Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T18:23:26.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A BIOSYSTEMATIC REVISION OF THE GENUS MUSCIDIFURAX (HYMENOPTERA: PTEROMALIDAE) WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR NEW SPECIES1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Marcos Kogan
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside
E. F. Legner
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside

Abstract

Extensive collections of synanthropic fly parasitoids in animal excrement accumulations in the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Chile, Denmark, Israel, and South Africa yielded seven forms of a Muscidifurax complex which were totally or partially reproductively isolated. Morphological studies of female and male parasitoids coupled with biological and zoogeographical information permitted the identification of five sibling species. Muscidifurax raptor Girault and Sanders 1910 is redescribed and four additional species are described as new: M. zaraptor, from the southwestern United States; M. raptoroides from Central America and Mexico; M. uniraptor from Puerto Rico, and M. raptorellus from Uruguay and Chile. Biological notes are added to the descriptions, and it was postulated that the genus is undergoing a process of speciation with local populations slowly becoming reproductively isolated and eventually giving rise to morphologically distinguishable entities. Most evidence suggests the establishment of Muscidifurax in the New World, concomitant with or shortly following the establishment of muscoid flies in accumulated excrement. Scanning electronmicroscopy was used in the analysis of some morphological structures.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Brown, W. J. 1959. Taxonomic problems with closely related species. A. Rev. Ent. 4: 7798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, M. F., and Askew, R. R.. 1960. Sibling species in the Eurytoma rosaegroup. (Hym., Eurytomidae). Entomophaga 5 (2) : 142153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1941. The effect of host density on the rate of reproduction of entomophagous parasites. J. econ. Ent. 34: 741745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frison, T. H. 1927. List of the insect types in the collections of the Illinois State Natural History Survey and the University of Illinois. Bull. Ill. St. nat. Hist. Surv. 16: 137309.Google Scholar
Girault, A. A., and Sanders, G. E.. 1909. The chalcidoid parasites of the common house or typhoid fly (Musca domestica Linn.) and its allies. I: Reconstruction of the chalcidoid genus Nasonia Ashmead of the family Pteromalidae, with description and biology of Nasonia brevicornis Ashmead, species nova, its type species from Illinois. Psyche, Camb. 16: 119132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girault, A. A., and Sanders, G. E.. 1910. III: Description of a new North American genus and species of the family Pteromalidae from Illinois, parasitic on Musca domestica Linn., with biological notes. Psyche, Camb. 18: 145160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F. 1969. Reproductive isolation and size variation in the Muscidifurax raptor complex. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62(2): 382385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., Bay, E. C., and McCoy, C. W.. 1965. Parasitic natural regulatory agents attacking Musca domestica L. in Puerto Rico. J. Agric. Univ. P. Rico 49: 368376.Google Scholar
Legner, E. F., Bay, E. C., and White, E. B.. 1967. Activity of parasites from Diptera: Musca domestica, Stomoxys calcitrans, Fannia canicularis, and F. femoralis, at sites in the Western Hemisphere. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60(2): 462468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., and Brydon, H. W.. 1966. Suppression of dung-inhabiting fly populations by pupal parasites. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 638651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legner, E. F., and Gerling, D.. 1967. Host-feeding and oviposition on Musca domestica by Spalangia cameroni, Nasonia vitripennis, and Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) influences their longevity and fecundity. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60(3): 678691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legner, E. F., and Greathead, D. J.. 1969. Parasitism of pupae in East African populations of Musca domestica and Stomoxys calcitrans. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62(1): 128133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., and McCoy, C. W.. 1966. The housefly, Musca domestica Linnaeus, as an exotic species in the Western Hemisphere incites biological control studies. Can. Ent. 98: 243248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., and Olton, G. S.. 1968. Activity of parasites from Diptera: Musca domestica, Stomoxys calcitrans, and species of Fannia, Muscina, and Ophyra. II: At sites in the Eastern Hemisphere and Pacific Area. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61 (5) : 13061314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCoy, C. W. 1967. Biosystematics and field studies of two parasites of the Muscidifurax raptor complex (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) with particular reference to sex determination. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of California, Riverside. 166 pp.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Hanard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.797 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W., Krombein, K. V., and Townes, H. K. et al. 1951. Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico synoptic catalog. Agriculture Monogr. 2. 1420 pp. U.S. Dep. Agric.Google Scholar
Nikols'Kaya, M. N. 1952 (1963). The chalcid fauna of U.S.S.R. (English translation.) Off. Tech. Services, U.S. Dep. Commerce, Washington, D.C.593 ppGoogle Scholar
Peck, O. 1963. A catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Can. Ent. suppl. 30, 1092 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, O., Bouček, Z., and Hoffer, A.. 1964. Keys to the Chalcidoidea of Czechoslovakia (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 34. 120 pp.Google Scholar
Schlinger, E. I., and Doutt, R. L.. 1964. Systematics in relation to biological control. In: DeBach, P. (ed.), Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Reinhold, New York. pp. 247280.Google Scholar