DOCSLIB.ORG

Insect Identification Laboratory ANNUAL REPORT 1990

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Insect Identification Laboratory ANNUAL REPORT 1990 EricR. Day F. William Ravlin SusanL. Rutherford Department of Entomology College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Virginia Publi cation 444-112 Coop~rative Revised 1991 ~•"' Extens10n Vir- ginia Tech • Virginia State TABLEOF CONTENTS Page Introduction iii Insect Surveys 1 Total Number of Specimens Received 3 Specimens Receivedby Month and Commodity Group 4 Arthropods Receivedby Commodity Group : Ornamentalsand Shade Trees 5 Household 8 General 9 Vegetables, Field Crops, and Forage 10 Fruits and Nuts 10 Lawn and Turf 11 Human 12 Animal 12 Structural 12 Apiculture 13 Stored Products 13 Number of Specimens Receivedfrom eact:}County 14 i INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the activity of the Insect Identification Laboratory at Virginia Tech for 1990. The laboratory is located in 312 Price Hall. It is managed by Eric Day, Lab Specialist, and F. William Ravlin, Extension Entomologist, Department of Entomology. Specimens are identified and recorded in the lab, then sent for control recommendations and additional comments to Extension Entomologists who handle particular commodity groups. All specimen data are entered into the Insect I.D. Lab computer data base on the Virginia Tech mainframe computer. The data base greatlY,facilitates sorting and storage of the information. Sue Rutherford is responsible for all data base management. Some of the records were sent via microcomputer to the Cooperative National Plant Pest Survey and Detection Program (USDA, APHIS, PPQ). We at Virginia Tech acknowledge support provided by this program. Starting in 1987 the Insect I.D. Lab computer data base became available for access by county agents to check on samples being processed. Access to this program is provided through the Extension network (XNET). The data base was queried approximately 200 times in 1990. Agents wishing to access the data base should first log on to the mainframe computer. Once logged on type CLINIC and press the return key. The program then asks a series of questions to select the proper data set for their search and compose the actual search query. This program assists agents in making identifications in their offices based on previous samples and it also is helpful in obtaining usage counts for annual reports. A manual detailing this program was sent to all county offices. Additional copies are available from the Insect Identification Laboratory and in the October 1987 issue of the Plant Protection Newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 10). To facilitate mailing insects and insect damaged plant specimens to the lab, local offices of Virginia Cooperative Extension are provided with Insect Identification and Diagnosis Request forms (form 444-113), alcohol vials, and mailing tubes. Specimens also may be brought directly to the lab or mailed to: Insect Identification Laboratory Extension Entomology 312 Price Hall VPl&SU Blacksburg, VA 24061-0319 (703) 231-4899 Whenever possible insects are identified to the species level. Common names are used where possible because of their wide recognition. A total of 1,629 requests were received in 1990. Ninety percent were forwarded by Extension Agents; the rest were brought or sent in directly by the general public. Identification requests from homeowners accounted for 69 percent of the total, 31 percent were from commercial growers, urban pest control operators, physicians, university faculty and staff, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), and unspecified sources. Control recommendations were requested in 81 percent of the cases. iii Insect Surveys conducted in 1990 Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus: Tire stores and tire dumps were surveyed in the towns of Hillsville, Stuart, Axton, South Hill, Emporia, and Wakefield. Sites were checked for both adult mosquitoes and larvae. No Aedes albopictus were found . Western Corn Rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera: Most of the counties east of 1-95 and east of US 301 were surveyed as well as a few central portions of the commonwealth . Fields planted to continuous corn as well as volunteer corn in soybean fields were checked for adult beetles. Diabrotica virgifera was found in Brunswick, Northumberland and Westmoreland Counties for the first time. D. virgifera has already been found in much of the central and western portions of the commo nwealth during surveys conducted in past years. See the Plant Protection Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 8, September 1989 and Vol. 9, No. 7, October 1990. Corn Earworm, Heliothis zea: Most of the counties east of 1-95 and east of US 301 were surveyed during the week of July 21st. In that region 56 percent of the ears of corn had at least one corn earworm larva present. Previous Surveys: Corn Earworm, Heliothis zea, Survey (1974-1990); Western Corn Rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera (1985, 1987-90); Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus (1988-1990). Western Corn Rootworm County Records for Virginia ~ Collected First Time in 1990 • Collected in 1989 • 1988 • 1987 [TI] 1986 • 1985 1 Persons providing identificationsand /or control recommendations: Identifications and control recommendations covering most commodities performed by: Mr. Eric R. Day · Manager, Insect Identification Laboratory Timely and valuable identifications and/or control recommendations were also provided by: Dr. Donald G. Cochran Cockroaches Professor of Entomology \ Dr. Richard D. Fell Apiculture and Stinging Insects Assoc. Professor of Entomology Dr. Ames Herbert Soybeans, Small grains, Assistant Professor Peanuts, and cotton Dr. Michael Kosztarab ·scale Insects Professor of Entomology Dr. John M. Luna. Alfalfa Assistant Professor Dr. Douglas G. Pfeiffer Fruit and Nuts Associate Professor Dr. R. L. Pienkowski Stored Grain Pests Professor of Entomology Dr. F. William Ravlin Gypsy Moths Associate Professor of Entomology Dr. William H Robinson Household and Structural Wood, Professor of Entomology Lawn and Turf, Human Dr. Peter Schultz Ornamentals Associate Professor Dr. Paul J. Semtner Tobacco Associate Professor Dr. E. C. Turner Medically Important Professor of Entomology Insects Dr. John A. Weidhaas, Jr. Ornamentals and Vegetables Associate Professor Dr. Roger Youngman Corn, Small grains, and Livestock Assistant Professor Dr. Geoff Zehnder Commercial Vegetable Crops Assistant Professor 2 The following table lists the magnitude of activities and services provided by the Insect Identification Laboratory (Ill) and the faculty and staff associated with it since 1967. Number of Specimens Identified Identifications Identified by Identifications for from U.S. National Extension Agents Exotic Pest Surveys, Museum through Year and the Public Numbers of Traps Examined The Ill 1967 318 a a 1968 984 a a 1969 1104 a a 1970 1245 a a 1971 1276 a 100b 1972 970 a 516 1973 1124 a 184 1974 1264 a 316 1975 1430 a 160 1976 1437 a 223 1977 1365 a 282 1978 1351 a 89 1979 1770 a 120 1980 1527 a 23 1981 2028 a 89 1982 2004 a 100 1983 1815 a 36 1984 1745 a 45 1985 1730 a 20 1986 1537 62 16 1987 1731 0 32 1988 1719 69 15 1989 1877 145 10 1990 1629 120 37 TOTAL 34980 396 2413 a Service not previously provided. b Estimated 3 SPECIMENSRECEIVED BY THE INSECT IDENTIFICATION LABORATORY IN 1990 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------% OF JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTALTOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ornamentals. Shade trees 20 28 39 51 90 145 108 130 61 53 19 14 758 46.5% Household 17 16 16 19 30 35 41 29 23 30 6 8 270 16.6% General 2 4 3 5 14 6 7 10 9 5 2 3 70 4.3% Veg./Field crops 0 5 8 10 23 20 18 13 3 0 1 102 6.3% Fruits and nuts 3 3 5 6 10 16 16 13 9 5 2 89 5.5% \ Lawnsand turf 1 1 0 8 1 5 10 4 s 0 0 36 2.2% Hunan 0 2 8 11 16 7 7 15 7 3 2 79 4.8% Animal 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 10 0.6% Structural 9 4 20 26 10 12 3 9 3 3 2 102 6.3% Apicultural 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0.4% Stored Products 9 4 18 9 10 4 6 12 7 19 5 4 107 6.6% TOTAL 64 62 110 133 194 260 213 240 146 133 39 35 1629 % OF TOTAL 3.9% 3.8% 6.8% 8.2% 11.9% 16.0% 13.1% 14.7% 9.0% 8.2% 2.4% 2.1% 4 INSECTSRECEIVED Ornamental ------------------------------------------------------------------------ J F M A M J J A s 0 N D TOT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Spruce Mite 2 4 4 15 8 10 1 4 2 0 52 No Insects Found 1 2 7 12 11 7 1 0 1 45 Pales lleevil 0 0 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 0 0 14 Thrips 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 0 13 Twospotted Spider Mite 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 0 13 Buck Moth 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 Greenstriped Mapleworm 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 0 0 0 10 BoxwoodMite 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 9 Pine Bark Adelgid 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 9 Fall llebworm 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 8 Orangestriped Oakworm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 8 Spider Mites 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 8 llhite Pine Aphid 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 8 Allegheny MoundAnt 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 7 Azalea Lace Bug 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 7 Bark Beetles 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 Black Vine Weevil 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EuonymusScale 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 Pine Sawyers 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 7 Wheel Bug 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 Aphids 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 Cottony Camellia Scale 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 Leafhoppers 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 6 Millipedes 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 Not An Insect 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Poplar Tentmaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 Southern Red Mite 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 BoxwoodLeafminer 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Boxwood\lebworm 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Caterpillars 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 DogwoodTwig Borer 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 .5 Eriophyid Mites 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 5 HemlockWoolly Adelgid
Recommended publications
  • GIS Handbook Appendices

    GIS Handbook Appendices

    Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Appendix D Cooperating Agency Codes The following table lists the aerial survey cooperating agencies and codes to be used in the agency1, agency2, agency3 fields of the flown/not flown coverages. The contents of this list is available in digital form (.dbf) at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/id/id_guidelines.html 28 Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Code Agency Name AFC Alabama Forestry Commission ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AZFH Arizona Forest Health Program, University of Arizona AZS Arizona State Land Department ARFC Arkansas Forestry Commission CDF California Department of Forestry CSFS Colorado State Forest Service CTAES Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station DEDA Delaware Department of Agriculture FDOF Florida Division of Forestry FTA Fort Apache Indian Reservation GFC Georgia Forestry Commission HOA Hopi Indian Reservation IDL Idaho Department of Lands INDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources IADNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources KDF Kentucky Division of Forestry LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry MEFS Maine Forest Service MDDA Maryland Department of Agriculture MADCR Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation MIDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MFC Mississippi Forestry Commission MODC Missouri Department of Conservation NAO Navajo Area Indian Reservation NDCNR Nevada Department of Conservation
  • Bionomics of Bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae)

    Bionomics of Bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae)

    ANRV363-EN54-11 ARI 27 August 2008 20:44 V I E E W R S I E N C N A D V A Bionomics of Bagworms ∗ (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) Marc Rhainds,1 Donald R. Davis,2 and Peter W. Price3 1Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 47901; email: [email protected] 2Department of Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 20013-7012; email: [email protected] 3Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86011-5640; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2009. 54:209–26 Key Words The Annual Review of Entomology is online at bottom-up effects, flightlessness, mating failure, parthenogeny, ento.annualreviews.org phylogenetic constraint hypothesis, protogyny This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090448 Abstract Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. The bagworm family (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) includes approximately All rights reserved 1000 species, all of which complete larval development within a self- 0066-4170/09/0107-0209$20.00 enclosing bag. The family is remarkable in that female aptery occurs in ∗The U.S. Government has the right to retain a over half of the known species and within 9 of the 10 currently recog- nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any nized subfamilies. In the more derived subfamilies, several life-history copyright covering this paper. traits are associated with eruptive population dynamics, e.g., neoteny of females, high fecundity, dispersal on silken threads, and high level of polyphagy. Other salient features shared by many species include a short embryonic period, developmental synchrony, sexual segrega- tion of pupation sites, short longevity of adults, male-biased sex ratio, sexual dimorphism, protogyny, parthenogenesis, and oviposition in the pupal case.
  • Bioblitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List

    Bioblitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List

    BioBlitz! OK 2019 - Cherokee County Moth List Sort Family Species 00366 Tineidae Acrolophus mortipennella 00372 Tineidae Acrolophus plumifrontella Eastern Grass Tubeworm Moth 00373 Tineidae Acrolophus popeanella 00383 Tineidae Acrolophus texanella 00457 Psychidae Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis Evergreen Bagworm Moth 01011 Oecophoridae Antaeotricha schlaegeri Schlaeger's Fruitworm 01014 Oecophoridae Antaeotricha leucillana 02047 Gelechiidae Keiferia lycopersicella Tomato Pinworm 02204 Gelechiidae Fascista cercerisella 02301.2 Gelechiidae Dichomeris isa 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva aurea 02401 Yponomeutidae Atteva aurea Ailanthus Webworm Moth 02583 Sesiidae Synanthedon exitiosa 02691 Cossidae Fania nanus 02694 Cossidae Prionoxystus macmurtrei Little Carpenterworm Moth 02837 Tortricidae Olethreutes astrologana The Astrologer 03172 Tortricidae Epiblema strenuana 03202 Tortricidae Epiblema otiosana 03494 Tortricidae Cydia latiferreanus Filbert Worm 03573 Tortricidae Decodes basiplaganus 03632 Tortricidae Choristoneura fractittana 03635 Tortricidae Choristoneura rosaceana Oblique-banded Leafroller moth 03688 Tortricidae Clepsis peritana 03695 Tortricidae Sparganothis sulfureana Sparganothis Fruitworm Moth 03732 Tortricidae Platynota flavedana 03768.99 Tortricidae Cochylis ringsi 04639 Zygaenidae Pyromorpha dimidiata Orange-patched Smoky Moth 04644 Megalopygidae Lagoa crispata Black Waved Flannel Moth 04647 Megalopygidae Megalopyge opercularis 04665 Limacodidae Lithacodes fasciola 04677 Limacodidae Phobetron pithecium Hag Moth 04691 Limacodidae
  • Lepidoptera: Psychidae)

    Lepidoptera: Psychidae)

    Eur. J. Entomol. 111(1): 121–136, 2014 doi: 10.14411/eje.2014.013 ISSN 1210-5759 (print), 1802-8829 (online) Evaluation of criteria for species delimitation of bagworm moths (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) VERONICA CHEVASCO1, JELMER A. ELZINGA1, JOHANNA MAPPES2 and ALESSANDRO GRAPPUTO3 1 Department of Biological and Environmental Science, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] 2 Center of Excellence in Biological Interactions, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland; e-mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58/B, I-35121 Padova, Italy; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Lepidoptera, Psychidae, Dahlica, Siederia, DNA barcoding, COI Abstract. Accurate identification of species is fundamental for biological research and necessary for species conservation. DNA bar- coding is particularly useful when identification using morphological characteristics is laborious and/or unreliable. However, bar- codes for species are dependent on the availability of reference sequences from correctly identified specimens. The traditional use of morphology to delimit the species boundaries of Finnish bagworm moths (Lepidoptera: Psychidae: Naryciinae: Dahliciini) is contro- versial because there is overlap in their morphological characteristics. In addition, there are no suitable molecular markers. We veri- fied the delimitation of seven out of eight previously described taxa, by using the currently standardized COI barcode and phylogenetic inference based on fragments of mitochondrial (COI) and nuclear genes (MDH). Moreover, we compared the results of molecular methods with the outcome of geometric morphometrics. Based on molecular identification, our findings indicate that there are five sexual species (Dahlica and Siederia spp.) and two parthenogenetic species (D.
  • A Defence of Biodiversity As the Goal of Conservation Biology

    A Defence of Biodiversity As the Goal of Conservation Biology

    A Defence of Biodiversity as the Goal of Conservation Biology Charles Gibson A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy The University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand December 2018 i Dedication For my son Caelin, Who was born when this project began But was arguing with me by the time it was completed. May you have as much grass to run on as I did. ii Abstract Biodiversity has been the goal of conservation for thirty years but recent work by biodiversity eliminativists has raised serious challenges to its suitability as the primary goal of conservation. This project groups those challenges into three major arguments: the conceptual case for biodiversity’s elimination, the empirical case for biodiversity’s elimination, and the value compass case for biodiversity’s elimination. Aside from discussing biodiversity as a property, this thesis will also discuss biodiversity as a concept (as in biodiversity), and refer to the word biodiversity (as in ‘biodiversity’). In the conceptual case for biodiversity’s elimination, eliminativists argue that biodiversity misdirects the efforts of conservation and is not a scientifically coherent concept. In the empirical case, eliminativists argue that biodiversity is not operationalisable. In the value compass case, eliminativists argue that biodiversity does not reliably track biological value. I will argue that all three cases for biodiversity’s elimination are unsuccessful. Biodiversity is a complex concept with multiple dimensions of biological diversities but understanding it as a homeostatic property cluster avoids the conceptual case for its elimination. The empirical case is unsuccessful because the surrogacy strategy for measuring biodiversity can be defended against its limitations and the expanding multiplicity of biodiversity measures is overblown.
  • Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera

    Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera

    EN62CH15-Mitter ARI 5 November 2016 12:1 I Review in Advance first posted online V E W E on November 16, 2016. (Changes may R S still occur before final publication online and in print.) I E N C N A D V A Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera Charles Mitter,1,∗ Donald R. Davis,2 and Michael P. Cummings3 1Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742; email: [email protected] 2Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560 3Laboratory of Molecular Evolution, Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017. 62:265–83 Keywords Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017.62. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org The Annual Review of Entomology is online at Hexapoda, insect, systematics, classification, butterfly, moth, molecular ento.annualreviews.org systematics This article’s doi: Access provided by University of Maryland - College Park on 11/20/16. For personal use only. 10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035125 Abstract Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. Until recently, deep-level phylogeny in Lepidoptera, the largest single ra- All rights reserved diation of plant-feeding insects, was very poorly understood. Over the past ∗ Corresponding author two decades, building on a preceding era of morphological cladistic stud- ies, molecular data have yielded robust initial estimates of relationships both within and among the ∼43 superfamilies, with unsolved problems now yield- ing to much larger data sets from high-throughput sequencing. Here we summarize progress on lepidopteran phylogeny since 1975, emphasizing the superfamily level, and discuss some resulting advances in our understanding of lepidopteran evolution.
  • Large Variation in Mitochondrial DNA of Sexual and Parthenogenetic Dahlica Triquetrella

    Large Variation in Mitochondrial DNA of Sexual and Parthenogenetic Dahlica Triquetrella

    Elzinga et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:90 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/90 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Large variation in mitochondrial DNA of sexual and parthenogenetic Dahlica triquetrella (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) shows multiple origins of parthenogenesis Jelmer A Elzinga1*, Jukka Jokela2 and Lisa NS Shama2,3 Abstract Background: Obligate parthenogenesis is relatively rare in animals. Still, in some groups it is quite common and has evolved and persisted multiple times. These groups may provide important clues to help solve the ‘paradox of sex’. Several species in the Psychidae (Lepidoptera) have obligate parthenogenesis. Dahlica triquetrella is one of those species where multiple transitions to parthenogenesis are postulated based on intensive cytological and behavioural studies. This has led to the hypothesis that multiple transitions from sexuals to diploid parthenogens occurred during and after the last glacial period, followed by transitions from parthenogenetic diploids to parthenogenetic tetraploids. Our study is the first to test these hypotheses using a molecular phylogeny based on mtDNA from multiple sexual and parthenogenetic populations from a wide geographic range. Results: Parthenogenetic (and sexual) D. triquetrella are not monophyletic, and considerable sequence variation is present suggesting multiple transitions to parthenogenesis. However, we could not establish ancestral sexual haplotypes from our dataset. Our data suggest that some parthenogenetic clades have evolved, indicating origins of parthenogenesis before the last glacial period. Conclusions: Multiple transitions to parthenogenesis have taken place in Dahlica triquetrella, confirming previous hypotheses. The number of different parthenogenetic clades, haplotypes and their apparent evolutionary age, clearly show that parthenogenesis has been a very successful reproductive strategy in this species over a long period.
  • Moths of Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge

    Moths of Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge

    U.S. FishFish & & Wildlife Wildlife Service Service Moths of Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge Established in 1994, the 25,000-acre Givira arbeloides Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge Prionoxystus robiniae is a remnant of what was once a much Carpenterworm Moth larger, frequently flooded, bottomland hardwood forest. You are still able to Crambid Snout Moths (Crambidae) view vast expanses of ridge and swale Achyra rantalis floodplain features, numerous bayous, Garden Webworm Moth oxbow lakes, and cypress/tupelo swamps Aethiophysa invisalis along the Trinity River. It is one of Argyria lacteella only 14 priority-one bottomland sites Milky Urola Moth identified for protection in the Texas Carectocultus perstrialis Bottomland Protection Plan. Texas is Reed-boring Crambid Moth home to an estimated 4,000 species of Chalcoela iphitalis moths. Most of the nearly 400 species of Sooty-winged Chalcoela moths listed below were photographed Chrysendeton medicinalis around the security lights at the Refuge Bold Medicine Moth Headquarters building located adjacent Colomychus talis to a bottomland hardwood forest. Many Distinguished Colomychus more moths are not even attracted to Conchylodes ovulalis lights, so additional surveys will need Zebra Conchylodes to be conducted to document those Crambus agitatellus species. These forests also support a Double-banded Grass-veneer wide diversity of mammals, reptiles, Crambus satrapellus amphibians, and fish with many feeding Crocidophora tuberculalis on moths or their larvae. Pale-winged Crocidophora Moth Desmia funeralis For more information, visit our website: Grape leaf-folder www.fws.gov/southwest Desmia subdivisalis Diacme elealis Contact the Refuge staff if you should Paler Diacme Moth find an unlisted or rare species during Diastictis fracturalis your visit and provide a description.
  • Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?

    Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?

    Impacts of Native and Non-native plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better than Non-natives? by Carl Scott Clem A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Key Words: native plants, non-native plants, caterpillars, natural enemies, associational interactions, congeneric plants Copyright 2015 by Carl Scott Clem Approved by David Held, Chair, Associate Professor: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Charles Ray, Research Fellow: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Debbie Folkerts, Assistant Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Robert Boyd, Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Abstract With continued suburban expansion in the southeastern United States, it is increasingly important to understand urbanization and its impacts on sustainability and natural ecosystems. Expansion of suburbia is often coupled with replacement of native plants by alien ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle, Bradford pear, and Japanese maple. Two projects were conducted for this thesis. The purpose of the first project (Chapter 2) was to conduct an analysis of existing larval Lepidoptera and Symphyta hostplant records in the southeastern United States, comparing their species richness on common native and alien woody plants. We found that, in most cases, native plants support more species of eruciform larvae compared to aliens. Alien congener plant species (those in the same genus as native species) supported more species of larvae than alien, non-congeners. Most of the larvae that feed on alien plants are generalist species. However, most of the specialist species feeding on alien plants use congeners of native plants, providing evidence of a spillover, or false spillover, effect.
  • WO 2017/205751 Al 30 November 2017 (30.11.2017) W !P O PCT

    WO 2017/205751 Al 30 November 2017 (30.11.2017) W !P O PCT

    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2017/205751 Al 30 November 2017 (30.11.2017) W !P O PCT (51) International Patent Classification: WHEELER, Christopher; c/o Provivi, Inc., 1701 Col A01M 29/12 (201 1.01) C12N 15/82 (2006.01) orado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404 (US). A I 27/00 (2006.01) C12P 19/34 (2006.01) (74) Agent: VEITENHEIMER, Erich et al. ; Cooley LLP, 1299 (21) International Application Number: Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, Dis PCT/US20 17/034697 trict of Columbia 20004-2400 (US). (22) International Filing Date: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every 26 May 2017 (26.05.2017) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, (25) Filing Language: English CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DJ, DK, DM, DO, (26) Publication Language: English DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KH, KN, KP, KR, (30) Priority Data: KW, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, 62/342,807 27 May 2016 (27.05.2016) US MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, (71) Applicant: PROVIVI, INC. [US/US]; 1701 Colorado Av PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, enue, Santa Monica, California 90404 (US).
  • Biodiversity of the Potomac River Valley

    Biodiversity of the Potomac River Valley

    Workbook: Biodiversity of the Potomac Valley (2009, March 2017, a work-in-progress still in need of editing, additions, corrections, etc.) Edward M. Barrows Laboratory of Biodiversity and Entomology, Georgetown Univerisity, Washington, D.C. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Table of Contents Introduction (Goals, Background, Disclaimers, Organism Names) Abbreviations and Definitions Archaea Bacteria Invertebrates except Arthropoda Arthropoda Chordata Nonflowering Plants Dicots Monocots Protista References Map Legion, Potomac Gorge in part. The Map is a PowerPoint file. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Our Goals Increase your scientific literacy in view of wise voting and total Earth Stewardship. Learn about local biodiversity. Learn about local plant communities. Pool our knowledge and update this workbook as a group. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This Workbook I started this little workbook in 2009 and update it over the years. This workbook is primarily an annotated list of local biota. I include selected information for each taxon. For full information you should consult reference books and scientific papers, some of which I list in the Literature parts of this handbook, and even Wikipedia. For some species, I include information from my forest ecology courses, such as specific ecological roles in forests. Please give me corrections, additions, suggestions, etc. A wonderful introduction to the biota of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region is Alden, P., B. Cassie, J. D. W. Kahl, E. A. Oches, H. Zirlin, and W. B. Zomlefer. 2007. National Audubon Society. Field Guide to the Mid- Atlantic States. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 448 pp. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Background How do many biologists now classify life from large through small taxonomic groups (= taxa)? (domain, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, subspecies (variety and forma in plants) and categories between the larger categories) Table 1.
  • Egg Database Bibliography

    Egg Database Bibliography

    Egg Database Bibliography Samuel H. Church1;∗;y, Seth Donoughe1;2;∗, Bruno A. S. de Medeiros1, Cassandra G. Extavour1;3;y Note: This document is a list of the 1,756 published sources that were used to generate the assembled dataset of insect egg traits. ‘Diss.’ indicates a PhD dissertation, whereas ‘MA thesis’ indicates a Master’s thesis. For more information on the dataset, please see Church et al. 2018: “A database of egg size and shape from more than 6,700 insect species” (preprint). It describes the criteria that were used to include sources, definitions of each trait, and details on the procedure that was used to collect data from each source. References Abbassy, M. M., N. Helmy, M. Osman, S. E. Cope, and S. M. Presley. “Embryogenesis of the sand fly Phlebotomus pa- patasi (Diptera: Psychodidae): cell cleavage, blastoderm formation, and gastrulation”. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 88.6 (1995): 809–814. Abdel-Razak, S. I., S. M. Beshr, A. K. Mourad, and K. S. Moursi. “Ultrastructure of egg shell of four different Coccoidea species in Egypt”. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences 73.3 (2007): 521– 527. Abdurahiman, U. C. and K. J. Joseph. “Observations on the biology and behaviour of Ceratosolen marchali Mayr (Agaonidae, Chalcidoidea, Hymenoptera)”. Entomon 1.2 (1976): 115–122. Abraham, Y. J., D. Moore, and G. Godwin. “Rearing and aspects of biology of Cephalonomia stephanoderis and Prorops nasuta (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) parasitoids of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)”. Bulletin of Entomological Research 80.2 (1990): 121–128. Adamski, D., J.