Open access

The Phylogeny and Classification of Anopheles

Written By

Ralph E. Harbach

Submitted: 20 February 2012 Published: 24 July 2013

DOI: 10.5772/54695

From the Edited Volume

Anopheles mosquitoes - New insights into malaria vectors

Edited by Sylvie Manguin

Chapter metrics overview

5,567 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

Anopheles was introduced as a genus of mosquitoes in 1818 by Johann Wilhelm Meigen [1], a German entomologist famous for his revolutionary studies of Diptera. Little was done on the taxonomy of Anopheles until the discovery during the last two decades of the 19th century that mosquitoes transmit microfilariae and malarial protozoa, which initiated a drive to collect, name and classify these insects. In 1898, the Royal Society and the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies of Britain, appointed a Committee to supervise the investigation of malaria. On 6 December 1898, Mr. Chamberlain directed the Colonies to collect and send mosquitoes to the British Museum (Natural History) (Figure 1), and in 1899 the Committee appointed Frederick V. Theobald to prepare a monograph on the mosquitoes of the world, which was published in five volumes between 1901 and 1910 [26]. As a consequence, many new generic names were introduced in an effort to classify numerous new mosquito species into seemingly natural groups. Theobald proposed 18 genera for species of Anopheles based on the distribution and shape of scales on the thorax and abdomen. Four of these proposed genera, Cellia, Kerteszia, Nyssorhynchus and Stethomyia, are currently recognized as subgenera of Anopheles and the other 14 are regarded as synonyms of one or other of subgenera Anopheles, Cellia or Nyssorhynchus. Theobald, however, was not the only person to propose generic names for species of Anopheles. During the first three decades of the 20th century, 37 genera (including the 18 recognized by Theobald) were established for species of Anopheles [7].

As additional new species were discovered, it became increasingly apparent that Theobald’s system of classification was neither practical nor natural. Frederick Knab in North America, one of the early critics of Theobald’s classification, stated that “the subject was made needlessly difficult by hasty work and by the sub-division of the old genus Anopheles into numerous ill-defined and fancifully differentiated genera. The intricacies of this ‘system,’ unwarranted from both a scientific and practical standpoint, even the trained entomologist could not tread with safety, and to others it could be no less than hopeless or disastrous” [8]. Consequently, during the two decades following the completion of Theobald’s monograph in 1910, significant changes were made toward a much more conservative system of classification, culminating in the reduction of 38 genus-group names (including Anopheles) to the recognition of the single genus Anopheles.

The current subgeneric classification of Anopheles is based primarily on the number and positions of specialized setae on the gonocoxites of the male genitalia (Figure 2), and this basis of classification has been accepted since it was introduced by Sir (Samuel) Rickard Christophers in 1915 [9]. Christophers proposed three generic subdivisions, which F.M. Edwards [10] and Francis Metcalf Root [11] formally recognized as subgenera Anopheles, Myzomyia (=Cellia) and Nyssorhynchus. Edwards adopted this system and added subgenus Stethomyia in his classical treatise on family Culicidae published in 1932 [12]. This system recognized Kerteszia as an informal group within subgenus Nyssorhynchus. Kerteszia was elevated to subgeneric status by W.H.W. Komp [13]. Subgenus Lophopodomyia was proposed by P.C.A. Antunes in 1937 [14] and subgenus Baimaia was introduced by Ralph E. Harbach and his colleagues in 2005 [15].

Genus Anopheles currently includes 465 formally named species that are disproportionately divided between seven subgenera: Anopheles (cosmopolitan, 182 species), Baimaia (Oriental, one species), Cellia (Old World, 220 species), Kerteszia (Neotropical, 12 species), Lophopodomyia (Neotropical, six species), Nyssorhynchus (Neotropical, 39 species) and Stethomyia (Neotropical, five species) [16]. Four of the subgenera, Anopheles, Cellia, Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus, include the species that transmit human malarial parasites. Most vector species of Anopheles have been found to comprise complexes of sibling species.

Figure 1.

Letter issued from Downing Street on 6 December 1898 directing the British Colonies to collect and send mosquitoes to the British Museum (Natural History).

Advertisement

2. Classification of genus Anopheles

The aim of classification is to group and categorize biological entities that share some unifying characteristics. Classification has been defined by Ernst Mayr & W.J. Bock [17] as “The arrangement of similar entities (objects) in a hierarchical series of nested classes, in which each more inclusive higher-level class is subdivided comprehensively into less inclusive classes at the next lower level.” These classes (groups) are known as taxa (singular: taxon). The level of a taxon in a hierarchical classification is referred to as a taxonomic rank or category. Ideally, taxonomic categories should denote equivalent phylogenetic rank; however, in practice they are basically subjective groupings of subordinate taxa that are presumed to represent monophyletic groups of species that are assigned to taxonomic ranks based on shared morphological and biological characteristics that are not a measure of phylogenetic equivalence. For this reason, the taxonomic categories of genus Anopheles, including the formal rank of subgenus, should not be considered to represent equivalent phylogenetic ranks.

Figure 2.

Subgenera of Anopheles ‒ specialized setae on the gonocoxites of the male genitalia (after Harbach & Kitching [18]): A, Anopheles; B. Baimaia; C, Cellia; D, Kerteszia; E, Lophopodomyia; F, Nyssorhynchus; G, Stethomyia. as, accessory setae; is, inner seta; ps, parabasal seta(e).

Infrasubgeneric categories (taxonomic ranks below subgenus) have no formal status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature [19]. They are convenience categories only, often based on superficial similarities that may not indicate natural relationships. The informal categories used in the classification of Anopheles include Sections, Series, Groups, Subgroups and Complexes (see Appendix 1).

Unlike formal taxonomic categories, which precede the name of the taxonomic unit, for instance family Culicidae, genus Anopheles and species gambiae, the names of informal taxonomic categories follow the name of the taxonomic unit, for example the Pyretophorus Series, Hyrcanus Group or Gambiae Complex, which are written in Roman (i.e. non-italic) script with the first letter capitalized. It should be stressed that both formal and informal taxonomic entities are conceptual constructs invented by taxonomists for the purpose of creating some order in the diversity of species. For example, the species gambiae and the Hyrcanus Group, which are human-conceived taxonomic concepts, cannot be observed as entities or visualized under a microscope.

The internal classification of genus Anopheles (between genus and species levels) is based primarily on the schemes proposed by Edwards [12], John A. Reid & Kenneth L. Knight [20], Alexis Grjebine [21], M.T. Gillies & Botha de Meillon [22], Reid [23], Michael E. Faran [24] and Kenneth J. Linthicum [25]. These schemes were reviewed, amalgamated and updated in 1994 [26] and updated again in 2004 and 2012 [27,16 respectively]. The three largest subgenera, i.e. Anopheles, Cellia and Nyssorhynchus, are divided into hierarchical systems of informal taxonomic categories (Appendix 1; examples shown in Figure 3). Subgenus Anopheles is divided into two Sections based on the shape of the pupal trumpet. The Laticorn Section was created for species with a wide funnel-shaped trumpet having the longest axis transverse to the stem, and the Angusticorn Section for species with a semi-tubular trumpet having the longest axis vertical more or less in line with the stem [20]. Subgenus Nyssorhynchus is divided into three Sections based on unique combinations of larval, pupal and adult characters [28]. Subgenus Cellia and the Sections of subgenera Anopheles and Nyssorhynchus are divided into Series, the larger Series are divided into species Groups, and some Groups are further divided into Subgroups and species Complexes. Most of the groupings at each level of classification are presumed to represent natural groups of species, thus implying phylogenetic relationships, but much additional basic taxonomic research is needed before the formal and informal taxa can be firmly established as monophyletic entities. The internal classification of the genus (subgenera and infrasubgeneric groups) is detailed in Appendix 1. An alphabetical list of all formally named, currently recognized species and their position in the classification is provided in Appendix 2. Similarly, all currently known sibling species complexes are listed in Appendix 3, and the unnamed and provisionally designated species of the complexes and their position in the classification are listed in Appendix 4.

Advertisement

3. Phylogeny of Anopheles

Anopheles is undoubtedly the most studied and best known genus of mosquitoes, largely because of their great impact on human health. As vectors of causative agents of malaria and filariasis, Anopheles mosquitoes have affected the lives of more humans than any other insects. As a matter of fact, Anopheles is one of few groups of eukaryote organisms that have had an impact on human evolution ‒ the emergence of sickle cell anemia as a mode of resistance to malarial protozoa. As a result of more than a century of studies by medical entomologists, taxonomists and geneticists, 537 species of Anopheles are currently known and most have been formally named (87%) (Appendix 2), but until recently little work has been done to understand the evolution and phylogenetic relationships of these mosquitoes.

Figure 3.

Hierarchical classification (from specific to general) of A. Anopheles freeborni, Freeborni Subgroup, Maculipennis Group, Anopheles Series, Angusticorn Section, Subgenus Anopheles; B. Anopheles minimus, Minimus Complex, Minimus Subgroup, Funestus Group, Myzomyia Series, Subgenus Cellia; C. Anopheles albimanus, Albimanus Series, Albimanus Section, Subgenus Nyssorhynchus.

The phylogenetic studies of anopheline mosquitoes conducted to date are summarized in Appendix 5. In view of the impact of malaria on human health, it is not surprising that most of these studies have dealt with species Groups, Subgroups and Complexes that include vectors of human malarial protozoa. It is obvious that the evolutionary relationships of malaria vectors and their closest allies have received more attention than other groups. However, none of these studies can be regarded as complete in terms of taxonomic coverage of any group, and the field of disease vector systematics presents many opportunities for further research. Phylogenetic patterns are used to interpret bionomic features such as differences in the nature of blood-feeding by adult females, feeding behavior and the occurrence of immature stages in aquatic habitats.

Mosquitoes probably evolved in the Jurassic [12,29,30] (146‒200 Mya)

Geological ages of eras and periods follow the geological timescale determined by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (http://www.stratigraphy.org).

, along with the early mammals, first birds and first flowering plants. Unfortunately, due to the paucity of mosquito fossils, there is no direct indication of the evolutionary history of anopheline mosquitoes. The second oldest fossil mosquito, Paleoculicis minutus [31] from the Late Cretaceous (66.0–100.5 Mya), has morphological features that indicate a closer affinity with culicine than anopheline mosquitoes, which suggests that this ancestral lineage is younger than the lineage that gave rise to subfamily Anophelinae. Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus?) dominicanus [32] and An. (?) rottensis [33] are the only fossil anopheline mosquitoes. The former is from the mid-Tertiary (about 15–45 Mya) and the latter is from the Late Oligocene of Germany (approximately 25 Mya). If the anopheline mosquitoes are indeed ancestral to all other Culicidae [18,34], it would appear from available fossil evidence that extant groups may have evolved in the Cenozoic Era (<66.0 Mya). From divergence times based on sequence data for nuclear protein-coding genes and fossil calibration points, it appears that major mosquito lineages date to the Early Cretaceous (100.5–145.0 Mya), and the ancestral lineage of anophelines may have appeared as early as the Jurassic (~145 Mya) [34].

Anopheles is the nominotypical genus of subfamily Anophelinae. In addition to Anopheles (cosmopolitan), the subfamily includes two other genera: Bironella (Australasian) and Chagasia (Neotropical). Cladistic analyses of morphological data and DNA sequences of various ribosomal, mitochondrial and nuclear genes strongly support the placement of Chagasia in an ancestral relationship to all other anophelines [18,3441].

In 2000, Sallum et al. [40] performed the first phylogenetic analysis of subfamily Anophelinae, based on morphological characters. The results indicated that genus Anopheles is paraphyletic because it included genus Bironella. Subgenera Kerteszia, Nyssorhynchus, Cellia, Lophopodomyia and Stethomyia, along with genus Bironella, were found to be monophyletic taxa dispersed among various Series and species Groups of subgenus Anopheles. The Christya Series of subgenus Anopheles was placed with Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus and this clade was sister to Cellia + all other anophelines except Chagasia.

Two years later, Sallum et al. [41] conducted a molecular analysis of anopheline relationships based on ribosomal (18S, 28S) and mitochondrial (COI, COII) DNA sequences. The results of that study cannot be compared directly with the results of their earlier study [40] because significantly fewer taxa were included in the analyses. Nevertheless, the molecular data corroborated the paraphyly of genus Anopheles relative to Bironella and the sister-group relationship of Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus, and supported the monophyly of the other subgenera and genus Bironella, which was reconstructed as the sister to Lophopodomyia rather than Stethomyia.

In 2005, Harbach & Kitching [36] revised and expanded the phylogenetic analysis of Sallum et al. [40], with special consideration of the specialized setae of the male gonocoxites (Figure 2) that diagnose the subgenera. Parsimony analysis of the data set under implied weighting supported the monophyly of subgenera Cellia, Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus, and the sister relationship of Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus. Subgenus Anopheles was recovered as a polyphyletic lineage basal to a monophyletic clade consisting of Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus and Cellia in a sister-group relationship. Bironella, Lophopodomyia and Stethomyia were firmly nested within subgenus Anopheles, which would be paraphyletic even if these taxa were subsumed within it. Subgenus Baimaia, represented by An. kyondawensis, was supported as the sister of Bironella + all other Anopheles. Bironella and Stethomyia, contrary to the earlier study of Sallum et al. [40], were also supported as monophyletic clades separate from subgenus Anopheles. The preferred cladogram of Harbach & Kitching (Figures 4 and 5) is taken here to represent the best available estimate of anopheline phylogeny and evolutionary relationships because it is based on a greater number of taxonomic groups and homologous characters than all other hypotheses published to date.

A later analysis of subgenus Anopheles by Collucci & Sallum [42] included 38 species representing the same Series (6) and species Groups (15) of the subgenus that were included in the study of Sallum et al. [40]. The data were analyzed using successive approximations character weighting (SACW) and implied weighting (IW). Most of the relationships between members of the subgenus were either moderately or poorly supported. The Laticorn Section was recovered as a monophyletic clade in the IW analysis, suggesting that the laticorn development of the pupal trumpet is a derived condition for subgenus Anopheles. In the SACW analyses, members of the group comprised a paraphyletic lineage relative to the Cycloleppteron Series. The Angusticorn Section was recovered as a polyphyletic assemblage in both analyses. These results are contradicted by those of Sallum et al. [40] and Harbach & Kitching [36] who found that neither section is monophyletic. Below the section level of classification, only the Lophoscelomyia and Arribalzagia Series were recovered as monophyletic assemblages. The Myzorhynchus Series was paraphyletic relative to the Cycloleppteron, Christya and Arribalzagia Series, and the Anopheles Series was polyphyletic. Surprisingly, the two species of the Cycloleppteron Series included in the analyses were not grouped together, suggesting that the series is not monophyletic. In contrast, the Arribalzagia, Christya, Cycloleppteron, Lophoscelomyia and Myzorhynchus Series were recovered as monophyletic assemblages in the IW analysis of Harbach & Kitching (Figure 4). Furthermore, with the removal of subgenus Baimaia, the remaining species of the Anopheles Series included in their analysis also formed a monophyletic group. With the exception of the Pseudopunctipennis Group, all the species groups represented in the analysis of Collucci & Sallum (Aitkenii, Albotaeniatus, Culiciformis, Hyrcanus, Plumbeus, Umbrosus Groups) were recovered as monophyletic assemblages with moderate to strong support [the Pseudopunctipennis Group was also found to be polyphyletic in the study of Harbach & Kitching (Figure 4)]. The Hyrcanus Group was paired with An. coustani, which corroborates previous hypotheses of a close relationship between the Hyrcanus and Coustani Groups [20,36,40,43]. Unfortunately, the analyses of Collucci & Sallum are biased by the selection of outgroup taxa whose interrelationships with the ingroup taxa were unresolved in previous studies. Thus, the results of their study cast doubt on their assertion that subgenus Anopheles is monophyletic. Based on the relationships recovered by Harbach & Kitching, subgenus Anopheles would be monophyletic if subgenus Lophopodomyia were to be reduced to the status of a species Group of the Anopheles Series (Figure 4). The Anopheles Series is a morphologically diverse assemblage of species and informal taxonomic groups, a number of which at one time or another were deemed to merit recognition as subgenera [20]. Sallum et al. [40] also found the Anopheles Series to be polyphyletic, but with its members interspersed in a complexity of inter-group relationships rather than arrayed in a pectinate sequence (Figure 4).

All phylogenetic studies conducted to date have demonstrated the monophyly of subgenera Cellia [36,3841], Kerteszia [36,3841,44] and Nyssorhynchus [36,38‒41], and the sister pairing of Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus [36,40,41]. The sister relationship of Cellia and the two New World subgenera is not inconsistent with the molecular analyses of Sallum et al. [41] if Lophopodomyia + Bironella is excluded from the clade that contains Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus, but it differs markedly from the results of their earlier study based on morphology and a larger number of taxa [40], which placed Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus, along with An. implexus (Christya Series), in a sister-group relationship with Cellia + a clade comprised of Bironella, Lophopodomyia, Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus. Anopheles implexus (Christya Series) is sister to the terminal clade formed by Kerteszia, Nyssorhynchus and Cellia in Figure 4.

Advertisement

4. Distribution and phylogeography of Anopheles

Interpreting the current distributions of anophelines in an evolutionary context is problematic. The supercontinent of Pangaea existed in the Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic Eras from about 300‒200 Mya and gradually separated 200–145 Mya into the two supercontinents of Laurasia and Gondwana [45]. As noted above, evidence from DNA sequence data and fossil calibration points [34] indicates that ancestral anophelines diverged from ancestral culicines about 217 Mya (230‒192 Mya), before the complete splitting of Pangaea. If this was the case, then the separation of Anopheles and Bironella about 54 Mya (75.8‒37.1 Mya, end of the Cretaceous to near the end of the Eocene Epoch of the Cenozoic) [34] must have occurred after the separation of Gondwana into multiple continents, i.e. Africa, South America, India, Antarctica and Australia, in the Cretaceous. Atlantica (the land mass that comprised present-day South America and Africa) separated from eastern Gondwana (the land mass that comprised Antarctica, India and Australia) 150‒140 Mya. South America started to separate from Africa in a south-to-north direction during the Middle Cretaceous (about 125‒115 Mya) [46]. At the same time, Madagascar and India began to separate from Antarctica, and separated from each other 100‒90 Mya during the Cenomanian and Turonian Stages of the Late Cretaceous. India continued to move northward and collided with Eurasia about 35 Mya. Laurasia split to give rise to North America/Greenland and Eurasia about 60‒55 Mya. Africa began to move northeastward toward Europe and South America moved northward to separate from Antarctica. North and South America were joined by the Isthmus of Panama during the Pliocene, approximately 3.7‒3.0 Mya.

Figure 4.

Phylogeny of subfamily Anophelinae, modified from Harbach & Kitching [36], indicating relationships within subgenus Anopheles. Filled circles indicate Bremer support values greater than 0.8.

Belkin [47] hypothesized that anophelines initially differentiated in the American Mediterranean Region. In concert with this postulate, Harbach & Kitching [36] suggested a possible New World origin of subfamily Anophelinae based on the basal placement of Chagasia relative to Anopheles + Bironella in their phylogeny of mosquito genera. Based on a phylogeny of 16 anopheline species inferred from sequences of two protein-coding nuclear genes and the Neotropical distribution of Chagasia and four of the seven subgenera of Anopheles, Krzywinski et al. [39] agreed with the hypothesis that South America was the center of origin of Anophelinae. However, as will be seen below, more recent studies suggest a different scenario for the evolution of the extant groups of the subfamily. This scenario closely reflects Christophers [48] insightful observations:

Subgenus Anopheles appears to be the oldest of the predominant subgenera, not only on [morphological grounds], but by reason of its worldwide distribution and the greater diversity and distinctness of its forms; almost every species of the subgenus appears to be as distinctive as are the species groups of subgenus Myzomyia [=Cellia], if not more so.

Nyssorhynchus appears to be a Neotropical development from some pre-Anopheles form, whilst the group Arribalzagia appears to be a highly specialized development of subgenus Anopheles.

Myzomyia shows every evidence of being a new and actively disseminating branch, as is suggested by its complete absence from the New World. Had it been once disseminated throughout North America it is unlikely that it would have been eliminated from the whole continent so completely as to leave not a single species in this area, though there is no actual proof that this did not occur. The apparent affinity between the group Neomyzomyia and subgenus Nyssorhynchus suggests an intermediate ancestor, though not necessarily one in the south, i. e., such affinity does not prove or suggest a land-connection between Australia and South America, as the common ancestor may have been derived from the north and later eliminated. [next paragraph omitted]

The date of isolation of South America, judging by the history of mammals, would be from the middle of the Eocene, when connections between North and South America were severed, until the end of the Pliocene (Zittel). The anopheline fauna, therefore, arose from elements which pre-dated this period, and there were already subgenus Anopheles-like forms, as well as some earlier type from which Nyssorhynchus arose.

At some unknown period a similar special development took place, resulting in an early form (Neomyzomyia) of subgenus Myzomyia. This form appears to have once been distributed throughout the Oriental, Ethiopian [i.e. Afrotropical], and Australian Regions, and to have later undergone some regression, eventually remaining in greatest strength in the Australian Region.

Edwards, in reviewing the fossil remains of mosquitoes, notes that probably all the main divisions of the family [Culicidae] existed in Mid-Tertiary much as they do today, and with almost identical characters, and considers that, though no fossil Anopheles have been found, there can be no doubt from its morphology that this is also an old genus, probably older than any culicine form.

Figure 5.

Phylogeny of subgenera Cellia, Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus, modified from Harbach & Kitching [36], indicating relationships within subgenera Cellia and Nyssorhynchus. Filled circles indicate Bremer support values greater than 0.8.

