2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Morphological comparison between Chrysomya rufifacies (Macquart) and Chrysomya villeneuvi Patton (Diptera: Calliphoridae) puparia, forensically important blow flies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
10
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
3
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The anterior spiracles display spiracular ramifications in a single row, as observed for others species that belong to Chrysomya genus (Sukontason et al, 2004(Sukontason et al, , 2005(Sukontason et al, , 2006. The dorsal organ or antennae showed a dome shape, very similar to those from Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) and we supposed that this structure is an olfactory receptor, as in muscids (ChuWang and Axtell, 1971).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The anterior spiracles display spiracular ramifications in a single row, as observed for others species that belong to Chrysomya genus (Sukontason et al, 2004(Sukontason et al, , 2005(Sukontason et al, , 2006. The dorsal organ or antennae showed a dome shape, very similar to those from Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) and we supposed that this structure is an olfactory receptor, as in muscids (ChuWang and Axtell, 1971).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…rufifacies and C. villeneuvi had never been recorded in Brazil, but Mariluis and Schnack (1989) reported C. rufifacies in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sukontason et al (2006) described these two species using SEM and found some differences in the puparia tubercles. According to these authors, tubercles of C. rufifacies are elongate, showing slender spines assembled only at the tip.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is difficult to identify the species because of similarities in the puparia, and rearing them to adulthood may fail. Efforts have been made to identify fly puparia by means of morphological determination under light microscopy (Reiter and Wollenek 1983;Amorim and Ribeiro 2001;Whitworth 2002Whitworth , 2003, scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Kitching 1976;Liu and Greenberg 1989;Siriwattanarungsee et al 2005;Sukontason et al 2006b) or determination the cuticular hydrocarbon composition (Ye et al 2007). In the present study, we describe the technique used to pale the integument of puparia, which allows species identification and the morphometric analysis of seven fly species that are of forensic importance in Thailand.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pupa stage: The pupa is mahogany brown to dark brown in color and coarctate and barrel shaped. Morphology of puparium has been studied widely under LM [29] and SEM [30][31][32][33][34][35]. A simply key to identify the puparium of some blow fly species of Thailand was summarized by Sukontason et al [29].…”
Section: Fig 1-lateral Views Of Medically Important Blow Fly Speciesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A simply key to identify the puparium of some blow fly species of Thailand was summarized by Sukontason et al [29]. The main characteristics for identification include body appearance (with or without tubercle), such as the 3 rd thoracic segment to 1 st abdominal segment, distance between right and left posterior spiracles, number of bubble membranes and papillae on the anterior spiracle [29][30][31][32][33][34][35].…”
Section: Fig 1-lateral Views Of Medically Important Blow Fly Speciesmentioning
confidence: 99%