Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T12:59:57.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STUDIES OF THE COMPOUND EYE OF LYMANTRIA DISPAR (LEPIDOPTERA: LYMANTRIIDAE) MALES, AND BEHAVIORAL IMPLICATIONS1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

E. A. Brown  and
E. Alan Cameron
E. A. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
E. Alan Cameron
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Male gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar (L.)) have a superposition compound eye. Electroretinogram (ERG) responses indicate low sensitivity in the ultraviolet region, higher sensitivity from 480 to 590 nm, and essentially no sensitivity in the red region. The microspectrophotometric absorption spectrum of the visual screening pigments shows low absorption in the ultraviolet and red regions and high absorption from 400 to 600 nm. Screening pigments migrate in response to illumination during diurnal activity periods, so the eye acts in the photopic mode. Because these pigments are essentially transparent to ultraviolet wavelengths, the eye may be in effect acting simultaneously in the scotopic mode for these wavelengths.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 2 , February 1977 , pp. 255 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agee, H. R. 1972. Sensory response of the compound eye of adult Heliothis zea and H. virescens to ultraviolet stimuli. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, C. G. and Ottoson, D.. 1960. Studies on the relation between the pigment migration and the sensitivity changes during dark adaptation in diurnal and nocturnal Lepidoptera. J. gen. Physiol. 44: 205–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, E. A. 1974. Vision in Porthetria dispar (L.) males: Physiological spectral sensitivity and behavioral implications. M.Sc. Thesis in Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University. 38 pp.Google Scholar
Davenport, H. A. 1960. Histological and histochemical technics. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 401 pp.Google Scholar
Fuortes, M. G. F. and O'Bryan, P. M.. 1972. Generator potentials in invertebrate photoreceptors. In Fuortes, M. G. F. (Ed.), Handbook of sensory physiology. VII/2. Physiology of photoreceptor organs. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 765 pp.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, T. H. and Bernard, G. D.. 1974. The visual system of insects, pp. 165–272. In Rockstein, M. (Ed.), The physiology of insects. 2nd ed., Vol. II. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoglund, G. 1966. Pigment migration, light screening and receptor sensitivity in the compound eye of nocturnal Lepidoptera. Acta physiol. scand. 69: Suppl. 386: 1–56.Google Scholar
Hoglund, G., Langer, H., Struwe, G., and Thorell, B.. 1970. Spectral absorption by screening pigment granules in the compound eyes of a moth and a wasp. Z. vergl. Physiol. 67: 238–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunze, P. 1972. Pigment migration and the pupil of the dioptric apparatus in superposition eyes. In Wehner, R. (Ed.), Informational processing in the visual systems of arthropods. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 334 pp.Google Scholar
Langer, H. and Struwe, G.. 1972. Spectral absorption by screening pigment granules in the compound eye of butterflies (Heliconius). J. comp. Physiol. 79: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. H. and Eaton, J. L.. 1973. Comparison of electroretinogram and electromyogram responses to radiant energy stimulation in the moth, Trichoplusia ni. J. Insect Physiol. 19: 811–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazokhin-Porshnyakov, G. A. 1966. Recognition of coloured objects by insects. In Bernhard, C. G. (Ed.), The functional organization of the compound eye. Pergamon Press, London. 591 pp.Google Scholar
Mazokhin-Porshnyakov, G. A. 1969. Insect vision. Plenum Press, New York. 306 pp.Google Scholar
Mikkola, K. 1972. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses of night-flying insects, especially Lepidoptera, to near-ultraviolet and visible light. Ann. zool. fenn. 9: 225–254.Google Scholar
Minks, A. K. 1971. Decreased sex pheromone production in an in-bred stock of the summer fruit tortrix moth, Adoxophyes orana. Entomologia exp. appl. 14: 361–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narahashi, R. 1963. The properties of insect axons. In Beament, J. W. L., Treherne, J. E., and Wigglesworth, V. B. (Eds.), Advances in insect physiology, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York. 512 pp.Google Scholar
Richerson, J. V. and Cameron, E. A.. 1974. Differences in pheromone release and sexual behavior between laboratory-reared and wild gypsy moth adults. Environ. Ent. 3: 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, J. V., Cameron, E. A., and Brown, E. A.. 1976. Sexual activity of the gypsy moth. Am. Midl. Nat. 95: 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorey, H. H. and Gaston, L. K.. 1965. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. VIII. Orientation to light by pheromone-stimulated males of Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 58: 833–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorey, H. H. and Gaston, L. K.. 1970. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. XX. Short-range visual orientation by pheromone-stimulated males of Trichoplusia ni. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 829–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935. Principles of insect morphology. McGraw-Hill, New York. 667 pp.Google Scholar
Strother, G. K. and Casella, A. J.. 1972. Microspectrophotometry of arthropod visual screening pigments. J. gen. Physiol. 59: 616–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tasaki, K., Tsukahara, Y., Ito, S., Wayner, M. J., and Yu, W. Y.. 1968. Brief communication: A simple, direct and rapid method for filling microelectrodes. Physiol. Behav. 3: 1009–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar