Journal of the American Control Association, 14(2):165-172, 1998 Copyright @ 1998 by the American Mosquito Control Association, Inc.

NORTH CAROLINA MOSQUITO RECORDS. I. UNCOMMON AND ANOPHELES (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE)

B. A. HARRISON.'4 P B. WHITT,I E. E. POWELL2 eNo E. Y. HICKMAN, JR.3

ABSTRACT. New distribution records are provided for l0 mosquito species that are rare or uncommon in North Carolina: Aedes aegypti, Ae. cinereus, Ae. dupreei, Ae. fulvus pallens, Ae. hendersoni, Ae. mitchellae, Ae. thibauki, Ae. tormentor, Ae. trivittatus, and Anopheles atropos. Biological notes are provided for habitats, be- havior, and, in some cases, color patterns. Comments are also made about 6 additional species that are rare or uncommon in North Carolina.

KEY WORDS Rare, Aedes, Anopheles, uncommon, North Carolina

INTRODUCTION smaragdinus Reinert [Robertson et al. 1993, as Anopheles quadrimaculalus B; Reinert et al. 1998 Publications documenting the distributions of (1997)l in North Carolina. mosquito species in North Carolina are scarce. This A study of the mosquitoes of the western pied- state has some of the most variable ecosystems in mont and mountainous regions of North Carolina the United States, ranging from subtropical in the was initiated in 1994 by the Public Health Pest southeastern corner to boreal on the highest western Management Section, North Carolina Department mountains. Despite this recognized diversity, vir- of Environment and Natural Resources. The limited tually no efforts have been made to systematically information about the mosquitoes of this area and examine the mosquito fauna of the state. The first a growing concern about mosquito-borne diseases comprehensive listing for North Carolina mosqui- were the primary reasons for starting the study. The toes included 21 species (Dyar 1922). Bnmley western part of the state is developing rapidly with (1938) listed 32 species in his general survey a large influx of permanent and temporary resi- for the state. Later editions of this work (Wray dents. Human disturbances of the environment in 1950, 1967) reported records published elsewhere. this area will increase mosquito populations, hu- A large number of the initial records for species in man-mosquito contacts, and the potential for ex- the state and accompanying information on their posure to mosquito-borne human pathogens. Ar- distributions resulted from U.S. Army mosquito boviruses have been isolated in other states from surveys conducted on and around military instal- several of the included species. Because some of lations during World War II (King et al. 1942, those species can be locally common, it is impor- 1943; Bradley et al. 1944; Middlekauff and Car- tant to determine their distributions in North Car- penter 1944:' Carpenter et al. 1945; Carpenter and olina. During the past 4 years numerous mosquito Chamberlain 1946; Miles and Rings 1946). Schoof collections were made in the western half of the and Ashton (1944), working as state entomologists, state. Records for these collections, plus some from also contributed a number of precise distribution more eastern areas, are presented below. Additional records. Since these early works nearly all pub- unpublished records from collections made before lished efforts involving mosquitoes have been nar- this study was initiated are also included. rowly focused biological studies or studies dealing with control issues. Also, nearly all of the mosquito publications since World War II have addressed MATERIALS AND METHODS coastal plain or piedmont mosquitoes. Although Mosquito collections were made in urban, sub- Slaff and Apperson (1989) provided a list of 57 urban, and rural areas. Sites exhibiting a large spe- species for the state, no distribution data were pub- cies diversity were targeted for repeated collections. lished for the species occurring in the western half These included state, county, and local parks, and of the state. Based on known and examined mate- ecological and environmental preserves. The col- rial, including the U.S. National Museum (USNM) lection methods were: standard larval dipping, hu- (Smithsonian) collections, we have been able to man landing-biting, back-pack and mouth document only 55 species, including Anopheles aspira- tors, New Jersey light traps, and Centers for Dis- ease Control (CDC) light traps supplemented with I Public Health Pest Management, Department of En- CO, (dry ice). After collection, immatures were vironment and Natural Resources, 585 Waughtown Street, transported in 6-oz. plastic bags to the laboratory Winston-Salem, NC 27107. and set up for rearing or were killed in tepid water ' Department of Entomology Box 7 647 North Carolina , , preserved State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. and for identification. Adults collected 3 Brunswick County Mosquito Control, P. O. Box 249, biting, by aspiration, or in the CDC light traps were Bolivia, NC 28422. frozen in an ice chest with dry ice and transported a Address reprint requests to: Public Health Pest Man- back to the laboratory for identification. agement, DENR, P O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611. Immature and adult specimens were identified

