Cylapus Say, 1832

Wolski, Andrzej, 2017, Taxonomic review of the plant bug genera Amapacylapus and Cylapus with descriptions of two new species and a key to the genera of Cylapini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 57 (2), pp. 399-455 : 417-418

Cylapus Say, 1832

( Figs 36–147 )

Cylapus Say, 1832: 26 (new genus). Type species: Cylapus tenuicornis Say, 1832 (designated by POPPIUS 1909).

Cylapus: KIRKALDY (1906) : 134 (list); POPPIUS (1909): 3, 9, 10, 43 (diagnosis); VAN DUZEE (1916): 42 (list); BERGRO- TH (1920): 70 (list); BLATCHLEY (1926): 877 (list); CARVALHO (1955): 22 (key to genera of Miridae ), CARVALHO (1957): 29 (catalog); CARVALHO & FONTES (1968): 274 (key to genera, diagnosis); HENRY & WHEELER (1988): 271 (catalog); SCHUH (1995): 23 (catalog); GORCZYCA (2000): 48; GORCZYCA (2006b): 17 (catalog); SCHUH et al. (2009): 17, 40–42 (phylogenetic analysis of Cimicomorpha); JUNG & LEE (2012): 53, 56, 60, 61 (phylogenetic analysis of Miridae ); SCHUH (2013) (online catalog).

Trichocylapus Poppius, 1909: 11 (subgenus of Cylapus ). Type species: Trichocylapus clavicornis Poppius, 1909 (by original designation).

Cylapus (Trichocylapus) : CARVALHO (1957): 31 (catalog).

Trichocylapus: CARVALHO & FONTES (1968) : 273, 282 (key to genera, diagnosis); SCHUH (1995): 23 (catalog).

Cylapocerus Carvalho & Fontes, 1968: 274 , 277 (new genus). Type species: Cylapocerus antennatus Carvalho & Fontes, 1968 (original designation), new synonym.

Cylapocerus: CARVALHO & FROESCHNER (1987) : 128 (list); SCHUH (1995): 21 (catalog); GORCZYCA (2000): 48 (list); GORCZYCA (2006b): 14 (catalog); CASSIS et al. (2003): 148, 150 (as outgroup in phylogenetic analysis of Vannius complex); CASSIS & MONTEITH (2006): 21, 22 (as outgroup in phylogenetic analysis of Vannius complex); SCHUH (2013) (online catalog).

Diagnosis. Recognized by the following set of characters: metathoracic ostiolar canal strongly raised above surface of evaporative areas, ostiolar peritreme strongly protruding, thin and arcuate, sharply pointed ( Figs 93, 96, 108 , 129, 146 , arrow); tarsomere I as long as or longer than tarsomeres II and III combined ( Figs 94, 132); endosoma with 2–4 endosomal sclerites ( Figs 66, 71 , 80, 85 , 97, 102 , 110, 115 , 135, 140 ).

Most similar to Amapacylapus , Peltidocylapus , and Valdasus in sharing following combination of characters: dorsum distinctly punctate ( Figs 8, 9 , 23–26 , 107 , 127, 128, 148, 150 ), eyes strongly pedunculate ( Figs 9 , 92, 95, 108 , 123, 148, 150 ), mesoscutum well exposed ( Figs 1–5, 8 , 36–55 , 91, 107 , 120; CARVALHO & FONTES 1968). It can, however, be easily distinguished by the protruding, thin, arcuate, and sharply pointed ostiolar peritreme ( Figs 93, 96, 108 , 129, 146 , arrow). With Amapacylapus it shares the metathoracic scent gland ostiole strongly raised above the surface of the evaporative area ( Figs 10 , 93, 96, 108 , 129, 146 ) but it can be easily distinguished by the shape of the ostiolar peritreme.

