The Importance of Biosemiotics for Morphology

Abstract

Morphology and its relevance for systematics is a promising field for the application of biosemiotic principles in scientific practice. Genital coupling in spiders involves very complex interactions between the male and female genital structures. As exemplified by two spider species, Nephila clavipes and Nephila pilipes ssp. fenestrata, from a biosemiotic point of view the microstructures of the male bulb’s embolus and the corresponding female epigynal and vulval parts form the morphological zone of an intraspecific communication and sign-interpreting process that is one of the prerequisites for sperm transfer. Hence these morphological elements are of high taxonomic value, as they play an essential role in mating and fertilization and consequently in establishing and preserving a reproductive community. Morphology clearly benefits from a biosemiotic approach, as biosemiotics helps to sort out species-specific morphological characters and to avoid problematic typological interpretations.

A biosemiotic interpretation of certain genital morphological structures in the spiders Dysdera erythrina and Dysdera crocata (Araneae: Dysderidae)

“…As exemplified by Dysdera crocata and Dysdera erythrina , a biosemiotic shift from the purely morphological to the communication and information aspect by strictly focussing only on those morphological structures that are essential for intraspecific communication is apt to avoid typological interpretations of morphological structures and the problems usually associated with them (Schult 2004 ; Schult et al 2021 ). In this way, biosemiotics contributes to strengthening morphology, which has experienced a significant decline since the beginning of the twentieth century.…”

“…In one of his numerous studies on genital mechanics and copulatory mechanisms in pholcids (Huber 1993 , 1994a , b , 1995a , b , 1997 , 1998 , 1999 , 2002 ; Huber & Eberhard 1997 ) Huber has already proposed the idea that the female might perceive the mechanical fit of those structures of the male copulatory organ that have contact (Huber 1993 ). Moreover, Huber ( 2002 ) pointed out that in pholcids “the procursus is innervated and may provide information for the male about its position in relation to the female.” Regrettably, Huber’s line of thought, which has a lot in common with a biosemiotic point of view (Schult et al 2021 ), has not been seriously pursued by others. As Eberhard & Huber ( 2010 , 255) state, “most studies of the functional anatomy of [spider] genitalia are unfortunately extremely typological”.…”

“…A promising field of applying biosemiotic principles is the genital coupling in spiders with its very complex interactions between the male and female genital structures (Grasshoff 1968 , 1973a , 1973b ; Huber 1993 , 1994a , b , 1998 ; Uhl et al 1995 , 2007 ). As Schult et al ( 2021 ) argue, biosemiotically speaking, the fitting between coadapted male and female genital structures can be considered to be a sign whose interpretation leads to or consists of certain effects, such as sperm transfer. Thus, it is not the mechanical fit alone which is important but also that the mechanical fit is a sign in the framework of an indispensable communication process.…”

Morphology of Male Pedipalp in Some Spider Species of Western Ghats in Goa, India

“…Such a design is clearly seen in spiders with reference to the male pedipalps and the female epigyne in a species. Morphology of genitalia, genital coupling and its relevance for systematics is a promising field for the application of biosemiotic principles in scientific practice (Schult et al, 2021).…”