Ceroplastes sinoiae Hall
Creators: name: Hodgson, Chris J.
name: Peronti, Ana L. B. G.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2012
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Coccidae
Ceroplastes
Ceroplastes sinoiae

description: Ceroplastes sinoiae Hall   
(Fig. 40; Map fig. 103)  
 Ceroplastes helichrysi var. sinoiae Hall, 1931: 296.   
 Gascardia sinoiae (Hall); De Lotto, 1965: 204; Bedford, 1968: 1–111; Hodgson, 1969a: 37; Almeida. 1973: 5; Ben-Dov, 1993: 56.   
 Material examined: Lectotype ♀ (here designated): Zimbabwe [Southern Rhodesia]: top label: Ceroplastes / helichrysi var. / sinoiae Hall / Ficus sp. / S. Rhodesia. Bottom label: Cotype / 15.iii.30 / (i) WJHall. (BMNH): 1/1 (poor; cardboard envelope stamped holotype – see discussion on “type” specimens in Materials and methods).   
 Paralectotype ♀: data as for lectotype (BMNH): 3/4 (poor).   
 Also: Madagascar, Env. Betioky, no host, 13.xi.1970, A.S. Balachowsky (MNHN #4257): 1/1 (fair-good). South Africa, Guanteng Province [Transvaal], Pretoria, Jacaranda sp., Nov. 1953, E.C.G. Bedford (BMNH): 1/3 (fair to good); Mpumalanga Province [Eastern Transvaal], Nelspruit, on Jacaranda sp., 15.ix.1954, E.C.G. Bedford (BMNH): 2/3 (fair to poor); as previous but on Strychnos innocua, E.C.G. Bedford (BMNH): 1/4 (fair to poor). Zimbabwe [S. Rhodesia], Harare [Salisbury], Government Forestry Nursery, on Jacaranda mimosifolia, 9.ix.1932, W.J. Hall (BMNH): 3/5 (fair to good); Trelawny, host unknown, 26.xi.1931, W.J. Hall (BMNH): 1/1 (fair).   
 Note. The type slide was very poor. The following description was taken mainly from the Harare [then Salisbury] material; where available, data from type specimen given in (..) brackets.   
 Unmounted material. Not described by Hall. "Test of full-grown adult female hemispherical, not divided into plates, with a shallow medio-dorsal depression at the centre of which is situated a minute elongate boss; wax evenly white in colour; dimensions 8 mm long; 8 mm wide; 6 mm high." (De Lotto, 1965: 206). For a much longer and more detailed description, see Bedford (1968).   
 Mounted material. Body roundly oval and convex, with rather shallow stigmatic clefts; dorsum with marked but small lateral tubercles. Caudal process well developed, very broad at base and cone-shaped. Length 3.0– 5.5 mm, total width on slide 2.0– 4.5 mm.   
 Dorsum. Derm membranous (but becoming slightly sclerotised on older individuals) except for heavily sclerotised caudal process; latter 0.63–1.1 (1.1) mm long and 0.75–1.5 (1.65) mm wide at base. Derm with 8 clear areas, each with very few or no setae. Dorsal setae mainly quite sharply pointed but a few near margin blunter; length 5.0–6.5 µm, subequal to or slightly longer than width of basal socket, each socket about 5 µm wide; frequent near margin, scarce elsewhere. Dorsal pores: (i) loculate microducts of complex type, each about 4–5 µm widest, with 1–3 satellite loculi, those with 2 satellite loculi most abundant, those with 1 satellite loculus most abundant along margin; pores apparently randomly distributed throughout except in clear areas where absent; long branched inner filament not detected; wax-plate lines not detected; and (ii) simple microducts occasional in clear areas only. Preopercular pores not detected and absent from Madagascar material (but perhaps shown as present in Fig. 9B of Bedford (1968) on South African material). Anal plates each 140–160 µm long, width of both plates combined 110–130 µm, each with 3 long dorsal setae, each seta probably 50–65 µm long (mostly missing), + a shorter apical seta about 25 µm. Anal tube about 165–200 µm long.   
 Margin. Marginal setae strongly setose, each about 19–25 µm long; with 13–16 between eyespots anteriorly; 7–10 between eyespot and anterior stigmatic cleft; 10–12 between clefts laterally, and 19–22 along each abdominal margin; each anal lobe with 2 or 3 longer setae, longest about 25–30 µm long. Stigmatic clefts each with a small group of bluntly conical stigmatic setae in a compact, fairly broad group on dorsum; each group about as long as wide or slightly wider; each group with 5–9 stigmatic setae along margin, and with totals of 18–26 in each cleft, including 1 rather larger near apex of each group; most setae 8–12 µm long and 6.5–10 µm wide; larger seta 14–17 µm long, 13–14 µm wide. Eyespots each about 33–36 µm wide.   
 Venter. Derm entirely membranous. Pregenital disc-pores abundant around genital opening (segment VII) and across segments VI and V; also with 6–11 medially and 6–many submedially on segment IV, 3–6 medially and 0–4 submedially on segment III, and 1 or 2 medially and 0–4 submedially on II; absent on thorax and head. Spiracular disc-pores present in bands of about 100–120 pores, each band quite narrow near spiracle but gradually broadening to margin, where about as broad as stigmatic setal group; with none extending medially; those near each cleft more sclerotised and slightly larger. Ventral microducts showing nothing distinctive. Ventral tubular ducts each perhaps without an inner ductule; abundant in cephalic region in a group of 20–30 ducts; also with ducts associated with mediolateral folds in all abdominal segments, most abundant posteriorly but thought to be absent medially on abdomen (present on Madagascar specimen). Submarginal setae each about 11–13 µm long and more frequent than marginal setae.   
Antennae each with 6 segments, segment III generally with a hint of pseudo-articulations; total length 300–345 (370) µm. Spiracles: width of peritremes 55–85 (70–75) µm. Legs well developed, each with a distinct tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis; claw denticle obscure; claw digitules similar, both broad, and shorter than tarsal digitules; dimensions of metathoracic legs (µm): coxa 150–178 (170–183); trochanter + femur 195–210 (215–235); tibia 140–153 (170–178); tarsus 78–90 (87–95), and claw 25–27 (28).  
 Discussion. This species was originally described as a variety of C. helichrysi Hall. As pointed out by De Lotto (1965), C. sinoiae, although bearing a close superficial resemblance to C. helichrysi, is clearly specifically different and, in fact, is rather easily distinguished from the latter species. Some of the main differences between these 2 species are (character-states on C. helichrysi in brackets): (i) caudal process heavily sclerotised (barely sclerotised); (ii) loculate microducts of the complex type (simple type); (iii) tubular ducts on abdominal segments restricted to anogenital fold (also present medially and submarginally); (iv) tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis present (absent), and (v) dorsal setae mainly longer than width of basal sockets (subequal or shorter).   
 C. sinoiae is very similar to C. jos, described as new above, but differs mainly in having a triangular-shaped caudal process, about as wide as long, whereas that of C. jos is more elongate and parallel-sided. For further discussion, see under C. jos. In addition, C. sinoiae and C. jos are only known from opposite ends of the continent.   
 C. sinoiae is currently only known from Angola (Carvalho & Cardoso, 1970), Madagascar, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Ben-Dov (1993) gives six plant families: Bignoniaceae, Guttiferae, Labiatae, Fabaceae, Moraceae and Rubiaceae but Bedford (1968: 7) also found it on Asclepiadaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Verbenaceae. Its biology on Jacaranda mimosifolia was studied in great detail in South Africa by Bedford (1968), who also described the immature stages.
description: Published as part of Hodgson, Chris J. & Peronti, Ana L. B. G., 2012, 3372, pp. 1-265 in Zootaxa 3372 on pages 73-75