Larval recognition by workers of the ant Myrmica

Brian, M. V.

doi:10.1016/0003-3472(75)90102-5

Cited by 49 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although dummies treated with either M. rebeli or M. schencki extracts were recognized and transported, most were ultimately deposited in the rubbish pile rather than retained in nests, exactly as if they were dead brood. Because dummies provide no cues to indicate that they are alive, and lack the hairiness known to reinforce pheromones in Myrmica larval recognition (Brian 1975), this result is unsurprising. The application of less than one larval equivalent of extract to the dummies may also have contributed to this result.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(i) The ¢nal-instar caterpillar of M. rebeli produce surface chemicals that induce Myrmica workers to treat them like ant larvae, giving them access to the brood chambers of these ants. (ii) Mimetic chemicals, if found, would include a cocktail of chemicals resembling the hydrocarbons employed by Myrmica to recognize conspeci¢c adults and, probably, their brood (Brian 1975;Cammaerts et al 1978;Winterbottom 1980). (iii) M. rebeli's secretions would most closely mimic the pro¢le of Myrmica schencki Emery, explaining its high survival in colonies of this ant and low survival with other Myrmica species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies

Akino

Knapp

Thomas³

et al. 1999

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

236

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it has always been assumed that chemical mimicry and camou£age play a major role in the penetration of ant societies by social parasites, this paper provides the ¢rst direct evidence for such a mechanism between the larvae of the parasitic butter£y Maculinea rebeli and its ant host Myrmica schencki. In the wild, freshly moulted fourth-instar caterpillars, which have no previous contact with ants, appear to be recognized as ant larvae by foraging Myrmica workers, which return them to their nest brood chambers. Three hypotheses concerning the mechanism controlling this behaviour were tested: (i) the caterpillars produce surface chemicals that allow them to be treated as ant larvae; (ii) mimetic compounds would include hydrocarbons similar to those employed by Myrmica to recognize conspeci¢cs and brood; and (iii) the caterpillars' secretions would more closely mimic the pro¢le of their main host in the wild, M. schencki, than that of other species of Myrmica. Results of behavioural bioassays and chemical analyses con¢rmed all three hypotheses, and explained the high degree of host speci¢city found in this type of highly specialized myrmecophile. Furthermore, although caterpillars biosynthesized many of the recognition pheromones of their host species (chemical mimicry), they later acquired additional hydrocarbons within the ant nest (chemical camou£age), making them near-perfect mimics of their individual host colony's odour.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies

Akino

Knapp

Thomas³

et al. 1999

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

236

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mechanical stimuli caused by the weight of the larva are essential for the function of the pheromone, 1,2-dioleyl-3-palmitoyl-glycerin, releasing warming behaviour (Koeniger, 1978;Koeniger andVeith, 1983, 1984). Also in ants (Brian, 1975) (Koeniger, 1978;Koeniger et Veith, 1983, 1984 (Koeniger, 1978;Koeniger und Veith, 1983Veith, , 1984 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural features trigger capping of brood cells in honey bees

Goetz

Kœniger

1992

Apidologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These arguments apply when factors other than relatedness are assumed to have no impact. Several authors have suggested that worker reproduction might be fairly common in Formica and Myrmica (Brian, 1953(Brian, , 1969Smeeton, 1981;Pamilo, 1982;Nonacs, 1992). In Formica Gösswald (1989Gösswald ( , 1990 observed worker egg-laying in the absence of the queen, and dequeened F. exsecta colonies produced males only (Pamilo, 1991a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Formica Gösswald (1989Gösswald ( , 1990 observed worker egg-laying in the absence of the queen, and dequeened F. exsecta colonies produced males only (Pamilo, 1991a). Similarly Myrmica workers produced males in queenless laboratory colonies (Brian, 1953;Mamsch & Bier, 1966;Brian, 1969), but worker reproduction was absent in queenright colonies (Mamsch & Bier, 1966). There is some intriguing evidence, based on hypervariable microsatellite markers, that in nearctic Myrmica tahoensis males may be produced by workers (Evans, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Worker reproduction in ants — a genetic analysis

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workers of social insects may enhance their inclusive fitness by laying unfertilized eggs that develop into males. In particular, workers may gain from rearing worker-produced males if their average relatedness to them exceeds their relatedness to queen-produced males. These relatedness values depend both on the queen mating frequency and on the number and relatedness of nestmate queens. We examined the occurrence of worker reproduction in field colonies of four ant species of the genera Formica and Myrmica. Based on relatedness arguments alone, worker reproduction was expected in all species because of low queen mating frequency, or low effective queen numbers. Nevertheless, genotype matching of workers and males showed that worker reproduction was absent or rare in two of the three Formica species studied here. In M. ruginodis, queens may have been the sisters of the workers in many cases, which means that workers of this species may regularly rear nephews. In the three species in which worker reproduction was not found, workers bias colony sex ratios to enhance their inclusive fitness. We therefore hypothesize that sex ratio biasing and male production may be mutually exclusive strategies for workers.

show abstract

Larval recognition by workers of the ant Myrmica

Cited by 49 publications

References 13 publications

Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies

Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies

Structural features trigger capping of brood cells in honey bees

Worker reproduction in ants — a genetic analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About