Spot the difference!

We are having rather a busy time of it in the department at the moment with lots of visitors, volunteers and outside activities including the 'Creatures of the Night!' late night event that was held at the Museum of the History of Science last Friday evening.
After all the hard work we decided that it was time for something fun so here is a five minute distraction for you whilst you have a cup of tea and a biscuit.

The rather stunningly handsome beetle below is a member of the genus Megaphanaeus. He is complete in the first picture but FIVE things have changed by the time we get to the second photo. See if you can spot them all!

Complete beetle

What's missing here? Can you spot the five differences?

EntoModena

by Darren Mann

Specimens and equipment for sale at EntoModena

Last week I spent a few days in sunny Italy, visiting my good friends Stefano and Roberta Ziani and timed to coincide with the Italian entomological show 'EntoModena'. I had a wonderful few days of dung beetle chitchat and homemade, mouth-watering Italian gnocchi.

My vegan gnocchi as made by Roberta Ziani- it was that good it needed a picture all to itself.

Stefano is a dung beetle researcher, specialising in the fauna of the Middle-East. He has published over 40 papers, mostly on faunistics and taxonomy and systematics, and has described a number of new species to sciences from the genus Onthophagus, including some that are associated with nests of small mammals. During my visit I had the chance to study Stefano's superb collection of Palaearctic dung beetles, which is better than our Museum's, and with this collection finally managed to get a grasp of the identification of some difficult species.

EntoModena is similar to the Juvisy and Prague shows, a sort of trade fair with a difference- you can buy live and dead insects, as well as books and various items of equipment. Most people go to meet up with old friends and make new ones.

Pasta picnic at EntoModena 2013

I met for the first time Giovanni Dellacasa, the world's leading expert on the small dung beetles in the group Aphodiinae, although we have corresponded over many years and even published a paper together (Dellacasa, G., Dellacasa M. & Mann, D.J., 2010. The morphology of the labrum (epipharynx, ikrioma and aboral surface) of adult Aphodiini (Coleoptera: Scarabeaidae: Aphodiinae), and its implications for systematics. Insecta Mundi 0132: 1-21). I also chatted with Giuseppe Carpaneto and other dung beetle researchers, bought a few bits of equipment and admired the selection of insects for sale.

From left to right: Giovanni Dellacasa. Stefano Ziani, Giuseppe Carpaneto and me, Darren Mann.

My only chance to sit down during the day was by meeting up with Magdelana and Marek from Majkowski Woodworking Company who had a table (and chairs) of their wares; this is the company who supply our wonderful collection drawers, postal boxes and wooden cabinets.

Magdelana and Marek from Majkowski Woodworking Company.

Research links: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Recently, Darren Mann (HEC) and Mike Wilson, Head of Entomology at the National Museum Wales in Cardiff visited Tabuk, Tabuk Province, Saudi Arabia. They were there to meet lecturers and students of Tabuk University and discuss setting up collaborative links to establish an entomology course, a collection of insects and undertake a faunal survey of the area. Below are some pictures from their trip:

Darren, night collecting- sorting dung beetles from camel dung

 

A hawkmoth (Sphingidae) caterpillar. Note the spine on its rear end.

Anthia duodecimguttata Bonelli, 1813, a species belonging to the coleoptera family Carabidae (Ground beetles) 

Species of the genus Anthia are some of the largest of the Carabidae. All of them are heavily armoured and have strong, sharp mandibles which they use to catch and crush their prey with. The species are usually black with either white or creamy-yellow spots or stripes on them. Many of them also have descriptive species name. With the above species 'duodecimguttata' translates roughly as '12-spot'.

Mike attempting to make friends with the local camel population

A desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria. Orthoptera: Acrididae.

Darren, camel trekking. Note the slightly uncertain look on his face and the slightly wry one of the face of the camel.

Darren attested to the speediness of this particular camel, something that it seemed particularly proud of and eager to demonstrate at any available opportunity.

Orthoptera: Acrididae, Poekilocerus bufonius (Klug, 1832), a possible new species record for this area of Saudi Arabia.

The grasshopper above can be identified as female by looking at the length of the wings. In this instance the end of the abdomen (tip of its bottom) pokes out by an easily visible amount from under its wings. Male grasshoppers of this species have wings that completely cover the abdomen.

