DOCSLIB.ORG

Quick Guide for the Identification Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quick Guide for the Identification Of Quick Guide for the Identification of Maryland Scarabaeoidea Mallory Hagadorn Dr. Dana L. Price Department of Biological Sciences Salisbury University This document is a pictorial reference of Maryland Scarabaeoidea genera (and sometimes species) that was created to expedite the identification of Maryland Scarabs. Our current understanding of Maryland Scarabs comes from “An Annotated Checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) of Maryland” (Staines 1984). Staines reported 266 species and subspecies using literature and review of several Maryland Museums. Dr. Price and her research students are currently conducting a bioinventory of Maryland Scarabs that will be used to create a “Taxonomic Guide to the Scarabaeoidea of Maryland”. This will include dichotomous keys to family and species based on historical reports and collections from all 23 counties in Maryland. This document should be cited as: Hagadorn, M.A. and D.L. Price. 2012. Quick Guide for the Identification of Maryland Scarabaeoidea. Salisbury University. Pp. 54. Questions regarding this document should be sent to: Dr. Dana L. Price - [email protected] *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 1 Table of Contents Families of Scarabaeoidea of Maryland…………………………………….................... 6 Geotrupidae……………………………………………………………………………....... 7 Subfamily Bolboceratinae…………………………………………………………… 7 Genus Bolbocerosoma…………………………………………………....... 7 Genus Eucanthus……………………………………………………........... 7 Subfamily Geotrupinae……………………………………………………………… 8 Genus Geotrupes………………………………………………………........ 8 Genus Odonteus...………………………………………………………….. 9 Glaphyridae................................................................................................................ 9 Genus Lichnanthe.…………………………………………………………... 9 Hybosoridae………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Genus Germarostes…………………………………………………………. 10 Lucanidae…………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Subfamily Aesalinae……………………………………………………………........ 10 Genus Nicagus………………………………………………………………. 10 Subfamily Luncaninae………………………………………………………………. 10 Genus Dorcus…………………………………………………..................... 10 Genus Lucanus…………………………………………………………........ 11 Genus Platycerus……………………………………………………………. 12 Subfamily Syndesinae………………………………………………………………. 12 Genus Ceruchus…………………………………………………………….. 12 Scarabaeidae……………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Subfamily Aphodiinae……………………………………………………………….. 13 Tribe Aegialiini…………………………………………………………………… 13 Genus Aegialia……………………………………………………………….. 13 Genus Caelius………………………………………………........................ 13 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 2 Tribe Aphodiini………………………………………………………………....... 14 Genus Acrossus………………………………………………..................... 14 Genus Agoliinus………………………………………………..................... 14 Genus Aphodius………………………………………………..................... 15 Genus Blackburneus…………………………………………..................... …… 15 Genus Blackburneus…………………………………………..................... 15 Genus Calamosternus………………………………………………………. 15 Genus Chilothorax…………………………………………………………… 16 Genus Colobopterus………………………………………………………… 16 Genus Dialytellus…………………………………………………………….. 16 Genus Dialytes……………………………………………………………….. 17 Genus Flaviellus……………………………………………………………... 17 Genus Irrasinus………………………………………………………………. 17 Genus Labarrus……………………………………………………………… 18 Genus Lechorodius………………………………………………………….. 18 Genus Melinopterus…………………………………………………………. 18 Genus Oscarinus……………………………………………....................... 19 Genus Otophorus……………………………………………………………. 19 Genus Oxyomus……………………………………………………………... 19 Genus Pardalosus…………………………………………………………… 20 Genus Planolinellus…………………………………………………………. 20 Genus Planolinus……………………………………………………………. 