Snell—New
New ZealandZealand
Journal mosquito identification
of Zoology, keys
2005, Vol. 32: 99–110
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
Ecology and Health Research Centre
Department of Public Health
Wellington School of Medicine and Health
Sciences
University of Otago
P.O. Box 7343
Wellington South, New Zealand
amy.snell@wnmeds.ac.nz
Abstract Keys are presented for the identification
of larval and adult female life stages of the 12 en-
demic and four exotic mosquito species known for
New Zealand (the keys are to species not genera).
The keys include the recent arrival, Ochlerotatus
(Ochlerotatus) camptorhynchus (Thomson), and
a monotypic genus endemic to New Zealand. A
number of Aedine subgenera have been recently
raised to genus level (Reinert et al. 2004; Reinert &
Harbach 2005) and old and new nomenclature are
both given. The keys combine previously scattered
information about the current New Zealand mosquito
fauna and will assist future biosecurity surveillance
and further studies involving mosquitoes as potential
arbovirus vectors.
Keywords mosquitoes; Culicidae; taxonomy;
adults; larvae; New Zealand
INTRODUCTION
The New Zealand mosquito fauna currently compris-
es 12 endemic and four exotic species in six genera,
one of which is monotypic (Maorigoeldia Edwards,
1902) and restricted to New Zealand. There is no
single morphological identification key available
Z04034; Online publication date 13 May 2005
Received 14 September 2004; accepted 20 January 2005
99
to distinguish larval and adult forms of all species.
Usually, the larvae of mosquitoes are more readily
identified than adults and existing New Zealand keys
are primarily for larvae and do not include all spe-
cies. Present, taxonomic information is also scattered
among a number of publications (refer Materials and
Methods below) that are not widely available. This
paper combines observations of supplementary taxo-
nomic characteristics (in italics) from museum and
field-collected specimens, with existing information
from published literature. Field collected specimens
examined will be deposited in Te Papa.
New Zealand larval and adult mosquitoes can
be difficult to distinguish morphologically. In par-
ticular, Culiseta (Climacura) tonnoiri (Edwards)
and Culiseta (Climacura) novaezealandiae Pillai
are very similar, and further research is needed to
clarify their relationship (Belkin, 1968). Mosquitoes
belonging to the Culex pervigilans species complex
(Culex (Culex) pervigilans Bergroth, Culex (Culex)
asteliae Belkin and Culex (Culex) rotoruae Belkin)
are difficult to distinguish and larva and adult Cx.
pervigilans can also be confusing (Belkin, 1968).
A number of Aedine subgenera have been recently
raised to genus level (Reinert et al. 2004; Reinert &
Harbach 2005). Subsequently, old and new nomen-
clature is given here to provide clarification. Revi-
sions of taxonomic keys published elsewhere have
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
(Skuse) (Aedes albopictus, the Asian tiger mosquito)
in the Northern Territory of Australia (Lamche et al.
2003). The ability to correctly distinguish important
pest and vector species that might be collected dur-
ing surveillance operations enables authorities to
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
salt marsh mosquito, Ochlerotatus (Ochlerotatus)
camptorhynchus (Thomson) in 1998 (Hearnden
100
1999). This species is a competent vector of Ross
River virus (Ballard & Marshall 1986). In addi-
tion, all four naturalised New Zealand species have
demonstrated vector competence for arboviruses
that cause human illness in other countries (Russell
1995, 1998, 2002; Watson & Kay 1999).
Interceptions have been recorded in New Zealand
of disease-carrying vectors such as Stegomyia ae-
gypti (Linnaeus) (Aedes aegypti) (Ministry of Health
2001, 2004), St. albopicta (Laird et al. 1994), Och-
lerotatus (Finlaya) japonicus (Theobald) (Ministry
of Health 2002, 2003b), Cx. gelidus (Ministry of
Health 2003a) and Stegomyia polynesiensis (Marks)
(Aedes polynesiensis) (Ministry of Health 2004).
These mosquitoes could pose threats to public health
if they were to become established and encounter
viraemic humans. At present, New Zealand has
no vector-borne diseases that cause human illness
(Weinstein et al. 1995), but there is an increased risk
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
who could then be bitten by local mosquitoes. The
number of vector-borne disease case notifications in
New Zealand has been steadily increasing over the
last decade based on the number of cases of dengue
fever and malaria (Institute of Environmental Sci-
ence and Limited Research 2004). This is combined
with increases in migration to New Zealand, and
incoming tourists and returning residents.
To be effective, control measures implemented
against any vector mosquito must be based on its
biology, which cannot be known until its identifica-
tion is confirmed (Rogers 1974). Correct identifica-
tion of mosquito species is essential to the health
risk assessment process, and the adult and larval
keys presented herewith will be valuable tools for
biosecurity surveillance because they can be used
accurately and quickly to distinguish endemic and
naturalised species from exotic species that are in-
tercepted in the vicinity of air and shipping points.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Specimens from several sources were examined.
Field collections were made during 2001–03 from
the Waitakere Ranges (Auckland), Hooper’s Inlet
(Dunedin), Kuirau Park (Rotorua), Nga Manu Nature
Reserve (Waikanae), Kaipara Harbour (Northland),
Karori Wildlife Sanctuary (Wellington), Whataroa
(West Coast, South Island), Island Bay (Wellington);
New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32
also preserved specimens from Auckland Museum,
Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Ton-
garewa) and the New Zealand Arthropod Collection
(NZAC, Auckland). Taxonomic descriptions were
also examined from the literature, i.e., Edwards
(1920, 1924, 1925); Miller (1922); Cooling (1924);
Graham (1929, 1939); Wood (1929); Miller & Phil-
lips (1952); Klein & Marks (1960); Belkin (1962,
1968); Dumbleton (1962, 1965, 1968); Nye (1962);
Marks & Nye (1963); Nye & McGregor (1964);
Dobrotworsky (1965); Pillai (1966a,b, 1968); Lee
et al. (1982, 1984, 1988, 1988a,b, 1989); Marks
(1982); Liehne (1991); Russell (1993); Weinstein
et al. (1997); and Winterbourn et al. (2000). For
morphological terms refer to Fig. 1–12. More com-
monly used morphological terminology has been
used in these keys and where possible has been
defined according to the nomenclature of Harbach
& Knight (1980).
PRESERVATION OF MOSQUITO
SPECIMENS
To ensure that specimens are in optimal conditions
for use with the keys, larger larval instars (3rd or
4th) should be used, as diagnostic features are not
always developed in 1st and 2nd instars. Larvae
should first be killed in hot water just below boiling
point to denature enzymes and fix the proteins. This
prevents the specimens from curling up and later
darkening (Upton 1991). Specimens should then be
placed in 75% ethanol (Walker & Crosby 1988). The
key can be used with dry and freshly caught adult
female specimens. However, it may not be possible
to identify damaged specimens if particular charac-
ters are not present, e.g., scales have been rubbed off
or hind legs are not present (Russell 1993). Adults
should be killed by placing in the freezer overnight
or on dry ice in a container. The method of killing
and storage must be appropriate for the purpose of
their collection (e.g., for virus isolation). Specimens
for identification should be thawed before being
handled to ensure appendages are not knocked off
(Upton 1991). The best specimens should either be
pinned or stored correctly to minimise any damage
(refer to Walker & Crosby (1988) for procedures).
The preservation of mosquito adults in ethanol for
identification (unless required) is not recommended
as this often discolours and dislodges scales. Speci-
mens stored in ethanol must be kept away from light
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
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
These keys combine observations of supplementary
taxonomic characters and taxonomic descriptions
from published literature to enable easy and accurate
identification of specimens. Entomologists who are
not familiar with the identification of mosquitoes
have trialled these keys. However, further clarifica-
tion of identities is needed for some species. Culiseta
tonnoiri and Cs. novaezealandiae are considered
here as valid species, although Belkin (1968) did
not regard Cs. novaezealandiae as a separate spe-
cies. However, he postulated that there may be more
than one species of the subgenus Climacura Howard,
Dyar & Knab present in New Zealand, but that the
differences in the larvae are probably individual or
sex-dependent variations in a single species. Sam-
ples from different populations of Culiseta need
to be reared to determine the range of variation in
these two species. Molecular research could also be
used to confirm identification of Culiseta species
(Bourguet et al. 1998), and this also applies to Cx.
pervigilans, in which there is obvious variation in
larval and adult characteristics.
A description is also lacking for the larvae of
Coquillettidia Dyar. Coquillettidia iracunda is an
avid biter of humans (A. Snell pers. obs 2002),
and belongs to the same subgenus as Coquillettida
(Coquillettidia) linealis (Skuse), a serious pest in
Australia that bites humans and domestic animals
(Lee et al. 1988; Jeffery et al. 2002). This species
has been shown to be a highly competent vector of
Ross River virus, and a moderately competent vec-
tor of Barmah Forest virus (Jeffery et al. 2002). The
phylogenetic relationships between Australian and
New Zealand Coquillettidia species need clarifica-
tion. However, Cq. iracunda also warrants further
investigation on its potential vector competence and
vectorial capacity for Ross River virus and other
arboviruses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Phil Sirvid (Te Papa), John Early and
Rosemary Gilbert (Auckland Museum), and Trevor Crosby
(NZAC) for their assistance with museum collections.
Thanks to Barry Snell, José Derraik, Paul Leisnham,
Robyn Sinclair, Shane Geange, Rob Kennedy, and James
Wakefield for their assistance with field collections, and
to New Zealand Biosecure for the Oc. camptorhynchus
specimens. Thanks also to Nga Manu Nature Reserve and
Karori Wildlife Sanctuary for access to conduct trapping.
Special thanks to Shane Geange for the illustrations. I also
thank Mary McIntyre, Craig Williams, Dave Slaney, Phil
New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32
Sirvid, Rochelle Knox, Allen Heath, and Trevor Crosby
for testing the key and/or reviewing the manuscript.
Thanks to the University of Otago for funding support,
and also thanks to the two anonymous referees for greatly
improving the text.
REFERENCES
Ballard JWO, Marshall ID 1986. An investigation of the
potential of Aedes camptorhynchus (Thomson) as
a vector of Ross River virus. Australian Journal
of Experimental Biology and Medical Science
64: 197–200.
Belkin JN 1962. The mosquitoes of the South Pacific. Vols
I & II. Berkley, University of California Press.
Belkin JN 1968. Mosquito studies (Diptera: Culicidae)
VII. The Culicidae of New Zealand. Contribu-
tions of the American Entomological Institute
3(1): 1–181.
Bourguet D, Fonseca D, Vourch G, Dubois MP, Chandre
F, Severini C, Raymond M 1998. The acetylcho-
linesterase gene Ace: a diagnostic marker for the
pipiens and quinquefasciatus forms of the Culex
pipiens complex. Journal of the American Mos-
quito Control Association 14(4): 390–396.
Clements AN 2000. The biology of mosquitoes. Vol. 1.
Development, nutrition and reproduction. Cam-
bridge, CABI Publishing.
Cooling LE 1924. Seven common species of mosquitoes
described for the purposes of identification. Ser-
vice Publication, Department of Health Australia
(Tropical Division) 1: 1–24.
Dobrotworsky NV 1965. The mosquitoes of Victoria
(Diptera: Culicidae). Victoria, Melbourne Uni-
versity Press.
Dumbleton LJ 1962. A new species and new sub-genus
of Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) from New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Science 5: 17–27.
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.
Dumbleton LJ 1968. A synopsis of the New Zealand
mosquitoes (Diptera Culicidae) and a key to the
larvae. Tuatara 16(3): 167–179.
Edwards FW 1920. Mosquito notes. Bulletin of Entomo-
logical Research 10: 129–137.
Edwards FW 1924. A synopsis of the adult mosquitoes of
the Australasian Region. Bulletin of Entomologi-
cal Research 14: 351–401.
Edwards FW 1925. Mosquito notes. V. Bulletin of Ento-
mological Research 15: 257–270.
Snell—New Zealand mosquito identification keys
Graham DH 1929. Mosquitoes of the Auckland District.
Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand
Institute 60: 205–244.
Graham DH 1939. Mosquito life in the Auckland District.
Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society
of New Zealand 69: 210–224.
