Cicindela patruela - Dejean, 1825
Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle
Other English Common Names: northern barrens tiger beetle
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cicindela patruela Dejean, 1825 (TSN 697721)
French Common Names: cicindèle verte des pinèdes
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.115402
Element Code: IICOL02230
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Beetles - Other Beetles
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Cicindela
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B99FRE01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cicindela patruela
Taxonomic Comments: Two subspecies are usually recognized, huberi in the upper Great Lakes region and consentanea in the New Jersey Pine Barrens.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 16Oct2011
Global Status Last Changed: 01Sep1997
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: C. patruela has a substantial overall range and probably more than 20 viable populations; over 40 recent populations appear to be known. This species has a limited, and sometimes ephemeral, habitat type and exists in small patches of habitat (often a few hectares or less) but is probably often clustered into metapopulations within larger barrens. Declines have been noted in most parts of the range, especially the most eastern parts of the range where it is close to extripation north and east of New York (Leonard and Bell, 1999). The isolated populations in New Hampshire, Vermont (pre-1900) and Quebec probably no longer exist, and the species is also historic in Rhode Island, barely extant in Massachusetts, unknown from Connecticut, and probably has only one remaining site in Canada, wher only two were known even historically. The originally fairly common subspecies C. p. consentanea is greatly reduced in New Jersey and extirpated in New York. In many places the pine barrens that supported these eastern populations are still extant and the reasons for extirpation are not entirely clear, although increasingly dense understory due to lack of fires is one issue. Subspecies C. p. patruela is probably not as imperiled west and south of, and perhaps within, Pennsylvania. More populations may turn up, especially in the mountains where it is very local but fairly widespread (Knisley and Schultz, 1997). As of late 2011 all state ranks for the subspecies range from SH to S2S3. C. p. huberi has a very limited range in the former glacial lake Wisconsin, but does not seem to be rare within it (currently ranked T3).
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (01Sep1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (04Jul2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Connecticut (SNR), Delaware (SH), District of Columbia (SNR), Georgia (SNR), Indiana (S3), Kentucky (S2S3), Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (S1), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (S3), New Hampshire (SH), New Jersey (SH), New York (S1), North Carolina (S2?), Ohio (S4), Pennsylvania (S2S3), Rhode Island (SH), South Carolina (S2), Tennessee (S2), Vermont (S1), Virginia (S2), West Virginia (S2S3), Wisconsin (S4), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada Ontario (S1), Quebec (SH)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (20Jun2012)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (27Nov2009)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This showy metallic green beetle inhabits sandy, open forest habitat dominated by pine and/or oak trees. Found in northeastern and northcentral North America, it is globally imperiled reaching its northern limit in southern Ontario where it is currently found at only two localities. The species has disappeared from one well known historic site. Habitat loss resulting from natural succession and increased pedestrian traffic are significant threats.

Status History: Designated Endangered in November 2009.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: C. patruela ranged from the upper midwest east to New Hampshire and the mid-Atlantic region, down through the Appalachian chain to North Carolina, with an apparently disjunct cluster from Burlington, Vermont into the southern tip of Quebec (Glaser, 1984, Knisely and Schultz, 1997, Leonard and Bell, 1999; Pearson et al., 1997, 2006) of which the Ontario population may still exist. There are some old and perhaps false records for lowland areas of the southeast. While the overall range is fairly large, there are major gaps in it, and with the possible exception of the southern Appalachian portion, this species occurs in well separated sand areas usually in major pine barren regions or remnants of same.

Area of Occupancy: 1-2,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Very difficult to assess. Populations tend to be confined to very small patches of a few hectares or less, but often within large pine barren systems, the extreme case perhaps being in New Jersey. If the occupied habitats are as small as they seem and there are about 30-50 occurrences (some several patches) area of occupancy might be under 500 hectares, but it is possible the species is dispersed in the surrounding matrix barrens to some extent.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: According to Knisley (pers. comm. 1994), based on personal experience and that of other collectors, estimates 33 - 56 occurrences. A few more have been found since then, and some may have died out Knisley and Schultz (1997) map 29 localities, a number of them no longer extant, for the southeastern states and Leonard and Bell (1999) map 11 for New England and nearby Canada, with several of these old records. There are probably more unreported occurrences in some states, especially Michigan. Carroll County, New Hampshire and York and Oxford Counties just over the border into Maine should also be carefully checked since there is substantial pine barren habitat there.

Population Size: 1000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Based on abundance estimations by Knisley (pers. comm. 1994), there are between 3,000 and 6,000 adults annually. This estimate is probably low, for Daniel Duran (pers. com., to Dale Schweitzer, September 2011) saw hundreds, and so concluded there were over 1000 adults in New Jersey alone in late summer of 2011 (a very good year for the species there). Typically though this species is now seen in small numbers, i.e. a fe dozen or less. With insects estimates based on other than mark-release-recapture tend to be low. Still for an insect this species is very sparse at most of its occurrences, and may well usually produce under 10,000 adults per year.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: Possible, but not likely, that none do.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The main threat to this species is habitat destruction due to deforestation and fire suppression (ecological succession eliminates some habitats) (Knisley pers. comm. 1994), and development in some parts of the range. However, since most authors mention little used forest roads, heavy use of these by ATVs and in New Jersey increasingly "improvements" to remote sand roads on state lands could be taking a significant toll in some places. It is unclear to what, if any, extent such sand roads are breeding areas or how serious a problem this is.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Based on old localities lacking extant populations, the global population appears to be declining (Knisley pers. comm. 1994). Also apparently in current decline in New Jersey where most rcords are more than 20 years old (D. Duran, pers. comm. to Schweitzer, February 2004). Many seemingly suitable habitats lack this species eastward. Eastern Maryland habitats have been destroyed.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 10-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: See above. Many forner occurrences are extirpated.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: The species is somewhat fragile due to its limited habitat type and its tendency toward small population sizes (Knisley pers. comm. 1994).

Environmental Specificity: Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Additional survey effort especially in natural openings associated with pine barrens or deciduous forests are needed across the species range, especially in MI.

Protection Needs: .

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) C. patruela ranged from the upper midwest east to New Hampshire and the mid-Atlantic region, down through the Appalachian chain to North Carolina, with an apparently disjunct cluster from Burlington, Vermont into the southern tip of Quebec (Glaser, 1984, Knisely and Schultz, 1997, Leonard and Bell, 1999; Pearson et al., 1997, 2006) of which the Ontario population may still exist. There are some old and perhaps false records for lowland areas of the southeast. While the overall range is fairly large, there are major gaps in it, and with the possible exception of the southern Appalachian portion, this species occurs in well separated sand areas usually in major pine barren regions or remnants of same.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.

Map unavailable!:
Distribution data for U.S. states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete or has not been reviewed for this taxon.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CT, DC, DE, GA, IN, KY, MA, MD, MI, MN, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN Brown (18013)
MA Barnstable (25001)*, Middlesex (25017)*, Plymouth (25023)
MD Allegany (24001), Anne Arundel (24003)*, Baltimore County (24005)*, Frederick (24021)*, Garrett (24023), Montgomery (24031)*, Prince Georges (24033)*, Washington (24043)
MN Aitkin (27001)*, Anoka (27003), Beltrami (27007)*, Cass (27021), Chisago (27025), Crow Wing (27035)*, Hubbard (27057)*, Isanti (27059), Itasca (27061)*, Morrison (27097), Pine (27115), Sherburne (27141), Todd (27153)*, Wadena (27159)*, Winona (27169)
NJ Burlington (34005), Monmouth (34025)*, Ocean (34029)
NY Suffolk (36103)*, Ulster (36111)
RI Kent (44003)*, Providence (44007)*
VA Augusta (51015), Dickenson (51051), Fauquier (51061), Shenandoah (51171)
WI Bayfield (55007), Burnett (55013), Douglas (55031), Marinette (55075), Oconto (55083), Polk (55095), Sauk (55111), Shawano (55115), St. Croix (55109)*, Washburn (55129)
WV Grant (54023), Monongalia (54061), Pendleton (54071)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Cape Cod (01090002)+, Narragansett (01090004)+*
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Northern Long Island (02030201)+*, Southern Long Island (02030202)+*, Long Island Sound (02030203)+*, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Delaware (02040202)+*, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Upper Chesapeake Bay (02060001)+*, Gunpowder-Patapsco (02060003)+*, Patuxent (02060006)+*, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, South Fork Shenandoah (02070005)+, North Fork Shenandoah (02070006)+, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+*, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+
04 Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Oconto (04030104)+, Peshtigo (04030105)+, Menominee (04030108)+, Wolf (04030202)+
05 Upper Monongahela (05020003)+, Upper Levisa (05070202)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+
07 Mississippi Headwaters (07010101)+*, Leech Lake (07010102)+*, Prairie-Willow (07010103)+*, Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+, Pine (07010105)+*, Crow Wing (07010106)+, Long Prairie (07010108)+, Clearwater-Elk (07010203)+, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Rum (07010207)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Namekagon (07030002)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: a tiger beetle
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: Specialized to sandy/coarse gravel or eroding sandstone throughout the species' range, although appears more specialized within a given geographic region. Pine barrens or open mixed or deciduous (mainly oak) woodlands where open ground exists, such as along trails, on outcrops, scree or talus slopes, or on ridge summit openings dominated by lichens and dry mosses. See Boyd (1978), Freitag (1999), Leonard and Bell (1997), Knisely and Schultz (1999) and references in these books for more details on regional or subspecies' habitats. In much of range associated with coarse grained sand or eroding sandstone. Most habitats would be considered woodlands but some in New Jersey (The Dwarf Pine PLains) are definitely shrublands under 3 meters tall. Willis (2000) reviews habitats and concludes "one nearly constant soil condition...is consolidated sandy soil nearby, usually cover by mosses" but at least some of his "oak-pine forest" (probably all in New Jersey) are actually woodlands.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Adults occur in spring (typically late April to June) and from mid August into September. Some authors suggest late summer eclosions are sporadic and that many do not emerge from their pupal burrows until spring. As far as known life cycle is two years therefore there are always larvae present in burrows in the substrate (sand etc.).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Cicindelidae: Eastern Sand Barren and Scrub Taxa

