Ants invade Beetles in the Bush!

For months now, your Beetles in the Bush host, Ted, has been nudging me to blog, in the end resorting to offering me a guest blogger gig at BitB. Given this golden opportunity, I’ve decided to utilize my web-logging debut to introduce my favorite insects, the fabulous Formicidae. First, a disclaimer: I have not mastered ant photography, and so will rely on the undisputed king of ant photographers, Alex Wild, through links to his numerous, unexcelled images.

Since about age 5, I can remember being interested in virtually anything living, but especially in small, active creatures. From the beginning, I have had a particular attraction to ants. With some notable exceptions, and aside from the pulchritudinous feature of their svelte waists, ants aren’t what most folks would call pretty, but they are — How else to say it? — just plain “cool”!

First, who are they and where do they come from? Ants constitute a single family, Formicidae, within the insect order Hymenoptera, so their relatives are wasps, bees, sawflies, horntails, gall wasps, and a vast array of small parasitic wasps that are mostly unappreciated except by specialists who study them. Within Hymenoptera, the ants are considered to belong to the superfamily Vespoidea, along with hornets, paper wasps, potter wasps and other solitary relatives.  The evidence at present indicates the first animals we would call ant had diverged from their common ancestry with these other stinging wasps some time in the Cretaceous, 130 million years ago, more or less.  Ants are classified in a varying number of subfamilies, currently at about 20. Fossils in amber up to 100 million years old represent early members of several modern subfamilies, and a few extinct groups. Most of us in the Northern Hemisphere Temperate Zone are familiar only with the big two subfamilies, Formicinae (carpenter ants, weaver ants, honey ants, etc.) and Myrmicinae (fire ants, harvester ants, leaf-cutter ants, etc.). In much of North America, folks may also be familiar with an abundant member of another subfamily, Dolichoderinae, namely odorous house ants, which frequent our gardens, kitchen counters, wall spaces, and even electrical outlets, especially in spring.

Ants are a conspicuous and often dominant presence in the World of the Little (or, what Piotr Nascrecki, in one of my favorite books, calls the “Smaller Majority” ). It is difficult for any observant person to sit still, outdoors in good weather, and not begin to see ants doing what ants do. They scurry about singly, in pairs or threesomes or foursomes, or in long lines, or columns. Our notice may be further piqued by their habit of transporting sundry bits of biomass or mineromass (pebbles, etc.).  Often this is just taking out the inedible food waste, or sawdust or soil excavated while expanding or remodeling their nests.  Less visibly, because more diffusely in space, ants carry a variety of items from foraging to their nests to provide nutrition for their colonies, or to add mass or create functional structure to their nests (to create better drainage, to provide incubation space for developing brood, and in some desert ants, to capture dew). In one of the most spectacular examples of ants transporting things, the so-called “slave-making” ants carry home the mature brood of a related species, these young ants later maturing in the brood-robbers’ nest to become its work force!

Shiny red workers of Polyergus lucidus return with pupae pillaged from a nest of Formica incerta several meters away. Two brown and differently proportioned workers of the latter that matured from raids earlier in the life of this Polyergus colony may be seen at the right of the photo.

Perhaps, not so widely known is that most of what most ants carry home is not some large, heavy particle in their mandibles, but rather is liquid carried in an expansible section of their esophagus called the crop. Because of the fine diameter of their gullets, adult ants cannot eat anything other than the most minute solid particles (e.g., pollen grains, loose cells from their prey).  Solid items may be cut up to feed to the legless, pale larvae, or the larvae may even be placed directly upon the killed prey to bite into it and feed on their own, using their flexible “necks”.  Adult ants get pre-digested food in return, in the form of glandular secretions loosely termed saliva, but which may be either a glandular secretion from the larva itself or simplify pre-liquefied flesh of prey lapped up from the larva’s messy eating.  In some lineages, known as Dracula ants, adults actually “bleed” the larvae through rapidly healing wounds made at particular locations on the larval exoskeleton.

