DOCSLIB.ORG

Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) De Importancia Agrícola En México

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) De Importancia Agrícola En México SERIE AVISPAS PARASÍTICAS DE PLAGAS Y OTROS INSECTOS No. 8 Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves Svetlana N. Myartseva Enrique Ruíz Cancino Juana María Coronado Blanco Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias 87149 Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, México 2012 Derechos Reservados Conforme a la Ley Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves. Svetlana Nikolaevna Myartseva Enrique Ruíz Cancino y Juana María Coronado Blanco Cuerpo Académico Entomología Aplicada División de Estudios de Postgrado e Investigación Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas 87149 Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, México [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Primera edición 2012 ISBN: 978-607-7654-38-4 Impreso en México Una edición del Departamento de Fomento Editorial de la UAT DIRECTORIO JOSÉ MARÍA LEAL GUTIÉRREZ Rector M.C. FROYLÁN ANDRÉS LUCERO MAGAÑA Director UAM Agronomía y Ciencias DR. FERNANDO LEAL RÍOS Jefe de la División de Estudios de Postgrado e Investigación DR. JUAN CARLOS MARTÍNEZ GONZÁLEZ Coordinador de Investigación DR. ENRIQUE RUÍZ CANCINO Líder del CA Entomología Aplicada Myartseva, Ruíz y Coronado, 2012 Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves Contenido Página Índice taxonómico de las especies de Aphelinidae de México ii Agradecimientos vii Prefacio viii Introducción 1 Materiales y métodos 2 Términos y abreviaciones 4 Parte General 9 El estudio de la familia Aphelinidae de México 10 Posición sistemática y clasificación de la familia Aphelinidae 12 Diagnosis de la familia Aphelinidae 14 Estructuras morfológicas de los adultos y de los inmaduros 14 Biología de Aphelinidae 26 Relaciones hospedero-parasitoide 28 Importancia económica de Aphelinidae 34 Patrones ecológicos de los Aphelinidae mexicanos 41 Aphelinidae en ambientes urbanos 41 Aphelinidae asociados con Hemiptera en algunos frutales 43 Parasitoides de algunos Hemiptera de importancia económica 46 Aphelinidae en ambientes naturales 51 La Reserva de la Biósfera “El Cielo” 52 Casos de importación intencional y de ecesis de Aphelinidae en México 54 Parte Taxonómica 57 Clave de géneros de Aphelinidae de México 58 Aphelinus Dalman 60 Aphytis Howard 65 Centrodora Förster 86 Marietta Motschulsky 89 Eretmocerus Haldeman 95 Cales Howard 112 Ablerus Howard 114 Coccophagus Westwood 116 Dirphys Howard 142 Encarsia Förster 144 Pteroptrix Westwood 250 Coccobius Ratzeburg 254 Literatura Citada 258 Ilustraciones 291 Índice de nombres científicos de géneros y especies de Aphelinidae 368 Índice de nombres científicos de géneros y especies de hospederos de Aphelinidae 385 i Myartseva, Ruíz y Coronado, 2012 Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves ÍNDICE TAXONÓMICO DE LAS ESPECIES DE APHELINIDAE DE MÉXICO I. Subfamilia Aphelininae Thomson Página 1. Tribu Aphelinini Thomson 1. Género Aphelinus Dalman, 1820…………………………………………………… 60 1. asychis Walker, 1839……………………………………………………………………….. 62 2. mali Haldeman, 1851……………………………………………………………………….. 63 3. siphonophorae Ashmead, 1888……………………………………………………………. 64 4. varipes (Förster, 1841)…………………………………………………………………….. 64 2. Tribu Aphytini Yasnosh 1. Género Aphytis Howard, 1900……………………………………………………... 65 1. aonidiae (Mercet, 1911)…………………………………………………………... 69 2. chilensis Howard, 1900……………………………………………………………. 70 3. chrysomphali Mercet, 1912……………………………………………………… 70 4. comperei DeBach & Rosen, 1976………………………………………………….. 71 5. diaspidis (Howard, 1881)………………………………………………………… 72 6. hispanicus Mercet, 1912…………………………………………………………… 73 7. holoxanthus DeBach, 1960………………………………………………………… 74 8. lepidosaphes Compere, 1955………………………………………………………. 75 9. lingnanensis Compere, 1955……………………………………………………… 76 10. maculicornis (Masi, 1911)…………………………………………………….......... 77 11. margaretae DeBach & Rosen, 1976……………………………………………… 78 12. mashae Myartseva, 2004…………………………………………………………… 79 13. melanostictus Compere, 1955………………………………………………………. 79 14. melinus DeBach, 1959……………………………………………………………… 80 15. miquihuana Myartseva, 2010 ……………………………………………………… 81 16. mytilaspidis (Le Baron, 1870)……………………………………………………… 82 17. pinnaspidis Rosen & DeBach, 1979………………………………………………. 