Wing morphometrics for identification of forensically important blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in Iberian Peninsula

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Sexual dimorphism in the wing geometry of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) from Colombia

“…Lo anterior representa una diferencia fundamental con la morfometría tradicional, la cuál no estudia la forma del objeto en sentido estricto, sino que basa sus análisis en datos unidimensionales (Rohlf & Marcus, 1993). A nivel biológico, específicamente en dípteros, la morfometría geométrica ha permitido el estudio de la diversidad de la forma entre y dentro de especies, así como el efecto de variables ambientales sobre este atributo (Rodríguez-Zabala et al, 2016;Gómez & Correa, 2017;Chu et al, 2019;Jiménez-Martín et al, 2020).…”

Size does matter: intraspecific geometric morphometric analysis of wings of the blowfly Chrysomya albiceps (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

“…Some studies in the literature that evaluated sexual dimorphism in Calliphoridae did not detect intraspecific sexual dimorphism for some species, either in wing shape, wing size, or both (Sontigun et al 2017;Szpila et al 2019;Jiménez-Martín et al 2020). In all these studies, a common point is the low sample size for some species, an experimental limitation that can generate ambiguous interpretations and hide existing relationships in nature (Bissonette, 1999).…”

“…Dimorphism in wing shape is identified for several species of blowflies (Szpila et al 2019), including other species of the genus Chrysomya (Sontigun et al 2017). However, some studies have not found sexual dimorphism in C. albiceps (Vásquez and Liria, 2012;Szpila et al 2019;Jiménez-Martín et al 2020). In the present work, this may have occurred because it reflects regional variation in flies (Hall et al 2014), an allometric effect sufficient to cause differences in wing shape (Szpila et al 2019), or divergent niche between sexes (Shine, 1989;Fryxell et al 2019).…”

“…Blowflies have forensic, sanitary and veterinary importance, as well as being pollinators, parasitoids and ecological bioindicators (Zumpt, 1965;Ramírez and Davenport, 2016;Wolff and Kosmann, 2016). Wing shape in blowflies has already been used to study adaptation of invasive populations (Laparie et al 2016), develop tools for taxonomic identification (Sontigun et al 2017;Macleod et al 2018;Szpila et al, 2019), analyze population differences (Hall et al 2014), evaluate responses to interspecific competition (Macedo et al 2020) and characterize sexual dimorphism (Brown 1979;Lyra et al 2009;Vásquez and Liria 2012;Hall et al 2014;Laparie et al 2016;Sontigun et al 2017;Macedo et al 2018;Szpila et al 2019;Jiménez-Martín et al 2020). In Chrysomya albiceps (Wiedemann, 1819), wing size does not differ between sexes (Jiménez-Martín et al 2020).…”

Assessment of variation between two blowfly species, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) and Lucilia sericata (Meigen) (Diptera, Calliphoridae) using geometric morphometrics and cuticular hydrocarbon profiling

“…Geometric morphometrics capture possible variations in species and populations and are able to characterise features of shape variation between species and groups. Previous studies have successfully utilized this technique to capture variability between blowflies (Sharanya & Zuha, 2019) regarding sexual dimorphisms (Nuñez-rodríguez & Liria, 2017), wing shape dimorphism (Espra et al, 2015) and other identification features (Jimenez-Martin et al, 2020). Cuticular hydrocarbons influences closerange orientation in species (Blomquist et al, 1993) as well as sexual isolation as well mate location, and courtship behaviours (Peterson et al, 2007).…”