Category Archives: EntoNotes

Green islands – safe and healthy in a sea of death

Those of you whom work in forests, will, I am sure, be familiar with the term “green island”.  To a forester or forest entomologist, a green island is a clump of trees that have, for some reason or other, survived the ravages of an insect outbreak.  The earliest reference I can find to this phenomenon is in a 1927 paper by the German myrmecologist Hermann Eidmann (1897-1949), who described them as green oases, or, as the paper was written in German, more correctly, “grüne Oasen” (Eidmann, 1927).

Red wood ants helping maintain a “grüne Oasen”   green oasis” in a German pine forest (Eidman, 1927).

As well as “farming aphids” to obtain sugar from their honeydew, ants also have a similar mutualistic relationship with plants that give them a sugary reward to protect them from herbivorous insects, except those that also provide the ants with sugar (Janzen 1966; Bentley, 1977).  The mutualisms can be very sophisticated. In Michigan, the North American black cherry, Prunus serotina, times nectar production from its extra-floral nectaries to attract the ant Formica obscuripes  when the larvae of its major herbivore, the eastern tent caterpillar, Malacosoma americanum are at their most vulnerable (Tilman, 1978).  Trees that are protected have greatly reduced levels of herbivory. When more than one ant colony is involved, rather than single trees being protected, a group of trees can be saved from defoliation, and form a green island.  The areas covered by these green islands can be quite extensive, for example two ant colonies of the ant  Formica polyctena were enough to protect pine trees from the nun moth Lymantria monacha in Sweden within a 45 m diameter around the colonies (0.16 ha) (Wellenstein, 1980) and green islands of up to 3 ha have been reported (Eidmann, 1927).

Left – canopy of trees near ant nests, on the right, trees not close to ant nests Wellenstein (1980)

 

In Finland, one colony of the ant F. aquilonia is enough to create subarctic mountain birch (Betula pubescens), green islands of up to 0.12 ha in area (Laine & Niemelä, 1980).

Green islands attributed to the activity of the ant Formica aquilonia in subarctic Finland (Laine & Niemela, 1980).

It would seem that the case for the ants protecting the trees against defoliating herbivores and being the cause for the green islands is very convincing.  Tom White, never one to avoid a controversy, disagreed. He suggested that it was the nest building activities of the ants that were the cause for the green islands, the refuse dumps provide higher concentrations of nutrients that the roots of surrounding trees can access and additionally soil moisture conditions are improved, both these factors encouraging more vigorous growth in those trees close to ant nests, making them less palatable to herbivores (White, 1985).   The Finnish team responded to this with some additional data and arguments defending their hypothesis (Niemelä & Laine, 1986) and there the matter rested, for a while at least. Not satisfied with their post hoc response, the Finns came up with, to me at any rate, a very convincing field experiment where they showed that soil nitrogen did not vary significantly with distance from ant nests and that birch leaf nitrogen content and moth larval growth rates and survival were also not affected by distance from ant nests (Karhu, 1998; Karhu & Neuvonen, 1998), indicating that the green islands were indeed, due to predation by the ants and not improved tree nutrition.

Soil nitorgen in realtion to distance from ant colonies (Karhu & Neuvonen, 1998).

You might think that this would be the last word, but you would be wrong 🙂  The Karhu and Neuvonen paper, is, in the journal, followed by a “comment” paper by no less a person than Tom White (White 1998) in which he disputes in no uncertain terms, their interpretation of their new data.  Matthias Schaefer, the then Editor of Oecologia, felt that some sort of explanation was needed and added a final note to the saga, which in itself makes very interesting reading.  I get the feeling that there were some strong emotions involved 🙂

Pouring oil on troubled water – wise words from Editor-in-Chief Mathias Schaefer

 

References

Bentley, B.L. (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 8, 407-427.

Eidmann, H. (1927) Weitre Beobachtungen über den Nutzen de roten Waldameise.  Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, 3, 49-51.

Janzen D.H. (1966) Coevolution of mutualism between ants and Acacias in Central America. Evolution, 20, 249-275.

Kaiser, W., Huguet, E., Casas, J., Commin, C. & Giron, D. (2010)  Plant green-island phenotype induced by leaf-miners is mediated by bacterial symbionts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 2311-2319.

Karhu, K.J. (1998) Effects of ant exclusion during outbreaks of a defoliator and a sap-sucker on birch. Ecological Entomology, 23, 185-194Kah.

Karhu, K.J. & Neuvonen, S. (1998) Wood ants and a geometrid defoliator of birch: predation outweighs beneficial effects through the host plant. Oecologia, 113, 509-516.

Laine, K.J. & Niemela, P. (1980) The influence of ants on the survival of mountain birches during an Oporinia autumnata (Lep., Geometridae) outbreak. Oecologia, 47, 39-42.

Niemela, P. & Laine, K.J. (1986) Green islands – predation not nutrition. Oecologia, 68, 476-478.

Tilman, D. (1978) Cherries, ants and tent caterpillars: timing of nectar production in relation in relation to susceptibility of caterpillars to ant predation. Ecology, 59, 686-692.

Wellenstein, G. (1980) Auswirkung hügelbauender Waldameisen der Formica rufa‐Gruppe auf forstschädliche Raupen und das Wachstum der Waldbäume. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 89, 145-157.

White, T.C.R. (1985) Green islands – nutrition not predation – an alternative hypothesis. Oecologia, 67, 455-456.

White, T.C.R. (1998) Green islands – still not explained.  Oecologia, 113, 517-518.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under EntoNotes

“Insectageddon” – bigger headlines, more hype, but where’s the funding?

Unless you have been hibernating in a deep, dark cave or on another planet, you can hardly have missed the ‘insectageddon’ media frenzy that hit the UK (and elsewhere) on Monday (11th February).

This time the stimulus was a review paper outlining the dramatic decline in insect numbers, from two Australian authors (Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhus, 2019).  Their paper, based on 73 published studies on insect decline showed that globally, 41% of insect species are in decline, which is more than twice that reported for vertebrates.  They also highlighted that a third of all insect species in the countries studied are threatened with extinction.  Almost identical figures were reported some five years ago (Dirzo et al., 2014), but somehow escaped the attention of the media.

I’m guessing that a clever press release by either the authors’ university or from the publisher of Biological Conservation set the ball rolling and the appearance of the story in The Guardian newspaper on Monday morning got the rest of the media in on the act.

The headline that lit the fuse – The Guardian February 11th  2019

The inside pages

A flurry of urgent phone calls and emails from newspapers, radio stations and TV companies resulted as the various news outlets tried to track down and convince entomologists to put their heads above the parapet and comment on the story and its implications for mankind.  I was hunted down mid-morning by the BBC, and despite not being in London and recovering from a bad cold, was persuaded to appear live via a Skype call.  A most disconcerting experience as although I was visible to the audience and interviewer, I was facing a blank screen, so no visual cues to respond to.  According to those who saw it, it was not a disaster 🙂  Entomologists from all over the country, including at least three of my former students, were lured into TV and radio studios and put through their entomological paces.

Me, former student Tom Oliver (University of Reading), Blanca Huertas (NHM) and former student Andy Salisbury (RHS Wisley), getting our less than fifteen minutes of fame 🙂

As far as I know, we all survived relatively unscathed and the importance of insects (and entomologists) for world survival was firmly established; well for a few minutes anyway 🙂

It is the ephemeral nature of the media buzz that I want to discuss first.  Looking at the day’s events you would be forgiven that the idea of an ecological Armageddon brought about by the demise of the world’s insects was something totally new.   If only that were so.

Three years of insect decline in the media

The three years before the current outbreak of media hype have all seen similar stories provoking similar reactions, a brief flurry of media attention and expressions of concern from some members of the public and conservation bodies and then a deafening silence. Most worrying of all, there has been no apparent reaction from the funding bodies or the government, in marked contrast to the furore caused, by what was, on a global scale, a relatively minor event, Ash Die Back.  Like now, I responded to each outcry by writing a blog post, so one in 2016, one in 2017 and another last year.

So, will things be different this time, will we see governments around the world, after all this is a global problem, setting up urgent expert task forces and siphoning research funding into entomology? Will we see universities advertising lots of entomologically focused PhD positions?  I am not hopeful. Despite three years of insectageddon stories, the majority of ecology and conservation-based PhDs advertised by British universities this autumn, were concerned with vertebrates, many based in exotic locations, continuing the pattern noted many years ago. In terms of conservation and ecology it seems that funding is not needs driven but heavily influenced by glamorous fur and feathers coupled with exotic field sites (Clarke & May, 2002).

The paper that caused the current media outbreak (Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhus, 2019) although hailed by the media as new research, was actually a review of 73 papers published over the last several years.  It is not perfect, for one thing the search terms used to find the papers used in the review included the term decline, which means that any papers that did not show evidence of a decline over the last forty years were not included e.g. Shortall et al. (2009; Ewald et al. (2015), both of  which showed that in some insects and locations, populations were not declining, especially if the habitats that they favoured were increasing, e.g. forests, a point I raised in my 2018 post.  Another point of criticism is that the geographic range of the studies was rather limited, almost entirely confined to the northern hemisphere (Figure 1). Some commentators have also criticised the analysis, pointing out that it was

Figure 1. Countries from which data were sourced (Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhus, 2019).

not, as stated by the authors, a true meta-analysis but an Analysis of Variance.  Limitations there may be, but the take home message that should not be ignored, is that there are many insect species, especially those associated with fresh water, that are in steep decline.  The 2017 paper showing a 75% reduction in the biomass of flying insects in Germany (Hallmann et al., 2017), also attracted some criticism, mainly because although the data covered forty years, not all the same sites were sampled every year.  I reiterate, despite the shortcomings of both these papers, there are lots of studies that show large declines in insect abundance and they should not be taken lightly, or as some are doing on Twitter, dismissing them as hysterical outpourings with little basis in fact.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-11/insect-mass-extinction-headlines-do-not-tell-whole-story-and-risk-undermining-threat-of-declining-numbers/

It is extremely difficult, especially with the lack of funding available to entomologists to get more robust data.  The Twitter thread below from Alex Wild, explains the problems facing entomologists much more clearly and lucidly than I could.  Please read it carefully.

Masterly thread by Alex Wild – millions of insects, millions of ways to make a living and far too few entomologists

I am confident that I speak for most entomologists, when I say how frustrated we feel about the way ecological funding is directed.  Entomologists do get funding, but a lot of it is directed at crop protection. Don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing, and something I have benefited from throughout my career.  Modern crop protection aims to reduce pesticide use by ecological means, but we desperately need to train more entomologist of all hues and to persuade governments and grant bodies to fund entomological research across the board, not just bees, butterflies and dragonflies, but also the small, the overlooked and the non-charismatic ones  (Leather & Quicke, 2010).  A positive response by governments across the world is urgently needed.  Unfortunately what causes a government to take action is hard to understand as shown by how swiftly the UK government responded to the globally trivial impact of Ash Die Back but continues to ignore the call for a greater understanding of the significance of and importance of insects, insectageddon notwithstanding.

I put the blame for lack of entomological funding in the UK on the way that universities have been assessed in the UK over the last twenty years or so (Leather, 2013). The Research Excellence Framework and the way university senior management responded to it has had a significant negative effect on the recruitment of entomologists to academic posts and this has of course meant that entomological teaching and awareness of the importance of  insects to global health has decreased correspondingly.

I very much hope that this current outbreak of media hype will go some way to curing the acute case of entomyopia that most non-entomologists suffer from. I  fear however, that unless the way we teach biology in primary and secondary schools changes, people will continue to focus on the largely irrelevant charismatic mega-fauna and not the “little things that run the world”

Perhaps if publicly supported conservation organisations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature concentrated on invertebrates a bit more that would help.  A good start would be to remove the panda, an animal that many of us consider ecologically irrelevant from their logo, and replace it with an insect. Unlikely I know, but if they must have a mammal as their flagship species, how about sloths, at least they have some ‘endemic’ insect species associated with them 🙂

References

Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R. & Dirzo, R. (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signalled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, 114, E6089-E6096.

Clark, J.A. & May, R.M. (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science, 297, 191-192.

Dirzo, R., Young, H.S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N.J.B., & Collen, B. (2014) Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science, 345, 401-406.

Ewald, J., Wheatley, C.J., Aebsicher, N.J., Moreby, S.J., Duffield, S.J., Crick, H.Q.P., & Morecroft, M.B. (2015) Influences of extreme weather, climate and pesticide use on invertebrates in cereal fields over 42 years. Global Change Biology, 21, 3931-3950.

Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Müller, A., Sumser, H., Hörren, T., Goulson, D. & de Kroon, H. (2017) More than 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. 12 (10):eo185809.

Leather, S.R. (2013) Institutional vertebratism hampers insect conservation generally; not just saproxylic beetle conservation. Animal Conservation, 16, 379-380.

Leather, S.R. & Quicke, D.L.J. (2010) Do shifting baselines in natural history knowledge threaten the environment? Environmentalist, 30, 1-2.

Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhus, K.A.G. (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation, 232, 8-27.

Shortall, C.R., Moore, A., Smith, E., Hall, M.J., Woiwod, I.P., & Harrington, R. (2009) Long-term changes in the abundance of flying insects. Insect Conservation & Diversity, 2, 251-260.

21 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes

Water butterflies and hairy wings – Caddisfly names around the world

“..great variety of cados worms.. “ Thomas Mouffet (1658)  Theatorum Insectorum

Adult Limnephilus caddisfly perched on top of its case-bearing larva.

