Month: June 2010

Typocerus lugubris

/ Ted C. MacRae / 3 Comments

Typocerus lugubris on Hydrangea arborescens, Trail of Tears State Park, Missouri.

Members of the genus Typocerus are among the more commonly encountered species of the so-called “flower longhorns” (family Cerambycidae, subfamily Lepturinae) in eastern North America. In addition to the narrow-necked, broad-shouldered appearance characteristic for the subfamily, species in this genus are recognizable by their strongly tapering elytra, strongly basally depressed prothorax, and apically produced antennal segments with distinct poriferous areas (Linsley and Chemsak 1976).

Eight of the 15 species known from North America occur in Missouri, where they are commonly encountered on a variety of flowers during the months of June and July. Some of these species can be difficult to distinguish from each other – in fact, Missouri’s rarest species (Typocerus deceptus) is almost identical in appearance to one of Missouri’s commonest species (Typocerus velutinus), and several other species resemble them closely enough to require careful attention details of coloration when attempting identification.

Typocerus lugubris is not one of those species, its all-black coloration making it quite distinctive within the genus. Two other species in Missouri are mostly black, but unlike T. lugubris they always bear yellow blotches in the basal area of the elytra (T. lunulatus) or exhibit yellow transverse bands (T. zebra). Typocerus confluens also is a rather uncommon species in Missouri that varies from chestnut brown to nearly all black, but it is much more robust than T. lugubris (and also bears erect hairs on the pronotum and lacks poriferous areas on antennomere 6). The remaining species tend to be chestnut colored, at least in the basal area of the elytra, with more or less distinct transverse yellow banding.

Photo Details: Canon 50D (ISO 100, 1/250 sec, f/18), Canon 100mm macro lens, Canon MT-24EX flash (1/4 ratio) w/ Sto-Fen diffusers. Post-processing: levels, minimal crop, unsharp mask.

REFERENCES:

Linsley, E. G. and J. A. Chemsak.  1976. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part VI, No. 2.  Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lepturinae. University of California Publications in Entomology 80:ix + 1–186.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Friday Flower – Sedum pulchellum

/ Ted C. MacRae / 9 Comments

I’m particularly enamored with glades, and after nearly 30 years of exploring Missouri’s Ozark Highlands, there aren’t many glades of any significance that I haven’t visited at some time or another.  However, during my mostly unproductive Memorial Day weekend collecting trip, I had a chance to visit Bona Glade Natural Area in Dade County for the first time.  Located in southwestern Missouri where the Ozark woodlands of the Springfield Plateau begin transitioning to the grasslands of the Great Plains, this small (20 acres) sandstone glade is noted as a station for the federally threatened and state endangered Geocarpon minimum.  I did not see this diminutive plant (sometimes called tinytim) during my visit, but I did see another pretty little succulent – Sedum pulchellum.  Also called widowscross, this plant belongs to the Crassulaceae – the same family as the familiar jade houseplant.

Although not nearly as rare as Geocarpon, widowscross is nevertheless somewhat restricted in Missouri, occurring primarily in the southwestern quarter of the state.  Throughout much of its range it is primarily associated with calcareous limestone glades, ledges, and outcrops (Baskin and Baskin 1977), but in Missouri it grows also on acidic chert and sandstone glades (Yatskievych 2006) – as is the case at Bone Glade.  I’ve not encountered this plant before, thus when I spotted this little stand with its profusion of brilliant pink blossoms, it immediately caught my attention.  A winter annual, this species prefers full sun and well drained, disturbed soils and apparently produces seeds quite prolifically when grown under the right conditions.  These features, along with its petite attractiveness, would seem to make it an ideal native alternative for succulent gardens.

Another, much less common sedum also occurs at Bona Glade, Sedum nuttallianum (Nuttall’s sedum).  This species is similar to S. pulchellum but can be distinguished by its smaller leaves and yellow blossoms.  It’s range is similar to that of Geocarpon, growing almost exclusively on chert and sandstone glades from southwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas south to Louisiana and Texas.  I did not see this plant either – in fact, after finding this small stand of S. pulchellum I searched the entire glade rather thoroughly and did not see any other plants of that species either.

Photo Details: Canon 50D (ISO 100-200, 1/400-500 sec, f/5.6), Canon 100mm macro lens, ambient light. Post-processing: minor cropping, levels, unsharp mask.

REFERENCES:

Baskin, J. M. and C. M. Baskin. 1977. Germination ecology of Sedum pulchellum Michx. (Crassulaceae). American Journal of Botany 64(10):1242-1247.

Yatskievych, G. 2006. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume 2. The Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, 1181 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Nomenclatural changes in Phymatodes

/ Ted C. MacRae / 7 Comments

ResearchBlogging.orgI’ve mentioned before the considerable taxonomic challenges facing students of the family Buprestidae (jewel beetles) in North America, owing largely to fact that more than half of its species are assigned to one of just three hyper-diverse genera (Acmaeodera, Agrilus, and Chrysobothris). New species continue to be described, but the most recent comprehensive treatments of these three genera were published more than 60 to 100 years ago (Fall 1899, Fisher 1928, Fisher 1945)! The situation is not as dire in the “other” major woodboring beetle family – the Cerambycidae (longhorned beetles), thanks in great part to the efforts of Gorton Linsley and John Chemsak and their monographic series of the family’s North American species (Linsley 1961-1964, Linsely and Chemsak 1972-1997). Although somewhat more speciose in North American than the Buprestidae, diversity in the Cerambycidae is more apparent at the generic level (1000+ species in 325 genera, compared to 787 species in only 54 buprestid genera). This does not mean, however, that the Cerambycidae lacks problematic, speciose genera, and in a recently published paper, Ian Swift and Ann Ray (2010) tackle one of these – the genus Phymatodes. While no new species are described, their treatment does propose numerous nomenclatural changes based on examination of type specimens that affect several North American species, including correcting misapplied names and recognizing multiple synonymies. These problems resulted from the practice of many earlier authors who did not examine type specimens when describing new species, relying instead only on written descriptions to compare taxa.

  • Phymatodes blandus is no longer divided into subspecies, with P. blandus concolor now being recognized as a full species.
  • The name Phymatodes decussatus has been used for the wrong species, which is actually P. obliquus. It is distinct from true P. decussatus, which has until now been called P. juglandis. The subspecies formerly placed under P. decussatus are also synonymized under P. obliquus.  Linsley (1964) confused things by applying the name decussatus to this common, oak-associated species and the name juglandis to the species associated with walnut. The type of decussatus, however, matches the walnut species and, since it is the older name, takes priority. The common oak species is thus left without a name, and obliquus is the oldest of the many synonyms created by Thomas Casey.
  • Phymatodes hirtellus is no longer divided into subspecies.
  • Phymatodes lecontei is synonymized under P. grandis.
  • Phymatodes mojavensis is synonymized under P. nitidus.
  • Phymatodes oregonensis is synonymized under P. nigrescens.
  • Phymatodes ursae is synonymized under P. hirtellus.

While this paper is not a full revision of the genus, it does include diagnostic and comparative notes, full color dorsal habitus photographs (example plate below), and an updated key to all of the species found in North America.

PLATE 1. 1) Phymatodes aeneus, male; 2) P. aereus, female; 3) P. amoenus, female; 4) P. amoenus, female ventral; 5) P. ater, female; 6) P. ater, female; 7) P. blandus, male; 8 ) P. concolor, male; 9) P. decussatus, male. © Swift & Ray 2010.

The genus Phymatodes is most diverse in the western states and provinces – I haven’t spent as much time out there as in other areas of North America, so representation of this genus in my collection is rather weak at only 10 of the 26 species currently recognized in North America. Missing from my cabinet are the following – if anyone is able to help me out with these I would be most grateful:

  • Phymatodes aeneus LeConte, 1854
  • Phymatodes ater LeConte, 1884
  • Phymatodes concolor Linsley, 1934
  • Phymatodes decussatus (LeConte, 1857)
  • Phymatodes fulgidus Hopping, 1928
  • Phymatodes infuscatus (LeConte, 1859)
  • Phymatodes lengi Joutel, 1911
  • Phymatodes lividus (Rossi, 1794) – introduced to eastern U.S.
  • Phymatodes maculicollis LeConte, 1878
  • Phymatodes nigerrimus Van Dyke, 1920
  • Phymatodes nigrescens Hardy & Preece, 1927
  • Phymatodes obliquus Casey, 1891
  • Phymatodes rainieri Van Dyke, 1937
  • Phymatodes shareeae Cope, 1984
  • Phymatodes tysoni Chemsak & Linsley, 1984
  • Phymatodes vulneratus LeConte, 1857

REFERENCES:

Fall, H. C.  1899. Synonpsis of the species of Acmaeodera of America, north of Mexico. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 7(1):1–37 [scroll to “Journal of the New York Entomological Society”, “v. 7 1899”, “Seq 12”].

