Austroterobia iceryae Boucek

(Figs 29–39)

A. iceryae Bouček, 2004; in Bouček & Noyes 2004: 138 –140; holotype in BMNH, examined.

Diagnosis. Both sexes: head with at most very faint dark metallic reflections (Figs 32, 33); mandibular formula 3:3; gena not depressed at mouth corner (Fig. 34); pronotum visible in dorsal view (Fig. 36); notauli visible throughout length of mesoscutum (Fig. 36); axillae virtually touching medially (Fig. 36); prepectus and dorsal side of propodeum entirely setose (Figs 37, 38); posterior margin of mesoscutellum densely setose, with small spine (Fig. 36); anterior margin of propodeum distinctly raised, concealing dorsellum (Fig. 38); propodeal plicae absent (Fig. 38).

The spiny mesoscutellum (Fig. 36) and the flanged anterior margin of the propodeum (Fig. 38), structures that are found in all species of Teasienna, but no other Austroterobia, together with the entirely setose prepectus and propodeum (Figs 37, 38), make A. iceryae easily recognizable.

Material examined. Type material. Holotype ♀ (deposited in BMNH) [entire; on rectangular card]. KENYA: ‘ Kenya: Kiambu District, Mchana Estate, ex Icerya pattersoni on coffee 19.vi.1984 (S. T. Murphy)’.

Paratypes. GAMBIA: 1♂ ‘W. Afr. Gambia: Lamin, Abulco, 27./I., 1978. L. Huggert’, ‘ Paratype’, ‘ Paratype ♂ Austrot. iceryae sp. n., Boucek det. 1989’ (BMNH); KENYA: 2♀ and 2♂ ‘ Kenya, Oaklands Estate, Kiambu Dist., 29.x.85 ’, ‘assoc. with Icerya pattersoni on coffee, CIE A17679 ’, ‘ Paratype’, ‘ Paratype ♀ Austroterobia iceryae sp. n., Boucek det. 1989’ (BMNH); 1♂ ‘ Kenya, Mchana Estate, Kiambu Dist., 28.x.85 ’, ‘assoc. with Icerya pattersoni on coffee, CIE A17679 ’, ‘ Paratype’, ‘ Paratype ♂, Austroterobia iceryae sp. n., Boucek det. 1989’ (BMNH); 1♂, same information, ‘det. Z. Boucek, 1986’ (BMNH); NIGERIA: 1♀ and 2♂ ‘ Nigeria: Oyo St., Ibadan, IITA compound’, ‘ xi. 1987 Icerya patt., J.S. Noyes’, ‘ Paratype’, ‘ ♀ Austroterobia iceryae sp. n., Boucek det. 2003’ (BMNH); 1♀ ‘ Nigeria: Ibadan, IITA, ex Icerya pattersoni / coffee’, 23.X. / em. XI.1987, J.S. Noyes’, ‘ Paratype’, ‘ Paratype ♀ Austroterobia iceryae sp. n., Boucek det. 1989’ (BMNH).

Redescription. Female. Body length: 1.4–1.9 mm.

Colour. Head and mesosoma black, with weak, mainly blue-green reflections (Figs 32, 33). Gaster dark brown (Figs 29, 30). Eyes pale reddish-grey; ocelli whitish (Fig. 33). Antenna (Fig. 34) with scape and pedicel yellowishbrown; flagellum brown, paler ventrally. Mandibles yellowish-brown, teeth reddish-brown. Legs (Fig. 29) with coxae dark brown to black; trochanters and femora brown; tibiae and tarsi yellowish except for brown pretarsi. Fore wing subhyaline to subinfumate, hind wing hyaline (Figs 29, 39). Tegula and venation brown (Fig. 39). Body setation whitish to pale brown, wing setation brownish (Figs 34, 36, 38, 39).

Sculpture. Head coriaceous except for virtually smooth clypeus and smooth, small area at mandibular base (Figs 32–34); dorsal side of mesosoma, except for propodeum, mostly finely coriaceous, appearing shiny (Fig. 36); propodeum with median area almost smooth; mesopleuron smooth, with femoral depression conspicuous, but without any indication of a central pit (Fig. 37); mesepimeron with central lunate depression (Fig. 37); metapleuron smooth; gaster smooth.

Structure. Head. Toruli closer to median ocellus than to ventral margin of clypeus (Fig. 32). Scape not reaching median ocellus (Fig. 34). Gena flat at mouth corner (Fig. 34), posterior margin not carinate. Malar sulcus absent (Fig. 34). Eyes broad oval, inner margins diverging in lower part (Fig. 32). Funicular segments not pedicellate (Fig. 34). Head width 2.3–2.6× length in dorsal view (53:23) and 1.4–1.6× height in frontal view (53:38). POL about equal to OOL (8:8). Eye height about 1.1× length (22.0:19.5), 1.4–1.6× malar space (22:16), and about 1.8× scape length (22.0:12.5). Head width about 1.4× length of pedicel plus flagellum (53:37). F1 quadrate; F5 width 1.2–1.3× length; clava length 2.0–2.4× width.

Mesosoma. Dorsally setose, including anterior part of metanotum and median area of propodeum (Fig. 36); prepectus and posterior margin of metapleuron setose (Fig. 37); mesopleuron bare except along anteroventral margin (Fig. 37). Pronotum distinctly visible in dorsal view (Fig. 36). Notauli complete (Fig. 36). Axillae virtually touching medially (Fig. 36). Posterior margin of mesoscutellum with small spine (Fig. 36). Anterior margin of propodeum distinctly raised, concealing dorsellum (Fig. 38). Propodeum without median carina (although slightly raised along median line) and plicae (Fig. 38). Fore wing (Fig. 39) completely setose, without speculum; parastigma without hyaline break; marginal vein thickened. Mesosoma length 1.1–1.2× width (49:42), width about 1.2× height. Mesoscutum width about 2.6× length. Mesoscutellum length about equal to width. Propodeum length about 0.5× mesoscutellum length. Fore wing length 1.8–1.9× width (100:55). MV length about 6× width (18:3); MV 1.1–1.2× as long as SV (18.0:15.5); PV about 1.1× as long as MV (20:18).

Gaster. Ovate, shorter than head plus mesosoma (Figs 29, 30); length 2.0–2.2× width.

Male. Differs from the female mainly as follows. Body length: 1.2–1.6 mm. Antennae and legs, except for coxae, uniformly yellowish-brown (Fig. 31). Eyes smaller and rounder (Fig. 31). Scape with ventral protuberance towards apex (Fig. 35); flagellum subfiliform, anelli and distal funicular segments longer (Fig. 35). Head width about 1.3× height in frontal view, width 1.1–1.2× length of pedicel plus flagellum. Eye height very slightly larger than eye length and about 1.2× malar space. POL about 0.9× as long as OOL. Clava length about 2.8× width. Fore wing length about 2.1× width. MV about 1.4× as long as SV. Gaster widening towards apex, length about 1.9× width.

Distribution. Gambia, Kenya, Nigeria (Bouček & Noyes 2004).

Biology. Egg predator of Icerya pattersoni Newstead and I. nigroareolata Newstead (Hemiptera: Monophlebidae) on coffee (Bouček & Noyes 2004).

Remarks. In the original description the scutellum was stated as posteriorly rounded (Bouček & Noyes 2004: 138), but in fact a very small spine can be observed among the dense whitish setation (Fig. 36). This feature, as well as the raised anterior margin of the propodeum, which conceals the dorsellum, and the absence of plicae (Fig. 38), are characteristic for Teasienna and not Austroterobia. However, the position and structure of the antennae in both sexes (Figs 32, 34, 35), as well as the structure of the fore wing (Fig. 39) and the mandibular formula and structure indicate that the species is better placed in Austroterobia than in Teasienna.