林家弘。2011。三斑虎灰蝶 Spindasis syama（Horsfield, 1829）生物學及喜蟻關 係之探討。台北：國立臺灣師範大學生命科學系碩士論文。43 頁。
周堯。1994。中國蝶類志（下冊）。河南科學技術出版社。409–854 頁。
高橋 良一。1929。シリアゲアリと共棲すろ昆蟲。動物學雜誌41：122–28頁。
濱野 榮次。1987。台灣蝶類生態大圖鑑。牛頓出版社。474 頁。
Ayre GL. 1968. Comparative studies on the behaviour of three species of ants. I. Prey finding, capture and transport. Can. Entomol. 100:165–72.
Axén AH, Leimar O, Hoffman V. 1996. Signalling in a mutualistic interaction. Anim.
Behav. 52:321–33.
Axén AH, Pierce NE. 1998. Aggregation as a cost-reducing strategy for lycaenid larvae. Behav. Ecol. 9:109–15.
Bernays B, Chapman RF. 1994. Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. New York: Chapman & Hall. 312 pp.
Blum MS. 1974. Pheromonal sociality in the hymenoptera. In Pheromones, ed. MC Birch. New York: Amsterdam 32:222–49.
Blüthgen N, Feldhaar H. 2010. Food and shelter: How resources influence ant ecology.
In Ant Ecology, ed. L Lach, C Parr, K Abbott, pp. 97–114. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Chew FS, Robbins RK. 1984. Egg-laying in butterflies. In Biology of butterflies, ed.
RI Vane Wright, PR Ackery, pp. 65–88. London: Academic.
Clark GC, Dickson CGC. 1971. Life histories of the South African lycaenid butterflies.
Cape Town: Purnell. 272 pp.
Cushman JH, Rashbrook VK, Beattie AJ. 1994. Assessing benefits to both partners in a lycaenid-ant association. Ecology 75:1031–41.
Downey JC. 1962. Host-lant relations as data for butterfly classification. Syst. Zool.
11:150–59.
Dunn OJ. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–52.
Eastwood R, Pierce NE, Kitching RL, Hughes JM. 2006. Do ants enhance
diversification in lycaenid butterflies? Phylogeographic evidence from a model myrmecophile, Jalmenas evagoras. Evolution 60:315–27.
Elgar MA, Pierce NE. 1988. Mating success and fecundity in an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly. In Reproductive Success: Studies of Selection and Adaptation in Contrasting Breeding Systems, ed. TH CluttonBrock, pp. 59–75. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press.
Fiedler K. 1991. Systematics, evolutionary, and ecological implications of
myrmecophily within the Lycaenidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea).
Bonn. Zool. Monogr. 31:5–157.
Fiedler K, Maschwitz U. 1989. Functional analysis of the myrmecophilous relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and lycaenids
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) I. Release of food recruitment in ants by lycaenid larvae and pupae. Ethology 80:71–80.
Forister ML, Gompert Z, Nice CC, Forister GW, Fordyce JA. 2011. Ant association facilitates the evolution of diet breadth in a lycaenid butterfly. Proc. R. Soc. Ser.
B. 278:1539–47.
Fraser AM, Axén AH, Pierce NE. 2001. Assessing the quality of different ant species as partners of a myrmecophilous butterfly. Oecologia 129:452–60.
Fraser AM, Tregenza T, Wedell N, Elgar MA, Pierce NE. 2002. Oviposition tests of ant preference in a myrmecophilous butterfly. J. Evolution. Biol. 15:861–70.
Gilbert LE, Singer MC. 1975. Butterfly ecology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6:365–97.
Heath A. 1997. A review of the African genera of the tribe Aphnaeini (Lepidoptera:
Lycaenidae). Metamorph. Occas. Suppl.2:1–60.
Heath A, Claassens AJM. 2003. Ant-association among southern African Lycaenidae.
J. Lepid. Soc. 57:1–16.
Henning SF. 1983. Chemical communication between lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera:
Lycaenidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Entomol. Soc. S. Afr.
46:341–66.
HintonHE. 1951. Myrmecophilous Lycaenidae and other Lepidoptera – a summary.
Proc. London Entomol. Nat. Hist. Soc. 111–75.
Hölldobler BE, Wilson EO. 1990. The Ants. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press Harvard Univ. 732 pp.
