Seven alate females collected on Rhus sp. by Dr. Murat Aslan in Turkey are re-studied. Originally considered as an undescribed species, the specimens are determined as Baizongia pistaciae (L.). Misidentification of the host plant probably contributed to lead on the initial confusion. Morphological measurements and ratios of diagnostic characters for the alatae are provided

Barjadze, Shalva

CREA Journals (Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria)

REDIA, XCIV, 2011: 21-23(*) Agrarian University of Georgia, Entomology and Biocontrol Research Centre, 13th km of David Aghmashenebeli Alley, 0131Tbilisi, Georgia; e-mail: shalva1980@yahoo.comBarjadze Sh. – Is Rhus-living Eriosomatinae aphid in Turkey really a new species?Seven alate females collected on Rhus sp. by Dr. Murat Aslan in Turkey are re-studied. Originally consideredas an undescribed species, the specimens are determined as Baizongia pistaciae (L.). Misidentification of the hostplant probably contributed to lead on the initial confusion. Morphological measurements and ratios of diagnosticcharacters for the alatae are provided. KEY WORDS: Baizongia pistaciae, Floraphis, Nurudea, Rhus, misidentification.SHALVA BARJADZE (*)IS RHUS-LIVING ERIOSOMATINAE APHID IN TURKEY REALLY A NEW SPECIES?INTRODUCTIONAccording to the current classification, Rhus gall-pro-ducing aphids are divided into six genera, ten species andfour subspecies (ZHANG et al., 1999; YANG et al., 2010).The life cycle of these species is complex and they alter-nate between the primary hosts (Rhus spp.) and second-ary hosts (mosses) (YANG et al., 2009).Floraphis meitanensis Tsai & Tang, 1946 has beenrecorded as Nurudea meitanensis on Rhus sp. fromKahramanmara  Province, Turkey (ASLAN and UYGUN,2005). Floraphis meitanensis is an East Asian species,which produces flower-like galls on the leaflets of Rhuspunjabensis var. sinica (TSAI & TANG, 1946; YANG et al.,2009). After examination of 4 alatae specimens by Dr. G.Remaudière and his colleagues, it was concluded thatspecimens collected by Dr. Aslan on Rhus sp. were notNurudea meitanensis and they further believed that thiswas probably an undescribed species (REMAUDIÈRE et al.,2006). Turkish Rhus-feeding species was reported asFloraphis sp. by BLACKMAN & EASTOP (2010). The pur-pose of this note is to make clear taxonomic status ofTurkish Rhus-feeding aphid. MATERIALS AND METHODSSeven alate females on two slides collected at Menzeletdam (Kahramanmara  Province, Turkey), 19.x.1998, fromRhus sp. were borrowed from Dr. Murat Aslan(Kahramanmara  Sütçü mam University, Turkey). Eachmorphological character of these specimens was meas-ured, ratios of valuable morphological characters weremade and picture was taken (see Table 1; fig. I).Abbreviations used in the text and table is as follow: BL- body length; ANT - antenna; ANT I - first antennal seg-ment; ANT II - second antennal segment; ANT III - thirdantennal segment; ANT IV - fourth antennal segment;ANT V - fifth antennal segment; ANT VI - sixth antennalsegment; ANT VI base - basal part of ANT VI; PT -processus terminalis; BD ANT III - basal diameter ofANT III; BD ANT IV - basal diameter of ANT IV; BDANT V - basal diameter of ANT V; BD ANT VI - basaldiameter of ANT VI; Rostr. - rostrum; URS length - lengthof ultimate rostral segments; URS width - width of ulti-mate rostral segments; HT II - second segment of hindtarsus; HF - hind femora; HT - hind tibia; DISCUSSIONThe Turkish species differs from Floraphis meitanensisby the following characters:1. Turkish species had naked secondary rhinaria on anten-nae of alate migrants, while secondary rhinaria with cil-iate rims is one of the diagnosis character for Floraphisspecies;2. Number of secondary rhinaria on ANT III of migrant is4-8, while it is 2-5 in Floraphis meitanensis;3. Number of secondary rhinaria on ANT VI of migrant is0-1, while it is 3-4 in Floraphis meitanensis;4. Forewings with short pterostigma only about 3× itsmaximum width, and Cu1a and Cu1b united at base inTurkish species, while forewings with pterostigma 4-6×its maximum width, and Cu1a and Cu1b separate at basein Floraphis species;5. Primary rhinaria on ANT V and VI are almost circularin Turkish species, while primary rhinaria on ANT Vand VI are transversely elongate, like secondary rhinar-ia in Floraphis species.Based on the above mentioned 5 differences, body partsmeasurements, their ratios and comparison of Rhus livingaphids with alate migrants of Baizongia pistaciae, it wasconfirmed that this species was B. pistaciae (L.), which isa widely distributed gall-making species on Pistacia spp.in Mediterranean area (BLACKMAN and EASTOP, 2010)and recorded from Kahramanmara  region by ASLAN &UYGUN (2005) (fig. II). In addition, Pistacia terebinthusgrows in the area around Menzelet dam, where Rhus-feeding species have been recorded (ASLAN, pers. comm.).Rhus and Pistacia superficially resemble each other andthis probably leads to the misidentification of the host.The aphids were collected in galls (ASLAN, pers. com.)and B. pistaciae does not produce galls on unsuitable hostssuch as Rhus coriaria L., being it the sole species knownfrom the genus Rhus in Turkey (DAVIS, 1967).– Received 2 February 2011     Accepted 5 July 2011      Published 1 December 2011ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am grateful to the colleagues who helped me duringthe preparation of this manuscripts and giving valuablecomments on it: Drs. Victor Eastop (The Natural HistoryMuseum, London) and Gary Miller (USDA, Beltsville,USA). I would like to thank Dr. Murat Aslan for loan ofaphid’s slides.22 S. BARJADZE REDIA, Vol. XCIV, 2011Table 1 – Measurements and ratios of Rhus coriaria feedingseven alate migrantsN Characters Range(measurements in mm)1 BL 2.42-2.862 ANT 0.660-0.7003 ANT I 0.045-0.0554 ANT II 0.055-0.0655 ANT III 0.160-0.1836 ANT IV 0.097-0.1037 ANT V 0.112-0.1198 ANT VI base 0.133-0.1459 PT 0.042-0.04810 Rostr. 0.380-0.43511 URS length 0.100-0.10312 URS width 0.037-0.06513 HT II 0.200-0.22014 HF 0.495-0.52015 HT 0.700-0.75016 BD ANT III 0.020-0.02317 BD ANT IV 0.020-0.02318 BD ANT V 0.016-0.01919 BD ANT VI 0.013-0.015Ratios1 ANT/BL 0.23-0.282 ANT III/ANT III BD 7.11-8.143 ANT III/ANT I 3.09-3.834 ANT III/ANT II 2.56-3.145 ANT III/ANT IV 1.60-1.876 ANT III/ANT V 1.39-1.627 ANT III/ANT VI base 1.16-1.328 ANT III/PT 3.61-4.179 ANT III/HF 0.33-0.3510 ANT IV/ANT IV BD 4.33-5.0611 ANT V/ANT V BD 6-7.0812 ANT VI/ANT VI BD 11.83-13.3613 PT/ANT VI base 0.29-0.3514 URS length/URS width 1.54-2.7315 URS/HT II 0.46-0.5016 URS/ANT VI base 0.71-0.7517 ANT VI base/HT II 0.62-0.6718 Rostr./BL 0.14-0.1719 Rostr./ANT III 2.28-2.5220 Rostr./HF 0.76-0.8821 HT/BL 0.26-0.3022 HF/BL 0.18-0.21Number of secondary rhinaria on:1 ANT III 4-82 ANT IV 1-33 ANT V 1-24 ANT VI 0-1Chaetotaxy1 HT II 4:4:4 or 4:5:4Fig. I – Head of alate migrant of Baizongia pistaciae.Fig. II – Horn-like gall produced by Baizongia pistaciae onPistacia terebinthus (courtesy of Dr. M. Aslan).REFERENCESASLAN M.M., UYGUN N., 2005 – Aphids (HomopteraAphididae) of Kahramanmara  Province, Turkey. - Turk.J. of Zool., 29: 201-209. BLACKMAN R.L., EASTOP V.F., 2010 – Aphids of theWorld’s trees. An identification and information guide. -http://aphidsonworldsplants.info/w_HOSTS_R.htm#Rhus [accessed on 29.III.2011]DAVIS P.H., 1967 – Flora of Turkey and The East AegeanIslands. - Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Vol.II., 580 pp.REMAUDIÈRE G., TOROS S., ÖZDEMIR I., 2006 – New con-tribution to the aphid fauna of Turkey (HemipteraAphidoidea) - Rev. Fr. Entomol., 28 (2): 75-96.TSAI P.H., TANG C., 1946 – The classification of theChinese gall aphids with description of three new generaand six new species from Meitan, Kweichow. - Trans. R.Entomol. Soc. Lond., 97 (16): 405-418. YANG Z.X., CHEN X.M., FENG Y., CHEN H., 2009 –Morphology of the antennal sensilla of Rhus gall aphids(Hemiptera Aphidoidea Pemphiginae): A comparativeanalysis of five genera - Zootaxa, 2204: 48-54. YANG Z.X., CHEN X.M., HAVILL N.P., FENG Y., CHEN H.,2010 – Phylogeny of Rhus gall aphids (HemipteraPemphigidae) based on combined molecular analysis ofnuclear EF1a and mitochondrial COII genes - Entomol.Sci., 13: 351-357.ZHANG G.X., QIAO G.X., ZHONG T.S., ZHANG W.Y.,1999 – Fauna Sinica Insecta Vol. 14 HomopteraMindaridae and Pemphigidae. Science Press, Beijing,380 pp. [In Chinese].IS RHUS-LIVING ERIOSOMATINAE APHID IN TURKEY REALLY A NEW SPECIES? 23

Is Rhus-living Eriosomatinae aphid in Turkey really a new species?

https://journals-crea.4science.it/index.php/redia/article/download/636/573

Is Rhus-living Eriosomatinae aphid in Turkey really a new species?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CREA Journals (Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria)