Structure, development, and evolution of insect auditory systems

Yager, David D.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0029(19991215)47:6<380::aid-jemt3>3.0.co;2-p

Cited by 220 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 161 publications

(201 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

188

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…an auditory device, the metathoracic hearing organ or "cyclopean ear", which is externally discernible as a median furrow between the corresponding coxae (Yager & Hoy 1986, 1989Yager 1990Yager , 1999aTriblehorn & Yager 2001;Yager & Svenson 2008). Its morphology has been described in detail by Yager & Hoy (1987), and its physiology was carefully studied by Yager & Hoy in 1989.…”

Section: Metathoracic Hearing Organ ("Cyclopean Ear") the Greater Pamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The phylogenetic system of Mantodea (Insecta: Dictyoptera)

Frank¹

2013

Species, Phylogeny and Evolution - SPE

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first reconstruction of mantodean phylogeny using a large morphological dataset of the entire group is presented. 152 morphological characters were encoded for 122 species of Mantodea, encompassing all 15 currently recognized families, 34 of 48 subfamilies (71 %) and 33 of 46 tribus (72 %). Structures from the entire exoskeleton were studied, including characters that have been stated to be convergent developments before without data-based evidence. Fossils, behaviour and ontogenetic observations were used for the interpretation of structures and the discussion of evolutionary scenarios.Calculations resulted in 888 equally parsimonious trees (analysis I). Many characters were found to be highly homoplastic, resulting in consensus cladograms with low resolution except for many smaller distal clades. Characters were automatically reweighted (based on the Rescaled Consistency Index).Subsequent calculation (analysis II) resulted in 10 equally parsimonious trees, and the consensus cladogram was almost fully resolved. Most of the small monophyletic groups found in analysis I were recovered in analysis II.The resulting phylogenetic reconstruction supported the monophyly of five traditional families (Acanthopidae, Empusidae, Eremiaphilidae, Thespidae, and Toxoderidae; 33 %), of 11 subfamilies (Amorphoscelinae, Angelinae, Chroicopterinae, Empusinae, Haaniinae, Hymenopodinae, Oxypilinae, Paraoxypilinae, Perlamantinae, Toxoderinae, and Tropidomantinae; 32 % of the subfamilies studied) and of six tribus (Angelini, Chroicopterini, Idolomorphini, Oxypilini, Polyspilotini, and Rivetinini; 18 % of the tribus studied). The subgroups of Amorphoscelidae in the traditional sense clustered together in analysis II (not in analysis I), however the group encompassed Compsothespis (which is usually assumed to belong to Mantidae) as the sistergroup of Amorphoscelinae + Perlamantinae within Amorphoscelidae. The potential likeliness of this scenario was discussed in detail.Many structures have been shown to have evolved many times independently in Mantodea, most likely due to comparable selective pressures in the respective habitats. Among them are the head processes, lamellar expansions of the pronota, and lobes on the legs and on the abdomen. Furthermore, the metathoracic hearing organ ("cyclopean ear") evolved several times independently and possibly separately in males and females in some cases. Molecular studies have instead found evidence for a monophyletic neotropical earless taxon in the basal part of the phylogenetic tree. Thespidae was found to be monophyletic and to include Oligonicinae as well as Haaniinae, nested among the latter. The monophyly of Oligonicinae including Haaniinae is supported by their unique fore tibial morphology. This phylogenetic relationship implicates that the ear in Haaniinae originated independently form other taxa, as the group is nested among the earless Oligonicinae.Congruence between the morphological reconstruction of the phylogeny and the traditional classification was higher than that...

show abstract

Section: Metathoracic Hearing Organ ("Cyclopean Ear") the Greater Pamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yager 1999aYager : 386, 1999bTriblehorn & Yager 2001). However, the ear does not enable the mantids of directional hearing (Yager & Hoy 1986, 1989Yager 1999b: 99).…”

Section: Metathoracic Hearing Organ ("Cyclopean Ear") the Greater Pamentioning

confidence: 99%

The phylogenetic system of Mantodea (Insecta: Dictyoptera)

Frank¹

2013

Species, Phylogeny and Evolution - SPE

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aerial warfare between echolocating bats and their insect prey has escalated for nearly 65 Myr [1]. Ultrasonic 'bat-detecting' ears have independently evolved a minimum of 19 times in five insect orders [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound

Barber

Kawahara

2013

Biol. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats and moths have been engaged in aerial warfare for nearly 65 Myr. This arms race has produced a suite of counter-adaptations in moths, including bat-detecting ears. One set of defensive strategies involves the active production of sound; tiger moths' ultrasonic replies to bat attack have been shown to startle bats, warn the predators of bad taste and jam their biosonar. Here, we report that hawkmoths in the Choerocampina produce entirely ultrasonic sounds in response to tactile stimulation and the playback of biosonar attack sequences. Males do so by grating modified scraper scales on the outer surface of the genital valves against the inner margin of the last abdominal tergum. Preliminary data indicate that females also produce ultrasound to touch and playback of echolocation attack, but they do so with an entirely different mechanism. The anti-bat function of these sounds is unknown but might include startling, cross-family acoustic mimicry, warning of unprofitability or physical defence and/or jamming of echolocation. Hawkmoths present a novel and tractable system to study both the function and evolution of anti-bat defences.

show abstract

“…Based only on species with tympanal ears, it has been suggested that hearing has evolved independently at least twenty times across the various insect orders [121]. The rich diversity of insect hearing organs, in turn, largely reflects the richness and diversity of insects themselves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Aspects of Hearing in Vertebrates and Insects with Antennal Ears

Albert¹,

Kozlov

2016

Current Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of hearing in terrestrial animals has resulted in remarkable adaptations enabling exquisitely sensitive sound detection by the ear and sophisticated sound analysis by the brain. In this review, we examine several such characteristics, using examples from insects and vertebrates. We focus on two strong and interdependent forces that have been shaping the auditory systems across taxa: the physical environment of auditory transducers on the small, subcellular scale, and the sensory-ecological environment within which hearing happens, on a larger, evolutionary scale. We briefly discuss acoustical feature selectivity and invariance in the central auditory system, highlighting a major difference between insects and vertebrates as well as a major similarity. Through such comparisons within a sensory ecological framework, we aim to emphasize general principles underlying acute sensitivity to airborne sounds.Introduction Auditory physiology offers a distinctive perspective on the interaction between a sensory system and its environment. On the one hand, auditory systems in vertebrates and insects with sensitive hearing are capable of remarkable performances on multiple levels, both within the sensory periphery where the minute energies associated with sound are converted into electrical signals, as well as within higher-order brain areas where complex natural stimuli such as human speech are processed. For example, displacements caused by acoustical stimuli in the inner ear at the threshold of hearing are sub-nanometer and comparable to the distance between atoms in molecules [1]. Furthermore, thermal fluctuations in the ear's mechanotransduction apparatus not only are significant, but also can be larger than the faintest audible signals, making signal detection a challenging task [2]. Ascending the sensory hierarchy, one encounters other marvels of evolution, such as the ability of individual neurons to encode -using millisecond-long action potentials -inter-aural time differences of only about ten microseconds, and to use this information to localize the source of the sound [3,4]. No engineered system has yet been designed that could understand distorted speech in a noisy and reverberating environment with multiple speakers. That our auditory system achieves this feat is testament to its remarkable performance.On the other hand, an engineer could argue that the auditory system's performance is objectively poor, even in animals with sensitive hearing: at the very first step, during the mechanoelectrical transduction in the inner ear, external sounds are distorted, or even completely suppressed, while new tones are generated by the ear itself [5]. Forward and backward masking, illusory percepts of nonexistent tones (such as the Zwicker illusion [6]), perceptual merging of separate auditory streams, the precedence effect suppressing the perception of echoes that has been demonstrated in insects and vertebrates [7,8] (and which some blind people can unsuppress), auditory hallucinations, and a frustrating inab...

show abstract

Structure, development, and evolution of insect auditory systems

Cited by 220 publications

References 161 publications

The phylogenetic system of Mantodea (Insecta: Dictyoptera)

The phylogenetic system of Mantodea (Insecta: Dictyoptera)

Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound

Comparative Aspects of Hearing in Vertebrates and Insects with Antennal Ears

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About