Abstract
Understanding the occurrence of arthropods in the Arctic relies heavily on distributional and taxonomic evidence, yet substantial gaps and inconsistencies in available data complicate interpretation. These limitations impact our understanding of ecologically—and medically—important groups such as the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), whose Arctic diversity and biogeography remain poorly resolved. Many species were originally described from limited material, often using morphological traits that differ from those observed in more thoroughly studied southern populations. Sparse and uneven sampling across the Arctic limits our ability to accurately assess species distributions, and missing or incomplete metadata further diminishes the scientific value of existing specimens. Collectively, these issues obscure patterns of biodiversity, hinder detection of climate‑driven range shifts, and constrain efforts to evaluate the vector potential of species capable of transmitting arboviruses. As concerns grow regarding the northward expansion of mosquito‑borne pathogens, the absence of reliable baseline data poses a major challenge for assessing current and future risks to human and animal health in Arctic ecosystems. This review synthesizes historical records of Canadian Arctic mosquitoes from early natural history expeditions beginning around 1820 to the present. We evaluate the taxonomic reliability, geographic accuracy, and research relevance of these records to determine which can serve as credible baselines for contemporary biodiversity assessments. By clarifying the strengths and limitations of the historical dataset, this review aims to support improved species distribution modeling, inform future surveillance efforts, and guide research priorities in a rapidly changing Arctic.
Keywords: biogeography, arboviruses, biodiversity, Aedes
Introduction
Extreme low temperatures and limited length of the growing season constrain the diversity of animals, including insects, that inhabit the Arctic environment (Danks and Smith 2017). Arctic insects are adapted for these challenges, and biting flies, such as mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), emerge in extraordinary abundance during the limited summer (Wood et al. 1979). The sheer volume of mosquitoes contributes heavily to a range of ecosystem functions, including nuisance-biting, disease transmission, pollination (Peach and Gries 2020, Shannon et al. 2024), and as a prey source in both the immature and adult stages (Culler et al. 2015, 2024). However, climate warming in the Arctic is far outpacing most of the rest of the globe (Rantanen et al. 2022) and is likely re-shaping biting fly communities due to their temperature dependence. For example, warming is accelerating the development of mosquito larvae and decreasing predator-related mortality, leading to increases in mosquito abundance (Culler et al. 2015). Further, warming permits the northward expansion of non-native species into the Arctic (Villeneuve et al. 2025) by releasing the thermal barriers that typically restrain colonization by more temperate species. Increases in abundance and diversity of these already formidable populations of mosquitoes are likely to compound the impacts of their activity, including increasing disease transmission that can affect both wildlife and humans (Snyman et al. 2023, Villeneuve et al. 2025).
The impacts of temperature on mosquitoes in the Arctic may also be more nuanced and determined indirectly by temperature-related shifts in drivers such as host abundance and availability, changes to the growth and virulence of entomopathogens, and availability of floral nectar sources (Abarca and Spahn 2021, Filazzola et al. 2021). Further, increases in temperature are not always a net positive for insects in temperate and polar regions. For example, winter warming can increase metabolic rate and decrease energy stores in the Antarctic midge Belgica antarctica (Jacobs 1900) (Diptera: Chironomidae), leading to increases in overwintering mortality (Devlin et al. 2022). Thus, the future of mosquito communities in the Arctic is uncertain, though recent warming has largely encouraged increases in abundance and range expansion.
The potential for changes to these communities, and consequent shifts in their ecosystem functions, highlights the need for regular monitoring of Arctic mosquito communities. Building long-term records of abundance, distribution, and pathogen prevalence allows researchers to determine the drivers of shifts in populations and provide up-to-date information on ecosystem and public health to communities. However, such surveillance is irregular, infrequent, or simply missing for many areas of the Canadian Arctic (Peach et al. 2021). Further, many past surveillance efforts relied on opportunistic collections, forming motley collections of scattered species records (Peach et al. 2021). Finally, there is a critical, recent gap in data, beginning in the early 2000s, that follows the end of the Northern Insect Survey but coincides with the acceleration of environmental change in the region. Thus, there is a gap in our grasp on the history and current baselines of mosquito populations in the Arctic, limiting our ability to predict and understand the future of these populations (Peach and Poirier 2020).
This review aims to provide a historical account of mosquito surveillance in the Arctic that highlights the storied nature of how records of these biting flies have accumulated over the last several decades. Further, this review serves to centralize species occurrence and distribution records (Table 1), as well as mosquito-borne pathogen monitoring across the Canadian Arctic (Table 2). By summarizing this history, we clarify the baseline knowledge of species presence, distribution, and sampling effort that is necessary for interpreting changes in Arctic mosquito communities. We also aim to highlight the major gaps in current data and to outline why renewed taxonomic, ecological, and genomic work on Arctic mosquitoes in Canada is needed. Strengthening surveillance and related research will help respond to community-level concerns (such as nuisance levels, potential disease risks, and shifting patterns) and support proactive planning in northern regions as mosquito communities continue to change. We note that throughout this review, we refer to the Canadian Arctic as all sites above the 55th parallel, as defined by the Canadian Climate Institute, though we have also included reference to a limited number of sites that are in close proximity to the 55th parallel and were part of the Northern Insect Survey.
Table 1.
Summary of historical records for mosquito species in Northern Canada
| Species | Historical records |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Aedes punctor-hexodontus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The specimens were reported as Aedes prodotes (synonym of Aedes cataphylla).
Waskaganish was formally known as Rupert House/Fort Rupert.
Kuujjuaq was formally known as Fort Chino.
Kuujjuarapik was formally known as Great Whale River.
Schefferville was formally known as Knob Lake.
Inukjuak was formally known as Port Harrisson.
The specimens were reported as Aedes nearcticus (synonym of Aedes impiger).
Originally identified as Aedes impiger, but later reexamined and identified as Aedes implicatus (Belton 1990).
Until Jenkins and Knight (1950), Aedes hexodontus was not distinguished from Aedes punctor in northern Canada, meaning pre-1950 records of Ae. punctor may include Ae. hexodontus.
Originally identified as Aedes callithrotys.
The specimens identified as Aedes implacabilis in these references were later synonymized with Aedes punctor.
Originally identified as Aedes lazenrensis (synonym of Aedes communis).
Originally identified as Aedes pseudodiantaeus (synonym of Aedes decticus).
Western records of Aedes stimulans are Aedes mercurator.
Records of Anopheles occidentalis in Canada are Anopheles earlei.
Records of Culex apicalis from Canada are Culex territans.
For a complete list of synonyms for Culex pipiens, please consult Wilkerson et al. (2021).
1, Peach DA. Personal communications (2026); 2, Belton and Belton (1981); 3, Dyar (1920); 4, Carson et al. (2017); 5, Vockeroth (1954); 6, Freeman (1952); 7, Haufe (1952); 8, CCMM (2005); 9, GNWT (2025); 10, Jenkins and Knight (1952); 11, Peach et al. (2021); 12, Curtis (1953); 13, McLean and Lester (1984); 14, McLean et al. (1975); 15, McLean et al. (1972); 16, McLean et al. (1974); 17, McLean et al. (1973); 18, Beckel (1958); 19, Twinn et al. (1948); 20, Hocking et al. (1950); 21, Haufe and Burgess (1956); 22, Villeneuve et al. (2025); 23, Beckel (1954); 24, West and Jenkins (1951); 25, Vockeroth (1952); 26, Murray-Smith (1970); 27, Wagner et al. (1975); 28, McLean et al. (1979); 29, McLean et al. (1981); 30, Jenkins and Knight (1950); 31, Lewis and Webber (1985); 32, McLean (1982); 33, Peach and Poirier (2020); 34, Vockeroth (1950); 35, Knight (1951); 36, Swales (1966); 37, Hearle (1926); 38, Dyar (1919); 39, Corbet and Danks (1973); 40, Danks and Corbet (1973); 41, Corbet and Danks (1975); 42, Oliver (1963); 43, Corbet (1964); 44, Corbet (1966); 45, Corbet (1967); 46, Vockeroth (1954b); 47, Brust (1966); 48, Johnson (1929); 49, Peach (2017); 50, Poirier and Berry (2011); 51, Peach (2018b); Original names and synonyms are from Wilkerson et al. (2021).
Table 2.
Summary of historical records for arboviruses detecting in mosquito species in northern Canada
| Species | Location | Virus detection results a | Virus | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aedes canadensis | Yukon | |||
| Carmacks | 1/8 | SSH | McLean et al. (1975) | |
| Fish Lake | 5/16 | SSH | McLean et al. (1972) | |
| Marsh Lake | 6/34 | SSH | McLean et al. (1972) | |
| 1/6 | SSH | McLean et al. (1974) | ||
| Mayo Road | 1/13 | SSH | McLean et al. (1972) | |
| Aedes cinereus | Manitoba | |||
| Churchill | 2/21 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Yukon | ||||
| Dempster Highway | 1/5 | SSH | McLean et al. 1974 | |
| Aedes communis | Northwest Territories | |||
| Fort Simpson | 2/106 | SSH | McLean et al. (1977) | |
| Inuvik | 1/3003* | SSH | McLean et al. (1979) | |
| Yukon | ||||
| Annie Lake | 3/497* | SSH | McLean et al. (1979) | |
| Dempster Highway | 3/24 | SSH | McLean et al. (1975) | |
| 4/2117* | SSH | McLean et al. (1979) | ||
| 1/382* | SSH | McLean et al. (1981) | ||
| 1/1979* | SSH | McLean (1982) | ||
| Hunker Creek | 1/21* | SSH | McLean et al. (1973) | |
| Marsh Lake | 4/40* | SSH | McLean et al. (1973) | |
| 1/20* | SSH | McLean et al. (1974) | ||
| 5/1644* | SSH | McLean et al. (1979) | ||
| 4/1082* | SSH | McLean et al. (1981) | ||
| 1/1382* | SSH | McLean (1982) | ||
| Aedes euedes | Yukon | |||
| Whitehorse | 1/13 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Aedes hexodontus | Northwest Territories | |||
| Forth Smith | 1/18 | SSH | McLean et al. (1977) | |
| Forth Simpson | 2/11 | SSH | McLean et al. (1977) | |
| Inuvik | 1/65 | SSH | McLean et al. (1977) | |
| 1/65 | NOR | McLean et al. (1977) | ||
| Aedes nigripes | Nunavut | |||
| Cambridge Bay | 1/12 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Yukon | ||||
| Dempster Highway | 2/560* | SSH | McLean (1982) | |
| 1/250* | SSH | McLean and Lester (1984) | ||
| Marsh Lake | 1/61* | SSH | McLean (1982) | |
| Aedes pionips | Québec | |||
| Kuujjuaq | 1/49 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Aedes punctor | Northwest Territories | |||
| Forth Simpson | 1/33 | SSH | McLean et al. (1977) | |
| Forth Smith | 1/17 | SSH | McLean et al. (1977) | |
| Aedes punctor-hexodontus | Manitoba | |||
| Churchill | 1/21 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Nunavut | ||||
| Meliadine River | 4/4547* | SSH | Wagner et al. (1975) | |
| Aedes rempeli | Québec | |||
| Kuujjuaq | 1/49 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Aedes sticticus | Northwest Territories | |||
| Yellowknife | 1/5 | JCV | Villeneuve et al. (2025) | |
| Culiseta inornata | Yukon | |||
| Carcross | 2/534* | NOR | McLean et al. (1979) | |
| Dempster Highway | 4/332* | SSH | McLean et al. (1979) | |
| Fish Lake | 1/9* | SSH | McLean et al. (1974) | |
| Marsh Lake | 1/1383* | NOR | McLean et al. (1979) |
JCV, Jamestown Canyon virus; NORv, Northway virus; SSH, Snowshoe Hare virus.
