Buprestidae type specimens at Fundación Miguel Lillo, Argentina

During my most recent visit to Argentina this past February and March, I had the chance to go behind the scenes and visit the entomology collection at Fundación Miguel Lillo, Instituto de Entomología, Tucumán. It’s always a treat to visit any entomology collection—public or private—at any location. When the collection has holdings of Buprestidae, so much the better. Much to my delight, however, this collection not only had holdings of Buprestidae (not surprisingly representing primarily Argentine species), but also a small collection of type specimens designated by Antonio Cobos Sanchez (1922–1998). Cobos was one of the 20th century’s most prolific students of Buprestidae, with publications in the family spanning the period from 1949–1990 (coincidentally, 1990 being the year of my very first buprestid publication!). I was graciously allowed to photograph these specimens, some of which present interesting nomenclatural situations that are worthy of comment. These are presented below with my notes.

Jose xx & Ted MacRae

Looking at the insect collection at Fundación Miguel Lillo, Argentina.


Sufamily POLYCESTINAE

Tribe TYNDARINI

Tylauchenia golbachi Cobos, 1993 (currently placed in Oocypetes)

Tylauchenia golbachi Cobos, 1993. The species was moved to the genus Ocypetes.

Lapsus calami or mislabeled type specimen? Cobos (1973) described Tylauchenia golbachi from Argentina (now placed in the genus Ocypetes), stating the type locality as “6 kms. N. de Belén, 1.240 m. alt., Catamarca, Argentina (Willink, Terán y Stange coll., con trampa de Malaise, 1-15-I-1970…)”. The specimen above bears the holotype label, but the locality label clearly shows that it was collected in Tucumán rather than Catamarca and that the collector’s name is Guanuco rather than the above stated names. Interestingly, in the same publication Cobos gives the allotype female collection data as “San Pedro de Colalao, Tucumán, Argentina (Coll. Guanuco, 9-III-1949)”. At first I thought this might actually be the allotype rather than the holotype; however, 1) the specimen clearly bears a holotype label, and 2) it is also clearly a male based on the dissected genitalia preserved on the label below the specimen. There are two possible explanations, both of which make it difficult to determine what is the true type locality: 1) the holotype and allotype specimens are correctly labeled, but Cobos simply transposed their label data in his publication describing the species, making Tucumán the true type locality, or 2) the holotype and allotype locality labels were switched at some point and the true type locality is Catamarca, as stated in the publication in which the species is described. This latter possibility is more serious, as in addition to the doubts it generates regarding the type locality it also raises concern about the integrity of the holotype specimen. The latter explanation, however, seems less likely, as it is more difficult to imagine a scenario where only the locality label but not the others was switched than to imagine a transposition of label data in the publication. Sadly, at this point, there seems no easy way to determine which of the two explanations is correct.

Subfamily CHRYSOCHROINAE

Tribe DICERCINI

Lampetis tucumana monrosi Cobos (nomen nudum?)

Lampetis tucumana “monrosi” Cobos (ms name?)

A manuscript name? Cobos never actually proposed a subspecies “monrosi” for Lampetis tucumana (Guérin-Méneville & Percheron, 1835) (the name on the separate box label is misspelled). He did use the name for two other buprestid taxa: Tetragonoschema monrosi Cobos, 1949—now regarded as a synonym of T. argentiniense (Obenberger, 1915), and Anthaxia monrosi Cobos, 1972—now placed in the genus Agrilaxia. The holotype label on the specimen clearly states “Lampetis tucumana monrosi” in Cobos’ handwriting, so one can only presume that Cobos had identified this specimen as representing a distinct subspecies but never followed through and actually described it.

Ectinogonia (Pseudolampetis) fasciata metallica Cobos, 1969

Psiloptera (Pseudolampetis) fasciata metallica Cobos, 1969. Pseudolampetis was later considered a subgenus of Ectinogonia but is now regarded as a full genus.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave! Cobos (1969) originally described this taxon as a subspecies of Psiloptera (Pseudolampetisfasciata Kerremans, 1919. Moore (1986) moved Pseudolampetis to a subgenus of Ectinogonia, which resulted in two taxa in the latter genus bearing the name “metallica“—Ectinogonia (Pseudolampetisfasciata metallica (Cobos, 1969) and Ectinogonia metallica Fairmaire, 1856—the latter now considered a synonym of E. speciosa (Germain, 1856). In taxonomic nomenclature, two taxa in the same genus cannot bear the same name—a situation known as homonymy. In such cases, the older name has priority and the younger name, in this case Cobos’, must be replaced. This was done by Bellamy (2006), who proposed the new name moorei for this subspecies, resulting in the name Ectinogonia (Pseudolampetis) fasciata moorei Bellamy, 2006. To bring some level of absurdity to the situation, the subgenus Pseudolampetis was subsequently raised to full genus rank, being listed as such in the recent world catalogue (Bellamy 2008), and since Cobos’ name was not originally proposed within the genus Ectinogonia it no longer competes with Germain’s name in that genus. As a result, there is no homonymy and Cobos’ original name must once again stand as Pseudolampetis fasciata metallica (Cobos, 1969), while Bellamy’s replacement name must be regarded as unnecessary. This fact seems to have been overlooked when Pseudolampetis was raised to genus rank, as Cobos’ taxon is still listed in the world catalogue as “Pseudolampetis fasciata moorei (Bellamy, 2006)”! This situation is a perfect example of just how complicated these situations can be to identify, track, and update. The type locality for the unique female is given as “Chagual, 1.200 metros de altitud, Rio Marañón, en el Perú, VIII-1953 (B. Fernández leg.)”.

Subfamily BUPRESTINAE

Tribe STIGMODERINI

Conognatha rufiventris weyrauchi Cobos, 1969

Conognatha rufiventris weyrauchi Cobos, 1969. The taxon is now considered a synonym of Conognatha abdominalis Waterhouse, 1912.

Insufficient grounds. Cobos (1969) regarded this specimen from Peru as subspecifically distinct from Conognatha rufiventris Waterhouse, 1912 from Brazil based on a suite of subtle character differences and named the taxon Conognatha rufiventris weyrauchi in honor of Prof. W. Weyrauch, who made made the holotype specimen available to him for study. Moore & Lander (2010) considered that the taxon did not represent C. rufiventris, but rather was a uniquely colored specimen of Conognatha abdominalis Waterhouse, 1912. The holotype is a male with the type locality given as “del Valle de Chatichamayo, a 1.200 m., en Peru (J. Schuiike leg.)”.

Conognatha amphititres Cobos, 1958 (syn. of Buprestis amoena Kirby, 1818; currently placed in Conognatha)

Conognatha amoena amphititres Cobos, 1958. The taxon is now considered a synonym of C. amoena (Kirby, 1818).

Insufficient grounds—part II. Cobos (1958) regarded this specimen from Brazil as subspecifically distinct from C. amoena (Kirby, 1818—originally described in the genus Buprestis) based on subtle characters and gave it the name Conognatha amoena amphititres (no etymology was given for the subspecies name). Moore & Lander (2006) regarded these differences as insufficient for subspecies status and placed the taxon as a synonym of the parent species. The holotype is thought to be a female with the type locality given as “Rio de Janeiro (Brasil)”.

Tribe CHRYSOBOTHRINI

Colobogaster weyrauchi Cobos, 1966

Colobogaster weyrauchi Cobos, 1966

Cobos (1966) Colobogaster weyrauchi from Peru and named it after the collector, relating it to the widespread Colobogaster cyanitarsis Gory & Laporte, 1837. The type locality was given as “Pacullpá, 200 m. alt., Perú (W. Weyrauch coll. I-1948)”.

Subfamily AGRILINAE

Tribe CORAEBINI

Dismorpha grandis Cobos, 1990

Dismorpha grandis Cobos, 1990

Cobos (1990) described Dismorpha grandis from Argentina in his very last buprestid publication, stating that the species had the appearance of an enormous D. irrorata (Gory & Laporte, 1839) (thus, the name “grandis“). The holotype is a male with the type locality given as “Bemberg, Misiones, Argentina (Exp. Hayward-Willink-Golbach: 12-29-I-1945)”.

Tribe AGRILINI

Diadorina golbachi Cobos, 1974 (monotypic)

Diadorina golbachi Cobos, 1974 (monotypic)

Cobos (1974) described Diadorina golbachi from Argentina as the only member (and thus the type species) of the new genus Diadorina (the genus is still regarded as monotypic), naming it in honor of the collector. The holotype specimen is a female with the type locality given as “La Tigres, Santiago del Estero, Argentina (R. Golbaeh coll. 11-16-1-1970)”.

Tribe TRACHEINI

Pachyshelus huallaga Cobos 1969 (correct spelling is huallagus)

Pachyshelus huallaga Cobos, 1969

Cobos (1969) described and named this species after the river at the type locality in Peru. He related it to Pachyschelus atratus Kerremans, 1896 from Brazil and northern Argentina, stating that it differed by its distinct and less brilliant coloration and other features. Since the genus name is considered masculine, the correct species name is “Pachyschelus huallagus Cobos, 1969″. The unique holotype is a female with the type locality given as “Tingo María, Rio Huallaga, 700 metros de altitud, Peru, X-1946 (W. Weyrauch leg.)”.

Pachyschelus weyrauchi Cobos, 1959

Pachyschelus weyrauchi Cobos, 1969

Cobos (1969) described Pachyschelus weyrauchi from Ecuador and named it in honor of its collector. He related the unique male to Pachyschelus aeneicollis (Kirsch, 1873) from Peru and Bolivia, citing differences in coloration, body shape, and surface sculpture. The type locality was given as “El Puyo, 900 metros de altitud, Ecuador, 10-IV-1958 (W. Weyrauch leg.)”.

There are two additional type specimens in the collection, but they are in another drawer that we did not find immediately and, thus, I did not have a chance to photograph them. My apologies!

REFERENCES:

Bellamy, C. L. 2006. Nomenclatural notes and corrections in Buprestidae (Coleoptera). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 81(3/4):145–158 [pdf].

