Erinnyis ello ( Linnaeus, 1758 )

Martinez, Jose I., Crane, Jonathan H., Wasielewski, Jeff, Miller, Jacqueline Y. & Carrillo, Daniel, 2019, Lepidoptera pests of sapodilla (Manilkara zapota (L.) van Royen) in south Florida, with some comments on life history and natural control, Insecta Mundi 739 (739), pp. 1-26 : 11-12

Erinnyis ello ( Linnaeus, 1758)

Anceryx ello ( Linnaeus, 1758) : Walker, 1856

Dilophonota ello ( Linnaeus, 1758) : Godman and Salvin, 1881

Sphinx cinifera Zikán, 1934

Sphinx omorfia Mooser, 1942

Linnaeus (1758) described Erinnyis ello from his own material in the collection of the MLUR.

Description. Egg. Circular and pale green, changing to pale yellow before hatching. Larva. All instars usually green, sometimes brown depending on food. The main characteristic of E. ello larvae is a big eyespot on the dorsal thorax that is divided by a thin vertical line ( Fig. 1J ). Pre-pupa. Similar to last instar but paler and wider. Adult. Sexually dimorphic, male thinner with a black, medial uneven line on forewings extending from basal to apical area, female completely pale-gray, but similar size. Wing expanse: 73.9–86.6 mm. Wings. Very narrow. Dorsal surface: Forewings completely whitish-gray with dark-gray and brown strigiform markings. Hindwings orange with a grayish-black wide line in outer margin. Ventral surface: Both wings pale-brown with brown strigiform markings. Head. Antennae: Whitish-gray; moderately clubbed. Vertex: Grayish-brown. Mouthparts: Labial palps small. Body. Thorax: Completely gray, without markings. Abdomen: Gray with horizontal black lines and a median gray line dividing those. Legs: Pale brown ( Fig. 2J ).

Distribution. Erinnyis ello was incorrectly noted as occurring in India by Linnaeus (1758). This species is native to the Americas. It has been found in the USA, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, West Indies, French Antilles, Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil ( Walker 1856; Godman and Salvin 1881; Zagatti et al. 1995 –2006; Lotts and Naberhaus 2015).

Hosts. Allamanda cathartica L. ( Apocynaceae ); Araujia sericofera Brot. (Asclepiadaceae) ; Carica papaya L. ( Caricaceae ); Cnidoscolus angustidens Torr. , Euphorbia gymnoclada Boiss. , E. prostrata Aiton , E. pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch , E. cyathophora Murray , E. heterophylla L., E. mesembrianthemifolia (Jacq.) Dugand , Hevea brasiliensis Müll. Arg. , Jatropha gossypiifolia (Mill.) Müll.Arg. , Manihot esculenta Crantz , M. carthaginensis (Müll.Arg.) Allem , Ricinus communis L., Sebastiana confusa Lundell and Sapium aucuparium Jacq. (Euphorbiaceae) ; Arachis hypogaea L. (Leguminosae); Gossypium hirsutum (Malvaceae) ; Psidium guajava L. ( Myrtaceae ); Chrysophyllum oliviforme L., Manilkara subsericea (Mart.) Dubard , M. zapota (L.) van Royen, Sideroxylon celastrinum (Kunth) Penn , S. salicifolium (L.) Lam. and S. tepicense (Standl.) Penn. (Sapotaceae) ; Solanum lycopersicum L. ( Solanaceae ) ( Bernays and Janzen 1988; Coto et al. 1995; Robinson 1999; Jenkins 2012).

Natural history. The adults are active all year, especially in spring and summer (March-September). Females lay eggs primarily on leaf buds or leaves. Larvae hatch five days later and feed on leaves. Larval development takes 19–28 days. The pupal stage occurs underground and lasts 27–29 days.

Damage. The larva chews the leaf buds and the leaves at any stage. The damage can be easily detected because this species does not consume the entire leaf. Therefore, the plants attacked by E. ello have many chewed leaves similar to other sphingid larvae. Leaf damage can be extensive, weakening the plant.

Management. Control of E. ello has been studied for many years. Growers initially used chemical pesticides, but due to uncontrolled use almost all are ineffective today. Currently there are many parasitoids (e.g. Trichogramma minutum Riley and Telenomus dilophonotae Cameron ), predators (e.g. Polistes canadiensis (Linnaeus)) , nematodes and viruses (e.g. Baculovirus erinnyis Bellotti, Reyes, and Arias) used as biological control that have had better results ( Bellotti et al. 1992; Da Silva-Carvalho et al. 2015). In addition, some spider species, such as Nephila clavipes (Linnaeus) , play an important role in its control.

Figures

Figure 1. Larvae of Lepidoptera pests of sapodilla. A) Dichrorampha sapodilla Heppner. B) Comotia torsicornis Dyar. C) Holcocera crassicornella Dietz. D) Zamagiria laidion (Zeller). E) Electrostrymon angelia (Hewitson). F) Phidotricha erigens Ragonot. G) Banisia myrsusalis Walker. H) Banisia argutula Whalley. I) Pyroderces badia (Hodges). J) Erinnyis ello (Linnaeus).

Figure 2. Adults of Lepidoptera pests of sapodilla. The unlabeled images in the top half of the figure are to scale, whereas the labeled images in the bottom half of the figure have been resized. A) Dichrorampha sapodilla Heppner. B) Comotia torsicornis Dyar. C) Holcocera crassicornella Dietz. D) Zamagiria laidion (Zeller). E) Pyroderces badia (Hodges). F) Phidotricha erigens Ragonot. G) Banisia myrsusalis Walker. H) Banisia argutula Whalley. I) Electrostrymon angelia (Hewitson). J) Erinnyis ello (Linnaeus).