THE HAM BEETLE, NECROBIA RUFIPES DE GEER 1 
By Perez Simmons, Associate Entomologist , and George W. Ellington, Junior 
Entomologist, Stored Product Insect Investigations, Bureau of Entomology, United 
States Department of Agriculture 
INTRODUCTION 
The principal species of insects and 
mites which damage smoked meats fall 
into two rather distinct groups: (1) 
Those that infest newly smoked, juicy 
meats—the cheese skipper (Piophila 
casei L.) and several species of blow¬ 
flies (Lucilia sericata Meig., etc.,); (2) 
those that infest meats which have be¬ 
come dried to some extent by evapora¬ 
tion during long storage or as a result 
of prolonged smoking, or both—the 
ham beetle (Necrobia rufipes De G.), 
the larder beetle (Dermestes lardarius 
L.), the leather beetle (Dermestes vul- 
pinus Fab.), and certain mites. The 
species described in this paper is the 
most important of the second group, 
and it is sporadically very injurious 
where smoked meats are stored for 
rather long periods. A large part of 
the expense of protecting cured meats 
with wrappings, sacks, and washes 
may properly be charged to this 
insect. 
Riley (24) 2 , who made the first 
economic investigation of the insect 
50 years ago, cited cases of extensive 
injury to hams in St. Louis and Boston. 
In the dispute arising because of the 
infested stocks at Boston the consignee 
claimed that the husk paper in which 
the consignor had wrapped the meat 
was likely to generate the worm. The 
referees of the case deposed, however, 
that “a warm, damp atmosphere and 
want of free circulation of air on the 
hams will produce or generate the 
worm in light-salted sugar-cured 
hams.” 
During the summer of 1921 a severe 
infestation developed in dry-cured 
Army bacon stored in crates at Balti¬ 
more and later at Washington. There 
were about 220,000 pounds of this 
bacon, and it was reconditioned by ex¬ 
tensive trimming, which in many 
cases reduced the weight of sides by 
75 per cent. 
Howard (16, p. 105-107) defined the 
status of the pest as it is at present 
when he stated, in 1902, that it is 
hardly a species which causes a con¬ 
stant drain on the trade, but occa¬ 
sionally becomes extremely abundant, 
ruining large quantities of cured meats. 
SYSTEMATIC POSITION, SYNONYMY 
This species is the most injurious of 
the coleopterous family Cleridae, the 
larvae of which are typically pre¬ 
dacious and often beneficial as enemies 
of economic insects, including the to¬ 
bacco beetle (Lasioderma serricorne 
Fab.) and many species which attack 
forOQT tt*ppq 
De Geer (12, p. 165 ) published the 
original description as Clerus rufipes in 
1775. In 1796 Latreille (18, p. 35) 
erected the genus Necrobia. Mulsant 
and Rey (22, p. 122-124), who placed 
the species in the genus Agonolia, 
listed Clerus rufipes De Geer, Oliv., 
Dermestes rufipes Fab., Corynetes rufipes 
Herbst., etc., Necrobia rufipes Oliv., 
etc., as indicating the four genera to 
which the present species had been 
referred: 
The following specific references (27, 
p. 142-143) are synonymous with 
rufipes: 
amethystina Steph., 1832, Ill. Brit. Ent. 5:417; 
Klug, 1842, Clerii, Phys. Abh. K. Akad. 
Wiss. Berlin for 1840, p. 394. 
dermestoides Pill, et Mitterp., 1783, It. Poseg., 
p. 68, pi. 7, fig. 8. 
foveicollis Schklg., 1900, Mitt. Nat. Mus. Ham¬ 
burg 17: 20. 
glabra Champollion, 1814, Millin Mag. Encycl. 
3: 44; 1902, Schenkling, Bui. Mus. d’Hist. 
Nat. 8:332. 
mumiarumHope, 1834, Pettigrew, Hist. Egypt. 
Mum., p. 54, pi. 5, figs. 1-3; Schenkling, 
op. cit., p. 332. 
pilifera Reitt., 1894, Verh. Nat. Ver. Briinn 
32: 85; Abeille, 1895, Bui. Soc. Ent. 
France 1: 208. 
COMMON NAMES 
The common name “ red-legged ham 
beetle” was given to the insect by 
Riley (24) in 1874. An article in the 
Yearbook of the United States Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture for 1907 (1, p. 552) 
referred to the pest as the “ham 
beetle.” Dealers in meats know the 
insect by the name “paper worm.” 
1 Received for publication April 22, 1924; issued June, 1925. 
2 Reference is made by number (italic) to “Literature cited,” p. 863. 
Journal of Agricultural Research, 
Washington, D. C. 
( 845 ) 
Vol. XXX, No. 9 
May 1, 1925 
Key No. K-148 
