Observations on the Larva and Foodplants of Lobesia Reliquana (Hübner, [1825]) (Lep.: Tortricidae, Olethreutinae)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ent Rec 131(3).qxp_Layout 1 25/05/2019 10:19 Page 105 Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 131 (2019) 105 OBSERVATIONS ON THE LARVA AND FOODPLANTS OF LOBESIA RELIQUANA (HÜBNER, [1825]) (LEP.: TORTRICIDAE, OLETHREUTINAE) ¹ S. D. B EAVAN AND ² R. J. H ECKFORD ¹ The Hayes, Zeal Monachorum, Devon EX17 6DF ² Department of Life Sciences, Division of Insects, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD (Correspondence address: 67 Newnham Road, Plympton, Plymouth, Devon PL7 4AW) Abstract This paper considers accounts of the larva and larval foodplants of Lobesia reliquana (Hübner, [1825]) in British and mainland European literature as a result of finding larvae in withered brown leaves of Hornbeam Carpinus betulus L. and oak Quercus sp. in Devon, England. Certain cited foodplants are considered to be erroneous or requiring confirmation. Only a few larval descriptions are considered to be reliable. Key words : Lepidoptera, Tortricidae, Lobesia reliquana , larva, foodplants, Carpinus betulus , Quercus sp., dead leaves. Introduction Lobesia reliquana (Hübner, [1825]) is a comparatively widespread species in Great Britain although becoming more local or absent in northern England and Scotland. In view of this, it is perhaps rather surprising that there appear to be only three published accounts of the larva being found in the wild in Great Britain. The first was in 1887 by J. H. Wood (1888), who beat two larvae from Blackthorn Prunus spinosa L. By 1895 Wood (1895: 159) had recorded it from birch Betula sp. and then by 1992 (Robbins, [1992]: 166) it had been found on Wild Cherry Prunus avium (L.) L. Between 2009 and 2013 we collected several larvae that all appeared to be the same amongst withered brown leaves of Hornbeam Carpinus betulus L. and oak Quercus sp. that were attached to twigs that had been had been caught amongst branches in the understorey at two woods in Devon. We succeeded in rearing one moth in 2010 and another in 2014. Both proved to be Lobesia reliquana . Further details are given later in this paper. We examine a number of published records of the larval foodplants and suggest that eight of them, several first given in mainland European literature and then cited in British literature, are either erroneous or unconfirmed. We review the few published British larval records, as well as some from mainland Europe, none of which suggests that the larva feeds on dead leaves. Several of the earlier publications give the specific name of the species as ‘ permixtana ’ but it is clear from the context that it is Lobesia reliquana that is being referred to and not Gynnidomorpha permixtana ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775) which is also in the Tortricidae. We provide a photograph of one of the larvae that we Ent Rec 131(3).qxp_Layout 1 25/05/2019 10:19 Page 106 106 Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 131 (2019) found because although it agrees with the original British description given by Wood (1888) it differs in several significant respects from that provided by Bradley, Tremewan & Smith (1979: 68) and Hancock & Bland (2014: 22). Larval foodplants given in British and mainland European literature The following lists larval foodplants given in both British and mainland European literature in the order in which they were published. We follow Stace (2019) for both the scientific and vernacular names of the foodplants given, except for names included in quotations and also for the vernacular name of Juniperus oxycedrus L. because this does not occur in the British Isles and so is not included by Stace. Common Juniper Juniperus communis L. This is cited by Hartmann (1868; 1870: 36; 1880: 44). In his first publication he records that he reared one specimen of ‘Lobesia Permixtana HS’ as well as other species from ‘die Knoten’ on Juniper communis . In his second publication he states, ‘an Juniperus communis in aufgetriebenen Knoten der Stämme und Zweige’ (‘on Juniperus communis in swollen knots on the stems and branches). In his third publication he simply gives ‘ Juniperus communis ’ without any further information. Stainton (1887) refers to Hartmann’s 1870 publication and describes the record of the larva occurring in the swollen knots on the stems and branches of Juniperus communis as ‘somewhat startling information’, observing that ‘surely some other species must here be meant.’ Walsingham (1887) refers to Stainton’s note and comments it was extremely probable that the larva must have been that of Grapholita opulentana Millière, 1875 (now Cydia interscindana (Möschler, 1866)). He states that although he is not aware that the larva of that species feeds on Juniperus communis , he had frequently bred it from swollen knots on Prickly Juniper Juniperus oxycedrus L. Joannis (1921) carried out an extensive review of the literature dealing with the larval foodplants of Lobesia reliquana , including Hartmann’s 1868 publication. Joannis translates Hartmann’s ‘Knoten’ as ‘galles’ and concludes that the species was not cecidogenic (gall-forming). Lhomme (1935: 389) also states that it is not cecidogenic, but adding that it has been obtained accidentally from a gall of Juniperus communis , citing ‘Hartmann’. We entirely agree that Hartmann was mistaken. In our view it is inconceivable that the larva of Lobesia reliquana , which undoubtedly feeds on leaves of at least 10 different species of deciduous trees, and in our experience also in spun withered leaves, also feeds in swollen knots/galls in stems and branches of Juniperus communis . Alkanet Anchusa officinalis L. Jourdheuille (1870: 127) gives this, stating simply ‘Sur Anchusa officinalis ’. Stainton (1887), however, points out that Rössler (1881: 247) assigns this foodplant to Lobesia artemisiana (Zeller, 1847). Goldenrod Solidago virgaurea L. Brischke (1876: 68) found one larva ‘in den Stengelspitzen der Solidago virgaurea’ (‘in the tips of the stem of Solidago virgaurea ’) on 21 August 1871, with the moth resulting on 11 April 1872. Stainton Ent Rec 131(3).qxp_Layout 1 25/05/2019 10:19 Page 107 Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 131 (2019) 107 (1887) remarks that although Brischke’s note was not published until nearly four years after the appearance of ‘ the first permixtana reported to have been bred’ he does not appear to have found any more larvae. Stainton’s use of italics for the passage cited suggests that he had doubts about some aspect of the record, especially as he comments that ‘The observation may be a good one, but it is desirable to have it confirmed by those who have opportunities of collecting in August amongst Solidago .’ Fenn (1887) refers to Stainton’s note and states that in his district in Kent, England, the moth is abundant and flies over the tops of oak ( Quercus sp.) bushes and small trees. He comments that he can hardly think that the larva feeds on Solidago virgaurea as the moth is very common in woods where that plant is absent and that in collecting the stems and seed-heads for rearing various species of Lepidoptera he had never heard of anyone breeding this species, which in his experience was confined to oak. Sheldon (1920) obtained ova from captive females of Lobesia reliquana . Only one larva resulted and this fed on spun leaves of Quercus sp., but in the final instar Sheldon introduced a leaf of Solidago virgaurea . He records that although this leaf was then spun to the only leaf of Quercus sp. in the container, it was not fed upon. As far as we are aware there is no other record of the species being bred from Solidago virgaurea . We consider that Brischke had simply found a larva that had descended from higher up in order to pupate. This assumes that Brischke’s indentification of the resulting adult was correct. Beech Fagus sp. We presume that the following refer to Fagus sylvatica L. even though only ‘ Fagus ’ is given. Sorhagen (1886: 104) gives the larva as occurring in August in the tips of the stems of Solidago virgaurea (Brischke) , Anchusa officinalis (Jourdheuille) and woody knots of Juniperus communis according to Hartmann, and also on deciduous trees, according to Sauber in September on Fagus . In his Introduction, Sorhagen (1886: viii –ix) lists a number of publications that he has consulted. The entry for Sauber is given as ‘Sauber, in den Hamburger Verh. 1871–74.’ The only relevant publication by Sauber that we can trace is in Verhandlungen des Vereins für Naturwissenschaftliche Unterhaltung zu Hamburg published in 1875 for the period 1871–1874. There Sauber (1875: 155) simply states: ‘Lobesia Gn. permixtana Hb. – S. – Ende Mai. Haake.’; no foodplant is mentioned. ‘Fagus ’ is subsequently cited by various authors, but we cannot trace a first-hand account of the larva being found on the leaves of this tree. Blackthorn Prunus spinosa L. This appears to be derived from Wood (1888) who beat two larvae from bushes of Prunus spinosa at the end of July 1887. In captivity the larvae were given only the leaves of Prunus spinosa ; there is no suggestion that these were withered. Benander (1965: 5) also gives ‘Prunus spinosa, larva 26/7; imago 16/5.’ We note that he does not provide a larval description whereas he does for most of his larval accounts. This was the second part of two papers that he published on the larvae of Swedish Microlepidoptera, all based on his personal observations of the previous 50 years. Downy Birch Betula pubescens Ehrh. Wood (1895: 159) records that ‘Birch ( Betula glutinosa ) [now Betula pubescens ] is a food-plant for this Tortrix , as well as Prunus Ent Rec 131(3).qxp_Layout 1 25/05/2019 10:19 Page 108 108 Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 131 (2019) spinosa . I have obtained it on several occasions from the plant. A suggestion thrown out that it may feed on oak is, therefore, likely enough some day to come true.’ He does not specifically state that he found larvae feeding on Betula sp., but this must be the implication because Wood was a careful observer.