beetles

It’s always a happy day…

/ Ted C. MacRae / 7 Comments

072_066_0400_cover…when the latest issue of The Coleopterists Bulletin arrives in my mailbox. On this occasion it was the December issue of Volume 66—nine papers and eight scientific notes filling 84 pages of beetle awesomeness. It’s pure elytral ecstasy! I presume I am like most subscribers—rapidly scanning the Table of Contents on the back cover to see if any deal directly with my preferred taxa. Yes! Two papers dealing with Buprestidae (jewel beetles), one on Cerambycidae (longhorned beetles), and one on Cicindelinae (tiger beetles)—a real bonanza. After that, a more cursory look through the rest of the Table of Contents to see what other papers look interesting enough to at least scan through.

For me the most interesting are the two Buprestidae papers, with Hansen et al. documenting new state records, larval hosts, and biological notes for 47 North American species and Westcott & Murray reporting the introduction into the U.S. of yet another Eurasian exotic (Trachys minutus) and its apparent establishment in Massachusetts. As the current “keeper” of distributional records and host plant associations for North American jewel beetles (along with Rick Westcott, Salem, Oregon), I will be busily updating my database over the next few days to reflect these new records. I am a great fan of “notes” papers such as these (and am, in fact, currently finishing a similar manuscript with co-author Joshua Basham, who is also a co-author on the Hansen et al. paper). However, I do have a few quibbles—Hansen et al. report Agrilus  quadriguttatatus as a new record for Tennessee, but it is already known from that state, and Cercis canadensis (eastern redbud) is reported as a new larval host for Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) cyanella despite the prior records from that host by Knull (1920) and Hespenheide (1974). More puzzlingly, the authors record Agrilus lecontei celticola from locations in eastern Tennessee despite guidance from me on several occasions that this subspecies, while perhaps distinctive in Texas, transitions broadly across Louisiana and Mississippi  with the nominate subspecies. As such, material from eastern Tennessee cannot be regarded conclusively to represent this subspecies (and I remain unconvinced even that the subspecific distinction is warranted). Lastly, in recording Actenodes simi from Tennessee, the authors mention that the closest previous record is from Missouri with no specific locality mentioned (Fisher 1942), even though I recently recorded several specific locations for the species in eastern and southern Missouri (MacRae & Nelson 2003). The overall impression is that the authors are not fully versed in recent literature on Buprestidae and have instead relied exclusively on the recent Nelson et al. (2008) catalogue—known amongst buprestid workers to be incomplete and with errors—as the only source for determining the status of their records.

Among Cerambycidae, Raje et al. report the results of molecular analyses on two color forms of Sternidius alpha. This broadly distributed and highly variable species exhibits multiple color variants across its range, leading to the description of multiple subspecies that were eventually synonymized under the current name. Their analysis of the barcoding region of the cytochrome oxidase I gene, however, revealed three distinct clades among the two color forms, suggesting the potential for taxonomic significance. More work, of course, is needed from additional color morphs from different localities.

Finally, my friend Matt Brust and colleagues discuss the ovipositional behavior of numerous species of North American tiger beetles, unexpectedly finding that many oviposit only after digging some distance below the surface of the soil. This information is extremely valuable for those interested in rearing tiger beetles for description of larval stages, expanding the window of survey for species with limited temporal occurrence, and cross-breeding studies. To that end, and of greatest interest to me, they have included numerous observations from their own studies that have resulted in the development of successful protocols and rapid rearing of large numbers of larvae to adulthood.

cso 66-4Mco14.qxdActually, there is one more thing… For several years now the December issue, as a bonus, has been accompanied by the Patricia Vaurie Series Monograph as a supplement to that year’s volume. This year’s issue features a revision of the scarab genus Euphoria by Jesús Orozco, and although I have not studied it carefully it looks like a robust treatment of the group. Yes, I know that scarabs are not one of my primary interest groups, but show me a coleopterist that—regardless of the group they work on— does not stop and collect these gorgeous, colorful, flower-loving beetles whenever they encounter them and I’ll show you a coleopterist that is far too restrictive in their natural history interests! Based on examination of nearly 19,000 specimens from 67 collections, the work considers 59 valid species (ten of which are described as new) distributed throughout the Western Hemisphere. Complete with keys to species and, for each, synonymy, description, diagnosis, taxonomic history, natural history, temporal occurrence geographic distribution, and—of critical importance in my opinion—full data for all specimens examined, it is everything a good revision should be. Then there are the color plates—one full page for each species—with a large dorsal habitus view, closeups of the head, male genitalia, and color variants, a temporal distribution chart, and a map of its geographical distribution. Again, while I may not be a serious student of scarabs, you can bet that I’ll be going back through my holdings of Euphoria beetles and checking them to make sure they conform to this new standard of knowledge on the group.

REFERENCES:

Brust, M. L., C. B. Knisley, S. M. Spomer & K. Miwa. 2012. Observations of oviposition behavior among North American tiger beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae) species and notes on mass rearing. The Coleopterists Bulletin 66(4):309–314.

Fisher, W. S. 1942. A revision of North American species of buprestid beetles belonging to the tribe Chrysobothrini. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 470, 1–275.

Hansen, J. A., J. P. Basham, J. B. Oliver, N. N. Youseef, W. E. Klingeman, J. K. Moulton & D. C. Fare. 2012. New state and host plant records for metallic woodboring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Tennessee, U.S.A. The Coleopterists Bulletin 66(4):337–343.

