Part 2 Historical, Theoretical, and Philosophical Bases of Biological Insect Pest Suppression

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Part 2 Historical, Theoretical, and Philosophical Bases of Biological Insect Pest Suppression Part 2 Historical, Theoretical, and Philosophical Bases of Biological Insect Pest Suppression The practice of various biological methods of insect pest suppression has gained increasing acceptance, indeed popularity, in very recent years. A number of stim­ uli have led to this situation, not the least of which is the overall popular environ­ mental awareness which followed the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962. But, as we shall see, an elegant and complex concept like biologi­ cal insect pest suppression does not gain stature and prominence overnight, nor does it spring full-flower from the mind of any single person. Historically, the growth of the discipline was slow and sometimes painful; it is studded with a few sparkling success stories, some disappointments, and many unheralded applica­ tions that are highly successful, but doomed to obscurity because of that very success. Indeed, the results of a successful program of biological pest suppression are not very impressive unless the situation can be compared to that which existed previously. In the following three chapters we shall touch on some of the high­ lights in the development of the ideas and practices of "classical" biological insect pest suppression-this is, the directed use of parasitoids, predators, and patho­ genic microorganisms to reduce and regulate insect pest populations to subecon­ omic levels. Some of the more recently developed aspects and agencies of biologi­ cal insect pest suppression are dealt with in greater detail later (Part 4). The earliest observational, intuitive, and empirical work discussed in Chapter 2.1 led to the recognition and appreciation of some basic ecological principles and the theories of population dynamics discussed in Chapter 2.2. In Chapter 2.3, these and other ecological concepts are presented in their philosophical relationship to the classical practice of biological insect pest suppression. 2.1 Historical Development 2.1.1 Early History to 1888 To discover the origins of the practice that is today known as biological control one must look deeply into the dim reaches of human prehistory. Surely long before the rise of humankind and the first slow faltering steps in the development of agriculture, insects were subject to interaction with other inhabitants of the biosphere. Some of these interactions were beneficial to the individual insect (e.g. supplied nutriment, protection, or other advantageous symbiotic relations), and some were detrimental (e.g. competition, disease, predation). All such interactions were necessary, for if the species was to survive in nature it had to do so in concert with other organisms, producing neither too many nor too few individuals for a H. C. Coppel et al., Biological Insect Pest Suppression © Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1977 Early History to 1888 15 sustained stable population in a given environment. A biologist known as Charles Darwin was later to recognize this process and discuss it in great detail. Entomophagy, then, existed from the appearance of the first insects. These small comparatively vulnerable animals fell prey to all manner of predators, parasites, and diseases, some of which came to depend on them entirely for food. No one knows with certainty when "the knowing man," Homo sapiens, first became cognizant of entomophagy by other animals, but early humans them­ selves probably utilized insects as part of their own diet much as many primitive peoples do today. It seems reasonable to assume that the simple fact of predation was recognized at an early date, because man was himself sometimes competing with other insect predators for the same food source, but the more subtle ideas of parasitism probably remained beyond comprehension for hundreds of years. Some insect diseases produce such spectacular effects that even primitive man must have noticed them and perhaps compared them to the afflictions of larger animals, though we have no evidence of this observation (Steinhaus, 1956). The discovery of agriculture and its development during Neolithic times, about 10000 B.C., put humankind into very direct competition with insects for food. With the coming of crop raising and monoculture came a localized abund­ ance of certain plant foods, and inevitably a localized increase in the abundance of pests to utilize them. We know that as agriculture progressed in sophistication a certain amount of selection took place in the varieties of crop plants grown. Most notably selected were strains giving greater yields through larger or more numer­ ous seeds, fruits, or tubers, but other desirable qualities were probably also noted and encouraged. Thus the selection of crop varieties exhibiting resistance to disease and insect pests can be considered the oldest practical application of a type of biological pest suppression. Just as early man observed birds eating insects, and snakes eating rodents in the woods and fields, he must also have noted the proclivity of certain wild felines toward a diet of mice and rats like those which infested his stores of grain and other foods. And so, the domestication of the house cat by the ancient Egyptians may well have been encouraged in part by this useful habit, and may be consi­ dered as a second very early attempt at biological pest suppression. We may now move from the realm of conjecture to the world of recorded facts. In the Bible we encounter the various plagues which befell Egypt, and in the first chapter of the Book of Joel a series of insect depredations is described which later disappear, illustrating the early recognition of the cyclical nature of pest populations. As with many other aspects of biology, the writings of the ancient Greek and Roman naturalists contain some of the earliest recorded information pertinent to the subject at hand (Smith and Secoy, 1975). A number of the classical philosophers had things to say about insects, but few are as valuable or accessible as the writings of Aristotle and Pliny (Marlatt, 1898). Within the masses of general observations and descriptions covering various aspects of insect study can be found early references to insect pathology. Aristotle (384-322 B.c.), in his Histo­ ria Animalium, described the ravages of the wax moth to honeycomb, and suggests that it brings "disease into the swarm" (Steinhaus, 1956). He further describes other disease symptoms in bees which may be interpreted as a foulbrood condi­ tion. Similarly the Roman author, Pliny (23-79 A.D.), recognized several disease 16 Historical, Theoretical, and Philosophical Bases of Biological Insect Pest Suppression conditions in bees. In another part of the world another domestic insect, the silkworm, also suffered from various afflictions, some of which were recognized as early as 1000 A.D. (Steinhaus, 1956). In all of these instances, however, not much of real practical value was presented or suggested; the ancient naturalists and philosophers contented themselves with simple observation and description, and it was not until after the Dark and Middle Ages that anything substantially new was added to the body of practical knowledge concerning natural mortality in insects. We are aware of two notable exceptions to this statement. Although insect predation was observed and recognized for a long time, the idea of actually using predatory animals for agricultural pest control was slow to germinate. What is apparently the first known use of this method, which is true biological insect suppression in the modern sense, was the practice by Chinese citrus growers of introducing predaceous ants into their groves (Liu, 1939). An old Chinese book called "Wonders from Southern China," published about 900 A.D., speaks of the availability in the local markets of large yellow ants with long legs (probably Oecophylla smaragdina F.) used to protect oranges from "wormy" fruit. Another writer mentioned the same fact in the 1300s and as late as 1939 ant nests were still for sale in the markets of Canton. McCook (1883) commented on a Chinese newspaper report of the method, and discussed the possibilities of using these ants or native species for pest suppression in the United States. A second, and similar instance of early biological control was the practice of the date growers of the Mideastern country of Yemen, who moved colonies of beneficial ants to their groves from the mountains each year for insect pest suppression (Botta, 1841). It was not long after the reestablishment of intellectual activity in Europe that new and valuable observations on the natural history of insects began to appear. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries the renewed interest in science resulted mostly in the repetition ofthe beliefs of the ancients supplemented in part by original observation. Names like Gesner, Thomas Mouffet, and Aldrovandi characterize the times. Mouffet's 1heatrum Insectorum (which included Gesner's work) was published posthumously in 1634, and was the first book written exclu­ sively about insects. The book discussed or figured such things as diseases and parasites of bees and a nematode-infected silkworm (Ordish, 1967). Although Mouffet's book was the first book written on insects, Ulysses Aldrovandi's De Animalibus Insectis was the first volume published on the subject in 1602. It summarized all the material previously written on insects and included the first published record of insect parasitism. An attack of the gregarious braconid paras­ itoid, Apanteles glomeratus (L.), on the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae (L.), was shown, but misinterpreted by Aldrovandi, who thought the conspicuous parasi­ toid cocoons were insect eggs. In 1668, the Italian, Francesco Redi, described the same phenomenon and also parasitism of aphids by an ichneumon "fly." Redi also deserves credit for disproving the doctrine of spontaneous generation of life from nonliving material, but it was not until 1706 that Vallisnieri correctly inter­ preted all of these early observations on insect parasitism. The literature of the eighteenth century produced numerous other references to insect predators and parasitoids as naturalists began to question the works of antiquity and investigate the living world for themselves.
Recommended publications
  • Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966
    FOREST INSECT CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1966 FOREST SERVICE ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreword This report is the 18th annual account of the scope, severity, and trend of the more important forest insect infestations in the United States, and of the programs undertaken to check resulting damage and loss. It is compiled primarily for managers of public and private forest lands, but has become useful to students and others interested in outbreak trends and in the location and extent of pest populations. The report also makes possible n greater awareness of the insect prob­ lem and of losses to the timber resource. The opening section highlights the more important conditions Nationwide, and each section that pertains to a forest region is prefaced by its own brief summary. Under the Federal Forest Pest Control Act, a sharing by Federal and State Governments the costs of surveys and control is resulting in a stronger program of forest insect and disease detection and evaluation surveys on non-Federal lands. As more States avail themselves of this financial assistance from the Federal Government, damage and loss from forest insects will become less. The screening and testing of nonpersistent pesticides for use in suppressing forest defoliators continued in 1966. The carbamate insecticide Zectran in a pilot study of its effectiveness against the spruce budworm in Montana and Idaho appeared both successful and safe. More extensive 'tests are planned for 1967. Since only the smallest of the spray droplets reach the target, plans call for reducing the spray to a fine mist. The course of the fine spray, resulting from diffusion and atmospheric currents, will be tracked by lidar, a radar-laser combination.
    [Show full text]
  • Moth Diversity in Young Jack Pine-Deciduous Forests Aiter Disturbance by Wildfire Or Clear-Cutting
    MOTH DIVERSITY IN YOUNG JACK PINE-DECIDUOUS FORESTS AITER DISTURBANCE BY WILDFIRE OR CLEAR-CUTTING Rosalind Frances Cordes Chaundy A thesis submitted in conformity with the nquirements for the degree of Muter of Science in Foresty Gnduate Faculty of Forest y University of Toronto Q Copyright by Rosrlind Frances Cordu Chiundy 1999 National Library Bibliothbque nationale I*I oi canaci, du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogmphic SeMces secvices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington ûttawaON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in rnicroform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT Moth Diversity in Young Jack Pine-Deciduous Forests Mer Disturbance by Wfldfire or Clear- Cutting. Muter of Science in Forestry. 1999. Roselind Frances Cordes Chaundy. Fadty of Forestry, University of Toronto. Moth divcrsity was compared between four to eight yw-old jack pinedeciduous forests that had ban burned by wildfire or clearîut.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the Beaver Island Archipelago, Lake Michigan
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 24 Number 2 - Summer 1991 Number 2 - Summer Article 5 1991 June 1991 An Annotated Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the Beaver Island Archipelago, Lake Michigan. Dennis Profant Central Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Profant, Dennis 1991. "An Annotated Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the Beaver Island Archipelago, Lake Michigan.," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 24 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol24/iss2/5 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Profant: An Annotated Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the Beaver Island Ar 1991 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 85 AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE LEPIDOPTERA OF THE BEAVER ISLAND ARCHIPELAGO, LAKE MICHIGAN. Dennis Profantl ABSTRACT A survey of Lepidoptera was conducted in 1987 and 1988 on Beaver Island, Lake Michigan. When combined with a 1930 survey of the Beaver Island Archipelago, 757 species from 41 families have now been recorded from these islands. Only one study has been published on the Lepidoptera of Beaver Island and the surrounding islands of Garden, High, Hog, Whiskey, Squaw, Trout, Gull, and Hat (Moore 1930). The present study has produced a more complete inventory of lepi­ dopteran species on Beaver Island. Collecting was done in a variety of habitats using several different light sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?
    Impacts of Native and Non-native plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better than Non-natives? by Carl Scott Clem A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Key Words: native plants, non-native plants, caterpillars, natural enemies, associational interactions, congeneric plants Copyright 2015 by Carl Scott Clem Approved by David Held, Chair, Associate Professor: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Charles Ray, Research Fellow: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Debbie Folkerts, Assistant Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Robert Boyd, Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Abstract With continued suburban expansion in the southeastern United States, it is increasingly important to understand urbanization and its impacts on sustainability and natural ecosystems. Expansion of suburbia is often coupled with replacement of native plants by alien ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle, Bradford pear, and Japanese maple. Two projects were conducted for this thesis. The purpose of the first project (Chapter 2) was to conduct an analysis of existing larval Lepidoptera and Symphyta hostplant records in the southeastern United States, comparing their species richness on common native and alien woody plants. We found that, in most cases, native plants support more species of eruciform larvae compared to aliens. Alien congener plant species (those in the same genus as native species) supported more species of larvae than alien, non-congeners. Most of the larvae that feed on alien plants are generalist species. However, most of the specialist species feeding on alien plants use congeners of native plants, providing evidence of a spillover, or false spillover, effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Index to Volume 118 Compiled by Leslie Cody Abies balsamea, 46,95,124,251,268,274,361,388,401,510,530 confines, 431 lasiocarpa, 191,355,584 thomsoni, 431 Abrostola urentis, 541 Agelaius phoeniceus, 201 Acanthopteroctetes bimaculata, 532 Agelaius phoeniceus, Staging in Eastern South Dakota, Spring Acanthopteroctetidae, 532 Dispersal Patterns of Red-winged Blackbirds, 201 Acasis viridata, 539 Aglais milberti, 537 Acer,52 Agonopterix gelidella, 533 negundo, 309 Agriphila ruricolella, 536 rubrum, 41,96,136,136,251,277,361,508 vulgivagella, 536 saccharinum, 41,124,251 Agropyron spp., 400,584 saccharum, 361,507 cristatum, 300 spicatum, 362 pectiniforme, 560 Achigan à grande bouche, 523 repens, 300 à petite bouche, 523 sibiricum, 560 Achillea millefolium, 166 Agrostis sp., 169 Achnatherum richardsonii, 564 filiculmis, 558 Acipenser fulvescens, 523 gigantea, 560 Acipenseridae, 523 Aira praecox, 177 Acleris albicomana, 534 Aix sponsa, 131,230 britannia, 534 Alaska, Changes in Loon (Gavia spp.) and Red-necked Grebe celiana, 534 (Podiceps grisegena) Populations in the Lower Mata- emargana, 535 nuska-Susitna Valley, 210 forbesana, 534 Alaska, Interactions of Brown Bears, Ursus arctos, and Gray logiana, 534 Wolves, Canis lupus, at Katmai National Park and Pre- nigrolinea, 535 serve, 247 obligatoria, 534 Alaska, Seed Dispersal by Brown Bears, Ursus arctos,in schalleriana, 534 Southeastern, 499 variana, 534 Alaska, The Heather Vole, Genus Phenacomys, in, 438 Acorn, J.H., Review by, 468 Alberta: Distribution and Status, The Barred Owl, Strix varia Acossus
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of the Kingston Study Area
    Moths of the Kingston Study Area Last updated 30 July 2015 by Mike Burrell This checklist contains the 783 species known to have occurred within the Kingston Study. Major data sources include KFN bioblitzes, an earlier version created by Gary Ure (2013) and the Queen’s University Biological Station list by Kit Muma (2008). For information about contributing your sightings or to download the latest version of this checklist, please visit: http://kingstonfieldnaturalists.org/moths/moths.html Contents Superfamily: Tineoidea .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Family: Tineidae ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Subfamily: Tineinae .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Family: Psychidae ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Subfamily: Psychinae ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Superfamily: Gracillarioidea ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Family: Gracillariidae ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Caterpillars on the Foliage of Conifers in the Northeastern United States 1 Life Cycles and Food Plants
    INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Coniferous forests are important features of the North American landscape. In the Northeast, balsam fir, spruces, or even pines may dominate in the more northern forests. Southward, conifers still may be prevalent, although the pines become increasingly important. In dry, sandy areas, such as Cape Cod of Massachusetts and the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, hard pines abound in forests composed of relatively small trees. Conifers are classic symbols of survival in harsh environments. Forests of conifers provide not only beautiful scenery, but also livelihood for people. Coniferous trees are a major source of lumber for the building industry. Their wood can be processed to make paper, packing material, wood chips, fence posts, and other products. Certain conifers are cultivated for landscape plants and, of course, Christmas trees. Trees of coniferous forests also supply shelter or food for many species of vertebrates, invertebrates, and even plants. Insects that call these forests home far outnumber other animals and plants. Because coniferous forests tend to be dominated by one to a few species of trees, they are especially susceptible to injury during outbreaks of insects such as the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana, the fall hemlock looper, Lambdina fiscellaria fiscellaria, or the pitch pine looper, Lambdina pellucidaria. Trees that are defoliated by insects suffer reduced growth and sometimes even death. Trees stressed by defoliation, drought, or mechanical injury, are generally more susceptible to attack by wood-boring beetles, diseases, and other organisms. These secondary pests also may kill trees. Stress or tree death can have a negative economic impact upon forest industries.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS of EOA SPECIES COMMON NAME Abagrotis Alternata Abrostola Ovalis Achatia Distincta Distinct Quaker Achatodes Zeae Elder Sh
    MOTHS OF EOA SPECIES common name SPECIES COMMON NAME Anicla lubricans slippery dart Anisota stigma spiny oakworm Abagrotis alternata Anorthodes tarda Abrostola ovalis Antaeotricha leucillana Achatia distincta distinct quaker Antaeotricha schlaegeri Achatodes zeae elder shoot borer moth Antheraea polyphemus polyphemus moth Acontia tetragona four-spotted bird-dropping Antipione thiosaria moth Antispila nysaeccicolla Acrobasis demotella Apantesis phalerata harnessed tiger moth Acrobasis juglandis Apantesis vittata banded tiger moth Acrobasis paliolella Apatelodes torrefacta spotted apatelodes Acrobasis stigmella Apoda biguttata Acronicta americana American dagger moth Apoda y-inversum Acronicta fragilis fragile dagger moth Argyrostrotis anilis short-lined chocolate Acronicta funeralis Argyrotaenia alisellana Acronicta grisea gray dagger moth Argyrotaenia velutiana Acronicta impleta Arta statalis Acronicta inclara Artace cribraria dot line white Acronicta interrupta interupted dagger moth Aterpia approximella Acronicta haesitana Atteva punctella ailanthis moth Acronicta laetifica pleasant dagger moth Autographa precationis Acronicta lithospila streaked dagger moth Automeris io io moth Acronicta lobeliae lobelia dagger moth Baileya australis Acronicta ovata Baileya dormitans Acronicta retardata Baileya ophthalmica eyed baileya Acronicta vinnula delightful dagger moth Balsa malana Actias luna luna moth Besma quercivoraria oak besma Adela ridingsella Blastobabsis glandulella Adita chionanthi fringe-tree sallow Blepharomastix ranalis Adoneta spinuloides
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of Garrett County, Maryland, United States
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of Ontario & Summaries of Lepidoptera
    ISBN #: 0-921631-19-7 BUTTERFLIES OF ONTARIO & SUMMARIES OF LEPIDOPTERA ENCOUNTERED IN ONTARIO IN 1998 COMPILED BY ALAN J. HANKS PRODUCTION BY ALAN J. HANKS JUNE 1999 CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUS T.E.A. SUMMARIES 5 3. SPECIAL NOTES ON ONTARIO LEPIDOPTERA 5 3.1 Supplementary Update to the Butterflies ofthe Toronto Area Barry Harrison 5 3.2 Range Extension ofthe Wild Indigo Duskywing to Toronto Barry Harrison 6 3.3 The Status and Distribution ofthe Sleepy Orange (Eurema nicippe) in Ontario - Alan Wormington 7 3.4 An Outbreak ofOlive Hairstreaks (Callophrys grynea) at Point Pelee, Ontario in 1998 - Alan Wormington 9 3.5 Rearing Notes from Northumberland County - Dr. W.J.D. Eberlie 11 3.6 Funereal Duskywing (Erynnisjuneralis) at Toronto on September 27, 1998 - Bob Yukich 12 3.7 Noteworthy Butterfly Records from Algonquin Provincial Park in 1998 - Colin D. Jones 14 3.8 Foodplants ofthe Baltimore (Euphydryas phaeton) Rosemary Scott 16 4. GENERAL SUMMARY - Alan J. Hanks 18 5. 1998 SUMMARY OF ONTARIO BUTTERFLIES compiled by Alan J. Hanks 19 Hesperiidae 19 Papilionidae 28 Pieridae 30 Lycaenidae 34 Libytheidae 40 Nymphalidae 41 Apaturidae 48 Satyridae 49 Danaidae 51 6. SELECTED REPORTS OF MOTHS IN ONTARIO, 1997 compiled by Dr. Duncan Robertson 53 7. CONCISE CYCLICAL SUMMARY OF MOTHS IN ONTARIO compiled by Dr. Duncan Robertson 66 8. PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS 81 ******************** a Q) CJ) o ­c::: eo I- 1. INTRODUCTION This is Publication # 31-99 ofthe Toronto Entomologists' Association. Data is selected from reports for 1998 (or as otherwise indicated) for the Province ofOntario (Canada) from contributors listed below: Note: TEA members names are in bold.
    [Show full text]
  • Lymantria—The Similar Species (Lepidoptera: Erebidae, Lymantriinae)
    ASIAN DEFOLIATORS: Lymantria—the similar species (Lepidoptera: Erebidae, Lymantriinae) Lymantria dispar dispar the diagnostic feature to recognize the arc the dot ♀ ♂ the usual suspect: European gypsy moth (EGM) has naturalized in the northeast Lymantria dispar asiatica Lymantria dispar japonica Lymantria umbrosa Lymantria albescens Lymantria postalba ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ Asian Gypsy Moths The moths represented here are non-established subspecies of the European gypsy moth or species that at one time were considered subspecies of EGM. They are very similar in appearance so an expert is required to differentiate ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ these Asian gypsy moth subspecies and species. sharpening observation skills 1 This photo guide is part of a diagnostic set. Visit www.FirstDetector.org for more SHARPENING OBSERVATION SKILLS materials. 4 ASIAN DEFOLIATORS: Lymantria—the visually distinct EXOTIC species (Lepidoptera: Erebidae, Lymantriinae) rosy moth nun moth Lymantria mathura Lymantria monacha Lymantria xylina ♂ ♂ ♂ ♀ ♀ ♀ 2 Funding for the SHARPENING OBSERVATION SKILLS project was provided by the USDA 10201 Farm Bill, cooperative agreement 13-8236-0984-CA. 4 NATIVE SPECIES similar to Lymantria dispar group This small sampling of North American moth fauna is representative of some species which may be confused with Lymantria spp. Note that all pictured individuals lack the characteristic arc/dot feature on the forewings, diagnostic of Lymantria. Orgyia leucostigma Orgyia pseudotsugata Orgyia definita Orgyia antiqua Orgyia falcata ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ Dasychira tephra Dasychira
    [Show full text]