Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T21:56:02.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MORPHOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF SCLEROTIZED AND PIGMENTED AREAS OF LEPIDOPTEROUS LARVAE TO MUSCLE ATTACHMENTS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO LARVAL TAXONOMY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Akira Mutuura
Akira Mutuura
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological interpretations are given of sclerotized areas, such as the prothoracic shield, anal plate, and pinacula of lepidopterous larvae. Markings of these sclerotized areas which indicate the positions of muscle attachments are classified; new systematic names are suggested based on those of the corresponding muscles. The importance of sclerotized areas and markings for larval classification are shown by examples. These markings are used to distinguish certain closely related species of the genus Chilo (Pyralidae).

Résumé

Interprétations morphologiques proposées pour les surfaces sclérotisées tels le scutum prothoracique, plaque anale et pinacula chez les larves de Lépidoptères. Classification des marques sur ces surfaces sclérotisées indiquant la position des insertions musculaires; nouveaux noms systématiques suggérés, basés sur ceux des muscles correspondants. Exemples démontrant l’importance des surfaces sclérotisées et des marques pour la classification des larves. Utilisation de ces marques pour distinguer certaines espèces étroitement apparentées du genre Chilo (Pyralidae).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 112 , Issue 7 , 01 July 1980 , pp. 697 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1980

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

Dyar, H. G. 1894. Classification of lepidopterous larvae. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 8: 1–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, W. T. M. 1910. A structural study of some caterpillars. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 3: 94–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fracker, S. B. 1915. The classification of lepidopterous larvae. Illinois biol. Monogr. 2: 1–169, 112 figs.Google Scholar
Garman, H. 1921. Some neglected setae of lepidopterous larvae. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 14: 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerasimov, A. M. 1935. Zur Fge. der Homodynamie der Borsten. von Schmetterlingsraupen. Zool. Anz. 112: 117–194, 8 figs.Google Scholar
Hattori, I. 1971 a. Description of larvae and pupae of the genus Chilo in Japan (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). Bull. Nat. Ins. Agr. (C) 25: 97–102.Google Scholar
Hattori, I. 1971 b. Stem borers of gramineous crops in southeast Asia. Proc. Symp. Rice. Ins. Trop. Agr. Res. Center, Mini. Agr. For. Tokyo, Japan. pp. 145–153.Google Scholar
Heinrich, C. 1916. On the taxonomic value of some larval characters in Lepidoptera. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 18: 154–164, 5 figs.Google Scholar
Heinrich, C. 1920. On some forest lepidoptera with descriptions of new species, larvae and pupae. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 57: 53–96, 13 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, H. E. 1946. On the homology and nomenclature of the setae of lepidopterous larvae, with some notes on the phylogeny of the Lepidoptera. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 97: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, H. E. 1955. On the structure, function, and distribution of the prolegs of the Panorpoidea, with criticism of the Berlese-Imms theory. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 47: 455–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kodama, T. 1958. The larvae of Chilo suppressalis Walk. and C. luteellus Mots. (Pyralidae). Publ. Ent. Lab. Col.. Agric. Univ. Osaka Pref. 4: 15–17.Google Scholar
MacKay, M. R. 1959. Larvae of the North American Olethreutidae (Lepidoptera). Can. Ent. Suppl. 10. 338 pp.Google Scholar
Mutuura, A. 1953. On the morphological characters of the larvae of Japanese Pyraustinae. Bull. Naniwa Univ. (B) 2: 25–34.Google Scholar
Mutuura, A. 1956. On the homology of the body areas in the thorax and abdomen and new system of the setae on the lipidopterous larvae. Bull. Univ. Osaka Pref. (B) 6: 94–112.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. 1948. Larvae of insects 1. Lepidoptera and plant infesting Hymenoptera. Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Quail, A. 1904. On the tubercles of the thorax and abdomen in the first larval stage of Lepidoptera. Entomologist 37: 269–272, 1 pl.Google Scholar
Schierbeck, A. 1917. On the setal pattern of caterpillars and pupae. 11–157. 5 pls. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935. Principles of Insect Morphology. New York.Google Scholar
Tsou, T. H. 1914. Homology of the body setae of some lepidopterous larvae. Trans. Am. micr. Soc. 33: 230–260, 4 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasuda, T. 1962. On the larva and pupa of Neomicropteryx nipponensis Issiki, with its biological notes (Lepidoptera, Micropterygidae). Kontyû 30: 130–136.Google Scholar