Old and new classification of Aedes mosquitoes

ProMED-mail. Aedes aegypti and other mosquitoes: name changes; ProMED-mail 2005; 3 May 2005 22:54:53 -0400 (EDT)
<http://www.promedmail.org>

Last year (2004) John F. Reinert et al elevated 46 subgenera of aedine mosquitoes, many in the genus Aedes, to generic status. The first 2 authors are wellrespected mosquito taxonomists while the 3rd is a taxonomist specializing in cladistics. The leading medical entomology journal in the UK, namely Medical
and Veterinary Entomology, published a paper by J.M. Medlock et al (2005, vol.19, 2-21) in which they recognized as currently valid the names Stegomyia
aegypti and Stegomyia albopicta, thus accepting the new classification of Reinert et al (2004). Furthermore, several web sites began using the new classification of the aedine mosquitoes.

However, since then there has been much vigorous debate on the practical consequences of such name changes and challenges to the validity of the cladistics used in the Reinert et al paper. After discussions with many mosquito experts, including taxonomists and editors of medical entomology journals, I have agreed to accept the consensus of their deliberations. That is, more research and interpretation of the Reinert et al (2004) paper is needed, but in the meantime we should encourage use of the older classification and so maintain usage of the traditional names.

Thus, ProMED favors using the older and more familiar names such as Aedes aegypti, but if a contributor really wishes to adopt the new classification, then the older name must be placed in parentheses after the 1st use of each new name. For example, Stegomyia aegypti (=Aedes aegypti, see Reinert et al 2004).To add to these problems, an earlier publication (Reinert 2000) raised the subgenus Ochlerotatus of the genus Aedes to generic status. This change was widely accepted, albeit somewhat grudgingly by some, and has been used in publications worldwide over the last 4 years. But the present proposal to return to the older classification means we need to return Ochlerotatus to subgeneric level, so for example it is no longer Ochlerotatus triseriatus but once again Aedes triseriatus.

We are much indebted to John D. Edman, editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology, for trying to get us all to agree on a strategy of promoting the use of the older classification. I understand that many journals including the Journal of Medical Entomology, the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, Journal of Vector Ecology, Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases will adopt the above strategy of promoting use of the older classification.

1. Reinert J. F. (2000). New classification for the composite genus Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae: Aedini), elevation of subgenus Ochlerotatus to generic rank, reclassification of the other subgenera, and notes on certain subgenera and species. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2000;16: 175-188.

2. Reinert JF, Harbach RE, Kitching IJ. Phylogeny and classification of Aedini (Diptera: Culicidae), based on morphological characters of all life stages. Zool J Linnean Soc 2004; 142: 289-368.