The pollination mechanism in the 'Pelexia alliance' (Orchidaceae: Spiranthinae)

The biological function of the wedge–like, dorsally adhesive viscidium of the neotropical orchid genera Cyclopogon, Pelexia and Sarcoglottis (grouped in the so-called 'Pelexia alliance') is elucidated by the study of the pollination biology of three species occurring in Sao Paulo State, southeastern Brazil. Cyclopogon congestus is pollinated by the bee, Pseudoaugochloropsis graminea (Halictidae), Pelexia oestrifera by workers of Bombus (Fervidobombus) atratus (Apidae) and Sarcoglottis fasciculata by males and females of Euglossa cordata (Apidae: Euglossini). These three species offer nectar as a reward and are self-compatible, though they need pollinators to set fruits. In spite of the difference in flower sizes and in their pollinators' taxonomic groups, the pollination mechanism is essentially the same for these species. The pollinarium adheres to the ventral surface of the bee labrum. The viscidium needs to be dorsally pressed in order to liberate a glue which fixes the pollinarium to a bee. Pollination is achieved by the interaction of the orchid column and the mouthparts of the bees. Fivation to the ventral surface of the labrum is advantageous for the orchid, since it is a difficult place for the bees to clean. Another advantage is that, since the labrum is articulated, when the bees fold and close their mouthparts, the pollinarium remains protected under the bee's head, thus reducing the risks of pollen loss. Since the wedge-like, dorsally adhesive viscidiurn is a characteristic feature of Cyclopogon, Pelexia and Sarcoglottis , it is suggested that some kind of phylogenetic constraint may exist, impeding the occurrence of pollinators other than bees in these orchid genera. All other flower-visiting animals lack the labrum-like structure needed to fix the pollinarium.     

Variation among individual butterflies along a generalist–specialist axis: no support for the 'neural constraint' hypothesis

Abstract 1. Degree of host specialisation was a continuous variable in a population of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). A novel host, Collinsia torreyi, had been added to the diet in response to anthropogenic disturbance, and then abandoned prior to the current study. Butterflies either showed no preference or preferred their traditional host, Pedicularis semibarbata. 2. Strength of preference for Pedicularis over Collinsia was measured in the field and used to estimate host specialisation of individual butterflies. Efficiency was estimated from the times taken by each insect to perform two tasks: (i) identification of a Pedicularis plant as a host, and (ii) successful initiation of oviposition after the decision to do so had been made. 3. There was no clear trend for association between host specialisation and either measure of efficiency. Generalists were not slower than specialists at identifying Pedicularis as a host or at handling it after deciding to oviposit. 4. Prior work indicated that generalists paid no detectable cost in terms of reduced discrimination among individuals of their preferred host species. 5. In contrast to other species, generalist E. editha paid in neither time nor accuracy. Why then does the diet not expand? Behavioural adaptations to the traditional host caused maladaptations to the novel host and generated short‐term constraints to evolutionary expansion of diet breadth. To date, however, no long‐term constraints have been found in this system. In those traits investigated to date, increased adaptation to the novel host has not caused reduced adaptation to the traditional host.