Bellamy, C. L. 2008. A World Catalogue and Bibliography of the Jewel Beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestoidea). Volume 2: Chrysochroinae: Sphenopterini through Buprestinae: Stigmoderini. Pensoft Series Faunistica No. 77, pp. 626–1260, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Moscow [details & links].

Cobos, A. 1966. Notas sobre Bupréstidos neotropicales. XV: Tres especies nuevas de Colobogaster Sol. (Coleoptera). EOS, Revista Española de Entomología 41(2-3):205–214 [pdf].

Cobos, A. 1969. Notas sobre Bupréstidos neotropicales XVII. Especies y subespecies nuevas (Coleoptera). EOS, Revista Española de Entomología 44(1968):19–43 [pdf].

Cobos, A. 1958. Tercera nota sobre Bupréstidos (Ins. Coleoptera) neotropicales descripciónes y rectificaciónes diversas. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 15:83–102 [pdf].

Cobos, A. 1973. Revisión del género Tylauchenia Burm., y afines (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Archivos del Instituto de Aclimatacion 18:147–173 [pdf].

Cobos, A. 1974. Notas sobre Bupréstidos neotropicales, XIX. El género Amorphosternus H. Deyrolle y afines. Archivos de Instituto de Aclimatación 19:65–81 [pdf].

Cobos, A. 1990. Revisión del género Dismorpha Gistel (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomología 34(3):539–559 [pdf].

Moore Rodriguez, T. 1986. Contribución al conocimiento de los Buprestidos neotropicales (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Revista Chilena de Entomología 13:21–29 [BioStor].

Moore Rodriguez, T. & T. Lander. 2010. Revision du genre Conognatha. Edition Magellanes 24:1–172 [introduction and generic discussion in French and Spanish; keys to species in English, French and Spanish] [order information].

© Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in Buprestidae, Coleoptera | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Flower ants? Check again!

Last spring while hiking the North Fork Section of the Ozark Trail in southern Missouri (Howell Co.), I made sure to check the abundant flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) blossoms that were in gorgeous peak bloom at the time (early May). I’ve learned to check flowers of dogwood whenever I can, as they are quite attractive to a variety of insects but especially those groups of longhorned beetles (family Cerambycidae) that tend to frequent flowers as adults. In the case of flowering dogwood, most of the cerambycids that I encounter belong to two genera: Molorchus and Euderces. Both of these genera are known for their great resemblance to small ants, no doubt representing examples of Batesian mimicry (where a harmless species adopts the appearance or warning signals of a harmful species to gain protection from predators).

Tilloclytus geminatus

Tilloclytus geminatus on Cornus florida | North Fork Section, Ozark Trail, Howell Co., Missouri

During this particular hike I was determined to photograph Molorchus bimaculatus, common in Missouri during early spring on a great variety of flowering trees. On this day, however, the tiny (<10 mm length) beetles were rather scarce, and I had been frustrated in my attempts to get good photographs of the few that I had found. I’ve seen enough of these beetles over the years that I can recognize them quickly for what they are without the need to closely examine every “ant” that I see. So when I saw an “ant” that was too big and convex in profile to be Molorchus I almost discounted it as a true ant. Something about it, however, gave me pause, and when I looked closer I saw that it was, indeed, a longhorned beetle. But, it was not Molorchus, nor was it Euderces. Instead, it was the species Tilloclytus geminatus—an exciting find!

Tilloclytus geminatus

Adults in profile greatly resemble ants of the same size.

Tilloclytus geminatus has been recorded only sporadically from across the eastern U.S., where it has been reared from a variety of deciduous hardwoods (Craighead 1923, Rice et al. 1985). Perry (1975) did report rearing this species from Pinus virginiana (along with several other species normally associated with hardwoods); however, that record likely represents an ‘‘overflow’’ host (Hespenheide 1969) that is not typical of the species’ normal host preferences. I myself had never seen the species until the years after I published my checklist of Missouri cerambycids (MacRae 1994), having succeeded in rearing adults from a variety of previously unrecorded hardwood hosts that I collected at several localities across southern Missouri (MacRae & Rice 2007). It remains, for me, an infrequently encountered species—perhaps part of this a result of being overlooked due to its effective ant mimicry.

Tilloclytus geminatus

The anterior, oblique markings give the illusion of a constricted “waist”, while the posterior, transverse markings resemble the “sheen” of a shiny abdomen.

Unlike Molorchus and Euderces, this species has not been frequently associated with flowers as adults. In fact, the only report I am aware of is that of Rice et al. (1985), who reported adults on flowers of hawthorn (Crataegus sp.). Perhaps this additional find on Cornus is indicative of a true adult attraction to flowers by T. geminatus, although a single adult provides only weak support. However, a related ant-mimicking longhorned beetle—Cyrtophorus verrucosus—has been collected on flowers of roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii) (MacRae 1994) as well as flowering dogwood (Scheifer 1998a). The floral attraction of ant-mimicking cerambycids may be more characteristic of species in the subfamily Cerambycinae, as only one flower record exists (Physocarpus opulifolius) for Psenocerus supernotatus (Wheeler & Hoebeke 1985) and none exist for Cyrtinus pygmaeus, both in the subfamily Lamiinae rather than Cerambycinae and the only other true ant-mimicking species in Missouri of which I am aware.

