
Relationships between labral fan morphplogy, body size and habitat in North Swedish blackfly larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae)
Author(s) -
Zhang Yixin,
Malmqvist Björn
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
biological journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.906
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1095-8312
pISSN - 0024-4066
DOI - 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01466.x
Subject(s) - biology , subgenus , morphology (biology) , habitat , larva , streams , ecology , taxonomy (biology) , phylogenetics , phylogenetic tree , zoology , computer network , biochemistry , computer science , gene
A comparison was made of the labral fan morphology of 29 populations belonging to at least 21 different simuliid species present as mature larvae in spring‐early summer in North Swedish streams and rivers. The study revealed that there are both adaptive, morphological and phylogenetic traits evident in the material. Two basically different particle capture techniques can be deduced from morphology, where two prosimuliids, Cnephia pallipes and Metacnephia trigonia , represent species which mainly rely on a sieving technique, whereas all other species investigated capture particles by some other process, such as diffusional deposition. Within tribe Simuliini there are significant relationships between several fan traits and habitat. Thus, fast rivers are inhabited by species with small fans, having short and stout rays, whereas small, slow streams harbour species with large fans consisting of elongated, delicate rays. The finer morphology of the fan rays in terms of secondary structures, the microtrichia, appears to be more related to phylogeny than“ habitat. Since a phylogeny of blackfly species still is lacking, this conclusion cannot be tested. In two subgenera, however, which are particularly well represented in the present material ( Simulium s. str. and Nevermannia ), and whose taxonomy is based on criteria other than fan morphology, there is consistent support for the conclusions about habitat‐morphology relations.