It’s been a long time since the last Super Crop Challenge – can you identify the structures and the organism they belong to? As always, each correct taxonomic and descriptive answer is worth 2 points, and bonus points are awarded at my discretion for extra effort. Standard challenge rules apply.
The other day I found an enormous bug in my house. I had no idea what it was when I saw it, so I grabbed my camera and put on the 65mm macro lens to make sure I got some detailed shots of what I figured might be the important characters. I wouldn’t have even recognized it as an insect, since at first it seemed to have four rather than six legs. However, I noted that the third pair of legs was actually present, but that one was atrophied to a long, flexible, backward-directed appendage incapable of locomotory or weight bearing function, and that the other leg was missing completely – perhaps aborted during embryogenesis due to some injury or genetic malfunction.
As I said, the bug was enormous and jet-black, although I can’t be sure that is its real color because it was covered so thickly with long, thin, semi-recumbant setae that the surface was completely obscured. I know a lot of acalyptrate flies are thickly covered with setae, but I’ve never seen a fly with setae so densely packed as this. The large eyes also pointed towards something in the Diptera, but since it was wingless that narrows the choices down to just a few flightless, ectoparasitic families. However, most ectoparasitic dipterans have well developed compound eyes, while this one had only two (albeit very large) ocelli. The above shot gives a decent view of one of them.
The bug was active and alert and quite difficult to photograph, but I managed to get this shot of its mandibles. The numerous points remind me of the mandibles of certain predaceous coleopterans, which combined with the somber coloration made me think it might be some kind of ground beetle. If so, it would be the largest ground beetle I had ever seen. However, I noticed that the mandibles opposed each other in a vertical rather than horizontal plane – something I’ve never seen with ground beetles (or any kind of beetle), nor have I seen a black beetle with the teeth on the mandibles tipped with such a contrasting white coloration.
An even closer view of the white-tipped mandibular teeth shows that each point bears a median groove. Whether these are wear patterns from mandibular occlusion or serve some feeding function is unknown. If it is predaceous, as I suspect, they could form channels for directing liquids imbibed from their prey towards they hypostoma.
The frons was the only glabrous part on the entire body (besides the two ocelli and the undersides of the tarsal pads), and its bulbous form with a median groove reminded me of certain auchenorrhynchous hemipterans that have a similar frons containing a cybarial pump to provide suction for obtaining sap from plants. However, again, the distinctly toothed mandibles suggest this is a predaceous insect, and as far as I have been able to tell all auchenorrhynchans are exclusively plant feeders.
Eventually the insect became quite agitated and began struggling to escape. I tried to confine it so I could complete my examination and make sure I had enough photos to get an ID, but it began displaying its mandibles in a suggestively threatening manner. I decided to let it go at that point and hoped that what I had photographed to that point would be sufficient. Although I still haven’t figure out what insect this is, I don’t think it is a new species since I’ve found quite a few photos on Flickr that seem to show the ocellus of this or related species. Puzzlingly, there is no indication on any of these photos which insect group they belong to, so I’ll have to keep searching in an effort to come up with an ID. I’ll post an update here if/when I can find this out. Until then, this site has some information that might prove useful.
Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011
Naupactus xanthographus (South American fruit tree weevil) | Buenos Aires, Argentina
This weevil (family Curculionidae) was one of just a few beetle species that I encountered earlier this month in Buenos Aires, Argentina at La Reserva Ecológica Costanera Sur. Weevils are, of course, one of the most taxonomically diverse and difficult groups of Coleoptera, making species IDs based purely on photographs quite challenging. Nevertheless, I am reasonably confident that this individual represents Naupactus xanthographus, or the South American fruit tree weevil. This name, it seems, has also been applied to a variety of other weevils photographed in South America and posted on the web, but the images I found at a few seemingly more authoratative sites give me confidence that this is the true N. xanthographus. The narrow form suggests this individual is a male.
The genus, known collectively as “white-fringed weevils” is a large genus of exclusively Neotropical species – several of which have been introduced to North America (e.g., N. cervinus, Fuller rose beetle, and N. leucoloma) and which were, until recently, placed in a separate genus Graphognathus (Lanteri and Marvaldi 1995) (apparently the reduced humeri and lack of metathoracic wings were deemed insufficient for generic distinction). In South America some of the species have become pests as well, with N. xanthographus becoming a problem for growers of grapes and other fruits and, thus, earning the names “burrito de la vid” (Chile) and “mulita de la vid” (Argentina) (both roughly translating to “grapevine little donkey”).
This was not an easy photograph to get – I found the weevil clinging to the underside of a leaf above my head. It was impossible to photograph it in situ, so I moved it to a low twig away from other foliage where I could get the black background I desired. Once moved, however, the weevil just never… stopped… crawling. Snapping shots of an actively crawling insect is a crap shoot at best – not only are focus and framing more difficult to nail, but subjects photographed while moving almost always have one or two “bum” legs (lifted or cocked out of position). A number of attempts were required to get a photo I was happy with (save for the slightly clipped antennal tip). In such situations, I’ve found it best to track the beetle as it moves and as soon as the center focus point of the lens flashes take the shot. This at least gives the best chance for nailing the focus, and then it’s simply a numbers game to get a shot with good framing and composition and all the body parts well placed. Of course, I could’ve zoomed out and just cropped to perfection, but this feels a little like cheating – I’d rather put in the time and practice perfecting my game out in the field as much as possible. An occasional clipped antenna, tarsus, etc. now will lead to better results down the line.
REFERENCE:
Lanteri, A. A. and A. E. Marvaldi. 1995. Graphognathus Buchanan a new synonym of Naupactus Dejean and systematics of the N. leucoloma species group (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Coleopterists Bulletin 49(3): 206-228.
I photographed this jumping spider (family Salticidae) two weeks ago in Buenos Aires, Argentina at La Reserva Ecológica Costanera Sur. In gestalt it is very similar to our North American species of the genus Phidippus, but I can’t say for sure whether it actually belongs to that genus. I found it crawling on the foliage of a tree just about eye height, and I’m guessing from the muted markings and roundish shape to the abdomen that it is a female (I saw another individual later that I took to be a male of the same species – it was similarly but more boldly marked and with a much more tapered abdomen). I hope you’ll forgive my hubris, but I’m rather pleased with how these photographs turned out (although, admittedly, there were others that were not so good). In my opinion, they represent further improvement over my first two attempts at photographing jumping spiders (with the standard caveat that I am still no Thomas Shahan). These improvements involve primarily sharpness and detail but also composition, and I consider them to be largely due to lighting and learning how to handle the subject.
The detail in these photos results not only from proper focus, but also lighting techniques. All of these photos were taken hand-held using a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens at f/13 with full flash lighting. Although I used an exposure setting of 1/200 sec, the actual exposure is determined strictly by the duration of the flash pulse, which is much shorter than 1/200 sec. While flash pulse duration can be set manually (and I started out doing so), I now prefer to use E-TTL mode (Evaluative Through The Lens), which adjusts the flash duration automatically based on the amount of light that the camera senses coming through the lens from a short pre-flash at the aperture chosen. The more light that is sensed, the shorter the flash pulse – the less light sensed, the longer the pulse. Obviously, with a shorter flash pulse there is less likelihood that image sharpness will be affected by movement – either by the subject or by the camera-holder. Since light intensity decreases in proportion to distance, it is desirable to get the light source as close to the subject as possible to achieve the highest intensity and, thus, shortest flash duration.
It’s not that simple, however. Most insect macrophotographers agree that diffused light gives better results than undiffused light, but no matter what diffuser one uses there will be loss of light. Loss of light leads to longer flash pulse duration and, thus, increased potential for movement during the flash pulse (especially in hand-held photography). The trick, then, is to diffuse the light as much as possible, while at the same time minimizing light loss. I continue to favor my Puffer+Sto-Fen double diffuser for use with the 65mm lens, because it places the outer diffuser almost right on top of the subject for maximal apparent light size. This is not to say that improvements still are not possible – the open-side design likely results in some loss of light, and a thin inner diffuser film to replace the Sto-Fens would probably further reduce light loss and allow for even shorter flash pulses (and probably also allow a bit more battery life). I’ll get around to effecting these improvements someday, but in the meantime the current setup is working pretty well.
Compositionally, I like this last photo the best due to the placement of the subject within the frame (all photos are shown completely uncropped, although I’m not above doing so), its slight upward-looking pose, and the evenly-blurred light-green background. This was achieved by using my left hand to hold the leaf on which the spider was sitting and to also serve as a brace for resting the camera, which I held with the right hand. This minimizes wind-movement and fixes the distance between the subject and the lens (as long as the subject sits still!). By carefully twisting and turning the leaf as the spider moved upon it, I was able to turn the spider into the desired positions, and by paying attention to what was behind the spider I could compose a nicely colored blurred background. Understanding subject behavior was a tremendous advantage in this case, as it allowed me to predict and anticipate how the spider would move in response to my finger-prodding and leaf turning to get desirable poses. I tend to get my best compositions after I’ve worked the subject for awhile and taken several shots to learn its behavior and get it accustomed to my presences – this is reflected in the accompanying photos, which are posted in the order in which they were taken. Make no mistake – patience and practice are still required. However, it’s techniques such as these that can make the difference between good photographs and great ones!
Edit 3/30/11, 11:50am: My thanks to G. B. Edwards, Curator at the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, who just sent me the following message:
Hi Ted,
Nice photos. Most likely it is a female “Euophrys” sutrix, which is not a Euophrys nor even a euophryine, but a freyine, so eventually will have another genus name. It is one of the larger species in the subfamily.
This species is called “aranhas papa-moscas” in southern Brazil, where it is a principal predator of fruit flies in peach orchards (Wikipedia).
Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011
STS 5 ('Mrs. Ples') | Australopithecus africanus - Sterkfontein, South Africa
Although my fondness for beetles is well known, I also have an inordinate fondness for systematics. For this reason, Catalogue of Organisms by Christopher Taylor has long been high on my ‘must read’ list. While there are no limits to the taxa – extant or extinct – that he writes about, one can be sure that whatever subject he picks, it will be comprehensively covered and richly referenced. One of his more popular features is ‘Name the Bug’ (“bug” being any group of organisms, not just insects), where readers are invited to identify a featured organism and provide evidence to support their answer. Points may be earned (and even usurped) in this free-for-all competition, with series winners eligible to request a post on the taxon of their choosing or write a guest post of their own. As the most recent winner of this competition, I have chosen the latter and written a post called Origins – A Day in the Broom Room. It’s about paleoanthropology, human evolution, and a personal experience with some of the field’s most iconic fossils. I know these are subjects far outside my normal fare, but I hope you’ll take a look anyway and I thank Chris for letting me elbow my way onto his site for a while. While you’re there, be sure check out the rest of the fine content on CoO – it might end up on your ‘must read’ list as well.
Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011
Cyrtocoris egeris | 15 km S Reconquista, Pcia. Santa Fe, Argentina
Despite its obvious membership in the order Hemiptera, I knew the insect featured in ID Challenge #7 would be a difficult subject to identify. This bizarre bug is Cyrtocoris egeris, a member of the small pentatmoid family Cytocoridae (congratulations to HBG Dave, who was the only commenter to correctly identify not only the family, but the genus). While their relationship to Pentatomidae (stink bugs) and Scutellaridae (shield-backed bugs) is obvious, hemipterist-great Carl Schaefer thinks these insects might actually be most closely related to the Cydnidae (burrowing bugs). I encountered this individual a couple of weeks ago in a soybean field in Santa Fe Province, Argentina. Now, I have to be honest here – I did not figure this one out on my own. Instead, I assumed it must be some bizarre member of the Pentatomidae or Scutellaridae, and it was only after my repeated searches in either of those two families failed to turn up anything promising did I throw up my hands and call for hired help. This time it was USDA Research Entomologist Don Thomas, a pentatomid specialist (and former co-alumnus at the University of Missouri) who responded to my query with a genus-level ID. Once I had that bit of information in hand I was able to locate the recent revision of the family (Packhauskas and Schaefer 1998) and identify the species.
Looks stink bugish enough in this head on view...
In addition to the expanded scutellum bearing a broad-based spine or hump, members of this exclusively Neotropical family are characterized by flattened expansions of the anterior part of the head, the covering of flattened scalelike setae, and a mediodistal tubercle on at least the foretibiae. Packauskas and Schaefer (1998) recognize only three genera and 11 species in the family, its members occurring from Argentina north through central Mexico.
...but there's some crazy stuff going on at the back end.
My ID as C. egeris is based on the very well-developed scutellar crest and my interpretation of the humeral projections not extending forward of the anterior angles next to the head. Packauskas and Schaefer (1998) recorded this wide-ranging species from Mexico to Argentina, with the southernmost specimens in extreme northeastern Argentina (Pcia. Missiones), but Schaefer et al. (2005) later recorded it from Reconquista – also on soybean. Cyrtocoris gibber is very similar to C. egeris and is also widespread from Costa Rica to Argentina (and also with the southernmost record in Pcia. Missiones, Argentina), but in that species the humeral expansions project forward nearly as far as the anterior angles of pronotum (strongly surpassing a line drawn through the bases of these angles). Besides soybean for C. egeris, the only other host records I am aware of for any species in the family are by Costa Lima (1940), who reported C. gibbus on the branches of Mimosa scabrella (Leguminosae), and Schaeffer et al. (2005), who reported C. tigrinus on Sida rhombifolia (Malvaceae) (although nymphs could not be reared to adulthood on this plant).
REFERENCES:
Costa Lima, A. 1940. Insetos do Brasil. 2° Tomo, Capitulo XXII. Hemipteros. Escola Nacional do Agronomia, Rio de Janeiro.
Packauskas, R. J. and C. W. Schaefer. 1998. Revision of the Cyrtocoridae (Hemiptera: Pentatomoidea). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91(4):363–386;
Schaefer, C. W., A. R. Panizzi and M. C. Coscarón. 2005. New records of plants fed upon by the uncommon heteropterans Cyrtocoris egeris Packauskas & Schaefer and C. trigonus (Germar) (Hemiptera: Cyrtocoridae) in South America. Neotropical Entomology 34(1):127-129.
I hadn’t planned on doing another ID Challenge so quickly after the previous one¹; however, this critter is just too cool to keep in my pocket any longer. Order-level identification shouldn’t be too much of a challenge, but I’ll be impressed with anyone who drills down much deeper than that – 2 pts each for correct order-, family-, genus-, and species-level identifications. What the heck – I’ll go ahead and throw in superfamily as a points-earner as well. Supporting information for your IDs will help your cause, and we all know my predilection for handing out bonus points on the most subjective of bases. As always, standard ID Challenge rules apply.
¹ For those of you wondering about the recent flurry of posts, I’m on a well-earned vacation right now and have pledged to fritter away as much time on idle pursuits as possible rather than fret about accomplishing anything constructive.
Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011
Caliothrips phaseoli (bean thrips) - adults | Fontezuela, Pcia. Buenos Aires, Argentina
The critter in ID Challenge #6 is, as most surmised, a thrips¹, and although the black-and-white banding of the elytra make the predaceous “banded thrips” (Aeolothrips sp. of the family Aeolothripidae) a logical ID choice, the species in the photograph is actually the phytophagous “bean thrips” (Caliothrips phaseoli of the family Thripidae). The individuals in that photo and the additional photos shown here were encountered in several soybean fields during my visit to Argentina last week. The species seems to be having a bit of a population surge on soybeans in the Humid Pampas – Argentina’s main soybean growing region – due to the dry conditions they’ve had as of late. Their short life cycle (egg to egg in 2 weeks) and preference for generally protected lower leaf surfaces, along with the lack of any registered chemical insecticides labeled for their use on soybean, makes control of this insects especially problematic.
¹ Yes, that’s “a thrips” – not “a thrip” (similar to deer, species, sheep, etc.). Personally, I’ve always had trouble with singular use of this definitely plural-looking word – it must be the “s” at the end and the completely natural sound of the word “thrip” in singular use. Then again, one “specie” doesn’t sound right, so who knows? At any rate, I’ve managed to force myself to say “a thrips” (although I still wince a little bit inside whenever I do).
Caliothrips phaseoli (bean thrips) - nymphs | Oliveros, Pcia. Santa Fe, Argentina
Thrips are tiny – the adults in the above photo (only slightly cropped) measure no more than ~1 mm in length, testing the limits even of my MP-E 65mm 1-5X macro lens at full magnification. There are some interesting features about the morphology and life history of thrips – namely their “rasping-sucking” mouthparts and life history that seems somewhat intermediate between the incomplete metamorphosis exhibited by other exopterygote insects (egg, nymph, adult) and the complete metamorphosis of the endopterygotes (egg, larva, pupa, adult). Thrips actually have only a single mandible (the other aborting development during embryogenesis), which they use to “rasp” a hole into the plant tissues upon which they feed. The remaining mouthparts then form a sort of siphon, that is used to imbibe the liquids that accumulate within the hole. This seems to represent – at least functionally – an intermediate step in the evolution of the true piercing/sucking mouthparts exhibited by other hemipteroid insects. Life history-wise, only the first- and second-instar nymphs (2nd photo above) feed, the third- and fourth-instars becoming quiescent stages termed the propupa and the pupa, respectively.
Reader question: I presume the shiny, black globs on the hairs of the plant are fecal deposits, but why are they placed as such? Does it help avoid spoilage of the leaf feeding surface – I’m not aware of any other insects that are so fastidious (except perhaps ants). Maybe there is a defensive function? I’ve searched and found nothing about this, so please let me know if you have any insight.
There seems to be some difference of opinion regarding the actual species name for these insects. Most applied economic literature dealing with thrips in soybeans calls these Caliothrips phaseoli – a widespread species occurring in North, Central, and South America. However, a number of references (both economic and taxonomic) recognize South American populations as a distinct species, C. brasiliensis (or C. braziliensis, depending on the source), based on the solid dark rather than medially lightened elytral band. I also found some references that seem to regard C. phaseoli as s a synonym of C. fasciatus (although this comparison at Pests and Diseases Image Library seems to show distinct differences in abdominal sculpturing between the two species). I’m going with C. phaseoli over C. brasiliensis based on a checklist of Brazil Thysanoptera (Monteiro 2001) and the Argentina checklist at the World Thysanoptera website, and the general lack of mention of C. fasciatus as a pest of soybean in Argentina in the literature also makes me go with C. phaseoli. Congratulations to Ben Coulter, who wins this challenge with a clean sweep of the ID and host plant, and to HBG Dave, whose 4 pts moves him into the lead in the current BitB Challenge session.
REFERENCE:
Monteiro RC. 2001. The Thysanoptera fauna of Brazil. Pp. 325–340 in Marullo, R. & Mound, L.A. (eds) Thrips and Tospoviruses: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Thysanoptera. Australian National Insect Collection, Canberra.
Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2011
It seems therefore that a taste for collecting beetles is some indication of future success in life!--Charles Darwin
I feel like an old war-horse at the sound of a trumpet when I read about the capture of rare beetles.--Charles Darwin
The Creator, if He exists, must have an inordinate fondness for beetles.--J. B. S. Haldane
Buy BitB apparel and gifts at CafePress.
Bikes Bugs and Bones
BugGuide
Facebook
Flickr
Research Blogging
Twitter
Wikispecies
Questions or comments? Send me an email.
 | Jim Barkley on Spider, insect or something… |
| 8 Things That Are Th… on Myths about why Lake Tahoe doe… | |
| Arctosa littoralis… on Ghosts in the night | |
 | Anonymous on Predator or Prey? |
 | S. Ivic on Friday Flower – Paw… |
| Samson Ivic on Friday Flower – Paw… |
 | ultimatist (@ultimat… on Trees of Lake Tahoe – Th… |
 | Robert Wrigley on The real Eleodes suturalis… |
 | melicrawford on What’s black and white a… |
 | kcarl on North America’s largest… |
