Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:54:42.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION IN ABUNDANCE, SEX RATIO, AND SPECIES COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT RHAGIONIDAE (DIPTERA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Chris T. Maier  and
Donald W. Webb
Chris T. Maier
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 123 Huntington Street, New Haven, Connecticut, USA06504–1106
Donald W. Webb
Affiliation:
Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, Illinois, USA61820
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rhagionids were studied principally by capturing adults in emergence traps at Southington (1979) and in Malaise traps at Hamden (1980–1983) and Guilford, CT (1983–1985). Most captures of Chrysopilus rotundipennis Loew, C. thoracicus (Fabr.), Rhagio mystaceus (Say), and Symphoromyia hirta Johnson occurred during a 2- to 5-week period. Mean capture dates for sexes differed significantly in only a few cases. Based on percentage of total captured, S. hirta and R. mystaceus ranked first and second at Hamden whereas C. rotundipennis and S. hirta had these respective ranks at Guilford. The sex ratio of C. ornatus (Say) adults in emergence traps did not depart significantly from 1.0, but most rhagionids captured in Malaise traps had skewed sex ratios. Based on percentage and quotient of similarity, faunas at Hamden and Guilford shared many species, but relative abundances of species common at one or both sites were very different. In this study, we found 14 rhagionid species, including 4 not previously recorded from Connecticut. A total of 16 species are now recorded from the state.

Résumé

On a étudié les rhagionides du Connecticut surtout par capture des adultes au piège à émergence à Southington (1979), et au piège Malaise à Hamden (1980–1983) et à Guilford (1983–1985). La plupart des captures de Chrysopilus rotundipennis Loew, C. thoracicus (Fabr.), Rhagio mystaceus (Say), et Symphoromyia hirta Johnson ont été effectuées au cours d’une période de 2–5 semaines. Les dates moyennes de capture ont différé entre les sexes dans quelques cas seulement. D’après le pourcentage du total des captures, S. hirta et R. mystaceus arrivaient en première et deuxième place à Hamden alors que C. rotundipennis et S. hirta occupaient respectivement ces deux rangs à Guilford. Le rapport des sexes des adultes de C. ornatus (Say) dans les pièges à émergence ne différait pas significativement de 1,0, mais la plupart des rhagionides piégées au Malaise montraient un rapport des sexes biaisé. D’après le pourcentage et le quotient de similarité, la faune de Hamden et de Guilford avait plusieurs espèces en commun mais l’abondance relative des espèces communes à un ou aux deux sites était très différente. Au cours de cette étude on a identifié 14 espèces de rhagionides dont 4 n’avaient pas encore été mentionnées pour le Connecticut. Le total des espèces connues pour cet état est maintenant de 16.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 119 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 55 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1987

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

Altmüller, R. 1979. Untersuchungen über den Energieumsatz von Dipterenpopulationen im Buchenwald (Luzulo-Fagetum). Pedobiologia 19: 245–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.R., and Hoy, J.B.. 1972. Relationship between host attack rates and CO2-baited insect flight trap catches of certain Symphoromyia species. J. med. Ent. 9: 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, W.E. 1920. Check-list of the insects of Connecticut. Bull. Conn. St. Geol. nat. Hist. Surv. 31: 1–397.Google Scholar
Chillcott, J.G. 1961. The genus Bolbomyia Loew (Diptera: Rhagionidae). Can. Ent. 93: 632–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chillcott, J.G. 1963. A new genus of Rhagionidae (Diptera) with notes and descriptions of Bolbomyia Loew. Can. Ent. 95: 1185–1190.Google Scholar
Chillcott, J.G. 1965. A revision of the eastern Nearctic species of Rhagio Fabricius (Diptera: Rhagionidae). Can. Ent. 97: 785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, C.T. 1926. Descriptions of larvae and pupae of two-winged flies belonging to the family Leptidae. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 70: 1–20.Google Scholar
Hoy, J.B., and Anderson, J.R.. 1978. Behavior and reproductive physiology of blood-sucking snipe flies (Diptera: Rhagionidae: Symphoromyia) attacking deer in northern California. Hilgardia 46: 113–168.Google Scholar
James, M.T. 1965. Family Rhagionidae (Leptidae). pp. 342–348 in Stone, A. et al. , (Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. Agric. Handb. 276. 1696 pp.Google Scholar
James, M.T., and Turner, W.J.. 1981. Rhagionidae. pp. 483–488 in McAlpine, J.F. et al. , (Eds.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera, Vol. 1. Can. Agric. Monogr. 27. 674 pp.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.W. 1925. Fauna of New England. 15. List of the Diptera or two-winged flies. Occ. Pap. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 7: 1–326.Google Scholar
Krivosheina, N.P. 1960. Peculiarities of the soil-inhabiting larvae of the Rhagionidae, Dolichopodidae and Empididae (Diptera). Ent. Rev. 39: 96–104.Google Scholar
Lane, R.S., and Anderson, J.R.. 1982. Breeding sites of snipe flies (Rhagionidae) and other Diptera in woodland-grass soils. J. med. Ent. 17: 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, M.D. 1930. A revision of the dipterous family Rhagionidae (Leptidae) in the United States and Canada. Mem. Am. ent. Soc. 7: 1–181.Google Scholar
Leonard, M.D. 1931. Two new species of Symphoromyia (Rhagionidae, Diptera) from the eastern United States. Am. Mus. Novit. 497: 1–2.Google Scholar
Maier, C.T. 1980. A mole's-eye view of seventeen-year periodical cicada nymphs, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Cicadidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 73: 147–152.Google Scholar
Maier, C.T. 1982 a. Observations on the seventeen-year periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Cicadidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 73: 14–23.Google Scholar
Maier, C.T. 1982 b. Abundance and distribution of the seventeen-year periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Cicadidae—Brood II), in Connecticut. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 84: 430–439.Google Scholar
Maier, C.T. 1984. Habitats, distributional records, seasonal activity, abundance, and sex ratios of Boreidae and Meropeidae (Mecoptera) collected in New England. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 86: 608–613.Google Scholar
Malloch, J.R. 1917. A preliminary classification of Diptera, exclusive of Pupipara, based upon larval and pupal characters, with keys to imagines in certain families. Part I. Bull. Ill. St. Lab. nat. Hist. 12: 161–409.Google Scholar
Roberts, M.J. 1969. Structure of the mouthparts of the larvae of the flies Rhagio and Sargus in relation to feeding habits. J. Zool. (London) 159: 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerman, K.M. 1962. Alaskan snipe fly immatures and their habitat (Rhagionidae: Symphoromyia). Mosq. News 22: 116–123.Google Scholar
Sommerman, K.M. 1963. Laboratory notes on snipe fly larvae (Rhagionidae: Symphoromyia). Mosq. News 23: 163–164.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. 1966. Ecological methods. Chapman and Hall, London. 391 pp.Google Scholar
Thompson, F.C. 1969. First record of Rhagio scolopaceus (Linné) in North America (Diptera: Rhagionidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 71: 141–143.Google Scholar