PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH. 107(4), 2005, pp. 808-811 ADDITIONAL HISTORIC RECORDS OF CICINDELA DORSALIS SAY AND CICINDELA PURITANA HORN (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE: CICINDELINI) FROM THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, USA Jonathan R. Mawdsley Department of Entomology, National Musuem of Natural History, Smithsonian Insti- tution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 187, Washington, DC 20013-7012 (e-mail: Jonathan. [email protected]) — Abstract. Previously unpublished historic records are presented for two tiger beetle taxa of conservation concern from the Chesapeake Bay region, Cicindela dorsalis Say and C. puritana Horn. Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis was encountered regularly at Chesa- peake Bay sites by collectors during the 1940s and 1950s, when other populations ofthis subspecies were experiencing a severe decline. The historic presence of C. dorsalis media LeConte in the southern Chesapeake Bay is documented by specimens collected in 1882. Cicindela puritana has been collected regularly at sites in Calvert County, Maryland, since 1911, sometimes in large numbers. Both C. d. dorsalis and C. puritana are currently listed as "Threatened" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Key Words: Cicindela dorsalis, Cicindela puritana, tiger beetle, conservation, distribu- tion, endangered species The shores of the Chesapeake Bay are species (Vogler and DeSalle 1993; Vogler home to an unusual tiger beetle fauna et al. 1993a, b). Consequently, I felt that a (Boyd 1975, Glaser 1976) which includes short paper summarizing these additional two taxa currently listed as "Threatened" historic records would be appropriate and under the U.S. Endangered Species Act relevant to current conservation efforts for (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). My these beetles. recent curatorial work in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution's National Mu- Cicindela dorsalis Say seum of Natural History (NMNH) resulted Two subspecies of C. dorsalis occur on in the discovery of additional historic spec- beaches along the Maryland and Virginia imens of both of these species which were shores of the Chesapeake Bay, C. d. dor- collected at sites along the Chesapeake Bay. salis Say and C. d. media LeConte (Knisley Specimens from museum collections and Schultz 1997). The specimens listedbe- have already provided information that is low represent additional historic records of essential to the development of conserva- both subspecies from the Chesapeake Bay tion strategies for these tiger beetles. Be- region. sides documenting historic populations and Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Say population declines (Knisley et al. 1987; Hill and Knisley 1993, 1994), museum This subspecies is currently listed as specimens have also provided insights into "Threatened" under the U.S. Endangered historic patterns ofgenetic variation in both Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3 VOLUME 107, NUMBER 4 809 1990). Once found in vast numbers on Bay, 27.VIII.1972, J. M. Sheppard (4 c?, 2 sandy beaches along the northeast coast of 9); Flag Pond. 3 miles south Kenwood C the United States, d. dorsalis experi- Beach, 24.VI.1959, O. L. Cartwright (2 9), enced significant declines during the mid- P. & P. Spangler (1 6); Kenwood Beach. 5 twentieth century and is no longer found at miles south Prince Frederick, 5.VII.1950. mostofits historic collecting localities (Sta- G. H. Nelson (1 d, 3 9), 29.VIII.1950, G. matov 1972, Knisley et al. 1987, Hill and H. Nelson (2 males); Plum Point. Knisley 1994). 24.VII.1949, O. L. Cartwright (19): Port Although C. d. dorsalis has disappeared Republic, 20.VII.1950, M. H. Hatch (19); from much of its former range, populations Prince Frederick, 21.VII.1950, G. H. Dieke along the Maryland and Virginia shores of (2 (?, 1 9). St. Mary's County: Point Look- the Chesapeake Bay appear to be relatively out, on sandy beach, Chesapeake Bay, robust (Hill and Knisley 1994). Indeed, sur- 22.VI.1944, G. B. Vogt (1 J, 1 9), veys over the past thirty years have re- 1.VII.1944, G. B. Vogt (1 d, 2 9). vealed many more populations of this spe- Virginia: state label only (1 9). cies in the Chesapeake Bay region than had These specimens demonstrate that adults previously been known (Boyd and Rust ofC. d. dorsalis were regularly encountered 1982, Knisley et al. 1987, Hill and Knisley by collectors at Chesapeake Bay beaches in 1994, Knisley, personal communication). the 1940s and 1950s, during a time when Cicindela d. dorsalis was first recorded many other populations of this subspecies from the Chesapeake Bay region by Boyd were experiencing severe declines (Stama- (1975), who reported recent collections tov 1972, Knisley et al. 1987, Hill and from several localities in Calvert County, Knisley 1994). Knisley (personal commu- Maryland: Calvert Beach, at the base of nication) reports that C. d. dorsalis has been Calvert Cliffs, Cliffs of Calvert, Cove found at or near many of these same sites Point, and Matoaka Beach. Glaser (1976, in his recent surveys. Two exceptions are 1984) reported this species from two addi- the Breezy Point Beach, which has become tional Calvert County localities. Camp Roo- a heavily used area and is therefore now sevelt and Flag Ponds. Boyd and Rust unsuitable for beach tiger beetle popula- (1982) noted these localities and also men- tions, and the Point Lookout site in St. tioned three older specimens collected on Mary's County, where Knisley failed to find 25.VI.1941 in Mathews County, Virginia. C. d. dorsalis in recent years, indicating an- Following extensive surveys in the 1980s other possible extirpation. The continued and early 1990s, Hill and Knisley (1994) presence of C. d. dorsalis at many of the reported that adult beetles were found at 1 same sites where it was found in the 1940s sites in Calvert County, Maryland, and 55 and 1950s suggests that there may be sites in Virginia. grounds for optimism regarding the long- C Other early collecting records of d. term survival of this subspecies in the dorsalis from the Chesapeake Bay region Chesapeake Bay region. have not been mentioned in the published NMNH Cicindela dorsalis lucdin LcConte literature. While curating the col- lection of these beetles, I found 30 speci- Cicindela dorsalis media LeConte has mens which had been collected prior to the experienced declines in parts of its range publication of the first report of C d. dor- and is currently listed as "Endangered" by salis from the Chesapeake Bay region. the state of Maryland (Yarbrough and Knis- USA: Maryland: Calvert County: Breezy ley 1994). Knisley and Schultz (1997) were Point Beach, 14.VII.1950, O. L. Cartwright the first to report this subspecies from ihc (3 6)\ Calvert Beach, 4.VII.1973, J. M. Chesapeake Bay. Five specimens of this NMNH Sheppard (1 9): Cove Point, Chesapeake subspecies in document its historic 810 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON presence in the southern Chesapeake Bay. 6), 4.VII.1951, S. I. Parfin (1 6); Prince Three of these specimens lack a precise Frederick, 21.Vn.l940 (2 6,2 9); Scientist year of collection but, given that they were Cliffs, 28.VII.1979, W. E. Steiner (4 6, \ 9). collected by H. G. Hubbard and E. A. Chesapeake Bay populations of this spe- Schwarz, the specimens would have been cies have clearly been popular with tiger collected some time prior to Hubbard's beetle collectors. It is interesting to note death in 1899. that most collections are of multiple indi- Virginia: Hampton County, Fort Monroe, viduals and that large series of specimens VIII.1882 (1 d, 1 9), 16. VII. [no year], have been collected on a single date (e.g., H. G. Hubbard and E. A. Schwarz (3 6). 36 specimens collected on July 4, 1973, at Calvert Beach). Taken together, these two Cicindela puritana Horn facts suggest that this species was probably Since 1911, this species has been regu- abundant at certain times and localities. larly collected at sites along the western Acknowledgments shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland (Hill and Knisley 1993). I thank Terry L. Erwin for sponsoring my I recently discovered a wealth of additional continued work as a Research Associate at material from these sites among the unsort- the National Museum ofNatural History. C. ed and unidentified tiger beetle specimens Barry Knisley of Randolph Macon College NMNH. and Michael A. Valenti of the Delaware in USA: Maryland: Calvert County: Cal- Forest Service reviewed the manuscript and vert, 13.VII.1967, J. Stamatov (2 6,2 9); provided helpful comments and suggestions Calvert Beach, 4.VII.1973, J. M. Sheppard for its improvement. (12 6, 24 9), 8.VII.1974, J. M. Sheppard Literature Cited (6 c?, 3 9), VII.1974 (4 6,4 9); Calvert Cliffs, VII.1973 (3 6,2 9); Calvert Cliffs Boyd, H. P. 1975. TheoverlappingrangesofCicindela dorsalis dorsalis and C. d. media, with notes on State Park, 7.VIII.1984, S. W. Gross (5 6 the Calvert Cliffs Area, Maryland. Cicindela7(3): and 1 9); Chesapeake Beach, 28.VI.1911, 55-59. E. Shoemaker (2 6, 4 9); 21.VI.1912, E. Boyd, H. R and R. W. Rust. 1982. Intraspecific and Shoemaker (1 6); 22.VI.1912, E. Shoe- geographic variation in Cicindela dorsalis Say maker (\ 6); 24.VI.1914, E. Shoemaker (4 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). TheColeopteristsBul- letin 36(2): 221-239. 6, 5 9); 30.VI.1929 (5 6, 1 9), Glaser, J. D. 1976. Cicindelids ofChesapeake Bay re- 23.VI.1933, A. Nicolay (2 6, 2 9), visited. Cicindela 8(1): 17-20. 23.VI.1933 (6 6, 4 9), 9.VI.1934 (4 6, 6 . 1984. TheCicindelidae (Coleoptera)ofMary- 9), 22.VI.1934, A. Nicolay (5 6,3 9), land. Maryland Entomologist 2(4): 65-76. 22.VI.1934, O. L. Cartwright (3 6,3 9), Hill, J. M., and C. B. Knisley. 1993. Puritan tigerbee- tle {Cicindela puritana G. Horn) recovery plan. 22.VI.1934 (2 6,3 9), 22.VI.1935, A. Nic- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massa- olay (16), 1.VIII.1941, on sandy beach be- chusetts, 39 pp. low cliff, G. B. Vogt (2 6, 3 9), . 1994. Northeastern beach tiger beetle {Cicin- 24.VII.1949, at foot of cliffs, G. B. Vogt (6 dela dorsalis dorsalis Say) recovery plan. U.S. 6), 20.VI.1981, Gordon and Wilder (2 6); Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts, Dares Beach, I.VII.1934, A. Stone (16,1 Knisl4e5y,ppC.. B. and T D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology 9), 26.VI.1949, H. L. Dozier (1 6, 1 9); ofTigerBeetles and aGuide to the Species ofthe Flag Pond, 24.VI.1959, O. L. Cartwright (3 SouthAtlantic States. VirginiaMuseumofNatural 6, 1 9); Matoaka Beach, Calvert Cliffs, History, Martinsville, Virginia, viii + 210 pp. 15.VII.1972, H. P Boyd (1 6, 7 9); Plum Knisley, C. B., J. I. Luebke, and D. R. Beatty. 1987. Natural history and population decline of the Point, 24.VII.1949, O. L. Cartwright (9 6, coastal tiger beetle, Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis 5 9), 28.VI.1950, O. L. Cartwright (6 c?, 3 Say (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Virginia Journal 9), 30.VII.1950, on beach, B. H. Dozier (1 of Science 38: 93-303. VOLUME 107, NUMBER 4 811 Stamatov, J. 1972. Cicindela dorsalis endangered on logical data to diagnose endangered populations northern Atlantic coast. Cicindela 4: 8. of the Puritan Tiger Beetle, Cicindela puritana. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and Molecular Ecology 2: 375-383 threatened wildlife and plants; determination of Vogler, A. P. R. DeSalle. T. Assmann, C. B. Knisley threatened status for the Puritan tiger beetle and and T. D. Schultz. 1993b. Molecular population the northeastern beach tiger beetle. Federal Reg- genetics ofthe endangered tiger beetle. Cicindela ister 55(152): 32088-32094. dorsalis (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Annals ofthe Vogler, A. R and R. DeSalle. 1993. Phylogeographic Entomological Society ofAmerica 86: 142-152 patterns in coastal North American tiger beetles, Yarbrough, W. W. and C. B. Knisley. 1994. Distribu- Cicindela dorsalis inferred from mitochondrial tion and abundance ofthe coastal tigerbeetle. Ci- DNA sequences. Evolution 47: 1192-1202 cindeladorsalismedia (Coleoptera:Cicindelidae). Vogler. A. R, C. B. Knisley, S. B. Glueck, J. M. Hill, in South Carolina. Entomological News 105(4): and R. DeSalle. 1993a. Using molecular and eco- 189-194.