Translator Disclaimer
1 October 2013 Floral Associations of Cyclocephaline Scarab Beetles
Matthew Robert Moore, Mary Liz Jameson
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The scarab beetle tribe Cyclocephalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) is the second largest tribe of rhinoceros beetles, with nearly 500 described species. This diverse group is most closely associated with early diverging angiosperm groups (the family Nymphaeaceae, magnoliid clade, and monocots), where they feed, mate, and receive the benefit of thermal rewards from the host plant. Cyclocephaline floral association data have never been synthesized, and a comprehensive review of this ecological interaction was necessary to promote research by updating nomenclature, identifying inconsistencies in the data, and reporting previously unpublished data. Based on the most specific data, at least 97 cyclocephaline beetle species have been reported from the flowers of 58 plant genera representing 17 families and 15 orders. Thirteen new cyclocephaline floral associations are reported herein. Six cyclocephaline and 25 plant synonyms were reported in the literature and on beetle voucher specimen labels, and these were updated to reflect current nomenclature. The valid names of three unavailable plant host names were identified. We review the cyclocephaline floral associations with respect to inferred relationships of angiosperm orders. Ten genera of cyclocephaline beetles have been recorded from flowers of early diverging angiosperm groups. In contrast, only one genus, Cyclocephala, has been recorded from dicot flowers. Cyclocephaline visitation of dicot flowers is limited to the New World, and it is unknown whether this is evolutionary meaningful or the result of sampling bias and incomplete data. The most important areas for future research include: 1) elucidating the factors that attract cyclocephalines to flowers including floral scent chemistry and thermogenesis, 2) determining whether cyclocephaline dicot visitation is truly limited to the New World, and 3) inferring evolutionary relationships within the Cyclocephalini to rigorously test vicarance hypotheses, host plant shifts, and mutualisms with angiosperms.

Introduction

The Cyclocephalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) is the second largest rhinoceros beetle tribe, currently containing 15 genera and nearly 500 described beetle species (Jameson et al. 2002; Ratcliffe 2003; Smith 2006). Cyclocephalines have a pantropical distribution, though the majority of the group's generic and species diversity is concentrated in the New World (Ratcliffe 2003; Ratcliffe and Cave 2006). Most genera are sexually dimorphic, with males having enlarged protarsal claws and females having expanded elytral epipleura (Moore 2012). Cyclocephalines are important economically and ecologically as root pests (larvae) and pollinators (adults) (Ratcliffe 2003; Ratcliffe and Paulsen 2008). Adult cyclocephaline beetles can be found within the inflorescences of early diverging angiosperm groups (the family Nymphaeaceae, magnoliid clade, and monocots; Figure 1) and have been shown to contribute to pollination in the Annonaceae, Araceae, Arecaceae, Cyclanthaceae, Magnoliaceae, and Nymphaeaceae (Cramer et al. 1975; Beach 1982; Beach 1984; Young 1986; Young 1988b; Gottsberger 1989; Dieringer et al. 1999; Hirthe and Porembski 2003; Maia et al. 2012). Studies of these interactions indicate that some early diverging angiosperm groups offer rewards to cyclocephalines in the form of mating sites, food, and metabolic boosts associated with floral thermogenicity in return for pollination services (Gottsberger 1986; Young 1986; Seymour et al. 2009). Cyclocephaline visitation of dicot flowers is poorly known and little studied.

Cyclocephaline floral associations have been reported in journals, books, and monographs since the late 18th century. However, the prevalence, geographic scope, and biological importance of these records are difficult to gauge because publications summarizing cyclocephaline floral visitation are somewhat dated and report floral visitation only for specific plant families, geographic areas, or vegetation types (Henderson 1986; Gibernau 2003; Gottsberger and Silberbauer-Gottsberger 2006; Gibernau 2011). The fragmentary nature of these data and the citation of unpublished observations have hampered the ability to identify floral association trends within cyclocephaline genera and species.

The phylogeny of the Cyclocephalini was investigated for the first time by Clark (2011), and the generic-level relationships within the tribe remain an area of active research by M. R. Moore. Tribal circumscription of the Cyclocephalini is subject to change based on ongoing phylogenetic analyses. This research will provide an evolutionary framework for interpreting patterns of floral visitation. Compilation and synthesis of a checklist of floral associations is needed in order to understand the ecology of the Cyclocephalini within a phylogenetic context.

This checklist synthesizes data (plant and beetle species, geographic locality, and original citation) for the floral associations of adult cyclocephaline beetles. Invalid nomenclature in the surveyed literature is identified and corrected; conflicting data, sources of error, and uncertainty in the data are identified; and unpublished floral association data from examined voucher specimens are added. The aim of this work is to promote future research of these ecological interactions by providing a comprehensive data set of the taxonomic and geographic scope of floral visitation for cyclocephaline beetles.

Materials and Methods

Literature was surveyed from 1758 (Linnaeus) to 2012. Keyword searches for all cyclocephaline genera (sensu Ratcliffe and Cave 2006; Clark 2011) were conducted in the following databases: BioOne® ( www.bioone.org), BIOSIS Previews® ( http://apps.webofknowledge.com/), JSTOR ( www.istor.org), and Biodiversity Heritage Library ( www.biodiversitvlibrary.org). Every host plant reference from Pike et al. (1976) was checked for floral association data.

All reported cyclocephaline species names from the literature were verified by referencing the original species description and monographic treatments of the Dynastinae (Endrödi 1985; Ratcliffe 2003; Ratcliffe and Cave 2006). Synonyms or misspelled cyclocephaline species names in the literature were updated to reflect current nomenclature. All reported host plant names were verified using the peer-reviewed botanical taxonomic databases Tropicos ( www.tropicos.org) and The Plant List ( www.plantlist.org). Synonyms or misspelled plant names were updated to reflect current nomenclature based on The Plant List (2010). In some cases, scientific names in the literature could not be identified as valid or invalid (e.g., unavailable manuscript names or conflicting synonyms). Some unverified plant names were reported according to the original citation for the floral association, and the name was noted as unresolved. Occasionally, host plant and beetle species were not assigned an author in the reference for an association. This caused problems due to the prevalence of synonyms and homonyms in the plant and insect literature. Resulting ambiguities were rectified to the extent possible and explained in the remarks column (Appendix 1).

Borrowed specimens of cyclocephaline species allowed for direct evaluation of specieslevel identifications that were reported by several authors. Particularly, this included specimens of Cyclocephala sexpunctata Laporte (1840) and C. brevis Höhne (1847) collected by George Schatz, Helen Young (La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica), Alberto Seres, and Nelson Ramirez (Henri Pittier National Park, Venezuela), with floral association data that were subsequently published or unpublished. Identifications of these specimens (or specimen vouchers) were critically examined (Moore 2011). Exemplar material borrowed from the University of Nebraska State Museum (authoritatively identified by B. C. Ratcliffe) and monographic treatments (Ratcliffe 2003; Ratcliffe and Cave 2006) served as the basis for evaluating species identifications as well as detailed images of some type specimens. The operating assumption was that the collectors and authors were consistent with their species-level determinations. Identifications deemed incorrect based on current taxonomy were updated and noted accordingly. Unpublished host plant data were also found with cyclocephaline specimens in collections. These specimens were collected by M. R. Moore and deposited at Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA, or loaned from the following institutions:

  • INBC: Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Herédia, Costa Rica (Angel Solis)

  • MLUH: Zentralmagazin Naturwissenschaftlicher Sammlungen, Martin Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany (Karla Schneider)

  • MNHN: Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, France (Olivier Montreuil)

  • SEMC: Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (Zach Falin and Jennifer Thomas)

  • UNSM: University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, NE (Brett Ratcliffe and Matt Paulsen)

  • USNM: U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. (currently housed at the University of Nebraska State Museum for off-site enhancement) (Floyd Shockley and Dave Furth)

  • UVGC: Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala (Jack Schuster and Enio Cano)

  • WICH: Wichita State University, Wichita, KS (Mary Liz Jameson)

  • ZMHB: Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany (Johannes Frisch and Joachim Willers)

Concrete and anecdotal evidence of floral associations were also included in the checklist. The nature of the published association occasionally needed clarification or elaboration (e.g., cyclocephalines reported near flowers but not on them or museum specimens covered in resin and pollen). These clarifications were provided in the remarks column of Appendix 1. A large amount of unpublished and inaccessible data exists with regard to cyclocephaline floral visitation. These records provide ambiguous data for plant species, cyclocephaline species, locality, and associated voucher information. For example, Schatz (1990, Table 7.3) recorded known and predicted (without distinguishing the two) plant taxa pollinated by dynastines in the Neotropics. Schatz (1990, Table 7.4) recorded cyclocephaline plant visitation at La Selva Biological Station, but a large amount of data could not be extracted because of the nonspecific nature of the record (i.e., the data were reported at the tribal-level rather than at the species-level). These inaccessible data are important because they report certain associations that are not recorded elsewhere in the literature. Repetitive data from these types of records were omitted from the checklist. Only unique generic or species-level plant associations were reported for the beetle tribe from these data sets. These non-specific records are reported at the end the checklist with the intention that they be reevaluated with the addition of more data.

