Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-ds8n5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-12T07:01:48.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Old World Species of the Genus Stethorus Weise (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. P. Kapur
A. P. Kapur
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The genus Stethorus Weise is of special interest on account of its cosmopolitan distribution and the habit of its species of feeding mainly on mites, some of which are pests of crops, including fruit trees. Its relationship with other members of the tribe Scymnini is also of importance, as it was separated by Dobrzhansky in 1924 into a distinct tribe called Stethorini, which, however, was regarded by Korschefsky (1931) as synonymous with Scymnini. The material on which the present study is based came mainly from the Old World. Much of it had been submitted to the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology for identification, and I am grateful to Dr. W. J. Hall and Dr. T. H. C. Taylor, of this Institute, for giving me facilities and help. The remainder of the material studied was in the collection of the British Museum. I am indebted to Mr. N. D. Riley for procuring, on my behalf, certain type specimens from abroad for examination.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , September 1948 , pp. 297 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blackburn, T. (1892). Trans, roy. Soc. S. Aust., 15, pp. 248–250.Google Scholar
Blattný, C. & Balaček, B. (1924). Pokusnické zprávy českého odboru rady zemědělské v Praze no. 3, 16 pp. Prague.Google Scholar
Borden, A. D. (1922). Mon. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric., 11 (7), pp. 36–39.Google Scholar
Brèthes, J. (1924). An. Mus. nac. B. Aires, 33, p. 167.Google Scholar
Casey, T. D. (1899). J. N.Y. ent. Soc., 7, pp. 136–137.Google Scholar
Cherian, M. C. (1933). J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 27 (1931), pp. 141–147.Google Scholar
Cottier, W. (1934). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech., 16, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
Crotch, G. R. (1874). A revision of the coleopterous family Coccinellidae. 311 pp. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, T. (1919). Boll. Studi inform., R. Giard. colon. Palermo, 5 (1–2), pp. 39–47. (R.A.E., (A) 9, p. 56.)Google Scholar
Dobrzhansky, T. (1924). Ent. Mitt., 22, pp. 18–27.Google Scholar
Dobrzhansky, T.. (1926). Bull. Acad. Sci. URSS, 20, p. 1582.Google Scholar
Evans, J. W. (1943) Insect pests and their control. Dep. Agric. Tasmania, Hobart.Google Scholar
Garman, P. (1923). Bull. Conn, agric. Exp. Sta. no. 247 pp. 333–338Google Scholar
Gilliatt, F. C. (1935). Canad. J. Res., (D) 13, pp. 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gmelin, J. F. (1789). Linn. Syst. nat., ed. 13, 1, p. 1664.Google Scholar
Gyllenhal, L. (1837). Insecta Svecica, 2 (4), p. 195.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. C. (1924). Bull. Maryland agric. Exp. Sta., no. 264, pp. 181–238.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, E. (1932). Rep. Dep. Agric. Sierra Leone, 1931, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
Harold, E. Von (1875). Coleopt. Hefte, 14, p. 118.Google Scholar
Hauser, J. S. & Cutright, C. R. (1941). Proc. Ohio hort. Soc., 74, pp. 26–34Google Scholar
Herbst, J. F. W. (1797). Natursystem … der Käfer, 7, p. 346.Google Scholar
Illiger, J. C. W. (1798). Verzeichniss der Käfer Preussens, p. 413.Google Scholar
Jary, S. G. (1935). Ann. appl. Biol., 22, pp. 538–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korschefsky, R. (1931). Coccinellidae I.—Coleopt. Cat., pars 118.Google Scholar
Listo, J., Listo, E. M. & Kanervo, V. (1939). Valt. Maatalousk. Julk., no. 99 143 pp. (R.A.E., (A) 30, p. 576.)Google Scholar
McGregor, E. A. (1913). Circ. U.S. Bur. Ent., no. 172, 22 pp.Google Scholar
McGregor, E. A. & McDonough, F. L. (1917). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 416, 72 pp.Google Scholar
Mader, L. (1924). Bestim.-Tab. europ. Col., 44, p. 15.Google Scholar
Martelli, G. M. (1937). Riv. Patol. veg., 27 (1–2), repr. 12 pp.Google Scholar
Massee, A. M. (1940). Rep. E. Mailing Res. Sta. 1939, 27, pp. 70–73.Google Scholar
Menozzi, C. (1934). Industr. saccarif. ital., 27 (1), repr. 6 pp.Google Scholar
Motschulsky, V. (1858). Étud. Ent., 7, p. 170.Google Scholar
Motschulsky, V.. (1866). Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 39, p. 426.Google Scholar
Moznette, C. F. (1919). Florida Bugg., 3 (3), pp. 45–48 (R.A.E., (A) 8, p. 213.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moznette, C. F.. (1922). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 1035, 15 pp.Google Scholar
Müller, O. F. (1776). Zoologiae Danicae prodromus … Havniae, p. 65.Google Scholar
Mulsant, M. E. (1850). Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyon, (2) 2, 1104 pp.Google Scholar
Newcomer, E. J. & Yothers, M. A. (1929). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 89, 69 pp.Google Scholar
Nunenmacher, F. W. (1937). Pan-Pacif. Ent., 13, pp. 182–183.Google Scholar
Parker, W. B. (1913). Bull. U.S. Bur. Ent., no. 111, 43 pp.Google Scholar
Quayle, H. J. (1913). J. econ. Ent., 6, pp. 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radzievskaya, S. (1931). Za khlopkov. Nezavisim., no. 6–7, pp. 75–81.Google Scholar
Ross, W. S. & Robinson, W. (1922). 52nd Rep. ent. Soc. Ont., 1921, pp. 33–42.Google Scholar
Roubal, J. (1912). Ent. Mitt., 9, p. 79.Google Scholar
Schaufuss, C. (1916). In Calwer Käferbuch, C. G., ed. 6, 1, p. 564.Google Scholar
Schilder, F. A. & Schilder, M. (1928). Arb. biol. Reichsanst., 16, pp. 213–282.Google Scholar
Sicard, A. (1909). Ann. Soc. ent. Fr., 78, pp. 146, 148.Google Scholar
Speyer, E. R. (1935). Rep. exp. Res. Sta. Cheshunt, 20 (1934), pp. 70–78.Google Scholar
Swezey, O. H. (1923). Hawaii. Plant. Rec., 27, pp. 4–7.Google Scholar
Takahashi, R. (1938). Bull. Govt. Res. Inst. Formosa, no. 144, 10 pp.Google Scholar
Uspenski˘, F. M. (1937). Trud. sredneaz. Sta. Zashch. Rast., no. 2 pp. 3–25 Tashkent. (R.A.E., (A) 27, pp. 625–626.)Google Scholar
van der Helm, G. W. (1935). Tijdschr. PlZiekt., 41, pp. 313–315.Google Scholar
Vanwijngaerden, G. (1934). Agricultura, Louvain, 37, pp. 296–304.Google Scholar
Webster, R. L. (1942). Bull. Wash. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 425 (52nd Rep. 1941–42), pp. 35–41Google Scholar
Weise, J. (1879). Z. Ent., Breslau, 7, pp. 140, 148.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1885). Bestim.-Tab. europ. Col., ed. 2, 2, p. 65.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1891). Cat. Col. Europ., p. 781.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1895). Ann. Soc. ent. Belg., 39, p. 155.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1899). Arch. Naturgesch., 65 (1), p. 64.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1900). Dtsch. ent. Z., 1900, p. 440.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1908). Faun. S. W. Aust., 2 (1), p. 13.Google Scholar
Weise, J.. (1910). Philipp. J. Sci., (D) 5, p. 232.Google Scholar
Wollaston, T. V. (1854). Insecta Maderensia, 634 pp. London.Google Scholar