Number 27 BANISTERIA A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) This federally threatened plant which inhabits freshwater tidal river marshes 1s the subject of the lead article of this issue. ISSN 1066-0712 2006 BANISTERIA A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA ISSN 1066-0712 Published by the Virginia Natural History Society The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination of scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including botany, zoology, ecology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, geography, and climatology. Membership in VNHS includes a subscription to Banisteria. Annual dues are $20.00 (per calendar year); library subscriptions to Banisteria are $40.00. Subscribers/members outside the United States should add $3.00 for additional postage. Checks should be made payable to the Virginia Natural History Society. Membership dues and inquires should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer (address, page 2); correspondence regarding Banisteria to one of the co-editors. Banisteria 1s a peer-reviewed journal. The editors will consider manuscripts on any aspect of natural history from neighboring states as long as the information concerns a species native to Virginia or the topic is directly related to regional natural history (as defined above). For additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories, instructions for prospective authors of Banisteria papers, field events, and meetings, consult our website at: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vnhs/ Editorial Staff: Banisteria Co-editors Joseph C. Mitchell, Department of Biology University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173 Steven M. Roble, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage, 217 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 Associate Editors Richard L. Hoffman, Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Alfred G. Wheeler, Jr., Department of Entomology Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634 Thomas F. Wieboldt, Department of Biology Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Banisteria No. 26 was published on 21 February 2006. Cover: Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), original drawing by Megan Rollins. Back cover: Dekay’s Brownsnake (Storeria dekayi), original drawing by Will Brown. BANISTERIA A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA Number 27, 2006 Table of Contents Aeschynomene virginica (Fabaceae) Habitat in a Tidal Marsh, James City County, Virginia David E. Bailey, James E. Perry, and Douglas A. DeBerry... 0.0 ccccccecceeeecetneteteeeceteteeeeeettttteeeeenns 3 Local Recreational Parks as Hospitable Habitats for Small Aquatic Animals: Examples of Copepod Crustaceans in Virginia a Poh OeyOC 11. 1c) 10 LAN, Nana oA SO OR RO ale Lo as Pee i Aah PO PECL ne 2 10 Thirty Ground Beetles New to the Fauna of Virginia, and a Milestone (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Richard L. Hoffman, Steven M. Roble, and Robert L. Davidson wo... cceccececceseesssteeeeeeeeeeeeeens 16 Effects of Timber Harvesting on the Abundance and Diversity of Small Mammals on Non-Industrial Private Forestlands in South-central Virginia Hannah S. Shively, Jason D. Fiore, and Todd S. Fredericksen..........000..0ccccccccccccccecceececeseeeeseecesseeeseettteeeeeees 31 The Scarab Genus Polyphylla in Virginia (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) 1S Cha Yel gli ead E Vey 800 in. helen ey aetna gt cfm ra ec eA OER dhl oe EAN CR iy MARRS PAI Ade RR 37 Patera panselenus (Hubricht) on the Lower Cheat River, West Virginia (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) Jes ube = 8d ea kin 10) eM NEMO RR od WLDGED eee AANA ce SUMMER DF, TT OTUNOMOR 1) ae URL nan” WEAIED) OMUANTS, JRa Wied PRTG, Fees th, AMEE. J 40 Shorter Contributions Hemipeplus microphthalmus (Schwarz): A Species and Genus of Elongated Beetles New to the Fauna of Virginia (Coleoptera; Mycteridae) Jee Roja ay gsi DvP VSN G01 10 tN, Seece dle JI ann tpn dR Sa ME He 21 sae OAR SERIE a verk JA chee ng SON Tea Vos ek so Ae 44 A Note on the Occurrence of the Spider Arachosia cubana (Banks) in Virginia (Araneae: Anyphaenidae) Cate OL MA We me ke PN Senk M een ath aed tee 8 et RE i cy hatte uumue eet nang Ong sa ahaa uma nas 45 Anahita punctulata (Hentz): A Species, Genus, and Family of Spiders New to the Fauna of the Virginias and Ohio (Arachnida: Araneae: Ctenidae) Richard L. Hoffman, Wm. James Arnold, and Richard A. Bradley .....0..0..00000occccccccccccccccccecccecetseseteseeensteteeees 46 Collecting Insects on Fence Post Flood Refuges Rete Wa rch Lee EOD UT AN geewe an Per Rane os gas 0 arent eR PE tetteh aa (UN nenes PERU PLT Paced gas 8 pean FE Aci EF Prhaneri ch aaaat ueneny FRc 48 Observation of Intradermal Trombiculid Mite Larvae in Two Species of Salamanders in Virginia Jason D. Gibson and Paul Sattler ......00.. occ ccccc ccc cecccccuccccccuceccusueceesueeceesucececsesceesueeseeeueesessuseceuunecesseseeeaeeseeaneseeas 49 Miscellanea Sy USS Ree MER en tae eee coat pin te er ace Se ee, ee = 50 ESS PORES ELLIS sero hbheneb A cettAsE) PRIUS aah SRR Bh EAM I EA a cee LB AERISIA clSSLER RII) wuee hhh NNR AAENT chemo hhiBee iN ata A 52 Virginia Natural History Society Officers, 2006 President Judith E. Winston Virginia Museum of Natural History 1001 Douglas Avenue Martinsville, Virginia 24112 (term expires December, 2006) Vice President Thomas J. McAvoy Department of Entomology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (term expires December, 2006) Secretary-Treasurer Anne C. Lund Department of Biology Hampden-Sydney College Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943 (term expires December, 2008) Councilors Michael W. Donahue, Roanoke (term expires December, 2006) Arthur V. Evans, Richmond (term expires December, 2008) Janet W. Reid, Martinsville (term expires December, 2009) Honorary Councilors Richard L. Hoffman Michael Kosztarab Webmaster John White Banisteria, Coeditors Joseph C. Mitchell Steven M. Roble Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society Aeschynomene virginica (Fabaceae) Habitat in a Tidal Marsh, James City County, Virginia David E. Bailey’, James E. Perry, and Douglas A. DeBerry Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 ABSTRACT The federally threatened Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P. is a rare, bushy, annual member of the Fabaceae occurring in mid-Atlantic tidal wetlands. We documented the size and associated species of an Ae. virginica population (control plot) and used a simulated grazing experiment to test for Ae. virginica seed bank occurrences adjacent to the potential source population in Colonial National Historical Park in southeastern Virginia. Importance values, calculated from percent cover and density estimates, were used to quantitatively determine species dominance in the control and test plots. By late August 2004, the control plot supported an estimated 458 Ae. virginica plants within a 10.1 m* area. Dominant vegetation in the test plots varied with elevation, with lower elevation plots (n=4) dominated by Peltandra virginica, and the higher elevation plot co-dominated by Leersia oryzoides and Spartina cynosuroides. No Ae. virginica stems were found in the test plots, possibly due to prolonged tidal inundation and associated anoxic sediment conditions in the lower elevation plots, or inadequate primary and secondary seed dispersal from the control plot to the higher elevation plot. The data suggest a relationship between high summer precipitation and the occurrence of Ae. virginica at the study site from 2000 to 2004. In September 2005, we noted six individuals present in the control plot and adjacent areas. Further studies should consider the response of Ae. virginica seed germination and seedling establishment to climate variations, as well as seed dispersal from source populations to suitable habitat patches. Key words: Aeschynomene virginica, threatened vascular plants, tidal marsh, Virginia. INTRODUCTION Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P. is a bushy, annual member of the Fabaceae. Endemic to mid- Atlantic tidal wetlands, this species occurs from southern New Jersey to central North Carolina (Ware, 1991). The Virginia Natural Heritage Program ranks the species as very rare and imperiled both globally and statewide (G2, S2) (Townsend, 2004), and it is currently on the federal list of threatened species (FR 50 CFR Part 17). Although the distribution and associated flora of Ae. virginica have been relatively well documented (Ware, 1991), information is still lacking on some of the physical environmental needs necessary to define available habitat. Past work in tidal wetlands suggests that standing ; Corresponding author: debailey@vims.edu vegetation and wetland elevation affect the abundance and distribution of many wetland species (Parker & Leck, 1979, 1985; Simpson et al., 1983). Griffith & Forseth (2003) found evidence that standing vegetation decreases seedling establishment, seedling survival to maturity, and seed production of Ae. virginica. They found that plants growing in plots with standing vegetation were smaller and had fewer seeds per plant than individuals growing in plots with vegetation removed. Field experiments supported by a greenhouse study suggest that lower average wetland elevations decrease germination and _ seedling establishment (Griffith & Forseth, 2003). Seed germination studies showed that NaCl concentrations >1.0% caused significant decreases in Ae. virginica seed germination percentages (Baskin et al., 1998, 2005), and that non-dormant seeds can only tolerate soaking in a 2.0% NaCl solution for less than 4 BANISTERIA one week before exhibiting significantly reduced viability (Baskin et al., 1998). These studies support the ostensible low salinity tolerance of Ae. virginica and confirm that this species is a non-halophyte. Aeschynomene virginica has been known to occur at the Colonial National Historical Park (COLO) site (James City County, Virginia) since at least 1938 (Fernald, 1939), and specimens were collected from this location in 1938 and 1939 by Fernald & Long [11052 (US)]. In 2000, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation discovered an Ae. virginica population of 13 plants within the COLO management area in Back River marsh, in a location historically known to support this species (Chazal & Van Alstine, 2001; Erdle & Heffernan, 2002). As this population was documented during a wet growing season (2000), Chazal & Van Alstine (2001) hypothesized that Ae. virginica may respond positively to wetter summer precipitation patterns. The purpose of the current study was to monitor the number, density, and areal extent of the 2004 population, describe its habitat, and test for Ae. virginica in the adjacent seed bank by means of a grazing experiment. We hypothesized that removal of competitive vegetation from plots adjacent to the source population would yield viable Ae. virginica plants given adequate propagule dispersal and growth conditions. A follow-up survey was conducted in September 2005 to reevaluate the Ae. virginica population in the control and test plots. SITE DESCRIPTION Due to its rare status, the National Park Service has requested that the exact location of this Ae. virginica population not be disclosed. The research site has been described as an oligohaline tidal marsh (Chazal & Van Alstine, 2001; Erdle & Heffernan, 2002) with a semi- diurnal tidal regime and a range of 0.7 m (2.0 ft) (NOAA, 2004a). Moore (1980) noted that areas of the James River near Jamestown Island, including Back River and its marshes, are in a zone that marks the upper reaches of saltwater. Vegetation in the marsh is comprised mostly of mixed broad-leaved herbaceous and graminoid wetland species, characteristic of a transitional tidal freshwater/oligohaline marsh community (Perry & Hershner, 1999). The 2004 Ae. virginica population (control plot) was located within a wash-over area of an old roadbed running north to south through the marsh. A preliminary survey in early June 2004 found over 100 healthy Ae. virginica plants present in the control plot. There were no signs of fruit or refractive structures of Ae. virginica from the previous year. NO. 27, 2006 METHODS Grazing Experiment Five randomly located, circular, 5 m diameter test plots, each at least 5 m removed from the Ae. virginica control plot, were established on 9 June 2004. “Grazed” conditions were created in each test plot by cutting back all vegetation to within 15 cm of the soil level with a commercial weed-cutter. Cut vegetation was either piled in the middle of the plot or cast to the side. The position and extent of the control and test plots were mapped in late August 2004 using a Trimble” GeoXT™ handheld GPS and the ESRI” ArcView 3.3 GIS system. Vegetation Perry & Atkinson (1997), Perry & Hershner (1999), and others have found that mid-August represents peak growing season in mid-Atlantic tidal marshes. Therefore, vegetation measurements including percent cover, density, and height of vegetation were estimated within the control and test plots on 11 and 28 August 2004. Cover estimates were obtained from three randomly placed but uniformly oriented 1 m x 1 m quadrats in each of the six plots. Cover data were visually estimated in the field as a value of 1 to 100% or trace (<1%). Mid-class cover ranges were estimated using a modified Braun-Blanquet cover scale (Daubenmire, 1966, 1968; DeBerry & Perry, 2004) where: <1% = 0.5, 1 to 5% = 3%, 5 to 25% = 15%, 25 to 50% = 37.5%, 50 to 75% = 62.5%, 75 to 95% = 85%, and 95 to 100% = 97.5%. Density counts were made in 0.5 m x 0.5 m sub- quadrats systematically arranged in the southwest comer of each 1 m? quadrat. This corner was randomly chosen prior to arriving at the site on the basis of two coin flips. Density was estimated by counting the number of individual plants (separated by soil) of each species in the sub-quadrat. These data were extrapolated for the entire 1 m* quadrat by multiplying the results by four. Importance values (IV) were calculated as the average of the relativized sum of percent cover, density, and frequency values of each species in each quadrat using formulas found in Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg (1974) and Perry & Hershner (1999). Vegetation adjacent to each plot was visually surveyed for dominant/subdominant species and height of vegetation. A visual resurvey of the control and test plots was performed on 14 and 23 September 2005 to examine the density of the Ae. virginica population. BAILEY ET AL.: AESCHYNOMENE VIRGINICA HABITAT 5 Elevation Relative elevations were measured in test plots 1-4 and the control plot on 28 August 2004 using a Topcon” AT-G7 Autolevel and a standard stadia rod. A minimum of three readings were taken to determine the average relative elevation of each plot to the control plot. Test plot 5 was omitted from the August 2004 survey and relative elevation was established by hypsometric data on 26 October 2004. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Current Aeschynomene virginica Population The densest portion of the Aeschynomene virginica population (control plot) covered a semi-rectangular (approximately 5 m x 2 m) area of 10.1 m’* and contained an estimated 458 individual plants (mean density of 45.3 plants m”) by 27 August 2004 (Table 1). Due to the density of the population, a direct count of plants could have potentially damaged some individuals to account for plants near the interior of the population; therefore, we chose to estimate total population size. Several isolated Ae. virginica individuals extended 15 m both north and south of the control plot along the roadbed. Flowers and mature fruit were observed on more than 200 Ae. virginica plants during the August site visits. A total of 15 species was identified within the control plot; Ae. virginica dominated (IV=29.6), with Leersia oryzoides (1V=13.1) and Ludwigia palustris ([V=11.2) as sub-dominants (Table 2). Mean percent cover was high at 119% (Table 2). The largest Ae. virginica specimens were <1 m tall, many of which showed signs of grazing. All sub-dominant vegetation was <0.5 m in height. Percent cover of vegetation >1.5 m tall was <5% and was represented by a few individuals of Spartina cynosuroides (IV=3.8), Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (IV=2.3), and S. robustus (1V=1.7). This is similar to other communities containing Ae. virginica in Tidewater Virginia (Belden & Van Alstine, 2003). Vegetation within the old roadbed and immediately adjacent to the Ae. virginica plot was dominated by S. cynosuroides (98-100% cover) with no co-dominants. Nearly all of the S. cynosuroides was >2 m tall with >90% cover in the canopy at 1.5 m high. A return visit to the site in September 2005 found only six Ae. virginica individuals in the study area (Table 1): four of these plants were within the 2004 control plot boundary, another was approximately 10 m southwest of the control plot along the old roadbed, and Table 1. Number of Aeschynomene _ virginica individuals observed during surveyed years at COLO site and corresponding seasonal precipitation totals for spring (March-May) and summer (June-August). Values in parentheses are departures from seasonal average precipitation (2). Number Spring Summer of Ae. Precipitation Precipitation virginica (cm) © (cm) © Year* individuals *% =26.9 £ =37.8 2000 13° 25.8 (-1.1) 61.4 (+23.6) 2001 0” 23.1 (-3.8) 39.4 (41.6) 2003 0 35.5 (+8.6) 45.9 (+8.1) 2004 >458 24.3 (-2.6) 68.2 (+30.4) 2005 6 22.0 (-4.9) 40.2 (42.4) “No survey conducted in 2002. > Data from Chazal & Van Alstine (2001). © Data from NOAA (2004b). the sixth plant was within the boundaries of plot 5. None of the lower elevation plots (1-4) contained Ae. virginica specimens. Each individual was approximately 1 m tall, bore flowers and seedpods (% = 4.5; range = 1 to 11), and showed signs of stem grazing by 23 September 2005. All specimens were adjacent to dense stands of S. cynosuroides >2 m tall, and both specimens outside of the 2004 control plot were somewhat entangled with Mikania scandens. The occurrence of Ae. virginica during this study, and its absence over the past several years, may be related to precipitation levels during the growing season in the respective years. For example, approximately 458 plants were documented in 2004, which was the 3” wettest summer (June-August) on record with 68.2 cm (26.9 in) (NOAA, 2004b). The site also supported a population in 2000 (13 plants) (Chazal & Van Alstine, 2001; Erdle & Heffernan, 2002), which was the 4" wettest summer on record with 61.4 cm (24.2 in) (NOAA, 2004b). Visits to the COLO site in 2001 (Chazal & Van Alstine, 2001) and 2003 (J.E. Perry, pers. obs.) failed to detect any Ae. virginica specimens. Meteorological records show summer precipitation amounts of 39.4 cm (15.5 in) in 2001 and 45.9 cm (18.1 in) in 2003 (NOAA, 2004b). Both years were within one standard deviation of the mean [% = 37.8 cm (14.9 in.), SD = 12.3 cm (4.8 in)] for the period of record (1895-2005), and are therefore considered normal precipitation summers (NOAA, 2005) (Table 1). The COLO site supported a population of Ae. virginica in 2005 (6 plants), a period of normal summer precipitation similar to 2001 and 2003, although the 6 BANISTERIA population was substantially reduced from 2004 (Table 1). Based on these observations, it is possible that the persistence of the population in 2005 was related to the presence of propagules from the population during the previous year, and that the substantial reduction in plants may have been related to the normal (1.e., non- wet) summer rainfall conditions. The relationship between Ae. virginica occurrence and heavy precipitation during summer months is potentially linked to survivorship of germinated plants, rather than to germination itself. For instance, germination of Ae. virginica seeds occurs from late May to early June (Baskin & Baskin, 1997). There was no obvious relationship between spring (March-May) precipitation and Ae. virginica occurrence during 2000 [25.8 cm (10.2 in), the 56" wettest spring on record] or 2004 [24.3 cm (9.6 in), the 67" wettest spring on record] (NOAA, 2004b) (Table 1). However, as it is plausible that salinity also negatively affects Ae. virginica seedling survival (Baskin et al., 2005), wet summers are a possible mechanism to enhance survival throughout the growing season by reducing in situ porewater salinity through direct precipitation inputs, and by dilution from increased freshwater subsidies upriver. Grazing Experiment Test plots 1-4 were 16 to 20 cm lower, and plot 5 was 7 cm higher, in elevation than the control plot. Lower elevation plots were dominated by Peltandra virginica (IV range = 33.0 to 71.4, * =54.3), while plot 5 was dominated by L. oryzoides (IV=39.1) with S. cynosuroides ([V=30.0) as a sub-dominant (Table 2). All vegetation in the test plots was <1.5 m tall (=0.5 m). Mean cover in the test plots was lower (47.5%) than in the control plot (119.2%) (Table 2). Even with an open canopy and similar vegetation height to the control plot, no Ae. virginica specimens were found in the test plots in 2004. One specimen was noted adjacent to plot 5 prior to clipping, but it was grazed to the ground prior to 11 August and completely missing on 28 August 2004. The lower elevations of plots 1-4 may have rendered those areas non-conducive to Ae. virginica growth via prolonged tidal inundation. Although Baskin et al. (2005) showed that seeds of Ae. virginica can germinate while submerged, Griffith & Forseth (2003) reported that seeds of this species germinated significantly less frequently in submerged or waterlogged soil than in wet soil, possibly due to resulting anoxic conditions. The absence of Ae. virginica in plots 1-4 is consistent with the known distribution of this species on levee areas and other local topographically higher elevations within tidal NO. 27, 2006 freshwater marshes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995). In contrast, the elevation of test plot 5 was only slightly higher than the control plot. The absence of Ae. virginica within plot 5 during 2004 may have been due to a lack of Ae. virginica seed in the seed bank. Perhaps Ae. virginica seeds are not distributed >5 m from the parent source. Griffith & Forseth (2002) reported short primary seed dispersal distances for Ae. virginica. However, secondary dispersal by water (hydrochory) 1s thought to play a significant role in dispersing seeds from source populations to new suitable habitat patches. The stand of S. cynosuroides separating our control and test plot 5 may have been too dense for Ae. virginica seeds to penetrate, although Griffith & Forseth (2002) found no effect of surrounding vegetation and its removal on secondary seed dispersal by water. Apparently, water as a secondary dispersal mechanism operates to facilitate dispersal over broader distances than within an immediate population. The 2005 occurrence of one Ae. virginica individual within plot 5 suggests that seeds from the 2004 control population may have used this mechanism to disperse to adjacent areas, albeit with limited germination success and/or seedling establishment. This explanation, however, is speculative and warrants further study. CONCLUSIONS The re-occurrence of Ae. virginica on the COLO site in 2004 may have been due to heavy precipitation during the growing season. This population is limited to a narrow elevation zone with little to no overstory >1 m. Ae. virginica did not take root in the clipped test plots during the 2004 growing season, perhaps due to differences in elevations and/or lack of seeds in test plot seed banks. Relative to 2004, the 2005 Ae. virginica population was much smaller (6 vs. 458 plants) and coincided with a drier summer (40.2 vs. 68.2 cm precipitation). Therefore, it is plausible that the 2005 population is less a reflection of high summer precipitation, and more a remnant of the strength of the 2004 population. The occurrence of an Ae. virginica specimen within plot 5 during the 2005 growing season indicates the potential of successful, although limited, seed dispersal from the 2004 parent population. Future experimental studies should consider clipping test plots earlier in the growing season and possibly adding a seed source to the plots. Further data are needed on the response of Ae. virginica seed germination to climate variations, particularly precipitation, Ae. virginica seed distribution from source populations to suitable habitat patches, and the potential for formation of a viable seed bank at those locations. BAILEY ET AL.: AESCHYNOMENE VIRGINICA HABITAT es ES L8i d an | OC el Ol OGL G0C — £1 Ol OT ¢ 0 Oc OT €O0 8S el c0 ees cco LIC ODE e) Al d O T 391d C ld 0 ees te re. €! TL £9 £9 “£1 vIL £6 Al d OL Ol Os Os c9 el SCT O € 301d L 81 6” Se, ce €9l [0c OE Al Le es OV Le el Cle €6 cO 60L£S OOl 8dl Ol ¢0 Ol Es €O 8¢ cO 8 06CLY 8Srv OSs OS O€l ©) Al v 9d £1 OVC 08 € Il cl LCl €0 Ef c0 ev $ 30d 9PV 00€ LL VY c0 T6€ v0 16 ov Al oS el 09I OCI es LG € ST O9€ L8e Lo OV € SV d cO- )=0OrdT OO OS 8E€ OC £€ 09 LI onl 19 Ce — tL OT. OL Vie Ee Oe 90 c9 =9OI Scl cll OL shel cl £7 ¢O 8 £€¢ LI9 967 ») Al ]o.1.u0z ‘| poyonbp piuvz17 "7 pyofisnsup byda], YoY (J) Sapiounsoudo puijspds Bed (EWH OM) 1UDJUOWaDUAAGV] snjaaj]douaoyIs suns ‘LW (ysind) SNISNGOA snjra;douaoyIs JOON “UW YF ZULYIS X9 YJOA (‘S19q) SnUubILIaUD snjrajdouaoyos ‘| DIDpsod VIdapayuod ‘Tq wnyojound wnuosdjog “XY Saplosadidoupdy wnuosdjog "TY wnyofiap unuosdjog WOYIS (J) VIMIB11A DAPUDIAg T wnjosila wnoiupg ‘ZRI- puey (“yssepy) yosiay biuuvpany TA CT) siasnypod pisimpnT “TY SYDUIPADO D1jaqo'T "MS (J) Saplozuo V1S12aT "T snsnffa snounr JOTJOH (ysing) 14ajjom poyysou1yoy "7 snsosiys snsaday "| pIDNIDUL BINIID ‘ds uajsp ‘AS (CT) vamissa auauoudyosap so1ods ‘saroads yoro Jo sonyea Aouonbaryj pue ‘AyIsuap “I9A09 JUdDIOd JO WUNS POZIANLIOI SY} JO OSBIDAV OY} SB PoyeNoyed oJOM (AT) SONTeA DoUKLIOdWIT ‘sjo[d 1S9} SATF pue (Jo1UOD) JO]d JoNUOS VaIUIs.11A aUaUOUdYISap SY} WoT, sjuRTd IeyNoseA Jo (qq) Ajisuap UvOU pue “(d) I9A09 JUdOIJOd UBS “(AT) SON[BA sdURYOdWIT °Z 3IqeI, 8 BANISTERIA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Mr. Charles Rafkind, Dr. Steve Roble, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on this manuscript, Mr. David Fredrick for supplying the GIS data, and Ms. Keri Reyes, Dr. Robert Atkinson, and Mr. Adam Crary for their help with fieldwork. This project was funded in part by a grant from Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service. This paper is Contribution No. 2726 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary. LITERATURE CITED Baskin, J. M., & C. C. Baskin. 1997. Seed germination studies of Aeschynomene virginica. Final report to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. School of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 21 pp. Baskin, J. M., C. C., Baskin, & R. W. Tyndall. 2005. Studies on dormancy of the rare plant species Aeschynomene_ virginica (Fabaceae). Natural Areas Journal 25: 147-155. Baskin, J. M., R. W. Tyndall, M. Chaffins, & C. C. Baskin. 1998. Effect of salinity on germination and viability of nondormant seeds of the federal-threatened species Aeschynomene virginica (Fabaceae). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125: 246-248. Belden, A, Jr., & N. E. Van Alstine. 2003. Status of the federally listed Aeschynomene virginica (L.) BSP. on the James River in Virginia. Castanea 68: 179-181. Chazal, A. C., & N. E. Van Alstine. 2001. An inventory for rare, threatened, and endangered species in the Jamestown Island 400 Project Area, Colonial National Historical Park. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01- 23. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 41 pp. plus appendices. Daubenmire, R. 1966. Vegetation: identification of typal communities. Science 152: 546-547. Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities. Harper and Row, New York. 300 pp. DeBerry, D. A, & J. E. Perry. 2004. Primary succession in a created freshwater wetland. Castanea 69: 185-193. NO. 27, 2006 Erdle, S. Y., & K. E. Heffernan. 2002. Biological assessment for proposed new _ construction and increased visitor use impacts at the Jamestown Island Project site. Cooperative Agreement 4000-8-9027, Supplemental Agreement 4. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 25 pp. plus appendices. Fernald, M. L. 1939. Last survivors in the flora of Tidewater Virginia. Rhodora 41: 465-504, 529-559, 564-574. Griffith, A. B., & I. N. Forseth. 2002. Primary and secondary seed dispersal of a rare, tidal wetland annual, Aeschynomene virginica. Wetlands 22: 696-704. Griffith, A. B., & I. N. Forseth. 2003. Establishment and reproduction of Aeschynomene virginica (L.) (Fabaceae) a rare, annual, wetland species in relation to vegetation removal and water level. Plant Ecology 167: 117-125. Moore, K. A. 1980. James City County Tidal Marsh Inventory. SRAMSOE #188. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. 100 pp. Mueller-Dombois, D. & H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 547 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004a. Tidal Station Location and Ranges. Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and _ Services. Silver Spring, MD. http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/tides04/tab2ec2c.html#58 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004b. National Weather Service Center. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/y9.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Climate Research. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climateresearch. html Parker, V. T., & M. A. Leck. 1979. Seed dispersal and seedling survival in relation to zonation patterns in a freshwater tidal marsh. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 60: 133. Parker, V. T., & M. A. Leck. 1985. Relationships of seed banks to plant distribution patterns in a freshwater BAILEY ET AL.: AESCHYNOMENE VIRGINICA HABITAT ) tidal wetland. American Journal of Botany 72: 161- 174. Perry, J. E. & R. B. Atkinson. 1997. Plant diversity along a salinity gradient of four marshes on the York and Pamunkey rivers in Virginia. Castanea 62: 112- 118. Perry, J. E., & C. H. Hershner. 1999. Temporal changes in the vegetation pattern in a tidal freshwater marsh. Wetlands 19: 90-99. Simpson, R. L., R. E. Good, M. A. Leck, & D. F. Whigham. 1983. The ecology of freshwater tidal wetlands. BioScience 33: 255-259. Townsend, J. F. 2004. Natural Heritage resources of Virginia: rare plants. Natural Heritage Technical Report 04-06. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 56 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Sensitive joint- vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) recovery plan. Hadley, MA. 55 pp. Ware, D. M. E. 1991. Northern Joint-vetch, Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P. Pp. 119-121 In K. Terwilliger (Coordinator), Virginia’s Endangered Species. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), original drawing by Megan Rollins. Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society Local Recreational Parks as Hospitable Habitats for Small Aquatic Animals: Examples of Copepod Crustaceans in Virginia Janet W. Reid Research Associate Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 ABSTRACT Copepod microcrustaceans were collected from wetlands in five county parks and one privately managed neighborhood park in the Piedmont region of Virginia. A total of 43 species was found, 9 to 19 copepod species in each park. First state records were established for 16 species: Acanthocyclops brevispinosus, A. exilis, A. parasensitivus, A. robustus, Ectocyclops phaleratus, Eucyclops conrowae, Itocyclops yezoensis, Megacyclops latipes, Microcyclops varicans, Orthocyclops modestus, Paracyclops chiltoni, Bryocamptus newyorkensis, B. nivalis, Canthocamptus assimilis, C. sinuus, and Phyllognathopus viguieri. Some of the species are very rarely collected, and eight are new to science. This surprising degree of diversity suggests that local parks provide important habitats for small-sized aquatic fauna. Key words: Copepoda, Crustacea, new records, parks, Virginia. INTRODUCTION Naturalists often seek to collect the plants and animals of interest in the most pristine possible habitats, i.e., large preserves such as national and state parks and national forests. However, organisms which require only small spaces and are relatively adaptable to disturbance may successfully maintain populations in fragments of limited area, such as are often found in local recreational parks. I report on copepod crustaceans collected from wetlands in five county parks and one neighborhood park in the Piedmont region of Virginia. Copepods occur in almost every kind of wetland. Although they are best known as a significant part of the plankton of lakes, reservoirs, large rivers, and the oceans, by far the majority of copepod species live in the benthos, and in marshes and bogs, seeps, springs, damp moss, wet soils, sandy streambeds, caves, and groundwater. The faunas of non-planktonic habitats of most continents except Europe are relatively little known. The collections reported here were made as part of an ongoing survey of the copepod crustaceans living in the full range of freshwater habitats in the Commonwealth of Virginia. STUDY AREAS Four of the parks are located in Henry County in the southwest Piedmont. One, Vint Hill Farms Park, is located near Warrenton in Fauquier County, in the central Piedmont. DeJarnette Park lies within the town limits of Ashland in Hanover County, on the eastern edge of the Piedmont near the Coastal Plain (Fig. 1). The types of wetland habitats differ among the parks: Doe Run Park, maintained by Henry County, is 30 acres (12 ha) in area, most of which is hilly and covered with older second-growth hardwood trees. Where it crosses the park, Doe Run, a small, first-order stream, has a relatively wide floodplain containing several ephemeral sloughs. East of the stream is a shallow, permanent, artificial pond, wooded around most of its perimeter. The pond drains into the creek through a permanently wet, grassy slough. Fisher Farm Park is also maintained by Henry County. Although mostly given over to playing fields, the park borders Marrowbone Creek, a_ third-order stream. The creek at this point is dammed, forming a small impoundment, and along the edges of the impoundment are a few small sloughs. Down the steep, REID: COPEPOD CRUSTACEANS 11 wooded creek bank runs a tiny, unnamed, apparently perennial seep stream. The third park in Henry County is Jordan Creek Park in Fieldale. Like Fisher Farm Park, it is mostly used for playing fields. The park is bordered by Jordan Creek, a third-order stream with a narrow strip of brush and hardwood trees along its banks. The creek has a number of bars of coarse sand and gravel, and its 2-4 foot (0.6-1.3 m) high banks are lined with rocks, moss, and muddy soil. In an open field near the parking lot is a Shallow slough that contains at least some water most of the year; the vegetation is grass with a few sedges. Lake Lanier in Martinsville is a private park maintained by the Lake Lanier Association. The aquatic habitats in the park consist of the lake itself, and moist soils, moss, and drifts of decaying leaves along its shoreline. Above the shoreline are shallow, ephemeral puddles and a few tiny ephemeral seeps on steeper parts of the shore. Part of the shore is wooded, but most is open lawn or gravel paths. The lake 1s fed by Mulberry Creek, but nearly all of the creek lies outside the Lake Lanier park area, and I did not collect in the creek itself. Vint Hill Farms Park is about 10 acres (3.5 ha) in extent, and consists of open grassy fields bordered by South Branch, a small creek 3 to 4 m wide, with a sandy and gravelly bottom and a strip of small second- growth hardwood trees along both banks. The aquatic habitats include South Branch itself, small sloughs and seeps in its floodplain, and grassy drainage ditches. At the time of the visit, the ditches contained standing water. The collections were made from the ditches and from standing or slowly flowing water in the muddy path leading to the creek, and in an adjacent shallow slough filled with water and decaying leaves. DeJarnette Park covers an 8-acre (3.2 ha) tract and includes Stony Run along its border; part of this creek is diverted to form a small pond. South of the pond, a tiny unnamed seep runs slowly through an acid bog developed in an open stand of mixed pines and hardwoods. Doe Run, Jordan Creek, and Lake Lanier each were visited several times from 2001 through 2006. Fisher Farm, Vint Hill Farms, and DeJarnette parks were each visited once. The dates of the visits are given in a footnote to Table 1. COLLECTING STRATEGY AND METHODS The collecting effort and strategy varied somewhat with each visit. On the first (or only) visit, I collected One or more samples of plankton and bottom sediments from each body of open water, with a small plankton net, or with a modified scoop net fitted with a screen cover to avoid clogging with leaves. In any wet areas without open water, I collected samples of sediment such as decaying leaves or grass, mud, sand, or moss. In streams, I dug one or more shallow holes in sand- and gravel-banks, and filtered the water infiltrating into the holes through a small plankton net. On subsequent visits, I took repeat samples in habitats which had been especially productive of species, and also sampled from any wet areas which had not held water during previous visits. All samples were placed in plastic bags and transported to the laboratory. Fig. 1. Locations of parks sampled for copepods during this study. 1, Doe Run. 2, Fisher Farm. 3, Jordan Creek. 4, Lake Lanier. 5, Vint Hill. 6, DeJarnette. 12 BANISTERIA To separate the copepods, I added water to the sediments, agitated them, and decanted the water through a hand net with an 80 um mesh. I then inverted the net and rinsed the contents into a glass Petri dish. Using a Wild dissecting microscope and 15 to 50 X magnification with substage illumination, I then examined subsamples poured into successive Petri dishes for copepods, which can easily be seen swimming in the dishes. Addition of a small amount of 70% ethanol to anesthetize the animals facilitated capture of the faster swimmers. I picked out the copepods with a fine pipette, and fixed and stored them in 70% ethanol. Voucher specimens of all the species are deposited in the Recent Invertebrates Collection of the Virginia Museum of Natural History. RESULTS A total of 43 copepod taxa occurred in the samples (Table 1). The number of taxa found in each individual park ranged from 9 to 19. Only one species of calanoid was collected. The remainder of the collection was about equally divided between cyclopoids (22 species) and harpacticoids (20 species and subspecies). The composition of the collections varied according to the array of available habitats, and apparently with the particular nature of each. For example, the array of species found in the open water of each of the four impoundments was quite different. Only Lake Lanier contained a planktonic calanoid, Skistodiaptomus pallidus, and also’ the’ planktonic cyclopoids Acanthocyclops brevispinosus and Tropocyclops prasinus mexicanus, and (primarily in nearshore sediments) the typically epibenthic cyclopoids Eucyclops agilis, Eucyclops conrowae, Eucyclops elegans, Macrocyclops albidus, Paracyclops chiltoni, P. poppei, and the harpacticoid Elaphoidella bidens. The tiny Marrowbone Creek impoundment contained numerous A. brevispinosus and T. prasinus mexicanus, and the epibenthic EF. agilis, M. albidus, and P. poppei. Of planktonic species, the shallow pond in Doe Run Park contained only 7. prasinus mexicanus, and was otherwise populated with the epibenthic Ectocyclops phaleratus, E. agilis, E. elegans, M. albidus, Microcyclops varicans, and E. bidens. The pond in DeJarnette Park was thick with a filamentous blue- green alga, from which I was able to separate only a few specimens of Diacyclops thomasi (a planktonic species) and E. agilis. The number of species also varied according to the number of visits, i.e., the collecting effort (Fig. 2). The most intense collecting effort was expended in Doe Run Park and Lake Lanier: six visits to each, at all seasons NO. 27, 2006 of the year. Jordan Creek was visited three times. It is clear from the cumulative number of species found that even in an area with few available subhabitats such as Jordan Creek, more than three visits are necessary to find all of the copepod species. DISCUSSION The total of 43 species found is impressive, considering that the published records of free-living (nonparasitic) copepods from fresh waters within the state include a total of 66 species (18 calanoids, 26 cyclopoids, and 22 harpacticoids). As would be expected, most of the species previously recorded from the state and found in these parks are common and widespread throughout North America. The planktonic calanoid Skistodiaptomus pallidus 1s common in impoundments throughout Virginia (Saunders, 1975; J. W. Reid, unpublished data). Acanthocyclops vernalis has been reported from a wide range of habitats, but because the taxonomy and biological relationships of the morphologically variable members of the vernalis-robustus group are incompletely understood, records of A. vernalis may refer to any of several named and unnamed morphs. The problem was discussed most recently by Dodson et al. (2003) and Murabdullayeyv & Defaye (2004). Diacyclops thomasi, Eucyclops agilis, E. elegans, Macrocyclops albidus, and Tropocyclops prasinus mexicanus are all characteristic of impoundments. In Virginia, Paracyclops poppei, Attheyella nordenskioldii, Bryocamptus zschokkei, and B. zschokkei alleganiensis are common primarily among decaying leaves in small streams and seeps; A. americana in acid bogs; A. illinoisensis in bogs and sloughs; Elaphoidella bidens in organically rich streams and sloughs; Epactophanes_ richardi in _ sandy streambeds and banks; Moraria cristata in tiny seepage streams and associated wet moss; and Moraria virginiana in springs, seeps, bogs, and wet moss. Sixteen of the species are previously known to science and are now reported for the first time from Virginia. These are Acanthocyclops brevispinosus, A. exilis, A. parasensitivus, A. robustus, Ectocyclops phaleratus, Eucyclops conrowae, Itocyclops yezoensis, Megacyclops __ latipes, Microcyclops _ varicans, Orthocyclops modestus, —_Paracyclops _ chiltoni, Bryocamptus newyorkensis, B. nivalis, Canthocamptus assimilis, C. sinuus, and Phyllognathopus viguieri. Again, several of these are widespread, although not all of them are common or abundant, in the appropriate habitats: A. brevispinosus in eutrophic impoundments, A. exilis in springs and small streams, A. robustus in vernal pools, E. phaleratus and E. conrowae in the REID: COPEPOD CRUSTACEANS 13 Table 1. Species of copepods found in six small parks in the Virginia Piedmont. Doe Fisher Jordan Lake Vint Hill Species i ne Run? Farm Creek® Lanier Farms* DeJarnette! Order Calanoida Skistodiaptomus pallidus (Herrick, 1879) 4 Order Cyclopoida Acanthocyclops brevispinosus (Herrick, 1894) x x Acanthocyclops exilis Coker, 1934 x Acanthocyclops parasensitivus Reid, 1998 x Acanthocyclops robustus (G.O. Sars, 1863) Acanthocyclops vernalis (Fischer, 1853) Acanthocyclops sp. Diacyclops crassicaudis brachycercus Kiefer, 1927 Diacyclops sp. Diacyclops thomasi (S.A. Forbes, 1882) Ectocyclops phaleratus (Koch, 1838) Eucyclops agilis (Koch, 1838) Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992 Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) Eucyclops sp. Itocyclops yezoensis (Ito, 1953) Macrocyclops albidus (Jurine, 1820) Megacyclops latipes (Lowndes, 1927) Microcyclops varicans (G.O. Sars, 1862) Orthocyclops modestus (Herrick, 1883) Paracyclops chiltoni (Thomson, 1882) Paracyclops poppei (Rehberg, 1880) Tropocyclops prasinus mexicanus Kiefer, 1938 KKK MK KX ~ x x KKM xx KK MK Order Harpacticoida Attheyella americana (Herrick, 1884) xX Attheyella illinoisensis (S.A. Forbes, 1882) x x x x Attheyella nordenskioldii (Lilljeborg, 1902) x Bryocamptus hiatus (Willey, 1925) Bryocamptus newyorkensis (Chappuis, 1927) x Bryocamptus nivalis (Willey, 1925) Bryocamptus zschokkei zschokkei (Schmeil, 1893) Bryocamptus zschokkei alleganiensis Coker, 1934 Bryocamptus sp. x Canthocamptus assimilis Kiefer, 1931 Canthocamptus sinuus Coker, 1934 Elaphoidella bidens (Schmeil, 1893) Elaphoidella sp. A Elaphoidella sp. B Epactophanes richardi Mrazek, 1893 x Moraria cristata Chappuis, 1929 Moraria virginiana Carter, 1944 Parastenocaris sp. A x Parastenocaris sp. B x Phyllognathopus viguieri (Maupas, 1892) x xX ~ x x x x ~ ~ Me MM KK xx x x x Total 19 14 Te 16 9 9 * Visited on 21 June, 8 and 20 September, and 25 November 2003, 11 July 2004, and 7 January 2006. > Visited on 29 June 2003. © Visited on 13 August and 21 September 2003, and 2 March 2006. 4 Visited on 8 and 10 January and 19 August 2002, 5 September and 2 November 2003, and 9 April 2006. © Visited on 28 November 2004. f Visited on 20 February 2006. 14 BANISTERIA 20 15 ” 2 S) 9 10 Se —e Doe Run —s— Lake Lanier 9 —«— Jordan Creek 1 2 3 4 5 6 Collecting visit Fig. 2. Species accumulation curves for copepods collected in Doe Run, Lake Lanier, and Jordan Creek parks. bottom sediments and decaying leaves in small ponds, M. Jatipes in small streams and pools, and sometimes in caves, M. varicans in sloughs and small ponds, O. modestus in ephemeral sloughs, P. chiltoni and B. nivalis in springs and seeps, C. assimilis and C. sinuus in permanent and ephemeral standing waters from large impoundments to shallow sloughs, and bog pools; and P. viguieri in seeps, bogs, and damp leaf litter and moss. Several of the new records are particularly valuable. The find of Bryocamptus hiatus is only the second record for the state; the species was previously reported from streams in Surry County by Gladden & Smock (1990). Bryocamptus newyorkensis is another widespread but rarely collected species. It has not previously been reported from Virginia, although it ranges at least from New York to Florida (Bruno et al., 2002). Acanthocyclops parasensitivus was described from bogs in Anne Arundel and Wicomico counties, Maryland; and a sandbar in a creek in Pulaski County, Kentucky (Reid, 1998). Additional, recent records from Tennessee and Indiana (J. W. Reid and J. L. Lewis, unpublished data) and from a creek in Hanging Rock State Park in North Carolina (collected by J. W. Reid on 4 March 2006; specimens deposited in the VMNH) indicate that A. parasensitivus 1s widespread in the eastern U.S.A., although rarely collected. The new find in DeJarnette Park places it in another major river system, the James, draining into the Chesapeake Bay. The most unexpected new record is that of Itocyclops yezoensis. This tiny cyclopoid is known from small, permanent or ephemeral springs, seeps, and streams. It has a strikingly disjunct distribution in Japan, Korea, Alaska, and one location in the Great NO. 27, 2006 Smoky Mountains, Tennessee (Reid & Ishida, 2000; Lee et al., 2004). Because the location where the Tennessee find was made is in a spring near a former vacation home where exotic ornamental plants had been grown, it might have been argued that the Tennessee population was artificially introduced. The new find in Virginia, from moist soil on the bank of Jordan Creek, indicates that /. yezoensis is a natural component of the cyclopoid fauna of the southeastern U.S.A., although an extremely rare one. In regard to the question of whether these widely disjunct populations might represent sibling species, Reid & Ishida (2000) were unable to find consistent morphological differences between females from Japan, Alaska, and Tennessee. The major chetotaxy (numbers of spines and setae) of females of the Jordan Creek population falls within the range of variation reported by Reid & Ishida (2000). None of these populations has yet been compared genetically. The high proportion (8 of 43, 18%) of previously undescribed taxa is also striking, and illustrates the degree of our ignorance of the copepod fauna of non- planktonic habitats in North America. Forro et al. (2003), working in Belgium, which has an extremely dense human population and is one of the most environmentally altered countries in the world, discussed the importance of small surface waterbodies in providing habitats for microcrustaceans, many of which are ecological specialists that are adapted to just these kinds of inconspicuous and often ephemeral habitats. The new taxa will be described elsewhere. The finds of new species, together with the several valuable new records and numerous additions to the faunal list for Virginia, emphasize the importance of these small, local parks in protecting and conserving cryptic aquatic animals. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mrs. Yvonne Harris, Secretary-Treasurer of the Lake Lanier Association, Martinsville; Mr. John H. Dyches, Director of the Department of Water Resources, City of Martinsville; Mr. Roger G. Adams, Director of the Henry County Parks and Recreation Department; and Superintendent Erik Nygard of Hanging Rock State Park, North Carolina, cordially granted permission to collect on lands under their authority. Collecting was done under Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Scientific Collection Permit Nos. 021097 (2003-2004) and 026722 (2005-2006). Dr. Richard L. Hoffman, Head of the Department of Recent Invertebrates of the Virginia Museum of Natural History, provided advice REID: COPEPOD CRUSTACEANS 15 and encouragement at every stage of this work. My thanks to Dr. Steven M. Roble and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. This article is dedicated to the memory of my late husband Willis, who so enjoyed collecting trips, and to our dog Sean, who still does. LITERATURE CITED Boxshall, G. A., & S. H. Halsey. 2004. An Introduction to Copepod Diversity. 2 Volumes. The Ray Society, London. 966 pp. Bruno, M. C., J. W. Reid, & S. A. Perry. 2002. New records of harpacticoid copepods from Everglades National Park (Florida, U.S.A.): Description of Nitokra evergladensis, new species (Ameiridae), supplementary description of Attheyella americana, and redescription of Bryocamptus newyorkensis (Canthocamptidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 22: 834-854. Dodson, S. I., A. K. Grishanin, K. Gross, & G. A. Wyngaard. 2003. Morphological analysis of some cryptic species in the Acanthocyclops vernalis species complex from North America. Hydrobiologia 500: 131-143. Forré, L., L. De Meester, K. Cottenie, & H. J. Dumont. 2003. An update on the inland cladoceran and copepod fauna of Belgium, with a note on the importance of temporary waters. Belgian Journal of Zoology 133: 31-36. Gladden, J. E., & L. A. Smock. 1990. Macro- invertebrate distribution and production on_ the floodplains of two lowland headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 24: 533-545. Lee, J. M., J. M. Jeon, & C. Y. Chang. 2004. Two semi-subterranean copepods from Korea. Korean Journal of Biological Sciences 8: 145-154. Mirabdullayev, I.M., & D. Defaye. 2004. On the taxonomy of the Acanthocyclops robustus species complex (Copepoda, Cyclopidae): Acanthocyclops brevispinosus and A. einslei sp. n. Vestnik Zoologii 38: 27-37. Reid, J. W., & T. Ishida. 2000. Jtocyclops, a new genus proposed for Speocyclops yezoensis (Copepoda: Cyclopoida: Cyclopidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 20: 589-596. Saunders, J. F., Ill. 1975. The occurrence of Diaptomus (Skistodiaptomus) pallidus Herrick and D. (S.) pygmaeus Pearse (Copepoda: Calanoida) in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 26: 126-127. Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society Thirty Ground Beetles New to the Fauna of Virginia, and a Milestone (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Steven M. Roble Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Robert L. Davidson Section of Invertebrate Zoology Carnegie Museum of Natural History 4400 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 ABSTRACT Thirty species of ground beetles (Carabidae) are documented for the first time as members of the known Virginia fauna. Three other species that were originally reported from Virginia by other authors are re-affirmed in the context of the state list (Cicindela (Ellisoptera) gratiosa Guérin-Méneville, Cicindela (Ellisoptera) lepida Dejean, and Cicindela (Cicindelidia) trifasciata ascendens LeConte), and an additional subspecies is added to a species already recorded from the state (Dicaelus dilatatus sinuatus Ball). For eastern North America, Virginia seems to be the southernmost known locality for five of these species (Amara (Celia) patruelis Dejean, Amara (Paracelia) quenseli (Schonherr), Bembidion (Peryphus) obscurellum (Motschulsky), Bradycellus (Stenocellus) insulsus (Casey), and Diplocheila obtusa (LeConte)), and the northernmost locality for eight of them (Anisodactylus (Gynandrotarsus) harpaloides (LaFerté-Sénectere), Clivina (Paraclivina) convexa LeConte, Clivina (Paraclivina) sulcipennis Putzeys, Diplocheila major melissisa Ball, Eucaerus varicornis LeConte, Maronetus schwartzi (Beutenmiller), Paratachys austinicus (Casey), and Paratachys columbiensis (Hayward)). The remaining seventeen new records are Acupalpus (Tachistodes) pauperculus Dejean, Amara (Bradytus) apricaria (Paykull), Amara (Celia) rubrica Haldeman, Amblygnathus mexicanus Bates, Badister (Badister) maculatus LeConte, Brachinus adustipennis Erwin, Dyschiriodes (Dyschiriodes) pumilus (Dejean), Elaphropus xanthopus (Dejean), Loxandrus brevicollis (LeConte), Paratachys pumilus (Dejean), Paratachys probably sagax (Casey), Paratachys scitulus (LeConte), Scaphinotus UIrichroa) irregularis (Beutenmiller), Se/enophorus (Celiamorphus) ellipticus Dejean, Selenophorus (Celiamorphus) granarius Dejean, Stenolophus (Stenolophus) ochropezus (Say), and Stenolophus (Stenolophus) spretus Dejean. Information on the ecology and biology is provided for many species, as well as hints to facilitate identification where considered desirable. Key words: beetle, Carabidae, Coleoptera, Virginia. HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES 17 INTRODUCTION Carabid beetles constitute a major element in the soil and litter fauna of eastern United States, diverse in taxa, often numerous in individuals. Except for half a dozen genera, mostly of very small species, the taxonomy of the group in North America is relatively mature, and identification can be attempted with some confidence. There is even a recent faunistic treatment of the ground beetles of an eastern state (South Carolina) complete with illustrated keys and descriptions of taxa (Ciegler, 2000), and state lists exist for others. At various times in the past, the present authors have become interested in the Virginia fauna, and have collaborated closely on its investigation for over a decade. Individually or in collaboration we have published a number of papers on this subject, greatly enhancing our knowledge of these interesting insects (e.g., Anderson et al., 1995; Davidson, 1995; Hoffman, 1997, 1998; Hoffman & Roble, 2000). The accumulation of additional records over the past several years provides the opportunity for a joint contribution documenting numerous distributional data. In the closing remarks of their epochal tabulation of North American carabids, Bousquet & Larochelle (1993: 288) stated, “We hope this catalogue will stimulate those interested in the study of Geadephaga to publish new and interesting records.” The extent to which this hope has been realized in Virginia is shown by the 60 species we have added to the 446 credited to the state in 1993. Of course, many of these new state records are no more than filling in the blanks for common species not mentioned for Virginia in the literature. However, a substantial number represent range extensions of several hundred kilometers, primarily of southern species discovered along the Virginia coast, with a few boreal species extended southward along the Appalachians into the higher mountains of the Commonwealth. And, to be sure, the end *is by no means close at hand. Taking into account only those species documented from adjacent states, or from both north and south of Virginia and certain to occur there, will add at least another 20. And who can foresee how many rare species like Eucaerus varicornis await serendipitous discovery, hundreds of miles from their known ranges? Or how many additional localized cave trechines may be described (e.g., Barr, 2004)? An eventual total of 550 resident Virginia carabids now seems plausible, and another decade of intensive fieldwork may see that figure realized. The thirty species here added to the Virginia list bring the total to 506, and the milestone mentioned in the title is achievement of 500 documented species, shared (Bousquet & Larochelle, 1993) only by three states and one Canadian province. As in previous contributions, we follow the sequence and nomenclature developed in the Bousquet & Larochelle (1993) catalogue (henceforth cited as B&L). Names of the authors of this paper are expressed as initials; those of other persons are spelled out. VDNH signifies specimens captured during surveys made by personnel of the Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. UV indicates capture with blacklight (ultraviolet light), either at sheet or with a bucket trap, and DF signifies a drift fence-pitfall trap array. Unless otherwise specified, all of the specimens cited in the individual entries are in the collection of the Virginia Museum of Natural History (VMNH); those in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History are cited as CMNH. CICINDELINI Three species in the genus Cicindela, not credited to the state by B&L, were added to the carabid fauna of Virginia by Knisley & Schultz (1997). We repeat these records to document the species in the context of the state list total. Cicindela (Ellisoptera) gratiosa Guérin-Meéneville A population discovered in 1992 by T. J. Rawinski at the South Quay pine barrens, City of Suffolk, attests the occurrence of this species in Virginia. Specimens were collected at this site on 4 July 1992 (C. B. Knisley collection, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, Virginia), 18 September 1992 (VMNH and C. B. Knisley collection), and 27 June 2002 (VDNH). Adults were also seen and photographed on several other dates in 2002 and 2003. This site, which contains a remnant Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) - Turkey Oak (Quercus laevis) sandhill barrens, is disjunct from the nearest localities for C. gratiosa in North Carolina by about 150 km northeast (Knisley & Schultz, 1997, map 10). The species is southeastern, occurring mainly in the Coastal Plain from Virginia to Florida and Alabama. It prefers open white sand with sparse vegetation (e. g., pine barrens, roads) and is not associated with water. Cicindela (Ellisoptera) lepida Dejean This species 1s widespread, but localized, in the interior of North America, from Canada to Mexico, and New Jersey to Utah. Scattered disjunct populations have recently been discovered along the Atlantic Coast, from New Jersey to North Carolina (Knisley & Schultz, 1997). Cicindela lepida was first reported from Virginia by Knisley (1991) on the basis of a population that he discovered in 1985 at the southern end of Assateague 18 BANISTERIA Island, Accomack County. No additional Virginia localities are known to us at this time. This is a species of pure, windblown dune sand habitats. Cicindela (Cicindelidia) trifasciata ascendens LeConte Credited by B&L witha primarily lowland distribution from New Jersey to Texas (and ranging through Mexico and Central America all the way to Panama), this taxon was added to the Virginia list by Knisley & Schultz (1997) with records for Mecklenburg and Northumberland counties, and the cities of Hampton, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach. Details on the inland collection site in Mecklenburg County were provided by Hobson (1998). Five specimens (CMNH) from Norfolk have the locality data: West Branch Lynnhaven Bay, 10 September 1972, R. D. Ward. This is a water-associated species, primarily coastal and preferring saltwater mudflats, but also ranging inland in similar freshwater habitats. CYCHRINI Scaphinotus (Irichroa) irregularis (Beutenmiller) Our experience with the large cychrines in Virginia mandates recognition of this taxon as a valid full species, as treated by Barr (1969), rather than as a junior synonym of S. viduus as placed by B&L. The records for NC cited by those authors thus refer to this southern Appalachian endemic. Since Barr mentioned only North Carolina and Tennessee as states of record, the following specimens establish S. irregularis for the first time as a Virginia beetle, reaching its northernmost limits in the Balsam Mountains (typically in spruce forest above 4000 feet/2400 m): Grayson Co.: Grindstone Campground, ca. 6.5 km west of Troutdale, 23 May 1975, RLH (1). Whitetop Mountain, 5500 ft, 10 May 1985, E. V. Gourley (1); 4 October 1986, Scott Bell (1). South slope of Mount Rogers, 4700 ft., beech-spruce woods, 24 May 1970, RLH (1); same site, 15 July 1974, R. Marshall (1). Grayson Highlands State Park, DF site below picnic area on Haw Orchard Mountain, 5000 ft., 30 August 1990, VMNH survey (7); same site, 17 September 1990 (4). Inasmuch as S. viduuws (Dejean) occurs in northern Virginia, citation of that state by B&L and tabulation as one of its known carabids was correct. However, distinguishing between S. viduus and S. webbi throughout their ranges is controversial at best, and they may in fact be conspecific. B&L records from GA may refer to an undescribed species known (Barr, in Jitteris) from the AL- TN-GA corner. NO. 27, 2006 Maronetus schwarzi (Beutenmiiller) New northernmost locality Described from Mount Mitchell, North Carolina, this Species remains very poorly known. It was not mentioned by Barr (1969:75) in his brief summary of this genus, and was not collected at Whitetop Mountain by a pitfall line operated by VMNH for a full year in 1995. Grayson Co.: in litter beside rivulet on FS 89, 1560 m, 30 May 1978, RLH (1, det T. C. Barr). In general, the tiny cychrines of the genus Maronetus are creatures of shaded mountain forest where there is rich moist soil with abundant litter and humus. They are all flightless and forage for snails through the litter and loose soil, often rather deep down to hard-packed soil or rock, depending upon the substrate. BRACHININI Brachinus adustipennis Erwin Although listed by B&L for 17 states from Massachusetts to Texas, the majority of the Middle Atlantic States were at that time still unrepresented. Two localities in eastern South Carolina were cited by Ciegler (2000), and we now record this species from Virginia. Henrico Co.: Wilson Farm, Chickahominy River, 6.4 km upstream (west) of Bottoms Bridge, 11 June 1999, I. T. Wilson, UV (1). Jsle of Wight Co.: Antioch Pines Natural Area Preserve, 6.4 km south of Zuni, 12 May 2000, SMR (2). Both localities, like those in South Carolina, are in the Coastal Plain, reflecting a generally lowland distribution for the species. Like most Brachinus, it is a creature of wetlands, in this particular species mostly riverbanks and marsh edges (7ypha, Scirpus) on wet, muddy soil with some vegetation (Larochelle & Lariviere, 2003). Many Brachinus species are notoriously difficult to identify, but in eastern North American B. adustipennis can be recognized easily by the brownish elytra with pale epipleura, all other species having blue elytra with dark epipleura (except the mysterious B. capnicus, described from the Smoky Mountains from one specimen, which is entirely black, including the forebody). CLIVININI Clivina (Paraclivina) convexa LeConte New northernmost locality? This miniature version of the common C. bipustulata is by all accounts one of the least collected members of HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES 19 the genus. Originally described from Georgia (LeConte, 1844), it has subsequently been documented from an austral range extending from New York to Texas (although records for NY, NJ, and TX were considered doubtful in B&L, which admitted only the states of AR, GA, LA, and SC). Remarkably, it is not included in the known fauna of Florida (Peck & Thomas, 1998), nor in the list of Georgia carabids compiled by Fattig (1949), despite having been described from that state. Ciegler (2000) gave only Florence as a locality in South Carolina, and Brimley (1938) cited no North Carolina records. In the light of such fragmentary information, any new locality records are of interest and we here add the first collections of C. convexa for two Middle Atlantic States. This also lends credence to the early records for New York and New Jersey. Virginia: Henrico Co.: Wilson Farm, Chickahominy River, 4 km upstream (west) of Bottoms Bridge, 3 June 1999, I. T. Wilson, UV trap (12). North Carolina: Duplin Co.: Faison, 31 May 1953, collector not indicated (North Carolina State University, 1). Collections made with UV light traps by VMNH and VDNH inventories throughout southeastern Virginia have yielded hundreds of specimens of Clivina species. That only one individual of C. convexa has been trapped during this effort suggests that the species may not be particularly phototropic. Yet the use of pitfalls and litter extractions in wetland habitats has been even less successful, and the key to this Sphingean riddle remains to be discovered. The ecology and biology of C. convexa remain unknown (Larochelle & Lariviere, 2003). LeConte’s (1844) reference to a “round” and convex pronotum reflects the fact that in dorsal aspect the anterior pronotal corners are broadly rounded, as opposed to Fig. 1. Clivina convexa, distal end of tibia of Ist pair of legs, showing the abrupt, right-angled decurvature of the apical projection diagnostic of this species. obtusely angulate in C. bipustulata. The single, posteriorly placed seta on the 3™ interval is a useful distinction, but by far the most notable diagnostic character for C. convexa is the angularly bent apical tibial process (Fig. 1). Clivina (Paraclivina) sulcipennis Putzeys New northernmost locality This rare beetle was cited by B&L only for FL and SC, although Ciegler (2000) had not seen material from the latter state. The discovery of a population of C. sulcipennis on the Eastern Shore of Virginia extends its known range minimally about 480 km north along the Atlantic Coast. Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, North Gate scrub dunes DF, 10-26 June 1998, SMR and Anne C. Chazal (2); same site, 26 June-10 July 1998, SMR (1). That only three specimens were taken at a site repeatedly sampled by pitfall traps and UV lights perhaps implies a small population, or extremely brief period of adult surface activity. Nothing is known of the ecology or biology of this species (Larochelle & Lariviere, 2003). All of the Virginia specimens were captured in pitfall traps in barrier beach dune scrub habitats. Dyschiriodes (Dyschiriodes) pumilus (Dejean) This minute species has been documented from a basically lowland range extending from New York to Texas (with an implausible record for Manitoba). Recently collected Virginia specimens thus merely fill in the existing lacuna between the District of Columbia and North Carolina. Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, North Gate scrub dunes DF, 26 June - 10 July 1998, SMR (1). City of Virginia Beach: False Cape State Park, dunes north of Wash Woods cemetery, UV, 18 August 1998, VDNH survey (1). The species is known to occur on open, wet, sandy soil with some vegetation at the edges of lakes, ponds, rivers, and salt marshes (Larochelle & Lariviére, 2003). TRECHINI The B&L list erroneously reported two trechine beetles for Virginia, but these authors also overlooked Virginia records for two congeners. Specifically, Pseudanophthalmus pallidus Barr and P. rogersae Barr are reported only for Virginia by B&L, when in fact they are known only from caves in Tennessee and Kentucky, respectively (Barr, 1981, 2004). Furthermore, B&L reported P. rotundatus Valentine and P. potomaca 20 BANISTERIA Valentine (as P. potomacus potomacus) only from Tennesee and West Virginia, respectively, but these species also have been recorded from one cave each in Virginia (Barr, 1981, 2004; Holsinger & Culver, 1988). BEMBIDIINI Bembidion (Peryphus) obscurellum (Motschulsky) New southernmost record This attractive beetle is one of the carabid species considered to be Holarctic in distribution; in North America it extends from Nova Scotia to Alaska, southward as far as Colorado and Ohio. A priori, one would expect a Virginia record to be from the western mountains, but this is not the case. The possibility of adventive, anthropochoric introduction to Virginia may not be excluded until additional populations have been discovered in less suburbanized areas. Prince William Co.: Manassas National Battlefield Park, 1.6 km north jct Rts. 29 and 705, 21 June 1993, SMR, UV (1). This is one example of a number of carabid species which have been able to extend their ranges considerably into northeastern North America in the last half-century, undoubtedly with the help of human disturbance. Lindroth (1963) records the species as “circumpolar, in N. America E to L. Superior,” probably true at the time. There are no specimens from the Northeast in the many old collections from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania. It now extends all the way to Maine and Nova Scotia, is common in Vermont and Pennsylvania (RLD, unpublished), and there is every reason to expect its occurrence in Virginia will be confirmed by further records and that this is a natural expansion of its range. This species prefers sparsely vegetated, moist or wet open sand and clay substrates, often well away from any water, but it also inhabits the drier areas of riverbanks and shorelines. It is also common in damp situations in disturbed areas, such as arable fields, meadows, sand or gravel pits, and even salt flats. Elaphropus xanthopus (Dejean) As this common species has been documented from such nearby states as Delaware and North Carolina, its absence from Virginia is merely an artifact of undercollecting. VMNH has material referable to this taxon from Dinwiddie, Greensville, Halifax, Henry, and Mecklenburg counties, May-August, all from UV lights near lakes or swamps. CMNH has specimens from the following counties: Albemarle, Botetourt, Brunswick, Buckingham, Chesterfield, Essex, Fauquier, Franklin, NO. 27, 2006 Frederick, Greensville, Henry, King William, Louisa, Madison, Mecklenburg, Shenandoah, Southampton, Stafford, and Warren, and Suffolk City. It occurs from Maine to Florida, west at least to Illinois and Missouri. It has been taken on open or sparsely vegetated wet ground with clay or sandy-clay soils on river banks, lake shores, mud flats of marshes, and in both cultivated and abandoned fields (Larochelle & Lariviere, 2003). Paratachys, probably sagax (Casey) For years this common eastern Paratachys has been an enigma, and it more or less remains so today. It sat under a label “big-eyed Paratachys” in CMNH and VMNH for many years. While examining carabids in the Museum of Comparative Zoology in early 2004, Davidson found it in the LeConte collection under the name Tachys aeneipennis (Motschulsky), so some _ specimens determined in the subsequent year will bear this label. Davidson’s visit to the United States National Museum in June 2005, an attempt to resolve at least some of the tachyines of eastern North America, told quite a different story. Terry L. Erwin began to revise the subtribe Tachyina for the New World around 1970 and continued this undertaking until around 1980 (possibly abandoned because of the enormously difficult genus Paratachys). During this time he designated homotypes for most available names, having access to the numerous Casey types at the USNM. Erwin’s homotype of Tachys aeneipennis (Motschulsky) proved to be a very different animal from LeConte’s interpretation of the name. It is a Paratachys with very small flat eyes and certainly not the species reported here. But examination of the types of Paratachys in the Casey collection shows that the species described as Tachys sagax Casey (1918) from northern Illinois is a good match. Certainty will have to await careful dissection of a series of specimens and the type, as the species in this genus are often very similar externally. There are several other Casey species described from Texas that appear to be in the same group, and some or all may be conspecific with P. sagax. However, since all were described in the same paper and are simultaneously available, the name P. sagax is as good a choice as any for this taxon, even should some of the other names turn out to be synonymous. Therefore, we propose to refer to this species as P. sagax (Casey) until such time as the genus 1s properly revised for eastern North America. In Florida and Texas, the species are not easy to identify, because in addition to the possible synonyms, there are at least one or two other very similar species that seem to be valid. Farther north, however, there seems to be only one species with enormous, hemispherical eyes. Further characters HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES 21 that distinguish this species are the darkened head and antennae, long antennomeres, concolorous pale pronotum and elytra without darker marks, transverse (therefore iridescent) pronotal and elytral microsculpture, linear trapezoidal pronotal shape, and dilation of only the first male protarsomere. We provide herein a drawing (Fig. 2) of the head and prothorax to illustrate these characters. Buchanan Co.: Davenport, 9 July 1980, André Larochelle (1) (CMNH). Carroll Co.: Sylvatus, 27 July 1980, André Larochelle (1) (CMNH). Charlotte Co.: Cub Creek floodplain, ca. 4 km north of Phoenix, Rt. 695, 11 August 1994, UV light, RLH (1). Goochland Co.: Maidens, 16 July 1980, André Larochelle (2) (CMNH). Greensville Co.: Emporia, 25 July 1980, André Larochelle (1) (CMNH); Mill Swamp, 6 km east of Skippers, Rt. 660, 17 August 1998, UV light, RLH (1). King William Co.: Pamunkey River, 13 July 1980, André Larochelle (7) (CMNH). City of Suffolk: Dismal Swamp, 25 July 1980, André Larochelle (1) (CMNH). Sussex Co.: Assamoosic Swamp, 22 July 1980, André Larochelle (4) (CMNH); Chub Sandhill Natural Area Preserve, ca. 10 km southeast of Sussex Court House, 21 May 1996, UV light, SMR/RLH (1). Suwssex/Greensville Cos.: Jarrett, 23 July 1980, André Larochelle (3) (CMNH). Wise Co.: Blackwood, 8 July 1980, André Larochelle (1) (CMNH). Fig. 2. Paratachys species, probably P. sagax, head and prothorax, dorsal aspect, to show enlarged eyes. Paratachys austinicus Casey New northeasternmost locality Listed only from TX and SD by B&L, this beetle has been subsequently documented for South Carolina (Ciegler, 2000). We now extend the known range still farther northward with the Virginia collections that follow. At Fort Pickett, this species was collected together with P. columbiensis. Dinwiddie Co.: Fort Pickett, jct. Lake and Pelham roads, 2 August 1998, SMR (1). Montgomery Co.: Blacksburg, 3 September 1976, C. R. Parker (1). City of Norfolk. Norfolk, 1-2 September 2002 (1), 5-7 September 2002 (1), 20 September 2002 (4), C. A. Springer, UV (CMNH; additional specimens with similar data are deposited with Michael A. Goodrich, Eastern Illinois University). Paratachys is one of the most difficult of carabid genera taxonomically, due to the small size and incredible diversity of species, especially in the Neotropical region. Many species are extremely similar externally and can be reliably separated only by examination of the male genitalia, making it difficult to determine which names (if any) actually apply even to some of our most common eastern Nearctic species. The tiny, straw-colored P. austinicus 1S a rare exception, being readily distinguished by the complete marginal groove on the elytra. All other eastern Nearctic species of Paratachys have the groove complete in its apical third (and bent medially at its anterior end, distinguishing this genus from the very similar Tachys) and again in the anterior third near the shoulder, but completely absent from the middle third. The biology of P. austinicus is unknown but would be of great interest to investigate, as the species is widespread in eastern North America and is already known to occur much farther north than Virginia (RLD, unpublished). Paratachys columbiensis (Hayward) New northernmost locality Recorded by B&L from several southeastern states (North Carolina to Alabama), this scarce species is apparently widespread in Virginia, although five of the following seven counties are in the Piedmont. All specimens were taken at UV light between mid-May and late September. Charlotte Co.: Cub Creek floodplain, ca. 4 km north of Phoenix, Rt. 695, 29 July 1998, RLH (1). Dinwiddie Co.: Fort Pickett, jct Lake and Pelham rds., 2 August 1995, SMR (1); Fort Pickett, 2 km east of Birchin Lake, 5 July 2000, A. C. Chazal (1). Halifax Co.: swamp beside Rt 622, 4 km east of Riceville, 26 September 1998, RLH (1). Hanover Co: South Anna River at Rt. 657, 21 June 22 BANISTERIA 1977, J. R. Voshell (1); North Anna River falls at US 1, 20 July 1977, J. R. Voshell (1). Isle of Wight Co.: Blackwater Ecological Preserve, ca. 7 km south of Zuni, 21 May 1996, UV, SMR/RLH (1). Mecklenburg Co.: Elm Hill Wildlife Management Area, Clyde’s Pond, 22 August 1992, RLH (1). City of Norfolk: Norfolk (specimen in the Michael Goodrich Collection at Eastern Illinois University; seen by Davidson). Among eastern Nearctic Paratachys, this is another relatively easy species to distinguish, at least outside of Florida (one or two presumably Neotropical species in Florida have the pronotum polished). The pronotum is polished, shiny, and devoid of microsculpture, and generally a paler orange, contrasting with the darker head and elytra. Other eastern Paratachys have distinct open pronotal microsculpture or are iridescent due to closely packed microsculpture lines without formation of meshes. Little 1s known of the ecology of P. columbiensis. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) state merely “lake shores; margins of saltwater bodies.” This is the northernmost published record to date, but it is already known (RLD, unpublished) to occur considerably farther north. Paratachys pumilus (Dejean) With no fewer than 23 eastern states (Rhode Island to Florida, west to lowa and Texas) listed by B&L for this common species, it is only an artifact of collecting that Virginia has not been included until now. VMNH specimens are from several localities in the Coastal Plain and outer Piedmont. Cumberland Co.: 7 km southwest of Columbia, low mixed hardwoods off Rt. 686, 20 April 1996, VMNH survey (4). Greensville Co.: Fontaine Swamp at Rt. 624, 28 January 1993, RLH (2). Halifax Co.: Hyco River floodplain at Rt. 501, 12 April 1998, RLH (1). Jsle of Wight Co.: Blackwater Ecological Preserve, ca. 7 km south of Zuni, 21 May 1996, UV light, SMR/RLH (1). Sussex Co.: swamp beside Rt. 608, 6.8 km southeast Sussex Court House, 15 September 1998, UV light, RLH (1). City of Virginia Beach: False Cape State Park, Wash Woods Environmental Education Center, 18-21 May 1998, VDNH survey (1). The specimens from Cumberland and Greensville counties were taken by berlese extraction of leaf litter from low damp woods. That from Halifax County was captured by hand during streamside “splashing.” This species 1s less readily recognized, though it belongs to a relatively small group of species with strong open microsculpture on the pronotum. There may be several more species in this group in Florida, Texas, and perhaps along the Gulf Coast. From the Carolinas northward, so far as we know, the only similar species is Paratachys NO. 27, 2006 potomaca, actually described from Virginia, and very difficult to separate externally from P. pumilus. According to Erwin (1981), the genitalia are distinct, and P. potomaca is always short-winged, P. pumilus fully- winged, so presumably the identification could be verified by merely lifting one elytron. However, many carabids are wing dimorphic, including both long- and _ short- winged forms in the same populations. Whether the wing length distinction holds true for these two species throughout their ranges remains to be determined. The habitat of P. pumilus is typical of many Paratachys, according to Larochelle & Lariviere (2003). It occurs on open ground on wet clay, muddy or siltish soil with some vegetation along the edges of standing or running waters, mud flats, wet meadows, and ditches. Paratachys scitulus (LeConte) This very common species was listed by B&L for virtually every state east of the Great Plains except Virginia, an exclusion that we here amend with records for the following counties: Albemarle (CMNH), Appomattox (CMNH), Botetourt (CMNH), Buchanan (CMNH), Carroll, Charlotte, Dickenson, Dinwiddie, Fauquier (CMNH), Floyd, Fluvanna (CMNH), Franklin, Frederick (VMNH, CMNH), Greensville (VMNH, CMNH), Halifax, Henrico, Lee, Louisa, Lunenburg (CMNH), Montgomery, Nottoway, Page (CMNH), Patrick, Pittsylvania, Pulaski, and Stafford, and Suffolk City (CMNH). Of these locations, only Greensville County and Suffolk City are clearly in the Coastal Plain. The species ranges west at least as far as South Dakota and Texas. This species belongs in a group with many very similar species and should be identified with great care. In Virginia, though, it is probably the only species in which the iridescent pronotum is as pale as the elytra, contrasting with the darker head, and the elytra have a darkened (though often ill-defined) band or patch in the posterior half. It is common in a wide variety of moist situations near standing or running waters and in eutrophic marshes. It is usually on open or sparsely vegetated ground with some organic content, peat or mud or clay mixed with some plant detritus. LOXANDRINI Loxandrus brevicollis (LeConte) With a predominantly lowland distribution from Massachusetts to Florida, west to Illinois and Oklahoma, L. brevicollis is missing from the Virginia list solely by lack of collection; actually it is widespread and abundant. HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES 23 It has been taken in the following Virginia counties: Augusta, Botetourt, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Halifax, Isle of Wight, King George, Mecklenburg, Nottoway, Prince George, Southampton, Stafford, Sussex, and York. The apparent absence of the species from the well-collected southeastern cities (Chesapeake, Norfolk, Suffolk, Virginia Beach) is noteworthy. The records for Augusta and Botetourt counties are exceptional for being west of the Blue Ridge. Two specimens from Augusta County are froma sinkhole pond in the Maple Flats area near Sherando (21 September 1991, RLH), and compatible with the occurrence there of other animals and plants normally restricted to lowland eastern Virginia (Fleming & Van Alstine, 1999; Mitchell & Buhlmann, 1999; Roble, 1999). Two captures from Botetourt County are from the James River floodplain northeast of Arcadia (Solitude Swamp, 8 March 1995: Sprouts Run, Rt. 622, 21 February 1998, both M. W. Donahue), and may represent westward colonization in palustrine biotopes along the river. This is largely a species of floodplain forests near streams and ponds, preferring rich organic muck with a cover of leaves or flood detritus in shaded situations. ZABRINI Amara (Bradytus) apricaria (Paykull) This Palearctic species, introduced from Western Europe, 1s now widespread and established over much of North America. It is transcontinental in Canada and the northern tier of the United States, south at least to Colorado, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Our single Virginia record is for: Floyd Co.: jct Rts. 637 and 860, ca. 4 km ESE of Floyd, 27 August 2000, UV, RLH (1). This is a creature of dry soils on open ground, usually with dense vegetation of weeds and grasses, and it thrives on human disturbance (pastures, meadows, ditches, gravel pits). Like most species of Amara, adults and larvae feed on seeds (mostly grasses) and are largely herbivorous, unlike the majority of carabid tribes which are predatory or at least opportunistic omnivores. Amara (Celia) patruelis Dejean New southernmost locality Another Holarctic carabid, A. patruelis is transcontinental in northern North America, recorded as far south as California and Colorado in the west. In the east, confirmed records extend south only as far as Pennsylvania. VMNH has a single collection from a “boreal” site in the mountains. Rockingham Co.: Shenandoah Mountain, ca. 1200 m, pitfall site nr jct Rts. 924 and FS 86, 17 June 1988, K. A. Buhlmann (3). Another species of open, dry ground with sandy soil and weedy vegetation, in the North it occurs commonly in moraines, meadows, cultivated fields, sand and gravel pits, lawns and gardens, and is often near human habitation. It ranges from mountain and subalpine zones to lowlands, but farther south it may be limited by climate to more mountainous regions. Amara (Paracelia) quenseli (Schonherr) New southernmost records With a presumed natural Holarctic distribution, A. quenseli occurs from Alaska to Nova Scotia, south as far as Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and California in the west, but until now it was only known south to Maryland and Ohio in the East. Unlike A. patruelis, the known Virginia records are not from the western mountains, but are confined to the Atlantic seacoast, probably due to the sandy habitats. Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, Wildcat Marsh, 22 July 1988, A. C. Chazal (2); Assateague Island, Wash Flats, dune DF, 1-14 October 1998, A. C. Chazal (1). City of Virginia Beach: Dam Neck Navy Base, dune DF site, 30 November 1990, K. A. BuhImann (6). The specimens from Wildcat Marsh were captured by “sweeping salt marsh edge,” apparently an unusual way to collect for any member of this genus. But adults of many species can be found climbing grasses to harvest seeds. This species 1s particularly partial to dry sandy soils, so the presence of water is incidental. It 1s common in sand and gravel pits, sand dunes, beaches, and riparian sand deposits, as well as (if sandy enough) cultivated fields, meadows, and roadsides. Amara (Celia) rubrica Haldeman Previously recorded from nearly all states east of the Appalachians, this species has been merely overlooked in Virginia. It is, however, not frequently collected here, as implied by the few records. It ranges from Maine to South Dakota (but only Quebec and Ontario in Canada, unlike most Amara species which tend to be more northern), south to Kansas and Tennessee west of the Appalachians, and south to Georgia east of the mountains. Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, Wildcat Marsh, 22 July 1998, A. C. Chazal (1). Augusta Co.: 8.2 km west of Stokesville, 15 October 1988, B. Flamm (1). Mecklenburg Co.: Elm Hill Wildlife Management Area, 13 km SW of Boydton, DF in sandy floodplain, 25 August-1 October 1995, RLH (2). City of Virginia Beach: 24 BANISTERIA False Cape State Park, 30 August 1995, SMR (1). The specimen from Assateague was taken along with A. quenseli by sweeping salt marsh plants. This is not surprising as the habitat of these species is virtually identical, and both are prone to climbing grasses in search of seeds. LICININI Diplocheila major melissisa Ball New northernmost locality In distinguishing two subspecies of Diplocheila major, Ball (1959) defined a northern and interior distribution for the nominate race: Rhode Island west to South Dakota, south to Missouri and Kansas. Ball’s new subspecies D. major melissisa was based on specimens from the Gulf Coast region: Florida to Texas. The peripheries of these two areas were adjusted slightly by B&L, who added North Carolina to the range of D. major melissisa, but in general a rather broad hiatus remained between the subspecies. With the collection of D. major melissisa in eastern Virginia, we extend its known range slightly northward along the Coastal Plain. Greensville Co.: DF site at end of Rt. 666, ca. 1.6 km east of Claresville, 28 April-10 May 1993, VMNH survey (1). Isle of Wight Co.: Blackwater Ecological Preserve, 7 km south of Zuni, 12 July 1994, SMR (1). Sussex Co.: Chub Sandhill Natural Area Preserve, ca. 10 km southeast of Sussex Court House, 21 May 1996, SMR/RLH (1). Diplocheila major is a hydrophilous species and can disappear below the water surface for some time when disturbed. According to Larochelle & Lariviere (2003), it is a lowland species of open or shaded ground with wet muddy or clay soil with dense vegetation. It favors the edges of eutrophic ponds, flood-plain forests, and low deciduous forests. Diplocheila obtusa (LeConte) New southernmost locality Although known from a transcontinental range (New Brunswick to British Columbia, south to New Mexico and Arkansas in the West), this small licinine has not been recorded south of Pennsylvania in the East. We are aware of but a single capture of the species in Virginia: Montgomery Co.: New River floodplain at Radford, 5 May 1973, S. Trinandwan (1). That only one specimen is known from one of the Virginia counties most intensively collected for insects suggests its restriction to a very specific and undercollected habitat. Most Nearctic species of Diplocheila prefer very wet habitats, but D. obtusa is NO. 27, 2006 atypical in that it prefers much drier habitats in open situations with sparse grass, typically pastures and cultivated fields, much like many Amara species (RLD, unpublished). Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) are quite specific, citing “firm, often sloping, well-drained, warm, dry, gravelly, sandy, stony or chalky soil covered with sparse grass (e. g. Phleum).” In addition to pastures and cultivated fields, they list a wide variety of open habitats: “Grasslands, ... lawns, vacant lots, hills, roadsides, vicinity of sidewalks (even of cities), gravel pits, sand pits, and upper zone of lake shores and river banks.” The paucity of Virginia material, therefore, may reflect limited collecting in what appear to be dry and unsuitable habitats. More likely, though, since we know of only one other record south of Pennsylvania (CMNH has one specimen from Randolph County, West Virginia), the Species is rarer, with spotty distribution, as one proceeds southward. Dicaelus dilatatus sinuatus Ball The species is already recorded from Virginia in the form of the nominate subspecies, but we herein add the other subspecies. Specimens available to its author when this subspecies was proposed (Ball, 1959) defined an “interior” distribution: western Pennsylvania to Iowa, south to Tennessee. Its discovery in southwestern Virginia is therefore not unexpected, considering the general biotic affinities of that region (e.g., the presence of Cyclotrachelus incisus: Davidson, 1995). All of the following localities are either in or at the eastern edge of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province: Dickenson Co.: Breaks Interstate Park, 10 June 1972, RLH (1); also 30 June-17 July 1991, VMNH survey (1). Lee Co.: The Cedars Natural Area Preserve, 10 km west of Jonesville, 5 September (1) and 9-11 September 1995 (2), SMR. Russell Co.: Carterton, 11 June 1996, SMR (1); Beartown Mountain, east of Rosedale, 4 June 1988, C. A. Pague (2). Russell-Tazewell Cos.: Little Fork Ridge, 2600 ft., 6 July 1977, D. W. Ogle (1). Geographic variation in this species 1s interesting and was discussed at length by Ball (1959). Inthe concept of that author, the nominate subspecies occurred from New Hampshire and Connecticut to Virginia, and, although separated from D. d. sinuatus by the central Appalachians, “they are connected by a zone of intergradation probably some 600 miles in extent (approximate linear distance from Durham, North Carolina to Mobile, Alabama).” This extensive region also includes the type localities of three named forms, which were not considered valid by Ball. Further attention to this curious situation (a large, U-shaped range with only the extreme ends distinguishable) is not within the scope of this HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES 25 treatment, beyond consideration of its expression in Virginia. As implied by its name, the subspecies D. d. sinuatus was defined in large part by the shape of the pronotum (widest anteriorly and curved mesad posteriorly), differing in D. d. dilatatus (broadened gradually toward the posterior angles). Our material amply confirms this difference (Fig. 3), great enough to suggest even species-level differentiation were it not for Ball’s (1959) assertion of extensive pronotal variability farther south. He considered material from as close to Virginia as Durham, NC, to be intergradient, but our samples closest to that locality (from Mecklenburg and Pittsylvania counties) appear to be typical D. d. dilatatus. The prominence of the anterior pronotal angle in D. d. dilatatus and intergrades, evident in Ball’s original drawings (1959: figs. 96a-c), is an additional distinction. Ball also mentioned a somewhat greater size for D. d. sinuatus, which 1s certainly confirmed by our specimens (over 24 mm long and thus averaging about 3-4 mm longer than selected large D. d. dilatatus from localities in eastern Virginia). A goal for future in-state collecting efforts should be to establish whether the ranges of the two subspecies come into contact in southwestern Virginia, and if so, whether intergradation or character displacement occurs. As presently known, the nominate form is clearly northern and eastern within the state, with only a few records west Fig. 3. Outline of left side of prothorax of Dicaelus dilatatus dilatatus (left) and Dicaelus dilatatus sinuatus (right). of the Blue Ridge (Fig. 4). This is largely a species of deciduous forest and forest edges, usually on moist soil in shaded situations (RLD, unpublished). Less often, according to Larochelle & Lariviere (2003), it can be found in adjacent open areas (open fields, grasslands, pastures, cultivated fields) or mixed forests (with pine) on shaded moist soil with abundant litter. The species is a frequent, but not obligate, feeder on snails. Fig. 4. Distributional records for Dicaelus dilatatus dilatatus (dots) and Dicaelus dilatatus sinuatus (diamonds) in Virginia. 26 BANISTERIA Badister (Badister) maculatus LeConte With a known distribution extending from New Jersey to Florida, west to Indiana and Louisiana, recording the species from Virginia is a mere formality. VMNH specimens have been taken in Accomack, Charlotte, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Halifax, Isle of Wight, and Mecklenburg counties, all mid-May to mid-June except for three taken August 11 in Accomack County. All 18 specimens were attracted to UV lights, as also noted for the species in South Carolina (Ciegler, 2000). The absence of material from the relatively well-collected southeasternmost cities (Chesapeake, Norfolk, Suffolk, Virginia Beach) is noteworthy. Habitat requirements are not well-known compared with other Badister species, which typically inhabit swampy places with tall reed-like vegetation where they run on the leaf blades (e.g., Zypha, Carex). It is possible this is typical B. maculatus habitat as well. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) state merely “flood-plain forests (e. g., cypress). Shaded ground; wet soil,” all that is so far known of the biology of this species. HARPALINI Anisodactylus (Gynandrotarsus) harpaloides (LaFerté-Sénectere) New northeasternmost locality According to B&L, this species occurs in a southern- interior range: Florida to Texas, north to Tennessee and Oklahoma, with records from Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina considered doubtful. However, since A. harpaloides has been confirmed for South Carolina by Ciegler (2000), and we have a dependable record for eastern Virginia, the records for Georgia and North Carolina are probably valid. Greensville Co.: pitfall site at end of Rt. 666, ca. 1.6 km northeast of Claresville, 3 June 1993, VMNH survey (1). The capture site, on a flat, sandy knoll under Pinus echinata, is probably not the preferred habitat since only One specimen was captured during a 13-month sampling period. This is a lowland species of drier open areas. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) describe the habitat as “pastures and cultivated fields...open ground; well- drained soil covered with sparse vegetation.” Stenolophus (Stenolophus) ochropezus (Say) Virginia is one of the few states from which this extremely common and widespread species has not been NO. 27, 2006 reported. VMNH material is from Accomack, Augusta, Bedford, Charles City, Charlotte, Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Goochland, Greensville, Hanover, Halifax, Henry, Highland, Isle of Wight, Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Montgomery, Nottoway, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, and Washington counties, and the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. CMNH material adds Amelia, Appomattox, Brunswick, Buchanan, Buckingham, Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Fluvanna, King William, Louisa, Madison, Prince Edward, Prince William, Scott, Spotsylvania, Surry, Sussex, Westmoreland, and Wise counties, and Suffolk City. The species comes frequently to lights and seems to occur in virtually any kind of freshwater habitat, including temporary pools and merely damp ground without any standing or running water. Stenolophus (Stenolophus) spretus Dejean Recorded by B&L from an apparently coastal lowland distribution from New Jersey to Texas, and up the Mississippi River to Arkansas, but not yet recorded from Virginia. VMNH specimens are from two localities on the Atlantic seacoast: Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, White Hills, 1 September-1 October 1998 (1); Assateague Island, pond west of Ragged Point trail, 11 August 1998 (1); Assateague Island, North Gate dunes, 24 June 1998 (2), all VDNH survey. City of Virginia Beach: False Cape State Park, south end, mid-August 1998 (1), VDNH survey. This is probably another wetland species, but nothing is known of its habitat. It comes to lights in large numbers. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) list only one reference (Kirk, 1969), which gives a South Carolina record from “the edge of a pond.” Acupalpus (Tachistodes) pauperculus Dejean This is another widespread species recorded from nearly every eastern state except Virginia. It seems, however, to be rarely taken there, the VMNH collection containing only two specimens. Floyd Co.: Buffalo Mountain Natural Area Preserve, small stream on Rt. 758, 6.8 km west of the Blue Ridge Parkway, 5 July 2003, UV trap, RLH (1). Greensville Co.: Garner’s Millpond, 11 km SW of Skippers, 19 June 1989, UV light, RLH (1). It occurs in a wide variety of wetland habitats, temporary pools, and damp places without standing or running water. HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES af Bradycellus (Stenocellus) insulsus (Casey) New southernmost localities Existing records for this species suggest a distinctly northern distribution: New Hampshire and Ontario west to Michigan. Two VMNH specimens agree closely with Lindroth’s (1968) diagnosis, differing from individuals of the similar B. nigriceps (det. G. E. Ball) by their more obtuse posterior pronotal angles, less microsculptured pronotal base, and especially the much more iridescent elytra (caused by denser, more transverse microsculpture). Accomack Co.: Assateague Island, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, wildlife loop trail, 8 July 1998, UV light, SMR (2). A series in CMNH from Tucker County, West Virginia, helps bridge the gap between records from New York and Virginia. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) took specimens along the borders of ponds and slow rivers on damp open ground of clay or mud with some vegetation. Amblygnathus mexicanus Bates Material of this species examined by Ball & Maddison (1987) represented a basically lowland distribution extending from South Carolina to Panama, with a single disjunct record for New Jersey. After a decade of absence from our collections made in eastern Virginia, A. mexicanus has at last made an appearance, which helps confirm the validity of the New Jersey locality, but also emphasizes that, locally at least, this is not a common species. City of Suffolk: South Quay pine barrens, ca. 10 km SSE of Franklin, 5 August 2003, SMR (2), both at UV light. The sample taken on 3 August at South Quay also contained three specimens of the related Amblygnathus iripennis (Say) (recorded from Virginia by Hoffman & Roble, 1999), suggesting sympatry if not in fact syntopy as well. The two species can be separated easily by the pronotal characters illustrated by Ball & Maddison (1987: rounded hind angles in A. mexicanus, sharp hind angles in A. iripennis). Virtually nothing is known of the biology or habitat of this genus, most specimens having been taken at light. Both species apparently come readily to light if the source is close enough to the habitat, and long series in many collections suggest proximity to water, probably wet sandy and/or mucky swampy situations. The striking iridescence in many carabids seems often in some way related to a preference for soupy, mucky habitats, e.g., Loxandrus (and many other loxandrine genera), many Badister, many Pterostichus, many Stenolophus (Stenolophus) and many Paratachys. But there are some notable exceptions, e.g., the very iridescent Se/enophorus opalinus, which seem to prefer drier, open habitats. Selenophorus (Celiamorphus) ellipticus Dejean Recorded by B&L from most of eastern United States, New England, and Ontario south to Florida and west to Texas, Kansas, and Wisconsin, this small harpaline is known from several states adjoining Virginia. It has thus far been taken in Virginia at many more localities than its close relative, S. granarius, even though the two seem to have similar habitat requirements. Cumberland Co.: 2 km SW of Columbia, pitfall site in recently clear-cut area, J.C. Mitchell, 17 May 1990 (1), 16 July 1990 (1), 15 August 1990 (2), 2 November 1989 (1). Isle of Wight Co.: Blackwater Ecologic Preserve, 10 km south of Zuni, 4 June 1985, C. A. Pague (1). Mecklenburg Co.: Elm Hill Wildlife Management Area, 12 km SW of Boydton, 11-29 May 1995, VMNH survey (3); same locality, at Clyde’s Pond, 17 June-10 July 1995, VMNH survey (1). Prince Edward Co.: pasture near Rice, 14-17 June 1981, R. F. Bellinger (2). City of Suffolk: Back Bay, 5 April 1980, André Larochelle (CMNH 17). This species and the following are very similar, difficult to distinguish without experience. Lindroth (1968) mentions the more produced pronotal front angles and less depressed pronotal disc near the hind angles typical of S. e/lipticus, but these characters are not clearly different in all specimens. Perhaps the most reliable external difference is the more slender antennomeres of S. ellipticus (noticeably shorter and broader in S. granarius). The aedeagus is diagnostic, S. ellipticus with a large apical sclerite and a more proximal patch of smaller spines, S. granarius with a differently shaped apical sclerite and lacking the patch of smaller spines. The tip of the aedeagus is also diagnostic, and one can identify males without dissection if the aedeagal tip 1s exposed. The apical disc is transverse in S. e//ipticus and thus very flat in side view, barely rising above or below the plane of the apical blade. In S. granarius, the apical disc is expanded dorsally and ventrally, projected above and below the plane of the apical blade and thus quite noticeable in side view. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) cite this species from dry, sandy soil covered with some vegetation in a variety of open habitats. Selenophorus (Celiamorphus) granarius Dejean This is yet another instance of a widespread species recorded from many eastern states but so far not for Virginia. VMNH records are from a single coastal locality. City of Virginia Beach: Dam Neck Navy Base, dune pitfall site, VDNH survey, 30 April 1991 (1), 14 May 28 BANISTERIA 1991 (1), 23 May 1990 (3), 1 August 1990 (2), 12 October 1990 (1), 30 November 1990 (2). See the previous species for remarks on distinguishing between the two. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) mention “open ground; well-drained, dry, sandy soil covered with sparse vegetation” in a variety of open land habitats, forest edges and sparse woods, virtually the same as S. ellipticus. It would be interesting to know whether there are some subtle differences between the two Species in habitat requirements. LACHNOPHORINI Eucaerus varicornis LeConte New northernmost records This small, orange-brown carabid with contrasting black head is the only Nearctic member of this predominantly Neotropical genus (14 described species [Reichardt, 1977, including the congeneric Lachnaces], and many undescribed). Until now it has been thought to have a Gulf Coast distribution: Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas (B&L). The discovery of this species on the Delmarva Peninsula extends this area some 950 kilometers northeast along the Coastal Plain from Putnam County, Florida (Peck & Thomas, 1998). Maryland: Dorchester Co.: Cambridge, 22 November 1958, P. J. Spangler (USNM, 10). Virginia: Northampton Co.: Savage Neck Natural Area Preserve, ca. 6 km WSW of Eastville, pitfall site by interdunal pond, 28 July-27 August 1999, SMR (1d). The genus was not recorded for South Carolina by Kirk (1969, 1970) or Ciegler (2000). There are no North Carolina specimens in the North Carolina State University collection. It has not been found elsewhere in Virginia despite a decade of pitfall and blacklight trapping in the Coastal Plain by VDNH and VMNH. Its rarity in collections is probably due in large part to its being short- winged and incapable of flight in all specimens seen. Its small size, too, makes it less susceptible to pitfalls. And it may be that extremely stenotopic habits and very small, widely disjunct relict populations north of the main body of its range contribute to the difficulties in finding this elusive species. The beetle itself is about 3 mm in length, its narrow forebody and broadened, convex, ovoid elytra imparting the general appearance of a Trechus. A superficial recognition character is the bicolored antennae with the proximal six articles light brown, the distal five white. Anyone not familiar with carabid taxonomy may have difficulty identifying EF. varicornis with most keys since NO. 27, 2006 the apical maxillary palpomere is falsely subulate and might therefore lead one to the tribe Bembidiini. On close examination, however, one can see that the apical palpomeres are elongate, at least as long as the penultimates, and are formed as one single piece that is widened in the proximal three quarters, then tapered abruptly to a slender finial in the apical quarter. To add to the illusion, the proximal three quarters is densely pubescent and the distal quarter glabrous. There is no suture between the narrowed glabrous tip and the swollen hairy base because it is all one segment. The truncate elytra will also help the observer place this interesting species among the tribes of “Truncatipennes” rather than Bembidiini. In our part of the world, the strongly contrasting bicolored antennae will also eliminate Bembidiini, though in the Neotropical region there are apparent mimicry complexes in which eucaerine Lachnophorini and tachyine Bembidiini (and even perhaps some Loxandrini) have patterned antennae. We do not know whether the superficial similarity in the palpomeres of lachnophorines and bembidiines is an example of mimicry, or merely a functional convergence due to similar habitat and biology. Davidson has taken E. varicornis in shaded forested swamps, always in very wet spots near water, walking at night on leaves and roots. Larochelle & Lariviere (2003) record the habitat as “swamp-forests and borders of swamps. Close to water. Shaded ground; wet soil covered with some vegetation (e.g., Cladium). Nocturnal: sheltering during the day in leaf litter about sedge roots, in half-submerged logs, or under boards.” Loding (1945: 22) cites the species from “under boards near swamp along Mobile & Ohio R. R. tracks.” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An enormous number of collections of Virginia carabids was assembled by Andre Larochelle in the summer of 1980, and donated in part to the Carnegie Museum. Some of this material, cited for a number of species in the foregoing list, contributed greatly to our knowledge of distribution. We are also indebted to the diligence of several VDNH staff members, notably Anne C. Chazal, who collected extensively in many parts of Virginia. VDNH staff member Irvine T. Wilson provided material from light trap collections obtained on his private property, including one species not otherwise captured in the state. Warren E. Steiner, Jr., provided information on USNM material of Eucaerus varicornis, and Robert E. Blinn facilitated search through the North Carolina State University insect collection for relevant records. We are very much indebted to these helpful colleagues. HOFFMAN ET AL.: GROUND BEETLES 29 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, J. M., J. C. Mitchell, A. A. Hall, & R. L. Hoffman. 1995. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) from Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia. Banisteria 6: 3-16. Ball, G. E. 1959. A taxonomic study of the North American Licinini with notes on the Old World species of the genus Diplocheila (Coleoptera). Memoirs of the American Entomological Society 16: 1-258. Ball, G. E., & D. R. Maddison. 1987. Classification and evolutionary aspects of the species of the New World genus Amblygnathus Dejean, with description of Platymetopsis, new genus, and notes about selected species of Selenophorus Dejean (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 113: 189-307. Barr, T. C., Jr. 1969. Evolution of the Carabidae (Coleoptera) in the Southern Appalachians. Pp. 67-92 In P. C. Holt (ed.). The Distributional History of the Biota of the Southern Appalachians. Part I: Invertebrates. Research Division Monograph 1, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA. Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5: 37-94. Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. A classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication 11. Martinsville, VA. 52 pp. Bousquet, Y., & A. Larochelle. 1993. Catalogue of the Geadephaga (Coleoptera: Trachypachidae, Rhysodidae, Carabidae including Cicindelini) of America north of Mexico. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 167: 1-397. Brimley, C. S. 1938. The Insects of North Carolina, Being a List of the Insects of North Carolina and Their Near Relatives. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh. 560 pp. Ciegler, J. C. 2000. Ground beetles and wrinkled bark beetles of South Carolina (Coleoptera: Geadephaga: Carabidae and Rhysodidae). Biota of South Carolina, Volume 1. Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 149 pp. 1995, Davidson, R. L. First Virginia records for ten species of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Banisteria 5: 16-19. Erwin, T. L. 1981. Natural history of Plummer’s Island, Maryland. XXVI. The ground beetles of a temperate forest site (Coleoptera: Carabidae): an analysis of fauna in relation to size, habitat selection, vagility, seasonality, and extinction. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington 5: 104-224. Fattig, P. W. 1949. The Carabidae or ground beetles of Georgia. Emory University Bulletin 7: 1-62. Fleming, G. P., & N. E. Van Alstine. 1999. Plant communities and floristic features of sinkhole ponds and seepage habitats in southeastern Augusta County, Virginia. Banisteria 13: 67-94. Hobson, C.S. 1998. An inland record for the tiger beetle Cicindela trifasciata ascendens in Virginia. Banisteria 11: 49-50. Hoffman, R. L. 1997. Phloeoxena signata (Dejean), another southern ground beetle discovered in Virginia. Banisteria 10: 30-31. Hoffman, R. L. 1998. On the occurrence of several species of pterostichine ground beetles in Virginia (Carabidae: Pterostichini). Banisteria 12: 36-40. Hoffman, R. L., & S. M. Roble. 1999. Fourteen ground beetles new to the Virginia fauna. Banisteria 16: 36-41. Holsinger, J. R., & D. C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of eastern Tennessee: Zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana 14: 1-162. Kirk, V.M. 1969. A list of the beetles of South Carolina, Part 1. Northern Coastal Plain. South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson University, Technical Bulletin 1033: 1-124. Kirk, V.M. 1970. A list of the beetles of South Carolina, Part 2. Mountain, Piedmont, and Southern Coastal Plain. South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson University, Technical Bulletin 1038: 1-117. Knisley, C. B. 1991. Tiger beetles. Pp. 231-237 In K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia’s Endangered Species: Proceedings of aSymposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. Knisley, C. B., & T. D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a Guide to the Species of the South 30 BANISTERIA Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication 5. Martinsville, VA. 210 pp. Larochelle, A., & M.-C. Lariviere. 2003. A Natural History of the Ground-Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America North of Mexico. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia- Moscow. 583 pp. LeConte, J. L. 1844. Descriptions of new species of North American Coleoptera. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 2: 48-53. Lindroth, C. H. 1963. The ground-beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 3. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 24: 201-408. Lindroth, C. H. 1968. The ground-beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 5. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 33: 649-944. Loding, H. P. 1945. Catalogue of the beetles of Alabama. NO. 27, 2006 Geological Survey of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 172 pp. Monograph _ 11. Mitchell, J. C., & K. A. Buhlmann. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles of the Shenandoah Valley sinkhole pond system in Virginia. Banisteria 13: 129-142. Peck, S. B., & M. C. Thomas. 1998. A distributional checklist of the beetles (Coleoptera) of Florida. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas 16: 1-180. Reichardt, H. 1977. A synopsis of the genera of Neotropical Carabidae (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae 13: 346-493. Roble, S. M. 1999. Dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of the Shenandoah Valley sinkhole pond system and vicinity, Augusta County, Virginia. Banisteria 13: 101- 127. Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society Effects of Timber Harvesting on the Abundance and Diversity of Small Mammals on Non-Industrial Private Forestlands in South-central Virginia Hannah S. Shively, Jason D. Fiore, and Todd S. Fredericksen! Life Sciences Division Ferrum College Ferrum, Virginia 24088 ABSTRACT Most of the forestlands in Virginia are classified as non-industrial private forestlands (NIPFs). Conservation of wildlife is also an important ownership objective for many NIPF owners when they harvest timber. We studied how timber harvesting affected the abundance and species richness of small mammals on NIPFs in south-central Virginia. We sampled small mammal populations in 18 different stands each year during 2004 and 2005 in Franklin, Henry, and Patrick counties. All study sites were natural stands dominated by hardwood tree species. Stands ranged in size from ca. 8-40 hectares. Stands included nine recently (1-2 years ago) logged stands and nine mature forest stands that had not been logged within the past 40-50 years. Small mammals were captured using Sherman live traps and, in the first year only, pitfall traps. We captured a total of 170 individuals of nine species on all sites. By far, the most commonly captured species (154 captures) was the White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Logged stands yielded 122 captures of nine species, whereas unlogged stands yielded 48 captures of two species. During the first year of the study, small mammal abundance was negatively correlated with overstory cover and positively correlated with herbaceous layer cover and amount of coarse woody debris. No significant relationships were observed between mammal captures and habitat variables in the second year of the study. Key words: biodiversity, logging, small mammals, timber harvesting, hardwood forest, Virginia. INTRODUCTION wildlife on their property. Increasing publicity about possible negative effects of timber management on Timber harvesting is increasing in southwest Virginia, leading to increasing concern about habitat alterations that affect biological biodiversity (Johnson, 2004). Over 75% of Virginia’s commercial forestland is classified as non-industrial private forestland (NIPF) (Thompson & Johnson, 1996). NIPFs_ include forestlands that are part of residential holdings, farms, and other lands of owners who do not own wood- processing facilities. The majority of NIPF owners in the eastern United States consistently cite observing or protecting wildlife as an important management objective for their property (Birch et al., 1998). Timber management is another goal for many NIPF owners and there is often concern about how logging may affect ' Corresponding author: TFredericksen@FERRUM.EDU wildlife diversity, and forest ecosystems, in general, has altered the perceptions of private landowners about logging. Some silvicultural treatments, especially clearcutting, dramatically change environmental conditions, species composition, and _ vegetative structure within a forest (Chen et al., 1999; Zheng et al., 2000), but not all species are negatively affected by these changes. Wildlife species react differently to the variety of habitat modifications caused by timber harvesting, including decreased overstory cover, increased ground vegetation cover, increased large woody debris, and changes in the abundance of food resources (DeCalesta, 1989; Healy, 1989; Hunter, 1990; Hanson et al., 1991; DeGraaf, 1992). 32 BANISTERIA Linkages between small mammal communities and habitat changes caused by logging on NIPFs are not well studied. It is known that slash piles, snags, fallen trees, canopy gaps, decaying wood, and litter are important structural elements that function in maintaining soil productivity, plant community diversity, and fungal and invertebrate communities. These structural habitat features are especially critical to small mammal communities that inhabit the forest floor (Carey & Johnson, 1995; Bowman et al., 2000; Carey & Harrington, 2001). Mammals use woody debris for a variety of functions and this resource is critically important to the survival and reproduction of many species (Maser et al., 1979). Small mammal communities may be used as indicators of forest floor habitat quality. They help to disseminate seeds and spores, fungi and lichens, physically mix soil, decompose organic matter and litter, and help to regulate invertebrate populations (Maser et al., 1978; Elkinton et al., 1996). They also represent an important link in the food web as prey for many terrestrial and avian predators including snakes, birds of prey, coyotes, foxes, skunks, and other predators (Terman, 1965). Both loggers and landowners often lack information on how timber harvesting affects wildlife and how best management forestry practices can mitigate potentially negative impacts of logging. We initiated a study in 2004 to help determine the impacts of logging on small mammal abundance and species richness on NIPF lands in the southern portion of the Blue Ridge physiographic province in Virginia (Franklin, Henry, and Patrick counties). This paper reports on the results of the first two years of this study. METHODS Mammal communities were sampled on 18 NIPF stands from mid-May through late July of 2004 and 2005. Sites were located in Franklin, Henry, and Patrick counties. Nine sites were logged and 9 stands were mature forest stands that had not been logged for at least 40-50 years. Logging intensities ranged from NO. 27, 2006 intensive harvesting (clearcuts) to selective harvests with many trees remaining after harvest. Harvested sites were logged within the past two years. The mean and ranges of remaining overstory cover are presented in Table 1. Care was taken to select sites that had similar a similar composition of tree species, which included mixed hardwood species with some scattered White Pine (Pinus strobus) and Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana). Selected sites were also similar in size (8-40 hectares) and imbedded within a_ similar landscape matrix (percentage of farms, fields, urban development, and forest). Two harvested sites used in 2004 were not available for use in 2005 and were replaced with two other sites harvested in the previous year. We trapped two sites each week, including one logged stand and one unlogged stand in order to reduce confounding variables due to weather patterns and moon phases. We used systematic random sampling to locate 15 sampling points within each study site. At each sampling point, we placed two Sherman live traps and, in 2004 only, | pitfall trap, consisting of a 2-1 metal can buried flush with the soil surface. Pitfall traps were located along fallen logs or at the base of rock outcrops, areas that are typically used as runways for small mammals. Traps were set out for three consecutive nights and checked early the next morning. Total Sherman trap-nights for each year of the study was 1620 (15 traps x 18 sites x 3 nights). We baited traps every day with peanut butter and oats. At initial capture, each animal was marked with a numbered ear tag for individual recognition and to avoid recounting recaptured animals. Shrews and voles were not ear- tagged, but were marked on the top of the head with a non-toxic ink marker. Sex, age, weight, and the site of capture for each individual captured were also noted. We collected vegetation cover data at ca.10 locations in each stand. Percentage overstory tree cover (>10 m tall) and midstory vegetation cover (2-10 m) cover were estimated using a transparent grid densiometer. Percentage shrub cover (0.5-2 m) and ground cover (<0.5 m) were estimated visually to the Table 1. Percent vegetation cover at different forest layers and woody debris index (mean of the sum of diameters of woody debris on five 50-m transects) in nine recently logged and nine unlogged stands in Franklin, Patrick and Henry counties, Virginia. Overstory cover included vegetation cover >10 m; shrub layer cover included vegetation cover >0.5 m and <2 m; herbaceous layer cover included vegetation cover <0.5 m. Means are presented with + 1 standard deviation. Minimum and maximum values are included in parentheses. Variable Logged Unlogged Overstory cover (%) Shrub layer cover (%) Herbaceous layer cover (%) Woody debris volume Index 27 + 21.7 (0-55) 28 + 14.8 (7-53) 51 + 26.1 (13-78) 199 + 51.1 (136-282 74 + 15.0 (54-96) 25 + 16.4 (5-57) 18 + 11.5 (5-46) 68 + 27.6 (18-107 SHIVELY ET AL.: SMALL MAMMALS 33 nearest 5% using a 1-m* sampling frame. Woody debris cover >5 cm in diameter was estimated using five or more 50 cm line-intercept transects within which the diameter of each woody debris item was measured where it crossed the transect. Diameters were summed over each transect for use as an index of the amount of coarse woody debris cover on each site. Data were analyzed using the SYSTAT (version 10.2) statistical program. Because of failure to meet assumptions for a parametric test, Wilcoxon’s rank sum test (paired by trapping period) was used to test for significant differences in abundance and_ species richness of small mammals between logged and unlogged sites. Pearson’s correlation test was used to test for relationships between overstory, midstory, herbaceous cover, and woody debris with the abundance and species richness of small mammals. Only new captures (not recaptures) were included in the data analysis. Statistical tests were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. RESULTS Logged stands had, on average, nearly three times the percentage herbaceous layer cover and amount of large woody debris compared to unlogged stands (Table 1). Unlogged stands had three times more percentage overstory cover and twice the percentage midstory cover compared to logged stands. Percentage shrub cover was similar between logged and unlogged stands. In all, a total of 170 small mammals of nine species were captured during the study (Table 2). White-footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus) represented 90% of all captures. Captures on logged stands were 2.5 times higher than unlogged stands (122 and 48 captures, respectively). All nine species captured were present in at least one logged stand during 2004 or 2005, while only two species, P. /eucopus and Tamias striatus, were captured on unlogged stands. During 2004, the abundance of small mammals was significantly higher on logged stands than unlogged stands (p = 0.05), but the difference was not significant in 2005 (p = 0.11). Only one capture (Sorex cinereus) was made in a pitfall trap in 2004 and, therefore, the method was discontinued in 2005. In 2004, the number of small mammals was positively correlated (p = 0.003) with the amount of large woody debris volume (Table 3). Small mammal abundance was also significantly and negatively correlated (p = 0.005) with percent overstory cover (p = 0.0005) and positively correlated with herbaceous cover (p< 0.001) (Table 3). Small mammal abundance was not significantly related to any habitat variables in 2005 (Table 3). DISCUSSION The abundance of mammals was more than twice as high in recently logged stands compared to unlogged mature forest stands and nine species were observed in logged stands while only two species were observed in unlogged stands. Mammal capture rates were driven largely by the abundance of White-footed Mice (Table 2), with all other species being represented by a total of four or fewer individuals. Kirkland (1977) observed a similar increase in small mammal abundance and diversity in clearcut hardwood stands in West Virginia. Small mammal species may be responding positively to increases in certain habitat resources on the forest floor created by logging, including increased vegetation cover, food, travel routes, and woody debris (Yahner, 1990; Loeb, 1993). Slash piles and other concentrations of course woody debris are particularly important habitat components for many mammals. Table 2. Number of new captures of small mammal species on logged and unlogged stands in Franklin, Patrick, and Henry counties, Virginia during 2004 and 2005 (n= 9 for both logged and unlogged stands each year). 2004 2005 Species Logged _ Unlogged Logged _ Unlogged Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) 2 1 0 0 White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) 50 18 5) 29 Golden Mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) 1 0 3 0 Eastern Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) 0 0 4 0 Southern Redbacked Vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) 0 0 1 0 Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) 0 0 1 0 Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 0 0 ] 0 Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) 0 0 1 0 Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 54 19 68 29 34 BANISTERIA NO. 27, 2006 Table 3. Correlation matrix, including Pearson’s correlation coefficient and probability values in parentheses, for relationships between small mammal abundance and habitat variables (overstory cover, shrub cover, herbaceous cover, and woody debris) for 18 NIPF stands in south-central Virginia with different timber harvest intensities during 2004 and 2005. poe naan % overstory cover % shrub cover % herb cover puibody eee abundance index 2004 -0.64 (0.08) 0.34 (0.005) 0.77 (0.001) 0.67 (0.003) 2005 -0.02 (0.94) 0.02 (0.95) 0.02 (0.93) 0.38 (0.23) Over half (55) of the 81 of mammal species found in the southeastern United States use slash piles (Loeb, 1993). Many studies show that downed logs represent an important habitat feature for small mammals (Barry & Francq, 1980; Corn et al., 1988, Gore, 1988; Graves et al., 1988; Kennedy et al., 1991; Planz & Kirkland, 1992). Soil disturbance and canopy gaps created by logging provide foraging and burrowing sites for many species of mice, shrews, and ground squirrels (Beatty & Stone, 1986; Graves et al., 1988; Planz & Kirkland, 1992). The abundance of White-footed Mice on both logged and unlogged sites reflects the wide ecological tolerance of this generalist species (Webster et al., 1985; Brannon, 2005), but the abundance of this species was 2-3 times higher in logged stands compared to unlogged stands. In the southern Appalachians of western North Carolina, Buckner & Shure (1985) found that the White-footed Mouse readily used forest openings of various sizes created by logging. Another study, however, conducted in the southern Appalachians recently found that there was no difference in the capture success among the study sites before or after logging, but the abundance of the White- footed Mouse varied among years (Greenberg, 2002). Except for the White-footed Mouse, relatively few individuals of all other species were captured, with many species represented by only one individual or a few individuals captured on a single study site. Still, nearly all these captures occurred in logged stands. The Eastern Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), which prefers old field habitats (Webster et al., 1985), was captured on logging decks in one harvested stand. A species of grassy fields, the Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), was captured only once on a logging deck recently replanted with grass species. The Southern Red-backed Vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) and Golden Mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) were found on logged sites with understories having a high percentage of herbaceous and shrub cover. Despite the higher absolute mammal abundance observed in logged stands during both studies, the difference was only significant during the first year of the study. There was, however, a strong trend for more captures in logged stands during the second year. Variability in capture rates was high among stands. Captures at a site were not consistent from year to year, probably reflecting interannual population cycles within individual sites and microhabitat differences within stands of each treatment. In addition, the abundance of small mammals was significantly and positively related to percent herbaceous cover and the amount of woody debris within stands. Mammal abundance was negatively related to percent overstory cover during the first year of the study, but no such trends were observed in the second year of the study. Other studies also have found mixed responses in mammal abundance and species richness to timber harvesting, or correlations with habitat variables, with some authors citing population fluctuations as a possible explanation (Healy & Brooks, 1988; Fredericksen et al., 2000). Variability between years seemed to be highest in the logged stands of our study. For example, the logged stand with the most captures of new individuals (17) in 2004 had no captures during 2005. Another logged stand where there were no captures in 2004 had nine captures in 2005. Pitfall traps were not very effective when used during the first year of this study, perhaps because of their small size and because we did not use drift fences. As part of another study, one of the unlogged control sites of our study had drift fence arrays installed using 17-liter pitfall buckets and large numbers of shrews were captured in these traps (T.S. Fredericksen, unpubl. data). Based on these data, we believe that the abundance of shrews was not adequately assessed in our study. It was not logistically possible for us, however, to erect pitfall-drift fence arrays on the large number of sites in this study. SHIVELY ET AL.: SMALL MAMMALS 35 CONCLUSIONS This study revealed that small mammals were more abundant and species richness was higher in logged compared to unlogged stands, although mammal abundance was dominated by one species, the White- footed Mouse, in both habitat types. It should be noted, however, that shrews were not well sampled by our methods. Increased abundance and captures of small mammals on logged sites were correlated, at least during one year of our study, with increased amounts of herbaceous cover and coarse woody debris. Continued sampling in these stands is planned in upcoming years to determine how small mammal species respond to vegetation succession following logging. The results of this paper can be incorporated into literature that helps NIPF owners understand how small mammals are likely respond to timber harvesting on their stands. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the support of the Appalachian Colleges Association in this study with the John Stephenson fellowship for Todd Fredericksen. The JOCO Foundation, SURDNA Foundation and Cabell- Brand Center supported Hannah Shively and J.D. Fiore. The Ferrum College Life Science Division provided traps and other research materials for this study. Leslie Lambert, Dean and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Ferrum College, provided support for additional trapping materials through the Ferrum College Professional Development Fund. Stuart Sours of the Virginia Department of Forestry and Barry Fulcher of Lester Properties were very helpful in helping to locate study sites. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries provided a scientific collection permit for this study. Nell Fredericksen reviewed a previous version of this manuscript. Finally, we thank our collaborating landowners, without whose support this study would not have been possible. LITERATURE CITED Barry, R. E. Jr., & E. N. Francq. 1980. Orientation to landmarks within the preferred habitat by Peromyscus leucopus in the presence and absence of vegetative cover. Journal of Mammalogy 73: 797-801. Beatty, S. W., & E. L. Stone. 1986. The variety of soil microsites created by tree falls. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61: 292-303. Birch, T. W., S. S. Hodge, & M. T. Thompson. 1998. Characterizing Virginia’s private forest owners and their forest lands. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Experiment Station, Technical Report NE-707, Radnor, PA. 10 pp. Bowman, J.C., D. Sleep, G. J. Forbes, & M. Edwards. 2000. The association of small mammals with coarse woody debris at log and stand scales. Forest Ecology and Management 129: 119-124. Brannon, M. P. 2005. Distribution and microhabitat of the Woodland Jumping Mouse, Napaeozapus insignis, and the White-footed Mouse, Peromyscus leucopus, in the Southern Appalachians. Southeastern Naturalist 4: 479-486. Buckner, C. A., & D. J. Shure. 1985. The response of Peromyscus to forest opening size in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of Mammalogy 66: 299-307. Carey, A. B., & C. A. Harrington. 2001. Small mammals in young forests: implications for management for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 289-309. Carey, A. B., & M. L. Johnson. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. Ecological Applications 5: 336-352. Chen, J., C. Saunders, T. R. Chow, R. J. Naiman, K. D. Brosofske, G. D. Mroz, B. L. Brookshire, & J. F. Franklin. 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystems and landscape ecology. BioScience 49: 288-297. Corn, P. S., R. B. Bury, & T.A. Spies. 1988. Douglas fir forests in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and Washington: Is the abundance of small mammals related to stand age and moisture? Pp. 340-352 In Szaro, R. C., K. C. Severson, & D. R. Patton (eds.). General Technical Report RM-166. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. DeCalesta, D. S. 1989. Even-aged forest management and wildlife populations. Pp. 210-224 Jn J.C. Finley & M.C. Brittingham (eds.). Timber Management and Wildlife Populations. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. DeGraaf, R. M. 1992. Effects of even-aged management on forest birds at the northern hardwood stand interfaces. Forest Ecology and Management 47: 95-110. 36 BANISTERIA Elkinton, J. S.. W. M. Healy, J. P. Buonaccorsi, G. H. Boettner, A. M. Hazzard, H. R. Smith, & A. M. Liebhold. 1996. Interactions among gypsy moths, white-footed mice, and acorns. Ecology 77: 2332-2342. Fredericksen T. S., B. D. Ross, W. Hoffman, E. Ross, M. L. Morrison, J. Beyea, M. L. Lester, & B. N. Johnson. 2000. The impact of logging on wildlife: a study in northeastern Pennsylvania. Journal of Forestry 98: 4-10. Gore, J. A. 1988. Habitat structure and the disturbance of small mammals in a northern hardwood forest. Pp. 319-327 In Szaro, R. C., K. C. Severson, & D. R. Patton (eds.). General Technical Report RM-166. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Graves, S., J. Maldonado, & J. O. Wolff. 1988. Use of ground and arboreal microhabitats by Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 277-278. Greenberg, C. H. 2002. Response of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to coarse woody debris and microsite use in southern Appalachian treefall gaps. Forest Ecology and Management 164: 57-66. Hanson, A. J., T. A. Spies, F. J. Swanson, & J. L. Ohman. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience 41: 382-392. Healy, W. M. 1989. Uneven-aged silviculture and wildlife habitat. Pp. 225-237 In J.C. Finley & M.C. Brittingham (eds.). Timber Management and Wildlife Populations. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Healy, W. M., & R.T. Brooks. 1988. Small mammal abundance in northern hardwood stands in West Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 491-496. Hunter, M. L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 370 pp. Johnson, J. E. 2004. Harvesting your timber? Factors to consider to ensure a profitable and healthy forest. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Publication 420-160, Blacksburg, VA. 16 pp. Kennedy, M. L., J. P. Nelson, & F. W. Weckerly. 1991. An assessment of selected forest factors and lake level NO. 27, 2006 in raccoon management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19: 151-154. Kirkland, G. L. 1977. Responses of small mammals to clearcutting in northern Appalachian forests. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 600-609. Loeb. S. C. 1993. The role of coarse woody debris in the ecology of southeastern mammals. Pp. 108-118 Jn McMinn, J.W., & D. A. Crossley, Jr. (eds.). General Technical Report SE-94. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Maser, C., R. G. Anderson, & K. Cromack. 1979. Dead and down woody material. Pp. 78-95 In J.W. Thomas (ed.). Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture Handbook No. 553, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Maser, C., J. M. Trappe, & R. A. Nussbaum. 1978. Fungal-small mammal interrelationships with emphasis on Oregon coniferous forests. Ecology 59: 799-809. Planz, J. V., & G. L. Kirkland. 1992. Use of woody ground litter as a substrate for travel by the white- footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Canadian Field Naturalist 106: 118-121. Terman, C. R. 1965. Population fluctuations of Peromyscus maniculatus and other small mammals as revealed by the North American census of small mammals. American Midland Naturalist 76: 419-426. Thompson, M. T., & T. G. Johnson. 1996. A forested tract-size profile of Virginia’s NIPF landowners. Research Paper SRS-1, USDA _ Southern Forest Research Station, Asheville, NC. 8 pp. Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, & W. C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp. Yahner, R. H. 1990. Dynamics of a small mammal community in a fragmented forest. American Midland Naturalist 127: 381-391. Zheng, D., J. Chen, B. Song, M. Xu, P. Sneed, & R. Jensen. 2000. Effects of silvicultural treatments on summer forest microclimate in southeastern Missouri Ozarks. Climate Research 15: 45-49, Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society The Scarab Genus Polyphylla in Virginia (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 ABSTRACT The distribution of Polyphylla occidentalis (Linnaeus), P. variolosa Harris, and P. comes Casey in Virginia is reviewed and mapped in light of numerous recent collections. The relationships of the last two are considered, and diagnostic characters of both are illustrated. There is no conclusive evidence that they intergrade in Virginia, despite suggestive coloration of some specimens. Key words: Coleoptera, Polyphylla, Virginia, Scarabaeidae. Probably the most abundant and conspicuous scarab beetles in Virginia are the large brown species of Phyllophaga, sometimes called May beetles or June beetles, that are attracted to porch or inside lights during early summer evenings. After spending their youth as white grubs feeding on the root systems of grasses, these insects emerge as flying adults, sometimes in enormous numbers, to form mating aggregations in trees in or near pastureland. Some 29 species of Phyllophaga are known from Virginia, and at least 12 others are likely to be found here with continued search. Species of the related genus Polyphylla, (“lined May beetles”’) are similar to but larger than most Phyllophaga, and distinguished from that genus by the presence of white scale-like hairs on the elytra and a different configuration of the antennal segments. The Virginia species are relatively scarce, they do not aggregate in great numbers, and only rarely intrude into residences. The primary purpose of this paper is to document the status of the three local species and solicit the cooperation of Virginia naturalists who may have the opportunity to secure additional material. These beetles are photopositive, and observation of this trait could result in captures during midsummer evenings. The taxonomy of Polyphylla was revised in detail by R. M. Young (1988) who recognized 28 species, most of them occurring west of the Mississippi River. The three members of the genus native to Virginia (and a fourth restricted to Florida) were placed by Young (1988) in an “occidentalis complex” which was distinguished in his key to species solely by its geographic distribution. Within this group, the Floridian P. gracilis is distinctive by its small size (length < 20 mm), and P. occidentalis by its elytral stripes and shape of the aedeagal apex. Polyphylla variolosa and P. comes are similar to each other in both elytral pattern and genitalia, and were separated by Young (1988) primarily on the length of the male antennal club (< 5 mm in the former, > 5 mm in the latter). Moreover, the ranges of the two, as known to Young (1988), were widely separated by nearly the entire breadth of Virginia. Material accumulated at the Virginia Museum of Natural History during the past decade suggests that this hiatus may be largely illusory, and that collection of specimens from relevant areas in the state may require re-appraisal of the taxonomic status of the two taxa. Polyphylla occidentalis (Linnaeus) This species is recognizable by the fairly well-defined elytral stripes (Fig. 1) and, in the male sex, apical structure of the aedeagus (Fig. 2). Young’s (1988) monograph provided complete literature references, description, illustrations of the genitalia, list of specimens examined, and a distribution map. The range extends from eastern Virginia south throughout Florida, and west to Mississippi, mostly in the Coastal Plain but with a few Piedmont localities. Young (1988) cited Virginia specimens from King & Queen, Northampton, and Prince George counties, and the cities 38 BANISTERIA Fig. 1. Typical color patterns of three species of Polyphylla. Left: P. comes Casey, specimen from Floyd Co., Virginia. Center: P. variolosa Harris, specimen from Accomack Co., Virginia. Right: P. occidentalis (Linnaeus), specimen from Virginia Beach, Virginia. of Hampton, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach. VMNH specimens add the counties of Henrico, Isle of Wight, and Sussex, and the City of Chesapeake. In addition, there is a single specimen from Vesuvius, Rockbridge County, which may be mislabeled, or an aeolian adventive out of the normal range. All of these localities are plotted on the map (Fig. 4). Polyphylla variolosa (Hentz) This species is similar to the following in lacking distinct white discal lines on the elytra (Fig. 1), and shares with it a somewhat similar genitalic structure (Fig. 2). The antennal club of the male is said to be less than 5 mm in length, but measurements are difficult to obtain with accuracy owing to its curvature. Polyphylla variolosa is unusual in the genus for its occurrence in northeastern North America. Young’s (1988) map shows localities from Quebec and southern Maine southward to Virginia, with disjunct capture sites in western New York and southern Ontario. By far the majority of the localities are within 100 miles of the Tae * _ — ors : f\ sy? & | Fig. 2. Aedeagi of three species of Polyphylla, distal half, dorsal aspect: P. occidentalis (lett), P. variolosa (center) and P. comes (right). In P. occidentalis the thin dorsal flanges of the parameres are closely appressed into a single, thin sharp blade. NO. 27, 2006 Atlantic Coast. Young (1988) cited specimens from Accomack County (Assateague Island), and the cities of Hampton and Newport News. VMNH also has a specimen from Accomack County (Parramore Island, 16 July 2003, Anne C. Chazal), which adds nothing to existing knowledge of distribution but serves as a reference for the characters of P. variolosa. Virginia records are shown by squares on Fig. 5. The male specimen from Parramore Island allowed a close comparison with material of P. comes from western Virginia. In addition to verifying the characters used by Young (1988) to separate these two species, I was able to notice another not hitherto utilized: the outline of the elytra at the apex of the sutural margin. This area 1s by far more acuminately produced in P. variolosa (Fig. 3), at least in eastern Virginia. I have not had the opportunity to investigate the constancy of this difference in specimens from more northern parts of the range. Polyphylla comes Casey This distinctive species was proposed by T. L. Casey (1914: 340) for specimens from Kentucky, and was contrasted only with P. variolosa. The differences noted in the long descriptions pertained largely to color pattern and size of the antennal club (Casey’s statement that P. comes is “...much larger...” is shown by his own measurements to be on the order of one millimeter of length, apparently a dimension of substantial magnitude in Casey’s mensural scale). Specimens available to Young (1988) defined a range extending from southwestern Virginia south and west through the southern Blue Ridge to Mississippi and Louisiana. The species is widespread in the mountains of North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia, from where recorded by Young (1988) from a site in Montgomery County. Recent collections provide additional localities in that region, and more importantly, in the Piedmont as well (Fig. 5): Floyd Co.: Rt. 622, 4 km SW of Indian Valley, 17 July 1988, UV, RLH (1). Grayson Co.: Grayson Glades 99 Fig. 3. Sutural apex of elytra in Polyphylla variolosa (left) and P. comes (right). Drawings made from two males of similar size and oriented into exactly the same postero-lateral aspect. HOFFMAN: POLYPHYLLA SCARAB BEETLES 39 Fig. 4. Distribution of Polyphylla occidentalis in Virginia. The locality in King & Queen County is the northernmost known for this species. The spot in Rockbridge County represents a possibly mislabeled specimen. Dashed line represents the Fall Line; solid lines define the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. Fig. 5. Distribution of Polyphylla comes (*) and P. variolosa (@) in Virginia. The + symbol indicates location of the Richmond sample of P. comes with variable color patterns (see text). Natural Area Preserve, jct. Rts. 89 and 821, ca. 7 km SE of Galax, 23 June 2004, UV, S. M. Roble (1).Patrick Co.: Clark’s Creek, Rt. 609, 5 km SW of Ararat, 7 August 1994, UV, RLH (1). Pittsylvania Co.: Sandy River at Rt. 845, 24 June 1993, UV, RLH (1). Nine specimens (all VMNH) from the University of Richmond, western end of the City of Richmond, merit special consideration because of the locality and variation in elytral color pattern. The collection data are 30 June 1935 (4), 1 July 1935 (1), 7 July 1935 (1), and 11 July 1935 (1), all F. R. Freund leg.; 11 June 1936 (1) and July 1935 (1), both Carroll Williams. Four of these specimens show the fairly bold white elytral markings of typical P. comes (although the ground color is much lighter brown), One Is as patternless as the Parramore Island P. variolosa, and the other four fall somewhere in between. My initial inclination to rank this Richmond population as intermediate between the two species, on the basis of coloration, was negated by two other characters, however. The aedeagus, with wide basal sinus between the parameres, is similar to that of P. comes, and the sutural apex of the elytra lacks the triangular projection seen in P. variolosa. Nonetheless, the case is not necessarily closed, as there are still no adequate series of either species from the Virginia Coastal Plain where more significant structural intermediacy may occur. Naturalists in that area are again encouraged to be alert for these beetles, and to accumulate material towards an eventual definitive resolution of the problem. LITERATURE CITED Casey, T. L. 1914. A review of the genus 7hyce and of the North American species of Polyphylla. Memoirs on the Coleoptera 5: 306-354. Young, R. M. 1988. A monograph of the genus Polyphylla Harris in North America (Coleoptera: Scarabeidae: Melolonthinae). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 11(2): 1-115. Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society Patera panselenus (Hubricht) on the Lower Cheat River, West Virginia (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) Kenneth P. Hotopp! Appalachian Conservation Biology P.O. Box 1298 Bethel, Maine 04217 ABSTRACT The central Appalachian Mountain endemic land snail Patera panselenus (Hubricht, 1976) is reported for the first time from the lower Cheat River in Monongalia and Preston counties, West Virginia. Previously known from 20 counties in southern West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, this new report is a northeastern range extension of more than 100 kilometers. Collected shells, dissection of genitalia, and occurrences of this animal along the lower Cheat River are detailed. Key words: Cheat River, land snail distribution, Patera panselenus, Virginia bladetooth. INTRODUCTION The cryptic polygyrid land snail Patera panselenus (Hubricht, 1976) has a gray-colored body and a flattened heliciform shell, approximately 18 mm wide and 9 mm tall, with a single parietal denticle (Fig. 1). This animal was long considered part of Patera perigrapta (Pilsbry, 1894) until Hubricht (1976) recognized that P. panselenus has a more depressed Shell and a shorter penis than this congener. Initially named Mesodon panselenus, it has been subsequently assigned to the genus Patera in a reorganization of the tribe Mesodontini (Emberton, 1991). Despite its common name, Virginia bladetooth (Turgeon, et al., 1998), P. panselenus is more widely distributed in West Virginia. Prior to this report, P. panselenus was known from Boone, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming counties in West Virginia; Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise counties in Virginia; and Pike County in Kentucky (Hubricht, 1985; Field Museum of Natural History 210933, 210946, 214699 unpublished specimens, collected by Emberton). Calhoun County, West Virginia was previously the northernmost limit of this species. ‘khotopp@megalink.net STUDY AREA AND METHODS The lower Cheat River, West Virginia, for this paper, is the approximately 40-kilometer stretch downstream from the Pringle Tract of Camp Dawson US Army National Guard base, Preston County, to Cheat Lake, Monongalia County. Camp Dawson is just downstream (north) of Rowlesburg, where the Cheat River passes through the Laurel Mountain-Briery Mountain Ridge. Elevation of this part of the river ranges from 410 m (1,350 feet) to 268 m (880 feet) above sea level at Cheat Lake. Elevations of the plateau above the river vary greatly, but downstream of Briery Mountain, which 1s above 850 m (2,800 feet), the higher rim elevations are approximately 640 m (2,100 feet) asl, as in the Hacklebarney Run vicinity and at Coopers Rock and Snake Hill. This portion of the Cheat River is a transitional ecological zone, where the western side of the Appalachian Plateau descends to the Ohio Valley. The walls of the Cheat River Valley are a series of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age sedimentary rock strata deposited 300-350 million years ago (Cardwell et al., 1968). Pottsville Sandstone occurs at higher elevations, sometimes outcropping above steep slopes, and Pottsville talus is widespread on slopes all the way to river elevation. This 1s underlain by the softer, often reddish, Mauch Chunk. Beginning near Kingwood and HOTOPP: PATERA PANSELENUS 4] Fig. 1. Drawing of Patera panselenus holotype by Elizabeth Liebman (from Hubricht, permission of Malacological Review). 1976, with continuing downstream, gray or whitish Greenbrier Limestone appears at lower elevations, in which caves and a variety of marine fossils occur. Lowest are strata of Purslane (Pocono) Sandstone. The undulating slopes of the lower Cheat River valley are mostly forested, exhibiting a wide variety of forest stand types. Quercus spp. and Acer rubrum L. are ubiquitous. Quercus spp. dominate xeric upper slopes, and are found there with Oxydendron arboreum (L.) and sometimes extensive stands of Kalmia latifolia L. Quercus prinus L., Betula lenta L., and sometimes Nyssa sylvatica (Marsh.) are widespread on rocky sites. Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. with Betula allegheniensis Britton and large stands of Rhododendron maximum L. are often found at wet acidic ravines and shaded lower slopes. Liriodendron tulipifera L. sometimes dominates the rich cove and rich lower slope habitats, which also hold Quercus rubra L., Q. alba L., Carya spp., Fraxinus americana L., Acer saccharum (Marsh.), Fagus grandifolia Ehrh., Tilia americana L., Ulmus rubra Muhl., and, at the lowest elevations, Aesculus octandra Marsh. In these habitats, Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal. is a common gap colonizer and Vitis spp., Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch., and Aristolochia macrophylla Lam. are sometimes rampant. Robinia pseudoacacia L. is frequent in disturbed areas and some locations have Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) invasions. Along the Cheat River banks, Platanus occidentalis L. becomes a canopy dominant and a number of shrubs such as Alnus sp., Rhododendron arborescens (Pursh.) Torr., and Hydrangea arborescens L. are found. The herbaceous vegetation of the canyon is extremely varied, depending upon the site. Land snail inventory was conducted between 1997 and 2003 on several parts of the lower Cheat River. Most of this snail inventory was incidental to work targeting the federally-threatened land snail 7riodopsis platysayoides (Brooks, 1933) on state and former Allegheny Energy power company lands between Albright and Cheat Lake. Other surveys were at the Camp Dawson Army _ Training Site, and a comprehensive land snail inventory at Cornwell Cave, at that time on Allegheny Energy property managed in cooperation with the West Virginia Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. As part of the inventory for 7: platysayoides, snail collection was often focused upon rock outcrop and talus features, but extensive collection to and from rock features was also conducted. Inventory was not at all systematic but included attention to rock surfaces and crevices, logs and snags, and the bases of trees and plants. Two live P. panselenus collected were drowned for 24 h in tap water and then preserved in ethanol. Snails were identified using Pilsbry (1940), Hubricht (1976), and Emberton (1991). RESULTS Patera panselenus was encountered at several sites on both sides of the Cheat River in Preston County (Fig. 2), between 39° 22' 25" N latitude at the Pringle Tract of Camp Dawson Army Training Site and 39° 35' 03" N latitude above the mouth of the Big Sandy River. Twelve specimens were collected from nine sites (CMNH 64753, 68536, 68544, 68583, 68600, 68612, 70643, 70685, 70716). In addition to these new specimens, a putative Patera appressa (Say, 1821) shell reported by MacMillan (1949) from Monongalia County (CMNH 62.38550) was re-identified as Patera panselenus. Collected in 1910 at Mont Chateau by Dr. H. Kahl, its shell sculpture includes widely spaced spiral striae, as in P. panselenus and P. perigrapta. Mont Chateau 1s now the northern limit of this species at approximately 39° 38' 14" N, and remains the only known Monongalia County location. This site is approximately 130 km (80 miles) northeast of Calhoun County. Patera panselenus sites were exposed rock outcrops and talus within mature forest, usually on steep (15- 30°) slopes. Elevations ranged from 340-490 m (1,100- 1,600 feet). Live P. panselenus were most often encountered on nearly vertical rock surfaces or the underside of rock overhangs. While these rocks were most often sandstone, P. panselenus was also found on shale and limestone. Aggregations of up to a dozen scattered animals were observed on rock outcrops on two occasions. 42 BANISTERIA Patera panselenus (Hubricht, 1976) a 2040 60 Miles Fig. 2. County distribution of Patera panselenus, adapted from Hubricht (1985). Trees at sites included Acer saccharum, Betula allegheniensis, B. lenta, Fagus grandifolia, Fraxinus americana, Liriodendron tulipifera, Tilia americana, Tsuga canadensis, and Quercus rubra. Understory vegetation was not thoroughly noted, but included Athyrium pycnocarpon (Spreng.) Tidestr. and Camptosaurus rhizophyllus (L.) Link. at a limestone outcrop site; and Dryopteris spinulosa (O.F. Muell.) Watt, Dioscorea sp., Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch., Toxicodendron radicans L., Sassafrass albidum (Nutt.) Nees, Sedum ternatum Michx., Trillium sp., and Urtica sp. at other sites. No land snails other than Triodopsis platysayoides were found co-occurring on the steep rock surface microhabitat with live Patera panselenus, though many land snail species were found in other nearby microhabitats. Patera panselenus shells were flattened and had a parietal tooth as described and illustrated (Fig. 1) in Hubricht (1976). Shell diameters of collected specimens, not including the lip (several had damaged lips), ranged from 17.4 to 18.7 mm (N = 7), and shell heights ranged from 8.0 to 9.4 mm (N = 6). Shell microsculpture revealed rounded ridges with regularly- spaced spiral striae typical of P. perigrapta and P. panselenus (Pilsbry, 1940; Hubricht, 1976). Dissection of two P. panselenus revealed typical genitalia: a shorter penis (approximately 10 mm long) than that of P. perigrapta, a penial retractor (also 10 mm long) widened and thickened near the apex of the penis (but not hollow); a pronounced bend approximately midway in the penis; and a vas deferens NO. 27, 2006 swollen near its insertion into the vagina (Fig. 3). Also noted is the opening into the vagina of the spermathecal duct, very close to, but further downstream, than that of the vas deferens. Internal sculpture of the penis was also typical, with two pilasters running the length of the penis, the left weak and the right more robust. The upper third of the right pilaster was expanded, becoming a “hood” near the apex where the pilasters join. DISCUSSION Understanding the geographic distribution of Appalachian Mountain endemic land snails is useful to naturalists and scientists, and may be important in conservation of the snails themselves. Many highly- localized snail species are found in this region (e.g., Hubricht, 1985) where logging, road building, mining, and development may have long-term population and habitat fragmentation impacts. Identification of P. panselenus from the lower Cheat River was confirmed by characteristics of shells and, for the two animals with soft tissue, by internal penial sculpture as described and illustrated in Emberton (1991). Fig. 3. Drawing of Patera panselenus genitalia (CMNH 64753) from the lower Cheat River, by the author. pr) penial retractor (10 mm); p) penis (10 mm); vd) vas deferens (10 mm); v) vagina (6 mm); s) spermatheca (8 mm, including duct); a) albumen gland. Note the widening of the penial retractor near the apex of the penis, the bend midway in the penis, and the expansion of the vas deferens near its vaginal insertion. The vas deferens enters the penis slightly behind the penial retractor in this view. HOTOPP: PATERA PANSELENUS 43 Patera panselenus may have escaped previous notice on the lower Cheat River due to rugged terrain and an apparently patchy distribution, as well as the misidentification of the Mont Chateau specimen as P. appressa. At the time it was collected and identified (before P. panselenus was described), the Mont Chateau shell might have been more properly assigned to P. perigrapta. The range limits of P. appressa are Gallia County, Ohio, Fayette County, West Virginia, and Queen Annes County, Maryland (Hubricht, 1985). Monongalia County is much farther north and more interior to the Appalachian Plateau. Due to the fact that encounters with P. panselenus were mostly incidental to work on 7. platysayoides, this report may not entirely describe its possible habitats or occurrences on the lower Cheat River. Also, because this animal was found at the most upstream of the habitats surveyed (Pringle Tract of Camp Dawson), there may be more locations farther upstream (south) in Preston County, and perhaps downstream (north) in Monongalia County as well. If the distribution of P. panselenus on the lower Cheat River is restricted to scattered rock outcrops and talus, as it appears, it may be vulnerable to human activities that impact these localized environments. In addition to direct habitat loss, sedimentation and erosion from road building or other earth moving on steep slopes above or below outcrops can alter substrate and fill crevices. Roads can also intercept groundwater flow, reducing soil moisture in some areas while increasing peak flows downslope. Tree canopy impacts due to logging or other clearing activities may also affect microclimate temperature and humidity at outcrops. Local climate change has been associated with loss of certain snail species (Baur & Baur, 1993). The possible impacts to this species from pesticide spraying, non-native invasive organisms, acid rain, and global climate change are unknown. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Timothy A. Pearce, Head, Section of Mollusks, shared his expertise and the resources of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, and located the previously overlooked Mt. Chateau Patera sp. specimen. Jason Hiser did excellent work in rugged terrain, executing a significant portion of the snail collecting in 2002. Emily White created the distribution map. Ladd Williams, B CIV, biologist for Camp Dawson Army Training Site, Dr. Jim Anderson (West Virginia University), and Amy Spurgeon assisted with snail collection at Camp Dawson’s Pringle Tract. Jeff Simcoe provided maps of Camp Dawson. This work was supported in major part by the generous contributions of West Virginians to the Wildlife Diversity Program Fund, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, through the purchase of wildlife license plates. Additional support was provided by the West Virginia Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and technical assistance was provided by Camp Dawson Army Training Site. LITERATURE CITED Baur, B., & A. Baur. 1993. Climatic warming due to the thermal radiation from an urban area as a possible cause for the local extinction of a land snail. Journal of Applied Ecology 30: 333-340. Cardwell, D. H., R. B. Erwin, H. P. Woodward, & C. W. Lotz. 1968. Geologic Map of West Virginia, Revised 1986, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey. Williams & Heintz Map Corporation, Capitol Heights, MD. Emberton, K. C. 1991. The genitalic, allozymic and conchological evolution of the tribe Mesodontini (Pulmonata: Stylommatophora: Polygyridae). Malacologia 33: 71-178. Hubricht, L. 1976. Five new species of land snails from the eastern United States. Malacological Review 9: 126-130. Hubricht, L. 1985. The distributions of the native land mollusks of the eastern United States. Fieldiana: Zoology, New Series, No. 24: 1-191. MacMillan, G. K. 1949. The land snails of West Virginia. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 31: 89-239. Pilsbry, H. A. 1940. Land Mollusca of North America (North of Mexico), Vol. I, Part 2. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph No. 3, Philadelphia, PA. 994 pp. Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelson, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, & J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks, 2™ Edition. American Malacological Union. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 16, Bethesda, MD. 526 pp. 44 BANISTERIA NO. 27, 2006 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society HEMIPEPLUS MICROPHTHALMUS (SCHWARZ): A SPECIES AND GENUS OF ELONGATED BEETLES NEW TO THE FAUNA OF VIRGINIA (COLEOPTERA: MYCTERIDAE) — Ongoing faunstic inventories conducted in southeastern Virginia continue to disclose a wide variety of insects substantially north of their previously-known geographic ranges. The latest addition to this category of overlooked native Virginians is Hemipeplus microphthalmus, a small, flattened beetle with remarkably elongated abdomen, described by E. A. Schwarz (1878) from Enterprise, Florida, and subsequently found frequently in Florida and as single collections in Mississippi, Texas, and South Carolina (Thomas, 1985). Discovery of this species in Virginia extends the known range along the coast some 300 miles/485 km north from Georgetown, South Carolina, and represents a new northernmost locality for this basically tropical genus, two other species of which occur in Florida and southern Georgia. Collection data for the specimen are: Virginia: City of Virginia Beach: False Cape State Park, Wash Woods Trail, 0.3 km east of main park road, UV trap in live oak—loblolly pine dune woods, 2 August 2005, S. M. Roble and G. W. Wahl, IT (VMNH). Referring to the habits of this species in Florida, Thomas (1985) stated: “In contrast to the other two species of Florida Hemipeplus, this species does not seem to be associated with palmetto. Instead, it occurs on grasses of various kinds, dwelling between the closely appressed leaf bases and stem.” One host plant mentioned by Thomas was Andropogon virginicus L. (Poaceae) which is statewide in Virginia (Harvill et al., 1992). Attention directed specifically to this plant at False Cape should reveal the extent to which it 1s utilized by H. microphthalmus there, and elsewhere in the coastal regions of the state. Interestingly, H. microphthalmus is uniformly light yellow-tan and doubtless matches the color of Andropogon foliage closely. There is no evidence that the beetles actually feed on the plant tissue, and Thomas believed that they are scavengers on fungi and miscellaneous plant spores. An interesting parallel modification of body form occurs in many laminaphilic species of the lygaeid subfamily Blissinae. For example, [schnodesmus falicus (Say), a species that occurs in Virginia, is very flat and slender with the abdomen greatly elongated: 58% of the total body length (Hoffman, 1996: fig. 29). Insects adapted to life in the axils of grass blades are not Fy, Fig. 1. Hemipeplus microphthalmus, dorsal aspect of specimen from False Cape State Park. Scale line = 1 mm. frequently collected by conventional sweeping. Perhaps a quantity of the plants processed with a Berlese extraction funnel might yield more material of H. microphthalmus, as the species is not especially phototropic. Because of the singular body form, Hemipeplus was until fairly recently (e.g., Arnett, 1963) placed in the family Cucujidae, a family with many flattened subcorticolous species. During that time it sometimes formed the basis of its own family, or was associated with a variety of beetle families. Thomas’ (1985) review recounted in detail the taxonomic and nomenclatorial convolutions through which the genus has passed. Its current placement in the Mycteridae is predicated largely SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 45 upon larval characters: adult beetles of Hemipeplus and of Mycterus reflect few features in common beyond those of the entire order. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Virginia Museum of Natural History is obliged to Dr. Steven M. Roble (Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) for transfer of collections resulting from its inventory activities, including that in which the specimen of Hemipeplus was found. I express also my gratitude to Dr. Michael C. Thomas (Florida State Collection of Arthropods) for identifying the specimen and suggesting useful literature resources. LITERATURE CITED Arnett, R. H. Jr. 1960-1963. The Beetles of the United States (A Manual for Identification). Catholic University of America Press, Washington. 1,112 pp. Harvill, A. M., T. R. Bradley, C. E. Stevens, T. F. Wieboldt, D. M. E. Ware, D. W. Ogle, G. W. Ramsey, & G. P. Fleming. 1992. Atlas of the Virginia Flora. Virginia Botanical Associates, Burkeville, VA. 144 pp. Hoffman, R. L. 1996. Seed bugs of Virginia (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). Insects of Virginia 14: 1-111. Schwarz, E. A. 1878. The Coleoptera of Florida. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 17: 353-469. Thomas, M. C. 1985. The species of Hemipeplus Latreille (Coleoptera: Mycteridae) in Florida, with a taxonomic history of the genus. The Coleopterists Bulletin 39: 365- Evie Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society A NOTE ON THE OCCURRENCE OF THE SPIDER ARACHOSIA CUBANA (BANKS) IN VIRGINIA (ARANEAE: ANYPHAENIDAE) — My recent synopsis (Hoffman, 2002) of the Virginia species of anyphaenid spiders treated this species under the name Oxysoma cubana, provided two new locality records for the Coastal Plain, and cast doubt on an earlier published record by Howell & Pienkowski (1971) for Montgomery County. The notably scarce material available to Platnick (1974) when he revised the family implied a basically maritime distribution in eastern United States. Montgomery County, Virginia thus seemed to me “biogeographically improbable.” Recently acquired specimens of this species from two localities in southwestern Virginia are noteworthy in confirming the presence of A. cubana in the mountains of the state and cancelling my unjustified suspicion of the previous record. To the known localities, I can now add: Floyd County: sedge meadow beside US 221, 2 km west of Willis, 17-18 June 2004, S. M. Roble (VMNH, 1 m), and Grayson County: New River at the US 221/58 bridge, southwest of Galax, 9 June 2005, S. M. Roble (VMNH, 1m). These specimens differ slightly from Coastal Plain males in lacking a black stripe at the base of each leg spine, but agree closely in details of male genitalia. Although A. cubana is easily recognizable as an anyphaenid (general habitus, clustered eyes, lamellate paronychial hair tufts), it differs strikingly from the other Nearctic genera of the family in lacking any trace of the retrolateral tibial apophysis of the male pedipalp. Ramirez (2003) transferred the species from Oxysoma to Arachosia, as the only local member of the subfamily Amaurobioidinae. LITERATURE CITED Howell, J. O., & R. L. Pienkowski. 1971. Spider populations in alfalfa, with notes on spider prey and effect of harvest. Journal of Economic Entomology 64: 163- 168. Hoffman, R. L. 2002. Spiders of the family Anyphaenidae in Virginia. Banisteria 19: 9-12. Platnick, N. I. 1974. The spider family Anyphaenidae in America north of Mexico. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 146: 205-266. Ramirez, M. J. 2003. The spider subfamily Amaurobioidinae (Araneae, Anyphaenidae): a phylo- genetic revision at the generic level. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 277: 1-262. Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 46 BANISTERIA Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society ANAHITA PUNCTULATA (HENTZ), A SPECIES, GENUS, AND FAMILY OF SPIDERS NEW TO THE FAUNA OF THE’ VIRGINIAS AND OHIO (ARACHNIDA: ARANEAE: CTENIDAE) — The spider family Ctenidae, with 39 nominal genera, is predominantly distributed in the tropical regions of South America and Africa, marginally in Australia. A few taxa extend into the southern fringes of the Holarctic region, where the family is marginally represented in southeast Asia and the United States. The Nearctic ctenid fauna was monographed by Peck (1981), who recognized four species in Ctenus, three in Leptoctenus, and a single species in Anahita. At that time the northernmost known localities for Anahita punctulata were in southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee. Collections of this species recently obtained by the Virginia Museum of Natural History (VMNH), the West Virginia Arachnid Survey (WVAS), and the Ohio State University Chelicerates Collection (OSAL) extend the known range over 175 miles (280 km) north and eastward in the central Appalachians, adding the species, genus, and family to the documented spider faunas of Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio, as itemized below. Ohio: Adams Co.: Stout (38.6° N, 82.38° W), 1 July 1967, F. J. Moore (OSAL 1). Lawrence Co.: Bluegrass Ridge (38.6° N, 82.5° W), 5 June, 18 June, 26 June, 3 July 1997, all U.S. Forest Service (USFS) survey (OSAL 42, 29). Vinton Co.: Arch Rock (39.2° N, 82.4° W), 5 June 1997, USFS (OSAL 12°); Young’s Branch (38.7° N, 82.7° W), 26 June, 16 August, 31 August, 15 September 1997, all USFS (OSAL 22, 29). Virginia: Lee Co.: cedar glades along Rt. 656, ca. 4 miles (6.4 km) WSW of Jonesville, 24 August 1994, R. L. Hoffman (VMNH 19). Wise Co.: ca. 1.2 km SSE of Pound Gap, 5 June 1995, C. S. Hobson & T. Lane (VMNH 1). Dickenson Co.: Breaks Interstate Park, NW of Haysi, Nature Trail pitfall site, 15-29 June 1991, VMNH survey (VMNH 3); Breaks Interstate Park, without precise locality, 1-14 July 2000, R. Vigneault (VMNH 42). West Virginia: Cabe/l/ Co.: Huntington (38.41° N, 82.40° W), 15 June 1991, W. J. Arnold (WVAS 12). Jackson Co.: Cedar Lakes 4-H Camp (38.80° N, 81.36° W), W. J. Arnold (WVAS 1.3). Kanawha Co.: | mi (1.6 km) south of Lens Creek (38.14° N, 81.36° W), 7 April 1966, J. Miller (VMNH 19). Raleigh Co.: Fall Branch of New River, New River Gorge National River (37.74° N, 81.92° W), 18 June 1989, K. Buhlmann (WVAS 26), 19), 11 July 1989, R. Canterbury and R. Jewel (WVAS 12). Summers Co.: 2 mi (3.2 km) N of Davy Knob (37.599 N, NO. 27, 2006 80.95° W), 19 August 1997, Lisa Gatens (WVAS 2.3). Wayne Co.: without specific locality, November 1931, W. M. Barrows (OSAL 13’). Wyoming Co.: Clear Fork of Guyandotte River (37.58° N, 91.73° W), R. D. Bailey Wildlife Management Area, W. J. Arnold, 26 May 1990 (WVAS 12). The map (Fig. 1) indicates these localities with reference to local physiographic provinces. Although existing information is obviously still very incomplete, the lack of records from the Ridge & Valley province suggests that A. punctulata may be confined, in this region, to the Appalachian Plateau. Ohio localities are within the unglaciated part of that state. Fairly extensive pitfall trapping in the Southern Blue Ridge (at and around Mount Rogers and Buffalo Mountain) has so far failed to disclose the species in that section of Virginia. A symbol on Peck’s (1981) distribution map for extreme eastern Tennessee may be for a lowland locality in the Tennessee Valley rather than the Blue Ridge itself. However, another symbol on Fig. 1. Central Appalachians, showing distributional records for Anahita punctulata. Open circles, published (Peck, 1981); solid dots, new localities. Heavy solid line, eastern edge of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province. Thin line, Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 47 the small inset map shows by dark shading the range as defined by Peck’s records, the area extended by new records by the dashed line. Fig. 2. Anahita punctulata (Hentz). Dorsal aspect of body and leg bases. Leg of 1 pair is flexed dorsad and in actuality is longer than represented by the drawing. Fig. 3. Palpus of male, lateral aspect. Fig. 4. Apical palpomere showing details of sperm transfer structure, ventral aspect. the same map placed in the vicinity of Statesville, North Carolina, suggests that the range of A. punctulata may extend northward into at least the “Southside” counties of the Virginia Piedmont. How much of northern West Virginia may be occupied by the species also remains to be determined, as does the extent of its occurrence in Ohio, where the locality Arch Rock in Vinton County is now the northernmost documented for this species. Widespread occurrence in eastern Kentucky may be assumed, as it is unlikely the existing lack of records for this bracketed region is due to anything other than a deficiency of field work. Anahita punctulata is an interesting small spider, resembling in general appearance a corinnid or anyphaenid. It is easily recognizable by the elongate legs (those of the first pair in particular being up to twice as long as the body length) and dorsal color pattern (Fig. 2). For the benefit of those lacking access to Peck’s (1981) revision, we provide sketches (Figs. 3-4) of the male pedipalpal organ to confirm identification. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VMNH is indebted to Dr. Steven M. Roble for transfer of specimens captured during surveys in Virginia by the Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, to Prof. William A. Shear for a sample from West Virginia, and Robert Vigneault for arachnids collected incidental to his searches for cerambycid beetles. WVAS is beholden to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wildlife Diversity Program for support of arachnid studies and Drs. Mary Etta Hight and Thomas K. Pauley of Marshall University for retaining spiders taken in pitfall traps set for vertebrates. OSAL thanks Dr. David J. Horne and Chad D. Schone for donation of specimens obtained during their research. LITERATURE CITED Peck, W. B. 1981. The Ctenidae of temperate zone North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 170: 157-169. Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Wm. James Arnold West Virginia Arachnid Survey 153 Woodland Drive Huntington, West Virginia 25705 Richard A. Bradley EEO Biology Ohio State University Marion, Ohio 43302 48 BANISTERIA Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society COLLECTING INSECTS ON FENCE POST FLOOD REFUGES -— Insects are instinctively programmed to avoid drowning, and it is a venerable collecting technique to flush out streamside beetles by splashing or pouring water on their habitats to simulate rising waters. Thus deceived, the creatures break from concealment and in rushing for higher ground easily fall victim to the collector’s grasp. I here record an interesting variation on the “high water escape” behavior that shows some potential as a collecting technique, albeit one that is optional only under exceptional conditions. In February, 2006, Robert S. Hogan presented VMNH’s Department of Recent Invertebrates with a small jar containing many specimens of insects preserved in isopropyl alcohol. The origin of this sample, as explained by Mr. Hogan, reflects what I suspect must be a novel collecting opportunity. On 28 September 2004, Little Creek, which flows through a pasture in front of his residence, overflowed its banks and inundated the field for several hours. After its recession, Mr. Hogan walked over the land and happened to notice a variety of insects clinging to wooden fence posts above the high water line. As a long-time friend of the museum, he captured and preserved as many specimens as he could. Eventually the material was prepared and the species of some taxa were identified. I give here lists of the carabid beetles and terrestrial Heteroptera to show the diversity represented. Actually, the fence posts accumulated as much variety as one might expect from a pitfall trap line operated in the same area. The collection site is in Franklin County about 2.5 miles (4 km) south of Boones Mill on Rt. 693, about 1.0 mile (1.6 km) west of its intersection with Rt. 919. The following list of carabids follows the sequence in the catalog of Bousquet & Larochelle (1993), and the number of individuals secured is shown following each Species name. Most are common ruderal or streamside species, but all are new county records and one is not frequently encountered in Virginia. Coleoptera: Carabidae: Nebria pallipes Say Patrobus longicornis Say Pterostichus corvinus (Dejean) Amara exarata Dejean Amara familiaris (Duftschmidt) Amara impuncticollis (Say) Anisodactylus rusticus (Say) Amphasia interstitialis (Say) le oe OS Ee NO NO) NO. 27, 2006 Stenolophus ochropezus (Say) 1 Bradycellus tantillus (Dejean) 2 Harpalus caliginosus (Fabr.) 1 Harpalus compar Casey 3 Harpalus fulgens Csiki 1 Calathus opaculus LeConte 1 Agonum palustre Goulet 1 Agonum punctiforme (Say) 2 Colliurus pennsylvanicus (Dejean) 1 Heteropterans are represented by 14 species in seven families, listed here alphabetically. Coreidae: Archimerus alternatus (Say) 1 Corimelaenidae: Corimelaena lateralis (Fabricius) Galgupha (undetermined) m= N Cydnidae: Pangaeus bilineatus (Say) 1 Lygaeidae: Belonochilus numenius (Say) Drymus crassus VanDuzee Heraeus plebejus (Say) Myodocha serripes (Say) Pseudopachybrachius basalis (Say) Oe ee ee Nabidae: Nabis sp. (Indet. nymph) 1 Pentatomidae: Cosmopepla bimaculata (Thomas) 2 Euschistus servus (Say) 4 Proxys punctulatus (Palisot de Beauvois) 1 Reduviidae: Oncerotrachelus acuminatus (Say) 2 LITERATURE CITED Bousquet, Y., & A. Larochelle. 1993. Catalogue of the Geadephaga (Coleoptera: Trachypachidae, Rhysodidae, Carabidae including Cicindelini) of America north of Mexico. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 167: 1-397. Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 49 Banisteria, Number 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Virginia Natural History Society OBSERVATION OF INTRADERMAL TROMBICULID MITE LARVAE IN TWO SPECIES OF SALAMANDERS IN VIRGINIA — Chigger parasitism of amphibians in Virginia has only twice been reported in the literature (Loomis, 1956; Mitchell, 2004). The list of species recorded by these authors as infected by chigger larvae is short and includes Rana palustris (Pickerel Frog), Rana clamitans (Green Frog), and Eurycea cirrigera (Southern Two-lined Salamander). Herein, we report another species of amphibian infected with chiggers and extend the known range of chigger parasitism for E. cirrigera in Virginia. On 6 May 2006, we found one adult Desmognathus fuscus (Northern Dusky Salamander) under a rock while surveying a stream in White Oak Mountain Wildlife Management Area, Pittsylvania County, Virginia (36° 46' 39" N, 79° 20' 02" W). Upon inspection, JG observed numerous red pustules covering the surface of the animal’s feet. We also found one each Eurycea guttolineata (Three-lined Salamander) and E. cirrigera but they were not infected with larval chiggers. We revisited the stream on 29 May 2006 for a more extensive survey and found 10 total salamanders (3 E. cirrigera, 2 E. guttolineata, and 5 D. fuscus). Two of the D. fuscus had red pustules and were returned to the lab for further study. One of the infected salamanders measured 110 mm total length and 56 mm snout-vent length (SVL, measured to the posterior angle of vent). A total of four red pustules were observed on this animal. The pustules had an average diameter of 1.8 mm with the central red portion of the pustule measuring 1.0 mm. JG cut several pustules open and inspected the larvae under a microscope. JG took digital pictures of the larvae and preserved several in alcohol for future species identification and study. The pustules were located as follows: one on the dorsal side of the right front foot just proximal to the third digit, one on the dorsal surface of the left hind thigh, one on the dorsal distal portion of the left hind leg, and one on the dorsal surface of the right hind foot just inferior to the second digit. The second infected salamander measured 111 mm total length and 59 mm SVL. We counted a total of three chiggers on this animal. Locations included the ventral surface of the abdomen just lateral to the anterior angle of the vent, one was lodged in skin between the fused second and third digits, and in the webbing between the third and fourth digits. We hypothesized that the chigger infection caused the second and third digits to fuse together. The salamander found infected on 6 May also had malformed digits around the infected area. Including the observations of 6 and 29 May, 13 salamanders were observed with three containing mite infections. Three of six D. fuscus salamanders were infected. This is the first published report of chigger parasitism for this species in Virginia. On 19 March 1997 one of JG’s students brought in an E. cirrigera containing six red pustules. At that time, observations were recorded in a field notebook and photographs taken, but JG did not know the cause of infection. Based on recent inspection of one of the photos, we have concluded that this salamander had the same red pustules as the salamanders found in 2006. This is only the second record of larval chigger infection for this species in Virginia. This salamander was found in Rocky Ford Creek at County Route 603 in Powhatan County, Virginia (37° 29' 30" N, 77° 52' 28" W). The next wave of research in Virginia herpetology should be the inspection of individual amphibians and reptiles for diseases and malformations. As amateurs and professionals begin to observe more closely the animals they capture, our knowledge of parasites and disease will grow exponentially. More expertise and training in the areas of herpetology and pathology are needed to continue increasing our understanding of this group. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Kelley Shepperson for providing us with a Two-lined Salamander infected with chigger larvae from Powhatan County. We would like to thank Joseph C. Mitchell for suggesting a cause for the observed pustules. LITERATURE CITED Loomis, R. B. 1956. The chigger mites of Kansas. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 37: 1195-1443. Mitchell, J. C. 2004. Occurrence of intradermal mite, Hannemania sp. (Acarina: Trombiculidae), parasites in two species of amphibians in Virginia. Banisteria 23: 50- 51. Jason D. Gibson Galileo Magnet High School 230 South Ridge Street Danville, Virginia 24541 Paul Sattler Department of Biology and Chemistry Liberty University 1971 University Boulevard Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 50 BANISTERIA NO. 27, 2006 MISCELLANEA Reviews The History of Ornithology in Virginia by David W. Johnston. 2004. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA. 219 pp., 25 black and white illustrations, 7 tables, 5 appendixes. ISBN 0-8139- 2242-9. Cloth, $35.00. Virginia is a large and geographically diverse state, and its avifauna and people who study birds reflect this diversity. The region of the New World we now call Virginia was the first settled by Europeans, and has a long and voluminous recorded history documenting its occupancy, starting with Jamestown in_ 1607. Attempting to amass and organize any set of historical data, then, is a mind-boggling task, yet David W. Johnston has done so with lucid text and astonishingly meticulous detail in his book The History of Ornithology in Virginia. Johnston, a respected academic ornithologist, brings shining credentials to the yeoman’s job of compiling historical data and setting pen to paper. A northern Virginia resident for the past twenty-seven years, he has taught ornithology at the Mountain Lake Biological Station and elsewhere prior to the 1980s, published over 100 scientific papers, been active in the Virginia Society of Ornithology by serving on its board of directors and editing its avifauna series, has served as book editor for several scientific organizations, journal editor of the Journal of Field Ornithology and Ornithological Monographs, and has edited or co-edited several important academic books on birds and bird conservation. To the non-academician, Johnston is perhaps best known as the author of the popular Guide to Bird Finding in Virginia. Thus, his knowledge of birds and of Virginia, particularly as it relates to natural history, is keenly suited to the challenge of writing a book on birds in Virginia history. Twelve chapters of text covered in 169 pages present topics in roughly chronological order, starting with the first two chapters “In the Beginning” (pre- European settlement) and “From Roanoke Island to Jamestown,” through the concluding chapter (“The Twentieth Century and Beyond”) and Epilogue. Five appendixes (more about these later) and 26 pages of reference notes arranged by chapter with numerical cross-references to the text follow the text. To me, the breadth, depth, and detail of this References section and Johnston’s smooth textual writing style which references this listing of source material is one of the most outstanding attributes of this book. Seven tables, in addition to the appendixes, are embedded in the text. The 25 black and white illustrations are sketches, such as an informative scene of Indians fishing painted by John White ca. 1590, or photographs, mostly of twentieth century Virginia ornithologists. For a quick- reference chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of this book, one can read the short book review by Davis (2004). Appreciating fully Virginia’s history of ornithology, or nearly any discipline for that matter, necessitates at least a cursory knowledge of history of the region’s settlement, as well as a perspective on the social and political environments of the times. Johnston’s writing style and contents seamlessly meld the three—the development of the science of ornithology, the state’s basic history, and the socio-political context of the times. The balance 1s so well done that one hardly recognizes what immense effort must have gone into Johnston’s selection of which background material to include and which to omit. Information on the early colonists’ consumption of songbirds for food, drying hummingbirds in ovens to fabricate curios, and market hunting on the Eastern Shore, for example, are presented factually (with references) yet dispassionately. Topics covered through the book’s chapters are what one would expect in a volume dealing with wildlife resource use over past and present times, such as the material of Chapter 8 (“The Conservation Movement, Game Laws, and Organizations” and Chapter 10 (“Extirpated and Nonnative Birds”). Johnston has also included several specialty chapters, appropriate for a book on Virginia’s ornithology for reasons unique to the subject within the chapter, such as the short chapter (6) on the co-emergence of Smithsonian and other Federal professional ornithologists as Virginia-based persons of note. Only one chapter(11) deals with birds in our state from a taxonomic perspective: “Falcons, Eagles, Hawks, and Banding.” Singling out this group of birds is appropriate because of the important and disproportionate contributions of Virginians to these ornithological sub-disciplines. It would be difficult to fault Johnston for leaving certain topics out of his book without allowing him the leeway to enlarge it to twice its length, but I would have liked to have seen some sub-sections expanded, such as more on twentieth century ornithologists. If page number limit was a deciding factor leading to the brevity of coverage of these topics, then I would suggest the condensation of some of the early chapters’ lengthy verbatim (and often redundant) accounts of birds observed by early settlers and explorers. MISCELLANEA 51 In the final analysis, the book’s strength — its vast coverage and encyclopedic content of anything and everything related to birds in Virginia, particularly between the years ca. 1500-1900 — is also the underlying source of my main criticism of the work. While organized somewhat chronologically (and reasonably so), this approach begins to loose its utility starting with about Chapter 6. Thereafter, topical chapters are presented, such as Chapter 9 (‘“‘Artists- Naturalists and Presidents’), up until the final chapter (“The Twentieth Century and Beyond”) wherein Johnston reverts again to a roughly chronological presentation of his material. Within the intervening chapters (6-11) the reader encounters some instances of repeated information, including the unnecessary introduction and then re-introduction to individuals, and the repetition of their lifespan dates and _ their encounters and relationships to others (e.g., several mentions of J. J. Murray are written as if the reader were first encountering his name in the book). The second criticism stems from the same problem causing the above—being almost encyclopedic calls for a vast index with myriad variations of subject material listing. The index, while perhaps marginally useful for someone attempting research on a particular species or person, is nevertheless lacking. Robbins (2005) discusses the deficiencies of the index and some specific examples of its shortcomings in his review of this book. My third main criticism could perhaps be taken as more of a suggestion for future revisions of the book. I would like to see a makeover of the tabled material and the appendixes. Especially useful would be a phylogenetic list of all the birds mentioned in the book alongside the various versions of their names. Appendix A (‘Scientific Names of North American Birds Mentioned in the Text”) would be a basis to begin the complete listing I propose, but why stop with just North American birds? Many British birds are mentioned as corollaries to birds observed by the state’s first European inhabitants. The most difficult thing for me while reading this book was trying to translate in my head or guess the actual species of the text’s named or described bird (e.g., I was baffled by “Oxeyes,” mentioned several times in the text before being translated to plover). A quick reference look-up table would be immensely helpful, as well as a nice compendium to add to this book’s richness. Appendix B, Algonquian Indian Names Pertaining to Birds, is an excellent reference, but its utility to the reader trying to make sense of just what bird is under discussion here is restricted mainly to the first chapter. Another suggestion for incorporation in the book’s revision would be a table or appendix of principal people discussed in the text, alongside their dates, where in the state they worked, and their contributions. Adding significant historical events, such as the Civil War, alongside the people table would be a nice touch. Perhaps such a reduction or presentation of people- dates-events-localities would assuage another minor complaint of mine regarding Johnston’s choice of individuals mentioned in his book as_ prominent ornithologists. Here again we see redundancy, with some individuals being introduced to the reader at least twice, often mentioned first according to chapter topic and then again according to a chronological chapter (or vice versa). For example, we are introduced to Alexander Wilson in Chapter 5 “Nineteenth-Century Reports and Collectors’ and again in Chapter 9 “Artists-Naturalists and Presidents.” Another little quibble regarding people: Deciding who should and should not be mentioned in the text as eminent ornithologists in the state is somewhat a matter of opinion, I realize, and for the vast majority of people to whom Johnston gives attention, I agree with his judgment. My only suggestion would be to add a few more to those covered, including Johnston himself! In particular, the chapter on Smithsonian and Federal ornithologists seemed to leave out some luminaries, such as the Smithsonian National Zoological Park- based Eugene Morton, Russ Greenberg, and John Rappole, as well as others who live or have lived in Virginia although they technically work or worked in the District, such as Richard Banks and Roxie Laybourne (deceased) of the National Museum of Natural History. Finally, a map of Virginia with labeled counties, communities or towns, and geographical places mentioned in the text would be very helpful, especially for the more obscure places I had to look up on a map. As a science writer, Johnston sometimes includes the scientific names of birds in his text, but perhaps because of their several Latin name changes, most species are mentioned by common names only, with the aforementioned Appendix A serving as the Latin name source. I would have liked to have seen the Latin names of other animals also given upon first being mentioned in the text, as is common with scientific writing. What, for example, 1s the “coney” mentioned several times in the writings of early observers? A rabbit, I suppose, but I would like to have seen Johnston’s educated opinion confirming my guess. Amazingly for such a detailed work, I found only a handful of minor typographical errors, and I was aware of no problem with the book’s factual content, although Robbins (2005) points out several very minor mistakes. The History of Ornithology in Virginia is an impressively complete collection of information about Be BANISTERIA birds and those who study them in Virginia. David Johnston’s skill in compiling, editing, and converting to readable text the vast assemblage of material on which he drew shines in this labor of love. The book belongs on the shelf of serious Virginia ornithologists, and in all of Virginia’s public libraries as well as in the nation’s academic libraries and historical collections. REFERENCES Davis, W. E., Jr. 2004. Book review: The History of Ornithology in Virginia. Wilson Bulletin 116: 115-116. Robbins, C. S. 2005. Book review: The History of Ornithology in Virginia. Auk 122: 375-377. M. Victoria McDonald Smithsonian Research Associate Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center Front Royal, VA 22630 mcdonaldv@uca.edu Reports 1. President’s Report Dr. Janet Reid, Research Associate, Virginia Museum of Natural History, and an expert on copepods, was elected councilor for a four-year term in the spring election. We would like to thank the outgoing councilor, Paul Bedell, for his service to the Society from 2001-2005 -- going beyond the call of duty, he served a five-year term in order to allow for the staggering of council terms in the future. In early February, 2006, we sent flyers with information on the Virginia Natural History Society and the publishing opportunties available in Banisteria to Virginia colleges and universities with biology, paleontology, or archaeology departments. We hoped that, as requested in the cover letter, the flyers would be posted on departmental bulletin boards. However, it is clear from our secretary-treasurer’s records that membership continues to be low. Is there a solution? Should the Society attempt to exist as anything more than a source for potential Banisteria articles? If that is to be its chief function, it can be viable as long as the mininum number necessary to keep Banisteria funded maintain membership. Presumably, they include those serious amateurs and professionals icarrying out natural history related projects in Virginia or neighboring areas. Perhaps all such persons are aware of VNHS, but — just NO. 27, 2006 in case, I hope all present VNHS members will continue to recruit students and colleagues to the group. Judith E. Winston, VNHS President Virginia Museum of Natural History 2. Minutes of Fall 2005 Executive Committee Meeting Hampden-Sydney College, Gilmer Hall, Hampden- Sydney, Virginia, December 10, 2005, 1 to 3 PM Council members in attendance: Steve Roble, Michael Kosztarab, Richard Hoffman, Tom McAvoy, Judy Winston, Joe Mitchell, Arthur Evans, and Anne Lund. Judy Winston, Society president, presided. Winston gave each member of the group a tabulation of the activities of other state and local natural history societies. The minutes of the 2004 Council meeting had been approved earlier. The secretary/treasurer reported a membership of 127 (paid for 2005), down quite a bit from previous years, and as of October the treasury contained $5,150.64 (with an outstanding bill of $1,828 for the printing of Banisteria). A membership list was circulated for council members to gather information from and to correct any errors. Steve Roble also distributed a list of 2003 members who had not joined for 2004. The editors reported that the fall issue of Banisteria was almost ready and would go to press early in 2006. Printing costs were discussed, as well as how to increase submissions to the journal. There was some discussion of accepting submissions from bordering states if the information within the submissions contained natural history that was relevant to Virginia’s. There will be an effort to have more members renew for 2005 by the time the fall issue for 2005 is published and sent out. It was agreed that renewal notices for 2006 would be mailed with the fall issue of the journal. Arthur Evans reported that BioBlitz 2006 will be at Potomac Gorge in June, the 23" through the 25", and that the survey would include nonvascular plants, herps, and invertebrates. Evans made a motion, which was seconded by Michael Kosztarab, for the Society to contribute $200 to the BioBlitz. Results of the BioBlitz 2006 will be published in Banisteria. With continued discussion of BioBlitz for the future, Mountain Lake was suggested as a possible site. MISCELLANEA 53 Janet Reid and Michael LaChance were suggested as nominees for the one councilor position for the Council. These nominees will be contacted for their permission to be included as candidates and for their biographies, and the ballot will be prepared for the next issue of Banisteria. There was discussion of the Society sponsoring a conference with the Virginia Museum of Natural History, particularly as the Museum will be opening its new building in the relatively near future. There was further discussion of sending an email survey to the membership concerning issues of such a conference and a newsletter. The meeting was adjourned promptly at 3:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Anne Lund, Secretary/Treasurer 3. Secretary/Treasurer’s Report We have 103 members as of June 13, 2006, 15 of which are institutions or libraries. Our treasury presently holds $5,162.93. As always, we encourage our active members to recruit members for the Society. A membership form is included with this mailing. Please do pass it on to a friend or colleague interested in the natural history of our state. This is really important. We ended 2005 with a membership of 128, so we want to find 25 more members at least to keep even. We continue to be grateful to Hampden-Sydney College for support with the paperwork/computer work concerning our treasury, membership records, and mailings. Please submit all enquiries about membership in the Society or about past issues of Banisteria to: Dr. Anne Lund, Virginia Natural History Society, Box 62, Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943, or email, alund@hsc.edu. Respectfully submitted, Anne Lund, Secretary/Treasurer 4. Coeditors’ Report We continue to be perplexed at the VNHS membership’s lack of overall response to our pleas for manuscripts for Banisteria. We know that many to most of you have old or even new data sets and observations that would be worth sharing with your colleagues. We know that some of you have student projects from years past that have not been published. Placing your observations and results in the historical archives via publication is the only way that we can know what is known and what is not. If you do not publish your data and observations, then in effect they were never taken or made in the first place. Please consider publishing those old or new data and send manuscripts to us for consideration for publication in Banisteria. We know that this journal is not in the high echelon of publications for which one receives points in some academic institutions but it does serve a good purpose of placing new and useful information on Virginia natural history on record. You will notice that we are publishing thinner issues on average. This is a direct reflection of the number and size of manuscripts that we are receiving. We found a new printer and our publication costs are down, so we can afford more pages. If we do not get more manuscripts, then perhaps we can serve those few colleagues better by publishing color photographs rather than black and white. This remains to be seen but it could be an option. Respectfully submitted, Joe Mitchell and Steve Roble, Co-editors 5. Webmaster’s Report The majority of time in the past several months was spent on the 2006 Potomac Gorge BioBlitz section of the website. This section required the creation of seven new web pages consisting of 71 files and required approximately 6 megabytes of server space. A web page containing BioBlitz-related photos will be posted soon. Respectfully submitted, John White, Webmaster 6. Potomac Gorge BioBlitz Counts 1,017 Species The Potomac Gorge BioBlitz, held on June 24-25, 2006, was a joint venture between the National Park Service and Maryland/DC chapter of The Nature Conservancy. One hundred and thirty-five scientists, naturalists, and students volunteered their time, expertise, and sweat to document species on NPS lands in the Potomac Gorge. The efforts of the volunteers were focused on under-inventoried organisms, such as fungi, non-flowering plants, and _ invertebrates, especially insects. Survey sites included Great Falls Park and Turkey Run Park in the George Washington Memorial Parkway on the Virginia side of the Potomac 54 BANISTERIA and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park on the Maryland side. Glen Echo Park, an old amusement park in Maryland under renovation by the National Park Service, served as the base camp for the event. Survey teams gathered at the base camp to eat and sleep, as well as to prepare and identify vouchers specimens. Vouchers will ultimately find their way into the collections of the National Parks Service. Species data will be entered into an Access database program developed by the NPS specifically for the BioBlitz. The final results will be submitted for publication in Banisteria in summer of 2007. The intensive 30-hour field survey officially began at 9 AM on Saturday, June 24 and ended at 3 PM on Sunday, June 25. Eighteen survey teams with a total of 135 researchers documented a total of 1,017 species in the Gorge. This preliminary number will no doubt increase as researchers continue to identify their Specimens. Highlights of the survey include: Siongylium crenatum and Synchroa punctata, beetles new to Virginia; Acanthocyclops einslei, a copepod new to Virginia; the first record of the fly Scatophila carinata east of Iowa; the location of black birch (Betula lenta) and wavy hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), two montane plants usually found west of the Appalachian Mountains that have not been documented in Great Falls Park since around 1880; two rare land snails, Punctum smithi and Pomatiopsis lapidaria, and the discovery of two globally rare species, Pizzini’s amphipod (Stygobromus pizzinii) and Appalachian spring snail (Fontigens bottimeri), in two newly documented seeps in the Gorge. The 2006 Potomac Gorge BioBlitz was sponsored by Virginia Natural History Society, as well as The Nature Conservancy, National Park Service, Washington Biologists’ Field Club, Virginia Herpetological Society, and the Entomological Society of Washington. To see images of the BioBlitz visit the official web site at: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vnhs/bioblitz.htm . Arthur V. Evans Potomac Gorge BioBlitz Coordinator 1600 Nottoway Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23227 arthurevans@verizon.net NO. 27, 2006 Announcements 1. Environmental Education Film Available Dyke Marsh, the last remaining tidal freshwater marsh on the upper Potomac River near Washington, is an endangered ecosystem. It is currently threatened by erosion from ship traffic, periodic flooding, run-off from housing and industrial development. It is the last up-river breeding site for the Marsh Wren and Least Bittern, scores of insect populations, all supported by a diverse aquatic vegetation. Under the auspices of the National Park Service, the Friends of Dyke Marsh, and other conservation groups, a dramatic film has been produced to illustrate the ecological values of the marsh, its intricate food webs, and future efforts toward preservation. The film, “On the Edge,” colorfully introduces an audience to professional ecologists’ views on the marsh history, current problems, and potential solutions. DVD copies of the film can be obtained by sending $25.00 to Friends of Dyke Marsh, P. O. Box 7183, Alexandria, VA 22307-7183. 2. Recent Publications Hal Wiggins. 2005. Virginia Native Plants. Black Cat Press, King George, VA. 90 pp. $20. This is a field guide to the native wildflowers of Virginia, particularly those of the Fredericksburg area. It includes an introduction to the various plant families of the region plus individual species accounts (with color photographs of each). Thomas G. Barnes & S. Wilson Francis. 2004. Wildflowers and Ferns of Kentucky. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 352 pp. $29.95. This non- technical guide treats more than 650 species and features more than 500 full-color photographs. For simple use, leaf line drawings and color photographs appear with plant descriptions for easy identification. Plants are grouped by flower color and blooming season. Each species listing includes the common and scientific names, family, habitat, frequency, and distribution throughout Kentucky, with similar species listed in the notes. This is the first new guide on Kentucky wildflowers to appear in thirty years. Virginia Natural History Society http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vnhs/ General Information The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) was formed in 1992 to bring together persons interested in the natural history of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The VNHS defines natural history in a broad sense, from the study of plants, animals, and other organisms to the geology and ecology of the state, to the natural history of the native people who inhabit it. The goals of the VNHS are to promote research on the natural history of Virginia, educate the citizens of the Commonwealth on natural history topics, and to encourage the conservation of natural resources. Dissemination of natural history information occurs through publication of the journal Banisteria, named for John Banister (1650-1692) who was the first university- trained naturalist to work in Virginia. The first issue was published in 1992, and the journal is published twice per year in spring and fall. Articles cover a wide array of subjects, and prospective authors are encouraged to submit manuscripts on any aspect of natural history in Virginia; book reviews and biographies of relevance to natural history in Virginia are also welcomed. The editors of Banisteria will also consider manuscripts on any aspect of natural history from neighboring states if the information concerns a Species native to Virginia or the topic is directly related to regional archeology, anthropology, botany, ecology, zoology, paleontology, geology, geography, or climatology. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed for suitability and edited for inclusion in the journal. Page charges ($15/page) are waived for VNHS members. The society’s website contains instructions for authors, the titles (and abstracts beginning in 2004) of all Banisteria papers, and downloadable versions (pdf format) of selected articles from past years. Memberships The VNHS 1s open to anyone with an interest in natural history and welcomes participation by all members in society activities and efforts to promote education and conservation. Membership includes a subscription to Banisteria and invitation to the annual Virginia BioBlitz. Annual dues for members are $20 (per calendar year); library subscriptions are $40 per year. Checks should be sent to the Secretary/Treasurer, who also has back issues of Banisteria available at $9.00 each (No. 13 is $18.00). The VNHS is a tax-exempt, nonprofit, society under Section 501(C)3 of the IRS. We welcome donations to support our mission in Virginia. The Virginia Natural History Society Application for Membership Name Address Zip Code Phone Email Area(s) of Interest ANNUAL DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO BANISTERIA (memberships and subscriptions are by calendar year; subscribers/members outside the United States should add $3.00 for additional postage) $500.00 Life (not annual) $300.00 Benefactor $100.00 Patron $50.00 Supporting $40.00 Institutional $25.00 Family $20.00 Regular $5.00 Student (see below) L L L L L L L L L I have added a contribution of $ to my membership dues. The special student rate is applicable only when accompanied by the following certification signed by a faculty advisor. Institution Advisor Date Make checks or money orders payable to: Virginia Natural History Society Send membership form and dues to: Dr. Anne Lund, Secretary-Treasurer Virginia Natural History Society Box 62 Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943 DeK.ay s sDrownsnnke mp) torerta dekayi del VW" Bre wn