Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:57:00.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SEPARATION OF THE EUROPEAN SPRUCE SAWFLY IN AMERICA FROM GILPINIA POLYTOMA (HTG.) (DIPRIONIDAE, HYMENOPTERA) AND EVIDENCE OF ITS INTRODUCTION‡

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. E. Balch ,
W. A. Reeks  and
S. G. Smith
R. E. Balch
Affiliation:
Dominion Entomological Laboratory, Fredericton, N.B.
W. A. Reeks
Affiliation:
Dominion Entomological Laboratory, Fredericton, N.B.
S. G. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Que.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The discovery of the “European spruce sawfly” in Canada in 1930 and the development of its destructive outbreak have been described (3). It was identified in 1931 as Diprion polytomum (Htg.), which became Gilpinia polytoma (Htg.) in 1939 as a result of Benson's revision of the genera of the Diprionidae. The work of parasite introduction (1) commenced immediately on the assumption that the insect was an importation from Europe.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 73 , Issue 11 , November 1941 , pp. 198 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1941

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

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE

1.Baird, A. B.A review of the spruce sawfly parasite situation. Can. Pulp and Paper Association, January, 1940.Google Scholar
2.Balch, R. E.The outbreak of the European spruce sawfly in Canada and some important features of its bionomics. Jour. Econ. Ent. 32 (3):412. 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Balch, R. E.The spruce sawfly outbreak in 1939. Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada, February, 1940.Google Scholar
4.Brown, W. J.Notes on the American distribution of some species of Coleoptera common to the European and North American continents. Can. Ent., 72 (4):65–78. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Enslin, E.Die Tenthredinoidea Mitteleropas. Deutsche entomologische Zeitshcrift. 6:539–563. 1917.Google Scholar
6.Greene, E. E.Observations on British Coccidae. Ent. Mon. Mag. 70 (840): 108–114. 1934.Google Scholar
7.Marchal, P.Contribution a l'etude genotypic et phenotypic des Trichogrammes. C. R. Acad. Sci. France, 185 (9):489–493 and (10):521–523. 1927.Google Scholar
8.Morgan, T. H.Jour. Exp. Zool. 7:291. 1909.Google Scholar
9.Morris, K. R. S. Unpublished mss. Farnham House Laboratory, England. 1933.Google Scholar
10.Reeks, W. A.Morphology of the adult of Diprion polytomum (Htg.). Can. Ent., 69 (12):257–264. 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Reeks, W. A.Native parasites and predators attacking Diprion polytomum (Htg.) in Canada. 69th Rept. Ent. Soc. Ont., 25–28. 1938.Google Scholar
12.Reeks, W. A.On the identity of Gilpinia polytoma (Htg.) and G. hercyniae (Htg.) Can. Ent., 73 (10):177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Schroder, F.Notes on the English and American races of the greenhouse whitefly. Ann. App. Biol. 13 (2): 189–196. 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Smith, S. G.Cytology of spruce sawfly and its control in Eastern Canada. Nature, 141:121. 1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Smith, S. G.A new form of spruce sawfly identified by means of its cytology and method of parthenogenesis. Sci. Agric. 21 (5):245–305, 1941.Google Scholar
16.Theim, H.Beitrag zur parthenogenese und phanologie der Geschlecter von Eulecanium corni Bouche. Z. Morph. Oekol. Tiere. 27:294–324. 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Vandel, A.La parthenogenese geographique II. Bull. Biol. de la France et de la Belgique, 68 (4):419. 1934.Google Scholar