Volume I, no. 3, Summer 1992Table of Contents
Collecting in the western US -
Bob Androw
Collecting in the Western USDuring July, my good friend and fellow O.C. member Mike Brattain and I travelled to Arizona for a couple of weeks of collecting. What follows are the highlights of a very enjoyable trip. We began our collecting near Del Rio, Texas on the Rio Grande. Although the weather was very hot and dry, with few insects active, we picked up several nice buprestids of the genus Hippomelas. At a light near Sanderson, Texas we collected two specimens of a rare cerambycine, Elaphidionopsis fasciatipennis, a white-banded elaphidiine. We continued northward to the Davis Mountains in west Texas where we visited with a friend, Dave Marqua. Collecting was very slow during the day, but night collecting was more profitable. One memorable capture was a male Coleomethia xanthocollis, taken while beating oak. This cerambycid is an odd methiine highly reminiscent of an evaniid wasp. From Ft. Davis we moved westward to the Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona where we collected in the high areas around Rustler’s Park. The prionine Ergates spiculatus neomexicanus was taken under the bark of a dead ponderosa pine. Several Orthochoriolaus chihuahuae were taken on flowers of thistle. A short series of the carabid Carabus forreri was collected under bark slabs lying on the ground near dead trees. While rain was prevalent at the higher altitudes, the lower deserts were dry and provided some nice collecting. A trip to the mudflats near Willcox provided some nice tiger beetles and a long series of the cerambycine Plionoma suturalis. Females were seen sitting at the tips of mesquite branches, while males crawled through the foliage in search of them. On cholla cactus in the area, Moneilema appressum and Coenopoeus palmeri were common. Upon attempting to capture one Moneilema adult, it dropped from the cactus and ran for cover. When approached it stood on its head and front legs, in the same manner as in the tenebrionid genus Eleodes. The mimicry of a defensive behavior was quite interesting. The next several days we were joined by Jeff Huether and his son, friends from New York, for some collecting around the Continental, Arizona area. While many species were collected, several notable things were taken. Rhodoleptus femoratus was found on blooms of both Condalia and Baccharis, as was a nice series of Stenosphenus sp. The lights provided the best collecting with Aneflus prolixus fisheri, Derobrachus forreri, Malacopterus tenellus, Achryson surinamum, Eburia ulkei, Enaphalodes seminitidus and Megacyllene antennata being some of the cerambycids attracted. Several very nice male Strategus aloeus were also collected, while other scarabs included species of Plusiotis, Cotalpa, Polyphylla, and Pelidnota. The Mexican dung beetle, Phanaeus amithaon, was taken near Rio Rico, Arizona in a cow pasture, adding an infrequently collected scarab to the trip list. A short trip to the Huachuca Mountains provided Trachyderes mandibularis, an odd longhorn, taken while feeding at a Baccharis sap flow. Several hours were spent looking for Adetus lewisi, a longhorn that breeds in the stems of wild gourd. Although no live adults were found, a couple of intact dead adults were found in their pupal cells, proof that flexibility in tactics when searching for a species can be the key to success. Collecting in an area was rudely interrupted when a 4-foot diamondback rattlesnake decided that we were too close for its comfort - a distance only half as far as my comfort zone extends! Starting towards home we passed through the White Sands area of New Mexico where an unidentified species of the cicindelid genus Amblycheila was taken outside of Alamogordo. As no species of this genus are commonly encountered, this was certainly one of the nicer captures for the trip. Further into the state we stopped at an area where several years earlier we had collected part of the type series of the recently described buprestid, Agrilus hespenheidei Nelson. This beautiful golden-green beetle is found on a species of tall grass, which is possibly the larval host, as one female was found at the interface of the soil and the stem base where she was apparently ovipositing. A few specimens of the lamiine, Tetraopes annulatus, were also taken from the stems of milkweed, right before the rain and a twenty hour drive home forced us to call an end to the festivities. It was interesting to see how the early rains changed the mix of species from what we had seen in earlier years during more usual seasons. Many common species were nearly non-existent while different things were out in fair numbers. I suspect that the early rains caused flushes earlier in the season and the species that we were taking were typically out later in August. This worked to our benefit in that it produced species that we had not collected on previous trips. The trip was an enjoyable, relaxing diversion from the daily grind of our jobs and was as rewarding for the camaraderie as it was for the collecting. I hope that many OC members will be able to organize such enjoyable excursions in the future. - Bob Androw Ethics and Integrity in the Use of Insect Collections [Part 2]For the Taxonomist Borrowing Specimens for Research In this instance, the favor is being done by the institution or individual making the loan. The borrower should keep this firmly in mind and treat specimens entrusted to him as he would any valuable property. Most of the ethics involved in borrowing and returning specimens are merely courtesy and common sense, yet it is surprising how many specialists - and not always the neophytes - violate both