Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:54:04.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The predatory and sexual behaviour of Phonoctonus fasciatus (P. de B.) and P. subimpictus Stål (Hem., Reduviidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. H. Parker
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen's Gate, London SW7 5JR

Extract

Observations on the behaviour of the predatory Reduviids Phonoctonus fasciatus (P. de B.) and P. subimpictus Stål were made in the laboratory. The sequence of events in the response to normal prey (Dysdercus superstitiosus (F.)) is described. The preferred site of the first puncture with adult prey was an antennal base, or the same region and the neck with nymphs. A strong tendency for the Reduviid to move its proboscis tip towards the prey's head region implied some perception of body form, which was found to depend on the presence of the prey's appendages. Such perception had no apparent influence on the intensity of the predatory response, experiments with models showing the most important visual stimulus eliciting attack to be that of movement. The scent of the prey greatly augmented the response to models, and chemical stimuli are presumably the basis on which the prey is selected and conspecific individuals, which resemble the prey in appearance, are recognised. The rarity of cannibalism by the adults showed such recognition to be well established, but sexual discrimination was minimal, both males and females behaving almost identically towards either sex. Adults of the two Phonoctonus species also failed to discriminate between their own and the alternative species, but since attempts at cross mating were unsuccessful their separate specific status seems justified.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Cachan, P. (1952). Etude de la prédation chez les Réduvides de la région éthiopienne. I. La prédation en groupe chez Ectrichodia gigas H.-Sch.—Physiologia comp. Oecol. 2, 378385.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. S. (1962). Observations on the development and predatory habit of two Reduviid Heteroptera, Rhinocoris carmelita Stål and Platymeris rhadamanthus Gerst.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 37, 8998.Google Scholar
Mayné, R. & Ghesquière, J.(1934). Hémiptères nuisibles aux végétaux du Congo belge.—Annls Gembloux 40, 141.Google Scholar
Parker, A. H. (1965 a). The predatory behaviour and life history of Pisilus tipuliformis Fabricius (Hemiptera: Reduviidae).—Entomologia exp. appl. 8, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A. H. (1965 b). The maternal behaviour of Pisilus tipuliformis Fabricius (Hemiptera: Reduviidae).—Entomologia exp. appl. 8, 1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A. H. (1969). The predatory and reproductive behaviour of Rhinocoris bicolor and R. tropicus (Hemiptera: Reduviidae).—Entomologia exp. appl. 12, 107117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A. H. (1971). The predatory and reproductive behaviour of Vestula lineaiiceps (Sign.) (Hem., Reduviidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 61, 119124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stride, G. O. (1954). On the specific status of Phonoctonus subimpicius Stål.—Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 50, 1316.Google Scholar
Stride, G. O. (1956). On the mimetic association between certain species of Phonoctonus (Hemiptera, Reduviidae) and the Pyrrhocoridae.—J. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. 19, 1228.Google Scholar
Villiers, A. (1948). Hémiptères réduviides de l'Afrique noire.—Faune Emp. fr. 9, 1489.Google Scholar