Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T13:26:15.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Larval characteristics of Cactoblaslis spp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and the selection of species for biological control of prickly pears (Opuntia spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. E. McFadyen
R. E. McFadyen
Affiliation:
Department of Lands, Alan Fletcher Research Station, P.O. Box 36, Sherwood, Queensland 4075, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The black markings on larvae of Cactoblastis spp. can be used to separate different biotypes or species. These markings are figured, together with host and locality records for ten distinct biotypes or species, at least five of which are undescribed. Past introductions of C. cactorum (Berg) and Cactoblastis spp. to Australia and elsewhere are reviewed, and it is suggested that some of the undescribed biotypes might be of value in the biological control of Opuntia spp.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 159 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annecke, D. P. & Moran, V. C. (1978). Critical reviews of biological pest control in South Africa. 2. The prickly pear, Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller.—J. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. 41, 161–188.Google Scholar
Berg, C. (1885). Quindecim lepidoptera nova—An. Soc. cient. argent. 19, 276–277.Google Scholar
Burdon, J. J. & Marshall, D. R. (1981). Biological control and reproductive mode of weeds.—J. appl. Ecol. 18, 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. M. & Williams, D. J. (1981). An account of cassava mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococ cidae) with a description of a new species—Bull. ent. Res. 71, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, A. P (1940). The biological campaign against prickly-pear.—177 pp. Brisbane, Common wealth Prickly Pear Board.Google Scholar
Dyar, H. G. (1922). New American moths and notes (Lepidoptera).—Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 10, 8–18.Google Scholar
Dyar, H. G. (1928). Notes on cactus moths allied to Melitara, with two new genera and one new species.—Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 30, 133–137.Google Scholar
Fantham, H. B. (1939). Nosema cactoblastis, sp. n., and Nosema cactorum, sp. n., microsporidian parasites of species of Cactoblastis (Lepidoptera) destructive to prickly pear.—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (B) 108, 689–705.Google Scholar
Forno, I. W., Sands, D. P. A & Sexton, W. (1983). Distribution, biology and host specificity of Cyrtobagous singularis Hustache (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the biological control of Salvinia molesta.—Bull. ent. Res. 73, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeden, R. D (1978). Biological control of weeds.—pp. 357–414 in Clausen, C. P (Ed.). Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review.–545 pp. Washington, D.C., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. (Agricultural handbook no. 480).Google Scholar
Greathead, D. J (1971). A review of biological control in the Ethiopian Region.—Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control no. 5, 162 pp.Google Scholar
Heinrich, C. (1939). The cactus-feeding Phycitinae: a contribution toward a revision of the American pyralidoid moths of the family Phycitidae.—Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 86, 331–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. H & Tryon, H. (1914). Report of the Prickly-Pear Travelling Commission 1st November, 1912–30th April, 1914.—131 pp. Brisbane, Govt. Printer.Google Scholar
Lucas, A. M (1969). The effect of population structure on the success of insect introductions.—Heredity 24, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, J. (1969). Cactus-feeding insects and mites.—Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. no. 256, 158 pp.Google Scholar
McFadyen, R. E (1980). A Cactoblastis (Lep: Phycitidae) for the biological control of Eriocereus martinii (Cactaceae) in Australia.—Entomophaga 25, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. H & Sabath, M. D (1981). Genetic and phenotypic variability, genetic variance, and the success of establishment of insect introductions for the biological control of weeds.—pp. 91–102 in Del Fosse, E. S (Ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, July 1980—649 pp. Melbourne, CSIRO.Google Scholar
Pettey, F. W (1947). The biological control of prickly pears in South Africa.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. Un. S. Afr. no. 271, 163 pp.Google Scholar
Ragonot, E. L (1901). Monographie des Phycitinae y des Galleriinae. Memoires sur les Lépidoptères. Vol. 8—602 pp. (Romanov) St Petersburg.Google Scholar
Sands, D. P. A (1983). Identity of Cyrtobagous sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) introduced into Australia for biological control of salvinia.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 22, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, D. P. A & Harley, K. L. S (1981). Importance of geographic variation in agents selected for biological control of weeds.—pp. 81–89 in Del Fosse, E. S (Ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, July 1980.—649 pp. Melbourne, CSIRO.Google Scholar
Simmonds, F. J & Bennett, F. D (1966). Biological control of Opuntia spp. by Cactoblastis cactorum in the Leeward Islands (West Indies).—Entomophaga 11, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. (1960). A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea.—Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control no. 1, 102 pp.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, H. G., Erb, H. E. & Mcfadyen, R. E. (1979). Annotated list of some cactus-feeding insects of South America.—Acta zool. lilloana 33, 101–112.Google Scholar