Insect Diversity Conservation

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Insect Diversity Conservation This page intentionally left blank Insect Diversity Conservation This groundbreaking book is an up-to-date global synthesis of the rapidly developing and important field of insect conservation biology. Insects are by farthe most speciose organisms on earth, yet barely known. They play important roles in terrestrial ecological processes and in maintaining the world as we know it. They therefore present particular conservation chal- lenges, especially as a quarter may well become extinct in the next few decades. This book first addresses the ethical foundation of insect conservation, and asks why we should concern ourselves with conservation of a butterfly, beetle or bug. The success of insects and their diversity, which have sur- vived the comings and goings of glaciers, is now facing a more formidable obstacle: the massive impact of humans. After addressing threats, from inva- sive alien plants to global climate change, the book then explores ways in which insects and their habitats are prioritized, mapped, monitored and conserved. Landscape and species approaches are considered. Restoration, and the role of conventions and social issues are also discussed. The book is for undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers and managers both in con- servation biology or entomology and in the wider biological and environ- mental sciences. MICHAELJ.SAMWAYS is Professor of Entomology at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is internationally known as a conservation biologist and policy advisor. Insect Diversity Conservation MICHAEL J. SAMWAYS University of Stellenbosch, South Africa Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge ,UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridg e.org /9780521783385 © Michael J. Samways 2005 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2005 - ---- eBook (NetLibrary) - --- eBook (NetLibrary) - ---- hardback - --- hardback - ---- paperback - --- paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents Preface page ix Cover picture xi Part IThe need for insect diversity conservation 1 1Ethical foundation for insect conservation 3 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2Environmental philosophy and insect conservation 4 1.3 Insect utility 9 1.4 Insect rights and species conservation 11 1.5Spiritual conceptions 13 1.6 Summary 15 2 The special case of insects in conservation biology 16 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 Insect radiation 18 2.3 Bauplan, flight and insect conservation 22 2.4 Polymorphisms 23 2.5 Insect diversity and the landscape 25 2.6 Global insect species richness 28 2.7 Survival in prehistorical times 29 2.8 Current extinctions 32 2.9 The taxonomic challenge 33 2.10 The perception challenge 35 2.11 Pest insects and population crashes 36 2.12 Summary 37 3Insects and the conservation of ecosystem processes 39 3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 Insects as keystone organisms 40 3.3 Insect ecosystem engineers and soil modifiers 41 3.4 Insects as food for other animals 42 3.5 Insect dispersal 42 3.6 Insect pollinators 45 3.7 Insect herbivores 46 3.8 Insect parasitoids and predators 49 3.9 Insects and disease 50 v vi Contents 3.10 Ecosystem diversity and insect diversity 52 3.11 Insects and the naturally changing landscape 52 3.12 Significance of ecological connectance 53 3.13 Summary 54 Part II Insects and the changing world 57 4Degradation and fragmentation of ecosystems 59 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Environmental contamination 61 4.3 Pesticides 63 4.4 Agriculture and afforestation 65 4.5 Urbanization and impact of structures 68 4.6 Deforestation and logging 73 4.7 Transformation of grasslands, savanna and Mediterranean-type ecosystems 78 4.8 Deterioration and loss of aquatic systems 80 4.9 Pressure on special systems 84 4.10 Overcollecting 86 4.11 Summary 87 5Responses by insects to the changing land mosaic 89 5.1 Introduction 89 5.2 Behavioural responses 90 5.3 Population response and local extinction 98 5.4 Community response and long-term prognosis 100 5.5 Genetic changes 107 5.6 Summary 110 6 Threats from invasive aliens, biological control and genetic engineering 113 6.1 Introduction 114 6.2 Invasive alien plants 114 6.3 Invasive alien vertebrates 118 6.4 Invasive alien insects 119 6.5 Risks of introducing insect natural enemies 124 6.6 Risks of introducing insect pathogens 127 6.7 Risks of genetic engineering 130 6.8 Summary 134 7Global climate change and synergistic impacts 136 Contents vii 7.1 Introduction 136 7.2Ecosystem response to global climate change 137 7.3 Changes in species’ geographical ranges 143 7.4Synergisms and future perspectives 145 7.5 Summary 149 Part III Conserving and managing insect diversity 153 8Methods, approaches and prioritization criteria 155 8.1 Introduction 155 8.2 Towards an ‘Earth ethic’ 156 8.3 Identifying geographical areas for conservation action 158 8.4 Systematic reserve selection 162 8.5 Use of surrogates in conservation planning 163 8.6 Coarse and fine filters 167 8.7 Plant surrogates 173 8.8 Animal surrogates 174 8.9 Phylogenetic considerations 175 8.10 Are ‘umbrella’ and ‘flagship’ species of value in conservation planning? 176 8.11 Summary 178 9 Mapping, inventorying and monitoring 180 9.1 Introduction 180 9.2 Mapping 181 9.3 Inventorying 186 9.4 Monitoring 192 9.5 Red Listing 195 9.6 Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at regional or national levels 198 9.7 Insects as bioindicators 199 9.8 Reference sites 203 9.9 Summary 203 10 Managing for insect diversity 206 10.1 Introduction 206 10.2 Importance of parks, reserves and remnant patches 207 10.3 Importance of landscape heterogeneity 212 10.4 Countryside-wide management 215 10.5 Importance of patch size relative to habitat quality 217 10.6 Simulating natural conditions and traditional practices 222 viii Contents 10.7 Corridors 226 10.8 Landscape management in urban areas 231 10.9 Summary 232 11 Restoration of insect diversity 234 11.1 Introduction 234 11.2 Principle of restoration triage 235 11.3 Restoration of species or processes? 237 11.4 Coarse-filter and fine-filter approaches to restoration 240 11.5 Insect gardening 244 11.6 Species-specific recovery plans 246 11.7 Summary 250 12 Conventions and social issues in insect diversity conservation 252 12.1 Introduction 252 12.2 The international arena 253 12.3 National issues 256 12.4 Overcoming the perception challenge 257 12.5 Butterfly houses and increasing conservation awareness 259 12.6 Deadstock trade 261 12.7 Butterfly farming 262 12.8 Summary 263 References 266 Index 316 Preface Some say that ‘the cockroach’ will be the last species on Earth to survive. Then it has been calculated that one gravid aphid, left to reproduce with zero mortality, will, after one year, cover the globe with an aphid layer over 140 km thick. Not forgetting too, that flies and fleas vector disease. So, why should we even consider conserving insects? Quite simply, without insects, the likelihood is that the world as we know it would be radically changed in a matter of days. Besides, it is only a tiny minority of insects that harm our lives. These two faces of insects, friend and foe, are just one of the several paradoxes that characterize insect conservation from other facets of taxon-based conservation biology. Our impacting on landscapes can turn a benign insect species into a pest, while, on theother hand, it may cause an extinction of another species. Focusing on the land mosaic, its composition, structure and function, is thus central to insect conservation. We have no idea of the outcomes from our modification of the biosphere. Blindfolded, we are turning the many faces of the Rubik Cube of biological diversity conservation in the hope that all the faces will match. It is not that we are incapable, it is just that the world is so complex. A thousand species, forexample, in the same community (not an unreasonable figure) potentially produces 0.5 million interactions. In addition, strengths of those interactions, and hence outcomes, also vary. Bleak as this may seem, we are beginning to lift the blindfold and make ration- al decisions for conserving biological diversity. Insects and their interactions are amajor component of that diversity. Indeed, insects are virtual ambassadors for biological diversity. These little animals, by their great variety and abundance, play an unheralded yet pivotal role in our, and many other organisms’, lives. We now have a major challenge before us: How do we go about conserving this largely unseen, unknown majority? The ambassadorial status of insects for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is the reasoning behind the title ‘Insect Diversity Conservation’. ‘Biological’ is simply replaced by ‘Insect’. This is not in pursuit of entomological chauvinism but rather to emphasize that insects are central, yet with many special features, to biodiversity conservation. The aim here is to overview and critically appraise the conservation of insect diversity. It focuses strongly on the variety and differences among insects, and links these to landscape and other large-scale conservation initiatives. After all, insects do not rule the world alone. This is not, though, to ignore special cases where a particular insect species requires particular conservation attention. ix xPreface Conservation cannot be done without clearly defining our feelings and motives for why we are doing it.
Recommended publications
  • New Insects from the Earliest Permian of Carrizo Arroyo (New Mexico, USA) Bridging the Gap Between the Carboniferous and Permian Entomofaunas
    Insect Systematics & Evolution 48 (2017) 493–511 brill.com/ise New insects from the earliest Permian of Carrizo Arroyo (New Mexico, USA) bridging the gap between the Carboniferous and Permian entomofaunas Jakub Prokopa,* and Jarmila Kukalová-Peckb aDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 43 Praha 2, Czech Republic bEntomology, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1P 6P4 *Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Version of Record, published online 7 April 2017; published in print 1 November 2017 Abstract New insects are described from the early Asselian of the Bursum Formation in Carrizo Arroyo, NM, USA. Carrizoneura carpenteri gen. et sp. nov. (Syntonopteridae) demonstrates traits in hindwing venation to Lithoneura and Syntonoptera, both known from the Moscovian of Illinois. Carrizoneura represents the latest unambiguous record of Syntonopteridae. Martynovia insignis represents the earliest evidence of Mar- tynoviidae. Carrizodiaphanoptera permiana gen. et sp. nov. extends range of Diaphanopteridae previously restricted to Gzhelian. The re-examination of the type speciesDiaphanoptera munieri reveals basally coa- lesced vein MA with stem of R and RP resulting in family diagnosis emendation. Arroyohymen splendens gen. et sp. nov. (Protohymenidae) displays features in venation similar to taxa known from early and late Permian from the USA and Russia. A new palaeodictyopteran wing attributable to Carrizopteryx cf. arroyo (Calvertiellidae) provides data on fore wing venation previously unknown. Thus, all these new discoveries show close relationship between late Pennsylvanian and early Permian entomofaunas. Keywords Ephemeropterida; Diaphanopterodea; Megasecoptera; Palaeodictyoptera; gen. et sp. nov; early Asselian; wing venation Introduction The fossil record of insects from continental deposits near the Carboniferous-Permian boundary is important for correlating insect evolution with changes in climate and in plant ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Third Annual Northeastern Forest Insect Work Conference
    Proceedings of the Third Annual Northeastern Forest Insect Work Conference New Haven, Connecticut 17 -19 February 1970 U.S. D.A. FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH PAPER NE-194 1971 NORTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION, UPPER DARBY, PA. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WARREN T. DOOLITTLE, DIRECTOR Proceedings of the Third Annual Northeastern Forest Insect Work Conference CONTENTS INTRODUCTION-Robert W. Campbell ........................... 1 TOWARD INTEGRATED CONTROL- D. L,Collifis ...............................................................................2 POPULATION QUALITY- 7 David E. Leonard ................................................................... VERTEBRATE PREDATORS- C. H. Backner ............................................................................2 1 INVERTEBRATE PREDATORS- R. I. Sailer ..................................................................................32 PATHOGENS-Gordon R. Stairs ...........................................45 PARASITES- W.J. Tamock and I. A. Muldrew .......................................................................... 59 INSECTICIDES-Carroll Williams and Patrick Shea .............................................................................. 88 INTEGRATED CONTROL, PEST MANAGEMENT, OR PROTECTIVE POPULATION MANAGEMENT- R. W. Stark ..............................................................................1 10 INTRODUCTION by ROBERT W. CAMPBELL, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Hamden, Connecticut. ANYPROGRAM of integrated control is
    [Show full text]
  • THE ORIGIN and EVOLUTION of HYMENOPTEROUS INSECTS [P
    THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF HYMENOPTEROUS INSECTS [p. 24] Chapter 3 EVOLUTION OF THE INFRACLASS SCARABAEONES A. P. Rasnitzyn* Dragonflies [order Odonata] and mayflies [order Ephemeroptera], which have retained a primitive thorax structure (absence of a cryptosternum) but are specialized in other respects, occupy the most isolated position in the infraclass. They are similar to each other in a number of characters, but the nature of the latter does not allow drawing a conclusion about any close relationship of the two orders. Indeed, the primitiveness of the structure of the thorax common to both of them, like any symplesiomorphy, is not evidence of a common origin. The adaptations of the larvae of mayflies and dragonflies to an aquatic way of life are different, and they show, rather, an independent transition to development in water. The loss of the ability to fold the wings as well is connected with different processes in them: in mayflies, with the ephemerality of the imago, the function of which is essentially limited to nuptial flight and oviposition; and in dragonflies, with the metamorphosis of the adult insect to an active aerial predator. It is highly probable that mayflies and dragonflies are independent evolutionary branches. The belonging of dragonflies and mayflies to a common trunk of Scarabaeones, that is, the isolation of them from Protoptera as part of a single trunk with the remaining members of the infraclass (except Protoptera), is confirmed by the metamorphosis of the style of the ninth segment in mayfly males into part of the copulatory organ [endophallus], and in dragonfly females into a sheath of the ovipositor.
    [Show full text]
  • Homoptera: Diaspididae) Plant Protection and Quarantine of the Conterminous United States by Sueo Nakahara
    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. United States Department of Agriculture Checklist of the Animal and Plant Health Armored Scales Inspection Service (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Plant Protection and Quarantine of the Conterminous United States By Sueo Nakahara USDA, APHiS. PPG Hoboken Methods 'Oevelopmem 209 Fiiver Street Hoboken. MJ ■Q703£> United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library Introduction There are approximately 1,700 species of armored scales (Diaspididae) in the world (Beardsley and Gonzalez (1975: 47) and 285 species in the conterminous United States. Although 297 species are treated in this list, 12 species are regarded as eradicated. These 12 species are known only from the original collections and have not been collected during the past 40 years, or are recorded only from localized infestations that have been subjected to eradication measures. Aonidiella inornata McKenzie was recorded from Houston, Texas (McDaniel 1968:212), and Quadraspidiotus braunschvigi (Rungs) (Ferris 1942:426) is known only from the original collection. Although treated as eradicated, both species may still exist as localized infestations. Melanaspis multiclavata (Green and Laing) recorded from FIorida by Terris (1941:429) is a misidentification of an undescribed species (Davidson 1978, per. comm.) and is excluded from this paper. Also excluded is Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (= _P* zizyphus) reported from Mississippi (Ferris 1937:90) on the basis of one old record from lem¬ ons and oranges of questionable origin. Abgral1aspis comstocki (Johnson) and A. howardi (Cocker- ell) possibly are forms of Diaspidiotus ancylus (Putnam) (Stannard 1965:573), but are listed as separate species because of taxonomical problems with D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Padil Species Factsheet Scientific Name: Common Name Image
    1. PaDIL Species Factsheet Scientific Name: Lepidosaphes tokionis (Kuwana) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Common Name Croton Mussel Scale Live link: http://www.padil.gov.au/maf-border/Pest/Main/142940 Image Library New Zealand Biosecurity Live link: http://www.padil.gov.au/maf-border/ Partners for New Zealand Biosecurity image library Landcare Research — Manaaki Whenua http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/ MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries) http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/ 2. Species Information 2.1. Details Specimen Contact: New Zealand Arthropod Collection - [email protected] Author: Rhode, B.E. & Crosby, T.K. Citation: Rhode, B.E. & Crosby, T.K. (2013) Croton Mussel Scale(Lepidosaphes tokionis)Updated on 4/10/2014 Available online: PaDIL - http://www.padil.gov.au Image Use: Free for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY- NC 4.0) 2.2. URL Live link: http://www.padil.gov.au/maf-border/Pest/Main/142940 2.3. Facets Commodity Overview: Field Crops and Pastures, Horticulture Commodity Type: Capsicum & Chilli pepper, Citrus produce Distribution: Afrotropic, Australasia, Indo-Malaya, Nearctic, Neotropic, Palearctic Groups: Bugs Host Family: Agavaceae, Araceae, Euphorbiaceae, Malvaceae, Rutaceae, Solanaceae Pest Status: 0 Unknown Status: 0 NZ - Unknown 2.4. Other Names Croton Scale Insulaspis tokionis Borchsenius, 1963 Lepidosaphes auriculata Sanders, 1909 Lepidosaphes lasianthi Wolcott, 1936 Lepidosaphes newsteadi tokionis Fernald, 1903 Lepidosaphes tokionis Takahashi, 1935 Mytilaspis auriculata Green, 1907 Mytilaspis newsteadi tokionis Kuwana, 1902 2.5. Diagnostic Notes **Description from Williams & Watson (1988)** Scale of adult female pale brown, elongate. Male scale about same colour as female scale, smaller. Adult female, when mounted on slide, elongate: head of mature specimen sclerotised and expanded laterally to form sclerotised lobes.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylum Arthropoda*
    Zootaxa 3703 (1): 017–026 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Correspondence ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2013 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3703.1.6 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FBDB78E3-21AB-46E6-BD4F-A4ADBB940DCC Phylum Arthropoda* ZHI-QIANG ZHANG New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, New Zealand; [email protected] * In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness (Addenda 2013). Zootaxa, 3703, 1–82. Abstract The Arthropoda is here estimated to have 1,302,809 described species, including 45,769 fossil species (the diversity of fossil taxa is here underestimated for many taxa of the Arthropoda). The Insecta (1,070,781 species) is the most successful group, and it alone accounts for over 80% of all arthropods. The most successful insect order, Coleoptera (392,415 species), represents over one-third of all species in 39 insect orders. Another major group in Arthropoda is the class Arachnida (114,275 species), which is dominated by the Acari (55,214 mite and tick species) and Araneae (44,863 spider species). Other diverse arthropod groups include Crustacea (73,141 species), Trilobitomorpha (20,906 species) and Myriapoda (12,010 species). Key words: Classification, diversity, Arthropoda Introduction The Arthropoda, with over 1.5 million described species, is the largest animal phylum, and it alone accounts for about 80% of the total number of species in the animal kingdom (Zhang 2011a). In the last volume on animal higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness, 28 chapters by numerous teams of specialists were published on various taxa of the Arthropoda, but there were many gaps to be filled (Zhang 2011b).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Endopterygote Insects, the Most Successful Lineage of Living Organisms*
    REVIEW Eur. J. Entomol. 96: 237-253, 1999 ISSN 1210-5759 Phylogeny of endopterygote insects, the most successful lineage of living organisms* N iels P. KRISTENSEN Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Insecta, Endopterygota, Holometabola, phylogeny, diversification modes, Megaloptera, Raphidioptera, Neuroptera, Coleóptera, Strepsiptera, Díptera, Mecoptera, Siphonaptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera Abstract. The monophyly of the Endopterygota is supported primarily by the specialized larva without external wing buds and with degradable eyes, as well as by the quiescence of the last immature (pupal) stage; a specialized morphology of the latter is not an en­ dopterygote groundplan trait. There is weak support for the basal endopterygote splitting event being between a Neuropterida + Co­ leóptera clade and a Mecopterida + Hymenoptera clade; a fully sclerotized sitophore plate in the adult is a newly recognized possible groundplan autapomorphy of the latter. The molecular evidence for a Strepsiptera + Díptera clade is differently interpreted by advo­ cates of parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses of sequence data, and the morphological evidence for the monophyly of this clade is ambiguous. The basal diversification patterns within the principal endopterygote clades (“orders”) are succinctly reviewed. The truly species-rich clades are almost consistently quite subordinate. The identification of “key innovations” promoting evolution­
    [Show full text]
  • Ent18 1 007 016 Shcherbakov for Inet.Pmd
    Russian Entomol. J. 18(1): 716 © RUSSIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL JOURNAL, 2009 Permian insects from the Russky Island, South Primorye Ïåðìñêèå íàñåêîìûå ñ îñòðîâà Ðóññêèé â Þæíîì Ïðèìîðüå Dmitry E. Shcherbakov1, Vladimir N. Makarkin2, Daniil S. Aristov3 & Dmitry V. Vasilenko4 Ä.Å. Ùåðáàêîâ1, Â.Í. Ìàêàðêèí2, Ä.Ñ. Àðèñòîâ3, Ä.Â. Âàñèëåíêî4 1, 3, 4 Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya ul. 123, Moscow 117647, Russia. 1 E-mail: [email protected] 3 E-mail: [email protected] 4 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Biology and Soil Sciences, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok 690022, Russia. E- mail: [email protected] Ïàëåîíòîëîãè÷åñêèé èíñòèòóò ÐÀÍ, Ïðîôñîþçíàÿ óë. 123, Ìîñêâà 117647, Ðîññèÿ. Áèîëîãî-ïî÷âåííûé èíñòèòóò ÄÂÎ ÐÀÍ, Âëàäèâîñòîê 690022, Ðîññèÿ. KEY WORDS: fossil insects, Megasecoptera, Titanoptera, Grylloblattida, Homoptera, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Mecoptera, entomofauna, South Primorye, Permian, Kungurian. ÊËÞ×ÅÂÛÅ ÑËÎÂÀ: èñêîïàåìûå íàñåêîìûå, Megasecoptera, Titanoptera, Grylloblattida, Homoptera, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Mecoptera, ýíòîìîôàóíà, Þæíîå Ïðèìîðüå, ïåðìñêèé ïåðèîä, êóíãóðñêèé âåê. ABSTRACT. The first Permian insect assemblage ÐÅÇÞÌÅ. Âïåðâûå ñ Äàëüíåãî Âîñòîêà îïèñàí from the Russian Far East, collected in the lower ïåðìñêèé êîìïëåêñ íàñåêîìûõ èç íèæíåé ÷àñòè Pospelovo Formation (Kungurian, Lower Permian) of ïîñïåëîâñêîé ñâèòû (êóíãóðñêèé ÿðóñ, íèæíÿÿ the Russky Island near Vladivostok, is described. It is ïåðìü) îñòðîâà Ðóññêèé áëèç Âëàäèâîñòîêà.  í¸ì dominated
    [Show full text]
  • Karyotype of Karoophasma Biedouwense (Austrophasmatidae)
    Eur. J. Entomol. 112(4): 599–605, 2015 doi: 10.14411/eje.2015.093 ISSN 1210-5759 (print), 1802-8829 (online) First chromosomal study of Mantophasmatodea: Karyotype of Karoophasma biedouwense (Austrophasmatidae) DOROTA LACHOWSKA-CIERLIK1, ANNA MARyAńSKA-Nadachowska2, VALENTINA KuZNETSOvA3 and MIKE PICKER4 1 Institute of Zoology, Jagiellonian university, Cracow, Poland; e-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Systematic and Evolution of Animals, PAS, Cracow, Poland; e-mail: [email protected] 3 Zoological Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia; e-mail: [email protected] 4 Department of Biological Sciences, university of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Mantophasmatodea, Karoophasma biedouwense, FISH, heterochromatin, heelwalkers, meiosis, ribosomal genes, sex determination system, telomeres Abstract. We have investigated for the first time the chromosomes of Karoophasma biedouwense, a species belonging to the Manto- phasmatodea, a recently discovered order of carnivorous insects. Our study has revealed that males of this species display testes with numerous seminal tubes (follicles), as in other Polyneoptera, and short tubular seminal vesicles embedded in a utricular gland. The karyotype consists of 2n = 12A + X monocentric and biarmed, meta/submetacentric chromosomes (fundamental number of arms: FN = 26) with blocks of heterochromatin around centromeres. The autosomes are classified into two size groups, one represented by a single, very large pair of autosomes, the other by five smaller pairs which constitute a continuous series gradually decreasing in size. Among “monocentric” orders of Polyneoptera, K. biedouwense shares its low chromosome number, 2n = 13, as also found with some Orthoptera (Acridoidea, Grylloidea, Gryllacridoidea).
    [Show full text]
  • A Proteomic Approach for Studying Insect Phylogeny: CAPA Peptides of Ancient Insect Taxa (Dictyoptera, Blattoptera) As a Test Case
    BMC Evolutionary Biology BioMed Central Research article Open Access A proteomic approach for studying insect phylogeny: CAPA peptides of ancient insect taxa (Dictyoptera, Blattoptera) as a test case Steffen Roth1,3, Bastian Fromm1, Gerd Gäde2 and Reinhard Predel*1 Address: 1Institute of Zoology, University of Jena, Erbertstrasse 1, D-07743 Jena, Germany, 2Zoology Department, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa and 3Institute of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen N-5020, Norway Email: Steffen Roth - [email protected]; Bastian Fromm - [email protected]; Gerd Gäde - [email protected]; Reinhard Predel* - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 3 March 2009 Received: 6 October 2008 Accepted: 3 March 2009 BMC Evolutionary Biology 2009, 9:50 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-50 This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/50 © 2009 Roth et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: Neuropeptide ligands have to fit exactly into their respective receptors and thus the evolution of the coding regions of their genes is constrained and may be strongly conserved. As such, they may be suitable for the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships within higher taxa. CAPA peptides of major lineages of cockroaches (Blaberidae, Blattellidae, Blattidae, Polyphagidae, Cryptocercidae) and of the termite Mastotermes darwiniensis were chosen to test the above hypothesis. The phylogenetic relationships within various groups of the taxon Dictyoptera (praying mantids, termites and cockroaches) are still highly disputed.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis (PDF, 13.51MB)
    Insects and their endosymbionts: phylogenetics and evolutionary rates Daej A Kh A M Arab The University of Sydney Faculty of Science 2021 A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Authorship contribution statement During my doctoral candidature I published as first-author or co-author three stand-alone papers in peer-reviewed, internationally recognised journals. These publications form the three research chapters of this thesis in accordance with The University of Sydney’s policy for doctoral theses. These chapters are linked by the use of the latest phylogenetic and molecular evolutionary techniques for analysing obligate mutualistic endosymbionts and their host mitochondrial genomes to shed light on the evolutionary history of the two partners. Therefore, there is inevitably some repetition between chapters, as they share common themes. In the general introduction and discussion, I use the singular “I” as I am the sole author of these chapters. All other chapters are co-authored and therefore the plural “we” is used, including appendices belonging to these chapters. Part of chapter 2 has been published as: Bourguignon, T., Tang, Q., Ho, S.Y., Juna, F., Wang, Z., Arab, D.A., Cameron, S.L., Walker, J., Rentz, D., Evans, T.A. and Lo, N., 2018. Transoceanic dispersal and plate tectonics shaped global cockroach distributions: evidence from mitochondrial phylogenomics. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(4), pp.970-983. The chapter was reformatted to include additional data and analyses that I undertook towards this paper. My role was in the paper was to sequence samples, assemble mitochondrial genomes, perform phylogenetic analyses, and contribute to the writing of the manuscript.
    [Show full text]