Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius)

Hodgson, Chris J. & Peronti, Ana L. B. G., 2012, 3372, Zootaxa 3372, pp. 1-265 : 33-35

Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius)

( Figs 25, 26)

Coccus ceriferus Fabricius, 1798: 546 .

Coccus (Ceroplastes) chilensis Gray, 1828: 7 . Synonymised by Green, 1899: 191.

Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius) ; Walker: 1852: 1087.

Ceroplastes australiae Walker, 1852: 1087 . Synonymised by Green, 1899: 181.

Columnea chilensis (Gray) ; Targioni Tozzetti, 1866: 145.

Lacca alba Signoret, 1869: 848 . Nomen nudum .

Gascardia cerifera (Anderson) ; De Lotto, 1965: 198.

Type material not seen. Type data: India, Coromandel Coast, probably on Maytenus marginatus ; type specimens considered lost, see De Lotto, 1971 .

Material examined: India, Kasaragod, on cloves, 1990, M.K. Nair ( BMNH): 2/2 (good); no site, on tea, no date, Anderson ( BMNH): 1/2 (fair-good). Hong Kong, Tap Shek Kok Castle Peak, on Podocarpus macrophyllus , 18.ix.1990, no coll. ( BMNH): 2/3 (good). Thailand, on Longan fruit [ Euphoria longana , Sapindaceae ], 2.v.1990, Lewvanich #15 ( BMNH): 2/2 (fair-good). Fiji, Viti Levu, Suva, Thurston Gardens, on epiphytic fern ( Pyrrosia adnescens , Polypodiaceae ), 26.vii.2009, C.J. Hodgson ( BMNH): 1/1(fair, old with heavily sclerotised dorsum, specimen split into dorsum and venter but dorsum fragmented).

Note. Data in description includes those of Gimpel et al. (1974) and De Lotto (1971).

Unmounted material. “Wet wax nearly round in dorsal view, hemispherical laterally, normally with anteriorly projecting horn, white to pinkish white, with conspicuous marginal flange which may hide lateral filaments; plates visible only on older adult females, without nuclei. Dry wax with filaments as follows: cephalic filament appearing trifurcate, with acute apices; anterolateral and mediolateral filaments simple; posterior-lateral filaments bifurcate; caudal filaments simple; dorsal dry wax of first and second instars forming cap at apex of horn, not surrounded by nucleus; dorsal dry wax tilted anteriorly. Stigmatic wax bands present near both pairs of spiracles, anterior bands directed dorsally, filamentous wax confined to stigmatic areas. Length 6.9 (range 3.0–12.0), width 6.3 (range 2.7–10.4), height 4.6 (range 2.0–8.2) mm.” ( Gimpel et al., 1974: 23).

Mounted material. Body oval, convex, with shallow, stigmatic clefts; dorsum with indistinct tubercles. Caudal process short and stout, pointing dorso-posteriorly. Length 3.1–8.0 mm, total width of mounted specimen 2.4–7.4 mm; width of venter about 1.75 mm.

Dorsum. Derm membranous in young females, becoming rather evenly sclerotised when mature; caudal process heavily sclerotised but fairly short when young but becoming somewhat elongate when older. Derm usually with 11 clear areas, 3 cephalic and usually 8 lateral (i.e., with posterior pair divided), but with mediodorsal area absent; most clear areas without dorsal setae but anterior clear areas often with 2 setae. Dorsal setae variable, each bluntly spinose, margins almost parallel and most with a slightly capitate apex, but some with slightly convergent margins; each subequal to or slightly longer than width of basal-socket, length 4.3–9.0 µm; basal socket width 4–5 µm; quite frequent throughout but absent from clear areas apart from up to 2 in cephalic clear areas. Dorsal pores: (i) loculate microducts of complex type, mostly with 2 or 3 (occasionally 1, 4 or 5) rather large, almost round satellite loculi; each microduct clearly larger than width of dorsal setal sockets; abundant throughout but absent from all clear areas and from a fairly wide marginal band; wax-plate lines not detected, and (ii) simple microducts only detected in a sparse marginal row. Preopercular pores: with 4–10 present in a transverse band. Anal plates: sometimes rather elongate, with rounded outer margins, each plate with 3 long dorsal setae more or less in a longitudinal line, but middle seta usually shorter, plus a short apical seta; length of plates 140–175 µm, width 125–140 µm. Anal tube about 1.5 times as long as anal plates.

Margin. Marginal setae strongly setose, each 13–25 µm long; with perhaps 5–7 between eyespots, 1–5 between eyespots and anterior stigmatic area; 2–4 on each side between stigmatic clefts and 8–12 on each side of abdomen; each anal lobe with at least 2 longer setae, each about 26–43 µm long. Stigmatic clefts shallow, each with a marginal line of conical, quite sharply-pointed stigmatic setae, group broadening to 4–6 setae deep in centre of each cleft; central, most dorsal seta in each cleft largest, about 24–26 µm long; 10–12 µm wide at base, becoming progressively smaller towards margin, most about 16–18 µm long, 10 µm wide at base, smallest 10–12 µm long, 8 µm wide at base; setae extending some distance on either side of each cleft, with 19–30 along each margin and with 7–20 in each second row; total per cleft 28–74. Eyespots quite large, each about 40 µm wide.

Venter. Derm entirely membranous when young but developing some sclerotisation along cephalic margin in oldest specimens. Pregenital disc-pores abundant around genital opening and across preceding segment; much less frequent medially on segment V and with 32–56 medially and mediolaterally on each of segments II–IV; also with 0–9 near (mostly mesad) each coxa. Spiracular disc-pores present in rather narrow bands near spiracles but each broadening significantly near margin; each band with about 50–160 pores; none extending medially past peritreme. Ventral microducts showing nothing distinctive. Ventral tubular ducts each with an inner ductule about 14 µm long; with 16–46 in cephalic region plus 17–34 posteriorly associated with anogenital fold. Submarginal setae about twice as frequent as marginal setae, each 6.0–9.5 µm long.

Antennae short, each with 6 segments, with an indistinct pseudo-articulation in segment III; total length 142–225 µm. Clypeolabral shield about 145 µm long. Spiracles: width of peritremes 60–70 µm. Legs well developed but relatively short, each without a tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis; each claw without a denticle; claw digitules both broad (or 1 slightly narrower) and slightly shorter than tarsal digitules; dimensions of metathoracic legs (µm): coxa 85; trochanter + femur 75–140; tibia 48–65, tarsus 43–48 (tibia + tarsus 110–140), and claw 9.5–15.

Discussion. The identity of this species has had a very chequered history and it was not until De Lotto (1971) studied it that some of the confusion was clarified. Even now, the species currently accepted as C. ceriferus – the ‘white scale of India’ – may be different from that originally described by Fabricius (1798). See De Lotto (1971) for a discussion. Due to this muddle, many of the earlier identifications have been shown to be erroneous ( De Lotto, 1971). Ben-Dov (1993) suggested that this species has a widespread distribution: Austro-Oriental, Australian, Neotropical, New Zealand & South Pacific, Nearctic, Oriental, and Palaearctic, but some of these records need to be checked. Ben-Dov (1993) does not include the Afrotropical (Ethiopian) Region, although, according to ScaleNet ( Ben-Dov et al., 2011), there have been records from there (e.g., Newstead, 1910a). However, according to De Lotto (1971, p.136), the records from Tanzania and Uganda by Newstead (1910a, 1910b, 1911b) and those of Lindinger (1907, 1913) were based on “specimens of Gascardia destructor ” (now Ceroplastes destructor ), a species that was described only later by Newstead (1917). Three lots of material previously identified as C. ceriferus were located in the BMNH, but none was C. ceriferus . Two lots (3 slides) are C. destructor ( Nyasaland, Zomba, on Cedrela toona , 2.ix.1929, C. Smee (2/3, 2 young, 1 old) and as previous but on coffee, 3.ix.1929 (1/1 (fair)). The other material is very poor (labelled Col. Office Ent. Res. Comm. (Trop. Africa) no. xxi, det. Newstead, 1910 (2/2 (old, poor)). This is here considered to be probably C. brevicauda rather than C. destructor . No other material could be located and it is considered doubtful whether this species has been recorded from the Afrotropical Region. However, it is described here and included in the key above so as to prevent confusion as it could quite possibly occur in the future.

Perhaps the nearest location where C. ceriferus has been recorded is India. It has been recorded from about 40 plant families and is a pest on many ornamental plants in the USA ( Gimpel et al. (1974).

Similar species. According to Gimpel et al. (1974), C. ceriferus is close to C. pseudoceriferus Green and C. albolineatus Cockerell. As pointed out by De Lotto (1971), C. ceriferus differs from C. pseudoceriferus in having significantly smaller legs and antennae,ew or no multilocular disc-pores near the procoxae and many fewer stigmatic setae in each cleft. C. pseudoceriferus also has 40 marginal setae between the anterior stigmatic furrows ( Gimpel et al., 1974) (less than 15 in C. ceriferus ). C. albolineatus differs from C. ceriferus in having 7-segmented antennae and a tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis ( Gimpel et al., 1974). Neither C. pseudoceriferus nor C. albolineatus has been recorded from Africa.