Pacific Science (1989), vol.43, 43, nono.. 1 © 1989 by UniversitUniversityy of Hawaii Press.Pres s. All rights reserved

TheThe First New Zealand Zealand InsectsInsects CollectedCollectedon Cook'sCook's Endeavour Voyage!Voyage!

2 J.R. H. AANDREWSNDREWS2 AND G.G . W. GmBSGIBBS

ABSTRACT:ABSTRACT: The Banks collection of 40 insect species, species, described by J. J. C.C. Fabricius in 1775,1775, is critically examined to explore the possible methods of collection and to document changesto the inseinsectct fauna andto the original collection localities sincsincee 1769.The1769. The aassemblagessemblageof species is is regarded as unusual. unusual. It includes insects that are large large and colorful as well as those that are small and cryptic;cryptic; some species that were probably common were overlooked, but others that are today rare were taken.taken. It is concluded that the Cook naturalists caught about 15 specieswith a butterfly net, but that the majority (all CoColeoptera)leoptera) were discoveredin conjunction with other biobiologicallogical specimens, especially plantsplants.. PossibPossiblele reasons forthe omission ofwetwetasas,, stick insects, insects, etc.,etc., are discusseddiscussed.. This early collection shows that marked changes in abundance may have occurred in some speciespeciess since European colonizationcolonization.. One newrecord is is revealedrevealed:: The cicada NotopsaltaNotopsalta sersericeaicea (Walker) was found to be among the Fabricius speci­speci­ mens from New Zealand,Zealand, but itsits description eevidentlyvidently hhadad been overlookedoverlooked..

THE FIRST CCOLLECTIONSOLLECTIONSofof animals from New were generalistgeneralistss wwhosehose task wwasasto collect all ZeZealandaland bbyy naturalinaturalistssts on CookCook's's EndeavourEndeavour sortsortss of naturalnatural history specimens.specimens. JosephJoseph voyagevoyage hadhad,, inmost casescases,, to survive a vvariedaried BanksBankshimself himselfwas was primarilyprimarily intereinterestedsted inthe hihistorystory before becoming becoming part ofthe permanent terrestriterrestrialal flora,flora, and none of them could be scientificscientificrecord or of an institutional institutional cocollec­llec­ described asas entomologists.entomologists. However,However, they tiontion.. That the insects, insects, as a group,group, did some­ some­ were equipped for catching and preserving what better than most is a fact owed in part to insect specimens,specimens,and certainlycertainly retained some some their relatively relatively easy preservation preserva tion and in part of the specimens they encountered.encountered. No com­ to the industry industry ofthe DanishDanish taxonomist J.J.C. ments about the insects were recorded in their Fabricius,Fabricius , who described them. them . It might also diaries,diaries, nor were there indicationsindications of collec­ be said that the insectsinsects survived because they tion localitieslocalities attached to the specimenspecimens.s. SoSo,, werelargely inedinedibleible and tthathat to some degree apart from the descriptionsdescriptions of FabriciusFabricius andand they had value value as "collectibles," even in the thethespecimens themselves, themselves, we are left with very eighteenth century.century. More detailed historicalhistorical llittleittle documentary evidence ofmuch note. note . Yet background is given in Andrews (1986).(1986). tthehe earliest assemblage of insects from New The nature of the voyage undertakenundertakenby ZeaZealandland is,is, in factfact,, fullfull ofinterest.interest. It includes Cook, Banks,Banks, Solander,Solander, and the others others was some unusual and unexpected species,species, it holds such that in nonoway couldit be regarded as a key to tthehe actactivitiesivities of the the first naturalists,naturalists, supportsupportinging a systematic attempt at a reprerepre-- and it hinthintss at some important changes that _~ . ~_____septative~~n t a t i ve collectioncollection ofthe New Zealand Zealand insect probably havehave occurred since 11769.769. fauna.fauna . The naturalists on board EndeavourEndeavour -In- In order to consider these issues, i we have examined the list of insects collected and now pose the following questions:questions: 1. Who collectedthe insects, insects, andwhat tech­ 1I ThisThiswork work wawass ssupportedupported inpart part bbyy ththee IntInternalernal Re­Re­ niques were used for their preservation? preservation? searchsearch CommitteeCommittee of VictoriaVictoriaUniversity. University. MaManuscriptnuscript acceacceptedpted I MaMayy 1988.1988. 2.2. How were theycollected: collected: deliberatelydeliberately or 2 VictoriaVictoria UniversityUniversity of Wellington,Wellington, ZoologyZoology inadvertently?inadvertently? Department,Department, PrivatePrivate Bag,Bag, Wellington,Wellington, NewNew ZealZealand.and . 3.3. What,What, if anything,anything, does the collection tell 102102 New Zealand Insects Collected on Cook'sCook's Voyage-ANDREwsVoyage-ANDREWS AND GIBBS 103

USus about changes to the insect fauna that have taken place in the past 200years? 4.4. What changes have taken place at the col­ col­ lection localities?localities? 55.. Can specific specificlocalitieslocalities be assigned to any of the specimens(type localities)? There are areas of overlap among these questions, and it was clear fromthe outset that some of theanswers would contain at least a degree of speculationspeculation.. Nevertheless, it was hoped that the present study would provide some insight into the workings of the early naturalists, as well as usefuusefull entomological information.information. Previouswork relating specifically to insect material from Cook voyagesincludes Dug­ Dug­ dale andFleming Fleming (1969) onthe cicadas and Kuschel (1969(1969,, 1987) onthe CurculionidaeCurculionidae.. Andrews (1986)provides some historical background to the original collections and their subsequent descriptiondescription.. Unpublished material from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) (DSIR) EntomologyEntomology Division also was found useful in the present work (Kuschel, (Kuschel , personal communication).communication). It has been noted previously (Dugdale and FIGFIGUREURE 1.I. LandingsLandings mademade from thethe Endeavour,Endeavour, 1769­ Fleming 1969) that thejournals ofboth Banks 11770.770. AA,, PovertyPoverty Bay,Bay, 99-10.10.1769;- 10.10.1769; B,B, Anaura Bay,Bay, and Cook contain very little detailed informa­ 2020.10.1769;.10.1769; CC,, TTolagaolaga Bay,Bay, 23-29.10.1769;23-29.10.1769; D,D , MercuryMercury Bay,Bay, 4-15.11.1769;4-15.11.1769; E,E, WaihouWaihou (T(Thames)hames) RiverRiver,,20.11. 20.11. tion on their collecting. Nor does it appear 17691769;; F,F, BayBay of Islands, Island s, 2929.11.1769-5.12.1769;.11.1769-5.12.1769; GG,, Ship that the Solander manuscripts make any ref­ CoveCove,, Queen Charlotte SSound,ound, 16.1.1770-6.2.1770;16.1.1770-6.2.1770; erence to New Zealand insectsinsects.. The impres­ H,H , D'UrvilleD'Urville Island,Island, 27-30.3.70.27-30.3.70. sion received is that Banks thought the New Zealand insectfauna rather sparse ("a few logistic reasons and partly becaubecausese of the un­ butterflies andbeetles"), beetles"), with some of itre- re- likelihoodlikelihood of their having taken anything of miniscent of the Northern Hemisphere speciesspecies.. significancefrom this locality (see below)below).. Our So, for our interpretations of the Endeavour collections of insects were madeat each 10­ voyage insect collection, collection , we rely upon the in- cality by using nets, beating trays, and search­ search­ sects themselves, together with other informinforma-a- ing driftwood and forest logs. logs. The edited jour­jour­ tion more specific to the voyage and the per- nals of Cook and Banks were examined, as sonalitiessonalities on board. was the Solander manuscript MS.Z4MS.Z4 [(Afair In an attempt to seek some answersto the copy of the descriptions of animals observed ___ questionsquestions_raised_above,raised abo_ve,_we_weundertook_undertook sepas.epa--__ duringrpt.during Cpt. ._Cook'sCook's first _voyage; 512512 folio rate visits to each ofthe localities where pages) Zoology Library, British Museum Cook's naturalists were presumed to have col- (Natural History»).History)].We were also assisted by lected. Each visit was timed to coincide as photographs of specimens in the British Mu­ closely as possible (at least within a few dadays)ys) seum (Natural History),History), and one ofthe authors with the dates of the original expedition (see (GWG) had the opportunity to examine some Figure 1 and caption for dates and locations ofthe New Zealand insects from the Fabricius oflandings). DD'Urville'Urville IslandIsland,, their last port of collection heheldld at the Zoologisk MuseumMuseum,, call in New ZealandZealand,, was excluded, partly for Copenhagen.Copenhagen. 104 PACIFICPACIFIC SSCIENCE,CIENCE, Volume 4343,, JanuaryJanuary 19198989

THE CCOLLECTORSOLLECTORS states thatthat thetheyy took with them ""allall sorts of mmachinesachines for catching andpreserving preserving ininsects."sects." Potentially,Potentially, the entire entireship's ship's crew could ThiThiss iiss probprobablyably lessless than it appearsappears for .the.the hhaveave collected insects.insects. TherTheree was plenty plenty of reasonreason thatthat the termterm "insects""insects"was wasat atthat thathme time eevidencevidence to suggesuggestst tthathat tthehe ssailorsailors colleccollectedted ststretchedretchedto include marine invertebrates.invertebrates. other animal species forthe naturalistsnaturalists(e.g., (e.g., Hence,Hence, the quotation may have been referring fish and shells),so they might also hhaveave col­ to contraptions other than the butterfly netsnets,, lected insectswhen the routine of the ship pins,pins, and collecting and storage boxes they would let them or thetheyy encountered insects in undoubtedly took withwiththem. Elsewhere, Elsewhere, tthehe courcoursese of thetheirir labors. In practice,practice, how­ BeagleholeBeaglehole(1962) (1962)refers to a list list ofitems items that everever,, the crew probably collected onlyo~ly a veryvery Banks proposed to ttakeake with him on the sec­ ssmallmall proportionproportion,, with an emphasisemphasIs on.the ond voyage (R(Resolutionesolution and Adventure),Adventure), largerlarger,, more striking species. The naturalistsnaturalists,, which included "magnifying glasses, micro­ Joseph Banks and Daniel Solander?Solander, were the scopes and wire catchers for insects and birdsbirds."." principal participants in field excursions made Although Banks' plans for the second voyage primarily to collect sspecimens,pecimens, and prob~blyprobably were considerably more grandiosegrandiose than the directed the useof anyinsect nets theyInlght might first,first, we can can assumeassume that similar gear accom­ have had. had. They were sometimes accompaniedaccompanied paniedpanied BanksBanks on ththee first voyage. voyage. They w~re by other membersmembers ofthe scientiscientificfic party,party, their aalsolso in popossessionssession of a number of naturnaturalal hhis­is­ sservantservants and frequentlfrequentlyy bbyy Cook himhimself.self. As torytory wworks,orks, but ffewew oftthesehese wouldhave have been thethe expexp~dition's;dition's chief artistartist,, SydneSydneyy Parkin­Parkin­ of much assistance in identifying insects.insects. son had a close association with the plants thatthat were collected and was bound tohave had somesome encountersencounters with insects. insects. HisHis wworkork prior to thethe voyagesvoyagesshowed that that he was skilled skilled THTHEE TIMES AND LOCATIONSLOCAnONS at illustratingillustrating them,them , but he did not draw drawany any Thelocalities and the time and duration of fromfromNew New Zealand. BanksBanks hadhad collectedcollected in­ each visit are givenin Figure I.I. The vvoyageoyage inin sectssects on his earlier eexpeditionxpedition to Newfound­ New Zealand waters happily coincided with land and Labrador,Labrador, where he was virtually virtu ally the the period in which the greatest number of solesole scientific investigator. Some of that col­ insects could be expected to be seen and col­ lection was later drawndrawn byby Parkinson who,who, lected,lected, i.e.,i.e., the flowering season, season , spring and incidentallyincidentally,, drew only one ininvertebrate,vertebrate, a early summer. Only the stop at D'Urville D'Urville Is­ mollusk,mollusk, while in New Zealand waters.waters. PlantPlan t land well into autumn,autumn, was unlikely tohave have andandinsect illustration and description description were produced much in the way ofspecimensspecimens.. often closely linked in those days, days, which sug­ It isclear from the voyage records that the gestsgests that Banks, with his general supervisi.on personnel from Endeavour didnot penet!"atepenet.rate of the collections as a whole, whole, and hiS hisspecific very far inland.inland. Apart fro.m appreh~nslOns interestinterest in plants,plants, also had a good deal to do about encountering MaonsMaoris some distance with the insect insect collections.collections. Without his pres­ from the security of their shipship,, there was also ence and his interests,interests, the collections might aneed to ration theirtime. In any eventevent,, there havehave been far poorer. wwasas an abundance ofbotanical and zoological material fromthfrom_thee coastalregionscoas_talLegiolJs.;~ore; rnoreththanan enoughnough for those who were responsible for its THE EQUIPMENT catalogingcataloging,, illustrationillustration,, and descriptiondescription.. Con-Con­ THE EQUIPMENT sequentlysequently,, the terrain explored included the One of the most widely quoted extrextractsacts beachbeach,, the fringing vegetationvegetation andandforests, forests, as 3 from BeBeaglehole'saglehole's editing of Banks'Banks' journaljoumal' wellwellas nearby nearby estuaries.estuaries. Occasionally,Occasionally,they they wouldwouldmake their theirway waysome distance distance up a rriveriver ((e.g.,e.g., ttheheWaihou) Waihou) or aascendscend a nearbnearbyy hill 3In1n a letterleiter frofrommEllis Ellis 1010 LinnaeusLinnaeus ((BeagleholeBeaglehole 1961962).2). (e.g.,(e.g., at ShipCove). Cove). New ZeZealandaland Insects Collected on Cook's Voyage-ANDREwSVoyage-ANDREWS AANDND GIBBS 105

THE INSEINSECTSCTS COLLECOLLECTEDCTED Coleoptera A complete listof the insects collected by Neocicindela tuberculata*tuberculata* the EndeavourEndeavour expedition is provided in the This list represents almost half the number Appendix to this paper with the results ofour of insects collected on the firstvoyage and is collecting.In lightof what we know of the an indication that the naturalists had at least pre~e~t-day faunafauna,, it contains some surprising some enthusiasm for collecting and probably omissronsomISSIOns and some equally surprsurprisingising inclu­ spent some time going about it.With plants as sions. Inbetween these two extremes lie a their priority andand other animal groupsgroups alsoalso number ofspeciesspecies,, some ofwhich are striking taking their attention,attention, as well as their observa­ enough to attract a collectorcollector's's attention and tions of the Maoris,Maoris, the proportion of time others whichwhich,, because of their unassuming devoted to entomology was not too unreason­ appearance andlikely association with plants able. On the other hand, their overall collection and theirflowers, we consider to have been rate was roughly only one species ofinsect for pickedup in the process of plant or other everyday the EndeavourEndeavour was anchored some­ specimen collectioncollection.. This includes the gather­ where off the New Zealand coast. ing of plants for food or wood for fires. The MoMostst of the species listed above are prom­ insects are discussed below within five assumed inent byvirtue oftheir activity, color andand/or/or categories.categories. markings. Inthe case of the cicadas, their sound as wellaswell as their sisizeze would have attracted ConspicuousConspicuous SpeciesSp ecies ActivActivelyely PursuedPursued atten~ion.attention. !heThe capture of the largewing­ clapping~lappmg cicadascIcadas,.,. Amphipsalta,Amphipsalta, fortuitously This group contains those specimens whose Illustrates somethmgsomething about the approach of size and appearance was sufficiently striking these early naturalists to the collection of in­ to attract the attention of the naturalists or sect specimensspecimens.. Although all four specimens their assistants. Further,Further, manyof those indi­ of Amphipsalta were cataloged under the cated would have required active pursuit with species name cingulata by FabriciusFabricius,, sub­ a netnet,, some being quitedifficult to capture. sequentsequent examination has shown that infact The species are the following:"following: 4 the collection includes representative~ ofeach Hemiptera of a pair ofcryptic speciesspecies,, cingulata Fabricius AmphipAmphipsaltasalta cingulata* and zzelandicaelandica (Boisduval) (Dugdale and AmphipsaltaAmphipsalta zzelandicaelandica (Boisduval)* Fleming 1969). Since cingulatacingulata is restricted to Rhodopsalta ccruentata**ruentata** the North Island andflies flies in November­ Kikihia muta** December, whereas zezelandicalandica is in both is­ Notopsalta sericea (Walker) lands but fliesin January-March,January-March, it was con­ Lepidoptera cluded by Dugdale and Fleming that the Bassaris gonerilla* specimenspecimenss of the former must have comefrom BassarisBassaris itea* Mercury Bay or Bay ofIslands, whereasthose Diptera ofthe latter came from Ship CoveCove.. Thena­ Anabarynchus bilineatus* turalists therefore were not content with a HeliophilusHeliophilus trilineatus* specimen from a single localitylocality,, but they clear­ Pilinascia cingulata* ly took more of "the same" when they again Hymenoptera ------[chneufni5fllolaloi'iiiIchneumon'lotatoiia confrontedlargeconfronted large singing cicadas atatShip Ship Cove. The inclusion of Notopsalta sericea (Walker) DDegithinaegithina sollicitoria in our listrequires somesome. explanation. This Levansa ddecoratoriaecoratoria small black cicada attracted our attention SphictostethuSphictostethuss fugax when examining cliffside vegetation at both Sphictostethus nitidus MercurMercuryy Bay and BayBay ofIslands. Its absence from the Fabricius insects seemed surprising 4 In all ththeseese lists,lists, * iindicatesndicatestwo specimensspecimens collected'collected' ~o **** indicateindicatess mormoree than two sspecimenspecimens collcollectedected bbyy Bank~Bank s to us when the naturalists had clearly been et al.al. interestedmterested in securing cicada specimens. How- 106 PACIFIC SCIENCESCIENCE,, Volume 4343,, JJanuaryanuary 1989 ever, when the "secondary" Banks specimens they still represent an unexpectedly small pro­ were examined (by GWG) in Fabricius' per­ portion of the entire Endeavour collectioncollection,, sonal collection, it was discovered that an un­ especially when we consider that the passive labeledlabeledmale specimen of this endemic New method of collection is the normal one by Zealand species was pinned alongside the which nonentomologists tend to procure in­in­ specimen of RhodopsaltaRhodopsalta cruentata.cruentata. We be­ sect specimensspecimens.. The two large (20(20-27-27 mm) lievelievethatthatit representsrepresents a genuine Banks collec­ scarabaeid bettles (P(Pericoptusericoptus truntruncatus,catus, StSte­e­ tiontion specimenand is is evidence that Notopsalta thaspisthaspis suturalisuturalis)s) were very possibly accidental was indeed collected in New Zealand during discoveriesdiscoveries.. Both are crepuscular species and thethe firstvoyage but that Fabricius overlooked may have been heard or seen at dusk when itit as he went through the insects to describe their activity could attract attentionattention,, oror,, alter­ them.them. Hedescribed insects insectsfrom Cook's sec­ natively, single dead specimens may have been ond, and, possibly, third voyage to New Zea­ picked up. up. Pericoptus larvae were plentiful on land,land, buttiming and location favor the above the east coast beaches (North Island) at the interpretationinterpretation with respect to N.N. sericea.sericea. times of our visit, but no adults were seenseen.. The remaining three large longhorn beetles placed in this group are sufficiently visible to ConspicuousConspicuous SpeciesSpecies PassivelyPassively Found havehave been collected by virtue of their appear­ Here we include a few species of insects anceance,, but we consider that it is more likely theythey which,which, by virtue of theirtheirsize or color,color, are were taken as part of the plant specimen sufficientlysufficientlyvisible to attract the attention of collections. thethe naturalists while going about their general collecting,collecting, or might even have been retrieved InseInsectscts Taken with Collections of Wood by other members of the crew. crew. All are beetles thatthat are relatively inactive by day unless Species possibly associated with wood- disturbed.disturbed. gathering activities include the following: Coleoptera Coleoptera LasiorrhynchusLasiorrhynchus barbicornis**barbicornis** ThelyphaThelyphassassa lineata PericoptusPericoptus truncatus PristoderuPristoderuss scaber StethaspisStethaspis suturalis AmbeodontuAmbeodontuss tristis OemonaOemona hirta The expedition put local timber to a variety Coptomma variegatum*variegatum* ofuses. Apart from firewood, firewood, it was useful for Navomorpha linea lineatumtum boat maintenancemaintenance,, for repairing casks, and for Ofall the insect specimens collected in New the erection of temporary sheltersshelters,, and shrubshrubss Zealand,Zealand, thosethoseof Lasiorrhynchus barbicornis suchas manuka were used for making brooms. were the most likely to have been selected Since many of the common insects currently because of their eye-catching appearance.appearance. found under beach driftwood were absent from This large (up to 75 mm), sexually dimorphic the Endeavour collectionscollections,, we can assume thatthat brenthid,brenthid, the most striking of all New Zea- thiswas not a prominent source of firewood land'sland's beetles,beetles, was encountered in large num- and perhaps the crew preferred to use stand­ bers on a dead karaka tree:;tree (Corynocarpus(Corynocarpus ing wood fromthe forest. It seems unlikelunlikelyy laevigatus)laevigatus) during-ourduringour-visitvisit-to-Ship-Cove.-toShip Cove. -Thel'he~- that-that- the-naturaliststhe -naturalists -themselve-themsel¥ess-spenspenLmucht-much factfact thatthatfour specimens were taken on Cook'sCook's time searching rotten wood or looking under voyage indicates indicates thatthat they might similarly similarly bark for insects (they were notentomologists!) have stumbled upon such a tree, tree, and indeed so that what came to light from this source theythey encountered karaka at virtually every was probably a result of the activities de­ landinglanding place. The remaining five species we scribed above in the procurement of wood. have placed here are not so conspicuous, and Although 16 of the 25 speciespeciess of beetles we cannot be at all sure how they were de- collected are wood-borers in either dead or tected.tected. Nevertheless,Nevertheless, even if we assume assume passive living timber during their larval stagesstages,, itit isis (or "accidental")"accidental") discovery for all this group,group, unlikely that the gathering ofwood led to the New Zealand Insects Collected on CookCook's's Voyage-ANDREWSVoyage-ANDREwS AND GIBBS 107

discovery of the adult specimens. Almost in­ Coleoptera evitably, suchinsects become known first by Pyronota festiva*festiva* the casuacasuall location of adults, and their larval Pyronota laeta hosts are only determineddeterminedlater laterby more inten­ Coccinella leonina* leonina* siveresearch. In the presentcontext, the excep­ ThelyphassaThelyphassa lineatalineata** tion might be Pristoderus scaber,scaber, a moderate­ Hybolasius ccristusristus sized flattened, cryptic beetle normally found Selenopalpus ccyaneusyaneus under bark.bark. It is possible that someof the Xylotoles griseus** larger cerambycids, especially AmbeodontusAmbeodontus Xylotoles lynceus tristis,tristis , were spotted on tree trunks or cut Oemona hirta timber and that the oedemeridoedemerid,, Thelyphassa AmbAmbeodontuseodontus tristis lineata, could havebeen associated with soft Coptomma variegatum* rotten wood.wood . We consider it more likely, how­ how­ Navomorpha lineatum ever, that theywere found onflowers or with Navomorpha sulcatum* plant collections (see below). Zorion minutum Nyxetes bidens*bidens* Catoptes interruptus* InsectsInsects Taken with Carrion Rhadinosomus acuminatus**acuminatus** Twoof the beetles are carrion speciesspecies:: StephanorrhynStephanorrhynchuschus attattelaboideselaboides Coleoptera It hasnot been clearly established that the Creophilus oculatus** naturalists "beat"" beat"the plants forinsects. Beat­ Saprinus detritus ing trays were not mentionedmentioned,, nor is thereany Some specimensof already dead animals indication in their writings that the naturalists were almost certain tohave been obtained spent time catching insects in thisway. way. We can during excursions ashoreashore.. The Maoris traded assume that if theyhad spent much time beat­ large quantities of fishfish,, mostlyfresh, but a ing vegetationvegetation,, theywould have taken many little of it may have been drieddried.. Afew bird more insects than those described by Fabri­ skinsalso might have featured inthe bar­bar­ cius. It is evident that plant collection was a tering,tering, but collection of these was miniscule priority of Banks and his fellow naturalists compared with subsequent expeditions. Shells andand,, withthe exception of D'Urville Island, discarded on rubbish heapsmight have been fairly substantial numbers [between 40 and examined or picked upup.. Any such dryor de­ 214 (Hatch 1981)] of botanical specimens cayed animal materials arelikely to have were collected at each port ofcall-numbers transported carrion beetles to the chartroom far in excess ofanimal species collected. Both table, from whence their acquisition as an flowers and foliagewere collected when the insect specimen would require no special efef­­ opportunity arose. Also, plants were collected fort. Three specimens of Creophilus oculatusoculatus,, in large quantities for eating, particularlyparticularly New ZealandZealand's's largest carrion staphylinid (19 scurvy grass (Lepidium oleraceum)oleraceum) and wild mm), were taken and one of Saprinus detritus celery (Apium australe).australe) . Insects might have (5 mm), ahisterid well known in New Zealand been attached to these plants. for over100 years under the name of S. The affinitybetween the insects and certain pseudocyaneus White (seeKuschel 1987)1987).. The ­ species of plants varies substantiallysubstantially-fromfromthe Fabricius description of C. oculatus records it monophagous host relationship between Rha­ as "in nn.. Hollandia et Zelandia,"Zelandia," indicating dinosomus acuminatusacuminatus and Halorhagis erecta that it may have beenfound in both New tothe aphidivorous ladybird Coccinella leonileoni­­ Zealand and Australia by this method. na,na, where the plant association depends onthe presence of aphidsaphids.. Banks and SoSolanderlander encountered Halorha­ InInsectssects TakenTaken with Living Plant Material gis at virtually all locations visited and, we as­ In this category the followinghave been sumesume,, found Rhadinosomus acuminatus (10 considered: -11 mm)at some stage on examples collected, collected, 108 PACIFIC SCIENCE,SCIENCE, Volume 43, 43, January 1989

