Ethan Bright

Here's some fun...Guess the generic identify of this... I took this picture in the lab some time back.

Yes, that's the spider. They're also interesting in that, in contrast to most terrestrial spiders, the male is larger than the female. Delores Schuetz and Michael Taborsky did some interesting research on this topic: Schütz D, Taborsky M. 2003. Adaptations to an aquatic life may be responsible for the reversed sexual size dimorphism in the water spider, Argyroneta aquatica. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2003, 5: 105–117. Below is the abstract: Argyroneta aquatica is the only spider that spends its whole life under water, and one of very few in which males are bigger than females. We hypothesized that the unusual ecology of the water spider is responsible for its exceptional sexual size dimorphism. If ecological parameters influence optimal body size for locomotion, the size of the more mobile sex (males) is expected to vary more between populations that vary in these ecological conditions than that of the other sex (females). Indeed, sexual size dimorphism differed significantly between four populations of A. aquatica studied at Vienna, and this variation depended more on variance in male size than in female size. We found that, apart from size, body shape and the relative length of the first pair of legs also differed significantly between the sexes. In land spiders, among which females are usually larger than males, small male size has been attributed to the better mobility of smaller individuals, as generally males are the more mobile sex in spiders. In aquatic animals, larger individuals have mobility advantages over smaller ones. We therefore hypothesized that, in A. aquatica, large rather than small size may facilitate locomotion, and hence that males are better divers than females. This was confirmed by the results of diving experiments. It is probable that male diving superiority is mainly due to their longer first pair of legs. Female size determines fecundity to a large extent. We wished to determine which size constraints could prevent females from growing bigger. Female size may be limited by the costs of building air bells, which they use as a retreat and for brood care. In laboratory experiments, we found that females build larger air bells than males and that air bell size correlates with body size in females but not in males. Females need to collect air from the surface to refill their bells more often than males. We conclude that the need for males to move efficiently under water and the costs to females of building a retreat and breeding shelter may be important determinants of body size and morphology. Hence the reversed sexual size dimorphism in A. aquatica may be greatly influenced by mechanisms of natural selection.

OSD, If you're in Michigan, PLEASE catch a bunch for me!!! I could use a bunch of these for my collection. It would also be good to have the exact locality of the emergence as a site record. If you see any floating nymph exuviae, I would also like to have these. If you could place a bunch of the exuviae (or nymphs, even better) together with imagoes in some container of 70% alcohol (from the pharamcy, either ethyl alcohol or isopropyl). You can send them to me via Fed Ex or UPS, which ever will ship with this preservative. I will pay for your costs. IF you don't want to bother with this, I could also take dry specimens put into a container like a baby jar or empty plastic container. Cheers, Ethan

Ulf, That is great work! How much time did it take to do it? And did it catch any fish? Like most spiders, most people over-estimate the size of spiders because of the out-streatched appendages. Still, I've seen some really big fishing spiders (ca. 3-4 cm body length), and they are very scary especially when you're expecting to see them. That and the beautiful yellow-and-black garden (orb) spider are our largest spiders (in Michigan). If I remember from the movie Microcosmos, there's a spider (diving spider) species in Europe and Asia that constructs an air bubble in which to hide, drag its prey, and even lay its eggs. Do you have these in Sweden? Cheers, Ethan

I came across a vial of some small Dolometes fishing spiders I collected about 8 years ago. I took some very quick photos through my microscope this afternoon. I hope they come out alright. (The first isn't great because I didn't properly compress the image). Enjoy! Habitus Close-up of eyes Mouthparts Spinnerets

Back on line... 1-2 mm long? You got great micro-vision! Several other possibilities: 1) Leptoceridae, especially Nectopsyche or Mystacides; 2) Brachyceridae, specifically Micrasema, but I don't see cases with attached "balast" or support projections; 3) Lepidostomatidae, specifically Lepidostoma, but I also don't see cases with the above projections. However, their case structure is variable, both in shape and partical content. Most of the growth of many caddis larvae is in the final instar, and I find many 2nd and even 3rd instars to be quite small in comparison to the final nymph stage. Cheers, Ethan

Roger writes..."I conclude in regard to the question I posed is that, the reason there is no taxonomic distinction between moths and butterflies is that they are (essentially) artificial categories, and are simply based on observation of certain evolved characteristics." That is essentially correct, except the last part. I'd rephrase so that "the taxonomic distinction between moths and butterflies is that, as currently recognized, is an artificial grouping that do not reflect the evidence supporting current phylogenetic hypotheses." It's a fancy way of saying Lepidoptera contains moths and butterflies, and many more moths than butterflies, and that some of what we used to differentiate groups doesn't work for all of them. But most of them. :sleep: I'm getting tired! zzzzzzzz Take care Roger - keep the great questions coming, and keep on grabbing those critters! Cheers, Ethan

I've never encountered Litobrancha recurvata in large numbers. In many parts of Michigan I've found them only in small cool-water brooks to cold-water outwash trout streams in the upper part of the Lower Peninsula (e.g., Boardman, Sturgeon, Black, Pigeon, Au Sable, Pine, etc.). I also think I collect a nymph or two from the windswept portion of a cold, oligotrophic lake in the Huron Mountains of Marquette Co. Again, never in large numbers, so I'd doubt there would be the emergence numbers that more frequently encounteres with Ephoron spp., Ephemera spp. or Hexagenia sp. Still, if you collect Litobrancha recurvata subimagoes or imagoes that are in good shape, I'd like to have some (and would reimburse for postage). Cheers, Ethan

Oh yes, just a follow-up... Two great books on insects and related invertebrates have been published, and are highly recommended: Grimaldi D, Engel MS. 2005. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press. Resh VH, Carde RT. 2003. Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press. Cheers, Ethan

These are EXCELLENT questions. The study of systematics, and the use of various forms of cladistics in which to make and test hypotheses regarding phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships, has often challenged (and confused) the notions of many people who grew up with certain names for organisms. Check this web site: http://tolweb.org/Lepidoptera. It shows how specialists posit the evolutionary relationships of Lepidoptera. Basal clads represent organisms that have more pleisomorphic ("primitive") characters, and represent those ancesters that also gave rise to more recent clads (groups of organisms) that are recognized by having more apomorphic ("advanced") characters. In other words, the type of characters (morphological, genetic, etc., all that is inherited) give evidence to how organisms came to be over time. This is the "Decent with modification" part of the Theory of Evolution. Subsequent analyses by scientists test the subsequent parts of current evolutionary theory, such as "due to natural selection, drift, genetic mutation, etc." (BTW, there is a fantastic body of thought, both scientific and philosphical, regarding the ramifications of these endeavors to understand the history of life). OK, regarding Lepidoptera, what "defines" this group. In other words, what characters are shared by all "moths and butterflies" that differentiate it from it's hypothesized (and almost universally accepted) nearest sister taxa, the Trichoptera (caddisflies)? Surprisingly, it isn't the proboscis, which almost all of them use to feed. (The most ancent group of moths have mandibulate mouthparts). Rather, it appears to be 1) Wings with dense covering of scales on veins and membrane; 2) Wings with M veins having 3 branches; 3) Foretibia with one apical spur, or none; 4) Median ocellus lost; 5) Tergum one extensively desclerotized; 6) Cerci lost; and 7) Foretibia with articulated epiphysis on inner surface. (From Grimaldi and Engels. 2005. Evolution of Insects). This is now the place to talk about "paraphyly," which describes how the evolutionary history of organisms is grouped in a way that does not include other organism that are also part of its lineage. In other words, what most people call "moths" often does not include those "moths" that don't have the retractible proboscis, or those "moths" that are more recently derived from ancestors than the "butterflies." Although this is a big problem in phylogenetic systematics, it also gives rise to problems that ordinary people have with how to call an organism. Hence, "what's the difference between a moth and a butterfly?" If one is interested in how this group evolved, the common characters that people use to place leps into either group does NOT reflect their evolutionary history, and can lead to further problems when one comes across organisms that apparently are intermediate to both groups. You're probably now saying, "Cut the crap, I don't have time for this. Just tell me the f***ing difference between a moth and a butterfly!" Well, if looked at some pictures of geometrid moths, you might be confused. It's definitely a moth, but many people looking at it (like probably all my relatives) would say it's a butterfly. To them, that's fine, and makes their world happy. However, if you're interesting in deeper things, well then, ask more questions and be more skeptical at "universalisms" and "classifications." Deeper things would include Roger's excellent question regarding why there are so many moths than butterflies. That's often why it's great to look at the evolutionary history - there's been much more time for moths to speciate than butterflies. (Although this statement can be very problematic, especially if a group has greatly radiated to exploit new ecological niches, or if older groups experienced considerable extinction of species). And to finish up, another reason why people should have a rudimentary understanding of why scientists use phylogenetic systematics and evolutionary theory is, as Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Understanding relationships is how scientists are learning about infectious diseases, to find new medicines and treatments in human health, to develop programs in conservation, among many other things. Time to stop, and go back to work! Cheers, Ethan

I was just going to send you an email address of Nils Ryrholm, a Swedish lepidopterist ([email protected])? There's a web page for Swedish lepidoptera: http://www.bostream.nu/butter/ Speaking of cyanide, the group of moths in Zygaenidae are very brightly colored, diurnal moths. The larvae synthesize cyanoglucides, and are resistant to cyanide. Entomology collectors use cyanide jars to quickly kill specimens, but these critters can survive for quite some time in these jars. Because these moths are quite toxic, and brightly colored, other species of moths have converged in appearance and color to take advantage of the avoidance predators have of these species. I find that many people aren't really aware of the diversity of Lepidoptera, especially that the great majority is represented by the huge diversity of "moths," many of which are active only during night. I often demostrate this by "blacklighting," which one can easily contruct (for about $30) from supplies from a hardware store and a white sheet upon which to project the light. Butterflies, which are much better studied, have an estimated 14,000 species, whereas the total number of Lepidoptera (when you put the moths in) is around 160,000, with the projected real number over 300,000. (As for most insect groups, the tropical regions are still poorly known). Althought they share a common Triassic ancestor with the Trichoptera (caddisflies), the huge radiation of species is closely associated with Cretaceous radiation of angiosperms. Their ecological diversity is also interesting. Although most of you know there are aquatic and semi-aquatic species, there are also species of Lepidoptera that are predaceous. There's a species that allows itself to be carried off by ants, where, once in the nest, they appease ants with secretions while they prey on ant larvae and pupae. There are species that are parasitoids of other insects (another form of predation), whereby the female lays an egg on another insect, which hatches and feeds off the living host until the latter's death. There's even a southeast Asian species of moth (Calpe eustrigata), which probably diverged from related species' feeding by piercing fruit, that feeds on blood, including from humans. Sorry, couldn't resist from writing the above....

Dolometes sp. - fishing spider. While doing my stream ecology research, I've seen some huge specimens - some females with body lengths (not including the legs) 2 inches (5 cm) or more - guarding their areas on rocks, logs, or places around undercut banks. I've also seen them around lakes, ponds, and many types of wetlands. The link below has some nice pictures. http://www.uark.edu/depts/entomolo/museum/dolomede.html There have been reports of very hungry fishing spiders intimidating Copper River grizzly bears to let go of their salmon catch :ripped: , and hauling the released fish to their dens to suck them dry. Unfortunately, these reports don't make it into the peer-reviewed literature :dunno: , but I'm sure there's something on the web to back this statement up. This is what happens when I write posts at 1:00 AM in the morning...

Next one you see, don't "smash the crap out of it." I've collected only one, in an older house in which my family lived. Haven't seen any in our current house. I'd be interested in having one, so put it in a tiny container and send it to me. (They are completely harmless to people). I'll preserve it in 70% EtOH, and use it to show to students and other interested persons. I'll even take some high-quality images with my microscope and share them with the forum. (And I'll reimburse you for shipping costs!). Entomologists do those sort of things, I guess! Cheers, Ethan

Just wanted to let everyone know they finally posted my entomology book for sale on the trading forum. First come, first serve. (That is, whoever agrees to the conditions). (I have to be fair to everyone). Selling and shipping details are listed in the posting. Cheers, Ethan

The administrator's requires a 40 (message) post minimum, and since I'm at 39, this post hopefully will make my "trading floor" post acceptable. (Thanks to SmallieHunter for pointing me to this section). The book is a duplicate copy of McCafferty's 1981 "Aquatic Entomology." Details of the sale (asking price, shipping method and costs, condition, etc.) will be announced once I can post the item in that forum. Cheers, Ethan

Hi, I have a duplicate copy of an aquatic entomology book, but before I "advertise it" I wanted to be sure about the forum's etiquette rules. Can I mention the book and the asking price, with a "first come, first served" policy? Is this allowed? If not, then I will not post. Cheers, Ethan

I'm not familar with the term "shucks," typical of my fishing ignorance and poor ability. However, based on your prelim description, it sounds if the cocoons attached to rocks might be simuliid pupal cases. However, almost always these would be attached to rocks with flowing water over them, very rarely in slower water or in pools. Otherwise, there are many types of chironomids that pupate in loose tubes (probably certain genera of orthoclads (e.g., Cricotopus, Orthocladius) or attached cases (e.g., Rheocricotopus). Various Chironominae (e.g., Microtendipes, Micropsectra, Tanytarsus, etc.) also pupate in tubes. But many other midges freely pupate at the water's surface, where they often accumulate along the water's edges, usually about 100 meters from where they emerged (eclosion) from their larval state. Pupation is a short stage, usually a couple of days (often temperature dependent), and the adults emerge. Males usually are noticed swarming above some physical object. If you have a more detailed description, I'll be glad to help. Cheers, Ethan

Actually, the adult odonate has 11 abdominals segments. Segments 1-10 are visible as segments, with side pleural membranes where the spiracles are located, and an 11th segment variously modified into an epiproct, a pair of paraprocts, and cerci. The groundplan for most insects is for 11 or even 12 (e.g., Protura) segments. This can be observed early on in embryogenesis, but the segments are often modified, reduced, or changed with an organism's developmental ontogeny.

Hi all, I've been gone a while, hence the lack of posts. One note about the USGS web site. Although it's a great start, especially for the stonefly section, many of the distribution lists are woefully inadequate. They are really just a synthesis of what the authors have seen in the literature, and it's an obviously incomplete survey. Also, the records have often not been updated for some time. Much better work with Odonata has been done by Thomas Donnelly in Bulletin of American Odonatology and by Dennis Paulson on his Slater Museum site at the University of Puget Sound, as well as with the efforts of many regional Odonata sites. With regards to Odonata, and Sympetrum internum in Michigan, it's just an example of the problems with web pages - they're often not peered reviewed. Now, the Michigan Odonata Society, has been surveying odonates in our state since 1997. There are over 25,000 records in the database, including for Sympetrum internum. As you can see, this species occurs in the Otsego County area. Hence, Roger's comments are right on target! Further, the MOS records are viewable on their database, and one can always arrange with the museum to examine the specimen. One should also note the many contributions made by non-scientists, i.e., naturalists like many of you, who take an interest in science, ecology, and nature, and wish to assist research projects. Thus, the MOS, for example, has done a great job in surveying Michigan Odonata. This is the same for a host of other regional sites. Cheers, Ethan

A black widow spider as a pet? Not my cup of tea! Still, nice pictures. If your baby has babies, though, and you don't want them, then place the (hopefully escape-proof) container in a freezer for several hours - that'll kill all of them. Then, picking them up with forceps, place them in a vial with 70% alcohol and you'll have your trophy for years to come. Now, if you really want to dabble in some dangerous fun, try keeping a Brazilian wandering spider (Phoneutria nigriventer). Some consider it the most dangerous, toxic, and aggressive spider in the New World. There's dozens of web pages on this topic, many plagerized from each other). Now, keep in mind that spiders have their enemies, too. Capture some mud-daubing spider wasps (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae), and they'll dispose of your spider in a hurry. These wasps, which construct small mud retreats (often near or on buildings and protective structures), can inflict some of the most painful stings known. But they're very shy of people, but not the spiders they eat. Many are able to avoid getting tangled in a spider web. Also, lizards, birds as well as a host of bacteria, fungi, viruses and a slew of parasitic organisms take care of their share of "dangerous spiders." Nothing is infallible in nature. OK, back to work... Cheers!

It's really hard to make out any detail. Seems like there's one pair of winds, and perhaps the antennae are very short (consisting of a scape (the base), pedicel (enlarged), and an elongate bristle-like aristle (flagellum). If this is the case, its a brachyceran Diptera. The general gestalt of the insects reminds me of either a snipe fly (Rhagionidae) or remotely, perhaps, a long-legged fly (Dolichopodidae). If you have the specimen in alcohol, I can identify it on-hand. Or at least take some clearer, more magnified pictures so that more details become clearly evident. Cheers, Ethan

I recommend preserving your spider in 70-80% EtOH. (The other 20-30% is water). This will preserve the specimen's size and proportions, the color patterns (but not necessarily colors caused by cuticle pigments and other molecules), and the vial and density of the fluid will protect against breakage that a dry specimen will undoubtedly might present, especially between the cephalathorax and abdomen. Many pharmacies and drug stores sell denatured, 70% alcohol. If possible, avoid isopropyl, as I find it tends to dehydrate specimens. From my work at UMMZ-Insect Division, their spider specimens in the collection are preserved in vials and jars with an appropriate amount of alcohol. The adjunct curator for spiders at UMMZ is Don Cameron - you can contact him at [email protected]. Another great resource of spider researchers is: http://www.arachnology.be/pages/Scientists.html. Hope this helps.

I expect the price to be around $1.29. NOT! I'd expect to pay around $80-100. Yes, it's very expensive, but consider that you should get around 10-12 years of service from the book. Further, Rich Merritt mentioned to me at the NABS meeting there will be over 6000 references (yes, over six thousand!), which makes it a fantastic ecological research reference. Given the use I've had with the 3rd Edition, the above-mentioned price (i.e., the real one) is worth it. If you want a general reference for a non-specialist, then I'd go with other alternatives. For example, I've briefly seen Voshell's "A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America," and it's a good book that sells for about $22 at Amazon. More expensive and devoted to lotic ecosystems is a book by Cushing and Allan, "Streams: Their Ecology and Life," which is about $60. (David Allan was my Master's Thesis advisor at the University of Michigan. His textbook, "Stream Ecology," will be coming out with a 2nd Edition in a year or two). Another good reference for northeastern North America is Peckarsky et al. 1991 "Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America," which is about $35 in paperback.

The elongate, piercing-sucking mouthpart that arises from the front of head definitely makes it a Heteroptera (part of the hemipteroid assemblage, which includes water bugs, assassin bugs, leafhoppers, scales, cicadas, etc.). It appears to be a species of Reduvilldae, the assassin bugs, ambush bugs, and three-legged bugs; however, I'm not great with the terrestrial bugs, and would need the specimen in-hand to identify it.

I'm writing this in Anchorage, Alaska, where the North American Benthological Society annual meeting is being held. From the largest city in Alaska, one can see the Chugach Mountains to the east, the Chigmit Mountains to the west, and Denali to the north. Beautiful! Tomorrow is an insect collecting trip. so I hope to get some taxa that I don't get in the Great Lakes area. There were some talks about the forthcoming new edition of Merritt and Cummins, which is likely to be in the stores sometime before January 2007. (Kendall/Hunt told me August, but Rich Merritt indicated they haven't received the galley proofs, so it will come out later). Apparently many of the insect orders will see considerable revisions to the taxonomy, particularly with the large holometabolous insects (especially Diptera, some Coleoptera and Trichoptera), but also many changes to the life history tables. Also of interest, particularly to beginners, will be the addition of an inter-active CD disk included with the book. It will allow identification to order and (I think) families of most of the groups. It will be based on the Lucid computer key program. The user then will refer to the book for more taxonomic resolution. With regards to Diptera, there will be many changes except for families in which we still don't have many larval-pupal-adult rearing associations (e.g., Ceratopogonida). Thaumeleidae, which has 26 spp. in 2 genera in North America, will have our species transfered to Androprospn (sic.?), reflecting Sinclair's 1996 work. The distribution and species resolution of Blephariceridae will be improved, perhaps providing better generic-level characters in the book (based on Courtney's work). I don't think this will be reflected in the book, but expect in the near future many of the tipulid (cranefly) subfamilies to be raised to family rank. This follows much of European taxonomists' research in this group. The family Axymyiidae, with 1 sp. in e NA, and 1 sp. in w NA, will be included. This is a rarely collected family. They are poor dispersers. The larvae burrow into saturated hardwoos (e.g., beech; alder, maple and birch?), with a 2-year life cycle (at least in northern latitudes). Another new family included in the book is Oreoleptidae, with 1 sp. in w NA. Larvae live in torrentous streams, a habitat many do not sample (it's dangerous!). With Simuliidae, the number of species has risen to 256, with probably 300 or so to be expected. Piezosimulium is synomyzed (i.e., disappears) with Parasimulium; the type specimen of this genus turned out to be a deformed specimen of Parasimulium. Several new genera are included, following Wood, Currey and Alder's blackfly book. Chironomidae will see a lot of changes, with new genera added to Tanypodinae, Diamesinae, Prodimesinae, Orthocladiinae, and Chironominae. There are now 18 tribes and 223 genera. Further, the keys will include a reinterpretation of Tanypodinae mouthparts, but one needs very good optics with phase contrast or DIC to fully appreciate these characters. The adult keys are also revised. Looks like I'll have to fork out even more money to keep up-to-date! cheers, Ethan