Hallodapus spinosus Yasunaga & Duwal, 2019

Yasunaga, Tomohide, Tamada, Yui, Hinami, Haruka, Miyazaki, Ayana, Duwal, Ram Keshari & Nagashima, Tetsuya, 2019, Taxonomic review for the Asian taxa of plant bug tribe Hallodapini, with emphasis on stridulatory mechanism (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 59 (1), pp. 71-99 : 90

Hallodapus spinosus Yasunaga & Duwal sp. nov.

( Figs 19 , 28–31 , 47 , 119–124 )

Hallodapus brunneus Poppius, 1915 (misidentification): YASUNAGA et al.

(2013a): 442 (checklist).

Type material. HOLOTYPE: ♁, THAILAND: NAKHON NAYOK: Sarika (at garden lawn), 14°18′07″N 101°18′09″E, at FL light, 20 Dec 2010, T. Yasunaga ( AMNH _ PBI 00380633 ) ( DOAT). Additional specimen examined. THAILAND: NAKHON RATCHASIMA: Wang Nam Khiew, Sakaerat Environmental Research Station , 14°30′27″N, 101°55′39″E, 410 m alt., UV light trap, 20 Aug 2008, T. Yasunaga, 1 ♁ ( TYCN).

Differential diagnosis. Superficially most similar to H. brunneus (Poppius) ( Fig. 20 ), from which the present new species ( Fig. 19 ) can be distinguished by the larger anterior pair of white maculae contiguous to each other ( Fig. 28 ), totally fuscous femora, narrowly distributed MFP with each plectrum somewhat ovoid ( Figs 47 , 123 ), presence of pygophoral spine ( Figs 30 , 124 ), and C-shaped endosoma ( Fig. 30 ) with an apically bulbous process near the apex ( Fig. 31 ). In H. brunneus , the maculae of the anterior pair are smaller and separated each other, bases of meso- and metafemora are creamy white, FWS is rather sparsely distributed ( Fig. 110 ), MFP is more widely distributed and each plectrum squared ( Figs 40 , 111 ), pygophore lacks any spine, and endosomal subapical process is short and thickened ( Fig. 178 ).

Description. Male (holotype). Macropterous; body generally dark brown, almost medium-sized, elongate, parallel-sided ( Figs 19 , 28 ); dorsal surface weakly shining, with uniformly distributed, woolly, reclining setae and sparsely distributed, dark, simple, semierect setae. Head tinged with red, pointed in front; eyes small, less than half as wide as vertex in dorsal view. Antenna pale brown; segment I dark brown, with yellow fascia inward; segment II slightly darkened, inwardly with a weak stripe that is nearly invisible in dry-preserved specimen, subequal in length to III; segment IV about twice as long as I. Labium reddish brown, reaching but not exceeding apex of metacoxa; segment III and base of IV pale brown. Pronotum weakly shining, weakly constricted laterally at calli; pleura shiny dark reddish brown; scent efferent system with knob-like ostiolar peritreme ( Fig. 121 ). Hemelytron with two pairs of white maculae as in Fig. 28 (anterior pair of maculae larger, contiguous to each other and posterior macula squared); FWS as in Figs 29 , 122 ; membrane pale smoky brown. Coxae and femora dark brown, except for meso- and metacoxae yellowish brown; MFP rather narrowly distributed, with each plectrum rectangular ( Figs 47 , 123 ). Abdomen wholly reddish dark brown, relatively long. Male genitalia ( Figs 30–31 , 124 ): Pygophore with a distinct pygophoral spine ( Fig. 30 ); endosoma C-shaped ( Figs 30 , 124 ), with an apically bulbous process near the apex ( Fig. 31 ).

Measurements. Male (holotype, mm): Total length of body 2.94; head width including eyes 0.55; vertex width 0.32; lengths of antennal segments I–IV 0.35, 1.05, 1.01, 0.69; total labial length 1.25; basal width of pronotum 0.81; maximum width across hemelytron 0.92; and lengths of metafemur, tibia and tarsus 1.05, 1.52, 0.39.

Female. Unknown.

Etymology. From Latin, spinosus [= spiny, thorny], referring to a characteristic ventral spine on the pygophore of this new species; an adjective.

Biology. Unknown; habitat environment as in Fig. 2 .

Comment. YASUNAGA et al. (2013b) reported H. brunneus from Thailand, but the present examination revealed the Thai specimen represents an undescribed species herein documented as H. spinosus sp. nov. which is unique by having a noticeable pygophoral spine (see Table 1 ).

Figures

Figs 19–24. Habitus images of Asian Hallodapus species. 19 – H. spinosus sp. nov., ♁ (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand); 20 – H. brunneus (Poppius, 1915), ♁ (Ishigaki Island, Japan). 21–24 – Hallodapus species collected by engine vacuum netting method in Nagasaki, Japan: 21 – H. centrimaculatus (Poppius, 1909); 22 – H. linnavuorii Miyamoto, 1965; 23 – H. kyushuensis Miyamoto, 1965; 24 – H. ravenar (Kirkaldy, 1902).

Figs 25–31. Two new species of Hallodapus. 25–27 – H. jingfui sp. nov., holotype♁ (Taiwan): 25 – dorsal habitus; 26 – ventral habitus; 27 – hemelytron (FWS, right). 28–31 – H. spinosus sp. nov., holotype ♁ (Thailand): 28 – dorsal habitus, with metatarsus; 29 – left lateral habitus; 30 – pygophore with pygophoral spine and exposed endosoma (see also Fig. 124); 31 – apical structure of endosoma.

Figs 40–55. Stridulatory device (MFP, except for FWS on 55) of Asian hallodapines observed by a compound microscope. 40–41 – Hallodapus brunneus (Poppius, 1915); 42–43 – H. centrimaculatus (Poppius, 1909); 44 – H. fasciatus (Poppius, 1909) (Nakhon Nayok, Thailand); 45–46 – H. kyushuensis Miyamoto, 1965; 47 – H. spinosus sp. nov.; 48–50 – H. ravenar (Kirkaldy, 1902); 51 – H. linnavuorii Miyamoto, 1965; 52 – H. jingfui sp. nov.; 53 – H. sibiricus Poppius, 1912 (S. Primorsky, Russia); 54 – Alloeomimella muiri (Schuh, 1984); 55 – Wygomiris paveli sp. nov.

Figs 116–130. Scanning electron micrographs for new Hallodapus species. 116–118 – H. jingfui sp. nov., ♁ (Taiwan): 116 – dorsal habitus; 117 – FWS; 118 – MFP. 119–124 – H. spinosus sp. nov., ♁ (Thailand): 119 – dorsal habitus; 120 – left lateral habitus; 121 – scent efferent system; 122 – FWS; 123 – MFP; 124 – pygophore with exposed endosoma. 125–130 – H. susurratus sp. nov., ♁ (Thailand): 125 – dorsal habitus of anterior body; 126 – FWS; 127 – MFP; 128 – thoracic pleura; 129 – pretarsus (hind leg); 130 – pygophore.

Figs 101–115. Scanning electron micrographs for Hallodapus species. 101–109 – H. ravenar (Kirkaldy, 1902) (Nagasaki, Japan): 101 – brachypterous ♀, ventral habitus; 102 – ♀ FWS; 103 – ♀ MFP; 104 – rudimental hindwing of brachypterous ♀; 105 – mesofemoral trichobothria; 106 – metafemoral trichobothrium; 107 –♁ apex of pygophore with exposed endosoma, ventral view; 108 – egg; 109 – operculum. 110–111 – H. brunneus (Poppius, 1915): 110 – ♀ FWS; 111 – ♁ MFP. 112–113 – H. fasciatus (Poppius, 1909), ♁: 112 – FWS; 113 – MFP. 114–115 – H. sp., ♀ (Tianjin, China): 114 – dorsal habitus; 115 – stridulatory device (left).

Figs 174–180. Male genitalia of Hallodapus species. 174–176 – H. jingfui sp. nov., holotype: 174 – pygophore with phallotheca, ventral view; 175 – left paramere; 176 – endosoma. 177–178 – H. brunneus (Poppius, 1915) (Ishigaki Island, Japan): 177 – phallotheca; 178 – endosoma. 179 – H. linnavuorii (Miyamoto, 1965) (Nagasaki, Japan), endosoma; 180 – H. kyushuensis (Miyamoto, 1965) (Okinawa, Japan), endosoma. Scale bars 0.2 mm.

Figs 1–8. Habitats of epigeic hallodapine plant bugs (1–2), sampling method (3–5), and oviposition (6) and eggs of Japanese Hallodapus species (laboratory observation) (7–8). 1 – typical habitat of Hallodapus centrimaculatus (Poppius, 1909), H. kyushuensis Miyamoto, 1965 and H. linnavuorii Miyamoto, 1965 in Nagasaki, Japan; 2 – habitat of Alloeomimella muiri (Schuh, 1984), Hallodapus albofasciatus (Motschulsky, 1863), H. ravenar (Kirkaldy, 1902) and H. spinosus sp. nov. in Nakhon Nayok, Thailand; 3–5 – engine vacuum netting method for sampling ground-inhabiting heteropterans; 6 – brachypterous female of H. centrimaculatus ovipositing into weed (Artemisia sp.) stem near root; 7 – eggs (opercula) of H. centrimaculatus; 8 – egg of H. ravenar (same egg as in Figs 108–109).