Ceroputo pilosellae Šulc 1898

Zhang, Jiang-Tao & Watson, Gillian W., 2023, A new species of the mealybug genus Ceroputo Šulc 1898 (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) from China, and notes on Ceroputo pilosellae Šulc 1898 in China, Zootaxa 5296 (2), pp. 283-291 : 285

Ceroputo pilosellae Šulc 1898

Ceroputo pilosellae Šulc 1898: 2 ; Phenacoccus tomlini Green 1930: 320 ; Phenacoccus asteri Takahashi 1932: 43 ; Phenacoccus ferrisi Kiritshenko 1936: 140 ; Phenacoccus euphorbiaefolius Bodenheimer 1943: 17 ; Phenacoccus poterii Bodenheimer 1943: 32 ; Ceroputo pannosus Borchsenius 1949: 288 ; Ceroputo clematidis Matesova 1957: 165 ; Leococcus erigeroneus Kanda 1959: 240 ; Puto jarudensis Tang 1992: 600 .

Material examined. Ceroputo clematidis : 8 ♀♀, CHINA, Shanxi Province, Changzhi City , Huguan County, on an unidentified herbal plant, 28.vii.2014, coll. San-an Wu & Ying-da Wu. Ceroputo pilosellae : 7 ♀♀, CHINA, Henan Province, Anyang City, Linzhou City , on Bidens pilosa , 25.vii.2014, coll. San-an Wu & Ying-da Wu.

Host plants. Ceroputo pilosellae (the type species of Ceroputo ) has been recorded on host plants in 45 genera belonging to 18 families ( García Morales et al. 2016). In China, it has been recorded on Asteraceae : Artemisia hedinii ( Wang et al. 2016) , Aster lauruleanus ( Takahashi 1932) , Bidens pilosa ( Wang et al. 2016) , Conyza japonica ( Wang et al. 2016) and Kalimeris integrifolia ( Tang 1992) ; also on Clematis songarica (Ranunculaceae) ( Tang 1992) and an unidentified herbal plant ( Wang et al. 2016).

Distributions. Ceroputo pilosellae has been recorded only from the Oriental and Palaearctic Regions ( García Morales et al. 2016). In China, it has been recorded from Hebei, Henan, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, Sichuan, Taiwan and Xinjiang ( Takahashi 1932, Tang 1992, Wang et al. 2016).

Remarks. Ceroputo clematidis was synonymized with C. pilosellae by Danzig (1999), but molecular data indicates that this synonymy is probably not valid ( Wang et al. 2016). Examination of non-type specimens at Beijing Forestry University by the first author suggests that the distribution of ventral quinquelocular pores differs between the species. In C. pilosellae , quinquelocular pores are very few and mainly present near the mouthparts. In contrast, in C. clematidis , quinquelocular pores are scattered medially on the thorax and anterior abdominal segments. However, the examined material of both species also has quinquelocular pores, smaller than or similar in size to the multilocular disc pores, present on the posterior abdominal segments. Since the holotypes of both species are not at hand for morphological study, here we continue to treat C. clematidis as a junior synonym of C. pilosellae .