Harpedona Distant, 1904

Yeshwanth, H. M. & Konstantinov, Fedor V., 2021, Review of the plant bug tribe Eccritotarsini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae) of India and Sri Lanka with description of two new genera and six new species, European Journal of Taxonomy 745, pp. 1-69 : 9-10

Harpedona Distant, 1904

Figs 2C–D , 5J–M , 14–16 , 25A , 27A–B

Harpedona Distant, 1904b: 418 .

Harpedona – Stonedahl 1988: 16–32 (revision).

Type species

Harpedona marginata Distant, 1904 (by monotypy; Distant 1904b).

Diagnosis

Recognized by the following combination of characters: body narrow, parallel-sided, pronotum at base less than 1.5× as wide as head ( Figs 2C–D , 5J–M ); coloration of dorsum uniform, dirty yellow to black, sometimes with paler embolium, legs contrastingly whitish or reddish yellow, comparatively long and slender, apex of hind femur reaching or surpassing apex of abdomen; dorsum clothed with dense, short, adpressed, silvery simple setae; pronotal collar wide and large; calli medially confluent, dorsally and laterally separated by deep impressed lines giving appearance of three distinct sections of pronotum; genital capsule highly modified, with large, lobate process on right margin, and usually with bulbous, twisted and spinelike outgrowths on dorsal margin ( Figs 14A–C , 15A–B , 16A ); parameres and aedeagus reduced, very small; left paramere with long and thin, twisted apical process ( Figs 14D–E , 15C–D , 16B–C ); right paramere simple, with tapering incurved apex ( Figs 14F , 15E–F , 16D–E ); aedeagus with entirely membranous phallotheca, simple membranous endosoma and sclerotized, spine-like apical part of ductus seminis ( Figs 14G , 15G–H , 16F ).

Distribution

Known from Sri Lanka, southwestern and northern India to Fukien Prov. of China, Philippines, Indonesia, New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands ( Stonedahl 1988).

Remarks

This genus was revised by Stonedahl (1988) and, with addition of the recently described Harpedona stonedahli Yasunaga & Ishikawa, 2016 , it currently comprises 13 species. Only Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1909 was known from India prior to our study; the description of a new species from the Karnataka state of India is given below. Harpedona marginata Distant, 1904 , the most frequently collected and widely distributed species of the genus was originally described from Sri Lanka and may likely be found in India with more sampling effort.

Key to species of the genus Harpedona of India and Sri Lanka

1. Pronotum dirty orange, with distinct punctures ( Fig. 2D ) ................................ H. vittlaensis sp. nov.

– Pronotum dark brown, smooth or very faintly punctate ( Figs 2C , 5J, L ) ......................................... 2

2. Frons in males with a distinct longitudinal sulcus ( Fig. 5J ). Labium at most reaching mesocoxa. Femora pale yellow. Phallotheca with a large sclerotized sac ( Fig. 14G ) .......................................... ................................................................................................................. H. marginata Distant, 1904

– Frons without sulcus. Labium surpassing metacoxae. Femora with a distinct reddish tinge ( Fig. 2C ). Phallotheca membranous, without a sclerotized sac ( Fig. 15G–H ) ..... H. sanguinipes Distant, 1909

Figures

Fig. 2. Habitus of Ernestinus, Harpedona and Lopidolon spp. A. Ernestinus mimicus Distant, 1911, ♂, UASB. B. Ernestinus ramkeshariae Yasunaga & Ishikawa, 2016, ♂, UASB. C. Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1904, ♂, UASB. D. Harpedona vittlaensis sp. nov, ♀, UASB. E–F. Lopidolon dandeliensis sp. nov., UASB. E. ♂. F. ♀.

Fig. 5. Dorsal view and label data of type specimens. A–C. Dioclerus bengalicus Stonedahl, 1988, ♀, holotype, BPBM.D–E. Dioclerus lutheri Stonedahl, 1988, ♂, holotype, AMNH_PBI 00338430, FMNH. F–G. Dioclerus praefectus Distant,1910, lectotype, AMNH_PBI 00340384, NHM. H–I. Ernestinus mimicus Distant,1911, ♂, syntype, AMNH_PBI 00085668, BMNH(E) 1633157, NHM. J–K. Harpedona marginata Distant, 1904, ♂, holotype, NHM. L–M. Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1909, ♂, lectotype, NHM.

Fig. 14. Male genitalia of Harpedona marginata Distant, 1904, NHM. A–C. Genital capsule in ventral and lateral views. D–E. Right paramere in dorsal and lateral views. F. Right paramere in dorsal view. G. Aedeagus in lateral view.

Fig. 15. Male genitalia of Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1904, UASB. A–B. Genital capsule in dorsal and ventral views. C–D. Left paramere in lateral view. E–F. Right paramere in dorsal view. G–H. Aedeagus in lateral view.

Fig. 16. Male genitalia of Harpedona vittlaensis sp. nov., holotype, UASB. A. Genital capsule in lateral view. B–C. Left paramere in dorsal and lateral views. D–E. Right paramere in dorsal and lateral views. F. Aedeagus in lateral view.

Fig. 25. Scent gland evaporatory area. A. Harpedona vittlaensis sp. nov., UASB. B. Lopidolon dandeliensis sp. nov., UASB. C. Mertila rubrocephala sp. nov., UASB. D. Stonedahlia mishmiensis gen. et sp. nov., UASB. E. Namyatovia castlerockensis gen. et sp. nov., UASB. F. Namyatovia sirsiensis gen. et sp. nov., UASB.

Fig. 27. Habitats and living specimens. A–B. Harpedona sanguinipes Distant, 1909 on Colocasia esculenta. A. Nymphs.B. Mating adults.C. Prodromus clypeatusDistant, 1904 on banana.D. Stonedahlia mishmiensis gen. et sp. nov. on Colocasia sp. E. Lopidolon dandeliensis sp. nov. on Diplocentrum recurvum. All specimens at UASB.