External morphology of Chrysomya pinguis (Walker) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) revealed by scanning electron microscopy

Methanitikorn, Rungkanta; Kurahashi, Hiroki; Vogtsberger, Roy C.; Sukontason, Kabkaew L.

doi:10.1016/j.micron.2007.01.004

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This characteristic corresponds with that of the ommatidia of the blow fly, Chrysomya pinguis (Walker) (Sukontason et al 2008) and the pseudo-nodular structure of coalescing bumps, as described by Anderson and Gaimari (2003) in the horse fly, Tananus punctifer Osten Sacken (Diptera: Tabanidae), using Raman-atomic force microscopy. On the other hand, the sinuous sculpture pattern in ommatidia of L. cuprina resembled that of the corneal lens of ocellus in C. pinguis (Sukontason et al 2008). The external cornea of ommatidia in Diptera and Lepidoptera has been documented as having ultramicroscopic cone-like projections (the corneal nipple array); this was in contrast with the relatively smooth corneal lenses of many insects (e.g., Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Hymenoptera; Richards and Davies 1977).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Ommatidia of blow fly, house fly, and flesh fly: implication of their vision efficiency

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work aims to elucidate the number of ommatidia or facets (the outwardly visible units of each ommatidium) for compound eyes in blow flies [Chrysomya megacephala (F.), Chrysomya rufifacies (Macquart), Chrysomya nigripes (Aubertin), Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann)], house flies (Musca domestica L.), and flesh flies (Liosarcophaga dux Thomson) by manual counts of the corneal spreads. The head of the fly in each species was soaked in 20% potassium hydroxide solution at room temperature for 7 days, and the clear compound eye was dissected into six small parts, each of which was placed onto a slide and flattened using a coverslip. Images of each part were obtained using a microscope connected to a computer. The printed images of each part were magnified, and the total number of ommatidia per eye was manually counted. For males, the mean number of ommatidia was statistically different among all flies examined: L. dux (6,032) > C. rufifacies (5,356) > C. nigripes (4,798) > C. megacephala (4,376) > L. cuprina (3,665) > M. domestica (3,484). Likewise, the mean number of facets in females was statistically different: L. dux (6,086) > C. megacephala (5,641) > C. rufifacies (5,208) > C. nigripes (4,774) > L. cuprina (3,608) > M. domestica (3433). Scanning electron microscopy analysis of adult flies revealed the sexual dimorphism in the compound eye. Male C. megacephala had large ommatidia in the upper two thirds part and small ommatidia in the lower one third part, whereas only small ommatidia were detected in females. Dense postulate appearance was detected in the external surface of the corneal lens of the ommatidia of C. megacephala, C. rufifacies, and C. nigripes, while a mix of dense postulate appearance and variable groove array length was detected in L. cuprina and M. domestica. The probable functions of ommatidia are discussed with reference to other literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Ommatidia of blow fly, house fly, and flesh fly: implication of their vision efficiency

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Antennae and other organs, such as ommatidia, spiracles, pulvilli, and genitalia, are of different functions and play an important role in various behaviors during adult life (Nalbach, ; Dickinson, ; Sherman and Dickinson, ; Sukontason et al, ; Sukontason et al, ; Sukontason et al, ). Ross () described and compared antennal sensilla of several species in this genus, while there is a lack of study of body parts in this genus, as well as in the Diptera.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The body parts included in this study have been widely used as taxonomic characteristics, and usually observed under light microscope. On the other hand, the potential for biomimetic applications of fly body parts have been reported in many studies (Drechsler and Federle, ; Sukontason et al, ). Taking into account the limited data of these important structures, this paper provides details of the ultrastructures that can easily be neglected in D. platura , and clarifies vagueness in previous descriptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine structure of Delia platura (Meigen) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) revealed by scanning electron microscopy

Wang

Yang

Liu

et al. 2014

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delia platura (Meigen) is a phytophagous fly that can cause significant crop losses. To obtain a better understanding of the external morphology of this species, adult D. platura is studied using scanning electron microscopy. Organs or structures that are important for taxonomy, such as the compound eyes, spiracles, pulvilli, wings, and genitalia are highlighted to complement previous description based on light microscope. Mesothoracic and metathoracic spiracles of D. platura that provide efficiency in preventing entrance of fine materials or dust into the tracheal system are morphologically different. In addition, the elongate-oval pulvillus is densely covered with tenent setae with spoon-like tip, which can increase the number of contact points for attachment to a surface. Four types of sensilla are observed on the male genitalia of D. platura including: trichoid sensilla, chaetic sensilla, three subtypes of campaniform sensilla, and basiconic sensilla. Long bristles and microtrichiae are observed on the female genitalia of D. platura. The possible function of sensilla located in the genitalia of D. platura is discussed. Microsc. Res. Tech. 77:619-630, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…Also, similar findings were reported on the basiconic (Bs I) on the funicle of P. nigrolineata by Rahal et al (1996); in T. pennipes by Giangiuliani et al (1993); in Calliphora erythrocephala by Kuhbander (1984); in Chrysomya penguins, C. megacephala, C. rufifacies, and Lucilia cuprina by Sukontason et al (2004); and in Cochliomyia hominivorax by Fernandes et al (2004). In contrast, Sukontason et al (2008) noticed the presence of two types of large aporous and small porous basiconical sensillae on the funicle of C. penguins.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Ultrastructure of the Antennal Sensillae of Male and Female Peach Fruit Fly,Bactrocera zonata

Awad

Ali

Mohamed

2014

Journal of Insect Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External morphology of Chrysomya pinguis (Walker) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) revealed by scanning electron microscopy

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Ommatidia of blow fly, house fly, and flesh fly: implication of their vision efficiency

Ommatidia of blow fly, house fly, and flesh fly: implication of their vision efficiency

Fine structure of Delia platura (Meigen) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) revealed by scanning electron microscopy

Ultrastructure of the Antennal Sensillae of Male and Female Peach Fruit Fly,Bactrocera zonata

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About