Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:25:59.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MORPHOLOGY AND EVOLUTION OF THE RHYNCHOTAN HEAD (INSECTA: HEMIPTERA, HOMOPTERA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

K. G. A. Hamilton
K. G. A. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The structure of the sclerous parts of representative Rhynchota is analyzed and compared with those of Psocoptera and Thysanoptera. Known data on embryology and musculature are also considered in deriving homologies of the structures. The term "suture" is redefined. Standardized terms for the sclerous parts of the head capsules of Rhynchota are recommended and compared with those of previous authors. A phylogenetic synthesis is presented, demonstrating the evolution of the homopterous head capsule through intermediate stages represented in the modern fauna by Psocoptera, Thysanoptera, and Hemiptera–Gymnocerata. Evidence is presented that Coleorrhyncha are related to Hemiptera rather than to Homoptera, that the Gymnocerata and Cryptocerata are natural groups within the Hemiptera and that Cicadomorpha, Aphidomorpha, and Fulgoromorpha are natural groups within the Homoptera.

Résumé

L’auteur analyse la structure des parties sclérifiées des Rhynchotes représentatifs et les compare à celles des Psocoptères et des Thysanoptéres. Il étudie également les données connues sur l’embryologie et la musculature pour dégager des ressemblances entre les structures. Le terme "suture" est redéfini. Des termes normalisés pour les parties sclérifiées des capsules céphaliques des Rhynchotes sont recommandés et comparés à ceux avancés par les auteurs précédents. L’ouvrage présente une synthèse phylogénétique en démontrant l’évolution de la capsule céphalique des Homoptères aux stades intermédiaires de croissance représentés dans la faune moderne par les Psocoptères, les Thysanoptéres et les Hémiptères–Gymnocérates. Il semblerait que les Coléorrhynches soient apparentés aux Hémiptères plutôt qu’aux Homoptères, que les Gymnocérates et les Cryptocérates soient des groupes naturels qui se classent dans les Hémiptères et que les Cicadomorphes, les Aphidomorphes et les Fulgoromorphes constituent des groupes naturels entrant dans l’ordre des Homoptères.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 113 , Issue 11 , November 1981 , pp. 953 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benwitz, G. 1957. Der Kopf von Corixa punctata Ill. (geoffroyi Leach) (Hemiptera - Heteroptera). Zool. Jahrb., Abt. f. Anat. 75: 311–378.Google Scholar
Boudreaux, H. B. 1978. Arthropod Phylogeny with Special Reference to Insects. Wiley, New York. 320 pp.Google Scholar
Butt, F. H. 1973. Comparative studies of mouthparts of representative Hemiptera-Homoptera. Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn 254.Google Scholar
China, W. E. 1962. South American Peloridiidae (Hemiptera-Homoptera: Coleorrhyncha). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 114: 131–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobben, R. H. 1970. Morphology and taxonomy of intertidal dwarfbugs (Heteroptera: Omaniidae fam. nov.). Tijdschr. Ent. 113(2): 61–90.Google Scholar
Cobben, R. H. 1978. Evolutionary Trends in Heteroptera, Part II. Mouthpart-Structures and Feeding Strategies. Laboratorium voor Entomologie, Wageningen. 407 pp.Google Scholar
Dufour, L. 1833. Recherches anatomiques et physiologiques sur les Hémiptères, accompagnées de considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle et à la classification de ces insectes. Mém. Savants étrang. Acad. Sci. 4: 129–462.Google Scholar
DuPorte, E. M. 1946. Observations on the morphology of the face in insects. J. Morph. 79(3): 371–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DuPorte, E. M. 1962. The anterior tentorial arms in insects and their significance in interpreting the morphology of the cranium of the cicadas. Can. J. Zool. 40: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekblom, T. 1926. Morphological and biological studies of the Swedish families of Hemiptera-Heteroptera, part 1. Zool. Bidr. Uppsala 10: 31–179.Google Scholar
Evans, J. W. 1938. The morphology of the head of Homoptera. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasmania 1938: 1–20.Google Scholar
Evans, J. W. 1963. The phylogeny of the Homoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 8: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. W. 1973. The maxillary plate of Homoptera-Auchenorrhyncha. J. Ent. (A) 48(1): 43–47.Google Scholar
Evans, J. W. 1975. The external features of the heads of leafhoppers (Homoptera, Cicadelloidea). Rec. Aust. Mus. 29(14): 407–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F. 1943. The basic materials of the insect cranium. Microentomology 8(1): 8–24.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K. G. A. 1972. The Insect Wing, Pt. IV. Venational trends and phylogeny of the winged orders. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 45(3): 295–308.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. A. 1931. The morphology of the water-scorpion Nepa cinera L. (Rhynchota, Heteroptera). Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1931: 1067–1136.Google Scholar
Hannemann, H. J. 1956. Die Kopfmuskulatur von Micropteryx calthella (L.) (Lep.), Morphologie und Funktion. Zool. Jahrb., Anat. 75: 177–206.Google Scholar
Heming, B. S. 1978. Structure and function of the mouthparts in larvae of Haplothrips verbasci (Osborn) (Thysanoptera, Tubulifera, Phlaeothripidae). J. Morph. 156: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heming, B. S. 1980. Development of the mouthparts in embryos of Haplothrips verbasci (Osborn) (Insecta, Thysanoptera, Phlaeothripidae). J. Morph. 164: 235–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennig, W. 1969. Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten. Kramer, Frankfort am Main. 436 pp.Google Scholar
Hsiu-Fu, C. 1953. The external m VOGrphology of the dragonfly Onychogomphus ardens Needham. Smithsonian misc. Collns 122(6). 56 pp.Google Scholar
Kramer, S. 1950. The morphology and phylogeny of the auchenorrhynchous Homoptera. Ill. biol. Monogr. 20(4). 111 pp.Google Scholar
Kristensen, N. P. 1981. Phylogeny of insect orders. A. Rev. Ent. 26: 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, R. 1965. Morphology and evolution of the insect head. Mem. Am. Inst. 4. 334 pp.Google Scholar
Mellanby, H. 1936. The later embryology of Rhodnius prolixus. Ql J. micros. Sci. 79: 1–42.Google Scholar
Muir, F. 1926. Reconsideration of some points in the morphology of the head of Homoptera. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 19: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, F. 1929. The tentorium of the Hemiptera considered from the point of view of the recent works of Snodgrass. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 65: 86–88.Google Scholar
Muir, F. and Kershaw, J. C.. 1911 a. On the homologies and mechanism of the mouthparts of Hemiptera. Psyche, Camb. 18: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, F. and Kershaw, J. C.. 1911 b. On the later embryological stages of the head of Pristesancus papuensis (Reduviidae). Psyche, Camb. 18: 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, F. and Kershaw, J. C.. 1912. The development of the mouthparts of the Homoptera with observations on the embryo of Siphanta [Flatidae]. Psyche, Camb. 19: 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomer, W. S. 1948. Embryological development of the mouthparts and related structures of the milkweed bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus (Dallas). J. Morph. 82: 365–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, M. C. 1962. Skeleton and musculature of the head of Saldula pallipes (Heteroptera: Saldidae). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 114: 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, M. C. 1964. The origin and development of the hemipteran cranium. Can. J. Zool. 42(3): 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, M. C. 1974. The morphology and possible origin of the hemipteran loral lobes. Can. J. Zool. 52(2): 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesson, P. 1944. Contribution à l'étude morphologique et fonctionnelle de la tête, de l'appareil buccal et du tube digestif des femelles de Coccides. Les Stations et Laboratoires de Recherches Agronomiques, Paris. 267 pp.Google Scholar
Puchkova, L. V. 1970. The origin of the main structures of the head in the Hemiptera. Ent. Rev. 49(3): 318–323.Google Scholar
Rastogi, S. C. 1965. The food pump and associated structures in Coridius janus (Fabr.) (Heteroptera: Dinidoridae). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 40: 125–134.Google Scholar
Rieger, C. 1976. Skelett und Muskulatur des Kopfes und Prothorax von Ochterus marginatus Latreille. Zoomorphologie 83: 109–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risler, H. 1957. Der Kopf von Thrips physapus L. (Thysanoptera, Terebrantia). Zool. Jahrb., Anat. 76: 251–302.Google Scholar
Ross, H. H. 1955. Evolution of insect orders. Ent. News 66: 197–208.Google Scholar
Schlee, D. 1969. Morphologie und Symbiose, ihre Beweiskraft für die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Coleorrhyncha (Insecta, Hemiptera). Phylogenetische Studien an Hemiptera, IV: Heteropteroidea (Heteroptera & Coleorrhyncha) als monophyletische Gruppe. Stutt. Beit. Naturk. 210. 27 pp.Google Scholar
Sharov, A. G. 1966. Basic Arthropodan Stock with Special Reference to Insects. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 271 pp.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1921. The mouthparts of the cicada. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 23: 1–15.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1927. The head and mouthparts of the cicada. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 29: 1–15.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935. Principles of Insect Morphology. McGraw-Hill, New York. 667 pp.Google Scholar
Singh, S. 1971. Morphology of the head of Homoptera. Punjab Univ. Sci. Res. Bull. 22(3–4): 261–316.Google Scholar
Spooner, C. S. 1938. The phylogeny of the Hemiptera, based on a study of the head capsule. Bull. Univ. Ill. 35 (70): 102 pp.Google Scholar
Stichel, W. 1956. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, II. Europa (Hemiptera - Heteroptera Europae), 1. Selbstverlag, Berlin-Hermsdorf. 168 pp.Google Scholar
Stys, P. and Kerzhner, I.. 1975. The rank and nomenclature of higher taxa in recent Heteroptera. Acta ent. bohemoslov. 72: 65–79.Google Scholar
Wille, A. 1960. The phylogeny and relationships between the insect orders. Rev. Biol. Trop. 8(1): 93–123.Google Scholar