|
Genus Epicauta
Classification Kingdom Animalia (Animals)
Phylum Arthropoda (Arthropods)
Class Insecta (Insects)
Order Coleoptera (Beetles)
Suborder Polyphaga (Water, Rove, Scarab, Longhorn, Leaf and Snout Beetles)
Superfamily Tenebrionoidea (Fungus, Bark, Darkling and Blister Beetles)
Family Meloidae (Blister Beetles)
Subfamily Meloinae
Tribe Epicautini
Genus Epicauta
Synonyms and other taxonomic changes Explanation of Names From Greek epi upon, plus caut burn, burning (1) (refers to toxic secretions of these beetles) Numbers The largest genus of blister beetles in North America, with 173 spp. in our area arranged in 2 subgenera (2). Most species belong to the nominate subgenus (3); the rest (listed below), to the subgenus Macrobasis.
Nearctic species of Epicauta (Macrobasis)
alastor Skinner, 1904
alpina Werner, 1944
atrivittata (LeConte, 1854)
balli Werner, 1945
flavocinerea (Blatchley, 1910)
hirsutipubescens (Maydell, 1934)
ingrata Fall, 1907
linearis (LeConte, 1858)
longicollis (LeConte, 1853)
maculifera (Maydell, 1934)
mimetica (Horn, 1875)
parkeri Werner, 1944
subglabra (Fall, 1922)
sublineata (LeConte, 1854)
tenuilineata (Horn, 1894)
torsa (LeConte, 1853)
uniforma Werner, 1944
valida (LeConte, 1853)
virgulata (LeConte, 1866) Identification Similar to Lytta, but this genus has a patch of hair on underside of front femur (4). Also, Epicauta has nearly thread-like antennae (5):
while Lytta has almost bead-like (submoniliform) antennae:
Frequently asked question: What angles/details are necessary to get an Epicauta identified from photographs?
John D. Pinto answering:
There is no general recipe. For species ID of some we need to see palpi; for others its tibial spurs; for others it may be hind coxae. For the Caviceps Group the head capsule may be important. These features are not easily documented in field photos. In general, for the subgenus Macrobasis which includes many southwestern species we should have males. Males for all groups are generally best unless the species has a unique color pattern or a unique shape. Fortunately genitalia are of little to no use in Epicauta. Many common Epicauta are simply difficult to identify from photogarphs - field photos are poor substitutes for having a specimen in hand. It seems that it would eventually be worthwhile to photograph authoritatively identified material in museums – virtually all the US species of Epicauta could be done rather easily. Field photos seem to be an inefficient way to get our fauna documented for the non-specialist. Range Across the continent, but most diverse in the sw. US (2)Remarks Some species are crop pests. |
|
|
|
