Beetle Research Roundup

Third-instar larva of Megacephala megacephala (Olivier), photographed near a light trap on 17 July 2006 in Coli, Quebo, Guinea-Bissau, Africa, by Artur R. M. Serrano.The latest issue of the journal Cicindela arrived in my mailbox today, and as usual some interesting papers are included.  For those of you unfamiliar with it, Cicindela is “a quarterly journal devoted to the Cicindelidae,” publishing papers dealing with any aspect of the study of tiger beetles. Founded in 1968 by North American tiger beetle experts Ronald L. Huber, Robert C. Graves, and Harold L. Willis, it was dubbed in those early issues as “…an experiment—an inquiry into the merits (and shortcomings?) of extreme specialization…”. Richard Freitag succeeded Willis in 1975, and that trio has edited and produced this “experiment”—now in its 41st year—ever since!  Issues are available for a very nominal $10 per year ($13 outside of the U.S.).  My sincere thanks to Artur Serrano (University of Lisbon) for permitting me to post his stunning photograph of the third-instar larva of Megacephala megacephala, photographed in Guinea-Bessau, Africa and gracing the cover of this latest issue.

Tetracha virginica in Wisconsin
Despite the common occurrence of this species across the southern two-thirds of the eastern U.S., its northern and western limits of distribution are still poorly known.  Grimek discusses records of this species in Wisconsin during the 45-year period between 1962 to 2007, noting that all of the captures were from sandy areas near rivers in, with the exception of a single specimen, the “Driftless Area” covering the southwestern quadrant of the state.  (The Driftless Area, also called the Paleozoic Plateau, is an area that escaped glaciation during the last glacial period).  The capture of a specimen very near the Mississippi River suggests the species may also be found in Minnesota, where its occurrence has not yet been documented.

Grimek, H.  2009.  Distribution of Tetracha virginica (Linnaeus) in Wisconsin.  Cicindela 41(3):57-61

Brasiella cuyabaensis in Bolivia
Brasiella is a large genus (47 species) of small to very small, mostly Neotropical tiger beetles, of which B. argentata is among the most common and widespread.  While examining specimens of this species that he had collected in Bolivia, Italian coleopterist Fabio Cassola found a second species among the material.  At first thought to potentially represent a new species, its identity was ultimately revealed after examination of the unique male type specimen of B. cuyabaensis from Brazil.  This specimen is very similar to B. argentata except for its genitalia (longer and narrower than in B. argentata), and Cassola has confirmed this in his material as well.  The previously unknown females were especially problematic; however, Cassola found their longer, more convex labrum (upper lip) to be a useful diagnostic character.  Cassola collected B. cuyabaensis some 700 km west of the type locality and speculates that additional specimens of the species may exist in entomological collections, incorrectly placed under B. argentata.

Cassola, F.  2009.  Studies of tiger beetles.  CLXXV.   Occurrence in Bolivia of Brasiella cuyabaensis (Mandl, 1970) (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae).  Cicindela 41(3):63-67.

DNA degrades rapidly in pinned tiger beetles
DNA molecular analyses are increasingly being used to elucidate relationships among tiger beetles, both at the species level and at higher levels of classification.  However, such research is often hampered by the limited availability of sufficient fresh material representing less common taxa.  Pinned museum specimens offer a potential source of DNA for such uncommon taxa; however, successful extraction of useable DNA from pinned specimens has been limited.  Kritsky and Duennes, using a standardized DNA extraction method, determined that DNA extracted from pinned tiger beetles rapidly degrades during the first 25 years after collection before stabilizing at ~10% of the original DNA.  The authors found that frozen specimens yeilded more DNA than specimens killed in ethanol, perhaps due to degradation of DNA by water in the ethanol, and noted that choice of killing method and use of fumigants during storage can also contribute to loss of DNA.  More research is needed to determine optimal conditions for protecting museum specimens while preserving their DNA for future research.

Kritsky, G. and M. Duennes.  2009.  The rate of DNA degradation in pinned tiger beetles.  Cicindela 41(3):69-73.

Mississippi tiger beetles scavenge dead fish
An established breeding population of Cicindela pamphila [= Habroscelimorpha pamphila] was observed during 2006–2008 in a Mississippi coastal salt marsh.  This species was previously considered a rare straggler into Mississippi, occurring primarily along the Texas Gulf Coast south into Mexico.  The Mississippi population was observed co-occurring with C. hamata [= Ellipsoptera hamata], C. severa [= Habroscelimorpha severa], and C. togata [= Eunota togata].  On one occasion, individuals of C. hamata and C. severa were observed feeding on a fresh mullet (Mugil sp.) carcass resulting from a raptor kill, adding these two tiger beetle species to the list for which scavenging on dead vertebrates has now been confirmed.  Despite the co-occurrence of four species of tiger beetles within this area, the author noted no apparent resource partioning and speculates that carrion resulting from predation by birds, racoons, etc. may provide a valuable resource for scavenging tiger beetles that reduces competition for food.

Grammer, G. L.  2009.  A breeding population record of Cicindela pamphila in Mississippi and observations on the scavenging behavior of C. severa and C. hamataCicindela 41(3):75-80.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Florida Metallic Tiger Beetle

Tetracha floridana

Tetracha floridana (Florida Metallic Tiger Beetle), dorsal view

In my previous post, I showed some photographs of the larva of an undetermined species of tiger beetle that I collected from its burrow in dry ground adjacent to a coastal salt marsh near St. Petersburg, Florida. I had assumed the larva belonged to the genus Cicindela or one of its former subgenera and was suprised to learn that this assumption was incorrect when the adult emerged 2 months later. Looking back at the photos, however, I realized that the photos and the information I gave regarding its location and habitat contained all of the necessary information to identify this larva. Five points to Mike Baker, who correctly deduced the genus (Tetracha), and in fact the larva represents Tetracha floridana (Florida metallic tiger beetle).

Hump of 5th abdominal segment, showing simple, thorn-like inner and outer hooks

The hump of the 5th abdominal segment bears simple, thornlike hooks.

The larva can be placed in the genus Tetracha by virtue of its simple, thorn-like hooks (in other eastern U.S. tiger beetle genera, the outer hooks are distinctly curved).  Two other genera of Nearctic tiger beetles that do not occur in Florida also bear simple hooks—Omus (Night-stalking Tiger Beetles, occurring along the Pacific Coast) and Amblychelia (Giant Tiger Beetles, occurring in the central and southwestern U.S.); however, the former bears three rather than two pairs of hooks, and the latter has the inner and outer hooks distinctly separated from each other.

Tetracha_floridana_1

Tetracha floridana (Florida Metallic Tiger Beetle), lateral view.

Four species of Tetracha occur in the U.S., three of which occur in Florida—T. carolina (Pan-American Big-headed Tiger Beetle), T. floridana (Florida Metallic Tiger Beetle), and T. virginica (Virginia Big-headed Tiger Beetle).  However, T. carolina is restricted in the state to the panhandle and interior of the peninsula along rivers and in disturbed sparsely vegetated areas (Choate 2006).  Of the two remaining species, T. virginica is widespread throughout the southern two-thirds of the eastern U.S. and occurs in a variety of habitats (Pearson et al. 2006), while T. floridana is restricted to salt marsh and mud flat habitats along the Gulf coast of Florida from Dixie County south to the Keys (Choate 2006).  While the widespread occurrence and generalist tendencies of T. virginica might suggest that it is the more likely choice, the locality and habitat match precisely with T. floridana.

Tetracha_floridana_2

The anterior lobes of the apical lunules are divergent.

Tetracha floridana is very similar to T. carolina and was long considered a subspecies of that more widely distributed species until Naviaux (2007) elevated it to species rank in his revision of this large genus.  Tetracha floridana is distinguished from T. carolina by the divergent anterior lobes of the apical lunules (photo above) and the uniformly black to dark green elytra that lack any violet or coppery reflections in the anteriolateral regions (photo below) (Choate 2003).

The anteriolateral areas of the elytra lack violet or copper reflections

The anteriolateral areas of the elytra lack violet or copper reflections.

I was happy as heck when I saw the first newly emerged adult in the rearing container, as this is a true Florida endemic.  I have encountered the two other eastern U.S. species commonly under street lamps and at building lights here in Missouri—T. virginica throughout the state and T. carolina in the southeastern lowlands, where it appears to reach its northern limit of distribution.  A fourth U.S. species in the genus, T. impressa (Upland Metallic Tiger Beetle) (T. affinis” in earlier works), occurs in northern Mexico and the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of south Texas (Erwin and Pearson 2008).  Although I have not yet encountered it on any of my many trips to the LRGV (all of which pre-date my current cicindelophily), I understand it is regularly attracted to building and street lights in Brownsville (Pearson et al. 2006).  I believe I will have to go down there again and verify this for myself someday.

Feasting on a corn rootworm larva.

Feasting on a corn rootworm larva.

The last photo in this series illustrates the unique feeding behavior of these beetles, which despite their terrifyingly toothy mandibles are strictly fluid feeders.  The long, sharp mandibular teeth function primarily in prey subdual and in slicing and shredding their tissues, while the maxillae (second pair of feeding appendages behind the mandibles) and labium (fused third pair of appendages) comprise an “oral mill” that masticates the prey and and rolls it into a bolus.  Two brush-like structures can be seen behind the mandibles in the photo above—these are part of the maxillary laciniae and apparently function in containing and shaping the bolus as it is being masticated.  While this occurs, proteolytic enzymes are extruded from the midgut and mixed with the bolus to liquify its digestible components, which are then sucked into the beetles tiny mouth by the action of a pharyngeal pump.  Like the larva, the adult beetle thus “chews” but does not swallow its prey—a manner of feeding that is not too unlike that of spiders and other arachnids (sans the venom).

Photo details:
All photos: Canon EOS 50D, manual mode, ISO-100, 1/250 sec, MT-24EX flash w/ diffuser caps.
Photo 1: Canon 100mm macro lens w/ 68mm extension tube, f/25, 1/2 power flash.
Photo 2: Canon MP-E 65mm 1–5X macro lens, f/16, 1/8 power flash.
Photos 3–5: Canon 100mm macro lens w/ 36mm extension, f/18–f/22, 1/4 power flash.
Photo 6: Canon 100mm macro lens w/ 68mm extension, f/20, 1/2 power flash.

REFERENCES:

Choate, P. M., Jr. 2003. A Field Guide and Identification Manual for Florida and Eastern U.S. Tiger Beetles.  University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 224 pp.

Choate, P. M., Jr.  2006.  Tiger Beetles of Florida, Cicindela spp., Megacephala spp. (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cicindelidae).  University of Florida, IFAS Extension Service Circular EENY-005, 5 pp.

Erwin, T. L. and D. L. Pearson. 2008. A Treatise on the Western Hemisphere Caraboidea (Coleoptera). Their classification, distributions, and ways of life. Volume II (Carabidae-Nebriiformes 2-Cicindelitae). Pensoft Series Faunistica 84. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, 400 pp.

Naviaux R. 2007. Tetracha (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae, Megacephalina): Revision du genre et descriptions de nouveaus taxons. Mémoires de la Société entomologique de France 7:1-197.

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 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Anatomy of a Tiger Beetle Larva

My first experience looking for tiger beetles in Florida had gone well.  Despite its small size and urban surroundings, the narrow strip of coastal scrub and saltwater marsh along the intracoastal waterway behind my sister-in-law’s condominium boasted a robust population of what I took to be a single tiger beetle species.  The specimens I collected and photographs I took would later reveal that two co-occurring and closely related species were present: Ellipsoptera marginata (Margined Tiger Beetle) and E. hamata lacerata (Gulf Beach Tiger Beetle).  I had spent close to two hours under the August sun observing and photographing the beetles before I decided that I had given the preserve a thorough enough look.

IMG_1077_1200x800_crp

As I was heading back, I noticed a little bit of high ground alongside a red mangrove thicket and went over to give it a look.  As I approached I saw something I hadn’t yet seen that day – tiger beetle larval burrows.  Larval burrows, especially larger ones such as these were, are unmistakeable – almost perfectly circular (slightly cut out on one edge) and smoothly beveled around the perimeter.  There were a number of burrows clustered on the small bit of high, dry ground, and my first thought was that their inhabitants represented the same (what I thought was a single) species that I had encountered so commonly that day as adults.  I then reasoned, however, that more likely they represented another species whose adults are active later in the season – perhaps one of the so-called “spring/fall” species whose larvae typically reach maturity during the heat of summer.  The size of the burrows (~5mm dia) suggested they were inhabited by 3rd instar larvae (the final instar before pupation), in which case it may be possible to rear a few to adulthood – if I could get at them. I tried fishing (Pearson and Vogler 2001) a few holes with a grass blade but didn’t get any bites, so I decided to watch for awhile and see if any of the larvae, believing the danger of my approach had passed, would reappear at the tops of their burrows.  Waiting for tiger beetle larvae to appear is a crap shoot – maybe they’re active, and maybe they’re not, and crouching in the stifling summer air of a coastal marsh in Florida is not an easy thing to do for very long.  Fortunately my wait was short, as within a few minutes I saw one re-appear at the top its burrow.  I slowly got out my knife and moved to place the tip on the soil about 1″ from the burrow at a 45° angle for an attempted tunnel block (Pearson and Vogler 2001), but it spooked and dropped back down into its burrow before I could get then knife in place.  No matter, I knew it was in there now and that it would likely reappear if I could muster the patience.  I positioned the knife and waited – crouched under the baking Florida sun, until when it did re-appear I plunged the knife into the soil with authority.  It was a good jab – I had blocked its retreat without injuring it, and a quick flip of the knife popped out the soil plug and exposed the startled larva, flipping vigorously in a vain attempt to escape before settling down amidst its unfamiliar, exposed surroundings.

IMG_1083_1200x800_enh

For those of you who have never seen a tiger beetle larva, they are among the most other-wordly creatures one can imagine.  The large, heavily sclerotized head bears two long, sickle-shaped, upward-pointing mandibles and up to three pair of highly-acute eyes whose arrangement on each side conveys the image of a “face” with congenital birth defects.  The top of the head is flattened to lie flush with the surrounding soil as the larva sits at the top of its burrow, and huge, powerful mandibular muscles fill the cranial cavity.  The remainder of the body – long, narrow, and cylindrical – hangs from the head at a 90° angle down into the burrow and is unremarkably grub-like, save for a curious hump on the dorsal side of the 5th abdominal segment.  Close examination of the hump reveals an intricate pattern of forward-facing hooks and spines that function in anchoring the larva against the side of its burrow to prevent struggling prey from dislodging it.  The life of a tiger beetle larva is a life of waiting – unlike the adults who run down their prey, the larvae sit in their burrows and wait for prey to come to within lunge’s reach.  While the eyes of most grub-like insects detect little more than light and dark, those of tiger beetle larvae are densely packed with photoreceptors that permit detailed focusing and depth perception for detecting whether potential prey has ventured close enough to their burrow (Pearson et al. 2006).  When that happens, they strike with lightning speed, plunge their mandibles into their prey, and drag it down into the depths of their burrow where it is summarily dispatched with a few bites of their powerful mandibles.  Larvae consume they prey in a manner similar to that of adults in that they chew but don’t swallow their prey. Rather, they secrete digestive secretions containing proteolytic enzymes that begin digesting the prey extra-orally as they chew.  The resulting bolus is masticated and its liquid components sucked out until nothing but a dry wad of indigestable chitin remains, which is spat out of the burrow (Pearson and Vogler 2001).

IMG_1081_1200x800

Looking at this strange insect, it occurred to me that I had not yet attempted macrophotographs of a tiger beetle larva out of its burrow, and this would be a good opportunity to get more practice with my Canon MP-E 65 mm macro lens – a lens with incredible magnification capabilities, but one that is also a bit of a temperamental beast to use hand-held in the field.  The subject was unusually cooperative, perhaps too stunned by its sudden predicament to know what to do, and as I took the photographs I focused in particular on characters of the head and dorsal hump (often useful in identifying tiger beetle larvae, at least to genus).  Time was growing short once I finished taking photographs, so I placed the larva in a vial and returned the following day to extract a chunk of native soil to place in a rearing container, managing to collect two more larvae as well (unfortunately, one became instant “prey” for the other.  Note to self: when placing multiple tiger beetle larvae in a container of soil, seal the artificial burrows into which you place each one!).  I paid little further attention to the photographs, other than to transfer them onto my computer and add metadata upon my return to St. Louis.  I didn’t know what species the larvae represented, but I assumed they were something in the genus Cicindela or one of its several former subgenera.  However, had I studied the photos and considered the locality and habitat, I would have realized that my assumption was incorrect¹.  That realization would come in surprise fashion two months later when the two adults emerged within a few days of each other…

¹ Ten points to whoever can use this information to arrive at an identification before my next post 🙂

IMG_1072_1200x800_enh

Photo details:
All photos: Canon EOS 50D, manual mode, ISO-100, 1/250 sec, MT-24EX flash w/ diffuser caps.
Photo 1: Canon 100mm macro lens, f/22, 1/4 power flash (photo slightly cropped).
Photos 2-4: Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5X macro lens f/16, 1/8 power flash.

REFERENCES:

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.

Pearson, D. L. and A. P. Vogler.  2001. Tiger Beetles: The Evolution, Ecology, and Diversity of the Cicindelids.  Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 333 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

(My) Introduction to Florida Tiger Beetles

On the last day of July, I hopped into my stuffed-to-the-brim SUV and began the +1000-mile drive to St. Petersburg, Florida.  I had with me my camera and my collecting gear, but also my bike, some beach wear… and my family!  No, this was not a collecting trip, but a family vacation.  We would be staying at my sister-in-law’s condo with my niece and enjoying typical Florida vacation fare – beaches, Disney World, sightseeing.  I even brought my road bike along to enjoy some pancake-flat terrain (a rarity around St. Louis) for a nice change of pace.  Still, I can be rather single-minded when it comes to opportunities for bug collecting, and summer in Florida presents opportunities galore!  Virtually everything there is different, and while I have been to Florida a number of times, my visits have all been during spring and prior to my more recent interest in tiger beetles.  It would be a family vacation, but still I would find a way to sneak off a couple times and satisfy my compulsions, and while the girls talked about Disney World and the beach, visions of Cicindela abdominalis, C. highlandensis, C. scabrosa, Ellipsoptera gratiosa, E. hamata lacerata, E. hirtilabris, E. marginata, Habroscelimorpha dorsalis, H. severa, and H. striga danced through my head!

I wouldn’t have to go far to find my first Florida tiger beetles.  My sister-in-law’s condo is in Seminole (west side of St. Petersburg peninsula), and as my niece and her husband showed us around after our arrival, they pointed out the “wild area” off their back patio next to the intertidal waterway and suggested, innocently, that I could go bug collecting back there.  In such a developed urban/tourist area, I figured it must be highly disturbed, dominated by exotics, and offering little in the way of quality habitat for the serious bug collector.  However, that night, as a cacophony of nasal queenks from the area made it clear that a healthy population of what I presume to be green treefrogs were thriving in the area, I reconsidered my skepticism and decided to take a quick look a day later.  What I found was a small but high-quality strip of coastal scrub and saltwater marsh bordering the intracoastal waterway, with thickets of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) along the water’s edge, black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) “woodlands” in the high scrub areas, and moist, briney, barren ground in between (Photo 1).  The whole area couldn’t have been more than a hundred yards wide but extended along the length of the waterway, and a wooden sign as I entered the area indicated it was a bona fide, albeit private, nature preserve established as part of the condominium development.

Intertidal salt marsh, Tara Cay Sound Nature Preserve, Seminole, Florida

Intertidal salt marsh, Tara Cay Sound Nature Preserve, Seminole, Florida

Within minutes after entering the preserve I saw the first tiger beetle.  I didn’t know what it was, and my first stalking efforts were woefully inadequate.  I saw another one a few minutes later and got within net handle distance but muffed the swing.  A few feet further along the path and onto an exposure by the water revealed several individuals, one of which I was finally able to capture after several clumsy misses.  I hadn’t yet memorized key characters for all of the species I had the potential to encounter, but I could see in the hand that this individual almost certainly belonged to the genus Ellipsoptera (Ellipsed-winged Tiger Beetles) because of its resemblance to E. macra (Sandy Stream Tiger Beetle) and E. nevadica knausii (Knaus’ Tiger Beetle), which I had photographed earlier this year in Missouri and Oklahoma, respectively.  With one now in the hand as a studio backup, I began my efforts to obtain field photographs.  The beetles were extremely wary, with fast running and strong flight capabilities that made them very difficult to approach.  It was only their abundance and my dogged persistance that allowed me to finally get close enough to one (Photo 2) to fire off a sequence of frames.  I then spent some time collecting a voucher series – finally getting a beat on their behavior and able to capture them with a little more efficiency despite their ultra-wariness before concentrating on getting more photographs of different individuals (including those shown in Photos 3 and 4).

Ellipsoptera marginata - Margined Tiger Beetle

Ellipsoptera marginata - note "tooth" under right mandible of this male

Ellipsoptera marginata - Margined Tiger Beetle

Ellipsoptera marginata - another male, with a distinctly bronzed pronotum

IMG_1061_1200x800

Ellipsoptera hamata lacerata - Gulf Beach Tiger Beetle (mate guarding)

I returned to the condo after a couple of hours – completely drenched (remember, it was August in Florida!). When I had the chance to consult my “bible” (Pearson et al. 2006), I learned there there were two possibilities: Ellipsoptera marginata (Margined Tiger Beetle), occurring along the Atlantic seaboard from Maine to the Gulf coast of Florida; and Ellipsoptera hamata lacerata (Gulf Beach Tiger Beetle), resembling and closely related to E. marginata and occurring along the Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas.  Both species inhabit coastal beaches, mud flats and salt marshes, and their distributions overlap along Florida’s Gulf Coast. While they are easily distinguished from other species in the genus by the distinctively diffuse middle band of the elytra, distinguishing between the two requires examination of the male right mandible (marginata bears a distinct tooth on the underside, hamata does not) or female elytral apices (marginata curiously bent down at a 90º angle, hamata not).  At this point, I didn’t know if I had one species or two – and if I did have two, did I have photographs of both (and would I be able to identify them)?

Fortunately, closer examination of the voucher series I collected revealed both species present, and even more fortunately I had managed to get photographs of both.  The individual in Photo 2 is a male, and the angle of the photograph clearly reveals a distinct tooth on the underside of the right mandible, identifying it as E. marginata.  Photo 3 is another male, and although the angle doesn’t afford a view of the mandibles, what can be seen is a bronze cast to the pronotum – in my voucher series, all of the E. marginata specimens have a bronze cast to the pronotum, while the E. hamata lacerata specimens exhibit an olive cast. This suggests that this individual also represents E. marginata. In Photo 4, no tooth can be seen on the male mandible, but the angle of the photo doesn’t necessarily make it visible were it to exist.  The male does, however, exhibit an olive cast on the pronotum, and the female elytral apices show no indication of being bent down as would be expected for E. marginata (see Photo 5 below of E. marginata photographed a few days later at another locality).  As a result, the individuals in Photo 4 can be identified as E. hamata lacerata.

Ellipsoptera marginata - female elytral apices showing curiously "bent tips"

Ellipsoptera marginata - female elytral apices showing curiously "bent tips"

Of the 19 vouchers that I collected, 15 represent E. marginata and 4 represent E. hamata lacerata.  This exemplifies the challenges of field identification and photography of insect species in unfamiliar places.  Had I been satisfied with photographing only one or two individuals of what I thought were all the same species, I would have missed one of the species.  The experience further exemplifies the importance of adequate voucher series, as it was only a result of close examination of that series that I realized two species were present.  Based on the numbers of individuals that I collected, as well as the photographs that I took, it appears that E. hamata lacerata was much less common at that location than E. marginata. This difference in population density between two similar, co-occurring species emphasizes the importance of sampling an adequate number of individuals at a given location before concluding what species are – and are not – present.

REFERENCES:

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 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Cold and wet

Photo details: Canon 65mm 1-5X macro lens on Canon EOS 50D, manual mode, ISO-100, 1/250 sec, f/14, MT-24EX flash 1/8 power through diffuser caps.

Photo details: Canon 65mm 1-5X macro lens on Canon EOS 50D, manual mode, ISO-100, 1/250 sec, f/14, MT-24EX flash 1/8 power w/ diffuser caps

The annual fall tiger beetle collecting trip is over, and nothing could be more emblematic of the trip than this cold, wet Cicindela splendida (literally translating to its well-deserved common name “Splendid Tiger Beetle”), found in the waning light of the last day of the trip secreted under a rock in the dolomite glades at White River Balds Natural Area in southwestern Missouri.  Overcast skies and a cold, stiff breeze had already dashed my hopes of finding Cicindela pulchra (also translating to its equally well-deserved common name “Beautiful Tiger Beetle”) in the Red Hills of northwestern Oklahoma two days earlier, and these same unrelenting conditions thwarted my backup plans to find this species the next day in the Gypsym Hills of nearby Barber County, Kansas.  With one last day to spend in the field, I had worked my way back to the White River Hills in hopes of photographing Missouri’s disjunct population of the enormous Cicindela obsoleta vulturina (Prairie Tiger Beetle).  That would also not come to pass, as the sun’s efforts to burn through the thick cloud cover just weren’t quite enough.  By the end of the day, I had resorted to flipping rocks (and replacing them exactly, of course) in hopes of finding an individual or two still in their nighttime/cool weather roosts.  I had seen C. obsoleta on previous occasions at this very locality along this very trail, but this time none were found – my finds instead limited to the “smiling” scorpion that I featured a few days ago and this lone C. splendida – wet with condensation and torpid against the cold ground.  I hatched a last gasp plan to look for C. obsoleta again the following day before heading back to St. Louis, but I awoke the next morning to steady rain and knew the 2009 entomology field season was officially over.

Don’t let me leave you with the impression, however, that the trip was a failure.  While I didn’t find either of the two species that I had set as my top goals for the trip, I still saw enough new things to make the trip worthwhile (including one very significant find that I’ll discuss in an upcoming post).  In addition, I’ve barely made mention of my August trip to Florida – my Assasin ate post of a couple weeks ago was just one of many interesting finds encountered during that trip that remain to be shared.  The cold and rain that has settled over the middle of the country during the past week have brought an unwelcome end to my field work for the year, but that just leaves me with more time now to process and share photographs from the past season and reflect on the stories behind them.  It will be welcome diversion, as I also begin the arduous and seemingly endless task of mounting and labeling the specimens collected during the past season – success’ bitter reward!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

A face only a mother could love

Centruroides vittatus - striped bark scorpion

Centruroides vittatus - striped bark scorpion

I found this guy yesterday secreted under a rock in a limestone glade at White River Balds Natural Area in extreme southwest Missouri.  Centruroides vittatus¹ is the most common scorpion in the U.S., occurring naturally in southern Missouri, western Arkansas and western Louisiana, west through Texas, Oklahoma and much of Kansas to southeastern Colorado and eastern New Mexico, and south into northern Mexico (Shelley and Sissom 1985). The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, respectively, seem to form natural northern and eastern distributional boundaries, with occurrences just to the north and east attributed to rafting or natural alterations of the river’s courses and those occurring far outside the natural range regarded as the result of human introductions. This includes not only states in the eastern U.S., but several countries in South America (Sissom and Lourenco 1987)!

¹ The generic name Centruroides is from the Greek words centr-, meaning “pointed,” ur, meaning “tail,” and –oides meaning “like” or “the form of” (the original genus name, Centrurus, was preoccupied by another animal, thus, Centruroides, or “like Centrurus“). Centruroides is often misspelled as “Centuroides” in non-primary literature.

If you squit your eyes, it looks like he’s “smiling”! Also, note the eight eyes (two dorsal and three each side laterally)! Also, I know I didn’t nail the focus on the dorsal ocelli – depth-of-field limitations prevented getting both the ocelli and the jaws. I should’ve gone f/16 but thought I’d nailed it. That’ll teach me not to bracket anyway!

Photo details: Canon 65mm 1-5X macro lens on Canon EOS 50D, manual mode, ISO-100, 1/250 sec, f/14, MT-24EX flash 1/4 power through diffuser caps. Photo slightly cropped and darkened.

REFERENCES:

Shelley, R. M. and W. D. Sissom. 1985. Distributions of the scorpions Centruroides vittatus (Say) and Centruroides hentzi (Banks) in the United States and Mexico (Scorpiones, Buthidae). The Journal of Arachnology 23:100–110.

Sissom, W. D. and W. R . Lourenço. 1987. The genus Centruroides in South America (Scorpiones, Buthidae). The Journal of Arachnology 15:11–28.

 

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

North America’s most beautiful longhorned beetle

I’ve written a few posts in recent weeks highlighting some of the more interesting finds encountered during two visits this past July to the White River Hills region of extreme southwestern Missouri. It’s a land of extremes, with deeply dissected layers of limestone/dolomite bedrock supporting xeric glades, dry woodlands and riparian watercourses. The hilltop glades (“balds”), in particular, feature prominently in the region’s natural and cultural history and are the most extensive system of such habitat in Missouri. They support a number of plants and animals more characteristic of the grasslands of the south-central U.S., such as the recently featured Megaphasma denticrus and Microstylus morosum, North America’s longest insect and largest robber fly, respectively. Sadly, the glades in this region are much reduced in size and quality compared to their pre-settlement occurrence, primarily due to overgrazing and suppression of fire. These anthropogenic forces have combined to reduce overall vegetational diversity and accelerate encroachment by woody species (chiefly eastern red-cedar, Juniperus virginiana). Nevertheless, there still remain several high quality glade remnants in the area, and the public agencies charged with their conservation are increasingly utilizing mechanical removal of woody growth, controlled burns, and managed grazing in an effort to simulate the natural forces that mediated this landscape for thousands of years.

IMG_0871_1200x800

Chute Ridge Glade, Roaring River State Park, Barry Co., Missouri

My reason for returning to the White River Hills this year was simple—find and photograph the magnificent longhorned beetle, Plinthocoelium suaveolens (family Cerambycidae). This species, occurring across the southern U.S. from Florida and Georgia west to New Mexico and Arizona, is truly one of North America’s most beautiful longhorned beetles due to its large size, brilliant iridescent green coloration, and super-elongate wildly-contrasting orange and black legs.  Until recently, this species was known in Missouri only from sporadic records across the southern part of the state (MacRae 1994). I knew of its association with gum bumelia (Sideroxylon lanuginosum [= Bumelia lanuginosa], also called gum bully and woolly buckthorn), which was first noted by Missouri’s first State Entomologist, C. V. Riley (1880) and later discussed in detail by Linsley and Hurd (1959) and Turnbow and Hovore (1979); however, my repeated searches over the years whenever I encoutered this plant came up empty.  A few years ago, Chris Brown and I were conducting a survey of tiger beetles in the White River Hills and noted the relatively common occurrence of bumelia on these glades.  Bumelia, like P. suaveolens, is one of only a few North American representatives of a largely tropical group, and it is one of the few woody species naturally adapted to the xeric conditions found on these glades.  Recalling the association of P. suaveolens with this plant, and also recalling that adults could be attracted to fermenting baits of the type described by Champlain and Knull (1932), we placed fermenting bait traps on several glades in the area and succeeded in trapping a number of individuals during the month of July.  When I began searching the bumelia trees at these glades, I found adults perching on the lower trunks of several trees. It was the first time I’d seen live individuals of this species in Missouri.  At the time I was not a photographer, and that experience became one of the many moments that I would later look back upon and think, “If only I’d taken a picture of that!”  Thus, at the end of June this year, having successfully found Cylindera celeripes in Missouri on the first day of a planned 3-week search, my attention immediately turned to the new goal of finding P. suaveolens and photographing it on its host plant.

IMG_0929_1200x800

Sideroxylon lanuginosum (gum bumelia) at Blackjack Knob, Taney Co., Missouri

I knew this wouldn’t be easy—the beetles were not abundant when I had last observed them, and those that I did find were quite wary to my approach.  Getting within striking distance with a net was one thing; doing so with a camera and macro lens would be another thing entirely.  In my first trip to the area (early July), I went to Chute Ridge Glade, a magnificently restored glade in Roaring River State Park where I had seen the greatest number of individuals before.  I was full of optimism on that first day as I zigzagged across the rough terrain from one bumelia tree to the next, but my optimism began to wane as I cautiously approached each tree and saw nothing.  Within an hour, I’d looked at every bumelia tree I could find on the glade and not even seen a beetle, much less attempted a photograph.  It would take a 2-hour drive along twisting back roads to reach the other sizeable glade complex where I had seen beetles before (Blackjack Knob in Taney County), and another hour of searching on several dozen trees would again yield nothing.  By now I was feeling rather frustrated—the day’s oppressive heat and humidity had taken its toll, and my 4.5-hour drive from St. Louis was looling like it would be for naught.  I had noted that the bumelia flowers were almost but not quite open yet—perhaps it was too early in the season still?  

Plinthocoelium suaveolens larval frass pile at the base of living Sideroxylon lanuginosa

Plinthocoelium suaveolens larval frass pile at trunk base of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

The remnant glades at Blackjack Knob are more extensive than those at Chute Ridge, so many more trees still awaited examination—if I could only muster the energy!  I trudged back to the truck, guzzled a nice, cold Powerade, and started off in another direction.  I looked at a number of trees and still had seen no sign of the beetle, but on one particular tree I noticed an enormous pile of sawdust on the ground at the base of the tree.  I looked at it more closely and saw that it had the rough, granular texture so characteristic of longhorned beetle larvae that like to keep their galleries clean, and its bright, moist  color suggested that it was being ejected by a larva tunneling through living wood.  I looked up into the tree above the pile to find where it was coming from but could find no ejection hole.  I checked the base of the trunk itself and still couldn’t find anything.  Then I started poking into the pile and felt a root.  Further poking revealed a soft spot on the root, and I immediately knew that I had found a P. suaveolens larval gallery—no other cerambycid species is known to bore in roots of living Sideroxylon, especially one as large as this based on the size of the frass pile.  I hurried back to the truck and grabbed my hatchet, returned to the tree, and scraped away the soil above the root to find an obvious ejection hole a few inches away from the base of the trunk.  I started chipped into the root at the ejection hole and found a large, clean gallery extending down the center of the root away from the trunk.  About 18” away from the trunk I found it—a large, creamy-white cerambycid larva.

Plinthocoelium suavelones larva in root of living Sideroxylon lanuginosa

Plinthocoelium suaveolens larva in root of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Plinthocoelium suavelones larva in root of living Sideroxylon lanuginosa

Plinthocoelium suaveolens larva in root of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Finding a P. suaveolens larva was gratifying, but it wasn’t what I had come here to do, which was photograph the adult. After placing the larva live in a vial for preservation later on (dropping into scalding water to “fix” the proteins and prevent discoloration when stored in 70% ethanol), I continued searching the trees for adults.  I found one tree on which the flowers were just barely beginning to open and collected a few of the pedestrian species of scarabs that are attracted to bumelia flowers in droves when fully open (e.g. Cotinis nitidus and Trigonopeltastes delta)—for the record.  There was still no sign of adult Plinthocoelium, and I was on the verge of calling it a day when I approached another tree and saw it!  I froze, then slowly geared up with the camera and started stalking slowly towards it.  It was not in a very convenient location, down low on the trunk and partially screened by foreground vegetation.  I got close enough to start attempting some shots—not ideally composed, but just to ensure that I had something before I tried to get any closer.  After the third shot, however, it became alarmed and started to flee, and I had no choice but to capture it for a “studio backup.”  That taste of success gave me the motivation to resume my search, but no additional beetles were seen before a dropping sun put an end to the day.

Plinthocoelium suaveolens on lower trunk of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Plinthocoelium suaveolens on lower trunk of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Not entirely satisfied with the shots that I’d gotten, I returned to Blackjack Knob the following day and also searched some of the extensive habitat at nearby Hercules Glades Wilderness.  I wouldn’t see another beetle the entire day, although encountering a nice series of Cicindela rufiventris (red-bellied tiger beetle) was some consolation for suffering the day’s oppressive heat and humidity.  I still had the live beetle, so I placed my hopes on getting better photographs of the beetle in confinement after returning home.  That would not come to pass—the beetle refused to sit obligingly on the stick I placed in the large screen cage, and instead clung to the cage itself.  For days I watched it, giving it honey-water for sustenance and waiting for an opportunity to photograph it on the stick on which it refused to sit.  It became clear to me that studio photographs, at least in the manner I was attempting, would not be possible.  Not entirely satisfied with having seen only a single beetle on my trip, and thinking that I may have been too early based on the flowering phenology of the bumelia host trees, I did what any dedicated entomologist would do—I made a second trip to the area two weeks later!

I didn’t mess with Chute Ridge Glade this time, instead making a beeline for Blackjack Knob right away.  Unfortunately, the weather was uncooperatively drizzley (I would have preferred hot and humid to rain!).  Nevertheless, daughter Madison and I made our way to the glades and began inspecting the trees that I had just examined two weeks earlier.  I noted immediately that the bumelias were now in full flower, and it wasn’t long before I saw the first adult flying into these flowers.  Exciting for sure, and this was a good sign to see an active adult despite the drizzly weather, but the situation of the beetle on a high branch left no possibility for photographs (and only with a rather acrobatic swing of my fully extended net handle amidst a jumble of dead branches was I able to capture it).  This same scenario would replay several times over the next two hours before rain finally drove us back to the car.  In total, we saw half a dozen active adults, but in each case they were seen flying to flowers on high branches and could not be photographed.  Despite that disappointment, I’ll never forget the spectacularity of seeing these beetles in flight—shimmering green and bold orange, with legs and antennae spread wide in all directions.  I was also fortunate to find another tree with a fresh frass pile at its base indicating an active larva.  This time, I cut the tree some inches above the ground and extracted the trunk base and root intact for transplanting into a large soil box upon my return home.  The appearance of new frass on the soil surface afterwards confirmed that I had gotten the root containing the larva and that it had survived the extraction and transplanting.  Hopefully I will be able to successfully rear this individual to adulthood.

Despite the rain, we then went back to Hercules Glades Wilderness to see if luck would follow suite there as it had at Blackjack Knob.  It didn’t, as rain continued to doggedly pursue us, but the day was not a total loss as daughter and I got in a nice 7-mile hike through some of Missouri’s most ruggedly scenic terrain and were rewarded with the sighting of a western pygmy rattlesnake.  The next day was sunny, much to our delight, and I considered going back to Blackjack Knob where we had seen a good number of adults the previous day.  In the end, I decided I’d played that card and rather than continue trying for photographs I’d rather see if the beetle could be found at another glade complex further to the east at Long Bald Glade Natural Area in Caney Mountain Conservation Area.  Things didn’t look promising, as I found bumelia trees occurring only sporadically across the main glade complex—with no sign of the beetles.  Nevertheless, we enjoyed the day and spent a bit of time chasing after some enormous robber flies that later proved to be Microstylum morosum, a new record for Missouri and a significant northeastern range extension.  I thought that would be the highlight of the day, but as we were heading back to the car I spotted a small glade relict on the other side of the road.  It was overgrown and encroached, apparently not receiving the same management attention as the glades in the main complex. Regardless, I went over to check it out and immediately spotted several bumelia trees amongst the red-cedars, and within minutes I saw a beetle—low on the trunk of a very small bumelia tree!  Once again I froze, then slowly geared up with the camera and began my ultra-cautious approach (remember, this was only my second photo chance after a combined four days in the field).  Like last time, I took one shot while still some distance away, then moved in for closer attempts.  Unlike last time, there was no bothersome vegetation cluttering the view, and when I moved in for closeups the beetle turned around, crawled up the trunk a short distance, and then paused.  I snapped off a small series of shots while it sat there, and then suddenly it became alarmed and flew away.  Though still not perfect, these photographs were better than the previous ones I had obtained (check out the pronotal armature in the last photo!), and the finding of this species at Long Bald Glades also represented a new county record.

Plinthocoelium suaveolens on trunk of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Plinthocoelium suaveolens on trunk of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Plinthocoelium suaveolens on trunk of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Plinthocoelium suaveolens on trunk of living Sideroxylon lanuginosum

Missouri populations are assignable to the nominotypical subspecies (southeastern U.S.), which is distinguished from subspecies plicatum (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and northern Mexico) by the bronze or cupreous tints and weak transverse rugae on the pronotum (Linsley 1964).  The distributional ranges of the two subspecies intermingle in northeastern Texas.

Photo details:
All photos: Canon 100mm macro lens on Canon EOS 50D
Photo 1 (Chute Ridge Glade): normal mode, ISO-400, 1/250 sec, f/16, natural light.
Photo 2 (Sideroxylon lanuginosum): landscape mode, ISO-100, 1/160 sec, f/6.3, natural light.
Photos 3 (P. suaveolens larval frass pile), 6—8 (P. suaveolens adult): manual mode, ISO-100, 1/250 sec, f/9-11, MT-24EX flash 1/2 power through diffuser caps (photo 7 slightly cropped).
Photos 4—5 (P. suaveolens larva): manual mode, ISO-100, 1/60 sec, f/14 (closeup f/25), MT-24EX flash 1/2 power through diffuser caps.

REFERENCES:

Champlain, A. B. and J. N. Knull.  1932.  Fermenting bait traps for trapping Elateridae and Cerambycidae (Coleop.).  Entomological News 43(10):253–257.

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 Publicatons in Entomology, 22:1—197, 60 figs., 1 pl.

Linsley, E. G. and P. D. Hurd, Jr.  1959.  The larval habits of Plinthocoelium suaveolens plicatum (LeConte).  Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 58(1):27–33.

MacRae, T. C. 1994. Annotated checklist of the longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae and Disteniidae) known to occur in Missouri. Insecta Mundi 7(4) (1993):223–252.

MacRae, T. C. and M. E. Rice. 2007. Distributional and biological observations on North American Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). The Coleopterists Bulletin 61(2): 227–263.

Riley, C. V.  1880.  Food habits of the longicorn beetles or wood borers.  The American Entomologist 3(10):237–239.

Turnbow, R. H. Jr. and F. T. Hovore.  1979.  Notes on Cerambycidae from the southeastern U. S.  Entomological News 90(5):219–229.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Assassin ate

IMG_1146_1200x800

I came upon this interesting scene last month while hiking through Allen David Broussard Catfish Creek Preserve State Park, which preserves some of the highest quality remnants of sand scrub habitat on the Lake Wales Ridge of central Florida. The spider seems to be Peucetia viridans (green lynx spider), widespread across the southern U.S. and distinguished by its bright transparent green color with red spots and black spines (Emerton 1961). These largest of North American lynx spiders hunt diurnally on low shrubs with an agility excelled only by the jumping spiders (Salticidae) and aggressively attack their insect prey. In this case, the prey is one of the so-called “bee assassins” of the genus Apiomerus (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). The common and generic names of these insects both derive from their habit of preying upon bees, not only on flowers but also by ambushing them at nest entrances, although other insects are preyed upon as well. Ironically, this particular assassin himself got ate.

An interesting situation was uncovered while I tried to determine which species of Apiomerus was represented by the prey. By virtue of its pale ventrals with the front and hind margins black, it keys to A. spissipes in a literature-based key to Florida Reduviidae (Bierle et al. 2002) – one of two species considered widely distributed across the eastern U.S. In reality, however, it appears that this individual represents another species named almost 30 years ago but which remains officially undescribed. As explained in this BugGuide post by Daniel Swanson, the genus was revised by Berkeley grad student Sigurd Leopold Szerlip in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Ph.D., who proposed a number of taxonomic acts including the description of 19 new species. Among these were eastern U.S. populations to which the name A. spissipes had been applied, with those in Florida being described as the new species “A. floridensis“. However, dissertations do not meet the criteria of publication according to Article 8 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), and none of the dissertation was formally published. Thus, “A. floridensis” remains an invalid, unpublished name.  This is a most unfortunate situation, as Swanson considers the dissertation to be well done.  It is not only names, but important information about life histories and detailed genitalic studies that remain unavailable to the scientific community as well.  What are the nomenclatural impacts of this work remaining unpublished?  Is this as much a failure by the advising professor as by Szerlip himself?  What ethical considerations would need to be addressed in order for it to be published in absentia, or is this even possible?

Photo details: Canon 100mm macro lens on Canon EOS 50D (manual mode), ISO-100, 1/250 sec, f/13, MT-24EX flash 1/2 power through diffuser caps.

REFERENCES:

Bierle, S., E. Dunn, S. Frederick, S. Garrett, J. Harbison, D. Hoel, B. Ley and S. Weihman. 2002. A literature-based key to Reduviidae (Heteroptera) of Florida (assassin bugs, and thread-legged bugs). Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Department of Entomology and Nematolgy, Insect Classification ENY 4161/6166, 18 pp.

Emerton, J. H. 1961. The Common Spiders of the United States. Dover Publications, Inc., N.Y., xx + 227 pp.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN]. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o Natural History Museum, London. xxix + 306 pp.

Szerlip, S. L. 1980. Biosystematic revision of the genus Apiomerus (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) in North and Central America. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkley, CA.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl