scholarly journals Genome of the Rusty Millipede, Trigoniulus corallinus, Illuminates Diplopod, Myriapod, and Arthropod Evolution

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 1280-1295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan J. Kenny ◽  
Xin Shen ◽  
Thomas T.H. Chan ◽  
Nicola W.Y. Wong ◽  
Ting Fung Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1330-1333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri A. Williams ◽  
Lisa M. Nagy

Entomology ◽  
1980 ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Cedric Gillott
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
C.A. Stewart ◽  
R. Keller ◽  
R. Repasky ◽  
M. Hess ◽  
D. Hart ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 343-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick R. Schram ◽  
Stefan Koenemann

Evolution ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 1005
Author(s):  
Howard E. Evans ◽  
A. P. Gupta
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Lei ◽  
Qiushi Liu ◽  
Tatsuhiko Kadowaki

AbstractHoney bee parasitic mites (Tropilaelaps mercedesae and Varroa destructor) detect temperature, humidity, and odor but the underlying sensory mechanisms are poorly understood. To uncover how T. mercedesae responds to environmental stimuli inside a hive, we identified the sensilla-rich sensory organ on the foreleg tarsus. The organ contained four types of sensilla, which may respond to different stimuli based on their morphology. We found the forelegs were enriched with mRNAs encoding sensory proteins such as ionotropic receptors (IRs) and gustatory receptors (GRs), as well as proteins involved in ciliary transport. We also found that T. mercedesae and Drosophila melanogaster IR25a and IR93a are functionally equivalent. These results demonstrate that the structures and physiological functions of ancient IRs have been conserved during arthropod evolution. Our study provides insight into the sensory mechanisms of honey bee parasitic mites, as well as potential targets for methods to control the most serious honey bee pest.


Author(s):  
Ole Sten Møller ◽  
Klaus Anger ◽  
Guillermo Guerao

In this chapter, we explore the different patterns of development following the hatching of the crustacean larvae. For many groups of crustaceans, the free-living, postembryonic, and prejuvenile phase is by far the most important part of their life cycle, providing the link between different life modes in successive phases (e.g., between a sessile adult life and the need for long-range planktonic dispersal). Among the aspects covered, we discuss the specific criteria for what a “larva” is, including the necessity for defining specific larval traits that are lacking in other phases of the life cycle. We examine the typical anamorphic and hemianamorphic developmental patterns based on larval examples from a wide selection of groups from Decapoda to Copepoda, Thecostraca to Branchiopoda. In these groups, we examine the most common larval development patterns (including intraspecific variability) of, for example, the zoea, furcilia, copepodite, nauplius, and cypris larvae. We also expand on the importance of the molting cycle as the main driver in larval ontogeny and evolution. Finally, we discuss some of the more general trends of crustacean larval development in light of the general patterns and latest knowledge on tetraconate and arthropod evolution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document