Advertisement

Entomophaga

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 345–350 | Cite as

Some features of sex-linked hyperparasitism inAphelinidae [Hymenoptera]

  • J. R. Williams
Article

Abstract

The attributes of sexual differentiation of host-relationships in certain species ofAphelinidae whose females develop as primary parasites and whose males develop hyperparasitically are described with the aid of an example. The relevance of the phenomenon to population regulation and to biological control is discussed.

Keywords

Plant Pathology Biological Control Population Regulation Sexual Differentiation Primary Parasite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Les conséquences de la différenciation sexuelle selon les hôtes chez certaines espèces d'Aphelinides dont les femelles se développent en parasites primaires et les mâles par hyperparasitisme sont decrites en ayant recours à un exemple. Les rapports entre ce phénomène et la régulation des populations et ses incidences sur la lutte biologique sont discutés.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Askew, R. R. — 1971 Parasitic insects. —Heinemann, London, 316 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Flanders, S. E. — 1959. Differential host relations of the sexes in parasitic Hymenoptera. —Entomol. Exp. & Appl., 2, 125–142.Google Scholar
  3. — — 1967. Deviate ontogenies in the aphelinid male [Hymenoptera] associated with the ovipositional behaviour of the parent female. —Entomophaga, 12, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. — — 1969. Alternative differential mortality of the sexes concomitant to sex differentiation in host relations. —Entomophaga, 14, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hagen, K. S. — 1964. Developmental stages of parasites. In: Biological control of insect pests and weeds, (P. DeBach. ed.) —Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  6. Huffaker, C. B., H. Messengér, P. S. Messengér &DeBach, P. — 1971. The natural enemy component in natural control and the theory of biological control. In: Biological control (Huffaker, C. B. ed.) —Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Williams, J. R. — 1972. The biology ofPhyscus seminorus Silv. andP. subflavus Annecke & Insley [Aphelinidae], parasites of the sugar cane scale insectAulacaspis tegalensis (Zhnt.) [Diaspididae]. —Bull. Entomol. Res., 61, 463–484.Google Scholar
  8. Williams, J. R. &Greathead, D. J. — 1973. The sugar cane scale insectAulacaspis tegalensis (Zhnt.) and its biological control in Mauritius and East Africa. —Pest Art. & News Summ., 19, 353–367.Google Scholar
  9. Zinna, G. — 1961. Richerche sugli insetti entomofagi. II. Specializzizione entomopara sitica negliAphelinidae: Studio morfologico, etologico e fisiologico delCoccophagus bivittatus Compere, nuovo parassita delCoccus hesperidum L. per l'Italia. —Boll. Lab Entomol. Agrar. Filippo Silvestri, 19, 301–358.Google Scholar
  10. — — 1962. Richerche sugli insetti entomofagi. III. Specializzizione entomoparassitica negliAphelinidae: Interdependenze biocenotiche tra due specie associate. Studio morfologico, etologico e fisiologico delCoccophagoides similis (Masi) eAzotus matritensis Mercet. —Boll. Lab. Entomol. Agrar. Filippo Silvestri, 20, 73–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Le François 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Mauritius Sugar Industry Research InstituteRéduitMauritius

Personalised recommendations