Host selection and nesting behavior of Nearctic trapdoor spider-hunting spider wasps (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Pepsinae, Pompilinae)

Host records and nesting behavior of the Nearctic trapdoor spider-hunting spider wasps (Hy­menoptera: Pompilidae) Calopompilus Ashmead and Priocnemissus Haupt (Pepsinae: Pepsini) and Aporus Spinola and Psorthaspis Banks (Pompilinae: Aporini) are reviewed, investigated, compared, and discussed. First time incidental trapdoor spider host records for Priocnemis (Priocnemissus) minorata Banks (Pepsi­nae: Pepsini), Anoplius (Lophopompilus) carolina (Banks) (Pompilinae: Pompilini), and Notocyphus dorsalis dorsalis Cresson (Notocyphinae: Notocyphini) are included, although they are not typical trapdoor spider-hunting spider wasp species. The Palearctic Aporus (Aporus) unicolor Spinola, A. (Aporus) bicolor Spinola and A. (Aporus) planiceps (Latreille) are referenced for comparison with Nearctic Aporus sensu stricto. Early 20th century papers on species of Aporus and Psorthaspis are revived. New information on nesting behavior of Ne­arctic trapdoor spider-hunting spider wasps is described and first host trapdoor spider records for Psorthaspis formosa (Smith), P. legata (Cresson) and P. mariae (Cresson) are documented. Potential Pompilidae species in the genera Calopompilus and Aporus are suggested for host trapdoor spider remains found in burrows with spider wasp eggs, larvae and cocoons (pupae) based on geographic distribution, habitat, spider species, trapdoor and burrow structure, wasp cocoon size, and wasp congeneric host records

Evaluation of North American spider wasp (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae) common names

The use of common names for species and subspecies of North American spider wasps (Hymenop­tera: Pompilidae) presents a variety of questions for pompilid specialists as most pompilid taxa are difficult to identify, even under the microscope. Some common names currently being used for spider wasp species are acceptable while others are misleading, unfit and unacceptable. Opinions on the relative value of common names for spider wasps from current Pompilidae researchers are given in the Introduction. Eleven inappro­priate common names for North American Pompilidae species and subspecies are identified and discussed in the Results. The use of common names for fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals has been a satisfactory way of distinguishing and identifying animals for centuries. These animals are often readily identified because they are large, highly visible and many genera have only a few, easily recognizable species. Insects are another matter. The number of insect species on earth exceeds 5.5 million (Stork 2018). The number of spider wasp (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae) species on earth approximates 5000 (Pitts et al. 2005). Spider wasp species are usually not easily recognizable unless they are placed under the microscope and, even then, males and females of many species are difficult to identify. Many species are black in color and remarkably similar in size and structure. Genera such as Pepsis Fabricius (135 species), Hemipepsis Dahlbom (~180 species), and Auplopus Spinola (~150 species) have numerous similar species, making their identification extremely difficult. Many pompilid species can be identi­fied only by extraction and examination of the male genitalia, a painstaking and delicate procedure. Numerous species of spider wasps are known only from the male sex as some females such as Anoplius marginatus (Say) complex are impossible to identify (Evans 1951). For these reasons attaching a common name to a spider wasp species can be an insurmountable task. Some prominent hymenopterists are, in fact, opposed to assigning and using common names for species of Pompilidae

Nesting behavior, ecology, and functional morphology of the trapdoor spider-hunting spider wasp \u3ci\u3eAporus (Plectraporus) hirsutus\u3c/i\u3e (Banks) (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae)

Macrophotographs in series taken by Alice Abela on sandy coastal dunes in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, CA in 2010–2021 supplement and enhance F. X. Williams (1928) study of the ecol­ogy and nesting behavior of the trapdoor spider-hunting spider wasp Aporus (Plectraporus) hirsutus (Banks) (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Aporini). Abela’s macrophotographs and observations provide new details of adult wasp feeding, functional morphology, hunting, digging and prey transport, and host spider trapdoor, entrance, burrow structure, host capture and escape activity. Newly reported host records from this study and online photographs expand A. hirsutus host selection in the large wafer-lid trapdoor spider genus Aptostichus Simon (Araneae: Mygalomorphae: Euctenizidae). The A. hirsutus California geographic distribution map by Wasbauer and Kimsey (1985) is updated, thereby providing a broader definition of intraspecific variation in this species. Aporus (Plectraporus) hirsutus (Banks) (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Aporini) is black, its body, antennae, legs and forewings rendered brilliant bluish, greenish or violaceous by its pubescence (Evans 1966; Wasbauer and Kimsey 1985) (Fig. 1). Females of A. hirsutus are 6.5–13.0 mm in body length, their size depending on the size of the host spider on which they fed as a larva (Evans 1966; F. E. Kurczewski pers. obs.). Females have the appropriate structural characteristics for preying on the wafer-lid trapdoor spider genus Aptostichus Simon (Araneae: Myga­lomorphae: Euctenizidae) in loose sand of active and relict coastal sand dunes and deserts in the western U. S. (Williams 1928; Wasbauer and Kimsey 1985). Aporus hirsutus ranges from Oregon and California eastward to Idaho, Nevada and western Arizona, and southward into Sonora and Baja California, Mexico (Evans 1966; Was­bauer and Kimsey 1985) (Fig. 9; Table 1)

