Hesperophylum heidemanni, a rare plant bug : notes and new records (Heteroptera : miridae)

5 Pages·1991·2.1 MB·

by  A G Wheeler

PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH.
93(3). 1991, pp. 636-640
HESPEROPHYLUMHEIDEMANNI, A RARE PLANT BUG:
NOTES AND NEW RECORDS (HETEROPTERA: MIRIDAE)
A. G. Wheeler, Jr.
Bureau ofPlant Industry, Pennsylvania Department ofAgriculture, Harrisburg, Penn-
sylvania 171 10.
Abstract.—Hesperophylum heidemanni Reuter & Poppius, 1912 is one of the rarest
mirids in eastern North America; a total ofthree females has been recorded from New
Hampshire (type locality, Mt. Washington), District ofColumbia, and Iowa. Herein new
records are given for Alabama, Maryland, and North Carolina, and additional specimens
from Washington, D.C., are reported. Post oak, Quercus stellata Wangenh., is given as
this mirid's first association with a particular plant species. Characters allowing its sep-
arationfromH. arizonaeKnightareprovided, andthefirstMexicanrecordofthisseldom-
collected mirid (3 females now known) is given. Reasons for the apparent rareness of//.
heidemanni are discussed, and reproduction by parthenogenesis is suggested.
Key Words: Insecta, Hesperophylum, distribution, parthenogenesis
Many of the nearly 2000 mirid species American mirids are known from fewer
reported from North America north of specimens, but nearly all belong to genera
Mexico (Henry and Wheeler 1988) are in which some species are abundant in at
poorly known. Most such plant bugs have least part oftheir range. Assuming host in-
remained obscure simply due to lack ofcol- formation is available, there is no reason to
lecting, especially in the western states, and believe that intensive collecting would not
because ofignorance oftheir habits. Little- yield numerous additional specimens. But
collected Miridae, however, seldom prove in the only other member of Hesperophy-
rare once their host plants are discovered. lum, H. arizonae Knight, only two females
In the eastern United States, Polymerus ni- have been reported.
gropallidusKnight, described from theNew Twelve years have passed since I discov-
Jersey Pine Barrens without host data in ered an apparent host for H. heidemanni,
1923,wasknownonlyfromthetypelocality but I have refrained from publishing until
until discovery ofits host (the mat-forming moresubstantialinformationwasavailable.
Arenaria caroliniana Walt., Caryophylla- Males and nymphs are still unknown, but I
ceae) showed that it is a common but spe- have decided to alert collectors to this un-
cialist herbivore apparently restricted to usual species—it seems sufficiently rare to
pitch pine-scrub oak barrens (Henry 1978). warrant conjecture about its habits. Here, I
Hesperophylum heidemanni Reuter & give new state records and notes on its col-
Poppius, although widely distributed, may lection. A tentative biological characteriza-
be a genuinely rare plant bug. Described tion is offered, and its rareness is discussed.
nearly 80 years ago from Mt. Washington, It is also compared with //. arizonae, and
New Hampshire, it is known in the litera- the first Mexican record of that species is
ture only from three females. Other North given.
VOLUME 93, NUMBER 3 637
Fig. 1. Hespewphylum heidemannifemale on bark ofQuercusstellata.
Hesperophylum heidemanni that the type specimen was unlabeled as to
Reuter & Poppius date and collector, but it could not be lo-
cated. Reuterand Poppius (1912) indicated
Reuterand Poppius (1912)described this that the type was being deposited at the
species (and new genus) from a female col- USNM,butBlatchley(1926)saiditwaspart
lected on Mt. Washington, New Hampshire of the Heidemann Collection at Cornell
(date and collector not given) and placed it University. The type cannot be found at
in the small family Termatophylididae. either institution and is not present at the
Blatchley (1926) provided a free translation Finnish Museum of Natural History, Hel-
of their Latin description. Knight (1941) sinki, or the Swedish Museum of Natural
transferredH. heidemannitothe mirid sub- History, Stockholm.
family Deraeocorinae, and Carvalho (1952) The Arizona record ofthis mirid (Barber
placed it in the tribe Termatophylini. 1914) refers to H. ahzonae (Knight 1968),
Single females of this "very rare" bug which was described from a female collect-
(Slater and Baranowski 1978) have been ed in the Atasco Mountains in 1937. In de-
taken in Washington, D.C., and at Ames, scribing this new species. Knight over-
Iowa (Knight 1941). Knight noted that the looked the 1905 collection ofa female from
Iowa specimen was taken June 26, 1931. the Huachuca MountainsofArizona, which
Collection data for the other specimen ap- Barber (1914) reported as H. heidemanni,
parently have not been published; the label and which he himself had mentioned
reads: "Washington D.C., 18-7, Collection (Knight 1941). AnewrecordforH. arizonae
O. Heidemann" (USNM). I tried to verify is MEXICO: Durango: 12.5 km N Michilia
638 PROCEEDINGS OFTHE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
Hd. Stn., 42 km S Suchil, 2265 m, April reported from light trap, pitfall, or Berlese
15, 1985, R. T. Schuh & B. M. Massie collections. Knight(1941)saidthattheIowa
(American Museum of Natural History). specimen was swept beneath trees. Even so,
This specimen was collected on oak, Quer- this mirid most likely is arboreal. Post oak
cus sp. (R. T. Schuh, personal communi- may be an important host plant in part of
cation). the range; similar collecting on other oak
Hesperophylum heidemannicanbekeyed speciesandonotherhardwoodtreeshasnot
in Carvalho (1955) and Slater and Bara- yielded specimens. But post oak could not
nowski (1978). Knight (1941), Carvalho have been the host on Mt. Washington be-
(1955), and Slater and Baranowski (1978) cause this tree ranges only as far north as
illustrated the head and pronotum. Its dis- southeastern Massachusetts (Little 1971).
tinctive habitus (Fig. 1), resembling a stout Some other plant (perhaps another species
anthocorid, is similar to that illustrated for ofoak) also must have served as the host at
H. arizonae{Yj[i\ghx 1968). Hesperophylum Ames, Iowa; native post oak is restricted to
heidemanniis black, glossy (except anterior the extreme southeastern portion of Iowa
mm
portion of pronotum), about 4 long, (Little 1971).
with head strongly declivent and pointed, Knight(1941)alsoremarkedthattheform
andsecondantennalsegmentthickenedand of the head and the long rostrum suggest
flattened. From H. arizonae it can be sep- predacious habits, and further that such
aratedbyitslargersize(//. arizonaeisabout mirids are never as common as plant feed-
mm
3 long), entirely dark scutellum con- ers. The six specimens I collected were ob-
colorous with pronotum and hemelytra tained by beatingwell back (several meters)
(rather than ivory white; note: the scutel- on branches ofpost oak. Predatory mirids
lumof//, heidemanniisnotyellowishwhite such as some Ceratocapsus and Eustictus
with the tip darker, as stated in original de- spp. also are consistently taken by beating
scription), more coarsely punctate pronotal branches of host trees (personal observa-
disc,andbyothercharactersgivenbyKnight tion). Other termatophylines, e.g. Terma-
(1968). tophylidea spp., are known predators (van
New records: Alabama, Maryland, and Doesburg 1964, Callan 1975).
North Carolina can be added to the known Other biological attributes of H. heide-
distribution of H. heidemanni, and addi- manni remain even more speculative.
tional records from Washington, D.C., are Overwintering in the egg stage can be ex-
available. All specimens (except the one pected. This is the norm for most arboreal
from Maryland) were collected by the au- Miridae, although adults of some Deraeo-
thoron postoak, QuercusstellataWangenh. coris spp. (Group I ofKnight 1921) do hi-
ALABAMA: Lee Co., Auburn University, bernate. Most mirids oftemperate regions
8 May 1986, 1 9. DISTRICT OF COLUM- produce a single annual generation, es-
BIA: National Arboretum, Washington, 7 pecially shrub- and tree-associated species,
June 1982, 1 9; 1 June 1986, 2 99. MARY- although some predatory mirids are mul-
LAND: Calvert Co., Battle Creek Cypress tivoltine. Collection dates in Washington
Swamp, 3 Aug. 1987, A.B. Norden & D. D.C., andthesoutheastern states—late May
Williams, 1 9. NORTH CAROLINA: to early August—could indicate either uni-
Mecklenburg Co., Rt. 51, 1 mi. W. of Rt. or bivoltinism in H. heidemanni.
16 nr. Matthews, 28 May 1978, 2 99. This much is known: H. heidemanni is
widely distributed, more so than many
Discussion common, easily collected mirids. In this re-
Almost nothing has been written about spect, it can be considered successful. The
thehabitsof//, heidemanni. Ithasnotbeen genus, however, has not diversified like the
VOLUME 93, NUMBER 3 639
deraeocorine genera Deraeocoris Kirsch- specimen of H. heidemanni, checking for
baum (64 species in North America north thetypespecimen,andreviewingthemanu-
of Mexico) and Eustictus Reuter (22 spp.) script; R. T. Schuh (Department of Ento-
(Henry and Wheeler 1988). The tribe Ter- mology, American Museum ofNatural His-
matophylini itself is small: seven genera, tory, NewYork, NY) forallowingmeto use
three of which are monotypic, with Ter- his Mexican record of H. arizonae; E. R.
matophylum Reuter (7 spp.) the largest Hoebeke(DepartmentofEntomology, Cor-
(Carvalho 1957). nell University, Ithaca, NY) for reviewing
Slater (1974) considered the Termato- the manuscript and checking forthe type of
phylini a relict group, suggesting that the H. heidemanni; A. Jansson (Finnish Mu-
presence of H. heidemanni in the north- seum of Natural History, Helsinki) and P.
eastern states indicates an early arrival in Lindskog(SwedishMuseumofNatural His-
the New World, perhaps from the Oriental tory, Stockholm) for checking the collec-
Region. He also suggested that climatic de- tions in their care for the type of H. hei-
terioration duringthe Pleistocene and com- demanni; and G. M. Stonedahl (CAB
petition from more successful groups has International InstituteofEntomology, Lon-
led to range fragmentation. don) forproviding label data on a specimen
Any comments about the origin, distri- borrowed from the U.S. National Museum.
bution, and biology of this mirid remain
speculative. Is it a univoltine, mainly oak- Literature Cited
associatedpredatorrestrictedtoaparticular Barber, H. G. 1914. New Hemiptera-Heteroptera,
prey group? Do males occupy a different with comments upon the distribution ofcertain
microniche on host branches so that they known species. Journal of the New York Ento-
are not as easily dislodged as females? Or mological Society 22: 164-171.
can H. heidemanni be parthenogenetic? An Blatchley, W. S. 1926. Heteroptera or true bugs of
obligate parthenogenesis in thegenuswould eastern North America, with especial referenceto
the faunas of Indiana and Florida. Nature Pub-
be favored in species having widely scat- lishingCompany, Indianapolis. 1116 pages.
tered, sparse populations (e.g. Tomlinson Callan, E. McC. 1975. Miridae of the genus Ter-
1966) and could account for this group's matophylldea (Hemiptera) as predators ofcacao
lack ofdiversification. This mode ofrepro- thrips. Entomophaga 20: 389-391.
duction is rare in the Miridae (and in Het- Caraycohnez,Jd.eu1x98H9e.terPoaprttehreesn:ogleenMeisreicdoensCtaamnpteylpornoeuuvreae
eroptera). Only certain European popula- virgula et TAnthocoride Calliodis maculipcnnis.
tionsofthedicyphine Campyloneum virgula Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France
(Herrich-Schaeffer) are definitely parthe- (New Series) 25: 387-391.
nogenetic (Carayon 1989). Carvalho,J. C. M. 1952. On themajorclassification
oftheMiridae(Hemiptera).(Withkeystosubfam-
General collectors and ecologists, as well
ilies and tribes and a catalogue ofthe world gen-
as heteropterists, are encouraged to look for era.)AnaisdaAcademiaBrasileiradeCiencias24:
and report information on this rarely en- 31-110.
^
counteredbug. Howlongwillittaketolearn . 1955. Keys to the genera ofMiridae ofthe
howmuchoftheforegoingbiologicalprofile world (Hemiptera). Boletim do Museu Paraense
is accurate and to determine why H. heide- EmilioGoeldi 11(2): 1-151.
1957. Catalogueofthe Miridaeoftheworld.
manni is genuinely rare? Par.t I—Cylapinae, Deraeocorinae, Bryocorinac.
Acknowledgments ArqivosdoMuseuNacional,RiodeJaneiro44(1):
1-158.
I am grateful to T. J. Henry (Systematic Doesburg, Jr., P. H. van. 1964. Termatophylidea
Entomology Laboratory, USDA-ARS, % opacaCarvalho,apredatorofthrips(Hem.-Het.).
Entomologische Berichten 24: 248-253.
U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) Henry. T. J. 1978. Description ofa new Po/r//;('/7«,
for calling my attention to the Maryland with noteson two otherlittle known mirids from
640 PROCEEDINGS OFTHE ENTOMOLOGICALSOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
the New Jersey Pine-Barrens (Hemiptera: Miri- Little, E. L., Jr. 1971. Atlas ofUnited States trees.
dae). Proceedingsofthe Entomological Societyof Volume 1. Conifers and important hardwoods.
Washington 80: 543-547. United States Department ofAgriculture Miscel-
Henry, T. J. and A. G. Wheeler, Jr. 1988. Family laneousPublication 1146.iii-v, 1-9, maps 1-200.
Miridae Hahn, 1833 (=Capsidae Burmeister, Reuter O. M. and B. Poppius. 1912. Zur Kenntnis
1835). Theplantbugs, pp. 251-507. In Henry, T. derTermatophyliden. Ofversigt afFinska Veten-
J. and R. C. Froeschner, eds.. Catalogofthe Het- skaps-Societetens Forhandlingar 54A: 1-17.
eroptera, or True Bugs, ofCanada and the conti- Slater,J. A. 1974. Apreliminaryanalysisoftheder-
nental United States. E. J. Brill, Leiden and New ivationofthe Heteropterafaunaofthenortheast-
York. emUnitedStateswithspecialreferencetothefau-
Knight,H. H. 1921. MonographoftheNorthAmer- na ofConnecticut. Memoirs ofthe Connecticut
icanspeciesofD^'ra^ocoraCHeteroptera,Miridae). Entomological Society, pp. 145-213.
Eighteenth Report, State Entomologist of Min- Slater, J. A. and R. M. Baranowski. 1978. How to
nesota, pp. 76-210(1920). Know the True Bugs (Hemiptera-Heteroptera).
. 1941. Theplantbugs,orMiridae,ofIllinois. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque,
IllinoisNaturalHistorySurveyBulletin22: 1-234. Iowa. 256 pp.
. 1968. Taxonomicreview: MiridaeoftheNe- Tomlinson, J. 1966. The advantages of hermaph-
vadaTestSiteandthewesternUnitedStates.Brig- roditism and parthenogenesis. Journal ofTheo-
ham Young University Science Bulletin 9(3): 1- retical Biology 11: 54—58.
282.