Biosystematics of Natural Enemies

  • Gordon Gordh
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 11)


Insects are man’s primary competitor. In an effort to compete successfully with insects for food and fiber, man has employed numerous techniques for the suppression of pest insect populations. Biological control is one approach that has been used with some success against many insect pests. Augmentation is the phase of biological control concerned with the manipulation of natural enemies to make them more efficient in applied biological control programs. DeBach (1964) observed that the possibilities of augmentation have not been explored thoroughly. The field of biosystematics is similarly poorly explored but shows great promise as a research tool for biological control workers. In many instances biosystematics may be the only course available to biological control workers.


Biological Control Sugar Cane Natural Enemy Insect Pest Cryptic Species 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References Cited

  1. Alam, M. M., F. D. Bennett and K. P. Karl. 1971. Biological control of Diatraea saoaharalis (F.) in Barbados by Apanteles ftavipes Cam. and Lixophaga diatraeae T. T. Entomophaga 16 (2): 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, H. W. 1954. Propagation of Horogenes molestaeл an asiatic parasite of the oriental fruit moth, on the potato tuberworm. J. Econ. Entomol. 47 (2): 278–281.Google Scholar
  3. Ashley, T. R., D. Gonzales and T. F. Leigh. 1974. Selection and hybridization of Trichogramma. Environ. Entomol. 3 (1): 43– 48.Google Scholar
  4. Askew, R. R. 1968. Considerations on speciation in Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Evolution 22 (3): 642–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Askew, R. R. 1971. Parasitic Insects. American Elsevier Publ. Co., New York, 316 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Assem, J. van den 1974. Male courtship patterns and female re-ceptivity signal of Pteromalinae (Hym., Pteromalidae), with a consideration of some evolutionary trends and a comment on the taxonomic position of Pachyorepoideus vindemiae. Netherlands J. Zool. 24 (3): 253–278.Google Scholar
  7. Assem, J. van den 1975. Temporal patterning of courtship behavior in some parasitic Hymenoptera, with special reference to Melittobia acasta. J. Entomol. 50 (3): 137–146.Google Scholar
  8. Assem, J. van den and G. D. E. Povel. 1973. Courtship behaviour of some Musaidifurax species (Hym., Pteromalidae); A possible example of recently evolved ethological isolating mechanism. Netherlands J. Zool. 23 (4): 465–487.Google Scholar
  9. Baker, J. L. 1976. Determinants of host selection for species of Aphytbs (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), parasites of diaspine scales. Hilgardia 44 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  10. Beirne, B. P. 1975. Biological control attempts by introductions against pest insects in the field in Canada. Canad. Entomol. 107 (3): 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, F. D. 1971. Current status of biological control of the small moth borers of sugar cane Diatvaea (Lep. Pyralidae). Entomophaga 16 (1): 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boiler, E. 1972. Behavioral aspects of mass-rearing of insects. Entomophaga 17 (1): 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boucek, Z. 1958. Zur Taxonomie der entomophagen Insekten, be- sonders der Hymenopteren in Europa. Trans. 1st. Int. Conf. Ins. Path. Biol. Cont., Prague, pp. 349–353.Google Scholar
  14. Box, H. E. 1956. The biological control of moth borers (Diatraea) in Venezuela. Battle against Venezeula’s cane borer. Part 1. Preliminary investigations and the launching of a general campaign. Sugar 51: 25–27, 30, 45.Google Scholar
  15. Bullini, L. and M. Coluzzi. 1973. Electrophoretic studies on gene-enzyme systems in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Parassitologia 15 (3): 221–248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Burns, J. M. 1975. Isozymes in evolutionary systematics, pp. 49– 62. In: Isozymes I V. Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Burns, J. M. and F. M. Johnson. 1967. Esterase polymorphism in natural populations of a sulfur butterfly, Colias evœy theme. Science 156 (3771): 93–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carter, W. 1970. The dynamics of entomology. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 16 (4): 181–185.Google Scholar
  19. Clausen, C. P. 1940. Entomophagous Insects. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 688 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Clausen, C. P. 1942. The relation of taxonomy to biological control. J. Econ. Entomol. 35 (5): 744–748.Google Scholar
  21. Coluzzi, M. 1970. Sibling species in Anopheles and their importance in Malariology. Misc. Publ. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 7 (1): 63–72.Google Scholar
  22. Coluzzi, M. and L. Bullini. 1971. Enzyme variants in the study of precopulatory isolating mechanisms. Nature 231 (5303): 455–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Compere, H. 1961. The red scale and its insect enemies. Hilgardia 31 (7): 173–278.Google Scholar
  24. Compere, H. 1969. The role of systematics in biological control: a backward look. Israel J. Entomol. 4: 5–10.Google Scholar
  25. Crozier, R. H. 1975. Animal Cytogenetics. Vol. 3: Insecta 7. Gebruder Borntraeger Berlin, Stuttgart. 95 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Cushman, R. A. and G. Gordh. 1976. Biological investigations of Goniozus colwribianus Ashmead, a parasite of the grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana (Clemens) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 78 (4): 451–457.Google Scholar
  27. DeBach, P. 1958. Selective breeding to improve adaptations of parasitic insects. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Entomol., Montreal 4: 759–768.Google Scholar
  28. DeBach, P. 1959. New species and strains of Aphytis (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae) parasitic on the California red scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Mask.), in the Orient. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 52 (4): 354–362.Google Scholar
  29. DeBach, P. 1960. The importance of taxonomy to biological control as illustrated by the cryptic history of Aphytis holoxanthus n. sp. (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), a parasite of Chrysomphalus aonidiwrij and Aphytis eoheni n. sp., a parasite of Aonidiella aurantii. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 53 (6): 701–705.Google Scholar
  30. DeBach, P. 1964. The scope of biological control, pp. 3–20 in: Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, P. DeBach, ed. Chapman Hall Ltd., London. 844 pp.Google Scholar
  31. DeBach, P. 1969. Uniparental, sibling and semi-species in relation to taxonomy and biological control. Israel J. Entomol. 4: 11–28.Google Scholar
  32. DeBach, P. 1974. Biological Control by Natural Enemies. Cambridge Univ. Press, London. 323 pp.Google Scholar
  33. DeBach, P. and T. W. Fisher. 1956. Experimental evidence for sibling species in the oleander scale, Aspidiotus hederae (Vallot). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 49 (3): 235–239.Google Scholar
  34. DeBach, P. and K. S. Hagen. 1964. Manipulation of entomophagous species, pp. 429–458 in: Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, P. DeBach, ed. Chapman Hall Ltd., London. 844 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Delucchi, V. L. 1967. The significance of biotaxonomy to biological control. Mushi (supl.) 39: 119–125.Google Scholar
  36. Evans, D. A. and R. W. Matthews. 1976. Comparative courtship be-havior in two species of the parasitic chalcid wasp МеЪъЬЬоЪъа (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Anim. Behav. 24 (1): 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferrière, Ch. 1962. La taxonomie des insectes entomophages. Verh. llth. Int. Kong. Entomol., Wien 3: 290–292.Google Scholar
  38. Finney, G. L. and T. W. Fisher. 1964. Culture of entomophagous insects and their hosts, pp. 328–355 ъп: Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, P. DeBach, ed. Chapman Hall Ltd., London. 844 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Flanders, S. E. 1950. Races of apomictic parasitic Hymenoptera introduced into California. J. Econ. Entomol. 43 (5): 719– 720.Google Scholar
  40. Flanders, S. E. 1953. Aphelinid biologies with implications for taxonomy. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 46 (1): 84–94.Google Scholar
  41. Flanders, S. E. and W. Quednau. 1960. Taxonomy of the genus Triohogramma (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Trichogrammatidae). Entomophaga 5 (4): 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Foerster, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische Studien. II. Chalcididae und Proctotrupii. Aachen, 152 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Force, D. C. 1967. Genetics in the colonization of natural enemies for biological control. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 60 (4): 722–729.Google Scholar
  44. Force, D. C. 1974. Ecology of insect host-parasitoid communities. Science 184 (4137): 624–632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Franz, J. M. 1961. Biologische Schëdlingsbekampfung. Paul Parey, Berlin, 302.Google Scholar
  46. Gerling, D. and S. Limon. 1976. A biological review of the genus Eupteotrus (Hym.: Eulophidae) with special emphasis on E. laphygmae as a parasite of Spodoptera littoralis (Lep.: Noctuidae). Entomphaga 21 (2): 179–187.Google Scholar
  47. Goodpasture, C. 1975. Comparative courtship behavior and kary- ology in Monodontomerus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 68 (3): 391–397.Google Scholar
  48. Goodpasture, C. and E. E. Grissell. 1975. A karyological study of nine species of Torymus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae). Canad. J. Genet. Cytol. 17 (3): 413–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Gordh, G. 1975. Some evolutionary trends in the ChalcidoideaGoogle Scholar
  50. Hymenoptera) with particular reference to host preference. J. New York Entomol. Soc. 83 (4): 279–280.Google Scholar
  51. Gordh, G. 1976. Goniozus gallioola Fouts, a parasite of moth larvae, with notes on other bethylids (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1524, 27 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Gordh, G. in prep. Chalcidoidea. in: Hymenoptera Catalog of North America North of Mexico. C. V. Krombein Et Al., Eds. U.S. Gov. Print. Off.Google Scholar
  53. Gordh, G. and P. DeBach. in prep. Courtship in the Aphytis lingnanensis group, its potential usefulness in taxonomy, and a review of sexual behavior in the parasitic Hymenoptera (Chalcidoidea: Aphelinidae). Hilgardia.Google Scholar
  54. Gordh, G. and H. E. Evans. 1976. A new species of Goniozus imported into California from Ethiopia for the biological control of pink bollworm and some notes on the taxonomic status of Parasierola and Goniozus (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 78 (4): 479–489.Google Scholar
  55. Gordh, G. and L. A. Lacey. 1976. Biological studies of Plagio- merus diaspidis Crawford, a primary internal parasite of di- aspidid scale insects (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae; Homoptera: Diaspididae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 78 (2): 132–144.Google Scholar
  56. Hafez, M. and R. L. Doutt. 1954. Biological evidence of sibling species in Aphytis maeulioomis (Masi). (Hymenoptera: Apheli-nidae). Canad. Entomol. 86 (2): 90 - 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hall, J. C., E. I. Schlinger and R. van den Bosch. 1962. Evidence for the separation of the “sibling species” Trioxys utilis and Trioozys pallidus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 55 (5): 566–568.Google Scholar
  58. Hoy, M. A. 1975a. Hybridization of strains of the gypsy moth parasitoid Apanteles melanosoelusj and its influence upon diapause. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 68 (2): 261–264.Google Scholar
  59. Hoy, M. A. 1975b. Forest and laboratory evaluations of hybridized Apanteles melanosoetus (Hym.: Braconidae), a parasitoid of Porthetria dispar (Lep.: Lymantriidae). Entomophaga 20 (3): 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Huffaker, C. B. 1964. Fundamentals of biological weed control. pp. 631–649 in: Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman Hall Ltd., London. 844 pp.Google Scholar
  61. Iwata, K. 1972. (Evolution of Instinct. Comparative Ethology of Hymenoptera) (Translated from Japanese, 1976 ) Amerind Publ. Co., Ltd., New Delhi. 535 pp.Google Scholar
  62. Johnson, F. M. and J. M. Burns. 1966. Electrophoretic variation in esterases of Colias eurytheme (Pieriedae). J. Lepid. Soc. 20: 207–211.Google Scholar
  63. Kerrich, G. J. 1962. An assessment of the significance of colour in the systematics of the Hymenoptera parasitica. Verh. 11th Int. Kong. Entomol., Wien 3: 302–303.Google Scholar
  64. Khasimuddin, S. and P. DeBach. 1976a. Biosystematic studies of three allopatric populations of Aphytis maeulioomis (Hym.: Aphelinidae). Entomophaga 21 (1): 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Khasimuddin, S. and P. DeBach. 1976b. Biosystematic and evolutionary statuses of two sympatric populations of Aphytis mytilaspidis (Hym.: Aphelinidae). Entomophaga 21 (1): 113– 122.Google Scholar
  66. Khasimuddin, S. and P. DeBach. 1976c. Hybridization tests: A method of establishing biosystematic statuses of cryptic species of some parasitic Hymenoptera. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 69 (1): 15–20.Google Scholar
  67. Kogan, M. and E. F. Legner. 1970. A biosystematic revision of the genus Muscidifurax (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) with the description of four new species. Canad. Entomol. 102 (10): 1268–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Legner, E. F. 1969. Reproductive isolation and size variation in the Muscidifurax raptor complex. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 62 (2): 382–385.Google Scholar
  69. Legner, E. F. 1972. Observations on hybridization and heterosis in parasitoids of synanthropic flies. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 65 (1): 254–263.Google Scholar
  70. Lucas, A. M. 1969. The effects of population structure on the success of insect introductions. Heredity 24 (1): 151–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mackauer, M. 1969. Sexual behavior of and hybridization between three species of Aphidius Nees parasitic on the pea aphid (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 71 (3): 339–351.Google Scholar
  72. Mackauer, M. 1972. Genetic aspects of insect production. Entomophaga 17 (1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mackauer, M. 1976. Genetic problems in the production of biological control agents. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 21: 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Matthews, R. W. 1975. Courtship in parasitic wasps, pp. 66–86. in: Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic Insects and Mites. P. Price, ed. Plenum Press, New York, 224 pp.Google Scholar
  75. Mayr, E. 1954. Change of genetic environment and evolution, pp. 157–180 in: Evolution as a Process. J. S. Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford, Eds. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London. 367 pp.Google Scholar
  76. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Belknap Press, Harvard Univ., Cambridge. 797 pp.Google Scholar
  77. Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 428 pp.Google Scholar
  78. Messenger, P. S. and R. van den Bosch. 1971. The adaptability of introduced biological control agents, pp. 68–92 in: Biological Control, С. B. Huffaker, ed. Plenum Press, New York. 511 pp.Google Scholar
  79. Metcalf, J. R. and J. Breniere. 1969. Egg parasites (Trichogramma spp.) for control of sugar cane moth borers, pp. 81–115 in: Pests of Sugar Cane, J. R. Williams Et Al., Eds. Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam. 568 pp.Google Scholar
  80. Micks, D. W. 1954. Paper chromatography as a tool for mosquito taxonomy: the СиЪех pipiens complex. Nature 174 (4422): 217–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Micks, D. W., A. Rehmet, J. Jennings, G. Mason, and G. Davidson, 1966. A chromatographic study of the systematic relationship within the Anopheles gambiae complex. Bull. World Health Org. 35: 181–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Micks, D. W. J. Jennings, A. Rehmet, G. Mason, and G. Davidson. 1967. Further chromatographic studies of the systematic re-lationship within the Anophetes gambiae complex. Bull. World Health Org. 36: 308–318.Google Scholar
  83. Nagaraja, H. and S. Nagarkatti. 1973. A key to some New World species of Triahogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), with descriptions of four new species. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 75 (3): 288–297.Google Scholar
  84. Nagarkatti, S. 1970. The production of a thelytokous hybrid in an interspecific cross between two species of Triahogramma (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae). Curr. Sci. 39 (4): 76–78.Google Scholar
  85. Nagarkatti, S. and M. Fazaluddin. 1973. Biosystematic studies on Triahogramma species (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). II. Experimental hybridization between some Triahogramma spp. from the New World. Syst. Zool. 22 (2): 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nagarkatti, S. and H. Nagaraja. 1968. Biosystematic studies on Triahogramma species: 1. Experimental hybridization between Triahogramma austratiaum Girault, T. evanesaens Westwood, and T. minutwn Riley. Comnwlth. Inst. Biol. Cont. Tech. Bull. 10: 81–96.Google Scholar
  87. Nagarkatti, S. and H. Nagaraja. 1971. Redescriptions of some known species of Triahogramma (Hym., Trichogrammatidae), showing the importance of the male genitalia as a diagnostic character. Bull. Entomol. Res. 61 (1): 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nagarkatti, S. and H. Nagaraja. 1977. Biosystematics of Triahogramma and Triahogrammatoidea species. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 22: 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nesser, S. 1973. Biology and behavior of Eupteatrus species near taphygmae Ferriere (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomol. Mem. Dep. Agric. Tech. Serv. So. Afr. 32: 1–31.Google Scholar
  90. Oatman, E. R., P. D. Greaney, and G. R. Platner. 1968. A study of the reproductive compatibility of several strains of Triahogramma in southern California. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 61 (4): 956–959.Google Scholar
  91. Oatman, E. R., G. R. Platner, and D. Gonzalez. 1970. Reproductive differentiation of Triahogramma pretiosvm, T. semifumattarij T. minutwriy and T. evanesaensл with notes on the geographical distribution of T. pretiosum in the southwestern United States and Mexico (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 63 (3): 633–635.Google Scholar
  92. Oatman, E. R. and G. R. Platner. 1973. Biosystematic studies of Triahogramma species: 1. Populations from California and Missouri. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 66 (5): 1099–1102.Google Scholar
  93. Oman, P. W. 1974. Identification and classification in pest management control, pp. 77–86 in: Proceedings of the Summer Institute on Biological Control of Plant Insects and Diseases. F. G. Maxwell and F. A. Harris, Eds.Google Scholar
  94. Quednau, W. 1955. Uber einige Triahogramma-vrlrte und ihre Stel- lung im Wirt-Parasit-Verhaltnis. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse des Parasitismus bei Schlupwespen. Nachrichten. deutsch. Pflanzensch. 7: 145–148.Google Scholar
  95. Quednau, W. 1956a. Die biologischen Kriterien zur Unterschiendung von Triohogramma Arten. Zeitsch. Pflanzen. Krankh. 63: 334– 344.Google Scholar
  96. Quednau, W. 1956b. Der Wert des Physiologischen Expérimentes zur das Artsystematik von Trichogramma (Hym. Chalcididae). Berlin Hundertjahr. Deut. Entomol. Ges. 30: 87–92.Google Scholar
