Halyomorpha picus ( Fabricius, 1794 )

Kment, Petr, Salini, S. & Ahmed, Zubair, 2021, Halyomorpha picus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): first confirmed record from Pakistan and two new junior synonyms, Zootaxa 5060 (3), pp. 429-438 : 430-434

Halyomorpha picus ( Fabricius, 1794)

( Figs 1–11 )

Cimex Picus Fabricius, 1794: 115‒116 (original description). Syntype (s): India orientalis [= East India] (1 specimen in coll. Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark —see Zimsen 1964: 313).

Cimex Picus : Turton (1802): 646 (diagnosis, distribution); Zimsen (1964): 313 (types).

Edessa Picus : Fabricius (1803): 1543 (diagnosis); Herrich-Schäffer (1853): 57 (list).

Edessa? picus: Herrich-Schäffer (1853) : 89 (‘gen. dub.’ [= genus dubious]; list); Dohrn (1859): 20 (catalogue).

Pentatoma Picus : Walker (1873): 19 (catalogue).

Halyomorpha picus: Stål (1868) : 24 (catalogue, new synonyms); Distant (1879): 45 (distribution); Atkinson (1882): 167 (distribution); Distant (1901a): 823 (synonymy); Distant (1901b): 102 (distribution); Distant (1902): 152 –153, Fig. 91 (redescription, illustrations, distribution); Distant (1903): 231 (catalogue, distribution); Breddin (1909): 268 (distribution); Maxwell-Lefroy (1909a): 308 (distribution); Maxwell-Lefroy (1909b): pl. LXXIII: fig. 7 (habitus illustration); Distant (1918): 129 (distribution, biology); Hutson (1920): Part IV: p. C10 (bionomics); Ayyar (1924): 267 (bionomics, distribution); Chatterjee (1934): 11 –12 (bionomics, distribution); Chandra (1953): 93 (distribution); Stichel (1961): 752 (catalogue); Stichel (1962): 233 (catalogue); Abbasi & Ahmad (1974): 72, 75 (differential diagnosis); Josifov & Kerzhner (1978): 172 (taxonomy, synonymy); Pajni & Sidhu (1982): 178 (distribution); Ahmad & Zaidi (1989): 239 (key), 243–245, 248–252 (redescription, figures, phylogenetic relationships, records from India and Sri Lanka); Zaidi & Shaukat (1993): 59, 63–65 (phenetics); Chakraborty et al. (1994): 471 (distribution); Chakraborty & Ghosh (1999): 392, 398, 416 (differential diagnosis, distribution); Dolling et al. (1999): 21, 57, 70 (catalogue); Biswas & Bal (2007): 302, 313–314 (differential diagnosis, distribution); Azim (2011): 5 (distribution); Pathak et al. (2012): 474 (distribution); Chandra et al. (2014): 200 (distribution); Tembe et al. (2014): 739, 741, 743 (DNA barcoding, distribution); Salini & Viraktamath (2015):17, 47: Fig. 64, 56: Fig. 115, 60: Fig. 138 (distribution, photos); Shrestha et al. (2017): 1433 (fungal parasite); Salini et al. (2021): 268–269 (differential diagnosis, photos, distribution).

Halyomorpha picus [partim, incl. H. halys ]: Stål (1876): 75 (catalogue, distribution); Atkinson (1888): 23 –24 (catalogue, redescription, new synonyms, distribution); Distant (1893): 393 –394 (new synonyms), Lethierry & Severin (1893): 117 (catalogue); Distant (1899): 444 (synonymy); Oshanin (1906): 106 (catalogue, distribution); Kirkaldy (1909): 50 (catalogue, distribution); Oshanin (1912): 12 (catalogue, distribution); Bergroth (1914): 181 –182 (catalogue); Hoffmann (1935): 45 –45, 167 (catalogue, distribution); Tang (1935): 313 –314 (catalogue); Péneau (1957): 54 (distribution); Ueshima (1979): 81 (karyotype).

Halyomorpha piceus [incorrect subsequent spelling]: Kirby (1891): 83 –84 (catalogue, distribution).

Halyomorpha pica [incorrect subsequent spelling]: Manna (1951): 5, 19–21, 44, 109 (karyotype, biology, distribution).

Halyomor phapicus [incorrect subsequent spelling]: Chandra & Kushwaha (2013): 265 (distribution).

? Halyomorpha picus , H. picas [incorrect subsequent spelling]: Sharif et al. (2020): 1342 –1343 (redescription, habitus photos, distribution).

? Halyomorpha picus [? misidentifications]: Lethierry (1888): 460 (distribution); Breddin (1900): 296 (distribution); Distant (1912): 252 (distribution); Distant (1921): 3 (distribution); Schouteden (1933): 50 (distribution); Black (1968): 568 (distribution); Hasan (1993): 210, 213–214 (redescription, figures, key, records).

= Cimex marmoreus Fabricius, 1798: 534‒535 (original description). Syntypes: India orientalis [= East India] (3 specimens in coll. Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark —see Zimsen 1964: 313). Synonymised by Stål (1868: 24).

Cimex marmoreus: Zimsen (1964) : 313 (types); Dolling et al. (1999): 57 (catalogue).

Edessa marmorea: Fabricius (1803) : 1543 (diagnosis).

Edessa? marmorea: Herrich-Schäffer (1853) : 88 (‘gen. dub.’ [= genus dubious]; list); Dohrn (1859): 20 (catalogue).

Halyomorpha marmorea: Vidyasagar & Bhat (1986) : 1096–1097 (biology, host plant, distribution); Daniel et al. (2003): 57–58 (parasitoid, distribution).

= Cimex cinnamomeus Wolff, 1802a: 99 , pl. 10: fig. 93 (original description, habitus figures). Syntype (s): India orientalis (probably lost). Synonymised by Stål (1868: 24).

Cimex cinnamomeus: Wolff (1802b) : 99, pl. 10: fig. 93 (original description, German translation); Dolling et al. (1999): 21 (catalogue).

Pentatoma cinnamomea: Herrich-Schäffer (1853) : 48 (list).

= Pentatoma trivialis Dohrn, 1860: 400‒401 (original description). Syntypes: Ceylon [= Sri Lanka] (coll. Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland). Synonymised by Atkinson (1888: 23).

Cappaea trivialis: Stål (1865) : 170 (new combination).

Pentatoma trivialis: Walker (1867b) : 300 (distribution).

? = Dalpada proxima Walker, 1867a: 227‒228 (original description). Syntypes: 2 ♂, Indonesia: Java (coll. Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom). Synonymised by Distant (1893: 394).

Dalpada proxima: Lethierry & Severin (1893) : 99 (catalogue).

= Halyomorpha punjabensis Ahmad & Kamaluddin, 1977: 72–74 (original description, figures). Holotype: ♀, Pakistan: Punjab: Cheechawatni forest (coll. Natural History Museum, Department of Zoology, University of Karachi , Pakistan; not examined). New junior subjective synonym.

Halyomorpha punjabensis: Ahmad (1980) : 136 (checklist); Ahmad (1981): 49 (host plant, distribution); Ahmad & Zaidi (1989): 239 (key), 245–246, 249–252 (comparative note, phylogenetic relationships); Zaidi & Shaukat (1993): 59, 63–65 (phenetics).

= Halyomorpha azhari Ahmad & Zaidi, 1989: 239 (key), 240–241, 249–252 (original description, figures, phylogenetic relationships). Holotype: ♂, Pakistan: Islamadad, Shakarparian (coll. Natural History Museum, Department of Zoology , University of Karachi, Pakistan; not examined). New junior subjective synonym.

Halyomorpha azhari , H. azahari [incorrect subsequent spelling]: Zaidi & Shaukat (1993): 59, 63–65 (phenetics).

Halyomorpha brevis [misidentification]: Parshad (1957a): 402, 404–405, 407–408, 412–413 (karyotype, distribution); Ueshima (1979): 81 (karyotype).

Halyomorpha brevia [misidentification, subsequent incorrect spelling]: Parshad (1957b): 125 (karyotype).

Halyomorpha halys [misidentification; see Salini et al. 2021]: Nikam & More (2016): 210 (distribution).

Pentatoma timorensis [misidentification]: Dallas (1851): 242 (distribution); Dohrn (1859): 15 (catalogue, distribution); Motschulsky (1863): 74 (distribution); Walker (1867b): 299 (distribution).

Material examined. PAKISTAN: Islamabad Capital Territory: Islamabad, National Institute of Health colony, 33°40′48″N, 73°08′49″E, 7.ix.2020, 1 ♂ 2 ♀, Z. Ahmed lgt., P. Kment det. (1 ♂ 1 ♀ in coll. Z. Ahmed, Pakistan; 1 ♀ in coll. National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic) .

Diagnosis. Coppery brown or dark brown insects, body length 15–21 mm. Legs usually with alternate bands of black and white elongate rings and ventral side of the body usually bright yellow, especially abdomen. The ventral rim of genital capsule with deep concavity ( Figs 7, 10 ), apical margin of caudal lobes slightly concave ( Figs 8–10 ); the dorsal rim broadly concave with a median emargination ( Fig. 9 ). Paramere with crown scoop-like or spatulate ( Fig. 11 ). For detailed redescription see Salini et al. (in prep.).

Measurements. Male (n = 1). Body length 14.31 mm; head: length 2.84 mm, width 3.04 mm, interocular width 1.76 mm; lengths of antennomeres: scape (I) 0.78 mm, basipedicellite (IIa) 1.37 mm, distipedicellite (IIb) 2.45 mm, basiflagellum (III) 2.75 mm, distiflagellum (IV) 2.55 mm; pronotum: length 2.84 mm, width 7.65 mm; scutellum: length 5.10 mm, width 4.61 mm.

Female (n = 2; pale / dark specimen). Body length 15.69 / 16.46 mm; head: length 3.33 / 3.24 mm, width 3.33 / 3.14 mm, interocular width 1.76 / 1.76 mm; lengths of antennomeres: scape (I) 1.18 / 0.88 mm, basipedicellite (IIa) 1.76 / 1.86 mm, distipedicellite (IIb) 2.16 / 2.35 mm, basiflagellum (III) 2.94 / 2.84 mm, distiflagellum (IV) 2.75 / 2.65 mm; lengths of labiomeres: I—1.55 / 1.48 mm, II—2.68 / 2.56 mm, III—2.06 / 2.02 mm, IV—1.71 / 1.48 mm; pronotum: length 3.14 / 3.04 mm, width 8.43 / 8.14 mm; scutellum: length 5.69 / 5.59 mm, width 5.10 / 4.90 mm.

Distribution. Pakistan: Islamabad Capital Territory ( Ahmad & Zaidi 1989, as H. azhari ; this paper), Punjab ( Ahmad & Kamaluddin 1977, Ahmad & Zaidi 1989, both as H. punjabensis ;? Sharif et al. 2020). India: Andhra Pradesh ( Ayyar 1924), Assam ( Atkinson 1882, 1888), Bihar ( Maxwell-Lefroy 1909a), Karnataka ( Distant 1902; Chatterjee 1934; Vidyasagar & Bhat 1986, as H. marmorea ; Daniel et al. 2003; Azim 2011), Kerala ( Distant 1902), Madhya Pradesh ( Chandra & Kushwaha 2013, Chandra et al. 2014), Maharashtra ( Distant 1902; Pathak et al. 2012; Tembe et al. 2014; Salini & Viraktamath 2015; Nikam & More 2016, as H. halys ), Meghalaya ( Ahmad & Zaidi 1989, Chakraborty & Ghosh 1999), Nagaland ( Atkinson 1882), Sikkim ( Atkinson 1882, 1888); Tamil Nadu ( Distant 1902, Chatterjee 1934, Chandra 1953), Telangana ( Biswas & Bal 2007), Uttarakhand ( Distant 1918; Parshad 1957a, as H. brevis ; Pajni & Sidhu 1982), Uttar Pradesh ( Chandra 1953), West Bengal ( Distant 1902, Manna 1951, Chakraborty et al. 1994). Sri Lanka ( Dohrn 1860, as P. trivialis ; Walker 1867b, as P. timorensis and P. trivialis ; Kirby 1891, as H. piceus ; Distant 1902; Breddin 1909; Péneau 1957; Ahmad & Zaidi 1989). Myanmar ( Distant 1901b, 1902; Hoffmann 1935).? Indochina (Laos or Vietnam) ( Distant 1921, Hoffmann 1935).? Malaysia: Penang ( Hoffmann 1935), Perak ( Distant 1903), Selangor ( Hasan 1993), Sarawak ( Distant 1912).? Indonesia: Java ( Walker 1867a), Mentawai Islands: Nias ( Lethierry 1888), Sumatra ( Breddin 1900, Schouteden 1933).? Philippines: Balabac ( Black 1968).

Notes. Gadalla (2004) recorded H. picus from Hurghada on Red Sea Coast of Egypt. In that paper, he referred only to the paper by Ahmad & Zaidi (1989), not including H. halys Stål, 1855 , and there is no evidence that the author considered the now widespread and invasive H. halys at all. As a result, this record was doubted by Aukema et al. (2013), Hemala & Kment (2017) and Kment & Březíková (2018). Indeed the illustrations of a dissected female specimen provided by Gadalla (2004) suggests that the examined specimen was H. halys . This is evident by the pointed apex of the laterotergite IX (= paratergite 9) and the sessile ductuli present in the apical receptacle of spermathecal pump as shown in the illustration. The pointed apex of latertergite IX is also mentioned in the diagnosis of H. picus provided by Gadalla (2004). The above diagnostics more closely fits H. halys than H. picus . In the case of H. picus , the apex of laterotergite IX is rounded (see Salini et al. 2021: Fig. 1f ) and the spermathcal ductuli are not sessile but elongate and usually twisted (Salini et al., in prep.). Moreover the nature of damage described by Gadalla (2004), resulting in the hardening of the fruit surface and taste quality loss of affected fruits, corresponds with known damage caused by H. halys . Although H. picus is known as a polyphagous pest, we are lacking reports of any serious damage or quality reduction of affected commodities by those species, except the isolated report of tender Arecanut drop by Vidyasagar & Bhat (1986).

The synonymy of Dalpada proxima Walker as well as the records of H. picus from Indochina ( Laos or Vietnam) ( Distant 1921, Hoffmann 1935), Malaysia ( Distant 1903, 1912; Hoffmann 1935; Hasan 1993), Indonesia ( Walker 1867a, Lethierry 1888, Breddin 1900, Schouteden 1933) and Philippines ( Black 1968) require verification as they may belong to different species (see also Josifov & Kerzhner 1978).

Halyomorpha timorensis (Westwood, 1837) was removed from synonymy with H. picus by Kment et al. (2021).

Figures

FIGURES 1–6. Halyomorpha picus (Fabricius, 1794) from Pakistan. 1—male (body length 14.31 mm); 2–3, 6—female, dark from (16.46 mm); 4–5—female, pale form (15.69 mm). 1, 2, 4—dorsal view, 3, 5—ventral view; 6—external female genitalia, posteroventral view.

FIGURES 7–11. Halyomorpha picus (Fabricius, 1794) from Pakistan, male genitalia. 7–10—genital capsule (7—posterior view, 8—lateral view, 9—ventral view, 10—dorsal view); 11—paramere in posterior mediolateral view. Abbreviations: pa— paramere, plp—posterolateral lobe of genital capsule, x—segment X. Scale bars: 7–10—1 mm, 11—0.4 mm.