Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:03:47.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding Behaviour and Oviposition in Hetaerina americana (Fabricius) and H. titia (Drury) (Odonata: Agriidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Clifford Johnson
Clifford Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The objective of this study is to describe the copulatory and ovipositional behaviour of Hetaerina americana and H. titia, and to depict any differences in such behaviour as may exist between these two species. It is quite important in such studies to understand the mechanisms which assure conspecific mating. Both americana and titia are found breeding together on many of the streams of central Texas. Williamson (1906) pointed out that species in which the abdominal appendages were very similar often had sexually dimorphic and/or specifically distinct wing coloration, while species with clear wings had quite distinct abdominal appendages. These different wing patterns were suggested as functioning in species recognition for conspecific mating. Buchholtz (1951, 1955) experimentally verified that the females of Calopteryx splendens recognize and respond to males of their own species through a set of optical stimuli including the color pattern of the wing. Loibl (1958) and Krieger and Krieger-Lobl (1958) experimentally demonstrated that in Lestes dryas, L. sponsa, Ischnura elegans and I. pumila, all of which have clear, colorless wings, the species recognition factors are the shape of the abdominal appendages and body coloration. Williamson's early inferences appear to have been well documented.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , April 1961 , pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buchholtz, C. 1951. Untersuchungen an der Libellengattung Calopteryx Leach unter besonder Berücksichtigung ethologischer Fragen. Z. Tierpsych. 8: 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholtz, C. 1955. Eine vergleichende Ethologie der orientalischen Calopterygiden (Otlonara) als Beitrag zu ihrer systematischen Deutung. Z. Tierpsych. 12: 364–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholtz, C. 1956. Eine Analyse des Paaningsverhaltens und der dabei wirkenden Ausloser bei den Libellen Platycnemis pennipes und Pl. dealbata Klug. Z. Tierpsych. 13: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Philip P. 1901–1908. Neuroptera. Biologia Centrali Americana. London, 17–420.Google Scholar
Calvert, Philip P. 1919. Odonata Zygoptera from Guatemala. Ent. News. 30: 160–161.Google Scholar
Kellicott, D. S. 1899. The Odonata of Ohio. Ohio Acad. Sei. Spec. Pap. 2: 1–116.Google Scholar
Krieger, Von F., and Krieger-Lobl, E.. 1958. Beiträge zum Verhalten von Ischnura elegans und Ischnura pumilio (Odonata). Z. Tierpsych. 15: 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loibl, von Elizabeth. 1958. Zur Ethologie und Biologie der deutschen Lestiden (Odonata). Z. Tierpsych. 15: 54–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesenberg-Lund, C. 1913. Odonaten-Studien. Rev. Hydrobiol. (Leipzig). 6: 155–228, 373–422.Google Scholar
Williamson, E. B. 1906. Copulation of Odonata. Ent. News. 17: 143–148.Google Scholar
Williamson, E. B. 1912. Hetaerina titia and tricolor. Ent. News. 23: 98–101.Google Scholar
Williamson, E. B. 1923. Notes on the Habitats of Some Tropical Species of Hetaerina (Odonata). Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 130: 1–46.Google Scholar