SHORT COMMUNICATION

 

Scarabaeolus carniphilus: a necrophagous dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) buries and feeds on a dead snake

 

 

James du G. Harrison^I; Marcus J. Byrne^I; Clarke H. Scholtz^II; Emily Baird^III; Claudia Tocco^I; Nellie Linander^IV; Marie Dacke^{I, IV}

^ISchool of Animal, Plant & Environmental Sciences (AP&ES), University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
^IIDepartment of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
^IIIDepartment of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
^IVDepartment of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

A rare sighting of two male carrion specialist dung beetles, Scarabaeolus carniphilus Deschodt & Davis, 2015, burying a freshly dead Herald snake (Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia (Laurenti, 1768)) is documented from its discovery in the field and subsequent reburial under laboratory conditions. The species studied is a member of the telecoprid (dung roller) Scarabaeini, but behaved here like a paracoprid; it deliberately cut into and removed flesh from the dead snake; these pieces were then taken into a feeding burrow; later a pheromone release stance was taken up near an established burrow; and under laboratory conditions the snake was completely buried. These observations, mostly novel for this species and its genus are clearly documented via photographs and an online time lapse video taken every hour for 24-hours during the snake's-(re)burial. This note introduces relevant aspects of dung beetle natural history and new biological information for Scarabaeolus and particularly for Sc. carniphilus. It records and interprets a carrion specialist Scarabaeini dung beetle burying and feeding on fresh carrion; highlights natural history findings (pheromone release) previously not considered for the evolution of the Scarabaeini; and aims to stimulate behavioural research into this interesting and under studied genus Scarabaeolus.

Keywords: carrion; Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia; necrophagy; paracoprid; pheromone release; Scarabaeini; telecoprid

---

 

 

On 4 Nov. 2014 at 16h14 a dead Herald snake (Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia) (Laurenti, 1768) (Graham Alexander pers. comm.), commonly known as a Herald or Red-lipped snake was discovered being buried by two dung beetles (Figure 1). The snake, dung beetles and sand from the same area were then moved (about 2 km) to a field laboratory (26.23'55.1"S 24.19'37.3"E, Stonehenge Farm, near to the town of Vryburg, North-West province, South Africa). The original location (sand road) and field laboratory (camp) are in the same habitat type and would have experienced the same environmental conditions. The dead snake was placed on the surface and the two live dung beetles (Sc. carniphilus) were released next to it inside a 10-l rectangular bin containing compacted Kalahari sand from the collection site. A gauze lid (mesh diameter 5 × 5 mm squares) covered the container to prevent other similar sized or bigger beetles from entering the container and its occupants from flying away. On 6 November 2014 at 12h39, we realised that the snake was once again being buried and photographically documented this process using a tripod-mounted Canon G12 SLR camera with hourly photographs for the next 48 hours. Once the snake had completely disappeared from the soil surface the bin was left untouched until it was moved by vehicle (8 November 2014) to a laboratory at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa (26.11'34.116" S 28.01'56.97" E). Here (9 November 2014) the bin was placed inside a north facing laboratory, receiving ambient temperatures and a natural day-night cycle. About 250 ml of water was sprinkled over the surface to maintain the sands' moisture content. On 28 November 2014 at 19h48 the bin contents were carefully dug up and sieved (5 × 5 mm mesh) to see what had become of the beetles and snake. Both beetles were buried in the sand and alive. The snake had been completely consumed (one rib remained), and 62 fly pupae were found in the excavated sand. At this point the two dung beetles were killed and preserved for sexing, identification and voucher purposes, and are deposited in the Wits Life Sciences Museum (WLSM) insect collection.

 

 

The dung beetles were dissected and following Deschodt et al. (2015) identified by JduGH as two males of Scarabaeolus carniphilus Davis & Deschodt, 2015. The specimens match the morphological attributes, male genitalia, feeding preference and geographic location (also near Vryburg) of Sc. carniphilus. In addition to this, the specimens' identity was confirmed by A.L.V. Davis and C. Deschodt (the species' authors).

