Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:56:09.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of Progeny by Cryptus inornatus Pratt (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. C. Ullyett
G. C. Ullyett
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The results obtained in the experiments just described indicate that the discriminative ability of the female parasite operates to enable the parasite to distinguish between hosts which have been parasitized previously, not only by itself but by other members of the species, and perfectly health; hosts. If this were not the case, series in which the densities of the female parasite populations were high would have given results which were more nearly approximate to a random distribution of progeny among the available hosts. As we have seen, the tendency was for the parasite to avoid superparasitism under all conditions, i.e., to exercise a deliberate choice of hosts.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , January 1950 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1950

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

Carpenter, J. M. 1944. The effect of population density on the productivity of the parasite Microbracon mellitor Say (Hymenoptera: Bracondiae). Proc. Tex. Acad. sci., 27 (1943), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar
Jones, E. P. 1937. The egg parasites of the cotton boll worm, Heliothis armigera Hbn. (obsoleta Fabr.) in Southern Rhodesia. Brit. S. Afr, Co. Mazoe Citrus exp. Sta. pub. 6, a, pp. 41–105.Google Scholar
Laing, J. 1938. Host finding by insect parasites. II. The chance of Trichogramma evanescens finding its hosts. J. exp. Biol., 25, pp. 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1938. A study of some factors governing the choice of hosts and distribution of progeny by the chalcid, Ooencyrtus kuvanae Howard. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B, 229 (561) pp. 275–322.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1940. Host selection by hymenopterous parasites of the moth Plutella maculipennis Curtis. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 853, vol. 128, pp. 451–484.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1932. Superparasitism by Collyria calcitrator Grav. Bull. ent. Res., 23, pp. 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. S. 1940. The Karroo Caterpillar. Fmg. in S. Afr., 15, pp. 416–417.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1939. Biological control and the theories of the interactions of populations. Parasitology, 31, pp. 299–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1936. Host selection by Microplectron fuscipennis Zett. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 120, pp. 253–291.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1945. Distribution of progeny by Microbracon bebetor Say. J. ent. Soc. S. Afr., 8, pp. 123–131.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949. Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. Can. Ent., 81, pp. 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M. G. 1937. A mathematical analysis of superparasitism by Collyria calcitrator Grav. Parasitology, 29, pp. 477–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar