 |
 |
 |
Fig. 3. ater
Fig. 4. ater
Fig. 12. ater
Literature
Anthonomus ater LeConte 1876:198. Dietz 1891:229. Hab. California, Oregon. Closely allied to squamosus, from which, indeed, it differs but little structurally, except in the form and density of the scales. Comparison will show at once that it should not be placed among the pubescent species.
Anthonomus ater LeConte 1876:198. Geysers, California; Mr. Crotch.
Anthonomus ater LeConte 1876:198. Burke 1968:51 described pupae from Grindelia sp. from Shedd, Oregon. "No anatomical differences were found between pupae of ater and squamosus. The two species are closely related and the adults can only be separataed by use of a combination of several characters. Ater averages larger in size than squamosus; this difference would probably be of use if large numbers of pupae were available for comparison. However, adults of the two species do not usually differ in size as much as indicated by measurements of pupae here; the squamosus pupae available for study appear unusually small for the species. One of the five specimens of ater examined has a seta located at the base of a small spine below each spiracle on segments 5 and 6. This is apparently not one of the regular laterosternal series and has not been ovbserved on pupae of any other speciss. Both species utilize plants of the genus Grindelia as sites of larval development, but no species of this plant genus has been reported as a host for ater. Ater is apparently confined to the Pacific Coast states, or at least to the far western United States, while squamosus is more widely distributed in the western United States and adjacent areas in Canada and Mexico.
Anthonomus ater LeConte 1876:198. Ahmad and Burke (1972:55) described the larva of A. ater from larvae from Grindelia sp. from Shedd, Oregon. No consistent morphological differences were found which will easily separate the larvae of ater from those of squamosus. .... Larvae of ater average larger, but the difference is not great. The distributional data of ater and squamosus may be of some help in separating the two. A. ater is considered limited to Oregon and California, while squamosus is more widespread, occurring in the western United States and adjacent areas of Canada and Mexico (Burke 1968a). The feeding habits of the larvae of these two species are also very similar. Both species utilize Grindelia spp. as host plants.
Anthonomus ater LeConte 1876:198. Hatch 1971:348. This is one of the choices in a key, the alternative to Anthonomus squamosus: "Upper surface more densely evenly clothed with more elongate scales, the surface trim; black or dark rufous, the scales brownish tending to be paler on the scutellum and on intervals 4, 6, and 8, the pronotum with distinct lateral and a median vitta of paler scales; 4-4.5 mm.; e Wn., se Id., w Or. ater Lec. Dietz 1891:229(4)" A unit tray from the Hatch Collection (OSUO) has 3 specimens behind Hatch's "Anthonomus ater" determination label (which is above a similar A. squamosus label): Corvallis, Or (3). In a separate tray in the same collection, behind Hatch's "A. ater" determination label are 14 specimens: Vantage, Wn (12); 14 mi. E The Dalles (1); Corvallis, Or (1).
Wayne: I have been looking at the material you sent on squamosus et al. with the hope of being able to define the Squamosus Subgroup (I presume that we are going to call all of the squamose things left, or at least most of them, by the name of the Squamosus Group). So far I have not had much success. I am working through my synoptic collection here to see if any good distingushing characters have been overlooked. One of the things I have noticed involves tectus/appositus. Appositus specimens from Arizona not far from the type locality are consistently larger than any tectus I have seen, plus they have somewhat more slender scales dorsally than the Texas tectus (heterothecae) specimens I have. Not all of the scales are different but most on tectus are stouter than those on the dorsum of appositus. How about checking your larger array of specimens regarding the size and scale characters? I do not have any tectus from the northeastern US with which to compare. I concede that heterothecae and tectus are probably the same but I am not sure that appositus fits in this mix. It seems to be more, as far as the scales go, like a small squamosus although I would not consider to be synonymous with the latter. Fall (1913:52) talks about tectus having a shorter second funicular segment but, unfortunately, I did not check this character in the type although this certainly is not the case with Texas "heterothecae." I believe that there is a specimen or two of tectus from Mass. in the material you have. Does it (they) have the short second funicular segment? Dietz and Fall were obviously not sure how far west tectus extends. I will keep plugging away at it. Cheers. Horace