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
Upcoming Events

Photos of insects and people from the 2024 BugGuide gathering in Idaho July 24-27

Moth submissions from National Moth Week 2024

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


TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
Photo#72934
Longhorn Beetle - Goes tesselatus

Longhorn Beetle - Goes tesselatus
Eastwood, Carter County, Missouri, USA
June 11, 2006
I think it's a Goes tesselatus, but a second opinion would sure be appreciated.

Moved
Moved from Longhorned Beetles. Agrees with Frank's image of this species.

Moved
Moved from Beetles.

Or else Goes tum*ifrons,
but I think you are correct in that the pronotum does not appear to have much pubescence and tumi*frons is a much rarer beetle. The best indication would be whether you recall seeing any alternating gray and yellowish stripes of fine elytral pubescence that is most noticeable viewed from the posterior. If you noticed these, then it's tesselatus for sure since on tumi*frons the fine pubescence is uniform.

Although both species in this case are about the same size, it is generally helpful to give some size indication, preferably in millimeters.

 
Hi Jim
tumifrons was my other choice, but the color patterns on tesselatus looked closer after staring at the photos for a half an hour. I don't recall seeing any stripes, but he was deep in a stand of oak sprouts and this was the only view I got since I didn't want to spook him.

I usually try to give a size, especially if I can actually measure the specimen. But I didn't handle this one - only photographed him, it was over two months ago and I'm a lousy estimator anyway, so any size I gave would have just been a shot in the dark. I figured no size would be better than an inaccurate one. Sorry.

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