DOCSLIB.ORG

Checklist of Lithuanian Diptera

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Checklist of Lithuanian Diptera Acta Zoologica Lituanica. 2000. Volumen 10. Numerus 1 3 ISSN 1392-1657 CHECKLIST OF LITHUANIAN DIPTERA Saulius PAKALNIÐKIS1, Jolanta RIMÐAITË1, Rasa SPRANGAUSKAITË-BERNOTIENË1, Rasa BUTAUTAITË2, Sigitas PODËNAS2 1 Institute of Ecology, Akademijos 2, 2600 Vilnius, Lithuania 2 Department of Zoology, Vilnius University, M.K. Èiurlionio 21/27, 2009 Vilnius, Lithuania Abstract. The list of 2283 Lithuanian Diptera species of 78 families is based on 224 literary sources. Key words: Diptera, Acroceridae, Agromyzidae, Anisopodidae, Anthomyiidae, Anthomyzidae, Asilidae, Athericidae, Bibionidae, Bombyliidae, Calliphoridae, Cecidomyiidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chama- emyiidae, Chaoboridae, Chironomidae, Chloropidae, Coelopidae, Conopidae, Culicidae, Cylindroto- midae, Diastatidae, Ditomyiidae, Dixidae, Dolichopodidae, Drosophilidae, Dryomyzidae, Empididae, Ephydridae, Fanniidae, Gasterophilidae, Helcomyzidae, Heleomyzidae, Hippoboscidae, Hybotidae, Hypodermatidae, Lauxaniidae, Limoniidae, Lonchaeidae, Lonchopteridae, Macroceridae, Megamerinidae, Micropezidae, Microphoridae, Muscidae, Mycetophilidae, Neottiophilidae, Odiniidae, Oestridae, Opo- myzidae, Otitidae, Pallopteridae, Pediciidae, Phoridae, Pipunculidae, Platypezidae, Psilidae, Psychod- idae, Ptychopteridae, Rhagionidae, Sarcophagidae, Scathophagidae, Scatopsidae, Scenopinidae, Sciaridae, Sciomyzidae, Sepsidae, Simuliidae, Sphaeroceridae, Stratiomyidae, Syrphidae, Tabanidae, Tachinidae, Tephritidae, Therevidae, Tipulidae, Trichoceridae, Xylomyidae, Xylophagidae, checklist, Lithuania INTRODUCTION nomenclature and there was included some data on the distribution, biology or importance of any Diptera The first list of Lithuanian Diptera including 1237 spe- species in Lithuania. Records of the species not iden- cies was published ten years ago (Pakalniðkis, 1989). tified beyond with a question mark or genus are The preparation of that list entailed an enormous amount ommitted from the present list as the correct species of work to establish which of the localities in the mar- names cannot yet be established. All the question marks ginal territories of Lithuania referred to the faunistic in this list have been inserted by us. publications up to the Second World War (as well as Some species identified by the authors of this paper further publications based on the earlier collections) are deposited in Tadas Ivanauskas Zoological Museum actually represent the territory of the present Lithuania (Kaunas, Lithuania), label-data has never been pub- (German, Polish and Russian equivalents of Lithuanian lished, and only the number of specimens is indicated names were often used), and which localities are in in the catalogue of entomological collections of the the former East Prussia (now a part of Russia and of mentioned museum (Gaidienë, 1993). Poland), and in the present Belarus or Latvia. The present list does not account for the proof-read- In dealing with misidentifications in 1989, the comments ing mistakes of the publication quotations (e.g. incom- of Dr. K. Elberg (Institute of Zoology and Botany, Tartu, patible name-genders, omitted or changed letters and Estonia) and Dr. E.P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, names of the definers) as well as the spellings of the Saint-Petersburg, Russia), the unpublished manuscripts former common use: Dasyneura, Ferbelia, Micro- (1960) of S. Mastauskis as well as further publications phorus, Platychirus etc. by many authors were taken into account. However, The subgenera names are not discussed here too, on the cases of the specific synonymies and misidentifi- the contrary, infraspecific names are cited as they can cations were not covered in the 1989 list. bring some material information. The list generally agrees with the classification proposed by the authors of the Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera MATERIAL AND METHODS (ed. Soós Á. & Papp L., 1984-1992), however, species names used in further publications have not been changed. The present list is also based on the published data. The families follow the phylogenetic order and other The publications listed follow the rules of zoological taxa are listed in an alphabetical order. 4 Pakalniðkis S., Rimðaitë J., Sprangauskaitë-Bernotienë R., Butautaitë R., Podënas S. All the cited publications are given in the list in brevier U. sylvatica (Meigen, 1818). Valenta & Podënas, 1988; type and the publications including the description of Podënas, 1988a, 1991b, 1992b, 1995; Podënas & the indicated species are given in bold type beside them. Pakalniðkis, 1997. The synonymous names of species are indicated by the sign of equality (=) and unsynonymous names are Family LIMONIIDAE separated by the sign of a colon (:). Subfamily Eriopterinae There are also in the present list the type localities of Arctoconopa melampodia (Loew, 1873). Podënas, some species that are more explicitly described. 1992b, 1995. Families Pediciidae up to Ptychopteridae have been A. zonata (Zetterstedt, 1851). Podënas, 1992b, 1995. compiled by S. Podënas and R. Butautaitë, families Cheilotrichia (Cheilotrichia) imbuta (Meigen, 1818). Psychodidae up to Simuliidae, Anisopodidae up to Podënas, 1988a, 1992b, 1995; Valenta & Podënas, 1988. Asilidae and Dolichopodidae up to Syrphidae by R. C. (Empeda) affinis (Lackschewitz, 1927). Podënas, Sprangauskaitë-Bernotienë, families Ditomyiidae up to 1992b, 1995. Mycetophilidae by J. Rimðaitë, the rest have been com- C. (E.) cinerascens (Meigen, 1804). Podënas, 1992b, piled by S. Pakalniðkis. 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1997. C. (E.) neglecta (Lackschewitz, 1927). Podënas, 1995. C. (E.) staryi Mendl, 1973. Podënas, 1992b, 1995; THE SPECIES LIST Savchenko et al., 1992. Crypteria limnophiloides Bergroth, 1913. Valenta & Family PEDICIIDAE Podënas, 1988; Podënas, 1992b, 1995. Dicranota (Dicranota) bimaculata (Schummel, 1829). Dicranoptycha (Dicranoptycha) cinerascens (Meigen, Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1818). Podënas, 1988a, 1992b, 1995; Valenta & Podënas, 1997. 1988; Savchenko et al., 1992. D. (D.) guerini Zetterstedt, 1838. Podënas, 1991b, D. (D.) fuscescens (Schummel, 1829). Podënas, 1988c, 1992b, 1995; Savchenko et al., 1992. 1992b, 1995; Valenta & Podënas, 1985a, 1988. D. (Paradicranota) gracilipes Wahlgren, 1905. Valenta D. (D.) livescens Loew, 1871. Podënas, 1988a, 1992b, & Podënas, 1985a, 1988; Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, 1995. 1995; Valenta & Podënas, 1988; Savchenko et al., 1992. D. (P.) landrocki Cziþek, 1931. Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, Ellipteroides (Ellipteroides) lateralis (Macquart, 1835). 1995; Savchenko et al., 1992. Podënas, 1995; Savchenko et al., 1992. D. (P.) pavida (Haliday, 1833). Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, =Gonomyia lateralis (Macquart, 1835). Podënas, 1995. 1988c, 1988a. D. (P.) robusta Lundström, 1912. Podënas, 1991b, =Idiocera lateralis (Macquart, 1835). Podënas, 1992b. 1992b, 1995; Savchenko et al., 1992. E. (Protogonomyia) alboscutellatus (von Roser, 1840). D. (P.) subtilis Loew, 1871. Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, Dobrovolskytë & Podënas, 1995; Podënas, 1995. 1995. Erioconopa diuturna (Walker, 1848). Podënas, 1992b, D. (Rhaphidolabis) exclusa (Walker, 1848). Podënas, 1995. 1991b, 1992b, 1995; Savchenko et al., 1992. =Erioptera diuturna (Walker, 1848). Valenta & Pedicia (Crunobia) straminea (Meigen, 1838). Podënas, 1988. Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, 1995. E. trivialis (Meigen, 1818). Podënas, 1992b, 1995. P. (Pedicia) rivosa (Linnaeus, 1758). Valenta & Podënas, =Erioptera trivialis Meigen, 1818. Valenta & 1985a, 1988; Podënas, 1988c, 1991b, 1992b, 1995; Podënas, 1985a, 1988; Podënas, 1988c. Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1997. Erioptera (Erioptera) divisa (Walker, 1848). Podënas, Tricyphona (Tricyphona) immaculata (Meigen, 1804). 1992b, 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1997. Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, =E. macrophthalma Loew, 1871. Podënas, 1988c, 1997. 