The insupportable validity of mosquito subspecies (Diptera: Culicidae) and their exclusion from culicid classification Author Harbach, Ralph E. 0000-0003-1384-6972 r.harbach@nhm.ac.uk Author Wilkerson, Richard C. 0000-0001-6366-1357 wilkersonr@si.edu text Zootaxa 2023 2023-06-15 5303 1 1 184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-04-22-0755-PDN journal article 53758 10.11646/zootaxa.5303.1.1 55cb0aa4-25b5-43fc-b545-54697a22b641 1175-5326 8043342 DE9C1F18-5CEE-4968-9991-075B977966FE Aedes ( Phagomyia ) gubernatoris (Giles) subspecies gubernatoris ( Giles, 1901a ) —original combination: Culex gubernatoris . Distribution: Bangladesh , India , Nepal , People’s Republic of China , Sri Lanka ( Wilkerson et al . 2021 , incorrectly listed from Thailand ). subspecies kotiensis Barraud, 1934 —original combination: Aedes ( Finlaya ) gubernatoris var. kotiensis (subspecific status by Harbach & Howard 2007 ). Distribution: India (Western Himalayas) ( Barraud 1934 ). Barraud (1934) described and named kotiensis as a variety of gubernatoris based on larvae that differ in having shorter antennae and lateral palatal brush filaments with “comparatively very large teeth”; however, “adults resulting from these larvae appear to be indistinguishable from the type-form.” Information provided by Barraud indicates that the two forms may be allopatric. In the absence of features that distinguish the adults, the perceived larval distinctions may be associated with conditions that influence growth and development in the tree-hole habitats utilized by the larvae. Based on these observations, we believe that subspecies kotiensis is a morphological variant of Aedes gubernatoris , which we therefore formally recognize as a synonym: kotiensis Barraud, 1934 , junior subjective synonym of Aedes ( Phagomyia ) gubernatoris ( Giles, 1901a ) . This agrees with the Encyclopedia of Life, which does not list kotiensis as a species. In addition to kotiensis , Ae. gubernatoris has another synonym, Lepidotomyia magna Theobald, 1905a , first recognized by Barraud (1934) , which we retain. All three nominal forms have type localities in India .