Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T00:49:25.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AN ANALYSIS OF INTERSPECIFIC AND INTRASPECIFIC MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN TWO CLOSELY RELATED SPECIES OF AMBLYSEIUS BERLESE USING METHODS OF NUMERICAL TAXONOMY (ACARINA: PHYTOSEHDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D.A. Chant ,
R.I.C. Hansell  and
H.J. Rowell
D.A. Chant
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
R.I.C. Hansell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
H.J. Rowell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological variation between two closely related species in the genus Amblyseius Berlese was examined by numerical taxonomic methods. Multivariate tests indicated that A. canadensis Chant and Hansell and A. novaescotiae (Chant) represent two separate and distinct morphological groups. This supports their taxonomic retention as valid species. Intraspecific morphological variation was also examined and found to be correlated with climatic and host plant variables.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 12 , December 1977 , pp. 1605 - 1618
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

Anderson, R.W. 1958. An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis. Wiley, New York. 365 pp.Google Scholar
Chant, D.A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southern England. Part II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of 38 new species. Can. Ent. Suppl. 12. pp.41–166.Google Scholar
Chant, D.A. 1965. Generic concepts in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Can. Ent. 97: 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D.A. and Hansell, R.I.C.. 1971. The genus Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Canada and Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 49(5): 703–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, W.W. and Lohnes, P.R.. 1971. Multivariate data analysis. Wiley, New York. 365 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C.B., van de Vrie, M., and McMurtry, J.A.. 1970. Ecology of the tetranychid mites and their possible control by predators: an evaluation. Hilgardia 40(11): 391–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R.. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco. 573 pp.Google Scholar
Veldman, D.J. 1967. Fortran programming for the behavioral sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. pp. 190–245.Google Scholar