Mosquito control, - parallel with human control.

W

Woodsman

The Living Force
While posting a comment on one of the front page news items about the release of GM mosquitoes into the wild as a means of pest control an observation struck me. --I was writing about food chains and ill-formed planning, but then found myself thinking from an interesting perspective which was new to me regarding the opposing kinds of population control used on people.


Cut & Paste...

~~~~

Mosquitoes. Bah. I hate 'em. Probably more than most. I have trouble sleeping until I've hunted down every one which sneaked inside my bedroom. The thought of sleeping while a bug is sinking its little syringe into me is quite aggravating to me!

But there are great solutions.

-Hang an inflated brown paper bag in the entrance to your home. The little critters will equate it with a wasp's nest, and steer clear. It really works. Far better than chemicals, having each and every mosquito decide on their own to stay away because of their internal programming is pretty darned cool. -Where bugs grow resistant to offensive tactics, like bug sprays and such, relying instead on what amounts to psy-warfare is far less troublesome and far more effective.

It makes me understand why the North American population control experiment was undertaken; that is, using TVs and similar mind-games to control people rather than machine guns and barbed wire.

But anyway. . . killing off all the skeeters in the wild? That would remove a valuable food source for many small creatures, including birds and amphibians, and larger insects. Having a constant banquet of little bugs to feed on is probably a great thing for such animals, and like kelp in the oceans, to change that significantly might well be one of those Really Bad Ideas. Like introducing rabbits to Australia.

Though, it's interesting to consider; there are few, if any mosquitoes in Europe, and European fauna seems to do okay. Of course, they don't really have the kind of rain forests that we do in North America.

~~~~~

Just thought that was maybe worth dropping into forum.

Cheers.
 
Woodsman said:
-Hang an inflated brown paper bag in the entrance to your home. The little critters will equate it with a wasp's nest, and steer clear. It really works. Far better than chemicals, having each and every mosquito decide on their own to stay away because of their internal programming is pretty darned cool. -Where bugs grow resistant to offensive tactics, like bug sprays and such, relying instead on what amounts to psy-warfare is far less troublesome and far more effective.

Though, it's interesting to consider; there are few, if any mosquitoes in Europe, and European fauna seems to do okay. Of course, they don't really have the kind of rain forests that we do in North America.
Click to expand...
I was searching in the forum a safe and effective means to avoid mosquitos' jab, and came to this post.

In Europe too we have to endure these belligerent STS insects. I say STS because they seem to me as if they've been modified by 4D STS, or even 3D STS (GMO - tiger mosquitos). These last years, they are even more detestable, they are smaller, poke at all hours of the day, even under the sun (when I was young, it was only at evening/night), fly in an irregular manner and quick, come again and again onto us even when we gesticulate (try to repel or catch them), poke even through the clothes, seem to hide much better. As if they are teleguided (remote control)?

There are no day when I'm not poked, and pocked multiple times. This year it took so much proportions, that holidaymakers had their vacations wasted, and complain about it (I read it in various newspapers). But not only them, even usual residents. In winter I'm poked too, but it has been much worse since March. I didn't get Covid in 2020, nor 2021. And in April this year, I've had awfull flu-like symptoms (covid?) but with sequellaes (in my case: eyesight very worsened, stiffness/arthitis not fading away), not going away persisting (Lyme disease?). So I wonder if there is a new Covid variant, or a completely new genetic code, inserted in these mosquitos. As people don't accept jab easily, they do it via mosquitos? Moreover, Mosquitos are more efficient than tics (insect).

I can see similarities between some Covid symptoms or even long-haul Covid and Lyme disease. Here is a thread about neurological (I'll add sensorial too) conditions due to Lyme:
davey72 said:
I am curious what others think of this?
Dr. Alan MacDonald, MD who appears in the documentary ‘Under Our Skin’ (2008), says in the film that he found found Borrelia (Lyme) DNA in 7 out of 10 postmortem Alzheimers patients’ brains. This makes perfect sense, since syphilis, its cousin, also invades the brain in tertiary or neurosyphilis. Dr. Klinghardt, MD (also quoted from ‘Under Our Skin’) stated that he’s “never had a single patient with Alzheimer’s, ALS, Parkinson’s Disease or Multiple Sclerosis who tested negative for Borrelia.”
Click to expand...

All these similarities make me wonder if mosquitos are used to "jab" us with genetic therapy meddling.

Well, at first I came. I came here in order to see if there is a tip to repel mosquitos and the search button lead me to Woodman's post. I will try this inflated brown paper bag while in the house.
But outside it's not doable. Do you know an efficient and safe product to spread on the skin?
 
I currently use lavender oil to repel bugs. It's far from 100% effective but does seem to help.

Mosquitos
The mosquitos in Georgetown Guyana were slow and lazy but there were a LOT of them. The mosquitos in upper Michigan would fly for an hour into a 50 mph headwind just to get a chance at biting you. :nuts:
I've been a 'lunch buffet' for bugs most of my adult life...

Glad I saw this, also interested in trying out the 'mosquito scarecrow'. Probably doesn't work for flies....
 
Another option is taking Vitamin B1, it is known to repel the critters. Also in Marmite but doubt enough. Another oil is Peppermint. We have loads of them here and worse still are the sandflies. But am sure mosquitoes were weaponized ages ago . They are also mentioned in the Ukraine biolabs.
Lyme was transformed on Plum Island years ago. According to Dr. K they pretended to close it down but instead build another site on same island. Friends of his have drones and photographed the site. The Lyme genes were increased from approx 40 to 800 and can mimic every disease under the sun. It is now the most intelligent bug on this planet. Second only to Syphilis which has about 29 genes.

So Lyme is defo something you do NOT want to get. Antibiotics make it worse. I have held off treating my late stage Lyme because Dr K warned ages ago that unless you do a thorough job at late state you create an horrendous problem. The Lyme spirochetes then morph into cysts which also go everywhere in the body and are worse than biofilm to eradicate because each cyst has thousands of eggs. So it totally goes everywhere and much much longer to eradicate. 18 months is the quickest just for Lyme,and you never truly eradicate it. But these cysts do even more damage.

All his protocols work. I am just waiting until I can afford the whole works and do it totally thoroughly.

But he also says that it is fallacy that you get Lyme just from ticks. Lyme is actually vector borne. This includes biting spiders, mosquitos, fleas, horseflies, biting flies, ticks, sexual relations with a carrier, blood transfusions (doubt they screen for Lyme, and it doesnt show up in the blood anyway). Plus it is passed to the foetus from the mother. So many vectors.

Plus most tests come back false negatives, mine always do too. So Lyme sufferers are purposefully ignored and doctors can be struck off for treating them. Only labs that are reliable are Armin Labs in Germany. But you cannot just treat the Lyme you have to treat all the coinfections too, and there are always coinfections! Plus before that you have to treat for Aluminium as everyone now has very high doses of toxicity = also causes of Parkinsons, Alzheimers and Autism. Then also heavy metals, environmental toxins, and Mould! So a LOT to treat!!
PLUS he says you will never get rid of Lyme whilst you have Aluminium in your body and ESPECIALLY WIFI AND Electromagnetic frequencies in your house, office etc. WIFI and Aluminium are the lifeblood of LYME.

Plus the fave food of the Cysts etc is Hyaluronic acid. Hyaluronic acid is present in the human body in abundance. It is present in the highest quantity in the joints and eye fluids.
 
standing outside earlier this evening, a few feet away from my wife; i noticed not one 'skitter on her - they were all one me.

i've tried the aromatherapy stuff, the lemony stuff, the fresh scent "off" ... all just salad dressing to the 'skitters.

most of them die off by mid july, but not this year; i swear they've got longer needles than ever that go right through my jean jacket.

here's an interesting article about why some of us are tastier than others to those pesky 'skitters.

:-)
 
Thank you very much for your replies!

While searching for lavender oil in my drawers, I saw a bottle of melissa water. I sprayed it on my bared skin, and it helped. Not 100%, but I've been pocked much less. Then I tried lavender oil (few drops in lard, then applied on my skin) and it helped too!

And thank you happyliza for these interesting infos on Lyme!
goggles paisano: that website doesn't give me the page untill I allow all their cookies. But if it's about blood group, then I don't think it's accurate science. I have many people around me with same blood group and some are often poked like me and others rarely (when we're together at the same place).
 
this just popped into my head: ( anyone who has welded with oxyacetylene will find the humour in this ... )

O before A, it's the mosquito way !
 
nature said:
Thank you goggles, but here too, no access. Maybe you can copy-past just the relevant passage?
Click to expand...

JOURNAL ARTICLE
Landing Preference of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) on Human Skin Among ABO Blood Groups, Secretors or Nonsecretors, and ABH Antigens
Yoshikazu Shirai, Hisashi Funada, Hisao Takizawa, Taisuke Seki, Masaaki Morohashi, Kiyoshi Kamimura
Journal of Medical Entomology, Volume 41, Issue 4, 1 July 2004, Pages 796–799, Landing Preference of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) on Human Skin Among ABO Blood Groups, Secretors or Nonsecretors, and ABH Antigens
Published: 01 July 2004 Article history
pdfPDF
Split View
Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions
Share
Abstract
We demonstrated in this study that blood group O subjects attracted more Aedes albopictus than other blood groups (B, AB, and A) but were only significantly more attractive than blood group A subjects in 64 human landing tests. We collected saliva from the subjects and tested it for agglutination inhibition, categorized the subjects into secretors or nonsecretors, and studied mosquitoes' landing preferences for those groups. The mean relative percent landing on blood group O secretors (83.3%) was significantly higher than on group A secretors (46.5%). We also compared the attraction to subjects according to blood groups using forearm skin treated with ABH antigens. Blood group O disaccharide (H antigen) attracted significantly more Ae. albopictus than did blood group A trisaccharide (A antigen), and subjects treated with blood group A disaccharide attracted significantly more Ae. albopictus than did subjects treated with blood group B trisaccharide (B antigen), but ABH antigens did not, in general, influence the landing preference of mosquitoes among ABO blood groups.

Aedes albopictus, landing preference, ABO blood groups, secretors/nonsecretors, ABH antigens
Issue Section: Short Communication
An earlier study reported that Anopheles gambiae (species A) preferred to feed on humans of blood group O (Wood et al. 1972). In contrast, another report compared the blood groups of patients suffering from malaria with those of inhabitants nearby the hospital and found that group A was more frequent in malaria cases than in the controls, while group O was less frequent (Gupta and Rai Chowdhuri 1980). The latter report showed that group A was preferentially bitten by mosquitoes if probability of suffering malaria was not different among blood groups. Some humans secrete substances of blood types on the skin, and nonsecretors are humans who do not. Substances of blood types are oligosaccharides. The secretor (FUT2) blood group locus determines the synthesis of soluble A, B, H, and Lewis b blood group antigens in humans (Kishi et al. 1990). Concerning secretor status, blood group O secretors were reported to be preferred more than O nonsecretors by Aedes aegypti, and A nonsecretors were preferred over A secretors (Wood 1976). However, Thornton et al. (1976) challenged those reports and suggested that there was no effect of ABO blood group status on host choice. They suggested that the statistical analyses in the earlier reports were incorrect. In this study, we examined the landing preference among ABO blood groups and among secretors or nonsecretors using proboscis-amputated female Ae. albopictus, as previously detailed (Shirai et al. 2000a). We also examined the landing preference for ABH antigens after topical application of oligosaccharides to the forearm skin of subjects.

Materials and Methods
Mosquitoes.
A colony of Ae. albopictus was maintained in our laboratory at 24 ± 1°C, 60–70% RH, and a 14:10 (L:D)-h photoperiod. The collection site in Japan was Ogaki in the Gifu Prefecture. We used 20- to 30-d-old unfed females after 2–6 generations.

Volunteers and Blood Group Status.
We used 64 volunteers (32 males, age, 18–61 yr; 32 females, age, 5–61 yr) as test subjects and established a 30-yr-old male (blood group A, secretor) as a control. Their blood group status was determined initially by a questionnaire.

Mosquito Landing Tests.
We adapted an aquarium (600 by 295 by 360 mm; NS-6M, NISSO, Tokyo, Japan) as a test chamber and introduced 35 mosquitoes into it after amputating their proboscises (Shirai et al. 2000a). The hands and forearms of human subjects were inserted through the sleeve into the test chamber with the backside of the hand up, keeping a small space between the palm and the bottom surface. Mosquitoes landed on the inserted hands and forearms and attempted to bite, but they were unable to feed because their proboscis had been amputated. The number of mosquitoes that alighted on the hands and forearms of subjects was counted every 30 s. Attractiveness was calculated by the total number of landing mosquitoes on an arm, and these 20 counts were added for a 10-min exposure. The hand and forearm of the control host were inserted through the left sleeve of the chamber containing mosquitoes, whereas the hand and forearm of a second subject was inserted through the right sleeve. These were paired comparisons with one test person (who has one arm in the chamber) and the control person (who has one arm in the chamber). An index of attractiveness was derived as percent landings one subject per sum of the subject and the control and repeated three times with naïve mosquitoes. To eliminate the effect of bias toward one side of the bioassay container, the positions of the test and control subjects within the chamber was switched in each succeeding trial. We divided subject's mosquito landings by sum of subjects and controls. Then we multiplied it by 100, and we got the subject's relative percentage of landing. We divided subject's relative percentage by control's, and multiplied it by 50. This value was the subject's index of attractiveness when the control's was 50. For example, when mosquito landings on X subject were 20 and those landing on the control were 30, the relative percentage of landing on X was 20/50 × 100 (40.0%) and the relative percentage of landing on the control was 30/50 × 100 (60.0%). When mosquito landings on Y subject were 25 and those on the control were 15, the relative percentage of landing on Y was 25/40 × 100 (62.5%) and relative percentage of landing on the control was 15/40 × 100 (37.5%). The index of attractiveness of X was 40/60 × 50 (33.3) and of Y was 62.5/37.5 × 50 (83.3). The mean percentage of landings on O, A, B, and AB subjects was analyzed statistically using Fisher's PLSD method by StatView (1998).

Identification of Secretor Status.
We collected saliva from 57 (89%) of 64 volunteers and tested the saliva for agglutination inhibition. We preserved saliva at -80°C until it could be tested. After thawing, each saliva specimen was boiled for 30 min and centrifuged at 2,000 rpm for 5 min, and the supernatant saliva was used. We dropped 100 μl PBS (Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline; Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) into each well of one row of a 96-well microtiter test plate. We then dropped 100 μl of one volunteer's saliva into the leftmost well of the top row (row 1), mixed it well, and removed 100 μl of the 200 μl and placed that into the next well over to the right. After repeating this serial dilution 10 times, we produced 10 doses of each saliva sample (diluted every half concentration). Next, we removed three 25-μl aliquots from each of those wells and placed them in the three wells immediately below (rows 2, 3, and 4). We added 25 μl of anti-A serum, anti-B serum (Wako Chemical Co., Osaka, Japan) or anti-H serum (anti-H lecithin from Ulex europaeus; Biotest AG, Dreieich, Germany) into each of the 10 wells on rows 2, 3, and 4. We then mixed the plates for 1 h on a vibration table and stored them at 5°C overnight. The next day we removed 25 μl of each diluted saliva sample that had been mixed with one of the three anti-sera and dropped those aliquots into wells of another microtiter plate for agglutination tests. We produced three such plastic microtiter plates per volunteer. Next, we transferred 25 μl of A, B, or O blood cells (reagent red blood cells, 2–4% suspension; Immucor, Norcross, GA) into each well containing saliva/anti-serum, mixed the plates by gentle swirling with our hands, and let them set for 15 min. We judged the agglutination reactions and scored them in four steps: three steps of positive and one step of negative (Kishi et al. 1990). Based on the results of the agglutination test, we judged volunteers whose saliva had a strong agglutination inhibition ability as "secretors" and those that had weak inhibition as "nonsecretors." For secretors, we compared the answers of their ABO blood group in the questionnaire and confirmed each volunteer's ABO blood group.

ABH Antigen Treatment.
We washed both forearms and hands of volunteers with flowing water. We treated the washed skin with various concentrations (10-6, 10-5, 0.1, 1, and 10 ppm) of blood group H disaccharide (Fucα1–2Gal), blood group A trisaccharide (GalNAcα1–3[Fucα1–2]Gal), or blood group B trisaccharide (Galα1–3[Fucα1–2]Gal; all antigens were from Dextra Laboratories, Reading, United Kingdom) diluted in 1 ml of distilled water on all parts of one forearm. Blood group H disaccharide is blood group O antigen. One milliliter of distilled water was placed on the other forearm of each subject as a control (C). There were 14 volunteers, which was composed of 2 O secretors, 2 O nonsecretors, 4 A secretors, 3 B secretors, and 3 AB secretors. We compared percent landing of H versus C, A versus C, H versus A, H versus B, and A versus B by paired t-test. Each replicate test of 30-s counts for 10 min produced 20 observations.

Results
Landing Preference Among ABO Blood Groups.
Among 64 volunteers (type O: n = 19, type A: n = 21, type B: n = 17, and type AB: n = 7), the mean relative percentages (±SE) of landings were as follows: O, 78.5 ± 12.4% > B, 56.9 ± 10.0% > AB, 48.0 ± 12.6% > A, 45.3 ± 6.2%. The mean percent landing on blood group O was only significantly higher than that on A (P = 0.02, Fisher's PLSD, Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
Landing preference among ABO blood groups by Ae. albopictus. Percent landing on O subjects was significantly higher than on A subjects by Fisher's PLSD test (P < 0.05). Values represent mean ± SE.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Landing preference among ABO blood groups by Ae. albopictus. Percent landing on O subjects was significantly higher than on A subjects by Fisher's PLSD test (P < 0.05). Values represent mean ± SE.

Landing Preference Among Secretors or Nonsecretors.
As a result of the agglutination inhibition tests on 57 (89%) of 64 volunteers, the number of secretors or nonsecretors within blood groups was as follows: O secretors, n = 13; O nonsecretors, n = 4; A secretors, n = 17; A nonsecretors, n = 1; B secretors, n = 14; B nonsecretors, n = 2; AB secretors, n = 6; AB nonsecretors, n = 0. The mean relative percent landing on blood group O secretors (83.3%) was significantly higher than that on A secretors (46.5%; P = 0.03, Fisher's PLSD, Table 1). Although the percent landing on O secretors tended to be higher than on O nonsecretors and that on A nonsecretors tended to be higher than on A secretors, the differences were not statistically significant.

Table 1Number of landings of Ae. albopictus on ABO blood groups and secretors or nonsecretors
Number of landings of Ae. albopictus on ABO blood groups and secretors or nonsecretors
Open in new tab
Landing Preference Among ABH Antigens.
The H antigen was significantly repellent against the control at 10-5 and 1 ppm, but there was no significant difference against the control at 10-6 ppm. This result does not show the attractiveness of blood group O at all. The A antigen at 10-6 and 1 ppm significantly attracted fewer mosquitoes than the control (P < 0.0001 by paired t-test). This result is consistent with the lowest preference for blood group A. The H antigen was more attractive than the A antigen, and the A antigen was more attractive than the B antigen. Concerning H versus B, there was no significant difference (Table 2).

Table 2Number of landings by Ae. albopictus on forearms treated with some oligosaccharides or water by Ae. albopictus during 10 min
Number of landings by Ae. albopictus on forearms treated with some oligosaccharides or water by Ae. albopictus during 10 min
Open in new tab
Discussion
In our study, we used Ae. albopictus as test insects, and we counted the number of landings on the forearm skin of volunteers. Our results differ from a report (Wood et al. 1972) that found a preference for blood group O by checking the blood from mosquitoes (Anopheles gambiae) after feeding. However, despite differences in the methods used in these studies, the landing preferences are the same; that is, O > B > AB > A.

Blood group O disaccharide (H antigen) on human skin attracted Ae. albopictus more than blood group A trisaccharide in some concentrations, and blood group A trisaccharide repelled Ae. albopictus more than the control in some concentrations. However, even the landing tests on ABH antigens do not provide an explanation for the landing preference among ABO blood groups, and there may be other unknown influences underlying the differences of ABO landing preference. In fact, ABH antigens are thought to exist on human skin in low concentrations, and we suppose that mosquitoes cannot perceive them.

In earlier studies, Ae. aegypti (Wood 1976) and species A of An. gambiae (Wood et al. 1972) exhibited feeding preferences for humans of the O blood group. Ae. aegypti is thought to have evolved in Africa (Christophers 1960), and An. gambiae is a complex of sibling species that is restricted in geographic distribution to Africa (Coetzee et al. 2000). It is possible that the host preference of these mosquito species for humans of the O blood type evolved because this blood type is highly prevalent in Africa (Mourant and Kopec 1976). In contrast, the origin of Ae. albopictus is Asia (Hawley 1988). In Asia, blood type O is not as prevalent as in Africa. For example, in the Miyagi Prefecture of Japan, in a study of 240,204 people, the percentages of ABO blood groups were as follows: O, 32.3%; A, 36.4%; B, 22.8%; AB, 8.5% (Akaishi et al. 1959). Consequently, because of the high prevalence of other blood groups, Ae. albopictus did not evolve a preference for humans of type O blood. Certainly, the propensity of Ae. albopictus to selectively land on humans based on their blood type is not strongly supported by the results of this study. The effects of blood type on the reproductive capacity of Ae. albopictus is presently unknown but warrants future research.

Anopheles gambiae sensu strictu and Ae. aegypti are more host-specific for humans than is Ae. albopictus. However, the broader host feeding habits of Ae. albopictus is unlikely to be because of the lack of clear preference among human blood groups exhibited in our study.

Acknowledgements
We thank H. Nakajima and several students of Toyama Medical and Pharmaceutical University for help in our experiments.

References Cited
Akaishi S. Murakami S. Jin H. Nishizawa F. Fukushima S. Okazaki Y. Kudo T. Tsushida S. Sakai K. Hosoi T. Kanazawa G. Kamazawa M. Yoshida N. Oda K. Masuda H. Yanagiya F. Nishinari T. Sugawara T. . 1959. Studies on the distribution of the ABO blood groups in the population of northern Japan. Hirosaki Med. J.10: 146–147.
Google ScholarWorldCat
Christophers S. R. 1960. Aedes aegypti (L.). The yellow fever mosquito. Cambridge University Press, London, United Kingdom.
Google ScholarGoogle PreviewWorldCatCOPAC
Coetzee M. Craig M. le Sueur D. . 2000. Distribution of African malaria mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex. Parasit. Today.16: 74–77.
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
Gupta M. Rai Chowdhuri A. N. . 1980. Relation between ABO blood groups and malaria. Bull. WHO.58: 913–915.
Google ScholarWorldCat
Hawley W. A. 1988. The biology of Aedes albopictus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.4(Suppl): 1–40.
Google ScholarPubMedWorldCat
Kishi K. Takizawa H. Yamamoto S. . 1990. Forensic serology: illustrated technical manual. Kanehara Co., Tokyo, Japan.
Google ScholarGoogle PreviewWorldCatCOPAC
Mourant A. E. Kopec A. C. . 1976. The distribution of the human blood groups and other polymorphisms, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, London, United Kingdom.
Google Scholar
Shirai Y. Kamimura K. Seki T. Morohashi M. . 2000a. Proboscis amputation facilitates the study of mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) attractants, repellents and host preference. J. Med. Entomol.37: 637–639.
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
StatView. 1998. StatView user’s manual. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Google ScholarGoogle PreviewWorldCatCOPAC
Thornton C. Dore C. J. Willson J.O.C. . 1976. Effects of human blood group, sweating and other factors on individual host selection by species A of the Anopheles gambiae complex (Diptera, Culicidae). Bull. Entomol. Res.66: 651–663.
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
Wood C. S. 1976. ABO blood groups related to selection of human hosts by yellow fever vector. Human Biol.48: 337–341.
Google ScholarWorldCat
Wood C. S. Harrison G. A. Dore C. Weiner J. S. . 1972. Selective feeding of Anopheles gambiae according toABO blood group status. Nature (Lond.).239: 165.
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
© 2004 Entomological Society of America
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported — CC BY-NC 3.0), which permits non-commercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
© 2004 Entomological Society of America
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom