ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Integrating laboratory and field studies on the biology of Oryctes
rhinoceros (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)
O. Veena,1 C.V. Lekshmipriya,1 T.S. Swapna,1 S. Sreekumar2
1Department of Biotechnology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram,
2Department of Zoology, University College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
Corresponding author: O. Veena, Email: dr.veena@keralauniversity.ac.in
Journal of Experimental Biology and Zoological Studies. 1(2): p 102-110, Jul-Dec 2025.
Received: 30/05/2025; Revised: 16/06/2025; Accepted: 17/06/2025; Published: 01/07/2025
__________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The study investigates the biology of Oryctes rhinoceros, a holometabolous pest of coconut palms, with
a focus on its life cycle, developmental stages, and ecological interactions. Under both laboratory and
field conditions, the insect's life cycle was observed to include three larval instars, followed by a pupal
stage, before emerging as an adult. The third (final) instar larvae have an extended duration of up to
120 days and are voracious feeders, consuming approximately 4.5 grams of cow dung per day. Prior to
pupation, older larvae enter a non-feeding stage known as the prepupae. During this stage, they
construct cocoons from cow dung, within which pupation occurs. Newly emerged adults remain inside
the cocoon for 2025 days, during which time their reproductive and digestive systems mature. Larvae
and adults exhibit different feeding habits; larvae are detritivores and adults phytophagous. Field
surveys have identified cow dung pits and decaying organic matter as the primary breeding sites. Under
mass-rearing conditions, synchronized pupation was observed, potentially mediated by larval
secretions. This study consolidates previously fragmented knowledge on the biology of Oryctes
rhinoceros, highlights its status as a significant pest, and identifies opportunities for new strategies in
integrated pest management.
Keywords: Oryctes rhinoceros, Life cycle, pest, larva, pupa, adult, synchronized pupation.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
The life cycle of insects generally begins with embryonic development within the egg, triggered by
fertilization. The egg provides both shelter and nourishment for the developing embryo. By the time of
hatching, the embryo will have developed into a tiny larva crammed inside the eggshell.[1] The post-
embryonic development of an insect is commonly referred to as metamorphosis. This developmental
process, in which the first instar larva transforms into an adult, is called metamorphosis, meaning
“change in form”.[2]
Insects can be divided into two groups based on the type of metamorphosis they undergo: Apterygota
and Pterygota. Apterygota are primitively wingless insects that do not undergo any significant change
in form. In Apterygota, metamorphosis is either absent or only slightly indicated. The immature instars
differ from the adults only in size and the absence of genitalia. These insects are also known as
Ametabola. The Pterygota include winged insects and those that have secondarily lost their wings
through evolution. Pterygota exhibit various degrees of metamorphosis. Pterygota can be further
divided into two categories based on the type of metamorphosis: hemimetabola and holometabola. In
hemimetabolous insects, the immature stages resemble the adults in many aspects, including the
presence of compound eyes, gonads, and external genitalia, but they lack wings. The developing wings
are visible externally on the dorsal surface of the body as wing pads; hence, these insects are also
referred to as exopterygotes. Holometabolous insects exhibit immature stages that differ significantly
from the adult in terms of morphology, physiology, and feeding habits. The morphological gap between
the immature stages and the adult is bridged by a distinct, semi-quiescent stage known as the pupa.[3]
Holometabolous insects undergo complete metamorphosis and are also called endopterygotes, referring
to the internal development of wings.
‘Eclosion’ is a general term used to denote the emergence of an adult insect from the pupal case, or a
larva from the egg. The emergence of the larva from the egg marks the beginning of the first stadium
in the development of a holometabolous insect, and thereafter the immature stages are known as larvae.
In Coleoptera, the incubation period varies from a couple of days to months. The exit of larvae from
the eggshell is brought about by tearing the shell through its line of weakness. In some Coleoptera and
Lepidoptera, the larvae bite their way out and feed on the remnants of hatched and unhatched eggs. [4,5]
In insects, sclerotized body parts and the cuticle limit body expansion during growth. The periodic
shedding of the old cuticle, known as ‘ecdysis’ or moulting, is a mechanism that facilitates growth.[6]
The increase in body size occurs within the short period between the shedding of the old cuticle and the
hardening of the new, initially soft cuticle. With the shedding the old cuticle, the larva enters the next
stage of development. The larval life of insects is described using three key terms: instar, stage, and
stadium. [7,8] The form of an insect between successive moults is referred to as an instar, the time interval
between two successive moults is known as the stadium, and the level of larval development is denoted
by the term stage. Hinton (1958) and Snodgrass (1935) have suggested that a new instar typically
begins with apolysis, the process involving the separation of the old cuticle before the secretion of a
new one. [9,10]
In the development of holometabolous insects, a great many variations exist in the morphology of the
larvae.[11] Based on morphological adaptations, the endopterygote larvae are grouped into oligopodous,
polypodous and apodous forms. The oligopodous larvae lack abdominal prolegs but have functional
thoracic legs and prognathous mouth parts e.g., Neuroptera and Coleoptera. Polypodpus larvae are
cylindrical with short thoracic legs and abdominal legs e.g., Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera. Apodous
larvae lack true legs and are worm like, living in soil, mud, and dung e.g., Siphonaptera, Diptera and
Curculionidae (Coleoptera).[5] The larval stages in insect life are often meant for somatic growth, and
the onset of metamorphosis is generally associated with the realisation of a certain body size or weight.
The moult by which the larva is transformed into the pupa is called larval-pupal moult. Many
histological, anatomical, morphological and physiological changes take place during the transition of
larva to the adult.[12] Unlike hemimetabolous insects, in holometabolous insects, these changes occur
mostly in the pupal stage. The "pharate adult" stage in insects is the period when the adult insect is fully
formed but remains inside the pupal exoskeleton and hasn't yet emerged. This stage occurs after the
pupal-adult apolysis. Typically, a protective cell or cocoon surrounds the pupa and the immature pharate
adult. Certain Coleoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera have unprotected pupae. Hinton
(1964) classified pupae according to the presence or absence of articulated mandibles used for escaping
from a cocoon.[13] The pupae having such mandibles are described as decticous, e.g., Neuroptera,
Mecoptera, Trichoptera and certain Lepidoptera families. Pupae without functional mandibles are
adecticous, e.g., Strepsiptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera and Siphonaptera. Based on whether
the appendages are free or remain adherent to the body, the pupae are classified into exarate and obtect
types. Exarate pupae have appendages free and are not covered by cocoon; but in obtect pupae, the
appendages are adhered to the body and found to be covered by a cocoon.[11] Except most Lepidoptera,
lower Diptera, some chrysomelid and staphylinid beetles, and many chalcidid and Hymenoptera, nearly
all other families possess exarate pupae. Extensive literature is available on the patterns and
mechanisms of metamorphosis in insects. [5,7,8] Metamorphosis prepares the insect for major changes in
both ecology and behaviour. Morphological adaptations of young or larvae of most animals usually
permit them to focus on eating and growing, while the adult concentrates on dispersal and reproduction.
Beetles constitute the largest and possibly the most economically important family of insects in the
world. Beetles comprise approximately 40% of all species of insects and 25% of all animal species.
Beetles are found in a wide variety of habitats. Many beetle species are herbivorous or predatory, while
others are scavengers or fungivores.[14] In some cases, the different life stages of beetles may exhibit
different feeding habits; for example, the larvae of Oryctes are detritivores, whereas the adults are
phytophagous. Oryctes rhinoceros is a serious pest of the coconut palm. It is a holometabolous insect
with a lifecycle comprising a detritivorous larval and phytophagous adult phases. As in all
holometabolous insects, an intermediary resting or pupal stage is included in the metamorphosis of
Oryctes rhinoceros. The biology of Oryctes rhinoceros was reported earlier by Grissett (1953),[15]
Kurian and Pillai (1964),[16] Catley (1969),[17], Bedford ( 1976,1980, 1983),[18-20] Sreekumar (1991),[21]
Desai et al. (1994),[22] and Indravathy et al. (2001).[23] Despite the substantial amount of literature on
Oryctes rhinoceros, existing studies remain scattered and lack integration. As this pest poses severe
threats to the coconut and oil palm industries, a unified understanding of its biology spanning life cycle,
behaviour, and ecology, is essential. This study aims to consolidate current knowledge on the biology
of Oryctes rhinoceros, address critical gaps, and provide a foundation for more effective pest control
strategies.
Materials and Methods
Material
Larvae and eggs of Oryctes rhinoceros, collected from the field, were used for the study.
Rearing
The eggs and larvae, collected from the field, were reared in the laboratory following the method of
Sreekumar and Prabhu (1988) with some modifications.[24] Small plastic containers of 9 cm height and
7 cm diameter were used to rear the larvae. One-third of the bottle was filled with cow dung, which
served as food for the larvae. To make the medium free of pathogens, cow dung was steam sterilised
and cooled before use.[19] To facilitate the passage of air, holes were drilled in the lid of the container.
The medium inside the container was changed on alternate days. The larvae were maintained singly in
the container. Prior to transfer to fresh medium, larval surfaces were meticulously cleaned using a camel
hair brush to prevent potential mite infestations. The containers were subsequently housed in an insect-
rearing cage maintained at ambient temperature and humidity. Daily observations were recorded for the
incubation period, hatching, head capsule width, body length, body weight, and the date of moulting to
subsequent stages. The duration of each instar was determined by counting days from the day of ecdysis,
which was designated as day 1.
Method of mass rearing
Mass rearing of the larvae was done in a glass trough of diameter 1.5 m, two third of which was filled
with the sterilized cow dung. The larvae collected from a single cow dung pit were transferred to the
troughs after brushing each with the camel brush for removing the mites. The larvae were predominantly
third instar and varied in weight and size. The mass culture was left undisturbed for two weeks.
Field Studies
Observations related to the biology of Oryctes rhinoceros were also recorded during field visits.
Observations and Results
Insect development under Laboratory conditions
The lifecycle of the Oryctes rhinoceros included three stages; larva, pupa and adult. Observations on
the various stages of development of Oryctes rhinoceros under laboratory conditions are mentioned
below.
Eggs
The eggs appeared oval and creamy white in colour. Each egg measured approximately 0.6 cm in length
and 0.30.4 cm in breadth, with an average weight of 0.03 g. The larvae hatched 47 days after they
were collected from the field. As hatching approached, the creamy white eggs turned yellowish white.
During hatching, the chorion ruptured at the anterior pole, revealing the darker mouthparts of the
developing larva protruding from the shell. The larva then emerged from the egg with wriggling
movements. Shortly after emergence, the larvae remained quiescent until they were ready to feed. The
remnants of the eggs served as the first food for the newly emerged larvae.
First instar larvae
The newly emerged larva had a much wrinkled and transparent body measuring 1.55 ±0.29 cm in length.
In the newly emerged larvae, the head capsule and mouth parts, except the tips of mandibles, were soft
and creamy white; later, these structures became harder and darker. The larval body gradually became
broader and more elongated, followed by the straightening of the thoracic legs. The brownish black
head capsule measured 0.28±0.06 cm in width (Table 1). The initial weight of the first instar larvae was
0.02±0.05 g. Later, they attained a weight of 1.41-1.53 g before moulting to the second instar. The
duration of the first instar was 14 -18 days.
Second instar larvae
The second instar larvae resembled the first instar except in size. The width of the head capsule in
second instar larvae was found to be 0.58±0.06 cm, and the length of the body was between 3 and 4 cm,
the mean value being 3.40±0.83 cm (Table 1). The second instar larvae weighed 0.87±0.56 g. The
duration of the second instar was found to be 20-31 days.
Third instar larvae
The newly formed third instar larva (Figure 1) had a transparent body. As a result of feeding and the
consequent increase in fat body mass, the body gradually turned creamy white and then yellowish. The
body length varied between 5 and 7 cm, with a mean value of 6.17 ± 1.32 cm. The width of the head
capsule was measured at 1.05 ± 0.13 cm (Table 1). Early third instar larvae weighed 3.54 ± 0.57 g,
Table 1: Duration of larval instars, head capsule width, ratio of head widths and body length of Oryctes
rhinoceros larvae during each stage of development
*Each value represents mean of 6 observations SD. RW= Ratio of width (calculated by dividing the head capsule
width of an instar by that for the previous instar).
Figure 1: Third instar larvae of Oryctes rhinoceros
eventually gaining weight up to 12.56 ± 1.33 g before pupation. Fully grown third instar larvae were
voracious feeders, consuming up to 4 g of food per day. The duration of the third instar varied
considerably depending on food availability, ranging from one to four months. As the third instar larvae
have the longest lifespan among the instars, they are the predominant stage. Upon reaching a critical
weight, the larvae ceased feeding. At this stage, they appeared dull cream, became inactive, and entered
a substage known as the prepupal stage.
The head capsule width and ratio of width (RW) values for the different instars are summarised in Table
1.
The RW for second and final instars of the insects were calculated to be 2.09 and 1.83 respectively
showing that the rate of development of head capsule width in these larval instars was almost consistent.
A graph was also plotted with the log of head capsule width against the instar number (Figure 2). The
graph showed a straight-line, denoting that there are no missing instars and all the larval stages were
progressive.
Figure 2: The log of head capsule width plotted against instar number
Instar
Duration of instars
(Days)
Head capsule
width* (cm)
RW*
Body length* (cm)
1
15.20±3.11
0.28±0.06
1.55 ±0.29
2
23.20±8.35
0.58±0.06
2.09
3.00±0.83
3
117±16.81
1.05±0.13
1.83
6.17±1.32
Prepupae
The larvae entering the prepupal stage consumed little or no food. On dissection, the midgut showed
almost no fresh food material, and the larvae showed a significant decrease in body weight (6.38 ± 1.89
g) and appeared dull yellow due to the accumulation of fat bodies and the absence of food in the gut.
Their previously glistening appearance was lost, and the body appeared leathery and wrinkled. The
prepupae, possibly by adding their gut secretions to the food medium and exhibiting peculiar wriggling
movements, constructed cocoons made of cow dung in which they underwent pupation. The inner side
of this cow dung-made cocoon was smooth and spacious, and appeared to be protected from fungal
infestation, likely to be due to the antimicrobial effects of the mandibular secretions discharged during
cocoon construction (unpublished data). The duration of the prepupal stage ranged from seven to nine
days. This stage is followed by a distinctive pupal stage. Although the prepupae remain generally
quiescent, they are capable of wriggling when disturbed.
Pupa
The pupa remained protected inside the cocoon and was not subjected to any external pressure.
However, it displayed regular abdominal flexion-extension movements when disturbed. Initially, the
pupa was light brown but gradually developed a dark brown colour. It had a thin, soft, and fragile cuticle
(Figure 3) and appeared slightly convex dorsally. The wing buds in pairs were present on the ventral
side of the body of the early pupa. Later the leg and wing cases were visible as distinctly folded along
the ventral surface of the body. The average weight of the pupa was 5.41 ± 1.04 g. Sex differentiation
was possible at this stage, as male pupae could be identified by the presence of a prominent horn on the
dorsal side of the head. The pupal period lasted 1718 days. Upon completion of this stage, adults
emerged from the pupal case by breaking the mid-dorsal line of the cuticle.
Figure 3: Pupae and Cocoon of Oryctes rhinoceros
In the present study, a synchronisation of pupation was observed in mass rearing. In such cases, the
pupal colony was established as a cluster of cocoons. The pupae showed variations in size and weight
(Figure 4). Some extremely small pupae failed to complete metamorphosis and eventually died. The
pupal cocoons were found in the bottom corners of the trough used for mass rearing. The outer walls of
these cocoons remained partially fused.
Figure 4: Synchronization of pupation observed in mass culture
Adult
The adult beetles, upon emerging from the pupal case, remained inside the cocoon for an additional 20
25 days. This phase allowed for the maturation of reproductive organs and the development of a
functionally and anatomically distinct alimentary canal, enabling the adult’s phytophagous feeding
habit. At the time of emergence, the adults had a soft cuticle, which later hardened following
sclerotization (Figure 5). The elytra, prothorax, and head were black, while the ventral side of the
abdomen exhibited a reddish-brown colouration. The head was small but prominent, bearing a median
horn. Although both sexes possessed horns, it was comparatively longer and more pronounced in males
when compared to the females. The mandibles were stout and strongly toothed. The mandibles, along
with the horn, helped the beetle not only in foraging but also in emerging from the thick cocoon wall,
which was composed of cow dung or fibres from a decaying coconut stump, depending on the rearing
medium. The legs were hairy and well-developed, with backwardly directed chitinous spines. The
female beetle also could be distinguished from the male by the presence of a densely haired pygidium.
A pair of hard sclerotised elytra was visible on the dorsal side of the body. The hindwings were hidden
inside the elytra. The elytra protect the wings against injuries and help the concurrent closing of the
wings. The elytra also provide aerodynamic stability to the insect during its flight. The adult rhinoceros
beetle feeds on the tender parts of the coconut palm. It flies into the crown of the plant and extracts
juice from the unopened fronds. Flight to the coconut palm and feeding are considered mandatory
activities for the onset of reproductive behaviour in the adult. The presence of uniform, frill-like cuts
on green fronds indicate rhinoceros beetle infestation. In the present study, it was observed that the
beetle infests coconut palms irrespective of their age. In cases of severe infestation, the growing points
were destroyed, leading to significant yield loss.
Figure 5: Adult of Oryctes rhinoceros
Insect development- Field conditions
Cow dung pits and decaying organic waste were the major sources of Oryctes larvae and adults. In
addition, larvae were also found in decaying sawdust, heaps of rotting straw, compost pits, farmyard
manure, and dead or decaying stems of coconut palms. In the present study, Oryctes larvae were also
recovered from decaying stems of Murraya oleifera and papaya plants. Most of the colonies retrieved
from the substrates mentioned above contained all three larval stages, with third instar larvae
predominating. No colonies were found to consist solely of a single larval stage. Some collections even
included both eggs and fully developed third instar grubs in the same breeding site, suggesting the
presence of multiple broods at the same time. The number of eggs collected from various sources ranged
from 20 to 50. Pupae were less commonly observed. Newly emerged adults were occasionally present
in small numbers, typically one or two individuals. Male and female adults were also observed in
substrates where larval colonies had not yet been established. In the current study, Oryctes rhinoceros
larvae were found in cow dung and other decomposing substrates alongside various other detritivores,
including earthworms, termites, and other dung beetles.
Discussion
In the present study, cow dung pits have been found to be the most common breeding sites for the larvae
of Oryctes rhinoceros. Other breeding sites include decaying sawdust heaps, piles of rotting straw,
compost pits, farmyard manure, and decaying stumps of coconut palms. According to Bedford (1980)
rhinoceros beetles breed in dead or standing palms killed by pest infestation, disease, or other factors
such as old age, waterlogging, or lightning. [19] In India, heaps of cattle dung are reported to be the most
common breeding sites for rhinoceros beetles, a finding consistent with the present study. [16,25] In
Burma, dead coconut stems, rotting paddy straw heaps, and farmyard manure have been reported as the
primary breeding sources for the beetle.[26] In the present study, Oryctes larvae have also been recovered
from decaying stems of Murraya oleifera and papaya plants. This may be the first report documenting
decaying papaya stems as a breeding site for Oryctes rhinoceros. It is observed in the present study that
larvae of Oryctes rhinoceros can be found in cow dung pits and piles of other decaying organic material
throughout the year. The presence of Oryctes rhinoceros larvae in coconut trunks is typically restricted
to the rainy season. This is largely because adult beetles are attracted to the strong fermentation odour
of decaying organic matter, which commonly develops in felled coconut trunks during this period. The
rainy season provides optimal moisture, abundant food sources, and suitable breeding conditions,
thereby facilitating egg-laying and larval development.[19] The larvae of Oryctes rhinoceros, being
detritivores, play a major role in the decomposition of felled and dead trunks of palms by providing
conditions ideal for action by other decomposers.
As revealed by the present study, the life cycle of Oryctes rhinoceros includes three larval instars,
followed by pupal and adult stages. The adults feed on the tender parts of coconut palms, whereas the
larvae consume decaying organic matter. The eggs are creamy white with a shiny appearance, ovoid in
shape, and measure approximately 3 mm in length and 2.3 mm in breadth, weighing about 0.03 g.
Previous reports also indicate almost same measurements for the eggs. [17,18,27] However, these reports
do not mention the weight of the eggs. According to earlier reports, the incubation period of the egg is
8-13 days. [15,16,19] In the present study, it is observed that hatching requires a period of four to seven
days. This discrepancy may be due to a delay of one to four days in collecting the eggs after deposition.
Newly hatched first instar larvae weigh approximately 0.02 g, and when fully grown, the body weight
increases to 1.411.53 g. Most of the literature published so far, suggests first instar weights ranging
from 0.10 to 1.8 g. [15,17,19] The larvae are initially transparent with the head capsule and mouth parts
appearing soft and delicate. These structures later become chitinized and hardened. As with most
Coleopterans, the larvae remain motionless briefly after moulting, then resume activity as feeding
begins. The stages and durations of larval instars observed in this study generally agree with the reports
by Bedford (1980) [19] and Sreekumar (1991).[21] Any observed variation in larval stage duration may be
influenced by the quality of the food.
Field surveys have revealed that larval colonies are often dominated by third instar larvae. The larval
colony consisting entirely of any particular stage is very rare, which is consistent with the observation
of Bedford (1976).[18] Fully grown larvae, weighing 1214 g, cease feeding and gradually lose weight
prior to transforming into prepupae. Sreekumar (1991) reports that as the Oryctes larvae become older,
they enter a period of endogenously induced state of starvation prior to their transformation into
prepupae.[21] The prepupa purges gut contents, especially from the proctodaeal dilation, before pupation.
Various studies indicate that successful pupation requires larvae to either attain a critical weight [28] or
reach a critical age. [29]
In the present study, the prepupal period is found to last for 8-10 days, in agreement with earlier reports.
[17,1819,] Pupa, being the most vulnerable stage in the life cycle of the insect, needs to be protected by an
outer casing, the cocoon. The larvae can make use of a variety of materials for cocoon construction.[30]
For example, in more advanced groups of flies (Diptera), the skin of the last instar is hardened into a
seed-like case called ‘puparium’. The caterpillars of most Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, and
some members of other orders construct cocoon entirely by secreting silk. It is often strengthened by
adding extra materials from the surroundings such as bits of leaf, particles of sand or even faecal pellets.
The majority of coleopterans, however, construct cocoons using extraneous materials such as soil or the
food medium itself; e.g., Rhynchophorus ferrugineus constructs cocoon from the chewed fibrous
materials of the host plant.[30] Older larvae of Oryctes rhinoceros construct cocoons using the breeding
medium itself, as reported by Sreekumar (1991).[23] Within the cocoon, larvae transition through
prepupal, pupal, and adult stages. Both the prepupal and pupal stages are quiescent with visible external
segmentation. When disturbed, prepupae wriggle, while pupae exhibit up-and-down movements.
Sexing is possible at the pupal stage as male pupae can be distinguished from females by a relatively
longer, upward-directed horn on the head. The rarity of pupae at breeding sites observed in this study
can be attributed to the short duration of the pupal stage and their concealed nature within cocoons made
of the same breeding medium. Adult emergence occurs 20-29 days after pupation. The lifespan of an
adult is from four to four and a half months and this is consistent with many earlier reports. [15,16,31]
Meanwhile, Bedford (1976) has noted a longer adult lifespan of six to nine months.[18] It is observed
that adults remain inside the cocoon for an additional 2025 days post-eclosion and during this period,
maturation of reproductive and digestive systems takes place.[21] Egg-laying occurs about one month
after adult emergence. After the reproductively active period, females cease feeding, become inactive,
and eventually succumb to death.
In insect metamorphosis, the rigidity of the exoskeleton limits growth, which is overcome by periodic
shedding of the old cuticle and replacement by a new one, a process known as moulting or ecdysis.[2]
Post-moult, the larva expands slightly before the cuticle hardens. This increase in body size, referred to
as the "moult increment," which is specific to each instar is useful in the identification of instars in
population studies. Thus, in the lifecycle of insects the growth in terms of increase in head width of the
larvae seems to remain stable with respect to each instar and hence is specific. Likewise, the various
instars also have relatively the same RW value, being the growth ratio of head capsule widths between
successive instars. In the present study, the number of larval instars in Oryctes rhinoceros and their
identification were confirmed based on measurements of head capsule width and RW values. As shown
in Figure 4, a plot of the logarithm of head capsule width against instar number yields a straight line,
consistent with Dyar’s rule. Similarly, the near-uniformity of RW values across instars further supports
the accuracy of both instar count and identification. All the earlier reports suggest a three-instar pattern
in the life cycle of Oryctes rhinoceros as observed in the present study. [15,17-20,21-23]
In Oryctes rhinoceros synchronization of pupation has been observed when larvae are mass-reared
under laboratory conditions. Synchronized pupal colonies contain pupae of variable sizes. This
observation indicates that third instar larvae at varying stages of growth underwent pupation in response
to some external cues. Environmental factors such as light, temperature, and other exogenous or
endogenous cues may influence pupation. The older larvae of Oryctes rhinoceros discharge mandibular
secretions and gut contents to the medium during the construction of cocoon. It is suggested that the
mandibular gland secretions used in cocoon construction contain a semiochemical that may play a role
in inducing pupation synchronization. It is further found in this study that the outer walls of the cocoons
remained partially fused, indicating simultaneous construction. Synchronized pupation though not
previously reported for Oryctes rhinoceros, has been observed in other insects, such as Aedes spp., [32-
35] and the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. [36,37]
Conclusion
This study elucidates the biology of Oryctes rhinoceros, a destructive holometabolous pest of coconut
palms, by integrating laboratory and field observations. The insect’s life cycle includes three larval
instars followed by a pupal stage within a cocoon composed of cow dung. Pupation is observed to be
triggered upon reaching a critical larval weight (1214 g), while discrepancies in developmental
timelines highlight the influence of environmental factors including the quality and availability of food.
The newly emerged adults remain inside the cocoons for an additional 2025 days, during which the
reproductive system matures, and the adult alimentary canal develops. Mass-rearing experiments
revealed synchronized pupation, wherein larvae kept in groups pupated simultaneously, forming
clustered cocoons. This phenomenon, not previously reported in Oryctes rhinoceros, is hypothesized to
be mediated by semiochemical cues from larval mandibular secretions discharged during cocoon
construction. The synchronized pupation, observed in this study, presents opportunities for targeted pest
management by disrupting larval signalling or timing interventions to affect vulnerable pupal stages.
By synthesizing fragmented data, this study highlights the pest’s adaptability, its ecological role in
decomposition, and indicates scope for new strategies in integrated pest management.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Gullan PJ, Cranston PS. The insects: An outline of entomology. 2nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell Science;1995.
2. William RL, John DP. Insect metamorphosis: From molecule to organ. San Diego:Academic Press;1994.
3. Hilton W A. The morphology and development of insect metamorphosis. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution;1994.
4. Hinton HE. Biology of insect eggs. Oxford:Pergamon Press;1981.
5. Sehnal F. Growth and life cycles. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI, editors. Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry,
and pharmacology. Volume 2. Oxford:Pergamon Press;1985. pp. 1–86.
6. Logan, JW, Wolkow PD, Weeks JC. Insect growth and development. New York:Oxford University Press;1998.
7. Wigglesworth, VB. The principles of insect physiology.7th ed. London:Chapman & Hall;1973.
8. Anderson JF, Kaya HK, Willmott SA. Insect development: Photoperiodic control of diapause in the oak silkworm.
New York:Academic Press;1971.
9. Hinton HE. The phylogeny of the panorpoid orders. Annual Review of Entomology 1958;3(1):181–206.
10. Snodgrass RE. Principles of insect morphology. New York:McGraw-Hill;1935.
11. Gullan PJ, Cranston PS. The insects: An outline of entomology. London:Chapman & Hall;1994.
12. Whitten JM. Metamorphic changes in insects. Annual Review of Entomology 1980;25(1):103–25.
13. Hinton HE. The structure and function of the pupal cuticle in insects. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society
of London. 1964;39(1-3):1–12.
14. Chapman RF. The insects: Structure and function. Cambridge (MA):Harvard University Press;1982.
15. Grissett JL. The coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) with particular reference to the Palau Islands. Bulletin
of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum1953;Bulletin No 212:1–157.
16. Kurian C, Pillai GB. Biology and control of the coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros L.). Indian Coconut
Journal 1964;17(2):43–50.
17. Catley A. The coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) in the Pacific. Pacific Insects. 1969;11(1):1–10.
18. Bedford GO. Observations on the biology and ecology of Oryctes rhinoceros and other Dynastidae
(Coleoptera). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 1976; 15(3): 241–8.
19. Bedford GO. Biology, ecology, and control of palm rhinoceros beetles. Annual Review of Entomology 1980;25(1):309–
39
20. Bedford GO. Pest status of Oryctes rhinoceros in the Pacific. Noumea (New Caledonia):South Pacific
Commission;1983.
21. Sreekumar S. A Study on the Regulation of feeding in Oryctes rhinoceros (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae). Ph. D Thesis.
University of Kerala;1991.
22. Desai SD, Patel BA, Patel JR. Biology of Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Indian Journal of
Entomology 1994; 56(3):217–22.
23. Indravathy KV, Pillai GB, Mathew TB. Biology and management of Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae). Journal of Plantation Crops 2001;29(1):1–10.
24. Sreekumar S, Prabhu VKK. Digestive enzyme secretion during metamorphosis in Oryctes rhinoceros (Coleoptera;
Scarabaeidae). Proc Indian Acad Sci (Anim. Sci.) 1988; 97:67-71.
25. Nirula KK, Antony J, Menon KPV. The coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros L.) in India. Indian Coconut
Journal 1952;5(4):3–15.
26. Ghosh CC. The coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) in Burma. Agricultural Journal of India
1923;18(2):123–30.
27. Hill DS, Waller JM. Pests and diseases of tropical crops. Volume 1. Harlow, UK:Longman Scientific & Technical;
1988.
28. Rani RSS, Jaya S, Deepa C, Sreekumar S. Effect of antibiotics on larval growth and metamorphosis in Oryctes
rhinoceros (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae), Journal of Plantation Crops 2002; 30(3):63-5.
29. Mini TS, Prabhu VV. Significance of critical developmental stage on starvation induced endocrine-mediated
precocious metamorphosis in Oryctes rhinoceros (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae), Proc Indian Acad Sci (Anim. Sci.)
1986;95:379-85.
30. Kumari AYK, Sreekumar S. Cocoon construction by larvae of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae), Journal of Experimental Biology and Zoological Studies 2025; 1(1):34-7.
31. Leemans S. The coconut rhinoceros beetle in the Dutch East Indies. Bulletin of the Department of Agriculture, Dutch
East Indies 1920; 42:1–30.
32. Nielsen ET, Haeger JS. Pupation in Aedes taeniorhynchus (Diptera: Culicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society
of America 1954; 47(4):821–5.
33. McClelland GAH, Green CA. Synchronization of pupation in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical
Entomology 1970; 7(3):427–9.
34. Reiter P, Jones C. Synchronized pupation in Aedes aegypti. Journal of Medical Entomology 1970; 12(3):359–61.
35. Nayar JK. Sauerman DM, Knight JW. The biology of Aedes taeniorhynchus (Diptera: Culicidae). Florida
Entomologist 1989; 72(3):374–9.
36. Remmert H, Hardeland R. Synchronization of pupation in Coelopa frigida (Diptera: Coelopidae). Oecologia
1967;1(1):1–6.
37. Pittendrigh CS, Skopik SD. Circadian systems: Entrainment. Biological Rhythms 1970;1:95–124.
__________________________________________________________________________________
© 2025 Journal of Experimental Biology and Zoological Studies
Published by UNIZOA