My monthly pest this month revealed only 3 brown banded cockroaches. One adult female in one trap and 2 immatures in another trap. All in all not bad for this old building.
Archive for the ‘curation’ Category
Pest Survey
Thursday, May 27th, 2010rescuing bulk samples of collembolans
Monday, May 24th, 2010Way back when, during the early days of this blog, I wrote a piece about some fairly degraded bulk samples hiding in plain view on our shelves (oh, the heartbreak!). Well, while searching for information about our next NC insect of the week I came across a series of equally heart-wrenching bulk samples containing springtails. Behold:
Hmmm…doesn’t look so bad…or does it? We have 40 of these large glass jars, each containing about 30 shell vials. The shell vials themselves hold undetermined collembolans from multiple collecting events in the 1950s and are capped with natural corks (AHHH!). Over time these corks leached tannins into the alcohol (hence the rich, tawny hue of that “tea”), making the medium acidic and bad for preservation. No sweat. Simply replace the tea with fresh alcohol and the corks with polyester fill. Right? (Might replace the glass as well, with proper shell vials.) But what about this unfortunate situation:
Double AHHH! The jar is completely dried out, save for some mystery goo at the bottom, and most of the corks have long since become disassociated from their vials:
Collembolans collected on moss on Mt. Timpanogos, UT, July 19, 1951 by G. F. Knowlton and T. Tibbetts.
Unfortunately we can’t go back in time and recollect these specimens, so a salvage mission is warranted. Are there any specimens left in that goo at the bottom? If so, what kind of shape are they in? Can we trust that they are in their appropriate vials, given that the corks popped off long ago? “Why not simply deaccession these lots and dump them in the trash?” asked a friend. Well, it’s our moral obligation to the collector and to collembologists that we at least attempt a rescue.
I rinsed the above vial with 80% ethanol, dumped the stew into a watch glass, and proceeded to pore over its contents. Dirt, chunks of cork, brown sludge…ah ha! There are specimens in there, and they appear to be in decent shape (to a non-collembologist, anyway):
(Thanks to Amy Bader for this image!)
Ok, so what’s the next step? Replacing the hardware and preservative is a no-brainer, but what about environmental conditions? Will increasing the pH back to neutral and the ethanol from some low, unmeasurable percentage to 80% damage the specimens? We also need to document this process and label the vials accordingly. Here’s what we’re reading (below), but we’d appreciate any feedback we get from someone in the know. Hopefully I’ll remember to post a follow-up!
References:
Marhue, L. 1983. Techniques to restore dried-up invertebrate specimens. In: Proceedings of the 1981 Workshop on the Care and Maintenance of Natural History Collections. D. J. Faber, ed. Syllogeus No. 44: 175-177. [our specimens are not totally dried out, so I think we're safe]
Cushing, P. E. and J. A. Slowik. 2007. Re-curation of alcohol-preserved specimens: comparison of gradual versus direct specimen transfer on specimen condition and assessment of specimen value. Collection Forum 22 (1-2): 1-9. [this study revealed no detrimental effects when ethanol concentrations were increased]
Van Cleave, H. J. and Ross, J. A. 1947. A method for reclaiming dried zoological specimens. Science 105 (2725): 318. [our specimens are not totally dried out, so I think we're safe]
Vogt, K.D. 1991. Reconstituting dehydrated museum specimens. Curator 34 (2): 125-131. [our specimens are not completely dried out, so can we avoid treatments with trisodium phosphate, surfactants, acetic acid, boiling, graded ethanol series, etc.?]
the latest news…
Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
I haven’t posted any news about the Museum in what seems like FOREVER. So here’s what’s been happening, in short snippets, during the last couple months:
- In March I traveled to South Australia to talk about ongoing projects (and hash out future research ideas) with my colleagues John Jennings and Andy Austin. We traveled 1200 km or so through eastern SA and western VIC, collecting along the way. I’ll write a separate post about this adventure, complete with pictures and more details. In the meantime, see if you can figure out what this mystery wasp (above) is and where/how it was collected!
- World-class Hymenoptera morphologists Gary Gibson and Lars Vilhelmsen were here for a couple weeks to help us jam on the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology. We got some incredible feedback and will be talking about this work at the International Congress of Hymenopterists in Kőszeg, Hungary this June (at least seven Insect Museum people will be attending!) Thankfully, Lars made it safely back to Copenhagen despite Eyjafjallajökull’s best efforts…
- We finished databasing our bumble bees (Apidae: Bombus spp.) and have moved on to Coccinellidae, while we also mix in some Heteroptera. We’ll bounce between bees and ladybird beetles for the next couple months. Time for us to tackle the GBIF bureaucracy so that we can become a provider!
