Encyclopedia of Entomology

2008 Edition
| Editors: John L. Capinera

Ultrastructure of Insect Sensilla

  • Vonnie D. C. Shields
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_2295

The cuticle of insects is largely responsible for the success of these terrestrial arthropods. It is rigid and hard in areas requiring support and protection and flexible in regions associated with locomotion and the detection of mechanical stimuli. It is highly impermeable and restricts water loss from the body surface. Cuticle does not expand, thereby limiting growth, making it necessary for growing insects to periodically shed the existing cuticle (a process called molting) and to replace it with another, larger one. The insensitivity of insect integument also limits the reception of stimuli. This insensitivity is remedied by the presence of transcuticular sensory mechanisms, each specifically designed to detect one of a wide range of stimulus types.

Sensory perception for taste, smell, touch, sound, vision, proprioception, and geo-, thermo-, and hygroreception involves a three-stage process consisting of coupling, transduction, and encoding. Coupling connects the stimulus to the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Altner H (1977) Insect sensillum specificity and structure: an approach to a new typology. In: Magnen J, MacLeod P (eds) Olfaction and taste IV (Paris). Information Retrieval, London, UK, pp. 295–303Google Scholar
  2. Altner H, Prillinger L (1980) Ultrastructure of invertebrate chemo-, thermo-, and hygroreceptors and its functional significance. Int Rev Cytol 67:69–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. McIver SB (1985) Mechanoreception. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI (eds) Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology, vol 6. Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp 71–132Google Scholar
  4. Schneider D (1964) Insect antennae. Annu Rev Entomol 9:103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Shields VDC (1994) Ultrastructure of the uniporous sensilla on the galea of larval Mamestra configurata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can J Zool 72:2016–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Shields VDC (1994) Ultrastructure of the aporous sensilla on the galea of larval Mamestra configurata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can J Zool 72:2032–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shields VDC (1996) Comparative external ultrastructure and diffusion pathways in styloconic sensilla on the maxillary galea of larval Mamestra configurata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and five other species. J Morphol 228:89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shields VDC, Hildebrand JG (1999) Fine structure of antennal sensilla of the female sphinx moth Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). I. Trichoid and basiconic sensilla. Can J Zool 77:290–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shields VDC, Hildebrand JG (1999) Fine structure of antennal sensilla of the female sphinx moth Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). II. Auriculate, coeloconic, and styliform complex sensilla. Can J Zool 77:302–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Slifer EH (1970) The structure of arthropod chemoreceptors. Annu Rev Entomol 15:121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zacharuk RY (1985) Antennae and sensilla. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI (eds) Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology, vol 6. Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp 1–69Google Scholar
  12. Zacharuk RY, Shields VD (1991) Sensilla of immature insects. Annu Rev Entomol 36:331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vonnie D. C. Shields
    • 1
  1. 1.Towson UniversityTowsonUSA