As their name implies, dung beetles feed predominantly on dung (coprophagy) but will also feed on both dung and carrion (copro-necrophagous) or only carrion (necrophagous, including both invertebrate and vertebrate carrion) (Halffter and Matthews 1966; Scholtz et al. 2009). A few taxa are obligate feeders on fungi (fungivores), detritus or millipedes (as necrophages or even carnivores) while others are associated with land snails (Vaz-de Mello 2007) or predacious on live ant alates (Halffter and Matthews 1966; Halffter and Halffter 2009; Hertel and Colli 1998). Dung beetles from the tribe covered here (Scarabaeini), have been recorded feeding on wet dung (Pachylomerus, Scarabaeus, Kheper and Scarabaeolus), dry dung (Pachysoma), detritus (Pachysoma), carrion (Pachylomerus, Scarabaeus and Scarabaeolus) and millipedes (Sceliages) (Tribe 1976; Mostert and Scholtz 1986; Scholtz 1989; Forgie et al. 2002; Harrison and Philips 2003; Harrison et al. 2003; Scholtz et al. 2004). In a comparative study of the mouthparts of 12 dung beetle species Mathikge (2021) found that Sc. carniphilus and a generalist feeder have similar mouthparts to wet dung feeding species, which she assumed was a pre-adaption to liquid-type foods.

On the basis of their dung relocation behaviour, dung beetles have been divided into four main functional groups following the papers of Halffter and Matthews (1966); Bornemissza (1969, 1976); Hammond (1976) and Klemperer (1983), which include:

(i) paracoprids construct their nests at the end of tunnels under the dung;

(ii) endocoprids create a nest chamber within or immediately under the dung;

(iii) telecoprids detach a portion of dung from the mass, roll it some distance away from the source and then bury it (or place it above ground in a grass tussock), and

(iv) kleptoparasites use dung that has already been buried by geotrupine or scarabaeine dung beetles.

Doube (1990) refined this classification into seven functional groups. Known Scarabaeini food relocation behaviour is generally of the telecoprid style, with some taxa modifying this by altering the body posture (or direction) which the beetle uses to relocate the food item: Sceliages push millipede pieces forwards (Forgie et al. 2002), Pachysoma drag dry dung and detritus forwards (Scholtz 1989; Harrison et al. 2003; Harrison and Philips 2003), Scarabaeus galenus and Scarabaeus vicinus (after Deschodt et al. 2017) push fragments of wet dung or pellets backwards (Dacke et al. 2020; JduGH pers. obs.), Scarabaeus, Kheper, Scarabaeolus and Pachylomerus make and roll wet-dung-balls backwards (Byrne et al. 2003), but Pachylomerus will also head-butt dung into a burrow close to the dung source, in more of a paracoprid style of nest provisioning (Tribe 1976; Mostert and Scholtz 1986). To date all known species of Scarabaeolus are assumed to use the telecoprid style of food relocation.

Like dung, carrion is a spatially and temporally fragmented food resource (Halffter and Mathews 1966; Hanski and Cambefort 1991; Scholtz et al. 2009; Simmons & Ridsdill-Smith 2011). However, unlike dung, carrion is also eaten by a host of vertebrate scavengers and predators, further reducing its availability. African vertebrate scavengers include birds (e.g., crows, hornbills, kites, raptors and vultures), small to medium sized predators (e.g., jackals and hyenas (Mills and Mills 2010)) and even hungry lions (McBride 1990) which, directed via smell or sight, quickly locate and eat such meals. Consequently, any dung beetle species feeding on carrion compete with these larger animals for this resource. Additionally, the frequency and availability of carrion is dependent on something being killed or dying, unlike defecation, which African herbivores do many times per day, for example, "African elephants defecate about 14-20 times per day in the wet season, and about 10 times per day during the dry season. An adult elephant produces between 6 kg and 11 kg of faeces per defecation on average, depending on its size. On average, the total quantity of faeces produced per day would amount to about 150 kg wet mass, or 35 kg dry mass" (Owen-Smith 1988).

The advantage of using carrion as a food resource is that it has a higher nutritional value, particularly its nitrogen content, in comparison to dung (Scholtz et al. 2009). Its disadvantage is its scarcity in comparison to dung and competition for it from vertebrate scavengers and other carrion-associated insects (Scholtz et al. 2009).

To replicate the biological sequence of events the figures are arranged in chronological order. Two male Sc. carniphilus had already started burying the snake when it was discovered (Figure 1). The first in residence (based on the size of its sand push-ups), was working on the cloacal region of the snake (Figure 1A), the second about 60 mm back from the head (Figure 1B). As one would expect (from forensic entomological knowledge) the insects initially focussed their attention on sections of the snake where the skin had been ruptured (where the vehicle crushed it). On collection of the snake, cocktail ants (Formicidae: Crematogaster sp.) present (Figure 1C) were removed and subsequently no further ants were involved in the decomposition process.

Under field laboratory conditions the snake was reburied by being pulled into the sand, i.e., the beetles buried it from underground. During the latter stages of the snake's reburial, the beetles were observed on the surface walking around the periphery of the container. Alternatively, they were observed just below or just out of a tunnel dug right next to the snake, for example, during the pheromone release stage (Figures 2A-D). Within 48 hours of being placed in the field laboratory the snake had been completely buried. An online time lapse video condensing the snake's reburial is available as supplementary material.

 

 

On 28 November 2014 (24 days after its initial discovery) the bin containing the snake and beetles was excavated and all that remained of the snake was a single rib (no photograph), two live male Sc. carniphilus beetles and 62 fly pupae. The fly pupae were returned to the sand and covered with moist sand, and when checked again on 22 December 2014 most of the flies had emerged including three parasitic hymenopterans, from a genus (Brachymeria sp.) known to parasitise Sarcophaga pupae (Delvare and Huchet 2017). It goes beyond the intended scope of this paper to discuss the other insects involved (ants, flies and parasitic wasps), but their presence does show how necrophagous dung beetles compete with other insects for this nutritious food resource. The 62 fly pupae account for what became of the snakes tissue and bones, namely they were converted by Sarcophaga maggots into the pupal cases and another generation of flesh flies.

Figures 3A-D provide the first photographic evidence of a Scarabaeolus species feeding on carrion and behaving like a paracoprid rather than like a telecoprid at the food resource. Further work is needed to determine if this is a common behaviour (no food relocation) among carrion feeding Scarabaeolus species. No attempt was made (by the two male beetles) to make and roll a carrion ball either in the field, or in the storage container. Many other species of larger telecoprid dung beetles will make and roll dung balls in these same containers.

 

 

Figures 3A-C shows how a Sc. carniphilus beetle cuts (this species is equipped with sharply pointed clypeal and protibial teeth) into the snake and provisions its adjacent feeding burrow with fresh carrion as food (Figure 3D). We did not observe if the snake was opened up before or after the feeding burrow was dug. Finally, after being provisioned with snake carrion, the feeding burrow was sealed off, leaving the rest of the snake still on the surface.

The first record of a dung beetle releasing pheromone was made by Tribe (1975) for the African Scarabaeini species (Kheper nigroaeneus), but more generally he also mentioned that "various ball rolling species have specific rhythmic patterns of brushing behaviour and certain features such as a criss-crossing of the extended [hind] tibiae in Scarabaeus is specific to that genus. No comparable release stance has been observed in any female [dung] beetles" (Tribe 1976). Tribe's (1976) thesis on dung beetles mentions these Scarabaeini taxa with respect to pheromone release: Kheper lamarcki, K. nigroaeneus, K. subaeneus, Pachylomerus opaca, Scarabaeus ambiguus and S. galenus), but makes no mention of pheromone release by any species of Scarabaeolus, although other aspects of the breeding biology of Scarabaeolus bohemani are covered. Following from Tribe's (1975, 1976) findings, Burger et al. (1983, 1990, 1991, 1995, 2002a,b, 2008) expand on the chemical aspects of dung beetle pheromone release in various species of Kheper and Pachylomerus, but unfortunately did not include any Scarabaeus or Scarabaeolus species in their analyses. In a series of papers, Pluot-Sigwalt (1982, 1983, 1986, 1991, 1995) examined the abdominal pheromone glands of the following Scarabaeini species: Kheper cuvieri, K. festivus, Pachylomerus femoralis, Scarabaeolus palemo, Scarabaeus furcatus, S. goryi, S. laticollis, S. radama, S. sacer, S. semipunctatus and S. typhon. These glands showed intraspecific sexual dimorphism for all species and the distribution of the glands on the abdominal sternites of the four main groups studied (Scarabaeolus, Scarabaeus, Kheper and Pachylomerus) also varied. Of particular interest was the finding that female Scarabaeolus palemo lacked abdominal pheromone glands, in contrast females of the other Scarabaeini mentioned earlier had pheromone glands.

Perhaps this scientific note raises more questions than answers, but it is our hope that it will stimulate further study of the natural history of Scarabaeolus and other related Scarabaeini genera.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Ted and Winnie Harvey of Stonehenge Farm, Vryburg for use of their farm as a field site. The University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Science provided funding to JduGH and MB. Additional identifications were made by: Ashley Kirk-Spriggs (Diptera); Gerard Delvare, Peter Hawks, Sariana Faure and Simon Van Noort (Hymenoptera); and Graham Alexander and James Mackenzie (snake). The following colleagues assisted with information and literature: Art V. Evans, Brett Ratcliffe, Dominique Pluot-Sigwalt, Enrico Barbero, Fernando Vaz-de-Mello, Geoff Tribe, Jorge Ari Noriega, Keith T. Philips, Paul Schoolmeesters, Philippe Moretto, Philippe Walter and Riaan Stals. Comments from three reviewers improved the final paper.

 

ORCID IDs

James du G. Harrison - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2120-8217

Marcus Byrne - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5155-2599

Clarke H. Scholtz - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7453-8220

Emily Baird - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3625-3897

Claudia Tocco - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3144-2365

Nellie Linande - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3196-4377

Marie Dacke - https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6444-7483

 

REFERENCES

Bornemissza GF. 1969. A new type of brood care observed in the beetle Oniticellus cinctus (Scarabaeidae). Pedobiologia (Jena) 9(1):223-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-4056(23)00519-X        [ Links ]

Bornemissza GF. 1976. The Australian dung beetle project 1965-1975. Australian Meat Research Committee Review 30:1-30.         [ Links ]

Burger BV, Munro Z, Röth M, Spies HSC, Truter V, Tribe GD, Crewe RM. 1983. Studies on the pheromones of Scarabaeinae, I. Composition of the heterogeneous sex attracting secretion of the dung beetle, Kheper lamarcki. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 38(9-10):848-855. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1983-9-1028        [ Links ]

Burger BV, Munro Z, Brandt WF. 1990. Pheromones of the Scarabaeinae, II. Composition of the pheromone disseminating carrier material secreted by male dung beetles of the genus Kheper. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 45(7-8):863-872. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1990-7-820        [ Links ]

Burger BV, Petersen WGB. 1991. Semiochemicals of the Scarabaeinae, III. Identification of an attractant for the dung beetle Pachylomer[us] femoralis in the fruit of the spineless monkey orange tree, Strychnos madagascariensis. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 46(11-12):1073-1079. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1991-11-1224        [ Links ]

Burger BV, Petersen WGB, Tribe GD. 1995. Semiochemicals of the Scarabaeinae, IV: identification of an attractant for the dung beetle Pachylomer[us] femoralis in the abdominal secretion of the dung beetle Kheper lamarcki. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 50(c):675-860.         [ Links ]

Burger BV, Petersen WGB. 2002a. Semiochemicals of the Scarabaeinae, VI. Identification of EAD-active constituents of abdominal secretion of male dung beetle Kheper nigroaeneus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28(3):501-513. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014583826875        [ Links ]

Burger BV, Petersen WGB, Weber WG, Munro ZM. 2002b. Semiochemicals ofthe Scarabaeinae, VII. Identification and synthesis of EAD-active constituents of abdominal sex attracting secretion of the male dung beetle Kheper subaeneus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28(12):2527-2539. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021440220329        [ Links ]

Burger BV, Petersen WGB, Ewig BT, Neuhaus J, Tribe GD, Spies HSC, Burger WJG. 2008. Semiochemicals of the Scarabaeinae VIII: identification of active constituents of the abdominal sex-attracting secretion of the male dung beetle, Kheper bonellii, using gas chromatography with flame ionization and electroantennographic detection in parallel. Journal of Chromatography A 1186(1-2):245-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2007.09.041        [ Links ]

Byrne M, Dacke M, Nordström P, Scholtz C, Warrant E. 2003. Visual cues used by ball-rolling dung beetles for orientation. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 189:411-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-003-0415-1        [ Links ]

Davis ALV, Frolov AV, Scholtz CH. 2008.The African Dung Beetle Genera. Pretoria, South Africa: Protea Book House.         [ Links ]

Dacke M, El Jundi B, Gagnon Y, Yilmaz A, Byrne M, Baird E. 2020. A dung beetle that path integrates without the use of landmarks. Animal Cognition 23(6):1161-1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01426-8        [ Links ]

Doube BM. 1990. A functional classification for analysis of the structure of dung beetle assemblages. Ecological Entomology 15(4):371-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1990.tb00820.x        [ Links ]

Deschodt CM, Davis ALV, Scholtz CH. 2015. Status changes, new synonymies, key and descriptions of seven new species in the subgenus Scarabaeus (Scarabaeolus) Balthasar 1965 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Zootaxa 3931(4):505-527. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3931.4.3        [ Links ]

Deschodt CM, Davis ALV, Scholtz CH. 2017. Three new species, a synonymy and taxonomic notes on southern African members of the dung beetle genera Scarabaeus s. str. Linnaeus, 1758 and Escarabaeus Zídek & Pokorný, 2011 (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Journal of Natural History 51(5-6):299-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2016.1261949        [ Links ]

Delvare G, Huchet J-B. 2017. Brachymeria mochica, a new Neotropical species of Chalcididae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) discovered on the archaeological site of Huacas de Moche, Peru with a review of related species. Zootaxa 4290(1):43-60. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4290.1.2        [ Links ]

Forgie SA, Grebennikov VV, Scholtz CH. 2002. Revision of Sceliages Westwood, a millipede-eating genus of southern African dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Invertebrate Systematics 16(6):931-955. https://doi.org/10.1071/IT01025        [ Links ]

Halffter G, Halffter V. 2009. Why and where coprophagous beetles eat seeds, fruits or vegetable detritus. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 45:1-22.         [ Links ]

Halffter G, Matthews EG. 1966. The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Folio Entomològica Mexicana 12-14:1-312.         [ Links ]

Hammond PM. 1976. Kleptoparasitic behaviour of Onthophagus suturalis Péringuey (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) and other dung beetles. The Coleopterist's Bulletin 30:235-249.         [ Links ]

Hanski I, Cambefort Y , editors. 1991. Dung Beetle Ecology. NJ, U.S.A.: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400862092        [ Links ]

Harrison, J du G, Philips TK. 2003. Phylogeny of Scarabaeus Pachysoma (MacLeay) stat.n. and related flightless Scarabaeini (Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Annals of Transvaal Museum 40:47-71.         [ Links ]

Harrison J du G, Scholtz CH, Chown SL. 2003.A revision of the endemic south-western African dung beetle subgenus Scarabaeus (Pachysoma) Macleay, including notes on other flightless Scarabaeini (Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Journal of Natural History 37(3):305-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/713834683        [ Links ]

Hertel F, Colli GR. 1998. The use of leaf-cutter ants, Atta laevigata (Smith) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) as a substrate for oviposition by the dung beetle Canthon virens Mannerheim (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) in central Brazil. The Coleopterist's Bulletin 52(2):105-108.         [ Links ]

Klemperer HG. 1983. The evolution ofparental behaviour in Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae), an experimental approach. Ecological Entomology 8(1):49-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1983.tb00482.x.         [ Links ]

Mathikge NG. 2021. Understanding the role of specialized mouthparts in the selective feeding of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) [MSc thesis] Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.         [ Links ]

Mcbride CJ. 1990. Liontide. Johannesburg, South Africa: Jonathan Ball Publishers.         [ Links ]

Mills G, Mills M. 2010. Hyena nights and Kalahari days. Johannesburg, South Africa: Jacana.         [ Links ]

Mostert LE, Scholtz CH. 1986. Systematics of the subtribe Scarabaeina (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae). Entomology Memoir Department of Agriculture and Water Supply Republic of South Africa 65:1-25.         [ Links ]

Owen-Smith RN. 1988. Megaherbivores, the influence of very large body size on ecology. Cambridge Studies in Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565441        [ Links ]

Pluot-Sigwalt D. 1982. Physiologie des invertébratés - diversité et dimorphisme sexuel de glandes tégumentaires abdominales chez les Coléoptères Scarabaeidae. Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences Paris, Serie III 294: 945-948.         [ Links ]

Pluot-Sigwalt D. 1983. Les glandes tégumentaires des Coléoptères Scarabaeidae, répartition des glandes sternales et pygidiales dans la famille. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 88(7):597-602. https://doi.org/10.3406/bsef.1983.18092        [ Links ]

Pluot-Sigwalt, D. 1986. Les glandes tégumentaires des Coléoptères Scarabaeidae, Structure et diversité des canalicules. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.) 22(2): 163-182.         [ Links ]

Pluot-Sigwalt, D. 1991. Le système glandulaire abdominal des Coléoptères coprophages Scarabaeidae, ses tendances évolutive et ses relations avec la nidification. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.) 27: 205-229.         [ Links ]

Pluot-Sigwalt, D. 1995. La diversité du systéme des glandes tégumentaires abdominales des Scarabaeidae (s. str.) (Coleoptera), morphologie et répartition des structures cuticulaires. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.) 31(4): 295-348.         [ Links ]

Scholtz CH. 1989. Unique foraging behaviour in Pachysoma (= Scarabaeus) striatum Castelnau (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae), an adaptation to arid conditions? Journal of Arid Environments 16(3):305-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(18)30946-7        [ Links ]

Scholtz CH, Davis ALV, Kryger U. 2009. Evolutionary Biology and Conservation of Dung Beetles. Sofia, Bulgaria and Moscow, Russia: Pentsoft; p. 1-567.         [ Links ]

Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith TJ, editors. 2011. Ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444342000        [ Links ]

Tribe GD. 1975. Pheromone release by dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). South African Journal of Science 71:277-278.         [ Links ]

Tribe GD. 1976. The ecology and ethology of ball-rolling dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) [MSc thesis] Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: University of Natal.         [ Links ]

Vaz-de-Mello FZ. 2007. Revision and phylogeny of the dung beetle genus Zonocopris Arrow, 1932 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae), a phoretic of land snails. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 43(2):231-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2007.10697516        [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence:
James du G. Harrison
Email: james.harrison@wits.ac.za

Received: 29 November 2022
Accepted: 30 January 2023

 

 

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplementary information for this article in the form of a video is available