Orthopagus lunulifer Uhler, 1897

Song, Zhi-Shun, Malenovsky, Igor, Chen, Jian-Qin, Deckert, Juergen & Liang, Ai-Ping, 2018, Taxonomic review of the planthopper genus Orthopagus (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Dictyopharidae), with descriptions of two new species, Zoosystematics and Evolution 2, pp. 369-391: 374-377

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.94.26895

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C354D7DF-198F-4D4F-A2A8-F763FD03018D

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/4EF33193-47F9-8E9B-751A-064159197C89

treatment provided by

Zoosystematics and Evolution by Pensoft

scientific name

Orthopagus lunulifer Uhler, 1897
status

 

Orthopagus lunulifer Uhler, 1897  Figs 1A, 2G,H, 3D, 8 A–I

Orthopagus lunulifer  Uhler, 1897: 279. Lectotype (designated by Liang 1996: 47): male, Gifu, Japan ( USNM, examined).

Orthopagus splendens  : Matsumura 1905a: 61, Pl. 21, fig. 14; Matsumura 1905b: 19; nec Germar 1830: 48.

Orthopagus helios  Melichar, 1912: 60. Lectotype (here designated): female, Ku Sia, Taiwan, China ( MMBC, examined). Syn. n.

Orthopagus helios var. diffusus  Melichar, 1912: 61. Lectotype (here designated), female, Taihanroku, Taiwan, China ( HNHM, examined). Synonymized under Orthopagus helios  Melichar by Schumacher (1915): 130.

Orthopagus elegans  Melichar, 1912: 61. Lectotype (here designated), female, Taihanroku, Taiwan, China ( MMBC, examined). Synonymized under Orthopagus helios  Melichar by Schumacher 1915: 130.

Orthopagus lunulifer  : Melichar 1912: 60; Liang 1996: 47, fig. 4; Song et al. 2016d: 36-39, figs 3I, 4 A–G, 5 A–H, 6 A–F; Song et al. 2018: figs 5 A–B, D–G, 6 A–C.

Type material examined.

Orthopagus lunulifer  : Lectotype, male, (1) 25,18,0., Gifu, male; (2) Type, No. 3123, U.S.N.M. [red label]; (3) Cotype No. U.S.N.M. [red label] ( USNM). Paralectotypes: 1 male, (1) 25,18,0., Gifu, male; (2) Type, No. 3123, U.S.N.M. [red label]; (3) Cotype No. U.S.N.M. [red label]; 1 male, 1 female, (1) 25,8,0., Gifu; (2) Type, No. 3123, U.S.N.M. [red label]; (3) Cotype No. U.S.N.M. [red label]; 1 female, (1) 20,4,27., Gifu; (2) Type, No. 3123, U.S.N.M. [red label]; (3) Cotype No. U.S.N.M. [red label]; (4) Orthopagus lunulifer  Uhler [ Uhler’s handwriting]; (5) 1164 [ Uhler’s handwriting] (all USNM).

Orthopagus helios  : Lectotype (here designated), female, (1) Formosa, Ku Sia [handwriting, yellow label]; (2) helios  Mel. [ Melichar’s handwriting], det. Melichar; (3) Typus [dark red label]; (4) Transcriptio, Orthopagus helios  sp.n. female [P. Lauterer’s handwriting], L. Melichar det 1912; (5) Collectio Dr. L. Melichar, Moravské museum Brno; (6) Syn-typus [red label]; (7) Invent. č. 4947/Ent., Mor. muzeum, Brno; (8) Lectotypus female, Orthopagus helios  Melichar, 1912, designated by Z. S. Song & I. Malenovský, 2018 [newly added red label] ( MMBC). Paralectotypes, 2 females, (1) Formosa, Ku Sia [handwriting, yellow label]; (2) Paralectotypus female, Orthopagus helios  Melichar, 1912, designated by Z. S. Song & I. Malenovský, 2018 [newly added red label] (SNSD).

Orthopagus helios var. diffusus  : Lectotype (here designated), male, (1) Formosa, Sauter; (2) Taihanroku, 908.; (3) v. diffusus  M. [handwriting, underlined with red], det. Melichar; (4) typus [label with red frame]; (5) Hung. Nat. Hist. Museum Budapest, coll. Hemiptera  [yellow label] (6) Lectotypus male, Orthopagus helios var. diffusus  Melichar, 1912, designated by I. Malenovský in Song et al. 2018 [newly added red label] ( HNHM). Paralectotype, male, (1) Formosa, Sauter; (2) Kosempo, 908.; (3) v. diffusus  M. [handwriting, underlined with red], det. Melichar; (4) typus [label with red frame and a hindwing glued to it]; (5) Hung. Nat. Hist. Museum Budapest, coll. Hemiptera  [yellow label] (6) Paralectotypus male, Orthopagus helios var. diffusus  Melichar, 1912, designated by I. Malenovský in Song et al. 2018 [newly added red label] ( HNHM, abdomen detached and glued to a separate label attached to the same pin).

