@article {1302,
	title = {Dung preference of the dung beetle Scarabaeus cristatus Fab (Coleoptera-Scarabaeidae) from Kuwait},
	journal = {Journal Of Arid Environments},
	volume = {35},
	number = {3},
	year = {1997},
	note = {digital copy},
	month = {Mar},
	pages = {511-516},
	abstract = {Adult dung beetles, Scarabaeus cristatus, consume the fluid components of dung and bury whole dung as food for their larvae. When dung from three herbivorous animals, horse, camel and sheep, was offered, the beetles preferred the more fluid horse dung to the others. Sheep dung was preferred to the camel dung. The dung of two carnivores, dog and fox, was also accepted but to a lesser extent than the herbivore dung.},
	keywords = {Dung, dung beetle, Kuwait, Scarabaeus cristatus},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://A1997WQ58300012 },
	author = {Al-Houty, Wasmia and Al-Musalam, Faten}
}
@article {1420,
	title = {Body-Size, Abundance, and Geographical-Distribution of Afrotropical Dung Beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae)},
	journal = {Acta Oecologica},
	volume = {15},
	number = {2},
	year = {1994},
	note = {Times Cited: 11Cited Reference Count: 25Cited References:      BLACKBURN TM, 1993, J ANIM ECOL, V62, P519     BLACKBURN TM, 1993, J ANIM ECOL, V62, P694     BLACKBURN TM, 1992, OIKOS, V65, P107     BROWN JH, 1989, SCIENCE, V243, P1145     CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P36     CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P51     CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P156     COTGREAVE P, 1993, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V8, P244     CURRIE DJ, 1993, OIKOS, V67, P56     CURRIE DJ, 1993, OIKOS, V66, P353     DAMUTH J, 1987, BIOL J LINN SOC, V31, P193     DAMUTH J, 1993, NATURE, V365, P748     DAMUTH J, 1991, NATURE, V351, P268     GASTON KJ, 1988, AM NAT, V132, P662     GRIFFITHS D, 1992, J ANIM ECOL, V61, P307     GRIFFITHS D, 1987, NATURE, V328, P117     HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P283     HEINRICH B, 1979, PHYSIOL ZOOL, V52, P484     LAWTON JH, 1989, OIKOS, V55, P429     LAWTON JH, 1991, PHILOS T ROY SOC B, V330, P2833     LUMARET JP, 1992, J APPL ECOL, V29, P349     NEE S, 1991, NATURE, V351, P312     PAGEL MD, 1991, AM NAT, V138, P836     STORK NE, 1993, OIKOS, V67, P483     WHITE F, 1986, VEGETATION AFRICAEnglishArticlePJ666ACTA OECOL},
	pages = {165-179},
	abstract = {Local and regional abundances of Afrotropical dung beetle species, as well as their regional and continental distributions, have been found to depend on their average individual fresh weight. At the local and regional scales, small-bodied species are numerically more abundant than their larger relatives, but large-bodied species have a larger total biomass and control a larger proportion of available resources. At the regional scale, large dung beetle species occur in fewer localities than small ones, but, at the continental scale, geographical distribution is wider.},
	keywords = {abundance, afrotropical region, beetles, biomass, communities, Dung, dynamics, energy use, energy-use, geographical distribution, natural animal assemblages, patterns, population-density, size},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://A1994PJ66600005},
	author = {Cambefort, Y.}
}
@article {1460,
	title = {Lunar orientation in a beetle},
	journal = {Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences},
	volume = {271},
	number = {1537},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Times Cited: 2Cited Reference Count: 39Cited References:      ABLE KP, 1980, ANIMAL MIGRATION ORI, P283     ABLE KP, 1989, J EXP BIOL, V141, P241     BAKER RR, 1987, ANIM BEHAV, V35, P94     BATSCHELET E, 1981, CIRCULAR STAT BIOL     BISCH SM, 1999, THESIS RHEINISCHEN F     BLUM M, 2000, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V186, P119     BRINES ML, 1982, J EXP BIOL, V96, P69     BYRNE M, 2003, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V189, P411     DACKE M, 1999, NATURE, V401, P470     DACKE M, 2002, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V188, P211     DACKE M, 2003, J EXP BIOL, V206, P1535     DACKE M, 2003, NATURE, V424, P33     FERGUSON DE, 1965, COPEIA, V1, P58     FREAKE MJ, 1999, J EXP BIOL, V202, P1159     GAL J, 2001, J GEOPHYS RES-ATMOS, V106, P22647     HERZMANN D, 1989, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V165, P315     JANDER R, 1957, Z VERGL PHYSIOL, V40, P162     KERFOOT WB, 1967, ANIM BEHAV, V15, P479     LABHART T, 1980, J COMP PHYSL, V141, P19     LABHART T, 1986, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V158, P1     LABHART T, 1999, MICROSC RES TECHNIQ, V47, P368     LABHART T, 2001, J EXP BIOL, V204, P2423     LEUTHOLD RH, 1976, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V1, P127     MCINTYRE P, 1998, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V183, P45     NILSSON DE, 1987, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V161, P645     PARDI L, 1954, Z TIERPSYCHOL, V11, P175     SNYDER AW, 1973, J COMP PHYSL, V83, P331     SOTTHIBANDHU S, 1979, ANIM BEHAV, V27, P786     STRUTT JW, 1871, PHILOS MAG, V41, P107     TONGIORGI P, 1970, B MUS NAT HIST NATUR, V41, P243     UGOLINI A, 1996, BEHAV PROCESS, V36, P151     UGOLINI A, 1999, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V184, P9     UGOLINI A, 1999, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V266, P749     UGOLINI A, 2003, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V270, P279     WATERMAN TH, 1981, HDB SENSORY PHYSL, V7, P281     WEHNER R, 1975, J COMP PHYSL, V104, P225     WEHNER R, 1984, ANNU REV ENTOMOL, V29, P277     WEHNER R, 1989, J EXP BIOL, V146, P63     WEHNER R, 1994, FORTSCHR ZOOL, V39, P103EnglishArticlePROC ROY SOC LONDON SER B775EV},
	month = {Feb 22},
	pages = {361-365},
	abstract = {Many animals use the sun{\textquoteright}s polarization pattern to orientate, but the dung beetle Scarabaeus zambesianus is the only animal so far known to orientate using the million times dimmer polarization pattern of the moonlit sky. We demonstrate the relative roles of the moon and the nocturnal polarized-light pattern for orientation. We find that artificially changing the position of the moon, or hiding the moon{\textquoteright}s disc from the beetle{\textquoteright}s field of view, generally did not influence its orientation performance. We thus conclude that the moon does not serve as the primary cue for orientation. The effective cue is the polarization pattern formed around the moon, which is more reliable for orientation. Polarization sensitivity ratios in two photoreceptors in the dorsal eye were found to be 7.7 and 12.9, similar to values recorded in diurnal navigators. These results agree with earlier results suggesting that the detection and analysis of polarized skylight is similar in diurnal and nocturnal insects.},
	keywords = {beetles, compass, compound eye, crickets, dorsal rim area, Dung, dung beetle, light, moon, orientation, pattern, polarization, sandhoppers, Scarabaeus zambesianus, sensitivity, skylight polarization patterns, vision},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000189028500005},
	author = {Dacke, M. and Byrne, M. J. and Scholtz, C. H. and Warrant, E. J.}
}
@article {1481,
	title = {Nesting of afrotropical Oniticellus (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) and its evolutionary trend from soil to dung},
	journal = {Ecological Entomology},
	volume = {14},
	year = {1989},
	pages = {11-21},
	keywords = {COLEOPTERA, Dung, evolution, nesting, oniticellus, Scarabaeidae},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V.}
}
@article {1484,
	title = {Annual age structure patterns in Afrotropical dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) under winter rainfall climate},
	journal = {Journal of African Zoology},
	volume = {107},
	number = {5},
	year = {1993},
	pages = {397-411},
	keywords = {age structure, arotropical, COLEOPTERA, Dung, Scarabaeidae, winter rainfall},
	author = {Davis, Adrian L. V.}
}
@article {1486,
	title = {Community organization in a South African, winter rainfall, dung beetle assemblage (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)},
	journal = {Acta Oecologica},
	volume = {15},
	number = {6},
	year = {1994},
	pages = {727-738},
	keywords = {assemblage, community, Dung, Scarabaeidae, south africa, winter rainfall},
	author = {Davis, Adrian L. V.}
}
@article {1487,
	title = {Compositional differences between dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae s. str.) assemblages in winter and summer rainfall climates},
	journal = {African Entomology},
	volume = {2},
	number = {1},
	year = {1994},
	pages = {45-51},
	keywords = {assemblages, Dung, Scarabaeidae, summer rainfall, winter rainfall},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V.}
}
@article {1488,
	title = {Associations of afrotropical Coleoptera (Scarabaeidae: Aphodiidae: Staphylinidae: Hydrophilidae: Histeridae) with dung and decaying matter: implications for selection of fly-control agents for Australia},
	journal = {Journal of Natural History},
	volume = {28},
	year = {1994},
	month = {Mar},
	pages = {383-399},
	keywords = {Aphodiinae, decaying matter, Dung, fly-control, histeridae, hydrophilidae, Scarabaeidae, staphylinidae},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V.}
}
@article {1492,
	title = {Diel and seasonal community dynamics in an assemblage of coprophagous, Afrotropical, dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae s. str., Aphodiidae, and Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)},
	journal = {Journal of African Zoology},
	volume = {110},
	number = {4},
	year = {1996},
	month = {Feb},
	pages = {290-308},
	keywords = {COLEOPTERA, community, Diel, Dung, Seasonal},
	author = {Davis, Adrian L. V.}
}
@article {1493,
	title = {Habitat associations in a South African, summer rainfall, dung beetle community (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Aphodiidae, Staphylinidae, Histeridae, Hydrophilidae)},
	journal = {Pedobiologia},
	volume = {40},
	number = {3},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {260-280},
	keywords = {Aphodiinae, community, Dung, habitat, histeridae, hydrophilidae, Scarabaeidae, staphylinidae},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V.}
}
@article {1496,
	title = {Dung beetle diversity in South Africa: influential factors, conservation status, data inadequacies and survey design},
	journal = {African Entomology},
	volume = {10},
	number = {1},
	year = {2002},
	note = {Times Cited: 0Cited Reference Count: 65Cited References:      *STATSOFT INC, 1995, STATISTICA WIND COMP     *WEATH BUR, 1965, CLIM S AFR 8     BOND WJ, 1994, S AFR J SCI, V90, P391     BORNEMISSZA GF, 1971, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V11, P133     BORNEMISSZA GF, 1979, S AFR J SCI, V75, P257     CAMBEFORT Y, 1982, ANN SOC ENTOMOL FR, V18, P433     CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P51     CINCOTTA RP, 2000, NATURE, V404, P990     COWLING RM, 1992, ECOLOGY FYNBOS NUTR, P23     DAVIES ALV, 1999, J BIOGEOGR, V26, P1039     DAVIS ALV, 1995, ACTA OECOL, V16, P641     DAVIS ALV, 1997, AFR J ECOL, V35, P10     DAVIS ALV, 1996, AFR J ECOL, V34, P258     DAVIS ALV, 1994, AFR J ECOL, V32, P192     DAVIS ALV, 1993, AFR J ECOL, V31, P306     DAVIS ALV, 2001, DIVERSITY DISTRIBUTI, V7, P161     DAVIS ALV, 1989, ECOL ENTOMOL, V14, P11     DAVIS ALV, IN PRESS GLOBAL ECOL     DAVIS ALV, 1996, J AFR ZOOL, V110, P291     DAVIS ALV, 1993, J AM ZOOL, V107, P397     DAVIS ALV, 2001, J NAT HIST, V35, P1607     DAVIS ALV, 1994, J NAT HIST, V28, P383     DAVIS ALV, 1996, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V40, P260     DEAN WRJ, 1995, ENVIRON MONIT ASSESS, V37, P103     DEMELLO FZV, 1998, COLEOPTERISTS B, V52, P209     DENT MC, 1989, 109189 WRC     DOUBE BM, 1990, B ENTOMOL RES, V80, P259     DOUBE BM, 1983, B ENTOMOL RES, V73, P357     DOUBE BM, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P133     DOUBE BM, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P383     EDWARDS PB, 1986, B ENTOMOL RES, V76, P433     EDWARDS PB, 1991, FUNCT ECOL, V5, P617     FAIRBANKS DHK, 2000, S AFR J SCI, V96, P69     FERREIRA MC, 1972, REV ENT MOCAM, V11, P5     FINCHER GT, 1970, J PARASITOL, V56, P378     GASTON KJ, 1999, OIKOS, V86, P584     