As of writing this journal, observations of the genus Cypherotylus north of the Darien gap on iNat compose a number of a little over 5 thousand observations, covering 13 species.

There is however a great number of misconceptions and mistakes to fix. Many of them are already on a deep level of Research Grade and will probably need extra community effort to revert it. I'll try to address the common issues here on this post, so I can make a reference later when fixing things. The main topics are:

1) C. californicus vs. C. boisduvali;

C. californicus is probably overly represented in these numbers.

2) The C. vicinus group;

These are the Cypherotylus that show orange color on the pronotum. This post shall cover the sp possibilities, including 2 sp not yet on iNat.

3) C. elevatus vs. C. ovalis;

Currently as the third more represented sp, C. elevatus is chiefly from Colombia, but some reports from Panama and close are possible. Many records from Costa Rica and up are probably C. ovalis, which is a taxon not yet on iNat

4) Some information on other sp;

Other details for some other species in the region

Introduction

Cypherotylus is a genus of fungus beetles member of the tribe Erotylini. They were part of of the genus Erotylus but later broke apart because they show a basal margin on the pronotum. Cypherotylus are usually white or yellow beetles with black head and pronotum, displaying lots of black punctures on the elytra, which can sometimes have a hump or a keel. Sometimes they have orange on their neck or a ring of the same color on their legs. Its shape and colors are thought to be warning signs for predators that it tastes bad. Some other beetles and insects in the region copy this pattern as well. We can find Cypherotylus adults and larva feeding on macrofungi of the bracket, polypores and crust types

Not many recent studies were done for fungus beetles, so most of its taxonomy and species differentiation was done a long time ago (based on shape and colors). We might be dealing with several synonimies or even a low number of real species, but for now, lets agree to work with the sources we have at the moment.

According to the Catalogue of Neotropical Erotylidae by Alvarenga in 1994 we have a total of 45 sp of Cypherotylus. In Central and North America we should be expecting 18 of them, namely:

• 🌟Cypherotylus alutaceus Gorham, 1888 - Sonora(Mexico)
• 🌟Cypherotylus banghaasi Mader, 1935 - Guatemala
• Cypherotylus boisduvali Chevrolat, 1834 - Mexico, Guatemala
• Cypherotylus californicus Lacordaire, 1842 - USA, Mexico
• Cypherotylus costaricensis Gorham, 1888 - Costa Rica, Panama
• Cypherotylus debauvei Demay, 1838 - Panama, South America
• Cypherotylus dromedarius Lacordaire, 1842 - Central and South America
• Cypherotylus elevatus Fabricius, 1801 - Panama, South America
• Cypherotylus fenestratus Gorham, 1888 - Mexico
• Cypherotylus gaumeri Gorham, 1888 - Mexico
• Cypherotylus gibbosus Linnaeus, 1763 - Nicaragua, Panama, South America
• Cypherotylus guatemalae Crotch, 1876 - Guatemala
• 🌟Cypherotylus hopfneri Mader, 1935 - La Conquista(Guatemala)
• Cypherotylus impressopunctatus Crotch, 1873 - Nicaragua, Panama
• 🌟Cypherotylus intercedens Kuhnt, 1908 - Panama, Colombia
• 🌟Cypherotylus ovalis Mader, 1942 - Panzos(Guatemala)
• 🌟Cypherotylus patellatus Gorham, 1888 - Panama, South America
• Cypherotylus vicinus Guérin-Méneville, 1841 - Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua

The names with a highlight on this list were not yet recorded on iNat (or at least not yet correctly identified as such). Some of these were better described later by different authors. I kept the originals for the sake of the list itself.

C. californicus vs. C. boisduvali (vs. C. alutaceus)

C. californicus by lindseyvail CO, USAC. boisduvali by diegoman Chiapas MEXIllustration of C. alutaceus

C. californicus is the only species of the genus present in the USA with some records north of Mexico as well, but it shouldn't populate the remaining of Central America and even pop up now and then past south. C. boisduvali, a sp that was even described prior to it, is very similar. In fact, C. californicus was regarded as a subspecies of C. boisduvali for quite some time, until Wayne Boyle made a study about it in 1956, revalidating and asserting its distribution.

The confusion with these 2 species here on iNat probably started because of the nice illustrations in Gorham's Biologia Centrali-Americana, which many people used to identify their observations. But according to Boyle, these drawings are not a good representation as they do not show the convexity and real colors. This issue was exponentially aggravated by the Computer Vision suggestions of incorrect C. californicus for other similar beetles all the way to South America.

To make things more complicated a third species, C. alutaceus, described from Sonora region in Mexico is also valid and, apparently, much similar to C. californicus and C. boisduvali. According to Gorham, it has "punctures of yellow color", which I honestly couldn't find many good representations, even after reviewing all Cypherotylus records in that region on iNat (see below).

Unfortunately, Boyle didn't address C. alutaceus in his study and we only have Gorham's diagnostic of it as well as a short entry on Kuhnt 1908 identification key. Either way, C. alutaceus should be a more convex shaped beetle with smaller black punctures compared to C. boisduvali, which in turn is more convex than C. californicus and has larger punctures (Boyle). Gorham also mentions punctures of the background color (yellow). I could find only one C. alutaceus in museum specimens in the MNRJ (see below).

There is also mention to a different degree of shininess and color for the 3 species, but these characteristic change a lot even inside the same species. Boyle mentions that for C. californicus you can find individuals with as few as 50 spots in the elytra and others with twice that much. Some might show a lateral black macula on each elytron and sometimes it isn't there. This macula can vary in size and shape as well. The difference in size is also something that can't help us much. Usually the female is bigger than the male, but this characteristic is not mentioned as something that helps differentiate these species. Lastly, Boyle claim to have inspected over 800 individuals of C. californicus and about 13 of C. boisduvali and said he could still tell them apart easily. He dissected the genitalia of C. californicus but did not mention if he did so for C. boisduvali.

