Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Cryptocephalus leucomelas leucomelas - Cryptocephalus leucomelas - female

Cryptocephalus leucomelas leucomelas - Cryptocephalus leucomelas - Female
Beavercreek, Greene County, Ohio, USA
June 17, 1977
Size: 5.0 mm
Download high resolution image here.

This beetle is Cryptocephalus leucomelas leucomelas, based on the pronotum and elytra markings illustrated in White(1). I found it mating on the leaf of an Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) in 1977. The male (mounted on top of the subject female) was a bit smaller. I donated the male to the Dayton Museum of Natural history (now the Boonshoft Museum of Discovery) since they only had one very old and faded specimen at the time.

Technical Note: This image is derived from a stack of 87 images with a 40 micron increment taken with a reversed Focotar-2 enlarging lens set to F/5.6 + bellows + Nikon D300 camera, and processed with CombineZP software.

Saw your images and that you are also working with stacking software...I just imaged this same species using my Canon 10D, MPE-65 lens, and the StackShot system moving my specimen stage and controlling camera. I only stacked 28 images, and have found that even in my super small material, more than 35-40 I do not get any better results. Just some friendly advice, as you are going through a process to produce one image, I suggest cleaning the specimens off....foreign particles, dust, etc are not hard to remove from specimens, and will result in a much more pleasing final product. Great shots though!

I usually just increment by 1/2 to 2/3 the DOF for my numerical aperture. For the subject image, F5.6 at 4X magnification is about equivalent to NA 0.08. My hardware and software is automated, so I don't usually experiment with the minimum actual requirements given other resolution constraints such as pixel limitations unless it gets into hundreds of frames.

My photographs focus more on resolution and technical information needed for ID and such. I don't give esthetics as much priority as others when I compose and process. Boring ortho views and dreary black backdrops convey the most technical information and contrast, respectively. Thanks for the photo you emailed me, but zapping dust and lint reduces resolution and introduces artifacts. I white balance before taking the picture, and usually only play with brightness and contrast with Photoshop Elements. I should spend more time cleaning, but won't risk damaging the bug if it's already dry (the subject was collected in the 70's).


I understand!
as you can see from my image supply here, I too have boring ortho views with white backgrounds...I dont shoot for artistic vibrance either, I just want my specimen shots to be as "perfect" as I can get.

I would guess then that my cleaning of type specimens from the 1800's I do here for publication imaging would really make you a bit uneasy... Actually had to clean a one of a kind Linnean type a few years ago...That one made me a bit uneasy!