Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius), 1936
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.1098.1.1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D4B00F-FFE2-C505-FECA-9BECFC0755DC |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) |
status |
|
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) View in CoL
( Figs 25–27 View FIGURES 25–28 )
Aleurodes tabaci Gennadius, 1889: 1–3 View in CoL . Lectotype, Greece (designated by Martin, 1999: 59–60).
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Takahashi, 1936: 110 View in CoL .
Bemisia argentifolii Bellows & Perring View in CoL , in Bellows et al., 1994: 196. Holotype, California. [Synonymised by De Barro et al., 2005: 201.]
DISTRIBUTION. Cosmopolitan in all warmer parts of the world.
COMMENTS. B. tabaci , variously known under the common names tobacco, cotton or sweet potato whitefly, is much the most investigated of whitefly species because of the many problems it causes in worldwide agriculture. Cock (1986) published a survey of the literature on B. tabaci , with 829 entries, and an update followed ( Cock, 1993). Many other communications have been published subsequently, most commonly on molecular investigations (see below) and on aspects of plant virus transmission.
B. tabaci View in CoL has been regarded as a morphologically variable single species, with an exceptionally wide range of host plants, following the demonstration of the phenomenon of puparial plasticity ( Figs 25–27 View FIGURES 25–28 ) by Mound (1963). However, more recent investigations have shown many fieldcollected populations (“biotypes”) to have small host plant ranges, with some behaving as though monophagous. Indeed, Mound had found the transfer of populations from one host to another to be a great obstacle during his experimental work on hostinduced morphological variation. Several such population biotypes have been recognised for some years, but the development of new techniques for the study of cytology and molecular sequencing has led to many more being recognised. A situation of great complexity, controversy and nomenclatural confusion has now arisen, and this was compounded when “biotype B” was eventually given its own species name, B. argentifolii Bellows & Perring View in CoL (in Bellows et al, 1994), and its own common name, “silverleaf whitefly” (from the visible feeding damage caused to squash plants). However, the other recognised biotypes were not treated in this way, with many workers agreeing that the naming of B. argentifolii View in CoL was premature. De Barro et al. (2005) have declared B. argentifolii View in CoL to be a race of B. tabaci View in CoL and, thus, its junior synonym but much controversy remains.
The characters for distinguishing B. tabaci View in CoL sensu lato from the B. afer View in CoL / B. centroamericana View in CoL group are discussed under B. centroamericana View in CoL , above.
Throughout this study, only a single sample of B. tabaci was discovered, feeding on a small euphorbiaceous herb, by the side of the CFR access road.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
Martin, Jon H. 2005 |
Bemisia argentifolii
De Barro, P. J. & Trueman, J. W. H. & Frohlich, D. R. 2005: 201 |
Bellows, T. S. Jr & Perring, T. M. & Gill, R. J. & Headrick, D. H. 1994: 196 |
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
Takahashi, R. 1936: 110 |
Aleurodes tabaci
Martin, J. H. 1999: 59 |
Gennadius, P. 1889: 3 |