Based on the relationships shown in Figure 4, distributions of the principal group taxa (Appendix 6) and the geological dates listed above, it would appear that the ancestral lineage of Anopheles existed before the breakup of Pangaea and subsequently diversified into the modern subgenera and species after the separation of the continents. This would explain the cosmopolitan distribution and greater diversity of subgenus Anopheles, but not the earlier divergence of genus Chagasia and subgenus Stethomyia, which are confined to the Neotropical Region, the Oriental subgenus Baimaia and the Australasian genus Bironella (Figure 4). Chagasia possess several features that characterize species of subfamily Culicinae, including the strongly arched mesonotum, trilobed scutellum (Figure 6) and setae on the postpronotum. Based on these shared features, Chagasia has been considered an ancient group showing affinities with non-anophelines and phylogenetic analyses of morphological data and DNA sequences of various ribosomal, mitochondrial and nuclear genes strongly support its placement in an ancestral relationship to all other anophelines [33,35‒41]. From the foregoing, however, it is inferred here that Chagasia, with only seven species, is a relic of a once more widely distributed taxon that is now confined to residual areas of South and Central America. It is also possible, although less likely, that Chagasia, as suggested by the late John N. Belkin for other mosquitoes [47], may have originated through hybridization between early anopheline and culicine forms. Similarly, Bironella (as suggested by Christophers [48]), Baimaia and Stethomyia, with few species and restricted distributions, are also the remnants of once much more widely distributed forms. The isolation of ancestral members of subgenus Anopheles in South America also explains the uniqueness of the extant Neotropical fauna of the subgenus, especially the well-differentiated Arribalzagia Series. In accordance with this hypothesis, the following groups are also probably residual elements of once more widely distributed ancestral forms of subgenus Anopheles: the Afrotropical Christya Series (two species), the Australasian Atratipes (two species) and Stigmaticus (six species) Groups, the Oriental Alongensis (two species) and Culiciformis (three species) Groups, the Oriental Lophoscelomyia Series (five species) and the Neotropical Cycloleppteron Series (two species). It is noteworthy that the extant members of the relict groups are not vectors of human malarial parasites.

As noted previously, subgenus Anopheles has an almost world-wide distribution. Species are found at elevations from coastal areas to mountainous terrain in temperate, subtropical and tropical areas, but are absent from the majority of the Pacific Islands, including the large ones of New Zealand, Fiji and New Caledonia. The sole species of subgenus Baimaia has been found only in forested hilly and mountainous areas between 14° and 17° north on either side of the Thai-Myanmar border and at a location near the Thai-Laos border in Thailand, and is probably also a relict taxon that has retained generalized ancestral features of the male genitalia [36]. Most species of subgenus Cellia have distributions in the Afrotropical, Australasian and Oriental Regions, but some species occur in southern areas of the Palaearctic. Species of Cellia are conspicuously absent from the majority of the islands of the Pacific, including New Zealand, Fiji and New Caledonia. Species of subgenus Kerteszia are found in the Neotropical Region, from Veracruz State in Mexico through Central America and Atlantic South America, along the Andes and along the coast, to the States of Misiones in Argentina and Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, and also occur south along the Pacific Coast of South America to the State of El Oro, Ecuador. The subgenus is absent from all islands of the West Indies except Trinidad, and from most of the vast expanse of the Amazon basin in South America [49]. Species of subgenus Lophopodomyia are known to occur in areas of Panama and northern South America (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana and Venezuela). Species of subgenus Nyssorhynchus are restricted to the Neotropical Region, except for An. albimanus, which extends into the Nearctic Region (northern Mexico and along the Rio Grande River in Texas). Finally, species of subgenus Stethomyia principally occur in southern Central America (Costa Rica and Panama) and northern South America (Brazil, Colombia, French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela), but one or two species are known to occur on the islands of Trinidad and Tobago and as far south as Peru and Bolivia.

Figure 6.

Two forms of the mosquito scutellum (Stm): A, trilobed scutellum of Chagasia and species of subfamily Culicinae; B, evenly rounded scutellum of Anopheles, with few exceptions. Original images from Harbach & Kitching [18].

Subgenera Kerteszia, Lophopodomyia, Nyssorhynchus and Stethomyia, and the Arribalzagia and Cycloleppteron Series of subgenus Anopheles are special to the Neotropical Region, where they probably originated following the separation of South America and Africa. The derived position of subgenera Cellia and Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus relative to subgenus Anopheles (Figure 4) supports the hypothesis that the stem lineage of these subgenera originated in Gondwana and diverged following the separation of Atlantica to give rise to Cellia in Africa and Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus in South America. It is interesting to note that Lophopodomyia and the Pseudopunctipennis Group are sister taxa in Figure 4, which is plausible in view of the hypothesized evolution of these groups from Neotropical ancestors. The Pseudopunctipennis Group is nearly restricted to the Neotropics, except for An. franciscanus and a minor extension of An. pseudopunctipennis into the Nearctic Region, which undoubtedly occurred relatively recently, after the land bridge formed to connect North and South America 3.7‒3.0 Mya. Except for these two species, all Anopheles species in the Nearctic Region are members of the Anopheles Series of subgenus Anopheles. Half of the species of the Holarctic Maculipennis Group (24 species) occur in the Nearctic Region and the other half occur in the Palaearctic. This indicates that the Maculipennis Group must have evolved in the Northern Hemisphere prior to the separation of North America and Eurasia during the Paleocene and Eocene Epochs (60‒55 Mya). The Plumbeus Group includes species in the Nearctic (2), Neotropical (4) and Palaearctic (3) Regions. Its position in the cladogram shown in Figure 4 is based on An. judithae, a Nearctic species. This group may be what paleontologists call a “stem group” [50], a paraphyletic or polyphyletic assemblage of species that share features of extinct taxa. The spotted distribution of these “living fossil” species suggests that their extinct relatives, ancestral forms of the Anopheles Series, existed before the separation of Pangaea. This bodes well with Christophers & Barraud’s 1931 hypothesis [51] that the eggs of species of the Plumbeus Group are primitive compared to other species of subgenus Anopheles.

Species in subgenus Cellia are confined to the Eastern Hemisphere, with members in the Afrotropical, Australasian, Oriental and Palaearctic regions (Figure 5, Appendix 6). The Afrotropical Region is characterized by a large number of species of subgenus Cellia and relatively few species of subgenus Anopheles. The Myzomyia Series is especially dominant, but species of the Neocellia, Neomyzomyia and Pyretophorus Series also occur in the region. The Myzomyia, Neocellia and Pyretophorus Series are represented in the Afrotropical and Oriental Regions, but no species, species groups or subgroups of these series (with the exception of the Minimus Subgroup) are common to both regions (see Appendix 6). The Myzomyia Series is a dominant group in Africa, where An. funestus is a principal malaria vector [52,53]. Related species of the Funestus Group, including An. minimus and other members of the Minimus Subgroup, are major vectors of malarial parasites in southern Asia [52,54]. Evidence from phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA (ITS2 and D3 sequences) indicates that the Funestus Group originated in the Afrotropical Region [55]. The Neocellia Series also includes several important malaria vectors in southern Asia, notably An. stephensi and members of the Maculatus Group [52,54]. The Pyretophorus Series includes the formidable malaria vectors of the Gambiae Complex in Africa and important vectors of the Sundaicus and Subpictus Complexes in Southeast Asia [53,54]. The morphology-based phylogeny of Anthony et al. [56] indicates that the Pyretophorus Series originated in Africa and suggests that the capacity to vector malarial parasites is an ancestral condition subsequently lost independently in several lineages.

The anopheline fauna of the Australasian Region also shows evidence of isolation, but not to the degree indicated by the Neotropical fauna. The isolation appears to be more recent, corresponding to the separation of Australia from Antarctica between 37.0‒33.5 Mya. The region includes a preponderance of species of the Neomyzomyia Series of subgenus Cellia, which may signal a relatively recent arrival from the Oriental Region, with some diversification. Members of the Neomyzomyia Series are the only Anopheles in the South Pacific [47]. Species groups of the series are confined to the Afrotropical (Ardensis, Mascarensis, Pauliani, Ranci, Rhodesiensis and Smithii Groups), Australasian (Punctulatus Group, Lungae Complex and unassigned species) or Oriental Region (Kochi, Leucosphyrus and Tessellatus Groups) (Appendix 6). The Neomyzomyia Series has been regarded as the most primitive series of subgenus Cellia based on egg morphology and the reduced or non-existent cibarial armature of females [5759], and is thought to have originated in Africa and subsequently disperse eastward to the Oriental and Australasian Regions [52,59]. None of the African species of the Neomyzomyia Series, except for An. nili, are major vectors of malaria. In comparison, most species of the Oriental Leucosphyrus and Australasian Punctulatus Groups of the Neomyzomyia Series are important vectors of both primate and human malarial parasites. The Cellia and Paramyzomyia Series of subgenus Cellia are restricted to the Afrotropical Region, except for An. pharoensis (Cellia Series) and An. multicolor (Paramyzomyia Series) which occur in adjacent arid areas of the Palaearctic (Sahara and Middle East). It seems reasonable to hypothesize that those series that are presently represented by groups in the Afrotropical, Australasian and Oriental Regions arose before eastern Gondwana (Antarctica, India and Australia) fragmented. The Mascarensis, Pauliani and Ranci Groups are confined to Madagascar, which supports the hypothesis that the ancestral forms of at least these groups of the Neomyzomyia Series existed before Madagascar separated from India 100‒90 Mya.

Human malaria probably evolved in Africa along with its mosquito hosts and other primates. Modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and dispersed into Eurasia [60], reaching Australia about 40,000 years ago. Migration into the New World occurred about 15‒20 millennia ago, and most of the Pacific Islands were colonized by four thousand years ago. The point here is that the rise and dispersal of modern humans occurred long after the formation of the continents and the evolution of the major groups of Anopheles. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that human malarial parasites accompanied humans during their migration out of Africa and were passed on to species of Anopheles in other regions that had the ecological, physiological and behavioural attributes required to propagate infections and maintain transmission. These taxa were surely already adapted to feeding on primates, including the ancestors of Homo sapiens, and were capable of developing and transmitting the Plasmodium species specific to those hosts.

Comprehensive information on the dominant malaria vectors of the world, most of which are presumably recently evolved members of sibling species complexes (Appendix 3), is summarized in a series of publications (and a chapter of this book) by M. Sinka and a team of regional experts and technical advisors ‒ the Americas [61], Africa, Europe and the Middle East [53], the Asia-Pacific Region [54] ‒ that culminated in a thorough review of the principal malaria vector taxa of the world [62]. At present, 96 formally named species of Anopheles are members of 26 sibling species complexes (Appendix 4). Twenty of these nominal species actually consist of more than one species, which all together comprise a total of 67 species. Excluding the name-bearing type species, the 58 species, plus five other unnamed species that are not members of species complexes, a total of 72 species, have yet to be given formal Latin names (Appendix 4).

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

A more robust phylogeny of Anopheles mosquitoes than is currently available may be of use in the fight against malaria. Foley et al. [37] suggested that it may help “by elucidating descent relationships of genes for refractoriness, insecticide resistance, and genetically determined ecological and behavioral traits important to malaria transmission.” Interrupting the life cycle of malarial parasites by genetically manipulating vector receptiveness to infection is a potential approach to malaria control. A natural classification of Anopheles predictive of biological and ecological traits could facilitate the manipulation of vector genomes by informing the dynamics of introduced genes. Obviously, co-evolutionary studies of parasites and vectors require phylogenies for the mosquitoes. This must far exceed the taxon-limited (exemplar-based) studies conducted to date as they do not provide a basis for gaining insights into interspecific and co-evolutionary relationships of vectors and parasites.

It seems fitting to end here with a comment concerning interspecific hybridization, which was mentioned above in relation to genus Chagasia in the Neotropical Region. Although anopheline species occur in sympatry in most ecosystems, hybridization has only been detected at very low levels between certain members of species complexes in subgenus Cellia, e.g. An. gambiae with both An. arabiensis and An. bwambae in Africa [63,64], An. dirus and An. baimaii in Thailand [65] and An. minimus and An. harrisoni in Vietnam [66]. However, as advocated by Belkin [47], hybridization could provide sufficient genetic variation to permit adaptation to new habitats. Hybridization may occur regularly between some species, particularly widely distributed species that are morphologically similar. It could have played a role in the speciation and evolution of Anopheles mosquitoes and the pathogens they transmit.

Advertisement

Appendix 1 — The internal classification of genus Anopheles

Subgenus Section Series Group Subgroup Complex Author
Anopheles [1]
Angusticorn [20]
Anopheles [12]
Claviger [67]
Alongensis [68]
Aitkenii [10]
Atratipes [69]
Culiciformis [20]
Lindesayi [20]
Gigas [70]
Lindesayi [70]
Maculipennis [20]
Maculipennis [71]
Quadrimaculatus [71]
Freeborni [71]
Plumbeus [20]
Pseudopunctipennis [20]
Punctipennis [20]
Crucians [72]
Stigmaticus [20]
Cycloleppteron [12]
Lophoscelomyia [12]
Asiaticus [23]
Asiaticus [73]
Interruptus [73]
Laticorn [20]
Arribalzagia [74]
Christya [75]
Myzorhynchus [12]
Albotaeniatus [20]
Bancroftii [20]
Barbirostris [20]
Barbirostris [23]
Barbirostris [76]
Vanus [23]
Coustani [20]
Hyrcanus [77]
Lesteri [78]
Nigerrimus [78]
Umbrosus [79]
Baezai [73]
Letifer [23]
Separatus [73]
Umbrosus [73]
Baimaia [15]
Cellia [80]
Cellia [75]
Squamosus [21]
Myzomyia [75]
Demeilloni [22]
Funestus [81]
Aconitus [82]
Culicifacies [81]
Funestus [81]
Minimus [82]
Fluviatilis [83]
Minimus [84]
Rivulorum [81]
Marshallii [22]
Marshallii [85]
Wellcomei [22]
Neocellia [75]
Annularis [23]
Annularis [86]
Nivipes [87]
Jamesii [73]
Maculatus [88]
Maculatus [73]
Sawadwongporni [73]
Neomyzomyia [75]
Annulipes [89]
Longirostris [90]
Lungae [47]
Ardensis [22]
Nili [22]
Kochi [73]
Leucosphyrus [91]
Hackeri [92]
Leucosphyrus [93]
Dirus [94]
Leucosphyrus [92]
Riparis [93]
Mascarensis [26]
Pauliani [21]
Punctulatus [95]
Farauti [96]
Ranci [21]
Ranci [21]
Roubaudi [21]
Rhodesiensis [22]
Smithii [22]
Tessellatus [73]
Paramyzomyia [51]
Cinereus [22]
Listeri [22]
Pyretophorus [12]
Gambiae [97]
Ludlowae [73]
Sundaicus [98]
Subpictus [73]
Subpictus [99]
Kerteszia [100]
Cruzii [101]
Lophopodomyia [14]
Nyssorhynchus [102]
Albimanus [103]
Albimanus [24]
Oswaldoi [24]
Oswaldoi [24]
Oswaldoi [24]
Nuneztovari [104]
Strodei [24]
Benarrochi [105]
Triannulatus Triannulatus [24]
Argyritarsis [103]
Albitarsis [25]
Albitarsis [25]
Albitarsis [106]
Braziliensis [25]
Argyritarsis [25]
Argyritarsis [25]
Darlingi [25]
Lanei [25]
Pictipennis [25]
Myzorhynchella [107]
Stethomyia [80]

Advertisement

Appendix 2

Alphabetical list of formally named species of Anopheles and their position in the classification of the genus. For species Complexes, see Appendices 3 and 4; for authorship of species, visit http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info/valid-species-list.

Species Subgenus Section Series Group Subgroup
aberrans Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
acaci Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
acanthotorynus Stethomyia
aconitus Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Aconitus
ahomi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Vanus
ainshamsi Cellia Neocellia
aitkenii Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
albertoi Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei
albimanus Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Albimanus
albitarsis Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
albotaeniatus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Albotaeniatus
algeriensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles
alongensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Alongensis
amictus Cellia Neomyzomyia
anchietai Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
annandalei Anopheles Angusticorn Lophoscelomyia Asiaticus
annularis Cellia Neocellia Annularis
annulatus Cellia Neomyzomyia
annulipalpis Anopheles Angusticorn Cycloleppteron
annulipes Cellia Neomyzomyia
anomalophyllus Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
antunesi Nyssorhynchus Myzorhynchella
apicimacula Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
apoci Cellia Myzomyia
aquasalis Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
arabiensis Cellia Pyretophorus
arboricola Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
ardensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
argenteolobatus Cellia Cellia
argyritarsis Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Argyritarsis Argyritarsis
argyropus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
artemievi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
arthuri Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei
aruni Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
asiaticus Anopheles Angusticorn Lophoscelomyia Asiaticus Asiaticus
atacamensis Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Argyritarsis Pictipennis
atratipes Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Atratipes
atroparvus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
atropos Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis
aurirostris Cellia Neomyzomyia
austenii Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
auyantepuiensis Kerteszia
azaniae Cellia Myzomyia
azevedoi Cellia Paramyzomyia Cinereus
aztecus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis
baezai Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Baezai
baileyi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Lindesayi
baimaii Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
baisasi Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
balabacensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
balerensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Albotaeniatus
bambusicolus Kerteszia
bancroftii Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Bancroftii
barberellus Cellia Myzomyia
barberi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
barbirostris Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Barbirostris
barbumbrosus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Vanus
barianensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
beklemishevi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Quadrimaculatus
belenrae Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
bellator Kerteszia
benarrochi Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei
bengalensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
berghei Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
bervoetsi Cellia Myzomyia
boliviensis Kerteszia
borneensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
bradleyi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Punctipennis
braziliensis Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Albitarsis Braziliensis
brevipalpis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus
brevirostris Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus
brohieri Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
brucei Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Rivulorum
brumpti Cellia Cellia
brunnipes Cellia Myzomyia
bulkleyi Anopheles Angusticorn Lophoscelomyia
bustamentei Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
buxtoni Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
bwambae Cellia Pyretophorus
calderoni Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
caliginosus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
cameroni Cellia Neomyzomyia Rhodesiensis
campestris Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Barbirostris
canorii Stethomyia Neomyzomyia Smithii
carnevalei Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
caroni Cellia
carteri Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
chiriquiensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
chodukini Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
christyi Cellia Pyretophorus
cinctus Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
cinereus Cellia Paramyzomyia Cinereus
claviger Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles
clowi Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
colledgei Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Stigmaticus
collessi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Letifer
comorensis Cellia Pyretophorus
concolor Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles
confusus Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
corethroides Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Stigmaticus
costai Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
coustani Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
cracens Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
crawfordi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Lesteri
cristatus Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Riparis
cristipalpis Cellia Cellia
crucians Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Punctipennis
cruzii Kerteszia
crypticus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
cucphuongensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Alongensis
culicifacies Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Culicifacies
culiciformis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Culiciformis
cydippis Cellia Cellia Squamosus
daciae Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
dancalicus Cellia Neocellia
darlingi Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Argyritarsis Darlingi
daudi Cellia Pyretophorus
deaneorum Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
deemingi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
demeilloni Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
diluvialis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Quadrimaculatus
dirus Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
dispar Cellia Neocellia Maculatus
distinctus Cellia Myzomyia Wellcomei
domicola Cellia Myzomyia
donaldi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Barbirostris
dravidicus Cellia Neocellia Maculatus Maculatus
dthali Cellia Myzomyia
dualaensis Cellia Neomyzomyia
dunhami Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
dureni Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
earlei Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Freeborni
eiseni Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
ejercitoi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Albotaeniatus
elegans Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
engarensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
eouzani Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
epiroticus Cellia Pyretophorus
erepens Cellia Myzomyia Wellcomei
erythraeus Cellia Myzomyia
ethiopicus Cellia Myzomyia
evandroi Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
evansae Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
faini Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
farauti Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
fausti Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
filipinae Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Aconitus
flavicosta Cellia Myzomyia
flavirostris Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
fluminensis Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
fluviatilis Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
fontinalis Cellia Myzomyia
forattinii Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
fragilis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
franciscanus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
franciscoi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Barbirostris
freeborni Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Freeborni
freetownensis Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
freyi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris
funestus Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
fuscicolor Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
fuscivenosus Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Rivulorum
gabaldoni Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
galvaoi Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
gambiae Cellia Pyretophorus
garnhami Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
georgianus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Punctipennis
gibbinsi Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
gigas Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Lindesayi
gilesi Lophopodomyia
goeldii Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
gomezdelatorrei Lophopodomyia
gonzalezrinconesi Kerteszia
grabhamii Anopheles Angusticorn Cycloleppteron
grassei Cellia Neomyzomyia Pauliani
greeni Cellia Neocellia Maculatus
grenieri Cellia Neomyzomyia Pauliani
griveaudi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ranci
guarani Nyssorhynchus Myzorhynchella
guarao Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
hackeri Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Hackeri
hailarensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
halophylus Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Triannulatus
hamoni Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
hancocki Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
hargreavesi Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
harperi Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
harrisoni Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
hectoris Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
heiheensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
hermsi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Freeborni
hervyi Cellia Neocellia
hilli Cellia Neomyzomyia
hinesorum Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
hodgkini Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Barbirostris
homunculus Kerteszia
hughi Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
hunteri Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus
hyrcanus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
implexus Anopheles Laticorn Christya
incognitus Cellia Neomyzomyia
indefinitus Cellia Pyretophorus Subpictus
ininii Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
insulaeflorum Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
intermedius Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
interruptus Anopheles Angusticorn Lophoscelomyia Asiaticus Interruptus
introlatus Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
inundatus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Quadrimaculatus
irenicus Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
jamesii Cellia Neocellia Jamesii
janconnae Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
jebudensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
jeyporiensis Cellia Myzomyia Funestus
judithae Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
karwari Cellia Neocellia
keniensis Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
kingi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
kleini Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
kochi Cellia Neomyzomyia Kochi
kokhani Cellia Neomyzomyia
kolambuganensis Cellia Neomyzomyia
koliensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
kompi Stethomyia
konderi Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
koreicus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris
kosiensis Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
kweiyangensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
kyondawensis Baimaia
labranchiae Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
lacani Cellia Neomyzomyia Ranci Roubaudi
laneanus Kerteszia
lanei Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Argyritarsis Lanei
latens Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
leesoni Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
lepidotus Kerteszia
lesteri Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Lesteri
letabensis Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
letifer Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Letifer
leucosphyrus Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
lewisi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis
liangshanensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
limosus Cellia Pyretophorus
lindesayi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Lindesayi
listeri Cellia Paramyzomyia Listeri
litoralis Cellia Pyretophorus
lloreti Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
longipalpis Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
longirostris Cellia Neomyzomyia
lounibosi Cellia Neomyzomyia Rhodesiensis
lovettae Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
ludlowae Cellia Pyretophorus Ludlowae
lungae Cellia Neomyzomyia
lutzii Nyssorhynchus Myzorhynchella
macarthuri Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Riparis
machardyi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
maculatus Cellia Neocellia Maculatus Maculatus
maculipalpis Cellia Neocellia
maculipennis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
maculipes Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
majidi Cellia Myzomyia
malefactor Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
maliensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
manalangi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Vanus
mangyanus Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Aconitus
marajoara Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
marshallii Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
marteri Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles
martinius Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
mascarensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Mascarensis
mattogrossensis Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
maverlius Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Quadrimaculatus
mediopunctatus Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
melanoon Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
melas Cellia Pyretophorus
mengalangensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Lindesayi
meraukensis Cellia Neomyzomyia
merus Cellia Pyretophorus
messeae Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
millecampsi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
milloti Cellia Neomyzomyia Pauliani
minimus Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
minor Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
mirans Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Hackeri
moghulensis Cellia Neocellia
montanus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Albotaeniatus
mortiauxi Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
moucheti Cellia Myzomyia
mousinhoi Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
multicinctus Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
multicolor Cellia Paramyzomyia Listeri
murphyi Cellia Cellia
namibiensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
natalensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
nataliae Cellia Neomyzomyia
neivai Kerteszia
nemophilous Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
neomaculipalpus Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
nigerrimus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Nigerrimus
nigritarsis Nyssorhynchus Myzorhynchella
nilgiricus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Lindesayi
nili Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
nimbus Stethomyia
nimpe Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
nitidus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Nigerrimus
nivipes Cellia Neocellia Annularis
njombiensis Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
noniae Anopheles Angusticorn Lophoscelomyia Asiaticus
notanandai Cellia Neocellia Maculatus Sawadwongporni
notleyi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ranci Roubaudi
novaguinensis Cellia Neomyzomyia
nuneztovari Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
obscurus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus
occidentalis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Freeborni
oiketorakras Lophopodomyia
okuensis Anopheles Laticorn Christya
omorii Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
oryzalimnetes Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
oswaldoi Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
ovengensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
pallidus Cellia Neocellia Annularis
palmatus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
paltrinierii Cellia Neocellia
paludis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
pampanai Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Aconitus
papuensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Stigmaticus
paraliae Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Lesteri
parangensis Cellia Pyretophorus
parapunctipennis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
parensis Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
parvus Nyssorhynchus Myzorhynchella
pattoni Cellia Neocellia
pauliani Cellia Neomyzomyia Pauliani
peditaeniatus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Lesteri
perplexens Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Punctipennis
persiensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
peryassui Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
petragnani Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles
peytoni Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
pharoensis Cellia Cellia
philippinensis Cellia Neocellia Annularis
pholidotus Kerteszia
pictipennis Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Argyritarsis Pictipennis
pilinotum Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
pinjaurensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
plumbeus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
pollicaris Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Barbirostris
powderi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
powelli Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Stigmaticus
pretoriensis Cellia Neocellia
pristinus Nyssorhynchus Myzorhynchella
pseudobarbirostris Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Bancroftii
pseudojamesi Cellia Neocellia Jamesii
pseudomaculipes Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
pseudopictus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
pseudopunctipennis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
pseudosinensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Nigerrimus
pseudostigmaticus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Stigmaticus
pseudosundaicus Cellia Pyretophorus
pseudotibiamaculatus Lophopodomyia
pseudowillmori Cellia Neocellia Maculatus
pujutensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Hackeri
pulcherrimus Cellia Neocellia
pullus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
punctimacula Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
punctipennis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Punctipennis
punctulatus Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
pursati Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Nigerrimus
quadriannulatus Cellia Pyretophorus
quadrimaculatus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Quadrimaculatus
rachoui Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
radama Cellia Neomyzomyia Pauliani
rageaui Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
rampae Cellia Neocellia Maculatus Sawadwongporni
ranci Cellia Neomyzomyia Ranci Ranci
rangeli Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
recens Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Hackeri
reidi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Vanus
rennellensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
rhodesiensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Rhodesiensis
riparis Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Riparis
rivulorum Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Rivulorum
rodhaini Cellia
rollai Kerteszia
rondoni Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei
roperi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Letifer
roubaudi Cellia Neomyzomyia Ranci Roubaudi
ruarinus Cellia Neomyzomyia Rhodesiensis
rufipes Cellia Neocellia
sacharovi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Maculipennis
salbaii Cellia Neocellia
samarensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus
sanctielii Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
saperoi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Albotaeniatus
saungi Cellia Neomyzomyia
sawadwongporni Cellia Neocellia Maculatus Sawadwongporni
sawyeri Nyssorhynchus Argyritarsis Argyritarsis Argyritarsis
scanloni Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
schueffneri Cellia Neocellia Annularis
schwetzi Cellia Myzomyia
separatus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Separatus
seretsei Cellia Paramyzomyia Listeri
sergentii Cellia Myzomyia Demeilloni
seydeli Cellia Myzomyia Marshallii
shannoni Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
similissimus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus
sinensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
sineroides Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
sintoni Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Culiciformis
sintonoides Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Culiciformis
smaragdinus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis Quadrimaculatus
smithii Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
solomonis Cellia Neomyzomyia
somalicus Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
splendidus Cellia Neocellia Jamesii
squamifemur Lophopodomyia
squamosus Cellia Cellia Squamosus
stephensi Cellia Neocellia
stigmaticus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Stigmaticus
stookesi Cellia Neomyzomyia
stricklandi Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
strodei Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei
subpictus Cellia Pyretophorus Subpictus
sulawesi Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Hackeri
sundaicus Cellia Pyretophorus Ludlowae
superpictus Cellia Neocellia
swahilicus Cellia Cellia
symesi Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
takasagoensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus
tasmaniensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Atratipes
tchekedii Cellia Myzomyia
tenebrosus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani
tessellatus Cellia Neomyzomyia Tessellatus
theileri Cellia Myzomyia Wellcomei
theobaldi Cellia Neocellia
thomasi Stethomyia
tibiamaculatus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Pseudopunctipennis
tigertti Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Aitkenii
torresiensis Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
triannulatus Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Triannulatus
trinkae Nyssorhynchus Albimanus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi
turkhudi Cellia Paramyzomyia Cinereus
umbrosus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Umbrosus
vagus Cellia Pyretophorus Subpictus
vaneedeni Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
vanhoofi Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
vanus Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Barbirostris Vanus
vargasi Lophopodomyia
varuna Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Aconitus
vernus Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
veruslanei Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
vestitipennis Anopheles Laticorn Arribalzagia
vietnamensis Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus Lesteri
vinckei Cellia Neomyzomyia Ardensis
walkeri Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Maculipennis
walravensi Cellia Myzomyia
watsonii Cellia Neomyzomyia
wellcomei Cellia Myzomyia Wellcomei
wellingtonianus Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Lindesayi
whartoni Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Umbrosus Letifer
willmori Cellia Neocellia Maculatus
wilsoni Cellia Neomyzomyia Smithii
xelajuensis Anopheles Angusticorn Anopheles Plumbeus
xui Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Hyrcanus
yaeyamaensis Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
ziemanni Anopheles Laticorn Myzorhynchus Coustani

Advertisement

Appendix 3

Sibling species complexes of Anopheles – formally named and unnamed species. The Maculatus, Maculipennis and Punctulatus Complexes are now considered to be super-complexes referred to as “Groups” with subordinate complexes. Likewise, the Culicifacies Complex is considered to be a Subgroup.

Advertisement

Appendix 4

Unnamed and provisionally designated members of species complexes and their position in the classification of genus Anopheles (Sections of subgenera Anopheles and Nyssorhynchus are omitted). Excluding nominotypical members, the list includes 72 species that require formal Latin names.

Species Authors Subgenus Series Group Subgroup Complex
albitarsis sp. F,G,H,I [114,115] Nyssorhynchus Albitarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
annularis sp. A,B [86] Cellia Neocellia Annularis Annularis
annulipes sp. A‒Q [89] Cellia Neomyzomyia Annulipes
Anopheles CP Form [116] Nyssorhynchus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei
barbirostris clades I‒IV [117] Anopheles Barbirostris Barbirostris Barbirostris Barbirostris
benarrochi sp. B [105] Nyssorhynchus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Strodei Benarrochi
crucians sp. A‒E [72] Anopheles Anopheles Punctipennis Crucians
cruzii sp. A,B,C [118] Kerteszia
culicifacies sp. A‒E [108] Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Culicifacies Culicifacies
farauti sp. 4,5,6 [109,119] Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus Farauti
fluviatilis sp. S,T,U [83] Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus Fluviatilis
funestus-like sp. [120] Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
gigas s.l. (Thailand) [70] Anopheles Anopheles Lindesayi Gigas
hyrcanus spIR [121] Anopheles Hyrcanus
janconnae, lineage nr [122] Nyssorhynchus Albitarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
longipalpis Type A [123] Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Minimus
longipalpis Type C [123] Cellia Myzomyia Funestus Funestus
longirostris Genotypes
A,B,C1,C2,D,E,F,G,H
[90] Cellia Neomyzomyia Longirostris
marajoara lineages 1,2 [124] Nyssorhynchus Albitarsis Albitarsis Albitarsis
nivipes (2 cytotypes) [87] Cellia Neocellia Annularis Nivipes
nuneztovari sp. A [125] Nyssorhynchus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Nuneztovari
nuneztovari B/C [104] Nyssorhynchus Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Oswaldoi Nuneztovari
punctulatus, sp. nr [126] Cellia Neomyzomyia Punctulatus
quadriannulatus sp. B [127] Cellia Pyretophorus Gambiae
subpictus sp. A‒D [99] Cellia Pyretophorus Subpictus Subpictus
sundaicus sp. B‒E [98,128] Cellia Pyretophorus Ludlowae Sundaicus
superpictus sp. A,B [110,129] Cellia Neocellia Superpictus
takasagoensis, aff. [130] Cellia Neomyzomyia Leucosphyrus Leucosphyrus Dirus
triannulatus sp. C [113] Nyssorhynchus Oswaldoi Triannulatus Triannulatus

1In the case of species complexes, the authors are those who first recognized all the species currently included in the group.


Advertisement

Appendix 5

Phylogenetic studies of Anopheles mosquitoes. Groups included in the table are those recognized herein. None of the studies included all taxa that comprise the group investigated, but those marked with an asterisk (*) included the majority of species. Nucleotide sequences include COI, COII, cyt b, ND4, ND5 and ND6 from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA); D2, D3, 18S, ITS1 and ITS2 from ribosomal DNA (rDNA); EF-1α, G6pd and white from nuclear DNA.

