DOCSLIB.ORG

A Reinert Female Genitalia Culicini2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Reinert Female Genitalia Culicini2 European Mosquito Bulletin 28 (2010), 51-58 Journal of the European Mosquito Control Association ISSN 1460-6127; w.w.w.e-m-b.org First published online 19 April 2010 Species of tribe Culicini (Diptera: Culicidae: Culicinae) with published illustrations and/or descriptions of female genitalia John F. Reinert Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology (CMAVE), United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1600/1700 SW 23rd Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32608-1067, and collaborator Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract Examples are provided for species of the mosquito tribe Culicini with published illustrations and/or descriptions of the female genitalia and include corresponding literature citations. Key words: Diptera, Culicidae, Culicinae, Culicini, Culex, Deinocerites, Galindomyia, Lutzia, species, female genitalia Introduction Current and previously published catalogs of the dipteran family Culicidae do not include a citation category for descriptions and illustrations of the female genitalia of various taxa. This void is partially filled for species in tribe Culicini by the following list. Each species listed is followed by literature citations in which illustrations and/or descriptions are included. Numerous characters of the female genitalia have proven to be of value in distinguishing species and generic-level taxa of tribe Aedini (see Reinert, 2002; Reinert et al., 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009). Unfortunately, within Culicidae many descriptions, at all taxonomic levels, have not included characteristics or illustrations of the female genitalia. The following list includes species of tribe Culicini with female genitalia partially or completely illustrated (denoted by 1) and/or described (denoted by 2) in parentheses following each literature citation. Illustrations of the female abdomen with only the cerci protruding and without other genital characters, or with only the cerci described, are not included in the list. Illustrations/descriptions of species as synonyms are included with currently valid species. Abbreviations of genera and subgenera follow Reinert (2009). Species of Culicini with illustrations and/or descriptions of their female genitalia Culex (Aedinus) amazonensis (Lutz): Berlin & Belkin, 1980 (1). Cx. (Anoedioporpa) conservator Dyar & Knab: Berlin & Belkin, 1980 (1). 51 Cx. (Barraudius) modestus Ficalbi: Ryazantseva, 1985 (2). Cx. (Carrollia) anduzei Cerqueira & Lane: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) antunesi Lane & Whitman: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) babahoyensis Levi-Castillo: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) bihaicola Dyar & Nuñez Tovar: Valencia, 1973 (1, 2). Cx. (Car.) bonnei Dyar: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) guerreroi Cova Garcia, Sutil & Pulido: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) infoliatus Bonne-Wepster & Bonne: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) metempsytus Dyar: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) rausseoi Cova Garcia, Sutil & Pulido: Valencia, 1973 (2). Cx. (Car.) secundus Bonne-Wepster & Bonne: Valencia, 1973 (1, 2). Cx. (Car.) urichii (Coquillett): Valencia, 1973 (1, 2). Cx. (Culex) acharistus Root: Bachmann & Casal, 1963 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) annulirostris Skuse: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) apicinus Philippi: Rossi et al., 2008 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) bahamensis Dyar & Knab: Gerry, 1932 (1, 2); Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) chidesteri Dyar: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) coronator Dyar & Knab: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) decens Theobald: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) declarator Dyar & Knab: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) duttoni Theobald: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) erythrothorax Dyar: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) fuscocephala Theobald: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) gelidus Theobald: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) hutchinsoni Barraud: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) incognitus Baisas: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) interrogator Dyar & Knab: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) lahillei Bachmann & Casal: Bachmann & Casal, 1962 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) maxi Dyar: Bachmann & Casal, 1963 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) mimeticus Noè: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2); LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1). Cx. (Cux.) mimuloides Barraud: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (2). Cx. (Cux.) mimulus