of these concepts. Requests should be as realistic and clear as possible and should include the following elements: a brief statement of the nature of the research, whether revisionary, faunistic, geographical, intraspecific variation etc.; any geographical considerations (worldwide, continental, country, state, etc.); synonyms under which the material might be filed; and any helpful suggestions to enable the curator to find specimens of interest among undetermined material. This can save the curator a tremendous amount of time and will not unnecessarily tie up large numbers of specimens which are not of interest to you, not to mention the added risk of shipping unwanted specimens. If you are willing to sort specimens of interest to you from miscellaneous undetermined material, mention that fact in your request. This is also a good time to request permission for any anticipated dissections of genitalia or other special treatment the specimens are likely to require. Most loans are made to institutions, through a curator, not an individual. Very few, if any, will loan specimens directly to graduate students; such loans are customarily made to the institution in the name of the student’s major professor. Upon receipt of borrowed specimens, always make careful inspection and count to be certain that the number agrees with what the sender claims to have sent you. Most museums have a standard invoice covering all loans with a carbon copy or detachable portion to be filled in and returned by the borrower when the loan arrives. It should be obvious that loan records of the requesting and lending parties are of equal importance. It is best if all specimens from a single institution can be kept separate. If there is a chance that specimens could be dissociated from the original lot or mixed up in any way, they should be individually labeled so that they may be later identified as belonging to the proper owner. The United States Museum of Natural History supplies small tags which say "Property of USNM." I use a combination of numerical and color codes for each specimen. Bear in mind that the borrowed specimens do not belong to you and that some day you will need to get them back to the institution or individual from whom they were borrowed. If the borrower dies, any coded label system presents a problem. For this reason, a set of standard abbreviations should be determined and used to facilitate return of specimens. Such a code utilizing 4-letter abbreviations is already available (Arnett and Samuelson 1969) and could be adapted by all practicing taxonomists. If material is borrowed from a number of places, it is likely that it will come in a variety of pinning boxes ranging from low-cost cardboard and cigar boxes to very expensive Schmitt boxes. It is a good plan to mark these boxes (if they are not already stamped) so that the lender gets back the same boxes that he sent. It is probably superfluous to state that borrowed specimens should receive treatment equal to or exceeding the care given to your own collection. Some individuals are quite careless with the property of others and insect collections are no exception. Try to meet all time restrictions placed by the lender. Normally most loans are made for about a year. If you find it necessary to retain specimens longer, report progress and indicate that you would like an extension of the loan period. Most scientists are sympathetic and willing to do this as long as they know their material is being used - and properly protected - or likely to be studied and returned within a reasonable length of time. Returning borrowed Specimens In returning borrowed insects, you must consider the person who will be responsible for properly placing them in the collection. Everything should be clearly labeled to facilitate this operation. It is desirable to have individual determination labels on each specimen, but many specialists label the first specimen and all conspecific individuals are placed in rows to the right of the labeled one. The label should give the genus, species, author, determiner’s name, and date (year) when the determination was made. It is extremely helpful if the determiner adds extra small labels indicating synonymy, new names, manuscript names, and other aids to the person who will putting the material away. If previously identified specimens are borrowed, all should be returned unless permission is obtained from the lender to retain a portion of them. In the case of unidentified material, it is customary for the determiner to retain up to half of what he is able to identify if he so desires. In any event, all specimens retained should be accounted for and the permission of the lending institution clearly established. The lender customarily pays shipping charges to the borrower, whereas return of specimens is at the expense of the borrower. The excellent account of procedures for shipping insect specimens (Sabrosky 1971) should be required reading for all entomologists. Unless these directions are religiously followed, much of what I have outlined here will be wasted effort. (I hope that the above remarks will help to promote a better understanding of what is involved in maintaining a collection and how existing collections may be utilized, improved and preserved for future reference by qualified scientists. ) - Charles A. Triplehorn More new Ohio County Records for Cicindelidae Including the Rediscovery of Cicindela ancosisconensis HarrisThe first two issues of the Ohio Coleopterist provide the reader with information about Ohio tiger beetles. Bulletin 8, Number 4 (1991) of the Ohio Biological Survey entitled "The Tiger Beetles of Ohio" by Bob Graves and Dave Brzoska, was