biological survey of canada newsletter · the newsletter of the bsc is published twice a year by...

Biological Survey of Canadac/o Entomological Society of Canada393 Winston Avenue, Ottawa, ON K2A 1Y8 [email protected]

The Newsletter of the BSC is published twice a year by the Biological Survey of Canada, an incorporated not-for-profit group devoted to promoting biodiversity science in Canada, particularly with respect to the Arthropoda.

Arctic Corner: Patrick Schaefer gives an update on the biting fly component of a large new arctic insect survey................. 41

The Canadian National Collection of Insects Owen Lonsdale & John T. Huber explore the history and present activities of Canada’s largest collection of insects, arachnids, and nematodes..... 15

Visit Our website | Contact us | Previous issues

BSC President’s Update ...3

FYI and FAQ on the BSC ..4

Insect Collections in Canada Series: The Canadian National Collection of Insects, by Owen Lonsdale & John Huber.. 15

Arctic corner: Update on the biting fly component (Diptera: Simuliidae, Culicidae & Tabanidae) of the Northern Biodiversity Program, by Patrick Schaefer...41

Report on BSC Curation Blitz in Halifax................10

Call for Proposals for 2012 BioBlitz.................51

In this issueEditorial...........................2

Join the BSC...................52

Notices..........................51

Vol. 30(2) Winter 2011

Biological Survey of Canada Newsletter

An outsider’s wish-list for the BSC Dezene Huber provides an “outsider’s” insights on future directions for the BSC.................11

FYI and FAQs about the BSC: BSC President Dave Langor answers questions about the Biological Survey and the Biological Survey Foundation.......................................................................4

Report and abstracts for BSC Symposium at the ESC........................................ 8

The Biological Survey of Canada: an Outsider’s Wishlist; an essay by Dezene Huber.............................. 11

BSC Project update: Terrestrial Arthropods of Newfoundland and Labrador .... 6

New Address:

Requests for Material....50

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/bschome.htm

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/newsletters.htm#arthropods

2 Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada

Return to front page Volume 30(2) Winter 2011

Editorial: Re-inventing the Biological Survey of Canada Donna Giberson

The recent Biological Survey of Canada symposium (at the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of Canada, Halifax) presented a great series of papers, exploring ideas from a broad perspective on how to conduct a “Biological Survey of Canada”. As we continue to “re-invent” the BSC after losing the core funding from the Canadian National Museum, this session provided the board with many ideas and challenges for the future. For one example, see the essay in this issue by Dezene Huber (see p. 11) that is based on his presentation at the meeting. If you missed the session, all of the authors have agreed to allow their slides be posted on the BSC blog site (http://biologicalsurvey.wordpress.com/). The Halifax meeting also saw the third Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Biological Survey of Canada corporation, and marked the point where the transitional Board of Directors gave way to a new elected Board to help steer the BSC into the future. A call for nominations to the board in the summer edition of this newsletter resulted in the names of nine individuals who agreed to serve a two year term. However, it was clear at the meeting that there was significant confusion about the process for membership and board elections, so our new BSC president has written a “BSC FAQs’ piece for this newsletter to try to clarify the process (see p. 4). As the BSC moves into the future, we are excited to broaden our membership and representation on the Board.

Over the next few weeks, you should see gradual changes to the Biological Survey of Canada website, as our new Communications sub-committee works to update content and the overall look of the site. We welcome comments to help guide this process. Don’t forget to visit the blog (http://biologicalsurvey.wordpress.com/), as well as the Canadian-arthropods listserve*, to comment on biodiversity issues or the BSC activities. *To subscribe to the listserve or to view the archives go to http://www.mailman.srv.ualberta.ca/mailman/listinfo/canadian-arthropods

For this issue, we also welcome Doug Currie (Royal Ontario Museum), as Associate Editor of the newsletter, helping with content and copy editing. Welcome Doug!

Questions? Please contact us at [email protected]

Masthead image: Tricoloured Bumblebee, Bombus ternarius photographed on Lupins in PEI in 2010, D.Giberson

The Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada is published twice a year (sum-mer and winter) by the Biological Survey of Canada, an incorporated not-for-profit group devoted to promoting biodiversity science in Canada, particularly with respect to the Arthropoda. Send submissions to: Dr. Donna Giberson ([email protected]) or Dr. Doug Currie ([email protected]) Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada Department of Biology, University of Prince Edward Island 550 University Ave., Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3

http://biologicalsurvey.wordpress.com/



http://www.mailman.srv.ualberta.ca/mailman/listinfo/canadian-arthropods



Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada 3

Volume 30(2) Winter 2011 Return to front page

Update on the Biological Survey of Canada/ Commission biologique du Canada activities

David Langor, Northern Forestry Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Edmonton, AB

The fall and early winter of 2011 has been a period of high activity for the BSC. Many of our members are fresh from the highly successful ESC/AES JAM in Halifax. During the JAM, the BSC held its third AGM and elected a new Board of Directors that will serve the BSC until the fall of 2013. The increased interest in the BSC and the expansion of our membership allowed us to elect nine Directors, the maximum allowed under our by-laws, and up from six Directors during the last two years. The new and expanded Board has already met via conference call and elected its Officers for the 2011-13 period: Da-vid Langor (President), Terry Wheeler (Vice-President), Donna Giberson (Secretary) and Patrice Bouchard (Treasurer). The Board is rounded out by Directors John Acorn, Héctor Cárcamo, Doug Currie, Jade Savage and Joe Shorthouse. As well, the Board approved the creation of a new Communications Officer position and elected Pat Crawford to this position. Welcome to new Directors and Officers, and a special thanks to retiring Director Felix Sperling and Secretary Susan Goods for their many years of outstanding service to the BSC. After serving as President of the BSC for the last three years, and as Chair of the Scientific Committee of the BSC since 1995, Joe Shorthouse has decided to retire from his leadership role, although he is thankfully remaining as a Director. Joe’s wise leadership and strong advocacy has been immensely appreciated, especially during the recent transition period for the BSC.

The BSC recently decided to end its 30-year partnership with the Canadian Museum of Nature when it became clear that the CMN no longer wished to invest in this relation-ship. We are now in the process of moving BSC physical assets to the ESC offices in Ottawa, and changing our email and mailing addresses. The new Board is already hard at work considering future directions of the BSC, reviewing the use and content of the website and blog, exploring strategic partnerships and ways of expanding BSC mem-bership, managing ongoing BSC projects and discussing the possible amalgamation of the BSC and the Biological Survey Foundation (see p. 4 for information on these two organizations).

During the recent JAM the BSC hosted its annual Symposium, this year entitled “How to Complete a Biological Survey of Canada”, and featuring eight speakers from a wide diversity of backgrounds and expertise (see p. 8). The symposium was well-re-ceived and gave rise to many good ideas that will continue to be discussed and explored by the Board as it gives consideration to the future of the BSC. Another BSC-sponsored event at this year’s JAM was a Curation Blitz organized by David McCorquodale (see p. 10).

The BSC remains very active with information synthesis and dissemination. The third and final volume of the Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands book series is in the ad-vanced planning stage. I am pleased that Hector Carcamo has agreed to coordinate this volume which will be co-edited by Hector and Donna Giberson, and thus far 31 chapters are confirmed. The Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification has recently released its 18th volume, “Leafcutter and Mason Bees of the genus Megachile Latreille in Canada and Alaska”. The Arthropods of Newfoundland and Labrador project has recently released a monograph, “Aleocharine beetles (Coleoptera : Staphylinidae) of the province of New-foundland and Labrador, Canada.” [Pensoft Publishers]. As well, the BSC continues to communicate with biodiversity workers via our Newsletter (http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/newsletters.htm), website and blog.



FYI and FAQBiological Survey of Canada/

Commission biologique du CanadaDave Langor,Northern Forestry Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Edmonton, AB

Over recent weeks there have been many questions posed by BSC members and non-members about the operations and membership of the BSC. This is of concern to the Directors as there has been considerable effort invested over the last three years to clarify and communicate these issues and seek broader involvement in the BSC. The purpose of this article is to pose and answer frequently asked questions concerning the BSC.

1.What is the BSC?

The BSC is grass-roots network of biologists that has been in existence for almost 35 years. The BSC is a non-profit, charitable organization that is dedicated to discovering, synthesizing, and sharing knowledge about Canada’s biological diversity. The objectives of the BSC are to:

1) identify and address gaps in knowledge of Canada’s biological diversity; 2) promote the importance of fundamental taxonomic research on Canadian species,

and provide access to expertise on Canadian biodiversity; and 3) promote awareness of the values and vulnerabilities of Canada’s biological diversity

by inspiring, educating, and engaging Canadians.

2.How does the BSC differ from the Biological Survey Foundation (BSF)?

The BSF was created before the BSC became a charitable organization. The BSF is a charitable organization that was created to accept proceeds of sales of BSC publications and donations for BSC activities. The BSF then invests its funds for printing of new BSC publications. Currently the boards of directors for the two groups are different. However, now that the BSC is a charitable organization there may be less need for the BSF. The BSC Board (which also serves as the members for the BSF) is currently examining the merits of folding the BSF into the BSC.

3.Who can join the BSC and what is the process?

The BSC is open to anyone who has an interest in Canadian biodiversity and wishes to contribute to the BSC mandate and objectives. This includes Canadians and non-Canadians and professional and amateur biologists. There currently is no membership fee for joining the BSC. Prospective members need only write to the Secretary of the BSC [[email protected], or see p. 52] and express interest in joining. It would also be helpful if you could explain how you wish to contribute to the BSC activities so that you can be linked quickly to members involved in those particular activities. It is expected that BSC members will become involved in ongoing or new BSC projects or other activities (e.g., communication, syntheses, research)

4.Is the BSC strictly for entomologists?

While it is true that entomology and arachnology have been the main focus of the BSC over its 35 year history, it has always been (and continues to be) the desire of the BSC to be more inclusive in terms of taxa covered. The BSC will be continuing to expand its coverage of the biota of Canada, so those interested in taxonomy and diversity of snails, slugs, nematodes, millipedes, centipedes, protozoa, plants, lichens and other groups are welcome to join the BSC and diversify our suite of activities.

5.Why should I join the BSC?

No other organization in Canada has the mandate or the track record for surveying and documenting the biological diversity of Canada. While such work certainly can be (and



has been) done through individual effort, partnering with others of like interest through the BSC network provides opportunity for increased scope of work and an opportunity to pool resources and pursue new resources through collaboration. The ongoing projects and activities of the BSC all originated as a result of discussions and planning catalyzed by the BSC. Thus, if you have interest in surveying Canada’s biodiversity and analyz-ing and disseminating such information, the BSC can help by providing: expertise and advice born of 35 years of experience in such work; connections to other individuals and organizations that can assist; support to publish/disseminate results; and increased pro-file to the work through our communication tools (web site, blog, Newsletter, etc.).

6.Does the BSC have meetings?

The Board of the BSC meets monthly by conference call and has frequent email com-munication. Thus the Board can deal quickly with new issues as they arise. Each year, during the Joint Annual Meeting (JAM) of the Entomological Society of Canada, the BSC holds its Annual General Meeting (AGM), thus providing an opportunity for members to connect and discuss important issues. As well, during each JAM the BSC hosts a sympo-sium on a topic relevant to its activities and mandate. This provides additional opportu-nity for members and non-members to interact.

7.What is the process for nominating and electing Directors and Officers?

The By-laws of the BSC allow for up to 9 Directors. The current Officer positions are President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Communications Officer. Direc-tors and Officers need not be members of the BSC, although to date most have been. Directors and Officers serve for a term of two years, and are eligible for re-election. BSC members have an opportunity to nominate and vote on Directors at every second AGM (the next elections will be at the 2013 AGM). Members do not vote for officers…they are determined by vote of the Directors at the first business meeting following the AGM.

8.How do I fit into the BSC?

If you have interest in surveying and documenting the biota of Canada and dissemi-nating such information to all Canadians, then the BSC is the place for you. The BSC has a few ongoing projects and activities (see our web site for descriptions) where you may immediately find a niche. However, the BSC is open to adding new projects and activi-ties as needs and suggestions arise. So if you have an idea for something new that fits within the BSC mandate, please come forward with your proposal so that we can have an open discussion among all BSC members.

9.Is there funding available for work?

The current fiscal resources of the BSC are limited and are largely reserved to sup-port publication of BSC products. However, the BSC does help seek funding from outside agencies to support BSC Projects. Recent examples of outside funding successes are the Northern Biodiversity Program and the Terrestrial Arthropods of Newfoundland and Labrador Project. Direct and indirect support have also been obtained to support recent Bio-blitzes and the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification. The Board of the BSC continually explores opportunities to increase funding support to the BSC.

If you have more questions about the BSC, please send your enquiry to the BSC Secretary ([email protected]), and a Director or Officer will quickly contact you with an answer. In the meantime, please check out the web site of the BSC, which will soon be updated, and this may provide answers to your questions, or generate new questions.



Project Update: Terrestrial Arthropods of Newfoundland and Labrador

David Langor, Northern Forestry Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Edmonton, AB

In November 2003, the ‘Terrestrial Arthropods of Newfoundland and Labrador’ was instituted as a project of the BSC. The goal of the project is to document and describe the diversity of terrestrial arthropods in the province and distribute this information. Specific objectives are to: 1) database specimens from NL residing in collections in Canada and elsewhere; 2) extract information on species occurrences from the published literature; 3) conduct targeted surveys (locations, habitats, taxa) to fill in gaps in knowledge; 4) collate biodiversity information from all sources and distribution the information in the form of species lists, distribution maps and identification keys; and 5) analyze and syn-thesize biodiversity information to aid in General Status and Trends Assessments and provide assessment of faunal change through time.

It has been over two years since the last Project update, and I am happy to report that progress has been strong.

Databasing Hitherto, specimen databasing activities have been focused on Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Localities are geo-referenced to facilitate production of distribution maps. Databasing activities have been focused on the Canadian National Collection of Insects (CNCI, Ottawa), the MUN collection (currently on long-term loan to the CFS in Edmonton), the AAFC collection (St. John’s), The CFS collection (Corner Brook) and the Zoological Museum at the University of Helsinki (Finland).

Literature SurveysThere are thousands of records of NL terrestrial arthropods that occur in the primary

and secondary (gray) scientific literature. The mining of data from literature sources is a laborious process that is <50% complete overall but >90% complete for Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. To date the database of NL entomological literature includes about 1200 refer-ences.

Targeted SurveysSince the last project update there have been two BSC expeditions to NL to target

parts of the island. These surveys attempt to sample all groups of arthropods encoun-tered. In 2011, six provincial parks on the island of Newfoundland participated in sum-mer-long sampling of Lepidoptera using light traps, epigaeic arthropods using pitfall traps and saproxylic insects using flight intercept traps placed on dead trees. All this work has resulted in a huge number of captured specimens which are currently being prepared. It is anticipated that the sampling in provincial parks will continue in 2012.

Information Collation and Distribution Over the last year a number of Coleoptera families have been treated for NL, and usually for Atlantic Canada as a whole (see reference list). This has resulted in a large number of new provincial records. The review of the Aleocharinae (Staphylinidae) of NL, the first provincial or state treatment of this subfamily in North America, resulted in 172 species, 103 of which were new provincial records. Also 32 new species, one new genus and one new tribe were described. Ongoing work on beetles is focusing on the remain-ing Staphylinidae, Curculionoidea, Melandryidae and Elateridae. As well, there is a large amount of activity on the Lepidoptera

Analyses and SynthesesRecent work has focused on assessing the Status and Trends for various groups of Co-

leoptera, including Carabidae, Staphylinidae, Cerambycidae, and Curculionoidea. As well, work continues to catalog the non-native arthropods of NL.



