Macrophya annulata (Geoffroy, 1785)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.282414 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2247D9E8-00C0-49E0-A4FC-C383E80F664C |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5691259 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E9CE48-FFBD-FF80-FF71-F8B37AFE06A7 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Macrophya annulata (Geoffroy, 1785) |
status |
|
Macrophya annulata (Geoffroy, 1785)
( Figs. 3 View FIGURES 1 – 3 , 9 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 16 View FIGURES 13 – 17 )
Material examined. Bohemia centr.: Hradčany env.: Báň NR (5857), 8.ix.2005, 6 larvae on Rosa canina ; Knĕžičky NNR (5857), 20.vii.2005, 2 larvae on Rosa canina ; Karlštejn NNR (6051), 3.viii.2008, 4 larvae on Rosa canina .
Notes on identification. The larva was described by Zirngiebel (1940) and by Lorenz & Kraus (1957). The last instar larva is easily distinguished from the other similar looking Macrophya larvae by a combination of characters as follows: the shape of body is rather stream-lined, tapering from the thorax towards the end of the abdomen; head with a black M-like macula fused with a black neck spot; surface sculpture granulose, all annulets covered with rows of conical tubercles (an exclusive character not occurring in the other Macrophya larvae).
Discussion. Taeger et al. (1998) listed various food plants, but only Rosa was confirmed as a natural one. In captivity Rubus and Potentilla reptans were also accepted. The other foodplant mentioned, Origanum , listed by Zirngiebl (1940), was not accepted by larvae and therefore this plant should be removed from the food plant list.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |