BANISTERIA

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

BANISTERIA

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 anonprofit 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 consider manuscripts on any aspect of natural history from neighboring states if the information concerns a species native to Virginia or the topic 1s 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 ARATE SK Ag in 2 he Perms oc ee oe ety At ae a NS ROR NIT at A aD Ae bs ARN RON Met ht Ras he 8 hem, ane, 3

Virginia Ground Spiders: A First List (Araneae: Gnaphosidae) Pa kalels gcd LR COLON UE eee ee Se ee ee ee | eR SRE See ele ee ee ee eee | ere TES Pa ee Seen See ee 18

The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrochidae, Aquatic Hydrophilidae, and Noteridae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the North Tract of the Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland BB emt one (leon 3 ye free Me A ems deg Mie oe, Bees ae e Natiy di, ermd ye Ne M o, WPER Oi 4 ERAERY) Ae eh one alr epee iy eee eee oe Oe ee 30

Phyllophaga spreta (Horn), a Rare Species of June Beetle New to the Fauna of Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) UIUC Dear VAIN free ass ie te eee oc Ag eee cas ee cea, Seach J weet ae WE, Fon: sa nal nan ra caranemt aes mats aichensas eden on Medensa likens cae 37

Hybosorus illigeri Reiche Confirmed as Part of the Virginia Beetle Fauna, with Notes on Germarostes (Coleoptera: Hybosoridae) PATIL RM lhe tv kot AM Reales ale BARI me A AER DE or gos IP dey din Res Ren Mio AAT Re NR TA OA Be) Py AR ide Le oe MO ee ROO OR 2 43

Notes on Valgus seticollis (Palisot de Beauvois) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Virginia PAUL YosR WANS eset Rhee, Mee Elo UM Me cee OPE. oe AA RR ene Ce We ee ME lt ole, 46

First Records of Notapictinus aurivillii (Bergroth), a Little-known Flatbug,

for Virginia and the Carolinas (Heteroptera: Aradidae) Richard lh HOt © 22) 0 PAPC me ay PM dP SD oe ale te mec Me ME oy ER ee IR eh Fe bacitlerate teat lant rct tet eta Ame 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) Tail: ara, Pe Pcs cuscaht ante baer ae ee, Met oh cee Meee RE atten JS, Ructet jo, keene A petted suctotac bo Agta Mead ell thas telcatedes ate 53

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

KRaten Evtrancl and Dwiokivk,: Merkley hn) 08). eke eye en et Roel Sow al Bowe, i ne a ae ke 54 The Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae): Breeding in Richmond, Virginia

HSIN £55 01g) bolt (2) UPA eae RT Lae UO eB ER Ds EE In SPC h ECR EIR, He OE 56 The Mourning Scorpionfly, Panorpa lugubris (Swederus), in Virginia (Mecoptera: Panorpidae)

Arthur, Evans ‘and Oliver Se Pints ait se, Ji, se: dots nap anesb basen debseioesaearaitadoambesnedan.dha snndoanbenesdunalainasedeidsacaquedsdagannessdeaeadnaedendaaesune 58 Medically Significant Bite by a Nabid Bug (Heteroptera: Nabidae)

Richard L. Hoffman, David N. Gaines, and Dedra McCreary .0......0.0.0ccccccccccccc cece ceecceeeeceeeeeecceeeecesseeeecstesesateectteenetieeees 60 Miscellanea

FRE VLG Waa eerrw se rebet war sheasnta Paar siereancee sshd ce aed auth Rev cesbe Raat oe Mneeee dey conti ler nut ere eon Bae inkl daca oh Rca Aterycask Absayeaey cere 62

(ite) 0/1 See ice Ee on SOO EPO oan Bla nL AMG LE A ER WE RWG Cefdinir wee tL POEUN eT ORE A COR ALE OR FT RETR 62

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-Treasurer

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 (term expires December, 2012)

Honorary Councilors

Richard L. Hoffman Michael Kosztarab

Webmaster

John White

Banisteria, 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 Kyjar

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 this study are common in the eastern U.S. and mid-Atlantic riparian forests with two exceptions: Lasius subumbratus 1s 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 jaisonensis, and Prenolepis imparis 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, Formicidae, 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 & Kyjar, 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,

