Posts Tagged ‘behavior’

Genitalic stridulation in crane flies (Tipulidae)

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

A typical Tipula sp. (yeah, I know, typical in that it only has four legs left).

Something new to add to the list of crane fly (Diptera: Tipulidae s.l.) stories: apparently some male crane flies are quite the Romeos with their female counterparts. In a paper that I was recently made aware of (Eberhard & Gelhaus, 2009) the authors documented a male crane fly stridulating its genitalia during copulation. The Don Juan species is a yet-to-be determined species of Tipula subgenus Bellardina from Costa Rica. A male and female were found mating and consequently video recorded. From the frames they could see the male holding the female and vibrating her genitalia using his genitalia. More precisely, he held her with the apical lobes of his ninth sternite (in a “tube” formed by them) and rasped a file on the tube with a scraper process on the outer gonostylus (part of the claspers) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The stridulation pattern can be seen in Figure 2. The whole process lasted about 10 minutes, with many small vibrations lasting a few seconds, then a long vibration period of about 20 seconds, then more small periods.

Figure 2.

The reason for this behavior is thought to be purely to stimulate the female:

“It seems reasonable to conclude that the function of this behavior and of these structures is to stimulate the female, because stridulation behavior is ill-designed for any of the alternative functions that have been mentioned previously for genital movements, such as sensing the female, removing sperm, forcing open female passages, or penetrating more deeply.”

The authors mention that this is interesting in that it means the evolution of different genitalia in male crane flies may be following patterns other than the usually held “lock and key” or antagonistic hypotheses mentioned in the paper.

While we know that crane flies are biologically and taxonomically diverse, even this came as a surprise to me. However, it appears some members of Lepidoptera (namely Sphingidae and Pyralidae) have also evolved stridulating male genitalia. However, in moths, the males use the sound produced to call females, while in crane flies it appears to be used for vibration. Win for crane fly females!**

**And here is where I leave you with your imaginations and innuendos.

My Favorite Flies: Stenomicra

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

Can flies be cute? Yes, definitely! Take, for instance, Stenomicra angustata:

Stenomicra angustata, from Raleigh, N.C.

For one thing, this guy is tiny – just over one millimeter. It took me a while to find this one in the vial to take a picture. Then there is the nicely contrasting yellow and brown coloration.

I’ve collected this cute little fly only a couple times. The first time was sweeping through rushes and cattails at the edge of a small pond in a suburban park. The one above came from a malaise trap next to a cornfield on the NCSU farm. S. angustata is found across eastern North America, from Texas and Florida to Wisconsin and Quebec, but it is in fact the only Nearctic species of a large, pantropical genus.  There are only about 26 described species, but dozens of undescribed tropical species known in museums.  For instance, anywhere in the tropics, if you look closely at large, broad leaves of Marantaceae or other similar families, you may see something like what I saw in Costa Rica this year:

Stenomicra movie

Notice how the flies walk around the leaf sideways and backwards – but always facing the same way!  This behavior is probably unique to Stenomicra.   The larval biology is unknown for most species of Stenomicra, but specimens in Florida were reared from phytotelmata (water pools formed by plant leaves) in bromeliads (Fish, 1983), a habitat shared with the somewhat related genus Aulacigaster in the neotropics.

A key character diagnosing Stenomicra is the close approximation of the vibrissal setae (two strong bristles just above the mouth, see below); this is more pronounced in the closely related genus Cyamops.  Other diagnostic characters are the forward curving inner vertical bristles (at the top of the head), and the downward bent antennae, with long-plumose aristae (Teskey, 1987).

Head of Stenomicra species, Thailand, showing vibrissal setae.

Head of Stenomicra sp., Thailand, showing vibrissal setae

Taxonomically, the relationship of Stenomicra has been problematic.  It has been placed in several different families, most recently Anthomyzidae, Aulacigastridae, Periscelididae, and even it’s own family, Stenomicridae.  Our recent molecular results (Winkler et al. 2009) suggest it belongs with Aulacigastridae.  One fossil is known, from Dominican amber (Grimaldi & Mathis, 1993).

Finally, for your viewing enjoyment, here’s a few examples of Stenomicra I’ve come across:

Stenomicra spp. from Thailand, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Ecuador

Stenomicra sp., Costa Rica

Stenomicra sp., Australia

References:

Fish, D., 1983. Phytotelmata: Flora and Fauna. In: Frank, J.H., Lounibos, L.P. (Eds.), Phytotelmata: Terrestrial Plants as Hosts for Aquatic Insect Communities. Plexus, Medford, New Jersey, pp. 1–27.

Grimaldi, D.A., Mathis, W.N., 1993. Fossil Periscelididae (Diptera). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 95, 383–403.

Malloch, J.R. 1927. The species of the genus Stenomicra, Coquillet (Diptera, Acalyptrata). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) 20: 23-26, pl. 2.

Papp, L., Merz, B., Földvári, M., 2006. Diptera of Thailand: a summary of the families and genera with references to the species representations. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 52, 97–268.

Sabrosky, C. W. 1965. Asiatic species of the genus Stenomicra (Diptera: Anthomyzidae). Bull. Br. Mus. [Nat. Hist.] Ent. 17: 209-218.

Sabrosky, C. W. 1975. The genus Stenomicra in the Ethiopian Region (Diptera, Aulacigastridae). Ann. Natal Mus. 22: 663-676.

Teskey, H.J. 1987. Aulacigastridae. In J.F. McAlpine et al. (eds.) Manual of Nearctic Diptera, Vol. 2, pp. 891-894. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada Monograph 28.

Winkler, I. S., A. Rung, and S. J. Scheffer. 2009. Hennig’s orphans revisited: Testing morphological hypotheses in the “Opomyzoidea.”  Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 54: 746-762.