Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:18:22.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gall-midge Larvae as Endoparasites, including the Description of a Species parasitising Aphids in Trinidad, B.W.I.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

H. F. Barnes
H. F. Barnes
Affiliation:
Entomology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A review of the available information concerning gall midges as endoparasites shows that only three species in two genera have been described.

Endaphis perfidus Kieffer is a parasite of apterous Drepanosiphum platanoides (Schr.) (Aphididae) in Lorraine and England. Although on several occasions larvae of Endaphis sp. have been found in England, the Netherlands and Germany parasitising other Aphids, practically no information additional to that supplied by Kieffer has beeen published. In only one instance besides E. perfidus has the adult midge been reared and figured, i.e., Endaphis (cf. perfidus Kieffer) in Macrosiphum jaceae (L.) on Carduus in Germany.

Endopsylla agilis de Meijere is a parasite of winges Psylla foersteri Flor (Psyllidae) in the Netherlands. The bionomics of what is almost certainly the same species, parasitising P. mali race peregrina Foerst. on hawthorn (also P. pyricola Foerst. and P. melanoneura Foerst.) and P. mali (Schmidb.) on apple, respectively, have been studied in Scotland and Germany.

Endopsylla endogena (Kieffer) was found parasitising the larva of Stephanitis pyri (F.) (Tingidae) in Portugal but has not been recorded again.

A fourth species, Pseudendaphis maculans, gen. et sp. n., that parasitises various Aphids in Trinidad, has now been described.

Indications are given of the whereabouts of any existing types or other specimens of all the known endoparasitic gall midges.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 1954 , pp. 769 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Bagnall, R. S. & Harrison, J. W. H. (1918). A preliminary catalogue of British Cecidomyidae (Diptera), with special reference to the Gallmidges of the North of England.—Trans. ent. Soc. Lond., 1917, pp. 346–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnall, R. S. & Harrison, J. W. H. (1924). New British Cecidomyiidae. 5.—Ent. Rec., 36, pp. 36–38.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Barnes, H. F. (1953). British Diptera associated with fungi. I. Gall Midges (Cecidomyidae) reared from the larger fungi.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond., (B) 22, pp. 195–200.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1941). Neues über parasitische Dipteren (Cecidomyiidae and Chloropidae).—Arb. morph. taxon. Ent., 8, pp. 196–200.Google Scholar
Kieffer, J. J. (1896). Observations sur les Diplosis, et diagnoses de cinq espèces nouvelles (Dipt.).—Bull. Soc. ent. Fr., 1896, pp. 382–384.Google Scholar
Kieffer, J. J. (1901). Monographie des Cécidomyides d'Europe et d'Algérie.—Ann. Soc. ent. Fr., 69 (1900), pp. 181–472.Google Scholar
Kieffer, J. J. (1907). Eine neue endoparasite Cecidomyide.—Z. Hymen. Dipt., 7, pp. 129–130.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, T. W. (1954). Notes on Pseudendaphis maculans Barnes, a Cecidomyid endoparasite of Aphids in Trinidad, B.W.I.—Bull. ent. Res., 45, pp. 777–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, K. B. (1934). Insect parasites of Psyllidae.—Parasitology, 26, pp. 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Meijere, J. C. H. (1907). Eerste supplement op de Nieuwe naamlijst van Nederlandsche Diptera.—Tijdschr. Ent., 50, pp. 151–195.Google Scholar
Speyer, W. (1929). Der Apfelblattsauger Psylla mali Schmidberger.—Monogr. PflSch., no. 1, 127 pp.Google Scholar
Speyer, W. (1941). Endopsylla ? agilis de Meijere (Cecidomyidae) als Entoparasit von Psylla mali Schmidb.—Arb. physiol. angew. Ent., 8, pp. 39–41.Google Scholar