The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

No abstract

No abstract

The genus Leptopilina Förster is revised on a world basis. The identity of 31 nominal species, including type species of four other genera, is discussed and 15 lectotypes are designated. Valid species of Leptopilina are L. longipes (Hartig) [type species], L. clavipes (Hartig) n. comb., L. heterotoma (Thomson) n. comb., L. fimbriata (Kieffer) n. comb., L. rufipes (Cameron) n. comb., L. atraticeps (Kieffer) n. comb., L. mahensis (Kieffer) n. comb., L. boulardi (Barbotin et al.) n. comb., and L. cupulifera (Kieffer) n. comb. Leptopilina heterotoma is the valid name for the well-known Drosophila parasitoid currently referred to as Pseudeucoila bochei (Weld). Leptopilina is not synonymous with Ganaspis Förster. Tryhliographa Förster is a senior synonym of Episoclu Förster n. syn. and of Pseudeucoila Ashmead (synonymy confirmed). Leptopilina is described and compared with related genera (Cothonaspis, Rhoptromeris, Odonteucoila). L. victoriae n. sp. is described from the Seychelles. The five Leptopilina occurring in Europe are redescribed on modern material and a key is given to them.

The field responses ofHylobius abietis (L.) andH. pinastri (Gyllenhal) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to various combinations of two host monoterpenes and ethanol were studied using baited pitfall traps. Both species were attracted to α-pinene, and when ethanol was added the attraction increased by 5-16 times. Limonene completely inhibited the attraction to α-pinene, even when the release rate of limonene was only about 1/50 that of α-pinene. The catches in traps with α-pinene and limonene as well as with limonene alone were similar in size to catches in empty control traps, i.e., no true repellent effect was demonstrated. When limonene was added to the combination of α-pinene and ethanol on old clear-cuttings, the catch ofH. pinastri was completely inhibited while that ofH. abietis was reduced by two thirds. On fresh clear-cuttings the inhibitory effect of limonene on the attraction to the α-pinene-ethanol combination was small or absent. Some aspects of host interactions are discussed as are practical implications regarding the choice of seedling material for planting and prospects of finding deterrents for protecting seedlings from pine weevil damage.