Flower visiting Neuroptera: Mouthparts and feeding behaviour of Nemoptera sinuata (Nemopteridae)

Krenn, Harald W.; Gereben-Krenn, Barbara-Amina; Steinwender, Bernhardt M.; Popov, Alexi

doi:10.14411/eje.2008.037

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A rostrum formed by elongation of the clypeofrons and genae, similar to the typical mecopteran condition (e.g. Hepburn 1969), is present in Nemoptera (Krenn et al 2008) and Nemopterella (Acker 1958) but absent in the nemopteran genus Stenorrhachus (Acker 1958). Within the Berothidae the clypeofrons is distinctly elongated in the genus Nyrma (Aspöck and Aspöck 1980).…”

Section: Phylogenetically Relevant Characters and Character Statesmentioning

confidence: 74%

Head morphology of Osmylus fulvicephalus (Osmylidae, Neuroptera) and its phylogenetic implications

Beutel¹,

Zimmermann

Krauß³

et al. 2010

Org Divers Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External and internal head structures of Osmylus fulvicephalus were examined and described in detail. Exoand endoskeleton, musculature, elements of the central nervous system and tracheae are compared to conditions found in other groups of Neuropterida and other endopterygote lineages. Thirty-six adult cephalic characters were compiled, combined in a datamatrix with 64 characters of the larval head, and analysed cladistically. Mainly because many data on adults remain missing, most branches in the cladogram are mostly or exclusively supported by larval features. The shortening of the mesal mandibular wall and the resulting anterior shift of the adductor tendon possibly constitute an adult groundplan apomorphy of Neuropterida. Raphidioptera and Megaloptera share distinct prognathism and the presence of a sclerotised gula. However, the orthognathous head and the absence of a gula resulted as autapomorphies of Neuroptera in our analyses. Further potential autapomorphies are the asymmetry of the mandibles as well as the respective presence of dorsolateral furrows on the head capsule, of a shovel-like extension on the ventral mandibular cutting edge, and of a row of stiff hairs on the mandible's ventral surface. The systematic affinities of Osmylidae remain ambiguous. Osmylus is mainly characterised by plesiomorphic features of the adult head such as a complete endoskeleton, long filiform antennae, largely unmodified orthopteroid mouthparts, and particularly the nearly complete set of muscles. The placement with a clade also comprising Hemerobiidae and Chrysopidae is poorly supported. The presence of a dense vestiture of long microtrichia on the distal galeomere resulted as a synapomorphy of the three families. An apparent plesiomorphy preserved in Osmylus but absent in all other groups of Neuroptera is the presence of well developed ocelli. The present study underlines the severe shortage of detailed morphological data on the adults. Intensive study of adult structures is required for a solid reconstruction of the phylogeny of Neuropterida, especially of the hemerobiform lineage of Neuroptera.

show abstract

Section: Phylogenetically Relevant Characters and Character Statesmentioning

confidence: 74%

Head morphology of Osmylus fulvicephalus (Osmylidae, Neuroptera) and its phylogenetic implications

Beutel¹,

Zimmermann

Krauß³

et al. 2010

Org Divers Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some adult lacewings, particularly from the family Nemopteridae, are obligate pollen and nectar feeders (Popov 2002;Krenn et al 2005Krenn et al , 2008. These species have specialised mouthparts for the uptake of nectar and pollen that have probably evolved from predatory chewing mouthparts of ancestral lacewings (Krenn et al 2008).…”

Section: Neuropteramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These species have specialised mouthparts for the uptake of nectar and pollen that have probably evolved from predatory chewing mouthparts of ancestral lacewings (Krenn et al 2008). Members of several other families (Chrysopidae, Osmylidae, and Sisyridae especially, but also Mantispidae, Berothidae, Hemerobiidae, and Myrmeleontidae) have been recorded visiting flowers and feeding on floral resources (Porsch 1957;Villenave et al 2005;Krenn et al 2008; Table S3). As yet the pollination potential of lacewings is unknown, while it is probable that a small number (perhaps 100 s of species) of the * 6,000 described species of Neuroptera are regular flower-visitors.…”

Section: Neuropteramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typical examinations of the evolution of florivory focus on morphological adaptations of the mouthparts of specialised, obligate flower-feeders, such as the long proboscides and suctorial mouthparts of adult Lepidoptera, bees, flies, and a few other groups (Ren 1998;Grimaldi 1999;Krenn et al 2005Krenn et al , 2008Ren et al 2009;Krenn 2010;Labandeira 2010). However, many common flowervisitors lack obvious adaptations for flower-feeding (including many wasps, flies and beetles), perhaps because they are facultative opportunists, feed destructively on the flowers themselves, or they visit generalised flowers that do not require highly specialised adaptations in order to utilise floral resources (Jervis 1998;Krenn et al 2005).…”

Section: The Evolution Of Florivorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How many species of arthropods visit flowers?

Wardhaugh

2015

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority of living plant species are pollinated by insects, and this interaction is thought to have played a major role in driving the diversification of modern angiosperms. But while flower-insect interactions have been well studied from the perspective of plants in the form of pollination biology, few studies have been carried out from an entomological perspective, where flowers are resources to exploit. As a consequence, it remains unknown how many insect species actually utilise floral resources, especially since many flower-visitors do not carry out pollination and may therefore be widely ignored in pollination studies. In this review, I attempt to present an overview of the taxonomic range of flower-visiting invertebrates and estimate the proportion of described species that regularly utilise flowers. The flower-visiting habit has likely evolved independently hundreds of times across more than a dozen modern invertebrate orders. I speculate, based on reviewing the literature and discussions with experts, that *30 % of arthropod species ([350,000 described species) may regularly utilise flowers to feed, find a mate, or acquire other resources. When extrapolated to the estimated global diversity of the phylum Arthropoda, perhaps more than a million species regularly visit flowers. However, generating more accurate estimates will require much more work from the perspective of flower-visiting insects, including the often-ignored species that do not pollinate host plants. In particular, sampling techniques in addition to traditional observation protocols should be encouraged to ensure that all flower-visitors are recorded. Greater efforts to identify flower-visiting species beyond the level of order or family will also enhance our understanding of flower-visitor diversity.

show abstract

“…Feeding behaviour of Nemoptera sinuata Olivier in the Balkan-Anatolian peninsular was noted on flowers from the families Asteraceae and Brassicaceae (Krenn et al, 2008). It is therefore possible that the initial diversification of Nemopterinae was influenced by the radiation of the ruschoids, and that they subsequently adapted to feeding on other plant species as well.…”

Section: Biogeographic Inferences and Speciation Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeny and biogeography of southern African spoon-winged lacewings (Neuroptera: Nemopteridae: Nemopterinae)

Sole

Scholtz

Ball

et al. 2013

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nemopteridae are a charismatic family of lacewings characterised by uniquely extended hind wings.They are an ancient widespread group in the drier regions of the world. The family comprises two subfamilies, Crocinae (thread-wings) and Nemopterinae (spoon-and ribbon-wings). The present distribution of the family has been largely influenced by the vicariant events of plate tectonics, resulting in relict populations in some parts of the world and extensive evolutionary radiations in others, particularly southern Africa where the vast majority of the species are endemic to the Western and Northern Cape Provinces of South Africa. This study aimed to establish the validity of the 11 currently recognised genera and infer their biogeographic history using molecular sequence data from four gene regions. The hypothesis that the Cape nemopterines co-evolved with certain taxa in the Cape Floristic Region was also tested.Phylogenetic analysis supports seven of the 11 currently recognised genera. The crown age of the Nemopterinae is estimated to be at ca. 145.6 Mya, indicating that the group has been present since the late Jurassic. Most of the genera appear to have diversified during the middle Eocene and into the middle Miocene (ca. 44 -11 Mya) with recent rapid radiation of several of the genera occurring during the late Miocene (ca. 6 -4.5 Mya). While these data support an initial radiation with the Rushioideae (Aizoaceae) it is recommended that further study including observations and gut content be carried out. [238]

show abstract

Flower visiting Neuroptera: Mouthparts and feeding behaviour of Nemoptera sinuata (Nemopteridae)

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

Head morphology of Osmylus fulvicephalus (Osmylidae, Neuroptera) and its phylogenetic implications

Head morphology of Osmylus fulvicephalus (Osmylidae, Neuroptera) and its phylogenetic implications

How many species of arthropods visit flowers?

Phylogeny and biogeography of southern African spoon-winged lacewings (Neuroptera: Nemopteridae: Nemopterinae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About