Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:29:32.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on the Ethiopian Fruit-flies of the Family Trypaneidae, other than Dacus (s.l.), with descriptions of new genera and species (Dipt.).—I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Bezzi
M. Bezzi
Affiliation:
Turin, Italy.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the Oriental and Neotropical Trypaneids have been the subject in recent times of extensive studies, those of the Ethiopian Region are still almost in the same condition in which they were left by H. Loew in his valuable paper of 1861. Only more recently Prof. Hendel has made an attempt to erect some Ethiopian genera in his general classification of the family; but all these genera are only shortly characterised by means of dichotomic tables, and most of their type-species have been given names as new species, but without any description.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , June 1917 , pp. 215 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1917

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

* Bezzi, M., Mem. Ind. Mus., iii, No. 3, 05 1913, pp. 51–175, pl. viii–x.Google Scholar

† F. Hendel, Abh. Ber. K. Zool. Anthr. Mus. Dresden, xiv (1912), No. 3, 06 1914, pp. 3–84, pl. i–iv.Google Scholar

‡ Berl. ent. Zeits., v, 1861, pp. 253–306, pl. ii.Google Scholar

§ Wien. ent. Zeit., xxxiii, 04 1914, pp. 73–98.Google Scholar

‖ Bull. Soc. ent. ital., xxxix (1907), 1908, pp. 3–199 (v. pp 138–142).Google Scholar

Boll. Lab. Zool Portici, v, 09 1910, pp. 1–32, 11 figs.Google Scholar

* Bull. Ent. Res., vi., 09 1915, pp. 85–101, 14 figs.; viii, August 1917, pp. 63–71, 6 figs.Google Scholar

* Boll. d. Labor, di Zool. gen. e agr. Portici, viii, 05 1914, p. 303.Google Scholar

† Wien. entom. Zeit., xxxi. 02 1912, p. 13.Google Scholar

* Bull. Ent. Res., i, 04 1910, p. 71.Google Scholar

† Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vii, 02 1913, p. 22.Google Scholar

‡ Wien. ent. Zeit., xxxiii, 04 1914, pp. 80 and 97.Google Scholar

§ Wien. ent. Zeit., xxxi, 02 1912, p. 15.Google Scholar

* By ovipositor (and its length) is always meant what is in reality the 7th abdominal segment of the female. This is so called by authors and is always intended for basal segment; the true ovipositor is the apical segment, which is mostly retracted, and thus only rarely recorded by authors in their descriptions.

* [C. catoiri is certainly distinct from C. capitata, being an obviously larger insect, almost equalling C. rosa, Karsch, in size. The oblique band over the hind cross-vein unites with the broad median band along the 4th longitudinal vein, and the apical section of this vein is crossed by an oblique fuscous spot. The stalk of the cephalic appendage in the male is much longer, the spatula being white in colour, and subtriangular, with the apex broadly truncate or slightly rounded; whereas in C. capitata the spatula is black and irregularly diamond-shaped.—Ed.]

* Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, iii, 04 1909, p. 273–313, 4 figs, (see p. 277).Google Scholar

* [Mr. C. P. Loungbury informs us that, so far as he is aware, the true Ceratitis rubivora, Coq., has been bred only from blackberries in the Cape District (where it is quite common and attacks no other cultivated fruit) and is not conspecific with the Natal fruit-fly (C. cosyra, Puller, nee Walk.), as erroneously stated by Froggatt. The specimens of the Natal fly sent us by Mr. Lounsbury are certainly referable to C. rosa, Karsch.—Ed.].

* [There can now be no doubt that this species is a synonym of Ceratitis cosyra, Walk. (see p. 236, and Plate v, fig. 5), a specimen named by Prof. Bezzi having been compared with Walker's type. We have received the species in some numbers from the following localities:—Gold Coast: Aburi, Feb. and April 1911, bred from fruit of Landolphia (L. Armstrong); Nyasaland: Chiromo, Dec. 1916, bred from “ mtondo ” fruit (R. C. Wood); S. Rhodesia: Salisbury, Nov. 1914, bred from guavas, and Umtali, Aug. and Sept. 1915 (R. W. Jack).—Ed.]

* [This species is a Tririthrum and identical with T. nigerrimum var. coffeae, Bezzi (see Plate v, fig. 9).—Ed.]

* First Report of the Natal Government Entomologist, 1899–1900, p. 70, and Fourth Report, 1903–1904, p. 19, pl. iii, fig. 1 and la (Cer. corysa). [As mentioned above, this species is P. rosa, Karsch, and not P. rubivorus, Coq.—Ed.]

† Boll. Labor. Zool. Portici, vii, 1913, p. 22.Google Scholar

‡ Boll. Labor. Zool. Portici, viii, 11 1913, p. 3–164, fig. i-lxix. Of this veiy important work there is an English edition published as Bull. No. 3 of the Division of Entomology of Board of Agric. Hawaii, Honolulu, February 1914.Google Scholar

* [As mentioned above (p. 235) this form is identical with T. inscriptum, Graham (1910).—Ed.]

† Wien. Ent. Zeit, xxxiii, 04 1914, p. 81.Google Scholar

* Wien. Entom. Zeit., xxxiii, 04 1914, p. 77.Google Scholar

* Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, viii, 05 1914, p. 303, fig. iii.Google Scholar

* Wien. Ent. Zeit., xxxiii, 1914, p. 79.Google Scholar