Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:15:31.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INSECTS EMERGING FROM BROWN SLIME FLUXES IN SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

E. James Cole Jr.  and
Frederick A. Streams
E. James Cole Jr.
Affiliation:
Systematics and Environmental Biology Section, Biological Sciences Group, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Frederick A. Streams
Affiliation:
Systematics and Environmental Biology Section, Biological Sciences Group, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Samples were taken weekly from 11 June to 1 October 1968 from brown slime fluxes occurring on trees (mostly elms) in Rockport, Mass., and in central and eastern areas of Connecticut and held in the laboratory for the emergence of adult insects.The most common emergents were Aulacigaster leucopeza (Meigen) and its parasite, Aphaereta colei Marsh, Mycetobia divergens (Walker), and Dasyhelea oppressa Thomsen. The only drosophilid reared from brown slime flux was Drosophila robusta Sturtevant, a species that was not particularly common.A comparison of the brown flux fauna of Great Britain with that of New England shows that some cosmopolitan species occur in flux in both countries. Species whose distribution is limited to only one of the countries are represented in the other country by closely related species (ecological homologues).The relationship between climatological factors and the fluxing condition of trees is discussed. The factor considered most important in continuing the fluxing state is rainfall during the late summer months.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , March 1970 , pp. 321 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Carson, H. L. 1951. Breeding sites of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis in the transition zone of the Sierra Nevada. Evolution 5: 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, H. L., and Stalker, H. D.. 1951. Natural breeding sites for some wild species of Drosophila in the eastern United States. Ecology 32: 317–330.Google Scholar
Carter, J. C. 1945. Wetwood of elms. Bull. Ill. St. nat. Hist. Surv. 23: 401–448.Google Scholar
Connell, W. A. 1957. Nitidulidae of Delaware. Bull. Del. Univ. agric. Exp. Stn 318.Google Scholar
DeBach, P., and Sundby, R. A.. 1963. Competitive displacement between ecological homologues. Hilgardia 34: 105–166.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Th., and Epling, C.. 1944. Taxonomy, geographic distribution, and ecology of Drosophila pseudoobscura and its relatives. Publs Carnegie Instn 554.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. 1942. Natural breeding sites of Drosophila obscura. Nature, Lond. 149: 499–500.Google Scholar
Guba, E. F. 1934. Slime flux. Proc. natn. Shade Tree Conf. 10: 56–60.Google Scholar
Keilen, D. 1917. Recherches sur les Anthomyiides à larves carnivores. Parasitology 9: 325–450.Google Scholar
Keilen, D. 1921. On the life history of Dasyhelea obscura Winnertz, with some remarks on the parasites and hereditary bacterian symbiont of this midge. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 8: 576–589.Google Scholar
Krüger, F. 1926. Biologie und Morphologie einiger Syrphidlarven. Z. wiss. Biol. Abt. A. Z. Morph. Okol. Tiere 6: 83–149.Google Scholar
Luckmann, W. H. 1963. Observations on the biology and control of Glischrochilus quadrisignatus. J. econ. Ent. 56: 681–686.Google Scholar
Lundbeck, W. 1916. Diptera Danica. Genera and species of flies hitherto found in Denmark, 5: Lonchopteridae–Syrphidae. G.E.C. Gad, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Malloch, J. R., and McAtee, W. L.. 1924. Flies of the family Drosophilidae of the District of Columbia region, with keys to genera, and other notes of broader application. Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 37: 25–182.Google Scholar
Marsh, P. M. 1969. Two new species of Aphaereta with notes on other Nearctic species (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Alysiinae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 71 (3): 416–420.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W., Krombein, K. V., and Townes, H. K.. 1951. Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico. Agriculture Monogr. 2.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, L. 1924. Observations on the slime fluxes of trees. Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 9: 167–182.Google Scholar
Smith, M. 1952. Immature stages of the marine fly, Hypocharassus pruinosus with a review of the biology of immature Dolicopodidae. Am. Midl. Nat. 48: 421–436.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, A. 1964. Studies on the ecology of Drosophila in the Yosemite region of California V. A preliminary survey of species associated with D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis at slime fluxes and banana traps. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 40: 203–218.Google Scholar
Speiss, E. B. 1949. Drosophila in New England. Jl N.Y. ent. Soc. 57: 117–131.Google Scholar
Stone, A., et al. 1965. A catalogue of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handb. 276.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. 1921. The North American species of Drosophila. Publs Carnegie Instn 301.Google Scholar
Terry, R. J. 1956. The relations between the bed medium of sewage filters and the flies breeding in them. J. Anim. Ecol. 25: 6–14.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Environmental Services Administration 1968. Climatological data, New England. Vol. 80, pp. 117–210.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. F. 1926. Insect visitors to sap-exudations of trees. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 74: 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar