Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T01:10:39.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EARWIG PARASITOIDS OF THE GENUS TRIARTHRIA STEPHENS (DIPTERA: TACHINIDAE) IN THE NEW WORLD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

James E. O’Hara
James E. O’Hara
Affiliation:
Biological Resources Division, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Triarthria Stephens is known from two species in the New World. One is T. setipennis (Fallen), introduced into North America from Europe early this century as a biological control agent against its host, the European earwig (Forficula auricularia L.) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). The second species is T. parva (Townsend), a widely distributed earwig (Doru spp.) parasitoid in the Neotropical region. Triarthria parva was originally described in the monotypic genus Parkerella Townsend; Parkerella is newly synonymized with Triarthria (syn.nov.), and T. parva is a new combination (comb.nov.). The genus Triarthria is diagnosed and the four included species are keyed: T. legeri (Villeneuve) (western Palearctic region), T. tienshanensis Ziegler (Uzbekistan), T. setipennis, and T. parva. The two species in the New World are diagnosed, illustrated, and their known distributions mapped.

Résumé

Il existe deux espèces connues du genre Triarthria Stephens au Nouveau Monde. Triarthria setipennis (Fallen) a été introduite d’Europe en Amérique du Nord au début du siècle pour assurer la lutte biologique contre son hôte, le Perce-oreille européen (Forficularia auricularia L.) (Dermaptera : Forficulidae). La seconde espèce, T. parva. (Townsend), est un parasitoïde très répandu des perce-oreilles (Doru spp.) de la région néotropicale. Triarthria parva a d’abord été assigné au genre monotypique Parkerella Townsend; Parkerella est synonymisé à Triarthria et T. parva représente une nouvelle combinaison. On trouvera ici la diagnose du genre Triarthria et une clé des quatre espèces qui le composent : T. legeri (Villeneuve) (ouest de la région paléarctique), T. tienshanensis Ziegler (Uzbekistan), T. setipennis et T. parva. Les deux espèces du Nouveau Monde sont décrites, illustrées et leurs répartitions respectives sont cartographiées.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 128 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 15 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arnaud, P.H. Jr., 1967. Occurrence of Bigonicheta spinipennis (Meigen) in California (Diptera: Tachinidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 43: 95.Google Scholar
Arnaud, P.H. Jr. 1978. A Host-Parasite Catalog of North American Tachinidae (Diptera). United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 1319: 860 pp.Google Scholar
Baird, A.B. 1940. Summary of insect parasites and predators liberated in Canada and Newfoundland in 1939. Canadian Insect Pest Review 18: 94–126.Google Scholar
Barthell, J.F., and Stone, R.. 1995. Recovery of the parasite Triarthria spinipennis (Meigen) (Diptera: Tachinidae) from an inland California population of the introduced European earwig. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 71: 137–141.Google Scholar
Belshaw, R. 1993. Tachinid flies. Diptera: Tachinidae. In Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. Royal Entomological Society of London 10, Part 4a(i): 170 pp.Google Scholar
Clausen, C.P. 1956. Biological Control of Insect Pests in the Continental United States. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1139: vi + 151 pp.Google Scholar
Clausen, C.P. 1978. Dermaptera. Forficulidae. pp. 15–18 in Clausen, C.P. (Ed.), Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 480: 545 pp.Google Scholar
Crosskey, R.W. 1974. The British Tachinidae of Walker and Stephens (Diptera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology 30: 269–308.Google Scholar
Crosskey, R.W. 1976. A Taxonomic Conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the Oriental Region. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology, Supplement 26: 357 pp.Google Scholar
Crumb, S.D., Eide, P.M., and Bonn, A.E.. 1941. The European Earwig. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 766: 76 pp.Google Scholar
Emden, F.I. van. 1954. Diptera Cyclorrhapha. Calyptrata (I). Section (a). Tachinidae and Calliphoridae. In Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. Royal Entomological Society of London 10, Part 4a: 133 pp.Google Scholar
Essig, E.O. 1918. The European earwig, Forficula auricularia Linn. Journal of Economic Entomology 11: 338–339.Google Scholar
Fallén, C.F. 1810. Försök att bestämma de i Sverige funne Flugarter, som kunna föras till Slägtet Tachina. Kongliga Vetenskaps Academiens Nya Handlingar (2) 31: 253–287.Google Scholar
Guimarães, J.H. 1971. 104. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). In A Catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas South of the United States. São Paulo, Brazil. 333 pp.Google Scholar
Guimarães, J.H. 1977. Host-Parasite and Parasite-Host Catalogue of South American Tachinidae (Diptera). Arquivos de Zoologia 28(3): 131 pp.Google Scholar
Herting, B. 1972. Die Typenexemplare der von Meigen (1824–1838) beschriebenen Raupenfliegen. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 243: 15 pp.Google Scholar
Herting, B. 1975. Nachträge und Korrekturen zu den von Meigen und Rondani beschriebenen Raupenfliegen (Dipt. Tachinidae). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (A) 271: 13 pp.Google Scholar
Herting, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (A) 369: 228 pp.Google Scholar
Herting, B., and Dely-Draskovits, Á.. 1993. pp. 118–458 (plus joint bibliography and index with Anthomyiidae and Rhinophoridae, pp. 459–624) in Soós, Á., and Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Volume 13. Anthomyiidae – Tachinidae. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest. 624 pp.Google Scholar
Jones, D.W. 1917. The European Earwig and its Control. United States Department of Agriculture Bulletin 566: 12 pp.Google Scholar
Jones, R.W., Gilstrap, F.E., and Andrews, K.L.. 1988. Biology and life tables for the predaceous earwig, Doru taeniatum [Derm.: Forficulidae]. Entomophaga 33: 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowlton, G.F. 1940. The European earwig in Utah. Journal of Economic Entomology 33: 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlmann, U. 1995. Biology of Triarthria setipennis (Fallén) (Diptera: Tachinidae), a native parasitoid of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), in Europe. The Canadian Entomologist 127: 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and Wellington, W.G.. 1975. Life history and population characteristics of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver, British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist 107: 819–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, J.H. 1951. Biological control investigations in British Columbia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 47 (1950): 27–36.Google Scholar
Meigen, J.W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten 4: xii + 428 pp. Hamm.Google Scholar
Mesnil, L.P. 1973. 64g. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae). pp. 1169–1232in Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region 8. E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Morris, R.F. 1971. Forficula auricularia L., European earwig (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). pp. 18–20 in Simmonds, F.J. (Ed.), Biological Control Programmes against Insects and Weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Technical Communication No. 4. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, England. 266 pp.Google Scholar
Morris, R.F. 1984. Forficula auricularia L., European earwig (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). pp. 39–40 in Kelleher, J.S., and Hulme, M.A. (Eds.), Biological Control Programmes against Insects and Weeds in Canada 1969–1980. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, England. 410 pp.Google Scholar
Morry, H.G., Morris, R.F., and Proudfoot, K.G.. 1988. An introduced parasite to control European earwig in Newfoundland. Biocontrol News 1: 32.Google Scholar
Mote, D.C. 1931. The introduction of the tachinid parasites of the European earwig in Oregon. Journal of Economic Entomology 24: 948–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, H.L. 1953. Miscellaneous notes on South American dipterous parasites. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria “Filippo Silvestri” di Portici 12: 45–73.Google Scholar
Rognes, K. 1986. A check-list of Norwegian Tachinidae (Diptera). Fauna Norvegica (Ser. B) 33: 69–76.Google Scholar
Rondani, C. 1845. Descrizione di due generi nuovi di insetti ditteri. Memoria duodecima per servire alla ditterologia italiana. Nouvi Annali delle Scienze Naturali e Rendiconto dei Lavori dell' Accademia delle Scienze dell' Istituto e della Società Agragria di Bologna (2) 3: 25–36.Google Scholar
Sabrosky, C.W., and Amaud, P.H. Jr., 1965. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). pp. 961–1108 in Stone, A. et al. , (Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 276: 1696 pp.Google Scholar
Spencer, G.J. 1947. The 1945 status of Digonochaeta setipennis, tachinid parasite of the European earwig Forficula auricularia Linn. in West Point Grey, Vancouver, B.C. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 43 (1946): 8–9.Google Scholar
Stephens, J.F. 1829 a. The nomenclature of British insects; being a compendious list of such species as are contained in the systematic catalogue of British insects, and forming a guide to their classification, etc. etc. London. 68 pp.Google Scholar
Stephens, J.F. 1829 b. A systematic catalogue of British insects: being an attempt to arrange all the hitherto discovered indigenous insects in accordance with their natural affinities. Containing also the references to every English writer on entomology, and to the principal foreign authors. With all the published British genera to the present time. Part II. Insecta Haustellata. London. 388 pp.Google Scholar
Thompson, W.R. 1928. A contribution to the study of the dipterous parasites of the European earwig (Forficula auricularia L.). Parasitology 20: 123–158 + pls. I, V–IX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C.H.T. 1939. Manual of Myiology in Twelve Parts. Part VIII. Oestroid Generic Diagnoses and Data. Microtropesini to Voriini. São Paulo. 408 pp.Google Scholar
Townsend, C.H.T. 1942. Possible fly parasite of Diatraea. Revista de Entomologia 13: 149–150.Google Scholar
Tschorsnig, H.P., and Herting, B.. 1994. Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas: Bestimmungstabellen und Angaben zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der einzelnen Arten. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (A) 506: 170 pp.Google Scholar
Vickery, V.R., and Kevan, D.K. McE.. 1985. The Insects and Arachnids of Canada. Part 14. The Grasshoppers, Crickets, and Related Insects of Canada and Adjacent Regions. Ulonata: Dermaptera, Cheleutoptera, Notoptera, Dictuoptera, Grylloptera, and Orthoptera. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Publication 1777: 918 pp.Google Scholar
Villeneuve, J. 1908. Travaux diptérologiques. Wiener entomologische Zeitung 27: 281–288.Google Scholar
Wood, D.M. 1987. Chapter 110. Tachinidae. pp. 1193–1269 in McAlpine, J.F. et al. , (Eds.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Volume 2. Agriculture Canada Monograph 28: vi + 675–1332.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. 1991. Zwei neue Raupenfliegenarten (Dipt., Tachinidae) aus Usbekistan und faunistische Notizen zu weiteren Arten aus Mittelasien. Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte 35: 83–90.Google Scholar