Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:10:05.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study on the Identity of Bracon hebetor Say and Bracon brevicornis Wesmael (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Puttarudriah  and
G. P. Channa Basavanna
M. Puttarudriah
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, Department of Agriculture, Bangalore.
G. P. Channa Basavanna
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, Department of Agriculture, Bangalore.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Literature, mainly Indian, pertaining to the recorded hosts of Bracon hebetor Say and B. brevicornis Wesm., and on the taxonomy of the two species, has been reviewed. Observations on different morphological characters, including the male and female genitalia, which have been used in establishing the identity of the two species, have been made. A large number of B. hebetor specimens reared in Bangalore on Corcyra cephalonica (Stnt.), Ephestia cautella (Wlk.), Adisura atkinsoni Moore and those collected in food-grain godowns, and of B. brevicornis reared on C. cephalonica and E. cautella in Bangalore, on Nephantis serinopa Meyr. from Coimbatore (South India), on Pyrausta nubilalis (Hb.) from Canada and on cotton bollworms (?) from Delhi (North India), have been examined.

Differences in colour, relative proportions of antennal joints and punctation on the abdomen have been found to be variable and as such are not to be depended upon for distinguishing the two species. The number of antennal joints which has hitherto been considered to be the decisive character by which the two species may be separated is also not reliable as there is a wide range of variation even in the progeny of a single pair of parents. Above all, the fact that the two species interbreed and give rise to fertile offspring, which also show a fairly wide range of variation in the number of antennal joints, proves that the two are identical, and there is no ground to treat them as two distinct species, at least so far as the Indian specimens are concerned, for which Bracon hebetor Say is the valid name.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1956 , pp. 183 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Appanna, M. (1953). Indian J. Ent., 14, pp. 263–267.Google Scholar
Bowden, J. (1954). Rep. 6th Commonw. ent. Conf. 1954, pp. 104–107 (discussion, pp. 107–110).Google Scholar
Cherian, M. C. & Kylasam, M. S. (1941). Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., (B) 14, pp. 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherian, M. C. & Margabandhu, V. (1949). J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 48, pp. 335–337.Google Scholar
Cushman, R. A. (1922). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 24, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar
Ghulam, Ullah (1939). Indian J. Ent., 1, pp. 111–112.Google Scholar
Glover, P. M. & Chatterjee, K. C. (1936). Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., (B) 3, pp. 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna Ayyar, P. N. (1934). Bull. ent. Res., 25, pp. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. & Appanna, M. (1944). Curr. Sci., 13, p. 135.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, B.& Appanna, M. (1948). Bull, agric. Coll. Mysore, Ent. Ser. no. 13, 16 pp.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. & Seshagiri, Rao D. (1944). Curr. Sci., 13, pp. 81–82.Google Scholar
Lal, K. B. (1947). Indian J. Ent., 8, pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W. (1925). Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 67, pp. 1–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negi, P. S., Venkatraman, T. V. & Chatterjee, K. C. (1944). Curr. Sci., 13, p. 136.Google Scholar
Puttarudriah, M. & Channa, Basavanna G. P. (1952). Nature, 169, p. 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puttarudraiah, M. & Channa, Basavanna G. P. (1954). Curr. Sci., 23, p. 231.Google Scholar
Ramchandra, Rao Y., Cherian, M. C. & Ananthanarayanan, K. P. (1950). Indian J. Ent., 10, pp. 205–247.Google Scholar
Richards, O. W. & Thomson, W. S. (1932). Trans, ent. Soc. Lond., 80, pp. 169–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, H. K. (1937). Rep. Indian Lac Res. Inst. Namkum 1936—37, pp. 12–22. (Rev. appl. Ent., (A) 25, p. 635.)Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R.Ed. (1945). A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests …Section 1. Part 6, p. 219. Belleville, Ont., Imp. Parasite Serv.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R.Ed. (1953). Ibid., Section 2. Part 2, p. 140. Belleville, Ont., Commonw. Bur. biol. Contr.Google Scholar
Usman, S. & Krishnamurti, B. (1950). Curr. Sci., 19, p. 155.Google Scholar