GBCT Beetle #5: Crossidius coralinus monoensis

Crossidius coralinus monoensis (male) | Mono Co., California

Crossidius coralinus monoensis (male) | Mono Co., California

After spending the first four days of our Great Basin Collecting Trip (GBCT) traveling around west-central Nevada, we dropped down into California and traveled south next to the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada towards Mono Basin. We had two goals for the day: 1) a very localized population of Crossidius hirtipes known from “Kennedy Meadow” and described originally by Chemsak & Linsley (1959) as C. rhodopus flavescens but transferred to a subspecies of C. hirtipes in their revision of the genus (Linsley & Chemsak 1961), and 2) the stunningly beautiful C. coralinus monoensis! Before reaching the first destination, we were temporarily distracted by the inviting shores of Topaz Lake just after crossing the Nevada/California state line, where we found only a few extremely wary Cicindela oregona oregona darting across its muddy banks. We then spent a good portion of the day in a futile attempt to find C. h. flavescens—one of only two Crossidius subspecies we did not find out of the 16 species/subspecies that we had targeted for the trip. Our failure to find this subspecies was largely a consequence of going to “Kennedy Meadows” in Tuolumne Co. rather than “Kennedy Meadow” further to the south in Tulare Co.! (Note to self: pay attention not only to the name of the locality but also the county!)

Crossidius coralinus monoensis (female) | Mono Co., California

Crossidius coralinus monoensis (female) | Mono Co., California

As a consequence of the day’s distractions and diversions, we didn’t arrive at the C. coralinus monoensis locality until quite late in the day. Fortunately, we were looking for a C. coralinus subspecies rather than a C. hirtipes subspecies, as the latter seem to have the habit of retreating down from the flower heads of their host plants starting around 5 p.m. and not coming back up until mid-morning the following day. Crossidius coralinus subspecies, on the other hand, seem to stay put on the flower heads through the night, perhaps burying themselves inside the flower heads but not retreating down from the plant. As a result, they may still be found during the late afternoon and early evening hours. Because of this, we still had a chance of finding them (if they were there) despite our late arrival, and only a few minutes passed before I found a male (first photo) on flowers of gray rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa). The appearance was so strikingly different that I wasn’t even sure what I had found at first—I knew it wasn’t a C. hirtipes subspecies, but the bright orange coloration and relatively smaller size were quite different from the larger, red/black C. coralinus subspecies that I had seen to that point. Once I found a female, however (second photo), I realized that we had found C. coralinus monoensis.

Mono Basin near Mammoth Lakes (7000 ft)—locality for Crossidius coralinus monoensis

Mono Basin near Mammoth Lakes (7000 ft)—locality for Crossidius coralinus monoensis

This subspecies is immediately distinguishable from the C. c. temprans we were collecting further north in Nevada (and, in fact, most other C. coralinus subspecies) by its bright orange rather than dark red coloration. We found only a handful of individuals (as we did two days later when we passed by the site again), and their average size was considerably smaller than the former as well. The subspecies does greatly resemble C. c. caeruleipennis, found still further south at much lower elevations in Owen’s Valley (and a target for the following day) but differs by its smaller average size and presence of distinctly expanded black elytral markings and apical and basal black pronotal bands.

REFERENCES:

Chemsak, J. A. & E. G. Linsley. 1959. Descriptions of some new Cerambycidae from Mexico and southwestern United States. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 32(3):111–114 [preview].

Linsley, E. G. & J. A. Chemsak. 1961. A distributional and taxonomic study of the genus Crossidius (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America 3(2):25–64 + 3 color plates.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

The Festive Tiger Beetle in Southeast Missouri

Cicindela scutellaris lecontei x s. unicolor

Cicindela scutellaris lecontei x scutellaris unicolor (male) | Holly Ridge Conservation Area, Missouri

This past spring I returned to the lowlands of southeastern Missouri in an effort to find and photograph a population of tiger beetles that seems to be unique to the area. The beetles represent Cicindela scutellaris (Festive Tiger Beetle), a widespread species that is common in dry sand habitats across the central and eastern U.S. It is also one of North America’s most polytopic species, with populations in the Great Plains, eastern U.S., Atlantic Coast, southeastern Coastal Plain, and several isolated populations on the western and southwestern peripheries of the species’ range of distribution recognized as distinct subspecies. In Missouri the species is known only from the extreme northwestern, northeastern, and southeastern corners of the state. In all of these areas the populations are found on alluvial sand deposits associated with the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Additional sand deposits are found in the areas between these three widely disjunct areas, but curiously the species has not yet been found in them, despite the presence of other species that occupy these same habitats such as Cicindela formosa (Big Sand Tiger Beetle).

Cicindela scutellaris lecontei x s. unicolor

Cicindela scutellaris lecontei x scutellaris unicolor (male) | Holly Ridge Conservation Area, Missouri

The populations in northern Missouri fall well within the distributional range of subspecies C. s. lecontei and are readily assignable to that taxon based on their wine-red coloration and well developed elytral markings. The population in southeastern Missouri, however, cannot be assigned either to that subspecies or to the more southern subspecies C. s. unicolor, which occurs along the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain and is characterized by solid green coloration and no elytral markings. Individuals from southeastern Missouri are typically green, as in C. s. unicolor, but usually exhibit a distinct wine overtone from C. s. lecontei that varies greatly in its degree of development. Like C. s. lecontei, the elytra are usually marked, but never as strongly as in C. s. lecontei and sometimes not at all (as in C. s. unicolor). The two individuals shown in these photos represent the typical condition—wine blushing and elytral markings only moderately developed; however, more extreme examples can be seen in photos from fall 2008 and spring 2009 (taken during my “point-and-shoot” days, which explains my desire to photograph these beetles again). The intergradation of characters, their variable development, and the apparent presence of a wide disjunction zone between this population and C. s. lecontei to the north suggest to me that it originated from a relatively recent hybridization event between C. s. lecontei and C. s. unicolor—perhaps during the post-glacial hypsithermal that ended some 5,000 years ago.

Cicindela scutellaris lecontei x s. unicolor

Cicindela scutellaris lecontei x scutellaris unicolor (female) | Sand Prairie Conservation Area, Missouri

While I am happier with these photos than I am with those taken earlier, they don’t represent either the full range of variability seen in the population or the most aesthetically pleasing tiger beetle photographs I’ve ever taken. I made two trips to the southeast this past spring, and on each trip I was successful in finding and photographing only a single, very skittish individual—one on a sandy trail through upland forest (Holly Ridge Conservation Area) and the other along the margin of a sand blowout in a native sand prairie remnant (Sand Prairie Conservation Area). I’ll try again this coming spring and hopefully will be able to show some better photographs.

p.s. Can you tell the difference in the type of flash diffuser I used between these two trips? If so, which one do you like better?

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

INHS Seminar: Tiger Beetles of Missouri

If you are in the Champaign, Illinois area on Tuesday, 29 October 2013, I will be giving a seminar as part of the Illinois Natural History Survey Fall 2013 Seminar Series. I hope to see you there!

My thanks to Dr. Sam Heads for extending to me the invitation and to Jennifer Mui for preparing the very nice poster and attending to travel details.

INHS-Seminar-MacRae_2013-10-29
Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

GBCT Beetle #4—Crossidius hirtipes rubrescens

Crossidius hirtipes rubrescens (male) | Lyon Co., Nevada

Crossidius hirtipes rubrescens (male) | Lyon Co., Nevada

Linsley & Chemsak (1961) characterize the longhorned beetle species Crossidius hirtipes as “probably the most diverse species within the genus.” Occurring throughout the Great Basin and adjacent areas, the variability it expresses in punctation, color, elytral pattern and pubescence have resulted in the recognition of 16 named subspecies and numerous additional distinct but unnamed populations. During our Great Basin Collecting Trip (GBCT) in late August, we targeted ten of the named subspecies (representing the majority of populations found across the southern half of the species’ distribution) and succeeded in finding eight of them. I’ve already featured C. h. immaculatus, occurring across northern Nevada and northeastern California and the first beetle we found on the trip, and the photo above shows a male of what we consider to represent C. h. rubrescens—one of three C. hirtipes subspecies restricted to a very small area in west-central Nevada. Linsley & Chemsak (1961) described this subspecies from a series taken just north of Yearington on Chrysothamnus greenei (now Ericameria greenei), noting that it differs from other subspecies by its pinkish cast to its coloration and its pale appendages.

