Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 94, Issue 4, pp 326–332 | Cite as

Opposable spines facilitate fine and gross object manipulation in fire ants

  • Deby Cassill
  • Anthony Greco
  • Rajesh Silwal
  • Xuefeng Wang
Short Communication

Abstract

Ants inhabit diverse terrestrial biomes from the Sahara Desert to the Arctic tundra. One factor contributing to the ants’ successful colonization of diverse geographical regions is their ability to manipulate objects when excavating nests, capturing, transporting and rendering prey or grooming, feeding and transporting helpless brood. This paper is the first to report the form and function of opposable spines on the foretarsi of queens and workers used during fine motor and gross motor object manipulation in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. In conjunction with their mandibles, queens and workers used their foretarsi to grasp and rotate eggs, push or pull thread-like objects out of their way or push excavated soil pellets behind them for disposal by other workers. Opposable spines were found on the foretarsi of workers from seven of eight other ant species suggesting that they might be a common feature in the Formicidae.

Keywords

Functional morphology Motor skills Forelimbs Tarsi Digits 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Baxter Clark, Alan Thrun and Amanda Dominguez for the data contributions, David Brodosi for the technical assistance with the images and three anonymous reviewers for their erudite critiques. Lastly, we thank the managing editor, Tatiana Czeschlik, for her encouragement. Experiments conducted on these organisms comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. This project was funded in part by the ESPG Program of Distinction at USF St. Petersburg.

References

  1. Ass MJ (1963) Predatory legs in Arthropoda: their origination and function. Zool Z 42:1346–1362Google Scholar
  2. Betz O, Kolsch G (2004) The role of adhesion in prey capture and predator defense in arthropods. Arthropod Structure and Development 33:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cassill DL (2002) Brood care strategies by newly-mated monogyne Solenopsis invicta queens during claustral colony founding (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassill DL (2003) Skew selection: nature favors a trickle-down distribution of resources in ants. Journal of Bioeconomics 5:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassill DL, Tschinkel WR (1995) Allocation of liquid food to larvae via trophallaxis in colonies of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Anim Behav 50:801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassill DL, Butler J, Vinson SB, Wheeler DE (2005) Cooperation in prey digestion between workers and larvae in the ant, Pheidole spadonia. Insectes Soc 52:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farish DJ (1972) The evolutionary implications of qualitative variation in the grooming behavior of the Hymenoptera (Insecta). Anim Behav 20:662–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Full RJ, Blickhan R, Ting LH (1991) Leg design in hexapedal runners. J Exp Biol 158:369–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gorb S (2001) Attachment devices of insect cuticle. Kluwer, Dordrecht Boston LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gronenberg W, López-Riquelme GO (2004) Multisensory convergence in the mushroom bodies of ants and bees. Acta Biol Hung 55:31–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Mares S, Ash L, Gronenberg W (2005) Brain allometry in bumblebee and honey bee workers. Brain Behav Evol 66:50–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paul J, Gronenberg W (2002) Motor control of the mandible closer muscle in ants. J Insect Physiol 48:255–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seid MA, Harris KM, Traniello JF (2005) Age-related changes in the number and structure of synapses in the lip region of the mushroom bodies in the ant Pheidole dentata. J Comp Neurol 488:269–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spinozzi G, Castorina MG, Truppa V (1998) Hand preferences in unimanual and coordinated-bimanual tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus paella). J Comp Psychol 112:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Whishaw IQ, Pellis SM, Gorny BP (1992) Skilled reaching in rats and humans: evidence of parallel development or homology. Behav Brain Res 47:59–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Whishaw IQ, Sarna JR, Pellis SM (1998) Evidence for rodent-common and species-typical limb and digit use in eating, derived from a comparative analysis of ten rodent species. Behav Brain Res 96:79–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson EO (1962) Behavior of Daceton armigerum (Latreille), with a classification of self-grooming movements in ants. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College 127:403–421Google Scholar
  19. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Zollikofer CPE (1994) Stepping patterns in ants II. Influence of body morphology. J Exp Biol 192:107–118PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deby Cassill
    • 1
  • Anthony Greco
    • 2
  • Rajesh Silwal
    • 3
  • Xuefeng Wang
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ESP-BiologySt. PetersburgUSA
  2. 2.College of Marine ScienceUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.Undergraduate StudentUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  4. 4.Program in Environmental ScienceSt. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations