Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-4thr5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:14:34.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Taxonomic Status of the European Spruce Sawfly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Htg.) (Hymenoptera, Diprionidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Dr. E. W. Forster
Dr. E. W. Forster
Affiliation:
Zoological Collection of the Bavarian State, Munich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a paper published during the war Reeks pointed out that the sawfly which has caused much damage in the forests of Canada for about twenty years is identical with Lophyrus hercyniae, described by Hartig in 1837. In the same work he proved that Hartig was correct in describing hercyniae as a species distinct from Lophyrus polytomus Htg. Enslin's view that the two species should be united under the name polytomus is quite wrong. Reeks has shown that important biological and anatomical differences exist between them. Benson erected the genus Gilpinia for the species polytomus and for allied species. Reeks was unable to examine the types of the two species, kept in the Hartig collection in Germany, and for that reason he sent to me some specimens of the “European spruce sawfly” from Canada, with the request that I compare them with the types in the Hartig collection. The results of my examination are as follows.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , May 1949 , pp. 112 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1949

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

1.Balch, R. E., Reeks, W. A. and Smith, S. G. 1941. Separation of the European spruce sawfly in America from Gilpinia polytoma (Htg.) (Diprionidae, Hymenoptera) and evidence of its introduction. Canad. Ent. 73: 198–203.Google Scholar
2.Benson, R. B. 1939. On the genera of the Diprionidae (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Bull. Ent. Research 30: 339–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Enslin, E. 1914. Die Insekten Mitteleuropas, insbesondere Deutschlands. Band III, Hymenoptera. Teil 3 Die Blatt- und Holzwespen (Tenthrediniden). Stuttgart.Google Scholar
4.Enslin, E. 1917. Die Tenthredinoidea Mitteleuropas. Deutsch. Ent. Zeitschr. Beiheft.Google Scholar
5.Hartig, Th. 1934. Entomologischer Teil des Forstlichen und Forstnaturwissenschaftlichen Conversations-Lexikon. Berlin.Google Scholar
6.Hartig, Th. 1837. Die Familien der Blattwespen und Holzwespen. Berlin.Google Scholar
7.Reeks, W. A. 1941. On the Taxonomic Status of Gilpinia polytoma (Htg.) and Gilpinia hercyniae (Htg.) (Hymenoptera, Diprionidae). Canad. Ent. 73: 177–188, 2 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Smith, S. G. 1941. A new form of spruce sawfly identified by means of its cytology and parthenogenesis. Sci. Agr. 21: 245–305, 116 figs.Google Scholar