1. Trang chủ
  2. » Nông - Lâm - Ngư

Entomology 3rd edition - C.Gillott - Chapter 2 ppt

32 591 0

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 32
Dung lượng 1,31 MB

Nội dung

2 Insect Diversit y 1 . Intr oduc t ion I n this chapter, we shall examine the evolutionar y development of the tremendous variet y of insects that we see toda y . From the limited fossil record it would appear that the earliest insects were win g less, th y sanuranlike forms that abounded in the Silurian and Devonian pe - r i o d s. T h ema j or a d vance ma d e b yt h e i r d escen d ants was t h eevo l ut i on o f w i ngs, f ac ili tat i ng di spersa l an d ,t h ere f ore, co l on i zat i on o f new h a bi tats. Dur i ng t h e Car b on if erous an d Per- m i an per i o d st h ere was a mass i ve a d apt i ve ra di at i on o f w i n g e df orms, an di t was at t hi st i me t hat most of the modern orders had their be g innin g s. Althou g h members of man y of thes e orders retained a life histor y similar to that of their win g less ancestors, in which the chan g e f rom j uven il etoa d u l t f orm was gra d ua l (t h e h em i meta b o l ous or exopterygote or d ers), i n ot h er or d ers a lif e hi story evo l ve di nw hi c h t h e j uven il ean d a d u l tp h ases are separate db y a pupa l sta g e(t h e h o l ometa b o l ous or en d opter yg ote or d ers). T h e g reat a d vanta g eo fh av i n g a pupal sta g e (althou g h this is neither its ori g inal nor its onl y si g nificance) is that the j uvenile and adult sta g es can become ver y different from each other in their habits, thereb y avoidin g compet i t i on f or t h e same resources. T h eevo l ut i on o f w i ngs an dd eve l opment o f a pupa l stage h ave h a d suc h a pro f oun d e ff ect on t h e success o fi nsects t h at t h ey w ill b e di scusse d as separate top i cs i n some d eta il b e l ow . 2. Pr i m i t i ve W i ngless Insect s The earliest win g less insects to appear in the fossil record are Microcor y phia (Archeognatha) (bristletails) from the Lower Devonian of Quebec (Labandeir a et al. , 1988) an d M iddl eDevon i an o f New Yor k (S h ea r et a l. , 1984). T h ese, toget h er w i t hf oss il Monura (F i gure 2.1A) an d Zygentoma (s il ver fi s h )(F i gure 2.1B) f rom t h e Upper Car b on if erous an d Permian periods, constitute a few remnants of an ori g inall y extensive apter yg ote fauna that existed in the Silurian and Devonian periods. Primitive features of the microcor y phians include the monocondylous mandibles which exhibit segmental sutures, fully segmented ( i .e., l eg lik e) max ill ary pa l ps w i t h two term i na l c l aws, a di st i nct r i ng lik esu b coxa l segment on t h e meso- an d metat h orax ( i na ll rema i n i ng Insecta t hi s b ecomes fl attene d an df orms part of the pleural wall), undivided cercal bases, and an ovipositor that has no g onan g ulum. 2 5 26 CHAPTER 2 m s- a r- t h e 7 – o r.] The earl y bristletails, like their modern relatives, perhaps fed on al g ae, lichens, and debris . The y escaped from predators b y runnin g and j umpin g , the latter achieved b y abrupt flexin g o f the abdomen . M onura are un i que among Insecta i nt h at t h ey reta i n cerca ll egs (Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k , 1 98 5 ). Other primitive features of this group are the segmented head, fully segmente d m ax ill ar y an dl a bi a l pa l ps, l ac k o f diff erent i at i on o f t h et h orac i cse g ments, se g mente d abdominal le g lets, the lon g caudal filament, and the coatin g of sensor y bristles over the bod y ( Kukalov´a-Peck, 1991). Features the y share with the Z yg entoma and Pter yg ota are dicond y- l ous man dibl es, we ll -sc l erot i ze d t h orac i cp l eura, an d t h e gonangu l um, l ea di ng Ku k a l ov´a- P ec k (1987) to suggest t h at t h e Monura are t h es i ster group o f t h e Zygentoma + P terygota . Carpenter (1992), h owever, i nc l u d e d t h e Monura as a su b or d er o f t h eM i crocor y p hi a. S h ea r and Kukalov´a-Peck (1990) su gg ested, on the basis of their morpholo gy , that monurans probabl y lived in swamps, climbin g on emer g ent ve g etation, and feedin g on soft mat- ter. Escape f rom pre d ators may h ave occurre d ,as i nt h eM i crocoryp hi a, b y runn i ng an d j ump i ng . In contrast to t h e i r rap idl y runn i ng, mo d ern re l at i ves, t h e ear l ys il ver fi s h , f or examp l e , the 6 -cm-lon g. Ramsdele p idion schuster i ( Fi g ure 2.1B), with their weak le g s, probabl y av oided predators b yg enerall y remainin g concealed. When exposed, however, the numer - o us long bristles that covered the abdominal leglets, cerci, and median filament may hav e prov id e d a hi g hl y sens i t i ve, ear l y warn i ng system. O f part i cu l ar i nterest i nany di scuss i on of apterygote re l at i ons hi ps i st h e extant s il ver fi s h Tric h o l epi d ion g ertsc hi ,di scovere di n California in 19 6 1. The species is sufficientl y different from other recent Z yg entoma that i t is placed in a separate famil y Lepidotrichidae, to which some Oli g ocene fossils als o belon g . Indeed, Tricholepidion p ossesses a number of features common to both Microco - ryphia and Monura (see Chapter 5 , Section 6), leading Sharov (1966) to suggest that the f amily to which it belongs is closer than any other to the thysanuranlike ancestor of the f f P ter yg ota . 27 IN S E C TDI V ER S IT Y 3 . Evolution of Win g ed Insects 3.1. Ori g in and Evolution of Win g s T h eor i g i no fi nsect w i ngs h as b een one o f t h e most d e b ate d su bj ects i n entomo l ogy f or c l ose to two centur i es, an d even to d ay t h e quest i on rema i ns f ar f rom b e i ng answere d . Most authors a g ree, in view of the basic similarit y of structure of the win g s of insects, both fossil and extant, that win g s are of monoph y letic ori g in; that is, win g s arose in a sin g le g roup o f ancestral apterygotes. Where disagreement occurs is with respect to (1) whether the win g precursors (pro-w i ngs) were f use d to t h e b o d y or were art i cu l ate d ; (2) t h e pos i t i on(s) o n th e b o d yatw hi c h pro-w i ngs d eve l ope d (an d ,re l ate d to t hi s, h ow many pa i rs o f pro-w i ng s ori g inall y existed); (3) the ori g inal functions of pro-win g s; (4) the selection pressures that led to the formation of win g s from pro-win g s; and (5) the nature of the ancestral insects; t hat is, were they terrestrial or aquatic, were they larval or adult, and what was their size (Wootton, 1986, 2001; Brodsky, 1994; Kingsolver and Koehl, 1994). At t h e core o f a ll t h eor i es on t h eor i g i no f w i ngs i st h e matter o f w h et h er t h e pro - w in g s initiall y were out g rowths of the bod y wall (i.e., non-articulated structures) or were h in g ed flaps. Althou g h there have been several proposals for win g ori g in based on non- articulated pro-wings (see Kukalov´a-Peck, 1978), undoubtedly the most popular of these is the Paranotal Theory, suggested by Woodward (1876, cited in Hamilton, 1971), and sup- ported by Sharov (19 66 ), Hamilton (1971), Wootton (197 6 ), Rasnitsyn (1981), and others. T he theor y is based on three pieces of evidence: (1) the occurrence of ri g id ter g al out g rowth s (win g pads) on modern larval exopter yg otes (onto g en y recapitulatin g ph y lo g en y ); (2) th e occurrence in fossil insects, both winged (Figure 2.5) and wingless (Figure 2.1B), of large paranota ll o b es w i t h a venat i on s i m il ar to t h at o f mo d ern w i ngs; an d (3) t h e assume dh omo l - ogy o f w i ng pa d san dl atera l a bd om i na l expans i ons, b ot h o f w hi c hh ave r i g id connect i on s w ith the ter g a and, internall y , are in direct communication with the hemol y mph . Essentiall y the theor y states that win g s arose from ri g id, lateral out g rowths (paranota) of the thoracic ter g a that became enlar g ed and, eventuall y , articulated with the thorax. I t p resumes t h at, w h ereas t h ree p a i rs o fp aranota ll o b es were id ea lf or att i tu di na l contro l (se e b e l ow), on l ytwopa i rs o ffl app i ng w i ngs were necessary to prov id e a mec h an i ca ll ye ffi c i en t s y stem f or fligh t. (In d ee d ,as i nsects h ave e vo l ve d t h ere h as b een a tren d towar d t h ere d uct i o n of the number of functional win g s to one pair [see Chapter 3, Section 4.3.2]). This free d t he prothorax for other functions such as protection of the membranous neck and servin g as a b ase f or attac h ment o f t h e musc l es t h at contro lh ea d mo v ement. Var i ous suggest i ons h ave b een ma d e to account f or d eve l opment o f t h e paranota. For example, Alexander and Brown (19 6 3) proposed that the lobes functioned ori g inall y as or g ans of epi g amic displa y or as covers for pheromone-producin gg lands. Whalle y (1979 ) and Dou g las (1981) su gg ested a role in thermore g ulation for the paranota, an idea that h as received support from the experiments of Kingsolver and Koehl (1985) using models . M ost aut h ors, h owever, h ave tra di t i ona ll y b e li eve d t h at t h e paranota arose to protect t h e i n- sect, espec i a ll y, per h aps, i ts l egsorsp i rac l es. En l argement an d art i cu l at i on o f t h e paranota l lobes were associated with movement of the insect throu g h the air. Packard (1898, cited i n Wi gg lesworth, 1973) su gg ested that win g s arose in surface-dwellin g , j umpin g insects and served as gliding planes that would increase the length of the jump. However, the almost sync h ronous evo l ut i on o fi nsect w i ngs an d ta ll p l ants supports t h e id ea t h at w i ngs evo l ve d in insects living on plant foliage. Wigglesworth (19 6 3a,b) proposed that wings arose in small aerial insects where li g ht cuticular expansions would facilitate takeoff and dispersal. 28 CHAPTER 2 The appearance later of muscles for movin g these structures would help the insect to lan d the ri g ht wa y up. Hinton (19 6 3a), on the other hand, ar g ued that the y evolved in somewha t l ar g er insects and the ori g inal function of the paranota was to provide attitudinal control i n f a lli ng i nsects. T h ere i sano b v i ous se l ect i ve a d vantage f or i nsects t h at can l an d “on t h e i r f eet,” over t h ose t h at cannot, i nt h e escape f rom pre d ators. As t h e paranota i ncrease di n s i ze, t h e y wou ld b ecome secon d ar ily i mportant i n ena bli n g t h e i nsect to glid e f or a g reater distance. Flower’s (19 6 4) theoretical stud y examined the h y potheses of both Wi gg leswort h and Hinton. Flower’s calculations showed that small pro j ections (rudimentar y paranotal l o b es) wou ld h avenos i gn ifi cant a d vantage f or very sma ll i nsects i n terms o f aer i a ldi s- persa l . However, suc h structures wou ld con f er great a d vantages i n att i tu di na l contro l an d , l ater, g lid e per f ormance f or i nsects 1–2 cm i n l engt h .F l ower’s proposa l s h ave b een ex- amined experimentall y throu g h the use of models (Kin g solver and Koehl, 1985; Wootto n and Ellin g ton, 1991; Ellin g ton, 1991; Hasenfuss, 2002). These studies have served to em - phasize the importance of the ancestral insect’s body size, as well as confirming that even q u i te sma ll pro j ect i ons cou ld contr ib ute to sta bili ty (a poss ibl ero l e f or appen d ages suc h as antennae, l egs, an d cerc i s h ou ld not b e i gnore d , h owever). Anot h er cons id erat i on i st he i nsect’s speed on landin g (and whether the insect mi g ht be dama g ed). Ellin g ton’s (1991 ) anal y sis su gg ested that the win g lets mi g ht have been important in reducin g this termina l v elocity, and there would be strong selection pressure to increase their size as a means o f f urt h er re d uc i ng l an di ng spee d. In t h e Paranota l T h eory a cr i t i ca l step i nt h e trans i t i on f rom g lidi ng to fl app i ng fli g ht w ould be the development of a hin g e so that the win g lets became articulated with the bod y. Most supporters would su gg est that this would occur simpl y to improve the insect’s control o f attitude or landin g speed, thou g h various non-aerod y namic functions ma y also have been i mprove d t h roug h t h e d eve l opment o f art i cu l ate d w i ng l ets. For examp l e, K i ngso l ver an d K oehl (198 5 ) noted the potential for more efficient thermoregulation that would arise fro m h av i n g mova bl ew i n gl ets. Ot h er aut h ors h ave su gg este d t h at t h e hi n g eevo l ve di n i t i a lly in o rder that the pro j ections could be folded alon g the side of the bod y , thereb y enablin g the i nsect to crawl into narrow spaces and thus avoid capture. Onl y later would the movement s b ecome su ffi c i ent l y strong as to ma k et h e i nsect more or l ess i n d epen d ent o f a i r current s f or i ts di str ib ut i on. In t hi s h ypot h es i st h e ear li est fl y i ng i nsects wou ld rest w i t h t h e i rw i ng s sprea d at r i g h t ang l es to t h e b o d y, as d omo d ern d ragon fli es an d may fli es. T h e fi na l ma j or step in win g evolution was the development of win g foldin g , that is, the abilit y to draw the win g s when at rest over the back. This abilit y would be stron g l y selected for, as it w ould confer considerable advantage on insects that possessed it, enabling them to hide i n ve getat i on, i n crev i ces, un d er stones, etc., t h ere b y avo idi ng pre d ators an dd es i ccat i on. An i mp li c i t part o f t h e Paranota l T h eory i st h at t hi sa bili ty evo l ve di nt h ea d u l t stage. It was Oken (1811, cited in Wi gg lesworth, 1973) who made the first su gg estion that w in g s evolved from an alread y articulated structure, namel yg ills. Woodworth (1906, cite d i n Wigglesworth, 1973), having noted that gills are soft, flexible structures perhaps not e as il y converte d ( i nanevo l ut i onary sense) i nto r i g id w i ngs, mo difi e d t h eG ill T h eory by suggest i ng t h at w i ngs were more lik e l y f orme df rom accessory g ill structures, t h emova ble gill p l ates w hi c h protect t h e gill san d cause water to c i rcu l ate aroun d t h em. T h e gill p l ates, b y their ver y functions, would alread y possess the necessar y ri g idit y and stren g th. Thi s proposal receives support from embr y olo gy , which has shown abdominal se g mental g ills of l arva l Ep h emeroptera to b e h omo l ogous w i t hl egs, not w i ngs. W i gg l eswort h (1973 , 1 97 6 ) resurrected, and attempted to extend, the Gill Theory by proposing that in terrestrial apter yg otes t h e h omo l o g ues o f t h e gill p l ates are t h e coxa l st yli ,an di twas f rom t h et h orac ic 29 IN S E C TDI V ER S IT Y coxal st y li that win g s evolved. Kukalov´a-Peck (1978) stated that the homolo gy of the win gs and st y li as proposed b y Wi gg lesworth was not acceptable and pointed out that win gs are alwa y s located above the thoracic spiracles, whereas le g s alwa y s articulate with the th orax b e l ow t h esp i rac l es. In support o f W i gg l eswort h ’s proposa l , i ts h ou ld b e note d t h at pr i m i t i ve l yw i ngs are move db y musc l es attac h e d to t h e coxae (see C h apter 14, Sect i o n 3.3.3) an d are trac h eate dbyb ranc h es o f t h e l e g trac h eae . G raduall y , the “articulated pro-win g s” proposal has g ained support, drawin g on ev - idence from paleontolo gy , developmental biolo gy , neurobiolo gy , g enetics, comparativ e anatomy, an d transp l ant exper i ments. Among i ts l ea di ng proponents i sKu k a l ov´a-Pec k (1978, 1983, 1987) w h o not on l y presente d a strong case f oraw i ng or i g i n f rom art i cu l ate d pro-w i ngs, b ut s i mu l taneous l y cast ma j or d ou b tont h e paranota l t h eory an d t h eev id ence f o r it. She ar g ued that the fossil record supports none of this evidence. Rather, it indicates j ust t he opposite sequence of events, namel y , that the primitive arran g ement was one of freel y movable pro-wings on all thoracic and abdominal segments of juvenile insects, and it wa s f rom t hi s arrangement t h at t h e fi xe d w i ng-pa d con di t i on o f mo d ern j uven il e exopterygotes ev ol ve d . Accor di ng to Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k , numerous f oss ili ze dj uven il e i nsects h ave b een f oun d w ith articulated thoracic pro-win g s. However, with few exceptions even in the earliest fossi l insects, both j uvenile and adult, the abdominal pro-win g s are alread y fused with the ter ga and frequently reduced in size. Some juvenile Protorthoptera with articulated abdomina l pro-w i ngs h ave b een d escr ib e d ,an di n extant Ep h emeroptera t h ea bd om i na l pro-w i ngs are reta i ne d as mova bl eg ill p l ates . I n proposin g her ideas for the ori g in and evolution of win g s, Kukalov´a-Peck emphasized t hat these events probabl y occurred in “semiaquatic” insects livin g in swamp y areas and feedin g on primitive terrestrial plants, al g ae, rottin g ve g etation, or, in some instances, othe r sma ll an i ma l s. It was i n suc hi nsects t h at pro-w i ngs d eve l ope d .T h e pro-w i ngs d eve l ope d on a ll t h orac i can d a bd om i na l segments (spec ifi ca ll y f rom t h eep i coxa l ex i te at t h e b ase o f eac h l e g ), were present i na ll i nstars, an d at t h e outset were hi n g e d to t h ep l eura (not t h e ter g a) . W ith regard to the selection pressures that led to the origin of pro-wings, Kukalov´ WW a-Peck ´ u sed ideas expressed b y earlier authors. She su gg ested that pro-win g sma y have functioned i n i t i a ll yassp i racu l ar fl aps to prevent entry o f water i nto t h e trac h ea l system w h en t h e i nsect s b ecame su b merge d or to prevent l oss o f water v i at h e trac h ea l system as t h e i nsects c li m b e d vegetat i on i n searc h o ff oo d .A l ternat i ve l y, t h ey may h ave b een p l ates t h at protecte d t h e g ills and/or created respirator y currents over them, or tactile or g ans comparable to (but no t h omolo g ous with) the coxal st y li of th y sanurans. Initiall y , the pro-win g s were saclike an d internally confluent with the hemocoel. Improved mechanical strength and efficiency would b ega i ne d , h owever, b y fl atten i ng an db y restr i ct i ng h emo l ymp hfl ow to spec ifi cc h anne ls (ve i n f ormat i on). Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k specu l ate d t h at eventua ll yt h e pro-w i ngs o f t h et h ora x and abdomen became structurall y and functionall y distinct, with the former g rowin g lar ge enou g h to assist in forward motion, probabl y in water. This new function of underwater rowing would create selection pressure leading to increased size and strength of pro-wings, i mprove d muscu l ar coor di nat i on, an db etter art i cu l at i on o f t h e pro-w i ngs, ma ki ng rotat i on poss ibl e. T h ese i mprovements wou ld a l so i mprove att i tu di na l contro l ,g lidi ng a bili ty, an d th ere f ore surv i va l an ddi spersa lf or t h e i nsects if t h e yj umpe d or f e ll o ff ve g etat i on w h en on land. The final phase would be the development of pro-win g s of sufficient size and mobilit y t hat fli g ht became possible. Ama j or diffi cu l ty i nt h et h eory t h at w i ngs arose f rom art i cu l ate d pro-w i ngs i n aquat i c or amp hibi ous ancestors i stoexp l a i n sat i s f actor il yt h e nature o f t h e i nterme di ate stages. Th at i s, h ow cou ld fli ers evo l ve f rom sw i mmers? Mar d en an d Kramer ( 1994 ) ma d et h e 30 CHAPTER 2 f ascinatin g su gg estion that surface skimmin g , as seen in some livin g stoneflies (Plecoptera) and the subadult sta g e of some ma y flies (Ephemeroptera), ma y represent this intermediat e phase. Essentiall y , surface skimmin g is runnin g on the water surface, usin g the weak flappin g m ovements o f t h ew i ngs to generate propu l s i on. Because t h e water supports t h ewe i g h to f t h e i nsect’s b o d y, t h e muscu l ar d eman d so f s ki mm i ng are f ar l ess t h an t h ose requ i re din a f u lly a i r b orne i nsect. T h us, stone fli es w i t h qu i te sma ll w i n g san d wea k fligh t musc l e s c an surface skim . Thomas et al. (2000) combined a molecular ph y lo g enetic anal y sis of th e P lecoptera with an examination of locomotor behavior and win g structure in representatives of f am ili es across t h eor d er. T h e i r stu d ys h owe d t h at sur f ace s ki mm i ng, a l ong w i t h wea k fli g h t, i s a reta i ne d ancestra l tra i t i n stone fli es, support i ng t h e h ypot h es i st h at t h e fi rs t wi nge di nsects were sur f ace s ki mmers. Mar d en an d T h omas (2003) h ave prov id e df urt h er support for Kukalov´a-Peck’s proposals b y stud y in g the Chilean stonefl y Diam p hi p no p sis s amali. The weakl y fl y in g adults o f D. samali use their forewin g s as oars to row across th e w ater surface. Further, they retain abdominal gills. The larval stage is amphibious, living b y d ay i n f ast-mov i ng streams, b ut f orag i ng at t h e water’s e d ge b yn i g h t. T h us, D. s ama l i m ay represent a very ear l y stage on t h e roa d to true fli g h t: an amp hibi ous lif esty l e, t he c o-occurrence of win g s and g ills, and the abilit y to row on the water surface. In addition to her views on win g ori g in, Kukalov´a-Peck has also speculated on th e ev olution of fused wing pads in juveniles and wing folding. Noting that the earliest flying i nsects h a d w i ngs t h at stuc k out at r i g h t ang l es to t h e b o d y, Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k po i nte d out t h at , as t h ey d eve l ope d ( i n an ontogenet i c sense), t h e i nsects wou ld b esu bj ecte d to two se l ect i o n pressures. One, exerted in the adult sta g e, would be toward improvement of fl y in g abilit y ; the o ther, which acted on j uvenile instars, would promote chan g es that enabled them to escape o r hide more easil y under ve g etation, etc. In other words, it would lead to a streamlinin g of b o d ys h ape i n j uven il es. In most Pa l eoptera stream li n i ng was ac hi eve d t h roug h t h e ev o l ut i on o f w i ngs t h at i n ear l y i nstars were curve d so t h at t h et i ps were di recte db ac k war d . A t eac h mo l t, t h e curvature o f t h ew i n g s b ecame l ess unt il t h e “stra igh t-out” pos i t i on o f the full y developed win g s was achieved. Two other g roups of paleopteran insects became m ore streamlined as j uveniles throu g h the evolution of a win g -foldin g mechanism, a feature t h at was a l so a d vantageous to, an d was t h ere f ore reta i ne di n, t h ea d u l t stage. T h e fi rst o f t h ese groups, t h e f oss il or d er D i ap h anoptero d ea, rema i ne d pr i m i t i ve i not h er respects an dis i ncluded therefore in the infraclass Paleoptera (Table 2.1 and Figure 2. 6 ). The second group , w hose win g -foldin g mechanism was different from that of Diaphanopterodea, containe d the ancestors of the Neoptera. The g reatest selection pressure would be exerted on the older juvenile instars, which could neither fly nor hide easily. In Kukalov´a-Peck’s scheme, the old er j uven il e i nstars were eventua ll y rep l ace db yas i ng l e metamorp hi c i nstar i nw hi c h t h e i ncreas i ng c h ange o ff orm b etween j uven il ean d a d u l t cou ld b e accomp li s h e d .To f urt h er aid streamlinin g and, in the final j uvenile instar, to protect the increasin g l y more delicat e w in g s developin g within, the win g sof j uveniles became firml y fused with the ter g aan d m ore sclerotized, that is, wing pads. This state is comparable to that in modern exopterygote (h em i meta b o l ous) i nsects. Furt h er re d uct i on o f a d u l t structures to t h epo i nt at w hi c h t h e y e x i st unt il metamorp h os i sasun diff erent i ate d em b ryon i ct i ssues ( i mag i na ldi scs) b eneat h t h e j uven il e i nte g ument l e d to t h een d opter yg ote ( h o l ometa b o l ous) con di t i on, t h at i s, t h e ev olution of the pupal sta g e (Section 3.3). R e g ardless of their ori g in, the win g s of the earliest fl y in g insects were presumabl y w e ll -sc l erot i ze d , h eavy structures w i t h numerous ill - d e fi ne d ve i ns. S li g h t traces o ffl ut i n g ( t h e f ormat i on o f a l ternat i ng concave an d convex l ong i tu di na l ve i ns f or a dd e d strengt h ) m a yh ave b een apparent (Ham il ton, 1971). T h ew i n g s (an d fligh te ffi c i enc y ) were i mprove d 31 IN S E C TDI V ER S IT Y T ABLE 2 . 1 . The Major Groups of Pterygota D ivisions within Neopter a I nfraclass O rder s Mart y nov’s scheme Hamilton’s scheme Paleodictyoptera a Megasecopter a a D i a ph ano p tero d ea a P aleo p tera ⎧ ⎪ ⎧ ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎪ P e rm ot h e mi st i da a Pr otodo n ata a Od onata ( d ra g on fli es, d amse lfli es) Ep h emeroptera (ma yfli es ) Protort h optera a D i ct y optera (coc k roac h es, mant id s ) Iso p tera (termites) O rthoptera (grasshoppers, locusts, crickets ) M i omopter a a P li coneo p teraProte ly troptera a ⎫ ⎪ ⎫⎫ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪ Dermaptera (earwigs ) G ry ll o bl atto d ea (gry ll o bl att id s) ⎫ ⎪ ⎫ ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪ P o l yneoptera Manto p hasmatodea Phasmida (stick and leaf insects) Em bi optera (we b sp i nners ) Para p leco p tera a C aloneurode a a Protoper l ar i a a P l eco p tera (stone fli es) Z ora p tera (zora p terans) N eoptera ⎧ ⎪ ⎧⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎨ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎨⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎪ G lossel y trode a a Psoco p tera ( b oo kli ce ) Phthiraptera (biting and sucking lice) ⎫ ⎪ ⎫⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪ P araneo p tera Hemiptera (bugs ) T hy sanoptera (t h r i ps ) Megaloptera (dobsonflies, aIderflies ) ⎫ ⎪ ⎫⎫ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎬ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎬⎬ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪ P l anoneoptera Ra phidi o p tera (sna k e fli es ) Neuroptera (lacewin g s, mantispids) ⎫ ⎪ ⎫⎫ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪ Mecoptera (scorp i on fli es) Le pid o p tera ( b utter fli es, mot h s) Tricho p tera (caddis flies ) O ligoneoptera Diptera (true flies ) Si p h onaptera ( fl eas) H y menoptera ( b ees, wasps, ants, i chneumons ) Coleoptera (beetles ) S treps i ptera (sty l opo id s) a Entirel y fossil orders . b y a reduction in sclerotization, as seen in Paleoptera. Onl y the articulatin g sclerites at the base of the wing and the integument adjacent to the tracheae remained sclerotized, the latter g i v i ng r i se to t h eve i ns. F l ut i ng was accentuate di nt h ePa l eoptera, an d t h e di sta l area o f t h e w in g was additionall y stren g thened b y the formation of non-tracheated intercalar y veins and numerous crossveins (Hamilton, 1971, 1972). 32 CHAPTER 2 F I GU RE 2.2 . A proposed g round plan of win g articulation and win g venation. Abbreviations: A, anterior; A n, anal; C, costa; Cu, cubitus; J, jugal; M, media; P, posterior; PC, precosta; R, radius; Sc, subcosta. [After J . Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k , 1983, Or igi no f t h e i nsect w i n g an d w i n g art i cu l at i on f rom t h e art h ropo d an l e g, C an. J. Zoo l. 61 : 1618–1669. B y permission of the National Research Council of Canada and the author. ] K u k a l ov´a-Pec k (1983) ar g ue d t h at t h e g roun d p l an o f w i n g art i cu l at i on i nc l u d e d e igh t rows of four articulatin g sclerites (Fi g ure 2.2). These sclerites were derived, in her view, f rom the epicoxa of the primitive le g and, as a result, were moved b y ancestral le g muscles . O riginating on the outer edge of each row was a wing vein. This articular arrangement, seen o n l y i nD i ap h anoptero d ea, a ll owe d t h esc l er i tes to b e crow d e d an d s l ante db y contract i on o f t h ese musc l es, so t h atapr i m i t i ve f orm o f w i ng f o ldi ng cou ld occur. In a ll ot h er Pa l eoptera, f ossil and extant, fusion of sclerites occurred to form axillar y plates that, in turn, became united with some veins. Thou g h the details of this process varied amon g the paleopteran groups, the end result was that, while it undoubtedly strengthened the wing attachment, i t prevente d w i ng f o ldi ng. Essent i a ll y, i nmo d ern Pa l eoptera t h e b ase o f eac h w i ng art i cu l ate s at t h ree po i nts w i t h t h e tergum, t h et h ree ax ill ary sc l er i tes runn i ng i n a stra i g h t li ne a l on g the bod y . In the evolution of Neoptera the axillar y sclerites altered their ali g nment so that e ach win g articulated with the ter g um at onl y two points. This alteration of ali g nment made w ing folding possible . A secon di mportant consequence o f t h ea l tere d art i cu l at i on o f t h ew i ng was a f urt h e r i mprovement i n fli g h te ffi c i ency. In Ep h emeroptera an d , presuma bl y, most or a ll f oss il P aleoptera the win g beat is essentiall y a simple up-and-down motion; in Neoptera eac h w in g twists as it flaps and its tip traces a fi g ure-ei g ht path. In other words, the win g “rows ” throu g h the air, pushin g a g ainst the air with its undersurface durin g the downstroke y e t c utt i ng t h roug h t h ea i rw i t hi ts l ea di ng e d ge on t h e upstro k e. To carry out t hi srow i n g m ot i on e ff ect i ve l y necess i tate d t h e l oss o f most o f t h ew i ng fl ut i ng. On l yt h e costa l are a ( F ig ure 3.27) nee d sto b er igid as t hi s l ea d st h ew i n gi n i ts stro k e, an dfl ut i n gi s reta i ne d here ( Hamilton, 1971 ). Another evolutionar y trend, a g ain leadin g to improved fli g ht, was a reduction in win g w e i g h t, perm i tt i ng b ot h eas i er w i ng tw i st i ng an d an i ncrease d rate o f w i ng b eat i ng (see a l s o C h apter 14, Sect i on 3.3.4). Concom i tant w i t h t hi sre d uct i on i nwe i g h t was a f us i on or l oss of some ma j or ve i ns an d t h e l oss o f crossve i ns. T h e extent an d nature o ff us i on or l oss o f v eins followed certain patterns that, to g ether with other structural features, for example, 33 IN S E C TDI V ER S IT Y lines of flexion and lines of foldin g , are potentiall y important characters on which conclu- sions about the evolutionar y relationships of neopteran insects can be based. Unfortunatel y , complicatin g this important tool has been a tendenc y for authors to use different terminolo- g i es w h en d escr ibi ng t h eve i ns an d w i ng areas o f diff erent groups o fi nsects, an aspect t h at i s d ea l tw i t h more f u ll y i nC h apter 3 (Sect i on 4.3.2) . 3.2. Phylo g enetic Relationships of the Ptery g ota There are some 2 5 –30 orders of living pterygote insects and about 10 containing only f oss il f orms, t h e num b er vary i ng accor di ng to t h e aut h or i ty consu l te d .C l ar ifi cat i on o f t he relationships of these g roups ma y utilize fossil evidence, comparisons of extant forms, or a combination of both. Increasin g l y , morpholo g ical data and molecular information are bein g combined in massive cladistical anal y ses in an effort to resolve some lon g -standin g ar g u- ments. For exam pl e, W h ee l e r et a l. ( 2001) employed 27 5 morphological variables and 18 S and 28S rDNA sequences from more than 120 species of hexapods, plus 6 outgroup repre- sentat i ves, to o b ta i na“ b est- fi t” ana ly s i so f t h ere l at i ons hi ps o f t h e i nsect or d ers. Even so , none of these approaches is entirel y satisfactor y . For example, in extant species secondar y modifications ma y mask the ancestral apomorphic characters. Equall y , molecular studies may g i ve spur i ous resu l ts if t h e samp l es i ze i s too sma ll . Foss il s, on t h eot h er h an d , are re l a- ti ve l y scarce an d o f ten poor l yor i ncomp l ete l y preserve d, * espec i a ll y f rom t h eDevon i an an d L ower Carboniferous periods durin g which a g reat adaptive radiation of insects occurred. By the Permian