Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:31:03.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Functional Morphology and Interpretation of the Insect Ovipositor*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. G. E. Scudder
G. G. E. Scudder
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Elsewhere (Scudder, 1957a), I have outlined briefly a revised interpretation of some basal structures in the insect ovipositor. It was shown that in insects other than the Machilidae, the female genitalia has a common plan, this plan differing from that usually taken as the basic type. Whilst Snodgrass (1933) based his interpretations of all the higher orders on the condition in Machilidae, I have shown that a more satisfactory interpretation is obtained if the condition in the tepismidae is taken as the basic tvpe.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , April 1961 , pp. 267 - 272
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

Avery, G., Chow, M. and Holtzer, H. 1956. An experimental analysis of the development of the spinal column. V. Reactivity of chick somites. J. exp. Zool. 132: 409–426.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. D. 1950. On the structure, development and homology of the female reproductive organs in Orthopteroid insects. Indian J. Ent. 10: 75–123.Google Scholar
Gustafson, J. F. 1950. The origin and evolution of the genitalia of the Insecta. Microentomology 15(2): 35–67.Google Scholar
Hamilton, H. L. 1952. Lillie's Development of the Chick, An Introduction to Embryology. New York.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J., Boyd, J. D. and Mossman, H. W. 1952. Human Embryology (Prenatal development of form and function). Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holtzer, H., Holtzer, S. and Avery, G. 1955. An experimental analysis of the development of the spinal column. IV. Morphogenesis of tail vertebrae during regeneration. J. Morph. 96: 145–172.Google Scholar
Holtzer, H. and Detwiler, S. R. 1953. An experimental analysis of the development of the spinal column. III. Induction of skeletogenous cells. J. exp. Zool. 123: 335–370.Google Scholar
Johannsen, O. A. and Butt, F. H. 1941. Embryology of Insects and Myriapods. The developmental history of insect, centipedes, and millipedes from egg desposition to hatching. New York and London.Google Scholar
Jordan, H. E. 1933. The evolution of blood-forming tissues. Quart. Rev. Biol. 8: 58–76.Google Scholar
Korschelt, E. 1936. Vergleichende Entwicklungsgeschichte der Tiere. Jena.Google Scholar
Lacaze-Duthiers, H. 1853. Recherches sur l'armure genitale femelle des Insectes. Paris.Google Scholar
Matsuda, R. 1957. Comparative morphology of the abdomen of a machilid and a rhaphidiid. Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 83: 39–63.Google Scholar
Matsuda, R. 1958. On the origin of the external genitalia of insects. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 51: 84–94.Google Scholar
Quadri, M. A. H. 1940. On the development of the genitalia and their ducts of Orthopteroid insects. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 90: 121–175.Google Scholar
Schotté, O. 1930. Der Determinationszustand der Anurengastrula im Transplantations-Experiment. Roux' Arch. Entw.-mech. 122: 663–664.Google Scholar
Scudder, G. G. E. 1957a. Reinterpretation of some basal structures in the insect ovipositor. Nature, Lond. 180: 340–341.Google Scholar
Scudder, G. G. E. 1957b. The ovipositor of the Thysanura and its interpretation in the higher insect orders. Proc. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. (C) 22: 47–48.Google Scholar
Scudder, G. G. E. 1959. The female genitalia of the Heteroptera: morphology and bearing on classification. Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. III: 405–467.Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1905. Thysanura (in) Plate's, Fauna Chilensis (being) Zool. Jahrb. Suppl. 6: 773–806.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1933. Morphology of the Insect Abdomen. Part II. The genital ducts and the ovipositor. Smithson. misc. Coll. 89(8): 1–148.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935a. Principles of Insect Morphology. New York and London.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935b. The abdominal mechanisms of a grasshopper. Smithson. misc. Coll. 94(6): 1–89.Google Scholar
Spemann, H. and Schotté, O. 1932. Uber xenoplastische Transplantation als Mittel zur Analyse der embryonalen Induktion, Naturwiss. 20: 463–467.Google Scholar
Stys, P. 1959. Reinterpretation of the theory on the origin of the pterygote ovipositor and notes on the terminology of the female ectodermal genitalia of insects. Acta Univ. Carolinae (Biol.) 1: 75–85.Google Scholar
Twitty, V. 1955. Eye (in) Willier, H. B., Weiss, P. A. & Hamburger, V. (ed.), Analysis of Development, Philadelphia and London. pp. 402–414.Google Scholar