Need help from entomologists

Is the name of the species a military secret?

This post was edited by barry - 10/21/2008 16: 46

It doesn't make any difference...
The only important thing is that they fly to the same female

I wonder how you manage to build hypotheses without even knowing exactly what the subject is called... I wish I could!

As far as I understand, nothing happens with such precision in real-world organism biology. there is always a large variability in all signs, including dimensional ones. (genitals - to a lesser extent).

This hypothesis is not directly related to biology. Rather, it's about physics. However, there is an assumption that living organisms (insects) can be used as sensors, since physical sensors (so far) do not have such sensitivity.

nothing happens with such precision in real organism biology

That's the answer. However, I would like to clarify – is it based on general considerations or on a series of precise measurements?

This post was edited by evg220 - 22.10.2008 17: 16

It seems that the mention of physics discouraged the audience's interest
, which is a pity. The question remained open.
However, it is possible that I did not accurately state it. I'll try to reformulate it.
It is known that butterflies (males) honor the female for kilometers and unmistakably fly (as it is commonly believed) to her smell. More precisely, the source of molecules (pheromones) emitted by the butterfly gland into the environment.
So, I am just interested in the spread in the geometric dimensions of the antennae of exactly those males that fly to the smell of the same female.
A search on the Internet did not answer the question – did anyone set themselves the task of conducting measurements according to these criteria?
If so, where can I view the results?
If not, then it may be interesting to make such measurements for someone who has such an opportunity (sufficient - at least three-number of specimens) of males.

I am certainly not a physicist, but I want to insert my "five kopecks".
First, any biological species cannot be completely "identical", this also applies to the size of the antennae (or different lengths of the segments of each other's antennae). There are no identical (even morphologically) species in nature. Take the same clone - Dolly the sheep. From identical genetic material, an individual grew up with differences from the mother, since there are physical (environment, for example), and not just internal mechanisms that trigger a certain "pool" of genes - that is, from identical genetic material, different genes can be implemented and "turned on" - that is, different traits. About specifically butterflies. Personally, I believe that when males search for females in species such as the nocturnal great peacock's eye, for example, males are guided by a completely original and incomprehensible sense, and this is far from touch. How can they detect about 13 molecules of pheromone (the odorous substance of females) in one cubic meter of air? You can imagine the flight of a male from one molecule to another, even if the distribution of molecules is uniform (what is not Brownian motion?). I am more inclined to believe that when searching for a female, they pick up certain "vibrations" of certain molecules among many others, without touching them with their "analyzers" - antennae. Maybe this is the way Earth's astrographers study the chemical composition of stars based on their spectrum...

How can they detect about 13 molecules of pheromone (the odorous substance of females) in one cubic meter of air?...
...I am more inclined to believe that when searching for a female, they pick up certain "vibrations" of certain molecules among many others, without touching them with their "analyzers" - antennae.

This means that if the "tendrils" are antennas tuned to a certain frequency, then the spread of their geometry should fit at least one percent.
This can only be confirmed or denied by someone who has the ability to make purposeful measurements from this particular point of view.

Remember what Fabre wrote. He believed that the disturbances emitted by the female are not molecules, but some waves akin to electromagnetic ones. For, as he pointed out, the males flew to meet the female from the direction from which the strong wind was blowing. Accordingly, no molecules can withstand a strong wind at a distance of several kilometers.

female-generated disturbances...
...some kind of electromagnetic waves

Ok!
On the other hand, it is known that males with their antennae cut off do not react to the female at all.
In addition, if you remove the gland and place it next to the female, then the males fly at the gland, and not at the female.
(If this information is incorrect, I hope the experts will correct me).
And if they are correct, then we return to the fact that the" tendrils " (perhaps) react precisely to some vibrations, and not to the chemical action of pheromone molecules.
But in order to distinguish a signal in a narrow spectrum in the entire spectrum of atmospheric noise, it is necessary that the" antenna " receiver is TUNED to the appropriate resonant frequency. In other words, the length of the tendrils must be a MULTIPLE of the wavelength emitted by the vibration molecule.