Museum specimens I've seen couldn't help much, as they were mostly identified as C.boisduvali since C. californicus was considered a variety of it for a long time (with the name C. aspersus which is now a synonym of C. californicus according to Boyle).

Some museum specimens as example: 1) MNHN - Paris by Jean-Hervé Yvinec | 2) MZSP - São Paulo by Glauco L.N. Martins

So where does C. californicus end and where C. boisduvali begins? Could there be areas where their populations are mixed? Is C. alutaceus really valid? Should we just try to keep all Cypherotylus in that region on genus level to be safe? Can the observations of iNat maybe bring some light in this?

Since iNat observations are mostly about beetles that are alive, they do seem to show a degree of color difference. Even the current common names for C. californicus and C. boisduvali are an indicative of this: blue-fungus-beetle and silver-fungus-beetle (in Spanish), respectively.

The current taxon pictures chosen for both C. californicus and C. boisduvali seem to be ok with this interpretation. At a quick glance, most C. californicus observations in US show a beetle where the elytron color ranges from purple to blueish, whereas C. boisduvali observations seem to have a silverish/white/gray tint. Dead beetles observations show a matt yellow color for both and there is a peculiar phenomenon where you can find observations of beetles with one elytron of each color. Some users even confused this as a case of gynandromorphy.

There are observations of beetles with gradual white-yellow matt patches on the background of the elytra. This might indicate older individuals, or just a different set of chemicals or humidity as well. Depending on the angle of the picture, you can see that the silver C. boisduvali beetles are more convex than the same angle pictures of the flat purple/blue C. californicus, and their elytral punctures have a somewhat thicker black halo. So, for observations where the colors are not helpful, and the angle is not great, perhaps we can use a third element to ascertain the sp level ID; the locality.

If a Cypherotylus observation is inside the USA it is probably from a C. californicus. And if it is from south of Mexico or beyond than certainly C. boisduvali. Of course, provided we rule out other possibilities.

A peculiar beetle on a Boletales in west Mexico caught my attention and could potentially be C. alutaceus, sadly it is not a very focused photo, but it agrees well with the museum species linked above. The fungi it was on is very different from the usual fungi you see with C. californicus and C. boisduvali too.Another?

Taking all these into consideration, we have many C. californicus observations to convert to C. boisduvali. Some of which might need extra ID efforts since they are deeply weighted with incorrect ID.

---

The C. vicinus group;

Illustration of C. vicinusIllustration of C. guatemalaeIllustration of C. fenestratus

C. vicinus, C. banghaasi, C. guatemalae, C. hopfneri and we can throw in here C. fenestratus as well...

All these five species have red/orange pronotum, usually with a big black macula on it. In some cases you can argue that the pronotum is actually black with a narrow orange border instead. Either way, lets see how we can tell each one apart based on literature hints, museum specimens and what was found in iNat so far.

C. vicinus was the first species to be described for Mexico in 1841 by Guérin-Méneville. One year after that Lacordaire described C. melanostigma, which was later synonymized under C. vicinus as well. Twenty three years passed and G. R. Crotch described C. jansoni, which is now also a variety of C. vicinus. In the next three years the same author described C. guatemalae. He claimed it was different than C. vicinus due to the orange on the pronotum occupying only a narrow margin, as well as having the apical macula of the elytra occupying more space along the suture.

In 1935 Leopold Mader described the remaining 2 species: C. banghaasi and C. hopfneri. The first one differing from C. vicinus by the pronotum markings and from C. guatemalae by the structure of the punctures of the elytra (more shallow and with a different granulation inside). C. banghaasi has the pronotum macula as if the free spot of C. vicinus was "merged" to the vertical stripe. C. hopfneri can be told apart from the first 2 orange necked Cypherotylus in the same way as C. banghaasi. And between these 2, C. hopfneri has a broader black elytra macula. The oblique central macula are continuous and the tip macula of the elytra is longer. It resembles C. goryi from Colombia, that would join this group if it wasn't for its South America distribution.

C. fenestratus is much different than these first 4 Cypherotylus species. It also have the orange pronotum, but in shape and drawings it resembles C. boisduvali. The macula in the pronotum can sometimes be fused instead of 4 horizontal black spots.

Museum examples from the MNHN-Paris: 1) C. goryi (Colombia) |2) C. guatemalae |3) C. vicinus |4) C. melanostigma(vicinus)

Now, this is all the information the literature can tells us. So, are the iNat observations also reflecting what has been told so far? Let's see:

A single observation from Costa Rica by janier_montalvan gives us a lot of information in a single picture. Not only it shows the polypore fungi they are eating, it also displays the common form of C. vicinus found on Costa Rica and Panama: a beetle with no maculas on the base of the elytra; thus not the "melanostigma" form. Several beetles appear on the photo and you can see the degree of variation the other maculas have. Another interesting data we can gather from this observation is the copula behavior, showing the male beetle having larger anterior femurs compared to the female. This characteristic is mentioned for this species and some other Cypherotylus, as well as the bumpy convex pronotum, that we can see clearly in another observation also from CR .

Alas, let's move our scope North and see what other interesting observations we can find.

According to what we saw in the literature the pronotum drawing is important for ID purposes. We can see that most CR and Panama observations of orange-necked Cypherotylus show a free spot next to the vertical black band in the middle. Not always the spot is free; it sometimes touch the black band too. I think more importantly than the free spot or not is how thick the black band is, thus how small the orange appear on the edges.

The current C. guatemalae observations show a vertical band on pronotum that is more uniform and larger. There are dozens of observations, but the other characteristic that we should now use to differentiate C. hopfneri and C. banghaasi from it is the black punctures on the elytra and their structure. Upon reviewing these observations I could attest that no beetle is like the other... Some have the punctures more concentrated and/or deep; others were less numerous and/or shallow. This embossing of the puncture is not easy to determine in pictures as you need a good angle where the flash can help us see inside de indentation structure.

