Tegmaleurodes lentus, Martin, 2005

Martin, Jon H., 2005, Whiteflies of Belize (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Part 2 - a review of the subfamily Aleyrodinae Westwood, Zootaxa 1098 (1), pp. 1-116 : 48-50

Tegmaleurodes lentus sp. nov.

(Figs 49–52, 116)

PUPARIUM. Habitus. Puparia developing in loose aggregations under leaves, cryptic when still feeding, cuticle of each puparium having a slightly “soapy” appearance. Each thoracic and caudal tracheal fold visible through body as a straight white line; submedian zone delineated by an ovoid ridge. When slide­mounted, dorsum is seen to be covered by a carapace of tough secretion (see generic description and discussion, above), leaving only the vasiform oorifice exposed. Margin. Outline broadly ovoid, much indented at thoracic and caudal openings, 1.41–1.50 mm long, 1.24–1.30 mm wide, generally widest at abdominal segment II (n=12) (Fig. 49); one specimen 1.25 long, 1.02 mm, possibly indicative of sexual dimorphism. Margin with extremely shallow crenulations, 8–9 per 0.1 mm of margin, margin modified at thoracic tracheal openings as deep invaginations, with the enclosed “pore” bearing several rounded teeth (Fig. 50); each thoracic pore with a few tiny tubercles closely adjacent. Dorsum. Longitudinal moulting suture reaches puparial margin; transverse moulting sutures almost reach puparial margin, but are unusually curved forwards to almost coincide with thoracic tracheal pores (Figs 49, 116). Dorsal disc with all segmentation indistinct, except that pockets on abdominal VII/VIII boundary are quite evident when dorsal secretions have been removed. When secretions intact, submedian zone and anterior boundary of thoracic area are clearly marked as thickened secretion (Fig. 116); with secretions removed all specimens have delicate cuticle torn, but subdorsal zone finely patterned with indistinct reticulations. Vasiform orifice (Fig. 51) broadly cordate, approximately 60 m long, about as long as wide, not elevated, inset from caudal tracheal pore by about 3 times its own length; operculum similarly shaped, almost filling orifice; lingula head usually hidden by operculum but discernibly broad and lobulate, with a pair of apical setae. Chaetotaxy. Anterior and posterior marginal setae not evident on any specimen. Tiny setae, each shorter than operculum, present in single cephalic, first and eighth abdominal pairs; eighth abdominal setae located opposite widest part of vasiform orifice (Fig. 51); no evidence of a pair of caudal setae can be found. Pores. When dorsal secretions have been removed, dorsal disc can be seen to possess sparsely distributed geminate pore/porettes. Venter. Ventral abdominal setae similar to eighth abdominal dorsal setae, their bases slightly antero­lateral to vasiform orifice. Each leg base with a pronounced, thorn­like, spine and 1–3 minute setae; antennal bases anterior to fore legs but antenna and leg almost exactly superimposed when viewed on slides (Fig. 52). Tracheal folds only evident in some slide­mounted specimens, despite being clearly visible when specimens still attached to leaves.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Holotype puparium, BELIZE, CFR, Las Cuevas vicinity, on Pouteria reticulata (Sapotaceae) , 25.iii.2003 (J.H.Martin #7805) ( BMNH). Paratypes (all same locality, Martin coll.): 11 puparia on slides (plus many more dry, attached to leaves), same data as holotype ( BMNH, USNM); 8 puparia (plus many more dry, attached to leaves), on Lauraceae , 05.xi.1994 ( BMNH); 25 puparia (plus many more dry, attached to leaves), on undetermined woody broad­leaf host, 03.vi.2002 ( BMNH, USNM); 3 puparia, on Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae) , 20.iii.2003 ( BMNH); 6 puparia, on undetermined woody broad­leaf host, 05.vi.2002 ( BMNH).

ETYMOLOGY. The chosen specific name is the latin word lentus (variously meaning tough, flexible or tenacious), any one of which interpretations well describes the chemicalresistant puparial secretions.

COMMENTS. Very unusually, the holotype puparium has been selected from amongst specimens that were macerated and dehydrated, but without any attempt being made to remove secretions, either mechanically or chemically. Without exception, warming puparia in chloral­phenol led to gross distortion of the specimens, as a result of uneven expansion of the secreted carapace. Further, mechanical removal of the tough dermal covering almost always caused damage to the dorsal cuticle, which is apparently more delicate than in most whitefly taxa. The holotype of T. lentus thus has the advantages of undistorted outline (Fig. 116), ventral characters generally easily visible, and undamaged cuticle; these advantages are balanced by difficulty in visually resolving most of the chaetotaxy, cuticular pores and other fine details.