1988a. T. (T.) livida Madarassy, 1881. Podënas, 1991b, 1992b, E. (E.) flavata (Westhoff, 1882). Podënas, 1995; 1995; Savchenko et al., 1992; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1997. 1997. E. flavescens: Valenta & Podënas, 1985a, 1988c; T. (T.) unicolor (Schummel, 1829). Podënas, 1991b, Podënas, 1988c. 1992b, 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1997. =E. gemina gemina Tjeder, 1967. Podënas, 1992b. Ula bolitophila Loew, 1869. Podënas, 1988a, 1991b, E. (E.) fuscipennis Meigen. 1818, Podënas, 1992b, 1995. 1992b, 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, 1997. E. (E.) fusculenta Edwards, 1938. Podënas & U. mollissima Haliday, 1833. Podënas, 1995. Pakalniðkis, 2000. Checklist of Lithuanian Diptera 5 E. (E.) griseipennis Meigen. 1838, Podënas, 1992b, Pakalniðkis, 2000. 1995. Ilisia maculata (Meigen, 1804). Podënas, 1995; Podënas E. (E.) limbata Loew, 1873. Podënas, 1992b, 1995; & Pakalniðkis, 1997. Savchenko et al., 1992. I. occoecata Edwards, 1936. Podënas & Pakalniðkis, E. (E.) lutea Meigen, 1804. Valenta & Podënas, 1985a, 2000. 1988; Podënas, 1988c, 1995; Podënas & Pakalniðkis, Lipsotrix ecucullata Edwards, 1938. Podënas, 1992b, 1997. 1995. =E. lutea lutea Meigen, 1804. Podënas, 1992b. L. errans (Walker, 1848). Podënas, 1992b, 1995. E. (E.) pederi Tjeder, 1969. Podënas & Pakalniðkis, L. nigristigma Edwards, 1938. Savchenko et al., 1992. 2000. =L. nigristigma nigristigma Edwards, 1938. E. (E.) sordida Zetterstedt, 1838. Podënas, 1988a, 1992b, Podënas, 1992b. 1995; Valenta & Podënas, 1988. L. remota (Walker, 1848). Podënas, 1992b, 1995. =E. riedeli Lackschewitz, 1925. Valenta & Podënas, Molophilus (Molophilus) appendiculatus (Staeger, 1985a, 1988; Podënas, 1988c. 1840). Valenta & Podënas, 1988; Podënas, 1992b, 1995. E. (E.) squalida
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume 2 Number 2 October 2011
    The Doncaster Naturalist Volume 2 Number 2 October 2011 Doncaster Naturalists' Society Editorial It has been another busy year for the Doncaster Naturalists' Society, thanks to the efforts of Louise Hill, our indefatigable President. She has ensured that the DNS is one of the most active of local natural history societies, and, together with Pip Seccombe, has organised a full set of activities for the forseeable future. Several DNS members also took part in field work over the last few years for a new atlas of the region's flora. The results of their labours, under the direction of Geoffrey Wilmore, will soon be available to see. The forthcoming launch in Doncaster of The South Yorkshire Plant Atlas, edited by Geoffrey Wilmore, Jeff Lunn and Professor Rodwell is a notable coup, and means that the Society will be playing host to many of the region's top naturalists. Botanical themes feature strongly in this issue of The Doncaster Naturalist. Pip Seccombe's update on her work to protect the Fritllaries at Owston is a fascinating story with a very positive result. Less happy though are the articles concerning invasive alien plants and the problems thy are causing. Owls and their pellets are topics for two articles which provide us with insights into their diets and other habits. This edition of The Doncaster Naturalist inevitably looks back at the past activities of our members and friends. The range of topics is again wide, and we have sufficient material to produce an edition with fourty-four pages this time. Contributions are welcomed from all, whether they are reports of research, descriptive anecdotes, drawings, poetry or photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • PAEDOGENESIS in ERISTALIS ARBUSTORUM
    PAEDOGENESIS in ERISTALIS ARBUSTORUM Bart Achterkamp, under supervision of dr. Mart M. Ottenheim, dr. Leo W. Beukeboom and prof.dr. Paul M. Brakefield Section Evolutionary Biology and Section Animal Ecology, Institute of Evolutionary and Ecological Sciences Leiden University M. Sc. Thesis 1999 PAEDOGENESIS in Eristalis arbustorum (Diptera: Syrphidae) Sum mary Paedogenesisis the reproduction by larvae or juveniles. In insects this form of reproduction is known from one beetle, several species of gall midges and possibly Erisalishoverfiies.This study aims to show paedogenesis forE. arbuslorum under controlled conditions. The first two experiments were unsuccessful. In the third experiment, a total of 1266 larvae were reared and five occasions of paedogenesis were recorded among 542 successful pupations. In all cases of paedogenesis, one larva was put in the container and two larvae or pupae were collected later. The life history consequences of this way of reproduction are discussed. "Now don't forget. Gorold .THIS time punch some holes in the lid!" 2 I cunvrt(': BiBLIOTHEEK RU GRONINGEN 30 — * i7DOAA H"'t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIII 217Q70R4 D67 INTRODUCTION .4 1.1 Life history .4 1.2 Terminology 5 1.3 Bisexual or parthenogenetic reproduction9 8 1 .4 Paedogenesis in non-insect animals 8 1.4.1 Phylum Hydrozoa 8 1.4.2 Phylum Platyhelminthes 9 1.4.3 Phylum Arthropoda: Rhizocephalan barnacles 9 1.4.4 Phylum Echinodermata 9 1.4.5 Paedogenetic salamanders 10 1.5 Paedogenesis in insects 11 1.5.1 Paedogenesis in Hemiptera 11 1.5.2 Paedogenesis
    [Show full text]
  • QQR 7 Information Pack
    7th Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Information Pack (version 2.21) 14 May 2021 1 Version 2.2: Four reptiles and two seals removed from the EPS list (Annex 1); one EPS amphibian and two EPS reptiles that are all Endangered removed from Annex 2 – these species were included in Version 2 and/or 2.1 in error. See Annex 1 and Annex 2 for further information. 1. Introduction Every five years, the country nature conservation bodies (Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and NatureScot), working jointly through the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), review Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981. The review will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to Ministers for the Environment in the Scottish Government and Welsh Government for changes to these schedules2. This is known as the Quinquennial Review (QQR). As part of the QQR, stakeholders are provided with the opportunity to propose changes to the species on the schedules. This Information Pack has been produced for the 7th QQR (QQR 7). It is important to note that this QQR differs from previous ones. The Information Pack explains the new selection criteria, provides a timetable, and explains the process to be used by stakeholders. Contact details of the QQR Inter-agency Group who are managing QQR 7, are listed in Section 5. In addition, the Information Pack provides details of how to complete the online survey through which stakeholders propose new species for inclusion on, or removal of existing species from Schedules 5 and 8, or propose a change to how species are protected on the schedules.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Natural History and Control of Nonnative Invasive Species
    Appendix B: Natural History and Control of Nonnative Invasive Plants Found in Ten Northern Rocky Mountains National Parks Introduction The Invasive Plant Management Plan was written for the following ten parks (in this document, parks are referred to by the four letter acronyms in bold): the Bear Paw Battlefield-BEPA (MT, also known as Nez Perce National Historical Park); Big Hole National Battlefield-BIHO (MT); City of Rocks National Reserve-CIRO (ID); Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve-CRMO (ID); Fossil Butte National Monument-FOBU (WY); Golden Spike National Historic Site-GOSP (UT); Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site-GRKO (MT); Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument-HAFO (ID); Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument-LIBI (MT); and Minidoka National Historic Site-MIIN (ID). The following information is contained for each weed species covered in this document (1) Park presence: based on formal surveys or park representatives’ observations (2) Status: whether the plant is listed as noxious in ID, MT, UT, or WY (3) Identifying characteristics: key characteristics to aid identification, and where possible, unique features to help distinguish the weed from look-a-like species (4) Life cycle: annual, winter-annual, biennial, or perennial and season of flowering and fruit set (5) Spread: the most common method of spread and potential for long distance dispersal (6) Seeds per plant and seed longevity (when available) (7) Habitat (8) Control Options: recommendations on the effectiveness of a. Mechanical Control b. Cultural
