1. Charts of evolution of flight (One or more)
2. TABLE OF COMPARATIVE CORRELATIONS BTW WING AND vibrating membrane
Text: The point of this information: since it is reasonabl;e to assume
that sound producation, including the tymbal mechanism, is an older
defvelopmetn the emergence of whichi is relatively simple to imagine,
it is possible to posit thta flight, a far more complicated design
assignemtn is subsequent to the appearnace of resonaniting membrane
system. Therefore it is reasonable to asume that if there exists an
unusually strong analogy and conceivably even homology between the
two systems, the earlier one may be a basis for the devlopment of
the later one. In other words the machanism of flight profers nothing
to positively deny that it was not originally a sound produceing mechanism,
perhaps of the tymbalic sort.
TABLE HERE
THGIS IS PBB OUT:
3. Stridulation leading to saltation
SALTATIO EX STRIDULATIONE
In the saltatory Orthoptera we see an interesting interrelation between
the development of the femur for competent jumping and the use of
the femur and elytra in stridulation. Here we see two functions that
support each other and also share one structural element.. If the
femur evolved for saltation it also supported emergence of stridulation
and vice versa. Therefore one or the other could have provided the
nursery condition for the other. Based on this concept an argument
is presented in the Appendix proposing that in fact Orthopteran
saltation evolved from femoro- or tibio-elytral stridulation, in
which case flight preceded saltation in this order.
WHERE DOES THIS GO??? TO STRIDUL origin of JUMP, where
it doesn't Support! Most acridoids make no sound! "Actually,
the majority acridoid world fauna is formed by the Catantopinae, Pyrgomorphidae
and Acridinae, which have no sound producing mechanism, or only poorly
defined ones. It is worthy of notice that an expansion of the medial
area of the hindwing, forming a tympanate area, occurs not infrequently
in some Acridinae in which no specialized sound-producing organs are
known, for example in Acrida, Amohicremna, Entryxalis and others;
Acrida, however, makes a distinct flight noise. B. Uvarov,
Grasshopper and Locust, Cambridge U Press, 1966 (I THINK this
is really supportivE!)
SUPPORT for STRIDULATION LEADING TO JUMP: There are femoro-tegminal
and tibio tegminal mechanisms for stridulation. Of tibial types, subfamily
Hemiacridinae has rubbing by "inner spines or spurs of the hind tibia."
( though direct observations on action are lacking. Uvarov Grasshoppers
and Locust p ?
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF JUMPING --
DID SALTATION arise from stridulation IN ORTHOPTER? and NURSERY
THis = pbbly out. Incorrect.
How did jumping, using legs, originate? Jumping works through a relatively
gradual build- up of elastic muscular tension which is suddenly released.
The muscles involved should be of maximum cross section to yield maximal
force and alsp short so that their release would take minimal time
in returning to relaxed state. All this would need a context and time
for developing. How would such requirements be filled? It seems that
such development of unusual muscle triggering is possible based on
a anomalous triggering of muscles by the neural system, which alone
is responsible for such timing and perhaps the build-up of femoral
muscle mass would be a secondary development. Such evolution obviously
must have taken place with the various types of jumping insects, however,
with Orthoptera another origin for jumping can be postulated. This
is covered below, in SALTATIO ex STRIDULATIONE.
But then this IS SUPPORT: "Several genera of African and Asian savannah
grasshoppers have spines on hind TIBIA, and they rub these against
the usual scrape vein of the tegmen, but they also have the usual
femoro-tegminal mechanism. "They also have well developed tympanate
areas of the tegmina" Uvarov p.180 . AND there is another common
mechanism: tegmino-femoral! Here roles are changed, femur has a simple
scraper ridge, "which rubs against a specialized intercalary vein..."
<<Uvarov, but THIS is not important!
Possible origins of acoustic communication
11/30 Put here: Mate recognition and the origins of sound communication
5. With walking established in the evolution of insects, many sclerites
on the body and on the legs actively articulated, rotaed, rubbed against
each other. All this action would take place by the integument with
its soubnd producing potential. Thereofer it is possible that at the
insect level thses actions may produce adventitious sounds. There
may be tiny creaking, squeekiing, scraping and rubbing noises present
and since insects appraoch each other in proximity and experience
tactile interactions, these noises or low level vibrations may be
perceived by them through audio or tactile receptors.
If sound production and perception exists at such level, and if it
no doubt did in ancient times, could this be have been the primitive
neuro-physical basis of species recognition by sound in insects? Once
there were codes of recognition built on olfactory, visual, and audio
perception limited to situations of proximitiy and contact between
insects, broadcasting a sound could be an effective medium for communicating
at increasing distances. It is aslo true that distance need not be
a factor in early acoustic commnication, because even a low amplitude
sound, recognizable enough at close contact distances, would be useful,
acting as a species identifier.
POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THORACIC SONIFYING
Here we have to find some structure that could adventutiously produce
thoracic sounds. Perhaps breathing, a function today serviced by the
abdomen, was once also perfored by the thorax. Such temporary structural
changes as occur in breathing could offer a basis for sound production
by that body part. Breathing is affected by some combintaion of compression
and release, achieved by intersegmental musculature and so action
could become the source of a sonification process leading to vibration
of the thorax by deformation.
But since the thorax early in insectan developmetn was assigned to
house the legs and their base musculature, the movement of the coxa
could also originated a defvlopment towards thoracic sonifying or
perhaps, visual signalling. Just to suggest a possible event that
could relate leg movement to sound production, let us look at the
leg base musckuature of the typical insect.
ILL The promotor and remotor muscles of the coxa (which move
rotate the coxa forward and backward) connect the coxa with the pleuron.
The muscles originate on the pleuron which is the stable part and
they are inserted on the coxa, which is the moving part. But consider
the casewhen the insect is holding on to the substrate, let us say,
a plant stem. If the tarsus, or "foot" of the insect, grasps the stem,
and generally flexes the leg muscles so that the leg is anchored against
moving it, then if these coxopleural muscles are stimulated a reversal
of mvement might take place: the coxa will remain statioanry and the
pleuron will tend to move concavely inward. Repeated flexing of these
muscles will tend produce and inward-outwrd movement of the pleuron.
WING FOLDING - AN ALTERNATE ORIGIN - VISUAL AND NUPTIAL FUNCTIONS
If we picture primitive wings either before or after flight had been
achieved, employuing their wings as visual signallers, describing
rituals
Having developed into large surfaces through their their visual
display function, pre-flight wings would probably produce pulses of
whirl or buzz at various rates as well as slower visual movements,
mainly rotation around the body's long axis. But what if competition
selected for a wider range of movements and therefore developed a
fore and aft flexing of wings? This is not unreasonble to expect and
would permit us to make the conclusion that flexure of wings and its
consequent folding may have evolved before flight. Such poitn of view
would seem to settle the question whether Orthopteran and Ephemeropteran
inablity to flex wings is primary or secondary.
The fatc that relatively large wings in a pre-flight insect might
be pyisical obstructions means that folding could also have evolved
for that reason, as the accepted theory states. But there is an argumnt
that would eliminate this posssibility. And this argument is in fact
one broiught up in the acpeted thoery, namely that eraly wings may
have had to do with nuptial flight. If so then the nuptial period
belonging to the last instar, with a purely reproductive role and
without a need for nourishment, would permit large wings whether folded
or not since survival and escpae would be not be a high enough criterion
at this stage. However, the issue is doubly clouded by the finding
of an adult Ephemeroptera with functional mouth parts in the fossil
record (SOURCE...) and by the fact that living Ephemeroptera do not
fold their wings.
This idea of wing folding predating flight has been stated by at
least one author although still in the context of the accepted theory:
S. M. Manton writes "A narrowing of the wing base and added complexity
in structure could lead to the ability to fold the wings when not
gliding....Simple flapping flight presumably came after the ability
to fold the wings." (The Arthropoda, p. 428).
Maybe dont't write a separate THeory of Origin of Wings, just
leave it in the place it wad alreaedy mentioned, under analog btween
pteraliva and multitimbals
<[>THIS GOES TO THOERY OF WING ORIGINS Write: how the paranotum may
not have been the ancestor of the wing. IT could also have beeen a
membranous fold growing out of the pleural surface covering the basalr,
subalar, etc?, the pleural wing/leg muscle slcerites. ILL
Maybe this was originally a band connecting the several separate sclerites
which may have together with axilliaries acted as membranes subvibrators,
in order to unify the sound for amplificarion?? amd then ot satarted
making a differnet nouse bk of the drum pulser turning into a fan
pulser (see below in *** NEW) Also: The wing could also have been
a paranotal lobe, but emerging as attachments, oerhaos, covers, for
a timbal. THey may never have beeen hard.]
Anyway, this is the possible reason for the fatc that the
wing is only hinged to the notum. And so answers the question of how
the protolobe ancestor of the wing became hinged.
THE GT SOURCE OF THORACIC SONIFYING: -- still to be worked out
in detail!
(To meet the requirement of relying only in documented substratum
(source) for a proposed sequence of events: ) The physical properties
of the cuticular materials and the presence of thoracic and leg musculature
only need a novel set of neurological stimuli to appear. There is
1. Wing muscles are partly identical or derivable with leg muscles
- used originally for audio or visual communications -- The legs themselves
may have been the signallers; lobes may have appeared to amplify this
visual leg action; this could have had audio side-products.
2. Indirect wing muscles are derived
3. derivation from breathing musculature
Mate recognition and the origin of sound communication
First the insect perceive visually some other creature that
is roughly the same size as it is. So it does not run away, since
only bigger moving creatureds trigger escape reaction. Every moving
object is initially evaluated for degree of danger, including size
and speed and direction of movement. The insect then motivated to
watch and posssibly approach. The visual data, be that shape and color,
outline and surface characterstitcs, or perhaps only one or two identifiying
signs, is worked out by the insect's neural system to effect conctact
and resulting mating behavior. This is the simplest, visaully based
mate recognition, offering no kinetic signalling.
But based on this fundamental visual recognition, the role of additional
visual recognition function can easily be added to it. For example,
a kinetic action dervied from an already exiting movement, such as
leg motion, may happen to be performed by one of the connubial pair,
resulting from some neuro-muscular irregularity. If this action is
accepted by the other insect as non-conflicting with the primary visual
signalng, this leg movement may be incorporated into the nuptial display
and may even take the place of an earlier visual source of attraction.
The leg movement may occur wjen the insects are still at adistance
from each other, or it may occur during copulation. It may also involve
tapping the substrate, and therefore be an acoustic signal as well.
So, it may be surmised, that the forst tool of mate location was visual.
An arthropod, on land, or in water, might adventitiously produce a
sound that will ? ? ?
Above needs alteration: sound communication can also be produced as
a first step. For example, an male arthropod adventitiously make certain
movements and sound signals,
M. D. Atkins, Introduction to Insect Bechavior, Macmillan, 1980
D. J. Borror, D. M. DeLong and C. A. Triplehorn, An introduction
to the study of insects, 4th edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
H. B. Boudreaux, Arthropod Phylogeny with Special Refernce to Insects,
R. F. Chapman, The Insects, 3rd ed., Harvard U. Press, 1982
R. G. Davies, Outlines of Entomology, 7th ed., Chapman and Hall, 1988
G. M. Hughes and P. J. Mill, Locomotion: Terrestrial, in M. Rockstein,
ed., The Physiology of
P. T. Haskell, Insect Sound, Witherby, 1961
U. Lanham, The Insects, Columbia U. Pres, 1964
S. A. Manton, The Athropoda, Clarendon Press, 1977
W. Nachtigall, Insects in Flight, McGraw-Hill, 1968
D. Otte, North American Grasshoppers, Harvard U. Press, 1984
J. W. S. Pringle, Locomotion: Flight, in M. Rockstein, ed., The
Physiology of Insecta, vol. 2.
O. W. Richards and R. G. Davies, Imm's General Textbook of Entomology,
10th ed., Chapman
A. G. Sharov, Basic Arthropodan Stock with Special Reference to Insects,
R. E. Snodgrass, Principles of Insect Morphology, McGraw-Hill, 1935
B. Uvarov, Grasshoppers and Locusts, Cambridge U. Press, 1966
V. B. Wigglesworth, Life of Insects, World, 1964
V. B. Wigglesworth, The evolution of insect flight, in Insect
Flight, edited by R. C. Rainey, Symposium of the Royal Entomologival
Society of London, 1976
R. J. Wooton: The fossile record and insect flight, in Insect
Flight, edited by R. C. Rainey, Symposium of the Royal Entomological
Society of London, 1976