Epicauta sanguinicollis

(LeConte, 1853)

Epicauta sanguinicollis is a North American blister beetle in the Meloidae, subgenus Epicauta. The was described by LeConte in 1853. Like other members of its , it possesses chemical defenses based on , a toxic terpenoid compound. The specific epithet 'sanguinicollis' refers to blood-red coloration on the pronotum or 'neck' region. Museum holdings indicate it is represented by few specimens relative to more common congenerics, suggesting it may be naturally scarce or geographically restricted.

Pronunciation

How to pronounce Epicauta sanguinicollis: /ˌɛpɪˈkaʊtə ˌsæŋɡwɪnɪˈkɔlɪs/

These audio files are automatically generated. While they are not always 100% accurate, they are a good starting point.

Identification

The name 'sanguinicollis' (blood-red neck) indicates diagnostic reddish coloration on the pronotum, distinguishing it from the predominantly gray or uniformly colored Epicauta species commonly encountered on Gutierrezia and Heterotheca in the Great Plains. Exact differentiation from other Epicauta species requires examination of male genitalia and other subtle morphological characters; field identification to species within this large is generally unreliable.

Distribution

North America; precise range boundaries are not well documented in available sources. The is present in the Meloidae holdings of the Entomology Research Museum, indicating occurrence in the western or southwestern United States given the collection's geographic emphasis, though this is not explicitly confirmed.

Similar Taxa

More Details

Taxonomic placement

The is classified in subgenus Epicauta (Epicauta), one of two major subgenera in North America (the other being Macrobasis). This subgeneric placement indicates it lacks the enlarged hind characteristic of Macrobasis species.

Museum representation

The Entomology Research Museum holds only 3 specimens of E. sanguinicollis as of April 2010, compared to hundreds of specimens for common like E. puncticollis (806 specimens) and E. pruinosa (562 specimens). This disparity suggests either rarity, narrow geographic range, or undercollection due to identification challenges.

Tags

Sources and further reading