Taxonomy of Korean Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) with review of their biology

Han, Ho-Yeon; Choi, Deuk-Soo; Ro, Kyung‐Eui

doi:10.1016/j.aspen.2017.09.011

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a model species of tephritid fruit flies for this study, we used Z. scutellatus , which is distributed throughout Japan, but not in Hokkaido, China, Korea or Taiwan (Guang‐qin, Hancock, Wei, & Fan, 1993; Han, Choi, & Ro, 2017; White & Elson‐Harris, 1992; Yang, Carey, & Dowell, 1994). The main hosts are cucurbit male flower buds (Han et al., 2017) and stem galls of wild gourds (Miyatake, Kuba, & Yukawa, 2000) produced by a gall midge species ( Lasioptera sp., Cecidomyiidae). Zeugodacus scutellatus had been classified as a member of the genus Bactrocera (Vargas, Piñero, & Leblanc, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple and on‐site DNA purification for LAMP reaction applicable to non‐adult tephritid fruit fly (Diptera: Tephiritidae)

Kitano

Takakura

2020

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tephritid fruit flies are important pests of fruits and vegetables in Southeast Asia and the Pacific region (Drew & Romig, 1997). Among them, the Bactrocera dorsalis complex comprises the oriental fruit fly B. dorsalis Hendel (Diptera: Tephiritidae) and its sibling species, which are economically important and extremely polyphagous (Clarke et al., 2005; Drew & Hancock, 1994). Many studies have examined control of B. dorsalis complex in invaded areas (e.g. Armstrong

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple and on‐site DNA purification for LAMP reaction applicable to non‐adult tephritid fruit fly (Diptera: Tephiritidae)

Kitano

Takakura

2020

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The source data is, for a large part, comprised of regional treatments (Drew 1989, Hancock and Drew 2006, White 2006, Drew and Romig 2013), with additions and revisions from more recent studies (Drew et al 2011, Yu et al 2012, Hancock 2015, Hancock and Drew 2015, Hendrichs et al 2015, Schutze et al 2015b, David et al 2016, 2017, Drew and Hancock 2016, Freidberg et al 2017, Han et al 2017). Species included in the list are ordered alphabetically by genus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global checklist of the 932 fruit fly species in the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae)

Doorenweerd¹,

Leblanc²,

Norrbom³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The correct application of the scientific names of species is neither easy nor trivial. Mistakes can lead to the wrong interpretation of research results or, when pest species are involved, inappropriate regulations and limits on trade, and possibly quarantine failures that permit the invasion of new pest species. Names are particularly challenging to manage when groups of organisms encompass a large number of species, when different workers employ different philosophical views, or when species are in a state of taxonomic flux. The fruit fly tribe Dacini is a species-rich taxon within Tephritidae and contains around a fifth of all known species in the family. About 10% of the 932 currently recognized species are pests of commercial fruits and vegetables, precipitating quarantines and trade embargos. Authoritative species lists consist largely of scattered regional treatments and outdated online resources. The checklist presented here is the first global overview of valid species names for the Dacini in almost two decades, and includes new lure records. By publishing this list both in paper and digitally, we aim to provide a resource for those studying fruit flies as well as researchers studying components of their impact on agriculture. The list is largely a consolidation of previous works, but following the results from recent phylogenetic work, we transfer one subgenus and eight species to different genera: members of the Bactrocera subgenus Javadacus Hardy, considered to belong to the Zeugodacus group of subgenera, are transferred to genus Zeugodacus; Bactrocera pseudocucurbitae White, 1999, stat. rev., is transferred back to Bactrocera from Zeugodacus; Zeugodacus arisanicus Shiraki, 1933, stat. rev., is transferred back to Zeugodacus from Bactrocera; and Z. brevipunctatus (David & Hancock, 2017), comb. n.; Z. javanensis (Perkins, 1938), comb. n.; Z. montanus (Hardy, 1983), comb. n.; Z. papuaensis (Malloch, 1939), comb. n.; Z. scutellarius (Bezzi, 1916), comb. n.; Z. semisurstyli (Drew & Romig, 2013), comb. n.; and Z. trilineatus (Hardy, 1955), comb. n. are transferred from Bactrocera to Zeugodacus.

show abstract

“…The pumpkin fruit fly, Bactrocera depressa (Shiraki; Diptera, Tephritidae), infests pumpkin, squash, and other cucurbitaceous fruits in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (Han, Choi, & Ro, ; Mun, Bohonak, & Roderick, ; Ovtshinnikova, ). The female B. depressa oviposit eggs through the skin of fruits, and their larvae develop inside the fruits, making it difficult to control them with conventional insecticides (Kim & Jeon, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological and functional heterogeneity in olfactory perception between antennae and maxillary palps in the pumpkin fruit fly, Bactrocera depressa

Jeong

Kim

et al. 2019

Arch Insect Biochem Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The morphology and ultrastructure of the olfactory sensilla on the antennae and maxillary palps were investigated through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and their responses to five volatile compounds were measured using electroantenogram (EAG) and electropalpogram (EPG) techniques in the pumpkin fruit fly, Bactrocera depressa (Shiraki; Diptera: Tephritidae). Male and female B. depressa displayed distinct morphological types of olfactory sensilla in the antennae and maxillary palps, with predominant populations of trichoid, basiconic, and coeloconic sensilla. Basiconic sensilla, the most abundant type of olfactory sensilla in the antennae, could be further classified into two different types. In contrast, the maxillary palps exhibited predominant populations of a single type of curved basiconic sensilla. High‐resolution SEM observation revealed the presence of multiple nanoscale wall‐pores on the cuticular surface of trichoid and basiconic sensilla, indicating that their primary function is olfactory. In contrast, coeloconic sensilla displayed several longitudinal grooves around the sensillum peg. The TEM observation of individual antennal olfactory sensilla indicates that the basiconic sensilla are thin‐walled, while the trichoid sensilla are thick‐walled. The profile of EAG responses of male B. depressa was different from their EPG response profile, indicating that the olfactory function of maxillary palps is different from that of antennae in this species. The structural and functional variation in the olfactory sensilla between antennae and maxillary palps suggests that each plays an independent role in the perception of olfactory signals in B. depressa.

show abstract

Taxonomy of Korean Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) with review of their biology

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Simple and on‐site DNA purification for LAMP reaction applicable to non‐adult tephritid fruit fly (Diptera: Tephiritidae)

Simple and on‐site DNA purification for LAMP reaction applicable to non‐adult tephritid fruit fly (Diptera: Tephiritidae)

A global checklist of the 932 fruit fly species in the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae)

Morphological and functional heterogeneity in olfactory perception between antennae and maxillary palps in the pumpkin fruit fly, Bactrocera depressa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About