Results are reported by pools (number of mosquito pools positive/number of pools tested) for each species, unless marked with an asterisk (*), in which case results are reported as the minimum field infection rates (number of virus isolates/number of mosquitoes processed).
Early Explorations (19th and 20th Century)
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, much of what is known about Arctic mosquitoes originated from exploratory voyages rather than from dedicated scientific expeditions. Most of these missions took place in the North American Arctic during the so-called “Age of Exploration” and the subsequent era of national expeditions. Funded primarily by European governments, these ventures were driven by goals of navigation, mapping, and territorial claim rather than biological inquiry. Insects, including mosquitoes, were collected opportunistically as part of broader natural history observations, with no standardized entomological protocols in place. Specimen preservation and identification were often limited by the logistical challenges of Arctic travel and the lack of specialized expertise among expedition members (Danks 1981).
The Parry Expedition (1824 to 1825)
The earliest known mosquito specimens from the Arctic were collected during William Parry’s (1824 to 1825) third and unsuccessful attempt to discover a Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Freeman 1958, Danks 1981). This voyage focused on exploring and mapping Prince Regent Inlet, a deep channel situated between Baffin Island and the Boothia Peninsula in the central Canadian Arctic (Fig. 1). As with many early records, there is no information on the number of specimens collected or their precise origin. Ross (1826) reported specimens identified as Aedes (Ochlerotatus) caspius (Pallas 1771) as Culex caspius, a species common in Europe but ecologically improbable in the High Arctic. The report included no description other than a comparison to Ae. (Och.) caspius as described by Pallas (1771), a species distinguished by its striped legs. Such a trait would be unexpected in the Prince Regent Inlet region, where no mosquito species with striped legs are known to occur to this day (Darsie and Ward 2005).
Fig. 1.
Mosquito collections during early 19th and 20th century exploration of the Canadian Arctic. AB, Alberta; BC, British Columbia, IS, Iceland; MB, Manitoba; NL, Newfoundland Labrador; NT, Northwest Territories; NU, Nunavut; ON, Ontario; QC, Québec; SK, Saskatchewan; YT, Yukon; 1, Herschel Island (Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913 to 1918); 2, Dolphin and Union Strait (Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913 to 1918); 3, Young Point (Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913 to 1918); 4, Cockburn Point (Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913 to 1918); 5, Bathurst Inlet (Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913 to 1918); 6, Felix Harbour (Ross Expedition 1829 to 1833), 7, Prince Regent Inlet (Parry Expedition 1824 to 1825), 8, Northeast coast of Ellesmere Island (Nares Expedition 1875 to 1876), 9, Nettilling Lake, Baffin Island (Fifth Thule Expedition 1921 to 1924), 10, Hawk Harbor (Peary Expedition 1908 to 1909); 11, St. Martin Falls. A) McKenzie River (Franklin Expeditions 1825 to 1827); B) Coast of Great Slave Lake (Richardson Expedition 1847 to 1849).
The Franklin Expeditions (1825 to 1827)
More reliable evidence came from John Franklin’s second overland expedition (1825 to 1827), which charted the Arctic coastline between Great Bear Lake and the mouth of the Mackenzie River in another attempt to locate the Northwest Passage (Danks 1981). During this expedition, 2 male specimens identified as Aedes (Ochlerotatus) punctor (Kirby 1837) (as Culex punctor) were collected, representing the first known mention of this species. According to Kirby (1837), the specimens were taken at latitude 65° N, likely between Fort Norman and Norman Wells (Northwest Territories) along the Mackenzie River (Fig. 1) (Knight 1951). Although Kirby (1837) provided a brief morphological description, it was vague and based solely on male specimens. While the genitalia of males are important characters, these were not included in the description. The description included characters mostly associated with females and thus not diagnostically useful. It can be assumed that the specimens were preserved as types in a collection facility; there is no mention of them in the original publication. A later publication, however, confirms that the specimens were once housed at the Natural History Museum, London (formally known as the British Museum of Natural History) (Knight 1951).
The Aedes (Ochlerotatus) Punctor Mystery
The origin of Kirby’s original Ae. (Och.) punctor specimens remains a longstanding mystery. The first known reference to their collection appears in Kirby (1837), which states only that they were “taken at latitude 65° N,” with no indication of where the specimens were deposited. Later works introduced confusion regarding the true type locality. Giles (1900) reported the type locality as “St. Martin Falls, Albany River, Hudson’s Bay,” a geographically inconsistent claim given that St. Martin Falls lies near 51° N in Ontario, well south of Franklin’s 1825 route (Fig. 1). Theobald (1901) repeated this locality and, notably, provided the first in-depth morphological description of Ae. (Och.) punctor, covering male, female, and larval stages. While this represents the first scientifically valuable description of the species, it was presumably based on what Theobald believed to be the type specimens. This, however, cannot be correct since Kirby’s original material included only males, indicating that Theobald’s account was likely based on other, later-collected specimens, not including the type specimens.
The confusion may be linked to George Barnston’s insect collection, donated to the Natural History Museum in 1844. Barnston was an employee of the Hudson’s Bay Company stationed at Martin’s Falls with a passion for natural history (Handfield and Handfield 2020). Barnston’s collection, originating from St. Martin Falls, may have included specimens that were later mistaken for Kirby’s (1837) Ae. (Och.) punctor types. Walker’s (1848) “List of the Specimens of Dipterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum” cites only Barnston’s specimens under Culex punctor, with no mention of Kirby’s original material. (Howard et al. 1917) compounded the confusion by repeating the St. Martin Falls locality and attributing it to Kirby’s specimens.
Knight (1951) attempted to resolve the matter, clarifying that Kirby’s original “latitude 65° N” likely referred to a locality along the Mackenzie River between Fort Norman and Norman Wells, consistent with Franklin’s expedition route and ecologically plausible for Ae. (Och.) punctor. Knight also noted that the type specimens could no longer be found at the Natural History Museum, and subsequent confirmation by their Senior Curator for Diptera in 2025 indicates that they have indeed been lost (E. McAlister, personal communication, 30 July 2025). While Ae. (Och.) punctor remains one of the earliest reliably identified Arctic mosquitoes, the precise fate and provenance of its original type specimens remain a mystery. It is highly probable that Kirby’s specimens were never deposited at the Natural History Museum and that the material examined by Theobald (1901) originated instead from St. Martin Falls. This creates an important historical limitation: without access to the original specimens, we cannot confirm that the mosquitoes collected during the Franklin expedition were truly Ae. punctor. As a result, the northernmost verified occurrence of the species cannot be confidently traced back to that expedition.
The Ross Expedition (1829 to 1833)
Similar observations were made a few years later during James Ross’s 1829 to 1833 expedition, which continued the search for the Northwest Passage and explored the Boothia Peninsula (Freeman 1958, Danks 1981). The expedition became icebound in early October 1829 at Felix Harbour, Nunavut, where the crew remained for several years. Although the journals do not specify the exact collection site, they note that mosquitoes were caught in July 1830, suggesting that the specimens were collected at Felix Harbour (Fig. 1) (Ross 1826). Several females of Ae. (Och.) caspius were again identified as Cx. caspius, based on the same reference to Pallas (Pallas 1771, Curtis 1835). As with the earlier report, this identification is doubtful given the extreme latitude of the site. McLachlan (1878) later proposed that the specimens were more likely Aedes (Ochlerotatus) nigripes (Zetterstedt 1838) (as Culex nigripes), a species well adapted to High Arctic conditions.
The Richardson Expedition (1847 to 1849)
The next noteworthy expedition was Richardson’s 1847 to 1849 mission, the first overland search launched after the disappearance of Sir John Franklin’s 1845 expedition (Freeman 1958, Danks 1981, Durey 2008). This survey investigated the Arctic coastline between the Mackenzie and Coppermine rivers. Mosquitoes were briefly noted during the expedition, with White (1851) reporting Culex sp. from the Mackenzie and Slave rivers (Fig. 1), although no descriptive details were provided. There is no information on the number of specimens collected or whether any were preserved in a museum collection.
The Nares Expedition (1875 to 1876)
Later in the century, the British Nares Expedition (1875 to 1816) marked the Royal Navy’s first attempt since the 1850s to reach the North Pole via Smith Sound (Nares and Feilden 1878, Freeman 1958, Danks 1981). Conducted during a period of renewed interest in polar exploration and growing international scientific ambition, the expedition recorded an unspecified number of Ae. (Och.) nigripes (as Cx. nigripes) specimens in a list, without providing descriptions or the basis for identification. There is no information on the number of mosquitoes collected or whether any specimens were preserved in a museum collection. The only reference to the sampling location is vague, indicating that collections occurred between 78° N and 83° N (McLachlan 1878). Expedition logs show that the ships passed through Smith Sound in late July 1875 and navigated the Kennedy Channel to reach Lady Franklin Bay on the northeast coast of Ellesmere Island by late August (Nares and Feilden 1878). By the summer of 1876, with scurvy affecting half the crew, Nares ordered a premature retreat south to Port Foulke, Greenland. Shortly after, both ships returned to England a year ahead of schedule (Nares and Feilden 1878). Based on this timeline, it is likely that the mosquito specimens were collected during the summer of 1875 along the northeast coast of Ellesmere Island (Fig. 1). This represents one of the northernmost mosquito records of the 19th century.
The Peary Expedition (1908 to 1909)
The early 20th century brought a renewed wave of Arctic biological exploration. During the Peary North Pole Expedition (1908 to 1909), Dyar described 2 new species, Aedes pearyi and Aedes labradorensis, based on material collected from Hawk’s Harbor, Labrador (Fig. 1) (Dyar and Shannon 1925). In total, 4 females of Ae. pearyi (Dyar and Shannon 1925) and 11 females of Ae. labradorensis (Dyar and Shannon 1925) were collected. Type specimens of both species were deposited in the US National Museum, known today as the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. However, subsequent revisions concluded that, Ae. pearyi is a junior synonym of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pullatus (Coquillett 1904) and Ae. labradorensis, a junior synonym of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) hexodontus (Dyar 1919) (Wood 1977).
The Canadian Arctic Expedition (1913 to 1918)
A few years later, the Canadian Arctic Expedition (1913 to 1918), led by Vilhjalmur Stefansson, marked an important milestone in Arctic entomology (Freeman 1958, Danks 1981). Initially planned with support from American institutions, the expedition was ultimately sponsored by the Canadian government to assert sovereignty and advance scientific knowledge of the Arctic. During this mission, Aedes nearcticus (Dyar 1919) was described as a new species by Dyar (1919), based on 134 specimens collected under poor conditions in the Bernard harbour, Dolphin and Union Strait, Young Point, Herschel Island, Bathurst, and Cockburn Point, Northwest Territories (Fig. 1). The type specimens in the Canadian National Collection, in Ottawa, were reared from pupae found in a pond, and Dyar (1919) provided descriptions of the female, male, and larval stages. However, later examination of these type specimens by Vockeroth (1954a) revealed that they were, in fact, Aedes (Ochlerotatus) impiger (Walker 1848), described much earlier by Walker in 1848 based on specimens from St. Martin Falls, Albany River, Ontario.
The Fifth Thule Expedition (1921 to 1924)
Because Vockeroth’s (1954) revision came 2 decades later, the name Ae. nearcticus continued to appear in subsequent reports, including Henriksen’s (1937) account from the Fifth Thule Expedition (1921 to 1924), a major Danish Arctic mission led by Knud Rasmussen to study Inuit culture across Arctic North America. Henriksen reported Ae. nearcticus based on Dyar’s 1919 description, though the number, sex, and exact collection sites of the specimens were not recorded (Henriksen 1937). The expedition traveled extensively from Greenland through eastern Canada and along much of the Arctic coast to Alaska. Additional collections were made on Baffin Island in 1924 by the Department of Mines. The material, sent to the Victoria Memorial Museum (today part of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa) and reported by Twinn (1927), included 84 adults (2 males, 82 females) and 10 larvae collected on the east side of Nettilling Lake (Fig. 1). As with earlier collections, the material identified as Ae. nearcticus was later recognized as Ae. (Och.) impiger (Vockeroth 1954a).
Mosquitoes in Exploration Narratives
While most mosquito occurrences from this period were recorded only in species lists without accompanying metadata or were represented by specimens later preserved in museums, several explorers also mentioned mosquitoes incidentally in their field journals. These accounts, though anecdotal, provide vivid insight into the ubiquity and intensity of mosquito activity during Arctic summers. Explorers frequently described the insects as a constant torment: “(…) the mosquitoes, swarming from land and peering over into our den, swooped down upon us and made life miserable” (Packard 1891) and “I am mistaken if they [mosquitoes] do not justify the accumulated complaints of all the travellers (…) of what they had endured from this most incredible, and never to be forgotten generation of worse than vipers” (Curtis 1835). Other observers noted that mosquitoes were not only a nuisance but also a seasonal marker deeply embedded in Inuit cultural knowledge. As Sutton (1932) recorded, “The Aivilikmiut have two names for this month (July): Kittuailluit, or ‘Mosquito time,’ and Shughuliuit, the ‘time when the caribou is the shortest (…) Mosquitoes (…) emerge from the shallow lakes and fly about in untold millions, a scourge to man and beast alike’.”
Legacy of Early Record
The early records of Arctic mosquitoes reveal both the curiosity and the limitations of 19th- and early 20th-century exploration. Many identifications were based on European species descriptions, such as Ae. (Och.) caspius, which led to frequent mismatches with Arctic forms that explorers encountered for the first time. Misidentifications were common, and several species described as new to science (Ae. pearyi, Ae. labradorensis, and Ae. nearcticus) were later shown to be synonymous with previously described taxa. Yet, amid the confusion, there were moments of genuine discovery, such as the first description of Ae. (Och.) punctor. Although these records are too inconsistent for precise distribution modeling, they remain valuable as the earliest known documentation of mosquitoes in the Arctic. They capture a snapshot of species presence long before large-scale environmental change and illustrate the challenges of interpreting observations made under the difficult and often improvised conditions of early fieldwork. Together, these scattered accounts mark the beginning of Arctic entomology and set the stage for the systematic surveys that would follow, beginning with the Northern Insect Survey in the mid-20th century.
The Golden Age of Arctic Entomology
In the early years of Arctic entomology, most insects collected in northern Canada were transported to Europe or the United States and deposited in various national collections. However, beginning in the early 20th century, this began to change.
H.G. Dyar conducted extensive surveys of mosquitoes in British Columbia and the Yukon from the early 1900s to the 1920s. Although he was an American working for the US National Museum, both H.G. Dyar and D.W. Coquillett were engaged to some degree with the Entomological Society of British Columbia, which as early as 1906 considered them “helpers” in cataloging the Diptera and Lepidoptera of the Province and even hosted a visit by H.G. Dyar (British Columbia Entomological Society 1906). Dyar’s work resulted in the description of several new species, including the description of Aedes mercurator (Dyar 1920) from specimens collected in Dawson City in 1919 (Dyar 1920). Following his return from WWI, Eric Hearle was appointed Assistant Entomologist in the Dominion Entomological Branch and was stationed in Mission, British Columbia. He was engaged in the study of mosquitoes in British Columbia and was in contact with H.G. Dyar, exchanging specimens and confirming identifications (Hearle 1921). During the 1920s, Hearle conducted mosquito surveillance and control in the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia (Hearle 1926), Rocky Mountain National Park in Alberta (Hearle 1926), and Whitehorse in the Yukon (Belton and Belton 1990). In 1927, he published a list of known species collection records for British Columbia (Hearle 1927), and later on established a laboratory in Kamloops to investigate insect pests of livestock (Downes 1934). Many of Hearle’s specimens were deposited at institutions in British Columbia.
In 1930, the Systematic Entomology Unit of the Dominion Department of Agriculture organized an expedition along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. Additional collecting trips soon followed to Moosonee and Smoky Falls, Ontario (1934), Baffin Island (1934), Churchill, Manitoba (1937), and Great Bear Lake (1937), with specimens deposited in the Canadian National Collection (Riegert 1999). However, it remains unclear how many mosquito specimens, if any, were obtained during these expeditions, as many early holdings have yet to be digitized and made accessible through the Canadian National Collection’s online database (https://www.cnc.agr.gc.ca). However, World War II temporarily halted these collecting efforts. With manpower, funding, and equipment redirected toward the war effort, entomological studies, particularly in the Arctic, were deprioritized. When the United States entered the war in 1941, the strategic importance of Canada’s northern and polar regions became evident. Joint military installations were established in northern Canada, including at Churchill, Manitoba, coordinated between the Canadian and American defense departments (Riegert 1999).
Context and History of the Northern Insect Survey
Following the war, the renewed military interest in the Arctic spurred scientific curiosity about the northern environments. In 1947, the Canadian Department of National Defence established the Defence Research Board (DRB) to address challenges related to chemical and biological defense, including those involving biting flies (Freeman 1958, Riegert 1999). This initiative marked the beginning of the first major organized entomological research program in northern Canada.
The DRB’s research program comprised 3 main phases (Twinn 1952, Freeman 1958): (i) Studies of the life history, ecology, and control of biting flies; (ii) The Northern Insect Survey focused on the distribution and relative abundance of biting flies and other insects, and (iii) Laboratory rearing of northern mosquitoes, which led to the establishment of the Defence Research Northern Laboratory at Churchill, Manitoba.
The Northern Insect Survey began as a joint Canadian–American research initiative but became a solely Canadian effort after 2 years (Freeman 1958, Riegert 1999). The program was led by Freeman, who designed survey plans to sample representative ecological zones: the northern coniferous forest, the northern transition zone, and the Arctic tundra. To guide participants, Freeman produced a detailed manual outlining objectives, field methods, and specimen handling protocols (Riegert 1999).
Field parties, typically composed of 2 university students with backgrounds in biology or entomology, were sent to remote sites, and each site was usually visited only once (Freeman 1958, Riegert 1999). Between 1947 and 1966, a total of 73 field parties were deployed (Riegert 1999). The selected sites were chosen to complement earlier, limited collections from previous expeditions (Fig. 2). For instance, Fort McMurray was sampled to expand on material collected during the Second Franklin Expedition (1825 to 1827), while Baker Lake built upon collections from the Fifth Thule Expedition (1921 to 1924) (Freeman 1958, Riegert 1999).
Fig. 2.
Geographic localities surveyed during the northern insect survey, 1947 to 1966. AB, Alberta; BC, British Columbia; IS, Iceland; MB, Manitoba; NL, Newfoundland Labrador; NT, Northwest Territories; NU, Nunavut; ON, Ontario; QC, Québec; SK, Saskatchewan; YT, Yukon; 1, Haida Gwaii; 2, Terrace; 3, Summit Lake; 4, Fort Nelson; 5, Telegraph Creek; 6, Atlin Lake; 7, Whitehorse; 8, Ross River; 9, Dawson City; 10, Rampart House; 11, Firth River; 12, Herschel Island; 13, Kidluit Bay; 14, Reindeer Depot; 15, Fort McPherson; 16, Norman Wells; 17, Sawmill Bay; 18, Exmouth Lake; 19, MacKay Lake; 20, Muskox Lake; 21, Ford Lake; 22, Yellowknife; 23, Fort Simpson; 24, Hay River; 25, Fort Smith; 26, Fort McMurray; 27, Conrad Lake; 28, Churchill; 29, Gillam; 30, Beaver Hill Lake; 31, Ogoki Post; 32, Moose Factory; 33, Waskaganish; 34, Kuujjuarapik; 35, Mistissini; 36, Poste Manic 1; 37, Stephenville; 38, Gander; 39, St. Anthony; 40, Cartwright; 41, Goose Bay; 42, Schefferville; 43, Hutte Sauvage; 44, Hebron; 45, Kuujjuaq; 46, Kangirsuk; 47, Inukjuak; 48, Sugluk Island; 49, Iqaluit; 50, Clyde Inlet; 51, Foxe Basin; 52, Naujaat; 53, Coral Harbour; 54, Chesterfield Inlet; 55, Arviat; 56, Padlei; 57, Baker Lake; 58, Dubawnt River; 59, Bathurst Inlet; 60, Umingmaktok; 61, Coppermine; 62, Holman Island; 63, Cambridge Bay; 64, Taloyoak; 65, Resolute; 66, Bailey Point; 67, Mould Bay; 68, Isachsen; 69, Hazen Lake; 70, Eureka; 71, Alert.
Over the course of the survey, thousands of specimens were collected and returned to Ottawa, annually increasing the holdings of the Canadian National Collection by approximately 100,000 to 150,000 specimens from 1948 to 1954. By 1954, the collection had surpassed 2 million pinned specimens (Riegert 1999).
Financial support for the Northern Insect Survey was withdrawn in 1961, after which the Entomology Research Institute continued the research under a new title: Studies of Arctic Insects (Riegert 1999). This phase shifted focus from species distribution and abundance toward the ecology of northern flies. Most of this work was conducted at Hazen Camp, located on Lake Hazen, northern Ellesmere Island, Nunavut.
Although it is difficult to determine how many articles resulted directly from the Northern Insect Survey, numerous publications stemmed from its findings (Freeman and Twinn 1954). Despite the articles published in the “Symposium on distribution of arctic and subarctic insects” (Bruggemann 1958, Freeman 1958, Jenkins 1958), and numerous subsequent ecological or specific taxonomic publications, few of the regional results of the survey were immediately published in a cohesive manner (Freeman and Twinn 1954). The complete results on species abundance and distribution collected over the 16-year period were never fully published. Only a partial account, covering the first 5 years of the Northern Insect Survey, was released in 1952 as an internal DRB Technical Report (Freeman 1952a). However, the data were indirectly incorporated into subsequent major works. For example, the results of the survey informed the distribution maps presented in Wood et al.’s (1979) comprehensive reference on Canadian mosquitoes. The original specimens from the survey remain securely housed in the Canadian National Collection (B. Sinclair, personal communication, 23 October 2025).
Systematic and Taxonomic Developments
The Northern Insect Survey era brought major advances to the systematics of Arctic mosquitoes. For the first time, researchers had access to a large series of specimens collected systematically across northern Canada. This extensive material revealed both a higher species diversity than previously recognized and the remarkable difficulty of identifying many northern mosquitoes, particularly species of the so-called “black-legged” Aedes morpho-group (Twinn 1955).
At the beginning of the survey, identification relied mainly on the keys of Gjullin (1946) and Matheson (1944), developed from specimens collected in the northwestern United States. While adequate for more diverse southern faunas, these keys proved unreliable for Arctic mosquitoes, whose morphological variation was subtle and overlapping. Early field workers quickly realized the extent of the problem. Twinn et al. (1948), for instance, sent undetermined Aedes specimens from Churchill to Dr. Alanson Stone of the US Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine for a second opinion, who responded: “[…] the more I look at them, the less sure I am that they can be determined with any degree of accuracy.” This challenge persisted throughout the Northern Insect Survey, and Hocking (1950) later confirmed that “positive identification of the females of the common northern species of Aedes with black legs […] is not normally possible without the larval skin and the associated adult with its full complement of hairs and scales.”
One of the most problematic groups was the punctor complex with subgenus Ochlerotatus (Lynch Arribalzaga 1891) (genus Aedes). This complex includes Ae. (Och.) punctor, Aedes (Ochlerotatus) aboriginis (Dyar 1971), Aedes (Ochlerotatus) abserratus (Felt and Young 1904), Ae. (Och.) hexodontus, Aedes (Ochlerotatus) punctodes (Dyar 1922), and Aedes (Ochlerotatus) rempeli (Vockeroth 1954). To address this, Knight (1951) conducted one of the first taxonomic studies based directly on Arctic material. After examining specimens from several northern localities, he concluded that the color-based features used in existing keys overlapped so much that a universal identification key for females was “impossible.” Instead, accurate identification required studying local populations that included both adults and associated larvae. Knight (1951) provided a key to fourth-instar larvae and detailed morphological descriptions of all life stages, refining species boundaries and distributions. He also tentatively divided Ae. (Och.) punctor and Ae. (Och.) hexodontus into “type” and “tundra” varieties, distinctions that were later abandoned (Wood 1977).
Building on this foundation, Vockeroth (1952) confirmed the distinct status of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pionips (Dyar 1919), which had been uncertain in relation to Aedes (Ochlerotatus) communis (de Geer 1776). Furthermore, Vockeroth’s (1954b) “Notes on Northern Species of Aedes with Descriptions of Two New Species (Diptera: Culicidae)” represented a turning point in northern mosquito taxonomy. By re-examining type specimens and Arctic collections, Vockeroth demonstrated that many early identifications were unreliable (Vockeroth 1954a). For example, the type specimen of Ae. (Och.) impiger (Walker) was collected at St. Martin’s Falls on the Albany River, a locality far south of the species’ confirmed range, and was actually a specimen of the species described by Dyar as Ae. nearcticus. He realized that Ae. nearcticus was thus synonymous with Ae. (Och.) impiger and renamed impiger of authors, not Walker, as Aedes (Ochlerotatus) implicatus (Vockeroth 1954) (Vockeroth 1954a; Wood et al. 1979). After reviewing type material for 8 northern species, he concluded that most type females were poorly preserved and identifiable only to the genus Aedes. His work underscored the limitations of early type material and reinforced the need for renewed, well-documented collections in the North.
Vockeroth’s (1954b) most comprehensive contribution came shortly afterward in “Notes on the Identities and Distributions of Aedes Species of Northern Canada, with a Key to the Females (Diptera: Culicidae).” Using Northern Insect Survey material reared from larvae, he was able to link adults with their larval exuviae and confirm species identities with much greater confidence. Although he did not provide full species descriptions, he produced a revised identification key that incorporated new diagnostic characters, such as the shape of the tarsal claw, presence of a post-coxal scale patch, number and arrangement of postpronotal setae, and coloration of mesonotal and scutellar bristles. He also summarized the known distributions of northern Aedes based on Northern Insect Survey records.
From a systematic standpoint, the most significant contribution from the Lake Hazen studies was the key to all developmental stages of Ae. (Och.) nigripes and Ae. (Och.) impiger, published by Danks and Corbet (1973). This work remains the primary reference for distinguishing these 2 morphologically similar High Arctic species.
To complement this work, another key focusing specifically on the black-legged Aedes of Churchill, Manitoba, was published the same year, reinforcing just how persistent these identification challenges were (Beckel 1954). Collectively, the studies produced during the Northern Insect Survey era laid the foundation for modern Arctic mosquito taxonomy and helped clarify long-standing uncertainties in mosquito systematics.
Two additional species cases of mistaken identity occurred during the Northern Insect Surveys. Many researchers prior to 1979 believed that Anopheles occidentalis (Dyar and Knab 1906) replaced Anopheles earlei (Vargas 1943) either entirely or as the most common Anopheline in British Columbia, the Yukon, and Alaska (Wood et al. 1979). This seems to have been due to misinterpretation of morphological traits and suppositions about geographical species distributions (Wood et al. 1979). However, Wood et al. (1979) reviewed both physical specimens and the available literature and were unable to find any Canadian specimens that could be An. occidentalis, concluding that this species has only been confirmed from south of British Columbia. Therefore, references to An. occidentalis in this survey actually refer to An. earlei. Additionally, prior to 1948, it was believed that the only member of the Culex subgenus Neoculex (Dyar 1905) that was present in North America north of Mexico was Culex apicalis (Adams 1903) (Bohart 1948). In a review of the Neoculex spp. of North America, Bohart (1948) found that Cx. apicalis was not found outside of the US southwest and that records from most of the continent, including Canada, were actually specimens of Culex territans (Walker 1856). Interestingly, although the type specimen for Cx. territans, which was held in the British Museum, had been lost by the time of Bohart’s work, it may have been collected in Vancouver, British Columbia or Vancouver, Washington (Edwards 1932).
Ecological and Biological Insights
This review focuses on the systematic and taxonomic outcomes of the Northern Insect Survey but does not attempt to summarize the extensive ecological and biological research conducted during the same period. Studies from those years addressed a wide range of topics, including emergence pool ecology, seasonal emergence patterns, biting rates, larval development, breeding site descriptions, swarm and mating behavior, seasonal fluctuations in abundance, plant-feeding activity, and diel behavioral cycles. Readers seeking detailed accounts of these aspects are referred to: Hocking et al. (1950), Jenkins and Knight (1950, 1952), Jenkins and Hassett (1951), West and Jenkins (1951), Haufe (1952), Curtis (1953), Barlow (1955), Haufe and Burgess (1956), and Beckel (1958). Research on mosquito control conducted during this era is also well covered in Goldsmith and Husman (1949), McDuffie et al. (1949), Twinn (1950), Sharp (1952), and Beckel (1958).
When it comes to Lake Hazen, much of the biological and ecological research from the region was also led by Corbet and Danks, whose studies greatly advanced understanding of mosquito life history in extreme northern environments. Their work addressed seasonal emergence and activity patterns, oviposition behavior, and host associations (Corbet 1966, Corbet and Danks 1973, 1975). Corbet further produced influential studies on autogeny in Arctic mosquitoes, elucidating reproductive strategies adapted to short summers and limited host availability (Corbet 1964, 1967). Additional research by Hocking and Sharplin (1965) examined flower–insect relationships involving Ae. (Och.) nigripes and Ae. (Och.) impiger, further highlighting the ecological versatility of these species at high latitudes. Earlier, Oliver (1963) had reported both species in his faunal list of Arachnida, Collembola, and Insecta from Lake Hazen, with identifications confirmed by Vockeroth.
Beyond the survey itself, broader syntheses of Arctic insect ecology that included mosquitoes were published, notably “Arctic Insects and Their Environment” (Downes 1964) and “Adaptations of Insects in the Arctic” (Downes 1965). Additional, smaller-scale studies were also undertaken in other northern regions, such as the Baker Lake area, Nunavik (Murray-Smith 1970), and around Frobisher Island and Inuvik, Northwest Territories (Swales 1966).
Legacy of the Northern Insect Survey
Compared with the early exploratory collections of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which were limited to a few sites and produced mostly fragmentary records, the Northern Insect Survey represented a major advance in Arctic mosquito research. While early explorers could associate only 1 or 2 species with a locality, the Northern Insect Survey revealed greater species diversity, systematically documented distributions, and produced large, standardized collections that could support rigorous taxonomic and biogeographic analyses.
The Northern Insect Survey material underpinned major taxonomic, ecological, and behavioral studies of Arctic mosquitoes, transforming research from anecdotal observations into a systematic, scientifically rigorous discipline. Its legacy persists in the collections, identification keys, and taxonomic frameworks that continue to inform modern Arctic mosquito research.
The Emergence of Medical Entomology in the North
McLean and the Foundations of Arctic Arbovirology
As Frohne (1956) noted, “The role of northern biting Diptera, including mosquitoes, as disease vectors is largely unexplored. No one has undertaken even a pioneering general survey of pathogens associated with northern mosquitoes. Polar medical entomology today is reminiscent of the status of tropical medical entomology 60 years ago.” It would take more than 15 years after this observation for Dr. Donald M. McLean to publish the first study on arbovirus surveillance in mosquitoes from northern environments (McLean et al. 1972).
McLean (1926 to 2022), an Australian-born Canadian virologist with a lifelong passion for arbovirology, became the Head of the Medical Microbiology Division at the University of British Columbia in 1967 (Artsob et al. 2023). There, he initiated studies on arboviruses circulating in British Columbia before turning his attention to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Over the following decade, McLean documented robust cycles of bunyavirus activity, particularly snowshoe hare virus (SSHv) and Northway virus (NORv), across the western Arctic. He was the first to report SSHv in Aedes (Ochlerotatus) canadensis (Theobald 1901) as far north as 61° N and later documented its northernmost occurrence near Inuvik (69° N) in Ae. (Och.) hexodontus (McLean et al. 1977), the highest latitude record for the virus at that time.
Between 1971 and 1981, McLean isolated SSHv from 7 Aedes species, often returning to the same sites annually. His fieldwork was complemented by laboratory studies that demonstrated the ability of wild-caught Culiseta inornata, Ae. (Och.) canadensis, and Ae. (Och.) communis to replicate SSHv at incubation temperatures as low as 13 to 14 °C (McLean et al. 1973, McLean et al. 1976, 1977, 1979). McLean also confirmed transovarial transmission of SSHv by isolating the virus from field-collected Aedes larvae (McLean et al. 1979). To this day, his series of studies remains the most extensive and well-documented investigation of California serogroup viruses (CSGv) in Arctic mosquitoes.
Yet, even within this body of work, McLean’s early publications reveal the challenges of interpreting historical sources. In McLean et al.’s (1972) summary of previous California Encephalitis virus (CEv) records in Canada, for instance, he stated that “strains of CEv have been isolated from both Ae. (Och.) communis and Aedes (Ochlerotatus) stimulans (Walker 1848) mosquitoes,” citing Iversen and colleagues (1969). A closer reading of Iversen et al.’s paper reveals that these identifications were based on pooled specimens grouped as Ae. communis (Ae. (Och.) communis, Ae. (Och.) punctor, Ae. (Och) pionips, Aedes (Ochlerotatus) sticticus [Meigen 1838]) and Ae. stimulans (Ae. (Och.) stimulans, Aedes (Ochlerotatus) excrucians [Walker 1856], Aedes (Ochlerotatus) fitchii [Felt and Young 1904], Aedes (Ochlerotatus) riparius [Dyar and Knab 1907]), as many black-legged Aedes were too difficult to distinguish morphologically. McLean’s omission of this detail may therefore have overstated the certainty of species-level identification, underscoring the need for careful reference verification in historical data synthesis.
Although McLean was the leading figure in Arctic arbovirus research during this period, other investigators also contributed to documenting CSGv at northern latitudes. Wagner et al. (1975) first reported SSHv in Aedes hexodontus–punctor mosquitoes collected from a tundra site in the Keewatin District, Northwest Territories (now Nunavut). Around the same time, work in Newfoundland (1980 to 1983) revealed Jamestown Canyon virus (JCV) in mixed pools of Ae. (Och.) abserratus and Ae. punctor, and SSHV in Ae. (Och.) canadensis (Mokry et al. 1984).
Parallel Advances in Arctic Mosquito Research
It is worth noting that during the period of McLean’s research, several other investigators were also contributing to Arctic mosquito studies. One particularly notable publication is that of Wood (1977), who re-examined the holotypes and lectotypes of several Canadian mosquito species, including Arctic taxa. His analysis challenged Knight’s (1951) proposed division of the Ae. (Och.) punctor “tundra” type, demonstrating that the specimen in question was misidentified and was in fact Ae. (Och.) hexodontus. Additional studies from this period focused on ecological aspects and relative abundance patterns of Arctic and subarctic mosquitoes (Mailhot and Maire 1978, Maire et al. 1978, Maire 1982, Lewis and Webber 1985), as well as physiological adaptations, such as the spectral efficiency of phototaxis in High Arctic Diptera (Kevan 1979).
Limitations and Knowledge Gaps
McLean’s work is not without its limitations; the heavy focus on identifying potential disease vectors meant that non-vector mosquito species received comparatively little attention, leaving important gaps in baseline biodiversity knowledge. Moreover, despite extensive isolations and laboratory work, the vector competence of many Arctic mosquito species for CSGv remains largely unresolved. Finally, McLean’s field sites were concentrated in the Yukon and a limited number of Northwest Territories and High Arctic locations, resulting in uneven geographic coverage and leaving large portions of the Canadian Arctic still unstudied. Even so, McLean’s research established the foundation for understanding arbovirus circulation in northern mosquitoes and remains the most comprehensive investigation of CSGv in the Canadian Arctic. A summary of historical records of arbovirus detections in mosquito species in northern Canada (including McLean’s findings and more recent studies) is presented in Table 2.
Post-2000 Decline in Canadian Arctic Mosquito Research
Evidence of Decline
Since the end of the last millennium, there has been a marked decline in mosquito research in the Canadian Arctic. This is evident in the Canadian National Collection online database, which shows sharply reduced Culicidae collections from Yukon, Labrador, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut post 1990 (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3.
Digitized Culicidae specimens in the Canadian National Collection online database from Yukon, Labrador, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut post-1990 (data retrieved 30 January 2026).
Type of Gap
Much of the unresolved issues highlighted in the earlier work still exist today; species complexes in the Arctic remain a problem for surveyors; the distribution of CSGv is still unclear and perhaps the most important, the current distribution of mosquito species in the region is still based on Northern Insect Survey data and thus dated (Snyman et al. 2023). New biogeography baseline data are spotty for many regions. This is amplified by the lack of deposited voucher specimens with accurate identifications. Identification based on larval morphology and/or identification based on morphology of adult male genitalia are particularly lacking despite these being more important and reliable than adult female morphology. In the cases where mosquitoes have been collected and deposited in collection facilities, the data associated with the specimens remain inaccessible and still require associated publications and or dissemination of digitized data. Data uploaded onto digital repositories like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org/) are no different, and while they can be very useful, they cannot be scrutinized for accuracy.
The advent of molecular techniques for species-level identification has also not resolved many of the taxonomic complexities pertaining to mosquitoes in the Arctic. For example, Barcode Indexed Numbers (BINs) assigned by BOLD Systems (https://boldsystems.org/) as Operational Taxonomic Units, useful in many taxa, require extensive re-evaluation before they can be useful in mosquitoes. This impediment arose mostly due to the misidentification of voucher specimens and subsequent BIN designation. The resulting BINs are thus a collection of sequences with varying taxonomic designations. Although this review does not examine in depth the challenges of using BINs to identify Arctic mosquito species, readers interested in this topic can refer to Villeneuve et al. (2024). While these records are digitized and publicly available, the spatiotemporal data are not useful without confidence in their assigned taxonomic designations. A review of the utility of the barcoding portion of “cytochrome oxidase I” (COI/COX1) for mosquito species delimitation is critical alongside a review of the designated BINs and associated species.
Reasons for Decline
Many factors are likely to have contributed to this decline. These factors include a decreased impetus for Arctic mosquito research, such as the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, contributing to a decreased geopolitical focus on the Arctic and urbanization that has continued to increase and concentrated Canada’s growth in southern Canada.
As research budgets have largely declined or stagnated when adjusted for inflation, the costs associated with the complex logistics required for Arctic research have increased (Mallory et al. 2018). This has been further exacerbated by shifts in funding priorities and geographic foci to include global scopes. This includes a lack of funds available for taxonomic studies, termed the “taxonomic impediment” (Engel et al. 2021). Due to the more severe pathogenesis of West Nile virus (WNv) in humans, at least when compared to CSGv, the arrival of WNv in Canada shifted the more general approach to mosquito-borne viruses in the region to a more focused one. Since WNv is most prevalent in southern Canada, much-needed research in northern Canada has been neglected.
The taxonomic impediment is also leading to a loss in technical skillsets needed to conduct alpha-taxonomic entomology in remote and logistically challenging settings and a reliance upon generalized entomology collecting techniques (eg sweep-netting) rather than mosquito-specific techniques designed to collect specimens with intact morphological traits (eg larval dipping, aspiration of individual adults). This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that generalized surveys often preserve specimens in alcohol, which severely degrades the morphological characters needed for mosquito identification. Those surveys also may be timed to avoid times of peak mosquito abundance or to occur in periods that are suboptimal for detecting mosquito biodiversity, or may miss certain species altogether.
Even so, the increase in citizen science activities such as BioBlitz (https://www.bnhc.org.uk/bioblitz/) or iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org) has provided useful contributions to ameliorate some research gaps, particularly if they provide resources and an opportunity for specialists to attend and survey. These activities have resulted in new distribution records in northern locations, such as Culex tarsalis (Coquillett 1896) in the Yukon Territory (Peach 2018a). However, citizen science activities should be considered a supplement to trained specialists carrying out dedicated scientific studies rather than a replacement for these studies, as citizen science activities can contain their own biases and require caution in several elements of their interpretation (Ward 2014, Ratnieks et al. 2016, Díaz-Calafat et al. 2024).
Geographic Scope of Surveys Post-2000
There has, nevertheless, been systematic monitoring of mosquito biodiversity in some jurisdictions. The Northwest Territories has had provincially solicited surveys for mosquitoes since 2004. The 2004 to 2018 data were compiled and summarized into a basic unpublished report available from their website (GNWT 2020). The surveillance program is by no means extensive and included four CO2-baited CDC light traps in only two monitoring areas, Fort Smith and Yellowknife, deployed each year from June to September. The raw data are currently not available, leaving the limited report as the only source of information. Since the report, the surveillance program has continued; however, the sampled mosquitoes have not yet been processed. Recently, the frozen samples were shipped to the Royal Alberta Museum where they are undergoing identification, pooling, and screening for viruses as well as contributing to the museum’s growing mosquito collection.
Apart from government run vector-surveillance programs, some research studies contributed to our understanding of mosquitoes in the Arctic. A research study aimed at detecting CSGv from potential vectors was published in 2021 (Villeneuve et al. 2021). Biting insects, including mosquitoes, were sampled from several sites throughout northern Canada and the United States and subsequently screened for the presence of CSGv RNA. The mosquitoes, identified only to genus level, were all Aedes. The study detected CSGv RNA in mosquitoes from Nunavut and Nunavik, an indication of circulating arboviruses. This study was followed up by a more comprehensive study targeting mosquitoes and their viruses throughout the Arctic (Villeneuve et al. 2025). Mosquitoes were surveyed by community members using sweep nets for 3 consecutive seasons at 8 sites across northern Canada and the United States, identifying 18 species of mosquitoes, 17 of which were Aedes. The study reinforced the notion that CSGv are circulating in mosquitoes in the Arctic and that surveillance is needed to enhance our understanding of the spatiotemporal distribution of mosquito vectors and their pathogens.
West of the Rockies, a more traditional approach was ongoing, focusing on the diversity of mosquitoes in the Yukon (Peach 2017, 2018a, 2018b, Peach and Poirier 2020). Aedes (Ochlerotatus) spencerii (Theobald 1901), Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker 1856), and Cx. tarsalis was added to the mosquito fauna of the Yukon for the first time, bringing the total number of mosquitoes in the Yukon to 31 (Peach 2017, 2018a, 2018b, Peach and Poirier 2020). These reports also detail the range expansion of some Yukon mosquito species—due to the lack of baseline data; however, it is unknown if these are recent expansions. The work of Peach et al. also led to a useful identification and natural history guide for the species of the Yukon Territory (Peach et al. 2021). This publication can also be harnessed for northern/Arctic areas in nearby jurisdictions and should serve as infrastructure to facilitate future work in these regions. There are mosquito control activities that take place in some nearby areas (eg Whitehorse), but these do not seem to produce publicly available data.
Conclusion
Arctic mosquito research is once again increasing in importance. Factors such as climate change, northern resource development, and possible conflict with other Arctic actors such as Russia and China have heightened the priority of understanding Arctic mosquito biogeography, pathogen transmission, ecology, and taxonomy. There is already uncertainty whether new distribution records of mosquitoes in northern areas are due to previously overlooked biodiversity or recent range expansions (Peach and Poirier 2020). Climate change is having an outsized impact in the Arctic (Rantanen et al. 2022). Furthermore, the recent human cases of JCV throughout southern Canada (Meier-Stephenson et al. 2024), including cases not published as peer-reviewed articles, but reaching the media nevertheless (Shen 2025), should serve as a reminder that this mosquito-borne pathogen is not well understood, and while it is not yet reported to have known consequences for its intermediate hosts, it does cause disease in humans, and it is still present in the Arctic. Significant gaps remain in our understanding of Arctic mosquito biodiversity, virology, and taxonomy, underscoring the need for rapid efforts to establish a robust baseline. Building this foundation will not only contextualize future research in the region but also strengthen our ability to anticipate and respond to emerging ecological and public-health challenges in the Arctic.
Contributor Information
Carol-Anne Villeneuve, Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada; Montréal Insectarium, Ville de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Daniel Peach, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, SC, USA; Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Laura Ferguson, Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada.
Louwtjie Pieter Snyman, Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Alberta Museum, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Author Contributions
Carol-Anne Villeneuve (Conceptualization [lead], Data curation [lead], Formal analysis [lead], Funding acquisition [equal], Investigation [lead], Project administration [lead], Resources [lead], Visualization [lead], Writing—original draft [lead], Writing—review & editing [lead]), Daniel Peach (Funding acquisition [equal], Validation [lead], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [supporting]), Laura Ferguson (Supervision [equal], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [supporting]), and Louwtjie Pieter Snyman (Supervision [equal], Validation [supporting], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [supporting])
Funding
This work was supported by funding from the Weston Family Foundation. This material is also based upon work supported by the Department of Energy Office of National Nuclear Safety Administration under Award Number DE-EM0005228 to the University of Georgia Research Foundation.
Conflicts of Interest
None declared.
References
- Abarca M, Spahn R. 2021. Direct and indirect effects of altered temperature regimes and phenological mismatches on insect populations. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 47:67–74. 10.1016/j.cois.2021.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Artsob H, Calisher CH, Morens DM. 2023. Donald Millis McLean (1926–2022): a humble and devoted scientist. Arch. Virol. 168:110. 10.1007/s00705-023-05724-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Barlow CA. 1955. The fecundity of Aedes hexodontus Dyar (Culicidae) in the laboratory. Can. J. Zool. 33:420–427. 10.1139/z55-024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Beckel WE. 1954. The identification of adult female Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of the black-legged group taken in the field at Churchill, Manitoba. Can. J. Zool. 32:324–330. 10.1139/z54-030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Beckel WE. 1958. Observations on the rearing of larvae, pupae, and adults of some Aedes mosquitoes of northern Canada. Can. J. Zool. 36:797–808. 10.1139/z58-066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Belton EM, Belton P. 1990. A review of mosquito collecting in the Yukon. J. Entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia. 87:35–37. [Google Scholar]
- Belton P, Belton EM. 1981. A revised list of the mosquitoes of British Columbia. J. Entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia. 78:55–64. [Google Scholar]
- Bohart RM. 1948. The subgenus neoculex in america north of Mexico (Diptera, Culicidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. XLI:330–345. [Google Scholar]
- British Columbia Entomological Society. 1906. Quarterly Bulletin No. 1 March, 1906. J. Entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia. 1:1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Bruggemann PF. 1958. Insects and environments of the High Arctic. The 10th International Congress of Entomology; 1956; Montréal, Canada. Mortimer Limited.
- Brust RA. 1966. Intersexes in Aedes nigripes (Zett.) (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. News. 26:512–514. [Google Scholar]
- Carson PK, Holloway K, Dimitrova K, et al. 2017. The seasonal timing of Snowshoe hare virus transmission on the island of Newfoundland, Canada. J. Med. Entomol. 54:712–718. 10.1093/jme/tjw219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Canadian Centre for Mosquito Management (CCMM). 2005. A survey of adult mosquitoes from the Northwest Territories (Diptera: Culicidae). Winnipeg, MB. [Available upon request]
- Corbet PS. 1964. Autogeny and oviposition in Arctic mosquitoes. Nature. 203:669. 10.1038/203669a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Corbet PS. 1966. Diel patterns of mosquito activity in a High Arctic locality: Hazen Camp, Ellesmere Island, N.W.T. Can. Entomol. 98:1238–1252. 10.4039/Ent981238-12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Corbet PS. 1967. Facultative autogeny in Arctic mosquitoes. Nature. 215:662–663. 10.1038/215662a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Corbet PS. 1967. Further observations on diel periodicities of weather factors near the ground at Hazen Camp, Ellesmere Island, N.W.T. Defence Research Board Report D Phys R(G) Hazen 31. [Google Scholar]
- Corbet PS, Danks HV. 1973. Seasonal emergence and activity of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in a High Arctic locality. Can. Entomol. 105:837–872. 10.4039/Ent105837-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Corbet PS, Danks HV. 1975. Egg-laying habits of mosquitoes in the High Arctic. Mosq. News. 35:8–14. [Google Scholar]
- Culler LE, Ayres MP, Virginia RA. 2015. In a warmer Arctic, mosquitoes avoid increased mortality from predators by growing faster. Proc. R Soc. B. 282:20151549–20151548. 10.1098/rspb.2015.1549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Culler LE, Stendahl AM, Desiervo MH, et al. 2024. Emerging mosquitoes (Aedes nigripes) as a resource subsidy for wolf spiders (Pardosa glacialis) in western Greenland. Polar Biol. 47:845–857. 10.1007/s00300-021-02875-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Curtis J. 1835. Insects: descriptions of the insects brought home by commander James Clark Ross, N.N, F.R.S. In: JC Ross, editor. Appendix to the Narrative of a Second Voyage in Search of a North-West Passage: And of a Residence in the Arctic Regions During the Years 1829-33. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. p. lix–lxxx.
- Curtis LC. 1953. Observations on mosquitoes at Whitehorse, Yukon Territory (Culicidae: Diptera). Can. Entomol. 85:353–370. 10.4039/Ent85353-10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Danks HV. 1981. Chapter 9: history of the exploration of the arthropod fauna. In: Arctic arthropods. Entomological Society of Canada. p. 108–115. [Google Scholar]
- Danks HV, Corbet PS. 1973. A key to all stages of Aedes nigripes and A. impiger (Diptera: Culicidae) with a description of first-instar larvae and pupae. Can. Entomol. 105:367–376. 10.4039/Ent105367-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Danks HV, Smith ABT. 2017. Chapter 3: insect biodiversity in the nearctic region. In: RG Foottit, PH Adler editors. Insect biodiversity. John Wiley & Sons. p. 47–63. 10.1002/9781118945568.ch3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Darsie RF, Ward RD. 2005. Identification and geographical distribution of the mosquitoes of North America, north of Mexico. 2nd ed. University Press of Florida. [Google Scholar]
- Devlin JJ, Unfried L, Lecheta MC, et al. 2022. Simulated winter warming negatively impacts survival of Antarctica’s only endemic insect. Funct. Ecol. 36:1949–1960. 10.1111/1365-2435.14089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Díaz-Calafat J, Jaume-Ramis S, Soacha K, et al. 2024. Revealing biases in insect observations: a comparative analysis between academic and citizen science data. PLoS One. 19:e0305757. 10.1371/journal.pone.0305757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Downes JA. 1964. Arctic insects and their environment. Can. Entomol. 96:279–307. 10.4039/Ent96279-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Downes JA. 1965. Adaptations of insects in the Arctic. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 10:257–274. 10.1146/annurev.en.10.010165.001353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Downes W. 1934. Obituary—Eric Hearle. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia. 31:6–7. [Google Scholar]
- Durey M. 2008. Exploration at the edge: reassessing the fate of Sir John Franklin’s last Arctic expedition. Gt. Circ. J. Aust. Assoc. Marit. Hist. 30:3–40. 10.3316/informit.870283909114117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Dyar HG. 1919. The mosquitoes collected by the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18. In: Introduction and list of new genera and species collected by the expedition. Vol. III: Insects, Part C. Diptera. C. G. Hewitt. (Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18). p. 31c–33c. [Google Scholar]
- Dyar HG. 1920. The mosquitoes of British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. Canada (Diptera, Culicidae). Insec. Inscit. Menst. 8:1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Dyar HG, Shannon RC. 1925. The mosquitoes of Peary’s North Pole expedition of 1908 (Diptera, Culicidae). J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 15:77–78. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards FW. 1932. Diptera. Fam. Culicidae. Gen. Ins. 194:144. [Google Scholar]
- Engel MS, Ceríaco LMP, Daniel GM, et al. 2021. The taxonomic impediment: a shortage of taxonomists, not the lack of technical approaches. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 193:381–387. 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab072 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Filazzola A, Matter SF, MacIvor JS. 2021. The direct and indirect effects of extreme climate events on insects. Sci. Total Environ. 769:e145161. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Freeman TN. 1952a. Interim report of the distribution of the mosquitoes obtained in the Northern Insect Survey. Canada Environment. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman TN. 1952b. Some problems of insect biology in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic. 5:175–177. 10.14430/arctic3908 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Freeman TN. 1958. A historical account of insect collecting in northern Canada. The 10th International Congress of Entomology; 1956; Montréal, Canada. Mortimer Limited.
- Freeman TN, Twinn CR. 1954. Present trends and future needs of entomological research in northern Canada. Arctic. 7:275–283. 10.14430/arctic3855 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Frohne WC. 1956. The biology of northern mosquitoes. Public Health Rep. (1896) 71:616–621. 10.2307/4589481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Giles GM. 1900. A handbook of the gnats and mosquitoes giving the anatomy and life history of Culicidae. John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Gjullin C. 1946. A key to the Aedes females of America north of Mexico (Diptera: Culicidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 48:215–236. [Google Scholar]
- GNWT. 2020. An overview of the West Nile virus and California serogroup of vector competent mosquito species in the Northwest Territories from 2004-2018. https://www.gov.nt.ca/sites/ecc/files/resources/an_overview_of_the_west_nile_virus_and_california_serogroup_of_vector_competent_mosquito_species_in_the_northwest_territories_from_2004-2018.pdf
- GNWT. 2025. Mosquito surveillance results, 2005-2022. Government of Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT. [Available upon request].
- Goldsmith JB, Husman CN. 1949. Exploratory studies on the control of adult mosquitoes and blackflies with DDT under Arctic conditions. Mosq. News. 9:93–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Handfield L, Handfield D. 2020. The curious, and incorrect, case of “St. Martin’s Falls”, a type locality for many insect species described by Francis Walker. Zootaxa. 4786:437–443. 10.11646/zootaxa.4786.3.10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haufe W, Burgess L. 1956. Development of Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) at Fort Churchill, Manitoba, and prediction of dates of emergence. Ecology. 37:500–519. 10.2307/1930173 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Haufe WO. 1952. Observations on the biology of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) at Goose Bay, Labrador. Can. Entomol. 84:254–263. 10.4039/Ent84254-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hearle E. 1921. The importance of mosquitoes, with notes on some British Columbia species. J. Entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 132–135. [Google Scholar]
- Hearle E. 1926. The mosquitoes of the Lower Fraser Valley, Bristish Columbia, and their control. Nat. Res. Counc. Can. 94. [Google Scholar]
- Hearle E. 1927. Mosquito control activities in western Canada. Annu. Rep. Entomol. Soc. Ont. 58:45–50. [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen KL. 1937. Insects collected on the fifth Thule expeditions. Report of the fifth Thule expeditions 1921-24: the Danish expedition to Arctic North America in charge of Knud Rasmussen, Ph.D. Vol. 2: Botany & Zoology. Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag. Copenhagen.
- Hocking B, Richards WR, Twinn CR. 1950. Observations on the bionomics of some northern mosquito species (Culicidae: Diptera). Can. J. Res. 28d:58–80. 10.1139/cjr50d-006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hocking B, Sharplin CD. 1965. Flower basking by Arctic insects. Nature. 206:215. 10.1038/206215b0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Howard LO, Knab F, Dyar HG. The mosquitoes of north and central America and the West Indies: Systematic Description. Carnegie institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
- Iversen JO, Hanson RP, Papadopoulos O, et al. 1969. Isolation of viruses of the California encephalitis virus group from boreal Aedes mosquitoes. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 18:735–742. 10.4269/ajtmh.1969.18.735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins DW. 1958. Ecology of Arctic and subarctic mosquitoes. The 10th International Congress of Entomology; 1956; Montréal, Canada. Mortimer Limited.
- Jenkins DW, Hassett CC. 1951. Dispersal and flight range of subarctic mosquitoes marked with radiophosphorus. Can. J. Zool. 29:178–187. 10.1139/z51-017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins DW, Knight KL. 1950. Ecological survey of the mosquitoes of Great Whale River. Québec. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash 52:209–223. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins DW, Knight KL. 1952. Ecological survey of the mosquitoes of southern James Bay. Am. Midl. Nat. 47:456–468. 10.2307/2422273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson CW. 1929. Diptera of Labrador. Psyche (Camb. Mass.). 36:129–146. 10.1155/1929/84643 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kevan PG. 1979. The spectral efficiency of phototaxis for some High Arctic Diptera. Arct. Alp. Res 11:349–352. 10.2307/1550423 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kirby W. 1837. Insecta. In: J Richardson, editor. Fauna Boreali-Americana: containing descriptions of the objects of natural history collected on the late northern land expeditions, under command of Captain Sir John Franklin. Vol. 4. Arno Press. p. 327. 10.1017/CBO9781139151948.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Knight KL. 1951. The Aedes (Ochlerotatus) punctor subgroup in North America (Diptera, Culicidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 44:87–99. 10.1093/aesa/44.1.87 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lewis DJ, Webber RA. 1985. Species composition and relative abundance of anthropophilic mosquitoes in subarctic Québec. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1:521–523. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mailhot Y, Maire A. 1978. Ecological characterisation of the aqueous habitats for mosquito (Culicidae) larvae of the subarctic continental region of Opinaca (James Bay territory, Québec). Can. J. Zool. 56:2377–2387. 10.1139/z78-322 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Maire A. 1982. Selectivity by six snow-melt mosquito species for larval habitats in Québec subarctic string bogs. Mosq. News. 42:236–243. [Google Scholar]
- Maire A, Aubin A, Wood DM. 1978. Recent findings on the ecology of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) rempeli Vockeroth, 1954 (Diptera: Culicidae). Ann. Soc. Entomol. Quebec. 23:182–185. [Google Scholar]
- Mallory ML, Gilchrist HG, Janssen M, et al. 2018. Financial costs of conducting science in the Arctic: examples from seabird research. Arct. Sci. 4:624–633. 10.1139/as-2017-0019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Matheson R. 1944. Handbook of the mosquitoes of North America. Comstock Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- McDuffie WC, Sharp JF, Cross HF, et al. 1949. The effectiveness of prehatching treatments for the control of Arctic mosquitoes. Mosq. News 9:51–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLachlan R. 1878. Insecta and Arachnida. Appendix VI. In: GS Nares, editor. Narrative of a voyage to the Polar Sea during 1875–1876 in H.M. Ships “Alert” and “Discovery”, with notes on the natural history edited by H.W. Feilden, F.G.S., C.M.C.S., F.R.G.S., naturalist to the expedition. Vol. 2. p. 234–239. [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM. 1982. Bunyavirus isolations from Yukon mosquitoes 1972-81. Mosq. News. 42:324–329. [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Bergman SKA, Gould AP, et al. 1975. California encephalitis virus prevalence throughout the Yukon Territory, 1971-1974. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 24:676–684. 10.4269/ajtmh.1975.24.676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Bergman SK, Graham EA, et al. 1974. California encephalitis virus prevalence in Yukon mosquitoes during 1973. Can. J. Public Health. 65:23–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41987223 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Clarke AM, Goddard EJ, et al. 1973. California encephalitis virus endemicity in the Yukon Territory, 1972. J. Hyg. (Lond) 71:391–402. 10.1017/S002217240002283X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Goddard EJ, Graham EA, et al. 1972. California encephalitis virus isolations from Yukon mosquitoes, 1971. Am. J. Epidemiol. 95:347–355. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Grass PN, Judd BDet al. 1976. California encephalitis virus proliferation in Yukon mosquitoes incubated at low temperatures. Can. J. Microbiol. 22:1128–1136. 10.1139/m76-164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Grass PN, Judd BD, et al. 1977. Bunyavirus isolations from mosquitoes in the western Canadian Arctic. J. Hyg. (Lond) 79:61–71. 10.1017/S0022172400052852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Grass PN, Judd BD, et al. 1979. Bunyavirus development in Arctic and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes as revealed by glucose oxidase staining and immunofluorescence. Arch. Virol. 62:313–322. 10.1007/BF01318105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Judd BD, Shives SKA. 1981. Snowshoe hare virus infections in Canadian Arctic mosquitoes during 1980. Mosq. News. 41:287–290. [Google Scholar]
- McLean DM, Lester SA. 1984. Isolation of Snowshoe hare virus from Yukon mosquitoes, 1983. Mosq. News. 44:200–203. [Google Scholar]
- Meier-Stephenson V, Drebot MA, Dimitrova K, et al. 2024. Case series of Jamestown Canyon virus infections with neurologic outcomes, Canada, 2011–2016. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 30:874–881. 10.3201/eid3005.221258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mokry J, Artsob H, Butler R. 1984. Studies on California serogroup virus activity in Newfoundland, Canada, 1980-83. Mosq. News. 44:310–314. [Google Scholar]
- Murray-Smith S. 1970. The biting flies of the Baker Lake region, Northwest Territories (Diptera: Culicidae and Simuliidae) [PhD dissertation. University of Manitoba. http://hdl.handle.net/1993/16848
- Nares G, Feilden HW. 1878. Narrative of a voyage to the polar sea during 1875-6 in HM Ships Alert and Discovery: with notes on the natural history, second edition. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington.
- Oliver DR. 1963. Entomological studies in the Lake Hazen area, Ellesmere Island, including lists of species of Arachnida, Collembola, and Insecta. Arctic. 16:175–180. 10.14430/arctic3534 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Packard AS. 1891. The Labrador coast: a journal of two summer cruises to that region. NDC Hodges. [Google Scholar]
- Pallas PS. 1771. Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des rußischen Reichs [A journey through various provinces of the Russian Empire]. Kayserliche Academie der Wissenschaften. [Google Scholar]
- Peach DA. 2017. First record of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) spencerii (Theobald) (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Yukon. J. Entomol. Soc. Br. Columbia. 114:65–67. [Google Scholar]
- Peach DA. 2018a. First record of Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Yukon. J. Entomol. Soc. Br. Columbia. 115:123–125. [Google Scholar]
- Peach D. 2018b. An updated list of the mosquitoes of British Columbia with distribution notes. J. Entomol. Soc. B.C. 115:126–129. [Google Scholar]
- Peach DA, McCann S, Belton P. 2021. A guide to the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of the Yukon. Can. J. Arthropod Identif 43:1–48. 10.3752/cjai.2021.43 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Peach DA, Gries G. 2020. Mosquito phytophagy–sources exploited, ecological function, and evolutionary transition to haematophagy. Entomologia Exp. Applicata. 168:120–136. 10.1111/eea.12852 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Peach DA, Poirier LM. 2020. New distribution records and range extensions of mosquitoes in British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. 10.1101/2020.01.24.919233 [DOI]
- Poirier LM, Berry KE. 2011. New distribution information for Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker) (Diptera, Culicidae) in northern British Columbia, Canada. J. Vector Ecol. 36:461–463. 10.1111/j.1948-7134.2011.00190.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rantanen M, Karpechko AY, Lipponen A, et al. 2022. The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Commun. Earth Environ. 3:1–10. 10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ratnieks FLW, Schrell F, Sheppard RC, et al. 2016. Data reliability in citizen science: learning curve and the effects of training method, volunteer background and experience on identification accuracy of insects visiting ivy flowers. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7:1226–1235. 10.1111/2041-210X.12581 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Riegert PW. 1999. The survey of insects of northern Canada. Rampeck Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Ross HH. 1826. Zoology. Appendix. In: WE Parry, editor. Journal of a third voyage for the discovery of a northwest passage, from the Atlantic to the Pacific; performed in the years 1824-25 in His Majesty’s ships Hecla and Fury, under the orders of Captain William Edward Parry. R.N., F.R.S. p. 91–120.
- Shannon DM, Richardson N, Lahondère C, et al. 2024. Mosquito floral visitation and pollination. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 65:101230. 10.1016/j.cois.2024.101230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharp JF. 1952. Adult mosquito control by airspray in northern British Columbia and the Yukon. Can. Entomol. 84:281–291. 10.4039/Ent84281-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Shen N. 2025. July 19. Mosquito traps set and study launched in B.C. in the Sea-to-Sky region after illnesses reported. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sea-to-sky-mosquito-traps-1.7589390
- Snyman J, Snyman LP, Buhler KJ, et al. 2023. California serogroup viruses in a changing Canadian Arctic: a review. Viruses. 15:1242. 10.3390/v15061242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sutton GM. 1932. Section 2 - General introduction, description of Southampton Island. In: Holland WJ, editor. The exploration of Southampton Island, Hudson Bay. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum.
- Swales DE. 1966. Species of insects and mites collected at Frobisher Bay, Baffin Island, 1964, and Inuvik, NWT, 1965, with brief ecological and geographical notes. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Quebec 11:189–199. [Google Scholar]
- Theobald FV. 1901. 86. Culex punctor. Kirby. In: A monograph of the Culicidae, or mosquitoes. Mainly compiled from the collections received at the British museum from various parts of the world in connection with the investigation into the cause of malaria conducted by the Colonial office and the Royal society. Vol. 2. British Museum (Natural History). Department of Zoology. p. 75–77.
- Twinn CR. 1927. Mosquitoes from Baffin land. Can. Entomol. 59:47–49. 10.4039/Ent5947-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Twinn CR. 1950. Studies of the biology and control of biting flies in northern Canada. Arctic. 3:14–26. 10.14430/arctic3949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Twinn CR. 1952. A review of studies of blood-sucking flies in northern Canada. Can. Entomol. 84:22–28. 10.4039/Ent8422-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Twinn CR. 1955. Review of recent progress in mosquito studies in Canada. Mosq. News. 15:195–203. [Google Scholar]
- Twinn CR, Hocking B, McDuffie WC, et al. 1948. A preliminary account of the biting flies at Churchill, Manitoba. Can. J. Res. 26:334–357. 10.1139/cjr48d-025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Villeneuve C-A, Buhler KJ, Iranpour M, et al. 2021. New records of California serogroup viruses in Aedes mosquitoes and first detection in simulioidae flies from Northern Canada and Alaska. Polar Biol. 44:1911–1915. 10.1007/s00300-021-02921-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Villeneuve C-A, Snyman J, Snyman LP, et al. 2025. Expanding knowledge of mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and California serogroup viruses distributions in the North American Arctic. J. Med. Entomol. 62:1590–1598. 10.1093/jme/tjaf130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Villeneuve C-A, Snyman LP, Jenkins EJ, et al. 2024. Variable performance of DNA barcoding and morphological characteristics for the identification of Arctic black-legged Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae), with a focus on the Punctor subgroup. ASP. 82:17–34. 10.3897/asp.82.e111985 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vockeroth JR. 1950. Specific characters in tarsal claws of some species of Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae). Can. Entomol. 82:160–162. 10.4039/Ent82160-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vockeroth JR. 1952. The specific status of Aedes pionips Dyar (Diptera: Culicidae). Can. Entomol. 84:243–247. 10.4039/Ent84243-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vockeroth JR. 1954a. Notes on the identities and distributions of Aedes species of northern Canada, with a key to the females (Diptera: Culicidae). Can. Entomol. 86:241–255. 10.4039/Ent86241-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vockeroth JR. 1954b. Notes on northern species of Aedes, with descriptions of two new species (Diptera: Culicidae). Can. Entomol. 86:109–116. 10.4039/Ent86109-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wagner RJ, DeJong C, Leung MK, et al. 1975. Isolations of California encephalitis virus from tundra mosquitoes. Can. J. Microbiol. 21:574–576. 10.1139/m75-081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Walker. 1848. List of the specimens of dipterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Order of the Trustees. [Google Scholar]
- Ward DF. 2014. Understanding sampling and taxonomic biases recorded by citizen scientists. J. Insect Conserv. 18:753–756. 10.1007/s10841-014-9676-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- West AS, Jenkins DW. 1951. Plant feeding habits of northern mosquitoes studied with radioisotopes. Mosq. News. 11:217–219. [Google Scholar]
- White A. 1851. Notice and list of insects. In: Richardson J, editor. Arctic searching expedition: a journal of a boat-voyage through Rupert’s Land and the Arctic Sea, in search of the discovery ships under command of Sir John Franklin. With an appendix on the physical geography of North America. Vol. II. London, Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. p. 354–363.
- Wilkerson RC, Linton YM, Strickman D. 2021. Mosquitoes of the world. Vol. 2. Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Wood DM. 1977. Notes on the identities of some common Nearctic Aedes mosquitoes. Canada. Mosq. News. 37:71–81. [Google Scholar]
- Wood DM, Dang PT, Ellis RA. 1979. The insects and arachnids of Canada. Part 6. The mosquitoes of Canada (Diptera: Culicidae). Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada. [Google Scholar]