Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T23:45:56.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

XXI.—On the Immature Stages of some Scottish and other Psyllidæ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

K. B. Lal
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Forest Zoology, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

The nymphs that are here described belong to those species the biology of which has been discussed in a previous paper (Lal, 1934 b). The plan followed was the one originally adopted by Ferris (1923), in which descriptions and illustrations of all morphological features important in the identification of the species of the nymph, apart from the adult, were prepared from careful examination of specimens mounted for microscopic observation. The importance of such a study has been increasingly appreciated in the last decade, both from the economic and the systematic points of view. Harmful species of Psyllidæ are mainly injurious because of the feeding activities of their immature stages, and there are but two species known, Psyllia pyricola Först. and Paratrioza cockerelli Sulc., in which the adults have also been found to be capable of causing injury. On the other hand, the specific determination of immature stages has been rendered difficult owing to the fact (first) that the published descriptions of individual species of nymphs are often found to be applicable to species other than those to which the particular description refers; and (second) that sometimes the nymphs of two closely allied species are distinguished by such marked differences as to warrant the adults being assigned to different genera and even subfamilies. Such cases have been mentioned by Crawford (1919), Ferris (1928 a), Husain and Nath (1927), and have been summarised by Rahman (1932) in the introductory part of his paper. The present descriptions have, therefore, been prepared with the avowed objects of facilitating the determination of individual species, where comparison with allied species is impossible owing to lack of available material, and also of assessing the value of the various nymphal characters with a view to establishing a classification based on these as contrasted with one based upon the characters of the adults.

Type
Proceedings
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1938

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 to Literature

Awati, P. R., 1915. “The Apple Sucker, with Notes on the Pear Sucker,” Ann. App. Biol., vol. i, nos. 3 and 4.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1929 a. “Studi Sugli Psyllidi (Homoptera: Psyllidæ O Chermidæ),” Parts I and II, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxi.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1929 b. Part III, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxii.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1929 c. Part IV, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxiii.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1929 d. Part V, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxiv.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1930 a. Part VI, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxiv.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1930 b. Part VIII, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxiv.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1930 c. Part IX, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxiv.Google Scholar
Boselli, F. B., 1931. Part X, Bol. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici, vol. xxiv.Google Scholar
Brittain, W. H., 1923. “The European Apple Sucker,” Nova Scotia Dept. Agr. Bull., no. 10.Google Scholar
Crawford, W. L., 1919. “The Jumping Plant Lice of the Paleotropics and the South Pacific Islands (family Psyllidæ or Chermidæ: Homoptera),” Philipp. Journ. Sci., vol. xv, pp. 139207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J., 1896. The Hemiptera-Homoptera of the British Islands, London, p. 252.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. F., 1923. “Observations on the Chermidæ (Hemiptera: Homoptera),” Part I, Canad. Ent., vol. lv, pp. 250256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F., 1924. “The Nymphs of Two Species of Chermidæ (Hemiptera),” Pan-Pacific Ent., vol. i, pp. 2428.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. F., 1925. “Observations on the Chermidæ (Hemiptera: Homoptera),” Part II, Canad. Ent., vol. lvii, pp. 4650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F., 1926. Part III, Canad. Ent., vol. lviii, pp. 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F., 1928 a. Part IV, Canad. Ent., vol. lx, pp. 109117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F., 1928 b. Part V, Canad. Ent., vol. lx, pp. 240245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F., and Chamberlain, J. C., 1928. “On the Use of the Word ‘Chitinized,’” Ent. News, vol. xxxix, no. 7, pp. 212215.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. F., and Hyatt, P., 1923. “The Life History of Euphyllura arbuti Schwarz (Hemiptera: Chermidæ),” Canad. Ent., vol. lv, pp. 8892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F., and Klyver, F. D., 1932. “Report upon a Collection of Chermidæ (Homoptera) from New Zealand,” Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. lxiii.Google Scholar
Fox Wilson, G., 1924. “The Eucalyptus Psylla,” Gardener's Chron., vol. lxxvi, no. 1982.Google Scholar
Husain, M. A., and Nath, D., 1927. “The Citrus Psylla, Diaphorina citri, Kuw. (Psyllidæ: Homoptera),” Mem. Dept. Agri. India Ent. Ser., vol. x, no. 2.Google Scholar
Klyver, F. D., 1930. “Notes on the Chermidæ (Hemiptera: Homoptera),” Part I, Canad. Ent., vol. lxii, no. 8, pp. 167175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klyver, F. D., 1931. Part II, Canad. Ent., vol. lxiii, no. 5, pp. 111115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, K. B., 1933. “Biological Races in Psyllia mali Schmidb.,” Nature, vol. cxxxii, p. 934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, K. B., 1934 a. Psyllia peregrina Först., the Hawthorn Race of the Apple Sucker, P. mali Schmidb.,” Ann. App. Biol., vol. xxi, no. 4, pp. 641648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, K. B., 1934 b. “The Biology of Scottish Psyllidæ,” Trans. Roy. Ent. Soc. Lond., vol. lxxxii, pp. 363385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löw, F., 1879. “Mittheilungen über Psylliden,” Verh. Zool. bot. Gesell., Wien, p. 573.Google Scholar
Maskell, W. M., 1889. “Psyllidæ of New Zealand,” Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. xxii, pp. 157170.Google Scholar
Minkiewicz, S., 1927. “The Apple Sucker (Psylla mali Schmidb.): Part II, Development and Biology,” Mem. de I'inst. Nat. Polonais d'Econ. Rurale a Pulawy, vol. viii, no. 114.Google Scholar
Petty, F. W., 1925. “New South African Psyllids,” S. Afr. Journ. Nat. Hist., pp. 125141.Google Scholar
Rahman, K. A., 1932. “Observations on the Immature Stages of some Indian Psyllidæ (Homoptera: Rhynchota),” Ind. Journ. Agri. Sci., vol. ii, pt. iv, pp. 358377.Google Scholar
Scott, J., 1880. “Description of the Nymph and Imago of Psylla peregrina Först.,” Ent. Mon. Mag., vol. xvii, pp. 6566.Google Scholar
Scott, J., 1886. “Description of the Nymph of Psyllopsis fraxinicola Först.,” Ent. Mon. Mag., vol. xxii, pp. 281282.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E., 1933. “Morphology of the Insect Abdomen: Part I. General Structure of the Abdomen and its Appendages,” Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. lxxxv, no. 6, pp. 67.Google Scholar
Speyer, W., 1929. Der Apfelblattsauger, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uichanco, L. B., 1921. “New Records and Species of Psyllidæ from the Philippine Islands, with Descriptions of some Pre-adult Stages and Habits,” Philipp. Journ. Sci., vol. xviii.Google Scholar
Witlaczil, E., 1885. “Die Anatomie der Psyilliden,” Zeits. wiss. Zool., vol. xlii.Google Scholar