First host record, nesting behavior, and taxonomic position of the spider wasp genus \u3ci\u3eHesperopompilus\u3c/i\u3e Evans and some other Evans genera (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae)

First host record, prey transport, and burrow excavation are described for Hesperopompilus sp., an undescribed, rare spider wasp (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae) from Texas. Taxonomic, ecological, and behav­ioral examination of the genus subsequently led to an investigation of the previously related Perissopompilus Evans and Xerochares Evans. Taxonomic, host preference, nesting behavior, and phylogenomic relationships of the three taxa are discussed along with those of Xenopompilus Evans. The molecular connection of Perisso­pompilus and Allochares Banks is supported by their common use of host species of Filistatidae. Evans (1951), in his taxonomic study of the spider wasp tribe Pompilini (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Pompilinae), described the comparatively rare subgenera Xerochares and Perissopompilus and re-described the comparatively rare genus Hesperopompilus Evans (1948), grouping these taxa adjacently in the large worldwide genus Pompilus Fabricius. Pompilus resembles Anoplius Dufour in many structural features but can be distinguished from that genus in the female by the absence of stiff bristles on the apical metasomal tergum and in the male by the toothed tarsal claws (Evans 1951, 1966a; Wasbauer and Kimsey 1985). Evans (1953, 1960, 1968) later described and added the rare subgenus Xenopompilus to this group of three subgenera, rearranging them in Pompilus in the follow­ing phylogenetic order: Hesperopompilus, Xenopompilus, Perissopompilus, and Xerochares. Krombein (1979) and Wasbauer and Kimsey (1985) reaffirmed Evans (1951, 1966a) subgeneric arrangement in Pompilus despite the attempts of European workers, notably Day (1981), to elevate the four subgenera to genus status. Evans (1990), in agreement with Krombein (1979) and Wasbauer and Kimsey (1985), referenced Pompilus silvivagus Evans. However, Evans (1997) listed the genera Hesperopompilus and Arachnophila Kincaid, including Arachnospila (Ammosphex) silvivaga (Evans), in his Spider Wasps of Colorado following Day’s (1981) narrow interpretation of Pompilus, with little explanation of their elevated generic status. Hesperopompilus, Xenopompilus, Perissopompi­lus, and Xerochares were classified thereafter on multiple websites (e.g., BugGuide, Flickr, iNaturalist) as genera, not subgenera. Finally, the four subgenera established by Evans (1948, 1951, 1953) were treated as separate gen­era by Pitts et al. (2005), Horta-Vega et al. (2009), Wasbauer and Kimsey (2010), Castro-Huertas et al. (2014), Waichert et al. (2015), Rodriguez et al. (2015), and Fernández et al. (2022) based on morphological, host prefer­ence, nesting behavior, and, especially, phylogenomic criteria

Selectivity of Wohl-Ziegler Brominations of Cyclohexene and trans-2-Hexene

https://openriver.winona.edu/urc2018/1131/thumbnail.jp

Additional new and unusual host records for Western Hemisphere spider wasps (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae)

We present 112 new and unusual host records for 63 species and subspecies of Pompilidae (Hy­menoptera) from the Western Hemisphere in modified taxonomic order according to the Synoptic Catalog of Hymenoptera (Krombein 1979). These records supplement those reported in a recent study by Kurcze­wski et al. (2020b). New and atypical genus and species host records are given for the genera Calopompilus Ashmead, Herbstellus Wahis, Pepsis Fabricius, Priocnessus Banks, Entypus Dahlbom, Pompilocalus Roig-Alsina, Sphictostethus Kohl, Priocnemis Schiødte, Caliadurgus Fabricius, Epipompilus Kohl, Auplopus Spinola, Ageniella Banks, Eragenia Banks, Agenioideus Ashmead, Sericopompilus Howard, Poecilopompilus Ashmead, Tachypompilus Ashmead, and Priochilus (Fabricius). New host spider families are introduced for species of Calopompilus (Nemesiidae), Pepsis (Idiopidae, Pycnothelidae), Priocnessus (Euagridae), Entypus (Agelenidae), Ageniella (Theridiidae, Zoropsidae), Agenioideus (Theridiidae), Poecilopompilus (Salticidae), Tachypompilus (Anyphaenidae, Xenoctenidae, Pycnothelidae), Xerochares (Sparassidae), and Priochilus (Agelenidae). Curicaberis ?culiacans Rheims (Sparassidae), as prey of Xerochares expulsus (Schulz), is the first host record for this rare monotypic genus. Four new host spider families are reported from the Western Hemisphere for the first time: Idiopidae for Pepsis terminata, Pycnothelidae for Pepsis completa Smith and Tachypompilus mendozae (Dalla Torre), Euagridae for Priocnessus hurdi Dreisbach, and Xenoctenidae for T. mendozae. Pycnothelidae represents the first host record of a mygalomorph spider [Acanthogonatus ?incursus (Chamberlin)] for the worldwide genus Tachypompilus, based on more than 2500 host records. Amputation of the host spider’s legs and Ageniellini method of prey transport is highly unique in Poecilopompilus mixtus

First host record for the spider wasp \u3ci\u3eCryptocheilus severini\u3c/i\u3e Banks (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Pepsinae)

The first host record for the North American spider wasp Cryptocheilus severini Banks (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Pepsinae) from Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México is introduced with pertinent observation information. The genus Cryptocheilus Panzer in North America is briefly described, its nesting habitat and prey transport outlined, and host specificity detailed. The genus Cryptocheilus Panzer (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae: Pepsinae) comprises medium to rather large species of average stoutness (Townes 1957). The six Nearctic species of Cryptocheilus are all closely related (Townes 1957). In the Old World this genus is much richer, with 24 species and structural diversity that can present problems in identification from other species complexes (Cambra and Wahis 2005). There are five species of Cryptocheilus occurring in the Neotropical region, from México to Colombia (Fernández et al. 2022). Females of Cryptocheilus species nest in the ground, typically in a burrow off the side of a large fissure in the soil or a mammal burrow. The wasp may excavate the nest-cell prior to prey capture and immobilization of the spider by stinging, as in the related genus Entypus Dahlbom. Prey are transported backwards on the ground, the spider being grasped with the wasp’s mandibles by a leg, pedipalp or chelicera. Host records for only four North American Cryptocheilus species are known and they comprise predominantly Lycosidae (wolf spiders) and, rarely, Agelenidae (funnel-web or grass spiders) (Table 1)

Wildlife collection for scientific purposes

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find amodus vivendithat promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.Peer reviewe

Evaluation of Stormwater Filters at Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky, 2011-12

Studies in the 1970s found potentially toxic levels of metals entering Mammoth Cave’s underground streams through storm recharge. Additional studies confirmed that stormwater from parking lots and buildings fl owed rapidly into critical cave habitats. The Park’s management responded to these findings by installing storm runoff filter systems on the most heavily used parking lots in 2001. The Park entered an agreement (2010-12) with Tennessee State University, the USGS, and WKU-Mammoth Cave International Center for Science and Learning to evaluate the filter systems to determine if they were removing hazardous compounds from stormwater runoff . The objective of this study was to evaluate stormwater filters before and after replacing 2-year-old ZPG cartridge filters. The study focused on the first-flush runoff waters during the storms. The filters were not effective at removing quaternary ammonia compounds (QACs), and moderately eff ective at removing zinc and copper. The filters were very effective at removing diesel-range aromatic ring compounds (fuels). Regression analyses were used to evaluate trends between parking lot size and filter efficiency. The efficiency of the filters to remove fuels improved with basin size. The efficiency to remove QACs decreased with basin size. Basin size did not appear to have any correlation to zinc or copper removal efficiency. Human activity, such as construction, probably played a role in the storm-water chemistry and the efficacy of the filters to remove certain contaminants

Adaptive optics imaging of a stellar occultation by Titan

We present resolved images of the occultation of a binary star by Titan, recorded with the Palomar Observatory adaptive optics system on 20 December 2001 UT. These constitute the first resolved observations of a stellar occultation by a small body, and demonstrate several unique capabilities of diffraction-limited imaging systems for the study of planetary atmospheres. Two refracted stellar images are visible on Titan's limb throughout both events, displaying scintillations due to local density variations. Precise relative astrometry of the refracted stellar images with respect to the unnocculted component of the binary allows us to directly measure their altitude in Titan's atmosphere. Their changing positions also lead to simple demonstration of the finite oblateness of surfaces of constant pressure in Titan's mid-latitude stratosphere, consistent with the only previous measurement of Titan's zonal wind field