Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:11:11.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Insect Parasites of the Spruce Sawfly (Diprion polytomum, Htg.) in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

K. R. S. Morris ,
E. Cameron  and
W. F. Jepson
K. R. S. Morris
Affiliation:
Farnham House Laboratory, Imperial Institute of Entomology.
E. Cameron
Affiliation:
Farnham House Laboratory, Imperial Institute of Entomology.
W. F. Jepson
Affiliation:
Farnham House Laboratory, Imperial Institute of Entomology.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A severe outbreak of the Spruce Sawfly (Diprion polytomum, Htg.) in Eastern Canada led to a request to Farnham House Laboratory to investigate, and if possible collect and export, the parasites of this insect in its native home in Europe.

Work started in 1932 and it was found that D. polytomum was a comparatively rare insect in Europe, though widely distributed. It is heavily parasitized, 31 species of Hymenopterous and Dipterous parasites having been found up to the present. Nearly twenty-eight million parasitized cocoons and eggs of this and other species of Diprion have been collected and despatched from Europe, and work is still continuing.

Previous to the present work only 13 species of parasites, a list of which is given, were recorded from this host.

Of the 31 species now known, 15 are primary, 5 can be primary or secondary, and 9 secondary only; in 2 cases the status is not known.

Descriptions of all the species are given and in the case of the obligatory and facultative primaries, the biology and immature stages are also described and notes added on their suitability for introduction into Canada. A key to the adult parasites is given, and a key to the larval stages of the primary and facultative primary parasites. Some practical notes are also given, including methods of accelerating the emergence of parasites in winter and methods of preparing parasite larvae for examination and identification.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , October 1937 , pp. 341 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

André, É. (1879–1881). “ Species des Hyménoptères d'Europe et d'Algérie,” p. 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, W. (1920). Z. angew. Ent. 7, pp. 97–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, P. (1889) “ British Phytophagous Hymenoptera ” 3, p. 80.Google Scholar
De Fluiter, H. J. (1932). Tijdschr. Plantenz. 38, pp. 125–195.Google Scholar
De Gaulle, J. (1908). Hymenoptères de France, pp. 56, 60.Google Scholar
De Gaulle, J. (1919). Bull. Soc. Étude. Sci. nat. Elbeuf 37, (1918), pp. 55–58.Google Scholar
Forsius, R. (1911). Medd. pro Faun. Fenn. 37, p. 100.Google Scholar
Forsius, R. (1932). Notul. ent. 12, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
Giraud, R. (1877). Ann. Soc. Ent. France, p. 397.Google Scholar
Habermehl, H. (1922). Konowia 1, pp. 234–240.Google Scholar
Habermehl, H. (1924). Dtsch. ent. Z., pp. 183–184.Google Scholar
Hartley, E. A. (1923). J. Econ. Ent. 16, pp. 386–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertz, M. (1933). Comment. Inst. for. Fenn. 18, pt. 6, reprint 53 pp. Helsingfors.Google Scholar
Jemiller, M. (1894). Ber. naturw. Ver. Schwaben 1894, p. 153.Google Scholar
Meier, N. F. (1927). Rep. Bur. Appl. Ent. 3, pp. 75–91. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Meier, N. F. (1929). Izv. prikl. Ent. 4, no. 1, pp. 231–248. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Mokrzecki, Z. (1933). Polsk. Pismo. ent. 12, pp. 143–144.Google Scholar
Morley, C. (1911). British Ichneumons 4, p. 203.Google Scholar
Morris, K. R. S. & Cameron, E. (1935). Bull. Ent. Res. 26, pp. 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritzema Bos, J. (1919). Meded. Landbouwhoogeschool Wageningen. 16, pp. 105–157.Google Scholar
Ruschka, F. & Fulmek, L. (1915). Z. angew. Ent. 2, p. 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheidter, F. (1934). Z. für Pflantzenkrankheiten 44, pp. 369, 500.Google Scholar
Schmiedeknecht, O. (1908). Opuscula Ichneumonologica 4, p. 1831.Google Scholar
Schmiedeknecht, O. (1911). Op. cit. 5, p. 2303.Google Scholar
Schutz, K. T. & Roman, A. (1931). Isis Budissima 12, reprint, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Sitowski, L. (1925). Roczniki Nauk Rolnicznych i Lesnych 14, separate, 25 pp.Google Scholar
Sitowski, L. (1929). Poznansk Towarzys Prz. Nauk., Ser. B. 5, reprint, 8 pp.Google Scholar
Thomson, C. G. (1883 & 1889). Opuscula Entomologica 9, p. 887, and 12, p. 1254.Google Scholar
Tschek, C. (1872). Verh. Z. b. Ges., p. 248.Google Scholar
Webber, R. T. (1932). J. Agric. Res. 45, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. B. (1917). J. Econ. Ent. 10, p. 224.Google Scholar