Volume VI, no. 4, Winter 2000Table of Contents
Getting those beetles named -
Bob Androw
Getting Those Beetles NamedAs we all gear up to begin our survey of Ohio's beetles in earnest, an issue that will surely arise for each of us is the need to have material identified. While we are blessed with a plethora of talent within our group, there are many families of Coleoptera that will force us to reach beyond our current members' expertise for identification. As a side benefit, this outreach may result in finding new members as well. In requesting these services from specialists, there are a few courtesies which should be extended. Each situation is sure to be unique but there are some generally good practices to follow. Hopefully the following tips will help some of our members who may not have prior experience acquiring help from specialists in getting beetles determined. Always write in advance, fully explain all of the details of your request, and allow plenty of time for the task to be completed. Most specialists, be they professional or private researchers, are more than willing to look over materials, if the request is made with plenty of advance notice. Allow the determiner to set the time frame, based on his or her personal schedule. Keep in mind that the services you request are unlikely to be the researcher's top priority, but with plenty of lead time most will provide assistance in a time frame amenable to both. By asking for determinations, you are requesting a professional service. Many of the researchers we contact will not have a vested interest in our project. While most taxonomists would probably consider the work rewarding in and of itself, remember you are asking to avail yourself of the talents they have developed over years of study. While they may enjoy doing it, it is still time-consuming work that they are not obligated to do. So.... Be prepared to reciprocate for the services received. Since, in most cases, funding will not be available to pay cash for IDs, be prepared to offer duplicate specimens in exchange for the IDs provided. Many institutions have formal policies on retention of specimens, but a casual arrangement can usually be agreed upon between the two parties. Be sure to iron this out in the beginning so that each party is aware of the other's expectations. Most specialists are very conservative in their retentions and will not ask to keep uniques or long series. Make as much material as possible of the group to be studied available to the researcher. Often, individual specimens of each apparent "species" are sent for identification, with the collector intending to get the uniques named and then match them up with duplicates in the collection. There are two problems with this approach: First, it is likely that "eye-balling" specimens with an untrained eye, will lead to misidentifi-cations in very similar species, and it is best that the specialist do the separations. The real work is in determining the first of a species, and duplicates from that point are usually fairly easy, but in some cases each specimen may require intensive scrutiny to accurately identify it. While it is best to send the entire series of specimens, it is advisable to ask beforehand as to how much material a worker is willing to look through. A plan whereby material is sent in small batches could be the approach to having large numbers of specimens examined. Second, it allows no retention by the worker, since all specimens are uniques. Of course, there will always be authentic uniques, but the determiner should always refrain from retaining these unless agreed upon between the two parties. So, now that we've considered the etiquette of requesting determinations, how do we find the specialists in the first place? Fortunately, we have great resources within our own group, and many determinations can be done "in-house" by our own members. My position at the Carnegie Museum affords me access to many researchers, a resource that I will be more than happy to politely exploit! We also have a reasonable chance of reuniting some of our past members with our cause. People such as Keith Philips (Ptinidae), Shawn Clark (Chrysomelidae), Pete Kovarik (Histeridae), Darren Pollock (Melandryidae), Ted MacRae (Buprestidae) and Sam Wells (Elateridae) are just a few of the possible collaborators that can be solicited for help. Once a worker agrees to look at material, the actual sending of materials can be arranged through the various Family Coordinators, which would allow for specimens to be gathered from various collectors and sent together to reduce mailing costs. This would also allow for the material to be filtered to some degree, resulting in just the truly problematic specimens to be sent for determination (in the case of Curculionidae, this would be all of them!). For example, there would be no reason to send a batch of Popillia japonica to a scarab specialist. Through the utilization of outside resources, in addition to the skills of our members, many families of taxonomically difficult beetles will become tractable for the survey. Chipping away at the challenge a few families at a time will make the project both successful and fun. Yet as determined (pun intended) as we all are, I suspect the Staphylinidae will still be left for last! - Bob Androw Calleida viridipennis (Say) (Coleoptera-Carabidae): Winter Habitat ObservationsVery little is known of the true habitat of this seemingly uncommon carabid of the tribe Lebiini. Davidson (1995) reports taking it sporadically at lights and further reports not seeing this species in good series from any one location (personal communication). Kirk (1969) records it under dead pine bark. Lindroth (1969) does not record the ecology of this species in his works on the Carabidae of Canada and Alaska. I have collected numerous specimens of Calleida viridipennis (Say) under leaf litter of Quercus alba L.(eastern white oak-tentative identification). Of the 55 specimens collected all except one (taken at light 7 June 1999 in Fairfield Co.) were taken during the winter months under leaf litter of Q. alba: 28 December 1996, Fairfield Co. (1), 14 February 1998, Athens Co. Wayne Natl. Forest (26), 22 February 1998, Fairfield Co. (11), 08 February 1999, Athens Co. Wayne Natl. Forest (5) 12 December 1999, Vinton Co. Zaleski State Forest (8), 01-January-2000, Vinton Co. Zaleski State Forest (3). All specimens taken thus far have been taken at a predictable interval in the leaf litter itself. The upper most leaf layer is typically dry and loosely packed. This layer is pulled away until a moist and rather compacted layer is reached. Upon reaching this moist layer, the leaves are carefully pulled apart and the beetles are found in amongst the leaves themselves and rarely observed touching the dirt/loam soil layer below. I have observed that the leaf litter layering must be at a sufficient depth to create this moist leaf interval or the beetles are not consistently found. In addition, all specimens were taken on the down sloping side of the oaks (presumably due to improved drainage) with an apparent south-southwest exposure. Searching under other tree types and general leaf litter collecting has yielded no C. viridipennis. Other members of the genus Calleida are considered arboreal (Lindroth 1969, Davidson 1995) and the question(s) may be: Is C. viridipennis (Say) utilizing the oaks as its "host" and overwintering in the leaf litter below? Is the apparently uncommon occurrence of this beetle an artifact of restricted habitat coupled with poor collecting? (Even Bob Androw doesn’t take the beating sheet to the tree tops! Or does he?) I will continue to report on the observations of this very interesting carabid. Determinations kindly provided by Robert Davidson-Carnegie Museum-Pittsburgh, PA. - Ken Karns Mystery of the Missing BeetlesOnce the nine-spotted lady beetle, Coccinella novemnotata, was moderately common in the eastern USA. At my boyhood home in Cambridge, Mass. it was the fourth most abundant coccinelline on trees in the 1950s. (See, I was counting beetles even then!) I collected a few in Hocking Co. in the early 70s. About 20 years ago, C. novemnotata simply disappeared from most of its range. I know of no Ohio captures in the 1990s. Do you? The beetle is figured on page 1037 of Downie & Arnett, Beetles of Northeastern North America. Are introduced lady beetles to blame? C. septempunctata ("C7") was increasing about the time that C. novemnotata disappeared, but C7 is more prevalent on herbaceous vegetation rather than on trees. Harmonia axyridis is a tree-dwelling species but is a recent (1992) arrival in Ohio. - Dave Horn |