And the results are in…

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

I recently entered my first photo contest, a local competition sponsored by the Webster Groves Nature Study Society (of which I have been a member for ~30 years), and although the competition was limited to its few hundred members there were some serious cash prizes on offer. Being a noob at photo contests and a still relative newcomer to photography in general, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I thought my photos might be good enough to compete, but I also knew I would be going up against some long-time and very skilled nature photographers. The basic rules were a maximum of two submissions in no more than three of the following categories:

  • Botany
  • Entomology
  • Ornithology
  • Landscapes/habitats

Since I’ve only photographed two birds ever, I decided to submit entries to each of the other three categories. It was an interesting competition—the judges (each category had a panel of three consisting of a WNGSS board member, a natural history expert, and a photography expert) had a chance to see all of the photographs prior to the event (held last night) and select the top ten from each category, but the rest of the judging was done live at the event. Eventually, from each category a 1st place, 2nd place, and 3rd place photo was selected. The 12 winning photographs were then displayed in a continuous loop, and everybody attending the event was allowed to vote for one grand prize winner. The grand prize winner had to receive more than 50% of the vote, so a few runoff rounds were required to decide the final winner.

How did it go for me? I had a pretty good night, with three winning photographs:

Entomology—3rd place

Cicindela repanda (Bronze Tiger Beetle) | St. Louis Co., Missouri

Cicindela repanda (Bronze Tiger Beetle) | St. Louis Co., Missouri

Botany—2nd place

Hamammelis vernalis (Ozark witch hazel) | Iron Co., Missouri

Hamammelis vernalis (Ozark witch hazel) | Iron Co., Missouri

Entomology—1st place

Arctosa littoralis (beach wolf spider) | Lewis Co., Missouri

It was a thrill for me to learn that, out of the six photographs I submitted (and I really didn’t think my two landscape submissions were competitive to begin with), three were among the 12 final prize winners. That also made them eligible for the grand prize, but in this case I didn’t really expect the larger membership (which has a lot of birders) would really take to my closeup insect photographs. To my surprise, the first round of voting produced four finalists—two of which were my insect photos! The first runoff vote eliminated one photo—but not either of mine, and the second runoff eliminated one more photo—but again neither of mine. I had won the grand prize without yet knowing which photo would be the winner! In the end, the tiger beetle took the top prize. Personally, I was happy about that, because even though the photo took only 3rd place in the entomology competition, I thought it was the stronger of the two photos based on composition, the time and effort it took to work the beetle to finally “get the shot” (not that the wolf spider photo didn’t also take a lot of effort to get that close), and the natural history behavior that it captured (stilting and sun-facing for thermoregulation). I know blog commenting is becoming passé, but if you have any particular thoughts about these photos, good or bad, I would love to hear from you.

Overall I would have to say that, winner or not, participating in a photo competition was an extraordinary learning opportunity for me as I try to hone my craft. Listening to the comments of the judges in all of the categories, both on the natural history and the technical aspects of the photographs, gave me a lot of insight into how I might further improve my technique and take photographs that can be appreciated on both technical and artistic grounds. More importantly, the cash was nice, but the motivation to keep trying that I got out of the experience was priceless!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Posted in Arachnida, Araneae, Cicindelidae, Coleoptera, Hamamelidaceae, Plantae | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments

Ceti Eel offspring?

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae
Nicrophila americana

Nicrophila americana (American carrion beetle) larva | Sam A. Baker State Park, Wayne Co., Missouri.

If this creature was a tad bit slimier, you might think it had just been plucked from underneath the armor of an adult Ceti Eel and was looking to slip inside the ear of Chekov or some other human to wrap itself around the unsuspecting victim’s cerebral cortex. In reality, this creature lives not on Ceti Alpha V., but right here on earth, and while it’s natural history may not include making human hosts “extremely susceptible to suggestion“, it does include an appetite for dead flesh and the maggots that try to compete for it. Say hello to the larva of Nicrophila americana (American carrion beetle), a member of the family Silphidae (carrion and burying beetles) (not to be confused with the endangered Nicrophorus americanus, or American burying beetle). Like most beetles, the larvae can be difficult to recognize as such due to its very different form compared to the adult. However, the one-segmented tarsi, distinct head, presence of chewing mouthparts, and presence of spiracles along the sides of the body give the clues to its identity.

Necrophila americana

While not the offspring of a Ceti Eel, its habits are almost as… er, disgusting!

The genus name (literally meaning “attracted to corpses“) is a perfect descriptor of this beetle’s natural history. Adults are attracted to animal carcasses, where they lay their eggs and prey on maggots (fly larvae) as they hatch to give a competitive advantage to their own larvae once they hatch. The larvae also will eat maggots and other larvae within the carcass, along with the carcass itself. This larva had completed its development and was searching the ground for a suitable spot to dig a burrow for pupation and eventual emergence as an adult.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae

Posted in Coleoptera, Silphidae | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

My favorite of Missouri’s milkweeds

Posted on April 6, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

Milkweeds of the genus Asclepias are among my favorite plants, although I’m not fully sure why that is the case. Sure, their blooms are conspicuous and colorful, but so are those of many other plants. Perhaps one reason is their status as hosts for milkweed beetles (genus Tetraopes, family Cerambycidae). Four species of these beetles occur in Missouri, including the rare T. texanus. Another reason might be their diversity—in Missouri alone there are 16 different species, ranging from the ubiquitous common milkweed (A. syriaca) to the federally endangered Mead’s milkweed (A. meadii). The latter is one of six milkweed species occurring in Missouri that I have not yet seen, so I suppose I should withhold judgement until I’ve succeeding in finding all 16 species. Nevertheless, I would have to say that clasping milkweed (A. amplexicaulis) has to be my favorite of Missouri’s milkweeds.

Clasping milkweed (Asclepias amplexicaulis) | Sand Prairie Conservation Area, Scott Co., Missouri

Clasping milkweed (Asclepias amplexicaulis) | Sand Prairie Conservation Area, Scott Co., Missouri

Clasping milkweed (also known as sand milkweed—not to be confused with A. arenaria occurring further west in the Great Plains) is said to occur sporadically throughout Missouri in prairies, glades, rocky open woods, roadsides, and railroads. However, I have seen this species only a few times—all in dry sand habitats in the southeastern Mississippi Alluvial Plain (or, the “bootheel” as we say here in Missouruh). Until a few  years ago the only time I had ever seen this plant was many years in an eroded sandy opening on Crowley’s Ridge (an elevated ridge of alluvium and loess deposited during the last glacial maximum). Those plants were not in flower, but their was no mistaking their identity due to their erect stems and broad, cordate-clasping, tomentulose leaves with wavy margins. I would see this plant again a few years ago during my first visit to Sand Prairie Conservation Area, and although I would see it again on many subsequent visits, at no time did I succeed in seeing the blooms.

This species is characterized by broad, clasping, tomentulose leaves with wavy margins.

Broad, clasping, tomentulose leaves with wavy margins.

Finally, last year, I returned to Sand Prairie during late April (a weather-delayed installment of my Annual-Birthday-First-Bug-Collecting-Trip-of-the-Year). I had actually gone there to photograph Missouri’s unique intergrade population of the Festive Tiger Beetle (Cicindela scutellaris), but the weather was cool and the beetles apparently had decided to remain in their burrows. A bad day of collecting, however, is still better than a good day of just about anything else—perhaps because there are almost always consolation prizes, and my consolation prize on this day was my first sight of clasping milkweed plants in full bloom.

A single inflorescence atops each stem.

A single inflorescence atops each stem.

I may not be exactly sure why I like milkweeds so much, but I think I now know why I like clasping milkweed above all others. The softly colored green and pink blossoms are exquisite, to be sure, but more importantly the species is firmly linked in my mind to one of my favorite Missouri habitats. I imagine that clasping milkweed might be an attractive, if somewhat gangly, addition to a native wildflower garden. However, I’m not sure I would enjoy cultivated plants in my garden as much as I do seeing wild plants in one of Missouri’s rarest and most endangered natural communities.

Sand Prairie Conservation Area, Scott Co., Missouri

Sand Prairie Conservation Area, Scott Co., Missouri

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Posted in Asclepiadaceae, Plantae | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Bollworms rising!

Posted on March 30, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

One of the most pernicious pests that U.S. farmers have battled is the larval stage of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). This insect is destructive enough to have earned not just one official common name, but four (corn earworm, cotton bollworm, soybean podworm, and tomato fruitworm)—one for each of the crops in which it has attained major pest status. It isn’t only North American farmers, however, that must deal with this pest, but South American farmers as well. For many decades, corn and cotton have been its most important hosts in North America, but in recent years its importance has increased steadily in soybean as well, particularly across the mid-south. In South America, however, it seems satisfied—curiously—to confine its attacks to corn. Lest you think that South American farmers are getting off easy, there are other species of Helicoverpa in South America that are causing problems of their own. Perhaps the most troubling one is H. armigera, the Old World bollworm¹—a sister species to H. zea (Goldsmith & Marec 2010) native to Africa, Asia, and Australia and just as polyphagous as H. zea that was recently found infesting corn, cotton, soybean, and other crops in several areas of Brazil.

¹ Interestingly, in the Old World this species is called the “American bollworm,” despite the fact that it did not come from the Americas at all. I guess neither hemisphere wants to take the blame for this species.

Helicoverpa gelotopeon (South American bollworm) | Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

Helicoverpa gelotopeon (South American bollworm) | Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

While we wait to see what impact H. armigera ends up having in South America, another species of the genus is quietly rising from the ranks of secondary to primary pest further south on the continent. For many years, Helicoverpa gelotopeon (or South American bollworm) has been a sometimes pest of cotton and other crops in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (Evangelina et al. 2012), but in a situation that mirrors the rise of H. zea on soybean in North America, the incidence of H. gelotopeon has grown during the past few years in the more southern soybean growing areas of South America as well. Like its North American counterpart, this insect causes not only indirect damage by feeding on the foliage of the plant during vegetative stages of growth (reducing photosynthetic capacity of the plant), but also direct damage by feeding on the developing pods during reproductive stages of growth. Predictably (and regrettably), farmers have responded by increasing applications of organophosphate insecticides, but the efficacy of these products—despite their relatively high toxicity—has often been inadequate to prevent yield losses. As a result, other management techniques and technologies will be required to keep this insect from having a major impact on soybean production in the temperate regions of Argentina.

Young larvae feed on foliage (note the very small caterpillar in the lower center area of the leaf).

Young larvae feed on foliage (note the very small caterpillar in lower left area of the leaf).

A mid-instar larvae feeding on soybean foliage.

A mid-instar larvae feeds on soybean foliage and exhibits the black pinacula characteristic of the subfamily.

Larger larvae feed on developing pods, breaching the wall of the pod to consume the seeds within.

Larger larvae feed on developing pods, breaching the wall of the pod to consume the seeds within.

Adults are slightly smaller than H. zea and a little darker with somewhat bolder markings.

The photographs in this post may well be the best—and perhaps even the only ones—available of this species. A Google image search turned up nothing, and have I been unable to find any literature with photographs of either the adults or the larvae and their damage. If you are aware of any please leave a comment with the citation.

REFERENCES:

Goldsmith, M. R. & Marec, F. 2010. Molecular Biology and Genetics of the Lepidoptera. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 368 pp.

Evangelina, P., F. Crepo & J. C. Gamundi. 2012. Evaluación del daño simulado de “oruga bolillera” Helicoverpa gelotopoeon (Dyar) en estados vegetativos del cultivo de soja. Unpublished report, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), 6 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Posted in Lepidoptera, Noctuidae | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

The true Ombú

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

Recall ID Challenge #21, which featured a photograph of the massively buttressed trunk of a rubber tree (Ficus elastica) planted more than 200 years ago in Buenos Aires, Argentina and give the name Gran Gomero (meaning “big rubber”). There are many photographs of this tree on the internet, owing to its celebrity status, which allowed more than a few participants to properly guess its identity. Unfortunately, one participant still guessed the wrong answer despite having found an image of the exact same tree due to the tree being incorrectly identified as an Ombú tree (Phytolacca dioica). Unlike the rubber tree, which is native to south and southeast Asia, the Ombú is indigenous to South America and is, in fact, the only “tree” that occurs naturally in the South American Pampas. I place the word tree in parentheses, because this plant—also unlike the rubber tree—is not even really a tree, but rather multi-stemmed shrub (albeit a very large one) in the family Phytolaccaceae (relative of the common pokeweed). Like its North American cousin, the milky sap is laced with toxic compounds that protect it from vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores, and its massive, fire resistant trunks consist of soft water storage tissues arising from enlarged bases. These features are obvious adaptations to life on the Pampas, where rainfall is scarce (10–30 in per year) and fires are frequent.

Ombú (Phytolacca dioica) | Buenos Aires, Argentina

Ombú (Phytolacca dioica) | Buenos Aires, Argentina

While not nearly as spectacular as El Gran Gomero, there is an Ombú growing nearby in the same very plaza adjacent to the Recoleta Cemetery (above photo) that typifies the multi-stemmed, swollen-base appearance that very large specimens assume. It is easy to see how, at least based on superficial appearance, one could mistake El Gran Gomero for an Ombú; however, it also goes to show that one should always be cautious about too quickly accepting what they find on the internet (watch somebody now point out an error in this post!).

Here is another (better) photo of the exact same tree.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Posted in Phytolaccaceae, Plantae | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

The 213-year old “Gran Gomero”

Posted on March 24, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

Here are two more views of the tree featured in ID Challenge #21. This is El “Gran Gomero,” a planted rubber tree (Ficus elastica) located in the upscale Recoleta district of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Whenever locals give a name to an individual tree, you know it has to be something special, and this tree certainly does not disappoint. Huge, buttress roots and massive branches supporting a majestic, 50-meter wide crown make it an impressive sight indeed. Its branches are so large that wooden supports have been placed beneath them to help support their great weight and prevent them from breaking.

El "Gran Gomero" rubber tree (Ficus elasticus) | Buenos Aires, Argentina

El “Gran Gomero” rubber tree (Ficus elasticus) | Buenos Aires, Argentina

There seems to be some question about how old this tree actually is. A Wikipedia entry on the Recoleta district mentions that the tree was planted in 1791 by Martín José Altolaguirre, a landowner in the area at the time, making it a cool 222 years old! Wikimapia claims that the tree was planted in 1826 by Martín de Altolaguirre in the adjacent Recoleta Cemetary (itself worth a blog post) and transplanted to its current location eight years later. Still other sources, such as Buenos Aires Delivery and numerous individual blog posts state that the tree was planted in 1870 by the monks of the Recoleta. Finally, there is a sign at the base of the tree that says the tree was planted in 1800, again by the monks of the Recoleta, and that the fence was donated to the city by the nearby cafe La Biela. Unfortnately, I did not photograph the sign, but I did find a photo of it on Flickr. Perhaps the 9-year difference in planting date between the sign and Wikipedia has to do with the transplanting from its original location in the cemetary as mentioned by Wikimapia. Regardless of its true age, El Gran Gomero must certainly be among the oldest of any residing in a city as large as Buenos Aires.

 

Huge buttress roots support a massive, 50-meter wide crown.

Huge buttress roots support a massive, 50-meter wide crown.

Just when I was beginning to think nobody read this blog anymore, a record 30 people participated in this ID Challenge. Even more impressive is that more than a few got it right! Timing is everything, however, and 3-time BitB Challenge Champion Ben Coulter takes the win due to his speedy response and early-bird bonuses that netted him a total of 23 points. Also making the podium were Chelydra and Brady Richards with 18 each. The overall leader is now Ben Coulter with 33 points. Bill Rockenbeck and Chelydra both follow with 21 points, but in the event of a tie-breaker Bill would get the nod by virtue of having participated in more challenges. Look for another installment of BitB Challenge Session #7 in the near future.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Posted in Moraceae | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

ID Challenge #21

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

Time for another installment of BitB Challenge Session #7. This one is going to be a bit different from previous versions—can you identify the tree in the photo? Not the scientific name, not the common name, but the actual name of this particular tree. Include its location and any cultural significance it may have (both historical and current) and you’ll be well on your way towards winning this challenge. Points structure will be decided after I see what kind of response I get (this is also a test to see if anyone still reads this blog).

Good luck!

IMG_2332_enh_1080x720

Copyright © Ted. C. MacRae 2013

Posted in [No taxon] | Tagged , , , , | 73 Comments

These bugs rock!

Posted on March 20, 2013 by Ted C. MacRae

IMG_2624_enh_1080x720
These stones were given to me recently by a local insect enthusiast who is an admitted collector of all things natural history. According to him, the stones were among numerous items that he was allowed to “salvage” many decades earlier from the home of a similarly inclined individual from the previous generation. He has stored these and other items in his home ever since but now finds himself in the mood to distribute the items he has spent a lifetime collecting. Beyond this, I know nothing of the provenance of these stones or even if they represent something truly artifactual versus just the classroom efforts of a more contemporary school child. I’ll welcome any opinions that may be had, but even if none are received these stones will nicely decorate some little corner of my “museum”—hopefully for decades to come.

IMG_2606_enh_1080x720

IMG_2608_enh_1080x720

IMG_2610_enh_1080x720

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae

Posted in [No taxon] | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments