Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T06:10:57.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN THE SWEET POTATO WEEVIL, CYLAS FORMICARIUS (F.) (COLEOPTERA: BRENTIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Christopher K. Starr ,
David D. Wilson ,
Ray F. Severson  and
Stanley J. Kays
Christopher K. Starr
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA 30602
David D. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA 30602
Ray F. Severson
Affiliation:
Tobacco Quality and Safety Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Athens, Georgia, USA 30613
Stanley J. Kays
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA 30602
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cylas formicarius (F.) shows a strong overall sexual monomorophism, with external differences noted in only three organs: (a) relative size of the hind wings; (b) form of the antennal club and numbers of its different types of sensillum; and (c) size of the compound eyes and their individual facets. We relate these to known or predicted behavioural differences. Eye dimorphism is used to test a theoretical rule on the relationship between differences in overall eye size and in the size of individual ommatidia. Some sexually monomorphic features are briefly discussed, including two types of putatively sensory hairs not found on the antennae.

Résumé

Dans l’ensemble, un monomorphisme sexuel bien évident prévaut chez Cylas formicarius (F.) et seulement trois organes externes diffèrent chez les mâles et les femelles, (a) la taille relative des ailes postérieures, (b) la forme de la massue antennaire et le nombre des différents types de sensilles qui s’y trouvent, (c) la taille des yeux composés et de leurs facettes. Nous avons pu établir la relation entre ces caractéristiques et les différences de comportement que l’on suppose en découler. Le dimorphisme des yeux a servi à éprouver un concept théorique sur la relation entre les différences dans la taille des yeux et dans la taille des ommatidies qui les composent. Certaines caractéristiques monomorphes sont examinées brièvement, notammment deux types de poils probablement sensoriels qui ne se trouvent pas sur les antennes.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 129 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 61 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1997

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

Ahmad, M. 1964. The external morphology of the sweetpotato weevil Cylas formicarius elegantulus (Summers). Pakistan Journal of Science 16: 203–223.Google Scholar
Austin, D.F. 1991. Associations between the plant family Convolvulaceae and Cylas weevils. pp. 45–57 in Jansson, R.K., and Raman, K.V. (Eds.), Sweet Potato Pest Management: A Global Perspective. Westview, Boulder, CO. 458 pp.Google Scholar
Bland, R.G. 1981. Antennal sensilla of the adult alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica (Gyllenhal) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology 10: 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H. 1968. Antennal morphology of Ips confusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 61: 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, J.H., and Wood, D.L.. 1966. The antennal receptors and olfactoly response of Ips confusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to male sex attractant in the lab. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 59: 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, T.K., and Norris, D.M.. 1971. Ultrastructure of sensory receptors on the antennae of Scolytus multistriatus (Marsh.). Zeitschrzji für Zellforschung 113: 13–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, R.F. 1982. Chemoreception: The significance of receptor numbers. pp. 247–356 in Bemidge, M.J., Treherne, J.E., and Wigglesworth, V.B. (Eds.), Advances in Insect Physiology. Vol. 16. Academic, London. 368 pp.Google Scholar
Coffelt, J.A., Vick, K.W., Sower, L.L., and McClellan, W.T.. 1978. Sex pheromone of the sweetpotato weevil, Cylas formicarius elegantulus: Laboratory bioassay and evidence for a multiple component system. Environmental Entomology 7: 756–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, O.T. 1940. Observations on flight of the sweetpotato weevil. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 323: 40–41.Google Scholar
Dickens, J.C., and Payne, T.L.. 1978. Structure and function of the sensilla on the antennal club of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis (Zimmennan) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology 7: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, S.S. 1925. The sweet potato weevil (Cylas formicarius, Fabr.). Philippine Agriculturist 14: 257–281.Google Scholar
Hatfield, L.D., Frazier, J.L., and Coons, L.B.. 1976. Antennal sensilla of the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Horn) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology 5: 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, R.R., Coffelt, J.A., Sonnet, P.E., Proshold, F.I., Dueben, B., and Tudinson, J.H.. 1986. Identification of sex pheromone produced by female sweetpotato weevil, Cylas formicarius elegantulus (Summers). Journal of Chemical Ecology 12: 1489–1503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, F.W. 1982. Diurnal rhythm in Cylas formicarius elegantulus and some other arthropods in a sweet potato field. Florida Entomologist 65: 194–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, M.F. 1981. Optics and vision in invertebrates. pp. 471–592 in Autrum, H. (Ed.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Vol. VII/6B. Springer, Berlin. 635 pp.Google Scholar
Land, M.F. 1985. The eye: Optics. pp. 225–275 in Kerkut, G.A., and Gilbert, L.I. (Eds.), Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology. Vol. 6. Nervous System: Sensory. Pergamon, Oxford. 710 pp.Google Scholar
Louton, P.A. 1975. Localization of sex pheromone production in female Cylas formicarius elegantulus (Summers). M.Sc. thesis, Lousiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 55 pp.Google Scholar
Moeck, H.A. 1968. Electron microscope studies of antennal sensilla in the ambrosia beetle Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier) (Scolytidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 46: 521–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustaparta, H. 1973. Olfactory sensilla on the antennae of the pine weevil, Hylobius abietis. Zeitschrift für Zellforschung 144: 559–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, T.L., Moeck, H.A., Willson, C.D., Coulson, R.N., and Humphreys, W.J.. 1973. Bark beetle olfaction—II. Antennal morphology of sixteen species of Scolytidae (Coleoptera). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology 2: 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proshold, F.I. 1983. Mating activity and movement of Cylas formicarius elegantulus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on sweet potato. Proceedings of the American Society of Horticultural Science, Tropical Section 27(B): 81–92.Google Scholar
Rees, C.J.C. 1969. Chemoreceptor receptivity associated with choice of feeding site by the beetle Chrysolina brunsvicensis on its hostplant, Hypericum hirsutum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 12: 565–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C.M., Frazier, J.L., Coons, L.B., and Knight, W.E.. 1976. Antennal sensilla of the clover head weevil Hypera meles (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology 5: 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stürkow, B. 1959. Über den Geschmacksinn und den Tastsinn von Leptinotarsa decimlineata Say. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie 42: 255–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stürkow, B., and Quadbeck, G.. 1958. Electrophysiologische Untersuchungen über den Geschmacksinn des Kartoffelkäfers Leptinotarsa decimlineata Say. Zeitschrift für Zellforschung 13b: 93–95.Google Scholar
Sutherland, J.A. 1986. A review of the biology and control of the sweetpotato weevil Cylas formicarius (Fabr.). Tropical Pest Management 32: 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R.T. 1992. Observations on the morphology and classification of weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionoidea) with a key to major groups. Journal of Natural History 26: 835–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehner, R. 1981. Spatial vision in arthropods. pp. 287–616 in Auturm, H. (Ed.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Vol. VII/6C. Springer, Berlin. 660 pp.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A.T. 1981. Ultrastructure of sensilla of the female mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology 10: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, G.W. 1991. The origin and dispersal of the pest species of Cylas, with a key to the pest species of the world. pp. 13–43 in Jansson, R.K., and Raman, K.V. (Eds.), Sweet Potato Pest Management: A Global Perspective. Westview, Boulder, CO. 458 pp.Google Scholar
Zacharuk, R.Y. 1985. Antennae and sensilla. pp. 1–69 in Kerkut, G.A., and Gilbert, L.I. (Eds.), Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology. Vol. 6. Nervous System: Sensory. Pergamon, Oxford. 710 pp.Google Scholar