Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:31:44.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOME ANATOMICAL DIFFERENCES OF POSSIBLE TAXONOMIC VALUE IN THE FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS OF SITOPHILUS (CURCULIONIDAE: COLEOPTERA)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

N. R. Khan  and
A. J. Musgrave
N. R. Khan
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
A. J. Musgrave
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The length of the spermathecal duct differs in species of Sitophilus. It is suggested that this criterion may be of value as an additional means of separating the two very similar species S. oryzae and S. zea-mais.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 100 , Issue 11 , November 1968 , pp. 1226 - 1228
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1968

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

Birch, L. C. 1944. Two strains of Calandra oryzae (Coleoptera). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 22: 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, E. H., and Newsom, L. D.. 1959. Biological study of the rice weevil complex. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 52: 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuschel, G. 1961. On problems of synonymy in the Sitophilus oryzae complex (30th Contribution, Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 13) 4: 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. J., and Homan, R.. 1962. Sitophilus sasakii (Tak.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Canada. Anatomy and mycetomal symbiotes as valid taxonomic characters. Can. Ent. 94: 1196–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, O. W. 1944. The two strains of the rice weevil, Calandra oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 94: 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar