Dicyphylus, Randall T. Schuh & Michael D. Schwartz, 2016

Randall T. Schuh & Michael D. Schwartz, 2016, Nineteen new genera and 82 new species of Cremnorrhinina from Australia, including analyses of host relationships and distributions (Insecta: Hemiptera: Miridae: Phylininae: Cremnorrhinini), Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 401, pp. 1-279 : 65-67

Dicyphylus , new genus

TYPE SPECIES: Dicyphylus pilbara , new species.

DIAGNOSIS: Recognized by the elongate, slen- der, parallel-sided body form, bulging frons, beady eyes, and overall appearance similar to members of the Dicyphina , including the “tubular” body form, antennal segment 1 often black with a pale apical ring (pl. 6); endosoma usually with proximally directed slender spine subtending secondary gonopore; apex of endosoma always with some elaborations; secondary gonopore delicate (figs. 20–25, pl. 7); phallotheca usually with a one or two fields of denticles on posteroventral surface, if two then field sometimes separated by a trough; and anterior process of left paramere sometimes truncate (figs. 20–25). Tubular body form in Dicyphylus unlike flattened body seen in most other members of the Australian Cremnorrhinina, except Proteophylus (but P. acaciae flattened) and Telophylus . The former lacks a lateral endosomal spine; in the latter secondary gonopore flanked by serrate crest at midpoint of endosoma. Most easily confused with species of Myrtophylus and Spinivesica because of laterally projecting endosomal spine, but those taxa less dicyphinelike in appearance, never with fields of spicules on phallotheca, and never with antennal segment 1 black; Myrtophylus with apex of endosoma strongly bifid, and Spinivesica with terminal endosomal membrane covered with microtrichia.

DESCRIPTION: MALE: Weakly to moderately elongate with weakly convex lateral margins, body form tubular, total length 2.10–3.16, pronotum width 0.64–0.85. COLORATION (pl. 6): Ranging from largely pale or green to almost completely black; antennal segment 1 usually black with a contrasting pale apical ring, sometimes other segments also dark; clypeus dark at apex or entirely dark; membrane weakly to moderately fumose, membrane veins contrastingly pale to white. SURFACE AND VESTITURE (fig. 19A–C, pl. 6: Dorsum smooth to weakly rugulose, dull to moderately shining; dorsal vestiture usually of short, black, reclining simple setae, setae sometimes pale. STRUCTURE: General body form more or less tubular, not as broad and flattened as in most other Australian Cremnorrhinina. Head (fig. 19A–C, pl. 6): Globular with protuberant globular eyes; eyes occupying slightly more than one-half height of head in lateral view; vertex and frons swollen, frons projecting well beyond anterior margin of eye in dorsal view; clypeus prominent in lateral view; antennal insertion above ventral margin of eye, contiguous with eye, eye not emarginate; labium reaching to about apex of metacoxa. Thorax (fig. 19B, pl. 6): Nearly flat, posterior lobe not elevated, lateral and posterior margins weakly concave; calli weakly elevated, polished, and without setae. Pretarsus as in figure 19E, F. Hemelytron: Corial margin weakly convex; cuneus weakly elongate. GENITALIA (figs. 19D, 20–25, pl. 7): Pygophore: Short, conical or broadly conical with truncate or slightly indented posterior surface. Endosoma: Sigmoid or J-shaped, small; basal half of endosomal straps fused dorsally, fused region usually rotated clockwise or to left, otherwise remaining on dorsal surface; usually with proximally directed spine subtending secondary gonopore, with variable diameter, length, and origin; subtending spine sometimes absent; sometimes middle of strap with serrate prominence or smooth flange; secondary gonopore well sclerotized, located subapically within trunk of endosomal shaft; apically with variable number of smooth or spiculate spines and extensive billowy or conforming membrane. Phallotheca: Apical portion acutely triangular, strongly sclerotized with compressed dorsal edge and usually with variably developed crest, posteroventral surface usually with field of denticles of variable size apically; posterodorsal surface smooth or with denticles; narrow or compressed ovoid aperture situated on anterodorsal surface; basal portion short, reaching to anterior margin of pygophore aperture in situ. Parameres: Left paramere with variable dorsoposterior margin, posterior, and anterior processes; right paramere relatively short, usually tumid, with single dorsoapical projection of variable length.

FEMALE (pl. 4): Elongate, more strongly ovoid than male, total length 2.20–3.06, pronotum width 0.68–0.88. Coloration, surface, and vestiture as in male. GENITA- LIA (pl. 43): Subgenital plate of sternite 6: Concave medially. Vestibular sclerites: Relatively large, reaching to anterior margin of dorsal labiate plate. First gonapophyses: Medium size, wedge- or bulb-shaped basal blocks. Ventral labiate plate: Platelike medial anteroventral extension narrow, divided medially, covering of anterior surface of basal structures. Dorsal labiate plate: Moderately long. Sclerotized rings: Small or medium sized, widely separated, quadrate or ovoid, weakly concave, with sclerotized extension on posterior angle. Posteromedial region: Surface without obvious microstructure. Anterolateral region: Narrowly exceeding anterior margin of sclerotized rings. Posterior wall: Intersegmental structure: Transverse crest-shaped sclerite with serrate posterior margin situated in middle of connecting membrane. Interramal sclerites: Well-sclerotized, narrow lateral sclerites, medial sclerite triangular.

ETYMOLOGY: From the generic name Dicyphus Fieber , in reference to the similar habitus to members of the Dicyphini , and the generic name Phylus ; masculine.

DISCUSSION: The habitus of Dicyphylus spp. is remarkably similar to members of the Dicyphini and the host associations have similarities as well. Dicyphylus spp. breed on a variety of host families, most host taxa apparently covered with some form of tomentum, a situation commonly seen in the Dicyphini . Although we know nothing about the details of their biology, the available host information suggests that the overall appearance of this apparently monophyletic group is influenced by factors that are related to attributes of the host plants themselves.