Skip Navigation



Journal of Heredity Advance Access published online on June 30, 2005
Journal of Heredity, doi:10.1093/jhered/esi075
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
96/5/572    most recent
esi075v1
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 Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aldrich, B. T.
Right arrow Articles by Krafsur, E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aldrich, B. T.
Right arrow Articles by Krafsur, E. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The American Genetic Association. 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org.
Received January 1, 2005
Accepted March 3, 2005

Brief Communication

Population Genetics of Wood-Feeding Cockroaches in the Genus Cryptocercus

B. T. Aldrich 1, S. Kambhampati 1*, and E. S. Krafsur 2

1 From the Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
2 From the Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
S. Kambhampati, E-mail: srini{at}ksu.edu


  Abstract

Members of the genus Cryptocercus are xylophagous, wingless, subsocial cockroaches that inhabit decaying logs in temperate forests. Given their winglessness, subsocial living, and the patchy distribution of food resources (decomposing logs), it is likely that Cryptocercus populations are substructured. Allozyme variation at eight polymorphic loci was assayed for 10 subpopulations of Cryptocercus darwini and 13 subpopulations of Cryptocercus wrighti, both of which are distributed in the Appalachian Mountains. The mean FIS was 0.13 and FST was about 0.25 for both C. darwini and C. wrighti. The relatedness among individuals of a subpopulation of both species was not significantly different from that expected among full sibs. In terms of how genetic variation is partitioned, C. darwini and C. wrighti differed from each other substantially. Most of the genetic variation occurred among subpopulations of C. wrighti in the same region and among subpopulations of C. darwini in different regions. We discuss the factors that may have contributed to the observed similarities and differences in the breeding structure of the two species.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.