INDEX to VOLUME 43 Biological Control, 305 De Benedictis, J. A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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, -
"Calothysanis" Amaturaria (Walker) (Geometridae, Sterrhinae)
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 43(1), 1989, 72 THE VALID GENERIC PLACEMENT FOR "CALOTHYSANIS" AMATURARIA (WALKER) (GEOMETRIDAE, STERRHINAE) Additional key words: taxonomy, Timandra amaturaria, The common eastern North American sterrhine geometrid moth described by Walker in 1866 as Timandra amaturaria has often been placed in the genus Calothysanis Hubner 1823. Examples are A. S, Packard (1876, Monograph of the geometrid moths or Pha laenidae of the United States, in Hayden, F. V., Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories 10:317), L. B. Prout (1934, Lepidopterorum catalogus, Part 61: 51), Prout in A. Seitz (1936, Macrolepidoptera of the world, Vol. 8:94), and W. T. M. Forbes (1948, Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states, Part 2:119). Timandra, on the other hand, was used in the 1817 check list of Barnes and Mc Dunnough and the 1938 one of McDunnough (numbers 3913 and 4205, respectively), as well as in earlier works by A. Guenee, C. F. Gumppenberg, and Prout himself (1913, in Seitz, A., Macrolepidoptera of the world, Vol. 4:47) Both combinations have appeared in other literature, and on the head labels of collections, creating considerable confusion. Since Calothysanis Hubner 1823 predated Timandra Duponchel 1829, and had been applied by Forbes and by Prout in his most recent works, I used Calothysanis in my Sterrhinae section of the R. W. Hodges (ed.) (1983) Check list of the Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico (p. 100) and my Field Guide to Moths of Eastern North America (Covell 1985, p. 377; pI. 46, fig. 14). Prout (1913) chose Timandra over Calothysanis on the basis of Butler's selection of Acidalia imitaria Hubner as the type of Calothysanis (Butler, A. -
2017, Jones Road, Near Blackhawk, RAIN (Photo: Michael Dawber)
Edited and Compiled by Rick Cavasin and Jessica E. Linton Toronto Entomologists’ Association Occasional Publication # 48-2018 European Skippers mudpuddling, July 6, 2017, Jones Road, near Blackhawk, RAIN (Photo: Michael Dawber) Dusted Skipper, April 20, 2017, Ipperwash Beach, LAMB American Snout, August 6, 2017, (Photo: Bob Yukich) Dunes Beach, PRIN (Photo: David Kaposi) ISBN: 978-0-921631-53-7 Ontario Lepidoptera 2017 Edited and Compiled by Rick Cavasin and Jessica E. Linton April 2018 Published by the Toronto Entomologists’ Association Toronto, Ontario Production by Jessica Linton TORONTO ENTOMOLOGISTS’ ASSOCIATION Board of Directors: (TEA) Antonia Guidotti: R.O.M. Representative Programs Coordinator The TEA is a non-profit educational and scientific Carolyn King: O.N. Representative organization formed to promote interest in insects, to Publicity Coordinator encourage cooperation among amateur and professional Steve LaForest: Field Trips Coordinator entomologists, to educate and inform non-entomologists about insects, entomology and related fields, to aid in the ONTARIO LEPIDOPTERA preservation of insects and their habitats and to issue Published annually by the Toronto Entomologists’ publications in support of these objectives. Association. The TEA is a registered charity (#1069095-21); all Ontario Lepidoptera 2017 donations are tax creditable. Publication date: April 2018 ISBN: 978-0-921631-53-7 Membership Information: Copyright © TEA for Authors All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be Annual dues: reproduced or used without written permission. Individual-$30 Student-free (Association finances permitting – Information on submitting records, notes and articles to beyond that, a charge of $20 will apply) Ontario Lepidoptera can be obtained by contacting: Family-$35 Jessica E. -
Teline Monspessulana Michael Winka, Clytia B
Uresiphita reversalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): Carrier-Mediated Uptake and Sequestration of Quinolizidine Alkaloids Obtained from the Host Plant Teline monspessulana Michael Winka, Clytia B. Montllorb, Elizabeth A. Bernaysbc, and Ludger Witted a Institut für Pharmazeutische Biologie, Universität Heidelberg. Im Neuenheimer Feld 364, D-6900 Heidelberg, Bundesrepublik Deutschland b Division of Biological Control, University of California, Albany, Cal. 94706, U.S.A.* c Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Ariz. 85721, U.S.A. d Institut für Pharmazeutische Biologie, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Mendelssohnstraße 1, D-3300 Braunschweig, Bundesrepublik Deutschland Z. Naturforsch. 46c, 1080- 1088 (1991); received July 1, 1991 Uresiphita reversalis, Cytisine, Transport, Carrier, Alkaloid, Teline monspessulana Larvae o f Uresiphita reversalis feed almost exclusively on legumes of the tribe Genisteae, whose characteristic secondary metabolites are quinolizidine alkaloids (QA). Aposematic lar vae store host plant-derived QA in their integument, while the pupae are almost alkaloid-free. In the last instar larvae, alkaloids were concentrated in the larval head, possibly in the silk glands. About 80% of the alkaloids were transferred to the cocoon silk and 19% were lost with larval exuviae. The larval alkaloid pattern was characterized by capillary GLC and GLC-MS and com pared to that of the host plant, Teline monspessulana. Whereas the host plant contained mainly epiaphylline, dehydroaphylline and aphylline, larvae selectively accumulated N-methylcyti- sine, a relatively minor component of the plant QA; the faeces contained mainly epiaphylline and dehydroaphylline. Thus uptake and sequestration must be selective processes. Uptake by isolated larval midguts was time-, pH- and temperature-dependent and displayed an activation energy between 50 and 80 kJ/mol. -
CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties. -
Influence of Habitat and Bat Activity on Moth Community Composition and Seasonal Phenology Across Habitat Types
INFLUENCE OF HABITAT AND BAT ACTIVITY ON MOTH COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND SEASONAL PHENOLOGY ACROSS HABITAT TYPES BY MATTHEW SAFFORD THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Advisor: Assistant Professor Alexandra Harmon-Threatt, Chair and Director of Research ABSTRACT Understanding the factors that influence moth diversity and abundance is important for monitoring moth biodiversity and developing conservation strategies. Studies of moth habitat use have primarily focused on access to host plants used by specific moth species. How vegetation structure influences moth communities within and between habitats and mediates the activity of insectivorous bats is understudied. Previous research into the impact of bat activity on moths has primarily focused on interactions in a single habitat type or a single moth species of interest, leaving a large knowledge gap on how habitat structure and bat activity influence the composition of moth communities across habitat types. I conducted monthly surveys at sites in two habitat types, restoration prairie and forest. Moths were collected using black light bucket traps and identified to species. Bat echolocation calls were recorded using ultrasonic detectors and classified into phonic groups to understand how moth community responds to the presence of these predators. Plant diversity and habitat structure variables, including tree diameter at breast height, ground cover, and vegetation height were measured during summer surveys to document how differences in habitat structure between and within habitats influences moth diversity. I found that moth communities vary significantly between habitat types. -
Aiian D. Dawson 1955
A COMPARISON OF THE INSECT COMMUNITIES 0F CONIFEROUS AND DECIDUOUS WOODLOTS Thesis hr the Dawn of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AIIan D. Dawson 1955- IHESlS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r ,A COMPARISON OF THE INSECT communes or conmous AND IDECIDUOUS woomm's by Allen D. Dmon AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of nichigm state university of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Entomolog 1955 ABSTRACT This study surveyed and compared qualitatively a sample of the insect species of three different forest insect comunities. The three forest types surveyed included a red pine woodlot, a red pine- white pine woodlot and an oak-hickory woodlot. Bach woodlot was approximately ten acres in size. The woodlots studied are located in the Kellogg Forest, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. They were surveyed, using the same methods in each, from June 20 to August 19, 1951. and from April 30 to June 19, 1955. ' collecting of the insects was done mainly by sweeping the herbs, shrubs, and lower tree strata with a thirty-centimeter insect net. other insects were taken after direct observation. In addi- tion, night collecting was done by using automobile headlights as attractants from various locations on logging roads throughout each area. An attempt was ends to collect as many insects as possible from each woodlot. Due to the nunbers involved and the fact that the surveys did not cover an entire year, the insects collected represent only a sample of the woodlot insect commities. Of the animals collected, only adult or identifiable imature forms of insects were recorded. -
Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium
Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium Dennis Isaacson Martha H. Brookes Technical Coordinators U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV and Oregon Department of Agriculture Salem, OR June 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many of the tasks of organizing a symposium such as this — and there are many — are not obvious, and, if they are handled well, the effort that goes into them can easily be overlooked. Sherry Kudna of the Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Control staff managed most of the arrangements and took care of many, many details, which helped the symposium run smoothly. We truly appreciate her many contributions. We also acknowledge the contributions of the presenters. They not only organized their own presentations and manuscripts, but also assisted with reviewing drafts of each other’s papers in the proceedings. Several of the presenters also covered their own expenses. Such dedication speaks well of their commitment to improving the practice of weed biocontrol. Both the Oregon State Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service made major contributions to supporting the symposium. Although several individuals from both organizations provided assistance, we especially note the encouragement and advice of Bob Bolton, Oregon Bureau of Land Management Weed Control Coordinator, and the willingness to help and financial support for publishing this document from Richard C. Reardon, Biocontrol/Biopesticides Program Manager, USDA Forest Service's Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV. We thank Tinathan Coger for layout and design and Patricia Dougherty for printing advice and coordination of the manuscript We also thank Barbra Mullin, Montana State Department of Agriculture, who delivered the keynote address; Tami Lowry, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, who helped format the document; and Eric Coombs, who provided the photographs of weeds and agents that convey the concepts of weed biocontrol. -
A NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY of MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA June 2007
A NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY OF MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA June 2007 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Submitted to: Mifflin County Planning Commission 20 North Wayne Street Lewistown, PA 17044 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development. Additional funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii A Natural Heritage Inventory of Mifflin County, Pennsylvania 2007 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) 208 Airport Drive Middletown, PA 17057 Donna Bowers, Administration Lucy Boyce, Seasonal Field Ecologist Anthony F. Davis, Senior Ecologist Jeremy Deeds, Aquatic Zoology Coordinator Alice Doolittle, Conservation Assistant Charlie Eichelberger, Herpetologist Kathy Derge Gipe, Herpetologist William (Rocky) Gleason, County Inventory Coordinator Jim Hart, Mammalogist Rita Hawrot, Terrestrial Zoology Coordinator Denise Johnson, Assistant County Inventory Ecologist Susan Klugman, Conservation Information Manager John Kunsman, Senior Botanist Betsy Ray Leppo, Invertebrate Zoologist Trina Morris, County Inventory Ecologist Betsy Nightingale, Aquatic -
Butterflies of North America
Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 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, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS -
Download Download
Legume-feeding Lepidoptera of the Florida Keys: potential competitors of an endangered lycaenid butterfly Sarah R. Steele Cabrera1,2,*, James E. Hayden3, Jaret C. Daniels1,2, Jake M. Farnum4, Charles V. Covell Jr.1, and Matthew J. Standridge1 Abstract Two Fabaceae in the Florida Keys, Pithecellobium keyense Coker and Guilandina bonduc Griseb., have been of interest because they are the larval host plants for the endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri [Comstock & Huntington]; Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). As a part of ongoing research and conservation for this butterfly, wild host plant material has been periodically collected in order to supplement a captive colony ofC. t. bethunebakeri located in Gainesville, Florida, USA. In examining this plant material, 26 lepidopterans were detected, includ- ing several host records, a new continental record, and 2 likely undescribed species, 1 Aristotelia (Gelechiidae) and 1 Crocidosema (Tortricidae). Our results expand the geographic, life-history, and taxonomic understanding of lepidopteran herbivores that use P. keyense and G. bonduc in South Florida. Key Words: Pithecellobium keyense; Guilandina bonduc; Fabaceae; herbivory Resumen En los Cayos de Florida, habitan dos especies de plantas hospederas críticas para el ciclo de vida de la mariposa Miami blue (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri [Comstock y Huntington]; Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), la cual está en peligro de extinción. Ambas plantas son de la familia Fabaceae: Pithecellobium keyense Coker y Guilandina bonduc Griseb. Como parte de una investigación de la conservación de esta mariposa, periódicamente se recolectaron muestras de estas especies de plantas para suplementar una población cautiva deC. t. bethunebakeri en Gainesville, Florida, EE. UU. Tras examinar el material vegetal colectado, encontramos veintiséis especies de Lepidópteros. -
Rosen.Iry Lees
Joiirnal of the Lepidopterist r' Societ y , .. .... ,' 1 _. .. .. 49;2i. 1995, 16:5-170 .I BIOLOGY OF URESIPI-IITA PiEj'ERSALIS (GUCX'ÉE) AKD COMPARISOS !VITH U. POL>~GOiYALZSNilORIALZS (FELDER) (CR AMBI DA E) ROSEN.IRYL EES Cnited States Departmeiit of Agriculture-Forest Ser\ ice Qiiarantine Facility, P.O. Bol 236, \'olcano, Ha\vaii 9675.5, LIS.\ ABSTRAC?'. The biology of Uresiphiia recersalis (Guenee) is described, and the uripublished thesis of hlulva). on Uresiphita polygorzalis maorialis (Felder) is summarized. The biologies of the t\vo species are identical in many regards. Eggs are cream colored and laid in overlapping clusters of up to SO. Larvae undergo five instars; they are brightly colored, gregarious, and aposeniatic. Pupae are dark brokvn. Overivintering usually occurs in the pupa1 stage. Adults are active nocturnally and are superficially similar, \vith dark brown foreuings and light orange hind\vings \vith br0u.n markings along the outer rnargin. In coritrast to larvae, adults of both species are suspected to be palatable to predators on the basis of their color, nocturna1 activity, and absence of sequestered cluinolizidine alkaloids in adults of U. recersnlis. Both species are multivoltine. Larvae of U. reversalis are diurnally active but feed throughout the night under \varrn temperatures. Additional key words: P!didae, Pyraiistinae, circadian acticity, geographic distri- bution, Genista. The genus Uresiphita Hübner is a sniall group in the family Cram- bidae (subfamily Pjmustinae), according to hlunroe's (1089) revised classification of tlie Pjnloidea. Tlie biology of only one species, Ure- siphitn polygorinlis mnoriali.s (Felder), has been studied in detail, and ' tlie resiilts of those stiidies are presented iri the iinpublished hlaster's thesis of hlul\.a).