Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:48:34.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE NAMIB DESERT TENEBRIONID BEETLE ONYMACRIS RUGATIPENNIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

William J. Hamilton III ,
Ruth E. Buskirk  and
William H. Buskirk
William J. Hamilton III
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Studies, university of California, Davis
Ruth E. Buskirk
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Studies, university of California, Davis
William H. Buskirk
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Studies, university of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Onymacris rugatipennis is one of several diurnal adesmiine tenebrionid beetles living in various habitats near Gobabeb in the Namib Desert, South West Africa.

Late in the active part of the female daily cycle and before they dig into the ground, females are often persistently followed by one or more males. Intruding male challenges to followers are commonplace. Following occurs during the latter phase of the morning and especially during the afternoon activity cycle. Early in these activity cycles the principle male activity is feeding. Males emerge in the morning earlier than females, and late in their activity period most males are engaged in following or attempts to dislodge other followers. Of the five diurnal adesmiine species living near Gobabeb, only the males of O. rugatipennis fight with one another and defend space. Their space is maintained above the site where a female has dug into the ground at midday or in the evening. Defense involves exclusion of other males from the immediate vicinity of the female. Alien males are immediately evicted, but on some occasions there are serious challenges. Pairs of males may engage in vigorous wrestling matches involving head butting, shoving, throwing, biting, and kicking. Evenly matched individuals may wrestle for over 30 min and for more than 20 falls. The winner of such encounters remains over the buried female. The last individual to hold the space in the evening may mate with the resident female. The observed behavior is not territorial in the sense that there are no mutually recognized frontiers. There is, however, exclusive use of space and aggressive defense of that space.

Social order is re-established daily. There are no persistent inter-individual bonds between males and females. Males may return to the general area but not the exact place where they held space the previous day. Many individuals move long distances from the place where they were active on the preceding day.

Larger males tend to win wrestling matches. However, males are on the average smaller than females. Since larval males live in the habitats occupied by females, adult male body size is apparently not limited by larval energy limits. Hence we conclude that small adult male body size conveys advantages which may outweigh the disadvantage in wrestling matches. Some of the possible selection relationships countering large male size are discussed.

Females reject most mating attempts by males when they are active on the surface. They exercise no choice in mate selection following burrowing. Hence the mating system results in mating by the most persistent male followers and aggressive individuals able to hold the space above the place where the female burrows into the ground.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , March 1976 , pp. 305 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

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

Bartholomew, G. A. 1970. A model for evolution of pinniped polygyny. Evolution 24: 546–559.Google Scholar
Brown, J. L. and Orians, G. H.. 1970. Spacing patterns in mobile animals. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, J. H. 1965. The adaptive significance of avian social organizations. Symp. zool. Soc. Lond. 14: 181–218.Google Scholar
Crook, J. H. 1970. Social organization and the environment: Aspects of contemporary social ethology. Animal Behav. 18: 197–209.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F., Muckenhirn, N. A., and Rudran, R.. 1972. The relation between ecology and social structure in primates. Science 176: 863–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geist, V. 1974. On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in ungulates. Am. Zool. 14: 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. III. 1973. Life's color code. McGraw-Hill, New York. 238 pp.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. 1975 a. Social organization of a diurnal desert beetle. Film, 16 mm, color, 600 ft.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. 1975 b. Coloration and its thermal consequences for diurnal desert insects. In Hadley, Neil F. (Ed.), Environmental physiology of desert organisms, pp. 67–89.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. III, Gilbert, W. M., Heppner, F. H., and Planck, R. J.. 1967. Starling roost dispersal and a hypothetical mechanism regulating rhythmical animal movement to and from dispersal centers. Ecology 48: 825–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. III and Penrith, M. L.. In press. Description and courtship behaviour of a possible Physosterna globosa × Onymacris rugatipennis f.t. hybrid from the Namib Desert. Madoqua, Ser. II.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. III and Watt, K. E. F.. 1970. Refuging. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus). Ecology 49: 682–694.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. E. 1955. Studies on territorialism and sexual selection in dragonflies. Ecology 36: 566–586.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, J. H. 1974. The ecology and evolution of social organization in the kangaroo family (Macropodidae). Am. Zool. 14: 51–62.Google Scholar
Koch, C. 1961. Some aspects of abundant life in the vegetationless sand of the Namib Desert dunes. Jl SW. Afr. Sci. Soc. 1: 8–34.Google Scholar
Koch, C. 1962 a. The Tenebrionidae of southern Africa. XXXI. Comprehensive notes on the tenebrionid fauna of the Namib Desert. Ann. Transv. Mus. 24: 61–106.Google Scholar
Koch, C. 1962 b. The Tenebrionidae of southern Africa. XXXII. New psammophilous species from the Namib Desert. Ann. Transv. Mus. 34: 107–159, plus 11 plates.Google Scholar
Lack, D. 1940. The behaviour of the robin. Population changes over four years. Ibis (Ser. 14) 4: 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lack, D. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Orians, G. H. 1969. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 103: 589–603.Google Scholar
Seely, M. K. 1973. Factors controlling reproduction of certain Namib Desert tenebrionids. Madoqua (Ser. II) 2: 63–65.Google Scholar
Selander, R. K. 1972. Sexual selection and dimorphism in birds, pp. 180–230. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine.Google Scholar
Smith, C. C. 1968. The adaptive nature of social organization in the genus of tree squirrels Tamiasciurus. Ecol. Monogr. 38: 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1971. The insect societies. Harvard, Cambridge.Google Scholar