Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:15:46.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NOTES ON A EUROPEAN WEEVIL, CEUTORHYNCHUS ASSIMILIS PAYK., RECENTLY FOUND IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

WM. W. Baker
WM. W. Baker
Affiliation:
Bureau of Entomololgy and Plant Quarantine, U. S. Dept. Agric.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During May, 1935, C. F. Doucette collected a few adult weevils on flower heads of mustard growing at the edge of a bulb field near Lynden. Wash. These weevils were recognized by the writer as apparently different from any of the species listed from North America, and a trip was made to Lynden on June 1, 1935, to obtain additional specimens. Specimens were also collected on mustard close to the northern limits of Bellingham, at two points between there and Lynden, north of Lynden, and in the vicinity of Nooksack, all in Watcom County. On the following day two specimens were collected on mustard at Big Lake, Skagit County. Big Lake is practically in the seed-growing section of the county, where a large portion of the cabbage seed used in the United States is produced. Weevils were determined by L. L. Buchanan as Ceutorhynchus assilmilis Paykull, and Mr. Buchanan stated that this species had not previously been reported from North America and that it appeared to be of considerable economic importance in Europe.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 68 , Issue 9 , September 1936 , pp. 191 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1936

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

LITERATURE CITED

(1)Blunck, H. 1922. Uber die Wirkung Arsenhaltiger Gifte auf Olfrucht-schadlinge nach Beobachtungen an der Naiumburger Zweigstelle der Biologischen Reichsanstalt. Verhandl. Deut. Gesell. Angew. Ent. 3: 40–55.Google Scholar
(2)Heymons, R. 1921. Mitteilungen uber den Rapsrussler, Ceutorrhynchus assimilis Payk. und Seinen Parasiten, Trichomalus fasciatus Thoms. Ztsehr. Angew. Ent. 8: 93–111, illus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Lang, R. 1921. Bericht der Wurtt, Landesanstalt fur Pflanzenschutz Hohenheim uber Rapsglanzkaferbekampfung. Nachr. Deut. Pflanzenschutzdienst 1 (2): 10–11.Google Scholar
(4)Morstatt, H. 1924. Preliminary Checklist of “Common Names.” Used in Applied Entomology. Supplementa Entomologica, No. 10, 56 pp., Berlin.Google Scholar
(5)Rademacher, B. 1933. Gedanken zu der Geplanten Ausdehnung des Oelfruchtanbaues vm Standpunkte des Pflanzenschutzes. Mitt. Deutt. Landw. Gesell. 48: 520 (Abstr. in Ztsehr. Pflanzenkrank. 43 (10): 621.Google Scholar
(6)Speyer, W. 1925. Kohlschotenrussler (Ceutorrhynchus assimilis Payk.) Kohlschotenmucke (Daysneura brassicae Winn.) und Ihre Parasiten. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst. Land-u. Forstw. 12: 79–108, illus.Google Scholar
(7)Staniland, L. N., and Beaumont, A. 1932. Ninth Annual Report of the Department of Plant Pathology for the Year Ending September 30th, 1932. Seale-Hayne Agr. Coll. Pamplet No. 40, 43 pp., illus. Devon.Google Scholar
(8) Voss, G. 1919. Rapsglanzkafer and Rapsverborgenrussler. Schaffnits Flugblattsammlung uber Pfanzenschutz, Bonn-Poppelsorf, Flugblatt No. 14. (Abstr. in Ztschr. Landw. Versuchsw. in Deutschosterreich 22:193, 1919).Google Scholar
(9)Wolff, M., and Krausse, A. 1921. Ein Nachwort zum Streit uber den Rapsglanzkafer. Illus. Landw. Ztg. 41: 243–244, 250–251. (Abstr. in Centrbl. Bakt. (etc.), Abt. 2, 56: 435–437.Google Scholar