Author: Ted C. MacRae

Cicada killer on the fly

/ Ted C. MacRae / 6 Comments

An eastern cicada killer (Sphecius speciosus) searches for her burrow | Jacksonville, Illinois.

I don’t normally spend much time trying to photograph insects in flight. To really do it right requires some rather specialized equipment, including very high-speed flash, and a bucketload of patience and skill. John Abbott exemplifies those whose great talent has produced stunning photographs of insects in mid-flight. That’s not to say that it can’t be done “on the fly,” so to speak, and even a hack like me can get lucky every now and then.

Earlier today I found a rather large number of eastern cicada killers (Sphecius speciosus) in a ball field in Jacksonville, Illinois. These impressive wasps are the largest wasp in eastern North America and have the rather gruesome habit of paralyzing cicadas with their sting, and then dragging them down into their burrows to be eaten alive by their grubs. I’ve recently become interested in solitary wasps (for reasons to be discussed later) and decided to see if I could get some decent photographs. I got a few I like (more on this later), but my favorite is this total luck-out shot of a wasp face-on in mid-flight. As I watched them, I noticed that each wasp spent a fair amount of time trying to identify its burrow amongst the dozen or more that were clustered along one side of the field. Occasionally they would land and search about a bit on foot, then take wing again to continue their search. I decided the best way to get a shot of one on the wing would be to watch for a wasp to arrive and begin its search. When I spotted one I would slowly close distance so I could be ready to get down on my elbows as soon as it landed (closing distance without spooking the wasp was not easy). I had just my center focal point set and autofocus turned on (normally I don’t use autofocus) and had already worked out a good flash exposure compensation setting. As soon as I got on my elbows, I would quickly frame the wasp and repeatedly trigger the autofocus as I got even closer, and when the wasp took flight I took the shot. This was still a crap shoot—I ended up with lots of out-of-focus and out-of-frame photos. Nevertheless, a few turned out fairly decent, one of which was this single, perfectly head-on and well-focused photo (though admittedly somewhat cropped).

Too bad I didn’t collect any of the wasps—at $49 each I could’ve made enough cash to buy that flash bracket I’ve been eyeing!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

The importance of background and apparent light size

/ Ted C. MacRae / 8 Comments

I’m still getting submissions for ID Challenge #19 and don’t quite have the followup post ready yet, so I’ll give it a couple more days. In the meantime, I’d like to re-share the photo below, originally shown a few weeks ago in my post  A few people commented that this was their favorite photo in the series—perhaps like me they are suckers for face shots, but I think this photo succeeds in large part because of its soft-green background. This was actually one of several similar face shots that I took, each differing the other almost exclusively in the choice of background. In the end, I chose the green background to include in the post, not only because it was the most aesthetically pleasing, but also because I felt it best represented the environment of the beetle—ensconced within the foliage of its preferred host plant, ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius).

Green background—achieved by placing a leaf some distance behind the subject.

Such background is easily achieved in full-flash macro photography by placing a green leaf some distance behind the subject, although in practice this can be a little tricky—you want the leaf far enough away from the subject that it is completely out of focus, eliminating distracting details, but close enough so that it actually reflects light from the flash and shows up as green. This becomes trickier still if the photographer is already holding the subject (as I was, or at least the branch on which the subject was sitting), as the distance between the subject and the background must be adjusted by moving the subject (and hence the camera), rather than the leaf.

Black background—the typical background of full-flash macrophotography.

Here is a similar shot of the beetle without placing anything in the background. This is full-flash lighting because I’m using small apertures and high shutter speeds to prevent motion blur and maximize depth-of-field. As a result, only objects in the vicinity of the subject and illuminated by the flash will show up in the exposure. This results in the almost-trademark black background of typical full-flash illuminated macrophotography. Despite what you may read or hear, there is nothing wrong with a black background. Some consider it boring—probably because it is so common in macrophotography. However, there are times when it truly is the best choice of backgrounds—especially with a white or light-colored subject (for example, see this photo of the white-flowered Great Plains ladies’-tresses orchid, Spiranthes magnicamporum). With darker subjects, however, black may not be the most appealing choice of backgrounds, so it’s good to keep this in mind and choose accordingly.

Blue background—bump the ISO up to 320 and point the subject to the brightest part of the sky.

