Fulvidius Poppius

Wolski, Andrzej, Gorczyca, Jacek, Chérot, Frédéric & Gawlak, Magdalena, 2016, Cylapofulvidius Chérot & Gorczyca, 2000 — a synonym of Fulvidius Poppius, 1909 (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae), Zootaxa 4184 (2), pp. 347-357 : 348-352

Fulvidius Poppius

Figures 3–8 , 14–20, 21 –34

Fulvidius: Poppius 1909: 19 , 20, 44 (n. gen.); Reuter 1910: 154 (catalog); Distant 1910: 276 (translation in English of original description); Carvalho 1955: 18 (key to genera), 1957: 14 (catalog); Schuh 1995: 25 (catalog); Gorczyca 2000: 49 (list), 2006: 31 (catalog); Wolski 2008: 156 (key to Oriental genera). Type species: Fulvidius punctatus Poppius, 1909 (original designation).

Cylapofulvidius: Chérot & Gorczyca 2000: 217 , 221 (syn. nov.), Gorczyca 2000: 49 (list), 2006: 29 (catalog); Wolski 2008: 156 (key to Oriental genera). Type species: Cylapofulvidius zetteli Chérot & Gorczyca, 2000 (original designation).

Diagnosis. Recognized by the following characters: body ovoid ( Figs. 1–6 ); dorsum covered with dense and deep punctation ( Figs. 1–8 ); vertex and frons with sparse punctation; clypeus, mandibular and maxillary plates, and buccula shiny; pronotal collar and costal fracture absent ( Figs. 1–6 , 16, 18 , 24 ); sclerotized portion of endosoma and secondary gonopore well developed ( Figs. 11, 14–15 ).

Most similar to Cylapofulvius Poppius, 1909 in sharing the ovoid body, dorsal punctation, costal fracture absent ( Carvalho & Lorenzato 1978, Fig. 42), and strongly developed sclerotized portion of ductus seminis ( Carvalho & Lorenzato 1978, Fig. 43). Fulvidius can, however, be easily distinguished by the absence of the pronotal collar.

Redescription. Macropterous, ovoid. COLORATION ( Figs. 1–8 ). Dorsal surface varying from dark brown to almost black, always with pale, yellowish to orange areas. Head. Antennae mostly dark brown to fuscous. Thorax. Mesoscutum and scutellum. Uniformly black, or, with more or less developed yellow or orange patch apically. Thoracic pleura. Varying from dark brown to black; proepimeron sometimes with pale patches. STRUCTURE, TEXTURE, AND VESTITURE ( Figs. 1–8 , 16–29 ). Dorsal surface with dense and deep punctation and distributed with pale, sparse to moderately dense, short to relatively long, semirecumbent setae. Head. Elongate horizontally, somewhat rugose, sometimes sparsely and finely punctate, uniformly covered with relatively long setae; vertex not carinate posteriorly; maxillary plates, clypeus and buccula somewhat smooth and polished; eyes reniform in lateral view, reaching gula; antennae thin; antennal segment I slightly thickened toward apex, covered with moderately dense, recumbent setae and with several thick, protruding setae; segment II thin, weakly broadened toward apex, covered with relatively dense, recumbent or semirecumbent, sometimes almost erect setae; segment III and IV slightly thinner than segment II, and covered with relatively dense, long setae; labium long, reaching genital capsule in males and distinctly surpass beyond metacoxae in females; labial segment I divided near medial portion, reaching beyond pronotal collar. Thorax. Pronotum. Convex, deeply and densely punctate; pronotal collar absent; pronotal calli indistinct (excepted in F. punctatus ); lateral margins usually not carinate, rarely with weakly developed carina; posterior margin straight or weakly sinuate. Mesoscutum and scutellum. Mesoscutum usually more convex and less punctate than scutellum; scutellum deeply and densely punctate, flat or just slightly convex. Thoracic pleura. Proepimeron punctate as pronotum; mesepimeron and metepisternum with punctation less dense than on proepimeron; metepisternum sometimes rugose; scent gland efferent system relatively broad, occupying entire ventral margin of metepisternum; peritreme small. Hemelytra. Medial fracture convex, area between lateral margin and medial fracture steep; costal fracture absent; membrane with two cells; major cell rounded; minor cell well visible. Legs. Relatively long; inner surface of profemora furnished with row of long, thick, protruding, bristle-like setae; tarsi long, bi-segmented, second segment subdivided; claw toothed subapically.

Male genitalia ( Figs. 9–15 ). Endosoma ( Figs. 11, 14–15 ). Simple, sclerotized part of ductus seminis (DS) strongly developed, ovoid secondary gonopore well developed, apical two thirds of endosoma composed of membranous lobe which is tapering toward apex and devoid of sclerites, only furnished with more or less developed serrate lobe.

Female genitalia. As described by Chérot & Gorczyca (2000).

Distribution. Representatives of the genus are known exclusively from the Oriental Region.

Discussion. Chérot & Gorczyca (2000) in their diagnosis of the newly established genus Cylapofulvidius indicated its close similarity to the genus Cylapofulvius and provided the following characters distinguishing Cylapofulvidius from Cylapofulvius : i) almost straight lateral margins of pronotum; ii) pronotal collar absent; iii) weakly developed calli; iv) and narrow embolium. Our examination of the holotype of Fulvidius punctatus Poppius revealed that the characters presented above are present in this species, and therefore the genus Cylapofulvidius is here synonymized with Fulvidius and all species currently placed in Cylapofulvidius are transferred to Fulvidius .

Gorczyca (1997) and Chérot & Gorczyca (2000) treated the genera Cylapofulvidius , Cylapofulvius , Xenocylapus Bergroth, 1922 from the Neotropical Region and Xenocylapidius Gorczyca, 1997 from Australia and New Caledonia as a natural group within the tribe Fulviini (the so-called Cylapofulvius -group sensu Gorczyca 1997) based on such characters as the similar elongate-oval global body shape, the two-segmented tarsi with a pseudo-joint on the second segment and the short, stout profemora with upright setae on inner surface.

However, the elongate-oval body and two-segmented tarsi, with the second segment distinctly divided, are widespread in the Fulviini and Cylapinae in general (Gorczyca 2000; Wolski & Henry 2015), and these features seem not to be so helpful in distinguishing the Cylapofulvius group. The stout profemora, with upright setae are also found in other fulviine genera, as for example Lygaeoscytus Reuter and Teratofulvius Poppius (Wolski, pers. obs.).

What is more, as was recently pointed out by Carpintero & Chérot (2014), Chérot et al. (2014) and Wolski (2014), the Neotropical genera Comefulvius Carvalho & Carpintero, 1985 , Incafulvius Carvalho, 1976 , Xenocylapus , and Henryfulvius Wolski, 2014 could also constitute a distinct group within Neotropical Cylapinae sharing such characters as the absence of scent gland efferent system (Wolski 2014, Fig. 69) and the labium very long and thin, with very short segment I (not reaching the middle of gula) and with segment II longer than III and IV (Wolski 2014, Figs. 34–35, 65–65, 68). By contrast, the scent gland efferent system of Fulvidius species is well developed and the first labial segment relatively long, almost reaching the posterior margin of the head ( Fig. 16 ), as it is the case of most cylapines.

What could also challenge the hypothesis of a Cylapofulvius -group sensu Gorczyca 1997 is the fact that the genus Xenocylapidius differs significantly from Cylapofulvius and Fulvidius . Xenocylapidius possesses the impunctate, matte hemelytron with well-developed costal fracture ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014), endosoma with the characteristic basal sac and left paramere with a long, protruding sensory lobe ( Wolski & Gorczyca 2014). In Cylapofulvius and Fulvidius the hemelytra are shiny, punctate and devoid of costal fracture, the endosoma simple and the left paramere does not have any process on the sensory lobe. Similar structure of the hemelytron and the male genitalia to those found Cylapofulvius and Fulvidius are also present in the genera Teratofulvius ( Gorczyca & Sadowska-Woda 2006) and Lygaeoscytus (Wolski, pers. obs.).

This illustrates that the generic relationships in the tribe remain poorly understood in absence of phylogenetic study of the subfamily and the diagnosis of numerous genera needs to be critically analyzed as was suggested by Gorczyca (2006), Wolski (2010), Pluot-Sigwalt & Chérot (2013) and other authors.

Key to species of Fulvidius 1

1. Lateral margin of pronotum and proepimeron with pale, elongate stripes ( Fig. 7 ); scutellum uniformly dark brown ( Figs. 1–2 ); hemelytra with pale, longitudinal swellings ( Figs. 1–2 )........................................................2

- Lateral margins of pronotum without pale, elongate stripe ( Fig. 8 ); scutellum with pale patch apically ( Figs. 3–6 ); hemelytra without pale, longitudinal stripe, when pale areas present, they are rounded and not convex ( Figs. 3–6 )..................3

2. Body length more than 4.5 mm................................................................. F. punctatus

- Body length less than 4.0 mm.................................................................. F. lineolatus

3. Humeral angle of pronotum entirely orange ( Figs. 3–4 )............................................ F. thailandicus

- Humeral angle of pronotum colored as remainder of pronotum, only with small dirty yellowish or orange patch on its external part.................................................................................................4

4. Body length longer than or equal to 3.9 mm; posterior margin of pronotum without pale stripe along its length and without pale patch medially ( Fig. 6 )........................................................................... F. zetteli

- Body length less than 3.5 mm; posterior margin of pronotum with relatively large, pale patch medially ( Fig. 5 )..... F. webbi

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 8. Dorsal (1 – 6) and lateral (7 – 8) views of the species of Fulvidius: 1, 7. F. lineolatus (♂); 2. F. punctatus (holotype); 3 – 4. C. thailandicus (3: ♀, 4: ♂); 5, 8. F. webbi (♀: paratype); 6. F. zetteli (holotype).

FIGURES 9 – 15. Male genitalia of Fulvidius lineolatus (9 – 11), F. thailandicus (12 – 14), and F. webbi (15): 11, 14 – 15. Endosoma (dorsal view); 9, 12. Left paramere (left lateral view); 10, 13. Left paramere (dorsal view). APR = apical process of paramere; BPR = basal process of paramere; DS = sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma; PB = paramere body; SG = secondary gonopore.

FIGURES 16 – 23. Scanning electron micrographs of F. we bb i: 16. Head and anterior portion of pronotum (left lateral view); 17. Head (left lateral view); 18. Pronotum (left lateral view); 19. Labial segment I; 20. Medial part of labial segment II; 21. Antennal segment I; 22. Medial part of antennal segment II; 23. Inner surface of profemur.

FIGURES 24 – 29. Scanning electron micrographs of F. webbi: 24. Hemelytron; 25. Scutellum; 26. Structure and vestiture of pronotum; 27. Structure and vestiture of hemelytron; 28. Structure and vestiture of hemelytral membrane; 29. Pretarsal structure.