Abundance and distribution of antennal sensilla on males and females of three sympatric species of alpine grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Catantopinae) in Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

Brachaspis nivalis, Sigaus australis and Paprides nitidus are grasshopper species endemic to Aotearoa, New Zealand where they are sympatric in several regions of South Island. On mountains of Kā Tiritiri o te Moana (Southern Alps), B. nivalis is more abundant on scree/rock habitat, whereas S. australis and P. nitidus are prevalent in alpine tussock and herbfields. It is expected, therefore, that these species have different sensory needs that are likely to be apparent in the type, abundance, and distribution of chemo-sensilla on their antennae. It is also likely that natural selection has resulted in sexual differences in sensilla. To test these hypotheses, abundance and distribution of the chemo-sensilla on the dorsal and ventral surfaces of their antennae were characterized in adult males and females of the three species. Five types of chemo-sensilla were identified on the distal portion of their antenna: chaetica, basiconica, trichoidea, coeloconica, and cavity. All species had significantly more chemo-sensilla on the ventral than the dorsal surface of antennae and a similar distribution pattern of chemo-sensilla. Despite having relatively short antenna, B. nivalis had the largest number of olfactory sensilla, but the fewest chaetica of the three species studied. A plausible explanation is that B. nivalis is abundant on less vegetated habitats compared to the other species, and therefore may rely more on olfaction (distance) than gustatory (contact) reception for finding food. No significant differences were observed between the sexes of B. nivalis and P. nitidus, however, S. australis males had significantly more basiconica sensilla than females.

Māwhitiwhiti Aotearoa: Phylogeny and synonymy of the silent alpine grasshopper radiation of New Zealand (Orthoptera: Acrididae)

“…This classification of māwhitiwhiti Aotearoa simplifies the taxonomy, leaving the distinct ecological, behavioural and morphological features (e.g. Schori et al 2020;Meza-Hoya et al 2022;Nakano et al 2022) of each species lineage to be explored without the distraction of relationships implied by artificial and unnecessary partitions that do not reflect their evolutionary ancestry.…”