Fisher, W. S.  1928. A revision of the North American species of buprestid beetles belonging to the genus Agrilus. U. S. National Museum 145, 347 pp.

Fisher, W. S.  1942. A revision of North American species of buprestid beetles belonging to the tribe Chrysobothrini.  U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 470, 275 pp.

Linsley, E. G.  1961. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part I.  Introduction.  University of California Publications in Entomology 18:1–97.

Linsley, E. G.  1962. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part II.  Taxonomy and classification of the Parandrinae, Prioninae, Spondylinae and Aseminae.  University of California Publications in Entomology 19:1–102.

Linsley, E. G.  1962. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part III.  Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Cerambycinae, tribes Opsimini through Megaderini.  University of California Publications in Entomology 20:1–188.

Linsley, E. G.  1963. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part IV.  Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Cerambycinae, tribes Elaphidionini through Rhinotragini.  University of California Publications in Entomology 21:1–165.

Linsley, E. G.  1964. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part V.  Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Cerambycinae, tribes Callichromini through Ancylocerini.  University of California Publications in Entomology 22:1–197.

Linsley, E. G. and J. A. Chemsak.  1972. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part VI, No. 1.  Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lepturinae.  University of California Publications in Entomology 69:viii + 1–138.

Linsley, E. G. and J. A. Chemsak.  1976. The Cerambycidae of North America.  Part VI, No. 2.  Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lepturinae.  University of California Publications in Entomology 80:ix + 1–186.

Linsley, E. G. and J. A. Chemsak.  1984. The Cerambycidae of North America, Part VII, No. 1: taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lamiinae, tribes Parmenini through Acanthoderini.  University of California Publications in Entomology 102:ix + 1–258.

Linsley, E. G. and J. A. Chemsak.  1995. The Cerambycidae of North America, Part VII, No. 2: taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lamiinae, tribes Acanthocinini through Hemilophini.  University of California Publications in Entomology 114:xi + 1–292.

Linsley, E. G. and J. A. Chemsak.  1997. The Cerambycidae of North America, Part VIII: bibliography, index, and host plant index.  University of California Publications in Entomology 117:ix + 1–534..

Swift, I. P. & A. M. Ray. 2010. Nomenclatural changes in North American Phymatodes Mulsant (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Zootaxa 2448:35–52.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

North America’s largest tiger beetle (I think!)

/ Ted C. MacRae / 12 Comments

The generous among us might call it serendipity, while the rest of us would just call it luck.  By whatever name, I had it in spades in June last year when I made my first visit to the Glass Mountains of northwestern Oklahoma.  My original plan was to go to Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in eastern Oklahoma at the end of what proved to be a resoundingly successful day at Alabaster Caverns State Park.  However, soaking rains moved into the area and continued rumbling eastward across the plains towards the preserve, forcing a quick change of itinerary.  I decided to wait it out in the state’s western reaches, a “hunch” telling me that the red clay/gypsum hills in nearby Major County might be a fruitful place for hunting tiger beetles.  Sunny skies the next morning were a good sign, and my hunch was rewarded later that day when I discovered a previously unknown (and fortunately robust) population of the rare Cylindera celeripes (swift tiger beetle), making not just the day but the entire trip more successful than I could have ever imagined.  Icing on the cake came when I found decent numbers of the more secure but nevertheless uncommon Dromochorus pruinina (frosted dromo tiger beetle) also in the area.

Another find I made that day that I’ve mentioned on occasion but not talked about at length was a single, rather large tiger beetle larva.  I found several burrows at the base of a talus slope at the edge of a small ravine where many adult C. celeripes were scurrying, and though I tried with many, out of only one did I manage to “fish” its occupant with a blade of grass.  I didn’t know which species it represented, but its large size and occurrence in clay soil brought to mind two species – Cicindela pulchra (beautiful tiger beetle) and C. obsoleta (large grassland tiger beetle).  Both of these Great Plains species reach their eastern limit of distribution in this part of Oklahoma (Pearson et al. 2006), and their status as the largest species of the genus (and its former subgenera) in North America seemed to make them the leading candidates for this enormous larva.  There was one other possibility – Amblycheila cylindriformis (Great Plains giant tiger beetle), another Great Plains species at its eastern limit in western Oklahoma and (as the common name implies) the largest tiger beetle in all of North America.  However, to consider that species seemed too much wishful thinking.  From my understanding, larvae of that elusive species reach an incredible 45 mm in length and dig burrows  on steep slopes or at the mouths of rodent burrows that extend vertically to depths of up to 1.5 m or more (Brust et al. 2005).  Surely I could not have so casually stumbled upon such a grand grub!

