Full text of "Banisteria : a journal devoted to the natural history of Virginia"

See other formats

BAN I STE R IA

A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA

Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae)

This butterfly species of the southeastern United States was found breeding for the first time
in the Richmond, Virginia area during 2008 as discussed on pages 56-57 of this issue.

Number 33

ISSN 1066-0712

2009

B ANISTERIA

A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA

ISSN 1066-0712

Published by the Virginia Natural History Society

The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination
of scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including botany,
zoology, ecology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, geography, and climatology.
Membership in VNHS includes a subscription to Banisteria. Annual dues are $20.00 (per calendar year);
library subscriptions to Banisteria are $40.00. Subscribers/members outside the United States should add
$3.00 for additional postage. Checks should be made payable to the Virginia Natural History Society.
Membership dues and inquires should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer (address, page 2);
correspondence regarding Banisteria to the Editor, Banisteria is a peer-reviewed journal, The Editor will
consi der manuscripts on any aspect of natural hi story from neighboring states if the information concerns a
species native to Virginia or the topic is directly related to regional natural history (as defined above). For
additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories, field events, symposia,
representative papers from past issues of Banisteria , and instructions for prospective authors, consult our
website at: va-nhs.org

Editorial Staff: Banisteria

Editor

Steven M. Roble

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219

Associate Editors

Joseph C. Mitchell, Mitchell Ecological Research Service, LLC
P.O. Box 5638, Gainesville, Florida 32627-5638

Richard L. Hoffman, Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112

Alfred G. Wheeler, Jr., Department of Entomology
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634

Thomas F. Wieboldt, Department of Biology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

Banisteria No. 32 was published on 31 March 2009.

Cover. Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae ) caterpillar feeding on Maypops (Passiflora incarnata). Photo by Allen Belden, Jr.
Back cover. Mourning Scorpionfly (Panorpa lugubris). Photo by Arthur V. Evans.

BANISTERIA

A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA

Number 33, 2009

The Ant Community of a Riparian Forest in the Dyke Marsh Preserve, Fairfax County, Virginia,
and a Checklist of Mid-Atlantic Formicidae

Daniel Kjar.3

Virginia Ground Spiders: A First List (Araneae: Gnaphosidae)

Richard L. Hoffman .18

The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrochidae, Aquatic Hydrophilidae, and Noteridae
(Insecta: Coleoptera) of the North Tract of the Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland

C. L. Staines.30

Phy/lophagci spreta (Horn), a Rare Species of June Beetle New to the Fauna of Virginia,

North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

Arthur V. Evans.37

Hybosorus ilJigeri Reiche Confirmed as Part of the Virginia Beetle Fauna, with Notes on
Germarostes (Coleoptera: Hybosoridae)

Arthur V. Evans.43

Notes on Valgus seticollis (Palisot de Beauvois) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Virginia

Arthur V. Evans.46

First Records of Notapictinus aurivillii (Bergroth), a Little-known Flatbug,
for Virginia and the Carolinas (Heteroptera: Aradidae)

Richard L. Hoffman .50

Shorter Contributions

An Obscure Sawfly, Kerita fidala Ross (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), New to Virginia,

A Leafminer of Virginia Bluebell, Mertensia virginica (L.) Pers. ex Link (Boraginaceae)

David R. Smith.53

Potential Range Extension of the Hispid Cotton Rat, Sigmodon hispidus , in Virginia

Karen E. Francl and Dwight E. Meikle.54

The Gulf Fritillary ( Agraulis vanil/ae ): Breeding in Richmond, Virginia

Allen Belden, Jr.56

The Mourning Scorpionfly, Panorpa lugubris (Swederus), in Virginia (Mecoptera: Panorpidae)

Arthur V. Evans and Oliver S. Flint, Jr.58

Medically Significant Bite by a Nabid Bug (Heteroptera: Nabidae)

Richard L. Hoffman, David N. Gaines, and Dedra McCreary.60

Miscellanea

Reviews.62

Reports.62

Announcements.63

Virginia Natural History Society
Officers, 2009

President

C. Barry Knisley
Department of Biology
Randolph-Macon College
Ashland, Virginia 23005
bknisley@rmc.edu
(term expires December, 2010)

Vice President

Ralph P. Eckerlin
Natural Sciences Division
Northern Virginia Community College
8333 Little River Turnpike
Annandale, Virginia 22003

(term expires December, 2010)

Secretary-T reasurer

William A. Shear
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943
wshear@hsc.edu
(term expires December, 2012)

Councilors

Janet W. Reid, Martinsville (term expires December, 2009)
Michael Lachance, Shipman (term expires December, 2010)
Oliver S. Flint, Jr., Alexandria (terni expires December, 2012)

Honorary Councilors

Richard L. Hoffman
Michael Kosztarab

Webmaster

John White

Banister in, Editor

Steven M. Roble
steve.roble@dcr.virginia.gov

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 3-17
© 2009 by the Virginia Natural History Society

The Ant Community of a Riparian Forest in the
Dyke Marsh Preserve, Fairfax County, Virginia,
and a Checklist of Mid-Atlantic Formicidae

Daniel Kjar

Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Elmira College
1 Park Place

Elmira, New York 14905

ABSTRACT

The ant community of the Dyke Marsh Preserve forest, Fairfax County, Virginia, was sampled using pitfall traps
and Berlese extraction of soil-core samples, yielding 3,193 ants of 27 species. Inclusion of an earlier study from this
riparian forest adds four species. The Chao2 species estimator predicted 32 ant species in the study forest based on
data from both studies. The ant species found in tins study are common in the eastern U.S. and mid-Atlantic riparian
forests with two exceptions: Lasius subumbratus is south of its previously known distribution on the U.S. East
Coast, and Vollenhovia emeryi is an alien myrmicine native to Japan. Aphaenogaster rudis , Paratrechina
faisonensis , and Prenolepis imparts were the more abundant ant species in samples in the forest. The intraspecific
abundance of these species was similar across sampling years, but the intraspecific abundance of the less-abundant
ant species was not similar from year to year. The results of this study show that this ant community is composed of
many habitat-generalists and common species.

Key words'. Dyke Marsh Preserve, Fonnicidae, riparian forest, species estimators, Vollenhovia emeryi.

INTRODUCTION

Ants provide important services in eastern U.S.
forests such as dispersing seeds, controlling arthropod
populations, turning over and adding nutrients to forest
soils, and providing habitat and a food source for many
other organisms (Holldobler & Wilson, 1990).
Scientists have studied the ants of the U.S. mid-Atlantic
region in detail for many decades. Studies have
investigated nest movement and myrmechory (Culver
& Beattie, 1978; Beattie et al., 1979; Smallwood &
Culver, 1979); ant community structure, interference,
competition, and foraging patterns (Lynch et al., 1980;
Lynch, 1981; Lynch et al., 1988; Fellers, 1987, 1989);
and ant and habitat associations (Wang et al., 2000,
2001; Kjar & Barrows, 2004). Lynch (1987) produced a
checklist and key to the ants of the Chesapeake Bay
region. There are an estimated 129 ant species in the
mid-Atlantic region occupying various habitats
(Barrows & Kjar, 2005). However, published ant-
species lists exist for only a small number of areas in
the region.

The goals of this study were to (1) describe the ant
community of the Dyke Marsh Preserve (DMP) forest
and changes in the abundance and richness of ant
species across multiple sampling months and years; and
(2) compare the DMP ant community with other eastern
U.S. ant communities and with a theoretical community
composed of the more common species found in those
studies and lists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Forest

Dyke Marsh Preserve is part of the George
Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) in Fairfax
County, Virginia (38° 46' N, 77° 03' W). The GWMP is
a national park bordering the western shore of the
Potomac River. The DMP is 3.5 km long, 500 m wide at
its widest point on an east-west transect, and located 15
km south of the Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. The DMP has areas of flood-plain forests, open
tidal freshwater marsh, and swamp forests (Johnston,

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

2000; Barrows et al., 2005). All of my sampling sites
are within the DMP forest, which 1 divided into an
eastern and western part for analytical purposes. The
western pail of the study forest was frequently
submerged during high tide and some areas may be
designated as a swamp forest. The eastern forest is 1-2
m above sea level, had standing water only during
floods, and may be considered a flood-plain forest, or
low forest.

The study forest is dominated by Liquidambar
styraciflua (Sweetgum) and a dense understory of
Lindera benzoin (Spicebush) and Viburnum mode
(Smooth Arrowwood). Other trees common in the forest
include Acer negundo (Boxelder), Acer rubrum (Red
Maple), Fraxinus americana (White Ash), Liriodendron
tulipifera (Tulip Tree), Nyssa sylvatica (Tupelo),
Quercus palustris (Pin Oak), Quercus phellos (Willow
Oak), Quercus rubra (Red Oak), Sassafras albidum
(Sassafras), and Ulmus americana (American Elm).

A plant survey of the sites used in this study found
nine alien and 42 native forest-floor species (excluding
trees over 1 m tall), and 16 tree species. Alien plants
made up more than 40% of all plant cover. The most
common alien plant, Lonicera japonica, was found in
80% of the sites used in this study.

Site Selection

1 selected 100 random sites within the DMP study
forest using a geographical information system (GIS)
and high-resolution aerial photography with the
cooperation of the National Park Service GIS
coordinator of the GWMP. I used the computer program
Arcview™ 3 (ESRI, 2001) and the National Park
Service’s AlaskaPak extension (National Park Service,
2002), which randomly selects any number of points
within a polygon and creates a list of coordinates for
each point. Sites were in a predefined area of the forest
whose borders were at least 10 m from trails or roads.
This area was bordered by the Mt. Vernon Trail on the
west. Haul Road and the Potomac River on the east, a
large tidal channel on the south, and an area overgrown
with Ampefopsis brevipeduncu/ata (Porcelainberry)
vines on the north.

I used a Trimble™ backpack global positioning
system (GPS) to locate each of the sites in the forest.
Forty of the 100 sites were not appropriate for analysis
due to their location near or in a tidal channel that
floods during high tides. Sites were chosen if they were
accessible, not waterlogged, and at least 3 m from any
other site. The decision to keep or reject a site was
made during a dry year and some sites that were
initially kept in the study were later found to be
waterlogged or have standing water during much of my

sampling period. Such sites were excluded from some
analyses.

Ant Collection and Identification

I collected a soil core (70-mm diameter by 70-mm
deep) from each site in the third week of June, August,
and October of 2002 and 2003. Arthropods were
extracted from die soil in Berlese funnels widi 5 mm
mesh plastic screen and air dried for 5 days in a room
under 24 h of fluorescent lighting. Artificial heat was
not used during extraction because test runs of this
method found unacceptable mortality of diplurans,
symphylans, and other soft-bodied arthropods before
extraction. Arthropods were collected into jars
containing 95% ethanol as the killing fluid.

A single collar and funnel pitfall trap was used at
each study site (Kjar & Barrows, 2004). A 120-mm-
diameter plastic container with a lid was placed in the
center of each site so that the lid was level with the
surrounding ground level. All pitfall traps were in
position 1 mo before trapping began to reduce the
impact of trap placement on sampling.

For each trapping bout, all lids were removed, and a
120-ml collection cup containing 95% ethanol was
placed in the bottom of the plastic container. A collar
around the top of the pitfall trap supported a plastic
funnel leading into the collection cup. Soil was then
carefully spread on the collar up to the edge of the
funnel. A wooden cover 32-cm 2 with four 4-cm-long
legs was placed over the trap and wired to the ground
using 20-cm-long coffin nails to protect the trap from
animals, weather, and falling plant material. This
pitfall-trap design results in a high arthropod per trap
hour catch (Kjar, 2002) and prevents non-target
vertebrates from injuring themselves or damaging the
trap.

The pitfall traps were run for 24 h, in the last week
of June, August, and October during 2002 and 2003.
Arthropods from pitfalls and soil cores were sorted into
appropriate taxonomic units (Borror et al., 1981) under
a dissecting microscope.

Additional trapping data from a previous DMP
study (Kjar, 2002) were used in some descriptions in
this study. In that study, pitfall traps of an identical
design were used in four 100-m 2 plots located in the
DMP low forest. Each plot had 10 randomly placed
pitfall traps making a total of 40 pitfalls. Trapping
occurred during August-October of 2000, and June-
October of 2001.

Ants were identified using Bolton (1994), Creighton
(1950), the U.S. National Museum of Natural History
ant collection, and verified by David R. Smith, and
Terry P. Nuhn (both of the USD A). A voucher

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

collection is located at the Laboratory of Entomology
and Biodiversity, Georgetown University, Washington,
DC.

Data Analysis

T used the computer program Estimates (Colwell,
2004) to calculate the species number estimator Chao2.
Chao2 uses the number of singletons (species found
once) and doubletons (species found twice) based on
species absence or presence across all samples for each
sampling event to formulate an estimate of the number
of species that have not been detected during sampling
(Chao, 1987; Colwell & Coddington, 1994; Coddington
et al., 1996). This form of species estimation uses
random resampling of sampling events to produce a
mean species estimate for each cumulative sampling
event. The data used in this study are the absence or
presence of a species during a sampling event.
Sampling events are the combined incidences of all
soil-core samples, pitfall-trap samples, or both from a
single month. There are eight sample events from 2000-
2001, and six from 2002-2003.

Although trapping occurred in different areas of the
study forest with some overlap among studies, the total
number of pitfall-trap hours during each sampling event
is the same for both pitfall-trap datasets alone, and the
pitfall-trap design was the same as that used in the
current study. Soil cores were not taken during the
earlier study, and therefore, species estimators were
used on both studies with and without soil-core data.
For each sampling occasion, the number of samples in
which an ant species was present was used as the
species-incidence value rather than abundance data.
Both incidence and abundance are used in this study
since they both have value in describing an ant
community.

Analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-
Keuls post hoc test was used to determine significant
differences in total ant species richness and abundance
among months. The data used in ANOVA analysis
included June, August, and September trapping dates
from the 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 DMP studies.
Mean monthly abundance and richness values were
derived from all pitfall-trap samples collected during
that month across all years.

I used coefficient of community similarity (CC)
values to compare the similarity of the ant community
of the DMP study forest with that of 15 other studies
and lists from the eastern U.S., as well as the 31 ant
species shared by the most studies and lists and the 31
ant species shared among those lists from the U.S. East
Coast. This analysis will show whether the forest ant
community of the DMP resembles the ant communities

of urban forests, old forests, fields, or the most common
ant species in this area. The coefficient of community
similarity for each study or list was determined using
the formula CC - C ab /(S a +S b ), where S is the number of
species in a study and C ab is the number of species
shared among studies, The species list of the DMP Area
includes all ants captured in this study plus the ants
caught in a previous study in the same forest (Kjar &
Barrows, 2004).

I obtained information on feeding behavior, nesting
sites, and habitats of the ant species found in this study
from relevant literature (Talbot, 1934, 1943a, 1943b,
1945, 1946, 1951, 1965; Headley, 1943; Creighton,
1950; Nuhn & Wright, 1979; Deyrup & Trager, 1986;
Deyrup et al., 1988; and others) and consulting
myrmecologists (Stefan P. Cover, James P. Trager,
Walter R. Tschinkel).

RESULTS
Ant Community

I obtained 3,193 ants from 27 species in pitfall traps
and soil cores during this 2-yr study (Table 1). All 27
species were present in pitfall traps, and 15 were also
present in soil cores. My study documented eight ant
species not previously found at the DMP during an
earlier 2-yr study (Kjar & Barrows, 2004).
Furthermore, four species from the earlier study were
not caught during this study: Camponotus subbarbatus,
Lasius daviger , Lasius subumbratus , and Myrmica
emeryana (Table 1). One species captured during this
study, Vollenhovia emeryi, is newly recorded for
Virginia, and is one of only four records of this ant in
the U.S. (Kjar & Suman, 2007).

The more abundant ants in this study were
Aphaenogaster rudis , Paratrechina faisonensis , and
Preno/epis imparts (Table 1). Each of these species had
more individuals captured than die abundances of all
other ant species combmed. These were also the more
abundant species in the 2000-2001 study (Kjar &
Barrows, 2004). Sample incidence, rather than
abundance, shows that A. rudis is the most widespread
species in this study (Table 2). Although P. imparts was
more abundant in samples, it was found at fewer sites.
This may be due to reduced foraging activity in P.
imparts during warm summer months (Talbot 1943a;
Lynch etal., 1980; Tschinkel, 1987; Fellers, 1989).

All native ant species caught during this and the
previous study at the DMP are common forest ants
except for Solenopsis molesta (Table 3). This species is
commonly found in old fields or other open habitat
(Headley, 1943), although it is occasionally found in
forested areas in the mid-Atlantic region (Lynch, 1987).

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Table 1. Ant species and their abundances in the forest pitfall-trap and soil-core samples, Dyke Marsh Preserve,

Virginia. Species are ordered based on their total abundance in this study (2002-2003).

Species

2000-2001

2002-2003

2000-2003

Pitfall traps

Soil cores

Both

Total

Aphaenogaster rudis

791

1012

1016

1807

Prenolepis imparts

1876

822

829

2705

Paratrichina faisonensis

780

463

254

717

1497

Pyrarnica rostrata

108

114

146

Lasius alienus

190

273

Myrmecina americana

111

Temnothorax curvispinosus

Ponera pennsylvanica

105

Tapinoma sessile

Stenamma brevicorne

A phaenogaster fidva

Brachymyrmex depilis

Myrmica punctiventris

Camponotns chromaiodes

Pyramica ohioensis

Crematogaster cerasi

Lasius umbratus

Solenopsis molesta

Stenamma impar

Proceratium silaceum

Vollenhovia emeryi

Crematogaster pilosa

Camponotns pennsylvanicus

Aphaenogaster tennesseensis

Camponotns castaneus

Amblyopone pallipes

Camponotns nearcticus

Lasius claviger

Myrmica emeryana

Camponotns subbarbatus

Lasius subumbratus

Total species

Total abundance

3879

2589

604

3193

7072

The more abundant ant species found in pitfalls and soil
cores tended to be non-specific in nest location (Table
3). The less abundant ant species (<3 collected
individuals) were predominately cavity-nesting species,
and none of them commonly nest in forest litter (Table

3).

Comparison with Other Eastern U.S. Ant Surveys

The DMP ant community most closely resembles a
hypothetical community comprised of the 31 most
commonly reported species from regional species lists
and studies (Table 4). The DMP ant community most
closely resembles that found by King & Green (2005)
in various urban forests around Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (Table 4). A study site in Illinois (Talbot,

1934) had the second closest ant community to that of
DMP (Table 4). The study site least resembling the ant
community at DMP was in West Virginia (Culver,
1974) and likely resulted from a limited sampling
regime reporting only 17 species.

Of the 129 ant species that may be expected in the
Washington, D.C., area, as described by Lynch (1987)
and other studies and lists presented in Table 5, two
common taxa were not found in DMP. The genus
Formica was entirely absent and only one
dolichoderine species was present, and that species,
Tapinoma sessile, is common throughout temperate
North America. Other genera with variable affinities for
forest habitats which inhabit the mid-Atlantic region
but were absent at DMP include most Crematogaster
spp., most Temnothorax spp., all Monomorium spp.,

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

Table 2. Ant species found in the forest and their trap incidences, Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia. Species are
ordered based on their total trap incidence in this study (2002-2003), _

Species

2000-2001

2002-2003

2000-2003

Pitfall traps

Soil cores

Both

Total

Aphaenogaster rudis

194

183

187

381

Paratrechina faisonensis

250

136

168

418

Prenolepis imparis

185

284

Lasius alienus

158

Ponera pennsylvanica

Tapinoma sessile

Temnothorax cun’ispinosus

Stenamma brevicorne

Myrmecina americana

Pyramica rostrata

Aphaenogaster fulva

Myrmica punctiventris

Crematogaster cerasi

Pyramica ohioensis

Brachymyrmex depths

Campanotus chromaiodes

Stenamma impar

Proceratium si/aceum

Vollenhovia emeiyi

Aphaenogaster tennesseensis

Camponotus pennsylvanicus

Lasius umbratus

Solenopsis molesta

Amblyopone pallipes

Camponotus castaneus

Camponotus nearcticus

Crematogaster pilosa

Lasius claviger

Myrmica emeryana

Camponotus subarbatus

Lasius subumbratus

most Myi*mica spp., and all Pheidole spp. (Table 5).
Three ant species were shared among all studies: A.
rudis , P on era pennsy/vanica, and T. sessile. Lasius
alienus and Temnothorax curvispinosns were present in
all but Talbot’s (1965) study of a low old field in
Michigan (Table 5). The only species present in DMP
but absent from all other studies was L. subumbratus.
Vollenhovia emeiyi was listed in only one other study,
and Crematogaster pilosa was found in two other
studies. The remaining ant species found in DMP are
common in the other studies and species lists (Table 5).

Ant Species Estimation

Using all incidence data from both Kjar & Barrows
(2004) and this study, Chao2 species richness estimated
31.5 ant species in the DMP forest (Table 6). After 4 yr
of trapping using two different trapping regimes, it is
likely that most ant species present in the DMP study
forest have been collected. Pitfall-trap sampling

resulted in higher species estimates than soil-core
samplmg, and pitfall traps from the 2002-2003 study
resulted in a higher species estimate after three
sampling events than the entire eight sampling events of
the 2000-2001 study.

Temporal Ant Distribution

Mean species richness was highest in August
although this was not statistically significant (ANOVA,
F (2, 117) = 2.9, P = 0.06; Fig. 1). Total ant abundance
was lowest in June (ANOVA, F (2, 117) = 2.9,
P0.001; Fig. 1). Although the abundances of
individual ant species were too low to analyze
statistically, there were some patterns that are apparent
from the 4 years of data. The psychrophile P. imparis
was the most abundant ant during October (Fig. 2).
Aphaenogaster rudis and P faisonensis abundances
decreased during both October 2002 and 2003 (Fig. 2).
The common generalist ant L. alienus also decreased in

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Table 3. Ant species nest location, feeding, and habitats, Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia.

Species

Nest location

Feeding behavior

Habitat

2000-2003

Soil

Litter

Cavity*

Generalist

Specialist

Forest

Field

Abundance

Aphaenogaster rudis

1016

Prenolepis imparis

829

Paratrechina faisonensis

717

Pyramica rostrata

114

Lasius alienus

Myrmacina americana

Temnothorax curvispinosus

Ponera pennsylvanica

Tapinoma sessile

Stenamma brevicorne

Aphaenogaster fulva

Brachvmyrmex depilis

Myrmica punctiventris

Camponotus chromaiodes

Pyramica ohioensis

Crematogaster cerasi

Lasius umbratus

Solenoposis molesta

Stenamma impar

Proceratiimi silaceum

Vollenhovia emeryi

Camponotus pennsylvanicus

Crematogaster pilosa

Amblyopone pallipes

Aphaenogaster tennesseensis

Camponotus castaneus

Camponotus nearticus

Lasius claviger

Camponotus subbarbatus

Lasius subumbratus

Myrmica emeryana

Cavity includes spaces within twigs, fruits, fallen logs and branches, and any arboreal ant nests.
^ These species, are from the 2000-2001 study, and were not present in the 2002-2003 study.

abundance as the summer progressed during all 4 yr of
these two studies (Fig. 3). Species with a lower
abundance in the samples show less similar
intraspecific abundances among years (Figs. 3-5). Few
monthly abundance patterns can be detected in the other
species besides a spike in abundance for some species
such as Aphaenogaster fulva , L. curvispinosus , P.
pennsylvcmica, Pyramica rostrata, and T. sessile during
August of most years (Figs. 3-5).

DISCUSSION

Ant Community of Dyke Marsh Preserve Forest

The ant community of DMP most closely resembled
an urban forest and the hypothetical ant communities
composed of the 31 more-common ant species (Table

4). The DMP forest is frequently disturbed by flooding
from the Potomac River, and the ant community
appears to be what would be expected for such a
frequently disturbed forest. Ant species commonly
found in relatively undisturbed second-growth forests
nearby, such as A. pallipes, A. fulva, and A.
teimesseensis are rare, and species common to
fragmented and disturbed forests are common (Tables 1
and 2). The DMP ant community is composed of
common species from eastern U.S. forest communities
with only three exceptions: L. subumbratus, S. mo/esta,
and V emeryi. Lasius subumbratus in DMP is beyond
its most southern previously known range on the East
Coast (Wilson, 1955; Gregg, 1963) and is unlikely to be
found in mid-Atlantic forests. The single record from
the DMP may be a recent human introduction or a sign
of new range expansion for this species.

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

Table 4. Coefficient of community similarity between the ant species of the Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia and other studies
in the eastern United States.

Reference

Location

Habitat description

CC*

Species

King & Green 2005

Philadelphia County, PA*

Urban forests

0.52

Talbot 1934

Cook County, IL

Beech-maple, oak-maple old forests

0.49

Lynch etal. 1988

Allegany County, MD 1

Floodplain forest

0.47

Lynch 1981

Anne Arundel County, MD ;

Old forest, young forest, old fields

0.43

Carter 1962

Multiple Counties, NC*

Hardwood-bottomland forests

0.42

Lynch 1987

Anne Arundel County, MD 1 "

Old and new forests and fields

0.41

Headley 1943

Ashtabula County, OH

Forests near Lake Erie

0.39

Wang et al. 2000

Augusta County, VA 1 '

George Washington National Forest

0.35

Lynch 1981

Anne Arundel County, MD'

Sweetgum forest*

0.35

Nuhn & Wright 1979

Durham County, NC 1 '

Urban forests

0.34

Wang et al. 2000

Pocahontas County, WV

Monongahela National Forest

0.32

Cole 1940

TN and NC

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

0.25

Talbot 1965

Livingston County, MI

Low fields

0.23

Ellison et al. 2002

18 Counties, MA f

Bogs

0.22

Culver 1974

Greenbrier County, WV

Hardwood forest, old yard

0.20

More common species from all studies

0.59

More common species

from all East Coast studies

0.55

Average number of species per study 5

34.1

CC = coefficient of community similarity
* U.S. East Coast Study

The ants in this comparison are limited to those listed in this study’s Sweetgum forest. The habitat of some
species was not given in the relevant publication; therefore, this particular list may not be complete.
^Average number of species does not include the two 31 more common species rows.

Solenopsis molesta, a common house-infesting ant,
was found only in pitfall samples from one site on the
edge of the southernmost part of the study forest. This
ant may be more common upstream along the shoreline
of the Potomac River which consists of manicured grass
lawn for much of the area south of Washington, D.C.
This tiny Solenopsis species (body length <1,5 mm),
feeds on the brood of other ant species using
underground galleries and is also a generalist forager in
the litter layer (Creighton, 1950; Thompson, 1989).
The subterranean foraging behavior of S. molesta could
decrease the likelihood of capturing it in pitfall traps.
However, no S. molesta were found in soil cores
leading me to believe that its absence from samples is
probably not sampling bias; rather S. molesta is not
common in the DMP forest and may be occasionally
entering the forest from more open habitats nearby
(Lynch, 1987).

Vollenhovia emery’i is a recently discovered alien
myrmicine ant from Japan, and appears to be spreading
across the mid-Atlantic region (Kjar & Suman, 2007).
The native range of this species spans the full length of
the Japanese Islands (30-45° N), and thus it may have
little problem acclimating from southern Virginia to

southern New England along the U.S. East Coast. In its
native habitat, this ant lives in very wet wood along
riparian corridors (Kubota, 1984; Kinomura &
Yamauchi, 1994).

Some species found in tins study that are thought to
be rare in eastern U S forests actually may be common
but rarely caught. Amblyopone pallipes, Proceratium
silaceum , Pyramica ohioensis , and P. rostrata have
previously been regarded as uncommon and of low
abundance when present. However, these species are
unlikely to be observed or appear in trap samples due to
their foraging behavior and nestmg habits. Amblyopone
pallipes has small nests of often less than 30
individuals, moves slowly, and feeds on centipedes. It
lives in rotten logs or leaf litter. Proceratium silaceum
also remains in the litter or within dead wood and is
thought to prey on spider eggs. Both Pyramica spp. are
highly modified, very small, litter-dwelling ants that
feed on Collembola, small soft-bodied arthropods.
Soil-core samples from the DMP had many Pyramica
specimens, and these cryptic, slow-moving ants are
apparently common in the Preserve’s forest.

Although their populations may be large, all of
these behaviors make these species less likely to be

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Table 5. Frequencies of ant species from 16 lists and studies in the eastern and mid-eastern U.S. Species are arranged from

most commonly reported through least commonly reported. _

Study*

Species

Total

Aphaenogaster rudis

Ponera pennsylvanica

Tapinoma sessile

Lasius alienus

Tenmothorax cnrvispinosus

Myrmica punctiventris

Myrmecina americana

Prenolepis imparts

Crematogaster lineolata

Lasius umbratus

Tenmothorax longispinosus

Amblyopone pallipes

Aphaenogaster fulva

Brachymyrmex depifis

Camponotus pennsy/vanicus

Camponotus subbarbatus

Camponotus chromaiodes

Lasius dcrviger

Camponotus americanus

Camponotus nearcticus

Crematogasier cerasi

Formica subsericea

Tenmothorax schaumii

Monomorium minimum

Paratrechina faisonensis

Solenopsis molesta

Stenamma brevicorne

Dolichoderus plagiatus

Pyramica ohioensis

Pyramica rostrata

Aphaenogaster tennesseensis

Camponotus castaneus

Camponotus noveboracensis

Formica fusca

Formica pallidefulva

Lasius nearcticus

Lasius neomger

Tenmothorax ambiguus

Proceratmm silaceum

Stenamma diecki

Stenamma impar

Aphaenogaster lamellidens

Aphaenogaster treatae

Dolichoderus pustulatus

Myrmica emetyana

Pyramica ornata

Crematogaster clara

Formica schaufussi

Ifarpogoxenus americanus

Pheidole dentata

Lasius interject us

Crematogaster pilosa

Foret ins pruinosus

Formica neogagates

Formica mbicunda

Formica subintegra

Lasius jlavus

Lasius speculiventris

Tenmothorax pergandei

Myrmica americana

Myrmica pinetorum

Tetramorium caespitum

Aphaenogaster carolinensis

Camponotus caryae

Crematogaster ashmeadi

Formica exsectoides

Formica integra x x 2

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

Table 5 (continued).

Species _

Formica nitidiventris
Formica obscuriventris
MyrmicaJraeticornis
Phe idole bicar inata
Pheidole davisii
Pheidole morrisi
Polyergus lucidus
Ponera trigona
Proceratium croceum
Proceratium pergandei
Pyramica clypeata
Pyramica dietrichi
Pyramica pergandei
Stenamma meridiona/e
Stenamma schmitti
Strumigenys louisianae
Vollenhovia emeryi
Las ins latipes
Aphaenogaster texana
Camponotus impressus
Camponotus mississippiensis
Crematogaster laeviuscnla
Crematogaster m issouriensis
Crematogaster vermiculata
Cryptopone gilva
Dolichoderus mariae
Dolichoderus taschenbergi
Dorymyrmex bureni
Doiymyrmex grand
Formica argentea
Formica cinerea
Formica habrogyn
Formica incerta
Formica lasioides
Formica neorufibarbis
Formica sanguinea
Hypoponera opaciceps
Hypoponera opacior
Hypoponera trigona
Las ins minutus
Lasins pallitarsis
Lasius snbumbratus
Leptothorax acervorum
Temnothorax texanus
Monomorium pharaonis
Myrmica brevinodis
Myrmica incompleta
Myrmica lobifrons
Myrmica sculptilis
Myrmica smithana
Neivamyrmex carolinensis
Neivamyrmex nigrescens
Pararrechinaflavipes
Pheidole crassicornis
Pheidole dentigula
Pheidole ptlifera
Pheidole tysoni
Pheidole vinelandica
Pyramica creightoni
Pyramica pilansis
Pyramica talpa
Trachvmyrmex septriona/is
Total (129 ant species)_

Study: a, this study (low forest); b. King & Green 2005 (urban forest); c, Talbot 1934 (old forest); d. Lynch et al 1988 (riparian forest); e. Lynch 1981 (old
woods, old fields, new fields); f. Carter 1962 (low woods); g, Lynch 1987 (old woods, riparian woods, old fields, new fields): h, Headley 1943 (old woods);
i, Lynch 1981 (old woods); j, Wang et al. 2000 (old woods); k, Nuhn & Wright 1979 (urban woods); 1, Wang et al. 2000 (old woods); m. Cole 1940 (old
woods, old fields); n, Talbot 1965 (low fields); o, Ellison et al. 2002 (low woods, bogs); p, Culver 1974 (old woods, old fields, new fields).

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Table 6. Chao2 species-accumulation estimates for the study
forest. Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia.

Sampling period and method

Chao2 species estimates
Mean ± SD

2000-2003

Both methods

31.5± 1.0

Pitfall traps

33.8 ±3.0

2000-2001

Pitfall traps

26.6 ±3.9

2002-2003

Both methods

28.4 ± 1.8

Pitfall traps

30.9 ±3.6

Soil cores

16.3 ±2.2

captured in pitfall traps. Pyrarnica spp. may have nests
of at least 50 individuals in DMP (pers. obs.), yet they
are distinctly under-represented in pitfall traps,
particularly compared to soil cores in this study.
Myrmecologists previously thought Pyramica spp. were
rare, but with the increasing use of Winkler extraction
of leaf litter and Berlese extraction of soil cores, these
cryptic ants appear to be much more abundant and
common world-wide (Bolton, 2000), Brachymyrmex
depilis is another species with large colonies, and
competes with Lashts and other common genera. I
encountered it only once in pitfall trapping, but soil
cores produced 26 specimens. These results agree with
earlier work m the mid-Atlantic region that found B.
depilis to be present predominately in soil and rarely
found in the litter layer (Lynch et al., 1988).

The majority of ant species found in DMP are native
and common in riparian forests in the mid-Atlantic
region (Lynch et al., 1988; Table 3). A notable absence
from the DMP forest is Paratrechina flavipes. This
alien ant from Asia has displaced the native P.
faisonensis in much of Rock Creek Park in Washington,
D.C. (Stefan P. Cover, pers. comm. ), but has apparently
not reached the DMP or is rare in it. Several of the
species found in the DMP forest are common around
human habitations, including L. alienus, P. imparis , S.
molesta, and particularly T sessile. Lasins alienus , P
imparis , and T. sessile are competitive surface foragers
and common in most areas of the U.S. All three are
generalists with large colonies and may tend
homopterans.

The Chao2 species estimator predicted 31.5 ant
species in the DMP study forest, and the fact that Lasius
subumbratus remains the only singleton after 4 yr of
trapping, both lend support to the thoroughness of my
ant survey (Tables 2 and 6). Although other methods of
trapping and hand sampling may reveal more species,
the combination of soil cores and pitfall traps, the

June August October

Month

Fig. 1. Mean ant abundance and species richness in pitfall
and soil-core samples at Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia,
2002-2003. Error bars are ± 1 standard error.

number of sampling events (680 pitfalls, 360 soil
cores), and the wide range of areas sampled within this
small forest make it likely that all of the forest ant
species are represented in my trap samples.

Temporal Distribution of Ant Species

Previous studies have examined the competitive
interactions of common eastern ant species, in
particular P. imparis , P. faisonemis , and A. rudis (Lynch
et al., 1980; Fellers, 1987, 1989). These authors
hypothesized that competition may be reduced in this
ant group if each species forages at different times of
the year. My results show that the sample catches of the
common and abundant species are similar from year to
year, and behave as previously reported in similar ant
communities (Lynch et al., 1980; Fellers, 1989; Fig. 2).
The abundance of Aphaenogaster rudis and P.
faisonensis peaked during August and declined during
October as P imparis numbers rapidly increased (Fig.
2), Prenolepis imparis forages throughout the cold
season in the mid-Atlantic region when temperatures
are above freezing (pers obs.) This is a competitive
species which displaces A. rudis and P. faisonensis from
baits (Lynch et al., 1980). However, whether or not the
changes in ant abundance are a response to competition
is debatable, and the results of this study only add
another example of the predictability of this previously
observed relationship. The decrease in A. rudis and P.
faisonensis may be a result of competition with P.
imparis , reduced activity due to declining temperatures,
or both. The intraspecific abundances of less abundant
ant species were not predictable from year to year.
Overall, ant abundance in samples increased and ant
species richness decreased in October (Figs. 3-5). The

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

Trapping date

Fig. 2. Abundance of the three more abundant ant species in pitfall and soil-core samples for the
years 2000-2003, Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia.

Trapping date

Fig. 3. Abundance of three ant species of lower abundance in pitfall-trap and soil-core samples
for the years 2000-2003, Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia.

Abundance Abundance

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Fig. 4. Abundance of three ant species of lower abundance in pitfall-trap and soil-core samples
for the years 2000-2003, Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia.

Fig. 5. Abundance of four ant species in pitfall and soil-core samples that were not present in the
2000-2001 study. Dyke Marsh Preserve, Virginia.

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

decrease in total ant richness may be the result of
competition with P. imparts or more likely decreasing
foraging activity as daily temperatures approach
freezing at night (Fig. 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Pitfall-trap and soil-core samples yielded 3,193 ants
of 27 species. Inclusion of an earlier study from this
riparian forest adds four species. The ant community
has many common eastern forest species; one not
common to this region, L. subumbratus ; and the
introduced Japanese ant V. emeryi. Variation in trap
samples across months shows that the most abundant
species in trap samples, P. imparis, peaks in abundance
during early fall. Aphaenogaster rudis and P.
faisonensis have higher incidences in trap samples than
all other ant species. Ant species richness in the DMP
study forest was highest in August, while abundance
was highest in October. The ant community of this
small forest within DMP is now relatively well known,
and the ant community of other areas in the Preserve
should be examined as they may contain different and
important ant species. To understand the importance of
the unique habitats in the Preserve on the ant
community better, trapping and hand collecting should
be conducted in other forested parts of the Preserve, the
ecotone between the forest and the marsh, the marsh,
and along the many shorelines.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Maya Patel, Edward M. Barrows,
and Steve Roble for their excellent editing advice;
Washington Biologists’ Field Club, Friends of Dyke
Marsh, and Georgetown University for their generous
funding; the National Park Service for its cooperation
and funding; Stefan P. Cover, Terry P. Nuhn, Dave R.
Smith, and James P. Trager for help in verifying
identifications.

LITERATURE CITED

Barrows, E. M., & D. S. Kjar 2005. Biodiversity
Database of the Washington, D.C., Area (BDWA).
Website, http://biodiversity.georgetown.edu/searchfiles/
infosearch.cfm?view=all&IDNumber=997. Accessed
10 October 2005.

Barrows, E. M., A. M. Mcintyre, & O. S. Flint. 2005.
Alderfly (Neuroptera: Sialidae) flight periods and
habitats in Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve, Virginia,
USA. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington 107: 693-699.

Beattie, A. J., D. C. Culver, & R. J. Pudlo. 1979.
Interactions between ants and the diaspores of some
common spring flowering herbs in West Virginia.
Castanea44: 177-186.

Bolton, B. 1994. Identification Guide to the Ant Genera
of the World. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA. 222 pp.

Bolton, B. 2000. The ant tribe Dacetini. Memoirs of the
American Entomological Institute 65: 1-1028.

Borror, D. J., D. M. De Long, & C. A. Triplehorn. 1981.
An Introduction to the Study of Insects. Fifth Edition.
Saunders College Publishing. Philadelphia, PA. 827 pp.

Carter, W. G. 1962. Ants of the North Carolina
Piedmont. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific
Society 78: 1-18.

Chao, A. 1987. Estimating the population size for
capture-recapture data with unequal catchability.
Biometrics 43: 783-791.

Coddington, J. A., L. H. Young, & F. A. Coyle. 1996.
Estimating spider species richness in a Southern
Appalachian cove hardwood forest. Journal of
Arachnology 24: 111-128.

Cole, A. C. 1940. A guide to the ants of the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee. American
Midland Naturalist 24: 1-88.

Colwell, R. K. 2004. Estimates: Statistical estimation
of species richness and shared species from samples.
Version 7.5. User’s guide and application published at
http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates. Accessed 10
September 2005.

Colwell, R. K., & J. A. Coddington. 1994. Estimating
terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series B 345: 101-118.

Creighton, W. S. 1950. The Ants of North America.
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard College. Vol. 104. 569 pp.

Culver, D. C. 1974. Species packing in Caribbean and
north temperate ant communities. Ecology 55: 974-988.

Culver, D. C, & A. J. Beattie. 1978. Myrmecochoiy in
Viola, dynamics of seed-ant interactions in some West
Virginia species. Journal of Ecology 66: 53-72.

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Delabie, J H. C., B. L. Fisher, J. D. Majer, & I. W.
Wright. 2000. Sampling effort and choice of methods.
Pp. 145-154 In D Agosti, J. D. Majer, L. E. Alonso, &
T. R. Schultz (eds ). Ants: Standard Methods for
Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC,

Deyrup, M,, & J. Trager. 1986. Ants of the Archbold
Biological Station, Highlands County, Florida
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Florida Entomologist 69:
206-228.

Deyrup, M. A., N. Calin, J. Trager, & G. Umphrey.
1988. A review of the ants of the Florida Keys. Florida
Entomologist 71: 163-173.

Ellison, A. M., E. J. Farnsworth, & N. J. Gotelli. 2002.
Ant diversity in pitcher-plant bogs of Massachusetts.
Northeastern Naturalist 9: 267-284.

ESRI, Inc. 2001. Version 3.1.380. ESRI, Inc., New York
Street, Redlands, CA.

Fellers, J. H. 1987. Interference and exploitation in a
guild of woodland ants. Ecology 68: 1466-1478.

Fellers, J. H. 1989. Daily and seasonal activity in
woodland ants. Oecologia 78: 69-76.

Gregg, R. E. 1963. The Ants of Colorado, with
Reference to Their Ecology, Taxonomy, and
Geographic Distribution. University of Colorado Press.
Boulder, CO. 792 pp.

Headley, A. E. 1943. The ants of Ashtabula County,
Ohio (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ohio Journal of
Science 43: 22-31.

Holldobler, B., & E. O. Wilson. 1990. The Ants.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 732 pp.

Johnston, D, W. 2000. The Dyke Marsh Preserve
ecosystem. Virginia Journal of Science 51: 223-272.

Kelso, D. Z., Z. Xu, G. Marcella, & L. K. Thomas.
1993. A historical delineation of the Dyke Marsh
vegetations. A report to the National Park Service.
United States Department of the Interior/National Park
Service, Washington, DC. 12 pp. (unpublished report)

King, T. G., & S. A. Green. 2005. Ants (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae) collected in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
USA. Website. http://biodiversity.georgetown.edu/
searchfiles/infosearch.cfm?view=all&IDNumber=2819.

Accessed 23 September 2005.

Kjar, D. S. 2002, Variation in terrestrial arthropod and
vascular plant diversity in a mid-Atlantic low deciduous
forest. Master’s thesis, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC. 70 pp,

Kjar, D. S., & E M. Barrows, 2004. Arthropod
community heterogeneity in a mid-Atlantic forest
highly invaded by alien organisms. Banisteria 24: 26-
37.

Kjar, D. S., & T. R. Suman. 2007. First records of
invasion by the myrmecine Japanese ant Vollenhovia
emeryi W. M. Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicinae) in
the United States. Proceedings of die Entomological
Society of Washington 109: 596-604.

Lynch, J. F. 1981. Seasonal, successional, and vertical
segregation in a Maryland ant community. Oikos 37:
183-198.

Lynch, J. F. 1987. An annotated checklist and key to the
species of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the
Chesapeake Bay Region. Maryland Naturalist 31: 61-
105.

Lynch, J. F., E. C. Balinsky, & S. G. Vail. 1980.
Foraging patterns in three sympatric species, Preno/epis
imparts, Paratrechina melanderi and Aphaenogaster
rudis. Ecological Entomology 5: 353-371,

Lynch, J. F., A. K. Johnson, & E. C, Balinsky, 1988.
Spatial and temporal variation in the abundance and
diversity of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the soil
and litter layers of a Maryland forest. American
Midland Naturalist 119: 31-44.

National Park Service. 2002. AlaskaPak: Functions
pack extensions for Arc View 3x National Park Service
Alaska Support Office. Website, http://www.nps.gov/
akso/gis/av31/akpak.htm Accessed 3 June 2005.

Nuhn, T. P, & C. G. Wright. 1979. An ecological survey
of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a landscaped
suburban habitat. American Midland Naturalist 102:
353-362.

Smallwood, J., & D. C. Culver. 1979. Colony
movements of some North American ants. Journal of
Animal Ecology 48: 373-382.

Talbot, M. 1934. Distribution of ant species in the
Chicago Region with reference to ecological factors

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

and physiological toleration. Ecology 15: 416-439.

Talbot, M. 1943a. Response of the ant Prenolepis
imparis Say to temperature and humidity changes.
Ecology 24: 345-352.

Talbot, M. 1943b. Population studies of the ant,
Prenolepis imparis Say. Ecology 24: 31-44.

Talbot, M. 1945. Population studies of the ant Myrmica
schencki ssp. emery ana Forel. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 38: 365-372.

Talbot, M. 1946. Daily fluctuations in aboveground
activity of three species of ants. Ecology 27: 65-70.

Talbot, M. 1951. Populations and hibernating
conditions of the ant Aphaenogaster (Attomyrma) rudis
Emery (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 44: 302-307.

Talbot, M. 1965. Populations of ants in a low field.
Insectes Sociaux 12: 19-46.

Thompson, C. R. 1989. The thief ants, Solenopsis
molesta group, of Florida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Florida Entomologist 72: 268-283.

Tschinkel, W. R. 1987. Seasonal life history and nest
architecture of a winter-active ant, Prenolepis imparis.
Insectes Sociaux 34: 143-164.

Wang, C., J. Strazanac, & L. Butler. 2000. Abundance,
diversity, and activity of ants (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae) in oak-dominated mixed Appalachian
forests treated with microbial pesticides. Environmental
Entomology 29: 579-586.

Wang, C., J. Strazanac, & L. Butler. 2001. Association
between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and habitat
characteristics in oak-dominated mixed forests.
Environmental Entomology 30: 842-848.

Wilson, E. O. 1955. A monographic revision of the ant
genus Lasius. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology 113: 1-201.

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 18-29
© 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

Virginia Ground Spiders: A First List (Araneae: Gnaphosidae)

Richard L. Hoffman

Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112

ABSTRACT

Forty-five species of ground spiders (gnaphosids) are documented as known members of the Virginia fauna, about
75% of an anticipated total of 60 to 65 species. Thirteen of the 45 species are listed for the state for the first time, some
representing substantial range extensions, mostly from the south, but a capture of Nodocion rufothoracicus is the first
record for that species east of the Mississippi River. One undescribed species, a minute fonn of Drcissyllvs, is known
from Isle of Wight County. Twenty-four species are known from less than five counties, only six are known from more
than 15; Zelotes duplex has been documented for 19 counties. Although many species are essentially statewide, at least
at low elevations, 15 reflect lowland (austral) distributions, and five are chiefly or entirely restricted to higher elevations.

Key words', distribution, Gnaphosidae, ground spiders, Virginia.

INTRODUCTION

Ground spiders (gnaphosids) comprise an important
and sometimes conspicuous element in the fauna of forest
litter or dry open habitats, and are often taken in large
numbers by standard pitfall trapping procedures. Some
species, in both appearance and movement, are distmctive
ant-mimics. Although the family has had its share of
confusion and unsatisfactory taxonomy in the past, the
North American species are now clearly defined and
accessible for studies of their biology and distribution
thanks to the series of excellent generic revisions
generated by Drs. N. I. Platnick and M. Shadab (1975-
1988). Because of their inclusion of spot maps, it is
possible to learn quickly which species are known from
particular areas, and those likely to be discovered by local
field work.

As a result of extensive statewide inventory sampling
carried out by the Virginia Museum of Natural History
(VMNH), Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDNH),
and other parties involved in survey activities, knowledge
of the Virginia fauna of gnaphosids has been substantially
improved during the past two decades. Of the
approximately 60 species whose known ranges imply
local occurrence, 45 (or 75%) are now documented from
captures within the Commonwealth. As this number
obviously represents all of the abundant and widespread
species (plus several of those seldom collected), it seems
likely that a long time may pass before all of the

remaining 25% are finally discovered and accounted in a
definitive report. Some may in fact even be represented in
the extensive backlog of unidentified gnaphosids now
accumulated at VMNH with little or no possibility of
being studied in the foreseeable future.

It is virt ually a characteristic of small arthropods that
within a particular group of species some will be captured
during almost every collecting effort while others - even
some with extensive ranges - seem to be found only
occasionally by serendipity. It is uncertain whether the
latter are actually rare in the sense of existing only in
small, widely separated populations, or whether they
occupy habitats likely to be discounted by the
anthropocentric bias of collectors. Among local
gnaphosids this situation is demonstrated clearly in the
genus Sergio/us. Known distributions suggest that seven
species should occur in Virginia. Only one, S. capulatus ,
is frequently taken, with records for 15 counties across
the state. Two others, S. minutus and S, oceHatus , are
each known from two localities. A third species, S.
cyaneiventris , has been found only once. Three others
have yet to be captured in Virginia although they are
widespread in eastern North America and are known from
adjoining states. In this case, collector bias does not seem
to be relevant, inasmuch as pitfall traps have been set in
all parts of the state, in a wide spectrum of habitat types,
and operated throughout the year.

Another interesting feature of small arthropods is the
frequency with which they exhibit totally unpredictable,
disjunct, distributions. For instance, the gnaphosid

HOFFMAN: VIRGINIA GROUND SPIDERS

Nodocion rufithoracicus is common and widespread in
western North America (P&S 1980, map 2), but was
unknown east of the 104 th meridian until an adult male
was collected in a remote, natural habitat in central
Virginia, An analogous case is afforded by the minute
lygaeid bug Botocudo modestus, which ranges from
Arkansas and Missouri west to California, but occurs also
on Wallops Island, Virginia (Hoffman, 1999). Such
sporadic distributions imply that almost any gnaphosid
known from east of the Rocky Mountains has the
potential of bemg discovered m very localized Virgmia
populations, and postpones almost indefinitely
achievement of a definitive number of endemic species.
I have not compiled lists of species for oilier eastern states
from the papers by Platnick & Shadab, but suspect that
around 60-70 may be the maximum number (increasing
southward) to be expected for most. The list of Maryland
spiders compiled by Muma (1945) contains only 16
gnaphosids, but was based on a sampling interval of only
four years with minimal use of pitfall trapping. Kaston
(1981) tabulated 39 species for all of New England. Heiss
& Allen (1986) reported 40 species for the relatively well-
collected Arkansas, Gaddy (1985) listed 19 for South
Carolina, and the gnaphosid fauna of Michigan is credited
with 47 species (Sierwald et al., 2005 ). In view of these
circumstances, the present list - based on authoritative
published information and material at VMNH - is merely
a progress report which provides a baseline to be
augmented by future activities. Half a loaf is better than
none, and a start must be made sometime.

Unless specifically stated otherwise, all samples listed
in the following entries are in the Virginia Museum of
Natural History, the acronym VMNH is therefore omitted.
Numbers of specimens by sex are indicated as
(male/female). Collection dates for pitfall trap samples are
provided when known (e.g., 3 June-12 July), but in many
cases the collector recorded only the date of actual
removal from the trap; generally a trapping interval of
about one month is to be assumed in such cases. The
abbreviation DF denotes capture in a drift fence-pitfall
combination. The acronym AMNH specifies the
American Museum of Natural History collection.

The baseline reference for the following account is the
series of generic revisions prepared by Drs. Platnick and
Shadab from 1975 to 1988. Reference to these various
papers follows a conventional abbreviation of their
surname initials: e.g., P&S 1980.

For the purposes of a local listing, simple alphabetical
sequence at the level of both genera and species seems the
most practical method of presentation. A distribution of
our genera into subfamilies is accessible in the “Spiders
of North America: An Identification Manual” (Ubick et
al., 2005), which provides keys to the genera of North
America and excellent illustrations of important

structures. In the following list, species based on
documented voucher specimens are numbered and set in
boldface type; entries for probable additional taxa are
placed in their correct position but are unnumbered and
set in italic type.

ANNOTATED SPECIES LIST

1 . Callilepis pluto Banks

This species is widespread in North America, from
Maine to British Columbia, southward in the
Appalachians and western mountain systems, but notably
absent from the Mississippi embayment and the
southeastern Coastal Plain (Platnick, 1975, fig. 1). In
Virginia it is statewide, with collections from Augusta,
Campbell, Fairfax, Giles, Greensville, Henrico, Henry,
Isle of Wight, Mecklenburg, Northampton, Page, and
York counties, and the City of Virginia Beach. The record
for C. imbecilHs from “top of Blue Ridge near Roanoke”
by Crosby & Bishop (1926) is probably based on a
specimen of G pluto.

Callilepis imbecilHs (Keyserling)

As documented by Platnick (1975, map 2), this
species is almost completely allopatric with the foregoing,
occurring along the Gulf Coast from southern Georgia to
southern Texas, thence northward to Lake Superior and
Ohio. Although no material intermediate between the two
taxa has been reported, the illustrated differences in
genital structures between them seem relatively trivial,
and a case for subspecific relationship might be admitted.
Inclusion of C. imbecilHs as a possible member of the
Virginia biota is based on a single male from First
Landing State Park, Virginia Beach, which Dr. Platnick
felt was this species although both male palpal organs
seem a little deformed. Such an identification is at least
plausible geographically.

Callilepis new species?

A specimen from Antioch Pines Natural Area
Preserve, south of Zuni, Isle of Wight County, differs
enough in palpal structure from the two eastern
congeneric species that confirmation from larger series
might justify recognition of the population as a distinct
species.

2. Cesonia bilineata (Hentz)

This common and easily recognized eastern species
occurs from Ontario to southern Florida, west and south
through Texas to Tamaulipas, with outlying records for

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Manitoba and New Mexico (P&S, 1980, map 1). It is
widespread in Virginia although records are lacking for
the higher mountains. Augusta, Campbell, Cumberland,
Dickenson, Essex, Fairfax, Floyd, Greensville, Henrico,
Isle of Wight, Loudoun, and York counties and the City
of Virginia Beach (where it is abundant in First Landing
State Park).

3. Drassodes auriculoides Barrows

The distribution of this spider is largely confined to
northeastern United States (Cape Cod to Wisconsin, south
to Temiessee, with a disjunct locality in die Ozarks).
Virginia records are from Appomattox, Augusta,
Cumberland, Giles, Greensville, Montgomery, Prince
William, Page, and York counties, all but one at
elevations below 1000 feet (300 m). Most collections are
represented by single males only.

4. Drassodes gosiutus Chamberlin
New State Record

The curious distribution of this species does not seem
to conform to any biogeographic pattern. The nuclear part
of the range appears to be in the southern Rockies, but
with representation in the Great Plains, the Great Lakes
region, southern Alabama, eastern Tennessee, and
southern New York and adjoining states. Perhaps this
pattern of discontinuity results from condensation of a
previously continuous distribution. Our single Virginia
record extends the range slightly southward from New
Jersey: Accomack County. Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge, Assateague Island, White Hills
blueberry swamp, 14 October-5 November 1998, S. M,
Roble (1/0).

Drassodes neglectus (Keyserling)

As documented by P&S (1976, map 1), this species
reflects a typical boreal distribution, from Quebec to
Alaska, south through die western mountains almost to
Mexico, and from Wisconsin to Connecticut, with a
single disjunct record for Pendleton County, West
Virginia. There can be little doubt that D. neglectus will
be discovered in the high mountains of Virginia along the
West Virginia border (not improbably even much farther
south).

Drassylius adocetus Chamberlin

With a “lower austral” distribution between Long
Island and central Florida, this species is surely native to
the coastal region of Virginia. The male palpal organ is
one of the most distinctive in the genus, and permits

identification with a degree of confidence not afforded by
several other species of Drassylius.

5. Drassylius aprilinus (Banks)

This common species is widespread in eastern United
States, from New England to Michigan, dience south to
Florida and west to central Texas (with a disjunct site in
San Luis Potosi). It competes with A novus for the status
of our most frequently collected Drassylius , although
virtually all of the VMNH pitfall captures consist of a
single male. Although apparently statewide, D. aprilinus
has so far not been collected in the southwestern third of
the state, nor at any site above 300 m in elevation.
Augusta, Botetourt, Carroll, Cumberland, Fairfax,
Fluvanna, Greensville, Henrico, King George,
Mecklenburg, Northampton, Page, Prince Edward,
Sussex, Warren, and York counties, and the cities of
Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. Collections were made
in a wide variety of biotopes without any evident
commonality.

6. Drassylius covensis Exline
New State Record

This species is known from only a few widely
scattered sites, most of them at low elevations in
southeastern United States, and the majority in the
Mississippi embayment region The few Virginia
localities correspond to the general pattern of an austral
distribution. Greensville Co. . DF site at end of Rt666,1
mile east of Claresville, 19 May-3 June, 1993, (1/0), 25
May-30 June 1994 (1/1), both VMNH surveys; DF site
2.3 miles northeast of Slate’s Corner, 18 June 1990, J. C.
Mitchell (1/0). Mecklenburg Co.. Elm Hill Wildlife
Management Area, 5-22 April 1991, VMNH survey (1 /0).
City of Chesapeake : Fentress Naval Air Station, 11 May
1989 (1/0), 6 June 1989 (8/0), 7 September 1989 (3/0), 27
April 1990 (1/0), all Fentress collections by K. A.
Buhlmann.

7. Drassylius creolus Chamberlin & Gertsch

The distribution of this species in southeastern United
States closely parallels that of D. aprilinus ; both appear
to prefer lowlands with only a few localities in the
Appalachians. It was documented by P&S (1982) from
Fairfax County and Chesapeake City, to which we can
add two sites in the central Piedmont region: Cumberland
Co. . DF in recently clearcut woods, 2 km south of
Columbia, 1 May 1990 (1/0) and 16 June 1990 (1/0),
both J. C. Mitchell. Pittsylvania Co. : DF site in sandy
bottomland, 1.5 miles ENE of Axton, 13 May 1992,
VMNH survey (3/2).

HOFFMAN: VIRGINIA GROUND SPIDERS

8. Drassyllus depressus (Emerton)

This subboreal species is distributed widely across
northern United States and southernmost Canada with
extensions southward through the Rockies and disjunct
populations in the Central Highlands and the Atlantic
Coast. P&S (1982) cited a collection from Augusta
County; we can extend the range slightly southward with
the followmg records: Montgomery Co.: pitfall trap in
com field at Riner, June 1992, M.S. Clark (1/0).
Northampton Co. : Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area
Preserve, DF by interdunal ponds, 20 May-23 June 1999,
A. C. Chazal & A. K. Foster (1/0).

9. Drassyllus dixinus Chamberlin
New State Record

Endemic to southeastern United States, this species
ranges from eastern Texas to northern Florida, thence
north in the interior to Illinois and along the Atlantic coast
to Maryland. Most VMNH records are from submaritime
sites, with two only for the central Piedmont. Accomack,
Cumberland, Mecklenburg, Northampton counties and
the City of Virginia Beach.

10. Drassyllus dromeus Chamberlin
New State Record

To a considerable extent, the known range of this
species parallels that of Drassodes gosiutus, with a
nuclear area in the southern Rockies and the Great Plains
and apparently disjunct populations in Missouri,
Alabama, and southern New England. Our single Virginia
record (identity confirmed by Dr Platnick) extends the
distribution of the latter group about 120 miles (193 km)
southward, insignificant spatially but useful in helping
define this eastern segment of the overall range.
Accomack Co. : Chmcoteague National Wildlife Refuge,
Assateague Island, White Hills swamp DF site, 1-25 June
1998, S. M. Roble (2/0).

11. Drassyllus ellipes Chamberlin & Gertsch
New State Record; new northern localities

P&S (1982, map 24) examined specimens of this
manifestly austral species from only six localities in
Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and North
Carolina. The following records for Virginia suggest that
the species is not uncommon in the northernmost end of
its range: Greensville Co.: DF site 1 mile E of Claresville,
19 May-3 June 1993 and 25 May-30 June 1994, VMNH
survey (6/4). Henry Co. : Martinsville, 24 April 1998, S.
Wolen (1/0). Mecklenburg Co.: Elm Hill Wildlife
Management Area, 5-22 April 1991, VMNH survey (3/0).

Pittsylvania Co: DF site on Sandy River, ca 1.5 miles
ENE of Axton, 13 May 1992, VMNH survey (3/0).
Prince Edward Co.: Hampden-Sydney College, berleseate
oak wood and litter, 14 November 1991, W. A. Shear
(1/0). City of Chesapeake: Fentress Naval Air Station, 11
May 1989, K A. Buhlmann (3/1). City of Virginia Beach:
Oceana Naval Air Station, 3 May 1991, K. A. Buhlmann
( 2 / 1 ).

12. Drassyllus eremitus Chamberlin

The range of this species is almost exclusively
confined to North America east of the Mississippi River,
from southernmost Quebec to the tip of Florida. It was
recorded by P&S (1982:11) from the City of Suffolk;
VMNH records add the two “Eastern Shore” counties:
Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, DF in the “White
Hills” dune ridge, 26 June-10 July 1998, S. M. Roble
(1/0). Northampton Co.: Savage Neck Dunes Natural
Area Preserve, DF in north dunes, 9 May-1 June 2004,
Dorothy Field (2/0).

13. Drassyllus fallens Chamberlin

A species of northeastern North America, D , fallens
ranges from Nova Scotia to Wisconsin, and south through
the Appalachians to northern Georgia. In Virginia it
occurs in both the mountains and Piedmont, and is one of
the few gnaphosids found at elevations above 4000 feet
(1200 m). It was recorded for Amherst and Fairfax
counties by P&S (1982:11); VMNH samples add the
following localities: Cumberland Co. : DF in pine woods,
5.5 km SSW of Columbia, 1 August 1990, J. C. Mitchell
(1/0). Grayson Co.: Grayson Highlands State Park, DF
site below contact station, 4000 ft., 5-19 May 1991, (1/0),
same site, 19 May-2 June 1991 (2/1), both VMNH
surveys. Patrick Co.: Clark's Creek, 3 miles SW of Ararat
on Rt.669, 27 June 1992, R. L. Hoffman (0/1).
Pittsylvania Co. : DF site 1.5 miles ENE of Axton, 13
May-15 June 1992, (1/0), same site, 15 June-16 July 1992
(1/0), both VMNH surveys.

14. Drassyllus frigidus (Banks)

The range of this spider is similar to that of the
preceding species but does not extend into peninsular
Florida. P&S (1982:53) recorded it from Fairfax and
Montgomery counties, VMNH material adds three more:
Augusta Co. : DF in mature mixed hardwoods, ca 5 miles
west of Stokesville, 24 April 1989, Barry Flamm (1/1).
Cumberland Co.: DF in clearcut site 2 km SSW of
Columbia, 1 May 1990, J. C. Mitchell (4/0). Mecklenburg
Co.: DF beside Lake Gaston, Elm Hill Wildlife
Management Area, 27 November 1975-24 February 1996

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

(1/0), VMNH survey. It probably occurs sporadically also
in our Coastal Plain.

15. Drassyllus louisianus Chamberlin
New State Record; northernmost localities

Like D. ellipes, this rarely collected species is
confined to the Coastal Plain of southeastern United
States, known only from four localities in Louisiana,
Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

VMNH collections extend the known range northward
some 150 miles (240 Ion) from Beaufort County, North
Carolina, and open the possibility for discovery in
Delaware and New Jersey. Northampton Co.: Savage
Neck Dunes Natural Area Preserve, SW of Eastville, 9-28
May 2004, Dorothy Field (1/0). York Co.: ponds at
Grafton, 21 March 1991, VDNH survey (2/0). City of
Chesapeake: Fentress Naval Aviation Landing Field, 9
April 1990, K. A. Buhlmann (3/0). City of Virginia
Beach: First Landing State Park, “mesic DF site”, 14
April 1989, Buhlmann (5/0).

16. Drassyllus novus (Banks)

Ranging from northern New York to Wisconsin and
southwest to Missouri, this species was not recorded by
P&S (1982:45) from the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains,
and from only a single locality (Durham, NC) in the
Piedmont. In Virginia, a statewide distribution is implied
by captures in the following political entities: Augusta,
Campbell, Chesterfield, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fluvanna,
Greensville, Henrico, Isle of Wight, King George,
Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Northampton, Rockbridge,
Rockingham, Warren, and York counties, and the City of
Virginia Beach. The species has usually been found in
considerable numbers at all of the sites where pitfall
trapping was employed, and was especially abundant at
First Landing State Park. Nonetheless, it seems to avoid
upland regions, and none of our capture sites are above
2000 feet (600 m)ASL.

Drassyllus rufulus (Banks)

Having been recorded for North Carolina, Maryland,
and West Virginia, this species will surely be established
as a native of Virginia through future collecting.

17. Drassyllus new species
New State Record

A single minute male (length 2.5 mm!) from Antioch
Pines Natural Area Preserve, Isle of Wight Co., was
identified as an undescribed species by Dr. Platnick in
August, 2008. Formal publication of a name for this

spider is deferred pending accumulation of additional
material.

18. Gnaphosa fontinalis Keyserling
New state record

The distribution of this species is largely confined to
eastern United States, extending rather obliquely
southwest from New York to Texas (and northern
Mexico); there are no Coastal Plain records between
North Carolina and Arkansas. The treatment by P&S
(1975:54) cited relatively few collections, and none for
Virginia, a curious circumstance in light of its status as
our most abundant species of tire family. Like G. sericata ,
it seems to largely avoid the Appalachian region, with no
local capture sites above 1000 feet (300 m) ASL.
Augusta, Botetourt,, Cumberland, Dickenson, Essex,
Greensville, Henrico, Henry, Isle of Wight, King George,
King & Queen, Mecklenburg, Prince Edward, Roanoke,
and York counties, and the c ities of Chesapeake, Suffolk,
and Virginia Beach.

Surface activity of adults is reflected by the
distribution of captures, mostly pitfall ( trapping periods
which overlapped two months were not counted). Since a
number of the pitfalls were operated throughout the year,
the lack of records for August and December-March is
not “collector bias.” The following numbers represent
collections, not individuals:

April

August

May

September

June

October

July

November

Most samples contained multiple individuals of both
sexes, as many as 13 are documented but usually recorded
simply as “many” or “numerous”, even for the late-year
collections in October. A survey of the collection sites
produced no apparent common biotope features. Sandy,
sea-level dunes, pme barrens, marshy swales, recent
clearcut sites, floodplains, and mixed mesophytic forests
all produced rich harvests of G. fontinalis. Notably, no
specimens were taken during extensive pitfall trapping at
two sites (Accomack and Northampton counties) on the
“Eastern Shore” although the abundance of the species at
First Landing State Park certainly reflects tolerance of
maritime habitats.

19. Gnaphosa muscorum (L. Koch)

New State Record; southernmost Appalachian locality

This species is our single local gnaphosid with a
Holarctic distribution: western Europe and boreal North
America, where it extends across northernmost Alaska

HOFFMAN: VIRGINIA GROUND SPIDERS

and Canada, thence south through the western Cordillera
almost to Mexico (where it surely must also occur). In the
United States, G. muscorum is abundant in the Great
Lakes region and New England, with a disjunct
Appalachian locality at Spruce Knob, West Virginia. It is
here documented as a member of the Virginia fauna:
Augusta Co. : 5 miles W of Stokesville, 7 August 1989,
pitfall in mature hardwoods, B. Flamm (3/0). Presence of
the species elsewhere in the western tier of Virginia
counties may be assumed.

20. Gnaphosa parvula Banks

This boreal spider ranges from Alaska to Nova Scotia,
southward to Colorado and West Virginia. P&S (1975:
51) record it from Chmcoteague Island, Accomack
County, which is entirely plausible in light of numerous
coastal records slightly to the north.

21. Gnaphosa sericata (L. Koch)

Although this spider is widespread in much of North
America (New York to Utah, south through Mexico and
Florida; one record for eastern Cuba), it seems to avoid
the Appalachian region. Available Virginia records (all
below 1000 ft. [300 m] ASL) reflect this preference for
low elevations: Accomack, Campbell, Cumberland,
Fairfax, Mecklenburg, and Roanoke counties, and the
City of Virginia Beach. Our material was mostly taken
by pitfall traps in a variety of biotopes, most apparently
sandy or dry, the capture dates ranging from mid-April to
early September.

22. Haplodrassus bicornis (Emerton)

Occupying two primary centers of abundance in the
Cordilleran region and New England, this species is also
represented southward by several apparently disjunct
populations. P&S (1975:14) recorded material from
Virginia Beach. Specimens accumulated at VMNH in the
past two decades are from Accomack, Augusta,
Cumberland, Fluvanna, Greensville, Isle of Wight,
Mecklenburg, and Northampton counties, and the City of
Virginia Beach. All but the Augusta County samples are
from the non-mountainous part of the state, below 1000
feet (300 m) ASL.

Haplodrassus hiemalis Emerton

Transcontinental from Alaska to Newfoundland, south
to Michigan and New Jersey with a disjunct enclave in
Colorado and Wyoming, this species is certainly likely to
be discovered in northern Virginia and/or on the Eastern
Shore.

23. Haplodrassus mimus Chamberlin.

Another species with an austral distribution, H. mimus
has been documented from mostly lowland localities
between New Jersey and Louisiana; a record for Chicago,
IL, appears a little aberrant in this overall context. The
female type specimen was captured at Great Falls in
Fairfax County, aside from this we have only a sample
from Mecklenburg Co. : Elm Hill Wildlife Management
Area, DF site by Lake Gaston, 24 February-3 April 1996,
VMNH survey (13/1). This site is a sandy floodplain field
subject to occasional cultivation, only a few yards from
the lake shore.

24. Haplodrassus signifer (C. L. Koch)

Although this spider occurs from British Columbia to
Newfoundland, and south into Florida and central
Mexico, our Virginia localities suggest a lowland
distribution within the Commonwealth: Accomack,
Cumberland, Fairfax, Pittsylvania, and Sussex counties
and the City of Virginia Beach. Most VMNH collections
contain only single males; sizable samples were collected
only in Virginia Beach (First Landing State Park).

25. Herpyllus ecclesiasticus Hentz

This common gnaphosid, easily recognizable among
our local species by the conspicuous serrate light band on
the abdominal dorsum, occurs everywhere in the United
Sates east of the Rockies. In Virginia it is statewide, from
sea level up to at least 3000 ft. (900 m) ASL: Accomack,
Augusta, Caroline, Dickenson, Fairfax, Franklin, Giles,
Henry, Highland, King George, Montgomery,
Northampton, Rockingham, and Warren counties, and the
cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach Habitats range from
beach dunes and swales to recent clearcut sites and old
growth mixed hardwoods. VMNH specimens have been
taken inside residences more than all other members of
the family collectively.

26. Litopyllus tempo rarius Chamberlin

A species confined to eastern United States, L.
temporarius is essentially statewide in Virginia although
most of our records are for sites below 2000 ft (600 m)
ASL: Appomattox, Augusta, Dickenson, Fairfax,
Greensville, Heniy, Mecklenburg, Nelson, and
Northampton counties, and the City of Virginia Beach.

Micaria browni Barnes

This scarce species, endemic to southeastern United
States, was described from the Shackleford Banks, North

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Carolina (only 125 miles [200 km] south of Virginia) and
is likely to be found here. It does not appear to be
restricted to littoral or submaritime habitats.

27. Micaria delicatula Bryant
New State Record

Although the majority of localities known for this near
relative of M longipes are clustered between New Jersey
and Massachusetts, it has been recorded by P&S (1988:
52), on the basis of two females, from Aiken County,
South Carolina. Although die following Virginia
collection is located midway in the hiatus, confirmation of
the SC locality from males would be desireable. City of
Virginia Beach: Pendleton Navy Base, dune DF site, 21
September 1989, K. A. Buhlmann (2/0).

Micaria elizabethae Gertsch

Having been documented for New Jersey and North
Carolina, this species will almost certainly be found in
Virginia through future collecting efforts.

Micaria emertoni Gertsch

This species of continent-wide distribution perhaps
affords another case of extreme fragmentation of a
formerly continuous distribution. It occurs in the Coast
Range of Oregon, the Rockies from Alberta to the
Mexican Plateau, the Great Lakes region, and a coastal
strip from Maine to Maryland. The record for Dorchester
County in the latter state implies presence of M. emertoni
in the nearby Eastern Shore counties of Virginia.

28. Micaria longipes Emerton

The extensive distribution of this species in North
America excludes only the Pacific Coast states and the
southeastern Coastal Plain east of Texas. Although it has
been recorded from the Blue Ridge in western North
Carolma, the few Virginia records are dominantly from
the lower eastern half of the state: Accomack, Augusta,
Cumberland, Fairfax, and Prince Edward counties, and
the City of Suffolk. At the DF sites in both Augusta and
Cumberland counties, the species was captured only in
recently clearcut stands to the exclusion of adjacent plots
of undisturbed broadleaf forest similarly sampled with
pitfalls. The site in Accomack County is in open dune
country only a few meters above sea level. P&S (1988:
50) reported a number of captures in “cultivated fields,
grasslands, pastures, prairies, and sand” as noted on
collection labels, collectively suggesting a preference by
this species for dry open habitats.

Micaria longispina Emerton

Eastern records for this rare species extend from Nova
Scotia to Florida, but restriction to a coastal habitat seems
excluded by inland records for Arkansas, the Great Lakes
region, and Alberta, collectively suggesting a continent¬
wide range now in the last stages of condensation.

29. Micaria punctata (Banks)

New State Record; new northeasternmost locality

Although the distribution of this tiny spider is
extensive - Nebraska and Texas east to Florida and
northward to North Carolina - it embraces relatively few
capture localities. Our single Virginia site constitutes only
a negligible extension of the known range: City of
Virginia Beach: Dam Neck Navy Base, 14 May 1991,
K. A. Buhlmann (1/0).

Micaria riggsi Gertsch

While the majority of the range of this species occurs
in the Cordilleran mountain systems and the Great Lakes
region, a disjunct record for the Great Smoky Mountains
implies that M. riggsi may be expected in the higher
mountains of western Virginia.

Nodocion floridanus (Banks)

A widespread species over most of eastern United
States, N. floridanus has been found just a few miles west
of the Virginia state line in Pocahontas County, West
Virginia, leaving little doubt that it occurs in many of our
western counties.

30. Nodocion rufithoracicus Worley
New State Record; disjunct eastern locality

Known to P&S (1980, map 2) only from west of the
100 th meridian, this species has appeared - agamst all
probability - in a Virginia pitfall collection. Cumberland
Co.: pitfall site in recent clearcut, 5.5 tan south of
Columbia, 15 August 1990, J. C. Mitchell (AMNH 1/0).
While the shape of the retrorse tibial apophysis of the
male palp readily distinguishes this species from the
common eastern hi. floridanus, the identification of our
specimen was further verified by Dr. Platnick. As the
pitfall sample was sorted in the VMNH laboratory under
my direct supervision, the possibility of a clerical error in
labeling can be excluded. That only one specimen was
obtained by a year-long sampling effort suggests local
rarity. Conceivably, although improbable statistically, the
specimen may have been introduced into the remote and
undeveloped Virginia locality through some form of

HOFFMAN: VIRGINIA GROUND SPIDERS

commerce, or, equally unlikely, blown in on an air current
when still a juvenile.

Sergiolus bicolor Banks

Although only a few localities are known for this
species, they collectively embrace most of eastern United
States and it thus seems probable that the species may be
discovered in eastern Virginia.

31. Sergiolus capulatus (Walckenaer)

Represented over much of North America east of the
Great Plains, this colorful species is likewise widespread
in Virginia, from sea level to above 4000 ft. (1200 m)
ASL in the western mountains. It has been found in a
wide variety of biotopes, including residences, and is
frequently found running in open places during the day.
Records are for Augusta, Bland, Dickenson, Fairfax,
Grayson, Greensville, Flenrico, Henry, Isle of Wight,
Mecklenburg, Northampton, Prince Edward,
Rockingham, Warren, Wythe, and York counties, and the
City of Virginia Beach. It probably occurs in every
county in the state.

32. Sergiolus cyaneiventris (Simon)

New State Record

With a chiefly lowland range extending from New
England to Texas, this species was not represented by
Virginia specimens when the genus was revised by P&S
(1981), and seems to be rarely collected north of Florida.
VMNH has only a single specimen (identity verified by
Dr. Platnick) from York Co. : Naval Weapons Station, in
hardwoods DF site, 16 July 1990, VDNH survey (1/0).

33. Sergiolus minutus (Banks)

New State Record

Having been documented by P&S (1981) from North
Carolma and the District of Columbia, tins small species
could reasonably be expected to occur also in Virginia.
VMNH material is from Mecklenburg Co.. Elm Hill
Wildlife Management Area, DF in sandy open field by
Lake Gaston, 10 July-1 August 1995, VMNH survey
(1/0). City of Virginia Beach: Dam Neck Navy Base, DF
in swale, 7 September 1990, VDNH survey (0/1).

Sergiolus montanus (Emerton)

Dominantly a species of the Cordilleran region and
West Coast, this species occurs sparingly in the Great
Lakes region and is known from a few sites as far south
as Texas and South Carolina. It seems likely that

specimens will eventually be captured in Virginia.

34. Sergiolus ocellatus (Walckenaer)

This spider occurs widely in North America, from
Saskatchewan to Nova Scotia, south to eastern Texas and
southern Georgia; in peninsular Florida it is replaced by
S. kastoni. In Virginia it is rarely collected, but apparently
occurs nearly statewide. P&S (1981) cited specnnens
from Giles County, VMNH adds Roanoke Co.. Back
Creek District, Bandy Road, in swimming pool, 14 June
1993, M. W. Donahue (1/0) and City of Virginia Beach.
Dam Neck Navy Base, DF in swale, 7 September 1990,
VDNH survey (1/1); DF in dunes, 1 August 1989, VDNH
survey (1/0)

35. Sergiolus tennessensis Chamberlin

This rarely collected spider is widespread in
northeastern Linked States, from North Dakota and
Colorado east to Virginia; there are no records for either
the southeastern states or New England. P&S (1981) cited
material from Giles Co.: no locality given but almost
certainly Mountain Lake, 9 July 1935, Horton H. Hobbs,
Jr. (AMNH 0/1) and Page Co.: east of Luray, 5 July 1933,
W. J. Gertsch (AMNH 0/2).

Sergiolus unimaculatus Emerton

Another seldom-collected species, S. unimaculatus is
known only from several collections in the Great Lakes
region, and along the Atlantic coast from Maine to
Florida. That R. D Barnes (1953) obtained specimens on
three occasions at Beaufort, North Carolina, suggests that
this spider will surely be collected in maritime habitats in
the Virginia Beach region and the Eastern Shore counties.

36. Sosticus insularis (Banks)

Although peripheral areas are very poorly represented
in collections, the range of this species generally extends
southwest from New England to Texas. In Virginia, the
few records are grouped in the extreme southeast and
along the western border of the state. Absence of
Piedmont localities may be only an artifact of inadequate
collecting efforts. Augusta Co.: 5 miles west of
Stokesville, DF site in recent clearcut, mixed hardwoods
forest, 7 September 1988 (1/0), 15 October 1988 (1/0), 9
July 1989 (1/1), all Barry Flamm. Dickenson Co. : Breaks
Interstate Park, 4 miles north of Haysi, 1-14 July 2000, R.
Vigneault (0/1). Greensville Co.: DF site 1 mile east of
Claresville, 25 May-30 June 1994, VMNH survey (1/0).
City of Virginia Beach: First Landing State Park, dune DF
site, 26 July 1989, VDNH survey (1/0).

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

37. “Synaphosus” paludis (Chamberlin)

New State Record; new northernmost locality

Southeastern United States: southern Illinois to Texas,
east to Georgia. Our single Virginia capture thus
represents a substantial northward extension of the range
along the Atlantic Coast. City of Virginia Beach: Back
Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 0.3 km south of Black
Gut, 21 May-22 June 2000, Duran & Farrell (1/0).

The status of this species was mentioned by
Ovtsharenko et al. (1994) as not congeneric with the type
species Synaphosus syntheticus (Chamberlin) or other
members of this genus now known to be largely endemic
to Eurasia and Africa. They postulated that the North
American occurrence of S', syntheticus - from Georgia to
California - is the result of anthropochoric influences. To
date, paludis has not been relocated in its correct genus,
although Ovtsharenko et al. (1994) presumed that it too is
an '‘introduced” species from a source area perhaps in
East Africa. This possibility does not account for the
typical Lower Austral range of the species nor that the
known capture sites do not show a close correspondence
with urban situations, port cities, or such likely habitats
for an alien spider to occupy.

38. Talanites echinus (Chamberlin)

The relatively small geographic range of this spider
seems to be centered on the Southern Appalachians (West
Virginia to Georgia), and our few Virginia records from
the central Alleghanies conform to that pattern. Botetourt
Co.: Roaring Run Furnace, off Va. 621, ca. 6 miles
northeast of Eagle Rock, 25 May 1996 (3/1) and 27 April-
4 May 1996 (2/1), M W Donahue & R. S Hogan. Giles
Co. : Mountain Lake (P&S, 1976). ?Roanoke Co. : “Poor
Man’s Mountain”, without col lector or date (P&S, 1976),
is probably an error for Poor Mountain, south of Salem.

The generic name Rachodrassus, used for this species
by P&S (1976), was subsequently considered a junior
subjective synonym of Talanites by Platnick &
Ovtsharenko (1991).

39. Urozelotes rusticus (L. Koch)

With a dispersal ability matched by very few other
spiders, this species has achieved a cosmopolitan
synanthropic distribution. In their review of this genus,
Platnick & Murphy (1984) established a list of 20 junior
synonyms based on specimens of U. rusticus collected
nearly everywhere in the world except the Indo-australian
region; they also provided our only Virginia record,
Fairfax County, without further attribution.

Presumably it may be expected in any of our
metropolitan centers.

Zelotes aiken Platnick & Shadab

Although most records for this species are in Texas
and the Ozark region, it has been documented as close to
Virginia as eastern South Carolina, and is therefore a
likely candidate for discovery in Virginia.

40. Zelotes duplex Chamberlin

Eastern United States, from Massachusetts and
Michigan south to Florida and southern Texas. In Virginia
it ranks as one of the five most common gnaphosids, and
occurs statewide, from sea level to 4000 ft. (1200 m) ASL
in the Alleghanies. Alleghany, Amelia, Augusta, Bath,
Bland, Botetourt, Dickenson, Fairfax, Floyd, Giles,
Greensville, Henrico, Isle of Wight, King George,
Northampton, Pittsylvania, and York counties, and the
cities of Suffolk and Virginia Beach. As the biotopes at
the capture sites vary greatly, from coastal dunes to
northern hardwood forests, the species may be considered
as truly euryzonal.

41. Zelotes exiguoides Platnick & Shadab
New State Record

This species is known from only a few localities
dispersed across North America from Washington to New
Hampshire. Our single Virginia locality represents only a
minor southern extension from Westmoreland Co.,
Pennsylvania, but additional captures farther south in the
Alleghanies seem very likely. Clarke Co.: Blandy Farm, 3
km south of Boyce, 21 May 1991, D. R. Smith, ex
Malaise trap (1/0).

Zelotes fratris Chamberlin

The range of this spider is truly boreal, extending
across North America from the Yukon to Nova Scotia,
southward in the western states through most of
California, Arizona, and New Mexico. In eastern North
America all of the known localities lie north of the lnnits
of glaciation except for disjunct sites on Roan and
Grandfather mountains. North Carolina. These latter
records open the possibility that Z. fratris may be
expected to occur in the Mount Rogers-Whitetop range
above 5000 feet (1500 m), although it was not found
during prolonged pitfall trapping at that elevation at
Grayson Highlands State Park and on Whitetop
Mountain.

42. Zelotes hentzi Barrows

Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia, southward to
Colorado, east Texas, and Florida. The apparent absence

HOFFMAN: VIRGINIA GROUND SPIDERS

from the southwestern states is notable. Virginia records
indicate a statewide distribution from sea level to nearly
5000 feet (1500 m) at Mount Rogers, and a variety of
biotopes. Accomack, Augusta, Cumberland, Fairfax,
Floyd, Grayson, Henry, Montgomery, Warren, and York
counties, and the City of Virginia Beach. Most samples
contain only single specimens.

Zelotes laccus Barrows

This scarce species was known to P&S (1983, map
19) from less than a dozen localities dispersed widely
across eastern North America. Records for New Jersey,
Ohio, and North Carolina imply that Z. laccus probably
occurs in at least the western mountainous parts of
Virginia.

43 Zelotes lymnophilus Chamberlin
New State Record; northernmost locality,
disjunct from Georgia

One of the more localized members of the genus, Z
lymnophilus is known only from Florida and Georgia,
with a single remote locality in Texas. Our single
specimen from Virginia (identification confirmed by Dr.
Platnick) extends the range some 400 miles (640 km)
northeast from Screven Co., Georgia, along the Coastal
Plain. City of Suffolk. South Quay pine barrens, ca. 10 km
SE of Franklin, 4 April-6 June 2003, S. M. Roble (1/0).

The record for “Raven Ranch” in Kerr Co., Texas,
attributed to D. Mulaik and R. Scott, may be held in
suspicion - experience with other arthropod groups has
shown that specimens in R V Chamberlin’s collection
from “Raven Ranch” were often mislabeled (including
species endemic to Costa Rica and Peru) and that most of
Russell Scott’s material probably came from Tennessee
rather than Texas. The possibility that Z lymnophilus
does occur naturally in eastern Texas and other Gulf
Coast states, certainly may not be excluded, however.

44. Zelotes pseustes Chamberlin

Although the majority of known records for this
species are clustered in central Texas and Tamaulipas, a
few captures have been made from Florida to Long
Island. Virginia localities observe this general Lower
Austral pattern: Greensville Cor. DF site 1 mile E of
Claresville, 25 May-30 June 1994, VMNH survey (0/1).
Mecklenburg Co: Elm Hill Wildlife Management Area,
DF beside Lake Gaston, 1-29 October 1995, VMNH
survey (2/0). City of Suffolk. South Quay pine barrens,
10 km SE of Franklin, 16 September-5 November 2003.
S. M. Roble (4/0); same site, 18 December 2002-4 April
2003. City of Virginia Beach: First Landing State Park,

8-13 June 1970, R. L. Hoffman (AMNH 1/0); scrub DF
site, 16 November 1989, K.A. Buhlmann (1/0).

45. Zelotes pulliis (Bryant)

The great majority of localities for this species are
limited to the Atlantic Coastal Plain between
Massachusetts and Florida. P&S (1983) cited Fairfax
County and Norfolk City. VMNH samples are from
farther mland: Henry Co:. Martinsville, Beaver Creek
meadow, 2 September 2008, R. L. Hoffman (1/0).
Roanoke Co: Back Creek, in pool strainer, 29 August
1994, M. W. Donahue (1/0).

SUMMARY

Barring unpredictable and improbable future
discoveries like that of Nodocion rufothoracicus, existing
information justifies an estimate of about 60 species of
gnaphosids native to Virginia. We have records for 45, or
75% of that total, which while admittedly incomplete
does allow for the compilation of a few statistics and
definition of some apparent distributional patterns
occupied by these spiders.

Of the 45 species now listed for Virginia, no fewer
than 13 are additions to the previously known fauna.
While most of these merely fill in existing lacunae
between documented states, others represent range
extensions of some magnitude: Drassy/fus louisianus , ca.
150 miles (240 km) northward from North Carolina;
Zelotes lymnophilus ca. 400 miles (640 km) northeast
from Georgia, and Nodocion rufothoracicus, ca. 1200
miles (1930 km) east from Colorado.

Although this tabulation is obviously only a first stage
in our knowledge of Virginia gnaphosids, a few
generalizations may be drawn from the existing data.
One is that most species are generally statewide, except
perhaps only at lower elevations; some reflect
dispositions toward boreal climates (psychrophilic),
others for austral conditions (thermophilic).

Some species are abundant in the sense of being
captured almost everywhere collection has been done. In
terms of county/city records, 24 species are known from
less than five, only six from more than 15. The most
abundant species are Zelotes duplex (19 counties),
Drassyllus aprilinus, D. novus, and Gnaphosa fontinalis
(all 18), Sergiolus capulatus (17), and Herpyllus
ecclestiacus (16).

A pervasive pattern noted during examination of
numerous distributional maps for gnaphosids in the
Platnick & Shadab revisions involves ranges, often
discontinuous, centered on the central and southern
Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes region, and New
England-eastern Canada. In a number of cases (e.g.,

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Drassodes gosiutiis, Drassyllus dromeus, and Gnaphosa
pumila), the latter area extends southward along the
Atlantic seaboard at least as far as Virginia. Even in those
cases in which the Rocky Mountains are not occupied, the
Great Lakes-coastal extension remains evident. A similar
pattern (which could be informally designated as
“Lacomaritime”) has been noted for a variety of other
animals, among them insects:

1. Teratocoris discolor Uhler (Miridae: Heteroptera),
cf. Hoffman, 1999;

2. Limnephilus moestus Banks (Limnephilidae:
Trichoptera), cf. Hoffman & Parker, 1997 (with map);

3. Neoconocephalus lyristes Rehn & Hebard
(Tettigonidae: Saltatoria), cf. Walker, 1978, map p. 31.;

4. Hygrotus impressopunctatus Schaller (Coleoptera:
Dytiscidae), cf. Cross, 1972.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Norman Platnick has been so kind as to provide
identifications or confirmations for a number of enigmatic
specimens. Dr. Barry M. Flamm and Dr. Joseph C.
Mitchell collected enormous numbers of spiders and other
edaphic arthropods during their inventory work in
Augusta and Cumberland counties, respectively. Michael
W. Donahue and Robert S. Hogan contributed many
valuable specimens over the past two decades. Special
mention must be made of the contributions of zoologists
in the Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation, notably Dr. Steven M.
Roble and, formerly of that agency, Dr. Kurt A.
Buhlmann, whose pitfall operations produced extensive
series of gnaphosids.

LITERATURE CITED

Barnes, R. D. 1953. Report on a collection of spiders
from the coast of North Carolina. American Museum
Novitates 1632: 1-21.

Bishop, S.C., & C. R. Crosby. 1926. Notes on spiders of
the southeastern United States with descriptions of new
species. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society
41: 165-212, pis. 20-25.

Cross, J. L. 1972. New state records of aquatic insects
from Virginia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society
of Washington 74: 476.

Gaddy, L. L. 1985. Common spiders of South Carolina
with an annotated checklist. Technical Bulletin of the
South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station 1094:
1-182.

Heiss, J. S., & R. T. Allen. 1986. The Gnaphosidae of
Arkansas. Bulletin of the Arkansas Agricultural
Experiment Station, 885: 1-67, figs. 1-101.

Hoffman, R. L. 1999. Six species of bugs new to the
Virginia list (Heteroptera). Banisteria 14: 24-26.

Hoffman, R. L., & C. R. Parker, 1997, Limnephilus
moestus Banks, a northern caddisfly in the Atlantic
Coastal Plain (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae). Banisteria 10:
25-26.

Muma, M. H. 1945. An annotated list of the spiders of
Maryland. Bulletin of the University of Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station A38: 1-65, 1 pi.

Kaston, B. J. 1981. Spiders of Connecticut (revised
edition). Bulletin of the State Geological and Natural
History Survey of Connecticut 70: 1-1020, figs. 1-2144.

Ovtsharenko, V. I., G. Levy, & N. I. Platnick. 1994. A
review of the ground spider genus Synaphosus (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae). American Museum Novitates 3095: 1-27,
figs. 1-90, maps 1-4.

Platnick, N. I. 1975. A revision of the Holarctic spider
genus Callilepis (Araneae: Gnaphosidae). American
Museum Novitates 2573: 1-32, figs. 1-73, maps 1-4.

Platnick, N. I., & J. A. Murphy. 1984. A revision of the
spider genera Trachyzelotes and Urozelotes (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae). American Museum Novitates 2792: 1-30,
figs. 1-62.

Platnick, N. I., & V. I. Ovtsharenko. 1991. On Eurasian
and American Talanites (Araneae: Gnaphosidae). Journal
of Arachnology 19: 115-121.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1975a. A revision of the
spider genus Gnaphosa (Araneae, Gnaphosidae) in
America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History 155: 1-66, figs.1-150, maps 1-15.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1975b. A revision of the
spider genera Haplodrassus and Orodrassus (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae). American Museum Novitates 2583:1-40,
figs. 1-106, maps 1-9.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1976a. A revision of the
spider genera Drassodes and Tivodrassus (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae) in North America. American Museum
Novitates 2593: 1-29, figs. 1-80, maps 1-4.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1976b. A revision of the

HOFFMAN: VIRGINIA GROUND SPIDERS

spider genera Rachodrassus, Sosticus, and Scopodes
(Araneae, Gnaphosidae) in North America. American
Museum Novitates 2594: 1-33, figs. 1-91, maps 1-5.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1977. A revision of the
spider genera Herpyllns and Scotophaeus (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae) in North America. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History 159: 1-44, figs. 1-130, maps
1-9.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1980a. A revision of the
North American spider genera Nodocion, LitopyUus, and
Synaphosns (Araneae, Gnaphosidae). American Museum
Novitates 2691: 1-26, figs. 1-52, maps 1-6.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1980b. A revision of the
spider genus Cesonia (Araneae, Gnaphosidae). Bulletin of
the American Museum of Natural History 165: 335-386,
figs. 1-145, maps 1-6.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1981. A revision of the
spider genus Sergiolus (Araneae, Gnaphosidae).
American Museum Novitates 2717: 1-41, figs. 1-108,
maps 1-8.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1982. A revision of the
American spiders of the genus Drassyllus (Araneae,

Gnaphosidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History 173: 1-97, figs. 1-281, maps 1-41.

Platnick, N. I., & M, U. Shadab. 1983 A revision of the
American spiders of the genus Zelotes (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History 174: 97-192, figs. 1-272, maps 1-22.

Platnick, N. I., & M. U. Shadab. 1988. A revision of the
American spiders of the genus Micaria (Araneae,
Gnaphosidae). American Museum Novitates 2916: 1 -64,
figs. 1-161, maps 1-23.

Sierwald, P, M. Draney, T. Prentice, F. Pascoe, N.
Sandin, E. M. Lehman, V. Medland, & J. Louderman.
2005. The spider species of the Great Lakes Region.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences 114:
111-206.

Ubick, D., P. Paquin, P.E. Cushing, & V. Roth (eds.).
2005. Spiders of North America: An Identification
Manual. American Arachnological Society. 377 pp.

Walker, T. J., & J. J. Whitesell. 1978. New species of
conehead from Florida Everglades (Orthoptera:
Tettigonidae: Neoconocephalus). Entomological News
89: 27-32.

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 30-36
© 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrochidae,

Aquatic Hydrophilidae, and Noteridae (Insecta: Coleoptera)
of the North Tract of the Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland

C. L. Staines

Department of Entomology, MRC 187
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P. O. Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012
stainesc@si.edu

ABSTRACT

Inventory work conducted at Patuxent Research Refuge, Laurel, Maryland from March 1999 to October 2001
found 17 species of Dytiscidae, two species of Gyrinidae, six species of Haliplidae, one species of Hydrochidae, 17
species of aquatic Hydrophilidae, and one species of Noteridae. These 44 species represent 23.6% of the known
Maryland fauna of these families. The most unusual finds were the woodland pool specialists Hoperius planatus Fall
and Agabetes acuductus (Harris) (Dytiscidae), candidates for Maryland threatened/endangered species status.

Keywords', aquatic species, Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrochidae, Hydrophilidae,

Maryland, Noteridae, Patuxent Research Refuge.

INTRODUCTION

Aquatic insects are an extremely important but
under-appreciated resource. These insects, important in
the diet of fish and waterfowl (Wilson, 1923), are
predators on other aquatic invertebrates (Wilson, 1923),
are indicators of water quality (Brown, 1972), and have
been proposed as indicators of overall biodiversity
(Ribera & Forster, 1993; Sanchez-Fernandez et al.,
2006).

Aquatic Coleoptera in many regions of North
America have not been thoroughly inventoried and the
biogeography of aquatic beetles is poorly understood
(Hilsenhoff, 1991). There is a need for inventories of
the aquatic beetles of the mid-Atlantic states with an
emphasis on sampling as many different habitats as
possible. This project was undertaken to help meet this
need.

The Patuxent Research Refuge (39.08168°N
76.77217°W) was established in 1936 and presently
contains 5162 ha. The Refuge is mostly forested, but
contains meadow and wetland habitats as well. It is
divided into three tracts. The work here summarized

was conducted on the 3279 ha North Tract that was
transferred to the Refuge from Fort George C. Meade in
1991.

Aquatic resources in the North Tract include the
Patuxent and Little Patuxent rivers, numerous small
streams, permanent and temporary ponds, marshes,
swamps, and seasonal wetlands.

The purposes of this study were to collect and
identify aquatic beetles in as many aquatic habitats as
possible and to develop baseline data upon which to
monitor and manage the natural resources of die
Refuge.

METHODS

A standard aquatic net was used along pond, stream,
and river margins as well as in the deeper or more
interior sections. The “floatation” method involved
stirring and agitating the submerged leaf litter along the
pond, pool or stream margin by hand and holding it
submerged for about a minute, causing beetles,
especially smaller species, to float to the surface where
they were easily visible and could be captured with a

STAINES: PATUXENT WATER BEETLES

fine-mesh net. Blacklights were also used to capture
numerous species. No formal attempt was made to
sample for a specified period of time, nor was any
effort made to capture terrestrial hydrophilid species.
Field work was conducted from March 1999 to October
2001 ,

RESULTS

A total of 44 species was found, including 17
Dytiscidae, two Gyrinidae, six Haliplidae, one
Hydrochidae, 17 aquatic Elydrophilidae, and one
Noteridae. In the following listing of species, each entry
contains a general habitat description, endangerment
status in Maryland, and details of specific collections
on the refuge. Voucher specimens were deposited in the
collection of the National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution.

Dytiscidae

Acilius fraternus (Harris) is most often collected in
shaded ponds and pools with some leaf litter and no
vegetation; it is also found in lakes, ditches, streams,
and swamps; adults are taken at lights (Michael &
Matta, 1977, Larson et al., 2000; Ciegler, 2003;
Bergsten & Miller, 2006). Specimens were collected at
blacklight in May 2001.

Agabetes acuductus (Harris) is a woodland pool
species found among dense leaf litter (Spangler &
Gordon, 1973). A single male was collected in flooded
woods on 20 April 2000. This species is under
consideration for endangered or threatened status in
Maryland (Anonymous, 2003)

Agabus aeruginosas Aube is found in emergent
vegetation in marshy areas (Michael & Matta, 1977); it
is also found in shallow ponds (Hilsenhoff, 1993) and
open temporary pools (Matta, 1986b). Specimens were
collected at blacklight in May 2001.

Agabus anthracinus Mannerheim is found m grassy
margins of ponds (Michael & Matta, 1977) and other
permanent lentic habitats (Hilsenhoff, 1993). Larson
(1989) reported that the species is usually found
in dense emergent vegetation. Specimens were
collected among emergent vegetation in ponds in July
1999.

Agabus gagates Aube is most commonly found in
woodland pools, generally where the water is shaded
and cool and has an accumulation of organic debris on a
soft substrate; it is also found in beaver ponds, flooded
pastures, tire ruts, and stream margins; adults are
attracted to lights (Michael & Matta, 1977; Larson et
al., 2000; Ciegler, 2003). Specimens were collected in
woodland pools in April and June of 2000.

Bidessonotus inconspicuous (LeConte) is found in
ditches, marshes, ponds, streams, woodland pools, and
adults are taken at light (Larson et al., 2000; Williams
et al., 2007). Specimens were collected in roadside
ditches in April 2000.

Copelatus chevrolati Aube is a pioneer species
found in just about any aquatic situation (Zuellig et al.,

2006) . Specimens were collected at blacklight in July
1999.

Copelatus glyphicus (Say) is another pioneer
species that is abundant in temporary pools; adults are
commonly taken at lights (Spangler, 1962) It feeds on
copepods, ostracods, ceratopogonid larvae, and Podura
aquatica L. (lnsecta: Collembola) (Spangler, 1962).
Specimens were collected in temporary pools in May
and June of 2000 and 2001.

Coptotomus interrogate (Fabricius) is found in
ponds, ditches, and lakes; adults are attracted to light
(Ciegler, 2003). Barman (2004) reported that this
species breeds in temporary pools. Specimens were
collected in ponds in July 1999.

Hoperius planatus Fall is an uncommon species
found in woodland pools lacking emergent vegetation
but containing decaying leaves (Spangler, 1973); adults
are taken at lights (Ciegler, 2003). Two specimens were
taken at blacklight on 1 June 2000. This is the second
record of the species west of the Chesapeake Bay in
Maryland. It is under consideration for endangered or
threatened status in Maryland (Anonymous, 2003).

Hydrocolus oblitus (Aube) is found in small, sandy-
bottomed streams, cool springs (Larson et al., 2000),
and moss in seepages (Ciegler, 2003), Specimens were
collected in temporary pools in April and May of 2000
and 2001,

Hydroporus niger Say is found among emergent
vegetation in sunny ponds, pools, ditches, swamps,
marshes, and other lentic habitats (Barman, 1972;
Hilsenhoff, 1995a; Ciegler, 2003; Williams et al.,

2007) . Specimens were taken in temporary pools in
April 2000.

Hygrotus sayi Balfour-Brown is found in a wide
variety of aquatic habitats but most often in small pools
(Hilsenhoff, 1994), ponds and bogs with weeds and
algae (Barman, 1972). Specimens were collected in
temporary pools in April 2000.

Laccophilus maculosus maculosus Say is a pioneer
species, often the first to find a new body of water. It is
found in both forested and grassland shallow pools and
ponds usually with emergent vegetation, adults are
collected at blacklight (Zimmerman, 1970; Michael &
Matta, 1977; Larson et al., 2000; Ciegler, 2003).
Specimens were collected in ponds in July 1999.

Matus bicarinatus (Say) is found in ponds and
streams (Young, 1953); woodland ponds as well as in

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

unshaded ponds and roadside ditches; adults are
collected at lights (Spangler & Gordon, 1973).
Hilsenhoff (1993) collected this species from
permanent ponds and marshes which were near or
associated with larger streams. Alarie et al. (2001)
reported this species in ponds among cattails and
decaying leaves; the larvae burrow in mud. Specimens
were collected in July 2001 in ponds.

Neoporus clypealis (Sharp) is found in streams of
various sizes, backwaters, spring ponds, and ponds
adjacent to streams, rarely in other types of ponds or
ditches (Hilsenhoff, 1995a); it is also found in emergent
vegetation along the margins of slow marshy streams,
in beaver ponds, small lakes (Larson et al., 2000),
rivers, and swamps; adults are attracted to lights
(Ciegler, 2003). Specimens were taken at blacklight in
June 2000.

Neoporus undulatus (Say) is found in ditches,
rivers, lakes, pools, ponds, swamps, and marshes; adults
are attracted to blacklight (Barman, 1972, Ciegler,
2003, Williams et al., 2007). Hilsenhoff (1995a)
reported the species as most common in permanent
ponds but also in ditches and stream margins.
Specimens were taken in temporary pools in May
2001 .

Gyrinidae

Dineutus discolor Aube is found in streams, lakes,
rivers, creeks, and swamps (Hilsenhoff, 1990; Ciegler,
2003). Hatch (1925) reported that adults are found in
slowly moving streams or slowly flowing areas of
swifter streams. Specimens were collected in ponds in
May 2001.

Dineutus emarginatus Say is found in ponds, lakes,
slow moving rivers and swamps; adults are attracted to
lights (Ciegler, 2003; Realzola et al., 2007). King et al.
(2000) found this species in cypress-gum swamps.
Specimens were collected in ponds in July 1999.

Haliplidae

Haliplus fasciatus Aube has been collected in
permanent pools, temporary pools, the margins of slow-
flowing streams, ditches, lakes, ponds, creeks, marshes,
and swamps (Matta, 1976a; Ciegler, 2003; Williams et
al., 2007, Staines & Mayor, 2008). Specimens were
collected in ponds in July 1999.

Haliplus tropsis Say is found in lakes, ponds, rivers,
and streams, adults are attracted to 1 ight (Hilsenhoff &
Brigham, 1978; Ciegler, 2003; Williams et al., 2007).
Specimens were collected in ponds in July 1999.

Peltodytes duodecimpunctatus (Say) is frequently
collected in ponds (Matta, 1976a), the margins of

streams (Hilsenhoff & Brigham, 1978), and ditches
(Williams et al., 2007). Specimens were collected in
ponds in July 1999.

Peltodytes edentulous (LeConte) is found at the
margins of bodies of permanent standing water (Matta,
1976a) and occasionally along the margins of streams
(Hilsenhoff & Brigham, 1978). Specimens were
collected in ponds in July 1999.

Peltodytes sexmaculatus Roberts is found in lakes,
rivers, ditches, slow streams, pools, and mud flats;
adults are taken at lights (Matta, 1976a; Hilsenhoff &
Brigham, 1978; Ciegler, 2003). Hickman (1931) found
that adults and larvae feed on Spirogyra algae. Larvae
are found in masses of this algae as they can not swim
or float, and must reach the surface to breathe by
crawling over the algal surface. Specimens were
collected in ponds in July 1999.

Peltodytes shermani Roberts is found in ditches,
lakes, rivers, streams, pools, and swamps; adults are
attracted to light (Ciegler, 2003; Williams et al., 2007).
Faulds & Fairchild (1999) reported that this species
feeds on Spirogyra algae. Specimens were collected in
ponds in July 1999.

Hydrochidae

Hydrochus squamifer LeConte is found in shallow
edges of lake and ponds, in swamps, marshes, roadside
ditches (Smetana, 1988), and margins of streams
(Hilsenhoff, 1995b). Specimens were collected along
the margins of ponds in June 2001.

Hydrophilidae

Berosus exiguus Say is usually found in standing
water associated with algal mats. Individuals have been
collected in ditches, farm ponds, woodland ponds,
swamp margins, lake margins, and grass-filled streams;
adults are attracted to blacklights (Matta, 1974; Testa &
Lago, 1994). However, the species is not commonly
found (Van Tassell, 1966). Specimens were collected in
temporary pools in May 2000.

Berosus fraternus LeConte is found in a wide
variety of aquatic habitats but prefers pools and ponds
with a large amount of debris; adults are attracted to
lights (Matta, 1974; Ciegler, 2003). Hilsenhoff (1995b)
reported the species mostly from permanent ponds and
occasionally in streams. Specimens were collected in
ditches in July of 1999 and 2000.

Berosus peregrinus (Herbst) prefers quiet water
along streams or ditches but is occasionally found in
ponds and temporary pools (Van Tassell, 1966;
Williams et al., 2007); adults are attracted to lights
(Hilsenhoff, 1995b). Specimens were collected at

STAINES: PATUXENT WATER BEETLES

blacklight in July 1999.

Berosus striatus (Say) inhabits ponds of various
types, as well as streams, algal mats, lakes, ditches,
marshes, temporary pools, and swamps; adults are
attracted to lights (Testa & Lago, 1994; Williams et al.,
2007; Staines & Mayor, 2008). Matta (1974) stated that
this species seems to prefer deeper water. Specimens
were collected at blacklight in June of 2000 and 2001.

Cymbiodyta chamberlaini Smetana is a habitat
generalist being found in both lentic and lotic situations
(Smetana, 1974). Specimens were collected in ditches
in June and July of 1999 and 2000.

Cymbiodyta semistriata (Zimmerman) has been
collected at lights (Smetana, 1974) and in temporary
pools (Starnes & Mayor, 2008). A single specimen was
collected in a pond on 22 July 1999.

Enochrus cinctus (Say) is most commonly
collected in very shallow, temporary woodland pools
with abundant rotting vegetation as well as in marshes,
streams, and ditches; adults are attracted to lights
(Gunderson, 1978, Testa & Lago, 1994; Hilsenhoff,
1995c, Staines & Mayor, 2008). Specimens were
collected at blacklight in July of 1999 and 2001.

Enochrus consors (LeConte) is found in lakes,
ponds, swamps, and at lights (Gunderson, 1978).
Specimens were collected in temporary pools in May
2001 .

Enochrus consortus Green is an uncommon species
that is found in pools or ponds with emergent
vegetation or a layer of debris on the bottom and
swamps and ditches; adults are attracted to lights
(Gunderson, 1978; Testa & Lago, 1994; Williams et al.,
2007; Staines & Mayor, 2008). Hilsenhoff (1995c)
reported this species from ponds, marshes, and the
margins of lakes and streams. Specimens were collected
at blacklight in July of 1999 and 2000.

Enochrus per plexus (LeConte) is common in
temporary pools and ponds of various types, as well as
in marshes, bogs, and margins of streams; adults fly
readily when taken out of water (Gunderson, 1978;
Hilsenhoff, 1995c). Specimens were taken at blacklight
in June 2001.

Enochrus pygmaeus nebulosus Say is found in
quiet waters with rotting leaves and other plant debris
(Gunderson, 1978). Testa & Lago (1994) found this
species in every type of aquatic habitat and adults are
often taken at lights. Specimens were collected in
various aquatic situations from May to July of 1999 to
2001 .

Helochares maculicollis Mulsant is found in
emergent vegetation at the margins of rivers, lakes,
marshes, and ponds (Ciegler, 2003; Williams et al.,
2007) and prefers quiet water (Archangelsky, 1997). A
single specimen was collected in a pond in June 2001.

Hydrochara obtusata (Say) is found in shallow
ponds and marshes (Hilsenhoff, 1995); in ditches
(Williams et al., 2007); adults commonly come to
lights (Smetana, 1980). Specimens were collected at
blacklight from May to August during 1999 to 2001

Paracymus nanus (Tail) is found in lakes, ponds,
emergent vegetation, and at light (Ciegler, 2003).
Specimens were collected in ponds in May 2001.

Paracymus subcupreus (Say) is found in a wide
variety of aquatic habitats but prefers shallow, standing
water with abundant organic matter (Wooldridge,
1966). Smetana (1988) also reports this species from
semiaquatic habitats such as wet moss and grass tufts.
Adults are attracted to lights (Hilsenhoff, 1995b).
Specimens were collected in temporary pools in June
2001 .

Tropisternus blatchleyi d’Orchymont seems to
prefer shallow pools and ponds but may be found in any
quiet water habitat; adults are attracted to lights (Matta,
1974). Testa & Lago (1994) found the species in
brackish ponds with salinity from 3.5 to 10.0 ppt.
Specimens were collected in ponds in June and July
during 1999 and 2000.

Tropisternus collar is (Fabric ius) is found in
shallow standing water with other Tropisternus species;
it is commonly found in lakes, ponds, temporary pools,
streams, and ditches; adults are attracted to lights
(Matta, 1974; Staines & Mayor, 2008). Specimens were
collected in pools, ponds, and at blacklight throughout
the survey.

Noteridae

Hydrocanthus iricolor Say is a habitat generalist
but prefers ponds with debris in the bottom and
emergent vegetation; adults are attracted to lights
(Starnes, 1988; Hilsenhoff, 1992; Ciegler, 2003).
Specimens were collected m ponds in July 1999.

DISCUSSION

There are few published inventories of Maryland
aquatic beetles. Staines & Staines (2005) reported 42
species from three families from Eastern Neck National
Wildlife Refuge. Staines (2008a, b) reported 36 species
from three families on Plummers Island. Staines (in
press) reported 39 species from six families from Fort
Washington and Piscataway National Parks.

Staines (1986a) reported 13 species of Haliplidae,
four species of Noteridae, 20 species of Gyrinidae, and
84 species of Dytiscidae from Maryland. Staines
(1986b) reported three species of Helophoridae, 13
species of Hydrochidae, and 48 aquatic Hydrophilidae
from Maryland. This is a total of 186 species in the

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

families included in this inventory. The 44 species
found at Patuxent Research Refuge represents 23.6% of
the known Maryland fauna and suggests a diverse and
healthy water beetle fauna for the Refuge. Hopefully,
the data reported here will provide a baseline for future
monitoring to track changes in populations and species
at the Refuge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1 thank Holliday Obrecht, Refuge Biologist, for
access to the Refuge and general field assistance.
Susan L. Staines assisted in many of the collecting trips
and provided editorial assistance. Funding for this study
was entirely personal.

LITERATURE CITED

Alarie, Y., C. H. S. Watts, & A. N. Nilsson. 2001.
Larval morphology of the tribe Matini (Coleoptera:
Dytiscidae, Colymbetinae); Descriptions of
Batrachomatus daemeli , Matus bicarinatus , and
Allomatus nannup and phylogenetic relationships.
Canadian Entomologist 133: 165-196.

Anonymous. 2003. Rare, threatened, and endangered
animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. Wildlife and Heritage Service,
http: //www. dnr. state, md .us/wildlife.

Archangelsky, M. 1997. Studies on the biology,
ecology, and systematics of the immature stages of
New World Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera:
Staphyliniformia). Bulletin of the Ohio Biological
Survey (new series) 12: 1-207,

Barman, E. H. 1972. The biology and immature stages
of selected species of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) of central
New York State. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY. 207 pp.

Barman, E. H. 2004. A description of the first instar
larva of Coptotomus interrogates (Fabricius)
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Coptotominae) with an
emphasis on cranial morphology and comments on the
phylogeny of basal lineages of Dytiscidae.
Coleopterists Bulletin 58: 661-671.

Bergsten, J., & K. B. Miller. 2006. Taxonomic revision
of the Holarctic diving beetle genus Acilius Leach
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Systematic Entomology 31:
145-197.

Brown, H. P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid Beetles
(Coleoptera) of the United States. Biota of Freshwater
Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 6. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Water Pollution
Control Research Series. 82 pp.

Ciegler, J, C. 2003. Water Beetles of South Carolina
(Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae,

Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae,
Elmidae, Dryopidae, Limnichidae, Heteroceridae,
Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae, and Chelonariidae). Biota
of South Carolina. Volume 3. Clemson University,
Clemson, SC. 207 pp.

Faulds, A. M., & G. W. Fairchild. 1999. The feeding
ecology of coexisting species of crawling water beetles
(Family Haliplidae) in wetlands of southeast
Pennsylvania. North American Benthological Society
Annual Meeting (abstract).

Gunderson, R. W. 1978. Nearctic Enochrus Biology,
Keys, Descriptions, and Distribution (Coleoptera:
Hydrophilidae). Privately published. 54 pp.

Hatch, M. H. 1925. An outline of the ecology of
Gyrinidae. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological
Society 20: 101-114.

Hickman, J. R. 1931. Contribution to the biology of the
Haliplidae (Coleoptera). Annals of the Entomological
Society of America 24: 129-142.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1990, Gyrinidae of Wisconsin, with a
key to adults of both sexes and notes on distribution and
habitat. Great Lakes Entomologist 23: 77-91.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1991. Diversity and classification of
insects and Collembola. Pp. 593-663 In J. H. Thorp &
A. P. Covich (eds.), Ecology and Classification of
North American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic
Press, New York, NY.

Hilsenhoff, W. E. 1992. Dytiscidae and Noteridae of
Wisconsin (Coleoptera). I. Introduction, key to genera
of adults, distribution, habitat, life cycle, and
identification of species of Agabetinae, Laccophilinae
and Noteridae. Great Lakes Entomologist 25: 57-69.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1993. Dytiscidae and Noteridae of
Wisconsin (Coleoptera). IV. Distribution, habitat, life
cycle, and identification of species of Agabini
(Colymbetinae). Great Lakes Entomologist 26: 173-
197.

STAINES: PATUXENT WATER BEETLES

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1994. Dytiscidae and Noteridae of
Wisconsin (Coleoptera). V. Distribution, habitat, life
cycle, and identification of species of Hydroporinae,
except Hydroporus Clairville sensu lato. Great Lakes
Entomologist 26: 275-295.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1995a. Dytiscidae and Noteridae of
Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribution, habitat, life
cycle, and identification of spec ies of Hydroporus sensu
lato (Hydroporinae). Great Lakes Entomologist 28: 1-
23.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1995b. Aquatic Hydrophilidae and
Hydraenidae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). I. Introduction,
habitat, life cycle, and identification of species of
Helophorus Fabricius, Hydrochus Leach, and Berosus
Leach (Hydrophilidae) and Hydraenidae. Great Lakes
Entomologist 28: 25-53.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1995c. Aquatic Hydrophilidae and
Hydraenidae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). II.
Introduction, habitat, life cycle, and identification
of species of Hydrobiini and Hydrophilini
(Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilrnae). Great Lakes

Entomologist 28: 97-126.

Hilsenhoff, W. L., & W. U. Brigham. 1978. Crawling
water beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Haliplidae).
Great Lakes Entomologist 11: 11-22.

King, R. S., K. T. Nunnery, & C. J. Richardson. 2000.
Macro invertebrate assemblage response to highway
crossings in forested wetlands: Implications for
biological assessment. Wetlands Ecology and
Management 8: 243-256.

Larson, D. J. 1989. Revision of North American
Agabus Leach (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae): Introduction,
key to species groups, and classification of the
ambiguous -, tristis -, and arcticus- groups. Canadian
Entomologist 121: 861-919.

Larson, D. J., Y. Alarie, & R. E, Roughley. 2000.
Predacious Diving Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of
the Nearctic Region, with Emphasis on the Fauna of
Canada and Alaska. NRC Press. Ottawa, Canada.
982 pp.

Matta, J. F. 1974. The Insects of Virginia, Number 8.
The aquatic Hydrophilidae of Virginia (Coleoptera:
Polyphaga). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University Research Bulletin 94. Blacksburg, VA. 44

pp.

Matta, J. F 1976a. The Insects of Virginia, Number 10.
The Haliplidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adephaga).
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Research Bulletin 109. Blacksburg, VA. 26 pp.

Matta, J. F. 1976b. Agabus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae)
larvae of southeastern United States. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Washington 88: 515-520,

Michael, A. G., & J. F. Matta. 1977. The Insects of
Virginia, Number 12. The Dytiscidae of Virginia
(Coleoptera: Adephaga) (Subfamilies: Laccophilinae,
Colymbetinae, Dytiscinae, Hydaticinae, and
CybisU'inae). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University Research Bulletin 124. Blacksburg, VA. 53

pp.

Ribera, I., & G. N. Foster. 1993. Uso de Coleopteros
acuaticos como indicadores biologicos (Coleoptera).
Elytron 6: 61-75.

Realzola, E., J. L. Clark, T. J. Cook, & R. E. Clopton.
2007. Composition of gyrinid aggregations in the East
Texas Primitive Big Thicket (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae).
Coleopterists Bulletin 61: 495-502.

Sanchez-Fernandez, D., P. Abelian, A. Mellado, J.
Velasco, & A. Millan. 2006. Are water beetles good
indicators of biodiversity in Mediterranean aquatic
ecosystems? The case of the Segura River basin (SE
Spain). Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 4507-4520

Smetana, A. 1974. Revision of the genus Cymbiodyta
Bed. (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the
Entomological Society of Canada 93: 1-112.

Smetana, A. 1980. Revision of the genus Hydrochara
Berth. (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the
Entomological Society of Canada 111: 1-100.

Smetana, A. 1988. Review of the family Hydrophilidae
of Canada and Alaska (Coleoptera). Memoirs of the
Entomological Society of Canada 142: 1-316.

Spangler, P. J. 1962. Natural history of Plummers
Island, Maryland. XIV. Biological notes and
description of the larva and pupa of Copelatus
glyphicus (Say) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proceedings
of the Biological Society of Washington 75: 19-24.

Spangler, P. J. 1973. The bionomics, immature
stages, and distribution of the rare predacious water
beetle, Hoperius planatus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae).

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
86: 423-434.

Spangler, P. J., & R D. Gordon 1973. Descriptions of
the larvae of some predaceous water beetles
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 86: 261-278.

Staines, C. L. 1986a. A preliminary checklist of the
Hydradephaga (Coleoptera) of Maryland. Insecta
Mundi 1: 118,155.

Staines, C. L. 1986b. A preliminary checklist of the
Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) of Maryland. Insecta
Mundi 1:259-260.

Staines, C. L. 1988. The Noteridae (Coleoptera) of
Maryland. Maryland Entomologist 3: 42-45.

Staines, C. L. 2008a. Hydrophiloidea (Insecta:
Coleoptera) of Plummers Island. Bulletin of the
Biological Society of Washington 15: 151-152.

Staines, C. L. 2008b. Dytiscidae or predaceous diving
beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Plummers Island.
Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington 15:
153-155.

Staines, C. L. in press. The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae,
Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and
Hydrophilidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Fort
Washington and Piscataway National Parks, Maryland.
Maryland Naturalist

Staines, C, L., & A. J. Mayor. 2008. Aquatic and
semiaquatic beetles of the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae,
Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydraenidae, Hydrochidae,
Hydrophilidae, and Noteridae). Southeastern Naturalist
7: 505-514.

Staines, C. L., & S. L. Staines. 2005 [2006], The
Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Maryland.
Maryland Naturalist 47: 14-20.

Testa, S., & P. K, Lago 1994. The aquatic
Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera) of Mississippi Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Technical
Bulletin 193, Starkville, MS. 71 pp.

Van Tassell, E. R. 1966. Taxonomy and biology of the
subfamily Berosinae of North and Central America and
the West Indies. Ph.D. thesis. Catholic University of
America, Washington, DC. 329 pp.

Williams, R. N., E. G. Chapman, T. A. Ebert, & D. M.
Hartzler. 2007. Aquatic beetles in the Ravenna Training
and Logistics Site of northeastern Ohio. Coleopterists
Bulletin 61: 41-55.

Wilson, C. B. 1923. Water beetles in relation to
pondfish culture, with life histories of those found in
fishponds at Fairport, Iowa. Bulletin of the Bureau of
Fisheries 39: 231-345.

Wooldridge, D. P. 1966. Notes of Nearctic Paracymus
with descriptions of new species (Coleoptera:
Hydrophilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological
Society 39: 712-725.

Young, F. N. 1953. Two new species of Matus, with a
key to the known species and subspecies of the group
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), Annals of the Entomological
Society of America 46: 49-55.

Zimmerman, J. R. 1970. A taxonomic revision of the
aquatic beetle genus Laccophilus (Dytiscidae) of North
America. Memoirs of the American Entomological
Society 26: 1-275.

Zuellig, R. E., B. C. Kondratieff, J. P. Schmidt, R. S.
Durfee, D. E. Ruiter, & I. E. Prather. 2006. An
annotated list of aquatic insects of Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
excluding Diptera with notes on several new records.
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 79: 34-54.

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 37-42
© 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

Phyllophaga spreta (Horn), A Rare Species of June Beetle New to the Fauna
of Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

Arthur V. Evans 1

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

ABSTRACT

The presence of the widespread, but rarely collected June beetle, Phyllophaga spreta (Horn) is reported from
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as new state records. A brief review of its distribution, identification,
and natural history is presented, along with possible reasons for its apparent rarity and suggestions for future survey
work.

Key words'. Alabama, Breaks Interstate Park, Bull Run Mountains, Great Smoky Mountains National Park,

Iowa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Phyllophaga , rare species, Virginia.

INTRODUCTION

Phyllophaga is a large genus of melolonthine
scarabs with 860 named species in North, Central, and
South America, 214 of which occur in the United States
and Canada (Evans & Smith, 2007). Of these, 46 are
known or suspected to occur in Virginia (Evans,
unpub.). The fauna of eastern North America is well
known and stable, with only three new species
described since 1953 (Woodruff & Beck, 1989;
Polihronakis, 2007), In the eastern United States, the
larvae are sometimes serious crop, turf, and pasture
pests because of their root-feeding activities, while the
nocturnal feeding activities of the adults occasionally
result in serious defoliation of deciduous trees and
shrubs (Evans, 2002),

While conducting beetle surveys in 2008 and 2009
at Breaks Interstate Park (Dickenson County), Bull Run
Mountams Natural Area Preserve (Fauquier and Prince
William counties), and Powell Mountain Karst Preserve
(Wise County) in Virginia, 1 collected fourteen
specnnens (9 males, 5 females) of P. spreta (Horn) at
blacklight traps. These collections represent a NEW
STATE RECORD based on the following collecting
data: USA: VA, Dickenson County, Breaks Interstate

Current address: 1600 Nottoway Avenue, Richmond,
VA 23227; arthurevans@verizon.net

Park, motor lodge, rms. 101/102, N37.28571 0

W82.29588°, 1-4 June 2008, A.V. Evans, UV light (1
male); USA: VA, Prince William Co., Bull Run
Mountains NAP, Mountain House, N38.82433°
W77.70539°, 26 May 2008, A.V. Evans, UV light (1
male, 1 female); USA: VA, Prince William Co., Bull
Run Mountains NAP, vie. NW of Mountain House,
N38.82621° W77.70735 0 , 26/27 May 2008, A.V.
Evans, uv light trap (2 females); USA: VA, Prince
William Co., Bull Rim Mountains NAP, boardwalk,
Fern Hollow Tr, W of Mountain Rd. Tr,, N38.82495°
W 77.7106°, 26/27 May 2008, A.V. Evans, uv light trap
(2 males, 1 female); USA: VA, Wise Co., Powell
Mountain Karst Preserve, Cedar Ridge, uv trap 1, ca.
1.3 km E Cracker Neck Church, N36.85483 0
W082.69983°, 27-29 April 2009, C.S Hobson, A.V.
Evans (1 male); USA: VA, Wise Co., Powell Mountain
Karst Preserve, uv trap 2, NW of campground, ca. 1.3
km E Cracker Neck Church, N36.85527 0 W082.70014 0 ,
27-29 April 2009, C.S. Hobson, A.V. Evans (1 male);
USA: VA, Wise Co., Powell Mountain Karst Preserve,
uv trap 3, ca. 1.3 km E Cracker Neck Church,
N36.85484° W082.69856 0 , 27-29 April 2009, C.S.
Hobson, A.V. Evans (1 male); USA. VA, Wise Co.,
Powell Mountain Karst Preserve, uv trap 4, ca. 1.3 km
E Cracker Neck Church, N36.854 80 0 W082.69595 0 , 27-
29 April 2009, C.S. Hobson, A.V. Evans (1 male, 1
female). Two specimens are deposited in the Virginia

BANISTER! A

NO. 33, 2009

Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA, while
the remaining specimens are deposited in the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division
of Natural Heritage in Richmond, VA, and my personal
collection.

The site northwest of Mountain House is located in
the northern Piedmont physiographic region on a steep,
xeric, well-drained, southwest-facing upper slope at the
south end of a ridge. According to Fleming (2002), the
surface substrate consists primarily of organic matter
(83%), flat flaggy quartzite/muscovite schist fragments
8-25 cm in diameter (10%), non-vascular plant cover
(10%), larger flat stone fragments >25 cm (5%), and
decaying wood (2%). The hardwood forest is
dominated by mountain or rock chestnut oak ( Quercus
montana Willdenow) and some black oak ( Q. velutina
Lamarck in J. Lamarck et al.) that show evidence of
gypsy moth defoliation. Other tree and shrub species
include red maple ( Acer rubrum L.), black gum ( Nyssa
sylvatica Marsh.), black huckleberry ( Gaylussacia
baccata (Wangenh.) K. Koch), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia Linnaeus), pink azalea {Rhododendron
periclymenoides (Michx.) Shinners), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia Ehrhart), white oak {Q. alba L.),
and sassafras {Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees.). The
oak stand was logged perhaps 60 or more years ago and
has largely regenerated from stump sprouts. The
sparsely vegetated understory consists primarily of low,
ericaceous shrubs, such as Blue Ridge blueberry
{Vaccinium pallidum Aiton) and deer berry (V.
stamineum L.).

At the Bull Run Mountains NAP, seven additional
species of Phyllophaga were collected in the vicinity of
Mountain House on the same night, including P. arncia
(LeC.), P. crenulata (Froelich), P. ephilida (Say), P.
fervida (Fab.), P.fraterna Harris, P.fusca (Froelich), P.
horni (Smith), and P. marginalis (Horn).

I located two males of P. spreta in the Casey
collection at the National Museum of Natural History
labeled “Penn” and without any additional information.
These specimens also represent a NEW STATE
RECORD.

A Google search for P. spreta led to the Louisiana
State University’s beetle database, which revealed a
single male from North Carolina, also a NEW STATE
RECORD. This specimen is housed in the University of
Tennessee’s Department of Entomology and
Parasitology collection and bears the following locality
information: NC, Swain Co., Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Noland Creek, 7 June 1989, light trap at
789m, D. Paulsen. It was collected as part of a study of
beetles associated with northern red oak, Quercus rubra
(P. Lambdin, pers. comm.). According to Adriean
Mayor (pers. comm.), the trap was set next to the creek

near some red oaks on a dirt road below the bridge, and
drew in about 4,000 specimens of Phyllophaga , of
which only one proved to be P. spreta.

DIAGNOSIS

Phyllophaga spreta is 16.5-19.0 mm, shining
chestnut or reddish brown, without any dorsal
pubescence. The antennae are 10-segmented and
clypeus is not distinctly emarginated (Fig. 1). The stout
lower spur of the male hind tibiae is distinctly fused at
its base and only two thirds the length of the upper spur
(Fig. 2), while it is articulated and nearly equal in the
female (Fig. 3). The male and female genitalia are as in
Figs. 4-7 and 8, respectively.

DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONALITY
OF PHYLLOPHAGA SPRETA

Phyllophaga spreta was originally described by
Horn (1887) in the genus Lachnosterna from two males
collected in Maryland and Iowa. Images of the
Maryland specimen appear on the Museum of
Comparative Zoology Type Database at Harvard
Entomology (http: //insects. oeb. harvard. edu/MCZ/

FMPro? -DB=Image. fm&-Lay=web&-F ormat=images.
htm&Species_ID=8064&-Find). Luginbill & Painter
(1953) noted that P. spreta is “very rare” and listed it
from Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Sanderson (1936) had previously noted its presence in
Missouri. Pike et al. (1977) included all seven states in
a map suggesting a range from Iowa, Wisconsin, and
Maryland south to Missouri and Alabama. Therefore, it
is not unexpected to find P. spreta in Virginia and
North Carolina. Despite the aforementioned published
state records from Alabama, P. spreta was not included

Fig. 1. Phyllophaga spreta , male. Head showing clypeal
margin.

EVANS: PHYLLOPHAGA SPRETA

Figs. 2-3. Phyllophaga spreta. 2. Male; the stout lower spur of the hind tibiae is fused at its base and only two-thirds the length
of the upper spur. 3. Female; the lower spur of the hind tibiae is articulated at the base and nearly equal in the female.

Figs. 4-7. Phyllophaga spreta. 4. Male, lateral view of left paramere. 5. Male, lateral view of right paramere.
6. Male, dorsal view of parameres. 7. Male, caudal view of parameres.

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Fig. 8. Phyllophaga spreta , female. Ventral view of genitalia.

in a review of Phyllophaga in southeastern United
States (Forschler & Gardner, 1990).

Most recent specimens of P. spreta were collected
in Alabama and Iowa, all at lights. Paul Lago (pers.
comm.) collected more than 75 specimens in April and
May of 2005 from Jackson and Madison counties in the
hills near Fluntsville, Alabama. All of the specimens
were collected in deciduous hardwood forests with few
pines at about 1,300 feet (400 m) in elevation.

Rice & Riley (2000) found P. spreta in May and
early June in an old growth hardwood forest in Story
County, Iowa, that had not been cut in more than 100
years. The canopy cover is about 95%, and is
dominated by northern red oak (M. Rice, pers. comm.).
Fifteen specimens were collected in May from the same
site over a three-year period (1992-94) out of 1,580
Phyllophaga specimens. Eight additional specimens
were collected in Allamakee, Appanoose, and
Pottawattamie counties, Iowa in May and early June
2004-08 from localities in upland and riparian woods,
and woods at the edge of a prairie (E. Freese, D. Veal,
pers. comm ), The Pottawattamie County record is only
three miles from the Nebraska state line (M. Paulsen,
pers. comm.), but P. spreta is not yet known from this
state (Ratcliffe & Paulsen, 2008), This species is also
known from Johnson County in eastern Iowa
(Wickham, 1911).

Most of the other known specimens of P. spreta
were collected in April or May, including specimens
from Crawford County, Wisconsin (Kriska & Young,
2002), and Platte (Sanderson, 1936) and St. Louis
counties, Missouri (M. Paulsen, pers. comm ),

Knaus (1899a, b) collected four specimens in June
1896 at lights at McPherson, Kansas, Curiously, this
record appears to have been overlooked by subsequent
workers. Knaus’ collection was deposited in the
Entomological Museum of the Kansas State
Agricultural College (now Kansas State University) in
Manhattan (Horn & Kahle, 1937). However, these
specimens were not located in either the Kansas State
University (G. Zolnerowich, pers. comm.) or University
of Kansas (J. Cole, pers. comm.) collections. Either
they were misidentified or the presence of P. spreta in
Kansas must await confirmation by the collection of
additional specimens.

ON THE RARITY OF PHYLLOPHAGA SPRETA
AND FUTURE SURVEY WORK

Rice & Riley (2000) note that P. spreta is a truly
rare species across most of its range. Based on previous
field experiences with the spring species Phyllophaga
xerophila Saylor (Evans, unpub.) and other noctumally
active melolonthines in the genera Serica , Diplotaxis ,
and Coenonycha in Arizona, California, and Nevada
(see Evans, 1985; Evans & Smith, 1986), the rarity of
P. spreta in collections may be due, in part, to the fact
that feeding and mating adults are not readily attracted
to lights and/or the adult activity period peaks before
most collectors set up their light traps.

Adults of many species of Phyllophaga eat the
leaves of a wide variety of plant species (20-50) in
several families (Ratcliffe & Paulsen, 2008). Luginbill
& Painter (1953) list black walnut, Juglans nigra L., as
a host for P. spreta. One of the Wisconsin specimens in
the NMNH collection bears a label with “Hickory” (M.
Paulsen, pers. comm ). Until its feedmg preferences are
known, no deciduous trees or shrubs should be
overlooked when searching for adults of P. spreta.

The Platte County specimen m the University of
Kansas collection has a label indicating that it was
collected from “topsoil in a grove” (J. Cole, pers.
comm. ). This is the beetle that was noted by Sanderson
(1936) as the third known specimen of P. spreta. He
stated that it was collected “...under dead leaves, and in
the first inch or so of top soil beneath trees situated in
groves.” Five additional species of Phyllophaga , along
with specimens of Serica and Diplotaxis , were also
found in the same habitat.

Rice & Riley (2000) consider the genus
Phyllophaga as a useful indicator of biodiversity and “a

EVANS: PHYLLOPHAGA SPRETA

benchmark for monitoring influences in future habitat
alterations.” This is especially true in the Midwest,
where they note that several intensive surveys were
conducted over the past 100 years that offer
opportunities for comparative studies over time.
Virginia is not so fortunate because its beetle fauna is,
for the most part, poorly documented. Future beetle
surveys, especially those conducted in early spring and
late fall, that do not rely solely on light trapping will
undoubtedly provide useful and interesting baseline
data on P. spreta and other species thus far unknown or
considered “rare” in Virginia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The beetle survey at Breaks Interstate Park (BIP)
was part of a zoological and botanical survey conducted
by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) with
the generous support of Carl Mullins, Park
Superintendent, and the BIP staff. I thank my DCR
colleagues Anne Chazal, Maureen Dougherty, Steve
Roble, and Johnny Townsend, along with DCR
volunteers Paul Bedell, Will Merritt, and Chris Wirth
for their assistance with my beetle work at BIP. DCR
and the Bull Run Mountains Conservancy also funded
the survey of the Bull Run Mountains Natural Area
Preserve. I thank Michael Kieffer and Jennifer Helwig
(Bull Run Mountains Conservancy) for providing
access and logistical support. DCR and the Cave
Conservancy of the Virginias provided funds for the
inventory work in the Powell Mountain Karst Preserve
(PMKP) Chris Hobson (DCR) led the inventory effort
at PMKP and selected the trap sites where specimens of
P. spreta were captured. Paris Lamdin (University of
Tennessee), Adriean Mayor (Great Smoky Mountains
National Park), and Chris Carleton (Louisiana State
University) generously assisted me with tracking down
detailed information on the single known record of P.
spreta from North Carolina. Gregory Zolnerowich
(Kansas State University) and Jeffrey Cole (University
of Kansas) kindly checked the collections at their
respective institutions for Knaus’ specimens of P.
spreta from McPherson, Kansas. Matthew “MJ”
Paulsen (University of Nebraska State Museum)
checked the NMNH and UNSM collections for species
records, provided data, and introduced me to the
dedicated cadre of coleopterists who have collected P.
spreta in Iowa. Ed Freese (Waverly, IA), Marlin Rice
(Iowa State University), and Doug Veal (Marion, IA)
freely shared their collecting data and literature
citations. Keith Pike (Washington State University)
provided pertinent literature. I am also indebted to Faye
McKinney (DCR) for her able assistance with

administrative matters related to the surveys. Paula
Evans reviewed the first draft of the manuscript.
Carolyn Marks (Director of Biological Imaging,
University of Richmond) graciously provided the SEM
images of P spreta. T.E. Dare (Woodlawn, Ontario,
Canada) kindly prepared those images for publication.
Special thanks are due to my longtime friend and
colleague, Paul Lago (University' of Mississippi), who
provided information on P. spreta in Alabama and
reviewed an earlier draft of this manuscript. Steve
Roble and two anonymous reviewers also reviewed the
manuscript and contributed to its accuracy and
readability.

LITERATURE CITED

Evans, A.V. 1985. New host plant associations for adult
scarabs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae)
from Arizona and California. Coleopterists Bulletin 39:
86 - 88 .

Evans, A. V. 2002. III. Melolonthinae Samouelle, 1819.
Pp. 51-60 In R. H. Arnett, Jr., M. C. Thomas, P. E.
Skelley, & J. H. Frank (eds.), American Beetles,
Volume 2. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through
Curculinoidea. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Evans, A. V., & A. T. B. Smith. 2007. An electronic
checklist of the New World chafers (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Version 2. Updated
March 2007. University of Nebraska State Museum.
Papers in Entomology. http://www-
museum uni edu/research/entomology/Guide/Scarabaeo
idea/Scarabaeidae/Melolonthinae/ Melolonthinae-
Catalog/Melolonthim.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2008.

Evans, A. V., & K. A. Smith. 1986. Four new species
of Coenonycha Horn from California and Nevada with
an illustrated key to all the species in the genus
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Coleopterists Bulletin 40:
81-92.

Fleming, G. P. 2002. Ecological communities of the
Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: baseline vegetation and
floristic data for conservation planning and natural area
stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 274 pp.
(Unpublished report submitted to the Virginia Outdoors
Heritage Foundation).

Forschler, B. T., & W. A. Gardner, 1990. A review of
the scientific literature on the biology and distribution
of the genus Phyllophaga (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

the southeastern United States. Journal of

Entomological Science 25: 628-651.

Horn, G. H. 1887. Revision of the species of
Lachnosterna of America north of Mexico.
Transactions of the American Entomological Society
14: 209-296.

Horn, W., & I. Kahle. 1937. Uber entomologische
Sammlungen, Entomologen & Entomo-Museologie
(Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entomologie).
Entomologische Beihefte aus Berlin-Dahlem. Band 2-4.
535 pp.

Knaus, W 1899a. V. Zoology. Collecting notes on
Kansas Coleoptera. Transactions of the Thirtieth and
Thirty-first Annual Meetings of the Kansas. Academy of
Science (1897-1898). Pp. 197-199.

Knaus, W. 1899b. Collecting notes on Kansas
Coleoptera. Canadian Entomologist 31: 37-40.

Kriska, N. A., & D. K. Young, 2002. An annotated
checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera).
InsectaMundi 16: 31-48.

Luginbill, P., & H. R. Painter. 1953. May beetles of the
United States and Canada. United States Department of
Agriculture Technical Bulletin 951. 102 pp.

Pike, K, S., R. L. Rivers, & Z. B. Mayo. 1977.
Geographical distribution of the known Phyllophaga

and Cyclocepha/a species in the North Central States.
University of Nebraska Agricultural Experimental
Station Miscellaneous Publication 34. 13 pp.

Polihronakis, M. 2007. New species of Phyllophaga
Harris (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from the North
Carolina Cape Fear River Basin. Coleopterists Bulletin
61:429-433,

Ratcliffe, B. C., & M. J. Paulsen. 2008. The
scarabaeoid beetles of Nebraska. Bulletin of the
University of Nebraska State Museum 22. 570 pp.

Rice, M. E , & E. G. Riley, 2000. Biodiversity and
rarity of Phyllophaga (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in a
temperate hardwood forest. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 93: 277-281.

Sanderson, M. 1936. Phyllophaga spreta (Horn) in
Missouri. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society
9: 30.

Wickham, H. F. 1911. A list of the Coleoptera of Iowa.
Bulletin from the Laboratories of Natural History, State
University of Iowa 6(2): 1-40.

Woodruff, R. E., & B. M. Beck. 1989. Arthropods of
Florida and Neighboring Land Areas. Volume 13. The
scarab beetles of Florida (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).
Part IT The May or June Beetles (genus Phyllophaga).
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Gainesville, FL. 226 pp.

Hybosorus illigeri Reiche Confirmed as Part of the Virginia Beetle
Fauna, With Notes on Germarostes (Coleoptera: Hybosoridae)

Arthur V. Evans 1

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

ABSTRACT

Hybosorus illigeri Reiche is confirmed as part of the Virginia beetle fauna. A brief overview of the current
taxonomic status of the subfamilies Ceratocanthinae and Hybosormae is presented, along with new Virginia county
records and natural history notes for Germarostes aphodioides (Illiger) and G globosus (Say).

Key words ; arboreal, Ceratocanthinae, Ceratocanthus , Germarostes , Hybosoridae, Hybosorus , saproxylic,
tree canopy, Virginia.

INTRODUCTION

Hybosorus illigeri Reiche is recorded from
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas (Ocampo, 2002). Ocampo also
listed one specimen from Virginia without any further
locality information. A single specimen of this species
was located among unidentified beetles in the insect
collection of the Virginia Museum of Natural History
(VMNH), Martinsville, VA, with the following label
data. City of Chesapeake, Northwest River Park, ca. 5
mi. SE Hickory, 18-25 July 2005, R. Vigneault.

Hybosorus illigeri is an Old World species native to
“temperate Europe, all of Africa except the Sahara
desert, and from the Middle East to Viet Nam and
China ... at altitudes from sea level to nearly 2,000 m”
(Ocampo, 2002). They were apparently introduced into
the New World in the 19 th century via the slave trade, or
through some other type of commerce (Ocampo, 2002).
In the New World, H. illigeri is found across the entire
southern third of the United States (including
California), Mexico, Central America, Venezuela, and
several islands of the Caribbean (Ocampo, 2002;

California Beetle Project, 2008).

Adults of Hybosorus illigeri are collected at light,
and in carrion and dung (Ocampo, 2002). This species
also scavenges dead beetles at lights, suggesting that
they are present in dung and carrion as insect predators
rather than dung or carrion feeders (Woodruff, 1973;
Ocampo, 2006). Adults are active from February
through December, with the vast majority of specimens
collected in June and July (Ocampo, 2002, 2006). Buss
(2006) trapped individuals from April through
December in Gainesville, Florida, and nearly year-
round in Fort Lauderdale. She noted that peak adult
activity at both sites was in May and June, with a
second, smaller peak in August and September,
suggesting that at least part of the Florida population is
double-brooded. Adults were observed emerging from
burrows in golf courses. Although they do not harm
turf, their abundance and the small mounds they make
are considered nuisances by golfers and greens keepers
(Buss, 2006).

The larvae of H. illigeri develop in the soil and have
been collected among the roots of fennel ( Foeniculum
sp.) in Georgia, and Bermuda grass turf ( Cynodon
dactylon (L.) Pers.) in Texas (Grebennikov et al.,
2004).

Current address: 1600 Nottoway Avenue, Richmond,
Virginia 23227; arthurevans@verizon.net

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

NOTES ON OTHER VIRGINIA
HYBOSORID BEETLES

The ceratocanthines have been treated as a tribe of
the Trogidae (Martinez, 1968), a family of the
Scarabaeoidea (Lawrence & Newton, 1995; Jameson,
2002; Smith, 2006; Ratcliffe & Paulsen, 2008), a
subfamily of the Scarabaeidae (Woodruff, 1973;
Hoffman, 2006), or as a subfamily of the Hybosoridae
(Ocampo & Ballerio, 2006). Based on the strong
evidence provided by phylogenetic analyses of
molecular and larval data presented by Grebennikov et
al. (2004) and Ocampo & Hawks (2006), Ocampo
(2006) treated them as a subfamily of the Hybosoridae.
Four of the five North American species of
Hybosoridae occur in Virginia: Hybosonis illigeri
Reiche, 1853 (Hybosorinae), and Ceratocanthus aeneus
(MacLeay) 1819, Gennarostes aphodioides (Illiger,
1800), and Germarostes globosus (Say, 1835)
(Ceratocanthinae) (see Hoffman, 2006).

Germarostes aphodioides was recorded from
Buckingham County by Robinson (1918), while
Hoffman (2006) added Dickenson and Lee counties. To
these I add Caroline, Fairfax, Madison, and Prince
William counties. Most of the specimens were collected
in June and July at UV light traps. Robinson (1918)
collected three specimens under the bark of a recently
killed black oak, Quercus velutina Lam. 1 found the
Prince William County specimens at night about a
meter high or more on the standing bole of a dying,
fungus-ridden American tulip tree ( Liriodendron
tulipifera L.) near Mountain House in the Bull Run
Mountains Natural Area Preserve at the end of May.

Germarostes globosus is known from the Virginia
counties of Appomattox, Bath, Brunswick,
Buckingham, Dickenson, Dinwiddie, Essex, Fairfax,
Greensville, Halifax, Isle of Wight, Lee, and Prince
William, and the cities of Suffolk and Virginia Beach
(Robinson, 1918; Hoffman, 2006). To these I add
Carolme, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Powhatan
counties, and the City of Richmond. Most of these
specimens were collected in May and June in UV light
traps. The Powhatan County record was taken in an
unbaited Lindgren funnel trap (C. Wirth, pers. comm.).
The City of Richmond specimen was collected in July
about midbole under the loose bark on a recently
downed oak ( Quercus sp.) tree. Robinson (1918)
collected four specimens under the bark of a recently
killed black oak.

Adults of North American ceratocanthines are
collected at light, under bark, beating dead limbs and
vines, and at carcasses ( Germarostes ) (Blatchley, 1910;
Woodruff, 1973). They probably feed on fungi
(Ratcliffe & Paulsen, 2008), a hypothesis that appears

to have been borne out by gut content analyses on
adults of all three species in Florida (D. Almquist, pers.
comm,).

The larva of G, aphodioides was collected under the
bark of a standing oak in Maryland (Ritcher, 1966).
Woodruff (1973) reared G, globosus from frass
collected in the burrows of bess beetles, Odontotaenius
disjunctus (Illiger) (Passalidae).

A recent study in Africa suggests that some
ceratocanthines are arboreal. In western Uganda,
Ballerio & Wagner (2005) reported that nearly 700
individuals representing five species of ceratocanthine
scarabs in four genera were collected from the canopy
of understory trees in a semi-deciduous rainforest
during a fogging study using an insecticide.

The North American ceratocanthine fauna may also
be decidedly arboreal in habit. In Florida, Choate
(1987) found both adults and larvae of Ceratocanthus
aeneus (MacLeay) in a tree hole about 1.5 feet (0.5 m)
above the ground, while D. Almquist (pers. comm.)
collected a small series of C. aeneus in a window trap
suspended about 15 feet (5 m) in the tree canopy.

In a study on habitat associations of saproxylic
beetles in South Carolina, Ulyshen & Hanula (2008)
found both G. aphodioides and G. globosus on standing
dead water oak ( Quercus nigra L.) and sweetgum
(Licjuidambar styraciflua L.) at mid-bole, or higher,
including the crown. In Florida, Almquist (pers.
comm.) has found both species of Germarostes
relatively common in Lindgren funnel traps, set at
ground level and baited with moist sawdust.

It is entirely possible that the fungal-ridden cavities
in the boles of living trees and snags in the deciduous
woodlands of eastern North America, especially in the
Southeast, may harbor all stages of ceratocanthines in
abundance, Direct investigations and specialized
trappmg methods that target this niche at various
heights may be the first step toward a better
understanding of this poorly known segment of the
North American beetle fauna.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The beetle survey of the Bull Run Mountains
Natural Area Preserve was funded by the Bull Run
Mountains Conservancy and the Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage (DCR-DNH). I thank Michael Kieffer and
Jennifer Helwig (Bull Run Mountains Conservancy) for
providing access and logistical support during the
survey. 1 am indebted to Faye McKinney (DCR-DNH)
for her able assistance with administrative matters
related to the survey. Paula Evans reviewed an early
draft of the manuscript. Paul Bedell (Richmond, VA),

EVANS: HYBOSORUSILLIGERI

Anne Chazal (DCR-DNH), and Chris Wirth (Powhatan,
VA) provided specimens of Germarostes used in this
study. Alberto Ballerio (Brescia, Italy) promptly
provided pertinent literature and offered helpful
suggestions. Dave Almquist (Florida Natural Areas
Inventory, Gainesville, FL) generously shared
unpublished data from his work in preparation on
ceratocanthines in Florida, Bruce Gill (Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, Ottawa, ON) and Federico Ocampo
(Institute de Investigaciones de las Zonas Aridas,
Mendoza, Argentina) graciously reviewed this
manuscript to improve its accuracy and readability. I
also thank Steve Roble and two anonymous reviewers
for their comments on die manuscripts. Finally, I thank
Richard Hoffman (VMNH) for granting me access to
the museum collection and his generous hospitality
while working at the museum.

LITERATURE CITED

Ballerio, A., & T. Wagner. 2005. Ecology and diversity
of canopy associated Ceratocanthidae (Insecta:
Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) in an Afrotropical
rainforest. Pp. 125-132 In B.A. Huber, B.J. Sinclair, &
K.-H. Lampe (eds.), African Biodiversity. Molecules,
Organisms, Ecosystems. Springer, New York, NY.

Blatchley, W. S., 1910. An illustrated descriptive
catalogue of the Coleoptera or Beetles (exclusive of the
Rhynchophora) known to occur in Indiana, with
bibliography and descriptions of new species Indiana
Department of Geology and Natural Resources Bulletin
1: 1-1386.

Buss, E. A. 2006, Flight activity and relative abundance
of phytophagous scarabs (Coleoptera; Scarabaeoidea)
from two locations in Florida. Florida Entomologist 89:
32-39.

California Beetle Project, 2008. http://www.sbnature.
org/collections/invert/entom/cbphomepage.php.
Accessed 30 December 2008.

Choate, P. M. 1987. Biology of Ceratocanthus aeneus
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Ceratocanthinae). Florida
Entomologist 70: 301-305.

Grebennikov, V.V., A. Ballerio, F. C. Ocampo, & C. H.
Scholtz. 2004. Larvae of Ceratocanthidae and
Hybosoridae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea): study of
morphology, phylogenetic analysis and evidence of
paraphyly of Hybosoridae. Systematic Entomology 29:
524-543.

Hoffman, R. L. 2006. The volvating scarabaeid beetles
of Virginia (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cerato¬
canthinae). Banisteria 28: 49-52.

Jameson, M. L, 2002. Chapter 32. Ceratocanthidae
Martinez, 1968. Pp. 34-36 In R. H. Arnett, Jr., M. C.
Thomas, P. E. Skelley, & J. H. Frank (eds.), American
Beetles. Volume 2. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through
Curculionoidea. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lawrence, J. F., & A. F. Newton, Jr. 1995. Families and
subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected genera, notes,
and references and data on family-group names). Pp.
779-1,006 In J. Pakaluk & S. A. Slipinski (eds.),
Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of Coleoptera.
Papers Celebrating the 80 th Birthday of Roy A.
Crowson. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa,
Poland.

Martinez, A. 1968. Insectos nuevos o poco conocidos
XIII. Ceratocanthini nom. nov. para Acanthocerini
(Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Troginae). Revista de la
Sociedad Entomologica Argentina 30: 9-16.

Ocampo, F. C. 2002. Hybosorids of the United States
and expanding distribution of the introduced species
Hy bosoms illigeri (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea:
Hybosoridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 95: 316-322.

Ocampo, F, C. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the
scarab family Hybosoridae and monographic revision
of the New World subfamily Anaidinae (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeoidea). 1. Introduction to the scarab family
Hybosoridae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) Bulletin of
the University of Nebraska State Museum 19: 3-6.

Ocampo, F. C., & A. Ballerio. 2006. Catalog of the
subfamilies Anaidinae, Ceratocanthinae, Hybosorinae,
Liparochrinae, and Pachyplectrmae (Scarabaeoidea:
Hybosoridae). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska
State Museum 19: 178-209.

Ocampo, F. C., & D. C. Hawks. 2006. Phylogenetic
analysis of the scarab family Hybosoridae
and monographic revision of the New World subfamily
Anaidinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). 2. Molecular
phylogenetics and systematic placement of the family
Hybosoridae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Bulletin of
the University of Nebraska State Museum 19: 7-12.

Ratcliffe, B. C., & M. J. Paulsen. 2008. The
scarabaeoid beetles of Nebraska. Bulletin of the
University of Nebraska State Museum 22. 570 pp.

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Ritcher, P. O. 1966. White Grubs and Their Allies. A
Study of North America Scarabaeoid Larvae. Oregon
State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 219 pp.

Robinson, W. 1918. Beetles collected on a dead black
oak in Virginia. Journal of the New York
Entomological Society 26: 30-33.

Smith, A. B. T. 2006. A review of the family-group
names for the superfamily Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera)
with corrections to nomenclature and a current
classification. Coleopterists Society Monograph 5: 144-

204.

Ulyshen, M, D., & J. L. Hanula. 2008. Habitat
associations of saproxylic beetles in the southeastern
United States: a comparison of forest types, tree species
and wood postures. Forest Ecology & Management
257; 653-664.

Woodruff, R. E. 1973. The scarab beetles of Florida
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Part 1. The Laparosticti.
Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas 8.

220 pp.

Notes on Valgus seticollis (Palisot de Beauvois)
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Virginia

Arthur V. Evans 1

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

ABSTRACT

Notes on the distribution and natural history of Valgus seticollis (Palisot de Beauvois) in Virginia are presented,
along with characters to distinguish it from V. canaliculatus (Olivier).

Key words. Bull Run Mountains, Reticulitermes , Valgus , Virginia.

INTRODUCTION

Of the five species of Valgini found in the New
World, two are recorded from Virginia: Valgus
canaliculatus (Olivier) and V seticollis (Palisot de
Beauvois) (Jameson & Swoboda, 2005). The adults of
both of these species are found throughout much of
eastern North America on flowers (Ratcliffe & Paulsen,
2008) and in association with termites (Jameson &
Swoboda, 2005).

Current address: 1600 Nottoway Avenue, Richmond,
VA 23227; arthurevans@verizon.net

The biology of V. canaliculatus has been described
in some detail (Jameson & Swoboda, 2005), but
relatively little has been published on the natural history
of V. seticollis. Both species are sympatric throughout
much of their range and often occur together in the
same logs (Ritcher, 1966), suggesting that their habitat
preferences and life histories are similar. The
observations below reinforce this supposed similarity.

On 20 August 2008, while conducting a beetle and
macromoth survey in the Bull Run Mountains Natural
Area Preserve in Fauquier and Prince William counties,
Virginia, 1 encountered a population of V. seticollis
under the bark of a dead chestnut oak (Quercus prinus

EVANS: VALGUS SETICOLLIS

L.), standing just a few meters from the western bank of
Catharpin Creek in Jackson Hollow (elevation 700 feet
(213 m); N38.87875 W77 68927). The bole of this snag
was about 18 inches (0.5 m) in diameter at breast
height. The first 6 feet (1.8 m) of the bole was teeming
with worker and soldier eastern subterranean termites,
Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar) The tunneling, feeding,
and nest-building activities of the termites had filled the
narrow spaces between the wood and bark with bits of
wood, termite frass, and extremely fine soil. This
habitat was quite similar to the conditions in which I
had found V. californicus in the mountains of Southern
California (Evans, 1986).

Adults, pupae, and one larva of V seticollis were
found in cells within the caked wood/frass/soil matrix
approximately 10 niches (25 cm) above the ground on
the south side of the tree. The adults were either fully
developed or teneral. The pupae (Fig. 1) appeared to be
freshly eclosed and still had their larval exuviae
attached to the tips of their abdomens. The size of the
larva’s head capsule is comparable to the head capsule
of the larval exuviae with the pupae and it is assumed
that the grub (Fig. 2) is a third-instar larva. Additional
adults were found singly all around the tree, the highest
about six feet (1.8 m) above the ground. All of these
beetles were found in cells constructed within a
substrate consisting primarily of termite frass. A second
pocket of adults, pupae, and one larva was found just
above ground level on the eastern side, also in cells
formed from frass. Perhaps six or more additional
larvae were observed at ground level on the south and
east sides of the snag. Fitch (1858) found adults and
pupae in similar circumstances just above the surface of
the ground beneath loose pine bark covering termite-
ridden stumps in New York,

The total collection of V. seticollis at this site
consisted of 6 fully developed adults (5 males, 1
female), 3 teneral adult males, 2 pupae, and two third-
instar larvae, which are deposited in my collection
(AVEC) and that of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History (VMNH) in Martinsville, VA.

In comparison to my observation, Ritcher (1958)
noted that females are more common under bark than
males, while Casey (1915) found males and females in
equal numbers. The male to female ratio of 8:1 at
Catharpin Creek may have been due to the fact that
males mature earlier than females. The additional larvae
observed could have been mostly females. It is possible
that the sex ratios observed by Casey and Ritcher were
the artifacts of season. Ritcher’s (1958) data may have
been gathered after the males had left the log or stump
in search of food and mates, while Casey’s observations
could have been earlier in the year. I found four adults

of V. seticollis , females only, close together in termite
frass under loose pine bark on a snag in early April, but
persistent searching and beating of nearby shrubs in
bloom failed to produce any male Valgus.

DISTRIBUTION

Valgus seticollis ranges from Massachusetts south
to Georgia, west to southeastern Nebraska and eastern
Texas (Jameson & Swoboda, 2005). It was first
reported in Virginia from Fairfax County by Jameson &
Swoboda (2005). Additional records from 18 specimens
housed in AVEC and the VMNH include Augusta,
Franklin, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, Mecklenberg,
Prince William, Roanoke, and York counties, and the
City of Richmond.

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

BIOLOGICAL NOTES

The larva of V. seticoJlis is described by Ritcher
(1945, 1966) and illustrated in Boving & Craighead
(1931) as V. canaliculatus (Ritcher, 1966). As in V
canaliculatus, the larvae of V. seticollis probably feed
on the walls of old termite galleries in logs or standing
dead trees (Ritcher, 1958). Pupation occurs in summer
within small oval cells constructed from one or more of
the following substrates: wood fragments, frass, and
soil (Ritcher, 1945). The entire life cycle takes about
one year to complete (Ritcher, 1958).

Ritcher (1958) notes that all stages of Valgus are
found in decaying wood associated with termite
colonies. Adults of both V. canaliculatus and V.
californicus mate within termite galleries in stumps and
fallen trees (Ritcher, 1958; Evans, 1986). Valgus
seticollis probably does so also.

Blatchley (1910) observed adults of V seticollis in
spring and summer on flowers of dogwood ( Cornus
spp.) and hawthorn ( Crategus spp.). They are collected
from March to July and September through November
(Jameson & Swoboda, 2005). During the winter, adults
will gather together beneath logs or in clumps of dead
mullein (Verbascum spp.) leaves (Dillon & Dillon,
1961).

The ecological data gleaned from other collections
of adults in Virginia housed in AVEC and the VMNH
includes “under pine bark with termites,” “human feces
pit fall trap,” “Malaise trap,” and “Lindgren funnel trap
baited with turpentine and ethanol.” The temporal
distribution of these specimens is as follows: April (8),
May (8), and June (2).

IDENTIFICATION

The genus Valgus is distinguished from other
scarabs in Virginia by its small size (4.2-7.5 mm),
flattened and squarish body, widely separated
metacoxae, and scales on both upper and lower surfaces
of the body. The margins of the elytra are not
emarginated behind the humeri and cover the
mesepimera from above (Ratcliffe & Paulsen, 2008).

Valgus seticollis is generally larger (6.4-7.5 mm)
(Figs. 3, 4) than V. canaliculatus (4.2-5.3 mm) (Fig. 5).
The elytra are reddish brown in the male V. seticollis
and blackish in the female. In V canaliculatus , both the
male and female have reddish brown elytra, but the
female has a long, straight spine on the propygidium,
whereas the male does not.

Jameson & Swoboda (2005) remarked on the
considerable degree of intraspecific variation in V
seticollis as expressed in the form of the male genitalia
and illustrated five distinct forms. However, based

on the lack of external features that correlate with these
genitalic forms, these authors opted to consider all
forms to be variants of the same species. Four males
from the Bull Run Mountain population were dissected
and all had the genitalic form depicted in Fig. 31 of
Jameson & Swoboda (2005), who found this fonn in
Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri. This form is
significantly different from their Fig. 35, which belongs
to a specimen collected only 30 miles to the east in
Washington, DC.

High intraspecific variation may be the result of
biogeographic response to the expansion and
contraction of forest ecosystems triggered by glacial-
interglacial cycles during the Wisconsin maximum
(-18,000 yr BP) (Jameson & Swoboda, 2005). It would
be an interesting morphological exercise to dissect and
compare die male genitalia of V. seticollis from
populations throughout Virginia to determine how
many discernible genitalic forms occur in the state. An

EVANS: VALGUS SETICOLLIS

analysis of the distribution of these forms may reveal a
correlation with montane and lowland habitats.
Combined with molecular analysis, these data may
provide insights toward an understanding of the effects
of dispersal, isolation, hybridization, and other
evolutionary and biogeographical processes that affect
character plasticity (Jameson & Swoboda, 2005).

of this manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Blatchley, W. S., 1910. An illustrated descriptive
catalogue of the Coleoptera or beetles (exclusive of the
Rhynchophora) known to occur in Indiana, with
bibliography and descriptions of new species. Indiana
Department of Geology and Natural Resources Bulletin
1:1-1386.

Boving, A. G., & F. C. Craighead. 1931. An illustrated
synopsis of the principal larval forms of the order
Coleoptera. Entomological Americana 10: 1-351.

Casey, T. L. 1915. A review of the American species of
Rutelinae, Dynastinae, and Cetoniinae. Memoirs of the
Coleoptera 6: 1-394.

Dillon, E. S., & L. S. Dillon, 1972. A Manual of
Common Beetles of Eastern North America. Volumes 1
and 2. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. 894 pp.

Evans, A.V. 1986. Notes on Valgus californicus Horn
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist
62: 83.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS

The beetle survey of the Bull Run Mountains
Natural Area Preserve was funded by the Bull Run
Mountams Conservancy and the Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage (DCR). T thank Michael Kieffer and Jennifer
Helwig (Bull Run Mountains Conservancy) for
providing access and logistical support during the
survey. I am indebted to Faye McKinney (DCR) for her
able assistance with administrative matters related to
the survey. Paula Evans reviewed the first draft of the
manuscript. 1 also take this opportunity to extend my
appreciation to Richard L. Hoffman, Curator of
Recent Invertebrates at VMNH. Since my arrival in
Richmond in 2000, Dr. Hoffman has been a tremendous
source of inspiration and encouragement toward my
studies in the Virginia beetle fauna and has graciously
afforded to me unfettered access to the VMNH insect
collection. Special thanks to my friend and colleague
Mary Liz Jameson who reviewed this manuscript, It
was her research with Katherine Swoboda on the North
American valgines that largely inspired this note.
Thanks also to Steve Roble and two anonymous
reviewers for their comments on the penultimate draft

Fitch, A. 1858. Fourth report on the noxious, beneficial
and other insects of the state of New York. Transactions
of the New York Agricultural Society 1858: 687-814.

Jameson, M. L., & K. A. Swoboda. 2005. Synopsis of
the scarab beetle tribe Valgini (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) in the New World. Annals of
the Entomological Society of America 98: 658-672.

Ratcliffe, B. C., & M. J. Paulsen. 2008. The
scarabaeoid beetles of Nebraska (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeoidea). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska
State Museum 22. 570 pp.

Ritcher, P. O. 1945. North America Cetoniinae with
descriptions of their larvae and keys to the genera
and species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Kentucky
Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 476: 1-39.

Ritcher, P. O. 1958. Biology of the Scarabaeidae.
Annual Review of Entomology 3: 311-344.

Ritcher, P. O. 1966. White Grubs and Their Allies. A
Study of North America Scarabaeoid Larvae. Oregon
State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 219 pp.

First Records of Notapictinus aurivillii (Bergroth), a Little-known
Flatbug, for Virginia and the Carolinas (Heteroptera: Aradidae)

Richard L. Hoffman

Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112

ABSTRACT

Notapictinus aurivillii (Bergroth), family Aradidae, heretofore documented only from a few localities in Georgia,
Florida, and Louisiana, is reported for the first time from 13 sites in Virginia and one site each in North Carolina and
South Carolina. Comparison is made with other local genera of the family, and some useful taxonomic features are noted
and illustrated.

Key words', anatomy, Aradidae, distribution, Notapictinus , Virginia.

Under the name Pictinus aurivillii , a miniature flatbug
was described by Ewald Bergroth (1887) from “Georgia.”
It was subsequently documented from Bayou Sara,
Louisiana, and Crescent City, Florida, by Heidemann
(1904). Blatchley’s manual (1926) and Froeschner’s
catalogue of Nearctic aradids (1988) cited only these three
states in their accounts of the species, and that is
apparently the extent of our present knowledge of its
distribution. The species was referred to the new genus
Notapictinus by Usinger & Matsuda (1959) and entered in
a key to the 25 species of this genus by Kormilev (1964),
although he did not specify actually having seen any
specimens.

Since 1989, specimens of a tiny aradid have been
accumulating at the Virginia Museum of Natural History
under the assumed status of a form of Mezira and were
not examined closely until recently, when comparison
with named specimens of Mezira , Neuroctenus , and
Aneurus showed that a different genus was involved.
Reference to Blatchley’s manual suggested the species
could belong m Notapictinus, although such an identity
seemed improbable because of both the geographic
disjunction and the frequency with which it had been
found in Virginia. Eventually, specimens were sent to Dr.
Thomas J. Henry, who confirmed their identity with
material of N. aurivillii from Florida and Georgia in the
National Museum of Natural History.

Curious that an insect apparently very rare in the Gulf
Coastal Plain should be frequently collected in Virginia, I
inquired of several regional museums in an attempt to
locate additional, unreported specimens. Although no

attempt was made to conduct an exhaustive survey of all
possible resources, it became evident that museum
collections are generally very deficient as far as this
species is concerned.

The following new records are listed in a north to
south sequence. All specimens cited from Virginia are
housed in the Virginia Museum of Natural History, those
in other repositories are identified by the following
codons: NCSU: North Carolina State University, UGA:
University of Georgia; FSCA: Florida State Collection of
Arthropods.

VIRGINIA: Accomack Co.. Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge, “White Hills” DF site, 28 June-8 July
1998, S. M. Roble (1). Cumberland Co.. 7 km S of
Columbia, berleseate in mixed hardwoods, 20 April 1996,
VMNH survey (2). Fluvanna Co. : Kent’s Store, 16 April-
4 May 1995, VMNH survey (1). Greensville Co. . 2.5 mi
NW of Skippers, from pitfall, 18 June 1990. J. C. Mitchell

(1) . Isle of Wight Co.. Antioch Pines Natural Area
Preserve, 10 km S of Zuni, pitfall, 30 April 2002, VDNH
survey (1). Mecklenburg Co.. Elm Hill Wildlrfe
Management Area, 5-22 April (2), and 5-19 June 1991

(2) , both VMNH survey. Prince William Co.. Prince
William Forest Park, floodplain DF site, 3 October 1988,
D. A Young (1). York Co. : Grafton Ponds, 11 June 1990,
C. A. Pague (1), 19 October 1990, K, A. Buhlmann (1);
Cheatham Annex, Naval Supply Station, 30 May 1990,
K. A. Buhlmann (1). City of Suffolk: South Quay pine
barrens, 6 mi SSE Franklin, 4 November 2003, S. M.
Roble (2). City of Virginia Beach: Fentress Naval Air
Station, 9 April 1990 (1), 6 June 1989 (2), both K. A.

HOFFMAN: NOTAP ICTINUS AURIVILLII

Buhlmann; First Landing State Park, dune DF site, 8
September 1989, Buhlmann (1); Fort Story, 22 July 1995,
D. A. Young (1); Little Creek Amphibious Base, 3 June
(1), 21 June (1), 24 July 1989 (1), all Buhlmann; Munden
Point, 2 miles south of Creeds, 18 June 1990, N. L. Bland
(1).

NORTH CAROLINA: Bladen Co. : Bladen Lakes
State Forest, 5.5 km SW of Ammon, 8 September 1991, J.
Zhang (NCSU 1). Wayne Co.: Goldsboro, 19 March 1993,
T. Daggy (NCSU 1).

SOUTH CAROLINA: Georgetown Co.. Hobcaw
Plantation, 14 December 1974, J. F. Cornell (NCSU 2).

GEORGIA: Clarke Co. . Georgia Botanical Garden, 13

May 1975 (UGA). Decatur Co. : without specific locality
(FSCA 1). Tift Co. : Tifton, 10 May 1975 (UGA).

FLORIDA: Alachua Co. . Gainesville (FSCA 2). St.
Johns Co. \ without specific locality, 25 March 1949 (3),
T. Daggy (NCSU).

While most of the foregoing localities are in the
Atlantic Coastal Plain, three of the Virginia sites are well
inland in the central Piedmont, as are the sites in Clarke
and Decatur counties, Georgia. The northernmost
locality, in Prince William Co., Virginia, is less than 30
miles (50 km) from the District of Columbia, and evokes
surprise that the species was not found there by such
skilled early collectors as E. A. Schwarz, Otto
Heidemann, and Henry Ulke (nor by anyone since).

Most of the scant information to be gleaned from pin
labels suggests that the majority of specimens were
captured in pitfall traps, most of which, in Virginia at
least, appear to have been sited in dry, sandy habitats.
However, the two bugs from Cumberland County were
taken by Berlese extraction of litter from broadleaf
mesophytic forest. Labels with the pair from Georgetown
Co., South Carolina, carry the notation “ Neotoma nest.”
In Blatchley’s key (1926: 317) to eastern genera of
mezirine Aradidae, Notapictinus is identified by the
combination of distally acute pronotum (against broadly
rounded in Aneurus) and absence of venation in the
hemelytral membrane (present in other genera). In the
material at my disposal, the appearance of the membrane
varies substantially within the general rugulose-
vermiculate condition, with occasional vestiges of an
antecedent venation evident. If this somewhat ambivalent
character is overlooked as diagnostic, the most similar
local relative appears to be Neuroctenus, which is,
however, easily distinguished by the presence of a sharp
submarginal ridge between the stigmata and lateral edges
of the sterna.

Fig. 1. Habitus sketch of Notapictinus aurivillii , dorsal aspect,
showing transverse rugae of scutellum and vestiges of
hemelytral venation.

Fig. 2. Same specimen as in Fig. 1, ventral aspect of terminal
abdominal segments showing modifications of 5 th sternum
peculiar to the male sex.

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Fig. 3. Distributional records for Notapictimis aurivillii.

There remains to be explained the anomalous
distributional pattern (Fig, 3) of a member of a
dominantly tropical genus being most frequently collected
at the northern extremity of its “Lower Austral”
distribution in southeastern United States.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to Robert L. Blinn (NCSU) for access to
that collection, and to Cecil L. Smith (UGA) and David

Ziesk (FSCA) for searching through aradid material under
their care for additional records for Notapictinus. Most of
the Virginia specimens came to VMNFl through the
interest of Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (VDNH)
zoologists Christopher A. Pague and Steven M. Roble.
Thomas J. Henry (Systematic Entomology Lab, USDA)
confirmed my identification by comparison with named
specimens in the U. S. National Museum.

LITERATURE CITED

Bergroth, E. 1887. Sur quelques Aradides nouveaux ou
peu connus. Revue d’Entomologie 6: 244-247.

Blatchley, 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, IN. 1,116 pp.

Froeschner, R. C. 1988. Family Aradidae. Pp. 29-46 In
T. J. Hemy & R, C. Froeschner (eds.), Catalog of the
Heteroptera , or True Bugs, of Canada and the Continental
United States. E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Heidemann, O. 1904. Notes of North American Aradidae,
with descriptions of two new species. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Washington 6: 161-165.

Kormilev, N. A. 1964. Notes on the Aradidae in the
Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm. Arkiv for
Zoologi (ser. 2) 16: 463-479.

Usinger, R.L., & R. Matsuda. 1959. Classification of the
Aradidae. British Museum of Natural History, London.
410 pp.

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

AN OBSCURE SAWFLY, KERITA FIDALA ROSS
(HYMENOPTERA; TENTHREDINIDAE), NEW TO
VIRGINIA, A LEAFMINER OF VIRGINIA
BLUEBELL, MERTENSJA V1RG1NICA (L.) PERS. EX
LINK (BORAGINACEAE). - Kerita fidala was
described from Illinois by Ross (1937) without host
information. It was later recorded to “leaf mine in
Mertensia ” by Ross (1951) and from “Mertensia
virginica (L.)” by Maxwell (1955). Smith (1976) added
Indiana to its distribution in a revision of tire genus.
These constitute the only distribution and host plant
records of this sawfly. The only other two species of
Kerita were described by Smith (1976), K. atira and
K. difala , both from western North America, but their
host plants are unknown. Specimens of K. fidala
recently collected in Turkey Run Park, Fairfax County,
Virginia, represent a new state record which can be
added to the list of Virginia sawflies (Smith, 2006)
under Tenthredinidae, Nematinae, page 10.

Kerita fidala is a small, ca. 4 mm long, black sawfly
with white tegulae and pale orange legs. Adults fly in
early spring, 5-28 April in Illinois and Indiana (Smith,
1976) and the end of March and in April in Fairfax
County. Its apparent rarity probably is due to its small
size, early flight period, and restricted habitat.
Therefore, it easily can be missed during general
collecting.

Specimens were collected at Turkey Run Park, in
Malaise traps on the floodplain of the Potomac River
near extensive beds of Virginia bluebell, Mertensia
virginica (L.) Pers. ex Link (Boraginaceae). Specimen
data are as follows: USA: Virginia, Fairfax Co., Turkey
Run trap, 38° 57.9' N, IT 09.4' W, 29 March-25 April
2007, D. Smith, Malaise trap (1$), same except 12
March-2 April 2008 (1?), 3-16 April 2008 (3$); USA:
Virgima, Fairfax Co., Turkey Run, west trap, 38°
57.968'N, 77° 09.674'W, 13-28 March 2007, D. Smith,
Malaise trap (1$), same except 3-16 April 2008 (1$);
USA: Virginia, Fairfax Co., Turkey Run, stream trap,
38° 57.931'N, 77° 09.70'W, 3-16 April 2008, D. Smith,
Malaise trap (1 $). Specimens are deposited in the
collection of the National Park Service (George
Washington Memorial Parkway) at Turkey Run Park,
Virginia, and the National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kerita fidala has not been reported as a pest of
Virginia bluebell even though the bluebell is often a
garden plant. Nothing is known about either the insect’s
life history or the type of larval mine it produces.

Adults presumably fly around or near the host plants
concurrently with early spring growth, They were found
only in three traps adjacent to extensive beds of
Mertensia. No specimens were caught in four other
traps in Turkey Run and Great Falls parks, nor during
my extensive collections in Virginia (Smith, 2006).
Shortly after flight, some type of mine must appear in
the host leaves. This could be a blotch mine or
serpentine mine which must discolor tire leaf in some
way. Mines may be easier to find than adults and could
be apparent toward the end of April and first part of
May. Collection records indicate that K. fidala is
univoltine. Further observations will be of interest in
learning more about this sawfly.

A grant from the George Washington Memorial
Parkway, U. S. National Park Service entitled “A
taxonomic survey of selected groups of insects (Class
Insecta) at Great Falls Park and Turkey Run Park,”
Study #GWMP-00052, is acknowledged for permission
to collect in the parks.

LITERATURE CITED

Maxwell, D. E. 1955. The comparative internal larval
anatomy of sawflies (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae).
Canadian Entomologist 87, Supplement 1. 132 pp.

Ross, H. H. 1937. A generic classification of the
Nearctic sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Illinois
Biological Monographs 15, 173 pp.

Ross, H. H. 1951, Symphyta. Pp. 4-89 In C. F. W.
Muesebeck, K. V. Krombein, & H. K. Townes (eds.),
Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico, Synoptic
Catalog. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Monograph 2.

Smith, D.R. 1976. Sawflies of the tribe Pseudodineurini
in North America (Hymenoptera: Tenthredmidae).
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington 78: 67-79.

Smith, D. R. 2006. List of the sawflies (Hymenoptera:
Symphyta) of Virginia. Banisteria 28: 3-23.

David R. Smith

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, USDA
c/o National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012, MRC 168
Washington, DC 20013-7012

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

A RANGE EXTENSION OF THE HISPID COTTON
RAT, SIGMODON MSP I DUS, IN VIRGINIA - We
report recent captures of Hispid Cotton Rats ( Sigmodon
hispidus virginianus ) at Addison Field (Caldwell Fields
complex, Jefferson National Forest; UTM NAD83
Zone 17N, 4132500N, 559900E, elevation 510 m) in
Montgomery County, Virginia (Ridge and Valley
physiographic province). Addison Field is a 5.5-ha,
fire-maintained early successional habitat dominated by
a mixture of native and exotic herbaceous vegetation
(Verbesina occidentals, Riibus hispidus , Lespedeza
cuneata , Andropogon gerardi , and Andropogon
virginicus). We surveyed Addison Field for eight nights
(19-22 May 2008, 29 June-3 July 2008) with snap traps,
Sherman traps, and squirrel- and raccoon-sized
tomahawk traps (944 trap-nights). We captured four
live Hispid Cotton Rats (3 adult males, 1 juvenile male)
in Shermans. All were subsequently measured, ear-
clipped, and released near the point of capture; none
were recaptured. Three additional individuals (2 adult
males, 1 adult female) were taken in snap-traps; two
were prepared as museum specimens and were
deposited in the Radford University Biology
Department’s natural history collection (Accession ID
#RU 2139, RU 2140). The skin and skull of one badly
damaged adult male specimen were discarded. Other
species captured at this site included Meadow Vole
{Microtus pennsylvanicus ), Southern Bog Lemming
{Synaptomys cooperi ), White-footed Mouse
{Peromyscus leucopis ), Deer Mouse {P. maniculatus).
Least Shrew {Cryptotis parva). Northern Short-tailed
Shrew ( Blarina brevicauda ), and Eastern Cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus). All trapping was completed
with prior approval by the Radford University Animal
Care and Use Committee and under state scientific
collection permit #031158 (Francl).

Based on published reports, we discovered that
these Hispid Cotton Rat captures in Montgomery
County were new county records and suggest that this
species may be extending its range northward and
westward in Virginia. In Virginia, the cotton rat was not
discovered until 1940, apparently emigrating north
from North Carolina (Patton, 1941). Since then, this
species has been most commonly captured in the south-
central portion of the state, but captures in the Great
Dismal Swamp (Rose et al., 1990) and extreme
southwestern Virginia (Lee County; Davis & Barbour,
1979) also have been recorded (Linzey, 1998). This
range extension is not limited to Virginia; indeed, the
Hispid Cotton Rat has been expanding its range over
the past century (e.g., Anderson, 1959; Clark, 1972),

including northward range extensions (e.g., Genoways
& Schlitter, 1966) and with increased elevation
(Dunnum et al., 2002). One statewide range map is
available for the Hispid Cotton Rat: Linzey’s (1998)
map is based upon verified museum specimens and
brief literature review (D. Linzey, pers. comm ). His
map appears to follow the physiognomy of the state
(and therefore includes portions of some counties).

We contacted (via e-mail) 48 colleges and
universities (including all 4-year institutions in the
Commonwealth of Virginia) and independent natural
history museums to determine: 1) if their museum
collection housed cotton rats; and, if so 2) in which
counties they were collected. We also utilized
MaNIS (Mammal Networked Information System;
http://manisnet.org), the on-line mammal museum
collection search engine available to query dozens of
museums in a single search, and literature on cotton rat
captures in Virginia (e.g., Patton, 1941; Pagels &
Adleman, 1971; Pagels, 1977).

We received 24 responses from queried institutions,
and discovered that the Hispid Cotton Rat was captured
in two additional counties not previously documented
in Linzey’s (1998) map - Montgomery (described
above) and Botetourt (housed at the Virginia Museum
of Natural History [VMNH], Martinsville, Virginia;
Fig. 1). We also report captures of the Hispid Cotton
Rat in Nelson County from the mid-1990s, at elevations
ranging from ca. 850-1040 m, from the Wintergreen
Resort. Although no specimens could be taken, J. A.
Cranford (VPI&SU), J. F. Pagels (VCU), and R.
Reynolds (VDGIF) captured them from at least two
sites at the resort (J. F. Pagels, pers. comm ; also
anecdotally cited in Bellows et al, [2001]) As noted in
Fig. 1, these new captures demonstrate that Hispid
Cotton Rats are located in every physiographic
province in the Commonwealth.

Reasons for these additional counties may simply be
attributed to the lack of adequate surveys, or the lack of
adequate data sharing. For example, the Botetourt
specimen was captured in 1980 (collected on 19 April
1980 by J. E. Campbell, 5.1 km from Pines
Campground; N. Moncrief, VMNH, pers. comm.), yet
did not appear on any current range map. However, as
data from collections are increasingly being made
available in a digital format (e.g., MaNIS), these
limitations may not hold true for long. Secondly, our
findings may actually be documenting a true range
extension, as others have suggested may be a result of a
wanning climate (Linzey, 1998; Mengak & Laerm,
2007). Continued trapping efforts throughout the state
will increase our understanding of this species as it
continues its presumed expansion northward and
westward.

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Fig. 1. Range map of Sigmodon hispidus in Virginia counties, based on confirmed museum records and literature reports (shaded
counties). Physiographic province boundaries (from west to east: Cumberland Plateau, Ridge & Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, Coastal
Plain) are heavily outlined to demonstrate that Hispid Cotton Rats have been documented in every province in the Commonwealth.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the 24 responding institutions for
providing information (or lack thereof) on Hispid
Cotton Rats in their museum collections. We especially
thank N. Moncrief (Virginia Museum of Natural
History) for providing additional information regarding
the specimen collected in Botetourt County.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, S., & W. N. Berg. 1959. Extension of the
known range of the cotton rat, Sigmodon hispidus, in
New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 4: 40-42.

Bellows, A. S., J. C. Mitchell, J. F. Pagels, & H. N.
Mansfield. 2001. Mammals of Fort A. P. Hill, Caroline
County, Virginia and vicinity. Virginia Journal of
Science 52: 163-226.

Clark, D. O. 1972. The extending of the cotton rat range
in California - their life history and control. Pp. 7-14 In
R. E. Marsh (ed.), Proceedings of the 5 th Vertebrate
Pest Conference (1972). University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.

Davis, W. H., & R.W. Barbour. 1979. Distributional
records of some Kentucky mammals. Transactions of
the Kentucky Academy of Science 40: 111.

Dunnum, J. L., J. K. Frey, D. S. Tinnin, J. Salazar-
Bravo, & T. L. Yates. 2002. Elevational range
extension for the Hispid Cotton Rat, Sigmodon
hispidus, (Rodentia: Muridae). Southwestern Naturalist
47: 637-639.

Genoways, H. H., & D. A. Schlitter. 1966. Northward
dispersal of the Hispid Cotton Rat in Nebraska and
Missouri. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of
Science 69: 356-357.

Linzey, D.W. 1998. The Mammals of Virginia.
McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, VA. 459 pp.

Mengak, M. T, & J. Laerm. 2007. Hispid Cotton Rat,
Sigmodon hispidus. Pp 374-380 In M. T. Griep, W. M.
Ford, & B. C. Chapman (eds.), The Land Manager’s
Guide to Mammals of the South. USDA Forest Service
and The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC.

Pagels, J. F. 1977. Distribution and habitat of cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus) in central Virginia. Virginia
Journal of Science 28: 133-153.

Pagels, J. F., & R. G. Adleman. 1971. A note on the
cotton rat in central Virginia. Virginia Journal of
Science 22: 195.

Patton, C. P. 1941. The eastern cotton rat in Virginia.
Journal of Mammalogy 22: 91.

Rose, R. K., R. K. Everton, J. F. Stankavich, & J. W.
Walke. 1990. Small mammals in the Great Dismal
Swamp of Virginia and North Carolina. Brimleyana 16:
87-101.

Karen E. Francl and Dwight E. Meikle
Biology Department
Radford University
Radford, Virginia 24142

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

THE GULF FRITILLARY ( AGRAULIS VANILLAE ):
BREEDING IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA. - The Gulf
Fritillary ( Agraulis vanillae) is a tropical and
subtropical species that has infrequently been reported
from Virginia. Opler et al. (2006) show records for the
species from the following Virginia localities:
Northampton and Roanoke counties and the cities of
Danville, Roanoke, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach.
Glassberg (1999) claims that the Gulf Fritillary is an
irregular migrant north to North Carolina and a rare
stray in the East as far north as New Jersey. Young
(2000) reports having seen the Gulf Fritillary many
times in late summer on Virginia’s Eastern Shore
barrier islands. Taber (2003) lists the Gulf Fritillary as a
species rarely seen during 1995-2003 butterfly surveys
in Northampton County near the southern tip of the
Delmarva Peninsula. Opler & Krizek (1984) report that
temporary late summer breeding populations occur
rarely as far north as Illinois, Missouri, and Virginia.
Their range map for the Gulf Fritillary, however,
includes only the outer portion of the Coastal Plain for
Virginia.

Many records for the Gulf Fritillary in Virginia are
from the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area. Clark & Clark
(1951) report Virginia records for this species only
from Norfolk and Princess Anne County (now the City
of Virginia Beach). Cech & Tudor (2005) state (citing
Roble et al, 2000) that this species occasionally forms
temporary breeding colonies as far north as
southeastern Virginia. Knudson (2009) writes that
members of the Butterfly Society of Virginia, an
organization based in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area,
saw more adult Gulf Fritillaries in 2008 than in recent
years. It is the policy of the society to encourage its
members to collect butterfly and moth caterpillars in the
wild, raise them in captivity, and release the adults back
into the wild. Knudson (2009) reports that 54 Gulf
Fritillary adults were released in 2008. I know of no
records or sightings of the species in the Richmond area
prior to 2008.

From 21 August through 7 November 2008, I
sighted Gulf Fritillaries on 21 occasions in the
downtown Richmond area. One to three individuals
were seen at each sighting for a total of 37 sightings of
single butterflies. Of these 37 sightings, 23 were of
males, 10 of females, and four were of undetermined
sex. Undoubtedly, in many instances a single individual
was seen on more than one occasion In fact, several
individuals had distinctive identifying markings such as
a notch in a particular place on the wing margin or, in
one case, white blotches on the upperwings where

scales had apparently been scraped off.

The sightings were made at six locations centered
around the James River: A flower garden 0.60 km north
of the James River in Maymont Park, a residential yard
1.25 km south of the river, a butterfly garden on the
south bank of the river in James River Park, flower
gardens 0.12 km north of the river near the Federal
Reserve Building, a small sandy island in the river 0.74
km SSE of the Virginia State Capitol and 20 m from die
river’s north bank, and the weedy bank of the river just
north of this island. The area that encompasses these six
locations covers about 454 ha. Most of these locations
are planted gardens where the butterflies showed a
preference for nectaring on Brazilian verbena ( Verbena
bonciriensis ), lantana ( Lantana cf. camera ), and
butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii ), none of which are
native to Virginia.

A search was made for Gulf Fritillary caterpillars,
which feed on passionflowers ( Passiflora spp.). Both
species of passionflowers native to Virginia occur in the
Richmond area. Yellow passionflower (Passiflora
luted) and maypops ( Passiflora incarnata). The former
is an herbaceous vine with small, inconspicuous, pale
greenish-yellow flowers that is common in floodplain
forests along the James River and as a garden weed in
nearby residential areas. The latter, also an herbaceous
vine, has large, showy purple and white flowers and is
occasionally found in open floodplain forests along the
river and in disturbed habitats such as fences along
roads and alleys. Maypops is also sometimes planted as
a garden ornamental.

