Oversized, double-concave diffuser for MT-24EX twin flash

Megaloxantha purpurascens peninsulae, photographed with oversized, double-concave diffuser

This jewel beetle is, of course, Megaloxantha purpurascens peninsulae from Palawan, Philippines. I say “of course” because I’ve posted images of this same beetle on several occasions while testing out different diffuser designs for my Canon MT-24EX twin flash unit. In the most recent one, I had tried combining SoftBoxes with my oversized concave diffuser and was pleased enough with the result that I thought I might try it in the field. Well, let’s just say the extensions for the flash heads and SoftBoxes attached to them was far too clumsy for field use, and I abandoned the idea after just a couple of hours. Back to the drawing board.

Despite the problems with using the SoftBoxes in the field, I still wasn’t ready to give up on the idea of double diffusion, and I had also learned that extending my oversized diffuser out over the subject (leaving it “open”) produced better lighting than curling it back (as I had been doing). Curling the diffuser back only served to turn it into a convex diffuser, which results in more specular highlighting because the center of the diffuser is closer to the subject than the edges. A concave diffuser provides more even lighting because all parts of the diffuser are roughly the same distance from the subject. Just about that time, I saw a DIY diffuser design by Piotr Nascrecki that, in principle, resembled Alex Wild‘s tent diffuser. It was, however, much larger—like mine, and thus amenable for use with a 100mm macro lens (the macro lens I use most commonly). This resemblance to Alex’s diffuser did make me notice one missing feature—double diffusion layers. That’s when I thought, why not do the same with an oversized diffuser rather than fussing with separate diffusers attached to the flash heads? I had some Bogen Imaging filter sheets on hand (#129 Heavy Frost), so I picked up some 1-mm steel wire at the hardware store, found a Bic pen in the drawer that I could cut in half, and built the diffuser as shown in Piotr’s post. I then secured a second filter sheet above the first sheet by taping the two together along their sides, being sure to ‘bow’ the upper sheet above the bottom sheet to achieve the double diffusion effect. Here is the result (please excuse the iPhone shots):

Canon 50D with MT-24EX twin flash and oversized, double-concave diffuser.

Better view of the double diffusion layers and Piotr’s “Bic pen” attachment system.

I have big hopes that this will finally be the diffuser I’ve been looking for. For as quick a test shot as the jewel beetle photo above was, the lighting is great and the colors are vibrant—both achieved with typical post-processing. My only complaint is the slightly greater “hot spot” intensity in the lower parts of the highlights in the eyes. This is due to the flash heads sitting near the base of the diffuser, and (as Piotr recommends) a second set of Kaiser shoes will allow me to move the flash heads not only more towards the center of the diffuser but also further above it to help spread out the light throw and even out the highlights. I’ll need to play around positioning the flashes to figure out the best positions depending on the size and distance of the subject—sitting up higher as they are puts them more on “top” than in “front” of the subject, so they will need to be directed downward more than I am used to doing. Even more important, however, is field usability, and I really think this diffuser will prove to be convenient and easy to use in the field—no more gawky arms attached to the camera, the diffuser attaching quickly and easily and, just as importantly, coming off easily and storing flat in the backpack, and large enough to do the job while not so oversized that it gets in the way. Piotr says this diffuser also works well with the 65mm macro lens, so I will certainly be testing that out as well.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Group mimicry in Cerambycidae… and more

During last year’s extended visit to Argentina, I had the chance to spend the early part of April in the northern province of Chaco. Though much of this hot, arid plain has been converted to agriculture, remnants of thorn forest remain along fence rows and in small patches of Chaco Forest. Despite the decidedly tropical latitude of the region, however, the profuse bloom of Chilean goldenrod, Solidago chilensis, along these fence rows during the Argentine autumn is reminiscent of crisp fall days here in the eastern U.S., and like the goldenrod here the ubiquitous stands of yellow blossoms stretching across the Chaco Plain are equally attractive to a multitude of insects. Among those insects are the Cerambycidae, or longhorned beetles, and while the eastern U.S. cerambycid fauna of goldenrod boasts only a few (albeit spectacular) species in the genus Megacyllene, the Argentine cerambycid fauna that I found on these flowers included at least three species in various genera belonging to two different tribes.

Rhopalophora collaris (Germar 1824) | Chaco Province, Argentina

Two of the species I saw are shown here, and their similarity of appearance is no coincidence, as both belong to the tribe Rhopalophorini (coming from the Greek words rhopalon = club and phero = to bear, in reference to the distinctly clavate, or club-shaped, legs exhibited by nearly all members of the tribe). In fact, a great many species in this tribe exhibit the same general facies—slender in form and black in coloration with the head and/or pronotum red to some degree. Since all of these species are diurnal (active during the day) and frequently found on flowers, one can assume that the members of this tribe represent an example of what Linsley (1959) called ‘group mimicry.’ In this simple form of Batesian mimicry (harmless mimic with protected model), a group of related species within a genus or even a tribe have a general but nonspecific resemblance to those of some other group of insects—in this case presumably small, flower-visiting wasps. Although the tribe is largely Neotropical, the nominate genus Rhopalophora does extend northward with one eastern U.S. representative, R. longipes. Among the numerous species occurring in South America, the individuals I saw in Argentina can be placed as R. collaris due to the relative lengths of their antennal segments and uniquely shaped pronotum (Napp 2009).

Cosmisoma brullei (Mulsant 1863) | Chaco Province, Argentina

The second species could easily be mistaken for another species of Rhopalophora were it not for the distinct tufts of hair surrounding the middle of the antennae. These tufts immediately identify the beetle as a member of the large, strictly Neotropical genus Cosmisoma (derived from the Greek words kosmos = ornament and soma = body, a direct reference to the tufts adorning the antennae of all members of this genus). Three species of the largely Brazilian genus are known from Argentina, with the black and red coloration of this individual easily identifying it as C. brullei (Bezark 2o13). In the years since this genus was described, additional related genera have been described that bear remarkably similar tufts of hair not on the antennae, but on the elongated hind legs. The great, 19th century naturalist Henry Walter Bates “tried in vain to discover the use of these curious brush-like decorations” (Bates 1863), and nearly a century later Linsley (1959) conceded that their function still remained unknown. Antennal tufts are actually quite common in Cerambycidae, especially in Australia, and while experimental evidence continues (to my knowledge) to be completely lacking, Belt (2004) records observing “Coremia hirtipes” (a synonym of C. plumipes) flourishing its leg tufts in the air (presumably in a manner similar to waving of antennae) and, thus, giving the impression of two black flies hovering above the branch on which the beetle was sitting. This seems also to suggest a function in defense, with the tufts perhaps serving as a distraction to potential predators in much the same way that many butterflies have bright spots near the tail to draw the predator’s attention away from the head.

REFERENCES:

Bates, H. W. 1863. The Naturalist on the River Amazons. Murray, London, 2 vols.

Belt, T. 2004. The Naturalist in Nicaragua. Project Guttenberg eBook.

Bezark, L. G. 2009. A Photographic Catalogue of the Cerambycidae of the World. Available at http://plant.cdfa.ca.gov/byciddb/

Linsley, E. G. 1959. Ecology of Cerambycidae. Annual Review of Entomology 4:99–138.

Napp, D. S. 2009. Revisão das espécies sul-americanas de Rhopalophora (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Zoologia (Curitiba) 26(2):343–356.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Battle of the Bug Blogs

Something tells me that one of our bug blogging professors has charged this semester’s crop of students to go out and figure out what makes a good bug blog. My, how classwork assignments have changed since I was in grad school! Sort of a modern-day twist on the old ‘critic a journal paper’ assignment.

At any rate, apterobittacus seems to think I write a pretty good post, but eremoblatta thinks Crystal does it a little bit better (despite the taxonomic affinity between the subject of my critiqued post and the blog author’s pseudonym)! Nice job, kids—interesting reads that actually made me stop and think a little bit about how I present things here.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Ceti Eel offspring?

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

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

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

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

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae

My favorite of Missouri’s milkweeds

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

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

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

Broad, clasping, tomentulose leaves with wavy margins.

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

A single inflorescence atops each stem.

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

Sand Prairie Conservation Area, Scott Co., Missouri

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Bollworms rising!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

The “little soybean weevil”

Lepidopteran caterpillars are without question the most important pests affecting soybean in South America, while stink bugs run a close second in terms of economic impact and as the targets of insecticide applications. There are, however, a number of weevil species (order Coleoptera, family Curculionidae) whose incidence has increased during the past decade or so as the area planted to soybean continues its decade’s long expansion on the continent. The most important of these is Sternechus subsignatus, a  relatively large (and rather attractive black-and-yellow) species that was first detected in southern Brazil in the 1970s. It has since spread to northern Brazil and in recent years has also begun affecting soybean in Salta and Tucumán Provinces of northern Argentina (sometimes considered a distinct species, S. pinguis). Known locally as “picudo grande” (big weevil), adults clip the petiole of leaves and girdle the stems, leading to stand loss. One adult is capable of killing multiple plants, so that even light infestations can result in severe damage.

Promecops carinicollis | Tucumán Province, Argentina

I’ve not yet seen “big weevils” for myself, but there are at least two other species that are showing up in soybean fields, particularly in Salta and Tucumán Provinces. During my recent visit to Argentina I happened upon a soybean field in northern Tucumán infested with one of them, Promecops carinicollis, a few photos of which I show here. This species is much smaller than S. subsignatus and is, thus, called “picudo chico” (little weevil)—certainly an appropriate name for the 3- to 4-mm long adults. While the integument is black, the body is densely covered with flat scales that form irregular white blotches on the elytra and otherwise give the beetle a mottled-brown appearance.

Damage consists of adult feeding around the leaflet margins, giving them a scalloped appearance.

Like S. subsignatus, it is the adults that cause damage to the plants, although instead of the stems and petioles their feeding seems to be confined to the margins of the leaflets. This gives the leaflets a “scalloped edge” appearance that is quite distinctive and unlike the leaf damage caused by other leaf-feeding insects of soybean. The feeding causes a general reduction of the leaf surface area of the plant, which reduces the plant’s capacity to photosynthesize. However, as soybean has a rather high capacity to compensate for foliage loss by growing new foliage, especially during the earlier vegetative stages of growth, it would take rather high pressure by these weevils to cause enough damage to result in yield loss. It may be one of those soybean pests for which insecticide applications are made much more often than is warranted. The most important impact of this insect probably occurs just after seedling emergence, during which time feeding on the cotyledons and first leaves can weaken seedlings enough to cause stand loss.

Beginning the process of making more Promecops carinicollis.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013

Baffling beetles

Even though I pride myself as a fairly competent coleopterist, I occasionally run into beetles that—despite my best efforts—I just cannot identify them beyond the family level. I don’t feel too bad about that, as the group’s 350,000 to 400,000 described species represent more than a third of all described life forms! Still, with the amount of information now available online combined with traditional print literature, it’s frustrating when I photograph species that seem quite distinctive but fail to show up in any search result. Here are a couple of South American beetles that I’ve pondered over for a year or more now. If you have any thoughts on their identity I would appreciate hearing from you.

Tenebrionidae? | Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

This first beetle was encountered January 2011 on the trunk of a tree in the city of Campinas, southeastern Brazil (São Paulo State). I only got this one shot of it before it dropped and disappeared, and except for the bright green color of the head and pronotum it reminds me of some of the long-jointed beetles—formerly the family Lagriidae but now a subfamily of Tenebrionidae (darkling beetles).

Elateridae | Rt 16 nr. Rio Negro, Chaco Province, Argentina

This is without question a species of click beetle (family Elateridae), but despite its rather distinctive coloration I’ve not found any images that resemble it. I found these beetles fairly commonly on flowers of Solidago chilensis in April 2012 at several localities along Rt 16 in northern Argentina (Chaco Province).

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2013