reviewed in the first issue. Additional county records not covered by this bulletin were listed in the second issue by The Editors. I herein present more new Ohio county records for three species of Cicindelidae based on recent collections and observations I made in Lake County, Ohio. The collection site was a wooded ravine along the gravel and sandy shale-clay banks of a small Grand River tributary. On May 13, 1991, Cicindela sexguttata Fab., C. ancosisconensis Harris and C. duodecimguttata Dej. were taken. On May 19, 1992, C. sexguttata Fab. and C. ancosisconensis Harris were again collected. Additionally in 1992, C. limbalis Klug was also taken. Of these species, only C. duodecimguttata Dej. was reported by Graves and Brzoska (1991) for Lake County. The presence of the widespread and abundant C. sexguttata Fab. and the uncommon northeastern Ohio C. limbalis Klug are not remarkable because both are known to occur in adjoining counties. The collection of C. ancosisconensis Harris, however, is quite important. Its discovery helps to establish that species diversity in the state remains richer than previously thought. Furthermore, it points to the need for protecting isolated locales to maintain that richness. According to Graves and Brzoska (1991), C. ancosisconensis Harris in Ohio was considered very rare and a possible candidate as an endangered species. It was known only from a single specimen taken in Chardon, Ohio, probably decades ago. My initial collection of this species in 1991 resulted from a single male captured and a second specimen missed. In 1992, I collected a second male, caught and released, a female and missed a third specimen within the same locale. Despite my success at rediscovering this species and establishing that a breeding population exists in Ohio, I concur in the assessment given by Graves and Brzoska (1991) that this species’ habitat is so threatened as to designate it as endangered in the state and in need of protection. Additionally, I want to stress the need for restraint from further collecting of C. ancosisconensis Harris from this isolated Ohio locale. - Bob Acciavatti Mites and BeetlesIf the creator can be said to have had an inordinate fondness for beetles, mites were probably also on Her mind. There are about 40,000 named species of mites and probably another one million yet to be described. Of the ca. 430 named families of mites, about 15% are partly or entirely associated with Coleoptera. Thus there exist many possibilities for potential contributions by coleopterists to the study of mites and for collaborations with acarologists. Types and Examples of Associations The major mite groups associated with Coleoptera are found in three of seven suborders. Mesostigs (suborder Mesostigmata) include those larger, active mites so often seen on dung scarabs, passalids, silphids, and so on. The association of mesostigs and beetles is taxonomically diverse and some thirty families of these mites have their lifeways intertwined with Coleoptera in some way. Prostigs (suborder Prostigmata) are the largest and most diverse group of Acari. Beetle associates are correspondingly diverse; most are small and escape immediate notice but the engorged chigger-like larvae of certain prostigs are sometimes obvious if you lift the elytra. The astigs (suborder Astigmata) are common associates of beetles and either ride as immatures (so-called "hypopi") or live as parasites on the host. The associations of mites and beetles can be briefly characterized as follows: I: Host-riding (phoretic) associates - examples are adults of Diplogyniidae on passalids nymphs (immatures) of the misnamed Parasitidae on dung scarabs, adult females of Macrochelidae (over 1500 species!) mostly on dung beetles, and nymphs of Uropodina and Asigmata on a variety of hosts. These phoretic associations may be opportunistic or obligatory and when they are obligatory they are frequently host-specific. Of the phoretic mites, two groups are most frequently encountered by beetle collectors. One, the immatures (actually the second nymphal instar) of uropodine mites, includes those turtle-like creatures that attach themselves by way of an anal stalk to various parts of the host. These are the members of a series of families with over 200 genera. The immatures are dreadful to identify and often the receipt of these mites by acarologists elicits a less than cordial response. The second group is those immatures (again, deuteronymphs) of astigmatid mites. These are usually minute, non-feeding animals with numerous modifications for attaching to the host. The distinctive characteristics of these immatures have resulted in a curious two-tiered system of classification: one for the nymphs and another for the adults. Identifications can be made at either level but putting names on the immatures is often complex and time-consuming. II: Temporary parasites - here are included the chigger-like larvae (first active instar) of velvet mites and a few of the water-mites parasitic on dyticids, hydrophilids, etc. These mites devote the first part of their life to feeding and dispersal; the later stages are predaceous and have a completely different appearance than the larvae. Here again, two classifications have resulted and correlations between larvae and post-larval stages are badly needed. Potential collaborations for increasing our knowledge of this group of beetle associates are a real possibility for Ohio coleopterists because the leading worker on larval parasites, W.C. Welbourn, is here at OSU. III: Host-dwelling parasites - mostly tropical groups such as the Canestriniidae, Heterocoptidae, and Heterocheylidae. Passalids and carabids are important hosts. This