Hubbry Logo
Flower chaferFlower chaferMain
Open search
Flower chafer
Community hub
Flower chafer
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Flower chafer
Flower chafer
Flower chafer
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Flower chafer
Cetonia aurata, the green rose chafer
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Coleoptera
Suborder: Polyphaga
Infraorder: Scarabaeiformia
Family: Scarabaeidae
Subfamily: Cetoniinae
Leach, 1815

Flower chafers are a group of scarab beetles comprising the subfamily Cetoniinae. Many species are diurnal and visit flowers for pollen and nectar or to browse on the petals. Some species also feed on fruit. The group is also called fruit and flower chafers, flower beetles, and flower scarabs. Around 4,000 species are known, but many of them are still undescribed.

Ten tribes currently are recognized: Cetoniini, Cremastocheilini, Diplognathini, Goliathini, Gymnetini, Phaedimini, Schizorhinini, Stenotarsiini, Taenioderini, and Xiphoscelidini. The former tribes Trichiini and Valgini were elevated in rank to subfamily.[1][2] The tribe Gymnetini has the most species of the American tribes, and Goliathini contains the largest species and is mainly found in the rainforest regions of Africa.

Description

[edit]

Adult flower chafers are usually brightly coloured beetles, often metallic, and somewhat flattened in shape. The insertions of the antennae are visible from above, while the mandibles and labra are hidden by the clypeus. The elytra lack a narrow, membranous margin and are truncated to expose the pygidium. The abdominal spiracles are diverging so that several lie on the abdominal sternites with at least one exposed. The fore coxae are conical and produced ventrally, while the mid coxae are transverse or only slightly oblique. The mesothoracic epimera is visible from above. The tarsi are each equipped with a pair of simple (not forked) tarsal claws of subequal size.[3][4]

A feature possessed by adults of many flower chafers, especially the Cetoniini, is lateral emmargination of the elytra.[5]

Larvae are stout-bodied and very hairy with short legs. The head is partly covered by the prothorax. Each antenna has its apical segment as wide as the penultimate segment. The galea and lacinia are used to form a mala. The anal cleft is transverse. The mandible has a ventral stridulating area. The labrum is symmetrical with a deeply pigmented notch on each side of the midline.[3]

Biology

[edit]

Adult cetoniines are herbivorous, being found on flowers (from which they consume nectar and pollen), tree sap, and rotting fruit. Larvae generally live and feed in decaying plant matter (including decaying wood) or soil. In captivity, cetoniine larvae feed on soft fruit.[3][4]

Many species in the tribe Cremastocheilini are known to be predaceous, feeding on hymenopteran larvae or soft-bodied nymphs of Auchenorrhyncha. Spilophorus species have been noted as feeding on the nesting material and excrement of South African passerine birds,[6] while Spilophorus maculatus has been recorded feeding on Oxyrhachis tarandus nymphs[7] and Hoplostomus fuligineus is known to feed on the brood of honey bees in South Africa and the pupae of the wasp Belonogaster petiolata. Campsiura javanica feeds on the larvae of Ropalidia montana in southern India.[8] Cremastocheilus stathamae feeds on ants of the genus Myrmecocystus.[9]

In terms of movement, adults are considered some of the best flyers among beetles. They can hover above and land on flowers or fruit. When threatened by predators, they escape by either performing a rush take-off or by falling toward the ground and then flying before impact. Many cetoniines fly with their elytra closed, as their hindwings can unfold and slide out under the elytra during flight (due to the emmargination of the elytra).[5]

Larvae of some taxa can crawl on their backs using their tergal folds, which are covered in strong bristles. Others crawl on their legs.[3][5]

Systematics and taxonomy

[edit]
Mecynorhina ugandensis
Protaetia cuprea ignicollis
Ischnoscelis hoepfneri
Gymnetis stellata

The following list contains the genera and subtribes in ten tribes of subfamily Cetoniinae, according to Catalogue of Life and Scarabaeidae of the World (2023).[1]

Cetoniini

[edit]

Authority: Leach, 1815

  1. Aethiessa Burmeister, 1842
  2. Anatona Burmeister, 1842
  3. Anelaphinis Kolbe, 1892
  4. Aphelinis Antoine, 1987
  5. Atrichelaphinis Kraatz, 1898
  6. Atrichiana Distant, 1911
  7. Badizoblax Thomson, 1877
  8. Centrantyx Fairmaire, 1884
  9. Cetonia Fabricius, 1775
  10. Chewia Legrand, 2004
  11. Chiloloba Burmeister, 1842
  12. Cosmesthes Kraatz, 1880
  13. Cosmiophaena Kraatz, 1898
  14. Dischista Burmeister, 1842
  15. Dolichostethus Kolbe, 1892
  16. Elaphinis Burmeister, 1842
  17. Enoplotarsus Lucas, 1859
  18. Erlangeria Preiss, 1902
  19. Gametis Burmeister, 1842
  20. Gametoides Antoine, 2005
  21. Glycosia Schoch, 1896
  22. Glycyphana Burmeister, 1842
  23. Gymnophana Arrow, 1910
  24. Hemiprotaetia Mikšić, 1963
  25. Heterocnemis Albers, 1852
  26. Heterotephraea Antoine, 2002
  27. Lorkovitschia Mikšić, 1968
  28. Marmylida Thomson, 1880
  29. Mireia Ruter, 1953
  30. Niphobleta Kraatz, 1880
  31. Pachnoda Burmeister, 1842
  32. Pachnodoides Alexis & Delpont, 2002
  33. Pachytephraea De Palma & Malec, 2020
  34. Paleopragma Thomson, 1880
  35. Paranelaphinis Antoine, 1988
  36. Paraprotaetia Moser, 1907
  37. Pararhabdotis Kraatz, 1899
  38. Parastraella Antoine, 2005
  39. Paraxeloma Holm, 1988
  40. Parelaphinis Marais & Holm, 1989
  41. Phaneresthes Kraatz, 1894
  42. Phonotaenia Kraatz, 1880
  43. Phoxomeloides Schoch, 1898
  44. Podopholis Moser, 1915
  45. Podopogonus Moser, 1917
  46. Pogonopus Arrow, 1910
  47. Polystalactica Kraatz, 1882
  48. Protaetia Burmeister, 1842
  49. Protaetiomorpha Mikšić, 1968
  50. Pseudotephraea Kraatz, 1882
  51. Reineria Mikšić, 1968
  52. Rhabdotis Burmeister, 1842
  53. Rhabdotops Krikken, 1981
  54. Rhyxiphloea Burmeister, 1842
  55. Ruteraetia Krikken, 1980
  56. Simorrhina Kraatz, 1886
  57. Somalibia Lansberge, 1882
  58. Stalagmosoma Burmeister, 1842
  59. Systellorrhina Kraatz, 1895
  60. Tephraea Burmeister, 1842
  61. Thyreogonia Reitter, 1898
  62. Trichocephala Moser, 1916
  63. Tropinota Mulsant, 1842
  64. Walsternoplus Allsopp, Jákl & Rey, 2023
  65. Xeloma Kraatz, 1881
  1. Chlorixanthe Bates, 1889
  2. Euphoria Burmeister, 1842
  1. Acrothyrea Kraatz, 1882
  2. Alleucosma Schenkling, 1921
  3. Amaurina Kolbe, 1895
  4. Analleucosma Antoine, 1989
  5. Cyrtothyrea Kolbe, 1895
  6. Discopeltis Burmeister, 1842
  7. Grammopyga Kolbe, 1895
  8. Heteralleucosma Antoine, 1989
  9. Homothyrea Kolbe, 1895
  10. Leucocelis Burmeister, 1842
  11. Lonchothyrea Kolbe, 1895
  12. Mausoleopsis Lansberge, 1882
  13. Mecaspidiellus Antoine, 1997
  14. Molynoptera Kraatz, 1897
  15. Molynopteroides Antoine, 1989
  16. Oxythyrea Mulsant, 1842
  17. Paleira Reiche, 1871
  18. Paralleucosma Antoine, 1989
  19. Phoxomela Schaum, 1844
  20. Pseudalleucosma Antoine, 1989
  21. Pseudooxythyrea Baraud, 1985

Cremastocheilini

[edit]

Authority: Burmeister & Schaum, 1841

  1. Aspilochilus Rojkoff, 2013
  2. Aspilus Westwood, 1874
  3. Protochilus Krikken, 1976
  1. Arielina Rossi, 1958
  2. Astoxenus Péringuey, 1907
  3. Basilewskynia Schein, 1957
  4. Coenochilus Schaum, 1841
  1. Centrochilus Krikken, 1976
  2. Clinterocera Motschulsky, 1857
  3. Cremastocheilus Knoch, 1801
  4. Cyclidiellus Krikken, 1976
  5. Cyclidinus Westwood, 1874
  6. Cyclidius MacLeay, 1838
  7. Genuchinus Westwood, 1874
  8. Lissomelas Bates, 1889
  9. Paracyclidius Howden, 1971
  10. Platysodes Westwood, 1874
  11. Psilocnemis Burmeister, 1842
  1. Cymophorus Kirby, 1827
  2. Myrmecochilus Wasmann, 1900
  3. Rhagopteryx Burmeister, 1842
  1. Genuchus Kirby, 1825
  2. Meurguesia Ruter, 1969
  3. Problerhinus Deyrolle, 1864
  1. Goliathopsis Janson, 1881
  1. Heterogenius Moser, 1911
  2. Pseudastoxenus Bourgoin, 1921
  1. Chthonobius Burmeister, 1847
  2. Lissogenius Schaum, 1844
  1. Brachymacroma Kraatz, 1896
  2. Campsiura Hope, 1831
  3. Macromina Westwood, 1874
  4. Pseudopilinurgus Moser, 1918
  1. Nyassinus Westwood, 1879
  1. Anatonochilus Péringuey, 1907
  2. Oplostomus MacLeay, 1838
  3. Placodidus Péringuey, 1900
  4. Scaptobius Schaum, 1841
  1. Callynomes Mohnike, 1873
  2. Centrognathus Guérin-Méneville, 1840
  3. Parapilinurgus Arrow, 1910
  4. Periphanesthes Kraatz, 1880
  5. Pilinurgus Burmeister, 1842
  6. Priska Jákl, 2018
  1. Spilophorus Westwood, 1848
  1. Telochilus Krikken, 1975
  1. Lecanoderus Kolbe, 1907
  2. Trichoplus Burmeister, 1842
  1. Pseudoscaptobius Krikken, 1976
  2. Trogodes Boheman, 1857

Diplognathini

[edit]

Authority: Burmeister, 1842

  1. Anoplocheilus MacLeay, 1838
  2. Anthracophora Burmeister, 1842
  3. Anthracophorides Moser, 1918
  4. Apocnosoides Antoine, 2001
  5. Charadronota Burmeister, 1842
  6. Conradtia Kolbe, 1892
  7. Diphrontis Gerstaecker, 1882
  8. Diplognatha Gory & Percheron, 1833
  9. Eriulis Burmeister, 1842
  10. Hadrodiplognatha Kraatz, 1898
  11. Heteropseudinca Valck Lucassen, 1933
  12. Lamellothyrea Krikken, 1980
  13. Metallopseudinca Valck Lucassen, 1933
  14. Niphetophora Kraatz, 1883
  15. Nselenius (Holm & Perissinotto, 2004)
  16. Odontorrhina Burmeister, 1842
  17. Parapoecilophila Hauser, 1904
  18. Phonopleurus Moser, 1919
  19. Pilinopyga Kraatz, 1888
  20. Porphyronota Burmeister, 1842
  21. Pseudinca Kraatz, 1880
  22. Stethopseudinca Valck Lucassen, 1933
  23. Tetragonorrhina Kraatz, 1896
  24. Trichostetha Burmeister, 1842
  25. Triplognatha Krikken, 1987
  26. Trymodera Gerstaecker, 1867
  27. Uloptera Burmeister, 1842

Goliathini

[edit]

Authority: Latreille, 1829

  1. Dicronocephalus Hope, 1831
  2. Platynocephalus Westwood, 1854
  1. Fornasinius Bertoloni, 1852
  2. Goliathus Lamarck, 1801
  3. Hegemus Thomson, 1881
  4. Hypselogenia Burmeister, 1840
  1. Gariep Péringuey, 1907
  2. Ichnestoma Gory & Percheron, 1833
  3. Karooida Perissinotto, 2020
  4. Mzansica Perissinotto, 2020
  1. Anagnathocera Arrow, 1922
  2. Anisorrhina Westwood, 1842
  3. Asthenorhella Westwood, 1874
  4. Asthenorhina Westwood, 1843
  5. Bietia Fairmaire, 1898
  6. Caelorrhina Hope, 1841
  7. Cheirolasia Westwood, 1842
  8. Chloresthia Fairmaire, 1905
  9. Chlorocala Kirby, 1828
  10. Chondrorrhina Kraatz, 1880
  11. Compsocephalus White, 1845
  12. Cosmiomorpha Saunders, 1852
  13. Cyphonocephalus Westwood, 1842
  14. Desfontainesia Alexis & Delpont, 1999
  15. Dicellachilus Waterhouse, 1905
  16. Dicheros Gory & Percheron, 1833
  17. Dicronorhina Hope, 1837
  18. Diphyllomorpha Hope, 1843
  19. Dymusia Burmeister, 1842
  20. Euchloropus Arrow, 1907
  21. Eudicella White, 1839
  22. Eutelesmus Waterhouse, 1880
  23. Gnathocera Kirby, 1825
  24. Gnorimimelus Kraatz, 1880
  25. Hemiheterorrhina Mikšić, 1974
  26. Herculaisia Seilliere, 1910
  27. Heterorhina Westwood, 1842
  28. Ingrisma Fairmaire, 1893
  29. Ischnoscelis Burmeister, 1842
  30. Jumnos Saunders, 1839
  31. Lansbergia Ritsema, 1888
  32. Lophorrhina Westwood, 1842
  33. Lophorrhinides Perissinotto, Clennell & Beinhundner, 2019
  34. Mawenzhena Alexis & Delpont, 2001
  35. Mecynorhina Hope, 1837
  36. Moseriana Ruter, 1965
  37. Mystroceros Burmeister, 1842
  38. Narycius Dupont, 1835
  39. Neomystroceros Alexis & Delpont, 1998
  40. Neophaedimus Lucas, 1870
  41. Neoscelis Schoch, 1897
  42. Pedinorrhina Kraatz, 1880
  43. Plaesiorrhina Westwood, 1842
  44. Petrovitzia Mikšić, 1965
  45. Priscorrhina Krikken, 1984
  46. Pseudodiceros Mikšić, 1974
  47. Pseudotorynorrhina Mikšić, 1967
  48. Ptychodesthes Kraatz, 1883
  49. Raceloma Thomson, 1877
  50. Rhamphorrhina Klug, 1855
  51. Rhinarion Ruter, 1965
  52. Rhomborhina Hope, 1837
  53. Scythropesthes Kraatz, 1880
  54. Smicorhina Westwood, 1847
  55. Spelaiorrhina Lansberge, 1886
  56. Stephanorrhina Burmeister, 1842
  57. Taurhina Burmeister, 1842
  58. Tmesorrhina Westwood, 1841
  59. Torynorrhina Arrow, 1907
  60. Trichoneptunides Legrand, 2001
  61. Trigonophorinus Pouillaude, 1913
  62. Trigonophorus Hope, 1831

Gymnetini

[edit]

Authority: Kirby, 1827

  1. Blaesia Burmeister, 1842
  2. Halffterinetis Morón & Nogueira, 2007
  1. Allorrhina Burmeister, 1842
  2. Amazula Kraatz, 1882
  3. Amithao Thomson, 1878
  4. Argyripa Thomson, 1878
  5. Astroscara Schürhoff, 1937
  6. Badelina Thomson, 1880
  7. Balsameda Thomson, 1880
  8. Chiriquibia Bates, 1889
  9. Clinteria Burmeister, 1842
  10. Clinteroides Schoch, 1898
  11. Cotinis Burmeister, 1842 - (Green June Beetles)
  12. Desicasta Thomson, 1878
  13. Guatemalica Neervoort Van De Poll, 1886
  14. Gymnephoria Ratcliffe, 2019
  15. Gymnetina Casey, 1915
  16. Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819
  17. Hadrosticta Kraatz, 1892
  18. Heterocotinis Martinez, 1948
  19. Hologymnetis Martinez, 1949
  20. Hoplopyga Thomson, 1880
  21. Hoplopygothrix Schürhoff, 1933
  22. Howdenypa Arnaud, 1993
  23. Jansonia Schürhoff, 1937
  24. Macrocranius Schürhoff, 1935
  25. Madiana Ratcliffe & Romé, 2019
  26. Marmarina Kirby, 1827
  27. Neocorvicoana Ratcliffe & Mico, 2001
  28. Pseudoclinteria Kraatz, 1882
  29. Stethodesma Bainbridge, 1840
  30. Tiarocera Burmeister, 1842

Phaedimini

[edit]

Authority: Schoch, 1894

  1. Hemiphaedimus Mikšić, 1972
  2. Phaedimus Waterhouse, 1841
  3. Philistina MacLeay, 1838
  4. Theodosia Thomson, 1880

Schizorhinini

[edit]

Authority: Burmeister, 1842

  1. Agestrata Eschscholtz, 1829
  2. Ischiopsopha Gestro, 1874
  3. Lomaptera Gory & Percheron, 1833
  4. Macronota Hoffmannsegg, 1817
  5. Megaphonia Schürhoff, 1933
  6. Morokia Janson, 1905
  7. Mycterophallus Neervoort Van De Poll, 1886
  8. Thaumastopeus Kraatz, 1885
  1. Anacamptorrhina Blanchard, 1842
  2. Aphanesthes Kraatz, 1880
  3. Aurum Hutchinson & Moeseneder, 2019
  4. Axillonia Krikken, 2018
  5. Bisallardiana Antoine, 2003
  6. Chalcopharis Heller, 1902
  7. Chlorobapta Kraatz, 1880
  8. Chondropyga Kraatz, 1880
  9. Clithria Burmeister, 1842
  10. Diaphonia Newman, 1840
  11. Dichrosoma Kraatz, 1885
  12. Digenethle Thomson, 1877
  13. Dilochrosis Thomson, 1878
  14. Eupoecila Burmeister, 1842
  15. Grandaustralis Hutchinson & Moeseneder, 2013
  16. Hemichnoodes Kraatz, 1880
  17. Hemipharis Burmeister, 1842
  18. Kerowagia Delpont, 1996
  19. Lenosoma MacLeay, 1863
  20. Lyraphora Kraatz, 1880
  21. Macrotina Strand, 1934
  22. Metallesthes Kraatz, 1880
  23. Microdilochrosis Jákl, 2009
  24. Microlomaptera Kraatz, 1885
  25. Micropoecila Kraatz, 1880
  26. Navigator Moeseneder & Hutchinson, 2016
  27. Neoclithria Neervoort Van De Poll, 1886
  28. Neorrhina Thomson, 1878
  29. Octocollis Moeseneder & Hutchinson, 2012
  30. Panglaphyra Kraatz, 1880
  31. Peotoxus Krikken, 1983
  32. Poecilopharis Kraatz, 1880
  33. Pseudoclithria Neervoort Van De Poll, 1886
  34. Rigoutorum Hutchinson & Moeseneder, 2022
  35. Schizorhina Kirby, 1825
  36. Schochidia Berg, 1898
  37. Stenopisthes Moser, 1913
  38. Storeyus Hasenpusch & Moeseneder, 2010
  39. Tafaia Valck Lucassens, 1939
  40. Tapinoschema Thomson, 1880
  41. Territonia Krikken, 2018
  42. Trichaulax Kraatz, 1880

Stenotarsiini

[edit]

Authority: Kraatz, 1880

  1. Anochilia Burmeister, 1842
  2. Epistalagma Fairmaire, 1880
  1. Chromoptilia Westwood, 1842
  2. Descarpentriesia Ruter, 1964
  1. Bricoptis Burmeister, 1842
  2. Coptomia Burmeister, 1842
  3. Coptomiopsis Pouillaude, 1919
  4. Eccoptomia Kraatz, 1880
  5. Euchilia Burmeister, 1842
  6. Euryomia Burmeister, 1842
  7. Heterocranus Bourgoin, 1919
  8. Hiberasta Fairmaire, 1901
  9. Hyphelithia Kraatz, 1880
  10. Liostraca Burmeister, 1842
  11. Micreuchilia Pouillaude, 1917
  12. Micropeltus Blanchard, 1842
  13. Pareuchilia Kraatz, 1880
  14. Pygora Burmeister, 1842
  15. Pyrrhopoda Kraatz, 1880
  16. Vieuella Ruter, 1964
  1. Doryscelis Burmeister, 1842
  2. Epixanthis Burmeister, 1842
  3. Hemiaspidius Krikken, 1982
  4. Pararhynchocephala Paulian, 1991
  5. Parepixanthis Kraatz, 1893
  6. Pseudepixanthis Kraatz, 1880
  7. Rhynchocephala Fairmaire, 1883
  • Subtribe Euchroeina Paulian & Descarpentries, 1982
  1. Euchroea Burmeister, 1842
  1. Heterophana Burmeister, 1842
  2. Oxypelta Pouillaude, 1920
  3. Pogoniotarsus Kraatz, 1880
  4. Pogonotarsus Burmeister, 1842
  5. Zebinus Fairmaire, 1894
  1. Heterosoma Schaum, 1844
  2. Plochilia Fairmaire, 1896
  1. Bonoraella Ruter, 1978
  2. Celidota Burmeister, 1842
  3. Cyriodera Burmeister, 1842
  4. Dirrhina Burmeister, 1842
  5. Hemilia Kraatz, 1880
  6. Lucassenia Olsoufieff, 1940
  7. Melanchroea Kraatz, 1900
  8. Moriaphila Kraatz, 1880
  9. Pantolia Burmeister, 1842
  10. Tetraodorhina Blanchard, 1842
  1. Parachilia Burmeister, 1842
  1. Callipechis Burmeister, 1842
  2. Ischnotarsia Kraatz, 1880
  3. Rhadinotaenia Kraatz, 1900
  4. Stenotarsia Burmeister, 1842
  5. Vadonidella Ruter, 1973

Taenioderini

[edit]

Authority: Mikšić, 1976

  1. Anocoela Moser, 1914
  2. Chalcothea Burmeister, 1842
  3. Chalcotheomima Mikšić, 1970
  4. Clerota Burmeister, 1842
  5. Glyptothea Bates, 1889
  6. Glyptotheomima Mikšić, 1976
  7. Hemichalcothea Mikšić, 1970
  8. Microchalcothea Moser, 1910
  9. Paraplectrone Mikšić, 1985
  10. Penthima Kraatz, 1892
  11. Plectrone Wallace, 1867
  12. Pseudochalcothea Ritsema, 1882
  13. Pseudochalcotheomima Mikšić, 1985
  1. Bacchusia Mikšić, 1976
  2. Bombodes Westwood, 1848
  3. Carneluttia Mikšić, 1976
  4. Coilodera Hope, 1831
  5. Costinota Schürhoff, 1933
  6. Eumacronota Mikšić, 1976
  7. Euremina Westwood, 1867
  8. Euselates Thomson, 1880
  9. Gnorimidia Lansberge, 1887
  10. Ixorida Thomson, 1880
  11. Macronotops Krikken, 1977
  12. Meroloba Thomson, 1880
  13. Pleuronota Kraatz, 1892
  14. Stenonota Fairmaire, 1889
  15. Taeniodera Burmeister, 1842
  16. Xenoloba Bates, 1889

Xiphoscelidini

[edit]

Authority: Krikken, 1984

  1. Aporecolpa Lansberge, 1886
  2. Callophylla Moser, 1916
  3. Heteroclita Burmeister, 1842
  4. Ischnostomiella Krikken, 1978
  5. Meridioclita Krikken, 1982
  6. Myodermidius Bourgoin, 1920
  7. Neoclita Perissinotto, 2017
  8. Oroclita Krikken, 1982
  9. Plochiliana Ruter, 1978
  10. Protoclita Krikken, 1978
  11. Rhinocoeta Burmeister, 1842
  12. Scheinia Ruter, 1957
  13. Xiphoscelis Burmeister, 1842
  14. Xiphosceloides Holm, 1992

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Flower chafer

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Flower chafers, comprising the subfamily Cetoniinae within the family , are a diverse group of beetles characterized by their often vibrant, metallic coloration and diurnal habits, with approximately 4,273 distributed across 485 genera worldwide. These typically measure 5–45 mm in length, featuring compact bodies, 10-segmented antennae with a three-segmented club, and elytra that remain closed during flight, enabling powerful aerial movement. Adults primarily feed on , , , or soft fruits, making them effective pollinators of various plants, particularly in and forest ecosystems. The life cycle of flower chafers involves three larval instars, often lasting 1–3 years, during which the C-shaped, hairy white grubs develop in decaying vegetable matter such as rotting wood, , or , functioning as key decomposers in recycling. Pupation occurs within earthen or organic cocoons, and adults emerge to mate and feed, with activity peaking in warmer months. While most are beneficial, some, particularly in agricultural settings, can become pests by damaging fruits like apples or grapes. Flower chafers exhibit a , with greatest in tropical and subtropical regions of , , and the , though significant diversity also occurs in temperate zones of , , and . Ecologically, they support by aiding —especially of families like —and through larval detritivory, underscoring their importance in both natural and managed landscapes.

Taxonomy

Classification

Flower chafers are classified in the Cetoniinae, which belongs to the family (scarab beetles), superfamily , order Coleoptera (beetles), class Insecta (insects), and phylum Arthropoda. This placement positions them within the diverse group of lamellicorn scarabs, characterized by their plate-like antennal clubs. Phylogenetically, Cetoniinae form a distinct lineage within the pleurostict scarabs, diverging within the pleurostict scarabs during the , with the phytophagous lineage originating approximately 137 million years ago and diversifying around 102 million years ago. This divergence is supported by molecular phylogenies and fossil records, including the oldest known specimen from the in (approximately 113 million years ago) and Eocene specimens from deposits (around 50–56 million years ago), indicating an early radiation tied to the angiosperm diversification. Identification of the subfamily relies on key diagnostic traits, such as 10-segmented antennae featuring a loose, 3-segmented club where the segments are not tightly joined, and shortened elytra that leave the propygidium exposed. These morphological features distinguish Cetoniinae from other scarabaeid subfamilies. The taxonomic history of Cetoniinae began with its original description by in 1815. Subsequent revisions, particularly those integrating molecular data from genes like 28S rRNA, COI, and 16S rRNA, have affirmed the of the subfamily across multiple analyses.

Diversity and tribes

The subfamily Cetoniinae encompasses a remarkable diversity of scarab beetles, with approximately 4,273 species classified into 485 genera worldwide. This species richness reflects their cosmopolitan distribution and adaptation to varied environments, though the exact count continues to evolve with ongoing taxonomic work. Recent molecular phylogenetic studies, particularly those employing multi-locus analyses since the early 2020s, have revealed polyphyletic patterns within several lineages, prompting revisions such as genus-level splits that refine species boundaries and elevate the estimated total closer to 4,700. The subfamily is organized into 10 major tribes, each distinguished by key morphological features and regional concentrations. These tribal divisions, established in seminal classifications, highlight the group's evolutionary radiation.
  • Cetoniini: This tribe features genera like Cetonia and Protaetia, noted for their robust bodies and prevalence in temperate zones of Europe, Asia, and North America, where they often associate with flowering plants.
  • Cremastocheilini: Characterized by predaceous larvae that inhabit ant nests, members of this tribe are primarily distributed in Australia and South America, with adaptations for myrmecophily.
  • Diplognathini: Tropical in distribution, this tribe includes species with elongated mouthparts suited for accessing deep floral resources, found mainly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
  • Goliathini: Known for their large body sizes, often exceeding 10 cm, this African-dominated tribe includes iconic genera like Goliathus, with ornate coloration and powerful flight capabilities.
  • Gymnetini: Featuring hairy or pubescent bodies, species in this tribe are widespread in the Old World tropics, with diverse forms adapted to forested habitats.
  • Phaedimini: Predominantly Neotropical, this tribe displays metallic sheen on the exoskeleton, with genera exhibiting vivid iridescence in Central and South American ecosystems.
  • Schizorhinini: Oriented toward the Oriental region, members are often fruit-feeding with specialized mandibles, contributing to seed dispersal in Asian forests.
  • Stenotarsiini: Small-bodied and Australasian in focus, this tribe includes delicate species with reduced elytra, adapted to island environments.
  • Taenioderini: African in origin, characterized by patterned elytra with contrasting colors, these beetles often mimic other insects for camouflage.
  • Xiphoscelidini: Tropical forms with prominent horns or projections on the head and pronotum, primarily from the Afrotropical region (southern Africa and Madagascar), displaying sexual dimorphism.

Morphology

Adults

Adult flower chafers exhibit a wide size range, typically measuring 5 to 45 in length, with the body form varying from to elongate and featuring a convex dorsal disc. The is often brightly colored, displaying metallic such as green, blue, or copper hues, resulting from produced by multilayer reflectors in the that cause interference of reflected light. This is evident in species like , where thin layers in the generate polarization and color effects. The head is relatively short, with the clypeus concealing and labrum, and lacking a frontoclypeal suture. Antennae are 10-segmented, terminating in a three-lamellate club that is often enlarged in males, while the compound eyes are large and exposed, suited to their diurnal lifestyle. The includes a broad pronotum that varies in shape across , and the legs are adapted for walking and digging, with procoxae that are conical and tarsi typically segmented in a 5-5-4 . The features shortened, truncate elytra that do not fully cover the body, exposing the pygidium, and the ventral surface is often pubescent or setose, aiding in adherence during feeding. Sexual dimorphism is pronounced in certain tribes, such as Goliathini, where males possess larger clypeal horns or projections, often bifurcated, for intraspecific combat, while females lack these structures. In other cases, dimorphism includes differences in antennal club size and body robustness, with males generally more elongate and females stockier.

