Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:27:40.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Housefly, Musca domestica Linnaeus, as an Exotic Species in the Western Hemisphere Incites Biological Control Studies1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

E. F. Legner  and
C. W. McCoy
E. F. Legner
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside, California
C. W. McCoy
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The significance of the housefly, Musca domestica Linnaeus, as a probably introduced species in the Western Hemisphere is pertinent to a search for more exotic natural enemies in the Eastern Hemisphere. Avenues of entry into this hemisphere are discussed. A list is provided of the principal larval and pupal parasites found by the authors attacking M. domestica in North, Central, and South America and this is compared to species from the Eastern Hemisphere.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , March 1966 , pp. 243 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1966

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

Axtell, R. C. 1963. Acarina occurring in domestic animal manure. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 56: 628–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucek, Z. 1963. A taxonomic study in Spalangia Latr. (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis. Prague 35: 429–512.Google Scholar
Chillcott, J. G. 1961. A revision of the Nearctic species of Fanniinae (Diptera: Muscidae). Canad. Ent. 92, Suppl. 14, 295 pp.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1965. Competition and cooperation among parasitic Hymenoptera related to biological Control. Canad. Ent. 97: 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, C. G. 1914. The housefly, Musca domestica Linn. Its structure, habits, development, relation to disease and control. Cambridge Manuals of Science & Literature. Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Heyerdahl, T. 1962. Merrill's reappraisal of ethnobotanical evidence for prehistoric contact between South America and Polynesia. Akten des Internationalen Amerikanisten-kongresses. Wien, 18–25 July 1960. Verlag Ferdinand Berger, Horn. Wien.789–795.Google Scholar
Huckett, H. C. 1965. The Muscidae of Northern Canada, Alaska, and Greenland (Diptera). Mem. ent. Soc. Canada No. 42, 369 pp.Google Scholar
James, H. C. 1928. On the life-histories and economic status of certain cynipid parasites of dipterous larvae, with descriptions of some new larval forms. Ann. Appl. Biol. 15: 287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. H., and Tiegs, O. W.. 1922. On the biology and economic significance of the chalcid parasites of Australian sheep maggotflies. Proc. roy. Soc. Queensland 38: 99–128.Google Scholar
Legner, E. F. 1965. Complejo de fauna arthropoda influyendo estadios juveniles de Musca domestica L. en Puerto Rico. J. Caribbean Sci. (In press.)Google Scholar
Legner, E. F., Bay, E. C. and McCoy, C. W.. 1965. Parasitic natural regulatory agents attacking Musca domestica L. in Puerto Rico. J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 49: 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, C. W. 1963. Mass liberation of laboratory reared parasites, Spalangia muscidarum (Richardson) for control of Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) and Musca domestica (L.) in Lancaster County, Nebraska. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. (Unpublished.)Google Scholar
MacNeish, R. S. 1961. First annual report of the Tehuacan archaeological-botanical project. The National Science Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.32 pp.Google Scholar
MacNeish, R. S. 1964. The origins of New World civilization. Sci. Amer. 211: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, E. D. 1954. The botany of Cook's voyages and its unexpected significance in relation to anthropology. Biogeography and History. Waltham, Mass. (Monograph.)Google Scholar
Nordenskiold, E. 1931. Origin of the Indian civilizations in South America. Comp. Ethnogr. Stud. Gothenburg 9: 269.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1955. Relationship of ants to fly control in Puerto Rico. J. econ. Ent. 48: 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, C. H. 1913. Studies on the habits and development of a hymenopterous parasite, Spalangia muscidarum Richardson. J. Morph. 24: 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, J. G., and Wade, C. F.. 1961. The nutrition of Macrocheles muscae-domesticae (Acarina: Macrochelidae) in relation to its predatory action on the housefly eggs. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 54: 782–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, D. N., Siddons, L. B. and Mukherjee, S. P.. 1940. The bionomics of Dirhinus pachycerus Masi (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), a pupal parasite of muscoid flies. Indian J. Ent. 2: 229–240.Google Scholar
Sacca, G. 1958. Ricerche sulla speciazione nelle mosche domestiche. VI. Ibridismo naturale e ibridismo sperimentale fra le subspecie di Musca domestica L. Rend. 1st Super. Sanita 21: 1170–1184.Google ScholarPubMed
Sacca, G. 1964. Comparative bionomics in the genus Musca. Ann. Rev. Ent. 9: 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacca, G., and Rivasecchi, L.. 1958. Ricerche sulla speciazione nelle mosche domestiche. V. L'areace di distribuzione delle subspecie di Musca domestica L. Rend. 1st Super. Sanita 21: 1149–1169.Google ScholarPubMed
Saver, C. O. 1962. Maize into Europe. Akten des 34 Internationalen Amerikanisten-kongresses. Wien, 18–25 July 1960. Verlag Ferdinand Berger, Horn. Wien.777–788.Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1932. The biological control of insects and weed pests. J. South-Eastern Agric. Coll., Wye, Kent, No. 30: 87–96.Google Scholar
Simmonds, H. W. 1940. Investigations with a view to the biological control of houseflies in Fiji. Trop. Agricuiturist 17: 197–199.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1929. Multiple parasitism: Its relation to the biological control of insect pests. Bull. ent. Res. 20: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1937. Review of “The Biological Control of Insects” by Harvey L. Sweetman. J. econ. Ent. 30: 218–220.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1943. A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests. Sec. I, Pt. 2. Belleville, Canada. p. 48.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M. 1938. Stuefluen (Musca domestica) og stickfluen (Stomoxys calcitrans). Vol. 176. Forsogslaboratoriet (Denmark). 383 pp.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L., and Chant, D. A.. 1961. The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Canad. J. Zool. 39: 697–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bosch, R., Schlinger, E. L, Dietrick, E. J., Hall, J. C. and Puttler, B.. 1964. Studies on succession, distribution and phenology of imported parasites of Therioaphis trifolii (Monell) in southern California. Ecology 45: 602–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vockeroth, J. R. 1953. Musca autumnalis Deg. in North America. Canad. Ent. 85: 422–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterston, J. 1916. On the occurrence of Stenomalus muscarum Linn. in company with hibernating flies. Scot. Nat. 54: 140–142.Google Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1965. Community stability and the strategy of biological control. Canad. Ent. 97: 887–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, L. S. 1951. The housefly. Its natural history, medical importance, and control. Comstock Publishing Company, Ithaca, N.Y.584 pp.Google Scholar