Pictorial keys for the identification of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) associated with Dengue Virus Transmission Author Leopoldo M. Rueda text Zootaxa 2004 589 1 60 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.169153 b00a915a-4dc9-4e9f-8b72-32ab64056247 1-877354-47-3 169153 78170ADA-B41E-4611-B129-DAC57E733DD5 Key for the Identification of Fourth Stage Mosquito Larvae Associated with Dengue Virus Transmission in the South Pacific Islands and Australian Region 1. Head. Seta 1­C stout and usually strongly hooked ( Fig. 65 ); seta 4­C usually caudad to seta 6­C ( Fig. 66 ). Abdomen. Siphon with acus ( Fig. 67 ); comb scales more than 20, not in a single row, and each scale usually spatulate, fringed with short spinules ( Fig. 68 ); ventral brush ( 4­X ) with 6 pairs of setae ( Fig.69 ) ...................................... ............................................................................ Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus Head. Seta 1­C not stout ( Fig. 70 ); seta 4­C usually cephalad to seta 6­C ( Fig. 71 ). Abdomen. Siphon without acus ( Fig. 72 ); comb scales less than 20, in a single row, and each scale not spatulate ( Fig. 73 ); ventral brush ( 4­X ) with 4–5 pairs of setae ( Fig. 74 ) .................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 65. Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus . FIGURE 70. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus . FIGURE 66. Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus . FIGURE 71. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 67. Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus . FIGURE 72. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 68. Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus . FIGURE 73. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 69. Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus . FIGURE 74. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus . 2(1). Abdomen. Comb scales with stout, subapical spines or with multiple stout spines ( Fig. 75 ) ................................................................................................................... 3 Abdomen. Comb scales without subapical spines or multiple stout spines ( Fig. 76 ) 4 FIGURE 75. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 76. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus . 3(2). Abdomen. Anal segment, X, without strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 77 ); saddle incomplete ( Fig. 78 ); seta 1­X about 0.7 saddle length ( Fig. 79 ); ventral brush ( 4­X ) with 5 pairs of setae ( Fig. 80 ) ............................................ Aedes(Stegomyia) aegypti Abdomen. Anal segment, X, with short, strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 81 ); saddle complete ( Fig. 82 ); seta 1­X about 1.5 saddle length ( Fig. 83 ); ventral brush ( 4­X ) with 4 pairs of setae ( Fig. 84 ) ......................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) rotumae FIGURE 77. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 81. Aedes (Stegomyia) rotumae . FIGURE 78. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 82. Aedes (Stegomyia) rotumae . FIGURE 79. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (S­L, saddle length). FIGURE 83. Aedes (Stegomyia) rotumae (S­L, saddle length). FIGURE 80. Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti . FIGURE 84. Aedes (Stegomyia) rotumae . 4(2). Abdomen. Saddle complete ( Fig. 85 ) ....................................................................... 5 Abdomen. Saddle incomplete ( Fig. 86 ) .................................................................... 6 FIGURE 85. Aedes (Stegomyia) polynesiensis . FIGURE 86. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus . 5(4). Head. Seta 6­C double ( Fig. 87 ). Thorax. Seta 5­M usually double ( Fig. 88 ) ............ ............................................................................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) cooki Head. Seta 6­C single ( Fig. 89 ). Thorax. Seta 5­M usually single ( Fig. 90 ) .............. .................................................................................. Aedes (Stegomyia) polynesiensis FIGURE 87. Aedes (Stegomyia) cooki . FIGURE 89. Aedes (Stegomyia) polynesiensis . FIGURE 88. Aedes (Stegomyia) cooki . FIGURE 90. Aedes (Stegomyia)polynesiensis . 6(4). Head. Seta 6­C usually double ( Fig. 91 ). Abdomen. Seta 4­d X single ( Fig. 92 ) ...... ....................................................................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus Head. Seta 6­C single ( Fig. 93 ). Abdomen. Seta 4­d X double ( Fig. 94 ) …............ 7 FIGURE 91. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus . FIGURE 93. Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris . FIGURE 92. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus . FIGURE 94. Aedes (Stegomyia) hebrideus . 7(6). Abdomen. Anal segment, X, with short, strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 95 ) ............. ....................................................................................... Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris Abdomen. Anal segment, X, without strong marginal spicules ( Fig. 96 ) …............. 8 FIGURE 95. Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris . FIGURE 96. Aedes (Stegomyia) hebrideus . 8(6). Abdomen. Seta 4­c X usually single ( Fig. 97 ) ................. Aedes (Stegomyia) hensilli Abdomen. Seta 4­c X double ( Fig. 98 ) ....................... Aedes (Stegomyia) hebrideus FIGURE 97. Aedes (Stegomyia) hensilli (C, abdominal seta 4­c X). FIGURE 98. Aedes (Stegomyia) hebrideus . (C, abdominal seta 4­c X). Explanation of Notes a Ochlerotatus notoscriptus adult has a small group of white scales at the lower caudal portion of the patch of dark scales on the pronotum. The prescutal lateral white line is always connected to posterior dorsocentral white line. There is a strongly developed patch of white scales in front of the wing root. The adults exhibit individual morphological variations in ornamentation. In New Zealand and Australia , adults have the scutum with light yellowish scales and well­developed dorsocentral anterior pale line. In New Caledonia , adults have the scutum with white scales and poorly developed anterior dorsocentral pale line. b Aedes aegypti , the yellow fever mosquito, has a pair of white patches on the clypeus. The mesepimeron has separate white scale patches and the anterior portion of midfemur has a longitudinal white stripe. c Aedes albopictus , the Asian tiger mosquito, can be distinguished from related species by the presence of broad flat white scales on the lateral margin of the scutum just before the level of wing root; other species (e.g. Aedes pseudoscutellaris ) has only narrow curved white scales in this position. When scutal markings are rubbed off, Ae. aegypti can easily be misidentified as Ae . albopictus . It can be distinguished by having separated white scale patches on the mesepimeron whereas they are connected in Ae . albopictus . The anterior portion of the midfemur has no longitudinal white stripe in Ae. albopictus . d Aedes rotumae adults resemble Ae. upolensis Marks in the complete absence of a lower mesepimeral white scale patch, or with a very few mesipemeral white scales. Aedes rotumae can be distinguished from Ae. upolensis by having hindtarsomere 4 with basal 0.75 or more white. Aedes upolensis has hindtarsomere 4 with basal 0.60–0.70 white. e Aedes hensilli can be distinguished from Ae. hakanssoni Knight and Hurlbut by the presence of white scale patches on all scutellar lobes, and usually with a few apical dark scales on midlobe. The hindfemur of Ae. henselli has white markings on the anterior surface tapering towards apex, and its hind tarsomere 5 is not entirely dark (only distal one­half dark). The hindfemur of Ae. hakanssoni has white markings on the anterior surface sloping off ventrally towards apex, and its hindtarsomere 5 is entirely dark. f Aedes scutellaris cannot be distinguished from Ae. hebrideus by using female adult morphological characters. Males of both species, however, can be separated morphologically. The male genitalia of Ae. scutellaris has a claspette with specialized setae at most two­thirds as long as the largest tergal setae whereas the claspette setae are at least as long as the largest tergal setae in Ae. hebrideus . g Aedes cooki has abdominal terga with incomplete subbasal white bands while Ae. polynesiensis has abdominal terga usually without subbasal white bands, but with subbasal white lateral patches.