I placed the larva in a terrarium of native soil and brought it back with me, and for one year now I have waited – feeding it a regular diet of the fat noctuid caterpillars that we rear so abundantly in our lab.  For a full year, I’ve watched it nab caterpillar after caterpillar, disappearing mysteriously for days on end, and just as mysteriously reappearing at the top of its burrow.  I knew getting a closer look at it would help in my attempts to determine its identity, but every time I approached with a camera it dodged down into its burrow and beat my patience.  Sometimes I would see it sitting about a centimeter below the burrow entrance – just waiting for a caterpillar to crawl by but refusing to expose itself to the lens.  I gradually decided it was likely C. pulchra, as I had seen that species in similar habitat not too far north in Barber County, Kansas.  So strong was my suspicion that I even made another trip out to the Glass Mountains in October of last year, expecting to see the fall-active adults bejeweling the exposed flats below the red clay slopes, their wine-red elytra and purple-margined bodies all aglitter under the crisp, autumn sun.  No such sight was beheld, however – my hopes dashed by the season’s sudden cold and wet turn, and with the terrarium containing the larva by then tucked away in a cool incubator for a winter’s rest, it would be several months before I would see the larva once again sitting at the top of its burrow.

In late March I pulled the terrarium out of the incubator, and within a week the larva reopened its burrow.  I fed it a few times, and then one day I saw that it had dug a new, larger  burrow – measuring a full 10 mm in diameter!  This seemed extraordinarily large for any species of Cicindela, so I resolved once again to photograph it and determine its identity.  For days I stalked it, keeping the terrarium just outside my office door where I could keep an eye on it, yet every time I approached within two feet or so it would drop down out of sight.  I decided to stop feeding it – perhaps hunger would overwhelm its patience and prompt it to return to the top of its burrow more quickly after retreating.  That seemed to work, as one day the larva came back up after only a few minutes – and I was ready!  Already  in position, I flashed off multiple shots as soon as it reappeared, moving slowly and deliberately between shots to avoid spooking it again, and managed to get a nice series from varying distances.  As a testament to its enormous size, all of the photos shown here were taken with the standard 100mm macro lens (1X maximum) – not the 65mm 1-5X beast that I needed for these shots of the super-tiny C. celeripes.

Thinking that the larva likely represented C. pulchra, I compared the photos to this photo taken by Matt Brust of a 3rd-instar larva of C. pulchra and immediately noted the differently shaped pronotum of my larva and its distinctly projecting anterolateral angles.  Compare to C. pulchra, in which the angles are in line with the median part of the anterior margin – it is clearly not that species.  It isn’t C. obsoleta either, as that species has the anterolateral angles of the pronotum even less projecting than C. pulchra (Drew and Van Cleave 1962).  Apparently I needed to rethink my assumption that it belonged to Cicindela or its close relatives – none that occur in Oklahoma are simply large enough!  Tetracha virginica is large enough, but I knew it wasn’t that species since it lacked the white margined pronotum distinctive of species in that genus (as can be seen in this post on the larva of Tetracha florida).  That left only A. cylindriformis, distinguishable from all other tiger beetle genera occurring in Oklahoma by the second (lower) pair of eyes distinctly smaller than the first (Hamilton 1925, Drew and Van Cleave 1962, Pearson et al. 2006) – clearly seen in the third photo above.  Matt Brust has also photographed the larva of A. cylindriformis – it’s not a close shot of the head and pronotum, but in general aspect my larva seems to match it well enough.

All that is left is to actually succeed in rearing this larva to adulthood.  These beasts may require up to three to four years to develop (Brust et al. 2005), although this is likely influenced by latitude and prey abundance.  I suspect it was a second instar larva when I collected it, and that it dug its new burrow this spring after molting to the third (and final) instar.  Hopefully by keeping it in a nice, warm growth chamber and feeding it generously with fat caterpillars, I can minimize the time to pupation and perhaps see the adult sometime later this summer.  If/when that happens, you can be sure to see a follow up to this post.

Photo Details: Canon 50D (ISO 100, 1/250 sec, f/16-18), Canon 100mm macro lens, Canon MT-24EX flash (1/4 ratio) w/ Sto-Fen diffusers. Post-processing: contrast and unsharp mask (no cropping).

REFERENCES:

Brust, M. L., S. M. Spomer and W. W. Hoback.  2005. Tiger Beetles of Nebraska.  University of Nebraska at Kearney.  http://www.unk.edu (Version 5APR2005).

Drew, W. A. and H. W. Van Cleave.  1962. The tiger beetles of Oklahoma (Cicindelidae).  Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 42:101–122.

Hamilton, C. C.  1925. Studies on the morphology, taxonomy, and ecology of the larvae of Holarctic tiger beetles (family Cicindelidae).  Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 65 (Art. 17):1–87.

Pearson, D. L., C. B. Knisley and C. J. Kazilek. 2006. A Field Guide to the Tiger Beetles of the United States and Canada. Oxford University Press, New York, 227 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

June beetles, moths, and herps

/ Ted C. MacRae / Leave a comment

New issues of my three favorite carnivals have been issued in the past day or two. See what’s been going on in the blog world of beetles, moths, and herps during the past month.

Seabrooke Leckie has just posted An Inordinate Fondness #5 at the Marvelous in Nature. I was delighted when Seabrooke offered to host this issue – an experienced nature blog carnival host, her standing as a member of the Nature Blog Network team and author of one of its most popular blogs promised to bring an air of credibility to this newest of nature blog carnivals.  With the creative flair that we’ve come to expect from her, Seabrooke shares with us ten different species in eight different families and presenting a multitude of shapes and colors – from iridescent green tamarisk weevils and false blister beetles, to black and red milkweed leaf beetles and ladybird beetles, to strikingly patterned longhorned beetles, to brown yet anything but boring rain beetles (and once you’ve seen what’s out there, learn about everything you need to go out and collect them).

Chris Grinter at The Skeptical Moth joins the blog carnival host ranks with The Moth and Me #12.  Chris is an entomologist at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco specializing in  microlepidoptera.  I’m a big fan of Chris’ blog, which I featured in New Bug Blogs of note earlier this year, and his first effort as a blog carnival host – covering 14 submissions in all (including some extraordinary wasp mimics) – is as solid as they come.  I hope you’ll not only check out this edition of TMaM, but also the rest of TSM – its combination of high quality photography and lepidopterous erudition make it the real deal.

Lastly, House of Herps #7 – Dr. Seuss Edition is up at the home site, House of Herps.  This one is a real treat, as HoH co-founder Jason Hogle has once again shown why, in just a few short months, he has become one of the top blog carnival hosts around.  For this issue, Jason takes us back to our childhoods with his own version of Dr. Seuss (and with herp links artfully embedded).  For myself, when I think back on my childhood, I remember catching snakes and turtles and lizards and frogs and holding them (temporarily) in assorted home-made terraria (often just a big pickle jar with dirt and rocks and a dish of water.  I didn’t care what they were called (I always gave them names of my own choosing), I just enjoyed watching them and seeing how they behaved and figuring out what they ate.  Head on over to HoH and rekindle that childhood fascination with all things creepy and crawly.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Swift Tiger Beetle – good news, bad news

/ Ted C. MacRae / 13 Comments

Sorry about the noisy video – it was shot in one of our walk-in growth chambers with fans going full-bore! Anyway, the video shows a couple of mating pairs of Cylindera celeripes (swift tiger beetle) that I brought back from the Loess Hills of extreme northwest Missouri this past weekend.  Watch carefully and you’ll see the first pair actively copulating before they break apart. After that I pan over to the second pair, which is not actively mating but have remained coupled as an example of behavior called “mate guarding” You might also notice a few very small green “bugs” in the container – these are 2nd-instar Lygus nymphs, which I placed in the container earlier in the day as prey – it was quite a sight to see the tiger beetles immediately begin chowing down on them! At the end of the video, I poke at the second mating pair with my forefinger to give an indication of their tiny size – this flightless species is one of the smallest in all of North America! Knowing how tiny the beetles are and how well they blend into their surroundings (you’ll have to imagine the 1-2 ft of plant growth that was surrounding them in the field), you can appreciate just how difficult these beetles are to detect in their native habitat.

There is a “good news, bad news” aspect to the story behind these beetles. This rare Great Plains species was unknown from Missouri until last year, when we (Chris Brown and I) discovered it in loess hilltop prairie remnants at Brickyard Hill, Star School Hill Prairie, and McCormack Loess Mounds Conservation Areas. Loess hilltop prairie is among Missouri’s most critically endangered natural community due to its restricted occurrence at the southern tip of the Loess Hills landform and more than a century of overgrazing and relentless encroachment by woody vegetation and invasive exotics. The sites where we found the beetle last year contain the highest quality loess hilltop prairie remnants in Missouri, so we are now taking a more thorough look at some of the smaller remnants that still exist in the area. The most promising of these are at Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge and on several privately owned lands near the known sites, and these were the sites that I searched this past weekend. Some of these sites looked promising (one in particular looked excellent), but thorough searching at each revealed no beetles. By the time I finished searching the last of them I had begun to wonder if: 1) my “search image” for the species had gotten rusty, or 2) my timing was a bit too early (last year’s populations were discovered in late June). To test this, we (daughter Madison and I) returned to one of the known sites (McCormack) where we had seen only two beetles last year (unable to capture either one). As we hiked along the ridge top leading to the spot where we saw them, I kept a close watch on the narrow trail in front of me. Nothing. However, as soon as I came upon “the spot” I saw one! I dropped to my knees and slapped my hands down on the ground, forming an “arena” between my two thumbs and forefingers, but the beetle ran over my hand too quickly and escaped. No matter – in less than a minute I saw another one and successfully trapped it under my fingers as it ran over my other hand. During the next 15-20 minutes I would see at least eight individuals along the narrow trail in this single spot. While it was gratifying to see more individuals at this site than we had seen last year, it also meant that the timing of my searches at the other sites was fine and that I was not suffering from a rusty search image. The beetle could still be at those sites where I had failed to find it, but if it is then it certainly does not occur in very high numbers. It also bothers me that at this site the beetle seems to be restricted to one isolated ridge, which appears not to have been burned in recent years (in contrast to the rest of the preserve, which seems to have been burned within the past year or so). I searched all the remaining ridge top again thoroughly after finding the beetles again this year, but no beetles were seen anywhere except this tiny spot where we have now seen beetles in successive years.

Missouri’s few existing loess hilltop prairie remnants are not only small but highly disjunct, and the flightless nature of the beetle makes re-colonization of a remnant unlikely in the event of a localized extirpation. There is obviously much we still do not know about the impact of burning on the beetle and how best to devise management plans that consider both the habitat and the beetle. However, one thing is clear – both the habitat and the beetle are critically imperiled in Missouri, and the fate of both are in our hands, right here and right now! We’d better get this figured out quick if we’re going to save both, and there seems to be little room for error. For my part, in addition to pinpointing where our populations occur and precisely what habitats are supporting them, I am trying to develop an effective rearing technique for this never-before-reared species in the event that captive rearing becomes necessary for reintroduction or augmentation of native populations. The adults seem very delicate and do not travel well, but I have found that if I prepare a terrarium in the field for transporting the adults then they survive well – even when traveling for several days. The container measures 6 1/4” H x 8” L, and I’ve placed a chunk of native soil cut from the site where I found the beetles and kept intact. The debris on the soil surface is intact as well, but the plants growing in the soil have (obviously) been trimmed. I’ll collect eggs from these individuals and experiment with different methods that I’ve been working on for rearing the larvae to see which are the most efficient and effective.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Where’s Ted now?

/ Ted C. MacRae / 5 Comments

…in the Loess Hills of northwest Missouri, looking for additional sites for Cylindera celeripes (swift tiger beetle). Recall that we (Chris Brown and I) finally found this rarely collected species last year in Missouri (after many years of looking) in high quality remnants of loess hilltop prairie (a critically endangered natural community in Missouri).  The beetle was found at Brickyard Hill, Star School Hill Prairie, and McCormack Loess Mounds Conservation Areas, which combined contain nearly half of the 50 or so acres of loess hilltop prairie still existing in Missouri. The remaining acres are located at Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge and on private lands – my sincere appreciation goes out to Squaw Creek Refuge staff and three private landowners, who have all graciously extended to me (and my able field assistant Madison) access to the loess hilltop prairie remnants under their stewardship to better characterize the beetle’s distribution in the area. The sites I am visiting have varied burn histories, ranging from recent to 6 years or more since the previous burn, thus, I am also hoping to better understand the possible impact of prescribed burns on the species’ occurrence in loess hilltop prairie remnants. The beetle needs these remnants to survive, and prescribed burning is an important tool for helping to restore this natural community after decades of shrinkage due to woody encroachment. The trick will be to design management plans that accomplish these restoration objectives while at the same time minimizing possible negative impacts of the burns on existing beetle populations.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend