MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Hoikusha, Osaka. 136 pp. 63 pl. Yutaka, I. (2015): A Checklist of Butterflies in Indo-China. Chiefly from
Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pap/10270001. html. Accessed on January 17, 2015.
17. GEOGRAPHICAL CONVERGENCE PATTERNS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF DROSOPHILA SPECIES IN NAGALAND, A SUB-HIMALAYAN HILLY STATE OF NORTH-EAST INDIA Bovito Achumi1,3, Shridhar N. Hegde2, Pardeshi Lal1,4, Zevelou1,5 and Sarat Chandra Yenisetti1,6,* Drosophila Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Nagaland University (Central), Lumami 798 627, Nagaland, India. Department of Studies in Zoology, Manasagangotri, University of Mysore, Mysore 570 006, Karnataka, India. Email:
[email protected] 3 Email:
[email protected] 4 Email:
[email protected] 5 Email:
[email protected] 6 Email:
[email protected] *Corresponding author doi: 1 2
Introduction The fruit fly Drosophila is one of the most intensively studied organisms in biology that serves as a model system for investigations of many developmental and cellular processes, disease, adaptation, diversity, and evolution, whose underlying fundamental principles are comparable to higher eukaryotes, including man (Devineni and Ulrike 2013). Significant progress has been made in the field of taxonomy and systematics of the family Drosophilidae (Order: Diptera) in India. However, a vast area of great ecological interest is poorly explored. Particularly, very little is known regarding Drosophila fauna of the north-eastern region of the Indian subcontinent. This region, with its diverse climatic conditions, variable altitudes, deep valleys, luxuriant flora, streams and moist habitats, is one of the richest repositories of biodiversity in the world (Chatterjee et al. 2006). It provides an ideal location for colonization of several Drosophila species (Achumi et al. 2011, 2013; Dwivedi 1979; Dwivedi et al. 1979; Gupta and Singh 1979; Singh 1987; Singh and Gupta 1977; Yenisetti et al. 2002). Some Drosophila species have been reported from the Northeast. Dwivedi (1979) reported two new species of genus Drosophila (Drosophila guptai and D. ramamensis) from Darjeeling, West Bengal. Gupta and Singh (1979) reported 7 species including 2 new species Drosophila novaspinofera and D. penispina from Shillong, Meghalaya. Gupta and Singh (1981b) reported two new species D. paralongifera and D. neomakinoi from Rimbick, West Bengal. Kumar and Gupta (1983) reported 18 species from Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. Singh (1987) reported 11 species of Drosophila from Dimapur, Medziphema, and Kohima of Nagaland. Yenisetti et al. (2002) reported 8 species of Drosophila from Mokokchung, Nagaland. Achumi et al.
28
(2011) reported one new species Drosophila hegdii from Lumami, Nagaland. Achumi et al. (2013) also reported 19 species from Mount Japfu of Nagaland. No systematic comprehensive study has been done on the Drosophila diversity of Nagaland. Singh (1987) conducted a pioneering preliminary survey on Drosophilids of Dimapur, Medziphema, and Kohima of Nagaland. Yenisetti et al. (2002) published a preliminary report on Drosophilids of Mokokchung. Achumi et al. (2011) recently described Drosophila hegdii from Lumami in Zunheboto district. As most parts of Nagaland are unexplored areas, in order to understand distribution patterns of Drosophila species, collections were made from wild localities of all 11 districts of Nagaland. Material and methods Collections were made from wild localities of 11 district headquarters of Nagaland state post-monsoon in 2012 (post-monsoon period October to December is ideal for proliferative growth of Drosophilids in the wild, due to the availability of food and rotting substrates). Drosophila collections were made following two methods (Fig. 1): 1) Bottle trapping method: For this method, milk bottles of 200 ml capacity containing a mashed ripe banana sprayed with yeast were tied to twigs underneath small bushes at 0.9 m to 1.5 m above the ground. Ten traps were kept in an area of 1 km radius. After 2 days, the mouth of the bottle was plugged with cotton and removed from the bushes. The flies attracted to the bait were thus trapped and collected in the bottles soon after sunrise or just before sunset. The collected Drosophila were later transferred to fresh bottles containing wheat cream agar medium, prepared as follows:
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 1: Drosophila collection from wild localities. (a) Drosophila collection net (b) Spreading of bait for net sweeping method (c) Arrangement for bottle trapping method (d) Ice cream cup covered over the bottle during rainy season (e) Culturing Drosophila collected from the wild in bottles containing soji, jaggery and agar medium in the laboratory
100 gm sugar (jaggery) was added to 500 ml water, boiling it with gentle stirring till the jaggery dissolved. Then, 500 ml water, 100 gm semolina (soji), and 8 gm agar-agar were added to the boiling sugar-water mixture. When the medium turned sticky, 7.5 ml propionic acid (antifungal agent) was added while continuously stirring the medium, which became a thick fluid. The medium was then distributed to sterilized glass bottles (200 ml milk bottles) or vials of 1” x 3” size. The mouth of the bottles/vials was kept closed with cotton. Next day, moisture was removed from the bottles/vials and two drops of yeast solution were added to the medium. This medium was used after 24 hours. 2) Net sweeping method: For this method, a handmade Drosophila net containing a fine cloth cone tied to the rim of the net was used. Sweeping was done on fermenting fruit (crushed bananas were spread in shady areas of bushes in the wild, and flies were collected after 2 days) that were spread out in four shady regions in an area of 1 km radius. After each J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
sweep (three sweeps were performed), flies were collected at the bottom of the cone of the net and were transferred to the bottles containing freshly prepared wheat cream agar medium. The flies were then brought to the laboratory, isolated, and the sex identified. The males were directly used for identification of species on the basis of morphological characters such as presence or absence of the sex comb; if present, the number of sex comb rows and teeth in each row were recorded and the characteristics of the genital plate were studied. Individual females were kept in separate food vials and allowed to produce isofemale lines. The males of the F1 progeny of these gravid females were used for species identification. Genital plate of male Drosophila was dissected by keeping the fly on a glass slide under a dissecting microscope with one or two drops of 0.7% NaCl (invertebrate physiological saline). The tip of the abdomen was immersed 29
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
in a solution of 4% KOH for 15–20 minutes to clear the soft tissue. The genital plate was mounted in glycerol on a cavity slide. The slides were observed under low (10x) and high (40x) magnification with a microscope. Similarly, the sex comb, which is present on the foreleg of the male fly, was dissected out by keeping the fly on a glass slide with one or two drops of 0.7% NaCl. The sex comb was mounted in glycerol on a clean glass slide. After placing the cover glass, slides were observed under low (10x) and high (40x) magnification under a microscope. The collected Drosophila flies were taxonomically identified by employing the parameters suggested by Bock (1971), Patterson and Stone (1952), Sturtevant (1921), and Throckmorton (1962). The most important specific characters are the morphological features, like colour and size of imago, number and nature of aristal branches, nature and arrangement of genital arch, nature and number of acrostichal hairs, wing length and indices, the internal characters of the adults, shape and number of egg filaments, pupal characters, pupal spiracles, and behaviour. Diagnostic features of the species collected: 1. Abdomen of male entirely pale brown; sex comb on first tarsomere in two rows (six basal, eight distal teeth) single setae present on second tarsomere........D. bipectinata (Duda, 1923). 2. Yellowish overall, with longitudinally striped pleurae; preapical setae absent on second and third tibiae...................................... .......................................................D. buskii (Coquillet, 1901). 3. Sex comb with only two strong setae........................................ ..................................D. eugracilis (Bock and Wheeler, 1972). 4. Secondary clasper partially connected, three large setae present on secondary clasper, and these setae are larger dorsally .................................................D. hegdii (Achumi et al. 2011). 5. Secondary clasper nearly oval in shape; larger medial seta on secondary clasper inserted dorsally........................................... ..................................D. jambulina (Parshad and Paika, 1964). 6. Abdominal tergites yellow to rufous, with dark posterior bands in both sexes; spare rows of large setae..................................... ........................................................ D. kikkawai (Burla, 1954). 7. Tips of longitudinal veins black, male foreleg 1st tarsomere with a dense cluster of fine hair................................................. ..............................................D. immigrans (Sturtevent, 1921). 8. Sex comb with single row on basitarsus (three teeth) and two rows on second tarsomere (one basal and two distal teeth)....... ............................D. malerkotliana (Prashad and Paika, 1964). 9. Sex comb present on the fore tarsus of male, primary clasper only present.......................... D. melanogaster (Meigen, 1830). 10. Abdominal pattern reduced in both sexes. Male frons strongly whitish, pruinose when viewed from certain angles. First basitarsus of male normal.................. D. nasuta (Lamb, 1914).
30
11. Two prominent setae present on anal plate; secondary clasper oval, with single large black seta............................................... ..................................... D. parvula (Bock and Wheeler, 1971). 12. Inner margin of femur with a row of stout, peg-like setae, this row is poorly developed............................................................. ................. D. paraimmigrans (Gai and Krishnamurthy, 1986). 13. Metatarsus of fore leg in male with sex comb in two rows, proximal row with 6 to 7 teeth and distal row with 3 teeth. Genital arch carries 25 to 30 bristles. Primary clasper independent of genital arch, roughly triangular, bent interiorly and accommodates a primary row of 6 to 7 teeth; secondary row with 3 to 4 teeth present at posterior outer angle of primary clasper........................................................................................ ...................D. rajasekari (Reddy and Krishanamurthy, 1968). 14. Apical band on tergites not widened to form a triangle in the lateral area; scutum grey, with many dark brown spots .................................................... D. repleta (Wollaston, 1858). 15. Primary surstylus with a ventrolateral comb of long, rounded, black setae, only a few teeth dorsolaterally............................... .............................................. D. takahashii (Sturtevent, 1927). 16. Three subequal katepisternal setae present; prescutellar acrostichal setulae present................ D. nigra (Meijere, 1908).
Results The list of Drosophila species collected in 11 districts of Nagaland and their taxonomic position is shown in Table 1. Total of 16 species were collected, belonging to four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from 11 districts yielded a total of 2,326 individuals. Out of these, 1,463 individuals (62.89%) belonged to 10 species of subgenus Sophophora; 569 individuals (24.46%) belonged to 4 species of subgenus Drosophila; 121 individuals (5.20%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha; the remaining 173 individuals (7.43%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila. Drosophila fauna at Dimapur Analysis of Drosophila collection of 279 flies from this locality revealed the occurrence of 14 species representing four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila, of the genus Drosophila. Out of these, 187 individuals (67.02%) belonged to 8 species of subgenus Sophophora, namely D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii. 59 individuals (21.14%) belonged to 4 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, D. parvula, and D. paraimmigrans [AU: parvula listed under subgenus Sophophora; did you mean to mention species repleta under Drosophila? J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014 23 28 22 15 12 – 28 –
3. D. jambulina
4. D. kikkawai
5. D. malerkotliana
6. D. parvula
7. D. melanogaster
8.D. rajasekari
9. D. takahashii
10. ‘D. hegdii’
12 7 12 59
2. D. nasuta
3. D. paraimmigrans
4. D. repleta
Total
22
Total
11 11
279
1. D. nigra
Total
Grand total
Subgenus Scaptodrosophila
22
1. D. buskii
Subgenus Dorsilopha
28
1. D. immigrans
Subgenus Drosophila
187
34
2. D. eugracilis
Total
25
Dimapur
1.D. bipectinata
Subgenus: Sophophora
Genus: Drosophila
Species
160
12
12
3
3
36
8
–
10
18
109
–
19
–
15
12
18
19
–
–
26
Kiphire
333
22
22
7
7
95
14
21
22
38
209
–
43
3
09
25
30
17
18
24
40
Kohima
172
16
16
–
–
56
11
17
–
28
100
–
–
17
06
–
42
–
–
35
–
Longleng
187
10
10
19
19
23
–
–
9
14
135
–
18
–
11
29
17
–
27
19
14
Mokokchung
–
227
23
23
11
11
51
10
11
15
15
142
–
14
–
10
29
16
30
25
18
Mon
223
20
20
24
24
75
13
38
24
–
104
–
–
–
–
18
29
–
10
20
27
Peren
183
–
–
22
22
49
–
23
8
18
112
–
9
–
20
–
–
31
12
21
19
Phek
187
22
22
–
–
44
6
24
–
14
121
–
21
3
–
–
26
23
7
11
30
179
23
23
13
13
25
–
11
–
14
118
–
23
–
7
10
33
–
21
13
11
Tuensang Wokha
Table 1: Occurrence and distribution pattern of Drosophila species in 11 districts of Nagaland state, India
196
14
14
–
–
56
15
–
22
19
126
04
24
–
12
12
–
27
19
–
28
Zunheboto
2326
173
173
121
121
569
89
152
122
206
1463
04
199
23
102
150
233
175
162
195
220
Total
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
31
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Please confirm]). 22 individuals (7.88%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining 11 individuals (3.94%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna of Kiphire Total of 11 species were collected comprising of four subgenera viz. Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Kiphire district has yielded a total of 160 individuals. Out of these 109 individuals (68.12%) belonged to 6 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii). 36 individuals (22.5%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, and D. repleta). 3 individuals (1.87%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining 12 individuals (7.5%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna at Kohima Samples analyzed revealed a total of 15 species representing four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Kohima yielded a total of 333 individuals. Out of these, 209 individuals (62.76%) belonged to 9 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, D. rajasekari, and D. takahashii). 95 individuals (28.52%) belonged to 4 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 7 individuals (2.10%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii).The remaining 22 individuals (6.60%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna of Longleng A total of 8 species were collected, belonging to three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Longleng district yielded a total of 172 individuals. Out of these, 100 individuals (58.13%) belonged to 4 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. eugracilis, D. malerkotliana, D. melanogaster, and D. rajasekari). 56 individuals (32.55%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 16 individuals (9.30%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).
32
Drosophila fauna of Mokokchung Total of 11 species were collected belonging to four subgenera namely, Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Mokokchung district has yielded a total of 187 individuals. Out of these, 135 individuals (72.19%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii). 23 individuals (12.29%) belonged to 2 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans and D. nasuta). 19 individuals belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). 10 individuals (5.34%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna at Mon A survey of Drosophila fauna here yielded a total of 227 flies comprising 13 species representing four subgenera namely, Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Out of these, 142 individuals (62.55%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii). 51 individuals (22.46%) belonged to 4 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, D. paraimmigrans, and D. parvula). 11 individuals (4.84%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining 23 individuals (10.13%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna of Peren Analysis of the sample revealed the presence of 10 species comprising four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Peren district yielded a total of 223 individuals. Out of these, 104 individuals (46.63%) belonged to 5 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. malerkotliana, and D. parvula). 75 individuals (33.63%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. nasuta, D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 24 individuals (10.76%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining 20 individuals (8.96%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna of Phek A total of 10 species were collected, comprising three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, and Dorsilopha. Pooled data collected from Phek yielded a total of 183 individuals. Out of these, 112
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
individuals (61.20%) belonged to 6 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii). 49 individuals (26.77%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, and D. paraimmigrans). 22 individuals (12.02%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). Drosophila fauna of Tuensang A total of 11 species were collected, belonging to three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Tuensang district yielded a total of 187 individuals. Out of these, 121 individuals (32.35%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. rajasekari, and D. takahashii). 44 individuals (11.76%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 22 individuals (5.88%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna of Wokha Total of 11 species were collected, comprising four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Wokha district yielded a total of 179 individuals. Out of these, 118 individuals (65.92%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. malerkoltiana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii). 25 individuals (13.96%) belonged to 2 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans and D. paraimmigrans). 13 individuals (7.26%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). 23 individuals (12.84%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra). Drosophila fauna of Zunheboto A total of 11 species were collected, belonging to three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Zunheboto district yielded a total of 196 individuals. Out of these, 126 individuals (64.28%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. hegdii, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii). 56 individuals (28.57%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, and D. repleta). 14 individuals (7.14%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
Discussion The abundance and taxonomy of Drosophila species collected in 11 district headquarters of Nagaland (including a recently described species Drosophila hegdii) was studied. Pooled data collected from 11 districts yielded a total of 2,326 individuals of subgenera Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. The subgenus Sophophora was represented by 10 species; subgenus Drosophila was represented by 4 species; subgenera Dorsilopha and Scaptodrosophila were represented by one species each. The study indicates that the Drosophila fauna of Nagaland is diverse. The present study reveals the presence of D. malerkotliana in abundance. D. malerkotliana is considered to be sub-cosmopolitan and widespread in Southeast Asia, Borneo, West Malaysia, Australia, and several island groups in the Oriental region (Markow and O’Grady 2006). This species was reported in all previous collections made by multiple workers from north-eastern India (Achumi et al. 2013; Dwivedi and Gupta 1979; Gupta and Singh 1979, 1981a; Singh 1987; Yenisetti et al. 2002). This suggests that Nagaland’s Drosophila diversity represents the confluence of South Asia and East Asia. Dominance of D. malerkotliana can be due to its ability to exploit diverse habitats. D. bipectinata was found to be the second most dominant species in Nagaland. Literature review reveals that D. bipectinata is widespread in Kuala Lumpur, west Malaysia. This species is also widely distributed in Borneo, Philippines, Thailand, West Malaysia, Nepal, Japan, Taiwan, and India (Markow and O’Grady 2006). In the present collection, the third most abundant species was D. immigrans, a cosmopolitan species found from Taiwan to Southeast Asia, Indonesia, India (Markow and O’Grady 2006). From their studies on Drosophila diversity of the Western Ghats, Ranganath and Krishnamurthy (1972) observed that D. immigrans is abundant at higher altitudes. The presence of D. immigrans in sub-Himalayan hilly regions supports this observation. The present collection reports Drosophila takahashii, D. parvula, D. nasuta, D. repleta, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. rajasekari, D. nigra, and D. paraimmigrans in Nagaland. D. takahashii is most widespread being found from India to Japan and into Micronesia; D. parvula is found from Southeast Asia, west Malaysia and Thailand; D. nasuta is thought to be from eastern Africa although this species has become widespread from South east Asia into Micronesia; D. repleta species is cosmopolitan in distribution; D. eugracilis is widespread in Indian subcontinent, found throughout Southeast Asia and into Australia; D. jambulina
33
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
is widespread from India to southern China to Southeast Asia; D. kikkawai is circumtropical in distribution; D. rajasekari is found in India, Combodia, and Thailand; D. nigra is found in Australia, New Guinea, Borneo, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and India; and D. paraimmigrans is found in India, Taiwan to Southeast Asia (Markow and O’Grady 2006). Carson (1965) based on the pattern of distribution of various members of Drosophila, has recognized three distinct groups, namely 1) Virtually cosmopolitan species, 2) Species that are widespread but not cosmopolitan, and 3) Species having restricted distribution (endemic species). He included five species, namely, D. melanogaster, D. simulans, D. ananassae, D. buskii, and D. repleta as truly cosmopolitan. In the present study, D. melanogaster, D. repleta, and D. buskii were present. Though Drosophila simulans is cosmopolitan (Markow and O’Grady 2006), it was not found in any of the 11 sites in Nagaland. Contrarily, David et al. (2007) observed that D. simulans was absent from most of West Africa, very rare in the Cote d’ Ivoire, and was absent in most parts of East Asia (David et al. 2007). Collections in Nagaland were made from wild localities. This can be the reason behind the absence of D. ananassae and D. simulans. The striking observation in this study was that in all 11 study locations Drosophila species belonging to two subgenera, namely Sophophora and Drosophila, dominated
in relative proportions of different species and their densities. This finding agrees with the observation of Bock and Wheeler (1972), who stated that in Drosophila collections made in any part of Southeast Asia or New Guinea, only two species groups comprise all or practically of all the catch, that is the melanogaster group of subgenus Sophophora and immigrans group of subgenus Drosophila. They further hypothesized that the melanogaster and immigrans species group might have originated in Southeast Asia and then colonized other regions. As Nagaland is a sub-Himalayan hilly state, which is a part of South Asia, the prevalence of subgenus Sophophora and immigrans species groups in the present collection reaffirms the observation made by Bock and Wheeler (1972). The present study reveals that Drosophila fauna of Nagaland exhibits geographical convergence not only with South Asia but also with East Asia, which can be explained by the geographical location of this north-eastern state of India. Acknowledgements This work is supported by a major research project awarded to Sarat C. Yenisetti (No. 34-445/2008 (SR)) from University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi. We thank the reviewers for their suggestions that were helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript.
References Achumi B., P. Lal & S.C. Yenisetti (2011): Drosophila hegdii, a new species of Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from Lumami (Nagaland: India). Entomon 36(1–4): 1–6. Achumi B., S.N. Hegde, P. Lal & S.C. Yenisetti (2013): Altitudinal and seasonal variation in Drosophila species on mount Japfu of Nagaland, a sub-Himalayan hilly state of India. Journal of Insect Science 13: 117. Bock, I.R. (1971): Taxonomy of the Drosophila bipectinata complex. Studies in genetics VI. University of Texas publication 7213: 1–102. Bock, I.R. & M.R. Wheeler (1972): The Drosophila melanogaster species group. University of Texas publication 7213: 1–102. Carson, H.L. (1965): Chromosomal polymorphism in geographically widespread species of Drosophila. Pp. 503–531. In: Baker, H.G. & G.L. Stebbins (Eds): The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press, New York. Chatterjee, S., A. Saikia, P. Dutta, D. Ghosh, G. Pangging & K.G. Anil (2006): Biodiversity significance of North East India. WWF-India, New Delhi. Pp. 1–71. David, J.R., F. Lemeunier, L. Tsacas & A. Yassin (2007): The historical discovery of the nine species in the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup. Genetics 177: 1969–1973. Devineni, A.V. & H. Ulrike (2013): The evolution of Drosophila melanogaster as a model of Alcohol Research. Annual Review of Neuroscience 36: 121–138. Dwivedi, Y.N. (1979): Description of two new species of subgenus Drosophila (Drosophilidiae: Diptera) from Darjeeling, India. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences 88 (ser. B, 4):
34
299–304. Dwivedi, Y.N., B.K. Singh & J.P. Gupta (1979): Further addition to the Indian fauna of Drosophilidae. Oriental Insects 13(1–2): 61–74. Gupta, J.P. & B.K. Singh (1979): Two new species of Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from Shillong, Meghalaya. Entomon 4(2): 167–172. Gupta, J.P. & B.K. Singh (1981a): Two new and two unrecorded Indian species of Drosophila (Diptera) from Kurseong, Darjeeling. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine (Oxford) 113: 71–78. Gupta, J.P. & O.P. Singh (1981b): Two new and two known species of Drosophila from Rimbick, West Bengal, India. Entomon 6(1): 33–39. Kumar, A. & J.P. Gupta (1983): Further record of Drosophila species from North-East India. Drosophila information Service 104: 61. Markow, T.A. & Patrick M.O’ Grady (2006): Drosophila a guide to species identification and use. Academic Press, UK. Patterson, J.T. & W.S. Stone (1952): Evolution in the genus Drosophila. Macmillan Company, New York. Ranganath, H.A. & N.B. Krishnamurthy (1972): Seasonal studies on Drosophila fauna of Biligirirangana Hills, Mysore. Drosophila Information Service 49: 83. Singh, B.K. & J.P. Gupta (1977): Two new and two unrecorded species of the genus Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from Shillong, Meghalaya. Proceedings of Zoological Society of Calcutta 30: 31–38. Singh, O.P. (1987): Drosophilidae in North Eastern India: A preliminary survey in Nagaland. Drosophila Information Service 66: 67. Sturtevant, A.H. (1921): The North American Species of Drosophila.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 301: 1–141. Throckmorton, L.H. (1962): The problem of phylogeny in the genus Drosophila. University of Texas publication 6205: 207–345.
Yenisetti, S.C., S.N. Hedge & M.S. Krishna (2002): A preliminary report on Drosophilids of Mokokchung (Nagaland State, India). Drosophila Information Service 85: 16–17.
18. PRESENT STATUS OF ALDROVANDA VESICULOSA L. IN INDIA Sauris Panda1 Department of Botany, Charuchandra College (University of Calcutta), 22, Lake Road, Kolkata 700 029, West Bengal, India. Email:
[email protected] doi: 1
Introduction Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. is an insectivorous aquatic perennial herb, and an interesting flowering plant, due to its carnivorous habit. Aldrovanda L. is a monotypic genus (Aston 1982) belonging to family Droseraceae. The species was reported to be widely, but sparsely, distributed in Europe, tropical Africa, eastern and north-eastern India, Bangladesh, Japan, Timor, and Australia (Aston 1982; Tutin et al. 1964). Its Indian distribution was mostly localized in central Bengal and Salt Lake i.e., Bidhan Nagar areas in Kolkata (Clarke 1878; Prain 1903) and Manipur (Singh et al. 2000). The species was earlier recorded as ‘vulnerable’ in the context of the Indian region (Giri and Nayar 1983). According to the latest IUCN Red List, the status of the species is ‘Endangered’ worldwide (cf. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 16 August 2015). The present status of the species in India has been assessed in this article with remarks on its conservation. Material and Methods The specimens of Aldrovanda vesiculosa housed at CAL (Central National Herbarium, Howrah, India) were studied, and literature thoroughly consulted. The field observations of the author regarding occurrence of the species is based on survey in wetlands / waterbodies of eastern and north-eastern India, spanning three decades (Panda et al. 2009). Aldrovanda can be distinguished from its closely related genus Drosera L., which also comprises carnivorous J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014
species, with the following key characteristics: 1. Leaves with sensitive hairs on trap-like lamina; lamina articulate; cauline leaves in whorls, vesicular; aquatic, planktonic, rootless herbs..........................Aldrovanda — Leaves bearing glandular hairs / tentacles; lamina not articulate; cauline leaves in basal rosette or alternate along the stem or absent; terrestrial, rooted herbs............................................................... Drosera Aldrovanda vesiculosa L., Sp. Pl. 1: 281. 1753; DC., Prodr. 1: 319. 1825; C.B. Clarke in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 2: 425. 1878; Deb in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 3: 327. 1961; Chauhan in Singh et al., Fl. Manipur 1: 373. 2000. Syn.: A. verticillata Roxb., Fl. Ind. 2: 112. 1832. Common names: English – Waterbug Trap, Waterwheel Plant; Bengali – Malacca Jhangi. Small aquatic herb, free-floating to submerged, rootless, succulent, perennial; insectivorous / carnivorous. Stem articulate with whorls of spatulate-orbicular leaves at nodes, irregularly branched. Leaves in crowded whorls of 5–9, 6–18 mm long, each leaf with a cuneate basal part and terminating in 4–7 bristles and an orbicular lobe, hinged along midrib, which can close rapidly to entrap and digest small insects. Flowers axillary, solitary, emergent, shortly stalked / peduncled, peduncles decurved in fruit; bracts absent. Calyx 5-partite, lobes ovate, 3–4 mm long, imbricate. Petals 5, greenish white or tinged pink, narrowly obovate, 4–5 mm long, hypogynous, connivent in a cap. Stamens 5, almost as long as sepals, hypogynous; filaments filiform-subulate; 35
