Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:38:37.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Propagation of insect Parasites on unnatural Hosts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

F. J. Simmonds
F. J. Simmonds
Affiliation:
Imperial Parasite Service, Belleville, Ontario, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When an insect parasite successfully attacks a host in the natural environment, the criterion of success being the development of the parasite progeny to maturity, the species attacked is described as a “natural host.” Parasites are used in biological control work with respect to their natural hosts. However, when the mass breeding of parasites for field distribution has to be carried out, the provision of natural hosts in sufficient quantity is in many cases difficult or impossible, unless they can be easily obtained in large numbers from the field. But some of these hosts have only a single generation a year. Others live in the larval stage in parts of growing plants which cannot be satisfactorily handled so as to produce mass infestations; on the other hand, attempts to rear such insects on detached fragments of plant tissue often result in heavy mortality. Other hosts which are very satisfactory for parasite propagation in some respects, become very susceptible to epidemics of disease when kept in large numbers in confinement. Even without these difficulties, the propagation in the laboratory of large numbers of natural hosts is often tedious and expensive.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , November 1945 , pp. 219 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

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

Ashmead, W. H. (1894). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 3, pp. 27–37.Google Scholar
Bacot, A. W. (1917). Proc. R. Soc. Med., 10, pp. 61–94.Google Scholar
Bradley, W. G. (1941). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 616.Google Scholar
Carter, W. (1927). J. agric. Res., 34, pp. 449–451.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. (1939). Proc. Sixth Pacif. Sci. Congr., 4, pp. 421–428.Google Scholar
Craighead, F. C. (1921). J. agric. Res., 22, pp. 189–220.Google Scholar
Eyer, J. R. (1921). Ent. News, 32, p. 215.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1929). J. econ. Ent., 22, p. 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1930). Hilgardia, 4, pp. 465–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. A. (1943). Canad. Ent., 75, p. 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M. A. (1930). Ann. appl. Biol., 17, pp. 487–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. W. H. (1927). Proc. roy. Soc., (B) 101, pp. 115–126.Google Scholar
Hase, A. (1929). Sci. Rep. Int. Corn Bor. Invest., 2, pp. 85–89.Google Scholar
Hawkes, O. A. M. (1920). Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1920, pp. 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, A. D. (1917). J. econ. Ent., 10, pp. 92–93.Google Scholar
Keilin, D. & Nuttall, G. H. F. (1919). Parasitology, 11, pp. 279–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, P. (1927). Acad. C. R. Sci., Paris, 185, pp. 489–493, 521–523.Google Scholar
Michelbacher, A. E., Hoskins, W. M. & Herms, W. B. (1932). J. exp. Zool., 64, pp. 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, L. W. & Hunt, W. T. (1937). J. econ. Ent., 30, pp. 838–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1919). Parasitology, 11, pp. 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pictet, A. (1911). Mém. Soc. Phys. Genève, 35.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1935). Proc. roy. Soc., (B) 117, pp. 413–435.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1938). Bull. ent. Res., 29, pp. 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schread, J. C. & Garman, P. (1933). Bull. Conn. agric. Exp. Sta., no 353.Google Scholar
Schröder, C. (1903). Verh. dtsch. zool. Ges., 1903, p. 158.Google Scholar
Shannon, R. C. (1923). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 25, p. 103.Google Scholar
Sikora, H. (1917). Arch. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg., 21, pp. 275–284.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. (1913). C. R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 75, p. 559.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. & Parker, H. L. (1928). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 59.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. (1928). Bull. ent. Res., 18, pp. 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. (1929). J. Linn. Soc. Lond., (Zool.), 36, pp. 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. (1930). Biol. Rev., 5, pp. 177–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. (1931). J. Linn. Soc. Lond., (Zool.), 37, pp. 489–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. & Jones, F. G. W. (1937). Proc. roy. Soc., (B) 124, pp. 56–81.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. W. E. (1936). Agric. J. Barbados, 5, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Walsh, B. D. (1864). Proc. ent. Soc. Philad., 3, pp. 403–430.Google Scholar
Woods, W. C. (1915). Bull. Maine agric. Exp. Sta., no. 244, pp. 249–288.Google Scholar