REFERENCES:

Craighead, F. C. 1923. North American cerambycid larvae. A classification and the biology of North American cerambycid larvae. Dominion of Canada, Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 27 (new series), 239 pp. [Internet Archive].

Hespenheide, H. A. 1969. Larval feeding site of species of Agrilus (Coleoptera) using
a common host. Oikos 20:558–561 [JSTOR].

MacRae, T. C. 1994. Annotated checklist of the longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae and Disteniidae) known to occur in Missouri. Insecta Mundi 7(4) (1993):223–252 [pdf].

MacRae, T. C. & M. E. Rice. 2007. Distributional and biological observations on North American Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). The Coleopterists Bulletin 61(2): 227–263 [pdf].

Perry, R. H. 1975. Notes on the long-horned beetles of Virginia, part III (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 29(1):59 [JSTOR].

Rice, M. E., R. H. Turnbow Jr. & F. T. Hovore. 1985. Biological and distributional observations on Cerambycidae from the southwestern United States (Coleoptera). The Coleopterists Bulletin 39(1):18–24 [pdf].

Schiefer, T. L. 1998a. A preliminary list of the Cerambycidae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera) of Mississippi. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 124(2):113–131 [JSTOR].

Wheeler, A. G., Jr. & E. R. Hoebeke. 1985. The insect fauna of ninebark, Physocarpus opulifolius (Rosaceae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 87(2):356–370 [BioStor].

© Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in Cerambycidae, Coleoptera | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Just how widespread is Prionus heroicus?

On our insect collecting trip to the western Great Plains last June, Jeff Huether and I encountered several species of beetles in the genus Prionus—longhorned beetles (family Cerambycidae) known commonly as “prionid root borers”. I’ve already recounted our experiences with two of them—P. integer in southeastern Colorado and P. fissicornis in northeastern New Mexico, both of which we encountered unexpectedly and by the “bucketload” using prionic acid baited traps in shortgrass prairie habitats. The third species we encountered was also rather unexpected, so much so that we were not even sure about its identity until we examined the collected specimens more closely. Unlike the two previously mentioned species, however, the behavior of this third species—P. heroicus, especially regarding its attraction to prionic acid, was quite different, and one of the localities where we found it raises some interesting questions regarding its recorded distribution.

Prionus heroicus male

Prionus heroicus male | Mills Canyon, Harding Co., New Mexico.

Prionus heroicus is among the largest species in the genus, and we first encountered it in northeastern New Mexico while searching for suitable habitat around the small town of Mills (Harding Co.) where several grassland-associated species in the genus had been found by other collectors. While we were searching we were intrigued by the USDA Forest Service road sign pointing to “Mills Canyon” and decided to head down the gravel road to see what it looked like. A few miles down the road the endless shortgrass prairie quickly changed to sandstone canyonland with oak/pine/juniper woodland. By now it was late afternoon, and the rich, pulsing buzz of cicadas filling the air as we drove slowly through the area suggested the potential for good insect activity. We stopped to take a closer look at things, and within minutes an enormous prionid beetle came flying up to the car—apparently attracted to the prionic acid lures inside!  We netted the beetle, and shortly afterwards another beetle flew into the vicinity… and another! We hurriedly set out some lure-baited traps, and over the next hour or so we collected close to a dozen beetles. Our first thought, based on their large size and the presence of 12 antennal segments, was that they might be P. californicus. This was a bit of a letdown, as our goal was to find little known and uncommonly encountered Great Plains species, not common and widespread western species like P. californicus. However, the blackish rather than reddish color and relatively broad pronotum eventually convinced us that we had actually found P. heroicus—not a rare species, but also not something we expected to see at this relatively northeastern location compared to its usual haunts in southeastern Arizona.

Prionus heroicus male

Males generally landed in the vicinity of the prionic acid lures but seemed unable to locate its precise whereabouts.

Interestingly, none of the beetles came directly to the lure-baited traps but, rather, flew to the vicinity and then either circled broadly in the air or landed some distance from the trap and ran rapidly on the ground as if searching. We missed a few that we tried to net in mid-air, which responded by immediate straight line flight far away into the distance. Those that we watched while on the ground searched for up to several minutes but seemed unable to locate the lure, eventually taking flight and flying away. This suggests that prionic acid is more important as a component of the female’s calling pheromones for long distance detection, but that other components might be necessary to allow the males to locate females in the immediate vicinity. We returned to the site the following day around noon and were surprised to see males flying to our lures immediately after our arrival, since we had observed P. integer and P. fissicornis activity to occur almost exclusively during the morning and evening hours. Linsley et al. (1961), however, also note that adults of this species fly during the day, as well as at night. Again, none of the beetles seemed capable of finding the precise location of the lure.

Prionus heroicus male

Males rapidly searched the ground after landing but seemed unable to locate the lures and eventually flew off.

