2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.10.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Morphology of second and third instars of Chrysomya villeneuvi Patton (Diptera: Calliphoridae), a fly species of forensic importance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The profile of the posterior spiracles in fly puparia used in this study were clearly observed, and well matched with those observed in the third instar, for example, C. megacephala (Zumpt 1965;Ishijima 1967;Sukontason et al 2004), C. nigripes (Sukontason et al 2004), C. rufifacies (Ishijima 1967;Sukontason et al 2004Sukontason et al , 2005b, C. villeneuvi (Sukontason et al 2005a), L. cuprina (Ishijima 1967;Greenberg and Kunich 2002;Sukontason et al 2004), and M. domestica (Ishijima 1967;Goff and Catts 1990;Sukontason et al 2004). Moreover, mean of the range between the posterior spiracles is a useful feature for distinguishing puparia of closely related species (L. cuprina vs H. ligurriens; C. rufifacies vs C.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The profile of the posterior spiracles in fly puparia used in this study were clearly observed, and well matched with those observed in the third instar, for example, C. megacephala (Zumpt 1965;Ishijima 1967;Sukontason et al 2004), C. nigripes (Sukontason et al 2004), C. rufifacies (Ishijima 1967;Sukontason et al 2004Sukontason et al , 2005b, C. villeneuvi (Sukontason et al 2005a), L. cuprina (Ishijima 1967;Greenberg and Kunich 2002;Sukontason et al 2004), and M. domestica (Ishijima 1967;Goff and Catts 1990;Sukontason et al 2004). Moreover, mean of the range between the posterior spiracles is a useful feature for distinguishing puparia of closely related species (L. cuprina vs H. ligurriens; C. rufifacies vs C.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…However, some reports have shown that the morphological characteristics of the posterior spiracle are difficult to use or cannot be used to distinguish between the closely related species. Examples of these were published for blow flies Chrysomya rufifacies (Macquart) vs. Chrysomya villeneuvi Patton (Sukontason et al 2005) or Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius) vs. Chrysomya pinguis (Walker) (Ishijima 1967).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Delicate spines of L. cuprina and H. ligurriens were similar to other blow flies Lucilia sericata (Meigen), Calliphora spp. (Peters 1992), house fly Musca domestica L., or fly of the family Muscidae, Hydrotaea spinigera Stein (Sukontason et al 2004), but very different from the strong one of blow flies C. megacephala, C. rufifacies, Chrysomya nigripes Aubertin (Sukontason et al 2004), C. villeneuvi (Sukontason et al 2005), Chrysomya bezziana Villeneuve, or Cochliomyia hominivorax (Coquerel) (Peters 1992). Our previous work confirmed the significance of spine features, which are species specific, such as blow flies (C. megacephala, C. rufifacies, C. nigripes) or house fly (Sukontason et al 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The larvae of several species have prominent spiny tubercles not found in other calliphorids (Kitching, 1976;Kitching & Voeten, 1977;Erzinclioglu, 1987;Sukontason et al, 2003Sukontason et al, , 2005 and are sometimes referred to as 'hairy maggots'. All tuberculate species with known natural history are also facultative predators on other maggots [Froggatt, 1918(cited in Fuller, 1934 ;Fuller, 1934;Senior-White et al, 1940;Ullyett, 1950].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%