You are on page 1of 12

Snell—New

New ZealandZealand
Journal mosquito identification
of Zoology, keys
2005, Vol. 32: 99–110 99
0301–4223/05/3202–0099 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2005

Identification keys to larval and adult female mosquitoes (Diptera:


Culicidae) of New Zealand

AMY E. SNELL to distinguish larval and adult forms of all species.


Ecology and Health Research Centre Usually, the larvae of mosquitoes are more readily
Department of Public Health identified than adults and existing New Zealand keys
Wellington School of Medicine and Health are primarily for larvae and do not include all spe-
Sciences cies. Present, taxonomic information is also scattered
University of Otago among a number of publications (refer Materials and
P.O. Box 7343 Methods below) that are not widely available. This
Wellington South, New Zealand paper combines observations of supplementary taxo-
amy.snell@wnmeds.ac.nz nomic characteristics (in italics) from museum and
field-collected specimens, with existing information
from published literature. Field collected specimens
Abstract Keys are presented for the identification examined will be deposited in Te Papa.
of larval and adult female life stages of the 12 en- New Zealand larval and adult mosquitoes can
demic and four exotic mosquito species known for be difficult to distinguish morphologically. In par-
New Zealand (the keys are to species not genera). ticular, Culiseta (Climacura) tonnoiri (Edwards)
The keys include the recent arrival, Ochlerotatus and Culiseta (Climacura) novaezealandiae Pillai
(Ochlerotatus) camptorhynchus (Thomson), and are very similar, and further research is needed to
a monotypic genus endemic to New Zealand. A clarify their relationship (Belkin, 1968). Mosquitoes
number of Aedine subgenera have been recently belonging to the Culex pervigilans species complex
raised to genus level (Reinert et al. 2004; Reinert & (Culex (Culex) pervigilans Bergroth, Culex (Culex)
Harbach 2005) and old and new nomenclature are asteliae Belkin and Culex (Culex) rotoruae Belkin)
both given. The keys combine previously scattered are difficult to distinguish and larva and adult Cx.
information about the current New Zealand mosquito pervigilans can also be confusing (Belkin, 1968).
fauna and will assist future biosecurity surveillance A number of Aedine subgenera have been recently
and further studies involving mosquitoes as potential raised to genus level (Reinert et al. 2004; Reinert &
arbovirus vectors. Harbach 2005). Subsequently, old and new nomen-
clature is given here to provide clarification. Revi-
Keywords mosquitoes; Culicidae; taxonomy; sions of taxonomic keys published elsewhere have
adults; larvae; New Zealand often been a reaction to the interception of exotic
species, as was the case following the introduction
of Culex (Culex) gelidus Theobald (Whelan et al.
2000) and the interception of Stegomyia albopicta
INTRODUCTION (Skuse) (Aedes albopictus, the Asian tiger mosquito)
The New Zealand mosquito fauna currently compris- in the Northern Territory of Australia (Lamche et al.
es 12 endemic and four exotic species in six genera, 2003). The ability to correctly distinguish important
one of which is monotypic (Maorigoeldia Edwards, pest and vector species that might be collected dur-
1902) and restricted to New Zealand. There is no ing surveillance operations enables authorities to
single morphological identification key available determine the requirements for control operations,
properly implement these operations, and evaluate
and improve implementation (Russell 1993).
The risk of vector-borne disease has increased in
New Zealand with the introduction of the southern
Z04034; Online publication date 13 May 2005 salt marsh mosquito, Ochlerotatus (Ochlerotatus)
Received 14 September 2004; accepted 20 January 2005 camptorhynchus (Thomson) in 1998 (Hearnden
100 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32

1999). This species is a competent vector of Ross also preserved specimens from Auckland Museum,
River virus (Ballard & Marshall 1986). In addi- Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Ton-
tion, all four naturalised New Zealand species have garewa) and the New Zealand Arthropod Collection
demonstrated vector competence for arboviruses (NZAC, Auckland). Taxonomic descriptions were
that cause human illness in other countries (Russell also examined from the literature, i.e., Edwards
1995, 1998, 2002; Watson & Kay 1999). (1920, 1924, 1925); Miller (1922); Cooling (1924);
Interceptions have been recorded in New Zealand Graham (1929, 1939); Wood (1929); Miller & Phil-
of disease-carrying vectors such as Stegomyia ae- lips (1952); Klein & Marks (1960); Belkin (1962,
gypti (Linnaeus) (Aedes aegypti) (Ministry of Health 1968); Dumbleton (1962, 1965, 1968); Nye (1962);
2001, 2004), St. albopicta (Laird et al. 1994), Och- Marks & Nye (1963); Nye & McGregor (1964);
lerotatus (Finlaya) japonicus (Theobald) (Ministry Dobrotworsky (1965); Pillai (1966a,b, 1968); Lee
of Health 2002, 2003b), Cx. gelidus (Ministry of et al. (1982, 1984, 1988, 1988a,b, 1989); Marks
Health 2003a) and Stegomyia polynesiensis (Marks) (1982); Liehne (1991); Russell (1993); Weinstein
(Aedes polynesiensis) (Ministry of Health 2004). et al. (1997); and Winterbourn et al. (2000). For
These mosquitoes could pose threats to public health morphological terms refer to Fig. 1–12. More com-
if they were to become established and encounter monly used morphological terminology has been
viraemic humans. At present, New Zealand has used in these keys and where possible has been
no vector-borne diseases that cause human illness defined according to the nomenclature of Harbach
(Weinstein et al. 1995), but there is an increased risk & Knight (1980).
of these diseases entering the country both by acci-
dental introduction of a mosquito species carrying a
disease or by a viraemic or disease-carrying human PRESERVATION OF MOSQUITO
who could then be bitten by local mosquitoes. The SPECIMENS
number of vector-borne disease case notifications in
New Zealand has been steadily increasing over the To ensure that specimens are in optimal conditions
last decade based on the number of cases of dengue for use with the keys, larger larval instars (3rd or
fever and malaria (Institute of Environmental Sci- 4th) should be used, as diagnostic features are not
ence and Limited Research 2004). This is combined always developed in 1st and 2nd instars. Larvae
with increases in migration to New Zealand, and should first be killed in hot water just below boiling
incoming tourists and returning residents. point to denature enzymes and fix the proteins. This
To be effective, control measures implemented prevents the specimens from curling up and later
against any vector mosquito must be based on its darkening (Upton 1991). Specimens should then be
biology, which cannot be known until its identifica- placed in 75% ethanol (Walker & Crosby 1988). The
tion is confirmed (Rogers 1974). Correct identifica- key can be used with dry and freshly caught adult
tion of mosquito species is essential to the health female specimens. However, it may not be possible
risk assessment process, and the adult and larval to identify damaged specimens if particular charac-
keys presented herewith will be valuable tools for ters are not present, e.g., scales have been rubbed off
biosecurity surveillance because they can be used or hind legs are not present (Russell 1993). Adults
accurately and quickly to distinguish endemic and should be killed by placing in the freezer overnight
naturalised species from exotic species that are in- or on dry ice in a container. The method of killing
tercepted in the vicinity of air and shipping points. and storage must be appropriate for the purpose of
their collection (e.g., for virus isolation). Specimens
for identification should be thawed before being
MATERIALS AND METHODS handled to ensure appendages are not knocked off
(Upton 1991). The best specimens should either be
Specimens from several sources were examined. pinned or stored correctly to minimise any damage
Field collections were made during 2001–03 from (refer to Walker & Crosby (1988) for procedures).
the Waitakere Ranges (Auckland), Hooper’s Inlet The preservation of mosquito adults in ethanol for
(Dunedin), Kuirau Park (Rotorua), Nga Manu Nature identification (unless required) is not recommended
Reserve (Waikanae), Kaipara Harbour (Northland), as this often discolours and dislodges scales. Speci-
Karori Wildlife Sanctuary (Wellington), Whataroa mens stored in ethanol must be kept away from light
(West Coast, South Island), Island Bay (Wellington); to avoid bleaching (Walker & Crosby 1988).
Snell—New Zealand mosquito identification keys 101

1 2

Fig. 1–2 1, The terminal segments of a generalised


mosquito larva. 2, Generalised terminal segments of
Anopheles spp.

IDENTIFICATION KEY TO THE FOURTH INSTAR LARVAE OF MOSQUITOES IN


NEW ZEALAND (Fig. 1–6)
1. –Larvae with siphon (breathing tube) at posterior end (Fig. 1) .....................................................2
–Larvae with no siphon at posterior end (Fig. 2) ........................................... ..Anopheles Meigen
(Anopheles spp. are not currently present in New Zealand, but are abundant in neighbouring
countries)
2 (1) –Siphon with normal spiracular apparatus at tip (Fig. 1) ..............................................................3
–Siphon with spiracular apparatus modified with a saw-like apparatus for piercing plant tissue
(Fig. 3) ........................................................................................................... Coquillettidia Dyar
Larvae of the two Coquillettidia species from New Zealand, Cq. iracunda (Walker) and Cq. tenuipalpis
(Edwards) are undescribed. Only pupae and pupal exuviae are known for these species (Belkin 1968).
3 (2) –Siphon with more than 1 pair of ventro-lateral hair tufts (setae 1a-S, 1b-S etc; Fig. 4) ..............7
–Siphon with only 1 pair of ventro-lateral hair tufts (seta 1-S) either at extreme base (Fig. 5) or mid
length .............................................................................................................................................. 4
4 (3) –Siphon with very small ventro-lateral tuft only at extreme base, lateral comb scales in a single
row, minute single or bifid tufts distributed along the length of the siphon (Fig. 5) ...................5
–Siphon with ventro-lateral hair tuft (seta 1-S) about or beyond mid length of siphon, without
comb scales in a single row and minute tufts ..............................................................................6
5 (4) –Lateral comb with 18–20 comb scales1, anal papillae constricted between one-third and one half
length from base of the saddle .................................. ..Culiseta (Climacura) tonnoiri (Edwards)
–Lateral comb with 25–29 comb scales1, anal papillae not constricted ..........................................
.............................................................................. Culiseta (Climacura) novaezealandiae Pillai
6 (4) –Siphon with more than 3 pecten teeth (Fig. 1) ...........................................................................11
–Siphon with 2–3 pecten teeth spaced widely apart (lateral comb in a triangular patch of 70 or
more scales; anal papillae short and rounded, subequal in length) ...............................................
.................................................................................................. Opifex (Opifex) fuscus (Hutton)
7 (3) –Siphon with 4–7 pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts ........................................................................8
–Siphon with 9–11 pairs of long ventro-lateral hair tufts (also with 9–11 dorso-lateral hair tufts;
4–6 pecten teeth; lateral comb a large patch with >80 scales; anal papillae longer than saddle and
rounded apically) ....................................................................Maorigoeldia argyropus (Walker)
(continued)
102 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32

8 (7) –Siphon with 4 pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts ............................................................................9


–Siphon with 5 (rarely with 4, 6, or 7) pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts (setae 1a-S to 1e-S)2 in
alignment with pecten teeth (siphon with 6–9 small pecten teeth; lateral comb a patch of 30–40
scales; anal papillae short and pointed, usually subequal to saddle length or shorter; distribution
restricted to the North Island, collected from thermal pools and their outflows in the Rotorua area,
and Kaikohe)................................................................................Culex (Culex) rotoruae Belkin
9 (8) –Siphon with a siphon index of <8.53, with four pairs of hair tufts either ventro-lateral or dorso-
lateral with 1 pair out of alignment ...........................................................................................10
–Siphon long, with a siphon index of >8.53, siphon with 4 pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts, and
2 pairs out of alignment with pecten teeth (seta 1b-S and 1c-S) (pecten teeth small, usually less
than 10; lateral comb a patch of 30–40 scales; anal papillae subequal, shorter than saddle and
pointed) ........................................................................................ .Culex (Culex) asteliae Belkin
10 (9) –Siphon with 4 pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts, with seta 1c-S out of alignment with pecten teeth;
siphon straight; anal papillae subequal, longer than saddle; usually with 12 (9–15) pecten teeth;
lateral comb a patch of 40–48 scales (variation between individuals has been observed, sometimes
with more than one hair out of alignment or with more than 4 pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts,
usually 5 or 6 as in Fig. 4) ................................................... Culex (Culex) pervigilans Bergroth
–Siphon with 4 pairs of ventro-lateral hair tufts with seta 1d-S out of line with pecten (seta 1a-S
usually above level of pecten teeth); siphon with distinct bulge in lower half to middle; with 8–12
pecten teeth; lateral comb a patch of 30–40 scales; anal papillae long and pointed about length
of the saddle, dorsal anal papillae longer than ventral anal papillae .............................................
........................................................................................... Culex (Culex) quinquefasciatus Say
11 (6) –Head hair 5 and 6 both single (Fig. 6) .......................................................................................12
–Head hair 5 with 2–4 branches, head hair 6 with 1–3 branches (Fig. 6) ...................................13
12 (11) –Anal papillae unequal, with dorsal pair as long as saddle and longer than ventral pair; lateral comb
in a patch of 20–30 fringed scales; siphon usually with 15–19 pecten teeth extending just beyond
mid point ............................................................. ..Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) notoscriptus (Skuse)
–Anal papillae small and globular; lateral comb in a large patch of 100 or more scales; pecten with
two types of teeth, those at base short and widely spaced, followed by 10–15 long teeth............
...............................................................Halaedes australis (Erichson) (Ochlerotatus australis)
13 (11) –Pecten teeth extending in a continuous series, no other teeth nearby ........................................14
–Pecten teeth extending in a continuous series (13–17 teeth), with 1–3 large, darkly pigmented
conspicuous widely separated teeth above ventro-lateral hair tuft (head hair 5 and 6 both usually
double; lateral comb a patch of 60–100 small scales in about five rows) .....................................
..................................................... Ochlerotatus (Ochlerotatus) subalbirostris Klein and Marks
14 (13) –Anal papillae small and rounded ...............................................................................................15
–Anal papillae equal in length and pointed, about four-fifths the length of the saddle (head hair 6
usually single, head hair 5 usually triple; lateral comb a patch of 30–45 scales; siphon with 17–22
pecten teeth) ................................................Ochlerotatus (Ochlerotatus) antipodeus (Edwards)
15 (14) –Head hair 6 single, head hair 5 usually double branched (1–3), lateral comb a large patch of
100 minute broad fringed scales; anal papillae small and rounded, dorsal pair almost twice as
large as ventral (distribution restricted to the Chatham Islands) ...................................................
......................... Opifex (Nothoskusea) chathamicus (Dumbleton) (Ochlerotatus chathamicus)
–Head hair 6 is 2–3 branched, head hair 5 is 3–4 branched; lateral comb a patch of 25–35 fringed
scales; anal papillae small and globular about one-fifth the length of the saddle .........................
......................................................... Ochlerotatus (Ochlerotatus) camptorhynchus (Thomson)

1
In species where more than one ventro-lateral hair tuft is aligned along the siphon, they are designated as seta 1a-S,
seta 1b-S etc, with 1a being the most proximal (Fig. 4).
2
The number of lateral comb scales of these species varies, and more specimens need to be collected and examined
to adequately determine the number.
3
Siphon index—the ratio of the siphon length to the siphon width.
Snell—New Zealand mosquito identification keys 103

3 4

Fig. 3–6 3, Generalised terminal segments of Coquillettidia spp. 4, Variation in the arrangement of ventro-lateral
hair tufts on the siphon of Culex pervigilans. 5, Generalised drawing of terminal segments of Culiseta spp. showing
important features for identification (Redrawn from Belkin 1962, including modifications). 6, Head of mosquito larva
(dorsal aspect) showing important features for identification.
104 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32

IDENTIFICATION KEY TO FEMALE ADULT MOSQUITOES IN NEW ZEALAND (Fig. 7–12)


Average wing length measurements in millimetres (Belkin 1968) are used here as an index of mosquito size
(Fig. 7). However, they are given only as a guide, as there is often variation in the size of adult mosquitoes.
Variation in size in some mosquito species has been shown to be related to characteristics of larval habitats
e.g., temperature, nutrition, and larval density (Clements 2000; Schneider et al. 2004).
1 –Head with palps that are as long or nearly as long as the proboscis .............................Anopheles
(Anopheles spp. are not currently present in New Zealand, but are abundant in neighbouring
countries)
–Head with palps that are no longer than two-thirds the length of the proboscis ......................... 2
2 (1) –Wings with conspicuous, spotted, dark scaling on veins (Fig. 9) (together with a pre-apical pale
band on all femora) ..................................................................................................................... .3
–Wings without conspicuous, spotted, dark scaling on veins....................................................... .4
3 (2) –Known from Giant Kauri (Agathis australis) forested areas (North Island) and swampy Kahikatea
(Podocarpus dacrycarpus) forested areas (South Island) (see Note below) .... .Culiseta tonnoiri
–Known only from its type locality: Tahakopa (South Island), a New Zealand flax (Phormium
tenax) swamp at the edge of a coastal broad leaf forest (see Note below) ....................................
............................................................................................................. Culiseta novaezealandiae
4 (2) –Hind legs with pale scaling on tarsi, forming distinct bands or third to fifth tarsus all white scaled
(Fig. 10) ..................................................................................................................................... ..5
–Hind legs with no distinct pale bands (although there may be a few pale scales at the tarsal
joints) ........................................................................................................................................... 9
5 (4) –Proboscis without distinct pale band or ring about mid length.................................................... 6
–Proboscis with distinct pale band or ring about mid length. (A small to medium-sized mosquito
with conspicuous silvery scaling on scutum forming a “lyre” shape, consisting of a pair of curved
lateral stripes, a long median line and short, narrow straight stripes on each side of the median
line; femur and tibia of hind leg with pale longitudinal stripe, and tarsal segments with basal pale
bands; abdominal tergites dark with basal pale patches or constricted bands separated from lateral
pale patches) ........................................................................................Ochlerotatus notoscriptus
6 (5) –Femur of hind leg mottled; proboscis either mottled or with extensive pale scaling ................. .7
–Femur of hind leg not mottled; proboscis all dark scaled............................................................ 8
7 (6) –A medium to large mosquito, femur, tibia and first tarsus of hind leg strongly mottled with pale
scales, also with pale basal bands on tarsi (2–5); proboscis extensively mottled, particularly on
underside; abdominal tergites with pale basal bands often triangular shaped (Fig. 11); sternites
pale-scaled with medial dark patches and sometimes apical lateral patches ................................ .
..................................................................................................... Ochlerotatus camptorhynchus
–A medium to large mosquito; femur of hind leg mottled with predominantly pale scales, knee spots
inconspicuous; tibia with some pale scales at base and apex, tarsi with very narrow pale basal
bands; proboscis with slight mottling, with variable amount of pale scaling, usually restricted to
basal three quarters; abdominal tergites with narrow pale basal bands merging with basal lateral
triangular pale patches; sternites predominantly pale-scaled with apical dark patches (restricted
distribution to the south-east of the South Island) ............................ Ochlerotatus subalbirostris
8 (6) –A large mosquito with conspicuous silvery scaling with a bluish tinge on the hind femur in the
form of post-medial and pre-apical rings (Fig. 10), and an apical patch on the tibia; hind leg
with fifth tarsus all white; proboscis all dark-scaled; palps with some silvery scaling on middle
segments; abdominal tergites all dark-scaled; sternites dark-scaled with apical lateral patches of
broad silvery scales ................................................................................ Maorigoeldia argyropus
–A medium to large mosquito; hind femur with pale scaling on basal half to two-thirds on ventral
side, also with an inconspicuous knee spot; tarsi with narrow pale basal bands; remainder of leg
all dark-scaled; proboscis and palps all dark-scaled; abdominal tergites dark-scaled with narrow
to broad pale basal bands merging with large, pale, basal lateral patches; sternites dark-scaled
with basal lateral pale patches ...............................................................Ochlerotatus antipodeus
9 (4) –Tip of abdomen tapering (Fig. 11) ............................................................................................. 10
–Tip of abdomen rounded off or square-ended ........................................................................... 12
Snell—New Zealand mosquito identification keys 105

Fig. 7 Mosquito body size range


in relation to wing length.

Fig. 8 Generalised adult


morphology.

10 (9) –Head with upright scales on vertex (Fig. 8) ............................................................................... 11


–Head without upright scales on vertex. (A medium to large dark mosquito with numerous short,
curved hairs on vertex and occiput; first three basal segments of antennae with conspicuous pair
of rigid hairs; palps about a quarter the length of the proboscis, with distal segment club-shaped;
proboscis all dark scaled and downwardly curved; tergites and sternites sparsely-scaled and with
numerous hairs) ...................................................................................................... Opifex fuscus
11 (10) –A medium-sized mosquito, proboscis dark, with some pale scales on ventral side of basal half;
palps short and broad with a few pale scales at base of segments 2, 3, 4; legs with inconspicu-
ous pale scaled knee spot and apical, tibial hind spot, remainder of legs all dark scaled; tergites
dark-scaled with pale basal bands sometimes constricted in the middle; sternites pale-scaled with
lateral apical dark patches; wings without patch of remigial setae at base of subcosta .............. ..
.........................................................................................................................Halaedes australis
–A large mosquito, proboscis and palps completely dark-scaled, palps short, about one-sixth the
length of the proboscis; tergites dark-scaled with thin basal pale band and sometimes with basal
lateral pale patches, sternites dark-scaled with basal lateral pale patches; ventral side of wing
with patch of remigial setae at base of subcosta (Fig. 12) (distribution restricted to the Chatham
Islands)..........................................................................................................Opifex chathamicus
12 (9) –Abdominal sternites generally pale-scaled but with a few dark scales scattered medially, (a me-
dium-sized, light brown mosquito; tergites dark-scaled with basal pale bands sometimes extending
medially; hind legs with femur pale to tip, except for dark scales along the length dorsally, and
pale scaling at knee spot and apical hind tibial spot, remainder of legs all dark-scaled) ..............
................................................................................................................ Culex quinquefasciatus
–Abdominal sternites not as above (abdominal tergites with either pale basal bands or basal lateral
pale patches or all dark-scaled) .............................................................................................. ...13
(continued)
106 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32

10

11

Fig. 9–11 9, Culiseta tonnoiri wing (drawn from slide mounted specimen). 10, Scale patterns on adult hind leg.
11, Arrangement of abdominal scale patterns in adult mosquitoes.
Snell—New Zealand mosquito identification keys 107

Fig. 12 Features of wing venation


(ventral side) showing important
features for identification (redrawn
from Belkin 1962).

13 (12) –Abdominal sternites dark-scaled with basal lateral patches of pale scales; proboscis and palps
all dark-scaled; hind femur largely pale-scaled for three-quarters its length, remainder of leg all
dark scaled ................................................................................................................................ .14
–Abdominal sternites with medial dark patches and apical lateral dark patches, with varying
degrees of pale scaling; proboscis with pale scales on ventral surface; palps either all dark scaled
or with some pale scaling; femur predominantly dark-scaled on anterior surface and remainder
of leg dark-scaled except for conspicuous pale-scaled knee spot, and apical hind-tibial spot
(Fig. 10)...................................................................................................................................15
14 (13) –A medium-sized, dark mosquito; ventral side of wing without remigial setae at base of subcosta;
tergites all dark-scaled (sometimes with small basal lateral pale patches); sternites dark-scaled
with basal lateral patches of creamy/yellow scales ................................Coquillettidia iracunda
–A large bronzy/gold mosquito; ventral side of wing with patch of remigial setae (10 or more) at
base of subcosta; tergites with bronzy dark scales and basal lateral pale patches; sternites exten-
sively pale-scaled ................................................................................. Coquillettidia tenuipalpis
15 (13) –Abdominal tergites dark-scaled with pale basal band extending medially and sometimes curved
................................................................................................................................................... 16
–Abdominal tergites dark-scaled with large, straight and wide pale basal bands (Fig. 11); (sternites
extensively dark-scaled, sometimes with basal lateral pale patches, pale scaling usually creamy;
knee spots and apical, tibial hind spot usually yellowish (Fig. 10); small mosquito of generally
light or medium/light brown colour; smallest species in Culex pervigilans complex, usually found
in the leaf axils of Collospermum hastatum (Colenso)) .........................................Culex asteliae
16 (15) –A medium to large, dark-brown to black mosquito; palps dark scaled with pale scaling on segments
3 and 4; scutum with predominantly pale scaling (usually whitish, creamy or golden); tergites
usually dark-scaled with pale basal bands, slightly constricted laterally; sternites with varied
amount of dark scaling, but always with basal medial dark patch and apical lateral dark patches,
pale scaling is usually whitish (Fig. 11); pale scaled knee spots and apical tibial hind spot pale
scaled, usually large and conspicuous ............................................................. .Culex pervigilans
–A small dark mosquito; palps dark scaled with very few or no pale scales; scutum with predomi-
nantly bronzy scales; tergites predominantly dark-scaled with fairly narrow and straight pale
basal bands, sometimes slightly curved; sternites predominantly dark-scaled except for lateral
basal patches of pale scales; pale scaled knee spot and apical tibial hind spot inconspicuous .....
.............................................................................................................................. Culex rotoruae

Note: Identifying New Zealand Culiseta Felt on the basis of female characters is extremely difficult. Habitat and
geographical localities have been used here but they should not be regarded as reliable, although this may assist in
preliminary identification. Confirmation should be sought in other ways. The most reliable methods are examination
of male genitalia, or larvae, which have been reared in series, including all stages (Belkin 1968).
108 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH Sirvid, Rochelle Knox, Allen Heath, and Trevor Crosby
for testing the key and/or reviewing the manuscript.
These keys combine observations of supplementary Thanks to the University of Otago for funding support,
taxonomic characters and taxonomic descriptions and also thanks to the two anonymous referees for greatly
from published literature to enable easy and accurate improving the text.
identification of specimens. Entomologists who are
not familiar with the identification of mosquitoes
have trialled these keys. However, further clarifica-
REFERENCES
tion of identities is needed for some species. Culiseta
tonnoiri and Cs. novaezealandiae are considered Ballard JWO, Marshall ID 1986. An investigation of the
here as valid species, although Belkin (1968) did potential of Aedes camptorhynchus (Thomson) as
not regard Cs. novaezealandiae as a separate spe- a vector of Ross River virus. Australian Journal
cies. However, he postulated that there may be more of Experimental Biology and Medical Science
64: 197–200.
than one species of the subgenus Climacura Howard,
Dyar & Knab present in New Zealand, but that the Belkin JN 1962. The mosquitoes of the South Pacific. Vols
differences in the larvae are probably individual or I & II. Berkley, University of California Press.
sex-dependent variations in a single species. Sam- Belkin JN 1968. Mosquito studies (Diptera: Culicidae)
ples from different populations of Culiseta need VII. The Culicidae of New Zealand. Contribu-
to be reared to determine the range of variation in tions of the American Entomological Institute
these two species. Molecular research could also be 3(1): 1–181.
used to confirm identification of Culiseta species Bourguet D, Fonseca D, Vourch G, Dubois MP, Chandre
(Bourguet et al. 1998), and this also applies to Cx. F, Severini C, Raymond M 1998. The acetylcho-
pervigilans, in which there is obvious variation in linesterase gene Ace: a diagnostic marker for the
larval and adult characteristics. pipiens and quinquefasciatus forms of the Culex
A description is also lacking for the larvae of pipiens complex. Journal of the American Mos-
Coquillettidia Dyar. Coquillettidia iracunda is an quito Control Association 14(4): 390–396.
avid biter of humans (A. Snell pers. obs 2002), Clements AN 2000. The biology of mosquitoes. Vol. 1.
and belongs to the same subgenus as Coquillettida Development, nutrition and reproduction. Cam-
(Coquillettidia) linealis (Skuse), a serious pest in bridge, CABI Publishing.
Australia that bites humans and domestic animals Cooling LE 1924. Seven common species of mosquitoes
(Lee et al. 1988; Jeffery et al. 2002). This species described for the purposes of identification. Ser-
has been shown to be a highly competent vector of vice Publication, Department of Health Australia
Ross River virus, and a moderately competent vec- (Tropical Division) 1: 1–24.
tor of Barmah Forest virus (Jeffery et al. 2002). The Dobrotworsky NV 1965. The mosquitoes of Victoria
phylogenetic relationships between Australian and (Diptera: Culicidae). Victoria, Melbourne Uni-
New Zealand Coquillettidia species need clarifica- versity Press.
tion. However, Cq. iracunda also warrants further Dumbleton LJ 1962. A new species and new sub-genus
investigation on its potential vector competence and of Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) from New Zealand.
vectorial capacity for Ross River virus and other New Zealand Journal of Science 5: 17–27.
arboviruses. Dumbleton LJ 1965. Developmental stages and biology of
Culiseta tonnoiri (Edwards) and a note on Culex
pervigilans Bergroth (Diptera: Culicidae). New
Zealand Journal of Science 8(2): 137–143.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dumbleton LJ 1968. A synopsis of the New Zealand
I am grateful to Phil Sirvid (Te Papa), John Early and mosquitoes (Diptera Culicidae) and a key to the
Rosemary Gilbert (Auckland Museum), and Trevor Crosby larvae. Tuatara 16(3): 167–179.
(NZAC) for their assistance with museum collections.
Thanks to Barry Snell, José Derraik, Paul Leisnham, Edwards FW 1920. Mosquito notes. Bulletin of Entomo-
Robyn Sinclair, Shane Geange, Rob Kennedy, and James logical Research 10: 129–137.
Wakefield for their assistance with field collections, and Edwards FW 1924. A synopsis of the adult mosquitoes of
to New Zealand Biosecure for the Oc. camptorhynchus the Australasian Region. Bulletin of Entomologi-
specimens. Thanks also to Nga Manu Nature Reserve and cal Research 14: 351–401.
Karori Wildlife Sanctuary for access to conduct trapping.
Special thanks to Shane Geange for the illustrations. I also Edwards FW 1925. Mosquito notes. V. Bulletin of Ento-
thank Mary McIntyre, Craig Williams, Dave Slaney, Phil mological Research 15: 257–270.
Snell—New Zealand mosquito identification keys 109

Graham DH 1929. Mosquitoes of the Auckland District. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths EN, Bryan
Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand JH, Marks EN 1988a. The Culicidae of the Aus-
Institute 60: 205–244. tralasian Region Volume 9. Entomology Mono-
Graham DH 1939. Mosquito life in the Auckland District. graph No. 2. Canberra, Australian Government
Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society Publishing Service.
of New Zealand 69: 210–224. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths EN, Bryan
Harbach RE, Knight KL 1980. Taxonomists’ glossary of JH, Marks EN 1988b. The Culicidae of the Aus-
mosquito anatomy. Marlton, New Jersey, Plexus tralasian Region Volume 10. Entomology Mono-
Publishing. graph No. 2. Canberra, Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Hearnden M 1999. A health risk assessment for the
establishment of the exotic mosquitoes Aedes Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths EN, Debenham ML, Bryan
camptorhynchus and Culex australicus in Napier, JH, Russell RC, Geary M, Marks EN 1988. The
New Zealand. Report to the Coordinator, Environ- Culicidae of the Australasian Region Volume 6.
mental Health Programme, Community Health, Entomology Monograph No. 2. Canberra, Aus-
Healthcare Hawkes Bay. University of Otago, tralian Government Publishing Service.
Wellington, New Zealand. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths EN, Marks
Institute of Environmental Science and Limited Research EN, Bryan JH, Russell RC 1989. The Culicidae
2004. Notifiable and other diseases in New Zea- of the Australasian Region Volume 7. Entomology
land: Annual Report 2003 [Internet] Available Monograph No. 2. Canberra, Australian Govern-
from http://www.surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/ ment Publishing Service.
AnnSurvRpt/2003AnnualSurvRpt.pdf (Accessed Liehne PFS 1991. An atlas of the mosquitoes of Western
13 January 2005). Australia. Perth, Health Department of Western
Jeffery JAL, Ryan PA, Lyons SA, Kay BH 2002. Vector Australia.
competence of Coquillettidia linealis (Skuse) Marks EN 1982. An atlas of common Queensland
(Diptera: Culicidae) for Ross River and Barmah mosquitoes; with a guide to Queensland biting
Forest viruses. Australian Journal of Entomology midges by EJ Reye. Rev. ed. Herston, Queensland,
41(4): 339–344. Queensland Institute of Medical Research. 75 p.
Klein JM, Marks EN 1960. Australian mosquitoes de- Marks EN, Nye ER 1963. The Subgenus Ochlerotatus
scribed by Macquart I species in the Paris museum, in the Australasian Region (Diptera: Culicidae)
Aedes (Finlaya) alboannulatus (Macquart), Aedes VI. The New Zealand species. Transactions of
(Finlaya) rubrithorax (Macquart), Aedes (Och- the Royal Society of New Zealand (Zool.) 14(2):
lerotatus) albirostris (Macquart). New synonymy 49–60.
and a new species from New Zealand. Proceedings
of the Linnean Society of NSW 85: 107–116. Miller D 1922. A remarkable mosquito, Opifex fuscus,
Hutton. Bulletin of Entomological Research
Laird M, Calder L, Thornton RC, Syme R, Holder PW, 13(1): 115–126.
Mogi M 1994. Japanese Aedes albopictus among
four mosquito species reaching New Zealand in Miller D, Phillips WJ 1952. Identification of New Zealand
used tyres. Journal of the American Mosquito mosquitoes. Nelson, New Zealand, Cawthron
Control Association 10: 14–23. Institute. 28 p.

