本研究以虎灰蝶（Spindasis lohita formosana Moore, 1877，灰蝶科Lycaenidae虎灰蝶屬Spindasis）為題材，建立幼生期形態及生態資料，並從生活史不同階段探索虎灰蝶與懸巢舉尾蟻（Crematogaster rogenhoferi Mayr, 1879）之間的共生關係。
虎灰蝶幼蟲齡期數變異大而且不固定，最少者為六齡，最多者為九齡，以六齡佔最多數。幼蟲共具有四種類型的喜蟻器官，包括圓頂腺（PCOs）、蜜腺（DNO）、觸手器（TOs）及碟狀腺（SGs）。PCOs出現於一齡蟲第七腹節及氣孔前方，之後並出現於幼蟲DNO與SGs附近和蛹的氣孔周邊；TOs自一齡蟲第八腹節背面兩側有構造物出現，至三齡始有功能；DNO出現自二齡蟲腹部第七腹節後端；SGs最早出現於二齡蟲第七腹節背面中央，四齡蟲第二腹節背面中央出現另一碟狀腺，五齡蟲於第二至第四腹節背面中央有二至三個不等的碟狀腺，五齡蟲之後碟狀腺大小、數目有個體變異，終齡幼蟲腹部第一到第五腹節的碟狀腺已發育完成，共具有六個碟狀腺。根據不同齡期幼蟲喜蟻器官發育，配合幼蟲與螞蟻互動試驗顯示，隨著喜蟻器官的發育，幼蟲吸引螞蟻的能力會顯著增加。
雌蝶產卵偏好試驗中發現，螞蟻的存在是雌蝶產卵的關鍵因子。卵為聚產，其表面不具有吸引螞蟻的物質，卵粒產下後無法吸引螞蟻。蛹與螞蟻互動試驗則發現活蛹具有吸引螞蟻聚集的現象。野外觀察亦發現幼蟲皆伴隨有樹棲性舉尾蟻，齡期較大的幼蟲會和螞蟻合建如遮蔽所的蟲巢。實驗室內証實在天敵存在下，有螞蟻伴隨的幼蟲死亡率較低，且螞蟻會驅趕天敵；在野外存活率試驗中，沒有螞蟻伴隨的幼蟲死亡率高達100%，無法完成其生活史，顯見其為絕對性共生之喜蟻性灰蝶。
本研究認為虎灰蝶與懸巢舉尾蟻之互動存在有取捨（trade-off）現象。在花費（cost）方面，幼蟲分泌蜜露和螞蟻互動為耗能行為，結果造成成蝶體型顯著較小，從行為觀察與飼養試驗推論幼蟲可藉由群聚行為或額外補充糖類進行能量消耗之補償作用，而飼養狀況下幼蟲有被螞蟻咬死及感染疾病的紀錄，且有螞蟻照顧的幼蟲死亡率亦較高。在利益（benefit）方面，可得到螞蟻的保護，以降低被天敵捕食。

In this study, immature morphology of Spindasis lohita formosana Moore, 1877 (Lepedoptera: Lycaenidae) and the symbiotic relationships with its attendant ants Crematogaster rogenhoferi Mayr, 1879 in different life stages were investigated.
In this study, four types of myrmecophilous organs were recorded in the immature stages of S. lohita formosana, including pore cupolas (PCOs), dorsal nectar organ (DNO), tentacle organs (TOs) and Saucer-like glands (SGs). PCOs which surrounded DNO, SGs and spiracles were presented on the larva of all instars, and were also formed in the front of the spiracles of the pupae. DNO located at dorsal-posterior end of the seventh-abdominal segment (A7) in all stages except the first instar. TOs were located on the A8 of the first instar. This organ had no function until the third instar. It was presented from the second instar on and it was located on the central dorsum of the A7. Another SG appeared on A2 from the fourth instar on. The numbers of SGs varied with different individuals. Fiveth instar larvae bore two to three SGs on A2 to A4. Late instar larvae (mainly sixth instar, sometimes seventh or eighth instar, rarely ninth instar) possess the well-developed SGs located on A1 to A5 and A7. The ability to attract the ants significantly increased with the development of myrmecophilous organs.