I would particularly like to draw your attention to the fact that I did NOT speak here about fluctuations and "non-contact" detections of the female by males. That is, the essence of the mentioned hypothesis has already been found in various sources. So is it possible to check it (at least in the first approximation)?

This post was edited by evg220 - 21.10.2008 19: 53

any biological species can not be completely "identical", this also applies to the size of the antennae.

So is this a scientific fact confirmed by a series of measurements, or "general considerations" ?

There are no identical (even morphologically) species in nature. Take the same clone - Dolly the sheep...

It is obvious and unquestionable even for me-a complete layman in biology…

Can you imagine a male flying from one molecule to another…

No. I can not…

... (what is not Brownian motion?).
I'm more inclined to believe that when they search for a female, they pick up some "vibrations" of certain molecules…

But the fact that ALL molecules in the atmosphere perform exactly Brownian motion is a scientific fact. This creates the so-called "white noise", against which it is necessary to detect the necessary vibrations

We were taught here in the entomology course that male butterflies catch ferromones, i.e. antennae are essentially organs of chemical sense, i.e. smell. Or taste, if you like.
IMHO, this is indirectly confirmed by the feathery structure of the antennae of male moths. They seem to be designed to pass through as much air as possible during flight and look for ferromone molecules in it.
And now about possible fluctuations. The wavelength of these vibrations should be quite small (after all, according to your reasoning, these vibrations are emitted by molecules), so the length of the antennas should not correspond to it in any way. And there should be some structures on the antennas that will "catch" these "waves".
In general, all this is very interesting. But, in my opinion, too complicated and expensive.

Have you ever heard of variational series or normal distribution? In short , we take a feature with a quantitative expression (the length of something, the number of legs is not worth it ), catch many representatives of the same species, measure, and plot a graph where the abscissa indicates the values of the feature, and the ordinate indicates the relative frequency of occurrence of this value. We get a curve. Usually domed. There are the most average values, and the least minimum and maximum values. Such a normal distribution is typical for signs that are determined by many factors, which is usually the case with the length of the organ.
Moreover, it is now very fashionable to measure fluctuating asymmetry - it is believed that under unfavorable conditions of development, "lopsided" increases.

So the "lack of sameness" is definitely a scientific fact, confirmed by numerous students in genetics practices.

However, when it comes to the reception case, there may be nuances. For example, the size of any receptor formations can be rigidly defined.

to Vorona:
As I understand it, by receptor formations you mean all sorts of sensilli located on the sensory organs, and not these organs themselves (antennas, in our case).

Well, in general, yes.

In our entomology course, we were taught that male butterflies do catch ferromones

OK!
So are you ready to say that modern biology has the answer to the question: how does the mechanism of smell work in animals?
And if not, then it would be good to understand that you were told only ONE of the hypotheses, and not even the theory…

The wavelength of these vibrations should be quite small.
.....there must be some structures on the antennas that will "catch" these "waves"

Right. It is also true that this may only be a part of the "tendril".
I'll tell you more. The question is open not only with the wavelength, but also with the nature of vibrations. For a number of (physical) reasons, it can be assumed that they are NOT of an electro-magnetic nature with so-called energy estimates. (What a pity. It is easier to work with EM radiation).
As for the "usyk section", this issue was prepared for the next stage of discussions. There are a number of problems that greatly complicate the measurement method. The fact is that this hypothetical "site" should be very different in physical parameters from the rest of the organ. This is necessary for the formation of resonance. Otherwise, everything will (most likely) fade out on "edge effects".

This post was edited by evg220 - 22.10.2008 11: 58

Have you ever heard of variational series or normal distribution?

Ha-ha-ha!... What else do you think "techies" are taught besides mathmatics?

So the "lack of sameness" is definitely a scientific fact…

Please, figures, graphs (by mustache) or at least references-To the STUDIO!!! (Thank you in advance)

the size of any receptor formations can also be rigidly defined

I guess we're ahead of the curve, but I'll ask.
Do you know anything about the" components " of the antennae? Is there a method for identifying them by their physical properties and, I'm afraid to say, a method for accurately determining the size of these areas?

