ea ON ETT EN ME AAT WH Sy He aR a ay a jhe Nh aah AW 'S 4h oh GOD IEW A th oh Me shan

m Lol LG Patel Bevte! ] Ly ee ’ TEM Ari NNN WL NTA EN 8 tM GM ED SEW NEEM M Gh SDH GM TN (Mgt Meld VAS JV! VDP Ah gota

‘a om ae barge ¢ OWE EWR PN ALT a Me Bal TE ey ot Mg ‘ Yen eh te 8 fe FM yer \ CNIS ATEN NTE NNN NN Mh ht MOM AMDT, 8M Pe ee ee ee Se

Pe Wad AN He he MeO ded My eee el en ny tan ont + ere ee rh “ Wey NE WTAE A HV AM Ry haey WN ME AH Heh NGA ei Me VBI lh MMe Sl

AL HH Hvis Meee Aden Me Wy a A NEM, SEW Wyte aly TU PERE IA NAR Tena trek hee As ee DRT Ned La ee Sd ey De eR a ” ” SU ee NVA MM AINA MN LENS SA BVM, et Ue ek ee ee

SH bheareted MeN AeA haga HEC RS Na wa year we BM ow Vtadeags NgPweraage ty ory oe ee ee ed wan Ce ee Be " A : Sign cine, MM WA A Meet hs abate MW

CA RET NEM We Me do de Heme We MN OM Eu eH MV HEE Aah SRAM We WIS EFT EG EP apOh ARP EO RL ne evs Ate fern ' CP eed Oe ee eS VV HEMET MG MMOH Ea Me te oe swiss MOYO MWe, tg

ghee etait tah ee WM WR AD We Ow, SONU ME et eH apte YA E hote tat H eget favry ont Pd Pe Le “ AENEAN PEM MAM a Gh that LD ectecih ’

OMe Naa AM AS AMATO. Bem adele ane WIM RG WV Wea ie Ves wey i MSR IL AGA, PATE MAV MN M MAM AE VM MWA MTD Mle tin

Ve ROM Natu Berta MMe Mobo M oad AU RM nie Me hols Oadad Hae OO RE OPE ae ate k iy Pee Hyver, toon ee ee LU ee a

ENV ASR Auta te hodad tat Nee NE HL Fe Oe OD Ha CN Rare ge Bee RO Oe Oe Votan AVA Ee Oe te | ‘ enti AEM MTT A NA MEA Dah MW DE GH oA lh IH ot AGN,

CAN ee EMS he PO MMA PES EMME MEL aly HM Pee. a WC Med | Vitee Te Ney ADH TE WN MG tn AGS Wail, A A ee ee ee

HON A ae SS eae eee ne | Niarree ann HRTEM wove Veuve we Mtg yh VN GME NM Mahe dey t Hi CRETE OGG TN GT GH AUG! Bi BETES wi AD VO AN W gi he 16 VN, Meh gle oA alt 0

POD IW uM Ra he Sieh en gal et, SW Bt Bag me se i vee Nes viege IAA ih WT SS ENE NT MOON Ns 0M 4 Mi hye

My ee he A att otto htt, PM OR, BE ABT GE Re Wea) WMD DN a Me Ober Mecd h ‘ PAVE MTA Ee MERE Ae CN WATT Hobe ea eta ea ON A ee LL ee OME TM IN DWI EME EN AGA We ea LUM Wee MeN Me Mig te bee,

Re Mate WS AR, ET A EMA OMT RY IED By Ma be Uh? MOL OD RCD CDR CIT DY A er ee en Wye Nets MA aay hat eulety Dy, Soa Weg VA eh a Le Pe a TEE YM ANTE HEN MA WON Wate Mey

Ste: TEeaeaea rien s Liebe BO TANER MOM TS NEM MOL R ete HA AU ete Ot er tbe 1. Pee ate Mahe a : tet Labatt ayy My he a ae Se ed 2) HY i oh Lene PU, Pa ee ay ae i Pe err) a OP Ler aa

NONE EM MME De BOE oN BONERS le Meta edt IED MM Me ae Maaty de OMA PR ae Oe RU ey veh he ove sateen AOR Tomy, ‘ ae ee ed a rae Ce Fa We Pit e eh SE OF NG IMIN SD ALY ae DR Aly Mol iy

Da taht oe Ne REM aM RI MONT gy Ma MOM ET NM Mery Be Me Oat Win ADE ROM OP ten wae mh ‘ Lec nL Oe MCLE OT 9 POT hata UL a Me Se be? NV Ng WDM gt en tt DN WAG WD Fy k MN Mb,

NO MD Me MON BOR MORE Bet rk mee Serer tre a ee reh PS ord ee oe eel " Ur Le a ee ee | Clee fd ed | INT MeN d of yh

Oe ess Ce See CON 0 Bee Se eB Wem A

HER Pee Aa Mie Na HOR EN oy! HET a TNR Re AR MLE eee AAI oy

Cre econ ee PT

OM NS Oy aM ae

Wy hye

a ee

Oe eet

Kh otethy

MeN Ha He ND ae

\ \ Ae a ee Le ee

COAL TTA Th IRL GEE)

ha AM SNE

a ae a ee PT PLT PS Ta et Re Oe) Oe Ha” Mee Vi Me 1

om N lato Th N EV LO es eh ob PDE GS ESM MFI fone ved edie IW IN ead nde,

Lene Teens ea y ow Meluevanet ay: “ Wary w Marsh emt

hed We Mavawdly MENA KREDI CMR MON TL Nata We Mada atentadt AG HELE Catentt ON MEN OY Oot Pr wg Habeas WNT M MAN a gepn'es

+ NEI ES TG Me MMA MM METS MH MMT My Mma RSE WER He he He Me MS EN Meet the Me Me ISIE Ng hee hy, hoe UPL ay OPO

MONE Me Nae Raetlg Me We Ai NG MeN OWLS Bete Ou By cate! wi Me We ENE at ty

eb ee eA NE etittedime fas VN eae nes

Ne BAMA UNH e we MG AQ OM Ma MRE MWK

ay haa heh

ON

don ny

NUM Meh k

state Li aes he

Pa “ Per

COR IINE SEe er i ry wy “ hed f

‘ er ey att A ee AC Ue hea aka Wr aa ea , Dye eevee sh re M Mig oO my Me

MS MR POMP NAM WE Cry, No dee OAR Soy ee Lee Mgt att inn ‘ Wako

NPM WERE MDL MMMM me NNT IN Met cal oy HO MP He rn are er re AVM TC wie EWTN Shi eet fee 1

FOND ER ME Me Hy NS eh al a PP IE ER bm ay :

Were

ee)

ee at aL tL ha oe ee ee

Meth te

eon were Veer

ODT AL tv thane nig Se

het el ot ee ee ee cee ee ee eee) Wet Me ae te eae

Me Me ART MN TK Had SU eae

ao WeDeI HA iN tae Ry Met enw ue ae eT ed Ce ee Dee ms War at

TN eta te MOL Mon, th ae PADMA FO tats i ee Peewee aa Velen ey th

Mette AO AN A TEN Ba AO NAN Me ig Mya EN PN HOM ite Md ey

Nae te tte ete Memte cia ts, MO INTIS A, t

Voy Cet Be he

Ro

hea

Hea Hees eg ay

amy

woe

ON Oe

Bela Wea reeae

mete

Atte ad

Pesa

a Tent ees

setae iter ©

ettesi te Thay gee!

tee ats

Pes

rere

heh

ENT

25BY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Wea

Ernst Mayr Library

of the Museum of

Comparative Zoology

MCZ

LIBRARY

JUL 24 2012

HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

MCZ

LIBRARY

MAR 29 2004

HARVARD

‘UNIVERSITY

JOURNAL

of the ae 2

ENTOMOLOGICAL ae

SOCIETY

OF me

ONTARIO |

Volume he

One Hundred and Thirty-Three

2002

ISSN 0071-0768

JOURNAL

of the

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF

ONTARIO

Volume One Hundred and Thirty-Three

2002

Published August, 2003

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

OFFICERS AND GOVERNORS

2002-2003

President: .

BD: GILL K. NYSTROM (2001-2003)

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

K. W. Neatby Bldg, Room 4125

960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6

gillbd @inspection.gc.ca

President-Elect:

J. CORRIGAN

P.O. Box 291 Harriston, ON NOG 1Z0

bugjimcorrigan @ gosympatico.ca

Past President:

D. B. LYONS

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service,

P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5M7

Secretary:

D. HUNT*

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

Research Station, Harrow, ON NOR 1G0

huntd @em.agr.ca

Treasurer:

B. HELSON

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service,

P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5M7

Librarian:

J. BRETT

Library, University of Guelph,

Guelph, ON NIG 2W1

Directors:

TRACEY BAUTE (2003-2005)

P.O. Box 400 Main Street East

Ridgetown, ON NOP 2C0

A. B. BROADBENT (2001-2003)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre,

1391 Sandford St., London, ON NSV 4T3

R. HALLETT

Department of Environmental Biology

University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1

(2002-2004)

P. MASON

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

ECORC, K.W. Neatby Bldg, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6

(2002-2004)

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service,

P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5M7

MIRIAM RICHARDS

Department of Biological Sciences

Brock University

St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1

(2003-2005)

Student Representative:

Heather Mattila

Department of Environmental Biology

University of Guelph ON NIG 2W1

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Editor:

Y. H. J. PREVOST*

Faculty of Forestry and the Forest Environment,

Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON P7B S5E1

Technical Editor: K. Jameison

Layout Artist: J. Scott Barsanti

Agsociate Editors:

R. FREITAG

Department of Biology, Lakehead University,

Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1

R. HARMSEN

Biology Department,

Queen’s University, Kingston, ON N7L 3N6

Y. MAUFFETTE

Faculté des sciences, Départment des sciences biologiques

Université du Québec Montréal, Montréal, QC H3C 3P8

D. J. PREE

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre,

P.O. Box 6000, Vineland, ON LOR 2E0

S. J. SEYBOLD

Chemical Ecology of Forest Insects

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station

Davis, California 95616

*Mailed manuscripts should be submitted to the Secretary.

Other correspondence may be submitted via e-mail to the

editor at Yves.Prevost @lakeheadu.ca

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

JOURNAL

of the

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

Volume 133 2002

From the Editor,

The big news is that our periodical has a new name; it is now the Journal of the Entomological

Society of Ontario. The Society’s Board approved the name change at the Ottawa Annual Fall

Meeting in 2002 to reflect that our society’s publication is a refereed work. The word “Proceedings”

in the old title had a negative connotation suggesting the work was an unreviewed publication of

our annual meeting. With the plethora of new scientific journals increasing the competition for

manuscripts, it was important for our Society to give our publication a new image. Of course, we

will continue to publish only high quality refereed articles and the new name will poise the Journal

for continued success well into the 21st century and beyond.

Coleoptera and agricultural pest insects were the two main subjects treated in this issue. LeSage

offered an important paper on the biology and identification of two grape pests, the grape flea

beetle and the lesser grape beetle. This work should be of interest to grape entomologists in North

America. Gill and Vaz-de-Mello identified an unusual new species of Scarabaeidae from Colombia.

McDonald et al. explore onion breeding lines for resistance to onion maggot, while McIntyre et al.

report on the contact toxicity of two insecticides to the striped cucumber beetle. Finally, books on

Carabidae and Chrysomelidae published by Intercept Limited were reviewed.

Many thanks are due to our cover artist, M. Damus, for his skill in depicting the grape flea

beetle hanging from a grape tendril. I also welcome Ms. K. Jamieson, our new technical editor, and

Ms. J. Scott Barsanti, our new layout artist, who have joined the production team. I know their

learning curves were large, and I think you will agree with me that they have mastered their roles.

The scientific review could only have been accomplished with our panel of associate editors and

the anonymous reviewers they selected. Serving as scientific editor for our journal is an honour

and a pleasure, in that it allows me to meet new entomologists from across North America and it

keeps me abreast of some of the research in entomology. I am looking forward to reading your

manuscripts for volume 134.

Yves Prévost

Yves.Prevost @ Lakeheadu.ca

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

FLEA BEETLES OF THE GENUS ALTICA FOUND ON GRAPE IN

NORTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICA (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE)

LAURENT LeSAGE

Agriculture Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Ave.,

Ottawa, Ontario,Canada, KIA 0C6 (e-mail: lesagel @agr.gc.ca)

J. ent. Soc. Ont. 133: 3-46

Abstract

Two species of Altica, A. chalybea Illiger (Grape Flea Beetle) and A. woodsi

Isely (Lesser Grape Flea Beetle), are described and treated in detail. A key is

provided for their distinction. Information is given on their distribution, host-

plants, parasites, predators, common names, economic importance, and control.

Comments on misidentifications found in the literature are also provided.

J. ent. Soc. Ont. 133: 3-46

Résumé

L’ auteur décrit et traite en détail de deux espéces d’Altica, A. chalybea Mlliger

(Altise de la vigne) et A. woodsi Isely (Petite altise de la vigne), et propose une

clé d’identification pour les déterminer. I] fournit également de |’information

concernant leur répartition géographique, leurs plantes-hdtes, leurs parasites,

leurs prédateurs, leur nom vernaculaire, leur importance économique et les

moyens de lutte. Enfin, il commente les erreurs de détermination de la littérature.

Introduction

There are three major leaf beetle pests on grape in the northeastern North America. The Grape

Rootworm, Fidia viticida Walsh, 1867, occasionally causes important damage to cultivated varieties;

the adults feed on foliage whereas the larvae are root feeders. The other two pests are species of the

genus Altica Geoffroy, 1762: A. chalybea Illiger, 1807 and A. woodsi Isely, 1920.

The purpose of the present paper is to describe in detail, and illustrate, the adults of these

latter two species. Both species being very important economically, misidentifications and

confusions found in the literature are clarified. Since many common names have been attributed to

these pests over the years, their proper uses are also discussed.

Materials and Methods

The format and terminology of the descriptions, as well as the characters and the measurements

provided here, are the same as those already used in my previous contributions to the revision of

the North American species of the genus Altica, with the addition of notes on the contents of the

citations in the literature review (LeSage 1995, 2000; LeSage and Denis 1999).

The following list of collection acronyms is in addition to those already given in LeSage

61995):

CCC Claude Chantal (private) Collection. Association des entomologistes amateurs du Québec

Inc., 302 Gabrielle Roy, Varennes, Québec, Canada J3X 1L8. c/o Claude Chantal.

*CFIM Collections en Fiducie de |’Insectarium de Montréal, Insectarium de Montréal, 4581

Sherbrooke Est, Montréal, Québec, Canada H1X 2B2. c/o Georges Brossard.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

EMEC Essig Museum of Entomology Collection, University of California, California Insect

Survey, 201 Wellman Hall #3112, Berkeley, California 94720, USA c/o Cheryl B. Barr.

UNHC_ University of New Hampshire Collection, Entomological Museum, University of New

Hampshire, Department of Entomology, Nesmith Hall, Durham, New Hampshire 03824,

USA c/o Donald S. Chandler.

YPMC_ Yale Peabody Museum Collection, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University,

Entomology Division, 170 Whitney Avenue, PO Box 208118, New Haven, Connecticut

06520-8118, USA c/o Raymond Pupedis.

Identification Key to Altica Flea-Beetles

Feeding on Plants of the Family Vitaceae

in Northeastern North America

Before using the following key, it is assumed that the host-plants have been correctly identified.

Although Altica litigata Fall does not feed on Vitaceae, it has been added to the key because it is

externally very similar to A. woodsi Isely.

1. Pronotal transverse groove weakly impressed, not very distinct; host-plants not in the family

Vitaceaé (species not treated here) §£.221/25.05. 250s. Aa, LE Secs ogee 2

I'. Pronotal groove deeply impressed and distinct throughout (Figure 1); host-plants usually in

the family Vitaceae 200A I ihe NAL EE Soe ee een 2

2. Size larger, usually over 4 mm long, body usually plumper (length/width body ratio on average —

less than 1.8), and colour usually dark metallic blue (Figure 1a).

caine» New e Sumaunbighosacus (stioubtexianetde adupiette cas nbabaiien ce tataeh pcSerign cae on eae ee A. chalybea IUlliger

2'. Size smaller, usually less than 4 mm long, body usually slender (length/width body ratio on

average more than 1.8), and colour usually blue-green or blue with green reflections (Figure

LD) ..essoseecedetesarncthstesetedccstelndalasteettieetcnstdep ob andedeaehehs a aetdes tants sik aie wees en 3

3. Male with tip of the aedeagus triangular and slightly nipple-shaped in the middle, ventral

carina and longitudinal ridges well developed (Figure 2b); female with tip of the styli

narrower and longer (Figure 3a); host-plants: Vitis spp. and Parthenocissus spp. .......-..-..++++-

swaidainn toineldan ong iaiorena Zosaaine cme BO cgtie vos dbs Pua tab sere tac Dae gal pa tet ce nee Oa A. woodsi Isely

3'. Male with tip of the aedeagus lanceolate, ventral carina and longitudinal ridges not visible;

female with tip of the styli proportionally shorter and broader; host-plants: Ludwigia spp.,

Oenothera spps 020.0002. ORL ONG AE Daa eS Sek oR Se ee oe A. litigata Fall

Clé d’identification des Altises du genre Altica

inféodées aux plantes de la famille des Vitaceae

dans le Nord-Est américain

La clé suivante fonctionnera 4 la condition que les plantes-hétes aient d’abord été identifiées

correctement. Altica litigata Fall, qui n’est pas inféodée aux Vitaceae, a néanmoins été ajoutée

a la clé parce que cette espéce est trés proche d’A. woodsi Isely.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

1. Sillon transversal du pronotum peu profond, pas trés distinct; plantes-hdtes n’ appartenant pas

Seeemle des Vitacene (Especes noni fraltéesici) ck kU dcadadealenldckestecensodeends 3

I’. Sillon transversal du pronotum profond et distinct sur toute sa longueur (figure1); plantes-

hdtes appartenant surtout a la famille des Vitaceae ....... eee eeeecesseeceesceseceseesseescsssessceaees 2

2. Taille plus grande, habituellement plus de 4 mm, corps plus dodu (ratio longueur/largeur en

moyenne moins de 1,8), et couleur en général bleu métallique foncé (figure 1a) ..........000000...

See ee eres a ht Red reeset iter) ae Ok ER me lees A. chalybea Mlliger

2'. Taille plus petite, habituellement moins de 4 mm, corps plus allongé (ratio longueur/largeur

en moyenne plus de 1,8) et couleur en général bleu-vert ou bleu avec des reflets verts (figure 1b)

3. Chez le male, bout de |’ édéage triangulaire et légérement mamelonné au milieu, caréne ventrale

et crétes longitudinales trés bien développées (figure 2b); chez la femelle, bout des styles plus

étroit et plus long (figure 3a); plantes-hdtes: Vitis spp. et Parthenocissus Spp. .......:cccccccceeseee

eee, Soane LSI PTee Lee} thi eke EA REE LEK ee. A. woodsi Isely

3'. Chez le male, bout de |’ édéage lancéolé, caréne ventrale et crétes longitudinales invisibles;

chez la femelle, bout des styles proportionnellement plus large et plus court; plantes-hétes:

Rarer ep retiCenaiherdispp. .1ice rn. ka nh ae ak. a A A. litigata Fall

1. Altica chalybea Mliger, 1807

Haltica chalybea WUliger 1807: 115 (original description); Harris 1833: 581 (list of

Massachusetts animals); Melsheimer 1853: 121 (catalogue of United States Coleoptera); Fitch

1859a [1856]: 84 (annual report on insect pests of New York); Fitch 1859a [1858]: 63 (annual

report on insect pests of New York); Fitch 1859b: 171 (answer to grower’s question on grape

pests); Larrowe 1862: 383 (answer to grower’s question); Worden 1862: 350 (infestation in Oswego

Co., New York); Walsh and Riley 1868: 27 (mentioned as pest); Riley 1870a: 309 (identification

of grape pests); Riley 1870b: 327 (biology); Gott 1878: 45 (biology of fruit pests); Gott 1879: 58

(insect monitoring); Riley 1880: 183 (biology and control); Riley 1881: 53 (reference to Graptodera);

Couper 1883: 219 (Québec fauna); Saunders 1883: 190, 277; 1889: 190, 277; 1900: 190, 277

(insects injurious to fruits); Harrington 1884: 82 (survey of Ottawa [Ontario] Coleoptera); Fletcher

1885: 26 (Ontario insect pest monitoring); Saunders 1885: 17 (annual address on various insects);

_ Lintner 1888: 96 (comparison with Altica bimarginata); Osborn 1888: 162 (monitoring Iowa insect

pests); Horn 1889: 220 (taxonomy of North American species); Riley 1889: 221 (compared to

Altica woodsi [erroneously as A. ignita]); Lintner 1890: 188 (NY insect pests); Lintner 1891: 332,

353 (NY insect pests); Neal 1890: 11 (biological notes); Smith 1890: 225 (list of New Jersey

insects); Schwarz 1892: 182 (Eastern United States fauna); Hamilton 1895: 340 (catalogue of

Pennsylvania Coleoptera); Marlatt 1896: 395 (grape insect pests); Slingerland 1898: 189 (biology

in New York); Blatchley 1896: 437 (winter fauna in Indiana); Lowe 1898: 263 (biology in New

York); Lugger 1899: 241 (biology of Minnesota injurious insects); Felt 1900a: 555, 563, 564, 570,

573, 601 (grape pests monitoring in New York); Felt 1900b: 15 (injurious and beneficial insects in

New York); Smith 1900: 312 (list of New Jersey insects); Felt 1901: 1005 (grape pests monitoring

‘in New York); Felt 1902: 838 (grape pests monitoring in New York); Thomas 1906: 197 (fruit

destructive insects); Bethune 1907: 35 (as Haitica (sic) chalybea, fruit-tree pests in Ontario);

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Quaintance and Shear 1907: 23 (biology of grape insect pests); Hartzell 1910: 485 (biology in

New York); Blatchley 1910: 1201 (Indiana fauna); Smith 1910: 552 (list of New Jersey insects);

Wickham 1911: 32 (list of lowa Coleoptera); Gibson 1913: 6 (flea beetle control in Canada); Reh

1913: 523 (handbook on beetle pests); Caesar 1914: 81 (Ontario grape pests); Slingerland and

Crosby 1914: 403 (biology); Hartzell 1915: 201 (biology in New York); Hewitt 1915: 26 (control

experiments); Caesar 1916: 31 (insects of the season in Ontario); Chagnon 1917: 243 (checklist of

Québec Coleoptera); Duckett 1920: 138 (Maryland fauna); Fall 1920: 102 (taxonomic comparisons);

Isely 1920: 4 (biology in Washington, D.C.); Leng 1920: 300 (catalogue of North American

Coleoptera); Quaintance and Shear 1921: 26 (insect grape enemies); Cooper 1922: 388 (pests of

Arkansas commercial grape); Quaintance and Shear 1922: 239 (insect grape enemies); Blatchley

1924: 20 (Florida fauna); Hartzell 1924:82 (grape insects of New York); AAEE 1925: 526 (checklist

of common names); Ross and Caesar 1925: (insects of the season in Ontario); Eyer and McCubbin

1926: 12 (grape insects of Pennsylvania); Hatch and Ortenburger 1926: 10 (list of Oklahoma

Chrysomelidae); Ross 1926b:188 (Niagara Peninsula grape insects); Britton 1927: 439 (summary

on Connecticut insect pests); Britton 1928: 675 (Connecticut insect pests); Gibson 1928: 26 (flower

and garden insect pests); Leonard 1928: 477 (New York insect checklist); Zappe 1928: 729

(Connecticut fruit pests); Dean 1930: 140 (grape pests in Kansas); Zappe 1930: 609 (summary of

Connecticut fruit insects); Gibson 1934a: 30 (garden insects in Canada), Gibson 1934b: 32 (garden

insect pests in Canada); Brimley 1938: 228 (list of North Carolina insects); Chagnon 1938: 163

(Québec fauna); Chagnon 1940: 316 (Québec fauna); Heikertinger and Csiki 1940: 237 (world

catalogue); Peairs 1941: 322 (handbook on insect pests); L6ding 1945: 134 (catalogue of Alabama

Coleoptera); Blunck 1954: 325 (handbook of phytophagous beetles); Chagnon and Robert 1962:

316, 408 (Québec fauna); Taschenberg and Ried! 1985: 1 (grape pests in Northeastern North

America); Syme and Nystrom 1988: 10 (Ontario forest insects).

Chrysomela vitivora Thomas 1834: 113 (original description); synonymy by Harris fide Herrick

(1835: 420), quoted by Slingerland (1898: 213).

Galleruca janthina J.E. LeConte 1824: 173 (original description); Horn 1893: 132 (synonymy).

Graptodera chalybea (Illiger): Melsheimer 1853: 121 (Catalogue of the United States

Coleoptera); Couper 1855: 326 (list of Canadian Coleoptera); Provancher 1877: 676 (Québec fauna);

Comstock 1880: 213 (entomologist’s report, United States, biology); Couper 1883: 219 (listed for

Québec); Riley 1881: 53 (generic transfer); Harrington 1882a: 25 (pest monitoring); Harrington

1882b: 60 (pest monitoring); Bethune 1893: 10 (annual address on pests); Saunders 1883: 277;

1884: 207; 1889: 277; 1900: 277 (annual address); Bethune 1898: 31 (injuries in Ontario); McMillan

1888: 42 (biology in Nebraska); Townsend 1891: 7 (control of grape pests in New Mexico).

Graptodera vitivora Bell 1880: 66c (nec Thomas 1834: 113) (faunal survey; misidentification

of A. bimarginata Say).

Altica chalybea Mlliger: Britton 1920:278 (checklist of Connecticut insects); Herrick 1925:

175 (manual on injurious insects); Britton 1926: 221 (monitoring Connecticut insect pests); Caesar

and Ross 1926: 14 (insects of the season in Ontario); Caesar 1927 (grape insects of Ontario);

Muesebeck 1942: 87 (insect common names); SPPQ 1947: 8 (insect common names); Ross and

Armstrong 1949: 1 (biology and control in Ontario); SPPQ 1952: 8 (insect common names); Wilcox

1954: 446 (Ohio fauna); MacNay 1956: 116 (insect infestations in Canada); SPPQ 1964: 9 (insect

common names); Forsythe and Still 1969: 35 (Ohio grape insect pests); Balsbaugh and Hays 1972:

148 (Alabama fauna); Wilcox 1975: 110 (checklist of North American species); Benoit 1975: 25

(Canadian insect common names); Campbell et al. 1989: 68 (biology of Canada beetle pests to

crops); Benoit 1985: 10 (Canada insect common names); Kirk 1969: 96 (South Carolina beetle

list, Coastal Plain); Kirk 1970: 72 (South Carolina beetle list, Piedmont); Still and Rings 1973: 8

(Ohio grape pests); Sutherland 1978: 19 (insect common names); Wilcox 1979: 25 (host-plants);

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Werner 1982: 19 (insect common names); Wilcox 1983: 110 (catalogue of North American

Chrysomelidae); Taschenberg and Ried]! 1985: 2 (insect identification sheet); Syme and Nystrom

1988: 10 (Ontario forest insects); Borror et al. 1989: 460 (general textbook on insects); Stoetzel

1989: 71 (insect common names); Laplante et al. 1991: 99 (checklist of Québec beetles); LeSage

1991: 301 (Canadian fauna); Belton and Eidt 1996: 4 (Canadian insect common names) Dearborn

and Donahue 1993: 67 (survey of Maine forest insects); Weigle and Kovach 1995: Sheet 6 (grape

IPM in the Northeast); Downie and Arnett 1996: 1374 (Northeast fauna); Bosik 1997: 31 (insect

common names); Staines and Staines 1998: 239 (survey of Plummers Island [Maryland]

Chrysomelidae); Clark 2000: 32 (annotated list of West Virginia Chrysomelidae); Lasnier et al.

2001: 4 (Web site on Québec grape insect pests).

Altica oleracea Melsheimer 1806: 22, nec oleracea Linné 1758: 372 (misidentification fide

Schwarz 1895: 136).

“Grape vine flea-beetle” or “grape flea-beetle”: Harris 1854: 11 (report on grape pests); Lowe

1898: 263 (life history in Geneva, New York); Gott 1879: 58 (annual insect registry in Ontario);

Fletcher 1884: 7 (Ontario insect pests); Ross 1926a (Niagara Peninsula grape insects); MacNay

1955: 80 (insect infestations in Ontario); Still and Rings 1965: 18 (grape insect pests); McGrew

and Still 1968:17, 1979: 19 (grape pest control in Eastern United States).

FIGURE 1. Habitus of adult, dorsal view. a, Altica chalybea; b, A. woodsi.

Etymology. The species name is derived from the Latin adjective chalybeius, meaning “made

of steel”, in reference to the metallic blue colour of the body. However, three other variant spellings

also exist according to Lorenz (1998): chalibaeus, chalybaeus, and chalybe-us, -a, um. Such variants

are deemed to be identical according to the Code (ICZN 2000, Article 58.1).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

I chose to follow Heikertinger and Csiki (1940) and used chalybaea, when I prepared the

checklist of the Chrysomelidae of Canada (LeSage 1991), but did not notice the slight difference

in spelling with that of the original description (chalybea). Although both variants are valid and

equivalent, I will use the original spelling in the future.

Diagnosis. Colour metallic blue, shape oval, with a body length/width ratio on average less

than 1.8, and pronotum with a deep transverse groove (Figure 1a).

In the male, tip of aedeagus triangular and nipple-shaped in the middle (Figure 4); lateral and

ventral wrinkles oblique and fused together, ventral ridges short, 1/5 length of aedeagus (Figure

4b).

A. chalybea

FIGURE 4. Aedeagus of Altica chalybea: a, dorsal view; b, ventral view.

In the female, receptacle of spermatheca almost cylindrical; basal portion of the spermathecal

duct usually long, and median portion coiled into two loops (Figs. 5a-d); styli fused together for 4/

5 their length, with their inner margins acutely diverging at apex (Figure Sa).

Host-plants restricted to the genera Vitis and Parthenocissus in the family Vitaceae (grape

family).

Traits distinctifs. Corps bleu métallique, ovale, avec un ratio longueur/largeur, inférieur a

1,8, en moyenne, et un pronotum A sillon transverse profond (Figure 1a).

Chez le male, bout de I’ édéage triangulaire et mammelonné au milieu (Figure 4); plis latéraux

et ventraux obliques et fusionnés ensemble; arétes ventrales courtes, 1/5 de la longueur de I’ édéage

(Figure 2b).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

100pm

FIGURE 5. Variations of the spermatheca in Altica chalybea: a-d.

Chez la femelle, réceptacle de la spermathéque presque cylindrique; portion basale du canal

spermathécal allongée, portion médiane a two boucles Figure 5a-d); styles fusionnés sur 4/5 de

leur longueur, leurs marges internes écartées a angle aigiie Figure 5a).

Plantes-hétes restreintes aux genres Vitis et Parthenocissus de la famille des Vitaceae.

Description. BODY. Medium-sized species, 3-5 mm long, distinctly ovoid with body length/

width ratio usually less than 1.8 (Figure la) (Table I).

HEAD. Antennae moderately long about half length of body, proportionately longer in males

than in females (Table I); antennomeres 3 and 4 subequal in length, but both distinctly longer than

2. Frontal carina moderately sharp, very finely punctulate, ending in middle of frontal tubercles.

Frontal tubercles smooth, more or less well-defined posteriorly by frontal grooves; median frontal

groove, between tubercles, moderately long (95% of specimens examined, n = 20), rarely not

- visible (5%). Vertex smooth on disc, with few coarse punctures behind eyes. Eyes separated by 2.5

times their diameter, not prominent. Postocular macrochaetae: 1. Labral setae: 6. Mandibles with

outer tooth small (Figure 6c) or lacking (Figure 6b), median tooth of moderate size, inner tooth

with indentation at base; cutting edge not produced at apex.

THORAX. Pronotum quadrate, slightly narrower at apex than at base (Figure la). Anterior

angles of pronotum not prominent, obliquely truncate. Transverse groove of pronotum deep

throughout. Punctation of pronotum fine and moderately dense. Microsculpture of pronotum

apparently absent at low magnification, but weakly impressed and distinct. Legs of same colour as

body. Tarsal claws appendiculate, moderately bent.

= ELYTRA. Umbones moderately prominent and defined on inner side by small depression.

Elytral costa absent. Punctation moderately dense, coarser than that of pronotum, and slightly

finer at apex than at base. Microsculpture weakly impressed but distinct.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

TABLE I. Measurements of body, antennae and pronotum in Altica chalybaea.

Minimum Maximum Mean (n =10)

Male

Body length (mm) 2:9 4.7 4.3

Body width (mm) Zit 2.6 25

Body length/ width ratio 1.39 1.90 1.76

Antenna length (um) 220 290 269

Antenna/ body ratio 0.58 0.77 0.63

Pronotum width (um) 136 177 157

Pronotum length (im) 88 -) (4068 101

Pronotum width/ length ratio 1.36 1.67 LS

Female

Body length (mm) 4.45 Me 4.8

Body width (mm) 2.6 2.9 ge |

Body length/ width ratio 1.67 1.94 LTT

Antenna length (um) 265 290 274

Antenna/ body ratio 0.53 0.61 0.57

Pronotum width (4m) 160 182 170

Pronotum length ({zm) 96 110 105

Pronotum width/ length ratio 1.55 1.73 1.62

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM. (Table I) Body slightly more elongate in male than in female.

Antennae proportionately longer in male than in female. First tarsomeres of front legs distinctly

broader in male than in female.

MALE GENITALIA. (Table Il) Median lobe of aedeagus slightly broadened in apical third in

dorsal view (Figure 4a); tip triangular, nipple-shaped in middle; dorsal undulations distributed on

1/3 length of aedeagus; ventral longitudinal ridges not much elevated, short, not exceeding 1/5

length of aedeagus; lateral and ventral wrinkles oblique and fused together (Figure 4b).

FEMALE GENITALIA. (Table Il) Receptacle of spermatheca almost cylindrical, slightly

broader at base (Figure 5); spermathecal pump cylindrical, extending little beyond base of receptacle;

apical process usually (95% of specimens examined, n= 20) absent (Figures Sa-c), or small (Figure

Sd); spermathecal valve moderately developed; basal portion of spermathecal duct varying from

short (Figures. 5a), to moderately long (Figures. 5b, 5c), to long (Figure 5d); median portion coiled

into 2 loops; styli fused together on 4/5 their length with inner margins acutely diverging at apex

(Figure 6a).

Remarks. Although Altica chalybea appears plumper than most species of the genus, this

character is quite variable (Table I), and consequently, the identification should be confirmed by

examining the genitalia.

With regards to size, Floridian specimens are often larger than average, and, in addition,

individuals are sometimes entirely purple instead of blue; on the other hand, their genitalia are

indistinguishable from those of northeastern individuals. This larger size and different colour might

be significant enough to justify the creation of a distinct subspecies, but more material is needed to

measure the extent and value of these variations.

10

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

TABLE II. Measurements of male and female genitalia in Altica chalybea

Minimum Maximum Mean (n =10)

Male

Aedeagus length (um) 160 176 168

Ventral oblique wrinkles 14 a 19

Female

Spermatheca length (um) 288 333 310

Length of styli (um) 425 538 480

Apical setae on styli 10 15 12

Sensilla on styli 8 16 12

In the field, Altica chalybea and A. woodsi are often found simultaneously on the same host-

plant. In these circumstances, most individuals can be readily recognized with the naked eye by

their size and colouration, those of A. chalybea being larger and deep blue whereas those of A.

woodsi are smaller and blue-green.

FIGURE 6. Altica chalybea: a, styli; b-c, mandible.

11

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Type material.

Haltica chalybea IMlliger, 1807.

The type series of Haltica chalybea is preserved in the A.S. Knoch Collection in the Museum

fiir Naturkunde der Humbolt-Universitaét zu Berlin in Germany. It consists of six specimens that

have been discussed and lectotypes designated by LeSage (2000). The type locality is Francillon,

in Georgia (USA).

Galleruca janthina J.E. LeConte, 1824.

P. Perkins (pers. comm.), curator of the MCZ entomological collection where J.L. LeConte’s

collection is housed, informed me that no type specimens could be found. According to my colleague

Yves Bousquet, the collection of J.E. LeConte (father) is probably lost. However, since, LeConte’s

original description is sufficiently detailed, and the colour plate good enough to allow a reliable

determination of the species (J.E. LeConte 1824: 173; plate XI, Figure 16), there is no need to

designate a neotype. I follow here the recent recommendations (75.2) of the Code (ICZN 1999):

“A neotype is not to be designated as an end in itself, or as a matter of curatorial routine, and any

such neotype designation is invalid. If an author designates a neotype for Xus albus Smith, a species

about whose identity there is no doubt and which is not involved in any complex zoological problem

at the time at which it was designated, the purported “neotype” has no name-bearing status”.

Chrysomela vitivora Thomas, 1834.

The types, if they exist, could not be located. The type locality is not specified by the author,

but corresponds very likely to Central New York according to a statement of Comstock (1880:

214). For the same reason as above, there is no need to designate a neotype. In addition, it would be

for a synonym.

Literature errors.

— Harris (1854: 11). Under the name “Grape-vine flea-beetle or Haltica’”, Harris included

two species. The damages to grape definitely concern A/tica chalybea but those on alder should be

attributed to A. ambiens alni Harris. It is impossible to be entirely sure of the identity of these

species because no voucher specimens were preserved.

Altica species are largely mono- or oligophagous, and very similar externally. Host-plants

like alder or grape are easy to identify, even by people in general. Consequently, I believe that

authors have correctly identified the host-plants, but have misidentified the beetles feeding on

them. This interpretation also applies to the cases reported below.

— Fitch (1859a [1856]: 84) reported that “this sometimes invades the plum also, as mentioned

p. 362, and it also infests the elm and the alder”. The species on plum cannot be identified, but elm

is the only host of Altica ulmi Woods, and A. ambiens alni Harris is monophagous on alder (LeSage

19953 345).

— Fitch (1859a [1858]: 63) stated that “the Grape-vine flea beetle, a very small greenish-

blue or purple jumping beetle, ... also inhabit the elm, eating the leaves”, very likely concerns

Altica ulmi, not A. chalybea.

— Riley (1870b: 327) claimed that “the grape-vine flea beetle is found in all parts of the

United States and in the Canadas, and it habitually feeds on the alder (=Alnus serrulata), as well as

upon the wild and cultivated Grape-vine”. His statement on the distribution is partly wrong since

Altica chalybea does not occur west of Ontario in Canada, nor in several western states in the

United States (Figure 7). The host-plant Alnus serrulata, now considered a variety of Alnus rugosa

(Du Roi) Spreng. fide Scoggan (1978: 589), has been recognized as the unique host-plant of A.

ambiens alni Harris by LeSage (1995: 316), whereas A. chalybea is restricted to Vitis and

Parthenocissus.

12

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

A. chalybea

— Saunders (1883: 279; 1889: 279; 1900: 279) reported that “besides the vine, they feed on

the Virginia creeper, Ampelopsis quinquefolia, and the alder, Alnus serrulata, and sometimes eat

the leaves of the plum-tree”. This refers to at least three species: Altica chalybea for the Virginia

creeper, A. ambiens alni for the alder, and a third one on plum which cannot be identified.

— McMillan (1888:75) stated that “It seems to have devoted itself largely to seedling apples,

pears, quince, and plum trees... In July Mr. S. Barnard, of Table Rock, Secretary of the Horticultural

Society, wrote as follows: A small bright green fly, or bug, which can either fly or hop, has damaged

apple grafts and yearling trees”. The beetles mentioned were very likely an Altica, but probably

not A. chalybea. At this moment, it is impossible to determine which species might be involved.

— Saunders (1883: 279; 1889: 279; 1900: 279). This author repeated Riley’s observation,

cited above, by giving Alnus serrulata as a host-plant of Altica chalybea. See the comments in the

paragraph above.

— Britton (1898: 316) reported that plum leaves were eaten by Altica chalybea which, very

- likely, has been misidentified.

— Lowe (1898: 263) and Britton (1898: 316) attributed to Altica chalybea “that the eggs are

placed in clusters on the under side of the leaves” whereas it is the typical oviposition habits of A.

woodsi.

— Felt (1900a: 602) reported “Haltica chalybea Ill under bark of elm, 8 Nov.” In my opinion,

this statement more likely refers to Altica ulmi.

13

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Locality records from specimens examined.

The following list is based on the examination of 1185 specimens.

Rhode Island, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Utah and California represent

new state records.

The literature records from Maine, Vermont, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska and New Mexico

mentioned below have not been corroborated during the course of this study. The first four of these

states listed above fit well into the known distribution of the species (Figure 7), but the last two

remain questionable until they have been confirmed by voucher specimens.

CANADA

Ontario. Brant Co.: Ohsweken (SAMC) 2; Carleton Co.: Gloucester (CFIM) 2, Nepean

(CFIM) 1, North Gower/ Marlborough Forest (CFIM) 2, Ottawa (MZELU), E Smiths Falls and N

Burritts Rapids (CFIM) 1; Essex Co.: Point Pelee National Park (SAMC) 1, / Visitor’s Centre

(SAMC) 9, Windsor (SAMC) 2; Grey Co.: Owen Sound (SAMC) 1; Hastings Co.: Belleville

(SAMC) 1, Georgetown/ Halton Hills (SAMC) 1; Kent Co.: Chatham (UBCC) 4; Lambton Co.:

Arkona (SAMC) 1, Pinery (Provincial) Park (SAMC) 36; Middlesex Co.: London (SAMC) 2;

Northumberland Co.: Dundas (SAMC) 1, Ferris Provincial Park (CFIM) 1, Freelton (SAMC) 1,

Mountsberg (SAMC) 1; Renfrew Co.: Long Point (SAMC) 1; Simcoe Co.: Simcoe (SAMC) 1;

Waterloo Co.: Cambridge (SAMC) 1; Wellington Co.: Aberfoyle (SAMC) 1, Guelph (SAMC) 15,

/ University of Guelph (SAMC) 3, / (University of Guelph) Arboretum (SAMC) 1; York Co.: Keswick

(SAMC) 1, King City (SAMC) 2.

Reported from this province by Harrington (1882a: 25; 1882b: 60; 1884: 82), Saunders (1883:

277; 1884: 207; 1889: 277; 1900: 277), Fletcher (1884: 7; 1885: 26), Bethune (1893: 10; 1898:

33), Hartzell (1910: 497), Gibson (1913: 6), Isely (1920: 2), Ross (1926a: 30; 1926b: 188), Caesar .

(1927: 44), MacNay (1955: 80; 1956: 116), Syme and Nystrom (1988: 10), LeSage (1991: 318)

and Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

Québec. Deux-Montagnes Co.: Oka (CCC) 1; Gatineau Co.: Aylmer (CFIM) 60, Parc de la

Gatineau/ Lac des Fées (CFIM) 1, / Lac Brown (CFIM) 2; Huntingdon Co.: Havelock (LEM) 1,

Saint-Anicet (LEM) 2; Iberville Co.: Iberville/ Vignoble Dietrich-Jooss (CFIM) 1; fle-de-Montréal

Co.: Communauté Urbaine (de Montréal) (USNM) 1; Lévis Co.: Saint-Nicolas (CFIM) 1; Pontiac

Co.: Norway Bay (LEM) 1, (CFIM) 1; Soulanges Co.: Coteau-du-Lac (LEM) 1;Vaudreuil Co.:

Rigaud (LEM) 5, (CFIM) 6.

Reported from this province by Provancher (1877: 676); Couper (1883: 219), Chagnon (1938:

163; 1940: 316), Chagnon and Robert (1962: 316, 408), LeSage (1991: 318), Laplante et al. (1991:

99) and Downie and Arnett (1996: 1373).

UNITED STATES

Alabama. Baldwin Co.: Oak Pond Branch E of Foley (NDSU) 2; Dale Co.: Fort Rucker

Military Reserve (RHTC) 7; Hale Co.: Payne Lake NE of county (USNM) 1; Houston Co.:

Chattahoochee State Park (UMMZ) 3, 1 mi. N Wicksburg (RHTC) 3; Madison Co.: Huntsville/

Monte Sano State Park (USNM) 1; Washington Co.: Calvert (CUIC) 1. Not located: Burmingham

(as “B’ ham”) (FMNH) | (several possible counties).

Reported from this state by Léding (1945: 134), Balsbaugh and Hays (1972: 148), Downie

and Arnett (1996: 1374).

(Arkansas). Reported from this state by Isely (1920: 6), Cooper (1922: 388), but not confirmed

here by examined specimens.

California. San Diego Co.: Guadeloupe Island (as “GuadIpe Is.”) (MCZ) 1.

Colorado. State record only: (USNM) 1; Denver Co.: Denver (MCZ) 1.

14

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Reported from this state by Herrick (1925: 175) as “found from Massachusetts to Colorado”.

(Connecticut). Reported from this state by (Thomas 1834: 15) as Chrysomela vitivora, Hartzell

(1910: 498), Britton (1920: 278; 1926: 221; 1927: 439; 1928: 675), Isely (1920: 6) and Zappe

(1928: 729).

District of Columbia. District record only: (USNM) 1, Anacostia (USNM) 1, Washington

(USNM) 2, (UMMZ) 1, / Rock Creek Park (USNM) 3.

Reported from this district by Isely (1920: 6).

Delaware. New Castel Co.: Newark (UMMZ) 1.

Reported from this state by Hartzell (1910: 497) and Isely (1920: 6).

Florida. State record only: (USNM) 1; Alachua Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 1, Chantilly

Acres (USNM) 1, Gainesville (NDSU) 2, (QMMZ) 5, (USNM) 1, San Felasco Hammock (UMMZ)

1; Bradford Co.: Starks (SMCC) 2; Charlotte Co.: Charlotte Harbor (as “ChrlotteH’) (MCZ) 1,

Salona (SMCC) 1; Dade Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 1, Biscayne (MCZ) 1, 4 mi S Homestead

(FAMU) 1; Miami (UMMZ) 1, (USNM) 8, / Hialeah (USNM) 1; Dixie Co.: Old Town (USNM) 5;

Franklin Co.: Saint Teresa Beach (FAMU) 1; Highlands Co.: Lake Placid/ Archbold Biological

Station (RHTC) 5, (USNM) 1; Holmes Co.: 0.8 mi. SW Leonia (RHTC) 1; Indian River Co.:

county record only (UNHC) 1, 2.5 mi. SE Wabasso (RHTC) 2; Jackson Co.: county record only

(CCC) 1, Florida Caverns State Park (RHTC) 1, near Mariana (SMCC) 1; Jefferson Co.: county

record only (USNM) 1; Laluoka Co.: Lake Okefenokee (as “Lake Oke.”) (PURC) 1; Leon Co.:

Tallahassee (NDSU) 3, (SMCC) 1; Liberty Co.: Torreya State Park (RHTC) 1, (UMMZ) 3; Marion

Co.: Ocala (RHTC) 3, Ocala National Forest (FAMU) 1; Monroe Co.: Key Largo (RHTC) 5, (USNM)

4, North Key Largo (EGRC) 1; Orange Co.: Goldenrod (SMCC) 3, Orlando (SMCC) 3, (USNM)

1, / Strickland (USNM) 1; Palm Beach Co.: Lake Worth (USNM) 1; Pinellas Co.: Belleair (MCZ)

1, Dunedin (CUIC) 6, (PURC) 6, (SMCC) 4; Sarasota Co.: county record only (PURC) 1, Laurel

(SMCC) 6, / Siesta Beach (SMCC) 3, 2 mi. E Venice (SMCC) 8; Seminole Co.: Highway 441 at

Seminole/ Lake county line (RHTC) 1, Sanford (USNM) 1; St. Johns co.: St. Augustine (MCZ) 3;

St. Lucie Co.: St. Lucie (USNM) 1; Suwannee Co.: 5 mi. N Welborn (SMCC) 2; Taylor Co.: 11 mi.

SW Steinhatchee (UNHC) 1; Volusia Co.: Enterprise (MCZ) 2, (UMMZ) 2, (USNM) 2, / New

Smyrna (Beach) (USNM) 2; Walton Co.: Highway 185/ 1 mi. SW Holmes Co. (RHTC) 3.

County not specified (several possibilities): Paradise Key (USNM). Not located: “Link Port”

(UNHC) 1, “Royal Palm Park” (PURC) 1, “Sunfall’” (PURC) 1.

Reported from this state by Horn (1889: 220), Neal (1890: 10) as “Michigan to Florida”,

Hartzell (1910: 497), Slingerland and Crosby (1914: 403), Isely (1920: 6), Leng (1920: 300),

Herrick (1925: 175) as “south to Florida and New Mexico”, Wilcox (1975: 100), and Downie and

Arnett (1996: 1373).

Georgia. Chatham Co.: Savannah (MCZ) 1; (UMMZ) 1; Decatur Co.: county record only

(UMMZ) 1; Pike Co.: county record only (USNM) 13.

? Not located: Chester Island (CUIC) 1, Georgia State College (CUIC) 1, (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Illiger (1807: 115), LeConte (1824: 173) as Gallerucida janthina,

Comstock (1880: 214) citing Illiger (1807: 115), Hartzell (1910: 497), Isely (1920: 6) and LeSage

(2000: 233).

Illinois. Cook Co.: Cicero (USNM) 5, Evanston (FMNH) 2, La Grange (USNM) 2, Riverside

(UMMZ) 2, (USNM) 3; Mason Co.: Havana (USNM) 1; St. Louis Co.: county record only (UMMZ)

1; Vermilon Co.: Danville (SMCC) 2.

Reported from this state by Blatchley (1910: 1201), Hartzell (1910: 497) and Isely (1920: 6).

Indiana. Allen Co.: county record only (PURC) 1; Clark Co.: county record only (PURC)1,

»State Forest (PURC) 1; Crawford Co.: county record only (PURC) 2; Davies Co.: county record

only (PURC) 1; Johnson Co.: county record only (PURC) 1; Kosciusko Co.: county record only

15

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

(PURC) 1; Laporte Co.: county record only (PURC) 1; Marion Co.: county record only (PURC) 2;

Montgomery Co.: Shades State Park (EGRC) 1; Orange Co.: county record only (PURC) 1; Parke

Co.: county record only (LEM) 7; Perry Co.: county record only (PURC) 1; Posey Co.: county

record only (PURC) 2, New Harmony (FMNH) 4; Putnam Co.: county record only (PURC) 1,

Lieber State Park, 30 mi. W Indianapolis (CUIC) 14; Starke Co.: county record only (PURC) 2;

Tippecanoe Co.: county record only (PURC) 8, Lafayette (FMNH) 1; Vigo Co.: county record only

(PURC) 1; Warren Co.: county record only (PURC) 2.

Not located: Hickory Creek (FMNH) 1.

Reported from this state by Hartzell (1910: 497), Isely (1920: 6) and Blatchley (1910: 1201).

Iowa. Henry Co.: 5 mi. SW Mount Pleasant (TAMU) 1; Johnson Co.: lowa City (USNM) 2;

Story Co.: Ames/ Iowa State University (as “ISU”) main campus

(UMMZ) 1.

Reported from this state by Osborn (1888: 162), Wickham (1911: 32), Hartzell (1910: 497)

and Isely (1920: 6).

Kansas. Atchison Co.: county record only (SEM) 1; Douglas Co.: county record only (SEM)

2, 16.5 mi. SE Lawrence (SEM) 1; Riley Co.: Popenoe (WFBM) 1.

Reported from this state by Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27), Slingerland and

Crosby (1914: 403), Isely (1920: 6) and Dean (1930: 140).

Kentucky. Carter Co.: Horton Flat near Grayson Lake (SMCC) 1; Franklin Co.: Frankfort

(USNM) 1; Henderson Co.: Henderson (UMMZ) 3; Menifee Co.: Frenchburg (SMCC) 1, Red

River/ Highway 77 (SMCC) 1; Trigg Co.: Golden Pond land between the Lake Recreation Area

(CFIM) 1.

Louisiana. East Baton Rouge Co.: Baton Rouge (UMMZ) 1, (USNM) 2; St. Landry Co.:

Opelousas (USNM) 1.

(Maine). Reported from this state by Dearborn and Donahue (1993: 67), but not confirmed

here by specimens examined.

Maryland. Baltimore Co.: Stevenson (WFBM) 1; Calvert Co.: Chesapeake Beach (USNM)

12, Plum Point (USNM) 4; Howard Co.: Long Corner (USNM) 1; Kent Co.: Massey (CFIM) 3;

Montgomery co. county record only (USNM) 1, Cabin John Bridge (as “Cab.JohnBr’”) (USNM) 1,

Glen Echo (USNM) 22, Great Falls (USNM) 4, Plummers Island (USNM) 5; Prince George’s Co.:

Beltsville (USNM) 1, Bowie (USNM) 2, College Park (UCR) 1, Largo (USNM) 2, Riverdale

(USNM) 1; St. Mary’s Co.: Wailes Bluff (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Hartzell (1910: 497), Isely (1920: 6), Staines and Staines (1998:

239) and Downie and Arnett (1996: 1373).

Massachusetts. State record only (MCZ) 2; Bristol Co.: Berkley (MCZ) 1, Fall River (MCZ)

1; Essex Co.: Newburyport (UNHC) 1; Hampden Co.: Montgomery (USNM) 1; Hampshire Co.:

Cummington (USNM) 1; Middlesex Co.: Bedford (UMMZ) 2, Cambridge (as. “Cambr.”) (USNM)

1; Norfolk Co.: Stoughton (USNM) 1; Plymouth Co.: county record only (MCZ) 1; Worcester Co.:

Southborough (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Harris (1833: 581, 1841: 104), Hartzell (1910: 497), Slingerland

and Crosby (1914: 403), Isely (1920: 6), and Herrick (1925: 175) as “found from Massachusetts to

Colorado”.

Michigan. Genesee Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 1; Gladwin Co.: county record only

(UMMZ) 1; Huron Co.: Port Crescent State Park (UMMZ) 1; Ingham Co.: county record only

(UMMZ) 2, East Lansing (NDSU) 3, (East Lansing)/ Agriculture State College (as “Ag. Coll.

Mich.”) (CUIC) 1, (NDSU) 1, (USNM) 1; Jackson Co.: Waterloo State Recreation Area (UMMZ)

4; Kalkaska Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 1; Livingston Co.: E.S. George Reserve (UMMZ) 4;

Oakland Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 5, Bloomfield (UMMZ) 2, Lake Orion (UMMZ) 1,

16

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Milford (UMMZ) 1, Southfield (UMMZ) 2; Washtenaw Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 2, Ann

Arbor (UMMZ) 6, Matthaei Botanical Gardens (UMMZ) 1, Salem Township (UMMZ) 1, Stony

Creek (UMMZ) 1; Wayne Co.: Detroit (UMMZ) 1.

Reported from this state by Horn (1889: 220) as “Michigan to Florida”, Hartzell (1910: 497)

and Isely (1920: 6).

(Minnesota). Reported from this state by Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24), Hartzell (1910:

497), and Isely (1920: 6), but not confirmed here by specimens examined.

Reported from this state by Quaintance and Shear (1921: 27).

Missouri. Boone Co.: Columbia (SMCC) 1, (USNM) 5; Randolph Co.: 1 mi. E Moberly

(CUIC) 49.

Reported from this state by Riley (1870a: 309), Hartzell (1910: 497) and Isely (1920: 6).

Mississippi. Desoto Co.: Horn Island (CUIC) 6; Harrison Co.: Gulfport (USNM) 1; Hinds

Co.: Jackson (NDSU) 1; Lafayette Co.: Oxford (NDSU) 1; Lauderdale Co.: Meridian (USNM) 2:

Oktibbeha Co.: Agriculture College of Mississippi (CUIC) 1.

(Nebraska). Reported from this state by McMillan (1888:74), Quaintance and Shear (1907:

24; 1921: 27), Hartzell (1910: 497) and Isely (1920: 6), but not confirmed here by specimens

examined.

New Hampshire. Rockinham Co.: Hampton (UNHC) 1, Raymond (UNHC) 1, Seabrook

(UNHC) 1; Strafford Co.: Durham (UNHC) 5; Sullivan Co.: Claremont (UNHC) 1.