Lamche GD, Whelan PI 2003. Variability of larval iden- Ministry of Health 2001. Exotic mosquito found at Auck-
tification characters of exotic Aedes albopictus land wharf. Media release, 10 April 2001.
(Skuse) intercepted in Darwin, Northern Terri- Ministry of Health 2002. Exotic mosquito specimens
tory. Communicable Disease Intelligence 27(1): discovered in concrete mixer. Media release, 3
105–109. September 2002.
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths EN, Russell RC, Marks Ministry of Health 2003a. Mosquito intercepted at Auck-
EN 1982. The Culicidae of the Australasian land Airport. Media release, 6 August 2003.
Region Volume 2. Entomology Monograph No.
Ministry of Health 2003b. Mosquito intercepted at Auck-
2. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing
land. Media release, 18 August 2003.
Service.
Ministry of Health 2004. Exotic mosquito found at Auck-
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths EN, Russell RC, Marks
land wharf. Media release, 29 January 2004.
EN 1984. The Culicidae of the Australasian
Region Volume 3. Entomology Monograph No. Nye ER 1962. Aedes (Pseudoskusea) australis Erichson
2. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing (Diptera: Culicidae), New Zealand. Transactions
Service. of the Royal Society of New Zealand 3: 33–34.
110 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32

Nye ER, McGregor DD 1964. Mosquitoes of Otago. Re- Russell RC 2002. Ross river virus: ecology and distribu-
cords of the Otago Museum. Zoology 1: 1–23. tion. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 1–31.
Pillai JS 1966a. Notes on mosquitoes of New Zealand. Schneider JR, Morrison AC, Astete H, Scott TW, Wilson
1. Maorigoeldia argyropus Walker (Diptera, ML 2004. Adult size and distribution of Aedes
Culicidae. Sabethini). New Zealand Entomolo- aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) associated with lar-
gist 3: 25–33. val habitats in Iquitos, Peru. Journal of Medical
Pillai JS 1966b. Culiseta novaezealandiae, a new species Entomology 41(4): 634–642.
of the subgenus Climacura Felt (Diptera: Cu- Upton MS 1991. Methods for collecting, preserving, and
licidae: Culisetini), with notes on its ecology and studying insects and allied forms. 4th edition.
development. Transactions of the Royal Society Brisbane, Queensland, Australian Entomological
of New Zealand (Zool) 8(11): 125–133. Society.
Pillai JS 1968. Notes on mosquitoes of New Zealand. Walker, KA; Crosby, TA 1988. The preparation and cura-
II. The male terminalia of Culiseta (Climacura) tion of insects. Auckland, New Zealand, Depart-
tonnoiri and its ecology (Diptera: Culicidae: ment of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Culisetini). Journal of Medical Entomology 5:
355–357. Watson TM, Kay BH 1999. Vector competence of Aedes
notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) for Barmah
Reinert JF, Harbach RE, Kitching IJ 2004. Phylogeny Forest Virus and of this species and Aedes aegypti
and classification of Aedini (Diptera: Culicidae), (Diptera: Culicidae) for dengue 1–4 viruses in
based on morphological characters of all life Queensland Australia. Journal of Medical Ento-
stages. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society mology 36(4): 508–514.
142: 289–368.
Weinstein P, Laird M, Calder L 1995. Australian arbovi-
Reinert JF, Harbach RE 2005. Generic and subgeneric
ruses: at what risk is New Zealand? Australian and
status of Aedine mosquito species (Diptera: Culici-
New Zealand Journal of Medicine 25: 666–669.
dae: Aedini) occurring in the Australasian Region.
Zootaxa 887: 1–10. Weinstein P, Laird M, Browne G 1997. Exotic and endemic
Rogers AJ 1974. The value of mosquito taxonomy to pest mosquitoes in New Zealand as potential arbovirus
mosquito control. Mosquito Systematics 6(2): vectors, report to the Ministry of Health, Welling-
121–124. ton, New Zealand.
Russell RC 1993. Mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease Whelan P, Hayes G, Carter J, Wilson A, Haigh B 2000.
in southeastern Australia. Sydney, University of Detection of the exotic mosquito Culex gelidus
Sydney. in the Northern Territory. Communicable disease
intelligence. Vol 24. March Supplementary 2:
Russell RC 1995. Arboviruses and their vectors in Aus- 74–75.
tralia: an update on the ecology and epidemiology
of some mosquito-borne arboviruses. Review Winterbourn MJ, Gregson KLD, Dolphin CH 2000. Guide
of Medical and Veterinary Entomology 83(4): to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. 3rd ed.
141–158. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of New
Zealand. 13: 1–102.
Russell RC 1998. Vectors vs. humans in Australia—who
is on top down under? An update on vectorborne Wood NN 1929. The structure and life history of the
disease and research on vectors in Australia. Jour- mosquito Opifex fuscus Hutton. MSc thesis, Vol.
nal of Vector Ecology 23: 1–46. 2. Victoria University of Wellington.