An image with a detail view of the punctures of the elytra from 2 of the beetles listed bellow. It tries to show the different layout of the punctures. The left one visibly have walls and a bottom, whereas the punctures on the right side show a shallow indentations with no flat bottom and discernible walls. Basically a slope. Are elytral punctures and their nature a good indication of a species? Can they be formed in one way and as the adult gets old suffer some sort of erosion and show in another way?

Here is a list of observations with some examples of the diversity mentioned below:
Small punctures, south of Guatemala
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/151320490
Slightly bigger, El Salvador
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/44322846
lots of big punctures, elytra almost rugose, El Salvador
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/139559346
Big punctures with seemingly differing embossing than those above, Nicaragua
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/234746118

To summarize, I must say the C. vicinus group is somewhat inconclusive in terms of having good clues to make species-level IDs based on photos. Specially with C. guatemalae, C. hopfneri and C. banghaasi. For those I suggest continuing on ID'ing them as C. guatemalae for now, as it is the first described taxon and could later have those other 2 be synonymized under it.

C. vicinus itself remains different from C. guatemalae mainly by the free spot on the pronotum. Or rather by a broad lateral orange portion. On iNat we have some examples of C. vicinus where you can see a bit of orange on their femur too. This was not mentioned in any description and could cause some confusion with other species in the area, such as C. gaumeri

---

C. elevatus vs. C. ovalis

1: 1: C. ovalis, currently misidentified as C. elevatus by trollius_repens, Costa Rica| 2: C. elevatus by luchogu near Medelín, Colombia| 3: Illustration of C. elevatus

C. ovalis was described after Gorham's Central America illustrations (fig3), so again these helped with the wrong identifications. The drawing of C. elevatus is accurate, but these two beetles are quite distinct. A quick glance with museum specimens can help distinguish them. iNat observations are even easier to detect because C. elevatus show a distinct matt yellow color and deep confuse punctuation, not to mention a slight suture keel, which is something C. ovalis doesn't have.

C. ovalis is a little convex, but doesn't form a hump. C. elevatus does have a bump. The elytra indentations of C. elevatus have a distinct embossing, almost like a small bump inside of the holes. They are also much bigger than the indentations of C. ovalis. The black central macula of C. elevatus usually have deeper punctuation than the rest. C. ovalis have a black shoulder macula and the lateral macula of the elytra makes a curve to the rear

other fixes

C. intercedens is not in the iNat database yet. According to its description it should be very close to C. gibbosus, which in turn can be confused with C. costaricensis and C. dromedarius. There are no drawings of it and I couldn't find any museum specimens to show as example. We only have Kuhnt's diagnosis of it. In his identification keys, he mentions that the central black band is interrupted in the middle.

C. gaumeri, and C. debauvi are easy to distinguish from the other Cypherotylus as they have red ring ornaments on their hind legs (femur);C. debauvi having a blunt hump. Depending on the angle of the picture C. gaumeri might be hard to tell apart from other non-humped Cypherotylus with similar markings, such as C. costaricensis, especially if the red rings on the legs are not visible

C. impressopunctatus is quite distinct by its shape. The elytra forms a convex keel and there are no macula, only black punctures. iNat shows some presence in South America but this is probably another thing to fix as there are other species that resemble this one there, such as C. apicalis and C. variolosus (both not yet on iNat). The male of C. impressopunctatus is told to posses the thorax bumpy.

C. patellatus is told to be similar to C. impressopunctatus, but the keel is more acute. There is also a bit of black at the apical portion of the elytra. Gorham described it quite succinctly and listed it for Peru. Alvarenga's catalogue lists Panama.

An eventual second part of this post will cover the Cypherotylus south of the Darien gap which are also in dire need of corrections.

References and Notes

My deepest gratitude to Glauco L.N. Martins and Jean-Hervé Yvinec who provided me access to the museum imagery collection and some literature resources.

Alvarenga, M. 1994. Catálogo dos Erotylidae (Coleoptera) Neotropical. Revista Brasiliera de Zoologia 11(1): 1–175.
Boyle, W. W. 1956. A revision of the Erotylidae of America north of Mexico (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 110(2): 61–172.
Chevrolat, L. A. A. 1834–1835. Coléoptères du Mexique. G. Silbermann; Strasbourg. Fasc. 2–8.
Crotch, G. R. 1873. A list of Erotylidae collected by Edward M. Janson, in the vicinity of Santo Domingo, Chontales, Nicaragua, with descriptions of new genera and species. Cistula Entomologica 1: 141–150.
Crotch, G. R. 1876. A revision of the coleopterous family Erotylidae. Cistula Entomologica 1: 377–572 [1–196]
Demay, M. 1838. Description de treize espèces nouvellas de Coléoptères, provenant de la Guyane. Revue Zoologique 1: 22–24.
Fabricius, J. C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum. Secundum ordines, genera, species: Adiectis synonymis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. Bibliopolii Academici Novi; Kiel. 1: 506 p. 2: 687 p.
Gorham, H. S. 1888-1889. Insecta. Coleoptera. Vol. VII. Erotylidae, Endomychidae, and Coccinellidae. In: F. Du Cane Godman and O. Salvin (eds.). Biologia Centrali-Americana. R. Porter; London. 276 p., 13 pls
Guérin-Méneville, M. F. E. 1841. Description de quelques belles espèces d›Erotyles, rapportées aus groupes que je propose. Revue Zoologique par la Société Cuvierienne 1841: 115–120.
Kuhnt, P. 1908. Synopsis der Gattungen Erotylus, Cypherotylus, Micrerotylus. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1: 67–100, 2: 225–238
Lacordaire, J. T. 1842. Monographie des erotyliens, famille de l’ordre des coléoptères. Roret; Paris. xiv + 543 p.
Linnaeus, C. von. 1763. D.D. Centuria insectorum rariorum quam consent. experimentiss. fac. med. In Regia Academia Upsaliensi, praeside nobilissimo atque celeberrimo D:o Doct. Carolo von Linné, equite aurat. de Stella Polari. Publico examini submittit Boas Johansson, Calmariensis. In audit Carol. maj. d. XXIII. Junii. anni MDCCLXIII. H.a.m.s; Uppsala. [3] + 32 p.
Mader, L. 1935. Neue Coleopteren aus Süd und Zentral-America. Entomologischer Anzeiger 15(39): 241–297.
Mader, L. 1942. Zur kenntnis der Amerikanishen Erotyliden. (Col.). Mitteilungen Muenchener Ento-molgischen Gesellschrift 32(2): 549–572.
Skelley, P. 2020. Nomenclatural notes for the Erotylinae (Coleoptera: Erotylidae). Insecta Mundi 0767: 1–35.

