Research Article
Print
Research Article
Development of a multi-entry identification key for economically important fruit fly larvae (Diptera, Tephritidae, Dacinae)
expand article infoWelma Pieterse, Marc De Meyer§, Massimiliano Virgillio§, Pia Addison
‡ Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
§ Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium
Open Access

Abstract

Identification of fruit fly larvae is difficult due to the limited morphological characteristics present. However, this is the stage at which fruit flies are intercepted at ports of entry through horticultural imports. Molecular tools are useful but are time-consuming and expensive compared to morphological identifications. This project aims to use available information from the literature and our own research to build a multi-entry identification key for thirteen tephritid species and species groups that are of economic concern for the European Union. Third-instar larvae were obtained from different regions and hosts. Thirteen species or representatives of species groups were obtained, including Ceratitis, Dacus, Bactrocera and Zeugodacus spp. The cephalopharyngeal skeletons were dissected out, cleared in a 10% NaOH solution, dehydrated and mounted in Euparal on glass slides. Images of at least 20 larvae/species were captured using a compound microscope fitted with a camera. Measurements were taken of the mounted mandibles and the number of tubules and their position in the anterior spiracles in relation to the cephalic skeleton were noted. Differences between morphometric parameters were tested via ANOVA and verified using discriminant function analysis. A matrix was compiled including nine characters for which significant inter-specific differentiation was preliminarily detected. The key was converted into a mobile application by LucID.

Key words

Identification tool, interactive key, larvae, LucID, mandible

Introduction

The family Tephritidae has more than 4000 species distributed globally (White and Elson-Harris 1992). The larvae of about 35% of the species attack fruit, including horticultural crops of economic importance (White and Elson-Harris 1992). Fruit flies are among the most destructive pests of these crops and are of quarantine importance for export markets (Ekesi et al. 2006, 2016). As the larvae feed inside fruit, this is the life stage detected during inspection for import or export. However, larvae are difficult to identify morphologically (Frías et al. 2008; Dutra et al. 2012). In the absence of an identification tool to identify the larvae rapidly and quickly, the consignments are usually rejected.

The majority of the thirteen species studied here are at risk of being intercepted when entering Europe through imported fruit, namely, Ceratitis rosa s.l. Karsch (Natal fruit fly), Ceratitis cosyra (Walker) (Mango fruit fly), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Oriental fruit fly), Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Melon fruit fly) and Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Peach fruit fly). All are considered potential quarantine pests for the European Union (EU) and are listed as such in the Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 and amending Implementing Regulation 2021/2285. In addition, B. dorsalis and B. zonata have also been included in the list of priority pests in EU regulation 2019/1702. Zeugodacus cucurbitae, Bactrocera minax (Enderlein) (Chinese citrus fly), Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Queensland fruit fly), B. dorsalis and C. rosa are listed as A1 quarantine pests in the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) countries (EPPO 2022a). Bactrocera zonata, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Mediterranean fruit fly) and Dacus ciliatus Loew (Ethiopian fruit fly) are listed on the A2 EPPO list (EPPO 2022b). Zeugodacus tau Walker (Pumpkin fruit fly) is mainly a pest of Cucurbitaceae and occurs in Asia and Oceania (Jaleel et al. 2018). Guava and Mango are the main hosts for Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) (Guava fruit fly), which occurs mainly in Asia (Liu et al. 2019).

Being able to make a correct identification of insect species in the shortest possible period of time is essential to comply with international biosecurity measures, since not all species are of quarantine importance in all countries (Boykin et al. 2012). Several keys for the identification of adult specimens are available (White and Elson-Harris 1992; Virgilio et al. 2014). Descriptions of larvae of some species are given by White and Elson-Harris 1992, but other authors give more detailed descriptions of the larvae of some species (Elson‐Harris 1988; Carroll and Wharton 1989; Carroll 1998; Carroll et al. 2004 onwards; Frías et al. 2008; Lasserre et al. 2009; Steck and Ekesi 2015; Balmes and Mouttet 2017; Dutra et al. 2018a, b; Kamayev et al. 2020; Rodriguez et al. 2021). However, this information is not always easy to access, and the keys are difficult to follow unless specialized expertise is available.

The presence or absence of a preapical tooth on the mandible can be used as a distinguishing characteristic in a taxonomic key, but since the characteristics of the mouthparts of tephtritid species are not known for all species, it could be a controversial character to use. White and Elson-Harris (1992) state that the preapical tooth is absent in third-instar larvae of C. capitata, while Carroll et al. (2004) indicate that it might be present in only some specimens. The presence of a preapical tooth on the mandibles is also variable according to Steck and Ekesi (2015), while Balmes and Mouttet (2017) use the presence/absence of the preapical tooth as a diagnostic characteristic in their key. Kamayev et al. (2020) argue that the preapical tooth is too variable to use as a taxonomic characteristic.

According to Pieterse et al. (2017), the shape of the mandibles of fruit fly larvae of B. dorsalis, C. capitata, C. rosa s.s. and C. cosyra can be used to distinguish between the third-instar larvae of the species studied. Since shape analysis (which was used in the aforementioned article) is an involved process not suitable for use in a routine diagnostic laboratory, a set of measurements of the cephalic skeleton of third-instar tephritid larvae was designed in the current study that can be used in a robust taxonomic multi-entry key.

Lucid® (https://keys.lucidcentral.org/search/) was developed at the University of Queensland (Norton et al. 2000) and is a multimedia identification and training tool. It is a multi-entry key, as opposed to a traditional dichotomous key, making it more user-friendly for scientists who do not have expert knowledge of the taxonomy of Tephritidae larvae. Multi-entry keys allow the user to choose the characteristics they want to use based on the availability of characters on each specimen. The characters used are also illustrated or imaged for ease of reference. Multi-entry keys have been developed using the LucID platform for adult fruit flies, such as the keys to African frugivorous flies by Virgilio et al. (2014) and the key to adult fruit flies of Bactrocera and related genera developed by Doorenweerd et al. (2022).

Multi-entry keys have several benefits over molecular identification tools, namely, they are more accessible and cost-effective; they can be used anywhere without specialised equipment, and the answer is obtained quickly. The key developed here is converted into a mobile application by LucID, for both Android and Apple devices, making it freely available. Multi-entry keys can, furthermore, be used on specimens that are too degraded to be used for DNA analysis. Larval mouth hooks are heavily sclerotized and can still be used even when a specimen is degraded. The aim of the key is to provide a practical identification tool for third-instar fruit fly larvae that are commonly intercepted in the EU.

Materials and methods

Preparation of slides. Larvae from 13 species were obtained from colonies from various laboratories around the world and were preserved in 70% ethanol. The heads of the larvae were cut off and cleared by heating in 10% NaOH. The cephalopharyngeal skeletons (Fig. 1) of the larvae of all species were removed, dehydrated with alcohol (70–100%) and mounted in Euparal (Agar Scientific) on glass slides. Images of the slides were captured using a Zeiss compound microscope (MZ 16A) fitted with an Axiocam digital camera (DFC 295). Measurements were taken using ZEN imaging software from the Zeiss MZ 16A.

Figure 1. 

Cephalopharyngeal skeleton of 3rd instar larva, lateral view. Region of interest circled. Abbreviations used in LucID key: AT = Apical Tooth; DA = Dorsal Apodeme; DS = Dental Sclerite; MD = Mandible; MN = Mandibular Neck; PT = Preapical Tooth; VA = Ventral Apodeme (from: Frías et al. 2006).

Fig. 2 shows the various measurements for parameters without (Fig. 2A) and with (Fig. 2B) a preapical tooth.

Figure 2. 

A, B Images of a typical tephritid mandible indicating the areas measured. Image (A) indicates the measurements for the mandibles without a preapical tooth and (B) indicates the measurements for the mandibles where the preapical tooth is present. Measurements are as follows for A: (a) the distance between the dorsal apodeme and the ventral apodeme; (b) the ventral angle between the apical tooth and the ventral apodeme; (c) the distance between the ventral apodeme and the apical tooth; (d) the distance between the dorsal apodeme and the apical tooth. Measurements are as follows for B: (a) the distance between the dorsal apodeme and the ventral apodeme; b) the distance between the ventral apodeme and the preapical tooth; (c) the distance between the apical tooth and the preapical tooth; (d) the distance between the ventral apodeme and the apical tooth; (e) the distance between the dorsal apodeme and the apical tooth. Measurements were recorded in µm (distances) and degrees (angles).

Images of the cephaloskeleton and anterior spiracles of ten larvae per species were taken in the same way. The position of the anterior spiracles in relation to the cornua and the number of tubules were recorded for each species (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. 

Lateral view of the cephaloskeleton and anterior spiracles of Bactrocera correcta indicating the position of the front spiracles in relation to the cornua (left) and image of the anterior spiracle of Bactrocera dorsalis showing 9 tubules (right).

Data analysis

Discriminant function analysis with classification functions was carried out to statistically allocate the specimens to the species studied using the recorded mandible measurements in Statistica v. 14.1.0 (TIBCO Software Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Measurements for all the specimens of the same species were pooled for these analyses.

Results and discussion

A total of 873 mandibles from thirteen species were mounted on slides and examined (Table 1). The raw data of all measurements are listed in the Suppl.material 1.

Table 1.

Species, origin, and sample size of mandibles used to develop a multi-entry key of tephritid larvae of economic importance to the European Union.

Species Origin Number of mandibles measured
Bactrocera correcta IAEA Vienna colony 51
Bactrocera dorsalis Quarantine Station Stellenbosch colony 18
Bactrocera dorsalis Atomic Energy Research Establishment Baipayl, Bangladesh colony 13
Bactrocera dorsalis IAEA Vienna colony 24
Bactrocera dorsalis CRI Nelspruit South Africa colony 24
Bactrocera dorsalis University of Pretoria colony 20
Bactrocera minax Changsa, Hunan, China colony 17
Bactrocera oleae IAEA Vienna, colony 29
Bactrocera oleae Madrid, Spain, olives 18
Zeugodacus tau IAEA Vienna, colony 20
Zeugodacus tau Atomic Energy Research Establishment Baipayl, Bangladesh, colony 22
Bactrocera tryoni Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, colony 16
Bactrocera tryoni IAEA Vienna, colony 37
Bactrocera zonata The “Israel Cohen” Institute for Biological Control, Yehud-Monosson, Israel, colony 24
Bactrocera zonata Atomic Energy Research Establishment Baipayl, Bangladesh, colony 18
Bactrocera zonata IAEA Vienna, colony 14
Bactrocera zonata CIRAD La Réunion, colony 45
Ceratitis capitata The “Israel Cohen” Institute for Biological Control, Yehud-Monosson, Israel, colony 19
Ceratitis capitata Plant Quarantine Station, Stellenbosch, South Africa, colony 21
Ceratitis capitata CRI Nelspruit South Africa, colony 11
Ceratitis capitata Citrus, Plant Quarantine Station, Stellenbosch, South Africa 4
Ceratitis capitata Nectarine, Plant Quarantine Station, Stellenbosch, South Africa 8
Ceratitis capitata CIRAD La Réunion colony 19
Ceratitis capitata Greece, Bitter orange 11
Ceratitis capitata CIRAD La Réunion, wild host 18
Ceratitis cosyra CRI Nelspruit South Africa colony 74
Ceratitis quilicii CRI Nelspruit South Africa colony 63
Ceratitis rosa CRI Nelspruit South Africa colony 67
Dacus ciliatus Piketberg, South Africa, Pumpkin 19
Dacus ciliatus Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputu, Mozambique, Cucumber 20
Zeugodacus cucurbitae Atomic Energy Research Establishment Baipayl, Bangladesh colony 30
Zeugodacus cucurbitae IAEA Vienna colony 20
Zeugodacus cucurbitae CIRAD La Réunion colony 14

We did not see a prominent preapical tooth in any of the mandibles of C. capitata third-instar larvae that we examined, so we used the presence/absence of the preapical tooth as one of the distinguishing characteristics in the key. The characteristics and measurements (Table 2), as well as the geographical distribution, the number of tubules and the position of the anterior spiracles in relation to the cornua, were used to compile a LucID key that can be used to identify the third-instar larvae of the species listed in Table 1.

Table 2.

Average, minimum, and maximum distances (µm) and angles (°) that were used to compile the LucID key for thirteen species of fruit fly larvae of economic importance to the European Union.

Prominent preapical tooth absent
Bactrocera dorsalis Bactrocera zonata Ceratitis capitata Bactrocera oleae
Distance a (µm) 168 (144–195) 156 (131–171) 141 (130–154) 133 (113–151)
Angle b (°) 102 (87–117) 107 (96–129) 103 (94–116) 103 (93–120)
Distance c (µm) 174 (146–214) 152 (128–180) 130 (113–151) 115 (96–132)
Distance d (µm) 279 (241–326) 252 (203–329) 213 (186–236) 194 (152–215)
Bactrocera tryoni Bactrocera correcta Bactrocera minax
Distance a (µm) 156 (139–169) 148 (132–161) 278 (253–301)
Angle b (°) 107 (96–116) 106 (77–120) 110 (101–121)
Distance c (µm) 156 (144–172) 157 (134–188) 282 (265–303)
Distance d (µm) 242 (222–262) 257 (232–285) 424 (398–456)
Ceratitis rosa Ceratitis quilicii Ceratitis cosyra Zeugodacus cucurbitae
Distance a (µm) 149 (134–167) 161 (147–179) 151 (138–168) 194 (163–223)
Distance b (µm) 107 (96–119) 98 (86–110) 96 (82–106) 135 (105–169)
Distance c (µm) 73 (65–84) 74 (64– 79) 79 (69–90) 85 (64–102)
Distance d (µm) 149 (132–171) 148 (127–160) 149 (132–146) 186 (150–225)
Distance e (µm) 233 (202–257) 241 (221–265) 239 (212–263) 299 (245–340)
Dacus ciliatus Zeugodacus tau
Distance a (µm) 169 (153–188) 198 (169–224)
Distance b (µm) 109 (93–121) 139 (112–160)
Distance c (µm) 47 (40–60) 92 (83–101)
Distance d (µm) 148 (129–164) 190 (167–211)
Distance e (µm) 250 (230–267) 315 (279–357)

Bactrocera zonata, B. tryoni and B. correcta could not be identified reliably without including distribution data as well as the position of the spiracle, indicating a percentage correct identification of below 61% based on the discriminant function analysis (Table 3). Bactrocera correcta was misidentified as B. zonata in 27% (14 out of 54) of cases, while B. zonata was only identified correctly in 56.43% of cases, often being confused with B. correcta and B. tryoni (Table 3). However, if the position of the spiracle relative to the cornua was included, B. correcta could be distinguished from B. tryoni and B. zonata. Ceratitis rosa and C. quilicii can be identified with more than 75% certainty based on the distance between the dorsal apodeme and the ventral apodeme as well as the distance between the ventral apodeme and the apical tooth (Table 4). Overall, it was found that species with a secondary tooth were identified with more accuracy than those without.

Table 3.

Classification matrix of the species where a secondary tooth is absent on the mandibles. Rows: Observed classifications; Columns: Predicted classifications.

Species Percent p-value Bd Cc Bz Bo Bt Bc Bm
Correct
Bactrocera dorsalis (Bd) 93.12 0.2985 149 0 4 0 0 7 0
Ceratitis capitata (Cc) 97.19 0.1996 0 104 1 1 0 1 0
Bactrocera zonata (Bz) 56.43 0.1884 6 10 57 0 14 14 0
Bactrocera oleae (Bo) 80.85 0.0877 0 9 0 38 0 0 0
Bactrocera tryoni (Bt) 49.06 0.0989 0 1 25 0 26 1 0
Bactrocera correcta (Bc) 60.78 0.0951 5 1 14 0 0 31 0
Bactrocera minax (Bm) 100 0.0317 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
Total 78.73 160 125 101 39 40 54 17
Table 4.

Classification matrix of the species where a secondary tooth is present on the mandibles. Rows: Observed classifications Columns: Predicted classifications.

Species Percent P-value Cr Cq Cc Zc Dc Bt
Correct
Ceratitis rosa (Cr) 94.03 0.1988 63 3 1 0 0 0
Ceratitis quilicii (Cq) 79.36 0.1869 6 50 7 0 0 0
Ceratitis cosyra (Cc) 66.13 0.1840 9 12 41 0 0 0
Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Zc) 75 0.1899 0 3 0 48 0 13
Dacus ciliatus (Dc) 100 0.1157 0 0 0 0 39 0
Zeugodacus tau (Zt) 76.19 0.1246 0 0 0 10 0 32
Total 81.01 78 68 49 58 39 45

Balmes and Mouttet (2017) combine morphological characteristics including the presence of a preapical tooth, the number of tubules in the anterior spiracle and the number of oral ridges in their key. We found that it was difficult to consistently produce slide-mounted mandibles of high enough quality to see all the characteristics used. In their description of the third-instar larvae of members of the Ceratitis FAR complex, Steck and Ekesi (2015) relied on electron microscope images, which are not practical for use in a routine diagnostic laboratory. Frías et al. (2006, 2008) also used electron microscope images to visualise some characteristics. The multi-entry key published by Carroll et al. (2004 onwards) uses a combination of characteristics that can be observed using a dissection microscope, slides prepared for visualising using a compound microscope and slides prepared to visualise using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Using this key requires access to an SEM and specialist knowledge of larval morphology.

The LucID key was transformed to an app that can be downloaded from Google Play store (for Android) or Apple App store (for Apple phones). https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lucidcentral.mobile.lucid.fruit_fly_larvae&hl=en-US&ah=RArn8-TSJV3KC1m-QBBa0Vfcz7s.

This is the first time a multi-entry key for tephritid larvae of economic significance has been developed in app format. While the characters rely mostly on measurements, it does require some knowledge of how to prepare the mouthparts so that measurements of specific distances can be made. However, it will be a valuable tool for enabling non-molecular identifications of fruit fly larval pests in fruit.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Anthony Clarke, Australia; Domingos Cugala Mozambique; Hélène Delatte, CIRAD, Reunion; Marc de Meyer, Africa Museum, Belgium; Yoav Gazit, Israel; Manuel González Núñez, Spain; Minette Karsten, Pretoria, South Africa Mahfuza Khan, Bangladesh; Aruna Manrakhan, Nelspruit, South Africa, Rui Pereira, IAEA Vienna, Ronald Ramukhesa and Saadiek Rosenberg, DALRRD, South Africa who sent us the larval specimens used in this project. Thank you to the Entomological Society of Israel for permission to use the image of the cephalopharyngeal skeleton in Fig. 1. This manuscript has received the general approval of the committee (John Terblanche, Hélène DeLatte and Nikos Papadopoulos) on 1 December 2023

Additional information

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement was reported.

Funding

This study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program FFIPM (grant agreement No 818184) and the Standards and Trade Development Facility’s project Fruit Fly Free STDF/PG/567.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: MDM, PA. Data curation: WP. Formal analysis: WP. Funding acquisition: MV. Methodology: MDM, PA. Software: MV. Writing - original draft: WP. Writing - review and editing: MDM, MV, PA.

Author ORCIDs

Welma Pieterse https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1290-8636

Marc De Meyer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0755-2898

Massimiliano Virgillio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1323-6886

Pia Addison https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8227-339X

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

References

  • Balmes V, Mouttet R (2017) Development and validation of a simplified morphological identification key for larvae of tephritid species most commonly intercepted at import in Europe. Bulletin OEPP. EPPO Bulletin. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation 47(1): 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12369
  • Boykin LM, Armstrong KF, Kubatko L, De Barro P (2012) Species delimitation and global biosecurity. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 8: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S8532
  • Carroll LE, Wharton RA (1989) Morphology of the immature stages of Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82(2): 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/82.2.201
  • Carroll LE, Norrbom AL, Dallwitz MJ, Thompson FC (2004) [onwards] Pest fruit flies of the world – larvae. Version: 9th April 2019. www.delta-intkey.com
  • Doorenweerd C, Anderson CT, Leblanc L, San Jose M, Rubinoff D, Geib S, Barr N (2022) Adult fruit fly identification of Bactrocera and allied genera using the Lucid multi-entry key platform (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Dacini). https://idtools.org/tools/2103/ [Last accessed: 21/08/2023]
  • Dutra VS, Ronchi-Teles B, Steck GJ, Silva JG (2012) Description of larvae of Anastrepha spp.(Diptera: Tephritidae) in the fraterculus group. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 105(4): 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1603/AN11180
  • Dutra VS, Ronchi-Teles B, Steck GJ, Rodriguez EJ, Norrbom AL, Sutton BD, Silva JG (2018a) Description of the Larvae of Anastrepha curitis, Anastrepha pickeli and Anastrepha pulchra (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 120(1): 9–24. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.120.1.9
  • Dutra VS, Ronchi-Teles B, Steck GJ, Araujo EL, Souza-Filho MF, Raga A, Silva JG (2018b) Description of larvae of three Anastrepha species in the fraterculus group (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 120(4): 708–724. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.120.4.708
  • Ekesi S, Nderitu PW, Rwomushana I (2006) Field infestation, life history and demographic parameters of the fruit fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 96(4): 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1079/BER2006442
  • Frías D, Hernández-Ortiz V, Vaccaro NC, Bartolucci AF, Salles LA (2006) Comparative morphology of immature stages of some frugivorous species of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Israel Journal of Entomology 35(36): 423–457.
  • Frías D, Selivon D, Hernández-Ortiz V (2008) Taxonomy of immature stages: new morphological characters for Tephritidae larvae identification. In Fruit Flies of Economic Importance from Basic to Applied Knowledge. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, Salvador (Brazil), July 2005, 29–44.
  • Jaleel W, Lu L, He Y (2018) Biology, taxonomy, and IPM strategies of Bactrocera tau Walker and complex species (Diptera; Tephritidae) in Asia: A comprehensive review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 25(20): 19346–19361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2306-6
  • Kamayev IO, Galinskaya TV, Ovtshinnikova OG (2020) Variability of the mandibular sclerite and its value in diagnostics of the third instar larvae of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann, 1824) (Diptera, Tephritidae). Entomological Review 100(9): 1254–1264. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0013873820090055
  • Liu X, Zhang L, Haack RA, Liu J, Ye H (2019) A noteworthy step on a vast continent: new expansion records of the guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi, 1916)(Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. BioInvasions Records 8(3): 530–539. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2019.8.3.08
  • Pieterse W, Manrakhan A, Ramukhesa HR, Rosenberg SM, Addison P (2017) The use of shape analysis to differentiate between the mandibles of four economically important tephritid species. Journal of Applied Entomology 141(6): 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12368
  • Rodriguez EJ, Steck GJ, Moore MR, Norrbom AL, Sutton BD, Branham MA (2021) Description of larvae of Anastrepha amplidentata and Anastrepha durantae with review of larval morphology of the Fraterculus Group (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 123(1): 169–189. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.123.1.169
  • Steck GJ, Ekesi S (2015) Description of third instar larvae of Ceratitis fasciventris, C. anonae, C. rosa (FAR complex) and C. capitata (Diptera, Tephritidae). In: De Meyer M, Clarke AR, Vera MT, Hendrichs J (Eds) Resolution of Cryptic Species Complexes of Tephritid Pests to Enhance SIT Application and Facilitate International Trade. ZooKeys 540: 443–466. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.540.10061

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

Raw data of all measurements

Welma Pieterse, Marc De Meyer, Massimiliano Virgillio, Pia Addison

Data type: xlsx

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (66.94 kb)
login to comment