DOCSLIB.ORG

Spider Mimicry in Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Further Experiments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spider Mimicry in Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Further Experiments Spider Mimicry in Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Further Experiments on the Deterrence of Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) by Zonosemata vittigera (Coquillett) DOUGLAS W. WHITMAN,1 LARRY ORSAK,2 AND ERICK GREENE3 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 81(3): 532-536 (1988) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/81/3/532/60805 by guest on 29 September 2021 ABSTRACT Zonosemata vittigera (Coquillett) possesses dark transverse wing bands and abdominal eye spots, which cause it to resemble a salticid spider. Jerky motion, wing flicking behavior, and sudden short flights to nearby foliage enhance this resemblance. Here we provide observations on the behavioral interactions between jumping spiders and Z. vittigera. In the laboratory, sympatric jumping spiders (Salticidae) attacked and captured more house flies (Musca domestica L.) or wing-painted Z. vittigera (wing markings disguised by green paint) than unpainted Z. vittigera. Furthermore, salticids backed away from, or gave threat or courtship displays to, normal Z. vittigera but not to house flies or wing-painted Z. vittigera. These results provide further evidence that Z. vittigera mimic jumping spiders and that this resemblance reduces jumping spider predation. KEY WORDS Insecta, Araneae, mimicry, predation 3 NUMEROUS SPIDERS mimic insects such as ants search station. Flies were kept in a 2-m cage and (Reiskind 1970, 1977, Englehardt 1971, Edmunds provided with water, sugar water, honey, dry pow- 1978, Foelix 1982, Jackson 1982a). However, Hin- dered milk, sliced fruit, and potted S. elaeagni- ton (1976) noted that virtually no insect seemed to folium plants. Salticid spiders were collected from mimic spiders; the few postulated cases were with- the desert flats and foothills near Portal on S. out empirical evidence. Flies of the family Te- elaeagnifolium or adjacent vegetation. Zonose- phritidae offer a fascinating exception. Monteith mata vittigera also occurred in this area. The spi- (1972) noted the uncanny resemblance of apple ders were maintained in 6-ml vials and starved 1- maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) adults, to 6 d prior to testing. sympatric jumping spiders (Salticidae), as did Eis- Experiment 1: Salticid Spider Response to ner (1984) with the southwestern tephritid Zono- House Flies Versus Fruit Flies. On 14 July, 19 semata vittigera (Coquillett). Although these mim- spiders were isolated in 1-liter glass jars containing icry patterns were very apparent, the significance two dry sticks and a S. elaeagnifolium stem (13 of this phenomenon remained untested until Greene cm long). After a 30-min acclimation period, each et al. (1987) and Mather & Roitberg (1987) pro- of 10 jars received a specimen of M. domestica; vided evidence that spider mimicry in the Te- the other nine were given one of Z. vittigera. Fol- phritidae serves to reduce predation by salticid spi- lowing fly introduction, spider-fly interactions were ders. Here we present additional confirmation of monitored for 50 min or until the spider caught this hypothesis derived from wing-painting exper- the fly. Captured flies were immediately taken from iments and speculate on the conditions that led to the spider and removed from the jar to prevent the evolution of this mimicry. spider feeding. A second 30-min acclimation pe- riod was followed by the introduction of the alter- nate fly species and a second 50-min observation Materials and Methods period. The S. elaeagnifolium was periodically re- Experiments were conducted at the Southwest- placed with fresh material. Ambient temperatures ern Research Station (Portal, Cochise County, Ariz.) during tests ranged from 27 to 29°C. during July 1986. Zonosemata vittigera were ob- Experiment 2: Salticid Spider Response to Nor- served in the field and collected from their food mal and Disguised Fruit Flies. On 15 July, the plant, Solanum elaeagnifolium Cavanilles, in and same 19 spiders were tested as in Experiment 1, near Rodeo, N. Mex. Wild house flies (Musca do- except that they received either normal Z. vittigera mestica L.) were collected near refuse at the re- or flies that had been painted on the upper and lower wing surfaces with a green felt-tip marker. 1 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, This painting completely obscured the dark wing Ga. 30602. markings, destroying the spider-leg image. Spider- 2 Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 30602. 3 Department of Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. fly interactions were observed for 10 min followed 08544. by a 30-min fly-free acclimation period, and then 0013-8746/88/0532-0536$02.00/0 © 1988 Entomological Society of America May 1988 WHITMAN ET AL.: SPIDER MIMICRY IN FRUIT FLIES 533 Table 1. Response of sympatric jumping spiders when presented with house flies (M. domestica) or tephritid flies (Z. vittigera) for 50 min Capture latency (min) Spider Species M. domestica Z. vittigera 1 Sassacus papenhoei Peck ham 2 Phidippus sp. A — — 3" Metaphidippus arizo- 3.9 — nensis (Peckham) 4 Habronattus sp. 1.0 10.9 5 Phidippus apacheanus 13.8 — Fig. 1. Posterior aspect of Zonosemata vittigera. Note Chamberlin & Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/81/3/532/60805 by guest on 29 September 2021 leglike patterns on wings, and abdominal eyespots ar- Gertsch 6 Metaphidippus sp. A — — ranged in a spiderlike pattern. 7 Phidippus sp. A 1.2 7.0 8 Thiodina sp. 4.3 — 9* Habronattus sp. 4.5 44.4 a final 10-min period with the alternate fly species. 10 Eris sp. 0.5 21.0 Temperatures during tests ranged from 20 to 23°C. 11 Phidippus apacheanus 5.9 — The resulting data were analyzed using the Mann- Chamberlin & Whitney U test and a binomial test for changes Gertsch 12 Eris sp. (prob. aurantia — — with small expected frequencies (Siegel 1956). (Lucas)) 13 Thiodina sp. — — 14 Metaphidippus sp. A — — Results 15 Phidippus apacheanus 0.3 8.6 Chamberlin & Appearance and Behavior of Z. vittigera. Eis- Gertsch ner's (1984) observations were quickly confirmed. 16" Phidippus sp. B — _ In nature, Z. vittigera resembled jumping spiders. 17 Phidippus sp. B 2.3 — 18C Phidippus apacheanus 0.2 19.0 The wings possessed dark lines (Fig. 1), which, Chamberlin & because of the translucence of the rest of the wing, Gertsch appeared as legs. This salticid image was further 19 Phidippus sp. B 23.8 15.3 enhanced by dark abdominal spots (arranged in a x ± SD 5.14 ± 7.00 18.03 ± 12.74 pattern resembling spider eyes), and a proclivity a to rotate the wings outward and upward. This ro- Spider backed away from wing-rotating Z. vittigera. b Spider responded to Z. vittigera with a threat display then tation caused the dark wing lines to move up and backed away. down in a manner resembling the foreleg threat c Spider responded to Z. vittigera by repeatedly signaling with or courtship displays common to salticids (Foelix first one leg then the other. 1982, Jackson 1982b,c,d, Witt & Rovner 1982). The flies were in nearly constant motion on both to Z. vittigera wing flicks, some spiders performed the upper and lower S. elaeagnifolium vegetation behaviors similar to salticid sexual or aggressive surfaces, exhibiting short, jerky locomotory move- displays (Tables 1 and 2); the front legs were jerked ments reminiscent of the stereotypic movements upward, or moved in a repetitious manner, and of jumping spiders. They generally remained with- the whole prosoma was lifted up, exposing the che- in the S. elaeagnifolium vegetation, making sud- licerae. Such displays were never elicited by house den short flights from adjacent leaves or stems and flies or wing-painted Z. vittigera. Courting of spi- occasionally to adjacent plants. ders by male fruit flies did not result in predation. In the laboratory both sexes, but particularly In the two cases when male flies landed on spiders, males, increased wing flicking in response to the the spiders became highly agitated and attempted presence of other small objects such as other te- to escape. phritids, house flies, or spiders. During the exper- Experiment 1: House Flies Versus Normal Fruit iments, male Z. vittigera sometimes "courted" Flies. During the 50-min observation period, 12 jumping spiders by facing them and moving back out of 19 M. domestica were captured, whereas and forth sidewise while rotating their wings. Twice, significantly fewer (7 out of 19; binomial test for male flies actually flew onto the backs of spiders changes, P = 0.031) Z. vittigera were taken (Table but immediately decamped and flew away. 1). In addition, the salticids required a significantly Salticid Behavior in the Laboratory. During longer time (18.0 ± 12.7 min versus 5.1 ± 7.0 min; successful prey capture, salticids oriented toward Mann-Whitney U = 10, P < 0.01) to make the Z. and stalked flies, then at a distance of 1-6 cm, made vittigera captures, indicating a reluctance to at- a short leap that ended in prey capture. This se- tack. Half the M. domestica captures took place quence was typical of house fly encounters. How- in less than 2.5 min, whereas none of the Z. vittigera ever, most salticids failed to attack normal Z. vit- captures occurred before 7 min had elapsed. In tigera, and instead backed up or rotated and faced, response to Z. vittigera, two spiders displayed and but did not advance toward, the prey. In response three backed away (Table 1). 534 ANNALS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Vol. 81, no. 3 Table 2. Jumping spider response to unpainted (nor- and that this mimicry reduces attack from this mal) and wing-painted Z. vittigera during 10-min trials predacious group. Capture latency (min) We feel that spiders mistook the tephritid flies for other jumping spiders. Salticid spiders are well Spider Species Normal Wing-painted known to use vision in both hunting and courtship Z.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hot Peppers As a Host for the Mexican Fruit Fly Anastrepha Ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae)
    Scientific Notes 603 HOT PEPPERS AS A HOST FOR THE MEXICAN FRUIT FLY ANASTREPHA LUDENS (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE) DONALD B. THOMAS United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Kika de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, 2413 E. Hwy 83, Weslaco, TX 78596 On the 28th of April, 2003, a shipment of man- will breed in rotting vegetable matter including zano chile peppers (Capsicum pubescens Ruis & chile peppers, but these are non-pest species, and Pavon cv Rocoto) entering the United States at this incident involved sound fruit (Fig. 1). No Pharr, Texas, was found to be infested with insect dipterans are listed as economic pests of chile pep- larvae. USDA inspectors first noted maggots pers by English & Lewis (2004). Baker et al. crawling in the bed of the truck underneath the 16 (1944) cited incidents of A. ludens in “bell peppers cardboard boxes (240 Kg) containing the chile pep- and chili peppers” and there are equally ambigu- pers. Further inspection confirmed that the larvae ous reports of another tephritid, Zonosemata vitti- were in, and emerging from, the fleshy pods. Two gera (Coquillet), taken in “peppers” (Cole 1969). of the larvae were immediately preserved in alco- Zonosemata electa (Say) is known as the “pepper hol while 50 more larvae were kept alive. All spec- maggot” (Peterson 1960) and has been reared imens were hand carried to the nearby USDA- from “Capsicum annuum L.” (Smith & Bush ARS laboratory in Weslaco, Texas for identifica- 1999). The latter solanaceous plant species in- tion. Microscopic examination established that cludes both hot and sweet peppers.
    [Show full text]
  • Flies) Benjamin Kongyeli Badii
    Chapter Phylogeny and Functional Morphology of Diptera (Flies) Benjamin Kongyeli Badii Abstract The order Diptera includes all true flies. Members of this order are the most ecologically diverse and probably have a greater economic impact on humans than any other group of insects. The application of explicit methods of phylogenetic and morphological analysis has revealed weaknesses in the traditional classification of dipteran insects, but little progress has been made to achieve a robust, stable clas- sification that reflects evolutionary relationships and morphological adaptations for a more precise understanding of their developmental biology and behavioral ecol- ogy. The current status of Diptera phylogenetics is reviewed in this chapter. Also, key aspects of the morphology of the different life stages of the flies, particularly characters useful for taxonomic purposes and for an understanding of the group’s biology have been described with an emphasis on newer contributions and progress in understanding this important group of insects. Keywords: Tephritoidea, Diptera flies, Nematocera, Brachycera metamorphosis, larva 1. Introduction Phylogeny refers to the evolutionary history of a taxonomic group of organisms. Phylogeny is essential in understanding the biodiversity, genetics, evolution, and ecology among groups of organisms [1, 2]. Functional morphology involves the study of the relationships between the structure of an organism and the function of the various parts of an organism. The old adage “form follows function” is a guiding principle of functional morphology. It helps in understanding the ways in which body structures can be used to produce a wide variety of different behaviors, including moving, feeding, fighting, and reproducing. It thus, integrates concepts from physiology, evolution, anatomy and development, and synthesizes the diverse ways that biological and physical factors interact in the lives of organisms [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Regulating the Population Dynamics and Damage Potential of Pollen Beetle (Meligethes Aeneus F.) on Crops of Oilseed Rape
    Factors regulating the population dynamics and damage potential of pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus F.) on crops of oilseed rape Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Fakultät für Agrarwissenschaften der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen vorgelegt von Marie-Luise Tölle geboren in Gifhorn Göttingen, Mai 2014 D 7 1. Referentin/Referent: Prof. Dr. Stefan Vidal 2. Korreferentin/Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Andreas von Tiedemann Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 12.05.2011 Contents Table of contents page Chapter I General introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 The pest: Meligethes aeneus ............................................................................................. 2 Factors influencing the population dynamics of pollen beetle ............................................ 3 Possible effects of insecticides on population growth and damage of pollen beetle ........... 4 Parasitoids and parasitisation of pollen beetle ................................................................... 5 Trap cropping in oilseed rape ............................................................................................ 6 References ........................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter II Cultivar and phenology of winter oilseed rape affect the abundance and reproduction of Meligethes aeneus (Fabricius) ......................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Pepper Pest Management
    Pepper Pest Management Kaushalya Amarasekare Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Entomology Dept. of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences College of Agriculture Tennessee State University University of Maryland Nashville, Tennessee Extension snaped.fns.usda.gov Goal The goal of this training is to educate stakeholders on arthropods (pest insects and mites) that damage peppers and methods to manage them using integrated pest management (IPM) techniques Objectives Upon completion of this training, the participants will be able to 1) teach, 2) demonstrate and 3) guide growers, small farmers, backyard and community gardeners, master gardeners, and other stakeholders on management of pest arthropods in peppers Course Outline 1. Introduction: background information on bell and chili pepper 2. Pests of pepper a) Seedling Pests b) Foliage Feeders c) Pod Feeders 3. Summary 4. References Introduction Bell /sweet pepper Peppers • Family Solanaceae • Capsicum annum L. • Bell/sweet peppers and chili agmrc.org Peppers: consumed as • Fresh • Dried chili pepper • Ground as spices • Processed (canned, pickled, brined or in salsas) 570cjk, Creative Commons wifss.ucdavis.edu Bell Pepper • 2017: U.S. consumption of fresh bell peppers ~ 11.4 lbs./person • High in vitamin C and dietary fiber • Provide small amounts of several vitamins and minerals • Usually sold as fresh produce Maturity Sugar Content Chili Pepper • 2017: U.S. consumption of chili peppers ~ 7.7 lbs./person • High in vitamin C • Small amounts of vitamin A and B-6, iron and magnesium 570cjk, Creative Commons wifss.ucdavis.edu • Sold as fresh produce and dried (whole peppers, crushed or powdered) pepperscale.com Myscha Theriault U.S. green pepper production • U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Enemies of True Fruit Flies 02/2004-01 PPQ Jeffrey N
    United States Department of Agriculture Natural Enemies of Marketing and Regulatory True Fruit Flies Programs Animal and Plant Health (Tephritidae) Inspection Service Plant Protection Jeffrey N. L. Stibick and Quarantine Psyttalia fletcheri (shown) is the only fruit fly parasitoid introduced into Hawaii capable of parasitizing the melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 4700 River Road Riverdale, MD 20737 February, 2004 Telephone: (301) 734-4406 FAX: (301) 734-8192 e-mail: [email protected] Jeffrey N. L. Stibick Introduction Introduction Fruit flies in the family Tephritidae are high profile insects among commercial fruit and vegetable growers, marketing exporters, government regulatory agencies, and the scientific community. Locally, producers face huge losses without some management scheme to control fruit fly populations. At the national and international level, plant protection agencies strictly regulate the movement of potentially infested products. Consumers throughout the world demand high quality, blemish-free produce. Partly to satisfy these demands, the costs to local, state and national governments are quite high and increasing as world trade, and thus risk, increases. Thus, fruit flies impose a considerable resource tax on participants at every level, from producer to shipper to the importing state and, ultimately, to the consumer. (McPheron & Steck, 1996) Indeed, in the United States alone, the running costs per year to APHIS, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), (the federal Agency responsible) for maintenance of trapping systems, laboratories, and identification are in excess of US$27 million per year and increasing. This figure only accounts for a fraction of total costs throughout the country, as State, County and local governments put in their share as well as the local industry affected.
    [Show full text]
  • Pepper Maggot (Order: Diptera, Family: Tephritidae, Zonosemata Electa (Say))
    Pepper maggot (Order: Diptera, Family: Tephritidae, Zonosemata electa (Say)) Description: Adult: Male flies are about 6.5 mm long and females about 7.5 mm. The head, abdomen and legs are pale yellow. The thorax is bright yellow with brownish stripes. The last abdominal segment has a pair of small black spots. The transparent wings have dark bands, with the bands forming a ‘V’ shape near the wing tips. The eyes are green. Immature stages: Eggs are primarily oval but with one end narrowed, tapered, and curved, with an overall shape similar to a crooked-neck squash. Larvae reach a maximum length Pepper maggot adult on left compared to house fly of about 12 mm and are shaped similar to a house fly larvae, on right (Image from NCSU). with a cylindrical body that is wide at the posterior end and tapers to a pointed head. Larval color changes from white to yellowish as it matures. The pupal stage occurs in the soil. Pupae are yellowish-brown to brown, oval, flattened and 6-8 mm long. Biology: Life cycle: There is one generation of pepper maggot each year. Females emerge, mate, and lay eggs in June-July (possibly a little earlier in Georgia). They insert eggs into the flesh of fruit. The stalk of the egg may be visible with close examination of the oviposition slit. Eggs hatch in 8-10 days. The larvae feed inside the fruit for about 18 days, then exit the fruit, drop to the soil and pupate, usually within the top 5- 10 cm of soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Pepper Maggots with OMRI-Approved GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait T
    Managing Pepper Maggots with OMRI-Approved GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait T. Jude Boucher, University of Connecticut 24 Hyde Ave., Vernon, CT 06066 [email protected], 860-875-3331 The pepper maggot (PM), Zonosemata electa, is a Tephritid fruit fly native to horsenettle in North America, which first attacked peppers and eggplant in 1921. It has a patchy distribution throughout its range, which includes the eastern United States and Ontario, but also extends west to Kansas and south to Texas and Florida. In New England, it is quite common in the CT River Valley and along the shore in CT, MA and RI, and has been found as far north as Epping, NH. This pest has a single generation each year. The adult flies emerge from the soil in early to mid- July over a 10- to 14-day period. Males emerge up to 7 days before females. Each female can lay up to 50 eggs, beginning 6 to 7 days after mating. Eggs take 10 to 12 days to hatch. Mating is thought to occur exclusively on the host plant and fruit, where males will fight for territory to win a receptive female. However, the flies spend much of their time feeding in and inhabiting nearby trees, returning to the crop fields during daylight hours for mating and egg laying. Over 94% of egg laying occurs in the first 4 weeks after emergence. The flies may live through mid- to late August if not controlled. Fully grown maggots emerge from the fruit in late August or early September, and enter the soil to pass the winter as pupae.
