Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:46:44.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory studies on the biology of Lepidosaphes conchiformis (Gmel.) (Hem., Diaspididae) and of its parasite Aphytis maculicornis (Masi) (Hym., Aphelinidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Rafiq Ahmad  and
M. A. Ghani
Rafiq Ahmad
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control (Pakistan Station), Pehlvi Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
M. A. Ghani
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control (Pakistan Station), Pehlvi Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During 1963–69 the United States Department of Agriculture sponsored investigations on scale insects and their natural enemies in West Pakistan.* In the course of the survey Lepidosaphes conchiformis (Gmel.)† was collected from several localities. It occurred sporadically, but infestations were heavy on most of the plants on which it was found. In the hills it was commonly parasitised by Aphytis maculicornis (Masi). The potential importance of the scale and its parasite merited laboratory studies at Rawalpindi.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , October 1971 , pp. 69 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Balachowsky, A. S. (1954). Les cochenilles paléarctiques de la tribu des Diaspidini.— 450 pp. Paris, Inst. Pasteur.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. F. & Stafford, E. M. (1949). Control of the fig scale in California.—J. econ. Ent. 42, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenheimer, F. S. (1924). The Coccidae of Palestine. First report on this family.—Bull. agric. Exp. Stn, Tel-Aviv no. 1, 100 pp.Google Scholar
Bodenheimer, F. S. (1944). Additions to the Coccoidea of Iraq, with descriptions of two new species (Hemiptera-Homoptera).—Bull. Soc. Fouad I. Ent. 28, 81–84.Google Scholar
Chimenti, E. (1919). La cochenille du figuier en Calabre.—Bull. Off. Gouv. gén. Algér. 25, 159.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. A. & McComb, C. W. (1958). Notes on the biology and control of Fiorinia externa Ferris.—J. econ. Ent. 51, 405–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F. (1937). Atlas of the scale insects of North America.—Series 1–73. Stanford, University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. F. (1942). Atlas of the scale insects of North America.—Series IV–446, 5. Stanford, University Press.Google Scholar
Green, E. E. (1916). On two new British Coccidae, with notes on some other British species.—Entomologist's mon. Mag. 3rd series 2, 23–31.Google Scholar
Hafez, M. & Doutt, R. L. (1954). Biological evidence of sibling species in Aphytis Maculicornis (Masi) (Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae).—Can. Ent. 86, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawaguchi, T. (1935). Lepidosaphes conchiformis Gmelin and its control.—Insect World 39, 453–454.Google Scholar
Lindinger, L. (1933). Eine für Deutschland neue Schildlaus, Lepidosaphes conchiformis.—Z. PflKrankh. PflPath. PflSchutz. 43, 167–169.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, C. P. (1924). Report of the Department of Agriculture X: Entomology, 1923–24.—J. Dep. Agric. Un. S. Afr. 9, 556–567.Google Scholar
Peck, O. (1963). A Catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera).—Can. Ent. Suppl. 30, 252.Google Scholar
Picard, F. (1914). Les insectes do figuier.—Progrés agric. vitic. 62, 279–286.Google Scholar
De Seabra, A. F. (1918). Observations sur quelques espéces de cochenilles du Portugal.—Bull. Soc. port. Sd. nat., 8, 72–81.Google Scholar
Widiez, M. (1932). La culture du figuier en Afrique du Nord.—Agriculture prat. Pays chauds, N.S. 3 no. 24, 415–445.Google Scholar