Realizou o curso de pós-graduação na Escola Superior de Agricultura. “Luiz de Entomologia () e Doutor em Entomologia (), com ênfase ao Manejo. Agrícola na UFCG. Sobre: Livro que trata de aspectos gerais da Entomologia. Arquivado no curso de Engenharia Agrícola na UFCG. Download. Tweet. (ENTOMOLOGIA AGRÍCOLA). pela Comissão Examinadora: \ e. t \ \\–o. Prof. Treinamento Agrícola LTDA nas áreas de biologia de insetos e identificação de artrópodes onde >. Acesso em: 23 abr.
|Published (Last):||16 March 2014|
|PDF File Size:||3.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In most centipedes the legs increase in length from the anterior to the posterior of the animal to facilitate rapid movement. The earliest known fossil centipedes, from the Upper Silurian, are remarkablys imilar to some ento,ologia species, suggesting that the group may be considerably more ancient.
In contrast to the centipedes, the diplopods millipedes Figure 1. The distinguishing feature of the almost 10,0 species in the class is the presence of diplosegments, each bearing two pairs of legs, formed by fusion of two originally separate somites. It is believed that the diplosegmental condition enables the animal entomolobia exert a strong pushing force withi ts legs while retaining rigidity of the apostilla region.
As they cannot escape from would-be predators by speed, many millipedes have evolved such protective mechanisms as the ability to roll into a ball and the secretion of. Schemes for the possible monophyletico rigino f the arthropods as proposedb y SnodgrassSharovand Boudreaux Note also the differing relationships of the Annelida, Onychophora, and Arthropoda.
Pauropoda species agdicola minute arthropods 0. A characteristic feature are the large tergal plates on the trunk, which overlap adjacent segments Figure 1. It is believed that qgricola large structures prevent lateral undulations during locomotion. Although forming only a very small class of arthropods speciestheS ymphyla have stimulated speciali nterest among entomologists because of the several features they share with insects, leading to the suggestion that the two groups may have had a common ancestry.
The etomologia and insectan heads have an identical number of segments and, according to some zoologists, the mouthparts of symphylans are insectan inc haracter.
At apotila base of the legs of symphylans are eversiblev esicles and coxal styli. Similar structures are foundi n some apterygote insects. Five groups of six-legged arthropods hexapods are recognized: TheC ollembola, Protura, and Diplura are often placedi nt he taxon Entognatha ta principally because of theu nique arrangement of their mouthparts enclosed withint he ventrolateralextensionsofthehead.
Otherpossiblesynapomorphiesoftheentognathansinclude protrusible mandibles, xgricola Malpighian tubules, and reduced or absent compound eyes. However, Bitsch and Bitsch argue stronglyt hat most of these similarities are due to convergence; that is, the Entognatha is not a monophyletic group.
Despite these similarities, theC ollembolaa nd Protura are quite distinct bothf rom each other andf rom other hexapods.
Entomology (Gillott, ) – Livro que trata de aspectos gerais da Entomologia
Collembola haveas ix-segmented abdomen bearing specialized appendages see Chapter 5, Section 2total cleavagei nt he egg, a long composite tibiotarsal? Indeed,t he extensive cladistic analysiso f Bitsch and Bitsch rejects the monophyly of the Ellipura. The position of the Diplura is questionable, and the group is probably not monophyletic Bitsch and Bitsch, Itw ill be readily apparent thatav ariety of schemes have been devised to show the possible relationships of the hexapod groups Figure 1.
As their taxonomic status is controversial,t he Protura, Collembola, and Diplura have been included with the thysanurans in Chapter 5 where details of their biology are presented. Schemes for the possible relationships of the hexapod groups as envisaged by BoudreauxKristensenand Kukalova-Peck In determining the evolutionary relationships of animals zoologists use evidence from av ariety of sources.
The comparative morphology, embryology,p hysiology, biochemistry and, increasingly, molecular biology of living members of a group provide clues about the evolutionary trends that have occurred within that group. It is, however, only the fossil record that can provide the direct evidence for such processes.
Apostila Entomologia resumida
Unfortunately, in the case of arthropodst he early fossil recordi s poor. Trilobites, crustaceans, and eurypterids were abundant at this time.
Even after this time the fossil record is incomplete mainly because conditions were unsuitable for preserving rather delicate organisms such as myriapodsa ndi nsects. Therefore, arthropod phylogeneticists have had to rely almost entirely on comparative studies.
