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

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

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

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?

…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

Friday Flower – Dwarf Spiderwort

Living at the foothills of the Ozark Highlands, I sometimes forget how unique the biota of this ancient landscape truly is. More than 200 species of plants and animals are largely restricted to the region, with around 160 of these being true Ozark endemics found nowhere else on earth. The biodiversity of the region stems from the landform’s unusual geology, topography and hydrology, it’s ectotonal position within the North American continent, and its distinction as the only significantly elevated landform between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains. Many Ozark endemics are found in the region’s abundant caves and sinkholes, formed by underground dissolution of its massive limestone/dolomite bedrocks. Others represent isolated populations of more typically northern plants and animals that found refuge here during the Pleistocene glacial advances. Still others evolved during periods of isolation when vast inland seas covered much of the continent’s interior.

Tradescantia longipes, known locally as dwarf spiderwort or wild crocus, is a particularly exquisite Ozark endemic found scattered in dry igneous woodlands of the Missouri’s St. Francois Mountains and Arkansas’ Ouachita Mountains. I first saw this species two years ago in May at Crane Lake in the heart of the St. Francois Mountains, and the plants shown here were seen this past April in the igneous woodlands of Sam Baker State Park at the southernmost extent of the St. Francois Mountains’ igneous exposures. The genus to which this plant belongs contains some much more widely distributed (though no less striking) members (e.g. T. ohioensis, which I featured in my first “Friday Flower” post). Tradescantia longipes flowers are similar to those of T. ohioensis, but the plant differs from most others in the genus by its short, squat habit of growth and strictly basal leaves.

One feature shared by T. longipes with all other members of the genus is the dense fringe of hairs arising from the stamen filaments.  I discussed these in my first Friday Flower post, noting that each of the 70-100 hairs per filament is composed of a chain of about 20 large, single cells – easily seen with low magnification. While their sensitivity to radiation and chemical mutagens has been recognized for many years (the hairs turn pink when exposed to radiation), less seems to be known about their natural function for the plant.  It is interesting to note, however, that the flowers of Tradescantia and related genera rely heavily on insects for pollination (primarily bees and bee flies), yet they do not produce nectar.  Faden (1992) has speculated that the stamen hairs might combine with floral scents and the nearly pollenless anthers to deceptively attract insects, provide footholds, retain pollen fall, and influence the pollen-collecting behavior of the insects.

Photo Details: Canon 50D (ISO 100, 1/250 sec, f/14-18), Canon 100mm macro lens, Canon MT-24EX flash (1/4 ratio) w/ Sto-Fen diffusers. Post-processing: levels, unsharp mask, minimal cropping.

REFERENCE:

Faden, R. B.  1992. Floral attraction and floral hairs in the Commelinaceae.  Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 79(1):46–52.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae

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

An irresistible sight!

One of the few highlights of my Memorial Day weekend collecting trip came in the earliest moments of my visit to Ha Ha Tonka State Park.  My destination was Ha Ha Tonka Savanna Natural Area, and a short walk through fire-restored woodland led me to the open glade where just a few years earlier a UMC student had collected the rare and little-known Agrilus impexus.  Entering the glade, I was all set to begin sweeping the vegetation along the woodland/glade interface, paying special attention to any honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) that I might happen to find in the area as a potential host for the beetle.  What I saw instead as the glade opened up in front of me was a sight that any collector of wood-boring beetles will find almost irresistable – a recent wind-throw!  In this case, it was a black oak (Quercus velutina) laying in full sun – its bright brown leaves suggesting that it had fallen within the past few weeks (and would thus still be emitting the volatiles that wood-boring beetles find so attractive).  I wanted to begin looking for A. impexus, but I knew there would be beetles actively crawling on the trunk and branches of that tree.  I couldn’t resist it – I dropped my sweep net and beating sheet and made my way to the tree (in the end it didn’t matter, since no other beetles – including A. impexus – would be seen that day).

I already had an idea what I might find.  Recent wind-throws are the domain of Chrysobothris, and if the tree is a deciduous species then this means members of the Chrysobothris femorata species-group.  I recently featured one of six newly described members (C. caddo) of this taxonomically challenging group (Wellso and Manley 2007), providing a synopsis of the now twelve species in the group and their primarily host preferences.  Fully half of these are associated primarily or exclusively with oaks four occurring in Missouri (quadriimpressarugosiceps, shawnee, and viridiceps).  Of these, C. quadriimpressa is the most commonly encountered (although the others are by no means uncommon), and all of the nearly dozen or so beetles I found on this particular tree in fact represented that species. Confirmation of my ID would require microscopic examination of the female pygidium (which is shallowly impressed on each side of the middle) and male genitalia, but in general this species can be distinguished in the field by its smallish size (~10-12 mm in length – rugosiceps and shawnee tend to be larger) and the post-median pair of foveae (circular impressions) on the elytra being joined (they are distinctly separated in viridiceps).

As we’ve seen with other species of jewel beetles (e.g., C. caddo, Dicerca lurida, D. obscura), adults of C. quadriimpressa are incredibly cryptic and nearly impossible to see on the bark of their hosts – at least until they move.  They are notoriously difficult to approach – their large eyes and penchant for rapid escape flights suggesting excellent vision.  This is a useful capability for insects that must expose themselves to would-be predators (and beetle collectors) during daylight hours while actively searching dead trees for mates and oviposition sites.  One thing I can’t figure out, however, is the role of the intensely blue feet in this and other cryptically colored Chrysobothris species (see also C. caddo).  Any ideas?

Photo Details (insect): Canon 50D (ISO 100, 1/250 sec, f/16), Canon 100mm macro lens w/ Kenco extension tubes (68mm), Canon MT-24EX flash (1/4 ratio) w/ Sto-Fen diffusers.  Post-processing: levels, unsharp mask, minimal cropping.

REFERENCES:

Wellso, S. G. and G. V. Manley. 2007. A revision of the Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier, 1790) species group from North America, north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Zootaxa 1652:1–26 (first page only).

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

When is a locust borer not a locust borer?

…when it is a hickory borer!

Hickory borer (Megacyllene caryae) mating pair on trunk of fallen mockernut hickory (Carya alba).

The hickory borer, Megacyllene caryae, is perhaps the most frequently misidentified beetle in eastern North America due to its almost perfect resemblance to the closely related locust borer, M. robiniae.  Unlike the latter species, however, which is encountered abundantly during the fall on flowers of goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and attacks living black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), the hickory borer is active only during the spring and breeds in the dead wood of hickories (Carya spp.).  Adults emerge from the wood as soon as temperatures begin to warm in early spring, a fact which causes it to be most frequently encountered during winter when it emerges indoors from firewood brought in from outdoors.  Many times this causes the alarmed homeowner to post a photo of the insect on BugGuide and ask if it will cause damage to their home.  So close is its resemblance to the locust borer that novice insect enthusiasts often identify it as such based on comparison to photos and refuse to believe it is not that species, even when told otherwise.

Of course, there are distinguishing characters that, with a little practice, become quite obvious – the legs of the hickory borer are often distinctly reddish (as seen in the above photo), and the bands of the elytra will many times show an alternating pattern of yellow and white (not quite so apparent in the above photo).  The elytral bands are also slightly narrower and often broken and incomplete in this species, while in the locust borer they are wider and nearly always extend completely across the elytra.  Lastly, the pronotum of the locust borer is narrowly margined with yellow on the anterior edge, while in the hickory borer the anterior margin is black.  That’s a tough character to see without magnification, and all of these characters really are only necessary when examining specimens in a collection (and even then only if there is no date on the collection label).  Season is the easiest distinguishing character – if it occurs during spring it is the hickory borer, and if it occurs during fall it is the locust borer.  There are several other species in the genus that can be confused with these two, but they do not occur in eastern parts of North America.

This mating pair was encountered on the trunk of a recently wind-thrown mockernut hickory (Carya alba) during our early April hike of the lower Wappapello Section of the Ozark Trail.

Photo Details: Canon 50D (ISO 100, 1/250 sec, f/14), Canon 100mm macro lens, Canon MT-24EX flash (1/4 ratio) w/ Sto-Fen diffusers. Typical post-processing (levels, unsharp mask).

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