Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:36:56.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Separation of Conwentzia pineticola End. from Conwentzia psociformis (Curt.), and Notes on their Biology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Elsie Collyer
Elsie Collyer
Affiliation:
East Malling Research Station.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Conwentzia psociformis (Curt.) and Conwentzia pineticola End. differ as adults in only two characters, and since there are variable and intermediate forms occur, reliable determination is sometimes impossible. In the past, these two species have often been regarded as two forms of the same species.

The immature stages of C. pineticola are, however, very different from those of C. psociformis and show that the two are distinct species and can readily be separated on larval characters. The larval stages and egg of C. pineticola are described for the first time, and an account of its life history given.

The feeding habits of these two species are described, and mention is made of two other Coniopterygid species that occur in orchards.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , November 1951 , pp. 555 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Arrow, G. J. (1917). The life-history of Conwentzia psociformis Curt.—Ent. mon. Mag., 53, pp. 254–257.Google Scholar
Bagnall, R. S. (1915). Conwentzia cryptoneuris sp. n., a Neuropteron (Coniopterygidae) new to the British fauna.—Ent. mon. Mag., 51, pp. 192–193.Google Scholar
Collyer, E. (1949). The predator aspect of the Fruit Tree Red Spider problem.—36th Rep. E. Malling Res. Sta., 1948, pp. 108–110.Google Scholar
Enderlein, G. (1905). Conwentzia pineticola nov. gen., nov. spec., eine neue Neuroptere aus Westpreussen.—Ber. westpreuss. bot.-zool. Ver., 26–27, pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
Enderlein, G. (1907). Nachträge zur Monographie der Coniopterygiden.—Stettin. ent. Ztg, 68, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar
Killington, F. J. (1936–1937). A Monograph of the British Neuroptera.—2 vols., 575 pp.Google Scholar
Listo, J., Listo, E. M. & Kanervo, V. (1939). Tutkimuksia hedelmäpuupunkista (Paratetranychus pilosus C. & F.).—Valt. Maatalousk. Julk., no. 99, 143 pp.Google Scholar
Massee, A. M. (1946). Notes on some interesting insects observed in 1945.—33rd Rep. E. Malling Res. Sta., 1945, p. 95.Google Scholar
von Schlechtendal, D. H. R. (1882). Coniopteryx psociformis Curtis, als Schmarotzer in Spinneneiern.—Jber. Ver. Naturk. Zwickau, 1881, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
Withycombe, C. L. (1922). Parasemidalis annae, End., a Coniopterygid new to Britain, with notes on other British Coniopterygidae.—Entomologist, 55, pp. 169–172.Google Scholar
Withycombe, C. L. (1923). Notes on the biology of some British Neuroptera (Planipennia).—Trans ent. Soc. Lond., 1922, pp. 501–594.Google Scholar
Withycombe, C. L. (1924). Note on the economic value of the Neuroptera, with special reference to the Coniopterygidae.—Ann. appl. Biol., 11, pp. 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar