Table 2.
Comparison of morphological and molecular identifications in Anopheles mosquitoes from western Kenya.
| Molecular identification | n | Morphological identification | % of misidentification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| An. gambiae s.l | An. funestus s.l | An. coustani | An. pharoensis | |||
| An. gambiae | 1288 | 1216 | 66 | 5 | 1 | 4.3a |
| An. arabiensis | 678 | 665 | 12 | 1 | 0 | |
| An. funestus | 833 | 47 | 779 | 7 | 0 | 6.8b |
| An. cf.rivulorum | 17 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 0 | |
| An. leesoni | 7 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
| An. coustani | 61 | 9 | 2 | 50 | 0 | 18.0 |
| An. christyi | 66 | 66 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. maculipalpis | 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 100 |
| An. pharoensis | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. pretoriensis | 8 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. rufipes | 45 | 27 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.1 | 69 | 62 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.6 | 25 | 9 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.7 | 23 | 6 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.9 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.11 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| An. sp.14 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.15 | 22 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.17 | 56 | 48 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| An. sp.19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Total | 3226 | 2192 | 938 | 94 | 2 | |
| % of matches | 85.8% | 85.2% | 53.2% | 0.0% | ||
| % of misassignment | 14.2% | 14.8% | 46.8% | 100% | ||
Number in bold indicates those individuals identified by both molecular assay and morphological identification. n, total number of individuals identified by molecular assay. ‘misidentification’ means those molecularly determined specimens being morphologically identified as other species; ‘misassignment’ indicates those morphologically assigned specimens being molecularly identified as other species.
aAn. arabiensis and An. gambiae were combined as An. gambiae s.l. for morphology.
bAn. funestus, An. cf.rivulorum, and An. leesoni were combined as funestus group for morphology.