Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:27:31.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insect Pests of Dates and the Date palm in Mesopotamia and elsewhere

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. A. Buxton
P. A. Buxton
Affiliation:
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; formerly Entomologist, Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the summer of 1918, there was every prospect of an unusually good crop of dates in Mesopotamia, until the month of June, when a large number of the half-grown dates suddenly became “hashaf” — an Arabic word signifying that they dried up and fell from the trees. This was a very serious matter, not only because the date is the principal resource of the country, but also because any and every disaster was at that time attributed by a section of the population to the British administration. At the end of July I was lent to the Directorate of Agriculture to carry out an investigation upon the failure of the date crop. I found that the principal pest, the larva of a Gelechiid moth, had finished its work, and had wandered away from the palms to pupate ; and though I was unable to solve the problem of its life-history, I had the good fortune to discover a good deal that was new about the insect pests of the date palm. At the time I published a report (1918), to which I only refer now in order to say that it was produced on the spot and without access to any books ; it contains certain inaccuracies, and anything of value which I may have discovered will be found in the present paper. During the course of my investigations I visited all the important date-growing areas of Mesopotamia, that is to say, Baghdad and its neighbourhood, the Diyala River from Ba’qubah to the Persian Frontier at Baba Pillawi, Mendali and Balad Ruz, Basra and the country round it, Mohammerah and Fao, the Lower Euphrates from Nasiriyeh to Suq-ash-Shuyukh, Qurnah and Amara. At the time of my visit the fruit was nearly ripe, so that it was not difficult to learn the distinctions between the different varieties of date palms, a point of great importance in view of the fact that they are liable to the various pests in varying degrees. I strongly recommend future investigators to familiarize themselves throughly with these varieties, and also with the very considerable number of Arabic words which are used specially for the date palm and its cultivation. This is no small task, as will be realized when I mention that in Mesopotamia about 70 words are employed by the peasants for various parts of the date palm ; the vocabulary relating to cultivation and methods of employment is just as extensive.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , December 1920 , pp. 287 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buckler, W. (1882). Natural History of Ephestia passulella.— Ent. Mo. Mag., xix, pp. 104–106.Google Scholar
Burkill, L. H. (1913). The Coconut Beetles, Oryctes rhinoceros and Rhynchophorus ferrugineus.— Gardens Bull. Straits Settlements, i, pp. 176–188.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1918). Report on the Failure of the Date Crop of Mesopotamia in 1918.— Bull. no. 6, Agric. Directorate Mesop. Exped. Force. (Provisional and inaccurate).Google Scholar
Chittenden, F. H. (1911). The Fig Moth.— U.S. Dept. Agric., Ent. Bull. no. 104.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. (1899). Some Notes on Coccidae.— Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, 1899 (pub. 1900), pp. 259–275.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. (1907). The Scale Insects of the Date Palm.— Bull. no. 56, Univ. Arizona Agric. Exp. Stn., 22pp. 5plates, 5figs.Google Scholar
Cook, A. J. (1914). Monthly Bull. Cal. State Commis. Hortic. Sacramento, iii, pp. 440–441, 2 figs.Google Scholar
Copeland, E. B. (1914). The Coconut.— xiv and 212. pp. 23pl. Macmillan&Co.Google Scholar
Draper, W. (1907).* Notes on the injurious Scale Insects and Mealy Bugs of Egypt. — 28 pp., 16pl. Cairo.Google Scholar
Durrant, J. H. (1915). Myelois phoenicis, sp. nov., bred from Dates in Algeria and in England.— Ent. Mo. Mag., li, pp. 303–304.Google Scholar
Essig, E. O. (1915). Injurious and Beneficial Insects of California.— Suppt. to Mthly. Bull. Calif. State Comm. Hortic., 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Forbes, R. H. (1907). The Extermination of Date Palm Scales.— Bull. no.56, Univ. Arizona Agric. Exp. Stn.Google Scholar
Forbes, R. H. (1913). The Gasoline Torch Treatment of Date Palm Scales.— Jl. Econ. Ent., Concord, vi, pp. 415–416.Google Scholar
Fracker, S. B. Classification of Lepidopterous Larvae.— IIlinois Biol. Monographs, ii, July 1915.Google Scholar
Ghosh, C. C. (1912). Life-history of Indian Insects. III.— The Rhinoceros Beetle and the Red or Palm Weevil.— Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Ent. Ser. ii, no. 10.Google Scholar
Gough, L. H. (1913).* Entomological Notes.— Agric. Jl., Egypt, iii, pp. 103–106.Google Scholar
Gough, L. H. (1917). Notes on an Ephestia, an Insect injurious to Stored Dates in Khargeh Oasis.— Bull. Soc. Entom. d’Egypte, pp. 133–140, 1 pl.Google Scholar
Hagedorn, M. (1913). Borkenkäfer (Ipidae) welche tropische Nutzpflanzen beschädigen.— Der Tropenpflanzer, xvii, p. 43, etc.Google Scholar
SirHampson, G. F. (1917). A Classification of the Pyralidae, Subfamily Gallerianae.— Novitates Zoologicae, xxiv, p. 36.Google Scholar
Hirst, S. Revision of the English Species of Red Spider (Genera Tetranychus and Oligonychus).— Proc. Zool.Soc. Lond., 1920, p. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, H. H. (1908). Report on Economic Entomology.— Rept. Wellcome Res. Labs., Khartoum, iii, pp. 201–248.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, C. P. (1918). Union Dept. Agric., Division of Entomology, Annual Report, 1917–1918, p. 87–107.Google Scholar
Mackenna, J. (1918). Report on the Progress of Agriculture in India for 1916–1917.Google Scholar
Maskell, W. M. (1898). Further Coccid Notes with Description of New Species, and Discussion of Points of Interest.— Trans. and Proc. New Zeal. Inst., xxx.Google Scholar
Milne, D. (1918). The Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera) and its Cultivation in the Punjab. — Punjab Govt., Simla, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
Morstatt, H. (1913). Liste scha¨dlicher Insekten.— Der Pflanzer, ix, pp. 288–296.Google Scholar
Newstead, R. (1906).* Quart. Jl. Inst. Commercial Res. in Tropics, April 1906.Google Scholar
Newstead, R. (1917). Observations on Scale Insects (Coccidae) V.— Bull. Ent. Res., viii, pp. 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popenoe, P.B. (1913). Date-growing in the Old World and the New.— 316pp. 40pl, Publ. Altadena, California, West India Gardes.Google Scholar
Romanoff, N. M. (1901). Mémoires sur les Lépidoptères, viii.Google Scholar
Smyth, E.G. (1911). Report on the Fig Moth in Smyrna.— U.S. Dept. Agric., Ent. Bull. no. 104.Google Scholar
Stebbing, E. P. (1903).* Ind. Mus. Notes, v, pp. 126–127.Google Scholar
Targioni, Tozzetti (1892). Aonidia blanchardi, nouvelle espéce de cochenille du Datier du Sahara.— Mém. Soc. Zool., France, v, pp. 69–82.Google Scholar
Toumey, J. W. (1895).* Notes on Scale Insects in Arizona.— Ariz. Exp. Stn. Bull. no. 14.Google Scholar
Trabut, L. (1912). Sur une Maladie du Datier, le Khamedj ou Pourriture du Regime.— C. R. Acad. des Sci., cliv, p. 303.Google Scholar
Willcocks, F.C. (1914). The Date-stone Beetle.— Bull. Soc. Ent. d’Egypte, vi, 1913, pp. 37–39.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1918). Notes on some Trinidad Thrips of Economic Importance.— Bull. Dept. Agric. Trinidad and Tobago, xvii, pp. 143–146.Google Scholar
Wilsie, W.E. (1913). The Date Palm Scales and their Control. — Monthly Bull. State Comm. Hort. Sacramento, ii, pp. 538–539.Google Scholar
(Unsigned editorial on scales &c. in Sacramento). — lbid., ii, 139–140.Google Scholar