GILL BD, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P211     HALFFTER G, 1966, FOLIA ENTOMOL MEXICO, V12, P1     HALFFTER G, 1974, QUAEST ENTOMOL, V10, P223     HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P305     HOWDEN HF, 1975, BIOTROPICA, V7, P77     HOWDEN HF, 1987, J ENTOMOL SOC S AFR, V50, P155     INOUCHI J, 1986, CHEM SENSES, V11, P286     JANKIELSOHN A, 2001, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V30, P474     KOCH SO, 2000, J INSECT CONSERVATIO, V4, P45     KRELL FT, 1999, AFR ENTOMOL, V7, P287     LEGENDRE L, 1983, NUMERICAL ECOLOGY     LOW AB, 1996, VEGETATION S AFRICA     NEALIS VG, 1977, CAN J ZOOL, V55, P138     PHILIPS TK, 2001, AFRICAN ENTOMOLOGY, V8, P227     REID WV, 1998, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V13, P275     REYERS B, 2000, P ROY SOC LOND B BIO, V267, P505     SCHOLTZ CH, 1987, J ENTOMOL SOC S AFR, V50, P75     SCHOLTZ CH, 1987, J ENTOMOL SOC S AFR, V50, P121     SHIBUYA, 1982, JAPANESE J APPL ENTO, V26, P194     STEENKAMP HE, 1996, BIOL CONSERV, V78, P305     TYSON PD, 1986, CLIMATIC CHANGE VARI     VANJAARSVELD AS, 1998, SCIENCE, V279, P2106     VANRENSBURG BJ, 1999, BIOL CONSERV, V88, P145     WALTER H, 1964, KLIMADIAGRAMM WELTAT     WALTER P, 1983, B SOC ZOOLOGIQUE FRA, V108, P397     WATERHOUSE DF, 1974, SCI AM, V230, P101     WESSELS KJ, 1998, BIODIVERS CONSERV, V7, P1093     WILLIAMS P, 2000, BELGIAN J ENTOMOL, V2, P21     WILLIAMS P, 1996, CONSERV BIOL, V10, P155EnglishArticle563GBAFR ENTOMOL},
	month = {Mar},
	pages = {53-65},
	abstract = {Dung beetles are useful as indicators in conservation and global warming studies owing to their specialized regional and local distribution patterns. However, existing South African data are inadequate for indication at the necessary degree of spatial resolution. To improve the database, Survey methods need to Lie designed according to the spatial and temporal factors that influence dung beetle diversity. Across four major climatic regions, there are seven principal species distribution centres for dung beetles in which activity is influenced primarily by difference, in rainfall seasonality and temperature, Across these regions, generic endemism is largely concentrated around the coastline and in montane areas. The conservation status of endemic genera is discussed. At a local scale, spatial diversity is influenced primarily by soil, vegetation and dung type. Maximum local diversity of dung beetles is observed after rainfall and decreases as surface conditions become warmer and drier. After workshop discussions, a coarse-grained, asymmetrical gradsect survey grid has been designed according to vegetative, climatic and land-usage gradients across South Africa. It is suggested that each survey point across these regional gradients should comprise a quarter-degree square in which local ecological gradients should be surveyed for invertebrates, Baited pitfall trapping is an easy method to provide quantitative data for dung beetles across such environmental gradients. Lining up each catch on a tray provides a relatively quick way to compare the specimens, identify the species present, and provide a quantitative assessment of species abundance. Data collection may be conducted on one or more occasion., to accommodate seasonal and daily variation in species occurrence. This exercise could identify localities suitable for ecotourism reserves representative of the variation in ecotypes across the country, particularly, in coastal, natural grass and wooded regions, where many invertebrate taxa are endangered by habitat fragmentation including some rare dung beetle species.},
	keywords = {associations, biodiversity hotspots, COLEOPTERA, community, consequences, conservation, diversity, Dung, habitat fragmentation, hydrophilidae, populations, s str, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae, south africa, staphylinidae, survey},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000176247000006},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V.}
}
@article {1500,
	title = {Effect of deforestation on a southwest Ghana dung beetle assemblage (Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae) at the periphery of Ankasa conservation area},
	journal = {Environmental Entomology},
	volume = {34},
	number = {5},
	year = {2005},
	month = {Oct},
	pages = {1081-1088},
	abstract = {During June 2003, an exploratory dung beetle survey (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) was conducted in southwest Ghana at the southern edge of Ankasa Conservation Area, which is a 500-km(2) conserved region of the threatened Eastern Upper Guinean rainforest. The survey provided a quantitative assessment of peripheral deforestation effects and an inventory for species on omnivore dung. Pitfall traps baited with pig dung were placed in both selectively logged and unlogged rainforest as well as in nearby oil palm and cacao plantations. The Ankasa forest inventory was mostly comprised of species previously trapped by human dung in the Western Upper Guinean rainforest of TO National Park, Cote d{\textquoteright}Ivoire. However, there was relatively low species abundance similarity between the June/July assemblages on omnivore dung in Tai and Ankasa rainforests, and even lower similarity between assemblages of Ankasa and the adjacent plantations. Of 29 species recorded in Ankasa forest, most were absent or rare in plantations where assemblages were numerically dominated by species previously recorded from the West African savannas. This replacement plantation fauna showed significantly lower species richness and diversity, but significantly higher abundance, compared with Ankasa forest assemblages. The results reiterate that forest reserves are essential for the conservation of specialist rainforest dung beetle species.},
	keywords = {deforestation, Dung, dung beetle, Ghana, modification, plantation, rainforest, scarabaeinae (biological conservation 2007)},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000232405800014 },
	author = {Davis, A. L. V. and Philips, T. K.}
}
@article {1504,
