Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T23:54:54.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bark Beetle Complex Associated with Lodgepole Pine Slash in Alberta: Part II—Notes on the Biologies of Several Hymenopterous Parasites1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. W. Reid
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Representatives of the families Braconidae and Pteromalidae were present in association with broods of Ips pini Say and Ips perroti Sw. The identifications and information on distribution and hosts were kindly supplied by O. Peck and W. R. M. Mason of the Systematic Entomology Unit in Ottawa. Additional information on hosts and distribution were obtained from Hymenoptera of America by Muesebeck, Krombein, Towns, et al. (1951).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , January 1957 , pp. 5 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1957

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

De Leon, D. 1934. Annotated list of the parasites, predators, and other associated fauna of the mountain pine beetle in western white pine and lodgepole pine. Can. Ent. 66. March, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Leon, D. 1935. The biology of Coeloides dendroctoni Cush. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). An important parasite of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk.) Ann. Ent. Soc. America 28 No. 4. 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F., Krombein, K. V., Townes, K. T. et al. , 1951. Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico, (synoptic catalog). U.S.D.A. Agr. Monog. No. 2. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. L. 1929. The biology of the white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi Peck, and a study of its insect parasites from an economic view. Ent. Amer. 10: 17–22, 66–67.Google Scholar