Despite aphids being my favourite insect group, I have had rather a soft spot for caddisflies since I was about ten years old when I discovered that if I very carefully removed their larval cases and provided them with coloured sand, they would spin a technicoloured replacement 😊

A variety of caddis cases

I have, in the intervening years, moved on somewhat from those early experiments and largely left the wonderful world of freshwater entomology behind, except when I take students pond-dipping and give my once a year lecture on aquatic insects. I’m not going to say much about caddisflies because I am not an expert, but for those of you not overly familiar with these fascinating insects a little bit of background information may be useful.  Unless you are a caddisfly specialist most people don’t give them much thought and if they do know anything about them, it is probably limited to the fact that they are aquatic and live inside a case.

Most people probably wouldn’t recognise an adult caddisfly if they saw one and in my experience those people who do notice them, usually think they are some sort of moth.  This is actually a sensible guess as evolutionarily speaking Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are very closely related and are in the same Superorder, the Amphiesmenoptera.  Trichoptera literally translates as hairy wings, Lepidoptera as scaly wings and many adult caddisflies do look remarkably similar to micro-moths so it is an easy mistake to make.

Spot the difference – caddisflies on the left, Lepidoptera on the right

The majority of caddisflies have aquatic larvae, although a few have become completely terrestrial and spend their lives foraging in damp leaf litter and hiding in bark crevices.

Wingless female of the terrestrial caddisfly Enoicyla pusilla; doing her best to not look like a caddisfly. http://www.wbrc.org.uk/worcrecd/33/Green_Harry_7–Westwood_Brett–Sightings_of_adult_.html

Very generalised life cycle of a caddisfly.  The eggs are laid in water, on aquatic vegetation or nearby trees. On hatching, the larvae go through several (usual five) moults before pupating and the adults emerge in spring or early summer.

Caddisflies are probably the most successful of the aquatic insects. Data from stream surveys frequently list as many species of Trichoptera, or caddisflies, as species of Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Odonata (dragon and Damselflies) and Plecoptera (Stonefleis) combined (Mackay & Wiggins, 1979).  Their success can be put down to their use of silk and ability to exploit a range of different aquatic habitats.  They can be described as lotic, those that live in running water, i.e. streams and rivers, or lentic, those that live in ponds and lakes.  Some of the ‘ponds’ can be very temporary, puddles for example, or contained in plants, e.g. Bromeliads. Those that live in running water are well supplied with fresh aerated water, but those living in ponds and pools have to make their own currents to pass ‘fresh’ water over their gills, to avoid suffocating.

Sedentary caddis larvae live in fixed shelters and use silk ‘fishing nets’ to catch their food.  If they live in fast flowing streams, their nets are coarse and tight.  Those living in slow flowing streams use baggy fine-grained nets.

Caddisfly fishing net https://www.flickr.com/photos/janhamrsky/5979065987/in/photostream/

Some caddisfly larvae are free-living foragers with portable cases. They also use silk, leaving a thread behind them, just as many other insects do, to attach themselves to the substrate so they are not floated downstream willy-nilly.  If they live in fast flowing streams their cases are streamlined making it easier for them to move against the current and less likely to be swept downstream.

I had originally started this article as a companion piece to my articles on the naming of thrips, aphids, cockroaches, and most recently, ladybirds, so I guess I had better get on with it. The origin of the word “caddis” is unclear, but according to Wikipedia it dates to at least as far as Izaak Walton’s The Compleat Angler (1653), in which “cod-worms or caddis” are mentioned as being used as bait. Thomas Muffet (Moufet) used the term cados worm in his book Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum which was written earlier (he died in 1604) but not published until 1658.  The term cadyss was being used in the fifteenth century for silk or cotton cloth, and “cadice-men” were itinerant vendors of such materials, but a direct connection between these words and the insects has not yet been established.  What about other languages, what attributes of the caddisfly have non-English speakers latched on to describe these fascinating insects?

Bulgarian – ручейник (rucheinik), which Google Translate will also tell you is rhinoceros 😊

Catalan – Frigànies which also translates as frigates, an indication of the association with water?

Czech – potočníky = stream legs

Dutch – kokerjuffer – the larval form, Schietmotten (pl) Singular: Schietmot – directly translates as shooting moths. Interestingly (or not), dragonfly is waterjuffer.

Finnish – Vesiperhonen – water butterflies, again reflecting the close resemblance to Lepidoptera; Finns call moths night butterflies, yöperhoset

French – Trichoptères – surprisingly not very flowery at all, but the larvae are more satisfyingly described as  à fourreau ou porte bois which roughly translates as with a sheath or wooden door

German – die Köcherfliege – also Frühlingsfliege, Fruhlings = spring, fliege = fly, Kocher = quiver as in arrows which given the shape of some of the cases is quite apt and the larvae are known as Köcherfliegenlarven

Icelandic – Vorflugur – Spring fly, reflecting the time of year when most of the adults emerge.

Polish – Chruścik – the wording on the stamp seems to translate as swamp yellow

Portuguese – o mosca d’água, The water fly

Spanish – el frígano similar to the Catalán and perhaps reflecting their association with wáter?

Swedish – Nattsländan –Natt = night and slandan = dragonfly?

 

Caddis case jewlery – if only I had been a bit more entrepreneurially  minded….

And finally, for those of you interested in exotic cuisine, and a non poultry alternative to red meat; in Japan caddisfly larvae are called Zazamushi and eaten as a delicacy.  They are so popular that they are commercially farmed (Cesard et al., 2015).

Many thanks to Daniela Atanasova, Gia Aradottir, Hannah Davis, Luisa Ferreira Nunes and Marlies vaz Nunes for help with the Bulgarian, Icelandic, German, Portuguese and Dutch respectively. They are much more reliable than Google Translate.

References

Cesard, N., Komatsu, S. & Iwata, A. (2015)  Processing insect abundance: trading and fishing of zazamushi in Central Japan (Nagano Prefecture, Honshū Island). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11:78.

Mackay, R.J. & Wiggins, G.B.  (1979) Ecological diversity in Trichoptera.  Annual Review of Entomology, 24, 185-208

 

9 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes

Meat eating moths

This post is dedicated with thanks to Entomology Uncensored which gave me the idea for this post.

Unless you believe that the Very Hungry Caterpillar’s diet is truly representative of what a lepidopteran larva eats, you will, if asked, almost certainly answer that caterpillars eat plants and that the adults, if they do feed, do so on nectar. Although this is true for the majority of Lepidoptera, there are a couple of exceptions that have opted for a very different life style. Some of you may already now be saying to yourselves, “Aha what about the clothes moth? That doesn’t eat plants, it eats clothes doesn’t it?”, and you would be right. The larvae of Tinea pellionella, the Case Bearing Clothes Moth, are not plant eaters, they make a living eating wool, fur and feathers among other keratinous* delicacies (Cheema, 1956).

