Updated List of Oklahoma Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) with Notes on Their Distribution and Conservation Status

Abstract

Tiger beetles are a family of predatory beetles characterized by their large eyes, long legs, and often bright colors. While popular with researchers, insect collectors, and photographers, the distribution of species in Oklahoma remains relatively understudied. Recently, three species were added to the state list, bringing the total to 39 species, the third highest in the United States. Knowledge of a species’ distribution is often characterized at the county level in the United States, with Oklahoma having 77 counties. Using collection records and community science submissions, we increased the number of documented county records 68%, from 461 to 776. In addition to reporting the county-level distributions for each species in the state, we discuss the utility of community science platforms for documenting species distribution records. We also present habitats that are utilized by these species, the subspecific taxonomy of populations in Oklahoma, and how anthropogenic changes are differentially affecting species distributions. Substantial range expansions for many southern species into the state suggest potential for tiger beetles to serve as indicators of warming temperatures.

1. Introduction

Tiger beetles (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae) are a family of beetles that are closely related to ground beetles, family Carabidae [1]. While some species are nocturnal, many species are diurnal, brightly colored, and fast-moving predators. Because of their bright coloration, elusive behaviors, variability, and the ease with which many North American species can be identified, tiger beetles are a popular taxon of study for many amateur and professional entomologists [2]. Tiger beetle communities have been utilized as models for studying resource partitioning [3,4,5], biogeography [6,7,8], and insect physiology [9,10]. Most tiger beetle species require specific habitats, often associated with bare ground, and many species are at risk of extinction as anthropogenic disturbances and climate changes threaten these habitats [11,12].

In the United States, there are approximately 125 species of tiger beetles, with 39 of these occurring in the state of Oklahoma [13]. This is the third highest total of currently recognized species of any U.S. state, following Texas (65 spp.) and New Mexico (45 spp.). Oklahoma, which is divided into 77 counties (Figure 1), has an east–west moisture gradient with a heavily forested eastern edge of the state and arid shortgrass prairie at the western end of the Panhandle (Cimarron, Texas, and Beaver Counties). As a result of this gradient and location near the center of North America, Oklahoma contains many species at the eastern or western edges of their respective ranges, which contributes to Oklahoma’s high diversity. The presence of so many edge-of-range species in Oklahoma allows investigation of how insect ranges may shift in response to changes in climate. However, insect distribution in Oklahoma remains understudied. Oklahoma has no unique tiger beetle taxa, unlike the adjacent states of Texas [6,14], New Mexico [4] and Colorado [15], and thus tiger beetle collectors have had less motivation to visit the state when all its species occur elsewhere, closer to unique endemic taxa.

The first study to thoroughly document tiger beetles in Oklahoma reported 325 records of 26 currently recognized species [16]. At the time, Cicindela denverensis was classified as a subspecies of Cicindela splendida, and Dromochorus pruininus and Ellipsoptera macra were regarded as D. belfragei and E. cuprascens, respectively. Willis added 110 additional county records while conducting a regional survey of saline-associated tiger beetles [8] and was the first to document occurrences of E. macra and E. cuprascens in Oklahoma and described the subspecies Cicindela willistoni hirtifrons Willis, 1967. Recent records tended to come from surveys of specific regions, such as Fort Sill in Comanche County [17], or studies based on specific taxa, including Dromochorus [14], Cicindelidia politula [18], and Parvindela celeripes [19]. Most recently, three new tiger beetles were documented in the state [13], which brought the species total to 39. Combining these sources, we documented 461 county records of tiger beetles in the literature.

Between 2019 and 2025, we conducted field surveys and examined museum records to document unpublished county-level records. We then compared new records to previous records to examine trends among taxa and assessed species that are rare, or potentially declining, in Oklahoma. The objectives of this study were to gain a better understanding of the distributions of tiger beetle species in Oklahoma, identify threats facing rare and declining species, and examine how the proportion of new records varied by life history characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

New county records were obtained through specimen collection, examining museum records, and exploring iNaturalist, a community science database. Specimens were collected by the first author, AJH, from 2019 to 2024, during which an effort was made to collect all the tiger beetle species that occurred in Oklahoma. This corresponded with a statewide grasshopper survey [20], during which many of the habitats visited, such as exposed clay, sand dunes, and saline flats, were also habitats favored by tiger beetles (Figure 2). Additional collecting took place during studies conducted in the Ozark Mountains of eastern Oklahoma and on personal collecting trips throughout the state. Specimens were deposited in the collection of the first author, which currently resides at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Additionally, previously collected specimens were examined from the K.C. Emerson Entomology Museum (OSEC, two unpublished records of 2 species) at Oklahoma State University, the Snow Entomological Museum (SEMC, four unpublished records of 3 species) at the University of Kansas, and the Sam Noble Museum at the University of Oklahoma (OMNH, nine unpublished records of 7 species). Observations posted to the community platform iNaturalist include a photo of an organism, as well as the time and place where it was observed. As nearly all tiger beetles in Oklahoma can be readily identified from photographs, we felt that these were sufficient to document the county-level occurrences of species in the state, as has been performed previously [13,21,22]. However, differentiating Ellipsoptera macra from E. cuprascens is sufficiently challenging enough to warrant uncertainty, so only photographs that included the posterior elytra tips of females are reported.

All 5005 iNaturalist records of tiger beetles that were reported in Oklahoma by 24 May 2025 were verified by the first author to ensure the accuracy of the identification and the precision of the geographic location. A Washington County record of Cicindela duodecimguttata was excluded, as the level of precision surrounding the location was large enough that it included portions of Osage County. In instances where a species has a new county record that is represented both in collection data and on iNaturalist, the presence of a voucher specimen gives precedence to the collected record.

3. Results

From 2019 to 2025, we documented 315 new county records of tiger beetles in Oklahoma, bringing the total number of county records to 776, a 68% increase. Nearly all (37/39) species had at least one new county record, and the two species that did not, Amblycheila picolominii and Cicindelidia sedecimpunctata, were species that were only recently documented in Oklahoma [13].

The highest proportion of new county records were all species in the genus Cicindelidia, including C. trifasciata (16 new records/17 total records), C. rufiventris (14/16), C. tenuisignata (7/8), and C. ocellata (7/8). Species with the fewest new county records tended to be those that are associated with the saline habitats surveyed by Willis [8], including Cicindela tranquebarica (8/38), Ellipsoptera cuprascens (5/38), and Eunota johnsonii (2/27).

As with any evaluation of species distribution records, county totals were heavily influenced by both biogeographical and anthropogenic factors. While the average number of species per county was 10, the highest county total was 21 species found in Comanche County (Figure 3). This county lacks major rivers but contains multiple large reservoirs, Fort Sill, which received intensive study by Schmidt [17], and the Wichita Mountains, which include a mix of both southwestern and eastern fauna [20,23]. The second highest counties were Payne and Tulsa Counties, with 20 species each. Payne County, being the location of Oklahoma State University and its Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, has received some of the most thorough entomological attention of any county in the state. Tulsa County has a high human population but had received comparatively little collection effort. However, the many regular iNaturalist users contributed records of 8 of the 16 new records. Both Payne and Tulsa counties contain forested and open habitats, and both have major rivers that pass through, contributing to tiger beetle diversity.

Cimarron and Woodward both had 19 species, with many western species occurring at Lake Carl Etling and Lake Fort Supply in their respective counties, while Alfalfa, Cleveland, and Muskogee Counties all had 18 species. All 18 species in Alfalfa County were observed in the vicinity of Great Salt Plains, a large saline lake that has the highest species diversity of any one site in Oklahoma, while Cleveland County has had considerable collecting by students at the University of Oklahoma. AJH spent a cumulative two months working in Muskogee County from 2019 to 2024 and thus was able to collect a few uncommon species, such as Ellipsoptera lepida and Cicindelidia schauppii, that would have likely gone unnoticed otherwise.