Please, figures, graphs (by mustache) or at least references-To the STUDIO!!! (Thank you in advance)

The size of butterflies (and insects in general) is strongly influenced by external factors during the development of its larva (caterpillar). If the caterpillar "ate little porridge", then the butterfly will also be small (simplified). As for links to works, you can open any determinant and see the spread in the wingspan, for example (on the upswing).
By the way, could you formulate this "certain hypothesis"?

The size of butterflies (and insects in general) is strongly influenced...

I'm sorry, but we went in circles...
I don't know about biology, but in physics, general reasoning only makes sense at the stage of finding a RESEARCH DIRECTION.

...you can open any determinant

Maybe. But if you explain what a "determinant" is and give me a link, I will be very grateful!

By the way, could you formulate this "certain hypothesis"?

To my great joy, your colleagues have already outlined the main points (see above).
I will only add that the mechanism of determining the gradient of the distribution of molecules (say, pheramones) in the atmosphere is considered (for example, on the example of insects).…

This post was edited by evg220 - 22.10.2008 12: 59

I'm sorry, but we went in circles...
I don't know about biology, but in physics, general reasoning only makes sense at the stage of finding a RESEARCH DIRECTION.

Duc this is not general reasoning, it is an established fact. Just do not ask for exact references, I will not remember Though, you can study the manuals on general entomology (Shvanvich. General entomology, for example. By the way, it was posted several times in the topic "Scans of books with entomological topics").
On the other hand, the size of the "receptors" themselves can still be a multiple of the wavelength...

this is an established fact...
You can also study the general entomology guidelines...

Sure, thanks for the links. To be honest, I was hoping that someone working directly with this literature would be able to easily answer the question about the size of the spread in the geometry of the antennae.
About the "normal distribution" in the size of organs, I already understood. If this distribution also applies to antennae, then a specific question arises:
was there any dependence of sensitivity (ability to search for a female) when the size of the antennae deviated from the average size?

Mmm... What do you mean by "detection mechanism"?

Let me remind you that your colleagues have already pointed out above that the mechanism for determining the direction of movement towards the female at a distance of several km is not clear. from her. They also sneered at the necessity of the" Brownian "nature of the male's movement in the "chemical" (contact) version.
It is precisely these factors that suggest paying attention to the fact that insects most likely use a remote method for determining the concentration of pheramones, which excludes "physical" contact and, accordingly, a chemical detection mechanism.
I would like to receive confirmation or refutation of this point of view from specialists (entomologists).

If not electromagnetic waves, then what are they?

For example, acoustic ...

Maybe this is the way Earth's astrographers study the chemical composition of stars based on their spectrum...

Not exactly "astrographers"...
Not just stars, but..... and the composition of the Earth's atmosphere...

This post was edited by evg220 - 22.10.2008 17: 56

I won't say anything about the size of the antennae, but.. often, in many species, the ratio of segments of the antennae is a sign for determining, i.e., let's say the 4th segment is 2 times longer than the 3rd, etc..

And more.. One thing wanted to catch some molecules, and quite another-to find out where they come from.. I don't understand how they understand this at all.

One thing wanted to catch some molecules, and quite another-to find out where they come from.. I don't understand how they understand this at all.

It is in this direction (IHMO) that the path to unraveling this mystery of nature lies...
To determine the direction, you need to be able to feel the gradient of the distribution. In other words, to know (how?) that the nearest cubic meter contains 17-18 molecules, and the next-30-40.
With "remote analysis", this is possible! It is enough to move in space and detect the direction to the source with a STRONGER signal.
If you follow the flight of the male, it is very likely that this is exactly what he is doing. I.e. no "Brownian motion". It performs "oscillatory" displacements relative to the "backwash" path in the direction of the female.
If this is not the case, please correct me, and if so, it is useful to review the hypothesis about the "chemical" nature of smell in insects...

a sign for determining is the ratio of segments of the antennae, i.e., let's say the 4th segment is 2 times longer than the 3rd, etc..

This is already a bit difficult for me. Let's get this straight.
"to determine" what? Of an insect's species, type, or group, or... directions of movement to the female?

The STRUCTURE of the antennae of only the group of males that will fly to the same female is discussed in the context of this problem.