Future NeedsThe number of current participants in the Project are few: David Langor & David

Larson (Project Leaders); Barry Hicks (bees), Jan Klimasewski and Chris Majka (Co-leoptera); Greg Pohl and Doug Macaulay (Lepidoptera); Geoff Scudder (Heteroptera); Owen Lonsdale (some fly families) and José Fernandez Triana (Hymenoptera-Braconi-dae). The Project could benefit from the involvement of other faunal specialists to build on current checklists and to test and improve existing keys. If you are interested in par-ticipating please contact David Langor ([email protected]). Participation could involve participation in collecting trips in the province, identification of specimens, or taking leadership with pulling together a checklist and/or key for a particular taxon.

While collections in NL, the CNCI and the Zoological Museum of the University of Helsinki contain the vast major of known NL specimens, undoubtedly other specimens reside in other collections in North America and abroad. We would be very interested to hear of substantive NL arthropod material in other collections. Please contact David Langor with any pertinent information.

References

Klimaszewski, J.; Langor, D.W. ; Pelletier, G. ; Bourdon, C. ; Perdereau, L. 2011. Aleo-charine beetles (Coleoptera : Staphylinidae) of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Pensoft Publishers, Sophia, Bulgaria, 313 pp.

Majka, C.G.; Langor, D.W. 2009. Clambidae (Coleoptera) of Atlantic Canada. Journal of the Acadian Entomological Society 5:32-40.

Majka, C.G.; Johnson, C.; Langor, D.W. 2010. Contributions towards an understanding of the Atomariinae of Atlantic Canada. ZooKeys 35:37-63.

Majka, C.G.; Langor, D.W. 2010. Towards an understanding of Cryptophaginae of Atlantic Canada. ZooKeys 35:13-35.

Majka, C.G.; Langor, D.W. 2011. The Cerylonidae (Coleoptera) of Atlantic Canada. Jour-nal of the Acadian Entomological Society 7:44-49.

Majka, C.G.; Langor, D.W. 2011. The Oedemeridae (Coleoptera) of Atlantic Canada. Journal of the Acadian Entomological Society 7:1-6.

Majka, C.G.; Langor, D.W. 2011. The Byrrhidae (Coleoptera) of Atlantic Canada. Journal of the Acadian Entomological Society 7:32-43.

Northern Biodiversity Program base camp on Banks Island, summer 2011 (The BSC is a collabora-tor in the NBP, which is one of many biodiversity projects that the BSC is involved in). Note the Biological Survey Flag flying from the hut (photo: D.C. Currie)



Report on the Biological Survey of Canada Symposium at the Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia (Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011) Felix Sperling (University of Alberta) organized the annual BSC symposium in 2011, drawing together a diverse group of people to brainstorm on “How to Complete a Biological Survey of Canada” On this page you will find a list of the titles and presentors, with abstracts on the following pages. Please see page 11 for an essay by Dezene Huber based on his presentation at the symposium.8:30 Sperling, F.A.H., D.B. McCorquodale, D. Giberson HOW TO COMPLETE A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA8:45 Baird, D.J. BIOMONITORING 2.0: GENERATING AND HARNESSING DATA ON AN EPIC SCALE FOR ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT9:15 Branton, R.M. TAKE CARE OF THE ZEROS AND THE NUMBERS WILL TAKE CARE OF THE THEMSELVES9:45 Desmet, P., A. Bruneau CANADENSYS - MOBILIZING BIODIVERSITY DATA ACROSS CANADA10:30 Huber, D.P.W. THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA: AN OUTSIDER‘S WISH LIST10:45 Klymko, J. THE MARITIMES BUTTERFLY ATLAS – A CITIZEN SCIENCE CASE STUDY11:00 Sharanowski, B. BIODIVERSITY FOR EVERYONE: PERSPECTIVES ON ACCESSIBILITY11:30 Hyde, D.A. DEMAND DRIVEN BIODIVERSITY DATA TOWARDS EXPANDED INVESTMENTS IN DATA PUBLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN CANADA13:00 Majka, C.G. WILL BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH BECOME EXTINCT IN THE 21ST CENTURY?13:15 Shorthouse, D.P., D. Mozzherin, D. J. Patterson NAMES ARE THE KEY TO THE BIG NEW BIOLOGY: A BOTTOM-UP SOLUTION TO CREATING A MACROSCOPE13:45 Packer, L., C.S. Sheffield COSEWIC AND BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS14:15 Sperling, F. DISCUSSION

Presentors at the Biological Survey of Canada Symposium (left to right): Robert Branton, Felix Sperling, David McCorquodale, Barb Sharanowski, Chris Majka, Peter Desmet, Laurence Packer, John Klymco, Doug Hyde, David Shorthouse (missing: Donald Baird and Dezene Huber)



Abstracts from BSC Symposium: Baird, D.J. Environment Canada, Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New

Brunswick, Fredericton, NB Biomonitoring 2.0: generating and harnessing data on an epic scale for ecosystem assessment

Biomonitoring is currently restricted to one-at-a-time site-level assessments of general ecological impairment. Statistical methods for the extraction of stressor-specific diagnostic patterns from noisy ecological data exist, yet their use is restricted by their limited quantity and patchy spatial coverage, reflecting the gnarly nature of biological observation. Here, I illustrate the potential of high-throughput DNA sequencing to transform the scale and accuracy of biological observation.

Branton, R.M. Ocean Tracking Network, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Take Care of the Zeros and the Numbers Will Take Care of the Themselves

Why do databases generally do include zero observations and is this necessarily a good thing? What is the Ocean Tracking Network and how can it help revitalize the Biological Survey of Canada? By looking at these and other questions, I hope to provide some insight into how modern computer systems can help biologists improve that way they manage their research data and in doing so advance the quality of their research.

Desmet, P., A. Bruneau Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centre, Montreal, QC, CanadaCanadensys - Mobilizing biodiversity data across Canada

The mission of Canadensys (www.canadensys.net) is to unlock the rich biodiversity information found in biological collections. Headquartered at the Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centre, the network unites 35 researchers and 30 collections (botanical gardens, herbaria, entomological and mycological collections). Canadensys collectively holds over 13 million specimens, of which ±20% are now data-based and soon will be published on its portal, accessible for surveys of Canadian biodiversity.

Huber, D.P.W. Ecosystem Science and Management Program, University of Northern BC, Prince George, BC The Biological Survey of Canada: An outsider’s wish list

Throughout its three decade history, the Biological Survey of Canada has provided vital information to entomologists working in Canada. One of the stated objectives of the BSC is to ―provide universal access to biodiversity information.‖ Speaking as an entomologist who makes no claim to being a tax-onomist, what does the BSC currently offer to non-taxonomists, and how can it continue to be improved to increase its usefulness and relevance to entomologists in a variety of sub-disciplines?

Klymko, J. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, Sackville, NB The Maritimes Butterfly Atlas – a citizen science case study

Launched in 2010, the Maritimes Butterfly Atlas is a 5-year citizen science project documenting but-terfly occurrence in the three Maritime provinces in an effort to improve understanding of the numbers, distribution, and status of butterfly species in the region. Following an intensive advertising campaign, 2010 saw 93 volunteers submit 2,463 records. Nearly 200 records were of provincially rare species, and two represented new provincial records.

Sharanowski, B. University of Manitoba, Department of Entomology, Winnipeg, MB Biodiversity for everyone: perspectives on accessibility

Whether out of fear, passion, economics, or simple curiosity, Canadians are interested in insects. Are we missing an opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of our field and share our passion for insects and other arthropods? I would argue that taxonomists are currently the primary generators and users of Canadian biodiversity information. Can we improve on how we collect and disseminate biodiversity data so that it can be utilized by researchers, teachers, students, producers, agronomists, and the general public? This presentation will emphasize modern biodiversity informatics that enhance the relevance of our data. Examples of exceptional open-access biodiversity datasets will be highlighted to demonstrate the practical use of biodiversity metadata. Additionally, possible strategies on a national effort will be discussed to promote discourse on how the Biodiversity Survey of Canada can remain relevant in the face of constantly changing technology.

Hyde, D.A. NatureServe Canada Demand driven biodiversity data towards expand-ed investments in data publication and development in Canada

Canada‘s biodiversity data are limited spatially and taxonomically, and its investments lag behind other countries. Recent surveys reveal Canada lacks the data needed to manage its biodiversity effectively, particularly for non-charismatic species. To address emerging challenges, the presentation identifies a new strategy that engages citizens, promotes an aggressive policy of getting data into the hands of those who need it, and requires key biodiversity data holders to cooperate to succeed.

Majka, C.G. Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS Will Biodiversity Research Become Extinct in the 21st Century?

Despite escalating estimates of biodiversity, resources devoted to advance this knowledge have been in decline. The shortfall of investment in training, research, and collections management has lead to a ―taxonomic impediment― at a time when rates of extinction appear to be rising dramatically. There is a lack of public and political understanding of the importance of biodiversity research. This has resulted in an ―extinction― of financial resources. How can this be remedied?

.... Continued



Abstracts of BSC symposium (Continued)Packer, L., C.S. Sheffield, Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, ONCOSEWIC and biodiversity surveysWe outline COSEWIC‘s criteria for listing species as at risk with examples and outline how different taxonomic groups often have very different kinds of data. A recently developed tool for assessing future potential decline – the ―threats calculator― will often require additional information for effective use. The role of insect survey work in recent successes and failures at COSEWIC will be discussed. We present a survey of bee biodiversity and show how they may influence COSEWIC decisions.Shorthouse, D.P., D. Mozzherin, D. J. Patterson, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, USA. Names are the key to the big new biology: a bottom-up solution to creating a macroscopeThe BSC can make a profound impact on public engagement, policy-driven decisions and informatics projects with a lightweight, socio-technical solution to publish peer-reviewed, contextualized check-lists in a new journal. Authors submit open access checklists in familiar narrative format and attach a standards-based supplement. Tools are available to produce, explore, mix, match, or merge lists with taxonomic robustness. Spatiotemporal search across all lists produces dynamic species inventories.

Sperling, F.A.H.(1), D.B. McCorquodale(2), D. Giberson(3) (1) U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB; (2) Cape Breton University, Sydney, NS; (3) University of PEI, Charlottetown, PE How to complete a biological survey of CanadaThis symposium presents an opportunity to develop better linkages among the Biological Survey of Canada, Entomological Society of Canada, and other biodiversity-oriented associations or institutes. We ask - how can the biodiversity community in Canada move forward more effectively? What role can and should the BSC play? Broader policy and organizational issues, as well as technical aspects like data management and diagnostic methods, can all interact within the larger matrix of a Canada-wide effort that provides support for both citizen science and professional research.

Report on the Curation Blitz at Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax

David McCorquodale, Department of BiologyCape Breton University, Sydney, NS B1P 6L2

[email protected]

During the busy afternoon of 07 November 2011 at the Joint Annual Meeting (JAM) of the Acadian Entomological Society and the Entomological Society of Canada, 21 entomolo-gists trekked from the Halifax Westin Hotel on the harbour, up the hill to the Nova Scotia Museum. Curators Andrew Hebda, Callum Ewing, David Christianson and Sue Westby of the NS Museum welcomed everyone and then made sure we had access to the collections and microscopes.

This collection is justifiably famous for its Lepidoptera. Doug Ferguson built the collec-tion while he was curator before moving to the Smithsonian. The focus on Lepidoptera continued while Barry Wright was curator in the 1970s and 1980s. However, for many, the highlights were specimens collected by the pioneer lepidopterist James McDunnough. His reputation was made as an author of the seminal Contributions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America published in the 1910s, and he worked at the Canadian National Collection between 1916 and 1946 (see CNC article in this issue). He retired to Halifax in 1950 and became a Research Associate of the museum, worked with Ferguson, and continued working on moths and mayflies until he was 84.

Callum Ewing was kept busy because many of the grad students shared his interest in arachnids. One keen grad student, Kyle Knysh, focused on the fishing spiders, Dolomedes (see photo on p. 50). He had collected a specimen of the genus while sampling in PEI, and it turned out to be a new record for the genus in PEI. He spent his time compiling informa-tion about specimens from NS for a proposed paper on Maritimes Dolomedes and, putting the rest of us to shame, he reports that he has already submitted his manuscript!

More recently, the bees and beetles in the collection have attracted attention. Sue Westby, formerly known for beetle expertise, guided a few people through her work on bees. Other people spoke with another Research Associate, Christopher Majka, who has focused attention on the beetles of the maritimes in the past 5 years. The work on faunis-tics of bees and beetles interested Remi Hebert of the General Status office of Environment Canada.

Thoughtfully, the NS Museum provided everyone with a cork for use with their micro-scope in their own lab. As most of us were leaving, Terry Galloway was still peering at fleas through his microscope.

We hope you will be able to participate next year in Edmonton. It is a great opportunity to learn from experienced systematists, and network with enthusiastic entomologists.



The Biological Survey of Canada: An Outsider’s Wish ListBy Dezene Huber, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC

[An essay based on a presentation to the annual BSC Symposium at the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of Canada; photos by Dezene Huber].

I am extremely encouraged to see a group of people who are on such an important endeavor in our world today, taking seriously the need to continue to reinvent themselves in order to remain relevant. Without that commitment, any organization is bound to grow stale. And on a planet where conservation is often the last thing on peoples’ minds, there is no way that we can afford for that to happen to any organization of this type.

When I look at the objectives of the BSC as stated on their website, I see an aware-ness of a number of important tasks. There are lots of action words there. Words (and derived words) such as: discover, survey, inventory,detect, measure, predict, advise, promote, inspire, educate, and engage.

If I were a taxonomist, I would likely be more of a lumper than a splitter. So I believe that these allotted tasks can be lumped into three general groups:

1. Research: Researchers certainly have need of the rich repository of data at the BSC but may either not know of its existence or may not know the best way to access useful data.

2. Teaching: Students need to think more about the natural world that surrounds them and educators need access to meaningful and usable resources that can be used to facilitate learning.

3. Conservation: Here I specifically think of the public and of our children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, friends; anyone who we spend time with on a regular basis who needs - and hopefully wants - to understand the importance, and perilous state, of natural ecosystems.

As researcher, particularly as an entomologist working in Canada, I am privileged to have reams of information at my fingertips. While perusing the BSC website over the past few weeks and months, I have found that it is an excellent repository of such informa-tion. However, in this day of information overload, the trick is to be able to find the needle of relevant information in the haystack of data that we have access to. It is obvious from the BSC website that this is one of the main endeavors of the organization. And there are some fantastic resources available for that.

For instance, the set of pictorial keys for a number of taxonomic groups in CJAI are ex-tremely impressive. As a entomologist, but not a taxonomist, I really only knew about enough taxonomy to be dangerous. And I suspect that

that is the case for many others who wear similar shoes. Of course, even taxonomic ex-perts cannot be experts for every group. The sheer number of species out there makes this impossible. So, the existence of the repository of CJAI keys – along with the demonstrated desire to increase their number and to maintain top-notch quality – is fantastic.



The challenge, of course, will be to maintain the relevance of these tools and to increase their value to the semi-expert user. As the tools are created, the creators and curators need to be sure that they are not only relevant for today, but that those tools can be made relevant for the future.

About fifteen years ago, as what we generally recognize as the World Wide Web was just starting to get going, did any of us envision that we’d be where we are today? Ten years ago, were we thinking about smartphones and apps? Three years ago, who would have considered the utility of an iPad, other than the late Steve Jobs? And what will the next three, ten, and fifteen years bring? I am certainly no futurist, but I am certain that the technological tools will continue to advance. And that means that the acquisition of data, the ability to put data into databases, and the ability to usefully access those data using the technology of the day must also be malleable to ongoing and rapid change.

