2010
DOI: 10.1590/s1519-566x2010000200011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Morphometry and morphology of the antennae of Panstrongylus megistus Burmeister, Rhodnius neglectus Lent, Rhodnius prolixus Stal and Triatoma vitticeps Stal (Hemiptera: Reduviidae)

Abstract: ) for all fi ve instars. The morphological study of the second antennal segment by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) disclosed that the fi rst instars of all four species exhibit type I bristles sensillae and one trichobothrium. Another type III bristle and basiconic, campaniform, coeloconic, trichoid sensillae and type I bristle and trichobothria were noted on their fourth instars and adults. Campaniform sensillae were noted only on T. vitticeps adults. Nodules were observed in the joint between 1 st and 2 n… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This relative length pattern of the four antennal segments is the same as the pattern observed by Rosa et al (2010) in Rhodnius neglectus and Rhodnius prolixus adults; however, the differences in size between the largest and the smallest segments are distinct: the second antennal segment of Rhodnius marabaensis sp. n. is 10.3 times larger than the first; in Rhodnius prolixus , it is 6.2 times larger, and in Rhodnius robustus it is 8.3 times larger (Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…This relative length pattern of the four antennal segments is the same as the pattern observed by Rosa et al (2010) in Rhodnius neglectus and Rhodnius prolixus adults; however, the differences in size between the largest and the smallest segments are distinct: the second antennal segment of Rhodnius marabaensis sp. n. is 10.3 times larger than the first; in Rhodnius prolixus , it is 6.2 times larger, and in Rhodnius robustus it is 8.3 times larger (Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…The patterns identi ed in R. neglectus and R. prolixus were the same found for R. prolixus and R. robustus in this work. Rosa et al [28] measured the antennal segments of T. rubrovaria (Blanchard, 1843) and found patterns different from R. marabaensis, R. prolixus and R. robustus, but similar to those observed in P. megistus by Rosa et al [41]. However, in relation to the relative length of the four antennal segments, it is not possible to differentiate the studied species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…However, in relation to the relative length of the four antennal segments, it is not possible to differentiate the studied species. The different results were described for R. colombiensis, R. ecuadoriensis, R. milesi, R. stali [40] and R. neglectus [41], T. rubrovaria [28], P. megistus, and T. vitticeps [41]. Furthermore, our data show that R. prolixus and R. robustus are like R. neglectus [41] and can be distinguished from R. colombiensis, R. ecuadoriensis, R. milesi, and R. stali [40] as well as T. rubrovaria [28], P. megistus, and T. vitticeps [41] for this characteristic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eighteen characters of ten females and sixteen characters of ten males of R. pictipes (Table 1) were analyzed, as well as, seventeen characters of the female specimen and thirteen characters of the male specimen of R. amazonicus, in view of the absence of antennal segments (Rosa et al, 2010;Souza et al, 2016). Length and opercular opening of two eggs of R. amazonicus and thirty eggs of R. pictipes were measured ( Table 1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A,B and C-R. amazonicus; D,E and F-R. pictipes. Gc8: gonocoxiteVIII; Gp8: gonapophysis VIII; VII, VIII, IX: esternites; X: segment(Rosa et al, 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%