Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:32:05.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natural Enemies of the Pear Leaf-curling Midge, Perrisia pyri, Bouché (Dipt., Cecidom.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. G. Myers
J. G. Myers
Affiliation:
Imperial Bureau of Entomology.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are three main parasitoids and one very efficient predator associated with Perrisia pyri in France. Of these, at least during July and August, the predacious Capsid, Pilophorus perplexus, achieves the greatest destruction of midge larvae.

The two species of Platygasterids differ in several points of ethology from the species of the same or adjacent genera attacking Contarinia pyrivora. They are both egg-parasites, developing very slowly in the midge larvae during the growth of the host. Their action appears to be largely complementary, corresponding to morphological differences in the organs of oviposition. Their life-history is very imperfectly known.

Torymus abbreviatus is extremely efficient. Its eggs are laid within the curled leaf among well-grown midge maggots on which the larva lives as an ectoparasitoid. The duration and location of the pupa stadium is unfortunately not yet known.

Some half a dozen other enemies were found to play a less important part than the preceding.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , December 1927 , pp. 129 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1927

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

Butler, E. A. 1923. A Biology of British Hemiptera-Heteroptera. London.Google Scholar
Ferrière, Ch. 1927. Parasites de Perrisia pyri, Bouché (Dipt., Cecidom.).—Bull. Ent. Res., xvii, pp. 421–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, B. B. 1918. Observations on the life-history and habits of Pilophorus walshii Uhler.—Ann. Ent. Soc. America, xi, pp. 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, P. 1900. Notes biologiques sur les Chalcidiens et Prototrypides obtenus par voie d' élevage pendant les années 1896, 1897 et 1898.—Ann. Soc. Ent. France, lxix, pp. 102–112.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. 1906. Recherches sur la biologie et le dévelopment des Hyménoptères parasites. II. Les Platygasters.—Arch. Zool. exp. et gén., (4) iv, pp. 485–640, pls. 17–24, 12 text-figs.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. 1907. La Cécidomyie des Poires (Diplosis pirivora).—Ann. Soc. Ent. France, lxxvi, pp. 5–27, 14 figs.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 1874. Die europaischen Torymiden.—Verh. zool.–bot. Ges. Wien, xxiv. pp. 55–142.Google Scholar
Mercet, R. G. 1917. Microhimenópteros de España utiles á la Agricultura.—Asoc. Espan. Progr. Cienc., Congreso de Valladolid, Sec. 4a, pp. 367–377, 7 figs. (Abstract in, Rev. Appl. Entom., Ser. A. vi, p. 113, 1918).Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1926. Parasites of the pear-midge (Perrisia pyri). First attempt at their establishment in New Zealand.—New Zealand Journ. Agric., xxxii, pp. 379–393, 9 figs.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. & Salt, G. 1926. The phenomenon of myrmecoidy, with new examples from Cuba.—Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1926, pp. 427–436, pl. xciii, 1 text-fig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truffaut, G. 1912. Les ennemis des plantes cultivées. Versailles, pp. 1–565, illus.Google Scholar