83 18. proclia (Walker, 1839)…………………………………………………………… 84 19. punctaticorpus (Girault, 1917)…………………………………………………… 85 20. simmondsiae DeBach, 1984……………………………………………………. … 86 2. Género Centrodora Förster, 1878………………………………………………….. 86 1. tropicalis Myartseva, 2011…………………………………………………………. 87 2. zacateis Myartseva, 2011………………………………………………………… 88 3. Género Marietta Motschulsky, 1863……………………………………………… 89 1. graminicola Timberlake, 1925……………………………………………………… 90 2. mexicana (Howard, 1895)………………………………………………………… 91 3. montana Myartseva & Ruíz-Cancino, 2001………………………………………… 92 4. picta (André, 1878)…………………………………………………………………. 93 5. pulchella (Howard, 1881)…………………………………………………………… 94 6. timberlakei Hayat, 1986……………………………………………………………… 95 ii Myartseva, Ruíz y Coronado, 2012 Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves Página 3. Tribu Eretmocerini Shafee & Khan 1. Género Eretmocerus Haldeman, 1850……………………………………………... 95 1. antennator Myartseva, 2012………………………………………………………… 98 2. clavator Myartseva, 2011…………………………………………………………… 99 3. comperei Rose, 2000……………………………………………………………… 99 4. corni Haldeman, 1850………………………………………………………………. 100 5. emiratus Zolnerowich & Rose, 1998……………………………………………….. 101 6. eremicus Rose & Zolnerowich, 1997……………………………………………….. 101 7. evansi Myartseva, 2006…………………………………………………………… 102 8. jimenezi Rose, 2000…………………………………………………………………. 103 9. joeballi Rose & Zolnerowich, 1997………………………………………………… 103 10. leucaenae Myartseva, 2012………………………………………………………… 104 11. longiterebrus Rose, 2000……………………………………………………………. 105 12. montanus Myartseva, 2012………………………………………………………… 105 13. mundus Mercet, 1931……………………………………………………………… 106 14. naranjae Myartseva, 2007………………………………………………………… 107 15. paulistus Hempel, 1904……………………………………………………………… 107 16. perseae Rose & Zolnerowich, 2004…………………………………………………. 108 17. picketti Rose & Zolnerowich, 2003…………………………………………………. 108 18. portoricensis Dozier, 1932………………………………………………………… 109 19. serius Silvestri, 1927………………………………………………………………… 110 20. staufferi Rose & Zolnerowich, 1997………………………………………………… 110 21. tejanus Rose & Zolnerowich, 1997…………………………………………………. 111 II. Subfamilia Calesinae Mercet 1. Género Cales Howard, 1907……………………………………………………….. 112 1. noacki Howard, 1907………………………………………………………………… 112 III. Subfamilia Azotinae Nikolskaya 1. Género Ablerus Howard, 1894……………………………………………………... 114 1. elegantulus (Silvestri, 1915)……………………………………………………….. 114 IV. Subfamilia Coccophaginae Förster 1. Tribu Coccophagini Förster 1. Género Coccophagus Westwood, 1833……………………………………………. 116 1. atratus Compere, 1926……………………………………………………………. 120 2. bimaculatus Myartseva, 2004…………………………………………………….. 121 3. clypeator Myartseva, 2009……………………………………………………….. 121 4. debachi Myartseva & Ruíz, 2005…………………………………………………. 122 5. dentatus Myartseva, 2009…………………………………………………………. 123 6. falderus Myartseva, 2009………………………………………………………….. 124 7. femoralis Myartseva, 2006………………………………………………………… 124 iii Myartseva, Ruíz y Coronado, 2012 Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de importancia agrícola en México. Revisión y claves Página 8. gonzalezi Myartseva, 2006………………………………………………………… 125 9. longisetus Myartseva, 2009……………………………………………………….. 126 10. lunai Myartseva, 2006…………………………………………………………….. 127 11. lycimnia (Walker, 1839)……………………………………………………………. 127 12. mazatlan Myartseva, 2006………………………………………………………… 129 13. mexicanus Girault, 1915……………………………………………………………. 129 14. mexicensis Girault, 1917…………………………………………………………… 130 15. neocomperei Myartseva & Ruíz, 2005…………………………………………….. 131 16. nigrans Myartseva, 2006…………………………………………………………… 131 17. ochraceus Howard, 1895…………………………………………………………… 132 18. pallidiceps (Compere, 1939)……………………………………………………….. 133 19. propodealis Myartseva, 2004…………………………………………………… …. 134 20. pulvinariae Compere, 1931……………………………………………………….... 134 21. quaestor Girault, 1917……………………………………………………………… 135 22. ruizi Myartseva, 2004………………………………………………………………. 136 23. rusti Compere, 1928……………………………………………………………….. 137 24. scutellaris (Dalman, 1825)………………………………………………………… 138 25. sostenesi Myartseva, 2006………………………………………………………… 139 26. teeceeni Myartseva, 2004………………………………………………………….. 140 27. tobiasi Myartseva, 2004…………………………………………………………… 141 2. Tribu Pteroptricini Ashmead 1. Género Dirphys Howard, 1914……………………………………………………... 142 1. encantadora Polaszek & Hayat, 1992………………………………………………. 143 2. mexicanus Howard, 1914……………………………………………………………. 143 2. Género Encarsia Förster, 1878……………………………………………………... 144 1. altacima Myartseva & Evans, 2008…………………………………………………. 158 2. alvaradoi Myartseva & Evans, 2008…………………………………………………. 159 3. ameca Myartseva, 2007………………………………………………………………. 160 4. americana DeBach & Rose, 1981……………………………………………………. 161 5. andrewi (Myartseva & Coronado-Blanco, 2004)…………………………………….. 162 6. antennata Myartseva, 2008…………………………………………………………… 163 7. aurantii (Howard, 1894)……………………………………………………………… 164 8. azteca Myartseva, 2008………………………………………………………………. 165 9. bimaculata Heraty & Polaszek, 2000……………………………………………....... 166 10. brimblecombei (Girault, 1933)……………………………………………………….. 167 11. catemaco Myartseva, 2007…………………………………………………………… 168 12. citrella (Howard,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Annotated Checklist of the Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) of the Indian Subregion
    AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE COCCINELLIDAE (COLEOPTERA) OF THE INDIAN SUBREGION J. POORANI Project Directorate of Biological Control, P. B. No. 2491, H. A. Farm Post, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka, India E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] ________________________________________________________________________ Introduction This checklist is an updated version of the annotated checklist of the Coccinellidae fauna of the Indian subcontinent published recently (Poorani, 2002a). This list includes the subfamily Epilachninae, which was left out of the earlier checklist. The Epilachninae portion has been compiled from the World Catalogue of Coccinellidae, Volume 1 (Jadwiszczak & Wegrzynowicz, 2003). Other changes, corrections, and additions since the publication of the original checklist also have been incorporated. Geographical scope: The geographical scope of this checklist covers the Indian subregion that includes India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Arrangement: The arrangement of the subfamilies is alphabetical for convenience, and does not reflect phylogenetic relationships. The tribes and genera therein also are arranged in alphabetical order, largely according to the classification of Chazeau et al. (1989; 1990). For all the genera, the original citation, synonyms in chronological order, the type species and list of species in alphabetical order are given. For the species, the most recent combination followed by the author name, original citation and synonyms, if any, in chronological order, are given. The type depository is given within parentheses after the name, wherever available. Most of the extralimital synonymies and other extended, lengthy synonymies, varieties and aberrations mentioned by Korschefsky (1931; 1932) are omitted unless subsequently changed. Subsequent references of importance pertaining to revisions, redescriptions, lectotype designations, synonyms, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology and Ecology of Armored Scales
    Copyright 1975. All rights resenetl THE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY +6080 OF ARMORED SCALES 1,2 John W. Beardsley Jr. and Roberto H. Gonzalez Department of Entomology, University of Hawaii. Honolulu. Hawaii 96822 and Plant Production and Protection Division. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. Italy The armored scales (Family Diaspididae) constitute one of the most successful groups of plant-parasitic arthropods and include some of the most damaging and refractory pests of perennial crops and ornamentals. The Diaspididae is the largest and most specialized of the dozen or so currently recognized families which compose the superfamily Coccoidea. A recent world catalog (19) lists 338 valid genera and approximately 1700 species of armored scales. Although the diaspidids have been more intensively studied than any other group of coccids, probably no more than half of the existing forms have been recognized and named. Armored scales occur virtually everywhere perennial vascular plants are found, although a few of the most isolated oceanic islands (e.g. the Hawaiian group) apparently have no endemic representatives and are populated entirely by recent adventives. In general. the greatest numbers and diversity of genera and species occur in the tropics. subtropics. and warmer portions of the temperate zones. With the exclusion of the so-called palm scales (Phoenicococcus. Halimococcus. and their allies) which most coccid taxonomists now place elsewhere (19. 26. 99). the armored scale insects are a biologically and morphologically distinct and Access provided by CNRS-Multi-Site on 03/25/16. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1975.20:47-73. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org homogenous group.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) As a Biocontrol Agent
    CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2009 4, No. 046 Review Factors affecting utility of Chilocorus nigritus (F.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) as a biocontrol agent D.J. Ponsonby* Address: Ecology Research Group, Department of Geographical and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent. CT1 1QU, UK. *Correspondence: Email: [email protected] Received: 30 March 2009 Accepted: 25 June 2009 doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20094046 The electronic version of this article is the definitive one. It is located here: http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews g CAB International 2009 (Online ISSN 1749-8848) Abstract Chilocorus nigritus (F.) has been one of the most successful coccidophagous coccinellids in the history of classical biological control. It is an effective predator of many species of Diaspididae, some Coccidae and some Asterolecaniidae, with an ability to colonize a relatively wide range of tropical and sub-tropical environments. It appears to have few natural enemies, a rapid numerical response and an excellent capacity to coexist in stable relationships with parasitoids. A great deal of literature relating to its distribution, biology, ecology, mass rearing and prey preferences exists, but there is much ambiguity and the beetle sometimes inexplicably fails to establish, even when conditions are apparently favourable. This review brings together the key research relating to factors that affect its utility in biocontrol programmes, including its use in indoor landscapes and temperate glasshouses. Data are collated and interpreted and areas where knowledge is lacking are identified. Recommendations are made for prioritizing further research and improving its use in biocontrol programmes.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Material
    Study material PESTS OF FIELD CROPS AND STORED GRAIN AND THEIR MANAGEMENT AG. ENTO 3.3 (2 +1) THIRD SEMESTER POLYTECHNIC IN AGRICULTURE Dr. D. R.COMPILED Patel, Dr. BYJ. J. Patel, Prof. D. V. Muchhadiya POLYTECHNIC IN AGRICULTURE NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BHARUCH– 392 012 Pests of field crops and stored grain and their management (Ag. Ento 3.3) Pests of field crops and stored grain and their management (Ag. Ento 3.3) Ag. Ento. 3.3 Pests of Field Crops & Stored Grain and their Management The word ‘ Pest’ derived from the Latin word ‘ Pestis’ meaning Plague. An insect reaches the status of a pest when its number increases and inflicts significant damage. ‘Pest’ is defined as insect or other organism that causes any damage to crops, stored produce and animals. Damage boundary is the lowest level of injury where the damage can be measured. Types of pest a) Based on severity i) Negligible: Pests that cause less than 5% loss in yield, is said to be negligible. ii) Minor: Insects which normally cause a loss ranging from 5 to 10% are said to be minor pests iii) Major: Which cause a loss of 10% or more in general called as major pests. b) Based on occurrence: i. Regular pest : Occur most frequently (regularly) in a crop and have close association with that particular crop. Eg: Chilli Thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis , brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis ii . Occasional pests : Here a close association with a particular crop is absent and they occur infrequently. Eg: Rice case worm, Nymphula depuctalis castor slug caterpillar, Parasa lepida, mango stem borer, Batocera rufamaculata iii.
