Flight muscle allocation diverges between two moth families with distinct flight strategies

Authors

Baker, J., Wold, E., Wood, L., Aiello, B., Sponberg, S.

Abstract

An animal's musculature must support its specific biomechanical needs, so muscle morphology and volume allocation may adapt when locomotor strategies diversify. We examined muscle size and morphology in two sister families of bombycoid moths, wild silkmoths (Saturniidae) and hawkmoths (Sphingidae), that have diverged in wingbeat frequency, wing morphology, and behavior. Although both families rely on the same muscles to power and steer flight, they may distribute muscle volume differently to prioritize distinct functions. We hypothesized that flight power muscle proportions are larger in hawkmoths and increase with wingbeat frequency, helping meet inertial power demands of high-frequency maneuverable flight. We also hypothesized that some individual muscles diverge in proportional volume and area to support distinct wing control strategies. To test our hypotheses, we took CT scans of twenty bombycoid species and quantified volumes and geometries of six flight muscle pairs. As expected, flight power muscle proportions positively correlate with wingbeat frequency and are generally greater in hawkmoths. Two of three steering muscles diverge substantially in relative volume and area between families. Most muscles exhibit greater length in silkmoths and greater cross-sectional area in hawkmoths. Finally, the dorsal oblique(DO) muscle diverges exceptionally in size and morphology, being highly developed in hawkmoths and smaller or absent in silkmoths. This unexpected difference supports the DO having an underappreciated role in flight control, possibly via shaping indirect strain propagation in the elastic thorax. We show that muscle volume distribution parallels bombycoids' divergent flight strategies, demonstrating how muscle allocation can adapt for specialized functional goals.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 28 Aug 2026.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.