Cuticular Hydrocarbons as Chemotaxonomic Characters for Nasutitermes corniger (Motschulsky) and N. ephratae (Holmgren) (Isoptera: Termitidae)1

Howard, Ralph W.; Thorne, Barbara L.; Levings, Sally C.; McDaniel, C. A.

doi:10.1093/aesa/81.3.395

“…CHCs became a useful tool for the distinction of species complex or populations of several insects including cockroaches (Carlson and Brenner, 1988; Everaerts et al, 1997), mosquitoes (Horne and Priestmann, 2002; Kruger et al, 1991; Milligan et al, 1986; Phillips et al, 1990), a fly species, Phormia regina Meigen 1826 (Byrne et al, 1995), tabanids (Sakolsky et al, 1999) and termites (Howard et al, 1988; Takematsu and Yamaoka, 1999; Thorne et al, 1994). Sometimes the differences are small but still important demonstrating the usefulness of this technique.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cuticular hydrocarbons as a tool for the identification of insect species: Puparial cases from Sarcophagidae

Braga

¹

,

Pinto

²

,

Queiroz

³

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The external surface of all insects is covered by a species-specific complex mixture of highly stable, very long chain cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs). Gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry was used to identify CHCs from four species of Sarcophagidae, Peckia (Peckia) chrysostoma, Peckia (Pattonella) intermutans, Sarcophaga (Liopygia) ruficornis and Sarcodexia lambens. The identified CHCs were mostly a mixture of n-alkanes, monomethylalkanes and dimethylalkanes with linear chain lengths varying from 23 to 33 carbons. Only two alkenes were found in all four species. S. lambens had a composition of CHCs with linear chain lengths varying from C23 to C33, while the other three species linear chain lengths from 24 to 31 carbons. n-Heptacosane, n-nonacosane and 3-methylnonacosane, n-triacontane and n-hentriacontane occurred in all four species. The results show that these hydrocarbon profiles may be used for the taxonomic differentiation of insect species and are a useful additional tool for taxonomic classification, especially when only parts of the insect specimen are available.

show abstract

“…This finding, which dates back to late 1970s and early 1980s (Howard et al 1978;Blomquist et al 1979) has paved the way for CHC analysis to be used to identify cryptic species and to be employed in studies on the biogeography of populations and species, including termites (reviewed in Bagnères and Wicker-Thomas 2010). In addition to the extensive use of CHCs as taxonomic markers in subterranean termites (see below), CHC analysis has also been used to distinguish among species of lower termites, such as Zootermopsis (Haverty et al 1988;Korman et al 1991), Glyptotermes (Takematsu and Yamaoka 1997), and Cryptotermes and Incisitermes , as well as among species of higher termites, such as Nasutitermes (Howard et al 1988), Odontotermes (Bagine et al 1990; Thorne and Page 1990;Kaib et al 1991), Macrotermes (Bagine et al 1994), and Drepanotermes (Brown et al 1996a), among others. Using CHCs to distinguish species has some limitations; for instance, within Macrotermes, dramatic differences in CHC phenotypes do not necessarily translate into differences in species identity (Kaib et al 2002;Marten et al 2009).…”

Section: Chemical Cues Involved In Nestmate Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication and Social Regulation in Termites

Bagnères

¹

,

Hanus

²

2015

Social Recognition in Invertebrates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communication and social regulation are among the distinguishing features of termites: they are part of all basic aspects of termite biology, from ontogeny and caste differentiation to social behavior and cooperation. As in other highly social taxa, communication in termites predominantly relies on a complex network of chemical signals, which are complemented by vibration-based signals. In contrast to other social taxa, the role of visual cues is negligible. In this chapter, we review the recent literature on the different components that make up termite communication and social regulation systems by tracing termite evolution and examining the role played by different factors, such as sex and caste, and different behaviors, such as those related to defense, nestmate recognition, egg and brood care, foraging, and nest building, among others. The main characteristics of termites are compared to those of other social insects in the introduction. In the first section, we review the most important researches on termite communication and social regulation that are related to social activities in the basal phylogenetic lineages, and in the Termitidae (higher termites), the most advanced and diversified family. The abundant literature on the best studied genera, Reticulitermes, Coptotermes, and Heterotermes, which are considered for the purposes of this chapter to be intermediate termites, is reviewed and discussed separately in the second section. By using this approach, we seek to describe communication and social regulation systems in basal and primitive termites and illustrate how they have evolved to become more complex in intermediate and higher termites.

show abstract

“…This finding, which dates back to late 1970s and early 1980s (Howard et al 1978;Blomquist et al 1979) has paved the way for CHC analysis to be used to identify cryptic species and to be employed in studies on the biogeography of populations and species, including termites (reviewed in Bagnères and Wicker-Thomas 2010). In addition to the extensive use of CHCs as taxonomic markers in subterranean termites (see below), CHC analysis has also been used to distinguish among species of lower termites, such as Zootermopsis (Haverty et al 1988;Korman et al 1991), Glyptotermes (Takematsu and Yamaoka 1997), and Cryptotermes and Incisitermes , as well as among species of higher termites, such as Nasutitermes (Howard et al 1988), Odontotermes (Bagine et al 1990; Thorne and Page 1990;Kaib et al 1991), Macrotermes (Bagine et al 1994), and Drepanotermes (Brown et al 1996a), among others. Using CHCs to distinguish species has some limitations; for instance, within Macrotermes, dramatic differences in CHC phenotypes do not necessarily translate into differences in species identity (Kaib et al 2002;Marten et al 2009).…”

Section: Chemical Cues Involved In Nestmate Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%