The Insects of Virginia No. 9

SQUASH, BROAD-HEADED,

AND SCENTLESS PLANT BUGS
OF VIRGINIA

(HEMIPTERA: COREOIDEA;

COREIDAE, ALYDIDAE, RHOPALIDAE)

hy

Richard L. Hoffman
Professor

Biology Department
Radford College
Radford j J a. 24142

Research Division Bulletin 105
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
19 7 5

SQUASH, BROAD-HEADED,

AND SCENTLESS PLANT BUGS
OF VIRGINIA

(HEMIPTERA; COREOIDEA:
COREIDAE, ALYDIDAE, RHOPALIDAE)

COMPOSITION AND PRESSWORK BY
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA

(75)0344

A CALL FOR HELP TO OUR READERS
REQUESTING INSECT MATERIAL ON LOAN
OR AS A DONATION

Our next issues in this series, now in preparation, will include
the following insect groups from Virginia:

1. The Haliplidae (Coleoptera: Adephaga), by James F. Matta ;

2. A revision and updating of our No. 3 (44) bulletin on the genus
Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) , by E. Craig Turner, Jr.;

3. The Longhorned Beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) , by Robert
H. Perry;

4. The Blow Flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) , by Robert D. Hall,
Lee H. Townsend, and E. Craig Turner, Jr.;

5. The Dragonflies (Odonata: Anisoptera), by Frank Carl and
E. Craig Turner, Jr.;

6. The Lygaeid Bugs (Hemiptera: Lygaeoidea), by Richard L.
Hoffman ;

7. The Armored Scale Insects (Homoptera: Diaspididae) , by Mi-
chael Kosztarab;

8. The Flower Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae), by F. Christian Thomp-
son.

Each of the authors listed above could fully utilize more mate-
rial from Virginia for their studies. There are definite gaps in
the geographical distribution of most insect species, usually because
of lack of collecting in certain areas of the state. The Board of
Review and the authors encourage our readers to intensify their
collecting efforts for these groups and lend or donate available
insects (in their personal possession, or in the public collection
under their supervision) to the Department of Entomology at Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Vir-
ginia 24061, (Dr. Michael Kosztarab, Curator). If donated, the
commercial value of the collections will be appraised and acknow-
ledged by letter to the donors for use in claiming possible tax de-
ductions. In each bulletin we also acknowledge the loans and/or
donations for that project. The donated or loaned material will
be forwarded to authors of future bulletins for processing and for
inclusion of new distribution records in manuscripts they are pre-
paring. Only with such joint effort in the inventorying of our
insect fauna can we achieve our goal of a better understanding
of the living environment in Virginia.

PUBLICATIONS in this series are intended to serve
as scientific contributions for a better understanding of
the living environment in Virginia.

Recognizing the basic economic importance of faunistic
studies, our goal is to survey methodically the local insect
fauna through preparation of inventories designed to show
the geographic and seasonal occurrence of insects in the
Commonwealth, and to provide keys, descriptions, and
illustrations to facilitate their recognition.

Insofar as possible, these studies will include data on
biology and life cycles to aid in the formulation of control
recommendations and information on ecological interac-
tions — including host relationships, parasites, and preda-
tors — and the potential of various species as possible bio-
logical control agents. Knowledge gained from such stud-
ies will be used to evaluate the impact of future changes
in our environment.

CONTENTS

Abstract iv

Introduction 1

Taxonomic Arrangement 2

Relative Diversity of Virginia Coreoids 2

Distribution in Virginia 3

Superfamily Coreoidea 4

Key to Families of Coreoidea Found in Virginia 5

Family Coreidae 6

Key to Subfamilies and Genera of Coreidae Found in Virginia- _ 6

Subfamily Pseudophloeinae 8

Genus Ceraleptus Costa 8

Subfamily Meropachydinae 9

Genus Merocoris Perty 9

Key to Species of Merocoris Found in Virginia 9

Subfamily Coreinae 10

Genus Acanthocephola Laporte 11

Key to Species of Acanthocephala Found in Virginia 11

Genus Leptoglossus Guerin-Meneville 12

Key to Species of Leptoglossm Found in Virginia 13

Genus Archimerus Burmeister 18

Genus Euthocktha Mayr 20

Genus Chelinidea Uhler 20

Genus Chariesterus Laporte 21

Genus Catorhintha Stal 22

Genus Anasa Amyot & Serville 24

Key to Species of Amisa Found in Virginia 24

(ii)

Family Alydidae

Key to Genera of Alydidae Found in Virginia 28

Genus Protenor Haglund 30

Genus Megalotomus Fieber 32

Genus Alydus Fabricius 32

Key to Species of Alydus Found in Virginia 32

Genus Stachyocnemus Stal 34

Family Rhopalidae 35

Key to Subfamilies, Tribes and Genera of Rhopalidae

Found in Virginia 37

Subfamily Rhopalinae 40

Genus Harmostes Burmeister 40

Key to Species of Harmostes Found in Virginia 40

Genus Stictopleurus Stal 43

Genus Liorhyssus Stal 44

Genus Niesthrea Spinola 46

Genus Arhyssus Stal 46

Key to Species of Arhyssus Found in Virginia 46

Subfamily Serinethinae 48

Genus Leptocoris Hahn 49

Literature Cited 51

(iii)

ABSTRACT

The 27 species of coreoid bugs known so far to occur in Virginia
are treated from the standpoint of geographic distribution in the
state, their seasonal occurrence, and host plant preferences, w ere
known. Keys are provided for all taxonomic groups, and illustra-
tions of various structural features are given. Spot maps illustrate
the local distributional patterns of several representative species.
Six additional species whose known ranges make it likely that the>
will eventually be found in Virginia are also included in the keys.
The name aequoris McAtee is revived to designate the eastern su -
species of Chelinidea vittiger. Catorhintha mendica Stal is recorded
for Virginia for the first time; this record is apparently also the
easternmost for this rapidly spreading species. Localities for SUc-
topleunis pvnciiventris in western Virginia appear to represent the
southernmost known stations for this generally northern form. In
general, the coreoid fauna of Virginia compares favorably in size
and diversity with that of other states in which the Hemiptera have

been surveyed.

(iv)

INTRODUCTION

This paper constitutes the second part of the proposed serial treat-
ment of the terrestrial Hemiptera of Virginia; the first part (Hoff-
man, 1971) dealt with the four families of the superfamily Scutel-
leroidea.

In general, the introductory remarks given in the first paper
apply here, with the following exceptional and/or supplementary
information : The volume of material examined is appreciably small-
er, because species of the coreoid families are generally far less
abundant in the Virginia fauna than are those of the scutelleroids
and are taken in considerably smaller numbers by the general col-
lector. Instead of 79 species in 44 genera (the number of scutel-
leroids listed in the first part), only 27 species and 18 genera are
here accounted for in the Coreoidea. I personally collected 45
species of scutelleroids (57t/ of the Virginia total), as opposed to
18 of the known local coreoids (66%). The same sources of material
have been utilized plus the reference collection of the Extension
Entomologist for Insect Survey at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University (VPI&SU), made available to me by William A.
Allen. The material housed at the Virginia Truck Crops Experiment
Station in Norfolk has been borrowed from Douglas E. Greenwood.
The main collection at Blacksburg (VPI&SU) has been considerably
augmented in recent years through acquisition of extensive material
donated by M. L. Bobb, A. M. Woodside, and J. F. Matta.

As with the scutelleroid taxa, our best local representations of
coreoids are from the vicinity of Blacksburg and Clifton Forge in
the Ridge and Valley Province; Augusta and Rockingham counties
in the Shenandoah Valley; Fairfax County in the northern Piedmont:
and the extreme southeastern Coastal Plain.

It should be noted that the erstwhile county of Nansemond has
lately become an incorporated municipality and is now cited as the
independent city of Suffolk. As such, it forms part of a continuous
complex of municipalities south of the Chesapeake Bay region.

A new base map has been prepared for the representation of Vir-
ginia localities of selected species. This map is provided with a small
insert map of eastern United States upon which is shown, in a very
generalized way, the overall range of a selected species in this sec-
tion of the country. These small maps are compiled chiefly from

( 1 )

the literature and imply no high degree of accuracy. The numbers
preceding species are continued from those appearing in Bulletin No.
4 of this series (Research Division Bulletin 67. See inside back
cover.)

Appreciation is hereby expressed to Drs. R. I. Sailer and J. L.
Herring for making available collections at the U. S. National Muse-
um of Natural History (USNM), and to Mr. Rodney O’Shea, Univer-
sity of Connecticut, and Dr. Thomas R. Yonke, University of Mis-
souri, for kindly reviewing the manuscript.

TAXONOMIC ARRANGEMENT

A considerable number of changes have been made in coreoid
classification since the appearance of Blatchley’s (1926) celebrated
manual on the Heteroptera of eastern United States. Although the
superfamily still contains the same three families admitted by Blatch-
ley, the internal arrangement of most of them and many group
names have been appreciably modified, largely through the work
of hemipterologists at the University of Connecticut (notably C.
W. Schaefer in two papers published in 1964 and 1965). Changes
are mentioned in the appropriate places under the family headings.
Schaefer’s work is readily available to the student wishing detailed
documentation.

As in the earlier synopsis of Virginia scutelleroids, I have pro-
vided references to current taxonomic papers and occasionally al-
luded to existing situations that appear controversial or unsettled.
Unquestionably, a few more changes involving the name or status
of some Virginia species may be anticipated. It is even possible
that a few highly localized undescribed species remain to be discov-
ered.

RELATIVE DIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA COREOIDS

In the previous part of this series, I provided a comparison of
the known scutelleroid faunas of several eastern states thought to
be fairly well sampled. A similar tabulation is here presented for
the three coreoid groups. Obviously, some of the figures are by
now obsolete, especially those for Florida and Indiana; but in gen-
eral, I think the following tabulation reasonably reflects the rela-
tive concentration and diversity among the various regions shown.

( 2 )

State Coreidae

Florida

34

(Blatchley, 1926)

North Carolina

19

(Brimley, 1938, 1942)

Virginia

15

(this paper)

New York

12

(Leonard, 1926)

Connecticut

7

(Parshley, 1923)

Missouri

18

(Froeschner, 1942)

Indiana

11

(Blatchley, 1926)

NUMBER OF SPECIES
Alydidae Rhopalidae Total

7 9 50

4 8 31

4 8 27

8 5 25

4 3 14

3 9 30

6 6 23

The numerical superiority achieved by Florida in the table re-
flects the tropical proclivities especially of the Coreidae, many spe-
cies of which occur only in the southern half of that state. In this
family the Floridian fauna outnumbers that of Virginia by more
than two to one.

In addition to the 27 species actually verified for the Virginia
fauna, it is possible that at least 6 others may be found here with
future exploration. In the following accounts, any taxa known to
occur within about 100 miles of the boundaries of Virginia are in-
cluded (without number, but marked by an asterisk) on the as-
sumption that they may be encountered.

DISTRIBUTION IN VIRGINIA

In the broadest generalities, our local species of coreids reflect
austral distributional patterns. Alydids are, if anything, slightly
more boreal, and rhopalids show both patterns.

In the “boreal” category, species occurring in northeastern United
States and extending southward through the Appalachians, may in-
clude Stictopleurus punctiventris, Protenor helfragei (if it is found
in Virginia), and presumably Arhyssus nigristernum.

( 3 )

A few species are generally distributed over Virginia, but appar-
ently are more abundant in the western part, and their area is chief-
ly northern. Leptoglossus oppositua represents this pattern, as does
also Alydus eurinus.

The majority of our coreids appear to be austral, and occur chiefly
in the Coastal Plain and outer Piedmont regions. Many are not
yet known from west of the Blue Ridge : Stachyocnemus apicalis,

Leptoglossus phyllopus, Chelinidea vittiger, Anasa ar^nigera, A.
repetita, and Niesthrea louisianica, for example.

Several other species W'hich are basically eastern and lowland in
range, have extended their range into the Alleghenies along the val-
leys of larger rivers like the James and Shenandoah. Chariesterus
antennator and Harmostes fraterculus fall into this category.

Many species appear to be essentially statewide, but so far, have
not been found anywhere much exceeding 2000 feet in elevation.
To be mentioned here should be Acanthocephala terminalis, ArchU
merus alternatus, Euthochtha galeator, Anasa tristis, Alydus pilo-
sulus, and Arhyssus lateralis.

The only species that has been found over the entire state from
sea level to above 5500 feet on Mount Rogers is Harmostes reflexu-
lus.

Leptocoris trivittatus and, presumably, also Catorhintha mendica
are coreoids that have invaded Virginia within historic time ; the
former, at least, is now extremely well established here. L. trivit-
tatus is now statewide at lower elevations.

SUPERFAMILY COREOIDEA

Hemiptera of moderate to large size, dominantly phytophagous
in habit, strictly terrestrial. Head generally porrect, eyes large, ocelli
present, both antennae and beak (rostrum) with 4 segments, anten-
nae set high on head, on or above a line connecting eye with apex
of tylus, metathorax generally with scent gland opening in front of
coxa, the metapleuron with enlarged osteolar peritreme and/or evap-
oratorium ; coxae separated ventrally, the beak extending back at
least between mesocoxae; scutellum small to moderate in size, tri-
angular, the hemelytral clavi forming a commissure behind it; veins
of hemelytral membrane numerous, closely spaced, often anastomos-
ing; tarsi 3-segmented, the ultimate with arolia; femora of legs, espe-
cially the posterior, often enlarged and with one or more rows of
acute spinules on the ventral side, especially in males.

( 4 )

This large group of bugs belongs in the subordinal category “Pen-
tamorpha” within which it is generally placed between the Scutel-
leroidea on one hand and Lygaeoidea on the other. In particular,
there is an obvious affinity between the three superfamilies Coreo-
idea, Lygaeoidea, and Pyrrhocoroidea, as demonstrated by Schaefer
(1964) on the basis of a large number of structural characters.
Superfically, there is considerable similarity between members of
the first two taxa, such as Arhyssus of the Rhopalidae and Nysius
of the Lygaeidae; and if internal characters cannot be observed,
often the only practical distinction for the beginning student is the
difference in hemelytral venation, the veins being numerous, close,
and often anastomosing in coreoids, but few, widely spaced, and not
recurrent in lygaeids.

Although the three families of Coreoidea are generally easy to
recognize after a little experience, infallible external characters for
distinguishing them are not numerous. Perhaps the form of the
scent gland opening and head shape (the old classical characters)
will serve as well as anything to separate the families.

KEY TO FAMILIES OF COREOIDEA FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Opening of scent gland small, obscure, partly concealed

between meso- and metathoracic coxae, or missing;

4th abdominal tergum constricted middorsally by a
median indentation of both anterior and posterior mar-
gin Rhopalidae, p. 35

— Opening of scent gland large, usually through a conspicu-

ous convex peritreme located well up on the body above
the coxal bases (absent in one genus, Stachyocnemus,
which is recognized by having an acute spine on rear
margin of pronotum in front of scutellum, and in hav-
ing large acute spines along the posterior tibiae, neither
character present in our local forms of Rhopalidae) ;

4th abdominal tergum not medially constricted 2

2. Head small, narrower and shorter than pronotum; buc-

culae relatively long, extending back to or beyond level
of insertion of antennae and thus concealing half of
the 1st beak segment ; body generally robust- -Coreidae, p. 6

— Head relatively large, the interocular space about equal

to width of apex of pronotum and/or base of scutellum ;
bucculae short, enclosing less than a third of the first
beak segment; body slender Alydidae, p. 28

( 5 )

FAMILY COREIDAE

A large family of mostly tropica! distribution, containing extreme-
ly large and conspicuous species as well as others of quite moderate
size. All of the species are plant feeders, and a few (e.g., squash
bugs) are sometimes so numerous that severe damage is inflicted
upon cultivated crops. In many species there is sexual dimorph-
ism in the form of the metathoracic legs, these being heavier and
more spinose in males. The majority of coreids are good fliers,
and most of the local species readily produce a strong, sometimes
offensive odor when disturbed.

The classical arrangement of this family by Stal in 1870 recog-
nized no less than 27 subfamilies. The revised classification by
Schaefer (1965), however, reduces the number to only 3, with 20
tribes under the Coreinae ; the 3 subfamilies (not counting the Aus-
tralian Agriopocorinae) are the same as those treated in Blatchley’s
(1926) manual. Two of these taxa are represented in the Virginia
fauna, and a third will most probably be added as the result of
more intensive collection.

KEY TO SUBFAMILIES AND GENERA OF COREIDAE

FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Posterior wings without hamus; transverse oblique basal

vein of hemelytra separated from edge of corium ; 6th

pair of spiracles absent in females

Subfamily Pseudophloeinae, Ceraleptus, p. 8

— Posterior wings with hamus ; transverse oblique basal

vein of hemelytra close to edge of corium or touching
it (Fig. 1) ; 6th pair of spiracles present in females
2

2. Posterior tibiae with a short projecting apical spine on

the ventral side; body length less than 9 mm. Sub-
family Meropachydinae Merocoris, p. 9

— Posterior tibiae without an apicoventral spine ; body

length greater than 10 mm. Subfamily Coreinae 3

3. Tibiae of metathoracic legs dilated on one or both sides

to form broad flattened plates (Figs. 4, 5, 6) 4

— Tibiae of metathoracic legs simple, not laterally expanded _ 5

( 6 )

Figure 1. Diagrammatic sketch of the hemelytron of a coreid, showing the
transverse basal vein of the membrane (stippled) placed close to the pos-
terior edge of the clavus (distinctly separated from the edge in the sub-
family Pseudophloeinae) .

4. Head extended well beyond bases of antennae in front;

tylus, compressed and def lexed in front of them ; basal

antennomere only slightly longer than head

Leptoglossus, p. 12

— Head prolonged little if any beyond bases of antennae;

tylus longer than jugae, projecting upward as a tri-
angular spine between antennal bases; basal anten-
nomere 50% longer than head Acanthocephala, p. 11

5. Second and third antennomeres distinctly three-sided ;

head nearly as long as pronotum, extending forward
beyond antennal bases Chelinidea, p. 20

— Second and third antennomeres cylindrical, or the third

exceptionally flattened and broadened ; head distinctly
shorter than pronotum, not or but slightly projecting
in front of antennal bases 6

( 7 )

6. Third antennomere with the form of a broad flattened

plate (Fig. 8) Chariesterus, p. 21

— Third antennomere of normal cylindrical form 7

7. Femora of hind legs with a large number of small spines

on the ventral side, and distinctly incrassate in the
male; lateral margins of front lobe of pronotum finely
denticulate or crenulate 8

— Femora of hind legs without ventral teeth or with only

2 or 3, not enlarged in either sex; lateral margins of
pronotum smooth 9

8. Head with distinct tubercule behind each eye and with

an acute spine on antennifer; antennae slender, nearly

as long as body Euthochtha, p. 20

— Head without tubercule behind eyes and without spine

near base of antennae ; antennae robust, densely setose,
shorter than body Archimerus, p. 18

9. Body less than 12 mm long; eyes projecting laterally
beyond apical angle of pronotum ; spiracles located
closer to lateral margin of abdominal segments than to
either front or rear margins Catorkintha, p. 22

— Body more than 13 mm long; eyes not distinctly project-

ing beyond anterior angle of pronotum ; spiracles
located equidistant from lateral front and rear margins
Anasa, p. 24

SUBFAMILY PSEUDOPHLOEINAE

A small subfamily including six genera in the Eastern Hemisphere
and two in North America, both generally northern and western
in distribution. One may be found in southeastern Virginia.

Genus CERALEPTUS Costa

Two species are known, one from the western part of the coun-
try, the other in the central and southern states.

CERALEPTUS AMERICANUS Stal

Specimens of this species, grayish, small, about 10-13 mm long,
somewhat resemble a small squash bug, but have a distinctly longer

( 8 )

head and the posterior femora spines are ventrally. It has been
reported (Brimley, 1942) from Raleigh, North Carolina, and if
that record is based on a native population, it is entirely possible
that Ceraleptus will be discovered in central Virginia. So far,
nothing is known of its preferred biotope.

SUBFAMILY MEROPACHYDINAE
(=MEROCORINAE BLATCHLEY)

This small subfamily contains only a single genus in the Nearctic
fauna; the internal composition however is unsettled as noted below.
Although the name Meropachys is now regarded as a synonym of
Merocoris, a sort of suprageneric name was based upon it several
years before Merocorinae was published, and since the priority of
informal group names is now sanctioned by the International Code
of Zoological Nomenclature (1961) Schaefer (1965) ressurected the
original name Meropachydida into its present subfamilial form.

Genus MEROCORIS Perty

There is some divergence of opinion regarding the relative status
of the several North American taxa referred to this genus. Mc-
Atee (1919) performed the first revision in a comprehensive sense,
and recognized a single species typhaeus Fabr., which he divided
into three subspecies, two of which {typhaeus s.s. and distinctus
Dallas) occur in eastern United States. Without reference to Mc-
Atee's paper, Blatchley (1926: 209), however, regarded these two
forms as full species, “easy to separate when one has specimens
of both in hand, but quite difficult from the literature . . . Torre-
Bueno and Engelhardt (1910) implied some overlap in distribution
in recording both taxa from Wilmington, North Carolina. At pres-
ent, the two stand as subspecies in the National collection, but I
am not aware of any recent study based on modern systematic
principles. Perhaps, for the present, it might be best to follow
Blatchley’s precedent and admit both to the Virginia fauna as sepa-
rate species, using his criteria for the following distinction :

KEY TO SPECIES OF MEROCORIS FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Head subquadrate, not prolonged in front between anten-
nal bases; first antennomere stout and subcylindrical,
constricted only near its base, surface thickly set with
bristly hairs; beak short, just reaching between meso-
coxae distinctus

( 9 )

— Head more triangular, prolonged anteriorly between an-
tennal bases ; first antennomere gradually clavate from
base to apex, its surface pubescent rather than setose ;
beak longer, reaching behind mesocoxae typhaeus

80. MEROCORIS DISTINCTUS (Dallas)

This species is the northern representative of the genus, ranging
from New England west to Iowa and Kansas, and southward to
Texas. According to Blatchley (1926) it occurs also southward
in the Atlantic Coastal Plain as far as eastern North Carolina ;
Brimley (1938: 64) says “Statewide” for that state.

The rather limited Virginia material examined so far reflects
an upland distribution, coming from Augusta, Fairfax, Montgomery,
Rockingham, and Shenandoah counties, and the city of Richmond.
A specimen in the National collection was taken on Elliott’s Knob
in western Augusta County at 4000 ft., by H. A. Allard. This
implies that distinctus is not altitudinally limited, as many other
local coreids appear to be, and will eventually be found in most of
western Virginia. The VPI&SU collection has a single specimen
taken at Blacksburg in April 1896, but none has been found there
since. Perhaps the species occupies some very narrow ecological
niche that is sampled only by accident by the general collector.
Collection dates for the Virginia specimens range from April to
early September, although Blatchley mentions mid-October for both
Indiana and Maryland.

81. MEROCORIS TYPHAEUS (Fabricius)

As conceived by McAtee, this form is restricted to the Atlantic
coastal plain from “Carolina” to Florida. Our only Virginia record
appears to be that of Torre-Bueno and Engelhardt (1910: 149)
for Virginia Beach. It is remarkable that decades of subsequent
collecting in extreme southeastern Virginia have failed to disclose
any specimens of Merocoris from the Norfolk region. This should
stand as a challenge to local collectors. Good series of specimens
from Virginia will be useful in making an eventual decision about
the status of the two forms.

SUBFAMILY COREINAE

This is by far the largest subgroup of coreids and includes the
largest local species. The higher classification (definition of tribes,
etc.) has been treated in detail by Schaefer (1965), but many of

( 10 )

the genera have not been studied closely for many years ; possibly
some changes and refinements of generic concepts will occur in the
future as the value of some traditional generic criteria is reexamined
and the primary importance of genitalic characters is emphasized.

Genus ACANTHOCEPHALA Laporte

This genus contains the largest and most impressive of our local
coreoids; they are strong fliers and, as a result, often difficult to
capture. The readiness with which they diffuse their volatile de-
fensive secretion has justly earned them the vernacular name of
“stink bugs.” Most of the known species are Neotropical in
range, but four occur in southeastern United States; three of these
are to be expected in the Virginia fauna.

KEY TO SPECIES OF ACANTHOCEPHALA
FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Body length more than 28 mm; pronotal humeri projected

outward and upward, causing the discal region of the
posterior lobe to appear concave declivis

— Body length less than 28 mm; humeri projecting only

slightly laterad and not elevated, posterior lobe of pro-
notum thus appearing nearly flat 2

2. Fourth antennomere reddish or orange, contrasting with

the brownish color of the others ; tibial dilation of meta-
thoracic leg not extending beyond basal %ths of tibia ;
body 20-25 mm long terminalis

— Fourth antennomere brownish in color like the others ;

tibial dilation of hind legs extending entire length of
tibia ; body 25-28 mm long feniorata

* ACANTHOCEPHALA DECLIVIS (Say)

The range of this large and striking species extends from Raleigh,
North Carolina, south through Florida and west to Arizona and
Central America. It seems entirely probable that declivis will be
discovered in south-central Virginia. But the species appears to
be generally sporadic and individuals are not numerous. There
appears to be no particularly favored host plant or biotope to guide
the search for local populations.

' Not yet found in Virginia.

( 11 )

* ACANTHOCEPHALA FEMORATA (Fabricius)

This species occurs north as far as eastern and central North
Carolina, so it seems very likely it will be found eventually in scuth-
eastern Virginia. Blatchley (1926) notes that in Florida it is often
found in early spring on thistle flowers. The figure which he used
(Fig. 43) to illustrate feinorata actually represents a female of A.
terminalis.

82. ACANTHOCEPHALA TERMINALIS (Dallas)

This is the only member of the genus occurring in the northern
and midwestern states. It is easily recognized by its relatively
small size (less than 22 mm long) and orange or yellowish termi-
nal antennomeres. In Virginia it apparently occurs statewide at
lower elevations.

Material has been seen from Albemarle, Alleghany, Bedford, Fred-
erick, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Shenandoah,
York, and Wise counties, the cities of Suffolk, Norfolk and Rich-
mond. Collecting dates in Virginia extend from late April into mid-
August only, the lack of autumn dates is noteworthy.

Genus LEPTOGLOSSUS Guerin-Meneville

A large genus of Neotropical affinity with only one species ex-
tending as far north as north-central United States, although sev-
eral follow the Atlantic Coastal Plain to Long Island or Massa-
chusetts. Of the four species occurring in Virginia, three are most
common in the eastern or lower parts of the state.

This genus includes several species commonly known as “leaf-
footed bugs’" because of the prominent lateral expansions of the
tibiae of the metathoracic legs; at least one, L. phyllopus, is occa-
sionally implicated in the damage of agricultural products, chiefly
soft fruits. In Virginia, however, there seems to be little indica-
tion that these bugs can be considered as major pests.

The name Leptoglossus has been applied to the North American
species with general consistency. However, Kiritshenko (1935)
suggested that the type species of the genus (dilaticollis Guer.) was
not congeneric with the others allocated to it, and that the name
Theognis Stal, 1862, be resurrected for them. This view was sup-
ported by at least one American specialist (Hussey, 1953), but
was rejected by the latest monographer of the genus (Allen, 1969) .

( 12 )

Considering the degree to which other coreoid genera have been
fragmented by recent studies of internal male genitalia (in the
Rhopalidae, for instance), possibly the case of Leptoglossus vs.
Theogyiis has not been finally closed.

The four species occurring in Virginia are easily distinguished
by the following key, and after a little experience, merely by sight.

KEY TO SPECIES OF LEPTOGLOSSUS FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Pronotal width greater than length, the humeri project-
ing appreciably beyond level of elytral bases (Fig. 2) ;
top of head uniform reddish with a few small black
markings ; antennae and first two pairs of legs uniform-
ly pale yellowish; ventral side of femur of mesotho-
racic legs with 5 or 6 acute spinules fulvicornis

— Pronotum approximately as long as wide, the humeri only

slightly projecting beyond level of elytral bases (Fig.

3) ; top of head predominantly black, sometimes with
a thin median line and paramedian stripes adjacent
to inner side of eyes reddish; antennae and first two
pairs of legs bicolored, reddish and yellow ; ventral
side of femur of mesothoracic legs usually with 3 or
4 spinules 2

2. Basal antennal segment shorter than distance from its
base to rear angle of head, appearing unusually robust ;
second antennal segment yellowish with the apical
third reddish ; clavus and corium of hemelytra grayish
brown, lighter than pronotum and scutellum ; tibial
expansion of metathoracic legs relatively narrow, the
outer side with numerous small spots, its edge entirely
smooth (Fig. 5) cor cuius

— Basal antennal segment longer than distance from its

base to rear angle of head ; second antennal segment
uniformly light reddish or occasionally with the apical
third darker ; bases of hemelytra concoiorous with pro-
notum and scutellum ; tibial expansion of metathoracic
legs broad and prominent, the outer side with one spot
or none, the lateral edge scalloped, with acute denticles
between the emargi nations 3

( 13 )

3. Humeral angles of pronotum acute, sometimes slightly
elevated ; hemelytra with a more or less prominent
ivory white transverse band at level of inner angle of
coria phyllopn^

— Humeral angles of pronotum obtuse to rounded, never
elevated ; hemelytra without distinct transverse band,
at most with small white spots at inner corial angle;
posterior tibial expansion as shown in figure 6 oppositns

83. LEPTOGLOSSUS FULVICORNIS (Westwood).— Figs. 2, 4

This large and easily recognized form appears to be endemic to
the eastern United States, ranging from coastal New England south
to Florida and west as far as Alabama. It does not, as observed
by Blatchley (1926), appear to be commonly taken, Brimley (1938,
1942) listed Cape Hatteras, Wilmington, and Brevard as North Caro-
lina localities, of which the last-named is well in the southern
Appalachian region. I have examined only five specimens from
Virginia, having the following data : “Shenandoah National Park”

(USNM) ; Virginia Beach, 29 March 1908, (USNM) ; Montgomery
County (probably vicinity of Blacksburg), 1964, (VPI&SU) ; Wake-
field, Sussex Co., 4 June 1919 (VPI&SU), and Falls Church, Fair-
fax Co., 13 July 1974 (VPI&SU).

84. LEPTOGLOSSUS CORCULUS (Say).— Fig. 6

Although enjoying an appreciably greater distribution than L
fulvicornis, corculus is similarly scarce in collections. It likewise
appears to be basically a lowland form, ranging from Connecticut
south to Florida and west to California. Brimley (1938: 64) men-
tioned only localities in Moore and Pitt counties in the North Caro-
lina Piedmont.

Virginia specimens have been seen from Herndon, Vienna, and
Dunn Loring in Fairfax County, various dates, collected chiefly by
H. G. Barber (USNM) ; Wingina, Nelson County, June-July 1925,
W. Robinson (USNM) ; and Blacksburg, Montgomery County, 8 Au-
gust 1954, R, L. Hoffman (VPI&SU). My single specimen, found
during random sweeping of weeds and shrubs, lacks precise data.
Probably corculus will be found at low to moderate elevations over
most of the state.

( 14 )

0

Figures 2, 3. Outline sketches of the midbody region, left side, of two species
of Leptoglossus to show relative lateral extension of the pronotal humerus.
Fig. 2, L. fulvicornis; Fig. 3, L. phyllopus.

( 16 )

85. LEPTOGLOSSUS OPPOSITES (Say).— -Fig. 6

One of the most familiar of coreids and often a pest of culti-
vated plants, this species largely represents the genus over much
of northern United States; it extends from New York and Minne-
sota south to Florida and Mexico, although less abundant in the
southeast than the following species. Jn Virginia, this species is
manifestly statewide in distribution, although, so far, not found
above 2000 ft. Numerous specimens have been seen from Alleghany,
Albemarle, Augusta, Bedford, Chesterfield, Fairfax, Fauquier, Hali-
fax, Montgomery, Nelson, Prince George, and Rockingham coun-
ties, and the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia
Beach. Collection dates extend from March to November for adults,
(of which many overwinter under bark and in other sheltered places)
with one collection peak in May and a second in September-October.

Although L. oppositus is often implicated in crop damage and well
known to economic entomologists as the “northern leaf-footed bug,”
Virginia specimens have notably few pin labels indicating pest status,
in contrast to the following species.

86. LEPTOGLOSSUS PHYLLOPUS (Linnaeus).— Fig. 7

The southern counterpart of the preceding species, this insect
is found from New York south to Florida, west to Arizona, and
thence south into Central America. In the east it is predominantly
a lowland form, although Brimley (1938: 64) mentions a few locali-
ties in the mountains. I have seen Virginia specimens from the
counties of Appomattox, Greensville, Isle of Wight, Fluvanna, and
New Kent, and the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and
Virginia Beach. Of these places, all are on the Coastal Plain except
for Appomattox and Fluvanna counties in the central Piedmont.

L. phyllopus has been often recorded as a fairly serious pest of
many cultivated food plants. Labels of several Virginia specimens
stated that they had been found on potato vines, black-eyed peas,
and strawberry plants.

Collecting dates extend from March to October, with a clear pre-
ponderance for the late summer and fall months.

( 16 )

Figures 4, 5, 6. Outline sketches of the posterior tibiae of three species of
Leptoglossus. Fig. 4, L. fulvicomis; Fig. 5, L. corculus; Fig. 6, L. op~
positus. All drawn to same scale.

( 17 )

Genus ARCHIMERUS Burmeister ^

A small genus of robust hairy bugs, light brown to yellowish in
color, and although somewhat similar to Euthochtha, easily dis-
tinguished from it by the shorter, stouter, and distinctly pubes-
cent antennae. One species is widespread in Virginia and a sec-
ond must be regarded as a possible resident of the south central
part of this state.

* ARCHIMERUS CALCARATOR (Fabricius)

This southern species has been recorded by Brimley (1938) from
Raleigh, North Carolina, and there is, therefore, every reason to
think that it may occur in “southside” Virginia east of Danville.
Blatchley (1926) stated that in Florida calcarator occurs on the
flowers of the dwarf pawpaw, Asimina parviflora, and perhaps it
might be sought in Virginia on the related A. triloba during its
flowering season.

87. ARCHIMERUS ALTERNATUS (Say)

According to Blatchley (1926) alternatus ranges from New Jer-
sey to Florida and west to Colorado and Indiana, and is “nowhere
common.” Froeschner (1942: 599) also used the term “uncom-
mon” for this species in Missouri, but cited eleven counties where
it had been collected. Yonke & Medler (1969) however regarded
it as the most common coreid in Wisconsin.

In Virginia, alternatus has been found generally over the entire
state, but never at high elevations, and the 2,000-ft. contour marks
the upper known limit of is distribution. Material has been ex-
amined from the following counties : Accomac, Albemarle, Alleg-

hany, Buckingham, Montgomery, Rockingham, Wise, and Wythe,
and from the cities of Richmond, Roanoke, Suffolk, and Virginia
Beach. Collecting dates extend from April into mid-September, but
the majority of specimens seem to have been taken during April
and May.

Yonke & Medler (1969) found adults in Wisconsin from early
June to early October and recorded that the bugs occupy a succes-

1 R. O’Shea of the University of Connecticut has pointed out (personal com-
munication) that the type of Arckimerna is a sDecie.s in the Meropachydinae.
The oldest available generic name for the species traditionally grouped in
Archimerus is Piezogaster Amyot and Serville 1843.

( 18 )

( 19 )

Figure 7. Distribution of Leptoglossus phyllopus in Virginia.

sion of food plants as the season progresses, favoring Desmodium
acuminatum for oviposition and sometimes aggregating in large
numbers on that plant.

Genus EUTHOCHTHA Mayr

According to Blatchley (1926) this is a monotypic genus endemic
to eastern United States, where it appears to be fairly common
and widely distributed. Euthochtha is easily distinguished from
the rather similar Archimerus by the longer and more slender an-
tennae with prominent spines at their base.

88. EUTHOCHTHA GALEATOR (Fabricius)

Widespread over eastern United States from New England and
Wisconsin south through Florida and Texas. Virginia records sug-
gest a statewide distribution, but none of the records are from above
2,000 feet elevation.

I have seen material from Accomac, Albemarle, Alleghany, Aug-
usta, Frederick, Giles, Highland, Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rock-
ingham counties and the cities of Nansemond, Norfolk, and Rich-
mond. Most of the collecting dates fall into two periods: late

April to mid- June and from late August through September. There
is only one specimen at hand from July, and the next date is Au-
gust 21. It is not yet certain whether these periods reflect a
hiatus between the two adult broods or merely inadequate collect-
ing during mid-summer.

This species feeds upon a wide variety of plants. Froeschner
(1942: 600) mentioned finding both eggs and young nymphs on
wild mint {Monarda) in Missouri in early June. Yonke & Med-
ler (1969) found eggs and nymphs on six host plants (including
Mo'narda) in five different families. They found adults from May
to early October in Wisconsin, but did not mention bimodality in
the seasonal occurrence of adults.

Genus CHELINWEA Uhler

A small genus endemic to North America, widespread in the
Rocky Mountains but in the east distinctly austral in its occur-
rence. The single species is confined to one host plant, the prickly-
pear cactus {Opimtia) and must be sought within the range of that
species. The stocky flattened body, median stripe on the head, and
peculiar three-sided antennomeres easily distinguish this bug from
all other local coreids.

( 20 )

89. CHELINIDEA VITTIGER AEQUO RIS McAtee

Largely confined to the area of its host plant, this small-sized
coreid has been found from Virginia to Georgia, west to Colorado
and California.

In 1919, W. L. McAtee divided the species vitUger into two sub-
species, with the nominate subspecies restricted to the Rocky Moun-
tain states, Montana to Arizona and west Texas. For the second
subspecies, occurring in the coastal plain from Texas to Virginia,
he proposed the name C. vittiger aequorin (a geographic allusion
implied) with the type locality at San Diego, Texas. Within this
taxon, however, McAtee noted slight color variation and published
a new varietal name artuatra for the eastern population. Since,
varietal names have no validity under the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, artuatra can be disregarded, but there is
no reason to discriminate against the name aequoris as Blatchley
did in omitting it from his treatment in 1926.

The occurrence of C. vittiger in Virginia stands upon very inade-
quate documentation. Apparently the first record was that of Uhler
in 1863, who listed ‘‘Virginia" among the four localities known for
the species when it was described. McAtee (1919; 12) cited a
specimen in the USNM collection, labeled “Virginia" with Uhler
given as collector. In the same collection there is now a single
nymph of vittiger, collected at Herndon, Fairfax County, by H. G.
Barber in August, 1911. Presumably this specimen was added to
the collection at a much later time than when McAtee wrote his
paper. I am not aware of any other Virginia material, and have
had no success in personal search on prickly pear cactus (Opuntia
rafinesquei) at various localities in the state.

Brimley (1938) cited only Southern Pines for the occurrence of
this species in North Carolina. Still, there being no reason to
doubt the authenticity of Barber’s Herndon specimen, local collec-
tors should be challenged to examine every occurrence of Opuntia
at various seasons in the hope of discovering Virginia colonies of
Chelinidea.

Genus CHARIESTERUS Laporte

This genus, along with two others in the Neotropical region, com-
prises a distinct tribe within the subfamily. Of the six named spe-
cies of Chariesterus , one is widespread in eastern United States.

( 21 )

90. CHARIESTERUS ANTENNATOR (Fabricius).— Figs. 8, 9

Easily recognized by the small size, slender body form, and mod-
ified first and third antennomeres, this little coreid occurs over
much of eastern North America ; but, insofar as I can tell, it avoids
the higher elevations of the Appalachians, and its range thus ex-
tends northward throughout the Mississippi Valley and along the
east coast.

Virginia specimens came from the counties of Albemarle, Alle-
ghany, Augusta, Buckingham, Chesterfield, Fairfax, Montgomery,
and Nelson and the cities of Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia
Beach. It is apparently common in Fairfax County, whence known
from ten separate localities. As in the case of Euthochtha galea-
tor, there is a sort of bimodal seasonal occurrence, with very few
collections made in midsummer.

Literature accounts suggest this bug feeds, as an adult, upon a
wide variety of plants, to which I can add the following data from
pin labels: Castanea pumila, Ceanothus sp.. Euphorbia corollata,

Apocynum sp. (dogbane), Plantago sp. (plantain), Rhus sp. (sumac).
Of these, Ceanothus and Euphorbia are also mentioned by Blatch-
ley (1926) and should be investigated as possible host plants for
the nymphs. A specimen I found May 30, 1953, at Griffith, east
of Clifton Forge along the Cowpasture River, was feeding upon
dogbane {Apocynum sp.) along a railroad track. Dogbane is cited
for a specimen taken at Dillwyn, Buckingham County, and one
from Staunton.

The few intermontane Virginia records for this species are all
at low elevations and reflect migration inland along the larger
streams.

Genus CATORHINTHA Stal

Four species of this dominantly subtropical group occur in east-
ern United States. One has been found in Virginia and a second
is to be expected. Superficially, they resemble small squash bugs
{Anasa), to which they are in fact closely related.

91. CATORHINTHA MENDICA Stal

This insect was originally described after specimens taken in
Texas and Mexico. Blatchley (1926) cited its occurrence in most
of the states in the upper Mississippi Valley and also Arizona.

( 22 )

Figure 8. Chariestei'us antennator, to show general body form and modified
1st and 3rd antennomeres ; the latter seen somewhat obliquely and thus
not as broad as in reality.

( 23 )

It was, therefore, with considerable surprise that I encountered a
specimen recently taken in Virginia in the VPI&SU collection.

The bug in question was picked up on November 27, 1970, by
Donald Flanagan during general collecting along the Shenandoah
River southwest of Luray, about two miles south of the bridge over
which U. S. Hy. 211 crosses that river.

Apparently, mendica is actively extending its range eastward, fol-
lowing the spread of its host plant Mirabilis nyctaginea (Michx.)
along railroad rights-of-way. This plant is now becoming wide-
spread in Virginia, and the discovery of C. mendica at other locali-
ties is to be expected. Details about the spread eastward of men-
dica have been published by Balduf (1957) who recorded the insect
at that time as far as Lebanon County, Pennsylvania.

* CATORHINTHA GUTTULA (Fabricius)

Brimley (1942) recorded it from Maxton, North Carolina, 120
miles south of the Virginia border, thus to be considered as pos-
sible for eventual discovery within the state, doubtlessly in the south-
eastern region.

Genus AN ASA Amyot & Serville

This is a large genus of chiefly Neotropical species. Blatchley
(1926) recorded five species in the eastern United States, but two
of them are confined to the circumcaribbean region only. The re-
maining three are, however, widespread, and one is a well-known
crop pest. All three share a marked preference for plants in the
family Cucurbitaceae.

As currently defined, this genus appears strikingly heterogeneous.
Although I have not yet made comparisons of internal male genitalia,
it seems improbable to me that such dissimilar species as tristis
and armigcra should occupy the same genus, unless tropical species
manifest a spectrum of intermediacy. Perhaps a revision will result
in Anasa being dismembered much as was true for *'Corizus”.

KEY TO SPECIES OF ANASA FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Apical antennomere blackish; head with a yellow median

stripe tristis

— Apical antennomere yellow or reddish; head without a

median stripe 2

( 24 )

( 26 )

Figure 9. Distribution of Chariesterus antennator in Virginia.

2. Head with enormously enlarged postantennal spines
(Fig. 10) ; basal antennomere pale yellow dotted with
black armigera

— Head without postantennal spines ; basal antennomere

black ventrally, yellow dorsally with a few black dots^repetita

92. ANASA ARMIGERA (Say).— Figs. 10, 11

This striking species is basically austral in range, extending north
to coastal Massachusetts and to Iowa and Indiana in the Missis-
sippi Valley. All but one of the known Virginia records are east
of the Blue Ridge (Accomac, Albemarle, Fairfax, Montgomery,
and Nelson counties, and the cities of Suffolk and Norfolk as are
those summarized for North Carolina by Brimley (1938). The
preferred native host plant appears to be Sicyns angulata L., but
domesticated cucurbits are also attacked. Chittenden (1898) pub-
lished details of its life history in the vicinity of Washington, D. C.

93. ANASA REPETITA Heidemann

Superficially similar to the foregoing species in form and colora-
tion, but differing in structural details, this form was not described
until 1905, from specimens taken in the District of Columbia. Sub-
sequently it has been found in New York, Massachusetts, Indiana,
Missouri, and doubtlessly, other states, but has not yet been reported
from North Carolina.

A, repetita is apparently sporadic in Virginia; I have seen only
two collections, both in the USNM : Mount Vernon, June 27, on

Sicyos] and along the James River near Wingina, Nelson County,
June-August. It is possible that neglect of specialized collecting
by local entomologists is responsible for the poverty of state records,
as Sicyos is widespread and abundant over most of the Common-
wealth.

94. ANASA TRISTIS (De Geer) Squash Bug

This well-known squash bug is one of the first insects described
from North America and has been recorded from most of this con-
tinent, especially in cultivated regions. It is especially injurious to
squash and melons of all kinds.

In Virginia, the squash bug is statewide but not yet found above
2,000 feet. Specimens seen from Alleghany, Augusta, Bedford,

( 26 )

Caroline, Chesterfield, Fairfax, Frederick, Montgomery, Page, Rock-
ingham, and Washington counties and the cities of Norfolk and
Richmond, April-November.

FAMILY ALYDIDAE
(= CORISCIDAE BLATCHLEY)

A rather small family, not so dominantly tropical as the preced-
ing. For many years the group was considered a subfamily of
the Coreidae, under the name Alydinae. Following the discovery
that the generic names Alydus and Coriscus were based on the
same type species, with the latter name seven years older. Blatchley
in 1926 proposed to elevate the group to family status and call it
Coriscidae. After several decades of this usage, the name Alydus
was ressurrected and the family name again became Alydidae.
Sailer (1953) has published a short summary of the nomenclatorial
legalistics involved.

There are only three common Virginia species, one in Megaloto-
mus and two in Alydus. All are superficially similar, and are
taken together by sweeping w^eedy fields in late summer and autumn.
They emit a distinctly unpleasant odor from their scent glands.
Both sexes have a stridulatory apparatus, composed of a fine Tile'
along the costal margin of the hemelytra and a minutely rough-
ened area on the inner side of the posterior femora, but I have
never observed a specimen in the act of stridulating, and I have
no idea what the purpose of this behavior might be.

The nymphs, particularly of Alydus eurinus, bear a considerable
resemblance to large black ants. The adults usually have the ab-
domen dorsally red or orange which shows vividly when the bug
takes flight, presumably an aposematic adaptation. McAtee (1919)
stated that the nymphs of both Megalotomus and Alydus were found
only on New Jersey tea (Cea?iothus americanus) , but I commonly
have taken them by sweeping weedy fields and roadsides far from
any occurrence of that plant.

KEY TO GENERA OF ALYDIDAE FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Femora of hind legs slender, without apical ventral
spines; jugae longer than tylus and meeting in front
Qf * Protenor, p. 30

— - Femora of hind legs stouter, with 3 to 6 acute spines

on the ventral side; Jugae shorter than tylus 2

( 28 )

( 29 )

Figure 11. Distribution of Anasa armigera in Virginia.

2. Fourth antennomere shorter than the others; posterior

tibiae with 2 rows of small spines ventrally ; osteolar
peritreme absent, osteole itself minute ; body set with
numerous short dark bristles, and with stripes and
areas of short stout white setae Stachyocnemit^, p. 35

— Fourth antennomere as long as (or longer than) 2nd and

3rd united; posterior tibiae unarmed beneath; osteolar
peritreme large and conspicuous between meso- and
metacoxae; body with erect fine hairs, sometimes bris-
tlelike, but never with dense white pubescence 3

3. Second antennomere shorter than the first; 6th ventral

segment of females divided along the median line;
osteolar peritreme dorsally bilobed (a secondary lobe
anterior to the main dorsal ending) ; basal metatarsal
segment of posterior legs more than twice as long as
the other two united Megalotomus, p. 32

— Second antennomere longer than the first; 6th ventral

segment of females not divided or notched medially;
osteolar peritreme elongate-oval, without an anterior
dorsal lobe; basal metatarsal segment twice as long
as the other two united Alydm, p. 32

Genus PROTENOR Haglund

This genus contains two long, slender yellowish species, one wide-
spread in northern United States and Canada, the other endemic
to Florida. In general, they have little close resemblance to the
more ‘typicaF alydids in our fauna.

* PROTENOR BELFRAGEI Hagiund.-— Fig. 12

Blatchley (1926) summarized the range of this species as extend-
ing from New England and Quebec w^est to Wisconsin and Colorado,
south in the Appalachians as far as Maryland.

Two specimens in the USNM collection apparently represent the
southernmost known occurrence for this species: Canaan Valley,

Tucker County, West Virginia (H. A. Allard). This locality, shown
by the triangle on figure 12, is about 30 miles from the angular
northwest corner of Highland County and 25 miles west of the
border of Rockingham County. One seems justified in anticipat-

( 30 )

( 31 )

Figure 12. Distribution of S tacky ocnemus apicalis in Virginia (black spot),
and the southernmost known locality for Protenor belfragei (inverted tri-

ing that the species will eventually be found in the higher Alleg-
henies in either or both of the counties mentioned or, quite possi-
bly, in an isolated relict population still much further southward.

Genus MEGALOTOMUS Fieber

A small genus (two species) of alydids obviously most closely
related to Alydus but distinguished by a number of small struc-
tural departures. The unique form of the osteolar peritreme makes
recognition of the local species easy, even if the antennae and
hind legs are missing and the specimen is a male,

95. MEGALOTOMUS QUINQUESPINOSUS (Say)

A subboreal species ranging across the entire continent generally
north of the 36th parallel. It appears to be statewide in Virginia,
but less common in the southeast and not yet found above 2,000
feet in the mountains. According to Brimley (1938), quinques-
pinosus occurs only in the Piedmont and mountainous parts of North
Carolina.

Material seen from Albemarle, Alleghany, Dickenson, Montgom-
ery, Rockbridge, and York counties, and the City of Virginia Beach;
June-September. Specimens are most usually taken by sweeping
in grasses and weeds in low places.

Genus ALYDUS Fabricius

This genus, known for many years as Coriscus, includes species
from North America and Eurasia, three of which are represented
in eastern United States. The two species occurring in Virginia,
although superficially similar, differ in so many ways that one is
led to wonder if they are in fact congeneric. I am not aware of
any recent studies involving the internal genitalia of alydines, and
perhaps a close comparative study would reveal important differ-
ences among the members of the nominal genus.

KEY TO SPECIES OF ALYDUS FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Humeral angles of pronotum obtusely rounded; pronotal
lateral margins not prominent, nor light colored ; pro-
notum and hemelytra usually uniform black in Virginia
specimens eurinus

( 32 )

( 33 )

Figures 13, 14. Structural details in the family Rhopalidae. Fig. 13, head
and front of pronotum, Leptocoris trivittatus, showing compact insertion
of head and marginal pronotal indentation; Fig. 14, head and front of
pronotum, Stictopleurus pitnctiventris, to same scale as Fig. 13.

— Humeral angles of pronotum acute; pronotal lateral mar-
gins carinate and pale in color; anterior lobe of pro-
notum black; head, posterior lobe, and hemelytra light
brown or tan in specimens from Virginia pilosulus

96. ALYDUS EURINUS (Say)

This species, widespread across much of North America, is state-
wide in Virginia, except perhaps for the higher elevations (not
yet found above 2,000 feet). Material has been examined from
the counties of Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bland,
Charlotte, Giles, Isle of Wight, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Roanoke,
Rockbridge, and Washington and the cities of Suffolk and Nor-
folk; May-November.

All the Virginia material examined is uniformly blackish in color,
not just the larger females, as noted by Blatchley (1926). The
species is usually found by sweeping high grasses and weedy fields
in the autumn months; often taken in company with A. pilosulus.

97. ALYDUS PILOSULUS (Herrich-Schaefer)

As noted by Blatchley (1926), the range of this insect is distinct-
ly more southern than that of the preceding form, although it too
is transcontinental. In Virginia it seems to be statewide and has
been found from sea level to elevations of 3,300 feet.

Specimens have been seen from Alleghany, Augusta, Frederick,
Giles, Louisa, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Rockbridge, Southampton,
Washington, and Wythe counties, and the cities of Suffolk, Norfolk,
and Virginia Beach; June-November, the majority of collections
made in August-October.

According to the studies of Underhill (1943) made chiefly around
Blacksburg, Virginia, both this species and A. eurinus often occur
in sufficient numbers to damage cultivated plants, particularly leg-
umes. However, neither species is frequently taken during the field
sampling work of the Insect Pest Survey in Virginia.

Genus STACHYOCNEMUS Slal

A monotypic genus apparently confined to southern and central
United States. There is no osteolar peritreme, and the scent gland

( 34 )

opening is reduced to a small slit in front of the metacoxae. The
occurrence of a small median tooth or spine on the rear edge of
the pronotum is an interesting feature.

98. STACHYOCNEMVS APICALIS (Dallas).— Fig. 12

This little alydid is the rarest Virginia member of the super-
family, being known in this state from a single specimen only, found
at Chester, Chesterfield County, May 24, 1920, by G. W. Underhill
(VPI&SU). The species is austral, its range extending from New
Jersey to Florida, west and north to Illinois and Indiana, and it
seems to be nowhere common except in dry sandy regions where
it is said to run over the ground like a cicindelid beetle. Prob-
ably, devoted collecting efforts will turn up apicalis at other places
in eastern Virginia.

Brimley (1938) recorded it only from Raleigh and Southern Pines
in North Carolina, and Blatchley (1926) found only one specimen
in his extensive field work in Florida.

FAMILY RHOPALIDAE

This is the family formerly known in much of the American
literature under the name Corizidae. The group was, however,
first indicated as a suprageneric taxon by Amyot and Serville in
1843 under the name ‘‘Rhopalides" by provisions of the International
Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (1961) which legalize the
anarchy of vernacular names (Arts, lie, 25), this name must be
used instead of the first correct form, Corizidae Douglas & Scott,
1865.

The separate family status of the group has been firmly estab-
lished by the studies of Schaefer (1965), and its internal classifica-
tion clarified by Chopra (1967) who published a detailed system
of the entire world fauna to the level of genus. The work of these
two authorities, and that of some other specialists (notably H. M.
Harris, 1943, 1944b) has resulted in changes in the organization
and nomenclature from the familiar arrangement of Blatchley
(1926). For comparison I give the corresponding names below:

(35)

Blatchley, 1926
Family Corizidae

Chopra, 1967
Family Rhopalidae

Tribe Harmostini

Tribe Leptocorini

Subfamily Serinethinae
Subfamily Rhopalinae

Tribe Harmostini

Tribe Maccevethini

Tribe Corizini

. Tribe Rhopalini
Tribe Niesthreini

It is especially to be noted that species assigned by Blatchley to
the genus Corizus are now distributed amongst four genera in the
last three tribes in Chopra’s system, and that none of our local spe-
cies remain in Corizus.

Regretably the structural character most relied upon by Blatchley
for the separation of this family from other coreoids (“Osteolar
openings absent . . . .”) is not strictly true, as the peritremata
are present — merely smaller and located more ventrally between the
meso- and metacoxae. In some genera, such as Arhyssus and Lio-
rhyssus, the lower sides are modified into prominent and elaborate
evaporatorial surfaces (See Fig. 16), and this fact caused me con-
siderable difficulty in my initial attempts to key out these small
bugs in Blatchley’s celebrated handbook. The distinctions made by
Schaefer (1964, 1965) in his revision of the superfamily are more
fundamental, but not all will be easily perceived by the non-spe-
cialist.

In general, the Rhopalidae group is clearly a more temperate-
zone one than the Coreidae; most of its genera restricted to the
Holarctic Realm. A few occur also in the Neotropical and Ethio-
pian regions. One is endemic to Hawaii, but none are known from
the East Indies or Australia. One genus (Liorhyssus) appears to
be almost cosmopolitan, perhaps as the result of introductions.

As noted by Blatchley (1926), rhopalids occur “in late summer
and autumn, upon weeds and other plants growing in open fields
and along the borders of woods and roadsides.” More pronounced
host specificity has been observed for several species of the tribe
Niesthrini.

( 36 )

The following key to the higher taxa of Rhopalidae known to
occur in Virginia is based entirely upon easily seen external char-
acters which may be reliable only for the local fauna. The divi-
sions recognized by Chopra (1967) are founded to a large extent
on secondary sexual characters of the males.

KEY TO SUBFAMILIES, TRIBES, AND GENERA OF
RHOPALIDAE FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Head inserted compactly into pronotum, the postocular

area slightly overlapping anterior angle of latter (Fig,

13) ; lateral margin of pronotum notched (the ‘notch'
is the upper end of a vertical groove) just behind ante-
rior corner ; black, ornamented with red or orange,
membrane of hemelytra black. Subfamily Serinethinae
Leptocoris, p. 49

— Head not compactly set against pronotum, the postocular

region thus not in contact with the latter and giving
the impression of a narrow collar at base of head (Fig.

14) ; lateral margin of pronotum without notch; pale

grayish to reddish, ornamented with black and red
markings especially on the ventral surfaces and legs,
membrane of hemelytra hyaline, transparent. Sub-
family Rhopalinae 2

2. Posterior femora with a row of sharp spinules on the

ventral surface; anterior angles of pronotum acutely

produced forward (Fig, 17). Tribe Harmostini

Harmostes, p. 40

— Posterior femora without spines ; anterior corner of pro-

notum not produced acutely forward 3

3. Dorsal half of metepimera not expanded and prolonged

caudally, the posterior edge nearly in contact with sur-
face of second abdominal segment (Fig. 15) ; ventral
half of epimera not set off by distinct sutures; osteole
minute, concealed between the 2nd and 3rd coxae ; mar-
gins of body not modified into evaporatory surfaces ;
dorsal surface of posterior lobe of pronotum distinctly
convex each side of the middorsal groove. Tribe Mac-
cevethini Stictopleurus, p. 43

( 37 )

— Dorsal half of metepimera conspicuously prolonged cau-

dally, the entire posterior edge of the sclerite flared
away from adjoining abdominal segment (Fig. 16) ;
ventral half of metepimera set off by distinct sutures
from both the dorsal half and from the metepisternum ;
osteole visible in lateral aspect; adjoining surfaces of
mesepimera and metepisterna modified as evaporate-
ria, usually in the form of elevated granular knobs
and ridges; posterior edge of mesepimera with fringe
of minute projections; dorsal surface of entire prono-
tum essentially flattened 4

4. Anterior margin of pronotum set off as a fairly distinct

‘collar’ followed behind by a smooth elevated transverse
rige; lateral margins of pronotum paler in color than
the central surface; connexiva unspotted (the tribe to
which this genus belongs is technically distinguished
from the next by internal features of the male gen-
italia). Tribe Rhopalini Liorhyssu^, p. 44

— Anterior margin of pronotum not sharply set off as a

collar, the surface behind it obviously punctate; lateral
margins of pronotum not especially paler than central
area; connexiva spotted with black. Tribe Niesthrini 5

5. Beak long, reaching back to or beyond second abdominal

segment; femora pale with narrow black rings; ven-
tral side of body generally with red markings

Niesthrea, p. 46

— Beak shorter, not extending beyond posterior surface of

hind coxae ; femora pale with brown or blackish speck-
ling Arhyssus, p. 46

Figures 15, 16. Structural details in the family Rhopalidae. Fig. 15, meta-
pleural region and base of rear leg, Stictopleurus punctiventris, puncta-
tion shown only near upper margin of metapleuron; Fig. 16, metapleural
region of Arhyssus nigristernum, showing evaporatorial modifications, su-
tures, and prolongation of the dorsal half of metapleuron.

( 38 )

( 39 )

SUBFAMILY RHOPALINAE
Genus HARMOSTES Burmeister

A New World genus of approximately 31 species, most of which
occur south of the United States. The most recent and compre-
hensive review is that by H. M. Harris (1944a). Two species
occur in Virginia and are most often found by sweeping vegeta-
tion in fields and roadsides during the midsummer months.

KEY TO SPECIES OF HARMOSTES FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Basal antennal segment large, thickened, and extending
far beyond the apex of the tylus; margin of corium
with indistinct light brown dots; membrane entirely

clear or with at most a few obscure brownish spots

reflexulna

— Basal antennal segment relatively small, scarcely exceed-
ing level of apex of tylus; costal margin of hemelytra
with 8 to 12 prominent dark brown or blackish dots;
membrane with a number of distinct brownish spots
and each usually also with a straight fuscous stripe,
producing the effect of two parallel dark lines when the
wings are at rest fratercnlius

99. HARMOSTES FRATERCULUS (Say).— Fig. 17

As stated by Blatchley (1926) this small local member of the
genus is clearly of austral distribution, “extending from New Jersey
west through southern Indiana to Oklahoma and south to Georgia,
Arizona, California, and Central America.” It is much less fre-
quent than reflexulus, and the Virginia records suggest that fra-
terculus does not occur in the Appalachians, per se, and that Blatch-
ley’s statement should be rephrased.

Specimens have been examined from the following localities ; Grif-
fith, Alleghany County (VPI&SU) ; Dillwyn, Buckingham County
(VPI&SU) ; Four Mile Run and Vienna, Fairfax County (USNM),
and Burkeville, Prince Edward County (VPI&SU). Only one of
these places (Griffith) is west of the Blue Ridge in the upper val-
ley of the James River at about 1,100 feet. This locality is a
region inhabited by numerous other austral animals which have ap-

( 40 )

( 41 )

Figures 17, 18. Dorsal views of head in two species of Harmostes. Fig. 17,
H. fraterculus; Fig. 18, H. reflexulus.

parently likewise migrated headward along the river valley. The
lack of records for the Coastal Plain is remarkable; the species
must occur there as attested by coastal plain finds in New Jersey
and North Carolina. Collecting dates extend from early June to
late September. Pin labels carry the data “Joe Pye weed,” “Bone-
set,” “cedar,” and the latter two doubtless only “sitting”

finds. Both Blatchley (1926: 273) and Froeschner (1942: 602)
mention boneset (Eupatorium) as a host plant in Indiana and
Missour, respectively.

This species is a miniaturized version of the common reflexulus,
with a generally darker coloration and more pronounced spotting
of the hemelytra. It is interesting that Blatchley’s description does
not mention the dark lines on the membranes which are so promi-
nent in all of the Virginia specimens seen. A point of difference
from reflexulus, not heretofore mentioned to my knowledge, is the
production of the dorsal surface of the scutellum, almost at the
base, into a high, polished, medially directed knob.

100. HARMOSTES REFLEXULUS (Say).— Fig. 18

This species is considered to be generally distributed throughout
the United States and southern Canada, and is without much ques-
tion the most commonly encountered rhopalid in the Virginia fauna.

Specimens have been seen from the counties of Albemarle, Alleg-
hany, Augusta, Botetourt, Buckingham, Giles, Grayson, Montgomery,
Patrick, Roanoke, Rockingham, and Wise and the city of Norfolk.
Altitudinally the collecting sites range from sea level at Norfolk
to at least 5,500 feet at Mount Rogers, so the species can be cor-
rectly regarded as statewide in its range. Dates of collection extend
from early May to early October, but the majority of specimens
examined were taken during the summer months. Mating pairs
have been found at Clifton Forge in late May and early June. Speci-
mens in the VPI&SU collection carry pin labels stating they were
found on yarrow% fleabane, horseweed, lettuce, chichory, and ox-
eye daisy, indicating an obvious prediliction for composites. This
substantiates remarks of plant preferences made by Blatchley (1926:
274) for Indiana.

In addition to the relatively much longer and thickened form of
the basal antennomere of this species, this segment differs from that
of fraterculus in being studded with large, oval-elongate tubercules
(Figs. 17 and 18).

( 42 )

Genus STICTOPLEURVS Stal

Originally proposed as a genus with three species in 1872, this
roup was reduced to subgeneric status by Van Duzee (1917), and
latchley (1926) ignored it entirely, two Nearctic species being ref-
'red by him to the composite genus Corizus. Harris (1943, 1944b)
istored the original status, and in 1944, gave a synopsis of the
orth American species. Finally, Chopra (1967) showed that Stic-
ipleurus is more closely related to Maccevethus than to the nomi-
ate rhopalids and he set up the new tribe Maccevethini. He noted
Iso several points of similarity between Stictopleurus and Harmos-
zs.

The presently known species of this genus occur in the Holarctic
nd Ethiopian regions. Harris recognized five Nearctic species,
ne of which occurs in Virginia. In this country, Stictopleurus is
asically boreal in distribution.

The western species 5. viridicatus (Uhler) was recorded by Bar-
er (1914) from the District of Columbia. As no further speci-
fiens have been taken in this area during recent decades, it seems
ikely that Barber's specimen was adventitious and that viridicatus
vill not be found naturally in Virginia.

01. STICTOPLEURUS PUNCTIVENTRIS (Dallas). —Figs. 14,
.5, 19

Under the name Corizus crassicornis, Blatchley (1926: 278) at-
ributed to this species the following range : “Quebec and New Eng-
and west to the Pacific; not recorded in the east south of New
lersey . . .

Material examined by me extends the known distribution south
is far as Burkes Garden, Virginia, and there is no reason to doubt
;hat punctiventris occurs also in the mountains of North Carolina
is well. Ten specimens have been seen from the counties of Au-
gusta, Buckingham, Highland, Montgomery, Page, Rockingham, and
Tazewell — all west of the Blue Ridge, except for the single Buck-
ingham County specimen (Dillwyn, August 1, A. M. Woodside,
VPI&SU).

Dates of collection range from late May to the end of August.
Specimens in the VPI&SU collection taken by Woodside bear the
pin labels “yarrow,” “smartweed,” and “ox-eye daisy.” Elevations
at which punctiventris has been found in Virginia extend from about

( 43 )

800 feet in Buckingham County to nearly 4,000 feet in Highland,
Page, and Tazewell counties.

Blatchley (1926) used the name crassicornis for this species, in
the erroneous belief that the North American population is con-
specific with the Palearctic species crassicornis Linnaeus,

Genus LIORHYSSUS Sta*

As with the other rhopaline genera set up by Stal, Liorfiyssus
has been reduced to subgeneric rank, or to outright synonymy
under Corizus, and subsequently restored to its original status as
modern systematic studies have vindicated Stal’s clairvoyance. Lior-
hyssus is now one of the four genera placed by Chopra (1967) in
the restricted tribe Rhopalini, a chiefly Palearctic assemblage. Har-
ris (1943) noted about 28 names based on specimens of Liorhyssus,
but considered most of them to be synonyms of L. hyalinus; Chopra
suspected that on the basis of male genitalia a number of species
might be distinguished within the cosmopolitan hyalinus in its pres-
ent very broad sense.

102. LIORHYSSUS HYALINUS (Fabricius)

This small rhopalid is easily distinguished from other Virginia
members of the family by the characters stated in the key, as well
as by the reddish apices of the hemelytral coria, the yellow tip of
scutellum, considerable extension of the membranes beyond the end
of the abdomen, and by the broadly truncate terminal abdominal
segment of females.

In its present somewhat composite sense, hyalinus is known from
all the continents and from many oceanic islands. It is apparently
widespread in North America but seems not to be especially com-
mon anywhere in the eastern United States. Brimley (1938) men-
tioned only Raleigh as a North Carolina locality. The National
Museum has no material from Virginia and only a few specimens
from adjoining states. I have seen five specimens from Virginia :
three taken in the City of Norfolk and one at Cape Henry in the
City of Virginia Beach (September lO-Oct. 1, L. D. Anderson, VPI
&SU) — both localities in the extreme southeastern region. The fifth
specimen is from Blacksburg, Montgomery County (Oct. 28, 1970,
F. W. Morrow, VPI&SU) in the southwestern mountains at 2,000
ft.

( 44 )

(45)

Figure 19. Distribution of Stictopleurus punctiventris in Virginia.

Genus NIESTHREA Spinola

A small American genus of colorful rhopalids closely related to
Arhyssus. Most of the ten species recognized in the latest revision
(Chopra, 1973) occur in South and Central America. Three species
extend into the United States, and one is endemic to this country.

103. NIESTHREA LOUJSIANICA Sailer.—Fig. 20

This species was for many years confused with the more south-
ern N. sidae of Fabricius and was treated under the name Corizus
sidae in Blatchley’s manual (1926). In 1961, however, Sailer pointed
out the heterogeneity of sidae and extracted the North American
taxon under the name louisianica. This species ranges from Texas
and Florida up the Atlantic coast as far as New Jersey ; it chiefly
inhabits lowlands but extends sporadically westward as far as the
base of the Blue Ridge. Like other members of the genus, it is
specific to various plants in the family Malvaceae.

Material has been seen from the following localities ; Dillwyn,
Buckingham County; Chase City, Halifax County; White Stone, Lan-
caster County; Stuart, Patrick County, and the cities of Richmond
and Norfolk. Collection data mention “seed pods of Althea” and
“on okra.” Sailer (1961) lists a number of other malvaceous plants
fed upon by this species. The season of activity is a late one : all

but one of the series examined were taken in September and Octo-
ber.

Genus ARHYSSUS Stal

This genus has recently been revised by Chopra (1968) w'ho rec-
ognized 17 species in the Nearctic and Neotropical regions. The
group is very close to Niesthrea, and the most important diagnostic
character occurs in the male genital capsule; in Niesthrea the
median lobe of the posterior edge is very large and projects upward
between the claspers, in Arhyssus the median lobe is only a low knob.
For the Virginia fauna, however, the dark rings on the femora of
Niesthrea louisianica adequately separate that species from the two
local forms of Arhyssus.

KEY TO SPECIES OF ARHYSSUS FOUND IN VIRGINIA

1. Beak short, reaching about the level of the mesocoxae;
apical abdominal tergum of female acutely triangular
in outline (dorsal aspect) nigristernum

(4G)

( 47 )

Figure 20. Distribution of Niesthrea louisianica in Virginia.

— Beak longer, reaching back between the metacoxae ; apical
abdominal tergum of female with apex broadly rounded
lateralis

104. ARHYSSUS LATERALIS (Say)

Widespread east of the Rockies, except for southern Florida and
upper New England; lateralis is likewise generally distributed over
Virginia. Specimens have been seen from Accomac, Albemarle,
Augusta, Buckingham, Fairfax, Montgomery, Nelson, Pittsylvania,
and Rockingham counties and the city of Norfolk; April-August.

Some specimens are labeled as being taken on “smartweed” (pre-
sumably Polygonum pennsylvanicum L., the known host plant), but
several are tagged “narrow dock” (perhaps Rumex crispus?) which
is also in the family Polygonaceae. However, lateralis is often
found by sweeping a wide variety of plants in meadows and waste
places. There does not appear to be any implication of this species
in damage of cultivated plants.

105. ARHYSSUS NIGRISTERNUM (Signorel).— Fig. 16

This species ranges from Quebec and Ontario south to central
Florida and west as far as Oklahoma and Kansas. It does not
however appear to be represented in the Atlantic Coastal Plain, as
Brimley (1938) cited the species only from the Piedmont and moun-
tains of North Carolina, and a similar pattern obtains in Virginia.

Specimens have been examined from Augusta, Buckingham, Mont-
gomery, Roanoke, Tazewell, and Wythe counties; April-August. Only
the two specimens from Dillwyn, Buckingham County (August 1,
August 19, A. M. Woodside, VPI&SU) are from east of the Blue
Ridge.

In earlier American literature, nigristernum was used for this
species, but was later incorrectly replaced by hohemanii which per-
sisted down to the time of Chopra's 1968 revision. Under the name
hohenmnii, this species was recorded by Torre-Bueno (1919) from
the former mining town of Gossan, near Fries in Carroll County.

SUBFAMILY SERINETHINAE

This group corresponds to that treated as a tribe Leptocorini by
Van Duzee (1917) and Blatchley (1926). Schaefer (1965) pointed

(48)

)ut that although the generic name Sei'inetha is a junior synonym
)f Leptocoi'is, a subfamily name had been based upon it long before
l^eptocorini was published, and the International Code of Zoologi-
lal Nomenclature (1961) does not require suppression of older names
)f this kind so long as the synonymy of their type genera is sub-
lective. There are two recognized genera in this group ; both occur
n the United States, and one is a now common immigrant into
V^irginia.

Genus LEPTOCORIS Hahn

A large genus with numerous species in the Old World but only
1 single representative in North America.

106. LEPTOCORIS TRIVITTATUS (Say).— Fig. 13, Boxelder Bug

This is the well-knowm ‘"Boxelder Bug'’ which is familiar to home-
Dwners and especially to extension entomologists ail over the east-
ern United States. Apparently, the species was originally native
to the central and western parts of this country (it was described
by Say in 1825 from “Missouri”) but has been making its way
eastward during the present century. According to Osborn & Drake
(1915) it first appeared in Ohio in 1913, and McAtee (1926) noted
its arrival at Washington, D. C., during the early 1920’s. Slater
& Schaefer (1963) have given details on the spread of trivittatus
into New England.

The earliest material now in the VPI&SU collection is a single
specimen taken at Chester, Chesterfield County, in the eastern Pied-
mont, in November 1921 by G. W. Underhill. The oldest material
from the Norfolk region is dated November 3, 1936, although L.
D. Anderson had been collecting Hemiptera there since 1932. The
species was established in western Virginia probably in the late
1920’s, for one of my vivid childhood memories is of watching
processions of red and black insects (unquestionably trivittatus)
marching up and down tree trunks in Clifton Forge, around 1932.
By the time that Brimley put together his manuscript for “The
Insects of North Carolina” in 1937, he could show that it then oc-
curred in the Piedmont region of that state.

The VPI&SU collection has this species from about a dozen coun-
ties and cities across the state, and the files of the Insect Pest Sur-
vey at Blacksburg record it from no less than 60 additional cities
and counties. Thus, trivittatus is justly to be regarded as “state-

(49)

wide,” but so far, not on record from elevations above 2,000 feet.
(This is to be expected, because Acer negundo is found chiefly along
the larger streams, naturally, and along the streets of towns as an
ornamental tree).

Specimens have been reported from each month of the year except
January, but the time of greatest activity is in the autumn months,
September-November. The species is, although widespread, spottily
distributed ; and in a given region, it may occur only on a few box
elders out of hundreds available. On August 15, 1954, I found large
numbers of nymphs, in several instars, so numerous on a boxelder
at Clifton Forge as to be causing damage to foliage. Not a single
adult was in evidence.

( 60 )

LITERATURE CITED

i.llen, R. C. 1969. A revision of the genus Leptoglossus Guerin. Ent. Amer.,
46: 35-140, figs. 1-67.

i.myot, C. J. B., and A, Serville. 1843. Histoire naturelle des insects. Hem-
ipteres. Paris. 209, 221-231.

Salduf, W. V. 1957. The spread of Catorhintha mendica Stal. Proc. Ent.
Soc. Washington, 69: 176-185.

tarber, H. G. 1914. New Hemiptera-Heteroptera with comments upon the
distribution of certain known forms. J. New York Ent. Soc. 22: 164-171.

ilatchley, W. S. 1926. Heteroptera or true bugs of eastern North America,
with especial reference to the faunas of Indiana and Florida. Nature
Publishing Co., Indianapolis, 1-1116, figs. 1-216, pis. I-XII.

Jrimley, C. S. 1938. The insects of North Carolina, being a list of the insects
of North Carolina and their close relatives. Raleigh, N. C. Dept. Agr.,
1-560.

1942. The insects of North Carolina, First Supplement. Raleigh,

N. C. Dept. Agr., 1-39.

Chittenden, F. H. 1898. A new squash bug. Can. Ent. 30: 239-240.

Chopra, N. P. 1967. The higher classification of the family Rhopalidae (Hem-
iptera). Trans. R. Ent. Soc. London, 119; 363-399, figs. 1-76.

1968. A revision of the genus Arhyssus Stal (Rhopalidae; Hem-

iptera). Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer, 61: 629-655, figs. 1-146,

1973. A revision of the genus Nicsthrea Spinola (Rhopalidae,

Hemiptera). J. Nat. Hist, 7: 391-399, figs. 1-16.

Froeschner, R. C. 1942. Contributions to a synopsis of the Hemiptera of
Missouri. Pt. II, Coreidae, Aradidae, Neididae. Amer. Midi. Nat., 27:
591-609, figs. 1-65.

Harris, H. M. 1943. Concerning the Rhopalidae (Hemiptera). Iowa State
Coll. Journ. Sci. 17: 197-204.

1944a. A new Harmostes, with a provisional key and a check-
list to the species (Hemiptera, Rhopalidae). Ibid., 18: 191-197, figs. 1-14.

1944b. Concerning American Rhopalini (Hemiptera Rhopalidae).

Ibid., 19: 99-109, figs, 1-22.

Hoffman, R. L. 1971. Shield bugs (Hemiptera; Scutelleroidea : Scutelleridae,
Corimelaenidae, Cydnidae, Pentatomidae) , in “The Insects of Virginia,’
No. 4, Va. Polytech. Inst. & State Univ. Res, Div. Bull. 67: 1-61, figs. 1-16.

Hussey, R. F. 1953. Concerning some North American Coreidae (Hemiptera).
Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. 48: 29-34.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1961. International
code of zoological nomenclature. International Trust for Zoological Nomen-

. 7

clature, London, 1-176,

Kiritschenko, A. N. 1935. t)ber die Gattungen Leptoglosaus Guer. und Thcog-
nis Stal (Hemiptera, Coreidae). Konowia 14: 191.

Leonard, H. D. (ed.). 1926. List of the insects and spiders of New York
State. Mem. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Stat. 101: 1-1121.

McAtee, W. L. 1919. Notes on Nearctic Hemiptera. Bull. Brooklyn Ent.
Soc. 14; 8-16.

1926. Notes on Nearctic Hemiptera. Ent. News, 37 : 13-16.

(51)

Osborn, H. and C. J. Drake. 1915. Additions and notes on the Hemiptera-
Heteroptera of Ohio. Ohio Nat. 15: 501-508.

Parshley, H. M. 1923. Family Coreidae. In W. E. Britton (Ed.). The

Hemiptera or sucking insects of Connecticut, (pp. 746-753). State GeoL

Nat. Hist, Survey. Hartford, Conn.

Sailer, R. I. 1953. The New World distribution of Alydus calcaratus (L.)
with comment on the disposal of the name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 (Hem-
iptera, Coreidae). Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, 55: 315-318, figs. 1-6.

1961. The identity of Lygaeus sidae Fabricius, type species of

the genus Niesfhrea (Hemiptera, Coreidae). Ibid., 63; 293-299, figs. 1-4.
Schaefer, C. W. 1964. The morphology and higher classification of the Coreo-
idea (Hemiptera, Heteroptera) . Parts I & II. Ann. Ent. Soc, Amer.
57; 670-684.

1965. Same title. Part III. The families Rhopalidae, Alydidae,

and Coreidae. Misc. Publ. Ent. Soc. Amer. 5(1); 1-76, figs. 1-176.

Slater, J. A., and C. W. Schaefer. 1963. Leptocoris trivittatus (Say) and
Coriomeris humilis Uhl. in New England (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Bull.
Brooklyn Ent, Soc. 63: 114-117.

Stal, C. 1870. Enumeratio Hemipterorum. 1 Svenska Vet. Akad. Handl. 9:
1-232.

Torre-Bueno, J. R. de la. 1919. Virginia Heteroptera. J, New York Ent.
Soc. 14: 124-126.

, and G. P. Engelhard!. 1910. Some Heteroptera from Virginia

and North Carolina. Can. Ent. 42; 147-151.

Uhler, P. R. 1863. Hemipterological Contributions, No. 2. Proc. Ent. Soc.
Philadelphia, 2; 361-366.

Underhill, G. W. 1943, Two pests of legumes; Alydus eurinus Say, and A.

pilosulus Herrich-Schaeffer. J. Econ. Ent. 36(2): 289-294.

Van Duzee, E. P. 1917. Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America north of
Mexico, exclusive of the Aphididae, Coccidae, and Aleurodidae. Univ.
California Publ. Ent. 2: i-xiv, 1-902.

Yonke, T. R., and J. T. Medler. 1969. Biology of the Coreidae in Wisconsin.
Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Art. Lett. 57; 163-188.

( 52 )