Research Article

Journal of Orthoptera Research 2018, 27(2): 177-181

Introduced Japanese burrowing cricket (Orthopiera: Gryllidae: Velarifictorus
(Velarifictorus) micado) range continues to expand in North America

David E. Bowtes!

1 National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network, c/o Missouri State University, Department of Biology, 901 South National Ave-

nue, Springfield, Missouri 65897, USA.

Corresponding author: David E. Bowles (davidbowles@ missouristate.edu)

Academic editor: Ludivina Barrientos-Lozano | Received 13 August 2018 | Accepted 17 November 2018 | Published 5 December 2018

http://zoobank.org/15C8F54D-AFB6-41E3-98A4-75039F3096E5

Citation: Bowles DE (2018) Introduced Japanese burrowing cricket (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Véelarifictorus (Velarifictorus) micado) range continues to
expand in North America. Journal of Orthoptera Research 27(2): 177-181. https://doi.org/10.3897/jor.27.29067

Abstract

Japanese burrowing cricket, Velarifictorus (Velarifictorus) micado (Saus-
sure, 1877), was introduced into the eastern United States in 1959 and
has since increased its distributional range to include the eastern Great
Plains and the northern United States. Although generally thought of as an
urban species associated with human habitation, some specimens are now
being captured in more remote areas, which is attributed to this species
sometimes being macropterous and dispersing through flight. Public data
sources such as BugGuide and iNaturalist were found to be sound, passive
tools for identifying the expanding range of this species in the Americas.
Collection and observation in atypical habitats suggest that potential eco-
logical impacts may be occurring.

Key words

citizen science, crickets, geographic distribution, invasive species, singing
insects

Introduction

Japanese burrowing cricket, Velarifictorus (Velarifictorus) micado
(Saussure, 1877), is native to Asia and was first found in the United
States in 1959 in the District of Columbia (Alexander and Walker
1962; Fig. 1). The source of the early introductions is not entirely
clear, and it may have been introduced as discarded or escaped
fishing bait, or via ornamental plants. Since that first discovery, V.
micado became widely distributed and established in the eastern
and southeastern United States (Walker 1977, Peck et al. 1992).
Although additional reports and accounts of this species can be
found on multiple internet-based sites, no updates on its range
in the United States have been published since the previously ref-
erenced studies. Here, I present additional distributional records
for this species in North America, which show that its geographic
range has continued to increase both northward and westward
in the United States. Although this species is generally not con-
sidered to be invasive or destructive (Center for Invasive Species
and Ecosystem Health 2018), the range expansion documented
here suggests it may be more invasive than previously thought.
Potential ecological impacts associated with this species have not
been documented but, as noted by Bowles and Bowles (2015), im-

pacts resulting from some non-native species introductions may
be complex and not easily described in tangible terms.

Generalized distribution maps previously constructed for
V. micado and presented on public information sources, such as
Encyclopedia of Life (2018), Mobugs (2018), Singing Insects of
North America (2018), Songs of Insects (2018), and in field guides
(Capinera et al. 2004) show an approximate distribution South of
latitude 40°N and East of longitude -92°W. Based on collections
I made during a National Park Service BioBlitz in southeastern
Missouri in 2014, and during routine insect monitoring in Arkan-
sas in 2017, it was clear that the range of this species extended
beyond that typically presented. In addition to my own collect-
ing data, I searched two common internet-based naturalist plat-
forms for photographs of V. micado occurring outside this previ-
ously described range. They included BugGuide (https://bugguide.
net/) and iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/). These crowd-
sourced portals aggregate photographs and collection data of in-
sects and other arthropods found within the United States and
elsewhere. The purpose of this study is to estimate the increased
geographic range of Japanese burrowing cricket, V. micado, in the
United States.

Methods

I collected specimens by hand (which I later pinned) and by
using black-light traps (which I later preserved in 70% ethyl al-
cohol). Records from photographed specimens were taken from
BugGuide.net and iNaturalist.org. Both websites include several
photographs of V. micado that were taken at numerous locations in
the United States. Another public database, iDigBio (idigbio.org),
yielded only previously published records and those data are not
presented here. I did not physically examine the specimens listed
on BugGuide or iNaturalist, and I could not determine if speci-
mens were deposited in museums or may no longer exist. | exam-
ined each photograph listed on those sites and compared them
to published descriptions of the species (Alexander and Walker
1962, Capinera et al. 2004). The photographs unambiguously de-
pict V. micado. Sex of specimens was determined where practical.
While not a substitution for examination of physical specimens,
photographic records are an important and valid means to learn

