Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:29:20.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STUDIES OF PHYSIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE ARTHROPOD SECRETIONS: VI. EVIDENCE FOR A SEX PHEROMONE IN FEMALE ORGYIA LEUCOSTIGMA (LEPIDOPTERA: LYMANTRIDAE)12

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Miss J. E. Percy ,
Miss E. J. Gardiner  and
J. Weatherston
Miss J. E. Percy
Affiliation:
Insect Pathology Research Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario2
Miss E. J. Gardiner
Affiliation:
Insect Pathology Research Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario2
J. Weatherston
Affiliation:
Insect Pathology Research Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The results of behavioural, chemical, and histological studies are reported showing the presence of a sex attractant in female Orgyia leucostigma J. E. Smith. A method of bioassaying the attractancy of the female moths by the use of 4-ft-long glass tubes is given. Extraction of female abdominal tips with dichloromethane yields material biologically active when tested against male O. leucostigma.The pheromone-producing gland is a dorsally situated, crescent-shaped structure formed by modification of the epidermal cells in the intersegmental membrane between the eighth and ninth abdominal segments. The glandular cells are goblet-shaped and are arranged in an unusual manner.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 103 , Issue 5 , May 1971 , pp. 706 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1971

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

Brady, U. E. and Smithwick, E. B.. 1968. Production and release of sex attractant by the female Indian meal-moth, Plodia interpunctella. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61: 1260–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, M. L. and Steele, J. E.. 1959. Simplified aldehyde-fuchsin staining of neurosecretory cells. Stain Technol. 34: 265–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickens, G. R. 1936. The scent glands of certain Phycitidae (Lepidoptera). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 85: 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, C. C. 1968. Aspects of the mating behaviour of the gypsy moth. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61: 768–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freiling, H. H. 1909. Duftorgane der weiblichen Schmetterlingen nebst Beitragen zur Kenntnis der Sinnesorgane auf den Schmetterlingsfluegel und der Duftpinsel der Maennchen von Danais und Euploea. Z. wiss. Zool. 92: 210.(From Jacobson M., 1965.)Google Scholar
Gotz, B. 1951. Die Sexualduftstoffe an Lepidopteren. Experientia 7: 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halmi, N. S. 1952. Differentiation of two types of basophils in the adenohypophysis of the rat and the mouse. Stain Technol. 27: 61–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammad, S. M. and Jarczyk, H. J.. 1958. Contributions to the biology and biochemistry of the cotton leaf-worm, Prodenia litura F. III: The morphology and histology of the sexual scent glands in the female moth of Prodenia litura F. Bull. Soc. ent. Egypte 42: 253–261.Google Scholar
Humasson, G. L. 1967. Animal tissue techniques. 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco and London.Google Scholar
Jacobson, M. 1965. Insect sex attractants. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Jefferson, R. N. and Rubin, R. E.. 1970. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. XVII: A clarification of the description of the female sex pheromone gland of Prodenia litura. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 431–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, R. N., Shorey, H. H., and Gaston, L. K.. 1966. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. X: The morphology and histology of the female sex pheromone gland of Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 1166–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, W. 1917. Tussock moths. Publ. Dep. Agric. New Brunswick, No. 34.Google Scholar
McMorran, A. 1965. A synthetic diet for the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 97: 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeks, W. A. 1949. White-marked tussock moth as a forest pest. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 5(1).Google Scholar
Richards, O. W. and Thomson, W. S.. 1932. A contribution to the study of the genera Ephestia, GN (incl. Strymax Dyar) and Plodia, GN (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae), with notes on the parasites of the larvae. Trans. ent. Soc.Lond. 80: 169. (From Jacobson M., 1965.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, W. L. and Feng, K. C.. 1968. Sex pheromone specificity tests in the Tortricidae— an introductory report. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61: 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C. J. 1969. Extrusion of the female sex pheromone gland in the eastern spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 101: 760–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoene, W. J. 1909. The tussock moth in orchards. Bull. N.Y. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 312, pp. 38–49.Google Scholar
Steinbrecht, R. A. 1964. Feinstruktur und Histochemie der Sexualduftdruse des Seidenspinners Bombyx mori L. Z.Zellforsch. 64: 227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbahn, E. 1913. Abdominale Duftorgane bei weiblichen Schmetterlingen. Jena. Z. Naturwiss. 59: 277. (From Jacobson M., 1965.)Google Scholar
Weatherston, J. and Percy, J. E.. 1968. Studies of physiologically active arthropod secretions. I: Evidence for a sex pheromone in female Vitula edmandsae (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae). Can. Ent. 100: 1065–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherston, J. and Percy, J. E.. 1970. Studies of physiologically active arthropod secretions. IV: Topography of the sex pheromone producing gland of the eastern spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Leidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. J. Zool. 48: 569–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, R. L. 1916. The white-marked tussock moth. Circ. agric. Exp. Stn Iowa St. Coll. Agric. Mech. Arts, No. 33, 4 pp.Google Scholar