Counties with the fewest records tended to be concentrated in either the northeastern quadrant of the state, such as Nowata (one sp.), Rogers (three spp.) and Craig (four spp.) Counties, or in the southeastern quadrant, such as Coal (two spp.), Pushmataha (three spp.), and Atoka (four spp.) Counties (Figure 3). The southeastern counties are heavily forested and lack major rivers, as does Craig County. Nowata and Rogers Counties, however, split Oologah Lake, and collecting along its shoreline would likely provide many more records to both counties. Outliers to these trends include Cotton and Washita Counties, which both had only four species and are in the western half of the state. While Washita County lacks major rivers, collecting along Clinton Lake and at gypsum outcrops should provide additional species. The lack of records from Cotton County is remarkable given its location along the Red River, and its actual species total is likely more similar to Tillman County (nine spp.) to its west.

4. Discussion

The usefulness of iNaturalist data in documenting these records cannot be understated. Five years of intensive tiger beetle collecting in Oklahoma by AJH produced 122 new records, while iNaturalist produced 181. In many counties, the majority of new records, and even the majority of records in general, were gleaned from observations submitted to iNaturalist. Lincoln County, for example, had zero correctly determined county records prior to this study, despite being directly south of Payne County, which had 17. Now, there are nine species documented from Lincoln County, seven of which came from iNaturalist data.

Since 2000, county-level tiger beetle distribution updates have been published for several U.S. states, including Wisconsin [21], South Carolina [24,25], and Nebraska [26,27]. The South Carolina updates reported 13 [24] and 34 [25] novel records but did not specify the number of previously published county records, so we are unable to compare the percent increase that resulted from these publications. The first Nebraska update reported 211 novel records, a 46% increase, from 1989 to 2005 [26], while the second update provided another 53 novel records in 2005 [27]. These reports were based exclusively on specimen records. The Wisconsin update, which is the first of which we are aware to incorporate community science data, reported 61 novel records, a 14% increase [21]. In contrast, the 315 new county records in Oklahoma, representing a 68% increase, were substantially higher than reported in other states, even when combining the multiple South Carolina and Nebraska studies. This highlights the lack of historical sampling in Oklahoma and reveals the potential of community science to greatly increase scientific records.

While nearly all species had at least one new county record, some species tended to have more than others. Nocturnal species, Amblycheila and Tetracha spp., had many new county records, undoubtedly resulting from the difficulty of finding nocturnal, flightless insects that do not fly to lights. While Amblycheila usually occur in sparsely populated areas, the presence of Tetracha in lawns, parking lots, and other areas frequented by people makes them readily noticed by the general public and therefore well-represented on community science platforms.

Southern species with high dispersal abilities, such as Cicindelidia trifasciata, C. ocellata, and C. tenuisignata, also had high proportions of new records. This is likely because of northward expansion in response to changing climate conditions rather than being a result of previous survey efforts, as both species are distinctive and occur in regularly surveyed habitats, including riverbanks and salt flats. Under warming conditions, we would expect these species to continue to be found further north and to successfully colonize regions where they currently are reported as vagrants.

While anthropogenic disturbances may allow some species of tiger beetles to expand their ranges, other species are likely becoming less abundant. Populations of dune obligate tiger beetles, such as Ellipsoptera lepida and Cicindela lengi, appear substantially reduced in the Panhandle, likely as a result of reduced sand erosion and deposition. Similarly, Cicindela hirticollis, Ellipsoptera macra or E. cuprascens have been recently recorded in the Panhandle, likely due to the drying of the Beaver River. While these species may be common elsewhere in their ranges, some species have been lost from most historic areas of occurrence. Currently, no tiger beetle species that occur in Oklahoma are recognized as being threatened or endangered at the federal level; however, three species, Ellipsoptera lepida, Dromochorus belfragei, and Parvindela celeripes, are recognized as being “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation [28].

Many of the largest remaining populations of Parvindela celeripes are likely located in Oklahoma. While their gypsum outcropping habitat remains relatively undisturbed by human activity, we could expect that environmental factors, such as higher temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns resulting from climate change, would have a higher impact on flightless taxa, including P. celeripes. As tiger beetle populations already face detrimental impacts from many sources [29], higher temperatures resulting from anthropogenic climate change will likely alter the magnitude of these stressors.

New records and species notes are discussed below. Species accounts are listed alphabetically. Taxonomy follows Pearson et al. [30] except where updates have been made [6,31,32]. As many described subspecies have broad intergrade zones in Oklahoma, we did not assign records to subspecies. However, where appropriate, subspecies distributions are discussed in the species accounts, particularly where our observations contradict published range maps. The number of novel county records and the number of total county records follow the species name in parentheses, e.g., (18, 30). New county records are listed and followed by notes on abundance, habitat characteristics, and other information relevant to the species’ occurrence in Oklahoma. Habitat preferences were largely based on personal experience in the field but were also supplemented with the information presented in Pearson et al. [30]. Unreported museum records appear in normal font, while novel collection records appear in bold and new photographic records based on iNaturalist observations appear in italics. Complete county maps for each species are located in Appendix A.

• Species Accounts
• Amblycheila cylindriformis (Say, 1823) (four novel records, five total records)
• New records: Beckham, Cimarron, Greer, Woods
• Notes: Amblycheila cylindriformis is known from the western half of Oklahoma, where it is typically associated with sloping clay banks. It is likely more widespread throughout Oklahoma, but its nocturnal habits make detection difficult.

• Amblycheila picolominii Reiche, 1840 (0, 2)
• New records: N/A
• Notes: This species was recently documented from Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area in southwest Oklahoma, where it cooccurs with A. cylindriformis [13]. Although difficult to detect because of its nocturnal habits, it likely has a limited range in Oklahoma.

• Cicindela denverensis Casey, 1897 (three, five)
• New records: Cimarron, Harper, Texas
• Notes: Uncommon, but its apparent rarity in collections is likely affected by the unpredictable weather of the Oklahoma Panhandle in early spring and late fall, when the species is active. Found on roadcuts and other areas of sloping, bare ground. The historical record from Bryan County is unlikely and may be a misidentified green morph of Cicindela splendida.

• Cicindela duodecimguttata Dejean, 1825 (18, 30)
• New records: Alfalfa, Beckham, Carter, Cherokee, Creek, Delaware, Dewey, Lincoln, McClain, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Osage, Pawnee, Pottawatomie, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner, Woodward
• Notes: While usually encountered in small numbers, C. duodecimguttata is regularly found in moist habitats, typically associated with clay or mud. In moist sandy habitats, Cicindela repanda is the dominant species.

• Cicindela formosa Say, 1817 (20, 34)
• New records: Beckham, Blaine, Caddo, Comanche, Creek, Custer, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Grant, Harmon, Haskell, Jackson, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Major, Marshall, Oklahoma, Roger Mills, Tulsa
• Notes: Found in upland sandy areas throughout Oklahoma, usually in more open patches of sand than Cicindela scutellaris or C. tranquebarica. While range maps show it to be absent from the eastern quarter of the state [30], its presence in Haskell County at the Lake Eufaula Dam suggests that it likely ranges further east along the Canadian and Arkansas Rivers.

• Cicindela fulgida Say, 1823 (two, nine)
• New records: Texas, Woodward
• Notes: In contrast to other saline-associated species in Oklahoma, C. fulgida is usually found amongst vegetation at the edges of salt flats. It is not usually found on sand but has been recently photographed by Ian Kanda on sand along the Red River in southwestern Oklahoma (Texas County).

• Cicindela hirticollis Say, 1817 (14, 42)
• New records: Bryan, Choctaw, Dewey, Jackson, Kiowa, McIntosh, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Pawnee, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington
• Notes: Cicindela hirticollis has experienced precipitous declines in response to human disturbance in parts of its range [33,34]. However, it remains fairly common and widespread in Oklahoma, even at sites that are frequently disturbed. It is most abundant on river sandbars but can be common on the beaches of large reservoirs and even on moist salt flats.

• Cicindela lengi Horn, 1908 (one, two)
• New records: Beaver
• Notes: This species was formerly collected from Beaver Dunes, Beaver County, and the vicinity of Kenton and Felt, in Cimarron County. It was most recently collected in 1990 by David Brzoska, who took a large series north and east of Kenton. However, the drying of rivers in the Panhandle, which prevents the deposition of new sand deposits, and the stabilization of existing dunes by vegetation have reduced the amount of available habitat. The only extensive unvegetated dunes are at Beaver Dunes State Park, which remain open because of use by off-road vehicles. Surveys for Cicindela lengi conducted at historical and potential sites in May 2023 and September 2024 failed to find this species, though Cicindela formosa and C. scutellaris were abundant.

• Cicindela limbalis Klug, 1834 (one, two)
• New records: Delaware
• Notes: The first documented record of C. limbalis in Oklahoma occurred when multiple individuals were photographed in Mayes County by Robert Webster, although that site may have since been lost to development [13]. Luckily, the presence of two specimens in the SEMC, collected in Delaware County in 1980 by David Brzoska, suggests that they are more widespread in northeastern Oklahoma and may still be present.

• Cicindela pulchra Say, 1823 (one, six)
• New records: Major
• Notes: This species is found on large, flat patches of bare clay (Figure 4), usually in grasslands without any trees nearby. Its activity is generally tied to recent rainfall, so it can be difficult to find under dry conditions. Recent records are from the areas surrounding Gloss Mountain and Black Mesa State Parks.

• Cicindela purpurea Olivier, 1790 (one, two)
• New records: Ellis
• Notes: Despite being a common species in the northern Great Plains, C. purpurea is rather uncommon in Oklahoma. All recent records come from the Four Canyon Preserve in Ellis County and the surrounding clay roads. Specimens from this population would seem to represent the nominate subspecies, as no black morphs were noted out of 25 specimens collected and many more observed. The middle band was also substantially reduced compared to specimens of C. p. audubonii LeConte collected in Nebraska.

• Cicindela repanda Dejean, 1825 (15, 65)
• New records: Canadian, Cherokee, Custer, Haskell, Lincoln, Mayes, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Pushmataha, Roger Mills, Tillman, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington
• Notes: This species is found anywhere that standing water is adjacent to bare ground, though it is most common in sandy areas, such as beaches and sandbars. It likely occurs in every county in the state.

• Cicindela scutellaris Say, 1823 (22, 44)
• New records: Beaver, Beckham, Creek, Ellis, Grady, Greer, Haskell, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Lincoln, Love, Marshall, McIntosh, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, Roger Mills, Sequoyah, Texas, Tulsa, Woodward
• Notes: This species is associated with upland sand deposits, though it is often found in close proximity to rivers. The subspecific classification of populations in Oklahoma is a matter of debate. Pearson et al. [30] depicts the majority of the state as belonging to the nominate subspecies, with influence from C. s. rugata Vaurie, 1950, in the southeast and C. s. lecontei Haldeman, 1853, in the northeast. However, there are no records of C. s. rugata from further north than Wood County, TX, approximately 100 km south of populations along the Red River. However, there seems to be a continuous blending of C. s. flavoviridis Vaurie, 1950, with the nominate subspecies throughout Oklahoma. The vast majority of the state appears to be within an intergrade zone between ssp. scutellaris and ssp. flavoviridis (Figure 5), while counties along the western edge of the state and the panhandle represent nominate C. s. scutellaris. There are no known specimens from the northeastern corner of the state, so the influence of C. s. lecontei is unknown. Melanistic individuals have been photographed twice for a population near Tulsa by Jay Pruett.

• Cicindela sexguttata Fabricius, 1775 (32, 53)
• New records: Adair, Blaine, Canadian, Cherokee, Cotton, Creek, Delaware, Grady, Haskell, Johnson, Kiowa, Lincoln, Logan, Major, Marshall, Mayes, McIntosh, Muskogee, Noble, Nowata, Okfuskee, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Roger Mills, Rogers, Stephens, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington, Woodward
• Notes: This species is common throughout the eastern half of the state, where it can be found on bare ground in wooded habitats.

• Cicindela splendida Hentz, 1830 (17, 33)
• New records: Atoka, Carter, Cherokee, Creek, Haskell, Lincoln, Mayes, Muskogee, Noble, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Texas, Tulsa, Wagoner
• Notes: While C. splendida is associated with bare clay throughout much of its range, it is surprisingly absent from much of western Oklahoma, where red clay is the dominant soil type. In Oklahoma, it seems to prefer sandy or gravelly clay over pure clay, which likely becomes too hard for the larvae to burrow into or may not offer enough protection during warm summer months.

• Cicindela tranquebarica Herbst, 1806 (8, 38)
• New records: Creek, Ellis, Love, Oklahoma, Pittsburg, Roger Mills, Tulsa, Wagoner
• Notes: This species is usually associated with bare, upland sand in the eastern half of Oklahoma but can also be abundant on saline flats and along water in the western half of the state. Specimens from Alfalfa County tend to have thinner maculations than those from Wisconsin. However, individuals near the Black Mesa region of Cimarron County have the wider maculations associated with C. t. kirbyi LeConte, 1867. Individuals in the Tulsa area occasionally have strongly reduced maculations, with rare individuals exhibiting only a transverse dash for a middle band and a reduced apical lunule (Figure 6).

• Cicindela willistoni LeConte, 1879 (one, four)
• New records: Blaine
• Notes: This species is the most specialized of the salt flat tiger beetles in Oklahoma and thus has the most limited range. The best-documented population occurs at Great Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge in Alfalfa County. However, access to the other large saline flats in Oklahoma is restricted, and this species could occupy those as well.

• Cicindelidia nigrocoerulea (LeConte, 1846) (one, one)
• New records: Cimarron
• Notes: This species has been collected near Black Mesa and photographed by R.J. Baltierra in Black Mesa State Park at the northwest corner of Cimarron County. It is usually found near water, often on moist mud.

• Cicindelidia obsoleta (Say, 1823) (one, eight)
• New records: Roger Mills
• Notes: Usually associated with dirt trails in the panhandle (ssp. obsoleta) and with rock outcroppings elsewhere (ssp. vulturina LeConte, 1853). While not depicted in Pearson et al. [30] or Mawdsley [35], the occurrence of C. o. vulturina in Pittsburg and McCurtain counties in southeast Oklahoma suggests that geographically intermediate populations occur between its main range in Texas and the disjunct populations in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas and Missouri. Populations usually reach peak abundance following heavy rain in late summer.

• Cicindelidia ocellata (Klug, 1834) (seven, eight)
• New records: Bryan, Choctaw, Cimarron, Greer, Harmon, Marshall, Tillman
• Notes: This species is usually associated with water, including roadside ditches, beaches, and muddy sandbars. It is primarily known from the southernmost counties in Oklahoma, but recent records at Black Mesa State Park demonstrate this species’ ability to occur further north, potentially having dispersed in response to climate.

• Cicindelidia politula (LeConte, 1875) (two, five)
• New records: Comanche, Murray
• Notes: This species is usually associated with limestone gravel in the south-central portion of Oklahoma, often on road banks or gravel trails (Figure 7). Compared to other tiger beetles, it seems to occur at relatively low densities.

• Cicindelidia punctulata (Olivier, 1790) (12, 72)
• New records: Bryan, Canadian, Cotton, Lincoln, Mayes, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washita
• Notes: This species is common on bare ground throughout Oklahoma, from sand dunes and saline flats to parking lots. While green forms are most common in the Panhandle, they occur throughout the state, and greenish individuals have been noted as far east as Murray and Wagoner counties.