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2018, 27(2)

178

more about the distribution and phenology of species. Although
photographs and accompanying information can be deleted or
modified by the submitter at any time, archival web services, such
as the WayBack Machine (archive.org/web/), maintain copies of
those sites taken at multiple instances in time. Numerous other
photographs of V. micado are posted on BugGuide and iNaturalist,
but they fell well within the previously reported range and there-
fore are not included here. Three specimens of Japanese burrow-
ing cricket listed on iNaturalist from Mexico (photos#8364819,
#10828284, #9960828) could not be confirmed and are not ad-
dressed further here.

Collection acronyms are as follows: HTLN (National Park Ser-
vice, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network, c/o Missouri
State University, Department of Biology, Springfield, Missouri),
BUG (BugGuide.net) and INAT (iNaturalist.org). Data in brackets
| | were added by the author.

Results

I collected two specimens by hand (1 male, 1 female), and
three by black-light/alcohol pan trap (2 females, 1 nymph). Nu-
merous additional records were taken from BugGuide (2018) and
iNaturalist (2018). Collection data follow. Some contributors of
photos used an identifier rather than a formal name. In those in-
stances where the collectors’ names could not be determined, |
have placed the collector's identifier in quotation marks.

Collection data.—UNITED STATES: Arkansas: Marion Co., Buf-
falo National River, Buffalo River @ Clabber Creek, 36.127858N,
-92.545530W, 13-14.vii.2017, D. E. Bowles and C. Cheri,
black-light, female [macropterous] (HTLN); Newton Co., Buf-
falo National River, Buffalo River @ Carver Access, 35.983355N,
93.038055W, 13-14.vii.2017, D. E. Bowles and C. Cheri, black-
light, nymph (HTLN); Searcy Co., Buffalo National River, Buffalo
River @ Tyler Bend, 35.988611N, 92.767222W, 21-22.ix.2017,
D. E. Bowles and C. Cheri, black-light, female (HTLN). Missouri:
Newton Co., George Washington Carver National Monument,
prairie, 36.989341N, -94.357135, 27.1x.2014. D. E. Bowles, at
large, 1 male, 1 female (HTLN).

Records from BugGuide and iNaturalist.—-UNITED STATES: Arkan-
sas: Benton Co., Bella Vista, 21.ix.2015, female, EmilyK, pho-
to#1153123 (BUG), same, but Centerton, 5.ix.2017, female, John
Moreno, photos#1462556, 1462550 (BUG), same, but Lowell,
29.ix.2015, female, Mabel Serrano, photo#1147293 (BUG); Mont-
gomery Co., Ouachita National Forest, 34.633261N, -93.581269W,
16.x.2014, female, Michael Skvarla, photo#4308701 (INAT);
Newton Co., Buffalo National River, 36.037828N, -93.341024W,
8.ix.2013, female, Michael Skvarla, photos#4309265, 4309202
(INAT), same, but nr. Ponca, Buffalo National River, Steel Creek,
11.ix.2013, Michael Skvarla, photos#840796, 840794 (BUG);
Washington Co., Fayetteville, 18.ix.2015, male, Christ Kortis,
photo#1141234 (BUG), same, but Fayetteville, 5.ix.2015, female,
Layton McCullars, photo#1145100 (BUG), same, but 5.x.2015,
female, Zac Jones, photo#1153873 (BUG), same, but 11.x.2015,
female, “anbroshu”, photo#1154284 (BUG), same, but U of A,
11.x.2015, male, L. Dave Smith, photo#1149209 (BUG), same,
but 12.x.2015, female, leaddiso, photo#1154233 (BUG), same,
but 8.ix.2017, female, Cody Seymour, photos#1462488, 1462487
(BUG), same, but 19.ix.2017, female, “ngbadger”, photo#1462604
(BUG). Delaware: New Castle Co., Bear, 29.viii.2007, female,