About a dozen years ago, at the ESA meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, I had the pleasure of listening to E.O. Wilson give a plenary address. His vision, as always, was amazing. He told a story – one that seemed almost like science fiction at the time – of a future entomologist somewhere in a distant rainforest. The researcher found a new insect spe-cies, was able to document and authenticate it right there under the canopy, and could then upload this virtual specimen - via a satellite connection - to a large and ever-grow-ing database for use by many others.

Amazing! But we’re virtually at that point now. We have apps for that. And I write that partly jokingly, but also seriously. Apps running on smart phones and tablets are way that technology is headed for at least the foreseeable future. And because of its wealth of data and the inherent interest of the subject matter, the BSC website is uniquely po-sitioned to jump onboard that train with gusto. In addition, the BSC is but one organiza-tion that is working toward Dr. Wilson’s visionary goal. I hope that the BSC and others will realize that goal soon, but to do so will require prescience within the organization and a willingness to cooperate with like-minded organizations beyond. For instance, many collections have high-quality images of Canadian Insecta already online. Can part-nerships be improved so that effort is not replicated?

As a researcher, some of the things that I’d love to see continued development of include: an accurate, yet dynamic, database; a continued effort to make keys and other resources accessible to semi-experts; portability and utility of data; and synergistic link-ages with similar organizations.

As an instructor, I have other, related, concerns. Up until my cur-rent sabbatical year, I was the Chair of the Biology Curriculum Committee at the University of Northern British Columbia. One of the biggest top-ics that comes up regularly in our discussions, and in our internal and external reviews, is the need for more field-based courses and for more field research experience in general. And, when we add more, students often tell us that they want even more of it.

So, faculty are concerned with the amount of time spent in nature. Students want more of it. Let’s give it to them! I would love for the BSC to not only be a repository of taxonomic information, but to also be a growing and dynamic resource

The forest behind the University of Northern BC



for biology teachers at all levels. Could there be keys developed for different educational levels so that students and instructors without a microscope could at least bring things down to family and, perhaps in some cases, to genus? Could there be a teaching forum that is actively promoted and used by Canadian biology teachers? Could there be a Wiki-like method for community creation and sharing of teaching resources on myriad topics? Could there, again, be an app for all of this?

And now I have left to the end what I suspect is the deepest reason for the existence of the BSC – and, perhaps, the most difficult to accomplish. Here we are in a country that reaches north to south from the North Pole to approximately the latitude of North-ern California. From east to west we span Pacific coastal mountains and fjords, high plateaus, the Rockies, the tundra, the plains, the Canadian Shield, the huge Atlantic coast. In the midst of all of that are forests, grasslands, rivers, lakes, beaches, cities, and agricultural land to name but a few. There are individual species that reside in many of these areas. There are species that are relegated to a few hectares at most. How on earth do we catalogue all of that, let alone conserve it?

The key, I believe, is in the interested public. As David Attenborough said, “People are

not going to care about animal conservation unless they think that animals are worth-while.” In other words, we’re only going to see true conservation when we turn people into interested conservationists.

The famous Canadian author, Lucy Maud Montgomery, said of herself, “...the incidents and environment of my childhood had a marked influence on my literary gift. Were it not for those Cavendish years I do not think ‘Anne of Green Gables’ would have ever been written.”

And what did she experience in her Cavendish years? Well some of her journal entries give a hint, as does a trip to the farm where she resided while on Prince Edward Island. She writes: “Once and again, I stray down and listen to the duet of the brook and wind, and watch the sunbeams creeping through the dark boughs, the gossamers glimmering here and there, and the ferns growing up in the shadowy rocks.”

Interest in nature breeds curiosity, creativity, and a natural tendency towards a con-servationist mindset. We need to continue to foster the growth of nature interest in the public, as they are the best foot soldiers in the conservationist battle. Each interested person advocates for where she or he lives and seeks out interactions with likeminded others in other places as well. Those of us at this conference are a great start in this fight, but this land is so vast, we need to recruit others as well. Otherwise we will con-tinue to see decline after decline after decline.

As a father of two young boys, I have found that the people who really care about nature, and who are insa-tiably curious, are the children around us. They are the ones who spend summer afternoons watching ants; or find and closely examine flowers; or love to go on hikes in the woods, all the while asking “what is it?” As entomologists and biologists, we are are usually able to give meaning-ful answers to our own children, our grandchildren, our friends’ children, or our nieces and nephews. But we can’t forget that our ability to do so is due in great part to our training.

The sons and nephews of the author, watching ants



Children are, indeed, insatiable. They want to know about nature. But if that curiosity can’t be satisfied, then they will develop curiosity about other things. In our technologi-cally driven world, it is obvious where that will go. Children will grow up to stare at their phone, rather than take in a gorgeous sunset. Or they will grow up to stare at their device rather than notice the dynamic autumn colors surrounding them in their other-wise urban environment. Or they will spend their time texting to distant friends instead of talking to the person right next to them.

In Richard Louw’s insightful book, “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,” he quotes a young person who says “I like indoors because that’s where the electrical outlets are.”

This is completely tragic. As Luther Standing Bear said, “Man’s heart away from nature becomes hard.” How many hearts are hardening as we speak?

Parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends – all need access to tools that give them the confidence to answer young children’s questions. And we need to meet children and adults where they are. Our gadgets and devices are not going away anytime soon. In fact, I’d suggest that, if anything, their presence in our lives and the lives of the upcom-ing generations will become more deeply integrated. This is where the public, and the next-next generations will be met.

Some people have already started to cover major taxonomic groups in this way. Wit-ness, for instance, the iBird app and some of its competitors. Here we have hundreds of bird species that can be searched by various characteristics by non-experts. A field guide on your phone or iPad! Something any commuter or city park visitor could have with them. This is a great model, of course. Would it be possible to contribute to the develop-ment of an “iInsect” app for use by the general public?

Of course we can’t get locked into only using technology. Just as in the classroom, the best way for anyone to learn and to develop a conservationist mindset is to interact with nature in all of its messy glory. Along these lines, the BSC has conducted numer-ous BioBlitzes over the years. This is a great idea, and one that could – and, I’d argue, should – be extended to the public. What if everyone reading this committed - just once per year - to take a group of children and adults out to a green patch in their part of the country? Who might we reach? If a spark caught in just one person in each of those groups each year, can you imagine the long-term difference that we would see?

And could we not, then, share our experiences and emergent ideas on the website and in social media to encourage other naturalists to do the same? Could the BSC be instrumental in growing this into a national, and an international, movement? Again, prescience – and the willingness to cooperate with likeminded groups – is vital. And I am willing to bet that cooperative links could be very synergistic.

I, for one, am excited to see where this is going. And I look forward to watching your ideas blossom and to being able to actively take part in using – and perhaps contributing to – the many new resources that are bound to develop. I am looking forward to see-ing how we might find new ways of helping others, and ourselves as well, look deeper into nature. And maybe we will get to experience a bit of what Lucy Maud Montgomery meant when she wrote:

“It has always seemed to me... that, amid all the commonplaces of life, I was very near to a kingdom of ideal beauty. Between it and me hung only a thin veil. I could never quite draw it aside, but sometimes a wind fluttered it and I caught a glimpse of the enchanting world beyond – only a glimpse, but those glimpses have always made life worthwhile.”



Insect Collections of Canada SeriesCanadian National Collection of Insects,

Arachnids & Nematodes, OttawaOwen Lonsdale & John T. Huber

Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaK.W. Neatby Building, Central Experimental Farm, 960 Carling Ave.

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

The Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids & Nematodes (CNC) is one of the largest collections of its kind in the world, and certainly the largest in Canada, housing at least 15–17 million specimens. The CNC now resides primarily on the 3rd and 4th floors of the south wing of the K.W. Neatby Building, located at 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa (Figs 63–66). This is on the north end of the Central Experimental Farm (CEF), a 427 hectare National Historic Site adjacent to Dow’s Lake and the Rideau Canal. The Neatby is recognized as a Heritage Building and the south wing (see photo at right), which was built to house the records of Canadian personnel who served overseas in World War I, was constructed in 1936–1938 (the north and east wings were constructed by 1956). Since it was designed to hold the massive weight of row upon row of filing cabinets filled with paper, it is ideal for bearing the weight of the ~1500 cabinets that comprise the CNC. Although the CEF was initially positioned on the outskirts of Ottawa, it has since been enclosed by the expanding city, and the north end could be considered to be relatively close to downtown. The “Farm” is also home to several other institutions, including the Dominion Arboretum, the Canada Agricultural Museum, the Dominion Observatory, the National Collections of Vascular Plants, the National Mycological Herbarium, and the Canadian collection of Fungal cultures.

One of the first homes for the insect collection was the Victoria Memorial Building on McLeod Street east of O’Connor (built 1905–1912) which contained the National Museum. Today, this building is known as the Canadian Museum of Nature. In 1917, the collection was moved to Entomology Branch on the fifth and sixth floors of the Birks Building, to make room in the Victoria for Canada’s parliamentarians after the Houses of Parliament burnt in 1916 (Fig. 3). Then in the Department of Agriculture, these insects comprised Canada’s “National” collection, and have continued under the custodianship of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

The collection was moved once again in 1931, this time to the Confederation Building (Fig. 4), on the northwest corner of Bank and Wellington between Parliament Hill and the Supreme Court of Canada. It was transported to the Confederation Building by horse-drawn wagon by W. Brown and G.S. Walley, among the first insect taxonomists hired to work at the CNC (see Table 1, p. 38). The wagons were specially outfitted with rubber tires for the move, and were the first in the department to have them. By 1949 the collection had been moved to its current location on the CEF (Cumming et al. 2011).

The year 2011 is particularly relevant for the CNC and the Central Experimental Farm. It was 125 years ago on June 2, 1886, when the first five Canadian research farms were created within the Department of Agriculture after receiving Royal Assent for the Experimental Farm Station Act. These farms were in Agassiz (British Columbia), Indian Head (Saskatchewan), Brandon (Manitoba), Ottawa (Ontario) and Nappan (Nova Scotia) (AAFC 2011).

Southwestern view of the Neatby Building.



Figures 1 to 5: Fig. 1: James Fletcher, first Dominion Entomologist (photo courtesy of K. Wonders). Fig. 2: Meeting of the Entomological Society at Ottawa, Nov. 18-20, 1912; C. Gordon Hewitt is in the front row, fourth from the left. Fig. 3: The Parliament buildings in Ottawa the morning after the Great Fire of 1916; originally printed in The New York Times, Feb. 13, 1916. Fig. 4: The Confederation Building, Ottawa, home to the National Collection of Insects 1931-1949. Fig. 5: Entomological Branch, Depart-ment of Agriculture, Ottawa Conference, Nov. 26-30, 1934; Arthur Gibson is standing in the front row, seventh from the left, and J. McDunnough is behind him to the right.



EARLY YEARSSystematics in Ottawa was inaugurated by James Fletcher (Fig. 1) (b. 1852, Ashe,

Kent Co., England; d. 1908) when he donated his personal collection to Agriculture Canada in 1886. This was the seed that would later grow into what we now know as the CNC. Fletcher first came to Canada in 1874 as an employee of the Bank of British North America, and would later become an accountant in the Library of Parliament. His work at the Library continued after becoming an honorary entomologist in the Dominion Department of Agriculture in 1884, but he finally left his accounting position for entomology full-time when he was appointed the first Dominion Entomologist in 1886 (Cody et al. 1986).

In 1899, Arthur Gibson (Fig. 5) became Assistant Entomologist to Fletcher and his material contributed greatly to the developing insect collection, along with accumulating donations from private collectors and entomologists from across the country. Gibson later worked with C. Gordon Hewitt (Fig. 2), who succeeded Fletcher as Dominion Entomologist until Hewitt’s early death of pleural pneumonia in February, 1920, a victim of the global influenza epidemic (Spencer 1964). During his short but intense career, Hewitt was able to oversee completion of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act of 1910, which prevented the spread of injurious/invasive insects and disease, and was essential to the development of professional entomology in Canada. Hewitt brought entomology to prominence, contributing to the creation of the Canadian Entomological Service, which was later transformed into the Entomology Branch (1914), a separate entity within the Department of Agriculture. Entomology Branch was initially divided into the Division of Field Crop and Garden Insects and the Division of Forest Insects. Five years later (1919), the Divisions of Foreign Pests Suppression and (most significantly for the CNC) Systematic Entomology were established. Gibson was made Chief of the Division of Field Crop and Garden Insects, and was promoted to Chief of Entomology Branch and Associate Director of the Service when the Branch became part of the new Science Service in 1938 (Cody et al. 1986).

A GROWING COLLECTIONMajor early additions to the Canadian National Collection of Insects resulted from large-

scale surveys motivated in no small part by war efforts and a maturing national identity. From 1913–1918 (during the 1st World War), the Canadian Arctic Expedition added many specimens to the collection. This coincided with the acquisition of material purchased from private collections such as the Geddes (Lepidoptera), Evans (Coleoptera), Young (Lepidoptera) and Harrington (Hymenoptera) collections. The collection of the Biological Division of the Geological Survey, Department of Mines was added in 1917 to form the National Collection, and in the coming years this was also to see incorporation of the collections of the Topographical Survey and those of various field officers. Among other specimens, the material of the Geological Survey contained what are now the oldest mite slides in the CNC (Figs 8, 9). These mites were collected by the interesting character Joseph Burr Tyrrell, who wandered much of northern Canada at a time when it was said that this could not be done, and later ended up making a fortune during the gold rush in northern Ontario (see Robertson 2008). By this time, the entire pinned collection of the CNC fit within 600 drawers in 12 cabinets (Cody et al. 1986).

In 1919, Hewitt appointed James McDunnough (a Lepidopterist) Chief of the Division of Systematic Entomology, and gave him the mandate to develop the national collection and a taxonomic library, both of which were soon the largest in the country. The 1920s saw the purchase of additional collections, including the Wolley-Dod (Lepidoptera), Sladen (Hymenoptera), Cockle, Swaine (Scolytidae), Reherne (Thysanoptera) and Curran (Diptera) collections. In 1922, C.H. Curran was the first Ottawa entomologist hired to specialize on Diptera, but in 1928 he left for a position at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (Cumming et al. 2011). Acquisition of the D’Urban collection (Fig. 6) added some of the oldest material held by the CNC, with specimens dating to 1858, but a representative of the butterfly Papilio glaucus canadensis is certainly the oldest known, having been collected by R.T. Bell in 1846 (Fig. 7).



Figures 6 to 9: Fig. 6: Part of the D’Urban collection of 1858 (primary types are kept separately); in-set: handwritten letter by E.B. Reed. Fig. 7: Papilio glaucus canadensis, collected by R.T. Bell, and the oldest known specimen in the CNC. Figs 8, 9: CNC type specimens of water mites (Tyrrellia circularis Koenike and Feltria minuta Koenike) collected by J.B. Tyrrell.



These early years also saw collection increases due to focused taxonomic surveys by McDunnough and other CNC officers and, by 1930, the collection consisted of 2100 drawers in 42 steel cabinets (Cody et al. 1986).

SURVEYSWhen considering collections of this size and age, it is difficult to determine exactly

how much content is due to the collecting efforts of individual scientists, receipt of donations, or collection mergers. However, it is certain that much of the CNC is a result of many large-scale arthropod surveys that took place within Canada and elsewhere. One of the earliest of such surveys was the Forest Insect Survey (FIS) of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), which at the time was part of the Department of Agriculture. The Survey was inaugurated in 1936 in eastern Canada as a result of a severe outbreak of European Spruce Sawfly. Coverage was increased until, by 1940, the more accessible forested areas of Canada were covered from five regional centres, later increased to a maximum of 11 centres (McGugan 1958, Danks 1984) (Fig. 10). The Survey, renamed the Forest Insect and Disease Survey (FIDS), was in continuous operation until it was disbanded in 1996. All unknown or doubtful adult material, as well as a selection of specimens of better known species collected during this long-running survey, was sent to the Insect Systematics and Biological Control Unit of the Entomology Division (as it was then named) for confirmation or authoritative identification. This material is still housed in the CNC and, for Lepidoptera alone, consists of about 1000 species. It is difficult to estimate the total number of FIDS specimens in the CNC because the proportion of specimens varies widely depending on the taxon. A rough estimate, however, is that this survey contributed about 5–10% of total CNC holdings, with most specimens representing wood borers, tree defoliators, and their parasitoids (especially Ichneumonoidea and Tachinidae). This scientifically valuable material has contributed to much of what is now known of the life history of forest insects.

Other surveys were due in part to the personal taxonomic interests of individual scientists who collected at their favourite sites or where they felt the fauna was poorly known, but many surveys, including the Canadian Arctic Expedition (1913-1918), coincided with national interests (Vockeroth 1981). During the Second World War and the Cold War, the Department of National Defense (DND) established bases and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) stations in the north, with additional sites planned. The unfortunate workers and soldiers stationed in Alaska and northern Canada for these efforts were, of course, subject to legions of biting flies (Figs 13, 14). The entomologists of Ottawa were asked to head north to study the regional fauna and test various repellants, and could be seen sitting outdoors with pants and sleeves rolled up for King (or Queen) and country (Fig. 12). Drums of DDT were shipped north and this pesticide was used around the bases to mitigate fly problems, often being dispersed from Air Force planes equipped with sprayers (Fig. 11). This strongly supported survey was eventually to become the Northern Insect Survey (1946–1961) (Figs 11–23), and resulted in the creation of many new taxonomist positions for the CNC, which in turn contributed greatly to the size of the collection. The correlation between taxonomists and CNC holdings is seen clearly in Fig. 57, where CNC specimen number increases sharply from the late 1940s to the 1960s. A national interest in native insects was something new for Canada and, in the words of G.J. Spencer (1964), that interest owed “an enormous and hitherto completely unrealized and unacknowledged debt to Japan and to the Soviet Union in connection with the building up of the National Collection”.

The Northern Insect Survey was developed largely under the direction of Thomas Freeman (Fig. 30), following an initial solo expedition he made to Baker Lake in 1947 with the cooperation of the DND and, presumably, the strong urging of the American government. The Northern Insect Survey was the first large-scale and unified effort to enlarge the holdings of the collection and resulted in the incorporation of an estimated 750,000 specimens collected by 66 field parties in almost 70 localities (Fig. 22) (Freeman 1959, Vockeroth 1981, Cody et al. 1986). Because of the importance and scope of this survey, a follow-up survey funded by NSERC and a variety of partners is currently underway. This second survey is largely ecological in focus and will examine changes in climate, as well as the northern fauna and its ecological structure (see http://

http://insectecology.mcgill.ca/NBP/index.html



Figures 10 to 19: Fig. 10: Regional organization of the Canadian Forest Insect Survey and the location of labs (from McGugan (1958)). Fig. 11: Spraying team, Churchill, 1947. Fig. 12: Testing insect repel-lants, Churchill, MB, 1947. Fig. 13: Tabanids swarming an entomologist in Churchill, 1947. Fig. 14: Joe Chambers and an unlucky dog surrounded by even more flies, Churchill, 1947. Fig. 15: J.R. “Dick” Vockeroth, Churchill, 1950, and, more recently (inset). Fig. 16: Scenery in Churchill, 1947. Fig. 17: Collecting larval tabanids, Churchill, 1949. Fig. 18: Blackfly emergence cage, Churchill, 1949. Fig. 19: Mosquito larval assessment, Whitehorse, YT, 1950.












insectecology.mcgill.ca/NBP/index.html and note the article by Patrick Shaeffer in this issue on the biting fly component of the new survey, p. 41). A second unit outside of the Survey included Veterinary and Medical Entomologists led by C.R. Twinn (Fig. 23) who investigated the life history, ecology and control of problematic insects (Figs 17–19) (Spencer 1964). The period of new discoveries up to the mid-1950s for entomologists specializing in all Orders of insects is well documented in Holland (1956).

George P. Holland (Fig. 27), appointed head of Systematics in 1948 (Fig. 31), should receive much recognition for increasing staff numbers during the period of the Northern Insect Survey (Figs 24, 32, 33). He left a professional staff of 45 by the time he retired as director in 1976. Holland staffed the CNC with eager young entomologists who set forth to document life in the north. These included several dozen young summer students such as W.R.M. Mason (Fig. 29) (at CNC from 1948–1987) and Dick Vockeroth (Fig. 15) (at CNC from 1949–1991), who were later to become CNC taxonomists. The students and staff were dropped off at various locations in the middle of the tundra or sub-arctic forest at the beginning of each summer with the promise of being picked up before autumn set in. A party usually consisted of two men, and a locality was rarely visited twice. An excellent summary of the survey is discussed in Freeman (1959). Trips didn’t always go as planned, however, as Vockeroth was left at the wrong location one summer and had to scavenge old Inuit caches of canned food in order to survive. In another instance, another young student by the name of Wilhems was left at Coral Harbour (Inuit - Salliq) on Southampton Island, but at the end of the summer when the cold was setting in, nobody arrived to pick him up. He ended up having to hitchhike all the way back to Ottawa with his entire season’s collection.

The number of taxonomists began to decline drastically in the late 1970s, resulting in 11 scientists in the late 1990s, a low not seen since about 1950. It must be noted that the continued increase in CNC specimen holdings after the loss of positions beginning in the mid-1970s is due to the continued processing of previously collected material and the incorporation of more efficient collecting techniques (Dang 1992). After the new millennium, however, the number of taxonomists (AAFC, CFS, and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)) rose slowly to 16 by 2011.

In addition to the above, several other large surveys (Figs 34–44) were conducted by researchers at the CNC, contributing to the approximately 1 million specimens held in 1948. This number increased to about 7 million in 1969, 13 million in 1984, 15 million in 1991, and potentially upwards of 17 million today. These surveys included Florida (1952); the Mojave Desert (1955); New Guinea (1957); North Carolina (1957); southern Manitoba (1958); southern Texas (1959); Terrace, British Columbia (1960); Colorado (1961); Mexico (1962, 1969); Nepal (1967); St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Ontario (1975–1976); Kouchibouguac National Park, New Brunswick (1977–1978); Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba (1979); Kluane National Park, Yukon (1980); Waterton National Park, Alberta (1980); Gatineau Park, Quebec (1982); and Cape Breton Highlands National Park, Nova Scotia (1983–1984). Surveys since the 1980s have been slightly different in nature, with trips arranged through groups such as the North American Dipterists Society, or coordinated through projects such as the eastern United States Hymenoptera Survey and the Costa Rican biodiversity inventory. The parties now consist largely of individuals or groups of taxonomists who may come from different institutions as well, rather than large CNC expeditions.

These surveys have greatly increased our knowledge of our native fauna and the variation in species composition across space and time, established taxonomic boundaries, discovered new taxa, and provided invaluable information on natural relationships, hosts, ecological roles and human impacts. Foreign excursions have additionally enabled the discovery of the sister taxa of our native fauna, and allowed us to broaden our overall knowledge of the invertebrate world so that we can make more informed decisions and develop predictive classifications and identification tools. Perhaps most importantly for agriculture, these expeditions have resulted in the discovery of potential pest species before they invade Canada, and foreign biocontrol species for pests that have already been introduced. By differentiating foreign from native we can preemptively search and prepare for potentially problematic groups that may cause trouble in Canada should they arrive, recalling the idiom: “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.






Figures 20 to 26: Fig. 20: Expedition team in Fort Nelson, BC, 1949. Fig. 21: Taking a break in Goose Bay, Labrador, 1950. Fig. 22: Tom Freeman and A.B. Klots (American Museum of Natural History, and author of the Peterson Field Guide to the butterflies of eastern North America, 1951) showing the locations sampled for the Northern Insect Survey. Fig. 23: E. van Steenburgh and C.R. Twinn, Whitehorse, YT, 1948. Fig. 24: The zenith of Nematology at the CNC, with 12 staff members in 1957. Fig. 25: The “Centennial of Entomol-ogy in Canada” Carleton University, September, 1963, with displays provided by CNC staff. Fig. 26: Most of the ethanol-preserved collection is still maintained as it was in 1960.



PRESENT DAYWhile early Canadian entomologists mostly had their hands full with the exploration of the

fauna of a new country and the naming of species, recent and contemporary entomologists (Figs 45–56) now build on the accomplishments of these pioneers. These contemporary workers produce not only alpha-level works, but also major taxonomic syntheses, e.g. Coleoptera and Hemiptera catalogues of Canada, and various parts of the Moths of North America (MONA) series. Today’s entomologists now work globally with molecular and morphological data to reconstruct the roots of life on the planet and examine patterns as they relate to biodiversity, biogeography, human health, and Canadian and global resources.

As the collection increased in number of specimens, described species and taxonomic staff, generalists gave way to specialists and the CNC units were divided logically by major taxonomic group, i.e., by Order. In addition to the taxon-based curatorial units, research was organized from 1987–1991 into “Beneficial Insects” (Fig. 55), “Pests” and “Water and Soil organisms” (the “Mud” group, as recalled by one scientist) and later into “Bioindicator”, Biocontrol” and “Pests + nematodes”. Furthermore, two non-taxonomic components were included in Systematic Entomology from 1959-1984 - an Experimental Biology group and Apiculture.

Individual and collaborative research of the staff remains based on AAFC priorities, but efforts are now grouped within a single Project led by P. Mason, a research scientist in biological control. Curatorial activities, however, are arranged among the eight units listed below. Currently, there are 16 AAFC taxonomists conducting research and curating the CNC supported by 17 technicians, but there has not been a “spider man” since the retirement of C. Dondale (1972–1990). There is also one scientist and technician from CFS and one contract scientist and three indeterminate biologists and scientists from CFIA housed within the CNC. Three more CFIA staff members are located in adjacent Building 18 [H. Douglas (Coleoptera), B. Gill (Coleoptera), D. Parker (general) (Fig. 67)], but appear frequently in the CNC to use the collection and Neatby library in performance of their duties. Regular appearances are also made by scientists from the Canadian Museum of Nature, particularly A. Smith, who recently curated much of the unidentified CNC Scarabaeoidea, and R. Anderson, a specialist on weevils (Curculionidae). In addition to research staff, the Collections Manager, O. Lonsdale (a Dipterist), is supported by three technicians for curation and loans, plus a Database Technician. There are also two illustrators, one of whom also illustrates for botanists in the Saunders Building. A complete list of research scientists, biologists and other professional staff from inception of the collection is provided in Table 1 (p. 38).

CNC CURATORIAL UNITSThe following are the current (2011) curatorial units, staff and research associates of

the CNC (1Research Scientist (AAFC unless noted otherwise); 2Retired scientist/Honorary Research Associate; 3Technical staff or biologist; 4Research Associate). The Honorary and Research Associate Program was developed by Don Bright in the 1970s, mirroring the system developed by the American Museum in New York, which recognizes the important contributions of numerous scientists in Ottawa who are retired or not employed as indeterminate staff.

1) Arachnida: Fréderic Beaulieu1, Valerie Behan-Pelletier2, Charles Dondale2, Wayne Knee3, Evert Lindquist2, Michelle Mackenzie3, Ian Smith1.

The Acari collection is the largest in North America and probably the World. There are approximately 3 million specimens in alcohol or Koenike’s solution, and well over 350,000 mites and larval ticks slide mounted in Hoyer’s medium or glycerine jelly (Fig. 71). Primary types include 185 oribatids, 251 water mites, and 251 other mite types, including 1 tick. Among the spiders and minor arachnid orders, there are nearly 200,000 specimens in ethanol in 22 cabinets, including about 200 primary types. There is a strong representation of the Nearctic fauna among this material, particularly from the boreal region. The spiders and minor orders are presently curated by O. Lonsdale and the Collections Unit, although most of the work is still done by specialists including C. Dondale and visiting scientists such as Robb Bennett (Royal British Columbia Museum). Significant research on spiders and mites began at the CNC with H.H.J. Nesbitt in 1939. Prior to this, it was pursued by officers at field labs in the divisions of Entomology and Forest Biology (Holland, 1956).



Figures 27 to 31: Fig. 27: George Holland, in formal (inset) and field clothing, hunting rats for the collection of their fleas. Fig. 28: J. Frank McAlpine, preparing a display. Fig. 29: H. Townes, G. Heinrich, G.S. Walley and W. Mason (clockwise from front left), April 14, 1960. Fig. 30: Tom Free-man (right) visiting A.E. Brower in Augusta, ME, April, 1963. Fig. 31: The Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 1948-1950



2) Coleoptera: Patrice Bouchard1, Yves Bousquet1, Anthony Davies3, Vassily Grebennikov1 (CFIA), E. Jendek1 (CFIA, contract), Laurent Lesage1, Karine Savard3, Aleš Smetana2, Alicja Zmudinska3.

There are about 2.3 million beetles in the CNC with particularly strong representation of Alleculidae, Buprestidae, Carabidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae, Dytiscidae, Elateridae, Hydrophilidae, Scarabaeidae, Scolytidae and Staphylinidae. There are approximately 1800 primary types and the larval collection is one of the best in the World, with about 10,000 vials.

3) Diptera: Fenja Brodo4, Scott Brooks3, Jeff Cumming1, Alan J. Fleming3 (temporarily filling in for Shannon Henderson3) Scott Kelso3, James O’Hara1, Brad Sinclair3 (CFIA), Jeff Skevington1, D. Monty Wood2.

The Diptera collection contains about 2 million specimens, including nearly 4500 primary types, in part acquired through the Mesnil, Reinhard, Hull, W.R. Thompson and Garrett collections. A list of these types up to 2007 is now accessible online (http://www.canacoll.org/Diptera/Main/diptera.htm#types), along with a list of much of the taxonomic holdings of the collection (Fig. 69).

4) Hemiptera and Thysanoptera: Joanne Elsaesser3, Andy Hamilton1, Robert Foottit1, Eric Maw3, Michael D. Schwartz4.

There are over 850,000 Hemiptera, including the recently donated Scudder collection, with specimens pinned (most Auchenorrhyncha and Heteroptera), in vials or on slides (most Sternorrhyncha and Thysanoptera). For aphids alone, there are approximately one quarter of a million slides. There are over 700 primary types, including over 200 for aphids alone. For the Thysanoptera, there are over 2100 vials and 900 slides, with 21 primary types.

5) Hymenoptera: Diana Barnes3, Lisa Bearss3, Andrew Bennett1, Caroline Boudreault3, Sophie Cardinal1, José L. Fernández-Triana4, Gary Gibson1, Henri Goulet2, John Huber1 (CFS), Teresa Martin3, Lubomir Masner2, Jennifer Read3 (CFS).

The Hymenoptera collection consists of about 2–3 million pinned specimens, about 30,000 vials, and about 100 slide boxes of chalcid parasitic wasps. There are over 3200 primary types. The parasitic wasp groups are particularly well represented and make up about 66% of holdings. The aculeates are also well represented, with about 760 drawers and 4800 vials for predatory wasps (8% of holdings) and bees (10% of holdings). The bumble bee collection is particularly large and includes the significant Sladen, Frechin, and Plowright collections. There is also a significant sawfly collection (7% of holdings), with a very good representation of groups relevant to forestry (collected by CFS staff mainly from the Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste. Marie).

6) Lepidoptera: Jocelyn Gill3, Peter Hall2, Don Lafontaine1, Jean-François Landry1, Vazrick Nazari3, C. Schmidt3 (CFIA).

