Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T23:55:42.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of Parasite Oviposition Behaviour. I. Mastrus carpocapsae Cushman. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. C. Lloyd
D. C. Lloyd
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The oviposition behaviour of numerous parasites toward hosts already parasitized has been the subject of a considerable number of investigations during the past twenty years. Many species of ichneumonids, braconids and chalcids have been shown generally to avoid oviposition in parasitized hosts under laboratory and field conditions but there are conflicting views on the nature of this behiviour and on the cause for such rejection (Salt 1935, 1937, Ullyett 1936). Incomplete data hearing on these problems with the parasite Mastrus carpocapsae are given here. Dificulties in laboratory propagation and particularly irregular and erratic oviposition under the experimental techniques employed have prevented a fuller study; hut it is felt that the data will be of interest to workers in this field of behaviour since in certain respects the findings help in the interpretation of relevant facts demonstrated in previous investigations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , February 1956 , pp. 80 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1956

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

Andrewarcha, H. G. and Birch, L. C.. The distribution and abundance of animals. Univ. of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1954.Google Scholar
Baerends, G. B.Specializations in organs and movements with a releasing function. Symposia Soc. Expt. Biology 4, pp. 337–60, 1950.Google Scholar
Beard, R. L.The toxicology of Habrobracon venom: a study of a natural insecticide. Conn. Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. 562, 1952.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P.Entomophagous insects. McGraw Hill, New York, 1940.Google Scholar
Dowden, P. B.Parasites of the birch leaf mining sawfly Phyllotoma minorata. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull., 757, 1941.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E.Insect enemies of the codling moth in the vicinity of Ventura, California. Pan-Pacific Ent. 3, pp, 44–45, 1926.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. C.Host selection by hymenoprerous parasites of the moth Plutella maculipennis Curtis. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B. 128, pp. 451–84, 1940.Google Scholar
McClure, H. E.The effectiveness of the sting of Aenoplex carpocapsae Cushman. (Hymenoptern, Ichneumonidae) Ent. News 44, pp. 48–49, 1933.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, , et al. Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog. U.S.D.A. Agric. Monograph No. 2, 1951.Google Scholar
Narayanan, E. S. and Chaudhuri, R. P., Studies on Stenobracon deesue (Cam.), a parasite of certain lepidopterous borers of graminaceous crops in India. Bull. Ent. Res. 45, pp. 647–59, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pumphrey, R. J.Hearing. Symposia Soc. Expt. Biology, 4, pp. 3–18, 1950.Google Scholar
Salt, G.Experimental studies in insect parasitism. III. Host selection. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B. 117, pp. 413–36, 1935.Google Scholar
Salt, G.The sense used by Trichogramma to distinguish between parasitized and unparasitized hosts. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B. 122, 457–75, 1937.Google Scholar
Simmonds, F. J.The propagation of insect parasites of unnatural hosts. Bull. Ent. Res. 35, pp. 219–226, 1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W.Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press, 1946.Google ScholarPubMed
Theron, P. P. A.The artificial conditioning of lepidopterous larvae for attack by ectoparasitic ichneumonid larvae, J. Ent. Soc. S. Africa 8, pp. 111–116, 1945.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H.The concepts of learning and their relation to those of instinct. Symposia Soc. Expt. Biohgy 4, pp. 387–408, 1950.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N.The study of instinct. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1951.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C.Host selection by Microplectron fuscipennis Zett. (Chalcididae, Hymenoptera) Proc. Roy. Soc. London B, 120, pp. 253–91, 1936.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C.Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Can. Ent, 81, pp. 25–44, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C.Distribution of progeny by Cryptus inornatus Pratt. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Can. Ent. 81 (1949) pp. 285–299; 82 pp. 1–11, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, G. C.On the search for hosts and egg distribution of some chalcid parasites of the knapweed gallfly. Parasitology 33, pp. 47–66, 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willard, H. F.Parasites of the pink bollworm in Hawaii. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 19, 1927.Google Scholar