Kitching RL. 1983. Myrmecophilous organs of the larvae and pupa of the lycaenid butterfly Jalmenus evagoras (Donovan). J. Nat. Hist. 17:471–81.
Malicky H. 1970. New aspects on the association between lycaenid larvae
(Lycaenidae) and ants (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J. Lepid. Soc. 24:190–202.
Pierce NE. 1984. Amplified species diversity: a case study of an Australian lycaenid butterfly and its attendant ants. In The Biology of Butterflies, ed. RI
Vane-Wright, PR Ackery, pp. 197–200. London: Academic.
Pierce NE. 1987. The evolution and biogeography of associations between lycaenid butterflies and ants. In Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, ed. PH Harvey, L Partridge. pp. 89–116. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Pierce NE, Braby MF, Heath A, Lohman DJ, Mathew J, Rand DB, Travassos MA.
2002. The ecology and evolution of ant association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47:733–71.
Pierce NE, Elgar MA. 1985. The influence of ants on host plant selection by Jalmenus evagoras a myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
16:209–22.
Pierce NE, Kitching RL, Buckley RC, Taylor MFJ, Benbow KF. 1987. The costs and benefits of cooperation between the Australian lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras, and its attendant ants. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21:237–48.
Pierce NE, Nash DR. 1999. The Imperial Blue: Jalmenus evagoras (Lycaenidae). In The Biology of Australian Butterflies, ed. RL Kitching, E Sheermeyer, RE Jones, NE Pierce, pp. 279–315. Sydney: CSIRO Press.
Robbins, RK. 1991. Cost and evolution of a facultative mutualism between ants and lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera). Oikos 62:363–69.
Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernández LM. 2001.
Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of the Oriental Region. UK:
United Selangor Press. 744 pp.
Trager MD, Daniels JC. 2009. Ant tending of miami blue butterfly larvae
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): partner diversity and effects on larval performance.
Fla. Entomol. 92:474–82.
Van Dyck H, Regniers S. 2010. Egg spreading in the ant-parasitic butterfly,
Maculinea alcon: from individual behaviour to egg distribution pattern. Anim.
Behav. 80:621–27.
Wagner D. 1993. Species-specific effects of tending ants on the development of lycaenid butterfly larvae. Oecologia 96:276–81.
Wagner D, Kurina L. 1997. The influence of ants and water availability on oviposition behaviour and survivorship of a facultatively ant-tended herbivore. Ecol.
Entomol. 22:352–60.
Wagner D, Martinez Del Rio C. 1997. Experimental tests of the mechanism for ant-enhanced growth in an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly. Oecologia 112:424–29.
Wilson EO. 1958. A chemical releaser of alarm and digging behavior in the ant Pogonomyrmex badius (Latreille). Psyche 65:41–51.
Wilson EO. 1971. The insect societies. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press Harvard Univ.
Press.
表一、蓬萊虎灰蝶在不同飼養環境下的幼蟲齡期數與發育時間
Treatment Environment Larval instar
number
Larval duration (days)
Pupal duration (days)
Without ants 室外 6-8 36-54 10-13
With Crematogaster laboriosa (free) 室外 5-7 27-36 9-13
With C. laboriosa (five ants) 25℃ 6-7 35-55 10-14
With C. amia (five ants) 25℃ 6-7 45-56 9-13
With C. dohrni fabricans (five ants) 25℃ 6 49 11
Feed on Rhus chinensis var.
roxburghiana 25℃ 6-8 38-75 11-14
Feed on Mallotus japonicus 25℃ 7-10 58-94 9-17
Feed on Dioscorea batatus 25℃ 6-7 33-44 10-14
Feed on Trema orientalis 25℃ 6-9 48-101 10-14
表二、蓬萊虎灰蝶在有無勤勉舉尾蟻互動之處理下的生長表現（mean ± SE）
Treatment n Larval duration (days)
Pupal duration (days)
Pupal weight (mg)
Forewing length
(mm) n Pupal weight loss (%)
Without ants With ants
表三、共生蟻及性別與蓬萊虎灰蝶生長表現的關係（Linear regression）
Variable Estimate F ratio P Larval duration (days)
intercept ant
Pupal duration (days) intercept
ant sex ant*sex
Pupal weight (mg) intercept
ant sex ant*sex
% pupal weight loss intercept
ant sex ant*sex
Forewing length (mm) intercept
sex
表四、各組食草處理之幼蟲期兩兩比較的事後檢定統計值SE
羅氏鹽膚木 野桐 家山藥 山黃麻 羅氏鹽膚木 -
野桐 24.22 -
家山藥 21.85 22.63 -
山黃麻 26.27 26.92 24.81 -
表五、各組食草處理之幼蟲期在全部樣本中排序的平均值差
羅氏鹽膚木 野桐 家山藥 山黃麻 羅氏鹽膚木 -
野桐 -33.53* -
家山藥 37.94* 71.47* -
山黃麻 -8.32 25.21 -46.26* -
*P < 0.0025
表六、各組食草處理之蛹重兩兩比較的事後檢定統計值SE
羅氏鹽膚木 野桐 家山藥 山黃麻 羅氏鹽膚木 -
野桐 24.72 -
家山藥 22.10 22.93 -
山黃麻 26.48 27.18 24.82 -
表七、各組食草處理之蛹重在全部樣本中排序的平均值差
羅氏鹽膚木 野桐 家山藥 山黃麻 羅氏鹽膚木 -
野桐 39.73* -
家山藥 -16.66 -56.39* -
山黃麻 29.02* -10.71 45.68* -
*P < 0.0025
表八、各組食草處理之成蝶前翅長兩兩比較的事後檢定統計值SE
羅氏鹽膚木 野桐 家山藥 山黃麻 羅氏鹽膚木 -
野桐 24.45 -
家山藥 22.23 22.76 -
山黃麻 26.49 26.94 24.94 -
表九、各組食草處理之成蝶前翅長在全部樣本中排序的平均值差
羅氏鹽膚木 野桐 家山藥 山黃麻 羅氏鹽膚木 -
野桐 23.4 -
家山藥 -25.26* -48.66* -
山黃麻 22.09 -1.31 47.35* -
*P < 0.0025
表十、台灣產虎灰蝶屬蝶種的喜蟻現象
Spindasis kuyanianus 蓬萊虎灰蝶
S. syama 三斑虎灰蝶
S. lohita formosana 虎灰蝶
Oviposition rate (without ants) 0% (n = 14) about 50% (n = 20) 8.33% (n = 12) Attendant ants Crematogaster laboriosa
勤勉舉尾蟻
C. amia 阿美舉尾蟻 C. popohana 甲仙舉尾蟻
C. dohrni fabricans 建築舉 尾蟻
C. rogenhoferi 懸巢舉尾蟻 C. sp. 平背舉尾蟻
Pristomyrmex pungens 堅 硬雙針家蟻
Attract other ant species C. biroi 畢氏舉尾蟻
Paratrechina kraepelini 柯氏黃山蟻
Tapinoma melanoceph alum 黑頭慌蟻
圖一、蓬萊虎灰蝶的生活史（n = 216）。
Treatment
Plant only Plant + CL Plant + CA Plant + CDF
Egg-laying performance (%)
0 20 40 60 80
圖二、雌蝶在只給予羅氏鹽膚木與加入不同蟻種之處理下的產卵表現
（CL, Crematogaster laboriosa 勤勉舉尾蟻; CA, C. amia 阿美舉尾蟻;
CDF, C. dohrni fabricans 建築舉尾蟻）。
2= 29.81 P < 0.0001
Treatment
with CL with CA with CDF
Survival rate (%)
0 20 40 60 80
圖三、蓬萊虎灰蝶與三種舉尾蟻共生之存活率（CL, Crematogaster laboriosa; CA, C. amia; CDF, C. dohrni fabricans）。
Treatment
R M P D T
Pupation rate (%)
0
圖四、幼蟲取食不同食草的化蛹率（R, Rhus chinensis var. roxburghiana 羅氏鹽膚木; M, Mallotus japonicas 野桐; P, Psidium guajava 番石榴; D, Dioscorea batatus 家山藥; T, Trema orientalis 山黃麻）。
2= 95.168 P < 0.0001
2= 61.638 P < 0.0001
Treatment
R M D T
Larval duration (days)
0
圖五、幼蟲取食不同食草的幼蟲期（R, Rhus chinensis var. roxburghiana;
M, Mallotus japonicas; D, Dioscorea batatus; T, Trema orientalis）。
Treatment
R M D T
Pupal weight (mg)
0
圖六、幼蟲取食不同食草的蛹重（R, Rhus chinensis var. roxburghiana;
M, Mallotus japonicas; D, Dioscorea batatus; T, Trema orientalis）。
2= 84.299 P < 0.0001
2= 60.76 P < 0.0001
Treatment
R M D T
Forewing length (mm)
0
圖七、幼蟲取食不同食草的成蝶前翅長（R, Rhus chinensis var.
roxburghiana; M, Mallotus japonicas; D, Dioscorea batatus; T, Trema orientalis）。
Treatment
R M D T
Pupal duration (days)
0
圖八、幼蟲取食不同食草的蛹期（R, Rhus chinensis var. roxburghiana;
M, Mallotus japonicas; D, Dioscorea batatus; T, Trema orientalis）。
2= 49.274 P < 0.0001
2= 7.335 P = 0.062
Spindasis sp.
S. kuyanianus S. lohita formosana S. syama
Egg-laying performance (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
圖九、蓬萊虎灰蝶（n = 14）、虎灰蝶（n = 12）與三斑虎灰蝶（n = 20）
雌蝶在只給予寄主植物之環境下的產卵表現。
圖版一、實驗裝置。A.雌蝶套卵實驗之環境；有無勤勉舉尾蟻的互動實驗中 B.
有螞蟻之環境；C.無螞蟻之環境；D.能讓螞蟻自由進出接觸幼蟲的小型塑膠盒。
A
B
D C
圖版二、生態習性。A.蓬萊虎灰蝶喜活動於陽性崩塌地；B.雌蝶將卵聚產在野 桐葉片上；C.幼蟲群聚；D.一齡幼蟲吸引勤勉舉尾蟻照顧；E.終齡幼蟲吸引的
螞蟻數至少為 10 隻以上；F.幼蟲在枯葉中化蛹，對螞蟻的吸引力與終齡幼蟲相 當。
A B
C D
F E
圖版三、生態習性。A.寄生蜂尚未羽化時，被寄生的幼蟲仍有吸引勤勉舉尾蟻
的能力；幼蟲躲藏在 B.勤勉舉尾蟻建構的遮蔽所（shelter）內 C.野桐樹幹凹洞 D.野桐枯葉中；E.幼蟲將兩片野桐葉片用絲相連交疊增加隱蔽性；F.雌蝶在有 勤勉舉尾蟻活動的蕁麻科水雞油上產卵（劉淑芬 攝）。
A B
D C
E F
圖版四、外部形態。蓬萊虎灰蝶A.卵扁圓形，呈淺褐色至深褐色 B.終齡幼蟲 C.蛹背面（上）及側面（下）觀 D.雄蝶；虎灰蝶 E.終齡幼蟲 F.雄蝶（王俊凱 攝）。
A B
D C
E F
圖版五、蓬萊虎灰蝶卵與一齡幼蟲之 SEM 細部觀。A.卵；一齡幼蟲 B.全身背 面 C.背部蜜腺器官（DNO）與附近的圓頂狀開口器官（PCO）；D.觸手器（TO）
外觀；E.觸手器外翻；F.氣孔（sp）及附近之圓頂狀開口器官。
A B
D C
F E
DNO PCO
PCO sp
TO
TO
圖版六、蓬萊虎灰蝶各齡期幼蟲之SEM 細部觀。A.二齡幼蟲第七腹節背面發 育出一個碟狀腺（DO）；B.二齡幼蟲背部蜜腺器官（DNO）；C.二齡幼蟲觸手器
（TO）；D.三齡幼蟲背部蜜腺器官已具有功能；E.六齡幼蟲觸手器外觀；F.六齡 幼蟲觸手器外翻。
A B
C D
F E
DO
DNO
TO DNO
TO
TO
圖版七、蓬萊虎灰蝶幼蟲與三種螞蟻之實驗飼養觀察。A.阿美舉尾蟻咬死二齡 幼蟲；B.建築舉尾蟻咬住五齡幼蟲；C.阿美舉尾蟻在六齡幼蟲背部蜜腺器官處 取食蜜露；D.勤勉舉尾蟻於背部蜜腺器官處取食蜜露；E.勤勉舉尾蟻取食幼蟲 碟狀腺分泌之營養物質；F.六齡幼蟲背部蜜腺器官發霉後致死。
A B
D C
E F