Valid Names Results

Prodigiaspis megalobus Normark&Normark, 2020 (Diaspididae: Prodigiaspis)

Nomenclatural History

• Prodigiaspis megalobus Normark&Normark 2020: 741. Type data: PANAMA: Colón, PN San Lorenzo canopy crane, 9.2811°N, 79.9744°W, on Marila laxiflora, 69/20/2012, by G.E. Morse & B.B. Normark. Holotype, female, by original designation Type depository: Panama: Museo de Invertebrados G. B. Fairchild, Panamá City, Panamá; accepted valid name Notes: Paratype One second‐instar ♂, same data as holotype, slide D4277A (UMEC).

Common Names

Ecological Associates

Geographic Distribution

Keys

Remarks

• Systematics: urn: lsid:zoobank.org:act:CD676B4F-980D-4B54-AFE7-C99E850D0E9A DNA sequence fragments of several loci from the type series of Prodigiaspis megalobus have been published: large ribosomal subunit (28S), Genbank accession number MT677301 (holotype); elongation factor 1‐alpha, MH915963 (holotype), MT642034 (paratype), andMT642035E (D4277E, an individual represented only by first‐instar exuviae); and cytochrome oxidase subunits I and II, MT676980 (paratype), MT676981 (D4277E). The characters shared by P. septunx and P. megalobus are the abundant small dorsal ducts, the presence of a relatively large number of pores associated with both the anterior and posterior spiracles and the general body shape and pattern of sclerotisation. The differences between P. megalobus and the only other member of the genus Prodigiaspis, the type species P. septunx Ferris are as follows: Prodigiaspis megalobus has only five groups of perivulvar pores (seven groups in P. septunx), L2 unilobular (L2 bilobular in P. septunx), and clusters of several very short gland spines in the interlobular spaces (pairs of long gland spines in these positions inP. septunx). (Amouroux, et al., 2020)
• Structure: Adult female.not pupillarial, appearance in life not recorded. Size is 0.8mmlong, 0.5mmwide (n = 1). Body fusiform, broadest at mesothorax. Derm membranous throughout except for dorsumof abdomen; dorsum of most of pygidium strongly sclerotised, including segment VI and posterior segments. (Amouroux, et al., 2020) The second‐instar nymph (the paratype) is unusual, as it does not particularly resemble the adult female (the holotype). We can be confident that the paratype is conspecific with the holotype, based on its DNA. The paratype is hypothesised to be male based in some measure on its resemblance to those males, but mainly based on the general principle that unusual second‐instar nymphs (differing markedly from the adult female) of non‐pupillarial species are most often male. (Amouroux, et al., 2020)
• General Remarks: Detailed description and illustration in Amouroux, et al., 2020.

Illustrations

Citations