Of course, there is one way to avoid a black background without placing an object behind the subject (or placing the subject in front of an object), and that is to use the open sky to achieve a nice, blue background. This is one of the trickier of the background techniques, as it relies on finding a fine balance between ISO, aperture and shutter speed. For this photo, I bumped the ISO up to 320 (normally I use 160) and slightly opened up the aperture (f/13 rather than f/16). These settings, combined with pointing the subject to the very brightest part of the sky (excluding the sun!) allowed me to keep the shutter speed reasonably fast (1/200 sec). I find that lower shutter speeds nearly always result in some motion blur (all of my photos are hand-held), so I avoid reducing shutter speed if at all possible. I also find that ISO settings above 320 result in unacceptable graininess, so I will back down on the aperture (even down to f/11 or f/10) if I have to in order to avoid going above ISO 320 and below 1/200 sec exposure. On especially bright days, areas of the sky closest to the sun will provide enough light that you can use aperture to fine-tune the background to the desired intensity of blue—the smaller the aperture the more intense and darker the blue will be (along with providing greater depth of field). While a blue background works for this subject, I simply like the green background better. I find that blue background shots are most pleasing with foliage and flower-feeding insects, adding a touch of realism to the photo without the cluttered, distracting look of other natural backgrounds or the “studio” feel of black background shots. This photo of the South American weevil, Megabaris quadriguttatus, is perhaps my favorite example of the use of blue background.

By now, the more technically oriented photographer types among you might have noticed something that all three photos have in common (besides the subject), and that is the difference in specular highlighting exhibited by the left and right eyes of the subject. Reverse engineering suggests that I had two sources of light (which is true, I use Canon’s MT24-EX twin macro flash), and that the light source illuminating the beetle’s right side either had a much larger diffuser or was placed much closer to the subject. In fact, it was the latter, as I simply detached the left flash unit and held it much closer to the subject to confirm for myself what effect this has. Because the flash unit is closer to the subject, it has much larger apparent size, resulting in more even lighting over that side of the subject and, accordingly, softer specular highlights. If I had a third arm I would have done the same with the second light source (and a fourth arm would allow me to also hold a green leaf behind the subject!). Unfortunately, additional appendages are not an option, so I’m going to have to figure out an efficient, light, easy way to get my light sources as close to the subject as possible. Snoot diffusers are one option, but they have limited flexibility to make fine adjustments to the subject-distance as camera distance changes. Going to a single light source and holding it off-camera is another option, but hand-holding a light source leaves one less hand to hold other things (like the subject), and I do prefer the reduction of shadows provided by multiple light sources. I’ve already discussed the , and I do have some other ideas that I’m working on as well. However, your ideas also would be most welcome!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

ID Challenge #19

/ Ted C. MacRae / 33 Comments

We all have something in common…

Here is a bit of a different ID Challenge—can you identify the beetles represented in the photo, but more importantly can you deduce what all of these beetles have in common (other than the fact that they belong to the same family)? Obviously these are all jewel beetles (family Buprestidae), so we won’t worry about higher classification. Instead, I’ll give 1 pt for each correctly named genus (don’t bother trying to identify species) and a whopping 5 pts for figuring out what it is they have in common. Early bird pts will be given for the latter question only. Please read the full rules if you are not already familiar with them—good luck!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

One-Shot Wednesday: two-striped grasshopper nymph

/ Ted C. MacRae / 3 Comments

Melanoplus bivittatus (Two-striped Grasshopper) nymph | Jerseyville, Illinois

As the heat of summer solidifies its chokehold over the middle and southern latitudes of North America, grasshopper nymphs will begin to ramp up their development. I see grasshoppers commonly in my soybean field trials, where their feeding presents more of an annoyance to me than an actual threat to yields.

I photographed this particular individual on almost this same date last year in one of my Illinois soybean trials, not knowing for sure which species it represented. There was no particular reason for only taking this one single photograph, other than it was perched nicely when I saw it and that I did not feel like taking the time to chase it into another good pose after my first shot disturbed it.

Later in the season I saw numerous adults representing Melanoplus differentialis (differential grasshopper), a common species in this area, and assumed this was its nymph. However, a closer look at the photo suggests it represents the closely related M. bivittatus (two-striped grasshopper). While adults of these two species are easily distinguished based on coloration, the nymphs can look very similar (especially in their earlier instars) and are distinguished on the basis of the black femoral marking—more or less solid in M. bivittatus and broken into chevrons that create a “herringbone” pattern in M. differentialis.

Wing pad size and relative body proportions suggest this is a fourth-instar nymph.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

Sea Grape Flatid – Petrusa epilepsis

/ Ted C. MacRae / 4 Comments

The argid sawfly Sericoceros krugii wasn’t the only insect I saw associated with seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) during my May trip to Puerto Rico. While exploring the magnificent coastal sand dune system near Isabela (northwestern Puerto Rico), I encountered a tree with literally dozens of frosty, white “homopterans” on the reddish lower surface of its newly expanded leaves (the photo below shows them at only about half the density that I saw initially, as many became disturbed and left when I tried to photograph them). Clearly they were planthoppers in the superfamily Fulgoroidea, with their general shape wings held tent-like suggesting either the family Acanaloniidae or its close relatives in the family Flatidae.

Petrusa epilepsis adults on seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) | vic. Isabela, Puerto Rico

A better look at the adults in the photos revealed the presence of numerous parallel cross-veins along the costal margin of the forewings, placing them squarely within the family Flatidae (species of Acanaloniidae have reticulate forewing venation without the parallel cross-veins). Wolcott (1948) lists a dozen or so species of flatids from Puerto Rico, roughly half of which belong to the subfamily Flatinae (wings held tent-like) and the other half belonging to the Flatoidinae (more flattened insects with wings held almost horizontal). The likeliest candidate seemed to be Ormenis marginata, which Wolcott describes as occurring in the “millions, vast clouds of them flying up from seagrape plants that one may disturb around Isabela…” I can’t say I saw “millions” of them, but certainly they were abundant on this one plant. My identification was kindly confirmed by Neotropical fulgoroid Lois O’Brien, who also noted that this species now goes under the name Petrusa epilepsis Kirkaldy.


This seems to be a species that could cause considerable problems should it ever find it’s way to the mainland U.S. Many flatids are famously infidel when it comes to host plants—Metcalfa pruinosa (citrus flatid planthopper) being perhaps the best known example. Petrusa epilepsis not only feeds on seagrape but has also become a pest of coffee (Coffea arabica), coco-plum (Chrysobalanus icaco), jasmin (Jasminum spp. ) and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), with damage resulting not only from direct feeding but also the development of sooty mold that colonize the honeydew excreted by the bugs that covers the foliage of the plants they infest (Nieves-Rivera et al. 2002).

A particularly amusing passage by Wolcott was his observation that adults “with care may be chased around a stem by gentle pursuit with a lead pencil.” I can add that a finger works equally well, as I used precisely this technique to get the adults in these last two photos positioned precisely where I wanted them for the photographs. Let’s hope they are as easily kept within their current West Indies distribution and are not eventually unleashed as yet another exotic pest for agricultural producers in tropical and subtropical mainland America to deal with.

REFERENCES:

Nieves-Rivera, Á. M., T. A. Tattar & E. H. Williams, Jr. 2002. Sooty mould-planthopper association on leaves of the black mangrove, Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn in southwestern Puerto Rico.  Journal 26:141–155.

Wolcott, G. N. 1948. Insects of Puerto Rico. The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 32(1):1–223.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

West Indian seagrape sawfly

/ Ted C. MacRae / 11 Comments

I spent a few days in Puerto Rico last month. A quick in-and-out for work, there was little chance to do any real exploring. Nevertheless, I booked my return on the last possible flight out so that I would have at least part of a day to look around before needing to go to the airport. I’ve only been to Puerto Rico twice before—once in 1982 on a one-day visit during my honeymoon cruise (with a far-too-rushed guided tour to El Yunque), and again in 1999, also a quickie for work. Given my limited previous opportunities to explore San Juan, you might think I would choose La Forteleza and San Juan National Historic Site in Old San Juan for my day’s destination. After all, they were designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) in 1983. Tempting, but when I looked at the map of San Juan a nice, big, chunk of green immediately caught my eye—Bosque Estatal de Piñones (Pine State Forest). Call me single-minded, but not even a World Heritage Site can match the siren call of 1,500 acres of moist, subtropical forest!

Sericoceros krugii female guarding eggs on leaf underside of sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera) | Bosque Estatal de Piñones, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Mangrove forest covers much of the reserve, accessed by a wide (and annoyingly elevated) boardwalk—an interesting stroll but unsatisfying to me since I couldn’t root around at ground level. One can get only so much enjoyment from distinguishing red, black, and white mangrove before the sameness of the canopy and exclusion from the ground flora/fauna starts to become monotonous. I went back towards the parking lot (photographing a few lizards along the way—more on them in a future post) and had just begun walking the perimeter of a picnic area when I encountered some very large seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) plants. I’ve seen a lot of seagrape in Florida and have never found any insects on it, so I initially didn’t make much effort to go over and have a closer look at them. However, even from afar I could see that these particular plants had been very heavily damaged by some type of defoliating insect. The first few branches I looked at showed no outward evidence of who the culprit was, but I reasoned it must have been some sort of lepidopteran caterpillar. As I was inspecting the branches, the insect in the above photo caught my eye—at first I thought it was some type of “homopteran” because of the apparent egg-guarding behavior it was showing, but a closer look revealed that it was actually a sawfly! An egg guarding sawfly; who would have thought?!

Female ovipositing her clutch of eggs, which are solid red when first laid.

Predictably, subsequent identification was quite easy as there is only a single species of sawfly in Puerto Rico—Sericoceros krugii in the family Argidae. About 20 species make up this Neotropical genus, occurring from southern Mexico south to Argentina; however, S. krugii is the only species occurring in the West Indies and in addition to Puerto Rico is found in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Dominican Republic (Smith 1992). The species in this genus seem to specialize on Coccoloba spp. (family Polygonaceae) as host plants; however, one species is reported from Triplaris caracasana—also in the Polygonaceae (Smith & Benitez Diaz 2001), and another from Lonchocarpus minimiflorus in the family Fabaceae (Smith & Janzen 2003).

Larvae consume all but the largest veins of the foliage.

Wolcott (1948) describes how this species often defoliates long stretches of seagrape on the beaches of Puerto Rico, leaving “windrows of excrement on the sand underneath the naked branches and leaf midribs…” He also describes its apparent lack of natural enemies (although it has since been recorded as a host for a tachinid fly—Bennett 1999) and the fact that birds do not seem to eat them as possible reasons for its abundance and frequent outbreaks. To me, the screaming red/black coloration of the adult and apparent unpalatability to birds suggest the presence of chemical defenses, and although I couldn’t find any information on this specific to Sericoceros spp., many social species of sawflies are typically well-defended chemically and, thus, aposematic. Despite this apparent defensive capability, the remarkable maternal guarding behavior exhibited by the adult females suggests the eggs still need additional protection from predators and parasitoids. Sericoceros spp. are not the only sawflies to exhibit this behavior, which apparently has evolved across numerous sawfly lineages (see Social Sawflies, by James T. Costa).

This mature larva will soon spin a coccoon on the bark for pupation.

There were only a few, apparently mature larvae still around on the trees that I could find. Wolcott (1948) describes most outbreaks as occurring during the fall and winter months, after which the insects might completely disappear for many months or even a year. I must have caught the tail end of one such outbreak, although the number of females that I saw guarding eggs suggests another wave of defoliation would soon be occurring.

Congratulations to itsybitsybeetle, who showed up late to the party but still managed to pull out the win for Super Crop Challenge #13. Brady Richards came in a close 2nd, while Sam Heads and Mr. Phidippus share the final podium spot. The overall standings remain the same, with Sam leading Brady by a single, slim point and Mr. Phidippus only six points further back. There will be two more challenges in BitB Challenge Session #6, so it’s still possible for somebody to make a late run, especially if one or more of the leaders falters down the stretch. Remember—the top three points earners at the end of the session will get a choice of some loot, so don’t hesitate when the next challenge rolls around.

REFERENCES:

Bennett, F. D. 1999. Vibrissina sp. (Diptera: Tachinidae) a parasite of the seagrape sawfly Sericoceros krugii (Hymenoptera: Argidae) in Puerto Rico: a new record. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 83(1–2):75–78.

Smith, D. R. 1992. A synopsis of the sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) of America south of the United States: Argidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Society 39:1–201.

Smith, D. R. & Benitez-Diaz. 1991. A new species of Sericoceros Konow (Hymenoptera : Argidae) damaging villetana trees, Triplaris caracasana Cham. (Polygonaceae) in Paraguay. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 103(1):217–221.

Smith, D. R. & D. H. Janzen. 2003. Food plants and life histories of sawflies of the family Argidae (Hymenoptera) in Costa Rica, with descriptions of two new species. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 12:193–208.

Wolcott, G. N. 1948. Insects of Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 32(4):749–975.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

More on Chalcosyrphus

/ Ted C. MacRae / 2 Comments

Here are two more photos of the fly I tentatively identified as Chalcosyrphus sp. The first photo shows the all-black coloration with no trace of either steel blue highlights (seen in C. chalybea) or red abdominal markings (seen in C. piger). It also gives a better view of the enlarged and ventrally spinose metafemora. The second photo shows the holoptic (contiguous) eyes that make me think this is a male individual (if, indeed, this is true for syrphids as with tabanids).

I’m hoping that posting these will provide any passing dipterists with the information needed for a firmer ID (and possibly an explanation of the purpose of those intriguingly modified hind legs).

Lateral view showing black abdomen with no trace of red (except what appears to be a parasitic mite).

Do the holoptic eyes identify this as a male?

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012