Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-54gsr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-30T16:25:03.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Report on an Investigation into the Biological Control of West Indian Insect Pests*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. G. Myers
J. G. Myers
Affiliation:
Imperial Institute of Entomology and Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The report covers a period of 3½ years actually spent in the field.

2. During this time 19 major pests have been studied, with special reference to their natural enemies and other limiting factors. The pests of sugar-cane have, however, received by far the most attention, partly because this is the most important crop throughout the region as a whole, and partly because the industry has made substantial financial contributions.

3. Advice has been given, on request, to local Governments, planters' organisations and individual planters, and schemes have been drawn up for intensive local research on cane-borers, on froghopper and on mongoose. The researches of the two investigators of the cane-borer (Diatraea spp.), under grants from the Colonial Development Fund, have been supervised so far as their technical aspect is concerned.

4. For the control of the small moth-borer (Diatraea) the most important pest of sugar-cane as a whole, the Cuba fly (Lixophaga) has been introduced (in collaboration with Mr. Box) into the Leeward and Windward Islands, and the Amazon fly (Metagonistylum) into British Guiana (in collaboration with Mr. Cleare). Both these very promising parasites, the second of which was discovered during the course of the investigation, are now widely established.

5. A specific parasite is now needed for Diatraea canella in British Guiana and D. impersonatella in Trinidad. It is possible that experiments now in progress (in collaboration with Mr. Pickles and Mr. Cleare respectively) that Paratheresia will serve for the first and Metagonistylum for the second, but a highly specific parasite for D. canella remains greatly desirable.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1935 , pp. 181 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atkinson, N. J. (1931). The increase of native insects to economic importance in the Prairie Provinces.—Sci. Agric. 12, pp. 200–203.Google Scholar
Bates, H. W. (ed. 1892). The naturalist on the River Amazons.—Repr. of the unabridged edition, London, lxxxix + 395 pp., map and illustrations.Google Scholar
Beebe, [C.] W. (1919). The higher Vertebrates of British Guiana, with special reference to the fauna of Bartica District.—Zoologica, New York 2, nos. 7–9.Google Scholar
Beebe, [C.] W. (1925). Studies of a tropical jungle; one quarter of a square mile of tropical jungle at Kartabo, British Guiana.—Zoologica, New York 6, no. 1, pp. 1–193, 17 figs., 2 pls.Google Scholar
Beebe, H. & Howes, [C.] W. (1917). Tropical Wild Life in British Guiana.—New York.Google Scholar
Bews, J. W. (1929). The world's grasses, their differentiation, distribution, economics and ecology.—London, xii + 408 pp., 48 figs.Google Scholar
Box, H. E. (1931). The Crambine genera Diatraea and Xanthopherne (Lep., Pyral.).—Bull. Ent. Res. 22, pp. 1–50, pls. 1–5, 5 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, H. E. (1932a). Sugar-Cane Moth Borer (Diatraea) Investigations in Antigua.—Bull. Imp. Inst. 30, pp. 185–197.Google Scholar
Box, H. E. (1933a). Sugar-cane moth borer (Diatraea) investigations. Outline of work done in Antigua during the year 1931.—Antigua, 10 pp.Google Scholar
Box, H. E. (1933b). Sugar-cane moth borer (Diatraea) investigations. Outline of work done in Antigua and St. Kitts during the year 1932. Report upon the introduction and establishment of the Cuban parasite, Lixophaga diatraeae Townsend.—Antigua, 40 pp.Google Scholar
Box, H. E. (1933c). Observations on sugar-cane moth borer (Diatraea spp.) in St. Lucia.—Castries, St. Lucia, 5 pp.Google Scholar
Box, H. E. (1933d). Further observations on sugar-cane moth borers (Diatraea spp.) in St. Lucia. Introduction of the Cuban parasite, Lixophaga diatraeae Townsend.—Castries, St. Lucia, 10 pp.Google Scholar
Box, H. E., Collens, A. E. & Warneford, F. H. S. (1931). Observations on sugar-cane cultivation in Antigua, with suggestions for improvement.—St. John's, Antigua, iv + 28 pp.Google Scholar
Britton, N. L. & Millspaugh, C. F. (1920). The Bahama Flora.—New York, viii + 695 pp.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. & Berry, P. A. (1932). The Citrus black fly in Asia, and the importation of its natural enemies into Tropical America.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 320, 58 pp., 19 figs., 12 refs.Google Scholar
Cleare, L. D. (1928). Notes on an outbreak of yellow sugar-cane aphis.—Agric. J. Brit. Guiana 1, pp. 150–154, pls. 7–9, 2 text-figs.Google Scholar
Cleare, L. D. (1929). Moth borer control in British Guiana.—4th Int. Congr. Ent., Ithaca (1928) 2, pp. 131–137.Google Scholar
Cleare, L. D. (1932). Moth-borer damage in relation to sugar-cane varieties in British Guiana.—Trop. Agriculture 9, pp. 264–271, 7 refs.Google Scholar
Cleare, L. D. (1933). The white grubs or “ hardback beetles ” injurious to sugar-cane in British Guiana.—Ent. Bull. Brit. Guiana Dep. Agric. 2, ii + 28 pp., 2 pls., 3 figs.Google Scholar
Cleare, L. D. (1934). Sugar cane moth borer investigations in British Guiana.—Agric. J. Brit. Guiana 5, pp. 13–21.Google Scholar
Cook, W. C. (1931). Notes on predicting the probable future distribution of introduced insects.—Ecology 12, pp. 245–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criddle, N. (1922). The western wheat-stem sawfly and its control.—Pampl. Canad. Dep. Agric. 6, n.s. [referred to only by abstract].Google Scholar
Davis, T. A. W. & Richards, P. W. (1933–1934). The vegetation of Moraballi Creek, British Guiana: an ecological study of a limited area of tropical rain-forest. Parts I and II.—J. Ecol. 21, pp. 350–384, pl. 22, 6 figs.; 22, pp. 106–155, pls. 12–14, 2 text-figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, R. R. (1932). The food habits of the imported toad Bufo marinus L. in the sugar-cane sections of Puerto Rico.—Bull. 4th Congr. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., Puerto Rico, 74, 6 pp.Google Scholar
Dozier, H. L. (1932a). Introduction of Eretmocerus serius Silv. into Haiti.—J. Econ. Ent. 25, p. 414.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. H. (1932a). Control of Citrus Black fly. The Introduction in Jamaica of a natural Enemy (Eretmocerus serius, Silv.) of the Citrus Black Fly (Aleurocanthus woglumi, Ash.).—J. Jamaica Agric. Soc. 36, p. 280.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. H. (1932b). Importation into Jamaica of a Parasite (Eretmocerus serius, Silv.) of the Citrus Black Fly (Aleurocanthus woglumi, Ash.).—Ent. Bull. Dep. Sci. Agric. Jamaica, no. 6, 12 pp., 7 refs.Google Scholar
Grinnell, J., Dixon, J. & Linsdale, J. M. (1930). Vertebrate natural history of a section of northern California through the Lassen Peak region.—Univ. Calif. Press, v + 594 pp., 181 figs. [referred to only from abstract].Google Scholar
Harland, S. C. (1916). Notes on Trichogramma minutum (pretiosa).—W. Indian Bull. 15, pp. 168–175.Google Scholar
Harland, S. C. (1917). Special entomological investigations.—Rept. Agric. Dept. St. Vincent, 1916–1917, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
Harris, W. V. (1927). On a Lycaenid butterfly attacking pineapples in Trinidad, B.W.I.—Bull. Ent. Res. 18, pp. 183–188, 2 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, M. (1926). Forest, steppe and tundra. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hennig, R. (1913). Die Landbauzonen der Tropen in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Klima. Zweiter Teil: Spezielles. I. Amerika.—Tropenpflanzer, Beihefte 3, Bd. 14, no. 4, pp. [4] 251–438.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. & Fiske, W. F. (1911). The importation into the United States of the parasites of the Gipsy moth and the Brown-tail moth.—U.S. Dept. Agric., Bur. Ent., Bull. 91, 344 pp., 28 pls., 74 text figs.Google Scholar
Humboldt, A. von. (1852) (trans). Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of America.—Trans. T. Ross, II, vi + 521 pp.Google Scholar
Johnston, H. B. (1932). Notes on two locusts of minor economic importance in the Sudan.—Bull. Ent. Res. 23, pp. 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. F. (1928–1930). Agricultural regions of South America.—Econ. Geogr., 4, pp. 1–30. 158–186, 267–294; 5, pp. 109–140, 390–421; 6, pp. 1–36, 151 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaden, O. F. (1934). Die Bekämpfung des Kakaothripses unter neuzeitlichen Gesichtspunkten mit Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse in San Tomé, Golf von Guinea.—Der Tropenpflanzer, 37 Jahrg., no. 4, pp. 139–148.Google Scholar
Kisliuk, M. Jr & Cooley, E. E. (1933). Fruit-fly survey in the West Indies, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Peru.—Reprint, 14 pp., Service and Reg. Announc., no. 116, U.S. Dept., Agric., Bur. Pl. Quar.Google Scholar
Koch-Grünberg, T. (1916–1928). Vom Roraima zum Orinoco. Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordbrasilien und Venezuela in den Jahren 1911–13.—Stuttgart, 5 Bde.Google Scholar
Le Cointe, P. (1932). L'Amazonie brésilienne.—2 vols., 528, 495 pp., pls. & map. Paris.Google Scholar
Leonard, M. D. (1931). A bibliography of the banana root weevil.—J. Dep. Agric. Puerto Rico 15, pp. 147–176.Google Scholar
Leonard, M. D. (1933a). An annotated bibliography of Puerto Rican Entomology.—J. Dep. Agric. Puerto Rico 17, pp. 5–96.Google Scholar
Leonard, M. D. (1933b). Notes on the giant toad, Bufo marinus L., in Puerto Rico.—J. Econ. Ent. 26, pp. 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnie, R. C., Oben, M. & de Celis, L. (1932). Notes on the sugar industry of Puerto Rico.—Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Techn., 4th Congr., Puerto Rico, Bull. 86, 64 pp., ill.Google Scholar
Monte, Oscar. (1933). Um novo parasita da broca da cana (Diatraea saccharalis, F.) e considerações sobre esta broca.—Bol. Agric., Zootecnia e Veterin., An. 6, no. 9, pp. 559–563, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1926a). Biological notes on New Zealand Heteroptera.—Trans. N.Z. Inst. 56, pp. 449–511, pls. 81–86, 26 text-figs.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1926b). Dry season studies of cane Homoptera at Soledad, Cuba.—Contr. Harvard Inst. Trop. Biol. Med. 3, pp. 69–110, 1 fig.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1928). The biological control of cotton pests.—Empire Cotton Growing Rev. 5, pp. 113–127.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1931). Preliminary report on an investigation into the biological control of West Indian insect pests.—E.M.B., 42, 178 pp., 2 maps. H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1932a). Biological observations on some neotropical parasitic Hymenoptera.—Trans. Ent. Soc., London 80, pp. 121–136, 5 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1932b). The original habitat and hosts of three major sugar-cane pests of tropical America (Diatraea, Castnia and Tomaspis).—Bull. Ent. Res. 23, pp. 257–271, pl. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1933). Notes on the vegetation of the Venezuelan llanos.—Jl. Ecol. 21, pp. 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1934a). Report of J. G. Myers on froghopper work. November, 1933–February, 1934.—Proc. Sugar Cane Invest. Committee,Trinidad.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1934b). Observations on a journey from the mouth of the Amazon to Mt. Roraima and the Cattle-Trail to Georgetown.—Agric. J. British Guiana 5, 2, pp. 86–100.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1934c). The discovery and introduction of the Amazon fly, a new parasite for cane-borers (Diatraea spp.).—Trop. Agric. 11, no. 8, pp. 191–195.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1934d). Observations of wild cacao and wild bananas in British Guiana.—Trop. Agric. 11, no. 10, pp. 263–267.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1934e). Field observations on some Guiana insects of medical and veterinary interest.—Trop. Agric. 11, no. 11, pp. 279–283.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1934f). Report on the sandfly (Culicoides) investigation in the Bahamas.—[Nassau, Bahamas, no date.]Google Scholar
Nowell, W. (n.d.). Diseases of crop-plants in the Lesser Antilles.—xix + 383 pp., 1 pl., 1 map, 150 figs.Google Scholar
Páez, R. (Trans. 1929). Escenas rusticas en Sur America, o la vida en los llanos de Venezuela.—Trad. F. Izquierdo, Caracas, viii + 479 pp. (First publ. in English in New York, 1862, second ed. 1868, both out of print).Google Scholar
Pearson, E. O. (1932). Notes on the genus Dysdercus (Hemiptera Heteroptera) in Trinidad, B.W.I.—Psyche 39, no. 4, pp. 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickles, A. (1932a). Notes on the natural enemies of the sugar-cane froghopper (Tomaspis saccharina, Dist.) in Trinidad, with descriptions of new species.—Bull. Ent. Res. 23, pt. 2, pp. 203–210, 3 figs., 16 refs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickles, A. (1932b). Progress Report for April, 1932. Division of entomology, ecology and biological control.—Proc. Sugar Cane Investigation Committee, Trinidad 4, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar
Pickles, A. (1933a). Entomological contributions to the study of the sugar-cane froghopper. I. The study of biotic factors of control.—Trop. Agric. 10, pp. 222–233, 4 figs.Google Scholar
Pickles, A. (1933b). Entomological contributions to the study of the sugar-cane froghopper. II. The influence of host relations and of cultural operations in limiting blight incidence amongst plant canes.—Trop. Agric. 10, pp. 240–245, 286–295.Google Scholar
Pickles, A. (1934). Progress reports for April, 1934. Report … on the search for froghopper parasites in Brazil, 1933–1934.—Proc. Sugar Cane Investigation Committee, Trinidad.Google Scholar
Pittier, H. (1926). Manual de las plantas usuales de Venezuela.—xx + 458 pp., 42 pls.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1931). Parasites of the wheat-stem sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus, Linnaeus, in England.—Bull. Ent. Res. 22, pp. 479–545, 29 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaramuzza, L. C. (1930). Preliminary report on a study of the biology of Lixophaga diatraeae Tns.—J. Econ. Ent. 23, pp. 999–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimper, A. F. W. (1903) (trans.). Plant geography upon a physiological basis.—Oxford, xxxii + 839 pp., 6 pls., 4 maps & 497 figs.Google Scholar
Schomburgk, Richard. (1922). Travels in British Guiana, 1840–1844.—Trans., Roth, W. E., Georgetown, 2 vols.Google Scholar
Schomburgk, Robert H. (1931). Travels in Guiana and on the Orinoco during the years 1835–1839. According to his reports and communications to the Geographical Society of London.—Ed. by Schomburgk, O. A., with a preface by Alexander von Humboldt …. Leipzig, 1841. Trans, by W. E. Roth, Georgetown, viii + 202 pp., 1 map, several pls. & figs.Google Scholar
Spruce, R. (1908). Notes of a botanist on the Amazon and Andes.—2 vols., 71 illus., portrait, 7 maps. Ed. Wallace, A. R., London.Google Scholar
Squire, F. A. (1933). Insect pests of rice and padi.—Rice Bull. British Guiana Dep. Agric., no. 1, pp. 51–57.Google Scholar
Stuart, G. Moody. (1933). Lixophaga versus moth borer. Interesting experiments in Antigua.—W. Ind. Comm. Circ. 48, no. 894, p. 17.Google Scholar
Swezey, O. H. (1925). Records of introduction of beneficial insects into the Hawaiian islands.—Haw. Planters' Record 29, pp. 369–376.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. (1929). On the part played by parasites in the control of Insects living in protected situations.—Bull. Ent. Res. 20, pt. 4, p. 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tothill, J. D., Taylor, T. H. C. & Paine, R. W. (1930). The coconut moth in Fiji. A history of its control by means of parasites.—vi + 269 pp., 34 pls., 1 map, 121 text-figs., London.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. H. T. (1913). Muscoid parasites of the cotton-stainer and other Lygaeids.—Psyche 20, pp. 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C. H. T. (1928). Insectos que atacan al Algodón y a la Caña de Azúcar en el Perú.—Estac. exp. agricola, Lima, Bol. 1, pp. 29, 36 figs.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. W. E. (1932a). A survey of the position of Phytalus smithi Arrow, and its natural enemies in Barbados.—Agric. J. Barbados 1, no. 1, pp. 18–23.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. W. E. (1932b). The status of Trichogramma as a control of D. saccharalis in Barbados.—Agric. J. Barbados 1, 1, pp. 29–36, 8 refs. Also Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Techn., 4th Congr., Puerto Rico, Bull. 102, 6 pp.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. W. E. (1933a). Report on Entomological Section.—Agric. J. Barbados 2, nos. 1 and 2, pp. 32–35.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. W. E. (1933b). Rate of egg-deposition of Diatraea saccharalis and extent of Diatraea saccharalis and extent of larval mortality in canefields and their relation to control of Diatraea by Trichogramma minutum.—Agric. J. Barbados 2, no. 4, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Urich, F. W. (1932). The arrowroot leaf-roller (Calpodes ethlius).—Trop. Agric. 9, pp. 299–300.Google Scholar
Vesey-FitzGerald, D. (1933). Progress reports for August, 1933. Division of Entomology.—Proc. Trinidad Sugar Cane Investigation Committee 4, pp. 209–214.Google Scholar
Viosca, P. Jr (1931). Spontaneous combustion in the marshes of southern Louisiana.—Ecol. 12, pp. 439–442, 2 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. (1928). Foibles of insects and men.—xxvi + 217 pp., 56 figs. New York.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1921). Report of the froghopper blight of sugar-cane in Trinidad.—Mem. Dep. Agric., Trin. and Tobago, no. 1, 170 pp., 11 pls., 32 figs.Google Scholar
Wolcott, G. N. (1933). An economic entomology of the West Indies.—xviii + 688 pp., 111 figs. San Juan, P.R.Google Scholar