Table 1.
Original collection site and pheromone type of the members of the Lu. longipalpis species complex held at Lancaster University used in the study.
Fig 1.
SEM of the interior cuticular surface of abdominal segments II-VI of Lu. longipalpis from Campo Grande showing the areas corresponding to pale patches normally seen from the exterior.
Tergites II to VI are indicated by Roman numerals. The areas of the internal surface corresponding to the pale spots seen from the exterior area indicated by the white oval shapes. The insert is a close-up magnification of the cuticular structures associated with the secretory apparatus and seen within the oval-shaped (pale patch) areas.
Fig 2.
Drawing of the components of the secretory apparatus of Lu. longipalpis from Campo Grande, Brazil.
A) manifold connected to the inner surface of the abdominal cuticle; B) components of the manifold, ring + base; C) secretory reservoir + cuticular duct; D) secretory apparatus; reservoir + cuticular duct + manifold.
Fig 3.
SEM images of the inner cuticle surface of the abdominal tergites of 3 members of the Lu. longipalpis s.l. species complex showing the cuticular elements; manifold, reservoir and cuticular duct, of the secretory apparatus.
Secretory apparatus observed by SEM after KOH digestion of Lu. longipalpis abdominal tergites from; A) Campo Grande, B) Sobral and C) Jacobina. The Manifold (M), Reservoir (R) and cuticular duct (cd) are indicated in the enlarged images on the right of the figure. Images on the left side (x3,500 magnification) were taken on a Jeol JSM-5600. Images on the right (x12,000 magnification) were taken on a Jeol JSM-7800F.
Fig 4.
Dimensions of the components of the secretory apparatus observed in 3 members of the Lu. longipalpis s.l. species complex.
Mean size of the measured structures (μm); manifold width (A), manifold length (B), reservoir and cuticular duct length (C) and secretory apparatus length (D) for each of the three members of the Lutzomyia longipalpis species complex; Campo Grande (CG), Jacobina (JAC) and Sobral (SOB). Error bars are ± standard error of the mean. Tukey’s test was used to compare sizes of structures between each member of the complex, measurements with the same letter (a, b or c) were not significantly different (P<0.05) from each other.
Fig 5.
Drawing illustrating the morphological differences observed in the size and shape of the manifold in the three members of the Lu. longipalpis s.l. species complex.
Campo Grande (A), Sobral (B) and Jacobina (C).
Fig 6.
SEM of the interior surface M. migonei showing the observable cuticular elements of the secretory apparatus.
A) Distribution of the secretory structures on the inner surface of the abdominal cuticle on tergite III, B) secretory apparatus set within a deep pocket embedded in the abdominal cuticle on tergite IV, C) close-up of a secretory unit showing the manifold embedded within the abdominal cuticle observed at the bottom of the pocket on tergite III. D1) Drawing of the M. migonei secretory apparatus from above (top left) showing the reservoir positioned over the hole in the abdominal cuticle and then D2) a side-on view showing the reservoir connected via cuticular to the top of the manifold sitting within the hole in the cuticle.