Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:42:18.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhyzobius ventralis (Erichson) and R. forestieri (Mulsant) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), their biology and value for scale insect control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Aola M. Richards
Aola M. Richards
Affiliation:
School of Zoology, University of New South Wales, Kensington, N.S.W. 2033, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Life-cycles and voltinism are described for Rhyzobius ventralis (Erichs.) and R. forestieri (Muls.) living in the region of Sydney, Australia, and also the role each plays in its particular biocoenosis. Colour variation and wax production are described for the larvae, prepupae, pupae and adults of both species, also the defensive and feeding behaviour. New and known host records are listed for both species. Reasons are suggested for the success, partial failure or failure of the species as biological control agents in various parts of the world.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 33 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Anderson, J. M. E. & Richards, A. M. (1977). First record of reproductive diapause and aggregation in Australian Coccinellidae (Coleoptera).—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 102,13–17.Google Scholar
Bartlett, B. R. (1978). Coccidae.—pp. 57–74 in Clausen, C. P. (Ed.). Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review.—vi + 545 pp.Washington, D.C., ARS, USDA. (Agriculture Handbook no. 480).Google Scholar
Böving, A. (1917). A generic synopsis of the coccinellid larvae in the United States National Museum, with a description of the larva of Hyperaspis binotata Say.—Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 51, 621–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. F. (1938). A survey of the insect pests of eucalypts in New Zealand.—N.Z. Jl Sci. Technol. 19, 750–761.Google Scholar
Essig, E. O. (1910). The natural enemies of the citrus mealy bug. II.—Pomona Coll. J. Ent. 2, 260–274.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1930). Wax secretion in the Rhizobiini.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 23, 808–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froggatt, W. W. (1900). Notes on Australian Coccidae (scale insects).—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 11, 99–107.Google Scholar
Froggatt, W. W. (1902). Australian ladybird beetles.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 13, 895–911.Google Scholar
Froggatt, W. W. (1921). A descriptive catalogue of the scale insects (“ Coccidae ”) of Australia. Part II.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. N.S.W. no. 18, 159 pp.Google Scholar
Hagen, K. S. (1974). The significance of predaceous Coccinellidae in biological and integrated control of insects.—Entomophaga (Mémoires hors série) 7, 25–44.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1898). On some new parasitic insects of the subfamily Encyrtinae.—Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 21, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ironside, D. A. (1978). The macadamia felted coccid.—Qd Agric. J. 104, xxv–xxviii.Google Scholar
Kirk, T. W. & Cockayne, A. H. (1909). The gum-tree scale.—Bull. Dep. Agric. N.Z. no. 13, 8 pp.Google Scholar
Koebele, A. (1890). Report of the fluted scale of the orange and its natural enemies in Australia.—Bull. Bur. Ent. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 21, 9–32.Google Scholar
Koebele, A. (1893). Studies of parasitic and predaceous insects in New Zealand, Australia and adjacent islands.—39 pp. Washington, USDA.Google Scholar
Leeper, J. R. (1976). A review of the Hawaiian Coccinellidae.—Proc. Hawaii, ent. Soc. 22, 279–306.Google Scholar
McIndoo, N. E. (1916). The reflex “ bleeding ” of the coccinellid beetle, Epilachna borealis.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 9, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlatt, C. L. (1904). Importations of beneficial insects into California.—Bull. Bur. Ent. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 44, 50–56.Google Scholar
Patel, J. D. (1971). Morphology of the gum tree scale Eriococcus coriaceus Maskell (Homoptera: Eriococcidae), with notes on its life history and habits near Adelaide, South Australia.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 10, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. D. (1977). Brachyptery and wing-polymorphism among the Coccinellidae (Coleoptera).—Syst. Entomol. 2, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. D. (1979). Wax production by coccinellid larvae (Coleoptera).—Syst. Entomol. 4, 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. D. (1981). “ Rhyzobius ventralis ” (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), its constituent pecies, and their taxonomy and historical roles in biological control.—Bull. ent. Res. 71, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quayle, H. J. (1911). The black scale.—Bull. Calif, agric. Exp. Stn. no. 223, 149–200.Google Scholar
Richards, A. M. (1980). Defensive adaptations and behaviour in Scymnodes lividigaster (Muls.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).—J. Zool. 192, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Riley, C. V.] (1893). Some imported Australian parasites.—Insect Life, Wash. 5, 207.Google Scholar
Swezey, O. H. (1915). Some results of the introduction of beneficial insects in the Hawaiian Islands.—J. econ. Ent. 8, 450–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. (1935). The campaign against Aspidiotus destructor, Sign., in Fiji.—Bull. ent. Res. 26, 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R. & Simmonds, F. J. (1965). A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests. Section 4. Host predator catalogue.—198 pp. Farnham Royal, Bucks., Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. (1960). A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea.—Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control no. 1, 102 pp.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, E. C. (1948). Homoptera: Sternorhyncha.—Insects Hawaii 5, 464 pp.Google Scholar