Is Montandoniola moraguesi (Puton, 1896) a mixture of different species? (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) Author Pluot-Sigwalt, Dominique Author Streito, Jean-Claude Author Matocq, Armand text Zootaxa 2009 2208 25 43 journal article 40634 10.5281/zenodo.189786 371841f0-b249-4a83-a56c-2bf304163755 1175-5326 189786 Montandoniola confusa Streito & Matocq , sp. nov. ( Figs. 20–26 , 28 , 31, 34, 37 , 40 ) Montandoniola moraguesi (Puton) : Postle et al. , 2001 : 234 (misidentification: Australia , redescription) Type material : Holotype 3, GUADELOUPE , Baie Mahault, Destrellan, Ficus benjamina , Gynaikothrips uzeli , 01.I.2009 , J. Etienne leg. ( MNHN ). – Paratypes (55 3, 52 Ƥ): GUADELOUPE : [same references] 5 3, 3 Ƥ ( MNHN ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( AMNH ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( USNM ); 4 3, 10 Ƥ, Baie Mahault, Jarry, Ficus benjamina , Gynaikothrips uzeli , 06.II.2008 , J. Etienne leg. ( MNHN ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( TKPM ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( QMB ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( NSMT ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ (Coll. AM), 1 3, 1 Ƥ (Coll. JCS); 2 3, [same data], 28.I.2004 , J. Etienne leg. ( MNHN ); 6 3 13 Ƥ, Deshaies, Jardin Botanique, Ficus benjamina , Gynaikothrips uzeli , 12.II.2008 , J. Etienne leg. ( MNHN ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( TKPM ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( FSCA ); 13 3, 9 Ƥ, Pointe-à-Pitre, 11.XII.2003 , J. Etienne leg. ( MNHN ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( AMNH ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( USNM ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( QMB ), 1 3, 1 Ƥ (Coll. AM), 1 3, 1 Ƥ (Coll. JCS), 1 3, 1 Ƥ (Coll. JE), 1 3, 1 Ƥ ( LNPV ); 4 3, 1 Ƥ, sur feuilles de Ficus benjamina , 02.II.2004 , LPV Guadeloupe leg. ( MNHN ); 3 3, Plage de Viard, Petit-Bourg, 01-I-2009 , dans des galles de Tabebuia heterophylla dues à Holopothrips tabebuia, J. Etienne leg. ( MNHN ); 1 3, 1 Ƥ, Lamentin, Bréfort, 13.I.2009 , sur Tabebuia heterophylla infest par Holothrips tabebuia, J. Etienne leg ( MNHN ). Additional material examined (all identified as M. moraguesi ). AUSTRALIA : 1 3, Noosa Heads, Q, feeding on Gynaicothrips ficorum , 31.III.1995 , M. Steiner, S. Goodwin (coll. ACP); 1 Ƥ, Millfield, WA, feeding on Gynaikothrips sp. on Ficus platypoda , 23.IX.1995 , L.A. Mound (coll. ACP); 1 Ƥ, Darwin NT., ex botanic garden, 11.IV.1995 , M. Steiner S. Goodwin (coll. ACP). USA : 3 3, Florida, Miami Dade Co 102 Ave X 68 St T., 17.II.2005 , T. Dobbs ( LNPV ); 1 Ƥ, Florida, Monroe Co 91421 41511, Key largo on Ficus sp., 05.IV.2005 , T. Dobbs ( LNPV ); 1 3, Florida, Alachva Co Maile Plant. VIII on Ficus sp., 21.V.2005 , J. Brown ( LNPV ). HAWAII : 3 Ƥ, Pausa Valley, Honolulu on G. ficorum , x-1964 , G. Funasaki ( USNM ). BERMUDA : 2 Ƥ, St Georges, P. St Davids on Petunia , 14–22 vii 88 , M.R. Wilson & D.J. Hilburn ( USNM ). Diagnosis. Body length: 1.9–2.5 mm. Head: antennal segments I and II dark brown to black, III and IV whitish, IV pale pinkish; labial segments I and II dark brown, III paler, IV darker distally. Thorax: lateral margins of pronotum nearly straight, lateral carinae well marked, expanded anteriorly; ostiolar peritreme angular posteriorly; foretibiae and mesotibiae whitish except base dark; hind femorae and tibiae dark brown. Male genitalia ( Figs. 24–26 , 31, 34, 37 ): pygophore covered with many long setae on right side, with scattered short setae (not arranged into a brush) anterior to genital opening ( Figs. 24 , 31 ); paramere with short flagellum, strong and straight, dagger-like; lame similarly-sized, thin, and acute apically ( Figs. 25, 26 , 34 ). Female genitalia ( Fig. 40 ): copulatory tube very short, slightly longer than wide, mesally located. Description. Habitus ( Fig. 21 ). General coloration: Body black, shiny on dorsal and ventral surfaces. Eyes brown to black sometime reddish, ocelli reddish. Antennal segments I and II dark brown, III and IV usually whitish, IV pale pinkish. Labial segments I and II dark brown, III paler, IV darker distally ( Fig. 22 ). Hemelytra black with clear central patch on most part of clavus and corium; membrane hyaline with a rectangular dark brown stripe centrally. All femorae and hindtibiae dark brown, foretibiae and mesotibiae withish except base black; tarsi whitish, except apex and claw darker. Head: vertex with two pairs of long, erect setae posteriorly (one pair laterally and one pair between ocelli) and pair of similar setae anteriorly between eyes; pair of erect setae on anteclypeus; vertex about twice as wide as eye in dorsal view; eyes with short setae. Antennae: segment I almost reaching apex of head, bearing scattered short setae; segment II swollen and fusiform bearing dense setae (short adpressed setae and long suberect setae); segments III and IV thinner, bearing dense short setae, and a few erect setae; length antennal segments: I: 0.09; II: 0.30; III: 0.22, IV: 0.21. FIGURES 20–26 . Montandoniola confusa sp. nov. , male holotype (except Figs. 22, 23: paratype). 