Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T19:19:09.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PARTICULARITIES OF DIVERSE EGG DEPOSITION PHENOMENA CHARACTERIZING CARNIVOROID1 HYMENOPTERA (WITH MORPHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATIONS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

S. E. Flanders
S. E. Flanders
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, University of California, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Entomophagous carnivoroids, especially those in which the development of the individual (ontogeny) is effected by its subsistence on the body fluids and the flesh of one host individual, show an extreme diversity in form and habit whereby their embryonic and larval stages are adapted for a highly specialized mode of life.

One of the more interesting of these adaptations is exhibited by biparental species of Hymenoptera in the placement of their haploid and diploid eggs in a particular organ or tissue of the host species. This adaptation may or may not be correlated with sex differentiation in host relations, a reproductive habit characterized either by differing oviposition responses that segregate haploid (male) and diploid (female) eggs to different kinds of hosts or, lacking such responses, by differing developmental mechanisms that segregate first instar males from first instar females.

The available information regarding the occurrence of the obligatory associations between the hymenopterous egg and a specific organ or tissue of the host, their characteristics, and pertinent physiological prerequisites are summarized.

Basically, these associations appear to be dependent on (1) the gravid carnivoroid usually being free of any physiological pressure (or urge) to oviposit despite the presence of eggs ready for deposition in the ovary and/or stored in the oviduct and (2) the limitation of egg deposition to the moment when the tip of the female’s ovipositor makes contact with a host or the spoor of the host. Freedom from oviposition pressure derives from the female’s ability to dispose of her "ripe" ovarian eggs by methods other than deposition, that is, either by storage in enlarged oviducts or by resorption into the bloodstream.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 105 , Issue 9 , September 1973 , pp. 1175 - 1187
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

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

Barclay, J. M. 1938. The oviposition habits of some of the species of the genus Exenterus parasitic on sawfly larvae. 69th A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont.: 29–31.Google Scholar
Chewyreuv, I. J. 1912. (Parasites and hyperparasites in the insect world.) Messager Ent. 1: 1–77.Google Scholar
Clancy, D. W. 1946. The insect parasites of the Chrysopidae (Neuroptera). Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 7: 403–496.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1931. Biological observations on Agriotypus. Proc. Wash. Soc. 33: 29–37.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1932. The early stages of some tryphonine Hymenoptera parasitic on sawfly larvae. Proc. Wash. Soc. 34: 49–60.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1940. Entomophagous insects. McGraw-Hill, New York. 688 pp.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1931. A discussion of the parasites of Saissetia oleae (Bern.) collected in Eritrea. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 5: 247–255.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1939. Insect enemies of black scale in South America. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 7: 75–90.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1940. Parasites of black scale, Saissetia oleae in Africa. Hilgardia 13: 400–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dondale, C. D. 1954. Biology of Agathis laticinctus (Cress.), a parasite of the eye-spotted budmoth in Nova Scotia. Can. Ent. 86: 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. C. 1933. Comparative observations on the morphology and biology of some hymenopterous parasites of carrion-infesting Diptera. Bull. ent Res. 24: 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1935. Effect of host density on parasitism. J. econ. Ent. 28: 898–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1937. Ovipositional instincts and developmental sex differences in the genus Coccophagus. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 6: 401–422.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1939 a. Environmental control of sex in hymenopterous insects. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 37: 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1939 b. Introduction and establishment of Coccophagus heteropneusticus, a parasite of lecanine scale insects. J. econ. Ent. 32: 888–890.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1947. Elements of host discovery exemplified by parasitic Hymenoptera. Ecology 28: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1950. Regulation of ovulation and egg disposal in the parasitic Hymenoptera. Can. Ent. 82: 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1952. Biological observations on parasites of black scale. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 45: 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1953. Predatism by the adult hymenopterous parasite and its role in biological control. J. econ. Ent. 46: 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1959. Differential host relations of the sexes in parasitic Hymenoptera. Ent. exp. appl. 2: 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1969 a. Herbert D. Smith's observations on citrus blackfly parasites in India and Mexico and the correlated circumstances. Can. Ent. 101: 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1969 b. Alternative differential mortality of the sexes concomitant to sex differentiation in host relations. Entomophaga 14: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E., Bartlett, B. R., and Fisher, T. W.. 1961. Coccophagus basalis Compere (Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae): its introduction into California with studies of its biology. J. econ. Ent. 54: 227–236.Google Scholar
Gadd, C. H., Fonseka, W. T., and Ranaweera, D. J. W.. 1946. Parasites of tea nettle grubs with special reference to Platyplectrus natadae Ferriere and Autoplectrus taprobanes Gadd. Ceylon J. Sci. (B) 23: 81–94.Google Scholar
Gerling, D. 1966. Biological studies on Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 142–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graenicker, S. 1905. On the habits of two ichneumonid parasites of the bee Ceratina dupla Say. Ent. News 16: 43–49.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. C. 1960. The behavior and specificity of Monoctonus paludum Marshall (Hym.: Braconidae) a parasite of Nasonovia ribis-nigri (Morley) on lettuce. Bull. ent. Res. 51: 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. C. 1923. Platygaster vernalis Myers, an important parasite of the Hessian fly. U.S. Dep. Agric. J. agric. Res. 25: 31–42.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. 1958. Observations on the biology of Caraphractus cinctus Walker (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) a parasitoid of the eggs of Dytiscidae. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 110: 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiby, R. W. 1922. The polyembryonic development of Copidosoma gelechiae with notes on its biology. J. Morph. 37: 195–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maple, J. D. 1947. The eggs and first instar larvae of Encyrtidae and their morphological adaptations for respiration. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 8: 25–122.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. 1897. Les cecidomyids des cereales et leur parasites. Annls Soc. ent. Fr. 66: 1–105.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. 1903. Le cycle evolutif du Polygntotus minutus Lindm. Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. (1903): 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, P. 1906. Recherches sur la biologie et le developpement des hyménoptères parasites II les platygasters. Archs Zool. exp. gén. 4: 485–640.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. 1927. Natural enemies of the pear leaf-curling midge Perrisia pyri Bouché. Bull. ent. Res. 18: 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnikov, V. 1914. [On the biology of Bupalus piniarius L. and of some of its parasites.] Russk. ent. Obozr. (Rev. Russe d'Ent.) 14: 23–43.Google Scholar
Sharp, D. 1895. Insects, I. The Cambridge Natural History. Macmillan, London. 5: 83–584.Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1911. Contribuzioni alla conoscenza degli insetti dannosi e dei loro simbionti, Plusia gama. Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici 5: 287–319.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. and Compere, H.. 1928. A preliminary report on the insect parasites of the black scale Saissetia oleae (Bern.). Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 4: 231–334.Google Scholar
Strickland, E. H. 1923. Biological notes on parasites of prairie cutworms. Can. Dep. Ent. Branch Bull. 22. 40 pp.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D. 1922. The natural control of the fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea Drury) in Canada. Can. Dep. Agric. (tech.) Bull. 3. 107 pp.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D., Taylor, T. H. C., and Paine, R. W.. 1930. The coconut moth in Jiji. Imp. Inst. Ent., Lond. 269 pp.Google Scholar
Vance, A. M. 1927. On the biology of some ichneumonids of the genus Paniscus Schrk. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 20: 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. 1911. Insect parasitism and its peculiarities. Pop. Sci. Mon. 79: 431–449Google Scholar