Larvae and pupae

The larvae of flower chafers (subfamily Cetoniinae) are characteristically C-shaped, creamy white, and stout-bodied, attaining lengths of up to 150 mm in the final . Their head capsule is hypognathous and bears sparse hairs, while the body features three pairs of short thoracic legs adapted for burrowing rather than locomotion. A distinctive raster on the terminal abdominal segment includes a transverse anal slit, serving as a primary diagnostic trait that differentiates Cetoniinae larvae from those of other scarab subfamilies. Morphological variations exist across tribes; most Cetoniinae larvae are soft-bodied and detritivorous, feeding on decaying in or . In contrast, larvae of the tribe Cremastocheilini are more heavily sclerotized and predaceous, equipped with falcate mandibles for capturing prey such as larvae in host nests. Pupae are exarate, with legs, wings, and antennae free from the body and visible adult structures developing beneath the . They form within protective earthen cells or cocoons constructed from , , or fragments by the mature , remaining non-feeding throughout the process. The pupal stage typically endures 2–4 weeks, after which adults eclose from the cell.

Distribution and habitat

Geographic range

Flower chafers, belonging to the Cetoniinae of the family , exhibit a across all major biogeographic realms, with approximately 4,273 described worldwide. The demonstrates highest in tropical regions, particularly the Afrotropical and Indo-Malayan realms, where environmental conditions support prolific and abundance. Temperate zones are represented in the Palearctic (including and parts of ) and Nearctic realms, though with comparatively lower diversity. In , the Afrotropical hosts remarkable diversity, with 138 genera recorded excluding , including numerous endemics in the Goliathini concentrated in sub-Saharan forests and savannas. features around 146 across 29 genera, primarily in the Schizorhinini, distributed from coastal woodlands to arid interiors. The Neotropical supports approximately 300 , with concentrations in Central and South American rainforests. In , about 105 occur across 18 genera in the United States, , and northern Mexico, mainly in eastern and southern woodlands. Endemism is pronounced on islands, particularly in , where around 330 —mostly in the Stenotarsiini—are endemic due to the island's long isolation. Southeast Asian archipelagos, including and , also harbor high levels of , with many genera restricted to specific islands amid the region's complex . The rose chafer , a widespread Palearctic , exemplifies broad European distribution but has not established populations in .

Habitat types

Flower chafers (subfamily Cetoniinae) primarily inhabit tropical rainforests, savannas, temperate woodlands, and urban green spaces, where adults are often associated with flowering plants in open, sunny areas that facilitate basking and foraging. These beetles thrive in environments with abundant , including gallery forests and savannas, reflecting their diurnal habits and dependence on floral resources. In regions like the Brazilian , cetoniine diversity is comparable across native forests and pastures but lower in introduced eucalyptus plantations, indicating a preference for natural or semi-natural habitats with diverse . Larvae typically develop in humus-rich, organic soils such as decaying wood, heaps, leaf litter, or detritus-enriched substrates, often preferring sandy or loamy soils that provide well-drained conditions for root-feeding and saprophytic activity. For instance, species in the genera Netocia and Potosia inhabit moist, organic-rich soils around plant roots (e.g., Cistaceae and ), nests, or hollows filled with decomposing matter like figs and palms. In arid or semi-arid areas, some larvae, such as those of Gymnetini, adapt to scrublands with similar organic accumulations. The occupies a broad altitudinal range from sea level to over 3,000 m in some , with Palearctic exhibiting adaptations for tolerance in higher elevations, such as montane forests up to 2,000 m. Adults frequent microhabitats like flower clusters and fruiting trees for feeding, while larvae underground in interfaces or wood-related substrates, occasionally associating with vertebrate latrines or nests for enriched .

Life cycle and behavior

Development stages

The life cycle of flower chafers (subfamily Cetoniinae) follows a holometabolous , consisting of , larval, pupal, and stages, with total durations varying from 1 to 4 years depending on , climate, and environmental conditions. In temperate regions, such as the rose chafer typically complete a two-year cycle, while tropical may exhibit multivoltine patterns with shorter, annual generations. Eggs are oval-shaped and laid singly or in small clusters within moist , decaying , or , with females producing 10–50 eggs over their reproductive period. Hatching occurs after 1–4 weeks, influenced by and , yielding small, translucent larvae. The larval stage comprises three s, during which the C-shaped grubs burrow in or , feeding on decomposing plant material and occasionally . This phase lasts 1–3 years in temperate species like C. aurata, with the third being the longest; larvae enter to overwinter in deeper layers, resuming development in spring when warms. In laboratory conditions for subtropical species such as Protaetia aurichalcea, the entire larval period can shorten to 46–111 days. Pupation occurs in barrel-shaped cells constructed from or surrounding material, lasting 2–4 weeks, after which the undergoes within the cocoon. Emergence is often synchronized with peak flowering seasons to align with feeding and opportunities, though some temperate s may overwinter in pupal cases before surfacing. The stage is short-lived, typically 1–2 months, during which individuals focus on and consumption, , and oviposition before dying. Univoltine cycles predominate in temperate zones, contrasting with multivoltine reproduction in tropical environments where multiple generations can occur annually.

Reproduction

Flower chafers exhibit diurnal behaviors, with typically occurring on flowers where males attract females using pheromones and visual cues such as hovering flights. In like the sorghum chafer Pachnoda interrupta, females release sex pheromones, including , to draw males, leading to aggregation on host plants. often involves rapid body movements and leg stroking by males, as observed in captive Australian flower chafers like Phyllopodium palmatum. In horned species such as the Taiwanese flower beetle Dicronocephalus wallichii, is driven by male-male combat, where males use elongated forelegs for initial size assessment and horns to pry or flip rivals during escalated fights, influencing access to females. Copulation follows successful and lasts from minutes to hours, with males often guarding females post-mating to prevent takeovers by intruders. Females select oviposition sites in moist soil or decaying near food sources, such as compost heaps or , to ensure larval survival. Egg laying occurs continuously over 1–3 weeks after , with no provided; females deposit eggs singly or in small clusters by compressing substrate into pockets. Fecundity varies by and , ranging from 20-100 s per female; for example, Protaetia aurichalcea produce 45-50 s over their adult lifespan. Better enhances production, as seen in scarab studies where host quality influences ovarian development.

