DOCSLIB.ORG

Insect Pollinators of Carrots in Utah George E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Insect Pollinators of Carrots in Utah George E Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All PIRU Publications Pollinating Insects Research Unit 4-1-1960 Insect Pollinators of Carrots in Utah George E. Bohart Utah State University William P. Nye Utah State University Recommended Citation Bohart, George E., and William P. Nye. 1960. Insect Pollinators of Carrots in Utah. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 419. 16 p. This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Pollinating Insects Research Unit at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All PIRU Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. tt-1 o i~JJJ,t:,;~V\'" ""\;,../ . t ~:'~ .• I t by GEORGE E. ,'/ I OF AGRI CULTURE CKNOWLEDGMENTS are due M. D. Levin and L. R. Hawthorn, both of the Agricultural Research Service, who helped plan and carry ofA the experiments of which these observations are a part. S. F. McClellan, Takeshi Miura, and W. A. Trost, graduate students at Utah State Univer­ sity, made most of the many observations. Determinations of the carrot pollinators were made by taxonomic specialists of the Entomology Research Division and by ,V. D. Field, H. A. Scullen, R. M. Bohart, H. E. Evans, M. T. James, and the senior author. The authors are both entomologists with the Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. They are stationed on the Utah State University Campus and work coop- eratiwly with the Agricultural Experiment Station. Title on cover picture should read' Left a drone fly (Tubifera tenax) one of·th ' abundan t and. eff1cient carrot' pollinatorse most o~ the experimental plots at Logan. U er ~1g?t, pollen-collecting honey bee. N~~e 1nt1mat~ contact of body and flower cluster. Lower :1ght, nectar-collecting honey bee. There 1S only slight contact between body and flower cluster. ABSTRACT N THE course of observation at Logan, Utah, on the occurrence and pollina­ I ting activities of insects on carrots grown for seed, 334 species represent­ ing 71 families, were collected. Most numerous in species were the hymenopterous families and superfamilies Sphecidae, Apoidea, Psammo­ charidae, Vespidae, and Ichneumonidae, and the dipterous families Syrphidae, Tachinidae, Bombyliidae, Stratiomyidae, and Sarcophagidae. Most numer­ ous in individuals were the dipterous families Syrphidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chloropidae, and Piophilidae and the coleopterous family Coccinellidae. Families and superfamilies represented by the most efficient pollinators were Apoidea, Sphecidae, Syrphidae, and Stratiomyidae. Abundance times effi­ ciency was used as a pollination index for each species. On this basis the most important genera of Apoidea were Apis: Andrena, Halictus, Chloralictus, and Colletes; of Sphecidae, Cerceris, Lindenius, Philanthus, Nysson, and Sceliphron; of Syrphidae, Syritta and Tubifera; of Stratiomyidae, Eulalia and Stratiomys. Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) were efficient pollinators, but they were only minor factors in the Logan area because of their scarcity on carrot flowers. In most areas a combination of honey bee colonies adjacent to car­ rot seed fields and elimination of competing bloom may be the most practical method of increasing carrot pollination. -1- CONTENTS page Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Description of area.................................................................................................. 3 Characteristics of carrot flowers............................................................................ 3 Variety and abundance of pollinators.................................................................. 4 Efficiency of pollinators......... ................................................................................. 6 ~Iethods of increasing pollinators ........................... ~ ..................................... ~ ........ 10 Insects visiting carrot flowers in the vicinity of Logan, Utah, 1954-1957 ........ 10 Hymenoptera .................................................................................................... 10 Diptera ............... :.............................................................................................. 12 Coleoptera ........... .............................................................................................. 14 Lepidoptera ...................................................................................................... 15 Hemiptera ........... ............................................................................................. 15 IIollloptera ........................................................................................................ 15 Neufoptera ........................................................................................................ 15 Orthoptera .......................................................................................................... 16 Dermaptera ...................................................................................................... 16 Thysanoptera .................................................................................................... 