Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T11:42:10.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PHENETIC SIMILARITY AND MÜLLERIAN MIMICRY AMONG DARKLING GROUND BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

John T. Doyen  and
R. E. Somerby
John T. Doyen
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology and Parisitology, University of California, Berkeley
R. E. Somerby
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology and Parisitology, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Species of tenebrionid beetles in the genera Coelocnemis and Eleodes share high similarity in dorsal features. Similar species are largely sympatric in occurrence, and the distributions of some species pairs are almost identical. These congruences in appearance and geographic distribution are interpreted as evidence of Müllerian mimicry. All these beetles produce quinonoid secretions, presumably used in defense against vertebrate predators. The widespread occurrence of defensive secretions, and the similarities in dorsal silhouette and cuticular sculpturing, suggest that Müllerian mimicry is of general importance among tenebrionid beetles. The common black coloration of tenebrionids probably has an aposematic function, since black contrasts sharply with most substrates under the crepuscular lighting conditions in which tenebrionid activity typically occurs. The suitability of numerical phenetic methods for the description and analysis of convergence and mimicry phenomena is discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 106 , Issue 7 , July 1974 , pp. 759 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blaisdell, F. E. 1909. A monographic revision of the Coleoptera belonging to the tene-brionid tribe Eleodini inhabiting the United States, Lower California, and adjacent islands. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., No. 63. 524 pp.Google Scholar
Brower, J. V. Z. 1958. Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. II. Battus philenor and Papilio troilus, P. polyxenes and P. glaucus. Evolution 12: 123–136.Google Scholar
Brower, J. V. Z. and Brower, L. P.. 1961. Palatability of North American model and mimic butterflies to caged mice. J. Lepidopt. Soc. 15: 23–24.Google Scholar
Brown, W. L. 1965. Numerical taxonomy, convergence and evolutionary reduction. Syst. Zool. 14: 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. 1964. On the function of the subelytral cavity in desert Tene-brionidae (Col.). Entomologist's mon. Mag. 100: 148–157.Google Scholar
Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. 1965. Desert life. Pergamon Press, Oxford. ix + 86 pp.Google Scholar
Doyen, J. T. 1972. Familial and subfamilial classification of the Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) and a revised generic classification of the Coniontini (Tentryiidae). Quaest. ent. 8: 357–376.Google Scholar
Doyen, J. T. 1973. Systematics of the genus Coelocnemis (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): a quantitative study of variation. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent., Vol. 73, pp. 1–110.Google Scholar
Doyen, J. T. 1974. Differential predation of darkling ground beetles by the Channel Islands fox (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Pan-Pacif. Ent. 50 (in press).Google Scholar
Doyen, J. T. and Tschinkel, W.. Population size, microgeographic distribution and habitat separation in some tenebrionid beetles (Coleoptera). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. (in press).Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A. H.. 1967. The phenetic relationships of butterflies. I. Adult taxonomy and the non-specificity hypothesis. Syst. Zool. 16: 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisner, T. and Meinwald, J.. 1966. Defensive secretions of arthropods. Science 153: 1341–1350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emsley, M. G. 1964. The geographical distribution of the color-pattern components of Heliconius erato and Heliconius melpomene with genetical evidence for the systematic relationships between the two species. Zoologica 49: 245–286.Google Scholar
Evans, H. E. 1973. A study in orange. Insect Wld Digest 1: 8–13.Google Scholar
Gissler, C. F. 1879. On the repugnatorial glands in Eleodes. Psyche, Camb. 2: 209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, E. W. and McMullen, L. H.. 1953. Diaperis maculata: adult longevity. Coleopts Bull. 7: 8.Google Scholar
Kramm, R. A. and Kramm, K. R.. 1972. Activities of certain species of Eleodes in relation to season, temperature, and time of day at Joshua Tree National Monument (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). SWest. Nat. 16: 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, C. and Rothschild, M.. 1965. A case of Müllerian mimicry of sound. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 40: 156–158.Google Scholar
Linsley, E. G. 1959. Mimetic form and coloration in the Cerambycidae. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 52: 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsley, E. G., Eisner, T., and Klots, A. B.. 1961. Mimetic assemblages of sibling species of lycid beetles. Evolution 15: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1965. Numerical phenetics and taxonomic theory. Syst. Zool. 14: 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McColloch, J. W. 1918. Notes on false wireworms with especial reference to Eleodes tricostata Say. J. econ. Ent. 11: 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, C. D. and Sokal, R. R.. 1966. Two tests of the hypothesis of nonspecificity in the Hoplitis complex (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 1211–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, W. W. 1968. Experiments with various techniques of numerical taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 17: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prim, R. C. 1957. Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Tech. J. Bell Systm. 36: 1389–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raske, A. G. 1967. Morphological and behavioral mimicry among beetles of the genus Moneilema. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 43: 239–244.Google Scholar
Rettenmeyer, C. S. 1970. Insect mimicry. A. Rev. Ent. 15: 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schildknecht, H., Holoubek, K., and Kramer, H.. 1964. Defensive substances of arthropods, their isolation and identification. Angew. Chem. 3: 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sexton, O. J. 1960. Experimental studies of artificial Batesian mimics. Behavior 15: 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sexton, O. J. 1964. Differential predation by the lizard, Anolis carolinensis, upon unicoloured and polycoloured insects after an interval of no contact. Animal Behavior 12: 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silberglied, R. E. and Eisner, T.. 1969. Mimicry of Hymenoptera by beetles with unconventional flight. Science 163: 486–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, R. R. and Sneath, P. H. A.. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco. xvi + 359 pp.Google Scholar
Somerby, R. 1972. Systematics of Eleodes (Blapylis) with a revision of the Caseyi group using taximetric methods (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Doctoral Thesis, Univ of California, Riverside. 441 pp.Google Scholar
Wade, J. S. 1921. Notes on defensive scent glands of certain Coleoptera. Psyche, Camb. 28: 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickler, W. 1968. Mimicry in plants and animals. McGraw Hill, New York. 255 pp.Google Scholar