Antecerococcus indicus (Maskell) Maskell, 1901

Chris J. Hodgson & Douglas J. Williams, 2016, (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha, Coccomorpha) with particular reference to species from the Afrotropical, western Palaearctic and western Oriental Regions, with the revival of Antecerococcus Green and description of a new genus and fifteen new species, and with ten new synonomies, Zootaxa 4091 (1), pp. 1-175 : 58-62

publication ID

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Antecerococcus indicus (Maskell)

comb. nov.

Antecerococcus indicus (Maskell) , comb. nov.

( Fig. 19 View FIGURE 19 ; Plate 1 View PLATE 1 )

Eriococcus paradoxus indica Maskell 1897: 318 .

Cerococcus hibisci Green 1908: 19 . Synonymy by Lambdin & Kosztarab 1977: 120. Cerococcus indicus (Maskell) ; Green 1910: 5. Change of combination and rank. Ceriococcus hibisci Green ; Mahdihassan 1946: 197. Misspelling of genus name. Phenacobryum indicus (Maskell) ; Borchsenius 1960: 111. Change of combination.

Type details. Eriococcus paradoxus indica Maskell : INDIA, no other data apart from 1896, WMM. Depositories: NZAC: 1 / 1 Lectotype adf (here designated —see note below). USNM: data as for for lectotype but with indica crossed out and with ‘Maskell coll. No.’ instead of ‘ 1896, WMM’ [see Note below]: 1 / 1 paralectotype adf (g—paper envelope for slide also with ‘Maskell No. 508 ’ (relabelled C. paradoxus by Lambdin but this is obviously a mistake. See under A. paradoxus below).

Note. There are only two type slides of Eriococcus paradoxus indica , each with a single specimen. Both were considered to refer to Cerococcus paradoxus by Lambdin & Kosztarab (1977) and both had labels added to the slide as follows: ‘ Cerococcus paradoxus (Maskell) det. Lambdin’, with one being made the lectotype and the other a paralectotype. Both slides have been seen during this study and they clearly represent A. indicus NOT A. paradoxus . The designation of one of these specimens as the lectotype by Lambdin & Kosztarab (1977) is therefore clearly erroneous and is here revoked. The code states: 74.2. Lectotype found not to have been a syntype. If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype. As these slides are clearly not syntype specimens of E. paradoxus , we have put a line put through the label referring to them as Cerococcus paradoxus and each has had a further label added to the back of the slide stating that the specimen is now the lectotype / paralectotype of Eriococcus paradoxus indica Maskell.

Type details. C. hibisci : INDIA, Bombay, on Hibiscus sp. ( Malvaceae ), no date, M. Lefroy # 13. Depositories: BMNH: lectotype (here designated) and paralectotypes - 1 / 7 adf (lectotype specimen good, clearly labelled, top left-hand specimen nearest data label; paralectotypes f–g). USNM: Bengal, Pusa, on Gossypium sp., H.M. Lefroy collection: 4 paralectotype slides: 1 / 1 adf (g); 1 / 3 adff (p); 1 / 1 adf (g) + 1 / 1 secondinstar f (g).

Material studied. Lectotype f: C. indicus : Eriococcus paradoxus var. indica Maskell : adult female no other data apart from 1896, WMM: 1 / 1 adf. Also paralectotype f: labelled INDIA, no other data apart from ‘Maskel Coll.

No.’ (USNM) 1 / 1 paralectotype adf (g—paper envelope for slide also with ‘Maskell No. 508 ’. See Note under A. paradoxus below). Also: Saharanpur, on deciduous tree, Oct. 1911, Woglum (BMNH, labelled topotype): 1 / 3 adff (f–g).

Cerococcus hibisci Green. Lectotype adf and paralectotype adff: INDIA, Bombay, on Hibiscus sp. ( Malvaceae ), no date, M. Lefroy # 13 (BMNH): 1 / 7 (f-g).

Also: ANDAMAN ISLANDS, Port Blair, on Hibiscus sp., 24.iii. 1988, B.S. Bhumannavar (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (fg, as indicus ); BANGLADESH, Rajshai, on Gossypium hirsutum ( Malvaceae ), 25.xi. 1980, Univ. Chittagong (BMNH): 1 / 3 adff (p, as indicus ); Gomastapur, on Acacia arabica ( Fabaceae ), 1980, Shariful (BMNH): 1 / 1 adf (fg, as indicus ); Dacca, on cotton ( Gossypium sp.), no date, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (fp, as hibisci ). BURMA, Prome, (Pego Div.), on H. rosa-sinensis , 1981, T.J. Crowe (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (g, as indicus ). INDIA: Nagpur, on Hibiscus maschentas , no date or coll. (BMNH; # 7, CIE A 3897): 1 / 2 adff (f–g, as hibisci ); Dehra Dun, on Helicteres isore ( Malvaceae ), Nov. 1932, C.M. Gardner (BMNH): 2 / 6 adff (f–g, as indicus ); Agartala, “ China rose” ( Hibiscus rosa-sinensis ), 10.vii. 1962, no coll, (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (f, as hibisci ); no site, on Acharia sp. ( Achariaceae ), 18.v. 1956, no coll (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (f, as hibisci ); Hyderabad, on unknown plant, Dec. 1919, Forest Inst. (BMNH): 1 / 7 adff (f–g, as hibisci ); Erode, on coffee ( Coffea sp., Rubiaceae ), 7.ii. 1914, C.S. Misra (BMNH): 1 / 3 adff (f–g. as hibisci ); Poona, on guava ( Psidium guajava ( Myrtaceae ), 10.i. 1964, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 3 adff (f–g, as hibisci ); Dehra Dun, on Holarrhena antidysenterica ( Apocynaceae ), no date, J.C.M. Gardner (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (fg, as indicus ); **Punjab, Ludhiana, on Jatophra sp. ( Euphorbiaceae ), 14.ix. 1978, A.S. Sohi (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (fg, as indicus ); Orissa, Bhubaneswar, on chilli ( Capsicum sp., Solonaceae), May 1993, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (fp, as indicus ); Jabalpur, on China rose ( Hibiscus sp.), 21.i. 1974, R.R. Rawat (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (g, as hibisci ); Bangalore, Karnataka, on Hibiscus sp., July 1992, no coll (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (f, as indicus ); Ranchi, on Hibiscus mutabilis , no date, no coll (BMNH): 1 / 4 adff (fg, as indicus ); Ranchi, on Hibiscus sp., 1976, G.P. Tulsyan (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (fg, as hibisci ); Gujarat, Surat, on cotton ( Gossypium sp.), May 1975, no coll (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (f–g, as hibisci ); **Coimbatore, on Cajanus indicus ( Fabaceae ), no date, T.S. Muthukrishnan, (BMNH): 1 / 4 adff (f–p, as hibisci ); South India, on bringal ( Solanum melongena , Solanaceae ), 20.iii. 1910, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 5 adff (f, as hibisci ); Limbuchura, on maize roots ( Poaceae ), l 1962, no coll BMNH): 1 / 1 adf (p, as hibisci ); **Madras, Gossypium sp., no date, no coll (BMNH): 1 / 10 adff (g, as hibisci ); Gujarat, Navsari, on Hibiscus rosachinensis ( rosasinensis ), 15.ii. 1991, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 2 adff (g, as indicus ); Bangalore, Karnataka, on Hibiscus sp., -. ii. 1989, S.K. Jalali (BMNH): 1 / 2 adf (g, as indicus ); Bangalore, on Hibiscus sp., 23.ix. 1979, J.M. Noyes (BMNH): 1 / 4 adff (f–p, as indicus ); Lashkar, on cotton ( Gossypium sp.; Malvaceae ), 10.i. 1912, headmaster, Service School (BMNH): 2 / 7 adff (f–g, as indicus ); Jodhpur, on grapevine ( Vitis sp., Vitaceae ), 1975, no coll. # 397 – 291 (BMNH: CIE A 8816): 2 / 4 adff (f–g, as C. hibisci ). OMAN, Salalah Palace, on Hibiscus sp., 4.xi. 1976, no coll. (BMNH, OM 16 CIE 9263): 1 / 2 adff (f–g, as hibisci ). MALAYSIA, Malacca, Zeneca Res. Stn., damaging stems of cotton ( Gossypium sp.), 17.xi. 1998, Visralingham (BMNH): 1 / 1 adf (g, as indicus ); no site, on H. rosasinensis , 5.v. 1955, R.A. Lever (BMNH): 1 / 1 adf (fg, as hibisci ); Selangor, Dept. agric. 18499, on Hibiscus mutabilis , 24.i. 1956, no coll (BMNH): 1 / 1 adf (g, as hibisci ). PAKISTAN, no site, on jute ( Corchorus sp., Malvaceae ), Sept. 1962, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 6 adff (fg, as hibisci ); Karachi, on Cordia sp. ( Boraginaceae ), 23.ix. 1967, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 3 adff (fg, as hibisci ). SAUDI ARABIA, King Abdulaziz Int. Airport, on Hibiscus sp., Oct. 1989, no coll. (BMNH): 1 / 5 adff (p, as hibisci ). SRI LANKA, Roy. Bot. Gardens, on cotton, no date or coll (BMNH): 1 / 4 adff (f, as hibisci )

Note: in the above list, collections that had a mixture of “ indicus ” and “ hibisci ” morphs are indicated by ** (See Comment section below). The following description was made primarily from the (probable) syntype specimen of C. indicus , and the “ type ” specimens identified by Green. Major characters were checked on the other material listed above. Data for C. hibisci are given as [..] brackets.

Mounted material. Body broadly pear-shaped, length 1.3–1.88 [1.05–2.13] mm long, 0.9–1.9 [0.7–1.7] mm wide.

Dorsum. Eight-shaped pores of 3 sizes: (i) largest pores, each 15–20 x 8–14 [17– 20 x 12–13] µm, abundant in swirls throughout head, thorax and anterior abdominal segments, density of swirls somewhat variable; also with a line of 9–15 [6–13] pores on each side of posterior abdominal segments; (ii) an intermediate-sized pore, each narrower along its long axis than wide and with outer margin not rounded but slightly pointed, each 11–13 x 5–6 [10–13 x 5–6] µm, abundant in swirls throughout most of dorsum; and (iii) a minute pore, each 5.0– 5.5 x 3–3.5 [5.0– 6.5 x 3] µm, with 0–2 [1–4] within apical group of each stigmatic pore band. Simple pores very sparse, each 2.0– 2.5 µm wide. Cribriform plates roundish, rather variable in size, each 15–25 [13–25] µm wide, but often fused together; present in groups of 0–2 [0] submedially on each side of abdominal segment III and in 2 groups, each with 1–3 plates, submedially on each side of abdominal segment IV, with 1 group just anterior to other [see comment section below]; each pore with a fairly broad border and quite large microducts [moderate-large]. Dorsal setae showing nothing distinctive. Tubular ducts with each outer duct 20–25 [20] µm long, and 3 µm wide, broader than those on venter; abundant throughout. Anal lobes mainly membranous, but with sclerotized inner margins; each lobe 60–90 [70–80] µm long with a long apical seta 200–220 [200–250] µm long; fleshy setae near apex on dorsal surface short, stout and often curved, each 20–33 [26–33] µm long; more anterior fleshy setae each 30–38 [35–40] µm long; ventral seta near apex strongly setose, each 28–30 [27–50] µm long; medioventral setae possibly absent [18–25] µm long; outer margin setae each 13–17 [13–16] µm long; each lobe with 2 or 3 [4] 8 -shaped pores. Median anal plate with a slightly serrate apex, 28–50 [40–53] µm long, 45–66 [50–58] µm wide at base. Anal ring with 4 pairs of setae, each 66–90 [95–115] µm long.

Venter. Eight-shaped pores subequal to or slightly larger than intermediate pores on dorsum, each 11–14 x 5.5 –7.0 [10–11 x 5–6] µm, in a fairly broad submarginal band, in bands 2–3 [2–3] pores wide across all abdominal segments and with a few near mouthparts; many near inner margin of band somewhat asymmetrical. Simple pore sparse. Small bilocular pores, each 5.0– 5.5 x 4 [5 x 4] µm, rather abundant medially on head and thorax. Spiracular disc-pores small, each 3–5 [3–4] µm wide, mainly with 5 loculi; posterior band bifurcated, each band mainly 1–2 [2–3] pores wide but much wider near anterior spiracles and widening slightly at apex on dorsum; with a group of 12–25 very close to each spiracle and then 50–60 (total 65–80) [total 45–65] in each band; each band with 0–2 [1 or 2] minute 8 -shaped pores in each apical group; also with 1–5 [4–9] quinquelocular disc-pores near each antenna. Small convex closed pores absent. Multilocular disc-pores few, each 6.5–7.5 [7–8] µm wide with mainly 10 loculi but more anterior pores often with fewer loculi; present on abdominal segments as follows: VIII 0 or 1 [0 or 1] near margin; VII 1 [0 or 1] near margin; VI & V 1–3 [0–3] each submarginally; IV & III 1 or 2 [0–4] submarginally, and II 2–6 [2–4]; and with 0 or 1 [0–3] laterad to each leg stub on metathorax. Tubular ducts slightly narrower than those on dorsum and possibly less frequent. Ventral setae showing nothing significant; preanal setae each 65–100 [65–90] µm long; companion setae 10–13 [11–25] µm long. Leg stubs large. Antennae sometimes appearing 2 segmented, each 50–56 [50–60] µm long, 38–42 [40–50] µm wide; without a cone-like point on apex but sometimes with a shallow setal cavity. Clypeolabral shield 145 [130–140] µm long. Spiracular peritremes small, each 35–42 [40–50] µm wide.

Comment. Cerococcus hibisci Green was synonymised with C. indicus by Lambdin and Kosztarab (1977). Specimens of these two morphs are very easy to separate in most cases and, for a long time in the present study, they were considered to be separate species, with C. hibisci having no cribriform plates on abdominal segment III and A. indicus always having two groups: a submedial plate on each side of III plus those on segment IV. However, an exhaustive search eventually found populations with both morphs on a single slide, and this was followed by others (the slides with specimens showing both morphological types are indicated by ** in the above list). Therefore the synonomy of C. hibisci with E. paradoxus indica is here accepted.

The adult female of A. indicus is characterised by the following combination of character-states: (i) dorsum with three sizes of 8 -shaped pores; (ii) large and intermediate-sized 8 -shaped pores in fairly dense swirls throughout most of dorsum; (iii) intermediate-sized pores rather elongate, with slightly pointed outer margins; (iv) apex of each stigmatic band with 1–4 small 8 -shaped pores; (v) posterior abdominal segments with a band of 9–15 largest 8 -shaped pores along each margin; (vi) cribriform plates in a submedial group of 1–3 on each side of abdominal segment IV and (more rarely) 0–2 on each side of segment III; (vii) fleshy setae on dorsal surface of each anal lobe long; (viii) leg stubs large; (ix) posterior stigmatic pore band bifurcated; (x) multilocular disc-pores very few, restricted to submargins of most abdominal segments and also sometimes metathorax; (xi) a few ventral 8 -shaped pores present near clypeolabral shield, (xii) median anal plate usually with a slightly serrate apex, and (xiii) antennae possibly with a shallow setal cavity but no cone-like apex.

Adult females of A. roseus (Green) are morphologically extremely similar to those of A. indicus and the former species may be a synonym of the latter but, based on the type series of A. roseus , these two species can be separated by the shape of the intermediate-sized pores, which are much rounder on A. roseus . The present study and that of Lambdin and Kosztarab (1977) suggest that A. indicus is quite widespread and has been recorded from Bangladesh, Burma, China, India, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and the Andaman Islands. However, if A. indicus and A. roseus are separate species as recognised here, then many of the above records could well refer to the latter species (see under C. roseus below). In addition to the above, Miller et al. (2005 a) mention records from Kenya (Hargreaves 1948) and Tanzania (Ritchie 1926) but it is here considered that these are unlikely to be correct.

The adult female of A. indicus falls within Group C in the key to species of Antecerococcus , close to A. albospicatus and A. roseus , both from India and Sri Lanka.