20, type specimen and its labels; 21, habitus, dorsal view; scale bar: 1 mm; 22, head and thorax, lateral view; scale bar: 1 mm; 23, evaporative area and ostiolar peritreme of the metathoracic glands (left metapleura), lateral view; scale bar: 0.1 mm; 24, pygophore with paramere, dorsal view; scale bar: 0.1 mm; 25, paramere, dorsal view; 26, idem, lateral view; scale bars: 0.1 mm. Thorax. Pronotum ( Fig. 21 ) trapezoidal, impunctuate, shiny, with pair of long erect setae on anterolateral and posterolateral angles; lateral margin nearly straight, convergent, strongly carinate; carinae expanded anteriorly; posterior margin with fine erected hair. Scutellum with distinct transverse impression, bearing sparsely fine erected hairs. Two long erect setae on either side of midline anteriorly. Metapleural evaporative area subtriangular; ostiolar peritreme angular posteriorly ( Fig. 23 , 28 ). Foretibiae of male with ventral row of about twenty short black teeth. Metasternum wide, nearly truncated posteriorly; median and hind costae distant. Hemelytra mostly shining, bearing sparsely short setae. Hindwing with hamus arising from Cu proximal to junction with m-Cu. Two veins apparent. FIGURES 27–28 . Metapleural evaporative area and ostiolar peritreme (left metapleura). 27, M. moraguesi ; 28, M. confusa sp. nov. ; scale bar: 0.1 mm. Genitalia. Male ( Figs. 24–26 , 31, 34, 37 ): Pygophore ( Figs. 24 , 31 ) bearing many long setae posterodorsally on right side, and scattered short setae (not arranged into a brush) anterior to genital opening ( Figs. 24 , 31 ). Paramere ( Figs. 25, 26 , 34, 37 ): flagellum short, strong, dagger-like; lame thin and very acute apically having at base a prominent triangular denticule. Female ( Fig. 40 ): copulatory tube very short, slightly longer as wide, mesally located in middle of sternite VII. Etymology: from Latin ( confusus ). Refers to the long-confused species. Biological data. M. confusa sp. nov. is preying on several thrips species, on several host-plants ( Table 2 ). In Guadeloupe , according to the collector (J. Etienne), M. confusa sp. nov. was collected into galls produced by Gynaikothrips uzeli on Ficus benjamina and Holopothrips tabebuia , a species recently described on Tabebuia heterophylla from Puerto Rico , Florida, and Dominican Republic ( Cabrera & Segarra, 2008 ), and later recorded from Guadeloupe ( Michel et al. , 2008 ). TABLE 2. Preys and associated host plants of M. confusa sp. nov. from the examined specimens. Thrips species Plant Family Country Gynaikothrips uzeli Ficus benjamina Moraceae Guadeloupe Holopothrips tabebuia Tabebuia heterophylla Bignoniaceae Guadeloupe Gynaikothrips ficorum unknown Australia Gynaikothrips ficorum unknown Hawaii Gynaikothrips sp. Ficus platypoda Moraceae Australia unknown Ficus sp Moraceae USA (Florida) unknown Petunia sp. Solanaceae Bermuda Distribution ( Fig. 41 ). M. confusa is present in Guadeloupe , United States (Florida), Australia , Hawaii, Bermuda . Comments. M. confusa sp. nov. differs from M. moraguesi by the shape of the pronotum and the metapleural evaporative area, coloration of the labium and legs, male and female genitalia; from M. thripodes and M. pictipennis mainly by the genitalia; from M. ishikawai and M. bellatula by the coloration of antennae, and male and female genitalia (see Yamada et al. , 2007 ); from M. sawtellense by the male and female genitalia (see Postle et al. , 2001 ). FIGURES 29–37 . Comparison of the male genitalia between M. moraguesi , M. thripodes , and M. confusa sp. nov. 29– 31, pygophore, dorsal view; 32–34, paramere, dorsal view; 35–37, paramere, lateral view; scale bars: 0.1 mm. d = denticule; f = flagelle; l = lame. M. confusa sp. nov. is widely distributed, in particular in the countries in which specimens identified as M. moraguesi have been deliberately introduced (Hawaii, Bermuda , USA ). It is very likely that confusa would have been confused with moraguesi for a long time. We do have strong evidences from the redescription of the so-called Australian M. moraguesi given by Postle et al. (2001) : description and illustrations can be precisely assigned to confusa sp. nov. With regard to the other publications we have only serious doubts, no definite proof. The following publications (all dealing with specimens identified M. moraguesi ) could refer to M. confusa sp. nov. : Davis & Krauss , 1965 : 90; 1966: 206 (biological control); Funasaki , 1966 : 209 (biology, biological control, Hawaii); Lewis , 1973 : 251 (biological control); Reimer , 1988 : 132 (biological interference); Henry , 1988 : 12 (Hawaii, California); Paine , 1992 : 164 (biological control); Bennet , 1995 (biological control); Lattin , 2000 : 218 (biological control, in part); Halbert , 2001 , 2002 (Florida); Denmark et al . , 2004 (biological control); Dobbs & Boyd , 2006 : 41 (records from USA ); Lattin , 2007a , b : 370 (review, in part); Cabrera & Segarra , 2008 : 232 (prey, host plant).