No abstract

Leg chordotonal organs in insects show different adaptations to detect body movements, substrate vibrations, or airborne sound. In the proximal tibia of stick insects occur two chordotonal organs: the subgenual organ, a highly sensitive vibration receptor organ, and the distal organ, of which the function is yet unknown. The distal organ consists of a linear set of scolopidial sensilla extending in the tibia in distal direction toward the tarsus. Similar organs occur in the elaborate hearing organs in crickets and bushcrickets, where the auditory sensilla are closely associated with thin tympanal membranes and auditory trachea in the leg. Here, we document the position and attachment points for the distal organ in three species of stick insects without auditory adaptations (Ramulus artemis, Sipyloidea sipylus, and Carausius morosus). The distal organ is located in the dorsal hemolymph channel and attaches at the proximal end to the dorsal and posterior leg cuticle by tissue strands. The central part of the distal organ is placed closer to the dorsal cuticle and is suspended by fine tissue strands. The anterior part is clearly separated from the tracheae, while the distal part of the organ is placed over the anterior trachea. The distal organ is not connected to a tendon or muscle, which would indicate a proprioceptive function. The sensilla in the distal organ have dendrites oriented in distal direction in the leg. This morphology does not reveal obvious auditory adaptations as in tympanal organs, while the position in the hemolymph channel and the direction of dendrites indicate responses to forces in longitudinal direction of the leg, likely vibrational stimuli transmitted in the leg’s hemolymph. The evolutionary convergence of complex chordotonal organs with linear sensilla sets between tympanal hearing organs and atympanate organs in stick insects is emphasized by the different functional morphologies and sensory specializations.

No abstract

Males often fight with rival males for access to females. However, some males display nonfighting tactics such as sneaking, satellite behavior, or female mimicking. When these mating tactics comprise a conditional strategy, they are often thought to be explained by resource holding potential (RHP), that is, nonfighting tactics are displayed by less competitive males who are more likely to lose a fight. The alternative mating tactics, however, can also be explained by life‐history theory, which predicts that young males avoid fighting, regardless of their RHP, if it pays off to wait for future reproduction. Here, we test whether the sneaking tactic displayed by young males of the two‐spotted spider mite can be explained by life‐history theory. We tested whether young sneaker males survive longer than young fighter males after a bout of mild or strong competition with old fighter males. We also investigated whether old males have a more protective outer skin—a possible proxy for RHP—by measuring cuticle hardness and elasticity using nanoindentation. We found that young sneaker males survived longer than young fighter males after mild male competition. This difference was not found after strong male competition, which suggests that induction of sneaking tactic is affected by male density. Hardness and elasticity of the skin did not vary with male age. Given that earlier work could also not detect morphometric differences between fighter and sneaker males, we conclude that there is no apparent increase in RHP with age in the mite and age‐dependent male mating tactics in the mite can be explained only by life‐history theory. Because it is likely that fighting incurs a survival cost, age‐dependent alternative mating tactics may be explained by life‐history theory in many species when reproduction of old males is a significant factor in fitness.

In butterflies, bees, flies and true bugs specific mouthparts are in close contact or even fused to enable piercing, sucking or sponging of particular food sources. The common phenomenon behind these mouthpart types is a complex composed of several consecutive mouthparts which structurally interact during food uptake. The single mouthparts are thus only functional in conjunction with other adjacent mouthparts, which is fundamentally different to biting-chewing. It is, however, unclear when structural mouthpart interaction (SMI) evolved since this principle obviously occurred multiple times independently in several extant and extinct winged insect groups. Here, we report a new type of SMI in two of the earliest wingless hexapod lineagesDiplura and Collembola. We found that the mandible and maxilla interact with each other via an articulatory stud at the dorsal side of the maxillary stipes, and they are furthermore supported by structures of the hypopharynx and head capsule. These interactions are crucial stabilizing elements during food uptake. The presence of SMI in these ancestrally wingless insects, and its absence in those crustacean groups probably ancestral to insects, indicates that SMI is a groundplan apomorphy of insects. Our results thus contradict the currently established view of insect mouthpart evolution that biting-chewing mouthparts without any form of SMI are the ancestral configuration. Furthermore, SMIs occur in the earliest insects in a high anatomical variety. SMIs in stemgroup representatives of insects may have triggered efficient exploitation and fast adaptation to new terrestrial food sources much earlier than previously supposed.