The Delphacid Genus Sogatella and Related Groups: a Revision with Special Reference to Rice-Associated Species (Hornoptera: Fulgoroidea)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Systematic Entomology (1990) 15, 1-42 The delphacid genus Sogatella and related groups: a revision with special reference to rice-associated species (Hornoptera: Fulgoroidea) MANFRED ASCHE and MICHAEL R. WILSON* Fachbereich Biologie der Philipps Universitat, Marburg, West Germany, and *CAB International Institute of Entomology, c/o Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K. ABSTRACT. The delphacid planthopper genus Sogatella Fennah is rede- fined and a key provided to males of the fourteen included species. The type-species of Sogatodes Fennah, S.molinus Fennah is considered to be a Sogatella species and consequently Sogatodes becomes a junior subjective synonym of Sogarella. The remaining species of Sogatodes are transferred to Tagosodes gen.n. (type species T.cubanus (Crawford) comb.n.), Latis- tria Huang et al. or Sogatellana Kuoh. A key is provided to distinguish the four genera. A check list of species in each genus is given. Several species are important rice pests and information on biology and pest status is sum- marized. Introduction species of Sogatodes, S.molinus, belongs to the genus Sogatella, Consequently, Sogatodes must Several delphacid (planthopper) species are im- be synonymized with Sogatella and subsequently portant pests of cereal crops such as maize, there is a need to establish at least one genus in wheat and rice. Some species currently placed in which to place the remaining species. This study the genera Sogatella Fennah and Sogatodes Fen- has been undertaken to resolve the situation and nah, are serious pests of rice in Asia and south also to provide names for use in a handbook for and central America by virtue of the effects of the identification of rice planthoppers currently their direct feeding and by their role as vectors of under preparation by M. R. Wilson and M. F. virus disease (e.g. Ou, 1985, and see references Claridge. in Wilson & Claridge, 1985). There have been Material studied is deposited in the following considerable difficulties in the identification of collections denoted by the abbreviations given: species in these genera since their separation is AMNH: American Museum of Natural History, mainly based on small differences in the male New York, U.S.A.; BMNH: British Museum genitalia. However, these difficulties in identifi- (Natural History), London, U.K.; BPBM: Ber- cation have been compounded by taxonomic nice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, U.S.A.; problems. In Asia it appears that many names KU: Snow Entomological Collection, Univer- have been applied to a small number of species. sity of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.;LV: R. Lin- Also, Okada (1977) realized that names given to navuori collection, Raisio, Somersoja, Finland; Sogutella species in Japan might not concur with LOB: L. O’Brien collection, Tallahassee, their usage elsewhere. We now find that the type Florida, U.S.A.; MA: M. Asche collection, Correspondence: Dr M. Asche, FB-Zoologie der Marburg, West Germany; MAK: Zoologisches Philipps Universitat, Postfach 1929, Marburg, D- Forshungsinstitut und Museum Alexander 3550, West Germany. Koenig, Bonn, West Germany; NCIP; National 1 2 Manfred Asche and Michael R. Wilson Insect Collection, Pretoria, South Africa; NM: fused with S.kolophon. In addition to this the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland; species re-illustrated by Fennah (1963a) as MNHN: Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, S.longifurcifera strongly resembles the species Paris, France; USNM: United States National Japanese researchers call S.panicicola in various Museum, Washington, U.S.A.; UTS: Theron characters.’ Dr R. Kisimoto kindly sent speci- Collection, University of Stellenbosch, Stellen- mens from Japan and examination of his speci- bosch, South Africa. mens confirmed that Okada’s opinion was In the section ‘Distribution and material indeed correct. examined’ countries from which specimens have A number of Sogatella species have been de- been examined are indicated by *. scribed since 1963. For our study considerably more specimens were available than were examined by Fennah, including several type specimens that he did not see. The results of our Taxonomic history study appear to move us back towards the broader species concept of Muir & Giffard. This The species now placed in Sogatella are among is not entirely so, as eight of their ten synonyms some of the most widely distributed and of S.furcifera are considered valid species. The taxonomically difficult of any Delphacidae. It is major changes to Sogatella outlined in this paper not intended here to provide a full history of concern the status of S.vibix (Haupt) and Sogatella and its species, but some information is S.kolophon (Kirkaldy) in which eight and seven given as background to the problem. The type synonyms respectively are newly proposed. We species, S.furcifera (Horvhth) is listed in Met- regard both species as having a wide distribution calf‘s (1943) catalogue with ten synonyms and and the majority of synonyms have arisen from three subspecies, following Muir & Giffard descriptions of new nominal species based on (1924). Those authors, realizing the difficulties slight morphological differences without proper of identification, wrote ‘The authors cannot pro- appreciation of variation within and between test too strongly against erecting species in this populations or without reference to other de- group on color or even slight structural charac- scribed species at all. The analytical approach ters. Such species not only lead to confusion, but adopted in this study is, by necessity, mor- lead to totally wrong conceptions as to relation- phological in emphasis and centred on charac- ship and geographical distribution’. Unfor- ters of the male genitalia. Few biological data tunately, until Fennah’s (1963a) study, no stable are available to support species separation in generic concept had been established for what most cases. However, a study of the courtship- he called the ‘species-complex known as Sogata songs of the three Asian Sogatella species has furcifera’. By that time furcifera had been in- been made by Uhm et al. (1982). They dem- cluded by various authors in six different genera onstrated species-specific differences in both (Delphux Fabr., Liburnia Stil, Sogata Distant, males and females of S.furcifera, S. vibix (given Megumelus Fieber, Delphacodes Fieber and as S.panicicola (Ishihara)) and S. kolophon Chloriona Fieber). As an interim measure until (given as S. longifurcifera Esaki & Ishihara). ‘a more critical assessment of its relationships These data lend support to our morphological could be made’ Fennah (1956a) established concept, especially since we recognize only these Sogatella as a subgenus of Chloriona. In his later three species occurring sympatrically through- study (Fennah, 1963a) almost all the synonyms out Asia. It would be worthwhile to study the included under S.&rc#era by Muir & Giffard (1%4) acoustic repertoire of Sogatella species in Africa were raised from synonymy and a number of where thirteen species are found, many of them new species were described. Fennah’s study has, sympatric. for 25 years, been regarded as definitive, but the Sogatella belongs to a group of genera that difficulties expressed in our introduction have have a slender body shape, narrow vertex and necessitated that Sogatella should be ‘revisited’. frons and a white or pale yellow longitudinal Okada (1 977 : 10) expresses one of the problems stripe from the head across the pro- and clearly. In discussing S.longifurcifera Esaki & mesanotum (Fig. 1). This group contains Latis- Ishihara, he writes ‘. S.longifurcifera referred triu, Matutinus (recently revised by Fennah, 1972), to by Japanese researchers is possibly being con- Sogatella, Sogatelha and Tagosodes gen.n. These The delphacid genus Sogatella and related groups 3 I FIG. 1. Sogatella furcifera (Horvath), habitus, 6 from Sulawesi; scale line: 0.5 mm. 4 Manfred Asche and Michael R. Wilson genera may mainly be separated by characters of cubanus and T.oryzicolus as rice, Echinochloa the male genitalia. A key is given below. and other Gramincae. Xfurcifera is a serious rice pest in Japan but appears unable to overwinter there and under- goes long-distance migration (with Nilaparvata Distribution of Sogatella, Tagosodes, lugens (351) the brown planthopper) each year Latristria and Sogatellana species from southern China (Kisimoto, 1976, 1987). (Names here and below in ‘Biology’ and ‘Economic aspects’ are as used in accordance Economic aspects of Sogatella and with the synonymies and new combinations Tagosodes species proposed later in the paper.) Sogatella species are found throughout the S.furcifera is second only to Nilaparvata lugens sub-tropical and tropical regions of the world. (Stll) as a rice pest in Asia where it damages the They are concentrated in Africa where thirteen crop by direct feeding. Other species such as species are found. Two species, S.kolophon and S. nigeriensis and S. vibix are frequently found on S,rnolina, arc found in the Nearctic and Neotrop- rice (e.g. Ammar, 1977; Ammaretal., 1980) but ical regions. With our revised concept only three are not considered to be important pests at pres- species, S.furcifera, S.kolophon and S. vibix, are ent. Tagosodes pusanus (Distant) is also found found in Asia, the Pacific and Australasia. These commonly on rice in Asia. At present none of are the most widely distributed species; S.kolo- these species are known to spread virus diseases phon is found throughout the entire range of the to rice. However, Tagosodes oryticolus and genus, while S.vibix is found in Asia and the T.cubanus are well-known vectors of Hoja Ethiopian region. S.furcifera is common through- blanca virus of rice in south and central out Asia and extending to the Middle East. America, where SO% of the yield may be lost Tagosodes species, are also found throughout to this disease, .and as such are considered the tropics but with more species recognized important pest species in that region (King & from the Nearctic region than with Sogatella. Saunders, 1984).