Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T08:07:20.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BESSA SELECTA (MEIGEN) (DIPTERA: TACHINIDAE) AS A PARASITE OF GILPINIA HERCYNIAE (HARTIG) (HYMENOPTERA: DIPRIONIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

L. S. Hawboldt
L. S. Hawboldt
Affiliation:
Halifax, N. S.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This project arose out of studies of the European spruce sawfly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Htg.), in connection with the Canadian Forest Insect Survey at the Dominion Entomological Laboratories, Fredericton, N.B. Bessa selecta (Mg.) had been observed as a parasite of the larch sawfly, Pristiphora erichsoni (Htg.), but particular interest was aroused in it as a parasite occurring on the European spruce sawfly. The latter host was frequently found to bear the eggs and integumental funnels of B. selecta. The object was to study its biology and effectivness as a possible control factor of the spruce sawfly. However, great difficulty was experienced in rearing the host due to high mortality caused by disease. Hence the original aims were not attained to the entire satisfaction of the author.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 79 , Issue 5 , May 1947 , pp. 84 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1947

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

REFERENCES

1.Aldrich, J. M.Notes on synonymy of Diptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 32: 25–28. 1930.Google Scholar
2.Baer, W.Die Tachinen als Schmarotzer der schadlichen Insekten Ihre Lebensweise, wirtschaftliche Bedeutung und systematische Kennzeichnung. Zeitschr. angew. Ent. 6: 185–246. 1920. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 9: 61–63).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Baird, A. B.Some notes on the natural control of the larch sawfly and larch casebearer in New Brunswick in 1922. Proc. Acad. Ent. Soc. no. 8, pp. 158–171. 1922.Google Scholar
4.Britton, W. E.The larch sawfly, Lygaeonematus (Nematus) erichsoni Rept. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. pp. 125–134. 1915.Google Scholar
5.Clausen, C. P.Entomophagous Insects, McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 688. 1940.Google Scholar
6.Collins, C. W. and Hood, C. E.. Life history of Eubiomyia calosoynae, a Tachinid parasite of Calosoma beetles. Jour. Agr. Res. 18: 483–497. 1920.Google Scholar
7.Dobrodeiev, A. I.(Priophorus padi L. and its control.—The Protection of plants from pests). (Friend of Nature). Petrograd pp. 28–29; 38–44. 1916. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 5: 26).Google Scholar
8.Dobrovliansky, V. J.(Report of Entomological Section. Report on the work of the Kiev Station for control of pests and plants of the South-Russian Agricultural Syndicate for 1914). (Husbandry). 1915. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 3: 638).Google Scholar
9.Dowden, P. B.Parasites of larch sawfly in western Montana and Great Lakes region. Jour. Econ. Ent. 30: 381. 1937.Google Scholar
10.Fisher, R. C.Notes on the poplar sawfly (Trichiocampus viminalis Fall.). Scottish Naturalist. pp. 151–154. 1922.Google Scholar
11.Hopping, G. R.Biology of Hemichroa crocea Geoff. Can. Ent. 69: 248. 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.(Chu-Sieh), Hsin. Beitrags zur Naturgeschichte der Blattwespen. Zeitschr. angew. Ent. 22: 253–294. 1935. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 23: 596).Google Scholar
13.Kazyakina-Vinogradova, V. N.(Some results of the entomological examination of orchards in the Luga district of the Government of Leningrad). (Plant Protection. 7: 87–92). 1931. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 20: 89).Google Scholar
14.Korsakova, N. V. (The gooseberry sawfly, Pteronus ribesii Scop.) (Plant Protection 4: 255–275). 1927. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 16: 42).Google Scholar
15.Lacroix, J. L.Quelques observations sur une mouche a scie nusible aux saules, Pteronidea salicis L. Rev. Zool. Agric. 27: 59–66. 1928. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 16: 624).Google Scholar
16.Lebedev, A. G.(A new pest of apples, Lygaeonematus moestus Zadd). (Plant Protection 3: 349–352). 1926. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 15: 158).Google Scholar
17.Lovaszy, P. (Some notes on the insect parasites of Diprion polytomum Htg.). Ann. ent. fenn, 5: 225–233. 1939. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 28: 453).Google Scholar
18.Melis, A.La tignola orientale de pesco, Laspeyresia cydia molesta Busck. in Toscana e alcune considerazioni sulla lotta naturale e artificiale contro di essa. Note Fruttic. 14 nos. 1–4. 1935. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 24: 124).Google Scholar
19.Miles, H. W.Notes on tachinid flies. Trans. Lincolnshire Nat. Union. 1924. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 13: 451).Google Scholar
20.Muesebeck, C. F. W.Two important introduced parasites of the browntail moth. Jour. Agr. Res. 14: 191–206. 1918.Google Scholar
21.Nash, R. W.The yellow-headed spruce sawfly in Maine. Jour. Econ. Ent. 32: 330–334. 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Nielson, J. C.Jagtlagelser over entoparasitiske muscidelarver las Arthropoder. Ent. Meddel. 4: 1–126. 1909. (Cited in Clausen, p. 455. 1940).Google Scholar
23.Pantel, J.Recherches sur les Dipteres a larves entomobies. Cellule 26: 27–216 et 29: 7–289. 1910 et 1912. (Cited in Clausen, p. 459. 1940).Google Scholar
24.Prebble, M. L.Actia diffidens Curran, a parasite of Peronea variana (Fernald), in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Can. Jour. Res. 12: 216–227. 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Prebble, M. L.The diapause and related phenomena in Gilpinia polytoma (Hartig). Can. Jour. Res. 19: 295–346; 350–362; 417–454. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Robbins, J. C.Diplostichus janitrix Hartig, a Tachinid parasite of the pine sawfly, and its method of emergence. Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond. 2: 17–19. 1927.Google Scholar
27.Schimitschek, E.Das Massenauftreten des Tannentrieb-wicklers, Cacoecia murinana Hb. in Niederosterrlich 1929–1934. Zeitschr. angew. Ent. 22: 565–602. 1936. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 24: 340).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Servadei, A.Contributo alla conoscenza delle, Hyponomeuta padellus L. cognatellus Hbn. e vigintipunctatus Retz. Boll. Lab. Ent. Bologni 3: 254–301. 1930. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 19: 441).Google Scholar
29.Shelford, V. E.Laboratory and field ecology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore. 1929.Google Scholar
30.Stehli, . Die Gespinstmotten. Kosmos, p. 25. 1921. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 10: 144).Google Scholar
31.Thielmann, K.Die Nematiden der Larche eine bionomisch okologisch forstwirtchaftliche Untersuchung. Zeitschr. angew Ent. 25: 169–214. 1938. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 27: 216).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Torka, V.Pristophora alnivora Htg. Arb. physiol. angew. Ent. Berl. 1: 301–304. 1934. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 23: 122).Google Scholar
33.Tothill, J. D., Taylor, T. H. C., and Paine, R. W.. The coconut moth in Fiji. London. 1922.Google Scholar
34.Townsend, C. H. T.Notes on North American Tachinidae with descriptions of new genera and species. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 19: 98, 285. 1892.Google Scholar
35.Townsend, C. H. T.A record of results from rearings and dissections of Tachinidae. U. S. Bur. Ent. Tech. Ser. no. 12, 6: 95–118. 1908.Google Scholar
36.Townsend, C. H. T.Manual of Myiology IV, p. 236. 1936.Google Scholar
37.Vukasovic, P.(Contribution to the study of insect associations). Serbian. Spomenik 70: 35–91. (Cited in Rev. App. Ent. (A) 20: 260).Google Scholar