Montandoniola thripodes Bergroth, 1916

Pluot-Sigwalt, Dominique, Streito, Jean-Claude & Matocq, Armand, 2009, Is Montandoniola moraguesi (Puton, 1896) a mixture of different species? (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Anthocoridae), Zootaxa 2208, pp. 25-43 : 33

Montandoniola thripodes Bergroth, 1916 , bona species

( Figs. 6–13 , 30, 33, 36 )

Montandoniola thripodes Bergroth, 1916: 233 (sp. n.); Carayon, 1961b: 542 (note); Carayon & Ramade, 1962: 208 (note); Herring, 1966: 93 (syn. with M. moraguesi (Puton)) .

Type material examined: Holotype 3, China, Hong-Kong, A. Koebele [ USNM (type N° 20153)] ( Fig. 6 ).

Note: the specimen is damaged, thorax is separated from the abdomen, the right antennae, and the last two segments of the left one, have disappeared, as well as all the legs. Dissection of genitalia has been made by us.

Redefinition (male holotype). Body length: 2.3 mm. Head: antennal segments I and II dark brown to black, III whitish (based on original description), IV missing; labium brown, apex lighter. Thorax: lateral margins of pronotum nearly straight; lateral carinae well marked, more expanded anteriorly; ostiolar peritreme angular posteriorly; legs (based on original description) dark brown, foretibiae whitish (except extreme base dark), tarsi whitish. Male genitalia ( Figs. 11–13 , 30, 33, 36 ): pygophore covered with many long setae on right side, with scattered short setae (not arranged into a brush) anterior to genital opening ( Fig. 30 ); paramere: flagellum long and thin, rectilinear; lame very thin and acute apically with conspicuous indentation at base.

Biological data. No data available.

Distribution. Known only from the type locality: Hong-Kong.

Comments. Examination of the holotype including the genitalia, clearly shows that M. thripodes is different from M. moraguesi and is a valid species. We have examined the male holotype alone, no female. In the original description, Bergroth gave some characters for the female, suggesting the existence of at least one female in the material he examined.

Herring (1966) erroneously synonymized M. thripodes with M. moraguesi because of a probable misunderstanding of Carayon’s explanation ( Carayon, 1961b; Carayon & Ramade, 1962). In these papers, Carayon just suspected that M. thripodes could be a synonym of M. moraguesi ; however, having not examined the holotype, he carefully decided not establish it. Herring (1966) did examine the type of M. thripodes , but he did not dissect it and apparently he did not compare both type specimens. Herring’s synonymy was accepted without discussion by the subsequent authors.

M. thripodes differs from M. moraguesi chiefly by the shape of the ostiolar peritreme (posteriorly angular, Fig. 10 ), the arrangement of the setae on the pygophore anterior to the genital opening ( Fig. 30 ), the shape of the paramere (flagellum straight, lame thin and abruptly acute at apex, Fig. 33 ).

It differs also from other described species, especially ishikawai , bellatula , and confusa n. sp., by some external characters (size, colour of the male antennal segment III) and male genitalia.

Figures

FIGURES 6 – 13. Montandoniola thripodes, male holotype. 6, type specimen with its labels; 7, 8, habitus, dorsal view; scale bar: 0.5 mm; 9, head and pronotum (part), lateral view; scale bar: 0.5 mm; 10, evaporative area and ostiolar peritreme of the metathoracic glands (left metapleura), lateral view; scale bar: 0.1 mm; 11, pygophore dorsal view; scale bar: 0.1 mm; 12, paramere, dorsal view; 13, idem, lateral view; scale bars: 0.1 mm.

FIGURES 29 – 37. Comparison of the male genitalia between M. moraguesi, M. thripodes, and M. confusa sp. nov. 29 – 31, pygophore, dorsal view; 32 – 34, paramere, dorsal view; 35 – 37, paramere, lateral view; scale bars: 0.1 mm. d = denticule; f = flagelle; l = lame.