Five years ago I made a record of a very tiny (5mm) leafhopper on top of a cultivated Alstroemeria species from my garden (pictured above).

It's most striking aspect is a golden/orange metallic band on the crown, between the eyes. There are some black spots inside this band. The rest of the body is a dull green that becomes transparent towards the tip of the wings. The legs are of a bright color.

The plant origin and species name is unknown, but I suspect it is some hybrid or variation of Alstroemeria psittacina. It was brought here 30 years ago and pretty much got naturalized and no longer needs care such as watering.

These hoppers are more active in the summer. Their feeding is very intense and causes pale spots on the leaves. By the way, this plant is known for having multiple viruses, bacteria and other agents that also cause these spots so maybe they can be disseminated through these hoppers as well.¹

After a new recent observation I have decided to collect a male and female for further studies and see if I can reach species level ID. This journal post contains some microscopy images.

The plant and damage the hoppers induce. Yellow arrow shows a hopper.

Male and female have no visible differences other than the genitalia. Here you can see the pattern of dots on the anterior margin of the pronotum that are quite unique and different from the species described so far.

Forewing and hindwing. Last one have noticeable spines on the margin that can be better viewed in the following pictures.

Hindwing marginal spines in 10x and 40x magnification

---

underside pic, female to the left

zoom to external genitalia (last abdominal segments, female to the left)

1- Male pygofer lateral view
2- Internal genitalia of male (quite fragile and convoluted)
3- Another angle and magnification of 2
4- Female ovopositor and its valvulae

Other pictures:

A zoom shot on the brochosome on a female wing. It is kinda like an egg clusters that will be scooped to a leaf later using the rear legs broom structures.

Nymph morphology:

The nymph looks very close to other Empoascini nymphs

---

The tiny hopper surely belongs to the subfamily Typhlocybinae, the second more speciose subfamily of Cicadellidae, which hosts the so called micro-leafhoppers. The lack of the appendix on the forewing as well as the big ocelli made me suspect of the genus Joruma.

Not many authors accept the tribe Jorumini as an independent tribe, so they put it inside Empoascini as the subtribe Jorumina. With that considered, the group contains 2 genera: Joruma and the monotypic Neojoruma. The genus Joruma itself is divided in Joruma(Joruma) and Joruma(Jorumidia) and contain a total of 29 valid neartic and neotropical species.²

A master thesis from 2016 in Brazil did a taxonomic review that would validate the Jorumini status as tribe and also increase the total genera number to 6 and the species to 34. It also mentioned the existence of many undescribed Joruma species in the material that was examined from many institutions.³

Taking in account all the available sources and descriptions of known species, I think it is safe to say that the Joruma of this observation is probably an undescribed species as it has no good match with any other described species so far.

Since the limits of the group are yet to be delimitated it is best to leave this under subtribe level for now.

References

¹- Tessmann, Cristiane; Moura, Andréa B.; L. Marcuzzo, Leandro; C.N. Zanatta, Zarela G.(2006) QUEIMA BACTERIANA CAUSADA POR XANTHOMONAS CAMPESTRIS: UMA NOVA DOENÇA EM ASTROMÉLIA (ALSTROEMERIA CARYOPHYLLAEA) Revista Ceres Universidade Federal de Viçosa
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3052/305226794008.pdf

---

²- Dmitriev, D.A., Angelova, R., Anufriev, G.A., Bartlett, C.R., Blanco-Rodríguez, E., Borodin, O.I., Cao, Y.-H., Deitz, L.L., Dietrich, C.H., Dmitrieva, M.O., El-Sonbati, S.A., Evangelista de Souza, O., Gjonov, I.V., Gonçalves, A.C., Gonçalves, C.C., Hendrix, S.V., McKamey, S., Kohler, M., Kunz, G., Malenovský, I., Morris, B.O., Novoselova, M., Pinedo-Escatel, J.A., Rakitov, R.A., Rothschild, M.J., Sanborn, A.F., Takiya, D.M., Wallace, M.S., Zahniser, J.N. (2022 onward). Jorumina McAtee, 1926. World Auchenorrhyncha Database. TaxonPages. Retrieved on 2024-11-02
https://hoppers.speciesfile.org/otus/41639/overview

---

³- Santiago, Stephanie Pereira de Souza (2016) Taxonomia e filogenia molecular da tribo Jorumini McAtee, 1926 (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) / Masters thesis Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro
http://objdig.ufrj.br/71/teses/852806.pdf

---

Coelho, L.B.N., Da-Silva, E.R. & Ferreira, P.S.F. (2016) Two new species of genus Joruma McAtee (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Typhlocybinae) from Vicosa, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Zootaxa
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4162.2.6

---

Young, D.A., Jr. (1952) A reclassification of Western Hemisphere Typhlocybinae (Homoptera, Cicadellidae). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4413033

---

Caldwell, J.S. & Martorell, L.F. (1952) Review of the Auchenorynchous Homoptera of Puerto Rico. Part 1. Cicadellidae. The Journal of the Department of Agriculture Puerto Rico
https://doi.org/10.46429/jaupr.v34i1.12836

---

Lawson, P.B. (1930) Three new leafhoppers from the Southwest (Homoptera, Cicadellidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53390247

---

McAtee, W.L. (1924) Notes on Eupterygid leaf-hoppers with descriptions of a few forms (Homoptera). The Florida Entomologist
https://journals.flvc.org/flaent/article/view/54885/52564

---

McAtee, W.L. (1926) Notes on Neotropical Eupteryginae, with a key to the varieties of Alebra albostriella (Homoptera: Jassidae).
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/50799663

---

Osborn, H. (1928) Neotropical Homoptera of the Carnegie Museum. Part 6. Report on the subfamily Typhlocybinae, with descriptions of new species. Annals of the Carnegie Museum
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/52405968

---

Ruppel, R.F. & DeLong, D.M. (1953) Four new species of Joruma from Mexico (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). The Ohio Journal of Science
https://kb.osu.edu/bitstreams/dec34869-2629-5a14-8bd6-363a668001de/download

---

iNat observations related to this journal post:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/35999425
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/35588117
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/250265967

---

Pra quem não conhece. O Desafio da Natureza Urbana (City Nature Challenge em inglês) é o evento que mais mobiliza o site do iNaturalist. O efeito dele é tamanho que ele é visível no gráfico anual do iNat ali em cima. O objetivo inicial do evento foi uma competição entre as cidades de Los Angeles e San Francisco, mas logo se disseminou por todo o mundo, gerando centenas de milhares de observações em um curto período de tempo nos últimos suspiros de Abril e primeiros respiros de Maio todos os anos. O evento tem uma duração de 4 dias para a etapa de registros e depois 6 mais dias para identificações. Passado esse prazo tirasse um retrato dos resultados e esse retrato é considerado o resultado final do evento para cada cidade. Só que como agora fazem parte do iNat, esses registros continuam tendo seus IDs corrigidos e melhorados após esse período e indefinidamente. É sobre esse aspecto do CNC, ou DNU como ficou conhecido no Brasil, que eu vou falar aqui.

---

Há uma semana foi feita uma postagem no forum do iNat sobre um código que analisa as observações de projetos e monta uma página com registros notáveis (primeiros registros para iNat, país, região, cidade, ou registros de alguma coisa com poucos registros no local feitos durante o evento). Aplicando tal código nos projetos do City Nature Challenge do Brasil encontrei muitos registros mal identificados e ele auxiliou bastante nas correções além de cumprir seu papel original de encontrar registros realmente notáveis durante aquele evento. Ainda assim isso levanta uma certa preocupação acerca dos dados gerados por eventos desse tipo. O intuito deles é sempre atrair mais usuários para a plataforma, mas isso acaba gerando uma quantidade de dados muito grande que leva meses e até anos para serem suficientemente revisadas pelos identificadores como você vai ver a seguir. Para fins de exemplo apliquei o código no projeto de Curitiba desse ano e encontrei 47 erros. A maioria de espécies não encontradas na américa do sul ou no Brasil. Resolvi aplicar o código em anos anteriores no mesmo local e continuei encontrando erros que ficaram todo esse tempo sem correção... A maioria desses erros eram de observações de plantas e fungos, que são os táxons mais observados em comparação com os demais e os que tem o menor numero de especialistas, especialmente aqui na América do Sul. Minha planilha de controle para todos os CNC de Curitiba

---

Exemplo de mapa de distribuição de uma espécie de líquen do hemisfério norte comumente identificado por engano por projetos CNC no hemisfério sul.

Acredito que muitos desses erros poderiam ser facilmente evitados se a equipe que organiza cada projeto fizesse um esclarecimento sobre 3 pontos importantes:

• Sobre cuidados na hora da postagem das observações;
• Sobre o que observar durante o evento;
• Sobre repetições do mesmo organismo;

...entre outras coisas

---

Ajudando o Computer Vision a Te Ajudar

Os usuários, especialmente os mais novos, usam muito a Visão do Computador e concordam com a identificação fornecida por ele. Nessa etapa, ajudaria E MUITO se os usuários forem instruídos a primeiro colocar o local da observação e em seguida ver o que o computador sugere. As espécies sugeridas serão limitadas ao local e, na maioria das vezes, respeitarão a distribuição normal das espécies. Não quer dizer que estarão certas, mas já ajuda bastante e evita erros grosseiros de espécies que não deveriam estar ali.

Exemplo de como a Localização ajuda a inteligência artificial

Pode-se fazer também uma palestra curta sobre identificar a nível de família ou com identificações mais elevadas como "Planta", "Besouro", etc, quando não se tem certeza do que se está observando. Algumas pessoas acham que identificando com uma especie parecida, mesmo sabendo que nao ocorre ali, vai facilitar a identificação pois alguém vem logo em seguida e corrige. Mas nem sempre é o que ocorre. Sem falar que o seu ID ficará pesando para um lado, e serão necessários 3 IDs da espécie correta para se obter o Nível de Pesquisa almejado.

O que registrar

No ímpeto de obter o máximo de observadores eu vejo que as organizações desses projetos pecam um pouco na questão de explicar o que exatamente eles devem observar. O nome do evento sugere a natureza urbana, mas o que acabamos vendo são muitos registros em zoológicos, pets, animais de produção, e de plantas claramente cultivadas. Embora nada impeça que o usuário poste tais registros e as espécies no final acabam contando mesmo sendo cativas/cultivadas. Só que os participantes quase nunca marcam essas observações como tal, o que gera mais trabalho para o pessoal que identifica.

Enfim, na minha opinião vale mais a pena registrar plantas daninhas de um terreno baldio ou até mesmo às que crescem na calçada do que registrar o vasinho de flores da vovó. Muitos identificadores não se dão o trabalho de corrigir ou marcar o ID dessas observações até porque plantas e animais exóticos não fazem parte da sua rotina de IDs.

Repetição de registro de mesmo organismo

É normal em eventos como esse do pessoal ir junto aos parques ou fazer saídas em grupo e registrar as mesmas coisas. O resultado é uma profusão do mesmo cacto, inseto, etc, geralmente no mesmo ângulo. Embora isso não seja contra as regras e cada um acabou fazendo mesmo seu próprio registro, penso que poderíamos melhorar em dois sentidos:

Se é para tirar a foto do mesmo cacto, talvez cada pessoa fazendo isso poderia tentar um ângulo diferente para que a foto pelo menos não fique a mesma do colega. Isso pode até ajudar na identificação visto que na maioria das vezes as pessoas colocam apenas uma foto por observação. Então juntando todos os ângulos da galera podemos formar um belo booking to cacto que poderá ser identificado com mais facilidade.

A segunda abordagem seria dividir o grupo grande em grupos menores que irão cobrir uma área maior (ou até áreas específicas e diferentes dos outros grupos). A desvantagem desse método é que podem não haver veteranos suficientes para explicar e controlar os grupos.

Portanto, acredito que uma breve explicação sobre o que observar e como postar já seria de grande ajuda para que esses projetos gerem não só uma boa quantidade de dados, mas também dados que são realmente úteis e alinhados com o propósito da plataforma.

---

Queria também deixar registrado que sempre ocorrem casos lamentáveis de usuários novos que postam observações e as identificam a nivel de espécie com a ajuda de amigos ou contas falsas. Tudo para chegar a Nível de Pesquisa e ter mais espécies possíveis no evento. Isso geralmente acontece naqueles projetos que prometem um certificado ou prêmio para aquele usuário que fizer o maior número de registros.

Devemos lembrar que o iNaturalist é um site sério que que muitos pesquisadores o utilizam para pesquisas científicas. Nada contra o sistema de certificados, até porque é um bom atrativo para os jovens de universidades que precisam dos pontos. Só é preciso deixar claro que a participação deles gera dados importantes e duradouros, pois afinal o projeto segue sempre mudando com novas identificações sendo feitas com o passar do tempo.

Outras questões

Falando agora somente do CNC 2024; não entendi o porque de haverem três projetos no RJ que se sobrepõem em sua área. No fim os dados de um acabam refletidos no outro. Apesar de isso não afetar a contagem final, faz com que quem esteja revisando os projetos tenha que revisitar observações das outras áreas. Parece que em Brasília também temos a mesma situação. Dei uma olhada em outros projetos umbrella pelo mundo e não encontrei casos parecidos. Fica então o questionamento.

Como considerações finais só queria deixar claro que os problemas que listei não são exclusivos dos CNC do Brasil. Também não quero desmerecer todo o esforço que as equipes organizadoras fazem todos os anos para mobilizar o pessoal e fazer com que o Brasil seja notado lá fora com a grande participação que sempre temos. Espero que encarem minhas ressalvas levantadas aqui como criticas construtivas e que possamos todos usufruir de futuros CNCs de maneira mais agradável.

Para terminar deixo aqui o resultado daquele código de análise aplicado em cinco dos maiores projetos do CNC no Brasil (lembrando que é um retrato do momento atual e que os registros estão sempre mudando. O evento CNC acabou, mas ainda tem muita coisa para se consertar e aprimorar).

São Paulo
Curitiba
Vale do Itajaí - SC
Rio de Janeiro
Brasília

Just a report of a possible hyperparisitism case, where leaf miner moth caterpillars or pupas were parasitized by this first wasp who then got parasitized by another wasp.

I've collected some leaves on several occasions that had pupa or even larva from a moth that makes mines on Schinus terebinthifolia and stored them on a plastic pot hoping to catch their adult forms.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/163381013

Upon inspecting the pot (which contained all the leaves) I've noticed a tiny wasp walking around, which I thought was parasitizing one of the moths. So far so good, these are common findings.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/175929969

Later, though, I noticed that there was a second wasp inside the pot under the leaves, it was dead and it had a hole in the abdomen. I think it is possible that the wasp mentioned below hatched from this dead wasp, which emerged from the pupas of the moth.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/175928102

Some extra pics:
Dried leftover bits of the moth caterpillar

more to add

Some reading material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperparasite
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-one-parasitic-wasp-becomes-victim-another-parasitic-wasp

A publication that was missing in the internet regarding this flea beetle genus.

.1. Wanderbiltiana lageseana
.2. W. festiva
.3. W. complanata
.4. W. concolor
.5. W. physonychina
.6. W. borealis
.7. W. cuyaba
.8. W. misionea
.9. W. monilis
.10. W. santoensis
.11. 12. 13. W. sejuncta
.14. W. novoteutoniensis
.15. W. virginella
.16. W. nitida meridionalis
.17. 18. W. margineguttata
.19. W. xanthosticha
.20. W. aeola
.21. 22. 23. W. megasticha
.24. W. porosticha
.25. W. bucki
.26. W. sandara

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BwZ-_7X_lmOQ4FBeMZqMRy1c_4mI-LTm/view?usp=share_link

This journal post will be updated with beetle species showing signs of mimicry with (or by?) erotylid fungus beetle. I was going to make a project for that, but I think a journal post where I can list them and put a side-by-side image of each example will be better.

The type of mimicry erotylids show is the one called Müllerian, where both species share the same warning signs (aposematic) and they share genuine anti-predation mechanisms (in this case, not being palatable for birds, lizards, etc).

