Revision of Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

A comprehensive revision of the Subfamily Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from the Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese regions is presented. Seven (7) new genera are described: Komiyandra, Melanesiandra, Papuandra, Storeyandra, Hawaiiandra, Caledonandra, and Malukandra. All known, indigenous species from these regions are assigned to new genera resulting in the following new combinations: Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875), K. shibatai (Hayashi, 1963), K. formosana (Miwa and Mitono, 1939), K. lanyuana (Hayashi, 1981), Melanesiandra striatifrons (Fairmaire, 1879), M. solomonensis (Arigony, 1983), Caledonandra austrocaledonica (Montrouzier, 1861), C. passandroides (Thomson, 1867), Hawaiiandra puncticeps (Sharp, 1878), Malukandra heterostyla (Lameere, 1902), Storeyandra frenchi (Blackburn, 1895), and Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959). Thirty-one (31) new species are described: Komiyandra javana, K. nayani, K. ohbayashii, K. luzonica, K. philippinensis, K. mindanao, K. mehli, K. vivesi, K. lombokia, K. sulawesiana, K. irianjayana, K. menieri, K. sangihe, K. mindoro, K. niisatoi, K. drumonti, K. cabigasi, K. koni, K. johkii, K. poggii, K. uenoi, Melanesiandra bougainvillensis, M. birai, Papuandra gressitti, P. weigeli, P. queenslandensis, P. norfolkensis, P. rothschildi, P. oberthueri, Malukandra jayawijayana and M. hornabrooki. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875) is excluded from nearly all previously reported locations, even one location given in the original description, and is now only known from Sulawesi. A paralectotype of Parandra janus Bates, 1875, is designated as a paratype for Komiyandra menieri, new species. Komiyandra formosana is excluded from the Japanese (Ryukyu Is.) fauna. Parandra vitiensis Nonfried, 1894, is again placed in synonymy with P. striatifrons Fairmaire (now Melanesiandra striatifrons). A neotype is designated for Parandra austrocaledonica Montrouzier, 1861. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. The lectotype of Parandra gabonica Thomson, 1858, designated by Quentin and Villiers (1975) is considered invalid. Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959) is excluded from the fauna of Norfolk Island. The African species Stenandra kolbei (Lameere, 1903) is reported for the first time from Asia (N. Vietnam). Keys are presented to separate worldwide genera of Parandrini and all species within the study regions. Illustrations are provided for all species including many special characters to differentiate genera and species.

Invasive Litter, Not an Invasive Insectivore, Determines Invertebrate Communities in Hawaiian Forests

In Hawaii, invasive plants have the ability to alter litter-based food chains because they often have litter traits that differ from native species. Additionally, abundant invasive predators, especially those representing new trophic levels, can reduce prey. The relative importance of these two processes on the litter invertebrate community in Hawaii is important, because they could affect the large number of endemic and endangered invertebrates. We determined the relative importance of litter resources, represented by leaf litter of two trees, an invasive nitrogen-fixer, Falcataria moluccana, and a native tree, Metrosideros polymorpha, and predation of an invasive terrestrial frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui, on leaf litter invertebrate abundance and composition. Principle component analysis revealed that F. moluccana litter creates an invertebrate community that greatly differs from that found in M. polymorpha litter. We found that F. moluccana increased the abundance of non-native fragmenters (Amphipoda and Isopoda) by 400% and non-native predaceous ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) by 200%. E. coqui had less effect on the litter invertebrate community; it reduced microbivores by 40% in F. moluccana and non-native ants by 30% across litter types. E. coqui stomach contents were similar in abundance and composition in both litter treatments, despite dramatic differences in the invertebrate community. Additionally, our results suggest that invertebrate community differences between litter types did not cascade to influence E. coqui growth or survivorship. In conclusion, it appears that an invasive nitrogen-fixing tree species has a greater influence on litter invertebrate community abundance and composition than the invasive predator, E. coqui.

HAWAIIAN SUGAR CANE RAT CONTROL METHODS AND PROBLEMS

The problem of rats in our Hawaiian sugar cane fields has been with us for a long time. Early records tell of heavy damage at various times on all the islands where sugar cane is grown. Many methods were tried to control these rats. Trapping was once used as a control measure, a bounty was used for a time, gangs of dogs were trained to catch the rats as the cane was harvested. Many kinds of baits and poisons were used. All of these methods were of some value as long as labor was cheap. Our present day problem started when the labor costs started up and the sugar industry shifted to long cropping. Until World War II cane was an annual crop. After the war it was shifted to a two year crop, three years in some places. Depending on variety, location, and soil we raise 90 to 130 tons of sugar cane per acre, which produces 7 to 15 tons of sugar per acre for a two year crop. This sugar brings about $135 dollars per ton. This tonnage of cane is a thick tangle of vegetation. The cane grows erect for almost a year, as it continues to grow it bends over at the base. This allows the stalk to rest on the ground or on other stalks of cane as it continues to grow. These stalks form a tangled mat of stalks and dead leaves that may be two feet thick at the time of harvest. At the same time the leafy growing portion of the stalk will be sticking up out of the mat of cane ten feet in the air. Some of these individual stalks may be 30 feet long and still growing at the time of harvest. All this makes it very hard to get through a cane field as it is one long, prolonged stumble over and through the cane. It is in this mat of cane that our three species of rats live. Two species are familiar to most people in the pest control field. Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. In the latter species we include both the black rat and the alexandrine rats, their habits seem to be the same in Hawaii. Our third rat is the Polynesian rat, Rattus exlans, locally called the Hawaiian rat. This is a small rat, the average length head to tip of tail is nine inches and the average body weight is 65 grams. It has dark brownish fur like the alexandrine rats, and a grey belly. It is found in Indonesia, on most of the islands of Oceania and in New Zealand. All three rats live in our cane fields and the brushy and forested portions of our islands. The norway and alexandrine rats are found in and around the villages and farms, the Polynesian rat is only found in the fields and waste areas. The actual amount of damage done by rats is small, but destruction they cause is large. The rats gnaw through the rind of the cane stalk and eat the soft juicy and sweet tissues inside. They will hollow out one to several nodes per stalk attacked. The effect to the cane stalk is like ringing a tree. After this attack the stalk above the chewed portion usually dies, and sometimes the lower portion too. If the rat does not eat through the stalk the cane stalk could go on living and producing sugar at a reduced rate. Generally an injured stalk does not last long. Disease and souring organisms get in the injury and kill the stalk. And if this isn't enough, some insects are attracted to the injured stalk and will sometimes bore in and kill it. An injured stalk of cane doesn't have much of a chance. A rat may only gnaw out six inches of a 30 foot stalk and the whole stalk will die. If the rat only destroyed what he ate we could ignore them but they cause the death of too much cane. This dead, dying, and souring cane cause several direct and indirect tosses. First we lose the sugar that the cane would have produced. We harvest all of our cane mechanically so we haul the dead and souring cane to the mill where we have to grind it with our good cane and the bad cane reduces the purity of the sugar juices we squeeze from the cane. Rats reduce our income and run up our overhead.