{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021739130434782608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010869565217391304, 'mean_word_length': 5.793357933579336, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of chemoreception in sex recognition by male crickets: Acheta domesticus and Teleogryllus oceanicus

ABSTRACT. Contact chemoreception is important in female recognition by Teleogryllus oceanicus (Le Guillou) males. Antennal contact of female conspecifics, body regions, detached antennae and conditioned substrate elicited mostly courtship responses including courtship songs. Aggressive acts were produced only in response to male conspecifics. Male body regions, detached antennae and conditioned substrate elicited very few courtship or aggressive acts and no songs. This suggests that one or several communication modes, in addition to chemical communication, are necessary to elicit aggressive responses. Acheta domesticus (L.) males cannot rely upon chemical cues for recognition of either sex. Responses to conspecifics suggest that A. domesticus males produce aggressive acts immediately after antennal contact with either sex. Aggressive response to males usually persists, but response to females often switches to courtship. Responses to body regions, detached antennae, and conditioned substrate were few, with courtship and aggressive responses elicited by both male‐ and female‐generated stimuli. The importance of contact chemoreception in cricket communication is suggested by (1) failure of hexane‐washed antennae to elicit aggressive or courtship acts, and (2) males spending more time in contact with body regions and conditioned substrates than with corresponding controls. Lack of response to male or female odour‐laden air suggests that chemical signals are used by males only if directly contacted. Chemical and other signals supplement the obvious use of acoustic signals for intra‐ and intersexual communication in these crickets. The importance of multimodal communication in sex recognition is discussed.