Buprestidae exchange

January 9, 2012 / Ted C. MacRae / 13 Comments

With my queue of specimen identifications now clear, I can turn my attention to another major backlog that I haven’t been able to give proper attention recently—exchanges. For those of you not into insect collecting, exchanging is something that most collectors eventually end up doing, especially if the goal is to build a taxonomic reference collection within one’s chosen group that has broad representation of species and higher taxa from multiple geographical regions. Truthfully, I don’t do nearly as much exchanging as some collectors I know. It’s not that I don’t want to, but simply a matter of time—receiving and incorporating shipments while preparing and sending out returns is not as quick and easy as it might seem, not to mention the time involved in mining and corresponding with prospective exchange partners. I wish I could do more, but since I can’t I deal with it by limiting myself almost exclusively to exchanging Buprestidae (although I’ve been known to do a tiger beetle exchange or two). I focus on Buprestidae because that is my primary group of taxonomic interest.

Buprestidae received in exchange from Stanislav Prepsl, Czech Republic

These photos show some of the Buprestidae I received this past year, this particular box coming from Stanislav Prepsl in the Czech Republic. This is the first time that I’ve exchanged with Stan, and I must say I am impressed with the quality and taxonomic diversity of his buprestid holdings. In this exchange, I received 73 species, most of which are represented by a male/female pair and four represented by paratype specimens. These are all Old World species, and while a few are from the well-known fauna of Europe most were collected in countries seldom visited by (or even off limits to) American collectors such as the former USSR, Iran, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Turkey, etc. There are a nice few species also from Namibia, Kenya and Ethiopia. In return, I sent to Stan more than 100 species of Buprestidae from mostly the southwestern U.S. and Mexico where I have done a large part of my collecting. Stan was less demanding about receiving both one male and one female for each species, thus the larger number of species I was able to send him for approximately equal numbers of specimens.

Close-up view of lower left corner of box

Some collectors avoid Buprestidae because of their taxonomic difficulty and the overwhelming numbers of small, difficult-to-identify species. I think this is exactly why I like the group, and though many of the species are small they are certainly no less beautiful than their larger, flashier, more ostentatious brethren. I include this close-up view (you might recognize the specimen in the lower right corner as the previously featured Agelia lordi) to show the meticulous preparation of the specimens included in the shipment—an example of a well-curated collection by someone who knows what they are doing. Incidentally, the cards on which the specimens are mounted are standard fare among European collectors, and although as an American I prefer direct pinning of larger specimens and mounting smaller specimens on points versus cards, I’ve come to appreciate the exacting care with which some Europeans practice this card-mounting technique.

It’ll take me a few hours of dedicated attention to move all of these specimens into the main collection—not only must their proper placement be determined, but there is usually a lot of reshuffling of specimens within and amongst unit trays whenever such a large number of specimens is incorporated into it. With 15,000 described species and counting, this sending of Buprestidae represents only a modest increase (0.5%) in my representation of species; however, it adds representation from geographical areas that previously had virtually no representation in my collection at all. I hope Stan is as pleased with the material that I sent to him as I am with this material, and I look forward to the opportunity to exchange again with him in the near future.

A First Class Box of Beetles

December 16, 2010October 10, 2011 / Ted C. MacRae / 31 Comments

Warning: post contains lots of hardcore, beetle-collector geekery!

A nice selection of tiger beetles and buprestid beetles.

A few weeks ago I got an email from fellow buprestophile Henry Hespenheide (Professor Emeritus, UCLA) asking if I needed any specimens of Agrilus coxalis auroguttatus – recently dubbed the “goldspotted oak borer” after it was discovered damaging oaks in southern California (Coleman & Seybold 2008). I replied that I did not have this species in my collection and that I would be grateful for any examples he could provide. Shortly afterwards, I received another message from him saying that he had just placed in the mail a small box with a male/female pair of that species – along with about two dozen tiger beetles for my enjoyment! Later that week I received the shipment at my office – I couldn’t wait to open it up and see what goodies were inside!

Ctenostoma maculicorne (Chevrolat, 1856)

Opening a box of just received specimens is a little like opening presents on Christmas – you don’t know for sure what’s inside, but you know you’re gonna like it! This time was no exception, and I delighted as I realized the sending contained a dozen or so tiger beetles from Costa Rica and Nicaragua (a region in which Henry has spent many of his years studying the leaf-mining and twig boring buprestid beetles). My eyes were immediately drawn to two tiger beetles in particular – specimen #1 in the first row, and specimen #4 in the second row. Why these particular tiger beetles? Obviously they are among the more showy specimens in the sending, but more significantly both of them belong to genera not represented in my collection. The first of these is Ctenostoma maculicorne, representing also a new tribe for my collection (Collyridini, subtribe Ctenostomina). I’m glad Ron Huber had already identified this specimen, as I probably would’ve only been able to determine the genus. Beetles in this group are ant mimics, but in a much different manner than our U.S. ant-mimics (Cylindera cursitans and Cylindera celeripes). Those latter species are found strictly on the ground (as are all U.S. tiger beetle species), while species of Ctenostoma are largely arboreal. Troy Bartlett at Nature Closeups has some great photographs of another species in this genus seen last January in Brazil (Caraça Natural Park, Minas Gerais) that show just how ant-like these beetles can appear as they crawl about on twigs and branches.

Pseudoxycheila tarsalis Bates, 1869

Despite lacking an identification label, I recognized the second specimen instantly as Pseudoxycheila tarsalis, dubbed by Erwin & Pearson (2008) as the “Central American montane tiger beetle.” Pseudoxycheila is a rather large Neotropical genus (21 known species), but only P. tarsalis occurs north of South America. Morgan Jackson at Biodiversity in Focus photographed an individual of this species during his visit to Costa Rica this past summer. Its brilliant coloration is not only delightful to look at but also apparently aposematic in nature – Schultz and Puchalski (2001) found that benzene-like compounds isolated from the beetle’s pygidial glands are distasteful to humans, adding support to the potential of a Müllerian mimicry association with stinging mutillid wasps in the genus Hoplomutilla, which they resemble. Note also the curious spine on the frons extending out over the mandibles – maybe it not only grabs its prey with its toothy jaws but also “stabs” it for extra measure (just kidding – though I do wonder about the function of that spine. I’m not aware of its presence in any other genus of tiger beetles).

I also noted an interesting pair of tiger beetles that looked very different from each other, yet were both identified by Ron Huber as Tetracha ignea. This species was recently synonymized under the nominotypical form of T. sobrina (Naviaux 2007) – the “ascendent metallic tiger beetle” (Erwin & Pearson 2008), a highly variable species with numerous described subspecies occurring in southern Mexico, Central America, northern South America, and the West Indies. The specimen on the left has the normal appearance of T. sobrina sobrina, but the specimen on the right looks like it might have suffered some chemical discoloration (a common occurrence among collected tiger beetle specimens).

Update 16 Dec 2010, 12:00pm – I just learned from Henry that the Tetracha specimen on the right (from Nicaragua) was not seen by Ron Huber and, thus, is likely not conspecific with the specimen on the left (T. sobrina from Costa Rica). That’ll teach me to blindly accept what I see but does not seem right. Now, time to pull out my copy of Naviaux (2007) and test my abilities to work through a key written in French!

Tetracha sobrina sobrina Dejean, 1831 (L); Tetrach sp. undet. from Guatemala (R).

There are several other interesting species in the sending – some determined (two species each of Oxycheila and Brasiella) and others that I need to look at more closely. You may note on the bottom row a few specimens of a species of Elaphrus – a genus of true ground beetles that often fool collectors by their strong resemblance to tiger beetles (looks like they fooled Henry, too). As for the beetles that were the reason for this shipment in the first place, these are shown in the image below. Agrilus coxalis auroguttatus was recently discovered as the cause of significant mortality in several species of oak trees in San Diego County (Coleman & Seybold 2008), thus joining the introduced Agrilus planipennis (emerald ash borer) and several native Agrilus spp. on the ever-growing list of buprestid beetles achieving economic pest status in North America. This subspecies, known for many years from southern Arizona (where it is not a pest), is curiously widely disjunct from nominotypical populations in southern Mexico. Its sudden appearance in southern California has all the hallmarks of being a human-aided introduction, although natural range expansion remains a possibility.

Agrilus coxalis auroguttatus Schaeffer, 1905

My deep appreciation to Henry Hespenheide for gifting me these specimens and for his always enlightening and often entertaining correspondence over the years.

REFERENCES:

Coleman, T. W. and S. J. Seybold. 2008. Previously unrecorded damage to oak, Quercus spp., in southern California by the goldspotted oak borer, Agrilus coxalis Waterhouse (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 84:288–300.

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.

Schultz, T. D. and J. Puchalski. 2001. Chemical defenses in the tiger beetle Pseudoxycheila tarsalis Bates (Carabidae: Cicindelinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 55(2):164–166.

Six beetles Ted still needs for his collection

July 23, 2010July 12, 2010 / Ted C. MacRae / 9 Comments

Today’s guest blogger is longtime friend and insect collecting partner Rich Thoma. Rich and I first met nearly 30 years ago and have been collecting insects together ever since. Rich is a strong advocate for educating children about natural history and has developed some rather fun methods for doing this. His unique sense of humor in doing this is on display in this post.

While Ted’s away, he asked me to fill in for him with an article for Beetles in the Bush. I thought I would take this opportunity to introduce you to some unique beetle species found in my collection. All were caught long ago when I first started collecting insects. Here they are for your enjoyment!

Colorado Mr. Potato Head Beetle (Leptinotarsa decimlineata potatoea)

The Colorado Mr. Potatoe Head Beetle was first discovered by Dan Quayle, ex vice president of the United States cleaning his son’s toy box when the family moved from the vice presidential mansion. Most entomologists feel this beetle is a subspecies of the very common potato pest, the Colorado Potato beetle. It has been speculated that a shipment of Mr. Potato Head toys was somehow mixed with a shipment of GMO modified sweet California Russet Potato’s. The beetles needing a new food source found the hollow, interior of the Mr. Potato head toy to their liking. Inedible plastics from the toy have been incorporated into the exoskeleton of the beetle.

Lawn Ornament Beetle (Prionus phaenicopterus)

Today the lawn ornament beetle is considered rare. This insect’s population exploded in the mid- 1900’s when lawn ornaments, particularly pink flamingos were popular. This Cerambycid was named P. phaenicopterus after the flamingo genus Phaenicopterus in recognition of its strong association with plastic pink flamingos. Beetle populations have steadily declined as the pink flamingos have decreased in popularity. There is hope this species may rebound with the increase in other plastic yard items such as lawn chairs and big wheels.

Styrofoam Beetle (Zopherus styrofoamensis)

A common denizen of landfills of the mid-western U.S., Z. styrofoamensis is considered a scavenger preferring party garbage, plastic and styrofoam plates and cups. The white coloration is variable. Some specimens have only a few small white patches whereas others are nearly all white. In rare instances the white exoskeleton expands so much that it takes the shape of a packing peanuts. This explains why this species was overlooked for so long. Scientists performing landfill research were unaware this species was present due to its exact mimicry of the packing material so often discarded in today’s dumps. Recent research has shown the white coloration can be directly correlated to the amount of styrofoam eaten.

G.I. Joe Bug (Powella shellensis)

A common denizen of battlefields and army bases around the world. This dung beetle is known to lay its eggs inside empty bullet shells and then pack it with dung. Inside the bullet shell, larvae are protected from being crushed by the heaviest of military equipment. One is likely to find this species any place guns are fired. Adults have four extremely sensitive, orange and yellow sound sensors on the elytra. At the sound of a rifle shot, adults fly from miles away towards the sound. Hundreds of this beetle species can be found, after an army platoon has taken target practice for the day. The first male to arrive at a bullet shell, quickly rolls it as far away from the noise as possible. Females are attracted to males that stridulate a sound something like “Ready, Aim, Fire”.

Goodyear Beetle (Ackron firestonei)

This is the first known, genetically enhanced species developed to combat one of the worlds growing refuse problems, tires. Essentially scientists were able to cross a common scarab beetle with a Mexican jumping bean. The combination produced a new species capable of consuming rubber. Scientists quickly released thousands of these beetles into the ever growing, piles of old and used tires found in today’s junkyards. The tire decomposition program was deemed a complete success. As so often happens, however, when all the tires in landfills and dumps were consumed, the beetles switched to tires still in use. There has been a rash of flat tires causing millions in damage. At its worst, the Goodyear Beetle can consume all four wheels and the spare in less than a week.

Pokemon’s Delight (Picachu lightningae)

This species of beetle is only attracted to flashes of colorful lights such as at fireworks displays and Pokemon reruns. In flight, the body absorbs the flashes of color and retransmits them, often in technicolor. Some of the latest fireworks displays have been enhanced by releasing thousands of this beetle prior to the show. Similar flashes have been observed if a beetle lands on a television screen during a Pokemon show. The same flashes that cause epileptic seizures in some people, cause this beetle to buzz the national anthem of Mexico.

