Mallophora bomboides

Last updated

Mallophora bomboides
Florida Bee Killer (Mallophora bomboides) (7343371940).jpg
Scientific classification Red Pencil Icon.png
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Diptera
Family: Asilidae
Genus: Mallophora
Species:
M. bomboides
Binomial name
Mallophora bomboides
(Wiedemann, 1821)
Synonyms [1]
  • Asilus bomboides Wiedemann, 1821
  • Mallophora chrysomela Bromley, 1925
  • Mallophora rex Bromley, 1925

Mallophora bomboides, also known as the Florida bee killer, is a predaceous species of robber fly of the family Asilidae that feeds primarily on bumblebees. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] M. bomboides is a noteworthy instance of Batesian mimicry given its close resemblance to its prey, the bumblebee. [7] These bees are typically found in the Eastern and Southern regions of the United States like South Carolina and Florida. [8]

Contents

Physical description

M. bomboides typically have three basal abdominal tergites densely covered with yellow hairs. [8] The fourth and fifth tergites have black hairs, and the final two segments have pale hairs. [8] The ventrum of the abdomen is adorned with yellow hairs. [8] The average body length of M. bomboides is about 25 mm. [8]

Distribution

Geographical distribution

M. bomboides occurs in the southeastern United States in states including North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. [8]

Phenology

Flight time in Florida is from April through December, though they are most commonly seen in late summer. [8]

Habitat

Adults typically live in open habitats often in the vicinity of apiaries, perching on stalks of weeds or tips of shrubs from which they launch their attacks. [7]

Life Cycle

Larva

Specific feeding habits of larvae of M. bomboides are unknown, but other Mallophora larvae are ectoparasites on scarabaeid beetle larvae in the soil. [9]

Adult

Adults live in open habitats near apiaries. They perch vertically angled on plants from which they launch their attacks on their bumblebee prey.

Mimicry

History

The similar appearances of some flies and bees have been noted since the time of Aristotle. [10] In fact, in these ancient times, the confusion between the two insects led to the disproven notion that bees undergo spontaneous generation from decaying carcasses. [10] British entomologists William Kirby and William Spence first theorized in 1817 that flies gained an advantage by resembling bees, reasoning that the physical similarity of hoverflies from genus Volucella to bumblebees enabled the invasion of bee nests. [7] Having entered the bee nests without arousing suspicion, the flies then lay eggs and depart without being attacked. [7] The same idea was later put forth by British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace in 1871. [7]

Initial classification

Classifying categories of mimicry in 1890, Edward Bagnell Poulton placed this into the category of aggressive mimicry, a deceptive mechanism in which one species resembles another in order to approach it without arousing suspicion to carry out a detrimental end. [7] However, Gregory Bateson criticized this view in 1892 by pointing out that the Volucella example fits much better as an instance of protective mimicry, now commonly known as Batesian mimicry. [7] By appearing as bees, palatable flies gain protection from predators that recognize bees as noxious and therefore unappetizing. [7] Bateson argued with the counterexamples that Volucella females entered bumblebee nests belonging to species that they did not mimic and that a European species with similar habits actually benefited the host because the fly larvae, once hatched, acted as scavengers inside the nest. [7]

Reclassification

In the same paper in which he discussed aggressive mimicry in order to account for Volucella appearances, Poulton also discussed family Asilidae flies that prey upon aculeate Hymenoptera as adults. M. bomboides bear a highly specific resemblance to their prey, which Poulton classified as protective mimicry. However, Lincoln Brower et al. demonstrated in 1960 that this phenomenon was, in fact, Batesian mimicry. [7]