4 BANISTERIA

2000; Barrows et al., 2005). All of my sampling sites are within the DMP forest, which I divided into an eastern and western part for analytical purposes. The western part 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 molle (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 | 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

I 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 Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (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

NO. 33, 2009

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 the soil in Berlese funnels with 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 | 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’ 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? 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 USDA). A’ voucher

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY 5

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

Data Analysis

I 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,,/(S,+S,), where S is the number of species in a study and C,, 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 claviger, Lasius subumbratus, and Myrmica emeryana (Table 1). One species captured during this study, Vollenhovia emeryi, 1s 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 Prenolepis imparis (Table 1). Each of these species had more individuals captured than the abundances of all other ant species combined. 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. imparis was more abundant in samples, it was found at fewer sites. This may be due to reduced foraging activity in P imparis during warm summer months (Talbot 1943a; Lynch et al., 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).

6 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).

2000-2001 Species Pitfall traps Aphaenogaster rudis 791 Prenolepis imparis 1876 Paratrichina faisonensis 780 Pyramica rostrata 32 Lasius alienus 190 Myrmecina americana 34 Temnothorax curvispinosus 33 Ponera pennsylvanica 45 Tapinoma sessile Stenamma brevicorne 42 Aphaenogaster fulva Brachymyrmex depilis Myrmica punctiventris 7 Camponotus chromaiodes Pyramica ohioensis 5 Crematogaster cerasi l Lasius umbratus Solenopsis molesta Stenamma impar 10 Proceratium silaceum 1 Vollenhovia emeryi Crematogaster pilosa 12 Camponotus pennsylvanicus 3 Aphaenogaster tennesseensis Camponotus castaneus 4 Amblyopone pallipes 2 Camponotus nearcticus 2 Lasius claviger 3 Myrmica emeryana 3 Camponotus subbarbatus 2 Lasius subumbratus 1 Total species 23 Total abundance 3879

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,

2002-2003 2000-2003 Pitfall traps Soil cores Both Total 1012 4 1016 1807 822 z- 829 2705 463 254 717 1497 6 108 114 146 66 17 83 273 12 65 ca) 111 38 ZT 65 98 8 52 60 105 35 16 51 51 26 9 35 77 28 28 28 1 26 27 27 21 21 28 18 18 18 3 10 13 18 8 8 9 1 6 7 7 5 = 5 3 1 4 14 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 14 2 ) 5 2 pi 2 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 2d 15 27 31 2589 604 3193 772,

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 7Zemnothorax spp., all Monomorium spp.,

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY dq

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).

2000-2001 Species Pitfall traps Aphaenogaster rudis 194 Paratrechina faisonensis 250 Prenolepis imparis 185 Lasius alienus 97 Ponera pennsylvanica 31 Tapinoma sessile Temnothorax curvispinosus 27 Stenamma brevicorne 30 Myrmecina americana 32 Pyramica rostrata 20 Aphaenogaster fulva Myrmica punctiventris 5 Crematogaster cerasi l Pyramica ohioensis 2

Brachymyrmex depilis Campanotus chromaiodes Stenamma impar Proceratium silaceum 1 Vollenhovia emeryi

Aphaenogaster tennesseensis

Camponotus pennsylvanicus 3 Lasius umbratus Solenopsis molesta Amblyopone pallipes Camponotus castaneus Camponotus nearcticus Crematogaster pilosa Lasius claviger Myrmica emeryana Camponotus subarbatus Lasius subumbratus

me NWWoN FN

most Myrmica spp., and all Pheidole spp. (Table 5). Three ant species were shared among all studies: A. rudis, Ponera pennsylvanica, and T. sessile. Lasius alienus and Temnothorax curvispinosus 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 emeryi 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

