00636nas a2200169   4500008004100000245010700041210006900148300001200217490000700229653001500236653001600251653002000267653001500287653001500302100001500317856013400332       2000                        eng d00aParticle feeding in Aphodius dung beetles (Scarabaeidae): old hypothesis and new experimental evidence0 aParticle feeding in Aphodius dung beetles Scarabaeidae old hypot  a631-6370 v1410aAphodiinae10adung beetle10afeeding ecology10amorphology10aMouthparts1 aHolter, P.  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/particle-feeding-aphodius-dung-beetles-scarabaeidae-old-hypothesis-and-new-experimental-evidence02627nas a2200253   4500008004100000020001400041245009800055210006900153300001200222490000800234520190000242653002702142653001702169653001402186653001902200653001602219653001802235653001802253653001502271653002102286653001702307100001502324856003402339       2004                        eng d  a1210-575900aDung feeding in hydrophilid, geotrupid and scarabaeid beetles: Examples of parallel evolution0 aDung feeding in hydrophilid geotrupid and scarabaeid beetles Exa  a365-3720 v1013 aThe maximum size of ingested ball-shaped particles was determined in three species of adult dung feeding beetle: Anoplotrupes (Geotrupes) stercorosus and Geotrupes spiniger (Geotrupidae, Geotrupinae) and Sphaeridium lunatum (Hydrophilidae, Sphaeridiinae). Maximum diameters were 40-65 mum, 60-75 mum and 16-19 mum in A. stercorosus, G. spiniger and S. lunatum, respectively, and it was concluded that these beetles feed in the same way as found in previous studies on coprophagous scarabaeids (Scarabaeinae and Aphodiinae). Coarse particles, mainly indigestible plant fragments, are rejected by an unknown filtering mechanism, and only very small particles are actually ingested. The two geotrupids, however, tolerate somewhat larger particles than do scarabaeines of similar size. This may reflect a lower degree of specialisation towards dung feeding in the geotrupids than in the scarabaeines. In several ways, the mouthparts of the coprophagous Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae and Hydrophilidae show essentially the same morphological modifications that must be adaptations for dung feeding. For the hydrophilid (Sphaeridium), such modifications are described for the first time. They include asymmetric mandibular molars (right convex, left concave), fitting exactly into each other, with highly specialised surfaces that may concentrate the food prior to ingestion by squeezing fluid out of it. Other examples are the conjunctives (scarabaeids and geotrupids) or similar structures (the hydrophilid) and the large, hairy, pad-like distal lobes of the maxillar galeae. Provided that current views on the evolutionary history of these beetles are correct, dung feeding has arisen independently in the Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae and Hydrophilidae. If so, the feeding on very small particles and the concomitant modifications of mouthparts in these three groups must be results of parallel evolution.10aCOLEOPTERA dung beetle10aDung beetles10aevolution10afeeding habits10aGeotrupidae10aHELMINTH EGGS10ahydrophilidae10aMouthparts10aparticle feeding10aScarabaeidae1 aHolter, P.  u<Go to ISI>://000224407300003