period, from which man y more fossils are available, almost all of the modern orders had been established. Misidentification of fossils and misinter p retation of structures b y ear l ypa l eonto l og i sts l e d to i ncorrect conc l us i ons a b out t h ep h y l ogeny o f certa i n group s an d t h e d eve l opment o f con f us i ng nomenc l ature. For examp l e , E u g ereo n , aLo w er Perm i a n f oss il w i t h suc ki n g mout h parts, was p l ace di nt h eor d er Proto h em i ptera. It i s now rea li se d t hat this insect is a member of the order Paleodict y optera and is not related to the modern order Hemiptera as was ori g inall y concluded. Likewise the Protoh y menoptera, whose win g venat i on super fi c i a ll y resem bl es t h at o f Hymenoptera, were t h oug h tor i g i na ll yto b e ances - t ra l to t h e Hymenoptera. It i s now apprec i ate d t h at t h ese f oss il s are pa l eopteran i nsects, mos t o f w hi c hb e l on g to t h eor d er Me g asecoptera (Ham il ton, 1972). Carpenter (1992) pu bli s h e d an authoritative account of the fossil Insecta in which he reco g nized nine orders of fossil pter yg otes. With further work, some of these will undoubtedl y require splittin g (i.e., the y are polyphyletic groups), for example, the Protorthoptera [described by Kukalov´ a-Peck and ´ B rauc k mann (1992) as t h e “waste b as k et taxon”!], an d spec i es now c l ass ifi e d i ncertae s e d i s ( o f un k nown a ffi n i ty) w ill b ep l ace di nt h e i r correct taxon (Wootton, 1981). T o aid subsequent discussion of the evolutionar y relationships within the Pter yg ota, t he various orders referred to in the text are listed in Table 2.1 . I t has generally been assumed that the Paleoptera and Neoptera had a common ancestor [in the hypothetical order Protoptera (Sharov, 1966)] in the Middle Devonian, although ther e i sno f oss il recor d o f suc h an ancestor. Remar k a bl y, a recent re-exam i nat i on o f apa i ro f m an dibl es fi rst d escr ib e di n1 9 28 as Rhy nio g nat h a h irsti ,f rom t h e same Lower Devon i a n d e p osits as the collembolan Rhyniella praecursor (Chapter 5, Section 2), su gg ests that w in g ed insects ma y have had a much earlier ori g in than previousl y thou g ht (En g el an d * Many fossil orders were established on the basis of limited fossil evidence (e.g., a single wing). Carpenter (1977) r ecommen d e d t h at at l east t h e f ore an dhi n d w i ngs, h ea d ,an d mout h parts s h ou ld b e k nown b e f ore a spec i men i s ass ig ne d to an or d er. 34 CHAPTER 2 Grimaldi, 2004). The mandibles are not onl y dicond y lic (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2) but have other features that are characteristic of mandibles of Pter yg ota. In other words, fl y in g i nsects were alread y well established b y the Lower Devonian, some 80 million y ears earlie r t h an prev i ous l y assume d .T hi s conc l us i on agrees w i t h amo l ecu l ar c l oc k stu d y i n di cat i ng t h at i nsects arose i nt h e Ear l yS il ur i an (a b out 430 m illi on years ago), w i t h neopteran f orms present by a b out 390 m illi on y ears a g o (Gaunt an d M il es, 2002). By the Upper Carboniferous period, when conditions became suitable for fossilization , almost a dozen paleopteran and neopteran orders had evolved. Most authors, especiall y pa l eonto l og i sts, cons id er t h ePa l eoptera to b e monop h y l et i can d t h es i ster group to t he Neoptera, an dli st a num b er o f apomorp hi es i n support o f t hi sv i ew (Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k , 1991, 1 998). Furt h er, a recent stu d yo f 18S an d 28S rDNA sequences f rom a l most 30 spec i es o f O donata, Ephemeroptera, and neopterans has provided stron g support for the monoph y l y o f the Paleo p tera (Hovm¨olle r et al. , 2002). However, there are those, notabl y Boudreaux ( 1979), Kristensen (1981, 1989,1995) and Willmann (1998), who, having undertaken cladis - t i c ana l yses o f t h e extant Ep h emeroptera (may fli es) an d O d onata ( d amse lfli es an dd ragon- fli es), b e li eve t h ePa l eoptera to b e parap h y l et i c. In Bou d reaux’s v i ew t h eEp h emeropter a + N eoptera form the sister g roup to the Odonata, while accordin g to Kristensen the best scenario has the Ephemeroptera as the sister g roup of the Odonat a + N eo p tera. Thi s v iew is supported by Wheele r et al. ’s ( 2001) analysis, though these authors examined onl y t h ree spec i es eac h o f O d onata an d Ep h emeroptera. Accor di ng to Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k (1991), wi t hi nt h ePa l eoptera, two ma j or evo l ut i onary li nes appeare d , one l ea di ng to t h epa l eo di cty - o pteroids (Paleodict y optera, Diaphanopterodea, Me g asecoptera, and Permothemistida), th e ot h e r to t h e odo n ato i ds + Ephemeroptera. All paleodict y opteroids (Upper Carboniferous- P ermian) had a h y po g nathous head with piercin g -suckin g mouthparts (Fi g ure 2.3). Adult s an dl arge j uven il es use d t h ese to suc k t h e contents o f cones w hil e younger i nstars pro b - a bl y i ngeste d on l y fl u id s(S h ear an d Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k , 1990). Prot h orac i c extens i ons wer e FIGURE 2.3. P a l eo di ct y optero id s. (A) S teno di ct y a s p. (P a l eo di ct y optera ) ;an d (B) P ermot h em is sp. (Permoth- e mistida). [A, from J. Kukalov´a, 1970, Revisional study of the order Paleodictyoptera in the Upper Carboniferous s h a l es o f Commentr y , France. Part III, Psyc he 77 :1–44. B, f rom A. P. Rasn i ts y nan d D. L. J. Qu i c k e(e d s.), 2 002 , H istory o f Insect s .  c K luwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. With kind p ermission of Kluwer Academic P ublishers and the authors. ] [...]... Morphol Embryol 27 :53–60 Wigglesworth, V B., 1963a, Origin of wings in insects, Nature (London) 197:97–98 Wigglesworth, V B., 1963b, Discussion: The origin of flight in insects, Proc R Entomol Soc Lond Ser C 28 :23 – 32 Wigglesworth, V B., 1973, Evolution of insect wings and flight, Nature (London) 24 6: 127 – 129 Wigglesworth, V B., 1976, The evolution of insect flight, Symp R Entomol Soc Lond 7 :25 5 26 9 Willmann,... Aerodynamics and the origin of insect flight, Adv Insect Physiol 23 :171 21 0 Engel, M S., and Grimaldi, D A., 20 04, New light shed on the oldest insect, Nature 427 : 627 –630 Erwin, D.H., 1990, The end-Permian mass extinction, Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21 :69–91 Farrell, B D., 1998, “Inordinate fondness” explained: Why are there so many beetles?, Science 28 1:555– 558 Flower, J W., 1964, On the origin of flight in insects,... (1977, 19 92) , Boudreaux (1979), Hennig (1981), Kristensen (1981, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1998), Wootton (1981), Kukalov´ -Peck (1985, 1991, 1998), Wheeler et al (20 01), Rasnitsyn and Quicke (20 02) a [geological history and phylogenetic relationships]; Kukalov´ -Peck (1978, 1983, 1987), a ´ Wootton (1986), Ellington (1991), Brodsky (1994), Kingsolver and Koehl (1994), Marden 53 INSECT DIVERSITY 54 CHAPTER 2 and... with the major subgroups forming at a very early date However, opinions differ with respect 41 INSECT DIVERSITY 42 CHAPTER 2 to the constituent sister groups [see Boudreaux (1979), Kristensen (1981, 1989, 1995), Kukalov´ -Peck (1991, 1998), Wheeler et al (20 01), Kukalov´ -Peck and Lawrence (20 04)] a a Currently, the most favored view is that the two primary sister groups are the neuropteroids + Coleoptera... A., 20 02, An insect molecular clock dates the origin of insects and accords with palaeontological and biogeographic landmarks, Mol Biol Evol 19:748–761 Giles, E T., 1963, The comparative external morphology and affinities of the Dermaptera, Trans R Entomol Soc r Lond 115:95–164 Hamilton, K G A., 1971, 19 72, The insect wing, Parts 1 and IV, J Kans Entomol Soc 44: 421 –433; 45 :29 5– 308 Hasenfuss, I., 20 02, ... ´ Kukalova-Peck, J., 1987, New Carboniferous Diplura, Monura, and Thysanura, the hexapod ground plan, and the role of thoracic side lobes in the origin of wings (Insecta), Can J Zool 65 :23 27 23 45 Kukalov´ -Peck, J., 1991, Fossil history and the evolution of hexapod structures, in: The Insects of Australia, 2nd a ed., Vol I (CSIRO, ed.), Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria Kukalova-Peck, J.,... Kukalov´ -Peck, J., and Brauckmann, C., 1990, Wing folding in pterygote insects, and the oldest Diaphanopterodea a from the early Late Carboniferous of West Germany, Can J Zool 68:1104–1111 Kukalov´ -Peck, J., and Brauckmann, C., 19 92, Most Paleozoic Protorthoptera are ancestral hemipteroids: Major a wing braces as clues to a new phylogeny of Neoptera (Insecta), Can J Zool 70 :24 52 24 73 Kukalov´ -Peck,... diversification: Evidence from a Lower Devonian fossil from Quebec, Science 24 2:913–916 Marden, J H., and Kramer, M G., 1994, Surface-skimming stoneflies: A possible intermediate stage in insect flight evolution, Science 26 6: 427 –430 Marden, J H., and Thomas, M A., 20 03, Rowing locomotion by a stonefly that possesses the ancestral pterygote condition of co-occurring wings and abdominal gills, Biol J Linn Soc 79:341–349... 168:331–338 Rasnitsyn, A P., and Quicke, D L J (eds.), 20 02, History of Insects, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Ross, H H., 1955, Evolution of the insect orders Entomol News 66:197 20 8 Ross, H H., 1965, A Textbook of Entomology, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York e Ross, H H., 1967, The evolution and past dispersal of the Trichoptera, Annu Rev Entomol 12: 169 20 6 Sharov, A G., 1966, Basic Arthropodan Stock,... D L J Quicke (eds.), 20 02, History of Insects c Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.With kind permission of Kluwer Academic Publishers and the authors.] 35 INSECT DIVERSITY 36 CHAPTER 2 Meganeuropsis permiana with a 71-cm wingspan Only recently have protodonate juveniles been discovered (Kukalov´ -Peck, 1991); these had a mask similar to that of odonate a larvae (see Figures 2. 4C and 6.8) Some also . a spec i men i s ass ig ne d to an or d er. 34 CHAPTER 2 Grimaldi, 20 04). The mandibles are not onl y dicond y lic (Chapter 3, Section 3 .2. 2) but have other features that are characteristic of. b y the formation of non-tracheated intercalar y veins and numerous crossveins (Hamilton, 1971, 19 72) . 32 CHAPTER 2 F I GU RE 2. 2 . A proposed g round plan of win g articulation and win g venation anal; C, costa; Cu, cubitus; J, jugal; M, media; P, posterior; PC, precosta; R, radius; Sc, subcosta. [After J . Ku k a l ov´a-Pec k , 1983, Or igi no f t h e i nsect w i n g an d w i n g art i cu l at i on f rom

Ngày đăng: 06/07/2014, 21:21

TỪ KHÓA LIÊN QUAN