Species-level ID's in North American Phengodes (Phengodidae - Glowworm Beetles)

There seems to be a systematic issue with identifications of glowworm beetles, genus Phengodes, from the United States. There are about ten species, and some named subspecies in this area. The distribution of these species is perhaps poorly known, and species-level identification likely requires specimens and microscopic examination.
Also, keys may only exist for males. Larvae, and the females, which are larviform, may not be keyed in the literature, though I am not 100 percent sure of this. The state-of-the-art seems to be a 1975 publication which is behind a paywall. I have read the summary, and I believe it keys only adult males. Again, I have not seen the whole thing:
Wittmer W. The genus Phengodes in the United States (Coleoptera: Phengodidae). Col. Bull. 29: 231-250, 1975. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3999661
In particular, some observers have been assigning many images of Phengodes larvae to…
Phengodes laticollis
This is a common species, apparently, but I just do not see any documentation on how the ID’s are being made. Adults are being assigned to this species as well, and I am not seeing any justification for that either. Many confirmations of IDs are coming from one user who does not appear to have a background in the group, and is not leaving any explanatory notes–I feel vital for such a difficult group. There are over 100 observations, many research grade, many verified by that one user.
I sent an email about the issue to an acquaintance who is a beetle taxonomist (active on BugGuide, but not iNaturalist). I quote his succinct response: “Phengodes is too much of a mess, I wouldn’t even try…” If the professional taxonomists are not able to sort out the species in the genus, I do not think citizen scientists are likely to be successful simply by looking at images. AFAIK, different species of (both adults and larvae) in this group are visually similar and are not, in general, identifiable based on images.
IMHO all of these ID’s should be backed off to genus-level. I am not sure how to proceed. There are rather too many to correct with individual comments. I have made a few, giving documentation, and have gotten some people to agree, others not.


The site does not support, not does it have any tools to bulk add or replace identifications. The only option is to add individual identifications on each record


Yeah, that’s what I thought, and that is normally a great feature. This appears to be a systemic issue in this genus, and part of it is due to an enthusiastic, but perhaps overconfident, user. (I’ve been there many times myself–no disrespect intended!)
My thought would be that people knowledgeable in Coleoptera give some feedback here, in case I am missing something. Then perhaps several people could go in and start pulling ID’s back to genus level, if that is the consensus. Perhaps everyone suggesting the ID correction could reference this discussion?
One caveat is that there is a book (below) that includes this group. The author, Lynn Faust, has made one ID of a larva as laticollis on BugGuide. However nobody on iNaturalist is referencing her work that I see. I have not seen her publication, perhaps someone else here can comment?
-Fireflies, Glow-worms, and Lightning Bugs: Identification and Natural History of the Fireflies of the Eastern and Central United States and Canada (2017). ISBN-13: 978-0820348728


You can prepare a message about how group is too complex to be ided from photos with some references, it can be then used by you and everyone else reiding, users are learning by such messages pretty quickly and amount of new ids will get lower.

1 Like

Great, I will start working on it, and will run it by this group for edits. Also hoping to get some volunteers to work in parallel and, perhaps, some expert commentary on the group.

1 Like

You can subscribe to Jstor as an independent researcher for free, and read a limited number of papers. This particular one i have checked, and will not help much for photos, Wittmer’s keys are best used under a microscope… Maybe the book is more user-friendly.

Thanks for the tip. I’ll try to get a look at the book.

Well, here is another thought, as this is, I feel, an issue with a number of taxa. Would it be possible to add a curation feature to iNaturalist such that a particular taxon could be marked as “not typically identifiable from images”, and this would warn users not to attempt ID at that level, but to choose a higher level, typically genus instead of species? Seems like some sort of warning or flag would be valuable. These flags could be suggested by users through the “mark for curation” feature. I am happy to post this idea in a different forum if people feel that is more appropriate.


It’s being discussed quite often, there was a proposal to add notes to taxa about which parts are needed to be pictured for an id. In fact for prevention more focus should be on iding etiquette, if people knew they shouldn’t reach for species no matter what, many situations wouldn’t happen.

There are a lot of institutions through which people can access JSTOR with unlimited downloads. Happily, my public library (Austin Public LIbrary) has an institutional subscription. I sign in through them with just my library card number. You might see what is available to you regionally. Go to the main JSTOR page at,
Click on “Log in” in the upper right and then click on “Find My Institution” to bring up a list of cooperating entities. It’s a long list!

1 Like

Again, thanks, I downloaded the paper and looked through the descriptions and key. As I suspected, the key is for adult males and does not even mention the females or larvae that I can see. As you noted, the key for the adult males is based, largely, on fine measurements of a specimen in hand. Many of the species-level ID’s on iNaturalist are of larvae, which are not keyed, or described, at all in that reference. Unless there is some good description of species ID for larvae elsewhere, I am not seeing any justification for assigning those images of larvae to particular species. Some of the images of males may be assigned correctly, but this should likely get a critical look as well.
I will try to get a look at Faust’s book in case there is something useful there.
Going forward, I feel that the community should make an effort to bring identifications in that group to where there is a decent level of confidence in them.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.