2002-2003 2000-2003 Pitfall traps Soil cores Both Total 183 4 187 381 136 32 168 418 98 1 99 284 54 7 61 158 7 28 35 66 25 7 32 32 22 6 28 55 21 7 28 58 8 17 25 57 3 18 21 4] [8 13 13 2 12 17 8 8 9 3 5 8 10 1 6 7 7 6 6 6 3 1 4 12 1 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 1 2 2 2 Z ) 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 9 3 3 2 1

resulted in higher species estimates than soil-core sampling, 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, P<0.001; 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

8 BANISTERIA

NO. 33, 2009

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

____Nestlocation __Feeding behavior _Habitat__ 2000-2003 _ Species Soil Litter Cavity. Generalist Specialist Forest Field Abundance Aphaenogaster rudis x x x xX x x 1016 Prenolepis imparis x x x x 829 Paratrechina faisonensis x x x x PLE Pyramica rostrata x x x 114 Lasius alienus x x x x ye % 83 Myrmacina americana x x x x 77 Temnothorax curvispinosus x x x 65 Ponera pennsylvanica x x x x x 60 Tapinoma sessile x x x x x x a1 Stenamma brevicorne x x x x x xX 35 Aphaenogaster fulva xX x x x 28 Brachymyrmex depilis x x x x BA: Myrmica punctiventris x x x x x 21 Camponotus chromaiodes x x x 18 Pyramica ohioensis x xX x i) Crematogaster cerasi x x x x x x 8 Lasius umbratus x x x x x ) Solenoposis molesta x bs x x x 5 Stenamma impar x x x x 4 Proceratium silaceum x x x 3 Vollenhovia emeryi x x x x 3 Camponotus pennsylvanicus x xX x x 2 Crematogaster pilosa x x x 2 Amblyopone pallipes x x x l Aphaenogaster tennesseensis x x x l Camponotus castaneus x x x x 1 Camponotus nearticus x x x x l Lasius claviger x x x t Camponotus subbarbatus x x xX x i Lasius subumbratus x xX x i Myrmica emeryana x xX x xX i

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. pennsylvanica, 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. tennesseensis 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. molesta, 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 9

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

King & Green 2005 Talbot 1934

Lynch et al. 1988 Lynch 1981

Carter 1962

Lynch 1987 Headley 1943 Wang et al. 2000 Lynch 1981

Nuhn & Wright 1979 Wang et al. 2000 Cole 1940

Talbot 1965

Ellison et al. 2002 Culver 1974

Location

Philadelphia County, PA‘ Cook County, IL

Allegany County, MD‘ Anne Arundel County, MD‘ Multiple Counties, NC Anne Arundel County, MD‘ Ashtabula County, OH Augusta County, VA‘

Anne Arundel County, MD‘ Durham County, NCT Pocahontas County, WV TN and NC

Livingston County, MI

18 Counties, MA‘ Greenbrier County, WV

More common species from all studies

More common species from all East Coast studies Average number of species per study

” CC = coefficient of community similarity

t US. East Coast Study

Habitat description CC’ Species Urban forests 0.52 38 Beech-maple, oak-maple old forests 0.49 24 Floodplain forest 0.47 22 Old forest, young forest, old fields 0.43 52 Hardwood-bottomland forests 0.42 47 Old and new forests and fields 0.41 62 Forests near Lake Erie 0.39 AO George Washington National Forest 0.35 DE Sweetgum forest? 0.35 15 Urban forests 0.34 28 Monongahela National Forest 0.32 27 Great Smoky Mountains National Park 0.25 66 Low fields 0.23 28 Bogs W222 25 Hardwood forest, old yard 0.20 17 0.59 3] 0.55 31 34.1

* 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 emeryi 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 this 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 nesting 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 g h | p Total Aphaenogaster rudis Ponera pennsylvanica Tapinoma sessile Lasius alienus Temnothorax curvispinosus Myrmica punctiventris Myrmecina americana Prenolepis imparis Crematogaster lineolata Lasius umbratus Temnothorax longispinosus Amblyopone pallipes Aphaenogaster fulva Brachymyrmex depilis Camponotus pennsylvanicus Camponotus subbarbatus Camponotus chromaiodes Lasius claviger Camponotus americanus Camponotus nearcticus Crematogaster cerasi Formica subsericea Temnothorax schaumii Monomorium minimum Paratrechina faisonensis x Solenopsis molesta x x Stenamma brevicorne % x 4 Dolichoderus plagiatus Pyramica ohioensis Pyramica rostrata Aphaenogaster tennesseensis Camponotus castaneus Camponotus noveboracensis x Formica fusca x Formica pallidefulva x x Lasius nearcticus x x Lasius neoniger x Temnothorax ambiguus x Proceratium silaceum x x x x x

x x

x KK KKK KM K [OD xem KKM mK KK IO * ~~ KK KIO ee i ee de ee ea | x KKK KM KK KIO i a ee Ee ee ae De x KK KK KM KI x x KID

xx KK MK

On

~

x ee

x KK KK Mm KKK MK a a a a ae La

x KKK MK ~ Km KM ~ Km KKK mK KK KK KO OK OK > x > >

x Km KK KK KM > > > = O

x Km KK KK OK x KK KK KK OK > x KK MK > > =

x x

x x KK ~

* KKK KK KM KM KKK KK KK KK OK MK [Eb * * x x x * * * * x x mK * x x x x KK K

x ~

> > x Km KKK mK KKK mK OK

eK KKK KK KK KK MK KK KK KK KK KK KK KK OK OM OK * * *

* * ~~ KK

> ~ KK mM mK eK OK > >

Stenamma diecki % x

Stenamma impar x x x Aphaenogaster lamellidens x Aphaenogaster treatae xX x Dolichoderus pustulatus x x Myrmica emeryana x x x x x Pyramica ornata x x Crematogaster clara xX Formica schaufussi X x Harpogoxenus americanus x Pheidole dentata xX Lasius interjectus x x x Crematogaster pilosa x x Forelius pruinosus x Formica neogagates x x x Formica rubicunda x Formica subintegra x x x

Lasius flavus x x x Lasius speculiventris x x x Temnothorax pergandei x x x

Myrmica americana x x x

Myrmica pinetorum x x x

Tetramorium caespitum x x x

Aphaenogaster carolinensis x Camponotus caryae x Crematogaster ashmeadi x Formica exsectoides x Formica integra x x

* ~~ KKK ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ KK KM m* ~~ KK * * NNNNN WWWWWWWWWWwWwwWwhRRHRHRNNANNADADANDADDADAAHAAHAAHAAHAAIANANDDAAHBWBHAHWHW WO WO

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY 11

Table 5 (continued).

Study” Species a b c dee i. ee ch i J k | m n ) p Total Formica nitidiventris be x Formica obscuriventris x x Myrmica fracticornis x x Pheidole bicarinata x Pheidole davisii xX Pheidole morrisi Polyergus lucidus Ponera trigona x x Proceratium croceum e Proceratium pergandei xX x Pyramica clypeata xX x Pyramica dietrichi x x Pyramica pergandei x x Stenamma meridionale xX xX Stenamma schmitti xX xX Strumigenys louisianae x x Vollenhovia emeryi x x Lasius latipes x Aphaenogaster texana x Camponotus impressus x Camponotus mississippiensis x Crematogaster laeviuscula .e Crematogaster missouriensis x Crematogaster vermiculata x Cryptopone gilva x Dolichoderus mariae % Dolichoderus taschenbergi x Dorymyrmex bureni 7% Dorymyrmex grand x Formica argentea x Formica cinerea x Formica habrogyn x Formica incerta xX Formica lasioides ‘K Formica neorufibarbis x Formica sanguinea x Hypoponera opaciceps x Hypoponera opacior % Hypoponera trigona * Lasius minutus x Lasius pallitarsis x Lasius subumbratus x Leptothorax acervorum x Temnothorax texanus xX Monomorium pharaonis x Myrmica brevinodis x Myrmica incompleta Myrmica lobifrons Myrmica sculptilis Myrmica smithana Neivamyrmex carolinensis x Neivamyrmex nigrescens x Paratrechina flavipes x Pheidole crassicornis xX Pheidole dentigula x Pheidole pilifera x Pheidole tysoni x Pheidole vinelandica a Pyramica creightoni x Pyramica pilansis x Pyramica talpa xX Trachymyrmex septrionalis x Total (129 ant species) 31 39 24 22. 52 47 #262 40 15 27 228) 27 65 28 25 17

~ KK MK >

~

x xm KK ee a i i i i sR SE RB RE LhLNDNNNNNNNNWNNNNWNNWNN WN WN WN

“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); 1, Lynch 1981 (old woods); j, Wang et al. 2000 (old woods); k, Nuhn & Wright 1979 (urban woods); |, Wang et al. 2000 (old woods); m, Cole 1940 (old woods, old fields); n, Talbot 1965 (low fields); 0, Ellison et al. 2002 (low woods, bogs); p, Culver 1974 (old woods, old fields, new fields).

12 BANISTERIA

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

Chao2 species estimates

Sampling period and method Mean + SD 2000-2003 Both methods 3L35 21.0 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 16.342.2

captured in pitfall traps. Pyramica 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 Lasius and other common genera. I encountered it only once in pitfall trapping, but soil cores produced 26 specimens. These results agree with earlier work in 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. Lasius 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

NO. 33, 2009 40 7 Res 35 + 7 45

tH 4 A oe 30> v S ee S a 5) me 2 73 8 5 g 2 207 +25 +s

= ane 15 + n 5 = Abundance = = ; ~~ TS (ss 10 + - Richness o +12

“aii + 0.5 0 0 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 + | 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. faisonensis, 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

Abundance

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY

700 - 2000 2001 2002 2003 600 - — Aphaenogaster rudis —s— Prenolepis imparis 500 - —a— Paratrechina faisonensis 400 + 300 + 200 + 100 } 0 L L Ll Ll Ll s 4 4 A $ s 4 S oa & S se RS S Ro S Ss qs S Ss SS ad os fon Yr s fon ed fon

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.

1

Abundance

00

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

2000 2001 2002 2003

Pyramica rostrata

| Lasius alienus Myrmecina americana

& $ s g RR & S S Ss ~S i SS s ¥ se SS xO ou Ned X4) on of oe 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.

13

14

Abundance

Abundance

BANISTERIA 100 - 2000 2001 2002 2003 90 + — Leptothorax curvispinosus 80 + ; —#- Ponera pennsylvanica —4&— Stenamma brevicorne 70 + 60 + 50. 40 } 30 + 20 - @) 1 1 1 1 1 ay SY S J 3 ey & & J oe & sy Row ww RS S Ss x RS Ry ss s we a as Se Tw of é S ; 9 >" Trapping date

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.

100 - 2002 2003

90 F — Tapinoma sessile —& Aphaenogaster fulva

80 + —&— Brachymyrmex depilis —x— Myrmica punctiventris

70 +

60 +

50 F

40}

30 -

20 +

10 -

x _ 4 peer ee June August October June August October Trapping date

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.

NO. 33, 2009

KJAR: RIPARIAN FOREST ANT COMMUNITY AS

decrease in total ant richness may be the result of competition with P imparis 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. jaisonensis 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. Kyar 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. Castanea 44: 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. Myrmecochory in Viola: dynamics of seed-ant interactions in some West Virginia species. Journal of Ecology 66: 53-72.

16 BANISTERIA

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.

NO. 33, 2009 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.

Kyjar, 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 the 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, Prenolepis imparis, 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 ArcView 3x National Park Service Alaska Support Office. Website. http://www.nps.gov/ akso/gis/av3 1/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 17

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. emeryana 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 form of Drassyllus, 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 distinctive 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 aresult 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 virtually 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 Sergiolus. 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. ocellatus, 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 19

Nodocion rufithoracicus is common and widespread in western North America (P&S 1980, map 2), but was unknown east of the 104 meridian until an adult male was collected in a remote, natural habitat in central Virginia. An analogous case 1s 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 being discovered in very localized Virginia populations, and postpones almost indefinitely achievement of a definitive number of endemic species. I have not compiled lists of species for other 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 1s 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 1s 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. imbecillis from “top of Blue Ridge near Roanoke” by Crosby & Bishop (1926) is probably based on a specimen of C. pluto.

Callilepis imbecillis (Keyserling)

As documented by Platnick (1975, map 2), this Species 1s 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. imbecillis 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

20 BANISTERIA

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 Tennessee, with a disjunct locality in the 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 the 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).

Drassyllus adocetus Chamberlin

With a “lower austral” distribution between Long Island and central Florida, this species 1s surely native to the coastal region of Virginia. The male palpal organ is one of the most distinctive in the genus, and permits

NO. 33, 2009

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

5. Drassyllus aprilinus (Banks)

This common species is widespread in eastern United States, from New England to Michigan, thence south to Florida and west to central Texas (with a disjunct site in San Luis Potosi). It competes with D. novus for the status of our most frequently collected Drassyllus, 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. Drassyllus 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 Rt 666, 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. Drassyllus 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 21

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 following 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.: Chincoteague 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 1s 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. BuhImann (3/1). City of Virginia Beach: Oceana Naval Air Station, 3 May 1991, K. A. BuhImann (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 1s 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

Da BANISTERIA

(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 km) 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

NO. 33, 2009

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 the 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 cities 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 1 August 0 May 6 September 1 June 16 October 2 July 6 November 1

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, pine 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 23

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 Chincoteague 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 temporarius 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, Henry, 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

24 BANISTERIA

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. Jongipes 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 the 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. BuhImann (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 Carolina, 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.

NO. 33, 2009 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" meridian, this species has appeared — against all probability — in a Virginia pitfall collection. Cumberland Co.: pitfall site in recent clearcut, 5.5 km 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 N. 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 25

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, Henrico, 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 Carolina and the District of Columbia, this 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 specimens 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 United 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).

26 BANISTERIA

37. “Synaphosus” paludis (Chamberlin) New State Record; new northernmost locality

Southeastern United States: southern I]linois 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 collector 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.

NO. 33, 2009

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 limits 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 27

from the southwestern states 1s 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. /accus 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. /ymnophilus 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 Co.: 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 pullus (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 inland: 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 enaphosids 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: Drassyllus 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 1s 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.,

28 BANISTERIA

Drassodes gosiutus, 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, pls. 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.

NO. 33, 2009

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 pl.

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 29

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. 1., & M. U. Shadab. 1977. A revision of the spider genera Herpyllus 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, Litopyllus, and Synaphosus (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 Ze/otes (Araneae, Gnaphosidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 174: 97-192, figs. 1-272, maps 1-22.

Platnick, N. 1., & 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@s1.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.

Key words: 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 199].

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 the 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 3]

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 Hydrophilidae, 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 aeruginosus Aubé 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 in 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 Aubé 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 Aubé 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. (Insecta: Collembola) (Spangler, 1962). Specimens were collected in temporary pools in May and June of 2000 and 2001.

Coptotomus interrogatus (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 (Aubé) 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 1s 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) 1s found in ponds and streams (Young, 1953); woodland ponds as well as in

32 BANISTERIA

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 Aubé 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 1s 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 Aubé 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 light (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

NO. 33, 2009

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 53

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 (Staines & 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_ perplexus (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 (Fall) 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 dOrchymont 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_ collaris (Fabricius) is found in shallow standing water with other 7ropisternus 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 (Staines, 1988; Hilsenhoff, 1992; Cuiegler, 2003). Specimens were collected in 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

34 BANISTERIA

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

I 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 interrogatus (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,

NO. 33, 2009

Brown, H. P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid Beetles (Coleoptera) of the United States. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 6. US. 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 Jn J. H. Thorp & A. P. Covich (eds.), Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 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 35

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 species 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 MHydrophilini (Hydrophilidae: | Hydrophilinae). 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. Macroinvertebrate 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 Cybistrinae). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research Bulletin 124. Blacksburg, VA. 53

PP.

Ribera, I, & G. N. Foster. 1993. Uso de Coledpteros acuaticos como indicadores biolégicos (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. Abellan, 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).

36 BANISTERIA

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. MHydrophiloidea (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

NO. 33, 2009

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!

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 Mountains Natural Area Preserve (Fauquier and Prince William counties), and Powell Mountain Karst Preserve (Wise County) in Virginia, I collected fourteen specimens (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° 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, vic. NW of Mountain House, N38.82621° W77.70735°, 26/27 May 2008, A.V. Evans, uv light trap (2 females); USA: VA, Prince William Co., Bull Run 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. 13 km E Cracker Neck Church, N36.85483° 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° W082.70014°, 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°, 27-29 April 2009, CS. 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, N36.85480° W082.69595°, 27- 29 April 2009, C.S. Hobson, A.V. Evans (1 male, 1 female). Two specimens are deposited in the Virginia

38 BANISTERIA

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. anxia (LeC.), P. crenulata (Froelich), P. ephilida (Say), P. Jervida (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

NO. 33, 2009

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&-Format=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

margin.

EVANS: PHYLLOPHAGA SPRETA 39

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.

40 BANISTERIA

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 Huntsville, 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).

NO. 33, 2009

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 nocturnally 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 feeding preferences are known, no deciduous trees or shrubs should be overlooked when searching for adults of P. spreta.

The Platte County specimen in 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 4]

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 (lowa 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 Jn 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.unl.edu/research/entomology/Guide/Scarabaeo idea/Scarabaeidae/Melolonthinae/ Melolonthinae-

Catalog/Melolonthini.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

42 BANISTERIA

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.

Horm, 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). Insecta Mundi 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

NO. 33, 2009

and Cyclocephala 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 II. The May or June Beetles (genus Phyllophaga). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL. 226 pp.

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 43-46 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

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

Arthur V. Evans!

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 Hybosorinae 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" century via the slave trade, or through some other type of commerce (Ocampo, 2002). In the New World, H. i/ligeri 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;

‘Current address: 1600 Nottoway Avenue, Richmond,

Virginia 23227; arthurevans@verizon.net

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. i/ligeri 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).

44 BANISTERIA

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: Hybosorus_ illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Hybosorinae), and Ceratocanthus aeneus (MacLeay) 1819, Germarostes aphodioides (llliger, 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. I 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 Caroline, 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

NO. 33, 2009

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 (Liquidambar 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 trapping 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. I 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: HYBOSORUS ILLIGERI 45

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 (Instituto 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 the 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 Jn 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" Birthday of Roy A. Crowson. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologit PAN, Warszawa, Poland.

Martinez, A. 1968. Insectos nuevos 0 poco conocidos XIII. Ceratocanthini nom. nov. para Acanthocerini (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Troginae). Revista de la Sociedad Entomoldégica Argentina 30: 9-16.

Ocampo, F. C. 2002. Hybosorids of the United States and expanding distribution of the introduced species Hybosorus _ 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 Pachyplectrinae (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.

46 BANISTERIA

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-

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 46-49 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

NO. 33, 2009

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!

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, I encountered a population of V. seticollis under the bark of a dead chestnut oak (Quercus prinus

EVANS: VALGUS SETICOLLIS 47

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 inches (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 1s 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

Fig. 1. Pupa of Valgus seticollis. Note larval exuviae still attached to the tip of the abdomen. ©2008, Arthur V. Evans

Fig. 2. Larva of Valgus seticollis. ©2008, Arthur V. Evans

Tle

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.

48 BANISTERIA

BIOLOGICAL NOTES

The larva of V. seticollis 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

NO. 33, 2009

Fig. 3. Adult male of Valgus seticollis. ©2008, Arthur V. Evans

Evans

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 form 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 the male genitalia of V. seticollis from populations throughout Virginia to determine how many discernible genitalic forms occur in the state. An

EVANS: VALGUS SETICOLLIS 49

Fig. 5. Adult male of Valgus canaliculatus on New Jersey tea, Ceanothus americanus L. ©2007, Arthur V. Evans

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).

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). I 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. I 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

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.

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.

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 50-52 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

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 in 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 1s 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 Wildlife 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: NOTAPICTINUS AURIVILLIT 51

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 BuhImann; 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

* iv .

Me @ “in me . ™ a Ml ie x bee oO Bee Oe fey “Aape at is. \

e snOler: Ain 2 a?)

’ ent)

Xe Bb"

aor a

990°

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

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 1s overlooked as diagnostic, the most similar local relative appears to be Neuroctenus, which 1s, however, easily distinguished by the presence of a sharp submarginal ridge between the stigmata and lateral edges of the sterna.

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

52 BANISTERIA

Fig. 3. Distributional records for Notapictinus 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

NO. 33, 2009

Ziesk (FSCA) for searching through aradid material under their care for additional records for Notapictinus. Most of the Virginia specimens came to VMNH 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 Jn T. J. Henry & 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 53

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Banisteria, Number 33, page 53 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

AN OBSCURE SAWFLY, KERITA FIDALA ROSS (HYMENOPTERA: TENTHREDINIDAE), NEW TO VIRGINIA, A LEAFMINER- OF VIRGINIA BLUEBELL, MERTENSIA VIRGINICA (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 the 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, 77° 09.4' W, 29 March-25 April 2007, D. Smith, Malaise trap (12), same except 12 March-2 April 2008 (1°), 3-16 April 2008 (39); USA: Virginia, Fairfax Co., Turkey Run, west trap, 38° 57.968'N, 77° 09.674'W, 13-28 March 2007, D. Smith, Malaise trap (12), same except 3-16 April 2008 (19); USA: Virginia, Fairfax Co., Turkey Run, stream trap, 38° 57.931'N, 77° 09.70'W, 3-16 April 2008, D. Smith, Malaise trap (19). 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 the 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: Tenthredinidae). 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

54 BANISTERIA

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 54-55 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

A RANGE EXTENSION OF THE HISPID COTTON RAT, SIGMODON HISPIDUS, 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 occidentalis, Rubus 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 cooper'), White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), 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),

NO. 33, 2009

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 warming 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 58

200 Kilometers

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" 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 SCicnee was 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

56 BANISTERIA

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 56-57 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

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

NO. 33, 2009

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 the 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 bonariensis), \antana (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 lutea) 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 (U/mus rubra).

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 57

ade)

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 m 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 (Uris germanica). The caterpillars were feeding on yellow passionvine, several small plants of which grew in the iris bed and on the adjacent chainlink fence. A single 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-Virginia Beach area, suggest that 2008 was a banner year for Gulf Fritillaries 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 (Lepidoptera) 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

58 BANISTERIA

Banisteria, Number 33, pages 58-60 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society

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 lugubris (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 in a drift fence- pitfall trap at the Elm Hill State Game Management Area, Mecklenburg County, in 1995.

Panorpa lugubris (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. (Swederus).

Female mourning scorpionfly, Panorpa lugubris

NO. 33, 2009

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. /ugubris 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. /ugubris were located in the sandhills of the 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. /ugubris were encountered on the same day in a section of the BEP known to local land managers as “burn unit 2” (N36.82161° W76.85197°). This area (Fig. 2) was subjected to a prescribed burn 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 dumosa (Andres) Torr. & A. Gray, blue huckleberry, G. jfrondosa (L.) Torr. & A. Gray ex Torr.), and sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia L.).

Panorpa lugubris was observed in the 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 (Liguidambar styraciflua 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. /ugubris, six specimens of P. gracilis Carpenter, one of P. virginica Banks, and 16 of

SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 59

ay pe : a Nex pat Sue Baits ae

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. /ugubris until 1000 h when the temperatures had warmed 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 their sides (see Sherman, 1908).

The height of P. /ugubris activity was between 1000 and 1100 h. By noon the insects 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 burn 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. /ugubris specimen, the river bench along the Blackwater River yielded 15 specimens of P. gracilis. From the taller, shrubby vegetation around burn unit 2 and along the road, 18 examples of P. rufescens were taken. As before, many individuals of all species, especially P. /ugubris, 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, Quercus falcata Michx. However, the actual habitat where P. /ugubris 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 10