Feeding and behavioural parameters and egg ultrastructure in the biosystematics of Reduviidae (Insecta—Heteroptera)

Abstract

The feeding behaviour exhibited hy the different subfamilies or Reduviidae is distinctly correlated with the specific prey types involved. Important adaptive modifications arc seen associated with their methods of prey capture and feeding. Based on the analyses of feeding behaviour, reduviids may be grouped as (i) 'blood feeding' type, (ii) 'sticky-trap' type, (iii) 'raptorial' type. (iv) 'wait and grab' type, (v) 'pin and jab' type and (vi) 'chase and pounce' type. The oviposition methods are highly varied in Reduviidae and it is possible to assign group characteristics. but the ultrastructure of the eggs, particularly those of chorionic collar extensions and thc operculum. indicate subfamily resemblance. The usefulncss of fi:cdin,l! and reproductive behaviours and the egg ultrastructure in the biosystcmatics of Reduviidae are discussed.

Predatory behaviour ofRhinocoris marginatus Fabricius (Harpactorinae—Reduviidae—Heteroptera—Insecta)

“…Based on the sequences of events of their feeding behaviour, distinct behavioural models for the different subfamilies have been constructed (Haridass and Ananthakrishnan 1980a). The feeding behaviour of R. marqinatus, as is also true for most of Harpactorinae, appears to be different from other subfamilies studied and can be classified pin and jab type (Haridass et at 1987). The predators are characterised by the slow gait and by the possession of long, slender proboscis capable of more than 90°forward extension enabling them to attack soft-bodied prey types from a distance.…”

“…These combs are used by the predators to groom the antennae immediately after the prey capture or after completion of feeding activity. The contention that the tibial pads are absent in R. marginatus and that the tibial combs of this insect facilitate efficient predation (Ambrose et at 1983) cannot be accepted, since it has been shown presently that there are tibial pads in the fore legs of R. marginatus, though in a poorly developed state and not efficiently used in prey capture as compared with the tibial pads of chase and pounce type reduviids (Haridass et at 1987), and that, as in many other reduviids (Swadner and Yonke 1973a), the tibial combs of R. marginatus are used only to clean the antennae from the foreign substances, like the body and salivary fluids from the attacked prey, either during or after predation. This grooming behaviour is significant since the antennae play important role in the predatory behaviour of reduviids.…”

“…If the prey is held dangling at the rostral tip, feeding sites are never changed till the body content of the prey are fully emptied. The pin and jab type of feeding behaviour of R. marqinatus as also true for many other Harpactorinae that feed on soft-bodied prey types, is unique and it is distinctly different from those of other subfamilies (Haridass and Ananthakrishnan 1980a;Haridass et at 1987).…”

Caught in the act of hatching – a group of heteropteran nymphs escaping from their eggs preserved in Dominican amber

“…Within Harpactorinae, the specific flower-like appearance of the collar could resemble eggs of e.g. for Rhino coris (HAridAss et al 1987, fig. 2E), but especially those of Sinea (e.g., myles & smitH 1986;scHAeFer & WolF 2003;sHurtz & mcPHerson 2005;Voss & mcPHerson 2003).…”

Impact of antennectomy, eye blinding and tibial comb coating on the predatory behaviour of Rhynocoris kumarii Ambrose and Livingstone (Het., Reduviidae) on Spodoptera litura Fabr. (Lep., Noctuidae)

“…Such localized searching activity enhances their chances of finding prey (D IXON and R USSEL , 1972; A GUILAR and E HLER , 1977; D ONAHOE and P ITRE , 1977). Predaceous insects use one or more sensory cues to locate prey, primarily vision (I CKERT , 1968; S CHNEIDER , 1969; P ARKER , 1972; H UDSON , 1987; H ARIDASS et al., 1987), and secondarily olfactory cues (H AGEN et al., 1971; H AGEN and T ASSAN , 1972; C AMORS and P AYNE , 1973; L IVINGSTONE and A MBROSE , 1978). Predator mobility and effectiveness are more apparently impeded by wax crystals which are present on the leaves of the plant (E IGENBRODE et al., 1996).…”