Edwards: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1). Cx. (Cux.) nigripalpus Theobald: Gerry, 1932 (1, 2); Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) orientalis Edwards: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Hara, 1957a (1, 2), 1957b (1); Sirivanakarn, 1976 (2). Cx. (Cux.) philippinensis Sirivanakarn: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (2). Cx. (Cux.) pipiens Linnaeus: Blanchard, 1905 (1); Brolemann, 1920 (1); Edwards, 1932 (1); LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Christophers, 1951 (1, 2); Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2); Hara, 1957a (1, 2); Laffoon & Knight, 1971 (1); Harbach & Knight, 1980 (1); Harbach et al., 1984 (1, 2, as molestus Forskål); Ryazantseva, 1985 (1, 2); Clements, 1999 (1). Cx. (Cux.) pruina Theobald: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) pseudovishnui Colless: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (2). Cx. (Cux.) quinquefasciatus Say: Giles, 1902 (1, 2, as fatigans Wiedemann); Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2, as fatigans); Gerry, 1932 (1, 2); LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Christophers, 1951 (1, 2); Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2); Hara, 1957a (1, 2); Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2); Sirivanakarn & White, 1978 (1, 2); Harbach et al., 1985 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) restuans Theobald: Ross, 1947 (1); Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). 52 Cx. (Cux.) salinarius Coquillett: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) sitiens Wiedemann: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) stigmatosoma Dyar: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) tarsalis Coquillett: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) thalassius Theobald: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) theileri Theobald: Ryazantseva, 1985 (2). Cx. (Cux.) thriambus Dyar: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) tritaeniorhynchus Giles: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Hara, 1957a (1, 2); Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2); Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) vagans Wiedemann: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Hara, 1957a (1, 2); Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1). Cx. (Cux.) vishnui Theobald: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Cux.) whitei Barraud: Sirivanakarn, 1976 (2). Cx. (Cux.) whitmorei (Giles): LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Hara, 1957a (1, 2); Sirivanakarn, 1976 (1, 2). Cx. (Culiciomyia) kyotoensis Yamaguti & LaCasse: Hara, 1957a (1, 2). Cx. (Cui.) nebulosus Theobald: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (2). Cx. (Cui.) pallidothorax Theobald: Hara, 1957a (1, 2), 1957c (1). Cx. (Cui.) ryukyensis Bohart: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1). Cx. (Eumelanomyia) albiventris Edwards: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (2, as inconspicuosa Theobald). Cx. (Eum.) hayashii Yamada: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Hara, 1957a (1, 2). Cx. (Eum.) insignis (Carter): Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2). Cx. (Eum.) rima Theobald: Macfie & Ingram, 1922 (1, 2). Cx. (Lophoceraomyia) infantulus Edwards: LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1). Cx. (Lop.) rubithoracis (Leicester): LaCasse & Yamaguti, 1950 (1); Hara, 1957a (1, 2), 1957b (1). Cx. (Melanoconion) abominator Dyar & Knab: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) adamesi Sirivanakarn & Galindo: Sirivanakarn & Galindo, 1980 (1); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) akritos Forattini & Sallum: Forattini & Sallum, 1995 (1, 2); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) atratus Theobald: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) crybda Dyar: Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) delpontei Duret: Forattini & Sallum, 1989b (1, 2); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) educator Dyar & Knab: Forattini & Sallum, 1993b (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) eknomios Foratini [sic] & Sallum: Foratini [sic] & Sallum, 1992 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) elevator Dyar & Knab: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) erraticus (Dyar & Knab): Ross, 1947 (1); Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) faurani Duret: Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) glyptosalpinx Harbach, Peyton & Harrison: Harbach et al., 1984 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) gnomatos Sallum, Hutchings, Leila & Ferreira: Sallum et al., 1997 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) ikelos Forattini & Sallum: Forattini & Sallum, 1995 (1, 2); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) inadmirabilis Dyar: Forattini & Sallum, 1993a (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) inhibitator Dyar & Knab: Gerry, 1932 (1, 2). 53 Cx. (Mel.) lopesi Sirivanakarn & Jakob: Forattini & Sallum, 1990 (1, 2); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) ocossa Dyar & Knab: Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) oedipus Root: Forattini & Sallum, 1987 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) opisthopus Komp: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) paracrybda Komp: Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) peccator Dyar & Knab: Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) pedroi Sirivanakarn & Belkin: Sirivanakarn & Belkin, 1980 (1); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) pereyrai Duret: Sallum & Forattini, 1989b (1, 2); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) pilosus (Dyar & Knab): Yamaguti & LaCasse, 1951 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) plectoporpe Root: Forattini & Sallum, 1987 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) portesi Senevet & Abonnenc: Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) ribeirensis Forattini & Sallum: Forattini & Sallum, 1985 (1, 2); Forattini, 1996 (1); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (2). Cx. (Mel.) sacchettae Sirivanakarn & Jakob: Forattini & Sallum, 1989a (1, 2); Forattini, 1996 (1); Sallum & Forattini, 1996 (1, 2). Cx. (Mel.) spissipes (Theobald): Sallum & Forattini,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Culex Pipiens, House Mosquito
    http://www.MetaPathogen.com: Culex pipiens, house mosquito cellular organisms - Eukaryota - Fungi/Metazoa group - Metazoa - Eumetazoa - Bilateria - Coelomata - Protostomia - Panarthropoda - Arthropoda - Mandibulata - Pancrustacea - Hexapoda - Insecta - Dicondylia - Pterygota - Neoptera - Endopterygota - Diptera - Nematocera - Culicimorpha - Culicoidea - Culicidae - Culicinae - Culicini - - Culex - Culex pipiens complex - Culex pipiens Brief facts ● Culex mosquitos are the most widely distributed mosquito in the world. The most important of the Culex vectors are members of the Culex pipiens complex, a very closely related group of species (or incipient species - the taxonomy remains unclear) that originated in Africa but has spread by human activity to tropical and temperate climate zones on all continents but Antarctica. ● Culex pipiens mosquitos are important vectors of human pathogens in the United States and world-wide. They carry a number of devastating diseases such as St. Louis encephalitis (SLE), West Nile encephalitis, Eastern equine encephalitis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Japanese encephalitis, Ross River encephalitis, Murray Valley encephalitis, Rift valley fever, and lymphatic filariases. Culex mosquitos are competent to transmit heartworms. Detailed information about ubiquitous parasites - heartworms, Dirofilaria immitis at MetaPathogen. ● Culex pipiens is normally considered to be a bird feeder but some urban strains have a predilection for mammalian hosts and feed readily on humans. ● The genome sequence of a member
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera: Culicidae: Culicini): a Cautionary Account of Conflict and Support
    Insect Systematics & Evolution 46 (2015) 269–290 brill.com/ise The phylogenetic conundrum of Lutzia (Diptera: Culicidae: Culicini): a cautionary account of conflict and support Ian J. Kitching, C. Lorna Culverwell and Ralph E. Harbach* Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK *Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Published online 12 May 2014; published online 10 June 2015 Abstract Lutzia Theobald was reduced to a subgenus ofCulex in 1932 and was treated as such until it was restored to its original generic status in 2003, based mainly on modifications of the larvae for predation. Previous phylogenetic studies based on morphological and molecular data have provided conflicting support for the generic status of Lutzia: analyses of morphological data support the generic status whereas analyses based on DNA sequences do not. Our previous phylogenetic analyses of Culicini (based on 169 morpho- logical characters and 86 species representing the four genera and 26 subgenera of Culicini, most informal group taxa of subgenus Culex and five outgroup species from other tribes) seemed to indicate a conflict between adult and larval morphological data. Hence, we conducted a series of comparative and data exclu- sion analyses to determine whether the alternative positions of Lutzia are due to conflicting signal or to a lack of strong signal. We found that separate and combined analyses of adult and larval data support dif- ferent patterns of relationships between Lutzia and other Culicini. However, the majority of conflicting clades are poorly supported and once these are removed from consideration, most of the topological dis- parity disappears, along with much of the resolution, suggesting that morphology alone does not have sufficiently strong signal to resolve the position ofLutzia .
