Aleurodicus juleikae Bondar, 1923

Martin, Jon H., 2008, A revision of Aleurodicus Douglas (Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae), with two new genera proposed for palaeotropical natives and an identification guide to world genera of Aleurodicinae, Zootaxa 1835 (1), pp. 1-100 : 34-35

Aleurodicus juleikae Bondar

(Figs 63, 64)

Aleurodicus juleikae Bondar, 1923: 78 . Lectotype puparium here designated, Brazil [BMNH].

DISTRIBUTION. Neotropical Region – Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Venezuela.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Type material as detailed and discussed below ( BMNH, USNM); 1 puparium, presumed Brazil, on Psidium sp. , (Bondar #764, Q.23007), labelled “ Aleurodicus candidus ” [a manuscript name only] ( USNM); puparia with the following country / host combinations – Brazil: Eucalyptus, Triumpheta , Persea , Psidium , Casearia , “ Psytachantus ”; Colombia: Matisia , Tectona ; Dominican Republic: Annona ; Ecuador: Anthurium , palm; Guyana: Avicennia ; Peru: Citrus , Cocos , Mangifera , Persea, Trichophilia , palm; Venezuela: “ Melicoccus ” ( BMNH, USNM).

COMMENTS. A. juleikae is one of his then newly-described whitefly species of which Bondar donated material to BMNH and USNM, the material regarded as syntypic (see p. 9). A single slide of Bondar material in BMNH, probably made in the 1920s, contains 4 puparia in excellent condition, and bears the data “ Aleurodicus juleikae Bondar , Brazil, Bahia, on Loranthaceae, Pres. Dr. G. Bondar , 7.xii.23, B.M.1924/44, 671”. As part of this study, four additional slides (containing 14 puparia and 3 third-instar nymphs) have been made from the dry residue of Bondar’s donation to BMNH, but the intervening eighty years have led to the specimens being rather abraded, with many setae having been lost. One slide in USNM contains 7 puparia, but the mountant is thicker than optimum and detail is not so readily visible as in the 1920s BMNH slide, the data being “Q[uaintance] 23300, Aleurodicus juleikae , Bahia, Brazil, G. Bondar, #671”. Another USNM slide bears the data “”Q.23311, 672 - B. phrygilank [sic], 671 – A. juliskae [sic], Bahia, Brazil, G. Bondar”, and contains 10 adults along with one puparium that appears to be A. juleikae . From the Bondar number, 671, the material in both the American and British samples appears to be from the same original sample. Material displaying a range of characters, and collected from a number of hosts, has been determined as “ A. juleikae , or similar” and it is important to fix a type against which other samples can be compared: a lectotype is therefore here designated for A. juleikae , and is one of the 4 specimens on the 1920s BMNH slide, on which it is clearly indicated. The remaining specimens on the BMNH slides, and all on the 7-puparia USNM slide, are paralectotypes: the status of the mixed slide (Q. 23311) is uncertain.

Only two characters distinguish the type material of A. juleikae from the great majority of specimens of A. pulvinatus (Maskell) , p. 40. The largest compound pores of the type sample of A. juleikae are up to 50µ in outer diameter, somewhat larger than is typical for A. pulvinatus : however, Martin & Watson (1998: 94) redefined A. pulvinatus with the size of the largest pair of compound pores (anteriormost abdominal pair) ranging from 25– 48µ. Further, a sample from Poraqueiba sericea (Icacinaceae) in Peru has compound pores up to 60µ in diameter but is otherwise exactly as the lectotype puparium of A. pulvinatus , including the outline being flattened anteriorly and each puparium having a darkly-pigmented longitudinal subdorsal band on each side of the puparium. It is concluded that compound pore size is not significant in distinguishing these two species.

The second character used to separate A. juleikae from A. pulvinatus is the nature of the submarginal band of wide-rimmed simple pores. In A. pulvinatus the mesal boundary of this pore band does not closely approach the abdominal compound pores, and the boundary is not therefore affected by their proximity ( Figs 67 , 68 ): in contrast, the mesal boundary of the pore band in A. juleikae is much closer to the compound pores, and is sinuous, often almost interdigitating with the compound pores (Figs 63, 64). This character does appear to be more reliable and specimens with this character, but otherwise answering the diagnosis of A. pulvinatus , are determined as A. juleikae . Figures 124 and 125 are photographs of living puparial colonies that have been cautiously determined as A. juleikae .

A. cocois (Curtis) (see p. 26 and figure 65) clearly belongs to this same group of species, differing from both A. juleikae and A. pulvinatus in having the mesal boundary of the submarginal pore band actually interdigitating with the abdominal compound pores. Also, in A. cocois the mesal boundary of the pore band in the meso- and metathorax is almost straight, parallel to the longitudinal moulting suture, emphasised by a slight cuticular fold. The species limits of A. cocois , A. pulvinatus and A. juleikae are not satisfactorily understood, however, with intermediate forms occurring.

Figures

FIGURE 67 Aleurodicus pulvinatus (Maskell), lectotype puparium, Trinidad, showing pigmentation to right and distribution of simple pores to left: with (a) rows of modified 8-shaped simple pores and (b) cluster of tiny bright pores adjacent to compound pore.

FIGURE 68 Aleurodicus pulvinatus (Maskell), simplified puparial outlines, showing variation of cuticular pigmentation in samples from (a) Costa Rica, Hura crepitans, (b) Belize, Lauraceae, (c) Belize, Guettarda combsii, (d) Belize, undetermined, (e) Panamá, Isertia hypoleuca. The dashed line marks the boundary of the submarginal pore band.