D.E. BOWLES

Ted Kropiewnicki, photo#141710 (BUG), same, but 31.vii.2010,
female, photos#442224, 442225 (BUG), same, but 6.x.2012, fe-
male, Ted Kropiewnicki, photos#846874, 846872 (BUG). Illinois:
Will Co., New Lenox, 41.490497N, -87.989875W 25.vii.2016,
male, Erik Attaway, photo#1277770 (BUG), photo#3909356
(INAT). Iowa: Dubuque Co., Dubuque, 11.ix.2017, female, “Ma-
1ia320414”, photo#1439725 (BUG). Kansas: Johnson Co., Over-
land Park, 30.viii.2008, female, Andrew Williams, photo#263440
(BUG), same, but 22.viii.2015, male, “NYKZ”, photos#1126696,
1126695 (BUG), same, but 19.ix.2008, female, Andrew Williams,
photo#263440 (BUG), same, but 27.ix.2015, 2 females, “NYKZ”,
photo#1130919 (BUG); Sedgwick Co., Wichita, 16.ix.2010, fe-
male, Terry Allison, photo#458181 (BUG). Michigan: Wayne
Co., Dearborn, 6.ix.2013, 2 females, 1 male, Kyle Kandilian,
photo#837714 (BUG). Missouri: Boone Co., 38.946228N,
-92.446573W, 3.ix.2017, male, “Ifelliott”, photo#7773805 (INAT),
same, but 38.94626N, -92.44653W, 8.x.2016, female, “lfelliott”,
photo#4337141 (INAT), same, but 38.94626N, -92.44653W,
19.x.2016, female, “Ifelliott”, photo#4449513 (INAT); Buchanan
Co., 39.739062N, -94.829944W, 20.x.2017, male, “chinquapin”,
photo# 8571138 (INAT); Camden Co., Osage Beach, 38.127219N,
-92.65221W, 21.viii.2017, female, “firewolfspirit”, photo#7595682
(INAT); Franklin Co., Pacific, 28.ix.2009, female, James C. Trager,
photo#1488545 (BUG), same, but 17.ix.2009, male, James C. Trag-
er, photo#1488544 (BUG), same, but 38.487353N, -90.801582W,
22.ix.2017, SND, “jigglytuff”, photo#8038422 (INAT), same, but
Shaw Nature Preserve, 38.476137N, -90.822875W, 23.ix.2017, fe-
male, “eviemae”, photo#8058408 (INAT), same, but 38.443384N,
-90.808629W, 3.xi.2017, male, “natric4u”, photo#8668506
(INAT); Nodaway Co., Maryville, 40.35448N, -94.885222W,
30.vili.2017, male, Evan Grimes, photo#7722519 (INAT); St.
Louis Co., St. Louis, 38.602747N, -90.254968W, 17.viii.2017,
male, Alex Wild, photo#7532527 (INAT), same, but 38.45059N,
-90.217275W, 20.viii.2017, female, “gcwarbler”, photo#7672768
(INAT). New Jersey: Burlington Co., Camp Creek Run, Marl-
ton, 28.vii.2010, male, John R. Maxwell, photos#436070, 436069
(BUG); Camden Co., Atco, 19.viii.2012, female, Yurika Alexan-
der, photo#692452 (BUG); Essex Co., Newark, 40.779999N,
-74.174721W, 20.x.2017, male, “carlosm”, photo#8515960
(INAT); Morris Co., Madison, 40.775912N, -74.431043W,
20.ix.2015, female, “iumer”, photo#2080090 (INAT). New York:
Kings Co., New York, 40.700821N, -73.99596W, 20.viii.2015,
male, Stanton B., photo#2091504 (INAT); Nassau Co., New
York, 40.817325N, -73.761986W, 13.ix.2017, male, “sflee8”, pho-
to#7900218 (INAT); New York Co., New York City, Central Park,
24.ix.2006, female, Marie Winn, photo#79642 (BUG), same, but
25.1x.2006, male, Marie Winn, photo#79639 (BUG), same, but
40.817982N, -73.948642W, 25.x.2017, female, “mdoom”_leg,
photo#8549726 (INAT), same, but 40.818805N, -73.948372W,
25.x.2017, male, “eshika”_leg, photo#8549352 (INAT), same,
but 40.819008N, -73.9479W, 2.ix.2017, female, J. Rigby, pho-
to#8527361 (INAT), same, but 40.81721N, -73.949246W,
2.ix.2017, female, “anasalazar”, photo#7756003 (INAT), same,
but 40.818722N, -73.94671W, 13.ix.2017, male, Isabel G., pho-
to#7905290 (INAT); Queens Co., Broad Channel/Jamaica Bay
Wildlife Refuge, 6.ix.2014, male, Seth Ausubel, photos#991914,
991915 (BUG), same, but Forest Park, 28.ix.2013, male, Antonio
Liberta, photo#1030267 (BUG); Richmond Co., Staten Island,
13.i1i.2017, female, Loubara, photo#1346734 (BUG), same,
but 40.508153N, -74.218004W, 8.ix.2016, female, Maya, pho-
to#4904975 (INAT); Tompkins Co., Cornell Campus, Ithaca,

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2018, 27(2)

D.E. BOWLES

179

27 viii.2015, 2 males, Brandon Woo, photos#1129586, 1129587,
1129588, 1129589 (BUG), same, but 5.x.2015, male, Brandon
Woo, photo#1151601 (BUG), same, but 17.vii.2016, [misiden-
tified as female] male, Brandon Woo, photo#1260224 (BUG),
same, but 3.vili.2016, female, Brandon Woo, photo#1271221
(BUG), same, but male, Brandon Woo, photos#12883225,
1271221 (BUG), same, but 14.viii.2016, male, Brandon Woo, pho-
tos#12883225, 1277132 (BUG), same, but 28.viii.2016, female,
Brandon Woo, photo#1286518 (BUG), same, but 27.viii.2016,
female, Brandon Woo, photos#12883225, 1283223 (BUG),
same, but 30.viii.2016, female, Brandon Woo, photo#1286519
(BUG), same, but 15.ix.2017, male, female, Brandon Woo, pho-
tos#1445747, 1445748 (BUG), same, but 16.ix.2016, male, Bran-
don Woo, photos#1293464, 1293463, 1277132 (BUG), same, but
17.ix.2015, male, Brandon Woo, photo#1141372 (BUG), same,
but 42.446889N, -76.481167W, 18.ix.2015, male, Brandon Woo,
photo#10074532 (INAT); Westchester Co., Elmsford, 12.ix.2017,
male, Preston W., photo#1439404 (BUG), same, but Bronxville,
24.1x.2010, female, Andrew V.E. Block, photo#461274 (BUG),
same but 40.952106N, -73.772022W, 19.IX.2017, male, D. Ruby,
photo#7996228 (BUG). Ohio: Lucas Co., Toledo, 41.689971N,
-83.615041W, 23.ix.2017, male, J. Witter, photo#8065789 (INAT).
Oklahoma: Okmulgee Co., Henryetta, 7.vii.2005, male, Charles
Schurch Lewallen, photo#23583 (BUG). Texas: Dallas Co., De-
Soto, 23.ix.2008, female, Gacko, photo#284824 (BUG), same,
but Dallas, 32.704863N, -96.852556W, 7.x.2017, female, “but-
terflies4fun”, photo#8303510 (INAT); Harris Co., Russ Pitman
Park, Houston, 15.vi.2012, male, John Schneider, photo#659597
(BUG), same, but Houston, 29.760048N, -95.597783W, 9.x.2016,
female, Dan Johnson, photos#4309355, 4309355, 4309355

Fig. 2. Map showing the commonly projected distribution of Ve-
larifictorus (Velarifictorus) micado (Saussure, 1877) in the United
States of America and itscurrent known distribution. The shaded
area indicates the previously reported range, triangles represent
data collected by the authors, and circles represent data generated
by public sources. Records are shown only for those locations that
fall outside the previously reported range.

(INAT), same, but 29.761588N, -95.605404W, 9.x.2016, SND,
Dan Johnson, photos# 4309354, 4309354 (INAT), same, but
29.760773N, -95.599563W, 3.x.2016, female, Dan Johnson,
photo#4265317 (INAT), same, but 29.75917N, -95.594202W,
2.x.2016, female, Dan Johnson, photos#4257670, 4257670
(INAT); Parker Co., Weatherford, 13.ix.2016, female, Tzila"Z”
Duenzel, photos#1291788, 1291786, 1291787 (BUG).

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2018, 27(2)

180
Discussion

The range of V. micado has broadly expanded in the United
States since it was first introduced, including a western expan-
sion of the species range into the plains of Iowa, Oklahoma, and
Texas, and a northern expansion into Illinois, Michigan, New Jer-
sey, and New York (Fig. 2). The present known range of the spe-
cies in the United States now encompasses approximately 43°N,
-98°W. Since V. micado is thought to be distributed primarily via
ornamental plants (Walker 1977), it is unknown if some of the
records presented here represent localized, temporary introduc-
tions, or breeding populations. Most specimens were collected/
observed from June through early November, and the majority
were observed during August and September. Although most of
the records reported here are from cities and urban areas, sever-
al specimens were collected in rural areas, including the Buffalo
National River, Arkansas, and a restored prairie at George Wash-
ington Carver National Monument in southwest Missouri. Other
specimens were photographed in the Ouachita National Forest,
Arkansas. Those specimens are arguably less likely to have been
introduced via ornamental plants and may have dispersed there
via flight. Dispersal by flight cannot be ruled out since some in-
dividuals can be macropterous. Notably, one female collected at
Buffalo National River, Arkansas, was macropterous. Since this
species overwinters in the egg stage, it also is possible that some
breeding populations may become established in northern areas
(Alexander and Walker 1962).

V. micado is now occupying ecological habitats previously un-
reported for the species. In the southeastern United States and
throughout its native range in Asia, this species primarily inhabits
mesic habitats including grassy fields and wet, wooded and par-
tially wooded areas (Walker 1977). However, it’s occurrence on the
Great Plains (Fig. 1) suggests it may be adapting to drier grassland
habitats. Walker (1977) suggested that inadequate soil moisture
might limit the spread of V. micado in Florida, which may ulti-
mately limit its spread into drier areas of the western United States.

Using public data does present some concerns. For example,
Carlson et al. (2012) noted that passive surveillance tools such as
BugGuide may have an inherent bias because records are added
haphazardly in contrast to active, professional sampling efforts
that often target specific taxa. As illustrated by this paper, however,
passive surveillance is certainly preferable to the absence of sus-
tained professional surveillance. Using internet-based tools such
as BugGuide and iNaturalist can be especially useful for track-
ing certain species readily identified through photographs. Such
sources can provide much greater coverage than one or a few indi-
vidual scientists can practically accomplish (Marshall 2008, Epps
et al. 2014, Michonneau and Paulay 2015, Genevieve et al. 2018).
Indeed, citizen-generated distributional data or ‘digital collecting’
based on photographs can serve as a valuable tool to study the
ranges of selected taxa, including medically important and non-
native, invasive species, and species of conservation concern (Mar-
shall 2008). Other studies have successfully used BugGuide local-
ity data to augment professionally collected distributional data
(Carlson et al. 2012, Epps et al. 2014, Bowles et al. 2015, Brunke
2016, Hoebeke et al. 2017, Wheeler 2018).

In addition to public data sources such as BugGuide and iN-
aturalist, BioBlitz-type events using citizen scientists can be instru-
mental for further defining the ranges of species by using groups
of interested naturalists to collect specimens for identification by
taxonomic experts (Gimmel and Ferro 2010, Plumb 2014, Wieden-
mann et al. 2014, Hinsey and Johnson 2015, National Park Ser-

D.E. BOWLES

vice 2016). BioBlitzes and rapid biological inventories, including
those for invertebrates, are becoming increasingly popular. They
can provide important species occurrence records when properly
documented through preservation and curation, or through pho-
tographs. BioBlitz events and other citizen scientists’ collections,
when coupled with internet platforms such as BugGuide and iN-
aturalist, present potentially powerful passive surveillance tools
that help provide a practical and relatively low-cost means to help
“bridge the gap” between broad based biodiversity inventories and
intensive biodiversity monitoring and research. Interestingly, V.
micado has a distinctive calling song which allows for its identifica-
tion in the field (Walker 1977). Training volunteers to search for
this species using its call may be a way to further delineate its range.

Conclusions

The range of introduced Japanese burrowing cricket in the
United States has increased beyond previously published accounts
to include remote and atypical habitats. This information suggests
that the Japanese burrowing cricket may be more invasive than
previously thought. BioBlitzes involving citizen scientists and in-
ternet-based public data sources present passive but sound tools
for documenting the occurrence and spread of easily identified
species.

Acknowledgements

I thank all the BugGuide and iNaturalist contributors who
submitted photos related to this project, and John VanDyk for al-
lowing the use of BugGuide specimen data. Cameron Cheri as-
sisted with fieldwork. I greatly appreciate the constructive com-
ments provided on an earlier draft of this manuscript by Ricardo
Marino-Pérez, Michel Lecoq, Ionut Stephan Iorgu, and Ludivina
Barrientos-Lozano. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, rec-
ommendations, and data in this report are solely those of the au-
thors and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S.
Department of Interior, National Park Service. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use by the National Park Service.

References

Alexander RD, Walker TJ (1962) Two introduced field crickets new to
eastern United States (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Annals of the Ento-
mological Society of America 55: 90-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/
aesa/55.1.90

Bowles DE, Bowles BD (2017) Non-native species of the major spring sys-
tems of Texas, U.S.A. Texas Journal of Science 67: 51-78.

Bowles DE, Contreras-Ramos A, Sarmiento-Cordero MA, Ferro ML (2015)
New distributional records for pleasing lacewings (Neuroptera: Di-
laridae, Nallachius spp.) in the Americas. Insecta Mundi 0406: 1-10.
http://www.centerforsystematicentomology.org

Brunke AJ (2016) First detection of the adventive large rove beetle Ocypus
nitens (Schrank) in Canada and an update of its Nearctic distribution
using data generated by the public. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e11012

BugGuide.net (2018) BugGuide. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. htt-
ps://bugguide.net [Accessed 14 May 2018]

Capinera JL, Scott RD, Walker TJ (2004) Field Guide to Grasshoppers, Ka-
tydids, and Crickets of the United States. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, New York, 249 pp.

Carlson JC, Fox MS, McClarin J (2012) Passive surveillance in Medical
Entomology using BugGuide. American Entomologist 58: 29-31.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/58.1.0029

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2018, 27(2)

D.E. BOWLES

Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (2018) Center for Inva-
sive Species and Ecosystem Health. https://www.invasive.org/species/
insects/cfm [Accessed May 25, 2018]

Encyclopedia of Life (2018) Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.eol.org/pag-
es/501175/details [Accessed May 14, 2018]

Epps MJ, Menninger HL, LaSala N, Dunn RR (2014) Too big to be noticed:
cryptic invasion of Asian camel crickets in North American houses.
Peer] 2: e523. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.523

Genevieve LE, Ray N, Chappuis FE Alcoba G, Mondardini MR, Bolon I, de
Castaneda RR (2018) Participatory approaches and open data on ven-
omous snakes: a neglected opportunity in the global snakebite crisis?
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 12: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pntd.0006162

Gimmel ML, Ferro ML (2010) “To finish is to win:” the first annual Loui-
siana State Arthropod Museum mad dog marathon. American Ento-
mologist 56: 74-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/56.2.74

Hinsey JA, Johnson TM (2015) Planning and conducting a BioBlitz event
at a National Park Service unit. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/
NFF—2015/935. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, 57 pp.

Hoebeke ER, Jendek E, Zablotny JE, Rieder R, Yoo R, Grebennikov VV,
Ren L (2017) First North American records of the east Asian metal-
lic wood-boring beetle Agrilus smaragdifrons Ganglbauer (Coleop-
tera: Buprestidae: Agrilinae), a specialist on tree of heaven (Ailan-
thus altissima, Simaroubaceae). Proceedings of the Entomological
Society of Washington 119: 408-422. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-
8797.119.3.408

iNaturalist.org (2018) iNaturalist. California Academy of Sciences, San
Francisco, California. https://www.inaturalist.org [Last accessed 23
April 2018]

181

Marshall S (2008) Field photography and the democratization of arthro-
pod taxonomy. American Entomologist 54: 207-210. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ae/54.4.207

Michonneau F, Paulay G (2015) Using iNaturalist to learn more about
echinoderms. Reef Encounter 30: 29-31.

Mobugs (2018) http://mobugs.blogspot.com/search?q=japanese+burrowi
ng+cricket). Accessed May 14, 2018.

National Park Service (2016) Call to action item #7 “next generation stew-
ards:” A success story. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRD/NRR—
2016/1357. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 66 pp.

Peck SB, Walker TJ, Capinera JL (1992) Distributional review of the Or-
thoptera of Florida. Florida Entomologist 75: 329-342. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3495854

Plumb S (2014) Bioblitz: Engaging citizens on a large scale in biodiversity
discovery. Park Science 31: 34-36.

Singing Insects of North America (2018) Singing Insects of North America.
http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/buzz [Accessed May 14, 2018]

Songs of Insects (2018) Songs of Insects. http://songsofinsects.com/crick-
ets/japanese-burrowing-cricket [Accessed May 14, 2018]

Walker TJ (1977) Japanese burrowing cricket widely established in south-
eastern United States. Florida Entomologist 60: 308-309. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3493933

Wheeler AG (2018) Leptoglossus clypealis Heidemann (Hemiptera: Corei-
dae): eastward spread in North America, new host records, and evalua-
tion of host range. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Wash-
ington 120: 196-210. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.120.1.196

Wiedenmann RN, Dowling APG, Barnes JK (2014) What is the value of
your insect collection? American Entomologist 60: 101-104. https://
doi.org/10.1093/ae/60.2.101

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2018, 27(2)