The larval habits of P. heroicus are not known, but the closely related P. californicus feeds on roots of living oaks or occasionally in dead oak logs or stumps (Linsley 1962). Prionus heroicus may have similar habits, since adult females have been found in leaf litter at the bases of living oak trees and stumps (Hovore & Giesbert 1976, Skiles 1978). Presumably the Mills Canyon population is associated with Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), which was the only oak species noted at this location. An interesting defensive behavior was observed for an adult beetle that I kept alive and photographed later in the hotel room. I had put the beetle on a light-colored tray, and while I was getting the camera ready to take some shots the beetle began crawling away. I picked it up and put it back into position, and for a brief period it assumed the rather comical-looking “standing-on-its-butt” pose shown in the accompanying photograph. It maintained this pose for some seconds and then gradually lowered itself in the front before beginning to crawl again. If I poked it before it finished lowering itself it immediately pushed its front all the way back up again and held the pose briefly before beginning to lower itself again. I did not encounter this behavior in the field—beetles on the ground immediately tried to flee when I handled them and took flight if allowed to.

Prionus heroicus male

Defensive posturing as a result of being disturbed.

The story does not end here, however, as this would not be our last encounter with the species. While we were traveling back towards the east, we decided to visit the area around Black Mesa in the extreme northwestern corner of the Oklahoma panhandle. I had been to this site the previous summer, and although conditions were very dry at the time the presence of Gambel oak in the area—perhaps the easternmost outpost of this western species—had me thinking about the possibility of the area serving as an unknown eastern outpost for western species of jewel beetles (family Buprestidae). Conditions were once again dry, and no jewel beetles were found, but this quickly became a moot point as not long after our arrival a large prionid beetle came flying up to me—again in the same manner as P. heroicus at Mills Canyon and in the middle of the afternoon. We decided these, too, represented P. heroicus and remained in the area for the rest of the day, counting at least a dozen males attracted to the vicinity of the lures that we’d set out. As with the males we observed in New Mexico, none seemed able to find the precise location of the lure, and some circling only briefly and then flew off without even landing. Unlike New Mexico, however, we did succeed in trapping a few males in lure-bated traps that we set out overnight and checked the next morning.

Prionus heroicus male

This Prionus heroicus male  near Black Mesa, Oklahoma confirms the presence of this species in the state.

Our capture of P. heroicus at Mills Canyon in northeastern New Mexico and near Black Mesa in northwestern Oklahoma not only seems to suggest an association of this species with Gambel oak, but also confirms the previously questionable occurrence of the species in Oklahoma. Alexander (1958) reported the species (under one of its synonyms, P. tetricus) from Payne Co. in north-central Oklahoma. This record is dubious, since Payne Co. is well east of the 100th meridian and has a decidedly eastern flora, including its oaks. That record has not been mentioned by any subsequent authors addressing the overall distribution of P. heroicus (Linsley 1962, Chemsak 1996). The presence of P. heroicus in the Black Mesa area, with its decidedly western flora, does not necessarily give credence to the Payne Co. record, but it does bring up the question of just how broadly distributed P. heroicus really is. Most records of this species are from mountainous areas of southern Arizona and New Mexico, but more recently it has been recorded from Texas (Big Bend National Park) by Van Pelt (1999, 2007) and extreme northwestern Colorado (Moffat Co.) by Heffern (1998). The latter record is particularly interesting, as this represents a considerable range extension from any previously recorded locality and begs the question regarding its occurrence in other parts of Colorado.

REFERENCES:

Alexander, D. R. 1958. A preliminary survey of the cerambycids (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 38:43–52 [pdf].

Chemsak, J. A. 1996. Illustrated Revision of the Cerambycidae of North America. Volume I. Subfamilies Parandrinae, Spondylidinae, Aseminae, Prioninae. Wolfsgarden  Books, Burbank, California, x + 149 pp., plates I–X [description].

Heffern, D. J. 1998. Insects of Western North America 1A Survey of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) or Longhorn Beetles of Colorado. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, i + 32 pp., 1 color plate [summary].

Hovore, F. T. & E. F. Giesbert. 1976. Notes on the ecology and distribution of western Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). The Coleopterists Bulletin 30:350 [JSTOR].

Linsley, E. G. 1962. The Cerambycidae of North America. Part II. Taxonomy and classification of the Parandrinae, Prioninae, Spndylinae, and Aseminae. University of California Publications in Entomology 19:1–102, 1 plate [OCLC WorldCat].

Linsely, E. G., J. N. Knull & M. Statham. 1961. A List of Cerambycidae from the Chiricahua Mountain area, Cochise County, Arizona (Coleoptera). American Museum Novitates 2050:1–34 [pdf].

Skiles, D. D. 1976. Taxonomy and description of two prionine Cerambycidae from southern Arizona: a new species of Stenodontes and new status for Neomallodon arizonicus (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 80:407–423 [Biodiversity Heritage Library].

Van Pelt, A. F. (ed.). 1999. Inventory of insects of Big Bend National Park, Texas. Big Bend Natural History Association, Big Bend National Park, and Texas.

Van Pelt, A. F. (ed.). 2007. Inventory of insects of Big Bend National Park, Texas. Report to Big Bend National Park, 204 pp.

© Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in Cerambycidae, Coleoptera | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Mexican Siesta

Summertime is go time for most entomologists, especially those who conduct field work both as a profession and as a hobby. Far flung field sites and the need to travel between them eats up most of each week, while on weekends clipboard and spreadsheets are exchanged for beating sheet and hatchet before traveling to other sites with the promise of some cool species of beetles. Even the most peripatetic entomologist, however, needs a break, and in late July I packed up my swim trunks, rounded up the girls, and headed off for a week of rest and relaxation on the beaches of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.

Of course, you’re not a real entomologist if you don’t sneak off once or twice for a peak at the local flora and fauna with a vial that just happens to be in your pocket. Despite the rampant development in the area, reasonably extensive parcels of the original San Lucan xeric scrub habitat are accessible to those willing to hike a few miles up the beach. This unique, dry shrubland occurs only at the southern tip of the peninsula, extending from the coast up to about 250 meters in elevation. About ten percent of San Lucan scrub biota is endemic as a result of separation from more northern parts of the peninsula until the Miocene (23–5 mya). Xeric scrub is normally dry, brown, and dusty, but rains prior to my visit had created a verdant landscape with (relatively) lush foliage and an abundance of flowers. Insects were strangely scarce, however, save for a nice diversity of heavily sculptured darkling beetles (family Tenebrionidae), which I encountered along 2-tracks running through the habitat, and a few wood-boring beetles that were found on recently wind-thrown branches of palo verde (Cercidium floridum).

Chrysobothris octocola | Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico

Chrysobothris octocola on Cercidium floridum ssp. peninsulare | Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico

Adults were numerous on fresh wind-thrown branches of Cercidium floridum ssp. peninuslare

Adults ran rapidly on the fresh wind-thrown branches

Given the level of endemism in the area, I was hoping the beetles would prove to be examples of such, or at least species restricted to Baja California that I had not encountered before. Alas, both proved to be not only more widespread in Mexico but species occurring commonly in the southwestern U.S. as well. I suppose finding endemic species right off the bat after a quick jaunt up the beach while on a family vacation is a bit much to expect, although I suspect the palo verde trees on which I found the beetles represents the endemic subspecies Cercidium floridum ssp. peninsulare. And I got some nice photos.

Stenosphenus sobrius | Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico

Stenosphenus sobrius on Cercidium floridum ssp. peninsulare | Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico

This species was not as abundant on Cercidium branches as Chrysobothris octocola

Adults were found resting on the undersides of fresh wind-thrown branches

© Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Coleoptera | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

What’s black and white and red all over?

Last September, labmate and fellow insect collecting enthusiast Stephen Penn and I visited the dolomite glades of the White River Hills in extreme southwestern Missouri. Our main quarry was tiger beetles, specifically a disjunct population of the large and impressive Prairie Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia obsoleta vulturina) that lives only on the glades in this area and adjacent Arkansas. I was hoping to find additional localities for the beetles in the more western parts of the region where it’s precise distribution in Missouri is less well known. First, however, I wanted to make sure the beetle was out, so we started at the westernmost of its known locations—Chute Ridge Glade at Roaring River State Park. As we picked our way through dry-mesic woodland bordering the more open glades, a large, dead chinquapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii) with sloughing bark caught my eye. One never knows what might be encountered under bark, regardless of the season, and as I pulled away the very first slab of bark I was rewarded with the sight of what must be North America’s most beautiful assassin bug, Microtomus purcis.

Microtomus purcis

Microtomus purcis (Drury, 1782) | Barry Co., Missouri

Sometimes called the “bark assassin bug”, this species is not quite as large as the better known “wheel bug” (Arilus cristatus) but makes up this by its spectacular coloration—black with the base of the wings prominently marked creamy-white and parts of the abdomen and hind legs bright red. One would think such a conspicuously  marked assassin bug with a bite powerfully painful enough to back up its apparent warning coloration could brazenly venture out during the day with little to fear. To the contrary, this species seems best known for its habit of hiding under bark during the day and venturing out only at night, during which time it is sometimes attracted to lights (Slater & Baranowski 1978, Eaton & Kaufman 2007). A majority of BugGuide photos of the species also mention finding them under bark or apparently attracted to lights.¹

¹ I was especially amused by this particular photo for which the contributor states, “While holding it, the bug pierced my finger nail with its proboscis. The pain was searing and I have a small blood stain under the nail.” I’ll admit it—I, too, learned firsthand how painful the bite of an assassin bug can be when I picked one up, in my case Melanolestes picipes, with plans to include it in my Entomology 101 collection.

Sunset on the glade

Sunset on the glade | Pilot Knob Conservation Area, Stone Co., Missouri

I, in fact, have only seen this species once before—also in Missouri and again under bark, although that time was during the winter, thus causing me to think this was its overwintering habit. I placed the individual in a glass vial and brought it indoors to “revive” it, but to my disappointment when I checked on it a few days later it was dead. Froeschner (1944) reported this species (under its older name, Hammacerus purcis) was “not uncommon” in Missouri, though apparently confined to the Ozark Highlands south of the Missouri River. Adult records in Missouri extended from September to March, with small nymphs being found during November and December, but BugGuide records include summer months as well. If I want to see this species more than twice in 30 years, I supposed I am going to have to spend more time peeling bark, or checking lights.

REFERENCES:

Eaton, E. R. & K. Kaufman. 2007. Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, 391 pp. [Amazon preview].

Froeschner, R. C. 1944. Contribution to a synopsis of the Hemiptera of Missouri, Pt. III. Lygaeidae, Pyrrhocoridae, Piesmidae, Tingidae, Enicocephalidae, Phymatidae, Ploiariidae, Reduviidae, Nabidae. The American Midland Naturalist 31(3):638–683 [JSTOR preview].

Slater, J. A. & R. M. Baranowski. 1978. How to Know the True Bugs. The Pictured Key Nature Series, William C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, x + 256 pp. [Amazon description].

© Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in Hemiptera, Reduviidae | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

One million hits!

Million-hitsI knew it was coming, and yesterday it happened. I was really hoping to see hit number 1,000,000 appear on the small ‘Blog Stats’ item at the bottom of the right sidebar, but I just missed it due to a small traffic spike right around the time that it occurred. As near as I can tell, the one millionth hit came at 1:27 p.m. (Central Standard Time) from somebody in Tempe, Arizona. Whoever you were, whether a regular reader or just passing by, congratulations. However, the real thanks must be shared with all of you who helped log the previous 999,999 hits, for without you there would be no Beetles in the Bush. Here’s to two million!

p.s. To those who would poo poo this accomplishment, who think that internet traffic site stats are meaningless, that there is nothing out there but an army of bots and search engines generating irrelevant stats, please go rain on somebody else’s day.

© Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in [No taxon] | Tagged | 11 Comments

Best of BitB 2014

Welcome to the 7th Annual “Best of BitB”, where I pick my favorite photographs from the past year. Before I do this, however, let me briefly recap the year 2014. The trend of increasing travel each year continued, with more days spent on the road than in any prior year. Travel for work over the past few years has settled into a familiar routine—touring soybean fields in Argentina in late February and early March, working in my own field trials at (previously three, now four) sites in Illinois and Tennessee from late May through late September, touring more soybean fields at sites across the southeastern U.S. during mid-September, returning to Argentina in October to finalize plans for field trials in the upcoming season, and—finally—attending/presenting at the Entomological Society of America (ESA) Meetings (this year in Portland, Oregon). This heavy travel load makes scheduling my own insect collecting trips a bit tricky, but I’m a persistent sort! In late May I traveled to Tennessee and Georgia with fellow buprestophile Joshua Basham and lab mate Nadeer Youseff to collect several rare jewel beetles, then in late June I collected prionids and jewel beetles in Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma with Jeff Huether. In addition to these longer trips, I also managed to take advantage of my work travel to check out interesting natural habitats along the way to and from my field sites. I continue to give the occasional entomology seminar as well, speaking in March at “Day of Insects” in Ames, Iowa and here in St. Louis to the Entomology Natural History Group of the Webster Groves Nature Study Society in April and the Missouri Master Naturalists Confluence Chapter in December. On top of all this, I still managed to vacation with my family in Lake Tahoe during March and in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico during late July.

I say all this to highlight the fact that after all these years I still consider myself an entomologist with a camera rather than a bona fide insect photographer. The reason for this is that the science of entomology itself remains my primary focus—photography is simply one of the tools that I have come to use in my pursuit of the discipline. I don’t mean to imply that I don’t continue to work on my photography style and technique—because I do. But my style and technique are not goals in of themselves; rather, they are means to an end—that end being my entomological studies. With that said, I present my favorite BitB photographs from 2014. As in previous years, my photos are largely hand-held, in situ field shots that are intended to tell a natural history story in a (hopefully) aesthetic manner. Links to original posts are provided for each photo selection, and I welcome any comments you may have regarding which (if any) is your favorite and why—such feedback will be helpful for me as I continue to hone my craft. If you’re interested, here are my previous years’ picks for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Once again, thank you for your readership, and I hope to see you in 2015!


Paraselenis tersa? female guarding her eggs | Cordoba Prov., Argentina

Paraselenis tersa (Boheman, 1854) | Cordoba Prov., Argentina

From Tortoise beetles on the job (posted April 20). This photograph of a tortoise beetle female over her egg mass illustrates maternal guarding behavior—rare in insects. The perfect lateral profile shot and clean, blue sky background also give the photo a pleasing aesthetic quality.


Who likes mole crickets?

Scapteriscus borellii Giglio-Tos, 1894 | Emanuel Co., Georgia

From Who likes mole crickets? (posted June 6). This has to be the most comical expression ever on the face of an insect!