    [Show full text]
  • Scale Insects and Mealy Bugs (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea)
    SCALE INSECTS AND MEALY BUGS (INSECTA: HOMOPTERA: COCCOIDEA) R.K.VARSHNEY*, M.J. JADHAV AND R.M.SHARMA Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Centre, Pune-411044 *Raj Bhawan, Manik Chowk, Aligarh-202001 The Scale insects and mealy bugs fall under the Superfamily Coccoidea, Order Homoptera. The name refers to their secretion of waxy scales or mealy that serves as a protective covering. They range in size from 1.5 mm to 25 mm in length. They are economically important insects, since many species attack different parts of plant and feed by sucking the plant sap. On the other hand a few species of scale insects are beneficial to mankind, e.g. the cochineal insect (Dactylopius indicus) yields a carmine dye and the lac insect (Kerria lacca) is the source of shellac. They are found on nearly all parts of the host plant including the leaves, branches, trunks, fruits, and roots. They sometimes occur under bark and may cause various kinds of plant deformities including chlorotic spots, pits, and galls. They cause severe damage to economically important plants like sugarcane, tea, coffee, cotton, sorghum, vegetables, greenhouse plants and almost all kinds of fruit trees. About 7,500 species of Scale insects and Mealy bugs are known at present from the world which inhabits almost all parts of the globe, in all floral habitats, from the tundra to the tropics. The Indian diversity accounts to 409 species under 166 genera spread over 14 families and 14 subfamilies (Varshney; 1992, 2002) and other scattered literature. SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT Superfamily: Coccoidea Family: Margarodidae Subfamily: Margarodinae Tribe: Kuwanini 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History and Development
    Chapter 3 Life History and Development Oldrich Nedv eˇ d 1 and Alois Hon eˇ k 2 1 Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia and Institute of Entomology, Academy of Sciences, CZ 37005 Cˇ esk é Bud eˇ jovice, Czech Republic 2 Department of Entomology, Crop Research Institute, CZ 16106 Prague 6, Czech Republic Ecology and Behaviour of the Ladybird Beetles (Coccinellidae), First Edition. Edited by I. Hodek, H.F. van Emden, A. Honeˇk. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 54 3.1 INTRODUCTION from spermatheca (receptaculum seminis) can enter during oviposition, and for oxygen diffusion. A. bipunc- Coccinellids are holometabolous , i.e. they have a tata possesses 40 – 50 pores in two rings, Platynaspis ‘ complete metamorphosis ’ , and pass through the fol- luteorubra have clusters of pores at both ends of the lowing stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult. Egg stage egg. Chilocorini have trumpet shaped structures lasts 15 – 20% of the total preimaginal developmental besides the tube like micropyles (Ricci & Stella 1988 ). time, larva 55 – 65% and pupa 20 – 25% (Hon eˇ k & The egg of Scymnus sinuanodulus has a rosette of 4 – 11 Kocourek 1990 , Dixon 2000 ). cup - shaped and 13 – 20 semicircular structures that are like micropyles (Lu et al. 2002 ). The surface of the coccinellid egg ( chorion , egg 3.2 EGG shell) is usually smooth, except for the eggs of Epil- achninae which bear a polygonal sculpture (Klaus- 3.2.1 Egg morphology nitzer 1969b ; Fig. 3.1 c), and Rhyzobius with a granular surface (Ricci & Stella 1988 ). The smooth surface Coccinellid eggs are usually elongate, oval or elliptic.
    [Show full text]
  • (Hymenoptera) Attacking Sugarcane Pests in India
    TAXONOMIC SURVEY OF CHALCIDOID PARASITES (HYMENOPTERA) ATTACKING SUGARCANE PESTS IN INDIA DISSERTATION sobmitted in partial falfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Mmtx of $I)ilos(ortip I - ' ZOOLOGY S"A, , "-^rsnfny BY ARSHAD ALT HAIDER DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH (INDIA) 1994 DS2502 .^^^TuTiAwtA 17 3 f t^ m CHEC:::ED-2002 t.r T>edicated to My ^etovtd Barents & H^acfiers (for [eading me to inteUectuaC fiorizons) •nonii;. •5b4f- DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY i Inieffial ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH—202 002 INDIA Sect/OPS: 1 ENTOMOLOGY 2 PARASITOLOGY f^ef. No 3 ICHTHYOLOGY & FISHERIES 4 AGRICULTURAL NEMATOLOGY Date R GENETIC? CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the dissertation entitled/ "Taxonomic Survey of Chalcidoid Parasites (Hymenoptera) attacking sugarcane pests in India" by Mr. Arshad Ali Haider, contains work done under my supervision. This is an original contribution and an addition to the existing knowledge on the subject. Being satisfied with the quality and quantity of the work, he is permitted to submit this dissertation for the award of M.Phil. degree in Zoology