02627nas 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>://00022440730000302328nas a2200229   4500008004100000245015900041210006900200300001200269490000700281520149400288653001701782653001701799653002201816653002101838653001201859653001701871653001701888653001601905100001501921700002401936856013801960       2005                        eng d00aAre ball-rolling (Scarabaeini, Gymnopleurini, Sisyphini) and tunnelling scarabaeine dung beetles equally choosy about the size of ingested dung particles?0 aAre ballrolling Scarabaeini Gymnopleurini Sisyphini and tunnelli  a700-7050 v303 a1. The maximum size of ingested particles was determined in 11 species of ball-rolling, adult dung beetle (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) by mixing small latex or glass balls of known diameter into their food. The tribes Scarabaeini, Gymnopleurini, and Sisyphini (four, four, and three species respec- tively) were represented, with mean body sizes ranging from 0.33 to 4.0 g fresh weight. 2. Only particles with maximum diameters of 4–85 mm were ingested. Hence rollers, like other known beetles feeding on fresh dung, filter out larger, indiges- tible plant fragments and confine ingestion to small particles of higher nutritional value. 3. The maximum diameter of ingested particles increased significantly with body weight, whereas taxon (tribe) had no additional effect. Because big rollers accept larger particles than do tunnellers (which make dung stores for feeding and breeding in the soil immediately below the pat) of similar weight, the slope of the diameter-against-weight regression for rollers was significantly higher than that found earlier for tunnellers. 4. An explanation could be that a typical food ball made by a roller is con- siderably smaller than the amount of dung available to a feeding tunneller of the same size. If the roller were as choosy about particle size as the tunneller, it might not get enough food. This applies to large rollers in particular because their food balls contain a higher proportion of coarse fibres than those made by small species. 10aBall-rollers10aDung beetles10afood exploitation10aparticle feeding10arollers10aScarabaeidae10aScarabaeinae10atelecoprids1 aHolter, P.1 aScholtz, Clarke, H.  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/are-ball-rolling-scarabaeini-gymnopleurini-sisyphini-and-tunnelling-scarabaeine-dung-beetles-equally