Redescription. Coloration ( Figs 36–65 ). Body brown to dark brown or black with dirty yellow, yellow, and red areas. Structure, texture and vestiture ( Figs 36–65 , 76–79 , 91–96, 107–109 , 120–134, 146, 147 ). Macropterous; body elongate; dorsum punctate, covered with rather long, erect and semirecumbent setae. Head. Vertex ecarinate posteriorly, its medial sulcation distinct and deep; eye strongly pedunculate; antennal segment II either thin, thinner than segment I or with basal portion thicker than segment I; labium thin, usually extending to metacoxae or so. Thorax. Pronotum calli moderately to well developed; posterior portion not covering mesoscutum. Scutellum flat to somewhat convex. Thoracic pleura. Proepisternum impunctate; proepimeron impunctate at anterior one third, rest of proepimeron punctate; remaining pleura impunctate; mesepimeral spiracle indistinct, surrounded by mushroom bodies; posterior carina of metepisternum distinctly developed; metathoracic scent gland evaporative area broadly developed, oval. Legs. Coxae and femora covered with sparse, semirecumbent setae; tibiae covered with relatively dense, semirecubent setae which length is shorter than diameter of tibiae; tarsomere I longer than tarsomere II and III combined. Abdomen covered with relatively long, semirecumbent setae. Male genitalia ( Figs 66–75 , 80–89 , 97–106 , 110–119 , 135–144 ). Aedeagus ( Figs 66, 71 , 80, 85 , 97, 102 , 110, 115 , 135, 140 ). Endosoma with 2–4 sclerites; ductus seminis moderately thickened and short; sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma well developed; secondary gonopore clearly present with dentate aperture. Left paramere ( Figs 67–69, 72–74 , 81–83, 86–88 , 98–100, 103–105 , 111–113, 116–118 , 136–138, 141–143 ). Apical process without basal spine; paramere body without sensory lobe or with distinctly developed sensory lobe. Right paramere ( Figs 70, 75 , 84, 89 , 101, 106 , 114, 119 , 139, 144 ). Apical process weakly developed, sensory lobe more or less developed.

Discussion. The present study reveals that the genera Cylapus and Cylapocerus have a set of features unique among Cylapini . These include the metathoracic scent gland peritreme strongly protruding, thin and arcuate, sharply pointed ( Figs 93, 96, 108 , 129, 146 ), the tarsomere I as long as or longer than tarsomeres II and III combined ( Figs 94, 132), and the endosoma usually with three to four regularly shaped and positioned sclerites ( Figs 66, 71 , 80, 85 , 97, 102 , 110 , 135, 140 ).

CARVALHO & FONTES (1968) indicated that their newly described genus Cylapocerus can be distinguished from Cylapus by having the thickened antennal segment II, the labium reaching metacoxae, and the hemelytron covered by fine, erect setae. The present study, however, reveals that there are no differences in labium length and hemelytral vestiture between species treated by CARVALHO & FONTES (1968) as belonging to Cylapus and the species included by CARVALHO & FONTES (1968) and CARVALHO (1989) in Cylapocerus . Only the thickened segment II in males is not found in Cylapus as treated by CARVALHO & FONTES (1968). Given the strong similarity of Cylapocerus with Cylapus indicated above, both taxa clearly seem to be congeneric and the thickened antennal segment in males of Cylapocerus is here treated as insufficient to maintain its generic status. Similar sexual differences in the structure of the antennal segment II occurr mosaically among speciesis found elsewhere in Cylapinae . For example in the fulviine genus Peritropis in some species the antennal segment II is similar in shape in both sexes while in other species the segment II is somewhat thicker in males ( WOLSKI & HENRY 2012). In this paper, Cylapocerus is proposed as a junior synonym of Cylapus and all species previously placed in Cylapocerus are transferred to Cylapus .

Careful examination of two species, Cylapus clavicornis ( Poppius, 1909) and Cylapus festinabundus Bergroth, 1922 , reveals that they do not possess the abovementioned characters diagnostic for Cylapus and they clearly have features occurring in the genus Peltidocylapus (Wolski, in prep.). However, I defer transferring both species from Cylapus to Peltidocylapus until completion of my forthcoming treatment of Peltidocylapus .

I did not have an access to specimens belonging to Cylapus brasiliensis Carvalho, 1986 , C. famularis (Stål, 1862) , C. funebris ( Distant, 1883) , C. nobilis Poppius, 1909 , and C. rondoniensis ( Carvalho, 1991) and they are not treated in this paper. Their original descriptions do not contain enough information on the characters treated here as diagnostic for Cylapus and thus their placement remains uncertain until specimens belonging to these species are investigated.

Figures

Figs 36–40. Dorsal habitus photographs of Cylapus species: 36 – C. amazonicus Carvalho, 1989 (J); 37–39 – C. antennatus Carvalho & Fontes, 1968 (37 – J holotype, 38 – J, 39 – ♀); 40 – C. citus Bergroth, 1922 (J).

Figs 107–109. Scanning electron micrographs of Cylapus striatus Reuter, 1907. 107 – dorsal habitus (♀); 108 – lateral view (♀); 109 – pretarsal structure. Abbreviations: ea = evaporative areas; msp = metathoracic spiracle; pc = posterior carina; per = peritreme.

Figs 146–151. Scanning electron micrographs of Cylapus tucuruiensis Carvalho, 1989 (146, 147), Peltidocylapus scutellaris (Poppius, 1909) (148, 149), and Valdasus sp. (150, 151): 146, 149, 151 – thoracic pleura; 147 – pretarsal structure; 148, 150 – lateral view.Abbreviations: ea = evaporative areas; msp = metathoracic spiracle; pc = posterior carina; per = peritreme.

Figs 66–75. Male genitalia of Cylapus amazonicus Carvalho, 1989 (66–70) and Cylapus antennatus Carvalho & Fontes, 1968 (71–75): 66, 71 – endosoma; 67, 72 – left paramere (dorsal view); 68, 73 – left paramere (right lateral view); 69, 74 – apical process of left paramere; 70, 75 – right paramere (left lateral view). Abbreviations: bpr = basal process; dss = sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma; es1–4 = endosomal sclerites 1–4; pb = paramere body; sg = secondary gonopore; sl = sensory lobe. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figs 80–89. Male genitalia of Cylapus citus Bergroth, 1922 (80–84) and C. luridus sp. nov. (85–89): 80, 85 – endosoma; 81, 86 – left paramere (dorsal view); 82, 87 – left paramere (right lateral view); 83, 88 – apical process of left paramere; 84, 89 – right paramere (left lateral view). Abbreviations: bpr = basal process; dss = sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma; es1–4 = endosomal sclerites 1–4; pb = paramere body; sg = secondary gonopore; sl = sensory lobe. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figs 97–106. Male genitalia of Cylapus marginicollis (Distant, 1883) (97–101) and C. ruficeps Bergroth, 1922 (102–106): 97, 102 – endosoma; 98, 103 – left paramere (dorsal view); 99, 104 – left paramere (right lateral view); 100, 105 – apical process of left paramere; 101, 106 – right paramere (left lateral view). Abbreviations: bpr = basal process; dss = sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma; es1–4 = endosomal sclerites 1–4; pb = paramere body; sg = secondary gonopore; sl = sensory lobe. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figs 110–119. Male genitalia of Cylapus stellatus (Distant, 1883) (110–114) and C. striatus Reuter, 1907 (115–119): 110, 115 – endosoma; 111, 116 – left paramere (dorsal view); 112, 117 – left paramere (right lateral view); 113, 118 – apical process of left paramere; 114, 119 – right paramere (left lateral view). Abbreviations: bpr = basal process; dss = sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma; es1–4 = endosomal sclerites 1–4; pb = paramere body; sg = secondary gonopore; sl = sensory lobe. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figs 135–144. Male genitalia of Cylapus tenuicornis (Say, 1832) (135–139) and C. tucuruiensis Carvalho, 1989 (140–144): 135, 140 – endosoma; 136, 141 – left paramere (dorsal view); 137, 142 – left paramere (right lateral view); 138, 143 – apical process of left paramere; 139, 144 – right paramere (left lateral view). Abbreviations: bpr = basal process; dss = sclerotized portion of ductus seminis inside endosoma; es1–4 = endosomal sclerites 1–4; pb = paramere body; sg = secondary gonopore; sl = sensory lobe. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figs 8–11. Scanning electron micrographs of Amapacylapus amapariensis Carvalho & Fontes, 1968: 8 – dorsal habitus; 9 – lateral view; 10 – thoracic pleura; 11 – protarsus.Abbreviations: ea = evaporative areas; msp = metathoracic spiracle; pc = posterior carina; per = peritreme.

Figs 23–26. Hemelytron of the species of Amapacylapus Carvalho & Fontes, 1968. 23 – A. amapariensis Carvalho & Fontes, 1968; 24 – A. englemani Carvalho, 1991; 25 – A. labeculosus Bergroth, 1922; 26 – A. unicolor sp. nov. Abbreviations: p1–p7 = yellowish patches; pc = posterior carina; per = peritreme.

Figs 76–79. Scanning electron micrographs of Cylapus antennatus Carvalho & Fontes, 1968 (76–77) and C. citus Bergroth, 1922 (78–79): 76–77 – antennal segment II; 78 – metafemur; 79 – pretarsal structure.