Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:07:08.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TAXONOMIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONOCHAMUS SCUTELLATUS AND M. OREGONENSIS (COLEOPTERA: CERAMBYCIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

A. Raske
A. Raske
Affiliation:
Forest Research Laboratory, Canadian Forestry Service, Edmonton, Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Populations of Monochamus scutellatus (Say) were found to differ morphologically from populations of M. oregonensis LeConte in color of femora, mouthparts, and antennae; elytral rugosity and shape of scutellum. The genitalia of the two entities differed slightly in the female. Alberta populations of both entities hybridized freely in the laboratory, producing a fertile F1 generation, which was successfully crossed with each parental species. Because of the lack of reproductive isolation between the allopatric entities, M. oregonensis is synonymized under M. scutellatus, but given subspecies status because of the morphological differences. Diagnostic characters of each subspecies are given.

Résumé

Relevé des différences morphologiques entre les populations de Monochamus scutellatus (Say) et celles de M. oregonensis LeConte quant à la couleur des fémurs, des parties buccales et des antennes, ainsi qu’à la rugosité des élytres et à la forme de la scutelle. Légère différence des organes génitaux externes chez la femelle des deux entités. En Alberta les populations de l’une et l’autre entité s’hybridaient librement au laboratoire, produisant ainsi une génération fertile, F1, qui se croisait avec succès avec chacune des espèces parents. Faute de différenciation des organes de reproduction entre les entités allopatriques, M. oregonensis est confondu avec M. scutellatus, mais à cause des différences morphologiques on lui assigne un statut de sous-espèce. Les caractères diagnostiques de chaque sous-espèce sont donnés.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 105 , Issue 5 , May 1973 , pp. 795 - 806
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

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

Craighead, F. C. 1923. North American cerambycid larvae. Dom. Can. Dep. Agric. tech. Bull. 27 (N.S.).Google Scholar
Craighead, F. C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern forests. U.S. Dep. Agric. misc. Publ. 657.Google Scholar
Dillon, L. S. and Dillon, E. S.. 1941. The tribe Monochamini in the western hemisphere. Reading Publ. Mus. Art Gallery, Sci. Publ. 1.Google Scholar
Essig, E. O. 1926. Insects of western North America. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Forsslund, K. H. 1934. Toll bockens (M. sutor L.) up-trädånte pa Nordsvenska brandfalt. Svensk Skogsvårds. Tidskr. 32: 23–28.Google Scholar
Frayer, W. E. 1968. A computer program for making S-contrasts involving linear combinations of group means. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Note NE-80. Upper Darby, Pa.Google Scholar
Gardiner, L. M. 1957. Deterioration of fire-killed pine in Ontario and the causal wood-boring beetles. Can. Ent. 89: 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. A. 1952. Forest entomology. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Gussew, V. 1932. Der schwarze Kieferbockkafer Monochamus galloprovincialis Oliv., seine Lebensweise and wirtschaftliche Bedeutung in der Ud SSR. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Hellrigl, K. G. 1971. Die Bionomie der Europäischen Monochamus-Arten (Coleopt., Cerambycid.) und ihre Bedeutung für die Forst- und Holzwirtschaft. Redia 52(1970–1971): 367–510.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A. D. 1912. Damage to wood of fire-killed Douglas-fir and methods of preventing losses in western Washington and Oregon. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Ent. Circ. 159.Google Scholar
Hopping, R. 1921. A review of the genus Monochamus Serv. (Cerambycidae, Coleoptera). Can. Ent. 53: 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, F. P. 1952. Insect enemies of Western forests. U.S. Dep. Agric. misc. Publ. 273.Google Scholar
Kimmey, J. W. and Furniss, H. L.. 1943. Deterioration of fire-killed Douglas-fir. U.S. Dep. Agric. tech. Bull. 851.Google Scholar
Kojima, T. 1931. Further investigation on the immature stages of some Japanese cerambycid beetles. J. Coll. Agric. Hokkaido imp. Univ. 11: 289–292.Google Scholar
Lanier, G. N. and Raske, A. G.. 1970. Multiple sex chromosomes and configuration polymorphism in the Monochamus scutellatus-oregonensis complex (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Can. J. Gen. Cytol. 12: 947–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeConte, J. L. 1873. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America, II. Smithson. misc. Collns 265: 279–348.Google Scholar
McKenzie, H. L. 1943. Damage to ponderosa pine lumber and rustic poles by the black horned pine borer. U.S. Bur. Ent. Pl. Quar. E-599.Google Scholar
Prosoroff, S. 1930. Der Bock käfer M. quadrimacu-latus Motsch. als Schadling der Sibirischen Tanne, Abies sibirica Led. Z. angew. Ent. 17: 207–208.Google Scholar
Richmond, H. A. and Lejeune, R. R.. 1945. The deterioration of fire-killed white spruce by wood-boring insects in northern Saskatchewan. For. Chron. 21: 168–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, J. W. 1967. A record of Tetropium cinnamopterum Kirby in white spruce logs in central British Columbia. Can. For. Serv. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 23. p. 27.Google Scholar
Rose, A. H. 1957. Some notes on the biology of Monochamus scutellatus (Say) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Can. Ent. 89: 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D. A. 1960. Damage by long-horned wood borers in fire-killed white spruce, central British Columbia. For. Chron. 36: 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safranyik, L. and Raske, A. G.. 1970. Sequential sampling plan for larvae of Monochamus in lodgepole pine logs. J. econ. Ent. 63: 1903–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Say, T. 1824. Coleoptera, in Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter's River, & c., under the command of Stephen H. Long, Major U.S.T.E. Vol. 2, pp. 268–378. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Smith, S. G. 1953. Chromosome numbers in Coleoptera. Heredity 7: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaine, J. M., Craighead, F. C., and Bailey, I. W.. 1924. Studies on the spruce budworm (Cacoecia fumiferana Clem.). Can. Dep. Agric. tech. Bull. 37.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D. 1924. Injury to fire-killed lumber in New Brunswick by the softwood borers. A. Rep. New Brunswick Land Dep. 63: 86–87.Google Scholar
Webb, J. L. 1910. Injuries to forests and forest products by round headed borers. Yb. Agric. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1910: 341–358.Google Scholar
Wilson, L. F. 1962. White-spotted sawyer. U.S. Dep. Agric. Lake States For. Exp. Stn, Forest Pest Leaflet 74.Google Scholar