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location with a colony or cluster of colonies of the species in sufficient habitat to support persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a specimen or a photograph in association with plausible habitat. Since an occurrence should have some reasonable potential for persistence, examples ranked higher than D will generally consist of multiple occupied habitat patches (generally some kind of fire or disturbance created sandy opening) in an appropriate community or edaphic setting or be on at least 100 hectares of good habitat. Small colonies can occur on disturbed sites with the right soils.
Mapping Guidance: Always try to cluster colonies into a reasonable metapopulation occurrence that has some conservation value, which individual patches often do not. Note individual habitat patches may be quite unstable and may be increase after fires, hurricanes, infrequent human disturbances such as small scale sand pits. While it may very well be useful or critical to map precise colonies even if they are not permanent features, also try to define the supporting community which over time is likely to be the stable basis for the occurrence. Consult the habitat comments fields and/or the literature such as Freitag's catalogue or the Knisley and Shultz (1997) or Leonard and Bell (1999) books or Larochelle and Lariviere (2001) for species-specific habitat information which may be essential for accurate mapping.
Occurrences are usually in open sandy places in some sort or pine, oak or mixed woodland (including pine barrens) or scrub. Soil features are directly important. Actual colonies sites can be small, even much less than a hectare. Note individual colony sites may not be persistent while the overall occurrence may be long term or relictual.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 4 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: It is acceptable to slightly violate either separation distance in order to keep multiple colonies within a well defined isolated barrens or scrub community as once occurrence (especially if the community has been recently fragmented). However this should not be carried to extremes in the New Jersey Pine Barrens which are so large that multiple EOs seem reasonable or elsewhere (e.g. parts of Michigan and Wisconsin) if the general supporting sand barrens community is extensive.
Separation Justification: While quantitative information on tiger beetle movements are few and mostly anecdotal, it is well known that these beetles are good colonizers that obviously do often fly a few kilometers (apparently sometimes at night). The best studied taxon is probably C. D.DORSALIS (see Leonard and Bell, 1999; Knisley and Schultz, 1997 or the original sources cited there in) and recaptures were made up to 15 miles (25 kilometers) from the original site. Given the difficulties inherent in getting long distance recaptures there can be no doubt that larger movements occur. While that species is not in that part of the present Specs Group, there is no real reason to assume its dispersal ability is greatly different from other taxa of the genus. It is likely though that the C. DORSALIS individuals did move largely along shore line. C. OLIVACEA another shore species is thought by some to have recently colonized the Florida Keys from Cuba. C. TRIFASCIATA, SEVERA, TOGATA and HEAMORRHAGICA have also shown up a few hundred kilometers out of range (Knisley and Schultz, 1997; Pearson et al, 1997). C. TRIFASCIA has also shown up a few hundred kilometers out of range including out at sea. While arbitrary, these separation distances seem if anything on the conservative side. Individuals of some other species do turn up a few hundred meters out of habitat occasionally--some examples known to Schweitzer include both C. MARGINATA (in an old field) and C. LEPIDA (at a forest/lawn interface) at blacklight in southern New Jersey, although neither is in this Specs Group . It is not rare to see C. SEXGUTTATA and C. PUNCTULATA individuals on driveways. As with most tiger beetles it makes no sense to treat every little colony as a separate occurrence. These should be clustered into more defensible metapopulations. Some local extirpation and colonization is probably normal.
Use the unsuitable habitat distance across completely unsuitable habitats such as lawn and urban areas between two patches of Florida sand scrub. Use the suitable habitat distance within an overall suitable habitat type such as between colonies separated by more or less intact pine barrens on suitable soils in parts of New Jersey or Michigan. Also use the suitable habitat in right of ways or other linear situations over largely suitable soils.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent is problematic since colonies tend to occur in many small patches in a community and patches may come and go. It is not certain that all patches in the area that seem suitable will be occupied although over time they probably all are. In fact though seemingly unoccupied patches may well be occupied on another day the same season. Adults might be distributed slightly differently than larvae and the latter are more important from a conservation perspective. Further seemingly suitable habitat patches may be in some way unsuitable, perhaps due to soil or microclimate differences or (at least in Florida mosquito spraying). Patch occupancy is somewhat variable for the Florida endemics. Obviously the patch where the collection was made will be assumed occupied and it seems safe to assume the same for any others in the same overall community or edaphic feature within a kilometer. Further exploration should be conducted to document occupancy farther away, even when it seems "obvious" the occurrence is large. In some cases the patch will be separated sufficiently that it alone is the inferred extent.
Date: 05Dec2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 16Oct2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, DAle, recent revisions; Fichtel, C. 1993; Whittaker, J.C. 1994
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 14Dec2000
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): SCHWEITZER, D.F.; WHITTAKER, J.C.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Acciavatti, R. E, Allen, T. J., and Stuart, C. 1992. The West Virginia Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela 24(3-4): 45-78.

