• This record comes from PubMed

Revisited larval morphology of Thanatophilus rugosus (Coleoptera: Silphidae)

. 2018 May ; 132 (3) : 939-954. [epub] 20171221

Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic

Document type Journal Article

Grant support
VI20152018027 Ministerstvo Vnitra České Republiky (CZ)

Links

PubMed 29270839
DOI 10.1007/s00414-017-1764-6
PII: 10.1007/s00414-017-1764-6
Knihovny.cz E-resources

Determination of insect species and their instars, occurring on human remains, is important information that allows us to use insects for estimation of postmortem interval and detect possible manipulation with the body. However, larvae of many common species can be identified only by molecular methods, which is not always possible. The instar determination is even more challenging, and qualitative characters that would allow a more precise identification are mostly unknown. Thanatophilus rugosus (Linnaeus, 1758) is a common necrophagous beetle in the whole Palaearctic region from Europe to Japan. The species is often encountered on corpses of large vertebrates including humans, and its potential to become a useful bioindicator for forensic entomology is therefore high. Adults can be easily distinguished from other species; however, larvae were never thoroughly described to allow species and instar identification. The aim of this study was to provide reliable morphological characters that would allow species and instar identification of T. rugosus larvae. The material for morphological study was obtained from rearing under controlled conditions (20 °C and 12:12 h of light/dark period), and specimens that were not studied morphologically were allowed to complete their development. Quantitative and qualitative morphological characters for instar and species identification are described and illustrated. Additionally, we report observations of biology and developmental length for all stages of the species.

See more in PubMed

Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000 Jun;15(3):390-402 PubMed

PeerJ. 2016 Apr 21;4:e1944 PubMed

J Med Entomol. 2010 Sep;47(5):723-6 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2001 Aug 15;120(1-2):110-5 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2008 Sep;122(5):401-8 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2001 Sep;46(5):1098-102 PubMed

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2016 Jun;12(2):193-7 PubMed

Zootaxa. 2015 May 01;3955(1):45-64 PubMed

PeerJ. 2016 Jun 22;4:e2160 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2013 Sep 10;231(1-3):234-9 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2014 Aug;241:20-6 PubMed

Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 May;15(3):613-8 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2014 Jan;128(1):207-20 PubMed

Zootaxa. 2017 Mar 28;4247(4):429-444 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Feb 25;195(1-3):42-51 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2009 Jul;123(4):285-92 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2016 Jan;130(1):273-80 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2009 Mar 10;185(1-3):107-9 PubMed

Naturwissenschaften. 2004 Feb;91(2):51-65 PubMed

J Insect Sci. 2011;11:73 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2011 Oct 10;212(1-3):180-8 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2001 May;46(3):600-3 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2009 Mar;123(2):103-8 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...