This is already a bit difficult for me. Let's get this straight.
"to determine" what? Of an insect's species, type, or group, or... directions of movement to the female?

The STRUCTURE of the antennae of only the group of males that will fly to the same female is discussed in the context of this problem.

These are signs for determining the type of insect.
The second point is that if these are acoustic waves, then they are emitted not by ferromone molecules, but by the females themselves. Because, as I understand it, molecules can't send acoustic signals in principle.
But at this stage of reasoning, we come across the following problem : as far as I know, if you get an extract of their female gland, then males will also fly to this extract (I can't give exact references to the literature on this subject, but I think if you dig carefully in the "Abstract Journal" you can find it). That is, the idea of acoustic signals disappears...
Again, I don't understand why you care so much about the size of the mustache. The antennae are just an organ on which all sorts of sensillae are located and, most likely, of different types. You should be interested in these sensylls, because they are responsible for the reception itself. Nerve endings are suitable for them, and not for the uskik as a whole.

When entomologists (or botanists, ornithologists,...) When they say "definition", they usually mean that a particular specimen belongs to a particular taxonomic group (order, family, genus, or species).
You should read something informative, for schoolchildren, about insects. I'm not kidding you, I just don't want you to waste your time on some pointless nonsense.

There is an anecdote about this (I mean, a story that may have happened). I heard it during field practice from an ornithologist teacher. Students of physiology, birds and insects do not want to study and gundyat why they need it. So, a physiologist is preparing to defend his dissertation. Something like the difference in the threshold of sensitivity to electric current in different birds. By chance, the work falls into the hands of a zoologist. He reads, his eyes bulging. Says: is this a joke???
The dissertation researcher concludes that the sparrow is insensitive to electric current, because the birds fixed tightly did not pull the only free foot away from contact when the circuit was closed. And the pigeons pulled away.
If suddenly someone did not understand-the sparrow does not know how to walk, only jumps. He can't pull one paw away
( I apologize for the digression)

This post was edited by Vorona - 10/22/2008 19: 32

the ratio of segments is a morphological feature. I.e., the ratio of ix is almost always preserved, but the size of the whiskers is different.

Since we know that there are pheromone traps for the destruction of some pests, for example, where pheromones are made according to a recipe, the conclusion suggests itself - the main fault is chemical. structure.
BUT!1 Because chemistry alone is never enough, because there is always something more behind it - namely, physics - the laws by which all this works, etc. Then you can guess for a long time what exactly-vibrations of molecules, glow, magnetic field, or who else knows what.. Here you can assume for a long time.

Probably need a detailed study of the mustache. As well as experiments on insects.

I apologize for the digression)

Well no. Physicists also like to make jokes. And in biology, something "kumekuyut". For example, they know that cockroaches can hear with their legs. That is, if a cockroach breaks its legs, then it no longer responds to the call: "go eat"!

it seems to me that you dear Evg220 do not fully understand how the capture of pheromone molecules occurs. A pheromone is a chemical substance of a certain structure, it is perceived by the tendril specifically (there are receptors on the tendril, which are a protein macromolecule, to which a marker is attached (part of the pheromone molecule, roughly speaking)... when the receptor picks up a pheromone, a chemical reaction occurs with the release of energy) since the tendril does not work as a radio antenna, the butterfly smelling the pheromone begins to make zigzag movements in search of its source. if the pheromone source is sufficiently close,the butterfly performs concentrating movements until visual or mechanical contact occurs. the length of the antennae in this case does not matter at all, it may differ not only in different individuals of the same species, but also in one specimen there may be antennae of different lengths (a manifestation of asymmetry).
you can read about the mechanism of pheromone capture in the works of V. D. Ivanov (St. Petersburg State University) if I find a link or post it here

The antennae are just an organ on which all sorts of sensillae are located and, most likely, of different types. You should be interested in these sensylls, because they are responsible for the reception itself. Nerve endings are suitable for them, and not for the uskik as a whole.

