Jan 042012
 

ResearchBlogging.orgIt’s not often that flies make headlines, and when they do it’s usually in a negative connotation (malaria, mosquitoes, black flies, etc). A new paper published Tuesday in PLoS ONE (Core et al, 2011) is certainly not helping this Detrimental Diptera Dillema (DDD), announcing that a species of scuttle fly (Phoridae) has been discovered parasitizing honey bees (Apis mellifera), one of the most loved insects on the planet.

Images of Apocephalus borealis and honey bees from Core et al., 2012

Fig. 2 - Images of Apocephalus borealis and honey bees from Core et al., 2012

Of course things attacking honey bees isn’t in itself news, especially in the age of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The real news here is that the scuttle fly, Apocephalus borealis, has seemingly switched hosts, previously known to be parasitic in bumble bees, paper wasps, and even black widow spiders (Brown, 1993). Other Apocephalus flies are better known as ant-decapitating flies, who’s larvae will pupate in the dismembered heads of their ant hosts. As for A. borealis, it’s association with honey bees was thanks to a serendipitous natural history observation:

(John) Hafernik, who also serves as president of the California Academy of Sciences, didn’t set out to study the parasitized bees. In 2008, he was just looking for some insects to feed the praying mantis that he had brought back to SF State’s Hensill Hall after an entomology field trip. He scrounged the bees from underneath the light fixtures outside the biology building.

“But being an absent-minded professor,” Hafernik joked, “I left them in a vial on my desk and forgot about them. Then the next time I looked at the vial, there were all these fly pupae surrounding the bees.”

San Francisco State University Press Release, January 3, 2012

After further observation, a few behavioural trials and some interesting molecular techniques, the research team found that not only were these scuttle flies parasitizing honey bees in the San Francisco Bay area, but also in migratory bee colonies housed in the Central California Valley and South Dakota, and also that infected honey bees would leave their colonies at night to fly away and die (often congregating at man-made lights and acting strangely); that all of the parasitized bees had been exposed to Nosema ceranae (a fungus which can lead to death from diarrhea and malnourishment) and/or Deformed Wing Virus (a disease that can cause malformation of a bee’s thorax and wings during pupation); and that some of the flies had evidence of these bee pathogens in their systems.

This is a lot of really interesting information for one study, but it’s not hard to see where the authors were going next with their story: scuttle flies could be contributing to CCD and posed a “new threat” to honey bees. The authors proceeded to pose a long series of questions regarding future areas of research, and how all of their findings could be detrimental to honey bee populations and the potential role these flies play in CCD. Overall, this is a very cool piece of natural history research, with a bit too much CCD hype for my liking!

You can see why the media has fallen in love with this paper; it includes flies (which no one likes on principle), honey bees (which everyone likes on principle), CCD (which scares the daylights out of everyone) and zombies (which also scare the daylights out of everyone). At the time that I wrote this post (midnight-ish Wednesday morning), I found 13 major news outlets or blogs from around the world which had covered the story (see list below).

This is where we have a problem though. Of the 13 stories I looked at, 8 of them had errors in their reports, of varying severity. What’s worse, all of the erroneous accounts were in major reporting outlets, potentially misinforming thousands of readers! It’s not surprising however, to see that 7 of the 8 stories that got things 100% correct were all science-focused publications/blogs, while one was a small-market news affiliate:

The Good

KQED News – ‘Zombie’ Parasite Preys on Bay-Area Honeybees, by Lauren Sommer

Observations (Scientific American Blog Network) – “Zombie” Fly Parasite Killing Honeybees, by Katherine Harmon

New Scientist LifeParasitic fly could account for disappearing honeybees, by Andy Coghlan

Science NowParasitic Fly Dooms Bees to Death by Maggots, by Erik Stokstad

MyrmecosDid a parasitic fly cause Colony Collapse in bees?, by Alex Wild

Not Exactly Rocket ScienceParasitic fly spotted in honeybees, causes workers to abandon colonies, by Ed Yong

The Bad

MSNBC (WebCite copy) – Stated bees which foraged at night were more likely to be parasitized than bees that foraged during the day (misinterpretation of Fig. 3A of Core et al., 2012)

Mirror (WebCite copy) – Stated that the parasite “is similar to one being found in bumblebees” (it’s not just similar, it’s the same species)

Press Association (WebCite copy) – Title states that the flies are linked to bee losses (not true, the connection between fly parasitism and CCD is simply proposed by the authors); Implied that bees are immediately turned into light-seeking zombies after the female fly lays her eggs (it appears to take up to a week for this to happen)

Daily Mail Online (WebCite copy) – Title states link between flies and global decline of bees (see above); Didn’t italicize species names (minor I know, but it bugs me)

CBC News (WebCite copy) – Implies that bees which foraged at night were more likely to be parasitized than bees that foraged during the day (see MSNBC)

io9 (WebCite copy) – “This parasite is a likely culprit (in reference to CCD – MDJ) because it does indeed force bees to abandon their colony” (authors say the fly may contribute to CCD, not that it is the likely culprit)

Daily Express (caching not allowed) – Implies that bees are parasitized in their hives and that they immediately “abandon their hives in a crazed state” (the authors are unsure of where the flies attack, but they know it’s not in the hive, and see the Press Association above); didn’t italicize species names (argh)

While I doubt that heads will roll at these institutions because of these errors (sorry, a little Apocephalus humour there), the moral of this story is that the science content the majority of the public is exposed to is not exactly the best science content available! Hopefully, as scientists and science writers continue to use social media and blogs, the good stories I featured here will reach more of the people who would normally only see the “bad” versions, imparting a correct and positive experience with the fantastic research being done every day around the world!

 

Update (Jan. 07, 2012, 20:30) Brian Brown, a co-author on this study and the world’s expert on these flies, has expanded on the natural history and taxonomy of the flies involved in this research on his blog ‘flyobsession’. The remainder of the research team behind this study will be setting up a FAQ to help ‘clarify’ some of the errors I reported on above, and are also beginning a new citizen science project to begin understanding how far flung this parasitism is.

 
Core, A., Runckel, C., Ivers, J., Quock, C., Siapno, T., DeNault, S., Brown, B., DeRisi, J., Smith, C., & Hafernik, J. (2012). A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis PLoS ONE, 7 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029639

BROWN, B. (1993). Taxonomy and preliminary phylogeny of the parasitic genus Apocephalus, subgenus Mesophora (Diptera: Phoridae) Systematic Entomology, 18 (3), 191-230 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.1993.tb00662.x PDF Available HERE

Dec 132011
 

Mendeley logoThe first step when starting any new research project is to become familiar with the past literature, and know who did what, and when. This is especially true for taxonomy, where each and every paper published in the past 250 years regarding the description of new species or discussion of the framework for the tree of life for any given taxon is relevant and needs to be examined. This can result in a huge library of publications to keep track of, for which there are a number of options available to the beginning biologist.

One in particular however, has something a little extra incorporated in it; a social network.

Mendeley was developed as a freely available, online, cloud-based reference manager, where individual users add citations & publications to a central repository, which in turn is accessible to all other users for building citation catalogs of their own. There are several benefits to this system, one of which is a recommendation of other publications which may be relevant to your field of research, some of which you may not have been previously aware of. The other benefit is of more use for evaluating the impact of a publication (including your own).

Mendeley Stats

User statistics for Gibson et al, 2011

Because all 1 million current users are building citation lists from the same pool, it’s possible to obtain basic demographics of the people reading your work. Take for example a recent paper I collaborated on regarding PCR primers specific for Diptera phylogenetics. 3 people (other than myself) have added the paper to their Mendeley citation list, with 2 working in the US and one in the UK. While these aren’t groundbreaking numbers, nor the stats overly informative, it’s encouraging to see researchers are noticing the work we did. I would like it if you could see who exactly was reading your papers, as I think it could be useful for finding future collaborators or potential advisors for graduate or post-doctoral work, but I’ll take the simple gratification that our work is being read by 0.0003% of the Mendeley community!

Mendeley has also incorporated several other networking tools, including profiles where you can share your CV, publications, funding sources and contact information (similar to the tools available to LinkedIn users), as well as infrastructure  for sharing publications and holding discussions specific to your field of research in both public and private groups. Being based primarily online, it’s pretty simple to add references to your library using available web browser add-ons, and there are also desktop & mobile clients available which allow you to access your reference library anywhere or while on the go, although I’ve found them both to be a little buggy and prone to crashing (on my iPhone 4S and Windows XP PC).

The central citation database built by the community of users also holds the potential for some interesting data-mining projects, like Roderic Page’s goal of linking species names with the literature containing their original description. If you’re interested in cybertaxonomy, I’d recommend checking out Rod’s blog for more information (it’s pretty cool, but a little on the technical side).

Ultimately, Mendeley is attempting to streamline the accumulation and distribution of scientific literature for researchers. If you’re looking for a reference manager, or are interested in exploring some of it’s capabilities, feel free to look me up; who knows how we might connect!

 

 

Gibson, J. F., Kelso, S., Jackson, M. D., Kits, J. H., Miranda, G. F. G., & Skevington, J. H. (2011). Diptera-Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction Amplification Primers of Use in Molecular Phylogenetic Research. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 104(5), 976-997. Available online (OPEN ACCESS)

Dec 092011
 

Continuing with my presentations from ESA 2011 in Reno last month, this talk was a part of the Biosurveillance & Cerceris fumipennis symposium and debuts the field guide to jewel beetles (Buprestidae) I’m helping to develop (along with Steve Paiero and Adam Jewiss-Gaines). I also gave a variation of this talk at the Entomological Society of Ontario Annual General Meeting back in October.

This project was originally conceived to assist the multiple groups working with Cerceris fumipennis and bringing in hundreds of jewel beetle specimens, and was funded by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Featuring 165 species of Buprestidae and hundreds of colour photos, maps and other identification tools, we’re in the final stages of preparation before bringing this bad boy to print!

The video capture and multiple conversions robbed some of the quality of the beetle images, so be sure to check out the SlideShare below for slightly better representations. Look forward to seeing plenty more information on this book in the coming months, as well as a sneak preview of some of the more charismatic species!

 

Aug 262011
 

Today’s guest post is by Stephen Luk, the lead author of Fireflies of Ontario (Coleoptera: Lampyridae), which was recently published in the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification. Stephen is an M.Sc. candidate at the University of Guelph as part of the Insect Systematics Lab, and while his main research is now focusing on Sphaeroceridae taxonomy, he has maintained a keen interest in the remaining Insecta. Stephen is a frequent contributor to BugGuide.net, and an avid nature photographer.

Lampyridae - Lampyrinae - Photinus obscurellus (m) - Stephen Luk Firefly

Photinus obscurellus by Stephen Luk

Over the moist meadows where stargazers behold the star-studded sky, insect enthusiasts can admire the summer scintillations of fireflies. Their neon glows spark fond childhood memories: of fields lit by symphonic displays; of brilliant twinkling in a jar set among the grass or over a book. But the fireflies of lore and poetry are truthfully poorly understood. They are often difficult to identify both in the field and in the laboratory. The shape and colour of a species can vary bewilderingly, and only an informed observer is capable of confidently identifying species amid the dazzling nocturnal orchestration. This is said of adults, and scarcely of immature stages, the knowledge of which is mostly sparse to absent.

Thankfully, the confusion is subsiding with the advent of novel identification tools. “The Fireflies of Ontario (Coleoptera: Lampyridae)”, published in the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification, features an updated list of Ontario fireflies as well as a comprehensive and user-friendly key to adult fireflies in Canada east of Ontario. Users will discover a practical platform upon which to illuminate the fascinating lives of fireflies. This resource arrived just as these wonderful beetles mesmerized the public with their seasonal light shows. Fireflies were certainly well represented this summer in southwestern Ontario — I observed nearly a dozen species upon a few occasions here in Guelph.

Behind the scenes with fireflies

I became acquainted with fireflies as an undergraduate student, and was appalled that creatures so familiar were so harrowing to identify. Thus, I assembled obscure literature, meticulously determined specimens and wrestled long with species in the genus Photinus (remarkably similar species in this region). I amalgamated and redesigned keys while gladly illustrating them with pinned specimens, but disapproved the paucity of suitable live images, and have since embarked on a quest to rectify this personally. The product was defended and published fourteen months later, rendering Ontario’s adult fireflies identifiable. I have since accumulated additional images, and was even privileged to dispense some expertise through the CBC.

Steve’s CBC Radio Interview

Steve was also interviewed for an article in the London Free Press

ResearchBlogging.orgLuk, S., Marshall, S., & Branham, M. (2011). The Fireflies of Ontario (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification DOI: 10.3752/cjai.2011.16 OPEN ACCESS

Aug 242011
 

… to put the name of your choice on a new species, and have your name become a permanent piece of biological history?

Pterostichus (Pseudoferonina) bousqueti Holotype

Holotype male, Pterostichus (Pseudoferonina) bousqueti Bergdahl, sp. n., dorsal habitus. Scale line = 1.0 mm. Automontage digital image by D. H. Kavanaugh. (Bergdahl & Kavanaugh, 2011)

The topic of nomenclature for sale arises every now and again, occasionally even making mainstream media. You may recall the story of a recently discovered Australian shrimp, who’s naming rights were auctioned off to the highest bidder on eBay (that bidder turned out to be a professional athlete interested in conservation biology) and the resulting funds donated to marine conservation (McCallum & Poore, 2010). Or perhaps the $650,000 Golden Palace Casino paid to give Callicebus aureipalatii it’s name (that money was also donated to conserving the native habitat of the species).

While the wholesale of species naming rights is relatively uncommon, ask any taxonomist and they’ll likely have an opinion on the subject, often one of caution and fear of abuse. Consider what may happen if the business of species naming becomes as popular as the business of selling star names (which is pretty well a scam by the way; stars aren’t officially named, they’re numbered by the IAU); countless fly-by-night companies splitting the slightest variation to turn a few bucks and causing true taxonomists endless headaches as they deal with an infinite number of synonymies. A pretty simple ruse given the current rules of zoological nomenclature; give a brief description, say you’re depositing the type specimen somewhere, and then provide several public libraries with copies of the descriptions, which don’t even need to be peer-reviewed.

You can see why taxonomists have a vested interest in keeping a close eye on sponsored taxonomy; we have enough true species to find and describe without needing to waste our time dealing with splitting-for-profit names.

While the threat of poor taxonomy is ever present with current ICZN regulations, most taxonomists are extremely underfunded (if funded at all) and would love some extra money to help do their jobs, even if it means providing a patronym.

So why am I bringing up the subject now? Just this week James Bergdahl, an “amateur” taxonomist, posted to the ENTOMO-L email listserv offering the name of a recently discovered ground beetle (Carabidae) for sale. From the email:

The species is a flightless ground-beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the genus Pterostichus. Adults of the species are primarily black, flightless, and approximately 1 cm in length, and live exclusively along small, forested headwater streams. Similar species have recently been described by Bergdahl & Kavanaugh (2011)*. The species is a member of a closely related group of beetles, restricted in distribution (endemic) to the Pacific Northwest, that have experienced a spectacular radiation across the many coastal and interior mountain ranges of the region.

The minimum offer accepted is estimated to be approximately US$20,000. These funds will be used to support all aspects of wildlife and habitat research by the Conservation Biology Center, including office, travel, lab and publication expenses.

You may think that US$20,000 is a lot of money to ask for naming an obscure, tiny, black beetle, but consider a partial list of the costs associated with taxonomy:

  • 15 years of field research to find it (according to the email) – safely assume $500 of expenditures/year (collecting equipment/traps, travel & accommodation costs, etc)
  • lab materials for conducting research (pins, drawers, cabinets, microscopes, imaging resources, etc) – $2000+
  • publication costs – $250+
  • acquisition of taxonomic knowledge necessary to distinguish a new species (literature, museum visits, specimen shipping costs, etc) – priceless

That brings a low end estimate of the cost to describe this species at around $10,000, not including salary and that all-important priceless category, making a $20,000 asking price less incredulous. In fact, it’s been hypothesized that the average cost for describing a species is US$48,500 (Carbayo & Marques, 2011), making this ground beetle a steal of a deal (especially compared to that GoldenPalace.com Monkey)!

While in a perfect world taxonomists wouldn’t need to prostitute their work to pay the bills, if done responsibly, it may be an alternative mode of rectifying the taxonomic impediment.

So if you or someone you know has an extra $20,000 laying around and would like to help a taxonomist disseminate his knowledge, why not contact James and become a part of history?

What do you think of taxonomic funding via patronage? Would you consider paying a taxonomist for the honour of naming a species? Leave a comment below!

 

ResearchBlogging.orgBergdahl, J., & Kavanaugh, D. (2011). Two new species of Pterostichus Bonelli subgenus Pseudoferonina Ball (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Pterostichini) from the mountains of central Idaho, U.S.A. ZooKeys, 104 DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.104.1272 (OPEN ACCESS)

Carbayo, F., & Marques, A. (2011). The costs of describing the entire animal kingdom Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26 (4), 154-155 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.004

ANNA W. McCALLUM, & GARY C. B. POORE (2010). Two crested and colourful new species of Lebbeus (Crustacea: Caridea: Hippolytidae) from the continental margin of Western Australia Zootaxa, 2372, 126-137 Preview Here

<span class=”Z3988″ title=”ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Trends+in+Ecology+%26+Evolution&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2Fj.tree.2011.01.004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+costs+of+describing+the+entire+animal+kingdom&rft.issn=01695347&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=154&rft.epage=155&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534711000176&rft.au=Carbayo%2C+F.&rft.au=Marques%2C+A.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CTaxonomy”>Carbayo, F., & Marques, A. (2011). The costs of describing the entire animal kingdom <span style=”font-style: italic;”>Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26</span> (4), 154-155 DOI: <a rev=”review” href=”http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.004″>10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.004</a></span>
Aug 232011
 

Ryan FleacrestWhen I first found this song, I had to double check that the artist actually titled it “Call of the Beettle”, and sure enough, it was spelled that horribly. I guess it’s supposed to be “hip”, I don’t know.

With that settled, I was curious whether there was any scientific validity to a song about calling dung beetles, and it just so happens that there are plenty of dung beetles which signal one another through stridulation! Take for example Aphodius ater, a European dung beetle which has been shown to serenade ladies over a fine meal of barn yard waste (Hirschberger, 2001)!

 

Aphodius ater – photo by BioImages – the Virtual Fieldguide (UK) (CC BY-NC-SA accessed via EOL)

 

It seems that most (if not all) of the 1200 Aphodius species communicate in a similar manner (Kasper & Hirschberger, 2005). The sounds themselves are made by rubbing a file (found on the base of the membranous hind wings) against a structure known as the plectrum on the first abdominal segment. As can be seen, the structures are variable between species, and so are the resulting songs.

 

Aphodius Stridulatory Morphology from Kasper & Hirschberger 2005

Kaspar & Hirschberger 2005 Aphodius Stridulation Patterns

Aphodius Stridulation Patterns from Kasper & Hirschberger 2005

 

 

 

 

 

So now that we know that the artist can’t spell but does have  a solid handle on scarab beetle biology, lets check out the song!

I assume Aphodius beetles understand one another better than I understand that song… Reading the lyrics doesn’t help either, and may have confused me even more! Oh well, at least we learned about dung beetle dinner conversation!

 

This song is available on iTunes – Call of the Dung Beettle – Sonic Imperial – Sounds of the Prophets

 

 

ResearchBlogging.org
Hirschberger, P. (2001). Stridulation in Aphodius Dung Beetles: Behavioral
Context and Intraspecific Variability of Song Patterns
in Aphodius ater (Scarabaeidae) Journal of Insect Behavior, 14 (1), 69-88 DOI: 10.1023/A:1007801713479


Kasper, J., & Hirschberger, P. (2005). Stridulation in Aphodius dung beetles: Songs and morphology of stridulatory organs in North American Aphodius species (Scarabaeidae) Journal of Natural History, 39 (1), 91-99 DOI: 10.1080/00222930310001018877

Jul 232011
 

Yes, this is my best Canadian moth photo...

This week saw the publication of one of the broadest identification aids yet in the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification; A Matrix Key to Families, Subfamilies and Tribes of Lepidoptera of Canada by Jason Dombroskie.

Arguably the most popular insects, butterflies, skippers and large, showy moths have had many a field guide written about them, and are generally easy to identify simply by comparison to photographs. However, the large majority of Lepidoptera are small, obscure and have traditionally been difficult to identify. By using simplified characters (including morpho-metric ratios), Jason has created an open-ended, user-friendly matrix key which aims to streamline the identification of even the most minuscule moths. Each subfamily/tribe covered includes a representative photo, notes on biology and taxonomy, and citations for further information.

The key is designed to be used in the lab with a dissecting microscope, but I decided to see how it worked for identifying photos. Using my only 2 photos of Lepidoptera from Canada (I’m not a fan of leps, what can I say), I ran them through the key to get a feel for how the matrix worked. First up was the photo of a female Fall Cankerworm (Alsophila pometaria; Geometridae) pictured above; wingless and not very moth-looking, I thought it’d be an easy ID. I thought wrong. After going through every character included in the key which I could confidently see in my series of photos, I was left with 4 possible tribes in 3 different families (one of which was correct). Unfortunately a photo of a wingless female wasn’t the representative for the taxon page, so I was unable to confidently assign an identification via this key; a shame considering how conspicuous this large, wingless moth is! My second attempt was with a photo of a European Skipper (Thymelicus lineola; Hesperiidae), and again I was stymied by a multitude of possible end taxa. While I have no doubt that this key will be invaluable for identifying micro-moths under a microscope, I’ll be sticking to traditional field guides if I happen to photograph other lepidopteran megafauna.

It’s also important to note that the key is run in a third-party program (XID), which is currently Windows-exclusive (although I hear there is an Android app in the works…). So if you’re a Mac user, you’ll need to borrow someone’s PC to identify your moths!

Despite some compatibility issues and my ineptitude with Lepidoptera, this is another extremely valuable paper which will certainly make the identifications of those tiny Tineidae and other micro-moths a much simpler task!

 

ResearchBlogging.orgDombroskie, J. (2011). A Matrix Key to Families, Subfamilies and Tribes of Lepidoptera of Canada Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification, 17 DOI: 10.3752/cjai.2011.17 OPEN ACCESS

Jun 082011
 

With new identification aids, entomological collections begin to give up all manner of hidden treasures. The “Miscellaneous” drawers are no longer out of reach, and determining the species found in your own backyard (sometimes literally) can result in surprising finds.

Rhagoletis meigenii Tephritidae

Rhagoletis meigenii

Rhagoletis meigenii is an introduced species from Europe which infests fruits of European barberry (Barberis vulgaris) as larvae. This species had previously been recorded in North America as early as 1986, but after examining specimens from the Lyman Entomological Museum and here at the University of Guelph Insect Collection, I found specimens collected as early as 1956 in Montreal, Quebec and 1977 in Oakville, Ontario! This indicates that it had made it’s way to North America much earlier than previously thought, and either spread extremely rapidly across eastern North America, or had multiple introduction events! Luckily this species isn’t of economic concern (European barberry fruits are eaten and used in jams in Europe, but the plant harbours wheat rust and is considered noxious in North America), but it indicates how easily a non-native species can slip into a new area unnoticed by scientists and society.

Urophora affinis Tephritidae

Urophora affinis

Not all fruit flies enter North America “illegally” though. All three species of Urophora found in Ontario are native to Europe, but were intentionally introduced to help control unwanted, invasive knapweed species. Two of the species introduced became established and quickly spread through southern Ontario (Urophora cardui and Urophora quadrifasciata) while one species didn’t appear to survive. Urophora affinis was experimentally introduced in western Canada where it seemed to thrive, but after release in the early 1980’s at a research plot in Hastings County it failed to be found the next few years, leading the researcher to assume the population hadn’t survived the winter. But, a fly collected 250 km away and more than 20 years later in Simcoe County made it through the curatorial stream, and low-and-behold it was Urophora affinis! Apparently this species did in fact survive the winter, and managed to spread at low population density across central Ontario.

 

Rhagoletotrypeta rohweri Tephritidae

Rhagoletotrypeta rohweri

Finding flies thought to be gone is unfortunately not as unlikely as it may seem. Rhagoletotrypeta rohweri is a rarely collected species that hadn’t been seen since 1962. Or at least it hadn’t been thought to have been seen since then! The University of Guelph Insect Collection actually has 4 specimens collected between 1978 and 1985 around Point Pelee National Park. Hopefully this is evidence that this species is still clinging to existence in small pockets of eastern North America!

 

 

Rhagoletis chionanthi

Rhagoletis chionanthi

To round out some of the important species uncovered during this study, here’s Rhagoletis chionanthi. This species had previously only been recorded from North Carolina and Florida, making it’s presence in Ontario a significant expansion of its natural range! Of course this also begs the question as to what it’s using for a larval habitat; the only recorded host plant for R. chionanthi is Chionanthus virginicus (see what they did there, naming the species after its host? Crafty taxonomists…), a plant species which hasn’t been recorded from Canada yet! So what may be happening here? Has the plant expanded it’s range into Canada, bringing it’s pest with it? Or does Rhagoletis chionanthi have multiple hosts? Of course, the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, actually underwent a host-shift from hawthorn to apples when the latter were cultivated in North America, so perhaps Rhagoletis chionanthi has undergone a similar host-shift which we aren’t aware of!

Of course none of these records would have been possible without the entomological collections housed at universities or under provincial or federal care. At a time when taxonomy and natural history collections are devastatingly under funded (or threatened with military take-over), their intrinsic value is made clear through faunistic studies such as this. Who knows what other treasures are awaiting discovery in entomological collections, both large and small? New species await description, rare species make surprise appearances, and the dynamics between species and geography are unfolding with every study!

May 302011
 

Normally I’m pretty excited to see a new identification guide published in the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification; I get to see great images of insects I haven’t come across (yet), ID any of my photos which I couldn’t previously, and just have something new to read that I find especially interesting. The most recent publication is a little more exciting for me however, as I’m the lead author and it marks the culmination of several years work! W00t!

Without further ado, I present to you the Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) of Ontario! I’ll be going over the different aspects of the paper all this week; today focusing on the identification tools, Wednesday on a few of the important species, and Friday I’ll talk about how it’s relatively easy to contribute to CJAI!

 

Apple maggot fruit fly on apple with map of Ontario inscribed in it Continue reading »

May 042011
 

The latest volume of the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification was published today, and it’s one of the most visually compelling keys published so far! Allowing you to identify all the world’s genera of Clusiidae as well as the species found in North America, this new key provides plenty of fantastic photos, an awesome layout and functionality, and something not yet utilized in CJAI papers, a Lucid™ Matrix key. While I’m personally not a fan of Lucid™ products in particular, matrix keys provide users an open-ended path to identification, increasing the chances of a correct identification.

While clusiid flies aren’t necessarily the most frequently observed flies, they are nonetheless fascinating, featuring some incredible behaviours. One of the few acalyptrate families to defend lekking territories, males will take up residence on sunny stretches of logs or dry forest floors and battle with other males for prime areas. Check out the battle gear on these two males:

Procerosoma alini male head - Lonsdale et al 2011

Procerosoma alini male head - Lonsdale et al 2011

Hendelia kinetrolikros - Lonsdale et al 2011

Hendelia kinetrolikros - Lonsdale et al 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue reading »