Aggressive mimicry

Adult M. bomboides prey on bumblebees, their mimetic models, to a great extent. [7] Though their attacks are swift, it is possible that the resemblance of the fly to the prey and mode enhances the likelihood of its success. [7] The same argument for aggressive mimicry in Volucella flies could apply in M. bomboides. [7] Consistent with other members of the family Asilidae, larvae are thought to be predaceous, feeding on soft-bodied insects in the soil. [7] In terms of aggressive mimicry, the female flies of M. bomboides may enter into bumblebee nests to lay eggs. [7] Due to their mimetic resemblance, M. bomboides females could then escape recognition and attack. [7] Once hatched, the fly larvae could consume bumblebee larvae as a food source. [7] However, all this is merely speculative and further experimentation will help elucidate the validity of this model. [7]

Batesian mimicry

Batesian vs. Mullerian Mimicry Batesian vs Mullerian Mimicry.svg
Batesian vs. Müllerian Mimicry

Experiments conducted by Brower et al. demonstrate that M. bomboides is a Batesian mimic of its bumblebee model and prey, B. americanorum (now more commonly known as Bombus pensylvanicus ), which is noxious to predators such as the toad Bufo terretris due to its sting. [7] In a 1921 experiment by Geoffrey Douglas Hale Carpenter, one monkey ate a wasp-like asilid presented to it with caution and another rejected the asilid as food altogether. [11] However, the second monkey was willing to eat a non-mimetic asilid, suggesting that the first asilid is a true Batesian mimic. [7] [11] In other words, mimicry of an unpalatable species will lend species such as M. bomboides a form of protection from predators who have learned their lesson from an unpleasant previous attempt. [7] In another experiment by Lloyd Morgan in 1896, it was discovered that a moorhen chick that had eaten and presumably been stung by a bumblebee rejected future offers of bumblebees, even with removed stings, as well as mimetic drone flies. [7] [12] An inexperienced chick was willing to accept these as food. In addition to supporting the hypothesis for Batesian mimicry, this experiment suggests that the noxious quality of the bumblebees is their sting. [7] [12] This was further supported by a series of feeding experiments conducted using toads and bees by Hugh B. Cott in 1936. [7] [13]

Requirements

In order that Batesian mimicry should evolve and remain an evolutionarily stable strategy, several prerequisites are deemed necessary.

  1. Prospective models and mimics must occur together.
  2. Models must outnumber mimics.
  3. Models must possess a noxious and advertise this by means of conspicuous coloration.

For mimetic asilids like M. bomboides, these organisms attack their aculeate Hymenoptera models and will seek habitats abundant in their prey, thereby ensuring sympatry. All these conditions hold for the M. bomboides with their models, B. americanorum in a 1960 conducted by Brower et al. in south central Florida. [7] The toad B. terrestris was used as caged predators to demonstrate that, despite their night foraging and lack of color vision, they can learn to reject bumblebees on sight alone and confuse mimetic flies with their apian hosts as well.

Diet

Example of Asilidae Asilidae 04319.JPG
Example of Asilidae

As a member of the family Asilidae, M. bomboides preys on various aculeate Hymenoptera species. [2] M. bomboides in particular prey on bumblebees such as Bombus pensylvanicus , to which M. bomboides bears remarkable resemblances. [7]

Reproduction

M. bomboides lay their eggs in soil. [9]

Economic importance

There are few instances of financials losses to beekeepers due to depredations of bee killers such as M. bomboides, but Florida is one of a few states where such losses have been reported as noteworthy. [14] Little Lake City experienced an attack of over hundreds of these insects against bee hives in July 2008. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hover fly</span> Family of insects

Hover flies, also called flower flies or syrphid flies, make up the insect family Syrphidae. As their common name suggests, they are often seen hovering or nectaring at flowers; the adults of many species feed mainly on nectar and pollen, while the larvae (maggots) eat a wide range of foods. In some species, the larvae are saprotrophs, eating decaying plant and animal matter in the soil or in ponds and streams. In other species, the larvae are insectivores and prey on aphids, thrips, and other plant-sucking insects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mimicry</span> Imitation of another species for selective advantage

