approximately1,000 km India, thusflavicomis shouldnot be includedin the Thai- between Assam and northern Thailand, and becausewe land list. havenot seena Cr.&x specimensimilar to theileri in the 28 44. Cula (Lop.) fraudat& (Theobald) was listed as a yearsof collectingby AFRIMS personnelin Thailand, we doubtful record becausethe early Causey(1937b) speci- do not believe theileri occurs in Thailand. This species mens were a mixture of 2 other species(Bram 1967). shouldnot be includedin the Thailand list. Knight and Stone (1977) list the distributionoffraudatrix 38. C&x (Cux) univittatus Theobald was listed as a as New Guinea, Australia and Indonesia. Colless(1965) doubtfulrecord basedon a Thurman (1959) record. Har- showedthat Cx. variatus (Leicester), a commonspecies in bath (1988) hasclearly shown that univittatus is an African SoutheastAsia that previouslywas considered a synonym speciesthat extendseastward only onto the southwestern offraudati, wasa valid species,and Sirivanakarn(1977b) corner of the Arabian Peninsula. The speciespreviously concurredwith this. C&x fraudatrix is an Australasian calledunivittatus in the Mediterranean area and eastward speciesthat shouldnot be includedin the Thailand list of to Pakistanand the northwesternpart of India (Barraud species. 1934) is C~perexiguus Theobald (Harbach 1988). Cr.&x 45. Culex(Lop.) minutissimus (Theobald) waslisted in pertxiguus doesnot extendacross northern India to reach the regularlist and asa doubtfulrecord. The rationalefor the SoutheastAsian Subregion. Therefore, we feel the Tsukamotoet al. (1987) listingminutissimus in both places Thurman record ofperexiguus (asunivittatus) is a misiden- is unclear. Sirivanakarn(1977b) found specimensof this tification. Neither of these speciesshould be includedin speciesfrom PhraeProvince, thus its presencein Thailand the list of Thailand species. hasbeen confirmed. 39. Culex(Culiciomyia) viridiventer Giles waslisted as a 46. Culex (Lop.) unijormis (Theobald) was listed as a doubtful record becausethe specimensidentified as this doubtful record because Bram (1967) considered the speciesby Thurman (1959) were misidentifiedand used by specimensidentified as uniformis by Thurman (1959) to be Bram (1967) to describea. thurmanorum Bram. Siriva- either Cx. minor (Leicester) or Cx. spiculosus Bram and nakarn (1977a), however, redescribedviridiventer based Rattanarithikul. Sirivanakarn(1977b) demonstratedthat on material from India andthe People’s Republicof China uniformis is restricted to India and Sri Lanka, and that and noted that it may be conspecificwith Cx. spiculotho- previousrecords of this speciesoutside those 2 countries rax Bram, a Thailand and Malaysian speciesthat has a probably apply to Cx. kuhnsi King and Hoogstraal (for larva very similarto that of viridiventer. If true, spiculotho- Philippinerecords), and spiculosus. C&x unvormis should rax might become a synonymof viridiventer and the latter not be includedin the Thailand list. would be a valid record for Thailand. Cults viridiventer 47. Mimomyia (Ravenalites)fusca (Leicester) waslisted shouldbe addedto the Thai list and remain a questionable in uncertain statusbecause the record of this speciesin recorduntil the relationshipof spicuZothorax/viridiventeris Thailand (Thurman and Thurman 1955, Thurman 1959) resolved. wasnot includedin Knight and Stone (1977). This species 40. C&.x (Mochthogenes) castrensisEdwards was listed has been recognized in Thailand since the Thurmans asa doubtfulrecord. Sirivanakarn(1971) resurrectedEu- begantheir work in the Chiang Mai area, and numerous melanomyia Theobald to subgenericstatus and down- specimenshave been collected since. There are 104 gradedMochthogenes to a speciesgroup in that subgenus. specimensof fisca (198, 129,27Pe, 8Le, lP, 37L) in the Sirivanakarn(1972) determinedthat castrensisis confined NMNH from the followingprovinces: Chanthaburi, Chiang to India andSri Lanka, thusit shouldnot be includedin the Mai, NakhonNayok, Nakhon Si Thammarat and Narathi- Thailand list. wat. Many of the adults have the abdominal terga and 41. Cults (Eum.) khazani Edwards was listed as a sterna similar to those described for Mi. deguzmanae doubtfulrecord. Sirivanakarn(1972) determinedthat this Mattingly, however the associatedexuviae clearly show speciesonly occursin India, thus khazani shouldnot be they arefusca. White (1974) determined that subgenus includedin the Thailand list. Ravenalites Doucet is a junior synonymof Ingramia Ed- 42. C&x (Eum.) macrostylus Sirivanakarnand Ramal- wards. Accordingly,fusca now belongsin subgenusIn- ingam was listed as occurring in Thailand based on the gramia of Mimomyia, and must be added to the list of record of thisspecies in ChiangMai Province(Miyagi et al. Thailand mosquitospecies. 1986). However, the macrostyrus of Miyagi et al. (1986) 48. Coquillettidia (Coq.) sp. (neargiblini) was listed as actuallyrepresents a new speciesdescribed as Cx. oresbius occurringin Thailandbased on the early recordsof Iyengar by Harbach andRattanarithikul(1988). CuZexmacrostyZus (1953), Iyengar andMenon (1956), Macdonald (1957) and should be deleted from the list of speciesoccurring in Thurman (1959). Macdonald (1957) indicated that the Thailand. Malaysianspecimens did not agree well with gibhni from 43. Cults (Lophoceraomyia) flavicomis Barraud was the AustralasianRegion, and he suspectedthat 2 species listed as a misidentificationby Thurman (1959), as deter- may be involvedin the name gibhni. Macdonald’s suspi- DECEMBER 1990 215 cionswere confirmedby Wharton (1962) who elevatedCq. recondita found were the holotype male and 2 paratype nigrosignata (Edwards)to speciesstatus for the specimens females from the type locality in Karwar, N. Kanara, previously identified as gibZini in the SoutheastAsian southwestIndia. We therefore proposethat the Thailand Subregionof the Oriental Region. Thus, the gibZini of records of recondita were erroneous and should be authorsin Thailand refers to nigrosignata. One female of disregarded. Uranotaenia recondita should be deleted Cq. nijyosignata was collected biting man outdoors in from the Thailand list of species. southern Thailand by BAH in 1969. This female was 52. Uranotaenia (Ura.) alboannulata (Theobald) was collectedbetween WOO-1959h in Nakhon Si Thammarat listed (based on Thurman 1959) as a doubtful record Province, Tung Song District, Ban Champa Mu 2, on 4 becauseKnight and Stone (1977) listed its distributionas February 69. The listingof Cq. gibZini shouldbe deleted limited to India and Sri Lanka. The Thurman (1959) and C4. nigrosignata shouldbe addedto the list of species record of alboannulata from Thailand wasbased on mis- in Thailand. identified specimensof Ur. tiZineata Leicester. Thus, 49. Uranotaenia (Pfc.) atra Theobald was listed as a alboannulata shouldnot be includedin the list of species doubtful record with the record of Causey(1937b) being for Thailand. considereda misidentification.Although Causey (1937b) 53. Uranotaenia (Ura.) macfarlanei zelena Barraud was reported this speciesas widespreadin Thailand, refer- included in the list of Thailand speciesbased on the encesto thisspecies in any countryin the Oriental Region Thurman (1959) record. However, as indicated earlier should be viewed as a misidentification of Ur. (Ura.) under macfarlanei Edwards (p. 201), zelena Barraud is a lateralis Theobald. Uranotaenia atra has an Australasian synonymof macfarzanei and must be deleted from the distribution (Knight and Stone 1977). The confusion Thailand list of species. regardingatra traces to Edwards (1913) who incorrectly 54. Uranotaenia (Ura.) micans Leicesterwas listed as an synonymizedUr. ceyZonica Theobald with atra. Later uncertainrecord becauseof confusionwith Ur. bimaculi- Edwards (1922b) incorrectly synonymized Ur. cancer ala Leicester. As shownon p. 201, micans is a valid entry Leicester, Ur. lateralis, Ur. propria Taylor, and Ur. caim- and must be addedto the Thailand list of species. sensis Taylor with atra. Stone (1957) removed lateralis 55. Uranotaenia (Ura.) orientalis Barraud waslisted as from synonymywith atra. However, becauseBarraud a questionablerecord becauseKnight and Stone (1977) (1934) is still the primary reference sourcefor most culic- overlookedthe Causey(1937b) record and listedits distri- ines of mainlandSoutheast Asia and India, it is probably butionas limited to India. During extensivestudies on this the sourcefor most misidentificationsof lateralis as atra. genusby ELP, a singlefemale of orientalis wasfound from Barraud includedthe synonymiesof Edwards (supra cit.) Khon Kaen Provincein the Thurman or Griffith collection. under atra, presenteddescriptions and keysto the female This female was collected on 15-16 January 1954, and and male, and illustrationsof the uniquemale foretarsus, comparesvery favorablywith the holotype male of orien- midtarsomeres4 and 5, the hindtibia and portionsof the talis from Golaghat, Assam, India, and 1 male and 3 larva. These clearly match the type specimensof lateralis females from Sanatput,Calcutta, India, in the NHM. It and its synonymslisted in Knight and Stone (1977). obviouslyis not a commonspecies in Thailand. Uranotae- Uranotaenia atra should not be included in the list of nia orientalis mustbe addedto the Thailand list of species. Thailand species or that of any other country in the Oriental Region. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY 50. Uranotaenia (Pfc.) maculipleura Leicesterwas listed asdoubtful, with the Thurman (1959) recordprobably due Knight and Stone (1977), Knight (1978a), Ward (1984) to a misidentification.Peyton (1977) wasunable to verify and Gaffigan andWard (1985) list 347 species/subspecies this speciesoutside of Malaysia. No specimensof macu- in Thailand (or as Oriental Region or Cosmotropical), Zipleura were found in the Thurman collection. The rec- while the checklistof Tsukamoto et al. (1987) lists 384 ords of maculipleura from India, Thailand and Taiwan species/subspecies(described and undescribed) from shouldbe disregarded.This speciesshould not be included Thailand. Our findingssignificantly alter thosenumbers, in the list of speciesfor Thailand. with certainspecies being deleted and many othersadded. 51. Uranotaenia (Pfc.) recondita Edwardswas included Based on our results we consider the number of valid in the list of speciesin Thailandbased on the early records mosquitospecies/subspecies in Thailand to currentlytotal of Iyengar (1953), Thurman and Thurman (1955) and 410 (see Appendix). This represents63 more species/ Thurman (1959). We feel that both of theserecords were subspeciesthan listed in the world mosquitocatalog and basedon misidentifications,and we haveconfirmed that 2 supplementsand 32 more valid species/subspeciesthan larvae (Coll. No. M416) labeled asrecondita in the Thur- givenin the most recent publishedchecklist for Thailand. man collection are actually specimensof Ur. hebes Bar- To assistthe reader we have addedpage numbersfollow- raud. After an exhaustivestudy of many thousandsof ing the speciesnames that refer to the location of the specimensof Uranotaenia from the Oriental Region by specificentries in the text. Peyton (1972, 1977), the only confirmed specimensof 216 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VoL.22,No.3

Names of the following 19 species/subspeciesare deleted from the Tsukamotoet al. (1987) checklist. An. (Ano.) gigas (p. 208) Ae. (Fin.) aureostnatus’ (p. 211) Cx. (Eum.) macrostylus (p. 214) An. (Ano.) lesteri paraliae (p. 208) Ae. (Fin.) hegneri (p. 212) Cq. (Coq.)sp. (neargiblini) (p. 214) An. (Gel.) balabacensis introlatus (p. Ae. (Fin.) niveus (p. 212) Ur. (Pfc.) recondita (p. 29 202~203,207,209) Ae. (Och.) pulcritarsis (p. 213) Ur. (&a.) macfarlanei zelena (p. 201, An. (Gel.) culicifacies (205,209) Ae. (Stg.) edwardsi (p. 213) 215) An. (Gel.) minimus (p. 203,208) Ae. (Stg.) scutellarismalayensis (p. 213) Ur. (Ura.) sp. 1 (near micans) (p. 201, An. (Gel.) rrparis macarthuri (p. 205, Ae. (Stg.) subalbopictus (p. 213) 215) 210) Ar. obturbans (p. 213)

The following 51 species/subspeciesare addedto the Tsukamotoet al. (1987) checklist.

An. (Ano.) baileyi (p. 208-209) Ae. (Fin.) ganapathi (p. 199) Ar. (Arm.) maximus (p. 203) An. (Ano.) lindesayi cameronensis (p. Ae. (Fin.) greenii (p. 211-212) Ar. (Arm.) moultoni (p. 204) 197-199) Ae. (Fin.) inermis (p. 199) HZ (Hez.) taiwanensis (p. 204) An. (Ano.) paraliae (p. 208) Ae. (Fin.) jugraensis (p. 199) Hz. (Mat.) catesi (p. 200) An. (Gel.) culicifacies B (p. 205,209) Ae. (Fin.) leonis (p. 199) cX.(Cux.) edwardsi (p. 204) An. (Gel.) dims B (p. 209) Ae. (Fin.) litoreus (p. 203) Cx.(Cui.) viridiventer (p. 214) An. (Gel.) dims C (p. 209) Ae. (Fin.) lophoventralis (p. 199) CL (Eum.) oresbius (p. 201) An. (Gel.) dims D (p. 209) Ae. (Fin.) mikrokopion (p. 201) Cx. (Eum.) richei (p. 204) An. (Gel.) introlatus (p. 202,207,209) Ae. (Fin.) niveoides (p. 212) Mi. (Ing.) fusca (p. 214) An. (Gel.) leucosphymsA (non leuco- Ae. (Fin.) novoniveus (p. 199) Cq. (Coq.) nigrosignata (p. 214) sphyms Doenitz) (p. 202-203,210) Ae. (Fin.) pexus (p. 199) Ma. (Mnd.) annulata (p. 204) An. (Gel.) macarthuri (p. 205,210) Ae. (Fin.) prominens (p. 203) Ur. (Ura.) hebes (p. 200) An. (Gel.) minimus A (p. 203,208) Ae. (Fin.) pseudoniveus (p. 200) Ur. (Ura.) macfarlanei (p. 201,215) An. (Gel.) minimus C (p. 203-208)) Ae. (Fin.) reinem. (p. 201) Ur. (Ura.) micans (p. 201,215) An. (Cel.) nemophilous (p. 201,207) Ae. (Fin.) subniveus (p. 200) Ur. (Ura.) orientalis (p. 215) Ae. (Die.) franciscoi (p. 199) Ae. (Fin.) unicinctus (p. 200) Ur. (Ura.) subnormalis (p. 201) Ae. (Fin.) christophersi (p. 211) Ae. (Fin.) vanus (p. 200) To. (Sua.) suchariti (p. 202) Ae. (Fin.) dissimilis (p. 211) Ae. (Stg.) malayensis (p. 213)

The following 20 specieswere not includedin the Thailand checklistby Tsukamoto et al. (1987), but their statusin Thailandwas questionable or doubtful,or they were consideredmisidentifications. Our review of eachof thesespecies revealsthey shouldnot be includedin the Thailand checklist. An. (Ano.) aitkenii (p. 207-208) Ae. (Fin.) macdougalli (p. 212) Cx. (Lop.) flavicomis (p. 214) An. (Cel.) filipinae (p. 210) Hz. (Hez.) greenii (p. 213) Cx. (Lop.) fraudati (p. 214) An. (Cel.) fluviatilis (p. 210) ti (Cux.) comutus (p. 213) Cx. (Lop.) unt$onnis (p. 214) An. (Cel.) ludlowae (p. 210) cr. (Cux.)theileri (p. 213) Ur. (Pfc.) atra (p. 215) An. (Cel.) maculipalpis (p. 210) cr. (Cux.) univittatus (p. 214) Ur. (Pfc.) maculipleura (p. 215) An. (Cel.) punctulatus (p. 210) cr. (Eum.) castrensis(p. 214) Ur. (Ura.) alboannulata (p. 215) Ae. (Can.) curtipes (p. 210) cr. (Eum.) khazani (p. 214)

Additional notes,distribution extensions and other commentswere also providedL for the following34 speciesthat are part of the Thailand fauna. An. (Ano.) aberrans (p. 204,207) An. (Cel.) nivipes (p. 208) A e. (Fin.) greenii (p. 212) An. (Ano.) donaldi (p. 208) An. (Cel.) pampanai (p. 205,208) Ae. (Fin.) niveoides (p. 212) An. (Ano.) fragiris (p. 205) An. (Cel.) philippinensis (Q. 205) Ae. (Isa.) cavaticus (p. 206) An (Ano.) insulaeflorum (p. 207) An. (Cel.) stephensi (p. 206) ’ Ae (Stg.) gardnerii imitator (p. 213) An (Ano.) kyondawensis (p. 205) An. (Cel.) vamna (p. 206) Ae (Stg.) pseudalbopictus (p. 213) An (Ano.) paraliae (p. 208) Ae. (Bot.) helenae (p. 206) Ar. (Arm.) kesseli (p. 213) An (Ano.) separatus (p. 205) Ae. (Chr.) thomsoni (p. 210) Hz (Mat.) thelmae (p. 206) An (Ano.) tigertti (p. 205) Ae. (Die.) iyengari (p. 206) cu. (Ctu=) barraudi (p. 206) An (Gel.) culicifacies B (p. 205,209) Ae. (Die.) whartoni (p. 206) Ur. (pfc.) enigmatica (p. 207) An. (Cel.) indefinitus (p. 210) Ae. (Fin.) alboniveus (p. 211) Ur. (Pfc.) gouldi (p. 207) An. (Gel.) macarthuri (p. 205,210) Ae. (Fin.) albotaeniatus (p. 211) An. (Gel.) minimus (p. 203,208) Ae. (Fin.) feegradei (p. 211) DECEMBEREQO 217

Aedes (Adm.) Zowisii(Theobald) was inadvertently listed notes and identificationsfor the Niveus Group of Aedes as occurring in Thailand by Peyton and Ramalingam (Finlaya); Prajim Boonyakanist,Somporn Chanaimong- (1988). This record shouldnot be includedin the checklist kol, SumethChunchulcherm, Chaliou Diraphat, Somboon of Thailand mosquitoesbecause the record wasbased on Maneechai, Sanit Nakngen, Chumnong Noigamol, Lek a specimenmisidentified in the early 1960s. Somchit,Ruan Thaopha, Richard G. Andre, Michael C. The following 6 undetermined speciesthat were in Callahan,Terry A. Klein and Frank Wilson, presentand Tsukamoto et al. (1987) and that were listed but unde- pastmembers of the Department of Medical Entomology, scribed by Miyagi et al. (1986) are not included in our Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences checklist. (AFRIMS), for many hours of hard work in the field Aedes (Cancraedes) sp. (near thurmanae) making collections;Rachanee Likitvanichkul, Suda Ra- Topomyia (Suaymyia) sp. 1 (near decorabilis) tanawong,Prasertsri Rohitaratana and SupaneeSandhi- Topomyia (Topomyia) sp. 2 (near aenea) nand, Department of Medical Entomology, AFRIMS, Topomyia (Topomyia) sp. 3 (near svastii) Bangkok,for slidemounting immature stagesand exuviae, Topomyia (Top.?) sp.4 afftig labelsand other laboratory assistance; and Rosetta Uranotaenia (Uranotaenia) sp.2 Trite, Thomas V. Gaffigan and JamesE. Pecor, Depart- Ur. (&a.) sp. 1 (near micans) is consideredequal to ment of Entomology,WRAIR, Washington,DC for typing micans in the appendix. and formatting the manuscript.

Besidesthe above fauna1changes and distributionex- REFERENCES CITED tensionsfor Thailand, the following actionswere taken in this paper: Abraham, O.K. 1947.Anopheles (Anopheles) kyondawen- 1. Five subspecieswere elevatedto species:An. baiZeyi sis n. sp.from lower Burma. Med. J. Malaya 1:173-176. Edwards(p. 209),An. niZ@cus Christophers(p. 199),An. Amerasinghe,F.P. 1989. Redescriptionof Heizmannia paraliae Sandosham(p. 208), Ae. greenii (Theobald) (p. (Heizmannia) greenii Theobaldfrom Sri Lanka (Diptera: 211), andAe. ZeonisColless (p. 199). Culicidae). Mosq. Syst .21:83-99. 2. Three species/subspecieswere synonymized:Ae. Apiwathnasorn,C. 1986. A list of mosquito speciesin hegneri Causeyis a synonymofAe. macfarlanei (Edwards) Southeast Asia. Museum and Reference Centre, (p. 212), FinZaya greeni var. kanaranus Barraud is a syno- SEAMEO-TROPMED National Centre of Thailand, nym of Ae. greenii (Theobald) (p. 212), and Ae. mikiranus Mahidol Univ., Bangkok. 73 pp. Edwardsis a synonymof Ae. albotaeniatus (Leicester)(p. Baimai, V. 1988. Constitutiveheterochromatin differen- 211). tiation and evolutionary divergence of karyotype in 3. The distributionsof 8 specieswere restricted to Oriental Anopheles (CeZZia). Pacif. Sci. 4293-27. specific areas outside Thailand: An. aitkenii James to Baimai, V., CA. Green, R.G. Andre, BA. Harrison and India/Sri Lanka [reemphasisof Harrison and Scanlon E.L. Peyton. 1984. Cytogeneticstudies of somespecies (1975:150)], An. filipinae Manalangto the Philippines,An. complexes of Anopheles in Thailand and Southeast nilgiricus Christophersto southernIndia, Ae. aureostriatus Asia. SoutheastAsian J. Trop. Med. Public Health (Doleschall) to easternIndonesia/New Guinea area,Ae. 15:536-546. macdougaZZiEdwards to Sri Lanka andsouthern India,Ae. Baimai, V., R.E. Harbach and U. Kijchalao. 1988a. Cyto- niveus (Ludlow) to the Philippines,Ur. maculipleura Lei- genetic evidence for a fifth specieswithin the taxon tester to Malaysia, and Ur. recondita Edwards to south- Anopheles dirus in Thailand. J. Am. Mosq. Control westernIndia (Malabar Strip). Assoc.4:333-338. 4. Three new records were establishedfor species Baimai, V., R.E. Harbach and S. Sukowati. 1988b. Cyto- outsideof Thailand: An.pampanai Buettiker and Beales genetic evidence for two specieswithin the current in Vietnam (reemphasisof Harrison 1980:103)(p. 208), conceptof the malariavector Anopheles Zeucosphyrusin Ae. Zophoventralis(Theobald) in Vietnam (p. 199), and&. SoutheastAsia. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.444-50. taiwanensis Lien in peninsularMalaysia (p. 204). Barnes,M.E. 1923. Notes on the anophelinemosquitoes of Siam. Am. J. Hyg. 3:121-X& ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Barraud, P.J. 1924. A revisionof the culicinemosquitoes of India Part VIII. Further descriptionsof Indian We gratefully acknowledge: Ralph E. Harbach and speciesof FinZaya Theo. Indian J. Med. Res. 11:845- Ronald A. Ward, Department of Entomology, Walter 865. Reed Army Instituteof Research(WRAIR), Washington, Barraud, P.J. 1934. The fauna of British India, including DC andJohn F. Reinert, Gainesville,Florida, for critically Ceylonand Burma. Diptera. Vol. V. Family Culicidae. reviewing the manuscript;Kenneth L. Knight, Raleigh, Tribes Megarhinini and Culicini. Taylor and Francis, North Carolina, for allowing us to use his unpublished London. 463 pp. 218 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATIC~ VOL. 22, No. 3

Barraud,P.J. and S.R. Christophers.1931. On a collection SingaporeIV. - The Aedes niveus subgroup(Diptera, of anophehneand cuhcinemosquitoes from Siam. Rec. Culicidae): introduction and descriptionof five new Malaria Surv. India 2:269-285. speciesand one new subspecies. Ann. Trop. Med. Bhat, H.R. 1975a. A surveyof haematophagousarthro- Parasitol.52:468-483. podsin WesternHimalayas, Sikkim andHill Districtsof ColIess,D.H. 1959. Notes on the cuhcinemosquitoes of West Bengal: records of mosquitoescollected from SingaporeV.- TheAedesniveus subgroup(Diptera, Cu- Himalayan region of Uttar Pradesh with ecological Iicidae): previouslydescribed species and keysto adults notes. Indian J. Med. Res. 63:l583-1608. and larvae. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol.53:X6-179. Bhat, H.R. 1975b. A surveyof haematophagousarthro- CoIIess, D.H. 1%5. The genus C&X subgenusLo- podsin WesternHimalayas, Sikkim andHiII Districtsof phoceraomyia in Malaya (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. West Bengal: records of mosquitoescollected from Entomol. 2261-307. Himalayan region of West Bengal and Sikkim with Colless, D.H. 1973. A note on the status of Aedes ecologicalnotes. Indian J. Med. Res. 63:232-241. malayensis and the distribution of Aedes albopictus. Bonne-Wepster,J. and N.H. Swellengrebel. 1953. The Mosq. Syst .5:225-226. anophelinemosquitoes of the Indo-AustralianRegion. Darsie, R.F., Jr. and S.P. Pradhan. 1990. The mosquitoes J.H. DeBussy,Amsterdam. 504 pp. of Nepal: Their identification,distribution and biology. Bram, R.A. 1%7. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna of Mosq. Syst.22:69-130. SoutheastAsia. -11. The genusC&X in Thailand (Dip- Dev, V. 1987. Speciation in the Aedes (Stegomyia) tera: Cuhcidae). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann scutellarisgroup (Diptera: Culicidae): contributingfac- Arbor) 2( 1):l-2%. tors. Mosq. Syst.19:119-X& Bram, R.A. andM. Rattanarithikul. 1967. Sixnew species Dyar, H.G. and R.C. Shannon. 1925. The types of of the Culex(Lophoceraomyia) mammilifer group from Philippinemosquitoes described by Ludlow, and other Thailand. Proc. Entomol. Sot. Wash. 69:1-17. noteson the Fauna (Diptera, CuIicidae). Inset. Inscit. Brydon,H.W., G. Joshiand S. Pradhan. 1961.Anopheles Menst. 1366-89. distributionand its relation to the malaria eradication Edwards, F.W. 1913. New synonymyin Oriental Cu- program in centrai Nepal. Mosq. News 21:102-105. Iicidae. Bull. Entomol. Res. 4:221-242. Cagampang-Ramos,A. 1979. A new record of CZ.&X Edwards, F.W. 1922a. A synopsisof adult Oriental (C&X) edwardi Barraudfrom the Philippines(Diptera: culicine (including megarhinine and sabethine) mos- Cuhcidae). Mosq. Syst.11:213-214. quitoes. Part I. Indian J. Med. Res. 10:249-293. Carter, H.F. 1950. Ceylon mosquitoes:Lists of species Edwards, F.W. 1922b. A synopsisof adult Oriental and namesof mosquitoesrecorded from Ceylon. Cey- culicine (including megarhinine and sabethine) mos- lon J. Sci. (B) 24:85-115. quitoes. Part II. Indian J. Med. Res. 10:430-475. Causey,O.R. 1937a. New anophehneand cuhcinemos- Edwards, F.W. 1929. Mosquito notes. -VIII. Bull. quitoesfrom Siam. J. Parasitol.23:543-545. Entomol. Res. 20:321-343. Causey, O.R. 1937b. Some anopheline and cuhcine Edwards,F.W. 1932. Genera InsectorumDiptera, Fam. mosquitoesof Siam with remarks on malaria control in Culicidae.Fast. 194. Desmet-Verteneuil,Brussels. 258 Bangkok. Am. J. Hyg. 25400-420. PP. Cheong, W.H. and S. Mahadevan. 1978. Presence of Gaffigan,T.V. and R.A. Ward. 1985. Index to the second Anopheles aberrans Harrison and Scanlona newly de- supplementto “A Catalog of the Mosquitoes of the scribedspecies in theA. aitkeni [sic] group from Penin- World”, with correctionsand additions(Diptera: Cu- suIa [sic] Malaysia. SoutheastAsian J. Trop. Med. Iicidae). Mosq. Syst . 17:52-63. Public Health 9:459-460. Gass, R.F., T. Deesin, K. Surathin, S. Vutikes and S. Christophers,S.R. 1931. Studieson the anophehnefauna Sucharit. 1982. Observationson the feeding habitsof of India (Parts I-IV). Rec. Malaria Surv. India 2:305- four speciesof Mansonia (Mansonoides) mosquitoesin 332. southern Thailand. SoutheastAsian J. Trop. Med. Christophers,S.R. 1933. The fauna of British India, Public Health 13:211-215. includingCeylon and Burma. Diptera. Vol. IV. Family Gass, R.F., T. Deesin, S. Sucharit, K. Surathin and S. CuIicidae. Tribe Anophehni. Taylor and Francis, Vutikes. 1983. Dispersal and flight range studieson London. 371 pp. Mansonia annulata, Ma. indiana, and Ma. uniformis Colless, D.H. 1956. The Anopheles Zeucosphyrusgroup. (Diptera: Culicidae) in southern Thailand. J. Med. Trans. R. Entomol. Sot. Lond. 108:37-116. Entomol. 20288-293. CoIIess,D.H. 1957. Further notes on the systematicsof GiIIies, M.T. and B. de MeiIlon. 1968. The Anophehnae theAnopheles Zeucosphyrusgroup (Diptera: Culicidae). of Africa southof the Sahara(Ethiopian zoogeographi- Proc. R. Entomol. Sot. Lond., Ser. B. 26131-139. Calregion). 2nd ed. Publ. S. Afr. Inst. Med. Res. 54:1- CoIIess,D.H. 1958. Notes on the culicinemosquitoes of 343. DECEMBER 1990 219

Gould, D J., C.L. Bailey and S. Vongpradist. 1982. Imph- (Diptera: Culicidae). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. cation of forest mosquitoesin the transmissionof (Ann Arbor) 12(1): l-307. Wuchereria bancroft in Thailand. Mosq. News 42:560- Hii, J.L.K. 1985. Genetic investigationsof laboratory 564. stocksof the complexofA.nopheZes balabacensis Baisas Gould, D.J., T.M. YuiIl, MA. Moussa,P. Simasathienand (Diptera: Cuhcidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 75:185-197. L.C. Rutledge. 1968. An insular outbreak of dengue Hii, J.L.K. 1986. Multivariate morphometricsof the im- hemorrhagicfever III. Identificationof vectorsand ob- mature stagesof the Anopheles balabacensis complex servationson vector ecology. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. (Diptera: Cuhcidae). Mosq. Syst.18:125-133. 17609-618. Hii, J.L.K., E.L. Peytonand V.Y. Shang.1988. Redescrip- Green, CA., R.F. Gass,L.E. Munstermannand V. Bai- tion of the adult and fast descriptionsof the larva and mai. 1990. Population-geneticevidence for two species pupaofAnopheZes (CeZZia) sulawesi Waktoedi, a species inAnopheZesminimus in Thailand. Med. Vet. Entomol. of the LeucosphyrusGroup from SuIawesi,Indonesia 425-34. (Diptera: Cuhcidae). Mosq. Syst.20:41-54. Green, CA., B.A. Harrison, T.A. Klein and V. Baimai. Hodgkin, E.P. 1950. The Anopheles umbrosus group 1985. Cladisticanalysis of polytene chromosomerear- (Diptera: Culicidae). Part II. Biology and transmission rangementsin anophelinemosquitoes, subgenus CeZZia, of malaria. Trans. R. Entomol. Sot. Lond. 101:319-334. seriesNeocelha. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 27:123-133. Huang, Y-M. 1972. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna Green, CA. andS.J. Miles. 1980. Chromosomalevidence of SoutheastAsia. XIV. The subgenusStegomyia of for sibling species of the malaria vector Anopheles Aedes in SoutheastAsia. I - The scuteZZarisgroup of (CeZZia)culici acies’ Giles. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 83:75-78. species. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) Harbach, R.E. 1988. The mosquitoesof the subgenus 9(1):1-109. CuZex in southwesternAsia and Egypt (Diptera: Cu- Huang, Y-M. 1977. Medical entomologystudies - VII. licidae). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) The subgenusStegomyia of Aedes in SoutheastAsia. II 24( l):l-240. - The edwardsi groupof species.III - The w-albus group Harbach, R.E. and K. Mongkolpanya. 1989. Redescrip- of species(Diptera: Cuhcidae). Contrib.Am. Entomol. tion of Culex (Eumelanomyia) richei (Diptera: Cu- Inst. (Ann Arbor) 14(1):1-111. licidae), with treatmentsof the previouslyunknown life Huang, Y-M. 1979. Medical entomologystudies - XI. The stagesand a recordof its occurrencein Thailand. Mosq. subgenusStegomyia of Aedes in the Oriental Region Syst.(1988) 20:343-351. with keys to the species(Diptera: Cuhcidae). Contrib. Harbach, R.E. and R. Rattanarithikul. 1988. A new Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 15(6):1-79. speciesof the subgenusEumelanomyia of CuZex(Dip- International Code of ZoologicaI Nomenclature. 1985. tera: Culicidae) from Thailand. Mosq. Syst.20:69-76. Third Edition. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Harinasuta,C., S. Sucharit,T. Deesin, K. Surathinand S. Angeles.338 pp. Vutikes. 1970. Bancroftianfilariasis in Thailand,a new Iyengar, M.O.T. 1953. Filariasis in Thailand. Bull. endemic area. SoutheastAsian J. Trop. Med. Public W.H.O. 9:731-766. Health 1:233-245. Iyengar,M.O.T. and M.A.U. Menon. 1956. The mosqui- Harrison, B.A. 1980. Medical entomology studies- XIII. toesof southThailand. Bull. Entomol. Res. 47:785-794. The Myzomyia SeriesofAnopheZes (CeZZia) in Thailand, Jayasekera,N. and R.V. Chelliah. 1981. An annotated with emphasison intra-interspecificvariations(Diptera: check-listof the mosquitoesof Sri Lanka (Diptera: Cu- Cuhcidae). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) licidae). MAB-UNESCO Publ. 8:1-16. 17(4):1-195. Khamboonruang,C., P. Thitasut,S. Pan-In, N. Morakote, Harrison, B.A., P. Boonyakanistand K. Mongkolpanya. W. Choochote,P. Somboonand P. Keha. 1987. Filari- 1972. Biologicalobservations on Aedes seatoi Huang in asisin Tak Province,northwest Thailand: the presence Thailand with notes on rural Aedes aegypti (L.) and of subperiodicvariant Wuchereria bancrojli. Southeast other Stegomyia populations.J. Med. Entomol. 9:1-6. Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 18:218-222. Harrison, BA., R. Rattanarithikuland K. Mongkolpanya. Khin-Maung-Kyi. 1971. The anophehnemosquitoes of 1988.Anopheles barbirostris,not Anopheles campestris, Burma I. SubgenusAnopheZesMeigen, SeriesAnophe- in the ChiangMai Valley of Thailand. Trop. Biomed. Zesand Myzorhynchus Edwards. Union Burma J. Life 5:19-26. Sci. 4281-296. Harrison, B_A.and J.E. Scanlon. 1974. Anopheles (Ano.) Klein, J.M. 1970. A new speciesof CuZtx (Neoculex) from pilinotum, a new speciesname in the aitkenii complex Cambodia. Proc. Entomol. Sot. Wash. 72504-506. for An. insulaeflonrm from the Philippinesand eastern Klein, J.M. 1977. La faune desmoustiques du Cambodge Indonesia(Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Syst.6:32-40. I. - Anophelinae(Diptera, Cuhcidae). Cah. O.R.S.T.O.M. Harrison, B& andJ.E. Scanlon. 1975. Medical entomol- Entomol. Med. Parasitol.15:107-122. ogy studies- II. The subgenusAnopheles in Thailand Klein, T.A., B.A. Harrison, V. Baimai and V. Phunkitchar. 220 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

1984. Hybridization evidencesupporting separate spe- Ma, S.F. 1981. A new speciesof Anopheles (Anopheles) ciesstatus forAnopheles nivipes andAnopheZesphiZippi- from China. Entomotaxonomia 3:277-279 (In Chi- nensis. Mosq. News 44466-470. nese). Klein, T.A., B.A. Harrison, I. Inlao and P. Boonyakanist. Ma, SF. andB.H. Xu. 1983. Studieson the morphological 1982. Colonization of Thailand strainsof Anopheles variationof theAnopheZes (A.) ZindesayiGiles in China. nivipesand AnopheZ~phiZippinensis. Mosq.News 42374 Acta Entomol. Sin. 26:93-98(In Chinese). 380. Macdonald,W.W. 1957. Malaysianparasites - XVI. An Knight,K.L. 1968. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna of interim review of the non-anophelinemosquitoes of SoutheastAsia. IV. Speciesof the subgroupChlysolin- Malay. Stud. Inst. Med. Res., Fed. Malaya 281-34. eat-usof group D, genusAedes, subgenusFinZaya Theo- Marks, E.N. 1971. CuZex(CuZex) barraudi Edwards1922 bald. Contrib.Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 2(5):1- and CuZex(CuZex) edwardsi Barraud 1923. Mosq. Syst. 45. News Lett. 3:195-l%. Knight, K.L. 1978a. Supplement to a catalog of the Mattingly, P.F. 1958. The culicine mosquitoesof the mosquitoesof the world (Diptera: Culicidae). Thomas Indomalayan Area Part III. Genus Aeaks Meigen, Say Found., Entomol. Sot. Am. 6 (Suppl.):l-107. subgeneraParaedes Edwards, Rhinoskusea Edwards Knight,K.L. 1978b.A newAedes (FinZaya) mosquitofrom and Cancraedes Edwards. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Thailand. Mosq. Syst.10:106-116. London. 61 pp. Knight, K.L. and B.A. Harrison. 1988. A new Aedes Mattingly, P.F. 1959. The culicine mosquitoesof the (Finlaya) of the Niveus-Subgroup(Diptera: Culicidae). Indomalayan Area Part IV. Genus Aedes Meigen, Mosq. Syst.(1987) 19:212-236. subgeneraSkusea Theobald, Diceromyia Theobald, Knight, K.L. and W.B. Huh. 1951. The Aedes mosquitoes Geoskusea Edwards and Christophersiomyia Barraud. of the PhilippineIslands I. Keys to species.Subgenera Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London. 61 pp. Mucidus, Ochlerotatus,and FinZaya (Diptera, Culicidae). Mattingly, P.F. 1965. The culicine mosquitoesof the Pacif. Sci. 5211-251. Indomalayan Area Part IV. Genus Aedes Meigen, Knight,K.L. andW.B. Hull. 1953. The Aedes mosquitoes subgenusStegomyia Theobald (Groups A, B and D). of the Philippine IslandsIII. SubgeneraAedimovhus, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London. 67 pp. Banksinella,Ae&s, andGzncraedes (Diptera., Culicidae). Mattingly,P.F. 1970. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna Pacif. Sci. 7:453-481. of SoutheastAsia. - VI. The genusHeizmannia Ludlow Knight, K.L. and A. Stone. 1977. A catalog of the in SoutheastAsia. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann mosquitoesof the world (Diptera: Culicidae). Second Arbor) 5(7):1-104. Edition. Thomas Say Found., Entomol. Sot. Am. 6:1- Mayr, E. 1969.Principles of systematiczoology. McGraw- 611. Hill, New York. 428 pp. Knudsen,A.B. 1977. The silentjungle transmissioncycle Mayr, E., E.G. Linsley and R.L. Usinger. 1953. Methods of denguevirus and its tenable relationshipto endemic and principles of systematiczoology. McGraw-Hill, denguein Malaysia. Malayan Nat. J. 31:41-47. New York. 328 pp. Kulasekera,V.L., B.A. Harrison and F.P. Amerasinghe. Miyagi, I. andT. Toma. 1989. A new speciesof Topomyia 1989. Anopheles (Anopheles) peytoni new species,the (Suaymyia) such&i from Thailand(Diptera: Culicidae). “An.‘ insulaeflonrm” auct. from Sri Lanka (Diptera: Mosq. Syst. 21:16-24. Culicidae). Mosq. Syst.(1988) 20:302-316. Miyagi, I., T. Toma, M. Tsukamoto,M. Horio, M. Mogi, T. Lee, D.J., M.M. Hicks, M. Griffrths,R.C. Russelland E.N. Okazawa,Y. Tokuyama, S. Sucharit,W. Tumrasvin,C. Marks. 1982. The Culicidaeof the AustralasianRegion Khamboonruangand W. Choochote. 1986. New distri- Vol. II. Commonw. Dept. Health and Sch. Public bution records of mosquitoesfrom Thailand with a Health Trop. Med., Univ. of Sidney, Monogr. Ser., collection list of 1983-1984 surveys. Trop. Biomed. Entomol. Monogr. 2 Austr. Gov. Publ. Serv.,Canberra. 3:181-192. 286 PP. Mortimer, D.A. 1946. Notes on the anophelinefauna of Leicester,G.F. 1908. The Culicidaeof Malaya. Stud.Inst. Manipur area eastern Assam. J. Malaria Inst. India Med. Res., Federated Malay States3(3):18-261. 6:269-271. Lien, J.C. 1968. New speciesof mosquitoesfrom Taiwan Payung-Vejjasastra,L. 1935. Malaria survey at Tung (Diptera: Culicidae) Part IV. MattingZyiacatesi, n. gen., Song,Nakhon Si Thammarat. Dept. Health (Thailand), n. sp. and four new speciesof genusHeizmannia Lud- Public Health Bull. 11:658-666. low. Trop. Med. 10:127-153. Peyton,E.L. 1972.A subgenericclassification of the genus Lu, B.L. and Z.D. Gong. 1986. Studies on the genus Uranotaenia LynchArribalzaga, with a historicalreview Heizmannia of China with descriptionof two new spe- and noteson other categories. Mosq. Syst.416-40. cies (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Entomol. Sin. 29:181- Peyton, E.L. 1977. Medical entomologystudies - X. A 189 (In Chinese). revision of the subgenusPseudoficalbia of the genus DECJZMBERN~O 221

Uranotaenia in SoutheastAsia (Diptera: Cuhcidae). Reinert, J.F. 1973a. Notes on the genusHeizmannia and Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 14(3):1-273. the inclusionin subgenusMattinglyia of two speciespre- Peyton, E.L. 1990. A new classificationfor the Leuco- viouslyplaced in Aedes subgenusuncertain (Diptera: sphyrus Group of Anopheles (CeZZia). Mosq. Syst. Culicidae). Mosq. Syst.5: 14-23. (1989) 21:197-205 Reinert, J.F. 1973b. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna Peyton,E.L. and B.A. Harrison. 1979.Anopheles (CeZZia) of SoutheastAsia - XVI. GenusAedes Meigen,subgenus dims, a new speciesof the LeucosphyrusGroup from Aedimorphus Theobald in SoutheastAsia. Contrib. Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Syst.11:40-52. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 9(5):1-2X Peyton,E.L. and B.A. Harrison. 1980.Anopheles (CeZZia) Reinert, J.F. 1973c. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna takasagoensisMorishita 1946, an additionalspecies in of SoutheastAsia - XIX. BothaeZZa,a new subgenusof the BalabacensisComplex of SoutheastAsia (Diptera: Aedes Meigen. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Cuhcidae) . Mosq. Syst. 12~335-347. Arbor) 10(3):1-51. Peyton, E.L. and S. Ramalingam. 1988. Anopheles (CeZ- Reinert, J.F. 1975. Mosquito generic and subgeneric Zia) nemophilous, a new speciesof the Leucosphyrus abbreviations(Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Syst.7:105- Group from peninsularMalaysia and Thailand (Dip- 110. tera: Cuhcidae). Mosq. Syst.20:272-299. Reinert, J.F. 1979. A description of Isoaedes, a new Peyton,E.L. andJ.E. Scanlon.1966. Illustratedkey to the subgenusof Aedes Meigen, and its type-species,Ae. femaleAnopheles mosquitoesof Thailand. U.S. Army (Isa.) cavaticus newspecies (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Medical Component, S. E. Asia Treaty Organ., Bang- Syst.11:144-162. kok. 47 pp. Reinert, J.F. 1982. Abbreviationsfor mosquitogeneric Pradhan, S.P. and W.H. Brydon. 1960. A record of and subgenerictaxa establishedsince 1975 (Diptera: Anopheles filipinae in Nepal. Mosq. News 20:319-320. Cuhcidae) . Mosq. Syst. 14:124 126. RamachandraRao, T. 1984. The anophelinesof India. Rice, E.M. andS.B.Datta. 1936.A descriptionof the larva (Revised Edition). Malaria Research Center, Indian OfAnopheZesgigasvar. baileyi. Rec. Malaria Surv.India Count. Med. Res., Delhi. xvi + 518 pp. 6~27-30. RamachandraRao, T., V. Dhanda, H.R. Bhat and S.M. Robertson,R.C. 1940. Malaria in westernYunnan with KuIkarni. 1973. A surveyof haematophagousarthro- reference to the China-Burmahighway. Chin. Med. J. podsin WesternHimalayas, Sikkim and HilI Districtsof 57:57-73. West Bengal, a general account. Indian J. Med. Res. Robertson,R.C. 1941. A malaria surveyon the China- 61:1421-1461. Burmahighway. Trans. R. Sot. Trop. Med. Hyg. 34:311- Ramahngam,S. 1987. On the restriction of Annigeres 332. durhami Edwards and the description of Armigeres Rudnick,A., H.G. Wallace, R.T. Furumizo, J.J.S.Burton kesseli n. sp.(Diptera: Cuhcidae). Trop. Biomed. 4:55- and WA. NeiIi. 1986. Dengue virus ecologyin Malay- 65. sia. 5. Further studies,1976-1980, pp. 127-153. Zn: A. Rattanarithikul, R. and B.A. Harrison. 1973. An ilIus- Rudnick and T.W. Lim (ed.). Dengue fever studiesin trated key to the Anopheles larvae of Thailand. U.S. Malaysia. Bull. Inst. Med. Res. Malaysia 23:1-241. Army Medical Component, S. E. Asia Treaty Organ., Scanlon,J.E. andS. Esah. 1965. Distributionin altitudeof Bangkok. 14 pp. and 42 pl. mosquitoesin northern Thailand. Mosq. News 25:137- Rattanarithikul, R. and B.A. Harrison. 1988. Aedes 144. (Finlaya) reined, a newspecies from northernThailand ScanIon,J.E., E.L. Peyton and D.J. Gould. 1967. The relatedtoAe&s (Finlaya) formosensisYamada (Diptera: Anopheles (CelZia) leucosphynrsDoenitz 1901group in Culicidae). Mosq. Syst.20:77-96. Thailand. Proc. Cahf. Mosq. Control Assoc.35:78-83. Reid, J.A. 1%5. A revisionof theAnopheZesatikenii group Scanlon,J.E., E.L. Peyton and D.J. Gould. 1968. An in Malaya and Borneo. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. annotatedchecklist of theAnopheles of Thailand. Thai 59:106-125. Natl. Sci. Pap., Fauna Ser. 2~1-35. Reid, J.A. 1967. Two forms OfAnophelesphilippinensis in Senior White, R.A. 1920. A surveyof the Culicidae of a Malaya. J. Med. Entomol. 4:175-179. rubber estate. Indian J. Med. Res. 8304-325. Reid, JA. 1968. Anopheline mosquitoesof Malaya and Shrestha,S.L. 1966. Anophelines of Nepal and their Borneo. Stud. Inst. Med. Res. Malaya 31:1-520. relation to malaria eradication. J. Nepal. Med. Assoc. Reid, J.A. 1979. A note on Anopheles (Anopheles) 4:148-154. aberrans Harrison andScanIon. Mosq. Syst. 11:119-120. Sirivanakarn,S. 1971. Contributionto the mosquitofauna Reinert, J.F. 1970. Contributionsto the mosquitofauna of of SoutheastAsia. XI. A proposedreclassification of SoutheastAsia - V. GenusAedes, subgenusDiceromyia Neoculex Dyar basedprincipally on the male terminaha. Theobald in SoutheastAsia. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 7(3):62-85. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 5(4):1-43. Sirivanakarn,S. 1972. Contributions to the mosquito 222 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

fauna of SoutheastAsia. XIII. The genus Culex, mosquitoes.Vol. 3, Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London. 359 subgenusEumelanomyia Theobald in SoutheastAsia PP. and adjacentareas. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Theobald, F.V. 1905. A catalogueof the Culicidaein the Arbor) 8(6):1-86. Hungarian National Museum,with descriptionsof new Sirivanakarn,S. 1976. Medical entomologystudies - III. A genera and species.Ann. Hist.-Nat. Mus. Hung. 3:61- revisionof the subgenusCulex in the Oriental Region 120. (Diptera: Culicidae). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. Thurman, E.B. 1958. Revalidation of three speciesof (Ann Arbor) 12(2):l-272. Amzigezs Theobald,1901 (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Wash. Sirivanakarn,S. 1977a. Redescription of four oriental Acad. Sci. 48389-393. speciesof Cr.&z (Culiciomyia) and the descriptionof a Thurman, E.H.B. 1959. A contributionto a revisionof the new speciesfrom Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Culicidaeof northern Thailand. Univ. Md. Agric. Exp. Syst.9:93-111. Sta. Bull. A-100:1-177. Sirivanakarn,S. 1977b. Medical entomologystudies - VI. Thurman, D.C. and E.B. Thurman. 1955. Report of the A revision of the subgenusLophoceruomyia of the initial operation of a mosquito light trap in northern genusCukxin the Oriental Region(Diptera: Culicidae). Thailand. Mosq. News 15:218-224. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 13(4):1-245. Toumanoff, C. 1933. Sur le peuplement anopheliendu Snow, K.R. 1986. A note on the spellingof the name bassindu Fleuve-Rougeau Tonkin. Bull. Sot. Pathol. Orthopodomyiapulcripalpis. Mosq. Syst.(1985) 17:361- Exot. 26~741-747. 362. Tsukamoto, M., I. Miyagi, T. Toma, S. Sucharit, W. Stanton,A.T. 1920. The mosquitoesof far easternports Tumrasvin,C. Khamboonruang,W. Choochote,B. Phan- with specialreference to the prevalenceof Stegomyia thumachindaand P. Phanurai. 1987. The mosquito fasciata F. Bull. Entomol. Res. 10:333-344. fauna of Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae): An annotated Stojanovich,C.J. and H.G. Scott. 1966. Illustrated key to checklist. Jpn. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 15:291-326. Anopheles mosquitoesof Thailand. U.S. PublicHealth U.S. Army Medical ResearchUnit-Malaysia. 1970. pp. Serv.,Atlanta. 44 pp. 164-192.In: 1970Ammal Report, Institutefor Medical Stone, A. 1957. Notes on types of mosquitoesin the Research,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 218 pp. HungarianNational Museum (Diptera, Culicidae).Ann. U.S. Army Medical ResearchUnit-Malaysia. 1972. pp. Entomol. Sot. Am. 50:171-174. 228-280.In: 1972Annual Report, Institutefor Medical Stone,A., K.L. Knight and H. Starcke. 1959. A synoptic Research,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 312 pp. catalog of the mosquitoesof the world (Diptera, Cu- Walker, F. 1859. Catalogue of the dipterous insects licidae). Thomas Say Found., Entomol. Sot. Am. 6:1- collectedat Makessarin Celebes,by Mr. A.R. Wallace, 358. with descriptionsof new species. J. Proc. Linn. Sot. Subbarao,S.K. 1988. The Anopheles culicifacies complex Lond. Zool. 490-172. and control of malaria. Parasitol.Today 4:72-75. Ward, R.A. 1984. Secondsupplement to “A Catalogof the Subbarao,S.K., K. Vasantha,T. Adak and V.P. Sharma. Mosquitoesof the World” (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. 1983. Anopheles culicifacies Complex:Evidence for a Syst.16:227-270. new siblingspecies, species C. Ann. Entomol. Sot. Am. Wharton, R.H. 1962. The biology of Mansonia mosqui- 76:985-988. toes in relation to the transmissionof filariasisin Ma- Sucharit, S., N. Komalamisra, S. Leemingsawat, C. laya. Bull. Inst. Med. Res., Fed. Malaya ll:l-114. Apiwathnasornand S. Thongrungkiat. 1988. Popula- White, G.B. 1974. Priority of Ingramia Edwards, 1912, tion geneticstudies on theAnopheZesminimus complex overRavenalites Doucet, 1957 asthe name for a subge- in Thailand. SoutheastAsian J. Trop. Med. Public nusof Mimomyia Theobald, 1903 (Diptera: Culicidae). Health 19:717-723. Mosq. Syst.6:239-242. Tanaka, K., K. Mizusawa and E.S. Saugstad. 1979. A Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical rain forests of the Far revision of the adult and larval mosquitoesof Japan East. (Second Edit.) English Language Book Sot., (includingthe Ryukyu Archipelagoand the Ogasawara Oxford Univ. Press,Oxford. 352 pp. Islands)and Korea (Diptera: Culicidae). Contrib.Am. Xu, B.H. 1984. A preliminarysurvey of the mosquitoesin Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 16:1-987. Wuyi Mountain, Fujian, China (Diptera: Culicidae). Theobald, F.V. 1901. A monographof the Culicidae or Wuyi Sci. J. 4:205-208(In Chinese). mosquitoes.Vol. 1, Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London. 424 Yu, Y. and M. Li. 1984. Notes on the two forms of PP. Anopheles (CeZZia)minimus Theobald, 1901 in Hainan Theobald, F.V. 1903. A monographof the Culicidae or Island. J. Parasitol.Parasitic Dis. 2:95-98 (In Chinese). DECEMBERN~O 223

APPENDIX. CHECKLIST OF THE CULICIDAE FOUND IN THAILAND

Anopheles (Anopheles) 49. karwari (James) 50. kochi Doe&z aberrans Harrison and Scanlon 1. 51. leucosphymsA 2. argyropus (Swellengrebel) 52. macarthuti Colless 3. asiaticus Leicester 53. maculatus Theobald 4. baezai Gater 54. minimus A 5. baileyi Edwards 55. minimus C barbirostris Van der Wulp 6. 56. nemophilous Peyton and Ramalingam barbumbrosus Stricklandand Chowdhury 7. 57. nivipes (Theobald) 8. bengalensisPuri 58. notanandai Rattanarithikul and Green 9. bulkleyi Causey 59. pampanai Buettiker and Beales 10. campestris Reid 60. philippinensis Ludlow crawfordi Reid 11. 61. pseudojamesi Stricklandand Choudhury 12. donaldi Reid 62. pseudowillmori (Theobald) 13. ftasiis (Theobald) 63. pujutensis Colless 14. hodgkini Reid 64. sawadwongpomi Rattanarithikul and Green insulaefomm (Swellengrebel and Swellengrebel 15. 65. splendidus Koidzumi de Graaf) 66. stephensi Liston 16. in tenuptus Puri 67. subpictus Grassi kyondawensis Abraham 17. 68. sundaicus (Rodenwaldt) letifer Sandosham 18. 69. tessellatusTheobald lindesayi cameronensis Edwards 19. 70. vagus Doenitz 20. montanus Stantonand Hacker 71. varuna Iyengar 21. nigenimus Giles 72. willmori (James) 22. nitidus Harrison, Scanlonand Reid 23. palmatus (Rodenwaldt) Aedeomyia 24. paraliae Sandosham 25. peditaeniatus (Leicester) 73. catasticta Knab 26. pollicaris Reid 27. pursati Laveran Aedes (Aedimorphus) 28. roperi Reid 74. alboscutellatus (Theobald) 29. separatus (Leicester) 75. caecus (Theobald) 30. sinensis Wiedemann 76. culicinus Edwards 31. sintonoides Ho 77. mediolineatus (Theobald) 32. stricklandi Reid 78. orbitae Edwards 33. tigertti Scanlonand Peyton 79. pallidostiatus (Theobald) 34. umbrosus (Theobald) 80. pampangensis (Ludlow) 35. whartoni Reid 81. pipersalatus (Giles) 82. vexans (Meigen) Anopheles (Cellia) 83. vittatus (Bigot) 36. aconitus Doenitz 37. annularis Van der Wulp Aedes (Alanstonea) .S 38. culicifacies I3 84. treubi (De Meijere) 39. dir-usPeyton and Harrison 40. dims B Aedes (Ayurakitia) 41. dims C 42. dims D 85. grithi’ Thurman 43. dravidicus Christophers 86. peytoni Reinert 44. hackeri Edwards 45. indefnitus (Ludlow) Aedes (Bothaella) 46. introlatus Colless 47. jamesii Theobald 87. eldridgei Reinert 48. jeyporiensis James 88. helenae Reinert 224 MOSQUITO SYSTEMATICS VOL. 22, No. 3

Aedes (Cancraedes) 132. saxicola Edwards 133. shortti (Barraud) 89. indonesiae Mattingly 134. simlensis Edwards 90. kohkutensis Mattingly 135. subniveus Edwards 136. togoi (Theobald) Aedes Christophersiomyia)‘ 137. unicinctus Edwards vanusColless 91, annulirostis (Theobald) 138. 92, ibis Barraud 93* thomsoni (Theobald) Aedes (Isoaedes) 139. cavaticus Reinert Aedes DiceromyiQ)‘

94. franciscoi Mattingly Aedes (Lorrainea) 95. iyengari Edwards 140. amesii (Ludlow) %. pseudonummatus Reinert 141. fimidus Edwards 97. scanloni Reinert 98. whartoni Mattingly Aedes (Mucidus)

Aedes (Edwardsaedes) 142. laniger (Wiedemann) 143. quasiferinus Mattingly 99. imprimens (Wallrer) Aedes (Neomelaniconion) Aedes (Finlaya) 144. lineatopennis (Ludlow) 100. albolateralis (Theobald) 101. alboniveus Barraud Aedes (Ochlerotatus) 102. albotaeniatus (Leicester) 103. assamensis (Theobald) 145. vigi~ax(Skuse) 104. christophersiEdwards 105. chrysolineatus (Theobald) Aedes (Paraedes) 106. dissimilis (Leicester) 146. ostentatio (Leicester) 107. elsiae (Barraud) 147. thailandensis Reinert 108. feegradei Barraud 109. flavipennis (Giles) Aedes (Rhinoskusea) 110. formosensis Yamada 111. ganapathi Colless 148. longirostris (Leicester) 112. greenii (Theobald) 113. harinasutai Knight Aedes (Scutomyia) 114. harveyi (Barraud) 115. inermis Colless 149. albolineatus (Theobald) 116. jugraensis (L&ester) 117. khazani Edwards Aedes (Stegomyia) 118. leonis Colless 150. aegypti (Linnaeus) 119. litoreus Colless 151. albopictus (Skuse) 120. lophoventralis (Theobald) 152. annandalei (Theobald) 121. macfarlanei (Edwards) 153. craggi (Barraud) 122. mikrobpion Knight and Harrison 154. desmotes (Giles) 123. niveoides Barraud 155. gardnerii imitator (Leicester) 124. novoniveus Barraud 156. malayensis Colless 125. ptxus Colless 157. malikuli Huang 126. poicilius (Theobald) 158. novalbopictus Barraud 127. prominens (Barraud) 159. patriciae Mattingly 128. pseudoniveus (Theobald) 160. perplexus (Leicester) 129. pseudotaeniatus (Giles) 161. pseudalbopictus (Borel) 130. pulchriventer (Giles) 162. seatoi Huang 131. reinerti Rattanarithikul and Harrison 163. w-albus (Theobald) DECEMBERWO 225