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Nominotypical Subgenus of Culex \(Diptera
    Systematics and Biodiversity (2017), 15(4): 296–306 Research Article Phylogeny of the nominotypical subgenus of Culex (Diptera: Culicidae): insights from analyses of anatomical data into interspecific relationships and species groups in an unresolved tree RALPH E. HARBACH, C. LORNA CULVERWELL & IAN J. KITCHING Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK (Received 26 April 2016; accepted 13 October 2016) The aim of this study was to produce the first objective and comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the speciose subgenus Culex based on morphological data. We used implied and equally weighted parsimony methods to analyse a dataset comprised of 286 characters of the larval, pupal, and adult stages of 150 species of the subgenus and an outgroup of 17 species. We determined the optimal support by summing the GC supports for each MPC, selecting the cladograms with the highest supports to generate a strict consensus tree. We then collapsed the branches with GC support < 1 to obtain the ‘best’ topography of relationships. The analyses largely failed to resolve relationships among the species and the informal groups in which they are currently placed based on morphological similarities and differences. All analyses, however, support the monophyly of genus Culex. With the exception of the Atriceps Group, the analyses failed to find positive support for any of the informal species groups (monophyly of the Duttoni Group could not be established because only one of the two species of the group was included in the analyses). Since the analyses would seem to include sufficient data for phylogenetic reconstruction, lack of resolution appears to be the result of inadequate or conflicting character data, and perhaps incorrect homology assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Compounds That Attract Arthropods- Patent 2001
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 7-31-2001 Chemical Compounds that Attract Arthropods- Patent 2001 Ulrich R. Bernier University of Florida, [email protected] Daniel L. Kline USDA Donald Barnard USDA Kenneth Posey USDA Matthew Booth USDA See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Part of the Agricultural Science Commons Bernier, Ulrich R.; Kline, Daniel L.; Barnard, Donald; Posey, Kenneth; Booth, Matthew; and Yost, Richard A., "Chemical Compounds that Attract Arthropods- Patent 2001" (2001). Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 973. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/973 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Ulrich R. Bernier, Daniel L. Kline, Donald Barnard, Kenneth Posey, Matthew Booth, and Richard A. Yost This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usdaarsfacpub/973 111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 US006267953Bl (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,267,953 BI Bernier et ai. (45) Date of Patent: Jui. 31, 2001 (54) CHEMICAL COMPOSITION THAT Carlson, D.A., et aI., "Carbon Dioxide Released from ATTRACT ARTHROPODS Human Skin: Effect of Temperature and Insect Repellents", Journal of Medical Entomology, 29 (2), 165-170, (1992).
    [Show full text]
  • A New European Mosquito Species: Culex
    L-~------- I European Mosquito Bulletin, 15 (2003), 6-11. ! f Journal of the European Mosquito Control Association ISSN1460-6127 A new European mosqnito species: Culex (Neoculex) ellTOpaelIS (Dipten: Culicidae) Helena Da Cunha Ramos1• 2, Henrique Ribeiro1 and Bruce A Harrison3 lUnidade de Entomologia Medica, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Jmqueira, 96, 1349-008 Lisboa, portugal. Email: [email protected] 2Centro de Zoologia, Instituto de Investiga~o Cientitica Tropical, Jmqueira, 14, 1349-008 Lisboa, portugal. 