Orthopagus elegans  : Lectotype (here designated), female, (1) Formosa, Sauter; (2) Taihanroku, 908.; (3) elegantulus [ Melichar’s handwriting], det. Melichar.; (4) Typus [dark red label]; (5) Collectio Dr. L. Melichar, Moravské museum Brno; (6) Orthopagus  female elegans  sp. n. female, L. Melichar det. 1912 [ Lauterer’s handwriting], P. Lauterer’s det. 1991; (7) Syn-typus [red label]; (8) Invent. č. 4948/Ent., Mor. muzeum, Brno; (9) Lectotypus female, Orthopagus elegans  Melichar, 1912, designated by Z. S. Song & I. Malenovský, 2018 [newly added red label] ( MMBC). Paralectotype, female, (1) Formosa, Sauter; (2) Taihanroku, 908.; (3) elegans  M. [handwriting, underlined with red], det. Melichar; (4) typus [label with red frame]; (5) Hung. Nat. Hist. Museum Budapest, coll. Hemiptera  [yellow label] (6) Paralectotypus female, Orthopagus elegans  Melichar, 1912, designated by I. Malenovský in Song et al. 2018 [newly added red label] ( HNHM).

Other material examined.

JAPAN: Honshu island: 1 female, Tokyo, Matsumura leg. ( IZCAS); 1 male, Kamakura, ix.1913, F. Muir leg. ( BPBM); 1 female, Mie prefecture, Matagari lke, 24.x.1989, C. W. O’Brien & L. B. O’Brien leg. (LBOB). CHINA: Beijing municipality: 1 female, Peiping; 9 males, 15 females, Peiping, 9., 10. and 21.vii.1938, 4., 13., 15. and 28.viii.1938, 11., 16., 19., and 24.ix.1938, T. P. Chang leg.; 1 male, 1 female, Juyongguan, 250-280 m, 3. and 6.viii.1961, S. Y. Wang & X. Z. Zhang leg.; 1 male, 1 female, Zhongguancun, 4.ix.1962, S. Y. Wang leg.; 3 males, 2 females, Shisanling, 12.ix.1962, R. Z. Xie leg. (all IZCAS); 2 males, 2 females, Changping, 8.vii.2007, Z. S. Song leg. (JSSNU); Tianjin municipality: Jixian, 4.ix.1988, K. H. Zhang leg. ( IZCAS); Shandong province: 2 males, 1 female, Tsingtao [ Musée Heude]; 1 male, Laoshan, 800 m [ Musée Heude] (all IZCAS); Henan province: 1 male, 1 female, Henan, 8.viii.2013, D. J. Zhang (JSSNU); Anhui province: 2 males, Huang Mountain, 6.viii.1936 ( IZCAS); Shangai municipality: 1 male, 1 female, 27.vii.1932, O. Piel leg. [ Musée Heude] ( IZCAS); Zhejiang province: 18 males, 10 females, T’ienmo Shan, 22-28.viii.1936; 2 females, Hangzhou, 24. and 25.viii.1942; 8 males, 8 females, Chusan, 7., 8., 10., 18., 20., 28. and 29.viii.1931, O. Piel leg. [ Musée Heude] (all IZCAS); 1♀, Fujian province: 1 female, Jianyang, Chengguan, 90-120 m, 12.viii.1960, Y. R. Zhang leg.; 1 male, 1 female, Chongan, Xingcun, Sangang, 740 m, 12. and 20.viii.1960, Y. Zuo & C. L. Ma leg.; 1 male, 2 females, Jiangle, Longqishan, 500-700 m, 12., 13. and 19.viii.1991, S. M. Song leg. (all IZCAS); Hunan province: 1 female, Hoeng-Shan, 900 m, 1933, H. Höne leg. ( MFNB); Guizhou province: 1 female, Libo, 21.viii.2000, F. M. Shi leg. ( IZCAS); Sichuan province: 5 males, 3 females, Emei Mountain, Baoguosi, 550-750 m, 7., 9., 10. and 14.ix.1957, F. X. Zhu & Z. Y. Wang leg. ( IZCAS); Tibet (Xizang) autonomous region: 1 female, Chayu, Xiachayu, 1900 m, 21.viii.2005, Z. S. Song leg. ( IZCAS); Guangxi autonomous region: 4 males, 5 females, Guilin, Yanshan, 2., 7. and 23.viii.1952, 20., 22. and 24.vii.1953; 2 females, Pingxiang, 12. and 16.vi.1976, B. L. Zhang leg.; 5 males, 5 females, Nandan, Luofu, 350 m, 27.vii.2006, J. Liu leg. (all IZCAS); 2 males, 2 females, Guangnan, Bamei, Shiw. Taoyuan, 24°18'51"N, 105°02'08"E, 811 m, 12.viii.2012, D. Rédei leg.; 2 males, same but 24°19'08"N, 105°02'57"E, 891 m; 1 male 1 female, same but 24°19'11"N, 105°01'49"E, 834 m, 13.viii.2012 (all HNHM); Yunnan province: 1 male, 5 females, Hekou, 80 m, 5. and 7.vi.1956, K. R. Huang leg.; 3 females, Hekou, Nanxi, 200 m, 8. and 12.vi.1956, K. R. Huang leg.; 1 male, 1 female, Pingbian, 1400 m, 15.vi.1956, K. R. Huang leg. (all IZCAS); Taiwan: 1 male, Tainan, Formasa, vi.1912, H. Sauter, Orthopagus helios  Mel. F. Schumacher det. [ Schumacher’s handwriting] ( SDEI); 2 males, 1 female, Taihanroku, vii. and 10.xi, H. Sauter leg. ( MFNB); 1 male, 1 female, same data ( MZPW); 5 males, 2 females, Taihanroku, 1908, Sauter leg. ( HNHM); 1 male, 1 female, Hoozan, 10.vii. and 10.ix., H. Sauter leg. ( MFNB); 1 female, Kotobuki, 11.vi.1935, ( IZCAS); 2 females, Tainan county, ca. 350 m, 2-3 km S Kwantzuling, bamboo, shrub, 26-28.vi.1980, D. R. Davis leg. ( USNM); 1 female, Chi Pen, 10.vi.1997, B. Herczig & L. Ronkay leg. ( HNHM). VIETNAM: 1 female, "Indo China", R. V. de Salvaza leg. ( BMNH); 1 female, Chapa [= Sa Pa], v.-vi.1916, R. V. de Salvaza leg. ( BMNH); 2 males, 1 female, Hoa Binh, vii.1939, A. de Cooma leg.; 5 males, 2 females Hoa Binh; 1 male, 1 female, Hoa Binh, Thanh-ha district, 12. and 13.vi.1966, R. Bielawski & B. Pisarski leg.; 2 males, 1 female, Hanoi, 24.vi.1959, B. Pisarski & J. Prószyński leg.; 4 males, 2 females Ninh Binh, Cuc Phuong, 5., 7. and 8.vi.1966, R. Bielawski & B. Pisarski leg.; 1 female, Nghe An district, Phu Quy, 17.vi.1959, B. Pisarski & J. Prószyński leg. (all MZPW); 1 female, Cuc Phuong, 400 m, at light, 17.x.1986, Vásárhelyi leg. ( HNHM). LAOS: 1 male, Borikhane Prov., Pakkading, 31.vii.1965, native collector leg. ( BPBM). INDIA: Assam: 2 males, Chabua, 10.x.1943, D. E. Hardy leg. ( USNM); 1 female, Tocklai, light trap, ix.1983, 943/6, C.I.E.A. 15663 ( BMNH). NEPAL: 1 male, Chitwan National Park, Island Jungle reserve, 29-30.x.1995, L. Peregovits leg. ( HNHM).

Redescription.

Measurements (10 males, 9 females). Body length (from apex of head to tip of forewings): male 11.7-13.4 mm, female 13.0-14.9 mm; head length (from apex of cephalic process to base of eyes): male 1.33-1.50 mm, female 1.50-1.65 mm; head width (including eyes): male 1.30-1.60 mm, female 1.48-1.75 mm; forewing length: male 9.4-10.8 mm, female 10.2-11.9 mm.

Coloration. General coloration as in generic description (Figs 1A, 2 G–H). Vertex dark brown with five light ochraceous streaks: along median carina in anterior third (in some specimens, the whole median carina is light), along each lateral carina subapically and along each lateral carina basally, the latter streaks being sickle-shaped and curved to median carina at the base (Fig. 8A). Frons light ochraceous with small dark brown spots along intermediate and lateral carinae, frons base slightly infuscated (Fig. 8C). Forewing membrane pattern as in Fig. 3D. Hind wing membrane with a dark brown streak along the apical portion of CuA1 vein, extending along hind wing apical margin.

Structure. Head with cephalic process moderately long, not inflated (Figs 8 A–C). Vertex (Fig. 8A) with ratio of length at midline to width between eyes 1.6-2.0. Transition of vertex to frons relatively sharp, almost angular in lateral view (Fig. 8B). Frons relatively narrow, with ratio of length at midline to maximum width 2.6-3.0.

Male genitalia. Pygofer, in lateral view (Fig. 8E), with dorso-posterior margin produced into a short and broad lobe; in ventral view (Fig. 8F) much longer than in dorsal view (Fig. 8D) with ratio of ventral to dorsal length about 4.0. Gonostyles (Fig. 8 E–F) large, broad medially, with dorsal margin weakly sinuate. Aedeagus (Fig. 8 G–I) with endosomal processes extended posteriad and strongly curved dorso-anteriad, relatively short, their apices not reaching the base of phallobase; phallobase with one pair of large, strongly inflated dorsolateral lobes (Fig. 8H), their apices blunt, and one pair of small, thumb-like ventral lobes, directed posteriad (Fig. 8I). Segment X, in lateral view, narrow basally, widening to apex beyond middle, apex subacute (Fig. 8E); in dorsal view, relatively short and broad in dorsal view, widest medially, with ratio of length to maximum width 1.2-1.3 (Fig. 8D).

Female genitalia as in generic description.

Distribution.

Widely distributed in tropical, subtropical and temperate eastern Asia (Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, northeastern India and Nepal).

Ecology and economic importance.

Adult O. lunulifer  was reported as a minor pest of leaves of Morus alba  L. ( Pu and Mao 2012) and Camellia oleifera  Abel in southeastern China ( Zhao et al. 2013). Matsumura (1910) listed " Anagnia splendens  " among pests of sugarcane in Taiwan; this record perhaps also refers to O. lunulifer  .

Remarks.

Erroneously according to Metcalf (1946), Matsumura (1905a, b) considered O. lunulifer  to be a junior synonym of Anagnia splendens  (Germar). As he probably studied material from Japan, the description and illustration of " Anagnia splendens  " in Matsumura (1905a) probably refer to O. lunulifer  (i.e., the only Orthopagus  species currently confirmed from Japan). The same is probable for the records and a figure of " Anagnia splendens  " from Okinawa and Taiwan published in Matsumura (1905b and 1910, respectively).

Melichar (1912) differentiated O. elegans  , O. helios  and O. lunulifer  based on slight differences in the transparency of the forewing membrane, extent of the dark brown apical band on the forewing and the shape of frons. Based on a study of material from Taiwan, Schumacher (1915) suggested that Orthopagus helios  and O. elegans  described by Melichar (1912) belong to the same species. However, his synonymisation of O. helios var. diffusus  Melichar and O. elegans  Melichar under O. helios  Melichar was not widely accepted ( Metcalf 1946). We have examined the corresponding type specimens and additional specimens from the same series collected by H. Sauter in Taiwan and currently deposited in HNHM, MFNB, MMBC, SDEI, and SNSD, and confirm here Schumacher’s conclusion. Simultaneously, we suggest that O. helios  should be treated as a junior synonym of O. lunulifer  because we consider the differences among these taxa listed by Melichar (1912) to represent intraspecific variation. We designate here the lectotypes for O. elegans  , O. helios  and O. helios var. diffusus  to stabilize the nomenclature according to Article 74 of ICZN (1999).

Liang (1996) designated the lectotype for O. lunulifer  , and provided a left lateral view of male genitalia for this species. Detailed illustrations of the male and female genitalia (but no detailed description) were also provided for O. lunulifer  by Song et al. (2016d, 2018).

The single male specimen examined from Nepal (Chitwan National Park) is identical in external characters to specimens of O. lunulifer  from Japan, China, Taiwan and Vietnam. However, it differs in the shape of the lobe on the dorso-posterior margin of the pygofer which is smaller (shorter and simply angular) than in the rest of O. lunulifer  males studied. The phallobase of this specimen could not be sufficiently compared as its membranous lobes failed to inflate during the preparation. More specimens and data are needed to confirm the identification.