Aedes (verrallina) Heizmannia (Heizmannia)

164. fldifstus Laffoon 210. aureochaeta (Leicester) 165. andamanensis Edwards 211. chengi Lien 166. atrius Barraud 212. communis (Leicester) 167. butleri Theobald 213. complex (Theobald) 168. clavatus Barraud 214. covelli Barraud 169. cretatus Delfimado 215. demeilloni Mattingly 170. cyrtolabis Edwards 216. macdonaldi Mattingly 171. dux Dyar and Shannon 217. matting& Thurman 172. gibbosus Delfinado 218. persimilis Mattingly 173. hispidus Delfimado 219. propinqua Mattingly 174. incertus Edwards 220. proxima Mattingly 175. indecorabilis (Leicester) 221. reidi Mattingly 176. latipennis Delfimado 222. scanloni Mattingly 177. lugubris Barraud 223. scintillans Ludlow 178. notabilis Delfmado 224. taiwanensis Lien 179. phnomus Klein 180. protuberans Delfinado Heizmannia (Mattinglyia) 181. pseudodiumus (Theobald) 225. achaetae (Leicester) 182. sohni Reinert 226. catesi Lien 183. torosus Delfinado 227. thelmae Mattingly 184. uncus (Theobald) 185. vallisms Barraud Udaya 186. yusafi Barraud 22.8. awrurus (Edwards) /A . , Armigeres (Amugeres) Culix (Culex) 187. aureolineatus (Leicester) 188. bhayungi Thurman and Thurman 229. alienus Colless 189. jugraensis (Leicester) 230. alis Theobald 190. kesseli Ramalingam 231. barraudi Edwards 191. kuchingensis Edwards 232. bitaeniorhynchus Giles 192. malayi (Theobald) 233. edwardsi Barraud 193. maximus Edwards 234. fuscocephala Theobald 194. moultoni Edwards 235. gelidus Theobald 195. subalbatus (Coquillett) 236. hutchinsoni Barraud 1%. theobaldi Barraud 237. infula Theobald 238. jacksoni Edwards Armigeres (Leicesteria) 239. longicomis Sirivanakarn 240. mimeticus Noe 197. annulipalpis (Theobald) 241. mimulus Edwards 198. annulitarsis (Leicester) 242. murrelli Lien 199. balteatus Macdonald 243. perplexus Leicester 200. dentatus Barraud 244. pseudosinensisColless 201. digitatus (Edwards) 245. pseudovishnui Colless 202. dolichocephalus (Leicester) 246. quinquefasciatus Say 203. flavus (Leicester) 247. sinensis Theobald 204. inchoatus Barraud 248. sitiens Wiedemann 205. longipalpis (Leicester) 249. tritaeniorhynchus Giles 206. magnus (Theobald) 250. vishnui Theobald 207. omissus (Edwards) 251. whitei Barraud 208. pectinatus (Edwards) I 252. whitmorei (Giles) 209. vimoli Thurman and Thurman 226 MOSQUITOSYWEMATIC~ Vo~.22,N0.3

Culex(Culiciomyia) 301. quadripalpis(Edwards) 302. reidi Colless 253. bailyi Barraud 303. rubithoracis(Leicester) 254. baninusBram 304. spiculosusBram and Rattanarithikul 255. dispectusBram 305. traubi Colless 256. jkagilisLudlow 306. tuberisBohart 257. harrisoniSirivanakarn 307. variatus(Leicester) 258. lampangensisSirivanakarn 308. whartoniColless 259. nigropunctatusEdwards 309. wilfrediCoUess 260. pallidothoraxTheobald 261. papuensis(Taylor) Culex(Lutzia) 262. sasai&no, Nitahara and Awaya 263. scanloniBram 310. fiscanus Wiedemann 264. spathifirca (Edwards) 311. halifaxii Theobald 265. spiculothoraxBram 266. termiThurman Ficalbia 267. thurmanommBram 312. minima (Theobald) 268. viridiventerGiles Mimomyia (Etorleptiomyia) Culex(Eumelanomyia) 313. elegans(Taylor) 269. brevipalpis(Giles) 314. luzonensis(Ludlow) 270. foliatus Brug 271. hinglungensisChu Mimomyia (Lngramia) 272. kiriensisKlein and Sirivanakarn 273. malayi (Leicester) 315. jicsca(Leicester) 274. oresbiusHarbach and Rattanarithikul 275. otachatiKlein and Sirivanakarn Mimomyia (Mimomyia) 276. phangngaeSirivanakarn 277. richeiKlein 316. aurea (Leicester) 278. tenuipalpisBarraud 317. chamberlainiLudlow 318. chamberlainimetallica (Leicester) Culex (Lophoceraomyia) 319. hybrida(Leicester)

279. aculeatusColless Hodgesia 280. alphusColless 281. bengalensisBarraud 320. lampangensisThurman 282. bicomutusTheobald __ 321. malayi Leicester 283. cinctellusEdwards 284. curtipalpis(Edwards) Coquillettidia(Coquillettidia) 285. demissusCoUess 322. crassipes(Van der Wulp) 286. eukrinesBram and Rattanarithikul 323. nigrosignata(Edwards) 287. ganapathiColless 324. novochracea(Barraud) 288. gracicomisSirivanakarn 325. ochracea(Theobald) 289. hirtipalpisSirivanakarn 290. incomptusBram and Rattanarithikul Mansonia (Mansonoides) 291. infant&us Edwards 292. lucarisColless 326. annulata Leicester 293. macdonaldiColless 327. annulifera(Theobald) 294. mammilifer(Leicester) 328. bonneaeEdwards 295. minor (Leicester) 329. dives(Schiner) 2%. minutissimus(Theobald) 330. indiana Edwards 297. pairoji Sirivanakarn 331. uniformis(Theobald) 298. peytoniBram and Rattanarithikul 299. pholeterBram and Rattanarithikul 300. pilifemoralisWang and Feng DECEMBER 1990 227

Orthopodompa 366. bicolor Leicester 367. bimaculata Leicester 332. albipes Leicester 368. demeilloni Peyton and Rattanarithikul 333. andamanensis Barraud 369. enigmatica Peyton 334. anopheloides (Giles) 370. gouldi Peyton and Klein 335. siamensis Zavortink 371. hirsutifemora Peters 336. wilsoni Macdonald 372. koli Peyton and Klein 373. ZutescensLeicester Malaya 374. maxima Leicester 337. genurosbis Leicester 375. modesta Leicester 338. jacobsoni (Edwards) 376. nivipleura Leicester 377. no&cola Peyton Topomyia (Suaymyia) 378. novobscura Barraud 379. obscura Edwards 339. apsarae Klein 380. patriciae Peyton 340. cnstata Thurman 381. pseudomaculipleura Peyton and Rattanarithikul 341. houghtoni Feng 382. spiculosa Peyton and Rattanarithikul 342. ieucotarsis Thurman . 383. sticklandi Barraud 343. suchariti Miyagi and Toma 384. sumethi Peyton and Rattanarithikul 344. yanbarensis Miyagi Uranotaenia (Uranotaenia) Topomyia (Topomyia) 385. annandalei Barraud 345. aenea Thurman 386. bimaculiala Leicester 346. angkoris Klein 387. campestris Leicester 347. inclinata Thurman 388. diraphati Peyton and Klein 348. lindrayi Thurman 389. edwardsi Barraud 349. svastii Thurman 390. hebes Barraud 391. lateralis Ludlow Tripteroides (Rachionotomyia) 392. longirosbis Leicester 393. macfarlanei Edwards 350. afinis (Edwards) 394. metatarsata Edwards 351. aranoides (Theobald) 395. micans Leicester 352. serratus (Barraud) 3%. orientalis Barraud 353. tenax (De Meijere) 397. prajimi Peyton and Rattanarithikul 398. rampae Peyton and Klein Tripteroides (Tripteroides) , 399. sombooni Peyton’and Klein 354. aeneus (Edwards) 400. subnormalis Martini 355. caeruleocephalus (Leicester) 401. testacea Theobald 356. denticulatus Delfmado and Hodges 402. trilineata Leicester 357. hybridus (Leicester) 358. indicus (Barraud) Toxorhynchites(Toxorhynchites) 359. powelli (Ludlow) 403. albipes (Edwards) 360. proximus (Edwards) 404. bickleyi Thurman 361. similis (Leicester) 405. grave&i (Edwards) 362. tarsalis Delfmado and Hodges 406. leicesteti Theobald 407. magnificus (Leicester) Uranotaenia (Pseudoficalbia) 408. manopi Thurman 363. abdita Peyton 409. splendens (Wiedemann) 364. albipes Peyton 410. sunthomi Thurman 365. approximata Peyton