Biology, images, analysis, design...
Aphids Find them How to ID AphidBlog
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important" (Sherlock Holmes)

Search this site

Aphidinae : Macrosiphini : Uroleucon taraxaci


Uroleucon taraxaci

Bronze-brown dandelion aphid

On this page: Identification & Distribution Biology & Ecology Other aphids on the same host

Identification & Distribution:

Adult apterae of Uroleucon taraxaci are shining dark bronze-brown. The antennae and legs (except for the femoral bases) are black. Dorsal abdominal hairs are mostly placed on dark scleroites, which are black and numerous and sometimes merged together. Antesiphuncular and post-siphuncular sclerites are either absent or very small. The rather short and thick cauda is black like the siphunculi, and bears 8-12 hairs. The body length of the adult Uroleucon taraxaci aptera is 2.5-3.8 mm.

The clarified slide mounts below are of adult viviparous female Uroleucon taraxaci : wingless, and winged.

Micrographs of clarified mounts by permission of Roger Blackman, copyright AWP all rights reserved.

The bronze-brown dandelion aphid is seldom seen as, unlike most members of the genus, it is light-averse. It lives on leaf undersides and basal leaf parts of of dandelion (Taraxacum spp.) near ground level. Uroleucon taraxaci is found in Britain, throughout continental Europe, parts of Asia, and has been introduced to North America.


Biology & Ecology:

Uroleucon taraxaci is strongly photophobic. The two colonies we have found were located on the basal parts of the leaves of dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) growing in shaded situations. One of those colonies is shown below.

The youngest immatures are usually spaced out along the youngest leaves of the dandelion (as below).

The images below are of fourth instar immatures, the first being a future aptera and the second being a future alate.


The cauda of the fourth instar is short and triangular, but the adult (see picture below) has a short finger-like cauda.

The often partly-concealed location of the colony makes accumulation of honeydew droplets a potential problem because of bacterial growth. Some aphids flick honeydew away with their cauda (Blackman, 1974), but this would probably not be possible with such a short cauda. The problem is solved for many aphids by ant attendance, but Uroleucon aphids are not usually attended by ants (but see Tido (2002) below). The bronze-brown dandelion aphid sometimes uses an alternative method to prevent accumulation of honeydew - it kicks the droplets away with its back legs. The aphid shown below has just kicked a droplet outside the frame of this picture.

van Emden (2013) notes that many aphid species "kick honeydew droplets that form at the anus away from themselves to land elsewhere on the plant or fall to the ground." Tido (2002) found a very large colony on the undersides of leaves and leaf bases of dandelion. Unlike the colony we found (and unusually for Uroleucon), it was attended by ants.

There is nothing in the literature about natural enemies of Uroleucon taraxaci, but the colony we observed (in captivity) was eventually eliminated by Aphidoletes larvae that hatched from eggs deposited prior to our finding this aphid colony. The first image below shows a yellowish Aphidoletes larva moving in for the kill, and the second shows the aphid nymph being held in the air by the midge larva shortly thereafter.


One noticeable aspect of the behaviour of the bronze-brown dandelion aphid is that the aphids drop off the plant at the slightest disturbance. Such predator escape mechanisms are quite common with aphids, often in response to release of the aphid alarm pheromone (E)-beta-farnesene (EBF) (Bowers et al., 1972).


Other aphids on same host:

Uroleucon taraxaci has been recorded from 5 Taraxacum species (Taraxacum dens-leonis,Taraxacum kok-saghyz, Taraxacum officinale, Taraxacum serotinum, Taraxacum vulgare).


Whilst we make every effort to ensure that identifications are correct, we cannot absolutely warranty their accuracy. We have mostly made identifications from high resolution photos of living specimens, along with host plant identity. In the great majority of cases, identifications have been confirmed by microscopic examination of preserved specimens. We have used the keys and species accounts of Blackman & Eastop (1994) and Blackman & Eastop (2006) supplemented with Blackman (1974), Stroyan (1977), Stroyan (1984), Blackman & Eastop (1984), Heie (1980-1995), Dixon & Thieme (2007) and Blackman (2010). We fully acknowledge these authors as the source for the (summarized) taxonomic information we have presented. Any errors in identification or information are ours alone, and we would be very grateful for any corrections. For assistance on the terms used for aphid morphology we suggest the figure provided by Blackman & Eastop (2006).

Useful weblinks


  • Blackman, R. (1974). Aphids. Ginn, London.

  • Bowers, W.S. et al. (1972). Aphid alarm pheromone: isolation, identification, synthesis. Science 177, 1121-1122.

  • Tido, T. (2002). New records of aphids (Homoptera, Aphidodea) from Estonia. Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci. Biol. Ecol. 51(2), 124-137. Full text

  • van Emden, H.F. (2013). Handbok of Agricultural Entomology. Wiley-Blackwell. Abstract