New Jersey. State record only (USNM) 1; Atlantic Co.: Buena (MCZ) 3; Cape May Co.:

Anglesea (USNM) 1; Morris Co.: Lake Hopatcong (as “Hopakong”) FMNH) 1; Ocean Co.:

Lakehurst (USNM) 1; Orange Co.: Greenwood Lake (USNM) 1; Warren Co.: Mountain Lake

(FMNH) 1.

Not located: Crystal Lake (CUIC) 1 (county not specified, several possibilities).

Reported from this state by Smith (1890: 225; 1900: 312; 1910: 352), Hartzell (1910: 497)

and Isely (1920: 6). |

(New Mexico). Reported from this state by Townsend (1891: 7), Hartzell (1910: 497),

Slingerland and Crosby (1914: 403) and Isely (1920: 6).

Reported from this state by Herrick (1925: 175) as “south to Florida to New Mexico”.

New York. State record only: (PURC) 1, (USNM) 1; Allegany Co.: Belmont (NDSU) 1; Erie

Co.: Angola (USNM) 1; Essex Co.: Whiteface Mountain (EGRC) 3; Franklin Co.: Orient/ Long

Island (as “L.I.”) (CUIC) 2; Genesee Co.: county record only (USNM) 1, Batavia (USNM) 65;

Niagara Co.: Olcott (CUIC) 8, (USNM) 2; Orange Co.: West Point (USNM) 4; Queens Co.: Long

Island (as “LI’’)/ Rockaway Beach (USNM) 1; Rockland Co.: Bear Mountain (CUIC) 1, (USNM)

1; Salem Co.: Killcohook Wildlife Refuge (SMCC) 1; Seneca Co.: Willard (USNM) 1; Suffolk Co.:

Long Island Aqueduct (as “Aqued’t”) (USNM) 1, Napeaque/ Long Island (as “LI’’) (CUIC) 1;

Tompkins Co.: Ithaca (CUIC) 4, (FAMU) 1, (UCR) 2, (UNHC) 1, (WFBM) 2, (Cornell University)

_ Campus (CUIC) 1, (USNM) 1, / Taughanic (CUIC) 4.

Reported from this state by Thomas (1834: 113) as Chrysomela vitivora, LeConte (1824:

173) as Galleruca janthina, Fitch (1859a [1856]: 84; 1859b: 171), Comstock (1880: 214), Lintner

(1890: 188; 1891: 332, 353; 1893: 298), Lowe (1898: 263), Felt (1900a: 555, 563, 564, 570, 573;

1900b: 15; 1901: 1005; 1902: 838), Hartzell (1910: 497; 1924: 82), Reh (1913: 524), Slingerland

and Crosby (1914: 403), Isely (1920: 6), Leonard (1928: 477) and Downie and Arnett (1996:

1374).

North Carolina. State record only (MCZ) 4, (USNM) 1; Buncombe Co.: Asheville (USNM)

1; Douglas Co.: county record only (SEM) 1; Guilford Co.: (Greensboro) North Carolina Agricultural

_»and Technical State University (as “NC Dept. Agr. Entomological Cat. No. 282”) (UCR) 1; Haywood

Co.: Hazelwood/ Little Mountain (as “Lt.Mtn”) (USNM) 1; Jackson Co.: Balsam (USNM) 2; Nash

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Co.: Rocky Mount (UCR) 1; Pitt Co.: Greenville (SEM) 1; Swain Co.: Indian Gap (USNM) 1;

Union Co.: county record only (NDSU) 2; Wake Co.: Raleigh (UCR) 1, 3 mi. N. Wake Forest

(USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Hartzell (1910: 497), Isely (1920: 6), Brimley (1938: 228) and

Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

Ohio. Butler Co.: Oxford (CUIC) 2; Delaware Co.: at junction Deer Run and Scioto River

(SMCC) 1, O’Shaughnessy Reservoir (SMCC) 3; Franklin Co.: Columbus (SMCC) 3, (WFBM) 1,

/ Ohio State University Campus (SMCC) 2, / near Mason Run (SMCC) 1, Mifflin Township near

Mock Park (SMCC) 1; Hocking Co.: county record only (SMCC) 1, Ash Cave (SMCC) 1;

Montgomery Co.: Wayne Township (SMCC) 1; Richland Co.: Mansfield (SMCC) 2; Ross Co.:

Chillcothe/ 1 mi. S route 50 at Scioto River (SMCC) 1, Tar Hollow State Forest (SMCC) 2; Vinton

Co.: Lake Hope (SMCC) 1, Lake Hope State Park (SMCC) 3; Washington Co.: Hune Bridge/ 2.5

mi. N Dart (SMCC) 2.

Reported from this state by Hartzell (1910: 497), Isely (1920: 6), Wilcox (1954: 446) and

Forsythe and Still (1969: 33).

Oklahoma. Murray Co.: 2 mi. S Sulphur (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Hatch and Ortenburger (1926: 10).

Pennsylvania. State record only: (USNM) 1; Allegheny Co.: county record only (CUIC) 6;

Pittsburgh (UMMZ) 1; Beaver Co.: Brighton (USNM) 1; Centre Co.: First Mountain (as “Ist Mt.”)

(NDSU) 1, State College (USNM) 1; Chester Co.: county record only (USNM) 1; Cumberland

Co.: Camp Hill (as “Camphill”) (QMMZ) 2, Enola (UMMZ) 2; Delaware Co.: county record only

(FMNH) 2; Erie Co.: North East (USNM) 1, Presque Isle State Park (CUIC) 17; Monroe Co.:

county record only (USNM) 3; Montgomery Co.: Abington (MCZ) 1, Glenside (USNM) 1, Edge

Hill (USNM) 1; Northumberland Co.: Elysburg (USNM) 1; Philadelphia Co.: Philadelphia (as ~

“Phila.”) (USNM) 11; Pike Co.: Camp Colang (FMNH) 1; Washington Co.: Canonsburg/ Mount

Blain (UMMZ) 1; York Co.: Frogtown (NDSU) 1.

Reported from this state by Melsheimer (1806: 22) as Altica oleracea, Thomas (1834: 113)

sub Chrysomela vitivora , Comstock (1880: 214, 215), Hartzell (1910: 497), Isely (1920: 6), Eyer

and McCubbin (1926), Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374) and LeSage (2000: 233).

Rhode Island. Kent Co.: Warwick (UMMZ) 5.

South Carolina. Charleston Co.: Island of Palms (MCZ) 1; Florence Co.: Florence (NDSU)

1; Greenville Co.: Greenville (TAMU) 1; Horry Co.: Myrtle Beach (NDSU) 7, (USNM) 2.

Reported from this state by Hamilton (1895: 340), Kirk (1969: 96; 1970: 92) and Downie and

Arnett (1996: 1374).

Tennessee. Coche Co.: 6 mi. SE Cosby (UNHC) 1; Davidson Co.: Nashville (USNM) 1;

Elkhart Co.: Dunlap (LEM) 1; Sevier Co.: Gatlinburg (MZELU) 1.

Texas. State record only: (MCZ) 2, (USNM) 1; Jefferson Co.: Sabine Pass (SMCC) 2; Lavaca

Co.: 10 mi. N Hallettsville (TAMU) 1; Webb Co.: county record only (UMMZ) 1.

Not located: Brighton (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Horn (1889: 220), Hartzell (1910: 497), Quaintance and Shear

(1907: 24; 1921: 26), Isely (1920: 6), Wilcox (1975: 110) and Downie and Arnett (1996: 1373).

Utah. San Juan Co.: Monument Valley (USNM) 1.

(Vermont). Reported from this state by Hartzell (1910: 497), and Isely (1920: 6) but not

confirmed here by specimens examined.

Virginia. State record only: (USNM) 1; Arlington Co.: Glencarlyn (USNM) 1; Chesapeake

Co.: Lake Drummond (USNM) 4; Fairfax Co.: county record only (USNM) 1, Dawson Beach 4

mi. S of Occoquan (USNM) 1, Falls Church (USNM) 3, Vienna (USNM) 1; Fauquier Co.: Warrenton

(USNM) 1; Giles Co.: Jefferson National Forest (USNM) 5; Hampton Co.: Fort Monroe (Station)

18

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

(USNM) 1; Lee Co.: Pennington Gap (MCZ) 2, (USNM) 1; Nelson Co.: county record only (USNM)

1; Shenandoah Co.: Woodstock (USNM) 1; Virginia Beach City: Cape Henry (USNM) 5, Virginia

Beach (as “Princess Anne Co.”) (USNM) 1; Westmoreland Co.: Colonial Beach (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Comstock (1880: 215), Isely (1920: 6) and Downie and Arnett

(1996: 1374).

West Virginia. Barbour Co.: Audra State Park (SMCC) 1; Berkeley Co.: county record only

(SMCC) 6, Boyds Gap/ North Mountain (SMCC) 1, Potomac Park (SMCC) 1; Braxton Co.: Left

Fork (of) Holly River near Holly (SMCC) 2; Cabell Co.: Green Bottom Wildlife Management

Area (SMCC) 1, Huntington (SMCC) 1; Doddridge Co.: New Milton (SMCC) 1, 3 mi. E Sherwood

(SMCC) 1, Smithburg (SMCC) 1; Fayette Co.: Fayette Station (SMCC) 1, Hawks Nest State Park

(SMCC) 1, McKendree (SMCC) 1, New River Gorge near Prince (SMCC) 1; Gilmer Co.: Cedar

Creek State Park (SMCC) 14, Stouts Mills (SMCC) 1, Tumbling Run (SMCC) 1; Grant Co.: North

Fork of Patterson Creek at Greenland Gap (SMCC) 1; Hardy Co.: Old Fields (SMCC) 1; Harrison

Co.: Clarksburg (SMCC) 1, Dog Run Nature Preserve/ near Salem (SMCC) 3; Jackson Co.: Ripley

(SMCC) 4, 1 mi. N Ripley Landing (SMCC) 1; Jefferson Co.: Shepherdstown (SMCC) 1; Kanawha

Co.: Guthrie (SMCC) 66, (WVDA) 3, / headwaters of Fisher Branch near Guthrie (SMCC) 1, / 0.5

mi. S Sixmile Branch Kanawha State Forest (SMCC) 12, (WVDA) 2, Lens Creek (SMCC) 2,

Sissonville/ Tupper Creek at Spencer Branch (SMCC) 1; Lewis Co.: Jane Lew (SMCC) 1; Lincoln

Co.: Hilbert Public Hunting Area (SMCC) 1; Marshall Co.: Glendale (SMCC) 2, Moundsville

(SMCC) 2, Mount Olivet (SMCC) 1; Mason Co.: Beech Hill (SMCC) 9; Mineral Co.: Barnum

(SMCC) 1, Keyser (SMCC) 1; Monongalia Co.: Blacksville (SMCC) 1, Cheat Neck (SMCC) 1,

Core (SMCC) 3, Morgantown (SMCC) 2, /3.5 mi. NE (SMCC) 1, Stewartstown (SMCC) 1; Monroe

Co.: 1 mi. W Red Hill (SMCC) 5; Morgan Co.: Middle Fork (of) Indian Run (at) Cacapon State

Park, (SMCC) 1, 2 mi. SE Hancock (SMCC) 1; Nicholas Co.: Gauley River near Peters Junction

(SMCC) 1; Ohio Co.: 1 mi. SW Clinton (SMCC) 2; Pendleton Co.: Judy Gap (SMCC) 1, 1 mi. NW

Ruddle (SMCC) 1, 3 mi. NW Ruddle (SMCC) 5, 5 mi. NW Ruddle (SMCC) 4; Pleasants Co.:

Arvilla (SMCC) 1, Willow Island (SMCC) 1; Pocahontas Co.: Marlinton (SMCC) 1; Preston Co.:

Cranesville Swamp (SMCC) 1; Putnam Co.: Hurricane (SMCC) 1, Teays (SMCC) 1; Raleigh Co.:

Sandstone Falls (in) New River (SMCC) 1; Roane Co.: Stutler Run 1.5 mi. N Reedy (SMCC) 3;

Summers Co.: Sandstone (SMCC) 1; Taylor Co.: Grafton (SMCC) 2, Valley Falls State Park (SMCC)

1; Tyler Co.: Luzon (SMCC) 1; Upshur Co.: 3 mi. E Buckhannon (SMCC) 8; Wayne Co.: Shoals

(SMCC) 2; Wetzel Co.: Anthem (SMCC) 1, Newdale (SMCC) 2, Peabody (SMCC) 5, Pine Grove

(SMCC) 1, Vernon (SMCC) 1; Wirt Co.: Stutler Run/ 2 mi. S (of) Lucile (SMCC) 1.

Not located: “Eng./ T.Z.” (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Isely (1920: 6) and Clark (2000: 32).

Wisconsin. Racine co.: Kilbournville (as “Kilbourn’’) (USNM) 1.

Reported from this state by Isely (1920: 6).

Distribution. The distribution of Altica chalybea extends from southern Ontario and Québec

to Florida and Texas with a western extension into Colorado (Figure 7). Rhode Island, Kentucky,

Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana are new state records. The presence of Altica chalybea on

Guadeloupe Island (California), and Utah, corresponds to an introduction since no native species

of Vitis or Parthenocissus grow naturally there (Gleason 1963: 517-520).

The literature records from Maine, Vermont, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska and New Mexico

have not been corroborated during the course of this study but fit well into the known distribution

of the species.

19

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Host-plants. The following host-plants, mentioned in the literature for Altica chalybea, are

considered here either as “true” host-plants when beetles can complete their development on these

plants, or “accidental” when the plants were misidentified, the beetles accidentally occurred on

these plants, or the errors came from misidentifications of the flea beetles.

a) true host-plants mentioned in the literature:

- Wild grape: see Vitis spp.

- Bunch grapes (= either the European Vitis vitifera L. or the American Vitis labrusca L.): Kirk

(1970: 92).

- Clinton (= a variety of Vitis riparia Michx. fide Engelman (1869: 321)): as

“a vineyard of Clinton grape which was totally devastated” reported by Slingerland (1898:

194).

- Concord (= variety of Vitis labrusca L. fide Engelmann (1869: 321)): as “attacked the Concord

grape more than any other” by Fletcher (1884: 7), cited by Slingerland (1898: 194); as “the Concord,

Salem, Martha and Brighton vines” by Fletcher (1885: 26); as “the only food plants found during

five seasons have been the Concord grape” by Hartzell (1915: 203); as “prefer the Concord during

the spring” by Hartzell (1915: 203); as “does not favour thick-leaved sorts like the Concord” by

Isely (1920: 4).

- Cultivated grape (= Vitis vitifera L., variety not specified): Saunders (1871: 108; 1883: 279;

1885: 17; 1889: 279; 1900: 279); Gott (1878: 45; 1879: 58); Slingerland (1898: 194); Lintner

(1890: 188; 1891: 332, 353); “as young larvae... on grape” by Lintner (1893: 298); Bethune (1893:

10; 1898: 33); Lowe (1898: 263); Felt (1902: 838); Thomas (1906: 197); Hartzell (1910: 497;

1924: 82); Gibson (1913: 6); Reh (1913: 524); Isely (1920: 4); Quaintance and Shear (1907: 23;

1921: 27); Britton (1926: 221); Ross (1926a: 30; 1926b:188); Caesar (1927: 44); Eyer and McCubbin

(1926: 12); Zappe (1928: 729; 1930: 609).

- Delaware (= variety of Vitis riparia Michx. fide Engelmann (1869: 321): as “the larvae

flourishes on thin-leaved varieties like the Delaware” (Isely 1920: 4).

- Muscadine (= Vitis vulpina L. fide Engelmann (1869: 321)); Balsbaugh and Hays (1972:

148). See below.

- Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. (Virginia Creeper): Bethune (1893: 10), and Bethune

(1898: 33) as Ampelopsis quinquefolia; Lugger (1899: 243) as Ampelopsis quinquefolia; Saunders

(1883: 279; 1889: 279; 1900: 279) as Ampelopsis quinquefolia; Thomas (1906: 197); Reh (1913:

524); Isely (1920: 4) as Pseudera quinquefolia; Quaintance and Shear (1921: 27); Herrick (19235:

175); Caesar (1927: 44); Gibson (1928: 26; 1934a: 30; 1934b: 32); Zappe (1930: 609); Blunck

(1954: 325), Campbell et al. (1989: 68).

- Virginia Creeper: see Parthenocissus quinquefolia.

- Vitis sp.: (Thomas 1834: 113) [as Chrysomela vitivora]; as “wild and cultivated grapes” by

Harris (1841: 104; 1842: 104; 1852: 114; 1862: 129); Riley (1870b: 327); Saunders (1883: 279;

1889: 279; 1900: 279); as “commonly confined to grape vines, wild or cultivated” by McMillan

(1888: 75); Bethune (1893: 10); Marlatt (1896: 396); Lugger (1899: 241); Bethune (1907: 35);

Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27); Blatchley (1910: 1201); Slingerland and Crosby (1914:

403); as “the chief food plants of the grape-vine flea-beetle are the various species of wild and

cultivated grapes found in the eastern United States” by Hartzell (1915: 202); Blatchley (1924:

20); as “destroy all wild grapevines” by Hartzell (1924: 83); as “destroying all wild grape vines”

by Ross (1926a: 30); Caesar (1927: 44); Britton (1928: 675); Zappe (1928: 729; 1930: 609); Blunck

(1954: 325); Kirk (1969: 96; 1970: 92); Borror et al. (1989: 460); as “wild grapes” by Dearborn

and Donahue (1993: 67); Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

- Vitis bicolor LeConte (Wild Blue Grape): as “this grape species has been the preferred host

during five years” according to Hartzell (1915: 203). Quoted later by Isely (1920: 4).

20

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

- Vitis labrusca L.: Clark (2000: 33).

- Vitis rotundifolia Michx.: Balsbaugh and Hays (1972: 148); Wilcox (1979: 25).

- Vitis vulpina L. (= Muscadine): Clark (2000: 33).

- Vitis vinifera L. : Fitch (1859a [1856]: 69, 84) as “Vitis vinifera et. al’.

b) accidental host-plants mentioned in the literature:

- Acer saccharum Marsh. (Sugar Maple): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Alder: see Alnus.

- Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Winkler (Rough Alder) [now considered a variety of Alnus rugosa

(Du Roi) Spreng.] by Scoggan (1978: 589); Saunders (1883: 279; 1889: 279; 1900: 279); Schwarz

(1892: 183); Lugger (1899: 243). In my opinion, all these records are in error and refer to the host-

plant of Altica ambiens alni Harris (LeSage 1995).

- Alnus sp. (Alder): Fitch (1859a [1856]: 84); Marlatt (1896: 396); Reh (1913: 524).

- American Elm: see Ulmus americana.

- Apple: see Malus pumila.

- Ash (White Ash): see Fraxinus americana.

- Betula lenta L. (Cherry Birch): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Birch (Cherry Birch): see Betula lenta.

- Black Alder (= Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. [a European plant spread from cultivation and

locally naturalized fide Scoggan (1978: 588)]: Harris (1835: 54), cited by Isely (1920: 4).

- Black Raspberry: see Rubus spp.

- Blue or Water Beech (= Carpinus sp.): Schwarz (1892): 183. Cited later by Quaintance and

Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27), Hartzell (1910: 498), and Isely (1920: 4).

- Canadian Elder: see Sambucus canadensis.

- Carpinus sp.: only adults found great numbers on this plant fide Schwarz (1892: 183), Reh

(1913: 524)+.

- Cherry Birch: see Betula lenta.

- Common Chickweed: see Stellaria media.

- Common Willow: see Salix alba.

- Cornus stolonifera Michx. (Red Osier): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Crataegus sp.: no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Cydonia oblonga Mill. (Quince): as “seedlings of ...” by McMillan (1888: 75), cited later by

Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27), Hartzell (1910: 498), and Isely (1920: 4).

- Dandelion: see Taraxacum officinale.

- Dog’s Tooth Violet: see Erythronium americanum.

- Elder: see Sambucus canadensis.

- Elm: see Ulmus sp.

- Erythronium americanum Ker-Gawl. (Dog’s Tooth Violet): no feeding observed by Hartzell

(1915: 203).

- Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (American Beech): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Fragaria sp. (Strawberry): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Fraxinus americana L. (White Ash or Ash): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Hawthorn: see Crataegus sp.

- Malus pumila Mill. [Pyrus (Malus) sylvestris L. is synonym fide P. Catling (pers. comm.)]

(Apple): McMillan (1888: 75). Quoted later by Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27), Hartzell

(1910: 478), Isely (1920: 4), and Dean (1930: 140). No feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

:" - Mucuna deeringania (Bot.) Mer. Blatchley (1924: 20).

- Myrica sp.: Blatchley (1924: 20).

21

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

- Peach: see Prunus persica.

- Pear: see Pyrus communis.

- Plum, Plum tree: see Prunus domestica

- Poison Ivy: see Rhus radicans.

- Prunus domestica L. (Plum, Plum tree): Fitch (1859a [1856]: 84); “sometimes feeds on”,

Saunders (1883: 190, 279; 1889: 190, 279; 1900: 190, 279); Britton (1898: 316); Lugger (1899:

243); McMillan (1888: 75); Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27); Isely (1920: 4); as “on

plum blossoms” Blatchley (1924: 20); Dean (1930: 140). No feeding observed by Hartzell (1915:

203).

- Prunus sp.: doubtful occurrence fide Schwarz (1892: 183).

- Prunus persica L. (Peach): as “seedlings of ...” by McMillan (1888: 75); Neal (1890: 11),

cited by Isely (1920: 4), Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27). No feeding observed by

Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Pyrus communis L. (Pear): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Cydonia oblonga Mill. (Quince): as “seedlings of ...” by McMillan (1888: 75), cited later by

Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24; 1921: 27), Hartzell (1910: 498), and Isely (1920: 4).

- Quince: see Cydonia oblonga Mill.

- Red Osier: see Cornus stolonifera.

- Red raspberry: see Rubus spp.

- Rhus radicans L. (Poison Ivy): Blatchley (1910: 1201). No feeding observed by Hartzell

(1915: 203).

- Rhus typhina L. (Sumac): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Rubus spp. (Black and Red Raspberry): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Salix alba L. (Common Willow): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Sambucus canadensis L. (Elder, Canadian Elder): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915:

203).

- Stellaria media (L.) Cyrill. (Common Chickweed): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915:

203).

- Strawberry: see Fragaria sp.

- Sugar Maple: see Acer saccharum.

- Sumac: see Rhus typhina.

- Taraxacum officinale Weber (Dandelion): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Ulmus sp. (Elm): Fitch (1859a [1856]: 84; 1859a [1858]: 63); Reh (1913: 524), Dean (1930:

140). Doubtful occurrence fide Schwarz (1892: 183), Quaintance and Shear (1907: 24), and Isely

(1920: 4). No feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Ulmus americana L. (American Elm): no feeding observed by Hartzell (1915: 203).

- Velvet bean: see Mucuna deeringania (Bot.) Mer.

- Wax myrtle: see Myrica sp.

- White Ash: see Fraxinus americana.

- Willow (Common Willow): see Salix alba.

Cc) true-host plants recorded on the labels of specimens examined:

- Concord grape (= a cultivated variety of Vitis labrusca L.; 1 record.

- Cultivated Grape: see Vitis vitifera.

- Grape: see Vitis sp.

- Muscadine Grape (Vitis vulpina L.): 1 record

- Vitis spp. 20 records.

- Vitis riparia Michx., or Wild Grape: 4 records.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

- Vitis rotundifolia Michx.: 1 record.

- Vitis vitifera L. (variety not specified): 2 records.

d) accidental host-plants recorded on the labels of specimens examined:

- Amelanchier sp.: 1 record.

- Barbarea vulgaris R. Br. (flowers of): 1 record.

- Cornus stolonifera Michx. (beating of): 1 record.

- Crataegus sp. : 1 record.

- Goldenrod (Solidago sp.): 1 record.

- Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.): see above.

- Oak (Quercus sp.): 1 record.

- Pine tree (Pinus sp.): 1 record.

- Populus tremuloides Michx. (beating of): 1 record.

- Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides): | record.

- “Wild thorn” (stem of; Crataegus sp.): 1 record

Biology. Like the majority of Altica species, A. chalybea overwinters in the adult stage. The

first cold temperatures of the fall trigger adults to search for suitable places to overwinter with

preference for woods and wastelands around vineyards (Hartzell 1910; Slingerland and Crosby

1914; Weigle and Kovach 1995). Various shelters are utilized: crevices of the bark and in the earth

immediately around the root of the tree on which it feeds (Fitch (1859b), loose bark or crevices of

stakes (Riley 1870a), in any crevices under stones, sticks or logs (Comstock 1880), in cracks of

fences or buildings, in masses of leaves or under bark (Harrington 18825; Marlatt 1896), around

roots of vines (Comstock 1880; Lugger 1899), under bark and rubbish (Blatchley 1910), mainly

under dry leaves and rubbish in woodlands, also under bark of trees or vines (Hartzell 1910), under

loose bark, and trash around vineyards (Slingerland and Crosby 1914), under leaves, grass and

rubbish (Ross and Armstrong 1949), and under plant debris (McGrew and Still 1979; Campbell et

al. 1989).

Overwintered adults emerge in early spring in synchrony with the appearance of the first buds

on vine canes and move from their winter quarters into vineyards (McGrew and Still 1979). In the

Ottawa area, this migration corresponds to the last week of April or first week of May. It occurs

earlier at lower latitudes.

Emerging males and females feed on buds for 1-2 weeks before mating and ovipositing.

Blatchley (1910) observed first matings in Indiana on April 12. Pairs are rarely seen before the

second week of May in the Ottawa area but were seen as soon as mid-April in spring 2002, during

exceptionally warm days (25°C). According to Hartzell (1910) and my own observations, the mating

period lasts over a month, until the death of the spring adults. Repeated copulations are usual in

_ rearing cages, and probably occur in nature as well (Hartzell 1910). Spring adults eat the tender

parts of developing buds, boring holes into them (Figure 8), or even scooping them out completely

(Hartzell 1910; Still and Rings 1973; McGrew and Still 1979; Taschenberg and Ried] 1985; Weigle

and Kovach 1995). After the buds have opened, they chew small holes in the leaves.

Oviposition begins a few days after mating. Eggs are usually deposited on buds, under bud

scales (Isely 1920; Quaintance and Shear 1907), and within spaces in cracks of the bark at the base

of the buds (Gibson 1913) or under loose bark of canes. Saunders (1883; 1889; 1900) reported that

eggs are laid on the underside of the young vine leaves. Such questionable observations probably

concerned the oviposition of Altica woodsi. For instance, Slingerland and Crosby (1914) claimed

‘+ that eggs were rarely laid on leaves, whereas Marlatt (1896), and Lugger (1899) mentioned that

eggs were occasionally laid there. According to Isely (1920), citing Comstock (1880), they are laid

=

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

FIGURE 8. Unopened grapevine buds damaged by adults of A/tica chalybea in early spring.

on both sides of leaves, whereas Peairs (1941) reported that eggs were laid on almost any part of

the vines.

Females of Altica chalybea lay eggs singly or in small irregular clumps of 4-5 (Riley 1870);

Comstock 1880), in cracks in the bark at base of buds, between bud scales, or even in the holes

which have been eaten into the buds (Quaintance and Shear 1921). The length of the eggs ranges

from 0.93 to 1.14 mm with an average of 1.03 mm (Hartzell 1910). Their colour varies from straw _.

(Comstock 1880, Isely 1920; Slingerland and Crosby 1914), to deep yellow (Isely 1920), or orange

(Marlatt 1896; Lugger 1899; Isely 1920). The number of eggs laid by females is quite variable.

According to Hartzell (1910), an average of 70 eggs were laid by females during their lives, with a

maximum of 210 observed. This author also mentioned that the greatest numbers of eggs were laid

during the warmest part of the day. The incubation period is highly dependent on weather conditions.

It averaged 15 days and extended from May 18 to June 28 in eggs obtained from adults maintained

in cages by Isely (1920). The oviposition period lasts roughly 2 months, from April to early June,

with more or less important variations according to local weather conditions and latitude. First

instar larvae can be seen as early as mid-March in Georgia according to Comstock (1880). There

are 3 larval instars in Altica chalybea. Each instar lasts about 8 days, for a total larval period of 3-

4 weeks (Isely 1920).

Larvae are exclusively leaf feeders. According to authors, the larvae are supposed to feed only

the upper surface of the leaves and produce typical chain-like white patches on the leaf blade, but

those reared in Petri dishes in 2002 fed exclusively on the undersurface of leaves. Larger larvae

riddle the leaves with large irregular holes and can completely skeletonize the leaves (Comstock

1880, Neal 1890) if they are numerous. In the Northeast, larvae are mainly found on the vines in

June and July (Isely 1920).

When fully grown, larvae drop onto the ground to pupate. Pupation takes place one to several

inches underground in small earthen cells made of packed soil particles. The colour of the pupa

varies from yellow (Hartzell 1910) to dark yellowish (Lugger 1899), saffron-yellow (Slingerland

and Crosby 1914) or yellowish brown (Comstock 1880). The period of time spent underground

lasts two to three weeks, and occurs largely in late June and July in the Northeast (Comstock 1880;

Marlatt 1896; Isely 1920).

New adults appear on vines in late July. I agree with Lugger (1899), and Hartzell (1910) that

these adults feed little on leaves in contrast to Comstock (1880) who reported that they do

24

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

considerable damage to leaves. According to Riley (1870b), Isely (1920), and my own observations,

new adults do not mate nor oviposit but remain active on plants until the end of summer.

There is only one generation per year in the Northeast (Hartzell 1924; Eyer and McCubbin

1926). Marlatt (1896) and Comstock (1880) reported that there might be two in southern states, but

their hypothesis has not yet been confirmed.

Parasites. Although none were found by Riley (1870b), Comstock (1880), or Isely (1920),

parasites of adults or larvae probably exist but have not yet been identified.

Predators. Isely (1920) claimed that adults of Altica chalybea were found in the stomach

contents of several kinds of birds. In my opinion, this statement is in error for two reasons. Firstly,

A. chalybea adults are unlikely to be caught by birds due to their jumping habits, and secondly,

they cannot be identified from body fragments.

Lintner (1891), cited later by Slingerland (1898), reported that Mr. George C. Snow of Penn

Yan, New York observed a nymph of a stink bug, identified later by Mr. Uhler as probably Podisus

modestus Dallas, sucking out the juices of a grape flea-beetle larva. Slingerland (1898) also observed

the lady-bird Megilla maculata (= Coleomegilla maculata lengi Timberlake) “eating a young grub

of the grape-vine flea-beetle”, but concluded that these predators have done little to hold the grape

flea beetle in check.

Hartzell (1915) noticed that eggs were not attacked by parasites to any extent. The larvae,

however, were preyed upon by a species of carabid which closely resembles the adult flea-beetle in

size and colour (probably Lebia sp.). These beetles were not found in high numbers, so their activities

did not decrease the number of larvae to any great extent. In Aylmer, Québec (north of Ottawa,

Ontario), I collected adults of the carabids Lebia moesta LeConte and L. viridis Say along a fence

where Altica chalybea was breeding.

Hartzell (1915) also reported a nymph of an undetermined species of Pentatomidae piercing

the bodies of the larvae and sucking their body fluids. Finally, the adults did not appear to be fed

upon by birds.

In rearing cages, the ground beetle Harpalus erythropus Dejean fed on the larvae and pupae

of A. chalybea, whereas Lebia viridis Say and L. ornata Say attacked its eggs, larvae, and pupae

(Isely 1920). Isely also mentioned that the ant Myrmica scabrinodis Nylander destroyed larvae

and pupae of this flea beetle under rearing conditions.

Common names. Harris (1841: 104, 1842: 104, 1852: 129, 1862: 129) first popularized the

names “Steel-blue flea-beetle’” for its usual blue colour and “Grape-vine flea beetle” in reference

to its host-plant. Riley (1868: 27; 1870b: 327) also used both, whereas the latter name has been

adopted by Harris (1854: 11), Fitch (1859a [1856]: 84), Saunders (1871: 108; 1872: 359; 1883:

9277; 1884: 207; 1885: 17; 1889: 277; 1900: 277), Gott (1878: 45; 1879: 58), Harrington (1882a:

25; 1882b: 60), Smith (1890: 225), Lintner (1891: 332, 353), Bethune (1893: 10; 1898: 33; 1907:

35), Marlatt (1896: 395), Lowe (1898: 263), Lugger (1899: 241), Felt (1900a: 555, 563, 564, 601;

1900b: 15; 1901: 1005; 1902: 838), Thomas (1906: 197), Caesar (1914: 81; 1916: 31), Gibson

(1914: 27), Quaintance and Shear (1922: 239), Herrick (1925: 175), Ross and Caesar (1925: 86),

Britton (1926: 221; 1928: 675), Caesar and Ross (1925: 86; 1926: 14), Ross (1926a: 30; 1926b:

188), Caesar (1927: 44), Leonard (1928: 477) and Zappe (1928: 729; 1930: 609).

The shorter form “Grape flea beetle” was first proposed by Smith (1900: 312; 1910: 352) and

accepted later by the Entomological Society of America: Muesebeck (1942: 87, 93), Werner (1982:

-*19), Stoetzel (1989: 29), Bosik (1997: 31), and most authors of the last century: Blatchley (1910:

1201), Hartzell (1910: 494), Smith (1910: 352), Eyer and McCubbin (1926: 12), Gibson (1934a:

mS

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

32), MacNay (1955: 80), Balsbaugh and Hays (1972: 148), Benoit (1975: 25; 1985: 10), Taschenberg

and Riedl (1985: 1), Dearborn and Donahue (1993: 67), Weigle and Kovach (1995: 8), Clark (2000:

32).

“Steel-blue beetle” was utilized once by Riley (1870a: 309), and later changed to “Steel-blue

flea-beetle” (Riley 1889: 221). “Steely beetle” is given as a variation by Hartzell (1910: 494; 1924:

82). Finally, Riley (1870b) reported that some vineyardists erroneously called the grape flea beetles

“thrips” when they first noticed them.

The popular name “Steel-blue grapevine flea beetle” has been erroneously used by Ebeling

(1959: 333) for Altica torquata LeConte, a Southwestern species to be treated later in a separate

contribution.

The French equivalent of the “Grape flea beetle’, is “Altise de la vigne” (SPPQ 1947: 8,

1952: 8, 1964: 9; Benoit 1975: 26, 1985: 10; Belton and Eidt 1996: 4).

Economic importance and control. The most important losses result through direct bud

feeding by the overwintered adults when they hollow out the buds in the spring just as they are

swelling (Gott 1879; Lintner 1891: 332, 353; Harrington 1882a,b; Saunders 1883, 1884, 1889,

1900; Hartzell 1924; Herrick 1925; Britton 1926, 1928; Eyer and McCubbin 1926; Ross 1926a,

1926b; Caesar 1927; Zappe 1930; Still and Rings 1973; McGrew and Still 1979; Weigle and Kovach

1995). Damage to buds largely occurs on vines located along the borders of vineyards next to

wooded or trashy areas. Destroyed or damaged buds cannot develop into primary grape canes, and

thus the crop yield is more or less reduced according to the severity of the attack.

Control measures are efficient only if they are timed with the vine development. Losses will

be considerably reduced if the spring adults are killed before they chew up the developing buds.

Weigle and Kovach (1995) recommended treatment as soon as damage to buds reached 1-2%.

Treatments applied in the past consisted mostly of arsenical poison (Marlatt 1896; Quaintance

and Shear 1907; Slingerland and Crosby 1914). Air-slaked lime, Paris green, Bordeaux mixture, or

unleached ashes were also tried with variable success (Lugger 1899; Quaintance and Shear 1907).

Peairs (1941) suggested controlling the larvae before they produce new adults because it is too

difficult to spray against the adults in the spring. Modern pesticides, such as Rotenone, Malathion,

Cygon, etc. are probably more efficient than the old treatments, but accurate information on their

efficiency is still lacking.

The grape flea beetle can also be partially controlled by appropriate vineyard management.

The suggestion of Lugger (1899) to remove and destroy all rubbish that provides hibernation sites

for adults is still valid. Hartzell (1910) also recommended keeping the vineyards clean and the

surrounding wastelands clear.

2. Altica woodsi Isely, 1920

Altica woodsi Isely 1920: 11 (original description); Gibson 1925: 23 (biology in Ontario);

Blackwelder 1939: 63 (supplement to the catalogue of North American Coleoptera); Heikertinger

and Csiki 1940: 242 (world catalogue); Peairs 1941: 323 (handbook on insect pests); Wilcox 1954:

446 (Ohio fauna); MacNay 1956: 116 (infestation in Manitoba); Chagnon and Robert 1962: 316,

408 (Québec fauna); Balsbaugh and Hays 1972: 148 (Alabama fauna); Wilcox 1975: 110 (catalogue

of North American Chrysomelidae); Wilcox 1979: 25 (host-plants of North American

Chrysomelidae); Campbell et al. 1989: 74 (beetle pests of crops in Canada); Laplante et al. 1991:

99 (checklist of Québec Coleoptera); Downie and Arnett 1996: 1374 (Northeast fauna); Clark

2000: 34 (annotated list of West Virginia Chrysomelidae); Lasnier et al. 2001:4 (web site on Québec

grape pests).

26

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Haltica woodsi Isely, Leonard 1928: 477 (New York insect list); Chagnon 1938: 163 (Québec

fauna); Chagnon 1940: 316 (Québec fauna); Blunck 1954: 326 (handbook of phytophagous beetles);

Chagnon and Robert 1962: 316, 408 (Québec fauna).

Haltica ignita Lugger 1899: 243 [not ignita Illiger, 1807] (Minnesota insect pests).

Misidentification.

Haltica ignita Gibson 1913: 7 [not ignita Illiger, 1807] (garden pests). Misidentification.

Haltica (Altica) woodsi, Gibson 1926: 578 (occurrence in Canada).

“An enemy to the grape”, Worden 1862: 350 (report on infestation).

“The blue grape beetle”, Larrowe 1862: 382 (answer to grower).

“Lesser grape vine flea-beetle”, Fall 1920: 105 (taxonomic comments).

Etymology. Named in honour of W.C. Woods, an American entomologist who made important

contributions to the biology and taxonomy of Altica.

Diagnosis. Elongate, small blue-green species, 3.3-3.8 mm long, with deep pronotal groove

(Figure 1b). Male with tip of aedeagus triangular and weakly nipple-shaped in the middle, with

ventral median carina and ventral longitudinal ridges, both well developed (Figure 2b). Female

with styli narrow, and their inner margins weakly diverging at apex (Figure 3a).

The host-plants of Altica woodsi are restricted to the plant genera Vitis and Parthenocissus in

the family Vitaceae.

FIGURE 2. Aedeagus of Altica woodsi: a, dorsal view; b, ventral view.

2a

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Traits distinctifs. Petite espéce allongée, bleu-vert, 3,3-3,8 mm de longueur, a sillon pronotal

profond (figure 1b). Chez le male, bout de l’édéage triangulaire et légerement mammelonné au

milieu, 4 caréne ventrale médiane et arétes longitudinales ventrales bien développées (figure 2b).

Chez la femelle, styles étroits 4 marges internes peu divergeantes a |’extrémité (figure 3a).

Les plantes-hdtes d’Altica woodsi sont restreintes aux espéces des genres botaniques Vitis et

Parthenocissus de la famille des Vitaceae.

Description. BODY. Small elongate species, 3.3-3.8 mm long. (Table II). Colour appearing

blue or blue-green when alive but with various reflections under the microscope: blue (74%),

purplish-violet (21%), or blue-green on pronotum and purplish on elytra (5%); antennae and legs

black with blue reflections; tarsi dark reddish brown.

HEAD. Antennae proportionately longer in males than in females (Table III); antennomeres 3

and 4 subequal in length but both distinctly longer than 2. Frontal carina broadly rounded, ending

at 2/5 to Q of frontal tubercles. Frontal tubercles smooth, weakly defined posteriorly by frontal

groove; median frontal groove moderately long, not well defined (5%), short (50%), or moderately

developed (45%). Vertex smooth or very faintly alutaceous, with few moderately coarse punctures

behind eyes. Eyes separated by 2.5 times their diameter, not prominent. Postocular macrochaetae:

1. Labral setae: 6. Mandibles with outer and median teeth normal, inner tooth with deep basal

indentation, cutting edge straight and rectangular or slightly produced at apex (Figures 3b-d).

THORAX. Pronotum quadrate, slightly narrower at apex than at base, with sides subparallel

in basal half, moderately arcuate towards apex. Anterior angles of pronotum obliquely rounded.

Transverse groove of pronotum deep, extending to lateral margins. Punctation of pronotum

moderately dense and fine. Microsculpture of pronotum visible but slightly impressed. Tarsal claws

normal, basal tooth rectangular.

-——

100pm

FIGURE 3. Altica woodsi: a, styli; b-d, mandible.

28

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Table III. Measurements of body, antennae and pronotum in Altica woodsi

Minimum Maximum Mean (n =10)

Male

Body length (mm) 3.3 3.6 a5

Body width (mm) 1.8 2 1.9

Body length/ width ratio 479 1.94 1.84

Antenna length (um) 215 230 222

Antenna/ body ratio 0.61 0.67 0.64

Pronotum width (im) 118 130 124

Pronotum length (um) 76 84 79

Pronotum width/ length ratio LSh. 1.62 LS7

Female

Body length (mm) 3.6 3.8 Sof

Body width (mm) 1.9 a2 #

Body length/ width ratio 1.76 1.87 1.81

Antenna length (um) 210 220 216

Antenna/ body ratio 0.58 0.62 0.59

Pronotum width (tm) 124 136 128

Pronotum length (4m) 76 86 qe

Pronotum width/ length ratio £53 1.70 1.62

ELYTRA. Umbones not prominent, weakly defined on inner side by small depression. Elytral

costa absent. Punctation moderately dense, coarser than that of pronotum, moderately coarse and

dense, with tendency to be arranged in irregular rows near suture and at base. Microsculpture

present and deeper than on pronotum.

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM. Body slightly more elongate in male than in female (Table II).

Antennae proportionately longer in male than in female. First tarsomeres of front legs slightly

broader in male than in female.

MALE GENITALIA. (Table IV). Median lobe of aedeagus appearing almost straight in dorsal

view (Figure 2a); tip triangular, and weakly nipple-shaped in middle; dorsal undulations distributed

on 1/3 length of aedeagus; ventral longitudinal ridges broadly separated by 3/5 width of aedeagus;

TABLE IV. Measurement of male and female genitalia in Altica woodsi

. Minimum Maximum Mean (n =10)

Male

Aedeagus length (um) 116 124 118

Ventral wrinkles 10 12 11.6

Female

Spermatheca length (zm) 224 256 237

Length of styli (um) 333 416 381

‘Apical setae on styles 7 10 9

Sensilla on styles 5 11 9

29

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

abate beatae I SRE Ae IIE GAIT, 1 BE FFARR ED

10-12 ventro-lateral wrinkles present, larger towards base, not oblique, and not fused in middle;

median carina sometimes weak but usually well defined (Figure 2b).

FEMALE GENITALIA. (Table IV). Receptacle of spermatheca ovoid, larger at base (Figs.

7); spermathecal pump cylindrical, not extending beyond base of receptacle; apical process present,

large (Figure 9a, 9d), or small (Figure 9b, 9c); spermathecal valve small; spermathecal duct coiled

into 2 loops, basal straight portion short; styli fused on half their length with inner margins weakly

diverging at apex (Figure 3a).

C D

a Se ee

FIGURE 9. Variations of the spermatheca in Altica woodsi: a-d

Remarks. The female genitalia of Altica woodsi are very similar to those of A. litigata Fall or

A. suspecta Fall, the latter probably being a synonym of the former. The spermathecae are virtually

identical and the styli differ only by their width, those of woodsi (Figure 3a) being proportionally

a little broader than in A. litigata. However, males of Altica woodsi and A. litigata are easily

separated by the shape of their aedeagus: apex triangular and slightly nipple-shaped in the middle

in A. woodsi, apex lanceolate in A. litigata.

Type material. The type series of Altica woodsi Isely contains 22 specimens which are

deposited in the USNM, in Washington. The holotype bears the following labels: “North East, Pa.

1916/ Quaintance 16427/ Bred from grape/ Reared by D Isely, and a red label Altica woodsi, Type

no. 22290 U.S.N.M.” . Twenty paratypes have the same labels and red label “Altica woodsi, Type

no. 22290 U.S.N.M.”; in the last paratype, the month of the date is given: “VIII.1916’. . A database

tag has been added to these labels: “Database/ LeSage/ Altica woodsi/ # 421”. Finally, the type

series is accompanied by an additional specimen with the same information, but without the red

paratype label.

30

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Literature errors.

- Larrowe (1862: 382). In his answer to an inquiry of Worden (1862: 350), Larrowe misidentified

Altica chalybea for A. woodsi. His observation concerned A. chalybea, but the flea beetles mentioned

by Worden were definitely A. woodsi since the adults were green, and above all, the eggs were laid

on leaves, not inside the buds or in bark cracks as in A. chalybea.

- Slingerland (1898: 194). According to Isely (1920: 13) and myself, Slingerland’s statement

that thin-leaved varieties of grapes were preferred by the grapevine flea-beetle probably refers to

Altica woodsi instead of A. chalybea.

- Marlatt (1896: 395). This author claimed that eggs of Altica chalybea were deposited later in

the season “in clusters on their lower surface” (of leaves). These comments refer to A. woodsi.

- Lugger (1899: 243). At least part of the information given on the host-plants and biology of

the adults of “Haltica ignita Ill.” likely concerns Altica woodsi, since the host-plants listed (Grape

and Virginia Creeper) are those of Altica chalybea or A. woodsi. In addition, the habits of the adults

to chew into the buds in early spring correspond to what is observed in both species of grape flea

beetles.

- Comstock (1880: 214). This author stated that “the eggs [of Altica chalybea and A. woodsi]

are laid in irregular clumps of four or five, more or less, both upon and under sides of the leaf.

Rarely a few eggs are to be found upon unopened buds.” Oviposition on the upper surface of leaves

is unusual for both Altica chalybea and A. woodsi. A. chalybea deposits its eggs primarly on buds,

whereas A. woodsi does so on the undersurface of leaves.

- Slingerland (1898: 197). Slingerland could not explain the discovery of eggs as late as July

15th on the underside of leaves in a New York vineyard owned by V.H. Lowe. In a footnote in his

paper, Slingerhand speculated that there could be a second brood in New York. This apparent

second generation simply corresponds to the oviposition period of Altica woodsi.

Locality records from specimens examined. The following list is based on the examination of

1776 specimens.

CANADA

Ontario. Carleton Co.: Constance Bay (MZELU) 2, Gloucester (CFIM) 12, Harwood Plains

(CFIM) 7, Kanata (CFIM) 7, Marshall Bay (CFIM) 1, Mer Bleue (CFIM) 1, (MZELU) 3, Nepean

(CFIM) 12, North Gower (CNC) 11, / Marlborough Forest (CNC) 16, Ottawa (CNC) 22, (CFIM)

31, (MZELU) 3, (NDSU) 1, (SMCC) 1, / Hampton Park (CFIM) 3, Shirleys Bay (CNC) 1; Cochrane

Dist.: Forks Creek River (as “FKS.Cr.R.”) (SAMC) 2; Durham Co.: Darlington Provincial Park

(CFIM) 1; Essex Co.: Park (CNC) 1; Halton Co.: Halton Hills/ Limehouse (SAMC) 1, Milton

(CNC) 2, (SAMC) 2, Oakville (SAMC) 1; Hastings Co.: Foxboro (SAMC) 1, Marmora (CNC) 3;

Kent Co.: Rondeau (CNC) 4, Rondeau Park (CNC) 14, / Marsh Trail (CNC) 3; Lambton Co.:

Pinery Provincial Park (MZELU) 3, (SAMC) 1; Leeds Co.: St. Lawrence Islands National Park/

-Aubery Island (CNC) 6, / Camelot Island (CNC) 1, / Gordon Island (CNC) 4, / Grenadier Island

(CNC)11, / Grenadier Island Centre (CNC) 1, / Grenadier Island East (CNC) 6, / Lindsey Island

(CNC) 1, / McDonald Island (CNC) 2, / Mulcaster Island (CNC) 1, / Thwartway Island (CNC) 13:

Lincoln Co.: Vineland (SAMC) 1; Norfolk Co.: Port Rowan (CNC) 31; Northumberland Co.:

Brighton (CFIM) 1, Dundas (SAMC) 2, Ferris Provincial Park (CFIM) 1, Presqu’ile Provincial

Park (LEM) 8, (CFIM) 45, (MZELU) 1; Peel Co.: Belfountain (now part of Caledon) (SAMC) 1;

Prescott Co.: Carillon (CNC) 2, Carillon Provincial Park (CNC) 5; Prince Edward Co.: county

record only: (CDFA) 3, (CNC) 34, (CUIC) 4; Renfrew Co.: Arnprior (CNC) 66, (CFIM) 1; Russell

Co.: Cumberland (ISAC) 16; Simcoe Co.: Lefroy (SAMC) 3; Stormont Co.: Long Sault/ St. Lawrence

River (CFIM) 1; Thunder Bay Dist.: Kirby (SAMC) 8; Wellington Co.: Damascus (SAMC) |,

Elora (SAMC) 1, Guelph (SAMC) 9, Guelph/ University of Guelph Arboretum/ Goose Wood

31

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

(SAMC) 10, Orangeville (SAMC) 1, Rockwood (SAMC) 1; Wentworth Co.: Hamilton (CNC) 2;

York Co.: Keswick (SAMC) 1, Stouffville (SAMC) 1, Toronto (LEM) 1, (SAMC) 3, / Royal Ontario

Museum Department of Entomology (ROM) 1, / Zoo (AVMC) 3, Willowdale (SAMC) 1.

Previously reported from this province by Gibson (1913 : 6; 1925: 23; 1926: 578).

Québec. Argenteuil Co.: ile de Carillon (LEM) 2, (CFIM) 1, / (by) Ottawa River (CFIM) 2;

Beauharnois Co.: ile Hébert (CFIM) 1; Berthier Co.: Berthierville (CEUM) 87, (CFLQ) 2, (LEM)

87, (CFIM) 1; Chambly Co.: Saint-Hubert (LEM) 26, (CFIM) 1, Saint-Lambert/ (by) Saint-Laurent

(River) (CFIM) 1; Champlain Co.: Longueuil (CFIM) 1, Chadteauguay Co.: Chateauguay (CEUM)

3, (CFIM) 1; Deux-Montagnes Co.: Kanesatake (= Oka) (CCC) 8, (CFIM) 5, La Trappe (CEUM)

56, (CFIM) 1, Oka (CFIM) 1, Parc d’Oka (CFIM) 1, Saint-Eustache (CFIM) 1; Drummond Co.:

Drummondville (CFIM) 6, Saint-Charles (CFIM) 4; Gatineau Co.: Aylmer (CCC) 3, (CFLQ) 4,

(CFIM) 134, (UNHC) 2, / bord de la riviére des Outaouais (= edge of Ottawa River) (CFIM) 1,

Aylmer; Bouchette/ Lac Roddick (MZELU) 1; Gatineau Park/ Harrington Lake (CFIM) 1, / Camp

Fortune (CFIM) 1, / Folley Bog (CFIM) 1, / Lac Black (CNC) 1, (CFIM) 1, / Lac Pink (CFIM) 1,

/ Lac Ramsay (CFIM) 1, / Lac Fortune (CNC) 1, (CFIM) 2, / Lac Mulvihill (CFIM) 4, Lucerne

(CFIM) 6, Roddick Lake (= local name for Grand Lac Rond) (CFIM) 1, (MZELU) 1, Wakefield

(CNC) 2, (CFIM) 1; Gatineau and Pontiac Co.: Gatineau Park (CFIM) 2; Hull Co.: Hull (AVMC)

4, (CFIM) 2, / Fairy Lake (CFIM) 1, Hull-Ouest/ Parc de la Gatineau (CFIM) |, Touraine (CNC)

13, (CFIM) 1, Touraine/ Limbour (CNC)1, (CFIM) 1; /berville Co.: Iberville/ Vignoble Dietrich-

Jooss (CFIM) 33; fle-de-Montréal Co.: Beaconsfield (LEM) 3, (CFIM) 1, Dollard-des-Ormeaux

(CFIM) 13, Montréal (CEUM) 18, (CNC) 96, (LEM) 6, (CFIM) 21, (USNM) 5, / Bois de Saraguay

(CFIM) 6, / Angrignon Park (CFIM) 3, Mount Royal (= Mont Royal) (CFIM) 1, Outremont (CFIM)

1, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue (LEM) 106, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue (as “Ste.Anne’) (CEUM) 4,

(LEM) 14; fle-Jésus Co.: county record only (as “Laval Co.”), Laval (CFIM) 3, Sainte-Dorothée .

(CFIM) 1; Lévis Co.: Lauzon (CFIM) 1; Lotbiniére Co.: Lotbiniére (CFLQ) 9, (CFIM) 1;

Maskinongé Co.: Maskinongé (CFIM) 1; Pontiac Co.: Fort-Coulonge (CFIM) 2, Lac Davis (CFIM)

1, Quyon (CFIM) 1, Shawbridge (LEM) 4, (CFIM) 1; Portneuf Co.: Neuville (CFLQ) 14, (CFIM)

1, Saint-Augustin (CCC) 5, (CFLQ) 1, (CFIM) 1; Québec Co.: Sainte-Foy (CFLQ) 1; Rouville

Co.: Ange-Gardien (CFLQ) 2, (CFIM) 1, Saint-Hilaire (CFIM) 1; Saint-Jean Co.: Saint-Jean (CNC)

2, (CFIM) 1; Soulanges Co.: Céteau-du-Lac (CFIM) 1; Vaudreuil Co.: Choisy (CFIM)1, [le Perrot

(CFIM) 1, Pincourt (CNC) 23, (CFIM) 1, Rigaud (CCC) 5, (CEUM) 1, (CNC) 1, LEM) 1, (CFIM)

31, / (by) Ottawa River (CNC) 3, (CFIM) 16; Yamaska Co.: Yamaska (CNC) 3, (CFIM) 1.

Not located: only a code “59-45” (CFLQ) 2.

Previously recorded for this province by Couper (1881; 219) and Gibson (1925: 23).

UNITED STATES

(Alabama). Previously recorded from this state by Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374). State

record not confirmed by the present study.

Connecticut. New Haven Co.: New Haven (YPMC) 2.

District of Columbia. District record only: (CNC) 1, Washington (USNM) 2.

Illinois. Cook Co.: Glencoe/ Turnbull Woods (INHS) 1, / Riverside Wood (INHS) 1; Knox

Co.: Galesburg (MCZ) 1; McDonough Co.: Macomb (NDSU) 1.

Indiana. Kosciusko Co.: county record only (PURC) 2; Marshall Co.: Tippecanoe (as “Tipp.”)

CAS 1; Posey Co.: county record only (PURC) 2.

Not located: (locality name illegible) (PURC) 1.

Kansas. Crawford Co.: county record only (ISAC) 1.

Louisiana. Madison Co.: Tallulah (CDFA) 1.

a2

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Maryland. State record only: (CNC) 1; Anne Arundel Co.: Odenton (USNM) 1; Baltimore

Co.: Baltimore (CAS) 2; Montgomery Co.: Glen Echo (USNM) 3, Plummers Island (USNM) 2;

Prince George’s Co.: Bowie/ Patuxent Refuge, Laurel (CNC) 1.

Previously recorded from this state by Staines and Staines (1998: 239).

Massachusetts. Hampden Co.: Chicopee (USNM) 2 Longmeadow (USNM) 1.

Maine. Kennebec Co.: Waterville (RENC) 5; Penobscot Co.: Orono (CNC) 1, (USNM) 1.

Michigan. Barry Co.: Gull Lake/ 8 mi. S Delton (CNC) 8; Berrien Co.: Saint Joseph (CAS)

1; St. Joseph (as “St. Joe”) Co.: county record only (EGRC) 1.

Minnesota. Anoka Co.: Ramsey (CNC) 2; Hennepin Co.: Saint Anthony Park (CNC) 1;

Sherburne Co.: Elk River (CNC) 1.

Missouri. Barry Co.: Roaring River State Park (EGRC) 1; Frederick Co.: Frederick Municipal

Forest (EGRC) 1; Madison Co.: 3 mi. W Fredericktown (EGRC) 2; Randolph Co.: 1 mi E Moberly

(EGRC) 16, (RHTC) 1; Saline Co.: Van Meter State Park/ Woolbridge Lake (EGRC) 1.

New Hampshire. Coos Co.: Gorham (CNC) 3; Grafton Co.: Bedel Bridge/ S.P. Oliverian

Brook (UNHC) 42.

North Carolina. Jackson Co.: Balsam (USNM) 8; Robeson Co.: Lumberton (USNM) 1; Swain

Co.: Bryson City (USNM) 1, Indian Gap (USNM) 5.

New Jersey. State record only: (MCZ) 2; Warren Co.: Phillipsburg (CAS) 5.

New York. State record only: (USNM) 3; Essex Co.: Whiteface Mountain

(EGRC) 1; Jefferson Co.: One Thousand Island Park/ Wellesley Island (MZELU) 3; Monroe

Co.: Rochester (NDSU) 1; Nassau Co.: Inwood (USNM) 2; New York Co.: New York (CNC) 2;

Niagara Co.: Olcott (CUIC) 2; Orange Co.: West Point (USNM) 19; Richmond Co.: Staten Island

(MCZ) 1, Staten Island (as “S.I.”) (USNM) 5; Suffolk Co.: Huntington (in Long Island) (CUIC) 1,

Riverhead (NDSU) 2; Tompkins Co.: Ithaca (CUIC) 29, Lansing Monkey Run, Taughannock Falls/

8 mi. N. of Ithaca (CUIC) 28; Westchester Co.: Montrose (USNM) 1.

Previously recorded from this state by Isely (1920: 13), Leonard (1928: 477), Wilcox (1975:

110) and Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

North Carolina. Jackson Co.: Balsam (USNM) 6.

Ohio. Lake Co.: Headlands (USNM) 2.

Oklahoma. Pittsburg Co.: McAlester (USNM) 1.

Pennsylvania. State record only: (CNC) 3; Dauphin Co.: Paxtang (NDSU) 2; Delaware Co.:

Castle Rock (SMCC) 1, Glenolden (MCZ) 2; Erie Co.: North East (CNC) 5, (USNM) 22 [type

locality]; Montogomery Co.: Miquon (NDSU) 1; Northampton Co.: Easton (CAS) 12.

Not located: Hanover (USNM) 3 (county not specified, many possibilities).

Previously recorded from this state by Isely (1920: 13), Gibson (1925: 23) and Downie and

Arnett (1996: 1374).

South Carolina. Chesterfield Co.: Sandhill State Forest (FAMU) 1.

Tennessee. Washington Co.: Johnson City (CAS) 3.

(Texas). Recorded from this state by Wilcox (1974: 110) and Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

Vermont. Chittenden Co.: Burlington (CNC) 3.

Virginia. State record only: (USNM) 1; Fairfax Co.: Black Pond (USNM) 1, Great Falls

(USNM) 1; Lee Co.: Pennington Gap (USNM) 1; Loudoun Co.: near Plummers Island (in MD)

(USNM) 1; Pulaski Co.: Mechanicsburg (MZELU) 1; Shenandoah Co.: New Market (CNC) 3;

Southampton Co.: Boykins (MCZ) 1; Virginia Beach City.: Cape Henry (USNM) 9, Virginia Beach

(CNC) 1.

West Virginia. Cabell Co.: 1 mi. S Dudley Gap (SMCC) 1; Doddridge Co.: Randolph (CFIM)

1; Fayette Co.: Hawks Nest State Park (SMCC) 2; Kanawha Co.: Ruthdale (SMCC) 1, Guthrie

(SMCC) 17, Kanawha State Forest (SMCC) 3, Shrewsbury Hollow (SMCC) 1; Pleasants Co.:

33

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Nr a eg

Belmont (SMCC) 1; Ritchie Co.: 1.5 mi. W Stanley (SMCC) 1; Summers Co.: New River at

Sandstone (SMCC) 1, Pipestem (MZELU) 1.

Previously recorded from this state by Clark (2000: 34).

Wisconsin. Dane Co.: Baskerville Park (CDFA) 2, (CDFA) 3, (EGRC) 1, (NDSU) 1, (USNM) 1.

Distribution. Altica woodsi is a Northeastern species distributed from Ontario and Québec to

South Carolina and Louisiana (Figure 10). The distribution of Altica woodsi is similar to that of A.

chalybea but does not include the Gulf States. Louisiana is considered here an extension of the

natural distribution due to grape growing. Alabama and Texas recorded by authors (see above) are

doubtful records that have not been confirmed by voucher specimens.

A. woodsi

FIGURE 10. Distribution of Altica woodsi in North America.

Host-plants.

a) True host-plants mentioned in the literature

- Delaware grape (a variety of Vitis riparia Michx.): as “...of the cultivated grapes the larva

flourishes on thin-leaved varieties like the Delaware” by Isely (1920: 13)

- Concord grape (a variety of Vitis labrusca L.): as “Larvae were frequently found on Concord

grapes in the field but the majority of the newly hatched larvae placed on Concord leaves in cages

failed to pass the first instar. After this instar was passed little difficulty was experienced in carrying

them to the adult stage.” and “but does not favor thick-leaved sorts like the Concord” fide Isely

(1920: 13).

- Cultivated grape (= Vitis vitifera L.): Isely (1920: 13); Gibson (1925: 24; 1926: 578).

- Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. (or as “Virginia Creeper”): Gibson (1925: 24, 1926:

578), Wilcox (1979: 16); Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

- Parthenocissus sp.: Wilcox (1979: 16); Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

34

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

- Vitis spp. (or as “Grape”): Wilcox (1979: 24); as “wild and cultivated grape” by Isely (1920:

13); Downie and Arnett (1996: 1374).

- Vitis riparia Michx. (Wild Grape): (Gibson 1925: 24).

b) Accidental host-plants mentioned in the literature.

- None found so far. l

c) True host-plants recorded on the labels of specimens examined

- “Grape ampelopsis” (Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.): 1 record.

- “Cultivated Grape” (Vitis vitifera L.): 2 records.

- “Grape”, “Grapevine”, (Vitis spp.): 26 records

- Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. (Virginia Creeper, “Virginia Grape”): 28 records.

- “Wild Grape”, “Wild Vitis” (Vitis riparia Michx. ): 14 records.

d) Accidental host-plants recorded on the labels of specimens examined:

- Amelanchier sp. (blooming): | record.

- “Asclépiade” (Asclepias syriaca L.): | record.

- Avena sativa L.: | record.

- Barbarea vulgaris R. Br.: 1 record.

- Carex sp.: 1 record.

- Cassandra sp. (probably calyculata (L.) D. Don): 1 record.

- Cornus sp.: 1 record.

- Cornus stolonifera Michx.: 7 records.

Note: Wild Grape and Virginia Creeper often grow intermixed with Dogwood in Ontario

and Québec where the beetles with this host-plant were collected. This may explain the large

number of records of this accidental host.

- “Hawthorn” (Crataegus sp.): 1 record.

- Nasturtium sp.: 1 record.

- “Plants” (undetermined): 2 records.

- Populus sp.: 2 records.

- “Red Cedar” (Juniperus virginiana L.): | record.

- “Spurge” (Euphorbia cyparissias L.): 1 record.

- “Sunflower” (Helianthus sp.): | record.

- Populus tremuloides (Michx.): 1 record.

- Prunus sp.: 1 record.

- Salix sp. : 1 record.

- Salix lucida Mihl. (= Shining Willow): 1 record.

- Scirpus sp.: 1 record.

- Solidago sp.: 3 records.

- Tilia americana L. (= Tilleul d’ Amérique, Basswood): 1 record.

- “undetermined grass”: | record.

- “Wheat” (Triticum aestivum. L.): 1 record.

Biology. A/tica woodsi overwinters in the adult stage. Overwintering adults hide in leaf litter,

under the rough bark of trees or in the crevices of wood not far from their host plants, and look for

winter quarters at the time the leaves of the grape start to fall. According to the information recorded

‘on the labels of specimens examined, habitats recorded included deciduous, poplar, beech/maple,

pine, mixed and flood plain forests, the edges of forests, lakes, rivers, creeks, ditches and roads, as

well as vineyards, gardens, picnic areas, and abandoned fields.

35

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Most of the biological information dealing with Altica woodsi comes from the original work

of Isely (1920), and the contribution of Gibson (1925) in Ottawa, Ontario. Earlier observations

exist but they were published under different species names (A. chalybea Illiger, A. ignita Illiger,

etc.; see Literature review). Peairs (1941) claimed that adults of A. woodsi emerged from hibernation

in early spring and fed on the foliage that was already expanded. However, according to Lugger

(1899), and from my own observations made in the Ottawa area in spring 2001 and 2002,

overwintering adults were chewing into the leaf buds of the wild grapes before they opened, just as

those of A. chalybea do. They usually attack cultivated grapes soon after if vineyards are present in

the surroundings. Hibernated adults feed for 1-2 weeks before mating and ovipositing.

As correctly reported by Gibson (1925), eggs are usually laid singly along the veins on the

underside of leaves, but sometimes, two or three may be deposited together. The eggs are pale

yellow in colour, typically with a narrow line of feces stuck on one side. According to Isely (1920),

the largest number of eggs deposited by a female in a single day was 31. Females kept under

observation by this author deposited 37-181 eggs during their lifetime, for an average of 102.5

eggs per female. Incubation time depended considerably on weather conditions, but, in general,

eggs hatched within 2 weeks.

Newly hatched larvae eat only the under surface of leaves, whereas larger ones make holes

through the blade (Figure |la). There are 3 larval instars. Each instar lasts about 6 days (Isely

1920). Larvae prefer thin-leaved grape varieties, and do not move readily from one leaf to another.

The larval period lasts 18 days.

Pupation occurs underground, 1-2 cm under the surface, in a pupal chamber made of packed

soil material. The pupation period lasts about a week, but may vary considerably according to the

local weather conditions. The pupa is yellow.

First adults of the new generation appear at the end of July and beginning of August. Like ~

large larvae, they typically make irregular feeding marks on leaves (Figure 11b). Adults feed on

their host for the rest of the season but without mating or ovipositing. They look for shelters with

the arrival of the first cold night in the fall.

According to my observations there is only one generation a year in the Ottawa area, but

Gibson (1925) reported that females of the new generation maintained in cages produced eggs in

mid-August, suggesting two generations, at least in some years.

Parasites. They probably exist, but none have yet been identified.

Predators. In Aylmer, Québec (north of Ottawa, Ontario), adults of the carabids Lebia moesta

LeConte and L. viridis Say were collected by myself in company of adults of Altica woodsi.

Economic importance. Damage to grapes has been reported as minor since Altica woodsi

feed exclusively on the developed leaves of grape (Isely 1920; Peairs 1941). However, my colleague,

Henri Goulet, lost all of his Concord grapes in summer 2001 due to this pest. I have observed

spring adults during the first week of May 2001, and in mid-April in 2002, feeding on opening

buds of wild grape along the Ottawa River. In two vineyards of the Eastern Townships in Québec,

adults of both A. woodsi and A. chalybea were collected on canes in early spring 2001, but it could

not be determined whether they were feeding on leaf or fruit buds (Martin Trudeau, pers. comm.).

Common names. Lugger (1899: 243) first proposed the popular name “Lesser grapevine

flea-beetle” but erroneously applied it to Altica ignita. The name was later used by Isely (1920: 11)

when he described A. woodsi, and accepted by Herrick (1925: 177), Gibson (1925: 23, 1926: 578),

and Peairs (1941: 323). Surprisingly, it is not included in the lists of the common names of insects

produced by the Entomological Society of America (Muesebeck 1942; Werner 1982; Stoetzel 1989:

Bosik 1997).

36

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Volume 133, 2002

i Uy

s

FIGURE 11. a, underside of a leaf of Vitis riparia damaged by larvae of Altica woodsi; b, leaf of

the same plant typically riddled with holes by adults of the new generation and large larvae.

37

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Benoit (1975: 26, 1985: 10) proposed the French name “Altise de Woods” for Altica woodsi,

in reference to the species name woodsi with the English equivalent “Wood's flea beetle.”

Unfortunately, few people are aware that Woods was an entomologist who studied the biology of

Altica, so it is not a useful common name. Alternatively, since most Al/tica species are mono- or

oligophagous, it is usually easier to identify them indirectly by their host-plants than directly by

their morphological external features. Consequently, the proper French equivalent of the Lesser

grapevine flea beetle should be “Petite altise de la vigne”.

Conclusion

Although both Altica chalybea and A. woodsi develop on the same host-plants (Vitis,

Parthenocissus), slight differences exist in their habits that reduce interspecific competition. For

instance, A. chalybea lays its eggs on buds or in bark crevices, whereas A. woodsi does so on the

underside of leaves later in the season. More data are needed to confirm early observations of

authors on egg hatching and larval development of A. chalybea which are supposed to occur 2-3

weeks later in Altica woodsi.

With regards to larval habits, the larvae of Altica chalybea are usually found on the upperside

of leaves according to authors, whereas those of A. woodsi commonly develop on the underside.

However, rarely were larvae of A. chalybea found on the upper surface in rearings maintained in

the laboratory in 2002. Also, it is not known whether the larvae of both species can feed together

on the same leaf in nature. More information is also needed on the morphology of the larvae since

it is presently impossible to recognize individual instars or separate larvae of both species using

the existing descriptions or illustrations (Slingerland 1898; Isely 1920). Such information is essential

for understanding how the larvae of two species can share the same food source. Do they feed on ©

the same plant without serious competition by sharing different portions of the canes? Within a

given habitat, or vineyard, do they develop in different areas to reduce competition? At present, the

answers to these questions are still unknown. The same lack of information applies to the pupae.

Finally, an extensive search for parasites would be of great interest for pest management in vineyards.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my colleagues Drs. Yves Bousquet and Henri Goulet for their comments, and

Diana Barnes and Lisa Bartels for checking the data in the databases and in the text. My thanks are

also extended to Go Sato for inking the figures, and Henri Goulet for the photographs of the adults

and the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments, corrections, and suggestions.

References

AAEE. 1925. Common names of insects approved for general use by the American Association of

Economic Entomologists. Journal of Economic Entomology 18: 521-545.

Balsbaugh, E. and K.L. Hays. 1972. The Leaf Beetles of Alabama (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).

Bulletin of the Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University No 441. 223 pp.

Bell R. 1880 (1879). Report on explorations on the Churchill and Nelson rivers and around God’s

and Island Lakes, 1879. Geological Survey of Canada, Appendix V, pp. 65c-66c.

Belton, E.M. and D.C. Eidt. 1996 (1993). Noms communs des insectes au Canada. Entomological

Society of Canada/ Société d’Entomologie du Québec. 110 pp.

38

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Benoit, P. 1975. French Names of Insects in Canada with Corresponding Latin and English Names

(fourth edition). Agriculture Québec. Publication QA38-R4-30. 214 pp.

Benoit, P. 1985. Nomenclatura Insectorum canadensis (5e édition). Service canadien des foréts,

Centre de recherches forestiéres des Laurentides. 299 pp.

Bethune, C.J.S. 1893 [1892]. The president’s annual address. Twenty-Second Annual Report of

the Entomological Society of Ontario for 1891, 22: 7-14.

Bethune, C.J.S. 1898 [1897]. Notes on the season of 1897. Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the

Entomological Society of Ontario for 189,7 28: 31-34.

Bethune, C.J.S. 1907. Common insects affecting fruit-trees. Bulletin of the Ontario Agricultural

College No. 158. 47 pp.

Blackwelder, R.E. 1939. Fourth Supplement, 1933 to 1939 (inclusive), to the Leng Catalogue of

Coleoptera of America, North of Mexico. Mount Vernon, New York: John D. Sherman Jr. 146

Pp-

Blatchley, W.S. 1896. Notes on the winter insect fauna of Vigo County, Indiana. VII. Psyche 7:

434-437.

Blatchley, W.S. 1910. An Illustrated Descriptive Catalogue of the Coleoptera or Beetles Known to

Occur in Indiana. Indianapolis: The Nature Publishing Co. 1385 pp.

Blatchley, W.S. 1924. The Chrysomelidae of Florida. The Florida Entomologist 8: 17-46.

Blunck, H. 1954. Tierische Schadlinge an Nutzpflanzen, 2. teil. Handbuch der Pflanzenkrankheiten,

Fiinfter Band. Berlin, Hamburg: Paul Parey. 599 pp.

Borror, D.J., C.A. Triplehorn and N.F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects

(sixth edition). Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing. 875 pp.

Bosik, J.J. 1997. Common names of insects and related organisms. Committee on Common Names

of Insects. Lanham, Maryland: Entomological Society of America. 232 pp.

Brimley, C.S. 1938. The Insects of North Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of

Agriculture, Division of Entomology. 560 pp.

Britton, W.E. 1898 (1897). Notes of the season. Twenty-first Annual Report of the Connecticut

Agricultural Experiment Station for 1897, pp. 314-319.

Britton, W.E. 1920. Checklist of the Insects of Connecticut. State of Connecticut, State Geological

and Natural History Survey Bulletin 31. 397 pp.

Britton, W.E. 1926 (1925). Twenty-fifth report of the State Entomologist of Connecticut. Bulletin

of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 275: 1-272.

Britton, WE. 1927 (1926). Twenty-fifth report of the State Entomologist of Connecticut. The Review

of Applied entomology (series A: Agricultural) 14: 439-440.

Britton WE. 1928. Twenty-eighth report of the State Entomologist of Connecticut. Bulletin of the

Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 305: 669-708.

Caesar, L. 1914 (1913). Insects of the season in Ontario. Fourty-Fourth Annual Report of the

Entomological Society of Ontario 44: 75-84.

Caesar, L. 1916 (1915). Insects of the season in Ontario. Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the

Entomological Society of Ontario 46: 29-33.

Caesar, L. 1927. Grape insects, pp. 44-51 in The Grape in Ontario by E.F. Palmer and J.R. van

Haarlem (authors). Ontario Department of Agriculture, Horticultural Experimental Station,

Vineland Station. Bulletin 328, 52 pp.

Caesar, L. and W.A. Ross. 1926 (1925). Insects of the season in Ontario. Fifty-Sixth Annual Report

of the Entomological Society of Ontario 56: 13-17.

Campbell, J.M, M.J. Sarazin and D.B. Lyons. 1989. Canadian Beetles (Coleoptera) Injurious to

Crops, Ornamentals, Stored Products, and Buildings. Agriculture Canada, Research Branch,

Publication 1826. 491 pp.

39

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Chagnon, G. 1917. A Preliminary List of the Insects of the Province of Quebec. Report of the

Quebec Society for the Protection of Plants - Part III Coleoptera (suppl.). 277 pp.

Chagnon, G. 1938. Contribution al’ étude des Coléoptéres de la province de Québec. Le Naturaliste

canadien 65: 157-166.

Chagnon, G. 1940. Contribution 4 l'étude des Coléoptéres de la province de Québec. Montréal:

Département de Biologie de |’ Universié de Montréal. 385 pp.

Chagnon, G. and A. Robert. 1962. Principaux Coléoptéres de la province de Québec. Les Presses

de I’ Université de Montréal, Montréal. 440 pp.

Clark, S.M. 2000. An Annotated List of the Leaf Beetles of West Virginia (Coleoptera: Orsodacnidae,

Megalopodidae, Chrysomelidae exclusive of Bruchinae). Occasional Publications of the West

Virginia Department of Agriculture. Charleston, West Virginia. 93 pp.

Comstock, J.H. 1880 (1879). Report of the Entomologist. pp. 185-348 in Report of the Commissioner

of Agriculture for the Year 1879. Washington, Government Printing Office. 611 pp.

Cooper, J.R. 1922. Commercial grape growing. The Review of Applied Entomology. Series A:

Agricultural 10: 388.

Couper, W. 1855. Canadian Coleoptera in the collection of Fred. H. Ibbetson. The Canadian Journal,

a repertory of industry, science and art, September 1855: 325-327.

Couper, W. 1883. Coleoptera found in the province of Quebec. The Canadian Sportsman and

Naturalist 3: 219-220.

Dean, G.A. 1930. Insects injurious to small fruits. The Biennial Report of the Kansas State

Horticultural Society 40: 137-155 (Contribution No. 378 from the Department of Entomology).

Dearborn, R.G, and C.P. Donahue. 1993. The Forest Insect Survey of Maine. Maine Forest Service,

Department of Conservation. Insect and Disease Division. Technical Report No. 32. 101 pp.

Downie, N.M and R.H. Arnett. 1996. The Beetles of Northeastern North America. Gainesville, —

Florida: The Sandhill Crane Press. Volume II, pp. 891-1721.

Duckett, A.B. 1920. Annotated list of Halticini. Bulletin of the University of Maryland Agricultural

Experiment Station No. 241: 111-155.

Ebeling, W. 1959. Subtropical Fruit Pests. University of California, Division of Agricultural Science.

Los Angeles, California. 436 pp.

Engelmann, I.G. 1869. The North American grapes. The American Naturalist 2: 320-323.

Eyer, J.R. and W.A. McCubbin. 1926. Grape insects and diseases. Bulletin of the Pennsylvania

Department of Agriculture 9: 1-27 (General Bulletin No. 433).

Fall, H.C. 1920. On certain species of Haltica, old and new. Psyche 27: 101-111.

Felt, E.P. 1900a (1899). 15th report of the state entomologist - 1899. Bulletin of the New York

State Museum 6: 551-653.

Felt, E.P. 1900b. Illustrated descriptive catalogue of some of the more important injurious and

beneficial insects of New York state. Bulletin of the New York State Museum 8 (No. 37): 1-

a2:

Felt, E.P. 1901 (1900). 16th report of the state entomologist - 1900. Bulletin of the New York State

Museum 7: 951-1063.

Felt, E.P. 1902 (1901). 17th report of the state entomologist - 1901. Bulletin of the New York State

Museum 8: 699-925.

Fitch, A. 1859a (1856-1858). Third [1856], fourth [1857], and fifth [1858] reports on the noxious,

beneficial and other insects of the state of New York. Albany, New York: C. Van Benthuysen

Printer. pp. 1-172 (3rd), 1-67 (4th), 1-74 (Sth) [Issued separately with title and index].

Fitch, A. 1859b. Beetles infesting grape-vines. The Country Gentleman 14: 171

Fletcher, J. 1884. Report of the Entomologist for 1884. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture. pp. 1-7.

40

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

- Fletcher, J. 1885. Report of the Entomologist for 1884. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture. pp. 7-

34.

Forsythe, H.Y. and G.W. Still. 1969. Insects injurious to grapes in Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Research

Center - Research Summary 38: 33-36.

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, dans

laquelle ces animaux sont rangés suivant un ordre méthodique. Volume 1, 523 pp. Volume 2,

690 pp.

Gibson, A. 1913. Flea-beetles and their control. Dominion of Canada, Department of Agriculture,

Experimental Farms, Division of Entomology. Entomological Circular No. 2. 11 pp.

Gibson, A. 1914. The injurious flea-beetles of the prov. of Quebec. 6th Report for the Protection of

Plants, 6: 25-30.

Gibson, A. 1925. Notes on the occurrence of the Lesser Grapevine Flea-Beetle in Canada. Fifty-

Fifth Annual Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario (for) 1924, 55: 23-24.

Gibson, A. 1926 (1925). Notes on the occurrence of the Lesser Grapevine Flea-beetle in Canada.

The Review of Applied Entomology (Series A: Agricultural) 13: 578.

Gibson, A. 1928. Insects of the Flower Garden and their Control. Dominion of Canada, Department

of Agriculture. Entomological Bulletin (N.S.) No. 29. 56 pp.

Gibson, A. 1934a. Insects of the Flower Garden and their Control. Dominion of Canada, Department

of Agriculture. Entomological Bulletin (N.S.) No. 99. 69 pp.

Gibson, A. 1934b. Insectes qui nuisent aux fleurs et moyens de les détruire. Ottawa: Miniature

fédéral de 1’ Agriculture. Bulletin No. 39. 69 pp.

Gleason, H.A. 1963. The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United

States and Adjacent Canada. For the New York Botanical Garden. New York: Hafner Publishing

Co. Volume 2. 655 pp.

Gott, B. 1878 (1877). Report on some of our fruit insect enemies. Annual Report of the

Entomological Society of Ontario 1877: 40-47.

Gott, B. 1879 (1878). Notes of the year. Annual Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario

for the year 1878: 55-59.

Hamilton, J. 1895. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Southwestern Pennsylvania, with notes and

descriptions. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 22: 317-353.

Harrington, W.H. 1882a. Report of the entomological branch for the season 1881. Transactions of

the Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club 1: 24-26.

Harrington, W.H. 1882b. Chrysomelidae — leaf-eaters. Annual Report of the Entomological Society

of Ontario for 1881: 53-62.

Harrington, W.H. 1884. List of Ottawa Coleoptera. Transactions of the Ottawa Field-Naturalists’

Club 2: 67-85.

Harris, T.W. 1833. VII. Insects. Pp. 566-595 in E. Hitchcock (Ed.), Part, IV, A catalogue of the

animals and plants in Massachusetts. Report on the geology, mineralogy, botany, and zoology

of Massachusetts. Amherst, J.S. & C. Adams. 692 pp.

Harris, T.W. 1835. VIII. Insects. Pp. 33-82 in E. Hitchcock (Ed.), Catalogue of the Animals and

Plants in Massachusetts, with a copious index. Amherst. 142 pp.

Harris, T.W. 1841. Report on the Insects of Massachusetts Injurious to Vegetation. Cambridge:

Folsom, Wells, and Thurston. 459 pp.

Harris, T.W. 1842. Treatise on some of the Insects of New England which are Injurious to Vegetation.

Cambridge: John Owen. 459 pp.

Harris, T.W. 1852. A Treatise on some of the Insects of New England which are Injurious to

*, Vegetation (second edition). Boston: White & Potter. 513 pp.

41

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Harris, T.W. 1854. Report on Insects and Diseases Injurious to Vegetation. Boston: Tress of the

Franklin Printing House. 11 pp. (printed separately).

Harris, T.W. 1862. A Treatise on Some of the Insects Injurious to Vegetation (a new edition).

Boston: Crosby and Nichols. 640 pp., 8 coloured plates.

Hartzell, F.Z. 1910. A preliminary report on grape insects. Bulletin of the New York Agricultural

Experiment Station, Geneva 331: 481-581.

Hartzell, F.Z. 1915. The grapevine flea-beetle (Haltica chalybea Illiger). International Congress of

Viticulture. Report of the Committee on Publication, pp. 201-208.

Hartzell, F.Z. 1924. Grape insects. Proceedings of the annual Meeting of the New York State

Horticulture society, pp. 78-87.

Hatch, M.H. Ortenburger A.I. 1926. Records and new species of Coleoptera from Oklahoma.

Publications of the University of Oklahoma Biological Survey 2: 7-14.

Heikertinger, F. and E. Csiki. 1940. Pars 166 and 169. Chrysomelidae: Halticinae. in Coleopterorum

Catalogus. Junk, W. and S. Schenkling (Eds). W. Junk’s-Gavenhage. 635 pp.

Herrick, E.C. 1835. On the Chrysomela vitivora. The American Journal of Science and Arts 27:

420.

Herrick, G.W. 1925. Manual of Injurious Insects. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 489 pp.

Hewitt, C.G. 1915. Report of the Dominion Entomologist for the Year ending March 31, 1915.

Ottawa: Canada Department of Agriculture. 40 pp.

Horn, G.H. 1889. A synopsis of the Halticini of Boreal America. Transactions of the American

Entomological Society 16: 163-320.

Horn, G.H. 1893. The Galerucini of Boreal America. Transactions of the American Entomological

Society 20: 57-144.

ICZN 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition. London: The Natural

History Museum. 306 pp.

Illiger, K. 1807. Verzeichniss der Arten der Flokafer, Halticae, in der Hellwig-Hoffman-seggischen

Sammlung, mit Beschreibung der neuen, und Bezeichnung der iibrigen Arten. Magazin fiir

Insecktenkunde 6: 81-188.

Isely, D. 1920. Grapevine flea-beetles. Bulletin of the United States Department of Agriculture

901: 1-27.

Kirk, V.M. 1969. A List of Beetles of South Carolina. Part 1 - Northern Coastal Plain. South

Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson University Technical Bulletin No. 1033.

124 pp.

Kirk, V.M. 1970. A list of the beetles of South Carolina. Part 2 - Mountain, Piedmont, and Southern

Coastal Plain. South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson University. Technical

Bulletin No. 1038. 117 pp.

Laplante, S. Y. Bousquet, P. Bélanger, C. Chantal. 1991. Liste des espéces de Coléoptéres du

Québec. Fabreries, Supplément 6. 136 pp.

Larrowe, J. 1862. The blue-grape beetle. The Country Gentleman 19: 382.

Lasnier, J. M. Trudeau, N.J. Bostanian, C. Vincent, H. Goulet, L. LeSage. 2001. Les insectes

ravageurs de la vigne au Québec. wysiwyg://1/http://res2.agr.gc.ca/stjean/recherche/vigne2_f.h.

LeConte, J.E. 1824. Description of some new species of North American insects. Annals of the

Lyceum of Natural History of New York 1: 169-173. plate XI, Figure 16.

Leng, C.W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, North of Mexico. Mount Vernon, New

York: John D. Sherman, Jr. 470 pp.

Leonard, M.D. 1928 (1926). A list of the insects of New York with a list of the spiders and certain

other allied groups. Memoir of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station 101:

1121 pp.

42

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

LeSage, L. 1991. Family Chrysomelidae. Pp. 301-323 in Y. Bousquet (Ed.) Checklist of Beetles of

Canada and Alaska. Ottawa: Agriculture Canada, Research Branch. Publication 1861/ E. 430

LeSage, L. 1995. Revision of the costate species of Altica Miiller of North America North of

Mexico (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The Canadian Entomologist 127: 295-411.

LeSage, L. 2000. On the type series of Altica chalybea (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomological

News 111 (4): 233-237.

LeSage, L. and J. Denis. 1999. The flea-beetles Altica corni Woods in North America (Coleoptera:

Chrysomelidae, Alticinae). Pp. 533-544 in M.L. Cox (Ed.) Advances in Chrysomelidae biology.

Leiden, Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers. Volume I, 671 pp.

Linné, C. 1758. Systema naturae. 10th edition. Holmiae. Volume I, 824 pp.

Lintner, J.A. 1888. Insect attacks and miscellaneous observations. Fourth report on the injurious

and other insects of the state of New York 4: 19-147.

Lintner, J.A. 1890. (B.) Contributions to the Department. Sixth report on the injurious and other

insects of the state of New York 6: 186-190.

Lintner, J.A. 1891. Entomological Contributions. Seventh report on the injurious and other insects

of the state of New York 7: 331-356.

Lintner, J.A. 1893. Contributions to the Department. Eighth report on the injurious and other insects

of the state of New York for the year 1891 8: 296-30.

Léding, H.P. 1945. Catalogue of the Beetles of Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama. Monograph

11. 172 pp.

Lorenz, W. 1998. Nomina Carabidarum: A Directory of the Scientific Names of Ground Beetles.

Tutzing, Germany: Privately published. 937 pp.

Lowe V.H. 1898. Preliminary notes on the grape-vine flea-beetle. Bulletin of the New York

Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva 150: 263-265.

Lugger, O. 1899. Beetles injurious to fruit-producing plants. Bulletin of the University of Minnesota

Agricultural Experiment Station 66: 85-331.

McMillan, C. 1888. Twenty-two common insects of Nebraska. Bulletin of the Agricultural

Experiment Station of Nebraska 1: 33-133.

MacNay, C.G. 1955 (1954). Summary of important insect infestations, occurrences, and damage

in Canada in 1954. Annual Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario 85: 61-91.

MacNay, C.G. 1956 (1955). Summary of important insect infestations, occurrences, and damage

in Canada in 1955. Annual Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario 86: 104-127.

Marlatt, C.L. 1896 (1895). The Principal Insect Enemies of the Grape. Pp. 385-404 in Yearbook of

the United States Department of Agriculture, Washington. 656 pp.

McGrew, J.R. and G.W. Still. 1968. Control of grape diseases and insects in the Eastern United

States. USDA Farmer’s Bulletin No. 1893: 1-27.

McGrew, J.R and G.W. Still. 1979. Control of Grape Diseases and Insects in the Eastern United

States. USDA Farmer’s Bulletin #1893 (revised). 35 pp.

Melsheimer, F.E. 1806. A Catalogue of Insects of Pennsylvania. Part First. Hanover, York co: W.D.

Lepper. 60 pp.

Melsheimer, F.E. 1853. Catalogue of the described Coleoptera of the United States. Washington:

Smithsonian Institution (revised by S.S. Haldeman and J.L. LeConte). 172 pp.

Muesebeck, C.F.W. 1942. Common names of insects approved by the American Association of

Economic Entomologists. Journal of Economic Entomology 35: 83-101.

Neal, J.C. 1890. Entomological notes. Bulletin of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station 9:

setiead=16.

43

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Osborn, H. 1888 (1887). Report upon the insects of the season in Iowa. Pp. 154-164, in C.V. Riley,

Report of the Entomologist. Washington: Government Printing Office. 178 pp

Peairs, L.M. 1941. Insect pests of farm, garden, and orchard. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 549

Steeecgh L. 1877. Petite faune entomologique du Canada. Québec: Des Presses de C. Darveau.

785 pp.

hls oN A.L. and C.L. Shear. 1907. Insect and fungus enemies of the grape east of the Rocky

Mountains. United States Department of Agriculture, Farmer’s Bulletin 284: 1-48.

Quaintance, A.L and C.L., Shear. 1921. Insect and Fungous Enemies of the grape. United States

Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin 1220. 75 pp.

Quaintance, AL, Shear CL. 1922. Insect and fungous enemies of the grape. The review of applied

entomology 10: 239.

Reh, L. 1913. Die tierischen Feinde. Handbuch der Pflanzenkrankheiten, Dritter Band. Berlin:

Paul Parey Verlagsbuchhandlung. 774 pp.

Riley, C.V. 1868. The cucumber flea-beetle (Haltica cucumeris Harris). The American Entomologist

oh.

Riley, C.V. 1870a. Grape-vine Flea-beetle. The American Entomologist and Botanist 2: 309.

Riley, C.V. 1870b. Insects injurious to the grape-vine. The American Entomologist and Botanist 2:

327-328.

Riley, C.V. 1880. The grapevine flea-beetle (Graptodera chalybea Illig.). The American

Entomologist 3: 183-184.

Riley, C.V. 1881. General index and supplement to the nine reports of the insects of Missouri.

Bulletin of the United States Entomological Commission. 6: 1-177.

Riley, C.V. 1889. A grape-vine flea-beetle in the Southwest. Insect Life 1: 221.

Ross, W.A. 1926a. Niagara Peninsula grape insects. The Canadian Horticulturist 43: 30.

Ross, W.A. 1926b (1925). Niagara Peninsula grape insects. The review of Applied Entomology.

Series A: Agricultural 13: 188.

Ross, W.A. and L. Caesar 1925. Insects of the season. Fifty-fifth Annual Report of the Entomological

Society of Ontario 55: 84-88.

Ross W.A. and T. Armstrong. 1949. Common grape insects in Ontario and their control. Canada

Department of Agriculture, Science Service, Division of Entomology. Processed Publication

Series 26: 1-10.

Saunders, W. 1871 (1870). Insects injurious to the grape. First Annual Report of the Entomological

Society of Ontario 1: 94-117.

Saunders, W. 1872 (1871). Insects injurious to the grape. First Annual Report of the Entomological

Society of Ontario 2: 357-361.

Saunders, W. 1883. Insects injurious to fruits. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott & co. 436 pp.

Saunders, W. 1884. Annual address of the president of the Entomological Society of Ontario. The

Canadian Entomologist 16: 204-213.

Saunders, W. 1885 (1884). Annual address of the president. Fifteenth Annual Report of the

Entomological Society of Ontario 15: 15-21.

Saunders, W. 1889. Insects Injurious to Fruits. J.P. Lippincott & co., Philadelphia. 436 pp. (second

edition).

Saunders, W. 1900. Insects Injurious to Fruits. J.P. Lippincott & co., Philadelphia. 436 pp. (second

edition, new printing).

Schwarz, E.A. 1892. Note on the food-habits of some halticids. Proceedings of the Entomological

Society of Washington 2: 182-184.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Schwarz, E.A. 1895. Some notes on Melsheimer’s catalogue of the Coleoptera of Pennsylvania.

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 3: 134-138.

Scoggan, H.J. 1978. The flora of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums

of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Publications in Botany 7: 547-1115 (part 3).

Slingerland, M.V. 1898. The grape-vine flea beetle. Bulletin of the Cornell University Agricultural

Experiment Station (Entomological Division) 157: 189-213.

Slingerland, M.V. and C.R. Crosby. 1914. Manual of Fruit Insects. New York: The MacMillan

Company. 503 pp.

Smith, J.B. 1890. Catalogue of Insects found in New Jersey. 486 pp.

Smith, J.B. 1900 (1899). Insects of New Jersey — a List of the species Occurring in New Jersey,

with Notes on those of Economic Importance. Printed as a supplement to the 27th Annual

Report of the State Board of Agriculture. Trenton, New Jersey. 755 pp.

Smith, J.B. 1910 (1909). Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum Including a Report on

the Insects of New Jersey. Trenton: MacCrellish & Quigley State Printers. 888 pp.

SPPQ. 1947. Société de Protection des Plantes du Québec. Liste officielle des noms frangais des

insectes d’importance économique au Canada. Québec: Ministére de |’ Agriculture du Québec.

66 pp.

SPPQ. 1952. Société de Protection des Plantes du Québec. Liste officielle des noms francais des

insectes d’ importance économique au Canada. Québec: Ministére de |’ Agriculture du Québec.

73 pp.

SPPQ. 1964. Société de Protection des Plantes du Québec. Noms frangais des insectes au Canada

et noms latins et anglais correspondants. Québec: Ministére de |’Agriculture du Québec.

Publication 295, 102 pp.

Staines, C.L. and S.L. Staines. 1998. The leaf beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): potential

indicator species assemblages for natural area monitoring. Pp. 233-244, in Conservation of

Biological Diversity: A Key to the Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. G.D.

Theres (Ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 344 pp.

Still, G.W. and R.W. Rings. 1965. A guide to insect pests and damage to eastern grapes. Ohio

Agriculture Research Development Center. Research summary - Fruit Crop Research 2: 17 -

20.

Still, G.W and R.W. Rings. 1973. Insect and mite pests of grapes in Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Research

and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio. Research Bulletin 1060. 30 pp.

Stoetzel, M.B. 1989. Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms. Committee on Common

Names of Insects. Lanham, Maryland: Entomological Society of America. 199 pp.

Sutherland, D.W.S. 1978. Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms (1978 revision).

Committee on Common Names of Insects. Lanham, Maryland: Entomological Society of

America. 132 pp.

Syme, P.D. and K.L. Nystrom. 1988. Insects and Mites Associated with Ontario forests:

Classification, Common Names, Main Hosts, Importance. Canadian Forestry Service, Great

Lakes Forest Centre. Information report O-X-392. 131 pp.

Taschenberg, E.F. and H. Riedl. 1985. Grape flea beetle Altica chalybea (Illiger) [Grape Insect

IPM, Insect Identification Sheet No. 6]. in Appendix 2 of Weigle, T. and J. Kovach. 1995

(Eds.). Grape IPM in the Northeast. Cornell Cooperative Extension. New York State Integrated

Pest Management Program No. 211.

Thomas, D. 1834. Some account of the Chrysomela vitivora, (with an engraving). American Journal

of Sciences and Arts (also known as Silliman’s Journal of Sciences) 26: 113-116.

‘Thomas, J.J. 1906. The American fruit culturist. Orange Judd Company, New York. 220 pp.

45

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Townsend, C.H.T. 1891. A preliminary account of some insects injurious to fruits. Bulletin of the

New Mexico Agriculture Experiment Station 3: 1-19.

Walsh, B.D. 1867. The grape-vine Fidia. Practical Entomology 2: 87-88.

Walsh, B.D. and C.V. Riley. 1868. The cucumber flea-beetle (Haltica cucumeris Harris). The

American Entomologist 1: 27.

Weigle, T. and J. Kovach. 1995. Grape IPM in the Northeast. Cornell Cooperative Extension. New

York State Integrated Pest Management Program No. 211 [pages not consecutively paginated].

Werner, F.G. 1982. Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms. Committee on Common

Names of Insects. Lanham, Maryland: Entomological Society of America. 132 pp.

Wickham, H.F. 1911. A list of the Coleoptera of Iowa. University of lowa, Bulletin of the Laboratory

of Natural History (N.S.) 6(1): 1-40.

Wilcox, J.A. 1954. The leaf beetles of Ohio (Chrysomelidae): Coleoptera. Bulletin of the Ohio

Biological Survey 43: 353-506.

Wilcox, J.A. 1975 (1974). Checklist of the Chrysomelidae of Canada, United States, Mexico,

Central America, and the West Indies (Red Version). Family 104. Chrysomelidae. Latham,

New York: Biological Research, Institute of America, Inc. 166 pp.

Wilcox, J.A. 1979. Leaf beetle host plants in northeastern North America (Coleoptera:

Chrysomelidae). North American Beetle Fauna Project. The Biological Research Institute of

America, Inc. 30 pp.

Wilcox JA. 1983 (1975). Checklist of the Chrysomelidae of Canada, United States, Mexico, Central

America, and the West Indies (Yellow Version). Family 104. Chrysomelidae. Latham, New

York: Biological Research, Institute of America, Inc. 166 pp.

Worden, S. 1862. An enemy to the grape — Inquiry. The Country Gentleman 19: 350.

Zappe, M.P. 1928. Notes on fruit insects in 1928. Bulletin of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment —

Station 305: 728-729.

Zappe, M.P. 1930. Notes on fruit insects in 1928. Bulletin of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment

Station 17: 609.

46

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

AN UNUSUAL NEW SPECIES OF PEDARIDIUM HAROLD (COLEOPTERA:

SCARABAEIDAE: ATEUCHINI) FROM COLOMBIA!

BRUCE D. GILL?

FERNANDO Z. VAZ-DE-MELLO?

J. ent. Soc. Ont. 133: 47-51

Abstract

A new species from Colombia, Pedaridium medinae n. sp. is described and

illustrated. This new species is readily distinguished from all others in the genus

by the lack of eyes on the dorsal surface of the head and by several unusual

secondary sexual characters in the male.

Keywords. Ateuchini; Colombia; new species; Pedaridium.

Introduction

The Ateuchini genera Pedaridium Harold, 1868 and Trichillum Harold, 1868 currently include

some 50 described species of small to medium-sized dung beetles (2 to 7mm in length). While the

generic limits are not well-defined, both of these strictly Neotropical taxa appear to be polyphyletic

and are currently under study by the second author.

The purpose of this paper is to describe an unusual new species to facilitate ongoing faunistic

studies in Colombia (Medina and Lopera 2001, Medina et al. 2002). This new species is placed in

the genus Pedaridium based on a gradually expanded epipleuron, a diagnostic character used for

separating Pedaridium from Trichillum in a recent revision by Ferreira and Galileo (1993).

Material and Methods

Specimens of this new species were collected by the senior author in relict patches of Andean

forest using pitfall traps baited with human dung. Additional specimens were borrowed from, or

are deposited in, the following collections (curators in parentheses):

BDGC Bruce D. Gill personal collection, Ottawa, Canada.

CAMC Claudia A. Medina personal collection, Cali, Colombia.

CMNC_ Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Canada (H. F. Howden and Francois Génier).

CNCI Canadian National Collection of Insects, Ottawa, Canada (Anthony Davies).

IAHC Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Villa de Leyva, Colombia (Fernando Fernandez).

FZVC Fernando Z. Vaz-de-Mello personal collection, Lavras, Brazil.

Photographs were taken on a Phillips ESEM scanning electron microscope by T.E. Dare of

Buckham’s Bay, Ontario using uncoated specimens.

This paper forms part of the M.S. thesis of the second author, presented to the Departamento

de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras.

Entomology Unit, Centre for Plant Quarantine Pests, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 960

Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0C6. E-mail: gillbd @inspection.gc.ca

. Departamento de Biologia, and Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras,

Lavras MG 37200-000, Brazil. E-mail: scarab @ufla.br

* Published August 2003.

47

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Results

Pedaridium medinae Gill & Vaz-de-Mello, n. sp.

Males. 3.8 — 4.8 mm in length. Body elongate-oval; dorsal surface of body (head, pronotum

and elytra) dark gray to dark brown in colour, ventral surface of body and legs dark brown. Punctures

on dorsal surface with long reddish-orange setae or much smaller yellowish setae; punctures on

ventral surface with predominantly smaller, yellowish setae.

Head (Figure 1). Clypeus anteriorly with two small teeth, separated by a broad U-shaped

emargination. Emargination bordered with indistinct carina connecting bases of clypeal teeth.

Ventral surface of emargination carinate, forming small median denticle. Lateral margin of clypeus

evenly arcuate to gena. Gena abruptly angulate. Clypeal surface coarsely punctate; anteriorly with

mixture of small and large punctures, posteriorly with larger, more uniformly-sized punctures.

Frons and vertex with large, closely-spaced punctures; punctures with scattered setae. Eyes not

visible dorsally.

Pronotum with border unmargined except for small area at posterolateral angle. Disc coarsely,

densely punctate except for small impunctate callus near lateral margin; punctures similar to those

on frons, but larger, especially basally. Anterior angle obtuse, posterior angle rounded, lateral margin

sinuate.

Elytron (Figure 2) with disc anteriorly flat, posteriorly convex; with rows of long and short

setae. Sutural stria simple; discal striae consisting of single rows of large, contiguous, deeply-

impressed ocellate punctures; diameter of ocellate punctures approximately one-half to two-thirds

interstrial width, punctures forming unbroken chain from base to apex of elytron. First and second

discal striae deeply impressed at apex; lateral stria deeply impressed throughout length. Elytral

intervals with two rows of small, shallowly-impressed punctures.

Mesosternum covered by large setose punctures; punctures smaller and more rounded anteriorly.

Meso-metasternal suture angulate medially; apex of angulation directed anteriorly. Metasternum

densely, closely punctured; punctures larger anteriorly and laterally though smaller than those of

mesosternum; disc of metasternum shallowly concave, hind margin with bifid tubercle along midline,

close to posterior coxae.

All femora densely, closely punctured on ventral face. Fore tibia externally with three small

teeth in apical half; inner apical angle projecting inwardly as tooth. Fifth tarsomere laterally

compressed and apically dilated. Middle tibia gradually expanded to apex, obtusely truncate apically,

with inner apical angle projecting inward as small tooth. Hind tibia strongly expanded apically;

outer margin straight, inner margin strongly curved for about two-thirds length to obtuse angle,

thence abruptly incurved to apex near insertion of metatarsus; inner apex bearing broad laminar

process directed basally (Figures 3-4). First tarsomere longer than second, fifth tarsomere about

twice as long as fourth. Tibial spurs simple, conical. Tarsal claws very small, strongly curved.

Abdominal sternites and pygidium densely, closely punctured; base of pygidium with shallow

transverse sulcus. Propygidial apex with U-shaped emargination at midline. Parameres of genitalia

as in Figure 5.

Females.

Similar to males except as follows. Lateral margin of pronotum almost rounded, not sinuate.

Metasternal disc flat and without apical bifid tubercle. Fore tibia without internal apical tooth,

with external teeth more strongly developed. Fifth tarsomere of fore tibia not expanded apically.

Middle tibia lacking internal apical tooth. Hind tibia lacking both internal apical concavity and

laminar process (Figure 6). Abdominal sternites longer along midline, pygidium shorter.

48

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133. 2002

FIGURES 1-6. Pedaridium medinae n. sp.: 1. Head, dorsal view; 2. Elytron, dorsal view;

tibia of male; 4. Hind tibia of male, detail; 5. Parameres of male genitalia, dorsal view;

tibia of female. Scale bars in microns.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Type Material

HOLOTYPE male: COLOMBIA: Risaralda: PNR Ucumari, La Pastora, 2400 m Aliso, T.

Exc. H., C. Medina, Mayo 7 1995 (IAHC).

ALLOTYPE female: COLOMBIA: Risaralda: PNR Ucumari 1800m, La Suiza, Bosque, T.

Exc. H., C. Medina, Marzo 29 1995 (IAHC).

PARATYPES: 20 specimens; 8 males, 9 females, and 3 not recorded. COLOMBIA:

Cundinamarca: Tecadama (sic) [= Tequedama?] Falls, 30 km SW Bogota, 27-II-6-III-1972, S&J

Peck, forest dung trap (1 specimen, CMNC); Quindio, 5 km E Salento, 1800 m, 9-XII-1995, BD

Gill, dung trap (8 specimens, BDGC; 1 specimen, CMNC; | specimen, CNCI; 4 specimens, FZVC);

R Herencia Verde, 1800 m, 12-XII-1995, Medina & Gill, excr hum. (1 specimen, CAMC); Risaralda:

Pereira, SFF Ottin Quimbaya, Est. La Suiza, 1850 m, 25-IV-04-V-1997, A Vitolo (1 specimen,

FZVC); Pque. Nat. Reg. Ucumari, La Suiza 1800 m, CA Medina (1 specimen, CMNC); Pque. Nat.

Reg. Ucumari, La Suiza 1800 m, 29-III-1995, F Escobar, excr hum. (2 specimens, CAMC).

Etymology: This new species is named in honour of Claudia A. Medina, a specialist in the

systematics of Canthonine scarab beetles, who collected part of the type series.

Discussion

The type series exhibits little variation with the exception of the larger setae which appear to

be subject to abrasion, being sparse on several of the older, more abraded specimens.

This species is unique among known Pedaridium, being distinguished by the absence of eyes

on the dorsal surface of the head and in the unusual secondary sexual characters of the male, most

P. medinae

FIGURE 7. Distribution of Pedaridium medinae n. sp in Colombia.

50

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

notably the metasternal tubercle and distinctive hind tibia. Males of Pedaridium bordoni Martinez

(1992) from Venezuela also share a toothed inner apical angle of the fore tibia, and a broad laminar

process at the inner apex of the hind tibia. In P. bordoni however, the middle tibia is not apically

toothed and the hind tibia lacks the concave excavation on the inner apical margin.

Pedaridium medinae can be readily recognized by the dorsal absence of eyes and the rows of

large ocellate punctures on the elytra. It appears to be confined to Andean forests in the Provinces

of Risaralda, Quindio and Cundinamarca in Colombia (Figure 7) and is now the second species of

the genus to be reported for the country (see Medina et al. 2002).

Acknowledgements

We thank the Instituto Alexander von Humboldt for support during field work in Colombia

and the contributions of two anonymous reviewers. The support of a Capes grant is gratefully

acknowledged by the second author.

References

Ferreira, A.M.R.M. , and M.H.M. Galileo. 1993. Revisao taxonémica do género Pedaridium Harold,

1868 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae, Coprini). Iheringia, Série Zoologia 74: 3-69.

Harold, E. von. 1868. Die Choerididen-Gattungen Uroxys und Trichillum. Coleopterologische Hefte

3: 33-55.

Martinez, A. 1992. Una nueva especie de Pedaridium (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae: Coprini). Gayana

Zool. 56: 21-25.

Medina, C.A., and A. Lopera. 2001. Clave ilustrada para la identificacion de géneros de escarabajos

coprofagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) de Colombia. Caldasia 22: 299-315.

Medina, C.A., A. Lopera-Toro, A. Vitolo, and B. Gill. 2002. Escarabajos copréfagos (Coleoptera:

Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) de Colombia. Biota Colombiana 2: 131-144.

51

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

52

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Screening Onion Breeding Lines for Resistance to Onion Maggot (Delia antiqua

Meigen) Damage

M.R. MCDONALD, K. VANDER KOOI, B. KORNATOWSKA and S. JANSE

Dept. of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph

Guelph, ON N1G 2W1

Corresponding author: MARY RUTH MCDONALD

email: mrmcdona @uoguelph.ca

J. ent. Soc. Ont. 133: 53-62

Abstract

Investigations were carried out from 1995 to 1997 to screen onion breeding

lines for resistance to onion maggot (OM) damage. Injury levels to direct-seeded

and transplanted lines (altogether 35 entries) and 2 commercial cultivars at the

seedling and mature bulb stage were evaluated in experimental plots in the

Holland Marsh, southern Ontario, Canada. Differences in resistance expression

were identified. The lines that tended to be most resistant to maggot damage

were of the PS WR series. These were developed by PetoSeeds using germplasm

from the onion breeding program at the University of Wisconsin, which focused

on increasing resistance to Allium white rot. Expression of resistance was most

evident at the seedling stage; in most cases differences in resistance were not as

distinct at harvest. Levels of bulb damage were related to levels of seedling loss

in onions grown from transplants but not in direct-seeded onions. Resistance

studies on seeded and transplanted onions should be studied separately, since

planting method can affect resistance ranking.

Introduction

The onion maggot (Delia antiqua Meigen, Diptera: Anthomyiidae) (OM) is a severe insect

pest of onion (Allium cepa L.) crops grown in temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. This

palearctic species was introduced into North America in the 19" century (Loosjes 1976). It dispersed

throughout the continent, becoming one of the most important insect pests of onions grown in

Canada (Harris et al. 1981; Ritcey and Chaput 2000). Although its host range extends to all Allium

vegetables (Ellis and Eckenrode, 1979; McFerson et al. 1996) severe infestations, and resulting

stand and yield losses, have been most often reported in onion crops (Baker 1927; Loosjes 1976;

Harris et al. 1981; Brewster 1994). If not controlled, onion maggot infestations can prevent the

production of marketable crops (Tolman et al. 1986).

In the climatic conditions of southern Ontario, onion yield on muck (organic) soils is higher

and cost of production is lower than on mineral soils (Valk 1988). More than 60% of Ontario's

onion crop (approximately 68,000 tonnes) is grown on the muck soils of the Bradford Holland

Marsh (OMAFRA 1995). Spring sown bulbing onions are most common and comprise more than

1500 ha. Some early maturing cultivars are grown from seedlings started indoors and transplanted

into the field as soon as weather and soil conditions permit (Valk 1988).

Onion production on muck soils is favourable for the development of OM (Perron 1972). In

the Bradford area, newly emerged adults mate in mid-May. Gravid females deposit eggs in the soil

around the base of onion seedlings. Females can deposit approximately 200 eggs during their life-

53

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

time of about 30 days. Eggs hatch after several days and larvae start feeding on the subterranean

part of the onion stem and, after bulb formation, on onion bulb tissue. Larvae mature in two to

three weeks and leave the plant to pupate in soil (Ritcey and Chaput 2000).

Onions are most susceptible to OM damage when the first generation larvae are present (late

May to beginning of July) and often, infested seedlings die before the maggots are fully grown.

This damage results in stand loss and reduction in yield and quality. There is some compensation

in yield, through increased growth of neighbouring onions, however, since damage tends to be

clustered, empty sections of row and uneven growth in the remaining onions develop and reduce

crop quality. During the second (mid-July) and third (late August and September) generations, the

onion bulbs are larger and feeding by larvae does not kill plants; however, damaged bulbs are not

marketable, so the proportion of damage is directly related to loss of marketable yield. Furthermore,

damage caused by second and third generation maggots can predispose bulbs to rot as a result of

secondary infections of fungi or bacteria (Loosjes 1976; Brewster 1994).

The most commonly used control measure is the application of insecticide to the soil to

control first generation maggots. Later in the growing season, sprays may be applied to control

adults (Harris et al. 1981; Liu et al. 1982). Intensive insecticide use has resulted in high mortality

of natural enemies of the onion fly (Carruthers et al. 1985), and in the development of resistance in

OM to several insecticides (Harris and Svec 1976; Carroll et al. 1983). Both insecticide resistance

and environmental concerns limit utilization of chemical methods in OM control programs (Finch

et al. 1986; Walters and Eckenrode 1996). Thus, there is a compelling demand for alternative

control measures.

Plant resistance to insect damage is an attractive alternative or supplement to chemical control

strategies. Resistance of various Allium species to OM infestation and damage has been studied by

several workers (Harris et al. 1987; McFerson et al. 1996). Ellis and Eckenrode (1979) provided a .

general review of Allium and concluded that low levels of resistance may exist in bulb onions. The

results of Ellis et al. (1979) and Eckenrode and Walters (1997) showed significant differences in

resistance to OM damage among breeding lines evaluated throughout the time of first and second

generation damage (late May through early July). We report here on the results of a three-year field

study to screen seeded and transplanted onion lines for resistance to OM damage.

Materials and Methods

Plant material

Breeding lines, initially developed for disease resistance to Allium white rot (Sclerotium

cepivorum Berk.), were obtained from Asgrow Seed Co., Ontario, Canada; Petoseed Co., California,

U.S.A.; and the University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Horticulture (Dr. I. L. Goldman), Madison, WI,

U.S.A. Seeds of the commercial cultivars, Norstar and Fortress, were provided by Stokes Seeds

Ltd., Ontario, Canada and Asgrow Seed Co., Ontario, Canada, respectively.

Field evaluations

The study was carried out on muck soil at the Holland Marsh, Ontario (lat. 44° 15' N, long. 79°

60 * W) under natural OM pressure. As seed stock allowed, 19, 24 and 18 direct seeded onion lines

were evaluated in 1995, 1996 and 1997, respectively. In trials using transplanted onions, 20 lines

(1996) and 17 lines (1997) were assessed. Seed for the lines missing from the transplant onion

trials was received in time for direct seeding (May) but not early enough for starting in the

greenhouse (March or April). Fortress and Norstar were used in both seeded and transplanted

assays as commercial lines for comparison purposes.

54

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

The onion lines and selected commercial cultivars were direct seeded (V-Belt push seeder,

Mechanical Welding Co. Ltd, Winnipeg, Man.) at approx. 40 seedsm', on 8, 16 and 21 May in

1995, 1996 and 1997, respectively. In all years, the initial stand was ascertained after seedling

emergence, prior to OM adult emergence as determined by catches on yellow sticky traps.

Transplants grown in a greenhouse were seeded on 10 April and 24 March in 1996 and 1997,

respectively, and planted out by hand on 21-24 and 13-15 May, respectively.

Plots were set out in a randomized complete block design with 3 replicate blocks per line in

1995 and 4 replicate blocks per line in 1996 and 1997. Each direct seeded replicate consisted of 2

rows (42 cm apart), 3 m (1995) or 2 m (1996 and 1997) in length. Transplanted replicates consisted

of two rows (approx. 42 cm apart), 4 m (1996) and 5 m (1997) in length. Transplants were planted

at 10 cm spacing in both years. Crop management procedures followed standard cultivation practices

(McDonald et al. 1997).

Field evaluations included only losses attributed to OM damage. Seedling loss from first

generation maggots was recorded once a week. In all years, stand loss evaluations were initiated

after the peak of onion fly catches on yellow sticky traps placed in other onion plots close to the

resistance trial (28, 22, 24 June in 1995, 1996, 1997, respectively) and terminated in mid-July.

Seedlings with symptoms of OM damage were removed to confirm the presence of maggots or

characteristic damage at the base of the plant. For all treatments, final plant stand and onion bulb

damage were recorded at harvest (for seeded onions: 29, 18, 30 September in 1995, 1996 1997,

respectively and 27-29 August for transplanted onions in both 1996 and 1997).

Statistical analysis

The sum of counts from each evaluation week was divided by initial stand count to calculate

percent of seedling damage due to first-generation maggot. Final percent onion damage was

calculated by dividing the number of OM damaged (non-marketable) onions obtained at harvest

by final stand count and multiplying by 100. The biennial nature of onion séed production did not

permit the availablility of all lines each year. Therefore, statistical analyses were performed on

within year data, except where damage levels between the same lines in two years were investigated

by correlation analysis.

In order to compare groups of related lines from year to year, the mean damage for lines

within a year were standardized. A selected mean was subtracted from the year mean, and the

resulting term divided by the standard deviation for the year. A single average mean was then

obtained from all the related means in a year for series starting with terms such as PS WR or XPH

Means that are lower than the year mean result in a negative number, means higher that the year

mean result in a positive number.

Percent data were arcsine transformed as described by Sokal and Rohlf (1995) and analyzed

using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Comparisons among means were performed with Fishers

Protected Least Significant Difference multiple range test, to allow for pair-wise comparisons

between means (GLM, Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons, Bivariate Correlations, SPSS® for Windows

™ release 10.0, SPSS Inc., U.S.). Pearson Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship

between variables. (Statistix for Windows, Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL). A type 1 error

rate of a= 0.05 was set for all statistical tests.

Results

Evaluation of direct seeded lines in 1995, 1996, and 1997

» Differences in OM damage to seedlings were found in each year (Tables I, II and III), however,

the differences in bulb damage at harvest were significant (P= 0.002) only in 1995 (Table I), and

55

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

TABLE I. Onion maggot damage to seeded onion breeding lines and cultivars at the Holland

Marsh, Ontario, 1995.

ae EI Rar REE

Line/Cultivar Damaged Damaged bulbs

seedlings (%) at harvest? (%)

PS WR 458 8:2) aint PA Tee

W 457b 10.5 a 15.0: de

W 454b 132° jab 12.6 cd

Norstar 16.2 abc 4.8 ab

XPH 15055 20.0 a-d 11.7 b-d

PS WR 459 20.1 a-d 6.6 abc

PSR 45 89 94 21.0 a-d 7.4 abc

W 458b 21.3 a-e 10.4 a-d

XPH_ 15058 22.7 a-f 14,5....de

PSR 45 96 94 23.4 a-g 13.2. cd

PSR 45 92 94 23.5 a-g 9.4 a-d

Fortress 25.0 a-g 3.8 a

XPH 15059 28.2 b-h 13.0. -ved

W 459b 29.5 b-h 43 a

PSR 45 90 94 32.0 c-h 41 a

PSR 45 93 94 36.8 d-h 8.4 a-d

PSR 45 91 94 38.1 e-h 9.4 a-d

PSR 45 9494 38.6 fgh 4.8 ab

XPH_ 15056 40.1 gh 8.4 a-d

XPH 15057 42.7 h 6.9 abc

PSR 45 95 94 43.6 h 8.4 a-d

Overall Mean Damage ” Boe 94 a

Standard deviation 10.2 4.4

Means in columns (non transformed data) followed by the same letter are not significantly

different (a=0.05); Fishers Protected LSD).

Means in the row followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Total df = 123,

F for growth stage = 143.91, P<0.0001) .

Pearson correlation coefficient between first generation OM damage to seedlings and bulbs

at harvest : r= -0. 47 (P<0.0001).

56

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

TABLE II. Onion maggot damage to seeded and transplanted onion breeding lines and cultivars

at the Holland Marsh, Ontario, 1996.

Line/Cultivar Damaged seedlings(%) Damaged bulbs at harvest *(%)

direct seeded _ transplanted direct seeded _ transplanted

PSR 45 93 94 2» a! 9.0 a-d 2.4 NS? 8.4 NS?

PS WR 458 1Q: a 4.0 ab 6.4 Sit

(W) (429a x 454x455b) KS ca 7.8 a-d a5 10.1

Fortress i 2 7.8 a-d 3.6 11.6

PSR 45 89 94 tr ae 3.9 a-d 2.8 8.1

W 454b Z.0'¥ a 6.4 a-d 6.5 3:5

PSR 45 90 94 2.2 ab 4.2 a-d 4.0 ay

W 458c 2.3. ab 2.8 abc 4.1 4.3

W 459c 2.6- ‘abe. 10:9 ¢-e 3.8 9.3

W 457c 2.7. abc 5.9 a-d 4.4 10.0

(W) (440a x 458)x459c 3.1 abc 2.4 ab at 4.9

PSR 45 94 94 3.2 abc 2.9. ab 3.1 5.8

PSR 45 96 94 39° de S121 de a9) V2

PS WR 459 3.4 a-d 2.3. ab 5.3 4.5

PSR 45 91 94 3.5 a-d 8.3 a-d BS 12.6

PSR 45 95 94 3.6 ad 105 b-e 4.9 12.2

W 456c 40 ad 233 f 1.8 —-

PSR 45 92 94 5.2 a-e 6.1 a-d ZA je Aa

XPH 15055 6.1 b-e —- 4.5 —-

Norstar 6.6 b-e Lo 2 mn | 6.3

(W) (434a x 457)x458c 6.8 b-e 2.9 abc 4.4 28

XPH 15059 9.1 b-e — 5.8 —-

XPH 15057 94 cde — 3:9 —-

XPH 15058 10.3 de — 5.6 —

(W) (434a x 455)x456c i L$ 1... ef 5.7 14.5

XPH 15056 12:4....€ a 4.5 —

W 455b —- 3.2 a-d — a

Overall Mean Damage? 44 a L.ED #So OF" 7.8 b

Standard deviation 4.9 8.0 3.0 rod,

' Means in columns (non transformed data) followed by the same letter are not significantly

different (a=0.05); Fishers Protected LSD, ANOVA of each variable separately.

2 NS not significant (a =0.05)

> Means in the row followed by the same letter are not significantly different (a = 0.05),

ANOVA of all variables (374 total df, F-test for planting method = 42.59, P =<0.0001.

* Pearson correlation coefficient between first generation OM damage to seedlings and bulbs

at harvest for transplanted onions r = 0.75 (P<0.0001).

57

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

TABLE III. Onion maggot damage to seeded and transplanted onion breeding lines and cultivars

at the Holland Marsh, Ontario, 1997.

ee

Line/Cultivar Damaged seedlings(%) Damaged bulbs at harvest *(%)

direct seeded _ transplanted direct seeded _ transplanted

PS WR 456 5.4 >,\a Sow ae 218 NS. tse

W 459c 9.4 ab 5.3. ab 20.2 18.4 a

W 456c 9.7 ab 12.6 abc 30.8 33.5 ab

Fortress 13.0 abc 5.8eeab 39.4 14.9 ab

XPH 15055 13.8 a-d — 278 —-

PS WR 457 14.1 a-d lL Avra ate 97 a

W 461b 14.1 a-d 5.8 ab 31.4 16.0 ab

PS 650 00 96 14.3 a-d 2.ke pa 24.6 92,08

W 458c 15.4 a-d 12.4 abc 39.1 31.7 ab

W 454b 15.4 ad «.3)] 2xce 53.9 st oe

W 457c 16.8 a-e 14.2. 2:bc 30.8 34.1 ab

W 455b 17.6 a-e 21.S/cc 48.6 54.3 b

PS 650 02 96 20.3 b-f 8.6 ab 32.0 22.9 a

(W) (434a x 457) x 458c 22.1 »b-f 1. yab 34.6 18.0 a

Norstar 26.0 c-g 8.8 ab 29.6 18.4 a

(W) (440a x 458) x 459c 26.3 d-g 8.3 ab 29.3 17.3 a

(W) (429a x 454) x455b 29.3 efg 10.9 abc 26.9 30.3 ab

PS 65001 96 33.2. is 4.2 ab 33.8 15.6 a

(W) (434a x 455) x 456c 34.5 gh 8.9 ab 28.4 20,2. 8

PS 650 03 96 46.6 h 2.9 ab 36.1 Od =e

Overall Mean Damage * 19.9 ab 8.8 a 321. 2 Zac ae

Standard deviation 9.3 8.2 16.0 21.2

Means in columns (non transformed data) followed by the same letter are not significantly

different (a=0.05); Fisher’s protected LSD)

"i NS - not significant (a = 0.05)

Means in the row followed by the same letter are not significantly different (a = 0.05),

ANOVA of all variables (total df = 303, F-test for planting method 37.39, P<0.0001).

Pearson correlation coefficient between first generation OM damage to seedlings and to

bulbs at harvest in transplanted entries : r = 0.95 (P<0.0001).

for onions grown from transplants in 1997 (P = 0.049, Table III). Average levels of seedling damage

in 1995 and 1997 were similar while damage was considerably lower in 1996. The average levels

of damage to mature bulbs also varied from year to year (Tables I, II and III).

In 1995, the lines with the least seedling loss were PS WR 458 and W457b (Table I). Highest

seedling losses were observed in lines XPH 150 57 and PSR 45 95 94. Most lines exhibited seedling

losses of between 13.2 % and 40.1 % with few significant differences. Bulb damage as a result of

OM feeding also differed among the lines (P=0.001).

In 1996, the lines with the least seedling loss were PSR 45 93 94, PS WR 458,

(W)(429ax454x455b), Fortress, PSR 45 89 94 and W 454b (Table II). Highest seedling losses were

58

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

observed in lines XPH 150 58, (W)(434ax455)x456c and XPH 150 56. Most lines exhibited seedling

damage of between 2.2 % and 9.4 % but the differences among most of these lines were not

significant. There were no differences in OM damage to bulbs.

In 1997, the line with the lowest seedling loss was PS WR 456 (Table III). Highest seedling

loss was observed in line PS 650 03 96. Most lines exhibited seedling losses of between 9.4 % and

33.2 % but differences among most of these lines were not significant. OM damage to bulbs was

not different among lines, but damage in 1997 was 33.2% compared to only 4.3% in 1996.

First generation OM damage was not related to damage at harvest across most lines (Tables

Il, 11), except in 1995 when seedling losses were negatively correlated with bulb damage

(r = - 0.47, P< 0.0001, Pearson correlation, Table 1). In 1995, maggot damage to bulbs was lower

in most lines when compared with first generation OM damage to seedlings. However, lines PS

WR 458 and W 457 b, which exhibited the lowest seedling loss, had the highest bulb damage

(Table I). In the following years, low OM seedling damage in PS WR 458 (1996) and PS WR 456

(1997) was followed by high and mid-range levels of OM damage at harvest, respectively (Tables

Il, HI).

In all years, OM damage levels in both commercial cultivars did not significantly differ from

most breeding lines. Fortress and Norstar exhibited intermediate levels of seedling loss and bulb

damage at harvest (Tables I, II and III).

Seed of all lines was not available each year. Pearson correlation of the lines that were the

same showed no correlation between mean seedling loss as a result of OM damage of the 16 lines

that were the same in 1995 and 1996 (r = 0.07, P = 0.78), the 12 lines that were the same in 1996

and 1997 (r= 0.29, P= 0.35) or the 7 lines that were the same in 1995 and 1997 (r = -0.59,

P=0.16). No relationships were identified in bulb damage between any of the trials over the three

years.

Evaluation of transplanted lines in 1996 and 1997

Differences among transplanted lines and cultivars for OM damage to transplanted seedlings

within years were significant (P = 0.035, 1996 and P = 0.032, 1997, Tables II and III); however,

differences in bulb damage at harvest were significant only in 1997 (P = 0.037) (Table III). Average

levels of OM damage to transplants were similar in 1996 and 1997. Average levels of damage to

mature bulbs were different, 7.8 % in 1996 and 23.5 % in 1997 (Tables IJ and III).

In 1996, the line with the lowest transplant seedling loss was Norstar (Table II). Highest

transplant seedling loss was found in the three lines, PSR 45 96 94, (W)(434ax455)x456c and W

456c, which had significantly higher damage than a group of six lines, including Norstar. Most of

the lines exhibited levels of seedling damage of between 3.9 % and 10.9 %, but the differences

were not significant. There were no differences in maggot damage to bulbs in 1996.

In 1997, the lines with the lowest transplant seedling losses were PS WR 457 and PS 650 00

96 (Table III). Highest transplant seedlings losses were observed in lines W 454 b and W 455 b. A

group of 14 lines, including Norstar, had significantly less damage than these two lines. Most of

the lines exhibited levels of seedling damage between 1.7% and 10.9% but the differences were

not significant. Bulb damage as a result of onion maggot feeding differed significantly among

lines (P = 0.037). The lowest levels of bulb damage in onions from transplants were found in lines

PS 650 00 96 and PS WR 457, the same lines that had the lowest seedling loss. Bulb damage in

these lines was significantly lower than in lines W 455b and W 454b, which had the highest damage.

OM damage levels to transplanted seedlings of both commercial cultivars did not differ

significantly from most of the tested lines (Tables II, III). In 1996, Norstar had the lowest maggot

damage, but the level was not significantly different from 16 other lines. Fortress had moderate

59

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

damage. In 1997, maggot damage in Norstar and Fortress transplanted seedlings was intermediate,

as was damage to bulbs at harvest, and did not differ significantly from any of the tested lines.

Evaluation of planting method and growth stage

Analysis of variance of arcsin transformed data of percent seedling and bulb damage in direct

seeded and transplanted onion lines and cultivars within years revealed that levels of OM damage

varied with planting method (P = 0.0001 in 1996 and P = <0.0001 in 1997), but the trends were

opposite (Tables II and III). Levels of OM damage were lower on direct seeded onions in 1996, but

higher in 1997.

Mean damage to direct- seeded seedlings and mature bulbs in 1995 and 1997 was significantly

different (P < 0.0001 in both years) (Tables I and III). In 1995 seedlings had higher OM damage,

but in 1997 OM damage was lower. There was no planting method ( direct-seeded or transplanted)

by growth stage (seedling or bulb) interaction in 1996 or 1997. No correlation between maggot

damage in direct seeded and transplanted lines and cultivars was found for first generation damage.

In 1997, bulb damage in seeded and transplanted onions was correlated (r = 0.71, P< 0.0001,

Pearson’s correlation). When untreated onions were grown from transplants, there was a positive

correlation between first generation onion maggot damage and damage to bulbs, ( r = 0.75, P<

0.0001 and r = 0.95, P < 0.0001, 1996 and 1997, respectively). This was not the case for direct

seeded onions.

Comparisons of series of lines

Because of the year to year differences in damage levels, means of selected onion lines within

groups or series were standardized to allow for comparisons from year to year. Lines in the PS WR .

series had the lowest OM damage in direct seeded onions in 1995 and 1997, and the second lowest

in 1996. When the means of these PS WR lines in each trial were standardized, they were consistently

negative (-1.22, -0.48 and —1.09, for direct seeded onions,1995, 1996 and 1997, respectively).

Similar results were found in the onions grown from transplants (standardized means of -0.50 and

—0.65, 1996 and 1997). The PS WR series was the only one where all of the standardized means

were consistently negative, indicating that all were below the year mean for the seeding method. In

contrast, standardized means of lines in the XPH150 series were positive (higher than the year

mean) in 1995 (1.45) and 1996 (1.16) but the single line tested in 1997 was below the year mean

(-0.65). Means of lines in the W series (W454 to W459) were lower than the year mean for most

of the direct seeded trials ( -0.79, -0.37 and -0.63 in 1995, 1996 and 1997, respectively) but levels

of OM damage were greater than the year mean for onions grown from transplants (0.21 and 0.70

in 1996 and 1997).

Discussion

These field experiments confirmed that different levels of resistance to onion maggot damage

could be identified in A. cepa. The varying levels of damage from year to year in these trials have

also been reported in other studies on OM and Allium relationships (Ellis and Eckenrode 1979;

McFerson et al. 1996; Eckenrode and Walters 1997). Screening of 37 entries over a 3-year period

revealed that onion breeding lines were generally susceptible to OM attack and in most cases

damage levels did not significantly differ from those found in commercial cultivars. Some entries

exhibited moderate resistance to maggot damage when compared with other lines and cultivars,

but none consistently resisted damage at a level that would be acceptable for commercial onion

production.

60

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

As significant differences among levels of OM damage were found, some degree of resistance

to OM damage may exist in certain lines. For example, lines from the PS WR series consistently

showed the lowest OM damage at the seedling stage although the response was not as consistent at

the harvest stage. Plant breeders could focus on the onion lines in this series to continue to investigate

and improve the level of onion maggot resistance in onions.

Differences in levels of OM damage to onions and other Allium species are generally attributed

to preference displayed by the females for oviposition sites (Loosjes 1976). Stand density in onions

is not supposed to affect numbers of eggs per onion (Perron 1972), but Eckenrode and Walters

(1997) reported a significant correlation between stand density and OM damage, which led them

to assess onions grown from transplants, in order to achieve uniform stand. If high stand density

does play a role in attracting female onion flies, this could contribute to the differences seen in

damage levels between seedling and bulb onions in 1995. Onion lines that had low levels of seedling

damage, which usually kills small onions, would have a denser stand later in the season, which

might be more attractive for oviposition. Our data demonstrated that percent seedling loss from

OM damage is related to bulb damage in onions grown from transplants but not from direct-seeded

onions. Stand density tends to be more uniform in onions grown from transplants.

McFerson et al. (1996) also reported differences between OM resistance levels at the seedling

and mature plant stages. The results of their study showed that some Allium accessions sustaining

minimal damage as seedlings were nonetheless heavily damaged as mature plants by later

generations. According to Perron (1972) undamaged, fully developed onions are not attacked by

onion maggots, but onions with heavy, flaccid growth are known to be very attractive for oviposition

(Loosjes 1976) so the phenology of larger or mature onions could influence damage levels.

Significant differences were found in levels of OM damage levels between direct seeded and

transplanted lines. Harris et al. (1987) proposed antixenotic growth stages in onion and suggested

that onion plants in certain growth stages were less preferred as suitable oviposition sites for onion

flies due to differences in stem basal diameter. The results of Ellis et al. (1979) and Harris et al.

(1987) strongly suggest that plant size plays an important role in host selection by D. antiqua and

resulting levels of damage. Thus, plant size during the peak oviposition period could influence

relative results. In this study, the onions grown for transplants in 1997 were started in the greenhouse

17 days earlier than in 1996 and planted out one week earlier, while the peak of onion fly catches

on the sticky traps was two days later in 1997 than in 1996. Thus, the onion plants would be larger

in 1997 when the onions flies emerged and began oviposition.

The differences in resistance to onion maggot damage in A. cepa reported here suggest that a

search for A. cepa resistance to OM damage should be continued; however, seeded and transplanted

entries should be studied separately since planting method can affect resistance ranking.

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Dave Morris, Centre for Northern Ecosystem Research, Ministry of Natural

Resources, Thunder Bay, Ontario for his consultation on statistical analysis.

Literature Cited

Baker, A. D. 1927. The habits of the onion maggot flies (Hylemyia antiqua Meigen). Entomological

Society of Ontario Reports, 58: 61-67.

Brewster, J. L. 1994. Onions and other vegetable alliums. 1st ed. CAB Intl., Wallingford, UK. 233 pp.

61

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Carroll, K. A., C. R. Harris, and P. Morrison. 1983. Resistance shown by a parathion-resistant

onion maggot (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) strain to some other insecticides. Canadian

Entomologist, 115: 1519-1522.

Carruthers, R. I., G. H. Whitfield, and D. L Haynes. 1985. Pesticide-induced mortality of natural

enemies of the onion maggot, Delia antiqua (Dip: Anthomyiidae). Entomophaga, 30: 151-

161.

Eckenrode, C. J., and T. W. Walters. 1997. The onion maggot in New York state: evaluation of host

plant resistance. Acta Horticulturae, 433: 639-643.

Ellis, P. R., and C. J. Eckenrode. 1979. Factors influencing resistance in Allium sp. to onion maggot.

Bulletin of Entomological Society of America, 25: 151-153.

Ellis, P. R., C. J. Eckenrode, and G. E. Harman. 1979. Influence of onion cultivars and their microbial

colonizers on resistance to onion maggot. Journal of Economic Entomology, 72: 512-515.

Finch, S., M. E. Cadoux, C. J. Eckenrode, and T. D. Spittler. 1986. Appraisal of current strategies

for controlling onion maggot (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in New York State. Journal of Economic

Entomology, 79: 736-740.

Harris, C. R., and H. J. Svec. 1976. Onion maggot resistance to insecticides. Journal of Economic

Entomology, 69: 617-620.

Harris C. R., H. J. Svec, J. H. Tolman, A. D. Tomlin, and F. L. McEwen. 1981. A rational integration

of methods to control onion maggot in southwestern Ontario. Proceedings of British Crop

Protection Conference-Pests and Diseases, 3: 789-799.

Harris, M. O., J. R. Miller, and O. M. de Ponti. 1987. Mechanism of resistance to onion fly egg

laying. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 43: 279-286.

Liu H.J., RL. McEwen, and G. Ritcey. 1982. Forecasting events in the life cycle of the onion

maggot Hylemya antiqua (Diptera: Anthomyiidae): application to control schemes.

Environmental Entomology, 11: 751-755.

Loosjes, M. 1976. Ecology and genetic control of the onion fly, Delia antiqua (Meigen). Pudoc.

Wageningen. Holland. 179 pp.

McDonald, M. R., S. Janse, K. Vander Kooi, and M. Hovius. 1997. Muck vegetable cultivar trials

and research reports. University of Guelph, Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario Report

No. 47.

McFerson, J. R, T. W. Walters, and C. J. Eckenrode. 1996. Variation in Allium spp. damage by

onion maggot. HortScience, 31: 1219-1222.

OMAFRA. 1995. Agricultural Statistics for Ontario. Publication 40. Policy Analysis Branch.

Toronto. Canada.

Perron, J. P. 1972. Effects of some ecological factors on populations of the onion maggot, Hylemya

antiqua (Meig.), under field conditions in southwestern Quebec. Annals of the Entomological

Society of Quebec, 17: 29-47.

Ritcey, G., and J. Chaput. 2000. Onion maggot control. OMAFRA, 258/605.

Sokal, R.R., and F. J. Rohlf.. 1995. Biometry. 3rd edition. Freeman, N.Y. 887 pp

Tolman, J. H., D. G. R. McLeod, and C. R. Harris. 1986. Yield losses in potatoes, onions and

rutabagas in Southwestern Ontario, Canada - the case for pest control. Crop Protection, 5:

227-237.

Valk, H. 1988. Onions. OMAFRA. Publication 486. pp. 27.

Walters, T. W., and C. J. Eckenrode. 1996. Integrated management of the onion maggot (Diptera:

Anthomyiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 89: 1582-1586.

62

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

CONTACT TOXICITY OF AZINPHOSMETHYL AND ENDOSULFAN TO

FIELD-COLLECTED STRIPED CUCUMBER BEETLE, Acalymma vittatum (F.)

J.K. MACINTYRE-ALLEN’, J.H. TOLMAN?,

C.D. SCOTT-DUPREE', S. A. HILTON? and C.R. HARRIS!

Striped cucumber beetle (SCB), Acalymma vittatum (F.), is a serious pest of cucurbit crops

with an economic value exceeding $24 million in Ontario in 2001 (Anonymous 2003). For many

years foliar application of endosulfan (THIODAN® 4EC [1.5 L/ha]) and azinphosmethy]

(GUTHION® 240SC, SNIPER® 240E [2.25 L/ha]), cyclodiene and organophosphorus insecticides

respectively, has been the principal method for SCB-control by commercial Ontario growers of

squash, cucumbers, melons and pumpkins (OMAF 2002).

In 1999, as a result of the increasing concern of Ontario growers about the decreasing

effectiveness of these insecticides in the field (Anonymous 1999), the susceptibility to endosulfan

and azinphosmethyl of SCB-populations from 11 representative Ontario cucurbit fields was

surveyed. Individual field-collections of SCB were maintained in 30 cm? mesh cages in walk-in

insectaries (25 +1°C; 65 + 5% RH; 16L:8D) at SCPFRC-London. All bioassays were performed

within 48 hours of collection; due to low numbers, only two bioassays, each comprising 2 x 10

insects, were completed at each concentration for each field-collected population.

Groups of 20 adult SCB were anaesthetized with CO, for 10 seconds in clean, waxed pasteboard

cups. Ten anaesthetized SCB were subsequently transferred to 9 cm Petri dishes and placed in the

Potter spray tower. Five ml aliquots of the desired concentration of each technical grade insecticide

solution ({1] endosulfan - 97.9% purity, Aventis CropScience Canada, Regina, SK; and [2]

azinphosmethyl - 97% purity, Bayer Inc. Agriculture Division, Crop Protection, Toronto, ON) in

19:1 acetone-olive oil (Harris & Turnbull 1986) were then sprayed onto the beetles. Treated SCB

were transferred into clean pasteboard cups containing a dental wick (4 cm long x 1 cm dia.)

dipped in RO-water. Control insects treated with acetone-olive oil were included in each test. A

glass Petri dish lid prevented SCB-escape. Bioassays were held at 27 +1°C and 65 + 5% RH under

continuous light. Mortality was assessed after 24 hrs; data were corrected for mortality in control

bioassays (<15 % for all cases) using Abbott’s correction (1925).