Group Data set Authors
Genus Anopheles Morphology [40]
[36]
cyt b, ND5, D2
ND5, D2, G6pd, white
COI, COII, D2
18S
[38]
[39]
[41]
[131]
Subgenus Anopheles Morphology [42]
COII [37]
Anopheles Series
Maculipennis Group Chromosomes [132]
ITS2 [71]* [133,134]
Maculipennis Subgroup ITS2 [135]
Freeborni and Quadri-
maculatus Subgroups
D2 [136]
Myzorhynchus Series
Barbirostris Complex
ITS2, COI, COII
ITS2, COI
[137,139]
[117]
Hyrcanus Grou ITS2
ITS2, COI
[139,140] [141]*
[142]
Subgenus Cellia Chromosomes [143,144]
COII [37]
Myzomyia Series Chromosomes [143,144]
COII, D3 [82]
Funestus Group ITS2, COII, D3
COII, D3
[55]*
[81]*
Minimus Subgroup
Minimus Complex
COII, D3
D3, ITS2
[145]
[146]*
Neocellia Series
Annularis Group
Chromosomes
ITS2, COII, D3, ND5
D3, ITS2
[87]
[147]
[148]
Maculatus Group ITS2, COII, D3 [149–151]
Neomyzomyia Series
Annulipes Complex
Leucosphyrus Group
ITS2, COI, COII, EF-1α
COI, ND6
[89]
[152]
Punctulatus Group ITS2
18S
[153]
[154]
Farauti Complex ITS1 [109]
Pyretophorus Series Morphology
Chromosomes
[56]*
[144]
COII [37]
Gambiae Complex Chromosomes [155]
rDNA, mtDNA [156]
Sundaicus Complex mtDNA
ITS2, D2, COI, ND4
white
cyt b, ITS2, COI
[157]
[158]
[114]
[128]
Subgenus Kerteszia Morphology [44]
Subgenus Nyssorhynchus ITS2 [159]
Albimanus Section Morphology [24]
Argyritarsis Section Morphology [25]
Myzorhynchella Section ITS2, COI, white [160]

Appendix 6

Summary of the formal and informal group taxa (species complexes omitted) of genus Anopheles. The zoogeographic distribution and the number of formally named and informally designated species (in parentheses) are given for each taxon. Minor extensions of one or more species of a group into an adjacent zoogeographic region are disregarded. C = cosmopolitan; NW = New World; OW = Old World; Af = Afrotropical; Au = Australasian; Ne = Nearctic; Nt = Neotropical; Or = Oriental; Pa = Palaearctic.