As with other insects, the species described above are easy to collect if you know how. Searching museum specimens, one quickly realizes that the only people collecting these insects were all under 12 (as was I when I collected each species). If you want to collect these beetles, the best opportunities will come if you take along a child. Children seem to be the only ones who have the imagination to find these beetles.

This is an opportunity to point out that today’s children are being denied the chance to enjoy the outdoors and learn about the wonderful creatures that live there. For the most part, our education system no longer devotes the time to teach about the plants and animals that occupy our planet. Even at home, children now spend their free time playing video games and watching TV instead of being outdoors. Few kids get the chance to walk on a dirt path in the woods or hold any living creature in the palm of their hand.

This is where you, the reader of this blog can make a difference. You can give our next generation the chance to enjoy the wonders from the creatures that live all around us. The next time you go out in the field to collect insects, take a kid with you. Volunteer at a local library, school or park. All these places cannot exist without volunteers and you have a lot to offer. It is amazing how much kids will learn about the world around them given the chance. The surprise in how much you learn in return from them!

Email to a friend

Acmaeodera carlota in northern Arizona

March 5, 2010April 4, 2019 / Ted C. MacRae / 6 Comments

Acmaeodera carlota Fall – Coconino Co., Arizona

This is another of the interesting species that I encountered during my examination of material submitted for identification this past winter. Acmaeodera carlota is one of 149 species/subspecies in North America belonging to this very difficult genus (recall my recent post, Aaack!-maeodera), and as with so many of its congeners it wasn’t described until after the last revision of the genus more than a century ago (Fall 1899). Obviously, the genus badly needs another revision – or at least a revised key – so that the known species can be identified with some degree of confidence without having to send specimens to a specialist. There have been a handful of buprestid workers in recent decades who may have been able to accomplish this daunting task, but to date none have been willing to embrace this considerable challenge.

As far as is known, A. carlota occurs only in Arizona. Fall (1932) described this species from a few specimens collected from cactus blossoms near Globe, Arizona (~90 miles east of Phoenix). Since then, the only specific information recorded about this species was by Westcott et al. (1979), who reported adults cut from wood of Quercus dumosa near Sunflower (~60 miles northwest of the type locality) and collected from flowers in west-central Arizona near Wikieup. Fall’s original description leaves much to be desired (as is the case for nearly all original descriptions prior to the last 50 years or so), and to this point no images have been published in the literature or appeared on the web. This particular specimen was found in a batch of material sent to me by cerambycid-enthusiast Jeff Huether (the same batch containing the previously discussed Acmaeodera robigo), and the only reason I was able to identify it was by comparing it to a specimen given to me by the late Gayle Nelson, who collected the species near Wikieup after its occurrence was reported there by Westcott and colleagues. The interesting thing about this specimen is that it was collected near Page, Arizona – nearly 200 miles north of any of the previous known localities and just south of the Utah border. In suspect this species occurs even more broadly and is not, as the limited records suggest, restricted to Arizona.

Acmaeodera carlota belongs to a group of species that I loosely refer to as the A. tubulus-species group. It is not clear that all of the species are actually closely related, but they do all resemble each other in their small size (<8 mm), general appearance (i.e., black with confused yellow maculations on the elytra), and inclusion in the so-called ‘Truncatae’ group (a subdivision of the genus established by 19th Century coleopterist George Horn to include those species having the prosternal margin nearly straight and not retracted from the sides). Within the Truncatae, the species in the tubulus-species group are distinguished by lacking a subapical crest on the last ventral segment and general appearance. Only three species were known at the time of Fall’s revision (conoidea, neglecta, and tubulus); however, an additional eight species have been described since (carlota, ligulata, neoneglecta, opuntiae, parkeri, sabinae, starrae, and thoracata). I have collected many of these species in my travels across the southwestern U.S. and lack only starrae and thoracta in my collection (the latter is known only from the type). In the case of A. carlota, note the rather flattened dorsal surface that is densely clothed with long, stiff, dark, suberect hairs; the coarsely, contiguously punctate pronotum; and the subrugose, slightly irregular elytral intervals, which serve to distinguish this species from others in the group.

The group’s namesake, Acmaeodera tubulus, is widespread and common across the eastern U.S., making it relatively easy to identify. However, the remaining species of the tubulus-species group are limited to the south-central and southwestern U.S., and the lack of available identification keys and suitable descriptions makes them nearly impossible to identify except by comparison with determined specimens. As a result, I have built a key to the species in the Acmaeodera tubulus-species group that I use to assist in my own identifications. The key is based on distinguishing characters given in the original descriptions (if any) and augmented by my examination of the material at my disposal. I invite users to test the key with their own material and let me how well it works.

