Title: Florida Entomologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098813/00276
 Material Information
Title: Florida Entomologist
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Florida Entomological Society
Publisher: Florida Entomological Society
Place of Publication: Winter Haven, Fla.
Publication Date: 1938
Copyright Date: 1917
Subject: Florida Entomological Society
Entomology -- Periodicals
Insects -- Florida
Insects -- Florida -- Periodicals
Insects -- Periodicals
General Note: Eigenfactor: Florida Entomologist: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1653/024.092.0401
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098813
Volume ID: VID00276
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: Open Access

Full Text


Florida Entomologist
Official Organ of the Florida Entomological Society
VOL. XXI MARCH, 1938 No. 1

Entomologist State Plant Board
During the past summer the writer's attention became di-
rected to what appeared to be an unusually severe infestation
of the Mango Shield Scale (Coccus mangiferae (Green)) in
certain mango plantings on Pine Island, Lee County, Florida.

Fig. 1.-Enlarged illustration of Mango Shield Scale showing how
the Cephalosporium Fungus generally proliferates from the edge of the
scale it has killed to form a delicate halo. This is best shown at top
(center), the black oval being due to a small flake of sooty-mold. This
same scale is shown in almost the exact center of Fig. 2. X7. Photo by
Geo. B. Merrill.


Fig. 2.-Mango Shield Scale on Mango leaves heavily infected with
Cephalosporium Fungus. Uniform black areas illustrate how completely
the sooty-mold fungus may cover the tops (lower left) and even parts
of the bottoms of leaves (right). X%. Photo by Geo. B. Merrill.

VOL. XXI-No. 1

The first specimens received (early June) showed the pres-
ence of the Cephalosporium Fungus (Cephalosporium lecanii),
a parasite of not infrequent occurrence in Florida on such scales
as Pyriform Scale, Mango Shield Scale, Soft Brown Scale, Hemi-
spherical Scale, and others of the soft scale group. It also
occurs in the Virgin Islands, Barbados, Cuba, Ceylon, and pre-
sumably other tropical and sub-tropical regions.
The question at once arose how effectively will this fungus
control this scale by the end of the period of summer rains
(mid-September or thereabouts) ?
Specimens received in early September verified the surmise
that the fungus would spread and become epidemic on this scale.
Many leaves heavily infested showed hardly a live specimen,
so effectively had the fungus spread. The seemingly excessive
presence of Sooty-Mold, which develops in the honeydew ex-
creted by these and similar scales, however, indicated that the
insects had, nevertheless, severely sapped many, if not all, trees
in the plantings. So much so that the writer decided to visit
Pine Island and make a personal inspection of some of the
plantings. This was done on October 30 and 31, 1937.
Personal inspection revealed the fact that the fungus had
spread like wildfire, effecting what one could call a fair com-
mercial control, but heavily infested trees were black with sooty-
mold. Some trees, furthermore, showed that they were suffer-
ing injury, as indicated by a shortage of foliage and general
An interesting observation, made by one of the owners,
was that live immature scales were migrating to new growth
as evidenced by the presence of bees collecting honeydew. This
was verified by an examination of some new growth, which,
however, was not plentiful at the time and high up in the trees.
Since oil sprays or soap solutions loosen the sooty-mold, it
was indicated to the owners that they give a cleanup spray of
oil emulsion or soap, especially to those trees heavily covered
with the mold, in order to facilitate its removal by winds and
rains. Such a spray might be applied only to the tops of the
leaves where the mold is thickest, thus hurrying its weathering-
off and allowing sunlight to reach the leaf surfaces previously
shaded. This should help the trees to function more normally
preparatory to next season's bloom and setting of fruit.
It was further explained, however, that thoroughly spraying
both leaf tops and bottoms would be preferable since this would


kill many scale-insects not killed by the fungus as well as loosen
the sooty-mold. Directing the spray against the leaf-tops only,
was indicated mainly for the benefit of those who might not
feel able to bear the extra expense of a more thorough spraying.
It was learned that some growers employ two or more appli-
cations of Bordeaux in the bloom to prevent anthracnose on the
fruit. At first it was feared that this practice was interfering
with the friendly fungus, but since the Bordeaux is directed
particularly at the bloom, it is believed that not enough Bor-
deaux reaches the bottom of the foliage to interfere with the
It should finally be stated that this scale probably occurs
wherever mangoes are grown in Florida.

The value of the citrus of Florida reaches as much as 35
to 40 million dollars annually. Recently the combined values
of the vegetable crops of the State have reached as much or
more, being 35 to 40 million dollars also.
Since the combined values of these crops reach 75 million
dollars, and insect damages are conservatively estimated at ten
percent of the value of the crop, and disease damage is estimated
at a similar amount, the total loss to the main commercial crops
of Florida is seven or eight million dollars.
If we add to this the money spent for labor, materials, and
equipment used for insect and disease control, we will have a
similar amount involved in the control of insects and disease
This does not include any of the crops grown by small gar-
deners for home use nor does it include the use of insecticides
and fungicides on flowers, lawns, or any ornamental plants. Any
of you who have tried to grow flowers or keep a lawn in good
shape know how troublesome this can be. None of the house-
hold pests, termites, moths, mosquitoes, etc., were included in
the above estimates. Omitted also were all the animal and
livestock pests such as ticks, screw worms, fleas, etc.
All these above points are mentioned to show the importance
of entomological recommendations. We in this assembled group,
'Address of the President of the Florida Entomological Society at
Gainesville, November 20, 1937.


*1 Eq 6




VOL. XXI-No. 1

with our advisers and parent organizations, are responsible for
the losses mentioned and the efficiency of the control measures
used against the pests and diseases, involving annually over a
million or two dollars as well as considerable anxiety, worry,
loss of sleep, time, etc.
What the writer is trying to emphasize is that when we so
glibly say, spray or dust with lead arsenate, pyrethrum, sulphur,
or oil emulsion, or use poison bait, or something else, there may
be considerably more importance attached to that recommenda-
tion than we realize.
When J. H. Comstock was asked by a student who was
a candidate for a doctor's degree in Entomology how long a
thesis should be, Mr. Comstock replied, "Long enough to get
your degree."
Abraham Lincoln, who was a tall, long-legged man, when
involved in a discussion of long and short men, was asked how
long a man's legs should be. He replied, "Long enough to reach
the ground."
Entomological recommendations are exactly similar. They
should be good enough to get results. They must give insect
or disease control without damaging the crop and leave no
objectionable residue on the crop or in the soil. They must
not cause other insects to increase, affect the plant adversely
physiologically, nor be too expensive.
To get efficient insect control, first of all the proper material
must be used. It must be applied to give good coverage. The
correct amount must be used at the correct temperature, time
of day, condition of wind, condition of foliage, etc.
Good coverage can be obtained only by making the applica-
tion with the proper equipment. This may vary from the
simplest hand sprayer or hand duster to equipment costing
from one to two thousand dollars complete, or even a fifteen
to twenty thousand dollar plane. It may be just as foolish
to try to use a power duster on too small an area as it would
be to try to dust a citrus grove with a hand duster. Each
recommendation must be made to fit the type of equipment
to be used. If hand equipment is to be used, a different quan-
tity of material may be required than if a plane is to be used.
A material that is to go through a hand duster without agita-
tion may need to be conditioned differently from one that is
to go through a power duster with plenty of agitation.


An illustration of just what is meant is given below. If
we were asked how to control leaf hoppers on beans, we would
probably say, "Use sulphur and pyrethrum dust." We might
add, "It should be mixed one part of pyrethrum to five to seven
parts of sulphur." There we would likely stop and only about
one man out of ten could take this recommendation and get
good results. This is in no way intended as a criticism of any
published bulletin, for this recommendation is fundamentally
correct. The difficulty lies in the fact that the kind of sulphur
was not specified, nor the strength of the pyrethrum specified.
Several forms of sulphur are available; namely, flowers of sul-
phur, commercial flour sulphur, superfine flour sulphur, condi-
tioned dusting sulphur with inert or alkaline conditioning agent.
The mesh test may vary also from 100% through 100 mesh
to 97-98% through 325 mesh. Pyrethrum may vary from .05%
pyrethrins in activated pyrethrum to .9% pyrethrins in high
test ground flowers. The selection by the user of the wrong
combination of any of these materials would reduce the effective-
ness of the mixture and the recommendations. The method of
mixing was not specified and the best methods of or equipment
for application were not specified. Besides this, no mention was
made of the amount necessary per acre per application and
nothing was said as to whether the application should be made
when plants were wet with dew or when the temperature was
as high as possible.
Another illustration is the recommendation of 1 to 50 lime
sulphur solution plus 10 pounds wettable sulphur per 100 gallons
for the control of scale crawlers. In the first place, the wettable
sulphur may vary from 35 to 95 percent sulphur and may or
may not contain a spreader, adhesive, or dispersing agent. All
of these points may affect the results obtained.
The most serious reason for the lack of control by these
materials is the variation in the amount of materials used per
tree or the thoroughness of the application.
Growers have taken the above recommendation, using the
riding-spray method, hitting only the outside leaves, and then
complained about the poor kill of scale crawlers or scale control.
Analyses have shown that such a spraying job deposits less
than half as much residue on the leaves as a thorough, inside,
walk-and-spray application.
Application of oil emulsion sprays are subject to the same
difficulty, although practically no riding-and-spraying is done.

VOL. XXI-No. 1

In one instance a grove was examined after spraying and 40
to 50 percent of the leaves on the lower branches were found
dry on the lower surface. No matter how good the emulsion
used, only poor results will be obtained by improper application.
Oils kill only by contact and are absolutely valueless unless the
insect to be controlled is hit by the insecticide.
The writer could go on mentioning endless similar instances
but these will suffice. To name the materials and concentration
to be used for control of a certain pest is merely to confuse the
prospective user if details enough regarding their use are not
The various points regarding entomological recommendations
that should be considered are as follows:
1. INSECTICIDAL MATERIALS. The materials must be known to
kill the pest in question under the conditions described.
2. MIXER AND MIXING, IF NECESSARY. The type of mixer must
be such that it will give a thorough and uniform mixing of materials
used. Poison bait, especially hard to prepare, must not have all the
poison in one end or one part of the material and the bran and syrup
in the other. There must be no lumps.
should dust well and sprays should spread well without all running
INCLUDING AEROPLANES. Each type of application should be
made with the best suited equipment to make the recommendation
TION. The amount of material necessary per acre should be based
on surface of plants to be covered and should be consistent with
the equipment used.
PORTIONS OF PLANTS. Plants offered for interstate shipment
with poisonous residue above the tolerance are subject to con-
severely damaged, the purpose of the recommendation is defeated.
Material should be selected that will have no harmful residual effect
on the soil but rather a beneficial effect if possible.
SHOULD RESULT ON THE PLANT. Arsenical materials in
improper quantities harm citrus crops, therefore should be used


Dusty inert residues left on citrus leaves promote scale develop-
LEAVES. Spray when leaves are dry, dust when leaves are wet
or dry. Do not spray on wilted foliage.
is usually most effective when hot and sulphur and pyrethrum and
sulphur when wet. Sulphur dusts are less effective in cool weather
than in hot weather.
The writer realizes that we must be more careful about
recommendations for many of his own have been rendered less
effective because they assumed too much knowledge on the part
of the user and were not given in sufficient detail. We can
assist considerably by being more accurate, thereby protecting
our own reputations and also helping growers considerably more
by teaching the proper use of materials and equipment now

An index to volumes 1 to 19 inclusive of the Florida Ento-
mologist is now in press. This index contains a table of con-
tents arranged by volumes and an index of the insects by specific
and varietal names. This index is to be sold at 75c a copy.
Orders should be sent to J. W. Wilson, Business Manager, Lake-
land, Florida. Subsequent volumes will have an index in the
last number of each volume.

Printing for All Purposes
Carefully Executed
Delivered on Time

Pepper Printing Company
Gainesville, Florida

We recommend the goods advertised in The Florida Ento-
mologist. Please mention Entomologist when you write our

Official Organ of the Florida Entomological Society
Gainesville, Florida

VOL. XXI MARCH, 1938 No. 1

J. R. WATSON, Gainesville-.......-...................................... Editor
E. W. BERGER, Gainesville............... ................Associate Editor
J. W. WILSON, Lakeland --....-...........-- -..........Business Manager
Issued once every three months. Free to all members of the
Subscription price to non-members is $1.00 per year in ad-
vance; 35 cents per copy.

By S. O. HILL1
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine
U. S. Department of Agriculture
The literature of pecan insects includes reference to at least
125 species of insects that have been reported as attacking the
pecan tree and its fruit. Fortunately for the pecan grower, all
of these pests are not present in any one section. Insects that
cause a great loss in one section may be considered as minor pests
in other areas. This paper deals chiefly with the insects that are
important in the Monticello pecan-growing section of northern
Florida, unless otherwise stated. Some minor pests are men-
tioned that become important in some years, and two important
insects are mentioned that do not occur in Florida except as
minor pests.
Pecan Nut Casebearer, Acrobasis caryae Grote
In northern Florida the major pecan insect is the pecan
nut casebearer. This insect has been persistent in its attack
on pecans since the industry was established. It overwinters
in the larval stage in hibernacula on the twigs of the past sea-
son's growth. In the spring it completes its growth by feeding
on the twigs. Adults appear early in May, and maximum
oviposition occurs from May 15 to 25, depending on the tem-

lIn charge of the Cooperative Laboratory, Pecan Insect Investigations,
of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, located at
Monticello, Fla.


perature and locality. The first-generation larvae attack the
young nuts and do more damage to pecans at this time than
at any other period of the season. One larva of this generation
may destroy several nuts, as many as two complete clusters,
before reaching maturity. The second generation is present
from June 15 through July; and since the nuts remaining on
the tree are larger at this time, a single larva would not destroy
over one or two nuts before reaching maturity. During the
third generation the nut shell has formed, the larvae confine
their feeding to the outside shucks, and little or no damage is
done at this time. This generation does not complete its larval
growth in the fall, but overwinters as immature larvae in hiber-
nacula on the twigs. Parasites assist in keeping this insect
under control, but in severe infestations spraying measures must
be adopted if the crop is to be saved. Spraying experiments
for the control of this pest are in progress at the Cooperative
Laboratory, Monticello, Fla.
Hickory Shuck Worm, Laspeyresia caryana (Fitch)
The next important pecan insect in this section is the hickory
shuck worm. This pest is present every year, but does not
become serious before June or July. The adult moths are pres-
ent in the orchard even before the young nuts are pollinated.
These early-emerging moths are known to oviposit on hickory
nuts and phylloxera galls, and an early generation is passed
on them. The overwintering larvae pupate, and adults emerge
from February throughout the summer. Maximum emergence
occurs the latter part of March or early in April, depending on
the temperature and locality. When the newly hatched larvae
enter the nuts they fall to the ground, and early in the spring,
when the nuts are small, desiccation will in most instances kill
the larvae, although later in the season, when the nuts are
larger, the larvae can complete their growth in the fallen nuts.
In August, when the shells become hard, the larvae confine their
feeding to the outside shucks. When the nuts are attacked at
this stage they will remain on the tree, but sometimes the shucks
will adhere to the shell at harvest. Nuts that are attacked
before the shucks start opening usually do not fill out and are
placed in a lower grade. Varieties that have thick shucks are
always more heavily infested. No control measures are known
at present that will successfully keep this insect under control.
It is highly parasitized, and this no doubt plays a big part in
holding it down.

VOL. XXI-No. 1

Pecan Leaf Casebearer, Acrobasis juglandis (LeB.)
The pecan leaf casebearer is a pest of as much importance
as the hickory shuck worm in certain years when conditions
become favorable for its development. It overwinters in the
larval stage in hibernacula formed at the base of the buds on
the twigs of the past season's growth, in the same manner as
the pecan nut casebearer. In the spring when the buds begin
to swell the larvae become active and start feeding on the young
buds. In heavy infestations they can destroy the foliage as
fast as it appears. This is the stage and time when the greatest
damage is done to the crop. In many cases the destruction by
the pecan leaf casebearer of the terminal and lateral buds, which
produce the nuts and pollen, causes the trees to fail to set a
crop of nuts. This condition is sometimes attributed by the
grower to other causes. Later in the summer, when the foliage
has reached its maximum growth, damage from this pest rarely
occurs, except in cases of severe infestation. It prefers vari-
eties with luxuriant foliage, and those varieties are usually more
heavily infested. This insect has one generation each year, and
a. large percentage is parasitized. It can be successfully con-
trolled by spraying in the summer.
Black Pecan Aphid, Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Davis)
The black pecan aphid must also be recognized as an im-
portant pest. It attacks the leaves. It is not so consistent
in its seasonal appearance as some of the other pecan insects,
but once it becomes abundant in an orchard, preventive meas-
ures must be adopted. In severe infestations complete defolia-
tion has been known to occur. This loss of foliage upsets the
normal activity of the tree and causes it to shed its fruit. This
condition will also affect the crop for the next season. This pest
does not become serious before midsummer, and is most certain
to appear after bordeaux sprays have been applied for foliage
diseases. It prefers varieties with luxuriant foliage and makes
its first appearance on the inside lower leaves of the tree.
Weather conditions will sometimes assist in its control. Hard
showers of rain will dislodge many from the leaves, and it is
very improbable that they will reach the tree again. They
can be successfully controlled by spraying when necessary.
Minor Pecan Insects
Some pecan insects that are considered as unimportant may
under certain conditions become very destructive. The stink


bugs Nezara viridula (L.) and Euschistis euschistoides Voll.
and the leaf-footed bugs Leptoglossus phyllopus (L.) and L.
oppositus Say will migrate to pecans when their preferred host
plants are destroyed in or near an orchard. These insects
puncture the nuts in feeding and cause a condition called black
pit and kernel spot. If the affected nut does not drop to the
ground, the kernel will have a discoloration which reduces its
value in the markets. These insects are controlled by prevent-
ing their host plants from growing in or near an orchard. If
at any time they migrate to an orchard, there is nothing that
can be done to stop their damage.
The walnut caterpillar, Datana integerrima G. & R., and the
fall webworm, Hyphantria cunea (Drury), become numerous
some years in an orchard, and complete defoliation may result
if the infestation is heavy. These pests are usually present
every season, but control measures are seldom necessary. They
are very highly parasitized, and if they become destructive, they
can be controlled by hand picking or spot spraying.
The twig girdler, Oncideres cingulatus (Say), is usually
present in all pecan orchards. The adults appear late in sum-
mer and girdle small branches, on which they deposit their
eggs. In a heavy infestation severe pruning by the pest will
reduce the crop. They can be controlled by collecting and burn-
ing all of the twigs that have been attacked.
The pecan budmoth, Gretchena bolliana (Sling.), and a case-
bearer, Acrobasis caryivorella Rag., attack the young growing
shoots and the foliage of pecan nursery trees. The pecan bud-
moth also attacks pecan trees of all ages. In severe nursery
infestations by either of these insects, growth will be retarded
and the trees may become stunted. They can be controlled by
spraying in the summer when necessary.
There are several wood borers which attack young nursery
trees. Among these are a shot-hole borer, Xyleborus sp., and
the flatheaded apple tree borer, Chrysobothris femorata (Oliv.).
These insects do not usually attack healthy growing trees.
Damage from these pests can be eliminated by keeping the trees
in a vigorous growing condition and by cutting out and destroy-
ing all dead and dying limbs or trees.
In western Florida, in the vicinity of Milton and Pensacola,
the pecan cigar casebearer, Coleophora caryaefoliella Clem., is
very destructive in some years. Although this insect is present
in all the pecan-growing areas of Florida, it is only in the

VOL. XXI-No. 1

western section that it has been considered as important. It
overwinters in the larval stage in cases attached to the limbs
of the tree. The larvae become active in the spring at about
the same time as the buds begin to swell. In heavy infesta-
tions they can destroy the foliage in the spring as fast as it
appears. It is at this time that the most damage is done. They
can be controlled by spraying when necessary.
Injurious Insects Not Important in Florida
There are two important insects that are very seldom ob-
served in this State, but they are very destructive in other
sections. The pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Horn), is an im-
portant insect in central Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
The adults emerge from the ground in July and puncture the
nuts in feeding. Later in the season, when the kernel is formed,
more nuts are punctured in the process of oviposition. The
young grubs mature in four to six weeks and enter the soil,
where they remain until the next season. Cultural practices
assist in keeping this pest under control.
The obscure scale, Chrysomphalus obscurus (Comst.), is an
important pest in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama. It attacks all parts of the tree except the leaves
and nuts. As the population increases it spreads over the tree
and gradually kills the smaller branches. After the tree has
been weakened, it becomes attractive to wood-boring insects,
and if control measures are not used it will finally die. This
pest can be controlled by spraying during the dormant period.

Thecla wittfeldii Edwards
(Lepidoptera: Lycaeinae)
MALES. Expanse varies, but for four males it is about 1.25 inches.
Upper side black-brown; primaries have large oval stigma; secondaries
have the edge on the hind margin of posterior third fading; large fulvous
spot in second median interspace over black on the margin; two tails, the
posterior one very long, black, tipped with white, fringes whitish.
Under side slate-gray, inclined to fade in time; the hind margins
narrowly edged with white, the costal edge on primaries next to base red.
Both wings crossed by two maculate white lines; outer one submarginal,
nearly parallel to the margin and quite regularly broken at the nervulae;
ornated on the posterior half of secondaries and ending in oblique streak
up the inner margin; each spot edged with black on the outer side, and
on the primaries in the median interspaces there is more or less fulvous;


outside the black on the secondaries is a large spot on the margin, behind
lower median nervule made by blue-white on the slate gray ground and
in the next interspaces are three deep red, fulvous spots, diminishing grad-
ually in size, the outer one sometimes obsolete, the largest one with a black
patch on the marginal side, the inner of the two lines is somewhat irregular
especially on the secondaries and nearly joins the other at the lower median
nervule on the secondaries, then makes an angle in the sub-median inter-
space and ends in a streak up inner margin. In the cell of each wing are
two short parallel streaks or bars.
FEMALES. Expanse about .25 inches more than male; upperside same
as males except there is no stigmal spot; tails longer than in male; under-
side as in male.

Taken from four males and two females found near Ocoee,
Florida. First found April 1, 1937.
I have often collected in this same locality for years. A
second colony was found about ten miles from the first in a
country park and was about ten days later, there being spe-
cimens in the latter after the original colony was gone.
Orlando, Florida

Sw-%. .4- C.-L $'o 0 %k
Liothrips dendropoionis n. sp.

FEMALE. Color black, with red hypodermal pigment. Fore tibiae and
tarsi dark yellowish-brown. Tibiae heavily shaded with dark brown at
base. Middle and hind tarsi light brown, considerably darker than fore
tarsi. Antennal segment III brownish-yellow, shaded with brown along
dorsal border; IV and V and basal third of VI yellowish-brown, pro-
gressively more heavily shaded with brown; VII and VIII dark brown
except the pedicel of VII.
Head 1.3 times as long as wide. Eyes large, not protruding, occupying
about a third of the length of the head. Cheeks slightly arched, converg-
ing posteriorly, bearing several short, weak, but quite evident hair-like
spines. Postocular bristles about two-thirds as long as the eyes, pale,
Posterior ocelli touching margins of eyes before their middles, large.
Vertex not produced.
Antennae inserted close to front of the eyes, nearly twice as long as
the head. Segment I decidedly wider than long; II cylindrical but sharply
constricted a little below the middle to a long, wide curved pedicel; III
decidedly longer than I and II together, clavate; IV much shorter but
wider; VIII sessile, broadly jointed to VII but not forming with it a
fusiform mass.
Segments I and II provided with hairs as in urichi; the following
segments provided with two or three rows of short, weak bristles, the
basal ones on III near middle, on the others distinctly before the middle.

VOL. XXI-No. 1

The longitudinal apical row consisting of five or six bristles on VIII and
two or three on VII. Sense area of segment II placed beyond the middle;
sense cones short, hyaline; those on segment IV hardly twice as long as
the distance between their insertions, those on VI far overreaching the
apex of the segment.
Mouth cone not reaching the pterothorax.
Prothorax about .7 as long as the head; sharply widened posteriorly,
including coxae twice as wide as long. All bristles pointed at apex; those
at posterior angles 105 microns long, curved; those at anterior angles
scarcely half as long but heavy; anterio-marginals farther apart than the
distance from those on anterior angles. Bristle on fore coxae about as
long as those on anterior angles, much shorter than those on posterior
angles. Fore femora not enlarged, bristle as in urichi with short hair-
like bristles on entire outer margin and a longer one on inner margin
near the base; tibiae with a much shorter one before apex; fore tarsi
Wing membrane reaching the eighth abdominal segment not narrowed
in the middle, clear, only a slight, light-brownish shading along the edges
of the extreme base. The three sub-basal bristles pointed at apex. Hind
margin with 14 accessory bristles.
Abdomen short and heavy. Tube about .8 as long as head. Sides
nearly straight but converging near apex. Terminal bristles somewhat
shorter than the tube.
Measurements of type. Body length 1.6 mm. Head, length .234 mm.,
width .196 mm. Prothorax, length .166 mm., width .35 mm. (including
coxae); fore femora, length .21 mm., width .09 mm.; fore tibiae and tarsi
together, length .28 mm., width .05 mm. Pterothorax, length .41 mm.,
width .41 mm. Middle femora, length .24 mm., width .068 mm.; middle
tibiae and tarsi, length .032 mm., width .047 mm. Hind femora, length
.26 mm., width .07 mm.; hind tibiae and tarsi, length .35 mm., width
.044 mm. Length of fore wing membrane 1. mm. Abdomen, greatest
width .41 mm. Tube, length .187 mm., width at base .07 mm., at apex
.04 mm.
Antennal segments: length (width). I, 23(35); II, 49(33); III,
86(33); IV, 70(37); V, 64(33); VI, 61(30); VII, 58(24); VIII, 37(12)
microns. Total length .45 mm.
The Paratype has antennal segments II to V clear yellow, IV and V
only lightly tinged with brown near apex; VI only slightly darker; and
VII light brownish-yellow. The fore wing has 18 accessory bristles.
Antennal segment II is 53 microns long; III, 82; IV, 82, and 40 wide;
V, 61 long; VI, 59 long and only 20 wide; VII, 54 long; VIII, 42. Head
.28 mm. long and .22 wide. Prothorax .18 long.
Otherwise as the type.

Described from two females, one taken from Spanish moss
at Gainesville, Florida, on October 26, 1937, by the writer and
J. R. Preer; the other lit on a book of J. R. Preer's May 23, 1937.
Close to L. urichi Karny but differing in italicized characters
and in the shorter first and longer third antennal segments.
Types in author's collection.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs