Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:00:10.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE TAXONOMY OF THE NEARCTIC SPECIES OF PEDIOBIUS (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), ESPECIALLY CANADIAN AND ALASKAN FORMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Oswald Peck
Oswald Peck
Affiliation:
Honorary Research Associate, Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0C6.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thirty-two species of Pediobius (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) are reviewed, 9 newly noted from both Europe and North America. New Nearctic species include P. adelphae, disparis, geshnae, liocephalatus, louisianae, magniclavatus, ni, ocellatus, pseudotsugatae, and strobilicola. Pediobius rugosithorax (Cwfd.) and kansensis (Grlt.) are newly noted as junior synonyms of acantha (Wlk.); lithocolletidis (Ashm.) of albipes (Prov.); longfellowi (Grlt), of alcaeus (Wlk.); wilderi (How.) of brachycerus (Thoms.); (Asecodes) P. albitarsis (Ashm.), tarsalis (Ashm.), and ashmeadi (Cwfd.) of crassicornis (Thoms.); utahensis (Cwfd.), longus (Grlt.), and perdubius (Grlt.) of eubius (Wlk.); (Entedon) P. albitarsis (Ashm.) and sexdentatus (Grlt.) of facialis (Giraud); splendens (C. & D.) of foliorum (Geoffr.); glabrata Blck. of phyllotretae (Ril.). Pediobius termerus (Wlk.) is recorded for the first time in Nearctic. A key to species and a host–parasite list are included.

Résumé

L'auteur passe en revue 32 espèces de Pediobius (Hymenoptera : Chalcidoidea), dont 9 récemment relevées en Europe et en Amérique du Nord. Les nouvelles espèces subarctiques comprennent P. adelphae, disparis, geshnae, liocephalatus, louisianae, magniclavatus, ni, ocellatus, pseudotsugatae et strobilicola. Les espèces suivantes ont été récemment relevées comme nouveaux synonymes : P. rugosithorax (Cwfd.) et kansensis (Grlt.) pour acantha (Wlk.), lithocolletidis (Ashm.) pour albipes (Prov.), longfellowi (Grlt.) pour alcaeus (Wlk.), vilderi (How.) pour brachycerus (Thoms.), (Asecodes) P. albitarsis (Ashm.), tarsalis (Ashm.) et ashmeadi (Cwfd.) pour crassicornis (Thoms.), utahensis (Cwfd.), longus (Grlt.) et perdubius (Grlt.) pour eubius (Wlk.), (Entedon) P. albitarsis (Ashm.) et sexdentatus (Grlt.) pour facialis (Giraud), splendens (C.&D.) pour foliorum (Geoffr.), glabrata (Blck.) pour phyllotretae (Ril.). Pediobius termerus (Wlk.) a été classé pour la première fois dans la catégorie des espèces subarctiques. Vous trouverez ci-joint une clé d'identification des espèces et une liste des relations hôte–parasite.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 117 , Issue 6 , June 1985 , pp. 647 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 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

Ainslie, C.N. 1929. The western grass-stem sawfly a pest of small grains. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 157. 24 pp.Google Scholar
Arthur, A.P. 1962. A skipper, Thymelicus lineola (Ochs.) (Lepidoptera: Hesperidae) and its parasites in Ontario. Can. Ent. 94: 1082–1089.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1887. Studies on the North American Chalcididae, with descriptions of new species, chiefly from Florida. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 14: 183–203.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1888 a. Descriptions of some new North American Chalcididae. Can. Ent. 20: 101–107.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1888 b. Descriptions of some unknown parasitic Hymenoptera in the collection of the Kansas State Agricultural College, received from Prof. E.A. Popenoe. Bull. Kans. agric. exp. Stn. 3: app., pp. I–VIII.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1894. Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 21: 318–344.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1896. Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera (Paper No. 2). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 23: 217–234.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1898. Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4: 155–171.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1904 a. Classification of the chalcid flies. Mem. Carnegie Mus. 1: 225–551.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1904 b. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera from Japan, II. J. N. Y. ent. Soc. 12: 146–165.Google Scholar
Askew, R.R. 1962. Some species of Pediobius Walker (HYMENOPTERA, EULOPHIDAE) inhabiting cynipid oak galls. Entomophaga 7: 337–342.Google Scholar
Askew, R.R. and Ruse, J.M.. 1970. Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera) in the Manchester Museum (part 6). Entomologist 103: 231–236.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. 1960. The effect of age on the gaster shape of females of the Eurytomidae, Hymenoptera. Entomologist 93: 44–48.Google Scholar
Baird, A.B. 1939 [1940]. Biological control of insect pests in Canada with special reference to the control of the European Spruce Sawfly Gilpinia polytomum. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 70: 51–56.Google Scholar
Balduf, W.V. 1968. Bionomic notes on the hexapodous parasites of Acrobasis rubrifasciella. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61: 463–476.Google Scholar
Barnes, T.C. 1929. An enquiry concerning the natural history of the white-pine weevil (Pissodes stobi). Trans. fourth int. Congr. Ent.: 412–413.Google Scholar
Beaulne, J.-I. [1949?]. Notes sur quelques predateurs et parasites d'importance economique. Rep. Queb. Soc. Prot. Pl. 30: 206–209.Google Scholar
Belmont, R.A. 1979. Parasites of Dioryctria spp. coneworms (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in north Florida slash pine seed orchards. M. Sc. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 92 pp.Google Scholar
Boucek, Z. 1965. Studies of European Eulophidae, IV. Pediobius Walk., and two allied genera (Hymenoptera). Sb. ent. Odd. nar. Mus. Praze 36: 5–90.Google Scholar
Boucek, Z. 1970. Contribution to the knowledge of Italian Chalcidoidea, based mainly on a study at the Institute of Entomology in Turin, with descriptions of some new European species. Memorie Soc. ent. Ital. 49: 35–102.Google Scholar
Boucek, Z. 1974. On the Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera) described by C. Rondani. Redia 55: 241–285.Google Scholar
Boucek, Z. 1977. A faunistic review of the Yugoslavian Chalcidoidea (Parasitic Hymenoptera). Acta Soc. ent. Jugosl. 13: suppl. 145 pp.Google Scholar
Boucek, Z. and Askew, R.R.. 1968. Index of Palaearctic Eulophidae (exc. Tetrastichinae). Index entomoph. ins. 3. 254 pp. Le François, Paris.Google Scholar
Bukowski, W. 1938. Neue und wenige bekannte Chalcididen (Hymenoptera) I. Ent. Obozr. 27: 152–171. [Partly in Russian]Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1940. Revision of the chalcid-flies of the tribe Chalcidini in America north of Mexico. Proc. U.S. natn. mus. 88: 237–354.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1958. Chalcidoidea. pp. 62–84in Krombein, K.B. et al. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico: synoptic catalog. Agric. Monogr. 2, suppl. 1.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1963. The Provancher species of Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Can. Ent. 95: 1254–1263.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1966. The North American species of Pediobius Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 68: 33–43.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1979. Family Eulophidae. pp. 967–1020in Krombein, K.V. et al. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico, I. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. 1912. On a collection of parasitic Hymenoptera (chiefly bred) made by Mr. Walter W. Froggatt, F.L.S., in New South Wales, with descriptions of new genera and species. Part iii. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 37: 172–216.Google Scholar
Cameron, E. 1939. The holly leaf-miner (Phytomyza ilicis Curt.) and its parasites. Bull. ent. Res. 30: 173–208.Google Scholar
Comstock, J.H. 1924. An introduction to entomology, 1st ed. Comstock, Ithaca, NY. 1044 pp.Google Scholar
Cook, A.J. and Davis, G.C.. 1891. Kerosene emulsion, some new insects. Bull. Mich. agric. Coll. exp. Stn 73. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.C. 1910. Technical results from the gipsy moth parasite laboratory. II. Descriptions of certain chalcidoid parasites. Tech. Ser. Bur. Ent. U.S. 19, part II. 24 pp.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.C. 1912 a. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera. No. 4. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 42: 1–10.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.C. 1912 b. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera. No. 5. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 43: 163–188.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.C. 1913. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera. No. 7. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 45: 309–317.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.C. 1914. Three new Hymenoptera. Insecutor Inscit. mens 2: 36–38.Google Scholar
De Santis, L. 1979. Catalogo de los himenopteros chalcidoideos de América al sur de los Estados Unidos. Publ. espec. Prov. B. Aires Commn Inest. cient. La Plata. 488 pp.Google Scholar
Erdos, J. 1954. Eulophidae hungaricae indescriptae. Annls hist.-nat. Hung. n.s. 5: 323–366.Google Scholar
Erdos, J. 1961. Fauna Eulophidarum Hungariae generibus speciebus novis aucta (Hymenoptera). Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. Hung. zool. 53: 471–489.Google Scholar
Ferrière, C. 1933. Chalcidoid and proctotrupoid parasites of pests of the cocoanut palm. Stylops 2: 86–108.Google Scholar
Ferrière, C. 1953. Les parasites de ‘Lithocolletis platani’ en Italie. Boll. 1st. Ent. Univ. Bologna 19: 395–404.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, T.D. and Simeone, J.B.. 1971. Serpentine miner, Marmara fraxinicola (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) in stems of white ash. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 64: 770–773.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. 1900. Report of the entomologist and botanist. pp. 159–204in Can. Dep. Agric. cent. exp. Farm Rep. (1899).Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische Studien, II Heft. Chalcidiae und Proctotrupii. Aachen. 152 pp.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1861. Ein Tag in der Hochalpen. Programm der Realschule zu Aachen fur 1860-1861: I–XLIV.Google Scholar
Forbes, R.S., Underwood, G.R. and Cumming, F.G.. 1963. Maritime forest conditions. Ann. Rep. Can. Dep. For., Ent. Path. Brch. For. Ins. Dis. Surv. (1962): 20–32.Google Scholar
Forbes, S.A. 1891. The importation of a Hessian Fly parasite from Europe. Insect Life 4: 179–181.Google Scholar
Frison, T.H. 1926. Contributions to the knowledge of the interrelationships of the bumble bees of Illinois with their animate environment. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 19: 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frison, T.H. 1927. A list of the insect types in the collections of the Illinois State Natural History Survey and the University of Illinois. Bull. Ill. St. nat. Hist. Surv. 16: 137–309.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1921. Remarks on the genus Pleurotropis with description of a parasite of Trachelus tabidus Fabricius. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 23: 113–120.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1927 a. Miscellaneous descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera with some synomical notes. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 71 (4). 39 pp.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1927 b. Description of a new eulophid parasitic on Bucculatrix canadensisella Chambers. Psyche 34: 171–173.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1933. The serphoid and chalcidoid parasites of the Hessian Fly. Misc. Publs U.S. Dep. Agric. 174. 147 pp.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1940. pp. 149–150 in Clausen, C.P. (Ed.), Entomophagous insects. McGraw-Hill, NY and London. 688 pp.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1951. Some synonymy and new combinations in Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Can. Ent. 83: 170–176.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B., and Rohwer, S.A.. 1917. Lectotypes of the species of Hymenoptera (except Apoidea) described by Abbé Provancher (cont.). Can. Ent. 49: 427–433.Google Scholar
Giraud, J. 1863. Mémoire sur les insectes qui vivent sur le roseau commun, Phragmites communis Trin. et plus spécialement sur ceux de l'ordre des Hyménoptères. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 13: 1251–1288.Google Scholar
Giraud, J.E. and Laboulbène, A.. 1877. Liste des éclosions d'Insectes. Ann. ent. Soc. France (5) 7: 397–436.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1911. Notes on the Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea, with descriptions of several new genera and species. J. N.Y. ent. Soc. 19: 175–189.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1913 a. Diagnoses of new chalcidoid Hymenoptera from Queensland, Australia. Arch. Naturgesch. 79 a: 90–107.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1915. Descriptions and observations in some chalcidoid Hymenoptera, II. Can. Ent. 47: 337–344.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1916. Notes on described chalcidoid Hymenoptera with new genera and species. Societas ent. 31: 35–38.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 a. Speciosissima genera nova Eulophidorum. Privately printed, March 10. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 b. Descriptiones stellarum novarum. Privately printed, May 1. 22 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 c. Descriptiones hymenopterorum chalcidoidicarum variorum cum observationibus. III. Privately printed, May 3. 10 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1918. New and old West Indian and North American chalcid-flies (Hym.). Ent. News 29: 125–131.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1924. The North American species of Emersonopsis, Amestocharis, Euderus and Miromphalomyiia. Insecutor Inscit. menstruus 12: 93–95.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1959. Keys to the British general and species of Elachertinae, Eulophinae, Entedontinae and Euderinae (Hym., Chalcidoidea). Trans. Soc. Br. Ent. 13: 169–204.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1963. Additions and corrections to the British list of Eulophidae (Hym., Calcidoidea), with descriptions of some new species. Trans. Soc. Br. Ent. 15: 167–275.Google Scholar
Harrington, W.H. 1896. Canadian Hymenoptera. No. 7. Can. Ent. 28: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, L.O. 1882. On some curious methods of chalcid pupation. Am. Nat. 16: 60–62.Google Scholar
Howard, L.O. 1892 a. The methods of pupation among the Chalcididae. Insect Life 4: 193–196.Google Scholar
Howard, L.O. 1892 b. The hymenopterous parasites of spiders1. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 2: 290–302.Google Scholar
Judd, W.W. 1967. Insects and other arthropods from year-old galls caused by Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginis Riley on goldenrod. Can. J. Zool. 45: 49–56.Google Scholar
Kamijo, K. 1977. Notes on Ashmead's and Crawford's types of Pediobus Walker (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae) from Japan, with description of a new species. Kontyû 45: 12–22.Google Scholar
Kamijo, K. 1979. Eulophidae (Hymenoptera) from Korea, with descriptions of two new species. Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. Hung. 71: 252–264.Google Scholar
Kanamitsu, K. 1963. Seasonal variation of population density of pine shoot moths and their hymenopterous parasites observed in Aichi Prefecture. Jap. Jé appl. Ent. Zool. 7: 109–112. [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Kerrich, G.J. 1973. A revision of the tropical and subtropical species of the eulophid genus Pediobus Walker (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 29: 115–199.Google Scholar
Kirby, W. and Spence, W.. 1826. An introduction to entomology, III. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London. 732 pp.Google Scholar
Kloet, G.S. and Hincks, W.D.. 1945. A check list of British insects. Kloet and Hincks, Stockport. 463 pp.Google Scholar
Lall, B.S. 1961. On the biology of Pediobius foveolatus (Crawford). Indian J.Ent. 23: 268–273.Google Scholar
Lejeune, R.R. and Silver, G.T.. 1961. Parasites and hyperparasites of the satin moth, Stilpnotia salicis Linnaeus, in British Columbia. Can. Ent. 93: 456–467.Google Scholar
Lindeman, K. 1887. Der Pteromalinen der Hessenfliege Cecidomyis destructor Say). Byull. mosk. Obsch. Ispyt. Prir. n.s. 1: 178–192.Google Scholar
McGugan, B.M. and Blais, J.R.. 1959. Spruce budworm parasite studies in Northwestern Ontario. Can. Ent. 91: 758–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, J.H. 1962. Biological control of pests of crops, fruit trees, ornamentals and weeds in Canada up to 1959. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control 2 (1). 33 pp.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W. and Dohanian, S.M.. 1927. A study in hyperparasitism, with particular reference to the parasites of Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratz.). Dep. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1487. 35 pp.Google Scholar
Nees, C.G. 1834. Hymenopterorum. Ichneumonibus affinium monographiae, 2. Cotta, Stuttgart and Tubingen. 444 pp.Google Scholar
Neilson, C.L. 1949. Biology and seasonal history of Pleurotropis utahensis Crawford, a parasite of the wheat stem sawfly. Can. Ent. 81: 174–180.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E. 1935. A third supplementary note upon the life histories of the Polysphinctas (Hym. Ichneum.). Ent. Meddr. 19: 191–215.Google Scholar
Olivier, M. 1790. Encycl. méthod. Ins. 5. Panckoucke, Paris. 753 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, O. 1951. Chalcidoidea. pp. 410–594 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V., and Townes, H.K. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico: synoptic catalog. Agric. Monogr. 2. 1420 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, O. 1963. A catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insects: Hymenoptera). Can. Ent., suppl. 30. 1091 pp.Google Scholar
Plummer, C.C. and Pillsbury, A.E.. 1929. The white pine weevil in New Hampshire. Bull. New Hamps. agric. exp. Stn. 247. 32 pp.Google Scholar
Popenoe, E.A. 1888. Footnote. p. VIIIin Ashmead, 1888b.Google Scholar
Proper, A.B. 1931. Eupteromalus nidulans: a parasite of the browntail and satin moths. J. agric. Res. 31: 37–56.Google Scholar
Provancher, L. 1887. Additions et corrections au volume II de la faune entomologique du Canada, traitant des Hyméoptères. Darveau, Quebec. 475 pp.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J.T.C. 1852. Ichneum. d. Forstins. 3. Nicolari, Berlin. 272 pp.Google Scholar
Reeks, W.A. and Smith, C.C.. 1956. The Satin Moth, Stilpnotia salicis (L.), in the Maritime Provinces and observations on its control by parasites and spraying. Can. Ent. 88: 565–579.Google Scholar
Richards, O.W. 1956. Handbooks for the identification of British Insects, (1). Royal Entomological Society, London. 94 pp.Google Scholar
Richards, O.W. and Davies, R.G.. 1957. pp. 683 in Imms, A.D. (Ed.), A general textbook of entomology, 9th ed. Methuen, London, 683 pp.Google Scholar
Ries, D.T. 1926. A biological study of Cephus pygmaeus (Linnaeus), the wheat-stem sawfly. J. agric. Res. 32: 277–295.Google Scholar
Riley, C.G. 1885. Report of the entomologist, C.G. Riley, for the year 1883. A. Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric. (1883): 99–418.Google Scholar
Riley, C.G. 1892. In Forbes, S.A. (Ed.), Address of first Vice-president. Insect Life 5: 68–77.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S.A. 1921. Descriptions of new chalcidoid flies from Coimbatore, south India. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 9: 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rondani, C. 1872. Sopra alcuni vesparii parassiti. Boll. Soc. ent. Ital. 4: 201–208.Google Scholar
Rondani, C. 1874. Nuove osservazioni sugli insetti fitofagi esuiloro parassiti fatte nel 1873. Boll. Soc. ent. Ital. 4: 41–78, 229, 258.Google Scholar
Rondani, C. 1877. Vesparia parasita non vel minus cognita. Boll. Soc. ent. Ital. 9: 166–205.Google Scholar
Rosen, H. von. 1956. Untersuchung uber drei auf Getreide vorkommende Erzwespen und er die Bedeutung, die zwei von ihnen als Vertilger von Wiesenzirpeneiem haben. K. LanthbrHogsk. Annlr. 23: 1–72.Google Scholar
Rondani, C. 1959. Zur Kenntnis von drei auf Getreide vorkommenden Arten der Gattung [Pediobius] Walker 1846 (Hy., Chalc., Eulophidae). Ent. Tidskr. 80: 163–167.Google Scholar
Russo, G. and Viggiani, G.. 1963. II. Pediobius pyrgo Walk (Hym. Eulophidae) efficace parassita della Leucoptera scitella Zell. nell'Italia meridionale meridionale. Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. Filippo Silvestri 21: 217–235.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1931. Parasites of the wheat-stem sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus, Linnaeus, in England. Bull. ent. Res. 22: 479–545.Google Scholar
Sleesman, J.P. 1963. Beneficial insects. Co-op. econ. Ins. Rep. 13: 1354.Google Scholar
Smith, O.J. and Peterson, A.. 1950. Microtonus vittatae, a parasite of adult flea beetles, and observations on hosts. J. econ. Ent. 43: 581–585.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1935. Principles of insect morphology. McGraw-Hill, NY and London. 667 pp.Google Scholar
Spinola, M. 1811. Essai d'une nouvelle classification des Diplolepaires. Annls. Mus. Hist. nat. (Paris) 17: 138–152.Google Scholar
Szelényi, G. 1957. Ujabb adatok az amerikai fehér szovolépke éloskodoinek ismerethéhez. Some new data on the hymenopterous parasites of Hyphantria cunea Drury. Annles Inst. Prot. Pl. Hung. 7: 295–312.Google Scholar
Taylor, R.L. 1929. The biology of the white pine weevils, Pissodes strobi (Peck) and a study of its insect parasites, from an economic viewpoint (cont.). Entomologica am. n.s. 10: 1–83.Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1878. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae, V. Ohlssen, Lund. 307 pp.Google Scholar
Torre-Bueno, J.R. de la. 1962. A glossary of entomology and supplement A. Brooklyn Ent. Soc., Brooklyn, NY. 372 pp.Google Scholar
Townes, H. 1969. The genera of Ichneumonidae, part 1. Mem. Am. ent. Inst. 11. 300 pp.Google Scholar
Viggiani, G. 1964. Contributi alla conoscenza degli insetti fitofagi minatori e loro simbionti. IV. Morfo-biologia del Pediobius saulius Walk. (Hym. Eulophidae) e considerazioni sulle altre specie congeneri europee. Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. Filippo Silvestri 22: 205–244.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1839. Monographia chalciditum I. Baillaire, London, 330 pp.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1844. On the species of Chalcidites inhabiting the Arctic Region. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14: 407–410.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1846. The characters of some undescribed species of Chalcidites. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 17: 177–185.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1848. List of the specimens of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, part II, Chalcidites. Additional species. Newman, London. 237 pp.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1874. Amurland. Cistula ent. 1: 311–321.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1936. Observations on sunflower insects in Kansas. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 9: 15–16.Google Scholar
Waterston, J. 1915. Notes on African Chalcidoidea, II. Bull. ent. Res. 5: 343–373.Google Scholar
Watts, J.G. and Bellotti, A.C.. 1967. Some new and little-known insects of economic importance on range grasses. J. econ. Ent. 60: 961–963.Google Scholar
Weaver, J.E. and Dorsey, C.K.. 1965. Parasites and predators associated with five species of leaf-mining insects in black locust. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 58: 933–934.Google Scholar
Webster, F.M. and Parks, T.H.. 1913. The serpentine leaf-miner. J. agric. Res. 1: 1–87.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W.M. 1910. Ants. Columbia, NY. 663 pp.Google Scholar
Wolff, M. 1916. Ueber die Chalcidiergattung Chrysocharis Forster 1856 (1861) (Hym.). Ent. Mitt. 5: 258–282.Google Scholar