Skip to main content
Log in

Courtship Roles of Male and Female European Earwigs, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), and Sexual Use of Forceps

  • Published:
Journal of Insect Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Detailed observations of the courtship and mating of the European earwig Forficula auricularia revealed a complex of sexual behaviors for both males and females. A sequential analysis of the transition frequencies between male preceding-following behaviors showed that courtship is intricate and nonstereotyped. The significance of the male forceps was demonstrated by their use in early courtship with displays and later use as a tactile stimulus for the female. A study of males from which the forceps had been removed showed no mating by altered males. Male forcep length was bimodally distributed and positively allometric, while female forcep length was normally distributed. Males with longer forceps did not have a mating advantage. Receptive females were behaviorally active during courtship. The possible evolutionary development of the sexual dimorphism of the earwig is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Alcock, J. (1979). The evolution of intraspecific diversity in male reproductive strategies in some bees and wasps. In Blum, M. S., and Blum, N. A. (eds.), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D. (1959). The courtship and copulation of Pasimachus punctulatus Haldemann (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 52: 485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. B. (1904). Earwigs (Anisolabis maritima Bon.). Psyche 11: 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, R. K. (1966). Observations on the bionomics of Euborellia annulipes (Dermaptera: Labiduridae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 59: 441–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caussanel, C. (1970). Principles exigenes ecophysiologiques du forficule des sables, Labidura riparia (Derm. Labiduridae). Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 6: 589–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R. (1982). The Insects: Structure and Function, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crumb, S., Eide, P., and Bonn, A. (1941). The European earwig. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 766.

  • Daniel, W. W. (1990). Applied Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd ed., PWS-Kent, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deka, M., and Hazarika, L. K. (1996). Mating behavior of Dicladispa armigera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89: 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diakonov, D. (1925). Experimental and biometrical investigations on the dimorphic variability of Forficula. J. Genet. 15: 201–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, W. G. (1985). Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, W. G., and Gutierrez, E. E. (1991). Male dimorphisms in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45: 18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagen, R. M., and Young, D. M. (1978). Temporal patterns of behaviors: Durations, intervals, latencies, and sequences. In Colgan, P. W. (ed.), Quantitative Ethology, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, B. B. (1924). Some habits of earwigs. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 17: 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil,M. (1972). Male dimorphism as a consequence of sexual selection. Am.Nat. 106: 574–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, E. (1970). Dermaptera (earwigs). In Waterhouse, D. (ed.), The Insects of Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goe, M. (1925). Eight months' study of earwigs (Dermaptera). Entomol. News 36: 234–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. (1982). Sexual selection in a brentid weevil. Evolution 36: 251–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. E., Askew, R. R., and Sanger, C. (1969). The detection of parasitized hosts by males of Nasonia vitripennis (Walker) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) and some possible implications. Proc. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London 44A: 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, W. (1928). The variability of abdominal appendages in Forficula auricularia L. with consideration of their normal and abnormal development, and including an appendix on sexual biology. Z. Morph. Oek. Tiere 12: 299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. J., and Wellington, W. G. (1975). Life history and population characteristics of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver, British Columbia. Can. Entomol. 107: 819–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. J., and Wilson, P. (1993). The evolution of sexually dimorphic earwig forceps: Social interactions among adults of the toothed earwig, Vostox apicedentatus. Behav. Ecol. 4: 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, W. P. (1923). Notes on the function of the forceps of earwigs. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 33: 303–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhout, H. F., and Wheeler, D. E. (1996). Growth models of complex allometries in holometabolous insects. Am. Nat. 148: 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie, M. (1988). Intraspecific variation in structures that display competitive ability: Large animals invest relatively more. Anim. Behav. 36: 1174–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie, M. (1992). Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Anim. Behav. 43: 173–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, A. (1978). Editor's note. J. Lep. Soc. 32: 305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, R. (1965). The functional morphology of the reproductive organs of the common earwigs (Forficula auricularia) and other Dermaptera with reference to the natural classification of the order. J. Zool. 146: 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radesater, T., and Halldorsdottir, H. (1993). Two types of the common earwig: male-male competition and mating success. Ethology 95: 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, S., and Adler, P. (1991). Courtship and mating behavior of Eucelatoria bryani (Diptera: Tachinidae), a larval parasitoid of Heliothis species (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84: 111–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, L.W., and Tomkins, J. L. (1996). Sexual selection and the allometry of earwig forceps. Evol. Ecol. 10: 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. (1981). Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., and Alcock, J. (1983). The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins, J. L., and Simmons, L. W. (1998). Female choice and manipulations of forceps size and symmetry in the earwig, Forficula auricularia. L. Anim. Behav. 56: 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerdt, P. (1953). The variability of the forceps in the male common earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermapt.). Entomol. Ber. Amst. 14: 383–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., Jones, T. H., and Fell, R.D. (1993). Pheromonal basis of aggregation of European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 19: 2029–2038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walpole, R. E., and Myers, R. (1989). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar, J. (1984). Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walker, K.A., Fell, R.D. Courtship Roles of Male and Female European Earwigs, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), and Sexual Use of Forceps. Journal of Insect Behavior 14, 1–17 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007843227591

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007843227591

Navigation