NC State University Insect Museum

If I were to create a top 10 list of missed opportunities in 2009 this event would almost certainly make it: Ugly bug contest 2009. And, based on the comments posted at Scientific American's podcast/blog, I am not alone. How does this kind of misinformed outreach effort deliver entomological enlightenment to those people who thirst for knowledge about arthropods? Does the "there's no such thing as bad press" philosophy reign here?

Denigrating insect species, broadly labeled here as bugs (though only one species belongs in Heteroptera - yes, it matters) does a disservice to those of us who fight daily to convince a skeptical public (and even some biologists - ask me off the record) that insects deserve to be respected, researched, and even revered. Let's take a quick look at their "ugly bug" finalists:

1. Macrosiphon (Hemiptera: Aphididae) - an aphid
2. Xylocopa (Hymenoptera: Apidae) - a carpenter bee
3. Periplanta americana [sic! see comments below] (Dictyoptera: Blattidae) - the American cockroach (which is not native to America!)
4. Acanthocephala (Hemiptera: Coreidae) - a leaf-footed bug
5. Tipulidae (Diptera) - a crane fly
6. Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) - the honey bee
7. Harpegnathos (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) - an ant
8. Polistes (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) - a paper wasp
9. Hadrurus (Scorpiones: Iuridae) - a scorpion
10. Agulla (Raphidioptera: Raphidiidae) - a snakefly

Really? Do we really want to list two bee species as candidates for ugliest insect? Many bee species are noted to be declining, and we should be pushing an agenda that highlights this issue and motivates work towards a resolution - not contributing to the attitude that these species can be avoided, sprayed, or ignored. And what about the American cockroach (Periplaneta americana) - the perennial easy target? Why can't we finally celebrate all the good that has come from cockroach research, like a deeper understanding of sociality, physiology, symbiosis, morphology (e.g., their service as models for entomologists-in-training), locomotion and biomimetics?

One could also use the fact that an institute dedicated to species exploration cannot even ascribe species names to most of these specimens - which is a real and pervasive problem for insect researchers. The crane fly couldn't even be determined below family! Why not build an outreach project that emphasizes this vast diversity (especially crane flies!) and the chronic problem of taxonomic identification? Inspire some bright-eyed kids to take up the reigns in overcoming this predicament! I can think of at least 10 cool things to say about each of those arthropods listed above, and I bet that with very little effort we could build a fun citizen science project focused on each one, or write a small narrative, or animate a cartoon, ... you name it. Instead these species are cast abominations. Which one is ugliest? The idea itself wins that title.

While playing catch-up I came across the "buzz of the week" for March 23, posted over at the Entomological Society of America website. The associated text refers to a video "made by Justin Schmidt" about the most painful insect stings. Two things tell me that this video was not made by Justin: 1) that first image is not a stinging insect, and I think he of all people would know that(!), and 2) all stinging insects (with one exception that I can think of, which is not included in that "video") are in Hymenoptera, so shouldn't this be labeled as Most Painful Hymenopteran (or Aculeate) Stings?


If you have a strong constitution and a good sense of humor you will also enjoy the ongoing discussion of YouTube users' negative/painful interactions with insects and other arthropods (see comments below the video).

A group of us recently read this thought-provoking, if brief, editorial (carefully removed from its position in the secure archive that is István Mikó's wallet and unfolded for our cogitation) that addresses statements us taxonomists frequently make about relative lengths, widths, heights, etc. The subsequent discussion was lively and flowed through numerous subtopics, including language, semantics, English grammar, mathematics, and taxon description composition. Here it is, verbatim:

Editorial

If an antennomere is three times longer than wide and it is 1 mm wide, how long is it? I have asked this question or others like it of a variety of people and only one person, my 93-year old father-in-law, has come up with the correct answer. It is 4 mm long. Disagree? Then try using percentages. If it were 50% longer than wide, it would be 1.5 mm long; 100%, 2.0 mm; 200% 3.0 mm; 300% 4.0 mm. What is the difference between 300% (= 300 per 100) longer and three times longer? No difference.

Our mass media use three times longer than, shorter than, etc. loosely. But we are trying to communicate with each other, not make or stretch a point. If readers interpret "3 times longer than" in different ways, the only way to avoid ambiguity is to avoid using the phrase. It's better to use "three times as long as," or "L/W=3."

- F. Werner

Unfortunately we don't have a citation for it, but we think it was from an entomological journal. Do you know where/when this commentary was published? I largely agree with the sentiments expressed by F. Werner here, but I have to say that the term antennomere drives me nuts. It would've been more informative to use flagellomere (or scape, pedicel, etc.) rather than that mixture of segments and subsegments that is antennomere.

The House of Lords recently released its third report in 16 years on the state of "systematics and taxonomy" (HL 162). I am still digesting its contents, but my first impression is that this is an incredibly thorough documentation of the state of systematics (in the U.K. anyway, though I would argue its conclusions apply worldwide) and the utility of taxonomy and phylogenetics for a broad array of relevant societal concerns (e.g., human health, climate change, invasive species, trade in endangered species). Of particular interest to us at the Insect Museum, and this is by no means an exclusive list, are the digitization of specimen collections, DNA-based taxonomy ("barcoding" and related topics), relevance of research collections, regional museums, descriptive taxonomy, and a general picture of taxonomists in the U.K. ("almost extinct in universities," "paucity of university systematists," "near-elimination of taxonomists from the university sector...")

So why can't our politicians do something constructive than waste time on senseless projects? Perhaps they should assemble a report about the status of systematics in the U.S.A.! Or how about some updated input from the National Academies? Or a rejuvenation of the Systematics Agenda 2000, which published in 1994 as a technical report of the  Society of Systematic Biologists, the American Society of Plant Taxonomists, the Willi Hennig Society, and the Association of Systematics Collections. A lot has changed since 1994...

Where do I begin my commentary on this recent article from CNN.com? Perhaps with some background information about Solifugae (a.k.a. Solifugida or Solpugida) - the sun spiders, camel spiders, or windscorpions. These arthropods are predators of other arthropods, small vertebrates, and just about anything (of similar or smaller size) that gets in their way. Their prosomas harbor massive, saw-like chelicerae that are used to subdue and grind up prey, effectively liquefying the hapless organisms before consumption. One can find these amazing critters throughout the desert Southwest (U.S.A.), the Central American tropics, the Middle East, Africa, India, SE Asia and other hot, arid climates. Though only one species, the Central Asian (India) Rhagodes nigrocinctus, is known to have evolved poison glands, these arthropods are incredibly effective predators and can deliver a nasty pinch to your finger (usually breaking skin) if you let them.

So, here comes CNN with an intriguing story about a "poisonous spider [that] apparently killed [a] pet dog." 99.999% of true spiders (Araneae) are poisonous, so I was compelled to read on. Was it the infamous black widow (Latrodectus mactans)?  The legendary funnel-web spider (Atrax robustus)? Then I read that the "...pet dog Cassie confronted the creature, which [was] identified on the Internet as a camel spider, but ran out whimpering when it hissed at her." (Cassie died soon thereafter.)

So it was not a true spider after all, but rather a sun spider - a taxon with about 1,200 described species, 99.917% of which are not poisonous. Hmmm...earlier in the article the reporter declared that the offending arthropod apparently hitched a ride in a soldier's gear, as he returned from Afganistan. So it's possible that this specimen does indeed belong to the one known poisonous species. I have never heard of a "hissing" sun spider, but we certainly have insects that hiss by forcing air out of their spiracles.

Then came the kicker (emphasis mine): "..the desert-dwelling camel spider, actually an insect rather than an arachnid..." Well, I know that's wrong! Arrrggghhh... Phylogenetically speaking, Solifugae are deeply nested within Arachnida (Chelicerata), probably as sister to the pseudoscorpions (Pseudoscorpiones). Any quick search of the Web would alert the author to this fact - even Wikipedia has a readable and reasonably accurate accounting of the lineage!