Their problem then becomes one of determining the relative importance of similarities and differences that exist between organisms and whether apparently identical, sharedcharactersarehomologous synapomorphic oranalogous seeChapter 4,Section3. Evolution is a process ofd ivergence, and yet, paradoxically, organisms may evolve toward as imilar way of life andh ence develop similar structures. A entomologix must therefore be made sgricola parallel and convergent evolution. As Mantonp. Notsurprisingly,forthe reasons noted above, these views havebeen widely divergent.
Some authors have suggested thatthearthropodsaremonophyletic,thatis,haveacommonancestor;othershaveproposed thatthegroupisdiphyletic twomajorsubgroupsevolvedfromacommonancestor ,andyet others believe that each major subgroup evolved independently of the others a polyphyletic origin.
Within the last 50 years, much evidence has been accumulated in the agrlcola of functional morphology and apostilw embryology but especially inp aleontology and molecular biology, whichh as been broughtt o bear on the matter of arthropod phylogeny. This does not mean, however, that the problem has been solved! Only rarely have authors attempted to marshall all of the evidence in order to arrive at an overall conclusion. Even then, there may be no agreement! In outlining the pros and cons of these theories it is useful to separate the mono- andd iphyletict heories from thep olyphyletict heory and to present them ina historical context showing the graduald evelopment of evidence in support of one view or the other.
In a nutshell, proponents of the monophyletic theory simply point to the abundance of features common to arthropods Section 2 and argue that so many similarities could. To this can be added ever-increasing evidence from molecular biology, most but not all o f which supports monophyly. This should not be interpreted to mean entomolohia there is agreement among the monophyleticists as to a general scheme for arthropod evolution.
On the contrary,t here are quite divergent views with apotsila to the relationships of the various arthropod groups Figure 1. Space does not permit agriicola detailed account of the early history of monophyletic proposals and readers interested in this should consult Tiegs and Manton Nevertheless, a few very earlys chemes should be noted to showhowideas changed as new information became available.
After recognizing that Peripatus Onychophora hadanumberofarthropodanfeatures includingatrachealsystem ,Moseley envisageditasbeingtheancestoroftheTracheata,withtheCrustaceahavingevolved independently.
At about the same time, after the realization that Limulus is an aquatic arachnid, not a crustacean, it was proposed that the aquatic Eurypterida were the ancestors of all terrestrial arachnids. Peripatus was placedi nt he Annelida, its several arthropodf eatures presumed to bet he resulto f convergence. This means that the apterygote insects must have evolved from winged forms, which is contrary to all available evidence. The associated fauna suggested that this creature was from a marine or amphibious habitat.
This and other discoveries led Snodgrass to suggest another monophyletics cheme of arthropod evolution Figure 1. In thiss cheme the hypothetical ancestral group were entomooogia lobopods so-calledb ecause of the lobelike outgrowths of the body wall that served as legs. After chitinization of the cuticle and loss of all except one pair of tentacles which formed the antennaethe lobopods gave rise to the Protonychophora.
From the protonychophorans developed, on the one hand, the Onychophora and,o nt heo ther, the Protarthropoda inw hich the cuticle became sclerotized and thickened. Such organisms livedi ns hallow water near thes dntomologia or int he littoral zone.
The Protarthropoda gaverise to the Protrilobita from which thet rilobite—chelicerate line developed and the Protomandibulata Crustacea and Protomyriapoda. From the protomyriapods arose the myriapods and hexapods. Originally, the major drawback to the scheme was a lack of supporting evidence, especially from the fossil record. Manton see Section 3.
Curso de Engenharia Agronômica |
The monophyleticists, on the other hand, believe that the mandibles of crustaceans, myriapods, and hexapods are homologous. SupportersoftheMandibulataconcept,forexample,Matsudaderivedtheinsectlegfromtheancestralcrustaceantypebyproposingthattheextrasegments were incorporated into the thorax as subcoxal components. This proposal may be somewhat close to reality as there isn ow fossil evidence that early insects had appendages with side branches, comparablet ot hose crustaceans, andf urther, the ancestrali nsect leg included 1 segments Kukalova-Peck,andi nE dgecombe, Entomology Gillott, Bruno row Enviado por: Parte 3 de 7 Somespeciesofchilopods centipedes Figure1.
Tags Gillot Insetos Entomologia. Arquivos Semelhantes Aspectos gerais sobre siderurgia Aspectos gerais sobre siderurgia, aula 2.
Aspectos Ambientais Aspectos Ambientais. Aspectos do Neoconstitucionalismo Aspectos do Neoconstitucionalismo Material cedido pelo professor Jaciratan. Martins, Damasceno, Awada – Pronto-socorro Pronto-socorro: