User:Hannah Davis/sandbox
Glossary of termite biology terms
The
- adultoid
- test
- alate
- test
- apterous neotenic
- test
- brachypterous neotenic
- test
- ergatoid
- test
- false worker
- test
- king
- test
- larva
- test
- neotenic
- See neotenic reproductive
- neotenic reproductive
- test
- nymph
- test
- nymphoid
- test
- primary reproductive
- test
- pseudergate sensu lato
- test
- pseudergate sensu stricto
- test
- queen
- test
- replacement reproductive
- test
- supplementary reproductive
- test
- true worker
- test
- worker
- test
Life cycle
Most termite life cycles can be classified as either linear or bifurcated (forked). Linear developmental pathways, exemplified by the Kalotermitidae, are characterised by a straight, but highly flexible, pathway from larva to pseudergate ("false worker") to soldier or reproductive. Bifurcated pathways, which are typical for the Termitidae, feature an irreversible split after one or more larval stages into a reproductive line or a sterile neutral line (true workers + soldiers).[1]
As in other Rhinotermitidae, the R. flavipes developmental pathway has a bifurcation after the second larval instar. There is, however, a high level of plasticity, and workers are not permanently sterile. These latter characteristics are more common in species with a linear developmental pathway.[1][2]
After hatching, there are two undifferentiated larval instars. The larva then moults into either a nymph (with wing buds) or a worker (no wing buds). This resembles a typical bifurcated developmental pathway. Older workers may moult into soldiers via a presoldier stage, or they may remain workers. Nymphs typically grow into either brachypterous neotenics or alates.
There is, however, tremendous flexibility. A worker may moult into an ergatoid, a worker-like reproductive. It may also become a brachypterous neotenic via a pseudonymph stage with small wing buds. A nymph may moult into a pseudergate, with reduced wing buds and worker-like behaviour. That pseudergate may then moult into an ergatoid.
Because of this developmental plasticity, all R. flavipes workers are considered pseudergates
- bifurcated development, pseudergates sensu stricto (from Biology of Termites)
- Some of this is covered in Lainé paper
- two undifferentiated larval instars
- Buchli believed that caste differentiation in Reticulitermes flavipes and R. lucifugus was due to extrinsic factors, notably amount of food consumed at the larval stage: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02230674?LI=true
- also reports that R. flavipes/lucifugus (not sure which, need to read paper properly) workers in the 4th or 5th instar can moult into pseudonymphs, which have wing pads, and then moult again into brachypterous neotenics
- claims that workers feed neotenics more than king/queen and allow the king/queen to starve; definitely need to look for confirmation of that (could it be an artefact of the artificial lab setup?), but it's interesting if true
Behavior
Dispersal and mating
- swarming
- tandem formation
- pheromones involved
Diet
- wood! not sure if any species are preferred or how rotten they like it, need to look that up
Nest
- R. flavipes are intermediate nesters (need definition of this)
- nest is amorphous and very large, larvae transported into food rather than kept in specific nursery
- maybe something about temperature/moisture requirements? Or at least about how R. flavipes controls climate inside nest
Hygiene
- briefly, what is social immunity, relevance to colony (would expect fungi to do well, but they don't, etc.)
- descriptions of different hygienic behaviours
- grooming
- cannibalism
- burial
- building with poop
Predators and Parasites
- might just include this inside a larger control section
- Antennopsis gallica, e.g. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19601101372 and https://books.google.de/books?id=zSHMz5OwevwC&pg=PA516&lpg=PA516&dq=Antennopsis+gallica&source=bl&ots=X4QB8h3BWw&sig=vsH40FsfQtMOcc26LkLgA7Xa3p4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR5bvPzKnUAhUB2SwKHbVIACEQ6AEIWDAI#v=onepage&q=Antennopsis%20gallica&f=false
Other projects
- Make stubs (at least) for protozoologists who described flagellates (e.g. Makoto Koidzumi, who was apparently a parasitologist and professor, or Harold Kirby, a Canadian protozoologist who taught at the University of California)
- Improve flagellate articles: top priority is Trichonympha, which needs a complete rewrite
- Flagellate names with references to papers where they were first described (for use in future articles):
- Dinenympha fimbriata Kirby, 1924[3]
- Dinenympha gracilis Leidy, 1877[4]
- Holomastigotes elongatum Grassi, 1892[5]
- Microjoenia fallax (Duboscq & Grassé, 1928)[6]
- Monocercomonas sp. Grassi, 1879
- Pyrsonympha major Powell, 1928
- Pyrsonympha vertens Leidy, 1877[4]
- Spironympha kofoidi Koidzumi, 1917[7]
- Spirotrichonympha flagellata (Grassi, 1892)
- Trichomitus trypanoides (Duboscq & Grassé, 1924)[8]
- Trichonympha agilis Leidy, 1877[4]
Named References
- ^ ISBN 978-90-481-3977-4.
- ^ . Retrieved 6 May 2017.
- ^ Kirby, Harold (1924). "Morphology and mitosis of Dinenympha fimbriata sp. nov". Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 26: 199–220.
- ^ a b c Leidy, Prof. (1877). "On Intestinal Parasites of Termes flavipes". Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 29: 146–149.
- ^ Grassi, B. (1892). "Conclusioni d'una memoria sulla società dei Termiti". Atti. Acad. Nat. R. Lincei. Sci. Fisiche. 1: 33–36.
- ^ Duboscq, Octave; Grassé, Pierre-Paul (1928). "Notes sur les protistes parasites des termites de France. V. Les Spirotrichonympha et leur evolution". Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale. 67 (Notes et Revue): 159–178.
- ^ Koidzumi, Makoto (1917). "Studies on the Trichonymphids parasitic in the termites of Japan II". Annual Report of the Institute of Science, Government of Formosa. 6: 93–175.
- ^ Duboscq, Octave; Grassé, Pierre-Paul (1924). "Notes sur les protistes parasites des termites de France. I. Trichomonas trypanoïdes n. sp". Comptes rendus des séances de la Société de biologie et de ses filiales. 90: 547–550.