Ceroplastes rubens Maskell

Hodgson, Chris J. & Peronti, Ana L. B. G., 2012, 3372, Zootaxa 3372, pp. 1-265 : 93-96

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell

( Figs 5, 49; Map fig. 104)

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, 1893: 214 .

Ceroplastes rubens var. minor Maskell, 1897: 309 . Synonymised by Gimpel et al., 1974: 57.

Ceroplastes myricae Linnaeus ; Green, 1900: 8. Misidentification.

Type material not seen. Australia, Queensland, Brisbane, on Mangifera indica and Ficus sp. Lectotype female ( ANIC); paralectotypes 2 original Maskell slides in NZAC, one containing 'larvae' and the other labelled 'head and antenna of female'.

Material examined from area of study: Kenya, Mombasa, 26.ii.1990, on palm, Kibata ( BMNH: CIE A21287, TC 2259 ): 2/3 (fair to good); no site, on Cycas thouarsii , 28.x.1982, I.A.D. Roberston ( BMNH): 1/1 (good) . South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal, St. Lucia , on unknown host, 15.vii.2008, G. Suenson ( DCBU): 1/1 (fair) . Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, on cycad, 12.iv.1975, K.M. Howell ( BMNH): 1/3 (fair) ; Zanzibar, 14.iii.1967, on cloves, W.J. Hall ( BMNH 1967-1 ): 1/2 (fair to good) ; Pemba Is., no host or date, Anderson ( BMNH 1967-1 ): 1/5 (fair); Marahubi , young orange, 16.vii.1913, W.M. Aders ( BMNH): 1/3 (fair-good) .

Non-African material: Fiji, Kadavu, Vunicea, on Barringtonia asiatica , 19.vii.2009, C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/2 (fair, but both perhaps damaged ventrally near vulva); Viti Levu, Savura Nature Reserve, Suva, 15.vii.2009, on unknown shrub, C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/1 (good); as previous but on fern sp., C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/2 (fair to good); as previous, on Barringtonia sp. , C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/2 (fair to good); Viti Levu, Suva, Suva Motor Inn, 14.vii.2009, on unknown shrub, C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/1 (fair); Taveuni, Bouma Nature Reserve, 22.vii.2009, on Garcinia myrtifolia , C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/3 (fair to good).

Note. Description taken mainly from Fiji specimens, data in [..] brackets taken from Gimpel et al. (1974).

Unmounted material. "Test: wet wax pentagonal in dorsal view, hemispherical laterally, without horn; pink to reddish brown, with marginal flange, not hiding lateral filaments, without plates and nuclei. Dry wax with filaments as follows: cephalic filament simple, apically acute; anterolateral and posterolateral filaments simple; mediolateral filaments apparently absent; caudal filaments simple; dorsal dry wax of first and second instars apparently absent, indicated by only small depression in wet wax. Stigmatic bands present near both pairs of spiracles, anterior bands directed forward, nearly touching anteriorly, filamentous wax confined to stigmatic areas. Length 3.5 (range 2.0–5.0) mm, width 3.0 (range 2.5–4.0) mm, height 2.0 (range 1.5–3.5) mm.” ( Gimpel et al., 1974: 57).

tibia and tarsus fused, and (xi) claw digitules dissimilar.

Unmounted, with wax removed: oval, but with cephalic margin extending anteriorly; eyespot dorsal; lateral tubercles absent; dorsum rounded, without any sign of a dorsal tubercle; caudal process extending posteriorly and cone-like, and heavily sclerotised; stigmatic clefts distinct but shallow; margin slightly shelf-like.

Mounted material. Body broadly oval and convex, with distinct, quite deep, stigmatic clefts; lateral and dorsal clear areas distinct. Caudal process short and stout, probably directed upwards. Length 1.0– 4.5 mm, width 0.8–3.0 mm; width across venter about 0.8–2.5 mm.

Dorsum. Derm membranous apart from heavily sclerotised caudal process, but becoming mildly sclerotised in older individuals. Caudal process about as wide as long, length about 375–750 µm; width 300–825 µm. With 8 clear areas as normal; anterior and dorsal areas with dorsal setae and simple pores. Dorsal setae each very short and parallel sided, with a truncate apex, subequal to or shorter than width of basal socket, length 2.5–3.5 [3.0–4.6] µm; basal socket width 4.0–5.0 µm; present sparsely throughout but possibly most abundant near margins; sparse in marginal parts of most clear areas (dorsal area with numerous dorsal setae). Dorsal pores: (i) loculate microducts of type somewhere between rusci-type and intermediate type, each with 1 or 2 satellite loculi, those with 1 satellite loculus much more abundant than those with 2 satellite loculi (latter sometimes perhaps even absent); those with 2 satellite loculi of rather characteristic shape; each pore about 5–6 µm widest; abundant throughout apart from clear areas where absent; wax-plate lines not detected; (ii) simple microducts smaller but perhaps of 2 sizes, both with a sclerotised orifice: (a) larger with an oval orifice only slightly smaller than smallest loculate microduct, fairly frequent throughout, and (b) a much smaller round pore about 1.0 µm wide, perhaps restricted to clear areas. Preopercular pores present in a group of about 9–15 pores. Anal plates each 125–155 µm long, width of both plates combined 105–125 µm, each with 3 long flagellate dorsal setae, inner anterior seta 12–23 µm, other two 40–45 µm; shorter apical seta about 8 µm long. Anogenital fold with 3 pairs of setae on anterior margin plus 1–3 pairs of shorter hypopygial setae. Anal tube fairly short; anal ring setae each about 200–235 µm long.

Margin. Marginal setae similar to dorsal setae but perhaps slightly longer, up to 5 µm long; frequency uncertain because of similarity to dorsal setae; each anal lobe with 3–5 longer setae, longest about 17.5–41 µm long. Stigmatic clefts quite deep, each with about 18–35 stigmatic setae as follows: with a marginal line of 14–19 very round, bollard-like setae, each mainly 8–12 µm wide; a second row of 3 or 4 similar setae [each about 11–13 µm wide]; a third row of 2 significantly larger bollard-like setae [each about 20 µm wide] + 0 or 1 smaller setae between them, plus, at apex of each group, a much larger, bluntly pointed, spinose seta 40–55 µm long and 25 µm wide at base; latter seta occasionally misshapen; basal socket of largest setae 30–35 µm wide. Eyespots oval, not easy to see, rather displaced onto dorsum, each about 20 µm widest.

Venter. Derm entirely membranous apart from a small sclerotised area within each stigmatic groove close to margin and with edges of stigmatic groove near margin heavily sclerotised. Pregenital disc-pores abundant around genital opening (segment VII); sometimes absent on preceding abdominal segments, but occasional disc-pores noted in segments II, III, and IV; generally with a small group of 0–5 disc-pores mesad to each meso- and metacoxae and occasionally with a single disc-pore laterad to each metacoxa. Spiracular disc-pores present in broad bands of about 50–80 [41–108] between margin and each spiracle, and with 2–7 extending medially past end of spiracular apodeme towards pro- and mesothoracic coxae, each generally also with 5 loculi; laterally, disc-pore band about as wide as outer margins of largest round stigmatic setae. Ventral microducts frequent throughout venter and particularly abundant near mouthparts, but scarce medially on thorax. Ventral tubular ducts absent, not detected either anteriorly on head or associated with anogenital fold. Submarginal setae sparse, each about 4–5 [4.6–8.1] µm long.

Antennae quite short, each with 6 segments, segment III with at least 1 pseudo-articulation; total length 168–207 [162.0–193.4] µm; setal distribution normal except only 2 (rather than 3) setae present on segment III and segment V without a hair-like seta. Clypeolabral shield about 130–155 µm long. Spiracles: width of peritremes 60–70 µm. Legs much reduced in size with trochanter and femur occasionally appearing fused; tibia and tarsus fused; tarsal digitules dissimilar, 1 slightly thicker and longer than other; each claw small, claw denticles obscure or absent; claw digitules both narrow but dissimilar, 1 clearly broader than other; subequal in length to tarsal digitules; dimensions of metathoracic legs (µm): coxa 38–62; trochanter + femur 33–45 [34.9–58.2], tibia + tarsus 40–60 [43.6–52.4], and claw 7–10 [5.8–11.6].

Discussion. The adult female of C. rubens is extremely similar to that of C. reunionensis . For a comparison, see under that species above.

C. rubens has been collected in almost all geographic areas, particularly those which are tropical and subtropical. It has been recorded on at least 192 plant species in 92 families ( Ben-Dov et al., 2011). It is considered to be a major pest of citrus in Australia, Hawaii and Japan ( Ben-Dov, 1993). Although Qin et al. (1994) hypothesized that C. rubens was native to the Ethiopian Region, based on the specimens in the BMNH, it has been rarely collected in Africa and would appear to be restricted to the east coast ( Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa). Within the islands in the Indian Ocean, it has been recorded only from Seychelles ( Mamet, 1943). C. rubens was originally described from Australia where it appears to be extremely widespread (Qin & Gullan, 1994), and it seems somewhat more likely that it arose in the Australasian Region. As pointed out by Le Pelley (1968), C. rubens appears to prefer coastal areas.