165 r66 JounNrr-op rup AuemceN Moseurro CoNrnol AssocrnrroN Vor-. 14, No. 2

using Carpenter and LaCasse (1955), King et al. an (P): (1 coll.), IX, 1989, 9? , 126 ,9L. Wake (p): (1960), Darsie and Ward (1981), and Slaff and Ap- (1 coll.),IX, 1975,79,16. (1989). person Once identifled, immatures were The first published records of Ae. aegypti in preserved in 75Vo ethanol in labeled vials, and North Carolina were from Mecklenburg and New adults were glued with ambroid cement to paper Hanover counties (Brimley 1938). King et al. points on insect pins and labeled. (1942) listed this species in Norrh Carolina, but Preserved immatures and adults are deposited in without locality data. Carpenter and Chamberlain the Public Health Pest Management Collection, (1946) listed specimens collected in Cumberland, North Carolina Department of Environment and New Hanover, and Scotland counties. Subsequent- Natural Resources, Winston-Salem, or the Depart- ly, and to the present, many counties in the state ment of Entomology Insect Collection, North Car- have been reported to have Ae. aegypti. This is par- olina State University, Raleigh. ticularly true in the coastal plain counties. In fact, The terms rare, uncofiunon, and cornmon were this species is apparently able to survive the winters defined on a numerical basis in our study: rare = in Brunswick County, where it has been collected I or fewer collections per year, uncornmon : 2-lO every month except January and March. In the collections per year, and common : more than lO piedmont and mountainous regions this species is collections per year. The records and specimens re- transient, depending on the harshness of the win- ported here are grouped by counties and dates and ters. have been abbreviated and condensed to conserve Aedes aegypli was established in North Carolina space. The sequence for the records follows: coun- long before mosquito distribution lists were made. ty, with a regional indication for coastal plain (C), Several epidemics caused considerable piedmont (P), or mountains (M); number of collec- mortality in eastern North Carolina up until the late tions; month(s) and year(s) ofcollections; and spec- 19th century. imens by sex and stage. Complete records for these Slaff and Apperson (1989) listed Ae. aegypti as specimens, including locality, exact dates, habitat, abundant in North Carolina. That was 2 years after collection method, collectors, and associated spe- the discovery of Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in the cies, are available upon request. Emergency mos- state, when Ae. aegypti was still abundant. Since quito collections after Hurricane Fran in L996 tar- then Ae. aegypti has nearly disappeared from the geted the most common species. The less common state, with collections being made only from a tree species were recorded, but numbers were not kept. hole in the southeastern corner of the state during The sexes and stages are coded as follow: female 1997. Accordingly, we now consider Ae. aegypti to = I , male : d , whole pupa : P, whole = be rare in the state. There is conjecture regarding L, and larval skin : l. Generic abbreviations used the demise of populations of this species in North in the text follow Reinert (1975\. Carolina and other southeastern states. Two factors bearing on this in North Carolina are more rigid tire regulations requiring tires to be stored under RESULTS AND DISCUSSION cover and a rapid and successful tire pile cleanup program. Sixteen species are included in this paper. Ten species are discussed in detail, and 6 are discussed briefly at the end. Thirteen of these were reported Aedes cinerezs Meigen as rare or uncommon in North Carolina (Slaff and Anson (P): (1 coll.), VI, 1996, 19. Cabamrs (P): Apperson 1989) and 10 ofthe 13 have distributions (1 coll.), V, 1996, 19. Davie (P): (2 coll.), IY that extend into the piedmont region and some even V 1997,l3L. Forsyth (P): (16 coll.), V-XI, 1993-97, into the mountains. Most have spotty distributions 1139, 24L. Henderson (M): (2 coll.), V[, VII[ and are uncommon, but at certain times they can 1994, 159. Jackson (M): (l coll.), VII, 1994,29. be very abundant locally. New records for 5 species Rutherford (P): (1 coll.), VII, 1995, 19. Stokes (P): match or extend their western distributions in the (2 coll.),IV VI, 1997, 16,8L. Ttansylvania (M): state (Darsie and Ward 1981). (1 coll.), vIJ, 1994,349. The first recorded specimen of Ae. cinereus from Aedes aegypld (Linnaeus) North Carolina was found in Union County (Mid- dlekauff and Carpenter 1944). Subsequent county Alamance (P): (2 coll.), V[! I){, L99I, 1993, records include Buncombe (Schoof and Ashton 89,3R 44L. Brunswick (C): (8 coll.), V-XII, 1994, 1944); Buncombe, Richmond, and Robeson (Car- t539d; (7 coll.), VI-X[, 1995,2069 d; (2 coll.), penter et al. 1945); Union (Carpenter and Cham- VII, Vm, 1996, 38?d; (2 coll.), Ix, X, 1997, berlain 1946); and Duplin (Irby and Apperson 39d. Cabarms (P): (l coll.), 1992, 1?. Carteret 1992). (C): (l coll.), V 1994,19. Catawba (P): (l coll.), Aedes cinereus is a more northern species that IX, 1989, 79. Iredell (P): (l coll.), I){., 1992,39. can be a serious pest, and has been found positive Jackson (M): (l coll.),IX, 1987, lR l7L. Randolph for Cache Valley virus (Calisher et al. 1986). This (P): (l coll.), VI[, 1993, 109, 1d,9P, 121L. Row- species is infrequently encountered in the southern Juxe 1998 UNcoMMoN AEDEs AND ANopnrtrs rN NoRTH ClnoI-rNl r67 states and little is known about the biology of the were collected from April to October over a 4-year species in the south (Carpenter and LaCasse 1955). period. All of the larval sites containing Ae. dupreei Combining the record of kby and Apperson (1.992) were heavily or partially shaded woodland pools with our records, this species extends from the with extensive leaf litter in the water. At least 2 of coastal plain to the mountains, but seems to be the larval sites in the piedmont region were tran- more locally common in the piedmont and moun- sient, only holding water about 3 weeks. tains. In these areas adults were always collected near flooded pools in deciduous forests in creek or river bottoms. The adults were not hesitant to bite, Aedes fulvus pallens Ross but seemed to prefer the legs rather than the upper Anson (P): (6 coll.), VIII-XI, 1996, 8969. half of the body. Usually the larvae of this species Brunswick (C): (multiple coll.), VI-XI, 1992-96, are difficult to flnd in North Carolina, and one must 1,0699 d. Carteret (C): (1 coll.), VII, 1996, 2L. Co- collect large numberc of Aedes vexans (Meigen) lumbus (C): (multiple coll.), IX, 1996, 5 9. Forsyth and Aedes canadensis (Theobald) larvae to find a (P): (4 coll.), V[ Vru, X, 1995, 5 9. Mecklenburg few specimens of Ae. cinereus. According to Car- (P): (1 coll.), IX, 1995, 19. New Hanover (C): (l penter and LaCasse (1955) and King et al. (1960), coll.), IX, 1996, | 9. Pender (C): (1 coll.), lX, 1996, Ae. cinereus is an univoltine species. Wood et al. 19. Robeson (C): (1 coll.), X, 1996, 1,9. Rowan (1979), however, indicated that it is partly multi- (P): (1 coll.), V[, 1995, 29. Wake (P): (2 coll.), voltine in southern Canada. Our collections of vr, VIII, 1975, t995, 1 lL. adults from May to November suggest that Ae. ci- I, (1919) species (as nereus is multivoltine in North Carolina. Barret first recorded this Aedes bimaculatus Coquillett) in North Carolina from Mecklenburg County. Records thereafter include Aedes dupreei (Coquillett) Mecklenburg County (Dyar 1922, as Ae. bimacu- Anson (P): (4 coll.), V[-Xl,1996,189. Bruns- latus); Brunswick and Mecklenburg counties (Brimley 1938, as Ae. bimaculafas); North Carolina wick (C): (multiple coll.), IV-X, 1992-96, l7I , (King 135d. Catawba (P): (l coll.), VIJI, 1997,19. Co- et al. 1942); Cumberland, Edgecombe, and (Schoof lumbus (C): (multiple coll.), IX, X, 1996,69. Du- Wayne counties and Ashton 1944); Cum- berland, Richmond, and Robeson counties (Carpen- plin (C): (multiple coll.), Y V[-IX, 1984-88, 79, 82L. Forsyth (P): (2 coll.), V[, 1995,29. Guilford ter and Chamberlain 1946); New Hanover and (P): (1 coll.), V[, 1995, 19. Pender (C): (1 coll.), Robeson counties (Miles and Rings 1946); and Du- IX, 1993, 19. Robeson (C): (1 coll.), X, 1996, 19. plin County (Irby and Apperson 1988, 1992). Our Rowan (P): (4 coll.), VI, IX,1994,1995, 99, 1d, collections in Forsyth, Mecklenburg, and Rowan 2L. Stanly (P): (2 coll.), V[ YIJ,1994, 1995,4L. counties confirm the most western distribution of King et al. (1942) firstrecorded Ae. dupreeifrom the species in North Carolina (Darsie and Ward North Carolina, without providing county records. 1981). Subsequent county records include Edgecombe, This large golden-orange and black mosquito is New Hanover, and Pasquotank (Schoof and Ashton one of the most obvious and easily identified spe- 1944); Cumberland, Richmond, Robeson, Union, cies in North America. Although Roberts and Scan- and Wayne (Carpenter and Chamberlain 1946); lon (1975) reported that in Texas the species did Durham (Miles and Rings 1946); and Duplin (Irby not bite until after sunset, we commonly collected and Apperson 1988, 1992). females biting in shaded woodlands in the morning This species is widely distributed in the south- and afternoon. They are very persistent in their at- eastern states. Darsie and Ward (1981) figured the tacks. Barret (1919) reported that the larvae of this distribution of this species throughout the state. species are brown and rest horizontally in the water However, we have found no confirmed specimens like anopheline larvae. Larvae collected in Bruns- or published records of it in the mountains. Our wick County were brown with a cream-colored tho- records document its occurrence from the coast to rax, but they hung from the the surface with a slight at least 1,000 ft. (305 m) elevation in the western angle, not horizontally. Aedes fulvus pallens re- piedmont. The only places that large numbers of quires heavy rains to hatch in large numbers. Such larvae were collected at a single time were in hatches usually occur following summer-fall trop- Brunswick and Duplin counties in the southeastern ical depressions and hurricanes. Thus, large hatches corner of the state. This species should be consid- in North Carolina occurred in June 1992, but in ered common in the southeastern coastal plain September-October 1996. In 1992, one of the au- counties and uncommon in the piedmont. thors (E.Y.H.) reared 1,059 males and females from Very little is known about the biology of this larvae collected in 3 woodland pools between June species. Suyemoto et al. (1973) found that 2 en- 12 and November 14. Of these, 507 were collected gorged specimens had fed on mammals, whereas in June. Larval development is apparently slower Irby and Apperson (1988) found 6 specimens that than in many of the other Aedes and Psorophora had fed on passerine birds. species and requires 14 or more days. Although Based on the Brunswick Countv data. larvae typically considered a coastal plain-woodland pool 168 JounNal oF THE AMERTCIN Mosqurto CoNTRoL AssocranoN Vor-. 14, No. 2 species, it readily survives in the piedmont at ele- 1955). This species has been found naturally in- vations up to 1,000 ft. (305 m). fected with eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus (Morris 1992). The immature stages are usually Aedes hendersozi Cockerell found in shallow grassy pools in open sunlight. Our collections were made in every month except May Burke (P/Iv{):(3 coll.),VIII, 1996,49,6d. Hal_ and all of the larval collection sites, except one, ifax (C/P): (1 coll.), VII, 1987, 1L. New Hanover were in open sunlight and in grassy pools. The sin- (C): (10 coll.), V[, Ix,1994,1996, 8p,487L. Stan- gle exception was a woodland pool in Brunswick ly (P): (1 coll.), V[ 1995, 19. Wake (p): (1 coll.), County. Although larvae and adults were found I){., 1974, 19. Yadkin (P): (l coll.), vt, 1996,Zg . throughout the year, data from Brunswick County The first published records for Ae. hendersoniin (coastal) show a distinct fall abundance peak in Oc- North Carolina are those of Zavortink (19j2), who tober-November. The collection of 2 specimens in examined specimensfrom Henderson, McDowell, a light trap in Cabamrs County matches the previ- Mecklenburg, and Robeson counties. Irby and Ap- ous westernmost collection in Union County re- person (1988, 1992) reported specimensfrom Du- ported by Carpenter and Chamberlnn (1946). Ae- plin County. Szumlas et al. (1996a) reported col- des mitchellae should be considered rare in the lecting Ae. hendersoni eggsin ovitraps set in Jack- piedmont region of North Carolina. son and Swain counties in the western part of the state. In 1966, one of the authors (B.A.H.) exam- Aedes ined a single larva of this speciesfrom Cumberland thibauhi Dyar and Knab County (Ft. Bragg) collected by R. E. Parsons. Anson (P): (2 coll.), Y VI, 1996, 1997, 29. Aedes hendersoni was considereda variety or a Brunswick (C): (multiple coll.), XI-V 1991-96, synonym of Aedes tiseriatus (Say) for many years 3879, 345d. Duplin (C): (1 coll.), V 1987,26. until elevated to speciesstatus by Breland (1960). Lenoir (C): (1 coll.), Y 1995, 29. Even then it was considereda westernspecies, until The first record of Ae. thibaulti in North Carolina Zavortink (1972) demonstratedthat it was widely was that of King et ^1. (1942) based on a specimen distributed in the eastern United States. We think from Edgecombe County. Other published county that Ae. hendersoniis widespreadin North Carolina records include Edgecombe, Johnston, Stanly, Pas- and common in some areas. However. because it quotank, and Robeson (Schoof and Ashton 1944); oviposits in tree holes at heights that are impractical Durham and Robeson (Carpenter and Chamberlain to sample, immatures are collected infrequently 1946); Robeson (Miles and Rings 1946); and Du- (Scholl and DeFoliart 1977, Sinsko and Grimstad plin (Irby and Apperson 1992). 1977).Also, adult females will come to ground lev- Aedes thibaulti is almost always associated with el to bite and probably are often incorrectly iden- heavily shaded woodland pools, swamps, or river tified as Ae. triseriatu,s,a much more common spe- bottoms that contain standing hollow trees and cies. Thesebehavioral traits and morphologicsim- stumps in water. The larvae are usually found in- ilarities probably account for the infrequent collec- side hollow trees or stumps (King et al. 1960). Ac- tions and identification of Ae. hendersonl. Persons cording to Wood et al. (1979) eggs are oviposited wishing to collect this speciesshould target mature on the inside of the hollow trees and stumps, and deciduous trees including elm, oak, maple, beech, although the species overwinters in the egg stage and hackberry. in northern states. in southern states it overwinters in the larval stage. (l944'l Aedes mitchellae (Dyar) In North Carolina, Schoof and Ashton rc- ported collecting larvae from a rock pool below Brunswick (C): (37 coll.), I-IY VI-X[, 1992- Lake Tillery (Stanly County). Otherwise, all of our 96, 1169,79d. Cabamrs(P): (2 coll.), IX, 1994, collections have been from hollow trees or stumps. 1995,19, ld. Carteret(C): (1 coll.),II' 1995,lL. Also, all but one of the hollow trees and stumps Pender(C): (1 coll.), IX, 1996, 19. were alive. Records of larvae from a green ash and Brimley (1938) was the first to record this spe- a swamp chestnut oak appear to be among the first cies in North Carolina, from New Hanover County. records for trees other than a gum or cypress. Lar- Subsequentcounty records include Onslow (King vae overwinter in North Carolina, and their num- et al. 1942); New Hanover, Onslow, Pasquotank, bers increase from December until they peak in and Robeson(Schoof and Ashton 1944); New Han- April. ove! Richmond, Robeson, and Union (Carpenter According to one of the authors (E.Y.H.), Ae. thi- and Chamberlain 1946); and Pamlico (Parker baulti is a very aggressive and hard-biting mosquito 1986). Our collections in Cabamrs County extend similar to (Walker). Our collec- the distribution of this species further west in North tions of Ae. thibauhi from the Pee Dee National Carolina than figured in Darsie and Ward (1981). Wildlife Refuge in Anson County occurred only Aedesmitchellae is most abundantin the Atlantic about lO mi. from Lake Tillery where Schoof and and Gulf coastal plains, where adults and larvae Ashton (1944) reported this species. These repre- occur throughout the year (Carpenterand LaCasse sent the crurent westernmost records for this spe- JuNe 1998 UNcovvoN Arnrs nNo Attopnates Dr NoRTH Canolrt.ln 169 cies in North Carolina. Several local unpublished VI, Vtr, 1994, 1995,19, lL. Stokes (P): (1 coll.), records were seen that would extend the distribu- Vl, 1997, 1439. Tiansylvania (M): (1 coll.), VII, tion of the speciesinto the foothills of the moun- 1994, 259. Yadkin (P): (a coil.), VI, VIII, 1995, tains. However, because no specimens were re- 1996,209. tained for those records, they cannot be confirmed. The first record of Ae. trivittatus in North Caro- Becausethis speciesis usually associatedwith gum lina was from Durham County (King et al. 1943). and cypress swamps,it should be consideredlocal- The only other published records are from Robeson ly common in the coastal plain and rare in the pied- County (Carpenter et al. 1945) and Jackson and mont region of North Carolina. Swain counties (Szumlas et al. 1996a, 1996b). Aedes trivittarzs is relatively rare in the southern states and is more common in the northern Atlantic Aedes tormentor Dyar and Knab states, the Ohio Valley, and the midwestern states, Duplin (C): (multiple coll.), V-IX, 1984, 1987, where it has been found naturally infected with 1988, 384L. Forsyth (P): (1 coll.), VI, 1996, 18L. Cache Valley virus (Calisher et al. 1986) and Tri- Mecklenburg(P): (2 coll.), Y IX, 1995, 1997,2L. vittatus virus (Sudia et al. l97I). Our collections Rowan (P): (1 coll.), V[ L994, lL. Stanly (P): (2 reveal a more western distribution in North Caro- coll.), Y VI, 1994, 1995, 5L. Wake (P): (1 coll.), lina, with all specimens either from the piedmont vI, 1995,lL. or mountainous counties. Furthermore, there are no Middlekauff and Carpenter (1944) first reported confirmed published records of this species from Ae. tormentor in North Carolina from New Hano- the coastal plain of North Carolina. Probably, Aedes ver County. However, Bradley et al. (1944) and trivittatus is spread widely throughout the river bot- Schoof and Ashton (1.944)reported an even earlier toms of western North Carolina. Although the spe- collection in Craven County. Other county records cies is usually collected in small numbers, on 3 include Richmond (Carpenter and Chamberlain occasions (one each, in the Davidson, Davie, and 1946), and Robeson (Miles and Rings 1946). Our Stokes county records) specimens were so abundant collection in Forsyth County extends the distribu- that the collectors were bitten severely and quickly tion of this speciesin North Carolina further west left the areas. Adults were collected between June than reported in Darsie and Ward (1981). and October and were most abundant in July and Although Ae. tormentor has a fairly wide distri- August. The elevations for our collections ranged bution in the easternstates, it is considereda more from 650 ft. (198 m) in the piedmont to above southern species(Carpenter and LaCasse 1955). It 2,2W ft. (670 m) in the mountains. is rarely common outside of the southernpart of its range (King et al. 1960). In North Carolina it Anopheles atropos Dyar and Knab should be consideredlocally common in the south- easterncoastal plain counties and rare elsewhere. Brunswick (C): (13 coll.), I V VII, VlI, XII, Adult females of Ae. tormentor currently cannot l99O-93, 1995,4O9,3d. Carteret (C): (3 coll.), be separatedfrom those of Aedes atlanticus Dyar I){., 1993,5199. New Hanover (C): (1 coll.), Y and Knab and only the male genitalia and the larval 1997. s3? . stage can be used to separatethese 2 species.Al- The first record of An. atropos in North Carolina though Scanlon and Yates (1970) and Roberts and was based on specimen(s) from New Hanover Scanlon (1979) reported 2 characters for separating County (King et al. 1942). Other county records the females of these speciesin Texas, we have not include Carteret, Dare, and Onslow counties been able to rear an adequate number of specimens (Schoof and Ashton 1944) afi New Hanover with associatedimmature exuviae to confirm these County (Carpenter and Chamberlain 1946). This charactersin North Carolina. For fleld identiflcation species should be upgraded from uncommon to lo- purposes, a black and cream banded appearancecan cally cornmon along the southern half of the coast be useful in identifying the larvae of both Ae. tor- of North Carolina. mentor arrdAe. atlanticus. Anopheles atropos is a brackish water species that occurs along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from (King Aedes trivittatus (Coquillett) New Jersey to Texas et al. 1960). To the in- experienced worker it is easily confused with either Alamance (P): (1 coll.), V[, 1995, 19. Anson Anopheles quadrimaculalzs Say or Anopheles bar- (P): (6 coll.), V V[-X, 1996, 1997,18 9. Davidson beri Coquillett, although the head scales and tho- (P): (3 coll.), V-V[, 1996, 1997,739. Davie (P): racic setae are diagnostic for An. atropos. Females (4 coll.), V VII, 1996, 1997, 5099,21L. Forsyth of this species normally have dark palpi and uni- (P): (11 coll.), VI-X, 1993, 1995-97, r49. Guil- colorous dark wings, but some specimens may have ford (P): (5 coll.), V[-IX, 1994-1996,79. Hen- faint pale bands on the palpi and faint dark spots derson(M): (2 coll.), V[, VIIJ, 1994, 159. Rock- on the wings. Females are aggressive biters and will ingham (P): (1 coll.), VlI, 1995, 19. Rowan (P): attack in bright sunlight (Carpenter and LaCasse (4 coll.), VI, VI[, IX,1994-96,69,2L. Rutherford 1955). Adults may be very cornmon in salt marsh- (P): (1 coll.), IX, 1994, 19. Stanly (P): (2 coll.), es, but the larvae are usually very difficult to find. t70 JounNx- oF THE AMERTcIN Mosgurro CoNTRoL AssoclntroN VoL. 14,No.2

Although larvae of An. atropos and Anopheles (1943) in Cumberland and Union counties; Schoof bradleyi King can be found together, those of An. and Ashton (1944) in Cumberland, Richmond, and atropos are usually found in saltier water (King et Wayne counties; Carpenter and Chamberlain (1946) al. 1960). The egg of An. atropos was described in in Cumberland, Richmond, Scotland, and Wayne detail by Linley (1992). counties; and Floore et al. (19'76) in Cumberland and Richmond counties. These records all apply to collections made during the 1940s. Since that time, Brief comments about six additional species. no specimens of An. georgianus have been collect- Aedes grossbecki Dyar and Knab ed and confirmed from North Carolina. Further- more, based on an examination by B.A.H. of pre- This species was listed as rare in North Carolina served and confirmed specimens of this species in (Slaff and Apperson 1989). Darsie and Ward (1981) the USNM (Smithsonian) mosquito collections, no map the distribution of Ae. grossbecti throughout confirmed collections of this species have been the state, but did not list published records to sup- made in the United States after 1951. Apparently, port that distribution. Slaff and Apperson (1989) this species has a very specific larval habitat (shal- included it in North Carolina (Slaff, personal com- low natural seepage) and it may now be endangered munication) because it had been confirmed from due to the loss of that habitat. South Carolina and Virginia (Carpenter and La- Casse 1955). Despite numerous collections, no specimens of this species have been found in North Anop hele s p erplex en s Ludlow Carolina. Also, no specimens from North Carolina Slaff and Apperson (1989) listed this species as were found by B.A.H. in collections preserved in uncommon in North Carolina. Prior to Bellamy the state or in the USNM (Smithsonian) mosquito (1956), An. perplexens was considered ajunior syn- collections. Accordingly, we cannot accept the rec- onym of Anopheles punctipennis (Say). When Bel- ord of Ae. grossbecki in North Carolina until spec- lamy elevated An. perplexens to species status he imens collected there have been confirmed as this listed specimens previously noted by Roth (1945) species. from Swannanoa, Buncombe County, North Caro- lina. The only subsequent published record of An. Anopheles barberi Coquillett perplexens in North Carolina is from Duplin Coun- ty (Irby and Apperson 1992). Identifying An. per- Slaff Apperson (1989) and listed this tree hole plexens is compounded by variation in wing spot species as uncommon in North Carolina but to date sizes in An. punctipennis, as described by Fritz et we have not collected it. However, published re- al. (1991). Progeny reared from eggs oviposited by cords for An. barberi in North Carolina include individual feral females of An. punctipennis col- (1922) Dyar in Polk County; Schoof and Ashton lected in North Carolina often exhibit wing patterns (1944) in Buncombe, Craven, Cumberland, Meck- (Darsie and Ward 1981) representing both An. per- lenburg, Robeson, and Scotland counties; Carpenter plexens and An. punctipennis. Thus, we follow Bel- (1946) and Chamberlain in Buncombe, Cumber- lamy (1956) and Fritz et al. (1991) in recommend- land, and Richmond counties; Parker (1993) in ing the use of egg characters to separate these 2 (1996b) Pamlico County; and Szumlas et al. in the species. These egg character differences are easily (Jackson Cherokee Indian Reservation and Swain seen in micrographs in Linley and Kaiser (1994). counties). Because of the cryptic larval habitat of this species and the infrequent published records it should be considered to be rare in North Carolina. Anophelcs w alkeri Theobald Slaff and Apperson (1989) listed this species as Anopheles crucians Wiedemann uncorrunon in North Carolina. Published records for this species in the state include Schoof and Ashton This species was listed as uncommon in North (l9M) in Person County, and Carpenter and Cham- Carolina by Slaff and Apperson (1989). During our berlain (1946) in Union County. No specimens of collections we found the species to be common in An. walkeri have been confirmed or reported from many counties from the coastal plain to the moun- North Carolina since the 1940s. We consider this tains. Recently, Cockburn et al. (1993) provided ev- species to be rare. idence for a Crucians sibling species complex; thus more than one species may be masquerading under this name in North Carolina. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge G. E. Drum, Cataw- ba College, J. B. Hallsey, T. M. McCree and B. A. Anophel.e s ge orgianus King Whitaker, Division of Parks and Recreation, North This species was listed as rare in North Carolina Carolina Department of Environment and Natural by Slaff and Apperson (1989). Published records Resources, M. R. Ielmini, Pee Dee National Wild- for this species in the state include King et al. life Refuge, and C. G. Ingram, Tanglewood Park, JuNs 1998 UNcourr,roNArors nNn ANopacrzs w Nonrs ClnoLtNn t7l for permission and assistance in collecting in the Dyar, H. G. 1922. The mosquitoes of the United States. ecological preserve and parks. For the opportunity Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 62:l-119. to collect year-around in Brunswick County, we Floore, T. G., B. A. Harrison and B. E Eldridge. 1976. The Anopheles (Anopheles) crucians subgroup in the thank D. G. Sommersett, Director, Operations Ser- United States.Mosq. Syst. 8:1-110. vices. We thank the following individuals for col- Fritz, G. N., D. Dritz, T. Jensen and R. K. Washino. 1991. lecting specimens: N. K. Oates, Public Health Pest Wing-scale pattern variation in Anopheles punctipennis Management Section, North Carolina Depaftment (Say). Mosq. Syst. 23:81-86. Environment and Natural Resources, R. S. Nasci Irby, W S. and C. S. Apperson. 1988. Hosts of mosqui- and N. Panella. CDC. Fort Collins. CO. C. A. toes in the coastal plain of North Carolina. J. Med. En- Measmer, Cabarrus County Environmental Health, tomol. 25:85-93. K. Sholar, New Hanover County Health Depart- Irby, W. S. and C. S. Apperson. 1992. Spatial and tem- ment, T. J. Wood, Mecklenburg County Environ- poral distribution of resting female mosquitoes (Dip- plain mental Health, and M. E. Garvin and S. J. Oppen- tera: Culicidae) in the coastal of North Carolina. J. Med. Entomol. 29:15O-159. heim, North Carolina Youth Advocacy Intern Pro- King, W. V., G. H. Bradley and T, E. McNeel. 1942. The gram. We also thank C. S. Apperson, North Caro- mosquitoes of the southeastern states. U.S. Dep. Agric. lina State University, for providing records from his Misc. Publ. 336:1-96. studies in Duplin and Jackson counties, and N. H. King, W. V., G. H. Bradley, C. N. Smith and W. C. Mc- Newton, Public Health Pest Management Section, Duffie. 1960. A handbook of the mosquitoes of the North Carolina Department Environment and Nat- southeastern United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbook ural Resources, for his support and encouragement. I 73:1-l 88. King, W. V., L. Roth, J. Toffaleti and W. W. Middlekauff. 1943. New distribution records for the mosquitoes of REFERENCES CITED the southeastern United States during 1942. J. Econ. Entomol. 36:573-577. Barret, H. P 1919. Observations on the life history of Linley, J. R. 1992. The eggs of Anopheles atropos and Aedesbimaculatus Coq. Insec.Inscit. Menst. 7:63-64. Anopheles darlingi (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Syst. Bellamy, R. E. 1956. An investigation the of taxonomic 24:4O-5O. statusof Arutphelesperplexens Ludlow, 1907. Ann. En- Linley, J. R. and P E. Kaiser. 1994. The eggs of Anoph- tomol. Am. 49:515-529. Soc. eles punctipennis and Anopheles perplexens (Diptera: Bradley, G. H., R. E Fritz and L. Perry. E. 1944. Addi- Culicidae). Mosq. Syst. 26:43-56. tional mosquito records for the southeasternstates. J. Middlekauff, W. W and S. J. Carpenter. 1944. New dis- Econ.Entomol.3T:1O9. tribution records for the mosquitoes of the southeastern Breland, O. P 1960. Restorationof the name,Aedes hen- United States in 1943. J. Econ. Entomol. 37:88-92. dersoni Cockerell, and its elevation to full specificrank Miles, V. I. and R. W Rings. 1946. Distribution records (Diptera: Culicidae).Ann. Entomol.Soc. Am. 53:600- for mosquitoes of the southeastern states in 1945. J. 606. Econ. Entomol. 39:387 -391. Brimley, C. S. 1938. The insectsof North Carolina.North Morris, C. D. 1992. Eastern equine encephalitis. J. Fla. Carolina Departmentof Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. Mosq. Control Assoc. 63:23-34. Calisher,C. H., D. B. Francy,G. S. Smith,D. J. Muth, J. Parker, B. M. 1986. Presumed Dirofilaria immitis infec- S. Lazuick, N. Karabatsos,W. L. Jakob and R. G. Mc- tions from field-collected mosquitoes in North Carolina. Lean. 1986. Distribution of Bunyamweraserogroup vi- J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.2:23I-233. rusesin North America. 1956-1984.Am. J. Tiop. Med. Parker, B. M. 1993. Variation in mosquito (Diptera: Cu- Hyg.35:429-443. licidae) relative abundance and Dirofilnria immitis Carpenter,S. J. and R. W. Chamberlain. 1946. Mosquito (Nematoda: Filarioidea) vector potential in coastal collections at army installations in the fourth service North Carolina. J. Med. Entomol. 3O:436-442. command,1943. I. Econ. Entomol. 39:82-88. Reinert, J. F. 1975. Mosquito generic and subgeneric ab- Carpenter,S. J. and W. J. LaCasse. 1955. Mosquitoes of breviations (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Syst. 7:105- North America (north of Mexico). Univ. California 110. Press,Berkeley, CA. Reinert, J. E, P E. Kaiser and J. A. Seawright. 1998 Carpenter,S. J., R. W. Chamberlainand J. F Wanamaker. (1997). Analysis of the Anopheles (Anopheles) quad- 1945. New distribution records for the mosquitoesof rimaculatus complex of sibling species (Diptera: Culic- the southeasternstates in 1944. J. Econ. Entomol. 38: idae) using morphological, cytological, molecular, ge- 401-402. netic, biochemical, and ecological techniques in an in- Cockburn, A. E, J. Zhang, O. P Perera,P. Kaiser, J. A. tegrated approach. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. Seawrightand S. E. Mitchell. 1993. A new speciesof l3(Suppl.):l-102. the Anopheles crucians complex: detection by mito- Roberts, D. R. and J. E. Scanlon. 1975. The ecology and chondrial DNA polymorphisms, pp. 3215. In D. Bo- behavior of Aedes atlanticus D. & K. and other species rovsky and A. Spielman (eds.). Host regulated devel- with reference to in the Houston area, opmental mechanismsin vector .Proc. Third Texas. J. Med. Entomol . 12:537-546. Symposium, Univ. Florida-IFAS, Florida Med. Vero Roberts, D. R. and J. E. Scanlon. 1979. An evaluation of Beach, FL. morphological characters for separating females in Ae- Darsie, R. F, Jr. and R. A. Ward. 1981. Identification and des (Ochlerotatus) atlanticus Dyar and Knab and Aedes geographical distribution of the mosquitoes of North (Ochlerotatus) tonnentor Dyar and Knab (Diptera: Cu- America, north of Mexico. Mosq. Syst. l(Suppl.):l- licidae). Mosq. Syst. ll:2O3-2O8. Jt-f. Robertson, L. C., S. Prior, C. S. Apperson and W. S. Irby. 112 Jounw- or nre AvrnrcaN Mosqutro CoNrnol AssocnrtoN VoL. 14, No. 2

1993. Bionomics of Anopheles quadrimaculatus and Suyemoto, W., B. A. Schiefer and B. E Eldridge. 1973. Culex erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Falls Lake Precipitin tests of blood-fed mosquitoes collected dur- Basin, North Carolina: seasonal changes in abundance ing the VEE surveillance survey in the southern United and gonotrophic status, and host-feeding patterns. J. States in 1971. Mosq. News 33:392-395. Med. Entomol. 30:689-698. Szumlas, D. E., C. S. Apperson and E. E. Powell. 1996a. Roth, L. M. 1945. Aberrations and variations in anophe- Seasonal occurrence and abundance of Aedes triseriatus line larvae of the southeastern United States (Diptera, and other mosquitoes in a La Crosse virus-endemic area Culicidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 47:257-278. in western North Carolina. J. Am. Mosq. Control As- Scanlon, J. E. and M. M. Yates. 1970. Preliminary ob- soc. 12:184-193. servations on Aedes (Ochlerotatus) atlanticus Dyar and Szumlas, D. E., C. S. Apperson, E. E. Powell, P Hartig, Knab 1906, and other members of the Scapularis spe- D. B. Francy and N. Karabotsos. 1996b. Relative abun- cies group in Texas, p. 1. Proc. Texas Mosq. Control dance and species composition of mosquito populations Assoc., December 9-10, 1970. (Diptera: Culicidae) in a La Crosse virus-endemic area Scholl, P J. and G. R. DeFoliart. 1977. Aedes triseriatus in western North Carolina. J. Med. Entomol. 33:598- and Aedes hendersoni: vertical and temporal distribu- 60'1. tion as measured by oviposition. Environ. Entomol. 6: Wood, D. M., P T, Dang 355-358. and R. A. Ellis. 1979. Ttre and arachnids of Canada part 6. The mosquitoes Schoof, H. F. and D. E Ashton. 1944. Notes and new of Canada, Diptera: Culicidae. Res. Branch Agric. distribution records on the mosquitoes of North Caro- Can. Pub.1686:l-390. lina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 60:1-1O. Wray, D. Sinsko, M. J. and P R. Grimstad. 1977. Habitat separa- 1950. Insects of North Carolina. Second sup- plement. tion by differential vertical oviposition of two treehole North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Aedes in Indiana. Environ. Entomol. 6:485-487. Raleigh, NC. Slaff, M. and C. S. Apperson. 1989. A key to the mos- Wray, D. 1967. Insects of North Carolina. Third supple- quitoes of North Carolina and the Mid-Atlantic states. ment. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Ra- N.C. State Univ. Agric. Ext. Serv. Pub. AG-412:1-38. leigh, NC. Sudia, W. D., V. R Newhouse, C. H. Calisher and R. W. Zavortink,'1. J. 1972. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culic- Chamberlain. 1971. Califomia group : iso- idae) XXVII. The New World species formerly placed lations from mosquitoes in North America. Mosq. News in Aedes (Finlaya). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann 3 l:576-600. Arbor) 8(3):1-206.