Bactrocera latifrons
(Solanum fruit fly)

Pictures

Top of page

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

• Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel)

Preferred Common Name

• Solanum fruit fly

Other Scientific Names

• Bactrocera (Bactrocera) latifrons (Hendel)
• Chaetodacus antennalis Shiraki, 1933
• Chaetodacus latifrons Hendel
• Dacus latifrons (Hendel)
• Dacus parvulus Hendel, 1912

International Common Names

• English: Malaysian fruit fly

EPPO code

• DACULA (Bactrocera latifrons)

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page

• Domain: Eukaryota
•     Kingdom: Metazoa
•         Phylum: Arthropoda
•             Subphylum: Uniramia
•                 Class: Insecta
•                     Order: Diptera
•                         Family: Tephritidae
•                             Genus: Bactrocera
•                                 Species: Bactrocera latifrons

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page This fly was first described from Taiwan by Hendel in 1912 as Dacus parvulus. He described another series of Taiwanese specimens as Chaetodacus latifrons in 1915 and it is this name that has become so well known that application has been made to retain use of the younger name (White and Liquido, 1995). B. latifrons belongs to the subgenus Bactrocera and may therefore be cited as Bactrocera (Bactrocera) latifrons.

In the USA this fly is also known as the Malaysian fruit fly. However, Malaysian entomologists have objected to their country being 'blamed' for the presence of this widespread Asian fly in Hawaii, particularly as Malaysia is unlikely to be the origin of the introduction.

Description

Top of page

Adult

Adult description derived from computer-generated description from White and Hancock (1997). Larval description from White and Elson-Harris (1994).

Head: Pedicel+1st flagellomere not longer than ptilinal suture. Face with a dark spot in each antenna.

Thorax: Predominant colour of scutum black. Postpronotal (=humeral) lobe entirely pale (yellow or orange). Notopleuron yellow. Scutum with lateral postsutural vittae (yellow/orange stripes); without a medial vitta. Scutellum entirely pale. Anepisternal stripe almost to postpronotal lobe. Yellow marking on both anatergite and katatergite. Postpronotal lobe (=humerus) without a seta. Notopleuron with anterior seta. Scutum with anterior supra-alar and prescutellar acrostichal setae. Scutellum without basal as well as apical setae.

Wing: Length 4.4-6.1 mm. With a complete costal band which does not extend below R2+3; expanded into a spot at apex. Wing with an anal streak. Cells bc and c colourless. No transverse markings. Cell bc and c without extensive covering of microtrichia. Cell br (narrowed part) with extensive covering of microtrichia.

Legs: Femora vary from entirely pale, to pale with a pre-apical dark spot, to darkened (either red-brown or black) in entire apical 1/3=1/2.

Abdomen: Predominant colour of abdomen orange-brown to fuscous. Tergites not fused. Abdomen not wasp waisted. Pattern on abdomen lacking or diffuse; if marked, then tergite 3 with a basal transverse dark band and sometimes with a medial stripe down T3-5.

Terminalia and secondary sexual characters: Male wing without a bulla. Male tergite 3 with a pecten (setal comb) on each side. Male sternite 5 V-shaped posteriorly. Surstylus (male) without a long posterior lobe. Wing (male) with a deep indent in posterior margin. Hind tibia (male) with a preapical pad. Aculeus apex with preapical steps and a pointed apex.

Egg

The egg of B. olae was described in detail by Margaritis (1985) and that of other species are probably very similar. Size, 0.8 mm long, 0.2 mm wide, with the micropyle protruding slightly at the anterior end. The chorion is reticulate (requires scanning electron microscope examination). White to yellow-white in colour.

Larva

Third instar larva: Larvae medium-sized, length 7.0-8.5 mm; width 1.2-1.5 mm. Head: Stomal sensory organ with 3-4 small, peg-like sensilla on a protuberant base surrounded by 5-6 large preoral lobes, some with small serrations; oral ridges with 9-14 rows of moderately long, tapering, bluntly rounded teeth; accessory plates with 6-10 small, serrated plates along the outer edge; mouthhooks moderately sclerotized, with slender, curved apical teeth. Thoracic and abdominal segments: A broad, encircling, anterior band of discontinuous rows of small spinules surrounding each thoracic segment. T1 with 6-10 rows of small, sharply pointed spinules; T2 and T3 with 3-7 rows of small spinules decreasing laterally. Creeping welts with stout spinules, 1 posterior row slightly larger. A8 with intermediate areas large and sensilla well developed. Anterior spiracles: 13-18 tubules. Posterior spiracles: Each spiracular slit about 3 times as long as broad, with a thick rima. Spiracular hairs broad, flat; dorsal and ventral bundles of 16-22 hairs branched in apical third to a quarter; lateral bundles of 6-11 hairs. Anal area: Lobes large, protuberant, surrounded by 3-6 rows of small, sharply pointed spinules, becoming more concentrated and stouter below anal opening.

Puparium

Barrel-shaped with most larval features unrecognizable, the exception being the anterior and posterior spiracles which are little changed by pupariation. White to yellow-brown in colour. Usually about 60-80% length of larva.

Distribution

Top of page

The distribution map includes records based on specimens of B. latifrons from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK): dates of collection are noted in the Table (NHM, London, UK).

B. latifrons has a predominantly south and south-east Asian distribution. Waterhouse (1993) records this species from Indonesia, although no area is specified. Given that this species has been found in Sabah and West Malaysia it may at least be expected in Kalimantan and Sumatra.

In Africa, B. latifrons has only been recorded from Tanzania and Kenya. Its occurance in other parts of Africa is currently unknown (Meyer et al., 2007).

This species was recently introduced to Hawaii and was first discovered there in 1983 (Liquido et al., 1994).

A distribution map has been produced by IIE (1996).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

Taken from Meyer et al. (2007):

B. latifrons is Asian in origin. It was only very recently detected in Africa. The first specimens were trapped early in 2006 in Morogoro, Tanzania (Mwatawala et al., 2010). Surveys have shown that this species is widely distributed in Tanzania although not present in large numbers because of its limited host range (Mwatawala et al., 2010). In 2007, it was also found in Kenya near the border with Tanzania (Ekesi, unpublished records). So far, the species has not been reported from any other African countries.

B. latrifons was found in the Hawaiian Islands around 1983 (Vargas and Nishida, 1985).

Risk of Introduction

Top of page The major risk is from the import of fruit containing larvae, either as part of cargo, or through the smuggling of fruit in airline passenger baggage or mail. For example, in New Zealand Baker and Cowley (1991) recorded 7-33 interceptions of fruit flies per year in cargo and 10-28 per year in passenger baggage. Private individuals who successfully smuggle fruit are likely to discard it when they discover that it is rotten. Larvae have been found in peppers sent by mail from Hawaii to California (Foote et al., 1993).

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page B. latifons is a pest of solanaceous crops. Recent studies in Hawaii confirmed that B. latifrons can also develop in a few species of Cucurbitaceae, but it was out-numbered by B. cucurbitae in these hosts, which were cucumber (Cucumis sativus), ivy gourd (Coccinia grandis), wax gourd (Benincasa hispida) and white-flowered gourd (Lagenaria siceraria). The recent surveys carried out by Allwood et al. (1999) showed that other families can be attacked but only rarely, e.g. guava (Psidium guajava), pomegranate (Punica granatum) and citrus (Citrus aurantifolia).

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page

Growth Stages

Top of page Fruiting stage

Symptoms

Top of page Following oviposition there may be some necrosis around the puncture mark ("sting"). This is followed by decomposition of the fruit.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Eggs (9-587 eggs) are laid below the skin of the host fruit. These hatch within a few days (mean 2.3) and the larvae feed for about a week (mean 8.5 days). Pupariation is in the soil under the host plant for little over a week (mean 10.2 days). Adults occur throughout the year and females begin oviposition after 6-17 days, and continue laying eggs for 6-117 days; data from Vargas and Nishida (1985). Adult flight and the transport of infected fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal of Bactrocera spp. to previously uninfected areas. A pre-adult life-table for B. latifrons was produced by Vargas and Nishida (1985) and further ecological studies were carried out by Liquido et al. (1994) who showed that B. latifrons outcompeted B. dorsalis, B. cucurbitae and Ceratitis capitata in its Solanaceous hosts but not in its non-Solanaceous hosts. For further information on the biology and ecology of B. latifrons, see Sunil Kumar and Agarwal (2003), Peck and McQuate (2004) and Ishida et al. (2005).

[Erratum: In previous versions of this datasheet, it was stated that “many Bactrocera spp. can fly 50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989)” but a review of Fletcher (1989a) and Fletcher (1989b) by Hicks (2016, unpublished data, USDA) found no evidence to support this statement and it has been removed. Fletcher (1989b) provides dispersal data for only 11 of 651 species of Bactrocera, many of the case studies lack the necessary numerical data, and the study did not discern between active flight and passive wind-assisted dispersal. There are differences among fruit fly species and further studies are required to determine dispersal distances for individual species. For further information on trapping Bactrocera species to monitor movement, see Weldon et al. (2014).]

Natural enemies

Top of page

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page Bactrocera spp. in general can be attacked as larvae either by parasitoids or by vertebrates eating fruit (either on the tree or as fallen fruit). Mortality due to vertebrate fruit consumption can be very high as can puparial mortality in the soil, either due to predation or environmental mortality (see White and Elson-Harris, 1994, for brief review). Parasitoids appear to have little effect on the populations of most fruit flies and Fletcher (1987) noted that 0-30% levels of parasitism are typical. However, Diachasmimorpha kraussii is being tested for its specificity as a potential biocontrol agent in Hawaii (Duan and Messing, 2000). Bokonon-Ganta et al. (2007) studied the parasitoid complex naturally established against B. latifrons in Hawaii with the aim of assessing the need to improve the biological control of this species. The main parasitoids were Fopius arisanus, Psyttalia incisi, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, D. tryoni and Tetrastichus giffardianus. Levels of parasitism were low suggesting the need to improve control by augmentative releases of the predominant parasitoid, F. arisanus, or introduction and release of specific and efficient parasitoid species. To date complete biological control, in the classical sense, has never been achieved for any Bactrocera or Dacus spp. (Wharton, 1989). Nonetheless, biological control programmes can result in significant reduction in pest populations. Such reductions have led to relatively pest-free cultivation of at least some less susceptible varieties of fruits and vegetables. Liquido et al. (1994) did produce a full list of recorded parasitoids and discussed the low levels of parasitism of B. latifrons. However, due to difficulties in verifying identifications that list is not reproduced in full here. The short list of natural enemies is taken chiefly from Wharton and Gilstrap (1983) and Waterhouse (1993).

Pathway Vectors

Top of page

Plant Trade

Top of page

Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Bark
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx
Leaves
Roots
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches
True seeds (inc. grain)
Wood

Impact

Top of page This is a pest of solanaceous crops throughout its range (see List of Hosts).

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Fruits (locally grown or samples of fruit imports) should be inspected for puncture marks and any associated necrosis. Suspect fruits should be cut open and checked for larvae. Larval identification is difficult, so if time allows, mature larvae should be transferred to saw dust (or similar dry medium) to allow pupariation. The use of cuticular hydrocarbons for larval identification has been investigated (Sutton et al., 1996) but in most circumstances many more species will need to be compared before this can be applied. Upon emergence, adult flies must be fed with sugar and water for several days to allow hardening and full colour to develop, before they can be identified.

Adult B. latifrons have a yellow strip on the side of the thorax and a mostly red-brown abdomen. Females have a pair of preapical ‘shoulders’ on the aculeus (Meyer et al., 2007). For further information see Invasive Fruit Fly Pests in Africa (Meyer et al., 2007).

B. latifrons was one of six Bactrocera species identified by a PCR-DGGE method based on the gene analysis of mtDNA CO II and 16S rDNA (Zhan et al., 2007). The method was shown to be a rapid and specific technique for identifying pest species in plant quarantine.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page Of the species likely to be reared from cultivated Solanaceae, it is one of only two whose anepisternal stripe comes close to contacting the postpronotal lobe (the other being B. facialis from Tonga); and of those two, it is the only species that both has its costal band expanded into a spot at the wing apex, and has a dark spot in each antennal furrow. Given a female specimen whose aculeus apex happens to be exposed (with a freshly dead specimen it can be exposed by gently squeezing the oviscape with watch-makers forceps), then the trilobed apex can be seen with a high powered stereo microscope. No other species likely to be reared from cultivated Solanaceae has both a point and pre-apical "steps" in its aculeus apex. Wing length 4.4-6.1 mm.

Minimum characters to differentiate from most other Bactrocera and Dacus spp. (White and Hancock, 1997): Face with a dark spot in each antennal furrow. Scutum predominantly black; with lateral vittae; without medial vitta; with prescutellar acrostichal setae. Scutellum entirely yellow (except for narrow basal line). Anepisternal stripe almost reaching postpronotal (=humeral) lobe. Cell bc colourless. Costal band expanded into a spot at apex. Tergite 4 without any lateral markings. Aculeus apex trilobed.

B. latifrons was included in a pictorial key to Sri Lankan species (also largely applicable to southern India) by Tsuruta (1998).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Regulatory Control

Many countries, such as the mainland USA, forbid the import of susceptible fruit without strict post-harvest treatment having been applied by the exporter. This may involve fumigation, heat treatment (hot vapour or hot water), cold treatments, insecticidal dipping, or irradiation (Armstrong and Couey, 1989). However, recent research has indicated that B. latifrons is more heat tolerant than other species (Jang et al., 1999). Irradiation is not accepted in most countries and many have now banned methyl bromide fumigation. Heat treatment tends to reduce the shelf life of most fruits and so the most effective method of regulatory control is to preferentially restrict imports of a given fruit to areas free of fruit fly attack.

Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods

One of the most effective control techniques against fruit flies in general is to wrap fruit, either in newspaper, a paper bag, or in the case of long/thin fruits, a polythene sleeve. This is a simple physical barrier to oviposition but it has to be applied well before the fruit is attacked. Little information is available on the attack time for most fruits but few Bactrocera spp. attack prior to ripening.

Chemical Control

Although cover sprays of entire crops are sometimes used, the use of bait sprays is both more economical and more environmentally acceptable. A bait spray consists of a suitable insecticide (e.g. malathion) mixed with a protein bait. Both males and females of fruit flies are attracted to protein sources emanating ammonia, and so insecticides can be applied to just a few spots in an orchard and the flies will be attracted to these spots. The protein most widely used is hydrolysed protein, but some supplies of this are acid hydrolysed and so highly phytotoxic. Smith and Nannan (1988) have developed a system using autolysed protein. In Malaysia this has been developed into a very effective commercial product derived from brewery waste.

Field Monitoring

This species is not attracted to either cue lure or methyl eugenol. Field monitoring is by sampling susceptible fruits for larvae. In Hawaii a new lure chemical is being developed (see White and Liquido, 1995).

References

Top of page

Akhila MU, Jiji T, 2015. Record of solanum fruit fly, Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) infesting solanaceous vegetables in Kerala. Current Biotica, 9(1):78-81. http://www.currentbiotica.com/CB/Journals9-Issue-I/CB-9-1-Short-note-2.pdf

Allwood AJ, Chinajariyawong A, Kritsaneepaiboon S, Drew RAI, Hamacek EL, Hancock DL, Hengsawad C, Jipanin JC, Jirasurat M, Krong CK, Leong CTS, Vijaysegaran S, 1999. Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 47(Supplement 7):1-92; 26 ref

Armstrong JW, Couey HM, 1989. Control; fruit disinfestation; fumigation, heat and cold. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 3(B):411-424

Baker RT, Cowley JM, 1991. A New Zealand view of quarantine security with special reference to fruit flies, In: Vijaysegaran S, Ibrahim AG, eds. First International Symposium on Fruit Flies in the Tropics, Kuala Lumpur, 1988. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, 396-408

Bateman MA, 1982. III. Chemical methods for suppression or eradication of fruit fly populations, In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. 2nd edn. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 115-128

Bellis, G. A., Brito, A. A., Jesus, H. de, Quintao, V., Sarmento, J. C., Bere, A., Rodrigues, J., Hancock, D. L., 2017. A preliminary account of the fruit fly fauna of Timor-Leste (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae). Zootaxa, 4362(3), 421-432. http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4362.3.6 doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4362.3.6

Bokonon-Ganta AH, McQuate GT, Messing RH, 2007. Natural establishment of a parasitoid complex on Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawaii. Biological Control, 42(3):365-373. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10499644

Drew RAI, Hancock DL, 1994. The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 84(2(Suppl.)):68 pp

Duan JJ, Messing RH, 2000. Host specificity tests of Diachasmimorpha kraussii (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a newly introduced opiine fruit fly parasitoid with four nontarget tephritids in Hawaii. Biological Control, 19(1):28-34; 30 ref

EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

Fletcher BS, 1987. The biology of dacine fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 32:115-144

Fletcher BS, 1989. Ecology; life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 3(B):195-208

Fletcher, B. S., 1989. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests [ed. by Robinson, A. S., Hooper, G.]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, 209-219

Foote RH, Blanc FL, Norrbom AL, 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, USA: Comstock

Hardy DE, 1973. The fruit flies (Tephritidae - Diptera) of Thailand and bordering countries. Pacific Insects Monograph, 31:1-353

Hardy DE, 1977. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae), In: Delfinado MD, Hardy DE, eds. A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, Vol. III. Honolulu, USA: University Press of Hawaii, 44-134

IIE, 1996. Distribution Maps of Pests. Map No. 566. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

IPPC, 2016. Bactrocera latifrons (Malaysian Fruit Fly) - Establishment of Regulated Area in in Westchester, Los Angeles County, California. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. USA-70/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/

Ishida T, Nakahara S, Minoura K, Dohino T, 2005. Development and reproductive ability of Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Yonaguni Island. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan, 41:39-42

Ishida T, Nakahara S, Minoura K, Dohino T, 2005. Development and reproductive ability of Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Yonaguni Island. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan, No.41:39-42

Jang EB, Nagata JT, Chan HTJr, Laidlaw WG, 1999. Thermal death kinetics in eggs and larvae of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) and comparative thermotolerance to three other tephritid fruit fly species in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology, 92(3):684-690; 37 ref

Liang GQ, Hancock DL, Xu W, Liang F, 1993. Notes on the Dacinae of southern China (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 32:137-140

Lin MingGuang, Yang ZuJiang, Wang XingJian, Li JiYong, Li WeiDong, 2006. A taxonomic study of the subfamily Dacinae (Diptera: Tephritidae) from Hainan, China. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 49(2):310-314

Liquido NJ, Harris EJ, Dekker LA, 1994. Ecology of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations: host plants, natural enemies, distribution, and abundance. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 87(1):71-84

McQuate GT, Follett PA, Liquido NJ, Sylva CD, 2015. Assessment of navel oranges, Clementine tangerines, and rutaceous fruits as hosts of Bactrocera cucurbitae and Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae). International Journal of Insect Science, 7:1-9. http://www.la-press.com/assessment-of-navel-oranges-clementine-tangerines-and-rutaceous-fruits-article-a4634

Meyer M De, Mohamed S, White IM, 2007. Invasive fruit fly pests in Africa. Tervuren, Belgium: Royal Museum for Central Africa. http://www.africamuseum.be/fruitfly/AfroAsia.htm

Mwatawala M, Meyer Mde, White IM, Maerere A, Makundi RH, 2007. Detection of the solanum fruit fly, Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel) in Tanzania (Dipt., Tephritidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 131(7):501-503. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/jen

Mziray HA, Makundi RH, Mwatawala M, Maerere A, Meyer Mde, 2010. Host use of Bactrocera latifrons, a new invasive tephritid species in Tanzania. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103(1):70-76. http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/esa/00220493/v103n1/s10.pdf?expires=1268122998&id=0000&titleid=10264&checksum=8ACDE68A6ED0B4D0E0B421315857FDB3

NAPPO, 2016. Phytosanitary Alert System: Bactrocera latifrons (Malaysian Fruit Fly) - Removal of the Quarantine in the Westchester Area of Los Angeles County, California. NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=677

Peck SL, McQuate GT, 2004. Ecological aspects of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Maui, Hawaii: movement and host preference. Environmental Entomology, 33(6):1722-1731. HTTP://www.esa.catchword.org

Prabhakar CS, Pankaj Sood, Mehta PK, 2012. Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) diversity in cucurbit fields and surrounding forest areas of Himachal Pradesh, a north-western Himalayan state of India. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 45(10):1210-1217. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gapp20

Shimizu Y, Kohama T, Uesato T, Matsuyama T, Yamagishi M, 2007. Invasion of solanum fruit fly Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) to Yonaguni Island, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 42(2):269-275. http://odokon.ac.affrc.go.jp/

Smith D, Nannan L, 1988. Yeast autolysate bait sprays for control of Queensland fruit fly on passionfruit in Queensland. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences, 45(2):169-177

Sunil Kumar, Agarwal ML, 2003. Life history of solanum fruit fly Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel) (Tephritidae: Diptera). Insect Environment, 9(3):111-112

Sutton BD, Steck GJ, Mathis WN (ed. ), Grogan WL Jr., 1997. Discrimination of fruit-fly larvae (Diptera: Tephritidae) by cuticular hydrocarbon analysis: Bactrocera Macquart species established in the New World and Hawaii. Contributions on Diptera dedicated to Willis W. Wirth. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington, No. 18:243-253

Syed RA, 1970. Studies on Trypetids and their natural enemies in West Pakistan. Dacus species of lesser importance. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 2(1):17-24

Tsuruta K, 1998. Pictorial key to dacine fruit flies associated with economic plants in Sri Lanka. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan, No. 34:23-35

Vargas R, 2004. Flying start to area wide IPM in Hawaii. Biocontrol News and Information, 25(2):41N-43N

Vargas RI, Nishida T, 1985. Life history and demographic parameters of Dacus latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 78(6):1242-1244

Waterhouse DF, 1993. Biological control: Pacific prospects - supplement 2. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR, 138 pp

Waterhouse DF, 1993. Biological control: Pacific prospects - supplement 2. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR, 138 pp

Waterhouse DF, 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 141 pp

Wharton RA, Gilstrap FE, 1983. Key to and status of opiine braconid (Hymenoptera) parasitoids used in biological control of Ceratitis and Dacus s.l. (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 76(4):721-742

Wharton RH, 1989. Control; classical biological control of fruit-infesting Tephritidae, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 303-313

White IM, Elson-Harris MM, 1994. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance. Their Identification and Bionomics. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

White IM, Hancock DL, 1997. CABIKEY to the Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) of the Asian, Pacific and Australasian Regions. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

White IM, Liquido NJ, 1995. Case 2967; Chaetodacus latifrons Hendel, 1915 (currently Bactrocera latifrons; Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Dacus parvulus Hendel, 1912. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52:250-252

Yu DJ, Zhang GM, Chen ZL, Zhang RJ, Yin WY, 2004. Rapid identification of Bactrocera latifrons (Dipt., Tephritidae) by real-time PCR using SYBR Green chemistry. Journal of Applied Entomology, 128(9/10):670-676

Zhan KaiRui, Zhao ShiXi, Chen YuHang, Ren DaMing, 2007. Rapid identification of 6 species of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) by PCR-DGGE. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 36(3):274-278

Distribution Maps

Top of page