Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:03:49.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the British Species of Simulium. —II. The Early Stages ; with Corrections and Additions to Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

F. W. Edwards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the introduction to the first part of this paper* it was remarked that very little exact work had been published on the adult European SIMULIDAE. This is equally true of the larvae and pupae ; in fact no one has attempted to describe the early stages of more than two or three of the common species. Moreover, in spite of their great interest, and the ease with which they can be collected and reared, they have apparently been almost entirely ignored by collectors, so that whereas in publishing my previous work I was able to acknowledge valuable assistance from a number of fellow entomologists, the results given in the following pages are, unless otherwise stated, due to my own observations. I wish especially to thank Mr. M. E. Mosely for the early stages of S. subornatum, the last species to come under my notice in the pupal stage. While there are still many important gaps in our knowledge which remain to be filled, it has been thought worth while to state without further delay the results that have been obtained so far.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , December 1920 , pp. 211 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1920

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

* Bull. Ent. Res., vi, pp. 23–42 (1915).Google Scholar

† Lutz, A.,Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, i, p. 124 (1909), and ii, p. 213 (1910).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‡ Malloch, J. R.“American Black Flies or Buffalo Gnats.”—U.S. Dept. Agric. Bur. of Ent. Tech. Series 26, 1914.Google Scholar

§ Pomeroy, A. W. J.“Notes on five North American Buffalo Gnats of the genus Simulium.”—U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 329, 1916.Google Scholar

| While this work has been passing through the press a valuable paper on the German species has been published by Dr. K. FRIEDRICHS (Vorläuf. Mitt. Sitzb. Abh. Naturf. Ges. Rostock, vii, pp. 211–226, Oct. 1920). The adults, pupae and habitats of nine species are briefly described).

* Ann. Trop. Med., i, p. 40.Google Scholar

† Ent. Mo. Mag. (3), i, 1915, p. 150.Google Scholar

* The actual tooth is no larger, but is darker in colour and surrounded by a darker and more strongly chitinised area of the general integument of the head. In this respect Simulium differs strikingly from the CULICIDAE, in which the egg-burster is surrounded by a membranous area.

* Berl. Ent. Zeit. 1870, p. 133.Google Scholar

† Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., xi, 1918, p. 63.Google Scholar

* Jl. Morph., Philadelphia, xxiv, 1913, pp. 43–105.Google Scholar

* These are well summarised by Wilhelmi in a recent German Government publication (Die Kriebelmiickenplage ; Uebersicht iiber die Simuliidenkunde, besonders in practischen Hinsicht. Jena, Oct. 1920).

* When the gills are branched they are much less frequently retracted than when they are simple. The gills of S. subornatum have not been observed ; since they were retracted in all the specimens examined. they are probably simple.

* Often incorrectly spoken of as the labium.

* M. Séguy notes in regard to Meigen’s type of S. sericatum, “Détruit, le débris quireste répond bien a votre description ♀.” He also states that the types of S. argyreatum and some others “répondent bien à vos tableaux.”

* See synonymy below, and under S. aureum.

* See synonymy below.

* I was at first inclined to regard this as indicating that S. aureum was the autumn form of S. latipes; but there are good structural differences between the two species in all their stages.

* This may possibly have been an error of observation on the part of the American writers. The division between the first two joints is always rather indistinct.