臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究是利用大尼龍網箱來進行番茄夜蛾在番茄、棉花及tropical soda apple下產卵偏好之實驗。研究結果發現所有雌番茄夜蛾比起一般生長時期，較偏好在番茄及棉花的開花期產卵。為了證實是否由花引誘雌番茄夜蛾產卵，將兩株處於同樣生長期的無花番茄植株及已開花番茄植株做比較，發現花的存在與否並不會影響雌番茄夜蛾的產卵行為。同樣地，以人工將花朵置於一般生長時期的番茄植株也得到相同結果。而番茄植株中有無受損的果實比有受損的果實更吸引雌番茄夜蛾產卵。
以人工置放取代自然產下的蟲卵或以紫外線殺除蟲卵，並不影響番茄夜蛾的產卵行為。另外，相較於另一株沒有蟲卵的番茄植株，雌番茄夜蛾在已有蟲卵的番茄、棉花或tropical soda apple上，並不會再產卵或產較少的卵。會影響產卵是因為雌蟲在產卵時所做的化學標示。類似此種的化學標示，在雌番茄夜蟲是不存在的。
進一步的研究是要發現由放在密封的丙烯酸溶劑裡的tropical soda apple萃取出揮發性化學物的吸引性。利用生物檢定可發現在沾有溶在已浣中的揮發性萃取物的濾紙及只有沾有已烷的濾紙上，產卵數會有明顯差異。以tropical soda apple中分離出的揮發性化學物質可檢測出番茄夜蛾產卵對於5-butyldihydro-2(3H)-furanone有相當大的反應。

Oviposition on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple by the tomato fruitworm (TFW) Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), was studied in large nylon net cages. The results showed that TFW female significantly preferred to lay eggs on the flowering stage of tomato and cotton as compared to their vegetative stages. To find out whether the flowers stimulated the female’s ovipositing; tomato plant with flowers removed was compared with another flowering tomato plant at the same physiological stage, the results showed that the presence of flowers did not affect the egg laying behavior of TFW female. Similarly, flowers placed manually on vegetative tomato plant did not have any effect on the egg-laying of TFW. Plants with undamaged tomato fruits attracted TFW female for more egg-laying than the plants with damaged fruits.
Plants with manually placed eggs, naturally laid eggs removed, or eggs killed by UV light did not influence the oviposition behavior of the TFW. However, a mated TFW female avoided egg-laying or laid fewer eggs on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple that had already had naturally eggs present, as compared to the respective plants not having had eggs present. This deterrence of egg-laying is attributed to the presence of chemical markers deposited by egg laying female. Similar deterrent chemicals were not present in the body scales of TFW females.
Additional studies were carried out to investigate the attractiveness of the volatile chemicals extracted from the tropical soda apple volatile in an airtight acrylic chamber. The bioassay results showed that there was a significant difference in the number of eggs laid on filter papers coated with volatile extracts dissolved in hexane compared to the filter papers coated with hexane alone. The bioassay of the chemicals isolated from the volatile of tropical soda apple indicated that TFW showed significant ovipositional response to the chemical 5-butyldihydro-2 (3H)-furanone.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………...i
CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………..iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………..iv
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………..xi
I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………….5
2.1. Description of the genus Helicoverpa…………………...6
2.2. Distribution, host plants and damages…………………...7
2.3. Biology…………………………………………………..9
2.4. Life history……………………………………………..12
2.5. Oviposition……………………………………………..14
2.6. Role of volatile in host finding and oviposition………..17
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………22
3.1. Host plants……………………………………………...22
3.2. Rearing of TFW………………………………………...23
3.3. Arrangement of test plants and release of TFW adults in oviposition cage. …………………………………….26
3.4. Oviposition preference of TFW between vegetative
and flowering stages of tomato and cotton……………..27
3.5. Effect of flowers removed on TFW oviposition
on tomato……………………………………………….27
3.6. Effect of manually placed flowers on TFW
oviposition on tomato at the vegetative stage…………..28
3.7. Effect of damaged fruits on the TFW oviposition
on tomato……………………………………………….28
3.8 . Effect of the presence of naturally laid eggs on TFW
oviposition on tomato, cotton, and tropical soda apple...29
3.9. Effect of manually placed eggs on TFW oviposition
on tomato……………………………………………….30
3.10. Effect of the removal of naturally laid eggs on TFW
oviposition on tomato…………………………………..30
3.11. Effect of the eggs killed by UV light on the TFW oviposition on tomato…………………………………..31
3.12. Effect of the presence of body scales on TFW oviposition
on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple……………...32
3.13. Volatile extraction from the vegetative stage of tropical
soda apple with or without the presence of TFW
eggs ……………………………………………………33
3.14. I-tube bioassay of the volatile and the chemicals isolated from tropical soda apple………………………………..35