	title = {A dung beetle survey of selected Gauteng nature reserves: implications for conservation of the provincial scarabaeine fauna},
	journal = {African Entomology},
	volume = {13},
	number = {1},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {1-16},
	abstract = {Aquantitativedungbeetlesurvey(Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae:Scarabaeinae)wasconducted insixGautengnaturereserves(Tswaing,Leeuwfontein,Roodeplaat,Ezemvelo,AbeBailey, Suikerbosrand) representativeof theprovincial rangeinenvironmental conditions. The studyprovidedaprovincial species inventorythat has beentestedfor completeness bycomparisonwithmuseumreferencematerial. It alsopermittedananalysisof major influencesonregional(altitude,annualrainfall)andlocal(soilandvegetationtype)patterns of speciesabundance. Thesurveyrecordedatotal of 152species. Althoughafurther29 specieswererepresentedinreferencecollections,theirabsencefromthepresentworkwas probablyduetohabitat,food,ortemporalspecializations.Multivariateanalyses(clustering, MDS)ofspeciesabundancedataformedsixclusters,eachcomprisingexclusivelythesitesin singlereserves. Thisindicatesthatregionalbetween-reservefaunaldifferencesaregreater thanlocal withinreservedifferences, thusdemonstratingthevalueof eachreserve. Ina hierarchical analysisofobliquefactors, fiveoutofsevenstatisticallydefinedclusterscom- prisedexclusivelythesitesinsinglereserveswithSuikerbosrandsplitintwo.Theseclusters werevariouslycorrelatedwithnineextendedfactors.Alongsevenfactors,correlationswere uniqueoressentiallyuniquetosinglereservesandwerefairlyhigh,particularlyatinterme- diatealtitude. Alongtheremainingtwosharedfactors, therewereopposingtrendsinthat correlationseitherdecreasedwithhigheraltitudeordecreasedwithloweraltitude. Thus, eachclustershowsthreecoefficientsofdetermination, onerepresentingtheproportionof varianceduetosharedhighlandfaunalinfluence,onerepresentingthatduetosharedlow- landfaunal influenceandthethirdrepresentingthatduetouniquelocal faunal composi- tion. Theanalysesidentifythetransitionfromlowlandtohighland-dominatedfaunas, the relativefaunal distinctivenessofeachreserve, andomissionsfromtheprovincial reserve system.},
	keywords = {conservation, Dung, Gauteng, nature reserve, Scarabaeinae, SouthAfrica, survey},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V. and Scholtz, Clarke H. and Deschodt, C.}
}
@article {1507,
	title = {Historical biogeography of scarabaeine dung beetles},
	journal = {Journal of Biogeography},
	volume = {29},
	number = {9},
	year = {2002},
	note = {598JTJ BIOGEOGR},
	month = {Sep},
	pages = {1217-1256},
	abstract = {Aim (1) To review briefly global biogeographical patterns in dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae), a group whose evolutionary history has been dominated by ecological specialization to vertebrate dung in warmer climates. (2) To develop hypotheses accounting for the evolution of these patterns. Location Six principal biogeographical regions: Palaearctic, Oriental, Afrotropical, Australasia, Neotropical, Nearctic and five outlying islands or island groups harbouring endemic genera: Caribbean, Madagascar, Mauritius, New Caledonia, New Zealand. Methods Major patterns of tribal, generic and species distribution are investigated using cluster analysis, ordination, parsimony analysis of endemism and track analysis. Attempts are made to resolve biogeographical patterns with findings in the fields of plate tectonics, fossil and evolutionary history, plus phylogeny of both mammals and dung beetles. Results Because of conflict between published findings, it is uncertain at what point in time density of dinosaur dung, mammal dung or both became sufficiently great to select for specialized habits in dung beetles. However, biogeographical evidence would suggest a Mesozoic origin followed by further taxonomic radiation during the Cenozoic, possibly in response to the increasing size and diversity of mammalian dung types in South America and Afro-Eurasia. Proportional generic distribution in fourteen tribes and subtribes showed four principal biogeographical patterns: (1) southerly biased Gondwanaland distribution, (2) Americas or (3) Madagascar endemism, and (4) northerly biased, Afro-Eurasian- centred distribution with limited numbers of genera also widespread in other regions. Proportional composition of faunas in eleven geographical regions indicated three principal distributional centres, East Gondwanaland fragments, Afro- Eurasia and the Americas. These patterns probably result from three principal long-term range expansion and vicariance events (Mesozoic: Gondwanaland interchange and fragmentation, Cenozoic: Afro-Eurasian/Nearctic interchange and the Great American interchange). It is suggested that old vicariance caused by the Mesozoic fragmentation of Gondwanaland leads to a high degree of regional endemism at generic or tribal level across one or more Gondwanaland tracks. In contrast, it is suggested that the more recent Cenozoic range expansions occurred primarily towards northern regions leading to endemism primarily at species level. These Cenozoic radiations were facilitated by the re-linking of continents, either because of tectonic plate movements (Africa to Eurasia in Miocene), climatically induced sea-level change (Afro-Eurasia to Nearctic in Miocene and Pleistocene), or similar coupled with orogenics (Nearctic to Neotropical in Pliocene). Speciation has followed vicariance either because of climatic change or physical barrier development. These recent range expansions probably occurred principally along an Afro-Eurasian land track to the Nearctic and Neotropical and an Americas land track northwards from the Neotropics to the Nearctic, with limited dispersal from Eurasia to Australia, probably across a sea barrier. This accounts for the overall, spatially constrained, biogeographical pattern comprising large numbers of species- poor genera endemic to a single biogeographical region and fewer more species-rich genera, many of which show wider biogeographical distributions. In most southerly regions (Australasia, Madagascar, Neotropical), faunal composition and generic endemism is primarily dominated by elements with Gondwanaland ancestry, which is consistent with the Gondwanaland origin claimed for Scarabaeinae. In Afro-Eurasia (Palaearctic, Oriental, Afrotropical), generic endemism of monophyletically derived Afro-Eurasian and widespread lineages is centred in the Afrotropical region and faunal composition is numerically dominated by Afro-Eurasian and widespread elements. In the Nearctic region, the fauna is jointly dominated by widespread elements, derived from Afro-Eurasia, and Gondwanaland and Americas elements derived from the Neotropical region. Main conclusions Global biogeographical patterns in scarabaeine dung beetles primarily result from Mesozoic and Cenozoic range expansion events followed by vicariance, although recent dispersal to Australia may have occurred across sea barriers. Detailed phylogenetics research is required to provide data to support dispersal/vicariance hypotheses.},
	keywords = {assemblage coleoptera, biogeography, community organization, dinosaurs, dispersal, distributional patterns, Dung, fragmentation, global, habitat, hindwing articulation, historical, mammals, rain-forest, s-str, Scarabaeinae, southern african, vicariance, w},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000178273300010},
	author = {Davis, A. L. V. and Scholtz, C. H. and Philips, T. K.}
}
@article {1553,
	title = {Seasonal-Variation in the Dung of African Grazing Mammals, and Its Consequences for Coprophagous Insects},
	journal = {Functional Ecology},
	volume = {5},
	number = {5},
	year = {1991},
	note = {Times Cited: 13Cited Reference Count: 0EnglishArticleGL110FUNCT ECOL},
	pages = {617-628},
	abstract = {The dung of African grazing mammals varies in nutrient and moisture content according to the condition of the pasture on which the animals feed. This study investigated the effect of variation in quality of herbivore dung on the survival and reproduction of coprophagous insects. Seasonal variation was recorded in physical and chemical characteristics of zebra, wildebeest and impala dung. Dung was collected from free- ranging animals grazing in natural habitat in Mkuzi Game Reserve, a hot summer-rainfall region of South Africa. Interspecific differences in dung were related to the feeding ecology, digestive physiology and size of each species. Seasonal changes in water and nitrogen content of dung were related to patterns of rainfall and hence pasture growth. Dung moisture was significantly correlated with the amount of rain that fell in the preceding 2 weeks for wildebeest, in the preceding 4 weeks for impala and in the period 2-6 weeks before collection for zebra dung. Seasonal variability in wildebeest dung affected the reproductive rate of the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche). Egg production at 25- degrees-C ranged from 0.1 per female per week in winter dung to 12.1 in summer dung, and was significantly correlated with dung moisture. Euoniticellus intermedius and the African buffalo fly Haematobia thirouxi potans (Bezzi) could not breed in fresh wildebeest dung of 62\% water content. However when the water content was raised to 68\% and above, breeding by Euoniticellus intermedius increased; and at moisture contents of 73\% and above, buffalo fly size increased and survival improved. Higher water content was correlated with an increase in availability of dung fluid, the component of dung used by these insects.},
	keywords = {African herbivores, coprophagous, Dung, Dung beetles, food-, impala, quality, wildebeest, zebra},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://A1991GL11000006},
	author = {Edwards, P. B.}
}
@inbook {1730,
	title = {Nutritional ecology of dung and carrion feeding insects},
	booktitle = {Nutritional Ecology of Insects, Mites and Spiders},
	year = {1987},
	note = {need book},
	pages = {837-884},
	publisher = {Wiley},
	organization = {Wiley},
	address = {New York},
	keywords = {Dung, dung beetle, feces, feeding, food, resources mammals},
	author = {Hanski, I.},
	editor = {Slanky, Jr. F and Rodriguez, J. G}
}
@article {1916,
	title = {Amounts of dung buried and soil excavated by certain Coprini (Scarabaeidae)},
	journal = {Kansas Entomological Society},
	volume = {6},
	number = {4},
	year = {1933},
	note = {have copy and digital copy (low quality)some observations of his- that 2 Dichotomius carolinus could remove nearly an entire cow pie, that they avoided horse dung. they were very seasonally active- appeared in may and disappeared in october. a single beetle could move between 6.2 and 126.8 grams of manure into their burrow, 11-57 cm deep. removal of between 96.4 and 1220.9g. gives stats of amount of dung removed and soil moved by a few different species. Dung beetle pairs do more (in varying ratios) than single beetles. this paper points to seasonal variation in the depth and distance from the dung pat of tunnels made by D. carolinus, Copris tullis and Phanaeus. these tunnels were all differetly shaped, lacking in branches and pockets and stored manure, all at least twice as deep as others, and may represent their overwintering tunnels},
	pages = {109-125},
	keywords = {annotated, Dung, dung beetle, ecological function, ecosystem service, fertilization, nitrogen, soil},
	author = {Lindquist, Arthur}
}
@inbook {1957,
	title = {Desiccation rate of excrement: a selective pressure on dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea),},
	booktitle = {Time Scales of Biological Responses to Water Constraints},
	year = {1995},
	note = {need copy},
	pages = {105-118},
	publisher = {S.P.B. Academic Publishing},
	organization = {S.P.B. Academic Publishing},
	address = {Hague},
	keywords = {Dung, dung beetle mammals, evolution},
	author = {Lumaret, J. P.},
	editor = {Roy, J. and J. Aronson and F. Dicastri}
}
@article {1597,
	title = {Further record and observations of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) at carnivore dung in eastern Australia},
	journal = {Victorian Entomologist },
	volume = {24},
	number = {3},
	year = {1994},
	note = {need copy},
	pages = {63{\textendash}67},
	keywords = {carnivore, Dung, dung beetle, food resources, mammal, mammals},
	author = {Faithfull, I}
}
@article {1652,
	title = {Endectocide residues affect insect attraction to dung from treated cattle: implications for toxicity tests},
	journal = {Medical and Veterinary Entomology},
	volume = {21},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {312-322},
	abstract = {A 3-year study was performed in southern Alberta, Canada to assess the ef- fect of endectocide residues on the attractiveness of cattle dung to colonizing insects. In 2003 and 2004, insect captures were compared between pitfall traps baited with dung of untreated cattle and paired traps baited with dung of cattle that had been treated 7 days previously with topically applied doramectin, eprinomectin, ivermectin or moxidectin. Faecal residues associated with each compound affected insect captures in both spring and autumn of each year. Effects were detected ( P  < 0.05) for a total of 94 cases  representing 27 insect taxa from 13 families in three orders (Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera). Two-fold differences in captures were common. Up to six-fold differ- ences were observed. Eleven cases of attraction and 11 cases of repellency were associ- ated with residues of doramectin. Eprinomectin tended to repel insects, with decreased captures for 19 of 29 cases of effect. Ivermectin showed a strong attractive effect, with increased captures for 17 of 25 cases. Moxidectin also showed a strong attractive effect, with increased captures for 17 of 18 cases. Comparisons between compounds suggested that results for doramectin best predicted results for eprinomectin and vice versa. In 2005, insect captures were compared between pitfall traps baited with dung of untreated cattle and traps baited with dung from cattle treated 3, 7 or 14 days previously with topically applied doramectin. Effects were detected in 14 cases plus one case of near significance ( P  = 0.053). Significant differences between control vs. days 3, 7 and/or 14 dung were detected in nine cases. Residues enhanced captures in seven of these cases. Day 14 dung affected captures in six of these cases. This study shows that endec- tocide residues can affect the number of insects attracted to colonize and oviposit in dung. Hence, the emergence of their offspring from field-colonized dung of untreated vs. endectocide-treated cattle should not be used as a measure of residue toxicity per se, but rather as a measure of  {\textquoteleft} insect activity {\textquoteright} . Insect activity is a composite measure of residue toxicity, the number and species composition of insect colonists, and the mortal- ity factors (e.g. predation, parasitism, competition) associated with the co-occurrence of these species in the dung pat.},
	keywords = {attraction, doramectin, Dung, eprinomectin, faecal residues, IVERMECTIN, moxidectin, non-target effects, Scarabaeidae},
	author = {Floate, K. D.}
}
@article {1657,
	title = {Fecal residues of Veterinary Parasiticides: nontarget effects in the Pasture environment},
	journal = {Annual Review of Entomology},
	volume = {50},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {153-179},
	abstract = {Residues of veterinary parasiticides in dung of treated livestock have nontarget effects on dung-breeding insects and dung degradation. Here, we review the nature and extent of these effects, examine the potential risks associated with different classes of chemicals, and describe how greater awareness of these nontarget effects has resulted in regulatory changes in the registration of veterinary products. },
	keywords = {drugs, Dung, environmental consequences, excretion, livestock},
	author = {Floate, K. D. and Wardhaugh, Keith G. and Boxall, Alistair B. A. and Sherratt, Thomas N.}
}
@article {1670,
	title = {Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae) Attracted to Fresh Cattle Dung in Wooded and Open Pasture},
	journal = {Community and Ecosystem Ecology},
	volume = {24},
	number = {5},
	year = {1995},
	note = {have copy},
	pages = {1063-1068},
	keywords = {cattle dung, Dung, dung beetle, ecology, habitat change mammals},
	author = {Galante, E. and Mena, Javier and Lumbreras, Carlos J.}
}
@article {1680,
	title = {The diversity of soil communities, the {\textquoteright}poor man{\textquoteright}s tropical rainforest{\textquoteright}},
	journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation},
	volume = {5},
	number = {2},
	year = {1996},
	note = {Times Cited: 46Cited Reference Count: 125Cited References:      ABBOTT I, 1980, SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM, V12, P455     ANDERSON JM, 1978, J ANIM ECOL, V47, P787     ANDERSON JM, 1978, OECOLOGIA, V32, P341     ANDERSON JM, 1974, OECOLOGIA BERLIN, V14, P111     ANDERSON JM, 1975, PROGR SOIL ZOOLOGY, P51     ARNETT RH, 1990, SYSTEMATICS N AM INS, P165     ASKIDIS MD, 1991, PEDOBIOL, V35, P53     BAATH E, 1980, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V20, P85     BEHANPELLETIER VM, 1992, CAN BIODIV, V2, P5     BEHANPELLETIER VM, 1993, MEM ENTOMOL SOC CAN, V165, P11     BEHANPELLETIER VM, 1983, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V20, P221     BERNARD EC, 1992, BIOL FERT SOILS, V14, P99     BLACKITH RE, 1975, P R IR ACAD B, V75, P345     BONGERS T, 1990, OECOLOGIA, V83, P14     BROCKIE RE, 1986, OECOLOGIA, V70, P24     BROWN JH, 1988, ANAL BIOGEOGRAPHY IN, P57     CLARKE RD, 1968, ECOLOGY, V49, P1152     CONNELL JH, 1978, SCIENCE, V199, P1302     CORNELL HV, 1992, J ANIM ECOL, V61, P1     CULVER DC, 1974, ECOLOGY, V55, P974     CURRIE DJ, 1991, AM NAT, V137, P27     CURRY JP, 1978, SCI P R DUBLIN SOC A, V6, P131     DANGERFIELD JM, 1990, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V34, P141     DAVID J, 1993, PEDOBIOL, V27, P49     DAVIDSON DW, 1985, AM NAT, V125, P500     DEGOEDE RGM, 1994, APPL SOIL ECOL, V1, P29     DEGOEDE RGM, 1993, FUND APPL NEMATOL, V16, P501     DENNISON DF, 1984, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V26, P45     DOUBE BM, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY     DOUBE BM, 1990, ECOL ENTOMOL, V15, P371     DOUBE BM, 1988, ECOL ENTOMOL, V13, P251     DOUBE BM, 1986, MIS PUB ENT SOC AM, V61, P132     DOUBE BM, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P255     ETTEMA CH, 1993, BIOL FERT SOILS, V16, P79     FENCHEL T, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P281     FRECKMAN DW, 1993, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V45, P239     GASTON K, 1994, RARITY     GHILAROV MS, 1977, ECOL B STOCKHOLM, V25, P593     GILLER PS, 1984, COMMUNITY STRUCTURE     GILLER PS, 1994, J ANIM ECOL, V63, P629     GILLER PS, 1989, J ANIM ECOL, V58, P129     GILLER PS, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P519     GITTINGS T, 1994, THESIS NATIONAL U IR     GRASSLE JF, 1994, AQUATIC ECOLOGY SCAL, P499     GREENSLADE P, 1980, 7TH P INT SOIL ZOOL, P491     HAGVAR S, 1990, BIOL FERT SOILS, V9, P178     HAGVAR S, 1982, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V24, P255     HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY     HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P5     HANSKI I, 1987, ECOL ENTOMOL, V12, P257     HAYES AJ, 1966, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V6, P281     HERMOSILLA W, 1982, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V19, P225     HOLTER P, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P213     HOUSE GJ, 1989, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V18, P302     HUHTA V, 1979, ANN ZOOL FENN, V16, P223     HUSTON MA, 1994, BIOL DIVERSITY COEXI     HUTCHINSON GE, 1961, AM NAT, V95, P137     HUTCHINSON GE, 1953, P ACAD NAT SCI PHILA, V105, P1     IRMLER U, 1979, OECOLOGIA, V43, P1     IVES AR, 1988, ANN ZOOL FENN, V25, P75     IVES AR, 1991, ECOL MONOGR, V61, P75     JACKSON RM, 1966, STUDIES BIOL, V2     KACZMAREK M, 1975, EKOL POLSKA, V23, P265     KING KL, 1976, J APPL ECOL, V13, P731     KNEIDEL KA, 1984, AM MIDL NAT, V111, P57     KRISHNAMOORTHY R, 1985, J SOIL BIOL ECOL, V5, P33     LAVELLE P, 1989, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V33, P283     LEADLEYBROWN A, 1978, ECOLOGY SOIL ORG     LEBRUN P, 1979, RECENT ADV ACAROLOGY, V1, P603     LEVINGS SC, 1983, ECOL MONOGR, V53, P435     LEVINS R, 1979, AM NAT, V114, P765     LONGSTAFF BC, 1976, CAN J ZOOL, V54, P948     LUXTON M, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P293     LUXTON M, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P340     LYNCH JF, 1988, AM MIDL NAT, V119, P31     LYNCH JF, 1980, ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOG, V5, P353     MANDELBROT BB, 1983, FRACTAL GEOMETRY NAT     MARSHALL V, 1982, B ENT SOC CAN S, V14     MAY RM, 1974, THEOR POPUL BIOL, V5, P297     MEHLHOP P, 1983, ECOL ENTOMOL, V8, P69     MILLS JT, 1971, J ECON ENTOMOL, V64, P398     NEHER DA, 1994, APPL SOIL ECOL, V1, P17     NESTEL D, 1993, BIODIVERS CONSERV, V2, P70     PAINE RT, 1966, AM NAT, V100, P5     PARMELEE RW, 1993, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V12, P1477     PARR TW, 1980, THESIS U YORK UK     PETERSEN H, 1971, ENTOMOLOGISKE MEDDEL, V39, P97     PETERSEN H, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P295     PETERSEN H, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P306     PETERSEN H, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P330     PIANKA ER, 1978, EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY     PRIMACK RB, 1992, BIOSCIENCE, V42, P818     PROCTER DLC, 1990, J NEMATOL, V22, P1     RIDSDILLSMITH TJ, 1982, ENTOMOL EXP APPL, V32, P80     SCHAEFER M, 1990, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V34, P299     SCHOENER TW, 1983, AM NAT, V122, P240     SCHOENER TW, 1974, SCIENCE, V185, P27     SHORROCKS B, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P29     SIEPEL H, 1990, BIOL FERT SOILS, V9, P139     SILVA SI, 1989, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V33, P333     SMITH VR, 1990, OECOLOGIA, V85, P14     SPARKES K, 1982, THESIS U YORK UK     STANTON NL, 1979, ECOLOGY, V60, P295     STEVENS GC, 1989, AM NAT, V133, P240     SUGIHARA G, 1990, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V5, P79     TEUBEN A, 1992, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V36, P79     THOMAS RH, 1988, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V31, P113     TRUMBO ST, 1990, ECOL ENTOMOL, V15, P347     USHER MB, 1975, BIOTROPICA, V7, P217     USHER MB, 1977, J ENVIRON MANAGE, V5, P151     USHER MB, 1982, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V23, P126     USHER MB, 1979, POPULATION DYNAMICS, P359     USHER MB, 1988, REV ZOOL AFR, V102, P285     USHER MB, 1976, ROLE TERRESTRIAL AQU, P61     USHER MB, 1985, SPEC PUBL BRIT ECOL, V4, P243     VEGTER JJ, 1983, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V25, P253     VILLALOBOS FJ, 1990, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V27, P73     WEIL R, 1979, SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM, V11, P666     WHITFORD WG, 1992, GLOBAL WARMING BIOL, P124     WILLIAMSON M, 1988, ANAL BIOGEOGRAPHY, P91     WILSON DS, 1984, ECOL ENTOMOL, V9, P205     WILSON EO, 1992, DIVERSITY LIFE     WOLDA H, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P69     WOOD TG, 1976, ROLE TERRESTRIAL AQU, P145     YEATES GW, 1987, BIOL FERT SOILS, V5, P225EnglishReviewTW705BIODIVERS CONSERV},
	month = {Feb},
	pages = {135-168},
	abstract = {This paper reviews the various factors that facilitate the high biodiversity of soil communities, concentrating on soil animals. It considers the problems facing soil ecologists in the study of soil communities and identifies the important role such communities play in terrestrial ecosystems. The review also considers diversity and abundance patterns. A range of factors are identified that may contribute to the biodiversity of soil and their role is reviewed. These include diversity of food resources and trophic specialization, habitat favourableness, habitat heterogeneity in space and time, scale and spatial extent of the habitat, niche dynamics and resource partitioning, productivity, disturbance and aggregation. Biodiversity of soil organisms appears high, largely attributable to the nested set of ecological worlds in the soil - the relationship between the range of size groupings of soil organisms relative to the spatial heterogeneity perceived by these various groups - that provide a large {\textquoteright}area for life{\textquoteright} for the micro- and mesofauna. The role of aggregation and how it relates to the spatial scale under consideration and to species interactions amongst soil animals is largely unknown at present. The role of disturbance is equivocal and man{\textquoteright}s activities more often than not seem to lead to a reduced biodiversity of soil communities. This paper also identifies areas where further work is desirable to improve our understanding of the structure and functioning of soil communities.},
	keywords = {biodiversity, burying beetles silphidae, coexistence, community ecology, competition, composition, Disturbance, Dung, ecological communities, forest, heterogeneity, maturity index, resource partitioning, soil communities, species, succe, temporal patterns},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://A1996TW70500002},
	author = {Giller, P. S.}
}
@article {2058,
	title = {Beetle fauna associated with scats of Brown bear (Ursos arctos) from Trysil, South Norway},
	journal = {Norwegian Journal of Entomology},
	volume = {23},
	year = {1976},
	note = {need copu},
	pages = {1-5},
	keywords = {carnivore, Dung, dung beetle, food resources mammals, mammal, Scarabaeinae},
	author = {Mysterud, I. , Wiger, R. , 1976. Beetle fauna associated with scats of and Brown bear (Ursus arctos) from Trysil, South Norway 1974. and Norwegian Journal of Entomology 23, 1{\textendash}5.}
}
@article {2095,
	title = {Intra- and interspecific aggregation among dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) in an Alpine pasture},
	journal = {Journal of Zoology},
	volume = {245},
	year = {1998},
	pages = {101-109},
	keywords = {aggregates, Dung, mate-finding, scarabeoid beetles},
	author = {Palestrini, Claudia and Barbero, Enrico and Rolando, Antonio}
}
@article {2136,
	title = {The effects of seasonal changes in cattle dung on egg production by two species of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarbaeidae) in south-western Australia},
	journal = {Bulletin of Entomological Research},
	volume = {76},
	year = {1986},
	note = {have copy},
	pages = {63-68},
	keywords = {Australia, Dung, dung beetle, ecosystem services, egg development, egg production, flies, function, Seasonality},
	author = {Ridsdill-Smith, T. J.}
}
@article {2192,
	title = {Arthropods associated with bovine and equine dung in an ungrazedChihuahuan desert ecosystem},
	journal = {Annals of the Entomological Society of America},
	volume = {76},
	year = {1983},
	note = {have copy of book},
	pages = {790-796},
	keywords = {Dung, dung beetle, food, mammals mammals, resources},
	author = {Schoenly, K}
}
@article {2250,
	title = {Effects of adding exotic dung beetles to native fauna on bush fly breeding in the field},
	journal = {Entomophaga},
	volume = {36},
	number = {3},
	year = {1991},
	pages = {395-401},
	abstract = {Egg to pupal survival of bush fly, Musca vetustissima Walker, under field conditions was examined during 1987/88 in an area of south-eastern Australia that had not been colonised by exotic dung beetles. In pads of cattle dung containing only the native fauna, fly survival ranged from 0.3 \% to 12.5 \%. The addition of 2 species of exotic dung beetles, Euoniticellus fulvus (Goeze) and Onthophagus taurus (Schreber) to field pads, in numbers similar to those observed at the collection site, reduced fly survival to between 0.3 \% and 4.4 \%. Fly survival in the presence of the native and exotic dung fauna was sufficiently low to keep fly },
	keywords = {control, Dung, exotic Scarabaeinae, Musca vetustissima, native},
	author = {Tyndale-Biscoe, M and Vogt, W. G.}
}
@article {2273,
	title = {Behavioral and morphological adaptations for a low-quality resource in semi-arid environments: dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) associated with the European rabbit (Oryctolagu cuniculus L.)},
	journal = {Journal of Natural History},
	volume = {38},
	number = {6},
	year = {2004},
	note = {digital and hard},
	pages = {705-715},
	keywords = {adaptation, arid ecosystem, Dung, dung beetle, endemism, mediterranean mammals, nesting behaviour, nesting pattern, rabbit},
	author = {Verdu, Jose and Galante, E.}
}
@article {2352,
	title = {Laboratory studies on the feeding behavior of the putative dung beetle, Ateuchus histeroides (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)},
	journal = {Journal of the New York Entomological Society},
	volume = {114},
	number = {3},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {157-169},
	abstract = {Abstract.{\textemdash}Through a series of laboratory feeding trials, it was demonstrated that the putative dung beetle, Ateuchus histeroides Weber (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), is a consumer of both vertebrate dung and insect carrion, and that it can produce progeny reared on either of those foods. There was no significant difference between the survival periods of adults maintained on either cow dung or dead insects, but both groups survived significantly longer than a group deprived of food. This is the first documentation of both dung and carrion feeding and subsequent progeny production for a member of this genus. },
	keywords = {Ateuchus histeroides, carrion, dead insects, Dung, longevity, progeny., Scarabaeidae, starvation},
	author = {Young, Orrey P.}
}
@article {1296,
	title = {Dung preference of the dung beetle Scarabaeus cristatus Fab (Coleoptera-Scarabaeidae) from Kuwait},
	journal = {Journal Of Arid Environments},
	volume = {35},
	number = {3},
	year = {1997},
	note = {digital copy},
	month = {Mar},
	pages = {511-516},
	abstract = {Adult dung beetles, Scarabaeus cristatus, consume the fluid components of dung and bury whole dung as food for their larvae. When dung from three herbivorous animals, horse, camel and sheep, was offered, the beetles preferred the more fluid horse dung to the others. Sheep dung was preferred to the camel dung. The dung of two carnivores, dog and fox, was also accepted but to a lesser extent than the herbivore dung.},
	keywords = {Dung, dung beetle, Kuwait, Scarabaeus cristatus},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://A1997WQ58300012 },
	author = {Al-Houty, Wasmia and Al-Musalam, Faten}
}