There are about 1.6 million moths and butterflies, the majority of which are pinned adults, but there are also some pinned larvae and a large larval collection in ethanol. There are 1130 primary types. Most material is Nearctic, with excellent northern representation, including the oldest material in the collection. Recent renovations have retrofitted laboratories and supplied much-needed cabinet compactors for the growing collection (Fig. 68).

7) Nematoda: Ahmed Badiss3, Qing Yu1.There are nearly 30,000 slides and 5000 vials of over 88,000 roundworm specimens, including approximately 5000 primary and secondary types of nearly 400 species. The type catalogue, as of 1985 (from Journal of Nematology 17: 220–234), is available online at: http://www.canacoll.org/Nem/Main/Catologue.pdf. The Canadian National Collection of Nematodes was begun by A.D. Baker in 1943, and is the primary depository for Canadian nematodes excluding parasites of humans and other animals.

http://www.canacoll.org/Diptera/Main/diptera.htm#types

http://www.canacoll.org/Diptera/Main/diptera.htm#types

http://www.canacoll.org/Nem/Main/Catologue.pdf



Figures 32 to 33: Fig. 32: Professional staff at ERI (Entomology Research Institute) outside of the Neatby Building, 1964. Fig. 33: The entirety of the ERI.



8) Miscellaneous Insect Orders: Raymond Hutchinson4, Serge Laplante3, Owen Lonsdale3, Josée Poirier3, King Wan Wu3.

Insect orders without an active research scientist are curated by the “Collections Unit”. The large collection of “aquatic” orders (Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) is held in 885 drawers and 83,000 vials (Fig. 72), with nearly 1000 Trichoptera types, 230 Ephemeroptera types, and one Odonata type. There is very good representation of orthopteroids, particularly Orthoptera (grasshoppers and crickets), with 8 types, over 450 drawers of pinned material and over 1200 vials. Other significant orders include Collembola (including 35 primary types, 2500 slides, and a large, growing vial collection), Phthiraptera (with 800 slides, 150 vials and 2 primary types), Mecoptera (in 10 drawers, including the large Downes collection), Neuropteroidea (55 drawers of pinned adults, 650 vials and 13 primary types), and Siphonaptera (1200 slides, 100 vials and 41 primary types). Furthermore, there are significant holdings within other groups, including one of the largest collections of Nepalese Dermaptera!

The CNC also has a large amber collection from deposits near Medicine Hat, Alberta, and Cedar Lake, Manitoba, including two dozen primary types and nearly 1300 inclusions (Fig. 70). A checklist of this material was published by Skidmore (1999).

If you need to borrow CNC material for scientific study, inquiries should be made with the staff listed above. More detailed information on CNC personnel is available at http://www.canacoll.org/. All loan policies can also be found through the CanaColl website: http://www.canacoll.org/Collection/Main/Collection.htm.

RESEARCHAs a part of AAFC Research Branch, the purpose of CNC staff is to conduct primary

taxonomic research, particularly as it relates to Canadian agriculture and bioresources. During the period 2007–2011 alone, CNC researchers produced 275 peer-reviewed scientific papers, books, book chapters, and taxonomic catalogues. Within these works, 323 new species and higher taxa were described, there were 210 species name recombinations and synonymies, 11 new phylogenies proposed, 140 new taxonomic keys, and identification of 392 invasive alien and beneficial species. Over 160 webpages were also constructed, more than 23,000 specimens were barcoded and more than 416,000 records for 488 groups were databased.

Many of the works were published as journal articles, but larger monographic and collaborative works were published as books (Fig. 60). Historically, the CNC has a long history of producing books, some used gobally. One such series is the Manual of Nearctic Diptera (MND) prepared by the Diptera Unit (Cumming et al. 2011) and spearheaded by J.F. McAlpine (Fig. 28). This three volume set published from 1981–1989 (Fig. 59) (McAlpine et al. 1981, 1987; McAlpine & Wood 1989) was partially developed out of the material, knowledge and expertise gathered during the Northern Insect Survey. It is an invaluable resource for anyone studying flies and is found in labs and classrooms around the world. More recently, a two volume Manual of Central American Diptera, or “MCAD” (Brown et al. 2009, 2010), was written as the logical follow-up to the MND and included many of the original MND authors.

Several important books have been published by the Coleoptera Unit, in no small part due to the importance of beetles to Canadian agriculture. They include Canadian Beetles (Coleoptera) Injurious to Crops, Ornamentals, Stored Products, and Buildings (Campbell et al. 1989), Beetles Associated with Stored Products in Canada: an Identification Guide (Bousquet 1990) and Review of Adventive Species of Coleoptera (Insecta) recorded from eastern Canada (Klimaszewski et al. 2010). Other comprehensive, recently published syntheses include Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta) (Bouchard et al. 2011), and an eight volume catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera co-edited by Aleš Smetana, the last volume of which is soon to be released. There is also a revision of the Agrilus (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) of East Asia (Jendek & Grebennikov 2011), which was prepared in response to the introduction of the destructive Emerald Ash Borer into North America. The Checklist of Beetles of Canada and Alaska (Bousquet 1991) is also being updated by the CNC Coleoptera Unit in conjunction with other Canadian Coleopterists, led by Y. Bousquet and A. Davies.

http://www.canacoll.org/

http://www.canacoll.org/

http://www.canacoll.org/Collection/Main/Collection.htm



Figures 34 to 44: Fig. 34: Lubo Masner teaches students at a Hymenoptera workshop. Fig. 35: Gary Gibson (right) and Louise Dumouchel (left) setting up a Malaise trap for an eastern USA transect survey, 1987. Fig. 36: Henry Howden collecting at the base of a tree, Mexico, 1960s. Fig. 37: Either W. Mason or L. Kelton with H. Howden, Mexico, 1960s. Fig. 38: Herb Teskey and Jack Martin collecting mites, Mexico, 1960s. Fig. 39: Camp, Mexico, 1960s. Fig. 40: Camp, Rupert River, 1980s; Don Chant, Jack Martin, Evert Lindquist. Fig. 41: Resting along the Rupert River, 1980s. Fig. 42: Morning ablutions, June Creek, BC, 1984; Monty Wood, Don Lafontaine, Milt Campbell. Fig. 43: Getting ready on a cold morning, June Creek, 1984; Monty Wood, Grace Wood, Milt Campbell, Syd Cannings, Don Lafontaine. Fig. 44: Collect-ing party, Firth River, YT, 1984; Grace Wood, Monty Wood, Syd Cannings, Milt Campbell, Don Lafontaine



Two of the most significant collaborative publications of the Hymenoptera Unit are Annotated Keys to the Genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera) (Gibson et al. 1997) and Hymenoptera of the World: An Identification Guide to Families (Goulet & Huber 1993). Because of the importance of parasitic wasps for biological control, the hymenopterists work closely with AAFC and other biocontrol workers across Canada. Although not taxonomic in nature, an important synthesis of biocontrol programmes in Canada from 1981–2000 was produced (Mason & Huber 2002), being the fourth in a series on Biocontrol Programmes in Canada. A fifth book, covering the past decade, again with P. Mason as co-editor, is being prepared.

Lepidoptera researchers have published predominantly on Canadian or North American moths and butterflies. One of the most popular books to be published is The Butterflies of Canada (Layberry et al. 1998). At the time, it contained approximately 150,000 georeferenced records, 95% of which were derived from CNC material. A larger online version, hosted by CBIF (http://www.cbif.gc.ca/spp_pages/butterflies/index_e.php), has about 450,000 records that were developed by numerous amateur and professional Lepidopterists, including CNC staff. There are also several comprehensive North American revisions of various moth subfamilies in the MONA series (Munroe 1972a, 1972b, 1973, 1976a, 1976b, 1983, Lafontaine 1987, 1998, 2004, Lafontaine & Poole 1991, Mikkola et al. 2009).

The Acarology section has been heavily involved in updating Kranz’s Manual of Acarology (Krantz & Walter 2009), the authoritative guide to families of Acari worldwide, and a treatment of the ticks of Canada is forthcoming (Lindquist & Galloway, in manuscript).

Another wide-ranging and long-lasting publication to come out of Ottawa is the Insects & Arachnids of Canada series, which was launched by CNC scientists in 1976 with the purpose of thoroughly treating a diverse family group within Canada and adjacent regions for a general and scientific audience. The idea was conceived by Don Bright in the early 1970s after being inspired by similar series treating the fauna of regions such as France and Scandinavia. After successfully recommending the series to D. Hardwick, who was Section Head at the time, Don wrote up guidelines with a committee also composed of Andy Hamilton and Don Oliver. Part 1 of the series was a Manual on Collecting, Preparing, and Preserving Insects, Mites, and Spiders by J.E.H. Martin (1977), although the first volume to be published was actually Part 2 – a taxonomic contribution on the Canadian Scolytidae (Bright 1976). Agriculture Canada Research Branch (which also published most monographic works produced by CNC scientists) published this series until 1993, the last being Foottit & Richards’ (1993) treatment of the Canadian aphids. Financial support for the series then lapsed, but the Biological Survey of Canada agreed to support the remaining manuscripts in the series waiting to be published. Thanks largely to the efforts of P. Bouchard and The Entomological Society of Canada, volumes of the Insects and Arachnids of Canada published from 1976–1993 can now be accessed online for free at http://www.esc-sec.ca/aafcmono.html, along with other monographs published by Agriculture Canada Research Branch during this period (Evenden 2010). Since becoming available, these monographs have taken up over 90% of the ESC website’s bandwidth, with Volume 1 of the Manual of Nearctic Diptera representing nearly 10% of all traffic (34,403 page views). Hymenoptera of the World comes in second with 17,615 page views, followed closely by Volume 2 of the Manual of Nearctic Diptera (17,190 page views). In total, the online AAFC monographgs have been accessed nearly 130,000 times. Now that the Series has been revived by NRC Research Press, beginning with the orb-weaving spiders of Canada and Alaska by Dondale et al. (2003), we can look forward to being able to identify and name much more of the Canadian fauna. Much taxonomic work still remains to be done, however, and for many taxa the Canadian fauna is still poorly known.

http://www.cbif.gc.ca/spp_pages/butterflies/index_e.php

http://www.esc-sec.ca/aafcmono.html



Figure 45 to 51: Fig. 45: Diptera Unit, 1967, looking so respectable that Willi Hennig decided to visit. Fig. 46: No visitor would risk being seen in this later photo with a much shaggier Diptera Unit, 1987. Fig. 47: Guy Shewell apparently telling a very funny fly joke at the first International Congress of Dipterology in Budapest (17-24 August, 1986). Fig. 48: Members of the Experimental Biology Section examining a specimen, 1974 - Chris Hinks, Bill Forrest, Jake Vandermeer and Singh Chahal. Fig. 49: Members of the Arachnid Unit, 1974, in colourful attire – King Wu, Ian Smith, Charlie Dondale, Jim Redner, Evert Lindquist. Fig. 50: Nematode workers, 1974 – Rowley Mulvey, Lilian Sinclair, Rodger An-derson. Fig. 51: Val Behan-Pelletier (third from left) on a 1987 expedition to Yukon’s White Mountains, and Val working on the local fauna in Ottawa (inset).



NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SERVICE (NIS) Since before the 1960s (Holland 1960) and continuing to this day, the CNC has

received at least 300–400 submissions each year containing many thousands of specimens sent by inquiring parties such as growers, private industry, university researchers, students, the Canadian public and numerous government agencies. Specimens can be identified at the CNC with a speed and accuracy possible in few other places because of its authoritatively identified reference collections and important agricultural and entomological libraries, and because it has one of the largest concentrations of taxonomic expertise for insects/arachnids in the world. For this reason, the National Identification Service, first headed by J. Martin, was established in the CNC in 1974 (Fig. 54).

By being able to identify most incoming specimens to genus or species, taxonomists help make the educated, balanced decisions necessary to manage resources and to protect Canada from potentially invasive taxa. The Arthropod Containment Facility (also founded in 1974) in Ottawa, along with biocontrol research programs and numerous CFIA agents specializing in taxonomy and specimen identification, are located close to the CNC for the same reason. Timely, accurate identifications are critical to properly evaluate incoming foreign shipments and verify commercially produced biological control agents, as well as to properly identify possible contaminants or any other material that may be potentially relevant to Canadian bioresources.

The NIS is currently managed by O. Lonsdale who interacts with clients and ensures that submitted material is provided to the appropriate CNC taxonomist for identification. Submission forms are available at the following website: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1270048222934&lang=eng. Submissions related to agriculture, Canadian research, and protection of Canadian bioresources are given top priority. Note that CNC personnel are only mandated to identify specimens, which is a large enough task in itself. Control measures and advice on pestiferous species are the mandates of other agencies. Also, and we cannot stress this enough, we are not medical doctors — if you’re feeling itchy and you think you are infested with bugs, please see a dermatologist!

DIGITIZING THE CNCSince January 2011, the CNC has had a Database Technician position. The incumbent,

Dicky Yu, is now putting the finishing touches on a new and updated loans database, and is continuing to develop a specimen database and associated taxonomic database. With these databases it will be possible to unify the efforts of all CNC staff, who, up until now, have been digitizing data independently for their specific research groups of interest. In anticipation of the specimen-level database, which will eventually have an interactive online component, data are being consolidated, protocols for databasing old and newly acquired specimens are being developed, and we are digitizing select taxa and primary types, the latter of which will also be photographed, including habitus and label images. Funding from other Departments, Natural Resources Canada (the CFS specifically) and Environment Canada, has enabled an entomologist on contract to database the Canadian Vespidae (11,000 specimens), Scolytidae (5800 specimens) and Buprestidae (6500 specimens). Additional funding has been provided to CBIF and the National Collections (Entomology, Botany, Mycology) to complete several databasing projects by 2014, including digitization of the CNC holdings of the North American flower flies (Syrphidae) and bumble bees (Bombus). Furthermore, we have nearly completed a full taxonomic inventory of the CNC, some parts of which are already available online, such as the holdings of Diptera (http://www.canacoll.org/Diptera/Holdings/Holdings.htm) and the holdings (http://www.canacoll.org/Hymenoptera/Staff/Gibson/Gibson_Lists.htm) and type material (http://www.canacoll.org/Hymenoptera/Staff/Gibson/Gibson_Types.htm) of Chalcidoidea.

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1270048222934&lang=eng

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1270048222934&lang=eng

http://www.canacoll.org/Diptera/Holdings/Holdings.htm

http://www.canacoll.org/Hymenoptera/Staff/Gibson/Gibson_Lists.htm

http://www.canacoll.org/Hymenoptera/Staff/Gibson/Gibson_Types.htm



Figure 52 to 57: Fig. 52: Joint meeting of CNC (“Biosystematics Research Institute” at the time) and USDA/Smithsonian scientists, 1983. Fig. 53: Hymenoptera Unit in 1963 – G. Stuart Walley, William Mason, Oswald Peck, Herb Milliron, Doug Miller (left to right). Fig. 54: Members of the National Identi-fication Service in 1963 – Mary Mann, John Martin, Barbara Parks, Bruce Bowen. Fig. 55: Members of the “Beneficial” Insect Unit – John Barron, Jim O’Hara, Mike Sharkey, Jeff Cumming, Lubo Masner, Dick Vockeroth, Gary Gibson, Charlie Dondale, John Huber, Milt Campbell. Fig. 56: Ed Becker, Coleopterist and founding member of the Coleoptera Coffee Club. Fig. 57: Chart of CNC specimen holdings and profes-sional personnel.



OTHER CNC ACTIVITIESThe Neatby Building also hosts the Ottawa Entomology Club. The club’s monthly

meeting is held every third Thursday except in December, July, and August (few entomologists are available during the holiday and collecting seasons) and is hosted by Hume Douglas and Vasily Grebennikov. Twenty to 50 members, mostly CNC staff, but also staff and students from Carleton University and Ottawa University, and some amateurs attend the meetings, which feature talks from a spectrum of entomologists — professional or otherwise — that often feature “behind the scene” stories and travelogues. Lunchtime lectures are also hosted by CNC staff whenever visiting scientists come to examine the collection and can spare some time to discuss their interests.

Much of the social cohesion in the CNC is facilitated by one of the most indispensable entomological tools available – coffee. Morning and afternoon meetings are often held over a pot, where civilized conversation and updates on research or other happenings are discussed. The Diptera and Biocontrol Units often host, but one of the largest and longest-running groups is the Coleoptera Coffee Club, held on the fourth floor. It is also here that many celebrations are held when major monographs or books are published, the most recent ones being for the publication of the Palaearctic Coleoptera catalogues, the Coleoptera family-group names catalogue, and the splendid Agrilus of East Asia monograph (Fig. 58).

Every year or two, scientists in the Neatby Building also host the public for “Open Doors Ottawa”, when displays are set up and tours are given to the inquiring public. The CNC does its part for the event — insects, arachnids and nematodes, both alive and preserved, are put out for display, and scientists, staff and summer students are available to answer questions (Figs 61, 62). Several hundred visitors turned up in 2011, but numbers have been known to exceed a thousand! CNC taxonomists also showcase insects at the “Family Fun Day” of National Science and Technology Week, held every October by Natural Resources Canada on Booth street and, since 2011 in one of Ottawa’s museums, at Winterlude, Ottawa’s winter carnival.

AcknowledgementsSeveral photos were provided by J. Gill, I. Smith, M. Stockdale and K. Wonders.

Historical information on the CNC was provided by P. Bouchard, D. Bright, J. Cumming, G. Gibson, D. Lafontaine and I. Smith. Statistics on ESC website traffic were supplied by R. West. Revision of the manuscript was provided by G. Gibson.

Literature CitedAgriculture & Agri-Food Canada. 2011. News Release: Agricultural Research

Celebrating Its Roots Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Commemorates 125 Years of Scientific Advances (June 13, 2011). http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=n&s2=2011&page=n110613

Bouchard, P., Bousquet, Y., Davies, A.E., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Lawrence, J.F., Lyal, C.H.C., Newton, A.F., Reid, C.A.M., Schmitt, M., Ślipiński, S.A. & Smit, A.B.T. 2011 Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). Zookeys 88: 1–972.

Bousquet, Y. (Editor). 1990. Beetles Associated with Stored Products in Canada: an Identification Guide. Canada Department of Agriculture Publication, Ottawa. 220pp.

Bousquet, Y. (Editor). 1991. Checklist of Beetles of Canada and Alaska. Agriculture Canada Research Branch Publication, 1861/E, Ottawa. 430pp.

Bright, D.E. 1976. The Bark Beetles of Canada and Alaska: Coleoptera: Scolytidae. Insects and Arachnids of Canada Handbook Series, 2. 241pp.

Brown, B.V., Borkent, A., Cumming, J.M., Wood, D.M., Woodley, N.E. & Zumbado, M.A. (Eds.). 2009. Manual of Central American Diptera, Volume 1. NRC Research Press, Ottawa. xi + 714pp.

Brown, B.V., Borkent, A., Cumming, J.M., Wood, D.M., Woodley, N.E. & Zumbado, M.A. (Eds.). 2010. Manual of Central American Diptera, Volume 2. NRC Research Press, Ottawa. xvi + 715-1442pp.

Campbell, J.M., Sarazin, M.J. & Lyons, B. 1989. Canadian Beetles (Coleoptera) Injurious to Crops, Ornamentals, Stored Products, and Buildings. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. 491pp.



Figures 58 to 62: Fig. 58: Celebrating the publication of Agrilus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) of East Asia, with authors Vasily Grebennikov (standing, left) and Edo Jendek (standing, right). Fig. 59: Dipterists standing around illustrations for the Manual of Nearctic Diptera – Guy Shewell, Ralph Idema (illustra-tor), Bob Peterson, Herb Teskey, Dick Vockeroth, Leo Forster, Bruce Cooper. Fig. 60: Large monographic publications by CNC staff. Fig. 61: Pat Bouchard shows live specimens to the public during Open Doors Ottawa, 2011. Fig. 62: Admiring CNC displays at Open Doors Ottawa, with Gary Gibson and Go Sato taking questions.



Cody, W.J., Savile, D.B.O. & Sarazin, M.J. 1986. Systematics in Agriculture Canada at Ottawa: 1886-1986. Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. Historical Series No. 28. 81pp.

Cumming, J.M., Sinclair, B.J., Brooks, S.E., O’Hara, J.E. & Skevington, J.H. 2011. The history of dipterology at the Canadian National Collection of Insects with special reference to the Manual of Nearctic Diptera. The Canadian Entomologist 143: 539-577.

Dang, P.T. 1992. The Canadian National Collection of Insects and Arachnids: Past, Present and Future. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Canada 24: 22-27.

Danks, H.V. (Editor). 1984. The Forest Insect and Disease Survey. Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada 3(2): 49-52.

Dondale, C.D, Redner, J.H., Paquin, P. & Levi, H.W. 2003. The Orb-Weaving Spiders of Canada and Alaska. Araneae: Uloboridae, Tetragnathidae, Araneidae, Theridiosomatidae. Insects and Arachnids of Canada Series, Part 23. 371pp.

Evenden, M. 2010. Up Front: Serving the ESC is good for the soul; you should try it! Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Canada 42(3): 117-121.

Foottit, R.G. & Richards, W.R. 1993. The Genera of the Aphids of Canada: Homoptera: Aphidoidea and Phylloxeroidea. Insects and Arachnids of Canada Handbook Series, 22. 766pp.

Freeman, T.N. 1959. The Canadian Northern Insect Survey, 1947-1957. The Polar Record 9: 299-307.

Gibson, G.A.P., Huber, J.T. & Woolley, J.B. 1997. Annotated Keys to the Genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). NRC Research Press, Ottawa. 794pp.

Goulet, H. & Huber, J.T. (Editors). 1993. Hymenoptera of the World: An Identification Guide to Families. Research Branch, Agricultural Canada Publication. Canada Communication Group-Publishing, Ottawa. 668pp.

Holland, G.P. 1956. Systematic Entomology. Pp 300-304, In: Glen, R. (Compiler), Entomology in Canada up to 1956: A Review of Developments and Accomplishments. The Canadian Entomologist 88: 290-371.

Holland, G.P. 1960. The Canadian National Collection of Insects. Reprinted from the Professional Public Service, July, 1960. Ottawa, 4pp.

Jendek, E. & Grebennikov, V. 2011. Agrilus (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) of East Asia. Jan Farkač, Prague. 362pp.

Klimaszewski, J., Langor, D., Majka, C.G., Bouchard, P., Bousquet, Y., LeSage, L., Smetana, A., Sylvestre, P., Pelletier, G., Davies, A., DesRochers, P., Goulet, H., Webster, R., Sweeney, J. 2010. Review of Adventive Species of Coleoptera (Insecta) Recorded from Eastern Canada. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow. 272pp.

Krantz, G.W. & Walter, D.E. (Eds.). 2009. A Manual of Acarology, third edition. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. viii + 806pp.

Lafontaine, J.D. 1987. Noctuoidea: Noctuidae: Noctuinae (part): Euxoa. Fasc. 27.2. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 237pp.

Lafontaine, J.D. 1998. Noctuiodea: Noctuidae (part): Noctuinae: Noctuini. Fasc. 27.3. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 348pp.

Lafontaine, J.D. 2004. Noctuoidea: Noctuidae (part). Noctuinae (part — Agrotini). Fasc. 27.1. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C. & Hodges, R.W. & Munroe E.G. (Eds), TThe Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 385pp.

Lafontaine, J.D. & Poole, R.W. 1991. Noctuoidea: Noctuidae: Plusiinae. Fasc. 25.1. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 182pp.

Layberry, R.A., Hall, P.W. & Lafontaine, J.D. 1988. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 280pp.



Figures 63 to 72: Fig. 63: Aerial view of the K.W. Neatby Building from the southeast; note CFIA’s Build-ing 18 to the right. Fig. 64: A farm within the city – southern view from OL’s office in the Neatby Building before the first winter snow. Fig. 65: Northeast corner of the K.W. Neatby Building, with front entrance. Fig. 66: Southwestern view of the Neatby Building. Fig. 67: CFIA agents of Building 18 - Hume Douglas, Doug Parker, Bruce Gill. Fig. 68: New compactor system in the Lepidoptera Unit, installed in 2011. Fig. 69: Immature Tabanidae in 75% ethanol. Fig. 70: Drawer containing some of the CNC’s amber collection, with cecidomyiid holotype displayed to bottom right. Fig. 71: Boxes containing side-mounted mites. Fig. 72: The “aquatics” room, with pinned material in drawers.



Mason, P.G. & Huber, J.T. (Eds.). 2002. Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 1981-2000. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. xiv + 583pp.

Martin, J.E.H. 1977. Collecting, Preparing, and Preserving Insects, Mites, and Spiders. Insects and Arachnids of Canada Handbook Series, 1 (English). 182pp.

McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R. & Wood, D.M. (Coordinators). 1981. Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Agriculture Canada Monograph 27. vi + 674pp.

McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R. & Wood, D.M. (Coordinators). 1987. Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 2. Agriculture Canada Monograph 28. vi + 675-1332pp.

McAlpine, J.F. & Wood, D.M. (Coordinators) 1989. Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Agriculture Canada Monograph 32. vi + 1333-1581pp.

McGugan, B.M. 1958. Forest Lepidoptera of Canada Recorded by the Forest Insect Survey. Volume I—Papilionidae to Arctiidae. Forest Biology Division, Canada Department of Agriculture. Publication 1034. 76 pp.

Mikkola, K., Lafontaine, J.D. & Gill, J. 2009. Noctuoidea: Noctuidae (part): Xyleninae (part): Apameini (part – Apamea group of genera). Fascicle 26.9. In: Hodges, R.W. (Ed), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 192pp.

Munroe, E. 1972a. Pyraloidea: Pyralidae (part): Scopariinae and Nymphulinae. Fasc. 13.1A. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 134pp.

Munroe, E. 1972b. Pyraloidea: Pyralidae (part): Odontiinae and Glaphyriinae. Fasc. 13.1B. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., 135–250.

Munroe, E. 1973. Pyraloidea: Pyralidae (part): Evergestinae. Fasc. 13.1C. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 251–304pp + plates, index.

Munroe, E. 1976a. Pyraloidea: Pyralidae: Pyraustinae: Pyraustini (part). Fasc. 13.2A. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 78pp + plates.

Munroe, E. 1976b. Pyraloidea: Pyralidae: Pyraustinae: Pyraustini (conclusion). Fasc. 13.2B. In: Dominick, R.B., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Hodges, R.W. & Munroe, E.G. (Eds), The Moths of America North of Mexico. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 79–150pp + plates, index.

Munroe, E. 1983. Pyralidae (except Crambinae). In: Hodges, R.W., Dominick, T., Davis, D.R., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Munroe, E.G. & Powell, J.A. (Eds), Check list of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Ltd. and Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London, UK. 67–85pp.

Robertson, H. 2008. Measuring Mother Earth: How Joe the Kid Became Tyrrell of the North. McClelland & Stewart Ltd. 348pp.

Skidmore, R.E. 1999. Checklist of Canadian amber inclusions in the Canadian National Collection of Insects. Research Branch Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada electronic publication. Available from: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facilities/strickland/SKIDMORECNCCanadianAmberInclusions.pdf

Spencer, G.J. 1964. A century of entomology in Canada. The Canadian Entomologist 96: 33-59.

Vockeroth, J.R. 1981. Canadian entomology of the last century. Canadian Field Naturalist 95: 18-23.

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facilities/strickland/SKIDMORECNCCanadianAmberInclusions.pdf

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facilities/strickland/SKIDMORECNCCanadianAmberInclusions.pdf



Table 1. Scientific staff (research scientists and biologists) working in the CNC since 1886, listed in chronological order. A few individuals were on contract or were technicians before becoming qualified as biologists or scientists or were postdoctoral students. The starting date given is when they became scientists on permanent staff and the end date is when they were no longer officially on staff. Many scientists, however, remained as honorary research associates after retirement. Earlier entomologists researched more than one order so these are listed in order of decreasing importance (by number of publications).

Scientist Period Study Area or Position

1.Fletcher J. 1886-1909 Honorary Dominion entomologist and botanist

2.Gibson, A. 1899-1942 Dominion entomologist (from 1920-38)

3.Hewitt, C.G. 1909-20 Dominion entomologist

4.McDunnough, J. 1919-46 Lepidoptera, Ephemeroptera

5.Curran, C. 1922-28 Diptera

6.Viereck, H. 1923-26 Hymenoptera

7.Walley, G.S. 1926-69 Hymenoptera, Hemiptera

8.Brown, W. 1927-67 Coleoptera

9.Baker, A. 1935-62 Nematoda

10.Peck, O. 1935-69 Hymenoptera

11.Freeman, T. 1936-71 Lepidoptera

12.Shewell, G. 1937-76 Diptera

13.Brooks, A. 1938-48 Diptera

14.Nesbitt, H. 1939-48 Acari

15.Hardwick, D. 1945-78 Lepidoptera

16.Henderson, V. 1946-64 Nematoda

17.Holland, G. 1948-76 Siphonaptera

18.Miller, C. 1948-78 Hymenoptera

19.Mason, W. 1948-87 Hymenoptera

20.Vockeroth, J. 1949-91 Diptera

21.Beirne, B. 1949-55 Homoptera

22.Munroe, E. 1950-79 Lepidoptera

23.Martin, J. 1950-85 Curator of CNC & Manager of NIS

24.Kelton, L. 1950-84 Hemiptera

25.McAlpine, J. 1950-85 Diptera

26.Mulvey, R. 1951-59 Nematoda

27.Lambert, R. 1951-57 Hymenoptera

28.Chillcott, J. 1951-67 Diptera

29.Bigelow, R. 1952-53 Orthoptera, Thysanoptera

30.MacKay, M. 1952-72 Lepidoptera

31.Becker, E. 1952-80 Coleoptera

32.Roberts, G. 1952-58 Nematoda

33.Wood, S. 1953-56 Coleoptera

34.Downes, A. 1953-78 Experimental Biology, Diptera

35.Sher, S. 1953-53 Experimental Biology, Nematoda

36.Richards, W. 1954-81 Homoptera, Collembola

37.Brown, B. 1955-56 Nematoda

38.Khan, M. 1955-57 Nematoda

39.Wu, L. 1956-75 Nematoda




40.Howden, H. 1957-70 Coleoptera

41.Davies, L. 1957-60 Experimental Biology

42.Sanwal, K. 1958-71 Nematoda

43.Wilkes, A. 1959-73 Experimental Biology

44.Matthewman, W. 1959-70 Experimental Biology

45.Salkeld, J. 1959-80 Experimental Biology

46.Robertson, J. 1959-67 Experimental Biology

47.Guppy, J. 1959-70 Experimental Biology

48.Hammond, G. 1959-61 Experimental Biology

49.Harcourt, D. 1959-70 Experimental Biology

50.McLintock, J. 1959-65 Experimental Biology

51.Downe, A. 1959-61 Experimental Biology

52.Arnold, J. 1959-82 Experimental Biology

53.Henderson, V. 1959-64 Experimental Biology

54.Gochnauer, T. 1959-70 Apiculture

55.Boch, R. 1959-70 Apiculture

56.Furgala, B. 1959-67 Apiculture

57.Austin, J. 1959-61 Apiculture

58.Heinrich, G. 1959-61 Hymenoptera (contract)

59.Smith, L. 1959-70 Hymenoptera

60.Hopper, B. 1959-72 Nematoda

61.Yunker, C. 1959-60 Acari

62.Thomson, H. 1960-60 Experimental Biology

63.Hudson, B. 1960-84 Experimental Biology

64.Milliron, H. 1961-73 Hymenoptera

65.Lindquist, E. 1961-2000 Acari

66.Corbett, P. 1962-67 Experimental Biology

67.Oliver, D. 1962-95 Diptera

68.McGuffin, W. 1962-95 Lepidoptera (CFS)

69.Schmid, F. 1963-85 Trichoptera

70.Peterson, R. 1963-83 Diptera

71.Pielou, D. 1963-83 Experimental Biology

72.Teskey, H. 1964-87 Diptera

73.Mutuura, A. 1964-86 Lepidoptera

74.Wood, D. 1964-86 Diptera

75.L’Arrivée, J. 1965-67 Apiculture

76.Anderson, R. 1965-91 Nematoda

77.Bright, D. 1966-2004 Coleoptera

78.Campbell, J. 1966-93 Coleoptera

79.Matsuda, R. 1968-85 Morphology, Hemiptera

80.Byers, J. 1968-81 Experimental Biology

81.Hinks, C. 1968-70 Experimental Biology

82.Mukerji, M. 1968-70 Experimental Biology

Table 1, Continued




83.Barron, J. 1969-97 Hymenoptera

84.Yoshimoto, C. 1969-88 Hymenoptera (CFS)

85.Masner, L. 1969-97 Hymenoptera

86.Smetana, A. 1971-1999 Coleoptera

87.Dondale, C. 1972-90 Araneae

88.Allyson, S. 1972-88 Lepidoptera & Manager of NIS

89.Hamilton, K. 1972-present Homoptera

90.Loan, C. 1972-80 Hymenoptera

91.Smith, I. 1974-present Acari

92.Ebsary, B. 1977-90 Nematoda

93.Goulet, H. 1978-2011 Hymenoptera

94.Lafontaine, J. 1979-present Lepidoptera

95.Dang, P. 1979-2008 Lepidoptera (CFS)

96.LeSage, L. 1979-present Coleoptera

97.Eveleigh, E. 1980-82 Nematoda

98.Sharkey, M. 1981-96 Hymenoptera

99.Behan-Pelletier, V. 1981-2011 Acari

100.Landry, J.-F. 1981-present Lepidoptera

101.Bousquet, Y. 1981-present Coleoptera

102.Borkent, A. 1982-89 Diptera

103.Gibson, G. 1982-present Hymenoptera

104.Foottit, R. 1983-present Homoptera

105.Cumming, J. 1986-present Diptera

106.Kelleher, J. 1986-90 Biocontrol coordinator

107.Huber, J. 1988-present Hymenoptera (CFS)

108.O’Hara, J. 1989-present Diptera

109.Schwartz, M. 1989-present Hemiptera (contract)

110.Schmidt, A. 1990-95 Biocontrol coordinator

111.Mason, P. 1998-present Biocontrol

112.Bouchard, P. 2003-present Coleoptera

113.Bennett, A. 2003-present Hymenoptera

114.Skevington, J. 2003-present Diptera

115.Troubridge, J. 2004-2009 CNC Collection Manager

116.Beaulieu, F. 2006-present Acari

117.Yu, Q. 2006-present Nematoda

118.Grebennikov, V. 2006-present Coleoptera (CFIA)

119.Schmidt, C. 2007-present Lepidoptera (CFIA)

120.Sinclair, B. 2007-present Diptera (CFIA)

121.Douglas, H. 2007-present Coleoptera (CFIA)

122.Jendek, E. 2008-present Coleoptera (contract)

123. Rickey, E. 2009 CNC Collection Manager

124. Lonsdale, O. 2009-present CNC Collection Manager

125. Cardinal, S. 2011-present Hymenoptera

Table 1, Continued



Arctic CornerNews about studies of arctic insects

Update on the biting fly component (Diptera: Simuliidae, Culicidae and

Tabanidae) of the Northern Biodiversity Program

IntroductionThe Northern Biodiversity Program (NBP; http://insectecology.mcgill.ca/NBP/index.html)

is an integrative and strategic approach to understanding how biodiversity has and is adapt-ing to changing environments. Frequent readers of this newsletter may already be familiar with the NBP and its goals, so I will only summarize them briefly. It arose from the inad-equacy of knowledge concerning the present distribution and diversity of northern insects. In 2010 and 2011 teams of entomologists from three universities revisited 12 sites across northern Canada that were originally sampled during the 1947-1962 Northern Insect Survey (NIS) (see some photos of NIS in CNC article starting p. 20). The original principle investi-gators of this program were Chris Buddle (McGill University), Donna Giberson (University of Prince Edward Island), Terry Wheeler (McGill University, Lyman Museum) and Doug Currie (University of Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum). The goals of the NBP are to:

My research concerns organisms that are arguably the most renowned (and despised) residents of northern Canada — the biting flies. More specifically, my focus is on members of the three most dominant families of northern biting flies: the Simuliidae (black flies), Culi-cidae (mosquitoes) and Tabanidae (horse- and deer flies). Members of these three families are superbly adapted to north-ern environments. Mosquito larvae develop in ponds and pools formed by precipitation trapped on the surface by per-mafrost. Black fly larvae de-velop in the myriad of streams and rivers that crisscross northern Canada. Tabanid lar-vae live in peatlands, marshes and fens — wet-soil habitats that dominate the boreal zone. Biting flies achieve their great-est densities at northern lati-tudes due to the abundance of suitable habitat (Fig. 1). Among the highest densities ever recorded for a species of biting fly — a mind boggling 12.5 million individuals per hectare — were attained by the mosquito Ochlerotatus hexodontus near Churchill, MB (Wood 1985 and see Fig. 2).

Patrick SchaeferDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto and De-

partment of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, ON. Canada

1) determine how community structure and species richness changes across ecoclimatic regions, 2) determine if/how species assemblages have changed in the 50-60 years following the NIS, 3) use molecular genetic techniques to explore species boundaries and phylogeographic patterns

among populations, 4) link scientific with traditional knowledge and establish training programs for northern youths to

explore biodiversity in their own backyards.

Fig 1. Final approach to Churchill, MB, shows an abundance of suit-able breeding grounds for biting flies. (Photo D.C. Currie)




Although a large portion of my research involves the utility of molecular markers and DNA barcoding as a tool for species delinea-tion and assessing phylogeographic patterns, this article focuses on faunistic trends gleaned from preliminary analyses of collections made during the 2010 field season.Collections and locations

Two NBP teams sampled a total of six sites in northeastern Canada in 2010 (fig. 3). My particular team began with a 2-day train ride from Toronto to Moosonee, ON. We col-lected boreal arthropods from Moosonee and environs (fig. 4) for 2 weeks, before heading farther north for another two weeks of col-lecting in the Subarctic ecoclimatic zone near Churchill, MB (fig. 5). We finished up with a final two-week collecting period in the Arctic

ecoclimatic zone near Iqaluit, NU (fig. 6). The other team followed a similar south-to-north trajectory, beginning in Goose Bay, NL, followed by Schefferville, QC and then Lake Hazen, NU, on northern Ellesmere Island. All six sites were previously visited by person-nel from the NIS, providing a baseline from which to compare contemporary collections with those made 50 to 60 years ago. Giberson and Shorthouse (2011) provided an excellent account about past- and contemporary collections at Lake Hazen in an earlier Arctic Corner article.

Fig 2. Mosquitoes attacking the author at Churchill, MB.(Photo: D.C. Currie)

Fig. 3. Map showing 2010 collection sites.The hatched area roughly outlines the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Colors represent different ecoclimaticzones: green - Boreal (Goose Bay and Moosenee), blue –Subarctic (Schefferville and Churchill), yellow - Arctic (Lake Hazen and Iqluit).



Replicated malaise (Fig. 5,7), pan (Fig. 7) and pitfall trap arrays were deployed at each site. We also performed standardized sweep- and aquatic dip net protocols, in addition to making opportunistic collections of focal taxa. Immature black flies were collected op-portunistically from variously sized streams and rivers. Larvae were collected into both Carnoy’s fixative (3 parts ethanol:1 part gla-cial acetic acid) and 95% ethanol to facilitate cytogenetic and molecular studies, respec-tively. Chromosomal examination provides the only reliable means to verify the presence of

morphologically indistinguishable (but reproduc-tively isolated) sibling species. DNA barcoding proves an additional tool which can be used to effectively identify immature larvae or intracta-ble life-history stages (Rivera and Currie 2009).

Fig. 7. Malaise Trap (with Sarah Loboda) and pan trap deployed at Schefferville, PQ (photo: D. Giberson)

Fig. 4. The author in a boreal glade near Moosonee, ON. (Photo: D.C. Currie)

Fig. 5. Typical subarctic vista near the Churchill North-ern Studies Centre, Churchill, MB, showing Malaise Trap deployed in study site. (Photo: D.C. Currie)

Fig. 6. Team leader Chris Buddle takes a break on the tundra near Iqaluit, NU. (Photo: J. Aker)



Mosquitoes present a different suite of problems for identification. Morphological identification of certain species is possible only from reared adults with associated larval exuviae. Mosquito identifica-tion is often based on the presence, absence, or colour of scales on specific body parts. These scales are easily abraded, especially in ethanol-fixed specimens, making them impossible to confidently assign to species level. While larvae are easier to identify in many instances, our late spring/early summer collecting schedule (Fig. 8) ensured that larvae of most species were no longer present, including slowly developing species such as Ochlerotatus flavescens and O.excrucians. We consequently adopted methods that ensured wild caught adult females would maintain their scales. By capturing adults attracted to the collectors using an aspirator, and transfer-ring them immediately into a mesh-sided holding chamber (Fig. 9), specimens remained relatively intact. Live adults clung to the walls of the chamber, thereby providing a measure of protection during transportation (providing, of course, that the chamber wasn’t shaken

too vigorously!). Specimens were killed by insert-ing the holding chamber into a freezer or killing jar, with adults pinned immediately thereafter (Fig. 10). Although the vast majority of aspirated adults were taken from human hosts, most mosquitoes are not markedly host specific, so it is likely that the major-ity of ‘on the wing’ species were captured using this technique. While specimens captured in malaise traps lost most of their diagnostic scales, we were nonetheless able to get species-level determinations for most species through DNA barcoding. We are currently adding northern material to a database of mainly southern species developed by Cywinska et al. (2006).

Unlike simuliids and culicids, tabanids are rela-tively easy to capture, curate and identify. In fact, certain species seemed especially susceptible to our

Townes-style malaise traps (Fig. 11). The main problem for my study is that, unlike black flies and mosquitoes, tabanid diversity attains its peak in late summer. Accordingly, it is likely that our late spring and early summer collections missed an important component of tabanid diversity.

Fig. 10. Pinned mosquitoes aspirated from team members at Lake Hazen

Fig. 8. Left: the author dipping for mosquitoes at Moosenee (photo: J. Aker). Right: Doug Currie, Jana Aker and the author examining a mosquito dip at Moosenee (photo A. Solecki).

Fig. 9 Adult mosquito holding chamber (photo D.Giberson)



Preliminary findings Malaise traps alone yielded nearly 21,000 specimens of tabanids and simuliids dur-

ing the 2010 field season (culicids were not counted because of the above mentioned difficulties identifying alcohol-preserved specimens). Including all methods of collecting (i.e., specimens collected from aquatic dip netting, opportunistic sampling, and other techniques), I obtained a total of more than 25,000 specimens of biting flies.Black flies

Morphological examination revealed 35 species or species complexes of Simuliidae collected across all six sites. These species were divided among 8 genera as follows: Twinnia (1), Gymnopais (1), Helodon (3), Prosimulium (3), Stegopterna (2), Cnephia (1), Metacnephia (3), Simulium s.l. (21). Cytological analysis will undoubtedly reveal the presence of additional cryptic species. Of the families I am investigating, black flies are the most speciose. Their distribution is structured along climatic gradients (Danks 1981); however, few species exhibit a truly Arctic distribution (i.e., their members not occurring south of tree line). Most species are associated with the Boreal- and Subarc-tic ecoclimatic zones, with the highest diversity observed at the transition between the two regions. This relatively high diversity is perhaps related to an overlap in distribution between southern- and more northern-adapted species.Mosquitoes

Despite preliminary difficulties with the collection and identification of mosquitoes, we have so far identified 16 species from northeastern Canada. All species were mem-bers of one of two genera: Aedes (2 species) or Ochlerotatus (14 species). Species that overwinter as adults (i.e., some members of the genus Culiseta) were absent in our collections, most likely due to timing. We arrived too late to collect overwintering adults, but were too early to collect their later-developing larvae and pupae. Members of the O. punctor subgroup and O. communis comprised the vast majority of our collections in the Boreal- and Subarctic ecoclimatic zones, with most other species collected only as singletons or doubletons. Ochlerotatus nigripes and O. impiger were the dominant spe-cies at high arctic sites. These mosquitoes occur widely throughout the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, including the northern tip of Ellesmere Island and Prince Patrick Island. In contrast, black flies inhabit only the southernmost arctic islands (i.e., the islands south of McClure Strait in the west and Lancaster Sound in the east), and only one species of

tabanid (Hybomitra frontalis) is known to have its range extended as far north as the arctic islands (southern Baffin Island). Unlike black flies, the highest species richness of mosqui-toes was in the Boreal ecoclimatic zone. Horse- and Deer Flies

A total of 25 tabanid species were col-lected from the six northeastern sites in 2010. They comprised three genera as follows: Chrysops (9), Haematopota (1) and Hybomi-tra (15). A grossly disproportionate number of individual specimens (about 18,000 of the 18,200 tabanids collected from all six sites) were captured in Moosonee, ON. So abun-dant were these flies that we were forced to service malaise traps 2-3 times per day, as opposed to once every 3 days as originally planned (Fig. 11). Almost two-thirds of those individuals (11,623) were members of a single species — C. excitans. Among tabanids, species richness was greatest in the Boreal zone, dropping significantly with increased latitude.

Fig. 11. Malaise head from trap deployed for ca. 6 hours at Moosonee ON. (photo: J. Aker)



Possible evidence for northward movement of biting fliesBecause the northern distributional limit of many biting flies is limited by climate

(Danks, 1981), warming trends in the arctic can promote the northward range expansion of southern species into previously inhospitable terrain. The biting flies are an excellent model for studying this phenomenon because they were a major focus of the 1947-1962 NIS (Northern Insect Survey). We discovered 3 instances of possible range expan-sion during the past 50 – 60 years. Two were tabanid species collected from Moosonee ON, whose northern distributional limit was previously known to extend only into the southernmost boreal forest of eastern Canada. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether these species are now breeding farther north than previously known, or represent anomalous occurrences (i.e., are the products of long-distance dispersal from more southern popu-lations or accidental introductions). Additional collections of adults or discovery of larvae are needed to confidently choose among these competing hypotheses.

The other potential new record was a black fly species discovered near Iqaluit, NU. This species — the first member of Simulium s.s. to be recorded from the Canadian Arctic Archipelago — was previously known only as far north as Kuujjuaq (previously Fort Chimo) QC, on southern Ungava Bay. We collected numerous adults and larvae from 2 streams in the vicinity of Iqaluit, suggesting that this species is now firmly established on southern Baffin Island. It is unclear when this species first colonized the island, as the behaviour of adult females is unlikely to alert local people to their presence. Ad-ditional data from other northern sites, and from other groups of insects, are needed to evaluate the significance of these potential range extensions.Community Structure and Taxonomic Composition

It is difficult to make comparisons between Lake Hazen and Iqaluit — the two arctic sites sampled in 2010 — because of the extreme northern location of the former site. Ochlerotatus nigripes and O. impiger are the only mosquitoes previously known from Ellesmere Island, and both species were re-collected at Lake Hazen in 2010. This sug-gests that conditions remain suitable for these species. However, other than a few spe-cies of biting midge (Ceratopogonidae) that were previously known from Lake Hazen, no new members of the biting fly community were encountered. Species richness in Iqaluit was considerably higher than at Lake Hazen, with three species of mosquito and eight species of black fly. This underscores the importance of latitude in limiting the northern distribution of species — even within a single ecoclimatic zone.

Among the more southern localities, sites in the Hudson Bay Lowlands (Moosonee and Churchill) differed significantly from those east of Hudson Bay (Goose Bay and Schefferville). In terms of mosquitoes, Moosonee and Churchill were dominated by members of the Ochlerotatus punctor subgroup, whereas Goose Bay and Schefferville were dominated by O. communis. While both species occurred at all locations, less than 5% of the individuals caught from Moosonee and Churchill were O. communis, whereas at Goose Bay, they accounted for more than 60% of the individuals and ~30% at Schef-ferville. Members of the O. punctor subgroup accounted for a larger fraction of the individuals caught from Churchill and Moosonee at 80% and 90% respectively. However, their abundance dropped significantly east of Hudson Bay where they only constitute 30% and 50% of the faunas at Goose Bay and Schefferville respectively.

Black flies exhibited a somewhat different pattern from that of mosquitoes. Dominant species at all boreal and subarctic sites include members of three lineages: the Simu-lium venustum complex, S. verecundum complex and S. tuberosum complex. However, the two eastern sites were characterized by many additional species and even genera that were not present at western sites. Members of Simulium s.l. dominated the Hudson Bay Lowlands sites accounting for 82% of the black fly fauna at Churchill and 91% at Moosonee. In contrast, they accounted for only 66% of simuliid species at Goose Bay and 69% at Schefferville. In this respect, community composition in the Hudson Bay Lowlands resembles that of the Horton River in western NT, where Simulium s.l. consti-tutes 86% of all simuliids (Currie and Adler 2000).



Tabanids did not exhibit the same kind of east-west pattern as observed in black flies and mosquitoes. However, species richness and abundance was markedly higher at Moosonee than at other sites. This probably reflects the abundance of suitable breeding habitat in the southern Hudson Bay Lowlands.

Differences in community structure between the Hudson Bay Lowlands and other sites in eastern Canada are likely due to a combination of factors. First, the Hudson Bay Lowlands is relatively distinct ecologically and topographically (Fig. 4,5). It is the largest continuous wetland in Canada, has little relief and is predominantly composed of peat (Fig. 12), making aquatic habitats relatively acidic. This latter characteristic may explain the dominance of mosquitoes in the Ochlerotatus punctor subgroup in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, whose larvae are typically associated with acidic waters (Jenkins and Knight 1950). In contrast to the low-relief conditions of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, the terrain east of the Hudson Bay is dominated by exposed Canadian Shield and mountain chains.This likely explains the relatively higher diversity of black flies. For example, members of the genera Prosimulium and Helodon — which typically live in montane or shield habi-tats, were relatively abundant in Goose Bay and Schefferville, but were rare or absent in Moosonee and Churchill.

A second factor that may explain community differences between sites in the Hudson Bay Lowlands versus those east of Hudson Bay is geographical history. The last vestige of the Laurentide Ice Sheet was positioned over what is now Hudson Bay. It is possible that present-day differences in community structure are due to different source areas for the organisms that repopulated deglaciated terrain on either side of Hudson Bay. The presence of typically northwestern species (e.g., Simulium arcticum complex, Hybomitra sexfasciata and Culiseta incidens) west of Hudson Bay suggests that Beringia was the most likely sources area for those species. In contrast, the predominance of exclusively northeastern species (e.g.,Twinnia tibblesi, Hybomitra aequetincta and Ochlerotatus cantator) east of Hudson Bay suggests they were derived from southeastern- or eastern coastal refugia. The shrinking Laurentide Ice Sheet was replaced by the cold waters of Hudson Bay, which now evidently serves as a barrier to the exchange of northern popu-lations that originated from different glacial refugia.

Fig. 12. Boggy area south of Churchill (photo: D. Giberson)



Discussion and Future DirectionsPreliminary results from 2010 suggest that the northern biting fly fauna is far from

homogenous — even on a relatively limited geographical scale. Differences are most likely due to a combination of topographical and historical affects; however, further anal-yses are required to test my preliminary speculations. Furthermore, there is tantalizing evidence that at least some biting flies may be shifting their distribution northwards in response to a changing northern climate. If true, this could have important implications for the hosts of bloodsucking species. Considerably more work is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn — including revisiting historical collections and assessing data from other groups of arthropods.

Most samples from the 2011 field season in northwestern Canada have yet to be sorted, and additional collections will be required from selected northeastern locations to test hypotheses about glacial refugia and postglacial migratory route. Towards this end, we plan to travel to two additional sites (Kuujjuarapik, and Kuujjuaq) in northern Quebec in 2012. These additional collections will allow us to gain a better understanding of the surprisingly diverse (yet under-collected) Ungava Peninsula.

My longer-term goal is to expand the study of NBP material to include Eurasian samples of widely distributed Holarctic species. Molecular analyses on an intercontinental scale will shed important new insights about the species-identity of biting flies from the Nearctic- and Palearctic Regions. For example, are the currently recognized Holarctic species truly Holarctic, or do they represent assemblages of reproductively isolated cryp-tic species? Similarly, phylogeographical analyses of widespread populations will reveal the influence of Pleistocene glaciations on shaping northern arthropod communities.

EpilogueFollowing in the footsteps of the original NIS has been a humbling experience for one

so early in his graduate career. The availability of commercial flights, laptop computers, internet connections and handheld GPS devices are tremendous advantages over what our Cold War predecessors had to work with. And certainly, the small size and mobility of modern-day ATVs offers a much more efficient (and less destructive) means of trans-portation across northern landscapes (Fig. 13).

Material collected more than 50 years ago by members of the NIS provided a crucial baseline to assess how changing environments are affecting northern arthropod com-munities. My research, as well as that of my colleagues, provides a modern-day profile of arthropod ecology and evolution. Our work, in turn, will provide baseline data from which to assess future changes. Given the rapidity of climate change in northern Can-ada, it would seem that our present-day collections should be reevaluated on a decadal (rather than a half century) time scale.

Figure 13. Navigating difficult terrain: Left: Track vehicle used by personnel from the Northern Insect Survey to collect biting flies at Churchill, MB (Photo: from Twinn, 1950). Right: Donna Giberson on a significantly less destructive ATV (Photo: D.C. Currie)



Acknowledgments I would like to thank my supervisor Doug Currie for his guidance in teaching me the finer points of black fly identification, and for his infinite patience answering my questions. I also acknowledge the contributions of the other NBP co-principle investigators: Chris Buddle and Terry Wheeler (McGill University) and Donna Giberson (UPEI). Anna Solecki, Jana Aker, Katie Sim, Meagan Blair, Sarah Loboda, Ruben Cordero, Crystal Ernst, and Laura Timms all contributed material for this study, and provided entertainment during the long field seasons. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Heather, who spent many hours helping me sort through the vast numbers of tabanids from Moosonee, ON. The NBP is supported by an NSERC Strategic Project Grant to the above mentioned co-principle investigators, the Polar Continental Shelf Project, the Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding, and the Biological Survey of Canada. My research is also funded, in part, by a NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship.

ReferencesCurrie, D.C. and P.H. Adler. 2000. Update on a survey of the black flies (Diptera: Simulii-

dae) from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Project. Arctic Insect News. 11: 6-9.Cywinska, A., F.F. Hunter, and P.D. Hebert. 2006. Identifying Canadian mosquito species

through DNA barcodes. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 20: 413–424.Danks, H.V. 1981. Arctic Arthropods. A review of systematics and ecology with particular

reference to North American fauna. Entomological Society of Canada, Ottawa. 608 pp.Giberson, D.J, and J.D. Shorthouse. 2011. Fifty years of high arctic entomology: Hazen

Camp on Ellesmere Island. Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada 30: 17-37.Jenkins, D.W., and K.L. Knight. 1950. Ecological Survey of the mosquitoes of Great Whale

River, Quebec (Diptera: Culicidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washing-ton. 52: 209-223.

Rivera, J., and D.C. Currie. 2009. Identification of Nearctic black flies using DNA barcodes (Diptera: Simuliidae). Molecular Ecology Resources 9:224–236.

Twinn, C.R. 1950. Studies of the biology and control of biting flies in Northern Canada. Arctic 3: 14-26.

Wood, D.M. 1985. Biting flies attacking man and livestock in Canada. Agriculture Canada publication 1781/E. 38pp

Tabanid collected while sampling near Schefferville (Photo: D.Giberson)

Other articles from “Arctic Corner”News about studies of arctic insects

Long-time readers of this newsletter will recall that the Arctic Corner was created to replace Arctic Insect News, a newsletter published by the BSC from 1990 to 2000 to encourage work on arctic invertebrates. If you found this Update on the biting fly component of the Northern Biodiversity Program interesting you might also want to look at the back issues of Arctic In-sect News which are available on the BSC website in pdf format. Most issues included an ar-ticle on a featured species, a featured locality, current research and a short historical article.

The newsletters can be found at:

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/newsletters.htm#arctic

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/newsletters.htm#arctic



Agriculture and Agri-Food Entomological MonographsAs you may have noted in the article on the Canadian National Collection of Insects in this issue, the Entomological Society of Canada has received permission to publish a number of entomological monographs (including some of the popular Insects and Arachnids of Canada Series) on their website. To access these, go to:


If you prefer the monographs in bound format, these can still be obtained on a print-on-demand process though an agreement with Volumes Direct (http://www.volumesdirect.com/). Visit their website, and search for title or author.

Dolomedes tenebrosus specimen (shown here in a standard petri dish) borrowed from the NB mu-seum for a study inspired by the 2011 BSC Curation Blitz in Halifax, NS (photo: K. Knysh)

Requests for Material or Information InvitedThe Biological Survey of Canada Newsletter traditionally served as a forum in encourages

cooperation in taxonomic and ecological studies of the arthropod fauna through publish-ing requests for material or information that might be obtained by someone elsewhere in Canada. If you have a request that you would like to see in the newsletter, please send it to:

Requests should clearly indicate that they are for the Biological Survey of Canada Newsletter, and be made by the end of November for the Winter issue, and by the end of April for the Summer issue.

Owen Lonsdale, PhD Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

K.W. Neatby Building, Central Experimental Farm,960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6

E-mail: [email protected]

CANADIAN AGROMYZIDAE. Canadian specimens of the genera Liriomyza and Phyto-myza (Diptera: Agromyzidae) are welcome for ongoing revisions, particularly if these are associated with host plant rearing records. All other specimens of Agromyzidae are also welcome, as these will eventually be used for similar treatments in this series. Please contact Owen Lonsdale ([email protected]).

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR ARTHROPODS Do you have specimens of terrestrial arthropods from the province of NL in your collection? As part of the BSC project on the Terrestrial Arthropods of NL, we would like to include as many existing records as possible in our survey efforts. We are especially interested in Coleoptera and Lepidoptera, but all Classes and Orders of terrestrial arthropods are of interest. Please contact David Lan-gor, [email protected]

CARABID BEETLE DATA SETS As part of a synthesis of the structure of carabid beetle assemblages in North American forests, we are looking for those who are willing to share datasets from sampling of carabids in forests (undisturbed or undisturbed by natural or man-made means). We are especially interested in data sets that include an entire season of activity. Information on assemblage composition, relative abundance of species and temporal (seasonal) patterns of change is desired. Depending on the degreee of contribu-tion and involvement in the synthesis, there is the possibility of co-authorships. Please contact David Langor, [email protected]


http://www.volumesdirect.com/

http://www.volumesdirect.com/



Recent papers in the Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification:

Cory S. Sheffield, Claudia Ratti, Laurence Packer, Terry Griswold (2011)Leafcutter and Mason Bees of the Genus Megachile Latreille (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Canada and Alaska. CJAI 18 (November 29, 2011). doi:10.3752/cjai.2011.18

Jason J. Dombroskie (2011)A Matrix Key to Families, Subfamilies and Tribes of Lepidoptera of Canada. CJAI 17 (July 19, 2011). doi:10.3752/cjai.2011.17.

Stephen P.L. Luk*, Stephen A. Marshall*, Marc A. Branham (2011)The Fireflies of Ontario (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). CJAI 16 (June 2, 2011). doi: 10.3752/cjai.2011.16.

Notice: Publication ofVolume II of the Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands series

Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands, Volume 2: Inhabitants of a Changing Landscape is now available for chapter by chapter download, or purchase of the

complete book.

To download chapters: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/grasslandsbook2.htm To purchase a copy, go to: http://www.volumesdirect.com/detail.aspx?ID=4764).

Annual Curation Blitz at the Entomological Society of Canada Meeting:

The 2012 Curation Blitz will be held in conjunction with the The 2012 Joint Annual Meeting between the Entomological Society of Alberta and the Entomological Society of Canada will be held November 3-7, 2012 at

the Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel in Edmonton, Alberta.

Contact: David McCorquodale, [email protected]

orFelix Sperling, [email protected]

Notices

Call for Proposals for a 2012 Biological Survey of Canada BioBlitz

A Bioblitz is a great way to start or implement a faunal inventory of a region, as can be seen by reading the report of the 2010 bioBlitz on p. 7 of Vol. 29(2), or other issues of the newsletter. If you are interested in organizing a BioBlitz for the summer of 2012, please contact Dr. Joe Shorthouse, Laurentian University ([email protected])

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/ejournal/ejournal.html

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/ejournal/ejournal.html

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/grasslandsbook2.htm

http://www.volumesdirect.com/detail.aspx?ID=4764






Add Your Voice: Biological Survey of Canada Blog

The BSC is looking for input into the the future and role of the BSC. The dis-cussions from the the AGM in Halifax in 2011 continue on the BSC blog, set up to provide a forum to facilitate wider community discussion. Whether or not you are a member of the BSC we would like to encourage you to visit this site and add your ideas and opinions as the BSC moves ahead in redefining itself.

See http://biologicalsurvey.wordpress.com/

... and Don’t forget: The BSC has a listserve that acts as a convenient bulletin board for items related to surveying arthropods in Canada. If you are not already a member, think about joining it and using it.


Who We are:The Biological Survey of Canada is a Not-for-Profit Corporation dedicated to promoting biodiversity science in Canada- The BSC consists of an elected board of directors and hip represent-

ing all areas of biodiversity science, though with a focus on Arthropods.

- We produce a newsletter twice per year, and organize events such as annual Symposium at the Entomological Society of Canada meeting, an annual “Cura-tion Blitz” at the ESC meeting, an assist in organizing BioBlitzes when possible. Anyone can receive the newsletter, by sending a request to the Secretary (ad-dress below).

- Membership is free, and includes this newsletter and the right to vote at the Annual General Meeting. All members are encouraged to become actively involved in BSC projects, propose new projects, or to run for the positions on the Board of Directors. (A nominal membership fee may be charged in future to cover infrastructure costs).

- The Annual General Meeting is held each fall at the annual meeting of the En-tomological Society of Canada, with the option of participating electronically as well as in person.

To Join The BSC:Send an email to Dr. D. Giberson, Secretary, BSC.

[email protected]

- In the subject line, write “BSC Membership”- in the body of the message, give your full name and contact infor-

mation, and a valid email address. Remember to update the BSC if you change email addresses. Please also provide some infor-mation on your background and biodiversity interests.



biological survey of canada newsletter · the newsletter of the bsc is published twice a year by...

Documents