HomeGuideID RequestRecentFrassForumsDonateHelp

Clickable Guide

Calendar

Upcoming Events

Registration is open for the 2024 BugGuide gathering in Idaho July 24-27

Moth submissions from National Moth Week 2023

Photos of insects and people from the 2022 BugGuide gathering in New Mexico, July 20-24

Photos of insects and people from the Spring 2021 gathering in Louisiana, April 28-May 2

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Photos of insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Previous events

Use of common vs. scientific names on Bug Guide

I've been hesitant to bring up this subject, lest I be considered an ingrate. Be assured, I very much appreciate the existence of this site and the willingness of so many folks here to help others. I've received an ID on probably more than 90% of my submissions.

But I have wondered since my early days here (like five months ago) why there isn't more use of common names. Many responses to ID Requests use scientific names only. We have site members who range from professionals to rank amateurs (like me). I can't imagine someone who submits an ID Request for a common insect wanting an answer in Latin. Even more confusing is when the answer is given with only the first letter of the genus, for example, taking one at random, L. sericata. Considering the possibility that the requester may not even know if it's a bee, fly, wasp, etc., and has no idea what "L" means, that person is likely very confused. We don't necessarily know what some others might assume we know.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the use of scientific names. I realize they are the international standard and remove the confusion that arises from common names. I just wish that people would cite the common name in addition to the scientific one so all levels of readers can be accommodated.

I'd love to hear from the more knowledgeable folks as to why common names are often omitted and from other neophytes as to what they think of the whole thing.

Contributed by Marty R. on 22 December, 2009 - 12:00pm

the "in-between" problem

Without delving into the relative merits of scientific "versus" common names (can it suffice to say they both have value to different audiences?), I think the dilemma that Marty describes is a temporary one that occurs on BugGuide between the time that a photo is submitted to "ID Request" and the time that it is moved to a species (or other taxon) page after being identified. Experts commenting on the ID will indeed use scientific names because nomemclatural precision is important at this stage, which may indeed be baffling to novice submitters, particularly when the genus is abbreviated to its first letter (as in the example of L. sericata provided by Marty). But when an identity is finally determined, the photo is moved to the species page, where common names are provided in the topmost line. The submitter can then see that L. sericata means Lucilia sericata, which is a "Blow Fly", which is a special kind of "Fly".

For novices, the in-between stage is like being a sentient patient during a surgery, listening in on the elite, incomprehensible language spoken by doctors and nurses hovering over the table who have dozens of jargonistic words for "knife", "tweezers", and "that". Although I may not understand what they say, I (as a patient) don't mind that they are more knowledgeable than me or that they don't take time to translate their words for me at that moment. But when I am back in my room, I definitely appreciate hearing the outcome ("it was a gallstone"). I am obviously elevating the analogy to an absurd level, but I think Marty is describing the BG analogue to the informational black-out experienced by surgery patients while "on the table".

I think the problem will ultimately be self-correcting when an identity is determined and the image is moved to a more informative environment (this can take anywhere from minutes to months). The "in-between" problem could be reduced by submitters taking some responsibility for looking up scientific names; I regard a scientific name as a "Rosetta Stone" that I can pop into a BugGuide Search (upper right corner of every page) or even a Google Search. It could also be reduced by commenters providing an unabbreviated scientific name that enables users to proceed with following up on their own. In Marty's example, searching for "L. sericata" resulted in the ever-disappointing "no results"; however, a retry using just "sericata" led to only one preceded by an "L" - and once at the species page, I see that the word "Lucilia" was used elsewhere in the comments.

… John Pearson, 29 December, 2009 - 3:53pm

"in-betweens" from another perspective

I think I completely qualify as a novice when it comes to botanical scientific names (probably less than five common home or garden varieties). Yet Charley Eiseman's prodigious Aphid article is accessible to me because he included "common plant names" that I know (e.g. Honeysuckle family, Willow family). John Pearson's many comments concerning host plants are read and appreciated because he too includes the common names of weeds, shrubs and trees that I recognize (I am mostly restating some of his and Marty's earlier opinions here). The additional botanical information provided "in my language" truly helps me appreciate and provide context for the bugs that I observe and photograph - something not available if those contributors had also chosen to only provide scientific names. In the same way common arthropod names (at the lowest taxonomy level where a common name is useful) serve as linkage between what I already know (and how I talk with other "civilians") and what I am trying to learn here. I consider learning a new common name as no less significant to my overall understanding than reading an exact binomial ID. A tiny bit of additional effort can make a big difference to those of us transitioning from "common" to "scientific" and that extra effort is greatly appreciated (and, most often I suspect, not misunderstood).

