Simon Walker's picture

Soldier Beetle, possibly Cantharis fusca

Observed: 28th May 2012 By: Simon WalkerSimon Walker’s reputation in InvertebratesSimon Walker’s reputation in InvertebratesSimon Walker’s reputation in InvertebratesSimon Walker’s reputation in Invertebrates
Beetle, Fowlmere, 2012-05-28 006
Beetle, Fowlmere, 2012-05-28 007
Beetle, Fowlmere, 2012-05-28 002

Very active in dull light; a combination that made for difficult photography.
The second photo shows some interesting detail though.

Species interactions

No interactions present.

Species with which Soldier Beetle (Cantharis rustica) interacts


Simon Walker's picture

Query for Chris Brooks

Hi Chris,
I looked this one up on the internet (not that reliable I know), and on Wikipedia it shows a mating pair of what are claimed to be C. fusca with orange-brown thighs. Is Wikipedia up the chute? It wouldn't be the first time, but I thought it was worth checking with you.

(Just looked again, this time at the French Wikipedia - that's got a similar photograph, but with black thighs! It looks like the English version IS wrong.)

PS I've just added a third picture, showing thighs more clearly.


chrisbrooks's picture

Internet Images

Hi Simon, I have just looked at a load of images for C. fusca on the internet and half of them are incorrect, I think. I believe that my original ID comments still stand, C. fusca has all black legs and the dark spot is at the front of the pronotum and not in the centre. We need an expert in beetles really, which I am not. Regards Chris.

chrisbrooks's picture


This is a usually reliable link

It shows both species in good images.

Regards again, Chris.

Simon Walker's picture

As You'll Gather...

...I'm NOT a beetle expert! Not an expert anything, actually, more a jack-of-all-trades, and interested in everything. Makes impossible to become an expert, but there you are, that's life I suppose.
If I can remember how, I'll try and correct the English Wikipedia entry.


Simon Walker's picture

Wikipedia Corrected

Hi Chris,

I've removed the offending Wikipedia image, so that's accurate now. Only the other dodgy ones to worry about! Still, at least one of the ones that people might have trusted is now fixed.