Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:26:29.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVIEW OF THE WORLD SPECIES OF DIMMOCKIA ASHMEAD (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Eiji Ikeda  and
John T. Huber
Eiji Ikeda
Affiliation:
Systematic Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Kita 9 Nishi 9, Sapporo, 060, Japan
John T. Huber*
Affiliation:
Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
*
1 Correspondence address: Crop Protection Division, Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, K.W. Neatby Building, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The five species of Dimmockia Ashmead are reviewed and keyed. Members are mainly hyperparasites of Hymenoptera and Diptera parasitic on Lepidoptera, though they are also recorded as primary parasites of Lepidoptera. The Nearctic D. incongrua and D. pallipes are redescribed and a lectotype is designated for D. incongrua. Dimmockia marylandica Girault is provisionally removed from Dimmockia but its correct placement is unknown because the unique type is lost. The Palaearctic D. brevicornis is newly recorded from North America. Additional taxonomic features are provided for D. exorientis and D. secunda. Two African species, previously placed in Dimmockia, are transferred to Sympiesis as S. polygoniae (Risbec) comb.nov. and S. cosmopterygi (Risbec) comb.nov. A lectotype is designated for S. polygoniae. A character analysis of Dimmockia species and 21 species of Sympiesis is provided and relationships are discussed.

Résumé

Nous révisons les cinq espèces de Dimmockia et incluons une clé. Les membres sont principalement des hyperparasites d’hyménoptères et de diptères parasites de lépidoptères, quoiqu’ils sont aussi connus comme parasites primaires de lépidoptères. Nous redécrivons les espèces néarctiques D. incongrua et D. pallipes et désignons un lectotype pour D. incongrua. Dimmockia marylandica Girault est provisoirement enlevé du genre Dimmockia mais son emplacement exact demeure indéterminé car le type unique est perdu. L’espèce paléarctique D. brevicornis est reconnue pour la première fois d’Amérique du Nord. Nous présentons des caractères taxonomiques additionnels pour D. exorientis et D. secunda. Nous transférons au genre Sympiesis deux espèces africaines, S. polygoniae (Risbec) comb.nov. et S. cosmopterygi (Risbec) comb.nov., préalablement placées dans Dimmockia. Nous faisons une analyse provisoire des caractères des espèces de Dimmockia et de 21 espèces de Sympiesis et discutons des liens entres les espèces de Dimmockia.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 128 , Issue 4 , August 1996 , pp. 743 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1996

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

REFERENCES

Ashmead, W. 1898. Notes on parasitic Hymenoptera, with descriptions of some new species. Part 2. — Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 4: 155–171.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W. 1904. Classification of the chalcid flies or the superfamily Chalcidoidea, with descriptions of new species in the Carnegie Museum, collected in South America by Herbert H. Smith. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1: 225–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1988. Australasian Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). C.A.B. International, Wallingford. 832 pp.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z., and Askew, R.R.. 1971. Index of Palearctic Eulophidae (excl. Tetrastichinae). Index of Entomophagous Insects 3: 9–254. Le François, Paris. 254 pp.Google Scholar
Bouchier, R., and Nealis, V.G.. 1992. Patterns of hyperparasitism of Cotesia melanoscela (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in southern Ontario. Environmental Entomology 21: 907–912.Google Scholar
Brimley, C.S. 1938. The Insects of North Carolina, Being a List of the Insects of North Carolina and their Close Relatives. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology. 560 pp.Google Scholar
Britton, W.E. 1938. Addition to the Check-list of the Insects of Connecticut (first supplement to Bulletin No. 31). Bulletin of Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey, Bulletin 60: 169 pp.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1979. Family Eulophidae. pp. 967–1020 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D. Jr., Smith, D.R., and Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol. 1: 1–1198. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.C. 1910. Technical results from the gipsy moth parasite laboratory. II. Descriptions of certain chalcidoid parasites. Technical Series, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology 19: 13–24.Google Scholar
Dimmock, G. 1898. Notes on parasitic Hymenoptera, with descriptions of some new species. Part 1. — Notes on parasitic Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 4: 148–155.Google Scholar
Erdös, J. 1954. Eulophidae hungaricae indescriptae. Annales Historico-nationalis Musei Nationalis Hungarici (series nova) 5: 321–365.Google Scholar
Forbes, R.S., Underwood, G.R., Cuming, F.G., and Eidt, D.C.. 1961. Maritime Provinces, Forest Insect Survey. pp. 19–37 in Prentice, R.M. (coordinator), Annual Report of the Forest Insect and Disease Survey. Forest Entomology and Pathology Branch, Department of Forestry, Ottawa, Ont.136 pp.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B., Crosby, C.R., and Leonard, M.D.. 1928. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. pp. 975–984 in Leonard, M.D. (Ed.), A List of the Insects of New York with a List of the Spiders and Certain Other Allied Groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Memoir 101: 1121 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1916. Descriptions of miscellaneous North American chalcidoid Hymenoptera of the family Eulophidae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 51: 39–52.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 a. New Chalcid Flies. Privately Printed. 6 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 b. Descriptiones hymenopterorum chalcioidicarum variorum cum observationibus. V. Privately Printed. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1920. New serphidoid cynipoid, and chalcidoid Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 58: 177–216.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1959. Keys to the British genera and species of Elachertinae, Eulophinae, Entedoninae, and Euderinae (Hym., Chalcidoidea). Transactions of the Society for British Entomology 13: 169–204.Google Scholar
Ikeda, E., and Kamijo, K.. 1993. Notes on the Palaearctic species of Dimmockia (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae). Japanese Journal of Entomology 61: 355–360.Google Scholar
Ikeda, E., and Sayama, K.. 1994. Chalcidoids reared from Elasmus japonicus Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Elasmidae), a parasite of paper wasps. Japanese Journal of Entomology 62: 265–266.Google Scholar
Kulman, H.M. 1965. Natural control of the eastern tent caterpillar and notes on its status as a forest pest. Journal of Economic Entomology 58: 66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, F.L. 1937. Ecological observations upon the enemies of Cercropia, with particular reference to its hymenopterous parasites. Ecology 18: 106–112.Google Scholar
Miller, C.D. 1970. The Nearctic Species of Pnigalio and Sympiesis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 68: 121 pp.Google Scholar
Miller, W.E. 1955. Biology of Anacampsis innocuella (Zeller), a leafroller on aspen. Journal of Economic Entomology 48: 622–623.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W. 1927. New species of chalcid flies parasitic on the gipsy-moth parasite Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg). Journal of Agricultural Research 34: 331–333.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W., and Dohanian, M.W.. 1927. A Study in Hyperparasitism, with Particular Reference to the Parasites of Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg). United States Department of Agriculture, Department Bulletin 1487: 35 pp.Google Scholar
Noyes, J.S. 1982. Collecting and preserving chalcid wasps (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Journal of Natural History 16: 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, O. 1951. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. pp. 410–594 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V., and Townes, H.K. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Monograph 2: 1420 pp. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Peck, O. 1963. A Catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). The Canadian Entomologist, Supplement 30: 1092 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, O., Bouček, Z., and Hoffer, A.. 1964. Keys to the Chalcidoidea of Czechoslovakia (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 34: 3–120.Google Scholar
Proper, A.B. 1934. Hyperparasitism in the case of some introduced lepidopterous tree defoliators. Journal of Agricultural Research 48 (4): 359–376.Google Scholar
Putman, W.L. 1942 [1943]. Host plants and parasites of some lepidopterous larvae. The Canadian Entomologist 74: 219–224.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1951. Les Chalcidoides d'A. O. F. Memoires de l'Institut Français d'Afrique Noire 13: 5–409.Google Scholar
Schaffner, J.V. Jr., 1959. Microlepidoptera and their Parasites Reared from Field Collections in the Northeastern United States. United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 767: 97 pp. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schauff, M.E., and LaSalle, J.. 1993. Nomenclatural notes on genera of North America Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 95: 488–503.Google Scholar
Schmiedeknecht, O. 1909. Hymenoptera Fam. Chalcididae. Genera Insectorum 97: 550 pp. + 8 plates.Google Scholar
Schmieder, R.G. 1939. On the dimorphism of cocoons of Sphecophaga burra (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Entomological News 50: 91–97.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1910. The thorax of the Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 39: 37–91 + 16 plates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storozheva, N.A. 1979. Chalcids of the genus Dimmockia Ashmead, 1904 (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Eulophidae) from the south of Primorye Territory. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 58: 147–152. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Townes, H.K. Jr., 1945. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Memoirs of the American Entomological Society 11 (Part 1): 1–477.Google Scholar
Von Aderkas, P., and Peterson, B.V.. 1987. Chirosia betuleti, new record (Ringdahl) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae), a gall-former on the ostrich fern, Matteuccia struthiopteris, with notes on other insect-fern associates. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 89: 532–547.Google Scholar
Ware, A.B., and Compton, S.G.. 1992. Repeated evolution of elongate multiporous plate sensilla in female fig wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae: Agaoninae). Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen 95 (2): 275–292.Google Scholar
Waterston, J. 1925. On some eulophid parasites (Hym., Chalcidoidea) of the oil palm hispid beetle. Bulletin of Entomological Research 15: 385–395.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R.M. 1986. Hyperparasites of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae): Field attack patterns on Cotesia melanoscela (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) at different host densities and on different-sized host clumps. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 79: 308–311.Google Scholar
Wray, D.L. 1950. Insects of North Carolina. Second Supplement. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. 59 pp.Google Scholar