中国追蛛属两新记录种的报道

本文首次报道了我国跳蛛科追蛛属两种蜘蛛,即加利那追蛛Dendryphantes canariensis Schmidt,1977和呼勒德追蛛Dendryphantes chuldensis Proszynski,1982。并绘有外形及外雌器内外结构特征图。     

Is the hibiscus harlequin bug aposematic? The importance of testing multiple predators

Aposematism involves predators learning conspicuous signals of defended prey. However, prey species utilize a wide range of chemical (or physical) defenses, which are not likely to be equally aversive to all predators. Aposematism may therefore only be effective against a physiologically sensitive subset of potential predators, and this can only be identified through behavioral testing. We studied the emerging model organism Tectocoris diophthalmus (Heteroptera: Scutelleridae), an aposematically colored but weakly defended shieldback stinkbug, to test the efficacy of its defenses against a suite of predator types. We predicted the bugs' defenses would be ineffectual against both experienced and naïve birds but aversive to predaceous insects. Surprisingly, the opposite pattern was found. Both habituated wild passerines and naïve chickens avoided the bugs, the chickens after only one or two encounters. To avian predators, T. diophthalmus is aposematic. However, praying mantids showed no repellency, aversion, or toxicity associated with adult or juvenile bugs after multiple trials. Comparison with prior studies on mantids using bugs with chemically similar but more concentrated defenses underscores the importance of dose in addition to chemical identity in the efficacy of chemical defenses. Our results also emphasize the importance of behavioral testing with multiple ecologically relevant predators to understand selective pressures shaping aposematic signals and chemical defenses.     

Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive

Toxic prey that signal their defences to predators using conspicuous warning signals are called ‘aposematic’. Predators learn about the toxic content of aposematic prey and reduce their attacks on them. However, through regulating their toxin intake, predators will include aposematic prey in their diets when the benefits of gaining the nutrients they contain outweigh the costs of ingesting the prey''s toxins. Predators face a problem when managing their toxin intake: prey sharing the same warning signal often vary in their toxicities. Given that predators should avoid uncertainty when managing their toxin intake, we tested whether European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) preferred to eat fixed-defence prey (where all prey contained a 2% quinine solution) to mixed-defence prey (where half the prey contained a 4% quinine solution and the other half contained only water). Our results support the idea that predators should be more ‘risk-averse’ when foraging on variably defended prey and suggest that variation in toxicity levels could be a form of defence.     

Taste-rejection behaviour by predators can promote variability in prey defences

The evolution and maintenance of toxicity in a prey population is a challenge to evolutionary biologists if the investment in toxin does not benefit the individual. Recent experiments suggest that taste-rejection behaviour enables predators to selectively ingest less toxic individuals, which could stabilize investment in defences. However, we currently do not know if taste rejection of defended prey is accurate across different contexts, and that prey always benefit according to their investment. Using avian predators, we show that the rejection probability does not solely depend on the investment in defence by an individual, but also on the investment by other individuals in the same population. Therefore, taste rejection by predators could lead to destabilization in the investment in defences, and allow variability in prey defences to exist.     

鳞翅目昆虫化学感受器及其感受机理新进展

鳞翅目昆虫化学感受器是鳞翅目昆虫化学通讯的主要工具,将种间、种内及无机环境各种化学信息联系起来,从而使昆虫做出相应的行为反应。本文综述了鳞翅目昆虫化学感受器的类型及化学感受机理新进展, 包括嗅觉途径、嗅觉感受相关蛋白、信息传导、编码、加工处理、整合输出、感受谱及味觉感受机理,为探索利用鳞翅目昆虫行为控制剂来监测、防治鳞翅目害虫提供理论依据。     

Aposematism and Bioluminescence: Experimental evidence from Glow-worm Larvae(Coleoptera: Lampyridae)

Bioluminescence most likely evolved under selection from the visually guided behaviours of co-occurring organisms, in particular that of predators. Many possible functions of light signals have been proposed and some are supported, but whatever their function may be, they make an easy target of the emitter unless it is defended. Therefore, we want to emphasise that in many cases bioluminescence can only have evolved through a defensive function. If this were the case, one would expect multimodal adaptiveness of luminescence with at least some evidence for a defensive function. Light signals could be used in many ways to reduce predation, but for spontaneous glowing species in particular, aposematism seems the only functional strategy. In a preliminary experiment with glowing and non-glowing dummy prey, we found that wild-caught toads discriminated against glowing prey. They showed significantly lower attack responses and higher latencies towards glowing prey dummies. However, some of the toads were less reluctant because they did not distinguish initially between prey with or without the light stimulus. Since the toads were collected in areas abundant with lampyrid glow-worms, which is the only luminous organism at this locality, and our results concur with the general evidence that they may have had previous experiences with this prey, we attribute the result to luminescent aposematism. From the literature, and from our own experiments, we know that toads and many other potential predators experience lampyrids as disagreeable prey. In future experiments we will test whether glow-worms are defended by luminescent aposematism or not. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Rollers smell the fear of nestlings

Many animals react to danger by producing chemical cues that can be smelled by others, which is called the smell of fear. Some bird species produce chemical compounds when threatened, such as nestlings of the Eurasian roller Coracias garrulus that vomit an odorous orange liquid when scared in their nests. Here, we experimentally explore the possibility that parents were informed about recent predation attempts at their nests through the olfaction of this vomit. Parents of nests treated with nestling vomit delayed their entrance to nests and decreased their provisioning rate in comparison with parents of nests treated with an odorous control. These results demonstrate that adult rollers are able to smell the fear of offspring and show for the first time in birds that a scent produced during an interspecific challenge has a role in an intraspecific communication scenario.     

Dissecting the molecular mechanism of drosophila odorant receptors through activity modeling and comparative analysis

To gain insight into the molecular mechanism of odorant receptors (ORs) in Drosophila species, we developed a Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) model that predicts experimentally measured electrophysiological activities between 24 D. melanogaster ORs and 108 odorants. Although the model is limited by the tested odorants,analyzing the model allowed dissection of specific topological and chemical properties necessary for an odorant to elicit excitatory or inhibitory receptor response. Linear odorants with five to eight nonhydrogen atoms at the main chain and hydrogen‐bond acceptor and/or hydrogen‐bond donor at its ends were found to stimulate strong excitatory response. A comparative sequence analysis of 90 ORs in 15 orthologous groups identified 15 putative specificity‐determining residues (SDRs) and 15 globally conserved residues that we postulate as functionally key residues. Mapping to a model of secondary structure resulted in 14 out of 30 key residues locating to the transmembrane (TM) domains. Twelve residues, including six SDRs and six conserved residues, are located at the extracellular halves of the TM domains. Combining the evidence from the QSAR modeling and the comparative sequence analysis, we hypothesize that the Drosophila ORs accept odorants into a binding pocket located on the extracellular halves of its TM domains. The QSAR modeling suggests that the binding pocket is around 15 Å in depth and about 6 Å in width. Twelve mainly polar or charged key residues, both SDRs and conserved, are located inthis pocket and postulated to distinguish docked odorants via primarily geometry fitting and hydrogen‐bond interaction. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.