Tinea pellionella – clearly demonstrating why it is called the case-bearing clothes moth

There are some moth species that have gone a step further in adopting an animal-based diet, feeding directly on living animals and not on their cast-off skins and horns. In 1879 the American entomologist John Comstock (1849-1931) while studying a colony of the cottony maple scale Pulvinaria innumerabilis, was one day surprised to find a caterpillar busily eating his study organisms.  Rather than losing his temper and killing the caterpillar, he reared it through to adulthood and realised that this was a species new to science, which he named Dakruma coccidivora (Constock, 1979), now renamed Laetilia coccidivora and recognised as a useful biological control agent (e.g. Goeden et al., 1967; Mifsud, 1997; Cruz-Rodriguez et al., 2016).  Perhaps it had evaded being spotted by less keen-eyed entomologists from its habit of living underneath the scale insects it eats (Howard, 1895).

The hidden life style of Laetilia coccidivora as described by Howard (1895)

Laetilia coccidivora busy eating prickly pear scale insects

Less deadly to its host, but no less of a carnivore, is the moth Epipomponia nawai.  This, and all the other members of its family, thirty-two in total, are all ectoparasites of Hemiptera, especially cicadas and planthoppers (Jeon et al., 2002).  The larvae attach themselves to the abdomen of their host and feed on the juicy flesh underneath the cuticle.  Once ready to pupate they spin a silk thread, drop off their host and spin a cocoon on the bark of the tree their host has fed on (Liu et al., 2018).  The adults do not fed and only live long enough to mate and lay eggs.  For those of you who love a mystery, no-one knows how the moth larvae find their cicada hosts. One possibility is that they might use the cicada song as a cue but this has, so far, not been proven (Liu et al., 2018).

Larva of Epipomponia nawai parasitizing an adult cicada (Liu et al., 2018).

An even more striking example of predatory behaviour in moth larvae is that shown by members of an otherwise herbivorous Genus of Geometrid (looper) moths, Eupithecia.  The Eupithecia have a worldwide distribution, but in Hawaii, all but two of the species are ambush predators Montgomery, 1983).  The caterpillars show typical looper behaviour, remaining motionless pretending to be a twig or leaf, depending on their colour.  When a potential prey item bumps into the back of the caterpillar it rears backwards and catches the victim between its elongated and spiny thoracic legs and then chomps happily on its juicy meal.  It is thought that the absence of praying mantises on the Hawaiian Islands allowed the ancestors of the original Eupithecia that colonised the islands to fill their empty niche (Montgomery, 1983; Mironov, 2014).  The caterpillars are not fussy about what they eat, as long as they can grab and keep hold of it and it doesn’t fight back.  They have been recorded as eating flies, braconid wasps, leafhoppers, other Lepidopteran larvae, crickets and even spiders and ants (Montgomery, 1983, Sugiura, 2010).

Eupithecia orichloris attacking and eating an ant (Sugiura 2010)

Last in my list of carnivorous Lepidoptera and perhaps the most surprising are the Vampire Moths.  The phenomenon of “puddling” by butterflies to obtain sodium is well-known (e.g. Boggs & Jackson, 1991) and can be a very attractive sight.

A sight to enjoy – mud puddling https://www.earthtouchnews.com/in-the-field/backyard-wildlife/mud-puddling-the-butterflys-dirty-little-secret/

Somewhat less attractive behaviour is seen in a number of moth species from the Noctuid, Geometrid and Pyralid families which satisfy their desire for Sodium by feeding as adults from the tears and pus of mammals, including humans (Bänziger & Büttiker, 1969).

The Noctuid moth Lobocraspis griseifusa sucking lachrymal fluid (tears) from a human’s eye.  The author, whose eye this is, rather gruesomely asks us to “note the deep penetration of the proboscis between eye and eye lid” Bänziger & Büttiker (1969).

Some Noctuid moths have taken this a step further, perhaps a step too far. Moths of the Genus Calyptra, have very strong proboscises which allow them to feed through the skin of fruit, even oranges, hence their common name, fruit-piecing moths.  A few species however, have adopted a somewhat more interesting diet and have developed a taste for fresh mammalian blood, again, including that of humans, which they suck directly from their victims (Bänziger, 1968).  They are, of course, known as the Vampire Moths!

Calyptra thalictri Vampire Moth in action – note the barbed proboscis

Happy Halloween!

References

Bänziger, H. (1968) Prelimnary observations on a skin-piercing blood-sucking moth (Calyptra eustrigata) (Hmps.) (Lep., Noctuidae)) in Malaya.  Bulletin of Entomological Research, 58, 159-165.

Bänziger, H. & Büttiker, W. (1969) Records of eye-frequenting Lepidoptera from man. Journal of Medical Entomology, 6, 53-58.

Boggs, C.L. & Jackson, L.A. (1991) Mud puddling by butterflies is not a simple matter. Ecological Entomology, 16, 123-127.

Cheema, P.S. (1956) Studies on the Bionomics of the Case-bearing Clothes Moth, Tinea pellionella(L.). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 47, 167-182.

Comstock, J.H. (1879) On a new predaceous Lepidopterous insects.  The North American Entomologist, 1, 25-30.

Cruz-Rodriguez, J.A., Gonzalez-Machoro, E., Gonzales, A.A.V., Ramirez, M.L.R. & Lara, F.M. 92016) Autonomous biological control of Dactylopius opuntia (Hemiptera: Dactlyliiopidae) in a prickly pear plantation with ecological management.  Environmental Entomology, 45, 642-648.

Goeden, R.D., Fleschner, C.A. & Ricker, D.W. (1967) Biological control of prickly pear cacti on Santa Cruz Island, California. Hilgardia, 38, 579-606.

Howard, L.O. (1895) An injurious parasite.  Insect Life, 7, 402-404.

Jeon, J.B., Kim, B.T., Tripotin, P. & Kim, J.I. (2002) Notes on a cicada parasitic moth in Korea (Lepidoptera: Epipyropidae). Korean Journal of Entomology, 32, 239-241.

Liu, Y., Yang, Z., Zhang, G., Yi, Q. & Wei, C. (2018) Cicada parasitic moths from China (Lepidoptera: Epipyropidae): morphology, identity, biology, and biogeography.  Systematics & Biodiversity, 16, 417-427.

Mifsud, D. (1997) Biological control in the Maltese Island – past initaitives and future programmes.  Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 27, 77-84.

Mironov, V.G. (2014) Geometrid moths of the Genus Eupithecia Curtis, 1825 (Lepidoptera, geometridae): prerequisites and characteristic features of high species diversity. Entomological Review, 94, 105-127.

Montgomery, S.L. (1983) Carnivorous caterpillars: the behaviour, biogeography and conservation of Eupithecia (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in the Hawaiian Islands. GeoJournal, 7, 549-556.

Sugiura, S. (2010) Can Hawaiian carnivorous caterpillars attack invasive ants or vice versa? Nature Precedings

Leave a comment

Filed under EntoNotes

Little and Large – ENTO18 at Edgehill University

This year ENTO18 was hosted by Edgehill University, which until I met Anne Oxbrough at INTECOL in 2013, I had thought was in London 🙂 It is actually in Ormskirk, for those of you not familiar with the geography of the North of England, about 19 km as the crow flies, or 26 km by road from Liverpool. I drove up with my colleague Heather Campbell and we were both immediately impressed by the campus; even the extremely large car park took on an eerie beauty at night.