- István Mikó is visiting the Canadian National Collection for a few weeks in order to finish an ongoing revision and to look for more Ceraphronoidea material we can borrow.
- We’re continuing our massive shuffle of equipment and furniture in the Museum, optimizing the space for a blend of digitizational (I know, that’s not a word) activities – from GigaPan (check out the Fulgoroidea drawers; we’ll finish Hemiptera in May), to collecting event data entry, to type imaging, to barcoding and sorting.
- Five of us will be attending the digitization meeting at NESCent, today through Friday. Here’s the original post about the last meeting. Time to synthesize community feedback and write up a formal plan.
- John Ascher from the AMNH visited to help us curate our bees, especially T. H. Mitchell’s wonderful collection.
- We’re running Malaise traps in the Sandhill region of North Carolina, as well as some familiar spots north of Durham. These traps get sorted on Wednesday evenings, over pizza (5:00-9:00pm). Everyone’s invited to join us! Send me an email if you’re interested. I’m drafting a post about the workflow, which we’re trying to standardize. It’d be great to get some feedback about our plan.
- We initiated a departmental contest to revitalize the eight display cases that reside outside of our classrooms (see photo below), which (apparently) haven’t been updated since humans hiked through Beringia. At least two of these displays will highlight research we’re doing in the Museum. I can’t wait!
position available at the NCSU Insect Museum
Friday, April 23rd, 2010Do you need a summer (and possibly longer) job? If you hang out on the NCSU campus you might see these employment fliers cropping up on various billboards this week. The Insect Museum needs a dedicated student, with interests in insects, scientific imaging, databasing, biodiversity informatics, information science, and/or public outreach, to help us achieve the goals outlined in our NSF BRC grant.
Questions can be sent to Andy Deans (ncsuinsects@gmail.com).
/AA/EOE. ADA Accommodations: Dr. Andrew R. Deans ncsuinsects@gmail.com 919-515-2833.// NC State welcomes all persons without regard to sexual orientation./
national specimen digitization effort
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010Imagine if you were put in charge of a giant warehouse full of money, and you had to devise a plan to earmark and distribute the funds in such a way that enables the digitization of ALL (or very nearly all) specimens in natural history collections in the USA:
What would that plan look like? Well, Brian Wiegmann and I were invited last month to a meeting at NESCent (Brian co-organized the meeting), where our charge was exactly that: devise a large-scale, national plan to digitize natural history collections over a 10-year period. The money doesn’t exist yet (nor do we know how much is required or how much we’ll get as a community), but the need for these data is very real.
The first summary of the plan is now out for comments, and there is an active campaign to rally the collections communities behind the idea. Feedback can be provided as a group email to the original participants (wg-digitization – AT – nescent.org), as individual emails to one or more participants listed on the meeting website, or as comments on the blog post summary.
What would your strategy be? Which components of the specimen digitization process should be prioritized – technology, data standards, crowd-sourcing, imaging, labor force, technology transfer, training, or _____? How would you involve federal agencies and international organizations? Note that the new program likely will not fund infrastructure (new cabinets, etc.), nor will it fund the collection of new specimens.
It’ll be fun to hear input from experts with diverse approaches and different issues (botanists vs. entomologists, database specialists vs. ecologists). As the director of an active natural history collection engaged in specimen-level databasing I’m very excited that this initiative is being pushed. We’re anxious for your input!
Sticky traps
Friday, February 26th, 2010During my monthly examination of 6 sticky traps scattered around the collection rooms revealed virtually no insect pests. I found 2 brownbanded cockroach (Supella longipalpa) nymphs in one of the traps and 1 Liposcelis booklouse in another trap. Given the old building we are in this is pretty good news. I will keep monitoring.
NC insect of the week – number 7
Friday, February 12th, 2010
Hymenoptera: Dryinidae: Dryinus crawfordi (Krombein, 1962)
(written by Nancy Maxwell, with input from Andy Deans)
Dryinids are wasps in the order Hymenoptera, superfamily Chrysidoidea (“Cuckoo wasps”), family Dryinidae. The genus and species of this particular insect is Dryinus crawfordi (Krombein, 1962).
Natural History: Dryinidae are distributed worldwide, for example in the Balearic Islands (Spain), Zimbabwe, Philippines, China, and the USA (Olmi and Virla, 2004; Olmi, 1987). They are usually about 4 mm in length, and the female resembles an ant (see Image 1 of a female D. crawfordi). Dryinids are parasitoids and usually also predators of Hemiptera, mainly of Cicadellidae, Delphacidae, and Flatidae. In the Neotropics, they are represented by about 450 species and 22 genera, belonging to 6 subfamilies (Olmi and Virla, 2004). Some Dryinidae are able to reproduce parthenogenetically (Krombein, et al., 1979). Krombein describes the ancestral form of Dryinidae as having a large, ovate stigma and only attacks Jassidae (now a synonym of Cicadellidae). Krombein also reported (using the language of the time) some of the morphological characters for Dryinus as previously stated by 1.) Latreille in 1809: mandibles 4-dentate, maxillary palpi 5-jointed, labial 3-jointed, 2.) Haliday, 1833: maxillary palpi 6-jointed, 3.) Marshall, 1868: parapsidal furrows distinct in figure and parallel, 4.) Ashmead, 1893: mandibles 3-dentate, maxillary palpi 6-jointed, labial palpi 2-jointed, and parallel parapsidal furrows figured on plate (Krombein, et. al., 1979, p. 491). The discrepancies between authors in the number of segments for various morphological features prompted Krombein to state, “I cannot fix these characters.”
Where can one find this species in NC? Because Dryinus crawfordi are known to be parasitoids of Hemiptera, it is possible they could be collected in agricultural fields where leaf hoppers are abundant in crops such as green beans, soybeans, etc. Or they could also possibly be found in a pasture/turf field where plant hoppers are prevalent.
NCSU Insect Museum specimens: There are 69 pinned specimens of Dryinidae in the North Carolina State University Insect Museum, none of which are identified to species. The collection dates range from 1930 to the most recent, collected on September 3, 2008 in Johnston County, North Carolina in a Malaise Trap. Other counties in North Carolina where Dryinidae was collected include: Wake (on an apple leaf), Mecklenburg, Wayne, Pitt, Orange, Onslow, Bladen, Brunswick, Johnston (on soybean) and Tyrrell. Three other locations in the NCSU Museum collection include Manhattan, Kansas, Costa Rica, and Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Collection and Preservation: The specimens in the NCSU Insect Museum were collected in either Malaise traps or yellow pan traps. The specimens could then be preserved in 95% ethanol or pointed.
Find out more:
Search Dryinus in the Biodiversity Heritage Library.
Krombein, K.V., ed. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Vol. 1, 2 and 3.
Olmi, M. 1987. New species of Dryinidae (Hymenoptera: Chrysidoidea). Fragmenta Entomologica 19:371–456.
Olmi, M. and Virla, E. 2004. Description of two new species of Dryinidae (Hymenoptera: Chrysidoidea) from Argentina. Zootaxa 709: 1-7 (excerpt)
NC insect of the week – number 6
Friday, February 5th, 2010
Mecoptera: Boreidae: Boreus brumalis Fitch 1847
(written by Bryan Man, with input from Trish Mullins and Andy Deans)
To introduce you to this week’s insect, I’d like you to imagine yourself walking through a forest in eastern Canada, or New England. It is winter, and the ground is covered in a glistening layer of fresh snow. Among the countless sparkles, you see small dark specks. As you approach it, the object springs away in the blink of an eye. What you just saw was Boreus brumalis, the snow flea.
The genus Boreus was described by Latreille in 1825 and has only four species known in North America – two species found on the east coast, and two more on the west. B. brumalis is one of the two east coast species, identified and described by Asa Fitch in 1847. The other is B. nivoriundus, also first described by Fitch. B. brumalis is classified in the order Mecoptera, which includes the scorpionflies, to which snowfleas certainly bear resemblance, with their long snout and overall body shape. However, unlike most of the other mecopterans, Boreus are brachypterous and live their lives running and jumping about the ice and snow in search of food and mates.
Because they live in such cold environments, it’s important for them to keep nice and warm, especially since they’re cold blooded like all insects. One important way they do this is through their dark black-green coloration, which allows them to absorb a great deal of energy from the sun and convert it into body heat. In fact, they are so well-adapted to the cold that they couldn’t survive the heat if one sat in the palm of your hand!
Even though this species was discovered and named over 100 years ago, there hasn’t been much research published since. Not much is known about their life cycle and habits, though it’s believed B. brumalis are moss and liverwort feeders. The adults appear usually from October through April, and it’s believed that the larvae hatch in early summer and undergo a speedy growth until they pupate at the end of summer. Their mating rituals can be showy at times and usually involve the brachypterous wings found on males.
If you find one of these insects and want to add it to a collection, they are large and hard-bodied enough to be pointed. The species can be found typically on snow throughout eastern North America, either in mountainous areas or during the winter in regions that get snow. The NCSU Insect Museum currently has 48 specimens collected as far north as New York, and south as North Carolina. The 18 North Carolina specimens come from two collecting events, both at Sugar Mountain, in Avery Co.: 7 specimens from 19 January 1978 and 11 specimens from 14 January 1981.
Find out more:
Kellogg, Vernon; Wellman, Mary. American Insects. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1905. p. 236-237.
Dohanian, S. M. 1915. Notes on the external anatomy of Boreus brumalis Fitch. Psyche 22: 120-123.
Image of live boreid in Utah, from Dana Jenson on Panoramio.
There are currently no records of this species in GBIF.
NC insect of the week – number 5
Friday, January 29th, 2010
Image of lectotype from the MCZ.
Coleoptera: Heteroceridae: Heterocerus undatus (Melsheimer 1844)
(written by Adrienn Uzsak, with input from Andy Deans)
Diagnosis: Initial separation of specimens into groups of genera is done using presence or absence of post-meso and post-meta coxal line. In Heterocerus the post-mesocoxal lines are present and the post-meta lines absent.
Natural History: Entomologists have no record of this particular species’ life history or at least it is not available. But according to a recent phylogeny of this genus, heterocerids live mainly in mud galleries (Olmstead and Fell 1974). Heterocerid adults and larvae live primarily near ponds, lakes and rivers. They are found in tunnel or burrow systems which they excavate in the moist mud or send on or near the shore. Adult burrows are usually marked by chimneys. The adults’ tunnels are not dwellings or shelter as they are not used repeatedly like those of crustaceans or mammals. Instead, they appear to be feeding structures, created while the sediment is moist and abandoned (by flight of the insects) when it becomes too dry for further burrowing. When disturbed they run from their galleries and take flight. Some adults scavenge on animal material, while larvae feed on either plant or animal materials. Their size is about 3-4 mm.Sometimes they are common. Splash water along shores of streams, ponds, or lakes to force these beetles from their burrows. They may fly readily and may fly to lights in good number.
The Insect Museum holds a nice series of 39 H. undatus specimens collected in Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, and North Carolina between 1905-1992. The only specimen collected in NC is the oldest one; it was collected in Raleigh, 1905. None have been collected and deposited in the Insect Museum since 1992. According to these data, this is a widely distributed but poorly understood and rarely seen species.
Find out more:
LeConte, J. L. 1862. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America prepared for the Smithsonian Institution by John L. LeConte.. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Harmer, S. F., A Shipley, A. E. 1899. The Cambridge natural history Macmillan and co., limited;, London.
More references from the Biodiversity Heritage Library.
Records available through GBIF (there are none at this time).
Encyclopedia of Life species page: Heterocerus undatus (Melsheimer, 1844)
Images of the lectotype at the Museum of Comparative Zoology
resolutions for 2010
Wednesday, December 30th, 2009Ok, so we didn’t quite meet those resolutions for 2009. What are our resolutions for 2010?
- Take care of the humidity issue. Persistent monitoring and reporting are key to resolving this potential problem. We’ll also look into dehumidifying strategies – e.g., remove fan vents, install some dehumidifiers – before spring hits in 2010. This should be an easy problem to solve.
- Post regular pest monitoring results to our calendar. A follow-up on last year’s resolution. No excuses this year, we’ll get it done.
- Database the Coccinellidae and Aphidae. We have the tools and student-power we need, and this one of the tasks outlined in our BRC proposal. No sweat.
- Write North Carolina insect-of-the-week (yes, weekly!) blog posts. OK, this resolution is ambitious. We will cover one North Carolina insect species per week by posting information on its natural history, what our research collection holds for that taxon, how to find and preserve specimens, and, of course, photos of what these insects look like. I’d also love to offer a KML file of our NCSU specimens (you could view them in Google Earth!), alongside each post, but I bet we won’t be able to do that for all species. We’ve lined up a series of these blog posts already (check this blog on Friday mornings), thanks to the hard work of my ENT 502 students from last semester. This will definitely be fun!
- Profile the entire collection. We’ll follow McGinley’s (1989) classic profiling methodology or use the modified INHS system, but somehow, some way we will have the collection profiled in 2010 – the earlier the better. We’ll also post the results in a very public way, similar to this page by the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo.
- No more legacy data. All new data will be captured electronically from the very beginning (in the lot stage), and all prepared specimens will get unique IDs. We’ll know – in real time – how many specimens we’re adding, rather than having to go back and count them at the end of the year.
- Establish a consistent weekly sorting/pinning/labeling session. We tried desperately last semester to meet weekly, but our schedules were never quite in sync. I’m confident that we can find our rhythm this year, though, and that we will finally process the ever-growing collection of bulk samples in our freezer. Which leads us again to our final resolution…
- Add 5,000 Hymenoptera specimens to the research collection. Either from bulk (mounted and sorted at least to family) or from unsorted pinned material (in which case specimens will be determined at least to genus).
I think those are reasonable and certainly laudable resolutions for 2010. We would definitely appreciate any input you might have regarding these efforts, and we wish you all the very best in the new year!
