TRANSMISSION OF MALARIA BY ANOPHELES IN NORTH AMERICA 
119 
assumed to be too rare a mosquito to play 
any part in disease transmission. With 
latter-day use of the light trap with its 
suction apparatus, A. walkeri has been 
found in some sections to be present in 
considerable numbers. Observations in the 
year past have shown that it enters houses 
freely at night, feeds on human beings, 
and then disappears to unknown daytime 
roosting places. No outbreaks of malaria 
have yet been found ascribed to this species 
of Anopheles.” 
From the foregoing evidence it appears 
that A. walkeri is a possible vector, and 
that additional investigations will be re¬ 
quired to determine its relative importance 
in the transmission of malaria. 
7. Anopheles (Coelodiazesis) barberi 
Coquillet 1903 
a. Experimental infection. — P. vivax. 
Stratman-Thomas and Baker (1936) re¬ 
ported the infection of a specimen of A. 
barberi by feeding on a tertian patient who 
had 3 micro and 11 macrogametocytes per 
100 leukocytes, with demonstrable exflagel¬ 
lation of the former. This infected mos¬ 
quito transmitted malaria to another pa¬ 
tient. There are no data for P. falciparum 
and P. malariae. 
b. Infection in nature. No data. 
c. Epidemiological. Data are inadequate, 
but the mosquito is relatively rare and has 
not been suspected as an important vector 
on epidemiological grounds. 
The evidence available indicates that A. 
barberi is relatively unimportant as a 
vector of malaria (Williams 1937a; Herms 
1939), but the species should be investigated 
further. 
Anopheline Mosquitoes of the 
Neotropical Region 
The anophelines to be considered in this 
section are indicated in Table II, which is 
based on information furnished by Komp 
(1940b). 
1. Chagasia bathanus Dyar 1928 
a. Experimental infection. According to 
Komp (1940b), Barber and Komp in 1927 
TABLE II 
Anopheline Mosquitoes of the Neotropical 
Region Exclusive of South America 
(According to Komp 1940) 
Subgenus 
Species 
i. 
C. bathanus Dyar 1928 1 
Stethomyig, 
2. 
A.lcompi Edwards 19302 
Anopheles 
3. 
A. eiseni Coquillet 1908 
‘ ‘ 
4. 
A. hectoris Mira 1932 
5. 
A. parapunctipennis Martini 
1932 
il 
6. *A. pseudopunctipennis Theo¬ 
bald 1901 
“ 
7. 
A. xelajuensis De Leon 
Arribalzagia 
8. 
A. apicimacula Dyar and 
Knab 1906 
(( 
9. 
A. neamaculipalpus Curry 
1931 
10. 
A. punctimacula Dyar and 
Knab 1906 
Cycloleppteron 
11. 
A. grabhami Theobald 1901 
12. 
A. vestitipennis Dyar and 
Knab 1906 
Nyssorhynchus 
13. *A. albimanus Wiedemann 
1821 
14. 
A. alb it arsis Lynch Arribal- 
zaga 1878 
1 ‘ 
15. 
A. anomalophyllus Komp 
1936 
a 
16. 
A. argyritarsis Robineau-Des- 
voidy 1827 
‘ < 
17. 
A. bachmanni Petrocchi 1925 
<< 
18. 
A. darlingi Root 1926 
19. 
A. oswaldoi Peryassu 1922 
‘ < 
20. 
A. strodei Root 1926 
t c 
21. 
A. tarsimaculatus Goeldi 1906 
Kerteszia 
22. 
A. bellator Dyar and Knab 
1906 
23. 
A. neivai Dyar and Knab 
1917 
* These species are also found in the nearctic 
region. 
1 This species is genus Chagasia. 
2 This and all following species are genus Anoph¬ 
eles. 
attempted, with negative results, to infect 
a few specimens with P. falciparum. 
b. Infection in nature. No data. 
c. Epidemiological. No data. 
This mosquito appears to be relatively 
rare in the localities where it has been iden¬ 
tified, and it has not been incriminated as 
a malarial vector. Additional studies will 
be required to determine its possible rela¬ 
tion to malaria. 