  97. Quednau, W. 1961. Die problematik der nomenklatur bei den Tri-chogramma- a? ten. Entomophaga 6 (2): 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rao, S. V. and P. DeBach. 1969a. Experimental studies on hybridization and sexual isolation between some Aphytis species (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). I. Experimental hybridization and an interpretation of evolutionary relationships among the species. Hilgardia 39 (19): 515–553.Google Scholar
  99. Rao, S. V. and P. DeBach. 1969b. Experimental studies on hybridization and sexual isolation between some Aphytis species (Hymenoptera: Aphelindiae). II. Experiments on sexual isolation. Hilgardia 39 (19): 555–567.Google Scholar
  100. Rao, S. V. and P. DeBach. 1969c. Experimental studies on hybridization and sexual isolation between some Aphytis species (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). III. The significance of reproductive isolation between interspecific hybrids and parental species. Evolution 23 (5): 525–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten. Berlin, 238 pp.Google Scholar
  102. Remington, C. L. 1968. The population genetics of insect introduction. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 13: 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rosen, D. and P. DeBach. 1973. Systematics, morphology, and biological control. Entomophaga 18 (3): 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rossler, Y. and P. DeBach. 1972a. The biosystematic relations between a thelytokous and an arrhenotokous form of Aphytis mytilaspidis (LeBaron) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) 1. The reproductive relations. Entomophaga 17 (4): 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Rossler, Y. and P. DeBach. 1972b. The biosystematic relations between a thelytokous and an arrhenotokous form of Aphytis my tit- aspidis (LeBaron) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) 2. Comparative biological and morphological studies. Entomophaga 17 (4): 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rossler, Y. and P. DeBach. 1973. Genetic variability in a thelytokous form of Aphytis mytilaspidis (LeBaron) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Hilgardia 42 (5): 149–176.Google Scholar
  107. Sabrosky, C. W. 1955. The interrelations of biological control and taxonomy. J. Econ. Entomol. 48 (6): 710–714.Google Scholar
  108. Schlinger, E. I. and R. L. Doutt. 1964. Systematics in relation to biological control, pp. 247–280 in: Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. P. DeBach, ed. Chapman Hall Ltd., London. 844 pp.Google Scholar
  109. Simmonds, F. J. 1947. Improvement of the sex ratio of a parasite by selection. Canad. Entomol. 79 (3): 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Simmonds, F. J. 1963. Genetics and biological control. Canad. Entomol. 95 (6): 561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Simmonds, F. J. 1972. Approaches to biological control problems. Entomophaga 17 (3): 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Townes, H. 1969. The Genera of Ichneumonidae, Pt. 1. American Entomol. Inst., Ann. Arbor, 300 pp.Google Scholar
  113. Urquijo, L. P. 1951. Aplication de la Genetica al aumento de la eficacia del Tvidhogvœma minutum en la lucha biologica. Bol. de Patol. veg. y Entomol. Agr. 18: 1–12.Google Scholar
  114. Usinger, R. L., P. Wygodzinsky, and R. E. Ryckman. 1966. The biosystematics of Triatominae. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 11: 309– 330.Google Scholar
  115. White, E. В., P. DeBach, and M. J. Garber. 1970. Artificial selection for genetic adaptation to temperature extremes in Aphytis tingnanensis Compere (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Hilgardia 49 (6): 161–192.Google Scholar
  116. Whitten, M. J. 1970. Genetics of pests in their management, pp. 119–135 in: Concepts of Pest Management, R. L. Rabb and F. E. Guthrie, Eds. No. Carolina St. Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  117. Wilkes, A. 1942. The influence of selection on the preferendum of a chalcid С Microplectron fuseipennis Zett.) and its significance in the biological control of an insect pest. R. Soc. London, Proc. (B) 130: 400–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wilkes, A. 1964. Inherited male-producing factor in an insect that produces its males from unfertilized eggs. Science 144 (3616): 305–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wilkes, A., P. Pielou, and R. F. Glasser. 1952. Selection for DDT tolerance in a beneficial insect, in: Conference on Insecticide Resistance and Insect Physiology. Natl. Acad. Sci., Natl. Res. Coun. Pub. 219: 78–81.Google Scholar
  120. Wilson, F. 1965. Biological control and the genetics of colonizing species, pp. 307–329 in: The Genetics of Colonizing Species. H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins, Eds. Academic Press, New York. 588 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Gordh
    • 1
  1. 1.Systematic Entomology Laboratory, IIBIII Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureUSA

Personalised recommendations