Comparative morphometry and morphology of Anopheles aconitus Form B and C eggs under scanning electron microscope

Abstract

Comparative morphometric and morphological studies of eggs under scanning electron microscope (SEM) were undertaken in the three strains of two karyotypic forms of Anopheles aconitus, i.e., Form B (Chiang Mai and Phet Buri strains) and Form C (Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son strains). Morphometric examination revealed the intraspecific variation with respect to the float width [36.77 +/- 2.30 microm (Form C: Chiang Mai strain) = 38.49 +/- 2.78 microm (Form B: Chiang Mai strain) = 39.06 +/- 2.37 microm (Form B: Phet Buri strain) > 32.40 +/- 3.52 microm (Form C: Mae Hong Son strain)] and number of posterior tubercles on deck [2.40 +/- 0.52 (Form B: Phet Buri strain) = 2.70 +/- 0.82 (Form B: Chiang Mai strain) < 3.10 +/- 0.32 (Form C: Chiang Mai strain) = 3.20 +/- 0.42 (Form C: Mae Hong Son strain)], whereas the surface topography of eggs among the three strains of two karyotypic forms were morphologically similar.

The fowl tick, Argas (Persicargas) persicus (Ixodoidea: Argasidae): Description of the egg and redescription of the larva by Scanning Electron Microscopy

“…Description of eggs of other insects did however massively utilize SEM (Burkhart et al 2000;Castro et al 2002;Dominguez and Cuezzo 2002;Nickles et al 2002;Fenoglio and Rosciszewska 2003;Alencar et al 2003Alencar et al , 2005Wolf et al 2003;Junkum et al 2004;Poprawa and Rost 2004;Sukontason et al 2004Sukontason et al , 2005Dos Santos-Mallet et al 2009). Rare studies were concerned with the morphology of acarine eggs and almost none utilized SEM techniques.…”

Scanning electron microscopic studies on egg surface morphology and morphometrics of Culex tritaeniorhynchus and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae)

“…Eggs (24-36 h old) were processed according to Junkum et al (2004) than mounted on stubs and sputter-coated with gold and examined under FEI-Quanta 400-EDAX (Netherlands) scanning electron microscope and length and width was measured. The tubercles of eggs are classified into small (<0.8 μm diameter), medium (>0.8 μm to <1.6 μm diameter), and large (>1.6 μm diameter).…”

“…Some of the structural peculiarities of egg morphology and morphometrics of C. tritaeniorhynchus and C. quinquefasciatus suggest probable evolutionary aspects with respect to adaptive egg laying pattern. In Aedes and Anopheles, eggs are laid singly being attached to the substrate in the former species and float in water with a pair of large air-floats in latter species of mosquitoes (Clements 1996;Lounibos et al 1999;Junkum et al 2004). However, in the case of C. tritaeniorhynchus and C. quinquefasciatus, eggs are laid in a raft which floats on the water surface with the help of corolla.…”

Caracterização populacional de Aedes scapularis (Diptera; Culicidae): aspectos moleculares, morfofuncionais e morfológicos.

“…Em geral, os caracteres analisados nos ovos são merísticos, como contagem de tubérculos; morfométricos, como razões matemáticas entre dimensões e também descritivos da ornamentação do exocórion. Essa abordagem tem especial importância para estudos populacionais e de caracterização de complexos de espécies, já que há características morfológicas dos ovos que são espécie-específicas, enquanto outras podem apresentar variação populacional (Sahlen, 1996;Junkum et al, 2004). 2) Caso haja diferenciação, ela é indicativa da existência de espécies crípticas?…”

“…Embora esse parâmetro não tenha sido medido em BUT, nas demais amostras populacionais ele se mostrou distintivo. Muito pouco é conhecido sobre microevolução de caracteres de ovos em Culicidae, mas no senso comum, variação intraespecífica de ovos é diagnóstica de espécies crípticas apenas quando correlacionadas com outros caracteres genéticos e morfológicos peculiares (Linley et al, 1996;Junkum et al, 2004 …”