Edgehill University Campus – water features and greenery and a very large car park

The greenery, much of it just planted, also meant that there were some interesting insects to find such as the Alder beetle Agelastica alni, which up until a few years ago was considered extinct in the UK.  There was also very obvious vine weevil damage around the campus.

The Alder Leaf Beetle – very much not extinct

As you might expect with the large amount of water present, there were also a lot of ducks and other water birds which meant that one had to be careful where one trod.  The campus also boasted some interesting sculptures including pig and a goat, the significance of which escaped me.

Zoological sculptures, sadly not insects 🙂

The theme of the conference was “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and sessions were based around the Royal Entomological Society’s journals.

A great set of journals, especially the one with the red cover

The talks were varied and almost without exception, excellent.  Anne Oxbrough and her team had obviously done a great job in attracting a stellar cast both in the choice of keynote speakers and the shorter, but no less important, talks.

As usual, events like this don’t need a lot of text, the pictures tell the story.

Just some of the great keynote talks – note the presence of honorary insects

Some of my favourite short talks, including a couple by former students and another honorary insect subject

An unsolved conference mystery – why was this vine weevil wearing a coat? Photo by one of my former MSc students, Katy Dainton

One of my favourite talks

 

Entomological fashion icons

The traditional ceilidh – there are always some who sit and watch

Our new President, Chris Thomas FRS, never short of words especially with a glass of wine in his hand

Great to see one of my former MSc students, Liam Crowley, win the prize for the best student talk. Archie Murchie handing over the cheque.

Congratulations to two of the student essay winners, James Fage and Maggie Gill, both on the Harper Adams University MSc course.

 

 

An excellent conference dinner, although the vegetable terrine starter  did not receive universal approbation 🙂

The very large deck chair!  Entomologists never really grow up 🙂

Some personal highlights – meeting my beard twin, Mike Kaspari, a garish contribution to the entomological tee-shirt competition (I’m not sure there actually was one) and succumbing to the lure of the chair 🙂

I missed this but it looks fantastic – one of the post-conference workshops

Many thanks to Anne Oxbrough and her team and of course the Royal Entomological Society team, Kirsty Whiteford, Luke Tilley and my former student Fran Sconce – it was a great conference.

And finally, please support this great initiative organised by another of my former MSc students, Ashleigh Whiffin with the help of Matthew Esh and Richard Wright.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized

Global Insect Extinction – a never ending story

I have had an unexpectedly busy couple of weeks talking about declines in insect populations.  Back in November of last year I wrote a blog about the sudden media interest in “Insect Armageddon” and followed this up with a more formal Editorial in Annals of Applied Biology at the beginning of the year (Leather, 2018).  I mused at the time if this was yet another media ‘storm in a teacup’ but it seems that the subject is still attracting attention.  I appeared on television as part of TRT World’s Roundtable programme and was quoted quite extensively in The Observer newspaper on Sunday last talking about insect declines since my student days 🙂 At the same time, as befits something that has been billed as being global, a similar story, featuring another veteran entomologist appeared in the New Zealand press.

The TV discussion was quite interesting, the panel included Nick Rau from Friends of the Earth, Lutfi Radwan, an academic turned organic farmer, Manu Saunders from Ecology is Not a Dirty Word and me.  If they had hoped for a heated argument they were out of luck, we were all pretty much in agreement; yes insects did not seem to be as abundant as they had once been, and this was almost certainly a result of anthropogenic factors, intensive agriculture, urbanisation and to a lesser extent climate change.  Unlike some commentators who firmly point the finger at the use of pesticides as the major cause of the declines reported, we were more inclined to towards the idea of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss.  We also agreed that a big problem is a lack of connection with Nature by large sections of the population, and not just those under twenty.  We also felt very strongly that governments should be investing much more into research in this area and that we desperately need more properly replicated and designed long-term studies to monitor the undeniable changes that are occurring.  I had, in my Editorial and an earlier blog post, mentioned this point and lamented the paucity of such information, so was pleasantly surprised, to receive a couple of papers from Sebastian Schuh documenting long-term declines in Hemiptera and Orthoptera in Germany (Schuh et al., 2012ab), although of course sad, to see yet more evidence for decreasing insect populations.

The idea that insects are in terminal decline has been rumbling on for some time; more than a decade ago Kelvin Conrad and colleagues highlighted a rapid decline in moth numbers (Conrad et al., 2006) and a few years later, Dave Brooks and colleagues using data from the UK  Environmental Change Network revealed a disturbing decline in the numbers of carabid beetles across the UK (Brooks et al., 2012).   In the same year (2012) I was asked to give a talk at a conference organised by the Society of Chemical Industry. Then, as now, I felt that pesticides were not the only factor causing the biodiversity crisis, but that agricultural intensification, habitat loss and habitat degradation were and are probably more to blame.  In response to this quote in the media at the time:

“British Insects in Decline

Scientists are warning of a potential ecological disaster following the discovery that Britain has lost around 7% of its indigenous insect species in just under 100 years.

A comparison with figures collected in 1904 have revealed that around 400 species are now extinct, including the black-veined white butterfly, not seen since 1912, the Essex emerald moth and the short-haired bumblebee. Many others are endangered, including the large garden bumblebee, the Fen Raft spider, which is only to be found in a reserve on the Norfolk/Suffolk border, and the once common scarlet malachite beetle, now restricted to just three sites.

Changes to the insects’ natural habitats have been responsible for this disastrous decline in numbers. From housing and industrial developments to single-crop farming methods, Britain’s countryside has become increasingly inhospitable to its native insects.”

I chose to talk about “Forest and woodland insects: Down and out or on the up?” I used data from that most valuable of data sets, the Rothamsted Insect Survey to illustrate my hypothesis that those insects associated with trees were either doing better or not declining, because of increased tree planting over the last fifty years.  As you can see from the slides from my talk, this does indeed seem to be the case with moths and aphids that feed on trees or live in their shade.  I also showed that the populations of the same species in northern Britain, where agriculture is less intensive and forests and woodlands more prevalent were definitely on the up, and this phenomenon was not just confined to moths and aphids.

Two tree aphids, one Drepanosiphum platanoidis lives on sycamore, the other Elatobium abietinum, lives on spruce trees; both are doing rather well.

Two more tree-dwelling aphids, one on European lime, the other on sycamore and maples, both doing very well.  For those of you unfamiliar with UK geography, East Craigs is in Scotland and Newcastle in the North East of England, Hereford in the middle and to the west, and Starcross in the South West, Sites 2, 1, 6 and 9 in the map in the preceding figure.

Two conifer feeding moth species showing no signs of decline.