We almost did not find this subspecies.  We had stopped at several places along the road as we approached Yearington from the north and finally stopped at a spot 2.6 miles north of town with good stands of E. greenei. Although we found a few C. coralinus temprans on the plants, we did not see C. hirtipes. While we were searching we noticed a much smaller yellow-flowering asteraceous plant that at first we thought might be something in the genus Haplopappus but which I now believe represents a variety of Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus—the normal host plant for most subspecies of C. hirtipes (a plant voucher was collected and has been sent off for identification). We searched these plants as well but didn’t see any beetles on them, and after a while we decided we’d given the locality a good enough look and that we should move on. We began walking back towards the car, and as we approached the car I happened to look down and saw a mating pair of C. hirtipes sitting on a C. viscidiflorus flower. The pair split and bolted right when I saw them, but we managed to capture one of them and decided maybe we should look around a little more. The beetles were scarce, and another hour of searching produced only a handful—mostly in a small area further north of the area we had been searching. We then checked a couple of other nearby spots but found only a few host plants and no beetles, so we decided to go back to the site and search again. While none were seen in the original spot, we found much better stands of the plant in the adjacent area even further to the north and managed to collect a decent though not large series of adults before the setting sun caused the beetles to retreat and end our day. The individual in the photo above (recognizable as a male by its relatively longer antennae and immaculate elytra) was photographed as the setting sun turned the smoke-filled sky to a soft, burnt orange color that nicely compliments the color of the beetle.

REFERENCE:

Linsley, E. G. & J. A. Chemsak. 1961. A distributional and taxonomic study of the genus Crossidius (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America 3(2):25–64 + 3 color plates.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Just another ‘bug on white’

“White box” photography seems to have become quite popular for insects during the past couple of years, and what used to be a rarely used technique for photographing insects has become rather commonplace. It’s really not that hard to do—all you need is a camera, a flash, an insect, and… um, a white box. Put the insect in the box (maybe cover it with a petri dish and turn the lights off for a bit of time until it settles down), direct the flash towards the interior of the box, and start shooting. It takes only a little bit of trial and error to dial in the proper flash direction and duration (or flash exposure compensation if you use ETTL), and the results can be dramatic, especially if you post-process to enhance levels, contrast, brightness, etc. You can even cheat a little and skip the white box if you have a good flash diffuser and don’t care that there might be a little bit of gray in the furthest reaches of the background (pleading guilty here)—just place the bug on white paper and shoot away.

Cicindela oregona oregona | Topaz Lake, California

Cicindela oregona oregona | Topaz Lake, California

I guess I can’t complain about the new-found popularity of “bug-on-white” photography—anything that makes insects more appealing to the general public is a good thing, and the purity of the photos seems not only to enhance the appearance of the insects but actually makes them seem… well, “cleaner.” Nevertheless, I’ve only dabbled in bug-on-white photos and not gotten into the technique in a big way. The reason for this is that I still, all things being equal, prefer to photograph insects in the field in their native habitats—hopefully also exhibiting interesting natural behaviors. That is the goal, of course, but it is not always a possibility, especially when it comes to one of my favorite subject groups—tiger beetles. Photographing tiger beetles in the field is a challenge due to their extremely wary habits, swift running and rapid flight capabilities, and penchant for extreme, often hostile habitats. Many times I am up for the challenge and will spend whatever time it takes and suffer all manner of indignance to get the shot. However, there are times when there are other tasks at hand or a perfect storm of conditions makes the beetles simply impossible to approach. This was one of those times.

Cicindela oregona oregona | Topaz Lake, California

 

We encountered the beetle shown in these photos on the California side of Lake Topaz along its muddy southwestern banks. The beetles were not numerous—unusual for the species Cicindela oregona which can oftentimes be quite abundant along shoreline habitats throughout the western U.S. Time was at a premium, as it was supposed to be just a quick stop to see what might be found as we headed further south into Mono Co. to look for some rather spectacular longhorned beetles in the genus Crossidius unique to the area. An added difficulty was the habitat—the beetles were at the edge of a very shallowly pitched mudflat, preventing us from reaching the water’s edge without sinking deeply into the rancid mud. Between this and their scarce numbers, field photographs would have required more of an investment in time and cleanup than I was prepared to spend, so I netted a few individuals for the record and kept one alive for photographs later that night in the comfort of my hotel room.

xxx

One of the nice things about bug-on-white photographs is the ability to get a variety of carefully executed compositions from the most optimum vantage point. Lateral profile shots are almost a requirement, as are shots with the head of the insect slightly turned towards the lens. Of course, I cannot photograph a tiger beetle and not take the perfectly centered, full-on face shot. In all of these cases, the ability to get the camera truly “down” on the subject’s level means that I can maximize the use of low perspective, and nowadays I don’t even bother with dorsal shots that might be good for some future field guide but that I find really quite boring in their aesthetics.

xxx

In fact, you can even take the low perspective to the extreme by actually elevating the subject and coaxing it towards the edge of its platform to allow photography from below. Compare the above frontal portrait of the beetle, taken from a particularly extreme low perspective, with the photo above it, taken at the same level as the subject. Both photographs provide an interesting and aesthetically pleasing perspective, but in very different ways despite the small change in the angle of the camera—the upper photo is pleasing due more to the symmetry of the composition, while the lower photo derives its interest in the unusual perspective that highlights the setose mouthparts and bulging eyes.

xxx

I have long wanted to photograph a tiger beetle with blue sky background (hat tip to Thomas Shahan for giving me that idea during the inaugural BugShot). Sadly, I have not succeeded in doing this. The main problem is in trying to get an extremely wary subject in just the right place at the right time. Since these beetles occur on the ground rather than being elevated on foliage (at least under normal circumstances in the U.S.), one must find a spot where the ground drops sharply enough to allow the photographer to get below the subject, and then somehow get the tiger beetle to pose right at the edge of the precipice. The above photograph is sort of a simulation of the kind of photo I am striving for, achieved in this case by (are you ready for this?) hanging a pair of blue underwear behind the subject, which is sitting on a piece of white paper placed at the edge of the table. The combination of “blue-sky” and bug-on-white techniques is interesting, but don’t think I’ll be able to rest until I have succeeded in a true field version of this photograph. If anyone manages to achieve this before I do, please let me know how you did it (in exchange for me having given you the idea :)).

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Quick Guide to Armyworms on Soybean

Throughout the soybean growing areas of the southern U.S. and South America, lepidopteran caterpillars are the most important pest complex affecting the crop. Millions of pounds of insecticides are sprayed on the crop each year in an effort to minimize their impact—a practice that is not always successful and entails significant exposure risks to the environment and farm workers alike. A variety of lepidopteran species occur in soybeans, and proper identification is essential to ensure adequate control and avoiding unnecessary applications. While the most important and commonly encountered species are velvetbean caterpillar (Anticarsia gemmatalis) and soybean looper (Chrysodeixis includens), others include soybean podworms (Helicoverpa zea in the U.S.; H. gelotopoeon and—now—H. armigera in Brazil and Argentina), sunflower looper (Rachiplusia nu), bean shoot moth (Crocidosema aporema), and armyworms of the genus Spodoptera. The last group contains several species that can affect soybean, and while they have traditionally been considered minor pests of the crop a number of species have increased in importance during the past few years.

I have been conducting soybean field trials in both the U.S. and South America for many years now and have had an opportunity to photograph most of the species known to occur on soybean in these regions. Identification of armyworm larvae can be rather difficult due to their similarity of appearance, lack of distinctive morphological differences (e.g. number of prolegs), and intraspecific variability in coloration. Conclusive identification is not always possible, especially with younger larvae; however, the different species do exhibit subtle characters that can usually allow for fairly reliable identification of large larvae. Considering the dearth of direct comparative resources—either in print or online—I offer this quick guide to the six armyworm species that I’ve encountered in soybean.


Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) | Jerseyville, Illinois

Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) | Jerseyville, Illinois

Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm). This is not the most important armyworm pest of soybean, in contrast to its great importance in other crops such as corn and cotton. It is, however, the most widely distributed of the species, occurring in both the southern U.S. and throughout soybean growing areas of Brazil and Argentina. When problems do occur on soybean they are usually a result of larvae moving from grassy weeds to small soybean plants in late-planted or double-crop fields. Larvae can damage all stages of soybean, from seedlings (cutting them off at ground level) to later stages by feeding primarily on foliage and even pods. Larvae are somewhat variable in coloration but are distinctive among armyworms by virtue of the pinaculae (sclerotized tubercles) visible over the dorsum, each bearing a single stout seta. Four pinaculae are present on each of the abdominal segments, with those on the eighth abdominal segment forming a square, and larvae also exhibit a pronounced inverted, white, Y-shaped mark on the head.


Spodoptera exigua (beet armyworm) | Stoneville, Mississippi

Spodoptera exigua (beet armyworm) | Stoneville, Mississippi

Spodoptera exigua (beet armyworm). This species is better known as a pest of vegetables but will occasionally damage soybean in the southern U.S. In soybean larvae prefer to feed on foliage of seedling plants but will, if present during reproductive stages, also feed on blossoms and small pods. Late-instar larvae can be rather variable in appearance, but most tend to be green above and pinkish or yellowish below with a white stripe along the side. Larvae can be confused with Spodoptera eridania (southern armyworm) because of a dark spot that might be present on the side, but in southern armyworm the spot is on the first abdominal segment while in beet armyworm (when present) it is on the mesothorax.


Spodoptera ornithogalli (yellowstriped armyworm) | Jerseyville, Illinois

Spodoptera ornithogalli (yellow-striped armyworm) | Jerseyville, Illinois

Spodoptera ornithogalli (yellow-striped armyworm). This species is widely distributed throughout North and South America, but its status as an occasional pest of soybean is limited practically to the southeastern U.S. It is often encountered in soybean in low numbers but can reach pest status in double-crop fields with small plants that have been planted after wheat (similar to fall armyworm). Compared to other species in the genus the larvae are rather uniform in appearance, exhibiting paired, black, triangular spots along the back of each abdominal segment with thin to prominent yellow stripes running lengthwise adjacent to and not interrupted by the spots. Larvae oftentimes have an almost black velvety appearance with distinctly contrasting bright yellow stripes.


Spodoptera eridania (southern armyworm) | Jerseyville, Illinois

Spodoptera eridania (southern armyworm) | Jerseyville, Illinois

Spodoptera eridania (southern armyworm) | Union City, Tennessee

Spodoptera eridania (southern armyworm) | Union City, Tennessee

Spodoptera eridania (southern armyworm). This species is, like fall armyworm, widely distributed from the southern U.S. through Brazil and Argentina. In the U.S. it occurs only sporadically on soybean, usually causing “hot spots” of damage by groups of many larvae hatching from a single egg mass and skeletonizing the nearby foliage before dispersing as they grow larger. In Brazil and Argentina this species has emerged during recent years as one of the most important armyworm pests of soybean, especially in regions where cotton is also grown. Larvae can be somewhat variable in appearance and, in South America, can be easily confused with those of the black armyworm (S. cosmioides), both of which often exhibit prominent black markings on first and eighth abdominal segments and a subspiracular light-colored line along the length of the thorax and abdomen. Southern armyworm, however, rarely exhibits an additional black marking on top of the mesothoracic segment. Additionally, when the subspiracular line is present it is interrupted by the black marking on the first abdominal segment and is less distinct in front of the spot than behind, and if the line is not present then the black spots on top of the first abdominal segment are larger than those on top of the eighth abdominal segment.


Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm) | Acevedo (Buenos Aires Prov.), Argentina

Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm) | Acevedo (Buenos Aires Prov.), Argentina

Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm) | Chaco Prov., Argentina

Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm) | Saenz Peña (Chaco Prov.), Argentina

Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm) | Acevedo (Buenos Aires Prov.), Argentina

Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm) | Acevedo (Buenos Aires Prov.), Argentina

Spodoptera cosmioides (black armyworm). No accepted English common name exists for this strictly South American species that was previously considered a synonym of the North and Central American species Spodoptera latifascia. In Brazil it has been referred to by such names as “lagarta preta” (black caterpillar) and “lagarta da vagem” (pod caterpillar). The latter name has also been applied to other soybean pests, including southern armyworm, so to me “black armyworm” seems the most appropriate English name to adopt. Like southern armyworm, this species is a sometimes pest of cotton and in recent years has become increasingly important in soybean throughout Brazil and northern Argentina. Larvae often resemble and can be easily confused with those of southern armyworm; however, there is almost always a dark spot on top of the mesothoracic segment that is lacking in southern armyworm. Additionally, the light-colored subspiracular line, when present, is not interrupted by the black spot on the first abdominal segment and is equally distinct in front of and behind the spot. When the line is not present the black spots on top of the first abdominal segment are smaller than than those on top of the eighth abdominal segment.


Spodoptera albula

Spodoptera albula (gray-streaked armyworm) | Saenz Peña (Chaco Prov.), Argentina

Spodoptera albula (unbarred or gray-streaked armyworm). While known to occur in extreme southern U.S., this species has been cited as a pest of soybean only in Brazil, although its importance has not matched that of southern or black armyworm. Like most armyworms it is polyphagous, but this species seems to prefer amaranth (Amaranthus spp.). Larvae of this species can be distinguished from other South American armyworms that feed on soybean by the trapezoidal black marking on the mesothorax (usually semicircular to slightly trapezoidal in black armyworm), the black marking on the first abdominal segment not larger than that on the sixth abdominal segment, both of which are smaller than those on the seventh and eight abdominal segments, the white-only rather than white and orange dorsolateral stripe, and the triangular black markings on the abdominal segments each with a small white spot in the middle or at the apex of the marking.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013