Hespenheide, H. A. 1974.  Notes on the ecology, distribution, and taxonomy of certain Buprestidae.  The Coleopterists Bulletin 27(4) [1973]:183–186.

Knull, J. N. 1920. Notes on Buprestidae with description of a new species (Coleop.). Entomological News 31(1):4–12.

MacRae, T. C. and G. H. Nelson. 2003. Distributional and biological notes on Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in North and Central America and the West Indies, with validation of one species. The Coleopterists Bulletin 57(1):57–70.

Nelson, G. H., G. C. Walters, Jr., R. D. Haines, & C. L. Bellamy.  2008.  A Catalogue and Bibliography of the Buprestoidea of America North of Mexico.  Coleopterists Society Special Publication No. 4, The Coleopterists Society, North Potomac, Maryland, 274 pp.

Orozco, J. 2012. Monographic revision of the American genus Euphoria Burmeister, 1842 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae). Coleopterists Society Monographs, Patricia Vaurie Series No. 11, 182 pp.

Raje, K. R., V. R. Ferris & J. D. Holland. 2012. Two color variants of Sternidius alpha (Say) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) show dissimilar cytochrome oxidase I genes. The Coleopterists Bulletin 66(4):333–336.

Westcott, R. L. & T. C. Murray. 2012. An exotic leafminer, Trachys minutus (L.) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), found in Massachusetts, U.S.A. The Coleopterists Bulletin 66(4):360–361.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Mr. Phidippus gets his loot

/ Ted C. MacRae / 12 Comments
Synoptic collection of tiger beetles

Synoptic collection of tiger beetles for Mr. Phidippus.

I’m sure by now Mr. Phidippus is wondering where his loot is. You see, some months ago Mr. Phidippus won BitB Challenge Session #5 with a solid string of 1st and 2nd place finishes in that session’s five ID and super crop challenges. The top three points earners at the end of each session are offered a variety of prizes, and among the choices offered Mr. Phidippus chose to receive a small collection of beetles from my collection. However, I’ve been remiss in my follow up, with only a heavy travel schedule and seemingly endless string of commitments when I am at home to offer as excuses for such.

At long last, however, I am making things right and have put together this small synoptic collection of tiger beetles that I hope Mr. Phidippus will find useful. Some of the species selected might be common in some areas, while others are certainly found very seldomly—and even then only by those who know what they are looking for. Nevertheless, one of the most fascinating features of tiger beetles is their extreme polytopism, so even commonly encountered species can look very different depending on what part of their range they come from. A perfect example of this is Cicindela scutellaris, represented in the box above by three individuals: one from Kansas (subspecies scutellaris), one from northeast Missouri (subspecies lecontei) and one from southeast Missouri (an unusual population representing an intergrade of subspecies lecontei and subspecies unicolor). Ranging from wine-red to blue-green to brilliant red and green, they are perhaps the best example of tiger beetle polytopism gone wild!

So, Mr. Phidippus this one is for you. Congratulations again on your win, and thank you for your patience!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

The ultimate jaws on a longhorned beetle!

/ Ted C. MacRae / 10 Comments

Some 23 years ago, I departed on my first ex-U.S. insect collecting trip. I was still a youngster—barely into my 30s—but had by then a well developed interest in woodboring beetles of the families Buprestidae and Cerambycidae. I had spent the previous eight years since graduate school collecting these beetles throughout Missouri, work that led to the publication of my faunal treatments of the two families for the state (MacRae 1991, 1994), and even begun collecting insects outside of Missouri in other states such as Texas, Arizona and Florida. Although I was still cutting my teeth as a collector, I yearned for the tropical experience, and in December 1989 to January 1990 I got the chance to spend three weeks in one of the most tropical localities I could imagine—Ecuador! I’ve collected in many countries since then, but that first tropical collecting trip remains one of my most cherished experiences.

Criodion rhinoceros Bates 1870 | Sucumbios Province, Ecuador (New Country Record)

Of course, being as young and green as I was, I didn’t really know what any of the insects I was collecting were beyond family level (if that!), and the numbers were so overwhelming compared to anything I had experienced previously that all I could do was collect as much as I could using the techniques I had figured out to that point, process them all when I got back, and then hold them for the future when I would either study them myself or make them available to other specialists. In the years since, Buprestidae have become the primary focus of my studies, relegating any non-Nearctic Cerambycidae in my collection to the sidelines. Since I don’t now and probably will never do serious work on Neotropical Cerambycidae, I’ve begun sending them to specialists who do work on them for identification or to be utilized as desired in their research. Much of the Cerambycidae were sent to Frank Hovore, an expert of Ecuadorian Cerambycidae who kindly identified them for me before tragically passing away while on a collecting trip to that very country. Some of the larger specimens were not sent, however, because I had used them to create an “Oh wow!” drawer (see photo on My Collection page). After Frank’s passing, I decided to try identifying the longhorned beetles in that drawer, most of which I was able to identify using Larry Bezark’s incredible website, A Photographic Catalogue of the Cerambycidae of the [New] World. There was one, however, that I was not able identify, despite the fact that it seemed to be the most easily identifiable of all due to remarkable horn-like processes arising from the top of the mandibles. I scanned repeatedly through the photos of species in all genera that looked even remotely similar. Criodion seemed most likely, but none of the species photographed sported such unique mandibular armature.

Males sport remarkable horn-like processes arising from the mandibles.

Stumped, I emailed the top photo to Brazilian coleopterist and cerambycid specialist Antonio Santos-Silva (Universidade de São Paulo) and asked for his opinion. He replied that it seemed to be a species of Criodion, noting that the only species of Criodion with this kind of mandible is C. rhinoceros—known only from the Brazilian state of Pará, and a species completely lacking in their collection. I sent him the other photos in this post to give him a better view of the mandibles, and Antonio replied back that both he and colleague Ubirajara Martins agree with the initial ID. My failure to match the specimen with this species in the photographic catalogue was understandable, as this was one of the few species for which no photographs were available. That situation has since been corrected, and the site now features photographs of both male and female specimens—the latter exhibiting quite chunky but not nearly as grossly developed mandibles as the former.

Another view of the male's remarkable mandibular armature

A lateral view of the head resembles that of a rhinoceros!

Bates’ (1870) original description, based only on the male, notes that the spines arise from the upper edge of the mandibles near the middle and incline towards each other, crossing at the apices and giving the head of the beetle, viewed in profile, the curious resemblance to that of a rhinoceros. Certainly no other species in the genus bears such extraordinary modifications of the mandibles, and if there are others in the family, I am not aware of them and they must be very few in number. One can only speculate on the function of such a modification, but since they are present only on the males a sexual or mating-related function could be considered likely. If any reader has information or thoughts about extreme mandibular modifications such as this and their possible functional significance please let me know.

Males sport remarkable horn-like processes arising from the base of the mandibles

And of course, the BitB face shot!

The collection of this species in Ecuador adds another species to that countrys’ already rich cerambycid fauna (Antonio confirmed that it is a new record for Ecuador). I’ve picked up a smattering of other Cerambycidae from South America over the past ten years, so I’m going to send them all to Antonio for ID and allow him to keep whatever is interesting for his research or the University’s collection. I will include this remarkable species in the package as a gift—considering its status as the only known voucher for the species in Ecuador, I think his institution’s collection will be a more appropriate repository for it than my “Oh wow!” drawer.

REFERENCE:

Bates, H. W. 1870. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1870:243–335, 391–444.

MacRae, T. C. 1991. The Buprestidae (Coleoptera) of Missouri.  Insecta Mundi 5(2):101–126.

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.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Let’s make a deal!

/ Ted C. MacRae / 5 Comments
buprestid

Image source unknown

I recently conducted a complete reorganization of the jewel beetles (superfamily Buprestoidea) in my collection (TCMC). The primary purpose of this was to bring the nomenclature and arrangement of the collection into agreement with the recently published World Catalogue of Buprestoidea (Bellamy 2008) and accurately document the taxa represented in the collection and their numbers. In the short term this will be helpful not only in visualizing what is represented but also what is missing (particularly in North America), while longer term it lays the groundwork for the eventual donation of my collection to a public institution.

In an active, working collection, no inventory is ever fully up-to-date. In my case, the inventory includes only completely curated material that has been incorporated into the main cabinets. I still have several years worth of material in various states of curation—i.e., unmounted, mounted but unlabeled, or labeled but unidentified. That said, the main collection now contains more than 23,000 specimens of Buprestoidea representing 1,500+ species worldwide. Of the species represented, 37% are Nearctic (U.S./Canada), 22% Palearctic (Europe, North Africa, temperate Asia), 19% Neotropical (Latin America), 10% Afrotropical (Subsaharan Africa), 7% Indomalayan (tropical Asia) and 6% Australian (Australia/New Zealand). The collection also contains 492 paratype specimens representing 77 species. The inventory has been converted to  PDF and uploaded for access by the link below. It lists all of the species represented, with nomenclature updated and taxa arranged according to Bellamy (2008) and number of specimens  indicated for each. Also indicated are higher taxa not yet represented in the collection (shown in gray rather than black text) so that the collection holdings can be placed in context of a complete higher classification for the superfamily.

 Click to see full inventory of TCMC Buprestoidea

Of course, as a North American, the Nearctic fauna is the primary focus of my taxonomic and biological studies. As a result, I am keen to have the Nearctic fauna represented as completely as possible in my collection. Currently I have 75% (595) of the 790 species and non-nominate subspecies currently recognized in North America. Obviously, by now I’ve picked most of the low-hanging fruit, and the last 25% will be much more difficult to get. Many of these are truly rare species that I may never find (some are known only by the holotype), while others are more common but occur in areas that I have limited opportunity to visit. These species are also indicated in the above inventory (again, in gray text) but are also listed below for easy reference. If you have any of the species on this list, please let me know and also what you might like to receive in exchange for them. I have not only many species of Buprestidae from around the world to offer, but also beetles in other families such as longhorned beetles (Cerambycidae), tiger beetles (Cicindelinae), scarabs (Scarabaeoidea), and even non-beetles such as treehoppers (Membracidae) and cicadas (Cicadoidea). Let’s make a deal!

REFERENCE:

Bellamy, C. L. 2008. World Catalogue and Bibliography of the Jewel Beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestoidea),  Volumes 1–5. Pensoft Series Faunistica, 3125 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

T.C.MacRae Collection Desiderata

Family SCHIZOPODIDAE LeConte 1859
Subfamily SCHIZOPODINAE LeConte 1859
Tribe SCHIZOPODINI LeConte 1859

Genus Schizopus LeConte 1858
— sallei ssp. sallei Horn 1885
— sallei ssp. nigricans Nelson 1991
Genus Dystaxia LeConte 1866
— elegans Fall 1905

Family BUPRESTIDAE Leach 1815
Subfamily POLYCESTINAE Lacordaire 1857
Acmaeoderioid lineage sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Tribe HAPLOSTETHINI LeConte 1861

Genus Mastogenius Solier 1849
— arizonicus Bellamy 2002
— puncticollis Schaeffer 1919

Tribe ACMAEODERINI Kerremans 1893
Subtribe ACMAEODEROIDINA Cobos 1955

Genus Acmaeoderoides Van Dyke 1942
— cazieri Nelson 1968
— depressus Nelson 1968

Subtribe ACMAEODERINA Kerremans 1893

Genus Acmaeodera Eschscholtz 1829
— Subgenus Acmaeodera (s. str.)
— audreyae Westcott & Barr 2007
— bryanti Van Dyke 1953
— comata LeConte 1858
— consors Horn 1878
— cubaecola Jaquelin du Val 1857
— discalis Cazier 1940
— dolorosa ssp. liberta Fall 1922
— fattigi Knull 1953
— flavosticta Horn 1878
— horni Fall 1899
— inyoensis Cazier 1940
— laticollis Kerremans 1902
— morbosa Fall 1899
— pubiventris ssp. panocheae Westcott 2001
— recticolloides Westcott 1971
— starrae Knull 1966
— subbalteata LeConte 1863
— thoracata Knull 1974
— tildenorum Nelson & Westcott 1995
— wheeleri Van Dyke 1919

Genus Acmaeoderopsis Barr 1974
— prosopis Davidson 2006
— rockefelleri (Cazier 1951)
— varipilis (Van Dyke 1934)

Genus Anambodera Barr 1974
— nebulosa (Horn 1894)
— santarosae (Knull 1960)

Polyctesioid lineage sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Chrysophana generic group [tribal level] sensu Volkovitsh 2001

Genus Beerellus Nelson 1982
— taxodii Nelson 1982

Polycestioid lineage sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Tribe POLYCESTINI Lacordaire 1857

Genus Polycesta Dejean 1833
— Subgenus Polycesta (s. str.)
— angulosa Jacquelin du Val 1857
— Subgenus Polycesta (Arizonica) Cobos 1981
— arizonica ssp. acidota Cazier 1951
— Subgenus Polycesta (Tularensia) Nelson 1997
— crypta Barr 1949

Tribe TYNDARINI Cobos 1955
Subtribe TYNDARINA Cobos 1955

Genus Paratyndaris Fisher 1919
— Subgenus Paratyndaris (s. str.)
— anomalis Knull 1937
— crandalli Knull 1941
— grassmani Parker 1947
— quadrinotata Knull 1938

Subfamily CHRYSOCHROINAE Laporte 1835
Chrysochroid lineage sensu Bellamy 2003
Nanularia generic group [tribal level] sensu Volkovitsh 2001

Genus Nanularia Casey 1909
— cupreofusca Casey 1909
— pygmaea (Knull 1941)

Tribe CHRYSOCHROINI Laporte 1835
Subtribe CHALCOPHORINA Lacordaire 1857
Texania generic group sensu Volkovitsh 2001

Genus Texania Casey 1909
— langeri (Chevrolat 1853)

Tribe POECILONOTINI Jakobson 1913
Subtribe POECILONOTINA Jakobson 1913

Genus Poecilonota Eschscholtz 1829
— ferrea (Melsheimer 1845)
— montana Chamberlin 1922
— viridicyanea Nelson1997

Dicercioid lineage sensu Bellamy 2003
Tribe DICERCINI Gistel 1848
Subtribe HIPPOMELANINA Holynski 1993

Genus Hippomelas Laporte & Gory 1837
— martini Nelson 1996
— parkeri Nelson 1996

Genus Gyascutus LeConte 1858
— Subgenus Gyascutus (s. str.)
— jeanae (Nelson 1988)
— pacificus (Chamberlin 1938)

Genus Barrellus Nelson & Bellamy 1996
— femoratus (Knull 1941)

Subtribe DICERCINA Gistel 1848
Dicerca generic group sensu Volkovitsh 2001

Genus Dicerca Eschscholtz 1829
— dumolini (Laporte & Gory 1837)
— hornii nelsoni Beer 1974
— lugubris LeConte 1860
— mutica LeConte 1860
— sexualis Crotch 1873
— spreta (Gory 1841)
— tuberculata (Laporte & Gory 1837)

Subfamily BUPRESTINAE Leach 1815
Buprestioid lineage sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Buprestinioid branch sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Tribe BUPRESTINI Leach 1815
Subtribe TRACHYKELINA Holynski 1988

Genus Trachykele Marseul 1865
— fattigi Knull 1954
— opulenta Fall 1906

Subtribe BUPRESTINA Leach 1815

Genus Buprestis Linnaeus 1758
— Subgenus Buprestis (Cypriacis) Casey 1909
— intricata Casey 1909
— prospera Casey 1909
— Subgenus Buprestis (Knulliobuprestis) Kurosawa 1988
— fremontiae Burke 1924
— Subgenus Buprestis (Stereosa) Casey 1909
— apricans Herbst 1801
— decora Fabricius 1775

Anthaxioid lineage sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Anthaxiinioid branch sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Tribe ANTHAXIINI Gory et Laporte 1839

Genus Anthaxia Eschscholtz 1829
— Subgenus Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) Reitter 1911
— carya Wellso & Jackman 2006
— caseyi ssp. sublaevis Van Dyke 1916
— Subgenus Anthaxia (Melanthaxia) Rikhter 1944
— barri Bílý 1995
— californica Obenberger 1914
— cupriola Barr 1971
— emarginata Barr 1971
— embrikstrandella Obenberger 1936
— exasperans Cobos 1958
— furnissi Barr 1971
— helferiana Bílý 1995
— hurdi Cobos 1958
— nanula Casey 1884
— neofunerula Obenberger 1942
— nevadensis Obenberger 1928
— oregonensis Obenberger 1942
— porella Barr 1971
— sculpturata Barr 1971
— serripennis Obenberger 1936
— strigata LeConte 1859
— subprasina Cobos 1959
— tarsalis Barr 1971
— wallowae Obenberger 1942

Tribe XENORHIPIDINI Cobos 1986
Subtribe XENORHIPIDINA Cobos 1986

Genus Hesperorhipis Fall 1930
— hyperbola ssp. californica Knull 1947
— jacumbae Knull 1954
— mirabilis ssp. mirabilis Knull 1947

Chrysobothrioid lineage sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Melanophilinioid branch sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Tribe MELANOPHILINI Bedel 1921
Subtribe MELANOPHILINA Bedel 1921

Genus Phaenops Dejean 1833
— carolina (Manee 1913)
— caseyi (Obenberger 1944)
— obenbergeri (Knull 1952)
— vandykei Obenberger 1944

Chrysobothrinioid branch sensu Volkovitsh 2001
Tribe ACTENODINI Gistel 1848

Genus Actenodes Dejean 1833
— arizonicus Knull 1927
— mimicus Knull 1964

Tribe CHRYSOBOTHRINI Gory et Laporte 1838

Genus Chrysobothris Eschscholtz 1829
— Subgenus Chrysobothris (s. str.)
— aeneola LeConte 1860
— bacchari Van Dyke 1923
— bicolor Horn 1894
— bisinuata Chamberlin 1938
— bispinosa Schaeffer 1909
— boharti Van Dyke 1934
— breviloboides Barr 1969
— caurina Horn 1886
— chamberliniana Fisher 1948
— costifrons ssp. costifrons Waterhouse 1887
— culbersoniana Knull 1943
— cupressicona Barr & Westcott 1976
— deserta Horn 1886
— dolata Horn 1886
— fragariae Fisher 1930
— grindeliae Van Dyke 1937
— helferi Fisher 1942
— hidalgoensis Knull 1951
— horningi Barr 1969
— hubbardi Fisher 1942
— idahoensis Barr 1969
— kelloggi Knull 1937
— knulli Nelson 1975
— nelsoni Westcott & Alten 2006
— oregona Chamberlin 1934
— orono Frost 1920
— paragrindeliae Knull 1943
— potentillae Barr 1969
— pseudacutipennis Obenberger 1940
— pubilineata Vogt 1949
— purpurata Bland 1864
— roguensis Beer 1967
— schaefferi Obenberger 1934
— schistomorion Westcott & Davidson 2001
— scitula Gory 1841
—sexfasciata ssp. sexfasciata Schaeffer 1919
— sloicola Manley & Wellso 1976
— smaragdula Fall 1976
— socialis ssp. apache Westcott & Barr 2007
— speculifer Horn 1886
— subopaca Schaeffer 1904
— vivida Knull 1952
— westcotti Barr 1969
— wickhami Fisher 1942

Genus Knowltonia Fisher 1935
— alleni (Cazier 1938)
— atrifasciata (LeConte 1878)

Subfamily AGRILINAE Laporte 1835
Tribe AGRILINI Laporte 1835
Subtribe AGRILINA Laporte 1835

Genus Agrilus Curtis 1825
— Subgenus Agrilus (s. str.)
— hazardi Knull 1966
— Subgenus Agrilus (Engyaulus) Waterhouse 1889
— inhabilis ssp. cuprinus Nelson 1996
— utahensis Westcott 1996
— Subgenus Agrilus (Quercagrilus) Alexeev 1998
— derasofasciatus Boisduval & Lacordaire 1835
— Subgenus Agrilus (Uragrilus) Semenov-Tian-Shanskij 1935
— granulatus ssp. mojavei Knull 1952
— sayi Saunders 1871
— Subgenus undefined
— amelanchieri Knull 1944
— arizonus Knull 1934
— audax Horn 1891
— aurilaterus Waterhouse 1889
— bespencus Barr 2008
— burkei Fisher 1917
— catalinae Knull 1940
— cercidii Knull 1937
— cochisei Knull 1948
— criddlei Frost 1920
— davisi Knull 1941
— delicatulus Waterhouse 1889
— dozieri Fisher 1918
— exiguellus Fisher 1928
— floridanus Crotch 1873
— funestus Gory 1841
— geronimoi Knull 1950
— gillespiensis Knull 1947
— hazardi Knull 1966
— horni Kerremans 1900
— jacobinus Horn 1891
— langei Obenberger 1935
— latifrons Waterhouse 1889
— montosae Barr 2008
— neabditus Knull 1935
— nevadensis Horn 1891
— nigricans Gory 1841
— obscurilineatus Vogt 1949
— olivaceoniger Fisher 1928
— ometauhtli Fisher 1938
— palmerleei Knull 1944
— parabductus Knull 1954
— pilosicollis Fisher 1928
— pseudocoryli Fisher 1928
— pubifrons Fisher 1928
— restrictus Waterhouse 1889
— shoemakeri Knull 1938
— sierrae Van Dyke 1923
— snowi Fall 1905
— torquatus LeConte 1860
— waltersi Nelson 1985
— wenzeli Knull 1934

Tribe TRACHYINI Laporte 1835
Subtribe BRACHYINA Cobos 1979

Genus Taphrocerus Solier 1833
— floridanus Obenberger 1934

Subtribe PACHYSCHELINA Böving et Craighead 1931

Genus Pachyschelus Solier 1833
— fisheri Vogt 1949
— schwartzi Kerremans 1892
— vogti Hespenheide 2003

Best of BitB 2012

/ Ted C. MacRae / 23 Comments

Welcome to the 5th Annual “Best of BitB”, where I pick my favorite photographs from the past year. 2012 was one of the most intensive travel years I’ve ever had—I spent 8 weeks in Argentina from February through April, made separate trips to Puerto Rico and Arkansas in May (bracketing a personal week in California), traveled almost weekly to Illinois and Tennessee from June to September (interrupted by a personal week in Florida in July), toured the southeastern U.S. (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia—great food!) in early September, chased tiger beetles in Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas in late September, went back to Argentina for a week in October, and capped off the travel year by attending the Entomological Society of America Annual Meetings in Knoxville, Tennessee (for the first time in more than 10 years!)—whew! While many would cringe at such a travel load, I am among the lucky few who actually get paid for doing something that is also my hobby—entomology! This gives me ample opportunity to further hone my photography skills (nine of the 13 photos I’ve selected below were actually taken while I was on business travel), resulting in two key accomplishments this year—my first ever photography talk at the ESA’s insect photography symposium and my first commercial sales (look for the BitB commercial site to go online in 2013).

Enough blather! Here are my favorite BitB photographs from 2012. Click the link in the text below the photo to see the original post. I would greatly appreciate knowing if you have a favorite (and why)—your feedback will be enormously helpful to me as I continue to learn and develop as a photographer.  For those interested, here are my previous year picks for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. And, as always, thank you for your readership!

Spintherophyta (?) sp. in flower of Abutilon pauciflorum | Buenos Aires, Argentina

From  (posted 2 Feb). One of my 2012 learnings was that sometimes a photograph that is not so close is more effective than one that is as close as possible. In one of my earlier attempts at “not-so-close” macrophotgraphy, the soft colors of the flower compliment the brash shininess of the tiny leaf beetle that has been feeding on its pollen. Pink lines lead the eye directly to the subject and create a pleasing composition, and pollen grains stuck to the beetle—a distraction in some situations—add to the miniature natural history story of the photo.

Apiomerus flavipennis with stink bug prey and kleptoparasitic flies | Chaco Province, Argentina

From  (posted 11 Mar). I selected this photo solely for the complex natural history story drama it shows—stink bug (Piezodorus guildenii) feeding on soybean becomes prey of an assassin bug (Apiomerus flavipennis), with volatiles from the chemicals it emitted in a vain attempt to defend itself serving as cues to kleptoparasitic flies (families Milichiidae and Chloropidae) that benefit from the assassin bug’s labors.

Planthopper nymph | Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

From  (posted 26 Mar). Another learning that I began putting into practice in 2012 was the use of low perspective for compositional impact. The cryptic coloration of this planthopper nymph (family Fulgoridae) made it almost invisible on the branch on which it was sitting when viewed from a normal “top-down” human perspective. Getting “down under” it, however, brought the nymph to life and emphasized its unusual form.

Megabaris quadriguttatus | Corrientes Province, Argentina

From  (posted 12 Apr). I spent much of 2012 working on the “blue sky background” technique, with these weevils from northern Argentina representing one of my better attempts. Macrophotography of insects with a blue sky background involves setting exposure, ISO, and aperture to achieve two separate exposures—full flash illumination of the subject for maximum depth-of-field, and ambient light from the sky to create a clean, uncluttered, natural-looking background. In this shot I managed to achieve an almost ideal shade of blue to compliment the wild black, white and red colors of the beetles. (My one criticism of the photo is having clipped one of the beetle’s feet.)

Bombylius sp. cf. mexicanus | Scott Co., Missouri

From  (posted 16 May). This photo is unusual if nothing else. Focus, lighting, depth-of-field, and composition are all better than can be hoped for in a single shot, but the subject—perfectly alive—is in a most unusual position. Read the original post to find out how this happened.

Perisphaerus sp. (a pill roach) | Vietnam (captive individual)

From  (posted 27 May). White-box photography is an excellent technique for clean, uncluttered photographs of insects, but it also isolates them from their natural surroundings and limits their natural history appeal. The best white-box photos are those that highlight a key feature or behavior of the subject—in this case a pill roach’s comically conglobulating defensive posture.

Micronaspis floridana (Florida intertidal firefly) larva | Pinellas Co., Florida

From  (posted 31 July). Here is another photo whose back story played a big part in its selection. This firefly larva not only represents a rare Florida-endemic species but was also first seen by my then 12-year old nephew, who willingly accompanied me through a dark, spooky salt marsh in the middle of a humid Florida night to see what he could learn. The lesson here for budding natural historians (and old-timers like me) cannot be overstated!

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

From  (posted 23 Aug—prelude to  posted 28 Aug). Those who follow this blog know of my obsession with close-up portraits, and while tiger beetles are the subjects I most commonly photograph in this manner, I am always on the lookout for good subjects in other taxa. This wolf spider “face” almost looks human, with “two” eyes, two “nostrils” and a shiny upper lip above huge (albeit hairy) buck teeth! It’s enough fill-the-frame spidery goodness to melt (or explode) the heart of even the most ardent arachnophobe!

Anticarsia gemmatalis (velvetbean caterpillar) egg on soybean leaf

From Life at 8X—Guide to lepidopteran eggs on soybean (posted 3 Sep). “Life at 8X” was a new series I introduced this year, featuring insects photographed at magnifications testing the upper limit of my equipment and photographic skills. Diffraction is the chief difficulty with magnifications as high as this and is the primary flaw in the above photograph. Nevertheless, such view of a moth egg on the underside of a soybean leaf provides a spectacular view of the otherwise unseen micro-world that lives right beneath our noses.

Megacyllene decora (amorpha borer) on snakeroot flowers | Mississippi Co., Missouri

From  (posted 12 Sep). This second example of “blue sky background” was taken later in the year and was considerably more difficult to capture than the first because of the larger size of the subject and resulting need for a longer focal length macro lens. Getting a well-lit, focused, and composed image with a desirable shade of blue in the background depended not only on finding the proper camera settings, but also secure body and camera bracing techniques for this completely hand-held shot.

Cicindelidia politula politula (Limestone Tiger Beetle) | Montague Co., Texas

From  (posted 28 Sep). I will go ahead and say it—this is my favorite photograph of 2012. As discussed under the first entry, panning back from the subject can allow for some very interesting compositions. This photo combines charismatic pose by a wary subject with panning back and low perspective to create an image that scores high in both natural history and aesthetic appeal.

Calosoma sayi (black caterpillar hunter) | New Madrid Co., Missouri

From Black is beautiful! (posted 7 Nov). Of course, close-as-possible can also be used to create striking photos, especially if the subject exhibits features that are best seen up close. Anything with jaws fits the bill in my book, and highlighting the mandibular sculpturing of this caterpillar hunter (a type of ground beetle) required precise angling of the flash heads for maximum effect.

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

From  (12 Nov). This final selection is not a rare species, but it is as close as I have come to what I consider the “perfect” tiger beetle macrophotograph—a close, low angle, lateral profile of an adult in full-stilt posture (a thermoregulatory behavior), well lit, perfectly focused, and with a dynamic but pleasingly blurred background. It’s a perfect storm of a photo that took the better part of two hours to achieve—rarely do all of these elements come together in a hand-held photograph of an unconfined tiger beetle in its native habitat.

Well, there you have it. I hope you’ve enjoyed my selections, and again please do let me know if you have a personal favorite. See you in 2013!

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

More Eocene insects

/ Ted C. MacRae / 7 Comments

Most of the Green River Formation (GRF) insect fossils that I have on loan clearly represent either beetles (order Coleoptera) or flies (order Diptera). I’ve already shown a few of the latter (fungus gnat, midge), as well as some that don’t belong to either order (ant, cricket?). Here are a few more that seem identifiable to order, but family-level identification is less certain. Thoughts from the readership would be most welcome.

IMG_1923_enh_1080x720IMG_1826_enh_1080x720
This fossil shows an aggregation of insects that I believe represent some kind of beetle. Based on shape and size (16.7 mm length) I’m guessing perhaps either a diving beetle (family Dytiscidae) or whirligig beetle (family Gyrinidae). These are both aquatic families, although only the former is among the beetle families recorded from the GRF by Wilson (1978).

IMG_1927_enh_1080x720 IMG_1836_enh_1080x720
There are two insect fossils on this specimen, but the closeup is the one near the center of the rock. It is tiny (3.5 mm in length), and at first I thought it might be a fly (order Diptera). However, dipterist Chris Borkent thinks it might be a small hymenopteran (bee?) because it has what looks to be long multi-segmented antennae. The only bee family recorded for the GRF by Wilson (1978) is Anthophoridae (now included within Apidae), of which this fossil clearly is not a representative. There are six other hymenopteran families recorded in that work, of which Tenthredinidae is the only one that seems plausible. Of course, it could represent a family not recorded by Wilson (1978). Collected along Hwy 139 in Douglas Pass (Garfield Co., Colorado).

Here is a closeup of the other fossil (far right in photo above). This looks to me like a brachyceran fly, and I’ve sent a high resolution version of the image to Chris Borkent to see what he thinks.

IMG_1934_enh_1080x720 IMG_1850_enh_1080x720
The label accompanying this fossil indicates “Mosquito (?),” but to my eye this looks like a true bug (order Hemiptera). It is small—only 5.9 mm in length—and has the gestalt of a plant but (family Miridae) or seed bug (family Lygaeidae). GRF fossils representing the latter but not the former were recorded by Wilson (1978). Also collected along Hwy 139 in Douglas Pass (Garfield Co., Colorado).

REFERENCES:

Wilson, M. V. H. 1978. Paleogene insect faunas of western North America. Quaestiones Entomologicae 14(1):13–34.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012

Eye to eye to eye to eye with a tiger beetle larva

/ Ted C. MacRae / 2 Comments

After the past few years of hunting tiger beetles, I’ve learned not only how to find the larval burrows but—at least for most of the species occurring in Missouri—how to identify the larvae in the field. While conclusive identifications rely upon morphological characters, a preliminary field ID is often possible based on a combination of burrow size, placement, soil type and knowledge of which species are likely to occur in a given habitat. Tiger beetle larvae don’t have the same aesthetic appeal to many people that the adults have, and for this reason many species remain undescribed in the larval stage—even the well-studied North American fauna has only about 60% of its species with the larval stages described (Pearson et al. 2006). Nevertheless, the ability to find, collect and rear tiger beetle larva remains an important part of my studies because it not only expands my survey power (most tiger beetles have more restricted temporal occurrence as adults than as larvae) but can also lead to novel findings such as previously undescribed larvae and unknown parasitoid associations.

Tetracha virginica 3rd instar larva | Mississippi Co., Missouri

Tetracha virginica 3rd instar larva | Mississippi Co., Missouri

This larva was dug from its burrow in bottomland forest habitat in the southeastern lowlands of Missouri. However, before I even saw the larva I knew it belonged to the genus Tetracha and probably represented the species T. virginica (Virginia Metallic Tiger Beetle, according to Erwin & Pearson 2008). How did I know this? First, the size of the burrow (~8 mm in diameter) excluded all but one other non-Tetracha species known to occur in Missouri—Cicindelidia obsoleta vulturina (Prairie Tiger Beetle), a species known to occur only in the dry, rocky, dolomite glades in the White River Hills region of extreme southwestern Missouri. Secondly, while T. carolina (Carolina Metallic Tiger Beetle) is also found in southeastern Missouri, that species has been associated almost exclusively with treeless habitats—at least in southeastern Missouri (K. Fothergill, personal communication). Since the burrow from which this individual was dug was found in wet, bottomland forest, chances were high that it instead represented T. virginica.

Simple, thorn-like outer hooks with much smaller inner hooks distinguish Tetracha larvae from other tiger beetle genera.

Simple, thorn-like outer hooks with much smaller inner hooks distinguish larvae of Tetracha.

Notwithstanding the circumstantial evidence, there are morphological characters that also distinguish both the genus and the species of this larva. Of primary importance are the hooks and setae on the prominent “hump” of the fifth abdominal segment. This hump is braced against the vertical wall of the larval burrow as it sits at the entrance waiting for passing prey. Once the prey is seized, the hump armature provides traction against the burrow wall, preventing the struggling prey from pulling the tiger beetle larva out of its burrow (where it would not only be ineffectual as a predator but also highly vulnerable to predation itself). Tiger beetle larvae can often be distinguished at the generic level by the shape and size of the main hooks. Tetracha larvae have four hooks—two outer and two inner—that are simple and thorn-like, with the inner hooks much smaller than and placed much closer to the outer hooks than to each other (other genera either have six hooks, or they have the outer pair 1) highly curved or 2) the inner pair larger and nearly as close to each other as to the outer hooks). There are also fine details of the pattern of the setae (smaller hairs) on the hump that identify this larva as T. virginica, but the presence of numerous hairs over the surface of the abdominal segments is a much easier character to see in the field (see first photo).

Note the white-margined pronotum and nearly equal sized simple eyes.

Note also the white-margined pronotum and nearly equal sized simple eyes.

Finally, there is that head—two pairs of large, simple eyes sitting behind gaping, cocked jaws that give them an oh so alien aspect! An often metallic, shield-like pronotum sitting behind the head, both used in concert to seal the burrow entrance as the larva lies in wait, serve to complete the alien ensemble but also offer clues to the larva’s identity. All larvae of Tetracha and closely related genera bear a distinctive rim of white around the pronotal margin, making them instantly recognizable even while still sitting in their burrow. Also useful is the relative size of the eyes, which in the case of Tetracha the second pair of eyes are nearly as large as the first pair (Amblycheila and Omus have the second pair distinctly smaller than the first, while Cicindela and related genera also have the eyes more nearly equal-sized).

P.S. This is what I was photographing when my friend Kent Fothergill surreptitiously took this photograph of me!

REFERENCES:

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.

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 2012

Beautiful box of Buprestidae

/ Ted C. MacRae / 12 Comments

I’ve been working on identifying Buprestidae accumulated from a variety of sources over the past year—mostly exchanges and gifts, before beginning the processing specimens collected during this past season. Once identified, and combined with specimens gleaned from material submitted by other collectors for identification (I generally only retain examples of species that are poorly represented in my collection or specimens that represent and will serve as vouchers for significant new distributional records), they make for a very pretty box of Buprestidae! It’s kind of nice to keep them collected together like this for a little while, but I’ll soon incorporate them into the main collection where they will more securely protected and to free up the temporary box now containing them for new material as it moves through the process of labeling and identification. (Incidentally, I think I might like to do a series a posts over this winter covering my version of the specimen curation process).

There are some very cool Buprestidae in this box—88 species in all, that originated from a remarkable variety of locations across the U.S., Mexico/Central America, and South America. Do you see any species of particular interest?

236 specimens representing 88 species of Buprestidae

236 specimens representing 88 species of Buprestidae

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2012