spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MITCHELL, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by WHITEHEAD, A. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by MITCHELL, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by WHITEHEAD, A. T.
Journal of Experimental Biology 150,19-36 (1990)
Published by Company of Biologists 1990


Variance: A Possible Coding Mechanism for Gustatory Sensilla on the Labellum of the Fleshfly Sarcophaga Bullata

B. K. MITCHELL 1, J. J.B. SMITH 2, P. J. ALBERT 3, and A. T. WHITEHEAD 4

1 Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
2 Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
3 Department of Biology, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8
4 Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA

In behavioural tests, 2-day-old female Sarcophaga bullata consumed more liver or fish powder in solution than 100 mmol l-1 sucrose. We investigated the chemosensory basis of this discrimination by recording electrophysiological responses of 177 medium-length labellar taste sensilla from 10 different flies to two applications of each of these three solutions. Responses from three chemosensory cells were evident in most records. Cell 1 produced a mean response of 37.6 impulses s-1, and similar responses to all three stimuli. It was the most active of the three cells. Cell 2 produced a significantly greater response to fish than to liver or sucrose in one of the two stimulus applications. Cell 3, the least active, responded with twice the firing rate to fish than to liver or sucrose. However, the mean firing rates did not provide information that could account for the observed behavioural discrimination. The only difference in the electrophysiological responses to the three stimuli which correlated with the behavioural discrimination was the variance of the response of cell 1, which was much higher to sucrose than to either fish or liver. We propose that variance itself could provide the necessary information to allow the fly's nervous system to distinguish between a ‘simple’ stimulus such as sucrose and a ‘complex’ stimulus such as fish or liver.

Key words: Sarcophaga, proboscis, gustatory chemosensilla, variance, electrophysiology, computer analysis

Accepted on December 6, 1989







© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1990