Okay, I need to get back to my regular work, so let’s bring this home (to winter in the United States). Many of us are now in the dead of winter, or so it would seem. But, on sunny days, sap is beginning to flow upward in maple and other trees, and one ant species may actually be seen, creeping slowly through the woods, in search of dead arthropods and earthworms, or perhaps some sweet sap oozing from a sapsucker wound in a tree. This is Prenolepis imparis, sometimes called “winter honeypot ant”. This is a partial misnomer. While foragers may indeed fill their crops to over-full with sweet sap or honeydew, the very bloated “honeypots” in the deep nests of this ant are in fact, fat pots, having converted their food to whitish body fat. This is later converted to a glandular secretion that serves as food for developing larvae.  These ants are likely to be seen anywhere near where oaks of just about any species grow, and the where the soil is moist but well-drained. Look for these shiny little dark brown ants during your walks in the woods, on the sunny days that are sure to increase in number and warmth in the coming months.

Copyright © James C. Trager 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

BitB’s Newest Contributor

Those of you who have followed this blog for any length of time have likely noticed fairly regular participation in the comments sections by one James C. Trager.  Occasionally irreverent and always articulate, his informed quips are among those that I have enjoyed the most.  One can surmise from James’ comments that he knows a thing or two about entomology himself, but to say this would be an understatement!  Like me, James is a passionate entomologist whose scientific interests take him deep into many related fields of natural history study.  Unlike me, James is a formally trained insect taxonomist, specializing in ants (family Formicidae).  He has conducted numerous biogeographical and systematic studies on this group, much of it in the southeastern U.S. (list of publications), and is the current project leader for the Missouri Ants and Illinois Ants pages at AntWeb.org (whose ambitious goal is to provide information and high quality color images for each of the ~10,000 known ant species).  James’ deep knowledge of this single taxon, however, does not limit his interest in other insects — singing insects in particular are among his favorites. It is, thus, with great pleasure that I introduce James as the newest BitB contributor.

In fact, James and I have known each other for many years, as we are both based in the St. Louis area.  James is a restoration ecologist at Shaw Nature Reserve, a 2,500-acre ecological preserve located in the Ozark foothills (and just 15 miles from my house).  Originally established by the Missouri Botanical Garden for managed plant collections, its recent focus has shifted to environmental education and ecological research, and James has played a key role in their many ongoing wetland, woodland, prairie and glade (xeric limestone prairie) restoration efforts.  This experience combines with his entomological expertise and extensive travel within the U.S. and abroad (e.g., Ecuador) to give him a breadth of knowledge and perspective achieved by few, and I think you will find his writings most enjoyable.  Look for his first post to appear in the next day or so.

Ted & James in restored woodland at Shaw Nature Reserve. Photo by Madison MacRae.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Triple Quiz

Photo Details: Canon EOS 50D w/ Canon 100mm macro lens, ISO 100, 1/250 sec, f/20, MT-24EX flash w/ Sto-Fen diffusers.

  1. Entomology Quiz: Name the beetle.
  2. Botany Quiz: Name the plant.
  3. History Quiz: Name the location (yes, attentive readers will be able to deduce this).

While you ponder these questions, please make note of two upcoming blog carnivals:

  • Circus of the Spineless – I’ve waited almost a year to host issue #47 of this venerable blog carnival – look for its appearance early next week.  Send me your submissions by January 31 if you want to be included in this issue – ossified homeotherms need not apply.
  • An Inordinate Fondness – The inaugural issue of this monthly blog carnival devoted to beetles is set to debut in mid-February at the home site.  Post submissions are already starting to come in, so don’t miss this chance to be a founding participant.  Submissions are due by February 15 – either by email or using this handy BlogCarnival submission form.

I’ve discovered a few more interesting blogs since my last blogroll update – the following are definitely worth a visit:

  • Biodiversity in Focus Blog – A new blog by graduate student Morgan Jackson.  Amazing photographs of stilt-legged flies (Diptera: Micropezidae).
  • BunyipCo – David Rentz writes about entomology from Queensland, Australia, with a focus on orthopteroid insects and the rain forest.
  • I Love Insects – Entomology student and insect enthusiast Erika Lenz really loves insects.
  • nbell.dk/BLOG – A relatively new blog by a dragonfly/butterfly enthusiast in Denmark.
  • Forest Fragments – Just a stone’s throw from my backyard, the staff at Washington University’s Tyson Research Center has begun a blog about their 2,000-acre experiment.
  • Exploring the Remnants – A brand new blog from Aaron Brees, who explores Iowa’s natural history.  Drop by and give him a jump start.

For those really interested in exploring entomology-related blogs, Anna Miller has provided nice descriptions of her Top 25 Entomology Blogs.  Yes, I made the list, as did most of the other usual suspects, but you might find one or two that you didn’t know about.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

A matter of diffusion

In my Best of 2009 post, I mentioned four skills that, to me, seemed to be crucial for becoming a successful insect macrophotographer: 1) composition, 2) understanding lighting, 3) knowing how to use a flash, and 4) knowledge of the subject.  Of these, I’m most comfortable with the last – three decades of insect study have given me the chance to observe a tremendous diversity of insects in a variety of situations and habitats.  Many species are located only through understanding of their haunts and habits, and the ability to capture them relies upon successful approach techniques.  Collecting insects has been excellent preparation for photographing them.  I’m also reasonably satisfied with my compositional skills – at least in this early stage of my development as a photographer.  I don’t expect to win any photo competitions (yet), especially since my intent as a photographer is at least as much for scientific documentation as it is for artistic expression, but I’m satisfied that I’m on the right track and developing the eye I’ll need to make good progress.

What I’m not satisfied with yet are the middle two – understanding lighting and knowing how to use a flash.  Let’s face it, I was starting from square one here.  My only prior experience with insect photography were middlin’ attempts in the mid-1980’s using an Olympus OM-10 body, a Zuiko 50mm lens (maximum magnification 1:2), and natural light only.  I quickly lost interest (too distracting for the collecting), picking it back up only for my 1999 trip to South Africa.  Fast forward to May 2009 and my acquisition of a bona fide insect macrophotography setup, complete with Canon’s 100mm f/2.4 and 65mm 1-5X macro lenses and their MT-24EX macro twin flash.  Talk about giving a Ferrari to someone who had just received their learner’s permit!  I like a good challenge, however, and spent the rest of 2009 with camera in hand on several memorable field trips – shooting lots of frames, deleting many on the spot and more when I saw them on the computer, and occasionally stumbling onto a pretty good one.

While I still have much to learn, one thing I did realize is that lighting remains a challenge even with a decent setup such as mine.  The MT-24Ex flash unit, in particular, while seemingly the flash of choice among Canon-using amateur insect macrophotographers, produces a very harsh light.  The capabilities and shortcomings of this flash unit have been reviewed in great detail by several insect macrophotographers much more knowledgeable than I (e.g., Alex Wild, Dalantech, Kurt, etc.), so I simply refer you to their websites if you’re interested rather than try to summarize here.  However, the one thing they all emphasize with this flash unit is the need for diffusers.  Diffusing light is easy; a simple sheet of tracing paper will do.  However, diffusing light in a manner that is equally effective with both the 65mm and 100mm lenses (with their shorter and longer working distances, respectively) and also convenient for field-use is hard.  For most of the 2009 season, I tried using Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce Diffusers, and while they were marginally better than no diffusers at all, the results were still not satisfying.  More recently, I’ve been experimenting with the Gary Fong Puffers, which Dalantech has modified for use with the MT-24EX.  I hadn’t yet committed to constructing the diffusers as described and conducting controlled comparisons between the Puffers and Sto-Fens, but my initial tinkering with the Puffers has me impressed.  Below are two photos of Cicindela splendida (the aptly-named Splendid Tiger Beetle) – the first (which some of you may remember from this post) was taken in the field using the Sto-Fen diffusers and the 65mm lens (1X)…

…while the second was taken recently of this same beetle (in captivity on native soil) using the Puffers attached to the Sto-Fens and the 100mm lens (at slightly less than 1X).

Both photos have been cleaned up a bit with post-processing; however, neither has been altered dramatically.  While not a true one-to-one comparison due to different venues (field versus captivity) and lenses (65mm versus 100mm), the second photo is clearly superior to the first, with softer lighting resulting in richer colors and far fewer specular highlights on the insect body.   I had to bump the lighting up considerably for the second photo, since the Puffer combined with the Sto-Fens cut the light levels quite a bit, yet still the photo lacks any of the harshness and washed appearance of the first photo.  The use of the 100mm lens in the second photo also should have presented a greater challenge for the lighting due to the increased working distance (~8 inches, compared to only 2-3 inches for the 65mm lens).  I’m really quite pleased with the results of this initial experiment – enough to the point that I’ve ordered the necessary materials and am ready to dive into construction of my own set of “Dalantech-Puffers.”

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Me and my buds!

