Schmitzofulvius Gorczyca, 1998

Masłowski, Adrian, Baňař, Petr, Carapezza, Attilio, Chérot, Frédéric, Jindra, Zdeněk, Taszakowski, Artur & Wolski, Andrzej, 2023, Notes on plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Miridae) from Madagascar with a description of new species of the cylapine tribe Fulviini and checklist of Madagascan mirids, Zootaxa 5330 (1), pp. 73-92 : 79-80

Genus: Schmitzofulvius Gorczyca, 1998

Schmitzofulvius Gorczyca 1998a: 8 (new genus), 1999: 2, 11 (diagnosis, key to species), 2000: 153 (diagnosis, redescription). Type species: Schmitzofulvius bigibber Gorczyca, 1998 (original designation).

Diagnosis. Recognized by the following set of characters: dorsum mostly rugose ( Fig. 4 ), covered with needle-like, short setae; head long and relatively thin ( Figs 4A–F ); eye well removed from pronotal collar ( Figs 4A–F ); head with transverse depression behind eyes and with moderately developed longitudinal sulcus between eyes both forming T-shaped furrow ( Fig. 4D ); pronotum subquadrate, strongly carinate laterally ( Figs 4A–C ); calli distinctly upraised, cone-like, sharply pointed ( Figs 4A–C ); scent gland evaporative areas of metepisternum highly reduced, restricted to posteroventral angle of metepisternum; hemelytron somewhat narrowed basally ( Fig. 4C ); pretarsal claw without subapical tooth.

Redescription. Male. Macropterous. COLORATION. Body brownish to dark brown nearly black with welldeveloped yellowish areas; middle of endocorium with yellow, relatively large patch ( Figs 4A, C ). TEXTURE AND VESTITURE. Dorsum clothed with short, needle-like, semirecumbent setae. Head. Rugose, partly smooth, covered with moderately dense setae; antenna covered with relatively dense, short, recumbent setae, antennomeres I and II narrowly glabrous basally. Thorax. Pronotum. Rugose; calli covered with vestiture denser than on remainder of pronotum. Mesoscutum and scutellum. Rugose, covered with sparse setae ( Figs 4B, F ). Thoracic pleura. Almost glabrous, covered with several short, fine, needle-like setae, propleuron rugose, remaining pleura shining. Hemelytron. Covered with moderately dense, uniformly distributed setae. Legs. Covered with moderately dense, regularly distributed short, semirecumbent setae. Abdomen. Sparsely covered with fine, short vestiture. STRUCTURE. Body subelongate ( Fig. 4C ). Head. Strongly porrect, triangular in dorsal view ( Figs 4C, E ); vertex not carinate posteriorly, with weak transverse depression behind eyes and with moderately developed longitudinal sulcus between eyes both forming T-shaped furrow ( Fig. 4F ); eyes small, well removed from pronotal collar, barely reaching gula laterally ( Fig. 4D ); antennal insertion weakly removed from eye, bordering sulcus between maxillary and mandibular plates ( Figs 4D ); mandibular plates without sulcus posteriorly; clypeal base placed above antennal insertions ( Fig. 4D ); antenna short, not reaching beyond middle of body ( Fig. 4C ); antennomere I nearly cylindrical, weakly narrowed basally ( Figs 4A–C ); antennomere II broadened toward apex ( Fig. 4C ); antennomeres III and IV thin, cylindrical; labium thin, relatively long, reaching metacoxae; segment I subdivided, weakly reaching beyond middle of gula ( Figs 4A, B ). Thorax. Pronotum. Subquadrate, strongly carinate laterally ( Figs 4A–C ); collar flat, weakly separated from remainder of pronotum ( Figs 4D, E ); anterior lobe ~ 2.0 times as long as posterior lobe and somewhat narrower than it, anterior lobe lateral margin moderately arcuate ( Fig. 4C ); calli distinctly upraised, cone-like, sharply pointed ( Figs 4A–C, F ); humeral angle relatively narrow and long ( Fig. 4C ); posterior margin concave ( Fig. 4C ). Mesoscutum and scutellum. Weakly convex. Thoracic pleura. Scent gland evaporative areas of metepisternum highly reduced, restricted to posteroventral angle of metepisternum. Hemelytron. Narrowed and almost parallel-sided on basal one sixth, remainder of hemelytron moderately broadened, with lateral margins moderately arcuate ( Fig. 4C ); lateral margin of basal, narrowed portion of hemelytron with several small tuberculate structures: hemelytral veins weakly convex; membrane fully developed ( Gorczyca 2000: fig. 45, 46). Legs. Relatively long; tarsus two segmented, tarsomere II not subdivided; pretarsal claw without subapical tooth.

Female. Mostly similar to male. Hemelytral membrane distinctly reduced, hemelytra with different degree of development, from fully submacropterous with posterior segments of abdomen well exposed ( Fig. 4C ) to hemelytra reaching apex of abdomen.

Remarks. Our generic redescription is a composite of the Gorczyca’s (1998a, 2000) descriptions of the genus that were based solely on the male specimens and the results of our observations of four female specimens of S. bigibber . The above redescription shows the sexually dimorphic hemelytra with the males being macropterous and the females submacropterous. Further study, including female specimens of S. niger Gorczyca, 1988 , will clarify whether the differences are characteristic of the genus, or they are found only in S. bigibber .

Gorczyca (1998a, 1999) hypothesized the close affinity of Schmitzofulvius with Euchilofulvius Poppius, 1909 based on the embolium narrowed basally ( Fig. 4C ) (Gorczyca 1998: fig. 1), the pale patches on the hemelytra: one in the middle of corium and other above cuneus, the small tubercles on embolium ( Fig. 4C )( Gorczyca 1998a: fig. 1; Wolski & Gorczyca 2014), and the similar shape of the parameres ( Gorczyca 1998a: figs. 5, 6; Gorczyca 1998b: figs 2–7). Additionally, both genera have short labial segment I weakly reaching beyond the middle of the gula ( Figs 4A, B ) ( Yasunaga et al. 2015: fig. 1C) and the relatively long pronotum ( Fig. 4C )( Yasunaga & Miyamoto 2006: fig. 5D). Schmitzofulvius differs from Euchilofulvius in having the eyes distinctly removed from the pronotal collar ( Figs 4A–E ) whereas in Euchilofulvius the eye is only weakly removed from the pronotal collar ( Yasunaga & Miyamoto 2006: fig. 5D). The calli in Schmitzofulvius are strongly upraised, conical and sharply pointed occupying most of the pronotum ( Figs 4A, B, F ) whereas in Euchilofulvius they are moderately upraised, not sharply pointed, occupying at most anterior one-third of pronotum ( Gorczyca 1999: fig. 1; Yasunaga & Miyamoto 2006: fig. 5D). Both genera can also be easily distinguished by the dorsal texture and vestiture. In Schmitzofulvius , the dorsum and thoracic pleura are mostly rugose, covered with needle-like setae, whereas in Euchilofulvius , the dorsal surface and thoracic pleura are verrucose with vestiture consisting of scale-like setae distinctly broadened toward the apex ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: figs 29, 32).

Wolski & Gorczyca (2014) paid attention to the close similarity between Euchilofulvius and Peritropisca Carvalho & Lorenzato, 1978 indicating that both taxa share T-shaped, shallow depression on vertex composed of longitudinal, medial groove and transverse concaved region situated near posterior margin of vertex ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: figs 23–26). A similar structure is also found in Schmitzofulvius ( Fig. 4D ). Another trait that might indicate the close affinity of these genera is the size of the metathoracic scent gland evaporative area, which is apparently absent in Euchilofulvius ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: fig. 32) or reduced to the posterior angle of metepisternum in Schmitzofulvius and Peritropisca ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: fig. 33; Namyatova & Cassis 2022: fig. 8E). They also share the similar shape of the right paramere with apical process short and acute and robust paramere body ( Gorczyca 1998a: fig, 1998b: figs 2, 4, 6; Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: figs 16, 22). Schmitzofulvius and Peritropisca , unlike Euchilofulvius , have upraised, conical and pointed calli ( Figs 4A, B, F ; Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: figs 1–4; Namyatova & Cassis 2022: figs 8A–C). Peritropisca differs from Schmitzofulvius and Euchilofulvius in having the labium reaching the posterior portion of the gula ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: figs 1–4) and embolium not narrowed basally or weakly concave ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014: figs 1, 2; Namyatova & Cassis 2022: fig. 8A).

Figures

FIGURE 4. Schmitzofulvius bigibber female, lateral view (A, B), dorsal view (C), head in antero-dorsolateral (D) and dorsal view (E), head and pronotum in the anterior view (F).