of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. (DR. SHUJAUDDIN) Supervisor Reader in Zoology CONTENTS Acknowledgements i-ii i. Introduction 01 ii. Material and Method 06 iii. List of sugarcane pests and their chalcidoid parasites in India 07 iv. Chalcidoid parasites of sugarcane pests in India 19 V. Discussion 26 vi. References 29-43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present author feels greatly indebted to Dr. Shujauddiri/ Reader, Department of zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for his most valuable guidance, supervision and taking great pains in critically going through the manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revision of the Sugarcane Scale Insect Aspidiotus
    A Revision of the sugarcane scale insect Aspidiotus glomeratus Green, with descriptions of a new genus and a new Title species (Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea: Diaspididae) Author(s) Takagi, Sadao Insecta matsumurana. New series : journal of the Faculty of Agriculture Hokkaido University, series entomology, 75, Citation 81-94 Issue Date 2019-11 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/76250 Type bulletin (article) File Information 04_Takagi_Aspidiotus_IM75.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP INSECTA MATSUMURANA NEW SERIES 75: 81–94 OCTOBER 2019 A REVISION OF THE SUGARCANE SCALE INSECT ASPIDIOTUS GLOMERATUS GREEN, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF A NEW GENUS AND A NEW SPECIES (STERNORRHYNCHA: COCCOIDEA: DIASPIDIDAE) By SADAO TAKAGI Abstract TAKAGI, S. 2019. A revision of the sugarcane scale insect Aspidiotus glomeratus Green, with descriptions of a new genus and a new species (Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea: Diaspididae). Ins. matsum. n. s. 75: 81–94, 5 figs. Aspidiotus (Targionia) glomeratus Green, 1903, a pest of sugarcane in the Indian Subcontinent and currently known under the name Melanaspis glomerata, is revised on the basis of two samples collected in lowland Nepal and India. A new genus, Gannaspis, is proposed for it and another species, G. miscanthi, n.sp., which occurs in the Ryûkyû Islands, Japan, on Miscanthus sinensis. Melanaspis inopinata (Leonardi, 1913) was collected in northwestern India on Pistacia khinjuk, and is adopted for a comparison with the Gannaspis species. It is compared also with the description of Melanaspis pistaciae Hosseininaveh et al., 2016, a closely similar form occurring in Iran. Notes are made on Melanaspis nothofagi Hardy and Williams, 2018, described from New Caledonia.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotic Potential of Three Coccinellid Predators on Various Diaspine Hosts
    J. Bioi. Control, 3 (1).20 - 23.1989 Biotic Potential of Three Coccinellid Predators on Various Diaspine Hosts S.K. JALALI and S.P. SThlGH Biological Control Centre. National Centre for Integrated Pest M;mage~ent. Bangalore 560024 ABSTRACT Biotic potential of three CocdnelUd predators viz., Chiku:orus hljugus (l\fU,f$.). Chilocorus nigritus (Fab.) and Slicholoth rruulagassa (Weise) were studied on various diasplne scales. C. bijugus and C. nigritus accepted all the hosts provided whereas, S. madagassa accepted only three hosts. When aqueous extract of sugarcane scale Insect was sprayed over non-preferred host, S. mtldagassa could develop on two additional hosts. Developmental period on dUJerent hosts In case of C. bijugus and C. nigritus ranged from 33.5 to 41.4 and 32.3 to 35.1. days respectlvelt, wb~ S. lIUldagassa developed faster on Me1a1UUpu glomerata (Green) (33.4 days) tbanon other bosts.S. madagas$tl. was also found to be more fecund on M. glomerata. C. bijugus showed relative preference for Quadraspidiotus pemiciosus (Comst.), lived longer and produced larger progeny. C. nigritus fed and bred equaUy well on all the hosts provided, sbowlng Its wide acceptability and polyphagous nature. C. nigritus was found to be more promising on biotic parameters followed by C. bljugus and S. madagassa. KEY WORDS: Biotic potential. coccinellid predators. diaspine scales The armoured scale iusects constitute one of Experiments were conducted to determine the the most important groups of pests in agriculture. rate of host consumption by grubs and adults of especially in sub- tropical and tropical regions of the predators by releasing them on known scale in­ the world (Clausen, 1978; Sankaran, 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Classification of Armored Scale Insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae)
    Zootaxa 4616 (1): 001–098 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Monograph ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4616.1.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1B9DFBC9-2BA8-4619-8F70-E372DCBD7411 ZOOTAXA 4616 Phylogeny and classification of armored scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae) BENJAMIN B. NORMARK1,2,7, AKIKO OKUSU1, GEOFFREY E. MORSE3, DANIEL A. PETERSON1,2,4, TAKAO ITIOKA5 & SCOTT A. SCHNEIDER1, 2, 6 1Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 2Graduate Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 3Department of Biology, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] 4Present address: Finch Therapeutics, Somerville, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 5Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] 6Present address: USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Systematic Ento- mology Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] 7Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand Accepted by G. Watson: 5 Feb. 2019; published: 17 Jun. 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 BENJAMIN B. NORMARK, AKIKO OKUSU, GEOFFREY E. MORSE, DANIEL A. PETERSON, TAKAO ITIOKA & SCOTT A. SCHNEIDER Phylogeny and classification of armored scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae) (Zootaxa 4616) 98 pp.; 30 cm. 17 Jun. 2019 ISBN 978-1-77670-683-9 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-77670-684-6 (Online edition) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2019 BY Magnolia Press P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting
    EVALUATING SOIL MITIGATION TACTICS AND ALTERNATE SHRUB SELECTION TO CREATE MORE SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPES By MATTHEW AMOS BORDEN 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 2020 © 2020 Matthew Amos Borden To my parents, Jeffrey and Patricia, and Grandmother CJ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I wish to thank my parents for fostering an environment of learning and curiosity about the natural world from a young age, and for supporting my career path at each step. I also thank Grandmother CJ and late Grandfather Noel Borden for their many years of encouragement and generous financial support given towards my undergraduate education. Next, I wish to express deep appreciation Dr. Adam Dale, my major advisor. I have often said there is no other lab I would rather have landed in here, and I remain immensely grateful. Adam has been a role model of perseverance with good attitude, excellence in writing skills, and ambition in the pursuit of rigorous experiments and data that can make a difference in improving our environment. I am also grateful that he afforded me many opportunities for extension writing, speaking engagements, conference attendance, for supporting my interest in tea plants and associated pests, and for tolerating my many side-projects and scattered plant collections. I also thank the members of the Dale Lab for their support, baked goods, and friendship; particularly Dr. Nicole Benda, who coordinated much of the field work, thatch analysis, and EPN experiment. I am extremely grateful to all those who endured hot Florida days or counting thousands of organisms to assist with data collection and plant care, including Lauren Dana, Mark Wilhelm, Alex LoCastro, Kendall Stacey, Tanner Felbinger, and Rebecca Perry.
    [Show full text]
  • Subject INDEX
    subject INDEX Note: Page numbers in bold face refer to tables, page numbers in italic face indicate fi gures and illustrations. Abbreviations used: LDT for lower development threshold; SET for sum of effective temperatures; SCP for super cooling point; Aaron’s rod see Verbascum thapsus Acyrthosiphon pisum 57, 58–65, 332, 344, 356–358, 363, Abgrallaspis cyanophylli 60, 87, 91, 74–75, 78, 115, 118, 120, 376, 377, 378, 391, 392, 190, 204 145, 147, 152–154, 157, 398, 399, 407, 407, 408, Abies balsamea 471 158, 160, 161, 161–163, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, abundance of coccinellids 164, 168–9, 168, 170, 171, 417, 420, 422, 425, 449, absolute and relative 111 172, 174, 182, 188–195, 451, 454–458, 477, 498, and character of landscape 127 196, 206, 208, 218, 220, 504, 505, 508 on crops 129, 130 222–224, 234, 236, 237, adaptation ability 157 and habitat fragmentation 238, 240, 297, 345, 451, aphid prey 153 126–127 457, 469, 534 capture of 238, 239 link to aphid abundance 117, 118 ant attendance 236, 237 development on different 145, methods of estimating 468–472 consumption rates 160 147 reduced tillage 502, 503 essential prey 158, 162, 172, rejected/problematic 165–168 sampling methods 112–114 188–195 toxic, effects of 161, 162, transgenic crops 122–123 larval period and pupal mass, effect 452 on trees 131, 132 on 161 augmentation 498 Abutilon theophrasti 227, 227 nutritive value 196–197 Coccipolypus hippodamiae, infection Acacia 154, 183, 489 pea surface wax 217–218 by 413 Acalypha ostryaefolia 123, 126, 227, ratio between disturbed and colour
    [Show full text]