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera, Tabanoidea, Tabanidae) Dorian D
    Dörge et al. Parasites Vectors (2020) 13:461 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04316-7 Parasites & Vectors RESEARCH Open Access Incompletely observed: niche estimation for six frequent European horsefy species (Diptera, Tabanoidea, Tabanidae) Dorian D. Dörge1*, Sarah Cunze1 and Sven Klimpel1,2 Abstract Background: More than 170 species of tabanids are known in Europe, with many occurring only in limited areas or having become very rare in the last decades. They continue to spread various diseases in animals and are responsible for livestock losses in developing countries. The current monitoring and recording of horsefies is mainly conducted throughout central Europe, with varying degrees of frequency depending on the country. To the detriment of tabanid research, little cooperation exists between western European and Eurasian countries. Methods: For these reasons, we have compiled available sources in order to generate as complete a dataset as possi- ble of six horsefy species common in Europe. We chose Haematopota pluvialis, Chrysops relictus, C. caecutiens, Tabanus bromius, T. bovinus and T. sudeticus as ubiquitous and abundant species within Europe. The aim of this study is to esti- mate the distribution, land cover usage and niches of these species. We used a surface-range envelope (SRE) model in accordance with our hypothesis of an underestimated distribution based on Eurocentric monitoring regimes. Results: Our results show that all six species have a wide range in Eurasia, have a broad climatic niche and can there- fore be considered as widespread generalists. Areas with modelled habitat suitability cover the observed distribution and go far beyond these. This supports our assumption that the current state of tabanid monitoring and the recorded distribution signifcantly underestimates the actual distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Rvk-Diss Digi
    University of Groningen Of dwarves and giants van Klink, Roel IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2014 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): van Klink, R. (2014). Of dwarves and giants: How large herbivores shape arthropod communities on salt marshes. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 01-10-2021 Of Dwarves and Giants How large herbivores shape arthropod communities on salt marshes Roel van Klink This PhD-project was carried out at the Community and Conservation Ecology group, which is part of the Centre for Ecological and Environmental Studies of the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]
  • Frontenac Provincial Park
    FRONTENAC PROVINCIAL PARK One Malaise trap was deployed at Frontenac Provincial Park in 2014 (44.51783, -76.53944, 176m ASL; Figure 1). This trap collected arthropods for twenty weeks from May 9 – September 25, 2014. All 10 Malaise trap samples were processed; every other sample was analyzed using the individual specimen protocol while the second half was analyzed via bulk analysis. A total of 3372 BINs were obtained. Half of the BINs captured were flies (Diptera), followed by bees, ants and wasps (Hymenoptera), moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), and true bugs (Hemiptera; Figure 2). In total, 750 arthropod species were named, representing 24.6% of the BINs from the site (Appendix 1). All but 1 of the BINs were assigned Figure 1. Malaise trap deployed at Frontenac at least to family, and 58.2% were assigned to a genus Provincial Park in 2014. (Appendix 2). Specimens collected from Frontenac represent 232 different families and 838 genera. Diptera Hymenoptera Lepidoptera Hemiptera Coleoptera Trombidiformes Psocodea Trichoptera Araneae Mesostigmata Entomobryomorpha Thysanoptera Neuroptera Orthoptera Sarcoptiformes Blattodea Mecoptera Odonata Symphypleona Ephemeroptera Julida Opiliones Figure 2. Taxonomy breakdown of BINs captured in the Malaise trap at Frontenac. APPENDIX 1. TAXONOMY REPORT Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona obesa Dictynidae Emblyna Emblyna annulipes Emblyna sublata Gnaphosidae Cesonia Cesonia bilineata Linyphiidae Ceraticelus Ceraticelus fissiceps Pityohyphantes Pityohyphantes
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Fauna Compared Between Six Polypore Species in a Southern Norwegian Spruce Forest
    --------------------------FaunanorY. Ser. B 42: 21-26.1995 Insect fauna compared between six polypore species in a southern Norwegian spruce forest Bj0rn 0kland 0kland, B. 1995. Insect fauna compared between six polypore species in a southern Norwegian spruce forest. - Fauna norv. Ser. B 42: 21-26. Beetles and gall midges were reared from dead fruiting bodies of the polypore species Phellinus tremulae, Piptoporus betulinus, Fomitopsis pinicola, Pycnoporus cinnabari­ nus, Fomes fomentarius and Inonotus radiatus. The number of species differed signifi­ cantly among the polypore species. The variation in species richness conformed well with the hypothesis that more insect species may utilize a fungi species with (1) increasing durational stability, and (2) increasing softness of the carpophores. Strong preferance for certain polypore species was indicated for most of the Cisidae species, and a few species in the other families of beetles and gall midges (Diptera). The host preferances of the Cisidae species were in good agreement with records from other parts of Scandinavia. The host records in two of the gall midge species are new. Many of the species were too low-frequent for an evaluation of host preferances. Bjf/Jrn 0kland, Norwegian Forest Research Institute, Hf/Jgskolevn. 12, 1432 As, Norway. INTRODUCTION Karst., Fomes fomentarius (Fr.) Kickx, Piptoporus betulinus (Fr.) Karst., Phellinus A large number of mycetophagous insects uti­ tremulae (Bond.) Bond.& Borisov, Pycnoporus lize fruiting bodies of wood-rotting fungi as cinnabarinus (Fr.) Karst. and Inonotus radiatus food and breeding sites (Gilberston 1984). The (Fr.) Karst. All six species form sporocarps of a species breeding in Polyporaceae display vary- bracket type, and are associated with different t ing degree of host specificity.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Host Association in Platygaster Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera, Platygastridae)
    Phylogeny and host association in Platygaster Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera, Platygastridae) Peter Neerup Buhl Buhl, P.N.: Phylogeny and host association in Platygaster Latreille, 1809 (Hy­ menoptera, Platygastridae). Ent. Meddr 69: 113-122. Copenhagen, Denmark 2001. ISSN 0013-8851. An examination of the known midge host/midge plant host associations for species of Platygasterparasitoid wasps seems to indicate a number of natural par­ asitoid species groups restricted to specific plant families. Midge hosts seem less indicative for platygastrid relationships, but several exceptions from this rule exist. The possible reasons for this are discussed. It is also shown that species of Platy­ gaster with known host associations generally prefer midges on plant families which are not the families generally prefered by the midges. Furthermore, a com­ parison of the known midge host/midge plant host associations for the genera of the "Platygaster-cluster" and the "Synopeas-cluster" shows great differences in the general preferences of the clusters. P.N. Buhl, Troldh0jvej 3, DK-3310 0lsted, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] Introduction The phylogeny of the very large platygastrid genus Platygaster, tiny parasitoids on gall midges (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae), is mostly unresolved. The great problems which meet the investigator are primarily - as in all platygastrids - the few external characters avail­ able in a phylogenetic analysis. A further obstacle in the revisionary work is that many species are known only from short dated original descriptions (unknown or unrevised type material). Aspects of the biology (midge host or host plant of midge) are, however, known for about half the described species, so perhaps this could enlighten aspects of the parasitoid taxonomy- as was successfully done e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Pollinating Flies
    Scottish Pollinating Flies Introduction to True flies True flies form one of the largest and most diverse orders of insects called Diptera (meaning two wings). There are around 160,000 species worldwide in 150 families, with 7,200 species from over 90 families recorded in the UK. They inhabit every continent and almost every terrestrial and freshwater niche on the planet which is testament to their adaptability. True flies differ from other insects in that they have retained only their front pair of wings, with the hind pair having evolved into small club-shaped appendages called ‘halteres’ which act as gyroscopes and facilitate greater aerobatic agility. They provide a range of ecological services including pollination, controlling pest species, the decomposition of organic material, and supplementing the dietary requirements of a wide range of other organisms. Pollinating flies and other dipterans Of the four most significant orders of pollinating insects, flies are the most abundant. Approximately 1,500 of the 7,200 British species are thought to contribute to pollination. Hoverflies (family Syrphidae) are especially significant pollinators, but some other families (the house flies and their relatives) are just as important. The remainder of the 90+ families contribute relatively few, or no pollinating species. True flies contribute to more pollination in Scotland than any other order of insects, mainly due to the sparsity, absence or selectiveness of bees in colder, northern upland habitats. Below are some examples that demonstrate the diversity of true flies that may be encountered. Common dronefly (Eristalis tenax) Splayed deerfly Chrysops( caecutiens) © Steven Falk © Steven © Steven Falk © Steven Cranefly Tipula lateralis Orange-legged robberfly (Dioctria oelandica) © Steven Falk © Steven Falk © Steven Buglife—The Invertebrate Conservation Trust is a company limited by guarantee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status and Distribution of the Horseflies Atylotus Plebeius and Hybomitra Lurida on the Cheshire Plain Area of North West England
    The status and distribution of the horseflies Atylotus plebeius and Hybomitra lurida on the Cheshire Plain area of North West England Including assessments of mire habitats and accounts of other horseflies (Tabanidae) Atylotus plebeius (Fallén) [Cheshire Horsefly]: male from Little Budworth Common 10th June 2018; female from Shemmy Moss 9th June 2018 A report to Gary Hedges, Tanyptera Regional Entomology Project Officer, Entomology, National Museums Liverpool, World Museum, William Brown Street, L3 8EN Email: [email protected] By entomological consultant Andrew Grayson, ‘Scardale’, High Lane, Beadlam, Nawton, York, YO62 7SX Email: [email protected] Based on The results of a survey carried out during 2018 Report submitted on 2nd March 2019 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 SUMMARY . 1 THE CHESHIRE PLAIN AREA MIRES . 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO ATYLOTUS PLEBEIUS IN THE CHESHIRE PLAIN AREA . 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO HYBOMITRA LURIDA IN THE CHESHIRE PLAIN AREA . 2 OTHER HORSEFLIES RECORDED IN THE CHESHIRE PLAIN AREA . 3 METHODOLOGY FOR THE 2018 SURVEY . 3 INTRODUCTION . 3 RECONNAISSANCE . 4 THE SURVEY . 4 LOCALITIES . 5 ABBOTS MOSS COMPLEX MIRES ON FOREST CAMP LAND . 5 ABBOTS MOSS COMPLEX MIRES ON FORESTRY COMMISSION LAND . 7 BRACKENHURST BOG AND NEWCHURCH COMMON . 8 DELAMERE FOREST MIRES . 9 LITTLE BUDWORTH COMMON MIRES . 17 PETTY POOL AREA WETLANDS . 18 MISCELLANEOUS DELAMERE AREA MIRES . 19 WYBUNBURY MOSS AND CHARTLEY MOSS . 21 BROWN MOSS . 22 CLAREPOOL MOSS AND COLE MERE . 23 THE FENN’S, WHIXALL, BETTISFIELD, WEM AND CADNEY MOSSES COMPLEX SSSI MIRES . 24 POTENTIAL HOST ANIMALS FOR FEMALE TABANIDAE BLOOD MEALS . 26 RESULTS . 27 TABANIDAE . 27 SUMMARY . 27 SPECIES ACCOUNTS . 27 TABLE SHOWING DISSECTION OF HORSEFLY NUMBERS .
    [Show full text]