  • Beaton, G. 2008. Notes on tiger beetle distributions in the state of Georgia, U.S.A., with new county records (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Coleoptera 40(3):37-45.

  • Bousquet, Y. 2012. Catalogue of Geadephaga (Coleoptera, Adephaga) of America, north of Mexico. ZooKeys 245:1-1722.

  • Bousquet, Y., P. Bouchard, A.E. Davies, and D.S. Sikes. 2013. Checklist of beetles (Coleoptera) of Canada and Alaska, second edition. Pensoft Series Faunistica No 109.

  • Boyd, H. P. 1978. The tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of New Jersey with special reference to their ecological relationships. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 104:191-242.

  • Boyd, Howard P. 1978. The tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of New Jersey with special reference to their ecological relationships. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 104:191-242.

  • Brzoska, Dr. David W. 1998. Locality Information for G1-G3 Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) - Collected by D.W. Brzoska. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 3 pp. plus memorandum from Lara Minium.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2006. Wild species 2005: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available oneline at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild species 2010: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available online at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2009b. COSEWIC Assessment Results, November 2009. Online. Available: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/.

  • Dunn, Gary. 1981. Tiger Beetles of New Hampshire. Cicindela: 13(1/2):1, Mar/June.

  • Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pp.

  • Gordon, W.M. 1939. The Cicindelidae of New York with reference to their ecology. M.S. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 136 pp.

  • Knisley, C.B. and T.D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a Guide to the Species of the South Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication Number 5. Virginia Museum of Natural History: Martinsville, Virginia. 210 pp.

  • Knisley, C.B. and T.D. Schultz. 1997. The biology of tiger beetles and a guide to the species of the south Atlantic States. Virginia Mus. of Nat. Hist. special publication number 5.

  • Knisley, C.B., T.D. Schultz, and T.H. Hasewinkel. 1990. Seasonal activity and thermoregulatory behavior of Cicindela patruela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 84(5):911-915.

  • LaRochelle, A. 1986. Cicindelidae from New England in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Cicindela 18(4):59-63.

  • Leonard, J.G. and R.T. Bell, 1999. Northeastern Tiger Beetles: A Field Guide to Tiger Beetles of New England and Eastern Canada. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida. 176 pp.

  • Leonard, M. D. ed. 1928. A list of the insects of New York, with a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Mem. 101. Ithaca, New York. 1121 pp.

  • Melius, D.A. 2007. An extant population of Cicindela patruela Dejean in North Carolina. Cicindela 39(3-4):51-52.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • Pearson, D. L., C. B. Knisley and C. J. Kazilek. 2006. A field guide to the tiger beetles of the United States and Canada: identification, natural history, and distribution of the Cicindelidae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 227 pp.

  • Pearson, D.L. 2004. A list of suggested common English names for species of tiger beetles occurring in Canada and the U.S. Cicindela 36(1-2):31-40.

  • Pearson, D.L., C.B. Knisley, D.P. Duran, and C.J. Kazilek. 2015. A field guide to the tiger beetles of the United States and Canada: identification, natural history, and distribution of the Cicindelinae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 251 pp.

  • Pearson, D.L., T. G. Barraclough, and A.P. Vogler. 1997. Distributional range maps for North American species of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela, 29(3-4): 33-84. Available online: http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/tigerb/rangepaper.htm.

  • Shelford, V.E. 1908. Life-histories and larval habits of the tiger beetles (Cicindelidae). Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 30:157-184.

  • Ward, R. D., and T. A. Bowling. 1980. Cicindela collected from malaise traps in Michigan and notes on the distribution of Michigan species. Cicindela 12(2): 29-31.

  • Willis, H.L. 1980. Description of the larva of Cicindela patruela. Cicindela 12(4):49-56.

  • Willis, H.L. 2000. Collecting notes for Cicindela patruela in central Wisconsin. Cicindela 32(3-4):49-54.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.