Annotated checklist , distribution , and taxonomic bibliography of the mosquitoes ( Insecta : Diptera : Culicidae ) of Argentina

Abstract: A decade and a half have passed since the last publication of the mosquito distribution list in Argentina. During this time several new records have been added, and taxonomic modifications have occurred at the genus and subgenus level. Therefore, considering these changes, I decided to create an updated list of the 242 species present in Argentina, along with their distributions by province. Two first records for Argentina (Culex lopesi and Cx. vaxus), two old records unregistered by authors (Cx. albinensis and Wyeomyia fuscipes), 13 new provincial records for 11 species (Cx. apicinus, Cx. bidens, Cx. eduardoi, Cx. lahillei, Cx. pipiens, Cx. tatoi, Cx. usquatus, Cx. imitator, Cx. oedipus, Sabethes chloropterus, and Wy. oblita), and the extension of distribution of other species are presented. The list of literature references for the documents concerning mosquitos is included.


MAtERIALS And MEtHodS
Based on the Campos and Maciá (1998) list a data matrix was developed.The records presented here come from the collection of the Museo de La Plata (MLP), Buenos Aires, Argentina.I also considered changes in taxonomic level (i.e., the establishment and/or relocation of subgenera, synonyms, the revalidation of species) that are relevant exclusively to the Argentine fauna.Table 1 presents the list of mosquito species in alphabetical order and their distribution by province.Figure 1 present the provinces of Argentina and the number of species known from each province in 1998 and in 2014.I do not discuss the relevant literature and status changes since that information has been included by the authors in the respective publications.
The determinations were done by the author, except where indicated.The abbreviations used here are: M, male; F, female; L, larva; P, pupa; Le, larval exuviae; Pe, pupal exuviae; MG, male genitalia; and FG, female genitalia.Adults are mounted on pins and the immatures and the genitalia on Canada-balsam slides.The coordinates are given in the degree-minute-second format for the exact sampling site.In other instances (e.g., old records) the coordinates correspond to the locality and are given as degree-minutes.All coordinates correspond to the WGS 84 system.Voucher specimens are deposited in the MLP, the institutional catalogue number of the vouchers is indicated as (C-xxxx).The method of capture is indicated as follows: for adults, (net) for hand net, (CDC) for CDC-type traps and for immatures, (dip) dipper, with no indication of when the method is unknown.
An asterisk in the literature list indicates the publications used here.Abbreviations of genera and subgenera follow Reinert (2009), the species classification used is taken from Harbach (2014) and Wilkerson et al. (2015) for tribe Aedini.

First records for Argentina
Culex (Melanoconion) lopesi Sirivanakarn and Jakob, 1979.dISCuSSIon Forattini and Sallum (1993) considered Cx.vaxus a valid species in its own right and removed it from synonymy with Cx. educator.According to those authors Cx. vaxus occupied the area between Suriname and Argentina but was not present in Central America, though they recommended a review of the museum specimens to establish the distribution of both species.I reviewed the material of the MLP collection corresponding to the provinces of Corrientes and Misiones (Rossi et al. 2002) and concluded that they corresponded those cited by Forattini and Sallum.For this reason in those provinces the assignment of Cx. educator should be replaced by Cx. vaxus.The mention made of Cx. educator in the Formosa province by Darsie et al. (1991) and Hoyos et al. (2011), in Córdoba and Chaco provinces by Visintin et al. (2009Visintin et al. ( , 2010, respectively), respectively), and in Misiones province by Duret (1953Duret ( , 1954) ) and Castro (1959) should be reviewed since those sightings could possibly have corresponded to Cx. vaxus.
Specimens of the province of Misiones captured by E. Lestani part of the catch for the development of his doctoral thesis, therefore Cx. lopesi have temporary numbers in the institutional catalogue number of the vouchers.
An. guarani (Table 1), has been recently revalidated from the incorrect synonymy with An. lutzii (Nagaki et al. 2011).That species was previously registered in the province by Duret (1950) and was more recently reported by Rossi and Lestani (2014) as present in Puerto Iguazú and Esmeralda Provincial Park in Misiones province.Specimens from San Ignacio, Corpus, Puerto Maní, Iguazú National Park, Posadas, and Puerto Rico (all Misiones province), originally classified as An.lutzii and belonging to the MLP collection, were reviewed.Since their characteristics correspond to those of An. guarani, the latter is the species present in these localities.Appointments for other locations such as Iguazú National Park, Montecarlo, Eldorado, Puerto Piray, Colonia Caraguatay, Las Delicias, and Los Helechos (Duret, 1950) were specimens not reviewed by me and thus remain to be checked.Darsie (1985), Mitchell and Darsie (1985), and Campos and Maciá (1998) have omitted consigning the record of Wy. (Pho.)fuscipes in Eldorado, Misiones registered by García and Casal (1968), in the absence of considering other records that appeared in the same publication.In fact this appointment configures the first record of the species for Argentina.Culex.albinensis is present in Santa Fe according to data presented by Sirivanakarn and Jakob (1981), a province that was omitted by Darsie (1985), Mitchell and Darsie (1985), and Campos and Maciá (1998) in their three publications.
Recently, Micieli et al. (2013) reported the presence of Culex (Cux.)pipiens form molestus Forskal in the Buenos Aires province, whose identity was confirmed by molecular markers (microsatellites).Being fully aware of the presence of hybrid forms between Cx. pipiens and Cx.quinquefasciatus in other provinces (Almirón et al. 1986(Almirón et al. , 1995;;Morais et al. 2010;Diez et al. 2011), we decided to examine the specimens in the MLP collection and together with the aforementioned literature citations added the Cx.(Cux.)pipiens hybrid forms in Table 1 as separate from Cx. pipiens and Cx.quinquefasciatus.Clearly, not all specimens in the MLP collection can be differentiated with certainty.These hybrid forms are currently referred to as "Pipiens Complex".Harbach (2012) suggested that the term should be "Pipiens Assemblage" instead of "Complex" by non having the same meaning as used for species of the genus Anopheles.
The records of Cx. mollis in different provinces should be reviewed, given that species' similarity to Cx. tatoi.The two species can be distinguished by the male-genitalia features and by the larval habitat.The Cx. mollis larvae are primarily found in natural containers (holes in trees or rocks), whereas the Cx.tatoi larvae are found in areas of appreciable water.The Cx. mollis assignments of the Corrientes and Misiones provinces in Rossi et al. (2002) were subsequently replaced by Cx. tatoi.
For An. albitarsis, the city of Tandil (Buenos Aires province), most notably, marks the southernmost region where specimens have been found within the genus Anopheles, and an Olavarría (Buenos Aires province) sighting is the southernmost identification for Ps.holmbergi.
With respect to An. annulipalpis, Carcavallo et al. (1995) recorded the species as being present in the Salta province without providing other data.
The presence of An. darlingi in the Corrientes Rossi | New records and check list of mosquitoes of Argentina province, clarifies that the few records referred to in the literature correspond to very small scale maps and, moreover, without any reference to the location in the text (e.g., García and Ronderos 1962;Bejarano 1972), or only to specific provinces (Mitchell and Darsie 1985).These authors mentioned as present at An. darlingi in Entre Ríos province as quoted by Bejarano (1959Bejarano ( (1960))) but this author does not mention the province in the reference's work, or other papers dealing with the subject.Thus, An. darlingi cannot be considered its presence on the province.As to Ps. pallescens, the only sighting recorded in the province of Santiago del Estero corresponds to the location of Troncal, 40 km from Salavina (Duret 1951) and more than 200 km from Termas de Río Hondo.
The record of Cx. fernandezi and Ae.(Och.)patersoni in the Misiones province (Lestani et al. 2007) was an error in determination.These specimens, in fact, correspond to the Cx.dolosus Complex and to Ae. (Och.)rhyacophilus, respectively.Recently, Wilkerson et al. (2015) propose simplified aedine generic designations and restore the classic classification system keeping only some of the changes proposed by them.(See Table 1 for classification of argentine species).
The record of Cx. imitator in the Buenos Aires province (Ronderos et al. 1992) is an erroneous assignment because specimens of the collection in the MLP cannot be classified to the level of the species, may belong to the subgenus Melanoconion of Culex.Thus, Cx. imitator cannot be considered its presence in the province.
The following provincial records were taken from the abstracts of congresses (e.g., Jornadas Regionales sobre Mosquitos), but these recordings have not appeared in subsequent publications: Cq. albicosta (Peryassú) and Cq.fasciolata (Lynch A.) in the Corrientes province (Molina 2002); Cx. apicinus and Cx.chidesteri in the San Juan province (Murúa et al. 2005); and Cx.rooti and Cx.mollis in the Chaco province (Stein et al. 2002).Leguizamón (1997) mention as "present in Argentina" the subgenus Stethomyia of Anopheles and Ctenogoeldia of Runchomyia without any other comment or detail, and also Johnbelkinia leucopus (Dyar & Knab) "from the jungle of the Salta province (Orán)".Stethomyia is not very likely to be found in northern Argentina as one of the species has been in Bolivia, and the possibility of finding representatives of Ru. (Ctenogoeldia) or Jb.leucopus (Dyar & Knab) inhabiting northern South America and Central America, respectively, is highly unlikely.Moreover, the author has not published on the subject, while the current investigators do not mention its presence despite their working in Orán, Salta (Dantur Juri, et al. 2011;Mangudo et al. 2014).For these reasons, those data are not included in the list of mosquitos present in Argentina.
Onirion brucei (Del Ponte & Cerqueira) is known to be present in the Misiones province, but Harbach and Peyton (2000), on describing the genus, mentioned one female in "Corrientes, Les Piedias, XII.66, Duret (USNM)".This location is unknown.Mitchell and Darsie (1985) recorded 208 species of mosquitos in Argentina, but added that they had not taken into account Aedes aegypti L. records, not present at that time.Campos and Maciá (1998) brought that total number up to 211 species distributed within 20 genera.Probably some publications either had been lost or had not reached the authors in time-such as Sallum et al. (1988); Rossi (1997); Rosa Freitas (1998) since the manuscript was submitted in 1997.Moreover, small errors in detail have been found in certain assignments-as one mistake subsequently corrected by Mitchell and Darsie (1985) with respect to Ps. varipes (Coquillett), along with typographical errors (Sa.intermedius in Buenos Aires, Ps. ferox in Santa Cruz) The real number of species in Argentina in 1998 was 217.
I have kept species in the list that are of doubtful presence, until the appropriate specimens have been reviewed, e.g., Cx. educator/Cx.vaxus (cf.above) and Cx.mollis/Cx.tatoi (cf.Casal and García, 1971).
The records that have been added here are the following: two first records for Argentina, 11 new records for different provinces, two records omitted, and an expansion of the distribution of 16 species.Consequently, including these new data, a total of 242 mosquito species, distributed over 23 provinces, are represented in Argentina (Table 1 and Figure 1).

ACKnoWLEdGEMEntS
I am grateful to all those investigators/colleagues who have unselfishly contributed specimens and literature, to Mr. D. Carpintero Jr. and M. Pereyra for donating a part of the collection of Dr. D. J. Carpintero Sr. to MLP and to Dr. M. Laurito, Dr. R. E. Campos, and Lic.E. A. Lestani for a critical reading of the manuscript.Dr. Donald F. Haggerty edited the final version of the manuscript.

LItERAtuRE CItEd
To the reference list submitted by Mitchell and Darsie (1985) and Campos and Maciá (1998)

Species
Figure 1.Left: Provinces of Argentina.Right: numbers of species known from each province, up to 1998 (red) and to March 2014 (blue).