Ecology

Diet and feeding

Adult flower chafers primarily consume and from a variety of flowers, which provides essential carbohydrates and proteins for their energy needs and reproduction. This diet is supplemented by and overripe or rotting , allowing them to exploit diverse floral and arboreal resources throughout their active period. In some , such as the rose chafer (Macrodactylus subspinosus), adults also feed on foliage, rasping leaves with their mandibles to access softer tissues. Larvae of most flower chafers inhabit or decaying , where they feed on decomposing , including , leaf litter, and rotten , which supports their growth through nutrient-rich microbial breakdown products. They often target root systems or enriched around bases, contributing to nutrient cycling in their habitats. However, in the tribe Cremastocheilini, some species deviate from this saprophagous habit, with larvae preying on brood within host nests, supplementing their diet with protein from tissues. Flower chafers employ specialized feeding mechanisms adapted to their plant-based diets. Adults, with their pubescent (hairy) bodies, inadvertently collect on setae that function similarly to pollen baskets, facilitating both and dispersal during flower visits. Their mandibles are adapted for rasping and grinding, allowing them to break down tough tissues, pollen grains, and soft pulp efficiently. From a nutritional perspective, the high sugar content in and is crucial for fueling the energetic demands of flight in adult flower chafers, enabling sustained and activities. In late summer, many shift toward consumption as floral resources decline, providing a reliable source to support pre-oviposition energy reserves.

Interactions

Flower chafers (subfamily Cetoniinae) play a significant role in as they visit flowers to feed on and , inadvertently transferring between via their hairy bodies, which efficiently collect and transport pollen grains. These beetles are particularly effective pollinators in tropical ecosystems, where they contribute to the reproduction of various wildflowers and crops through mutualistic interactions. Adults of flower chafers face predation from a variety of natural enemies, including birds such as sparrows and , which target them during flight or while on flowers, though the beetles' hard provides some protection against avian attacks. Wasps and spiders also prey on adults, ambushing them at floral resources or in vegetation. Larvae, typically soil-dwelling, are vulnerable to by nematodes and tachinid flies, which infest and kill them during development, helping regulate populations in natural habitats. Flower chafers employ several defense mechanisms to evade predators, including the secretion of chemical compounds such as quinones from abdominal glands, which deter attackers through toxicity or repellency. Rapid flight and agile maneuvers allow adults to escape threats quickly, while some genera exhibit mimicry; for instance, species in Trichiotinus resemble bees in coloration and body shape, potentially reducing predation by exploiting predators' aversion to stinging insects. Certain flower chafers engage in symbiotic relationships, notably , where larvae of the tribe Cremastocheilini inhabit nests, gaining protection from predators in exchange for tolerance or minor interactions with the host . These associations often involve to avoid detection by . Additionally, flower chafers compete with other scarab beetles for floral and resources, influencing community dynamics in networks.

Human interactions

Economic importance

Flower chafers, particularly species in the genera Cetonia and Macrodactylus, pose significant challenges to and as pests, primarily through adult feeding on flowers, foliage, and fruits, while larvae damage roots of and lawns. In , the rose chafer scars grapes and , causing irregular holes in petals and fruit surfaces, and has been reported to damage up to 29% of highbush fruits in early harvests in parts of , such as in blueberry-growing regions. Similarly, in , the rose chafer Macrodactylus subspinosus feeds on the of tree fruits such as peaches, apples, and grapes, leading to economic thresholds as low as two adults per in vineyards to prevent loss. Larval root-feeding by these species can stunt growth in lawns, ornamental , and field , exacerbating damage in sandy soils where populations thrive. Other flower chafers, like Oxycetonia versicolor in , cause significant damage, with reported levels up to approximately 13% on flowers and buds of brinjal (), resulting in substantial yield reductions during reproductive stages. Control strategies for flower chafers emphasize integrated approaches to minimize economic losses. Biological methods include soil drenches with parasitic nematodes (Heterorhabditis bacteriophora) to target larvae, while chemical options such as (Sevin), (Assail), and pyrethrins provide effective adult suppression when applied to foliage, though repeated treatments may be necessary. Cultural practices, including tillage to disrupt larval habitats and physical barriers like over plants, offer non-chemical alternatives, particularly in organic systems. Milky spore bacteria (Paenibacillus popilliae) are ineffective against most flower chafer grubs, as they primarily target Japanese beetles. Despite their pest status, flower chafers provide economic benefits through services in orchards and habitats, where adults consume and , facilitating cross- in crops like fruits and berries. In , their presence often indicates healthy, humus-rich , as larvae thrive in and decaying vegetation, indirectly supporting and cycling. Beetles, including chafers, contribute to the broader $15–30 billion annual value of insect to U.S. by enhancing yields in pollinator-dependent crops. Notable case studies highlight these dual impacts. In vineyards since the early 2000s, M. subspinosus outbreaks have caused cluster injury and low-level defoliation (less than 1% leaf area with 40 adults), prompting targeted controls to protect emerging wine industries, though overall yield losses remain minimal without additional stressors. In tropical and subtropical regions, species like Protaetia brevitarsis damage fruit crops such as grapes and sunflowers, leading to 5–30% yield losses in and complicating exports by increasing post-harvest rejection rates due to scarring.

Conservation

The conservation status of most flower chafer species (subfamily Cetoniinae) remains unassessed by the , with many considered Least Concern due to their widespread distributions and adaptability to various across tropical and temperate regions. However, regional assessments reveal vulnerabilities, particularly in the Mediterranean Basin, where approximately 80% of the 10 assessed Cetoniinae species are classified as threatened, including five Endangered and three Vulnerable taxa, such as Osmoderma cristinae and Protaetia sardea, primarily due to habitat degradation. Globally, no entire tribes within Cetoniinae are recognized as endangered, though a small proportion of assessed species face risks, with notable examples like Osmoderma eremita listed as Near Threatened owing to ongoing population declines. Key threats to flower chafer populations include in tropical regions, which diminishes larval habitats in decaying wood and leaf litter, affecting diverse tribes across and . applications in agricultural and settings pose risks to adult beetles, reducing their abundance through direct mortality and sublethal effects on foraging behavior, as documented in European and Mediterranean contexts. exacerbates these pressures by disrupting phenological synchrony between adult emergence and peak flowering periods, potentially limiting and resources for pollinivorous . Conservation efforts emphasize habitat protection in biodiversity hotspots, such as Amazonian reserves that safeguard tropical Cetoniinae tribes like Phaedimini through preserved forest canopies and vegetation essential for larval development. In , measures include the retention of veteran trees and deadwood in woodlands under the Habitats Directive, which has supported populations of saproxylic species like Osmoderma eremita by maintaining suitable microhabitats. Urban green spaces, such as parks in the Brazilian , also play a role in conserving local diversity by providing floral resources and reducing from . Monitoring initiatives rely on platforms to track distributions and population trends, with projects like Italy's MIPP (Monitoring Insects with Public Participation) engaging volunteers in recording Cetoniinae observations to inform regional assessments. Recent 2020s studies in indicate range contractions for several , including Osmoderma taxa due to intensified land-use changes, underscoring the need for expanded surveillance.

References

  1. https://peerj.com/articles/9348/
  2. https://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/pdf/moeseneder_weir_et_al_2019_scarabaeidae-cetoniinae_in_australian_beetles_volume_2.pdf
  3. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN1214
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018940/
  5. https://www.forestpests.eu/pest/cetoniinae
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/taxonomy/7056/
  7. https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=678511
  8. https://unsm-ento.unl.edu/Guide/Scarabaeoidea/Scarabaeidae/Cetoniinae/Cetoniinae-Overview/CetoniinaeO.html
  9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06250-1
  10. https://doi.org/10.15298/euroasentj.21.3.05
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790316300938
  12. https://www.mapress.com/pe/article/view/palaeoentomology.2.5.4
  13. https://bugguide.net/node/view/12434
  14. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278820
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27165937/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390513040_Taxonomic_revision_of_Cremastocheilini_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_Cetoniinae_from_South_America_and_an_updated_key_for_the_genera_of_the_New_World
  17. https://repository.naturalis.nl/pub/317778/ZV1984210001.pdf
  18. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/981217-Phaedimini
  19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10870
  20. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:662886/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  21. https://www.biodiversityjournal.com/images/pubblicazioni/biodiversity-journal-2018/biodiversity-journal-2018-09-02/biodiversity-journal-2018-09-02_001-002.pdf
  22. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/26809/bitstreams/91552/data.pdf
  23. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008SysEn..33..128M/abstract
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298555265_Description_Of_Immature_Stages_Of_Three_Species_Of_American_Cetoniinae_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_Cetoniinae
  25. https://academic.oup.com/jinsectscience/article/12/1/127/890494
  26. https://www.glaphyridae.com/Cetoniinae/Cetoniinae.html
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6445823/
  28. https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Cetoniinae
  29. https://locus.ufv.br/bitstreams/a0f334df-a20c-4c16-8f96-a18875eb36c0/download
  30. https://aca.pensoft.net/article/46558/
  31. https://belgianbeetlebreeding.blogspot.com/2018/07/cetonia-aurata-common-and-variable.html
  32. https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/60036/
  33. http://www.minnesotaseasons.com/Insects/greenish_flower_chafer.html
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259602961_Biodiversity_of_Cetoniinae_beetles_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_in_introduced_and_native_habitats_in_the_Brazilian_Atlantic_Forest
  35. https://www.eje.cz/pdfs/eje/2003/01/23.pdf
  36. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=entomologypapers
  37. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192349
  38. http://www.eje.cz/pdfs/eje/2009/01/14.pdf
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262694310_A_review_of_the_natural_history_of_adult_Cetoniinae_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_from_Argentina_and_adjacent_countries
  40. https://maria.fremlin.org/cetonia_aurata/Cetonia.pdf
  41. http://www.discoveryjournals.org/Species/current_issue/2014/A19.pdf
  42. https://www.e-nema.de/en/nematodes/home-garden/encyclopedia/rose-chafer
  43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-010-9814-2
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263619066_Captive_observations_on_mating_stridulation_and_male_genital_brushes_of_the_Australian_flower_chafer_Phyllopodium_palmatum_Schaum_1848_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_Cetoniinae
  45. http://arachsociety.tw/systevo/lib/publications_lib_pdf/kojima_lin_final_2017.pdf
  46. https://www.monaconatureencyclopedia.com/cetonia-aurata/?lang=en
  47. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/rjeas/article/download/266779/251730
  48. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/rose_chafers_a_punctual_and_pesky_insect
  49. https://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Cremastocheilus
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8396518/
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347224002847
  52. https://uwm.edu/field-station/bug-of-the-week/bumble-flower-beetle/
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/chafer
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232691875_Scarabs_as_Pests_A_Continuing_Problem
  55. https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/RES-140-17.pdf
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Konrad-Dettner/publication/234150054_Chemosystematics_And_Evolution_Of_Beetle_Chemical_Defenses/links/56debd5e08ae46f1e9a0e6d5/Chemosystematics-And-Evolution-Of-Beetle-Chemical-Defenses.pdf
  57. https://www.montana.edu/yellowstoneinsects/coleoptera/scarabaeidae/trichiotinus_assimilis.html
  58. https://uwm.edu/field-station/bug-of-the-week/bugs-without-bios-ii/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261097496_Insights_on_the_association_of_American_Cetoniinae_beetles_with_ants
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9415439/
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302332533_A_molecular_phylogeny_of_rose_chafers_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_Cetoniinae_reveals_a_complex_and_concerted_morphological_evolution_related_to_their_flight_mode
  62. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40009-018-0768-1
  63. https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2020/vol8issue5/PartA/8-4-423-538.pdf
  64. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01887-y
  65. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/127588-Cetoniinae
  66. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/RL-262-003-En.pdf
  67. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/15705/50657778
  68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.70018
  69. https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2022/02/23/frontiers-plant-science-simulated-climate-change-effect-on-wildflowers-pollinators
  70. https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/12658/
  71. https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/48/1/97/5244972
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279952919_Monitoring_of_insects_with_public_participation_MIPP_EU_LIFE_project_11_NATIT000252_overview_on_a_citizen_science_initiative_and_a_monitoring_programme_Insecta_Coleoptera_Lepidoptera_Orthoptera
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.