ArticlePloS one2019
Ultrastructure of the proboscis sensilla of ten species of butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera).
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Right Tool for the Job: A Review of Insect Mouthparts as a Tool Kit for Biomimetic Studies.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Diverse material properties and morphology of moth proboscises relates to the feeding habits of some macromoth and other lepidopteran lineages.Interface focus · 2024Article
- Gustation in insects: taste qualities and types of evidence used to show taste function of specific body parts.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2023Article
- Evolutionary functional morphology of the proboscis and feeding apparatus of hawk moths (Sphingidae: Lepidoptera).Journal of morphology · 2022Article
- Article
- Observations on the Ultrastructure of Antennal Sensilla of Adult Glenea cantor (Cerambycidae: Lamiinae).Journal of insect science (Online) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ultrastructure of the sensilla on the proboscis of ten species of butterflies, Iphiclides podalirius, Parara guttata, Colias fieldii, Celastrina oreas, Sasakia charonda, Tirumala limniace, Acraea issoria, Stichophthalma neumogeni, Callerebia suroia, and Libythea celtis, among five families were investigated using scanning electron microscopy. They were compared to reveal the morphological differences in the proboscis sensilla among these butterflies. Four distinct types of sensilla were found on the proboscis among these species. The types of proboscis sensilla of I. podalirius and T. limniace were sensilla chaetica, sensilla coeloconica, and sensilla basiconica. The types in the other eight species were sensilla chaetica, sensilla styloconica, and sensilla basiconica. The number of sensilla styloconica on the proboscis of non-flower-visiting species was greater than that of flower-visiting species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.