securing four specimens of this strikingly omitted from the first Cook collectionscollections,, e.ge.g.,., shaped weevil. We came across this plant at ColeopteraColeoptera:: Chaerodes spp.,spp., Thelephassa dia­ Cook's Cove, Tolaga Bay,Bay, without weevils phana Pascoe, Notobia australasiae (Dejeun), andat Buffalo Beach, Beach, Mercury Bay, and Ship RhytisternusRhytisternus mimiserser Chaudoir, CeratognathusCeratognathus Cove,Cove, Queen Charlotte SoundSound,, with weevils. parryanus Hope, Cafius littoreus Broun;Broun; Der­ At Anaura Bay, largenumbers of Zorion minu­ maptera:maptera: Anisolabis littorea (White); Chilo­ tum (6-7(6-7 mm) came to our notice on flowers podapoda:: Cormocephalus rubriceps (Newport).(Newport). of the diurnal stridulating grasshoppers (Xi­ Second, the naturalists seemed to ignore phidium) and field crickets (Pteronemobius) is logs, tree trunkstrunks,, and rotten wood generally, were beaten from rangiora (Brachyglottis re­ which is perhaps not surprising when their panda) and whau (Entelea arborescens) flowers prime concern was collecting plants with flow­ at this locality. ers or seeds. seeds. Thus, there are no carabid beetles It is possible that someinsects remained (apart from Neocicindela), no wetas (Steno­ attached to the plant or its flowers until exam­ pelmatidae or Rhaphidophoridae), and no ined by BanksBanks,, SolanderSolander,, and Parkinson on cockroaches,cockroaches, to name but a few prominent board the shipship.. It is highly likely that they absentees.absentees . carried some sort ofsack or container on shore Third, the naturalists'naturalists' shunning ofthe more in which to collect specimens, and that insects fragile freshwater insects bringsus to consider that had become detached from the plants the problems that preservation of specimens were found in the container. Other vegetable may have presented.presented. Beetles are easily pinned matter such as manuka (used for brooms) is and are durable; butterflies were pinned and another possible source, source, since several insect spread,spread, an art that existedat the time;but speciesspeciesareare associated with this plantplant,, especially perhaps they deliberately avoided soft-bodied when in flowerflower.. This material could hhaveave been insects such as phasmids (or perhaps they had bundled up for transport back to the shipship,, but been collectedcollected,, only to be destroyed by acci­ being in the care ofthosetho se less likely to take an dentor vermin later in the voyage). voyage). Alcohol interest in insects, it was probably not a major and jars were on board the ship, but these source of specimens. might have been considered unsatisfactory for preserving insects and could have beenre- served for the more delicate marine inverte­ brates and for the smaller birds and fishfish.. Most INSECTS OMITTED FROM THE COLLECTION of the insects were probably pinned in the Perhaps the most pertinent point about this customary waY,whateverway.whatever their size, with pins first collection of insects fromNew Zealand, Zealand , oflarger diameter than those used today. and the one that attracted our initial interest,interest, We are aware that some species weredeli­ was the absence of many of the largerlarger,, more berately overlooked by Banks and the others, attractive, and distinctive New Zealand spe- simplysimplybecause they thought they were the cies. Even allowing for the limited objectives same as Northern Hemisphere forms: "a few as far as insects were concerned, it isstill dif- Butterflys and Beetles, flesh flies very like ficult to understand why the naturalists did those in Europe, Mosquetos and sand flies not collect stick insects (Phasmida),(Phasmida), dragon- maybe exactly the same as those of North .' _.flies.(Qdona1a),.grasshQppers,flies _(Odonata), _grasshoppers.,,cricketscrickets and ..... America,",saidJ3anksAmerica, "saidBanksin.. in.hiuumming_hiuummingup..up.of_of wetas (Orthoptera), cockroaches (Blattodea), the New Zealand fauna. However, this ap­ or earwigs (Dermaptera). All were verymuch proach would not explainthe absenceof such in evidence during our brief visitsto the sites. insects as wetas and stick insectsinsects.. We conclude that they didnot look for During our visits to the Cook landing insects in several important habitats. First, sites, certain insect species were drawn to our among the driftwood on sandy beaches. beaches. We attention-onesattention-ones that the foregoing arguments tended to probe this profitable zonezone,, parti- suggest should have been collected, yet are cularly during inclement weather,weather, finding conspicuously absent. We select a fewfor many species ofbeetles and a few other insects discussion here. NewZealand Zealand Insects Collected on CookCook's's Voyage-ANDREWS AND GIBBS 109

If cicadas attracted the naturalists' atten­ grass blueblues,s, for which there may be an entirely tion, why not crickets and other stridulating different explanation. Today, Z. labradus is orthopterans? We have suggested why they probably the most common butterfly in Aus­ missed New Zealand's wetas, but the absence tralia and New Zealand,Zealand, and it is present at of the diurnadiurnall stridulating grasshoppers (Xi­ open stony sites around the coast. Its absence phidium) and field crickets (Pteronemobius) is in 1770 was related to a lack ofits larval food more surprising. Even the abundant lowland plants (introduced clovers),clovers), as discussed by silent grasshopper, Phaulacridium marginale Gibbs (1980). (1980). On the other handhand,, the endemic (Walker), was not included. included . Perhaps the inva­ speciesspecies,, Z. oxleyi,oxleyi, was,was, so far as we know, know, sion by adventive grasses has had a dramatic restricted to more inland localitieslocalities and is not effect on the abundance of these species. species. Al­ found anywhere nearthe Cook landing sites though endemic, thesespecies that are so com­ todaytoday.. mon today mayhave been quite scarce at the FinallyFinally,, in this consideration of omissions, localities where they landed if dense forests wemust refer to the native bees (Colletidae: came almost to the water's edge. especially Leioproctus imitatus Smith) whose Another insect group that clearly attracted numbersnumbers on sandy beaches at Mercury Bay the naturalists' attention was the butterflies, and Bay ofIslands impressed usus.. In the light of where againmultiple specimens of quite difdif­­ the few ichneumonids and pompilids in the ficult-to-catch insects figured prominently in Cook collectioncollection,, why were these conspicuous their collection. There are, however, two interinter­­ hymenopterans not taken?taken? We have nosug­ sug­ esting omissionsin the butterflies andand,, of gestion other than the possibility that the nat­ coursecourse,, they ignored the moths altogether. uralists considered them dulldull,, similar to bees First, no copper butterflies (Lycaena) were elsewhereelsewhere,, and generallynot sufficientlyinter­ inter­ included-anincluded -an omission that a subsequent esting to be collected. collected. Perhaps this is a clue to Cook voyage made up for [L. salustius was their selection of specimens; Banks and his described by J. C. Fabricius from New ZeaZea­­ colleaguesmay have been biased towards land in1793, but seeAndrews (1986) for spe­ spe­ more attractive specimenspecimenss (butterflies, co­ culation on the origin of this specimen]. specimen]. It lored waspswasps,, andbeetles), beetles), ignoring those with seemsinconceivable that they didnot en­ en­ less appeal. Such tendencies areexhibited by counter either L. salustius or L. rauparaha modern collectorscollectors,, sowe can excuse their 18th (Fereday),both of which are common·common endemic century counterparts for choosing