… Roy Sigafus, 5 January, 2010 - 1:09pm

Using common names

I think that this request for an "additional effort" would apply to editors in general, but I wouldn't put that burden on many experts. I am grateful that they take time from their busy professional activities to help us here and I wouldn't ask for more than they are willing to give us. So, in many cases, when an expert gives an ID using just the scientific name, I add a comment trying to include the common name if available or the common name of the taxon and a link to the guide page.
From now on I will include the words "no common name" when necessary, which is most of the time. See, for instance, the List of non-native species

… Beatriz Moisset, 5 January, 2010 - 4:58pm

List of non-native species

In that example, it is possible to make the "no common name" species more accessible by including common names for the families in parentheses after the Latin names. So, for instance, one could see at a glance that Philonthus politus is some kind of rove beetle.

… Charley Eiseman, 5 January, 2010 - 7:39pm

Sigh!

More work for me! Roar, also suggested the use of anchors. They are both good ideas and there is also a couple of things that I would like to edit such as font size of titles; but I am not going to tackle that chore any time soon. Just, wait and see when your aphids and food plants begin to pile up : )

… Beatriz Moisset, 6 January, 2010 - 1:10pm

botany has a very different 'common name' culture

not sure where things stand in America [though i expect the situation to be similar], but in some European countries every plant species gets an 'official' common name [as early as the original desc'n of a new species], so it follows the taxonomy very closely and conveys the same degree of precision as the scientific name. There's nothing like that in zoology.

… v belov, 5 January, 2010 - 1:25pm

botany and zoology parallels

There is no procedure for establishing official common names for plants in America, but it is true that there are common names in use for most vascular plants (the familiar, conspicuous, general group containing trees, shrubs, grasses, sedges, wildflowers, etc.). In zoology, species with equivalent, widespread recognition by common names also belong to familiar, conspicuous groups (mammals and birds, for example). Most insects have not earned species-level common names because of their sheer diversity, small size, and general lack of notice by non-specialists - a trend paralleled in botany by non-vascular cryptogams: mosses, fungi, and lichens (the latter two groups are not actually "plants" but are typically studied by botanists). When interpreting mosses and lichens to people on public field trips, I experience the same problem in communicating with novices as has been highlighted in this discussion for insects. I try to bridge the gap by coupling scientific names and common names in a single phrase, often forced by necessity to use a general term for the common-name component ("here's a moss in the genus Bryum").

… John Pearson, 5 January, 2010 - 2:37pm

good point

i did overlook the fact that it applies to vascular plants only, and your tetrapod analogy describes the linguistic situation very accurately indeed.

… v belov, 5 January, 2010 - 2:46pm

ditto

Your main point remains true: it is easier for a botanist to provide a common name for a vascular plant hosting an insect than it is for a zoologist to provide a common name for an insect being hosted by a vascular plant!

… John Pearson, 5 January, 2010 - 11:01pm

the lazy culture brought it upon itself

nobody seems to complain about E. coli or T. rex

… v belov, 29 December, 2009 - 5:06pm

we don't have other Tyrannosaurus species...

...to differentiate T. rex from on a regular, conversational basis. I suppose if they ever gene-splice Tyrannosaurus domesticus we'd have to start writing it out, though.

… Abigail Parker, 4 January, 2010 - 1:53pm

I try to use scientific names because

they are far more specific. For example, when someone says "Woolly Bear", they usually mean Pyrrharctia isabella. The problem is people also call other furry caterpillars "Woolly Bears". This is a problem with just using common names.

… roar, 29 December, 2009 - 7:28am

like twice-stabbed lady beetles...

"Officially" the common name of Chilocorus stigma; but that species doesn't occur on the West Coast, so the Chilocorus species C. fraternus and C. orbus are usually called "twice-stabbed" there. Chilocorus cacti is sometimes called "twice-stabbed" in the Southwest. At least those are all in the same genus - almost any black ladybug with two red spots will have someone calling it a twice-stabbed ladybug.

I made the mistake myself early on; I had narrowed a small, blurry picture down to either C. stigma or a black-with-two-red-spots Hyperaspis, and I just couldn't resist the name "twice-stabbed" - so I ID'd it as that. Turns out it was an anonymous member of the Hyperaspis signata group. Darnit, that's just not as much fun to say.

… Abigail Parker, 29 December, 2009 - 1:45pm

i know what you mean

i am an amateur and I have officially learned a grand total of five scientific names. i am aware of the fact that some of the same common names are used for different species, or vice versa, many different names used for one insect. but i see your point. my view is that if there is a widely accepted common name for an insect that it be used. if not, no problem, i can look it up.

… Molly Jacobson, 28 December, 2009 - 9:07pm

The BugGuide community...

...is almost as diverse as the bugs we study. There is no question that novices prefer common names while experts prefer scientific. However, there exists a whole range of intermediate opinion between those two extremes, and rarely is it immediately apparent on what part of that continuum someone requesting an ID falls. Scientific names are the language of insect identification - unambiguous and precise. Common names are rarely so, and even in cases where there is one "officially accepted" common name, others still exist and are in use. Indeed, some insects have multiple "official" common names (e.g. Helicoverpa zea has four!).

If someone provides a scientific name for your ID request, embrace the knowledge they have given you. If you desire a common name as well and they didn't provide it, you are well placed to find it armed with that scientific name. To suggest that those making identifications are also responsibile for providing a synopsis of available common names and any potential caveats is silly. Contributors can just as easily determine as experts what common names are associated with a given scientific name.

… Ted C. MacRae, 28 December, 2009 - 12:14am

We almost always use the scientific name

when making IDs on BugGuide. English names, which are not necessarily "common" at all, can be found by a simple search here on BugGuide if a contributor is interested. We don't find learning scientific names any more difficult than learning English ones despite what some try to claim. One doesn't have to learn Latin or Greek in order to learn Argiope aurantia. It's just a name. And it's a unique one. You don't have to get into arguments over whether it is a Golden Garden Spider or a Black and Yellow Orb Weaver, or a Writing spider, or ... Or how about those great early fights on BugGuide on whether or not you could call a harvestman a daddy-longlegs? How absurd! You can call it whatever you like.

We find the recent trend to legislate English names such as in Dragonflies just as foolish. The beauty of common names, which we guess you would find in Vassili's compilation, is the local variability. How are the "doodlebugs" of Louisiana different from what are called "doodlebugs" in California? And what is the history behind those names?

We suggest that contributors, who receive an ID of a scientific name, do a search here at BugGuide to learn more about their species and then do a google search to learn even more. There is way more to learn about your creature than just someone's idea of what an English name for it should be. And that is a heartfelt suggestion. We don't mean to be snooty or better-than-thou. The scientific name is its actual name and we truly feel anyone can learn them.

… john and jane balaban, 27 December, 2009 - 3:56pm

I have to disagree, in part

I'm reluctant to comment because I've been the appreciative beneficiary of your help on a number of occasions.

"We suggest that contributors, who receive an ID of a scientific name, do a search here at BugGuide to learn more about their species and then do a google search to learn even more. There is way more to learn about your creature than just someone's idea of what an English name for it should be. And that is a heartfelt suggestion. We don't mean to be snooty or better-than-thou. The scientific name is its actual name and we truly feel anyone can learn them."

I am interested enough to search on the scientific name because I want to know a little more. However, I have a hard time believing that everyone feels the same way. Some may want nothing more than a quick English identification to, perhaps, just tell a friend what a neat picture of a wasp (bee, ant, dragonfly or whatever) they captured.

You folks are serious about insects but that doesn't mean everyone is. As I said before, I doubt that a poster of a common insect for an ID wants scientific names. That person could very well feel that (s)he didn't get the desired answer and/or is forced to do research that wasn't planned on or desired.

I fully understand why scientific names would be the language of choice when conversing with fellow enthusiasts. But I can't understand why a common name couldn't be given in addition, as in, for example, "that's a Vespula maculifrons, an Eastern yellowjacket."

… Marty R., 27 December, 2009 - 6:36pm

"forced to do research"

Does making a nearly instantaneous Bugguide or google search entail difficult and burdensome research?

Why should Bugguide experts take extra time (e.g., writing out various common names if these even exist) to help someone too unmotivated to spend a few seconds searching Bugguide or the web?

… John S. Ascher, 29 December, 2009 - 11:10am

You shouldn't then

Bugguide experts should definitely not take extra time to provide common names if they are too busy or otherwise do not want to provide them for whatever reason.

Bugguide offers an ID service with no apparent pre-conditions:

"ID Request

If you have an image of something from the United States or Canada that you would like identified, you may add the image to this page. You must be registered and logged in, however, for the add image link to appear."

My whole point in starting this thread was not to challenge the fact that confusion exists with common names and that scientific names are the international standard and eliminate the confusion. The point was about talking to the level of the audience and much of that audience is people without knowledge of entomology or taxonomy; some of them want nothing more than a name for that critter they shot.

Assuming that the person making the ID has a few seconds to spare, what harm does it do when giving an ID of something like Polistes or Vespula to also throw in the word "hornet" or "wasp"?

… Marty R., 29 December, 2009 - 12:15pm

this all sounds good to me

thanks for bringing up this topic as it has clearly hit a nerve with many people resulting in some interesting discussion that should improve Bugguide

… John S. Ascher, 29 December, 2009 - 4:23pm

user-friendly

Yes, I think the spirit of Marty's post has to do with making BugGuide more user-friendly for novices (and to keep things in perspective, it is already one of the most user-friendly websites that I know). Adding phrases like "a wasp in the genus Polistes" can be easily done for a single post. Adding a link is even more explanatory: "a wasp in the genus Polistes". (See Roar's Complete Markup Article.) This is a handy way of directing the reader without having to write a lot of text. Adding thumbnails is another way to invoke species names, a technique already widely used by BG commenters, for example:

Please note, however, that while it is "easy" to provide these enhanced answers for one or a few postings, these techniques do consume time and can become tedious for experts making many IDs during a session or over series of sessions. A balancing act, as always.

… John Pearson, 29 December, 2009 - 6:49pm

Confusing common names

When I came to this country I was confused by some common names. I thought an elk is a moose. Why? The German word Elch means moose. I was surprised that acorns don't grow on maple trees. Why? Ahorn is maple in German. Mosquitoes in Austria are called Mücken but in some parts of Germany Mucken (without the Umlaut) are Tipulidae. In Austria Tipulidae are called Schnaken. The Italien tarantula is either a wolfspider or widow. Maybe -V- knows the origin of taratula and how it came to the US. There is also a Tarentula in Europe which is a wolfspider. Plant names are even more confusing. Every valley in the Austrian alps seems to have a different name for the same flower.

Thank you Carl Linneus = Carl von Linné = Carolus Linnaeus for the scientific names!

… Marie L. Schmidt, 27 December, 2009 - 9:30pm

Common names vs. scientific names

Most bugs don't have common names; it is as simple as that. There are perhaps 100,000 species of "bugs" (Arthropods) in North America. How many of them have common names? Maybe a few thousands. And then, there is the problem of different creatures called by the same common name or different common names for one creature.
I agree that in many cases it is possible to give some sort of common name along with the scientific one; for instance when saying: "This is a kind of sweat bee, Augochlora pura". Should I add that there are as many as 500 species of "sweat bees"? That the name is not accurate because most of them are not attracted to sweat?
Do you see the difficulties of trying to deal with common names?

… Beatriz Moisset, 27 December, 2009 - 7:14pm

The Praise of Common Names

Unlike the scientific names of higher taxa (subject to changes as our knowledge deepens and taxa get rearranged to reflect their relationships), especially the family-group names, i.e. those for families and tribes with any sub-, super- and infra-derivatives thereof, the common names survive unaffected.
It’s really refreshing –indeed, liberating– to use names like ‘bark beetles’ or ‘bean weevils’ [who are no weevils at all, btw] with no concern of making a faux pas by mixing up the PC endings -ine vs. -id...
A roach is a roach is a roach no matter where it will end up after the next fancy classification overhaul.

… v belov, 23 December, 2009 - 1:58pm

taxonomic stability

can reflect ignorance of or insensitivity to useful advances in knowledge

Official common names change all the time. Note myriad changes in AOU common names of North American birds in recent decades.

… John S. Ascher, 29 December, 2009 - 11:14am

i was playing devil's advocate, John

that's what i do most of the time

… v belov, 29 December, 2009 - 11:30am

The Bane of Common Names

=V=, I find this delightfully refreshing that you (of all people) are willing to try and see the positive aspect of using common names. As I always enjoy very much exploring both sides of any issue, I thought that for fun I would provide a bit of a counter argument in the way of a recent, real-life experience...

Several months ago, my neighbor alerted me to a large number of insects that she had never noticed before just outside her house. I asked her to describe them to me and she replied:

"They're red and black, like a lady bug, but different, and they seem to be crawling out of cracks in the ground in swarms..."

I'd never seen any kind of lady beetle aggregation on the property before, so I went to check it out. Turned out to be a burgeoning population of Scantius aegyptius, a newly introduced heteropteran to our area. She was very curious to know what they were, but I knew the scientific name would only bring on looks of confusion, so I tried to start simple:

"Well, it's a kind of bug..."

"Oh, like a lady bug?" she eagerly interjected.

I responded, "Well, no, actually lady bugs aren't really bugs... um, they're beetles. Even though we call a lot of things 'bugs', only a small percentage of those are actually what are known as 'true bugs', like the ones we've found here."

"Oh, OK," she said somewhat reluctantly, "so what kind of bugs are they?"

I briefly thought about whipping out with the family name (Pyrrhocoridae), but again wondered if that would be too big a mouthful for those unfamiliar with taxonomy.

Instead, I said, "These are Red Bugs."

"Yes, I know they're red," she said, "but what kind are they?"

-- Is this sounding like the beginning of an Abbott & Costello routine to anyone else? --

I tried to explain that "Red Bugs" was the generic name for the family and then did go on to elaborate that there were more specific names for most insects, but that they were a bit harder to say and remember for future use. She was very patient with my explanations, but in the end I think I came off looking a bit silly and now whenever she refers to the "red bugs" it seems to me there's a bit of a mocking tone in her voice, as if to say: Couldn't they have come up with a better name than that?

I guess the moral of the story is that both common names and scientific names have a time and place where they are useful, and then other times where they are perhaps not so useful. I think the key is reading your audience and using the combo that most effectively conveys the necessary information and (hopefully) intrigues and endears them to the insect-world.

… Harsi S. Parker, 23 December, 2009 - 2:40pm

great story, Harsi

And yes, I had to make an effort to abandon for a sec my unwavering anti-common-name position (in non-household situations) and say something nice about them. I banned common names from the Young Entomologist Club I run for 15 years and taught my bright-eyed pupils to stay away from books that give no scientific names for insects and only memorize the ‘Latin’. Of course, common names fascinate me linguistically – so much so that I spent hundreds of hours putting together a glossary of English names for over 11,000 taxa – during my pre-BugGuide era. I still have the draft files...
As a general trend, I admit I have nothing against some names for well-defined taxa, such as click beetles or, say, sweat bees, but 'tree hoppers' or 'plant bugs' may be confusing if used descriptively. (I'm not even going into the blow flies.)

… v belov, 23 December, 2009 - 4:13pm

one reason why the common names are rarely indicated

scientific books & others sources i use, like(1), do not mention any common names whatsoever, and i know for sure that many taxonomists are blissfully unaware of their very existence because the literature they use only deals with names regulated by the ICZN, i.e. scientific names.

… v belov, 23 December, 2009 - 8:15am

To each his own...

I tend to match my usage and writing style to the intended reader I am responding to. For instance, I rarely (if ever) use common names when corresponding with professional entomologists (or those I feel have a sufficient familiarity with the taxonomy of most insects) for the same reasons as others have cited -- the scientific name is a more precise and universal way of referencing a species. However, when I am leaving comments for a new contributor or someone who's knowledge-level is unfamiliar to me, I actually then try to incorporate both the common name (if there is one) and the scientific name. I figure that this way they can easily refer to the insect they're interested in a manner that is initially more comfortable for them, but I've also given them the correct scientific name so that they can then take their research and education further if they so desire.

It bears stating that I have considerably more free time to offer to each individual post than many of the professionals who provide countless IDs to contributors and often do so during their precious free time. I would guess that they may leave short, to-the-point IDs that often consist of little more than the scientific name itself because their time is so finite and they want to get to as many posts as possible. Hopefully, this situation is balanced out by the many extremely helpful and friendly editors who go out of their way to answer questions and help gradually introduce beginners to the wondrous world of arthropods!

… Harsi S. Parker, 23 December, 2009 - 2:35am

that person can search Bugguide or Google

to find additional information including the common name if one exists

Once an editor moves the image to a guide page the common name should be there, at least for the higher taxon

… John S. Ascher, 22 December, 2009 - 8:32pm

common v. scientific names

The way I see it, scientific names are more universal where everyone who are more than a novice will be able to recognize. The usage of common names are rather limited. I have observed seeing common names applied largely to economically important insects and spiders (good or bad), as well as some distinct, unusual insects like the Harlequin beetle of South America. For me, I use only scientific names. I try to avoid any common names, for the name can be implied for more than one species of insect or spider.

… Robert Otto, 22 December, 2009 - 7:34pm

That may be true, but...

...you've spent 3/4 of your life studying insects and I'm speaking from the point of view of a newbie looking for an ID. I think common names (whether insects or other wildlife) are preferred by beginners, who may progress to greater use of scientific names as they become more advanced. But at this point I want to know whether it's a Blow fly or Flesh fly more than I want to know whether it's a Calliphoridae or Sarcophagidae. :-)

… Marty R., 22 December, 2009 - 10:55pm

that's a good point

I was thinking in terms of a specific (literally, "pertaining to a species") common name, which is a rarity for most arthropods. But certainly, a description in English of what order or family it's in is possible. I know the experts don't have much time for explanations, but for entomologically-inclined mere mortals like me, adding "Lady beetle" to "Chilocorus kuwanae" is easy enough. Or adding "swallowtail" to "Genus Papilio" even if I don't know which swallowtail butterfly it is.

I am very much a mere mortal without formal entomological training, so I don't know if I'm a good spokesperson for the issue :-) And I tend to be hasty with my coccinellid IDs when I'm sneaking in BugGuide time at work or at home making dinner. ("If I type H. axyridis instead of Multicolored Asian Lady Beetle, I can get to that pot before it boils over!") Whenever I have more time, though, I try to take some extra time with newbies and less-experienced amateur entomologists, because that's how I got to be the more-experienced amateur I am now!

… Abigail Parker, 23 December, 2009 - 9:19am

they don't all have common names

I use common names when the critter has one, but beyond the macrolepidoptera, odonata, and common garden species, not everything has a common name in English. I do try to mention kind of critter it is if it doesn't have a common name, though - "Lady beetle, Chilocorus kuwanae."

… Abigail Parker, 22 December, 2009 - 3:00pm

"Lady beetle, Chilocorus kuwanae"

...is a good example why using common names may be misleading: this phrase may be easily misinterpreted by a novice as "the scientists call lady beetles 'Chilocorus kuwanae'". Such mistakes can be avoided, however, by rephrasing the ID as "Chilocorus kuwanae (a lady beetle)" or even "...a kind of lady beetle". These nuances highlight the whole problem with the common names: they are trouble.

… v belov, 23 December, 2009 - 12:39pm

V, it's like talking sex

You know, when the kids start asking questions, you give them age-appropriate answers, nothing more than their little minds can handle, and soon they're back to their video games, or whatever.

And so it is with common names. Just give me a name that will get me to the right page in my field guide and I won't be concerned with nuances at this stage of my entomological development. :-)

… Marty R., 23 December, 2009 - 4:29pm

i'm a disaster of a parent

never understood what 'age-appropriate' even means; i wait patiently till the kids reach drinking age, then we start talking. And drinking.

… v belov, 23 December, 2009 - 4:35pm

I'll watch my phraseology!

And here I thought I knew how to speak English :-)

… Abigail Parker, 23 December, 2009 - 12:52pm

exactly

I strictly use scientific names here, but do make sure to spell out both the genus and species so the contributer can do further web searches for that species and perhaps find a common name that I am unaware of.

… Guy A. Hanley, 23 December, 2009 - 9:23am

Disclaimer: Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world. If you need expert professional advice, contact your local extension office.

Contributors own the copyright to and are solely responsible for contributed content.
Click the contributor's name for licensing and usage information.
Everything else copyright © 2003-2024 Iowa State University, unless otherwise noted.

Bugguide is hosted by:

Printer Friendly Version