Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:37:24.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V.—A Comparative Account of the Feeding Methods of the Beetles Nebria brevicollis (F.) (Carabidæ) and Philonthus decorus (Grav.) (Staphylinidæ)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

M. E. G. Evans
M. E. G. Evans
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, University of Manchester.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Nebria brevicollis (F.) and Philonthus decorus (Grav.) are two of the commonest predaceous insects of the woodland floor, and the head structure, mouthparts and feeding methods of each have been compared and contrasted. In N. brevicollis, the mandibles are well developed for the capture and shearing of the prey, whilst the laciniæ of the maxillæ form rakes which pull the food towards the cibarium across the smooth labium. Food is bolted in large pieces and stored in the crop before passing through the filtering and grinding gizzard. A fundamental difference between the two beetles is seen in the movements and structure of the maxillæ, and a mechanism whereby stipital abduction and protraction is effected in N. brevicollis has been proposed. In P. decorus, the mandibles are also developed for prey capture but hold the prey between large brushes while it is being crushed. The maxillæ form thick brushes which also hold the prey, and the labium-hypopharynx is densely covered with setæ which prevent the entry of solid food into the mouth. Thus, in contrast to N. brevicollis, the labrum has a median food groove which directs the food upwards and away from the mouth, and returns it to the mandibles to be re-chewed. Here, partial external digestion occurs and fluid food is sucked in by the powerful cibarial pump, and passed to the filtering proventriculus. In order to show how the two feeding methods described fit into the general pattern, the feeding methods of various predaceous Coleoptera have been reviewed in relation to different types of gut structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 66 , Issue 5 , 1964 , pp. 91 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1964

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

References to Literature

Balfour-Browne, F., 1944. “The Proventriculus of the Coleoptera (Adephaga) and Other Insects—a Study in Evolution”, J. Roy. Micr. Soc., 64, 68–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwelder, R. E., 1936. “Morphology of the Coleopterous Family Staphylinidæ”, Smithson. Misc. Coll., 94, 102.Google Scholar
Carleton, M., 1936. “The Anatomy and Histology of the Alimentary Canal of the Adult Nebria brevicollis Linn. (Coleopt,)”, Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent., 3, 119–127.Google Scholar
Davies, M. J., 1953. “The Contents of the Crops of some British Carabid Beetles”, Ent. Mon. Mag., 89, 18–23.Google Scholar
Davies, M. J., 1959. “A Contribution to the Ecology of Species of Notiophilus and Allied Genera (Col., Carabidæ)”, Ent. Mon. Mag., 95, 25–28.Google Scholar
Delany, M. J., 1960. “The Food and Feeding Habits of some Heath-dwelling Invertebrates”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 135, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, C. K., 1943. “The Musculature of the Labrum, Labium and Pharyngeal Region of Adult and Immature Coleoptera”, Smithson. Misc. Coll., 103, 42 pp.Google Scholar
Evans, M. E. G., 1961 a. “The Muscular and Reproductive Systems of Atomaria ruficornis (Marsham) (Coleoptera, Cryptophagidæ)”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 64, 297–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. E. G., 1961 b. “The Fronto-clypeal Region and the Stomodeum in Coleoptera”, Proc. Roy. Ent. Soc. Lond., 36A, 159–162.Google Scholar
Jeannel, R., 1949. “Coleoptera”, In Traité de Zoologie, Tome IX (Ed. Grassé, ). Mass on, Paris.Google Scholar
Korschelt, E., 1923–1924. (Ed.). Bearbeitung Einheimischer Tiere. Dytiscus marginalis L., 2 vols. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Manton, S. M., 1964. “Mandibular Mechanisms and the Evolution of Anthropods”, Phil. Trans., 247B, 1–183.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B., 1963. “Ecology of Two Carabid Beetles, Bembidion lampros (Herbst.) and Trechus quadristriatus (Schrank). I. Life Cycles and Feeding Behaviour”, J. Anim. Ecol., 32, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, M., 1915. “Die Mundwerkeuge der Caraboidea”, Arch. Naturgesch., 81, 102.Google Scholar
Popham, E. J., 1959. “The Anatomy in relation to Feeding Habits of Forficula auricularia L. and other Dermaptera”, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 133, 251–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. B., 1963. Studies on the Feeding Mechanisms of Collembola. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wales.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E., 1935. Principles of Insect Morphology. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
Stickney, F. S., 1923. “The Head Capsule of Coleoptera”, Illinois Biol. Monogr., 8, 104.Google Scholar
Thiel, H., 1936. “Vergleichende Untersuchungen an den Vormägen von Käfern”, Z. Wiss. Zool., 147, 395–432.Google Scholar
Vogel, B., 1915. “Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Baues und der Lebenweise der Larve von Lampyris noctiluca”, Z. Wiss. Zool., 112, 291–432.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B., 1930. “Observations on the ‘Furau’ (Cicindelidæ) of Northern Nigeria”, Bull. Ent. Res., 20, 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, I. W., 1938. “The Comparative Morphology of the Mouthparts of the Order Coleoptera treated from the standpoint of Phylogeny”, J. N. Y. Ent. Soc., 46, 245–289.Google Scholar