I am not a specialist in mosquito taxonomy myself, but I expect there to be multiple "acceptable" classifications existing given that a lot of evidence exists and different people weight different lines of evidence differently. Taxonomy is confusing because the names reflect hypotheses about relationships, and these hypotheses change as more evidence is examined and re-examined. When different groups of taxonomists use different names for the same organisms, it is because they have different ideas about these organisms' relationships.

This is how the structure of science is - we will never have final answers, but our answers keep improving the more we find out. If taxonomy is to be a science, there will inevitably be periods where different lines of evidence convince different taxonomists to adopt different hypotheses; which inevitably will lead to fluctuating nomenclature. I, too, would like to see the classification of my study organisms stabilizing, but it is far more important that the taxonomy is evidence-based and accurate.

OK.  I agree with you. But there are practical difficulties especially when we talk about disease vectors. You can't have different names for an established vector.

Please refer to Ralph Harbach papers (Natural History Museum London UK).

Best,

GL

Thank you

I agree with Guy Lemperiere. Few days ago I talked to a Professor of Entomology in Netherlands where I am pursuing my higher study, because we are going to conduct a mega research project for morphological and molecular taxonomy of medically important insect pests in Bangladesh. He advised me to follow the system of Natural History Museum London. But the fact is that molecular taxonomy is inevitable now a days to solve the increasing complexities created by phenotypic plasticity.  

You can start by looking at the Walter Reed US site

http://www.wrbu.org/index.html

http://www.wrbu.org/VecIDResourcesMQ.html

http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/default.aspx

If you click the genus and the country at least a least of species appear and there are other taxonomic resources an experts to be contacted there that can help.

Also the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine should have some experts that can help with mosquito identification from India.

Dept. of Entomology

Please find the pdfs of Reinert, Harbach and Kitching. I hope it will help you.

Best,

GL

Thank you so much Dr. Lemperiere

The taxonomic keys of the WRBU and the NHM LONDON of Harbach and others should be convenient to identify most of the important mosquito vectors. The best option is to find recent publications that cite the keys used for identification as for Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. In many cases identification is confirmed by PCR diagnostic assays using species-specific primers. You can also send some samples to a specialized museum for confirmation of identification. Good luck.

Since the year 2000 everybody asks a lot of question on the classification of Culicidae and particularly on the genus Aedes and the Tribe of Aedini.

I do not understand this need to cut extremely the genus Aedes. In fact the concept of Genus is empirical. It is a collective unit and the generical name should express a similarity and not a difference. Today the "Divisors" conceiving the names of the genus do not transport anymore or almost, information.

Three concepts are used to define a genus: phenetic concept, cladistic concept and synthetic concept. In this last concept, the genus must be considered as evolutionary units, that is, genetic, phylogenetic and ecological units.

At this moment many authors use in them publications the last ("New"!) classification...! which makes more modern, "trendy"... but have not idea of the confusion which is create by using the classification proposed by Reinert, because for me it is only a propositional classification, and it is not imposed!

I have a lot of respect for the whole scientific work of Reinert and Harbach, but I believe that they forgot that the definition of a genus and one sub-genus has to correspond to a scientific reality!

I continue to use the "old classification".

Very friendly. (and sorry for my English)

PS: We have the seem problem with the classification of Phlebotominae in the new world!

Thank you Dr. Gantier. You are absolutely right. Such confusions in classification will repel researchers from this already "not-modern" branch of science.

And then??? what do you suggest?

Intervention by 'The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature' or any international organisation. There should definitely be UMPIRING to end taxonomic chaos and controversies.  

I know the traditional classification seems more friendly and I used it for providing the checklist of Iranian mosquitoes (Azari-Hamidian 2007). Because Iranian medical entomologists are more familiar with that and most of them are not interested in mosquito taxonomy and phylogeny. However I believe the recent classification (Reinert et al. 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009) more show the phylogenetic and natural relationships of the genera and subgenera of tribe Aedini in comparison with the traditional one (Knight & Stone 1977 and its supplements and Reinert 2000, 2001). So when I use the names based on the traditional classification I will add the names using the new classification in parentheses. The traditional classification framework backed to Edwards (1932) and there was a real need to provide a phylogenetic revision of the tribe. Always there is a controversial point of view between more friendly classification for just identification or a more correct (and of course complicated) classification to establish phylogenetic relationships. 

Thank you Shahyad,

There is always a matter of controversy when facing the taxonomy of some groups of insects which keeps taxonomy alive! I rely on Harbach et al because they are the most accurate for now.

 The other part of the first question is the biogeography of Aedes in India: I am certain that there are existing papers covering this aspect.

Best,

GL

Two refs on Aedes species in your country!

Best

G.Lemperiere

According to the new classification Aedes aegypti is Stegomyia aegypti !!!!!!! None of the erstwhile Aedes reported from India belong to the genus Aedes any longer

Then tell the colleagues from your country to use Stegomyia=Aedes instead of Aedes otherwise it will create a lot of confusion. We have used Aedes in most of our papers on chemical ecology.

Best

G.Lemperiere.

You may follow the Fauna of British India Diptera vol.V Family Culicidae,Tribe Mrgarhinini and Culicini.By.Capt.P.J.Barraud ., 1934

Dear Dr. Hazra, 

Though Barraud's work is considered as the bible of Indian mosquito taxonomy there has been many changes in mosquito taxonomy since its publication.