Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T18:55:40.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parasitological Data as an Aid in Aphid Classification1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Manfred Mackauer
Manfred Mackauer
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Existing theories and conclusions on the taxonomic relationships between various aphids are based on a study of those insects alone, and are often a matter of opinion.

True taxonomic relationships frequently are revealed when the host ranges of the insect parasites of aphids are considered.

Conclusions from a study of the host-relationships of aphid parasites of the family Aphidiidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea): support the division of the superfamily Aphidoidea into Phylloxerina and Aphidina; support that Chaitophoridae, Callaphididae and Aphididae (including Lachnidae) form a monophyletic group, with the Aphididae the most recent member; support the view that the Rosaceae complex of Aphididae is natural; show that the aphid host plant usually has no decisive influence on the potential host range of an aphidiid species, even in cases of a taxonomically discontinuous change in host plants; and do not support the placement of the genus Drepanosiphum with the family Callaphididae, subfamily Phyllaphidinae.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 97 , Issue 10 , October 1965 , pp. 1016 - 1024
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1965

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

Bekker-Migdisova, E. E. 1960. (Paleozoic Homoptera of the U.S.S.R. and problems of their phylogeny.) (In Russian.) Paleontol. Zhur. 3: 28–42.Google Scholar
Bodenheimer, F. S., and Swirski, E.. 1957. The Aphidoidea of the Middle East. The Weizmann Science Press, Jerusalem. 378 pp.Google Scholar
Börner, C. 1930. Beiträge zu einem neuen System der Blattläuse. Arch. klass. phylog. Ent. 1: 115–180.Google Scholar
Börner, C. 1952. Europae centralis Aphides. Die Blattläuse Mitteleuropas. Namen, Synonyme, Wirtspflanzen, Generationszyklen. Mitt. thüring. bot. Ges. 3: 484 pp.Google Scholar
Börner, C., and Heinze, K.. 1957. Aphidina-Aphidoidea. In Sorauer, P., Handbuch der Pflanzenkrankbeiten, 5. Aufl., Bd. 5, 4. Liefg., pp. 1–402. P. Parey, Berlin and Hamburg.Google Scholar
Eastop, V. F. 1953. A study of the Tramini (Homoptera-Aphididae). Trans. R. ent. Soc., Lond. 104: 385–413.Google Scholar
Eichler, W. D. 1942. Die Entfaltungsregeln und andere GesetzmäBigkeiten in den parasito-genetischen Beziehungen der Mallophagen und anderer ständiger Parasiten zu ihren Wirten. Zool. Anz. 137: 77–83.Google Scholar
Evenhuis, H. H. 1964. The interrelations between apple aphids and their parasites and hyperparasites. Entomophaga 9: 227–231.Google Scholar
Fahrenholz, H. 1913. Ektoparasiten und Abstammungslehre. Zool. Anz. 41: 371–374.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1953. Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beitr. Entomol. 3: Sonderheft, pp. 1–85.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1957. Systematik und Phylogenese. Ber. 100-Jahrfeier dtsch. entomol. Ges., Berl. 1956, pp. 50–71.Google Scholar
Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1939. Contributions to a monograph of the Aphididae of Europe. II. Temminckia 4: 1–134.Google Scholar
Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1947. Contributions to a monograph of the Aphididae of Europe. III. Temminckia 7: 179–320.Google Scholar
Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1950. Host plants and aphid classification. Proc. 8th int. Congr. Entomol., Stockholm 1948, pp. 141–144.Google Scholar
Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1964. Higher categories of the Aphididae. Paper, Seminar on the Current Status of Research on Aphids, Berkeley, Cal., 1964.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S., Day, M. F. and Eastop, V. F.. 1962. A conspectus of aphids as vectors of plant viruses. Commonwealth Inst. of Entomol., London. 114 pp.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S., and Stroyan, H. L. G.. 1959. Biology of aphids. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 4: 139–160.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1960. Die europäischen Arten der Gattung Lysiphlebus Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae). Eine monographische Revision. Beitr. Entomol. 10: 582–623.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1961. Zur Frage der Wirtsbindung der Blattlaus-Schlupfwespen (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Z. Parasitenk. 20: 576–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1962a. Spezifische Parasiten der Acyrthosiphon-Macrosiphum-Gruppe und Grundfragen der Wirtsbindung der Blattlaus-Schlupfwespen (Homoptera: Aphididae - Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Z. angew. Ent. 50: 125–131.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1962b. Wirtsbindung der Aphidiinae und Fahrenholz'sche Regel. Verh. XI. int. Kongr. Entomol., Wien 1960, 2: 733–738.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1962c. Blattlaus-Schlupfwespen der Sammlung F. P. Müller, Rostock (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea; Aphidiidae). Beitr. Entomol. 12: 631–660.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1963. Bemerkungen zur Systematik, Verbreitung und Wirtsbindung des Ephedrus persicae-Komplexes (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Z. angew. Ent. 52: 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mordvilko, A. 1928. The evolution of cycles and the origin of heteroecy (migrations) in plant-lice. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 11: 570–582.Google Scholar
Mordvilko, A. 1934. On the evolution of aphids. Arch. Naturgesch. N. F., 3: 1–60.Google Scholar
Mordvilko, A. 1935. Die Blattläuse mit unvollständigem Generationszyklus und ihre Entstehung. Ergebn. Fortschr. Zool. 8: 36–328.Google Scholar
Müller, F. P. 1957. Die Futterpflanzen in der Blattlaus-Systematik (Hom. Aphididae). Ber. 100-Jahrfeier dtsch. Entomol. Ges., Berlin 1956, pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Osche, G. 1957. Die “Wirtskreiserweiterung” bei parasitischen Nematoden und die sie bedingenden biologisch-ökologischen Faktoren. Z. Parasitenk. 17: 437–489.Google Scholar
Osche, G. 1961. Aufgaben und Probleme der Systematik am Beispiel der Nematoden. Verh. dtsch. zool. Ges. 1960; Zool. Anz. Suppl. 24: 329–384.Google Scholar
Quednau, W. 1954. Monographie der mitteleuropäischen Callaphididae (Zierläuse [Homoptera, Aphidina]) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ersten Jugendstadiums. I. Die Junglarven des ersten Stadiums der mitteleuropäischen Callaphididae. Mitt. biol. ZentAnst. Berl. 78: 71 pp.Google Scholar
Schlinger, E. I., and Mackauer, M. J. P.. 1963. Identity, distribution, and hosts of Aphidius matricariae Haliday, an important parasite of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae — Homoptera: Aphidoidea). Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 56: 648–653.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A.. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco and London. xvi + 359 pp.Google Scholar
Starý, P. 1962. Bionomics and ecology of Ephedrus pulchellus Stelfox an important parasite of leaf-curling aphids in Czechoslovakia, with notes on the diapause (Hym., Aphidiidae). Entomophaga 7: 91–100.Google Scholar
Starý, P. 1963a. A study on the relationship of the Dactynotinae and their aphidiid parasites in Europe (Homoptera: Aphidoidea, Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Acta ent. Mus. Nat. Prague 35: 593–610.Google Scholar
Starý, P. 1963b. A study on the relationship of the Myzinae and their aphidiid parasites in (Central) Europe. (Homoptera: Aphidoidea, Myzinae. Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. Portici 21: 199–216.Google Scholar
Szidat, L. 1956. Geschichte, Anwendung und einige Folgerungen aus den parasitogenetischen Regeln. Z. Parasitenk. 17: 237–268.Google Scholar