Aleurodicus, Douglas

John H. Martin, 2004, Whiteflies of Belize (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Part 1 — introduction and account of the subfamily Aleurodicinae Quaintance & Baker, Zootaxa 681, pp. 1-86 : 18-20

ALEURODICUS Douglas

Aleurodicus Douglas, 1892: 32 . Type species Aleurodicus anonae Morgan, 1892: 32 , by subsequent designation by Quaintance, 1908: 8. [Synonymised with A. cocois ( Curtis, 1846: 284–285) by Mound & Halsey, 1978: 228.]

DIAGNOSIS AND COMMENTS. As interpreted here, Aleurodicus comprises species with the following combination of characters: 4 pairs of large subdorsal abdominal compound pores, evenly spaced and usually each with an axial process extending well beyond the pore mouth, the anteriormost pair located on segment III (but lateral to median part of segment II, see Fig. A); most species also additionally with one or two much smaller abdominal pairs posterior to the other four; two pairs of cicatrices present on thoracic area (scars of third­instar compound pores, fig. A); 12 pairs of submarginal setae present (including the nominal caudal pair); submedian cephalothoracic setae present — some species with cephalic and three thoracic pairs, all similar to submarginal setae, others with cephalic pair wanting, and the dispersus / flavus / coccolobae assemblage possess only meso­ and metathoracic pairs of submedian setae which are also much smaller than submarginal setae; submargin and/or dorsal disc usually punctuated by pores of several types; lingula always protrudes beyond vasiform orifice, its four subapical setae on the protruding part.

Species with the above characters, but whose puparial margins are usually substantially deflexed, the submargin punctuated by a broad band of crowded simple pores of only the wide­rimmed type (Fig. 68), and whose compound pore axial processes are usually directed mesally when slide­mounted, are currently placed in the genus Lecanoideus Quaintance & Baker , but a separate genus may not be justified ( Martin & Watson, 1998). No member of the Lecanoideus assemblage has yet been seen in Belize, but Aleurodicus inversus (here described from Belize) is somewhat intermediate in form. However, Caballero (1992) recorded L. giganteus (Quaintance & Baker) , the type species of Lecanoideus , from nearby Honduras and L. mirabilis (Cockerell) was described from Mexico, which borders Belize.

Quaintance & Baker (1913) distinguished Lecanoideus mirabilis from L. giganteus through the shape of the puparia, and the relative positions of the cephalic compound pores. The highly variable degree of marginal deflexion when members of this group are slide­mounted affects the puparial outline and, hence, the perceived distance of compound pores from the apparent puparial margin. Examination of type material of both species (USNM) revealed no differences considered to be of specific significance (Steve Nakahara, pers. comm.), and L. giganteus ( Quaintance & Baker, 1913) is therefore here regarded as a junior synonym of L. mirabilis ( Cockerell, 1898) syn. n.

With the revised generic definitions proposed here, Aleurodicus bondari Costa Lima (1928), known from Brazil and Colombia, is here transferred to Aleuronudus comb. nov.

Key to Aleurodicus species in Belize — puparia

Note that the pair of posterior abdominal spiracles (ventral) can be mistaken for small post­vasiform orifice compound pores (dorsal). Figure 3 is a good example, being without any small compound pores, but with the spiracles clearly visible in a similar position.

1 A pair of small compound pores present on each of abdominal segments VII & VIII (Figs A, 1, 6–12, 64, 69–70, 73, 75)............................................................................. 3

­ Without small compound pores on abdominal segments VII & VIII ( Figs 2–3, 55, 63) ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Submarginal pore band continuous posterior to vasiform orifice, but such pores absent from median part of abdominal segment VII between pockets and segment VI/VII division (Fig. 63)................................................................................ dispersus Russell

­ Submarginal pore band interrupted posterior to lingula ( Figs 2, 55), but a few such pores present on median part of abdominal segment VII between pockets and segment VI/VII division ........................................................ coccolobae Quaintance & Baker

3 Outer submargin with a very distinct, mostly­regular, row of 8­shaped pores, each less than a pore­length from its adjacent neighbours ( Fig. 11). Dorsal disc with transverse “chains” of septate pores across most segments (Fig. 79) ................. vinculus sp. nov.

­ Outer submargin may possess double­rimmed pores (Figs 69–70, 72–74), but these are less robust and, hence, less distinct at lower magnifications. Dorsal disc without septate pores in distinct transverse “chains”...................................................................... 4

4 Double­rimmed pores (Figs 70, 72, 74) present in submargin, and sometimes also subdorsum .....................................................................................................................5

­ Double­rimmed pores absent ...................................................................................... 9

5 Septate double­rimmed pores present in subdorsum, mesal to abdominal compound pores, as well as in submargin ( Figs 5, 72) ......................................... inversus sp. nov.

­ Double­rimmed pores, with or without septa, present only in submargin ................... 6

6 Double­rimmed pores septate and exceptionally large ( Fig. 7), each 30–35 µ m long, unevenly spaced and aligned, and particularly irregular on cephalothorax (Fig. 74, to left). Dorsal disc septate pores also unusually large, each up to 15 µ m long (Fig. 74, to right). Lingula tongue­shaped and usually overlapping puparial margin in slidemounted specimens ( Fig. 7) ............................................................ maritimus Hempel

­ Double­rimmed pores each usually less than 25 µ m long, often more evenly spaced and aligned. Dorsal disc septate pores each much smaller than 15 µ m. Lingula may or may not overlap puparial margin ................................................................................. 7

7 Anterior 4 pairs of abdominal compound pores exceptionally large, each up to 80 µ m in diameter ( Fig. 6). Double­rimmed pores septate and situated within a narrow submarginal band of crowded wide­rimmed pores (Fig. 73). Lingula narrowly acuminate ................................................................................................. magnificus Costa Lima

­ Anterior 4 pairs of abdominal compound pores much smaller, not attaining 50 µ m in diameter. Double­rimmed pores not enclosed within a crowded submarginal band of wide­rimmed pores. Lingula apically rounded or slightly truncate .............................. 8

8 A cluster of bright pores present on each side of abdominal segment VII, anterior to small compound pores (Fig. 69). Double­rimmed pores septate and numerous, set close to puparial margin ( Figs 1, 69); submargin with only sparse wide­rimmed pores (Fig. 69). Lingula slightly truncate apically, not overlapping puparial margin ........................................................................................... araujoi Sampson & Drews

­ Without a cluster of bright pores on each side of abdominal segment VII. Doublerimmed pores not septate, each with only a faint notch in inner rim, sparse, poorly defined and widely spaced, most alternating with submarginal setal bases, lining mesal boundary of submarginal band of crowded wide­rimmed pores (Fig. 70). Lingula tongue­shaped, usually overlapping puparial margin in slide­mounted specimens ( Fig. 4) ........................................................................................................... dugesii Cockerell

9 A submarginal band of crowded wide­rimmed pores present, its mesal boundary extending at least half­way towards compound pores ( Figs 8, 10, 12, 64, 66, 77–78) .................................................................................................................................... 10

­ Without a submarginal band of crowded wide­rimmed pores; dorsal pores all minute and very sparse, a few bright pores loosely clustered in vicinity of compound pores (Fig. 75) ......................................................................................... pauciporus sp. nov.

10 Lingula rounded apically (Figs A, 10, 64). Operculum surface finely spinulose but otherwise smooth............................................................................... pulvinatus (Maskell)

­ Lingula acute apically ( Figs 8, 12, 58, 66). Operculum surface distinctly rugose or corrugate (Figs 58, 66) .................................................................................................... 11

11 Inner boundary of submarginal zone of wide­rimmed pores forming mesally­directed lobes ( Fig. 12), the pore band interrupted immediately posterior to lingular apex ........ ............................................................................................... rugioperculatus sp. nov.

­ Inner boundary of submarginal pore band concentric with curvature of puparial margin, not lobulate, the band not interrupted posterior to vasiform orifice ( Figs 8, 66) .... .............................................................................................................. niveus sp. nov.