Antecerococcus paradoxus (Maskell)
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: 133-135
treatment provided by
|Antecerococcus paradoxus (Maskell)|
Antecerococcus paradoxus (Maskell) , comb. nov.
Cerococcus paradoxus ; Green 1910: 5. Change of combination.
Cerococcus auranticus Froggatt 1915: 1055 . Synonymy by Morrison & Morrison 1927: 19–20.
Antecerococcus punctiferus Green 1901: 560 . syn. nov.
Cerococcus punctiferus ; Green, 1908: 41. Change of combination.
Antecerococcus punctifer ; Lindinger 1910: 124. Misspelling of species name. Cerococcus punctifer ; Lindinger 1910: 124. Misspelling of species name. Cerococcus puntiferus ; Balachowsky 1932: 34. Misspelling of species name.
Type details. Eriococcus paradoxus , AUSTRALIA, South Australia, on Pittosporum undulatum , 1895 [see Note below], W.M. Maskell. # 68. Depositories: NZAC: labelled Eriococcus paradoxus adult female, 1895, WMM: lectotype adf (here designated —see note below) + 3 / 3 paralectotype adff. USNM: as above, Maskell # 68: 6 / 8 paralectotype adff (p-g) + 1 / 1 part of adult male.
Note. There are four slides labelled Eriococcus paradoxus in NZAC, two of them dated 1895 and two dated 1896. However, as noted by Morrison and Morrison (1927), both dates are several years after the publication date of C. paradoxus (1889)! The slides all have the same handwriting as on the type slides of his other species and so, assuming that Maskell labelled his own slides, he clearly saw these specimens. It is here considered that all four are syntypes and belong to the type series and that the dates were written onto the slides incorrectly. On this basis, one of them has been designated as a lectotype. However, there are also two slides labelled Eriococcus paradoxus indica Maskell , one in NZAC and the other in USNM. Lambdin & Kosztarab (1977) erroneously considered these to be also C. paradoxus and made one of them the lectotype of Eriococcus paradoxus , as discussed under A. indicus above. These two slides are clearly referable to A. indicus not to A. paradoxus . 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. The designation of this specimen as a lectotype of Eriococcus paradoxus is here revoked and a new lectotype is designated for E. paradoxus .
Note. Although Miller et al. (2015 a) list the type number 426 for C. auranticus , this number is not a type number but an accession number (see Gullan 1984). Froggatt's first notebook says: " 426. Cerococcus auranticus [sic] n. sp. Green, near Gunnedah 13 -IX-02 (W.W.F.) Bursaria spinifera [sic]. Sent Green 1.x.02 " (P.J. Gullan, pers. comm.). Although Lambdin and Kosztarab (1977, p. 2) state that they made C. auranticus a synonym of C. paradoxus , this had been done previously by Morrison & Morrison, 1927. Nor did Lambdin and Kosztarab state which specimens of C. auranticus they studied.
Type details. Antecerococcus punctiferus , AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Bathurst, on Pittosporum eugenioides, W.W. Froggatt. Depositories : BMNH: lectotype adf (designated by Lambdin & Kosztarab 1977: 190) + a paralectotype fragment on 1 slide + 1 / 5 paralectotype adff (f-g). ANIC: 1 / 4 paralectotype adff (vp). BME: 1 / 3 paralectotype adff. USNM: data as for lectotype: 3 / 9 paralectotype adff (f-p) each mounted by Lambdin from dry material (PL 188 a, b & e) + 1 / 10 first-instar nymphs.
Note. Lambdin & Kosztarab (1977) state that the lectotype should be in the USNM!
Material examined: Eriococcus paradoxus Maskell , AUSTRALIA, South Australia, no other data, Mask coll. # 68 (BMNH): 1 /? 3 adff (f) [almost certainly part of type material]; South Australia, Mitchell Park, on Pittosporum sp. ( Pittosporaceae ), 15.iii. 1983, D. Hopkins (BMNH): 1 / 1 adf (g); no locality, on Eremophila sp. ( Scrophulariaceae ), Sept. 1920, W.W. Froggatt (USNM): 3 / 5 adff (p); South Australia, on Pittosporum undulatum , ex Marion Council, 18.v. 1972, per V. Bumbleris (lot no. 3-83 / 4) (BMNH): 3 adff.
Cerococcus punctiferus : paralectotype ff: AUSTRALIA, New South Wales, Bathurst, on Pittosporum eugenioides , no date, W.W. Froggatt # 317 (BMNH, labelled Type): 1 / 5 adff (f –g). Also: Victoria, Melbourne, on Pittosporum sp., no date, French (BMNH): 1 / 6 (f –g).
Cerococcus auranticus : AUSTRALIA, New South Wales, Gunnedah, on Bursaria spinifera, W.W. Froggatt (BMNH, relabelled C. paradoxus , probably by Lambdin) [Note: spinifera is almost certainly a misspelling of spinosa as no such species of Bursaria is known (IPNI, 2015). This is almost certainly part of the type series].
Comment. In their key, Lambdin and Kosztarab (1977, p. 45) separate C. punctiferus from C. paradoxus by C. punctiferus having “large 8 -shaped pores in five submedian clusters on each side, also along margin and encircling quinquelocular disc-pores in spiracular furrows; multilocular disc-pores absent on posterior abdominal segments”. With regard to A. paradoxus , they indicate that it does not have these submedial groups of large 8 -shaped pores (although they are mentioned in their description of C. paradoxus !) and has multilocular disc-pores in the posterior segments. However, in our study, a few large 8 -shaped pores were found submedially in several places on the dorsum of A. paradoxus and, on both species, multilocular disc-pores were absent on segments VII and VIII but present on VI; however the number and frequency of multilocular disc-pores in the more anterior abdominal segments seemed variable. It is here considered that the name A. punctiferus Green is a junior synonym of A. paradoxus (Maskell) .
Lambdin and Kosztarab (1977) provide a good description of both species except that, for A. paradoxus , they illustrate ten large 8 -shaped pores along each margin of the posterior abdominal segments, each pore lying parallel to the margin, whereas the type series has 11-16 pores on each side, each pore lying at right-angles to the margin. The specimens seen by us also had very broad stigmatic bands, each more than 10-15 pores wide in places, and there were up to seven quinquelocular pores near each antenna. The adult female of A. paradoxus can be diagnosed by a combination of the following character-states: (i) large 8 -shaped pores present on dorsum, at least around apex of each stigmatic pore band and marginally on about abdominal segment III, but often also occasionally in submedial whorls on head, thorax and anterior abdominal segments; (ii) large 8 -shaped pores also present in a line of 8–16 pores along each margin of posterior abdominal segments; (iii) smallest 8 -shaped pores present in apices of each stigmatic pore band; (iv) cribriform plates small, in groups of 2–4 submedially on each side of abdominal segment IV, each with a broad margin and large micropores; (v) leg stubs present, (vi) posterior stigmatic pore bands not bifurcated; (vii) all stigmatic bands very broad with more than 200 disc-pores, and (viii) multilocular disc-pores very sparse; when present, across abdominal segments II –VI and laterad to each metathoracic leg stub but often absent on several segments. In addition, (i) the antennae occasionally appear two segmented; and (ii) the remaining branch of the posterior stigmatic band is the posterior branch because of the presence of a “dog-leg”; a few disc-pores are present anterior to the spiracle that represent the remains of the anterior branch. This is the only Antecerococcus species outside the Afrotropical and Indian Regions with non-bifurcated posterior stigmatic pore bands.
The adult female of A. paradoxus falls within Group A in the key to species of Antecerococcus because of the non-bifurcated posterior stigmatic pore band, but is otherwise similar to several species in group C which have few multilocular disc-pores, almost all from Australia and South America.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.