Advertisement

Zoomorphologie

, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

The slit sense organs of arachnids

A comparative study of their topography on the walking legs (chelicerata, arachnids)
  • Friedrich G. Barth
  • Josef Stagl
Article

Summary

  1. 1.

    Aiming towards a better understanding of the functional role played by the arrangement of slit sense organs in the exoskeleton of arachnids the diversity of their topography is studied in the walking leg. Data previously collected with a spider and a scorpion are supplemented by such on a whip spider, a whip scorpion, and a harvestman. Thus five arachnid orders are now available for the comparison.

     
  2. 2.

    There is a wide spectrum of both the richness in total slit sensillar supply and the relative share contributed to it by isolated slits, groups of single slits, and lyriform organs, respectively. Whereas lyriform organs are numerous on the spider leg (15) none or only one or two occur in the other arachnids. On the leg of the scorpion and whip scorpion one instead finds an almost equivalent number of groups at comparable sites (12, 13). Whip spider and harvestman clearly have the smallest number of slits on their legs with 58 and 45 as compared to the 325 of the spider leg.

     
  3. 3.

    An outstanding feature of all the arachnid legs studied is a concentration of the slits proximally on the leg. This is most pronounced in the harvestman and whip spider, i.e. those cases with the smallest total number of slits (percentage proximal to tibia: spider 70%; harvestman 100%; whip spider 93%). The trochanter is the leg segment most richly supplied. A location right at or close to the distal end of the respective leg segment (i.e. to proximal part of articulation) is a typical though not general property of lyriform organs and groups, but not of isolated slits.

     
  4. 4.

    A position laterally on the leg close to a joint and an orientation of the slits roughly parallel to the long leg axis is common among both lyriform organs and groups. The harvestman has the least conformistic leg with the groups oriented more or less perpendicular to the long leg axis. Slits in the most ventral region of the leg are very rare. The femora of the harvestman, whip scorpion, and whip spider bear some large isolated slits oriented perpendicular to the long leg axis, which is exceptional. Within some lyriform organs and groups (see f.i. trochanter of whip spider) the axes of the constituent slits divert.

     
  5. 5.

    These morphological findings are discussed in terms of their physiological significance. The arguments put forth are relevant for an understanding of the topography of campaniform sensilla on the insect leg as well.

     

Keywords

Equivalent Number Morphological Finding Outstanding Feature Relative Share Comparable Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barth, F.G.: Der sensorische Apparat der Spaltsinnesorgane (Cupiennius salei Keys., Araneae). Z. Zellforsch.112, 212–246 (1971)Google Scholar
  2. Barth, F.G.: Die Physiologie der Spaltsinnesorgane. I. Modellversuche zur Rolle des cuticularen Spaltes beim Reiztransport. J. comp. Physiol.78, 315–336 (1972 a)Google Scholar
  3. Barth, F.G.: Die Physiologie der Spaltsinnesorgane. II. Funktionelle Morphologie eines Mechanoreceptors. J. comp. Physiol.81, 159–186 (1972 b)Google Scholar
  4. Barth, F.G.: Functional morphology and adequate stimulus of a mechanoreceptor. Verh. Dt. Zool. Ges. Mainz 1972, 25–30 (1973)Google Scholar
  5. Barth, F.G.: Sensory information from strains in the exoskeleton. In: The insect integument (H.R. Hepburn ed.), pp. 445–473. Amsterdam: Elsevier 1976Google Scholar
  6. Barth, F.G., Libera, W.: Ein Atlas der Spaltsinnesorgane vonCupiennius salei Keys. Chelicerata (Araneae). Z. Morph. Tiere68, 343–369 (1970)Google Scholar
  7. Barth, F.G., Pickelmann, P.: Lyriform slit sense organs in spiders. Modelling an arthropod mechanoreceptor. J. comp. Physiol.103, 39–54 (1975)Google Scholar
  8. Barth, F.G., Wadepuhl, M.: Slit sense organs on the scorpion leg (Androctonus australis, L., Buthidae). J. Morph.145, 209–228 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, K.-H.: Untersuchungen zur Autotomie bei Spinnen (Araneae). Z. Morph. Tiere72, 173–202 (1972)Google Scholar
  10. Beck, L., Foelix, R.F., Gödecke, E., Kaiser, R.: Über die Haarsensillen der GeißelspinneAdemetus pumilio (Arach., Amblypygi). Naturwiss.61, 327–328 (1974)Google Scholar
  11. Beck, L., Görke, K.: Tagesperiodik, Revierverhalten und Beutefang der GeißelspinneAdmetus pumilio C.L. Koch im Freiland. Z. Tierpsychol.35, 173–186 (1975)Google Scholar
  12. Edgar, A.L.: Proprioreception in the legs of phalangids. Biol. Bull.124, 262–267 (1963)Google Scholar
  13. Foelix, R.F.: Structure and function of tarsal sensilla in the spiderAraneus diadematus. J. exp. Zool.175, 99–124 (1970)Google Scholar
  14. Foelix, R.F., Chu-Wang, J., Beck, L.: Fine structure of tarsal sensory organs in the whip spiderAdmetus pumilio (Amblypygi, Arachnida). Tissue & Cell7, 331–346 (1975)Google Scholar
  15. Frank, H.: Untersuchungen zur funktionellen Anatomie der lokomotorischen Extremitäten vonZygiella x-notata, einer Radnetzspinne. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Anat. u. Ontog. Tiere76, 423–460 (1957)Google Scholar
  16. Gaubert, P.: Notes sur les organes lyriform des arachnides. Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, se'r.8 (2), 47–53 (1890)Google Scholar
  17. Gaubert, P.: Recherches sur les organes de sens et sur les systèmes intégumentaires, glandulaires et musculaires des appendices des Arachnides. Ann. Sci. nat. se'r.7, 13, 57–90 (1892)Google Scholar
  18. Hansen, J.H.: Organs and characters in different orders of arachnids. Entomol. Medd.4, 137–144 (1893)Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, H.J.: Organs and characters in different orders of arachnids. Entomol. Medd.4, 145–249 (1894)Google Scholar
  20. Hansen, H.J., Sorensen, W.: On two orders of Arachnids.Opiliones, especially the suborderCyphophthalmi, and Ricinulei, namely the familyCryptostemmatoidae. Cambridge: Univ. Press 1904Google Scholar
  21. Kaestner, A.: Lehrbuch der speziellen Zoologie, Bd. I. Wirbellose. Stuttgart: Fischer 1965Google Scholar
  22. Kaston, B.J.: The slit sense organs of spiders. J. Morph.58, 189–209 (1935)Google Scholar
  23. Millot, J., Vachon, M.: Ordre des scorpions. In: Traite de Zoologie (T. Grassé, ed.), Vol. VI, pp. 386–436. Paris: Masson 1949Google Scholar
  24. Parry, D.A.: Spider leg-muscles and the autotomy mechanism. Quart. J. micr. Sci.98, 331–340 (1957)Google Scholar
  25. Parry, D.A., Brown, R.H.J.: The hydraulic mechanism of the spider leg. J. exp. Biol.36, 343–433 (1959)Google Scholar
  26. Pocock, R.J.: A contribution to the systematics of thePedipalpi. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. London9, 7. Ser., 157–165 (1902)Google Scholar
  27. Pringle, J.W.S.: Proprioception in insects. II. The action of the campaniform sensilla on the legs. J. exp. Biol.15, 114–131 (1938)Google Scholar
  28. Pringle, J.W.S.: The function of the lyriform organs of arachnids. J. exp. Biol.32, 270–278 (1955)Google Scholar
  29. Savory, Th.H.: Daddy longlegs. Sci. Am.207, 4, 119–128 (1962)Google Scholar
  30. Seyfarth, E.-A., Barth, F.G.: Compound slit sense organs on the spider leg: mechanoreceptors involved in kinesthetic orientation. J. comp. Physiol.78, 176–191 (1972)Google Scholar
  31. Snodgrass, R.E.: A textbook of arthropod anatomy. New York-London: Hafner 1965Google Scholar
  32. Vogel, H.: Über die Spaltsinnesorgane der Radnetzspinnen. Jena Z. Med. Naturw.59, 171–208 (1923)Google Scholar
  33. Weygoldt, P.: Geißelskorpione und Geißelspinnen. Z. Kölner Zoo15, 3, 95–107 (1972)Google Scholar
  34. Weygoldt, P.: Vergleichende Untersuchungen an zweiHeterophrynus (Admetus)-Arten,H. longicornis Butler undH. batesii Butler (Arachnida, Amblypygi, Tarantulidae). Zool. Anz., Jena192, 3/4, 175–191 (1974)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friedrich G. Barth
    • 1
  • Josef Stagl
    • 1
  1. 1.Gruppe SinnesphysiologieFachbereich Biologie der UniversitätFrankfurt/M.Germany

Personalised recommendations