In evolutionary biology, mimicry is an evolved resemblance between an organism and another object, often an organism of another species. Mimicry may evolve between different species, or between individuals of the same species. Often, mimicry functions to protect a species from predators, making it an anti-predator adaptation. Mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result changes its behaviour in a way that provides a selective advantage to the mimic. The resemblances that evolve in mimicry can be visual, acoustic, chemical, tactile, or electric, or combinations of these sensory modalities. Mimicry may be to the advantage of both organisms that share a resemblance, in which case it is a form of mutualism; or mimicry can be to the detriment of one, making it parasitic or competitive. The evolutionary convergence between groups is driven by the selective action of a signal-receiver or dupe. Birds, for example, use sight to identify palatable insects and butterflies, whilst avoiding the noxious ones. Over time, palatable insects may evolve to resemble noxious ones, making them mimics and the noxious ones models. In the case of mutualism, sometimes both groups are referred to as "co-mimics". It is often thought that models must be more abundant than mimics, but this is not so. Mimicry may involve numerous species; many harmless species such as hoverflies are Batesian mimics of strongly defended species such as wasps, while many such well-defended species form Müllerian mimicry rings, all resembling each other. Mimicry between prey species and their predators often involves three or more species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Batesian mimicry</span> Bluffing imitation of a strongly defended species

Batesian mimicry is a form of mimicry where a harmless species has evolved to imitate the warning signals of a harmful species directed at a predator of them both. It is named after the English naturalist Henry Walter Bates, after his work on butterflies in the rainforests of Brazil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Viceroy (butterfly)</span> Species of butterfly

The viceroy is a North American butterfly. It was long thought to be a Batesian mimic of the monarch butterfly, but since the viceroy is also distasteful to predators, it is now considered a Müllerian mimic instead.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Müllerian mimicry</span> Mutually beneficial mimicry of strongly defended species

Müllerian mimicry is a natural phenomenon in which two or more well-defended species, often foul-tasting and sharing common predators, have come to mimic each other's honest warning signals, to their mutual benefit. The benefit to Müllerian mimics is that predators only need one unpleasant encounter with one member of a set of Müllerian mimics, and thereafter avoid all similar coloration, whether or not it belongs to the same species as the initial encounter. It is named after the German naturalist Fritz Müller, who first proposed the concept in 1878, supporting his theory with the first mathematical model of frequency-dependent selection, one of the first such models anywhere in biology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asilidae</span> Family of flies

The Asilidae are the robber fly family, also called assassin flies. They are powerfully built, bristly flies with a short, stout proboscis enclosing the sharp, sucking hypopharynx. The name "robber flies" reflects their expert predatory habits; they feed mainly or exclusively on other insects and, as a rule, they wait in ambush and catch their prey in flight.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ant mimicry</span> Animals that resemble ants

Ant mimicry or myrmecomorphy is mimicry of ants by other organisms. Ants are abundant all over the world, and potential predators that rely on vision to identify their prey, such as birds and wasps, normally avoid them, because they are either unpalatable or aggressive. Spiders are the most common ant mimics. Additionally, some arthropods mimic ants to escape predation, while others mimic ants anatomically and behaviourally to hunt ants in aggressive mimicry. Ant mimicry has existed almost as long as ants themselves; the earliest ant mimics in the fossil record appear in the mid Cretaceous alongside the earliest ants. Indeed one of the earliest, Burmomyrma, was initially classified as an ant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aggressive mimicry</span> Deceptive mimicry of a harmless species by a predator

Aggressive mimicry is a form of mimicry in which predators, parasites, or parasitoids share similar signals, using a harmless model, allowing them to avoid being correctly identified by their prey or host. Zoologists have repeatedly compared this strategy to a wolf in sheep's clothing. In its broadest sense, aggressive mimicry could include various types of exploitation, as when an orchid exploits a male insect by mimicking a sexually receptive female, but will here be restricted to forms of exploitation involving feeding. An alternative term Peckhamian mimicry has been suggested, but is seldom used. For example, indigenous Australians who dress up as and imitate kangaroos when hunting would not be considered aggressive mimics, nor would a human angler, though they are undoubtedly practising self-decoration camouflage. Treated separately is molecular mimicry, which shares some similarity; for instance a virus may mimic the molecular properties of its host, allowing it access to its cells.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emsleyan mimicry</span> Mimicry of a less deadly species

Emsleyan mimicry, also called Mertensian mimicry, describes an unusual type of mimicry where a deadly prey mimics a less dangerous species.

<i>Volucella bombylans</i> Species of fly

Volucella bombylans is a large species of hoverfly belonging to the family Syrphidae.

<i>Bombus vestalis</i> Species of bee

Bombus vestalis, the vestal cuckoo bumblebee, is a species of cuckoo bumblebee that lives in most of Europe, as well as North Africa and western Asia. It is a brood parasite that takes over the nests of other bee species. Its primary host is Bombus terrestris. After its initial classification as Psithyrus vestalis, this bumblebee recently was reclassified into the genus Bombus, subgenus Psithyrus.

<i>Bombus pensylvanicus</i> Species of bee

Bombus pensylvanicus, the American bumblebee, is a threatened species of bumblebee native to North America. It occurs in eastern Canada, throughout much of the Eastern United States, and much of Mexico.

Two-spotted bumble bee Species of bee

The two-spotted bumble bee is a species of social bumble bee found in the eastern half of the United States and the adjacent south-eastern part of Canada. In older literature this bee is often referred to as Bremus bimaculatus, Bremus being a synonym for Bombus. The bee's common name comes from the two yellow spots on its abdomen. Unlike many of the other species of bee in the genus Bombus,B. bimaculatus is not on the decline, but instead is very stable. They are abundant pollinators that forage at a variety of plants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chemical mimicry</span>

Chemical mimicry is a type of biological mimicry, involving the use of chemicals to dupe an operator. A chemical mimic dupes an operator by showing an adaptive chemical resemblance to an object of its environment and as a consequence receives selective advantage. In all cases of chemical mimicry it has been found that the mimicking species is the only species to benefit from the reaction with either costs or no effect on the duped species. This is by adapting to produce chemicals that will cause a desirable behavioural reaction in the species being deceived and a selective advantage to the mimic. Chemical mimicry exists within many of the different forms of mimicry such as aggressive, protective, Batesian, and Müllerian mimicry and can involve a number of different senses. Mimicking semiochemicals, which cannot be seen, make up some of the most widely used forms of chemical mimicry and is therefore less apparent than more visual forms. As a result of this, this topic has been relatively neglected in research and literature. Two examples of organisms displaying chemical mimicry include the mimicking of Noctuid pheromones by bolas spiders in order to draw prey to the spider’s location and the duping of insects within their own nests by mimicking their odours in order to enter and hide within the nest undetected. It is important to note that in all forms of mimicry the mimicking organism is not conscious of the deceit used and does not act intentionally to trick other organisms.

Many types of polymorphism can be seen in the insect order Lepidoptera. Polymorphism is appearance of forms or "morphs" differing in colour and number of attributes within a single species. In Lepidoptera, polymorphism can be seen not only between individuals in a population, but also between the sexes as sexual dimorphism, between geographically separated populations in geographical polymorphism and also between generations flying at different seasons of the year. It also includes the phenomenon of mimicry when mimetic morphs fly alongside non-mimetic morphs in a population of a particular species. Polymorphism occurs both at specific level with heritable variation in the overall morphological design of individuals as well as in certain specific morphological or physiological traits within a species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mimicry in plants</span>

In evolutionary biology, mimicry in plants is where a plant organism evolves to resemble another organism physically or chemically, increasing the mimic's Darwinian fitness. Mimicry in plants has been studied far less than mimicry in animals, with fewer documented cases and peer-reviewed studies. However, it may provide protection against herbivory, or may deceptively encourage mutualists, like pollinators, to provide a service without offering a reward in return.

Locomotor mimicry is a subtype of Batesian mimicry in which animals avoid predation by mimicking the movements of another species phylogenetically separated. This can be in the form of mimicking a less desirable species or by mimicking the predator itself. Animals can show similarity in swimming, walking, or flying of their model animals.

In evolutionary biology, mimicry in vertebrates is mimicry by a vertebrate of some model, deceiving some other animal, the dupe. Mimicry differs from camouflage as it is meant to be seen, while animals use camouflage to remain hidden. Visual, olfactory, auditory, biochemical, and behavioral modalities of mimicry have been documented in vertebrates.

Mallophora ruficauda is a species of parasitic robber fly in the family Asilidae, endemic to South and Central America. Like other robber flies, M. rauficauda is known for its aggressive behavior and predation upon other insects, especially bees. M. ruficauda mimics a bumblebee to fool predators into thinking it has a painful sting and is not worth eating.

<i>Hyperechia</i> Genus of flies

Hyperechia is a genus of robber flies in the family Asilidae. They appear large, stout and with legs covered in bristles and appear like carpenter bees in the genus Xylocopa and the resemblance is considered as a case of aggressive mimicry, providing protection from predators. The larvae of the fly feed on the larvae of Xylocopa within their cavity nests in wood. They are mainly found in the African and Madagascan region with about 15 species and two species in Asia.

References

  1. "Mallophora bomboides Report". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  2. 1 2 Bromley, S. W. (1950-06-01). "Florida Asilidae (Diptera) with Description of One New Species". Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 43 (2): 227–239. doi:10.1093/aesa/43.2.227. ISSN   0013-8746.
  3. "Mallophora bomboides Report". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  4. "Mallophora bomboides species details". Catalogue of Life. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  5. "Mallophora bomboides". GBIF. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  6. "Mallophora bomboides Species Information". BugGuide.net. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Brower, Lincoln P.; Westcott, Peter W. (1960-09-01). "Experimental Studies of Mimicry. 5. The Reactions of Toads (Bufo terrestris) to Bumblebees (Bombus americanorum) and Their Robberfly Mimics (Mallophora bomboides), with a Discussion of Aggressive Mimicry". The American Naturalist. 94 (878): 343–355. doi:10.1086/282137. ISSN   0003-0147. S2CID   83531239.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Steck, G.J. Bee Killers, Mallophora bomboides (Wiedemann), Mallophora orcina (Wiedemann), and Malophora nigra Williston (Insecta: Diptera: Asilidae) (Report). CiteSeerX   10.1.1.545.2433 .
  9. 1 2 Knutson, L.V. (1972). "Pupa of Neomochtherus angustipennis (Hine), with notes on feeding habits of robber flies and a review of publications on morphology of immature stages. (Diptera: Asilidae)". Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 85: 163–178.
  10. 1 2 MacKail, J. W.; Durham, Charles L. (2013). Virgil's Works: The Aeneid, Eclogues and Georgics. Literary Licensing, LLC. ISBN   9781494096106.
  11. 1 2 Carpenter, GDH (1921). "Experiments on the relative edibility of insects, with special reference to their coloration". Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society. 54: 1–105.
  12. 1 2 Lloyd, Morgan (1896). Habit and Instinct. Edward Arnold.
  13. Cott, Hugh B. (1936). "The Effectiveness of Protective Adaptations in the Hive Bee, illustrated by Experiments on the Feeding Reactions, Habit Formation, and Memory of the Common Toad (Bufo bufo bufo)". Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 106 (1): 111–133. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1936.tb02283.x. ISSN   1469-7998.
  14. Bromley, S. W. (1930). "Bee-Killing Robber Flies". Journal of the New York Entomological Society. 38 (2): 159–176. ISSN   0028-7199. JSTOR   25004364.