However there are very few studies regarding these defense mechanisms for all the species, so maybe some of them are just showing the warning signs, which would configure a Batesian type of mimicry.

Feel free to point out any mimicry that isn't on the list yet and to discuss them. The images shown here are taken from observations in iNat and sometimes from other sources. If you found your image here and you don't want it to be shown, just message me so I can replace it.

---

Oligocorynus zebraOligocorynus jansoniStenochiinae sp.
Distribution: Central America

---

Erotylus histrioPoecilopeplus coralliferMelanophryniscus admirabilis
Distribution: Southeast/South Brazil
Remarks: Not only these 2 beetles share the same pattern of alert for predators, but also this nearly extinct small frog. Its underside colors also follow this pattern and it is known that, when threatened, the frog flips belly up (its upper side colors are green-ish).
Related:
Some species from Erotylus histrio group (E. histrionicus, E. elegans, E. chevrolati, E. aegrotus, E. clarosignatus, E. permutatus).
Two species from Poecilopeplus genus (P. corallifer and P. batesi)
Some frogs from Melanophryniscus genus (notably this one from Rio Grande do Sul state, but other species seem to have a similar defense mechanim).

---

Iphiclus trifasciatusPoecilesthus geniculatus
Distribution: South/Southeast Brazil
Remarks: Many other species of Poecilesthus can be added to this comparison.

---

Erotylus sp.Eugenysa colossa
Distribution: Peru
Remarks: There's at least 3 or 4 described species of Erotylus that could be tortoise beetles mimics.

---

Platyphora olalaErotylus sp.
Distribution: Peru
Remarks: There's several described species of Erotylus with variations of this pattern of 4-5 red/yellow bands.

---

Aegithus quadrinotatusSeladia augustiniana
Distribution: Central America
Remarks: -

---

Megischyrus brasiliensisPoecilesthus sp.Cymathotes sp.
Distribution: S/SE Brazil
Remarks: I can attest the tenebrionid of this case excreted a bad smell when handling

---

Iphiclus (Saccomorphus) bilineatusPoecilaspidella vittifera
Distribution: Uruguay, South of South America
Remarks: -

---

...More to be added soon...

---

Some literature:
01 - The distribution and evolution of exocrine compoundglands in Erotylinae (Insecta: Coleoptera: Erotylidae 2013 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271932635

By the time I'm writing this post, there is about 50 observations of pleasing fungus beetles of the genus Erotylus identified as Erotylus incomparabilis (Perty, 1832) here on iNaturalist. In my opinion they are incorrectly identified and we should try to fix that. Several other places in the internet are also incorrect.

I'm making this post so that I can use it as reference for when I'm fixing the IDs on those observations in the following days, but first let me explain what E. incomparabilis is.

The species was firstly described in 1832 in the work Delectus animalium articulatorum : quae in itinere per Brasiliam by the illustrator and contributor Maximilian Perty. His diagnosis in short Latin was:

"ovalis, gibbus, niger, elytris coccineis, ad basin, nigris, flavopunctatis, postice nigro undidatis. - Long. 8 mm. - Amazon River.

Which we can translate to "Oval, convex, black, elytra red but black at the base, with yellow punctures and with black waves at the apical part."

Later Lacordaire didn't bring more details, but both Perty and Lacordaire brought drawings for the species.

Perty's drawing of E. incomparabilis (Figure 8)

Lacordaire's drawing of E. incomparabilis (Figure 4)

Crotch was the first to tell us that this was the most variable species of the genus. Kuhnt exemplified some other variants. Kuhnt also made a deep study about this genus and divided the species in several groups. Erotylus incomparabilis was put inside the group #5; The Varians Group, which characteristic is "by combining narrow bands, wide bands are created; at most 3 bands are available." This group had 14 species (counting E. incomparabilis) at the time.

A recent work about another genus Erotylina brought a very interesting image of a beetle drawer that gathered several, if not all, of the variations.

A collection of pinned specimens of Erotylus showing several instances of E. incomparabilis.

So based on these evidences and descriptions we are better raising the ID of those observations to the genus level Erotylus at least, since, unfortunately this genus has several species with very subtle differences between them, so we might not be able to replace a species for another in this case. The last thorough study on those beetles is 100+ years old... Hopefully new studies such as the recent one about Erotylina leoparda can shed some light on Erotylus too, and we might find several synonyms.

Perty plate https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47586660
Perty original description https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4758a6503
Lacordaire plate https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42570161
Lacordaire description https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11545287
Crotch description https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9797149
Kuhnt description https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33769526
Erotylina study (source of beetle drawer image) https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120201452

This post is a summary of the differences the species of Erotylus from histrio group present.

Introduction

Erotylus is a genus of Erotylidae pleasing fungus beetles with around 100 described species. In 1907-08 Paul Kuhnt divided them in groups according to some characteristics. This post is about the first group, The histrio-group, which his words are "Large species with squat-like, blunt elevation somewhat behind the middle of the elytra; Elytra more or less pointed towards the back. Usually a red spot on the shoulder and a point on the tip, as well as a round yellow spot next to the scutellum (often connected to each other)."

There are 8 species in this group:

Erotylus histrio, E. mirabilis, E. elegans, E. histrionicus, E. chevrolati, E. aegrotus, E. clarosignatus and E. permutatus

Kuhnt created a key with the main differences to which I adapt and illustrate below:

A. Area around the scutellum remains black; 6 yellow bands running from the edge up to the hump

…………………………. E. mirabilis.

B. One yellow spot next to the scutellum (sometimes combined with the yellow bands/spots behind)

a) Numerous small black indented points on the yellow drawings. (Continuation of the punctuation series)

1. About 24mm. Black network on the front and back.

………… E. histrio



2. About 21 mm, narrower, black network only at the back. (first yellow band connects the 2 scutellum spots and occupies most of the frontal part of the elytra)

…....…… E. elegans



b) Fine double-row dots without black dots. (dots of punctuation in yellow are colored yellow)

1. Broad shape. Large yellow patches of markers.

…….… E. histrionicus



2. Elongated shape, smaller, always isolated patches of markers.

..….. E. chevrolati



c) Coarse punctuation of the elytra.

1. Elytra brown with yellowish marks in a brown smeared network.

….. E. aegrotus



2. Elytra black with yellow marked bandages.

1. 5 yellow bandages alternating with black bands. (Here the first yellow band is whole and connects the red shoulder spots)

......... E. clarosignatus



2. First band composed of only a few round spots. Elytra with 3 - 5 yellow bands. The black area between the second and third bands is larger than in histrio. The elytra is less elongated at the tip.

.......... E. permutatus



Reference for the images used here:

Erotylus mirabils = https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/19936874
Erotylus histrio = https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/50163840
Erotylus elegans = https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/38863509
Erotylus histrionicus = https://br.pinterest.com/pin/569564684126772154/
Erotylus chrevolati = http://www.pybio.org/en/14520/galeria-de-especies-erotylidae/
Erotylus aegrotus = https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/34247214
Erotylus clarosignatus = https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/19936874
Erotylus permutatus = https://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/noelmal0.htm

Other references:
P. Kuhnt 1907-1908 "Synopsis der Gattungen Erotylus, Cypherotylus, Micrerotylus https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33769506

The 2 pages showing the drawings of the article copy I purchased from the Australian National Library.

1. Strongylosomus simplex
2. Aegithus cretaceus
3. Iphiclus (Habrodactylus) discrepans
4. Iphiclus (Habrodactylus) hamatus
5. Iphiclus (Habrodactylus) septemmaculatus
6. Iphiclus (Brachymerus) neglectus
7. Iphiclus (Saccomorphus) humeralis
8. Iphiclus (Iphiclus) striolatus
9. Iphiclus (Iphiclus) quadristictus
10. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) alboniger
11. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) divisus
12. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) iris
13. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) lunaris
14. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) jacinthoi
15. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) rhomboidalis
16. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) tigrinatus
17. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) pauper
18. Iphiclus (Neobarytopus) octopustulatus
19. Iphiclus (Megaprotus) obliteratus
20. Erotylus superbus
21. Erotylus oblitus
22. Erotylus longulus
23. Neopriotelus quadrimaculatus
24. Ischyrus natalensis
25. Mycotretus anchoralis
26. Mycotretus trifasciatus
27. Mycolybas rufipennis

1956 Guérin, Jacintho. Descrição de novas espécies e variedades de Erotylidae (Col.) neotropicais. Dusenia, Curitiba v7 fasc. 1: 65-66

One month after encountering this beautiful caterpillar in my garden I found it again eating this plant I knew was abundant around, so I decided to try grow it into whatever moth/butterfly it would become.

At the time I wasn't even sure of its Family or even the plant ID, but later I discovered it could be something that iNat still doesn't have. I kept the larva inside an old CD box that was big enough for it to move around and select which leaf to eat. I offered it several types of leaves from different plants during the course of the larval stage, but it always favored the initial plant where I found it (Ocotea puberula - Lauraceae).

From the day of capture till the day it started weaving its pupa 16 days passed. I had no idea what would it do to make the pupa, so I've offered it some twigs and tree bark from the plant it used to eat as a support surface. Turns out it actually made the pupa inside one of the leaves; bending it and "gluing" the edges with silk.

Video of the larva preparing its leaf/silk pupa https://youtu.be/vGaEIPqpPGg

It took 4 days for it to enclose itself in the pupa and 18 more days for the adult to emerge. Here's the timeline:

• 28th Sept. 2020 - First time encountering the species
• 27th Oct. 2020 - Second time encountering the species and collecting larva
• 12th Nov. 2020 - Pre-pupa stage
• 16th Nov. 2020 - Pupa stage
• 04th Dec. 2020 - Adult emerges

Study to determine the species

According to SPECHT, CORSEUIL & FORMENTINI - 2005 there's a total of 52 species of Lasiocampidae occuring in my state (Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil):

Since I managed to narrow down to the Genus Euglyphis we are down to :

Euglyphis brunnea (Schaus, 1894) = adult pic on BOLD
Euglyphis castrensis (Schaus, 1894) = No information about it
Euglyphis claudia claudia (Stoll, 1782) = Adult pic on iNat
Euglyphis deusta (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854) = larva pic on iNat
Euglyphis efferata Draudt, 1927 = No information about it
Euglyphis fibra (Schaus, 1890) = larva pic
Euglyphis guttivena (Walker, 1855) = larva pic
Euglyphis guttularis (Walker, 1855) = Adult pic on iNat
Euglyphis lacrimosa (Schaus, 1892) = Schaus description mention white lines on primaries
Euglyphis lascoria cariacica Draudt, 1927 = Main suspect
Euglyphis lignosa (Walker, 1855) = larva pic on iNat
Euglyphis marna (Schaus, 1896) = adult pic on iNat
Euglyphis melancholica (Butler, 1878) = adult pic on iNat
Euglyphis narceta (Schaus, 1905) = Schaus description mention white spot on costa
Euglyphis nigropunctata (Schaus, 1905) = possible
Euglyphis plana (Walker, 1855) = adult pic on BOLD
Euglyphis rearensis Schaus, 1936 = couldn't find description
Euglyphis salebrosa Draudt, 1927 = couldn't find description
Euglyphis semifunebris (Schaus, 1915) = adult drawing
Euglyphis sulga (Schaus, 1905) = possible
Euglyphis terranea (Butler, 1878) = adult pic on BOLD
Euglyphis zikani Draudt, 1927 = adult pic on BOLD

Update! 14/12/2020 Looks like this could be Euglyphis elena. Check adult observation for more info.