Chrysobothris orono Frost, 1920 | South Cumberland State Park, Tennessee

Chrysobothris orono Frost, 1920 | South Cumberland State Park, Grundy Co., Tennessee

From Chrysobothris orono in Tennessee (posted July 29). I found this rare jewel beetle for the first time this year with the help of Josh Basham and Nadeer Youseff. The beetle itself is beautiful enough, but photographing it on a pine root with a presumed adult emergence hole adds considerable natural history interest to the photo. Rock substrate behind the root adds a pleasingly blurred background.


Buprestis (Stereosa) salisburyensis Herbst, 1801 | South Cumberland State Park, Tennessee.

Buprestis (Stereosa) salisburyensis Herbst, 1801 | South Cumberland State Park, Tennessee.

From The Buprestis tree (posted August 10). This was another of several jewel beetles that I found for the first time after more than three decades of collecting this group. I like the value contrast in this photo from the striking, metallic colors of the beetle against the nicely blurred cinnamon-colored pine bark of the tree on which it is sitting.


A "super moon" watches over a parasitized hornworm caterpillar.

A “super moon” watches over a parasitized hornworm caterpillar.

From A time of reckoning (posted August 13). I fully admit this is a composite photograph. Nevertheless, it is a faithful recreation of a true sight, and I don’t consider the use of composite techniques to overcome equipment shortcomings to be unethical. There is a haunting symmetry between the blood red moon—considered by some as a sign of the second coming—and the sad, parasitized caterpillar waiting for its inevitable demise.


The greatly expanded palps are thought to mimic beetle mandibles or spider pedipalps.

Phyllopalpus pulchellus Uhler, 1864 | Hickman Co., Kentucky

From My, what busy palps you have! (posted September 2). I’ve become quite fond of insect photos with the subject “peering” at me, the photographer”, from some unusual vantage point. The “pupils” in the eyes of this red-headed bush cricket give the insect an almost quizzical look.


Acmaeodera immaculata Horn, 1881 | vic. Vogel Canyon, Otero Co., Colorado.

Acmaeodera immaculata Horn, 1878 | vic. Vogel Canyon, Otero Co., Colorado.

From Sunset beetles (posted September 30). Taking photos of insects at sunset is a challenging and ephemeral experience—one has only a few minutes to take advantage of the unusual and serene colors it offers, while at the same time trying to determine the best camera and flash settings to use in the rapidly fading light. Of the several that I’ve tried, this one is my favorite because of the softly complimentary colors of the beetle, the flower upon which it is sitting, and the dying orange sky behind it. If I had to choose, I would probably pick this one as my favorite of the year because of the unusual and serene colors.


Megacyllene decora (Olivier, 1795) | Stoddard Co., Missouri

Megacyllene decora (Olivier, 1795) | Stoddard Co., Missouri

From Amorpha borer on goldenrod (posted October 5). I featured this very same species in Best of BitB 2012 but can’t resist choosing this second attempt at photographing the spectacularly beautiful adult—this time on goldenrod. As with the previous version this is a true in situ field photograph, hand held and using the left-hand technique to achieve precise composition against a clear blue sky—difficult to do with an insect of this size and using a 100-mm lens, but well worth the effort.


Buprestis (Knulliobuprestis) confluenta Say, 1823 | Woods Co., Oklahoma

Buprestis (Knulliobuprestis) confluenta Say, 1823 | Woods Co., Oklahoma

From A Buprestis hat-trick! (posted October 14). I didn’t take near as many of the classic “frontal portraits” this year, but this one of a jewel beetle that had eluded me for more than 30 years until this past June is perhaps my favorite of them all.


Agrilus concinnus  Horn, 1891 | Stoddard Co., Missouri

Agrilus concinnus Horn, 1891 | Stoddard Co., Missouri

From North America’s Most Beautiful Agrilus Jewel Beetle (posted October 19). There was a time when this beetle was considered one of North America’s rarest species of jewel beetle. Several years worth of hunting by me and others revealed this beetle’s association with mallow and its unusually late adult activity period—the two combining to make this beetle “seem” rare. This year I succeeded in photographing the spectacular adult beetle.


Cacama valvata female ovipositing

Cacama valvata (Uhler, 1888) | Vogel Canyon, Otero Co., Colorado

From Scorching plains, screaming cactus (posted December 5). Insect photos are always better when they also show some aspect of the subject’s natural history. I was lucky to find this female cactus dodger cicada in the act of ovipositing into the dry stem of cholla cactus—in a position where I could get a perfect lateral profile with a clean, blue sky background.


Moneilema armatum LeConte, 1853 | Vogel Canyon, Otero Co., Colorado

Moneilema armatum LeConte, 1853 | Vogel Canyon, Otero Co., Colorado

From Cactus beetle redux (posted December 20). Cactus beetles can be difficult to photograph, but sometimes they cooperate by nicely posing on a pleasing pink flower bud with a blue sky in the background and the cactus spines forming a nice, fuzzy “halo” around the jet black beetle. There were surprisingly few cactus spines impaled in the control unit of my flash after this photo session.


I hope you’ve enjoyed this 2014 version of “Best of BitB” and look forward to seeing everyone in 2015.

Copyright © Ted C. MacRae 2015

Posted in Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Chrysomelidae, Cicadidae, Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Gryllidae, Gryllotalpidae, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Sphingidae | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments