Hypocryphalus mangiferae, (Stebbing, 1914), 2017

Johnson, Andrew J., Knížek, Miloš, Atkinson, Thomas H., Jordal, Bjarte H., Ploetz, Randy C. & Hulcr, Jiri, 2017, Resolution of a Global Mango and Fig Pest Identity Crisis, Insect Systematics and Diversity 1 (2), pp. 1-10 : 6

H. mangiferae ( Stebbing, 1914) , stat. rev. ( Fig. 3 )

C. mangiferae Stebbing, 1914 , C. inops Eichhoff, 1872 , syn.; Hy. griseus Blackburn, 1885 , syn.; H. mangiferae Eggers, 1928 , syn.; Cryphalus subcylindricus Schedl, 1942 , syn.; Cryphalus mimicus Schedl, 1942 , syn.; Hypocryphalus opacus Schedl, 1942 , syn.

The syntype series of H. robustus does not conform to the morphology of the lectotype and paralectotypes of C. mangiferae Stebbing, 1914 , the holotype of C. inops Eichhoff, 1872 , the holotype of Hy. griseus Blackburn, 1885 , or any of the specimens included in the molecular study. The two sets of specimens differ by the following characters (listed as H. mangiferae vs. H. robustus ); by the shape of the pronotum (anteriorly constricted vs. broadly rounded), by the density and shape of marginal asperities (higher than wide vs. wider than high and almost contiguous), by the long setae on interstriae 1 (slightly flattened with rounded tips vs. hair like with pointed tips), by the distribution of interstrial ground vestiture (distinctly absent along the rows of the striae vs. distributed evenly) and the shape of the interstrial ground vestiture (with a single point, and much longer than wide vs. tridentate and about as wide as long).

For these reasons, the name H. robustus is not conspecific (and thus not a senior synonym of) H. mangiferae , and H. mangiferae is reinstated as a valid name.

Figures

Fig. 3. Dorsal and lateral view of a Hypocryphalus mangiferae (female) from Honduras (specimen 42 on tree).