Comparative morphology of the forewing base articulationin Sternorrhyncha compared with a representative of Fulgoromorpha (Insecta, Hemiptera)

The forewing articulation of single species from each of the four subgroups of Sternorrhyncha (Aleyrodomorpha, Aphidomorpha, Coccomorpha, Psyllomorpha) was examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy. The species were compared with a species of Cixiidae (Fulgoromorpha), as an outgroup of Sternorrhyncha. We present the results of a comparative analysis of the forewing articulation in these five groups, propose a standardized terminology and compare our findings with those previously reported. The wing base of all examined species is composed of the following structures: anterior and posterior notal wing process, first, second, and third axillary sclerites, tegula, and axillary cord. The number of elements included in the wing base and the surrounding area is the greatest in Cacopsylla mali, the most complicated species from Sternorrhyncha. Based on the shape of axillary sclerites and the number of elements forming the wing base environment, Orthezia urticae (Coccomorpha) and Cixius nervosus (Fulgoromorpha) are the most similar. Among Sternorrhyncha, the most similar axillaries are those of Aphis fabae and Orthezia urticae, which is congruent with existing classifications. In this paper we show that the four groups from Sternorrhyncha exhibit their own distinct wing base morphology

Resilin and chitinous cuticle form a composite structure for energy storage in jumping by froghopper insects

RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are.Abstract Background Many insects jump by storing and releasing energy in elastic structures within their bodies. This allows them to release large amounts of energy in a very short time to jump at very high speeds. The fastest of the insect jumpers, the froghopper, uses a catapult-like elastic mechanism to achieve their jumping prowess in which energy, generated by the slow contraction of muscles, is released suddenly to power rapid and synchronous movements of the hind legs. How is this energy stored? Results The hind coxae of the froghopper are linked to the hinges of the ipsilateral hind wings by pleural arches, complex bow-shaped internal skeletal structures. They are built of chitinous cuticle and the rubber-like protein, resilin, which fluoresces bright blue when illuminated with ultra-violet light. The ventral and posterior end of this fluorescent region forms the thoracic part of the pivot with a hind coxa. No other structures in the thorax or hind legs show this blue fluorescence and it is not found in larvae which do not jump. Stimulating one trochanteral depressor muscle in a pattern that simulates its normal action, results in a distortion and forward movement of the posterior part of a pleural arch by 40 μm, but in natural jumping, the movement is at least 100 μm. Conclusion Calculations showed that the resilin itself could only store 1% to 2% of the energy required for jumping. The stiffer cuticular parts of the pleural arches could, however, easily meet all the energy storage needs. The composite structure therefore, combines the stiffness of the chitinous cuticle with the elasticity of resilin. Muscle contractions bend the chitinous cuticle with little deformation and therefore, store the energy needed for jumping, while the resilin rapidly returns its stored energy and thus restores the body to its original shape after a jump and allows repeated jumping

Changes to the Fossil Record of Insects through Fifteen Years of Discovery

The first and last occurrences of hexapod families in the fossil record are compiled from publications up to end-2009. The major features of these data are compared with those of previous datasets (1993 and 1994). About a third of families (>400) are new to the fossil record since 1994, over half of the earlier, existing families have experienced changes in their known stratigraphic range and only about ten percent have unchanged ranges. Despite these significant additions to knowledge, the broad pattern of described richness through time remains similar, with described richness increasing steadily through geological history and a shift in dominant taxa, from Palaeoptera and Polyneoptera to Paraneoptera and Holometabola, after the Palaeozoic. However, after detrending, described richness is not well correlated with the earlier datasets, indicating significant changes in shorter-term patterns. There is reduced Palaeozoic richness, peaking at a different time, and a less pronounced Permian decline. A pronounced Triassic peak and decline is shown, and the plateau from the mid Early Cretaceous to the end of the period remains, albeit at substantially higher richness compared to earlier datasets. Origination and extinction rates are broadly similar to before, with a broad decline in both through time but episodic peaks, including end-Permian turnover. Origination more consistently exceeds extinction compared to previous datasets and exceptions are mainly in the Palaeozoic. These changes suggest that some inferences about causal mechanisms in insect macroevolution are likely to differ as well

Comment on the proposed conservation of Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horv\ue1th, 1926. Z. N. (S.) 239

Volume: 42Start Page: 211End Page: 21