Those of you who have followed this blog for any length of time have seen repeated references to my friends and colleagues, Chris Brown and Rich Thoma. Rich and I have been collecting insects together for almost 25 years now (since shortly after we bothed first moved to the St. Louis area), and Chris has joined us in the fun for the past ten years as well. It is rare when all three of us can get out in the field together – meshing hectic professional and family lives with the sometimes coincident, sometimes divergent insect collecting goals of three fathers can be challenging. Nevertheless, at least once or twice a year we manage to converge on a date and enjoy each other’s company out in the field. I don’t think I’m ever happier than when I’m in the field (well, except when one of my daughter’s nestles into my lap to watch a movie!), and the chance to share that experience with close friends of like interest is especially gratifying.

Chris is quite an accomplished insect photographer himself, having been at it for much longer than I’ve known him and providing me great coaching as I’ve begun testing the waters myself. Recently, he sent me some photos from our 2009 field trips to the lowlands of southeastern Missouri and the Loess Hills of northwestern Missouri. Those were two exciting trips, revealing new localities for Cicindela scutellaris, the discovery of Cylindera celeripes in Missouri, the rediscovery of Ellipsoptera macra, and even a new state record robber fly.  The sharing kind of guy he is, he’s granted me permission to post them here (plus one taken by Rich Thoma).

Rich (left) and Ted scan 2-track through sandy ground in the southeastern lowlands looking for tiger beetles.

Ted and Chris take a break from looking for tiger beetles in a sand prairie relict. Photo by Rich Thoma.

Ted attempts to extract an adult tiger beetle from its daytime burrow in a sand prairie relict.

Ted scans the open sand in a sand prairie relict for adult tiger beetles.

Ted fishes for a tiger beetle larva in a sand prairie relict.

Ted photographing the robber fly, Ospriocerus abdominalis, at Star School Hill Prairie in the Loess Hills of northwest Missouri.

Distant view of Ted (small spot in center) photographing Ospriocerus abdominalis at Star School Hill Prairie.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Habitat Partitionining in Tiger Beetles

Cicindela willistoni estancia

Cicindela willistoni estancia. Photo by David Melius.

ResearchBlogging.orgThe latest issue of CICINDELA (December 2009, vol. 41, no. 4) contains an interesting paper by David A. Melius titled, “Post-monsoonal Cicindela of the Laguna del Perro region of New Mexico.” This paper continues a theme that I have touched on a few times in recent posts regarding the partioning of resources by multiple species of tiger beetles utilzing the same habitat. The author reports on the results of two visits to the Laguna del Perro salt lake region of New Mexico (Torrance County) in July 2009, during which time he recorded a total of eight tiger beetle species in the area. As in many other parts of the arid west, tiger beetles in this region are highly dependent upon summer monsoonal rains to trigger adult emergence (Pearson et al. 2006), resulting in multiple species occupying a given habitat during the relatively short post-monsoonal period. However, according to the competitive exclusion principle (Hardin 1960), two species cannot stably coexist in the same habitat and compete for the same resources—one of the two competitors will always overcome the other unless resources are partitioned to avoid competition.

Cicindela willistoni estancia

Cicindela willistoni estancia. Photo by David Melius.

Tiger beetles that occupy the the same habitats employ a variety of mechanisms for avoiding direct competition. One of these is partitioning the environment into different “microhabitats.” One of the earliest reports of this was by noted American ecologist Victor Shelford, who reported that adult tiger beetles on the southern shores of Lake Michigan occupied different habitats from water’s edge to oak forest floor (Shelford 1907). Similarly, Choate (2003) found three sympatric species of tiger beetles in a coastal mudflat region in South Carolina, each of which utilized a different portion of the salt marsh. I myself have noted multiple species occupying the same habitat in Oklahoma’s Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, on a coastal salt marsh in Florida, and in the White River Hills of southwestern Missouri.

In the present study, the author noted distinct preferences among the eight species for different microhabitats within and adjacent to the salt flats, including 1) thick, wet mud immediately adjacent to the water, 2) damp, soft sand 10-20 m from the water and devoid of vegetation, and 3) dry to damp sand further away from the water with salt-tolerant plants. Nearby roadside habitats were also noted as an additional microhabitat. The species found and their preferred niches were:

  • Cicindela fulgida rumppii, exclusively in vegetated dry sand areas around the salt flats.
  • Cicindela (Cicindelidia) nigrocoerulea, mostly 10-20m from the water’s edge, a few also in roadside habitat.
  • Cicindela (Cicindelidia) punctulata chihuahuae, exclusively in roadside habitats.
  • Cicindela (Cicindelidia) willistoni estancia, mostly along the water’s edge.
  • Cylindera terricola cinctipennis, exclusively in dry grassy areas away from the water.
  • Ellipsoptera nevadica, exclusively along the water’s edge.
  • Eunota togata fascinans, unvegetated areas near and 10-20m from the water’s edge.
  • Habroscelimorpha circumpicta johnsoni, limited to roadside habitats and vegetated dry sand areas around the salt flats.

These microhabitat partitions can be visualized below. Note that although eight total species were collected, only 2-4 occur within each particular microhabitat and that all eight species were limited to just 1 or 2 microhabitats, resulting in unique species-guilds for each.

Some differences were also noted in species present during the different trips, suggesting that species occurring within the same microhabitat are also utilizing differences in temporal occurrence to further minimize competition. Differences in size among the different species were noted as well – for example, of the four species occurring in the vegetated, dry-damp sand microhabitat, Cylindera terricola is notably smaller and Habroscelimorpha circumpicta notably larger than the others. Since mandible length of adult tiger beetles is highly correlated with preferred prey size (Pearson et al. 2006), this likely results in utilization of different prey, further partioning resources within the different microhabitats.

I thank David A. Melius (Albequerque, New Mexico) for allowing me to include his stunning photographs of Cicindela willistoni estancia in this post.

REFERENCES:

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

Hardin, G. 1960. The competitive exclusion Principle. Science 131:1292-1297.

Melius, D. A. 2009. Post-monsoonal Cicindela of the Laguna del Perro region of New Mexico. CICINDELA 41(4):81-89.

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.

Shelford, V. E. 1907. Preliminary note on the distribution of tiger beetles (Cicindela) and its relation to plant succession. Biological Bulletin of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole 14:9-14.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

BitB Best of 2009

In my first post of 2009, I looked back at the photographs I had posted during 2008 and picked some of my personal favorites. I hesitated then to call myself a photographer (and still do), but I at least now have suitable equipment to aid in my progress toward that eventual goal. I have learned much over the past six months in my first attempt at serious insect macrophotography (prioritizing in situ field photographs of unmanipulated subjects as a matter of personal choice).  Through this, I’ve come to realize the following skills to be the most important for success:  

  1. Composition
  2. Understanding lighting
  3. Knowing how to use a flash
  4. Knowledge of the subject

I’ll give myself a “A” in the last of these, but in the other areas I still have much to learn. With this caveat, and for the last post of 2009, I offer the following twelve photographs as my final choices for the 2nd Annual “Best of BitB”:  

Best beetle

Cylindera celeripes (swift tiger beetle), Woodward Co., Oklahoma

From Revisiting the Swift Tiger Beetle – Part 1 (June 30).  A decent enough photograph, especially considering that I’d had my camera for about a month when I took it.  However, the discovery of robust populations of this formerly rare and enigmatic species throughout northwestern Oklahoma (and later also in northwestern Missouri) was the most significant find of the 2009 field season, and this photograph is the best capture of that moment.

Best fly

Stylogaster neglecta, a species of thickheaded fly

From Overlooked, needle-bellied, thick-headed fly (Aug 14).  One of my first good “black background” shots.  The white tip of the abdomen compliments the white flower stamens against the background.

Best “true” bug

Beameria venosa, a prairie obligate cicada

From North America’s smallest cicada (Aug 4).  So many different shades of green with white frosting on the bug’s body.  I tried taking this shot in portrait and it just didn’t work—I liked this landscape shot much better.

Best predator

Promachus hinei (Hines giant robber fly) & Ceratina sp. (small carpenter bee) prey

From Prey bee mine (Sept 14).  Robber flies are immensely photogenic, especially those in the genus Promachus due to their prominent “beards.”

Best camoflauge

Dicerca obscura on bark of dead persimmon

From The “obscure” Dicerca (June 19).  Sparkling and gaudy as specimens in a cabinet, the coloration of many jewel beetles actually helps them blend almost perfectly with the bark of their preferred tree hosts.

Best immature insect

Tetracha floridana (Florida metallic tiger beetle) 3rd-instar larva

From Anatomy of a Tiger Beetle Larva (Oct 22).  “Otherwordly” is invariably the first word that comes to mind when someone sees a tiger beetle larva for the first time.  I was lucky enough to get this one in profile with a nice view of its abdominal hump and its curious hooks.