The oviposition experiments showed that the appearance of the attendant ants was the key factor for oviposition behavior of S. lohita formosana. The eggs were laid in clutch and without attractants to attract the ants. However, the ants were always found aggregated on the pupae in laboratory experiments or at field observations. These results suggest that the pupae can attract the ants. The larvae of S. lohita formosana were always attended by Crematogaster ants on the field, and the elder larvae made nests with the ants cooperatively. Predation experiments showed that the larvae attended by ants had lower mortality and the attendant ants would expel the predators. None of the larvae survived without attendant ants, which indicates that S. lohita formosana is an obligatory myrmecophilous butterfly.
Trade-off phenomenon existed in the symbiotic relationships between S. lohita formosana and its attendant ants C. rogenhoferi. On the one hand, energy-consumed behaviors of the larvae, such as honeydew secretion by DNO to attract the ants, result in the smaller body size of adult butterflies (“cost”). Energy compensation hypotheses such as larval aggregation and searching extra-floral nectars were proposed. On the other hand, the attendant ants offer protection and enhance the survival opportunity of the larvae (“benefit”).

參考文獻
白水 隆，1960。原色台灣蝶類大圖鑑。保育社。
山中 正夫，1980。台灣產蝶類の分佈（6）。日本鱗翅學會特別報告，蝶と蛾 30,Suppl.1：29-30。
高橋 良一，1929。シリアゲアリと共棲すろ昆蟲。動物學雜誌41：122-128。
五十嵐 邁＆福田 晴夫，2000。アジア產蝶類生活史圖鑑，Ⅱ。東海大學出版會。
內田 春男，1991。常夏の島フォルモサは招く。自行出版。
濱野 榮次，1987。臺灣蝶類生態大圖鑑。牛頓出版社。
林宗崎，1988。台灣產家蟻亞科系統分類學與動物地理學研究。國立台灣大學植物病蟲害學研究所博士論文：97-104。
詹家龍，1997。兩種喜蟻性雀斑小灰蝶生態之研究。國立台灣大學植物病蟲害學研究所碩士論文。
鍾兆晉，1999。樹棲築紙巢建築舉尾蟻聚落之溫度調節。國立成功大學生物學研究所碩士論文。
陳燦榮，2006。彩蝶飛-台北蝴蝶導覽手冊。台北縣生命關懷協會。
Als, T. D., Vila, R., Kaudul, N. P., Nash, D. R., Yen, S. F., Hsu, Y. F., Mignaultt, A. A., Boomsma, J. J. & Pierce, N. E. 2004. The evolution of alternative parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies. Nature 432:386-390.
Axén, A. & Pierce, N. E. 1998. Aggregation as a cost reducing strategy for lycaenid larvae. Behavioral Ecology 9:109-115.
Baylis, M. & Pierce, N. E. 1992. Lack of compensation by final instar larvae of the myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras, for the loss of nutrients to ants. Physiological Entomology 17:107-114.
Baylis, M. & Pierce, N. E. 1993. The effects of ant mutualism on the foraging and diet of lycaenid caterpillars. In: Caterpillars: ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging （Stamp NE, Casey TM, eds）. New York: Chapman and Hall; 404-421.
Claassens, A. J. M. & Dickson, C. G. C. 1977. The early stages of Aloeides thyra （L.）（Lepid: Lycaenidae） with notes on ant association, distribution and general ecology of species. Entomologist’s Reccord and Journal of Variation 86: 253-258.
Clark, G. C. & Dickson, C. G. C. 1956. The honey glang and tubercles of the Lycaenidae. Lepidopera News 10（1-2）:225-231.
Clark, G. C. & Dickson, C. G. C. 1971. Life histories of the South African lycaenid butterflies. Cape Town: Purnell.
Cottrell, C. B. 1984. Aphytophagy in butterflies: its relationship to myrmecophily. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 79: 1-57.
Cushman, J. H., Rashbrook, V. K. & Beattie, A. J. 1994. Assessing benefits of both participants in a lycaenid-ant association. Ecology 75（4）: 1031-1041.
Devries, P. J. & Baker, I. 1989. Butterfly exploitation of an ant-plant mutualism:a ddingi nsultt o herbivory. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 97: 332-340.
Devries, P. J. 1990. Mutualism between Thisbe irenea butterflies and ants, and the role of ant ecology in the evolution of larval-ant associations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 43:179-196.
Devries, P. J. & Poinar, G. 1997. Ancient butterfly-ant symbiosis:direct evidence from Mominican amber. Proceedings Royal Society London B264:1137-1140.
Downey, J. C. 1962. Myrmecophily in Plebejus （Icaricia） icarioides （Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae）. Entomological News 73:57-66
Elgar, M. A. & Pierce, N. E. 1988. Mating success and fecundity in ant-tended lycaenid butterfly. In: Reproductive success: studies of election and adaptation in contrasting breeing systems （Clutton-Brock TH, ed）. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 59-75.
Fiedler, K. & Maschwitz, U. 1989a. Functional analysis of the myr-mecophilous relationships between ants （Hymenoptera: Formicidae） and lycaenids （Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae）. I. Release of food recruitmentin ants by lycaenid larvae and pupae. Ethology 80: 71-80.
Fiedler, K. & Maschwitz, U. 1989b. The symbiosis between the weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, and Anthene emolus, an obligate myrmecophilously caenid butterfly. Journal Natural History 23: 833-846.
Fiedler, K. 1991. Systematics,evolutionary,and ecological implications of Myrmecophily within Lycaenidae（Insecta : Lepidopera : papilionoidea）. Bonner Zoologische Monographien 31: 1-210.
Fiedler, K. & B. Hölldobler. 1992. Ants and Polyommatus icarus immatures （Lycaenidae）–sex-related developmental benefits and costs of ant attendance. Oecologia 91（4）:468-473.
Fiedler, K., B. Hölldobler, & P. Seufert. 1996. Butterflies and ants: the communicative domain. Experientia 52:14-24.
Fraser, A. M., Tregenza, T., Wedell, N., Elgar, M. A., Pierce, N. E. 2002. Oviposition tests of ant preference in a myrmecophilous butterfly. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15: 861–870
Guenee, M. 1867. D，un organe particulier que presente une chenille de Lycaena. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France. 7（4）:665-668.
Heath, A. 1997. A review of the African genera of the tribe Aphnaeini （Lepidoptera; Lycaenidae）. Metamorphosis, Occasional Supplement 2, 1-60.
Hölldoobler, B. 1971. Communication between ant and their guest. Scientific American 224（3）:86-93.
Hölldoobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. 1990. The Ants. Harvard Universiy Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hans van Dyck et al., 2000. Does the presence of ant nets matter for oviposition to a specialize myrmecophilous Maculinea butter. The Royal Society 267,861-866.
Henning, S. F. 1980. Chemical communication between lycaenid larvae （Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae） and ants （Hymenoptera: Formicidae）. MSc Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand. i-x; 1-126. [Durbania amakosa, Iolaus trimeni, Myrina silenus, Chrysoritis lycegenes, Chrysoritis aureus, Cigaritis namaquus, Cigaritis phanes, Aloeides dentatis, Lepidochrysops trimeni, Lepidochrysops ignota, Spalgis lemolea, Thestor basutus, Thestor dicksoni, Lachnocnema bibulus, Euliphyra mirifica, Euchrysops dolorosa].
Henning, S. F. 1983a. Biological groups within the Lycaenidae（Lepid）. Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 46（1）: 65-85.
Henning, S. F. 1983b. Chemical communication between Lycaenid larvae（Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae） and ants（Hymenoptera: Formicidae）. Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 46（2）: 341-366.
Henning, S. F. 1987. Myrmecophily in lycaenid butterflies （Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae）. Entomology Records 99: 215-222.
Hill, C. J. & Pierce, N. E. 1989. The effect of adult diet on the biology of butterflies, 1: The common imperial blue, Jalmenus evagoras. Oecologia 81:249-257.
Hinton, H. E. 1951. Myrmecophilous Lycaenidae and other Lepidoptera – a summary. Proceedings South London Entomological Natural History Society 111-175.
Hughes, L., Chang, B. W., Wagner, D. & Pierce, N. E. 2000. Effects of mating history on ejaculate size, fecundity, longevity, and copulateon duration in the ant-tended lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47:119-128.
Hunjan, D. N. 1999. Myrmecophilic interactions between Lycaenidae larvae and Ants. Colorado State University.
Kitching, R. L. 1983. Myrmecophilous organs of the larvae and pupae of the lycaenid butterfly Jalmenus evagoras Donovan . Journal of Natural History 17, 417-481.
Kitching, R. L. & Luke, B. 1985. Myrmecophilous organs of the larvae of some British Lycaenidae （Lepidoptera）: a comparative study. Journal of Natural History 19, 259-276.
Malicky, H. 1969. Versuch einer Analyse der okologischen beziehungenz wischenL yceaniden （Lepidoptera） und For-miciden（ Hymenoptera）. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 112: 213-298
Maschwitz, V., Wust, M. & Schrian, I. 1975. Blaulingsraupen als Zuckerlieferauten für Ameisen. Oecologia 18 , 17-21.
Nash, D. R. 1989. Cost-benefit analysis of a mutualism between lycaenid butterflies and ants. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University.
Newcomer, E. J. 1912. Some observations in the relations of ants and lycaenid caterpillars, and adescription of the relational organs of the latter. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 20:31-36
Nomura, K., Hirukawa, N., Yamaoka, R. & Imafuku, M. 1992. Problems on the symbiosis between the lycaenid butterfly larva, Niphanda fusca shijimia and the ant Camponotus （Camponotus）japonicus （I）. Tyo to Ga.43（2）:138-143.
Pierce, N. E. & Mead, P. S. 1981. Parasitoids as selective agents in the symbiosis between lycaenid butterfly larvae and ants. Science 211: 1185-1187.
Pierce, N. E. 1985. Lycaenid butterflies and ants: selection for nitrogen-fixing and other protein rich food plants. American Naturalist 125:888-895.
Pierce, N. E. ＆ Elgar, M. A. 1985. The influence of ants on host plat selection by Jalmenus evagoras, a myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 16:209-222.
Pierce, N. E. and Easteal, S. 1986. The selective advantage of attendant ants for the larvae of a lycaenid butterfly, Glaucopsyche lygdamus. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 451-462.
Pierce, N. E. 1987. The evolution biogeography of associations between lycaenid butterflies and ants. In: （Harvey PH, Partridge L, eds）Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 4:89-116.
Pierce, N. E., Kitching, R. L., Buckley, R. C., Taylor, M. F. J. & Benbow, K. F. 1987. The costs and benefits of cooperation between the Australian lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evag-oras, and its attendant ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 21: 237-248.
Pierce, N. E. 1989. Butterfly-ant mutualisms. In: Grubb, PJ and J Whittaker （eds.） Towards a more exact ecology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 299-324
Pierce, N. E. & Nash, D. R. 1999. The Imperial Blue, Jalmenus evagoras （Lycaenidae）, In: Kitching R, E Sheermeyer, R Jones and NE Pierce （eds.）. The Biology of Australian Butterflies （Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera Vol. 6）. CSIRO Press, Sydney, pp. 277-316.
Robbins, R.K. 1991. Cost and evolution fo a facultative mutualism between ants and lycaenid larvae （Lepidoptera）. Oikos 62, 363-369.
Travssos, A. M. & Pierce, N. E. 2000. Acoustics, context and function of vibrstional signaling in a lyacenid butterfly-ant mutualism. Animal Behaviour 60:13-26.
Thomas, J. A., Elmes, G. W., Wardlaw, J. C. & Woyciechowski M. 1989. Host specificity among Maculinea butterflies in myrmica ant nests. Oecologia 79, 452-457.
Wilson, E. O. 1971. The Insect Societies. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 584 pp.