Halys serrigera Westwood, 1837

Salini, S., 2019, Revision of the genus Halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) with description of a new species from India, Zootaxa 4586 (2), pp. 351-375 : 361-364

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4586.2.9
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:56B383B3-9F25-4B19-991B-8BEE402B0196
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0C3D87C2-2223-E363-FF0F-22B8B7BDFE45
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Halys serrigera Westwood, 1837
status

Treatment

( Figs 4, 5 View FIGURES 1–9 )

Cimex dentatus Fabricius, 1775: 702 (junior primary homonym of Cimex dentatus De Geer, 1773 , Acanthosomatidae View in CoL ).

Halys dentata: Fabricius, 1803: 180 –181; Chopra, 1974: 475 (syn. Ghauri, 1988: 77).

Pentatoma dentata: Latreille, 1804: 186 .

Halys serrigera Westwood, 1837: 23 (syn. Stål, 1876: 45).

Halys fabricii Memon, Ahmad & Perveen, 2002: 51 . Syn. nov.

Halys serrigera: Ghauri, 1988: 80 .

Halys serriger: Rider, 2006: 308 .

Colouration. Dorsum ochraceous with spots or streaks formed by clusters of dark brown to black punctures; antennae nearly concolourous with dorsum, but darker towards apical segments; scutellum with 1+1 spots at basal angles, black; connexivum concolourous with dorsum except for black anterior and posterior fourths of connexival segments; hemelytral membrane brownish with black veins; ventral surface, including labium and legs, nearly concolourous with or paler than dorsum except for black apical segment of labium, apices of tarsal segments and claws and a small spot below each spiracle and laterad to spiracular line on ventrites III–VII.

Integument and vestiture. Dorsum including head covered with dense, irregular dark brown to black punctures, sometimes forming irregular patches or spots. Ventral surface including legs with dark brown to black, coarse, dense punctures. Body glabrous.

Structure. Labium elongate reaching or surpassing anterior margin of ventrite VI. Lateral and posterior margins of pronotum straight. Humeri angulate, not elevated. Disc of pronotum as well as scutellum more or less flat. Other characters are in generic description.

External male genitalia ( Figs 42–56 View FIGURES 42–48 View FIGURES 49–56 ). Genital capsule. Roughly quadrangular. Dorsal rim widely and concavely excavated with shallow U-notch medially and minute V-shaped notch laterally, adjacent to each caudal lobes ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 42–48 ); infoldings well developed, sublateral region sclerotized, black, with a pair of black pointed, stout teeth (sometimes with one additional small tooth just beneath the main tooth) near end of sclerotized region on either side of median notch ( Fig. 93 View FIGURES 91–93 ). Ventral rim concavely excavated (roughly W-shaped) medially, infoldings with short, stout and narrow, inverted U-shaped process medially ( Fig. 43 View FIGURES 42–48 ), 1+1 sclerotized, obliquely straight, narrow ridge on sides of inverted U-shaped process; ridges reaching caudolateral margin of infoldings; infoldings well developed, medially elevated, laterally joined to caudal lobes by a minute V-shaped notch. Paramere. Roughly C-shaped ( Figs 45–47 View FIGURES 42–48 ), with expanded plate-like and apically rounded crown, short stem and expanded plate-like apodeme. Crown with small, blunt, black tooth medially on dorsolateral side near apical margin; tooth continued as a sclerotized ridge medially on dorsolateral side near apical margin ( Fig. 45 View FIGURES 42–48 ). Phallus. Articulatory apparatus with basal plates and support bridge complex, dorsal connectives widened into 1+1 irregular capitate processes ( Figs 48 View FIGURES 42–48 , 97 View FIGURES 94–99 ). Phallosoma sclerotized, constricted towards both ends, broadest medially and concave dorsally ( Figs 49–52 View FIGURES 49–56 ); two pairs of membranous conjunctival processes, dorsal pair elongate with a narrow, fingerlike additional lobe giving a bifid appearance apically ( Figs 51, 52 View FIGURES 49–56 ), ventral pair shorter and broader than dorsal pair and as long as processes of aedeagus. Processes of aedeagus hard, sclerotized, fused along midline at proximal half encompassing short, sclerotized aedeagus and separated at distal half; distal half expanded into a subrectangular plate with rather undulate (not truncate) apical margin; aedeagus bent upwards and shorter than processes of aedeagus ( Fig. 52 View FIGURES 49–56 ).

External female genitalia ( Figs 53–56 View FIGURES 49–56 ). Terminalia. Valvifers VIII roughly quadrangular, slightly convex ventrally with mesal margin straight, inner posterior angles acutely produced; posterior margin undulate and strongly concave adjacent to inner posterior. Valvulae VIII with apical (= caudal) margin uniformly rounded ( Fig. 54 View FIGURES 49–56 ). Valvifers IX transverse, appearing as two roughly kidney-shaped plates joined medially by a transparent, membranous region. Laterotergite IX obliquely placed with inner margin straight, apical margin nearly rounded and shorter than apex of abdomen. Laterotergite VIII elongate and triangular with nearly smooth caudal margin. Spermatheca ( Fig. 53 View FIGURES 49–56 ). Apical receptacle orbicular with three finger-like processes, directed towards flanges.

Differential diagnosis. This species can be recognized from the inverted U-shaped median process on the infoldings of ventral rim of genital capsule, expanded parameral crown with single tooth situated dorsolaterally near apical margin, quadrangular valvifers VIII with posterior margin undulate (prominent concavity adjacent to inner posterior angle, which is acutely produced) ( Figs 55, 56 View FIGURES 49–56 ) and valvulae VIII with caudal margin uniformly rounded ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). Females of this species can be easily recognized from H. shaista by the close examination of terminalia (even in natural condition without maceration), where the posterior margin of valvifers VIII is prominently concave adjacent to inner posterior angle ( Fig. 55 View FIGURES 49–56 ); the posterior margin of valvifers VIII is convex ( Fig. 74 View FIGURES 69–76 ) in H. shaista .

Measurements (in mm). Median (minimum–maximum). Males (n=5). Body length 19.39 (18.96–20.19); head length 5.00 (4.72–5.27), head width 3.36 (3.24–3.51), interocular width 2.05 (1.95–2.10), length of antennal segments (I) 1.08 (0.93–1.20): (II) 2.49 (2.33–2.66): (III) 2.35 (2.14–2.71): (IV) 2.24 (2.04–2.56): (V) 2.02 (1.75– 2.17); length of labial segments (I) 2.37 (2.24–2.61): (II) 4.29 (3.98–4.65): (III) 4.00 (3.72–4.30): (IV) 2.79 (2.65– 3.00); pronotum length 3.82 (3.56–4.07); pronotum width 8.77 (8.54–9.26); scutellum length 6.76 (6.42–7.16); scutellum width 4.98 (4.83–5.15). Females (n=5). Body length 21.17 (20.36–21.80); head length 5.04 (4.86–5.15), head width 3.46 (3.35–3.51), interocular width 2.14 (2.04–2.21), length of antennal segments (I) 1.05 (0.85–1.19): (II) 2.57 (2.30–2.79): (III) 2.49 (2.38–2.52): (IV) 2.36 (2.21–2.46): (V) 1.69; length of labial segments (I) 2.42 (2.27–2.60): (II) 4.62 (4.43–4.97): (III) 4.24 (4.00–4.65): (IV) 2.87 (2.65–3.13); pronotum length 4.22 (4.08–4.41); pronotum width 9.36 (9.21–9.52); scutellum length 7.50 (7.26–7.78); scutellum width 5.32 (5.23–5.45).

Material examined. INDIA : Andhra Pradesh: 2♀, Tirupathi , 22.x.2008, Umeshkumar, and Yeshwanth, H. M.; Karnataka: 5♂, 1♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 06.viii.2012 , Salini, S.; 7♀, 11♂, same but 02.viii.2012; 9♀, same but 12.iii.2014; 2♀, same but 22.v.2014; 3♀, same but 13.v.2014; 1♀, same but 29.viii.2012; 7♂, same but 12.iii.2014; 3♀, 8♂, same but 24.iv.2014; 1♀, same but 01.ix.2012; 2♀, 3♂, same but 06.ix.2012; 1♀, 1♂, same but 04.x.2012, 1♀, 4♂, same but 22.ii.2014; 1♀, 1♂, same but 18.vi.2014; 1♂, same but 10.x.2012; 1♂, same but 29.v.2014; 1♂, same but 01.ix.2012; 4♂, same but 17.viii.2012; 1♂, same but 24.viii.2012; 1♀, 1♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 04.ii.2016 , Prabhu, G.; 1♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 01.v.2012 , Manjunath B.; 1♀, 2♂, Bangalore, Attur , 12.v.2014 , Salini, S.; 2♀, 6♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 01.ix.2012 , Anand, P.; 5♀, 8♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 29.viii.2012 , Naveen and Rajesh; 1♀, Kolar, Chintamani, SCC Farm , 15.viii.2015 , Mohan; 1♀, Kolar, Chintamani, SCC Farm , 28.viii.2015 , Harisha, R.; 1♀, Kolar, Chintamani, SCC Farm , 05.v.2015 , Nandeesha; 1♀, Kolar, Chintamani, SCC Farm , 23.xi.2015 , Students; 1♀, Kolar, Chintamani, SCC Farm , 05.iv.2015 , Rashmi; 1♂, Kolar, Chintamani, SCC Farm , 21.ix.2015 , Veereshkumar; 1♂, Kolar, Chintamani , SCC, 10.viii.2015 , Roshini, N.; 3♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 27.vii.2012 , Manjunath, B.; 2♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 09.iv.2013 , Salini, S.; 3♂, 2♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 29.ix.2013 , Salini, S.; 2♂, Dakshina Kannada, Sulliya , 12.xi.2009 and 13.xi.2009 , Umeshkumar; 1♂, Bangalore, Hebbal , 17.x.2012 , Salini, S.; 1♂, 1♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 23.i.2014 , Salini, S.; 1♂, Bangalore, Kantankunte , 13 o 24’E, 77 o 30, 19.i.2011 , Meenakshi, J.; 1♂, Forestry College, Sirsi , 08.xii.2007 , Umeshkumar, I. S.; 3♂, 2♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 05.i.2007 , Prabhu, G.; 4♂, 3♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 29.ix.2016 , ex. Switenia mahagoni, Prabhu, G.; 2♂, 5♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 30.vi.2016 , Prabhu, G.; 1♂, Bangalore, Attur , 24.x.2016 , Prabhu, G.; 1♂, 2♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 04.vi.2016 , Prabhu, G.; 1♀, Uttara Kannada, Dandeli , 29.v.2008 , Umeshkumar; 1♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 10.vi.2011 , N’ 13 o 02’ E, 77 o 36’, Meenakshi, J.; 1♀, Bangalore, Surdenapura , 10.iii.2010 , Mallesh; 1♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 21.ix.2013 , Salini, S.; 1♀, Bangalore, Silk Board , 31.xii.2009 , Mallesh; 1♀, Raichur, Agricultural College , 06.i.2011 , N 16 o 11’ E, 77 o 19’, Umeshkumar; 1♀, Tumkur, Kunigal , 18.ix.2011 , N 13 o 02’ E, 77 o 35’, Basanth, Y. S.; 1♀, Bangalore, Hebbal , 02.viii.2012 , Salini, S.; Kerala : 3♂, 3♀, Thrissur, KAU, Vellanikkara, students collection; Tamil Nadu : 1♀, Chidambaram , 02.vi.2016 , Veenakumari, K.

Remarks. Memon et al. (2002) resurrected H dentatus from the synonymy with H. serrigera and proposed a new replacement name for it ( H. fabricii ). Based on examination of several dissected specimens from various localities, H. serrigera is treated here as synonym of H. dentatus . Memon et al. (2002) claimed that the length of paraclypei in respect to clypeus, length of antennal segments, shape of parameral crown, length of conjunctival processes, presence or absence of a small additional lobe on dorsal conjunctival process and length of processes of adeagus in respect to length of conjunctival processes are suitable for differentiating H. dentata from H. serrigera . During the present study these characters were found to be highly variable intraspecifically. The variability associated with the shape of the parameral crown (especially the concavity of dorsolateral margin and tooth on parameral crown) is illustrated ( Figs 57–60 View FIGURES 57–60 ). Dr. Henrik Enghoff and Anders Illum (Natural History Museum of Denmark) were kind enough to send images of the habitus as well as the dissected male genitalia of the lectotype of H. dentata ( Figs 18–28 View FIGURES 18–20 View FIGURES 21–28 ). Comparison of these images with freshly dissected specimens of H. serrigera confirmed the synonymy of H. dentata and H. serrigera .

Rider (2006) listed this species as Halys serriger . The gender of the generic name Halys , however, is feminine ( ICZN 1999, Art. 30.2.3), therefore the adjectival epithet in accordance with the gender of the genus is serrigera .