16 INSECT POLLINATORS OF CARROTS IN UTAH by George E. Bohart and William P. Nye ROM 1954 to 1957 aspects of car­ on carrot flowers, can set a substan­ F rot pollination were studied at tial amount of seed, although not Logan, Utah. The results of the work nearly as much as the larger Diptera in 1954 were reported by Hawthorn and Hymenoptera. Seed yields were et aU The present paper discusses satisfactory in the open plots, but the occurrence and pollinating effi­ slightly better in plots caged with ciency of the many species of insects colonies of honey bees. In subsequent that visited flowers on the open plots years results of the first year were each year. generally substantiated. However, in That insect pollination is necessary 1957, when insect populations in the for satisfactory yields of carrot seed open plots were much lower than was clearly demonstrated by the work previously, there was a large gap be­ in 1954. It was also shown that tiny tween the yields in the open plots Diptera, which are usually abundant and those caged with honey bees. DESCRIPTION OF AREA HE work was carried on at three suburban development. In 1955 the T locations near Logan, each of­ plots were a mile farther east, more fering diverse habitats, for insects. isolated from the alkaline areas, and In 1954 and 1956 the plots were lo­ surrounded by alfalfa, grain, small cated a mile north of Logan, where orchards, and sagebrush. In 1957 the the surrounding land is used prin­ plots were a few miles south of Lo­ cipally for dairying; to the west there gan, where the surrounding land is were several artesian springs and more intensely farmed and the foot­ alkaline meadows and hummocks, hills and orchard areas are farther and to the east foothills with sage­ away than in the previous locations. brush, small orchards, and scattered CHARACTERISTICS OF CARROT FLOWERS ARROT pollen is abundant and accessible to all insects except those C readily accessible to all visitors. with long, slender tongues. The in­ Carrot nectar is not abundant but it dividual florets are tiny and easily is exposed on the petals and readily worked by minute insects. At the same time they are aggregated into 1 L. R. Hawhom, C. E. Bohart, and E. H. flat, compact heads affording support Toole. Carrot seed vield andgermina­ to larger insects. .It is not surprising, tion as affected by different levels of in­ therefore, that a diverse assemblage sect pollination. Amer. Soc. Hort.· Sci. Proc. 67:384-389. 1956. of insects is attracted to the flowers. -3- VARIETY AND ABUNDANCE OF POLLINATORS s indicated in the accompanying the same location and year. The 25 A list, 334 species of insects rep­ most abundant species in order of resenting 71 families were collected their abundance each year are shown on the carrot blossoms in the open in table 1. Except in 1957, the small plots and on small adjacent plantings syrphid fly, Syritta pipiens (L.), was used for other types of studies. Most by far the most numerous. The vari­ of the species were scarce or trans­ able populations of the other species ient and individually contributed from year to year illustrate how futile little pollination, although they ac­ it would be to count on consistent counted for a substantial percentage pollination by anyone species. Many of the total pollination. of the more abundant Diptera breed As might be expected, the different in wet and decaying vegetable mat­ species varied greatly in abundance ter. The availability of this material from location to location, from year varied greatly from place to place to year, and from week to week at and season to season, depending upon Table 1. Populations 0/ the 25 most abundant species 0/ insects on carrot flowers 0/ the open plots, Logan, Utah, (number per plot per observation) * Species 1954 1955 4 1956 1957 Average Syritta pipiens ......................... .478 274.0 264.0 11 257 Piophila casei .......................... 304 3.2 62.0 0 92 Hippodamia spp. ................... 14 1.8 0.5 283 75 Chrysomyza demandata ............ 270 12.7 2.4 0 71 Madiza glabra .......................... 168 18.6 95.4 0 71 Dasyhelea spp . .......................... 168 0.0 87.2 0 64 Leptocoris trivittatus .............. 30 0.0 86.4 0 29 Lindenius columbianus ............ 4 0.6 66.8 32 26 Phaenicia sericata .................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 the Diptera of Lundy Have Been Poorly Studied in the Past
    Swallow 3 Spotted Flytcatcher 28 *Jackdaw I Pied Flycatcher 5 Blue Tit I Dunnock 2 Wren 2 Meadow Pipit 10 Song Thrush 7 Pied Wagtail 4 Redwing 4 Woodchat Shrike 1 Blackbird 60 Red-backed Shrike 1 Stonechat 2 Starling 15 Redstart 7 Greenfinch 5 Black Redstart I Goldfinch 1 Robin I9 Linnet 8 Grasshopper Warbler 2 Chaffinch 47 Reed Warbler 1 House Sparrow 16 Sedge Warbler 14 *Jackdaw is new to the Lundy ringing list. RECOVERIES OF RINGED BIRDS Guillemot GM I9384 ringed 5.6.67 adult found dead Eastbourne 4.12.76. Guillemot GP 95566 ringed 29.6.73 pullus found dead Woolacombe, Devon 8.6.77 Starling XA 92903 ringed 20.8.76 found dead Werl, West Holtun, West Germany 7.10.77 Willow Warbler 836473 ringed 14.4.77 controlled Portland, Dorset 19.8.77 Linnet KC09559 ringed 20.9.76 controlled St Agnes, Scilly 20.4.77 RINGED STRANGERS ON LUNDY Manx Shearwater F.S 92490 ringed 4.9.74 pullus Skokholm, dead Lundy s. Light 13.5.77 Blackbird 3250.062 ringed 8.9.75 FG Eksel, Belgium, dead Lundy 16.1.77 Willow Warbler 993.086 ringed 19.4.76 adult Calf of Man controlled Lundy 6.4.77 THE DIPTERA (TWO-WINGED FLffiS) OF LUNDY ISLAND R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 The Diptera of Lundy have been poorly studied in the past. Therefore, it is hoped that the production of an annotated checklist, giving an indication of the habits and general distribution of the species recorded will encourage other entomologists to take an interest in the Diptera of Lundy.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Barcoding to Improve the Taxonomy of the Afrotropical Hoverflies (Insecta: Diptera: Syrphidae)
    RESEARCH ARTICLE DNA Barcoding to Improve the Taxonomy of the Afrotropical Hoverflies (Insecta: Diptera: Syrphidae) Kurt Jordaens1*, Georg Goergen2, Massimiliano Virgilio1, Thierry Backeljau3,4, Audrey Vokaer1, Marc De Meyer1 1 Department of Biology–Invertebrate Section and Joint Experimental Molecular Unit (JEMU), Royal Museum for Central Africa, Leuvensesteenweg 13, B-3080 Tervuren, Belgium, 2 Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium, 3 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 08 BP 0932 Tri Postal, Cotonou, Republic of Benin, 4 Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences–OD Taxonomy and Phylogeny and Joint Experimental Molecular Unit (JEMU), Vautierstraat 29, B- 1000 Brussels, Belgium * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Abstract Citation: Jordaens K, Goergen G, Virgilio M, The identification of Afrotropical hoverflies is very difficult because of limited recent taxo- Backeljau T, Vokaer A, De Meyer M (2015) DNA Barcoding to Improve the Taxonomy of the nomic revisions and the lack of comprehensive identification keys. In order to assist in their Afrotropical Hoverflies (Insecta: Diptera: Syrphidae). identification, and to improve the taxonomy of this group, we constructed a reference data- PLoS ONE 10(10): e0140264. doi:10.1371/journal. set of 513 COI barcodes of 90 of the more common nominal species from Ghana, Togo, pone.0140264 Benin and Nigeria (W Africa) and added ten publically available COI barcodes from nine Editor: Maurizio Casiraghi, University of Milan- nominal Afrotropical species to this (total: 523 COI barcodes; 98 nominal species; 26 gen- Bicocca, ITALY era). The identification accuracy of this dataset was evaluated with three methods (K2P dis- Received: June 12, 2015 tance-based, Neighbor-Joining (NJ) / Maximum Likelihood (ML) analysis, and using Accepted: September 22, 2015 SpeciesIdentifier).
    [Show full text]
  • Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring Within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘I: Synthesis Report
    Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Prepared by Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Hawaii Biological Survey Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 USA Prepared for EKNA Services Inc. 615 Pi‘ikoi Street, Suite 300 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814 and State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Bishop Museum Technical Report 58 Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright 2012 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2012 001 to the Hawaii Biological Survey COVER Adult male Hawaiian long-horned wood-borer, Plagithmysus kahului, on its host plant Chenopodium oahuense. This species is endemic to lowland Maui and was discovered during the arthropod surveys. Photograph by Forest and Kim Starr, Makawao, Maui. Used with permission. Hawaii Biological Report on Monitoring Arthropods within Kahului Airport Environs, Synthesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents …………….......................................................……………...........……………..…..….i. Executive Summary …….....................................................…………………...........……………..…..….1 Introduction ..................................................................………………………...........……………..…..….4
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera, Sy Ae)
    Ce nt re fo r Eco logy & Hydrology N AT U RA L ENVIRO N M EN T RESEA RC H CO U N C IL Provisional atlas of British hover les (Diptera, Sy ae) _ Stuart G Ball & Roger K A Morris _ J O I N T NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE NERC Co pyright 2000 Printed in 2000 by CRL Digital Limited ISBN I 870393 54 6 The Centre for Eco logy an d Hydrolo gy (CEI-0 is one of the Centres an d Surveys of the Natu ral Environme nt Research Council (NERC). Established in 1994, CEH is a multi-disciplinary , environmental research organisation w ith som e 600 staff an d w ell-equipp ed labo ratories and field facilities at n ine sites throughout the United Kingdom . Up u ntil Ap ril 2000, CEM co m prise d of fou r comp o nent NERC Institutes - the Institute of Hydrology (IH), the Institute of Freshw ater Eco logy (WE), the Institute of Terrestrial Eco logy (ITE), and the Institute of Virology an d Environmental Micro b iology (IVEM). From the beginning of Ap dl 2000, CEH has operated as a single institute, and the ind ividual Institute nam es have ceased to be used . CEH's mission is to "advance th e science of ecology, env ironme ntal microbiology and hyd rology th rough h igh q uality and inte rnat ionall) recognised research lead ing to better understanding and quantifia ttion of the p hysical, chem ical and b iolo gical p rocesses relating to land an d freshwater an d living organisms within the se environments".
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 10 Part 1. Diptera. Syrphidae
    Royal Entomological Society HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS To purchase current handbooks and to download out-of-print parts visit: http://www.royensoc.co.uk/publications/index.htm This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Copyright © Royal Entomological Society 2012 ROYAL ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON Vol. X. Part 1. HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS DIPTERA SYRPHIDAE By R. L. COE LONDON Published by the Society • and Sold at its Rooms 4-1, Queen's Gate, S.W. 7 2sth August, 195"3 Accession No. 4966 Author Coe R L Subject DIPTERA HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS The aim of this series of publications is to provide illustrated keys to the whole of the British Insects (in so far as this is possible), in ten volumes, as follows : I. Part I. General Introduction. Part 9. Ephemeroptera. , 2. Thysanura. , 10. Odonata. , 3. Protura. , 11. Thysanoptera. , 4. Collembola. , 12. Neuroptera. , 5. Dermaptera and , 13. :Mecoptera. Orthoptera. , 14. Trichoptera. , 6. Plecoptera. , 15. Strepsiptera. , 7. Psocoptera. , 16. Siphonaptera. , 8. Anoplura. II. Hemiptera. Ill. Lepidoptera. IV. and V. Coleoptera. VI. Hymenoptera : Symphyta and Aculeata. VII. Hymenoptera : Ichneumonoidea. VIII. Hymenoptera : Cynipoidea, Chalcidoidea, and Serphoidea. IX. Diptera: Nematocera and Brachycera. X. Diptera : Cyclorrhapha. Volumes II to X will be divided into parts of convenient size, but it is not po....a.1~u:-....:~.----.....l.L ___....__ __ _ ...:.• _ _ ....._-J....._,_. __~ _ _.__ Co ACCESSION NUMBER .................... .. .......... and each 1 >Ugh much 1ted, it is e British Entomological & Natural History Pa Society availa c/o Dinton Pastures Country Park, Oli Davis Street, Hurst, 1trar at th• Reading, Berkshire Tli RG10 OTH cost of init Presented by ..
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of the Syrphidae of Egypt (Diptera)
    Zootaxa 4577 (2): 201–248 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4577.2.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:959CC8F8-E214-4A56-9343-CBCC2CBD43DD Catalogue of the Syrphidae of Egypt (Diptera) MAGDI S. EL-HAWAGRY1,3 & FRANCIS GILBERT2 1Entomology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt. E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] 2School of Life Sciences, University Park, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. E-mail: [email protected] 3Corresponding author Abstract All known Egyptian taxa of the family Syrphidae (flower flies or hover flies) are systematically catalogued. A total num- ber of 51 species belonging to 22 genera, 7 tribes and 2 subfamilies has been treated, including eight species that are listed as unconfirmed records from Egypt. Data for this study have been compiled from both available literature and specimens collected from different Egyptian localities by the authors or preserved in the main Egyptian insect collections. Old World synonymies, type localities, world distributions by biogeographic realm(s) and country, Egyptian localities and activity periods are provided. Remarks on habitat, habits and biology of particular species are provided as well. Two species, Mel- anostoma scalare (Fabricius) and Eristalis arbustorum (Linnaeus) are recorded for the first time from Egypt. Key words: flower flies, hoverflies, geographical distribution, Egyptian localities, adult activity periods, habitat, feeding habits Introduction The family Syrphidae (with more than 6,100 species worldwide) has traditionally been considered to constitute one superfamily, Syrphoidea, together with the family Pipunculidae (Pape et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Flight Behavior and Head Movements of Hoverfly and Honeybee
    Chapter 6 Flight behavior and head movements of hoverfly and honeybee: a preliminary analysis INTRODUCTION It is interesting to compare head motion strategies between different species of flying insects. The visual system of each species receives its own particular visual input determined by the properties of its flight behavior, head movements and its visual environment. It is highly probable that during evolution these visual systems have become tuned to the expected properties (statistics) of this visual input, for example to optimize information transfer in the visual system (e.g. van Hateren, 1992). Therefore, characteristics of flight behavior may partly explain properties of the visual