While limited numbers of field-collected SCB precluded statistical comparison of toxicity

among populations, some trends were apparent. Azinphosmethy] was one order of magnitude more

toxic than endosulfan (Table I). In population one, a few individual SCB survived the highest

applied concentration of both insecticides (Table I), indicating that this population should be

monitored more closely over the next few years. Finally, there did not appear to be any major

differences among the other populations in toxicity of either endosulfan or azinphosmethyl. With

the possible exception of population one, these data may indicate that reported SCB-control failures

were not due to the development of insecticide resistance but were rather a result of short persistence

of foliar insecticides on rapidly growing cucurbit-seedlings (MacIntyre-Allen et al. 2001). The

collected information does, however, provide baseline data for comparison should Ontario SCB-

management problems develop in the future.

“, Dept. Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada NIG 2W1

2 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre

(SCPFRC), 1391 Sandford St., London, ON, Canada NSV 4T3.

63

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Acknowledgements

We thank: T.A. Sawinski for help rearing striped cucumber beetles; T. Welsh for collection;

D. MacArthur for help with toxicology counts; and G. Howe, H. Thomas, B. Boot, F. Kuritan, E.

Van Ryan and P. Van der Windt for permission to collect SCB from their cucurbit-fields. This

research was supported, in part, by the: Agricultural Adaptation Council via the Ontario Fruit and

Vegetable Growers’ Association; Matching Investment Initiatives Program of Agriculture and Agri-

Food Canada; Food Systems 2002 Pest Management Research Program of the Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture and Food (OMAF); and, the University of Guelph-OMAF Plants Program.

References

Abbott W.S. 1925. A method for computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic

Entomology 18:265-267.

Anonymous. 1999. Ontario Pest Management Research and Services Committee.1998 Report to

Ontario Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee.

Anonymous. 2003. Area, Production and Farm Value of Specified Commercial Vegetable Crops,

Ontario, 2000. http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/vegsum01.html

Harris C.R. and S.A. Turnbull. 1986. Contact toxicity of some pyrethroid insecticides, alone and in

combination with piperony] butoxide, to insecticide-susceptible and pyrethroid-resistant strains

of the Colorado potato beetle (Say) Leptinotarsa decemlineata. The Canadian Entomologist

118:1173-1176.

MaclIntyre-Allen, J.K., C.D. Scott-Dupree, J.H. Tolman and C.R. Harris. 2001. Evaluation of

application methods for the chemical control of striped cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: -

Chrysomelidae) attacking seedling pumpkin, cucumber and squash in southwestern Ontario,

Canada. Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 7: 83-95.

OMAF. 2002. Vegetable Production Recommendations - 2002-2003. Publication 363. Queen’s

Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON. 292 pp.

(Received 30 August 2002; accepted 30 January 2003)

64

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

TABLE I: Corrected % mortality of eleven populations of striped cucumber beetle, Acalymma

vittatum (F.), collected from Ontario cucurbit-fields in 1999 and treated with endosulfan and

azinphosmethyl.

Pop’n Average Corrected % Mortality at Indicated Concentration (ppm)

See

Endosulfan:

N

Azinphosmethy]:

_

i=)

. technical grade insecticide dissolved in 19:1 acetone:olive oil to establish stock solutions

concentration not tested

Population not tested

65

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

66

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

THE AGROECOLOGY OF CARABID BEETLES

J. M. HOLLAND [ed.] 2002.

Intercept Ltd, Andover, UK pp. 356 + xiv. ISBN 1-898298-76-9, £67.00.

This volume arose out of a session on polyphagous predators, held at the Entomological

Society of America meeting at Atlanta in 1999. At first sight, the book is similar to compilations of

the proceedings of the triennial European carabidologists’ meetings. For example, the authorship

is decidedly European in emphasis with only four of 17 authors having institutional affiliations

outside Europe. However, an important difference is that the carabidologists’ conferences feature

new research results, whereas — with a few exceptions — the chapters in this volume are quite

thorough literature reviews. The compilation therefore provides a comprehensive overview of the

topic as it was in 1999.

The first chapter, “Carabid beetles: their ecology, survival and use in agroecosystems”, is by

the editor. This chapter is the most Eurocentric in the book. A tabulation of “the most common

species found in arable land” relies solely on European sources and omits several species of

importance in the Nearctic. Larochelle’s lists of natural enemies of carabids are used extensively,

but most other North American work is ignored. The “ecology” portion of the chapter is a quite

brief and selective update of Thiele (1977). The “survival” component is dealt with in a section

detailing biotic and abiotic influences on populations with the heading “Population regulation”.

Many of the factors discussed in this section are not regulatory in the strict sense of population

dynamics. The “uses” of carabids identified are as agents of pest control, as food for vertebrates,

and as bioindicators; of these, the first and third receive attention in subsequent chapters.

The second chapter is by M.L. Luff and considers the attributes of carabid assemblages in

agroecosystems. The chapter analyses major data sets including SCARAB, an experimental

assessment of effects of intensive pesticide use carried out in 108 half-fields in Britain, and Luff’s

own compilation of 119 published species lists from Europe, North America and Japan. The analysis

reaffirms —and broadens to new regions— Thiele’s (1977) finding that carabid assemblages in

crops typically have about 30 species. Luff identifies and characterizes the ecology of six genera

that dominate in terrestrial cropping systems. He also demonstrates that variation in carabid

assemblages in crops is largely attributable to site, year and crop plant, and that pesticides or other

agronomic management practices are of subsidiary importance.

The next five chapters, occupying over 40% of the book, review literature on carabids as

natural enemies of crop pests. Three chapters address aspects of carabid diets, and the following

two assess evidence for control of invertebrate pests and weeds respectively. Toft and Bilde separate

dietary items on the basis of food value, as judged by the diet’s effect on carabid fitness; they

conclude that cereal aphids, although frequently considered to be controlled by carabids, are a low

quality diet. This and other examples demonstrate that we know little about carabid prey choice

and so lack a basis for quantitative assessments of pest consumption in agroecosystems. Ingerson-

Mahar reviews carabid morphology in relation to diet, and gut dissection as a method of dietary

assessment. This is the only chapter in which entomological terminology might deter the non-

specialist agroecologist: this problem could have been alleviated by clearer, more effectively labelled,

figures. Symondson’s chapter provides a summary of the rapidly developing fields of immunological

and molecular methods of dietary assessment, and is made more useful by its inclusion of references

up to 2002. Those familiar with the work by Hagley and colleagues on carabids as predators of

apple pests may be dismayed to note that Ingerson-Mahar refers to Hagley as “Hagely”, and that

‘Symondson alleges that Allen and Hagley’s publications on predation of tortricids and tephritids

deal with Heliothis zea!

67

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

Se a cE

Sunderland presents a comprehensive worldwide review (to 2002) of evidence that cropland

carabids consume invertebrate pests (by scavenging or predation), that they kill invertebrate pests,

and that they, alone or as part of a larger natural enemy complex, affect invertebrate pest populations.

Presentation of the information in tables makes it very accessible, although by now many of the

best examples are familiar as they were also used in the chapters on carabid diet. Sunderland

concludes that, with some exceptions, “there is little evidence that trophic generalist carabids can,

by themselves, make a significant impact on pest populations” (p. 201) but “There is more evidence

that, when carabids form part of an assemblage of generalist predators, the assemblage as a whole

can often reduce pests to a significant degree”. Tooley and Brust’s chapter on weed seed predation,

although parallel in apparent niche to the chapter by Sunderland, adopts a very different approach.

It provides a general review of the topic of post seed-shed weed seed predation by carabid beetles.

Although it is concluded that weed seeds are consumed by carabids, lack of information on prey

selection by carabids and on implications of seed mortality for weed population biology make

conclusions parallel to those of Sunderland impossible.

The remaining four chapters deal with various aspects of carabid ecology in the context of the

agricultural landscape. Hance briefly reviews the influence on carabids of crop management

practices, including crop selection and arrangement, cultivation, agricultural chemicals, and natural

enemy refuges. This is followed by Holland et al., who address the same topics from the opposite

viewpoint: “Are carabids indicators of the environmental impacts of crop management practices?”

This chapter presents carabid-related results from the SCARAB project on pesticide effects (referred

to above), and from the LINK integrated farming systems study, in which conventional and low

agrochemical input farming systems were compared. This chapter is not the epitome of reader-

friendly communication: in addition to SCARAB and LINK, the reader must grapple with several

more acronyms, some of inconstant meaning, must deduce the meaning of a table (9.2) that lacks

adequate explanations and, if interested in important methodological details, must seek them in

project reports to various UK government agencies. It is difficult for the reader to reach a balanced

evaluation of the outcomes of the LINK and SCARAB projects: for each of them, the data presented

are selected because they show the greatest responses by carabids and so are by no means typical.

The authors conclude that, with the exception of the fields they choose to highlight, neither project

shows evidence of effects of pesticides on carabids.

Lee and Landis review the management of non-crop refuges for carabid beetles, including

“beetle banks” which are raised grassy strips within crop fields. While such refuges contain high

densities of carabid beetles that are often in better physiological condition than those in crops, it is

not clear whether the refuges operate as sources or sinks for carabids, and to what distance their

influence extends into the crop. While the authors do address the issue of how to manage refuges,

they admit that a major limitation of adoption is the absence of clear evidence that they improve

pest control.

The final chapter, by Thomas et al., considers the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in

agricultural landscapes. There is a discussion of methodology and results of studies of distribution

of carabids in and around agricultural fields, and within individual fields. At the latter scale, the

authors demonstrate from their use of SADIE (Perry 1995) to describe spatial patterns and measure

their association with potential causative factors. They contend that SADIE provides a tool for

learning how to manage habitats for biodiversity, conservation or pest control.

Overall, the literature reviews are by far the most valuable components of the book, as most of

them provide comprehensive summaries of the state of knowledge. Most figures and tables are

well presented and provide useful information in support of the text. Further editing would have

removed some of the typographic and spelling errors, and helped the non-anglophones to present

their knowledge more effectively. The editor might also have negotiated with authors to reduce the

68

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

degree of overlap between chapters: in addition to the repetition in the section on diet, “beetle

banks” were described in three chapters. Such repetition may not affect the average user of this

book: only reviewers and editors are likely to read it from end to end. The average user of the book

is likely to fall into one of three categories: the carabid specialist, the crop entomologist with an

interest in pest management with natural enemies, and the agroecologist interested in how production

practices affect non-target organisms. For the non-entomological agroecologist, it is sufficiently

free of entomological terminology to be quite approachable. Carabids are probably the best-studied

non-pestiferous insects of agroecosystems, and the book provides a valuable summary of our

knowledge about them and, salutarily, reveals how much remains to be discovered.

N. J. Holliday

Chair, Agroecology Program &

Head, Department of Entomology

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg Manitoba

References

Perry, J.N. 1995. Spatial analysis by distance indices. Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 303-314.

Thiele, H-U. 1977. Carabid beetles in their environments. A study on habitat selection by adaptations

in physiology and behaviour. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

69

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

70

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

BIOLOGY OF LEAF BEETLES

PIERRE JOLIVET and KRISHNA K. VERMA 2002.

Intercept Limited, Andover, England. 332 pp. ISBN 1-898298-86-6. Hardcover, $162.00 US.

This book aims to be a summary of the present knowledge of the Chrysomelidae. The volume

contains 12 chapters: after an introductory chapter there are chapters titled Classification,

Paleontology, Food Plants and Evolution, Food and Feeding, Developmental Stages, Ecology,

Biogeography, Island Faunas, Defense Strategies, Anatomy, Reproduction, Association with Other

Organisms, and finally Phylogeny of the Subfamilies. I was looking forward to this book because

of the reputation of the authors and because of the potential utility for students. (I should note that

I am an author of two chapters in an upcoming book edited by Dr. Jolivet and others; one chapter

is a phylogeny of the subfamilies of Chrysomelidae).

This book contains much useful information and it is abundantly illustrated. It is very helpful

to have so many illustrations of taxa and morphological features between one set of covers. In

general, this text gives a fairly complete overview of the topics discussed. For example, the chapter

on Food and Feeding covers host plant evolution briefly, gives a short section on the feeding and

feeding habits of each of 20 chrysomelid subfamilies recognized by the authors, followed by sections

on choice of host plant and plant part, entomophagy, nematophagy, coprophagy and cannibalism,

as well as a section on parallel diversification of Chrysomelidae with their host plants. This chapter

is of general interest to any collector who wants to improve her collecting skills or who wants to

capture a particular taxon or life stage more frequently.

The Ecology chapter, as an additional example, covers aquatic and subaquatic leaf beetles,

adaptations to desert life, to alpine environments and to polar regions (including morphological,

physiological and developmental adaptations). Chrysomelidae in the canopy and in caves are treated,

as well as, niche separation and diapause.

Several chapters have many wonderful illustrations. The Classification chapter had a fantastic

series of antennal modifications of Galerucinae. The Biogeography chapter has a plate, which

provides a splendid visual review of the megamerine Sagrinae. The Paleontology chapter is also

graced with many illustrations. I especially appreciate being shown a phylogenetic tree with a

hypothesis of plant ordinal relationships.

The most complete and comprehensively illustrated chapters are those on Development and

Anatomy. These chapters cover and illustrate all topics a beginning student really needs to know,

with illustrations of almost every important feature. The treatment of the wing and wing venation

was quite comprehensive and the development of the reproductive tract, especially the male genitalia,

are well done. My only disappointment was that the treatment of the hard parts of the female

genital system did not quite get the detailed treatment that the antennae do in chapter 2, but this is

- a minor point. In total those chapters were well written, complete and richly illustrated and I will

assign them to my graduate students.

However, this book is not for beginners; this text has a very particular view of the phylogenetic

and classification literature, which makes it misleading for the uninitiated. Moreover, it is not

consistently referenced; some topics receive complete and thorough citation of the relevant literature,

other topics have no citations at all, and most difficult are the topics in which the citation is incomplete

but some works familiar to the authors are cited. The lack of thorough citations is general, but is

especially misleading in the Phylogeny and Classification chapters.

In the three chapters dealing with phylogeny and classification (including the Paleontology

chapter) it becomes obvious that the phylogenetic philosophy of the authors clearly follows Ernst

Mayr and other evolutionary taxonomists. The authors tend not to cite Hennigan (phylogenetic)

71

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 133, 2002

systematists and when they do they may misinterpret them. This is exemplified by the following

quotation discussing homoplastic characters in the Chrysomelidae.

“Crowson has also pointed out that these tendencies have appeared polyphyletically among

Chrysomelidae: hence a cladistic approach, based on derived characters is not likely to yield reliable

results.” (p. 9)

Here they refer to Crowson (1994) in the preface to a volume edited by Jolivet et al. The

passage by Crowson reads, “With so many character states polyphyletic in the family, and some of

them liable to secondary loss, the uncritical application of cladistic procedures in Chrysomelidae,

particularly at the level of subfamilies, is likely to give unreliable results.” (Crowson 1994 p.xxii).

This type of misinterpretation of phylogenetic authors is consistent throughout the work.

Additionally, the most comprehensive phylogenetic treatment of the Chrysomelidae based on

morphological characters of all three life stages and all subfamilies was granted scant attention,

meriting only the following passage. “Reid (1995) attempted a cladistic analysis of subfamilial

relationships, and he finds Chrysomelinae, Galerucinae and Alticinae in the same clade”.

Unfortunately, the editing in the volume is also inconsistent, both in use of English vocabulary

and grammar, as well as in the identification of the subfamily for a mentioned genus or species. In

many places the authors are assiduous about orienting the reader to the subfamilial classification

of a genus discussed, in other places the reader is on his own. In several situations, the reader may

be lost if he is not familiar with the taxa or the anatomy. For example, when the Lepidopteran

genus Heliconius was discussed, an overzealous application of the spell checker transformed that

genus into the plant genus Heliconia, which is also discussed in several places in the book. These

editorial issues are a minor distraction to an experienced biologist but would interfere with student

comprehension.

The prices that I was quoted for this volume over the Internet, range between 52 and 60 |

English pounds or up to $162 US. This price makes it difficult for me to recommend this book to

the non-specialist, however, this is a useful reference for persons collecting broadly in the

Chrysomelidae or needing a general reference to anatomy and development.

Catherine N. Duckett*

Permanent address: Smithsonian Institution, Department of Entomology, Washington D.C. 20560

U.S.A.

Current address: *Rutgers University, Cook College, Blake Hall, 93 Lipman Dr. New Brunswick,

N.J. 08901 U.S.A.

References

Crowson, R.A.1994. Preface: A long perspective on chrysomelid evolution. in PH. Jolivet, Cox,

M. L., Petitpierre, E. (eds.) Novel aspects of the biology of Chrysomelidae. Kluwer Academic

Publisher, Dordrecht. pp.xix-xxii.).

a2

2002 ANNUAL MEETING

The Entomological Society of Ontario is grateful for the support received for the Annual Meeting

held in Ottawa on 18-20 October 2002 from: AAFC-Research Branch, The CanaColl Foundation,

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, The Tropical Conservancy and Canadian Museum of Nature.

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

The Society founded in 1863, is the second oldest Entomological Society in North America and

among the nine oldest, existing entomological societies in the world. It serves as an association of

persons interested in entomology and is dedicated to the furtherance of the science by holding

meetings and publication of the Journal. The Journal publishes only fully refereed scientific papers, —

and has a world-wide circulation. The Society headquarters are at the University of Guelph. The

Society’s library is housed in the McLaughlin Library of the University and is available to all

members.

——_ a ee

An annual fee of $30 provides membership in the Society, the right to publish in the Journal, and

receive the Newsletter and the Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario. Students, amateurs

and retired entomologists can join free of charge but do not receive the Journal of the Entomological

Society of Ontario.

{ A World Wide Web home page for the Society is available at the following URL: http://

www.entsocont.com

FELLOWS OF THE ENTOMOLOCIAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

Anthony William Aldridge Brown 1969

.

David Harvey Pengelly 1981

W. W. Bill Judd 2002

| | Chris Sanders 2002

: APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

: Name:

Address:

Postal Code:

Please send cheque or money order to:

D. Hunt, Secretary —

Entomological Society of Ontario

c/o Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Research Station

HARROW, Ontario, Canada NOR 1G0

NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS

P Please refer to the Society web site (http://www.entsocont.com/pub.htm) for current instructions

“to authors, which were last printed in Volume 131 (2000), pages 145-147 and can be updated at any

___ time. Copies of those instructions are available from the Editor.

CONTENTS

L. “FROM THE EDITOR 4.22... cece seenerneensennenntnnenee a

Il. SUBMITTED PAPERS

LeSAGE, L. — Flea beetles of the genus Altica found on grape in northeastern North A

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) (Received 18 November 2002; accepted 22 February 2003). ua

TTI CNS 2.:......ccnsetecnsensscsiucectanensnenseneesnsanuensibaastbescenctennge fant arti aaa tenet ae

McDONALD, M.R., K. VANDER KOOI, B. KORNATOWSKA and S. JANSE — Screenin,

breeding lines for resistance to onion maggot (Delia antiqua Meigen) damage. Re

2001; accepted 5 September 2002). :

Ill. SUBMITTED NOTE

MacINTYRE-ALLEN, J.K., JH. TOLMAN, C.D. SCOTT-DUPREE, S. A. HILTON J ar

HARRIS — Contact toxicity of azinphosmethyl and endosulfan to field- collected stripes

beetle, Acalymma vittatum (F.). (Received 30 August 2002; accepted 30 January 2 2003). ae

INGE is onnsacncckiratue ensu'sne oenndcnsuandunsthuionys) nay chats elit cote uaseeici elite el aaa aa ace 63-65

IV. BOOK REVIEWS

HOLLIDAY, N.J. — The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. 2002. by J. M. Holland ..

DUCKETT, K. — Biology of Leaf Beetles. 2002. by P. Jolivet and K. K. Verma...

V. ANNUAL MEETING ......sssssssssssssscsscssscsesessessssssnnsssnssnnssnsceeseesesecesees inside of back cover

VI. ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO cescssssssscsssscsccssecesees inside of back cover

VII. APPLICATION FOR MEMEBERSHIP ...cssscscccsessscssssessssssssesccce wn inside of back cove

Vill. NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS

wuik NY

2044 118 666 1

er a oe ee os

Oe Ot ir ee eee

NMR eee ee

Ne rye wee

ss Reavea

Aare ee

ea Ed

mete Roe

Airinn @ tS

err ra ty Manne rue cern ee PUby op wean ce tee “ns F

Np ee reas WAST ge nirenpsaetes ry,« ae pa Pes pr eAN, seaeep te se4 yo ‘mere . “ae HTH Ratt ® pe N Or we

ty rend cence . OUR Mat ope oan atiat ete es sees oe

reece ree

var

See Ae ete

er

Ce bees

poonee

Nmy a byes

Mrs yenr

ed

Sere

a A ee eh we,

RRO Reg Oma ie Peete me mw

PR MON es Re mee

AMPA peane

Ce rae eC)

Piss g ret tee 8

ww aye Ae oye he

ADAG RMI S AE ay

ae eye:

AptN FA

Penney Ty

Conv ITY Rear

WADE EFF See enty

bead Lee NY

7 MINA AP 28)

Sa a

MR he te ee ge

PCa nr acne ey

Pn Ree te

HAY yay Aa Bar Suny Ag 2d

PEN Ma ee

tant ae ae

Spt peek ’

PPR Ae

revenue

SSSA Cer ye

CU recon

ot Pe sts Pyne

nae

tte he ey

nas

Donne Me Vo Ag AL (ye ata a Spe spa

PL ae Oo Coa edie ga Se Ap it hy Gat z ‘

rates Se Perea

Tae mea wera

APE TERA ES Oat ty ene

PRALEL WMD ee ee OAR deny

SSAA Rint epee nes

hee

earn

OSAP SRAAAT TEU RHE UpUA ay iar Mbit gas

(POPND OF OADAT OGD EE VALS Ure ona ah aps CPUS LO pope ceed EOF BEE Ne 4

. sytan eines CORO Bre Oar YY mane Cn Sete ee y ‘

PON SAV Aware ER ey - A UMLE WELW AQP Ped One LE UA ALU Miiyene : they Meer ? Pe re eer (eee See ET Weng ty My

. MOU RYT ANT R QT eke mma ey, MOTO AUISE EA Ee Late oQny Vat cee eta Uy neuveenea ye wees TEU RAM apt et ce : Veer .

an ea cere eee ran ene errr PANNE ANE ee aah ant

tase

Ot Ae tn

SMe WE rte we

TE ELE EWE OE EAS

ei ar hy

PMR CANATUAN,

Vw Wye

HOA A tek My

Od Thee akpe

Sy aT

Le a

Ave MR veges

Pee wpe

yoets

OU WT US Ry eae

We

Aeonye

Uy hae yarn

At

E eyes

Hep ohh DR Oe he os GAARA Rye OmTee

a tueraatn ee ay beat leh Oa ah oP Ol kad e ERE MEE Sa ta ITH ty te

MEE ONENESS GEE LN oe UTA Hea ne LK yhapeny te Cavers ah une cunts P ibak ae ege ihe ae

songs VAR AQ ne AWA Rat meg pre LAAN ORT ONT owe cpa toa ,

PAVE RT NM Se Oe ey ave BOONE oF EQN KT COQOUP LYE MS dat why Ange leit abet pia cists HPA Tee Malad ase Tia tpi :

Pee te eae nee ee ee heer Pia en a eyo hk aye POPS aw ah, cee etive were. Ti Tiperny <hr ar Py nee eal at APE otek G eK

Se Shea ad ae ee WERT PEt eet pape yee OUR OMAA SU ee ge bed SOAP ENSUED Oe ear Tt yc pected Bavage tp us PAeees at yd tay Mee MP taste

SSE ee Tre eye yh ww iw ee WHEE PME Ue ag my Pear Wate VATS AA RLe iy Peay late aitseraiaek

Ve wry WE TNE OMB Qh Ae et serge A TOVANE AY MEME WHA IN OP tla UE tgp ad fend om

Fwree SRA SIIN YE MS ony i

Snare es

VE WE UAE UN ba ye ae ey

SU YA WS Yea ae ye pe

EAD VOTRE YON today

eee MARE YS

ret err is

“ys

WEE WeUr SEO ES home Cen,

Rae Se

SORE EE ee ae

TEE Me EM Goll

CeO re Senay

Syke at

Danyenae ie

MEOW QE EY ERLE UU a Ede OED

rs.

‘

ENT WS Le UEAE

ye

WAN ey tee any oe

er rent as

op etd oe lek ah hf AB NEL ed ki ve Sor Mite FV nee svete CP UE AN 6a Yad ty ee 4 Me Way Adam tay ar

PPro Ley a we ye minnie AU EP ence LE pegs gd ot We er ete Wnt Wee dt wip wan Feat aa Braet satin

ST hyena era ee ly wants en : ARN NGSE OCCT : wey ews dap hae a anny TCR ae ar ie TD Ae eM RAM AD TE

PONENT PA WEB ENS Ur ome LUE YE Ue UI OI TR ak A WAS WE WEE : ’ Ce a a CE On Towa yey RTE i Codie

ahh odes eh ie a ee ny eee on one oye et ten WOT IEW LT St amie Et AE i , H Hye 4 path inde ie Peete

nt Dah ae sel DUAL td aL CA ah oad TT VERS VEG RUE EN UE WE A ae WWE OD EE Pentre brag, bret Pwangee toile srerel OVE SEN oe ORLY Mpa Mar tap og Ay AOC ae oy ey

PANTS EM ORS ewe ar YR LTRS HPAES We MRT Be BO On GRA Coa ee CARRIE CMG raked Sn eR Sateen wy a AZIDE L OME OE, aa Poke tat SY AE i AME CEB Ath fap SOS ny Tp yeat undh AN A)

Wey vee Ae TR ey WV AVI LENE AME yt bE Wha VE eed PE AB AAS QE bie aL vb neti aa he sist

Bar gorre LA RE WME ONE He AA ERT OT WR VE AU ANTE A MEI aL WME CTE KCAL NS TTA Wet EFA ARAN tan by

ciceemnnante eh Sigurt Cee ene eee UA AR CLE ET Te

ee A et bd A UA. a tae oe Cat

Wr UT BT RTE HOME Be

SO et BP CY

Ca yew Cre Geers ed ul

SEAT BSUP WW UN Toe ye Be WE yt ie ay pel My

' Sey Oe ERMC TY Be) Re ae)

H Med a we la RANA efesis giv t Toby oie "

tw \ Pah we yee Sy te ate fate Wt 4 " . ; tan om ny uw Ae

DEA Meee DO Ce ae er Ree wpe wd pre Bre ne Wetpaaraie eon WOU ae | CREME " aay VE Wh Pay as saad (3 phi db “ FA ah see weve

' LIED Te rtp rin Wh We NY Lyd peat wees ‘

LPs Lath Pat eh PaO eT at Lh wih

BEE we Ee gee

Tar

Pe ae ORT

i ilel Vai i bt CE SD

PO UE eRe gs PEE

Led a ak Ui Ee eS Cee

LARA OMT Ue

Lae De OR ht

a yr

ee a ee ge

HU Pn Syn AY

DE tat ge

Wark we Wes

aT At

SVR le SE Sec UM a Og 7

wey POOR URI en TROT ie ee CPU ec eer aT el tay

j i) Ae) UY oe ge Wot Hat

EE RAMU BUT UE REECE MENT YATE Uma eT AE AER Uma Mead ASAD yee eae er

Baerga ee ec SP OIEWEMTSEUTRGE enTy ytunite nae ul waeurire bantu ty aay BCD cee a rk ea

Se ene Mae NA Yr ee SCD BT wr SEWN Te WEEE ent ge él ee

RATED NE We SOE UP YS WEEE UP MT UME YF UU TE PEE WA ESOS DF BF Gta De A Oe A aC

UP eae ae ve we Ee pes

Le wre ree

i Gr cua ore mies We ute ue Sic wee ee WOVE weve arp

ay Ute ty

Pere we ee