Tuesday, 2 June 2026

How to turn the lights on

Platygaster spp

I stumbled across a paper by Jess Awad, an entomologist specializing in parasitoid wasps (Untangling host specialization in a "double dark taxa" system. (2025) Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 118(3), 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saaf003).  I've been frustrated by my inability to identify Platygastrine wasps to species level, so this struck a chord. (I know I'm not alone in this!) Platygastridae are parasitoids of gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Both they and their hosts are exceptionally abundant and speciose, and both are also "dark taxa, whose species identification and ecological associations are obscured by a history of taxonomic confusion and neglect". To paraphrase Awad et al: Although some Platygastridae exploit other hosts, the majority of species attack gall midges. The gall midge parasitoids, all classified in the subfamily Platygastrinae, include more than 1,800 described species. Taxonomic progress is stymied by a few genera which are both remarkably species-rich and morphologically difficult to distinguish.  Chief among these is the genus Platygaster. With nearly 700 described species, it is the largest genus in the subfamily and even in the whole superfamily Platygastroidea. Platygaster has no morphological gotcha and is always placed at the end of keys, being defined by a lack of distinguishing features. Gall midges are the most diverse group of flying insects, with worldwide estimates in excess of one million species. It is therefore unsurprising that their parasitoids are similarly dominant. Hence "double dark taxa". 

The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (1859)

This came a day after I'd discovered a new metaphor - the bush of life (Cruaud et al (2024) The Chalcidoidea bush of life: evolutionary history of a massive radiation of minute wasps. Cladistics, 40(1), 34-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12561). Chalcidoidea are an enormously diverse group of parasitoid wasps with an estimated 500,000 species, one of nature's most species-rich groups. The Chalcidoidea originated in the Jurassic period approximately 174 million years ago. This coincides with an important fossil record signal: major diversifications within Chalcidoidea aligned with increases in insect family diversity overall. A shift toward plant-feeding hosts corresponds with the "Angiosperm Terrestrial Revolution" - the rise of flowering plants, which dramatically reshaped terrestrial ecosystems around 130 million years ago. All of this places conventional taxonomic approaches under unbearable strain, and hence gives rise to dark taxa. The "tree of life" analogy breaks down and the explosive radiation of the Chalcidoidea to match their hosts is better represented by the idea of "a bush of life". However, I would suggest that considering that many of the hosts also represent dark taxa, what we're actually talking about here is "the shrubbery of life".  The only practical way out if this mess is going to be via DNA, like it or not. 

I've already dabbled in DNA barcoding but it becomes clear very quickly that much of the existing data is blighted by misidentification of the material examined. The approach of Awad et al is to remove some of the uncertainty by rearing parasitoids from hosts and then barcoding - good old-fashioned Victorian entomology! The snag with Cecidomyiidae is that they are difficult to rear as many species require living host tissue to complete development. I'm very much not an expert in rearing insects - all the parasitoids I've attempted to rear turn out to be unparasitised hosts and all the other species I've attempted turn into Ichneumons!  I'm clearly going to have to do more dabbling with rearing parasitoids from plant galls, probably leaning heavily on my friends who are much more knowledgeable about plant galls than me. 





Monday, 1 June 2026

Entomology Update - May 2026

Still too cold for much entomology at the start of the month then too hot! A late season generally, many species still immature when in recent years they have been adults. 


I've been asked several times recently about how I take photographs of parasitic wasps, so here are the nerdy details of my current setup. 

Notable Finds

Tetramesa fulvicollis, 1st record for VC55
Omphale lugens, 1st record for VC55
Leiophron apicalis, 1st record for VC55


Leiophron apicalis



Thursday, 14 May 2026

Parasitica photography

Parasitica Photography

I've been asked several times recently about how I take photographs of parasitic wasps, so here are the details of my current setup:
  • Specimens: preserved in 70% alcohol, suspended in clear alcohol hand gel in a small transparent lid covered with a coverslip. 
  • Microscope: Brunel SP300 compound trinocular microscope, using 2.5X, 4X, 10X or 20X objectives as appropriate. 
  • Camera: Sony a7Rii.
  • Lighting: Dual gooseneck LED plus two Ikea Jansjö LED lamps, diffused by a cylinder of white kitchen towel. 
  • Post-processing: Focus stacked with Helicon Focus, processed with Canva Affinity. 
Parasitica Photography


See: Cann, A. (2025) Fine Details: Tips for improving specimen photography. Br. J. Ent. Nat. Hist. 38: 199-206.
 



Friday, 1 May 2026

Entomology Update - April 2026

Spring is here but with night time frosts and the now common spring drought which will shape the rest of the year.


New Arachnid Recording Schemes Atlas
A exemplar of how to make biological records available.  

A happy accident. 

I'm afraid so...

It's a specialist interest I have to admit, but what's the deal hymenopterists - why the reluctance to dissect?

Finessing focus stacking
I've been experimenting to see if I can improve the quality of microscope images I generate. The answer is - yes ... but ...


Notable Finds
Mesopolobus aequus, 1st record for VC55
Cryptoserphus dilatus, 1st record for VC55

News from Elsewhere

A new research paper looking at pesticide residues in bird feathers in Leicestershire and elsewhere finds that:
  • Every single feather sample tested contained measurable levels of pesticides. 
  • On average, samples contained more than 5 different pesticides. 
  • Despite being banned for outdoor agricultural use in 2018, neonicotinoids were frequently detected.

Torymus rubi



Thursday, 16 April 2026

Finessing focus stacking

I've been experimenting to see if I can improve the quality of microscope images I generate. The answer is - yes I can, but is it worth it?

DxO recently released their DxO PureRAW 6 image processing software. There are lots of reviews on YouTube if you'd like to know more. I downloaded a free trial copy and compared three different focus stacking variations. I'm not the first person to do this, just documenting it here in case it's useful to you:

  1. Capture jpeg images in camera, focus stack with Helicon Focus, post-process with Affinity Photo. This is the standard method I have used until now. 
  2. Capture raw (.ARW) images in camera, focus stack with Helicon Focus, post-process with Affinity Photo. Helicon will stack raw image files, so I tested this.
  3. Capture raw (.ARW) images in camera, process with DxO PureRAW 6, focus stack with Helicon Focus, post-process with Affinity Photo. 

The results:

click for larger image

At this level, no real difference, and I need to pixel peep at 100% magnification to see the differences:

click for larger image

There is an improvement in quality from method 1 -> 2 -> 3. But what is the cost? 
  • To make a focus stack using ~40 jpeg images typically takes me something like 15 minutes (sample processing, image capture, focus stacking, post processing). 
  • Using raw images, Helicon stacking increases from 10 seconds to 240 seconds, the whole process taking ~20 minutes. 
  • Processing with the sparkly new DxO DeepPRIME XD3 algorithm before stacking takes about 10 minutes, the whole process then taking ~30min. Although Helicon can output a raw (.DNG) image, DxO will only accept original images so it is necessary to batch process captured images before stacking rather than process a single stacked image. The more images, the longer it takes - I estimate making a stack with 100 images would take over an hour from start to finish. This isn't necessarily hands-on time, DxO will happily batch process in the background while I do something else, e.g. prepare the next specimen and capture the images. Sadly it's not possible to process the DNG file Helicon can put out - DxO processing really has to be the first stage of the workflow after image capture. 

There is an improvement in resolution dropping DxO into the workflow at the cost of much longer processing time. Leaving aside the cost of the DxO software, is it worth it? Not for routine images where I'm just documenting an ID. But on occasion, yes, maybe the extra quality is useful. 





Tuesday, 14 April 2026

Teeny-tiny wasp willies

Torymus rubi male

I recently encountered Torymus rubi for the first time. It was on the host plant (Rubus) and with some help, I was able to get a definitive ID. Not all species in the Torymidae are so straightforward however. This brought up again the question of why hymenopterists seem so reluctant to use gen det to confirm difficult species. One paper describes Torymus male genitalia (Klymenko, S. (2012) Morphological Characteristics of Male Genitalia in Some Species in the Genus Torymus. Zoodiversity, 46(2), e-41). I have to admit, some are rather similar, and this paper only covers a few species. Fortunately, the T. rubi aedeagus is quite distinctive:

Torymus rubi aedeagus

It's not a particularly difficult dissection, given the size of the insect. So what's the deal hymenopterists - why the reluctance to dissect?

 



Sunday, 12 April 2026

He's only gone and bought *another* camera

OM1 vs OM5

In the year since I've had my Olympus OM5 camera I've become increasingly impressed with it. It's smaller and lighter than my previous Sony setup and the results are great. I was so impressed that I invested in the OM 90mm macro lens, selling the 60mm lens I originally bought with the OM5. I've developed a workflow for focus stacking which produces results I'm delighted with. However, there is one problem. As my system (and the quality of the results) has grown, so has the weight. The (absolutely brilliant) Cygnustech flying nun diffuser does the business, but it is cumbersome and a bit fragile, and I'm not keen on bashing the expensive 90mm lens around in the field. So I took the plunge and have invested in two complementary systems. 

Studio macro setup:

  • OM System OM-1
  • OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm f3.5 Macro IS PRO lens
  • +/- Olympus M.Zuiko 1.4x Teleconverter MC-14
  • +/- Raynox DCR-250/DCR150
  • Godox V860IIIO flash
  • Cygnustech flying nun diffuser

Fantastic, but here's the problem - this setup is a bit fragile, and weighs 1,830g. I don't want to drag that around with me outdoors, so...

Outdoor macro setup:

  • OM System OM-5
  • Olympus M. Zuiko 60 mm f/2.8 MSC ED Macro lens
  • Olympus FL-LM3 Flash
  • bit of packaging foam for a diffuser
This setup weighs 730g - 60% lighter and much more compact that the OM1 setup. In addition I have the option of adding a Raynox DCR-250/DCR150 if needed (I can't see me using this much outdoors), plus the lightweight Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 (if I need reach). I suspect the convenience of this means it will also get used for quite a lot of quick snaps indoors! The teeny tiny FL-LM3 flash is great - no batteries as it works off the camera battery - although the recycle time is slow (2-3 seconds), which catches me out occasionally. 

And if even the OM5 is too much, I'll still be using my Olympus TG-6  for record shots and my iPhone (for landscapes). As ever, all this kit was bought used from trusted resellers (and guaranteed). Was the step up to the OM1 worth it? I'm still dialling in optimum settings and getting used to the camera, but first indications are favourable - focus stacks seem to be a step up from the OM5. 

 

 




Saturday, 11 April 2026

Platycheirus ambiguus

Platycheirus ambiguus
 I may have bought a new camera (more on that soon), but I am by no means a Dipterist. Convenient then that when I took a turn round the garden to test the new kit that the very first thing I photographed happened to be Platycheirus ambiguus. Although not rare, this small hoverfly could not be described as common either, although the reason for that is almost certainly the small size (6mm). A happy accident. 

 


Thursday, 9 April 2026

New Arachnid Recording Schemes Atlas

Arachnid Recording Schemes Atlas

The British Arachnological Society recording schemes atlas has had a long awaited revamp and is now available, with 1.6 million UK Spider, Harvestmen and Pseudoscorpion records to play with. The new atlas is fantastic, with many ways to slice and dice the data. It's taken a huge amount of work to get to this and the team behind it are to be congratulated. It would be fantastic if all recording schemes could make their data available like this.