Synonyms and other taxonomic changes
For more than a century most our spp. were lumped under the name
P. pensylvanica, but Barber's 1951 work on flashing behavior led to recognition of multiple species
(1)Numbers
22 described spp., 28 more in prep. in our area
(1), ~120 total
(2)Identification
Head not completely covered by pronotum (unlike in
Photinus), legs typically long and slender, not compressed, antennae simple
(4). Elytral fold, visible from side, incomplete (left)
vs complete in
Photinus (right)
(5)
species identification very difficult as male genitalia are virtually identical across the genus and both sexes use a variety of flash patterns
(3)
keys to spp. in
(6)(7) should not be relied upon
(1)
Food
Females mimic flash patterns of females of other genera, esp.
Photinus, and eat the lured males ‒for nutrition and, perhaps, to sequester chemical defenses
(8)Life Cycle
Mating occurs high up in trees. Adults are relatively long-lived, survive in captivity for a month or more
(3)Remarks
Species identification is problematic. Several undescribed species exist which can be separated only by subtle differences in flash patterns. Most submitted images will remain on the genus page only because of this new finding.
Print References
Gronquist M., Schroeder F.C., Ghiradella H., Hill D., McCoy E.M., Meinwald J., Eisner T. (2006) Shunning the night to elude the hunter: Diurnal fireflies and the “femmes fatales." Chemoecology 16: 39‒43.
Lloyd J.E. (1965) Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: firefly femmes fatales, Science 149: 653–654.
Lloyd J.E. (1969) Flashes of Photuris fireflies: their value and use in recognizing species. Fla. Entomol. 52: 29‒35.
Lloyd J.E. (1980) Male Photuris fireflies mimic sexual signals of their females’ prey. Science 210: 669‒671.