Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T10:00:39.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Frass of Certain Defoliators of Forest Trees in the North Central United States and Canada1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Alexander C. Hodson  and
Marion A. Brooks
Alexander C. Hodson
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Economic Zoology, University of Minnesota
Marion A. Brooks
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Economic Zoology, University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As mentioned by Morris (1942), the forest entomologist is frequently faced with the practical problem of ascertaining the identity of certain insects which have defoliated the trees and disappeared before his arrival. Cast skins and head capsules provide a difficult and uncertain means of identification; and the kinds of damage done by the insects often are alike to such an extent that they are non-specific. There remains the abundant fecal pellet deposit, commonly called frass, which, if studied carefully, is a reliable means of identifying many species.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , February 1956 , pp. 62 - 68
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

De Geer, Charles. 1752. Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes. Gresing, Stockholm. Vol. I, p. 165, and Pl. 8, Fig. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, K. 1939a. Das Bohrmehl des Waldgärtners, Myelophilus piniperda L., nebst Bemerkungen über des “Frass” der Borkenkäfer und anderen Insekten. Arb. physiol. angew. Ent., 6: 32–41.Google Scholar
Eckstein, K. 1939b. Das Bohrmehl des Anobien. Forstarchiv, 15: 268–271.Google Scholar
Eliescu, Grigore. 1932. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Morphologie, Anatomie und Biologie von Lophyrus pini L. Zeitschr. f. angew. Ent., 19: 22–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escherich, K. 1914. Forstinsekten Mitteleuropas. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin. Vol. I, p. 381.Google Scholar
Escherich, K. 1931. Die Forstinsekten Mitteleuropas. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin. Vol. III, p. 43.Google Scholar
Frost, S. W. 1928. Insect scatology. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am., 21: 36–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gösswald, K. 1934. Uber die Frasstätigkeit von Forstschädlingen unter dem Einfluss von Altersunterschieden und der Einwirkung verschiedener Temperatur und Luftfeuchtigkeit und ihre praktische und physiologische Bedeutung. Zeitschr. f. angew. Ent., 21: 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmack, H. 1943. Unhidden house guests. Harmack Publishing Company, Tacoma, Washington. 560 pp.Google Scholar
Hodson, A. C. 1941. An ecological study of the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria Hbn., in northern Minnesota. Tech. Bull. 148, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Minn. 55 pp.Google Scholar
Kirby, W., and Spence, W.. 1826. An introduction to entomology. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green; London. Vol. IV, Chap. XV, p. 119.Google Scholar
Koch, R. 1928. Bestimmungstabellen der Insekten an Fichte und Tanne nach den Frassbeschädigungen. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin. Second rev. ed. 145 pp.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F. 1942. The use of frass in the identification of forest insect damage. Can. Ent., 74: 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. F. 1949. Frass-drop measurement in studies of the European spruce sawfly. Bull. No. 12, School of Forestry and Conserv., Univ. of Mich. 58 pp.Google Scholar
Nolte, H. W. 1939. Uber des Kot von Fichten-und Kieferninsekten. Tharandter forstl. Jahrb., 90: 740–761.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1868. Die Waldverderbniss. Nicolaische Verlag., Berlin. Vol. II, pp. 300, 390.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1895. Lehrbuch der Mitteleuropaischen Forstinsektenkunde. Eighth ed. rev. by Judeich, and Nitsche, . Ed. Hölzel, Vienna. Vol. I, pp. 617, 637, and Vol. II, pp. 807, 930, 961.Google Scholar
Schwerdtfeger, F. 1931. Die Ermittlung der Mortalität von Raupen während einer Insektenepideme. Ein Beispiel für die Anwendlung von Kotfängen zur Behandlung epidemiologischer Probleme, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Epidemiologie des Kieferspanners. Anz. Schädlingsk., 7: 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, H. B., and Boyd, W. M.. 1950. Insect feculae. Jour. New York Ent. Soc., 58: 154–168.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. B., and Boyd, W. M.. 1952. Insect feculae, II. Jour. New York Ent. Soc., 60: 25–30.Google Scholar