Ceroplastes uvariae Marchal

Hodgson, Chris J. & Peronti, Ana L. B. G., 2012, 3372, Zootaxa 3372, pp. 1-265 : 194-196

Ceroplastes uvariae Marchal

( Fig. 89; Map fig. 105)

Ceroplastes uvariae Marchal, 1909a: 68 .

Ceroplastes uvariae Marchal ; Marchal, 1909b: 170.

Gascardia uvariae (Marchal) ; De Lotto, 1965:182.

Waxiella uvariae (Marchal) ; Ben-Dov, 1986: 166.

Material examined: Lectotype ♀ (here designated): Guineé, left label (stuck on, De Lotto’s handwriting): Ceroplastes / uvariae Marchal / ex Uvaria sp. / Labé (Guineé): 1907 / coll. J. Vuillet; right label (written on to glass): Ceroplastes uvariae / Marchal, 1909 / MNHN 5305-1 / Syntype (Lectotype label stuck on) ( MNHN): 1/1 (fair, remounted and restained – but see note below).

Paralectotype ♀: Guineé, (written onto glass): left label: ex Guineé Française: / Labé / MNHN 5305-9 / J. Vuillet rec. / mei 1907; right label: Ceroplastes / uvariae Marchal , / 1909 / Syntype / dorsum / s/ Uvaria sp. ( MNHN): 1/1 (dorsum only, poor).

Note. The following description was taken largely from the remounted and restained specimen. Unfortunately, after describing this specimen, CJH caught the cover slip with his finger when the Canada balsam was still wet and it came off the slide. It was replaced but the specimen was slightly damaged and not all the characters mentioned below or illustrated can now be seen on the slide.

Unmounted material. “Average diameter 8 mm. Similar to C. africanus senegalensis in size and appearance but differs from the latter species in having a unique combination of characters. This species tends to form a much larger mass of specimens, fused to form large clumps of wax around the branches so that it is difficult to distinguish individuals. However, some specimens are isolated, and these have an ear-shaped lobe of wax [marginal flange?] on each side, separated from the main wax by a groove, each side with two points of white wax that correspond to stigmas. The dorsal part of the wax test presents a rugged nipple-like central prominence, frequently very well developed and divided in two by a groove.”

“The insect, devoid of wax, is very similar to C. africanus senegalensis . The posterior horn (caudal process) is large and more prominent than in variety C. africanus senegalensis . The cephalic arch is less prominent, but it differs most in that the stigmatic setae typical of C. africanus senegalensis here resemble small buttons or short blunt cylinders, forming a dense group within each stigmatic furrow. In addition, the sclerotised areas surrounding each group of stigmatic setae typical of C. africanus senegalensis are poorly developed and obscure. ”

“According to Mr. Vuillet, the above external characters, regardless of the location of the insects on very different host plants, easily distinguish C. uvariae from C. africanus senegalensis . ” (Rather free translation of Marchal, 1909b: 170).

Mounted material. Body probably very convex and rather broadly oval, with distinct, quite deep, stigmatic clefts; dorsum with indistinct lateral tubercles. Caudal process short, probably extending semi-vertically. Length about 5 mm, width about 4 mm.

Dorsum. Derm lightly sclerotised; caudal process heavily sclerotised and almost round. Caudal process about 1.8 mm in diameter on squashed specimen. Derm thought to have usual 8 clear areas; anterior clear area with a few dorsal setae and simple pores. Dorsal setae each generally bluntly spinose, parallel-sided or with slightly convergent sides; subequal to width of basal socket, length 4–5 µm, width of basal socket 4.5–5.0 µm; rather frequent throughout, including on caudal process. Dorsal pores: (i) loculate microducts of rusci-type most abundant, each pore about 6.5–7.5 µm widest; pores with 2 satellite loculi scarce; frequent throughout but absent from all clear areas; wax-plate lines not detected; and (ii) simple microducts, usually with a sclerotised orifice; present in clear areas but sparse. Preopercular pores more or less in a single line of about 30 pores, extending a short distance down posterior margin of anal plates. Anal plates about as wide as long; anterior margin rather rounded, posterior margin rounded; length of plates 210 µm, width of both plates 230 µm, with 4 large basal sockets of dorsal setae on 1 plate and 5 on other plate + perhaps further sockets along margins (anal plates of unstained specimen look as though they may have only 3 sockets!); short setae near apex not detected. Anal ring setae each about 150 µm long.

Margin. Marginal setae stoutly setose, each about 20 µm long; frequency uncertain but with a few near anterior stigmatic clefts; posterior end of abdomen missing and so number of anal lobe setae unknown. Stigmatic clefts deep, each with only 1 type of seta, in an elongate group of roundly conical stigmatic setae extending onto dorsum; each group about twice as long as broad (each group 600–800 µm long), with about 120–170 stigmatic setae; setae rather variable in size, mostly 7–13 µm long with basal sockets each 8–15 µm wide, but each group generally with 1–3 noticeably larger setae with a slightly sharper apex, mostly located towards dorsal apex of each group, each about 18 µm long and 14 µm wide. Eyespots each about 35 µm wide.

Venter. Derm entirely membranous. Anal area somewhat damaged but pregenital disc-pores fairly abundant across segment VI and segments V–III each with 2–4 medially, plus a single pore on II and also on meso- and metathorax. Spiracular disc-pores present in very broad bands, each band extending medially in a broad finger for a short distance over each peritreme; number in each band uncertain, probably well over 100. Ventral microducts showing nothing distinctive. Ventral tubular ducts not detected, apparently totally absent. Submarginal setae apparently few and short, each probably about 8 µm long; other ventral setae very sparse.

Antennae each with 6 segments; segment III with a pseudo-articulation; total length 290–300 µm. Clypeolabral shield missing from both specimens. Spiracles: width of peritremes 90–108 µm. Legs: only prothoracic legs present; without a tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis; each claw without a denticle or denticle very small; claw digitules both broad, slightly shorter than length of tarsal digitules; dimensions of prothoracic legs (µm): coxa uncertain; trochanter + femur 155–165, tibia 90–105, tarsus 60–75, and claw 23–25.

Discussion. C. uvariae is distinctive, with the following combination of characters: (i) absence of ventral tubular ducts in the cephalic region; (ii) each stigmatic setal group radially rather narrow; (iii) dorsal loculate microducts of the rusci-type; (iv) each tibio-tarsal articulation without a sclerosis; (v) preopercular pores mainly in a single line extending across anterior margin of anal plates and for a short distance down each posterior margin; (vi) anterior margin of anal plates rather rounded; (vii) each anal plate probably with at least 4 large setae on posterior half; (viii) dorsal setae bluntly spinose; (ix) most stigmatic setae roundly conical, and (x) pregenital discpores extending onto thoracic segments. C. uvariae is somewhat similar to C. royenae ; for a discussion, see under the latter species above.

Ben-Dov (1986) transferred Ceroplastes (Gascardia) uvariae to Waxiella , presumably based on Marchal’s description, which suggests a close similarity to Ceroplastes (now Waxiella ) africana senegalensis . However, the morphology of C. uvariae is very different and so this species is here transferred back to Ceroplastes as Ceroplastes uvariae Marchal.

Ceroplastes uvariae Marchal appears to be only known from the original collection on Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae) in Guinea in 1907. However, the comment by Marchal (1909b: 171) that the wax tests of this species and of C. africanus senegalensis were easily separated “regardless of the location of the insects on very different host plants” suggests that C. uvariae may have been common in Guinea when he collected the type series. The only other record is by Carvalho and Cardosa (in Almeida, 1973) who recorded it on Elaeis guineensis ( Arecaceae ) in Angola. This latter material has not been seen during this study but the identification is here considered doubtful at best.