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing Coffee Berry Borer Female Density in Artificial Diet Decreases
    ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR Increasing Coffee Berry Borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Female Density in Artificial Diet Decreases Fecundity 1 2 3,4 FERNANDO E. VEGA, MATTHEW KRAMER, AND JULIANA JARAMILLO J. Econ. Entomol. 104(1): 87Ð93 (2011); DOI: 10.1603/EC10353 ABSTRACT Three experiments were conducted to determine the inßuence of number of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), females (one, two, or Þve) reared in artiÞcial diet on fecundity and subsequent development of larvae, pupae, and adults. Our results demonstrated that increasing female density from one to two or Þve individuals did not result in the expected two- or Þve-fold increase in progeny, despite ample food resources available. Instead, decreased fecundity was observed with increasing density for all experiments. The mechanism reducing fecundity was not identiÞed, but possibly, volatiles are being produced (e.g., host-marking pheromones). The decrease in fecundity may explain why infestations of only one colonizing female per berry are the norm in the Þeld. KEY WORDS artiÞcial rearing, bark beetles, Hypothenemus hampei, host-marking pheromones The coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Fer- holes) will attack a single berry and the damage is rari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), is the much accelerated.” One might argue that the number most devastating insect pest of coffee (Coffea arabica of coffee berries in a coffee plantation is not a limiting L. and Coffea canephora Pierre ex Froehner) world- resource, and that this abundance explains the lack of wide and has now been reported in most coffee-pro- multiple infestations per berry; i.e., with many berries ducing countries (Vega 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • FRUIT FLY GENERA SOUTH of the UNITED STATES (Diptera: Tephritidae)
    1.0 1/11/2.5 2.2 1.1 1.1 111111.25 11111 1.4 111111.6 11111 1.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A NATIDNAL BUREAU OF STANDAROS-1963-A i 6~~ ~_. - (; ~> I' \, ," '" <> Q -i'. .D « 0" ',' '" p P 'J -:. y~.' /'.',,": :$, ,/ -l,; .C ~ r;;;:. ';. ,~ .., .. , {~ 0 , FRUIT FLY GENERA SOLJTH OF TH E UNITED STATES (Diptera: Tephritidae) by RICHARD H. FOOTE F\ UNITED STATES TECHNICAL PREPARED BY I\U.~), DEPARTMENT OF BULLETIN SCIENCE AND ~ AGRICULTURE NUMBER 1600 EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION ABSTRACT Foote, Richard H. 1980. Fruit fly genera south of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 1600,79 pp. The 88 genera of fruit flies in Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America are discussed. Keys to all genera are pre­ sented, and a synonymy, diagnosis, and discussion of each genus follow. Included for each genus is information about its distribution, its rela­ tionship to other genera, its composition in terms of the species belong­ ingto it, aids to its recognition, and references for identifying its species. Several diagnostic characteristics and the wing of at least one species in almost every genus have been illustrated. Four genera, previously re­ garded as valid, have been synonymized with others, and three addi­ tional genera, long recorded from the region, are shown not to occur in the New World or to belong to other fly families. Fruit flies comprise the most economically important family of plant-inhabiting Diptera, consid­ ering the potential for agricultu"'al damage by species of such genera as Anast-repha, Ceratitis, Dacu.s, andRhagoletis.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) Draw Their Own Portraits?
    Peckhamia 179.1 Self portraits by jumping spiders 1 PECKHAMIA 179.1, 6 February 2019, 1―14 ISSN 2161―8526 (print) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6116EC94-2146-49D9-8FDE-F11833CFA03D (registered 31 JAN 2019) ISSN 1944―8120 (online) Do jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) draw their own portraits? David E. Hill,1 Abhijith A. P. C.2 and João P. Burini 3 1 213 Wild Horse Creek Drive, Simpsonville SC 29680, USA, email [email protected] 2 Indraprastha Organic Farm, Kalalwadi Village, Udboor Post, Mysuru-570008, Karnataka, India, email abhiapc@ gmail.com 3 São Paulo, Brazil, email [email protected] Abstract. Many different insects appear to mimic the appearance of the salticid spiders as viewed from the front. Examples of this mimicry are reviewed with respect to the hypothesis that these are examples of predator mimicry, whereby salticid spiders are less likely to attack prey that present images of other salticid spiders. Key words. Anastrepha, Batesian mimicry, Blattodea, Brenthia, Brixia, Ceratitis, Choreutis, Chrysops, Cixiidae, Derbidae, Fulgoroidea, Glyphipterigidae, Glyphipterix, Goniurella, Graphopsocus, Leptoceridae, metalmark moths, Mimarachne, mimicry, Nectopsyche, Olethreutes, Phidippus, Platensina, Plexippus, predator mimicry, Procecidochares, Psocoptera, Rhagoletis, Rhotana, Rhotanini, Saltissus, Stenopsocidae, Tabanidae, Tephritidae, Tortricidae, Trichoptera, Tritoxa, Trupanea, Zonosemata Many insects display an image that suggests the appearance of a salticid spider as viewed from the front. In some cases this display also includes movement suggestive of the aggressive or agonistic displays of these spiders (e.g., Lim & Li 2004; Hill 2018). Here we review a series of examples that may represent predator mimicry, or the mimicry of predators, in this case salticid spiders, by their prey.
    [Show full text]
  • The Host Marking Pheromone Application on the Management of Fruit Flies - a Review
    835 Vol.55, n. 6: pp.835-842, November-December 2012 BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF ISSN 1516-8913 Printed in Brazil BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL The Host Marking Pheromone Application on the Management of Fruit Flies - A Review Márcio Alves Silva 1,2 * Gerane Celly Dias Bezerra-Silva 2and Thiago Mastrangelo 3 1Universidade Estadual do Piauí; 64860-000; Uruçuí - PI - Brasil. 2Departamento de Entomologia e Acarologia; Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz; Universidade de São Paulo; CP:. 9; 13418-900; Piracicaba - SP - Brasil. 3Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura; Universidade de São Paulo; CP:. 96, 13400-970; Piracicaba – SP - Brasil ABSTRACT The aim of this work was to review the role of the host marking pheromone (HMP) and its application in integrated management programs for the fruit flies. Initially the oviposition behavior of tephritids has been analyzed with emphasis on Ceratitis capitata . The deposition of HMP, which consists in the last stage of the oviposition behavior has been characterized and discussed about evolutive aspects and the biological meaning of the tephritidae communication through the HMP. Finally, the perspectives on the use of HMP in the integrated management of fruit flies have been discussed. Key words: Oviposition behavior, host marking pheromone, oviposition deterring pheromone, IPM, fruit flies INTRODUCTION of “decisions”, which are taken as they cumulate information about the potential host (Prokopy and The fruit flies (FF) belong to the Diptera order Roitberg 1989; Fletcher and Prokopy 1991; Díaz- (which has later wings transformed in halteres), Fleischer et al. 2000; Sugayama and Malavasi, Brachycera suborder (with short antenna, usually 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • A Tephritid Fly Mimics the Territorial Displays of Its Jumping Spider Predators
    A Tephritid Fly Mimics the Territorial Displays of its Jumping Spider Predators Erick Greene; Larry J. Orsak; Douglas W. Whitman Science, New Series, Vol. 236, No. 4799. (Apr. 17, 1987), pp. 310-312. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819870417%293%3A236%3A4799%3C310%3AATFMTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U Science is currently published by American Association for the Advancement of Science. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/aaas.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
    [Show full text]