Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T02:23:12.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory Studies on Some Factors in the Life-history of the Predacious Mite Typhlodromus tiliae Oudms. (Acarina: Phytoseiidae)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. J. Herbert
H. J. Herbert
Affiliation:
Fruit Insect Section, Science Service Laboratory Kentville, Nova Scotia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the important predators of the European red mite, Metatetranychus ulmi (Koch), in Nova Scotia is a group of predacious mites belonging to the subfamily Phytoseiinae. There is little information in the literature on the biology of the species in this subfamily. Smith and Summers (1949) reported on the bionomics of “Hypoaspis” macropilis (Banks), and Herbert (1952) and Ballard (1953) on the life-history of Typhlodromus fallacis (Garm.).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 88 , Issue 12 , December 1956 , pp. 701 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1956

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

Ballard, R. C. 1953. The biology of the predacious mite, Typhlodromus fallacis (Garman) at 78°F. M.S. thesis. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Herbert, H. J. 1953. Progress report on predacious mite investigations in Nova Scotia (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). 83rd Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario, 1952, pp. 27–29.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, H. H. J. 1951. A taxonomie study of the Phytoseiinae (Family Laelaptidae) predaceous upon Tetranychidae of economic importance. Zool. Verband. 12: 1–64.Google Scholar
Smith, L. M., and Summers, F. M.. 1949. The structure and biology of the red spider predator, “Hypoaspis” macropilis (Banks) (Acarina, Laelaptidae). Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 51: 209–218.Google Scholar