Table 1.

Previously unpublished cyclocephaline beetle floral association data.

t01_01.gif

Results

Based on species-specific records from the literature and voucher label data, at least 97 cyclocephaline species from nine or 10 genera (depending on the identity of the cyclocephaline reported by Gibbs et al. (1977)) were recorded in association with the flowers of at least 161 species representing 58 genera, 17 families, and 15 orders (Appendix 1). Examined voucher specimens occasionally had unique, unpublished, floral association data. Thirteen new plant associations are provided in Table 1. Examined voucher specimens that did not have unique data are noted in Appendix 1. The most specific data are summarized at the generic-level for the plant association (plant classification according to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III (2009)) in Table 2 and are provided in full detail (lowest-level taxonomy, geographic data, and references) in Appendix 1. Cyclocephaline beetle genera and their associations with angiosperm plant lineages were mapped onto the APG III angiosperm phylogeny (Figure 1).

Five of the 15 cyclocephaline genera were not reported as floral visitors in any of the surveyed literature: Acrobolbia Ohaus (1912), Ancognatha Erichson (1847), Harposcelis Burmeister (1847), Stenocrates Burmeister (1847), and Surutu Martínez (1955). Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Cyclocephalini indicated that the Neotropical genus Parapucaya Prell (1934) (Dynastinae: Pentodontini) and the Indonesian archipelago genus Neohyphus Heller (1896) (Dynastinae: Oryctoderini) fall within a potential newly defined Cyclocephalini (Clark 2011). These genera were included in the systematic literature searches but yielded no floral association records. The results of Clark (2011) hypothesized that the genus Erioscelis Burmeister (1847) is sister to all remaining genera of the Cyclocephalini + Neohyphyus + Parapucaya. Erioscelis was included in this checklist because of its documented visitation of several genera in the Araceae (also visited by other cyclocephalines) and its historical inclusion in the Cyclocephalini.

Table 2.

Generic-level summary of floral association records for the Cyclocephalini (group names in parentheses are based on APG III (2009)) [? indicates a potentially dubius record, see Appendix I].

t02a_01.gif

Continued.

t02b_01.gif

Floral associations that are less specific or ambiguous (non-specific records) were also reported (Appendix 1). For example, Listabarth (1996) reported dynastine scarabs, with no further species identification, on three species of Bactris palms (Arecales). These data include records for Scarabaeidae, Dynastinae, and beetles on flowers that fit the general pattern of cyclocephaline floral visitation (nocturnal visitation of bowl-shaped, thermogenic inflorescences). Non-specific records were included in the checklist with the hope that they may be reevaluated with additional data.

Gathering and interpreting floral association data were complicated by the prevalancy of synonyms, invalid names, and unavailable names in the literature. Based on The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), an unavailable name is a name that is excluded from use due to the requirements of the code. For example, the unavailable name Cyclocephala inpunctata was reported in the surveyed literature (Gottsberger 1986, 1988). C. inpunctata has never been described in the literature. This name is unavailable and was likely reported in error. Based on published locality data for the floral association, images of the beetle (Gottsberger 1988; Figure 4a, 5 a–d), and subsequently published records, we consider this species to be Cyclocephala quatuordecimpunctata Mannerheim (1829) (personal communication with B. C. Ratcliffe, April 2011). Synonyms of six cyclocephaline genus or species names were reported in the surveyed literature; these invalid names were updated based on current nomenclature (Appendix 2). Synonyms of 25 plant genus or species names were reported in the surveyed literature and on voucher specimen label data; these invalid names were updated based on current nomenclature (Appendix 3).

Seven unresolved or unavailable plant names were reported from label data and in the surveyed literature (Appendix 4). According to The Plant List (2010), unresolved names are those for which “it is not yet possible to assign a status of either ‘accepted’ or ‘synonym.’” Two of these names, Philodendron atlanticum and Dieffenbachia longivaginata, were unavailable manuscript names (place-holder names for species that were later described) of Thomas Croat and Michael Grayum (Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri, USA). These species were identified as Philodendron ligulatum Schott and Dieffenbachia tonduzii Croat and Grayum, respectively (personal communication with T. Croat and M. Grayum, April 2011). Xanthosoma macrorrhizas i s an unavailable name that was reported by Valerio (1984). This species may be the cultivated, naturalized, non-native species Alocasia macrorrhizos (L.) G. Don (personal communication with T. Croat, April 2011).

Certain cyclocephaline species were commonly reported as floral visitors. For example, Cyclocephala sexpunctata had over 20 floral visitation records in the surveyed literature (Appendix 1). C. sexpunctata is externally nearly identical to C. brevis (sensu Ratcliffe 2003; Ratcliffe and Cave 2006). Research on these two species showed that they represent four, or potentially five, morphospecies (Moore 2011). This conclusion was based on male genitalic characters, the form of the female epipleuron, and extensive range and spatial data (Moore 2011). The taxonomy of the species C. sexpunctata and C. brevis remains unresolved (a possible species complex), and their floral associations were reported in detail (Moore 2011). Some voucher specimens for reported floral associations of C. sexpunctata and C. brevis remain to be examined, and some data will require reinterpretation after the examination of type specimens.

Discussion

Examination of cyclocephaline floral associations with respect to inferred relationships of angiosperm orders revealed that 10 of the 15 genera of cyclocephaline beetles have been recorded from flowers of early diverging angiosperm groups (the family Nymphaeaceae, magnoliid clade, and monocots; Figure 1). In contrast, only one genus, Cyclocephala, has been recorded from dicot flowers (Figure 1). Experimental and observational studies have demonstrated that cyclocephalines can act as pollinators in Nymphaeales, Magnoliales, Arecales, Pandanales, and Alismatales (Figure 1; Table 2) (Cramer et al. 1975; Beach 1982; Beach 1984; Young 1986; Young 1988b; Gottsberger 1989; Dieringer et al. 1999; Hirthe and Porembski 2003; Maia et al. 2012). In these early diverging plant groups, a wide set of floral traits and floral pollination syndromes indicate a correlation with cyclocephaline beetles (large pollen grains with sticky exudates, sturdy and funnel-shaped inflorescences or large disc-shaped flowers, timing of anthesis, and therm ogenesis) (Thien et al. 2009; Gibernau et al. 2010). These angiosperm orders offer rewards to cyclocephalines in the form of mating sites, food, and heat resources associated with floral thermogenicity (Young 1986; Seymour et al. 2009).

Some cyclocephaline/flower associations are mutualistic (Cramer et al. 1975; Beach 1982; Beach 1984; Young 1986; Young 1988b; Gottsberger 1989; Dieringer et al. 1999; Hirthe and Porembski 2003; Maia et al. 2012). Ervik and Knudsen (2003) provide a compelling argument that scarab pollination of the Nymphaeaceae (Nymphales) is a mutualistic relationship that dates to the early Cretaceous. Whether this represents an example of coevolution is unclear, and only one study has addressed this hypothesis (Schiestl and Dötterl 2012). Schiestl and Dötterl (2012) argued that volatile organic compound production/detection systems arose in the Scarabaeoidea during the Jurassic, whereas floral volatile organic compounds arose in the Cretaceous/Paleocene. This was taken as evidence that early diverging angiosperm plant/scarab associations evolved due to a preexisting sensory bias in scarabs rather than as a result of coevolution (Schiestl and Dötterl 2012). However, coevolution could not be ruled out for the mutualism between cyclocephaline scarabs and aroid flowers (Schiestl and Dötterl 2012).

Floral visitation of the core eudicot clade (Figure 1) by cyclocephalines is poorly described and, in certain cases, differs significantly from a pollination mutualism. Such cases involve feeding and mating within flowers in which cyclocephalines have no apparent pollinating function and may destroy the reproductive capability of the plant. For example, in the Brazilian dicot Opuntia monocantha Haw. (Caryophyllales), Cyclocephala have been observed mating within the flowers and feeding on stamens (Lenzi and Inácio Orth 2011). Observations made on Echinopsis ancistrophora Speg. subsp. ancistrophora (Caryophyllales) flowers indicate that Cyclocephala visitors display destructive feeding behavior and do not contribute to reproduction (Schlumpberger et al. 2009). Cyclocephala metrica Steinheil (1874) was observed feeding on seeds in flower heads of Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. and Hook. f. ex A. Gray (Asterales) in Argentina (Hayward 1946). Seed predation in phytophagous scarabs is rare, the only other known example being some members of the subtribe Anisopliina (Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Anomalini) that feed on grass seeds (Poaceae) (Jameson et al. 2007).

In contrast to apparent destructive associations with dicots, only one detailed account provides evidence of a cyclocephaline beetle pollinating a eudicot. Prance (1976) observed male and female Cyclocephala verticalis Burmeister (1847) occupying the inflorescences of Le cy this, Corythophora, and Eschweilera (Ericales) in Amazonas, Brazil. C. verticalis was strong enough to lift the closed androphore flap of Lecythidaceae (Encales) inflorescences and displayed selective feeding of floral parts, eating only staminode tissue at the apex of the androphore and leaving fertile stamens untouched (Prance 1976). Based on these observations, C. verticalis was considered a likely pollinator of some Lecythidaceae genera, though this hypothesis was not tested (Prance 1976).

Gottsberger (1986) considered cyclocephaline floral visitation of the dicot families Apocynaceae (Gentianales), Calophyllaceae (Malpighiales), and Sapotaceae (Ericales) to be opportunistic. In the absence of early diverging angiosperm host flowers, Gottsberger (1986) hypothesized that cyclocephalines would visit strongly scented flowers of other groups. Cyclocephalines have been shown to aggregate based on floral scent compounds alone (Gottsberger et al. 2012). Cyclocephaline species (and populations) likely are biased towards a wide range of floral scent compounds. Eudicot species with geographically variable floral scent profiles may evolve scents that incidentally stimulate cyclocephaline aggregation by randomly sampling the sensory bias range of scarabs present in that area (e.g., Schlumpberger and Raguso 2008; Schlumpberger et al. 2009). This scenario, if accurate, would lend support to the hypothesis of Schiestl and Dötterl (2012) that preexisting sensory biases in cyclocephalines have an important role in determining the host flower profile of a given cyclocephaline species.

Based on the assembled data (Appendix 1), cyclocephaline visitation of eudicots is limited to the New World. It is unknown whether this shift represents an evolutionary event that occurred in New World cyclocephalines. Observations of cyclocephalines on dicot flowers (Figure 1) have largely been made by chance and have not been the subject of rigorous experimentation or sampling protocols. Thus, it is quite possible that Old World cyclocephalines (Ruteloryctes, Peltonotus, and potentially Neohyphus) visit both early diverging angiosperm groups and dicot groups, but dicot associations have not been recorded. However, it is certain that the known diversity of host flowers lineages is much higher for New World cyclocephalines (15 orders, 17 families, and 58 genera) compared to Old World cyclocephalines (two orders, two families, and three genera) (Appendix 1). This correlation may indicate that the radiation of the cyclocephalines in the New World was accompanied by a subsequent increase in the diversity of their floral associations.

Cyclocephaline species are generally oligophagous or polyphagous. For cyclocephaline species with multiple host records, only seven species have been recorded from a single host plant genus (monophagous), 23 species have been reported from multiple host plant genera within a family (oligophagous), and 27 species have been recorded from multiple host plant families (polyphagous) (Appendix 1). Single inflorescences often contain multiple cyclocephaline species, and an extreme example is Dieffenbachia nitidipetiolata Croat and Grayum (Alismatales), which was visited by at least nine Cyclocephala species at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica (Young 1990; see Croat 2004 for plant identification). These multi-species aggregations might be explained if floral scents are serving as sex pheromones for multiple cyclocephaline species (Schatz 1990). This hypothesis may be supported by the observations of Gottsberger et al. (2012) that Cyclocephala literata Burmeister will aggregate due to floral scent compounds alone.

The consequences of polyphagous and oligophagous cyclocephalines for pollination efficiency have been experimentally addressed, indicating that cyclocephaline floral visitors are differentially important as pollinators due to an interaction between their relative abundance and specific behavior (Young 1986, 1988a, b, 1990). It is less clear how cyclocephalines species, which often mate inside inflorescences, maintain sexual isolation in close proximity to multiple congenerics. A single infloresence may host large crowds of beetles, often more then 30 individuals (Maia et al. 2012). Sexual isolation may be maintained due to interspecific mating morphology (Moore 2012). Sexually dimorphic cyclocephaline species have enlarged protarsal claws (males), and the elytral epipleuron variably expanded into a shelf or flange (females). Morphological differences among epipleural expansions are useful for species-level identification in the Cyclocephalini (Ratcliffe 2003). Females have sclerotized patches, sometimes with setae, on the ventral portion of epipleural expansions (Moore 2012). It is hypothesized that the interaction between the male protarsal claw, the female epipleural expansions, and the ventral portion of the female elytra serves as a pre-copulatory sexual isolation mechanism. Further sexual isolation between species is accomplished by species-specific differences in male genitalic structure (Moore 2012). The male protarsal claw and the female epipleuron may also be involved in intraspecific mate competition. For example, male Cyclocephala gravis Bates were observed clinging tightly to the epipleural structures of a female (guarding behavior), thus limiting the mating access of other C. gravis males (Moore 2012). Cyclocephaline beetles exhibit some similarity to hopliine scarabs (Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Hopliini), which are generalist flower visitors in South Africa (Ahrens et al. 2011). Sexual dimorphism has evolved independently several times within the Hopliini (Ahrens et al. 2011). Evolution of sexual dimorphism in hopliines could be tied to the group's biology, as they feed and compete for mates within inflorescences (Midgeley 1992; Ahrens et al. 2011). Sexual dimorphism in cyclocephalines and hopliines may be analogous, driven by selection pressures related to oligophagous and polyphagous flower feeding, mating behavior, and host visitation.

Cyclocephaline beetles and floral associations provide an ideal system for investigating ecology (pollination, competition) and evolution (sexual selection, mutualisms). A wellfounded phylogenetic framework for the Cyclocephalini is needed to advance this work. While ecological associations between beetles and early diverging angiosperm groups is fairly well-established, additional research is necessary to understand the ecological and historical associations of cyclocephaline beetles and dicots. Specifically, research is needed to address the apparent cyclocephaline diversification on New World dicots. Research on cryptic species of host plants and beetles is fundamental to understanding this system. This includes the role of floral volatile compounds in attracting cyclocephaline beetles and patterns of pollination, herbivory, and interspecific competition within floral hosts.

Figure 1.

Cyclocephaline beetle genera and their associations with angiosperm plant lineages (plant phylogeny from APGIII 2009). Icons denote beetle genera that are associated with angiosperm plant lineages. Numbers in the icons indicate the number of species for each beetle genus. If the number of beetle species is unresolved due to conflict in the literature, this is indicated with ~ symbol (the number may be × ± I species). If the beetle genus has not been satisfactorily associated with the plant lineage, it is denoted with a ? symbol. For each angiosperm plant lineage, the number of families and genera that the beetles are associated with is denoted with #f (number of families) and #g (number of genera). See Appendix I for data. High quality figures are available online.

f01_01.jpg

Acknowledgements

We thank Brett Ratcliffe (University of Nebraska State Museum) and Ron Cave (University of Florida) for providing travel funding, specimens for this research, and valuable advice on preparing this manuscript. We are grateful to Michael Grayum, Thomas Croat (both Missouri Botanical Garden), and Boris Schlumpberger (University of Munich) for their botanical expertise. Curators and collections managers in the Methods section are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported, in part by NSF DBI 0743783 to S. Scott, E. Moriyama, L.-K. Soh, and M. L. Jameson; NSF DEB 0716899 to B. C. Ratcliffe and R. D. Cave; and Wichita State University.

References

1.

A Aguirre , R Guevara , R. Dirzo 2011. Effects of forest fragmentation on assemblages of pollinators and floral visitors to male- and female-phase inflorescences of Astrocaryum mexicanum (Arecaceae) in a Mexican rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 27: 25–33. Google Scholar

2.

D Ahrens , M Scott , AP. Vogler 2011. The phylogeny of monkey beetles based on mitochondrial and ribosomal RNA genes (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Hopliini). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 60: 408–415. Google Scholar

3.

AB Anderson , WL Overal , A. Henderson 1988. Pollination ecology of a forestdominant palm (Orbignya phalerata Mart.) in northern Brazil. Biotropica 20: 192–205. Google Scholar

4.

RS Anderson , LD. Gómez-Pignataro 1997. Systenotelus, a remarkable new genus of weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) associated with Carludovica (Cyclanthaceae) in Costa Rica and Panamá. Revista de Biología Tropical 45: 887–904. Google Scholar

5.

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III (APG III). 2009. An update of The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 105–121. Google Scholar

6.

GJ. Arrow 1902. Notes and descriptions of some Dynastidae from tropical America, chiefly supplementary to the ‘Biologia Centrali-Americana.’ Annals and Magazine of Natural History (series 7) 10: 137–147. Google Scholar

7.

GJ. Arrow 1903. Description of a few new species of Coleoptera from Sapucay, Paraguay. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 2: 255–258. Google Scholar

8.

GJ. Arrow 1910. On the lamellicorn beetles of the genus Peltonotus with descriptions of four new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (series 8) 5: 153–157. Google Scholar

9.

GJ. Arrow 1911. Notes on the coleopterous subfamily Dynastinae, with descriptions of new genera and species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (series 8) 8: 151–176. Google Scholar

10.

H Balslev , A. Henderson 1987. A new Ammandra (Palmae) from Ecuador. Systematic Botany 12: 501–504. Google Scholar

11.

HW. Bates 1888. Pectinicornia and Lamellicornia, Family Dynastidae. In: FD Godman , O Salvin , Editors. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta, Coleoptera, volume 2, part 2. pp. 296–342. Google Scholar

12.

HW. Bates 1891. Coleoptera. In: E Whymper , Editor. Supplementary Appendix to Travels Amongst the Great Andes of the Equator , pp. 7–39. John Murray. Google Scholar

13.

KS Bawa , SH Bullock , DR Perry , RE Coville , MH. Grayum 1985b. Reproductive biology of tropical lowland rainforest trees. II. Pollination systems. American Journal of Botany 72: 346–356. Google Scholar

14.

KS Bawa , DR Perry , JH. Beach 1985a. Reproductive biology of tropical lowland rainforest trees. I. Sexual systems and incompatibility mechanisms. American Journal of Botany 72: 331–345. Google Scholar

15.

JH. Beach 1982. Beetle pollination of Cyclanthus bipartitus (Cyclanthaceae). American Journal of Botany 69: 1074–1081. Google Scholar

16.

JH. Beach 1984. The reproductive biology of the peach or “pejibaye” palm (Bactris gasipaes) and a wild congener (B. porschiana) in the Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Principes 28: 107–119. Google Scholar

17.

DN. Beath 1998. Pollination Ecology of the Araceae. International Aroid Society, Inc. Available online:  http://www.aroid.org/pollination/beath/index.php  Google Scholar

18.

DN. Beath 1999. Dynastine scarab beetle pollination in Diejfenbachia longispatha (Araceae) on Barro Colorado Island (Panama) compared with La Selva Biological Station (Costa Rica). Aroideana 22: 63–71. Google Scholar

19.

R Bernal , F. Ervik 1996. Floral biology and pollination of the dioecious plam Phytelephas seemannii in Colombia: an adaptation to staphylinid beetles. Biotropica 28: 682–696. Google Scholar

20.

J. Bogner 2008. The genus Bognera Mayo & Nicolson (Araceae). Aroideana 31: 3–14. Google Scholar

21.

SH. Bullock 1981. Notes on the phenology of inflorescences and pollination of some rain forest palms in Costa Rica. Principes 25: 101– 105. Google Scholar

22.

H. Burmeister 1847. Handbuch der Entomologie, volume 5. T. C. F. Enslin. Google Scholar

23.

A Búrquez , KJ Sarukhán , AL. Pedroza 1987. Floral biology of a primary rainforest palm, Astrocaryum mexicanum Liebm. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 94: 407–419. Google Scholar

24.

TL. Casey 1915. A review of the American species of Rutelinae, Dynastinae and Cetoniinae. Memoirs on the Coleoptera 11: 1– 347. Google Scholar

25.

TRM. Cavalcante 2000. Polinização manual e natural da gravi oleira (Annona muricata L.). MS dissertation. Universidad Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil. Google Scholar

26.

TRM Cavalcante , RV Naves , EV Franceschinelli , RP. da Silva 2009. Polinizaçao de frutos em araticum. Bragantia, Campinas 68: 13–21. Google Scholar

27.

HY Chen , WS Yeng , PC Boyce , WM Hung , MCK. Yok 2011. Studies of Homalomeneae (Araceae) of Borneo VII: Homalomena debilicrista, a new species from Malaysian Borneo, and observations of its pollination mechanics. Plant Diversity and Evolution 129: 77–87. Google Scholar

28.

DR. Clark 2011. Phylogenetic analysis of the scarab beetle tribe Cyclocephalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) based on adult morphological characters. Masters Thesis, Wichita State University. Wichita, KS, USA. Google Scholar

29.

TDA. Cockerell 1897. Biological notes on some Coleoptera from New Mexico. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 5: 149–150. Google Scholar

30.

OF. Cook 1927. New genera and species of ivory palms from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 17: 218–230. Google Scholar

31.

JM Cramer , ADJ Meese , PA. Tuenissen 1975 A note on the pollination of nocturnally flowering species of Nymphaea. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 24: 489–490. Google Scholar

32.

TB. Croat 1981. A revision of Syngonium (Araceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 68: 565–651. Google Scholar

33.

TB. Croat 1997. A revision of Philodendron subgenus Philodendron (Araceae) for Mexico and Central America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 84: 311–704. Google Scholar

34.

TB. Croat 2004. Revision of “Dieffenbachia” (Araceae) of Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 91: 668–772. Google Scholar

35.

HN de Oliveira , CJ. Ávila 2011. Ocorréncia de Cyclocephala forsteri em Acronomia acule ata. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 41: 293–295. Google Scholar

36.

RP. Dechambre 1979. Missions Entomologiques en Guyane et au Brésil (Coleoptera, Dynastidae). Revue Française d'Entomologie 1: 160–168. Google Scholar

37.

RP. Dechambre 1980. Six nouvelles espèces de Cyclocephala. Revue Française d'Entomologie (Nouvelle-Serie) 2: 42–49. Google Scholar

38.

PFMA. Dejean 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptères de M. le Baron Dejean. Paris, France. Google Scholar

39.

G Dieringer , L. Delgado 1994. Notes on the biology of Cyclocephala jalapensis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): an endemic of eastern Mexico. The Southwestern Entomologist 19: 309–311. Google Scholar

40.

G Dieringer , JE. Espinosa 1994. Reproductive Ecology of Magnolia schiedeana (Magnoliaceae), a threatened cloud forest tree species in Veracruz, Mexico. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 121: 154–159. Google Scholar

41.

G Dieringer , R L Cabrera , M Lara , L Loya , P. Reyes-Castillo 1999. Beetles pollination and floral thermogenicity in Magnolia tamaulipana (Magnoliaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences 160: 64–71. Google Scholar

42.

G Dieringer , P Reyes-Castillo , M Lara , RL Cabrera , L. Loya 1998. Endothermy and floral utilization of Cyclocephala caelestis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidae: Melolonthidae): a cloud forest endemic beetle. Acta Zoologica Mexicana 73: 145–153. Google Scholar

43.

S. Endrödi 1963. Neue Cyclocephala-Arten. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici (pars Zoologica) 55: 323–333. Google Scholar

44.

S. Endrödi 1964. Eine Reihe von neuen Cyclocephala-Arten (Col., Melolonthidae, Dynastinae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica 17: 433–470. Google Scholar

45.

S. Endrödi 1966. Monographie der Dynastinae (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). I. Teil. Entomologische Abhandlungen 33: 1–460. Google Scholar

46.

