Description of Nicrophorus efferens, new species, from Bougainville Island (Coleoptera, Silphidae, Nicrophorinae)

Abstract

A new species of Nicrophorus in the nepalensis species-group, Nicrophorus efferens Sikes and Mousseau, is described from Bougainville Island in the Solomon Islands archipelago. It is distinguished from the known species of the genus Nicrophorus and its likely closest relative, Nicrophorus reticulatus Sikes and Madge, based on external morphology. A comparison among the four Nicrophorus species known from the Solomon Island archipelago and Papua New Guinea is presented.

Observation of the Uncommon Burying Beetle Nicrophorus hebes (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Silphinae), Feeding on a Dead Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Massachusetts

“…Within the cavity of the turtle shell, 2 individual N. hebes were present. Photographs in Figure 1 represent only 1 individual, although we identified both as N. hebes via online references and confirmed via identification photos provided in published literature (Sikes et al 2016).…”

“…The species' association with wetlands in North America helped differentiate it from the forested habitat required of its sister species, N. vespilloides. Observations of the N. hebes are rare throughout its range, including Massachusetts, with only 4 confirmed observations in that state (Sikes et al 2016). The lack of knowledge of the species is likely due in part to its habitat specialization on wetlands.…”

“…Nicrophorus hebes Kirby is a species of burying beetle (Staphylinidae, formerly Silphidae) that was described in 1837. In 1873, it was synonymized as a variad of N. vespilloides Herbst, but was re-diagnosed as a valid species in 2016 (Sikes et al 2016). Little is known about its feeding preferences, distribution, and life history other than its habitat preference for swamps and bogs (Anderson 1982, Benninger 1994, Benninger and Peck 1992.…”

“…Due to limited knowledge of the species, its conservation status is unknown. Anderson (1992) reported that this species was the 3 rd rarest in Ontario, with 32 captures in 224 trap days, a rate of 0.0714 per trap-day, and Sikes et al (2016) reported just 6 captures in 135 trap days (0.0444 per trap day). These low capture rates could be due to limited knowledge of the species' life history.…”

On natural history collections, digitized and not: a response to Ferro and Flick

“…Once permission is provided by each respective museum, a dataset like that produced by Ferro and Flick (2015), with records from various museums, can be archived directly in GBIF (e.g. Dikow 2012, Sikes and Mousseau 2013a, b). However, at present, GBIF and its participants only publish data from organizations — that is, institutions, networks, and societies — rather than individuals.…”