‘Good Heavens what insect can suck it’- Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta

Arditti, Joseph; Elliott, John H.; Kitching, Ian J.; Wasserthal, Lutz Thilo

doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2012.01250.x

Cited by 73 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Selection pressures exerted by diverse floral structure (Soltis et al, ; Tiple et al, ) probably have resulted in the diversity of proboscis structure among flower visitors. The best‐known relationship between flower and proboscis structure is the corresponding length of the floral tube and the proboscis (Kunte, ; Krenn, ; Arditti et al, ; Bauder et al, ); however, other patterns can be found. The Papilionidae and Nymphalidae, for example, which feed on nectar from similar (e.g., larger) flowers (Tiple et al, ), have similar dorsal legular shapes that differ from those of pierids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure of the lepidopteran proboscis in relation to feeding guild

Lehnert

beard

Gerard

et al. 2015

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) use modified mouthparts, the proboscis, to acquire fluids. We quantified the proboscis architecture of five butterfly species in three families to test the hypothesis that proboscis structure relates to feeding guild. We used scanning electron microscopy to elucidate the fine structure of the proboscis of both sexes and to quantify dimensions, cuticular patterns, and the shapes and sizes of sensilla and dorsal legulae. Sexual dimorphism was not detected in the proboscis structure of any species. A hierarchical clustering analysis of overall proboscis architecture reflected lepidopteran phylogeny, but did not produce a distinct group of flower visitors or of puddle visitors within the flower visitors. Specific characters of the proboscis, nonetheless, can indicate flower and nonflower visitors, such as the configuration of sensilla styloconica, width of the lower branches of dorsal legulae, presence or absence of dorsal legulae at the extreme apex, and degree of proboscis tapering. We suggest that the overall proboscis architecture of Lepidoptera reflects a universal structural organization that promotes fluid uptake from droplets and films. On top of this fundamental structural organization, we suggest that the diversity of floral structure has selected for structural adaptations that facilitate entry of the proboscis into floral tubes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure of the lepidopteran proboscis in relation to feeding guild

Lehnert

beard

Gerard

et al. 2015

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Arditti et al . ). However, diffuse community level rather than paired co‐evolutionary processes are supposed to drive the evolution of proboscis and flower lengths, because one‐to‐one interactions are rare in plant–pollinator systems and, when multiple species interact, selection pressures imposed by one species are not independent of the selection pressures imposed by a second species (Nilsson et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Beyond neutral and forbidden links: morphological matches and the assembly of mutualistic hawkmoth–plant networks

Sazatornil

Moré

Benitez‐Vieyra

et al. 2016

Journal of Animal Ecology

Self Cite

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge in evolutionary ecology is to understand how co-evolutionary processes shape patterns of interactions between species at community level. Pollination of flowers with long corolla tubes by long-tongued hawkmoths has been invoked as a showcase model of co-evolution. Recently, optimal foraging models have predicted that there might be a close association between mouthparts' length and the corolla depth of the visited flowers, thus favouring trait convergence and specialization at community level. Here, we assessed whether hawkmoths more frequently pollinate plants with floral tube lengths similar to their proboscis lengths (morphological match hypothesis) against abundance-based processes (neutral hypothesis) and ecological trait mismatches constraints (forbidden links hypothesis), and how these processes structure hawkmoth-plant mutualistic networks from five communities in four biogeographical regions of South America. We found convergence in morphological traits across the five communities and that the distribution of morphological differences between hawkmoths and plants is consistent with expectations under the morphological match hypothesis in three of the five communities. In the two remaining communities, which are ecotones between two distinct biogeographical areas, interactions are better predicted by the neutral hypothesis. Our findings are consistent with the idea that diffuse co-evolution drives the evolution of extremely long proboscises and flower tubes, and highlight the importance of morphological traits, beyond the forbidden links hypothesis, in structuring interactions between mutualistic partners, revealing that the role of niche-based processes can be much more complex than previously known.

show abstract

“…Pollination systems are often thought of as prime examples of co‐evolution, and there are many classic examples of tight specialization and specific co‐evolution in pollination systems: for example, Darwin's sphinx moth (Arditti, Elliott, Kitching, & Wasserthal, ; Darwin, ), or figs and fig wasps (Cruaud et al., ). Most pollination systems, however, do not exhibit the specialization found in host–parasite interactions and tight interactions are the exception rather than the rule (Waser, Chittka, Price, Williams, & Ollerton, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative evolutionary patterns in bipartite networks: Vicariance, phylogenetic tracking or diffuse co‐evolution?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many pairwise interactions in ecological communities are thought to be structured by co‐evolution, a process difficult to study on a community level. Traditional methods can reveal correlated phylogenies between interacting organisms, suggesting a co‐evolutionary association. However, several processes could lead to cophylogeny, including (1) vicariance, (2) phylogenetic tracking and (3) co‐evolution. We present a framework to investigate diffuse co‐evolution between groups of interacting taxa. Our methodology incorporates two complementary statistical methods to test for evolutionary signals. First, we test for correlated taxonomies between interacting species, and then we test for an association between the pattern of interactions and taxonomy of interacting species. We use these methods to clearly distinguish between three possible explanations of cophylogenies, when present. Our methodology is designed to explore diffuse evolutionary signals among many interacting taxa: it is robust to polytomies and generalization and can use taxonomic trees in place of phylogenies. Thus, we use taxonomic distances to identify groups of associated taxa, as opposed to specific co‐evolutionary relationships. In a case study, we find significant evidence for phylogenetic tracking, vicariance and asymmetry. Generally, our method can be applied whenever relevant taxonomy is well resolved and includes sufficient variation at multiple taxonomic ranks between two groups of interacting taxa. This adaptable method can incorporate many types of data on species traits or behaviours, such as phylogenetic relatedness, pollination efficacy, interaction strengths and visitation rates. The analysis we provide here may be of use to a broad range of ecologists interested in evaluating diffuse evolutionary patterns in groups of interacting species.

show abstract

‘Good Heavens what insect can suck it’- Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta

Cited by 73 publications

References 61 publications

Structure of the lepidopteran proboscis in relation to feeding guild

Structure of the lepidopteran proboscis in relation to feeding guild

Beyond neutral and forbidden links: morphological matches and the assembly of mutualistic hawkmoth–plant networks

Quantitative evolutionary patterns in bipartite networks: Vicariance, phylogenetic tracking or diffuse co‐evolution?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About