Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T10:17:11.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Crossing relationships among seven members of the group of Aedes scutellaris (Walker) (Diptera: Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. R. Meek
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Entomology, School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK
W. W. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Entomology, School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK

Abstract

A rickettsia-free (aposymbiotic) stock of Aedes polynesiensis Marks (POLY-A) was crossed with (a) three symbiont-infected stocks of A. polynesiensis (POLY-S from Samoa and POLY-N and POLY-T from Fiji), (b) A. pseudoscutellaris (Theo.) (PSE) from Fiji, (c) A. alcasidi Huang (ALC), A. scutellaris katherinensis Woodhill (KATH), A. s. malayensis Colless (MAL) and A. s. scutellaris (Wlk.) (SCUT), which occur to the west of Fiji and (d) an aposymbiotic stock of A. cooki Belkin (CO) from Niue. It was bidirectionally compatible with CO, but in all other crosses compatibility was high when POLY-A was the male parent and very low when it was the female parent. Backcross data suggested that the crossing type was maternally inherited. ALC and KATH were bidirectionally compatible; both were virtually incompatible with POLY-S and PSE, compatible with SCUT when the latter was the female parent, and compatible with CO when the latter was the male parent. POLY-S females were moderately compatible with a third Fijian stock of A. polynesiensis (POLY-V), and POLY-N and POLY-V were compatible with PSE. If, as in Culex pipiens L., rickettsia-like symbionts are responsible for cytoplasmic incompatibility, then aposymbiotic males should cross successfully with symbiont-infected females, whereas the reciprocal cross should be unsuccessful. Since PSE, MAL and SCUT contain symbionts, their crossing relationships are consistent with the hypothesis. However, ALC and KATH appear to be aposymbiotic and their crossing relationships conflict with the hypothesis. There is little evidence of behavioural barriers to mating between species, but whereas male hybrids of two eastern species were capable of normal insemination, male hybrids between western and eastern species gave very low insemination rates. The egg-hatch rates from backcrosses of female hybrids between western and eastern species to the parents were reduced.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Beckett, E. B., Boothroyd, B. & MacDonald, W. W. (1978). A light and electron microscope study of rickettsia-like organisms in the ovaries of mosquitoes of the Aedes scutellaris group.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 72, 277283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belkin, J. N. (1962). The mosquitoes of the South Pacific (Diptera, Culicidae).—608 pp. Berkeley & Los Angeles. Univ. California Press.Google Scholar
Gubler, D. J. (1981). Transmission of Ross River virus by Aedes polynesiensis and Aedes aegypti.—Am. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 30, 13031306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilburn, L. R. & Rai, K. S. (1981). Electrophoretic similarities and mating compatibility among four species of the Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris complex (Diptera: Culicidae).—J. med. Entomol. 18, 401408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, J. C. & Rozeboom, L. E. (1973). Cross-breeding of Aedes (S.) polynesiensis Marks with an autogenous species of the A. scutellaris group.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 49, 367370.Google ScholarPubMed
Hoyer, L. C. & Rozeboom, L. E. (1977). Genetic relationships between several autogenous and anautogenous populations of the Aedes (S.) scutellaris group of mosquitoes.—J. med. Entomol. 13, 463468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y. M. (1972). Contributions to the mosquito fauna of Southeast Asia. XIV. The subgenus Stegomyia of Aedes in Southeast Asia. I.—The scutellaris group of species.—Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 9, 1109.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. M. (1979). Medical entomology studies. XI. The subgenus Stegomyia of Aedes in the Oriental Region with keys to the species (Diptera: Culicidae).—Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 15, 179.Google Scholar
Laven, H. (1956). Cytoplasmic inheritance in Culex.—Nature, Lond. 177, 141142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, W. W. (1976). Mosquito genetics in relation to filarial infections.—Symp. Br. Soc. Parasit. 14, 124.Google Scholar
Marks, E. N. (1954). A review of the Aedes scutellaris subgroup with a study of variation in Aedes pseudoscutellaris (Theobald) (Diptera: Culicidae).—Bull. Br. Mus. flat. Hist. (Ent.) 3, 349414.Google Scholar
Marks, E. N. (1980). Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Cape York Peninsula, Australia.—pp. 5976. in Stevens, N. C. & Bailey, A. (Eds.). Contemporary Cape York Peninsula100 pp. Brisbane, R. Soc. Queensland.Google Scholar
Meek, S. R. (in press). Occurrence of rickettsia-like symbionts among species of the Aedes scutellaris group (Diptera: Culicidae).—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit.Google Scholar
Meek, S. R. & MacDonald, W. W. (1982). Studies on the inheritance of susceptibility to infection with Brugia pahangi and Wuchereria bancrofti in the Aedes scutellaris group of mosquitoes.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 76, 347354.Google Scholar
Rai, K. S. (1980). Evolutionary cytogenetics of aedine mosquitoes.—Genetica 52/53, 281290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakai, I. M., Naserua, J. D., Macnamara, F. N. & Pillai, J. S. (1974). Mosquito-borne infections in Fiji. IV. Biting times for village mosquitoes and human filaria transmission potential of Aedes polynesiensis and Aedes pseudoscutellaris.—J. med. Entomol. 11. 588594.Google Scholar
Rosen, L., Rozeboom, L. E., Sweet, B. H. & Sabin, A. B. (1954). The transmission of dengue by Aedes polynesiensis Marks.—Am. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 3, 878882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozeboom, L. E. & Gilford, B. N. (1954). The genetic relationships of Aedes pseudoscutellaris Theobald and A. polynesiensis Marks (Diptera: Culicidae).—Am. J. Hyg. 60, 117134.Google Scholar
Smith-White, S. & Woodhill, A. R. (1955). The nature and significance of non-reciprocal fertility in Aedes scutellaris and other mosquitoes.—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 79, 163176.Google Scholar
Tesfa-Yohannes, T. M. (1973). Genetic relationships of three strains of Aedes (S.) polvnesiensis Marks.—J. med. Entomol. 10, 490492.Google Scholar
Tesfa-Yohannes, T. M. & Rozeboom, L. E. (1974). Experimental crossing of Aedes (S.) polynesiensis Marks and A. scutellaris malayensis Colless (Diptera: Culicidae).—J. med. Entomol. 11, 323331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trpis, M., Duhrkopf, R. E. & Parker, K. L. (1981 a). Non-Mendelian inheritance of mosquito susceptibility to infection with Brugia malayi and Brugia pahangi.—Science, N.Y. 211. 14351437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trpis, M., Perrone, J. B., Reissig, M. & Parker, K. L. (1981 b). Control of cytoplasmic incompatibility in the Aedes scutellaris complex.—J. Hered. 72, 313317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, J. O. (1977). The genetics of white-eye, a sex-linked mutant of Aedes (Stegomyia) cooki Belkin.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 71, 483485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodhill, A. R. (1949). A note on experimental Crossing of Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris scutellaris Walker and Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris katherinensis Woodhill (Diptera, Culicidae).—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 74, 224226.Google Scholar
Woodhill, A. R. (1954). Experimental crossing of Aedes (Stegomyia) pseudoscutellaris Theobald and Aedes (Stegomyia) polynesiensis Marks (Diptera, Culicidae).—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 79, 1920.Google Scholar
Wright, J. D. & Wang, B. T. (1980). Observations on wolbachiae in mosquitoes.—J. Invertebr. Pathol. 35, 200208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, J. H. (1975). Transovarial transmission of Rickettsia-like micro-organisms in mosquitoes.—Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 266, 152161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, J. H. & Barr, A. R. (1971). New hypothesis of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatibility in Culex pipiens L.—Nature, Lond. 232, 657658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yen, J. H. & Barr, A. R. (1973). The etiological agent of cytoplasmic incompatibility in Culex pipiens.—J. Invertebr. Pathol. 22, 242250.Google Scholar