listing may be misleading because we do not know the nature of the trophic relationship between the mites and the beetles; what is observed is that all stages of the mites live on the host and occur nowhere else. Members of group III are poorly collected as well as poorly understood. Terrestrial beetle families with many mite associates include the Brentidae, Carabidae, Cerambycidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae, Elateridae, Erotylidae, Histeridae, Lucanidae, Nitidulidae, Passalidae, Scarabaeidae, Scolytidae, Silphidae, and Tenebrionidae. Those beetle groups with extremely rich mite faunas are typically those that occupy habitats with some degree of temporal stability and many of the mites use the beetles as the means to travel from one habitat patch to the next. Obviously, the largest beetle families are those most likely to have mite associates but some large groups such as the Staphylinidae are relatively mite-free. Other arthropod groups with especially rich and varied mite associations include the Dictyoptera, Orthoptera, Hymenoptera (especially the social families), Isoptera, Diplopoda, and larger terrestrial Crustacea. Collecting Mite Associates of Beetles Obviously, mite associates are collected with the beetles. To ensure that the mites are not lost and that they are correctly matched with their host, each beetle should be preserved separately in alcohol. [Seventy percent ethyl or isopropyl alcohol should be used; hardening fixatives should be avoided]. In the best of all possible worlds, the coleopterist will share the identified preserved beetle with the acarologist who will examine the collection for mites that have fallen from the beetle and are loose in the alcohol and for mites that are still in place on the beetle. Having the beetle in alcohol is especially important as the elytra can be lifted to look for those mite species living there. The number and location of the mites is recorded and the beetle is returned (undamaged) to the collector. What beetles are likely to harbor mites of interest to acarologists? The answer is easy: almost any collection -local or exotic- will be of value. For example, the large mesostig mites riding on our native silphids pretty much look the same to collectors but actually represent an instance of great diversity and specificity and many more collections from identified beetles are needed. On the other hand, the mites of the common passalid are well collected (but not well studied otherwise); collections from the rich tropical and subtropical fauna of these beetles are much more desired. The second kind of collaboration that the coleopterist can provide is intimate knowledge of the beetle’s habitat. In those cases where substrate materials from the larval habitat can be collected, the acarologist can search for those mite stages that do not go on to the adult beetle. If we are ever to get beyond descriptions and lists of mite-beetle associations, as important as they are, we will need to get into those habitats to develop an understanding of the nature of the associations. Having shared a preserved beetle with an acarologist, what can the coleopterist expect in the way of an identification and other information about the mites? In many cases the mites will represent undescribed species (in some cases, undescribed genera or, more rarely, undescribed families). Immediate identifications at the level of a dissecting microscope are possible in some cases and the genus of the mite can be determined. More usually, the mites will be prepared for microscopic study and the speed with which that is done depends on the acarologist’s work load and the potential importance of the collection. At the very least, the coleopterist should expect that the mite material will be preserved in a permanent collection and be made available to other interested mite workers. Another widely exploited source of mite material is collections of pinned beetles. Many mites remain in place through the preparation process and can be removed from the beetle without harm to the host (getting under the elytra is a nuisance and is often not attempted). This has the advantage that many beetles can quickly be examined and, usually, the beetles are identified. The mites, especially those from uncleaned (greasy) beetles, can be rehydrated and prepared as slide mounts that are almost as fine as fresh material. It is important to recognize that the mites thus recovered from beetle collections are the property of the original collection and, ultimately, the mites should be deposited there. In the case of private collectors or smaller collections, the owner or caretaker has the right to expect that the mites will go to a permanent collection of acarological prominence. In North America, such collections are found at the Museum of Biological Diversity (OSU), Field Museum (Chicago), Museum of Zoology (Ann Arbor), and the Biosystematics Institute (Ottawa). Studies of Mite-Beetle Associations There have been relatively few "biological" studies of the associations between mites and beetles. This is not surprising if you consider that such work is time-consuming and requires knowledge of the hosts and their habitats and the patience to sample those habitats or to maintain them under laboratory conditions. When coleopterists undertake life history studies, they can make observations and collections of great importance to acarologists. For example, the simplest behavioral observations on the mite-beetle relationship would be of value. And at the very least the coleopterist is able to collect those life stages that do not occur on the beetle and make them available to acarological colleagues. - Donald E. Johnston |