I believe that this is the transition (as mentioned above) to the second part of the discussion.
It seems that our assumption that the entire tendril is not a "receiver" (does not pass through the geometry), then it (the tendril) should be considered in parts. (Well, just like chairs.)

molecules of acoustic signals can not in principle

Why?
Molecules in the atmosphere perform Brownian motion. In addition, they are vibrational and rotational. The first type can cause acoustic waves (at a sufficiently high frequency), and the second type can cause electromagnetic excitations.
At the same time, a large organic molecule (I believe that pheramones belong to such molecules) can be considered as a tuning fork (with a sufficiently large mass in relation to other air molecules).
Of course, "acoustics" attenuate as a cube with distance, but what do we know about the sensitivity of sensors created by nature? You can only define the energy limit, and only...

when the receptor picks up a pheromone, a chemical reaction occurs with the release of energy) since the tendril does not work as a radio antenna, the butterfly smelling the pheromone begins to make zigzag movements in search of its source

Yes! This is a classic view of the problem.
However, the question remains: how to use this scheme to determine the gradient?
Here, pour a bottle of odorous perfume in the room, and try to suggest that someone find the source of the smell... I will be surprised if such an experiment is successful!
As for
usyk doesn't work as a radio antenna
then this is not a fact.
For example, the eye (in humans) "works" just like that. It senses electromagnetic vibrations of LIGHT frequency...

This post was edited by evg220 - 22.10.2008 20: 18

the conclusion suggests itself - the main fault is chemical. structure.
BUT!1 Because chemistry alone is never enough, because there is always something more behind it - namely, physics - the laws by which all this works, etc. Then you can guess for a long time what exactly-vibrations of molecules, glow, magnetic field, or who else knows what.. Here you can assume for a long time.

Very true!
And you can also take it and start irradiating the butterfly at different frequencies, waiting for its reaction at some frequency...
Imagine that you turn on the radiator, and all the butterflies (of the same species)fly to you from all over the area!
But the "trick" is to try to calculate (at least in the first approximation) the possible range in which to look for the effect.

Probably need a detailed study of the mustache. As well as experiments on insects.

Well, if I didn't get the wrong address, this is already your area of expertise.
We can only provide radiation SOURCES. BUT WHICH ONES?

By the way, I found V. D. Ivanov's article Insect Pheromones published in the Soros Educational Journal No. 6 of 1998... I do not post all of it in view of problems with the net (and somewhere on the network it is), but only a fragment of text with the information of interest.

SEX PHEROMONES AND AGGREGATION SUBSTANCES
The site of pheromone synthesis and release is not necessarily confined to specific glands, as in caddisflies and lepidoptera. Often, the components of a pheromone mixture are synthesized in the cells of the fat body that fills the gaps between the internal organs, then they are dissolved in the hemolymph (insect blood) and removed through the integuments, as in sawflies. Finally, in the Prussian cockroach Blatella germanica, the aphrodisiac 3.11-dimethyl-no-nakosan-2-it is contained in the waxy coating on the female's body surface. This substance causes the male cockroach, which touches the female with its antennae, sexual arousal and characteristic poses with raised wings that precede mating. In most cases, however, evaporating pheromones diffuse in the air and act over considerable distances.
The presence of a very small amount of pheromone in the air is enough for males to respond. For example, the maximum effective concentration of bombicol in the air is only 10 " p micrograms / ml, and only one molecule is enough to excite a sensitive receptor cell on the antenna. In sensitive organs — chemoreceptor sensillae-the limit threshold of sensitivity is reached. Insect receptors can thus read individual molecules. One sensilla, which looks like a hair or bump on the surface of a tendril, sometimes hides different receptor neurons, each of which is tuned to a specific type of chemical.
Until recently, it was believed that there are specialist neurons that respond to only one type of molecule, and generalists designed to perceive a wide range of substances due to loss of sensitivity. Recent studies have also revealed the specialization of those neurons that were previously classified as generalists: it turned out that despite all the selectivity, receptor cells can mistakenly respond to related molecules, but with a lower intensity.
After the interaction of the pheromone molecule with receptor proteins, a chain of reactions occurs in sensitive cells-neurons. The receptor protein interacts with the so-called G-npotein, which in turn activates phospholipase. Inositol-3-phosphate is released in the cell and calcium channels open; calcium ions entering the neuron activate calcium-dependent protein kinase, which activates sodium and potassium ion channel proteins using phosphorylated mediators. Channels open, ion fluxes are formed, the charge of the cell membrane changes, and the receptor potential appears. As the receptor potential propagates through the neuron's body, it elicits a much more intense response in the form of an action potential propagating through the excited nerve fiber. The set of potentials of excited nerve cells forms the antenna potential, the change of which in time can be simply recorded as an electroantenogram. Along the nerves, the excitation of antenna receptors is transmitted to the insect's" brain " — the suprapharyngeal ganglion. There, in the deutocerebrum (the second segmental ganglion of the brain), are the higher parts of the olfactory analyzer, where all incoming olfactory(olfactory) information is processed.
After smelling the smell, males move against the wind in the direction of the source of the pheromone signal, and usually the insect makes zigzags, assessing the direction to the female. The insect is guided by the wind and the increasing concentration of pheromone in the air. Previously, it was assumed that the amount of pheromone decreases monotonically in the direction from the source. Only recently has the complex structure of pheromone jets generated in the air under the influence of turbulence been revealed. Complex vortices of the pheromone jet make it difficult to find and detect the source of the pheromone, forcing the male to spend a lot of time searching for the female. A particular problem is the detection of individuals in conditions of high numbers, when a large number of calling females causes overlapping of pheromone clouds and, as a result, a sharp decrease in pheromone concentration gradients. Probably, in such cases, insects can use minor components of pheromones as reference points for finding and identifying the female.
Some insect species have a very complex system of interaction between the sexes, involving different types of stimuli. So, in some bear butterflies (Arctiidae), the male flies up to the female with the odorous glands turned out, focusing on the smell of her pheromone. Sensing the male's chemical cues, the female responds with wing flaps and beeps. In the Galleria mellonella wax moth, males and females exchange ultrasonic signals-clicks. After hearing the female's sounds, the male releases a pheromone for her accurate guidance.

and here is the link http://www.pereplet.ru/nauka/Soros/pdf/9806_029.pdf

I also recommend the book by Skirkevicius A.B. Pheromone communication of insects. Vilnius: Moxlas, 1986. 289 s

Thank you all very much!

evg220, if you are seriously working on this issue, then could we (forum participants) be acquainted with some resaltations here in the future? And then many showed the keenest interest and participation...

could we (the forum participants) be acquainted with some resaltations here in the future? And then many showed the keenest interest and participation...

By profession, I have to participate in projects of VARIOUS physical directions. One of the directions is the problem of DETECTING various substances in the atmosphere.
Today, methods for solving this class of problems are being solved in the optical range.
However, while it works quite efficiently for determining the composition of atmospheric gases (in the physical sense), there are known limitations to the sensitivity of these methods for detecting small concentrations of many other substances.
In this regard, the search for alternative methods is of great interest. One of them was the question-how do insects do this?

it seems to me that you dear Evg220 do not fully understand how the capture of pheromone molecules occurs.

Well, that's putting it mildly! Yes, to put it bluntly – I had no idea.
Now (thanks to Michail_M), it is clear that nature went the other way. The article that was linked to removed a number of questions and misconceptions that I and my colleagues had.
We will think about how this path can be implemented from an engineering point of view.
It is clear that it is almost impossible to track achievements in such distant areas.
Colleagues expressed skepticism about the idea of applying to some entomological forum, believing that the "language barrier" would not allow them to get ANY results. They were wrong.
About the article. I would like to draw your attention (already as an expert) to the fact that the highest deviation (changes) in the gradient of temperature and air flows is observed at altitudes up to 100m. And indeed, it was only possible to establish this a few years ago.

Regarding the detection of substances in the atmosphere using the receptor structures of insects (a little bit wrong, but it's clearer)... At our university, such a subject was taught - bioindication. So there, one of the bioindication methods offered the option of using isolated structures of artificial insects (for example, a tendril), which was joined by a certain technical moment (converting the energy of chemical reactions into electrical + amplifier + output mechanism). Most of the work in this area was carried out in Japan. cockroach antennae were used. If I find a bibliography on this subject (I will approach my former teachers), then I will post it in this topic.