Natural History of the Giant Sand Treader Camel Cricket, Daihinibaenetes giganteus Tinkham (Orthoptera: Rhaphidophoridae)

Weissmann, M. J.

doi:10.2307/3503534

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, many of the non-singing ensiferans are known to engage in some type of intraspecific communication using substrate-borne vibration, drumming using abdomen or legs, or tremulation (shaking without any substrate) 29 , 49 , 63 , 66 , 67 , and have well-developed chordotonal organs for sensing vibration 7 , 68 . Our analysis also shows that abdomino-femoral stridulation likely evolved at least twice (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenomic analysis sheds light on the evolutionary pathways towards acoustic communication in Orthoptera

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic communication is enabled by the evolution of specialised hearing and sound producing organs. In this study, we performed a large-scale macroevolutionary study to understand how both hearing and sound production evolved and affected diversification in the insect order Orthoptera, which includes many familiar singing insects, such as crickets, katydids, and grasshoppers. Using phylogenomic data, we firmly establish phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages and divergence time estimates within Orthoptera, as well as the lineage-specific and dynamic patterns of evolution for hearing and sound producing organs. In the suborder Ensifera, we infer that forewing-based stridulation and tibial tympanal ears co-evolved, but in the suborder Caelifera, abdominal tympanal ears first evolved in a non-sexual context, and later co-opted for sexual signalling when sound producing organs evolved. However, we find little evidence that the evolution of hearing and sound producing organs increased diversification rates in those lineages with known acoustic communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenomic analysis sheds light on the evolutionary pathways towards acoustic communication in Orthoptera

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1991); Lawrence et al . (1992); Love & Walker (1979); Marshall & Severin (1906); Maskell (1927); Mason (1961, 1991); Michel (1979, 1980); Morris & Gwynne (1978, 1990); Nesbit (1941); Otte (1992); Qadri (1940); Ragge (1955a,b); Ramme (1931); Rentz (1980, 1993); Rentz & John (1990); Richards (1955, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1973); Saltet (1969); Saussure (1898); Sayce (1898); Schumacher (1978); Schwabe (1906); Sellier (1954); Sinety (1901); Snodgrass (1937); Stål (1876); Strenger (1942); Tindale (1928); Tinkham & Rentz (1969); Uvarov (1966); Wada (1965, 1966); Walker (1962, 1967); Weissmann M. J. (1997); Weissmann D. B.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeny and the evolution of acoustic communication in extant Ensifera (Insecta, Orthoptera)

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensifera present an appropriate and interesting model for the study of acoustic communication, because of their diverse signal and communication modalities, and due to their accessibility for field and laboratory studies. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the acoustic evolution of Ensifera, but they were elaborated without any reference to a falsifiable phylogeny, and were consequently highly speculative. Similarly, phylogenetic relationships between ensiferan clades have not hitherto been studied using modern standard methodology, and the sole cladistic analysis by Gwynne in 1995 was methodologically flawed. No sound hypothesis therefore currently exists for ensiferan phylogeny, which precludes historical analysis of their communication modalities. In the present paper, the phylogeny is established on the basis of morpho‐anatomical characters and used to analyse the evolution of acoustic communication in this clade by mapping the characters related to auditory and stridulatory structures onto the resultant trees. Cladistic analyses resulted in two equi‐parsimonious cladograms (length 154, C 64, CI 58, RI 61) with the following topologies: (1) [(Grylloidea–Gryllotalpidae) (Rhaphidophoridae (Schizodactylidae (Gryllacrididae ((Stenopelmatidae–Cooloola) (Anostostomatidae (Prophalangopsis (Cyphoderris (Tettigoniidae–Lezina))))))))] (2) [(Grylloidea–Gryllotalpidae)(Rhaphidophoridae (Schizodactylidae (Gryllacrididae–Cooloola–(Stenopelmatidae (Anostostomatidae (Prophalangopsis (Cyphoderris (Tettigoniidae–Lezina))))))))]. According to these topologies, Ensifera were ancestrally devoid of acoustic and hearing systems. An acoustic (tegminal or femoro‐abdominal) apparatus appeared a number of times independently with convergent structures. Similarly, tibial tympana developed several times independently. Moreover, four hypotheses (each according to a definite pattern of character transformation) can be proposed to explain the evolution of acoustic communication in the different ensiferan clades and relate it to a definite communicatory context. These hypotheses do not apply equally to ensiferan subclades. Grylloidea and Gryllotalpoidea could have experienced convergently a direct development of an intraspecific acoustic communication. Acoustic communication in Tettigoniidea has evolved more ambiguously, and may either have resulted from a direct evolution analogous to that having occurred in Gryllidea, or have developed in a completely different behavioural context. Future studies of acoustic communication in the different ensiferan clades will have to take into account the fact that the involved structures most often are not homologous and that their evolution may not have taken place in similar conditions. Different hypotheses of acoustic communication evolution may apply to different clades, and there may be no single explanation for acoustic communication in Ensifera.

show abstract

“…Jumping spiders are diurnal and active predators of other terrestrial invertebrates (Foelix 1982;Griswold 1987), and they are most commonly found in low vegetation or on sandy substrate near vegetative cover at White Sands. Sand-treader crickets burrow in the daytime and emerge to forage at night (Weissman 1997), and they are commonly found near their burrows at the base of the sand dunes, typically in areas with sparse vegetation cover (E.B.R. and C.E.P., personal observation).…”

Section: Arthropod Phenotypic Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Convergent Phenotypic Evolution despite Contrasting Demographic Histories in the Fauna of White Sands

Rosenblum

Parent

Diepeveen

et al. 2017

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When are evolutionary outcomes predictable? Cases of convergent evolution can shed light on when, why, and how different species exhibit shared evolutionary trajectories. In particular, studying diverse species in a common environment can illuminate how different factors facilitate or constrain adaptive evolution. Here we integrate studies of pattern and process in the fauna at White Sands (New Mexico) to understand the determinants of convergent evolution. Numerous animal species at White Sands exhibit phenotypic convergence in response to a novel-and shared-selective environment: geologically young gypsum dunes. We synthesize 15 years of research on White Sands lizards to assess the contribution of natural selection, genetic architecture, and population demography to patterns of phenotypic evolution. We also present new data for two species of White Sands arthropods, Ammobaenetes arenicolus and Habronattus ustulatus. Overall, we find dramatic phenotypic convergence across diverse species at White Sands. Although the direction of phenotypic response is parallel, the magnitude of phenotypic response varies among species. We also find that species exhibit strikingly different demographic patterns across the ecotone. The species with the most genetic structure between White Sands and dark-soil populations generally exhibit the least phenotypic divergence, suggesting population demography as a key modulator of adaptation. Comparative studies are particularly important for understanding the determinants of convergence in natural systems.

show abstract

Natural History of the Giant Sand Treader Camel Cricket, Daihinibaenetes giganteus Tinkham (Orthoptera: Rhaphidophoridae)

Cited by 12 publications

References 28 publications

Phylogenomic analysis sheds light on the evolutionary pathways towards acoustic communication in Orthoptera

Phylogenomic analysis sheds light on the evolutionary pathways towards acoustic communication in Orthoptera

Phylogeny and the evolution of acoustic communication in extant Ensifera (Insecta, Orthoptera)

Convergent Phenotypic Evolution despite Contrasting Demographic Histories in the Fauna of White Sands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About