3 Public Health Pest Management Section, North Carolina Depanment of Environment and Natural Resources, 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27107, USA. Abstnet The male, female, larva and pupa of Culex (Neoculex) europaeus, sp. novo are described on the basis of the examination of material from Portugal and comparison with reared specimens of Culex (Neoculex) territans from North Carolina, USA. The recognition of the new taxon is discussed and diagnostic identitication keys to the male and female genitalia and pupa are provided. Introduction Culex te"itans Walker was described from the "United States" (Walker, 1856), but the type locality was restricted later to Charlestoo (Charleston County), South Carolina, by Belkin et al. (1966). Furthermore, Belkin (1%8) was mable to locate the type specimen of Cx. te"itans and consida'ed it "presmnably lost" and non-extent. Sirivanakam (1971) considered Cx. te"itans the most widely spread member of the subgenus Neoculex Dyar, since it occurs in both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. In North America, ex. te"itans has a very wide distribution to include parts of Alaska and Canada, and most of the contiguous United States except for several southwestern states (Darsie & Ward, 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Wing Geometric Morphometrics As a Tool for the Identification of Culex
    insects Article Wing Geometric Morphometrics as a Tool for the Identification of Culex Subgenus Mosquitoes of Culex (Diptera: Culicidae) 1, 2, 3,4 Roseli França Simões y, André Barretto Bruno Wilke y , Carolina Romeiro Fernandes Chagas , Regiane Maria Tironi de Menezes 5, Lincoln Suesdek 1,6, Laura Cristina Multini 7, Fabiana Santos Silva 1,5 , Marta Gladys Grech 8, Mauro Toledo Marrelli 1,7 and Karin Kirchgatter 1,5,* 1 Institute of Tropical Medicine, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 05403-000, Brazil; [email protected] (R.F.S.); [email protected] (L.S.); [email protected] (F.S.S.); [email protected] (M.T.M.) 2 Department of Public Health Sciences, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA; [email protected] 3 Institute of Ecology, Nature Research Centre, Vilnius 08412, Lithuania; [email protected] 4 Applied Research Department, Zoological Park Foundation, São Paulo, SP 04301-905, Brazil 5 Department of Specialized Laboratories, Superintendence for Endemic Disease Control, SUCEN, São Paulo, SP 01027-000, Brazil; [email protected] 6 Butantan Institute, São Paulo, SP 05503-900, Brazil 7 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 01246-904, Brazil; [email protected] 8 Centro de Investigación Esquel de Montaña y Estepa Patagónica (CIEMEP), CONICET and UNPSJB, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Ciencias de la Salud, Sede Esquel, Esquel 9200, Chubut, Argentina; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 18 July 2020; Accepted: 21 August 2020; Published: 25 August 2020 Simple Summary: Different mosquito species have different ecology and behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • First Report of Culex Flavivirus Infection from Culex Coronator
    Miranda et al. Virology Journal (2019) 16:1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-018-1108-2 SHORTREPORT Open Access First report of Culex flavivirus infection from Culex coronator (Diptera: Culicidae), Colombia Jorge Miranda1, Salim Mattar1*, Marco Gonzalez1, Richard Hoyos-López2, Ader Aleman1 and Jose Aponte1 Abstract Background: Flaviviruses are important pathogens for humans and animals (Dengue viruses, Yellow fever virus, Zika virus and West Nile virus). Culex flavivirus (CxFV) is an insect-specific virus of the genus Flavivirus, detected in a wide variety of mosquito species. Objective: To detect Flavivirus in mosquitoes of a tropical region of the Colombian Caribbean. Methods: In 2014, an entomological surveillance of arboviruses was conducted in the department of Cordoba area of the Caribbean, Colombia. A total of 8270 mosquitoes were captured as follow: Mansonia (n = 3271/39.5%), Culex (n = 2668/32.26%), Anopheles (n = 840/10.15%), Aedeomyia (n = 411/4.9%), Psorophora (n = 397/4.8%), Coquilletidia (n = 369/4.46%), Uranotaenia (n = 261/3.15%) and Aedes (n = 53/0.6%). All mosquito species were collected in dry tropical forest of the Caribbean area. Universal primers for NS5 gene (958 pb), RT-PCR for flavivirus and sequencing were used for molecular identification of viruses detected. Results: Two pools belonging to Culex coronator were positive for flavivirus RNA sequence by RT-PCR. The sequences of the PCR amplicons, matched that of the Culex flaviviruses, CxFv COL PM_149 (GenBank: KR014201) and CxFv COL PM_212 (GenBank: KT307717). Phylogenetic analysis of the NS5 protein sequences of the Culex flaviviruses sequences with those of reference sequences available in GenBank indicated viruses of Genotype II, closely related to the Brazilian strain, BR_SJRP_01_ (GenBank: KT726939), from Culex sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera-Nematocera) in the Region of Tebessa (Algeria
    International Journal of Mosquito Research 2018; 5(2): 39-46 ISSN: 2348-5906 CODEN: IJMRK2 IJMR 2018; 5(2): 39-46 Systematic and Biotypical study of the family © 2018 IJMR Received: 08-01-2018 Culicidae (Diptera-Nematocera) in the region of Accepted: 09-02-2018 Tebessa (Algeria) Houda Hamaidia Laboratory of Biosystematics and Ecology of Arthropods, Houda Hamaidia and Sélima Berchi University of Mentouri Constantine, Algeria Abstract Sélima Berchi The study on the biodiversity of the culicidian fauna that in Tebessa (north-eastern Algeria) was A) Laboratory of Biosystematics conducted from July 2009 to April 2011 allowed us identifying 17 species of Culicidae belonging to two and Ecology of Arthropods, subfamilies Anophelinae and Culicinae with five genera (Culex, Culiseta, Aedes, Uranotaenia and University of Mentouri Anopheles). The statistical study of the Culicidae population revealed that the species Culiseta Constantine, Algeria longiareolata was the most abundant followed by the Culex pipiens species. The study of specific B) Higher National School of diversity indicated a poorly diversified and moderately balanced population. Through the distribution Biotechnology, Constantine, analysis of the Culicidian species according to the altitude by the PCA on one side and the study of the Algeria distribution of Culicidian species according to the type of the deposit on the other side. We found that most of the culicidian fauna tend to live in less than 800 meters high places and prefer colonizing the permanent rural biotopes rich in vegetation. Keywords: Culicidae, inventory, altitude, type of deposit, Tebessa, Northeastern Algeria 1. Introduction The conservation of biodiversity necessarily requires a perfect knowledge of the distribution of flora and fauna [33].
    [Show full text]
  • Harbach 2011.Pdf
    Acta Tropica 120 (2011) 1–14 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Tropica journa l homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actatropica Review Classification within the cosmopolitan genus Culex (Diptera: Culicidae): The foundation for molecular systematics and phylogenetic research ∗ Ralph E. Harbach Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The internal classification of the cosmopolitan and medically important genus Culex is thoroughly Received 13 April 2011 reviewed and updated to reflect the multitude of taxonomic changes and concepts which have been Received in revised form 4 June 2011 published since the classification was last compiled by Edwards in 1932. Both formal and informal taxa Accepted 21 June 2011 are included. The classification is intended to aid researchers and students who are interested in ana- Available online 29 June 2011 lyzing species relationships, making group comparisons and testing phylogenetic hypotheses. The genus includes 768 formally recognized species divided among 26 subgenera. Many of the subgenera are sub- Keywords: divided hierarchically into nested informal groups of morphologically similar species that are believed Classification Culex to represent monophyletic lineages based on morphological similarity. The informal groupings proposed by researchers include Sections, Series, Groups, Lines, Subgroups and Complexes, which are unlikely to Infrasubgeneric categories Systematics be phylogenetically equivalent categories among the various subgenera. Taxonomy © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . 1 2. Explanation and procedures . 2 3. Taxonomic history . 2 4. Discussion . 5 5. Conclusions .
    [Show full text]
  • The Mosquitoes of Armenia: Review of Knowledge and Results of a Field
    The mosquitoes of Armenia: review of knowledge and results of a field survey with first report of Aedes albopictus Lusine Paronyan, Lilit Babayan, Arsen Manucharyan, Dezdemonia Manukyan, Haykuhi Vardanyan, Gayane Melik-Andrasyan, Francis Schaffner, Vincent Robert To cite this version: Lusine Paronyan, Lilit Babayan, Arsen Manucharyan, Dezdemonia Manukyan, Haykuhi Vardanyan, et al.. The mosquitoes of Armenia: review of knowledge and results of a field survey with first report of Aedes albopictus. Parasite, EDP Sciences, 2020, 27, pp.42. 10.1051/parasite/2020039. hal-02904010 HAL Id: hal-02904010 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02904010 Submitted on 21 Jul 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Parasite 27, 42 (2020) Ó L. Paronyan et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2020039 Available online at: www.parasite-journal.org RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS The mosquitoes of Armenia: review of knowledge and results of a field survey
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) Near a Reservoir in The
    Biota Neotropica ISSN: 1676-0611 [email protected] Instituto Virtual da Biodiversidade Brasil Marcondes, Carlos Brisola; Fernandes, Aristides; Müller, Gerson Azulim Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) near a reservoir in the Western part of the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina Biota Neotropica, vol. 6, núm. 3, 2006 Instituto Virtual da Biodiversidade Campinas, Brasil Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=199114290014 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) near a reservoir in the Western part of the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina Carlos Brisola Marcondes1,3, Aristides Fernandes2 & Gerson Azulim Müller1 Biota Neotropica v6 (n3) –http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v6n3/pt/abstract?inventory+bn02606032006 Date Received 06/09/2005 Revised 10/20/2006 Accepted 11/10/2006 1. Departamento de Microbiologia e Parasitologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 88040-900 Florianópolis- SC, Brazil. www.ufsc.br 2. Departamento de Epidemiologia, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 715, 01246- 904 São Paulo- SP, Brazil. 3. Corresponding author: Tel. ++5548-3331-5208, fax. ++5548-3331-9258, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Marcondes, C.B; Fernandes, A. and Muller, G.A. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) near a reservoir in the Western part of the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina. Biota Neotrop. Sep/Dec 2006 vol. 6, no. 3 http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/ v6n3/pt/abstract?inventory+bn02606032006 ISSN 1676-0611 Anopheline and other mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in the southern Brazilian State of Santa Catarina have been studied mostly near the Atlantic sea coast and are not well known in other regions of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Mosquito Magnet® Trap in Rural Areas in the Southeastern Tropical Atlantic Forest
    Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 109(8): 1021-1029, December 2014 1021 Effectiveness of Mosquito Magnet® trap in rural areas in the southeastern tropical Atlantic Forest Denise Cristina Sant’Ana, Ivy Luizi Rodrigues de Sá, Maria Anice Mureb Sallum/+ Departamento de Epidemiologia, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil Traps are widely employed for sampling and monitoring mosquito populations for surveillance, ecological and fauna studies. Considering the importance of assessing other technologies for sampling mosquitoes, we addressed the ® effectiveness of Mosquito Magnet Independence (MMI) in comparison with those of the CDC trap with CO2 and Lur- ex3® (CDC-A) and the CDC light trap (CDC-LT). Field collections were performed in a rural area within the Atlantic Forest biome, southeastern state of São Paulo, Brazil. The MMI sampled 53.84% of the total number of mosquitoes, the CDC-A (26.43%) and CDC-LT (19.73%). Results of the Pearson chi-squared test (χ2) showed a positive association between CDC-LT and species of Culicini and Uranotaeniini tribes. Additionally, our results suggested a positive asso- ciation between CDC-A and representatives of the Culicini and Aedini tribes, whereas the MMI was positively associ- ated with the Mansoniini and Sabethini as well as with Anophelinae species. The MMI sampled a greater proportion (78.27%) of individuals of Anopheles than either the CDC-LT (0.82%) or the CDC-A traps (20.91%). Results of the present study showed that MMI performed better than CDC-LT or CDC-A in sampling mosquitoes in large numbers, medically important species and assessing diversity parameters in rural southeastern Atlantic Forest.
    [Show full text]