Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ZooKeys logoLink to ZooKeys
. 2016 Jun 9;(597):57–79. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.597.7520

Revision of the legume-feeding leaf beetle genus Madurasia Jacoby, including a new species description (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Galerucini)

Kaniyarikkal Divakaran Prathapan 1
PMCID: PMC4926621  PMID: 27408586

Abstract Abstract

Madurasia Jacoby is revised and Madurasia andamanica sp. n., endemic to the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean, is described and illustrated. Madurasia obscurella Jacoby, syn. n., is a new junior synonym of Madurasia undulatovittata (Motschulsky), comb. n. A lectotype is designated for Madurasia obscurella. Literature on the biology and management of Madurasia undulatovittata is reviewed.

Keywords: Asia, Africa, biology, pest, pulses, taxonomy

Introduction

The monotypic galerucine genus Madurasia was described by Jacoby (1886) for a new species, Madurasia obscurella, from southern India. Aslam (1972) synonymized Neorudolphia bedfordi Laboissière, 1926, the only species in this monotypic genus from Sudan, with Madurasia obscurella Jacoby. Examination of the type of Monolepta undulatovittata (Motschulsky 1866) (originally described in Teinodactyla Chevrolat = Longitarsus Latreille) from Sri Lanka has shown that Madurasia obscurella is a junior synonym of Motschulsky’s species. The genus is here revised and a new species is described from the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean. Information on the biology, pest status and management of Madurasia undulatovittata comb. n., which is a significant pest of various legume crops in south-east Asia and Africa, is reviewed.

Materials and methods

Dissecting techniques and descriptive terminology follow Konstantinov (1998). Label data for holotypes, lectotypes, and paralectotypes has been recorded verbatim, with lines on the same label separated by “/” and labels separated by “;”. Material examined is from the following collections:

BMNH

INPC

JBC

KAU

NBAIR

UASB

USNM

ZMUH

ZMUM

Determination of the gender of the undissected specimens is provisional as sexually dimorphic characteristics are often not clearly discernible externally.

Systematics

Madurasia

Jacoby, 1886

Description.

Body: length 2.0–3.0 mm; 1.8–2.3 times longer than wide. Moderately small, oblong, flattened in lateral view, length 3.1–3.4 times height. General color straw brown to dark brown with a characteristic, more or less distinct, dark, broad longitudinal stripe on each elytron (Figs 1, 3, 5–7, 21); mesal margin of stripe nearly straight; each stripe nearer to suture than to lateral margin of elytron; stripe narrowing laterally posteriorly of humerus and in distal 2/3 of elytron.

Figures 1–7.

Figures 1–7.

Open in a new tab

Madurasia undulatovittata. 1 Lectotype (specimen on card, photograph edited) 2 labels on lectotype 3 and 5–7 dorsal view, color variation 4 ventral view.

Figures 21–27.

Figures 21–27.

Open in a new tab

Madurasia andamanica sp. n. 21 dorsal habitus 22 apical ventrite of Madurasia andamanica sp. n. male 23 apical ventrite of Madurasia undulatovittata male 24 median lobe of aedeagus in Madurasia andamanica sp. n., ventral view 25 median lobe of aedeagus in Madurasia undulatovittata, ventral view (bilaterally symmetrical, specimen tilted) 26 median lobe of aedeagus in Madurasia andamanica sp. n., lateral view 27 median lobe of aedeagus in Madurasia undulatovittata, lateral view.

