Subforaminal bridges in Hymenoptera (Insecta), with a focus on Chalcidoidea

Variation in structures of the posterior surface of the head in Hymenoptera is compared and interpreted according to theories of head capsule evolution, with focus on understanding previously baffling conditions in the superfamily Chalcidoidea. Features are investigated separately without first clas...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Arthropod structure & development 2015-03, Vol.44 (2), p.173-194
Main Authors: Burks, R.A., Heraty, J.M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Hymenoptera - classification
Hymenoptera - ultrastructure
Hypostomal bridge
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Parasitoid evolution
Phylogeny
Postgenal bridge
Species Specificity
Tentorial bridge
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Variation in structures of the posterior surface of the head in Hymenoptera is compared and interpreted according to theories of head capsule evolution, with focus on understanding previously baffling conditions in the superfamily Chalcidoidea. Features are investigated separately without first classifying subforaminal bridges into subcategories. In Proctotrupomorpha (including Chalcidoidea), Ceraphronoidea and some Ichneumonoidea, there are multiple posterior pits associated with the tentorium. In most examined Hymenoptera with a subforaminal bridge, there was a differentiated median area, typically with highly variable microtrichia. This area is elevated in Cephoidea and Pamphilioidea, but is not elevated in other Hymenoptera. Subforaminal bridges in Apocrita previously classified as hypostomal bridges are discussed in the context of A.P. Rasnitsyn's hypothesis that relative importance of adult feeding drives subforaminal bridge evolution. •subforaminal bridges in Hymenoptera proved difficult to classify as postgenal or hypostomal bridges in some Hymenoptera.•External features especially proved to be less reliable as landmarks than previously suspected.•Some Hymenoptera possess multiple posterior tentorial pits, with homology best determined by tentorial investigation.•Some subforaminal features may support monophyletic lineages in Hymenoptera, but the data are incomplete thus far.
ISSN:1467-8039
1873-5495
DOI:10.1016/j.asd.2014.12.003