Harbach RE, Knight KL 1980. Taxonomists’ glossary of
mosquito anatomy. Marlton, New Jersey, Plexus
Publishing.
Hearnden M 1999. A health risk assessment for the
establishment of the exotic mosquitoes Aedes
camptorhynchus and Culex australicus in Napier,
New Zealand. Report to the Coordinator, Environ-
mental Health Programme, Community Health,
Healthcare Hawkes Bay. University of Otago,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Institute of Environmental Science and Limited Research
2004. Notifiable and other diseases in New Zea-
land: Annual Report 2003 [Internet] Available
from http://www.surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/
AnnSurvRpt/2003AnnualSurvRpt.pdf (Accessed
13 January 2005).
Jeffery JAL, Ryan PA, Lyons SA, Kay BH 2002. Vector
competence of Coquillettidia linealis (Skuse)
(Diptera: Culicidae) for Ross River and Barmah
Forest viruses. Australian Journal of Entomology
41(4): 339–344.
Klein JM, Marks EN 1960. Australian mosquitoes de-
scribed by Macquart I species in the Paris museum,
Aedes (Finlaya) alboannulatus (Macquart), Aedes
(Finlaya) rubrithorax (Macquart), Aedes (Och-
lerotatus) albirostris (Macquart). New synonymy
and a new species from New Zealand. Proceedings
of the Linnean Society of NSW 85: 107–116.
Laird M, Calder L, Thornton RC, Syme R, Holder PW,
Mogi M 1994. Japanese Aedes albopictus among
four mosquito species reaching New Zealand in
used tyres. Journal of the American Mosquito
Control Association 10: 14–23.
Lamche GD, Whelan PI 2003. Variability of larval iden-
tification characters of exotic Aedes albopictus
(Skuse) intercepted in Darwin, Northern Terri-
tory. Communicable Disease Intelligence 27(1):
105–109.
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths EN, Russell RC, Marks
EN 1982. The Culicidae of the Australasian
Region Volume 2. Entomology Monograph No.
2. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths EN, Russell RC, Marks
EN 1984. The Culicidae of the Australasian
Region Volume 3. Entomology Monograph No.
2. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing
Service.
109
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths EN, Bryan
JH, Marks EN 1988a. The Culicidae of the Aus-
tralasian Region Volume 9. Entomology Mono-
graph No. 2. Canberra, Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths EN, Bryan
JH, Marks EN 1988b. The Culicidae of the Aus-
tralasian Region Volume 10. Entomology Mono-
graph No. 2. Canberra, Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths EN, Debenham ML, Bryan
JH, Russell RC, Geary M, Marks EN 1988. The
Culicidae of the Australasian Region Volume 6.
Entomology Monograph No. 2. Canberra, Aus-
tralian Government Publishing Service.
Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths EN, Marks
EN, Bryan JH, Russell RC 1989. The Culicidae
of the Australasian Region Volume 7. Entomology
Monograph No. 2. Canberra, Australian Govern-
ment Publishing Service.
Liehne PFS 1991. An atlas of the mosquitoes of Western
Australia. Perth, Health Department of Western
Australia.
Marks EN 1982. An atlas of common Queensland
mosquitoes; with a guide to Queensland biting
midges by EJ Reye. Rev. ed. Herston, Queensland,
Queensland Institute of Medical Research. 75 p.
Marks EN, Nye ER 1963. The Subgenus Ochlerotatus
in the Australasian Region (Diptera: Culicidae)
VI. The New Zealand species. Transactions of
the Royal Society of New Zealand (Zool.) 14(2):
49–60.
Miller D 1922. A remarkable mosquito, Opifex fuscus,
Hutton. Bulletin of Entomological Research
13(1): 115–126.
Miller D, Phillips WJ 1952. Identification of New Zealand
mosquitoes. Nelson, New Zealand, Cawthron
Institute. 28 p.
Ministry of Health 2001. Exotic mosquito found at Auck-
land wharf. Media release, 10 April 2001.
Ministry of Health 2002. Exotic mosquito specimens
discovered in concrete mixer. Media release, 3
September 2002.
Ministry of Health 2003a. Mosquito intercepted at Auck-
land Airport. Media release, 6 August 2003.
Ministry of Health 2003b. Mosquito intercepted at Auck-
land. Media release, 18 August 2003.
Ministry of Health 2004. Exotic mosquito found at Auck-
land wharf. Media release, 29 January 2004.
Nye ER 1962. Aedes (Pseudoskusea) australis Erichson
(Diptera: Culicidae), New Zealand. Transactions
of the Royal Society of New Zealand 3: 33–34.
110
Nye ER, McGregor DD 1964. Mosquitoes of Otago. Re-
cords of the Otago Museum. Zoology 1: 1–23.
Pillai JS 1966a. Notes on mosquitoes of New Zealand.
1. Maorigoeldia argyropus Walker (Diptera,
Culicidae. Sabethini). New Zealand Entomolo-
gist 3: 25–33.
Pillai JS 1966b. Culiseta novaezealandiae, a new species
of the subgenus Climacura Felt (Diptera: Cu-
licidae: Culisetini), with notes on its ecology and
development. Transactions of the Royal Society
of New Zealand (Zool) 8(11): 125–133.
Pillai JS 1968. Notes on mosquitoes of New Zealand.
II. The male terminalia of Culiseta (Climacura)
tonnoiri and its ecology (Diptera: Culicidae:
Culisetini). Journal of Medical Entomology 5:
355–357.
Reinert JF, Harbach RE, Kitching IJ 2004. Phylogeny
and classification of Aedini (Diptera: Culicidae),
based on morphological characters of all life
stages. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
142: 289–368.
Reinert JF, Harbach RE 2005. Generic and subgeneric
status of Aedine mosquito species (Diptera: Culici-
dae: Aedini) occurring in the Australasian Region.
Zootaxa 887: 1–10.
Rogers AJ 1974. The value of mosquito taxonomy to pest
mosquito control. Mosquito Systematics 6(2):
121–124.
Russell RC 1993. Mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease
in southeastern Australia. Sydney, University of
Sydney.
Russell RC 1995. Arboviruses and their vectors in Aus-
tralia: an update on the ecology and epidemiology
of some mosquito-borne arboviruses. Review
of Medical and Veterinary Entomology 83(4):
141–158.
Russell RC 1998. Vectors vs. humans in Australia—who
is on top down under? An update on vectorborne
disease and research on vectors in Australia. Jour-
nal of Vector Ecology 23: 1–46.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2005, Vol. 32
Russell RC 2002. Ross river virus: ecology and distribu-
tion. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 1–31.
Schneider JR, Morrison AC, Astete H, Scott TW, Wilson
ML 2004. Adult size and distribution of Aedes
aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) associated with lar-
val habitats in Iquitos, Peru. Journal of Medical
Entomology 41(4): 634–642.
Upton MS 1991. Methods for collecting, preserving, and
studying insects and allied forms. 4th edition.
Brisbane, Queensland, Australian Entomological
Society.
Walker, KA; Crosby, TA 1988. The preparation and cura-
tion of insects. Auckland, New Zealand, Depart-
ment of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Watson TM, Kay BH 1999. Vector competence of Aedes
notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) for Barmah
Forest Virus and of this species and Aedes aegypti
(Diptera: Culicidae) for dengue 1–4 viruses in
Queensland Australia. Journal of Medical Ento-
mology 36(4): 508–514.
Weinstein P, Laird M, Calder L 1995. Australian arbovi-
ruses: at what risk is New Zealand? Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Medicine 25: 666–669.
Weinstein P, Laird M, Browne G 1997. Exotic and endemic
mosquitoes in New Zealand as potential arbovirus
vectors, report to the Ministry of Health, Welling-
ton, New Zealand.
Whelan P, Hayes G, Carter J, Wilson A, Haigh B 2000.
Detection of the exotic mosquito Culex gelidus
in the Northern Territory. Communicable disease
intelligence. Vol 24. March Supplementary 2:
74–75.
Winterbourn MJ, Gregson KLD, Dolphin CH 2000. Guide
to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. 3rd ed.
Bulletin of the Entomological Society of New
Zealand. 13: 1–102.
Wood NN 1929. The structure and life history of the
mosquito Opifex fuscus Hutton. MSc thesis, Vol.
2. Victoria University of Wellington.