Ploiaria Scopoli 1786

Tatarnic, Nikolai J. & Cassis, Gerasimos, 2011, The thread-legged bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae: Emesinae) of Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands, Zootaxa 2967, pp. 21-43 : 28-29

Ploiaria Scopoli 1786

Ploiaria Scopoli 1786: 60 (new genus; type species: Ploiaria domestica Scopoli 1786 , by monotypy); Wygodzinsky 1966: 158 (description); Maldonaldo 1990: 108 (catalogue); Cassis & Gross 1995: 292 (catalogue).

Cerascopus Heineken 1830: 36 (new genus; Cerascopus marginatus Heineken 1830 , by monotypy); China 1938: 22 (synonymy).

Emesodema Spinola 1840: 87 (new genus; type species: Ploiaria domestica Scopoli 1786 , by monoypy); McAtee & Malloch 1925: 48 (synonymy)

Luteva Dohrn 1860: 242 (new genus; Luteva concolor Dohrn 1860 , by subsequent designation by Van Duzee 1917: 235); McAtee & Malloch 1922: 95 (synonymy); McAtee & Malloch 1925: 50 (as subgenus of Ploiaria )

Ploiariopsis Champion 1898: 173 (new genus; type species: Ploiariopsis megalops Champion 1898: 174 , by subsequent designation by McAtee & Malloch 1922: 95); McAtee & Malloch 1922: 95 (synonymy)

Elymas Distant 1909: 504 (new genus; type species: Elymas praesentans Distant 1909 , by monotypy); Wygodzinsky 1966: 158 (synonymy)

Culicimimus Villiers 1948: 446 (new genus; type species: Culcimimus gabonensis Villiers 1948 , by monotypy); Putschkov 1984: 18 (synonymy).

Wahrmania Dispons 1964: 71 (new genus; type species: Wahrmania katznelsoni Dispons 1964 , by original designation)

Diagnosis. Macropterous, brachypterous, micropterous or apterous, 4–20 mm. Ploiaria is diagnosed by the following combination of characters: ventral surface of head lacking spinelike setae, posterior margin of prosternum medially emarginate, posterior lobe of pronotum not covering mesonotum, scutellum and metanotum lacking spines, forefemora lacking penicillate processes, and tarsi 3-segmented.

Remarks. Ploiaria is one of the largest genera of Emesinae , with around 130 described species ( Reidi 2008 ) and many more undetermined specimens in museum collections ( Wygodzinsky 1956). Although the genus is highly variable, Wygodzinsky (1956, 1966) it is thought that it nonetheless reflects a true monophyly, as no characters have yet been found to subdivide it into additional well-definable groups.