Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:39:16.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The male genital tract of Chaoboridae (Diptera: Culicomorpha)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Art Borkent ,
Christopher J. Borkent  and
Bradley J. Sinclair
Art Borkent*
Affiliation:
691–8th Avenue SE, Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada V1E 2C2, Research associate of the Royal British Columbia Museum, 675 Belleville Street, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 9W2, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West, New York, NY 10024-5192, United States of America, and Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, P.O. Box 22-3100, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica
Christopher J. Borkent
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Sainte Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
Bradley J. Sinclair
Affiliation:
Entomology — Ontario Plant Laboratories, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, K.W. Neatby Building, Central Experimental Farm, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The male genital tract of Chaoboridae, represented by Eucorethra underwoodi Underwood, Mochlonyx velutinus (Ruthe), and Chaoborus trivittatus (Loew), is described for the first time. All genera have paired accessory glands that are attached anteriorly to the vasa deferentia or the base of the testes, a feature that is proposed as a synapomorphy of Chaoboridae + Culicidae. Mochlonyx Loew and Chaoborus Lichenstein have distinctive pigment cells covering their testes and a portion of the vasa deferentia. The simplified male genital tract of Corethrellidae + Chaoboridae + Culicidae is correlated with the virtually unique abrupt and permanent 180° rotation of the male genitalia between segments 7 and 8. In taxa with an accessory-gland complex, the male genitalia are rotated in a more gradual manner, often during copulation.

Résumé

La région génitale mâle de Chaoboridae, représentée par Eucorethra underwoodi Underwood, Mochlonyx velutinus (Ruthe), et Chaoborus trivittatus (Loew), est décrite pour la première fois. Tous les genres ont des glandes accessoires appariées qui sont attachées antérieurement au canal déférent ou à la base des testicules, un trait qui est proposé en tant que synapomorphie de Chaoboridae + Culicidae. Mochlonyx Loew et Chaoborus Lichenstein ont des cellules pigmentées distinctives recouvrant leurs testicules et une partie du canal déférent. La région génitale mâle simplifiée de Corethrellidae + Chaoboridae + Culicidae est corrélée à l’unique rotation de 180°, abrupte et permanente, des organes génitaux masculins entre les segments 7 et 8. Dans les taxa avec un complexe de glandes accessoires, les organes génitaux mâles sont tournés d’une manière plus graduelle, souvent pendant la reproduction.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 140 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 621 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2008

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

Borkent, A. 2008. The frog-biting midges of the world (Corethrellidae: Diptera), Zootaxa, 1804: 1–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkent, C.J., and Borkent, A. 2008. Larval tracheal pigment cells migrate to adult testes in some Chaoboridae (Diptera) with a discussion of phylogenetic implications. The Canadian Entomologist, 140: 630–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, A.N. 1999. The biology of mosquitoes. Vol. 2. Sensory reception and behaviour. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Crampton, G.C. 1942. The external morphology of the Diptera. Part VI. First Fascicle. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Bulletin of the Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey, 64: 10–165.Google Scholar
Crosskey, R.E. 1990. The natural history of blackflies. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Dordel, H. 1973. Funktionsanatomische Untersuchungen über die Abdomentorsion bei der männlichen Imago von Clunio marinus Haliday (Diptera, Chironomidae). Zeitschrift für Morphologie der Tiere, 75: 165–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, J.A. 1978. Feeding and mating in the insectivorous Ceratopogoninae (Diptera). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 104: 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fittkau, E.J. 1968. Siolimyia amazonica n. gen. n. spec., eine flugfähige Chironomide (Dipt.) mit einem Hypopygium inversum. Amazoniana, 1(3): 259–265.Google Scholar
Hodapp, C.J., and Jones, J.C. 1961. The anatomy of the adult male reproductive system of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) (Diptera, Culicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 54: 832–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobling, B. 1987. Anatomical drawings of biting flies. British Museum (Natural History), London, in association with the Wellcome Trust, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Just, J.P. 1973. Die Anatomie der Postabdomina von Phlebotomus garnhami Heisch, Guiggsberg und Teesdale, Pericoma palustris Meigen und Liriope lacustris Meigen (Diptera, Nematocera). Zoologische Jahrbücher Anatomie, 91: 305–388.Google Scholar
Klowden, M.J. 2007. Making generalizations about vectors: Is there a physiology of “the mosquito”? Entomological Research, 37: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzeminski, W., and Judd, D.D. 1997. Family Tanyderidae. In Contributions to a manual of Palaearctic Diptera. Vol. 2. Nematocera and lower Brachycera. Edited by Papp, L. and Darvas, B.. Science Herald, Budapest, Hungary. pp. 281–289.Google Scholar
Leppla, N.C., Carlysle, T.C., and Guy, R.H. 1975. Reproductive systems and the mechanics of copulation in Plecia nearctica Hardy (Diptera: Bibionidae). International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology, 4: 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lum, P.T.M. 1961 a. The reproductive system of some Florida mosquitoes. I. The male reproductive tract. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 54: 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lum, P.T.M. 1961 b. The reproductive system of some Florida mosquitoes. II. The male accessory glands and their role. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 54: 430–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, F., and Reisen, W.K. 1982. Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae): changes in male mating competence and reproductive system morphology associated with aging and mating. Journal of Medical Entomology, 19: 573–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAlpine, J.F. 1981. Morphology and terminology — adults. In Manual of Nearctic Diptera, Vol. 1. Edited by McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R., and Wood, D.M.. Agriculture Canada Monograph No. 27. pp. 9–63.Google Scholar
McKeever, S. 1985. Morphology of the male reproductive system of Corethrella (Diptera: Chaoboridae). International Journal of Entomology, 27: 354–363.Google Scholar
Oka, H. 1926. Ein interessanter Fall von Körpertorsion bei Insekten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 67: 205–208.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J., Borkent, A., and Wood, D.M. 2007. The male genital tract and aedeagal components of the Diptera with a discussion of their phylogenetic significance. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 150: 711–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skartveit, J. 1997. Family Bibionidae. In Contributions to a manual of Palaearctic Diptera. Vol. 2. Nematocera and lower Brachycera. Edited by Papp, L. and Darvas, B.. Science Herald, Budapest, Hungary. pp. 41–49.Google Scholar
Sæther, O.A. 1992. Redescription of Cryophila lapponica Bergroth (Diptera: Chaoboridae) and the phylogenetic relationship of the chaoborid genera. Aquatic Insects, 14: 1–21. (Addendum: Aquatic Insects, 14: 193–194.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. 1976. Reproductive behaviour of the lovebug, Plecia nearctica (Diptera: Bibionidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 69: 843–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonnoir, A. 1919. Notes sur les Ptychopteridae (Dipt.). Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 59: 115–122.Google Scholar
Wensler, R.J.D., and Rempel, J.G. 1962. The morphology of the male and female reproductive systems of the midge, Chironomus plumosus L. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 40: 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D.M., and Borkent, A. 1989. Phylogeny and classification of the Nematocera. In Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Edited by McAlpine, J.F. and Wood, D.M.. Agriculture Canada Monograph No. 32. pp. 1333–1370.Google Scholar