Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Taxonomic status of Dryocoetes autographus Ratz. and D. hectographus Reitt. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

The species status of D. autographus and D. hectographus is investigated by means of morphological and biosystematic methods. A hybridization experiment resulted in progeny, but the F1 generation appeared to be infertile. The size of the punctures on the elytral declivity and two dimensions of the endophallic portion of the penis were measured on specimens from the two forms and the hybrids. The declivital punctures show great variation with overlap. The shape of the penis in the two forms is distinctive and is therefore an excellent diagnostic character. The hybrids occupy intermediate positions to a great extent. D. hectographus is significantly longer than D. autographus. Olfactometer experiments showed that male Dryocoetes produce aggregation pheromones, and there was some cross-attraction between the two forms. Measurements of the supercooling points showed that significantly more D. hectographus were cold adapted. Electrophoretic analysis of both forms taken from the same breeding stock revealed a conspicuous and constant difference in the protein pattern, indicating that they are genetically distinct. It is concluded that the two species should still be considered as distinct.

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187631279794814977
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/187631279794814977
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187631279794814977
1979-09-01
2016-12-06

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Insect Systematics & Evolution — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation