1968] 
Steiner — Behavioral Interactions 
265 
Table 2. Comparison of characteristics of prey-detection by scent and by 
sight. 
Characteristics compared 
Detection by 
scent (PI. 22, a) 
Detection by sight 
(PI. 22, f) 
Selectivity of detection 
excellent 
poor to very poor 
Possibility of subse- 
quent misidentification, 
misdirection of attack 
exceptional 
not infrequent 
Delay between detection 
often impor- 
short to extremely 
and attack 
tant (trail 
following) 
short 
High densities of 
apparently 
no or limited 
crickets, scent trails 
important 
“confusing 
effect” 
confusing effect 
except in case of 
simultaneous escape 
of numerous crickets 
Very low densities of 
good direc- 
very poor directive- 
crickets and important 
tiveness, 
ness (random dis- 
areas to be explored 
slow explora- 
tion 
placements?) 
very fast explora- 
tion. 
Detection of motionless 
crickets 
good 
poor, except 
apparently at very 
sort distances 
Detection of fast moving 
difficult, 
easy 
crickets 
inefficient 
highly efficient 
appear to be involved. Short, jerky displacements in zig zag in 
place or addition of preceding behavior can also be observed. The 
readiness of attack of any moving object is at its highest level at this 
point and the selectivity of this response is at its lowest point. This 
probably results from the combined action of poor visual selective 
abilities and important lowering of threshold. Although attacks of 
various inappropriate objects have been obtained experimentally in 
these conditions, no stinging of any insects other than crickets has 
been recorded, even if other Ensifera or Caelifera are used (Steiner, 
1962). This negative result illustrates the contrast between the 
poor selectivity of some initial stages of attack and the extreme 
selectivity of the final stages of prey-stinging (details in Steiner, 
1962). On the other hand, attack of inappropriate objects, such as 
other Liris , instead of prey, may lead to interesting situational varia- 
tions in behavior patterns of the wasp. Some of them involve, for 
instance, a mixture of elements characteristic of both wasp-prey and 
wasp-wasp interactions (Steiner, 1967). 
