Paraleyrodes, Quaintance

John H. Martin, 2004, Whiteflies of Belize (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Part 1 — introduction and account of the subfamily Aleurodicinae Quaintance & Baker, Zootaxa 681, pp. 1-86 : 61-62

PARALEYRODES Quaintance

Paraleyrodes Quaintance, 1909: 169 –170. Type species Aleurodes perseae Quaintance, 1900: 32 – 33, by monotypy.

DIAGNOSIS AND COMMENTS. Paraleyrodes comprises species that are physically much smaller than most other aleurodicines, with the following combination of puparial characters: with 5 or 6 pairs of abdominal compound pores, the anteriormost 1 or 2 pairs being much smaller than the remaining 4 abdominal pairs and the cephalic pair (Fig. 119); two pairs of cicatrices present on thorax (scars of compound pores in third­instar); a pair of submedian cephalic setae is present, but corresponding thoracic setal pairs are wanting; outer submargin with a row of 14 pairs of hair­like setae, including the nominal caudal pair. Adults of Paraleyrodes are unusual amongst members of the Aleurodicinae , in having all wing veins unbranched; females have 4 articulated antennal segments; males have only 3 articulated antennal segments (Fig. 127) and also have complex aedeagal apices (Figs 106–110, 120, 122). Females usually secrete so much mealy wax around them, while ovipositing, that the common name “nesting whitefly” has been used for P. m i n e i (see below), although “nesting whiteflies” is an appropriate term for the whole genus. Members of the genus have a marked propensity for ovipositing amongst the puparia or colony remains of other whitefly species, presumably taking advantage of the shelter provided, augmenting that provided by their own secretions. The larvae and puparia of Paraleyrodes species secrete long waxy filaments that often form an annulus surrounding the feeding insect (Figs 125–126).

Uniquely amongst known whiteflies, all species of Paraleyrodes are most reliably diagnosed from the structure of the male aedeagus, with the puparia of some being difficult to distinguish from those of similar species when males are not present. Approximately ten species of Paraleyrodes have been discovered in Belize, but numerically large colonies are rare, and this probably reflects the natural situation throughout the Neotropical Region. The absence of discrete colonies has proved to be an impediment to attempts to associate males and puparia, and adults are frequently not conspecific with puparia that happen to be nearby. Nevertheless, satisfactory association of males and puparia has enabled the description here of both the puparium and adult male of two new species ( P. ancora and P. perplexus ), and has confirmed the presence in Belize of some described species. Male specimens alone of two further new species are here described ( P. cervus and P. triungulae ), despite the absence of associated puparia, based on distinctive aedeagal characters. However, two males have been found that resemble those of P. goyabae ( Goeldi, 1886) , but with detail differences that preclude formal recording of this species from Belize. Two male specimens with the aedeagal apex closely resembling that of P. citricolus Costa Lima (see below) are also uncertainly identified, but more­typical males and very characteristic puparia do enable P. citricolus to be recorded for Belize.

Description here of P. cervus and P. triungulae , based only on adult males, is considered valid and important given that five species of Paraleyrodes have already become established beyond their native neotropics (see New World to Old, p. 6, and discussion by Martin, 2001). The author considers that any newly described species of Paraleyrodes should have an adult male holotype designated, with new species not being proposed at all in the absence of male specimens. In the meantime, it is highly desirable that attempts should continue to discover males of species where they remain unknown, or where their association with puparia is uncertain.

Many Paraleyrodes puparia from Belize, without associated males, cannot be identified with certainty, although some do appear to belong to the P. proximus / goyabae group (see discussion of P. proximus , below) and are so listed in Appendices 1 and 2.