Head (Fig. 8) hypognathous with frontal view slightly longer than wide. In lateral view anterior margin forms a moderately convex line with a notch where vertex meets antennal calli and a second notch at anterior end of frontal ridge. Supraorbital pore represented by a large setaceous pore adjacent to orbital sulcus near eye. Seta in supraorbital pore upcurved. Vertex shiny, indistinctly wrinkled, nearly impunctate. Antennal calli trapezoidal, longer than wide, moderately convex, raised above adjacent border of vertex, separated from each other by a deep midfrontal sulcus; anterior ends acutely triangular, enter into interantennal space, reaching well below midlevel of antennal socket. Orbital sulcus short, deep, represented by supraorbital pore and adjacent area. Supracallinal sulcus represented by punctures arranged in an irregular transverse row, each puncture in supracallinal row bearing a short down-curved seta. Midcranial suture absent. Supraorbital sulcus less distinct than midfrontal sulcus. Suprafrontal and supraantennal sulci well defined. Subgenal suture distinct. Transverse diameter of eye 5.2–8.8 times distance between eye and antennal socket, 2.9–4.4 times distance between antennal sockets, 1.7–1.9 times width of antennal socket, 0.6–0.7 times distance between eyes. Eyes lateral, medium sized, convex, inner margins indistinctly concave, and ventrally divergent. Frontal ridge narrowest between antennal sockets, joins anterofrontal ridge anteriorly. Anterofrontal ridge transverse, gently curved. Frontal ridge together with antero-frontal ridge forms T–shaped ridge. Anterofrontal ridge lower than frontal ridge. Frontolateral area coarsely punctate, each puncture bearing a long seta. Frontoclypeal suture with a row of eight setae. Clypeus narrow. Visible part of labrum much wider than long, with a transverse row of eight pores; all eight pores in Madurasia andamanica sp. n. with a well-developed seta; while only six pores, excluding third pore from either end, with seta in Madurasia undulatovittata. Labrum (Fig. 13) with anterior margin incised medially; about seven sensillae on either side of incision, arranged along anterior margin of labrum’s inner surface; tormae longer than width of labrum. Mandible (Fig. 12) palmate with six sharp denticles. Maxilla (Fig. 11) with four palpomeres: first shortest, second and third subequal, both longer than first, but shorter than apical palpomere, apical longest; lacinia wider than galea. Labial palpi (Fig. 10) with three palpomeres, basal two wider than long, middle widest, apical palpomere longer than wide and longest of three. Antenna (Fig. 9) reaches more or less middle of elytron. First antennomere longest, club shaped; second smallest; third a little longer than second; fourth distinctly longer than third; 4–10 subequal in length; eleventh longer than all except first antennomere; five to six distal antennomeres wider than preceding three or four (Fig. 9).

Figures 8–20.

Figures 8–20.

Open in a new tab

Madurasia undulatovittata. 8 head, frontal view 9 antenna 10 labium 11 maxilla 12 mandible 13 labrum 14 pronotum 15 meso– and metanotum 16 prosternum 17 meso– and metasternum and pleurites 18 metendosternite 19 apical visible tergite, female 20 apical visible tergite, male (all specimens, except head, have been macerated).

Dorsum glabrous. Pronotum (Fig. 14) 1.2–1.3 times wider than long; greatest width slightly anterior of middle. Posterior margin 1.1–1.2 times wider than anterior margin, lateral margin gently convex, posterior margin nearly straight in middle, curved laterally, and narrowly margined. Anterolateral callosity longer than wide, setigerous pore posterolaterally situated, not forming denticle at pore; posterolateral callosity protruding slightly laterally, setigerous pore laterally situated. Disc without impressions, shiny, uniformly punctate, punctures small, smaller than those on elytra. Anterior coxal cavity open behind (Figs 4, 16); intercoxal prosternal process short, acutely pointed, not reaching midlevel of procoxa (Fig. 16); procoxae longer than wide and closely associated; shortest distance from anterior margin of prosternum to procoxal cavity about 1/4–1/5 of longitudinal procoxal diameter. Mesoscutellum triangular, about two times wider than long, flat, impunctate to minutely punctate. Intercoxal mesosternal process short, not reaching midlevel of mesocoxa (Figs 4, 17). Mesepisternum broader than mesepimeron (Fig. 17). Metasternum no longer than first two abdominal ventrites combined (Fig. 4).

Elytra broader than pronotum basally, maximum width posterior of middle. Humeral callus well developed; elytral border narrow, becoming indistinct towards apex; elytral apex broadly rounded; epipleuron (Fig. 4) oblique, maximum width near anterior 1/4 of elytron, maximum width subequal to about 1.5 times maximum width of mid-femur, narrows abruptly before middle and then continues very narrowly, becoming indistinct towards the elytral apex. Hind wings present. Metanotum (Fig. 15) well developed with full complement of internal ridges.

All femora oblong in cross section; all tibiae subcylindrical, subcircular in cross section with a minute apical spur; metatibial spur subequal to claw in length; proportionate length of femur–tibia–tarsomeres 1–4 as follows: 1: 1.0–1.1 : 0.2–0.3 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.2–0.3 (foreleg); 1: 0.9–1.0 : 0.3 : 0.1–0.3 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.2–0.3 (midleg); 1: 1.1–1.2 : 0.4 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.1 : 0.2 (hindleg); joint where metatibia and first metatarsomere meet, black; third tarsomere always bilobed; claws simple and appendiculate, appendix small and basal. Abdomen (Fig. 4) with five distinct ventrites; ventrites 2–4 becoming progressively slightly shorter; fifth ventrite slightly longer than fourth; intercoxal projection of first abdominal ventrite acute; apical abdominal tergite (Fig. 19, 20) without a median longitudinal groove, posterior margin slightly concave medially in male of Madurasia undulatovittata (Fig. 20) and distinctly emarginate in Madurasia andamanica sp. n.; posterior margin of apical tergite broadly convex (Fig. 19) in females of both species; posterior margin of apical ventrite more or less lobed medially in male (Figs 22, 23), entire in female.