My sincere appreciation to Jeff Huether for allowing me to retain this specimen in my collection as a voucher for the range extension that it represents.

REFERENCES:

Fall, H. C. 1899. Synonpsis of the species of Acmaeodera of America, north of Mexico. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 7(1):1–37 [scroll to “Journal of the New York Entomological Society”, “v. 7 1899”, “Seq 12”].

Fall, H. C. 1932. Four new Buprestidae from Arizona. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 8(2) (1931):81-84.

Westcott, R. L., W. F. Barr, G. H. Nelson, and D. S. Verity. 1979. Distributional and biological notes notes on North and Central American species of Acmaeodera (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 33(2):169-181.

Email to a friend

Do you know what time it is?

October 2, 2009October 10, 2011 / Ted C. MacRae / 14 Comments

I’ll give you a few hints:

It’s fall.
I haven’t collected bugs for a few weeks.
A new crop of tiger beetles has emerged from their burrows.

What time is it?

IT’S TIME FOR THE ANNUAL FALL TIGER BEETLE TRIP!

I don’t think there is any trip during the year that I look forward to more than this one. Hunting for insects is fun no matter what, but it is particularly enjoyable when the sweltering days of summer give way to the cool days of fall – crisp air, pungent, earthy aromas, shadows long and sharp, and skies so blue above a golden, tawny, morphing landscape. How I adore fall, and how I thrill at any chance to travel across the fall landscape chasing after gorgeous tiger beetles that have spent the spring and summer as larvae, hidden in their unseen burrows, growing fat on the few hapless insects that chanced too close to their burrow, until the rains of late summer and early fall trigger their transformation to adulthood – glittering jewels that emerge out into the autumn world for a brief session of dining and play before winter forces them back into their burrows for the long wait to spring.

This year’s edition is somewhat abbreviated – little more than a long weekend due to a combination of job and family responsibilities. Still, five days is a little better than four (and a lot better than none) and is long enough for me to play a hunch that I’ve had ever since I returned from the Red Hills of northwestern Oklahoma this past June. You’ll recall that I had some rather amazing luck on that trip, discovering a robust population of the very rare Cylindera celeripes (Swift Tiger Beetle) and a slight western range extension of the seldom seen Dromochorus pruinina (Frosted Dromo Tiger Beetle). While I was exploring that landscape, the habitat reminded me of another tiger beetle – Cicindela pulchra (Beautiful Tiger Beetle), a glorious species – brilliant purple with glassy wine-red elytra – that I had seen in 2005 in the nearby Gypsum Hills of south-central Kansas. I don’t know if that species occurs in the Red Hills of northwestern Oklahoma or not, but my impression is that the area has not been very well explored. If a species as rare as C. celeripes can be found there, perhaps C. pulchra will occur there as well. The enormous tiger beetle larvae that I saw in their burrows in the Gloss Mountains during June gives me further reason to believe there may now be some impressive adult activity in the area.

Should I not succeed in finding C. pulchra, it will nevertheless be a glorious, though frenetic trip. On Friday I’ll drive 525 miles from St. Louis to the Gloss Mountains, where I’ll explore during the early part of Saturday and then finish the day at Alabaster Caverns State Park. Sunday’s itinerary depends upon whether I succeed at finding C. pulchra in the Gloss Mountains – if I do, I’ll head on over to Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge to photograph some of the fall tiger beetles that were not out during my June trip (hopefully including Eunota togata globicollis, or Alkali Tiger Beetle). If I don’t find C. pulchra in the Gloss Mountains, I’ll explore the Red Hills of Barber Co. Kansas, where I’ve seen this insect in the past and attempt to find and photograph it there, then move on to Salt Plains on Monday. I’m really hoping my C. pulchra hunch plays out, because if it does that gives me an extra day to shoot back east to my beloved White River Hills in southwestern Missouri and photograph its small, disjunct population of Cicindela obsoleta vulturina (Prairie Tiger Beetle) – the largest member of the genus in North America. Regardless of how events play out, I’ll need to blast back to St. Louis on Tuesday, work a couple of days, then leave town again for my niece’s wedding in New York (congratulations Shannon and Tamer).

While I’m gone, you can click on the interactive map to see where I’m going, or you can catch up on several newly issued Blog Carnivals (I’ve been a busy submitter this past month):

Circus of the Spineless. With discussion that is restricted to the 95% of life forms that do NOT have vertebrae, CotS #42 is up at Quiche Moraine. For my part, I have proposed a replacement name for a rather ‘ubiquitous’ species of tiger beetle.
Berry Go Round. After a brief summer vacation, botanical discussions resume with BGR #20 at Further Thoughts. My contributions cover zygomorphic flowers with oily rewards, a very ungentianlike gentian, and plant-insect relationships.
Carnival of Evolution. From Darwin to Drift to Deleterious Mutation, find it all at CoE #16 hosted by Pleiotropy. I’ve added a little ‘perspective’ to the discovery of new species.

No longer just a contributor, at the end of this month I will host my first Blog Carnival in the form of Berry Go Round #21. I know, it’s strange that a bug dude is jumping into the Carnival hosting pool with a botanical carnival, but duty calls! Submissions are due to me by Oct. 27, with a scheduled issue date of Oct. 30. If you’ve never contributed to a Blog Carnival before, it’s a great way to get exposure for your blog and possibly find other blogs of interest.

On the road again!

June 5, 2009October 10, 2011 / Ted C. MacRae / 13 Comments

By the time you read this, I’ll be on the road again for yet another extended bug collecting trip. I don’t think I am ever happier than when I am on one of these trips – whether it be a once-in-a-lifetime visit to Africa or a one-week jaunt to the nearby plains. With so many places to see – each with their own unique story – I don’t understand how anyone ever ends up getting bored. The main destination for this trip is the Nature Conservancy’s recently established Four Canyon Preserve in northwestern Oklahoma. This nearly 4,000-acre preserve contains a stunning assemblage of rugged, mixedgrass prairie ridges dissected by deep, chinquapin oak-lined canyons that drain into the Canadian River in southern Ellis County. Although past grazing and fire suppression have reduced shrub cover, lowered vegetation complexity and promoted expansion of eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) throughout the area, the preserve nevertheless supports a number of species of conservation concern such as Cassin’s sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, least tern, and Arkansas River shiner.

As is typical with many protected areas, studies of the biotic diversity of this preserve have dealt primarily with its flora (Hoagland and Buthod 2007) and avifauna (Patten et al. 2006). Arthropods and other microfauna, on the other hand, remain essentially unknown. I’ll be joining a group of entomologists – primarily hymenopterists – who began conducting surveys of the preserve’s insect fauna last fall. While my colleagues gaze at the hyperdiversity of asteraceous flowers looking for things with stings, I’ll be staring at the red Permian sandstone and shale exposures – watching for any darting movement between clumps of grama and little bluestem that might indicate the presence of the enigmatic Cicindela celeripes (swift tiger beetle). I’ve written previously about the occurrence of this rare, flightless tiger beetle in the Loess Hills of Iowa and our ongoing search for this species in northwestern Missouri in my post The Hunt for Cicindela celeripes. Although this beetle has not yet been recorded at the preserve, it was seen very recently in nearby Alabaster Caverns – some 60 miles to the north, and a historical record is known from just south of the preserve. My optimism is bolstered by the fact that the Alabaster Caverns individual was observed in late May – much earlier than the typical late June and early July records for this species further north in its stronghold in the Flint Hills of Kansas. Of course, I will be looking for other things as well – other species of tiger beetles are likely to occur on the reddish loamy upland soils and quaternary alluvial deposits along the Canadian River, and any number of woodboring beetle species are likely to be found on herbaceous flowers and dead branches of the 51 species of woody plants recorded in the preserve.

After getting our fill of Four Canyon Preserve, we’ll visit the world’s largest remaining tract of tallgrass prairie, Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in northeastern Oklahoma. Encompassing nearly 40,000 acres, we can do nothing more than only scratch its surface. However, the tallgrass prairie habitat should provide a nice contrast to the mixedgrass prairie of Four Canyon Preserve, and it will be interesting to compare and contrast these two distinctive plant communities and their associated insect faunas. After a week on the road¹, I’ll return to St. Louis for a brief respite before beginning a hectic four-week survey in northwestern Missouri for – you guessed it – Cicindela celeripes!

¹ I’ll be without internet access, so please forgive my nonresponsiveness to comments. I do have a couple of posts scheduled to appear during my absence.

My thanks to Mike Arduser, an expert hymenopterist and also a good friend, for bringing Four Canyon Preserve to my attention. His spectacular photographs that I share here were all I needed to convince me to join him on his return trip this season.

REFERENCES:

Hoagland, B. W., and A. K. Buthod. 2007. Vascular flora of the Four Canyons Preserve, Ellis County, Oklahoma. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1(1):655–664.

Patten, M. A., D. L. Reinking, and D. H. Wolfe. 2006. Avifauna of the Four Canyon Preserve, Ellis County, Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey (2nd Series) 7:11-20.

An extendable handle for insect nets

April 16, 2009October 10, 2011 / Ted C. MacRae / 17 Comments

For many years, my standard insect collecting gear has been a beating sheet and a short-handled aerial net (see small photo at right in “The Author” or the full-sized version under About). From the deciduous forests of the Ozark Highlands to the tropical bushveld of South Africa, these two pieces of equipment have been all that I’ve needed to collect the woodboring beetles that have dominated my interests. The beating sheet is, of course, an absolute necessity for anyone interested in jewel beetles (family Buprestidae), longhorned beetles (family Cerambycidae), and the many other insects that tend to be found on tree branches. Woodboring beetles are most frequently, but not exclusively, found on dead branches of their host trees, but regardless of whether the branches are alive or dead, the concept for collecting beetles off of them is the same – a beating sheet is held underneath the branch, and the branch is given a decisive whack with a stick of some kind. This dislodges any beetles that may be foraging or resting on the branch and causes them to drop onto the sheet, where they can be spotted easily and picked off before (hopefully) they escape. For my “stick” I like to use the handle of an aerial net, as the net itself is quite handy to have in case I stumble upon some of the many flower-feeding species or for more general collecting (my inability to focus exclusively on any one taxon is by now well documented). Using a net handle as a beating stick, unfortunately, forces one to compromise on the length of the handle – the handle must be relatively short (no more than 3′ long) to be effective as a beating stick, but such a short handle severely limits reach when the net is being used. This problem has become even more apparent during the past few years as I have become increasingly interested in tiger beetles (family Cicindelidae). There is no way around it – you need a long-handled net to have any hope of collecting tiger beetles, and the longer the better (ideally about 6′). Thus my quandary – I needed a short-handled net to best collect woodboring beetles, but a long-handled net to best collect tiger beetles.

Enter the extendable handle for insect nets, available from BioQuip Products. This ingenious net handle consists of two telescoping aluminum tubes with a clutch-lock device. When fully collapsed the handle measures only 36″ in length – perfect for use as a beating stick and when extra length is not needed. When a longer net handle is needed, however, a quick turn of the clutch-lock frees the inner section, allowing the handle to be extended to nearly 6′ in length – perfect for those fast-moving tiger beetles. Once extended, another quick twist of the clutch-lock secures the handle in place, and that Cicindela is mine! To cap it all off, the handle is fully compatible with standard insect net rings and bags, including the red “T” knob for ring attachment. It was almost as if the handle had been designed specifically for my purposes.

I purchased mine at the beginning of the last field season. While the design seemed a perfect solution for my short handle-long handle quandary, I wasn’t convinced it would be able to withstand the rigors of field use. Specifically, I questioned whether the inner section would remain firmly seated within the outer section after a few slams of the net against the ground with the handle fully extended (for example, when using the ‘slap’ method for those tiger beetles I hadn’t yet figured out). I expected that repeated flexing of the handle would eventually cause the joint to fail and the handle to lose its rigidity. I also wondered how quickly and easily the handle would extend – especially after seeing some wear and tear. Any difficulty in this regard would quickly negate the convenience offered by an extendable handle.

I was immediately impressed with this handle upon its very first use, and after one full season of heavy use, it appears my concerns about its durability were unfounded. Weighing only 12 oz, it is extremely lightweight and easy to carry, and I am also pleased at how easily the handle extends and collapses – the clutch-lock disengages completely with a single twist, and the inner section slides into and out of the outer section smoothly and quickly. The true test of its durability, however, came during last year’s annual fall tiger beetle trip – a test that it passed with flying colors. I really put the net handle to hard use, and despite repeatedly slapping the net ring against the ground with the handle fully extended, the joint remained solid and rigid. I was able to swing the net with just as much assertion at the end of the trip as at the beginning.

Even during those times when I wasn’t carrying a beating sheet, I found myself routinely preferring to carry the extendable handled-net rather than the long-handled net. It was easier to carry and use when a short handle was sufficient, yet it could be extended quickly and easily when the extra length was needed. At $22.95, I consider its cost to be rather modest compared to the convenience and versatility it offers. For those of you who need a long-handled net but don’t want to wield a long handle all the time (and for the one or two other people in the world who use their net handle as a beating stick), this is the handle for you.

Tiger Beetle Safari

March 31, 2009October 10, 2011 / Ted C. MacRae / 24 Comments

In looking back at my posts over the past few weeks, I realized that it has been far too long since I’ve actually talked about beetles. Perhaps “Petals In The Bush” would be a better name for this blog! I still have some botanical thoughts to get off my chest before the insect season starts in earnest, but until then, and in anticipation of the upcoming summer’s hunts, I offer this fun, light-hearted introduction to collecting and keeping tiger beetles by Peter Schriemer. Pay particular attention to the method he uses to capture these elusive little creatures:

Tiger Beetles are my favorite type of beetle! Entomologist John Acorn got me hooked on these little guys. They live across the country in various habitats, so you may not need to travel far to go on a Tiger Beetle Safari of your own!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Tiger Beetle Safari“, posted with vodpod

Capturing tiger beetle adults can a little (lot) more difficult than implied by this video. Adults have excellent eyesight, and many species are extremely wary. It takes practice, patience, and lots of second chances. The collecting method shown in the video is what I refer to as the “stalk and slap” method – the beetle is slowly stalked until within net reach, and the net bag is slapped over the beetle. This method works well enough, but it has its limitations. If there are any gaps between the ground and the net rim, the beetle will quickly dart through them and fly away. This is easy to prevent on sandy and soft clay substrates, as the net rim can be sealed against the ground by kneeling quickly on each side of the rim to embed it slightly and using the hands to hold up the net bag and locate the beetle. Still, there are a few things I don’t like about this method – the beetle may hide against the inside of the rim and be difficult to locate, and once found it may be difficult to grab the beetle through the net if it is against the ground (don’t even try lifting the rim and reaching under – the beetle will zip out and be gone). This method can also be taxing on the legs, as each attempted capture involves kneeling and standing back up (getting harder and harder for these 50+ year old knees to do).

The major limitation of the slap method, however, is that it doesn’t really work on hard, uneven surfaces. Many species are found in glades and other habitats with exposed rock substrates. In these types of habitats, the net rim simply cannot be clamped tightly enough to eliminate the gaps (not to mention the added difficulties in kneeling on these surfaces). Because of this, I have adopted a technique that I call the “tap and swipe” method. Here again, the beetle is stalked until within net reach (made easier with a longer handle), but rather than slapping the net bag over the beetle, the rim of the net is tapped against the ground next to the beetle and then assertively swiped sideways to catch the beetle just as it starts flying. A quick 180° flip of the net rim closes the opening to prevent the beetle from escaping, and it is easily seen in the hanging net bag, where it can be grabbed from outside the net bag with one hand to secure it before reaching into the net bag with the other hand. With a little practice, one eventually learns to reach down into the open net bag and grab the beetle while preventing it from flying up and out. All of this can be done while standing, so it’s easier on the knees.

The tap method does require more knowledge about the beetle’s escape behavior in order to anticipate how quickly and in which direction the beetle will fly – some species delay take off just slightly, thus requiring a slight “pause” between the tap and the swipe. However, once their behavior is learned I have found this method to be more consistently successful than the slap method – even on soft substrates. For species that I haven’t encountered in the field before, I use the slap method at first (if I can) until I have a feel for their escape behavior. If I can’t, I use the tap method and hope for the best!

	Grant Forbes on In Memoriam – Gayle H.…
	Grant Forbes on In Memoriam – Gayle H.…
	honestlywarm5ecb322c… on Beetle Collecting 101: “Jug…
	Ted C. MacRae on 🌿 Botanizing w/ the Webster Gr…
	Sher Schwartz on 🌿 Botanizing w/ the Webster Gr…
	Ted C. MacRae on 🌿 Botanizing w/ the Webster Gr…
	scott on 🌿 Botanizing w/ the Webster Gr…
	Sonny Dyle on The “obscure” Dice…
	Ted C. MacRae on 2025 Southwestern U.S. Insect…
	Ted C. MacRae on 2025 Southwestern U.S. Insect…

Beetles In The Bush

Experiences and reflections of a Missouri entomologist

insect collection

Buprestidae exchange

A First Class Box of Beetles

Warning: post contains lots of hardcore, beetle-collector geekery!

Six beetles Ted still needs for his collection

Colorado Mr. Potato Head Beetle (Leptinotarsa decimlineata potatoea)

Lawn Ornament Beetle (Prionus phaenicopterus)