Culex molestus

[Don Colless]

Doug Yanega is right: the Natural History article is an example of sloppy
journalism and sensationalism. Nonetheless, he is a bit severe on workers
who still seek to establish the evoltionary status of molestus. It is by no
means true that everyone has known "since the 1930's" that it is a "good"
species; our indecision is clearly shown by the fact that it was usually
referred to as a subspecies of pipiens well into the 1980's. The biological
facts were pretty well known, as were the Mendelian genetics; but whether
the degree of separation from pipiens warranted specific status was
arguable - and much argued. Harbach et al, 1984, cut the Gordian knot, and
mosquito workers could (with relief, I think) let it all drop. But, given
modern molecular techniques, I would submit that it's perfectly reasonable
to take a more detailed look at the matter. Such species in statu nascendi
are pretty interesting


                 *****************************************
                 * Don Colless, Div of Entomology, CSIRO,*
                 *    GPO Box 1700, CANBERRA, ACT 2601   *
                 *      donc at spider.ento.csiro.au        *
                 *          tel: (02)62464270            *
                 *    Tuz li munz est miens envirun      *
                 *****************************************