The mere existence of other things that we call mosquitos does not mean they are all interchangeable as a food source for the animals that eat them.
replyIs your level of knowledge on this just "there are other things called mosquitos ergo it's not a problem," or do you have deeper affirmative knowledge that the animals that eat these mosquitos also eat those other mosquitos, and that those other mosquitos can increase their population to replace the lost food source?
Most things that eat mosquitoes are actually in the business of eating any flying insect that fits in their mouth. I'd be a bit more worried about, e.g. a species being the only pollinator for some plant, but that's pretty unlikely. Do the studies, sure, but don't expect any bombshells. And if aedes aegypti or any of the other big disease-causing mosquitoes had such a role, I'm pretty sure it would have already been found and trumpeted to the heavens.
replyThe fact you can't even confidently say whether one of those species is a sole pollinator of a plant or not indicates that your comment is still just a stack of assumptions.
replyAnd yours is still just fearmongering supposition, with, in my opinion, even less basis in reality. Go find some actual research on the ecological roles of aedes aegypti and anopheles if you want to get out of the loop. :)
replyI have done actual research on their roles! The answer is: "we don't really know."
replyThat's called risk.
Pointing out risk is not "fearmongering" lmao
Do we not know because people haven't gone looking, or because they did go looking and didn't find it? I'm guessing it's the latter, in which case it kinda strengthens the case that there probably isn't some critical role. These are some of the more-studied animals on the planet.
replyPointing out risk is a kind of fearmongering when it's technically real but too small to be worth worrying about. Asteroid impact is a real risk too.