Evolution in the genus Cryptocercus (Dictyoptera: Cryptocercidae): no evidence of differential adaptation to hosts or elevation

Abstract

In a recent paper, Kambhampati, Clark & Brock (Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2002; 75: 163–172) suggested that members of the wood‐feeding cockroach genus Cryptocercus are differentially adapted to two features of the environment: host log species and elevation. A re‐examination of the evidence, however, fails to support their hypothesis. First, their analysis of host preferences was based on a general description of forest type, rather than on the level at which host choice occurs: the dead tree on the forest floor. Cryptocercus in both East Asia and in the eastern United States have been collected from a range of evergreen and deciduous logs. Although C. clevelandi in the western United States is associated primarily with conifers, no evidence of host adaptation exists. Second, there is no support for the described evolutionary trend toward low‐altitude habitats among karyotype groups of C. punctulatus in the eastern United States. The findings of Kambhampati et al. are based on inadequate sampling; they did not include the highest and most topographically complex regions of the Southern Appalachian Mountains, nor the lower elevation border regions to the north and east of the range. An analysis of elevational data from 71 collection sites revealed no significant difference in the range of altitudes at which karyotype groups of C. punctulatus are found. In contrast to the suggestions of these authors, a lack of specialization with regard to altitude and host logs was probably the factor that allowed all taxa in the genus to thrive during climatically driven shifts in the geographical location and plant species composition of northern hemisphere mesic forests. © 2003 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2003, 80, 223–233.

Social biology of the wood-feeding cockroach genus Salganea (Dictyoptera, Blaberidae, Panesthiinae): did ovoviviparity prevent the evolution of eusociality in the lineage?

“…The logs in which they are found range from solid and fairly recently dead, to those in the later phases of the decay process (Roth, 1979;Matsumoto, 1987Matsumoto, , 1993Matsumoto, , 1996Asahina, 1991;Maekawa et al, 2003. In this respect, the ecology of Salganea is similar to that of Cryptocercus (Nalepa, 2003): both taxa are typically collected from logs that may take decades to degrade. Kon et al (2002), for example, describe collecting S. aequaliterspinosa from a hard log more than a meter in diameter.…”

Origin of termite eusociality: trophallaxis integrates the social, nutritional, and microbial environments

“…All independently founded termite colonies begin as a biparental family, which then makes a gradual transition to eusociality during early colony ontogeny. As such, it is widely accepted that the termite ancestor was subsocial, and lived in biparental family groups (Wheeler, 1928;Kennedy, 1966;Noirot, 1985;Noirot & Pasteels, 1987;Nalepa, 1988bNalepa, , 1994Roisin, 1990;Thorne, 1997;Klass et al, 2008). By definition, then, the baseline social system was defined by parental care.…”

“…The social structure of Cryptocercus is the equivalent of a newly founded termite colony (Seelinger & Seelinger, 1983;Nalepa, 1994). Adults excavate the nest, plug gaps, construct barriers, clean galleries, remove frass and fungi from the vicinity of the nursery, and bury the inedible dead (Bell et al, 2007: fig.…”

“…A strong selection pressure for a termite ancestor living in an OP log, then, would be an unrelenting hunger for nitrogen. This is currently reflected in cannibalism, necrophagy, coprophagy, feeding on secretions and exuvia, and microbial associates that acquire, conserve and recycle nitrogen, and also serve as direct sources of proteinaceous food (Waller & LaFage, 1987;Nalepa, 1994;Thong-On et al, 2012;Tokuda et al, 2014).…”

Low diversity cockroach assemblage from Chernovskie Kopi in Russia confirms wing deformities in insects at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary

“…In advanced ecosystems they are important at the basic level of decomposition together with termites (Zherikhin 1993). During their evolution they adapted to various types of ecosystems and reached high levels of ecological and morphological diversity and disparity, including aquatic (Shelford 1909), pollinating (Nagamitsu and Inoue 1997), jumping (Bohn et al 2010;Picker et al 2012;Vršanský 2007), light-mimicking (Zompro & Fritzsche 1999;Vršanský et al 2012;Vršanský & Chorvát 2013), translucent (Vidlička et al 2003), predatory (Vishniakova 1973Liang et al 2009Liang et al , 2012, beetle-like (Vršan-ský 2003a), earwig-like Wei et al 2012aWei et al , b, 2013Guo & Dong 2011), semisocial (Steinmiller 2001Nalepa 2003;Grandcolas et al 2005) and eusocial (Vršanský 2010) forms.…”