Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:09:19.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The egg-parasite of Sialis lutaria: a study of the influence of the host upon a dimorphic parasite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

George Salt
George Salt
Affiliation:
From the Zoological Laboratory, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Nearly a quarter of a million eggs of Sialis lutaria were collected at Cambridge in 1936. About 0·6 per cent of them were attacked by a parasite.

2. The egg-parasite of Sialis is distinct from Trichogramma evanescens, and is to be called T. semblidis (Aurivillius).

3. The male of Trichogramma semblidis occurs in two forms. Neither consists merely of imperfect or degenerate individuals of the other, for the two forms are equally large and differ constantly and fundamentally in several characters. The species, therefore, exhibits true dimorphism.

4. Rearing experiments involving isolated pure lines show that it is principally the host that determines which form of the parasite shall emerge. Males reared on Sialis are of the apterous form; those reared on three species of Lepidoptera are of the winged form.

5. The dimorphism of T. semblidis is discussed in relation to other examples of dimorphism in the Hymenoptera. It is shown to have several features of special interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 1937 , pp. 539 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1937

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

REFERENCES

Aurivillius, C. (1898). En ny Svensk Äggparasit. Ent. Tidskr. 18, 249–56.Google Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1920). Some notes on Hawaiian and other Bethylidae. Proc. Hawaii. ent. Soc. 4, 291–314.Google Scholar
Du Bois, A. M. & Geigy, R. (1935). Beiträge zur Oekologie Fortpflanzungsbiologie und Metamorphose von Sialis lutaria L. Rev. Suisse Zool. 42, 169–248.Google Scholar
Gatenby, J. B. (1917). The embryonic development of Trichogramma evanescens, Westw., a monembryonic egg parasite of Donacia simplex, Fab. Quart. J. micr. Sci. 62, 149–87.Google Scholar
Graham-Smith, G. S. (1916). Observations on the habits and parasites of common flies. Parasitology, 8, 440–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandi, G. (1921). Ricerche sul Gen. Philotrypesis Först. Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, 15, 33–190.Google Scholar
Kinsey, A. C. (1920). Phylogeny of Cynipid genera and biological characteristics. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 42, 357a–c, 358–402.Google Scholar
Kryger, J. P. (1919). The European Trichogramminae. Ent. Medd. 12, 257–354Google Scholar
Lestage, J. A. (1919). Notes biologiques sur Sialis lutaria L. Ann. Biol. lacust. 9, 26–40.Google Scholar
Lestage, J. A. (1921). Le mécanisme de la ponte chez Sialis lutaria L. Ann. Biol. lacust. 10, 221–223.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, J. L. & Picard, F. (1917). Étude morphologique et biologique du Sycosoter lavagnei Picard et J. L. Licht., hécabolide parasite de l'Hypoborus ficus Er. Bull. biol. 51, 440–74.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. & Feytaud, J. (1911). Sur un parasite des æufs de la Cochylis et de 1'Eudémis. C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 153, 633–6.Google Scholar
Masi, L. (1909). Contribuzioni alla cognoscenza dei calcididi Italiani. Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, 4, 3–37.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. J. & Poos, F. W. (1923). The wheat straw–worm and its control. Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. No. 1323.Google Scholar
Picard, F. (1923). Recherches biologiques et anatomiques sur Melittobia acasta Walk. Bull. biol. 57, 469–508.Google Scholar
Salt, George (1931). Parasites of the wheat–stem saw–fly, Cephus pygmaeus, Linnaeus, in England. Bull. ent. Res. 22, 479–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, George (1935). Experimental studies in insect parasitism. III. Host selection. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 117, 413–35.Google Scholar
Salt, George (1936). Experimental studies in insect parasitism. IV. The effect of superparasitism on populations of Trichogramma evanescens. J. exp. Biol. 13, 363–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvestri, F. (1908). Sviluppo dell' Oophthera semblidis Aur. Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, 3, 72–83.Google Scholar
Strickland, E. H. (1912). The Pezomachini of North America. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 5, 113–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R. (1923). Sur le déterminisme de l'aptérisme chez un Ichneumonide parasite (Pezomachus sericeus Först.). Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 40–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, J. O. (1833). Descriptions of several new British forms amongst the parasitic Hymenopterous insects. Phil. Mag. (3), 2, 443–45.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. O. (1879). Descriptions of some minute Hymenopterous insects. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. ser. 2, 1, 583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. (1928). Mermis parasitism and intercastes among ants. J. exp. Zool. 50, 165–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulueta, A. de (1928). Le polymorphisme des mâles chez l'Hyménoptère Trichogramma evanescen. Z. indukt. Abstamm.-u. VererbLehre, Suppl. Bd. 2, 1606–11.Google Scholar