Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:47:03.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the Mating Behaviour of the Crab Hole Mosquito Deinocerites cancer (Diptera: Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. A. Downes
J. A. Downes
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Deinocerites, an aberrant offshoot of Culex, the larvae live in water in deep crab holes and the adults also are often found in the burrow. The males have elongate non-plumose antennae and specialized front claws, and often rest on the surface film. In observation cages the males associate with pupae (of either sex) at the surface of the water, hold them lightly with the claws and sense the pupal horns (spiracles) with their antennae. The male perceives the pupa at 1–2 cm. An emerging female elicits a strong response from males up to 15 cm. away; the males fight for possession and mating may be established before the female has fully emerged. The pupal skin continues to attract for several minutes thereafter. Emergence of the adult male was not successfully observed. Probably both pupal attendance and mating response depend on a chemical stimulus, which appears to be non-specific.

The males also make slow exploratory flights near the cage walls, and a mating response may be elicited when their legs touch a resting insect. The response is made to either sex (perhaps more readily to the female) and again is non-specific. The two mating processes are presumably reinforcing, and both seem well adapted to the natural habitat provided the lack of specificity is tolerable.

Several other mosquitoes, all of slow flight and restricted habitat, make similar irregular flights and mate on contact with resting females. Probably this behaviour represents the last phase of mating in more strongly flying (swarming) species, after the sexes are brought together by the auditory response mediated by the plumose antennae. In some mosquitoes the two patterns of behaviour coexist. Assembly at a swarm-marker and recognition in flight must be less necessary in non-dispersing forms in confined habitats, and most of all in Deinocerites. Several other crab hole mosquitoes show convergence or analogies with Deinocerites.

The association with the pupa and the related attraction to the female at emergence find a parallel only in Opifex fuscus; but in Opifex these processes depend not on a chemical stimulus but mainly on vision, as befits an inhabitant of open sunlit pools.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 98 , Issue 11 , November 1966 , pp. 1169 - 1177
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1966

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

Belkin, J. N. 1962. Mosquitoes of the South Pacific (2 vols.). Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Belkin, J. N., and Hogue, C. L.. 1959. A review of the crab hole mosquitoes of the genus Deinocerites. Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 14: 411–458.Google Scholar
Christophers, R. 1960. Aedes aegypti (L.) the yellow fever mosquito. Its life history, bionomics and structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downes, J. A. 1958. Assembly and mating in the biting Nematocera. Proc. Tenth Int. Congr. Ent., Montreal, 1956, 2: 425–434.Google Scholar
Dyar, H. G., and Knab, F.. 1915. Systematic description. Part 1. In Howard, Dyar and Knab, The mosquitoes of North and Central America and the West Indies. Vol. 3, 523 pp. Carnegie Institute, Washington.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1929. Mosquito Notes. VIII. Bull. ent. Res. 20: 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1932. Diptera, Fam. Culicidae. In Wytsman, P., Genera Insectorum, fasc. 194. 258 pp.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1934. Appendix, in Barraud, P. J., Fauna of British India, Diptera. Vol. 5. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
Galindo, P. 1958. Bionomics of Sabethes chloropterus Humboldt, a vector of sylvan yellow fever in middle America. Amer. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 7: 429–440.Google Scholar
Haddow, A. J., and Corbet, P. S.. 1961. Entomological studies from a high tower in Mpanga Forest, Uganda. V. Swarming activity above the forest. Trans. R. ent. Soc. London 113: 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeger, J. S., and Phinizee, J.. 1959. The biology of the crab hole mosquito Deinocerites cancer Theobald. Rep. Florida Antimosquito Ass. 30: 34–37.Google Scholar
Haeger, J. S., and Provost, M. W.. 1965. Colonization and biology of Opifex fuscus. Trans. R. Soc. New Zealand, Zoology 6: 21–31.Google Scholar
Jayawickreme, S. H. 1953. Nocturnal mating in Taeniorhynchus (Mansonioides) uniformis (Theobald). Nature, Lond. 171: 577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, H. B. 1923. Notes on the mating-habits and early life-history of the culicid Opifex fuscus Hutton. Trans. New Zealand Inst. 54: 400–406.Google Scholar
Laurence, B. R. 1960. The biology of two species of mosquito, Mansonia africana (Theobald) and Mansonia uniformis (Theobald), belonging to the subgenus Mansonioides. Bull. Ent. Res. 51: 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLintock, J. 1963. The laboratory colonization of Culiseta. World Health Organization, EBL/Working Paper No. 4/63, 3 pp.Google Scholar
Provost, M. W., and Haeger, J. S.. 1966. Mating and pupal attendance in Deinocerites cancer and comparisons with Opifex fuscus. (In press.)Google Scholar
Rees, D. M., and Onishi, K.. 1951. Morphology of the terminalia and internal reproductive organs, and copulation in the mosquito, Culiseta inornata (Williston). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 53: 233–246.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M. 1948. A study of mosquito behaviour. An experimental laboratory study of the sexual behaviour of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus). Amer. Midl. Nat. 40: 265–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, R. C. 1931. On the classification of Brazilian Culicidae with special reference to those capable of harboring the yellow fever virus. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 33: 125–164.Google Scholar
Tate, P., and Vincent, M.. 1936. The biology of autogenous and anautogenous races of Culex pipiens L. Parasitology 28: 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischner, H. 1953. Über den Gehörsinn von Stechmücken. Acustica 3: 335–343.Google Scholar