Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar

TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
Photo#195829
grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus

grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus
Nashua, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, USA
June 28, 2008
Size: about 2.8 mm
Here is a new genus of dorcatomine anobiids for bugguide. This one came to my MV lights at home. Upon opening the images on my laptop I was immediately struck by the unusual arrangement of antennomeres: The basal antennomere is elongate, then there are several tiny bead-like ones followed by one huge flat one, then two flat not-so-big ones at the tip.

Due to body shape and lack of vestiture I supposed it to be a dorcatomine but certainly one I'd never seen in person or in photo. I thumbed through the renderings in American Beetles till I saw the same general antennal arrangement. The genus is said to inhabit dead grape vines so I'm surprised I haven't seen this species before. Not only are there plenty of wild grapes in nearby wooded areas, I have espaliered Concord grapes in the back yard. I may load up a rearing container with dead grape vine and see if more can be obtained.

Images of this individual: tag all
grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus grapevine dorcatomine - Calymmaderus nitidus

Looks like I've collected another.
It's dead, cooked to death on the pie-pan cover of one of my UV lights. I can imagine it landing there, deciding it was under attack, playing dead on the hot metal surface, and getting roasted.

keyed out
The species gives a nice example what is not found in literature, and not learned when you study collection specimens:
The remarcable position of the last two antennal segments (not held in the same plane as the 9th) was new to me - I never saw a life one, and your images are likely to be the first of a living Calymmaderus!

 
But, but, but...
everyone knows that to be a real insect collector you have to take a killing jar with you into the field, drown bugs in yellow pan traps and fluid trays below flight intercept traps and mercury vapor lights, use a knock-down fogger in the jungle canopy, set out pitfalls with a couple centimeters of polypropylene glycol in them, etc. Only little kids keep live bugs in jars.

Thanks for keying this one out, Boris, and thanks for seeing value in the kid-like approach many of us have here on bugguide. By the way, C. nitidis is the only member of the genus on Don Chandler's list for New Hampshire.

 
kid-like approach?
If understood as "staying curious, and to forget time while observing", this label may fit. I´d say its just an old-fashioned approach in entomology!

Its true (and sad), that contemporary entomologists prefer mass collecting methods, some of which you listed. In fact they are superiour in two aspects:
1) They can be carried out by anybody, personal skills and experience are negliable;
2) The total catch in specimens per working hour is higher.

But: Almost never you´ll get knowledge on what an insect species DOES, what its role in the environment is, or how a certain feature of its body may be understood. Most of the knowledge in these fields we possess today has been collected decades ago, and for the fauna of the tropics, it remains - and will remain, as long as academic entomology persists in the state it is today, and amateur entomology is inexistent there - almost zero.
Even today, and even where knowledge is at the best (northern and central Europe), discoveries are possible not far from your front door. Few years ago, I caught my 3rd specimen of a weevil species described in 1813 with a sweep net, host plant of which was still unknown. Because I found my 2nd specimen on just the same spot two years earlier, and had swept a few square meters only, I was sure about the host plant being in place, and made a quick inventory of what was growing there. A hypothesis, based on the biology of related species, was formed, some more sweeping with focus on that plant executed - and I gained a handful of specimens for feeding experiments. As results, the hypothesis proved true, and prior suppositions by some authors proved wrong - the species feeds on Potentilla (Rosaceae), and not on Polygonaceae. A friend, knowing the hostplant, was able to document larval development later, and found out that the species is apparently unable to fly - which also was undetected.

Never would I have made this discovery, if it wasn´t my habit to watch first, and to kill later . . .

you saved it, no?
positive anyway I can give it a species name.

 
I thought it might be one you'd like
so I got it very, very inebriated ;-)

OK,
I've braved the mosquito hordes beneath the grape vine and gathered dead grape stems of various diameter and age. I sealed them up in a large glass jar and will keep a sharp watch for any emerging Calymmaderus.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.