Eccritotarsini Berg, 1883

Yeshwanth, H. M. & Konstantinov, Fedor V., 2021, Review of the plant bug tribe Eccritotarsini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae) of India and Sri Lanka with description of two new genera and six new species, European Journal of Taxonomy 745, pp. 1-69 : 2-3

Tribe Eccritotarsini Berg, 1883

Diagnosis

Recognized among Miridae by the presence of large, circular pulvilli broadly attached to the inner surface of the claw. Refer to Konstantinov et al. (2018) for detailed discussion of distinctive features.

Key to genera of the tribe Eccritotarsini of India and Sri Lanka

1. Cuneus reaching apex of hemelytral membrane ( Figs 3D , 4A , 9G, I , 10 ). Vertex between eyes with a distinct transverse depression ........................................................................................................ 2

– Cuneus terminating well anteriad of apex of membrane. Vertex without a transverse depression, sometimes with longitudinal, median sulcus .................................................................................... 3

2. Dorsum brightly reddish orange ( Figs 9G–H , 10 ). Larger, total length 4.9–5.4. Left wall of genital capsule with a spinelike process. Left paramere apically bifid ...... Thaumastomiris Kirkaldy, 1902

– Dorsum lemon yellow ( Figs 3D–F , 4A–C ). Smaller, total length 3.2–3.7. Genital capsule without spinelike processes. Left paramere gradually tapering apically ( Figs 21E , 22B ) ............................... .......................................................................................................................... Namyatovia gen. nov.

3. Vertex distinctly carinate posteriorly. Pronotal collar narrow, posteriorly delimited with a deep suture. Costal margin of hemelytron basally serrated ( Fig. 1 ) ...................... Dioclerus Distant, 1910

– Vertex not carinate. Pronotal collar posteriorly delimited with a shallow sulcus. Costal margin of hemelytron smooth ........................................................................................................................... 4

4. Dorsum uniformly pale yellow. Body elongate, gracile, with long appendages. Eyes distinctly separated from anterior margin of pronotum ( Figs 4D–F , 9A, C, E , 27C–D ) .................................. 5

– Dorsum with variable color-pattern or uniformly dark brown, but never uniformly pale yellow. Body more robust, broadly oval to elongate-oval. Eyes in contact with or slightly separated from pronotum ........................................................................................................................................... 6

5. Eyes large, distinctly stylate. Vertex with a shallow longitudinal sulcus along midline. Antennal segment I bottle shaped, with a narrowed basal one-fourth ( Fig. 9A–E ) ........................................... .................................................................................................................... Prodromus Distant, 1904

– Eyes small, not stylate. Vertex without a sulcus. Antennal segment I uniformly slender, narrowed only at extreme base ( Fig. 4D–F ) .................................................................... Stonedahlia gen. nov.

6. Calli anteromedially delimited with impressed line forming characteristic subtriangular region between collar and calli .................................................................................................................... 7

– Anterior part of pronotum without clearly delimited subtriangular region between collar and calli. ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

7. Dorsum pale brown to reddish yellow, with dark longitudinal interrupted stripes. Pronotal collar at least twice as wide as antennal segment II ( Fig. 6D–I ) .............................. Lopidolon Poppius, 1911

– Dorsum bicolored; reddish anteriorly, bluish black to black posteriorly. Pronotal collar as wide as or narrower than diameter of antennal segment II ( Figs 3A–B , 8A, D, G ) .......... Mertila Distant, 1904

8. Coloration of dorsum uniform, dirty yellow to black, sometimes with paler embolium. Calli dorsally and laterally separated by deep impressed lines giving appearance of three distinct sections of pronotum ( Figs 2C–D , 5J, L ) ..................................................................... Harpedona Distant, 1904

– Coloration of dorsum contrasting, with clavus, transverse spot in medioapical part of corium, apex of cuneus, and cells uniformly brown to dark brown; remaining part of hemelytron and legs whitishyellow. Calli distinct, but not separated by impressed lines ( Figs 2A–B , 6A–B , 26B–C, F ) ........... 9

9. Pronotum uniformly black and coarsely punctured. Hemelytra with slightly convex costal margin ( Fig. 2A–B ) ................................................................................................. Ernestinus Distant, 1911

– Pronotum behind calli with narrow, impunctate whitish carina along midline. Hemelytra slightly constricted on basal fourth, with concave costal margin ( Fig. 6A ) ...... Jessopocoris Carvalho, 1981

Figures

Fig. 3. Habitus of Mertila Distant, 1904 and Namyatovia gen. nov. spp. A–C. Mertila rubrocephala sp. nov., ♂, UASB. A. Dorsal view. B. Head and pronotum in dorsal view. C. Abdomen in ventral view. D–F. Namyatovia castlerockensis gen. et sp. nov., ♂, UASB. D. Dorsal view. E. Head and pronotum. F. Lateral view.

Fig. 4. Habitus of Namyatovia gen. nov. and Stonedahlia gen. nov. spp. A–C. Namyatovia sirsiensis gen. et sp. nov., ♂, UASB. A. Dorsal view. B. Head and pronotum. C. Lateral view. D–F. Stonedahlia mishmiensis gen. et sp. nov., ♂, UASB. D. Dorsal view. E. Head and pronotum. F. Lateral view.

Fig. 9. Dorsal view and label data of type specimens. A–B. Prodromus clypeatus Distant, 1904, ♀, lectotype,AMNH_PBI00340350, NHM.C–D. Prodromussubflavus Distant,1904,♂,lectotype,AMNH_ PBI 00340343, NHM. E–F. Prodromus subviridis Distant, 1904, ♂, lectotype, AMNH_PBI 00340344, NHM. G–H. Thaumastomiris cotabato Stonedahl, 1988, ♂, holotype, USNM. I–J. Thaumastomiris dissimilis Hsiao 1944, ♂, holotype, USNM.

Fig. 10. Dorsal view and label data of Thaumastomiris spp. A–B. Thaumastomiris philippinensis Hsiao, 1944, ♀, holotype, USNM. C–D. Thaumastomiris piceatus Distant, 1911, ♂, lectotype, NHM. E–F. Thaumastomiris piceatus Distant, 1910, ♀, specimen from Burma, USNM. G–H. Thaumastomiris sanguinalis Kirkaldy, 1902, ♀, specimen from Sri Lanka, NHM.

Fig. 21. Male genitalia of Namyatovia castlerockensis gen. et sp. nov., paratype, UASB. A–B. Genital capsule in dorsal and right lateral views. C–D. Right paramere in dorsal and ventral views. E. Left paramere in dorsal view. F. Aedeagus lateral view.

Fig. 22. Male genitalia of Namyatovia sirsiensis gen. et sp. nov., holotype, UASB. A. Genital capsule in ventral view. B. Left paramere in dorsal view. C. Right paramere in dorsal view. D. Aedeagus in lateral view.

Fig. 1. Habitus of Dioclerus spp. A–B. Dioclerus bengalicus Stonedahl, 1988, ♀, UASB. A. Dorsal view. B. Abdomen in ventral view. C. Dioclerus lutheri Stonedahl, 1988, ♂, UASB, dorsal view. D–F. Dioclerus malayensis Stonedahl, 1988, ♀, paratype, AMNH_PBI 00340383, NHM. D. Dorsal view. E. Head and pronotum. F. Lateral view.

Fig. 27. Habitats and living specimens. A–B. Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1909 on Colocasia esculenta. A. Nymphs.B. Mating adults.C. Prodromus clypeatusDistant, 1904 on banana.D. Stonedahlia mishmiensis gen. et sp. nov. on Colocasia sp. E. Lopidolon dandeliensis sp. nov. on Diplocentrum recurvum. All specimens at UASB.

Fig. 6. Dorsal view and label data of type specimens. A–C. Jessopocoris scutellatus Carvalho, 1981, ♀, holotype, AMNH_PBI 00340984, BMNH(E) 1633131, NHM. D–F. Lopidolon pallescens Poppius, 1911, ♀, holotype, FMNH, currently retained at AMNH. G–J. Loidolon sordidus Poppius, 1911, ♀, holotype, HNHM.

Fig. 8. Dorsal view, male genitalia and label data of type specimens for Mertila spp. A–C. Mertila bhamo Stonedahl, 1988, holotype, AMNH_PBI 00342529, NHM. D–E. Mertila malayensis Distant, 1904, ♂, lectotype, NHMUK010096278, NHM. F. Mertila malayensis Distant, 1904, paralectotype, AMNH_PBI 00342600, NHM. G. Mertila sarawak Stonedahl,1988, holotype, ♂, NHMUK010096279, NHM. H. Mertila sarawak Stonedahl, 1988, paratype, AMNH_PBI 00342601, NHM.

Fig. 2. Habitus of Ernestinus, Harpedona and Lopidolon spp. A. Ernestinus mimicus Distant, 1911, ♂, UASB. B. Ernestinus ramkeshariae Yasunaga & Ishikawa, 2016, ♂, UASB. C. Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1904, ♂, UASB. D. Harpedona vittlaensis sp. nov, ♀, UASB. E–F. Lopidolon dandeliensis sp. nov., UASB. E. ♂. F. ♀.

Fig. 5. Dorsal view and label data of type specimens. A–C. Dioclerus bengalicus Stonedahl, 1988, ♀, holotype, BPBM.D–E. Dioclerus lutheri Stonedahl, 1988, ♂, holotype, AMNH_PBI 00338430, FMNH. F–G. Dioclerus praefectus Distant,1910, lectotype, AMNH_PBI 00340384, NHM. H–I. Ernestinus mimicus Distant,1911, ♂, syntype, AMNH_PBI 00085668, BMNH(E) 1633157, NHM. J–K. Harpedona marginata Distant, 1904, ♂, holotype, NHM. L–M. Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1909, ♂, lectotype, NHM.

Fig. 26. Habitats and living specimens. A–C. Ernestinus ramkeshariae Yasunaga & Ishikawa, 2016 on Colocasia esculenta. A. Nymphs. B–C. Adult. D–F. Ernestinus mimicus Distant, 1911 on Lagenandra sp. D. Aquatic habitat. E. Nymph and freshly moulted adult. F. Adult. All specimens at UASB.