Myrmecophyes piceus Bykov, 1970

Tatarnic, Nikolai J. & Cassis, Gerasimos, 2012, The Halticini of the world (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Orthotylinae): generic reclassification, phylogeny, and host plant associations, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (3), pp. 558-658 : 618-619

Myrmecophyes piceus Bykov, 1970 Central Asia

Myrmecophyes tibialis Reuter, 1901 Central Asia

Myrmecophyes trispiculus Drapolyuk & Kerzhner, 2000 Kazakhstan

Myrmecophyes variabilis Drapolyuk, 1989 Azerbaijan

Biology and host plant associations: Myrmecophyes is found almost exclusively on grasses. In the USA, My. orgenonensis has been collected from Festuca idahoensis and Agropyron spicatum ( Schuh & Lattin, 1980) ; Kerzhner & Yachevskii (1967) recorded My. alboornatus on Agropyron spp. in Eastern (former) USSR; Bykov (1971) recorded My. macrotrichus on Festuca and Carex spp. ; and My. frontosus has been collected from Psathyrostachys juncea (Poaceae) ( Drapolyuk & Kerzhner, 2000). A single species has been collected from the family Asteraceae ; My. trispiculus is known from the asterid Artemisia terrae-albae ( Drapolyuk & Kerzhner, 2000) ( Table 1).

Remarks: Myrmecophyes is arguably the most convincing ant mimetic genus of Halticini . Based on its mymecomorphy, Carvalho (1952, 1955, 1958) erroneously placed the genus in the Pilophorini . Many characters contradict this assessment (e.g. tall genae, structure of the male and female genitalia) – and in any case several other Halticini are also ant mimics – leading Wagner (1955) and Schuh (1974) to transfer the genus to the Halticini .

Schuh & Lattin (1980) provided a brief summary of the genus. The most recent works on Myrmecophyes have been Drapolyuk’s (1989) description of three new species and key to the species of the Caucasus, and Drapolyuk & Kerzhner’s (2000) description of two new species from Kazakhstan. The most comprehensive work remains Bykov (1971), which as Schuh & Lattin (1980) note, omitted nine previously described species from its key and lacks a formal diagnosis. Thus, the most recent diagnosis of Myrmecophyes is that of Wagner (1973), which has been found by us and others (e.g. Schuh & Lattin, 1980) to be both inadequate and inaccurate. Contrary to Wagner, not all species have white markings on the hemelytra, not all species exhibit a macropterous form, the first two abdominal segments are not constricted to form a waist – in fact, only occasionally is the second abdominal segment constricted, whereas in many species the abdomen remains relatively broad at its base – and the opening of the pygophore is not directed downwards.

The structure of the ductus seminis and secondary gonopore of Myrmecophyes are most similar to Anapus and Euryopicoris . In particular, in all three genera the distal portion of the ductus seminis lacks flexible sclerotized ribbing. This similarity is reflected

THE HALTICINI OF THE WORLD 619

in the close relationship between these genera (as well as Labops and Scirtetellus ) identified in our phylogenetic results. It should be noted that although the two species of Myrmecophyes included in our phylogenetic analysis do not form a monophyletic group, we consider this to be an artefact of our small taxon sample for the genus as well as reflective of the limits of our character dataset.