References

  1. 1. Meigen JW. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Volume 1. Aachen; 1818.
  2. 2. Theobald FV. A Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes. Volume 1. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1901.
  3. 3. Theobald FV. A Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes. Volume 2. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1901.
  4. 4. Theobald FV. A Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes. Volume 3. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1903.
  5. 5. Theobald FV. A Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes. Volume 4. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1907.
  6. 6. Theobald FV. A Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes. Volume 5. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1910.
  7. 7. Knight KL, Stone A. A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera: Culicidae). Second edition. Thomas Say Foundation 1977;6 1–611.
  8. 8. Knab F. The species of Anopheles that transmit human malaria. American Journal of Tropical Diseases and Preventive Medicine 1913;1 33–43.
  9. 9. Christophers SR. The male genitalia of Anopheles. Indian Journal of Medical Research 1915;3 371–394.
  10. 10. Edwards FW. A revision of the mosquitos [sic] of the Palaearctic Region. Bulletin of Entomological Research 1921;12 263–351.
  11. 11. Root FM. The male genitalia of some American Anopheles mosquitoes. American Journal of Hygiene 1923;31 264‒279.
  12. 12. Edwards FW. Genera Insectortum. Diptera, Fam. Culicidae. Fascicle 194. Bruxelles: Desmet-Verteneuil; 1932.
  13. 13. Komp WHW. The species of the subgenus Kerteszia of Anopheles (Diptera, Culicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 1937;30 492–529.
  14. 14. Antunes PCA. A new Anopheles and a new Goeldia from Colombia (Dipt. Culic.). Bulletin of Entomological Research 1937;28 69–73.
  15. 15. Harbach RE, Rattanarithikul R, Harrison BA. Baimaia, a new subgenus for Anopheles kyondawensis Abraham, a unique crabhole-breeding anopheline in southeastern Asia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 2005;107 750–761.
  16. 16. Harbach RE. Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory. http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info/ (accessed on 1 April 2013).
  17. 17. Mayr E, Bock WJ. Classifications and other ordering systems. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 2002;40 169‒194.
  18. 18. Harbach RE, Kitching IJ. Phylogeny and classification of the Culicidae (Diptera). Systematic Entomology 1998;23 327–370.
  19. 19. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Edition. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; 1999.
  20. 20. Reid JA, Knight KL. Classification within the subgenus Anopheles (Diptera, Culicidae). Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 1961;55 474–488.
  21. 21. Grjebine A. Faune de Madagascar. XXII. Insecies Diptéres Culicidae Anophelinae. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer; 1966.
  22. 22. Gillies MT, de Meillon B. The Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara (Ethiopian Zoogeographical Region). Publications of the South African Institute for Medical Research 1968;54 1–343.
  23. 23. Reid JA. Anopheline mosquitoes of Malaya and Borneo. Studies from the Institute for Medical Research Malaya 1968;31 1–520.
  24. 24. Faran ME. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XXXIV. A revision of the Albimanus Section of the subgenus Nyssorhynchus of Anopheles. Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 1980;15(7) 1–215.
  25. 25. Linthicum KJ. A revision of the Argyritarsis Section of the subgenus Nyssorhynchus of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 1988;20 98–271.
  26. 26. Harbach RE. Review of the internal classification of the genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae): the foundation for comparative systematics and phylogenetic research. Bulletin of Entomological Research 1994;84 331–342.
  27. 27. Harbach RE. The classification of genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae): a working hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships. Bulletin of Entomological Research 2004;94 537–553.
  28. 28. Peyton EL, Wilkerson RC, Harbach RE. Comparative analysis of the subgenera Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 1992;24 51–69.
  29. 29. Borkent A, Grimaldi DA. The earliest fossil mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae), in mid-Cretaceous amber. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2004;97 882–888.
  30. 30. Bertone MA, Courtney GW, Wiegmann BM. Phylogenetics and temporal diversification of the earliest true flies (Insecta: Diptera) based on multiple nuclear genes. Systematic Entomology 2008;33 668‒687.
  31. 31. Poinar Jr JO, Zavortink TJ, Pike T, Johnston PA. Paleoculicis minutus (Diptera: Culicidae) n. gen., n. sp., from Cretaceous Canadian amber, with a summary of described fossil mosquitoes. Acta Geologica Hispanica 2000;35 119–128.
  32. 32. Zavortink TJ, Poinar Jr GO. Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) dominicanus sp. n. (Diptera: Culicidae) from Dominican amber. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2000;93 1230–1235.
  33. 33. Statz G. Neue Dipteren (Nematocera) aus dem Oberoligocän von Rott. II. Teil. V. Familie Culicidae (Stechmücken). Palaeontographica 1944;95(A) 108–120, 6 pls.
  34. 34. Reidenbach KR, Cook S, Bertone MA, Harbach RE, Wiegmann BM, Besansky NJ. Phylogenetic analysis and temporal diversification of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) based on nuclear genes and morphology. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2009;9 298.
  35. 35. Besansky NJ, Fahey GT. Utility of the white gene in estimating phylogenetic relationships among mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Molecular Biology and Evolution 1997;14 442–454.
  36. 36. Harbach RE, Kitching IJ. Reconsideration of anopheline phylogeny (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae) based on morphological data. Systematics and Biodiversity 2005;3 345–374.
  37. 37. Foley DH, Bryan JH, Yeates D, Saul A. Evolution and systematics of Anopheles: insights from a molecular phylogeny of Australasian mosquitoes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1998;9 262–275.
  38. 38. Krzywinski J, Wilkerson RC, Besansky N. Evolution of mitochondrial and ribosomal gene sequences in Anophelinae (Diptera: Culicidae): implications for phylogeny reconstruction. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 2001;18 479–487.
  39. 39. Krzywinski J, Wilkerson RC, Besansky N. Toward understanding Anophelinae (Diptera, Culicidae) phylogeny: insights from nuclear single copy genes and the weight of evidence. Systematic Biology 2001;50 540–556.
  40. 40. Sallum MAM, Schultz TR, Wilkerson RC. Phylogeny of Anophelinae (Diptera Culicidae) based on morphological characters. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2000;93 745–775.
  41. 41. Sallum MAM, Schultz TR, Foster PG, Aronstein K, Wirtz RA, Wilkerson RC. Phylogeny of Anophelinae (Diptera: Culicidae) based on nuclear ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Systematic Entomology 2002;27 361–382.
  42. 42. Collucci E, Sallum MAM. Cladistic analysis of the subgenus Anopheles (Anopheles) Meigen (Diptera: Culicidae) based on morphological characters. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2007;102 277–291.
  43. 43. Harrison BA, Scanlon JE. Medical entomology studies – II. The subgenus Anopheles in Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae). Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 1975;12(1) iv + 1–307.
  44. 44. Collucci E, Sallum MAM. Phylogenetic analysis of the subgenus Kerteszia of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae) based on morphological characters. Insect Systematics and Evolution 2003;34 361–372.
  45. 45. Merali Z, Skinner BJ. Visualizing Earth Science. John Wiley: Hoboken, New Jersey; 2009.
  46. 46. Valencio D, Vilas JF. Age of the separation of South America and Africa. Nature 1969;223 1353‒1354.
  47. 47. Belkin JN. The Mosquitoes of the South Pacific (Diptera, Culicidae) [sic]. Volumes I and II. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1962.
  48. 48. Christophers SR. The fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma. Diptera. Vol. IV. Family Culicidae. Tribe Anophelini. London, Taylor and Francis; 1933.
  49. 49. Zavortink TJ. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XXIX. A review of the subgenus Kerteszia of Anopheles. Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 1973;9(3) 1–54.
  50. 50. Smith AB. Systematics and the Fossil Record: Documenting Evolutionary Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1994.
  51. 51. Christophers SR, Barraud PJ. The eggs of Indian Anopheles with descriptions of the hitherto undescribed eggs of a number of species. Records of the Malaria Survey of India 1931;2 161–192.
  52. 52. Mattingly PF. The Biology of Mosquito-Borne Disease. The Science of Biology Series 1. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd; 1969.
  53. 53. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Coetzee M, Mbogo CM, Hemingway J, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Kabaria CW, Okara RM, Van Boeckel T, Godfray HCJ, Harbach RE, Hay SI. The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in Africa, Europe and the Middle East: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis. Parasites & Vectors 2010;3 117.
  54. 54. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Chareonviriyaphap T, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Elyazar IRF, Kabaria CW, Harbach RE, Hay SI. The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in the Asia-Pacific region: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis. Parasites & Vectors 2011;4 89.
  55. 55. Garros C, Harbach RE, Manguin S. Systematics and biogeographical implications of the phylogenetic relationships between members of the Funestus and Minimus Groups of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 2005;42 7–18.
  56. 56. Anthony TG, Harbach RE, Kitching IJ. Phylogeny of the Pyretophorus Series of Anopheles subgenus Cellia (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Entomology 1999;24 193–205.
  57. 57. Evans AM. Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian Region. II.–Anophelini adults and early stages. London: British Museum (Natural History); 1938.
  58. 58. Gillies MT. Notes on the eggs of some East African Anopheles. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 1955;49 158–160.
  59. 59. Mattingly PF. Mosquito eggs III. Mosquito Systematics Newsletter 1969;1 41–50.
  60. 60. Stringer C. The Origin of our Species. London: Penguin Books Ltd; 2011.
  61. 61. Sinka ME, Rubio-Palis Y, Manguin S, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Van Boeckel T, Kabaria CW, Harbach R.E, Hay SI. The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in the Americas: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis. Parasites & Vectors 2010;3 72.
  62. 62. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Rubio-Palis Y, Chareonviriyaphap T, Coetzee M, Mbogo CM, Hemingway J, Patilm AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Kabaria CW, Okara RM, Burkot TR, Harbach RE, Hay SI. A global map of dominant malaria vectors. Parasites & Vectors 2012;5 69.
  63. 63. Besansky NJ, Lehmann T, Fahey GT, Fontenille D, Braack LEO, Hawley WA, Collins FH. Patterns of mitochondrial variation within and between African malaria vectors, Anopheles gambiae and An. arabiensis, suggest extensive gene flow. Genetics 1997;147 1817‒1828.
  64. 64. Thelwell NJ, Huisman RA, Harbach RE, Butlin RK. Evidence for mitochondrial introgression between Anopheles bwambae and Anopheles gambiae. Insect Molecular Biology 2000;9 203–210.
  65. 65. Walton C, Handley JM, Collins FH, Baimai V, Harbach RE, Deesin V, Butlin RK. Genetic population structure and introgression in Anopheles dirus mosquitoes in South-east Asia. Molecular Ecology 2001;10 569‒580.
  66. 66. Van Bortel W, Trung HD, Manh ND, Roelants P, Verlé P, Coosemans M. Identification of two species within the Anopheles minimus complex in northern Vietnam and their behavioural divergences. Tropical Medicine and International Health 1999;4 257–265.
  67. 67. Coluzzi M, Sacca G, Feliciangeli D. Il complesso A. claviger nella sottoregione mediterranea. Cahiers ORSTROM, série Entomologie médicale et Parasitologie 1965; 97–102.
  68. 68. Vu TP, Nguyen DM,Tran DH, Nguyen NV. Anopheles (Anopheles) cucphuongensis: a new species from Vietnam (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 1990;22 145–148.
  69. 69. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Debenham ML, Bryan JH, Russell RC, Geary M, Marks EN. The Culicidae of the Australasian Region. Volume 5. Nomenclature, synonymy, literature, distribution, biology and relation to disease. Genus Anopheles. Subgenera Anopheles, Cellia. Monograph Series, Entomology Monograph No. 2. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1987.
  70. 70. Harrison BA, Rattanarithikul R, Peyton EL, Mongkolpanya K. Taxonomic changes, revised occurrence records and notes on the Culicidae of Thailand and neighboring countries. Mosquito Systematics 1991;22 196–227.
  71. 71. Linton Y. Systematics of the Holarctic maculipennis complex. Systematics Symposium: 70th Annual Meeting of the American Mosquito Control Association, February 22–26, 2004, Savannah, Georgia.
  72. 72. Wilkerson RC, Reinert JF, Li C. Ribosomal DNA ITS2 sequences differentiate six species in the Anopheles crucians complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 2004;41 392–401.
  73. 73. Rattanarithikul R, Harrison BA, Harbach RE, Panthusiri P, Coleman RE. Illustrated Keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand. IV. Anopheles. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 2006;37(suppl. 2) 1–128.
  74. 74. Root FM. The classification of American Anopheles mosquitoes. American Journal of Hygiene 1922;2 321–322.
  75. 75. Christophers SR. Provisional list and reference catalogue of the Anophelini. Indian Medical Research Memoirs 1924;3 1–105.
  76. 76. Satoto TBT. Cryptic species within Anopheles barbirostris van der Wulp, 1884, inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequence variation. PhD Thesis. University of Liverpool; 2001.
  77. 77. Reid JA. The Anopheles hyrcanus group in south–east Asia (Diptera: Culicidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 1953;44 5–76.
  78. 78. Harrison BA. A new interpretation of affinities within the Anopheles hyrcanus complex of Southeast Asia. Mosquito Systematics 1972;4 73–83.
  79. 79. Reid JA. The Anopheles umbrosus group (Diptera: Culicidae). Part 1: systematics, with descriptions of two new species. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 1950;101 281–318.
  80. 80. Theobald FV. The classification of the Anophelina. Journal of Tropical Medicine 1902;5 181–183.
  81. 81. Garros C, Harbach RE, Manguin S. Morphological assessment and molecular phylogenetics of the Funestus and Minimus Groups of Anopheles (Cellia). Journal of Medical Entomology 2005;42 522–536.
  82. 82. Chen B, Butlin RK, Harbach RE. Molecular phylogenetics of the Oriental members of the Myzomyia Series of Anopheles subgenus Cellia (Diptera: Culicidae) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Systematic Entomology 2003;28 57–69.
  83. 83. Sarala KS, Nutan N, Vasantha K, Dua VK, Malhotra MS, Yadav RS, Sharma VP. Cytogenetic evidence for three sibling species in Anopheles fluviatilis (Diptera: Culicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 1994;87 116–121.
  84. 84. Green CA, Gass RF, Munstermann LE, Baimai V. Population-genetic evidence for two species in Anopheles minimus in Thailand. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 1990;4 25–34.
  85. 85. Gillies MT, Coetzee M. A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara (Afrotropical Region). Publications of the South African Institute for Medical Research 1987;55 1–143.
  86. 86. Atrie B, Subbarao SK, Pillai MKK, Rao SRV, Sharma VP. Population cytogenetic evidence for sibling species in Anopheles annularis (Diptera: Culicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 1999;92 243–249.
  87. 87. Green CA, Harrison BA, Klein TA, Baimai V. Cladistic analysis of polytene chromosome rearrangements in anopheline mosquitoes, subgenus Cellia, series Neocellia. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 1985;27 123–133.
  88. 88. Rattanarithikul R, Green CA. Formal recognition of the species of the Anopheles maculatus group (Diptera: Culicidae) occurring in Thailand, including the descriptions of two new species and a preliminary key to females. Mosquito Systematics 1987;18 246–278.
  89. 89. Foley DH, Wilkerson RC, Cooper RD, Volovsek ME, Bryan JH. A molecular phylogeny of Anopheles annulipes (Diptera: Culicidae) sensu lato: The most species-rich anopheline complex. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 2007;43 283–297.
  90. 90. Alquezaar DE, Hemmerter S, Cooper RD, Beebe NW. Incomplete concerted evolution and reproductive isolation at the rDNA locus uncovers nine cryptic species within Anopheles longirostris from Papua New Guinea. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010;10 392.
  91. 91. Reid JA. A preliminary account of the forms of Anopheles leucosphyrus Dönitz (Diptera: Culicidae). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London Series B Taxonomy 1949;18 42–53.
  92. 92. Sallum MAM, Peyton EL, Wilkerson RC. Six new species of the Anopheles leucosphyrus group, reinterpretation of An. elegans and vector implications. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 2005;19 158–199.
  93. 93. Peyton EL. A new classification for the Leucosphyrus Group of Anopheles (Cellia). Mosquito Systematics 1990;21 197–205.
  94. 94. Sallum MAM, Peyton EL, Harrison BA, Wilkerson RC. Revision of the Leucosphyrus group of Anopheles (Cellia) (Diptera, Culicidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 2005;49(Supl. 1) 1–152.
  95. 95. Schmidt ER, Foley DH, Hartel GF, Williams GM, Bryan JH. Descriptions of the Anopheles (Cellia) farauti complex of sibling species (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 2001;91 389–410.
  96. 96. Schmidt ER, Foley DH, Bugoro H, Bryan JH. A morphological study of the Anopheles punctulatus group (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Solomon Islands, with a description of Anopheles (Cellia) irenicus Schmidt, sp.n. Bulletin of Entomological Research 2003;93 515–526.
  97. 97. White GB. Anopheles bwambae sp.n., a malaria vector in the Semliki Valley, Uganda, and its relationships with other sibling species of the An. gambiae complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Entomology 1985;10 501–522.
  98. 98. Sukowati S, Baimai V, Harun S, Dasuki Y, Andris H, Efriwati M. Isozyme evidence for three sibling species in the Anopheles sundaicus complex from Indonesia. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 1999;13 408–414.
  99. 99. Suguna SG, Rathinam KG, Rajavel AR, Dhanda V. Morphological and chromosomal descriptions of new species in the Anopheles subpictus complex. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 1994;9 88–94.
  100. 100. Theobald FV. A catalogue of the Culicidae in the Hungarian National Museum, with descriptions of new genera and species. Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 1905;3 61–119, figures legends + 4 pls.
  101. 101. Ramirez CC, Dessen EM. Chromosomal evidence for sibling species of the malaria vector Anopheles cruzii. Genome 2000;43 143–151.
  102. 102. Blanchard R. Nouvelle note sur les moustiques. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances et Mémoires de la Société de Biologie 1902;54 793–795.
  103. 103. Levi Castillo R. Atlas de los Anofelinos Sudamericanos. Quayaquil, Ecuador: Sociedad Filantrópica de Guayas; 1949.
  104. 104. Sierra DM, Velez ID, Linton Y-M. Malaria vector Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) nuneztovari comprises one genetic species in Colombia based on homogeneity of nuclear ITS2 rDNA. Journal of Medical Entomology 2004;41 302–307.
  105. 105. Ruiz F, Quiñones ML, Erazo HF, Calle DA, Alzate JF, Linton Y-M. Molecular differentiation of Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) benarrochi and An. (N.) oswaldoi from Southern Colombia. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2005;100 155–160.
  106. 106. Wilkerson RC, Parsons TJ, Klein TA, Gaffigan TV, Bergo E, Consolim J. Diagnosis by random amplified polymorphic DNA polymerase chain reaction for four cryptic species related to Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) albitarsis (Diptera: Culicidae) from Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. Journal of Medical Entomology 1995;32 697–704.
  107. 107. Peyton EL, Wilkerson RC, Harbach RE. Comparative analysis of the subgenera Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 1992;24 51–69.
  108. 108. Kar I, Subbarao SK, Eapen A, Ravendaran J, Satyanarayana TS, Raghavendra K, Nanda N, Sharma VP. Evidence for a new malaria vector species, species E, within the Anopheles culicifacies complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 1999;36 595–600.
  109. 109. Bower JE, Dowton M, Cooper RD, Beebe NW. Intraspecific concerted evolution of the rDNA ITS1 in Anopheles farauti sensu stricto (Diptera: Culicidae) reveals recent patterns of population structure. Journal of Molecular Evolution 2008;67 397‒411.
  110. 110. Oshaghi MA, Yaghobi-Ershadi MR, Shemshad Kh, Pedram M, Amani H. The Anopheles superpictus complex: introduction of a new malaria vector complex in Iran. Bulletin de la Société de Pathologie exotique 2008;101 429‒434.
  111. 111. Conn J, Puertas YR, Seawright JA. A new cytotype of Anopheles nuneztovari from western Venezuela and Colombia. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1993;9 294–301.
  112. 112. Rosa-Freitas MG, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, de Carvalho-Pinto CJ, Flores-Mendoza F, Silva-do-Nascimento TF. Anopheline species complexes in Brazil. Current knowledge of those related to malaria transmission. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 1998;93 651–655.
  113. 113. Silva-do-Nascimento TR, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R. Diverse population dynamics of three Anopheles species belonging to the Triannulatus Complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2007;102 975–982.
  114. 114. Brochero HHL, Li C, Wilkerson RC. A newly recognized species in the Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) albitarsis complex (Diptera: Culicidae) from Puerto Carreño, Colombia. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2007;76 1113–1117.
  115. 115. Ruiz-Lopez F, Wilkerson RC, Conn JE, McKeon SN, Levin DM, Quiñones ML, Póvoa MM, Linton Y-M. DNA barcoding reveals both known and novel taxa in the Albitarsis Group (Anopheles: Nyssorhynchus) of Neotropical malaria vectors. Parasites & Vectors 2012;5 44.
  116. 116. Sallum MAM, Foster PG, dos Santos CLS, Flores DC, Motoki MT, Bergo ES. Resurrection of two species from synonymy of Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) strodei Root, and characterization of a distinct morphological form from the Strodei Complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 2010;47 504–526.
  117. 117. Paredes-Esquivel C, Donnelly MJ, Harbach RE, Townson H. A molecular phylogeny of mosquitoes in the Anopheles barbirostris subgroup reveals cryptic species: implications for identification of disease vectors. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 2009;50 141–151.
  118. 118. Ramirez CC, Dessen EM. Chromosome differentiated populations of Anopheles cruzii: evidence for a third sibling species. Genetica 2000;108 73–80.
  119. 119. Foley DH, Paru R, Dagoro H, Bryan JH. Allozyme analysis reveals six species within the Anopheles punctulatus complex of mosquitoes in Papua New Guinea. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 1993;7 37–48.
  120. 120. Spillings BL, Brooke BD, Koekemoer LL, Chiphwanya J, Coetzee M, Hunt RH. A new species concealed by Anopheles funestus Giles, a major malaria vector in Africa. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2009;81 510–515.
  121. 121. Djadid ND, Jazayeri H, Gholizadeh S, Pashaeirad S, Zakeri S. First record of a new member of Anopheles Hyrcanus Group from Iran: molecular identification, diagnosis, phylogeny, status of kdr resistance and Plasmodium infection. Journal of Medical Entomology 2009;46 1084–1093.
  122. 122. Gutiérrez LA, Orrego LM, Gómez GF, López A, Luckhart S, Conn JE, Correa MM. A new mtDNA COI gene lineage closely related to Anopheles janconnae of the Albitarsis complex in the Caribbean region of Colombia. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2010;105 1019–1025.
  123. 123. Koekemoer LL, Misiani EA, Hunt RH, Kent RJ, Norris DE, Coetzee M. Cryptic species within Anopheles longipalpis from southern Africa and phylogenetic comparison with members of the An. funestus group. Bulletin of Entomological Research 2009;99 41–49.
  124. 124. McKeon SN, Lehr MA, Wilkerson RC, Ruiz JF, Sallum MA, Povoa MM., Conn JE, Lima JBP. Lineage divergence detected in the malaria vector Anopheles marajoara (Diptera: Culicidae) in Amazonian Brazil. Malaria Journal 2010;9 271.
  125. 125. Conn J. A genetic study of the malaria vector Anopheles nuneztovari from western Venezuela. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1990;6 400–405.
  126. 126. Foley DH, Cooper RD, Bryan JH. A new species within the Anopheles punctulatus complex in Western Province, Papua New Guinea. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1995;11 122–127.
  127. 127. Hunt RH, Coetzee M, Fettene M. The Anopheles gambiae complex: a new species from Ethiopia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1998;92 231–235.
  128. 128. Dusfour I, Michaux JR, Harbach RE, Manguin S. Speciation and phylogeography of the Southeast Asian Anopheles sundaicus complex. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 2007;7 484‒493.
  129. 129. Oshaghi MA, Shemshad Kh, Yaghobi-Ershadi MR, Pedram M, Vatandoost H, Abaie MR, Akbarzadeh K, Mohtarami F. Genetic structure of the malaria vector Anopheles superpictus in Iran using mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase (COI and COII) and morphologic markers: A new species complex? Acta Tropica 2007;101 241‒248.
  130. 130. Takano KT, Nguyen NTH, Nguyen BTH, Sunahara T, Yasunami, M, Nguyen MD, Takagi M. Partial mitochondrial DNA sequences suggest the existence of a cryptic species within the Leucosphyrus group [sic] of the genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae), forest malaria vectors, in northern Vietnam. Parasites & Vectors 2010;3 41.
  131. 131. Bargues MD, Latorre JM, Morchon R, Simon F, Escosa R, Aranda C, Sainz S, Fuentes MV, Mas-Coma S. rDNA sequences of Anopheles species from the Iberian Peninsula and an evaluation of the 18S rRNA gene as phylogenetic marker in Anophelinae. Journal of Medical Entomology 2006;43 508–517.
  132. 132. White GB. Systematic reappraisal of the Anopheles maculipennis complex. Mosquito Systematics 1978;10 13–44.
  133. 133. Gordeev M, Goriacheva I, Shaikevitch E, Ejov M. Variability of the second internal transcribed spacer of the ribosomal DNA among five Palaearctic species of anopheline mosquitoes. European Mosquito Bulletin 2004;17 14–19.
  134. 134. Djadid ND, Gholizadeh S, Tafsiri E, Romi R, Gordeev M, Zakeri S. Molecular identification of Palearctic [sic] members of Anopheles maculipennis in northern Iran. Malaria Journal 2007;6-6 (10 pp.).
  135. 135. Marinucci M, Romi R, Mancini M, Di Luca M, Severini C. Phylogenetic relationships of seven palearctic [sic] members of the maculipennis complex inferred from ITS2 sequence analysis. Insect Molecular Biology 1999;8 469480.
  136. 136. Porter CH, Collins FH. Phylogeny of Nearctic members of the Anopheles maculipennis species group derived from the D2 variable region of 28S ribosomal RNA. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1996;6 178–188.
  137. 137. Saeung A, Otsuka Y, Baimai V, Somboon P, Pitasawat B, Tuetan B, Junkum A, Takaoka H, Choochote W. Cytogenetic and molecular evidence for two species in the Anopheles barbirostris complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Parasitology Research 2007;101 1337–1344.
  138. 138. Saeung A, Baimai V, Otsuka Y, Rattanarithikul R, Somboon P, Junkum A, Tuetun B, Takaoka H, Choochote W. Molecular and cytogenetic evidence of three sibling species of the Anopheles barbirostris form A (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Parasitology Research 2008;102 499–507.
  139. 139. Ma Y-J, Qu F-Y. Anopheles hyrcanus complex from China: sequence differences of ribosomal DNA second internal transcribed spacer and phylogenetic analyses. Entomological Knowledge 2002;39 209–214 (in Chinese).
  140. 140. Ma Y, Xu J. The Hyrcanus Group of Anopheles (Anopheles) in China (Diptera: Culicidae): species discrimination and phylogenetic relationships inferred by ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer 2 sequences. Journal of Medical Entomology 2005;42 610–619.
  141. 141. Hwang UW. Revisited ITS2 phylogeny of Anopheles (Anopheles) Hyrcanus [sic] group mosquitoes: reexamination of unidentified and misidentified ITS2 sequences. Parasitology Research, 2007;101 885–894.
  142. 142. Paredes-Esquivel C, Harbach RE, Townson H. Molecular taxonomy of members of the Anopheles hyrcanus group from Thailand and Indonesia. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 2011;25 348–352.
  143. 143. Green CA. Cladistic analysis of mosquito chromosome data (Anopheles (Cellia) Myzomyia). Journal of Heredity 1982;73 2–11.
  144. 144. Pape T. Cladistic analyses of mosquito chromosome data in Anopheles subgenus Cellia (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 1992;24 1–11.
  145. 145. Sharpe RG, Harbach RE, Butlin RK. Molecular variation and phylogeny of the Minimus Group of Anopheles subgenus Cellia (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Entomology 2000;25 265–272.
  146. 146. Sawabe K, Takagi M, Tsuda Y, Tuno N. Molecular variation and phylogeny of the Anopheles minimus complex (Diptera: Culicidae) inhabiting Southeast Asian countries, based on ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spaces, ITS1 and 2, and the 28S D3 sequences. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 2003;34 771–780.
  147. 147. Morgan K, O’Loughlin M, Mun-Yik F, Linton Y-M, Somboon P, Min S, Htun PT, Nambanya S, Weerasinghe I, Sochantha T, Prakash A, Walton C. Molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the Neocellia Series of Anopheles mosquitoes in the Oriental Region. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 2009;52 588–601.
  148. 148. Alam MT, Das MK, Dev V, Ansari MA, Sharma YD. PCR-RFLP method for the identification of four members of the Anopheles annularis group of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2007;101 239–244.
  149. 149. Ma Y, Qu F, Dong X, Zhou H. Molecular identification of Anopheles maculatus complex from China. Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases 2002;20 321–324 (in Chinese).
  150. 150. Ma Y, Shizhu L, Jiannong X. Molecular identification and phylogeny of the Maculatus Group of Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Acta Tropica 2006;99 272–280.
  151. 151. Walton C, Somboon P, Harbach RE, Zhang S, Weerasinghe I, O’Loughlin SM, Phompida S, Sochantha T, Tun-Lin W, Chen B, Butlin RK. Molecular identification of mosquito species in the Anopheles annularis group in southern Asia. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 2007;21 30–35.
  152. 152. Sallum MAM, Foster PG, Li C, Sithiprasasna R, Wilkerson RC. Phylogeny of the Leucosphyrus Group of Anopheles (Cellia) Diptera: Culicidae) based on mitochondrial gene sequences. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2007;100 27–35.
  153. 153. Beebe NW, Ellis JT, Cooper RD, Saul A. DNA sequence analysis of the ribosomal DNA ITS2 region for the Anopheles punctulatus group of mosquitoes. Insect Molecular Biology 1999;8 381–390.
  154. 154. Beebe NW, Cooper RE. Distribution and evolution of the Anopheles punctulatus group (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia and Papua New Guinea. International Journal of Parasitology 2002;32 563‒574.
  155. 155. Coluzzi M, Sabatini A, Petrarca V, Di Deco MA. Chromosomal differentiation and adaptation to human environments in the Anopheles gambiae complex. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1979;73 483–497.
  156. 156. Besansky NJ, Powell JR, Caccone A, Hamm DM, Scott JA, Collins FH. Molecular phylogeny of the Anopheles gambiae complex suggests genetic introgression between principal malaria vectors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 1994;91 6885–6888.
  157. 157. Caccone A, Garcia BA, Powell JR. Evolution of the mitochondrial DNA control region in the Anopheles gambiae complex. Insect Molecular Biology 1996;6 51–59.
  158. 158. Wilkerson RC, Foster PG, Li C, Sallum MAM. Molecular phylogeny of Neotropical Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) albitarsis species complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2005;98 918–925.
  159. 159. Marrelli MT, Floeter-Winter LM, Malafronte RS, Tadei WP, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Flores-Mendoza C, Marinotti O. Amazonian malaria vector anopheline relationships interpreted from ITS2 rDNA sequences. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 2005;19 208–218.
  160. 160. Bourke BP, Nagaki SS, Bergo ES, da Cruz Cardoso J, Sallum MAM. Molecular phylogeny of the Myzorhynchella Section of Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) (Diptera: Culicidae): genetic support for recently described and resurrected species. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2011;106 705‒715.
  161. 161. Townson H, Dyer N, McAlister E, Satoto TBT, Boewono DT, Bangs MJ & Harbach RE Systematics of Anopheles barbirostris van der Wulp and a sibling species of the Barbirostris Complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in eastern Java, Indonesia. Systematic Entomology 2013;38: 180–191.
  162. 162. Coetzee M, Hunt RH, Wilkerson R, della Torre A, Coulibaly MB & Besansky NJ Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles amharicus, new members of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Zootaxa 2013;3619: 246–274.

Notes

  • Geological ages of eras and periods follow the geological timescale determined by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (http://www.stratigraphy.org).

Written By

Ralph E. Harbach

Submitted: 20 February 2012 Published: 24 July 2013