DOCSLIB.ORG

Patterns of Host Exploitation by <I>Meteorus Communis</I> (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Patterns of Host Exploitation by Meteorus communlS (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) KENNETH J. WEST AND JEFFREY C. MILLER Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Environ.Entomol.18(3): 537-540 (1989) ABSTRACT The parasitoid Meteorus communis (Cresson)was reared from 7 of 15 species of noctuids collected in peppermint and alfalfa. Parasitism of these species consistently Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/18/3/537/2393821 by guest on 29 September 2021 involved the second through penultimate instars. The most frequently parasitized species were Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) (35.3%),Dargida procinc!a (Grote) (15.0%),and Peridroma saucia (Hubner) (6.9%). Parasitism of P. saucia, A. ipsilon, and Autographa califomica (Speyer) (3.8%)by M. communis are new host records. Alsoparasitized were the lesscommon Pseudaletia unipuncta (Howorth) (20.0%),Amphipyra pyramidoides (Guenee) (10.0%),and Xylena nupara Lintner (5.0%). Percentage parasitism by M. communis was significantly higher in alfalfa than in peppermint. Three or four overlapping generations of M. communis may occur per year in western Oregon. Larvae of M. communis overwinter inside the host larvae. KEY WORDS Insecta, MeteoTUs communis, insect hosts, parasitism TIn: BIOLOGY of only a few species of Meteorus plots to assess the parasitism of noctuid larvae were Haliday has been described. In general, species of established in peppermint and alfalfa near Cor- M('teorus are solitary or gregarious endoparasitoids vallis, Benton Co., Oreg. Four peppermint fields of larval Coleoptera and Lepidoptera, and many and three alfalfa fields were sampled during 1984. are polyphagous. Typically, development proceeds The original four plus three additional peppermint through three instars (Simmonds 1947, Balduf 1968, fields and two of the three original alfalfa fields Askari et al. 1977). The third instar exits the host were sampled during 1985. and spins a cocoon which characteristically dangles Sampling was conducted and standardized as fol- by a thread from the vegetation. Larvae of M. lows. A series of 25 sweeps in a 1200 arc with a communis (Cresson) overwinter inside host larvae standard (38 cm diameter) sweep net were taken. (Simmonds 1947, Balduf 1968, Shaw 1981, West Sweeps were started at the edge of a field and taken 1988). 1 m apart progressing into the field. This process One of the parasitoids most frequently reared was repeated moving laterally 3 m until a total of from noctuid larvae collected on peppermint and 250 sweeps was taken or 250 noctuid larvae had alfalfa in western Oregon is M. communis (J.C.M.), been collected. This pattern was altered in the case unpublished data; Coop 1987). Known hosts for M. of damp foliage (the number of sweeps per transect communis include the noctuids Amphipyra py- reduced to 10) or if the density of noctuid larvae ramidoides Guenee, Dargida procincta (Grote), was extremely low (number of sweeps increased to Eupsilia sedus (Guenee), Lithophane bethunei 500). Weekly sampling was initiated in early July (Grote and Robinson), L. laticineae Grote, Ortho- during 1984 and mid-June during 1985, when lar- sia himsci (Guenee), O. revicta (Morrison), Pseu- vae were present in both crops, and was continued daletia unipuncta (Howorth), the Iymantriid Ma- until peppermint was sprayed or harvested (about lacosoma americanum (F.), and the tortricid 10 August) or until the final cut in alfalfa (about Grapholitha sp. (Krombein et al. 1979). We found 15 September). Samples were taken on a monthly 110 published information on the biology of M. basis during the winter of 1984-1985 on alfalfa communis. Here we report the patterns of host regrowth. None of the peppermint fields had suf- utilization by M. communis on peppermint and ficient winter growth to facilitate sampling. alfalfa in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Larvae were placed in plastic cups (473 m\) while in the field; they were returned to the laboratory, where individual larvae were placed into 30-ml Materials and Methods cups, provisioned with cubes of artificial diet We monitored the relative abundance of im- (BioServ #928L2, Cabbage Looper Diet; French- mature Lepidoptera by species and age class in town, N.].) and sealed with paper insert lids. Diet alfalfa and peppermint to address some of the fac- was changed at least every 2 d. The species and tors likely to influence the relative abundance of instar of each noctuid were recorded at time of M. communis throughout the growing season. Study collection. Larvae were reared in the laboratory at 0046-225x/89/0537-0540$02.00/0 © 1989 EntomologicalSocietyof America 538 ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 18, no. 3 Table 1. Numbers and species of noctuid larvae col- 50 lected in peppermint and alfalfa and parasitism of those species by M. communis Autographa caLifornica M. 25 Species Crop· No. com- munisb Autographa californica a, m 1,997 + 0 Peridroma saucia a, m 1,203 + 50 Mamestra configurata a, m 853 til Peridroma saucia Dargida procincta a, m 564 + l:l. II) Agrotis ipsilon a 312 + II) Xestia adda a, m 92 ~ 25 Amphipyra pyramidoides a 48 + U) Leucanla farcta a 44 0 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/18/3/537/2393821 by guest on 29 September 2021 Trichoplusia nl a, m 40 ....•0 Xylena nupara a,m 23 + 0 M Pseudaletia unlpuncta a 10 + II) 50 Heltothis phloxiphoga a, m 8 l:l. Dargida procincta Hello/his zea a 1 M 1 II) Scotogramma trifoltl a .a 25 Spodoptera praefica a 1 § • a, alfalfa; m, peppermint. Z b +, parasitized; -, not parasitized. 0 50 Meteorus communis a constant temperature of 24 (±2)OC and observed daily for parasitoid emergence. The time it took 25 M. communis to exit from hosts in the laboratory was correlated with the host instar at the time of collection by regression analysis. Cadavers of hosts o from which M. communis had exited were dis- 6/09 7/19 8/28 10/07 sected within 12 h for evidence of superparasitism. Date Fig. 1. Seasonal abundance (per 100 sweeps) of M. Results and Discussion communis and three of its principal hosts in peppermint and alfalfa during 1985; *, peppermint; 0, alfalfa. A total of 5,197 noctuid larvae representing 15 different species were collected (Table 1). Seven species were parasitized by M. communis. Para- M. communis from winter collections of D. pro- sitism of Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) (35.3%), Peri- cincta (10.8%) and A. califomica (6.0%) in alfalfa. drama saucia (Hubner) (6.9%), and Autographa Of those species not parasitized, only Mamestra califomica (Speyer) (3.8%) are new host records. configurata Walker was collected in sufficient Also parasitized were P. unipuncta (20%), D. pro- numbers to suggest that it is not a suitable host cincta (15%), A. pyramidoides (10%), and Xylena species. It is possible that parasitism of some of the nupara Lintner (5%). Additionally, we recovered other species may occur, but insufficient numbers of larvae were collected during this study. For ex- Table 2. M. communis parasitism of field-collected ample, Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) was readily ac- noctuid larvae collected from peppermint and alfalfa in cepted and suitable for M. communis in laboratory western Oregon during 1984-1985. tests (West 1988). Larvae of three noctuid species were parasitized Alfalfa Peppermint by M. communis in peppermint and alfalfa (Table Host Yr % % 2). Most often, M. communis was associated. with No· Para- No." Para- P. saucia, D. procincta, and A. califomica in alfalfa sitizedb sitizedb and peppermint. The most frequently parasitized Peridroma 1984 25 8 330 2 species, A. ipsilon, was extremely rare in mint. saucia 1985 310 12 167 6 The relative abundance of M. communis and Dargida 1984 104 12 17 0 the three hosts common to both crops is given in procincta 1985 256 18 44 5 Fig. 1. The peak in host abundance during July Agrotis 1984 286 36 1 0 was caused by the presence of P. saucia, A. cali- ipsilon 1985 15 27 1 0 fomica, and D. procincta in alfalfa and P. saucia Autographa 1984 317 3 226 3 and A. califomica in peppermint. The increase in californica 1985 423 6 380 2 abundance of hosts was followed by a similar in- crease in M. communis-parasitized hosts in alfalfa, • Susceptible stages only, second to fifth instars (second to fourth of A. californica). whereas in peppermint no such response was ob- b Determined by rearing. served. Junp 1989 WEST & MILLER: HOST EXPLOITATION BY M. communis 539 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/18/3/537/2393821 by guest on 29 September 2021 8 4 . '[ r ..'ll. J: . ...,.:. .·hl.:. : ··l· .'.".~'..' .' ~: . o Days :3 4 5 B Instar Collected Fig. 2. Rplationship between the number of days required for M. communis to exit from a host after eo\lpclion and the instar of that host at the time of collection (least-squares regression T' = 0.22, Y = 12.97 - 1.545x, n = 1(6). In any analysis of host-parasitoid relationship, it year. We did not detect superparasitism in field- is important to determine the host stages used by collected hosts (based on host dissections, n = 110). the parasitoid for development. From a combi- No hyperparasitoids were reared from M. com- nation of field and laboratory data (Fig. 2), it is munis emerging in the lab (n > 500), but two field- possible to predict the instar in which M. com- collected M. communis pupae yielded a species of /IIullis oviposits in the field. All but the first and Mesochorinae (Ichneumonidae), indicating that last instars of each noctuid species received eggs hyperparasitism occurs in the pupal stagt'. from M. communis. The length of time required A larger percentage of susceptible hosts (second for M. communis to exit hosts (D. procincta, A. through penultimate instars) were parasitized in califomica, and P.
Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves

    Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves

    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
  • £Arasites Associated with Lepidopterous Pests of Alfalfa in .Qklahoma

    £Arasites Associated with Lepidopterous Pests of Alfalfa in .Qklahoma

    £ARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH LEPIDOPTEROUS PESTS OF ALFALFA IN .QKLAHOMA By KATHLEEN MARY SENST I' Bachelor of Arts Wartburg College Waverly, Iowa 1974 Master of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1978 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1982 PARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH LEPIDOPTEROUS PESTS OF ALFALFA IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: . ~ \ . ii 1143730 j ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I w.isb. to expres.s. my deep appreciation to my major adviser, Dr. Ricb.ard Berberet, for hi:s willi.ngness. to advise and help, and for his friendsb.i.p duri.ng thi:s: s:tudy and preparation of this manuscript. Appreciation is. expressed to Ors. Ray Eikenbary, Jerry Young, Robert Burton, and John Caddel for serving as members of my graduate committee, and to Or. Ron McNeu for his help in analyzing the data. Thanks. are extended to Mary Hininger, Melinda Davis, Donna Ridge, Phoebe Courtney, and Debbie Lauchner for their assistance in the lab­ oratory, and to Doug Sander and Kevin Mussett for their assistance in the fi.el d. Special thanks goes to Ms. Anne Hunt for clerical review and typing of this manuscript. My most sincere appreciation is reserved for my husband, John (Soteres}, for his encouragement, understanding, and patience while I was completing this work. I share the credit for this work with my family, whose love and support have been a constant source of encourage­ ment in my life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 II.
  • Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium

    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium

    Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S.
  • Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2005

    Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2005

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2005 This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principle federal agency for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife in their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of 544 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute
  • Natural Distribution of Parasitoids of Larvae of the Fall Armyworm, &lt;I

    Natural Distribution of Parasitoids of Larvae of the Fall Armyworm, <I

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Department of Entomology Entomology, Department of 2009 Natural distribution of parasitoids of larvae of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Argentina M Gabriela Murua Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres, CONICET Jamie Molina Ochoa Universidad de Colima, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Patricio Fidalgo CRILAR Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologyfacpub Part of the Entomology Commons Murua, M Gabriela; Ochoa, Jamie Molina; and Fidalgo, Patricio, "Natural distribution of parasitoids of larvae of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Argentina" (2009). Faculty Publications: Department of Entomology. 384. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologyfacpub/384 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Department of Entomology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Journal of Insect Science: Vol. 9 | Article 20 Murúa et al. Natural distribution of parasitoids of larvae of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Argentina M. Gabriela Murúaa,b, Jaime Molina-Ochoac,d and Patricio Fidalgoe aEstación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres, Sección Zoología Agrícola, CC 9, Las Talitas (T4101XAC), Tucumán, Argentina bCONICET cUniversidad de Colima, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Km. 40, autopista Colima-Manzanillo, Tecomán, Colima (28100), México dDepartment of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0816, USA eCRILAR (CONICET), entre Ríos y Mendoza s/n, Anillaco (5301), La Rioja, Argentina Abstract To develop a better understanding of the natural distribution of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and to update the knowledge of the incidence of its complex of parasitoids.
  • Green Fruitworms

    Green Fruitworms

    NEW YORK'S FOOD AND LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN NO. 50, OCTOBER 1974 NEW YORK STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, GENEVA, A DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES, A STATUTORY COLLEGE OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA Green Fruitworms P. J. Chapman and S. E. Lienk INTRODUCTION Young apple and pear fruits may be fed upon by several species of relatively large, stout-bodied green caterpillars (Fig. 1). Their dominant green color is relieved by dots, dashes, lines, and stripes of white, cream, or yellow. For more than a century now, these native insects have been known to commercial and amateur fruit growers as "green fruitworms" (6, 10, 17, 21, 22). Ten species of green fruitworms occur in New York. Tax- onomically, these constitute an artificial assemblage for while all are members of the same family (Noctuidae), four genera are represented in the group. However, six are members of the genus Lithophane. J ustif ication for treating these species as a unit rests on the fact that they form a quite distinctive pest complex. Thus, in the larval or cater- pillar stage, they are of very similar appearance and habits, feed at the same season, cause the same kind of feeding injury, and produce single generations annually. So, while the primary reason for treating these insects collectively has an economic basis, we expect the informa- tion given here will prove useful both to those having a Figure 2. —Young apple fruits showing green fruitworm technical interest in these species as well as to those hav- feeding injury.
  • Cutworms & Armyworms

    Cutworms & Armyworms

    Cutworms andArmyworms O & T Guide [T-#03] Carol A. Sutherland Extension and State Entomologist Cooperative Extension Service z College of Agriculture and Home Economics z October 2006 Cutworms and armyworms are drab, rangelands in the lower elevations. nocturnal, “hairless” caterpillar pests of Feeding as temperatures permit over the grass crowns, roots and blades as well as a fall and winter, army cutworms mature variety of crops, landscape and rangeland and pupate in late winter. As temperatures plants. The night-flying adult stages are called “miller moths” because they congregate around outdoor lights. They can be annoying then and also when adults seek shelter during the day in homes and buildings. Their shed wing scales can cause allergic reactions in some people. Metamorphosis: Complete Mouth Parts: chewing (larvae) Pest Stage: larvae, adults (minor) Fall armyworm larva, Spodoptera frugiperda. Typical Life Cycle: Eggs are laid in the Photo: Clemson Univ., USDA-Cooperative Extension Slide Series, www.forestryimages.org soil around shallow roots of host plants, on grass crowns or blades, or higher on host plants, depending upon species. Æ Series of Larvae. Larvae feed and disperse at night, hiding by day in soil crevices, thatch or other cover. ÆPupae are usually found in surface litter or several inches below the surface in soil not far from host plants; most require 7-14 days to mature in summer temperatures. ÆAdults typically emerge, fly, mate and lay eggs at night, seeking shelter by day. Depending upon species, one to many life cycles may be Fall armyworm, showing inverted Y on the completed annually. Adults of some head.
  • Pepper Pest Management

    Pepper Pest Management

    Pepper Pest Management Kaushalya Amarasekare Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Entomology Dept. of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences College of Agriculture Tennessee State University University of Maryland Nashville, Tennessee Extension snaped.fns.usda.gov Goal The goal of this training is to educate stakeholders on arthropods (pest insects and mites) that damage peppers and methods to manage them using integrated pest management (IPM) techniques Objectives Upon completion of this training, the participants will be able to 1) teach, 2) demonstrate and 3) guide growers, small farmers, backyard and community gardeners, master gardeners, and other stakeholders on management of pest arthropods in peppers Course Outline 1. Introduction: background information on bell and chili pepper 2. Pests of pepper a) Seedling Pests b) Foliage Feeders c) Pod Feeders 3. Summary 4. References Introduction Bell /sweet pepper Peppers • Family Solanaceae • Capsicum annum L. • Bell/sweet peppers and chili agmrc.org Peppers: consumed as • Fresh • Dried chili pepper • Ground as spices • Processed (canned, pickled, brined or in salsas) 570cjk, Creative Commons wifss.ucdavis.edu Bell Pepper • 2017: U.S. consumption of fresh bell peppers ~ 11.4 lbs./person • High in vitamin C and dietary fiber • Provide small amounts of several vitamins and minerals • Usually sold as fresh produce Maturity Sugar Content Chili Pepper • 2017: U.S. consumption of chili peppers ~ 7.7 lbs./person • High in vitamin C • Small amounts of vitamin A and B-6, iron and magnesium 570cjk, Creative Commons wifss.ucdavis.edu • Sold as fresh produce and dried (whole peppers, crushed or powdered) pepperscale.com Myscha Theriault U.S. green pepper production • U.S.
  • EXTERNAL GENITALIC MORPHOLOGY and COPULATORY MECHANISM of CYANOTRICHA NECYRIA (FELDER) (DIOPTIDAE) Genitalic Structure Has Been

    EXTERNAL GENITALIC MORPHOLOGY and COPULATORY MECHANISM of CYANOTRICHA NECYRIA (FELDER) (DIOPTIDAE) Genitalic Structure Has Been

