User:Hannah Davis/sandbox

Glossary of termite biology terms
The eusocial lifestyle and developmental plasticity of termites necessitate specialised vocabulary in addition to that which is used in other branches of entomology. Some words also take on a different meaning: outside termite biology, a larva is a pre-pupal immature form of a holometabolous insect, while an immature hemimetabolous insect is called a nymph. Although termites are hemimetabolous, "larva" is used for early undifferentiated instars, while "nymph" is reserved for immatures with wingbuds.

adultoid:test alate:test apterous neotenic:test brachypterous neotenic:test ergatoid:test false worker:test king:test larva:test neotenic:See neotenic reproductive neotenic reproductive:test nymph:test nymphoid:test primary reproductive:test pseudergate sensu lato:test pseudergate sensu stricto:test queen:test replacement reproductive:test supplementary reproductive:test true worker:test worker:test

Life cycle
Most termite life cycles can be classified as either linear or bifurcated (forked). Linear developmental pathways, exemplified by the Kalotermitidae, are characterised by a straight, but highly flexible, pathway from larva to pseudergate ("false worker") to soldier or reproductive. Bifurcated pathways, which are typical for the Termitidae, feature an irreversible split after one or more larval stages into a reproductive line or a sterile neutral line (true workers + soldiers).

As in other Rhinotermitidae, the R. flavipes developmental pathway has a bifurcation after the second larval instar. There is, however, a high level of plasticity, and workers are not permanently sterile. These latter characteristics are more common in species with a linear developmental pathway.

After hatching, there are two undifferentiated larval instars. The larva then moults into either a nymph (with wing buds) or a worker (no wing buds). This resembles a typical bifurcated developmental pathway. Older workers may moult into soldiers via a presoldier stage, or they may remain workers. Nymphs typically grow into either brachypterous neotenics or alates.

There is, however, tremendous flexibility. A worker may moult into an ergatoid, a worker-like reproductive. It may also become a brachypterous neotenic via a pseudonymph stage with small wing buds. A nymph may moult into a pseudergate, with reduced wing buds and worker-like behaviour. That pseudergate may then moult into an ergatoid.

Because of this developmental plasticity, all R. flavipes workers are considered pseudergates sensu stricto, in contrast to the "true workers" of the Termitidae, which are permanently sterile. However, the term "pseudergate sensu stricto" is also used to describe nymphs that have crossed over to the worker line.


 * bifurcated development, pseudergates sensu stricto (from Biology of Termites)
 * Some of this is covered in Lainé paper
 * two undifferentiated larval instars
 * Buchli believed that caste differentiation in Reticulitermes flavipes and R. lucifugus was due to extrinsic factors, notably amount of food consumed at the larval stage: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02230674?LI=true
 * also reports that R. flavipes/lucifugus (not sure which, need to read paper properly) workers in the 4th or 5th instar can moult into pseudonymphs, which have wing pads, and then moult again into brachypterous neotenics
 * claims that workers feed neotenics more than king/queen and allow the king/queen to starve; definitely need to look for confirmation of that (could it be an artefact of the artificial lab setup?), but it's interesting if true

Dispersal and mating

 * swarming
 * tandem formation
 * pheromones involved

Diet

 * wood! not sure if any species are preferred or how rotten they like it, need to look that up

Nest

 * R. flavipes are intermediate nesters (need definition of this)
 * nest is amorphous and very large, larvae transported into food rather than kept in specific nursery
 * maybe something about temperature/moisture requirements? Or at least about how R. flavipes controls climate inside nest

Hygiene

 * briefly, what is social immunity, relevance to colony (would expect fungi to do well, but they don't, etc.)
 * descriptions of different hygienic behaviours
 * grooming
 * cannibalism
 * burial
 * building with poop

Predators and Parasites

 * might just include this inside a larger control section
 * Antennopsis gallica, e.g. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19601101372 and https://books.google.de/books?id=zSHMz5OwevwC&pg=PA516&lpg=PA516&dq=Antennopsis+gallica&source=bl&ots=X4QB8h3BWw&sig=vsH40FsfQtMOcc26LkLgA7Xa3p4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR5bvPzKnUAhUB2SwKHbVIACEQ6AEIWDAI#v=onepage&q=Antennopsis%20gallica&f=false

Other projects

 * Make stubs (at least) for protozoologists who described flagellates (e.g. Makoto Koidzumi, who was apparently a parasitologist and professor, or Harold Kirby, a Canadian protozoologist who taught at the University of California)
 * References (for Kirby):
 * http://www.amnh.org/shelf-life/episode-11-green-grow-the-salamanders
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/3274068
 * Improve flagellate articles: top priority is Trichonympha, which needs a complete rewrite
 * Flagellate names with references to papers where they were first described (for use in future articles):
 * Dinenympha fimbriata Kirby, 1924
 * Dinenympha gracilis Leidy, 1877
 * Holomastigotes elongatum Grassi, 1892
 * Microjoenia fallax (Duboscq & Grassé, 1928)
 * Monocercomonas sp. Grassi, 1879
 * Pyrsonympha major Powell, 1928
 * Pyrsonympha vertens Leidy, 1877
 * Spironympha kofoidi Koidzumi, 1917
 * Spirotrichonympha flagellata (Grassi, 1892)
 * Trichomitus trypanoides (Duboscq & Grassé, 1924)
 * Trichonympha agilis Leidy, 1877

Named References
1. 2.