Best arachnid

Centruroides vittatus (striped bark scorpion)

From A face only a mother could love (Oct 6).  Despite some minor depth-of-field problems with this photograph, I’m fascinated by its “smile.”

Best reptile

Eastern collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris collaris) adult male

From North America’s most beautiful lizard (July 10).  A simply spectacular lizard—all I had to do was frame it well and get the flash right.

Best wildflower

Spiranthes magnicamporum (Great Plains ladies

From Great Plains Ladies’-tresses (Dec 7).  Few flowers are as photogenic as orchids, even native terrestrials with minute flowers such as this one.  I like the frosty texture of the lip and the starkness of the white flower on the black background.

Best natural history moment

Thermoregulatory behavior by Ellipsoptera hirtilabris (moustached tiger beetle)

From Tiger Beetles Agree—It’s Hot in Florida! (Dec 18). I chose this photo for the classic “stilting” and “sun-facing” thermoregulatory behaviors exhibited by this tiger beetle on a blistering hot day in Florida.

Best closeup

Megaphasma denticrus (giant walkingstick)

From North America’s longest insect (Aug 21).  I haven’t tried a whole lot of super close-up photographs yet.  I liked the combination of blue and brown colors on the black background.

Best Landscape

Sand Harbor Overlook, Lake Tahoe, Nevada

From Sand Harbor Overlook, Nevada (March 23).   My choice for “best landscape” again comes from Lake Tahoe.  This is not a great photo technically—I was still using a point-and-shoot and had to deal with foreground sun.  However, none of the other photos I took during my March visit to the area captivate me like this one.  I like the mix of colors with the silhouetted appearance of the trees on the point.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Tiger Beetles at Florida’s “Road to Nowhere”

(continued from the previous post, Tiger Beetles Agree—It’s Hot in Florida!)

During the time that I explored the pine sandhill habitat at Withlacoochee State Forest in Citrus County, I kept close watch for any individuals amongst the dozens and dozens of Cicindela abdominalis (Eastern Pinebarrens Tiger Beetle) that I encountered that might exhibit the deeply pitted rather than smooth elytral surface that would identify it as the closely related Florida-endemic, Cicindela scabrosa (Scabrous Tiger Beetle).  However, no such individuals would be seen (my first tiger beetle failure of the trip), and having already spent more than two hours at the site I decided it was time to move on the the “Road to Nowhere.”

"Road to Nowhere," 11.1 mi S Jena on Hwy 361, Dixie Co., Florida

The Road to Nowhere is a tidal marsh (also known as “coastal salt marsh”) near Steinhatchee in Dixie County (11.1 mi S Jena on Hwy 361).  Although I was not aware of it prior to my August visit, this locality has achieved legendary status among tiger beetle enthusiasts because of the great number of species that can be seen there—as many as 6–10 species in the right season.  Being a coastal wetland with moist, saline substrates, these would include such species as Cicindela trifasciata ascendens (Ascendent Tiger Beetle), Habroscelimorpha severa (Saltmarsh Tiger Beetle), the rarely collected H. striga (Elusive Tiger Beetle), and Eunota togata togata (White-cloaked Tiger Beetle), in addition to Ellipsoptera marginata (Margined Tiger Beetle) and E. hamata lacerata (Gulf Beach Tiger Beetle) which I had already found a few days earlier.  As I found the highway leading to the spot and begain to drive its upper reaches, I looked longingly at the barren sand exposures along the sides of the road thinking that C. scabrosa, already known from the area (Choate 2003) must be there.  However, it was well into the afternoon hours by then, and having already failed to find the species at Withlacoochee State Forest, I decided I should press on and see what the Road to Nowhere had to offer.

Cicindela (Cicindelidia) trifasciata ascendens—Ascendent Tiger Beetle

Almost immediately I began seeing tiger beetles.  The first species I saw was C. trifasciata ascendens—rather common on areas of the flats close to the water’s edge.  I recognized them instantly, as I had not only seen this species some years ago in south Texas, but also in southern Missouri as a lone vagrant (Brown and MacRae 2005).  The dark brown dorsal coloration and thin, sinuous, S-shaped middle maculation are diagnostic for the species (Pearson et al. 2006).  While it was by now late afternoon, the heat of the day had not yet begun to subside, and the beetles were extremely active and flighty.  The difficulty in approaching them closely enough for photographs was exacerbated by the wet, muddy substrate and incessant drone of tenacious mosquitoes intent on breaching my invisible shield of DEET.  Eventually, however, and only due to one decidedly more cooperative individual (above), I succeeded in getting a few shots with which I was happy. 