3.15. Statistical analyses……………………………………...36
IV. RESULTS…………………………………………………….37
4.1. Oviposition preference of TFW between vegetative
and flowering stages on tomato and cotton…………….37
4.2. Effect of the removal of flowers on TFW oviposition
on tomato……………………………………………….39
4.3. Effect of manually placed flowers on TFW oviposition
on tomato at the vegetative stage ………………………39
4.4. Effect of damaged fruits on TFW oviposition
on tomato……………………………………………….42
4.5. Effect of the presence of naturally laid eggs on TFW oviposition on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple……………………………………………………44
4.6. Effect of manually placed eggs on TFW oviposition
on tomato……………………………………………….44
4.7. Effect of the removal of naturally laid egg on TFW oviposition on tomato…………………………………..47
4.8. Effect of the eggs killed by UV light on the TFW oviposition on tomato…………………………………..47
4.9. Effect of the presence of body scales on TFW oviposition on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple……………...50
4.10. Bioassay of the volatile extracted from the vegetative stage of tropical soda apple…………………………….52
4.11. Bioassay of the volatile extracted from the tropical soda apple with or without the presence of TFW eggs……...52
4.12. Bioassay of the chemicals isolated from the tropical soda apple……………………………………………………55
V. DISCUSSION………………………………………………...57
5.1. Oviposition preference of TFW between vegetative
and flowering stages of tomato and cotton……………..57
5.2. Effect of the removal and the manually placed flowers
on TFW oviposition on tomato…………………………58
5.3. Effect of damaged fruits on TFW oviposition on tomato…………………………………………………..59
5.4. Effect of the presence of naturally laid eggs on TFW oviposition on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple…………….……………………………………...61
5.5. Effect of manually placed eggs and removal of naturally laid eggs on TFW oviposition on tomato………………62
5.6. Effect of the eggs killed by UV light on TFW
oviposition on tomato…………………………………..63
5.7. Effect of the presence of body scales on TFW
oviposition on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple……………………………………………………64
5.8. Bioassay of the volatile extracted and the chemicals
isolated from the tropical soda apple…………………...65
5.9. Bioassay of the volatile extracted from tropical soda
apple with or without the presence of TFW eggs………67
VI. CONCLUSION………………………………………………68
VII. REFERENCES………………………………………………71
VIII. APPENDIX…………………………………………………...83
Figure 1. Rearing steps of TFW……………………………….83
Figure 2. Extraction of volatile from tropical soda apple
plant………………………………………………...84
Figure 3. Rotary evaporator Erlenmeyer……………………...84
Figure 4. Bioassay in I-tubes (250 cm in length and 15 cm in
diameter)……………………………………………85
Figure 5. I-tubes (250 cm in length and 15 cm in diameter),
covered with black cloth during the bioassay………85
Figure 6. A. Tropical soda apple leaves, B. Oviposited tropical
soda apple leaves…………………………………...86
Figure 7. Diet composition of TFW…………………………...87
VIIII. BIOSKETCH OF AUTHOR……………………………….88
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages
1. Oviposition preference of TFW between flowering and vegetative
stages of tomato and cotton ……………………………………….38
2. Effect of the removal of flowers on TFW oviposition on
tomato ……………………………………………………………..40
3. Effect of manually placed flowers on TFW oviposition on tomato at
the vegetative stage………………………………………………..41
4. Effect of damaged fruits on TFW oviposition on tomato…………43
5. Effect of the presence of naturally laid eggs on TFW
oviposition on tomato, cotton and tropical soda apple……………..45
6. Effect of manually placed eggs on TFW oviposition on tomato….46
7. Effect of the removal of naturally laid eggs on TFW oviposition on
tomato ……………………………………………………………..48
8. Effect of the eggs killed by UV light on TFW oviposition on
tomato……………………………………………………………...49
9. Effect of the presence of body scales on TFW oviposition on
tomato, cotton, and tropical soda apple ………………………….51
10. Bioassay of the volatile extracted from the vegetative stage of
tropical soda apple……………………………………………….53
11. Bioassay of the volatile extracted from the vegetative stage of
tropical soda apple with or without the presence of TFW eggs….54
12. Bioassay of the chemicals isolated from the tropical soda
apple……………………………………………………………..56

Adler, P.H., M. B. Willey, and M. R. Bowen. 1991. Temporal oviposition patterns of Heliothis zea and Spodoptera ornithogali. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 58: 159-164.
Adkisson, P. L. 1958. The influence of fertilizer applications on populations of Heliothis zea (Boddie), and certain insect predators. J. Econ. Entomol. 51: 757-759.
Anonymous, 2001. Situation agricole de la campagne 1997-1998 au Senegal, Ministère de l’agriculture, Dakar, Senegal. 64 pp.
Anderson, P., B. S. Hansson and J. Löfqvist. 1995. Plant-odor-specific receptor neurones on the antennae of female and male Spodoptera litoralis. Physiol. Entomol. 20: 189-198.
Ashok, K. R., G. K. Timothy and K. M. Autar. 1992. Chemical signals from host plant and sexual behavior in a moth. Science 14 pp.
AVRDC. 2000. Progress Report. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan. 152 pp.
Ball, G., A. K. Raina, T. G. Kingan, and J. D. Lopez. 1996. Oviposition behavior of newly colonized corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89: 4 pp.
Barber, G. W. 1937. Seasonal availability of food plants of two species of Heliothis in Eastern Georgia. J. Econo. Entomol. 30: 150-158.
Barber, G. W. and F. F. Dicke. 1937. The effectiveness of cultivation as a control for the corn earworm. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bulletin 561-616 pp.
Burkett, G. R., J. C. Scheinder, and F. M. Davis 1983. Behavior of the tomato fruitworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on tomato. Environ. Entomol. 12: 905-910.
Callahan, P.S. 1958. Behavior of the image the corn earworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), with the special reference to emergence and reproduction. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 51: 271- 283.
Cayrol, R. A. 1972. Famille des Noctuidae. Sous-famille des Melicleptriinae. Helicoverpa armigera Hubner. In: Entomologie appliquée à L’agriculture. A. S. Balachowsky (ed.) 2:1431-44.
CILSS, 1990. Deuxième séminaire sur la lutte intégrée contre les ennemis de cultures vivrières dans le Sahel. Bamako, Mali du 4 au 9 janvier 1990. Rapport des groupes de travail. 27 pp.
Coates, R. M. and J. F. Denisson. 1988. Identification of α-santalenoic and endo-β-bergamotenoic acid as moth oviposition stimulants from wild tomato leaves. J. Org. Chem. 53: 2186-2192.
Cirio, U. 1972. Osservazioni sul comportamento di ovideposizione della Rhagoletis completa Cresson (Diptera: Trypetidae) in laboratorio. Proc. 9th Congr. Italian Entomol. Soc. (Siena): 99-117.
Courtney, S. P., G. K. Chen, and A. Gardner. 1989. A general model for individual host selecton. Oikos. 55: 55-65.
Cunningham, J. P., S. A. West, and D. J. Wright. 1998. Learning in the nectar foraging behavior of Helicoverpa armigera. Ecol. Entomol. 23: 363-369.
Delate, R. 1973. Parasites et maladies en culture cotonnière. Manuel phytosanitaire, division de documentation, IRCT: 73-78.
Dominguez Garcia-Tejero, F. 1957. Bollworm of tomato, Heliothis armigera Hb. In: plagas y enfermedades de las plantas cultivadas. S. A Dossat (ed.), Madrid, Spain: 403-407.
Ditman, L. P. and E. N. Cory. 1931. The corn earworm biology and control. Maryland Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 328. 482 pp.
Dicke, F. F. 1939. Seasonal abundance of the corn earworm. J. Agric. Res. 59: 237-258.
Feeny, P., Rosenberry, L., and Carter, M. 1983. Chemical aspects of oviposition behavior in butterflies. Herbivorous Insects Academic Press, Inc.: 27-75.
Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis in relation to agroecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34: 17-52.
Freeman, M. E., D. M. Daugherty, and R. D. Jackson. 1967. Damage to soybeans by Heliothis zea. Proc. N. Centr. Br. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2: 13-14.
Gaines, J. C. 1933. Factors influencing the activities of the cotton bollworm moth (Heliothis obsoleta Fab.). J. Econ. Entomol. 26:957-962.
Geogievska, L. 2001. Isolation and identification of chemical stimulants from Solanum viarum (Dunal) and their effects on the oviposition of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Master thesis, ITA/NPUST: 93-96.
Gupta , P. D, and A. J. Thorsteinson. 1960. Food plant relationships of the diamond-back moth (Plutella maculipennis (Curt). In sensory regulation of oviposition of the adult female. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 3: 305-314.
Hardwick, D. F. 1965. The corn earworm complex. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Canada. 40: 1-247.
Harding, J. A. 1976a. Heliothis spp.: seasonal occurrence, hosts and host importance in the lower Rio Grande Valley. Environ. Entomol. 5: 666-668.
Hartlieb, E., and H. Rembold. 1996. Behavioural responses of female Helicoverpa armigera Hb. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) moths to a synthetic pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) kairomone. J. Chem. Ecol. 22: 821-837.
Honda, K. 1986. Flavone glycosides as oviposition stimulants in a Papilionid butterfly, Papilio protenor. J. Chem. Ecol. 12: 1999-2010.
Honda, K. 1995. Chemical basis of differential oviposition by lepidopterous insects. Arch. Ins. Biochem. Physiol. 30:1-23.
Ibrahim, M. M., A. G. Metwaly, N. H. Nazmy, and F. E. Z. Ibrahim. 1974. Studies on the American bollworm on cotton in Egypt, Heliothis zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Agri. Res. Rev. 52: 1-8.
Ilse, D. 1937. New observations on responses to colour in egg-laying butterflies. Nature 140: 544-45.
Isman, M. B. 1992. A physiological perspective, pp. 156-176 In: Insect chemical ecology: An evolutionary approach. Chapman & Hall, Roitberg B.D, Isman M.B (eds.) New York: 50-76 pp.
ICIPE, 1996 and 1997. Annual report. International Center for Insects Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Kenya. 4-13 pp.
Jackson, D. M. and R. F. Severson. 1982. Stimulation effect of tobacco budworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to tobacco introduction 1112 and NC 2326 in cage tests. J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 1303-1308.
Jackson, D. M., R. F. Severson, A. W. Johnson, J. F. Chaplin, and M. G. Stephenson. 1984. Ovipositional response to tobacco budworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to cuticular chemical isolates from green tobacco leaves. Environ. Entomol. 13: 1023-1030.
Joyce, R. J. V. 1978. The strategy of cotton pest control in the Sudan Gezira. 62: 85-103.
Juvik, J. A., B. A. babka, and E.A. Timmermann. 1988. Influence of trichome exudates from species of Lycopersicon on oviposition behavior of Heliothis zea (Boddie). J. Chem. Ecol. 14: 1261-1278.
Juvik, J. A., J. A. Shapiro, T. E. Young, and M. A. Mutschler. 1994. Acylglucoses from wild tomatoes alter behavior and reduce growth and survival of Helicoverpa zea and Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 482-492.
Kao, S. S. 1995. Mass rearing of insects, special bulletin of Taiwan
Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute (TACTRI). 37: 6-7. (In Chinese).
Kennedy, J. S. 1965. Mechanisms of host plant selection. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 56: 317-322.
Landolt, P. J. and T. W. Phillips 1997. Host plant influences on sex pheromone behavior of phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 42: 371-391.
Martin, P. B., P. D. Lingren, and G. L. Greene. 1976a. Relative abundance and host preferences of cabbage looper, soybean looper, tobacco budworm, and corn earworm on crops grown in northern Florida. Environ. Entomol. 5: 878-882.
Metcalf, R. L., and E. R. Metcalf 1992. Plant Kairomone in Insect Ecology and Control, Chapman & Hall, NY, 168 pp.
Mitchell, E. R., and R. R. Health. 1987. Heliothis subflexa (GN.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): demonstration of oviposition stimulant from ground cherry using novel bioassay. J. Chem. Ecol. 13: 1849-58.
Ng, D. 1988. A novel level of interactions in plant-insect systems. Nature 334: 611-13.
Palmiter, R. D. 1966. Absence of olfactory conditioning in an oligophagous insect, the corn earworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie). Anim. Behav. 14: 236-238.
Parsons, F. S. 1939. Investigations of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera Hübn. (obsolete, Fabr.) Part I. The annual march of bollworm incidence and related factors. Bull Entomol. Res. 30: 321-337.
Parsons, F. S. 1940. Investigations on the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera Hubn. Bull. Entomol. Res. 31: 147-177.
Pearson, E. O., and R. C. M. Darling, 1958. The insect pests of cotton in tropical Africa. London, UK; Empire Cotton Growers and Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. 355 pp.
Pereya, P. C. and M. D. Bowers. 1988. Irridoid glycosides as oviposition stimulatants for the buckeye butterfly, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 14: 917-28.
Prokopy, R. J., 1972. Evidence for a marking pheromone deterring repeated oviposition in apple maggot flies. Environ. Entomol. 1: 326-332.
Prokopy, R. J. and E. D. Owens. 1983. Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 28: 337-364.
Quaintance, A. L., and C.T. Brues. 1905. The cotton bollworm. USDA. Bur. Entomol. Bull. 50. 155 pp.
Ramaswamy, S. B., W. K. Ma, and G. T. Baker. 1987. Sensory cues and receptors for oviposition by Heliothis virescens. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 43: 159-68.
Ramaswamy, S. B. 1988. Host finding by moth: sensory modalities and behaviors. Insect Physiol. 23: 235-249.
Raina, A. K. 1993. Neuroendocrine control of sex pheromone biosynthesis in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 38: 329-349.
Raina, A. K., T. G. Kingan, and A. K. Mattoo. 1992. Chemical signals from host plant and sexual behavior in a moth. Science 255: 592-594.
Renwick, J. A. A. and F. S. Chew. 1994. Oviposition behavior in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39: 377-400.
Renwick, J. A. A., C. D. Radkle, and K. Sachdev-Gupta. 1989. Chemical constituents of Erysimum cheiranthoides deterring oviposition by the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae. J. Chem. Ecol. 15: 2161-68.
Reed, W., and C. S. Pawar. 1982. Heliothis: a global problem. Pp. 9-14 In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Heliothis Management. Reed, W. & Kumble, V. (Eds). Pantancheru, India, ICRISAT.
Rodriguez, B., T. F. Leigh, and W. H. Lange. 1982. Oviposition site preference by the tomato fruitworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on tomato, with notes on plant phenology. J. Econ. Entomol. 75: 895-898.
SAS Institute, 2001. SAS / STAT Guide for personal computers. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.
Schoonhoven, L. M., T. Jermy, and J. J. A. Van Loon. 1998. Insect-plant biology: from physiology to evolution. Chapman & Hall, London.
Shorey, H. H. 1964. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. II. Mating behavior of Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with special reference to the role of the sex pheromone. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 57: 371-77.
Singer, M. C. 1982. Quantification of host preference by manipulation of oviposition behavior in the butterfly, Euphydryas editha. Oecologica 52: 224-29.
Singer, M. C., D. Ng, C. D. Thomas. 1988. Heritability of oviposition preference and its relationship to offspring performance within a single insect population. Evolution 42: 977-85.
Stadelbacher, E. A., H. M. Graham, V. E. Harris, J. D. Lopez, and J. R. Philips. 1986. Heliothis populations and wild host plants in the southern U.S.A. Environ. Entomol. 84: 54-74.
Stadelbacher, E. A. and A. L. Scales. 1973. Technique for determining oviposition preference of the bollworm and tobacco budworm for varieties and experimental stocks of cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 66: 418-421.
Stinner, R. E., R. L. Rabb, and J. R. Bradley. 1974. Population dynamics of Heliothis zea (Boddie) and H. virescens (F.) in North Carolina: a simulation model. Envron. Entomol. 3: 162-168.
Talekar, N. S., Y. H. Chang, and S. T. Lee 1983. Tomato insect pests: major management strategies. In proceedings of the symposium on the insect control of vegetables in Taiwan, 1983.
Thibout, E. and C. LeCompte. 1982. Mise en evidence de mouvements verticaux quotidiens et influences de la plante-hote, de l’ age et de la fecondation sur le rythme d’activite de la teigne du poireau, Acrolepiopsis assectella Zell. (Lepidoptere). Acta ecologica. 3: 233-240.
Thompson, J. N. 1988a. Variation in preference and specificity in monophagous and oligophagous swallowtail butterflies. Evolution 42:118-28.
Thompson, J. N. 1988b. Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 47: 3-14.
Thompson, J. N. and O. Pellmyr. 1991. Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36: 65-89.
Todd. E. L. 1978. A check list of species of Heliothis Oschenheimer (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 80: 1-14.
Twine, P. H. 1988. Distribution and economic importance of Heliothis in Australia including a listing of the importance of their natural enemies and host plants. 71 pp.
Wiklund, C. 1981. "Generalist vs. specialist oviposition behaviour in Papilio machaon (Lepidoptera) and functional aspects on the hierarchy of oviposition preferences." Oikos 36: 163-170.
Wiklund, C. 1982. Generalist versus specialist utilization of host plants among butterflies. 5th International Symposium of Insect-Plant Relationships, Wageningen, Pudoc. 7 pp.
Whitcomb, W. H. 1960. Sweet corn as a trap corn to protect early tomatoes from the tomato fruitworm. Ark. Farm. Res. 9: 10 pp.
Zalucki, M. P., G. Daglish, S. Firempong and P. H. Twine. 1986. The biology and ecology of Heliothis armigera (Hübner) and H. punctigera Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia: What do we know? Aust. J. Zool. 34: 779-814.