    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 42(2). 1988, 103-115 EXTERNAL GENITALIC MORPHOLOGY AND COPULATORY MECHANISM OF CYANOTRICHA NECYRIA (FELDER) (DIOPTIDAE) JAMES S. MILLER Curatorial Fellow, Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024 ABSTRACT. External genitalia of Cyanotricha necyria (Felder) exhibit characters that occur in the Notodontidae and Dioptidae. These provide further evidence that the two groups are closely related. Dissection of two C. necyria pairs in copula revealed two features unique among copulatory mechanisms described in Lepidoptera. First, only the male vesica, rather than the aedoeagus and vesica, are inserted into the female. Secondly, during copulation the female is pulled into the male abdomen, and his eighth segment applies dorsoventral pressure on the female's seventh abdominal segment. This mechanism is facilitated by a long membrane between the male eighth and ninth abdominal segments. The first trait is probably restricted to only some dioptid species, while the second may represent a synapomorphy for a larger group that would include all dioptids, and all or some notodontids. Additional key words: Noctuoidea, Notodontidae, Josiinae, functional morphology. Genitalic structure has been one of the most important sources of character information in Lepidoptera systematics. Taxonomists often use differences in genitalic morphology to separate species, and ho­ mologous similarities have provided characters for defining higher cat­ egories in Lepidoptera classification (Mehta 1933, Mutuura 1972, Dug­ dale 1974, Common 1975). Unfortunately, we know little concerning functional morphology of genitalia. A knowledge of function may aid in determining homology of genitalic structures, something that has proved to be extremely difficult and controversial.
  • June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive USA No.2 Mar/Apr

    June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive USA No.2 Mar/Apr

    No.2 Mar/Apr 1983 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive Lawrenc~KS 66044 USA ======================================================================================= ASSOCIATE EDITORS ART: Les Sielski RIPPLES: Jo Brewer ZONE COORDINATORS 1 Robert Langston 8 Kene1m Philip 2 Jon Shepard 5 Mo Nielsen 9 Eduardo Welling M. 3 Ray Stanford 6 Dave Baggett 10 Boyce Drummond 4 Hugh Freeman 7 Dave Winter 11 Quimby Hess =============================================================:========================= ZONE 1 SOUTHWEST: ARIZONA, NEVADA, CALIFORNIA. Coordinator: R. L. Langston (RLL). Contributors: R. L. Allen (RA), R. A. Bailowitz (RB), R. M. Brown (RMW), Jim and Joan Coleman (J-JC), K. Davenport (KD), J. F. Emmel (JE), C. D. Ferris (CDF), G. A. Gorelick (GG), C. Hageman (CH), K. Hansen (KH), R. V. Kelson (RK), T. W. Koerber (TK), R. H. Leuschner (RHL), D. Marion (DM), Eileen and S. O. Mattoon (E-SM), R. O'Donnell (RO), D. Parkinson (DP), F. P. Sala (FS), A. M. Shapiro (AS), o. Shields (OS), R. J. Skalski (RS) and W. L. Swisher (WS). COUNTY, STATE (in caps.) = new county, state records. NORTH, SOUTH, HIGH, LOW, EARLY, LATE, etc. (in caps.) are also considered records by the contributors and/or the coordinator. ARIZONA. No new COUNTY records or range extension for 1982. Most data was from the well-collected southeastern part of the state. Transients were hampered by cold, wet weather in Apache Co., Coconico Co., Cochise Co., Aug. (CDF), with heavy rains in Cochise Co., Sept. (RHL). Windy, cold and rainy in Pima Co., Sept. (RHL). No migrations were reported from Arizona. MOTHS: Sphingidae: Xylophanes falco, Cave Creek area, Chiricahua Mtns., Cochise Co., 9-11 Aug.
  • 1 Modern Threats to the Lepidoptera Fauna in The

    1 Modern Threats to the Lepidoptera Fauna in The

    MODERN THREATS TO THE LEPIDOPTERA FAUNA IN THE FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM By THOMSON PARIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011 1 2011 Thomson Paris 2 To my mother and father who helped foster my love for butterflies 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my family who have provided advice, support, and encouragement throughout this project. I especially thank my sister and brother for helping to feed and label larvae throughout the summer. Second, I thank Hillary Burgess and Fairchild Tropical Gardens, Dr. Jonathan Crane and the University of Florida Tropical Research and Education center Homestead, FL, Elizabeth Golden and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park, Leroy Rogers and South Florida Water Management, Marshall and Keith at Mack’s Fish Camp, Susan Casey and Casey’s Corner Nursery, and Michael and EWM Realtors Inc. for giving me access to collect larvae on their land and for their advice and assistance. Third, I thank Ryan Fessendon and Lary Reeves for helping to locate sites to collect larvae and for assisting me to collect larvae. I thank Dr. Marc Minno, Dr. Roxanne Connely, Dr. Charles Covell, Dr. Jaret Daniels for sharing their knowledge, advice, and ideas concerning this project. Fourth, I thank my committee, which included Drs. Thomas Emmel and James Nation, who provided guidance and encouragement throughout my project. Finally, I am grateful to the Chair of my committee and my major advisor, Dr. Andrei Sourakov, for his invaluable counsel, and for serving as a model of excellence of what it means to be a scientist.