• Cicindelidia rufiventris (Dejean, 1825) (14, 16)
• New records: Adair, Cherokee, Cleveland, Delaware, Latimer, LeFlore, Lincoln, Muskogee, Noble, Oklahoma, Payne, Pittsburg, Pottawatomie, Tulsa
• Notes: This species typically occurs on partially shaded trails, where it is often associated with either limestone or sandy soil. Populations in the Ouachita Mountains of southeast Oklahoma tend to show strong C. r. cumatilis (LeConte, 1851) influence, with minimal maculations and blue coloring, while populations to the north and west generally have mixed phenotypes.

• Cicindelidia schauppii (Horn, 1876) (four, nine)
• New records: Creek, Muskogee, Tillman, Tulsa
• Notes: This species seems to be associated with gravelly or sandy soil, like C. rufiventris but without any tree cover. It has a scattered range throughout the state. The distribution suggests vagrant individuals, but four specimens were collected together at the Muskogee County site, and beetles were observed at the Creek County site in 2019, 2022, and 2024.

• Cicindelidia sedecimpunctata (Klug, 1834) (0, 1)
• New records: N/A
• Notes: This species is known from the vicinity of Black Mesa and Black Mesa State Park in Cimarron County, Oklahoma. See Harman et al. [13] for more details.

• Cicindelidia tenuisignata (LeConte, 1851) (seven, eight)
• New records: Cimarron, Jackson, Kiowa, Latimer, Marshall, Oklahoma, Woodward
• Notes: Cicindelidia tenuisignata is found primarily near water in southwestern Oklahoma but has been collected as far north as Nebraska [27], so it could potentially be found anywhere in the state. The recent record from Latimer County, collected at Robbers Cave State Park, is one of the easternmost records of this species.

• Cicindelidia trifasciata (Fabricius, 1781) (16, 17)
• New records: Alfalfa, Cleveland, Haskell, Kiowa, Marshall, Mayes, McCurtain, McIntosh, Muskogee, Noble, Oklahoma, Payne, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner
• Notes: This species, which is noted for its dispersal abilities [30], has shown the most dramatic range increase in Oklahoma of all tiger beetle species. It has been found in nearly every region of the state, except the Panhandle, and is commonly found along shores of lakes, ponds, and rivers.

• Dromochorus belfragei Sallé, 1877 (6, 10)
• New records: Cleveland, Greer, Kiowa, Washita
• Notes: D. belfragei is found in the southern half of Oklahoma, where it usually occurs in grasslands and shrublands with patches of bare soil, though the records from Washita County were collected at the edge of a crop field. The record from Lincoln County [16] has been reassigned to D. pruininus.

• Dromochorus pruininus Casey, 1897 (two, three)
• New records: Lincoln, Payne
• Notes: Most recent specimens of D. pruininus have come from Gloss Mountain State Park (Figure 8), but given its scattered records throughout the northern half of the state and its occurrence in northern Texas, it is likely more widespread than records indicate. Its small size, flightlessness, and crepuscular occurrence make detection difficult.

• Ellipsoptera cuprascens (LeConte, 1852) (4, 38)
• New records: Bryan, Ellis, Muskogee, Wagoner
• Notes: This species is commonly found along rivers, large lakes, and occasionally salt flats, though it tends to be most abundant on large sandbars. It is a good disperser and can be collected at lights that are over 10 km away from appropriate habitat. Drew and Cleave [16] reported records of E. cuprascens from Mayes, Noble, and Pottawatomie Counties, but these are currently excluded as it is unknown whether these referred to E. cuprascens or E. macra.

• Ellipsoptera lepida (Dejean, 1831) (7, 22)
• New records: Cleveland, Logan, Love, Marshall, Muskogee, Pawnee, Tulsa
• Notes: Ellipsoptera lepida is usually associated with dry, upland sandy habitats, although it can occasionally be collected along rivers where sandbars are sufficiently high enough to avoid regular flooding. Like E. cuprascens, it is commonly attracted to lights at night, and so occurrence records may not be indicative of the presence of viable populations. Like Cicindela lengi, this species has likely been lost from sites in the Panhandle, where an increase in vegetation cover and a decrease in river flow have simultaneously reduced available habitat and decreased the creation of new habitat.

• Ellipsoptera macra (LeConte, 1856) (5, 38)
• New records: Kay, Muskogee, Tillman, Tulsa, Wagoner
• Notes: This species is often found in the same habitats as E. cuprascens, with which it often cooccurs. E. cuprascens seems more tolerant of muddy substrates, while E. macra prefers sand. The subspecies distribution in Oklahoma is interesting, as populations in the northeast appear to be the nominate subspecies, while those in the southern and western parts of the state are assigned to E. m. fluviatilis (Vaurie, 1951). In our experience, specimens collected along the Arkansas River bear a closer resemblance to the nominate subspecies, but elsewhere this species shows the wider maculations and redder coloration associated with E. m. fluviatilis.

• Ellipsoptera nevadica (LeConte, 1875) (6, 18)
• New records: Blaine, Dewey, Ellis, Harmon, Harper, Texas
• Notes: This species is commonly found on open salt flats and along saline rivers, where it usually occurs near the edge of the water where the ground is saturated. It is commonly attracted to lights at night, where it can be observed in high numbers.

• Eunota johnsonii (Fitch, 1857) (2, 27)
• New records: Jefferson, Texas
• Notes: Eunota johnsonii is usually found on open salt flats, although it is also found along sandbars of some of the more saline rivers, such as the Red and Cimarron Rivers, much like Ellipsoptera nevadica. Most populations in Oklahoma are dominated by reddish individuals that match the surrounding clay, but an isolated population near Tulsa has a higher proportion of green and blue individuals.

• Eunota globicollis (Casey, 1913) (3, 13)
• New records: Texas, Tillman, Woodward
  Notes: Like E. johnsonii, E. togata is found primarily on open salt flats but does not occur as regularly along rivers and does not go as far east as E. johnsonii. The population in Texas County occurs on an artificial salt flat, which was inadvertently formed when the Beaver River was dammed to create Optima Reservoir. As the river dried up, so did the lake, and the resulting salt flat was subsequently colonized by the usual guild of saline-associated species, E. togata, E. johnsonii, Ellipsoptera nevadica, and Cicindela fulgida. The creation of this habitat accounts for the novel Texas county records for all four species.

• Jundlandia lemniscata (LeConte, 1854) (one, one)
• New records: Texas
• Notes: This species has been photographed at one site near Fulton Creek and has been found in multiple years (2021, 2024) at Optima Lake. At both sites, it was associated with gravel. It is easily overlooked because of its small size and passing resemblance to ants, Pogonomyrmex spp.

• Parvindela celeripes (LeConte, 1846) (one, five)
• New records: Washita
• Notes: This small, flightless species is typically found amongst gypsum outcrops in Oklahoma (Figure 9). While it is uncommon and declining throughout much of its range (MacRae & Brown 2011), it can still be abundant where it occurs in Oklahoma.

• Tetracha carolina (Linnaeus, 1763) (27, 36)
• New records: Adair, Alfalfa, Atoka, Caddo, Carter, Choctaw, Cimarron, Creek, Custer, Garfield, Greer, Johnston, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Logan, Love, Major, Mayes, Muskogee, Noble, Oklahoma, Pawnee, Roger Mills, Stephens, Tulsa, Wagoner, Woodward
• Notes: This species is found in a variety of open habitats but is often found in high numbers near water. It can also be common around lights at night, where it feeds on the other insects that are attracted. This species is also frequently trapped in in-ground pools.

• Tetracha virginica (Linnaeus, 1767) (30, 43)
• New records: Adair, Atoka, Beckham, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coal, Creek, Garfield, Grady, Johnston, LeFlore, Lincoln, Logan, Love, Major, Mayes, Muskogee, Noble, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Roger Mills, Rogers, Seminole, Stephens, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington, Washita, Woodward
• Notes: This species, like T. carolina, is found in a wide variety of open habitats, from lawns and parking lots to prairies. Unlike T. carolina, it is not associated with moist environments and can be found in xeric glades in the Ozark Mountains and in dry grasslands away from water.