Anopheles
Creators: name: Harbach, Ralph E.
name: Howard, Theresa M.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2007
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Diptera
Culicidae
Anopheles

description: Subgenus Anopheles
bancroftii subspecies barbiventris (var. barbiventris Brug, 1938). Syntypes (Ψ, %): Kalawara, Palow, res. Menado, Sulawesi, Indonesia (BM).
Brug (1938) described and named An. bancroftii var. barbiventris from specimens that he distinguished from the nominotypical form and An. pseudobarbirostris Ludlow (as An. bancroftii var. pseudobarbirostris). It is only known from the type locality in Sulawesi whereas the nominotypical form occurs in Irian Jaya, Papua New Guinea, including the Admiralty Islands, and northern Australia (Lee et al., 1987). Based on its distribution and features of the adults, larva and male genitalia that easily distinguish it from both the nominotypical form and An. pseudobarbirostris, it is probably a distinct biological species. However, until further data are available to support this, barbiventris must be treated as a subspecies of An. bancroftii from its original publication in accordance with Article 45.6.4 of the Code.
eiseni subspecies geometricus Corrêa, 1944. Syntypes (%, L, P, E): Guarujá, Ilha de Santo Amaro, São Paulo, Brazil (NE).
Corrêa (1944) originally described and named geometricus as a subspecies of An. eiseni Coquillett. Curiously, there is no mention of this taxon in the literature until Stone et al. (1959), followed by Belkin et al. (1971) and Knight & Stone (1977), listed it as a variety without explanation. In the absence of supporting evidence, geometricus should retain subspecific rank as originally proposed.
gigas subspecies formosus (Anopheles formosus Ludlow, 1909). Holotype Ψ: Camp John Hay, Benguet Province, Luzon, Philippines (USNM).
Knight & Stone (1977) listed 10 forms of An. gigas Giles: the nominotypical form, eight varieties and one subspecies. Harrison et al. (1991) subsequently elevated var. baileyi Edwards to species status, thus leaving the seven formally designated varieties that are dealt with here, i.e. formosus and the following six nominal forms. Although all of these nominal forms were treated as subspecies at one time or another in various publications, it appears that Stone et al. (1959) and Knight & Stone (1977) elected to regard them as varieties as originally proposed.
Ludlow (1909) described and named Anopheles formosus from a female collected in the mountains of Benguet Province in northern Luzon. It retained specific rank until Christophers (1924a) considered it to be a variety of An. gigas. Dyar & Shannon (1925) listed it as a synonym of An. gigas noting that “The synonymy previously made seems confirmed”, but no earlier record of the synonymy could be found in the literature. All later authors treated formosus as either a variety or a subspecies, notably, e.g., as a variety by Edwards (1932), Christophers (1933) and Bonne-Wepster & Swellengrebel (1953); as a subspecies by Simmons & Aitken (1942), Russell et al. (1943), Puri (1949) and Baisas (1963). In accordance with ICZN Article 45.6.4.1, formosus has subspecific rank from its original publication because it was used (originally) as the valid name of a species before 1985. This taxon is known only from the Philippine Islands and is likely to be a distinct biological species.
gigas subspecies simlensis (Patagiamyia simlensis James, 1911, in James & Liston, 1911). Syntype Ψ: Murree, Pakistan;? syntypes (f, m): [Simla Hills and Simla, respectively], India (BM); see Townsend et al. (1990).
James (1911, in James & Liston, 1911) described and named Patagiamyia simlensis for a taxon that apparently occurs in the Himalayas and eastward to northern Myanmar. The original description is based on specimens collected from “Mahasu near Simla at a height of 8,000 feet above sea-level… Rathlighat in Garhwal (6,000 feet) (collected by A. D. Imms) and at Murree (collected by Major F. Smith, H.A.M.C.)”. Christophers (1916) synonymized simlensis with An. gigas and Christophers (1924b) raised it to varietal status, stating that it should be “considered a variety of the former in the sense of a true variety or sub-species”. This nominal form differs from the nominotypical form in having poorly developed or no pale wing spots at the apices of veins R4+5, M1 and rarely M2, a large yellow spot or band at the apex of the midfemur and two dark areas on the distal half of the costa. Larvae usually have a simple seta 2-C. Available data indicate that simlensis and the nominotypical form occur in sympatry, which suggests that the former may be a distinct biological species. However, because simlensis was adopted (originally) as the valid name of a species, and treated as a subspecies (e.g. Russell et al., 1943; Puri, 1949; and Wattal, 1963) before 1985, it must be treated as a subspecific name (Article 45.6.4.1) with availability from its original publication as a species of Patagiamyia until further research reveals otherwise. Incidentally, a number of Chinese workers treated An. gigas simlensis as a subspecies after 1985, most notably Lu Baolin et al. (1997).
gigas subspecies refutans (var. refutans Alcock, 1913). Syntypes? (Ψ): [Maskeliya], Sri Lanka (BM).
Alcock (1913) described and named An. gigas var. refutans based on specimens from Sri Lanka (as Ceylon) that differ “from the typical form only in having 3 or 4 very narrow white bands on the palpi, one of them usually being terminal”. According to Edwards (1929), this form lacks the pale fringe spots at the apices of veins R4+5, M1, M2 and M3+4 that characterize the nominotypical form. Christophers (1933) pointed out that the “type-form” only occurs, as far as known, in the Nilgiri and other hills of southern India, and that the refutans form has only been recorded from Sri Lanka. Consequently, the allopatric distributions of the two forms support the subspecific status of refutans that is required by Article 45.6.4 of the Code. Previous treatment of refutans as a subspecies prior to 1985, e.g. Russell et al. (1943), Puri (1949) and Wattal (1963), also requires this nominal taxon to be recognized as a subspecific form (Article 45.6.4.1).
gigas subspecies sumatrana (var. sumatrana Swellengrebel & Rodenwaldt, 1932). Syntypes (Ψ, L): Karoo- Hochebene and Kotaradja, Sumatra, Indonesia (LU).
This and the next three nominal forms were described as varieties of An. gigas based on specimens collected in Sumatra. Swellengrebel & Rodenwaldt (1932) described and named var. sumatrana based on specimens collected in northeastern Sumatra that differ markedly from the type form of An. gigas (type locality: Nilgiri Hills, India) in having a large pale fringe spot between wing veins M3+4 and CuP (rather than between veins 1A and CuP) and lacking narrow pale fringe spots at the apices of veins R4+5, M1, M2 and M3+4. Based on these differences, and the short seta 2-C on the head of the presumed larva (Bonne-Wepster & Swellengrebel, 1953), this taxon would appear to be a distinct biological species; however, pending further study it must be regarded as a subspecies of An. gigas from its original publication because it was expressly used as a variety before 1961 (Article 45.6.4) and treated as a subspecies several times before 1985 (e.g. Russell et al., 1943; Puri, 1949; and Bonne-Wepster,1963). Certain later workers, e.g. Scanlon et al. (1968), also adopted An. gigas sumatrana as a valid subspecies.
gigas subspecies danaubento (var. danaubento Mochtar & Walandouw, 1934). Syntypes (Ψ, ♂): Danau Bento, North Kerintji [or Kerinci], Sumatra, Indonesia (?GLB).
Mochtar & Walandouw (1934) explicitly gave the name An. gigas var. danaubento to a morphological form that differed from the allopatric var. sumatrana that was described two years earlier. This nominal variety was also treated as a subspecies prior to 1985 (e.g. Stoker & R. Wakoedi, 1949; Bonne-Wepster, 1963).Accordingly, danaubento is deemed to have subspecific rank from the date of its original publication.
gigas subspecies oedjalikalah (var. oedjalikalah Nainggolan, 1939). Syntypes (Ψ, ♂, L): Oedjali Kalah, Mount Kerintji [or Kerinci], Sumatra, Indonesia (LU).
Nainggolan (1939) described and named An. gigas var. oedjalikalah from morphologically variable specimens that mainly differ from var. danaubento, which was also described from specimens collected in the realm of Mount Kerintji, in having the apex of vein CuP dark-scaled rather than narrowly pale-scaled. Although available data suggest that oedjalikalah is probably a sympatric variant of danaubento, the name must be afforded subspecific rank in accordance with Article 45.6.4 of the Code because Nainggolan (1939) specifically indicated that it was proposed for a variety rather than an infrasubspecific form. Furthermore, this nominal variety was treated as a subspecies before 1985 (e.g. Stoker & R. Wakoedi, 1949; Bonne-Wepster, 1963, as oedjalikalahensis).
gigas subspecies pantjarbatu (var. pantjarbatu R. Waktoedi, 1954). Syntypes (L): Sumatra, Indonesia (LU).
R. Waktoedi (1954) named var. pantjarbatu based on larvae collected at one or more undisclosed localities in Sumatra and provided characters in a key to distinguish the larvae from those of other nominal varieties of An. gigas, including danaubento and oedjalikalah which also occur in Sumatra. In the absence of collection data, it is not possible to surmise whether pantjarbatu may be sympatric with either danaubento or oedjalikalah or both of these nominal forms. Because the information provided by R. Waktoedi does not reveal that he may have considered pantjarbatu to be an infrasubspecific form, and also because it has been treated as a subspecies before 1985 (e.g. Stoker & R. Wakoedi, 1949; Bonne-Wepster, 1963), it must be afforded subspecific rank from its original publication in accordance with Articles 45.6.4 and 45.6.4.1 of the Code.
pseudopunctipennis infrasubspecies bifoliata (var. bifoliata Osorno-Mesa & Munoz-Sarmiento, 1948). Holotype ♂: Florida, Valle del Cauca, Colombia (DMB).
Osorno-Mesa & Munoz-Sarmiento (1948) published the name bifoliata as an addition to a binomen but expressly gave it varietal rank: “ Anopheles pseudopunctipennis bifoliata, n. var. ”. The authors compared the egg, larva and male genitalia of bifoliata and the nominotypical form, and noted the presence of both forms and an extreme range of intermediate forms (“extensa gama de formas intermedias”) among specimens collected one kilometre from the type locality. Because this clearly indicates that Osorno-Mesa & Munoz- Sarmiento proposed the name bifoliata for a non-genetic variant of a single species, it is infrasubspecific under Article 45.6.4; and since it was not adopted for a species or subspecies before 1985 (Article 45.6.4.1), it is unavailable as a species-group name (Article 45.4) and excluded from the provisions of the Code (Article 1.3.4).
description: Published as part of Harbach, Ralph E. & Howard, Theresa M., 2007, Corrections in the status and rank of names used to denote varietal forms of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), pp. 35-48 in Zootaxa 1542 on pages 37-39, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.177892