system, and vice versa (e.g. O’Carroll et al., 1996; O’Carroll et al., 1997). In this chapter, the methods used before on the blowfly (Chapters 3-5) are applied to two other species: hoverflies (Eristalis tenax) and honeybees (Apis mellifera). The hoverfly is an interesting species to compare with the blowfly for two reasons. First, its kinematics and dynamics are quite different from that of the blowfly, since it often flies sideways and backwards, and hovers for prolonged periods of time (Collett and Land, 1975; Collett, 1980). Second, hoverflies were found to perform body saccades, at least in the horizontal plane. As it was suggested that the head remains fixed with respect to the thorax (Collett and Land, 1975), the question is how much the thorax , and thus the head, rolls during flight. Honeybees have been used extensively for behavioral experiments on, for instance, pattern discrimination (e.g. van Hateren et al., 1990) and navigation (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Syrphidae of Oklahoma (Diptera)
    75 SYRPHIDAE OF OKLAHOMA (DIPTERA) Daniel A. Shorter and W. A. Drew Department of Biology, Northwestern Oklahoma State University, Alva, Oklahoma, and Department of Entomology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma Keys to the subfamilies, tribes, genera, and species of Oklahoma Syrphidae are presented. Some species not known to Oklahoma but likely to occur here are included. County distribtuion and seasonal data are also given for the species included. The flies of the family Syrphidae constitute one of the largest families of Diptera and are commonly collected in Oklahoma. Because of the large size of the family and the lack of current keys pertaining to the family as a whole for North America, this preliminary study is to provide keys for those persons interested in identifying Syrphidae collected in Oklahoma and to provide data regarding the distribution of Oklahoma Syrphidae. Synonymy is not presented since it is available in the current catalog on North American Diptera [Stone et al. (1)]. In genera that have just one species in the Oklahoma fauna the characteristics of the species are not presented, as also is the case with species that are very easily identified by the keys with no further descriptions needed. SYSTEMATICS Family SYRPHIDAE Characteristics: Small (3 to 8 mm), medium (8 to 15 mm), or large (more than 15 mm) flies, most of which have a false or spurious vein (vena spuria of European authors), extending longitudinally and slightly diagonally between the third (R4+5) and fourth (M1+2) longitudinal veins; spurious vein absent or nearly so in some Chrysogaster, Syritta, and Psilota, and in all Graptomyza (Asiatic and African genus), faint in others (e.
    [Show full text]
  • Flower Flies (Diptera, Syrphidae) of French Polynesia, with The
    European Journal of Taxonomy 448: 1–37 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2018.448 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2018 · Ramage T. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Research article urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:413AE92E-862A-4879-B72F-1C0DCF1F7240 Flower fl ies (Diptera, Syrphidae) of French Polynesia, with the description of two new species Thibault RAMAGE 1, Sylvain CHARLAT 2 & Ximo MENGUAL 3,* 1 9 Quartier de la Glacière, 29900 Concarneau, France. 2 Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, CNRS (UMR 5558), Université Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France. 3 Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Leibniz Institut für Biodiversität der Tiere, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 1 Email: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 1 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:8DE31F66-13BF-4516-A205-60F2EA39E3DD 2 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:A9AE69C2-039D-47FD-9DD2-B34C4363CB71 3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:A509310D-B567-4830-B8A4-BCB139BB8768 Abstract. The fl ower fl ies (Diptera, Syrphidae) of French Polynesia are revised. A total of nine syrphid species were recorded from the fi ve archipelagos of French Polynesia. Among them are two species new to science, Allograpta jacqi Mengual & Ramage sp. nov. and Melanostoma polynesiotes Mengual & Ramage sp. nov., and a new record for this country, Syritta aenigmatopatria Hardy, 1964. We provide DNA barcodes for all fl ower fl y species of French Polynesia, making the syrphid fauna of this country the fi rst one in the world to be entirely barcoded.
    [Show full text]
  • Shetland's Hoverflies
    Shetland’s Hoverflies A PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION GUIDE Rebecca Nason Hoverflies are the most attractive group of flies! There are over 280 species of hoverfly in the UK but currently only around 40 recorded on the Shetland Islands and illustrated here. Although flight times vary, the majority of Shetland hoverflies can be seen between May and late September, out in the countryside or in more urban parks and gardens. Hoverflies are important pollinators and a crucial part of a healthy natural environment. The best places to look for them is on garden flowers or flower-filled ditches and verges in summer. They are sun- worshippers too, so when not busy feeding on flower nectar or enjoying ‘hovering’ in mid-air, they can often be seen perfectly still, basking on sunlit leaves. Most Shetland hoverflies can be identified with close inspection in the field and from photographs.Try to take as many close-up photographs as possible, including a side, top and front profile to aid key identification features. With a little effort and patience, most of these hoverflies can easily be recognised by their clear, often colourful, distinctive markings by even the most amateur of naturalists. A number of hoverflies have very different looking males and females so a good starting point is telling them apart. This is easily done as male hoverflies have eyes that join in the middle, females are clearly separated. Several of our hoverflies are black and yellow, resembling wasps, others are brown and furry like bumblebees or the honey bee. Indeed their shape and behaviour can also imitate wasps or bees.
    [Show full text]
  • Syritta Le Peletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (Diptera, Syrphidae) from the West Indies
    16 4 NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Check List 16 (4): 991–995 https://doi.org/10.15560/16.4.991 First record of the genus Syritta Le Peletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (Diptera, Syrphidae) from the West Indies Ximo Mengual1, Carlos de Soto Molinari2 1 Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Leibniz-Institut für Biodiversität der Tiere, Adenauerallee 160, Bonn, D-53113, Germany. 2 Calle K, No. 2, esquina 13, Altos Arroyo Hondo, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Corresponding author: Ximo Mengual, [email protected] Abstract We report the genus Syritta Le Peletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (Diptera, Syrphidae) from West Indies for the first time. A female of the synanthropic species Syritta flaviventris Macquart, 1842 was photographed in the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río Higuamo, Dominican Republic. This species was introduced in the American continent by human expansion. Keywords Dominican Republic, flower fly, hover fly, photographic record, social media, synanthropic. Academic editor: Alessandre Pereira-Colavite | Received 8 June 2020 | Accepted 23 July 2020 | Published 10 August 2020 Citation: Mengual X, de Soto Molinari C (2020) First record of the genus Syritta Le Peletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (Diptera, Syrphidae) from the West Indies. Check List 16 (4): 991–995. https://doi.org/10.15560/16.4.991 Introduction Commonly known as flower flies or hover flies, members They are small-sized flower flies, usually with a black of the family Syrphidae (Insecta, Diptera) are diverse in and yellow-orange to brown coloration, with enlarged number (more than 6,200 described species) and larval hind femora. While adults visit flowers to feed on pollen biology (Rotheray and Gilbert 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Northern-Most North American Flower Visitation Records of the Introduced
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 47 Numbers 3 & 4 - Fall/Winter 2014 Numbers 3 & Article 5 4 - Fall/Winter 2014 October 2014 Northern-Most North American Flower Visitation Records of the Introduced Flower Fly, Syritta Flaviventris (Diptera: Syrphidae) and Comparisons With Sympatric Species, Syritta Pipiens C. Sheena Sidhu University of California D. J. Biddinger Pennsylvania State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Sidhu, C. Sheena and Biddinger, D. J. 2014. "Northern-Most North American Flower Visitation Records of the Introduced Flower Fly, Syritta Flaviventris (Diptera: Syrphidae) and Comparisons With Sympatric Species, Syritta Pipiens," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 47 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol47/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]. Sidhu and Biddinger: Northern-Most North American Flower Visitation Records of the Int 166 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 47, Nos. 3 - 4 Northern-Most North American Flower Visitation Records of the Introduced Flower Fly, Syritta flaviventris (Diptera: Syrphidae) and Comparisons With Sympatric Species, Syritta pipiens C. Sheena Sidhu1 and D. J. Biddinger2 Abstract We report for the first time the syrphid fly, Syritta flaviventris (Macquart), collected in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, as the northern-most record for this introduced Mediterranean species. In total, 3 male specimens and 1 female specimen were net collected on three flower species Verbena( hastata, Eryngium yuccifolium and Asclepias incarnata), at a single site of 11 monitored farm sites in southern Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]