Dermaptera (earwigs) feeding on a flower head of Cynomorium coccineum L. at night

Darren and Mike with , Haitham Badrawy, one of the lecturers at Tabuk University.

Gené dor left open

Carlo Giuseppe Gené (1800-1847) was an Italian naturalist, who became the Professor of Zoology and director of the Royal Zoological Museum at Turin (1830). Between 1833 and 1838 Gené made four trips to Sardinia to collect insects. These trips resulted in two primary publications, in which he described many new species to science:

Gené, C. G. 1836: De quibusdam Insectis Sardiniae novis aut minus cognitis. [Fasciculus I.]. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Torino 39: 161-199, [1] Taf. (Fig.1-29).

Gené, C. G. 1839: De quibusdam Insectis Sardiniae novis aut minus cognitis. [Fasciculus II.]. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe die Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali, 2. Ser., Torino 1: 43-84, Taf. I-II.

Most of Gené's insect collection is in Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, with duplicates being deposited in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale de Milan and in Museo storia naturale di Pisa.  However, some of his insect specimens are believed to be lost or destroyed.

For example, in the recent revisions of the genus Chelotrupes (a dor beetle) by Dellacasa and Dellacasa (2008) the authors were unable to find the original specimen(s) Gené used to describe Chelotrupes hiostius and so designated a neotype (a new type to replace one that is lost or destroyed). Hillert et. al. (2012) followed this in their review of the genus Chelotrupes.

The department provided the type specimen of Chelotrupes momus (Fabricius, 1792) for the Hillert et. al. (2012) work on the genus, and when the paper was recently sent to us along with the returned loan of our specimen, we noted the 'lost' Gené specimen cited. We knew we had some of Gené's specimens in Oxford, but the value and extent of this collection had not been realised. 

Gené corresponded with our founder Frederick W. Hope (1797-1862) and in our archive collection there are letters to Hope dated 7th March 1835, 25th February and 24th October 1837 and June 1844. The most interesting archive (dated 1837) was a list of ninety-six Insects from Sardinia that Gené sent to Hope. In which, several of the new species, identified in the list by having 'nob' after their scientific name, which is shorthand Latin for nobis- which translates as 'belonging to me', and was used by authors to designate their new species. In this list was Geotrupes hiostius (as Gené called it).

List of specimens that Gené sent to Hope

After the discovery of this archive we searched the collections and found the 'lost' type of Chelotrupes hiostius (Gené) in our dor beetle collection.

The type specimen of Chelotrupes hiostius

An amazing discovery for us, as this specimen's scientific importance had not been recognised for over 170 years! We have looked for a further two specimens from this list, and have found both, one Oil Beetle and a Stag Beetle. We hope to spend some time over the summer to see how many more from this list we can find!

References:

Dellacasa M. & Dellacasa G. (2008). Revision of the genus Chelotrupes Jekel, 1866 n. stat. (Insecta,    Coleoptera, Geotrupidae). Zoosystema 30 (3): 629-640.

 Hillert, O., Kràl D. & J. Schneider. (2011). Revision of the European genus Chelotrupes (Jekel, 1866) (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae: Chromogeotrupidae). Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae 76: 1-44.

For more information about Gené please use the following links.

Taxonomy 101: 2 common questions

Taxonomy as subject, or rather how and why we name things the way that we do, is one of those tricky things that we get asked about all the time.
It's a tricky thing because really there is so much that we could talk about we often don't know where to start. Of course, asking us is a bit like asking a 5 year old polar bear enthusiast to tell you why they like polar bears- soon you will know everything there is to know about polar bears and probably a bit more on top. It's the same with us and insect related questions, we just can't help but get over-excited and try to tell you absolutely everything there is to know. Considering that there are over million described insect species and hundreds of years of history to taxonomy, collections, museums and science it's not surprising that staff can still be talking days after you ask your original question.

So here, in jaunty cartoon format are the pithy answers to the two most commonly asked taxonomy related questions:

Latin is a universal language. It doesn't matter which country you are from or what language(s) you speak, using a latin name for a species allows you to be precise about the species you are talking about, so if a researcher in Spain communicates about a species with a researcher in Malaysia they know that they are both talking about exactly the same thing.

Sometimes, species end up with multiple common names. There is no code or list of rules for giving a species a common name (which there is when it comes to latin names) and so some species end up with lots of different names. Ladybirds are variously known as: lady bugs, lady beetles, god's cow, ladyclock, lady cow and lady fly among others.

Various taxonomical systems have been employed in the past. The binomial system (2 names) as refined and perfect by Carl Linneaus is the one that is now used by taxonomists. A trinomial name system (3 names for a species) was in existence for a while but it was found to be too cumbersome, as were a few other systems that we will touch on in future posts.
The other advantage to using a binomial system is that it lets you reuse specific names for multiple species across different genera. The rules do not allow for generic names to be used more than once so you can never completely duplicate a name. For example all the following species have a specific name of punctata but belong to different genera, hence you can differentiate between them: Platythyrea punctata (an ant), Phyllorhiza punctata (a jellyfish), Drepane punctata (a sicklefish) and Tangara punctata (a bird).

Taxonomical systems are all based on the above format. Levels within a system vary depending on the subject, for example, a zoological structure dealing with mammals has a higher level structure, plant structures are complicated by hybridisation and insect based trees have an extraordinarily high number of branches due to the sheer volume of species involved.

Further levels are available to a taxonomist than those above. There are both super- and sub- levels for each category (super-family or sub-order for example) as well as extra levels such as tribe which is inserted between family and genus. In fact, there are multiple variations around a theme and all of these structures are flexible. A classification scheme is merely something that is imposed on nature by humans as a way of grouping similar species together. Each levels creates a group of a greater or lesser size. Those at the top of tree (kingdom, phylum) create the biggest groups with each group becoming smaller as you move down the list until you reach species level which classifies to a single unit: one species.

The information in this post has been boiled down to the basics. We will cover things individually and in more depth in later posts, when we can take a look at separate issues and discover more about how taxonomists set about sorting out and identifying species, describing new insects and establishing type specimens.
For now though, we hope that you have enjoyed meeting Bert the ladybird. If you have any more questions for us then please post them in the comments box below or e-mail us using entomology@oum.ox.ac.uk.

10th Coleopterists Day

On February 2^nd we hosted for the second year the annual national beetle (Coleoptera) enthusiasts day, with the fifty attendees coming from as far as Cornwall and Lancashire. The day kicked off with proper coffee, tea and biscuits and then a series of talks, followed by a tour of the entomology department and a dung beetle workshop. 

The talks presented were a nice mix of professional, student and enthusiast and were enjoyable and entertaining. The talks were: Using traits to evaluate ladybird distributions – Richard Comont, CEH; Prionus coriarius in Richmond Park – John Lock; Suckers & sexual conflict in diving beetles – Dave Bilton, Plymouth University; Studying the ecology of British Oil Beetles – John Walters; New initiatives to support beetle recording in Britain – Helen Roy, BRC.

Helen Roy presenting her talk on beetle recording in Britain

The collections (thanks to Amoret Spooner) and Library (thanks to the Librarian Kate Santry) were accessible throughout the afternoon, and many took advantage of using the library (for the first time) and the collections to confirm identifications against our reference material or just to see the more unusual species and extract data. 

The workshop ‘Dung Beetle Identification’ was a bit of squeeze in our teaching area, with a few too many enthusiastic coleopterists wanting to know how to identify the small and often difficult Aphodius. 

Darren Mann presenting his workshop on dung beetle identification

However, using our digital video set-up and monitor we managed to get through the entire dung beetle fauna, giving tips and tricks on their identification and interpretation of the key couplets, the stalwart coleopterists continuing until 8pm.

Darren Mann using the video microscope to show characters used in the identification of British dung beetle species

Alfred Russel Wallace

In 2013, 100 years after his death, we celebrate the life of Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), one of the greatest Victorian naturalists, travellers and collectors, a scientific and social thinker, early bio-geographer and ecologist, co-founder with Charles Darwin, of the theory of evolution through Natural Selection.

The Hope Entomological Collections (HEC) has many examples of species named after Wallace and of specimens collected by Wallace himself including species types such as Wallace's giant bee.

Megachile pluto described by B. Smith, 1869 is the largest bee species in the world. It occurs in Indonesia and builds its nest inside active termite nests.

The OUMNH also has nearly 300 letters written by Wallace discussing scientific topics, social issues, his relationship with Charles Darwin, and family matters which have been scanned as part of the Wallace Correspondence Project (WCP). Recently, the WCP has launched a new searchable open access on-line database entitled  'Wallace letters on-line'. Staff and volunteers in the HEC have put in many hours of work in order to add our own holdings of letters and correspondance to this exciting project.

A letter from A.R. Wallace to E.B. Poulton, a former curator of the Hope Entomological Collections.

Wallace was largely self-educated. He developed an interest in natural history when young, and, like Darwin, became a keen beetle-collector. Fourteen years younger than Darwin, and from a less wealthy background, Wallace always had to earn a living while developing his scientific ideas. The Victorians were fascinated by the mystery behind the development of species and the anonymous publication in 1844 of ‘Vestiges of the Origin of Creation’ (actually written by Robert Chambers) caused a sensation. Wallace determined to resolve the species question himself, and travelled to South America with Henry Walter Bates to collect specimens and theorise about species, inspired by earlier travellers such as Humboldt, Edwards and Darwin himself. 

Wallace spent four and a half years in Amazonia before returning to England (losing most of his precious collections and notes in a ship’s fire on the way home) and had already published some scientific articles before publishing two short books, ‘A Narrative of Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro’ and ‘Palm Trees of the Amazon and their Uses’, but he realised he needed to continue collecting if he was to achieve his aim.

Wallace chose as his new collecting ground, the Indonesian region. Before leaving England, Wallace happened to meet Darwin briefly at the British Museum. While Darwin continued his painstaking work on barnacles and other researches, Wallace arrived in Singapore in 1854 and spent eight and a half years travelling an estimated 14,000 miles throughout the region, as described in his much republished book ‘The Malay Archipelago’.

It was here that Wallace wrote his illuminating essay ‘On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species’ (known as the ‘Sarawak Law’ paper) in 1855. This was followed in February 1858 by Wallace’s most famous paper ‘On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type’ which did lead Darwin to publish On The Origin of Species the following year.

Wallace was suffering from malarial fever when the idea crystallised in his mind. Between bouts of fever, he wrote out his theory in a few days, and sent it to Darwin (whom he knew would be sympathetic to his ideas), hoping for advice on whether and how to publish it. A key for both Darwin and Wallace in formulating their theories of natural selection was recollection of Malthus’s essay on population. Of course, when Darwin received Wallace’s letter, he was presented with a dilemma. He had been working on his theory for twenty years, and here was an outline of that theory, written by a relative unknown, far away in the tropics. Darwin sought advice from Sir Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker (later Sir Joseph Hooker), who decided that it would be fairest to publish some extracts of Darwin’s earlier writings together with Wallace’s paper, at the next meeting of the Linnean Society. It happened that an emergency meeting was being called and the papers were added to the agenda and read on 1 July 1858, with neither author present (Wallace was still in the Malay Archipelago and Darwin’s son Charles had just died).

Darwin was relieved when he found that far from resenting his treatment, Wallace felt honoured for their ideas to be associated. In fact, when writing about natural selection, Wallace chose the term ‘Darwinism’ and defended ‘Darwinism’ with vigour, both in England and abroad, describing himself as a ‘Darwinian’. Both Darwin and Wallace recognised that their theory (which they both acknowledged had been arrived at independently) had anticipators and were fully aware of the importance of recognising the contributions of others. They remained correspondents, consulting each other on various topics and Wallace was one of the pall-bearers at Darwin’s funeral.

Wallace was a believer in inspiration and said ‘all my best ideas have come to me suddenly’. Modest to a fault, he was happy to receive (among many other honours heaped on him) the Royal Society’s ‘Darwin’ medal, and described as ‘outrageous’ attempts to put him on same level as Darwin. 

When presented with the first ‘Darwin-Wallace’ medal by the Linnean Society on 1 July 1908 (celebrating the anniversary of publication of the Darwin-Wallace papers), Wallace contrasted himself with Darwin: “I was then (as often since) the "young man in a hurry": he, the painstaking and patient student, seeking ever the full demonstration of the truth that he had discovered, rather than to achieve immediate personal fame.”.  Wallace felt himself more suited to fieldwork (he was meticulous with his labels and had always recognised the importance of noting the location where each specimen had been found) and was glad that Darwin had been able to provide the vital detailed proofs and analysis for their controversial ideas.

Although they did not agree on everything (and sometimes had to agree to disagree), Darwin and Wallace shared mutual respect and friendship, and believed ardently in the spirit of co-operation, which their relationship personified.

The postcard above, written in Wallace's handwriting reads as follows 'Many thanks for the kind congratulations- Am feeling quite jolly! Alfred R Wallace'