Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:24:53.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Muscular Mechanism of the Male Metasoma and Genitalia of Megachile fortis Cresson (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Roland L. Fischer
Roland L. Fischer
Affiliation:
Kansas State College, Manhattan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The terminology pertaining to the structure of the male genitalia of the Hymenoptera has been subject to much confusion. Several systems, many purely descriptive in nature, have previously been set forch. Others were based on the various concepts of the ontogeny of the male genitalia, or on the comparative morphology of the adults. The investigation reported here began as an attempt to synthesize the various terminolopies and to evolve a workable set of terms pertaining to the structure of the male genitalia of the megachilid bees. Accordingly, a study was conducted on the myology of the group with the thought that perhaps an understanding of the comparative musculature might be of value in determining the homologies of the insect genitalia. This paper reports the results of a phase of the investigation on the morphology of the male metasoma, the muscular mechanism of the male metasoma and genitalia, and the gross structure of the internal reproductive organs of Megachile (Phaenosarsus) fortis Cresson. A second portion of the study, pertaining to the comparative morphology of the male genitalia and associated sterna of the Mecgachilidae, will be published later.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 88 , Issue 12 , December 1956 , pp. 657 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1956

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

Beck, D. Eiden. 1933. A morphological study of the male genitalia of various genera of bees. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. 10: 89–138.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, Alex D. 1923. External insect-anatomy. Urbana, Ill., Scarab Co. 338 pp.Google Scholar
Michener, Charles D. 1944a. A comparative study of the appendages of the eighth and ninth abdominal segments of insects. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 37: 336–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, Charles D. 1944b. Comparative external morphology, phylogeny, and a classification of the bees (Hymenoptera). Bul. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 82: 131–326.Google Scholar
Peck, Oswald. 1937. The male genitalia in the Hymenoptera (Insecta), especially the family Ichneumonidae. Can. Jour. Res. 15(9): 221–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popov, V. B. 1945. On the morphological reduction in the male genitalia of bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). [In Russian, English summary]. Zool. Jour., Moscow 24: 329–336.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S. A. 1915. The mating habits of saw-flies. Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 17: 195–198.Google Scholar
Shafer, George D. 1917. A study of the factors which govern mating in the honey bee. Mich. Agric. Coll. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. No. 34, 19 pp., 3 pls.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1910. The anatomy of the honey bee. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Tech. Bul. 18, 162 pp.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935. Principles of insect morphology. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 667 pp.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1941. The male genitalia of Hymenoptera. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 99: 1–96.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1942. The skeleto-mechanisms of the honey bee. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 103: 1–120.Google Scholar