Habroscelimorpha severa—Saltmarsh Tiger Beetle

Far less common than C. trifasciata ascendens, but equally skittish, was the impressive H. severa.  I have also seen this species before in south Texas, though not in great numbers, and its shiny green surface with maculations reduced to small spots at the middle and rear of the elytra are unmistakealbe.  It was the hardest to approach of the species I saw, and the above (only slightly cropped) photograph is as close as I was able to get (it is also the only photograph from the field session that was good enough and close enough to keep).  This species tends to be most active in the morning and again in the evening, so most of my late-day efforts focused on this species—in fact, it was almost too dark to see by the time I finally quit my attempts at photographing the species.  I brought back one live individual and took some “studio” photographs after I returned home, but I’m still not any happier with them than this lone field shot.

Ellipsoptera hamata lacerata—Gulf Beach Tiger Beetle (reduced maculations)

When I first saw the species represented by the individual in the above photograph, I had not a clue as to its identity—the dark elytra with only a marginal band was unlike anything I would have expected to see.  Quickly thumbing through my “bible” (Pearson et al. 2006), I kept stopping at the plate containing Cicindela marginipennis (Cobblestone Tiger Beetle).  I knew this was impossible, as that species is restricted to several disjunct cobblestone habitats further north.  I collected the specimen for a voucher, keeping it alive for studio photographs, but it wasn’t long before I saw another similar-looking individual.  I decided I must be overlooking something, so after getting photographs and collecting the specimen for another voucher I went back through Pearson.  This time I focused only on the species that could possibly occur here, and realized that it was simply E. hamata lacerata with its normally diffuse middle elytral maculations highly reduced (traces of the middle band can be seen in the photograph).

Ellipsoptera marginata—Margined Tiger Beetle

Ellipsoptera marginata was the most abundant species at this location, and on this day I succeeded in getting a nice photograph of a female with her distinctively downbent elytral apices (see closeup photograph in this post).  This species is very similar to E. hamata, with which it co-occurs along the Gulf Coast of peninsular Florida, but can be immediately recognized by the bent elytral apices (female) or distinct tooth on the underside of the right mandible (male).  Both of these species are distinguished from all other species in the genus by the diffuse middle maculation of the elytra. 

At least two additional species occur at this site, one of which (E. togata) I saw but a single individual of and was unable to photograph, and the other (H. striga) which I did not see.  In fact, the Road to Nowhere is apparently “the” spot for finding the latter species, which occurs predominantly at night and is seen primarily by its attraction to ultraviolet lights.  While I would have liked to stay after dark and setup lights to see this species, I had neither the time nor the equipment to do this.  It may, after all, have been too late in the season anyway—since my visit I’ve heard stories from other tiger beetle aficionados who say the whole area can be filled with collectors from all over the country with their blacklights and bucket traps and someone yelling “striga!” every hour or so.  No such scene developed during my visit, so I suspect my visit was on the late side of the season and that the 5 species I did see represents a pretty good day regardless.  The long drive back to St. Petersburg marked the end of my tiger beetle exploits in Florida, at least for this year.

For another tiger beetling experience at Road to Nowhere, read this post by Doug Taron, who visited the site even later in the season (October).  Although he didn’t see as many tiger beetles, he does provide some interesting details regarding the shady origins of this place.

Photo Details: Canon EOS 50D, ISO 100, 1/250 sec.
Habitat: Canon 17-85mm zoom lens (landscape, 66mm), f/9, natural light.
Insects (except E. marginata): Canon 100mm macro lens (manual), f/22–25, MT-24EX flash w/ Sto-Fen diffusers.
E. marginata: Canon MP-E 65mm 1–5X macro lens (manual), f/16, MT-24EX flash w/ Sto-Fen diffusers.

REFERENCES:

Brown, C. R. and T. C. MacRae. 2005.  Occurrence of Cicindela (Cicindelidia) trifasciata ascendens (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) in Missouri. Cicindela 37(1–2):17–19.

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

Pearson, D. L., C. B. Knisley and C. J. Kazilek. 2006. A Field Guide to the Tiger Beetles of the United States and Canada. Oxford University Press, New York, 227 pp.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2009

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend