Annotated Checklist of the Diplura (Hexapoda: Entognatha) of California
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Millipedes (Diplopoda) from Caves of Portugal
A.S.P.S. Reboleira and H. Enghoff – Millipedes (Diplopoda) from caves of Portugal. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 76, no. 1, p. 20–25. DOI: 10.4311/2013LSC0113 MILLIPEDES (DIPLOPODA) FROM CAVES OF PORTUGAL ANA SOFIA P.S. REBOLEIRA1 AND HENRIK ENGHOFF2 Abstract: Millipedes play an important role in the decomposition of organic matter in the subterranean environment. Despite the existence of several cave-adapted species of millipedes in adjacent geographic areas, their study has been largely ignored in Portugal. Over the last decade, intense fieldwork in caves of the mainland and the island of Madeira has provided new data about the distribution and diversity of millipedes. A review of millipedes from caves of Portugal is presented, listing fourteen species belonging to eight families, among which six species are considered troglobionts. The distribution of millipedes in caves of Portugal is discussed and compared with the troglobiont biodiversity in the overall Iberian Peninsula and the Macaronesian archipelagos. INTRODUCTION All specimens from mainland Portugal were collected by A.S.P.S. Reboleira, while collectors of Madeiran speci- Millipedes play an important role in the decomposition mens are identified in the text. Material is deposited in the of organic matter, and several species around the world following collections: Zoological Museum of University of have adapted to subterranean life, being found from cave Copenhagen, Department of Animal Biology, University of entrances to almost 2000 meters depth (Culver and Shear, La Laguna, Spain and in the collection of Sofia Reboleira, 2012; Golovatch and Kime, 2009; Sendra and Reboleira, Portugal. 2012). Although the millipede faunas of many European Species were classified according to their degree of countries are relatively well studied, this is not true of dependence on the subterranean environment, following Portugal. -
Diplura and Protura of Canada
A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 819: 197–203 (2019) Diplura and Protura of Canada 197 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.819.25238 REVIEW ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Diplura and Protura of Canada Derek S. Sikes1 1 University of Alaska Museum, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-6960, USA Corresponding author: Derek S. Sikes ([email protected]) Academic editor: D. Langor | Received 23 March 2018 | Accepted 12 April 2018 | Published 24 January 2019 http://zoobank.org/D68D1C72-FF1D-4415-8E0F-28B36460E90A Citation: Sikes DS (2019) Diplura and Protura of Canada. In: Langor DW, Sheffield CS (Eds) The Biota of Canada – A Biodiversity Assessment. Part 1: The Terrestrial Arthropods. ZooKeys 819: 197–203.https://doi.org/10.3897/ zookeys.819.25238 Abstract A literature review of the Diplura and Protura of Canada is presented. Canada has six Diplura species documented and an estimated minimum 10–12 remaining to be documented. The Protura fauna is equally poorly known, with nine documented species and a conservatively estimated ten undocumented. Only six and three Barcode Index Numbers are available for Canadian specimens of Diplura and Protura, respectively. Keywords biodiversity assessment, Biota of Canada, Diplura, Protura Diplura, sometimes referred to as two-pronged bristletails, and Protura, sometimes called coneheads, are terrestrial arthropod taxa that have suffered from lack of scientific attention in Canada as well as globally. As both groups are undersampled and under- studied in Canada, the state of knowledge is considered to be poor, although there have been some modest advances since 1979. Both of these taxa are soil dwelling, and, given the repeated glaciations over most of Canada, the Canadian diversity is expected to be relatively low except possibly in unglaciated areas. -
Is Ellipura Monophyletic? a Combined Analysis of Basal Hexapod
ARTICLE IN PRESS Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 4 (2004) 319–340 www.elsevier.de/ode Is Ellipura monophyletic? A combined analysis of basal hexapod relationships with emphasis on the origin of insects Gonzalo Giribeta,Ã, Gregory D.Edgecombe b, James M.Carpenter c, Cyrille A.D’Haese d, Ward C.Wheeler c aDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA bAustralian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia cDivision of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA dFRE 2695 CNRS, De´partement Syste´matique et Evolution, Muse´um National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France Received 27 February 2004; accepted 18 May 2004 Abstract Hexapoda includes 33 commonly recognized orders, most of them insects.Ongoing controversy concerns the grouping of Protura and Collembola as a taxon Ellipura, the monophyly of Diplura, a single or multiple origins of entognathy, and the monophyly or paraphyly of the silverfish (Lepidotrichidae and Zygentoma s.s.) with respect to other dicondylous insects.Here we analyze relationships among basal hexapod orders via a cladistic analysis of sequence data for five molecular markers and 189 morphological characters in a simultaneous analysis framework using myriapod and crustacean outgroups.Using a sensitivity analysis approach and testing for stability, the most congruent parameters resolve Tricholepidion as sister group to the remaining Dicondylia, whereas most suboptimal parameter sets group Tricholepidion with Zygentoma.Stable hypotheses include the monophyly of Diplura, and a sister group relationship between Diplura and Protura, contradicting the Ellipura hypothesis.Hexapod monophyly is contradicted by an alliance between Collembola, Crustacea and Ectognatha (i.e., exclusive of Diplura and Protura) in molecular and combined analyses. -
Formation of the Entognathy of Dicellurata, Occasjapyx Japonicus (Enderlein, 1907) (Hexapoda: Diplura, Dicellurata)
S O I L O R G A N I S M S Volume 83 (3) 2011 pp. 399–404 ISSN: 1864-6417 Formation of the entognathy of Dicellurata, Occasjapyx japonicus (Enderlein, 1907) (Hexapoda: Diplura, Dicellurata) Kaoru Sekiya1, 2 and Ryuichiro Machida1 1 Sugadaira Montane Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Sugadaira Kogen, Ueda, Nagano 386-2204, Japan 2 Corresponding author: Kaoru Sekiya (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract The development of the entognathy in Dicellurata was examined using Occasjapyx japonicus (Enderlein, 1907). The formation of entognathy involves rotation of the labial appendages, resulting in a tandem arrangement of the glossa, paraglossa and labial palp. The mandibular, maxillary and labial terga extend ventrally to form the mouth fold. The intercalary tergum also participates in the formation of the mouth fold. The labial coxae extending anteriorly unite with the labial terga, constituting the posterior region of the mouth fold, the medial half of which is later partitioned into the admentum. The labial appendages of both sides migrate medially, and the labial subcoxae fuse to form the postmentum, which posteriorly confines the entognathy. The entognathy formation in Dicellurata is common to that in another dipluran suborder, Rhabdura. The entognathy of Diplura greatly differs from that of Protura and Collembola in the developmental plan, preventing homologization of the entognathies of Diplura and other two entognathan orders. Keywords: Entognatha, comparative embryology, mouth fold, admentum, postmentum 1. Introduction The Diplura, a basal clade of the Hexapoda, have traditionally been placed within Entognatha [= Diplura + Collembola + Protura], a group characterized by entognathy (Hennig 1969). However, Hennig’s ‘Entognatha-Ectognatha System’, especially the validity of Entognatha, has been challenged by various disciplines. -
ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000). -
Insect Classification Standards 2020
RECOMMENDED INSECT CLASSIFICATION FOR UGA ENTOMOLOGY CLASSES (2020) In an effort to standardize the hexapod classification systems being taught to our students by our faculty in multiple courses across three UGA campuses, I recommend that the Entomology Department adopts the basic system presented in the following textbook: Triplehorn, C.A. and N.F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects. 7th ed. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont CA, 864 pp. This book was chosen for a variety of reasons. It is widely used in the U.S. as the textbook for Insect Taxonomy classes, including our class at UGA. It focuses on North American taxa. The authors were cautious, presenting changes only after they have been widely accepted by the taxonomic community. Below is an annotated summary of the T&J (2005) classification. Some of the more familiar taxa above the ordinal level are given in caps. Some of the more important and familiar suborders and families are indented and listed beneath each order. Note that this is neither an exhaustive nor representative list of suborders and families. It was provided simply to clarify which taxa are impacted by some of more important classification changes. Please consult T&J (2005) for information about taxa that are not listed below. Unfortunately, T&J (2005) is now badly outdated with respect to some significant classification changes. Therefore, in the classification standard provided below, some well corroborated and broadly accepted updates have been made to their classification scheme. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this classification. -
Biodiversity from Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats of Georgia, USA
Kirk S. Zigler, Matthew L. Niemiller, Charles D.R. Stephen, Breanne N. Ayala, Marc A. Milne, Nicholas S. Gladstone, Annette S. Engel, John B. Jensen, Carlos D. Camp, James C. Ozier, and Alan Cressler. Biodiversity from caves and other subterranean habitats of Georgia, USA. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 82, no. 2, p. 125-167. DOI:10.4311/2019LSC0125 BIODIVERSITY FROM CAVES AND OTHER SUBTERRANEAN HABITATS OF GEORGIA, USA Kirk S. Zigler1C, Matthew L. Niemiller2, Charles D.R. Stephen3, Breanne N. Ayala1, Marc A. Milne4, Nicholas S. Gladstone5, Annette S. Engel6, John B. Jensen7, Carlos D. Camp8, James C. Ozier9, and Alan Cressler10 Abstract We provide an annotated checklist of species recorded from caves and other subterranean habitats in the state of Georgia, USA. We report 281 species (228 invertebrates and 53 vertebrates), including 51 troglobionts (cave-obligate species), from more than 150 sites (caves, springs, and wells). Endemism is high; of the troglobionts, 17 (33 % of those known from the state) are endemic to Georgia and seven (14 %) are known from a single cave. We identified three biogeographic clusters of troglobionts. Two clusters are located in the northwestern part of the state, west of Lookout Mountain in Lookout Valley and east of Lookout Mountain in the Valley and Ridge. In addition, there is a group of tro- globionts found only in the southwestern corner of the state and associated with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. At least two dozen potentially undescribed species have been collected from caves; clarifying the taxonomic status of these organisms would improve our understanding of cave biodiversity in the state. -
Arkansas Endemic Biota: an Update with Additions and Deletions H
Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 62 Article 14 2008 Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions H. Robison Southern Arkansas University, [email protected] C. McAllister C. Carlton Louisiana State University G. Tucker FTN Associates, Ltd. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Robison, H.; McAllister, C.; Carlton, C.; and Tucker, G. (2008) "Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 62 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol62/iss1/14 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 62 [2008], Art. 14 The Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions H. Robison1, C. McAllister2, C. Carlton3, and G. Tucker4 1Department of Biological Sciences, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754-9354 2RapidWrite, 102 Brown Street, Hot Springs National Park, AR 71913 3Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1710 4FTN Associates, Ltd., 3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220, Little Rock, AR 72211 1Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Pringle and Witsell (2005) described this new species of rose-gentian from Saline County glades. -
Insect Egg Size and Shape Evolve with Ecology but Not Developmental Rate Samuel H
ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1302-4 Insect egg size and shape evolve with ecology but not developmental rate Samuel H. Church1,4*, Seth Donoughe1,3,4, Bruno A. S. de Medeiros1 & Cassandra G. Extavour1,2* Over the course of evolution, organism size has diversified markedly. Changes in size are thought to have occurred because of developmental, morphological and/or ecological pressures. To perform phylogenetic tests of the potential effects of these pressures, here we generated a dataset of more than ten thousand descriptions of insect eggs, and combined these with genetic and life-history datasets. We show that, across eight orders of magnitude of variation in egg volume, the relationship between size and shape itself evolves, such that previously predicted global patterns of scaling do not adequately explain the diversity in egg shapes. We show that egg size is not correlated with developmental rate and that, for many insects, egg size is not correlated with adult body size. Instead, we find that the evolution of parasitoidism and aquatic oviposition help to explain the diversification in the size and shape of insect eggs. Our study suggests that where eggs are laid, rather than universal allometric constants, underlies the evolution of insect egg size and shape. Size is a fundamental factor in many biological processes. The size of an 526 families and every currently described extant hexapod order24 organism may affect interactions both with other organisms and with (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 1). We combined this dataset with the environment1,2, it scales with features of morphology and physi- backbone hexapod phylogenies25,26 that we enriched to include taxa ology3, and larger animals often have higher fitness4. -
Morpholo(;Y of the Insect Abdomen
SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 85, NUMBER b morpholo(;y of the insect abdomen FART I. GENERAL STRliCTllRr^ OE THli ABDOMEJ AND rrS APPENDAGES BY R. E. SNODGRASS Bureau of Entomology, U. S. Department of Agriculture (l'UBLlC\Tloy 3124) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOVEMBER 6, 1931 BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. MORPHOLOGY OF THE INSECT ABDOMEN PART I. GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE ABDOMEN AND ITS APPENDAGES By R. E. SNODGRASS Bureau of Entomology U. S. Dkpartment of Aoriculture CONTENTS Introduction i I. The abdominal sclerotization 6 II. The abdominal segments 14 The visceral segments 16 The genital segments i" The postgenital segments 19 III. Tlie abdominal musculature 28 General plan of the abdominal musculature 31 The abdominal musculature of adult Pterygota 42 The abdominal musculature of endopterygote larvae 48 The abdominal musculature of Apterygota 56 IV^. The abdominal appendages 62 Body appendages of Chilopoda 65 Abdominal appendages of Crustacea 68 The abdominal appendages of Protura 70 General structure of the abdominal appendages of insects 71 The abdominal appendages of Collembola 72 The abdominal appendages of Thysanura 74 The abdominal gills of ephemerid larvae 77 Lateral abdominal appendages of sialid and coleopterous larvae. ... 79 The abdominal legs of lepidopterous larvae 83 The gonopods 88 The cerci (uropods ) 92 The terminal appendages of endopterygote larvae 96 Terminal lobes of the paraprocts 107 Aforphology of the abdominal appendages loS Ablireviations used on the figures 122 l\cferences 123 INTRODUCTION The incision of the insect into head, thorax, and abdomen is in general more evident in the cervical region than at the thoracico- abdominal line ; but anatomically the insect is more profoundly divided between the thorax and the abdomen than it is between the head and Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. -
Zootaxa, New Species, New Records, and Distribution of Campodeidae
Zootaxa 2639: 40–52 (2010) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2010 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) New species, new records, and distribution of Campodeidae (Diplura) in Anatolia ALBERTO SENDRA1, SANTIAGO TERUEL1, ALI SATAR2, SADREDDIN TUSUN2 & CENGIZHAN ÖZBAY2 1Museu Valencià d’Història Natural (Fundación Entomológica Torres Sala). Paseo de la Pechina 15, E-46008 Valencia (Spain). E-mail: [email protected] 2Dicle University, Arts and Science Faculty, Department of Biology, 21280 Diyarbakir (Turkey) Abstract The campodeid dipluran fauna from Anatolia was studied from samples collected from the Black Sea, southeastern, Aegean, and eastern regions of Turkey. A total of 16 species were collected: Campodea s. str. (10 species), Dicampa (2), Eutrichocampa (2), Libanocampa (1), and Edriocampa (1). Two new species are described: Campodea (Campodea) anae Sendra & Teruel n. sp. from northern Anatolia and Campodea (Campodea) sarae Sendra & Teruel n. sp. from Denizli, in southeastern Turkey. These results suggest that additional sampling is needed in other parts of Turkey to adequately characterize the campodeid fauna. The known campodeid biodiversity of Anatolia stands at 23 species, 3 times less than the Iberian peninsula. Key words: Diplura, Campodeidae, Campodea, Dicampa, Eutrichocampa, Edriocampa, Libanocampa, taxonomy, Turkey Nouveaux espèces, contribution et distribution à les Campodéidés (Diplura) de l’Anatolie. On examine la faune de diploures campodéidés de l’Anatolie originaire en majorité d’échantillons des régions de la Mer Noire, sud-est, Égée et est de la Turquie. Un total de 16 espèces est cité, comprises dans les genres et sous-genres suivants : Campodea s. str. -
The Genome of the Blind Soil-Dwelling and Ancestrally Wingless Dipluran Campodea Augens, a Key Reference Hexapod for Studying the Emergence of Insect Innovations
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/585695; this version posted June 29, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. The genome of the blind soil-dwelling and ancestrally wingless dipluran Campodea augens, a key reference hexapod for studying the emergence of insect innovations Mosè Manni1*, Felipe A. Simao1, Hugh M. Robertson2, Marco A. Gabaglio1, Robert M. Waterhouse3, Bernhard Misof4, Oliver Niehuis5, Nikolaus U. Szucsich6, Evgeny M. Zdobnov1* 1Department of Genetic Medicine and Development, University of Geneva Medical School, and Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Geneva, Switzerland. 2Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 3Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, and Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4Center for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany. 5Department of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Albert Ludwig University, Institute of Biology I (Zoology), Freiburg, Germany. 6Natural History Museum Vienna, 3rd Zoological Dept., Vienna, Austria. *Authors for Correspondence: Evgeny M. Zdobnov, email: [email protected] Mosè Manni, email: [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/585695; this version posted June 29, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.