Late-season Patrolling Behavior and Flash Patterns of Female
Photuris lucicrescens Barber (Coleoptera: Lampyridae)
Christopher M. Heckscher
Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 21, Issue 1 (2014): NENHC-72—NENHC-74
Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)
Access Journal Content
Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.
Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
Check out NENA's latest Monograph:
Monograph 22
2014 Northeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 21, No. 1
NENHC-72
C.M. Heckshcer
Late-season Patrolling Behavior and Flash Patterns of Female
Photuris lucicrescens Barber (Coleoptera: Lampyridae)
Christopher M. Heckscher*
Abstract - Female fireflies in the genus Photuris are predatory on males of other firefly genera and are
known to lure unsuspecting prey by mimicking female flash patterns. From 2004–2012, late-season (2
July–10 August) female Photuris lucicrescens were captured while emitting variable atypical signals
on the wing and flying in loose associations in non-breeding habitat in Delaware and Pennsylvania.
These observations corroborate those recognized by Herbert S. Barber in his description of the species
over sixty years ago. I report these atypical flash patterns (single and multiple weak and bright
flashes) and hypothesize that late-season P. lucicrescens might be patrolling non-breeding habitat in
an effort to locate sedentary females who would respond to their variable male-like flash patterns.
This hypothesis differs from traditional “femmes fatales” firefly models in that late-season female
P. lucicrescens appear to be mimicking signaling males, rather than sedentary females, to locate prey.
The behavior of the firefly Photuris lucicrescens Barber has been a topic of interest
since the species was described by Barber (1951). In the very first sentence of the species’
description, Barber notes: “… much remains to be learned of its behavior”. He continues his
narrative with several atypical behavioral observations. Most puzzling are the various flash
patterns reported by Barber. Flash patterns are assumed to represent a reproductive isolating
mechanism in which each species has a species-specific pattern that can be recognized by
potential mates. The typical flash pattern of P. lucicrescens is a single, rather long, crescendo
that begins dim but rapidly increases in luminosity becoming brilliant then terminating
abruptly (Barber 1951). That signal is usually given from among low vegetation sometimes
by poising individuals and sometimes by individuals giving a zig-zag flight (Barber 1951).
Barber (1951) also noted a rapid single flash given from tree canopies and a rare vibrato
flash. The flash color has variously been described as green, yellow, greenish-white, and
blue-green (Barber 1951; L. Faust, Knoxville, TN, pers. comm.; C.M. Heckscher, pers.
observ.; McDermott 1967). Many photurids give multiple flash patterns, but no other mid-
Atlantic or northeastern Photuris has such variable signal combinations.
My collection of Lampyridae from the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states includes
several P. lucicrescens that exhibited atypical flash patterns. Upon examination of my specimens,
early season (16 Jun–2 Jul) individuals usually have emitted the typical crescendo
flash, but late season (6 Jul–10 Aug) individuals have showed far more variation, and the
typical crescendo has not been observed in collected specimens after 2 July (Table 1). Further,
females were always the late-season atypical flashers. I have not encountered males
after 2 July. Barber (1951) also notes that late season P. lucicrescens are usually females.
Examination of my field notes from collection sites indicates that atypical-flashing late-season
females have usually been captured while moving through forest in small, apparently
isolated yet cohesive, social groups (i.e., one following another). For example, while I was
surveying for nocturnal Noctuidae in a Delaware xeric oak-pine woodland (atypical habitat
for P. lucicrescens) on 12 July 2007, two females appeared moving toward my location,
and both were emitting periodic single brilliant flashes with no discernible crescendo. This
*Delaware State University, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1200 North
DuPont Highway, Dover, DE 19901; checkscher@desu.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Daniel Pavuk
Notes of the Northeastern Naturalist, Issue 21/1, 2014
NENHC-73
2014 Northeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 21, No. 1
C.M. Heckscher
behavior of female P. lucicrescens begs an explanation.
Female Photuris of several species use a flash repertoire to exploit the signal system of
male fireflies of various genera (Lloyd 1975). The mimicking of interspecific female flash
patterns lures unsuspecting males, at which time they are captured and consumed (Lloyd
1990). Female Photuris consume male fireflies of other genera to obtain lucibufagins, which
are compounds necessary for chemical defense (Eisner et al. 1997). Female P. lucicrescens
are large Photuris and can be assumed to be among the predatory species (see Lloyd 1984).
Because late-season females are not found in the presence of conspecific males it is unlikely
these late season signals are intended for mating or otherwise targeted toward conspecific
male prey. Nor is it likely these dispersing females are using their flash patterns primarily
to illuminate the surrounding vegetation (e.g., Lloyd 1969), considering they use flashes
of varying luminosity and pattern. Rather, I suggest that late-season females may leave
breeding habitat (usually moist floodplain forest; Heckscher 2010) to disperse and patrol
the surrounding forests in search of prey and possibly new breeding sites. The single and
multiple flash patterns used by late-season patrolling P. lucicrescens are similar to those
emitted by males of several other species in this region including some Photinus (e.g., Photinus
consimilis Green, Ph. marginellus LeConte). By moving through various ecosystems,
females could be “probing” for unsuspecting prey that may inadvertently respond to their
flash attempts. This hypothesis differs from traditional interpretations of Photuris predatory
mimicking behavior (e.g., Faust et al. 2012; Lloyd 1965, 1990) in that female P. lucicrescens
may be mimicking male signals in an attempt to prey on responding sedentary females
rather than lying in wait and signaling to passing males (e.g., Lloyd 1975). Male and female
Photinus do not differ in their lucibufagin content (Eisner et al. 1997), so there is no reason
why Photuris species, such as P. lucicrescens, should not exploit both male and female firefly
prey to obtain that resource. If so, further investigation should reveal late-season female
P. lucicrescens feeding on females. However, due to the unpredictable temporal and spatial
nature of the patrolling behavior, we will likely have to wait for a serendiptuous confirma -
tion event.
I have compiled new information regarding the late-season flash patterns and behavior of
Table 1. Photuris lucicrescens Barber caught on the wing with flash voucher information in the private
collection of C.M. Heckscher. The gender of individuals cannot be ascertained on the wing; therefore,
the exclusive capture of females after 2 July is considered bio logically meaningful.
Date Flash description General location Sex
16 Jun 2004 Typical crescendo New Castle County, DE 2♂
16 Jun 2011 Typical crescendo New Castle County, DE 1♂, 1♀
28 Jun 2005 Typical crescendo New Castle County, DE ♂
29 Jun 2012 Typical crescendo Perry County, PA ♂
29 Jun 2012 Single rapid weak flash Perry County, PA 2♀
1 Jul 2004 Single bright flash New Castle County, DE ♂
2 Jul 2004 Typical crescendo New Castle County, DE ♂
6 Jul 2005 Single rapid weak flash Sussex County, DE 2♀
10 Jul 2008 Multiple bright flashes Sussex County, DE 3♀
12 Jul 2005 Multiple weak flashes Sussex County, DE 3♀
12 Jul 2007 Single bright flash Sussex County, DE 2♀
16 Jul 2008 Multiple bright flashes Sussex County, DE 2♀
19 Jul 2007 Single and multiple bright flashes Kent Co., DE 2♀
29 Jul 2004 Single bright flash Sussex County, DE ♀
10 Aug 2008 Multiple bright flashes Sussex County, DE ♀
2014 Northeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 21, No. 1
NENHC-74
C.M. Heckshcer
P. lucicrescens from the Middle-Atlantic states. These heretofore unpublished observations
complement those reported by Barber (1951) and should assist in the field identification of
this enigmatic species. The hypothesis presented to explain this species’ variable signal patterns
differ from published “femme-fatale” Photuris mimicking behavior in that I suggest
female P. lucicrescens are mimicking male signals to locate sedentary female prey rather
than remaining sedentary and signaling to passing males. However, the hypothesis will need
field verification if its validity is to be determined.
Acknowledgments. I thank James E. Lloyd for initially recognizing the potential importance
that all late-season P. lucicrescens in my collection are females. This manuscript
benefitted from two anonymous reviewers.
Literature Cited
Barber, H.S. 1951. North American fireflies of the genus Photuris. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
117:1–58.
Eisner, T., M.A. Goetz, D.E. Hill, S.R. Smedley and J. Meinwald. 1997. Firefly “femmes fatales”
acquire defensive steroids (lucibufagins) from their firefly prey. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 94:9723–9728.
Faust, L., R. De Cock, and S. Lewis. 2012. Thieves in the night: Kleptoparasitism by fireflies in the
genus Photuris Dejean (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Coleopterist’s Bulletin 66:1–6.
Heckscher, C.M. 2010. Delaware Photuris fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae): New state records,
conservation status, and habitat associations. Entomological Ne ws 121:498–505.
Lloyd, J.E. 1965. Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: Firefly femme fatales. Science 149:653–654.
Lloyd, J.E. 1969. Flashes of Photuris fireflies: their value and use in recognizing species. Florida
Entomologist 52:29–35.
Lloyd, J.E. 1975. Aggressive mimicry in Photuris fireflies: Signal repertoires by femmes fatales. Science
187:452–453.
Lloyd, J.E. 1984. On deception, a way of all flesh, and firefly signaling and systematics. Pp. 48–84,
In R. Dawkins and M. Ridley (Eds.). Oxford Survey of Evolutionary Biology. Vol 1. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.
Lloyd, J.E. 1990. Firefly semiosystematics and predation: A history. Florida Entomologist 78:51–66.
McDermott, F.A. 1967. The North American fireflies of the genus Photuris DeJean: A modification of
Barber’s key (Coleoptera; Lampyridae). Coleopterist’s Bulletin 21:106–116.