S. Endrödi 1969. Einige neue Cyclocephalini und Pentodontini. Acta Zoologica Hungarica 15: 21–42. Google Scholar

47.

S. Endrödi 1975. Cyclocephala hardyi sp. n. Folia Entomologica Hungarica (N.S.) 28: 281–284. Google Scholar

48.

S. Endrödi 1980. Sechs neue Dynastinen-Arten aus Amerika und Borneo (Coleoptera: Dynastinae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica 41: 37–42. Google Scholar

49.

S. Endrödi 1985. The Dynastinae of the World. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. Google Scholar

50.

WF. Erichson 1847. Conspectus insectorum coleopterorum quae in Republica Peruana observata sunt. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 13: 67–185. Google Scholar

51.

F. Ervik 1993. Notes on the phenology and pollination of the dioecious palms Mauritia flexuosa (Calamoideae) and Aphandra natalia (Phytelephantoideae) in Ecuador. In: W Barthlott , CM Naumann , K Schmidt-Loeske , KL Schuchmann , Editors. Animal-plant interactions in tropical environments: results of the annual meeting of the German Society for Tropical Ecology held at Bonn , Germany, February 13–16, 1992. pp. 7–12. Google Scholar

52.

F Ervik , JT. Knudsen 2003. Water lilies and scarabs: faithful partners for 100 million years? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80: 539–543. Google Scholar

53.

F Ervik , L Tollsten , JT. Knudsen 1999. Floral scent chemistry and pollination ecology in phytelephantoid palms (Arecaceae). Plant Systematic s and Evolution 217: 279–297. Google Scholar

54.

JC. Fabricius 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Leipzig, Germany. Google Scholar

55.

JC. Fabricius 1781. Species Insectorum, Volume 1. Kiel, Germany. Google Scholar

56.

JC. Fabricius 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. Proft et Storch, Hafniae. Google Scholar

57.

C García-Robledo , G Kattan , C Murcia , P. Quintero-Marín 2004. Beetle pollination and fruit prédation of Xanthosoma daguense (Araceae) in an Andean cloud forest in Colombia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20: 459–469. Google Scholar

58.

C García-Robledo , P Quintero-Marín , F. MoraKepfer 2005. Geographic variation and succession of arthropod communities in inflorescences and infructescences of Xanthosoma (Araceae). Biotropica 37: 650–656. Google Scholar

59.

F. Gessner 1962. A abertura das flores de Victoria regia, em relaçào à luz. Boletim do Museu Paranense Emilio Goeldi 17: 1–13. Google Scholar

60.

M. Gibernau 2003. Pollinators and visitors of aroid inflorescences. Aroideana 26: 66–83. Google Scholar

61.

M. Gibernau 2011. Pollinators and visitors of aroid inflorescences: an addendum. Aroideana 34: 70–83. Google Scholar

62.

M Gibernau , D. Barabé 2002. Pollination ecology of Philodendron squamiferum (Araceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 316–320. Google Scholar

63.

M Gibernau , D Barabé , B. Labat 2000. Flowering and pollination of Philodendron melinonii (Araceae) in French Guiana. Plant Biology 2: 331–334. Google Scholar

64.

M Gibernau , D Barabé , P Cerdan , A. Dejean 1999. Beetle pollination of Philodendron solimoesense (Araceae) in French Guiana. International Journal of Plant Science 160: 1135–1143. Google Scholar

65.

M Gibernau , D Barabé , D Labat , P Cerdan , A. Dejean 2003. Reproductive Biology of Montrichardia arborescens (Araceae) in French Guiana. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 103–107. Google Scholar

66.

M Gibernau , M Chartier , D. Barabé 2010. Recent advances towards an evolutionary comprehension of Araceae pollination. In: O Seberg , G Petersen , AS Barfod , JI Davis , Editors. Diversity, phylogeny, and evolution in the Monocotyledons. pp. 101–114. Aarhus University Press. Google Scholar

67.

PE Gibbs , J Semir , ND. da Cruz 1977. Floral biology of Talauma ovata St. Hil. (Magnoliaceae). Ciéncia e Cultura 29: 1437– 1441. Google Scholar

68.

LP. Goldwasser 1987. I. Branching patterns, generating rules, and astrogenetic trajectories in Bu gula (Cheilostomata, Bryozoa). II. Mutualism and its ecological and evolutionary consequences. PhD Dissertation, University of California-Berkeley. Berkely, CA, USA. Google Scholar

69.

L. Goldwasser 2000. Scarab beetles, elephant ear (Xanthosoma robustum), and their associates. In: NM Natkarni , NT Wheelwright , Editors. Monteverde. Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Cloud Forest , pp. 268–271. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

70.

EG Gonçalves , ACD. Maia 2006. New evidence of pollination in Gearum brasiliense (Araceae: Spathicarpeae). 29: 148–151. Google Scholar

71.

G. Gottsberger 1986. Some pollination strategies in Neotropical Savannas and Forests. Plant Systematics and Evolution 152: 29–45. Google Scholar

72.

G. Gottsberger 1988. The reproductive biology of primitive angiosperms. Taxon 37: 630–643. Google Scholar

73.

G. Gottsberger 1989. Beetle pollination and flowering rhythm of Annona spp. (Annonaceae) in Brazil. Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Planzen 167: 165–187. Google Scholar

74.

G. Gottsberger 1991. Pollination of some species of the Carludovicoideae, and remarks on the origin and evolution of Cyclanthaceae. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 113:221–235. Google Scholar

75.

G. Gottsberger 1999. Pollination and evolution in neotropical Annonaceae. Plant Species Biology 14: 143–152. Google Scholar

76.

G Gottsberger , A. Amaral 1984. Pollination strategies in Brazilian Philodendron species. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 97: 391–410. Google Scholar

77.

G Gottsberger , AC Webber , M. Hildenbrand 1998. Nutritious tissues in flowers of Annonaceae. Annonaceae Newsletter 12: 25–26. Google Scholar

78.

G Gottsberger , I. Silberbauer-Gottsberger 1988. Pollination strategies of Annona species from the cerrado vegetation in Brazil. Lagascalia 15: 665–672. Google Scholar

79.

G Gottsberger , I. Silberbauer-Gottsberger 1991. Olfactory and visual attraction of Erioscelis emarginata (Cyclocephalini, Dynastinae) to the inflorescences of Philodendron selloum (Araceae). Biotropica 23: 23–28. Google Scholar

80.

G Gottsberger , I. Silberbauer-Gottsberger 2006. Life in the Cerrado: a South American Tropical Seasonal Ecosystem. Volume 2. Pollination and Seed Dispersal. Reta Verlag. Google Scholar

81.

G Gottsberger , I Silberbauer-Gottsberger , RS Seymour , S. Dötterl 2012. Pollination ecology of Magnolia ovata may explain the overall large flower size of the genus. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 207: 107–118. Google Scholar

82.

MH. Grayum 1984. Palynology and phylogeny of the Araceae. Botany PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, MA, USA. Google Scholar

83.

MH. Grayum 1986. Correlations between pollination biology and pollen morphology in the Araceae, with some implications for angiosperm evolution. In: S Blackmore , IK Ferguson , Editors. Pollen and Spores: Form and Function , pp. 313–327. Linnean Society Symposium Series No. 12. Academic Press. Google Scholar

84.

MH. Grayum 1990. Evolution and phylogeny of the Araceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 77: 628–697. Google Scholar

85.

MH. Grayum 1996. Revision of Philodendron subgenus Pteromischum (Araceae) for Pacific and Caribbean Tropical America. Systematic Botany Monographs 47: 1–233. Google Scholar

86.

R. Grimm 2009. Peltonotus nasutus Arrow, 1910 und Phaeochrous-Arten als Bestäuber von Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Araceae) in Thailand (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Entomologische Zeitschrift mit Insekten-Börse 119: 167–168. Google Scholar

87.

JJ. Hardon 1969. Interspecific hybrids in the genus Elaeis II. Vegetative growth and yield of F1 hybrids E. guineensis × E. oleifera. Euphytica 18: 380–388. Google Scholar

88.

A Hay , M Gottschalk , A. Holguin 2012. Huanduj: Brugmansia. Kew Publishing. Google Scholar

89.

KJ. Hayward 1946. Departamento de Entomología. Revista Industrial y Agrícola de Tucumán 36: 60–72. Google Scholar

90.

KM. Heller 1896. Neue Käfer von Celebes. Abhandlungen der der Berichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden 3: 12–14. Google Scholar

91.

A. Henderson 1984. Observations on pollination of Cryosophila albida. Principes 28: 120–126. Google Scholar

92.

A. Henderson 1986. A review of pollination studies in the Palmae. Botanical Review 52: 221–259. Google Scholar

93.

A Henderson , R Pardini , JF dos Santos , S Rebello, Vanin , D. Almeida 2000. Pollination of Bactris (Palmae) in an Amazon Forest. Brillonia 52: 160–171. Google Scholar

94.

JFW. Herbst 1790. Pauli J, Editor. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausländischen Insekten, als eine Fortsetzung der von Büffonschen Naturgeschichte. Nach dem System des Ritters von Linné und Fabricius zu bearbeitet angefangen von Carl Gustav Jablonsky. Der Käfer zweyter Theil. 3: 1–324. Google Scholar

95.

A Heyne , O. Taschenberg 1907. Die Exotischen Käfer in Wort und Bild. G. Reusche. Google Scholar

96.

G Hirthe , S. Porembski 2003. Pollination of Nymphaea lotus (Nymphaeaceae) by rhinoceros beetles and bees in the northeastern Ivory Coast. Plant Biology 5: 670–676. Google Scholar

97.

W. Höhne 1923. Neue Cyclocephalen (Col. Dyn.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1923: 345–373. Google Scholar

98.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th edition . International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Google Scholar

99.

ML Jameson , E Micó , E. Galante 2007. Evolution and phylogeny of the scarab subtribe Anisopliina (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Anomalini). Systematic Entomology 32: 429–449. Google Scholar

100.

ML Jameson , BC Ratcliffe , V. Maly 2002. Review of the genus Acrobolbia with remarks on its classification, and a key to the world genera of Cyclocephalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Folia Heyrovskyana 10: 1–15. Google Scholar

101.

ML Jameson , K. Wada 2004. Revision of the genus Peltonotus Burmeister (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) from southeastern Asia. Zootaxa 502: 1–66. Google Scholar

102.

TFW. Kirsch 1870 [1871], Beiträge zur Käferfauna von Bogotá. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 14(1870): 337–378 (pages misnumbered, first one as 353). Google Scholar

103.

PEOW Knuth , O Appel , E. Loew 1904. Handbuch der Blütenbiologie, unter Zugrundelegung von Herman Müllers Werk:Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten.” Volume 3. W. Engelmann. Google Scholar

104.

F-T Krell , G Hirthe , R Seine , S. Porembski 2003. Rhinoceros beetles pollinate water lilies in Africa (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae; Magnoliidae: Nymphaeceae). Ecotropica 9: 103–106. Google Scholar

105.

WJ Kress , JH. Beach 1994. Flowering plant reproductive systems. In: L McDade , KS Bawa , HA Hespenheide , GS Hartshorn , Editors. La Selva: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Rainforest , pp. 161–182. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

106.

HA Küchmeister , C Webber , I Silberbauer-Gottsberger , G. Gottsberger 1998. A Polinizaçao e sua relação com a termogênese em espécies de Arecaceae e Annonaceae da Amazonia central. Acta Amazonica 28: 217–245. Google Scholar

107.

H Küchmeister , G Gottsberger , I. Silberbauer-Gottsberger 1993. Pollination biology of Orbignya spectabilis, a ‘monoecious’ Amazonian palm. In: W Barthlott , CM Naumann , K Schmidt-Loske , KL Schuchmann , Editors. Animal-plant interactions in tropical environments: results of the annual meeting of the German Society for Tropical Ecology held at Bonn , Germany, February 13–16, 1992. pp. 67–76. Google Scholar

108.

M-A Lachance , WT Starmer , CA Rosa , JM Bowles , J Stuart , F Baker , DH. Janzen 2001. Biogeography of the yeasts of ephemeral flowers and their insects. FEMS Yeast Research 1: 1–8. Google Scholar

109.

FL. Laporte 1840. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes Coleoptérès. Avec une introduction Renferment l'Anatomie et la Physiologie des Animaux articulés, par M. Brullé, Volume 2. P. Duménil. Google Scholar

110.

M Lenzi , A. Orth 2011. Visitantes florais de Opuntia monacantha (Cactaceae) em restingas de Florianópolis, SC, Brasil. Acta Biológica Paranaense 40: 19–32. Google Scholar

111.

C. Linnaeus 1758. Systerna Naturae, edito decima. Leipzig, Germany. Google Scholar

112.

C. Linnaeus 1767. Sy sterna Naturae, Volume 1, pars 2, edito duodécima reformata. Stockholm, Sweden. Google Scholar

113.

EG. Linsley 1960. Observations on some matinal bees at flowers of Cucurbita, Ipomoea and Datura in desert areas of New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 68: 13–20. Google Scholar

114.

C. Listabarth 1992. A survey of pollination strategies in the Bactrinidinae (Palmae). F Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d Etudes AndineslX: 699–714. Google Scholar

115.

C. Listabarth 1996. Pollination of Bactris by Phyllotrox and Epurea. Implications of the palm breeding beetles on pollination at the community level. Biotropica 28: 69–81. Google Scholar

116.

H. Luederwalt 1926. Cyclocephala cribrata Burm. (Lamellicornidae, Dynastinae). Habitant legal das Bromeliaceas. Revista do Musen Pauli sta 14: 129–132. Google Scholar

117.

PJM Maas , LYT Westra , LW. Chatrou 2003. Duguetia (Annonaceae). Flora Neotropica 88: 1–274. Google Scholar

118.

M. Madison 1979. Protection of developing seeds in neotropical Araceae. Aroideana 2: 52–61. Google Scholar

119.

M. Madison 1981. Notes on Caladium (Araceae) and its allies. Selbyana 5: 342–377. Google Scholar

120.

ACD Maia , C. Schlindwein 2006. Caladium bicolor (Araceae) and Cyclocephala celata (Coleoptera, Dynastinae): A well-established pollination system in the northern Atlantic rainforest of Pernambuco, Brazil. Plant Biology 8: 529–534. Google Scholar

121.

ACD Maia , C Schlindwein , DMAF Navarro , M. Gibernau 2010. Pollination of Philodendron acutatum (Araceae) in the Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil: a single scarab beetle species guarantees high fruit set. International Journal of Plant Science 171: 740–748. Google Scholar

122.

ACD Maia , M Gibernau , AT Carvalho , EG Gonçalves , C. Schlindwein 2012. The cowl does not make the monk: scarab beetle pollination of the Neotropical aroid Taccarum ulei (Araceae, Spathicarpeae). Biological Journal of the Linne an Society 108: 22–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01985.x. Google Scholar

123.

CV. Mannerheim 1829. Description de quarante nouvelles espèces de scarabéides du Brésil avec figures. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou 1: 29–80. Google Scholar

124.

A. Martínez 1955. Un nuevo genero y especie de escarabeido dinastino (Col. Scarabaeidae, Dynatinae). Mitteilungen der Münchener Entomologischen Gesellschaft 45: 242–249. Google Scholar

125.

A. Martínez 1968. Notas sobre Cyclocephalini Americanos con descripción de dos nuevas especies (Col. Scarab., Dynast.). Ciencia 26: 185–191. Google Scholar

126.

J. Midgeley 1992. Why do some hopliinid beetles have large hind-legs? Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 55: 157–159. Google Scholar

127.

K Momose , T Yumoto , T Nagamitsu , M Kato , H Nagamasu , S Sakai , RD Harrison , T Itioka , AA Hamid , T. Inoue 1998. Pollination biology in a lowland dipterocarp forest in Sarawak, Malaysia. I. Characteristics of the plant-pollinator community in a lowland dipterocarp forest. American Journal of Botany 85: 1477–1501. Google Scholar

128.

I. Moore 1937. A list of beetles of San Diego County, California. San Diego Society of Natural History-Occasional Papers 2: 1–109. Google Scholar

129.

MR. Moore 2011. Disentangling the phenotypic variation and pollination biology of the Cyclocephala sexpunctata species complex (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Masters Thesis, Wichita State University. Wichita, KS, USA. Google Scholar

130.

MR. Moore 2012. A new female elytron character for the tribe Cyclocephalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) and an observation of its possible function. The Coleopterists Bulletin 66: 200–202. Google Scholar

131.

J Mora-Urpi , EM. Solis 1980. Polinización en Bactris gasipaes H. B. K. (Palmae). Revista de Biología Tropical 28: 153–174. Google Scholar

132.

J. Mora-Urpi 1982. Polinización en Bactris gasipaes H. B. K. (Palmae): Nota Adicional. Revista de Biología Tropical 30: 174–176. Google Scholar

133.

MA. Morón 1977. Descripción del macho de Cyclocephala picta Burm. 1847 (Coleoptera: Melolonthidae, Dynastinae). Anales del Instituto de Biología de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (serie Zoología) 48: 133–140. Google Scholar

134.

MA. Morón 1997. Notas sobre Cyclocephala Latreille (Coleoptera: Melolonthidae, Dynastinae) associadas con Xanthosoma Schott (Araceae) en Chiapas, México. Giornale Italiano di Entomología 8: 399–407. Google Scholar

135.

NA. Murray 1993. Revision of Cymbopetalum and Porcelia (Annonaceae). Systematic Botany Monographs 40: 1–3, 5–87, 89–121. Google Scholar

136.

LA Núñez , R Bernal , JT. Knudsen 2005. Diurnal palm pollination by mystropine beetles: is it weather-related? Plant Systematic s and Evolution 254: 149–171. Google Scholar

137.

LA Núñez-Avellaneda , R. Rojas-Robles 2008. Biología reproductiva y ecología de la polinización de la palma milpesos Oenocarpus batana en los Andes Colombianos. Caldasia 30: 101–125. Google Scholar

138.

LA Núñez-Avellaneda , JC. Neita 2009. Rol de los escarabajos Cyclocephalini (Dynastinae: Scarabaeidae) en la polinización de palmas silvestres en Colombia. In: V Hernández-Ortiz , C Deloya , PR Castillo , Editors. Memorias VIII Reunion Latinoamericana de Escarabaeidología (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). pp. 16–17. Jalapa, Mexico. Google Scholar

139.

F. Ohaus 1910. Neue südamerikanische Dynastiden (Col.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1910: 671–690. Google Scholar

140.

F. Ohaus 1912. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ruteliden. X. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung 1912: 273–319. Google Scholar

141.

AG. Olivier 1789. Entomologie, ou Historie Naturelle des Insectes, avec leurs Caractèrs Génériques et Spécifiques, leur Description, leur Synonymie, et leur Figure Enluminée. Coleoptérès, volume 1 (genera separately paged). Jean Francois Baudouin. Google Scholar

142.

LC Pardo-Locarno , JE Arroyo , F. Quiñónez 2008. Observaciones de los escarabajos copronecrófagos y sapromelífagos de San Luis Robles, Nariño. Boletín Científico Centro de Museos: Meseo de Historia Natural 8: 113–139. Google Scholar

143.

O. Pellmyr 1985. Cyclocephala: visitor and probable pollinator of Caladium bicolor (Araceae). Acta Amazonica 15: 269–272. Google Scholar

144.

KS Pike , RL Rivers , BC Ratcliffe , CY Oseto , ZB. Mayo 1976. A world bibliography of the genus Cyclocephala (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Miscellaneous publication of the University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station 32: 1–36. Google Scholar

145.

Y. Ponchel 2006. The Dynastidae of the world. Biologie et collecte de quelques dynastides. Available online:  http://dynastidae.voila.net/biologie.html  Google Scholar

146.

Y. Ponchel 2010. Note sur Cyclocephala virgo Dechambre, 1999 et mise point sur trios espèces de Dynastidae récemment decrites de Guyane (Coleoptera Dynastidae). L Entomologiste 66: 171–172. Google Scholar

147.

GT. Prance 1976. The pollination and androphore structure of some Amazonian Lecythidaceae. Biotropica 8: 235–241. Google Scholar

148.

GT Prance , AB. Anderson 1976. Studies of the floral biology of neotropical Nymphaeaceae 3. Acta Amazónica 6: 163– 170. Google Scholar

149.

GT Prance , JR. Arias 1975. A study of the floral biology of Victoria amazonica (Poepp.) Sowerby (Nymphaeaceae). Acta Amazonica 5: 109–139. Google Scholar

150.

GT. Prance 1980. A note on the pollination of Nymphaea amazonum Mart, and Zucc. (Nymphaeaceae). Brittonia 32: 505–507. Google Scholar

151.

H. Prell 1934. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Dynastinen (XII). Beschreibungen und Bemerkungen. Entomologische Zeitschrift 47: 162–164. 186–188. 194–195. Google Scholar

152.

RA Raguso , C Henzei , SL Buchmann , GP. Nabhan 2003. Trumpet flowers of the Sonoran desert: floral biology of Peniocereus cacti and sacred Datura. International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: 877–892. Google Scholar

153.

N. Ramírez 1989. Biologia de polinizacion en una comunidad arbustiva tropical de la alta Guayana Venezolana. Biotropica 21: 319– 330. Google Scholar

154.

N. Ramírez 1992. Especificidad de los sistemas de polinización en una comunidad arbustiva de la Guyana Venezolana. Ecotropicos 5: 1–19. Google Scholar

155.

N Ramirez , Y. Brito 1992. Pollination biology in a palm swamp community in the Venezuelan central plains. Botanical Journal of the Linne an Society 110: 277–302. Google Scholar

156.

BC. Ratcliffe 1977. Four new species of Neotropical Cyclocephalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Acta Amazonica 7: 429–434. Google Scholar

157.

BC. Ratcliffe 1992a. Nine new species and 11 country records of Cyclocephala (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) from Panama and Costa Rica. The Coleopterists Bulletin 46: 216–235. Google Scholar

158.

BC. Ratcliffe 1992b. New species and country records of Brazilian Cyclocephala (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Tidschrift voor Entomologie 136: 179–190. Google Scholar

159.

BC. Ratcliffe 2003. The Dynastine scarab beetles of Costa Rica and Panama (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 16: 1–506. Google Scholar

160.

BC Ratcliffe , L. Delgado 1990. New species and notes of Cyclocephala from Mexico (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Folia Entomologica Mexicana 80: 41–57. Google Scholar

161.

BC Ratcliffe , MA. Morón 1997. Dynastinae. In: MA Morón , BC Ratcliffe , C Deloya , Editors. Atlas de los Escarabajos de México. Coleoptera: Lamellicornia. Volume 1. Familia Melolonthidae. pp. 53–98. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) and Sociedad Mexicana de Entomologia. Google Scholar

162.

BC Ratcliffe , MJ. Paulsen 2008. The scarabaeoid beetles of Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 22: 1–569. Google Scholar

163.

BC Ratcliffe , RD. Cave 2002. New species of Cyclocephala from Honduras and El Salvador. The Coleopterists Bulletin 56: 152– 157. Google Scholar

164.

BC Ratcliffe , RD. Cave 2006. The Dynastine scarab beetles of Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 21: 1–424. Google Scholar

165.

FR Rickson , M Cresti , JH. Beach 1990. Plant cells which aid in pollen digestion within a beetle's gut. Oecologia 82: 424–426. Google Scholar

166.

CA Rosa , PB Morais , SR Santos , RR Peres Neto , LC Mendonça-Hagler , AN. Hagler 1995. Yeast communities associated with different plant resources in sandy coastal plains of southeastern Brazil. Mycological Research 99: 1047–1054. Google Scholar

167.

CA Rosa , M-A Lachance , WT Starmer , JSF Barker , JM Bowles , B. Schlag-Edler 1999. Kodamaea nitidulidarum, Candida restingae and Kodamaea anthophila, three new related yeast species from ephemeral flowers. International Journal and Systematic Bacteriology 49: 309–318. Google Scholar

168.

LW. Saylor 1945. Synoptic revision of the United States scarab beetles of the subfamily Dynastinae, No. 1: Tribe Cyclocephalini. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 35: 378–386. Google Scholar

169.

AO Scariot , E Lieras , JD. Hay 1991. Reproductive biology of the palm Acrocomia aculeata in central Brazil. Biotropica 23: 12–22. Google Scholar

170.

GE. Schatz 1985. A new Cymbopetalum (Annonaceae) from Costa Rica and Panama with observations on natural hybridization. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Graden 72: 535–538. Google Scholar

171.

GE. Schatz 1987. Systematic and ecological studies of Central American Annonaceae. PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI, USA. Google Scholar

172.

GE. Schatz 1990. Some aspects of pollination biology in Central American forests. In: KS Bawa , M Hadley , Editors. Reproductive Ecology of Tropical Forest Plants. pp. 69–84. UNESCO and The Parthenon Publishing Group. Google Scholar

173.

FP Schiestl , S. Dötterl 2012. The evolution of floral scent and olfactory preferences in pollinators: coevolution or pre-existing bias. Evolution 66(7): 2042–2055. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01593.x Google Scholar

174.

C. Schrottky 1908. Blumen und Insekten in Paraguay. Zeitschrift für wissenschlaftliche Insektenbiologie 4: 22–26. Google Scholar

175.

C. Schrottky 1910. Die Befruchtung von Philodendron und Caladium durch einen Käfer (Erioscelis emarginata). Zeitschrift für wissenschlaftliche Insektenbiologie 6: 67–68. Google Scholar

176.

BO Schlumpberger , AA Cocucci , M Moré , AN Sérsic , RA. Raguso 2009. Extreme variation in floral characters and its consequences for pollinator attraction among populations of an Andean cactus. Annals of Botany 103: 1489–1500. Google Scholar

177.

BO Schlumpberger , RA. Raguso 2008. Geographic variation in floral scent of Echinopsis ancistrophora (Cactaceae); evidence for constraints on hawkmoth attraction. Oikos 117: 801–814. Google Scholar

178.

A Seres , N. Ramírez 1995. Biologia floral y polinizacion de algunas Monocotiledoneas de un Bosque Nublado Venezolano. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 82: 61–81. Google Scholar

179.

RS Seymour , PDG. Matthews 2006. The role of thermogenesis in the pollination biology of the Amazon waterlily Victoria amazónica. Annals of Botany 98: 1129–1135. Google Scholar

180.

RS Seymour , CR White , M. Gibernau 2009. Endothermy of dynastine scarab beetles (Cyclocephala colasi) associated with pollination biology of a thermogenic arum lily (Philodendron solimoe sense). The Journal of Experimental Biology 212: 2960–2968. Google Scholar

181.

D. Sharp 1877. Description of some new species of beetles (Scarabaeidae) from Central America. Journal of the Linnean Scoiety of London (Zoology) 13: 129–138. Google Scholar

182.

I. Silberbauer-Gottsberger 1990. Pollination and evolution in palms. Phyton 30: 213–233. Google Scholar

183.

I Silberbauer-Gottsberger , G Gottsberger , AC. Webber 2003. Morphological and functional flower characteristics of New and Old World Annonaceae with respect to their mode of pollination. Taxon 52: 701–718. Google Scholar

184.

I Silberbauer-Gottsberger , RA Gottsberger , G. Gottsberger 1997. Flowering rhythm and pollination in a hybrid population of Annona in a small cerrado area in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Annonaceae News letter 11: 55–60. Google Scholar

185.

ABT. Smith 2006. A review of the familygroup names for the superfamily Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) with corrections to nomenclature and a current classification. The Coleopterists Bulletin 60: 144–204. Google Scholar

186.

R Stechauner-Rohringer , LC. Pardo-Locarno 2010. Redescripción de inmaduros, ciclo de vida, distribución e importancia agrícola de Cyclocephala lumilata Burmeister (Coleóptera: Melolonthidae: Dynastinae) en Colombia. Boletín Científico Centro de Museos, Museo de Historia Natural 14: 203–220. Google Scholar

187.

E. Steinheil 1874. Symbolae ad historiam Coleopterorum Argentiniae meridionales, ossia enumerazione dei coleotteri raccolti dal Prof. P. Strobel nell' Argentina meridionale, e descrizione dell specie nuove. II Centuria. Atti della Societa Italiana de Scienze Naturll e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano 15:554–578. Google Scholar

188.

The Plant List. 2010. Version 1. Available online:  http://www.theplantlist.org  Google Scholar

189.

LB Thien , P Bernhardt , MS Devall , Z-D Chen , Y-B Luo , J-H Fan , L-C Yuan , JH. Williams 2009. Pollination biology of basal angiosperms (ANITA grade). American Journal of Botany 96(1): 1–17. Google Scholar

190.

Tropicos. Missouri Botanical Garden. Available online:  http://www.tropicos.org  Google Scholar

191.

JJ Valla , DR. Cirino 1972. Biologia floral del Irupé, Victoria cruziana D.'Orb (Nymphaeaceae). Darwiniana 17: 477–500. Google Scholar

192.

CE. Valerio 1984. Insect visitors of the inflorescence of the aroid Dieffenbachia oerstedii (Araceae) in Costa Rica. Brenesia 22: 139–146. Google Scholar

193.

CE. Valerio 1988. Notes on phenology and pollination of Xanthosoma wendlandii (Araceae) in Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 36: 55–61. Google Scholar

194.

R. Villalta 1988. Estudio de la biologia floral e identificacion de agentes polinizadores de guanábana (Annona muricata L.) en la zona atlantica de Costa Rica. Thesis. Heredia, Costa Rica, Universidad Nacional. Google Scholar

195.

RA. Voeks 2002. Reproductive ecology of the piassava palm (Attalea funifera) of Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18: 121– 136. Google Scholar

196.

T. von Bayern 1897. Meine Reise in die Brasilianischen Tropen. D. Remmer. Google Scholar

197.

AC. Webber 1981. Biologia floral de algumas Annonaceae na região de Manaus AM. Masters Thesis, Instituto Nascional de Pesquiras da Amazonia, Manaus, AM, Brazil. Google Scholar

198.

AC Webber , G. Gottsberger 1993. Floral biology and pollination of Cymbopetalum euneurum in Manaus, Amazonia. Annonaceae Newsietter 9: 25–28. Google Scholar

199.

E. Warming 1883. Tropische Fragmente. I. Die Bestäubung von Philodendron bipinnatifldum Schott. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 4: 328–340. Google Scholar

200.

JH. Wiersema 1987. A monograph of the Nymphaea subgenus Hydrocallis (Nymphaeaceae). Systematic Botany Monographs 16: 1–112. Google Scholar

201.

HJ. Young 1986. Beetle pollination of Dieffenbachia longispatha (Araceae). American Journal of Botany 73: 931–944. Google Scholar

202.

HJ. Young 1987. Aroid observations: Philodendron rothschuhianum. Aroideana 10: 22. Google Scholar

203.

HJ. Young 1988a. Differential importance of beetle species pollinating Dieffenbachia longispatha (Araceae). Ecology 69: 832–844. Google Scholar

204.

HJ. Young 1988b. Neighborhood size in a beetle pollinated tropical aroid: effects of low density and asynchronous flowering. O ecologia 76: 461–466. Google Scholar

205.

HJ. Young 1990. Pollination and reproductive biology of an understory neotropical aroid. In: KS Bawa , M Hadley , Editors. Reproductive Ecology of Tropical Forest Plants , pp. 151–164. UNESCO and The Parthenon Publishing Group. Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix 1.

Checklist of floral associations for the Cyclocephalini (Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae).

tA01a_01.gif

Continued.

tA01b_01.gif

Continued.

tA01c_01.gif

Continued.

tA01d_01.gif

Continued.

tA01e_01.gif

Continued.

tA01f_01.gif

Continued.

tA01g_01.gif

Continued.

tA01h_01.gif

Continued.

tA01i_01.gif

Continued.

tA01j_01.gif

Continued.

tA01k_01.gif

Continued.

tA01l_01.gif

Continued.

tA01m_01.gif

Continued.

tA01n_01.gif

Continued.

tA01o_01.gif

Continued.

tA01p_01.gif

Continued.

tA01q_01.gif

Appendix 2.

Cyclocephaline synonyms reported in the floral association literature.

tA02_01.gif

Appendix 3.

Plant synonyms reported in floral association literature and on voucher specimen label data.

tA03_01.gif

Appendix 4.

Unavailable and unresolved plant names from the floral association literature and voucher specimen label data.

tA04_01.gif
Copyright: This is an open access paper. We use the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license that permits unrestricted use, provided that the paper is properly attributed.
Matthew Robert Moore and Mary Liz Jameson "Floral Associations of Cyclocephaline Scarab Beetles," Journal of Insect Science 13(100), 1-43, (1 October 2013). https://doi.org/10.1673/031.013.10001
Received: 8 July 2012; Accepted: 13 November 2012; Published: 1 October 2013
JOURNAL ARTICLE
43 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top