Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:41:44.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulation of Ovulation and Egg Disposal in the Parasitic Hymenoptera1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Stanley E. Flanders
Stanley E. Flanders
Affiliation:
University of California Citrus Experiment Station, Riverside, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the attributes of the parasitic Hymenoptera that contribute to the ability of certain species to maintain host populations at low densities is the power to restrict egg deposition to sites suitable for the continued development of the offspring, and to regulate, regardless of host density, the number of eggs deposited per host (Flanders 1947). High searching capacity is, in part, a function of female longevity correlated with the conservation of reproductive material. It is self evident that time used in wasteful oviposition means less time for searching and consequently less effective control of the host.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 82 , Issue 6 , June 1950 , pp. 134 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1950

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

Literature

Clancy, D. W. 1944. Biology of Allotropa burrelli, a gregarious parasite of Pseudococcus comstocki. Jour. Agr. Res. 69(4): 159–163.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1923. The biology of Schizaspidia tenuicornis Ashm. a eucharid parasite of Camponotus. Ent. Soc. Amer. Ann. 16: 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1928. The manner of oviposition and planidium of Schizaspidia manipurensis n. sp. (Hymen. Eucharidae). Ent. Soc. Wash. Proc. 30(5): 80–86.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1929. Biological studies on Poecilogonalos thwaitesii (Westw.), parasitic in the cocoons of Hemicospilus (Hymen: Trigonalidae.) Ent. Soc. Wash. Proc. 31(4): 67–79.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1940. Entomophagous insects. McGraw-Hill, New York, 688 pp.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1941. The habits of the Eucharidae. Psyche. 48(2–3): 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, R. A. 1926. Some types of parasitism among the Ichneumonidae. Ent. Soc. Wash. Proc. 28: 29–51.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1935. An apparent correlation between the feeding habits of certain pteromalids and the condition of their ovarian follicles (Pteromalidae, Hymenoptera). Ent. Soc. Amer. Ann. 28: 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1937. Ovipositional instincts and developmental sex differences in the genus Coccophagus. Univ. of Calif. Pub. Ent. 6: 401–422.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1942. Oosorption and ovulation in relation to oviposition in the parasitic Hymenoptera. Ent. Soc. Amer. Ann. 35: 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1945. Is caste differentiation in ants a function of the rate of egg deposition? Science 101: 245–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanders, S. E. 1947. Elements of host discovery exemphfied by the parasitic Hymenoptera. Ecology 28: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, R. L. E. 1943. On collecting and rearing parasitic Hymenoptera with special reference to the genus Apanteles. (Hym., Braconidae). Rol. Ent. Soc., London, Proc. Ser. A. 18: 89–94.Google Scholar
Fulton, B. B. 1933. Notes on Habrocytus cerealellae, a parasite of the Angoumois grain moth. Ent. Soc. Amer. Ann. 26: 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imms, A. D. 1931. Recent advances in entomology. 374 pp. P. Blakiston Co., Pa.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1938. A study of some factors governing the choice of hosts and distribution of progeny by the chalcid Ooencyrtus kuvanae Howard. Roy. Soc. London, Phil. Trans. Ser. B. 229: 275–322.Google Scholar
MacGill, E. 1923. The life history of Aphidius avenae (Hal.) a braconid parasite of the nettle aphis (Macrosiphum urticae). Roy. Soc. Edinb. Proc. 43: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, H. T. 1934. The biology and distribution in France of the larval parasites of Cydia pomonella L. Bul. Ent. Res. 25: 201–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmieder, R. G. 1938. The sex ratio in Melittobia chalybii Ashmead, gametogenesis and cleavage in females and haploid males. Biol. Bul. 74: 256–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, F. 1941. Eientwicklung und Eiresorption in den ovarien des puppenparasiten Bracbymeria euploeae West. (Chalcididae). Z. Angew. Ent. 28: 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. D. 1932. Phaeogenes nigridens Wesmael, an important ichneumonid parasite of the pupa of the European corn borer. U.S. Dept. Agr. Těch. Bul. 331: 1–45.Google Scholar
Vance, Arlo M. 1927. On the biology of some ichneumonids of the genus Paniscus Schrk. Ent. Soc. Amer. Ann. 20: 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyer, Fritz. 1927. Die rudimentaren Keimdrüsen im Lebensadlauf der Arbeiter von Formica rufa L. und Camponotus ligniperda Latr. mit. Berucksichtigung der ubrigen sozialen Hymenopteren. Zool. Anz. 74: 205–221.Google Scholar
Whiting, Anna R. 1940. Do Habrobracon females sting their eggs? Amer. Nat. 74: 468–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, Anna R. 1945. Dominant lethality and correlated chromosome effects in Habrobracon eggs x-rayed in diptolene and in late metaphase I. Biol. Bul. 89: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar