ibaen lat Le Re Cee ee ee nee

aU ee Se BU ee ee ee

SALA Pe ee ee) ”

VIA ae Wibth M" fran

DDS SM BA NM OMe hd hah Mah

hed ee tee en, BS tee: Uw tay GR FT ENG re Ve We ty Mem Le hed ¢

AW MAR ek Na walinunes BN ACE NG Muang doanhe Hd ta dh

WT Ri REN CWP RS HLM meV Mag ae ENED Nel

Ais MA de mwa we Os Geb.

BoA ANNA Re wa a AWE AT MH be

WH eatin dened MOWCWE MS Nes fe

ASW etteme CASAS y

sch BARS

VD a ON of Oot o™ oh oft a

Hoh 4id NG Raa MN AMEN

VN cove WHE

Awe bee

‘ ew

ae eg YOK MP AD

WI AMD ee VE NY WP a ah

TMS ot AMM NG OLA NM VS,

ae ee NAN Nae MAD ih ante

AM Me Ube, A NT Ns COE L EM AN ANS MN IN VN ALI ALG

a ed kee ek FA WAN Oe A MW AM OVA Ae NM oh oth Ie

A ee ek a De MM woth od

Mee BMRA A MASE MD MD NAS My Milt Me de leit

LM AN ATEN A MAM NG

Sm hed ayh

Hee WE

Tay aene

one

VV sb eE ie

Vo e

Ch Savate ved Mirus ahh VAN EN MAN AM DAM MM MAS Sh

moe Wey Ber ee Mi MD Me MAM MD athe MK

re SNM ATT MD AM ASA ANN WAGE WS MLE NM MMM Me WH Deh

SWeW SARA BWA. A

ake

Be DEVE MN YW At MOAN 1 A Ba EM

Fh ON MI e N ya gHeg! ie

DEMON OR OR HO AG Re AAR Ae A Ue ee

a Teo 8 hy te

EEN MEE ONT MM eM Meh oly

i 1 CLE oe ee a 9

41a VIN en ee Pea EEL Wea OT ae ore

AVN M LEN Mh eG! ab iee saat ihe Mt OM AMM Hah nA

LEAD A MN MM ew

aaa at eS

WANS ine

AN WDE

Ce eee ee

Ne tet

15.0 Wat

hey h

Wary

NWS MGW WSS ih eared ae ee ee Matt

1% eee Pee fee tale

. nth & I VN PD ma Me

TE EE ee

AAS GANG fhe

PMV Any

tiey rt Mat MII Sey

hee mesh ae

MESH METS TEU PLAC

ah,

AH ATM RE MORI SDN Bs

Ra AG OR A NEI ERG

SONS .

ow wee oO ta Tae ety

MEANS No ei RS BO

wR BON RM Coed

Peery

ANeee te “s

oon were ae ee ter

Wakes odes

Se eS SOM fre as

be FBT wa RL La Sew A Mat ae

MOP RE MAA te Ry aE 6 HME ARES SOM, TMT eRe Rady 5

+ PL Roe Ra BAL MN, SN ROB SR KO hoy Ph Walon y

HAAR MO ee SRA, SLMS MEV te By Va MME Mite aS.

REMAIN WEN A RST MS BL Pte

PA BINA Mare UNS MameT NP RAR RIAL NS Mat OS te

oR Ve BMA NR PY AD ells AMSA BORA AML ed Ma ie

Pe tb de Rai titel Oa. ND,

PEE ROSEN EE MON Ge ty

Pete ROM MR MLE

any GN

OP ec, |

PRD Wate ae

AR. BEA o

Pe beh

NON

M0 EA Mt Se

AW RSE OI Be Sade ah mT, SL ng

BORN Pie eH OA,

aR HOR

MANS ERIS Stel ae

Saeed eR Pa Rt Wee

Ter ere ne

waar

Baws Riots HS AL Seater &

AH NS

PR oS

Ory ae eee ey

Veo Woretw bang

3 :

ENT

L5EY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ave tians

nsf

Ernst Mayr Library

of the Museum of

Comparative Zoology

MC2Z

LIBRARY

JUL 24 2012

HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

MCZ

LIBRARY

APR 24 2006

HARVAR

UNIVERSTy

a Fs ,

_ JOURNAL

we + ;

= a

za ’

of the

SOCIETY

ONTARIO

Me ae Mise:

_ THE ENTOMOLOGICAL

ISSN 1713-7845

> ————_—

i -

Volume

One Hundred and Thirty-Five

2004

Published March 2006

ISSN 1713-7845

JOURNAL

of the

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

ONTARIO

Volume One Hundred and Thirty-Five

2004

Published January 2006

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

OFFICERS AND GOVERNORS

2004-2005

President: G. UMPHREY (2004-2006)

F. HUNTER Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics

Dept. of Biological Sciences, Brock University

St. Catharines ON, L2S 3A1

hunterf@brocku.ca

President-Elect:

J. HUBER

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service

c/o Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre

960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6

huberjh@agr.gc.ca

Past President:

J. CORRIGAN

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

bugjimcorrigan@sympatico.ca

Secretary:

D. HUNT

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

Research Station, Harrow ON, NOR 1G0

huntd@agr.gc.ca

Treasurer:

K. BARBER

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service,

1219 Queen St E., Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 2E5

kbarber@nrcan.gc.ca

Librarian:

J. BRETT

Library, University of Guelph, Guelph ON

N1G 2W1

Directors:

T. BAUTE (2003-2005)

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Agronomy Building, Ridgetown College

P.O. Box 400, Main Street East, Ridgetown ON

NOP 2CO0

P. BOUCHARD

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

960 Carling Ave., Ottawa ON, K1A 06C

H. FRASER (2005-2007)

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Vineland Resource Centre, P.O. Box 8000

4890 Victoria Avenue North, Vineland ON LOR 2E0

M. RICHARDS (2003-2005)

Dept. of Biological Sciences, Brock University

St. Catharines ON L2S 3A1

(2004-2006)

University of Guelph, Guelph ON, N1G 2W1

Webmaster:

D. B. LYONS

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service,

1219 Queen St E., Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 2E5

Student Representative:

L. TIMMS

Faculty of Forestry

University of Toronto, Toronto ON M5S 3B3

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Scientific Editor:

Y. H. J. PREVOST*

Faculty of Forestry and the Forest Environment,

Lakehead University, Thunder Bay ON P7B 5E1

Technical Editor: K. Jamieson

Layout Artist: M. Primavera

Associate Editors:

A. BENNETT

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

960 Carling Ave. Ottawa ON, K1A 06C

R. HARMSEN

Biology Department, Queen’s University,

Kingston ON, N7L 3N6

Y. MAUFFETTE

Faculté des sciences, Département des sciences biologiques

Université 4 Québec Montréal,

Montréal QC, H3C 3P8

G. OTIS

Dept. of Environmental Biology

University of Guelph, Guelph ON, N1G 2W1

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 U.S.A.

*Mailed MS’s to 4338 Wildmint Square Ottawa ON,

K1V 1N5.

Electronic MS’s to Yves.Prevost@Lakeheadu.ca

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

JOURNAL

of the

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

VOLUME 135 2004

From the Editor,

This issue contains the monumental work of J. Huber of the Canadian Forest Service in

Ottawa, who spent years reviewing and measuring the tiny Mymarid, Anaphes sp., an important

group for biological control and systematics. This group is extremely difficult to work with due

to its tiny size in spite of the many optical tools available. I am sure you will find that the clarity

of the plates of these seldom-seen Anaphes, will add a new dimension to your viewing pleasure

of insects. 7

It is not only the tiny Anaphes sp. that has gone unnoticed, but much larger Apids and

Orthopteroids are showing up as new Canadian records, when collections are examined more

closely by dedicated individuals. The continued work of T. Romakova at the Royal Ontario

Museum in Toronto, revising the bees of Ontario, reports seven new records of Apids for

Canada, while S. Marshall’s group of the Systematics Laboratory at the University of Guelph,

reports seven records of Orthoptera for Canada and one new record for Ontario.

Dealing with insecticide resistance is a long-standing problem in apple orchards everywhere.

D. Pree’s group of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada laboratory in Vineland presents a

profile of the dynamics of insecticide resistance in some Ontario orchards over three years. This

study demonstrates how insecticides from different chemical groups interact with one another,

and suggests how to reduce insecticide resistance in apple orchards.

Ontario is also known for its wine and it is fitting that JESO presents works on vineyard

pests. In 2001, Ontario vineyards became infested with aphids and the multicoloured Asian lady

beetle soon followed, which created a new problem for the wine industry. If large populations

of the beetle are present in the vineyards when the grapes are harvested, the beetles get crushed

along with the grapes, tainting the wine. D. Pree’s group developed a protocol to provide an

immediate or short-term response to the new problem.

I thank Martin Damus again for his continued service to the Society in providing the

cover drawing of the Anaphes laying an egg. Thanks to Karen Jamieson and Mark Primavera

for the technical layout of this volume. Our associate editors along with reviewers from across

Canada and the United States provided valuable feedback to the authors. Finally, we are already

working on volume 136 of JESO and we would be pleased to read your work and consider it

for publication.

Yves Prévost

Yves. Prevost@Lakeheadu.ca

4 AM ow eae ios

isis ms Benes

pan yore 4 i aliases

yours fehiallie cain ahem abigite

0 a “ay nls

‘ 1 wee oy wii 33 genie nis

| | toe P hy vile td Ai aniworts

‘ beuey eh re 4 fivitgu €

Be Mie.

oar ge»

f “45 , ) ay

‘eel OD itv) OI0IO:

ieee Fi lg cpio ig Ais devil 4

ot bso aqout (nO Yo ebrogaye are

Bye ne seinoy ybiziz aan civ gail

‘ by wat bya. For i 3 ae

wiedtivwy st vent bo estatioreh sds Ye

A ieaboryoeeai vod eI he ,.

; oS ae

een Subs Gy Wod |

a) 5 i f H ae Ar “6

amt ’ * N fie ORLA Wi " sS_?

us 1 art DOS al zs o

LOS ghee

boy voll ses sti

i ee th t woemndy an ab od 3

si aint Oe 1g y ad: ii gu oh

Beg? a yeu OM atin 7

ro si hina ae park wee ial Bs Sipe

ey tyes 4 LsNS BAb a i a) dy h i : ;

lg sd nts ae Ooi to OFF aniiled pa gal

' tbr tal teokogy afd deiggl ingeor =

’ >

tte T r * severe, Ugelky Fs a a

Cfprts. Caldigg Bone U8.

~sh4 i A

ay | Ped |

(> oath

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

REVIEW OF THE DESCRIBED NEARCTIC SPECIES OF THE

CRASSICORNIS GROUP OF ANAPHES S.S. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae)

JOHN T. HUBER

Canadian Forestry Service, Natural Resources Canada,

Systematic Entomology, K.W. Neatby Building,

960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6,

E-Mail: huberjh@agr.gc.ca

Abstract J. ent Soc. Ont. 135:3-86

The 13 nominal species of the crassicornis group of Anaphes s.s. (previously

known as Patasson) in North America are redescribed and keyed. Primary

types are illustrated and the biology of several economically important

species is summarized. Host-induced morphological variation is a problem

in defining the species. Crossing experiments between nominal species reared

from various economically important hosts are needed to determine whether

similar morphological species are biologically distinct or not, as follows:

Anaphes conotracheli reared from Conotrachelus spp. with A. pallipes reared from

Cylindrocopturus adspersus and Rhagoletis pomonella; A. luna reared from Hypera

spp. (especially H. postica) with A. victus reared from Listronotus oregonensis

and with A. sordidatus reared from Tyloderma foveolatum; A. pullicrurus reared

from Chaetoctema denticulata with A. cotei reared from Listronotus oregonensis.

Molecular studies may also help resolve species limits. Hosts are still unknown for

A. brunneus, A. confertus, and A. longiclava. A lectotype is designated for A. luna.

Résumé

Les 13 espéces nominales décrites du groupe crassicornis du genre Anaphes s.s.

(autrefois connu sous le nom de Patasson) d’Amérique du nord sont redécrites

et une clé d’identification est présentée, tout cela basé sur l'étude des types

primaires. Les types primaires sont illustrés et un sommaire de la biologie

de diverses espéces d’importance économique est présentée. La variation

morphologique causée par I|’héte est un probléme pour définir les espéces.

Des essais de croissement entre les espéces nominales, élevées de divers hdtes

d’importance économique, sont nécessaires pour déterminer si les espéces

morphologiquement semblables sont biologiquement différentes ou non. Les

croisements devraient étre faits comme suit: Anaphes conotracheli élevées de

Conotrachelus spp. avec A. pallipes élevées de Cylindrocopturus adspersus et

Rhagoletis pomonella; A. luna élevées de Hypera spp. (surtout H. postica) avec A.

victus élevées de Listronotus oregonensis et avec A. sordidatus élevées de Tyloderma

foveolatum; A. pullicrurus élevées Chaetoctema denticulata avec A. cotei élevées de

Listronotus oregonensis. Des études moléculaires pourraient aussi aider a résoudre

les limites entres espéces. Les hétes demeurent toujour inconnus pour A.

brunneus, A. confertus, et A. longiclava. Un lectotype est désigné pour A. luna.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Introduction .

Most of the biological literature on Mymaridae involves species of only two genera, Anaphes

Haliday and Anagrus Haliday, because they are important for the biological control of pests of

several major crops (Huber 1992, Chiappini et a/. 1996). About 235 species of Anaphes have

been described but few have host records associated with them. Chrysomelidae or Curculionidae

are the most commonly reported hosts, but some Anaphes species have been reared from

other families in Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera or Hymenoptera (Symphyta). The several

taxonomic treatments of Anaphes have resulted in a somewhat complicated nomenclatural

history as discussed by Debauche (1948), Annecke and Doutt (1961), Schauff (1984a), and

Huber (1992). Huber (1992) divided the genus into two subgenera, Anaphes (Anaphes) and

Anaphes (Yungaburra), based on differences in male antennae. Males of species of Anaphes

(Yungaburra) have each of the 11 flagellomeres bearing at least one longitudinal sensillum

whereas males of Anaphes s.s. apparently have only 10 flagellomeres because FI, is extremely

reduced and lacks longitudinal sensilla. Huber (1992) subdivided Anaphes (Yungaburra) into

three species groups (the amplipennis and nitens groups, and an unnamed group) and Anaphess.s.

into two species groups, the fuscipennis group and the crassicornis group, based on the number

of claval segments in the female antennae. Species of the crassicornis group are separated by their

two-segmented clava from species of the fuscipennis group, which have a one-segmented (entire)

clava. Huber (1992) reviewed the nine described species of the fuscipennis group in North

America; the described species of the crassicornis group in North America are reviewed here.

Species in the latter group have previously been classified either in their own genus, Patasson

(e.g. Kryger 1934), or as a subgenus of Anaphes (e.g. Debauche 1948). In the Nearctic region,

the crassicornis group includes 13 nominal species: nine catalogued under Patasson by Burks

(1979), A. pallipes (Ashmead) catalogued under Anaphes by Burks (1979) and transferred to the

crassicornis group by Huber (1992), and three additional species described by Huber in Huber et

al. (1997). Eight of the species [A. calendrae (Gahan), A. conotracheli Girault, A. cotei Huber, A.

diana (Girault), A. /una (Girault), A. listronoti Huber, A. pullicrurus Girault, and A. victus Huber]

have been reared from economically important pests. Anaphes luna was imported from Europe

for biological control and released in Utah where it successfully established and spread. Anaphes

diana was also imported from Europe and was released in Delaware, Idaho and Kentucky but field

establishment is uncertain (Yeargan 1985). The remaining four species [A. brunneus (Doutt), A.

gerissophaga (Doutt), A. longiclava (Doutt), and A. confertus (Doutt)] are known from only one or

a few specimens, either reared from hosts of no economic importance or not reared and without

known hosts. Despite their economic importance and abundance, the taxonomy of crassicornis-

group species is difficult and most of the species cannot easily be identified.

As a first step to try to resolve the problem of species identifications, the described species

occuring in the Nearctic region are keyed and redescribed, and their type specimens are

illustrated. The total number of Anaphes species occuring in America north of Mexico can only

be guessed at. Only three collections (CNCI, UCRC, USNM, acronyms explained below)

have considerable numbers of Anaphes specimens (several thousand individuals in total) and

most would have to be slide mounted for detailed studied before a reasonable estimate could

be made. Based on my current knowledge of the genus I think the number of North American

morphospecies is perhaps around two or three times the number already described, i.e. 40-50

species in total, more or less divided equally between the two species groups. Comparison with

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

other zoogeographical regions is not helpful for determining the size of the North American

fauna because none of their faunas (except Europe) have been studied systematically. The

European situation presents a major problem because of the typological species concept used by

the single author who described most of the approximately 160 nominal species from relatively

few localities. Most of his species are likely synonyms of one another.

Materials and Methods

Morphological terms used and measurements, given in micrometers (um), are as described

in Huber (1992) and Gibson (1997). All the features mentioned in the species diagnoses must

be taken into account when comparing a specimen; if only some features match and others

do not it is likely that the specimen does not belong to the species in question. Descriptions

include the mean and, in parentheses, the range and number of specimens measured. Primary

types were measured separately (Table I). Their measurements are not included in the species

statistics, thus permitting independent comparison with non-type material. Where possible,

qualitative features were used to identify species, but there seem to be few such features in

species of Anaphes so considerable reliance was placed on measurements and ratios. The relative

length of tarsomere 1 to 2 has not been used before. Using slide-mounted specimens, each

tarsomere is measured from its base to the proximal point of insertion of the next tarsomere

(Fig. 34). The apical tarsomere is measured to the point of insertion of the pretarsus. The

pretarsus is not included in total tarsal length. The ‘ovipositor length’ (Fig. 41) was measured

from the basal loop to the apex of the sheaths instead of to the apex of the ovipositor itself

because the ovipositor apex is not always clearly visible when it is hidden by the sheaths. The

true ovipositor length is acutally slightly less than the length measured from the apex of the

sheaths. For measurements to be exact, structures being measured must have both end-points

in focus at the same time. This was not the case for some measurements because of the poor

quality of most of the slide-mounted specimens available for study. Thus a certain amount

of unavoidable inaccuracy occurs that increases the range for a given structure. In particular,

absolute body measurements taken from slide-mounted specimens are somewhat inaccurate

because the specimens usually had the head collapsed or mounted obliquely. Approximate head

length was added to the separate measurements of mesosoma and metasoma to obtain total

body length. Because most specimens, either representing different species or the same species

reared from different hosts, were mounted in the same way, comparison of measurement among

specimens shows the relative changes in size reasonably well.

Because of small sample sizes (less than 30) the sample standard deviation, which is slightly

larger than the standard deviation, was calculated. Species limits based on ranges and deviations

are thus somewhat broadened and greater overlap among the measurements of different species

occurs. Until many more, well prepared slide-mounted specimens of each species become

available for measurement the limits of variation cannot be defined more accurately.

Photographs of wings and antennae were made with a digital camera attached to a

compound microscope. The species of the crassicornis group are so similar that long descriptions

are simply repetitious. The descriptions consist mainly of measurements and, together with the

diagnoses, should suffice to recognize a particular species. Abbreviations used are: Fl,-Fl, =

funicle segment 1 to 6, FWL/FWW = forewing length/forewing width, LMC = longest marginal

cilia of forewing or hind wing.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Specimens were borrowed from the following institutions.

CASC - California Academy of Science, San Francisco. W. Pulawski.

EMEC - Essig Museum of Entomology, University of California, Berkeley. R. Zuparko.

CNCI - Canadian National Collection of Insects, Ottawa. J. Huber.

INHS - Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana. K.C. McGiffin.

UCRC - University of California, Riverside. S. Triapitsyn.

USNM - National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC. M.E. Schauff.

Variability in Anaphes species

Females are the most commonly collected sex and the only known sex for some species.

Therefore, mymarid taxonomy is based almost exclusively on females, and only females can be

identified fairly reliably using morphological features alone. Males are usually ignored unless

they can be definitely associated with corresponding females. Sexual variation is therefore not a

problem to consider in mymarid taxonomy. Another kind of variation occurs when individuals

of a gregarious species, e.g. A. calendrae, presumably obtain varying amounts of nutrients from

the single egg in which they develop, resulting in overall size differences. The source of variation

with the greatest influence in modifying morphology appears to be the host. Different host

species may cause qualitative as well as quantitative morphological changes in their parasitoids.

For example, in A. io/e Girault not only are specimens reared from smaller hosts smaller in size

but loss of longitudinal sensilla on Fl, occurs, with a concomitant change it its proportions

(Huber and Rajakulendran 1988). Evidence is presented below that two nominal Anaphes spp.,

A. pallipes and A. conotracheli, reared from Cylindrocopturus adspersus LeConte and Conotrachelus

spp., respectively, may be a single species. The differences between these two putative species are

similar to those found for A. dole reared from its different hosts. If the length of a structure varies

continuously between two extremes (e.g. A. calendrae, as described below) depending on host

size, this can be more easily taken into account when characterizing the limits of variation in a

species than a disjunction in qualitative features. In the later case, one may easily, but incorrectly,

propose two or more species (as was probably done by some authors working on the European

fauna) unless the biology and host range are known or crossing experiments can be performed

to demonstrate conspecificity. Conversely, morphologically almost identical species that are

biologically different are known to occur, e.g. A. sordidatus Huber and A. listronoti Huber

(Huber et al. 1997). The lack of host information and difficulty of doing crossing experiments

with most described Anaphes species greatly hinders a proper understanding of species limits

in the genus.

Key to females of described Nearctic crassicornis-group species of Anaphes

1 Back of head with occipital suture short, bent inward and pointing ventromedially to-

wards occipital foramen (diverging strongly away from outer orbit of eye) (Figs. 31,

32); forewing with posterior margin hyaline for most of its length until mid-point of

wing apex, with at most only a short brown section along ventral margin towards apex

(Pie, 1KG, 190 DGS oe. ac nncceen scone cites Dean teseadet erty eliceepeateegiee setters hea ce eee 2

- Back of head with occipital suture long, straight, pointing ventrally (not diverging

strongly from outer orbit of eye) (Fig. 30); forewing with posterior margin and entire

apical margin brown, similar to anterior margin (Figs. 17, 18, 20-25, 27-29) ..........04. 4

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

2(1) FI, of antenna at most 3.3 times as long as wide and at most 1.8 times as long as i

pepetior atest t. 8tines hind tibidlletie da lai iy. isk. scesscceccsctacoececdesessccsosotbscdesdie 3

- FL, of antenna at least 4.4 times as long as wide and at least 2.2 times as long as Fl, (Fig. 1);

ovipositor at most about 1.6 times hind tibial length 0.0.0.0... brunneus (Doutt)

Busereowien 2 loneiendinal sensilla ....................20.scseescnceonnencassrepeneeraseese conotracheli Girault

- FL, at most with 1 but usually without longitudinal sensilla .............. pallipes (Ashmead)

4(1) Ovipositor arising posterior to base of gaster(ovipositor/hind tibia ratio at most 0.9)

fe 5

- Ovipositor extending at least to base of gaster and often under mesosoma towards head

permanent Ties FAN Cater Char EO) eee eels Si ccsscaesecesdsasccAbasesotercseeeceothccecees 6

5(4) FI, almost quadrate, without longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 3)... confertus (Doutt)

- Fl, at least twice as long as wide, usually with 1 or 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 6)

(European species, establishment in North America uncertain)................. diana Girault

6(4) FI, without longitudinal sensilla and somewhat narrower than Fl,.........:.0sssesseeeeeseees 7

Fl, with 1 or 2 longitudinal sensilla on one or both antenna and about same width as FI,

. 12

7(6) Forewing narrow, its length/width ratio greater than 7.3 (Figs. 20, 22, 27) ......eeeeee 8

- Forewing broader, its length/width ratio less than 6.5 (Figs. 17, 23-25, 28, 29) ........ 10

8(7) Setae on vertex between ocelli and on thorax conspicuous, long and erect, the four

setae between ocelli at least half as long as distance between posterior ocelli, the two on

midlobe of mesoscutum extending to posterior margin of mesoscutum (assuming they

are laying flat) and the one on each axilla extending past posterior margin of anterior

rarer! SN ox its eee eee. tos. So scg Loose Sacteactsracncants elated gerrisophaga (Doutt)

- Setae on head and thorax shorter and mostly inconspicuous, the four setae between ocelli

eeeieaianee setattatio€ dcellar, diameter i: ,..<1essi24.sévese.+ -onnbesnpsnatatannasvsendentnepscbosee 9

9(8) FI, long and slender, its length/width ratio at least 4.8, and the remaining segments also

EE Sl as) De SS cotet Huber

- FL, shorter and broader, its length/with ratio at most 3.5, and the remaining segments

also relatively shorter and broader (Fig. 13)..........s:ccsscssssesesseeseeseeees pullicrurus (Girault)

10(7) Hind leg with tarsomere 1 almost 1.5 times as long as tarsomere 2 .........:.:ssceseeeeeeeeeeees

- Hind leg with tarsomere 1 slightly shorter than tarsomere 2...........:::seseseeseeeeeeseeeeees 11

11(10) Forewing length/width ratio at least 5.7; body length 413-603 jm [specimens from

RNS IMRECMDOMZENSTN ocean nae dnnpas banananrensyi-ea-eeranend=ones luna Girault (part)

- Forewing length/width ratio at most 5.4 (4.6 in holotype); body length 413 (holotype;

Se eNM ARAN WN ISG TTICASEIT ADC ) oo 2 2.s0--annoneopenpennenninnedernnns sng longiclava (Doutt)

12(6) Ovipositor length averaging 434 pum (374-511, M=13) ...csseseseeeseseeeeceeteeseeeeseeeeeeeeeees

LT) Se oe listronoti Huber, sordidatus Huber

[Note: these species cannot be separated morphologically (see Huber et a/.,1997);

sordidatus has been reared from Tyloderma foveolatum (Say) whereas listronoti has been

reared from Listronotus oregonensis (LeConte)].

- Ovipositor length less than 350 pm for Texan and Michigan populations, and averaging

365 mp (351-380, n=5) for Quebec population..........csescseeeeeeeseseteteteeeeeessseseetstaeesaenes

PERRET EEE EEE EEE EE EEE EEE HEHEHE EEEEEEHEESEEEEEEHESEHESEH HEHEHE EOEES

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Anaphes brunneus (Doutt)

(Figs. 1, 16, 35)

Anaphoidea brunnea Doutt, 1949: 159 (original description).

Patasson brunnea; Burks, 1958: 63 (catalog).

Patasson brunneus; Peck, 1963: 32 (catalog, hosts); Burks, 1979: 1030 (catalog).

Anaphes brunneus; Huber, 1992: 73 (list).

Type material. HOLOTYPE $ (EMEC), examined. On slide labelled: 1.“by sweeping

native vegetation. Forestville, Sonoma Co., Calif. April 16, 1947 R.L. Doutt”. 2. “Anaphoidea

brunnea Doutt ? Type” (red label). The holotype is in fairly good condition, with the right pair

of wings and right foreleg detached, and with the head detached and positioned laterally and one

antenna detached. Measurements are given in Table I. PARATYPES: same data as holotype (2 ,

USNM, EMEC); Contra Costa Co., El Cerrito, 6.iii.1948, R.L. Doutt (1 2 , EMEC).

Diagnosis. Occipital suture short, angled inwards towards dorsal margin of occipital

foramen (as in Figs. 31, 32); forewing clear on posterior margin to mid-point of wing apex

(Fig. 16); Fl, at least 4.3 times as long as apical width (Fig. 1).

Anaphes brunneus, A. pallipes, A. conotracheli and the Palearctic A. pectoralis are all closely

related based on the short, angled occipital suture and the clear hind margin of the forewing.

They also share these two features with A. ole of the fuscipennis species group. Anaphes brunneus

differs from A. pallipes and A. conotracheli by its longer F,, the longest funicle segment. Except for

the antennal and ovipositor proportions, specimens of A. brunneus and those of A. conotracheli

appear to be identical so the species may be synonymous. More, preferably reared, specimens

from hosts in western North America are required so variation can be assessed adequately to

determine if the species are really the same.

Description. Female. Colour (from uncleared type slides). Dark brown with antennae and

legs beyond coxae lighter. Forewing (Fig. 16) with posterior margin hyaline almost to apex of

wing.

Body length. 484 (428-535, n=4, from slide-mounted types). Body length is approximate

because the specimens cannot be measured accurately due to breakage and poor orientation.

Head. Width 170 (n=1). Occipital suture short, angled inwards towards dorsal margin of

occipital foramen (as in Figs. 31, 32). Ocellar setae as long as about half diameter of anterior

ocellus.

Antenna. Scape with ventral margin almost straight, with faint, oblique striations on inner

surface. Fl, and Fl, each with 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 1). Fl, with base about two-thirds width

of apex. Fl, with 1 (holotype) or 2 (paratypes) longitudinal sensilla. Fl, without longitudinal

sensilla in holotype and one paratype, and with! longitudinal sensillum in remaining two

paratypes. Measurement of antennal segments are given in Table II.

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with short, inconspicuous setae.

Wings. Forewing length 671 (626-721, n=3), width 146 (132-160), FWL/FWW 4.7 (4.55-

4.75), LMC 145 (140-150), their length about equal to forewing width; marginal space 90 (84-

97), medial space triangular, cubital line of setae closest to posterior margin near the retinacular

seta and further away distally, with a distinct gap of about one setal length between the cubital

line and posterior margin of wing. Hind wing length 649 (610-705, n=3), width 29 (n=1), with

5-10 microtrichia medially on blade in apical half, LMC 117 (103-131, n=3).

Legs. Foretibia with 8-10 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 slightly shorter than tarso-

mere 2 (Table I).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 342 (n=1), 1.62 times length of hind tibia, extending under

mesosoma at least to level of base of mesocoxa and usually to base of forecoxa. Gaster with

rather blunt apex (Fig. 35).

Male. Unknown.

Distribution. USA (CA).

Material examined. Only the four specimens of the type series were examined. One specimen

from TX, Jim Wells Co., La Copita Res. Station, north fence pasture $2, 23.iii.1990, G.

Zolnerowich (1 on card, CNCI) may be this species but more material is needed from this

locality for slide mounting to be certain.

Hosts and Biology. Unknown.

Anaphes calendrae (Gahan)

(Figs, .2;,47433,36)

Anaphoidea calendrae Gahan, 1927: 32 (original description); Marlatt, 1929: 11 (shipment

to Hawaii); Satterthwait, 1931:.171 (hosts, life cycle, biology); Williams, 1929a: 227

(release in Hawaii); Williams, 1929b: 29 (introduction into Hawaii); Williams, 1931:

216 (release in Hawaii); Clausen, 1940: 101 (host mention); Doutt, 1949: 160 (key);

Vaurie, 1951: 39 (host list); Thompson, 1958: 569 (host list).

Patasson calendrae; Peck, 1951: 414 (catalog, hosts); Peck, 1963: 32 (catalog, hosts); Beardsley,

1964: 340 (insectary rearing); Bianchi, 1964: 346 (release in Hawaii, laboratory hosts);

Davis and Krauss, 1964: 395 (release in Hawaii); Davis, 1968: 16 (release in Hawaii);

Funasaki, 1969: 285 (release in Hawaii); Davis and Chong 1969: 320 (release in Hawaii);

Anonymous 1970: 34 (propagation in Hawaii); Burks, 1979: 1030 (catalog); Collins and

Grafius, 1983: 1 (hosts); Clausen, 1978: 274 (importation and release in USA, failed

establishment in Hawaii); Huber, 1986: 198 (mention of failed establishment in Hawaii).

Patasson calandrae; Yooke, 1955: 112 (incorrect subsequent spelling).

Anaphes calendrae; Annecke and Doutt, 1961: 49 (key); Huber, 1992: 73 (list); Beardsley and

Huber, 2000: 10 (Hawaiian records).

Anaphes (Patasson) calendrae; Beardsley, 2000: 209 (establishment and probable hosts in

Hawaii).

Type material. HOLOTYPE 2? (USNM), examined. On slide labelled: 1.” Anaphoidea calendrae

Gahan Type & allotype Type No. 29454 U.S.N.M. [red label]”. 2.” Webst. Gr. # 24117 Progeny

of # 24106 bred through eggs of Calendra destructor. Kirkwood, Mo. A.F Satterthwait”. The

holotype is in good condition, uncleared and mounted laterally with the head partially in face

view. Its measurements are given in Table I. Three female and one male paratypes are on the

same slide as the holotype, which is circled in black. PARATYPES. I examined 38 of the 40 slides

and 11 of the 12 original point-mounted specimens listed by Gahan (1927). The specimen(s)

from Borschertown, Missouri, were not found. One card-mounted specimen was cleared and

mounted in Canada balsam. All paratypes have the same type number as the holotype slide.

Diagnosis. Hind tarsomere 1 distinctly longer than tarsomere 2 (Fig. 33); ovipositor/hind tibia

ratio at least 2.1, with the ovipositor extending under mesosoma to apex of forecoxa (Fig. 36).

Description. Female. Colour. Body dark brown. Legs brown except for yellowish base and

apex of femora, entire tibiae and basal three tarsomeres. Antenna brown, with scape and

pedicel sometimes yellowish. Forewing (Fig. 17) margined with brown along both margins

but paler along posterior margin, and with a uniform brown suffusion on blade except for clear

longitudinal streak in medial space.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Body length. 467-941,m (n=31, from slide-mounted specimens). Individual size varies

considerably depending on host size, as follows (smallest to largest): mean = 538 (467-555,

n=5) ex. S. minimus; mean = 583 (480-804, n=6) ex. Sphenophorus parvulus; mean = 659 (595-

757, n=7) ex. S. pertinax; mean = 704 (623-749, n=5) ex. S. costipennis; mean = 788 (764-808,

n=5) ex. S. callosus; mean = 896 (857-941, n=3) ex. S. maidis.

Head. Width 195-329 (n=18) (see Table XII for measurments from different host species).

Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30).

Antenna. Inner surface of scape with very faint, slightly oblique reticulations. Fl,-Fl, each with

2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 2). Base of Fl, distinctly narrower than apex. Length of antennal

segments (greatest range, across specimens reared from all hosts): scape 91-158, pedicel 38-

67, Fl,-Fl, 16-36, 32-96, 34-102, 37-87, 37-80, 37-74, clava 84-126 (see Tables IIIJ-IX for

measurements from different host species).

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with short setae.

Wings. Forewing length 436-882, width 60-141, FWL/FWW 6.26-7.83, LMC 104-146 and

1.1-1.6 times as long as wing width (depending on host from which specimens were reared),

microtrichia of blade relatively long, with the apex of one distinctly overlapping base of the

next; marginal space 84-169 (extremely variable, depending on host from which specimens

were reared); medial space relatively long and narrow, somewhat rectangular; cubital line

of setae uniformly separated by about a setal length from posterior margin of wing. Hind

wing (Fig. 17) with 0-6 microtrichia medially on blade in apical half (see Tables X and XI for

measurements of fore- and hind wings, respectively, from different host species).

Legs. Foretibia with one row of about 7 thick and another row of about 7 more slender sensilla

chaetica. Hind tarsomere | about 1.32 (1.28-1.37, n=3) times as long as tarsomere 2.

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 2.09-2.64 times hind tibial length, extending under mesosoma to

apex of forecoxa (see Table XII for measurements from different host species). Gaster elongate

and somewhat pointed apically (Fig. 36), with a gap between cercus and apex about equal to

length of cercus.

Male. Total length of flagellum 746 (556-858, n=9). Length of antennal segments (n=8-11):

scape 110 (90-116), pedicel 48 (43-53), Fl, 10 (7-11), Fl, 72 (53-83), Fl, 77 (59-92), Fl, 75

(56-88), Fl, 74 (55-90), Fl, 73 (56-86), FL 71 (56-81), Fl, 72 (51-85), Fl, 71 (50-83), Fl,, 70

(52-81), Fl,, 76 (57-89). Fl, length/width ratio averaging 3.67, with 5 longitudinal sensilla.

Males were reared from S. destructor, S. pertinax and S. venatus vestitum only

Variation. There is apparently little structural variation among specimens reared from different

hosts. The greatest variation is in body size, with some of the largest individuals (ex. S. maidis)

being twice as long as some of the smallest (ex. S. minimus and S. parvulus)

Distribution. USA (FL, HI, MO, MS, OH) .

Material examined (all in USNM unless otherwise indicated). CANADA. Ontario. Toronto,

Etobicoke, Islington Ave., Barclay Terrace mansion, vii-viii.2004, YPT, S.V. Libenson (2%

on cards, CNCI). USA. Florida. Broward Co.: Fort Lauderdale, vii.1968, H. Nakao and R.

Suzukawa, ex. Sphenophorus venatus vestitus (9° 2, 1). Hawaii. Oahu: Honolulu, laboratory

reared, 2.11.1968. J.W. Beardsley (19, 10°, BPBM); University of Hawaii Campus, Gilmore

Hall, 27.iv.1986, L. LeBeck (10°, CNCI); Hilo Coast, Kolekole Beach Park, 19.x.1983, D.M.

LaSalle (12, CNCI). Mississippi. Grenada Co.: Grenada, 23.vi.1922, H.E. Roberts, ex. S.

destructor (1%), 16-22.vi.1922 (10); Washington Co.: Greenville, 15.vi.1922, A.F. Satterthwait,

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

ex. S. destructor (12), 15-22.vi.1922, J.L.E. Laverdale, ex S. destructor (12). Missouri. St. Louis

Co.: Kirkwood, lab. reared, no date, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. destructor (52 2, 10); Kirkwood,

no date, ex. S. destructor A.F. Satterthwait (12); Kirkwood Station, 3.vii.1924, ex. S. parvulus

on timothy in field (5? 2), 4 and 23.vii and 1 and 2.viii.1924, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. parvulus

in lab. (12¢ $); Kirkwood Station, 3 and 4.viii.1924, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. callosa (42.2) and

3 with no date, ex. S. callosa; Kirkwood, 1-4.viii.1924, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. pertinax (17? ?,

4 &); Kirkwood, 3.vii.1924, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. minimus in field on Agrostis alba (8° ?, 1

&); Kirkwood, 14, 15, and 17.viii.1924, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. minimus (52 2); Kirkwood,

18, 20, 22, and 25.vili.1924, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. costipennis (18? 2, 1c); Kirkwood, no

date, A.F. Satterthwait, ex. S. maidis (32 ?); Webster Groves, 10.viii.1922, H.E. Roberts, ex.

S. parvulus (3? 2); Webster Groves, 9.vii.1923, H.E. Roberts, ex. S. callosa (12), 2-23 and 10-

22.vii.1922, H.E. Roberts, ex. S. callosa (2° 2); Webster Groves, 22.vii.1924, A.F. Satterthwait

(1 $); Webster Groves, 15.vii.1925, H.E. Roberts, ex. S. minimus (42 9, 10°). Ohio. Wayne

Co.: Wooster, O.A.R.D.C., 21.vi.1976, C. Frost (52 2, 30%").

Hosts and Biology. Anaphes calendrae is a gregarious parasitoid of Sphenophorus species

(Curculionidae: Rhynchophorinae), commonly known as billbugs (Vaurie 1951). Up to

nine individuals have been reared from a single host egg. Usually seven larvae (one male and

six females) develop per host egg and there are four to seven broods per year (Satterthwait

1931). The original series from which laboratory rearings were initiated was field collected at

Kirkwood [Station] from the egg of S. parvulus (Gyllenhal) on timothy and from eggs of

S. 2minimus Hart. The species was reared through several generations on different Sphenophorus

hosts at the Webster Groves field laboratory. Satterthwait (1931) found that A. calendrae

destroyed 75% of S. minimus and S. parvulus eggs in white bent grass, Agrostis alba. Other

field collected hosts were S. callosus (Gyllenhal) and S. destructor Chittenden. Under laboratory

conditions, S. costipennis Horn, S. australis Chittenden, S. maidis Chittenden, S. necydaloides

Chittenden, and S. venatus (Say) were successfully parasitized (Vaurie 1951). Anaphes calendrae

was introduced into Hawaii in an attempt to control Sphenophorus cariosus (Olivier) (Beardsley

2000). Under insectary conditions, A. calendrae was reared on S. cariosus and S. venatus vestitus

Chittenden and it is presumed that these hosts are also attacked in the field (Beardsley 2000).

Over 74,000 specimens from Florida and Missouri were successfully propagated for release in

Hawaii (Anonymous 1970). A prior attempt to establish A. calendrae against the New Guinea

sugarcane weevil, Rabdocnemis obscura Boisduval, in Hawaii failed so this species is probably

not a host, despite being cited as such by Thompson (1958). Nevertheless, it is capable of

parasitizing R. obscura eggs in the laboratory (Bianchi 1964).

Anaphes confertus Doutt

(Figs. 3, 18, 37)

Anaphoidea conferta Doutt, 1949: 155 (original description).

Patasson conferta; Burks, 1958: 63 (catalog).

Patasson confertus; Peck, 1963: 32 (catalog); Burks, 1979: 1030 (catalog).

Anaphes conferta; Schauff, 1984b: 216 (comparison with diana)

Anaphes confertus, Huber, 1992: 155 (list).

Type material, HOLOTYPE 2 (CASC), examined. On slide labelled: 1. “by sweeping native

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

vegetation Oakville, Napa Co., Calif. May 3, 1948 R.L. Doutt”. 2.“Anaphoidea conferta Doutt

? Type” (red label). 3.”California Academy of Sciences Entomology Type No.17134” (on back

of slide). The holotype is in rather poor condition, mounted laterally, with head ventral side

up, detached and broken, wings except left hind wing detached, antennae detached from head

and one broken into two pieces at pedicel, and right hind leg detached. Measurements are given

in Table I. !

Diagnosis. Scape (Fig. 3) strongly convex ventrally, at most about 3.5 times as long as wide;

pedicel longer than Fl, and FI, together; funicle segments at most 1.5 times as long as wide;

clava longer than FI, — Fl, together; ovipositor less than 0.9 times length of hind tibia, not

produced under mesosoma (Fig. 37).

Description. Female. Co/our. Body brown. Antenna and legs pale brownish-yellow. Forewing

(Fig.18) narrowly brown along entire margin.

Body length. 498 (465-525, n=4, from critical point dried specimens).

Head. Width 202 (180-215, n=4). Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30). Ocellar setae at least

as long as diameter of anterior ocellus.

Antenna. Scape with ventral margin strongly convex, its inner surface with faint, obliquely

transverse reticulations. Pedicel longer than FI, and FI, together. No funicle segment more than

1.5 times as long as wide (or exceptionally so). Fl, as wide at base as at apex. Fl,, Fl, and Fl,

each with 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 3). Clava longer than FI, — Fl, together. Measurements

are given in Table XIII.

Mesosoma. Pronotum with long, fine setae. Mesonotum moderately long setae.

Wings. Forewing length 722 (664-758, n=4), width 114 (103-125), FWL/FWW 6.43 (6.05-

7.10), LMC 168 (159-174), their length at least one-fifth greater than forewing width;

marginal space 107 (80-143), medial space narrow, cubital line of setae uniformly close to

posterior margin of wing. Hind wing length 683 (628-712, n=4), width 33 (29-37), with 6-17

microtrichia medially on blade in apical half, LMC 130 (72-133).

Legs. Foretibia with 9-12 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 0.86 times (n=1) as long as

tarsomere 2.

Metasoma. Ovipositor not extending forward under mesosoma (Fig. 37), its length 179 (169-

187, n=3), at most 0.9 times length of hind tibia. Gaster blunt apically (Fig. 37).

Male. Unknown.

Distribution. Canada (BC, ON), USA (AZ, CA, GA, TX).

Material examined. 13 $ ? (3 on slides). CANADA. British Columbia: Upper Carmanah

Valley, UTM 10U CJ 803006, 12-27.viii and 16-30.vii.1991, N. Winchester, TZ MT5 (2¢

2, CNCI). Ontario: 6 km NNE Egansville, Shaw Forest, 45°138’N 77°04’W, 1-8.vii.1993,

H. Goulet $ M. Sharkey, FIT (12, CNCI). USA. Arizona. Cochise Co.: 12 km S. Sierra Vista,

Ramsay Canyon, 10.vi.1987, B.V. Brown, Malaise, oak/pine (19, CNCI); Santa Cruz Co.:

Patagonia, 31°32’°52”N 110°46'03”W, 10-15.v, and 1-5.vi.1994, B. Brown ? E. Wilk (49 9,

CNCI). California. Santa Barbara Co.: Santa Barbara, Lu Vista Road, 1-4.iv.1982, S. Miller,

pan trap (1¢, CNCI); Santa Cruz Island between Alamos Canyon and Centinela, 21.iii.1982, J.T.

Huber, sweeping (1%, UCRC); Stanislaus Co.: Newman, 21.iv.1949, sweeping low vegetation

near Merced River, R.L. Doutt (1%, EMEC). Georgia. Liberty Co.: St. Catherines Island, 6-

10.iv.1995, A. Sharkov, MT, road between Windmill and Gator Pond (12, UCRC). Texas.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Brazos Co.: College Station, 14.i1i-2.iv.1987, R. Anderson, post oak savannah (12, CNCI).

Hosts and Biology. Unknown.

Anaphes conotracheli Girault

(Figs. 4, 19, 32, 38)

Anaphes conotracheli Girault, 1905: 220 (original description); Johnson and Girault, 1906:

5 (distribution, percent parasitism); Quaintance, 1906: 327 (parasitism rate); Girault,

1907: 29 (host); Pierce, 1908: 43 (host); Girault, 1909: 171 (removal to Anaphoidea);

Brooks, 1910: 110 (parasitism rate); Viereck 1910: 637 (host); Brooks, 1911: 137

(parasitism rate); Ogloblin, 1939: 144 (mention): Richards and Davies, 1977: 1225

(mention); Huber et a/., 1997: 969 (incorrect host record).

Anaphes (Anaphoidea) conotracheli; Viereck, 1916: 447 (redescription); Snapp, 1930: 77

(host).

Anaphea conotracheli; Solomon, 1985: 12 (host).

Anaphoidea conotracheli; Girault, 1910: 248 (redescription, comparison with pullicrurus and

sordidata, collection localities); Pierce, 1910: 453 (example of simple endoparasitism);

Girault, 191la: 216 (comparison with diana); Girault, 1911b: 148 (transfer from

Anaphes to Anaphoidea); Girault, 1911e: 323 (list); Girault, 1912: 153 (comparison with

A. linnaei); Quaintance and Jenne, 1912: 140 (distribution, life cycle, parasitism rate);

Marcovitch, 1916: 140 (host); Girault, 1917: 93 (host); Brooks, 1918: 14 (parasitism

rate); Washburn, 1919: 184 (host); Britton, 1920: 323 (list); Porter, 1922: 165 (percent

parasitism); Girault, 1929: 12 (key); Alden, 1930: 19 (mention); Dozier et al., 1932:

38 (parasitism rate); Doutt, 1949: 160 (key); Soyka, 1949: 359 (German translation of

original description); Garman et al., 1953: 7 (host); Jackson, 1956: 145 (incorrect host

record); Thompson, 1958: 569 (host list); Collins and Grafius, 1983: 1 (host).

Anaphoides conotracheli; Dozier and Williams, 1929: 36 (host).

Anaphoidia conotracheli; Moultrie, 1952: 19 (host).

Patasson conotracheli; Peck, 1951: 414 (catalog, hosts); Peck, 1963: 32 (catalog, hosts); Burks,

1967: 214 (/una deleted as a synonym); Burks, 1979: 1030 (catalog); Arnett, 1985: 435

(host); Davidson and Lyon, 1987: 426 (hosts).

Anaphes sp. possibly conotracheli; Tedders and Payne, 1986: 986.

Patasson (Anaphoidea) conotracheli; Garman and Townsend, 1952: 3, 63 (hosts).

Type material. HOLOTYPE 2? (USNM), examined. On card point labelled as follows: 1. “co.

2.“ on Conotrachelus nenuphar eggs”. 3.“Arundel. Md. v.20.1905”. 4.“A.A. Girault Collector”.

5.“2 Type No. 8433 U.S.N.M.” 6.“Anaphes conotracheli Girault”. The specimen has the head

and antennae missing. The date of capture of this specimen was incorrectly cited by Girault

(1905) as v.16. Clearly, he mixed up the dates and places of capture for the specimens from

Arundel, MD, and Tryon, NC (collected on 20.v). PARATYPES. One female and 5 males

under one coverslip on slide labelled 1.“Anaphes species on eggs Cono. nenuphar Ft. Valley,

Ga. V.10.1905, Quaintance Coll Girault reared 40 22 No. 44104 Balsam no. 60 [crossed

out] 31434”. 2.“Homotype 2 Plesiotype”. 2.“Anaphoidea conotracheli sordidata {crossed out]

(Girault) Cotypes. 44104.” Girault (1905) described A. conotracheli from 40 specimens and

stated: “type deposited in the United States National Museum”. I treat this as a valid holotype

designation according to article 73.1.1 of the ICNZ (1999), particularly because only one

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

specimen is labelled “type” and several (but not all) the others mentioned by Girault are labelled

as paratypes. I slide-mounted three (2% and 1c*) of the original point-mounted specimens and

used one paratype from Fort Valley, Georgia, for the measurements given in Table I.

Diagnosis. Occipital suture angled inwards towards dorsal margin of occipital foramen (Fig.

32); Fl,-Fl, usually each with 2 longitudinal sensilla; forewing with part of posterior margin

hyaline medially, preceded and followed by a narrow dark margin and another short, clear area

on posteroapical curve almost to apex that abruptly changes to a dark margin along anteroapical

curve (Fig. 19); ovipositor extending forward under mesosoma at least to the apex of forecoxa

and basal loop very tight, with dorsal arm almost parallel to ventral arm (Fig. 38).

Among the described Nearctic species of the crassicornis group the oblique occipital suture

and dark and light border of the posterior margin of the forewing distinguish A. brunneus,

A. conotracheli, and A, pallipes from the remaining described species, which all have a straight

occipital suture and uniformly dark posterior margin of the forewing. The only feature that

apparently distinguishes A. conotracheli from A. pallipes is the presence in A. conotracheli of |

or, usually, 2 longitudinal sensilla on Fl, (none in A. pallipes). Anaphes pallipes is also smaller

than A. conotracheli. The only features that distinguish A. conotracheli from A. brunneus are the

relatively shorter and broader Fl,, with a ratio of at most 3.3 (at least 4.4 in A. brunneus), and

the ovipositor/hind tibia ratio of at least 1.8 (1.62 in A. brunneus).

Description. Female. Co/our (from four point-mounted paratypes). Body brown. Legs almost

white except coxae, femora in middle, and tarsomere 4 light brown. Forewing (Fig. 19) with

posterior margin clear to apex of wing or at least distinctly lighter brown than anterior margin,

except for a short brown section subapically.

Body length. 536 jum (460-620, n= 11, from slide-mounted specimens from GA, MD, VA).

Head. Width 221 (189-238, n=12). Occipital suture short, angled inwards towards dorsal

margin of occipital foramen (Fig. 32)

Antenna. \nner surface of scape and pedicel with distinct, oblique cross striations. Fl,, Fl, and

Fl each with 2 longitudinal sensilla, Fl, usually with 2 sensilla (Fig. 4) but sometimes (one third

of the specimens measured) with | sensillum. Measurements are given in-Table XIV.

Mesosoma, Pronotum and mesonotum with short, inconspicuous setae.

Wings. Forewing length 661 (592-704, n=14), width 141 (124-154), FWL/FWW 4.70 (4.43-

5.15), LMC 127 (108-140); marginal space 107 (80-143), medial space triangular; cubital

line of setae closest to posterior margin of wing near retinacular seta, then diverging away until

separated by at least one setal length from posterior margin. Hind wing length 644 (633-671,

n=10), width 29 (24-32), with 0-4 (usually only with 1) microtrichia medially on blade in

apical half, LMC 106 (90-115).

Legs. Foretibia with 8-11 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 0.76 (0.70-0.82, n=10) times as

long as hind tarsomere 2.

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 420 (365-470, n=14), 1.95 (1.8-2.1) times as long as hind tibia.

Gaster appearing relatively short compared to mesosoma.

Male. Total length of flagellum 717p:m (650-796, n=10). Length of antennal segments (n=10):

scape 87 (77-92), pedicel 44 (37-50), Fl, 8 (7-9), Fl, 65 (58-73), Fl, 73 (63-80), Fl, 70 (60-77),

Fl, 71 (62-79), Fl, 71 (62-80), Fl, 71 (60-80), Fl, 71 (61-78), Fl, 72 (62-81), Fl, 72 (65-82),

Fl, 71 (67-84). Fl, length/width ratio averaging 2.73, with 5 longitudinal sensilla. Gaster

appearing very short relative to mesosomal length.

Variation. Females sometimes have only 1 longitudinal sensillum on Fl, [2 specimens from

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Blacksburg, VA, ex. Hypera nigrirostris (Fabricius) (slide in USNM) and some specimens from

Ste. Clotilde, QU, ex. Conotrachelus geminatus (LeConte) (slides in CNCI)]. This segment is

consequently slightly shorter and narrower than Fl,. However, the series of specimens from

Monticello, collected by Dozier, neatly bridges the gap between A. pallipes and A. conotracheli

because one female has both Fl, with 2 longitudinal sensilla, and the other two females have

one Fl, without longitudinal sensilla and one with 1 longitudinal sensillum. Probably only

one species is involved, with larger individuals parasitizing the larger eggs of Conotrachelus

and smaller individuals parasitizing the smaller eggs of Cylindricopturus. The differences in the

specimens reared from these two host genera parallels the differences found for A. iole and one

of its synonyms reared from large and small mirid hosts. In the latter case, experimental support

showed only one species was involved so the synonymy could be made with certainty (Huber

and Rajakulendran 1988). Until such support is available for A. conotracheli and A. pallipes |

retain the two species as distinct, mainly because a relatively large body of literature is associated

with A. conotracheli. If crossing experiments show that the species are the same (as I suspect)

then the name A. pallipes would have priority.

Comments. Normally, the most common species from an area are collected first and usually

described soon after. Passive collecting methods, such as pan or Malaise trapping that yield

large amounts of material, were unknown or not used in Ashmead’s and Girault’s time. Rather,

collecting consisted of sweeping and, in Girault’s case, searching panes of glass in greenhouses

etc., or else host eggs were searched for and parasitoids reared from them. Thus, species,

particularly economically important ones, that tend to search for hosts on aerial parts of plants

(e.g. Cylindrocopturus adspersus on sunflower, Conotrachelus nenuphar on plum) would most

likely be collected first, before species that search for host eggs near or at ground level. It is

therefore not coincidental that the first two Anaphes species described from North America

were A. pallipes and A. conotracheli, precisely those species of Anaphes most likely to be collected

by sweeping, searching glass panes, or rearing eggs laid in easily accessible locations.

Distribution. Canada (QC), USA (DC, GA, IL, MD, VA, WV). In addition, Johnson &

Girault (1906) reported A. conotracheli from CT, KY, NC, and TX.

Material Examined. 462 2 and 35c & (42 on slides). CANADA. Quebec. Ste. Clotilde, vii,

20.vii, viii, and 1-23.viii.1990, S. Cété (332, 240°, CNCI). USA. District of Columbia.

No. 1100 and 1271, A.A. Girault [no date or locality given, possibly those bred at

Washington as mentioned in original description] (1%, 1c, and 1 specimen in egg, USNM).

Georgia. Peach Co.: Fort Valley, 9.v.1905, A.L. Quaintance and 9.vi.1924, O.J. ?Snaph

(42, 1c, USNM). Illinois. Cook Co.: Chicago, Clayton Smith Forest Preserve, 31.vii.1989,

J.D. Pinto (19, CNCI); Effingham Co.: SSW. Mason, 7.ix.1993, J.D. Pinto (10°, CNCI); Piatt

Co.: Monticello, swept from vegetation along Sangamon river, 31.vii.1932, H.L. Dozier (39, 4

&, USNM). Maryland. Anne Arundel Co.: 16.v.1905, A.A. Girault (19, 1o°, USNM). Virginia.

Fairfax Co.: Vienna, 16.v.1913, R.A. Cushman (19, 2c", USNM); exact locality not given,

25.iv.1921, sent in by W.J. Schoene of Blacksburg (2°, 607, USNM). West Virginia. Upshur

Co.: French Creek, no date, E.E. Brooks (52, 10°, USNM).

Hosts and Biology. Conotrachelus geminatus on Bidens cernua L., C. nenuphar (Herbst) (plum

curculio) (Girault 1905), Craponius inaequalis (Say) (grape curculio) (Porter 1922). Hypera

nigrirostris (lesser clover leaf weevil). Specimens reared from C. geminatus collected in the field at

Ste. Clotilde, QC, were successfully maintained for eight generations on Listronotus oregonensis

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

eggs in a laboratory colony at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu. No A. conotracheli were ever found on the

latter host in the field.

Quaintance (1906) reported 60-70% egg parasitism of C. nenuphar on inctichiciel in Georgia,

and Johnson and Girault (1906) reported 16-70% parasitism. Brooks (1918) reported 39.5%

egg parasitism of C. inaequalis on grapes. Marcovitch (1916) reported the sawfly Aprosthena

zabriskei Webster & Malley (Argidae) on Portulaca oleracea L. as a host. The two specimens

were identified by Girault but vouchers were not seen. If correctly identified, this would be the

first published record of an Anaphes species reared from a species of Hymenoptera. Tedders

and Payne (1986) recorded a species of Anaphes, possibly conotracheli, from C. schoofi Papp

but voucher specimens were not seen. Garman and Townsend (1952) listed Conotrachelus

nenuphar (Curculionidae) and Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) (apple maggot) (Tephritidae) as

hosts. The host record of C. anaglypticus (Say) on Thalictrum pubescens Pursh. by Huber et al.

(1997) is incorrect.

Comments. The references to A. conotracheli by Porter and Alden (1921), Porter (1922),

Schauff (1984a: 48), probably Porter (1928), Charlet and Balsbaugh (1984), and Solomon

(1985) refer to A. pallipes as defined under that species below. I examined voucher specimens

and compared them to the type of A. pallipes. Bakkendorf (1934) reared a species in Europe from

dytiscid and chrysomelid eggs which he referred to as A. conotracheli but the specimens he reared

from Agabus (Dytiscidae), and almost certainly also those reared from Chrysomelidae, are very

likely misidentified and probably represent two species, neither of them A. conotracheli. Jackson

(1956) noted that specimens she reared from Agabus sp. were not the same as A. conotracheli.

Anaphes cotei Huber

(Figs. 5, 20, 39)

Anaphes cotei Huber et al.,1997: 970 (original description).

Type Material. HOLOTYPE 2 (CNCI), examined (see Huber 1997), from CANADA: Nova

Scotia, Great Village. .

Distribution. Canada (NS).

Diagnosis. Statistics of the antennal segments are given in Table XV to complement the

description in Huber et al. (1997) and for comparison with the antennal descriptions of the other

species redescribed here. Type measurements are given in Table I. The species is most similar to

A. pullicrurus. Anaphes cotei has a relatively narrow forewing (Fig. 20) as in A. pullicrurus (Fig.

27) but the inner surface of the scape has bluntly pointed, oblique scales with slightly thickened

apices, as in A. gerrisophaga (scales not clearly visible in A. pullicrurus). The antenna (Fig. 5) has

2 longitudinal sensilla on FI,, as in A. pullicrurus (Fig. 13) but each funicle segment is relatively

longer and more slender than in A. pullicrurus.

Anaphes diana (Girault)

(Figs. 6, 21, 40)

Anaphoidea diana Girault, 1911a: 215 (original description); Girault, 1914b: 109 (contrast

with /una); Girault, 1929: 12 (contrast with conotrachelt); Soyka, 1949: 362 oes eee

comparison with conotracheli); Schauff, 1984b: 214 (mention).

Anaphes diana; Schauff, 1984b: 214 (diagnosis); Schauff 1984a: 48 (types examined); Yeargan,

1985: 528 (release in Delaware and Kentucky); Aeschlimann, 1986: 164 (distribution,

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

parasitism rate); Huber, 1986: 197 (biocontrol in Australia); Aeschlimann etal., 1989: 418

(rearing, release and recovery in Australia); Worner e¢ al., 1989: 1086 (climate tolerance

limits); Aeschlimann, 1990: 3 (thelytokous and arrhenotokous populations); Dysart,

1990: 307 (release and recovery in USA); Chiriac and Poiras, 1995: 39 (occurrence in

Moldova); Pagliano, 1995: 35 (Italian checklist).

Anaphes (Anaphes) diana; Baquero and Jordana, 2002: 79 (distribution, hosts).

Anaphes (Patasson) diana; Fitton et al., 1978: 110 (British checklist); Viggiani, 1994: 474 (male

genitalia).

Patasson diana; Richards and Waloff, 1965: 202 (host); Aeschlimann, 1975: 407 (mention);

Collins and Grafius, 1983: 1 (host).

Anaphes (Patasson) lameerei Debauche, 1948: 182 (original description); Hincks, 1960: 213

(diagnosis, British distribution); Fitton et a/., 1978: 110 (checklist); Schauff, 1984b: 214

(synonymy with A. diana); Yeargan, 1985: 528 (old name for diana).

Anaphes lameerei; Hellén, 1974: 27 (redescription, distribution); Schauff, 1984a: 48 (types

examined).

Patasson lameerei; Aeschlimann, 1975: 405 (host, distribution, parasitism rate); Dysart and

Bingham, 1976: 29 (introduction into USA); Aeschlimann, 1977: 111 (life history);

Hopkins, 1978a: 1 (life cycle, release in Australia, rearing difficulties); Leibee er al,

1979: 354 (development rate); Aeschlimann, 1980: 146 (parasitism rate); Bloem,

1980:1 (biology);Yeargan and Shuck, 1981: 119 (longevity, reproductive rate); Bloem

and Yeargan, 1982a: 37 (temperature effects on survival); Bloem and Yeargan, 1982b: 93

(host finding behavior); Collins and Grafius, 1983: 1 (host); Aeschlimann, 1986: 164

(synonymy quoted); Aeschlimann et a/., 1989: 418 (release in Australia); Worner et al.,

1989: 1085 (synomymy mentioned).

Type Material. LECTOTYPE? (USNM), examined. On slide labelled: 1.“Fred Enock Preparer

Order Hymenoptera Family Mymaridae Genus Eustochus Species atripennis ?”. 2.“A fairy fly.

Spot Lens 2 inch to 1/2 inch. Type 13,663 [in pencil] Anaphoidea diana Gir. [in ink]”. 3.

“PARALECTOTYPE Anaphoidea diana, des. Schauff-83”. The lectotype is in good condition

but uncleared, and mounted dorsal side up with appendages spread out. Measurements are

given in Table I. PARALECTOTYPE & (USNM) same data as holotype. Anaphoidea diana

Gir. Type No. 13663 U.S.N.M.” 4. “Paralectotype Schauff-83”.

DIAGNOSIS. Fl, at most 2.7 times as long as broad and 1.7 times as long as Fl, (Fig. 6);

ovipositor shorter than hind tibial length and not extending to base of gaster (Fig. 40).

DESCRIPTION. female. Colour. Dark brown; scape and pedicel lighter, especially ventrally,

legs lighter except usually tibiae and femora medially. Forewing (Fig. 21) with posterior margin

uniformly brown.

Body length. 387m (322-434, n=10).

Head. Width 192 (187-204, n=10). Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30).

Antenna. FL, Fl. and Fl, each with 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 6), Fl, usually with 1 but

sometimes (one third of specimens measured) with 1 sensillum, and occasionally (one fifth

of specimens measured) without sensilla. One specimen had no longitudinal sensilla on one

antenna and 1 on the other. Measurements are given in Table XVI.

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with short, inconspicuous setae.

Wings. Forewing length 559 (529-618, n=10), width 75 (68-82), FWL/FWW 7.53 (7.17-

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

8.63), LMC 125 (117-140); marginal space 98 (74-125), medial’ space triangular, cubital line

of setae next to posterior margin of wing for entire length. Hind wing length 548 (507-604,

n=10), width 23 (21-26), with 1-8 microtrichiae medially on blade in apical half, LMC 100

(91-109).

Legs. Foretibia with about 9-11 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 about 0.77 times as long as

hind tarsomere 2. }

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 126 (115-148, n=14), 0.64 (0.61-0.67) times as long as hind

tibia. Gaster shorter than mesosoma (0.86: 1) and bluntly rounded apically.

Male. Total length of flagellum 698 (624-749, n=8) (paralectotype flagellum 652 long). Length

of antennal segments (n=7 or 8): scape 85 (80-92), pedicel 41 (38-47), Fl, 5 (4-5), FI, 59 (52-

65), Fl, 66 (58-73), Fl, 70 (61-75), Fl, 72 (66-76), Fl, 70 (63-75), FL, 72 (66-75), Fl, 71 (64-

76), Fl, 73 (65-79), Fl,, 68 (59-74), Fl, 72 (64-80). Fl, length/width ratio averaging 3.68, with

5 longitudinal sensilla.

DISTRIBUTION. Europe, southwestern Asia (Aeschlimann 1986), Canada (QC).

Importations of A. diana into the US were made in the mid 1970's. Releases were made in

USA (DE, ID, KY) but establishment is uncertain (Yeargan 1985).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. 90 $ $ and 46 oo (60 on slides). CANADA. Quebec. no locality

given, 28.vii.1979, M.E. Schauff & E.E. Grissell (2%, CNCI). FRANCE. Hérault: Lattes,

23.i11.1976, ex. Sitona humeralis (1%, 1o°, CNCI); Montpellier, ex. lab. culture at CSIRO lab.,

1977 (6%, 60, CNCI); St. Gely-du-Fesc, iii.1984 (43%, 200", CNCI); Vestrie, 13.iv.1976 (1¢,

CNCI); Viols-Le-Fort, 21.iii.1976 (12, CNCI).USA. Idaho. Latah Co.: Moscow, 12vi.1979,

D.J. Schotzko, ex. lab. colony on Sitona lineatus (4¢, CNCI). Kentucky. Fayette Co.: Lexington,

12.vi.1980, K.A. Bloem, ex. lab. colony on Sitona hispidulus (51%, 260°, CNCI, USNM).

Hosts And Biology. Sitona hispidulus (Fabricius), the clover root curculio (Yeargan, 1985), S.

humeralis Stephens, and S. lineatus (Aeschlimann, 1980).

Aeschlimann (1986) reported 1.9-23.9% parasitism in Sitona populations sampled in various

countries. The species was also able to complete development in S. cylindricollis Fahraeus and S.

flavescens (Marsham) in the laboratory (W. Day, Newark, Delaware, personal communication).

One generation takes about 11-13 days at 26.7°C (Leibee et al. 1979). Both thelytokous and

bisexual populations may occur at the same locality (Aeschlimann 1990). Dysart and Bingham

(1976) imported field collected A. diana from Département of Yvelines, France, into North

America. It was first released against the local Sitona spp., primarily S. hispidulus, in an alfalfa

field at the Beneficial Insects Laboratory, Newark, Delaware, during spring, 1976, and again

in 1977. In total, 4009 adults were released. Laboratory reared, parasitized host eggs were also

sent to cooperators in Moscow, ID, Urbana, IL, and Lexington, KY, for rearing and release.

In 1978 and 1979, 7396 and 409 A. diana, originating from France and Austria, were released

at Newark and, in 1979, another 1000 adults from France were released in Fayette Co., KY.

By 1986, after several years of recovery attempts from field-collected S. hispidulus eggs, only

three specimens had been found, suggesting that it had established, albeit at an extremely low

parasitism rate. The two specimens from Nova Scotia (CNCI, point-mounted) appear to be

A. diana but are slightly larger. They are tentatively treated as this species. The two Quebec

specimens almost certainly are A. diana. It would be useful to rear specimens from eggs of Sitona

in Quebec and Nova Scotia and cross them with European specimens (or North American lab.

colonies obtained from Europe) reared from Sitona to determine if they are indeed the same

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

species. If they are the same then the species probably already occured in North America prior

to deliberate introductions into the USA. This would not be surprising as the host plants were

deliberately introduced long ago as forage crops and at least five species of Sitona (cylindricollis,

hispidulus, lineatus, lineellus (Bonsdorft), and tibialis (Herbst)) were accidentally introduced and

established in North America.

Anaphes gerrisophagus (Doutt)

(Figs. 7, 22, 41)

Anaphoidea gerrisophaga Doutt, 1949: 156 (original description).

Patasson gerrisophaga; Burks, 1958: 63 (catalog).

Patasson gerrisophagus; Peck, 1963: 34 (catalog, host); Burks, 1979: 1030 (catalog).

Anaphes gerrisophagus; Huber, 1992: 74 (list).

Anaphes pullicrura; Scotland, 1940: 325 (misidentification, list).

Type Material. HOLOTYPE # (CASC), examined. On slide labelled: 1. “Ex. Gerris eggs Lake

Britton Shasta Co., Calif. 29 June 1947 R L Usinger.” 2.“Anaphoidea gerrisophaga Doutt 2

Type” (red label). 3.(on back of slide) “California Academy of Sciences Entomology Type No.

17135”. The holotype is in good condition, dorsal side up, with head detached and face up. Its

measurements are given in Table I. PARATYPE $ (EMEC), examined. Labelled 1.“On window

El Cerrito, Calif. June 11, 1948 R.L. Doutt.” 2.“Anaphoidea gerrisophaga Doutt $ Paratype”.

The paratype is in good condition, dorsal side up, with left wing and right antenna detached.

Diagnosis. Forewing very narrow, FWL/FWW greater than about 8.3 (Fig. 22). Vertex,

pronotum and mesonotum with long, strong setae (Fig. 41). Anaphes pullicrurus and A. cotei

also have relatively narrow wings (FWL/FWW up to 8.59) but the setae on the vertex and

mesonotum are short and inconspicouous (the head setae on the holotype of A. pullicrurus are

missing so their size is unknown). The narrow wings of A. gerrisophaga also resemble those of

A. sinipennis Girault (in the fuscipennis species group), but the clava in A. sinipennis is entire and

bluntly rounded apically instead of being divided and more pointed.

Description. Female. Colour (from uncleared type slides). Brown with antennae and legs

slightly ligher. Forewing (Fig. 22) narrowly brown along posterior margin but slightly lighter

than along anterior margin. Medial space appearing as a lighter longitudinal line between

anterior, posterior and apical infuscate areas of disc.

Body length. 503m (378-594, n=8, from critical point dried specimens).

Head. Width 172 (145-198, n=7). Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30). Ocellar setae at least half

as long as distance between posterior ocelli (distinctly longer than diameter of anterior ocellus).

Antenna. Scape with ventral margin slightly, evenly convex, and inner surface with faint curved

oblique striations, some with slight thickenings medially. Fl, and Fl, each with 2 longitudinal

sensilla (Fig. 7); Fl, with 2 longitudinal sensilla in most specimens but one specimen with only

1 longitudinal sensillum on one antenna and 2 longitudinal sensilla on the other; Fl, either

without or with 2 longitudinal sensilla. The holotype has 1 longitudinal sensillum on one

antenna and none on the other. Measurements are given in Table XVII.

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with conspicuous, long and erect setae (Fig. 41).

Wings. Forewing length 632m (472-838, n=13), width 67 (55-100), FWL/FWW 9.21 (8.37-

10.04), LMC 133 (93-172), their length about twice forewing width; marginal space 106

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

(67-167), medial space long and narrow, somewhat rectangular and extending medially about

halfway along wing, cubital line of setae uniformly close to posterior margin. Hind wing length

613 (467-793, n=13), width 22 (16-29, n=14), with 6-8 microtrichia medially on blade in

apical half, LMC 108 (87-135).

Legs. Foretibia with about 4-7 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 1.05 (1.00-1.08, n=3) times

as long as tarsomere 2.

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 270 (212-344, n=11), 1.31 (1.05-1.43, n=11) times length of

hind tibia, extending under mesosoma to base of mesocoxa (Fig. 41).

Male. Total length of flagellum 803. Length of antennal segments (n=1, specimen from

Ithaca, NY, on Lemna): scape (not measureable), pedicel 41, Fl, 5, BLAT9; Fl, 84,-F1 81) Fl.

83, Fl, 82, FL 76, Fl, 78, Fl, 82, Fl,, 80, Fl,, 82. Fl, length/width ratio averaging 4.32, with

5 longitudinal sensilla.

Variation. Anaphes gerrisophaga appears to be quite variable in size. Small specimens have no

longitudinal sensilla on Fl, and the length/width ratio of Fl, can be small compared to that of

large specimens. Although only two host species are known, other host eggs of varying sizes are

likely parasitized as well, which would account for the size variation. Some of the numerous

other insects, especially Coleoptera, and Diptera, and other Hemiptera associated with Lemna

(Scotland 1939, 1940) are likely hosts and perhaps a variety of Odonata (Zygoptera) are as well.

A complex of species may be involved, all collected near or on water and on different hosts.

Because the kind of flagellomere variation that occurs among these specimens is similar to that

found in A. pallipes (large specimens have longitudinal sensilla on Fl,, small ones do not, and

somewhat intermediate conditions occur), I prefer to treat them all as one species until crossing

experiments with specimens reared from different hosts show otherwise.

Distribution. Canada (MB, ON, QC), USA (CA, MD, NY, VT). Probably widespread in the

Nearctic region wherever water and host eggs occur. Specimens examined were mostly collected

near or on water using yellow pan traps placed at the water’s edge or on rocks emerging from

the water. Specimens with narrow wings that might be referrable to A. gerrisophaga were seen

from Hawaii (2° 2, UCRC) and the Northwest Territories (12, UCRC). More material (for

slide mounting) is needed from these areas to determine their identities more reliably.

Material examined. 249 2 and 1c (15 on slides). CANADA. Manitoba: 2 mi. E. Elma on

hwy. 11, 31.vii.2000. M. Iranpour, pond (2 $, CNCI); hwy. 12, Piney, 11.viii.2000, M.

Iranpour, ditch (3? ¢, CNCI). Ontario: Carlsbad Springs, Mer Bleue bog, 12.vii.1980, 14-

23.vi.1982, A. Davies (32 2, CNCI); 2 km SE. Innisville, 45°13’N 76°1157E, 5-12 2 12-

19.vi.1991, L. Masner, J. Denis, aquatic pan trap (2 $, CNCI); London, 24-27.vii.1981, A.

Tomlin (19, CNCI); Nepean, Jock River at hwy. 16, 9-10.viii 2 23-24.ix.1999, L. Masner,

YPT on boulders in river (22 2, CNCI); Oxford Mills, 22-29.vi, 36.vii, 13-20.vii, 27.vii, 24-

31 .viii, 21-28.ix, 28.ix-12.x.1973, L. Masner (38% $, 30° oh, CNCI); St. Lawrence Is. Nat. Park,

Genadier I., 11.vi.1975, in marsh under Salix (12, CNCI); Quebec. Bouchette area, Gatineau

River, 18-19.ix.1999 (2? 2, CNCI); Ancienne Lorette, aviation field [near Quebec City], coll.

13.ix.1973, em. 19.ix.1973, and coll. 1.x.1971, em. 4, 10 ? 22.x.1971, ex. Lestes disjunctus in

Eleocharis obtusa, J.-P. Laplante (5$¢ ?, 20° &, CNCI); Gatineau Park, sweeping along parkway,

13.vi.1980, L.& R. Masner (12, CNCI); Lac Roddick outlet, 6 km N. Bouchette, 9-10.ix.2000,

L. Masner (2? 2, CNCI); Ste. Foy, host egg coll. 7.ix.1971, em. 10.ix.1971, ex. Lestes disjunctus

in Eleocharis obtusa, J.-P. Laplante (19, CNCI); USA. Maryland. Prince Georges Co.: Laurel,

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 6-13.vii.1979, Malaise trap on powerline cut, M. Schauff

(32 ¢, USNM). New York. Tompkins Co., Ithaca, viii.1938 2 summer, 1939 M.B. Scotland,

on Lemna (5? °, 10°, USNM). Vermont. Rutland Co., Danby, 3 mi. E. Green Mtn. National

Forest, 31.vii.1979, M. Schauff & E. Grissell (32 ?, USNM).

Hosts and Biology. The only host records are for the holotype from an egg of Gerris sp.

(Gerridae), and a series from Lestes (Lestidae) eggs in Eleocharis obtusa.

Comments. The forewings of the holotype are not positioned flat, hence appear to be slightly

narrower than they actually are, which explains the unusually high length/width ratio for the

holotype (Table I). The paratype, collected on a window pane, is not conspecific with the

holotype and is therefore excluded from the redescription given above.

Some specimens (USNM) identified as A. pullicrurus by A. Gahan and H. Dozier fit A.

gerrisophaga better. These include the series reared at Ithaca from Lemna by M. Scotland and a

male from Muncie, IL, collected by Dozier. The Dozier male is much larger than the single male

reared by Scotland and the thoracic setae are relatively shorter (the ocellar setae are not clearly

visible). Otherwise it seems to fit A. gerrisophaga better than A. pullicrurus because FWL/FWW

is 8.83, closer to the ratio for the male reared from an unknown host in Lemna, which is 9.38.

Anaphes listronoti Huber

(Figs. 8, 23, 42)

Anaphes n.sp.; Boivin 1994: 233 (cold hardiness).

Anaphes listronoti (nomen nudum); Cormier et al., 1996: 1376 (seasonal ecology, distribution);

Anaphes listronoti Huber et al., 1997: 963 (original description); van Baaren et al., 1997: 189

(description of first instar larva); Vigneault et a/., 1997: 548 (olfactometry); van Baaren

and Boivin, 1998a: 525 (mention); Cormier et al, 1998: 1596 (sexual pheromone

emission); van Baaren and Boivin, 1998b: 9 (host discrimmination behavior); van Baaren

et al., 1999: 1 (antennal sensilla); Boivin and van Baaren, 2000: 471 (larval agression and

mobility); Brodeur and Boivin, 2004:34 (mention).

Since Huber et al. (1997) described A. listronoti, several additional papers on this species were

published, making it biologically one of the best known mymarids. These papers are listed

above, together with a few that were incompletely cited or missed previously.

Type material. HOLOTYPE 2 (CNCI), examined (see Huber et a/. 1997), from CANADA:

Quebec, Ste. Clotilde.

Diagnosis. Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30), ovipositor extending well under gaster

(Fig. 42), forewing (Fig. 23) with posterior margin narrowly brown at least distally, Fl, (Fig. 8)

with 1 or 2 longitudinal sensilla, gregarious in eggs of Listronotus oregonensis. Morphologically,

A. listronoti is apparently indistinguishable from A. sordidatus. Biologically, the species can be

distinguished because A. sordidatus is a solitary parasitoid in Tyloderma foveolatum and will not

cross with A. sordidatus in the laboratory.

Statistics of the antennal segments are given in Table XVIII to complement the description

in Huber et al. (1997) and for comparison with the antennal descriptions of the other species

redescribed here. Since the original description, two new morphological features have been

found to separate A. listronoti from A. victus. Anaphes listronoti females have 6-9 sensilla chaetica

type 4 on the clava compared with 10-12 on the clava of A. victus (van Baaren et al. 1999).

Unfortunately, these are not clearly visible on dried or slide-mounted specimens so the feature

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

cannot be used for routine determination. The first instar mymariform larvae of A. /istronoti

show no visible segmentation in contrast to those of A. victus, which are clearly segmented (van

Baaren et al.1997).

Distribution. Canada (ON, QC), ?USA (MI).

Anaphes longiclava (Doutt)

(Figs. 9, 24, 43)

Anaphoidea longiclava Doutt, 1949: 158 (original description).

Patasson longiclava; Burks, 1958: 63 (catalog); Peck, 1963: 34 (catalog); Burks, 1979: 1030

(catalog).

Anaphes longiclava; Schauff, 1984b: 216 (comparison with diana).

Anaphes longiclavus; Huber, 1992: 74 (list, incorrect species spelling).

Type material. HOLOTYPE ? (EMEC), examined. On slide labelled: 1. “by sweeping native

vegetation Morgan Hill, Calif. July 2, 1947 R.L. Doutt”. 2. “Anaphoidea longiclava Doutt

? Type” (red label). The type is in rather poor condition with body mounted laterally, head

detached and mounted vertically, left eye torn away from vertex which, together with occiput,

is slightly torn, left antenna and right antenna beyond pedicel broken off and positioned

elsewhere on slide, and both forewings, right hind wing and left foreleg detached and positioned

elsewhere on slide. Its measurements are given in Table I. PARATYPE ? (EMEC) labelled 1.

“by sweeping Salix Rio Nido, Calif. May 28, 1947 R.L. Doutt”. 2.“Anaphoidea longiclava

Doutt ? Paratype” (yellow label). The head with one antenna and body were remounted under

two 6-mm coverships on the original slide after clearing in KOH.

Diagnosis. Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30), ovipositor longer than metatibia and

extending under mesosoma to base of mesocoxae (Fig. 43), Fl, without longitudinal sensilla

(Fig. 9), hind leg with tarsomere | slightly shorter than tarsomere 2, FWL/FWW at most 5.4

(4.6 in holotype); body length 413.

The small body size and relatively broader forewing distinguish A. longiclava from A. luna and A.

diana. Anaphes longiclava is the smallest described native Nearctic species of the genus, only slightly

larger than the introduced A. diana and equal to exceptionally small specimens of A. /una.

Description. Female. Co/our. (From uncleared type slides). Brown with antennae and legs,

especially tarsi lighter. The holotype is generally lighter in colour than the paratype. Forewing

(Fig. 24) with a narrow brown margin in half of posterior margin.

Body length. 413m (holotype).

Head. Width 188 (n=1). Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30). Ocellar setae as long as about

half diameter of anterior ocellus.

Antenna. Scape with ventral margin moderately rounded, with extremely faint oblique striations

on inner surface. BL Fl. and Fl. each with 2 longitudinal sensilla, Fl, with | longitudinal sensillum

(Fig. 9). Fl, with ae stipircly narrower than apex. Measurement are given in Table XIX.

Mesosoma. ey and mesonotum with moderately long setae.

Wings. Forewing length 533 (n=1), width 115, FWL/FWW 4.63, LMC 149, their length

about 1.3 times forewing width; marginal space 97, medial space triangular, cubital line of

setae closest to posterior margin near the retinacular seta and further away distally, with a gap of

about one setal length between the cubital line and posterior margin of wing. Hind wing length

500 (n=1), width 23, with 3 microtrichia medially on blade in apical half, LMC 178.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Legs. Foretibia with 8 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 slightly shorter than tarsomere 2

(Table I).

Metasoma. Ovipositor length (n=1) 1.14 times length of hind tibia, extending slightly under

mesosoma to level of base of mesocoxa (Fig. 43).

Male. Unknown.

Distribution. USA (CA).

Material Examined. Only the two type specimens were examined.

Hosts and Biology. Unknown. The holotype was collected by sweeping native vegetation and

the single paratype by sweeping Salix.

Comments. The wing proportions of the holotype and paratype of A. /ongiclava are quite different

(FWL/FWW 4.63 and 5.32, respectively) and I am not sure if they belong to the same species. In

the absence of a series of specimens variation cannot be adequately assessed.

Specimens of an Anaphes sp. (in CNCI) similar in body length to A. longiclava were reared from

Tanysphyrus lemnae (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) in Florida. They have a body length of about

310um, a small Fl, without longitudinal sensilla, and the ovipositor up to 1.7 times as long as

the hind tibia. They may be A. /ongiclava but until specimens are reared from T. lemnae from

California and more specimens are reared from this host in Florida and elsewhere to determine

variation and geographic distribution more completely I hesitate to name the Florida specimens

as A. longiclava. Otherwise, a host would now be known for A. /ongiclava.

Anaphes luna (Girault)

(Figs. 10, 25, 34, 44)

Anaphoidea luna Girault, 1914a: 87 (nomen nudum, host); Girault, 1914b: 109 (original

description); Silvestri, 1915: 80 (egg morphology and development); [Girault,] 1916: 40

(host); Chamberlin, 1924a: 3 (original releases in North America); Chamberlin, 1924b:

627 (oviposition, distribution); Howard, 1927: 14 (further importations from Europe);

Girault, 1929: 12 (synonymy under conotracheli); Essig and Michelbacher, 1933: 69

(hosts, introduction into USA); Kaufmann, 1939: 421 (German record); Clausen, 1940:

102 (host, egg parasitism); Kaufmann, 1941a: 110 (hosts); Kaufmann, 1941b: 83 (host);

Hamlin et al, 1949: 58 (liberation and first recovery); Doutt, 1949: 160 (citation of

previous synonym); Clausen, 1956: 116 (importation, parasitism rate); Tooke, 1955: 103

(1 larval instar according to Silvestri); Baccetti, 1957: 110 (hosts, oviposition); Baccetti,

1958: 197 (host); Thompson, 1958: 569 (host); Nasr, 1998: 17 (life cycle abstract).

Anaphes luna; Gould, 1986 (biology); Huber, 1986: 197 (biocontrol mention); Pagliano and

Navone, 1995: 35 (Italian checklist); Radcliffe and Flanders, 1998: 233 (parasitism rate,

distribution).

Anaphes (Patasson) luna; Viggiani, 1994: 474 (male genitalia).

Patasson luna; Peck, 1963: 32 (?separate from conotracheli); Shaw and Ziener, 1964: 138

(reared in western Massachusetts); Shaw and Miller, 1965: 1131 (reared in western

Massachussetts); Streams and Fuester, 1966: 331 (abundance, survival); Burks, 1967:

214 (removal from synonymy under conotracheli); Brunson and Coles, 1968: 6 (percent

parasitism, release in Utah); Petty, 1968: 129 (first rearing in Illinois); Mailloux and

Pillon, 1970: 607 (recovery in Quebec); Miller, 1970: 440 (mention); Niemczyk and

Flessel, 1970: 247 (parasitism rate); Miller and Guppy, 1972: 45 (rearing record: Harrow,

ON); Ellis, 1973: 1060 (parasitism rate); Aeschlimann, 1975: 407 (biological control

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

mention); Dysart and Day, 1976: 2 (introduction history, distribution, parasitism rate);

Harcourt et al., 1977: 1522 (parasitism rate); Clausen, 1978: 267 (importation, release,

life cycle); Hopkins, 1978b: 5 (summary of recoveries by state, parasitism rate); Burks,

1979: 1030 (catalog); Schaber, 1981: 169 (Alberta record); Collins and Grafius, 1983: 1

(host); Day, 1983: 41 (biology); Hogg and Kingsley, 1983: 54 (parasitism rate); Bryan et al.,

1993: 26, 35 (distribution map, summary of establishment).

Mymar luna; Poinar and Gyrisco, 1963: 534 (parasite emergence from egg); El M’Sadda, 1967:

13 (parasitism rate); Niemczyk and Flessel, 1970: 247 (parasitism rate).

Type material. LECTOTYPE ? (USNM), here designated. On slide labelled: 1.“Anaphoidea

luna Gir. Types and Paratypes Type No. 15452 U.S.N.M. [red label]”. 2.“6655 Mymarid

Parasite of Phytonomus (from shipment from Italy by Fiske) Salt Lake City Apr. 8 1911. T.

H. Parks”. The lectotype is uncleared and mounted in lateral view at the edge of the coverslip

and ringed by a faint blue line. The head is collapsed but otherwise in good condition.

Measurements are given in Table I. A /ectotype is designated to fix the name by eliminating the

possibility of confusion with similar species and because the original introduction of A. luna

probably included more than one species. PARALECTOTYPES. Two females and three males

on same slide as lectotype, all uncleared, intact, and mounted in lateral view near the edge of

the coverslip.

Diagnosis. Fl, without longitudinal sensilla. FWL/FWW less than 6.5. Ovipositor length 285

(252-335, n=G), extending under mesosoma only to about apex of mesocoxa. Body length

about 413-603. The only described Nearctic species that has this combination of features is A.

longiclava, a much smaller species that could only be confused with very small specimens of A.

luna.

This species is diagnosed (and redescribed) only from the specimens introduced in 1911 to

avoid the problem of antennal variation (discussed below). Even so, it is difficult to diagnose A.

luna because it has no remarkable features and seems to be quite variable. Specimens introduced

from Europe in 1926 and those reared from Hypera postica in North America after that date

may or may not be the same and are discussed below.

Description. Female. Co/our (from uncleared slides). Dark brown with antennae and legs

beyond coxae lighter. Forewing (Fig. 25) narrowly brown along posterior margin but lighter

than along anterior margin. Girault (1914b) described the species as “black, the scape, pedicel

and proximal three tarsal joints dusky lemon yellow, the trochanters and knees [i.e., junction of

femora and tibiae] pallid . . . cephalic tibiae lighter”.

Body length. 501 (413-603, n=10, from slide-mounted specimens). Body length is based on

the original series from Portici and Salt Lake City (collected in 1911).

Head. Width 203 (n=1). Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30). Ocellar setae a little shorter

than diameter of anterior ocellus.

Antenna. Scape with inner surface with very faint oblique striations. For specimens from original

1911 introduction, Fl,, Fl, and Fl, each with 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 10); Fl, with 0-2

longitudinal sensilla. For specimens collected in North America since 1926 introductions, FL,

Fl, Fl, and Fl, each with 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 10); Fl, usually with 2 longitudinal sensilla

on each antenna, rarely with 2 and 1, 1 and 1, 1 and 0, or even 0 and 0 longitudinal sensilla.

Measurements are given in Table XX (specimens from original introduction into North America)

and Table XXI (specimens reared from field-collected Hypera postica in North America).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with short, inconspicuous setae.

Wings. Forewing length 652 (536-780, n=7), width 102 (85-137), FWL/FWW 6.40 (5.70-

7.13), LMC 141 (123-161), their length about 1.4 times forewing width; marginal space 100

(72-124), medial space triangular, cubital line of setae uniformly close to posterior margin with

a gap of about half a setal length between the cubital line and posterior margin of wing. Hind

wing length 623 (531-750, n=7), width 28 (24-34), with 0-12 microtrichia medially on blade

in apical half, LMC 115 (105-130).

Legs. Foretibia with 9-11 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 0.92 (0.86-0.98, n=2) times as

long as tarsomere 2 (Table I).

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 285 (252-335, n=6), 1.38 (1.25-1.50) times as long as hind tibia,

and extending under mesosoma at least to apex of mesocoxa or as far forward as middle of

forecoxa (Fig. 44).

Male. Total length of flagellum (n=3) 206 (175-232). Length of antennal segments (n=2 to

5): scape 101 (100-103), pedicel 43 (41-44), Fl, 5 (4-6), Fl, 61 (56-65), Fl, 65 (56-76), Fl,

64 (47-69), Fl, 65 (49-72), Fl, 64 (55-72), FL 63 (53-68), Fl, 64 (51-71), Fl, 64 (50-71), Fl,

61 (50-68), FI,, 63 (55-67). Fl, length/width ratio averaging 3.12 (2.69-3.58), with 4 (?5)

longitudinal sensilla.

Variation. Anaphes luna is either a single very variable species or a complex of species. If it

is a complex, many of the papers citing the name /una may not actually apply to A. luna (as

described above, based on the type specimens). For example, vouchers of A. /una from the

Ph.D. study by Gould (1986) may represent a different species. The Gould specimens differ

from the type series in that Fl, bears 1 or 2 longitudinal sensilla on each funicle, as in A.

victus, A. sordidatus and A. listronoti. Alternately, A. luna may simply be a very variable species,

especially in the number and position of longitudinal sensilla on FI, and FI,. Evidence for this

is provided by specimens examined from material collected since 1958 in the northeastern US

and Canada. Among these, some specimens also had 2 longitudinal sensilla on Fl, but every

combination was found at least once, i.e. 2/1, 2/0, 1/1, 1/0, 0/0. Similarly, most specimens had

2 longitudinal sensilla on Fl, of each antenna but the various combinations (except 2/0) were

found in at least one individual. Such variation may occur at the same place and time. A slide

with five females and a male reared on 19.v.1973 at Ithaca, NY, shows considerable variation

in antennal sensilla, with FI, bearing 0/0, 1/0, or 1/2 longitudinal sensilla and Fl, bearing

0/1, 1/1, or 2/2 longitudinal sensilla. Specimens reared from alfalfa in Europe also show such

variation, e.g., two slides of A. /una bearing six uncleared females from Arles, France, 6.i.1966

and ii.1966, alfalfa stems, F. Gruber (USNM). Two of the specimens have FI, bearing 2/1

longitudinal sensilla, two have 0/0 longitudinal sensilla and two have 1/0 longitudinal sensilla.

All but one of the specimens collected in February have 2/2 longitudinal sensilla of Fl, and the

one collected on 6.i has 2/1 longitudinal sensilla. The specimens were not reared from known

host eggs so the possibility exists that the six specimens emerged from different hosts in the

alfalfa stems, which may account for the differences in antennal morphology. However, it is

more likely that all the specimens emerged from alfalfa weevil eggs.

Crossing experiments need to be made between A. /una reared from alfalfa weevil and A. victus

and A. /istronoti reared from carrot weevil and A. sordidatus reared from Tyloderma foveolatum

to see if they are conspecific or if they are biologically distinct. Possibly, one of the species

(probably A. victus, which has a similar ovipositor length and is solitary) described by Huber

et al. (1997) is a synonym of A. luna. It would also be interesting to cross A. /una reared from

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

H. postica with specimens reared from H. eximia on Rumex to confirm that they are the same

species. I am not completely certain that they are.

Distribution. Europe, Canada (AB, ON, PE), USA (DE, IL, IN, MD, MI, MO, NJ, NY, UT,

WV, WI). In 1928, when A. fuscipennis (as A. pratensis) was shipped from Utah to Indiana the

shipment may have included some A. /una. Since then, A. luna has apparently become widely

distributed in the northeast and north central USA (Radcliffe and Flanders 1998). Dysart and

Day (1976) provided a detailed map of county localities. Bryan et al. (1993) stated that A. luna

had not been redistributed but that it was well established in the USA and Canada.

Material examined. 133 2 2 and 50 && (142 on slides) in USNM unless otherwise indicated.

All crassicornis-group specimens reared from Hypera postica in North America are included here

though possible they represent a complex of species, as discussed above. CANADA. Alberta.

Lethbridge, 10.v.1978, B.D. Schaber (1%, CNCI). Ontario. Ottawa, 22.vi.1970 (1¢, CNCI).

Prince Edward Island. South Bay, 22.vii.1971 (19, 20°, CNCI). USA. Delaware. New Castle

Co.: New Castle, 20.ii.1961, A.H. Mason (19). Illinois. Crawford Co.: Trimble, 28.xii.1967,

J. deWirt (19, 1c); De Kalb Co.: De Kalb, vii.1968, J.B. Litsinger (79, 2c"); Mason Co.: near

Havana, 4.vi.1974, D. Oldfield, ex. Bathyplectes curculionis (1%, 20). Indiana. LaGrange

Co.: Howe, 23.iv.1981, Chmiel (2%); Tippecanoe Co.: West Lafayette, Purdue University,

15.x.1967, culture, R.C. Anderson (4%, 3c). Maryland. Beltsville, 11.vi.1962, J. Huggens

(42, 10°). Michigan. Ingham Co.: near East Lansing, 7.vii.1970, R.A. Casagrande (8, 2c’).

Missouri. Cooper Co.: Bel Air, 4.v.2000, ex. Hypera eximia on pale dock, B. Puttler (39, 1¢,

CNCI). New Jersey. Warren Co.: Hainsburg, spring 1963, D.R. Barnes (4%, 10°). New York.

Dutchess Co.: Fishkill, 19.v. and vi.1959, S. Poinar (6%, 1c). Tompkins.: Ithaca, 19.v.1973,

R. van Driesch (52, 10°); Myers, 9.vii.1958, G. Poinar (19, 1c). Utah. Cache Co.: Logan,

vii.1972, D.W. Davis (89, 10°); Salt Lake Co.: Salt Lake City, 3.iv.1911, from Portici, Italy,

WJ. Fiske (Wesbster No. 6655) (39, 1c), 6.iii.1911, hatching from Phytonomus |=Hypera]

eggs, T.H. Parks (2%, 1c’, 1 unknown sex); same locality except no date, T.H. Parks (12, 1c’);

same locality, 12.vi.1911, T.H. Parks, on Phytonomus reared through Utah eggs (7%, 40%, 1

adult in egg). West Virginia. Preston Co.: 21.xi.1968, C.K. Dorsay (102, 2c’), iii.1969, J.E.

Weaver (23°, 8c). Wisconsin. Columbia Co.: Arlington, 19.v.1969, D. Litsinger (92, 10°);

Dane Co.: Madison, ex. lab. culture, spring, 1985, W. Gould (27%, 100, CNCI); Green Co.:

Jefferson Township, 15.v.1980, D.B. Hogg (59, ?7¢’).

Hosts and Biology. Curculionidae are the only confirmed hosts and include in North America

the alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica (Gyllenhal) on alfalfa and H. eximia (LeConte) on pale dock

(Rumex ?orbiculatus Gray), and in Europe and North Africa the Egyptian alfalfa weevil, H.

brunneipennis (Boheman), H. trilineata Marsham, possibly H. punctata (Fabricius), H. variabilis

Herbst (Kaufmann 1941a), H. zoilus Scopoli (Baccetti 1957), and Hypera [as Donus] crinitus

(Boheman). Baccetti (1958) was uncertain if the species he reared from H. crinitus was A. luna.

One of the slides, bearing the number 6655 with specimens reared in Salt Lake City has host

eggs labelled as Phytonomus [= Hypera] murinus F., which does not occur in N. America. The

specimens from near Havana, IL, supposedly reared from Bathyplectes curculionis (Thomson)

(Ichneumonidae) clearly are incorrectly associated with this host. They must have been reared

from eggs of Hypera postica. Three slides of Anaphes, labelled s.l. # 3007, reared from Hypera

punctata by Chamberlin, do not appear to be A. /una, which places doubt on Kaufmann’s

(1941a, b) host record from Europe.

Dysart and Day (1976) and Clausen (1978) summarized the biology of A. /una. Clausen (1940)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

noted that in fresh alfalfa only eggs near the oviposition puncture can be reached for parasitism,

but the female wasp can enter dry stems so the entire egg mass is then susceptible to parasitism.

At least two generations per year occur. Females lay one or two eggs inside a host egg and egg

parasitism seldom exceeds 5% both in Europe (e.g., El M’Sadda 1967) and North America

(Radcliffe and Flanders 1998), though Brunson and Coles (1968) reported 10% parasitism.

Nasr (1998) provided an abstract of the life cycle of A. una from H. brunneipennis in Egypt.

A series of slides each labelled “ex. egg Hypera postica” (Jefferson Township, Green Co., WI)

and each with either one female or one male specimen of A. /una seems to confirm Clausen’s

(1978) statement that the species is solitary. But six slides each labelled “ex. alfalfa weevil ege”

(Preston Co., WV), have five specimens per slide, and one has six specimens. Each of these

slides has one or two males and the remainder are females. The species (if it is indeed the same

species — I cannot tell, based on morphology) may therefore sometimes be gregarious (or else

two species are involved).

Introductions into North America. The original releases of at least 1740 adults of A. una

from Italy were made near Salt Lake City from 1911-13 but the releases failed to become

established (Chamberlin 1924a). New importations and releases were made from 1925-1928

(Brunson and Coles 1968) and included both A. /una and A. fuscipennis (as A. pratensis).

According to Hamlin et a/. (1949), the two species were released together because they could

not be distinguished when alive. The first recovery was in 1926, but of A. fuscipennis not A.

luna, which apparently failed to become established. In addition to the type slide, five slides of

specimens in the USNM with the same catalog number (Webster No. 6655) as the type slide

were examined. Four are dated 1911 (3 April to 12 June, depending on slide) and one has no

date. The specimens on these slides are evidently from the original introduction of A. luna

into North America but do not form part of the type series. They are important because they

contain three species, presumably all from material obtained originally from Portici, Italy. The

undated slide bears one female of A. fuscipennis as well as a male and female of A. /una. The slide

dated 3 April bears two females and two males of A. /una, and one female of a small specimen

with ovipositor extending almost to the head and FI,-Fl, without longitudinal sensilla. It is

very poorly oriented and its identity is unknown but it is very likely not a specimen of A. una.

Another set of releases was made from 1925-1928, again from material from Italy. Five slides

of voucher specimens (USNM) from the 1925-1928 introductions, labelled S.L. Sta. [St. Louis

Station] #3007 and dated either 14 or 24 May, 1926, were examined. Three of these slides bear

specimens reared from Hypera punctata. These appear not to be A. /una but key instead to a

species close to A. leptoceras Debauche in Debauche (1948). The remaining two slides, labelled

as “ex.stems alfalfa” contain A. /una. In 1933-34, A. luna from France was released in California.

According to Dysart and Day (1976), A. /una was apparently mixed with A. fuscipennis (as A.

pratensis) in all these introductions, so its early spread cannot be accurately assessed. If the

specimens on these two sets of slides are representative of what was released in North America

in 1911-1913 and 1925-1928 then at least two more species besides A. fuscipennis and A. luna

may have become established on alfalfa weevil in North America. If so, that may account for

the considerable variation seen in A. luna (see Variation, above).

Fischer et al, (1961), van den Bosch (1964), Clancy (1969), and Clausen (1978) refer to a

Patasson sp. reared from Hypera brunneipennis (Boheman) in Iran and Egypt that was released in

California but apparently, and from a taxonomic viewpoint, luckily, did not become established.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Perhaps the species they referred to is the same as A. /una but I have not seen voucher specimens

to verify this. In retrospect, it is impossible to know exactly how many species ultimately became

established in North America from shipments originating from the Old World.

Biological control. Many of the numerous references on A. /una mention this species in

connection with biological control of the alfalfa weevil. Although A. /una had a relatively small

role in the successful control of alfalfa weevil in northeastern North America, it nevertheless

contributed, and still contributes, to.the overall reduction in damage by this pest. Continued

search for races of A. /una, or very similar species of Anaphes that are more adapted to the

drier conditions of the southern USA where alfalfa weevil or Egyptian alfalfa weevil are still

important pests, may result in further introductions of Anaphes species. Anaphes luna has been

recorded from Egypt (Nasr 1998) and Sicily (Pagliano and Navone 1995), both Mediterranean

areas, so a suitable race or species for successful introduction into southern USA must exist. If

further introductions of Anaphes spp. are made, it is essential, from a taxonomic viewpoint, that

sufficient voucher specimens (at least 10 males and 10 females, killed directly in at least 70%

ethanol) be preserved in major institutions for species confirmation. The doubt surrounding

the identity of A. /una because of the release of a mixture of two or more species during the first

half of the 1900’s, poor identifications, and too few, poor quality, voucher specimens should

not be repeated.

Comments. Girault (1929) incorrectly synonymized A. /una under A. conotracheli. Doutt

(1949) accepted Girault’s (1929) synonymy and therefore did not include A. /una as a separate

species in his key to North American species. Poinar and Gyrisco (1963), El M’Sadda (1967)

and Collins and Grafius (1983) also mistakenly treated the two names as synonyms, presumably

following Girault. Peck (1951) classified A. /una under A. conotracheli but then (Peck 1963)

noted that it should perhaps be regarded as a distinct species. Burks (1967) correctly removed

it from synonymy after examining the types.

At least one other species of Anaphes (belonging to the fuscipennis species group) was reared

from alfalfa weevil (Indiana, Harrison Co. 20.ii.1967, R.C. Anderson, 1% and 1 on slide,

USNM). This species appears to be undescribed and is likely to be found’ normally on a host

other than alfalfa weevil or it may be rare.

Anaphes pallipes (Ashmead)

(Figs. 12, 26, 31, 45)

Alaptus pallipes Ashmead, 1887: 193 (original description); Girault, 1908: 186 (description

quoted); Girault, 1910: 243 (removal from Alaptus).

Anaphes pallipes; Girault, 1911c: 186 (mention); Girault, 1911e: 278 (redescription); Girault,

1929: 13 (key); Burks, 1979: 1029 (catalog); Huber and Rajakulendran, 1988: 899

(correction of Girault misidentification).

Mymar pallipes; Peck, 1951: 416 (catalog); Peck, 1963: 40 (catalog).

Anaphoidea conotracheli; Porter and Alden, 1921: 62 (emergence, parasitism rate, host), Porter,

1928: 28 (parasitism rate). Misidentification.

Anaphes conotracheli; Porter, 1922: 165 (percent parasitism); Schauff, 1984a: 48 (host).

Misidentification.

Type material. HOLOTYPE ? (USNM), examined. Originally mounted in balsam under one

coverslip on slide labelled: 1. “A/aptus 13807 [pencil] pallipes Ashm. Jacksonville, Fla Type”. 2.”

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

(Alaptus) Anaphes pallipes Ashm. ? Type No. 13807 U.S.N.M. [red label]”. The holotype was

in poor condition, uncleared and mounted laterally with face head up (Fig.45). One forewing

was detached and obliquely positioned at some distance from body. The remaining wings,

clava of left antenna, Fl, and clava of right antenna, tarsus of right foreleg and left middle leg,

trochanter of right middle leg, and right hind leg were missing. I successfully removed the

specimen from the original slide, cleared it in KOH and remounted it under two coverslips so

that critical diagnostic features could be observed. Measurements are given in Table I.

Ashmead (1887) miscounted the antennal segments on the holotype, evidently not realizing

that the clava from each antenna was missing. He mistook the last flagellar segment for a

clava and therefore counted only five flagellomeres. This explains why he placed the species in

Alaptus. Because of his mistake his description of the antenna is inaccurate and misleading.

Diagnosis. Occipital suture short and oblique, pointing ventromedially towards occipital

foramen (Fig. 31). Inner surface of scape and pedicel with distinct, oblique cross striations.

Flagellum with longitudinal sensilla on BL, Fl, and Fb but none on Fl » Which is consequently

shorter and narrower (Fig. 45). Two specimens from Zilker Park have only 1 (0?) longitutinal

sensillum on FI, and FI, of at least one flagellum (Fig. 12). The only described Nearctic species

that could be confused with A. pallipes is A. conotracheli. Specimens of A. pallipes are smaller

than A. conotracheli in all measurements, probably due to the smaller host from which they have

been reared. As mentioned under A. conotracheli, the species are probably the same. Because

of the considerable literature on A. conotracheli | do not synonymize it under A. pallipes until

crossing experiments or molecular data can confirm their conspecificity.

Description. Female. Colour (from critical point dried specimens). Body brown; legs almost

white except for coxae, femora medially, and tarsomere 4 which are light brown. Forewing (Fig.

26) with posterior margin clear to apex of wing or at least distinctly lighter brown than anterior

margin, except for a short brown section subapically.

Body length. 433m (396-515, n=9, from critical point dried specimens).

Head. Width 180 (167-199, n=8). Occipital suture short, angled inwards towards dorsal margin

of occipital foramen (Fig. 31).

Antenna. Inner surface of scape with distinct cross striations almost at right angles to length

of scape. Fl,, Fl, and usually Fl, each with 2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 12, 45). Measurements

given in Table XXII.

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with short, inconspicuous setae.

Wings. Forewing length 508 (442-559, n=10), width 106 (88-128), FWL/FWW 4.71 (4.34-

5.27), LMC 120 (90-128); marginal space 88 (71-104), medial space triangular, cubital line of

setae closest to posterior margin just beyond retinaculum, then diverging so posterior row of

setae about one setal length from posterior margin. Hind wing length 496 (428-552, n=11), 23

(20-27), without microtrichia (one specimen with 1 microtrichia) medially on blade in apical

half, LMC 92 (85-102).

Legs. Foretibia with 7 or 8 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 0.71 times length of tarsomere

2 (0.67-0.75, n=3).

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 307 (269-347, n=9), 2.0 (1.9-2.1) times as long as hind tibia,

extending under mesosoma at least as far as apex of forecoxa (Fig. 45).

Male. Total length of flagellum 576 (546-609, n=4). Length of antennal segments (n=2 to 6):

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

scape 72 (69-75), pedicel 39 (38-43), Fl, 6 (6-8), Fl, 52 (46-56), Fl, 55 (48-60), Fl, 53 (45-60),

Fl. 55 (51-60), Fl, 56 (47-61), FL, 56 (46-61), Fl, 58 (55-59), Fl, 58 (55-59), Fl, 59 (57-60),

Fl, 61 (56-63). Fl. length/width ratio averaging 2.5 (2.4-2.8), with 5 longitudinal sensilla.

Distribution. Canada (ON), USA (CT, FL, IL, ND, TX).

Material examined. 2122 and 150°o" (20 on slides). CANADA. Ontario. Ottawa, 12.viii.2003,

J.R. Vockeroth, in bus shelter (1%, CNCI). USA. Connecticut. New Haven Co.: Wallingford,

viii.1920, Porter and Allen (2¢ %, 2c &, slides Q. no.1611). Illinois. Cook Co.: Chicago,

Clayton Smith Forest Preserve, 31.vii.1989, J.D. Pinto, sweeping (12, CNCI); Effingham Co.:

SSW. Mason, 7.ix.1993, J.D. Pinto (1oe°, CNCI). North Dakota. Cass Co.: 4 mi. N. & 4. mi.

W. Casselton Vining’s sunflower plot, 15, 20, 22 & 26.vii and 5 & 9.viii.1982, L.D. Charlet

& T.A. Gross, ex. Cylindrocopturus adspersus on Helianthus annuus L. (9°, 70°, CNCI). Texas.

Travis Co.: Austin, Zilker Park, 8.x.1983, J.B. Woolley (8%, 5c, CNCI).

Hosts and Biology. The specimens from Cylindricopturus adspersus mentioned by Schauff

(1984a) as being A. conotracheli are treated here as A. pallipes. The specimens from Connecticut,

determined as A. conotracheli by Gahan, were reared from Rhagoletis pomonella Walsh

(Tephritidae) by Porter and Alden (1921). Porter (1922) and Porter (1928) reported up to

25% and 30% parasitism of R. pomonella at Wallingford, CT.

Comments. The homotype and plesiotype no. 44,225 (from Centralia, IL) that Girault

(191le: 279) designated and referred to as A. pallipes actually belongs to Anaphes iole of the

fuscipennis species group (Huber and Rajakulendran 1988, Huber 1992). As pointed out by

Underhill (1926: 17) the occurrence of A. pallipes reared from cages containing Gnorimoschema

operculella Zeller is doubtful. No mymarids are reliably known to parasitize lepidopterous eggs

so this reference to A. pallipes is almost certainly incorrect. Anaphes pallipes probably has a

wide North American distribution, based on the little material seen so far. The host genera

Cylindrocopturus and Rhagoletis are widespread and further rearings from any species in these

genera may yield A. pallipes.

Anaphes pullicrurus (Girault)

(Figs. 13, 27, 46)

Anaphoidea pullicrura Girault, 1910: 252 (original description); Girault, 191 1a:216 (comparison

with diana); Girault, 1911d: 187 (additional specimen); Girault, 1911e: 288 (mention);

Girault, 1914b: 109 (comparison with /una); Frison, 1927: 227 (holotype data listed);

Gahan, 1927: 32 (comparison with calendrae); Girault, 1929: 12 (key, synonymy under

conotracheli); Doutt, 1949: 160 (previous synonymy under conotracheli cited); Poos,

1955: 559 (host record); Webb, 1980: 118 (holotype listed).

Patasson pullicrura; Peck, 1951: 415 (catalog); Peck, 1963: 34 (catalog); Burks, 1979: 1030

(catalog).

Anaphes pullicrurus; Huber 1992: 76 (list).

Type material HOLOTYPE 2 (INHS), examined. On slide labelled:1.“No. 41686.

Anaphoidea pullicrura Gir $ Centralia Illinois Type. Ag. 26 1909 xylol balsam. Girault s. 1485”.

2. “TYPE ¢ Anaphoidea pullicrura Girault” [red label]. The specimen is uncleared, in fairly

good condition, mounted laterally, with both hind wings, and Fl, + club of right antenna

detatched and positioned away from the body, and tarsomeres 2-4 of the left hind leg missing.

Holotype measurements are given in Table I. PARATYPE. The female collected on 30 August

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

was examined and appears to be conspecific with the holotype. It is on a slide that also bears a

male of A. Ziole, a female of Anagrus sp., and a female of Camptoptera pulla. Girault described

A. pullicrurus from four females “on the panes of a small window” at Centralia, IL, on 26

and 30 August and 5 September, 1909. Two slides bearing only part of the series from which

Girault described the species were located. The paratype female collected on September 5 is lost

(D. Webb, Illinois Natural History Survey, pers. comm.). The fourth paratype female is also

apparently lost, unless it is the male of A. 7iole. It is unlikely, however, that Girault would have

confused this female for a male.

Diagnosis. Forewing narrow (FWL/FWW 7.0-8.6), thoracic setae short, inconspicuous;

funicular segments relatively short and broad. Anaphes pullicrurus, A. gerrisophaga and A. cotei

all have relatively narrow forewings. Anaphes pullicrurus differs from A. gerrisophaga by its

short, inconspicuous thoracic setae and a relatively wider forewing (long, distinct setae and

narrower forewing in A. gerrisophaga) and from A. cote by Fl, and the remaining funicular

segments relatively shorter and broader (compare Tables XXIII and XV).

Description. Female. Co/our (from uncleared, slide-mounted specimens). Body brown; legs

lighter, uniformly brown except for base of femora at junction with trochanters. Forewing (Fig.

27) with posterior margin narrowly brown along its entire length. Girault (1910) described

the colour in detail and his description is certainly more accurate, as it is based on at least one

specimen that was not first slide mounted.

Body length. 460 (450-480, n=4).

Head. Width 167 (paratype) and 197 (specimen ex. Chaetocnema denticulata). Occipital suture

straight (as in Fig. 30).

Antenna. Inner surface of scape not clearly visible on specimens examined. Fl, & Fl, each with

2 longitudinal sensilla (Fig. 13). Measurements given in Table XXIII

Mesosoma. Pronotum and mesonotum with short, inconspicuous setae.

Wings. Forewing length 612 (585-634, n=5), width 77 (72-86), FWL/FWW 8.03 (6.99-8.59),

LMC 124 (115-135), their length about 1.6 times forewing length; marginal space 79 (74-86),

medial space triangular, cubital line of setae closest to posterior margin near the retinacular seta

and slightly further away distally, with a gap of about one setal length between the cubital line

and posterior margin of wing. Hind wing length 570 (519-593, n=5), width 23 (20-25), with

0-4 microtrichia medially on blade in apical half, LMC 176 (173-203).

Legs. Foretibia with 8-10 sensilla chaetica. Hind tarsomere 1 0.91 (0.83-0.95, n=5) times as

long as tarsomere 2.

Metasoma. Ovipositor length 296 (272-312, n=5), extending under mesosoma past base of

mesocoxa (Fig. 46)

Male. Unknown. See comments below. A male identified as A. pullicrura collected by sweeping

a creek bed in Muncie, IL has the same wing proportions as A. pullicrura but is much larger. It

is discussed under A. gerrisophaga.

Distribution. USA (IL, VA).

Material examined. 5 92, all on slides. USA. Illinois. Montgomery Co.: Litchfield, 13.vii.1910,

A. Girault (19, USNM); Champaign Co.: Urbana, 9.vi.1910 and 5.v.1911, A. Girault (2

2 2, USNM). Virginia. Fairfax Co.: Arlington experimental farm, no date, F.W. Poos, ex.

Chaetocnema denticulata (22 2, USNM).

Hosts and Biology. Chaetocnema denticulata (Illiger) (Chrysomelidae). Poos (1955) noted the

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

maximum developmental time of 11 days in C. denticulata eggs exposed to A. pullicrurus in the

laboratory. He reared females only. Apparently, only one individual developed within each host

egg, but this was not definitely established.

Comments. Three specimens besides the type series were mentioned by Girault (1910).

One female collected June 9 in a greenhouse is on a slide together with six Anagrus armatus

(Ashmead). The latter species undoubtedly is a misidentification other species of Anagrus, as

explained by Chiappini et al. (1996: 573). It has short, inconspicuous thoracic setae and a

FWL/FWWof 6.97 (left wing) and 6.40 (right wing). I treat it as probably A. pullicrurus. A

male collected July 1, 1910, is on a slide together with seven Camptoptera pulla Girault. It

appears to belong to A. gerrisophaga on the basis of its long, prominent head and thoracic setae

but its forewing is too broad to be A. gerrisophaga; it has a FWL/FWW of only 6.59 (wings

obliquely positioned so width of one wing and length of other wing measured to obtain ratio).

The second male that Girault (1910) also collected on July 1 was not found.

On the basis of known hosts, A. gerrisophaga should be restricted to near or on water whereas

A. pullicrurus should be in fields (which of course may be near water so A. gerrisophaga could

easily disperse into them). The collection locality of the type series of A. pullicrurus does not

help in determining a natural habitat. Dispersing or wind blown specimens could easily end

up in a greenhouse regardless of the host they parasitize or the habitat they normally occupy.

More material reared from Chaetocnema spp. is needed to search for better characters to define

A. pullicrurus and assess its variation more thoroughly.

Anaphes sordidatus (Girault)

(Figs. 14, 28, 47)

Anaphoidea sordidatus (Girault, 1909: 167) (original description).

Anaphes sordidatus; Huber et al., 1997: 961 (type material, redescription, literature).

Type material. LECTOTYPE ? (INHS), examined (see. Huber et a/. 1997) from USA: Illinois,

Centralia.

Diagnosis. Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30), ovipositor extending under gaster (Fig.

47), forewing (Fig. 28) with posterior margin narrowly brown at least distally, Fl, (Fig. 14)

with 2 longitudinal sensilla, solitary in eggs of Tyloderma foveolatum. Statistics of the antennal

segments are given in Table XXIV to complement the description in Huber et a/. (1997) and

for comparison with the antennal descriptions of the other species redescribed here. Type

measurements are given in Table I.

This species cannot be distinguished morphologically from A. /istronoti. One character that

may possibly separate the species is the sculpture of the mesoscutal midlobe posteriorly.

The sculpture consists of reticulate sculpture apparently arranged in somewhat longitudinal

elliptical pattern compared to a more circular pattern in A. /istronoti. Biologically, A. listronoti

differs by being gregarious and having a different host, Listronotus oregonensis. The two species

do not interbreed in the laboratory (Huber et al., 1997). Anaphes sordidatus is similar to A.

victus (Huber et al. 1997) and to specimens of A. /una that have Fl, with two longitudinal

sensilla. Even though there is a difference in ovipositor length between A. sordidatus and A.

luna and they appear to be morphologically distinct, it would be interesting to conduct crossing

experiments between them to see if A. sordidatus is also biologically distinct.

Distribution. USA (IA, IL).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Anaphes victus Huber

(Figs. 15, 29, 48)

Anaphes victus (nomen nudum); Cormier et al., 1996: 1376 (seasonal ecology, distribution).

Anaphes victus; Huber et al., 1997: 967 (original description); van Baaren and Boivin, 1998a:

525 (genotypic and kin discrimmination); van Baaren and Boivin; 1998b: 10 (host

discrimination); van Baaren et a/., 1999: 1 (antennal sensilla); van Baaren et al, 1999:

67 (larval competition, sex allocation); Boivin and van Baaren, 2000: 1 (larval agression

and mobility); Boivin and Nénon, 2003: 768 (effect of host egg chorion on parasitism);

Boivin et al., 2004: 641 (searching behavior).

Type material. HOLOTYPE $ (CNCI), examined (see Huber et a/. 1997) from CANADA:

Quebec, Ste. Clotilde.

Diagnosis. Occipital suture straight (as in Fig. 30), ovipositor extending under gaster (Fig. 48),

forewing (Fig. 29) with posterior margin narrowly brown at least distally, Fl, (Fig. 15) with 1 or

2 longitudinal sensilla, solitary in eggs of Listronotus oregonensis. The ovipositor is shorter than

in A. sordidatus, and A. listronoti which is morphologically the most similar species to A. victus.

Possibly, A. victus is the same as A. una, as discussed under the latter.

Statistics of the antennal segments (Tables XXV and XXVI) are given to complement the

description in Huber et a/. (1997) and for comparison with the antennal descriptions of the

other species redescribed here. Type measurements are given in Table I. See diagnosis of A.

listronoti for additional features to separate it from A. victus.

Distribution. Canada (QC), USA (MI, TX).

Comments. This solitary species (only one adult emerges from one host egg) is very similar to

specimens reared from Hypera postica since the mid-1950’s and identified as A. /una. Crossing

experiments betwen A. victus from L. oregonensis on carrot and A. /una from H. postica on alfalfa

should be undertaken to see if they are the same species.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario 3 Volume 135, 2004

Table I. Measurements (in tm) of primary types of nominal crassicornis-group species of Anaphes

for North America. Abbreviations used: HT=holotype; L=length; LMC=longest marginal

cilia of wings; LT=lectotype; Macro. dist.=distance between macrochaetae of marginal vein;

ovip.=ovipositor; P'T=paratype; Troch.=trochanter; W=width. Many measurements could not

be made because parts were missing or not clearly visible. Measurements of structures positioned

obliquely are not accurate, and are indicated by “”.

species

PEC ee OT > AE) ote irs

Be Ree ye | oto mma on il Ionia 0.

remounted

5, brunneus | RT ya Pe a Pe ee

-confertus Ms i a a ST

=172 128

Pa AD De

bo wee

yee? on

NI GN J BX [0

Nominal k > Total Macro Stigmal

species oe ven. dist. L 5

Bay ip ae

DS PORE a We ree ene ties

SL pallipas a A SID ns Ne ee ee

526

G.confercus | 707_| 118 | 942 0 QT Se

636 | 62. [123 1 gS he 8 eee

709 62 35

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table I. — continued

species Total

~64 =101_ | =102 | =107 =20

2. sordidatus = {| - | 59 | 184 | 187 | 177 | 53 | 44 | 41 | 37_

Frame) BR | SS) ie OPS | L370 | 137 | =117

=78

6. conferus | 85 | - | 131 [ 118 | 109 | 30 | 27 | 25 | 27 |

110. pullicrurus | 80 | 43 | ~130 | 129 | 123 [ 40 | 29 | 27 | 27 |

eam ee Poel Seri i so [155 | 143 | 41 | 36 | 34)32 |

~174

158

Volume 135, 2004

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Table I. — continued

7 +H SIAL AIAIA ASA A AR} a

CAT COLA AT AT ALATA] 6] 9] ca]

a PD] OS] SO] SIAL] OP A) AIS D

NH] CO] SHY CO] CO] NT Oa] a] CO] CO] CO SHY

Sila SH] UST SHY ee] Oo] 00] SO] 9} 9] 9] \O] 980

5 UN] SESH CO] CO] CO] CO] NY] OF] CO] SET SET OS

® WY] SD] SPOS AIS wD Se] DY] OS] 0

SH] CO] SO] CO] NT eo] es] NY CO] CO] NHL A

= tol pu} Ale} ool Ql yelalw) ala

: A] SF] 00] a] SO} cS] S| NT A

Hind leg

4 “

: Ss| _| 8 . @ ¢g ‘ Ss] _| 8 in

oi S| | S$] St giSiS} 8] 8 S a> S| | 81 ge} oi-SiS} Ss 5

S1R] LS] 8] S/S SIRS) el] | She Eo BS] IST 8] S/S S818) ye} | 8

RS las Vs! El] ST Soles] Sl-s] St & o o& ~ Ss! Rl st £/Sles ‘m| S

. 2] = * Ss] we S|

SIS] 8] 8) S/S) SSG RTS] A] BLS a SB] 3] 8] S/AQER) SSR] APS

S$] S/S] 8) § §| $8) Ass] S818 NINES IS ES ISS ES aS ESS

al SIS} SPST 8) SIPS] SI] Sl al gl gi J SPS] SPS} 8] 84 SPS) OP) Ot al

wilt aii. wil Selly ow Rh lt tse = ol rte Coll “eh Felt oer vel? .28 rl

Pt ON OO NEE WT NO BR OO] NY et et a a] VQ] CO] SE] WI WO] BR] CO] GAT Ra] a] ad

2004

Volume 135,

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

(e[[isuas [eUIpNysuoO] Jo Joquinu) sponse

aprun

-¢€9 |@iz| o9 | er |s9|@or] s9| (91 | 99= cz snioia "y |

pL \(aez| LL | @ez ‘tg | @zz| zs (st | sz C71 | Mououssy *¢|

2 liz} zz | @iz | 6z|@stlos] st | oz | #1 lost=| 70100 °

(¥)6Z | (Z)7H| SE | ZI | (707) 9S | (Z)0z} 09 | (Z)0z | 6s | (oz il OL. |A8€ [11 purip “11 |

(PSO e@ey| LE | LOI | (Z)sz| cS | (Pei FS | (Ze | es | @zz| ss val | vl ell | snansayyynd *()|

Gesl@oe| oz | zo lor] s [Wor] ze | Mor |ipl@atl se! et | ¥e | €1 OL= | varpo18uoy °6 |

(b)€9 | (Z)7H| SE BS 1 (EZ 19 | (Wer 19S | Occ | €9" <9T a 001 | yoqovasouos 8

oz |sz|(oz\ se] zt | sz : sngaafuos *6 |

ia Ly | (DL1| 98 ett la6s.| & = | = snoeenag

(2vz [zz (2oz| Z| 91 | ZZ “| sempuape |

1S ; puny *€ |

¥8 | (Z)¥7| 06 evl SIV PIPLOs “7

oe I | 9g = | edged ey

saroods

yeurmoyy

PpenunuUods — *T aOR L

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Volume 135, 2004

TABLE II. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes brunneus. Means (in micrometers) on

top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment

scape

pedicel

FI,

(n=3)

Fl,

(n=3)

clava

(n=2)

length (L)

90 (0.8)

93-106

(n=3)

44 (2)

42-46

(n=3)

25(0.6)

24-26

66 (7)

58-70

60 (3.6)

57-64

53 (6)

47-59

60 (3)

57-63

58 (1.2)

56-59

108 (3.2)

106-110

width (W)

(n=1)

14 (0.9)

13-15

6 (1.1)

13-15

17 (4.8)

14-23

16 (1.1)

15-17

20 (3.2)

18-24

23 (1.5)

21-24

33 (4.9)

29-36

ratio (L/W)

3.86

(n=1)

1.48

(n=1)

1.82 (0.15)

1.69-1.98

4.65 (0.29)

4.39-4.96

3.61 (0.80)

2.80-4.39

3.37 (0.46)

3.1-3.9

3.04 (0.52)

2.54-3.0

2.58 (0.16)

2.54-2.76

3.36 (0.60)

2.92-.3.78

Table III. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus

costipennis [adult length 9-13 mm, from Vaurie (1951)]. Means (in micrometers) on top,

sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

length (L)

130 (5.6)

segment

scape

pedicel

123-138

(n=7)

55 (2.8)

52-60

(n=16)

27 (2.4)

22-32

(n=16)

width (W)

35 (1.6)

33-38

(n=11)

30 (1.8)

28-34

(n=13)

18 (1.1)

16-20

(n=16)

ratio (L/W)

3.78 (0.20)

3.59-4.18

(n=5)

1.87 (0.10)

1.62-1.99

(n=13)

1.53 (0.18)

1.24-1.80

(n=15)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table III. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

Fl, 72 (4.8) 16 (1.0) 4.39 (0.39)

66-81 14-18 3.92-4.96

(n=17) (n=17) (n=13)

Fl, 73 (2.9) Va ad ony 3.38 (0.50)

70-79 18-26 2.74-4.33

(n=17) (n=17) (n=16)

Fl, 68 (4.7) 2512-3) 2.99 (0.52)

64-84 19-27 2.52-4.52

(n=18) (n=17) (n=16)

Fl, 66 (3.4) 24 (1.6) 2.74 (0.26)

58-72 21-27 2.40-3.21

(n=18) (n=18) (n=17)

Fl. 62 (2.4) 24 (1.6) 2.57 (0.24)

56-66 22-27 221-2)

(n=18) (n=17) (n=17)

clava 121 (3.6) 38 (2.7) 3.18 (0.23)

113-127 32-41 2.52-3.64

(n=18) (n=17) (n=17)

Table IV. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus

destructor (adult length 8-11 mm). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation

in parentheses, and range.

segment length width ratio (L/W)

scape 119 (7.8) 32-(56) 3.92 (0.32)

109-122 28-36 3.55-4.14

(n=4) (n=4) (n=3)

pedicel 54 (1.7) 29 (2.8) 1.86 (0.19)

(n=7) 52-56 26-33 1.6-2.07

FL, 27 (2.4) ‘Tite 1.65 (1.18)

(n=7) 24-31 13-19 1.43-1.93

FL, 70 (11.7) 16 (1.3) 4.36 (0.63)

(n=7) 53-80 15-19 3.54-5.03

Fl, 70 (8.4) 21 (2.2) 3.38 (0.36)

(n=7) STF 18-24 2.89-3.82

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table IV. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

Fl, 65 (7.8) 23 (2.1). 2.90 (0.30)

(n=7) 53-72 21-27 2.41-3.23

Fl, 63 (7.1) 23 (1.3) 2.79 (0.24)

(n=7) 52-68 20-25 2.34-3.05

Fl, 60 (6.7) 23 (2.3) 2.59 (0.22)

(n=7) 50-67 19-26 2.17-2.83

clava 118 (7.0) 38 (2.2) 3.12 (0.04)

(n=7) 108-127 35-40 3.07-3.16

Table V. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus maidis

(adult length 12-16 mm), Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in

parentheses, and range.

segment length width ratio (L/W)

scape 149 (11.7) 40 (3.2) 3.33

141-158 38-42 (n=1)

(n=2) (n=2)

pedicel 64 (3.6) 34 (1.1) 1.86 (0.16)

(n=2) 60-67 33-35 1.74-1.97

El, 34 (2.7) 21 (2.4) 1.64 (0.31)

(n=3) 31-36 19-23 1.33-1.94

Fl, 92 (4.1) 19 (0.6) 4.95 (0.17)

(n=3) 88-96 18-19 4.83-5.15

Fl, 98 (3.5) 25 (2.3) 3.98 (0.24)

(n=3) 93-102 22-27 3.72-4.20

Fl, 25 (1.6) 26 (2.0) 3.27 (0.22)

(n=3) 84-87 25-29 3.02-3.44

Fl. 79 (1.8) 27 (1.4) 2.88 (0.19)

(n=3) 77-80 26-28 2.72-3.09

Fl. 72 (2.7) 27 (0.3) 2.70 (0.04)

(n=3) 70-74 26-27 2.65-2.74

clava 133 (6.0) 42 (3.8) 3,23 (0.28)

126-136 40-45 3,03-3.43

(n=2) (n=3) (n=2)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table VI. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus

minimus (adult length 5-7 mm). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in

parentheses, and range.

segment length width ratio (L/W)

scape 103 (7.1) 30 (2.9) 3.67 (0.48)

91-109 27-34 3.33-4.01

(n=6) (n=6) (n=3)

pedicel 46 (2.4) 28 (2.3) 1.41 (0.18)

43-49 25-33 1.25-1.85

(n=10) (n=10) (n=9)

FL 21 (1.8) 15 (0.9) 1.48 (0.15)

18-23 14-17 1.15-1.70

(n=13) (n=12) (n=12)

Fl, 49 (7.4) 148 (1.2) 3.38 (0.47)

32-59 r1/ 2.26-3.94

(n=14) (n=14) (n=13)

Fl, 53 (7.8) 19 (2.4) 2.90 (0.36)

(n=14) 34-64 | tp 5.9 1.96-3.49

Fl, 50 (5.6) 19 (2.1) 2.63 (0.26)

(n=15) 37-59 15-23 2.10-3.04

FI, 50 (5.3) 20 (2.8) 2.49 (0.26)

(n=15) 37-56 15-25 2.04-2.83

Fl. 47 (4.3) 21 (2:3) 2.32 (0.20)

(n=15) 37-53 16-24 1.97-2.66

clava 103 (8.2) 35 G9) 2.96 (0.25)

(n=15) 84-112 31-38 2.51-3.38

Table VII. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus

parvulus (adult length 6-8 mm). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in

parentheses, and range.

segment length width ratio (L/W)

ene 103 (9.6) 29 (3.8) 3.36 (0.23)

921-21 20-33 3.41-3.97

(n=7) (n=9) (n=5)

pedicel 45 (3.5) 27 (1.4) 1.65 (0.10)

38-52 26-29 1.51-1.84

(n=12) (n=9) (n=9)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table VII. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

Fl, 22 (4.0) 15 (1.4) 1.49 (0.25)

16-29 13-17 1.18-2.09

(n=13) (n=14) (n=13)

Fl, 52 (9.1) 16 (2.0) 3.37 (0.67)

39-74 13-22 2.36-4.75

(n=16) (n=16) (n=15)

Fl, 56 (5.6) 19 (1.9) 3.00 (0.27)

45-70 15-22 2.60-3.58

(n=17) (n=16) (n=16)

Fl, 52 (5.6) 20 (2.1) 2.62 (0.20)

(n=17) 44-65 16-24 2.31-3.21

Fl. 51 (5.9) 21 (1.9) 2.44 (0.22)

41-64 18-25 2.13-3.07

(n=17) (n=15) (n=15)

Fl 48 (5.3) 21 (2.5) 2.30 (0.25)

(n=17) 38-60 17-26 1.94-2.78

clava 105 (7.1) 35 (3.0)30-40 3.06 (0.25)

92-116 30-40 2.68-3.57

(n=17) (n=15) (n=15)

Table VIII. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus

pertinax (adult length 10.5-17 mm). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation

in parentheses, and range.

segment length width ratio (L/W)

scape 130 (9.6) 33 (3.5) 3.91 (0.16)

113-134 28-37 3.8-4.02

(n=5) (n=5) (n=2)

pedicel 53 (3.7) 28 (2.6) 1.87 (0.15)

(n=9) 48-60 22-31 1,72-2.19

(n=9) (n=9) (n=9)

Fl, 26 (1.8) 16 (1.3) 1.62 (0.16)

(n=11) 22-28 14-18 1.34-1.92

Fl, 70 (9.8) 16 (1.1) 4.26 (0.45)

57-86 15-18 3.79-4.94

(n=12) (n=12) (n=11)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table VIII. — continued

"segment § length(L) width(W) ~—__ ratio (L/W) _

FL, 73 (1.0) 20 (2.3) 3.65 (0.68)

57-85 17-23 2.75-4.95

(n=12) (n=12) (n=11)

Fl, 65 (8.3) 22 (2.3) 3.04 (0.44)

(n=14) 51-77 18-24 2.23-4.05

Fl, 63 (7.2) 23 (2.2) 2.81 (0.22)

(n=15) 50-73 19-26 222-352

Fl, 60 (6.9) 23 (2.1) 2.55 (0.17)

(n=15) 47-67 21-2% 2.21-2.84

clava 114 (7.7) ao12)2 2.98 (0.17)

(n=12) 101-124). 35-43 2.74-3.24

Table IX. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes calendrae females ex. Sphenophorus venatus

vestitum (adult length 8-11 mm). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation

in parentheses, and range.

segment length width ratio (L/W)

scape 114 (9.1) 30 (2.3) 3.87 (0.17)

(n=11) 98-123 25-34 3.60-4.11

pedicel 50 (2.1) 28 (1.4) 1.84 (0.06)

(n=11) 47-53 26-30 LIZA

FI, 24 (2.7) 15 (0.9) 1.57 (0.15)

(n=11) 20-28 14-17 1.34-1.78

FL, 56 (7.2) 15 (0.8) 3.81 (0.42)

(n=10) 47-68 14-16 3.25-4.36

Fl, 59 (5.4) 19 (1.6) 3.15 (0.23)

(n=10) 52-65 16-22 2.78-3.46

FI, 55 (4.8) 19 (1.3) 2.84 (0.14)

(n=10) 49-62 1734 2.60-3.0

Fl, 54 (4.9) 21 (1.3) 2.63 (0.20)

(n=10) 46-60 18-23 2.32-2.63

FI, 51 (4.1) 22 (PA) 2.36 (0.17)

(n=10) 45-56 20-23 2.11-2.6

clava 106 (5.1) 35 GA) 3.01 (0.15)

(n=10) 98-113 32-38 2.79-3.38

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table X. Statistics of forewing of Anaphes calendrae females ex. various Sphenophorus spp. Means

(in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

host length width ratio (L/W) LMC Bore

costipennis 717 (26.2) 98 (3.9) 7.28 (0.27) 131 (8.5) 123 (15.1)

671-761 89-106 6.79-7.81 118-143 101-154

(n=15) (n=17) (n=14) (n=18) (n=17)

destructor 703 (39.7) 99 (6.0) 7.11 (0.19) 133 (8.6) 112 (6.4)

619-738 89-109 6.80-7.26 121-143 100-119

(n=7) (n=7) (n=7) (n=7) (n=8)

maidis 861(19.1) 129 (10.3) 6.68 (0.37) 142 (7.3) 152 (14.9)

847-882 122-141 6.26-6.97 133-146 140-169

(n=3) (n=3) (n=3) (n=3) (n=3)

minimus 565 (56.8) 77 (0.78) 7.37 (0.27) 123 (10.7) 113 (13.7)

436-634 63-86 6.92-7.80 105-124 97-137

(n=14) (n=14) (n=14) (n=14) (n=14)

parvula 598 (50.4) 76 (9.5) 7.75 (0.51) 122 (9.1) 115 (16.0)

497-671 60-94 6.69-8.62 104-137 84-137

(n=13) (n=16) (n=13) (n=16) (n=16)

pertinax 698 (68.0) 98 (11.3) 7.17 (0.32) 126 (7.3) 122 (14.6)

600-794 74-117 6.58-7.66 115-134 102-149

(n=13) (n=13) (n=13) (n=13) (n=14)

venustus 598 (50.8) 80 (7.6) 7.54 (0.28) 123 (8.6) 107 (9.7)

vestitum 535-652 68-89 7.12-7.83 109-136 95-121

(n=9) (n=9) _(n=9) (n=9) (n=8)

Table XI. Statistics of hind wing of Anaphes calendrae females ex. various Sphenophorus spp.

Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

host length width LMC

costipennis 706 (33) 29 (2.3) 118 (6.4)

655-750 24-32 109-136

(n=13) (n=18) (n=18)

destructor 685 (42) 29 (2.1) 115 (7.0)

598-720 26-33 105-125

(n=7) (n=8) (n=8)

maidis 843 (15.6) 37 5) 136 (2.2)

832-854 34-38 134-139

(n=2) (n=3) (n=3)

minimus 532 (39.4) 24 (2.8) 104 (9.4)

480-590 19-27 80-117

(n=12) (n=15) (n=15)

parvula 588 (53.5) 25 (2.5) 102 (11.6)

503-654 19-29 71-121

(n=12) (n=17) (n=17)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XI. — continued

host

pertinax

venustus vestitum

length

686 (77.0)

5 9

(n=10)

580 (53.5)

512-648

(n=8)

width

28 (2.2)

24 (1.8)

21-26

(n=9)

LMC

114 (7.6)

104-128

(n=15)

104 (7.4)

95-113

(n=9)

Table XII. Body statistics of Anaphes calendrae females ex. various Sphenophorus spp. Means (in

micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

host

costipennis

destructor

maidis

minimus

parvula

pertinax

venustus

vestitum

head width

238

(n=1)

260 (3.2)

257-263

(n=3)

301 (39.5)

273-329

(n=2)

2t5

(n=1)

199 (5.5)

195-203

(n=2)

255 (16.0)

236-263

(n=5)

248 (22.1)

229-280

(n=4)

ovipositor

len

‘605 (16.7)

57 1-632

(n=17)

587 (43.1)

512-631

(n=7)

748 (10.9)

736-751

(n=3)

461 (45.0)

356-516

(n=13)

493 (55.6)

400-571

(n=19)

587 (60.7)

503-693

(n=14)

508 (37.4)

458-557

(n=11)

hind tibial

length

277 (8.3)

268-290

(n=17)

268 (22.6)

247-292

(n=6)

347 (8.9)

337-353

(n=3)

203 (20.3)

188-236

(n=13)

216 (25.8)

174-240

(n=13)

265 (29.8)

209-304

(n=15)

229 (18.4)

205-252

(n=11)

ratio

(ovipositor L/

hind tibial L)

2.19 (0.05)

2.12-2:30

(n=17)

2.14 (0.04)

2.10-2.20

(n=5)

2.15 (0.02)

2.14-2.18

(n=3)

2.25 (0.06)

2.18-2.37

(n=10)

2.27 (0.14)

2.09-2.64

(n=12)

2.24 (0.06)

2.17-2.41

(n=14)

2.22 (0.07)

245297

(n=11)

Table XIII. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes confertus. Means (in micrometers) on

top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, number of measurements and range.

S ent

scape

(n=3)

pedicel

(n=3)

length (L) width (W)

110 (5.2) 36 (4.8)

107-116 33-41

50 (6.3) 27 (1.3)

45-57 25-28

21 {15) 18 (1.9)

20-22 17-21

(n=2) (n=4)

ratio (L/W)

2.83 (0.61)

2.38-3.52

1.89 (0.32)

1.73-2.26

1.2 (0.03)

1.18-1.22

(n=2)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Table XIII. — continued

segment

FI,

(n=4)

length (L)

25 (4.4)

20-30

34 (3.6):

30-39

2IAZ9)

21-28

33 (3.0)

29-36

33 (2.6)

30-35

115 (12.0)

103-127

(n=3)

width (W)

20 (1.7)

19-23

23 (2.3)

22-26

21 (1.1)

21-23

24 (2.0)

21-26

26 (3.6)

23-30

41 (2.4)

40-44

(n=4)

Volume 135, 2004

ratio (L/W)

1.26 (0.26)

1.04-1.41

1.50 (0.21)

1.27-1.74

1.14 (0.14)

1.0-1.33

1.35 (0.07)

1.28-1.43

1.31 (0.10)

1.17-1.32

2.82 (0.16)

2.63-2.88

(n=3)

Table XIV. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes conotracheli ex. Conotrachelus spp. Means

(in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 99 (4.5) 29 (1.2) 3.48 (0.19)

93-106 27-31 3.12-3.76

(n=11) (n=13) (n=9)

pedicel 48 (1.4) 31 (2.2) 1.49 (0.07)

45-50 26-34 1.39-1.61

(n=12) (n=14) (n=9)

Fl, 26 (1.7) 17 (0.8) 1.58 (0.10)

23-30 15-18 1.43-1.76

(n=14) (n=14) (n=13)

Fl, 49 (3.3) 16 (1.0) 3.00 (0.16)

41-53 16-18 2/2327

(n=14) (n=13) (n=13)

Fi, 62 (3.2) 22 (1.7) 2.87 (0.27)

54-67 20-26 2.23-3.38

(n=15) (n=14) (n=13)

ie 56 (3.3) 23 (1 2.46 (0.24)

50-60 21-25 2:14-2.91

(n=14) (n=13) (n=11)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XIV. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

FL. 60 (2.6) 25 (2.5) 2.35 (0.23)

53-65 23-28 1.82-2.63

(n=15) (n=15) (n=12)

Fl. 58 (2.4) 26 (2.3) 2.29 (0.22)

54-64 21-29 1.97-2.64

(n=15) (n=15) (n=12)

- clava i? (3.1) 36 (2.4) 3.12 (0.23)

(n=16) 106-120 33-41 2.67-3.41

(n=16) (n=13) (n=12)

Table XV. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes cotei females. Means (in micrometers) on

top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape re?) 30°CL-3) 4.44 (0.15)

(n=4 ) 130-136 28-31 4.23-4.58

Pedicel 55 (1.6) 30 (0.91) 1.84 (0.08)

(n=4) 54-58 29-31 1.76-1.95

Fl, 27 (1.3) 16 (0.4) 1.67 (0.10)

(n=4) 26-29 16-17 1.54-1.78

Fl, 82 (3.9) 16 (1.6) a Tr Ure)

(n=4) 78-87 15-18 4.86-5.32

Fl, 85 (2.4) 20 (0.8) 4.27 (0.23)

(n=4) 83-88 19-20 4.14-4.62

Fl, 79 (2.6) 20:32) 3.87 (0.35)

(n=4) 76-82 19-22 3.61-4.38

Fl. 75 (2.3) Zieh 3.56 (0.40)

(n=4) 72291 19-23 3.10-4.05

Fi. 71 (4.0) 23 (0.9) 3.13 (0.24)

(n=4) 62-77 22-24 2.82+3.36

Clava 126 (2.0) 40 (3.7) 3.21 (0.29)

(n=4) 123-128 35-43 2.94-3.60

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Table XVI. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes diana, Means (in micrometers) on top,

sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

width (W)

segment

scape

(n=8)

pedicel

(n=11)

El,

(n=11)

Fl,

(n=11)

Rl,

(n=11)

Fl.

(n=11)

Fi,

(n=10)

clava

(n=10)

length (L)

106 (3.2)

101-110

42 (2,3)

39-47

22 (1,8)

19-24

32 (2,2)

31-38

48 (3.6)

41-53

48 (4.1)

43-56

53 (2.2)

49-57

48 (2.5)

45-53

109 (5,3)

101-121

25 (2.0)

22-28

26 (1,3)

23-28

13 (0.5)

13-14

14 (0.8)

13-15

18 (1.9)

15-20

16 (1.9)

13-19

18 (1.8)

16-20

19 (2,5)

15-24

27 (1.2)

25-29

Volume 135, 2004

ratio (L/W)

4.35 (0.37)

3.66-4,.67

1.66 (0.11)

1.48-1,85

1.61 (0.16)

1.38-1.86

2.30 (0,20)

2.04-2.70

2.72 (0.27)

2.40-3.26

3.04 (0.24)

2.66-3,43

3.02 (0.32)

2.60-3.58

2.57 (0.32)

2.15-3.16

4,09 (0.17)

3.87-4.37

Table XVI. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes gerrisophaga. Means (in micrometers) on

top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 97 (16) 23 (5) 4.10 (0.41)

73-118 17-31 3.51-4.6

(n=13) (n=11) (n=10)

Pedicel 43 (7) 24 (3) 1.83 (0.17)

35-57 20-23 1.68-2.32

(n=13) (n=14) (n=12)

Fl, 21 (3) 12 (3) 1.68 (0.16)

(n=14) 17-27 10-15 1.45-2.03

Fl, 41 (12) 13 (2) 3.33 (0.58)

27-57 10-16 2.54-4.08

(n=15) (n=14) (n=14)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XVII. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

Fl, 54 (12) 18 (3) 2.97 (0.35)

(n=14) 37-69 14-22 2.31-3.48

Fl, 47 (13) 19 (8) 2.79 (0.30)

31-62 12-22 2.18-3.28

(n=14) (n=15) (n=14)

Fl, 52 (10) 20(3) 2.55 (0.22)

(n=14) 37-72 14-24 2.20-3.04

Fl. 50 (8) 20 (2) 2.47 (0.22)

37-60 17-24 2.23-3.03

(n=14) © (n=13) (n=13)

clava 100 (13) 34 (3) 2.96 (0.40)

80-116 31-41 2.35-3.64

(n=12) (n=14) (n=11)

Table XVIII. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes listronoti. Means (in micrometers) on

top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment

scape

pedicel

Fl,

(n=13)

length (L)

17 (04)

100-130

(n=10)

49 (3.1)

44-55

(n=13)

oF (2:9)

24-32

77 (10.4)

66-99

79 (8.0)

70-98

75 (7.6)

62-82

72 (6.8)

59-86

width (W)

32 (2.3)

27-34

(n=7)

2947)

27-33

(n=10)

16 (1.1)

14-18

17 (2.4)

15-22

19 (1.8)

16-22

19 (2.6)

16-23

19 (2.6)

16-24

ratio (L/W)

3.75 (0.24)

3.45-4.05

(n=5)

1.67 (0.08)

1.58-1.82

(n=10)

1.81 (0.16)

1.59-2.19

4.48 (0.51)

3.73-5.36

4.15 (0.48)

3.60-5.32

4.05 (0.59)

3.12-5.37

3.79 (0.50)

3.03-4.71

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XVIII. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

Fl, 68 (6.8) 20 (2.5) 3.48 (0.48)

(n=11) 55-80 16-25 2.68-4.17

clava 121 (80) 36 (3.0) 3.42 (0.16)

108-131 31-41 3.23-3.61

(n=11) (n=8) (n=8)

Table XIX. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes longiclava. Means (in micrometers) on

top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 83 25 Ms

(n=1)

pedicel 43 29 1.48

(n=1)

FI, 17 13 1.31

(n=1)

Fl, 38 14 24

(n=1)

Fl, 50 - at 25

(n=1)

Fl, 46 18 2.26

(n=1)

Fl. 47 20 2.35

(n=1)

Fl. 45 21 2.14

(n=1)

clava 101 29 3.48

(n=1)

Table XX. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes luna (from specimens introduced in 1911

to Salt Lake City). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses,

and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 86 (4.1) 25 (3.1) 3.59 (0.39)

(n=3) 83-93 21-29 3.24-4.01

pedicel 44 (3.3) 26 (1.9) 1.71 (0.09)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XX. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

40-47 24-29 1.65-1.81

(n=5) (n=5) (n=3)

Fl 20 (2.8) 13 (1.4) 1.58 (0.22)

18-25 114 1.28-1.95

(n=7) (n=7) (n=6)

FL 46 (9.1) 14 (3.2) 3.19 (0.67)

36-65 12-21 2.01-4.19

(n=9) (n=8) (n=8)

Fl, 53 (6.8) 18 (3.9) 3.07 (0.44)

46-68 14-24 2.49-3.63

(n=9) (n=7) (n=7)

FL, 49 (8.3) 16(3.6) 3.17 (0.44)

40-64 mo 2.23-3.63

(n=9) (n=8) (n=8)

FL, 54 (4.2) 19 (0.3) 2.86 (0.41)

49-63 15-24 2.42-3.50

(n=9) (n=8) (n=8)

Fl. 49 (5.4) 20 (3.0) 2.54 (0.49)

(n=8) 42-59 15-23 1.93-3.32

clava 99 (4.7) 35 (4.7) 2.88 (0.08)

92-113 32-42 2.79-2.98

(n=7) (n=7) (n=6)

Table XXI. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes luna (from specimens reared from

1958 on at various US localities). Means (in micrometers) and sample standard deviation in

parentheses on top, number of specimens measured (in parentheses) and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 105 (6.7) 26 (2.3) 4.02 (0.39)

92-116 21-30 3.63-4.94

(n=14) (n=14) (n=9)

pedicel 45 (2.6) 26 (3.5) 1.68 (0.11)

39-48 25-29 1.43-1.85

(n=15) (n=16) (n=14)

Fl 22 (1S} 14 (1.3) 1.54 (0.16)

Volume 135, 2004

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Table XXI. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

20-24 11-17 1.26-1.84

(n=19) (n=20) (n=19)

Fl, 58 (6.5) - 16 (2.7) 3.57 (0.53)

(n=20) 45-71 13-21 2.62-4.64

Fl, 64 (5.8) 2EtL) 3.10 (0.35)

(n=20) 57-73 18-24 2.38-4.0

Fi, 59 (7.0) 20 (2.8) 2.98 (0.18)

43-66 14-23 2.69-3.33

(n=19) (n=20) (n=19)

Fl. 60 (5.0) 22 (4.3) 2.75 (0.26)

53-65 19-24 2.31-3.19

(n=20) (n=19) (n=19)

Fl. 60 (9.3) 23 (1.6) 2.49 (0.21)

50-60 19-25 2.13-2.8

(n=19) (n=20) (n=19)

clava 111 (5.9) 33 (4.1) 3.51 (0.19)

94-119 30-33 5.07 =a

(n=19) (n=16) (n=15)

Table XXII. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes pallipes females ex. Cylindrocopturus

adspersus (ND, Cass Co.) and from TX, Austin, Zilker Park. Means (in micrometers) on top,

sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 76 (4) 23 (2) 3.49 (0.19)

(n=6) 70-78 20-24 3.17-3i72

pedicel 41(2) 26(3) 1.59 (0.21)

(n=9) 38-44 19-29 1.33-2.04

FE 20(2) 13(1) 1.54 (0.13)

(n=10) 17-23 12-15 1327-175

Fl, 33(3) 14(1) 2.45 (0.17)

(n=10) 30-38 12-15 2.00-2.60

Fl, 45(3) 17(2) 2.70 (0.23)

(n=10) 38-51 12-21 2.45-2.92

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XXII. — continued

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

Fl, 34(2) 15(1) 225 1OAT)

(n=10) 30-39 13-16 2.06-2.52

Fl, 48(3) 20(2) 2.41 (0.15)

(n=10) 43-53 17-23 2.14-2.71

Fl, 44(4) 20(2) 2.2 (0.13)

(n=10) 38-51 17-22 2.00-2.36

Clava 94(5) 29(2) 5. 22-10:21)

(n=7) 88-97 26-31 2.92-3.48

Table XXIII. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes pullicrurus females. Means (in

micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 120.(5,5) 27 (9) 4.44 (0.19)

Li7-14 24-29 4.22-4.65

(n=4) (n=5) (n=4)

pedicel 45 (2.8) 26.011) 1.78 (0.08)

43-49 25-27 1.69-1.83

(n=4) (n=3) (n=3)

Fl, 21 (1.8) 13 (0.6) 1.55 (0.17)

19-235 13-14 1.34-1.74

(n=4) (n=5) (n=4)

BL 43 (1.3) 14 (1.3) 3.14 (0.31)

(n=5) 42-45 12-16 2.67-3.49

Fl, 56 (2.0) 214-40) 2.64 (0.18)

53-58 20-22 2.41-2.84

(n=5) (n=4) (n=4)

Fl, 53 (2.0) 22 (1.5) 2.41 (0.17)

(n=5) 51-56 21225 2.17-2.61

FI, 53 (0.9) ITT 2.58 (0.22

(n=5) 52-54 20-24 2.20-2.74

FI, 51 (1.6) 22 (1.4) 2.32 (0.15)

(n=5) 49-53 20-24 2.11-2.44

Clava 108 (2.1) 38 (5.1) 2.84 (0.35)

Table XXIII. — continued

segment

scape

pedicel

(n=7)

Fl,

(n=7)

length (L)

106-110

(n=4)

length (L)

130 (9.5)

117-142

(n= 5)

54 (3.2)

49-57

29 (2.6)

26-32

81 (7.9)

71-93

76 (5)

67-81

(n=7)

74 (5.8)

66-82

(n=7)

72 (5.6)

66-80

(n=7)

68 (5.8)

61-75

(n=7)

119'¢74)

109-129

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

width (W)

33-46

(n=5)

34 (2.1)

32-37

(n=6)

30 (2.1)

27-32

17 (0.9)

16-19

21 (2.2)

17-23

22 (2.0)

19-24

(n=6)

22 (2.0)

20-25

(n=6)

23 (2.7)

19-25

(n=6)

24 (2.6)

23-27

(n=6)

36 (1.4)

33-37

Volume 135, 2004

ratio (L/W)

2.40-3.23

(n=4)

Table XXIV. Statistics of antennal .segments of Anaphes sordidatus females. Means (in

micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

width (W) ratio (L/W)

3.80 (0.10)

3.69-3.90

(n=5)

1.77 (0.04)

1.70-1.80

1.72 (0.10)

1.57-1.84

3.97 (0.50)

3.42-4.83

3.50 (0.42)

3.05-4.17

(n=6)

3.31 (0.37)

2.98-4.0

(n=6)

3.09 (0.37)

2.64-3.72

(n=6)

2.77 (0.25)

2.47-3.19

(n=6)

3.32 (0.26)

2:95-3.73

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Table XXV. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes victus females (from Quebec +

Michigan specimens). Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in

parentheses, and range.

segment length (L) width (W) ratio (L/W)

scape 117 (8.2) 28 (2.2) 4.12 (0.39)

107-126 26-31 3.54-4.76

(n=6) (n=5) (n=5)

pedicel 53 Gel) 28 (1.6) 1.80 (0.09)

48-55 26-30 1.66-1.92

(n=8) (n=7) (n=6)

Fl, 28 (2.3) 17 (1.2) 1.64 (0.11)

25-30. 15-18 141-171

(n=8) (n=7) (n=7)

Fl, 71 (6) LZ7iGk:3) 3.94 (0.30)

64-83 17-19 3.59-4.31

(n=7) (n=8) (n=7)

Fl, 68 (4.2) 21.24) 65 (3.7)

(n=8) 60-75 17-24 61-70

Fl, 65.(427) 21.235) 3.06 (0.32)

(n=8) 61-70 18-24 2.67-3.64

Fl, 63 (3.8) 22 CS 2.85 (0.28)

(n=8) 57-67 19-25 2.63-3.41

Fl. 60 (3.3) 22 (3.4) 2.45 (0.24)

(n=8) 55-63 20-29 2142.75

Clava 109 (6.3) 38 (4.0) 2.89 (0.29)

99-116 34-42 2.66-3.38

(n=8) (n=5) (n=5)

nnn LEE EEE

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Volume 135, 2004

Table XXVI. Statistics of antennal segments of Anaphes victus females (from Texas specimens).

Means (in micrometers) on top, sample standard deviation in parentheses, and range.

segment length (L)

scape 103 (5.4)

96-112 -

(n=6)

pedicel 46 (1.5)

(n=7) 43-48

Fl, 22 (2.7)

(n=7) 19-28

Fl, 51 (5.1)

(n=7) 44-57

Fl, 58 (2.5)

(n=7) 54-62

i B 55 (3.7)

(n=7) 49-61

Hi, 54 (3.2)

(n=7) 50-60

Fl. 51 (2.3)

(n=7) 48-56

Clava 103 (3.5)

98-109

(n=7)

width (W)

ye ey

22-28

(n=6)

ZOX1. 3}

24-27

14 (1.0)

13-16

15 (0.9)

14-16

19 (1.4)

17-21

20 (1.4)

18-22

20 (1.7)

17-22

21 (1.3)

19-23

31 (1.0)

30-33

(n=6)

ratio (L/W)

4.10 (0.24)

3.76-4.36

(n=5)

1.78 (0.08)

1.73-1.94

1.55 (0.21)

1.27-1.85

3.5 (0.39)

3.03-4.03

3.09 (0.20)

2.91-3.16

2.74 (0.23)

2.50-3.21

2.71 (0.16)

2.47-2.89

2.46 (0.08)

2.33-2.57

3.20 (0.13)

2.51-3.36

(n=6)

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Acknowledgements

I thank K. Bolte for preparing the digital images and compiling the plates. M. Schauff and

M. Gates (USNM), R. Zuparko (EMEC), and K. McGiffin (INHS) kindly loaned me type

specimens. S. Triapitsyn (UCRC), as usual, was very helpful in sending me material for study.

J. Read (CNCI) is thanked for helping to format the Tables. Three anonymous reviewers

carefully read the ms and made useful suggestions and corrections for its improvement.

References

[Those in brackets were not seen]

Aeschlimann, J.-P. 1975. A method for extraction of Sitona (Col.: Curculionidae) eggs from

soil and occurrence of a mymarid (Hym: Chalcidoidea) in the Mediterranean region.

Entomophaga 20: 403-408.

Aeschlimann, J.-P. 1977. Notes on Patasson lameerei [Hym.: Mymaridae], an egg parasitoid of

Sitona spp. [Col.: Curculionidae] in the Mediterranean region. Entomophaga 22: 111-114.

Aeschlimann, J.-P. 1980. The Sitona [Col.: Curculionidae] species occuring on Medicago and

their natural enemies in the Mediterranean region. Entomophaga 25: 139-153

Aeschlimann, J.-P. 1986. Distribution and effectiveness of Anaphes diana [=Patasson

lameerei|(Hym.: Mymaridae], a parasitoid of Sitona spp. eggs [Col.: Curculionidae] in the

Mediterranean region. Entomophaga 31:163-172.

Aeschlimann, J.-P. 1990. Simultaneous occurrence of thelytoky and bisexuality in hymenopteran

species, and its implications for the biological control of pests. Entomophaga 35: 3-5.

Aeschlimann, J.-P., D.C. Hopkins, J.M. Cullen, and J.A. Cavanaugh. 1989. Importation and release

of Anaphes diana Girault (Hym., Mymaridae), a parasitoid of Sitona discoideus Gyllenhal

(Col., Curculionidae) eggs in Australia. Journal of Applied Entomology 107: 418-423.

Alden, C.H. 1930. Peach insects and diseases and how to control them. Georgia State Board of

Entomology, Bulletin 71: 3-31.

Annecke, D.P. and R.L. Doutt. 1961. The genera of the Mymaridae. Hymenoptera:

Chalcidoidea. Entomology Memoirs. Department of Agricultural Technical Services,

Republic of South Africa 5: 1-71.

Anonymous. [1970]. Annual Report. Fiscal Year 1968-1969 of the Division of Plant Industry.

Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 43 pp.

Arnett, R.H. 1985. American insects. A handbook of the insects of America North of Mexico.

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY. 850 pp.

Ashmead, W.H. 1887. Studies of the North American Proctotrupidae, with descriptions of new

species from Florida. The Canadian Entomologist 19: 192-198.

Baaren, van J.andG. Boivin. 1998a. Genotypic and kin discrimination ina solitary hymenopterous

parasitoid: implications for speciation. Evolutionary Ecology 12: 523-534.

Baaren, van J. and G. Boivin. 1998b. Learning affects host discrimmination behavior in a

parasitoid wasp. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 42: 9-16.

Baaren, van J., G. Boivin, J. Le Lannic, and J.-P. Nénon. 1997. The male and female first instar

larvae of Anaphes victus and A. listronoti (Hymenoptera, Mymaridae). Zoomorphology

117: 189-197.

Baaren, van J., G. Boivin, J. Le Lannic, and J.-P Nénon. 1999. Comparison of antennal sensilla of

Anaphes victus and A. listronoti (Hymenoptera, Mymaridae). Zoomorphology 119: 1-8.

Baaren, van J., G. Boivin, and J.-P. Nénon. 1995. Intraspecific hyperparasitism in a primary

hymenopteran parasitoid. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36: 237-242.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario ; Volume 135, 2004

Baaren, van J., B.L. Landry, and G. Boivin. 1999. Sex allocation and larval competition in a

superparasitizing solitary egg parasitoid: competing strategies for an optimal sex ratio.

Functional Ecology 13: 66-71.

Baaren, van J., J.-P. Nénon, and G. Boivin. 1995. Comparison of oviposition behavior of a

solitary and a gregarious parasitoid (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Journal of Insect Behavior

8: 671-686.

Baccetti, B. 1957. Studi sui Curculionidi italiani. I. Ricerche morphologiche, etologiche ed

istologiche su Hypera trilineata Marsham. Redia 42 (series 2): 62-121 + 2 pls.

Baccetti, B. 1958. Studi sui Curculionidi italiani. I]. Donus crinitus Boheman. Redia 43 (series

2): 145-205.

Bakkendorf, O. 1934. Biological investigations on some Danish hymenopterous egg-parasites,

especially in homopterous and heteropterous eggs, with taxonomic remarks and

descriptions of new species. Entomologiske Meddelelser 19: 1-134.

Baquero, E. and R. Jordana. 2002. Contribution to the knowledge of the family Mymaridae

Haliday (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) in Navarra, North of Iberian Peninsula. Boletin de

la Asociacién Espafiola de Entomologia 26 (3-4): 75-91.

Beardsley, J.W. 1964. Note on Patasson calendrae (Gahan). Proceedings of the Hawaiian

Entomological Society 18: 340.

Beardsley, J.W. 2000. The introduction and beaateitiseny of Anaphes (Patasson) calendrae

(Gahan) in Hawaii (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian

Entomological Society 34: 209-211.

Beardsley, J.W. and J.T. Huber. 2000. Key to genera of Mymaridae in the Hawaiian Islands,

with notes on some of the species (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Proceedings of the

Hawaiian Entomological Society 34: 1-22.

Bianchi, EA. 1964. Patasson calendrae (Gahan). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological

Society 18: 346.

[Bloem, K.A.] 1980. Biology of Patasson lameerei Debauche (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) : adult

morphology, effects of extreme temperatures, and host-finding behavior. M.Sc. thesis,

University of Kentucky, Lexington. 60 pp.

Bloem, K.A. and K.V. Yeargan, 1982a. Effect of extreme temperatures on Patasson lameerei

survival and oviposition. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 55: 37-45.

Bloem, K.A. and K.V. Yeargan, 1982b. Host finding behavior of Patasson lameerei |Hym..:

Chalcidoidea], a parasitoid of Sitona eggs [Col.: Curculionidae]. Entomophaga 27: 93-97.

Boivin, G. 1994. Overwintering strategies of egg parasitoids. Pp. 219-244, im: Wajnberg,

E. and S.A. Hassan (eds.), Biological control with egg parasitoids. CAB International, .

Wallingford, UK. 286 pp.

Boivin, G. and J. van Baaren. 2000. The role of larval aggression and mobility in the transition

between solitary and gregarious development in parasitoid wasps. Ecological Letters 3:

469-474.

Boivin, G., X. Fauvergue and E. Wajnberg. 2004. Optimal patch residence time in egg

parasitoids: innate versus learned estimate of patch quality. Oecologia 138: 640-647.

Boivin, G. and J.-P. Nénon. 2003. Variability and inheritance of the chorionic tubercules on

eggs of Listronotus oregonensis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). The Canadian Entomologist

135: 765-774. .

Britton, W.E. 1920. Check-list of the insects of Connecticut. Bulletin of the Connecticut State

Geological and Natural History Survey 31. 397 pp.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Brodeur, J. and G. Boivin. 2004. Functional ecology of immature parasitoids. Annual Review

of Entomology 49: 33-49.

Brooks, EE. 1910. Three snout beetles that attack apples. Plum curculio, apple curculio, apple

weevil. Bulletin, West Virginia University Agricultural Experiment Station 126: 103-124.

Brooks, EE. 1911. Report of the work of the Experiment Station for the years 1909 and 1910.

Biennial Report, West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station (1909-1910): 133-147.

[Same paper as Brooks, 1910, but under different title].

Brooks, KE. 1918. The grape curculio. Entomology Bulletin, United States Department of

Agriculture 730: 1-19.

Brunson, M.H. and L.W. Coles. 1968. The introduction, release, and recovery of parasites of

the alfalfa weevil in the eastern United States. United States Department of Agriculture,

Agriculture Research Service, Production Research Report 101. 12 pp.

Bryan, M.D., R.J. Dysart, and T.L. Burger. 1993. Releases of introduced parasites of the alfalfa

weevil in the United States, 1957-88. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1504. 203 pp.

Burks, B.D. 1958. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico. Synoptic catalog. First supplement.

United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Monograph No. 2. 305 pp.

Burks, B.D. 1967. Chalcidoidea. pp. 213-282, im: Krombein, K.V. and B.D. Burks (eds.)

Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico - Synoptic Catalog. Agriculture Monograph

No. 2, United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 584 pp.

Burks, B.D. 1979. Family Mymaridae. pp. 1022-1033, im: Krombein, K.V., P.D. Hurd Jr.,

D.R. Smith and B.D. Burks (eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico.

1: 1-1198. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Chamberlin, T.R. 1924a. Introduction of parasites of the alfalfa weevil into the United States.

Departmental Circular, United States Department of Agriculture No. 301. 9 pp.

Chamberlin, T.R. 1924b. Studies of the parasites of the alfalfa weevil in Europe. Journal of

Economic Entomology 17: 623-632.

Charlet, L.D. and E.U. Balsbaugh. 1984. Anaphes conotracheli (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), an

egg parasitoid of Cylindrocopturus adspersus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of the

Kansas Entomological Society 57: 526-528.

Chiappini, E., S.V. Triapistyn, and A. Donev. 1996. Key to the species of Anagrus Haliday

' (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) with a review of the Nearctic and Palaearctic (other than

European) species and descriptions of new taxa. Journal of Natural History 30: 551-595.

Chiriac, I. and A. Poiras. 1995. Notes on parasites of Sitona weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae)

in the Republic of Moldova. Buletinul Academiei de Stiinte a Republicii Moldova, Stiinte

Biologice si Chimice 2: 38-45.

Clancy, D.W. (1969). Biological control of the Egyptian alfalfa weevil in California and Arizona.

Journal of Economic Entomology 62: 209-214.

Clausen, C.P. 1940. Entomophagous Insects. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, NY. 688 pp.

Clausen, C.P. 1956. Biological control of insect pests in the continental United States. United

States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1139. 151 pp.

Clausen, C.P. 1978. Curculionidae. pp. 259-276, in: Clausen, C.P. (ed.), Introduced parasites

and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. Agricultural Research Service,

United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 545 pp.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario — Volume 135, 2004

Collins, R.D. and E.J. Grafius. 1983. A literature review of the egg parasitoid genus Patasson

with references to the related genus Anaphes. Department of Entomology Report 12.

Michigan State University, East Lansing. 22 pp.

Cormier, D., L. Royer, C. Vigneault, B. Panneton, and G. Boivin. 1998. Effect of females

age on daily cycle of sexual pheromone emission in gregarious egg parasitoid Anaphes

listronott. Journal of Chemical Ecology 24: 1595-1610.

Cormier, D., A.B. Stevenson, and G. Boivin. 1996. Seasonal ecology and geographical

distribution of Anaphes listronoti and A. victus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), egg parasitoids

of the carrot weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in central Ontario. Environmental

Entomology 25(6): 1376-1382.

Davidson, R.H. and W.E. Lyon. 1987. Insect Pests of Farm, Garden, and Orchard. 8th edition.

John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 640 pp.

Davis, C.J. 1968. Note on billbug egg parasite. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological

Society 20: 16-17.

Davis, C.J. and M. Chong. 1969. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii XIV.

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 20: 317-322.

Davis, C.J. and N.L.H. Krauss. 1964. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii IX.

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 18: 391-397.

Day, W.H. 1981. Biological control of the alfalfa weevil in the northeastern United States.

pp. 361-374, in: Papavizas G.C. (ed.) Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research, [5]

Biological control in crop production. Allanheld, Osmun & Co. Totowa, N.J. 461 pp.

Day, W.H. 1983 (1982). Parasites of the alfalfa weevil: Biological characteristics important to

control programs. P. 41, im: Flessel, J.K. & R.E. Treece (compilers), Proceedings of the 19th

northeastern alfalfa insects conference. The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH. 62 pp.

Debauche, H.R. 1948. Etude sur les Mymarommidae et les Mymaridae de la Belgique

(Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea). Mémoires du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique

108: 1-248 + 24 plates.

Doutt, R.L. 1949. A synopsis of North American Anaphoidea (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae).

Pan-Pacific Entomologist 25: 155-160.

Dozier, H.L. and L.L. Williams. 1929. Bionomics and control of the plum ducealic Bulletin of

the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station 162: 34-37.

Dozier, H.L., L.L. Williams, and H.G. Butler. 1932. Life history and habits of the plum curculio

in Delaware. Bulletin of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station 175: 5-43.

Dysart, R.J. 1990. The introduction and recovery in the United States of Anaphes diana

[Hymenoptera.: Mymaridae], an egg parasite of Sitona weevils [Col.: Curculionidae].

Entomophaga 35: 307-313.

Dysart, R.J. and R.G. Bingham. 1976. An introduced egg parasite of Sitona spp. 18th Forage

Insect Research Conference, Ithaca, New York, 1.

Dysart, R.J. and W.H. Day. 1976. Release and recovery of introduced parasites of the alfalfa

weevil in eastern North America. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Research Service, Production Research Report 167. 61 pp.

Ellis, C.R. 1973. Parasitism of Hypera postica at Guelph, Ontario, by Patasson luna and Fidiobia

rugosifrons. Journal of Economic Entomology 66: 1059-1061.

El M’Sadda, K. 1967. Le phytonome de la luzerne “Hypera variabilis” Herbst. (Coléoptere,

Curculionidae) dans le sud-ouest de la France. Revue de Zoologie Agricole et Appliquée

66(1-3): 1-15.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Essig, E.O. and A.E. Michelbacher, 1933. The alfalfa weevil. California Agriculture Experiment

Station Bulletin 567. 99 pp.

Fischer, T.W., E.I. Schlinger, and R. van den Bosch. 1961. Biological notes on five recently

imported parasites of the Egyptian alfalfa weevil, Hypera brunneipennis. Journal of

Economic Entomology 54: 196-197.

Fitton, M..G., M.W.R. de V. Graham, Z.R.J. Bou&éek, N.D.M. Fergusson, T. Huddleston,

J. Quinlan and O.W. Richards. 1978. A checklist of British Insects. Second edition

(completely revised). Vol. XI, Part. 4. Hymenoptera. Handbooks for the identification of

British Insects. Royal Entomological Society of London, London. 159 pp.

Frison, T.-H. 1927. A list of the insect types in the collection of the Illinois State Natural History

Survey and the University of Illinois. Illinois State Natural History Survey Bulletin 16:

137-309.

[Funasaki, G.] 1969. Note on Patasson calendrae (Gahan). Proceedings of the Hawaiian

Entomological Society 20: 285.

Gahan, A.B. 1927. Miscellaneous descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera with some

synonymical notes. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 71: 1-39.

Garman, P. and J.F. Townsend. 1952. Control of apple insects. Bulletin of the Connecticut

Agricultural Experiment Station 552. 84 pp.

Garman, P., W.T. Brigham, and A. De Caprio. 1953. Control of peach insects. Bulletin of the

Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 575. 64 pp.

Gibson, G.A.P. 1997. Morphology and Terminology. pp. 16-44, im: Gibson, G.A.P., Huber,

J.T., and Woolley, J.B. (eds.). Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea

(Hymenoptera). NRC Research Press, Ottawa. 794 pp.

Girault, A.A. 1905[13]. Anaphes conotracheli species novem. An important egg-parasite.

Entomological News 16: 220.

Girault, A.A. 1907[27]. Hosts of insect egg-parasites in North and South America. Psyche,

Cambridge 14: 27-39.

Girault, A.A. 1908[51]. A monographic catalogue of the mymarid genus Alaptus Haliday, with

descriptions of three new North American forms and of Al/aptus iceryae Riley from type

material. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 1: 179-195.

Girault, A.A. 1909[61]. A new chalcidoid genus and species of the family Mymaridae from

Illinois, parasitic on the eggs of the weevil Tyloderma foveolatum (Say). Journal of the New

York Entomological Society 17: 167-171.

Girault, A.A. 1910[69]. Synonymic and descriptive notes on the chalcidoid family Mymaridae.

Journal of the New York Entomological Society 18: 233-259.

Girault, A.A. 1911a[76]. The occurrence of the mymarid genus Anaphoidea Girault in England

(Hymen.). Entomological News 22: 215-216.

Girault, A.A. 1911b[87]. Hosts of insect egg-parasites in North and South America. II. Psyche

18: 146-153.

Girault, A.A. 1911c[90]. A new mymarid genus and species from North America allied with

Anthemus Howard. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 13: 185-187.

Girault, A.A. 1911d[91]. Notes on the Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea, with descriptions of several

new genera and species. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 19: 175-189.

Girault, A.A. 1911e[96]. Descriptions of North American Mymaridae with synonymic and

other notes on described genera and species. Transactions of the American Entomological

Society 37: 253-324.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario _ Volume 135, 2004

Girault, A.A. 1912[120]. Australian Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea — II. The family Mymaridae

with description of new species. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 1: 117-175.

Girault, A.A. 1914a [187]. Hosts of insect eggparasites in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia,

with a supplementary American list. Zeitschrift ftir Wissenschaftliche Insektenbiologie

10: 87-91.

Girault, A.A. 1914b [219]. Descriptions of new chalcid-flies. Proceedings of the Entomological

Society of Washington 16: 109-119.

[Girault, A.A.] 1916. Liste neuerdings beschriebener oder gezogener Parasiten und ihrer Wirte.

Societas Entomologica 31: 39-40.

Girault, A.A. 1917[323]. New miscellaneous chalcid-flies from North America. Psyche 24: 91-99.

Girault, A.A. 1929[428]. North American Hymenoptera Mymaridae. pp.1-27. Addendum

New insects mostly Australian. pp. 28-29. Privately printed.

Gould, W.P. 1986. The biology and phenology of Anaphes luna and Anaphes fuscipennis, egg

parasites of Hypera spp., and the phenology of the alfalfa weevil in northern and southern

Wisconsin. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 118 pp.

Hamlin, J.C., EV. Lieberman, R.W. Bunn, W.C. McDuffie, R.C. Newton, and L.J. Jones.

1949. Field studies of the alfalfa weevil and its environment. United States Deptartment

of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 975. 84 pp.

Harcourt, D.G., J.C. Guppy, and M.R. Binns. 1977. The analysis of intergeneration

changes in eastern Ontario populations of the alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica (Coleoptera:

Curculionidae). The Canadian Entomologist 109: 1521-1534.

Hellén, W. 1974. Die Mymariden Finnlands (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Fauna Fennica

25: 1-31.

Hincks, W.D. 1960. Some additions to the British Mymaridae (Hym., Chalcidoidea).

Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 95: 210-216.

Hogg, D.B. and PC. Kingsley. 1983. Parasitization by Patasson luna (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae)

of alfalfa weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) eggs laid in green alfalfa stems and in litter.

Journal of Economic Entomology 76: 54-56.

Hopkins, D.C.1978a. Sitona egg wasp. Department of Agriculture & Fisheries, South Australia,

Technote 1: 1-2.

Hopkins, D.C. 1978b. Review of the literature on the genus Patasson (Hymenoptera

Mymaridae). Agronomy Branch Report (South Australia Department of Agriculture and

Fisheries) 103. 12 pp.

Howard, L.O. 1927. Alfalfa weevil. Report of the Entomologist, United States Department of

Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology 1-29.

Huber, J.T. 1986. Systematics, biology, and hosts of the Mymaridae and Mymarommatidae

(Insecta: Hymenoptera): 1758-1984. Entomography 4: 185-243.

Huber, J.T. 1992. The subgenera, species groups, and synonyms of Anaphes (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae) with a review of the described Nearctic species of the fuscipennis group

of Anaphes s.s. and the described species of Anaphes (Yungaburra). Proceedings of the

Entomological Society of Ontario 123: 23-110.

Huber, J.T. and S.V. Rajakulendran. 1988. Redescription of and host-induced morphological

variation in Anaphes iole Girault (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), an egg parasite of Miridae

(Hemiptera) in North America. The Canadian Entomologist 120: 893-901.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Huber, J.T., S. Coté, and G. Boivin. 1997. Description of three new Anaphes species

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), egg parasitoids of the carrot weevil, Listronotus oregonensis

(LeConte) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and redescription of Anaphes sordidatus Giraulkt.

The Canadian Entomologist 129: 959-977.

ICZN. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth edition. International Trust

for Zoological Nomenclature c/o The Natural history Museum, London, UK. 306 pp.

Jackson, D.J. 1956. Notes on hymenopterous parasitoids from eggs of Dytiscidae in Fife.

Journal of the Society for British Entomology 5: 144-149.

Johnson, F and A.A. Girault. 1906. The plum curculio (Conotrachelus nenuphar Herbst.). Bureau

of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture, Circular No. 73: 1-10.

Kaufmann, O. 1939. Der Luzerneblattnager (Phytonomus variabilis Hbst.). II. Teil. Zeitschrift

fiir angewandte Entomologie 26(3): 387-448.

Kaufmann, O. 1941a. Der Kleeblattkafer (Phytonomus punctatus F.) ein Schadling von Klee

und Luzerne. Zentblatt ftir Bakteriologie und ParasitKunde (II). 104: 87-117.

Kaufmann, O. 1941b. Untersuchungen iiber den Kleeblattkafer (Phytonomus punktatus

[sic]). Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Reichsanstalt fiir Land- und Forstwirtschaft,

Berlin 63: 83. |

Kryger, J.P. 1950. The European Mymaridae comprising the genera known up to c. 1930.

Entomologiske Meddelelser 26: 1-97.

Leibee, G.L., B.C. Pass and K.V. Yeargan. 1979. Developmental rates of Patasson lameerei [Hym.:

Mymaridae] and the effect of host egg age on parasitism. Entomophaga 24: 345-348.

Mailloux, G. and J.-G. Pillon. 1970. Patasson luna (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) and

Bathyplectes curculionis (Thompson) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), two parasites of

Hypera postica (Gyllenhal) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Quebec. Canadian Journal of

Zoology 48: 607-608.

Marcovitch, S. 1916. Insects attacking weeds in Minnesota. Annual Report of the State

Entomologist of Minnesota 17: 135-151.

Marlatt, C.L. 1929. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Entomology. Annual Report of the

United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology (1929): 1-39.

Miller, C.D.F. and J.C. Guppy. 1972 [1971]. Notes on the biology of the alfalfa weevil, Hypera

postica (Gyllenhal) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in southern Ontario. Proceedings of the

Entomological Society of Ontario 102: 42-46.

Miller, M.C. 1970. Biological control of the alfalfa weevil in Massachusetts. Journal of Economic

Entomology 63: 440-443.

Moultrie, L.G. 1952. Peach insects and diseases. Georgia Department of Entomology, Bulletin

No. 97: 1-22 + 14 pls.

Nasr, EN. 1998. Anaphes luna (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) a new record in Egypt: as

an egg-parasitoid on the Egyptian alfalfa weevil, Hypera brunneipennis Boh. Egg Parasitoid

News 10: 17.

Niemczyk, H.D. and J.K. Flessel. 1970. Population dynamics of alfalfa weevil eggs in Ohio.

Journal of Economic Entomology 63: 242-247.

Ogloblin, A.A. 1939. Sobre la sinonimia del Mimarido pardsito del gorgojo de Eucalyptus

(Mymaridae, Hymenoptera). Memorias del Jardin Zoolégico, La Plata 9: 143-144.

Pagliano, G. and P. Navone.1995. 97. Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea, im: Minelli, A., S. Ruffo,

and S. La Posta (eds.), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 97. Calderini, Bologna.

40 pp.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Peck, O. 1951. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. Pp. 410-594, im: Muesebeck, C.F. W., K.V. Krombein,

and H.K. Townes, Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico, Synoptic Catalog. United

States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Monograph No. 2. Washington, D.C.

1420 pp.

Peck, O. 1963. A catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). The Canadian

Entomologist. Supplement 30. 1092 pp.

Petty, H.B., Jr. 1968. A mymarid egg parasite (Patasson luna). United States Department of

Agriculture, Cooperative Economic Insect Report 18(9): 129.

Pierce, W.D. 1908. Studies of parasites of the cotton boll weevil. Bulletin of the United States

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology 73: 1-63.

Pierce, D. 1910. On some phases of parasitism displayed by insect enemies of weevils. Journal

of Economic Entomology 3: 451-458.

Poinar, G.O., Jr. and G.G. Gyrisco. 1963. Hymenopterous parasites of the alfalfa weevil, Hypera

postica, in New York. Journal of Economic Entomology 56: 533-534.

Poos, FW. 1955. Studies of certain species of Chaetocnema. Journal of Economic Entomology

48: 555-563.

Porter, B.A. 1922. Recorded in minutes by R.A. Cushman. Journal of the Washington Academy

of Science 12: 165.

Porter, B.A. 1928. The apple maggot. Technical Bulletin, United States Department of

Agriculture 66: 1-48.

Porter, B.A. and C.H. Alden. 1921. Anaphoidea conotracheli Girault (Hym.) an egg parasite of the

apple maggot. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 23: 62-63.

Quaintance, A.L. 1906 (1905). The principal insect enemies of the peach. Yearbook of the

United States Department of Agriculture 325-348.

Quaintance, A.L. and E.L. Jenne. 1912. The plum curculio. Bulletin of the United States

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology 103: 1-250 + 20 pls.

Radcliffe, E.B. and K.L. Flanders. 1998. Biological control of alfalfa weevil in North America.

Integrated Pest Management Reviews 3: 225-242.

Richards, O.W. and N. Waloff. 1965. Some records of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea)

from Silwood Park, Berks. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 101: 202.

Richards, O.W. and R.G. Davies. 1977. Imms’ general textbook of entomology. Vol. 2.

Classification and Biology. Tenth Edition. Chapman & Hall, London. 1354 pp.

Satterthwait, A.E 1931. Anaphoidea calendrae Gahan, a mymarid parasite of eggs of weevils of

the genus Calendra. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 39: 171-190.

Schaber, B.D. 1981. Recovery of Patasson luna (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) a parasite of the

alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Alberta, Canada. Quaestiones

Entomologicae 17: 169-170.

Schauff, M.E. 1984a. The Holarctic genera of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).

Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington No. 12. 67 pp.

Schauff, M.E. 1984b. Taxonomic notes on Anaphes diana (Girault), an imported mymarid

(Hymenoptera: Mymamidae) egg parasite of Sitona weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 86: 214-216.

Scotland, M. 1939. The Lemna fly and some of its parasites. Annals of the Entomological

Society of America 32: 713-118.

Scotland, M. 1940. Review and summary of studies of insects associated with Lemna minor.

Journal of the New York Entomological Society 48: 322-326 + 4 pls.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Shaw, E.R. and M.C. Miller. 1965. Some observations on the biological control of the alfalfa

weevil in western Massachusetts. United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative

Economic Insect Report 15(39): 1131.

Shaw, ER. and W.H. Ziener. 1964. Survey of parasites of the alfalfa weevil in western

Massachusetts. United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Economic Insect

Report 14(9): 138.

Silvestri, F 1915. Struttura dell’ovo e prime fasi di sviluppo di alcuni imettori parassiti. Bollettino

del Laboratorio di Zoologia Generale e Agraria della R. Scuola Superiore d’Agricoltura in

Portici 10: 66-88 + 6 pls.

Snapp, O.I. 1930. Life history and habits of the plum curculio in the Georgia peach belt.

Technical Bulletin, United States Department of Agriculture 188: 1-90.

Solomon, B. 1985. Weevils cloud sunflower scene. Agricultural Research (USA) 33: 12-13.

Soyka, W. 1949. Monographie der Mymar-Gruppe mit den Gattungen Mymar Curtis,

Synanaphes Soyka, Ferrierella Soyka, Anaphoidea Girault, Hofenederia Soyka, Fulmekiella

Soyka, und Yungaburra Girault (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Mymaridae). Revista de

Entomologia, Rio de Janeiro 20: 301-422.

Streams, EA. and R.W. Fuester. 1966. Patasson luna in overwintering eggs of the alfalfa weevil.

Journal of Economic Entomology 59: 331-333.

Tedders, W.L. and J.A. Payne. 1986. Biology, life history, and control of Conotrachelus schoofi

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on pecan. Journal of Economic Entomology 79: 490-496.

Thompson, W.R. 1958. A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests Sect. 2, Host

parasite Catalogue, Part 5, Hosts of the Hymenoptera (Microgasteridae to Trigonalidae),

Lepidoptera and Strepsiptera. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa.

pp. 562-698.

Tooke, EG.C. 1955. The Eucalyptus snout-beetle, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. A study of its

ecology and contol by biological means. Entomology Memoirs. Department of Agriculture,

Union of South Africa 3: 1-282.

Underhill, G.W. 1926. Studies on the potato tuber moth during the winter of 1925-1926.

Bulletin of the Virginia Agricultural Experimental Station 251: 1-21.

Vaurie, P. 1951. Revision of the genus Calendra (formerly Sphenophorus) in the United States

and Mexico (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural

History 98(2): 29-186.

van den Bosch, R. 1964. Observations on Hypera brunneipennis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

and certain of its natural enemies in the Near East. Journal of Economic Entomology 57:

194-197.

Viereck, H.L. in Smith, J.B. 1910. Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum, including

a report of the insects of New Jersey. 888 pp.

Viereck, H.L. 1916. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part III. The Hymenoptera, or wasp-

like insects, of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Bulletin No.

22. 824 pp + 10 pls.

Viggiani, G. 1994 (1993). Larmatura genitale esterna maschile de alcune specie di Anaphes

Haliday. Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana 72: 469-483.

Vigneault, C., B. Panneton, D. Cormier and G. Boivin. 1997. Automated system to quantify

the behavior of small insects in a four-pointed star olfactometer. Applied Engineering in

Agriculture 13: 545-550.

Washburn, EL. 1919 (1918). The Hymenoptera of Minnesota. Annual Report of the State

Entomologist of Minnesota 17: 145-184.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Webb, D.W. 1980. Primary insect types in the Illinois Natural History Survey collection,

exclusive of the Collembola and Thysanoptera. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin

S25 55-190.

Williams, EX. 1929a. Note on Anaphoidea calendrae Gahan. Proceedings of the Hawaiian

Entomological Society 7: 227.

Williams, EX. 1929b. The introduction of Anaphoidea calendrae Gahan into Hawaii as a

possible egg parasite of our sugar cane beetle borer, Rhabdoscelus obscura (Boisd.). Hawaiian

Planters’ Record 33: 29-33.

Williams, EX. 1931. The insects and other invertebrates of Hawaiian sugar cane fields.

Experiment Station of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association, Honolulu. 400 pp.

Worner, S.P., S.L. Goldson, and E.R. Frampton. 1989. Comparative ecoclimatic assessments

of Anaphes diana (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) and its intended host, Sitona discoideus

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in New Zealand. Journal of Economic Entomology 82:

1085-1090.

Yeargan, K.V. 1985. Alfalfa: status and current limits to biological control in the eastern U.S.,

pp. 521-536, in: Hoy, M.A. and D.C. Herzog. 1985. Biological control in agricultural

IPM systems. Academic Press, Orlando. 589 pp.

Yeargan, K.V. and C.J. Shuck. 1981. Longevity and reproductive rate of Patasson lameerei

[Hym.: Mymaridae), a parasitoid of Sitona spp. (Col.: Curculionidae) eggs. Entomophaga

26: 119-124.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

2 calendrae

3 conferta

FIGURES 1-5. Anaphes spp., female antennae. 1, brunneus, holotype; 2, calendrae, holotype; 3,

confertus, holotype; 4, conotracheli, paratype; 5, cotei, holotype. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario } Volume 135, 2004

9 longiclava

FIGURES 6-10. Anaphes spp., female antennae. 6, diana, lectotype; 7, gerrisophaga, holotype;

8, listronoti, holotype; 9, longiclava, holotype; 10, luna, paralectotype. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

11 Anaphes sp.

13 pullicrura

FIGURES 11-15. Anaphes spp., female antennae. 11, A. sp., not /una, ex. lab. culture on

Hypera postica, W1, spring 1985, W. Gould; 12, pallipes, USA, TX, Travis Co., Austin, Zilker

Park, 8.X.1983, J.B. Woolley; 13, pullicrurus, holotype; 14, sordidatus, lectotype; 15, victus,

holotype. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

NS)

gS el

, — —

ge oe ee

FIGURES 16, 17. Anaphes spp., wings. 16, brunneus, holotype; 17, calendrae, holotype. Scale

bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

a GI eae = ee

GLE5 BILLS a <—— sg

Ae x i : yx Opal alg te “ LEP T. y, 7 / P eomeraes

es /

Yfy es ‘

44 / / Le

4 ¥. : ‘

—

aoe

—

4 ~~ +

; <a SN

/ %, . 2 a

bf eo ho FLOP OT

FIGURES 18, 19. Anaphes spp., wings. 18, confertus, holotype; 19, conotracheli, USA: MD,

Arundel, #262. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

—

~~ _

ia oe

- = — Ra

SSE _— . - - - ; ~ — = =~ \\ :

ees: = = <_< 4 ~~ = Poe

—— WR

“ ee =, \

Bees = z Sy

._™ +

ne ty ee

pie ae

7 > —

nye

- .- —

Ard

FIGURES 20-22. Anaphes spp., wings. 20, cotei, holotype; 21, diana, lectotype; 22, gerrisophagus,

holotype. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

23 listronoti

FIGURES 23, 24. Anaphes spp., wings. 23, listronoti, holotype; 24, longiclava, holotype. Scale

bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

% 22 a 7s: =

ee ee = —

4 , te ie

“2! EOF YF GE

YUM

;

YSIS s =

—~ = —

Ce eee Rated? - -

e “i ee

A Jf” Pg ee

LV JP ID

FIGURES 25, 26. Anaphes spp., wings. 25, luna, lectotype; 26, pallipes, USA, TX, Travis Co.,

Austin, Zilker Park, 8.x.1983, J.B. Woolley. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

27 pullicrura

~—

BS is

FIGURES 27, 28. Anaphes spp., wings. 27, pullicrurus, holotype; 28, sordidatus, lectotype.

Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

ae,

occipital suture

FIGURES 29, 30. Anaphes victus, holotype, wings; 30, A. sp. not /una, WI, Madison, spring,

1985, lab. culture ex. Hypera postica, W. Gould, Posterior of head. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

31 paillipes

32 conotracheli

occipital suture

FIGURES 31, 32. Anaphes pallipes, Posterior of head. 31, ex. Cylindrocopturus adspersus,

ND, Cass. Co.; 32, ex. lab. culture on Listronotus oregonensis but originally collected from

Conotrachelus geminatus. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

33 calendrae

pretarsus

arolium unguitractor

claw lateral view

hind tarsus

lateral view

orbicula

arolium Dal: :

FIGURES 33, 34. Anaphes, hind tarsi. 33, calendrae, paratype; 34, luna, holotype. Scale

bars = 0.1mm

dorsal view

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

35 brunnea

i Ny

Wiis i .

Uy Sel bis 2 iy ‘

Z o ible the "ls

FIGURES 35, 36. Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 35. brunneus, holotype; 36, calendrae,

ex. Sphenopterus venatus vestitum, USA: FL, Ft. Lauderdale, vii.1968, H. Nakao & R. Suyukawa.

Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

37 conferta

38 conotracheli

FIGURES 37, 38. Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 37, confertus, USA: AZ, 12 mi. N.

Sierra Vista, Ramsey Canyon. 10.vi.1987, B.V. Brown; 38, conotracheli, CANADA: QC, Ste.

Clotilde, 1-23.vii.1990, lab. reared ex. Listronotus oregonensis. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

FIGURES 39, 40. Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 39, cote, holotype; 40, diana,

bisexual form, FRANCE: Herault, St.-Gély-du-Fesc, iii.1984, J.P. Aeschlimann, ex Sitona sp.

Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

41 gerrisophaga

FIGURES 41, 42. Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 41, gerrisophagus, CANADA: ON,

Oxford Mills, 13-20.vii.1973, L. Masner; 42, /istronoti, holotype. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

43 longiclava

FIGURES 43, 44. Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 43, longiclava, holotype. 44, luna,

USA: UT, Salt Lake City, 12.vi.1911, T.H. Parks, ex. Hypera “reared through Utah eggs.’

Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

45 pallipes

FIGURES 45. Entire body (before remounting) of pallipes, holotype. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

46 pullicrura

FIGURES 46, 47. Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 46, pullicrurus, holotype; 47, sordidatus,

USA: IL, Marion Co., Centralia, emerg. 29.vi.1992, ex. Tyloderma foveolatum on Oenothera

biennis, S. Coté. Scale bars = 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

48 victus

FIGURES 48, 49, Mesosoma + metasoma, lateral view. 48, victus, holotype; Anaphes sp. not

luna, W1, Madison, spring, 1985, lab. culture ex. Hypera postica, W. Gould. Scale bars

= 0.1mm

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

ONTARIO BEES OF TRIBE EPEOLINI: EPEOLUS LATREILLE AND TRIEPEOLUS

ROBERTSON (HYMENOPTERA: APIDAE, NOMADINAE)

T. ROMANKOVA

Entomology, Department of Natural History,

Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6

E-mail: tatianar@rom.on.ca

Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 135: 87-99

Seventeen species of Epeolini (Nomadinae) are reported from Ontario, including

ten species of Epeolus Latreille and seven of Triepeolus Robertson. A key to the

species is presented, along with descriptions, notes about their phenology and

locality records. Species recorded from Ontario first time are **Epeolus autumnalis

Robertson, EF. bifasciatus Cresson, **E. ilicis Mitchell, E. interruptus Robertson,

**E. lanhami Mitchell, E. minimus (Robertson), Triepeolus cressonii (Robertson),

**T. junctus Mitchell, ** 7. lunatus (Say), ** T. michiganensis Mitchell, T. pectoralis

(Robertson), **7. remigatus (Fabricius) species marked with (**) are also first

recorded for Canada.

Introduction

Little is known about Epeolini in Ontario, and until now only five species belonging to this

tribe have been reported from the province, four of which are in the genus Epeo/us (MacKay and

Knerer 1979; Mitchell 1962). Examination by the author of bee specimens in several Ontario

insect collections showed that at least 17 species of Epeolini occur in Ontario, including seven

species of Triepeolus, and ten species of Epeolus. The earlier recorded presence of E. banksi

Cockerell, was not confirmed by our studies (MacKay and Knerer 1979). The purpose of this

report is to allow accurate recognition of the species of Epeolini in Ontario, and to update

information regarding their presence in the province.

Materials and methods

A total of 425 specimens of Epeolini were examined from the Entomology collections at

the Royal Ontario Museum (ROME), University of Guelph (DEBU), and Canadian National

Collection of Insects (CNCI) as well as types and comparative material from the California

Academy of Sciences (CASC), Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), and Academy of

Natural Science, Philadelphia (ANSP). Morphological characteristics, flight period, and species

distribution data for Ontario are based on specimens from these collections. Morphological

terms used in this paper are defined and illustrated in Michener (1944, 2000) and Rightmyer

(2004). Abbreviations used are as follows: F — flagellar segment, T — metasomal tergum, S

— metasomal sternum. Species new for Ontario are designated by an asterisk; those with two

asterisks are first recorded for Canada.

Species identification was done or confirmed using Mitchell (1962). Morphological

characteristics for the generic diagnosis follow Rightmyer (2004). Overall geographical

distributions of the species in North America are based on Hurd (1979) and Mitchell (1962).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

The distributional data are presented in the form of an annotated list and are illustrated

with maps. The locality records in the annotated lists are arranged from north to south according

to Ontario’s primary administrative divisions (the administrative categories, i.e., “county’,

“district”, etc, are omitted).

Tribe Epeolini

Ontario bees of the tribe Epeolini are distinguished from other bees of the provincial fauna

as follows: metasoma conical; all tagmata with white hair pattern; head, mesosoma, apex of

metasoma, and partly legs often orange; axillae produced posteriorly to a point or rounded;

marginal cell rounded apically and away from wing margin; female S6 retracted, emarginate

medially, and with posteriorly directed lateral processes. With respect to the two genera found in

Ontario, males and females of the same species have similar body hair patterns, microsculpture,

and pubescence; males tend to have denser pubescence on the face and mesepisternum. All of

the species are cleptoparasitic on other bees.

Genus Epeolus Latreille

Body length 6-10 mm. Maxillary palpus usually two-segmented, rarely three-segmented.

Mandibles may have a subapical tooth. Antennal pedicel of the male is usually mostly exposed.

S7 of the male usually lacking median emargination on distal margin, with lateral lobes above

interlobal area, and with apical setae mostly dorsal, on surface leading from lateral lobe. Base of

gonostylus with dorsal protuberance. T5 of the female with transverse, silvery pseudopygidial

area. S6 of the female with processes paddle-shaped, distal margin denticulate.

Parasites on Colletes bees (Colletidae).

Key to Epeolus species of Ontario

The species descriptions, following dash in couplets, involve only the most important

characteristics for the recognition of the species treated in Ontario.

1. Forewing with two submarginal cells. — Eye width 1.7 times genal area. Scutum with

antero-lateral patches of dense, white hairs. Mesepisternum with punctures deep, less

than pit diameter apart. Axillae reaching middle line of scutellum. Middle and hind

spurs dark. Tl and T2 with apical band widely interrupted. T3 and T4 with bands

narrowed or interrupted medially and on sides. ? T5 widely truncate, with thin, white

hair patches laterally; pseudopygidial area 4 times as wide as long. & pygidial plate

narrowly angulate apically. Body length 6-8 mm. ON: VI-VII. — ME, PA, ML...........

tin dense bapnsasre 2» hagaenor te b4e- shed dnahcalaeas cabo beyrepurmeaaresseaye ota Akash} qe E. lanhami Mitchell

: Forewing with: thice gubmanpinal COUg 6 crap -enehcoy phot copied) -proneer ter ee 2

a Metasoma with two hair bands. Scutum without antero-median, white hair stripes

or patch. — Eye 4 times as wide as genal area. Pronotum and tergal bands with

hairs dense, scaly. Mesepisternum shiny, bare, with punctures more than diameter

apart to confluent. Middle and hind spurs dark. ? T5 broadly truncate, with

pseudopygidial area 4-5 times as wide as long. & pygidial plate truncate. Body length

7-9 mm. ON: VI-VIITI. — New England states to MN, south to CO, NM, TX, FL......

wiesidanan gansta oshinincidaliveiivestedaiindnaetnmonns cata ee alee E. bifasciatus Cresson

- Metasoma with more than two bands. Scutum with antero-median, white hair stripes or

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

ny bis SBN Sl

Scutum with antero-median, horse-shoe shape white hair patch. — Eye 2 (@) or 2.5

(2) times as wide as genal area. Mesepisternum with lower part shiny, with a few flat

interspaces. Axillae not attaining posterior margin of scutellum. T1 with central dark

space subtriangular; T1 and T2 with hair bands interrupted medially, enlarged laterally.

T3-T5 with hair bands complete. Spurs orange. 2? pseudopygidial area 2.5 times as wide

as long. & pygidial plate widely rounded. Body length 6-8 mm. ON: VI-VIII. — QC, NS,

A I Oe bree KY) 8, aft cole ob ibetctac oe dads. 2 leks | db iter E. canadensis Mitchell

peneimavmeasmroranterior white hair lines. ...36-5...5.).2).-A/.d-ceaesposagyeadbordeanvs ooh ivdoennsnceeoees 4

Axillae usually with tips attaining posterior margin of scutellum. ............:.ccccseseeeeseeeees 5

Axillae shorter, not attaining posterior margin of scutellUM. .........cc:ccccesseseeseeeetesceseees 6

? pseudopygidial area 2.5-3 times as wide as long. & pygidial plate black or orange,

wide, slightly narrowed apically, with central emargination; mesepisternum partly

bare; sterna shiny. — Eye 2.5 (2) - 4 (&) times as wide as genal area. Axillae flat.

Mesepisternum on lower part with a few flat interspaces. T1 anteriorly with lateral,

white hair triangles; central, black space wide, white hairs sometimes reduced laterally,

basal and apical hair bands narrowed medially. T2-T5 with bands complete. Middle and

hind spurs dark. Body length 7-10 mm. ON: VII-IX. — NS to MN, south to TX, FL.

<5 ene NT lla? se.” RSE, Seer a SOROS OEE A Sn aE E. scutellaris Say

2 pseudopygidial area 1.5-2 times as wide as long. & pygidial plate orange, narrowly

acute apically; mesepisternum entirely with dense, white hairs; sterna with white

pile.-— Eye 3-3.5 times as wide as genal area. Axillae flat, with outer margin elevated.

Mesepisternum on lower part with interspaces between punctures flat. Tergal hair

bands complete. T1 anteriorly completely covered with dense, white pile. T1-T3 or T1

and T2 with hair bands narrowed medially, sometimes narrowly interrupted. Middle

and hind spurs dark. Body length 7-8 mm. ON: VIII-IX. — ME to CA, FL, TX.

(nn nak eta sleicacrper ett aie faereapey mba ppe is UNC. fae! “AM Seas Eee E. pusillus Cresson

T1 with median dark space rectangular, lateral white hair stripes wide. — Eye 2-2.5

times as wide as genal area. Mesepisternum on lower part with linear interspaces between

punctures. Scutum laterally with white pile. T1 anteriorly with white pile, apical hair

bands interrupted medially, enlarged laterally. Spurs orange. $2 centrally with thick

white pile. 2 pseudopygidial area 3 times as wide as long. & pygidial plate round apically,

orange. Body length 7-8 mm. ON: VII-VIII. — WI, MI, IL, to CA, CO. «0.0... eee

(EO ATE Bs) Ee A Pe = ee E. minimus (Robertson)

T 1 with median dark space stretched from side to side, lateral angles narrowly rounded

Mesepisternum on lower part with interspaces between punctures linear. — Eye twice

as wide as genal area. & clypeus bare, with median, longitudinal ridge. Scutum with

extended, erect, white hairs on dark surface. T1 with both hair bands interrupted. T2-

T6 with hair bands complete, sometimes, T2 and T3 with bands interrupted. T2 with

lateral, thin, white hair patches. Body length 7-8 mm. ON: VII. — MA, to TN, Ga.

Ne 2 shoes oi cusinhs deta Sdase nee 2 atdegunnn fe bate Aunt ores E. ilicis Mitchell

Mesepisternum on lower part with interspaces between punctures flat. ..........-+-+-0000 8

Scutum and scutellum shiny, with punctures more than diameter apart to confluent.

Mesepisternum shiny, with lower part punctures more than diameter apart. — Eye 3-3.5

times as wide as genal area. Pronotal lobes partly orange. Axillae with narrow apex turn-

ed inside. Middle and hind spurs dark. T1-T5 with hair bands interrupted. Terga and

sterna shiny. Sterna with dense, white, scaly hairs. ? pseudopygidial area as long as wide. &

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

pygidial plate round apically. Body length 7-10 mm. ON: VII-VIII. — New England

states; to TL, sourlscrGA. 2328 VeRO, MTA E. lectoides Robertson

- Scutum and scutellum shagreened, or with interspaces between punctures linear.

Mesepisternum on lower part with punctures diameter or less apart..........::.s:sssseeseeeees 9

9. | T1-T4 with white, hair bands interrupted, medially and laterally enlarged. — Eye 2(9)

-3 (#) times as wide as genal area. Axillae as long as wide basally. T2 with thin, gray hairs

laterally. 9 pseudopygidial area 5 times as wide as long. Body length 6.5-8 mm. ON: VII.

— NJ, to GA, west to GA; CO; TH a E. interruptus Robertson

- T1 with white hair band interrupted, T2 and T3 with bands narrowed medially, enlarged

laterally. — Eye 1.5 times as wide as genal area. Axillae flat, with outer margin elevated.

T1 anteriorly with white hair triangles. 9 pseudopygidial area twice as wide as long, T5

hair band interrupted. o* pygidial plate widely round apically. Body length 9-10 mm.

ON: IX. — ME, to MN, south to NC. ........cseescesseeeseeeeeeees E. autumnalis Robertson

Annotated list of Ontario Epeolus Latreille

The species are listed in alphabetical order.

The abbreviations of the names of the collectors are as follows: AR (W. Attwater), AT (C.

Atwood), BG (N. Bigelow), BK (M. Buck), BR (K. Barber), CL (S. Clark), ED (C. Edwards),

KL (L. Kelton), KN (G. Knerer), LM (R. Lambert), MF (R. MacFarlane), MK (P. MacKay),

MN (J. Martin), PA (S. Paiero), PG (D. Pengelly), SL (F. Sladen).

1. **E. autumnalis Robertson

Frontenac: Kingston, 5.[X.1987, 29, C. Shilton (DEBU). Northumberland: Alderville,

First Nations, 1.[X.2001, 20, PA (DEBU); Murray Hills, 1.[X.2002, 40°, PA (DEBU).

Dufferin: Mono Cliffs P.P., 31. VIII.2002, 2°, BK (DEBU). Essex: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie,

22.1X.2001, 9, S. Marshall; 12-13.[X.2002, 79, 80°, BK; PA (DEBU).

Reviewed materials from other regions. Lectotype, ?, Charles Robertson Collection, W.E.

LaBerge det. 1979 (INHS). Lectoallotype, 0, Charles Robertson Collection,-‘W.E. LaBerge det.

1979 (INHS). Figure 1.

2. *E. bifasciatus Cresson

Lanark: Lanark, 1.VIII.1976, @, S. Marshall (DEBU). Carleton: Ottawa, 5.VIII.1955,

o, P. Taschereau; 29.VII.1947, 9, W. Mason (CNCI); 22.V1.1977, 9, Roughley (DEBU).

Simcoe: Midland, 10.VIII.1974, 9, J. Huber (DEBU). Bruce: Hepworth, 26.VII.1997, ¢,

S. Marshall (DEBU). York: Toronto, 4.VIII.1905, &*, Cosens Coll. (ROME). Wentworth:

Freelton, 15.VII.1972, 2, B. Beam (DEBU). Lincoln: Grimsby, 29.VII.1894, 2 (CNCI). Lambton:

Walpole Isl., 11.VII.1977, &, AR (DEBU). Kent: Rondeau Park, 17.VII.1962, 39, 20°, CL (CNCI);

29.V1.2002, 49, ° BK (DEBU). Essex: Pelee Isl., 8.VII.1965, 9, J. Riotte (ROME); Point Pelee,

29.VII.1920, 7, BG (ROME); 10.VII. 1979, &, AR (DEBU). Figure 1.

Reviewed materials from other regions. Paralectotype, ?, R.L. Brumley det. 1965 (ANSP);

NJ, Cape May, July 19.1935, 9, Witmer Stone (ANSP).

3. E. canadensis Mitchell

Carleton: Ottawa, 28.VI.1967, &, Heming; 3c* (DEBU); 22.VIII.1958, &, KL; 29.VII.1947, ¢,

W. Mason; 28.V1.1914, &, SL; 7-11,VII.1913, 99, 110, SL (CNCI). Hastings: 3.VII.1896, 27,

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Evans; Belleville, 14.VII. 1951, 9, MN (CNCI). Prince Edward: Picton, Smith’s Bay,

1.VII.1970, , J. MacAlpine (CNCI). Durham: Kendal, 29. VII. 1961, 2, AR (DEBU). Bruce:

Dyers Bay, 19-29.VII.1953, 20°, PG (CNCI). York: Toronto, 18.VII.1888, 2 (CNCI). Peel:

Forks of the Credit, 28.VI.1965, ¢, KN (ROME). Wellington: Guelph, 7.VII.1978, , B.

Werner (DEBU). Brant: Brantford, Railway Prairie, 12.VII.2002, 3c’, PA (DEBU). Lambton:

Walpole Isl., 13. VII.1980, @, BR (DEBU). Kent: Rondeau Park, 27.VI. 1962, 2, CL (CNCI).

Essex: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 7.VIII.2001, 9, PA (DEBU); Point Pelee, 26.VII.1979 ,

AT; 18.VII. 1978, *, BR (DEBU). Figure 2.

4.** E. ilicis Mitchell

Bruce: Dyers Bay, 31.VII.1953, @, PG (DEBU). Wellington: Guelph, 30.VIII.1978, 2c, H.

Farrell (DEBU). Figure 1.

45°

A E. autumnalis

@ ec. bifasciatus

@ E ilicis

FIGURE 1. Ontario collection localities of Epeolus: E. autumnalis, E. bifasciatus, E. ilicis.

5. *E. interruptus Robertson

Carleton: Ottawa, 29.VII.1947, 2, W. Mason (CNCI). Bruce: Hepworth, 4.VII.1954, 2, PG

(DEBU). Wellington: Guelph, 20.VII.1973, 9, AR (DEBU). Figure 2.

Reviewed materials from other regions. Holotype, 2, Charles Robertson collection (INHS).

USA: CA, Colton, 26-28.V.1917, 7, E. P. VanDuzze, R.L. Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); CO,

Boulder, 20.VII.1908, o, S. A. Rohwer (CASC); VA, Norfolk, June 12, 1895, 9, R.L. Brumley

det. 1965 (ANSP).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

6. ** E. lanhami Mitchell

Rainy River: Rainy River, 24.VI.1960, 49, 20°, CL (CNCI). Thunder Bay: Black Sturgeon

Lake, 10.VII. 1964, 9 (CNCI). Sudbury: 20° (CNCI). Figure 3.

Reviewed materials from other regions. QC: Sully, 22.VI.1916, @, SL (CNCD); Lac Mirabelle,

off James Bay Rte. Km 323, 51°52’N, 77°24’W, sandy area, 16.VII.2001, 39, BK (DEBU).

7. E. lectoides Robertson

Bruce: Hepworth, 4.VII.1954,?, PG (DEBU). Wellington: Gueph, 20.VII.1977,?, AR (DEBU).

Lambton: Port Franks, 12.VII.1996, %, Skevington (DEBU). Kent: Rondeau Park, 8.VII.

1983, 9, &, Gadovski (DEBU). Essex: Point Pelee, 13.VII-8.VIII.1920, 39, 5e°, BG (ROME);

4.VIII.1981, 29, Aiudi; 10. VII. 1979, 20°, AR; 20.VII.1978, ?, BR (DEBU). Figure 2.

Reviewed materials from other regions. Holotype, ?, Charles Robertson collection (INHS).

USA: NC, Cumberland, Fort Bragg, 16.VIII.1967, 9, &, 23-25. VIII.1967, 2, 7, H. D. Birchim,

G. Bohart det. (CASC).

45”

A E. canadensis

@ E. interruptus

e E. lectoides

FIGURE 2. Ontario collection localities of Epeolus: E. canadensis, E. interruptus, E. lectoides.

8. *E. minimus (Robertson)

Rainy River: Rainy River, 5.VII-3.VIII.1960, 29, CL; 17.VIII.1924, &%, J. Brimley (CNCI).

York: Leaside, 7.VII.1959, 9, Medicago (ROME). Bruce: Dyers Bay, 20.VII-19.VIII.1953, 9,

40°, PG; 9-15. VII.1952, 42, PG, Clover (CNCI); 2. VII.1957, &, PG; 17-22.VII.1956, 29, PG;

8-25. VII.1954, 59, 80%, PG; 16.VII.1953, 2, PG (DEBU). Brant: Brantford, 24.VIII.2001, ¢,

PA (DEBU); Railway Prairie, 12.VII.2002, 9, PA (DEBU). Figure 3.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Reviewed materials from other regions. Paratype, o, R.L. Brumley det., 1965. Canada: BC,

Vernon, 19.VII.1922, 9, H.B. Leech, B.L. Brumley det. 1965 (CASC). USA: CA, Modoc Co,

Davis Cr., 13. VII.1922, o, C.L. Fox, B.L. Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); CA, Ruby Lake, NW,

Inyo Co, 11500 ft, 13.VIII.1957, %, C.D. MacNeill, B.L. Brumley det.1965 (CASC); WA,

Olympia, 2.VII.1896, ?, B.L. Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); WY, W. Yellowstone, 14.VI.1930

?, VanDyke, B.L. Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); NV, 9, R.L. Brumley det. 1965 (ANSP).

9. E. pusillus Cresson

Carleton: HWY 16, 44° 47’12’’N, 75° 30°38’’W, 23-30.VIII.1994, ?, L. Masner (CNCI);

Ottawa, 25.VIII.1954, o, W. Mason (CNCI). Prescott: Van Kleek Hill, 1.1X.1974, 29, J.

Huber (DEBU). Peterborough: Peterborough, 18.VIII.1975, o, F. Quan (ROME). Bruce:

Inverhuron, 2.[X.1960, 29, *, PG (DEBU). Peel: Forks of the Credit, 25. VII-27.VIII.1968,

69, 5c* .MK (ROME); Peel, 19.1X.1992, o, C. Darling (ROME). Welland: Port Colbourne,

17.1X.1972, 9, Beam (DEBU). Brant: Brantford, 24.VIII.2001, *, PA (DEBU). Lambton:

Grand Band, 28.VIII.1936, #, AT (CNCI). Essex: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 13.[X.2002, 13

9, 5°, PA (DEBU); 26.VIII.2002, 80°} BK, PA (DEBU). Figure 3.

Reviewed materials from other regions. USA: TX, Lee Co, Fedor, 26.1V.1909, 2, B.L.

Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); FL, Tampa, 2.V.1908, &, VanDuzee, B.L. Brumley det. 1965

(CASC); NJ, Clementon, 8.7.1892, 7, R.L. Brumley det. 1965 (ANSP).

45°

A £. minimus.

@ E. pusillus

@ £ lanhami

90°

FIGURE 3. Ontario collection localities of Epeolus: E. minimus, E. pusillus, E. lanhami.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

10. E. scutellaris Say

Rainy River: Lake of the Woods, Harris Hill, 4. VIII.1960, 0, KL, Whitney (CNCI). Lanark:

Almonte, 2-7.[X.1986, 9, H. Goulet (CNCI). Carleton: Ottawa, 11.VIII.1973, 49, J. Huber

(DEBU); 20-25.VIII. 1954, 9, 20°, W. Mason; 30.VII.1913, o&, SL (CNCI); HWY 16, 44°

47'12°’, 75° 30°38’’, 23.VIIIL.-29.1X.1994, 79, L. Masner (CNCI). Grenville: Spencerville,

28.VIII-14.1X.1939, 29, G. Hammond; 20.VIII.1938, 9, G. Hammond (CNCI). Hastings:

Johnstown, 5.1X.1972, 9, MF (DEBU). Haliburton: Algonquin P.P., 45° 51’, 77° 42’45”’,

18.VIII.2002, 49, &, BK (DEBU). Peterborough: Bobcaygeon, 18.VIII.1975, o&, F. Quan

(ROME). Northumberland: Murray Hills, 1.1X.2002, o*, PA (DEBU); Brighton, 2.1X.1954,

o&, MN (CNCI). Durham: Burketon, 30.VIII.1954, 2, C. Miller (CNCI); Orono, 3.1X.1925,

?, BG (ROME). Simcoe: Spring Water P.P., 2.1X.2002, 9, BK (DEBU). Bruce: Hepworth,

23.VIII.1981, 9, BR; 31.VII.1975, &, Jaspers (DEBU); Sauble Beach, 17.IX.1972, 2, Beam

(DEBU); Dyers Bay, 12-27.VIII.1953, 59, &, PG (DEBU). Peel: Forks of the Credit, 18-

27.VIII.1969, 39, MK; 8-27.VIII.1968, 20°, MK (ROME); Peel, 19.IX.1992, o, C. Darling

(ROME). Wellington: Guelph, 25.VIII.1997, 2, S. Marshall; 18. VIII. 1978, 2, Farrell; 18. VIII.

1976, 9, Stewarts; 14.[X. 1975, 9, Barlow; 17. VIII. 1973, 9, MF; 5-10.IX. 1972, 59, MF; 20.IX.

1970, °, Akey (DEBU). Waterloo: Cambridge, 9.VIII. 1981, 2, C. Bolter (DEBU). Welland:

Port Colbourne, 27.VIII.1993, 29, D. Caloren (DEBU). Brant: Brantford, 24.VIII.2001, 3

2, 20°, PA (DEBU). Haldimand: Dunnville, 3.VIII.1954, &, C. Miller (CNCI). Middlesex:

Komoka Feed Mill, 11.1X.2001, 2, PA (DEBU). Norfolk: Normandale, 4.[X.1954, 9, C. Miller

(CNCD); St. Williams, 24. VIII.2001, 9, 20°, BK (DEBU). Lambton: Grand Band, 20. VIII.1936,

3, A. Wood (CNCI). Essex: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 11-22.1X.2001, 29; 26. VII.2002, 3;

13.1X.2002, 39, o, PA (DEBU); Point Pelee, 30.VII.1978, 2, AR (DEBU). Figure 4.

45°

@ E. scutellaris

FIGURE 4. Ontario collection localities of Epeolus: E. scutellaris.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Reviewed materials from other regions. USA: MA, Boston, 5.1X.1914, 29, F.X. Williams,

B.L. Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); MA, Forest Hills, 30.VIII.1913, 7, F.X. Williams, B.L.

Brumley det. 1965 (CASC); VA, Falls Church, 4.IX., 9, G. Bohart det. (CASC); NM, San Juan

Co, 33 mi S of Shiprock, 14.[X.1970, &, sunflower, P.S. Bartholomew, G. Bohart det.(CASC);

NH, Nelson, 8-11.07, %, R.L. Brumley det. 1965 (ANSP).

Genus Triepeolus Robertson

Commonly larger than Epeolus, body length 8-14 mm. Maxillary palpus usually three-

segmented, if two-segmented, then the distal segment is elongate. Mandibles lacking distinct

preapical tooth. Antennal pedicel usually set into scape. Pygidial plate usually with median

constriction, often apically differentiated into distinct, down-turned, posterior surface. S7

usually with median emargination on distal margin, with lateral lobes below interlobal area,

and apical setae mostly ventral, forming distinct pocket near lateral apical lobe. Gonostylus

without basal protuberance. T5 of the female usually with elongate, dark, not transverse and

silvery, pseudopygidial area. S6 of the female with greatly reduced, transverse disc; narrow,

latero-apical processes with several coarse, curved bristles apically.

In Ontario may parasitize on Melissodes, Peponapis, Svastra, Tetralonia and Anthophora.

Key to Triepeolus species of Ontario

1. 1 with central black area round or triangular, narrower or equal in width to lateral,

ener RG HFT. P07.) 2:5. RO. LA ee ade Beane 130, 2eele 2

. T1 with central black area wide, rectangular or narrowed laterally, wider than lateral

IRN NRRL as S34 opp sot hog se Inder ead te He moRp ed dainante Loreaeesneeee 3

2. _T1 with central black area round, small. Scutum with anterior, wide, white hair band

interrupted medially between longitudinal hair lines. — ? clypeus without longitudinal

ridge. Eye 2-2.5 times as wide as genal area. [1 and usually T2 with hair bands interrupted

medially. T3 and T4 with hair bands complete. Body length 14 mm. ON: VII. — NJ,

wesevo MN) GOrteuth to’CAS EX, PR ae ak T. remigatus (Fabricius)

: T1 with central black area subtriangular, with acute lateral angles. Scutum without

anterior, white hair band, with pair of longitudinal, white hair lines anteriorly. — 9

clypeus with longitudinal, impunctate ridge. Eye 2.5 (%)-3 (9) times as wide as genal

area. T1 and T2 with hair bands interrupted medially. T3 and T4 with white hair bands

complete or narrowly interrupted. ?T5 with white hair band interrupted. Body length

10-11 mm. ON: VI-VIII. — New England states to MN, south to FL, CO, NM........

Lake tlhe. sero tae lal teenie? tla Sat A el npn 2 Rn eee RPE T: lunatus (Say)

3. Axillae exceeding scutellar apex. — o face, labrum, clypeus, mesepisternum, and

mesosoma ventrally with dense, white hairs. Mandibles, pronotal lobes, tegulae, and

legs yellow; mid and hind spurs black. Body with yellow hairs dorsally, white on lateral

and ventral surfaces. Tergal bands complete. T1 with tomentose pubescence anteriorly.

T2 with large lateral tomentose patches. Clypeus and face below antennae with thick,

silvery hairs. Mesepisternum with dense, white hairs. Sterna with thin, white tomentum,

apically thicker. Body length 8-9 mm. ON: VIII. — NY, NC. ....... T. junctus Mitchell

- Axillae not attaining scutellar apex. ........:cccccsesesereseeeeneeeeeeseneeeeseseeeeseseseeetseneneneesensnaney 4

4. Propodeum posteriorly and laterally with long, white hairs. — Eye 3 times as wide as

genal area. Mandibles, labrum apically, tegulae, legs, pronotal lobs, and pygidial plate

orange. Spurs black. Pronotal lobes and antero-lateral angles of scutum with dense pile.

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Mesosoma laterally and ventrally with long, white hairs. T1 with dense, white hairs

anteriorly, apical band complete. T2 with lateral, white hair stripes, apical band

interrupted. T3 with band medially narrowed or interrupted. $3 with wide, white hair

fringe. * with pygidial plate narrow, orange, with marginal, dark red curb; basally, to

transversal ridge, shiny, with punctures deep, large; apical part impunctate. 7 $2 with

basi-median, white hair spot. Body length 10 mm. ON: VII-VIII. — CT, MI, NV......

| eassacisecsensseandecescdeesennenstdnenOaOeen OEE A MOEMEEGL TL? 2 -eepenreginmmrmese DASE NEN

- Propedetim mostly, bate: -.5...:/. 4222 ee OE 2 ane ke eee 5

os Mesosoma with dark hairs ventrally. Legs brown. — Mesepisternum on lower part with

irregular punctures, more than diameter apart in some places. Body with tomentose

pubescence white, thick. Clypeus and labrum with dark hairs. T1 with white pile

anteriorly, hair bands interrupted. T2 with hair band complete. Sterna without white

hairs. Body length 11-12 mm. ON: VIII-IX. — Southern Canada, New England states,

west to WI,:south torGAreai. t..06 natin boil: Bose T. donatus (Smith)

- Mesosoma with white hairs ventrally. Legs orange............ssssssssssessesssseseeesseneseseceeeneneess 6

6. Mesepisternal lower part with punctures much more than a diameter apart, shining,

with erect hairs. — Eye 3 times as wide as genal area. Scutal black space with extended,

erect, thin setae. T1 and 2 T5 with hair bands interrupted. Pygidial plate widely round,

subtruncate. Body length 9-10 mm. ON: VII-[X. — ME to GA, west to MN, UT......

vesecsuvesnsengshsoncedacares onhpttimbth tod Akh BA eRe AU RREE ES S02, Peis, T. pectoralis (Robertson)

- Mesepisternal lower part with punctures less than or equal to a diameter apart, in some

places, not distinctly shining, lacking erect hairs. — Eye 4 times as wide as genal area. Scutal

black space without erect setae. T1, 2, and 2 T5 with white hair bands interrupted. Fore

and middle spurs light, hind spurs dark. 7 mesepisternum completely pubescent. Pygidial

plate narrowly round apically, with dense, dark hairs basal to transverse ridge. Body length

8-11 mm. ON: VII-VIII. — New England states, to MN, south to TN, NC............004

pul eens) S10 cd BRR. RR LD ee ae Bs Ae a ee T. cressonii (Robertson)

Annotated list of Ontario Triepeolus Robertson

1. *7. cressonii (Robertson)

Carleton: Ottawa, 20.VIII.1913, 9, SL; 15.VIII.1913, #, SL (CNCI). Northumberland:

Brighton, 23.VIII.1980, 20°, Addleby (DEBU). Bruce: Dyers Bay, 10. VII.1954, o, PG; 31.VII-

13. VIII.1953, 30°, PG (DEBU). Middlesex: Komoka, Field Mill Prairie, 27.VII-13.VIII.2001,

&, PA (DEBU). Essex: Windsor, Ojibway, 1-17.VII.2001, 9, P. Pratti (DEBU). Figure 5.

Reviewed materials from other regions. Lectotype, 2, Charles Robertson collection, W. E.

LaBerge det.1979 (INHS). Lectoallotype, &, Charles Robertson collection, W.E. LaBerge det.

1979 (INHS). QC, Mer Bleue, 3.VII1985, @, C. Maund (CNCI).

2. T. donatus (Smith)

Sudbury: Noelville, 8.VIII. 1974, 29, W. Husby (DEBU). Carleton: Ottawa, 15.VII.1913,

2, SL (CNCD); ? (DEBU). Haliburton: Algonquin P. P., 17.VII, 2002, 49, BK (DEBU).

Dufferin: Orangeville, 19.VIII. 1954, 9, PG (DEBU). York: Toronto, 9.VIII.1898, ¢;

1.IX.1893, 9; 2.VIII.1888, * (CNCD); 29, 7, W. Brodie (ROME). East Ontario, 2? (DEBU).

Figure 5.

Reviewed materials from other regions. USA, MD, Millington, 8.V1.1891, %, E.P. VanDuzee

(CASC); NJ, Cape May, 9.12.1932, &, Witmer Stone, Sandhouse det. (ANSP).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

45”

A T. cressonii

MT. donatus

@r junctus

FIGURE 5. Ontario collection localities of Triepeolus: T. cressonii, T. donatus, T. junctus.

3. **T. junctus Mitchell

Carleton: Ottawa, 25.VIII.1954, &, W. Mason (CNCI). Figure 5.

4. **T. lunatus (Say)

Wellington: Guelph, VI.1960, ?, Ougun (DEBU). Essex: Windsor, Ojibway, 30.VIII.2001,

3, PA (DEBU). Figure 6.

Reviewed materials from other regions. Lectotype, ? (Epeolus lunatus concolor Robertson,

W.E. LaBerge det, 1979) (INHS). Lectoallotype, *, W.E. LaBerge det, 1979 (INHS ). USA:

AL, Decatur, VIII.1944, 2 ( Triepeolus concolor Robertson, G.E. Bohart det ), 9 G.E. Bohart det.

(CASC); CO, LaJunta, F. 4762, 37°59’N, 103° 31’W, 4100 fl alt, 12. VIHI.1920, 9(CASC);

NJ, Cape May, Aug. 9,1933, 9, Witmer Stone, det. Sandhouse (AN SP).

5. **? T. michiganensis Mitchell

Sudbury: Noelville, 8. VIII.1974, &, R. Nalot (DEBU). Simcoe: Awenda P.P., 22.VII.2002, ¢,

S. Marshall (DEBU). York: Toronto, 16.VII.1893, 2(CNCI). Lincoln: Grimsby, 12.VIII.1894,

? (CNCI). Figure 6.

6. *T. pectoralis (Robertson)

Leeds: Gananoque, 18.VIII.1963, 29, ED (DEBU). Hastings: Chatterton, 6.VIII.1946, 2,

Howitt (DEBU). Haliburton: Dorset P.S., 15.VII.1961, 9, KN (ROME); 2.1X.1981, 9,

Aiudi (DEBU). Bruce: Dyers Bay, 13-27. VIII.1953, 2, 7, PG (DEBU). Dufferin: Orangeville,

19.VIII.1954, 29, PG (DEBU); Mono Cliffs P.P., 31. VIII.2002, ?, BK; 13.VIII.2002, 2, BK

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

A T.lunatus

@ 1. michiganensis

er. remigatus

od T. pectoralis “ys

FIGURE 6. Ontario collection localities of Doeringiella: T. lunatus, T. michiganensis, T. pectoralis,

7. remigatus.

(DEBU). Wellington: Guelph, VII.1973, 9, MF (DEBU). Lincoln: Vineland, 9.[X.1936,

3, Ross (DEBU). Essex: Windsor, Springarden Road, 12.[X.2002, 29, BK, PA (DEBU).

County uncertain: Effingham, 1.VIII.1954, 9, C. Miller (CNCI); Harrow, 6.1X.1959, 9, PG

(DEBU). Figure 6.

Reviewed materials from other regions. Lectotype, ?, Charles Robertson collection (Epeolus

pectoralis Robertson, W. E. LaBerge det, 1979) (INHS). Canada: QC: Cap Rouge, 7.VII.1953,

&, LM (CNCI). USA: UT, Saltair, 12.VII.1922, 9, E.P. VanDuzee (CASC); NJ, Blackwood,

9.19.1897, 2? (ANSP).

7. **T. remigatus (Fabricius)

Wellington: Guelph, VII. 1960, @, Quynh (DEBU). Wentworth: Ancaster, 23.VII. 1955, ?

(CNCI). Figure 6.

Reviewed materials from other regions. USA: NJ, Riverton, [X.8.1901, 2 (ANSP).

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to D. Currie, C. Darling and B. Hubley, Royal Ontario Museum, S. Marshall

and M. Buck, University of Guelph, and J. Huber, Canadian National Collection, who made

their collections available to me. My thanks are also extended to C. Favret, Illinois Natural

History Survey, W. Pulawski and B. Zuparko, California Academy of Sciences, and J. Weintroub,

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, for providing specimens from collections at their

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

respective institutions. My special thanks to Dr. H. Frania for his encouragement and

constructive recommendations. Helpful comments were provided by two anonymous peer

reviewers, to whom I| am very thankful. And I appreciate the enthusiasm of my husband,

Alexander, in supporting my work on Ontario bees.

References

Brumley, R. L. 1965. A Revision of the Bee Genus Epeolus of Western America North of

Mexico. M.S. thesis, Utah State University. 92 pp.

Hurd, P. D. 1979. Superfamily Apoidea, pp. 1741-2209 in K.V. Krombein, P.D. Hurd, Jr., D.

R. Smith, and B. D. Burks, eds., Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico.

Vol. 2. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. 2209 pp.

MacKay, P. A. and G. Knerer. 1979. Seasonal occurrence and abundance in a community of wild

bees from an old field habitat in Southern Ontario. Canadian Entomologist (3): 367-376.

Michener, C.D. 1944. Comparative External Morphology, Phylogeny, and a Classification of the

Bees (Hymenoptera). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (82): 151-326.

Michener, C. D. 2000. The Bees of the World. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University

Press. 913 pp.

Mitchell, T. B. 1962. Bees of the Eastern United States, 2: 1-557. North Carolina Agricultural

Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No.152.

Rightmyer, M. 2005. Phylogeny and classification of the parasitic bee tribe Epeolini

(Hymenoptera: Apidae, Nomadinae). Scientific Papers of the Natural History Museum,

University of Kansas (33): 1-51.

Jae, Sica ae a:

; he,

tw Pree “orth Se hit i

AT tt wl Cit sideman Vig an pair

nical, bn in wi bpd ree. sa & =

tq CUE

Llivelo @iawensceso & ep ognphensdorign

Oe Saeé -(&) migaloratndl nails

yl JG dbbeodiessdt chem areggehnpyre

OLE - EF | ALB) xtoetht lene nV lots eon

qiapovant ' esr a i sadol ‘mobnian Lhe ot mile

badolaorenA erulons J dnt tée-

-_-.

ae -

initongy oy het wacl sighed ‘ails do

reeuld vantaiet lesa ath Yo. 2r

ri slici oi

dy AED POP Se oe aD. a AL sy Linielied Vineland

+ 1 vf iw al \. Sissel inet 2002. 79. BPA (Di ‘

V993.1954. 9.4) Sie (CNOA “ae mab.

,eat he Fe werky ae? aL out Reina?

EP. Yup Dace (CASO NE

Te =“

Mew ¢« cfs Ai ~t126. = teat le eee var cats co n i

ALI

t i] | Wchawiarts Ane saIeT. Sve

| .

reperes, 4 y : ih Rance tomy eee. 1901 -8UANSE

Achoweledgesmnts yi F rf

0 C> Currie, C. Dadlistg aie aay: Tipe neta Bs

" ateersity ee i. Saat. Np ark yer

} babe yy inc Mi y * 326 iar ir a : Pacey d ta

’ E Palevki ami 8. Z spake ealiiecd dik

he St See, Pe ‘om nchel shia ha pee

° : “5. »

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

NEW RECORDS OF ORTHOPTERA FROM CANADA AND

ONTARIO

S. A. MARSHALL, S.M. PAIERO, AND O. LONSDALE

Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph

Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1

E-mail: samarsha@uoguelph.ca

Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 135: 101-107

The following ten Orthoptera species are recorded from Canada for the first

time, in some cases also representing new records at the generic level: Melanoplus

scudderi scudderi (Uhler), M. walshii Scudder, Dichromorpha viridis (Scudder),

Ellipes gurneyi Giinther, Neoxabea bipunctata (DeGeer), Oecanthus latipennis

Riley, O. laricis TJ. Walker, O. exclamationis Davis, Meconema thalassinum

(DeGeer), and Neoconocephatlus triops (Linnaeus). Oecanthus argentinus Saussure,

previously known from western Canada, is recorded from Ontario for the first

time. Some additional records are given for rare species previously known only

from one or two Canadian records, and the significance of these new records

is discussed. Although these new records were generated by observation and

collecting efforts throughout southern Ontario, most are from a few small and

significant Carolinian sites.

Introduction

Vickery and Kevan’s (1986) monographic treatment of the orthopteroid insects of Canada

is the only species-level treatment of an entire major order for the country, providing an essential

identification guide and a benchmark against which later distributional records can be assessed.

We summarize the significant new Canadian orthopteroid records that have accumulated in the

University of Guelph Insect Collection during the almost two decades since the publication of

Vickery and Kevan (1986). We also provide further records for species previously unknown in

Ontario but recorded elsewhere in Canada, and for species previously known only from one or

two locations in Canada. Most of our new records are from ongoing arthropod surveys at several

important Carolinian sites throughout southwestern Ontario. All the specimens examined are

deposited at the University of Guelph Insect Collection, but some records are from the Royal

Ontario Museum as indicated (ROM).

Part one: Orthoptera not previously recorded from Canada:

Acrididae

Melanoplus scudderi scudderi (Uhler) is known from throughout the eastern U.S., but had not

been previously recorded from Canada. We found this to be a common species late in the

season on low shrubbery in Ojibway Prairie Nature Reserve (Essex County). It also occurs in

oak-savannah habitat in Lambton County.

101

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15'51”N 83°4’30”"W, sweeps,

22 September 2001, S.A. Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 12 May 1999, S.A. Marshall;

Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’51”N 83°4’30”W, 16 October 2003, S.A. Marshall; Windsor,

Ojibway Prairie, sweeps, 13 August 2001, S.M. Paiero; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’46”N

83°4’2”W, unburnt prairie, yellow pans, 11-14 September 2001, S.M. Paiero; Windsor,

Ojibway Prairie, unburnt prairie, yellow pans, 2-5 October 2001, S.M. Paiero; Windsor,

Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’42”N 83°4’9”W, burnt savannah, yellow pans, 14-18 September 2001,

S.M. Paiero; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’46”N 83°4°17”W, burnt prairie, yellow pans,

9-12 October 2001, S.M. Paiero; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’46”N 83°4°17”W, burnt

prairie, yellow pans, 28 September-2 October 2001, S.M. Paiero; Lambton Co.: Port Franks,

Richmond subdivision, 30 August 1996, K.H. Stead; Port Franks, Karner Blue Sanctuary,

43°13’N 81°54’W, pan traps, 18-25 July 1996, J. Skevington; Port Franks, Watson Property

nr. L-Lake, 43°13’N 81°54’W, malaise trap, 7-14 August 1996, J. Skevington.

Melanoplus walshii (Scudder) was previously known from Minnesota, South Dakota and

Michigan south to Georgia, but not from Ontario, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, New York or

other areas bordering eastern Canada.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’'46”N 83°4717”W, burnt

prairie, yellow pans, 10-14 August 2001, S.M. Paiero; Hald.-Norfolk Co.: St. Williams Nursery,

26 August 2000, M. Gartshore; Lambton Co.: Port Franks, Karner Blue Sanctuary, 43°13’N

81°54’ W, 22 September 2002, S.A. Marshall; Port Franks, Karner Blue Sanctuary, pan traps, 8-

10 July 1996, J. Skevington; Port Franks, Karner Blue Sanctuary, 29 August-3 September 1996,

J. Skevington; Port Franks, Karner Blue Sanctuary, pan traps, 8-15 August 1996, J. Skevington;

Port Franks, Karner Blue Sanctuary, pan traps, 8-10 July 1996, J. Skevington.

Dichromorpha viridis (Scudder) occurs from South Dakota to southern New England and

south to Mexico, but had not been recorded in Canada or close to the Canadian border.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’°51”N 83°4’30"W, 20

September 1997, S.A. Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15°51”N 83°4’30"W, 22

September 2001, S.A. Marshall; Pelee I., Stone Rd. Alvar, 41°47’N 82°40°W, 1 October 2000,

S.A. Marshall; Pelee I., old farm, 1 October 2000, S.A. Marshall.

Ellipes gurneyi Giinther is a western species known from a few eastern localities in Pennsylvania

and Michigan (Bland 2003). We here record it from Port Rowan and Long Point.

Label Data: Ontario: Hald.-Norfolk Reg.: Port Rowan, 2 Jun 1940, EA. Urquhart (ROM);

Long Point, 5 Sep 1987, J. Troubridge.

Gryllidae

Neoxabea bipunctata (DeGeer), the Two-spotted Tree Cricket, is a distinctively coloured

species that occurs throughout most of the eastern USA south to Mexico. We here record it

from the Ojibway Prairie Nature Reserve, where we have observed this species annually since

1999, and from specimens collected in the 1970s in the Harrow area. The latter specimens were

apparently overlooked by Vickery and Kevan (1986).

102

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’51”N 83°4730”W, 12

September 1999, S.A. Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 13 August 2002, S.A. Marshall;

Harrow, 42°2°N 82°55°W, 20 August 1976, C.D. Neilsen; Harrow, 26 August 1974, W.M.

Elliot; Harrow, 6 August 1976, C.D. Neilsen.

Oecanthus latipennis Riley occurs from Illinois and Connecticut south to Florida and Arizona,

so it is not surprising to find it in Ontario. It has probably been overlooked because of its

predominantly arboreal habits.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Pelee I., Stone Rd. Alvar, 41°47’N 82°40’W, 1 October 2000, S.A.

Marshall; Kent Co.: Clear Creek, 10 August 2000, S.A. Marshall (photographs only).

Oecanthus laricis T.J. Walker is a rarely collected species previously known only from Ohio and

Michigan. We here record it from larch (Larix laricina) trees in a small Carolinian fen in Ontario.

Label data: Ontario: Halton Reg.: Milton, Derry Rd. & 4th Line, 43°31°31”N 79°50’25”W,

at light, 23 August 2002, S.M. Paiero; Wellington Co.: Creiff, 2km SE on 7th Concession,

43°24’57”"N 80°7'18”W, fen, on larch; 30 August 2002, S.A. Marshall.

Ocecanthus exclamationis Davis occurs from Illinois and Connecticut south to Arizona and

Florida, and was previously known from Michigan near the Ontario border. It was not surprising

to find this species in Ontario.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Point Pelee Natl. Pk., Tilden’s Woods Trail, 21 September

2000, O. Lonsdale; Pelee I., 30 September 2000, M. Cripps.

Tettigoniidae

Meconema thalassinum (DeGeer) is an introduced species initially recorded in North America

from New York (Gurney 1960) and now known from Rhode Island (Hoebeke 1981) and

Michigan (Bland 2003). This species, and the subfamily Meconematinae, are newly recorded

from Canada. We record it here from Harrow.

Label Data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Harrow, hand collected, 11 Aug 1997, M. Beaudoin.

Neoconocephalus triops (Linnaeus) occurs in the southern United States and the Caribbean,

and undoubtedly represent adventitious specimens. Vickery and Kevan (1986) record this

species as adventitious but do not indicate where in Canada, if at all, it was recorded.

Label data: Ontario: Wellington Co.: Galt, 20 February 1956, D.H. Pengelly. Toronto,

University Ave., 29 March 1933, S.L. Thompson (ROM); Ottawa, 15 February 1923, in

bananas, L.E. Johnson (ROM)

Part two: Orthoptera not previously recorded from Ontario:

Gryllidae

Oecanthus argentinus Saussure occurs across the continent from British Columbia to

Connecticut, but it has not been recorded from eastern Canada. Vickery and Kevan (1986)

suggest that this species “will be able to move northward only to a limited extent” and state that

the “prevalence of frosty periods in late September in Ontario would not allow late-maturing

individuals to reproduce”. They do, however, note that some northwestern populations cope

103

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

with the relatively short seasons by producing only a single annual generation. Ontario

populations are probably also univoltine.

Label data: Ontario: Middlesex Co.: Komoka Feed Mill Prairie, yellow pans, 42°58’N

81°25’W, 13-30 August 2001, S.M. Paiero.

Part three: Orthoptera previously known only from one or two Canadian records:

Acrididae

Melanoplus differentialis differentialis (Thomas) (the Differential Grasshopper), unlike

the other species discussed here, is a pest species that has probably been moving its range

northward for several years (Cantrall 1968). Vickery and Kevan (1986) record it from “extreme

southwestern Ontario” where it has long been established at Point Pelee. We find this large,

distinctively marked species to be very common at a number of sites in Essex and Kent Counties,

and record it as far north as Wellington County.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Harrow, 42°2’N 82°55’W, 12 August 1962, R.S.; Harrow,

42°2’N 82°55’W, August 1961, R.S. Dickhout; Harrow, 42°2’N 82°55’W, July 1961, R.S.

Dickhout; Harrow, SE of, 42°2’N 82°55’W, Oxley Poison Sumac swamp, 4 September 1993,

B. Larson; Kingsville, 42°2°15”N 82°44’20°W, hand collection, 18 September 1997, J. Sabara;

Kingsville, 42°2’15”N 82°44’20"W, in tall grass, 6 September 1987, K. Petrik; Point Pelee

Natl. Pk., 12 October 1997, S.A. Marshall; Point Pelee Natl. Pk., SW shore, 2 September

1998, S.A. Marshall; Staples, 42°10’N 82°36'W, 19 August 1983, Logan & Grigsby; Windsor,

42°18’N 83°1'W, 23 August 1983, Logan & Grigsby; Windsor, 42°18’N 83°1'W, 20 August

1981, E. Zaborski; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’51”N 83°4'30"W, sweeps, 20 August

2001, S.A. Marshall; Woodsley, hand collection, 28 August 1997, Y. Hoang; Kent Co.: Clear

Creek Reserve, 42°27°58”N 81°43’5”W, 10 October 2003, S.A. Marshall; Rondeau Prov. Pk.,

South Point Trail, nr. east parking lot, oak savannah, 42°15’42”N 81°50’49”W, malaise, 7

September-7 October 2003, Marshall et a/.; Rondeau Prov. Pk., South Point Trail, nr. east

parking lot, oak savannah, 42°15’42”N 81°50'49"W, 10 October 2003, S.A: Marshall; Rondeau

Prov. Pk., South Point Trail, nr. east parking lot, oak savannah, 42°15°42”N 81°50°49"W,

malaise, 14 August-7 September 2003, Buck & Marshall; Wheatley, Wheatley campground,

42°6’N 82°27’W, veg. sweep, 19 September 1993, W. Bennett; Wheatley, 42°6'N 82°27'W,

18 August 1959, R.J. Pilfrey; Waterloo Reg.: Hespeler, 43°26’'N 80°19'W, 13 September

1959, D.H. Pengelly.

Tettigoniidae

Microcentrum rhombifolium (Saussure) was previously known from only one site in Canada

(Point Pelee), although it has also been recorded as an adventive species in British Columbia.

We here record it from Harrow and Windsor.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Windsor, 42°18’N 83°1'W, hand collection, 21 September

1997, B. Sabara; NE of Harrow, 42°2’N 82°55’W, 5 September 1992, W B. Larson; Windsor,

Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’51”N 83°4’30”W, 20 August 2001, S.A. Marshall.

Atlanticus monticola Davis was previously known in Canada only from Turkey Point,

Ontario. We here report it only from nearby sites in Haldimand-Norfolk County. Ontario's

other Atlanticus species, A. testaceus (Scudder) remains known only from one record at Arner,

Ontario (Walker 1905).

104

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Label data: Ontario: Hald.-Norfolk Co.: Manestar Tract, 1 October 1994, D. Sutherland; St.

Williams, 15 July 2001, A. & D. Timpf; Manestar Tract, road along north boundary, 29 August

2000, S.A. Marshall (photographs only, males and females).

Gryllidae

Anaxipha exigua (Say) (Say’s Bush Cricket) is an uncommon species described by Vickery and

Kevan (1986) as occurring in wet areas and near water. The only previous Canadian record of

this species was Point Pelee, but we find it to be abundant on the foliage of small shrubs at a

number of tallgrass prairie and oak savannah sites.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co: Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15°51”N 83°430’°W, 12

September 1999, S.A. Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, sweeps, 22 September 2001, S.A.

Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 26-27 August 2002, S.M. Paiero; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie,

13 August 2002, S.A. Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, nr. Sprucewood Ave. obs. point,

yellow pans, 26-27 August 2002, Buck & Paiero; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, nr. Sprucewood Ave.

obs. point, yellow pans, 12-13 September 2002, Buck & Paiero; Windsor, -1.5km S Ojibway

Prairie, forest-prairie edge, Malaise, 42°13’34”N 83°4’27"W, 19-31 August 2001, S.M. Paiero;

Windsor, 42°18’N 83°1’W, 11 August 1976, S.A. Marshall; Woodsley, 22 August 1976, J.M.

Heraty; Point Pelee Natl. Pk., SW shore, 41°47°N 82°40’W, 2 September 1998, S.A. Marshall;

Hald.-Norfolk Co.: St. Williams Nursery, 13 September 2001, L. Rodger.

Ocecanthus niveus (DeGeer) occurs throughout the eastern United States, but it was previously

known only from a single Ontario site (Niagara region). We here record it throughout southern

Ontario.

Label data: Ontario: Essex Co.: Pelee I., Porchuk property, Malaise, 10-27 September 2002,

Porchuk & Marshall; Pelee I., Porchuk property, Malaise, 28 August-10 September 2002,

Porchuk & Marshall; Windsor, Ojibway Prairie, 42°15’51”N 83°4’30°W, 12 September 1999,

S.A. Marshall; Windsor -1.5km S Ojibway Prairie, 42°13'34”N 83°4’27"W, forest-prairie

edge, Malaise, 22 September-13 October 2001, S.M. Paiero; Pelee I., old farm, 1 October

2000, S.A. Marshall; “Essex Co.”, 26 August 1937, W.R. Code; Kent Co.: Wheatley, Wheatley

Prov. Park, 42°6’N 82°27’W, deciduous forest, 19 September 1993, C.S. Blainey; Kent Co.

Forest at Hwy 401, 12 October 1997, S.A. Marshall; Hald.-Norfolk Reg.: Hagersville,

52°58'N 80°3’W, 2 October 1983, W A. Harris; Halton Reg.: Speyside, on Pine trunk, 4

October 2002, S.A. Marshall; Lincoln Co.: Vineland Station, 43°9’N 79°24’W, 26 August

1936; Jordan , 14 September 1915, W.A. Ross; Jordan, 24 August 1922, W.A. Ross; Welland

Co.: St. Davids, 3 August 1931, W.L. Putman; Fonthill, 43°2’N 79°17'W, 8 September 1984,

M.D. Forward; Wellington Co.: Guelph, 43°33’N 80°15°W, forest edge, 19 August 1987, T-A.

Wheeler; Guelph, 43°33’N 80°15’W, 14 October 1914, (collector not indicated); Guelph, 24

August 1983, N.R. Ennis; Guelph, 7 October 1963, J.D. Van Loon; Guelph, 24 July 1974,

G.J. Umphrey; Creiff, 2km SE on 7th Concession 43°24’57”N 80°7°18"W, fen, 3 September

2002, S.A. Marshall; Fergus, on Pinus with aphids, 7 Oct 2003, S.A. Marshall.

Oecanthus pini Beutenmiiller is a rarely collected species in Ontario, previously recorded

only from Essex and Kent Counties. We here record it from Haldimand-Norfolk and Halton

Regions.

105

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Label data: Ontario: Hald.-Norfolk Reg.: Manester Tract, 6km NNW St. Williams,

42°42°17”N 80°27'38"W, 24 August 2001, S.A. Marshall; Halton Reg.: Speyside, on Pine

trunk, 4 October 2003, S.A. Marshall.

Discussion

Most of the new records included here have resulted from new arthropod survey and inventory

projects along Ontario’s southern fringe, almost entirely in the same protected sites that have

recently yielded numerous new records in other taxa (Sugar et al. 1998; Bouchard et a/. 2001;

McCorquodale 2001; Skevington et a/. 2001; Buck 2004; Paiero et al. 2004). Some of the newly

recorded species are relatively common in southern Ontario and have simply been overlooked,

while others are widespread just south of Canadian border and were expected to occur in extreme

southern Ontario. Neoxabea bipunctata, Dichromorpha viridis, and Microcentrum rhombifolium,

for example, are colourful, easily identified species that occur in a variety of habitats in the

United States but appear to be restricted to one or two sites in Canada. More importantly,

a significant proportion of the newly recorded species are relatively rare in Ontario and have

been overlooked in the past due to their limited ranges and narrow habitat requirements.

Melanoplus scudderi and M. walshii, for example, are brachypterous grasshoppers that occur

in highly localized populations in two or three tallgrass prairie or oak savannah reserves. These

species, like Neoxabea bipunctata, Dichromorpha viridis and Anaxipha exigua, are provincially

or nationally rare species with easily recognizable and easily monitored populations. Other

newly recorded species, such as Ocecanthus laricis, might be genuinely rare, or might only appear

rare because they are difficult to collect. Both Oecanthus laricis and the similar O. pini have been

recognized as species of special conservation concern in other jurisdictions (Dunn 2002).

The species treated above represent a large proportion of Ontario’s rare Orthoptera, and

include many distinctive and relatively easily identified grasshoppers and crickets of potential

conservation concern. We hope that the data presented here will encourage further consideration

of putatively rare Orthoptera both as indicators of threatened habitat and as threatened species

in their own right.

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Johnson and C.R. Bomar for their help with some of the identifications, and

we thank Parks Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for field assistance and

access to protected Carolinian reserves. Thanks to the Natural Heritage Information Centre for

their continued support of our work on rare Ontario insects.

References

Bland, R.G. 2003. The Orthoptera of Michigan — Biology, keys, and descriptions of

grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets. Michigan State University Extension. East Lansing,

Michigan. 220 pp.

Bouchard, P., K.G.A. Hamilton, and T-A. Wheeler. 2001. Diversity and conservation status

of prairie endemic Auchenorrhyncha (Homoptera) in alvars of the Great Lakes region.

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 132: 39-56.

106

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Buck, M. 2004. An annotated checklist of the spheciform wasps of Ontario (Hymenoptera:

Ampulicidae, Sphecidae and Crabronidae). Journal of the Entomological Society of

Ontario 134: 19-84.

Cantral, I.J. 1968. An annotated list of the Dermaptera, Dictyoptera, Phasmatoptera and

Orthoptera of Michigan. Michigan Entomologist 1: 299-346.

Dunn, G.A. 2002. Vanishing insects: a list of endangered, threatened, special concern and rare

insects of the United States. Young Entomologist’s Society Special Publication 11: 1-38.

Gurney, A.B. 1960. Meconema thalassinum, a European katydid new to the United States.

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 62: 95-96.

Hoebeke, E.R. 1981. The european katydid Meconema thalassinum (DeGeer): New locality

records for North America (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Journal of the New York

Entomological Society 89: 170-171.

McCorquodale, D.B. 2001. New records and notes on previously reported species of

Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) for Ontario and Canada. Proceedings of the Entomological

Society of Ontario 132: 3-13.

Paiero, S.M., S.A. Marshall, and K.G.A. Hamilton. 2004. New records of Hemiptera from

Canada and Ontario. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario 134: 115-129.

Skevington, J., D. Caloren, K. Stead, and K. Zufelt. 2001. Insects of North Lambton. Lambton

Wildlife Incorporated, Sarnia, Ontario. 181 pp.

Sugar, A., A. Finnamore, H. Goulet, J. Cumming, J.T. Kerr, M. de Giusti, and L. Packer. 1998.

A preliminary survey of symphytan and aculeate Hymenoptera from oak savannahs in

southern Ontario. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 129: 9-18.

Vickery, V.R. and D.K.McE. Kevan. 1986. The Insects and Arachnids of Canada; pt. 14: The

Grasshoppers, Crickets, and Related Insects of Canada and Adjacent Regions (Ulonata:

Dermaptera, Cheleuoptera, Notoptera, Dictuoptera, Grylloptera, and Orthoptera).

Publication 1777, Agriculture Canada. 918 pp.

Walker, E.M. 1905. Notes on the Locustidae of Ontario [iv]. Canadian Entomologist 37:

113-119.

107

nes Saisihioniad tnluscqe inetd income Tosacit greirhais ok |

at eesiotcabber ieeasqé op dinae wimeigen reais aso opera 20-4

assutt Lateacens J } ea ua son dnb dd i mgoryet see pmaxeie - cone

| sectors Svengali 2 inane

utile rr at an JoG d) ye WIG Liat coapecagth, bitrate t ens

hei oY 2d to Jagawol Aopbaionates’ gavicedi “mae

; ‘ Lot Maetater AT ‘ian tong ohoy ty

t asiveqe ae “17 tlearoreatg. cD. TUM a. bite 1K enya

Wrneoloratyait 3s to e' gnibaragrt “Abii d bax of |

: A pitted Speiszcs

etre hearyt wish asia ve oe nt RS

OCT OT: iN CRRA WS

f ord sm i avon l nove dirs ret 4

“y vl AL awbhed, fore

, BOR P vo) biedak =p my snamdob Mgmt. file nasty

: pi aclan theet aden tea rag ommnratt aaaolarpd

81.0200) oieanQ touppend lenis pet hep mi

: wel TT og colons, 4.30 riety, heacrosea}ost iAOYL | Peck wa

megal) mei na wb, bare are) to pieced ii nts OMe

[ienqarnst) fas cy alka), or igen an raed Meet SNe

ng SO eben phastnony "oR

wgclo mand osibente...-(yaLeunints to ee,

' =f pCR en and eh ie t

Ae: sored ede il] cman rage Sitter Gite

shicet act uF hs

r ee as

rf efysenia

“ ‘ a with eanee 6 ae ; identiha

ieee ety “au / Acre » fos feetel assis pi

—

{ J (tae — Ji<L [ ts f Lag ‘ litera ion

= = “ , oe 72 :

‘ -

Watensi. | ;

sheenicent' it Michigan" iin heyt

mi ca ria fic huts: ae Germnig Perens

». 208 TA. Sehnlen Sat. Door and

as Pew Seren deci Homops Eabvart ‘okt

£m cet re anes a Societe ot

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

MANAGEMENT OF RESISTANCE TO INSECTICIDES IN THE OBLIQUEBANDED

LEAFROLLER, CHORISTONEURA ROSACEANA (HARRIS), (LEPIDOPTERA:

TORTRICIDAE) IN ONTARIO ORCHARDS

D.J. PREE', M. E. APPLEBY?, L.A. BITTNER, K.J. WHITTY

Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Vineland Station, Ontario, LOR 2E0

E-mail: preed@agr.gc.ca

Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 135: 109-118

We assessed the potential for the management of resistance to organophosphorus

(OP) and pyrethroid insecticides in three field populations of the obliquebanded

leafroller , Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), under two

control programs. We compared resistance in a grower-devised pest management

program and in a more extensively modified program. The former program

was a grower selected or devised program that removed all OP and carbamate

applications against OBLR, but used OP and pyrethroid insecticides against the

other apple pests. The latter program largely substituted Bacillus thuringiensis

Berliner-derived preparations or spinosad for azinphosmethyl (an OP) against

resistant OBLR populations and minimized applications of OP and carbamates,

using pyrethroids preferentially against the other apple pests. Generally, resistance

declined or did not increase when selection was reduced, i.e., OP insecticides

were not used for leafroller control but the decline was faster under programs

that avoided the use of OPs, carbamates or pyrethroids. Resistance was lost from

some populations in 2-3 generations, similar to declines observed in laboratory

studies. Results also indicate that pesticide applications for other pests in the

apple system are important in the selection or maintenance of resistance in

leafroller populations.

Introduction

Populations of the obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) (Lepidoptera:

Tortricidae)(OBLR) resistant to the organophosphorus (OP) insecticide azinphosmethyl have

been identified from all of the major apple production areas of Ontario. (Pree et a/. 2001).

Cross resistance to phosmet and carbaryl (a carbamate) and increased tolerance to pyrethroids

and methomyl were also reported (Pree et al. 2001). The data also indicated that resistance

was unstable, i.e., partially resistant or mixed populations tended to revert quickly towards

susceptibility in the laboratory. Reported here are results of studies to assess the stability and

reversion of resistance in field populations at three separate sites. Two programs were assessed: a

grower-selected or -devised program that removed all OP and carbamate applications against

' Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.

? Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Brighton Resource Centre, 95 Dundas St., Brighton ON,

KOK 1H0O

109

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

OBLR, but used OP and pyrethroid insecticides against other apple pests (Table 1). The

second was a more extensive insecticide resistance management program (IRM) that generally

substituted Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt) preparations or spinosad for azinphosmethy]

against OP resistant populations for OBLR and minimized applications of OP and carbamates

using pyrethroids preferentially against other apple pests. This second program was designed

to avoid selection of OP or pyrethroid resistance in OBLR populations that might occur when

these pesticides were applied to the system for control of other insects. We anticipated that

OP, carbamate, and pyrethroid resistance in OBLR would decrease more quickly in those plots

where OP, carbamate and pyrethroid applications would be minimized.

Materials and Methods

Establishment of field plots and protocols for treatments

To assess the potential for management of resistance in OBLR to OP insecticides, two plots

(1.8-6 ha) were established in spring 2000 at each of three Ontario apple orchards (Grimsby in

the Niagara production area, and Brighton and Grafton in Northumberland) with one of the

plots receiving the grower-devised program.

At Grimsby (43°11’N, 79°33’W), the plots were cv Red Delicious. The grower-devised

program was applied tol.8 ha consisting of 24 rows of 53 2.2m tall trees spaced 4.8 x 3m. The

plot was bordered on the north by tart cherries, by additional apple plantings on the east and

west, and by pastureland on the south. The IRM program was applied to 5.7 ha, consisting

of 51 rows of 125 trees 2.2m tall spaced 3 x 4.8m. Data were from 27 rows of Red Delicious:

other rows of cv. McIntosh and Empire were not sampled. Plots were separated by about 500m,

largely planted to tart cherries. The IRM plot was adjacent to additional apple plantings on

the north and west sides, which were treated with grower-devised programs. Both plots were

sprayed by the grower with a Turbomist sprayer calibrated to deliver 760 L/ha.

At Brighton (44° N 1’N, 77° 43°W), the plots were McIntosh. The grower-devised program

was applied to 3.6 ha consisting of 30 rows of 25 3m tall trees spaced 5.5 x 2.4m (this plot

comprised about half of a ca. 6 ha planting of McIntosh with 5 rows of Empire in the centre).

The plot was bordered by woods on the north and west, by a grassed field on the east and by

an additional grower-sprayed orchard on the south. The IRM program was applied to 6 ha of

which we used ca 3.8 ha consisting of 13 rows of 45 3m tall McIntosh trees spaced 6.1 x 2.4m,

with the rest of the plot planted to cv Paulared and McIntosh. The plot was ca 500m north of

the woods and was largely surrounded by wood lots. Both plots were sprayed with an FMC

NW 430 sprayer at 660 L/ha.

At Grafton (44° 0’N, 77° 57’W) plots were cv Idared. The grower-devised program was

applied to 2.7 ha consisting of 46 rows of 64 2.8m trees spaced 4.3 x 2.1m in of which we

used 1.2 ha planted to Idared. The rest of the plot was planted to McIntosh with four rows of

cv Cortland adjacent to the Idared planted portion. This plot was bordered by a highway with

additional apple plantings on the north and by grassed fields on the other three sides. The IRM

program was applied to 2.1 ha which was part of a larger planting of ca. 6.5 ha of cv. McIntosh,

Cortland and Idared. The 2.1 ha plot consisted of 21 rows of 64 3.2m trees spaced 5.5x 2.8m.

This plot was 750m northeast bordering the additional apple plantings, and was located in the

northeast quadrant of the 6.5 ha and bordered the rest of the planting on the west and south sides.

The north and east sides were adjacent to pasture. The grower applied his own preferred program

to the rest of the planting. Both plots were sprayed with an FMC 250 sprayer at 440 L/ha.

110

vee

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Z aE. Z

= < — «.

s D2 oo. ge SS

O rade es FE €S3ES

Ss Ge Bribe

26 °

2 5 4848

PNY HY

Os oe 7a

UD) UB)

= ea sae | GSES,

£228

aco AS

rr iter 2s

= “he obey ah

f oi 93

1 — —_—

= & & qo |

= he a e.g

PD a Seve

aS)

=o) =

= 9 {| 1 1

las}

2 $

! 1 1 1

} E

(3)

oO vo wv ) )

q he See, a>) ne)

NN aS aS

=) o 0

> |= ane ev ocs |

ini ie Ee 3.8

py ee ee oe ee

o Vv oO vo

g Ss le ~~ ~

ine]

ay DN

= -_

S 5

ED E Beay

i) E fey ey ra re 5

oO =] oR oe.

wn n

a, [=2)

ra] o)

rie = a

YY = Qs ~ =) =)

2 ay . eQ -Q ~Q

Bs DN

—

OQ —N (j=) — N

Z Ss e2e2=

ie QA N N N

111

Volume 135, 2004

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario

(2epniayde y :es2adiq)) (ysyeA\) yyauoumod suajosvqy Qo8deu adde - Wy

(aepruornoin> :e191d02]0D) (1sq12}) ivgdnuau snjaqovaqouoy ‘OrnrInd wind - 5g

(2eprjapeory :eraadowrop{) (strep) avquf vasvodug ‘(22.YW\) miavuiod vakoojgddy ‘staddoy Jer] - HT

(eepriyy zeraidruayy) (Iakay) 2svGuaa vuoplduyy “Bnq yueyd ursynu - GW

(2epiomaio y :eraadoprdaq) (psng) vssaou mayogdvay “your way [RIUIO - WAO

(eeproinas0 | : eraadoprdaq) ("J) mjauowod vip) “you Sut[poo - WO

(gepriseypioessy :esaadoprday) (1qe) myjapavounsg sainuouopphqy ‘rouTuazer| WIO;UAI ponods - WTLS

(geproiao | :eraadoprdaq) sizep] vuvasvsos vinauossisog) ‘s2]]O41Ze2| popueq anbijqo - Y1AO

ploe onaoe ouayeyydeu “WYN ‘7

‘suoneordde pareadas Jo siaquinu daIwoIpuT sloyxeIq UT SIOqUINNY *|

ee nn ee ETE EEE an

€(J9pz0q)

auoyesoyd

1 (39ps0q) (J9ps0q)

WYN quoyesoyd auoyesoyd - pudopeprunt - (19pr0q)auoyesoyd - - pesourds Z00Z

z(aproq) ——(49ps0q)

WYN yausoyd = Aowrsoydurze - pudopeprunt - ¢ (4apsoq) 19Ws0Yyd - pesourds 1q L00Z

€(1pi0q) ——_(10p0q)

jArequeo yowsoyd = ,Aoursoyduize - pudopeprunt - apizouajngay =—s ulJyoureajop 1q 1g 0007

ped &PI - Wal - YOYeID

Jowumns Surids

Te a ee ee

SNINNIH.L WO/WV Od H1/SQIHdV aw WiO WO WILLS uTdoO

eed ic el tl le et ls Rl IE

ponunuo) ‘1 aTavil

112

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Growers were advised of the occurrence of resistance in OBLR populations at their sites

and all elected to use alternative insecticides to azinphosmethyl in their programs. The IRM

had a more extensively modified program with no applications of OP, carbamate, or pyrethroid

insecticides (Table I). Where alternatives were unavailable or were unacceptable to the grower,

border sprays of OP or pyrethroid insecticides (applied tol-2 outside rows) were used as deemed

necessary by the grower. Border sprays were not used in the grower-devised plots. Rates used

were those recommended in the provincial fruit production guide (Anonymous 2002).

Insecticides for control of overwintered (spring) OBLR were applied about petal fall

(early June). For control of the first summer generation of OBLR, (late June-July), sprays

were timed according to established degree day models (Solymar 1999) using five pheromone

(OBLR lure, Trece, Salinas CA) baited traps (Pherocon II, Trece) at each site to obtain the

date of the first sustained moth captures. Traps were separated by at least 30m and examined

twice weekly as described in the protocol outlined by Solymar (1999). First applications of

insecticides were delayed until 240-260 degree days Celsius (DDC) (base 6.1°C). Applications

were repeated if emergence of moths was extended. Insecticides were applied for other pests

as identified as necessary by the growers but trap catch data from codling moth, Cydia

pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh)

(Diptera: Tephritidae) traps as well as weekly scouting for the occurrence of mullein plant

bugs, Campylomma verbasci (Meyer) (Hemiptera: Miridae), aphids, Aphis pomi (DeGeer) and

Dysaphis plantaginea (Passerini) (Homoptera:Aphididae) etc. were provided to support spray

timing and/or needs for control treatments (Table I). Sampling procedures, traps, appropriate

timings, etc., were as outlined by Solymar (1999).

Monitoring of resistance

OBLR larvae (200-400) of the overwintered (spring) generation were collected from each

plot at each site in spring of each year of the study (2000-2002) just after bloom and prior to any

insecticide treatments, and placed on an artificial diet (Pree et al. 2001). Moths developing from

these collections were reared and larvae produced from mass crosses were assayed for resistance

using a Potter spray tower and analytical grade samples of insecticides dissolved in acetone

(Pree et al. 2001). Concentrations used as diagnostic were 40 mg/kg for azinphosmethyl and

2.5 mg/kg for cypermethrin (a pyrethroid). At these diagnostic concentrations, all susceptible

individuals were killed; the 40 mg/kg concentration of azinphosmethyl! killed ca. 15% of a

laboratory selected OP-resistant population used as a reference or standard resistant population

in earlier studies (Pree et al. 2001) and the 2.5 mg/kg solution of cypermethrin killed ca. 50%

of a similarly selected pyrethroid-resistant population. For tests, we used 10 replications of 10

larvae at each diagnostic concentration. Tests were conducted on at least two days and larvae

were from at least 6 egg masses.

Because the inequality of variances prevented transformation of these data to fit a normal

distribution, the percentage of resistant individuals in each plot in each year was compared

using the Mann-Whitney rank sum test (Zar 1974) (P<0.05, SigmaStat, Version 2, SPSS Inc.,

Chicago IL). Comparisons were made separately between treatments (grower-devised vs. IRM)

and for changes in population responses between years for each treatment.

Efficacy

The effectiveness of the programs in controlling OBLR was determined approximately one

week prior to harvest by assessment of fruit for larval feeding damage. Sample trees (5% of the

113

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

trees in each plot) were selected randomly, and 50 fruit were examined on each tree. Ladders

were used on larger trees and adjacent trees were sampled where less than 50 fruit were available.

Percentage fruit damage from each plot at each site was compared with the Mann-Whitney

rank sum test (SigmaStat). Overall means for fruit damage at the three sites in the grower-

devised and IRM plots were compared using the same test.

Results and Discussion

Insect control programs at the three sites varied widely, with the grower’s experience

dictating the need for the various insecticides applied for pests other than leafrollers (Table

I). The sites at Brighton and Grafton had more insecticides applied than the Grimsby plots.

Growers were advised of the presence of OP resistance in OBLR populations in both plots

at their sites and all avoided the use of OPs for control of OBLR. Therefore, any differences

or reductions in resistance observed between the two programs were likely associated with

resistance selection caused by OP (or pyrethroid) use for other pests. The number of treatments

of OP insecticides applied for control of other insects or carbaryl (a carbamate insecticide) for

thinning (removal of excess small fruit ) in mid-late June varied from one-two at Grimsby to

four-five at Brighton, and to four-nine at Grafton (Table I).

In 2000 at Grimsby in the grower-devised plot, for OBLR the grower made a single

application of cypermethrin (Table I). In the IRM plot, he made three applications of Bt, as

Foray 48BA, for control of the spring generation and two more for the first summer generation.

The OBLR populations in the grower-devised plot were reduced to levels that prevented further

samples in that plot in the subsequent years of the test. There was no significant difference for

the OP resistance and the pyrethroid susceptibility between the populations of the two plots in

2000 (Tables II and II). However, the OP resistance significantly decreased from 2000 to 2002

in the IRM plots, and the pyrethroid susceptibility did not change over that same period.

In 2000-2002 at Brighton in the grower-devised plot, for OBLR the grower made a

combination of Bt, spinosad and deltamethrin applications (Table I). In the IRM plot, he

made applications of Bt and spinosad. There was no significant difference in the OP resistance

between the populations in 2000 and 2002, however, in 2001 the OP resistance in the grower-

devised plot was significantly greater than in the IRM plot (Table II). OP resistance significantly

decreased after two years of treatments in the grower-devised plot from 2000 to 2002, whereas,

in the IRM plot OP resistance significantly decreased after one year (Table II). Pyrethroid

susceptibility was significantly greater in the grower-devised plots than in the IRM plots in 2000

and 2001, however, in 2002 there were no significant difference between the plots (Table III).

Pyrethroid susceptibility significantly increased after two years in the grower-devised plot from

200 to 2002, whereras in the IRM plots there was no change in susceptibility (Table III).

In 2000 at Grafton, the OBLR population (or at least a substantial portion of the

population) was exposed to a prebloom pyrethroid treatment applied to control spotted

tentiform leafminer (Phyllonorycter blancardella F.). Therefore, except at Grafton, estimates

of the percentage resistance in populations (Tables II and III) were established early in 2000

prior to any insecticide use. Changes in resistance are measurements of the impact of control

programs used in 2000-2002.

In 2000-2002 at Grafton in the grower-devised plot, the grower made a combination of

Bt, spinosad and deltamethrin applications (Table I) for OBLR. In the IRM plot, he made

applications of Bt and spinosad. There was no significant difference in the OP resistance between

the populations

114

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

in 2002, however, in 2000 the OP resistance in the IRM plot was significantly greater than

in the grower-devised plot and the reverse was true in 2001 (Table II). OP resistance in 2000

was significantly lower than in 2001 and 2002 in the grower-devised plot, whereas in the IRM

plot the reverse was true (Table II). Pyrethroid susceptibility was significantly greater in the

grower-devised plots than in the IRM plots in 2001 and 2002, however, in 2000 there were

no significant difference between the plots (Table III). Pyrethroid susceptibility was variable

in the same way in both plots from 2000 to 2002; the OBLR populations were significantly

more resistant to pyrethroids in 2001 relative to 2000 and 2002 (Table III). Application of a

pyrethroid (cypermethrin) to a similar population at the Grimsby site reduced populations to

levels, which prevented further samples for resistance testing. In this case, numbers of OBLR

surviving in this plot were high enough to allow collection of a sample adequate (>200 larvae)

for tests of resistance frequencies.

At both Grimsby and Brighton, in populations sampled in spring 2000, prior to the

establishment of the two programs, the grower-devised and IRM had similar resistance levels

(Table II). At both sites, the populations in both plots were largely resistant to OP insecticides

(71-87% survival) but were susceptible to pyrethroids (0-19% survival). At Brighton, OP and

pyrethroid resistance was not detected after one year (as measured in 2001) in the IRM plot and

after two years in the grower-devised program plot (as measured in 2002). Both of these plots

were adjacent to large wood lots on at least two sides and migration of susceptible moths from

these areas may have influenced the rate of changes in the susceptibility of these populations.

OBLR has an extremely wide host range and larvae could develop on many rosaceous or

nonrosaceous species (Chapman and Lienk 1971). Both treatment groups at Brighton and the

IRM group from Grimsby remained susceptible to pyrethroids (Table III).

At Grafton, OP resistance was initially higher in the IRM plot than in the grower-devised

plot (84% vs. 45%). Under the grower’s program, OP resistance increased from 45% to 91%,

probably associated with the extensive OP program used for other insects. While OP resistance

declined somewhat in the IRM plot in the first year of the test (from 84% to 64%), the decline

was not continued in the second season. This plot received approximately nine border sprays

of OP insecticides in the second season and these may have affected any further decline of this

resistance. The percentage of the population exhibiting pyrethroid resistance was unchanged

over the two seasons in both plots, even though after one year OBLR populations were more

resistant (Table III).

The decrease in damage to apples in Grimsby and Brighton by the OBLR from 2000

to 2002 (Table IV) was parallel to the trend of decreasing resistance of OBLR to both OP

and pyrethroids (Tables II and III). However, damage declined in plots with either treatment

over the three years of the study. This was probably associated with the large initial variation

in infestations between sites in 2000. However, at Grafton in spite of the trend of decreasing

damage to apples over the same period (Table IV), there was no similar parallel decrease in OP

and pyrethroid resistance (Tables II and III).

Overall, OP resistance declined, or, at least, did not increase in plots with a IRM strategy

that avoided the use of OP and pyrethroid insecticides both for OBLR and for other pests. OP

resistance also declined at Brighton under the grower-devised program that avoided the use of

OP or carbamate insecticides for OBLR control. Resistance was lost more rapidly in the IRM

plot at Brighton. It is likely that the extensive use of border sprays of OP insecticides (up to

six were applied to the IRM plot) at Grafton delayed or reduced the decline in the numbers of

115

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

TABLE II. Management of resistance to organophosphorus insecticides in populations of

oblique-banded leafroller 2000-2002.

Percentage Survival at Diagnostic Concentrations

Population Program Azinphosmethyl

40 ppm

2000 2001 2002

Grimsby Grower 80 a’ - -

IRM 83 aA’ 43B 22 C

Brighton Grower 87 aA 52 aB 0 aC

IRM Fl atk 0 bB 0 aB

Grafton Grower 45 aB 88 aA 91 aA

IRM 84 bA 64 bB 68 aB

' Numbers in same column within each site followed by same lower case letter are not

significantly different by Mann-Whitney rank sum test P<0.05.

* Numbers in same row for within each plot at each site followed by same capital letter are not

significantly different by Mann-Whitney rank sum test P<0.05.

TABLE III. Management of resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in populations of oblique-

banded leafroller 2000-2002.

Percentage Survival at Diagnostic Concentrations

Population Program Cypermethrin

25 ppm

2000 2001 2002

Grimsby Grower ie - -

IRM 9 aA’ 3A 2A

Brighton Grower 19 aA 16 aA 0 aB

IRM 0bA 0bA laA

Grafton Grower 56 aB 84 aA 57 aB

IRM 41 aB 66 bA 38 bB

' Numbers in same column within each site followed by same lower case letter are not

significantly different by Mann-Whitney rank sum test P<0.05.

* Numbers in same row within each plot followed by same capital letter are not significantly

different by Mann-Whitney rank sum test P<0.05.

116

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

TABLE IV. Damage to apples by the oblique-banded leafrollers. 2000-2002.

Percent Apple Damage

2000 2001 2002

Grimsby

Grower 1.241.914 1.4+2.2a 0.09+0.4a

IRM 14.7+9.6b 5.5+5.8b 0.9+1.7a

Brighton

Grower 35.24+22.4a 44+22a 4.0+3.3a

IRM 9.8+9.5b 6.3+4.2a 8.0+4.4b

Grafton

Grower 4.6+5.0a 5 oa ee 2.84+2.9a

IRM 15.4+8.2b 2.6+2.4a 0.9+2.0b

Mean + SE

Grower 13.7+18.77A 3.0+1.5B 2.342.0C

IRM 13.3:43.1A 4.8+1.9B $324.1 C

' Numbers in same column for each site followed by same lower case letter are not significantly

different by Mann-Whitney rank sum test P<0.05, comparisons are within each site.

* Numbers in same column for overall mean for each year followed by same capital letter are

not significantly different by Mann-Whitney rank sum test P<0.05.

resistant larvae in those populations. In laboratory studies, Pree et a/. (2001) found that resistance

declined from 88% to about 12% in the laboratory over three generations when selection was

not applied to a newly colonized population. Smirle et a/. (1998) reported similar declines in

resistance in laboratory populations from Quebec. In these field studies, we found similar rapid

losses in resistance when selection pressures were removed or minimized. Similar rates of loss

were observed with a pyrethroid -selected laboratory colony (Pree, unpublished data).

The data generally indicate that resistance in the OBLR can be managed and that programs

which use azinphosmethy] in a rotation with Bt preparations and/or spinosad, compounds that

do not exhibit cross resistance to OP or pyrethroids (Pree unpublished, Ahmad et a/. 2002), may

be sustainable. The data also indicate that pesticides applied against pests other than OBLR are

important in the selection of OBLR populations for resistance and must be considered as part

of any resistance management strategy. However, as the data indicate, resistance management

strategies that consider these aspects can be successful and can result in rapid loss of resistance.

A rotational program that incorporates azinphosmethyl is about 50$C/ha/yr cheaper than

a program that relies on a rotation of Bt and spinosad. However, a number of the products used

as replacements for OP and pyrethroid insecticides (e.g., tebufenozide, imidacloprid etc.) are

costly and may make the modified program more expensive overall. The exact cost is likely to be

highly variable and dependant upon the pests identified as problems in the various orchards.

However, the value of continued efficacy and potential sustainability of the program to

the producer must also be considered. This program may lose some feasibility if the use of

‘17

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

azinphosmethyl is severely reduced or curtailed, but the broad range of compounds involved in

the resistance suggests that similar programs with other compounds may be feasible. Carriére et

al. (1996) have shown a positive correlation between resistance to azinphosmethyl and resistance

to cypermethrin in populations from Quebec but our field studies identified two populations

(Grimsby and Brighton) that were resistant only to OP insecticides and not to pyrethroids.

However, the population from Grafton was resistant to both groups of insecticides. These

observations and those of Ahmad et a/. (2002) and Pree et al. (2002) suggest that resistance in

the OBLR, to these different insecticides, is a variable system and that the importance of the

various resistance mechanisms may vary with the different types of insecticides used in control

programs. Despite the broad-spectrum resistance to many insecticides associated with OP or

pyrethroid resistance in the OBLR, a potentially sustainable resistance management strategy

involving the rotational use of three groups (Bt, spinosyn, and OP) of insecticides is feasible.

Acknowledgements

We thank Leah Hamilton and Sandra Venneri for assistance with collecting and processing

OBLR samples and Kathy Jensen for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. This work

was supported by financial assistance from the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission and the

Agricultural Adaptation Council of Canada.

References

Ahmad, M., R. M. Hollingworth and J. C. Wise. 2002. Broad-spectrum insecticide resistance

in obliquebanded leafroller Choristoneura rosaceans (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) from

Michigan. Pest Management Science 58: 834-838.

Anonymous 2002. Ontario Fruit Production Recommendations. Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture Publication 360, 294 pp.

Carriére, Y., J. P. Deland, and D. A. Roff. 1996. Obliquebanded leafroller (Lepidoptera:

Tortricidae) resistance to insecticides: among-orchard variation and cross resistance.

Journal of Economic Entomology 89: 577-582.

Chapman, P. J,and S.E. Lienk. 1971. Tortricid Fauna of Apple. New York. Special Publication,

New York State Agricultural Experimental Station, Cornell University, Geneva, New York,

122 pp.

Pree, D. J., K. J. Whitty, M. K. Pogoda, and L. A. Bittner. 2001. Occurrence of resistance to

insecticides in populations of oblique-banded leafroller from orchards. The Canadian

Entomologist. 133: 93-103.

Pree, D. J., K. J. Whitty, L. A. Bittner, and M. K. Pogoda. 2002. Mechanisms of resistance

to organophosphorus insecticides in populations of the oblique-banded leafroller from

southern Ontario. Pest Management Science 59 :79-84.

Smirle, M. J., C.Vincent, C. L. Zurowski, and B. Rancourt.1998. Azinphosmethy] resistance in

the oblique-banded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana: Reversion in the absence of selection

and relation to detoxification enzyme activity. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiolology

61: 183-189.

Solymar, B.1999.Integrated Pest Management for Ontario Apple Orchards. Ontario Ministry

of Agriculture Publication 310, 230 pp.

Zar, J.H. 1974. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 620 pp.

118

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

CONTROL OF THE MULTICOLOURED ASIAN LADY BEETLE, HARMONIA

AXYRIDIS (PALLAS) (COLEOPTERA:COCCINELLIDAE) ON GRAPES IN ONTARIO

D.J. PREE, M.K. POGODA, L.A. BITTNER AND G. M. WALKER*.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Southern Crop Protection and Food Research,

P.O. Box 6000, 4902 Victoria Avenue North, Vineland Station, Ontario, LOR 2E0

*Grape Growers of Ontario, Box 100, Vineland Station, Ontario LOR 2E0

E-mail: preed@agr.gc.ca

Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 135: 119-123

The multicoloured Asian lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera:

Coccinellidae), has become a pest of grapes, Vitis vinifera L. (Rhamnales:

Vitaceae), in Ontario because beetles present in harvested grapes produce

alkaloids (methoxypyrazines) when stressed or as a pheromone, and these can

affect the quality of wines and juices. We have assessed the use of selected

insecticides in both laboratory and field to determine the potential for control

of this pest. Although, the neonicotinoid acetamiprid was most toxic in the

laboratory, malathion or cypermethrin were most effective in the field. Malathion

was less persistent than cypermethrin; effects were lost within 7 days whereas

cypermethrin residues reduced beetle numbers in plots for at least 7 days.

Introduction

The multicoloured Asian lady beetle , Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera:

Coccinellidae), is common in southern Ontario, and like many other species of lady beetle is

normally classed as a valuable beneficial species. Introduced initially into North America from

Asia in 1916 and in repeated releases since, it has provided effective biological controls in a

number of agricultural ecosystems (pecans, strawberries and roses), and is the most common

predator of the Chinese soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Homoptera: Aphididae)

(cited in Koch 2003).

However, H. axyridis has become a pest of fruit crops and grapes in Ontario, because in

autumn, beetles aggregate and feed on these crops. Whether the beetles cause the primary

damage or feed at sites damaged by other insects or birds is not clear but a recent report (Koch

et al. 2004) indicates a preference for damaged fruits. However, they have become a serious

problem on grapes, Vitis vinifera L. (Rhamnales: Vitaceae), because beetles are present in

harvested bunches and are crushed with the grapes. H. axyridis, and some other species of

lady beetle produce methoxypyrazines as both an attractant (pheromone) and as a defense

mechanism to protect beetles from predators (Hodek 1973). The quality of wines produced

from these infested grapes is seriously affected (Pickering et al. 2004 ) and up to 20% of the

wines produced in Ontario in 2001 were tainted (G.M.W, personal communication).

This has created a requirement in some seasons for control of these beetles on grapes grown

for both wine and juice in Ontario. As part of an initial response to this problem we have

investigated the use of selected insecticides. Most of the literature on the effects of pesticides on

H. axyridis relates to the impact of insecticides on these insects as a non-target species but there

are a number of studies summarized by Koch (2003). Generally, these studies indicated that

219

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

adults were less sensitive than larval stages. Further, as a group, pyrethroids were most toxic but

there were large differences between the various pyrethroids. Carbaryl was rated as highly toxic

to adults but few data on the effects of organophosphorus insecticides were presented in Koch’s

(2003) review. The neonicotinoid acetamiprid was rated highly toxic to eggs, larvae and adults

in laboratory studies by Youn et a/. (2003). Another neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was less toxic

to late instar larvae and pupae.

We have assessed a number of insecticides in laboratory and field but because H. axyridis

becomes a pest of grape within a few days of harvest, we restricted compounds tested in the field

to malathion, acetamiprid and cypermethrin which are registered for use close to harvest (three-

seven days preharvest). Carbaryl is allowed up to five days of harvest in Ontario, but residues

detected in wine from such uses preclude its use here.

Methods

Laboratory Bioassays

For assays, we used beetles collected from unsprayed vineyards of cv.Riesling in the

Vineland area in October 2003. Beetles were collected in polyethylene vials lined with plant

leaves, and were held overnight in a refrigerator at 4°C. Insecticides, (malathion, purity 99%,

cypermethrin, 98%, permethrin, 98%, and carbaryl 98%) were analytical grade samples (Chem

Services, West Chester PA) and acetamiprid, 99.9% a.i., (Bayer Inc, Etobicoke, ON) were

applied to beetles in five mL of analytical grade acetone using a Potter spray tower (12 s spray

time followed by five s settling time). Controls were treated with five mL acetone. Beetles were

anaesthetized with CO2, 30 s at 30 kPa and placed upright in glass Petri dishes on a Whatman

#1 filter paper, five/dish, for treatment. Treated beetles were held in 200 mL glass jars for 24h

in a rearing room at 22 + 2°C, 60%RH with a photoperiod of 16:8 (L:D). Beetles unable to

walk after prodding with a fine brush were considered dead. For calculation of concentration/

response regressions, six concentrations with ten replicates of five beetles were used. Tests were

over several days. Data were subjected to probit analysis (POLO-PC LeOra Software, Berkeley,

California). Differences in responses of beetles to the various insecticides were considered

different if the 95% confidence limits at the LC50 did not overlap.

To determine whether beetles recovered from treatments of acetamiprid, cypermethrin or

malathion, we treated ten replications of five beetles at one of the concentrations used in the

calculation of the concentration/response regressions described above and assessed mortality at

24, 48 and 72h post treatment to determine whether mortality changed over time (i.e., whether

beetles recovered from treatment or more were affected). Differences in means for the three

post treatment times were tested with an analysis of variance.

Field Tests

Tests were conducted in a ca. ten -year-old vineyard of cv. Riesling near Vineland, Ontario,

where earlier observations had indicated high numbers of beetles. Plots were located on a

south facing edge of the vineyard and clearly held a population of H.axyridis. Treatments were

replicated four times with plots (five vines/plot) arranged in a randomized complete block design.

Insecticides, malathion (Malathion 500EC, United Agri Products, London, ON), cypermethrin,

(Cymbush 250EC, Zeneca Agro,Stoney Creek ,ON) and acetamiprid (Assail 7OWP, DuPont

Canada Inc., Mississauga, ON) were applied 23 October 2003. These insecticides were diluted

to a rate comparable to 3000L/ha and sprayed to runoff using a Rittenhouse truck-mounted

120

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

sprayer (Rittenhouse Sprayers, St Catharines, ON) equipped with a Spraying Systems handgun

fitted with a D-6 orifice plate. Pressure was set at 2000 kPa. Each plot required eight to nine L

of spray mix. Plots were sampled one day (24 October) and seven days (30 October, 2003) after

treatment when total numbers of beetles in bunches and on leaves were recorded for each plot.

Data were transformed (log (x+1)), analyzed by ANOVA, and means separated with a Tukey

test (P=0.05) .

Results and Discussion

Laboratory bioassays showed that acetamiprid and cypermethrin were most toxic to

beetles (Table I). Another pyrethroid, permethrin was less toxic than cypermethrin but was

ca. equitoxic to malathion or carbaryl. Observations reported were 24h post treatment. Beetles

treated with acetamiprid were affected (appeared immobilized) at concentrations lower than

we used in bioassays but these responded as capable of normal movement when prodded.

Observations 24, 48 and 72 hours after treatment indicated increased mortality of beetles

treated with acetamiprid (Table II). Earlier reports (Williams and Fickle 2003) with another

neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, indicated initial knockdown followed by recovery, but this did

not occur with acetamiprid. Mortality associated with treatments of cypermethrin or malathion

was unchanged in these later observations.

TABLE I. Toxicity of insecticides to field-collected multicoloured Asian lady beetles in the

laboratory.

TREATMENT SLOPE + SE LC50 (95% CL)? x?

mg/L

Acetamiprid? 2.4 + 0.2 22 LVL adhe) 6.4

Cypermethrin 1.4+0.2 28.1 (14.8 - 41.9) 9.8

Permethrin 219:20:2). 91 131.5 (108.4 - 154.6) 5.7

Malathion 4.0+0.3 FA4A-“(129,0 = 2873) 58.0

Carbaryl 3.6 + 0.3 1 5:(7.0. - 106.7 } 7.2

* Mortality 24h after treatment

Ba ~ 350

In the field, one day after treatment, plots treated with cypermethrin and malathion had

significantly (P=0.05) fewer beetles than untreated plots or those treated with acetamiprid

(Table III). A number of beetles on acetamiprid-treated vines were affected similarly to those

in the laboratory but crawled readily when placed on the hands of the observers. In other

treated plots most dead beetles were on the ground under vines but a few dead individuals were

caught up in the grape bunches. In our survey of the literature, we did not find information

on whether or not dead beetles are a potential source of methoxypyrazines, or how long these

compounds might persist in dead insects. In samples seven days post treatment, plots treated

with cypermethrin had fewer beetles than control plots but there were no differences between

insecticide treatments (Table III). Whether the numbers surviving in this plot (mean of seven

beetles over five vines) are above a threshold which could result in off flavors in wine produced

121

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

TABLE II. Influence of holding time on the toxicity of insecticides to multicoloured Asian lady

beetles.

TREATMENT PERCENT MORTALITY

Hours after Treatment*

24h 48h 72h

Acetamiprid 30 ppm 56b* 84° 76°

Cypermethrin 50 70° 823 78°

Malathion 200 30° ns 34°

* Beetles held at 24°C, 60% RH

>’ Means of 10 replications of 5 beetles: means separated by ANOVA, numbers in same row

followed by same letter NSD

TABLE III. Control of multicoloured Asian lady beetles on Riesling grape - 2003.

TREATMENT? RATE BEETLES/PLOT

g a.i./ha DAYS AFTER TREATMENT

1 7

Cypermethrin 60 0.0° 7.0°

(Cymbush 250EC)

Malathion 900 0.3° 11.0%

(Malathion SOOE)

Acetamiprid 56 11.8? 27.0”

(Assail 70WP)

Control - 2.6" 38.8*

* Applied 23 October 2003, plots 7.5 long in 2.1 m spaced rows, replicated 4 times.

* Numbers in same column followed by same letter are not significantly different P<0.05,

Tukey test

from these grapes is not known and may require considerable additional study. In any case, itwould

beadvantageous for dead beetles to fall to the ground so they would notbe harvested with the grapes.

The lack of control with acetamiprid was surprising given the results of the laboratory

assays: the rate we tested in the field was based on rates recommended (Anonymous 2003) on

grape for leafhopper control. Reissig (2003) reported that another neonicotinoid, imidacloprid,

which was highly toxic in laboratory tests against apple maggot, (Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh))

(Diptera: Tephritidae), was less effective than expected when applied to foliage in the field. Hu

et al. (1998 ) speculated that the ineffectiveness of imidacloprid against apple maggot in the

122

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

field might be associated with rapid absorption and consequent inactivity against insects on the

surface or to rapid degradation by sunlight.

Cypermethrin-treated plots had fewer beetles (than controls) in samples both one day and

seven days post treatment indicating that toxic residues persisted at least seven days. Malathion

reduced beetle numbers in samples one day post treatment, but was not effective in the sample

seven days post treatment. Currently, cypermethrin has a seven-day preharvest limit on grape

(Anonymous 2003) and appears to be the product of choice based on these trials. However, it is

not registered for use in the U.S. and would not be useful on grapes grown for juice for export.

Malathion was effective in samples one-day post treatment and can be used up to three days

preharvest and might be used on grapes grown for export.

This study has identified two insecticides that reduced infestations of H. axyridis on grapes,

and which may be used close to harvest when beetles become a problem. This may provide an

immediate or short-term response to a new problem but in the longer term, management of beetle

populations below a still to be determined threshold by other means is desirable. H. axyridis is

beneficial throughout much of its life cycle, and effective populations should be preserved.

Acknowledgements

We thank Karen Whitty and Wayne Roberts for assistance in collections of beetles and

assessment of field plots.

References

Anonymous. 2003. Fruit Production Recommendations. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and

Food. Toronto, Ontario. 294 pp.

Hodek, I. 1973. Biology of Coccinellidae. W. Junk, The Hague. 260 pp.

Hu, X. P., A. Kaknes, and R.J. Prokopy. 1998. Can apple maggot fly control benefit from

sprays of Provado aimed at killing leafminers and leafhoppers? Fruit Notes 63 (2) 4-6.

Koch, R.L. 2003. The multicoloured Asian lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis: A review of its

biology, uses in biological control, and non-target impacts. 16 pp. Journal of Insect Science

3:32, available online: http://insectscience.org/3.32

Koch,R.L., E.C. Burkness, S.J. W. Burkness and D.W. Hutchison. 2004. Phytophagous

preference of the multicoloured Asian lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) for autumn -

ripening fruit. Journal of Economic Entomology 97: 539-544.

Pickering, G., J. Lin, R. Friesen, A. Reynolds, I. Brindle, and G. Soleas. 2004. Influence of

Harmonia axyridis on the sensory properties of white and red wine. American Journal of

Enology and Viticulture 55:153-159.

Reissig, W.H. 2003. Field and laboratory tests of new insecticides against the apple maggot,

Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) (Diptera:Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology

96:1463 - 1472.

Williams, R.N., and D.S. Fickle. 2003. Update on the multicoloured Asian lady beetle in the

Lake Erie region. Wine East 30:20-22.

Youn, Y.N., M.J. Seo, J.G. Shin, C. Jang and Y.M. Yu 2003. Toxicity of pesticides to multicoloured

Asian lady beetles Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biological Control

28:164-170.

E25

sqjera a0 saat rater teviey Yeb-riee’ ‘

ni) Asyowerd dali * aad cts honed ace : : {€.

Bec wah «ik svi nVNTY 2Yey NO tated ST al 05 share

ale SGA ty ig’ hor od aso bean PP TT) Jeti —e peas? B-

ogee rot pMnatg nuvboets 3d ee

EER 1O mete Vid enon epelentsnubar a Sbrmirsere

le theta emt “iG ' Sem aa geotxyd salraod searlya anee pe snola tees pas

Nb eeek Ceulie, oe TM ey ootied ut ag upd ansidencpmcnt sigs eter atss

@ deoree WV yaldiiedy § patio metho yd bahycheoraris tama ai

TEIN, VT hy cacirty ermslqy SVieates biy 7s ATO TOUR:

al. Adan taly:

ee wee

Siig. tlt ra. do, ireticoollos pt eanrenalegy a ef ey, ERENAS

be . J i ble

. eaithe rer asa

exons as es

bury: uPA tos rvsecctibe (nina? . phon rab a

qa.¢0S onsinO Thee i

ory GAY cual of T aa) Pe Sirians a exe “lab

oeett-tisesd iovrecs vi rayyees dag Ho) BCI yqolorT .Ls Eins zat A DES

fogs

ep £6) Sereqaait 1201) Seogeeattes! bne ersnimteal § qnilfal 2% boris obsver‘ to ey

~ worn - caste rn weeeweear\ igo (bel Rrtey bemebearlgag asp oft FOOL. lB gf

fie Seal te len urd Gye? he ol ms non Des ones tate Aor fal PIR

: i WIG Aonetatoamn\\qrrd -anilaw aldalisvs , +e:

sve] 1, oovrtxtel VC) base woakwel 7 165 poral pe he 8 iy i :

uk wel (sehitio evans > ly: a whet mumtes bortoloontuer adi te sonaratnig }

boc VPP s\i ny Neri: tr Noo) to ate Ly

nal pit uw oe hank : bled a A. pie a ier is)

; Toc ern | Leth sdrriwe do. eat q ‘forme a no Sarees soa

PF1-€21-228 sunlusni¥ bas Pryelal

Inizea dtc. oc nmge balan) Wee Io oe TuBeIOR. bas blot sei a

POONA, WRONG'a?d 10 Pycrrertub : ih sroerqad arbors =the eee ie

coca reas ca eee iit Berni SSibind a

717 11t SI wh -¢teal phatads. 1999 Lita} Jeli rittreee tata ib

“s

’

neta iluie Ot ebioae by oe giana SODE ag

Ioarhy. ) care igi. ablyaleyancr fn] peste 5 inti

mt ctherfoeds this cst hea

ame be pettoaroege- ot bred

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

BOOK REVIEWS

Damselflies of the Northeast. 2004. dy Ed Lam. Biodiversity Books, Forest Hills, New York.

96 pp. ISBN 0-9754015-0-5. $20 US.

Once in a while a landmark resource guide is produced. Ed Lam has done just that with his

excellent new guide to the adult damselflies of northeastern North America. While many guides

have been produced recently for Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), none have managed to

take the advances that have occurred within the realm of bird field guides and adapt them to

this group of insects — until now! Unfortunately, however, it only covers one half of the order

— the Zygoptera or damselflies. This suborder is, however, the one that provides the most grief

and frustration for those beginning to learn how to identify Odonata.

The guide itself is relatively small and compact, measuring 5.5 by 8.5 inches, with a total of

96 pages and could, therefore, be easily carried in the field. It covers 69 species and subspecies

of damselflies and is fully illustrated-with more than 300 detailed paintings, drawings and

photographs. The text is well written and the illustrations are nothing short of spectacular! They

are so detailed that they have a photographic quality to them.

The guide begins with an introduction to damselflies, followed by a nicely written overview

of their life cycle. Next, a richly illustrated, two-page spread covers all of the adult anatomical

features, including wing venation, relevant to species identification. A wonderful section

entitled “Species Identification” acts as a “how to” for species identification at three levels: in

the field, in the hand, and under the microscope. Also included in this section are useful tips on

how to catch and collect damselflies. Finally, within the introductory section, two pages provide

information on how the species accounts are organized.

The species accounts themselves are well organized and attractively laid out with a full

page dedicated to a single species. The illustrations include a dorsal view for males (complete

with accurate wing venation — no small task!) and lateral views for both sexes. When necessary,

additional lateral views illustrate different colour forms or mature versus immature individuals.

Illustrations (some black and white, others in colour) are also provided, when necessary, to

illustrate features such as male or female genitalia, or more detailed patterns of the head, thorax

or abdomen. Key markings and features are indicated by lines pointing directly to the feature

with a short description (e.g., “segments 8-10 completely blue”). Each species account contains

a general description of the damselfly (complete with measurement ranges in both inches and

millimeters) along with notes on its habitat, distribution and status. At the bottom of each

page, a section provides detail on similar species — an indispensable feature for a field guide.

Icons for each species (and sex), indicate whether it can usually be identified by binoculars,

requires a hand lens, or if it a microscope is needed — this is a unique and useful feature of this

guide. A silhouette is also featured providing the actual size of an average specimen. Finally, a

range map is provided for each species, indicating known distribution to the county level.

Each of the three families, and most of the genera within the family Coenagrionidae

(pond damsels), begin with a page introducing the family or genus and is accompanied by a

photograph or two and an excellent overview of the group.

125

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Within the genus Enallagma (American bluets), many females can only be reliably

identified by examining details of their thorax (mesostigmal laminae) under a microscope or

with a powerful hand lens, While many books and guides in the past have chosen to ignore this,

Lam rises to the occasion and provides the user with an appendix illustrating these features.

Although this is, in my opinion, the best guide ever produced on the subject, it does have

some faults. As far as the production is concerned, some pages are already becoming loose on

my copy. Although I find it hard to put the book down, I can’t say that it’s been extensively used

and I fear what effect a few trips in the field will have on it. I’m also disappointed in the coverage

depicted in the range maps. Strictly from an Ontario perspective, it’s unfortunate that the

extreme southwestern tip of the province has been cut off and that more of northern Ontario

is not included. From a broader Canadian perspective, the map could have been extended

to the east and the north to encompass all of the Maritime Provinces and northern Quebec

without having to add any species. A user from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland may not realize,

for example, that the guide is actually fully applicable to their area. Along the same lines, the

area of coverage could have been extended west to include Michigan, all of Ohio, Indiana,

Illinois, Wisconsin and northwestern Ontario with the addition of only two species (Argia

plana and Coenagrion angulatum, the latter of which is the only Ontario species not featured in

this guide). I realize that a cut-off has to be made somewhere but I think that the area covered

could have been greatly increased with minimal effort.

Users from Ontario also need to be aware that Smoky Rubyspot (Hetaerina titia), illustrated

on page 22 of the guide, does not have extensively dark wingtips in this part of their range.

Rather, the dark tip on the wing is barely discernable. “Our” form is not illustrated nor is it

mentioned in the text. In fact, the only mention of variation is that males may be MORE

extensively marked in dark brown on the wing than is illustrated. This is unfortunate and will

surely confuse many users from this part of their range — possibly leading them to misidentify

Smoky Rubyspots as American Rubyspots Hetaerina americana (a closely related, but more

common species that shares many characteristics),

The above faults are minor in the big picture. As stated earlier, in my opinion this book

is the best guide ever produced for Odonata. Ed Lam has raised the bar considerably within

the realm of Odonata field guides. This guide deserves a place both on the bookshelf and in

the field bag of anyone with an interest in damselflies. Amateur naturalists with an interest in

learning the damselflies, who have been either intimidated in the past by the technical nature of

scientific treatments or frustrated with the lack of sufficient detail in the available field guides,

will find that this is the guide they have been waiting for. Experienced entomologists and

odonatologists will also find this book to be a wonderful and informative resource. Now we just

need a companion volume for the dragonflies!

Further information on this book, including samples of the illustrations and species accounts,

and how to order a copy can be found at: http://homepage.mac.com/edlam/book.html

COLIN D. JONES

Natural Heritage Information Centre

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

300 Water Street, 2nd Floor North Tower

Peterborough, Ontario Canada K9] 8M5

colin.jones@mnr.gov.on.ca

126

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

Insect and Bird Interactions. 2004. edited by Helmut van Emden and Miriam Rothschild.

Intercept Publishers, Ltd., Andover, UK. ISBN 1-898298-92-0.70£ or 112 Euros.

I wanted to be an ornithologist by the age of four. Bird-watching controlled my life until

16 years later when a peripheral interest in insects was rekindled, leading to a 30-year career

studying bees and butterflies. I enthusiastically agreed to review “Insect and Bird Interactions”

(IBI) which the book's cover informs us “...is the first of its kind to explore the diversity of

interactions between insects and birds.”Given my personal experiences, I had a set of topics

I hoped would be explored (including butterflies and bees!). Having birded several spring

migration hot-spots, like Point Pelee, I was particularly interested in how hungry birds affect

the phenology and abundance of the insects they encounter during the 3-4 weeks of migration.

Although I was somewhat disappointed because IBI failed to cover this and most other topics

on my mind, as a consequence | learned about many other topics.

Part 1 of the book discusses “population management issues.” The first chapter (as well

as Chapter 16) demonstrates that in simple environments, we can obtain insights and model

populations with a high degree of certainty. However, when that focus is shifted to more

complex communities of birds and their prey (Chapter 6), we see that for most birds the real

world is too messy to allow modeling in all but the most intensively studied systems.

Chapters 2-4 discuss the depressing effects of modern agriculture on natural biodiversity.

The difficulty of precisely determining the insects that comprise the foods of any bird species

in a community, coupled with the contributing factors of variable farming techniques and

applications of pesticides by growers, make it impossible to directly link changes in bird

populations with specific agricultural activities. Nevertheless, numbers of many British birds are

declining in part due to new farming practices, especially the loss of buffer zones around fields

and the removal of weeds with herbicides. The best data are derived from detailed studies of

the Grey Partridge (Chapters 3 & 7). I enjoyed the detailed account of the chough, for which a

strong relationship between livestock grazing patterns and crane fly ecology seems to determine

the quality of foraging conditions and consequently nesting success for the birds. This is an

excellent example of research that provides humans with information we can use to modify

farming activities to improve conditions for birds.

Chapters 7-9 concern the effects of insecticides on bird populations. The overall tone

is that insecticides are generally bad for birds—a fairly safe assumption that nevertheless

demands empirical support. Unfortunately, the authors are forced to rely extensively on logic

and “soft” data because the complexity of the systems limits our ability to conduct “hard” tests;

consequently, their arguments will fail to convince the skeptics. From an historical analysis,

Colin Walker (Chap. 9) suggests that the use of cyclodiene insecticides, not DDT/DDE, were

probably responsible for the egg-shell thinning that led to declines of Sparrow hawks and

Peregrines in the UK. Unfortunately, American data are only briefly referred to, leaving me

uninformed about how the UK experience relates to the generally accepted story that DDT and

its metabolite DDE caused declines in raptors in North America.

Part 3 has 8 chapters concerning foraging behaviour of birds. I was impressed with the

complex colour vision of birds that includes perception of UV-wavelengths (Chaps. 10 & 11).

In addition, the story that I learned long ago, that birds have a poor sense of smell, is shaken by

experiments in which birds adjust their feeding in response to various odours (Chap. 12-15).

127

Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario Volume 135, 2004

These chapters force us to rethink warning colouration and mimicry in insects in terms

of the visual and olfactory stimuli that specific avian predators can perceive, Also, we cannot

assume that one bird perceives an insect in the same way another does, further complicating

the study of mimicry, Detailed analysis of the ant prey of wrynecks (Chap, 16) clarifies why

this species can survive in both natural and highly managed ecosystems, but fails to provide

guidance for us to conserve this uncommon and declining species because “the impact of

modern agricultural practices on ant communities is not known,”

The last three chapters concern the ectofauna of birds, Chapter 18 reviews the various

defenses birds have against ectoparasites, | was disappointed that the authors chose not to

discuss the evidence relating to the well-known Hamilton and Zuk handicap principle. On the

other hand, the extent co which bill morphology represents a compromise between preening

and foraging abilities was particularly interesting, Chapter 19 provides a strong argument

that young Common Cuckoos acquire their lice from conspecifics on the wintering grounds,

However, it is poor science to use data from obligate brood parasites (cuckoos) to question the

vertical transmission of lice from non-parasitic parents to their young,

As is true of many edited volumes that emerge from symposia, the various styles and

variable depths of the book's chapters fail to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject.

Several chapters could have been replaced, Chapter | (shorebird ecology) and Chapter 10 (the

avian retina) make no mention of insects, (The relevant information from Chap, 10 is repeated

and placed in entomological context in Chap, 11), Chapter 20 was written for phylogenetic

specialists and the primary message will escape most readers, Some other chapters are so specific

(i.e, individual experiments) that the uninformed reader will have difficulty placing them

into context, Many topics and taxa (¢.g., bee-eaters, honey-guides) were neglected, Despite

these shortcomings, | learned many interesting things from IBI, as highlighted above, It is

discouraging that for most bird species, complex diets coupled with species-specific olfactory

and visual abilities, temporal changes in insect communities, and complex interactions

with numerous other birds and insects, make it impossible to fully understand their effects

on individual insect species, With the added unknowns of global warming and a paucity of

ornithologists who understand insects (and vice versa), it becomes apparent that this topic will

remain blurred for years to come,

Although too complicated for most birders, this book will appeal to both insect and bird

behaviourists and ecologists, The early chapters should also be of interest to people interested in

the effects of modern agricultural practices on natural communities, However, | am unsure how

many of these individuals will find enough of interest to be satisfied, Academic institutions

should purchase IBI as a reference work,

DR, GARD W, OTIS

Department of Environmental Biology

University of Guelph

Guelph, Ontario Canada NIG 2W1

gotis@uoguelph.ca

2004 ANNUAL MEETING

The Entomological Society of Ontario is grateful for the support received from Entomogen

Inc. and Totallybuggy Ltd. for the 141st Annual Meeting held in St. Catharines ON at

Brock University on November 5 to 7, 2004.

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 of the Entomological Society

of Ontario. The Journal publishes 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.

An annual fee of $30 provides membership in the Society, the right to publish in the Journal,

and receive the Newsletter and the Journal. Students, amateurs and retired entomologists can

join free of charge but do not receive the Journal.

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

W. W. Bill Judd 2002

C. Ron Harris 2003

Edward C. Becker 2003

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

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 ee

I. FROM THE EDITOR.......000-- Ses RD Wik efi TUR i - Se

II. SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPTS

HUBER, J. — Review of the described Nearctic species of the crassicornis group of 4 q

Anaphes s.s. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) “a

(Received 18 October 2004; Accepted 6 June 2005). ..........sscsssssceseeesessseeenssereeeeeees \ cawele 386 a

ROMANKOVA, T. — Ontario bees of tribe Epeolini: Epeolus Latreille and Th vepeole # .

Holmberg (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Apidae). a

(Received 14 November, 2004; Accepted 15 May, 2005)..........sssssesssssesessseereneeesens 87-99 ‘

MARSHALL, S. A., S.M. PAIERO and O. LONSDALE. — New records of Orthoptera i”

from Canada and Ontario.

(Received 17 July, 2004; Accepted 20 January, 2005). ...........:sscsssessseccersenesersensees 101-107

PREE, D. — Management of Resistance to Insecticides in the Obliquebanded Leafrolles, 3

Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris), (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) in Ontario Orchards

(Received 14 February, 2004; Accepted 15 March 2004). ...........sccssssssseseescceereeeeee LO9-118

PREE, D. — Control of the Multicoloured Asian Lady Beetle, Harmonia axyridis —

(Pallas) (Coleoptera:Coccinellidae), on Grapes in Ontario ie

(Received 28 January, 2004; Accepted 13 September, 2004)..........:cseceseeseeees sessseee 119-123

Ill. BOOK REVIEWS

JONES, C.D. — Damselflies of the Northeast. 2004. by Ed Lam..............:00000 125-126 "

OTIS, G.W. — Insect and Bird Interactions. 2004. edited by Helmut van Emden and —

Miriam Rothschild .......sscccssessstsaseonnssensuseepstsieerbasassslsspupsicesntiede eae 127-128

IV. ANNUAL MEETINGS inside back cover

V. ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO inside back cover

ne.

VI. APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP inside back cover _

VII. NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS inside back cover

[..°> ae '

— o> ‘cere a ;

. we

Cia

4 ~

zs *

> fy

a, Ye a

;

4s ,

PAE ton Se .

= 7: a "aut - at,

° »\ a Prat & y P i

7 s 7 ¢

_ .% ~ 4

« i .

« é. ay a

5 a

Z .*

sl &

} ’

_ e ‘ a aa «

elke *

’ : i. : , r,

seat aera “ig te ell DRO ee i

: —- = .

5) ae, adie. :

oe ween

171

ERNST MAYR LIBRARY

AVAIL

118 666

Vil

S—=rTt

=—vwt

—s

—

me Mee te et

PSN eee

ves

Shee reves oe

a ea

Cn en

Oe eens

Srey

Wee cies

Pt biee

Pe egeres

Se taeee gs

eet ane

Pen meee

em tenrey

A" Sogo!

Ayres

ae re)

Resgenee

029) pe pee rey

sary sie ae

APOE Tm mes STDP Pep ases

eer ag, Pg raseene

i # VA Pa ey

aa ane

Ae tetas

PMO ae eee

Shee eye

rh’ BANE RE Ry waigie iho ded ta RET

Pa ih iis al Coke ee . ener ic ete tr tit re aeains

eg, “ a 4 Sooner Tae

Se Srrer tt

fepet

mer ed reas

ea te

Wert ar ise

WATE AS AA eA hae

ce eee

Et et nn evn

NS UPW A tue re ee seu PREVP UNS Map Ome PAS,

en Nide a mies ee pitts at eee eee ee

Fo ar ae Say eter yee rar rete

ik bel be

Cad Le ne wens

WENO Ty ie ante ne ity a POR pe tye ad sap

rw -

”

ae On

een Sac Cr ee rr

wate SUM Le ph EET tae |

Pate are rs

Po a

TL gage Pty

EPCs Cen eray rat Fae ae ge uae bar

CE SNE Tava Ue ae pbs? at ae ges arn B04 CE he sagas aps

SADE ee WEE SNL we ey UENO” ane

ea Oe ne ee ee eee

v etna Sela Wha ut

AD Stare eee

WPF ASU PS t a Qt th ny

WEES pent oe

peeve

a ae

Pi ay : c

rf tes wheoutuee ‘

RES new ree Wide yo wy ater he is AP we Me Lat agate ta uige

SAUD ae PP THe eRe TEE RENT ae Le ye TYR Se ER Eg

Pade tbitied SS ak Un Gr ak aver ,

Sn ee Led Te Career

ae oe Le

SWAMI ge fee

! PME MENT LS Ue aE ure a pt

Be MDG ASOLO UE Ne Me Meal VETTE Wet al Ue Wee Bate won SONNE LE

SADA Oe ae COE eT ste why Sie Ons

See ester ge we ; SED owl wt 4

vy Pe OR a On Oo " ¥

“yt Plavayay Peay bee ae ee

Pa,

yews HOSTS Wee UK aye

We ae

ORS aa a acne

rir ye eth hae

Worapitws

Pedure wea Y MRA NE RIO ay

BeVERS ad eh MEDAL wa te, ry

yeu

WoW wes ewe

oer wt Ne Re gt pre ae YT EAT Meat g

SEE RUE MEE LEW aT UT ergs ar ye WE ATV ot rag yr ae

SEMI WE GENS YP MPN BN Voie aye pean be We

Leah had Ae tae Td ue ts

BT OF OSA AT WE mee tears y ots ye

el) ih a ay SVEN yt Wee eye werd 2

VRE at Ae BO Me Ut ye VEU ORE We yrage My

A od WEEE Whe

Pyar iy A ove

J Se Pe i er er ety Weare Wotan g a

ait ed eee nd PRE i AS el Ln Ca ws aioe

UW” ¥" DOW We ue cee

MVE I Mead ot ee

en Th Ps

test moe

Aeneas

OURAN ry

Seles

A Le ree

etones

Haney ke

AMS by eee

whee

Phe tives AGNES MS yO Roy

Sere ers Te POY Nae ey tae HF Ay

Le hoe CAE Th ee ey

SpA ye BIN gas quT

EM Mp mem , mes

SO ey AYU PMs MM Peper edey ny

OAT MRE VEN uy “doe ht ARSE Be lB oe

WE AL EH

ny MOL YLME tS eM

YY U ay LAY GU YEE Oy DA Ate ab thd toe

Ree OP Or ve Psa 28a MEAD iA Fiesta map

ONE NOM Osmo MRE, Gann “wh aw wy WINES

Wy PALE OREN Mate ENE that

Dee RO coer er Reet

MOS WME bey nee ded

ORME Re A %

ON bay My ps tite sat

Sd OTE Ppa

Ae etd MY

Mees

ey We AY eit

Loe Wienges hen ene Ay idea BME eae ay went

Poh te LAE PI EE cep sat ty ys

TRY Cin OR Tie kre Sere eer PA eA}

‘apt aig Sed THEM RL Aa A Se RU eh UP

ot ROL eee

Lv ml eee

shh ee,

PEcpOn a-aeasen ceeereae

paren nae arin neha Sent pak

7 ; WAS Ae be

MAMPI ROR AGT amy

pes ape

Amana tes bi da le deter} A

ye eony OF eg BER FU OAS One Lt ae

Nm teh, Ma ionye

ee ee

ee ar ee ne ae Pe ad

"BIE CRO NA AT air

Paampeiftaun Aye anr

Bp She

es Lene aa UAW ew

sy Ht aR MU MY EMM hie Meta Oe PID,

UMA AY te ay Ee mE Meu

ee ie te TT Cd

ih kode ee ee en ‘

2 ol Sa ee el eS welt

TLE MG TY NEN NE ong ere rie ne,

TA Sens euencs Mb gape Te AY D9 LOIN TTY Me yey ty oy re

SERINE Re he Meme rigtin ty atl ee oy eure e

Te Ey Nyt m tye

yee yen

Phe hori he