Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-v8zcx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-09T12:20:05.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors That Affect Host Finding by Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)1,2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. G. Wylie
H. G. Wylie
Affiliation:
Entomology Laboratory, Belleville, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adults of most species of insect parasites spend much time finding objects that influence their individual and collective well-being. The object found at any time is usually correlated with the physiological state of the parasite and with extrinsic factors existing at that time. From the standpoint of the species' economy, the most important objects to be discovered are hosts on which fertile parasite progeny can mature. Whether hosts are found and parasitized is influenced, to varying degrees with different parasite species, by whether the female has already found, or been found by, a male of the same species, and by whether she has already located food other than that provided by hosts. The present study is of factors that affect host finding by females of a pteromalid, Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 90 , Issue 10 , October 1958 , pp. 597 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1958

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

Cousin, G. 1933. Étude biologique d'un Chalcidien: Mormoniella vitripennis Walk. Bull. biol. France et Belgique 67: 371–400.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1947. The response of hymenopterous parasites to chemical stimulation of the ovipositor, J. Expt. Zool. 105: 199–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dethier, V. G. 1955. The physiology and histology of the contact chemoreceptors of the blowfly. Quart. Rev. Biol. 30: 348–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodds, S. E., and Ewer, D. W.. 1952. Effect of desiccation on the humidity response of Tenebrio. Nature 170: 758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. L. 1952. The precedence of the generic name Mormoniella Ashmead over that of Nasonia Ashmead (Hym., Pteromalidae). Ent. Mon. Mag. 87: 103.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. L. 1954a. The host-finding and oviposition behaviour of Mormoniella vitripennis (Walker) (Hym., Pteromalidae), a parasite of muscoid flies. Behaviour 7: 88–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. L. 1954b. The effect of diet on egg maturation and resorption in Mormoniella vitripennis (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae). Quart. Rev. Micr. Sci. 95: 459–468.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1947. Elements of host discovery exemplified by parasitic Hymenoptera. Ecology 28: 299–309.Google Scholar
Fleschner, C. A. 1950. Studies on searching capacity of the larvae of three predators of the citrus red mite. Hilgardia 20: 233–265.Google Scholar
Froggatt, W. W. 1915. Sheep maggot flies. Fmr. Bull. 95, New South Wales Dept. Agr.Google Scholar
Fulton, B. B. 1933. Notes on Habrocytus cerealellae, parasite of the Angoumois grain moth. Ann. Ent. Soc. America 26: 536–553.Google Scholar
Girault, A. A., and Sanders, G. E.. 1910. The chalcidoid parasites of the common house or typhoid fly (Musca domestica Linn.) and its allies. Psyche 17: 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham-Smith, G. S. 1919. Further observations on the habits and parasites of common flies. Parasitology 11: 347–384.Google Scholar
Gunn, D. L., and Cosway, C. A.. 1938. The temperature and humidity relations of the cockroach. V. Humidity preference, J. Expt. Biol. 15: 555–563.Google Scholar
Hafez, M. 1950. On the behaviour and sensory physiology of the house fly larva, Musca domestica L. I. Feeding stage. Parasitology 40: 215–236.Google Scholar
Hafez, M. 1953. On the behaviour and sensory physiology of the house fly larva, Musca domestica L. II. Prepupating stage, J. Expt. Zool. 124: 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, E. F. 1939. Ueber Lebensweise, Auffinden des Wirtes und Regulierung des Individuenzahl von Mormoniella vitripennis Walker. Arch. néerl. Zool. 3: 197–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, T. H., and Tiegs, O. W.. 1922. What part can chalcid wasps play in controlling Australian sheep maggot flies? Queensland Agr. J. 17: 128–131. In Rev. Appl. Ent., B, 10: 133.Google Scholar
Laing, J. 1937. Host finding by insect parasites. I. Observations on the finding of hosts by Alysia manducator, Mormoniella vitripennis, and Trichogramma evanescens. J. Anim. Ecol. 6: 298–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 1927. Parasitic control of sheep maggot flies. New Zealand J. Agr. 34: 1–4. In Rev. Appl. Ent., B, 15: 85.Google Scholar
Putman, W. L. 1955. Bionomics of Stethorus punctillum Weise (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Ontario. Canadian Ent. 87: 9–33.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. A. 1933. Activity of blowflies and associated insects at various heights above the ground. Ecology 14: 346–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1932. The natural control of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata Meigen. Bull. Ent. Res. 23: 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1935. Experimental studies in insect parasitism. III. Host selection. Proc. Roy. Soc., B, 117: 413–435.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1937. Experimental studies in insect parasitism. V. The sense used by Trichogramma to distinguish between parasitized and unparasitized hosts. Proc. Roy. Soc., B, 122: 57–75.Google Scholar
Smirnov, E., and Kuzina, O.. 1933. Experimentalökologische Studien an Fleigenparasiten. I. Teil. (In Russian with a German summary). Zool. J. 12: 96–108. In Rev. Appl. Ent., B, 22: 216.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. E. 1945. The use of cobalt salts as indicators of humidity and moisture. Ann. Appl. Biol. 32: 75–85.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949. Pupation habits of sheep blowflies in relation to parasitism by Mormoniella vitripennis, Wlk. (Hym., Pteromalidae). Bull. Ent. Res. 40: 533–537.Google Scholar
Van der Merwe, J. S. 1943. Investigation on the biology and ecology of Mormoniella vitripennis Walk. (Pteromalidae, Hym.). J. Ent. Soc. South Africa 6: 48–64.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C. 1941. On the search for hosts and the egg distribution of some chalcid parasites of the knapweed gall-fly. Parasitology 33: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, G. C., and Edwards, R. L.. 1953. An olfactometer for observing the behaviour of small animals. Nature 171: 789–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, W. E. 1933. Parasites from a bird's nest. J. Econ. Ent. 26: 292–293.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. 1941. The sensory physiology of the human louse, Pediculus humanus corporis de Geer (Anoplura). Parasitology 33: 67–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar