Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T20:58:12.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Biology and Distribution in France of the Larval Parasites of Cydia pomonella, L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

H. T. Rosenberg
H. T. Rosenberg
Affiliation:
Farnham House Laboratory, Imperial Institute of Entomology.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

1. Collections of Cydia pomonella were made in France in 1928 and 1929–30.

2. The numbers of moths and parasites that emerged from the collections are given.

3. The biology and host-lists of the parasites are dealt with, and information on the larval anatomy is given.

4. Low percentages of parasitism of the larvae were found, and it is concluded that predacious birds, and the removal of larvae with the crop, must be important factors in the control of the Codling Moth in France.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , July 1934 , pp. 201 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

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

Anonymous. 1924. La labor effectuada para el Consejo Provincial de Fomento de Tarragona contra la musca olearia in 1923, con la cooperación de los tecnicos.—Bol. mens. olivic. y elaboración moderna de aceite de oliva, Tortosa, no. 67, pp. 444–445. [Original not seen; abstract in R.A.E., A 13 p. 167, 1925.]Google Scholar
Allen, H. W. 1932. Present status of Oriental Fruit Moth investigations.—J. Econ. Ent. 25 pp. 360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angot, A. 1907. Annales des Bureaux Centrale Météorologique de France, Année 1903, i, Paris.Google Scholar
André, E. & Marshall, T. A. 1888. Spécies des Hyménoptères d'Europe et d'Algérie, iv, Les Braconides, Beaune.Google Scholar
André, E. & Marshall, T. A. 1891–1901. Spécies des Hyménopteres d'Europe et d'Algérie, T.v, Les Braconides (suite), Gray.Google Scholar
Baer, W. 1920 & 1921. Die Tachinen als Schmarotzer der schädlichen Insekten. Ihre Lebensweise, wirtschaftliche Bedeutung und systematische Kennzeichnung.—Z. angew. Ent. 7 pp. 97–163, 349–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, R. E. 1932. Notes on a new parasite of the Codling Moth.–J. Econ. Ent. 25 pp. 1111–1112.Google Scholar
Bignell, G. C. 1898. The Ichneumonidae (parasitic flies) of the south of Devon.—Trans. Devon. Ass. Adv. Sci. 30 pp. 498–504.Google Scholar
Bragina, A. 1926. Parasites of Cydia pomonella, L., near Belgrade. (In Serbian.)—Glasnik Centralnog Higijensk. Zavoda, i (ii), pt. 1–3, pp. 60–62, Belgrade. [Original not seen; abstract in R.A.E., A 15 p. 229,1927.]Google Scholar
Britton, W. E. 1916. The Larch Sawfly, Lygaeonematus (Nematus) erichsoni, Hartig.—Rep. Connecticut Agric. Expt. Sta., 1915, pp. 125–134.Google Scholar
Catoni, C. 1914. Die Traubenwickler (Polychrosis botrana, SchifL und Conchylis ambiguella, Hübn.) und ihre natürlichen Feinde in Südtyrol.—Z. angew. Ent. 1 pp. 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. A. 1932. Ascogaster carpocapsae, Viereck, an important larval parasite of the Codling Moth and Oriental Fruit Moth.—Tech. Bull. N.Y. State Agric. Expt. Sta., no. 188.Google Scholar
Cushman, R. A. 1913. The Calliephialtes parasite of the Codling Moth.—J. Agric. Res. 1 pp. 211–238.Google Scholar
Cushman, R. A. 1920. The North American Ichneumon-flies of the Tribe Ephialtini.—Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 58 no. 2340, pp. 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, R. A. 1927. Miscellaneous notes and descriptions of Ichneumon-flies.—Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 72 no. 2709, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Dalla Torre, C. G. 1898–1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, Lipsiae.Google Scholar
Esterberg, L. K. 1931. Sugar Beet Webworm (Loxostege sticticalis, L.) in the district of Nizhniĭ-Novgorod in 1929–1930.—Plant Prot. 8 pp. 275–292, Leningrad. [In Russian with a summary in English. Original not seen; abstract in R.A.E., A 20 p. 262, 1932.]Google Scholar
Faure, J. C. 1923. Sur trois Microlépidoptères rencontres sur le pêcher.—Rev. Zool. agric. appl. 22 pp. 250–252.Google Scholar
Faure, J. C. 1925. Contribution à l'étude des Hyménopteres parasites.—Rev. Path. vég. Ent. agric. 12 pp. 293–305.Google Scholar
Faure, J. C. 1925A. Sur la multiplicité des parasites de l' Apanteles glomeratus, L.—C. R. Soc. Biol. 93 pp. 524–526.Google Scholar
Faure, J. C. 1926. Contribution à l'étude d'un complexe biologique: la Pièride du chou (Pieris brassicae, L.) et ses parasites Hyménoptères.—Lyons, Fac. Sci. Univ. 222 pp. 7 pls.Google Scholar
Feytaud, J. 1918. Le Ver des Pommes (Carpocapsa pomonella, L.).—Bull. Soc. Etude Vulg. Zool. Agric. 17 pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Feytaud, J. 1921. Les ennemis du Pin. La Tordeuse de Buol (Evetria buoliana, Schiffermüller).—Rev. Zool. agric. appl. 20 pp. 89–91.Google Scholar
De Gaulle, J. 1908. Catalogue systematique et biologique des Hyménoptéres de France. —(Extrait de la Feuilles des Jeunes Nat., années 1906, 1907, 1908.)Google Scholar
Glenn, P. A. 1922. Codling Moth investigations of the State Entomologist's Office, 1915,1916, 1917.—Bull. Illinois State Nat. Hist. Survey 14 pp. 219–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goidanich, A. 1931. Gli insetti predatori e parassiti della Pyrausta nubilalis, Hübn.—Boll. Lab. Ent. Bologna 4 pp. 77–217.Google Scholar
Habermehl, H. 1922. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der palaearktischen Ichneumoniden fauna.—Konowia 1 pp. 77–86.Google Scholar
Hartley, E. A. 1923. Parasitism of the European sawfly, Diprion (Lophyrus) simile, Hartig, Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae, in Pennsylvania.—J. Econ. Ent. 16 pp. 386–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmeyek, E. B. 1930 & 1931. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der dänischen Callimomiden, mit Bestimmungstabellen der europäischen Arten (Hym. Chalc.).—Ent. Medd. 17 pp. 232–285.Google Scholar
Kanbe, T. 1931. Notes on some Hymenopterous parasites of the Pink Bollworm. (In Japanese.)—Ann. Agric. Expt. Sta. Korea 5 pp. 197–222, Suigen, Korea. [With a summary in English. Original not seen; abstract in R.A.E.,A 19 p. 514, 1931.]Google Scholar
Lounsbuey, C. P. & Faure, J. C. 1918. Codling Moth.—Un. S. Africa Dept. Agric. Local Ser. no. 22, 24 pp.Google Scholar
Marlatt, C. L. 1931. Report (1930–31) of the Chief of the Bureau of Entomology. U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Meier, N. F. 1927. Parasites (Ichneumonidae and Braconidae) bred in Russia from injurious Insects during 1881–1926 (a list arranged under hosts). (In Russian.)—Rep. Bur. Appl. Ent., Leningrad 3 pp. 75–91.Google Scholar
Morley, C. 1907. British Ichneumons 2 Cryptinae.Google Scholar
Morley, C. 1908. British Ichneumons 3 Pimplinae.Google Scholar
Morley, C. 1914. British Ichneumons 5 Ophioninae.Google Scholar
Morley, C. & Rait-Smith, W. 1933. The Hymenopterous parasites of the British Lepidoptera.—Trans. R. Ent. Soc. London 81 pp. 133–183.Google Scholar
Paillot, A., Ferriére, C. & Faure, J. C. 1924. Note préliminaire sur les parasites des Apanteles hôtes de Pieris brassicae, L., dans la région de Lyon, en 1923.—Rev. Path. vég. Ent. agric. 11 pp. 78–85.Google Scholar
Parker, H. L. 1924. Recherches sur les formes post-embryonnaires des Chalcidiens.—Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 43 pp. 261–379.Google Scholar
Parker, H. L., Vance, A. M., Smith, H. D. & Gamkrelidge, W. 1929. Pyrausta nubilalis, Hübn. in Europe: Notes on infestation and parasitism from 1926 to 1928.—J. Econ. Ent. 22 pp. 688–693.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. & Haeussler, G. J. 1928. Determination of the spring brood emergence of Oriental Peach Moths and Codling Moths by various methods.—J. Agric. Res. 37 pp. 399–417.Google Scholar
Puppini, G. 1930. Contributo alia conoscenza dell'Anarsia lineatella, Zeller, e appunti sulla Recurvaria nanella, Hübn.—Boll. Lab. Ent. Bologna 3 pp. 182–220.Google Scholar
Rabaud, Et. 1917. Les chenilles parasitées de Zygaena occitanica, Vill.—Bull. Sci. Fr. Belg. 1 pp. 284–286.Google Scholar
Regnier, R. 1923. De quelques grands ennemis du pommier et de leur parasites.—Rev. Bot. appl. Agric. colon. 3 pp. 169–185.Google Scholar
Russo, G. 1926. Contributo alla conoscenza degli Scolytidi. Studio morfobiologico del Chaetoptelius vestitm (Muls. e Rey) Fuchs e dei suoi simbionti.—Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 19 pp. 103–260.Google Scholar
Russo, G. 1931. Contributo alia conoscenza degli Scolytidi. II. Lo Scolytide del mandorlo: Scolytus amygdali (Guér.) Note biologiche.—Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 25 pp. 327–349.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1931. Parasites of the Wheat-stem Sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus, Linnaeus, in England.—Bull. Ent. Res. 22 pp. 479–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarra, R. 1918. La variegana (Olethreutes variegana, Hb. Lepidottero Tortricide) ed i suoi parassiti.—Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 12 pp. 175–187.Google Scholar
Scheidter, F. 1917. Ueber die Eiablage von Saperda populnea, L.—Naturw. Zeitschr. Forst.-u. Landw. 15 pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Schmiedeknecht, O. 1904–1906. Opuscula Ichneumonologica, 2.Google Scholar
Schmiedeknecht, O. 1906–1908. Opuscula Ichneumonologica, 3.Google Scholar
Schmiedeknecht, O. 1908–1911. Opuscula Ichneumonologica, 4.Google Scholar
Schütze, K. T. & Roman, A. 1931. Schlupfwespen. (A list of 270 Ichneumonids and Braconids bred from various insects in Saxony.)—Isis Budissina, Bautzen 12 reprint 12 pp.Google Scholar
Schwangart, F. 1918. Ueber Rebenschädlinge und -nützlinge. V. Die Schlupfwespen der Traubenwickler. Zuchtergebnisse.—Zbl. Bakt. (2) 48 pp. 543–558.Google Scholar
Sciarra, G. 1915. Contribuzione alia conoscenza della Carpocapsa pomonella (L.).—Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 10 pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
de Seabra, A. F. & Dos Santos Hall, F. A. 1924. Contributions pour l'histoire naturelle des “Tortrix” du chêne-vert à l'Alentejo.—Mem. Est. Mus. Zool. Univ. Coimbra (2) no. 1, pp. 11–45.Google Scholar
Seitner, M. 1927. Aus der Praxis der Kiefernspinnerbekämpfung.—Z. angew. Ent. 12 pp. 428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkregg, E. R. & Siegler, E. H. 1928. Life history of the Codling Moth in Delaware.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric., no. 42.Google Scholar
