Abstract
Drosophila species fall into three classes with respect to the effect of light on their reproductive behavior: Class I, species that mate equally well in light or darkness; Class II, those merely inhibited by darkness; Class III, species whose mating is blocked by darkness. Species in the three classes also differ in the extent of their geographic distribution, with Class I including widely distributed and cosmopolitan species and Class III those that are endemic. Class II species have an intermediate distribution pattern. The behavioral differences among species reflects the degree to which courtship information is locked-in on unique visual stimuli, as well as indicating differences in the underlying genetic architecture of flexible versus specialized forms. It may be anticipated that most species of Drosophila will be found light dependent. Similar organizational differences in other forms relying on visual courtship stimuli may be reflected in correlation between distribution and behavioral reliance on a single sensory input. Dependence on a single sensory input offers a unique variety of methods for biological control of species that requires a particular sensory system for information transfer.
Keywords: biogeography, mating behavior, biological control
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Grossfield J. Behavioral differentiation of three races of Drosophila auraria. J Hered. 1971 Mar-Apr;62(2):117–118. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a108135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hotta Y., Benzer S. Abnormal electroretinograms in visual mutants of Drosophila. Nature. 1969 Apr 26;222(5191):354–356. doi: 10.1038/222354a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- LEE H. T. Y. A preliminary histological study of the insemination reaction in Drosophila gibberosa. Biol Bull. 1950 Feb;98(1):25–33. doi: 10.2307/1538595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Laven H. Eradicating mosquitoes using translocations. Nature. 1969 Mar 8;221(5184):958–959. doi: 10.1038/221958a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Narda R. D. Analysis of the stimuli involved in courtship and mating in D. malerkotliana (sophophora, Drosophila). Anim Behav. 1966 Apr-Jul;14(2):378–383. doi: 10.1016/s0003-3472(66)80101-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pak W. L., Grossfield J., White N. V. Nonphototactic mutants in a study of vision of Drosophila. Nature. 1969 Apr 26;222(5191):351–354. doi: 10.1038/222351a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prakash S. Chromosome interactions affecting mating speed in Drosophila robusta. Genetics. 1968 Nov;60(3):589–600. doi: 10.1093/genetics/60.3.589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- ROGOFF W. M. MATING OF THE HOUSE FLY, MUSCA DOMESTICA L., IN MONITORED DARKNESS. J Med Entomol. 1965 Apr;2:54–56. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/2.1.54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spieth H. T. Drosophilid mating behavior: the behaviour of decapitated females. Anim Behav. 1966 Apr-Jul;14(2):226–235. doi: 10.1016/s0003-3472(66)80076-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]