specimens coastal insects with flight periods that extend for their beauty rather than for their repre­ across the timing of all their landings. landings . The sentativeness.sentativeness. larval food plants (speciesof Muehlenbeckia) were collectedby them at all sites except Thames, Bay ofIslands, and D'Urville D'Urville Island.Island. DISCUSSION: CONSIDERATIONCONSIDERATIONOF THE QUESTIONS One possible explantation is already discussed, discussed, POSED namely that they considered these butterflies to be the same as their European counterparts At this point we can perhaps attempt to and thus of little interest. Another is that they answer the questions raised earlier in this this did actually collect some LycaLycaenaena specimens,specimens, paper.paper. -but-the-~ b u t . the .specimensspecimens-became-became---sepaI"ated~from- separated- from------the main Banks collection, only to turn up the main Banks. collection.. . , only to turn up 1.J. TheTh e CollectorsC0 IIec torsand an dTheir Th ezr. PreservationPreservati reserva IOn later when Fabricius visited Dru Drury, a AI, later when Fabricius visited Dru Drury, a Methodsth d London silversmith who was known to pur­ pur- e 0 s chase foreignbutterflies from expeditionsexpeditions.. InThe collectors have already been named: the Fabricius description, salustiusalustiuss is credited Banks, Solander, Parkinson, andtheir assis­ toIndia, suggesting it mightwell have been tants and, to a lesser extent, the ship's officers separated fromthe New Zealand material. and crewcrew.. Reference to collecting technique The second butterfly omissionrelates to anan­- also has been made aboveabove.. Although generally other Iycaenidlycaenid genusgenus,, Zizina,Zizina , the common referredto as the ""BanksBanks collection," thereis 110 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 43, January 1989 no recordof who actually prepared the specispeci­­ were plant associates, and webelieve their mens.mens. All the insects were pinned and dried recovery from plants was more accidental for preservation. The weight of pins used was than deliberate. deliberate. Had the naturalists systema­systema­ heavy by today's standards,standards, thereby placing a tically used beating trays for insects, they lower limit on the size ofspecimens. Butterfly would have removed a far wider range ofspe­spe­ wings appear to have been spread on the voy­ voy­ cies. It is difficult to imagine why the larger age, hence necessitating a period ofdrying on orthopterans and phasmids would not have a setting board, while those of cicadas were been present at the time ofthe collections; had not [the Banks specimens of Amphipsalta they been seen, seen, they surely wouldhave excited shown in Dugdale andFleming (1969) have the naturalists' attentionattention.. We conclude that subsequentlysubsequently been half-spread]. The speci­ apart from the actively pursued insectsfrom mens carry neither localitylocality labelslabels nor num­ openopen,, accessible habitats, no special effort was bers,bers, andand there are no records to suggestthat that made tofind insect specimens elsewhereelsewhere.. they were ever labeled labeled iindividuallyndividually apart from So thiswas verymuch the sort ofcollection the assignment of species names in Fabricius' that one would expectfrom a group that had handwriting. TThehe country of origin appears to limited time and priorities other than search­ have beennoted onlyby means of "external""external" ing for insects. insects. We can say, therefore, that the labels or separate storage boxes, afallible sys­ collections did not entirely reflect the availabi­ tem that could easilylead tothe sort of mix­ lity of species atthe time. ups that crept into the Fabricius descriptions [i.e.,[i.e., six of these New Zealand species were 3. Is There There Any Evidencefor Changes in the recorded as being from "nova" nova Hollandia" Insect Fauna SinceTheir Visit? Visit? (=( = Australia) and one from ""Brasilia"].Brasilia"]. Although the collection was rearranged to One ofthe most striking features ofthisfirst some extent by Fabricius, it was apparently in sample of New Zealand insects is that it con­ some state of disrepair whenvisited byN.S. tains several species that are seldom encoun­ Svederusin 1785. In spite of insects having a tered today and that would be regarded as lower priority than some ofthe other biologi­biologi­ rarities by current entomologists. From our cal collections, proportionately more of the considerations of the collecting methods and insects have survived to the present day.day . Many approach to field entomology, it isinconceiv­ of the specimens have suffered from the rav­ able that the naturalists deliberately sought ages oftime and are dirty, or parts of them are "rarities""rarities" in a place where just about all na­ missingmissing.. Nevertheless, they are still recogrecog­­ tural history specimens were new and unfami­ nizable (Radford 1981).The1981). The DDipteraipterahave suf­ suf­ liar to them. them. They probably "chose" which fered most,with some specimens existing as insects to catch from their color, size, and oonlynly an isolated wing or evenmerely a ppinin general attractiveness (although perhaps with a Fabricius label on it (Zimsen1964). avoiding ones that looked the sameas those in Europe).Europe). Thus, when we rank someof their 22.. How Did They Obtain Their Specimens? species as "rare" today, the chances are that the abundance of thesespecies has declined Werethe insects deliberately sought after or since 17691769-1770.-1770. The following examples il-il­ were theycollected inadvertently?inadvertently? We have-ar- have ar- - ~-IustrateI u s t ra t e possible decline declines. gued that the unexpected composition of the The eye-catching dipteran, Pilinascia cingu­ collection isevidence for both views. On one lata, isscarcely seen today, yetCook's Cook 's natural­ hand,hand , the naturalists expended someeffort ists probably took two specimens (see Zimsen catching specimens, particularly large colorcolor-- 1964). Again, Again , the ichneumonid, Levansa de­ ful andand/or/or audible species that would have coratoria, seems a rare wasp judging from its required a butterfly net, but on the other hand,hand, absencein both the National Museum collec­ they seemed to rely to a large extent on chance tion and the New Zealand Arthropod Collec­ encounters.encounters. Many species (all Coleoptera) tion,tion, DSIR. They collected two other black New Zealand Insects Collected on Cook's Voyage-ANDREWSVoyage-ANDREWS AND GIBBS III and orange ichneumonids that superficially changesto habitats are referredto below, but look very alike but are placed in different even where the habitat remains reasonably genera (an example of Mullerian mimicry?)mimicry?):: intact (as at ShipCove), Cove), the introduction of Ichneumon lotatoria,lotatoria, although recorded as a pathogens, parasites, predators, and competi­ parasitoid of Wiseana, is quitea scarce species tors could all have had an impact as could the today; and Degithina sollicitoria, which is seen use of chemicalinsecticides. more frequently.frequently. The fact that Cook's natu­ Not only does the collection provide evi­ ralists took a total offivespeciesfive species of moderate­ dence for the decline ofcertain endemic insect sized,sized, active hymenopterans (i.e., including species, but it alsofocuses attention on the rise the two species of Sphictostethus) suggests of adventive species. Present-day entomolo­ that perhaps the person with the butterfly net gists visitingthe Cook landing sites could not was being selective and madea special effort fail tonotice that the most conspicuous insects to obtain these particular insects. today are mostly introduced species. Thus,Thus, a Within the Coleoptera the naturalists col­ modern collection of this nature would in­ lected two specimens of Coptomma variegata, clude green vegetable bug (Nezara viridula), a large cerambycid (20-22 mm), which Hud­ bumble bee (Bombus spp.),spp.), honey bee (Apis son (1934) noted was "now" now very much rarer melifera),melifera), European wasp (Vespula spp.),spp.), than it wasin Wakefield's time" (around white-spotted ichneumon Echthromorpha 1872); and two specimenspecimenss of NyxetesNyxetes bidensbidens,, intricatoriaiintricatoria),, white butterfly (Pieris rapae), a two-spined black weevil, weevil, which is a surprising and black beetle (Heteronychus arator), to inclusion in viewof its spasmodic ococcurrencecurrence name but a few wefound conspicuous. today. This is all the more surprising since they omitted to collecollectct any specimens of Sco­ 4.4. How Different are the Landing SiteSitess lopterus, black spiny weevils that are far more Today? abundant than Nyxetes in flowers today (we found them at several sites). Two other beetles At least some degree of habitat change has in the collection are worthy of mention.mention. The taken place at eachof the localities visited by cerambycid,cerambycid, XylotolXylotoleses lynceus,lynceus, occurs at Ship Cook. The North Island east coast ssites,ites, in Cove on the introduced tall fescue, Festuca particular, have been greatly modifiedby bush arundinacea, where we located itreadily on clearance and farming, to a point where only our visit.Clearly, it wawass an element of luck sparse scattered patches of indigenous forest that brought the early naturalists to this ex­ remain. The Anaura Bay Reserve isis,, in effecteffect,, tremely local insect. Its endemic host plant is theonly "natural" (although in far less than not known. Although a common insect,insect, the original condition) area of forest remaining inclusion of Selenopalpus cyaneus also isa near one ofCook's east coast landings, and in surprise.surprise. This dull-blue oedemerid beetle,beetle, it we found four ofBanks' speciesspecies.. The poten­ normally regarded as a subalpine species as­ tially attractive and historically signifisignificantcant sociated with speargrass and other flowers watering place at Tolaga Bay has beenal­ (Hudson 1975), has not otherwise been re­ lowed to remain almost totally devoid ofnat­ corded from lowland coastal sites. Perhaps ural vegetation, and the stream itself is merely Cook'sCook's efforts to climb the hills around Ship a trickle through grazed pasture. Patches of Cove for views ofthe waterway between the seminatural .. vegetation-in._Mercury_vegetation-.in.i. Mercury- Bay North and South Islands enabled the colleccollec­­ (Shakespeare Cliffand Ohuka Beach) allowed torsto find this beetle, but there are no recent us to find some of Banks' insects (seven records below 700 mm.. species taken)taken).. Our conclusion is that this 200-year-old in­ The vegetation of the Bay of Islands was sectcollection provides circumstantial evi­ already modified when Cook arrived there dence for the familiar pattern of a decline in and is even more so now (we took six of Banks' certain endemic species sincethe first EuroEuro­­ species on Moturua Island).Island). But Ship Cove pean contacts with New Zealand. Sweeping had a covering of natural forest vegetation,vegetation, 112 PACIFIC SCIENCESCIENCE,, VolumeVolume 43,43, January 1989 and it still does, apart from the invasion of are so geographically variable that theycan be adventive grasses along the foreshore,foreshore, making pinpointed to one of the localities. In most it by far the least modified of all the landing cases,cases, two or more possible locations could be sites.sites. The Endeavour spent most time there (14 assigned tothe insects, asis indeed the case for days), probably allowing the naturalists to the Catoptes example quoted above (Kuschel obtain their best sample ofinsects (we located 1969). It is easier to say wherethe insect was ten of their species)species).. not collected.collected. In short, the fate of Cook'sCook's landinglanding sites is Our present collection records are included symptomatic of modifications to New Zea­ in the Appendix in the hope that they may land as a wholewhole.. There is no evidence that any shedsome light on the localities. localities . Of those of the species collected have become extinct listed, Xylotoles lynceus is theonly species for (unlike some ofthe bird species they observed)observed),, whichwe can confidently assume a single pos­ butcertainly some aarere reducedin abundance to sible collection siteat Ship Cove. For the the point where a modern entomological ex­ others,others, there must remain uncertainty, at least pedition with modern collecting equipment until careful revisions are made using up-to­ would not have any hope of repeating the list date distribution records. of species found so "easily" by theseearly naturalists.naturalists. Still less chance would present­ day naturalists have if they used the methods of Banks and Solander. Our brief foray (5 CONCLUSIONS days collecting versus 40 days days Endeavour was moored in New Zealand waters) to their sites This assessment of the first insects known yielded only 19 of the 40 species taken in from New Zealand has emphasized the "acci­ 17691769-1770.-1770. By contrast, most of the mol­ dental" collection methods we consider to luscan shells they collected still can be regarded have led tothe discovery of many of Banks'Banks' as common today. specimens and examined some of the more surprising inclusions and omissions. By com- com- 5. IsIt Possible to Establish More Precise paring the kinds of insects gathered over 200 LocalitiesforLocalities for Some Species? years ago with those oftoday,of today, the Banks col­ lectionlection serves to remind us of the impact of In spite of the absence of any locality data Europeans on the endemic invertebrate fauna with the actual specimens (see above)above),, several -an impact ofwhich we have remarkably lit­ authors have attempted to establish type 10- tle direct evidence. The complete list ofactual calicalitiesties for the Banks collection material. specimens taken on the Endeavour voyage will Thus, Kuschel (1969) concluded-from its probably never be known for certain, but we present known distribution and the schedule are confident that those we have included are ofEndeavour-that CatoptesCatoptes interruptus must first voyage material. Some others that are not have been collected at Tolaga Bay and des- included here [e.g., [e.g., Calliphora quadrimaculata ignated this its type localitylocality.. Dugdale and (Svederus) and Lycaena salustius (Fabricius)] Fleming (1969) discuss the Endeavour voyage also may eventually be attributed to this voy­ in relation to the collection ofthe two species age. age. This review has shed some additional of£-Amphipsaltaand-restricUhe-t¥Pe-1ocaliAmphipsalta and restrict.the type.localityt.)wLof-Jight-ou.theacti¥ities-oLthe.firstnaturalists-in.light.on.the activities of.the first naturalists in -. cingulata "to Bay ofIslands, where Banks and New Zealand. It also reveals that Fabricius, his companions collected between November one ofthe preeminent entomologists ofhis era, era, 29 and December 4, 1769." However, revi- suffered some human lapses now and again. sions of Xylotoles (Breuning 1950) and the He could excel as a systematist for instance oedemerid beetles (Hudson 1975) make no when he differentiated two sibling species of attempt to assign localities for type specimens.specimens. Pyronota or the pairs ofsimilar pompilids and Few species are sufficiently restricted in ichneumonids, yethe failed to recognize the their distribution or time of appearance,appearance, or two cryptic Amphipsalta species and placed a

1M3 MMM; a& in New Zealand Insects CoCollectedllected on CookCook's's Voyage-ANDREWSVoyage-ANDREWS AND GIBBS 113 clearly distinct New ZealandZealand cicada in his own CoColeopteraleoptera cocollection,llection, somesomehowhow negneglectinglecting toname it. Carabidae Neocicindela Bay of tuberculatatuberculata Islands,Islands, Ship Cove APPENDIX Histeridae SaprinusSaprin us detritus New Zealand insects collected collected on Endeavour StaphylinidaeStap hylinidae voyage:voyage: ThisThistable table lists the confirmed first Creophilus voyage material and indicates where we 10-10- oculatus cated our specimens. Scarabaeidae Hemiptera PericoptusPericoptus Gisborne,Gisborne, Cicadidae truncatus TolagaTolagaBay, Bay, AmphipsaltaAmphipsalta Mercury Bay,Bay, Mercury cingulata Bay of BayBay Islands,Islands, Stethaspis Amphipsalta Ship Cove suturalis zelandicazelandica PyronotaPy ronota festiva Mercury Bay, Rhodopsalta Bay of cruentatacruentata IslandsIslands Kikihia muta Ship Cove, Pyronota laeta Notopsalta sericeasericea Mercury Bay, ColydiidaeColydiidae Bay of Pristoderus scaber Islands Chrysomelidae LepidopteraLepidoptera Coccinella leonina NymphalidaeNymphalidae Oedemeridae BassarisBassaris gonerilla ShipShip Cove Thelyphassa Bassaris itea lineata Diptera SelenopalpusSelenopalpus Therevidae cyaneus Anabarynchus CerambycidaeCerambycidae bilineatus Hybolasius cristus MercuryMercuryBay Bay SyrpSyrphidaehidae XylotolesXy lotoles lynceus Ship Cove HeliophilusHeliop hilus Xylotoles griseus Anaura Bay,Bay, trilineatus Mercury Pilinascia Bay,Bay, Ship cingulata Cove HymenopteraHymenoptera Oemona hirta BayBay of IslandsIslands IchneumonidaeIchneumonidae Ambeodontis Ichneumon tristis lotatoria Coptomma -DegithinD egithina ·variegatumvariegatum sollicitoria Navomorpha Levansa lineatum decoratoria Navomorpha AnauraAnaura Bay,Bay, Pompilidae ssulcatumulcatum BayBayof Sphictostethus Ship Cove Islands fugax Zorion minutum Anaura BBayay SphictostethusSphictostethus Ship Cove Curculionidae nitidus Nyxetes bidensbidens 114 PACIFICPACI FIC SCIENCE,SCIENCE,VVolumeolume 43,43, JanuaryJanu ary 19891989

CatoptesCatoptes Anaura BayBay BRBREUNING,EUNING, S.1950. Revision desdes Parmenini.Parmenini . interruptusinterruptus PagesPages 229-1599- 159 in P. Lepisme, Lepisme, Longicornia,Longicornia, RhadinosomusRhadinosomus MMercuryercury Bay,Bay, Paris.Paris. acuminatusacum inatus Ship CoCoveve DUGDALE,DUGDALE, JJ.. S.,S.,and and C. A. FFLEMING.LEMING. 1969.1969. StephanorrhynchusSt ephanorrhyn chus Two NNewew Zealand cicadascicadas collected oonn attelaboidesattelaboides Cook'sCook's EndeavourEndeavour voyage,voyage, withwithdescription description BrenthidaeBrenthid ae of a newnew genus.genus. New Zealand J.J. Sci.Sci. 12: LasiorrhynchusLasiorrhynchus Ship CoCoveve 929-957.929- 957. barbicornisbarbicornis GIBBS,GIBBS, G. W. 1980. New Zealand buttbutterflies,erflies, identification and natural history.history. CollinCollins,s, ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS AucklAuckland.and. HATCH,HATCH, E. P. 1981. 1981. An annotated checklist/checklist/ We would like to thank W. Kuschel and JJ.. index of D. C. SolanderSolander's's Primitiae Florae.Flo rae. SS.. Dugdale,Dugdale, Entomology Division,Division, DSIRDSIR,, for NationalNational Museum Wellington (Unpubl. their willing exchange ofdata and ideas on the MS)MS).. EndeavourEndeavour insects.insects . The EntomologyEntomology Depart­ HHUDSON,UDSON, G. V. V. 1934. New ZealZealandand bbeetleseetles ment of the British British MuMuseumseum ((NaturalNaturalHis­ His­ aandnd their larlarvae.vae. Ferguson & Osborn,Osborn, Wel­Wel­ tory)tory) provided photographs ofssomeome ofBanks'Banks ' lington.lington. insect specimens. Identification of specimens HUDSON,HUDSON, L. 1975.1975. A systematicsystematicrevision revision ofthe was checked by Claire Butcher,Butcher, B. J. Dono­ New Zealand OedemeridaeOedemeridae(Coleoptera: (Coleoptera : van,van, andandR. C. Craw,Craw, EntomologyEntomology Division,Division , Insecta).Insecta). J. R. R. Soc.Soc.New ZealandZealand 5(3): DSIR;DSIR; F.Chambers, Chambers, Oponake;Oponake ; AnnetteAnnette K.K. 227-274.227- 274. Walker,Walker, Commonwealth Institute of Ento­ KUSCHEL,KUSCHEL, W. 1969. 1969.TheThe genus CatoptesCatoptes Schon­ molomology,gy, London;London; andR. R. A. Savill,Savill, CCanterburyanterbury hherrerr andtwo sspeciespecies oblitae of FabriciusFab ricius MuMuseum.seum. frfromom New ZZealandealand (Coleoptera:(Coleopte ra: Curcu­Curcu­ lionidae).lionidae) . NNewew ZealandZealand J.J. Sci.Sci.12: 12:789-810.789-810. ---.- - -. 1987.1987. ANew ZealZealandand hihisteridsterid beetlebeetle LITERATURELITERATURE CITED of FabriciusFabricius mimistakenlystakenly dedescribedscribed fromfrom ANDREWS,ANDREWS, J.R. R. H. 1986. 1986. The ssouthernouthern ark AustraliaAustralia ((Coleoptera:Coleoptera:Histeridae). Histeridae).New -A- A hhistoryisto ry ofof NNewew ZZealandealand zzoologicaloological dis­ ZealandZealand Entomol.Ent omol. 9:9 :556-57.6-57. covery,covery, 1769-1900.1769-1900. CenCenturytury Hutchinson,Hutchinson, RADFORD,RADFORD, W. P. K. 1981. 1981. ThThee FFabricianabrician tytypespes AucklandAuckland and London. of the AuAustralianstralian and New ZeZealandaland ColeCole­­ ,BEAGLEHOLE,BEAGLEHOLE, J. C. ed. 1962. 1962. The EndEndeavoureavour optera in the Banks Banks collectcollectionion at theBritish British journjournalal of JosephJoseph BanksBanks 1768-1771.1768-1771. 2 vol. vol. MuseumMuseum ((NaturalNa turalHistory). History). Rec.Rec. SS.. Austral.Austral. TruTrusteesstees of the Public LibraryLibrary of New Mus. 18(8): 18(8): 155-197.155-197. South Walesand Angus aandnd Robertson,Robertson, ZIMSEN,ZIMSEN, E.E. 1964. The type material of 1.I. C.C. Sydney. Fabricius. Munksgaard,Munksgaard, Copenhagen.