After searching for many weeks, caterpillars were
found on 8 October 2008 on the small (ca. 24 x 98 m),
sandy island (mentioned above) located near the north
bank of the James River. The caterpillars were feeding
on a fairly dense colony of maypops sprawled out on
the sandy substrate within a 14 x 21 m area adjacent to
the water’s edge and extending about 3 m up into
several scattered trees. A census was made on 9
October: 18 Gulf Fritillary caterpillars were counted,
ranging in size from 0.4 to over 4.0 cm and mostly
located on the undersides of leaves. Numerous exuviae
were observed, but no eggs were found. A female
adult was observed flitting just above the passion¬
flower plants. One chrysalis was located and collected.
This chrysalis was situated about 30 cm above
the ground on a small mimosa ( Albizia julibrissin)
sapling.

A second census of this area was made on 14
October by Steven M. Roble and the author. The
estimated number of caterpillars seen on that day was
25-30. Again, a female was seen flitting above the host
plant. A second chrysalis was located about 45 cm
above the ground on a slippery elm ( Ulmus rubra).

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Fig. 1. Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae) caterpillar feeding
on maypops (Passiflora incarnata ) near the James River,
Richmond, Virginia.

Three additional caterpillars were found on 9
October feeding on a second patch of maypops located
on the same island about 27 tn to the west. This
maypops colony occupied a 12 x 14 m ground surface
area and extended up into scattered trees for 6 m.
Several Variegated Fritillary (Euptoieta claudia )
caterpillars had been seen feeding here on 9 September
2008,

Another population of Gulf Fritillary caterpillars
was located on 15 October by Catherine Byrd in a
residential yard located 1.25 km south of the James
River. Five caterpillars, ranging in length from 1.5 to
4.0 cm, were found in a 2 x 2 m area of weedy garden
dominated by bearded iris (Iris germanica). The
caterpillars were feedmg on yellow passionvine, several
small plants of which grew in the iris bed and on the
adjacent chainlink fence. A smgle adult Gulf Fritillary
had been seen on three occasions (7 September, 2
October, and 13 October) nectaring on a butterfly bush
located a few meters away. Caterpillars were seen here
until 21 October, after which colder weather set in.

The chrysalis collected on 9 October was kept on a
screened-in porch and then brought inside on 23
October when the weather turned cold. The adult, a
female, emerged on 5 November and was released
outside, apparently healthy, on 7 November during a
late-season warm spell.

Steven M. Roble, Zoologist, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage, received three other reports of Gulf Fritillary
sightings in the City of Richmond in the fall of 2008
and one report of a sighting in Giles County (pers.
comm.). These reports, along with the large number of
sightings in the Norfolk-Virgima Beach area, suggest
that 2008 was a banner year for Gulf Fntillaries in
Virginia.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Steven M. Roble and Catherine Byrd
for assistance with fieldwork and Steven M. Roble for
helpful advice on the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Cech, R, & G. Tudor. 2005. Butterflies of the East
Coast: An Observer’s Guide. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ. 345 pp.

Clark, A. H., & L. F. Clark. 1951. The butterflies of
Virginia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 116:
1-239.

Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The
East. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 242 pp.

Knudson, T. 2009. Society members report caterpillar
raising and releasing results for 2008 season. Virginia
Butterfly Bulletin 17(1): 3-6.

Opler, P. A., & G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of
the Great Plains: An Illustrated Natural History. The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 294

pp.

Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, R. E. Stanford, & M. Pogue
(coordinators). 2006. Butterflies and Moths of North
America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute.
http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ (Version 0105
2009).

Roble, S. M., W. D. Hartgroves, & P A. Opler. 2000.
The butterflies and skippers (Eepidoptera) of the Great
Dismal Swamp and vicinity. Pp. 93-113 In R K. Rose
(ed,). The Natural History of the Great Dismal Swamp.
Omni Press, Madison, WI.

Taber, B. 2003. Butterflies and skippers recorded from
the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula, 1995-2003.
Banisteria 22: 43-49.

Young, D. A. 2000. The Ruddy Daggerwing (Marpesia
petreus)'. a new face in Virginia. Banisteria 15: 49.

Allen Belden, Jr.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

THE MOURNING SCORPIONFLY, PANORPA
LUGUBRIS , IN VIRGINIA (MECOPTERA:
PANORPIDAE). - Early in 2006, O. S. Flint, in
conjunction with G. W. Byers (University of Kansas),
W. Bicha (Oliver Springs, TN), and D. W. Webb
(Illinois Natural History Survey), began collecting
records of Mecoptera found in Virginia. While
searching the collection of the Virginia Museum of
Natural History (VMNH) in Martinsville, Flint
discovered a long series of the mourning or black
scorpionfly, Panorpa htgubris (Swederus), that had
been taken in the vicinity of the University of
Richmond campus between 1935 and 1959. These
visually striking and somewhat uncommon insects
immediately aroused our interest and other collections
were examined that contained specimens from scattered
localities in southeastern Virginia that were taken from
1929 to 1974. No further examples of this species were
known until two males were taken m a drift fence-
pitfall trap at die Elm Hill State Game Management
Area, Mecklenburg County, in 1995.

Panorpa Jugubris (Fig. 1) is easily distinguished
from all other species of Panorpa in North America by
its mostly black wings with a few scattered white spots
and its reddish orange body. It inhabits both the
Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains, from Virginia south
through the Carolinas, Georgia, and west across the
Florida panhandle to Louisiana (Byers, 1993). Adults
seem to prefer sandy soils in open habitats or habitats
with scant tree cover, especially sandhills and old fields
(Byers, 1993). Somma & Dunsford (2008) consider P.
lugubris the most abundant and widespread Panorpa

Fig. 1. Female mourning scorpionfly, Panorpa lugubris
(Swederus).

species in Florida, where it is found throughout all but
the extreme southern part of the peninsula. Most adults
are collected from September through December, but
smaller numbers of individuals are sometimes
encountered from mid-April through early June;
additional specimens were taken in August and January
(Byers, 1993).

In Virginia, the known specimens of P. lugubris
were collected primarily in September and October,
with records for Chesterfield, Fluvanna, King & Queen,
Mecklenburg, and Nottoway counties and the cities of
Chesapeake, Newport News, Petersburg, Richmond,
Suffolk, and Williamsburg. More recently, populations
of P. lugubris were located in die sandhills of die
Blackwater Ecological Preserve (BEP) in Isle of Wight
County and Chub Sandhill Natural Area Preserve in
Sussex County.

On 11 September 2008, Allen Belden, A.V. Evans,
and Darren Loomis (Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage) joined Flint at the BEP to search for P.
lugubris. Around noon, Loomis observed and collected
the first individual, a male, as it landed in the middle of
a dirt road that cut through a closed-canopy of longleaf
pine ( Pinus palustris Mill.)/turkey oak (Quercus laevis
Walter) sandhill community at BEP (N36.82346°
W76.85551°).

The next two individuals of P. lugubris were
encountered on the same day in a section of the BEP
known to local land managers as "burn unit 2”
(N36.82161 0 W76,85197°). This area (Fig. 2) was
subjected to a prescribed bum in 2007. The open
overstory consists of longleaf pine, pond pine {Pinus
serotina Michx.), and the occasional loblolly pine (P.
taeda L.). The sandy substrate below is patchily
covered with a low-growing understory consisting
primarily of dwarf huckleberry, Gaylussacia durnosa
(Andres) Torr. & A. Gray, blue huckleberry, G.
frondosa (L.) Torr. & A. Gray ex Torr.), and sheep
laurel {Kalmia angustifolia L.).

Panorpa lugubris was observed in die vicinity
flying across the scattered open areas that were covered
with a thin layer of mostly dried pine needles and
huckleberry leaves. These open patches are bordered by
slightly taller and denser stands of bracken fern
{Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn var. pseudocaudatum
(Clute)). Taller sprigs of red maple ( Acer rubrum L ),
sweetgum ( Liquidambar styracijlua L), sweetbay
{Magnolia virginiana L ), coastal sweet-pepperbush
{Clethra alnifolia L.), and Piedmont staggerbush
{Lyonia mariana (L.) D. Don) punctuate the site’s
periphery.

In addition to P. lugubris , six specimens of P.
gracilis Carpenter, one of P. virginica Banks, and 16 of

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Fig. 2. The most productive habitat for Panorpa lugubris at
Blackwater Ecological Preserve (Isle of Wight County,
Virginia) consists of an open overstory of mostly pond pines
and longleaf pines with sandy openings patchily covered with
low-growing huckleberry and sheep laurel.

P. rufescens Rambur were taken during the day.
Unfortunately, several different habitats were visited
the same day and the other species of scorpionflies
were not separated by exact location. However, many
of these were taken from 2-4 foot (60-120 cm) high
roadside shrubs, another series was taken from about a
foot (30 cm) high shrubby vegetation on a low, dry
riverside bench beside the Blackwater River, near the
border with Antioch Pines Natural Area Preserve
(N36.82640° W76.85590°). Others were taken in burn
unit 2 among the higher, shrubby growth. By 1530 h,
all scorpionfly activity had virtually ceased and the
search for them was discontinued. In North Carolina, P.
lugubris was observed to fly from dusk until just before
dark (J. Jones, pers. comm.)

Evans revisited BEP burn unit 2 at 0930 h on 18
September 2008, but did not locate any P. lugubris until
1000 h when the temperatures had wanned up to the
mid 60s to low 70s (°F). At the beginning of the flight
period, males and females were observed perched with
their heads upward at a slight angle on the vertical
stems of huckleberry When disturbed, they would fly
short distances and either land on nearly vertical leaf
surfaces or dive into the center of a plant clump, When
pursued, they would land and run short distances over
open ground with amazing speed, Still others secreted
themselves almost immediately among the plant
detritus on the ground, or would lie motionless on then-
sides (see Sherman, 1908).

The height of P. lugubris activity was between 1000
and 1100 h. By noon the msects were scarce, but the
search continued until about 1300 h. Only eleven
females were collected, but approximately another
dozen individuals of both sexes were observed.

On 23 September 2008, Evans, Flint, and Loomis

revisited the Blackwater site between 1000 and 1500 h
and collected 13 individuals at bum unit 2. At the
Blackwater riverside bench, Loomis collected an
additional specimen, and two more were taken in the
low growth along the road to the entrance gate. Most of
the vegetation at the gate is the same as previously
described for burn unit 2, plus an abundance of giant
cane, Arundinaria gigantea (Walker) Muhl. ssp, tecta
(Walter).

Collections made at different sites this time were
kept separate. In addition to one P. lugubris specimen,
the river bench along the Blackwater River yielded 15
specimens of P. gracilis. From the taller, shrubby
vegetation around bum unit 2 and along the road, 18
examples of P. rufescens were taken. As before, many
individuals of all species, especially P. lugubris , were
very elusive and escaped capture.

On 26 September 2008, Loomis observed hundreds
of P. lugubris at the Chub Sandhill NAP in Sussex
County. This tract of land is a pine/scrub sandhill
community dominated by loblolly pine, and southern
red oak, Ouercus falcata Michx. However, the actual
habitat where P. lugubris was observed is a weedy,
sandy field with longleaf pine in the grass stage and
little or no leaf litter. The field had been fallow since
2006 and was planted with longleaf pine in April of
2008 (Loomis, pers. comm.).

Flint and S.M. Roble returned to the Chub
site (36°52.482' N, 77°10.597' W) on 24 October 2008.
Collecting commenced around 1000 h, but the first
individuals were not found for another half hour.
Searching continued in the old fields, especially in the
plowed strips where the seedling longleaf pines had
been planted. Nineteen specimens were collected,
mostly along a weedy dirt road. After 1400 h,
scorpionfly activity stopped and collecting was
terminated. No other species of Panorpa were seen.

Specimens of P. lugubris were deposited in die
collections of the VMNH, National Museum of Natural
Histoiy (USNM), and A.V. Evans (AVEC).

Additional Natural History Notes

Sherman (1908) and Mampe & Neunzig (1965)
found adult P. lugubris abundant in open fields and
harvested tobacco fields in North Carolina in early
September through November, while the population
reached its peak during the first week of October.
However, some individuals were still active in
December and January. They were observed feeding on
dead grasshoppers and parasitized tobacco homworms
(Manduca sexta Johannson). In captivity, the adults
accepted dead grasshoppers, required drinking water,
and laid their eggs one at a time in cracks in the soil

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

(Mampe & Neunzig, 1965).

The larva of P. higubris was described in detail by
Mampe & Neunzig (1965) and Boese (1973). In
captivity, the larvae primarily ate dead insects,
including grasshoppers and flies, but they also
consumed mushrooms, tobacco stalks, and tobacco seed
capsules.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Lytton Musselman (BEP Manager, Old
Dominion University, Norfolk, VA) for his cooperation
with the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH).
DCR-DNH southeast region steward Darren Loomis
called to our attention tire first specimen of P. higubris
that prompted this report and provided access to the
BEP, Antioch Pines, and Chub Sandhill Natural Area
Preserves. Both Loomis and DCR-DNH field botanist
Allen Belden provided the plant identifications used to
describe the habitats of P. lugubris. Evans thanks J.
Jones for his observations of P. lugubris in North
Carolina. Flint thanks Steven Roble (DCR-DNH) for
providing support and guidance to the Chub Sandhill
NAP. Richard Hoffman, (Virginia Museum of Natural
History, Martinsville) provided access to material in
that collection. Paula Evans, Darren Loomis, Steve
Roble, and two anonymous reviewers read drafts of the
manuscript and offered several helpful suggestions.

LITERATURE CITED

Boese, A. E. 1973, Descriptions of larvae and key to
fourth instars of North American Panorpa (Mecoptera:
Panorpidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin 50:
163-186.

Byers, G. W. 1993. Autumnal Mecoptera of south¬
eastern United States. University of Kansas Science
Bulletin 55: 57-96.

Mampe, C. D., & H. H. Neunzig. 1965. Larval
description of two species of Panorpa (Mecoptera:
Panorpidae) with notes on their biology. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 58: 843-849.

Sherman, F. 1908. The Panorpidae (Scorpion-flies) of
North Carolina, with notes on the species.
Entomological News 19: 50-54.

Somma, L. A., & J. C. Dunford. 2008. Preliminary
checklist of the Mecoptera of Florida: earwigflies,
hangingflies, and scorpionflies. Insecta Mundi 42:
1-9.

Arthur V. Evans 1

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Oliver S. Flint, Jr.

Department of Entomology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012, MRC 169
Washington, DC 20013
flinto@si.edu

Current address: 1600 Nottoway Avenue, Richmond,
Virginia 23227; arthurevans@verizon.net

MEDICALLY SIGNIFICANT BITE BY A NABID
BUG (HETEROPTERA: NABIDAE). - The famed
commercial icon and exponent of dietary chicken,
Harlan B. Sanders, was once chided by onlookers
seeing him enter a restaurant that specialized in steaks.
“Well, boys, even 1 get a hankering for red meat once in
a while” was the Colonel’s rejoinder (Dr. Stuart E.
Neff, pers. conun., 1964). One gains the impression that
the same impulse must affect a number of normally
phytophagous hemipterans to judge from published
indications that implicate species in a variety of taxa,
even the innocuous tingids, as imbibing fluids from
various animal sources.

Of course, bites inflicted upon Homo sapiens by
bugs that are obligate predators on other insects or even
mammals (reduviids are high on the list) are so
commonplace and expectant as to merit no special
notice. It is only when the physiological reaction of a
human victim is more severe than mere local soreness,
swelling, and itching, that documentation seems
justifiable. The following brief case history was taken
by McCreary, and relayed along with the insect to
Games, by whom the latter was transmitted to Hoffman
for identification.

In early July 2007, a health-care worker at a family
practice clinic in Virginia Beach experienced unusually
severe reactions to injury inflicted by a nabid bug,
identified by Dr. Thomas J. Henry (USDA, ARS, SEL)
as Nabis roseipennis Reuter, a species common and
widespread over much of eastern United States.
Apparently the species has not previously been
implicated in negative human interactions. In decades
of removing insect captures from sweep-netting, RLH

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Fig. 1. Head of Nobis roseipennis Reuter, showing beak.

has picked up scores of nabids with scarce concern for a
possible defensive bite and never had reason to regret
such nonchalance.

During the process of donning latex gloves prior to
performing an EKG test on a patient the victim became
aware of some foreign object inside the 4 th finger of one
glove. Snapping the latex several times resulted in the
death of an insect at the site, but not before it had bitten
her about five times on the web between the 3 rd and 4 th
fingers. The pain was immediate and intense, despite
self-medication with Benadryl© at the time of injury
and for some days subsequently. Her finger began to

swell, with a numb and tingly sensation. By the
following day, both fingers and adjacent part of the
hand had swollen to about twice normal size, and did
not return to normal for more than a week. Two months
later, some local bruising was still evident at the site of
injury.

The severity of the reported reactions seems
remarkable, of a level expected from a bite by an
assassin bug (Reduviidae), and suggests some
idiosyncratic complicating factor, such as low tolerance
of some particular antigen in die nabid’s saliva. In this
case, the facts strongly suggest that the insect was
simply reacting reflexively to major stress, widiout
overt aggressive behavior implied, and certainly no
investigation of a possible food source. Nonetheless,
nabid bugs are adequately equipped to inflict puncture
wounds, as the drawing (Fig. 1) clearly shows.

Richard L. Hoffman

Virginia Museum of Natural History

Martinsville, Virginia 24112

David N. Gaines
Virginia Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dedra McCreary
Public Works Department
3556 Dam Neck Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23453

BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

Miscellanea

Reviews

McMillan, Patrick D. 2007. Rhynchospora
(Cyperaceae) of South Carolina and the Eastern United
States. Biota of South Carolina. Volume 5. Clemson
University, Clemson, SC. 267 pp. Softcover. $40.00
from Clemson University Public Service Publishing at
http://dprod4.clemson.edu/olos/asp/searchmain.asp

1 have often complained that book reviewers are not
tough enough when considering the merits of the texts
they are charged to critique and so 1 was determined to
closely scrutinize Rhynchospora (Cyperaceae ) of South
Carolina and the Eastern United States by Patrick D.
McMillan. This is the first volume of the Biota of South
Carolina series that does not treat a beetle group. The
text treats all 74 eastern North American Rhynchospora
taxa, 58 of which are known from South Carolina.

After careful consideration, I have very little to
criticize. The volume is thorough, lavishly-illustrated,
and accessible to readers with only a basic knowledge
of botany The first 25 pages provide introductory
material. Most helpful were the illustrations and
photographs to show the general structures of
Rhynchospora , as well as the narrative and 18 color
photographs that feature South Carolina natural
communities where beaksedge species can be found.

Following this mtroduction, a 13-page dichotomous
key is provided to the 74 eastern taxa found within 14
sections. The key is followed by 221 pages of
treatments for the taxa. Each treatment includes

literature citations, type collection citation, synonymy,
common name, a list of South Carolina specimens
examined for this book, a morphological description,
habitat, range including a map of the taxon’s

distribution in South Carolina, and a discussion. The
treatments are excellent with robust discussions

covering topics ranging from type specimen
determinations to taxonomic/nomenclatural issues, to
identification difficulties. Species are illustrated by both
specimen photographs and pen and ink illustrations of
the achenes drawn by the author.

Within the taxa treatments, there are section

introductions that provide a detailed analysis of the
section members’ features such as bristles, tubercle, and
achenes to aid in identification (often overlapping
measurements between species may occur). In a
number of sections, the author uses scanning electron
micrographs and various ordination diagrams to clarify
the discussions.

A bibliography and index follow, making for a
complete and outstanding reference to this diverse

southeastern sedge genus. I recommend this monograph
to all botanists, ecologists, and naturalists interested in
the Cyperaceae, eastern U.S. graminoids, or the flora
and vegetation of the southeastern U.S.

J. Christopher Ludwig

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Reports

1. President’s Report

This is an exciting year for the Society with the
recent publication of the special issue of Banisteria on
the Potomac Gorge BioBlitz. Special thanks to Steve
Roble for his exceptional editorial efforts in preparing
this issue for publication. As you can imagine this was
a major task. Thanks also to the dedicated work of our
retiring councilor Art Evans for his contributions during
the past year and to our retiring president, Tom
McAvoy for leading the Society and especially for
organizing the upcoming symposium on the history of
natural history in Virginia.

We strongly encourage all members to support our
Society by renewing their membership if they have not
yet done so and by attending the symposium in
September (see next to last page of this issue for details
and registration information).

Barry Knisley, President
Virginia Natural History Society

2. Secretary-Treasurer’s Report

Ralph Eckerlin ran unopposed for Vice President
and Oliver Flint was elected as a councilor to succeed
Art Evans. Only 85 members have renewed for 2009 as
of July 1, down from 137 members last year. An e-mail
reminder will be sent to all 2008 members who have
not yet renewed for 2009. We encourage all active
members to recruit new members for the Society. As of
July 7,2009, the bank balance is $9,139,81.

Please submit all inquiries about membership or
back issues of Banisteria to: Dr. Bill Shear, Virginia
Natural History Society, Box 96, Hampden-Sydney,
Virginia 23943, or email, wshear@hsc.edu .

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Shear, Secretary/Treasurer

MISCELLANEA

3. Webmaster’s Report

The entire contents of Banisteria #32 - Potomac
Gorge BioBlitz (2006) Report - were posted on the
VNHS website as well as information regarding the
VNHS 2009 Symposium.

Recent website activity:

Month

Page

Loads

Unique

Visitors

First

Time

Visitors

Returning

Visitors

Dec-08

Jan-09

Feb-09

160

105

Mar-09

149

105

Apr-09

172

151

139

May-09

186

137

105

Jun-09

226

148

139

Total

1051

748

617

131

Average

150

107

DEFINITIONS:

Page Loads - The number of times the front page has been visited.
Unique Visitors - Total of the returning visitors.

First Time Visitors - First time visitor to the VNHS website.
Returning Visitors - A person returning to our website for another
visit an hour or more later.

Location of recent VNHS website visitors:

We would like to thank the Conservation Management
Institute (www.cmiweb.org) for hosting the VNHS
website.

Respectfully submitted,

John White, VNHS Webmaster

4. Editor’s Report

Much of my spare time during the past 18 months
has been spent editing and preparing manuscripts for
the Festschrift honoring Richard Hoffman. At long last,
I am happy to report that the finalized manuscript was
recently submitted to the printer and copies of this 458-
page book should be available later this summer. Two-
thirds of the 32 chapters have direct or partial relevance

to the biota of Virginia (most others concern millipeds
from various parts of the world), and include
descriptions of 10 species new to science that inhabit
the state (and another that may occur here),

As you have probably noticed, this issue of
Banisteria is heavily biased toward insect papers. This
is entirely a function of recent submissions. I welcome
papers on other taxa such as plants, vertebrates, and
other groups of invertebrates, as well as those
concerning the ecology, archeology, anthropology,
paleontology, geology, geography, and climatology of
the state and surrounding region. 1 already have nearly
enough manuscripts accepted or in review for die fall
issue and hope to finish it later this year. 1 am now
soliciting manuscripts for the 2010 issues of Banisteria.

Steve Roble
Editor, Banisteria

Announcements

1. Virginia Natural History Society Symposium

A VNHS-sponsored symposium entitled “ Historical
Explorations into Virginia's Natural History" will be
held on Saturday, September 26, 2009, at the Virginia
Museum of Natural History in Martinsville. It will be
preceded by a social reception on Friday evening,
September 25. Pre-registration is required. See the
announcement and registration form on the following
pages for more details. This will be a unique and
important addition to the history of Virginia and natural
history. Plan to attend!

2. Richard Hoffman’s Retirement

Richard Hoffman, co-founder of VNHS in 1992, an
original co-editor of Banisteria (1992-1999), and
currently (since 2000) an associate editor of the journal,
officially retired on April 1, 2009, after more than 48
years of service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. For
the past 20 years, he has been the Curator of Recent
Invertebrates at the Virginia Museum of Natural
History (VMNH) in Martinsville. Previously, he taught
for 28 years in the Biology Department at Radford
University. Dr. Hoffman has been die most prolific
contributor of articles and notes to Banisteria since its
inception, and he continues to actively conduct research
and curate the VMNH collection. A Festschrift
honoring his career and 80 th birthday (2007) wdl be
published this summer by VMNH. The VNHS
congratulates Dr. Hoffman on his outstanding career
and wishes him well in his retirement.

Announcement of The Virginia Natural History Socie

“Historical Explorations into Virginia's Natural History”

Saturday, September 26, 2009
Virginia Museum of Natural History
21 Starling Avenue, Martinsville, VA 24112

This symposium will present the contributions of the leading naturalists
over the past 400 year history of Virginia in the fields of:

FOSSILS, CAVES, PLANTS,

MARINE AND ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES,

MUSSELS, SPIDERS, INSECTS,

MARINE AND FRESHWATER FISHES,

AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS, MAMMALS

Plus a presentation on the contributions of Thomas Jefferson to Natural History

Costs : $10 for the symposium only or $25 for the symposium plus banquet on September 26.
Lunch will be available for purchase at the Museum’s cafeteria.

Location and schedule : The symposium will be held at the Virginia Museum of Natural
History’s new facility in Martinsville which opened in the spring of 2007. A social reception on
Friday night (5-8 PM) and banquet on Saturday night (6-8 PM) will be held in the
museum’s exhibit hall. The presentation sessions on Saturday (8:30 AM-5:00 PM) will take
place in the lecture hall. Martinsville is located in southwestern Virginia, approximately 50
miles south of Roanoke at the junction of U.S. Routes 58 and 220. Directions to the Virginia
Museum of Natural History (phone: 276-634-4141) can be found on the museum’s website at
http://www.vmnh.net/index.cfm/topic/directions .

Conference Lodging : A block of rooms has been reserved at the Quality Inn/Dutch Inn, 2360
Virginia Avenue, Collinsville, VA, 24078, at the significantly reduced rate of $45.00 per room.
Mention “Virginia Museum of Natural History” to get this rate. Please reserve your room
as soon as possible before the rates are increased or the rooms are released to other customers.
Quality Inn/Dutch Inn: Phone: (276) 647-3721; Fax: (276) 647-4857
Website: http://www.qualityinn.com/hotel-collinsville-virginia-VA381

More information is available at the Natural History Society website: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vnhs/

If you have any questions please contact Tom McAvoy at 540-231-6320 or tmcavoy@vt.edu
This will be a unique and important addition to the history of Virginia and natural history.

Plan to Attend!

REGISTRATION FORM

Historical Explorations into Virginia's Natural History SYMPOSIUM

Name(s)_

Address

Email_

Phone_

Names for name tags (if different from above)_

_I will be staying at the Quality Inn/Dutch Inn.

Registration fee @ $25.00 per person

Includes Friday night reception, attendance at symposium, and
Saturday night banquet = $_ Vegetarian_

Non-Banquet tickets @ $10.00 per person

Includes Friday night reception and attendance at symposium = $_

Total payment $_

We can only accept checks or money orders
Checks or money orders should be made payable to:

“Virginia Natural History Society Symposium”

Return this form with your check or money order to:

William Shear
Box 96

Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943
wshear@hsc.edu
FAX (276) 634-4199

Deadline for receipt of registration form is September 15, 2009

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Banisteria : a journal devoted to the natural history of Virginia"

See other formats