DOCSLIB.ORG

Feeding II: Physiological Adaptations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feeding II: Physiological Adaptations Feeding II: Physiological Adaptations Physiological aspects of feeding in insects can be divided into two main processes. • Food selection. An insect is surrounded by a confusing variety of potential food items. The process of food selection allows the insect to chose among suitable and unsuitable food items and restrict its diet to the most suitable items for its present circumstances. • Food processing. Once food items are selected, they must be processed in ways that enhance their nutrient quality and reduce the negative effects of toxins or other compounds that make food items less suitable for insect growth and reproduction. General classification of feeding habits • Herbivores. Food of herbivores is highly variable in quality. Feeding problems faced by herbivores are locating food, extracting nutrients and disposing of toxins. • Predators. Food of predators is usually of uniformly high quality. Feeding problems faced by predators are detecting, capturing and subduing prey. • Scavengers. Food of scavengers is rapidly changing in quality. Feeding problems faced by scavengers are the rapid temporal change in food quality and its rapid consumption by microorganisms or large vertebrates. • Ectoparasites (live outside the body of their host). Food is uniformly high in quality. Feeding problems of ectoparasites are locating a suitable host and avoiding behavioral defenses of the host. • Endoparasites (live inside the body of their host). Food is uniformly high in quality. Feeding problems faced by endoparasites are locating a suitable host, avoiding the physiological and immunological defenses of the host, and avoiding competition from other endoparasites (superparasitism and multiparasitism). Food selection • Monophagy. Diet restricted to a single species. Many scale insects and sawflies feed on a single species of host plant. Some of these insects are so host-specific that they are specialized on local populations of host plants. Some parasitoids are also extremely host specific. Most of the phorid parasitoids in the genus Apocephalus are restricted to one species of ant host. • Oligophagy. Diet restricted to a few species. The sulfur butterfly Pieris rapae feeds on plants in the family Brassicaceae and other species that contain mustard oil glycosides. • Polyphagy. Diet includes many species of plants or animals. Most predators are polyphagous. Grass-feeding orthopterans such as the locust Schistocerca are also polyphagous. The painted lady butterfly Vanessa is also polyphagous but prefers a restricted set of plants in several families. Monophagy in Lycaenidae Great Purple Hairstreak (Atlides halesus). Mistletoe (Phoradendron tomentosum). Soapberry Hairstreak (Phaeostrymon alcestis). Western Soapberry (Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii). Oligophagy in Lycaenidae & Pieridae Banded Hairstreak (Satyrium calanus). 4 species of oaks (Fagaceae), 1 species of hickory (Julgandaceae), and 2 species of walnut (Julgandaceae). Cabbage White (Pieris rapae). 4 species in Brassica, 1 species in Descurainia, several species in Erysimum, 1 species in Lepidium, several species in Nasturtium, 1 species in Raphanus, several species in Rorippa, 1 species in Sinapis, 3 species in Sisymbrium, and several species in Cleome (all in the Brassicaceae with mustard oil glycosides). Polyphagy in Lycaenidae Gray Hairstreak (Strymon melinus). Euphorbiaceae (2 species), Fabaceae (19 species), Malvaceae (9 species), Polygonaceae (3 species), Rosaceae (1 species), Poaceae (1 species), Verbenaceae (1 species), Zygophyllaceae (1 species). Red-Banded Hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops). Leaf detritus of many different species of plants. Factors restricting food selection The range of food items taken by an insect is first restricted by evolved limitations of its structural and physiological features. Phytophagous insects that require the detection of mustard oil glycosides to identify a host plant will not feed on a plant without these compounds, regardless of its nutritional quality. Example: the cabbage white butterfly. Phytophagous insects that do not have the physiological machinery to neutralize secondary plant compounds such as mustard oil glycosides cannot consume a plant that contains them, regardless of its nutritionally quality. Example: the banded hairstreak butterfly. Food selection by predaceous insects restricted more by size and structure Predators obviously cannot consume prey items that are too large to subdue. In general larger predators can consume a wider range of prey items than smaller predators. Small prey is more abundant than large prey, but large prey is more nutritious than small prey. BodysizePrey of Diet may be restricted further by other more ecological considerations including the relative abundance and Body size of Predator spatial distribution of food items. Stimuli used in food selection Phagostimulants are nutritionally important substances that promote feeding activity. Sugars are important phagostimulants for many scavengers and herbivores. Detection of sugars by tarsal chemo-receptors is sufficient to cause proboscis extension in butterflies, houseflies and blowflies. Curiously, nutritionally important amino acids by themselves do not stimulate or only weakly stimulate feeding in insects. Stimuli used in food selection Token stimuli are nutritionally unimportant substances that promote feed activity. Mustard oil glycosides are not nutritionally important to sulfur butterflies in the genus Pieris, but the presence of these compounds nonetheless is required to elicit feeding behavior. These butterflies feed on plants in the family Cruciferae (mustard family) that contain mustard oil gylcosides. Stimuli used in food selection Feeding deterrents are nutritionally unimportant substances that deter feeding activity. Many secondary plant compounds are feeding deterrents for insect herbivores. Feeding behavior of the polyphagous aphid Myzus persicase is deterred by the presence of mustard oils. The presence of spines or sequestered toxins in potential prey items deter feeding behavior in predators. Interaction among feeding stimuli Synergistic effects. Various kinds of feeding stimuli may interact synergistically to promote or deter feeding behavior in insects. For example, weak concentrations of sugar and the amino acid L-proline individually only weakly stimulate feeding behavior in the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) but together they are highly stimulating. L- Proline Interaction among feeding stimuli Hierarchy of Cues. Most insects use a hierarchy of cues to increasingly narrow the selection of appropriate food items. The beewolf wasp, Philanthus, is a specialized predator of bees. When hunting, a female orients to a variety of insects of the appropriate size. On approach, the wasp will attempt to capture an insect only if it smells like a bee. Wasps will capture insects that have been given the odor of bees experimentally. After capture the wasp uses tactile cues to determine if the insect actually is a bee. If so, the wasp stings the bee and carries it to the nest; if not, the wasp releases it and continues hunting. Interaction among feeding stimuli Motivation. The sensitivity of an insect to various stimuli that promote or deter feeding behavior depends of its physiological state. For example, the phagostimulant sugar will not elicit proboscis extension in a fruit fly with a full gut because this reflex action is inhibited by excitation of stretch receptors in the gut. Likewise, feeding deterrents are less effective against a hungry insect than they are against a satiated one. Within limits the diet range of an insect varies depending on its motivational state. Feeding behavior in Chargas bugs Food processing Herbivores, predators, scavengers and parasites all face unique challenges in processing food items. 1. Herbivores must contend with low quality food that may also contain toxins. 2. Predators have access to high quality food, but it is usually heavily defended structurally or behaviorally (and sometimes chemically). 3. Parasites also have access to high quality food, but must also contend with various host defense mechanisms, including behavioral, physiological and immunological. 4. Scavengers must deal with food of highly variable quality and competition from microbes and vertebrates. Problem food substances Secondary plant compounds (xenobiotics). Plants have evolved an astonishing variety of chemical compounds to deter feeding by herbivores. These compounds are divided into three broad categories. Toxins are low molecular weight compounds that act as metabolic or neurological poisons. Examples include alkaloids (cocaine, codeine, caffeine, quinine, novocain, nicotine), cyanogenic compounds (in clover, flax, apples), peptides (α-amanitin in mushrooms), glycosides (mustard oil glycosides in mustard plants, and Tannin phototoxins (furanocoumarins in parsnips). Digestibility reducers are compounds of high molecular weight that bind with plant or animal tissue to reduce its digestibility to insects. Tannins in oaks, tea and other plants are an example. Insect hormone analogues are mimics of ecdysone (the molting hormone) and juvenile hormone (the maturation hormone) which interfere with normal insect development. Hormone analogues are Ecdysone common in ferns. Insect solutions to xenobiotics Insects have four main strategies for dealing with xenobiotics • Excretion. Many insects adapted to feed on plants with specific xenobiotics do not metabolize these compounds, but instead excrete them directly. The tabacco
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Papilio (New Series) # 25 2016 Issn 2372-9449
    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) # 25 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 ERNEST J. OSLAR, 1858-1944: HIS TRAVEL AND COLLECTION ITINERARY, AND HIS BUTTERFLIES by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract. Ernest John Oslar collected more than 50,000 butterflies and moths and other insects and sold them to many taxonomists and museums throughout the world. This paper attempts to determine his travels in America to collect those specimens, by using data from labeled specimens (most in his remaining collection but some from published papers) plus information from correspondence etc. and a few small field diaries preserved by his descendants. The butterfly specimens and their localities/dates in his collection in the C. P. Gillette Museum (Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado) are detailed. This information will help determine the possible collection locations of Oslar specimens that lack accurate collection data. Many more biographical details of Oslar are revealed, and the 26 insects named for Oslar are detailed. Introduction The last collection of Ernest J. Oslar, ~2159 papered butterfly specimens and several moths, was found in the C. P. Gillette Museum, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado by Paul A. Opler, providing the opportunity to study his travels and collections. Scott & Fisher (2014) documented specimens sent by Ernest J. Oslar of about 100 Argynnis (Speyeria) nokomis nokomis Edwards labeled from the San Juan Mts. and Hall Valley of Colorado, which were collected by Wilmatte Cockerell at Beulah New Mexico, and documented Oslar’s specimens of Oeneis alberta oslari Skinner labeled from Deer Creek Canyon, [Jefferson County] Colorado, September 25, 1909, which were collected in South Park, Park Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Onetouch 4.0 Scanned Documents
    INTR0DUCrION ATLAS OF NEOTROPICAL LEPIDOPTERA INTRODUCTION TO THE CHECKLIST OF EUMAEINI LYCAENLDAE Robert K. Robbins The purpose of this preface is to give the rationale for the taxonomic arrangement of the checklist of Eumaeini, followed by discussions of how the checklist was organized, how decisions were made, and what was learned. I address the discussions successively at the specific, generic, and tribal levels. A concluding author's note explains why some previous taxonomic results were not used. The Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera ANL Checklist classification of 1,058 Neotropical eumaeine species partitioned into 83 genera and 15 sections' following the scheme in Eliot, 1973 is the first comprehensive taxonomic arrangement of these butterflies since Draudt 1919-20. A primary reason for this long interval is that most eumaeines are extraordinarily rare in collections. For example, about 20% of the species recognized in this checklist were not represented in major museum collections 25 years ago, and many eumaeine species, including some described two centuries ago, are still known from less than five individuals. A second reason for the long interval has been the lack of a higher classification discussed briefly below. For example, Janthecla Robbins & Yenables was distinguished from the entire Eumaeini because the genera that are closely related to Janthecla were unknown Robbins and Venables, 1991. Although it may be somewhat unorthodox to introduce a new taxonomic arrangement in a checklist, there is no comprehensive alternative classification, and it is my hope that this arrangement will provide the framework necessary to stimulate further research. The checklist includes 1,871 specific names attributable to the Neotropical Eumaeini cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustration Sources
    APPENDIX ONE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES REF. CODE ABR Abrams, L. 1923–1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. ADD Addisonia. 1916–1964. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Reprinted with permission from Addisonia, vol. 18, plate 579, Copyright © 1933, The New York Botanical Garden. ANDAnderson, E. and Woodson, R.E. 1935. The species of Tradescantia indigenous to the United States. Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted with permission of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. ANN Hollingworth A. 2005. Original illustrations. Published herein by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. Artist: Anne Hollingworth. ANO Anonymous. 1821. Medical botany. E. Cox and Sons, London. ARM Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1889–1912. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. BA1 Bailey, L.H. 1914–1917. The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York. BA2 Bailey, L.H. and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus third: A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Revised and expanded by the staff of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Reprinted with permission from William Crepet and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. BA3 Bailey, L.H. 1900–1902. Cyclopedia of American horticulture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. BB2 Britton, N.L. and Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British posses- sions. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. BEA Beal, E.O. and Thieret, J.W. 1986. Aquatic and wetland plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. Reprinted with permission of Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review, of Systematics of Western North American Butterflies
    (NEW Dec. 3, PAPILIO SERIES) ~19 2008 CORRECTIONS/REVIEWS OF 58 NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY BOOKS Dr. James A. Scott, 60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254 Abstract. Corrections are given for 58 North American butterfly books. Most of these books are recent. Misidentified figures mostly of adults, erroneous hostplants, and other mistakes are corrected in each book. Suggestions are made to improve future butterfly books. Identifications of figured specimens in Holland's 1931 & 1898 Butterfly Book & 1915 Butterfly Guide are corrected, and their type status clarified, and corrections are made to F. M. Brown's series of papers on Edwards; types (many figured by Holland), because some of Holland's 75 lectotype designations override lectotype specimens that were designated later, and several dozen Holland lectotype designations are added to the J. Pelham Catalogue. Type locality designations are corrected/defined here (some made by Brown, most by others), for numerous names: aenus, artonis, balder, bremnerii, brettoides, brucei (Oeneis), caespitatis, cahmus, callina, carus, colon, colorado, coolinensis, comus, conquista, dacotah, damei, dumeti, edwardsii (Oarisma), elada, epixanthe, eunus, fulvia, furcae, garita, hermodur, kootenai, lagus, mejicanus, mormo, mormonia, nilus, nympha, oreas, oslari, philetas, phylace, pratincola, rhena, saga, scudderi, simius, taxiles, uhleri. Five first reviser actions are made (albihalos=austinorum, davenporti=pratti, latalinea=subaridum, maritima=texana [Cercyonis], ricei=calneva). The name c-argenteum is designated nomen oblitum, faunus a nomen protectum. Three taxa are demonstrated to be invalid nomina nuda (blackmorei, sulfuris, svilhae), and another nomen nudum ( damei) is added to catalogues as a "schizophrenic taxon" in order to preserve stability. Problems caused by old scientific names and the time wasted on them are discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Soapberry Borer, Agrilus Prionurus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): an Exotic Pest Threatens Western Soapberry in Texas
    Proceedings of the 5th Big Thicket Science Conference: Changing Landscapes and Changing Climate 2014 Southeastern Naturalist 13(Special Issue 5):105–116 Soapberry Borer, Agrilus prionurus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): An Exotic Pest Threatens Western Soapberry in Texas Ronald F. Billings1,*, Donald M. Grosman2, and Herbert A. Pase III3 Abstract - Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii (Western Soapberry) is a small- to medi- um-sized tree native to the western Gulf Region and southwestern US and is valued in urban and rural landscapes. Recently in the United States, it has become host to an invasive insect introduced from Mexico. Agrilus prionurus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) (Soapberry Borer) was first reported in Travis County, TX, in 2003 and has been detected in 51 additional counties as of December 2013. As its populations expand rapidly in Texas, this invasive pest is killing Soapberry trees >6 cm in diameter. Additionally, it may eventually threaten Western Soapberry populations throughout the tree’s range. Infestations of Soapberry Borer are similar to those of A. planipennis (Emerald Ash Borer), a destructive invasive pest of Fraxinus spp. (ash) but not yet found in Texas. Signs of Soapberry Borer infestation include large bark flakes that accumulate at the base of infested trees, galleries between the bark and sapwood, trees that die back from the top, and excessive epicormic sprouts on the lower trunk. Western Soapberry appears to be the Soapberry Borer’s sole host in Texas, and trees of this species exhibit little resistance to this introduced pest. Preliminary studies indicate that Soapberry Borer adults emerge and fly from late May to August and that this species has no more than one generation per year in Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • U·M·I University Microfilms International a Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road
    Factors determining host plant range in two lycaenid butterflies. Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Carey, David Brennan. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 11/10/2021 04:37:00 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/185907 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs~ print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 4
    Lepidoptera of North America 4. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America. 4. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico by Paul A. Opler Department of Bioagricultural Sciences Colorado State University · Fort Collins, CO 80523 [email protected] Research Associate, Department of Entomology Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560 and Andrew D. Warren Department of Entomology Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 [email protected] Research Associate, Museo de Zoologia Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Apdo. Postal 70-399, Mexico, D.F. 04510 Mexico November 10, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University This list generally follows the order found in the Miller and Brown (1981) Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies ofNorth America and the supplement to that list by Ferris (1989c), both published as Memoirs of the Lepidopterists' Society. Generic name usage is conservative (when opinions vary on how to divide monophyletic groups) and generally follows that used in A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies (Opler 1992, 1998), A Field Guide to Western Butterflies (Opler 1999) and the Stanford and Opler (1993) Atlas to Western USA Butterflies (updated as Opler et al. 2000). Some changes are made to conform with recent research results (e.g. Emmel 1998) and with Palaearctic and Neotropical publications (see References). The list that follows includes superfamily, family, and subfamily categories (with tribes for some Lycaenidae), generally in accord with the arrangement presented by de Jong et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Butterflies of Galveston County
    GC-227 e Butterflies of Galveston County What Every Gardener Needs This book is the cherished work of Galveston County’s Master Gardeners. We invite you to enjoy and celebrate the supreme beauty of our butterflies and the wonder- To Know ful diversity of plants that nourish them. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call us at 281 534 3413 ext. 1, then 6. Or better yet, visit our lovely demonstration garden. Many butterflies have taken up residence among our lush flowers, shrubs, and plants there — and give us joy every day. Texas AgriLife Extension Service Galveston County Office 5115 Highway 3 Dickinson, Texas PHOTO CREDIT FOR COVER Front: GCMGA Inside: TCE/TAMU Back: MG & grandchild, monarch after emerging from chrysalis GCMGA e Butterflies of Galveston County What Every Gardener Needs To Know By Alcestis Cooky Oberg (MG 2002) Sandra Devall (MG 1998) Anna Wygrys (MG 1992) Suzanne Christensen (MG 2003) Deborah Repasz (MG 2003) Dick Wettling (MG 1997) Herman Auer (MG 1983) Doris Heard (MG 1990) Jemmie Vanderlip (MG 1997) Jacque Sobotik (MG 1992) Lola Thomas (MG 1998) Texas AgriLife Extension Service Galveston County Office 5115 Hwy. 3 Dickinson, TX 77539 281-534-3413 Educational programs conducted by Texas AgriLife Extension Services serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin. e End Appreciation is extended to Dr. William M. Johnson, GCMGA Galveston County Extension Agent–Horticulture, for his technical advice and review of this publication. All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the Galveston County Master Gardeners Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. Part 3 Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University 1 Cover Photo Credits: The Black and Yellow Argiope, Argiope aurantia Lucas, (Photo by P.E. Cushing), a robber fly Efferia texana (Banks) (Photo by C. Riley Nelson). ISBN 1084-8819 Information about the availability of this publication and others in the series may be obtained from Managing Editor, C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Ddiversity, Department of Bbioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III Edited by Paul A. Opler Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma by Paula E. Cushing and Maren Francis Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature and Science Denver, Colorado 80205 Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera by Boris C. Kondratieff, Jason P. Schmidt, Paul A. Opler, and Matthew C. Garhart C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 January 2005 Contributions of the C.P.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ONLINE COLLECTION of INFORMATION on NATIVE ANIMALS and PLANTS of KANSAS Provided by the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism 1994-2014
    AN ONLINE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON NATIVE ANIMALS AND PLANTS OF KANSAS provided by the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism 1994-2014 • Kansas Bird Feeders (June 2002) • Kansas Bird Feeders (February 2012) • Kansas Bird Houses (September 2002) • Kansas Bird Houses (February 2012) • Native Species (February 11, 2008) • Native Species (August 11, 2011) • Scott State Lake Plant Checklist (September 2002) • Kansas Bluebirds (October 2003) • Kansas Bluebirds (June 2011) • Box Turtles in Kansas (March 2003) • Box Turtles in Kansas (August 2013) • Keeping Kansas Reptiles and Amphibians (February 2006) • Do them a favor. Leave them alone! (March 2002) • Do them a favor. Leave them alone! (May 2014) • Cheyenne Bottoms Shorebird Viewing Guide (2006?) • Cheyenne Bottoms Driving Tour (March 2007) • Cheyenne Bottoms Reptiles, Turtles & Amphibians (March 2007) • Birds of Cheyenne Bottoms (January 2009) • Birds of Cheyenne Bottoms (July 2013) • Cheyenne Bottoms Mammals (March 2007) • Cheyenne Bottoms Mammals (December 2014) • Birds of Wilson Reservoir (May 2009) • Birds of Wilson Reservoir (February 2013) • Kansas Darters [Poster] (2010?) • Kansas Mussels [Poster] (2010?) • Kansas Aquatic Turtles [Poster] (2012?) • Kansas Crayfish [Poster] (2012?) • A Refuge in the City: Backyard Wildlife Guide (1994?) • Attracting Hummingbirds & Butterflies (March 2002) • Attracting Hummingbirds & Butterflies (February 2012) • Kansas Backyard Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (March 2006) • Kansas Backyard Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (February
    [Show full text]
  • The1912field Season Summary
    .- \ Number 2 NEWS 15 March, 1973 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Editorial Committee of the NEWS . .... EDITOR: Dr. Charles V. Covell, Jr., Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Louisville, Louisville, Ky., USA, 40208 ASSOC. EDITOR: Dr. Paul A. Opler, Div. of Entomology, 201 Wellman Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, California, USA, 94720 Jo Brewer John Heath K. W. Philip J. Donald Eft G. Hesselbarth F. W. Preston Robert L. Langston Thomas C. Emmel Lloyd M. Martin G. W. Rawson H. A. Freeman F. Bryant Mather Mike Van Buskirk L. Paul Grey M. C. Nielsen E. C. Welling M. The 1912 Field Season Summary Introduce some young people to Lepidoptera this year. Once again we present a summary of collections, observations, and rearing work done during the 1972 season. I wish to thank the zone coordinators for a splendid job this time; the editing was a breeze. And to those rvho contributed, many thanks to you all. I hope those of you who did not participate in 1972 will consider sending at least a few sentences to your zone co­ ordinator this coming winter, especially with information you feel is most important and useful. I will not try to "summarize the summaries," except to say that the climatic conditions seem to have varied from one general area to the next, and that, while some areas suffered retardation or stifling of normal populations, collecting was gener­ ally fairly good. A number of new state or provincial records are included, so be on the lookout for these. Finally, Langston reports for an area--not included in the past: Hawaii.
    [Show full text]