Seyrig, A. 1924. Observations sur la biologie des Ichneumons.—Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 92 pp. 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shchegolev, V. N. & Mamonov, B. A. 1929. The Soy Bean Pests in Northern Caucasus. (In Russian.)—Byull. Sev.-Kavkazsk. Kraev. sel.-khoz. opuitn. Sta., no. 287, 32 pp., Rostov-on-Don. [With a summary in English; original not seen, abstract in R.A.E., A 18 p. 97, 1930.]Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1916. Sulle specie di Trypaneidae (Diptera) del genere Carpomyia dannose ai fruttidi Zizyphus.—Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 11 pp. 170–182.Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1923. Contribuzione alia conoscenza dei Tortricidi delle Querce, I-II.—Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 17 pp. 41–107.Google Scholar
Sitowski, L. 1928. O pasorzytach barczatki (Dendrolimus pini, L.) i miniszki (Lymantria monacha L.).—Rocz. Nauk rol. lesn., xix, Poznan. [In Polish, with a summary in German; original not seen, abstract in R.A.E., A 16 p. 236, 1928.]Google Scholar
Sitowski, L. 1929. Do biologji pasorzytow borecznika (Lophyrus Latr.) Cześć. II.—Prac. Komis. matprz. Poznansk. Towarz. Prz. Nauk, (B) 5 Posen. [Original not seen; abstract in R.A.E., A 17 p. 643, 1929.]Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1912. The Chalcidoid genus Perilampus and its relations to the problem of parasite introduction.—U.S. Dept. Agric., Bur. Ent., Tech. Ser. no. 19, pt. iv.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. & Vosler, E. J. 1914. Calliephialtes in California.—Mon. Bull. State Cornmiss. Hortic., Sacramento 3 pp. 195–211.Google Scholar
Stellwaag, F. 1924. Die Baumweissling Aporia crataegi, L.—Z. angew. Ent. 10 pp. 273–312.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1930. The biological control of Insect and Plant Pests.—E.M.B. Pub. no. 29.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. 1932. Experiments upon respiration in the larvae of certain Parasitic Hymenoptera.—Proc. Roy. Soc. (B) 109 pp. 450–471.Google Scholar
Vance, A. M. 1932. The biology and morphology of the Braconid Chelonus annulipes, Wesm., a parasite of the European Corn Borer.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric., no. 294.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, E. R. 1929. Life history of the Codling Moth in Northern Georgia.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric., no. 90.Google Scholar
Vukasovich, P. 1924. Contribution à l'étude de l'Eudemis (Polychrosis botrana, SchifL), de la Pyrale de la Vigne (Oenophthira pilleriana, Schiff.) et de leurs parasites.—Toulouse, 248 pp. 43 figs.Google Scholar
Vukasovich, P. 1924A. Sur la multiplicité des parasites de la Pyrale de la Vigne (Oenophthira pilleriana, Schiff.)—C. R. Soc. Biol. 90 pp. 402–405.Google Scholar
Vukasovich, P. 1924B. Sur la biologic du Dibrachys affinis Masi, parasite de l'Eudemis.—Rev. Zool. agric. 23 pp. 92–98.Google Scholar
Vukasovich, P. 1928. Contribution to the study of the entomophagous Insect Parasites.—Glas Srpsk. Krai. Akad., cxxxi, pp. 45–72, Belgrade. [In Serbian with a summary in French.]Google Scholar
Wagner, A. C. W. 1929. Schlupfwespen und ihre Wirte. Zuchtergebnisse von Hamburger Entomologen.—Verh. Ver. naturw. Unterh. Hamburg 20 (1928) pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D. S. 1926. Entomological notes.—Cyprus Agric. J. 21 pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
Woroniecka, J. 1925. A study on the biology of the Green Bud-worm Argyroploce variegana, Hb., and the Bud-Moth Eucosma (Tmetocera) ocellana, F. [In Polish with a summary in English.]—Mem. Inst. natnl. polon. Econ. rur. Pulawy 6 A, pp. 367–394. [Original not seen; abstract in R.A.E., A 14 p. 196, 1926.]Google Scholar