20 Genus Pseudagolius………………………………………......................... 21 Genus Stenotothorax………………………………………........................ 21 Genus Strigodius…………………………………………………………….. 21 Genus Teuchestes…………………………………………......................... 22 Tribe Didactyliini…………………………………………………………………. 22 Genus Aidophus……………………………………………………………... 22 Tribe Eupariini……………………………………………………………………. 22 Genus Aphotaenius………………………………………………………….. 22 Genus Ataenius……………………………………………………………… 23 Genus Pseudataenius………………………………………………………. 23 Genus Saprosites……………………………………………………………. 24 Tribe Psammodiini……………………………………………………………….. 24 Genus Pammodius…………………………………………........................ 24 Genus Rhyssemus…………………………………………........................ 25 Genus Pleurophorus………………………………………………………… 25 Subfamily Cetoniinae……………………………………………………………….. 26 Tribe Cetoniini…………………………………………………………………… 26 Genus Euphoria……………………………………………………………… 26 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 3 Tribe Cremastocheilini…………………………………………………………... 28 Genus Cremastocheilus…………………………………………………….. 28 Genus Psilocnemis………………………………………………………….. 28 Tribe Gymnetini………………………………………………………………….. 29 Genus Cotinis………………………………………………......................... 29 Tribe Trichiini……………………………………………………………………... 29 Genus Gnorimella……………………………………………………………. 29 Genus Osmoderma………………………………………………………….. 29 Genus Trichiotinus…………………………………………………………… 30 Genus Trigonopeltastes…………………………………………………….. 31 Tribe Valgini………………………………………………………………………. 31 Genus Valgus………………………………………………......................... 31 Subfamily Dynastinae………………………………………………........................ 31 Tribe Cyclocephalini……………………………………………........................ 31 Genus Cyclocephala………………………………………………………… 31 Genus Dyscinetus…………………………………………………………… 32 Tribe Dynastini…………………………………………………………………… 32 Genus Dynastes……………………………………………………………... 32 Tribe Oryctini……………………………………………………………………... 32 Genus Strategus…………………………………………………………….. 32 Genus Xyloryctes……………………………………………………………. 33 Tribe Pentodontini………………………………………………........................ 33 Genus Aphonus……………………………………………………………… 33 Genus Euetheola…………………………………………………………….. 34 Genus Tomarus……………………………………………………………… 34 Tribe Phileurini…………………………………………………………………… 35 Genus Phileurus……………………………………………………………... 35 Subfamily Melolonthinae……………………………………………………………. 35 Tribe Diplotaxini…………………………………………………....................... 35 Genus Diplotaxis……………………………………………........................ 35 Tribe Hopliini……………………………………………………………………… 36 Genus Hoplia…………………………………………………………………. 36 Tribe Macrodactylini……………………………………………………………... 37 Genus Dichelonyx…………………………………………………………… 37 Genus Macrodactylus………………………………………....................... 38 Tribe Melolonthini………………………………………………………………... 38 Genus Phyllophaga…………………………………………....................... 38 Genus Polyphylla…………………………………………………………….. …………….. 40 Tribe Sericini……………………………………………………………………… 41 Genus Maladera……………………………………………………………... 41 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 4 Genus Nipponoserica……………………………………………………….. 41 Genus Serica…………………………………………………………………. 41 Subfamily Rutelinae…………………………………………………....................... 42 Tribe Anomalini............................................................................................. 42 Genus Anomala……………………………………………………………… 42 Genus Popillia………………………………………………………………... 44 Genus Strigoderma…………………………………………........................ 45 Tribe Rutelini……………………………………………………………………... 45 Genus Cotalpa……………………………………………………………….. 45 Genus Parastasia……………………………………………………………. 45 Genus Pelidnota……………………………………………………………... 46 Subfamily Scarabaeinae……………………………………………....................... 46 Tribe Ateuchini…………………………………………………………………… 46 Genus Ateuchus……………………………………………......................... 46 Tribe Canthonini…………………………………………………………………. 46 Genus Canthon………………………………………………...................... 46 Genus Melanocanthon………………………………………………………. 47 Tribe Coprini……………………………………………………………………… 47 Genus Copris………………………………………………………………… 47 Genus Dichotomius…………………………………………....................... 48 Tribe Onthophagini………………………………………………………………. 48 Genus Onthophagus………………………………………………………… 48 Tribe Phanaeini…………………………………………………………………... 49 Genus Phanaeus……………………………………………....................... 49 Trogidae……………………………………………………………………………………... 50 Subfamily Troginae………………………………………………………………….. 50 Genus Omorgus……………………………………………………………… 50 Genus Trox…………………………………………………………………… 51 References………………………………………………………………………………….. 53 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 5 Table of Contents Families of the Scarabaeoidea of Maryland Geotrupidae Glaphyridae Hybosoridae Geotrupes hornii Lichnanthe vulpina Germarostes globosus Lucanidae Passalidae Lucanus capreolus Odontotaenius disjunctus Scarabaeidae Trogidae Onthophagus taurus Trox spinulosus *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 6 Table of Contents GEOTRUPIDAE Subfamily Bolboceratinae Genus: Bolbocerosoma Species: Bolbocerosoma farctum Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Bolboceratini Page 51 http://bugguide.net/node/view/255129/bgimage Genus: Bolbocerosoma Species: Bolbocerosoma tumefactum Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Bolboceratini Page 51 http://bugguide.net/node/view/429013/bgimage Genus: Eucanthus Species: Eucanthus lazarus Similar to: E. impressus Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Bolboceratini Page 51; Skip to 9(5) http://bugguide.net/node/view/345282/bgimage *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 7 Table of Contents Genus: Eucanthus Species: Eucanthus subtropicus Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Bolboceratini Page 51; Skip to 9(5) http://bugguide.net/node/view/209128/bgimage Subfamily Geotrupinae Genus: Geotrupes Species: Geotrupes splendidus Similar to: G. balyi, G. semiopacus Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Geotrupini Page
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diplotaxis Multicarinata 285
    Delgado & Mora Aguilar: A New Mexican Scarab Species, Diplotaxis multicarinata 285 DIPLOTAXIS MULTICARINATA (COLEOPTERA: SCARABAEIDAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM A RELICT FOREST IN OAXACA, MEXICO LEONARDO DELGADO AND EDER F. MORA-AGUILAR Instituto de Ecología, A. C., Carretera Antigua a Coatepec No. 351, 91070 Xalapa, Veracruz, México ABSTRACT A new species of scarab beetle, Diplotaxis multicarinata sp. nov., is described from a relict montane forest in the northeastern region of Oaxaca, Mexico. The new species belongs to the simplex species-group, and a new key to this group is presented in order to include the new species. Key Words: Taxonomy, key, scarab beetle, Melolonthinae RESUMEN Se describe una nueva especie de escarabajo, Diplotaxis multicarinata sp. nov., proveniente de un bosque relicto localizado en la región noreste del estado de Oaxaca, México. La nueva especie pertenece al grupo de especies simplex, presentándose una nueva clave de identifi- cación para separar a todas las especies de este grupo. Translation provided by the authors. The genus Diplotaxis Kirby includes 241 spe- de México, México City (CNIN), Colección Ento- cies ranging from Panama to Canada, with most mológica del Instituto de Ecología, A. C., Xalapa, species (76%) founded in Mexico; these species are México (IEXA), S. McCleve collection, Arizona, arranged in 38 species-groups, and 6 species are USA (SMCC), L. Delgado collection, Mexico City unassigned (McCleve 1993; Davidson & Davidson (LLDC), and E. Mora-Aguilar collection, Xalapa, 2006; Delgado 2011). The simplex species-group México (EMAC). of this genus includes 9 species, which are distrib- uted from eastern and southern Mexico to Gua- DIPLOTAXIS MULTICARINATA DELGADO AND MORA- temala, and in the Greater Antilles (Jamaica).
    [Show full text]
  • Dung Beetle Richness, Abundance, and Biomass Meghan Gabrielle Radtke Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2006 Tropical Pyramids: Dung Beetle Richness, Abundance, and Biomass Meghan Gabrielle Radtke Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Recommended Citation Radtke, Meghan Gabrielle, "Tropical Pyramids: Dung Beetle Richness, Abundance, and Biomass" (2006). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 364. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/364 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. TROPICAL PYRAMIDS: DUNG BEETLE RICHNESS, ABUNDANCE, AND BIOMASS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Biological Sciences by Meghan Gabrielle Radtke B.S., Arizona State University, 2001 May 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. G. Bruce Williamson, and my committee members, Dr. Chris Carlton, Dr. Jay Geaghan, Dr. Kyle Harms, and Dr. Dorothy Prowell for their help and guidance in my research project. Dr. Claudio Ruy opened his laboratory to me during my stay in Brazil and collaborated with me on my project. Thanks go to my field assistants, Joshua Dyke, Christena Gazave, Jeremy Gerald, Gabriela Lopez, and Fernando Pinto, and to Alejandro Lopera for assisting me with Ecuadorian specimen identifications. I am grateful to Victoria Mosely-Bayless and the Louisiana State Arthropod Museum for allowing me work space and access to specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • Dung Beetle Assemblages Attracted to Cow and Horse Dung: the Importance of Mouthpart Traits, Body Size, and Nesting Behavior in the Community Assembly Process
    life Article Dung Beetle Assemblages Attracted to Cow and Horse Dung: The Importance of Mouthpart Traits, Body Size, and Nesting Behavior in the Community Assembly Process Mattia Tonelli 1,2,* , Victoria C. Giménez Gómez 3, José R. Verdú 2, Fernando Casanoves 4 and Mario Zunino 5 1 Department of Pure and Applied Science (DiSPeA), University of Urbino “Carlo Bo”, 61029 Urbino, Italy 2 I.U.I CIBIO (Centro Iberoamericano de la Biodiversidad), Universidad de Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain; [email protected] 3 Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Universidad Nacional de Misiones–CONICET, 3370 Puerto Iguazú, Argentina; [email protected] 4 CATIE, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, 30501 Turrialba, Costa Rica; [email protected] 5 Asti Academic Centre for Advanced Studies, School of Biodiversity, 14100 Asti, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Dung beetles use excrement for feeding and reproductive purposes. Although they use a range of dung types, there have been several reports of dung beetles showing a preference for certain feces. However, exactly what determines dung preference in dung beetles remains controversial. In the present study, we investigated differences in dung beetle communities attracted to horse or cow dung from a functional diversity standpoint. Specifically, by examining 18 functional traits, Citation: Tonelli, M.; Giménez we sought to understand if the dung beetle assembly process is mediated by particular traits in Gómez, V.C.; Verdú, J.R.; Casanoves, different dung types. Species specific dung preferences were recorded for eight species, two of which F.; Zunino, M. Dung Beetle Assemblages Attracted to Cow and prefer horse dung and six of which prefer cow dung.
    [Show full text]
  • Dung Beetles: Key to Healthy Pasture? an Overview
    Available online at www.worldscientificnews.com WSN 153(2) (2021) 93-123 EISSN 2392-2192 Dung beetles: key to healthy pasture? An overview Sumana Saha1,a, Arghya Biswas1,b, Avirup Ghosh1,c and Dinendra Raychaudhuri2,d 1Post Graduate Department of Zoology, Barasat Government College, 10, K.N.C. Road, Barasat, Kolkata – 7000124, India 2IRDM Faculty Centre, Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700103, India a,b,c,dE-mail address: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) do just what their name suggests: they use the manure, or dung of other animals in some unique ways! Diversity of the coprine members is reflected through the differences in morphology, resource relocation and foraging activity. They use one of the three broad nesting strategies for laying eggs (Dwellers, Rollers, Tunnelers and Kleptocoprids) each with implications for ecological function. These interesting insects fly around in search of manure deposits, or pats from herbivores like cows and elephants. Through manipulating faeces during the feeding process, dung beetles initiate a series of ecosystem functions ranging from secondary seed dispersal to nutrient cycling and parasite suppression. The detritus-feeding beetles play a small but remarkable role in our ecosystem. They feed on manure, use it to provide housing and food for their young, and improve nutrient cycling and soil structure. Many of the functions provide valuable ecosystem services such as biological pest control, soil fertilization. Members of the genus Onthophagus have been widely proposed as an ideal group for biodiversity inventory and monitoring; they satisfy all of the criteria of an ideal focal taxon, and they have already been used in ecological research and biodiversity survey and conservation work in many regions of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology, Taxonomy, and Biology of Larval Scarabaeoidea
    Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/morphologytaxono12haye ' / ILLINOIS BIOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS Volume XII PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS *, URBANA, ILLINOIS I EDITORIAL COMMITTEE John Theodore Buchholz Fred Wilbur Tanner Charles Zeleny, Chairman S70.S~ XLL '• / IL cop TABLE OF CONTENTS Nos. Pages 1. Morphological Studies of the Genus Cercospora. By Wilhelm Gerhard Solheim 1 2. Morphology, Taxonomy, and Biology of Larval Scarabaeoidea. By William Patrick Hayes 85 3. Sawflies of the Sub-family Dolerinae of America North of Mexico. By Herbert H. Ross 205 4. A Study of Fresh-water Plankton Communities. By Samuel Eddy 321 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS BIOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS Vol. XII April, 1929 No. 2 Editorial Committee Stephen Alfred Forbes Fred Wilbur Tanner Henry Baldwin Ward Published by the University of Illinois under the auspices of the graduate school Distributed June 18. 1930 MORPHOLOGY, TAXONOMY, AND BIOLOGY OF LARVAL SCARABAEOIDEA WITH FIFTEEN PLATES BY WILLIAM PATRICK HAYES Associate Professor of Entomology in the University of Illinois Contribution No. 137 from the Entomological Laboratories of the University of Illinois . T U .V- TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 Introduction Q Economic importance Historical review 11 Taxonomic literature 12 Biological and ecological literature Materials and methods 1%i Acknowledgments Morphology ]* 1 ' The head and its appendages Antennae. 18 Clypeus and labrum ™ 22 EpipharynxEpipharyru Mandibles. Maxillae 37 Hypopharynx <w Labium 40 Thorax and abdomen 40 Segmentation « 41 Setation Radula 41 42 Legs £ Spiracles 43 Anal orifice 44 Organs of stridulation 47 Postembryonic development and biology of the Scarabaeidae Eggs f*' Oviposition preferences 48 Description and length of egg stage 48 Egg burster and hatching Larval development Molting 50 Postembryonic changes ^4 54 Food habits 58 Relative abundance.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Insecta Mundi Florida March 2002 An annotated checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) Nadine A. Kriska University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI Daniel K. Young University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi Part of the Entomology Commons Kriska, Nadine A. and Young, Daniel K., "An annotated checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera)" (2002). Insecta Mundi. 537. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi/537 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Florida at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Insecta Mundi by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. INSECTA MUNDI, Vol. 16, No. 1-3, March-September, 2002 3 1 An annotated checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) Nadine L. Kriska and Daniel K. Young Department of Entomology 445 Russell Labs University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706 Abstract. A survey of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) conducted from literature searches, collection inventories, and three years of field work (1997-1999), yielded 177 species representing nine families, two of which, Ochodaeidae and Ceratocanthidae, represent new state family records. Fifty-six species (32% of the Wisconsin fauna) represent new state species records, having not previously been recorded from the state. Literature and collection distributional records suggest the potential for at least 33 additional species to occur in Wisconsin. Introduction however, most of Wisconsin's scarabaeoid species diversity, life histories, and distributions were vir- The superfamily Scarabaeoidea is a large, di- tually unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Design Documentation
    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beetle Fauna of Dominica, Lesser Antilles (Insecta: Coleoptera): Diversity and Distribution
    INSECTA MUNDI, Vol. 20, No. 3-4, September-December, 2006 165 The beetle fauna of Dominica, Lesser Antilles (Insecta: Coleoptera): Diversity and distribution Stewart B. Peck Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada stewart_peck@carleton. ca Abstract. The beetle fauna of the island of Dominica is summarized. It is presently known to contain 269 genera, and 361 species (in 42 families), of which 347 are named at a species level. Of these, 62 species are endemic to the island. The other naturally occurring species number 262, and another 23 species are of such wide distribution that they have probably been accidentally introduced and distributed, at least in part, by human activities. Undoubtedly, the actual numbers of species on Dominica are many times higher than now reported. This highlights the poor level of knowledge of the beetles of Dominica and the Lesser Antilles in general. Of the species known to occur elsewhere, the largest numbers are shared with neighboring Guadeloupe (201), and then with South America (126), Puerto Rico (113), Cuba (107), and Mexico-Central America (108). The Antillean island chain probably represents the main avenue of natural overwater dispersal via intermediate stepping-stone islands. The distributional patterns of the species shared with Dominica and elsewhere in the Caribbean suggest stages in a dynamic taxon cycle of species origin, range expansion, distribution contraction, and re-speciation. Introduction windward (eastern) side (with an average of 250 mm of rain annually). Rainfall is heavy and varies season- The islands of the West Indies are increasingly ally, with the dry season from mid-January to mid- recognized as a hotspot for species biodiversity June and the rainy season from mid-June to mid- (Myers et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Passion for Rhinoceros and Stag Beetles in Japan
    SCARABS CZ CN MNCHEM, NBYS QCFF WIGY. Occasional Issue Number 67 Print ISSN 1937-8343 Online ISSN 1937-8351 September, 2011 A Passion for Rhinoceros and Stag Beetles WITHIN THIS ISSUE in Japan Dynastid and Lucanid Enthusiasm in Japan ........ 1 by Kentaro Miwa University of Nebraska-Lincoln Bug People XXIV ........... 10 Department of Entomology In Past Years XLVI ......... 11 [email protected] Guatemala Scarabs IV ... 20 BACK ISSUES Available At These Sites: Coleopterists Society www.coleopsoc.org/de- fault.asp?Action=Show_ Resources&ID=Scarabs University of Nebraska A large population of the general public in Japan enjoys collecting and www-museum.unl.edu/ rearing insects. Children are exposed to insects at early ages because their research/entomology/ parents are interested in insects. My son went on his first collecting trip Scarabs-Newsletter.htm on a cool day in March in Nebraska when he was four months old. EDITORS I am from Shizuoka, Japan. I am currently pursuing my Ph.D in En- Rich Cunningham tomology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and studying biology [email protected] and applied ecology of insets in cropping systems. Among many insect Olivier Décobert taxa I am interested in, dynastines and lucanids are my favorite groups. [email protected] I have enjoyed collecting and rearing these beetles throughout my life. Barney Streit I began collecting beetles with my parents and grandparents when barneystreit@hotmail. com I was two years old. When I was about six, I learned to successfully rear some Japanese species. Since I came to the United States, I have been enjoying working with American species.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Remains from Various Sites in Southwark: Draft for Consultation
    Insect remains from various sites in Southwark: Draft for consultation H. K. Kenward Environmental Archaeology Unit, University of York, York YO1 5DD. [NB: This report was reformatted from a Runoff file on 18th March 2008. The only changes have been to preserve internal consistency and to correct typographical errors. HK. The original was an archive report deposited in the former Environmental Archaeology Unit, York, and the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, and allocated post hoc as Reports from the Environmental Archaeology Unit, York 90/10.] Introduction This report is an account of insect remains from a large number of samples from several sites in Southwark. The material was provided in processed form. The majority of the assemblages were dry in plastic tubes, and the remainder in IMS in glass vials. In some cases, material in both forms was available for a sample. Almost all the groups of insects were, by comparison with the material normally used for interpretation, very small, often only one to a few fragments. In a few cases some twenty or so individuals of beetles and bugs were represented by the remains; the largest group was perhaps twice this size, still less than half the number of individuals generally taken as a reasonable working minimum for interpretation of a mixed assemblage (Kenward 1978). The dry material appeared to be biassed in favour of large taxa, and presented considerable difficulty in handling because of the effect of static attraction between fossils and the plastic vials. Many fossils were damaged while attempting to remove them, and others sprang away as a result of static repulsion as soon as they were taken from the tubes.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Phylogenetic Hypotheses Regarding Aphodiinae (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae)
    STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF DUNG BEETLE PHYLOGENY - a review of phylogenetic hypotheses regarding Aphodiinae (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae) Mattias Forshage 2002 Examensarbete i biologi 20 p, Ht 2002 Department of Systematic Zoology, Evolutionary Biology Center, Uppsala University Supervisor Fredrik Ronquist Abstract: As a preparation for proper phylogenetic analysis of groups within the coprophagous clade of Scarabaeidae, an overview is presented of all the proposed suprageneric taxa in Aphodiinae. The current knowledge of the affiliations of each group is discussed based on available information on their morphology, biology, biogeography and paleontology, as well as their classification history. With this as a background an attempt is made to estimate the validity of each taxon from a cladistic perspective, suggest possibilities and point out the most important questions for further research in clarifying the phylogeny of the group. The introductory part A) is not a scientific paper but an introduction into the subject intended for the seminar along with a polemic against a fraction of the presently most active workers in the field: Dellacasa, Bordat and Dellacasa. The main part B) is the discussion of all proposed suprageneric taxa in the subfamily from a cladistic viewpoint. The current classification is found to be quite messy and unfortunately a large part of the many recent attempts to revise higher-level classification within the group do not seem to be improvements from a phylogenetic viewpoint. Most recently proposed tribes (as well as
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of the Rutelinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) of Oceania
    CHECK LIST OF THE RUTELINAE (COLEOPTERA, SCARABAEIDAE) OF OCEANIA By FRIEDRICH OHAUS BERNICE P. BISHOP MUSEUM OCCASIONAL PAPERS VOLUME XI, NUMBER 2 HONOLULU, HAWAII PUBLISHED BY THE MUSJ-:UM 1935 CHECK LIST OF THE RUTELINAE (COLEOPTERA, SCARABAEIDAE) OF OCEANIA By FRIEDRICH OHAUS MAINZ, GERMANY BIOLOGY The RuteIinae are plant feeders. In Parastasia the beetle (imago) visits flowers, and the grub (larva) lives in dead trunks of more or less hard wood. In Anomala the beetle is a leaf feeder, and the grub lives in the earth, feeding on the roots of living plants. In Adoretus the beetle feeds on flowers and leaves; the grub lives in the earth and feeds upon the roots of living plants. In some species of Anornala and Adoretus, both beetles and grubs are noxious to culti­ vated plants, and it has been observed that eggs or young grubs of these species have been transported in the soil-wrapping around roots or parts of roots of such plants as the banana, cassava, and sugar cane. DISTRIBUTION With the exception of two species, the Rutelinae found on the continent of Australia (including Tasmania) belong to the subtribe Anoplognathina. The first exception is Anomala (Aprosterna) antiqua Gyllenhal (australasiae Blackburn), found in northeast Queensland in cultivated places near the coast. This species is abundant from British India and southeast China in the west to New Guinea in the east, stated to be noxious here and there to cultivated plants. It was probably brought to Queensland by brown or white men, as either eggs or young grubs in soil around roots of bananas, cassava, or sugar cane.
    [Show full text]