Shorter Articles and Reviews of Recent Important 



Literature 



NATURAL CONTROL OF WIIITEFLIES IN FLORIDA 



A. W. MORRILI-,, PH. D., AND E. A. BLACK, PH. D. 



luvestigations of fungus parasitic on wliitefly have been con- 

 ducted by the authors in 1906, 1908, 1909, and by the authors 

 and Mr. E. L. Worsham of Georgia in 1907. 



In Florida there are three hidy-beetles that feed upon white- 

 fly eggs and larvaj but do not greatly check the fly. They are 

 Chilocorus bivulnerus Muls., Cycloneda sangxiinea L., and 

 Scymnus pniictatiis Melsh. There is also a capsid bug and two or 

 three chrysopids as well as several species of spiders, some ant 

 species and a tlirips, all of which are to some extent predaceuus 

 on whitefly. 



Whitefly seems to decrease markedly during strong, drying 

 winds and large range of temperature. Unexplained mortality 

 is also a large factor in natural control, as are dropping from 

 the leaves and overcrowding. 



It is about fungi parasitic on the fly, however, that the 

 authors have most to say. Of these, Aschersonia aleyrodis 

 Webber (red fungnis) sends its mycelial rootlets into larvae of 

 the fly and thus kills them. It is almost free from hyper-jjarasitic 

 fungi. 



Aschersonia flavo-citrina P. Henn. (yellow fungus), closely 

 resembling the red, is parasitic on the cloudy-winged whitefly 

 but is itself subject to a hyijer-parasitic fungus [Cladiosporum 

 sp.) which, particularly in dry seasons, prevents its being very 

 effective. 



The brown fungus {Aegerita webberi Fawcett), also infests 

 whitefly, often with great success, since its hyper-parasitic fun- 

 gus {ComotliyriuDi sp.) seems scarcely to check its work. 



A number of fungi are next spoken of, which it appears are 

 of no substantial value in reducing whitefly. They are white- 

 fringe fungus, Sporofrichum, and the cinnamon fuugiis. 



