Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:56:52.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Revision of the Mosquitos of the Palaearctic Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

F. W. Edwards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For some years after the intensive study of mosquitos began in tropical countries, surprisingly little interest was taken in the European species, particularly those of Northern Europe. Ficalbi had published his monographic revision in 1896–99, but from then until 1914 very little further had been done; the adults were assumed to be more or less known, though very few of the larvae had been described. Since 1914, however, a great deal of work has been done all over Europe, bionomic as well as systematic, and considerable advances have been made in every branch of our knowledge of these insects.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , August 1921 , pp. 263 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barraud, P. J.Notes on some Culicidae collected in Lower Mesopotamia.—Bull. Ent. Res. x 1920, pp. 323–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barraud, P. J.Mosquitos collected in Palestine and adjacent territories.—Bull. Ent. Res. xi 1921, pp. 387395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blacklock, B. and Carter, H. F.Observations on Anopheles (Coelodiazesis) plumbeus, Stephens, with special reference to its breeding-places, occurrence in the Liverpool district, and possible connection with the spread of malaria.—Ann. Trop. Med. xiii, 1920, pp. 413–446, pls. x-xii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brolemann, H. W.Sur quelques Culex de Pyrénées et description d'une éspèce nouvelle.—Ann. Soc. Ent. France, lxxxvii, 1918, pp. 425–440; lxxxviii, 1919, pp. 65–103; lxxxix, 1920, pp. 51–73. (Includes good figures of the male hypopygia of most of the species found in France.)Google Scholar
Carter, H. F.Descriptions of the male genital armatures of the British Anopheline mosquitoes.—Ann. Trop. Med. xiii, 1920, pp. 453–457 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophers, S. R.The male genitalia of Anopheles.–Ind. J. Med. Res. iii, 1915, pp. 371–394, pls. xx–xxv.Google Scholar
Christophers, S. R.Notes on some Anophelines from Arabia and Mesopotamia.—Ind. J. Med. Res. iii, 1915 pp. 180–200, pl. xvi.Google Scholar
Christophers, S. R.Recent observations on the Anopheles of the Middle East.—Ind. J. Med. Res. vii 1920, pp. 710–716, 3 maps.Google Scholar
Christophers, S. R. and Shortt, H. E.Malaria in Mesopotamia.—Ind. J. Med. Res. viii, 1921, pp. 508–552.Google Scholar
Eckstein, F.Zur Systematik der einheimischen Stechmücken—Centralbl. f. Bakt., Parasit. u. Inf.-Krankh., 1 Abt., lxxxii, 1918, pp. 57–68, figs. (females); lxxxiii, 1919, pp. 281–294, figs.(larvae); lxxxiv, 1920, pp. 223–240, figs.(males).Google Scholar
Eckstein, F.Die einheimischen Stechmücken. Eine Schilderung ihrer Lebensweise und anleitung zu ihrer Bestimmung, Mit 17 Abbild.—Wiss. Mitglied des Forschungsinst. f. angew. Zool. Berlin, 1920, 58 pp. (Largely a reprint of above series of papers, with some biological and other details added.)Google Scholar
Ficalbi, E.Revisione delle specie europee della fam. delle Zanzare.—Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital. xxiv, 1892, pp. 257–284; xxv, 1893, pp. 48–61, 136–144; xxvi, 1894, pp. 66–75, 315–320; xxvii, 1895, pp. 29–38; xxviii, 1896, pp. 108–313, pis. i–v. (The earlier sections include quotations of the original descriptions of all European species then known.)Google Scholar
Ficalbi, E.Venti specie di Zanzare (Culicidae) Italiane.—Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital. xxxi, 1899, pp. 46–234, figs.Google Scholar
Foley, H.Etude morphologique de Pyretophorus chaudoyei Théob., aux differents stades de son evolution.—Campagne antipaludique de 1911, Alger, 1912, pp. 49–50, pls. iii–v.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, B.Sechzehn Jahre Untersuchungen über Kuliziden und Malaria.—Arch. Schiffs. Hyg. xxii, 1918, pp. 154–158. (Briefly summarises the author's work, with bibliography of his 45 short papers.)Google Scholar
Goetghebuer, M.Culicides et Corethrides de Belgique.—Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1910, pp. 81–87, 410–412.Google Scholar
Joyeux, C.Note sur les Culicides de Macédoine.—Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. II, 1918, pp. 530–547.Google Scholar
Lang, W. D.Handbook of British Mosquitoes.—London, British Museum (Natural History), 1920.Google Scholar
Langeron, M.Remarques sur les larves du Culex geniculatus et sur les larves de Culicinés pourvues d'un long siphon.—Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. ix, 1916, pp. 438–442, figs.Google Scholar
Langeron, M.. Remarques sur l'évolution larvaire de Theobaldia annulata(Schrank, 1776).—Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. ix, 1916, pp. 703–708, figs.Google Scholar
Langeron, M.. Morphologie et biologie de la larve de Theobaldia spathipalpis. Rondani, 1872.—Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. xi, 1918, pp. 98–103, figs.Google Scholar
Langeron, M.. La larve d' Anopheles chaudoyei (Theobald, 1903).—Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. xi, 1918, pp. 291–297, figs.Google Scholar
Leon, N.Studii asupra Culicidelor din România.—Bucuresti, 1910, Directiunea Generale a serviciului sanitar. Pp. 274, pls. xv, figs. 111.Google Scholar
Leon, N.. Contributions à l'étude des Culicides de Roumanie.—Centralbl. f. Bakt. liii, 1910, pp. 499–505.Google Scholar
Martini, E.Über Stechmücken, besonders deren europäische Arten und ihre Bekämpfung.—Archiv f. Schiffs- und Tropenhyg. Band 24, Beiheft 1, 1920, pp. 1–267, pls. i–iv, 117 text figs.Google Scholar
Martini, E.. Die biologische Malariabekämpfung in Mazedonien.—Zeitschr. f. Angew. Ent. vii, 1921, pp. 225–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Meijere, J. C. H.Zur Kenntnis niederländischer Culiciden.—Tijd. v. Ent. liv, 1911, pp. 137–157, pls. viii–x.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. F. H. and Shipley, A. E.The structure and biology of Anopheles.—Journ. Hyg. I, 1901, pp. 45–77, 269–276, 451–482, pls. i, ii, viii–x; II, 1902, pp. 58–84, 166–215, pls. vi–viii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, P.Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Culiciden in der Umgebung von Bonn.—Verh. Nat. Ver. Preuss. Rheinl. u. Westf. ixx, 1914, pp. 1–54, 2pls.Google Scholar
SéGUY, E. Les moustiques de France.—Bull. Mus. d'Hist. Nat. Paris, 1920, pp. 51–58, 141–149, 223–230, 322–329, 407–414, 512–519.Google Scholar
Séguy, E.. Remarques sur quelques larves de moustiques.—Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1920, pp. 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Séguy, E.. Note sur l'armure génitale du Culex jugorum Villen.—Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1921, pp. 39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sergent, Ed. et Et.Observations sur les moustiques des environs d'Alger.—Ann. Inst. Pasteur, xvii, 1903, p. 60.Google Scholar
Sergent, Ed. et Et.Observations sur les Anopheles d'Algerie.—Ann. Inst. Pasteur, xix, 1905, p. 144, and xx, 1906, p. 393.Google Scholar
Storey, G.Keys for the determination of Egyptian Mosquitoes and their larvae.—Bull. Soc. Ent. Egypte, Cairo, 1918 (1919), pp. 84–106, 2pls.Google Scholar
Vassiliev, J. B.Cellia pulcherrima, Theo., und einige neue Angaben über Erscheinen and Überwintern von Anopheles bifurcatus, L., in Turkestan. (See Rev. App. Ent. i, p. 193.)Google Scholar
Waterston, J.On the mosquitos of Macedonia.—Bull. Ent. Res. ix, 1918, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesenberg-Lund, C.Anatomical description of the larva of Mansonia richardii (Ficalbi) found in Danish freshwaters.—Vidensk. Medd. Dansk. naturhist. Forn. lxix, 1918, pp. 277–328, figs.Google Scholar
Wesenberg-Lund, C.Contributions to the biology of the Danish Culicidae.—D. Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, Nat. Math. Afd., 8 Raekke, vii, 1921, pp. 1–210, pls. i–xxi.Google Scholar