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 pictures within are linked to their copyright holder. 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 vulpina…………………………………….. 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 Passalidae……………………………………………………………………… 12 Genus Odontotaenius…………………………………………. 12 Scarabaeidae………………………………………………………………….. 13 Subfamily Aphodiinae…………………………………………………. 13 Tribe Aegialiini……………………………………………………… 13 Genus Aegialia………………………………………………… . 13 Genus Caelius………………………………………………..... 13 Tribe Aphodiini……………………………………………………… 14 Genus Acrossus………………………………………………... 14 Genus Agoliinus………………………………………………... 14 Genus Aphodius………………………………………………... 15 Genus Blackburneus…………………………………………... 15 Genus Calamosternus………………………………………… 15 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 2 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 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 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 3 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 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 *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 4 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 Families of the Scarabaeoidea of Maryland Geotrupidae Glaphyridae Hybosoridae Geotrupes hornii Lichnanthe vulpina Germarostes globosus Lucanidae Passalidae Lucanus capreolus Odontotaenius disjunctus Scarabaeidae Trogidae Canthon viridis Trox spinulosus *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 6 Back to 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/6814/bgimage?from=38 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 Back to 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 56; Skip to 2(1) http://bugguide.net/node/view/402659/bgimage Genus: Geotrupes Species: Geotrupes blackburnii Similar to: G. egeriei Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Geotrupini Page 56; Skip to 2(1) http://bugguide.net/node/view/358581/bgimage *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 8 Back to Table of Contents Genus: Geotrupes Species: Geotrupes hornii Similar to: G.ulkei (Cited in Literature) Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Geotrupini Page 56; Skip to 2(1) http://bugguide.net/node/view/284669/bgimage Genus: Odonteus (Bolboceras) Species: Odonteus ( Bolboceras) liebecki Simlar to: O. cornigerus (cited in Literature) O. darlingtoni, O. falli, O. thoracicornis Dichotomous Key: Scarab Beetles of South Carolina Key to Tribe Bolboceratini, Page 51; skip to 2(1) O. falli-The Scarabaeoid Beetles of Nebraska Key to Odonteus, Page 38 http://bugguide.net/node/view/19076/bgimage GLAPHYRIDAE Genus: Lichnanthe Species: Lichnanthe vulpina Dichotomous Key: Species description in Scarab Beetles of South Carolina, Page 58 http://bugguide.net/node/view/547246/bgimage *All photographs are linked to their copyright holder. 9 Back to Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Ataenius Heinekeni Wollatson, 1894 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Aphodiinae)
    (A. heinekeni) Ataenius heinekeni Wollatson, 1894 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Aphodiinae) By: Edrick Lugo Millán & Verónica Acevedo Ramírez, Juliana Cardona, Nico Franz Geographic Range: Bahamas (Andros), Barbados (probably introduced), Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico (Quebradillas- east of Lago Guajataca, Bayamón, Mayagüez), St. Thomas. USA (SC-FLTX), Mexico to Brazil, introduced to Ascension and Madeira islands. Habitat: A. heinekeni beetles were beaten from leaves, collected under leaves and logs on hard ground, under live-oak trees, on old rice-field dams, under roadside debris and at coastal coppice trap. (Jerath,1960). They are mainly found in animal dung and decaying material. Physical Description: Ataenius is distinguished from other genera of the Eupariini by a combination of characters, among them head narrower than pronotum, anterior clypeus visible from above, pronotum laterally without denticles and at most sparsely to moderately ciliate, sides of pronotum not explanate, elytra often with basal margination, front tibiae with slanted anterior margin, middle and hind tibiae not flattened, uniformly wider from base, hind tibiae straight with outer apical angle spiniformly prolonged, tarsi normal with first segment often as long as the following three segments combined (SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY, no 154). Length 4.3.-5.5 mm. Usually reddish-brown to black, few with color patterns, some dorsally setose.. Head moderately convex, surface smooth, granulate, wrinkled, or rugose. Abdominal fluting is distinct. External sexual dimorphisms are subtle, if present. Life Stages: The life cycle of Ataenius beetles is not well known but apparently they are humus feeders in the soil, with a few species attracted to decaying vegetation and to animal dung.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Melolonthidae: Dynastinae)
    Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 61 (2017) 354–358 REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE Entomologia A Journal on Insect Diversity and Evolution www.rbentomologia.com Systematics, Morphology and Biogeography Description of the third instar larva of Saccharoscaptus laminifer (Dechambre) (Coleoptera: Melolonthidae: Dynastinae) Miguel Ángel Morón Red de Biodiversidad y Sistemática, Instituto de Ecología, Xalapa, Mexico a a b s t r a c t r t i c l e i n f o Article history: The larva of pentodontine S. laminifer is described for first time based on specimens collected under Received 4 April 2017 roots of sugarcane in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Diagnostic structures are illustrated and the differences and Accepted 17 July 2017 similarities with other previously described larvae of South American genera of Pentodontini are outlined. Available online 29 July 2017 A key to the larvae of some American genera of pentodontines is included. Associate Editor: Adriana Marvaldi © 2017 Sociedade Brasileira de Entomologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Keywords: Morphology Taxonomy Biology White grubs Sugarcane Introduction Material and methods In the Americas, the tribe Pentodontini includes 32 genera and The classification of families of Scarabaeoidea used in the 151 species that occur from southern Canada to Argentina, with present paper was proposed by Endrödi (1966) and updated by four genera and nine species in the West Indies (Endrödi, 1969, Morón (2010) and Cherman and Morón (2014). Terms and charac- 1985; Morón and Grossi, 2015; Ratcliffe and Cave, 2015; López- ters used in the description of larva are those of Ritcher (1966), García et al., 2016), but only the larvae of nine genera (Aphonus Morón (1987), and Morón et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Diversity and Conservation in Old-Growth Northwest Forests'
    AMER. ZOOL., 33:578-587 (1993) Arthropod Diversity and Conservation in Old-Growth mon et al., 1990; Hz Northwest Forests complex litter layer 1973; Lattin, 1990; JOHN D. LATTIN and other features Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, tural diversity of th Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2907 is reflected by the 14 found there (Lawtt SYNOPSIS. Old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest extend along the 1990; Parsons et a. e coastal region from southern Alaska to northern California and are com- While these old posed largely of conifer rather than hardwood tree species. Many of these ity over time and trees achieve great age (500-1,000 yr). Natural succession that follows product of sever: forest stand destruction normally takes over 100 years to reach the young through successioi mature forest stage. This succession may continue on into old-growth for (Lattin, 1990). Fire centuries. The changing structural complexity of the forest over time, and diseases, are combined with the many different plant species that characterize succes- bances. The prolot sion, results in an array of arthropod habitats. It is estimated that 6,000 a continually char arthropod species may be found in such forests—over 3,400 different ments and habitat species are known from a single 6,400 ha site in Oregon. Our knowledge (Southwood, 1977 of these species is still rudimentary and much additional work is needed Lawton, 1983). throughout this vast region. Many of these species play critical roles in arthropods have lx the dynamics of forest ecosystems. They are important in nutrient cycling, old-growth site, tt as herbivores, as natural predators and parasites of other arthropod spe- mental Forest (HJ cies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Novel Trap Design for Non-Lethal Monitoring of Dung Beetles Using
    Journal of Insect Conservation (2021) 25:629–642 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-021-00329-4 ORIGINAL PAPER A novel trap design for non‑lethal monitoring of dung beetles using eDNA metabarcoding Leandro Camila1 · Dejean Tony2 · Valentini Alice2 · Jean Pauline2 · Jay‑Robert Pierre1 Received: 2 March 2020 / Accepted: 4 June 2021 / Published online: 21 June 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Abstract The current biodiversity crisis calls for rapid and wide-ranging surveys to assess living organisms. However, some taxa are more elusive than others, making monitoring challenging. This is the case for soil invertebrates, but new molecular technologies such as eDNA metabarcoding could help to alleviate this problem. In this study, we evaluated the feasibil- ity of using an eDNA approach to survey dung beetles, adapting existing monitoring methods for surveying dung fauna to enable eDNA collection in a non-destructive way. The main design idea is to capture species secretions and excretions from a serum-soaked nonwoven compress in a baited non-destructive trap. While the attractiveness of the device to dung beetles and the sampling protocol would beneft from further development, eDNA allowed the identifcation of more than 68% of trapped species and an identifcation of relative abundance match rate of 79%. The results of the study demonstrate the efectiveness of eDNA-based detection tools for the monitoring of dung beetles compared to standard surveying and identifcation techniques. Moreover, the adapted collecting device developed for the study could be used for similar surveys of other terrestrial invertebrates or even re-adapted.
    [Show full text]
  • Autographa Gamma
    1 Table of Contents Table of Contents Authors, Reviewers, Draft Log 4 Introduction to the Reference 6 Soybean Background 11 Arthropods 14 Primary Pests of Soybean (Full Pest Datasheet) 14 Adoretus sinicus ............................................................................................................. 14 Autographa gamma ....................................................................................................... 26 Chrysodeixis chalcites ................................................................................................... 36 Cydia fabivora ................................................................................................................. 49 Diabrotica speciosa ........................................................................................................ 55 Helicoverpa armigera..................................................................................................... 65 Leguminivora glycinivorella .......................................................................................... 80 Mamestra brassicae....................................................................................................... 85 Spodoptera littoralis ....................................................................................................... 94 Spodoptera litura .......................................................................................................... 106 Secondary Pests of Soybean (Truncated Pest Datasheet) 118 Adoxophyes orana ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera)
    © Entomologica Fennica. 27 .VIII.1991 Abundance and distribution of coprophilous Histerini (Histeridae) and Onthophagus and Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera) Olof Bistrom, Hans Silfverberg & Ilpo Rutanen Bistrom, 0., Silfverberg, H. & Rutanen, I. 1991: Abundance and distribution of coprophilous Histerini (Histeridae) and Onthophagus and Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera).- Entomol. Fennica 2:53-66. The distribution and occmTence, with the time-factor taken into consideration, were monitored in Finland for the mainly dung-living histerid genera Margarinotus, Hister, and Atholus (all predators), and for the Scarabaeidae genera Onthophagus and Aphodius, in which almost all species are dung-feeders. All available records from Finland of the 54 species studied were gathered and distribution maps based on the UTM grid are provided for each species with brief comments on the occmTence of the species today. Within the Histeridae the following species showed a decline in their occurrence: Margarinotus pwpurascens, M. neglectus, Hister funestus, H. bissexstriatus and Atholus bimaculatus, and within the Scarabaeidae: Onthophagus nuchicornis, 0. gibbulus, O.fracticornis, 0 . similis , Aphodius subterraneus, A. sphacelatus and A. merdarius. The four Onthophagus species and A. sphacelatus disappeared in the 1950s and 1960s and are at present probably extinct in Finland. Changes in the agricultural ecosystems, caused by different kinds of changes in the traditional husbandry, are suggested as a reason for the decline in the occuJTence of certain vulnerable species. Olof Bistrom & Hans Si!fverberg, Finnish Museum of Natural Hist01y, Zoo­ logical Museum, Entomology Division, N. Jarnviigsg. 13 , SF-00100 Helsingfors, Finland llpo Rutanen, Water and Environment Research Institute, P.O. Box 250, SF- 00101 Helsinki, Finland 1.
    [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]
  • Larvae of Ataenius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae
    Eur. J. Entomol. 96: 57—68, 1999 ISSN 1210-5759 Larvae ofAtaenius (Coleóptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae): Generic characteristics and species descriptions José R. VERDÚ and E duardo GALANTE Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales, Universidad de Alicante, E-03080 Alicante, Spain Key words.Scarabaeidae, Aphodiinae, Ataenius, larvae, description, key, dung beetles, turfgrass beetles, taxonomy Abstract. We compared the larval morphology of the genera Ataenius and Aphodius. The third larval instars of five Ataenius species: Ataenius opatrinus Harold, A. picinus Harold, A. platensis (Blanchard), A. simulator Harold and A. strigicauda Bates, are described or redescribed and illustrated. The most important morphological characteristics of the larvae of Ataenius are found in the respiratory plate of thoracic spiracle, the setation of venter of the last abdominal segment, the setation of the epicranial region and the morphology of the epipharynx. A key to larvae of the known species of Ataenius is included. INTRODUCTION del Sacramento (Uruguay). For the purpose of laboratory studies, a total of 10 to 20 adult specimens of each species were The genus Ataenius Harold comprises 320 species, of kept in cylindrical plastic breeding cages (20 cm high, 10 cm which 228 species are found in America, 49 in Australia, wide) with moist soil and dry cow dung from which they had 11 in Africa, 6 in East Asia, 2 in Madagascar, and single been collected. The lid was an opening (6 cm diameter) covered species in India, Sri Lanka, Turkestan, Japan, Hawaii and with gauze screen. These breeding cages were maintained in an Sumatra, respectively (Dellacasa, 1987). Despite the rich­ environmental chamber at 25 : 20°C (L : D), 80 ± 5% RH, with ness of this genus and its worldwide distribution, the lar­ a photoperiod of 15 : 9 (L : D).
    [Show full text]