齿腿姬蜂的新寄主——甘薯麦蛾幼虫

<正> 棉红铃虫Pectinophora gossypiella(Saunders)为南通地区棉花上的主要害虫之一。为保护利用自然天敌资源,开展综合防治,作者从1978年开始对各代红铃虫幼虫自然寄生蜂种类、数     

中美合作开展防治棉红铃虫新技术示范试验

<正> 根据中国科学院上海昆虫研究所与美国阿尔巴尼国际公司签署协议,中美科技人员联合在我国开展防治红铃虫新技术示范试验。棉红铃虫Pectinophorogossypiella(Saunders)是我国长江流域棉区重要害虫,红铃虫的化学防治已不断出现抗药性和污染环境的问     

棉红铃虫性引诱剂的迷向作用试验

1975年我们用上海有机化学研究所提供的棉红铃虫性诱剂(下称性诱剂),从8月1日—10月6日对第二、三代红铃虫进行了迷向法防治试验。效果很好。     

棉红铃虫种群消长规律与棉花受害损失的研究

<正> 棉红铃虫Pectinophora gossypiella(Saunders)是长江流域棉区重要害虫之一,常年棉花受害损失约10％左右。由于此虫繁殖力强,成虫产卵和幼虫为害隐蔽,以及目前又无有效天敌予以利用等原因,故迄今仍不得不依靠化学农药进行防治。自七十年代初期以来,随着综合防治技术的发展,棉田生态环境有了大的改善,特别是在棉花生长前期,针对不同情况控制使用农药或改变施药方法,对自然天敌群落的建立,发挥对中、后期棉蚜和棉铃虫等害虫的控制作用十分有利。但在红铃虫防治问题上,不少地     

棉红铃虫性引诱剂的初步研究

在现代的害虫防治工作中,人们深入到害虫的生理、生态等内在因素,从中探索防治害虫的新方法和新途径,性引诱剂的研究就是其中的一个方面。我们从1972年开始进行棉红铃虫性引诱剂的人工合成和田间试验,1973年除对合成样品进行技术鉴定外,并进行了红铃虫雌蛾天然引诱物的粗提工作。所有的样品分别在上海川沙县和安徽巢县及庐江县做过一些田间试验。现将结果整理出来,提请同志们指正。     

棉红铃虫交配习性的初步观察

近年来,棉红铃虫性引诱剂的试验研究工作已引起各方面的注意。红铃虫的交配习性和性引诱剂试验工作有着密切的关系。为了进一步认识和掌握红铃虫的交配习性,更好地为测报和防治工作服务,我们于1974年对红铃虫的交配习性进行了初步观察,从6月6日到9月26日共解剖雌蛾4,658头。现将结果整理如下。     

棉红铃虫触角感觉器的扫描电镜观察

1974年以来,我们进行了棉红铃虫Pectinophora gossypiella(Saunders)性信息素的研究和大田防治试验。发现红铃虫性诱素(顺、顺-7、11-十六碳双烯醋酸酯和顺、反-7、11-十六碳双烯醋酸酯的1:1混合物)对雄蛾有强烈的引诱作用;在田间达向试验中,虽然它对雌、雄蛾间的性信息联系有很强的抑制作用,但雌娥交配率的下降幅度却不大。为了分析这些现象,对红铃虫性行为作了观察,发现切除雄蛾触角,就失去对性诱素的反应;而切除雌蛾触角.该雌蛾仍能交配。Smith等(1978)的切除触角试验,其结果与我们的相     

红铃虫免配剂(Nomate PBW)防治棉红铃虫的最近研究动态

<正> 棉红铃虫Pectinophora gossypiclla是世界大部分产棉区的重要害虫之一,也是我国长江流域棉区的主要害虫。由于红铃虫幼虫孵化后在较短时间内就蛀食棉铃,所以一般的化学杀虫剂难以达到理想的防治效果。多年使用化学杀虫剂不仅杀伤棉田天敌和有益生物,破坏了棉田生态平衡,而且导致害虫产生抗药性。1981年11月在上海召开的“中美昆虫信息素技术讨论会”上,美国阿尔巴尼国际公司(Albany International)的Brooks和Doane的报告中指出,经红铃虫为害的棉籽会产生一种有毒的致癌物质,喂食奶牛发现乳汁中也含有这种有毒物质。我国不少地区棉籽油作为一种主要食用油在使用,因此,这一问题应引起有关方面的重视。 多年来许多研究者都在探索防治棉红铃虫的新方法,1960年美国的Beroza首先提出用人工合成的信息素弥散于大气中,扰乱雌雄蛾交配,直接防治害虫的     

国外育种抗虫一例

育种抗虫是防治害虫的途径之一。现摘录一种国外选育抗红铃虫棉花品种的试验方法,供参考。 首先采集几百个比较原始棉花品系的棉铃,用干冰冰冻,运回实验室,将棉铃破开,分为果皮(铃壳)和棉铃内部物质两部分,配成标准饲料,以供饲养红铃     

红铃虫雄蛾对性信息化合物行为反应的测定

<正> 昆虫性信息化合物的研究,为害虫防治提供了新的方法。在性信息化合物的研究过程中,常需要一种比较方便、稳定、而能够定量的测定行为反应的方法。 红铃虫性信息素是由顺-7,顺-11-十六碳二烯乙酸酯和顺-7,反-11-十六碳二烯乙酸酯二种成分组成,两种成分的1:1混合物称为红铃虫性诱素(Gossyplure)。现将我们近年来用红铃虫性诱素对红铃虫雄蛾进行行为测定的方法及结果报道如下。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor