The Ohio naturalist, Vol. 1, No. 4, February 1901Ohio State University. Biological Club
History
The Ohio naturalist, Vol. 1, No. 4, February 1901
Ohio State University. Biological Club
Natural history -- Ohio -- Periodicals; Natural history -- Periodicals; Science -- Periodicals
It seems that nearly every author who has considered these two species
has compared them. Considering general appearances they are much alike
but can be separated easily by several details and as I have good
material of both sexes of the two species before me, I thought it
might be of consequence to consider in a comparative way some of their
characteristics.
The occiput in both sexes of _villosipes_ bears a prominent tooth at
the middle of its upper edge. This tooth varies some in different
specimens, it ends above in a single point or it may be widened and end
above in three or more points. In _furcifer_ there is no tooth on the
occiput in either sex.
The vulvar scales are very different, in _villosipes_ the part may
be said to be triangular with the free sides curved and the apical
part divided for about half the length of the scale. In _furcifer_
its basal part is similar but the apical part is produced, giving
quite a different form. In the former species the scale is about
one-third as long as the ninth segment, while in the latter it is about
three-eighths as long as that segment.
The abdominal appendages of the male are different. From dorsal view
those of _furcifer_ are rectangular with the inner distal angle very
much produced inward and backward; in _villosipes_ they are wide at
base, oblong, with the outer distal part broadly rounded and the
corresponding inner part produced directly backward. The hamules are
characteristic and may be explained best by reference to the figures.
The two species are colored much alike but _furcifer_ is darker.
The tenth abdominal segment may be said to be yellow in both but in
_furcifer_ the sides of the segment are dark, oftentimes black.
They agree in habits, both preferring to fly over stagnant water where
the males come to rest on floating objects or on the ground at the
water’s edge. I have observed the female of _furcifer_ ovipositing in
stagnant water among lily pads and other aquatic plants. Her flight is
slow while thus engaged, and her actions more like a _Libellula_ than
the usual _Gomphus_.
EXPLANATION OF PLATE.
Gomphus villosipes—1, dorsal view of male
appendages; 3, vulvar scale; 5, hamule; 7, occiput
of female; 8, occiput of male.
Gomphus furcifer—2, dorsal view of male appendages;
4, hamule; 6, vulvar scale; 9, occiput of male; 10,
occiput of female.
Gomphus viridifrons—11, 12, 13, dorsal view of
male appendages—13 from Pa., 11, 12 from Ohio;
14, 15, 16, hamules; 17, 18, vulvar scales—18 from
Pennsylvania, 17 from Ohio.
Gomphus brevis—19, 20, 21, dorsal view of male
appendages—specimens from Maine and Pennsylvania;
22, 23, 24, hamules; 25, 26, vulvar scales.
Gomphus abbreviatus—27, 28, 29, hamules; 30, 31,
vulvar scales; 32, 33, 34, dorsal view of male
appendages—specimens all from Maine.
[Illustration: _Plate 5._
HINE—GOMPHINE STUDIES.]
NOTES FROM BOTANICAL LITERATURE.
W. A. KELLERMAN.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account