Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T04:03:13.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY OF THE OVIPOSITOR OF SOME PARASITIC HYMENOPTERA IN RELATION TO CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR HOSTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

A. Le Ralec ,
J.M. Rabasse  and
E. Wajnberg
A. Le Ralec*
Affiliation:
Université de Rennes I, Laboratoire d'Entomologie fondamentale et appliquée, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes cedex, France
J.M. Rabasse
Affiliation:
INRA, Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés, Unité de Biologie des Populations, 37 Bd du Cap, 06606 Antibes cedex, France
E. Wajnberg
Affiliation:
INRA, Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés, Unité de Biologie des Populations, 37 Bd du Cap, 06606 Antibes cedex, France
*
1Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Current address: ENSA.R, Laboratoire d'Ecologie et Sciences Phytosanitaires, 65 rue de Saint Brieuc, 35042 Rennes cedex, France.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the structure of the ovipositor of parasitic Hymenoptera is largely uniform, interspecific variation in its morphology can be observed. Such variability may be related to the diversity of hosts attacked. To verify such an hypothesis, we compared, using correspondence analysis, the morphological characteristics of the ovipositors of 20 species in three categories: (i) species belonging to the same taxonomic unit and attacking the same type of host, (ii) species belonging to the same taxonomic unit but attacking different types of host, and (iii) species belonging to different taxonomic units but attacking the same type of host. Results show that variability in some morphological traits of the ovipositor can be related to host characteristics. Adaptive convergence in morphological variations observed between species is discussed.

Résumé

L’ovipositeur des Hyménoptères parasites présente une structure très constante mais il existe de grandes variations morphologiques entre les espèces. Ces variations pourraient être reliées à la diversité des hôtes attaqués. Pour vérifier cette hypothèse, nous avons comparé, en utilisant une analyse des correspondances, les caractères morphologiques de l’ovipositeur de 20 espèces dans les trois cas suivants : (i) des espèces appartenant à la même unité taxonomique et attaquant le même type d’hôtes, (ii) des espèces appartenant à la même unité taxonomique mais attaquant des hôtes de types différents et (iii) des espèces appartenant à des unités taxonomiques différentes mais attaquant le même type d’hôtes. Les résultats montrent que les variations morphologiques de certains caractères de l’ovipositeur peuvent être mises en relation avec des caractéristiques de l’hôte importantes pour la réussite du processus d’infestation. L’éventuelle signification adaptative de la diversité morphologique observée entre les espèces est discutée.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 128 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 413 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altner, H. 1977. Insect sensillum specificity and structure: An approach to a new typology. Vol. VI, pp. 295–303in Le Magnen, J., and MacLeods, P. (Eds.), Olfaction and Taste. Information Retrieval, London.Google Scholar
Altner, H., and Prillinger, L.. 1980. Ultrastucture of invertebrate chemo-thermo and hygroreceptors and its functional significance. International Review of Cytology 67: 69–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, A.D. 1990. Revision of the enigmatic Australasian genus Miropotes Nixon (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae), with comments on the phylogenetic importance of the female ovipositor system. Systematic Entomology 15: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, A.D., and Browning, T.O.. 1981. A mechanism for movement of eggs along insect ovipositors. International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology 10: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronner, R. 1985. Anatomy of the ovipositor and oviposition behavior of the gall wasp Diplolepis rosae (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). The Canadian Entomologist 117: 849–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copland, M.J.W. 1976. Female reproductive system of the Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology 5: 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copland, M.J.W., and King, P.E.. 1971. The structure and possible function of the reproductive system in some Eulophidae and Tetracampidae. The Entomologist 104: 4–28.Google Scholar
Copland, M.J.W., and King, P.E.. 1972 a. The structure of the female reproductive system in the Pteromalidae (Chalcidoidea: Hymenoptera). The Entomologist 105: 77–96.Google Scholar
Copland, M.J.W., and King, P.E.. 1972 b. The structure of the female reproductive system in the Eurytomidae (Chalcidoidea: Hymenoptera). Journal of Zoology 166: 185–212.Google Scholar
Copland, M.J.W., and King, P.E.. 1972 c. The structure of the female reproductive system in the Torymidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 124: 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copland, M.J.W., King, P.E., and Hill, D.S.. 1973. The structure of the female reproductive system in the Agaonidae (Chalcidoidea: Hymenoptera). Journal of Entomology (A) 48: 25–35.Google Scholar
Fergusson, N.D.M. 1988. A comparative study of the structures of phylogenetic importance of female genitalia of the Cynipoidea (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology 13: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J.R.H. 1979. A model for sympatric speciation in Megarhyssa (Hymenoptera: Ichneumoidae): Competitive speciation. American Naturalist 114: 719–741.Google Scholar
Heatwole, H., and Davis, D.M.. 1965. Ecology of three sympatric species of parasitic insects of the genus Megarhyssa (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Ecology 46: 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, T.A., and Steinbrecht, R.A.. 1984. Mechanosensitive and olfactory sensilla of insects. Vol. 2, pp. 477–516 in King, R.C., and Akai, H. (Eds.), Insect Ultrastructure. Plenum, New York, NY. 624 pp.Google Scholar
Lebart, L., Morineau, A., and Tabard, N.. 1977. Techniques de la description statistique. Dunod, Paris. 351 pp.Google Scholar
Le Ralec, A. 1991. Les Hyménoptères parasitoïdes: Adaptations de l'appareil reproducteur femelle. Morphologie et ultrastructure de l'ovaire, de l'oeuf et de l'ovipositeur. Thèse de Doctorat de l'Université de Rennes I, France. 117 pp.Google Scholar
Livingstone, D., and Yacoob, M.H.S.. 1986. Natural enemies and biologies of the egg parasitoids of Tingidae of southern India. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology 6: 1–21.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1961. Die Gattungen der Familie Aphidiidae und ihre Verwandtschaftliche Zuornung. Beitraege zur Entomologie 11: 792–803.Google Scholar
Matsuda, R. 1976. The Hymenoptera. pp. 373–396 in Matsuda, R. (Ed.), Morphology and Evolution of the Insect Abdomen. Pergamon Press, New York, NY. 534 pp.Google Scholar
McIver, S.B. 1975. Structure of cuticular mechanoreceptors of arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology 20: 381–397.Google Scholar
McIver, S.B. 1985. Mechanoreception. pp. 71–132 in Kerkut, G.A., and Gilbert, L.J. (Eds.), Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology. Vol. VI. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 673 pp.Google Scholar
Quicke, D.L.J., Ficken, L.C., and Fitton, M.G.. 1992. New diagnostic ovipositor characters for Doryctine wasps (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Journal of Natural History 26: 1035–1046.Google Scholar
Quicke, D.L.J., Fitton, M.G., and Ingram, S.. 1992. Phylogenetic implications of the structure and distribution of ovipositor valvilli in the Hymenoptera (Insecta). Journal of Natural History 26: 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quicke, D.L.J., Fitton, M.G., Tunstead, J.R., Ingram, S., and Gaitens, P.V.. 1994. Ovipositor structure and relationships within the Hymenoptera, with special reference to the Ichneumonoidea. Journal of Natural History 28: 635–682.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.07 Edition, Vol. 1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 890 pp.Google Scholar
Scudder, G.G.E. 1971. Comparative morphology in insect genitalia. Annual Review of Entomology 16: 379–406.Google Scholar
Smith, E.L. 1968. Biosystematics and morphology of Symphyta. I. Stemgalling Euura of the California region and a new female genitalic nomenclature. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 61: 1389–1407.Google Scholar
Smith, E.L. 1969. Evolutionary morphology of external insect genitalia. I. Origins and relationships to other appendages. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 62: 1051–1079.Google Scholar
Smith, E.L. 1970 a. Hymenoptera. pp. 156–170 in Tuxen, S.L. (Ed.), Taxonomist's Glossary of Genitalia in Insects. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 284 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, E.L. 1970 b. Evolutionary morphology of the external insect genitalia. 2. Hymenoptera. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 63: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1933. Morphology of the insect abdomen. II. The genitalia ducts and the ovipositor. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 89: 1–148.Google Scholar
Städler, E. 1984. Contact chemoreception. pp. 3–35 in Bell, W. J., and Cardé, R.T. (Eds.), Chemical Ecology of Insects. Chapman &Hall Ltd., London. 524 pp.Google Scholar
Vet, L.E.M., and Van Alphen, J.J.M.. 1985. A comparative functional approach to the host detection behaviour of parasitic wasps. 1. A qualitative study on Eucoilidae and Alysiinae. Oikos 44: 478–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quang Con, Vu, and Van San, Nguyen. 1987. Effectiveness of egg parasites (Hymenoptera) depending of the parasites abdomen structure and on the type of egg-batches in lepidopteran rice pests. Zoologicheokij Zhurnal 66: 60–65.Google Scholar
Zacharuk, R.Y. 1980. Ultrastructure and function of insect chemosensilla. Annual Review of Entomology 25: 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacharuk, R.Y. 1985. Antennae and sensilla. Vol. 6, pp. 1–69 in Kerkut, G.A., and Gilbert, L.I. (Eds.), Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 673 pp.Google Scholar