Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T21:14:03.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On a New Type of Respiratory Interrelation between an Insect (Chalcid) Parasite and its Host (Coccidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

W. H. Thorpe
W. H. Thorpe
Affiliation:
From the Entomological Department, Zoological Laboratory, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The life history of Encyrtus (Comys) infelix (Embleton), a hymenopterous parasite belonging to the chalcid family Encyrtidae, is described. It parasitises Saissetia hemisphaerica, a member of the subfamily Lecaniinae (Homoptera Coccidae). Its respiratory relationships with the host are of a quite extraordinary character.

2. The egg is provided with a hollow stalk which is left protruding from the posterior dorsal body wall of the host. The first three larval instars are metapneustic, the spiracles being placed at the tip of a pair of long caudal processes which are inserted in the hollow stalk. It has been proved that these spiracles are open and in actual communication with the atmospheric air, which enters through the pedicel.

3. The fourth and fifth larval instars are amphipneustic and the manner of respiration is entirely changed. The caudal processes degenerate and finally break away. The fourth instar larva turns round in the scale insect and becomes invested with a closely fitting transparent membraneous sheath produced by the phagocytes and fine tracheal branches of the host. This process appears to be merely a special case of the type of phagocytic activity which normally gives rise to the basement membranes and “connective tissue” membranes; such membranes are particularly conspicuous and well developed in Saissetia. The sheath becomes attached in an extraordinary manner to the main lateral tracheal trunks of the host in four (or six) places in the neighbourhood of the larval spiracles. This process is described in detail. It has been proved by an injection technique that an actual connection is established between the lumen of the host trachea and the cavity of the sheath. Bubbles of gas appear inside the sheath close to the points of attachment and near the spiracles of the larva which are thus put into functional communication with the tracheal system of the host.

4. While the production of the sheath might under certain circumstances be of value to the host the development of tracheal attachments appears to be of value to the parasite alone. The conclusion that the whole structure is an adaptation for the respiration of the parasite seems inescapable. A theory is tentatively put forward to account for the stimulation of the host tracheal epithelium by a sudden physiological change in the tension of the respiratory gases in the region of the parasite spiracles.

5. References to similar instances among the Chalcids are briefly reviewed. It is suggested that the “puparia” which have been described in the case of one or two other Chalcidoidea may be found to arise in the same way.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 1936 , pp. 517 - 540
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

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

REFERENCES

Benedict, S. R. & Hitchcock, E. H. (1915). J. biol. Chem. 20, 619–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caullery, M. & Mesnil, F. (1919). Bull. biol. 53, 161–233.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. (1932). Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 25, 670–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embleton, A. L. (1902). Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1902, pp. 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embleton, A. L. (1904). Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.), 2nd Series, 9, pt. 5, 231–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeborn, S. B. & Atsatt, R. F. (1918). J. econ. Ent. 11, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollande, A. C. (1920). Arch. Zool. exp. gén. 59, 543–63.Google Scholar
Imms, A. D. (1918). Quart. J. micr. Sci. 63, 293–374.Google Scholar
Lartschenko, K. (1933). Z. Parasitenk. (Z. Wiss. Biol. Abt. F), 5, 679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarenko, T. (1925). Z. mikr.-anat. Forsch. 3, 409–99.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. (1904). Arch. Zool. exp. gén. 4e sér. 2, 250–335.Google Scholar
Marchal, P. (1906). Arch. Zool. exp. gén. 4e sér. 4, 485–640.Google Scholar
Myers, J. G. (1930). Bull. ent. Res. 21, 341–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantel, J. (1910). Cellule, 26, 27–216.Google Scholar
Ries, E. (1932). Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 25, 184–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvestri, F. (1919). Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, 13, 126–92.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. & Compere, H. (1926). Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 4, 51–61.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. (1932). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 109, 450–71.Google Scholar
Timberlake, P. H. (1913). J. econ. Ent. 6, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1933). Quart. J. micr. Sci. 76, 269–318.Google Scholar