Erratum from: Antennal Morphology in the Developing Polyphenics of Lipaphis Erysimi (Kalt.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

  • Pushpinder J. Rup
  • Parvinder K. Kalra
Research Article


The present study revealed that the ratio of antennal to body length in Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) increased from 0.55:1.00 in the first instar to 0.75:1.00 in the adult alatae as compared to apterae, where the ratio stayed almost the same. The antenna showed specific growth regions i.e. first and fourth annuli, where the increase in size was more compared to other parts. Five morphologically distinct types of sensilla were recorded i.e. sensilla companiform. sensilla trichodea with enlarged spatulate tips, sensilla trichodea with tapering uniporous tips, plate organs and coeloconic pegs. The distribution pattern of these sensilla showed that the number of sensilla trichodea increased during the development, the increase was more in alatae compared to apterae. The secondary sensoria were restricted to adult alatae only, but could be seen under the cuticle in fourth instar alatae. In addition, the variation in the surface sculpturing in the form of scale-like projections were also observed on the antenna.

Key Words

Lipaphis erysimi antenna sensilla polyphenism development 


L’étude à présent a révélé que la proportion de l’antenne à la longeur du corps en Liphaphis erysimi (Kalt.) a augmenté de 0.55:1.00 dans le premier instar à 0.75–1.00 dans l’adulte alatae en comparaison avec apterae, où la proportion a reste le même. L’antenne a montré des regions spécifique de développement ou augmentation en taille a été comparé plus qu àux autres sections. Cinq distinct types morphologique de sensilla ont été registré; Sensilla companiform, sensilla trichodea avec les bouts spatule agrandi; sensilla trichodea avec les bouts uniporous en tuseau, les orgues plat et les coeloconic chevillers. La modele de distribution de ces sensilla a montré que les numéros de sensilla trichodea a augmenté pendant le développement l’augmentation a été plus dans l’alatae en comparison avec les apterae. Le sensoria secondaire a été limite aux adultes alatae seulement, mais on peut les voir sovs le épiderme, dans le quatrième instar alatae. En plus, le variation dans le surface sculpture comme les projections échelles ont été auni obscive sur l’antenne.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell W. J. and Carde R. T. (1984) Chemical Ecology of Insects. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brody A. R. and Uharton G. W. (1971) The use of glycerol, KCl in scanning microscopy of acri. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 64, 528–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromley A. K. and Anderson M. (1982) An electrophysiological study of olfaction in the aphid Nasonovia ribis-nigri (Mosley) (Homoptera). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 32, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bromley A. K., Dunn J. A. and Anderson M. (1979) Ultrastructure of the antennal sensilla of aphids. I. Coeloconic and placoid sensilla. Cell Tiss. Res. 203, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman R. F., Bernays E. A. and Simpson S. (1981) Attraction and repulsion of aphid, Cavariella aegopodii (Homoptera) by plant odours. J. Chem. Ecol. 7, 881–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kennedy J. S. and Booth C. O. (1951) Host alternation in Aphis fabae Scop. (Homoptera: Aphidae). I. Feeding preferences and fecundity in relation to age and kind of leaves. Ann. Appl. Biol. 38, 25–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Marsh D. (1975) Responses of male aphids to the female sex pheromone in Megoura viciae Buckton (Homoptera: Aphidinae). J. Entomol. 50, 43–64.Google Scholar
  8. Nault L. R., Edwards L. J. and Styer W. E. (1973) Aphid alarm pheromones: Secretion and reception. Environ. Entomol. 2, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Payne T. L. (1974) Pheromone perception. In Pheromones (Edited by Birch M.C.), pp. 35–57, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Peterson J. (1970) Studies on Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) (Homoptera: Aphidinae). I. Laboratory studies on olfactometric responses to the winter host Prunus padus L. Lantbrukshogsk. Ann. 36, 381–399.Google Scholar
  11. Shambaugh G. F., Frazier J. L., Castell A. E. M. and Coons L. B. (1978) Antennal sensilla of seventeen aphid species (Homoptera: Aphidinae). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 7, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Slifer E. H., Sekhon S. S. and Lees A. D. (1964) The sense organs on the antennal flagellum of aphids (Homoptera) with special reference to the plate organs. Q. J. Micr. Sci. 105, 21–29.Google Scholar
  13. Singh O. P. and Rawat R. R. (1983) Seasonal incidence and toxicological studies on Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and its parasite Aphidius sp. in Madhya Pradesh, India. Pranikee 4, 259–267.Google Scholar
  14. Wang C. H. and Huber F. (1976) Morphological study of aphid antennae of Aphis nerri Boyer (Homoptera: Aphididae). I. Flagellar sensilla. Bull. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sinica 15, 47–56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pushpinder J. Rup
    • 1
  • Parvinder K. Kalra
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyGuru Nanak Dev UniversityAmritsarIndia

Personalised recommendations