On the up, two species, a beetle, Agrilus biguttatus perhaps due to climate change, and a butterfly, the Speckled Wood Pararge aegeria, due to habitat expansion and climate change?

It is important however, to remember that insect populations are not static, they vary from year to year, and the natural fluctuations in their populations can be large and, as in the case of the Orange ladybird, Halyzia sedecimguttata, take place over a several years, which is yet another reason that we need long-term data sets.

The Orange ladybird Halyzia sedecimguttata, a mildew feeder, especially on sycamore.

It is obvious, whether we believe that an ecological catastrophe is heading our way or not, that humans are having a marked effect on the biodiversity that keeps our planet in good working order and not just through our need to feed an ever-increasing population.  A number of recent studies have shown that our fixation with car ownership is killing billions of insects every year (Skórka et al., 2013; Baxter-Gilbert et al.,2015; Keilsohn et al., 2018) and that our fear of the dark is putting insects and the animals that feed on them at risk (Eccard et al.,  2018; Grubisic et al., 2018).  We have a lot to answer for and this is exacerbated by our growing disconnect from Nature and the insidious effect of “shifting baselines” which mean that succeeding generations tend to accept what they see as normal (Leather & Quicke, 2010, Soga & Gaston, 2018) and highlights the very real need for robust long-term data to counteract this dangerous and potentially lethal, World view (Schuh, 2012; Soga & Gaston, 2018).  Perhaps if research funding over the last thirty years or so had been targeted at the many million little things that run the World and not the handful of vertebrates that rely on them (Leather, 2009), we would not be in such a dangerous place?

I am, however, determined to remain hopeful.  As a result of the article in The Observer, I received an email from a gentleman called Glyn Brown, who uses art to hopefully, do something about shifting baselines.  This is his philosophy in his own words and pictures.

 

References

Baxter-Gilbert, J.H., Riley, J.L., Neufeld, C.J.H., Litzgus, J.D. & Lesbarrères, D.  (2015) Road mortality potentially responsible for billions of pollinating insect deaths annually. Journal of Insect Conservation, 19, 1029-1035.

Brooks, D.R., Bater J.E., Clark, S.J., Monteith, D.T., Andrews, C., Corbett, S.J., Beaumont, D.A. & Chapman, J.W. (2012)  Large carabid beetle declines in a United Kingdom monitoring network increases evidence for a widespread loss in insect biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1009-1019.

Conrad, K.F., Warren. M.S., Fox, R., Parsons, M.S. & Woiwod, I.P. (2006) Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biological Conservation, 132, 279-291.

Eccard, J.A., Scheffler, I., Franke, S. & Hoffmann, J. (2018) Off‐grid: solar powered LED illumination impacts epigeal arthropods. Insect Conservation & Diversity, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/icad.12303

Estay, S.A., Lima, M., Labra, F.A. & Harrington, R. (2012) Increased outbreak frequency associated with changes in the dynamic behaviour of populations of two aphid species. Oikos, 121, 614-622.

Grubisic, M., van Grunsven, R.H.A.,  Kyba, C.C.M.,  Manfrin, A. & Hölker, F. (2018) Insect declines and agroecosystems: does light pollution matter? Annals of Applied Biology,   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aab.12440

Keilsohn, W., Narango, D.L. & Tallamy, D.W. (2018) Roadside habitat impacts insect traffic mortality.  Journal of Insect Conservation, 22, 183-188.

Leather, S.R. (2009) Taxonomic chauvinism threatens the future of entomology. Biologist, 56, 10-13.

Leather, S.R. (2018) “Ecological Armageddon” –  more evidence for the drastic decline in insect numbers. Annals of Applied Biology, 172, 1-3.

Leather, S.R. & Quicke, D.J.L. (2010) Do shifting baselines in natural history knowledge therten the environment? The Environmentalist, 30, 1-2.

Schuh, S. (2012) Archives and conservation biology. Pacific Conservation Biology, 18, 223-224.

Schuh, S., Wesche, K. & Schaefer, M. (2012a) Long-term decline in the abundance of leafhoppers and planthoppers (Auchenorrhyncha) in Central Europe protected dry grasslands. Biological Conservation, 149, 75-83.

Schuh, S., Bock, J., Krause, B., Wesche, K. & Scgaefer, M. (2012b) Long-term population trends in three grassland insect groups: a comparative analysis of 1951 and 2009. Journal of Applied Entomology, 136, 321-331.

Skórka, P., Lenda, M., Moroń, D., Kalarus, K., & Tryjanowskia, P. (2013) Factors affecting road mortality and the suitability of road verges for butterflies. Biological Conservation, 159, 148-157.

Soga, M. & Gaston, K.J. (2018) Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences and implications. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 16, 222-230.

 

8 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes

Inspiring the next generation of entomologists?

In the last couple of weeks, I have had the privilege to be involved in two different types of outreach involving the younger generation.  The first was Skypeascientist, which I came across via a blog post by Amy Parachnowitsch on Small Pond Science. Amy was so enthusiastic about it that I couldn’t resist signing up, to what is a great idea; in their own words “Skype a Scientist matches scientists with classrooms around the world! Scientists will skype into the classroom for 30-60 minute Q and A sessions that can cover the scientist’s expertise or what it’s like to be a scientist. We want to give students the opportunity to get to know a “real scientist”, and this program allows us to reach students from all over the world without having to leave the lab!” My first, and so far only, but hopefully not my last match was with a small primary school in the Cumbrian fells.  We had a bit of trouble with getting Skype working to begin with, but once contact was established I was subjected to some great, and in a couple of instances, tough questioning; what are the mots abundant insects in the world for one.  We covered what I did, why I did it and how I got started, as well as questions like the what is the most dangerous insects in the world, had I found any new insects, where had I been to study insects,  and from one little joker “have you ever had ants in your pants?”.  All in all, a very positive and enjoyable session and one, that I hope will result in at least one future entomologist, although sadly, by the time he or she arrives on our soon to start new entomology undergraduate degree, I will be long retired

The second outreach event was the Big Bang Fair held in Birmingham.  I participated in this last year and having enjoyed it so much, volunteered to help on two of the days; the fact that one of the days coincided with a deadly boring committee meeting that I would have had to attend otherwise, was purely coincidental 😉 If you’ve never heard of it, the Big Bang UK Young Scientists and Engineers Fair is the UK’s largest celebration of science, technology, engineering and maths, for young people, and is the largest youth event in the UK. The fair takes place annually in March, and was first run in 2009.  We, the Royal Entomological Society and Harper Adams University, first attended it last year, when a former student of mine, Fran Sconce, now Deputy Director of Outreach at the Royal Entomological Society, convinced us that it was a great event with which to become involved and to showcase our favourite science, entomology.  Fran was in charge this year too and did a sterling job as did the many volunteer demonstrators, drawn from among our current MSc entomologists and former students now doing PhDs.  They all did a fantastic job and I was hugely impressed by them all.

This was one of those events where the pictures tell the story but there were a few things that struck me.  First, I was surprised at how many of the teenage boys were afraid and disgusted by the thought of touching insects, the girls on the other hand, in the main were easier to win over to the concept.  When I was a teenager, now many years ago, it was the other way around.  Too much time spent indoors playing ‘shoot them up’ games perhaps might explain this, but perhaps that is too simple a view? Conversely pre-teens of both sexes seemed to respond in the same way, and overall were much easier to convince that it was safe and enjoyable to hold an insect.  Sadly, this seems to point to some anti-insect (maybe even Nature) ‘conditioning’ happening in young people once they leave primary education. Second, I was very surprised by how many times I was asked if the insect would bite them and/or was dangerous.  As I pointed out many times, “Would I be holding them and offering to let you hold them if they did and were?”  That said, I was very pleased that out exhibit attracted so much positive attention.  Some children made a lot of return visits 😊

 Now over to the pictures, which show the diversity of the young and older folk who were entertained and enthralled by our hard-working insects and volunteers.

 

One of the current MSc Entomology students and also a Royal Entomological Society Scholar, Brinna Barlow, demonstrating that you don’t have to be old, bearded and male to be an entomologist.

The First Day Team – the old and the new

A hive of activity at the entomology exhibit

 

Swarms of future entomologists?

Visitors and volunteers buzzing with enthusiasm

Some of our volunteers, Entomology MSc students past and present

 

Our new Entomology lecturer, Heather Campbell, showing that although she is an ant specialist, leaf insects are also cool.

Yours truly demonstrating that quite a few entomologists are oldish, greyish, bearded and male, but remember, we were young once 🙂

Bearded and male, but definitely younger

And finally, without the enthusiasm, dedication, and hard work of Fran Sconce, and the willingness of our current MSc Entomologists to give up some of their exam revision time, our exhibit would have been much diminished.  It was a privilege to stand alongside them all.

The Director and star of the show, Fran Sconce, with one of her co-stars, both fantastic ambassadors for entomology.

 

Post script

This post has the dubious distinction of being the first one I have ever posted while at sea; the Dublin to Holyhead ferry, m.v. Ulysses to be precise 😊

8 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Teaching matters

A Swarm of Happy Verrallers – The Verrall Super 2018

Twice a year I swap my battered, but very comfortable Desert Boots, for my slightly less battered and much more uncomfortable

My Desert Boots looking even more battered than normal as they suffered somewhat during the recent visitation from the “Beast from the East”.

shiny black shoes; once for our annual graduation ceremony and secondly for the annual Verrall Supper.  I have written about the Verrall Supper more than once and for those of you foolish enough to want to read my previous accounts please click this link.  This year the Verrall Supper was held on March 7th at our now customary venue, The Rembrandt Hotel in South Kensington. There were 176 Verrallers this year, of which 32% were female, a very slight increase on last year; I still hope one day to achieve a 50:50 split. And I think that as there are a significant and growing number of younger female entomologists, that this is not a vain ambition.  Clive Farrell of the Entomological Club was the Master of Ceremonies, although he did have an alarming tendency to call me to the microphone when I was least expecting it.  Chris Lyal, in the absence of the Reverend Dr David Agassiz, and being the most Christian member of the Club, said the Grace and launched us into what was, for both meat eaters and vegetarians, an extremely well cooked and presented meal.

We welcomed several overseas members, Tom and Soo-Ok Miller from the USA, Stephen Clement (USA), Rufus Isaacs also from the USA (Michigan State), but an old friend from my Silwood Park days, Wan Jusoh from the National University of Singapore and a group of Italian forensic entomologists, Giorgio Giordani, Jennifer Pradelli,  Fabiola Tuccia and Stefano Vanin,  currently based at the University of Huddersfield.

I had two cameras with me, a new one which I have not quite got the hang of, and, as a spare, my old one, in case the new one got the better of me.  My camera work is never particularly good and at events where alcohol flows in profuse quantities, it does tend to get worse as the evening progresses 😊  That seems an appropriate juncture at which to drag out the old adage “A picture paints a thousand words” and let the cameras do the talking.

The Calm before the storm. Clive Farrrell and me getting ready for the swarm.

We were trying to be more organised this year and set up two registration desks in an attempt to cut down queuing time, but it turned out that excited, and possibly already slightly tipsy entomologists, are not very good at reading signs.

Clive Huggins, an unidentified back, Mike Hassell, Mike Singer and Camille Parmesan

Jim Hardie’s back, Richard Lane’s profile, Patricia Ash(?), Mary Cameron, Luke Tilley and Kirsty Whiteford’s back.

Wan Jusoh, Stephen Clement, Richard Harrington, Stuart Reynolds

Rufus Isaacs and Jim Hardie

 

A selection of entomological bling and accessories

Entomological posturing – names withheld to save embarrassment 😊

Former and present students of mine, Jasper Hubert, Fran Sconce and James Fage

The Verrall Secretary before the wine took effect with Tilly Collins and Jasper Hubert

Anna Platoni, Maya Leonard (M G Leonard, author of the Beetle Boy trilogy), Matthews Esh and Craig Perl

Two former students doing their annual pose – Ashleigh Whiffin and Craig Perl

The Happy Throng, Max Barclay in the foreground.

Linda Birkin, Soo-Ok and Tom Miller centre back and Stuart Reynolds.

The RHS Entomologists, Stephanie Bird, Anna Platoni, Andy Salisbury and Hayley Jones – photo ‘borrowed’ from a tweet by Andy Salisbury

Ashleigh Whiffin, Maya Leonard, Sally-Ann Spence and Zoe Simmons – photo ‘borrowed’ from Sally-Ann Spence’s Twitter account

Former Harper Adams University MSc Entomology students – Scott Dwyer, Christina Faulder, Liam Crowley, Ben Clunie and Ruth Carter – photo ‘borrowed’ from Scott Dwyer’s Twitter feed.

The new camera adding a special effect?

Not for the faint-hearted – there are some insects there!

Someone asked me what one called a group of entomologists, I answered swarm, hence the title of this post.  Someone else, Tilly Collins I think, suggested melee and another suggested that by the end of the evening the swarm was better termed an inebriation 😊

2 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, The Bloggy Blog, Uncategorized

My group is bigger, better and more beautiful than yours – The annual MSc Entomology trip to the Natural History Museum, London, 2018

This week we went on one of my favourite trips with the MSc Entomology students.  We visited the Natural History Museum in London.  We got off to fantastic start – all the students, and staff, arrived at the arranged time of 0645, something that had never happened before :-). The weather was fine, although at that time in the morning it was too dark to really appreciate it, and off we set.  I should have known that something would go wrong and sure enough the traffic was awful, and we had to make an unscheduled stop at a motorway service station to make sure our driver didn’t exceed his quota of working hours.

The now much delayed coach basking in the sunshine at a motorway service station.

Some of the MSc students; remaining cheerful despite the delay.

Forty-five minutes later we set off again and despite encountering a few further delays arrived safely, albeit almost an hour and a half late.  Luckily our host for the day Erica McAlister (@flygirlNHM) was ready and waiting and very efficiently got our visit back on track.  This year we were shown Colossal Coleoptera by Michael Geiser, Huge Hymenoptera by Nathalie Dale-Skey, Lustrous Lepidoptera by Alessandro Giusi and Deadly Diptera by Erica McAlister.   All our specialist hosts were, as you would expect, very keen to extol the virtues of their groups, and who can blame them.  I do the same with Awesome aphids 🙂 We are always very appreciative of the time and care that the NHM entomologists give us, especially as they have, sadly, recently had their numbers reduced.  Hopefully, as the realities of the problems associated with insect conservation and identification become even more apparent than they already are, we will see the appointment of more entomologists to this very much-needed global resource.  Here are some pictures to give you a flavour of the day.

Mouse mat for forensic entomologists 🙂

Alessandro Giusti waxing lyrical about the biggest, the smallest and the most beautiful Lepidoptera (moths as far as he is concerned).

 

The large and the small (a really bad photo by yours truly, I am still getting to grips with my new camera)

Natalie Dale-Skey extolling the virtues of Hymenoptera

They don’t have to be big and tropical to be beautiful – these are tiny but gorgeous

I do like a good wasp nest 🙂

Erica McAlister on the sex life of flies

The biggest flies in the world pretending to be wasps

A selection of flies

I was very impressed that the Crane fly still has all its legs attached.  I collected Crane flies for my undergraduate collection and had to resort to sticking their legs on to a piece of card.

Not quite the rarest fly in the World but as its larvae live inside rhinoceroses it could be in trouble 😦

Big beautiful beetles

Cockchafers aren’t really this big, but wouldn’t it be awesome if they were?

MSc Entomology (@Entomasters) at the end of the visit.  Photo courtesy of Heather Campbell (@ScienceHeather), our newest member of staff

Once again, a huge vote of thanks to Erica and colleagues for making this a memorable visit.  We had a fantastic day.

3 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Teaching matters

Cockroach – an unlikely pairing

Cockroaches, like aphids, tend to get a bad press, the former as objects of disgust, the latter as pests. This is of course because our perception of cockroaches is heavily influenced by the scuttling, slithering and susurrus images that haunt our memories from watching too many reality TV shows and horror films*.

Cockroaches are members of the superorder, Dictyoptera and are placed in the order Blattodea, (derived from the Latin, blatta, an insect that shuns light) which, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, along with the termites (inward et al., 2007).  When I was a student termites had their own Order, Isoptera; molecular biology and DNA studies have a lot to answer for 🙂  There are currently, about 4,600 described species, of which thirty are associated with humans and a mere four which are considered to be pests (Bell et al., 2007); see what I mean about a bad press.  They have a global distribution but are mainly associated with the tropics and sub-tropics.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (and whom am I to doubt them?), the name “cockroach” comes from the Spanish word cucaracha, transformed by 1620s English folk etymology (where an unfamiliar word is changed into something more familiar) into “cock” (male bird) and “roach” (a freshwater fish).  I find this a little odd.  Given that the Romans were trading globally before they colonised England, it seems unbelievable that the Oriental and German cockroaches would not have made it to the British Isles and become a familiar pest, before the early seventeenth century.  That said, Robinson (1870) suggests that according to Gilbert White the Oriental cockroach Periplaneta orientalis, sometimes called the black beetle (e.g. Blatchley, 1892), was not introduced into England until 1790.  A reference in Packham (2015) however puts its introduction as 1644, which fits better with the OED’s date of derivation of the word.  I would, despite this, still suggest that the Romans would have been the more likely ones to have brought it to our shores.  I think it quite likely that anything that scuttled along the ground and was dark in colour would have been referred to as a black beetle, so my view is that our pestiferous cockroaches have been around much longer.  Any sources to prove/disprove this will be welcome.

Our native cockroaches, as opposed to those that have become naturalised, are shy, retiring, quite rare and located mainly in the south of England, where they dwell peacefully among the trees and heather, a situation that has remained largely unchanged for almost 200 years (Stephens, 1835).  Their names, except for Ectobius pallidus, seem to indicate an origin from farther afield, or perhaps just reflect the origin of the entomologist who first described them  🙂

Ectobius panzeri, The Lesser cockroach (distribution from the NBN Atlas)

Ectobius lapponicus, The Dusky cockroach (Distribution from the NBN Atlas). It is also known as the Forest cockroach in Hungarian   http://regithink.transindex.ro/?p=8782.  According the NBN Atlas it has been recorded as eating aphids.

Ectobius lapponicus showing the wings unfolded.

Ectobius pallidus, the Tawny cockroach (also known as Mediterranean Spotted Cockroach) (Distribution from the NBN Atlas)

 

Cockroaches, unlike ladybirds and aphids, don’t seem to have amassed a huge number of weird and wonderful names in other languages.  If anyone has some good examples to add, please let me know.

Albanian kakabu

Basque labezomorro (labe = oven, zomorro = bug)

Bulgarian хлебарка khlebarka

Finnish torakka

French  cafard (in English melancholia)

German kakerlake

Hungarian csótány

Italian scarafaggio (sounds like a character from an Opera)

Latin blatta

Latvian prusaku

Polish karaluch

Spanish cucaracha

Swedish kackerlacka

Yiddish tarakan

In terms of aesthetically pleasing versions I found Armenian ծխամորճ and Thai แมลงสาบ the most satisfying, and Japanese definitely the most abrupt  ゴキブリ

And to end,  a fun fact that might make some of you disposed to look more kindly upon the cockroach “The Cockroach is the natural enemy of the bed-bug, and destroys large numbers” (Packard, 1876).

 

References

Bell, W.J., Roth, L.M. &  Nalepa,  A.A. (2007) Cockroaches: Ecology, Behavior and Natural History.  The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Blatchley, W.S. (1892) The Blattidae of Indiana.  Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 1892, 153-165.

Brown, V.K. (1980)  Notes and a key to the Oothecae of the British Ectobius (Dictyoptera: Blattidae).  Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 116, 151-154.

Inward, D., Beccaloni, G. & Eggleton, P. (2007) Death of an order: a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study confirms that termites are eusocial cockroaches. Biology Letters, 3, 331-335.

Packham, C. (2015) Chris Packham’s Wild Side of Town. Bloomsbury Press, London.

Packard, A.P. (1876) Guide to the Study of Insects and a Treatise on those Beneficial and Injurious to Crops. Henry Holt & Company, New York.

Robinson, C.J. (1870) The cockroach.  Nature, 2, 435.

Stephens, J.S. (1835) Illustrations of British Entomology; or a Synopsis of Indigenous Insects. Volume VI. Mandibulata.  Baldwin & Cradock, London.

 

 

 

8 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes