Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T04:40:12.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MATING BEHAVIOR OF TWO PSEUDOXYCHILA BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CICINDELIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Rafael Lucas Rodríguez S.
Rafael Lucas Rodríguez S.
Affiliation:
Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, San Pedro, San José, Costa Rica
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Copulations of Pseudoxychila tarsalis Bates and Pseudoxychila bipustulata Latreille consisted of 1–20 intromissions. The male performed four different genitalic movements: prying, thrusts, small thrusts, and pulls. The male also courted the female during copulation by rubbing her with his middle legs. The observed male behavior does not fit previous hypotheses concerning the phases of copulation in tiger beetles. The female sometimes ejected 1 or 2 spermatophores during or after copulation. There were geographic differences in quantitative aspects of P. tarsalis male copulatory behavior, and more pronounced differences between P. tarsalis and P. bipustulata. This variation could result from sexual selection by cryptic female choice on male copulatory behavior.

Résumé

Chez Pseudoxychila tarsalis Bates et P. bipustulata Latreille, l’accouplement se fait par 1–20 intromissions. Le mâle fait quatre mouvements différents avec ses genitalia : exploration, poussées, petites poussées et retraits. Pendant l’accouplement, le mâle courtise la femelle en la frottant de ses pattes médianes. Ce comportement chez des mâles ne correspond pas aux hypothèses déjà avancées sur les phases de l’accouplement des cicindèles. La femelle projette parfois un ou deux spermatophores pendant ou après l’accouplement. Il existe des différences géographiques dans les aspects quantitatifs du comportement de copulation chez les mâles de P. tarsalis et des différences encore plus importantes entre les comportements de copulation des mâles de P. tarsalis et de P. bipustulata. Il est possible que cette variation résulte d’une sélection sexuelle affectant le comportement des mâles en réaction à des choix non apparents des femelles.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 130 , Issue 6 , December 1998 , pp. 735 - 750
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1998

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

Alcock, J. 1994. Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate-guarding hypothesis. Annual Review of Entomology 39: 1–21.Google Scholar
Alexander, R.D. 1959. The courtship and copulation of Pasimachus punctulatus Haldemann (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 52: 485.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1996. Checklist of the Western Hemisphere Caraboidea (Coleoptera). Smithsonian Institution Natural History Web, http://www.nmnhgoph.si.edu/gopher-,menus/ChecklistoftheWesternHemisphere-CaraboideaColoeptera.html).Google Scholar
Cowan, D.P. 1986. Sexual behavior of eumenid wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 88: 531–541.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1991. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice. Biological Reviews 66: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1992. Copulatory courtship and notes on the natural history of Ochtera occidentalis Clausen (Diptera: Ephydridae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 68: 261–267.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1993 a. Copulatory courtship and genital mechanics of three species of Macrodactylus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 5: 19–63.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1993 b. Copulatory courtship and morphology of genitalic coupling in seven Phyllophaga species (Coleoptera: Melolonthinae). Journal of Natural History 27: 683–717.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1994. Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution 48: 711–733.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection and cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Fielding, K., and Knisley, C.B.. 1995. Mating behavior in two tiger beetles, Cicindela dorsalis and C. puritana (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Entomological News 106: 61–67Google Scholar
Freitag, R., Olynyk, J.E., and Barnes, B.. 1980. Mating behaviour and genitalic counterparts in tiger beetles (Carabidae: Cicindelinae). International Journal of Invertebrate Reproduction 2: 131–135.Google Scholar
Huber, B.A. 1993. Genital mechanics and sexual selection in the spider Nesticus cellulanus (Araneae: Nesticidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 2437–2447.Google Scholar
Huber, B.A., and Eberhard, W.G.. 1997. Courtship, copulation, and genital mechanics in Physocyclus globosus (Araneae, Pholcidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 905–918.Google Scholar
Hunter, M.S., Antolin, M.F., and Rose, M.. 1996. Courtship behavior, reproductive relationships, and allozyme patterns of three North American populations of Eretmocerus nr. californicus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) parasitizing the whitefly Bemisia sp., tabaci complex (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 98: 126–137.Google Scholar
Jaenson, T.G.T. 1979. Mating behaviour of males of Glossina pallidipes Austen (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 69: 573–588.Google Scholar
Kawata, M. 1995. Effective population size in a continuously distributed population. Evolution 49: 1046–1054.Google Scholar
Kraus, B., and Lederhouse, R.C.. 1983. Contact guarding during courtship in the tiger beetle Cicindela marutha Dow (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). The American Midland Naturalist 110: 208–211.Google Scholar
Lachmann, A. 1997. Sperm transfer during copulation in five Coproica species (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae). European Journal of Entomology 94: 271–286.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1982. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution 36: 213–223.Google Scholar
Otronen, M. 1997. Sperm numbers, their storage and usage in the fly Dryomyza anilis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 264: 777–782.Google Scholar
Otronen, M., and Siva-Jothy, M.T.. 1991. The effect of postcopulatory male behavior on ejaculate distribution within the female sperm storage organs in the fly Dryomyza anilis. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M.K. 1976 a. Natural history and behavior of Pseudoxychila tarsalis Bates. Cicindela 8: 61–92.Google Scholar
Palmer, M.K. 1976 b. Notes on the biology of Pterombrus piceus Krombein (Hymenoptera: Typhiidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 78: 369–375.Google Scholar
Palmer, M.K. 1982. Biology and behavior of two species of Anthrax (Diptera: Bombyliidae), parasitoids of the larvae of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 75: 61–70.Google Scholar
Palmer, M.K. 1991. Pseudoxychila tarsalis (Abejón tigre, Tiger Beetle). pp. 779–780in Janzen, D.H. (Ed.), Historia Natural de Costa Rica. Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
Pearson, D.L. 1988. Biology of tiger beetles. Annual Review of Entomology 33: 123–147.Google Scholar
Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, V. 1994. Sexual behavior in Omaspides convexicollis Spaeth and O. bistriata Boheman (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae), with notes on maternal care of eggs and young. The Coleopterists Bulletin 48: 140–144.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, S R.L. 1998. Spermatophore transfer and ejection in the beetle Pseudoxychila tarsalis (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. In press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, S R.L., and Eberhard, W.G.. 1994. Courtship before and during copulation in two species of Xyonysiusbugs (Hemiptera, Lygaeidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 67: 37–45.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A.M., and Porter, A.H.. 1989. The lock-and-key hypothesis: evolutionary and biosystematic interpretation of insect genitalia. Annual Review of Entomology 34: 231–245.Google Scholar
Simpson, K.W. 1975. Biology and immature stages of three species of nearctic Ochtera (Diptera: Ephydridae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 77: 129–155.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. The American Naturalist 122: 765–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wcislo, W.T., and Buchmann, S.L.. 1995. Mating behaviour in the bees, Dieunomia heteropoda and Nomia tetrazonata, with a review of courtship in Nomiinae (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of Natural History 29: 1015–1027.Google Scholar
Wcislo, W.T., Minkley, R.L., and Spangler, H.C.. 1992. Precopulatory courtship behavior in a solitary sweat bee Nomia triangulifera (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Apidologie 23: 431–442.Google Scholar
Wu, C.-I. 1985. A stochastic simulation study on speciation by sexual selection. Evolution 39: 66–82.Google Scholar