Female genitalia with receptacle of spermatheca (Figs 28, 29) pot-shaped, wider than long; pump curved, longer than receptacle and enlarged distally, appendix well developed; spermathecal duct shorter than receptacle, glandular duct beyond middle of spermathecal duct. Tignum (Figs 32, 33) gently curved near middle, grooved medially, with long setae near distal margin of broad membranous apex. Vaginal palpi (Figs 30, 31) fused from proximal end to a short distance beyond middle, separate distally, each palpus narrowing towards rounded apex, lateral margin concave preapically, with long distal setae. Median lobe of aedeagus strongly curved in lateral view (Figs 26, 27), acutely pointed. Tegmen with stem much longer than arms.

Figures 28–33.

Figures 28–33.

Open in a new tab

Spermatheca in 28 Madurasia andamanica sp. n. 29 Madurasia undulatovittata; vaginal palpi of 30 Madurasia andamanica sp. n. 31 Madurasia undulatovittata; tigna in 32 Madurasia andamanica sp. n. 33 Madurasia undulatovittata.

Host plants.

Fabaceae.

Distribution.

Asia, Africa (Sudan).

Remarks.

Madurasia closely resembles Medythia Jacoby, 1887, and species of both genera are pests of legumes. The general morphology, including the structure of the head, female genitalia, and even the presence of elytral stripes in some species of Medythia, are similar to those in Madurasia, making differentiation of these genera difficult. Madurasia can be separated from Medythia by the structure of the pronotum. The pronotum in Medythia is elongate and narrows posteriorly, whereas the pronotum is transverse and a little wider posteriorly in Madurasia. The elytral epipleuron is short in Madurasia, hardly extending beyond middle of the elytron. In Medythia quadrimaculata Jacoby, type species of the genus, the elytral epipleuron is longer, extending beyond the middle of the elytron. However, the epipleura are identical to those of Madurasia in a few Indian Medythia species examined. In Madurasia, the distal antennomeres are darker, while antennomeres 8–10 are whitish in most Medythia species, including the type species.

Adults are attracted to light.

Madurasia andamanica sp. n.

http://zoobank.org/3D810CFF-3113-43FE-8E67-BD8335505E90

Figs 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 33

Diagnosis.

The new species can be recognized by the following characters: 1) elytral stripe not reaching the elytral apex, narrowing in distal 1/4; 2) labrum with a transverse row of eight well developed setae; 3) posterior margin of apical ventrite in male distinctly lobed medially; 4) apex of aedeagus in lateral view curved like a parrot’s beak with an acute tip; 5) ventral side of aedeagus depressed in basal 1/2, then distally raised in the form of a narrow ridge which reaches the apex.

Description.

Body: length 2.1–2.6 mm; width 1.1–1.2 mm; 1.8–2.1 times longer than wide (Fig. 21). Dorsum straw colored. Head dark brown. Antenna with basal three or four antennomeres a pale straw color, distal antennomeres becoming progressively darker. Mandible, maxilla, and labium paler than labrum and anterior aspect. Pronotum with pale orange hue. Elytra a pale straw color, the dark elytral stripe not reaching the elytral apex (Fig. 21), widest anteriad of middle, narrowing distinctly posterior of humerus as well as in distal 1/4. Thoracic sternites and pronotum concolorous, metathoracic sternite often a slightly darker laterally. Abdominal ventrites pale brown, with lateral margins and apical abdominal ventrite darker in many specimens. Legs straw colored, tibia and first two tarsomeres often a slightly darker than femur. Antenna reaching slightly beyond middle of elytron. Proportionate length of antennomeres 1–11: 1: 0.48: 0.45–0.50: 0.63–0.67: 0.63: 0.61–0.62: 0.66–0.67: 0.62–0.70: 0.63–0.69: 0.62–0.63: 0.75–0.88. Transverse diameter of eye 6.3–8.0 times width of orbit, 3.3–3.8 times width of interantennal space, 1.7–1.9 times width of antennal socket, 0.7 times distance between eyes. Pronotum 1.2–1.3 times wider than long, posterior width 1.1–1.2 times wider than anterior width.

Proportionate length of femur:tibia:tarsomeres 1–4 as follows: 1: 1.0–1.1 : 0.2–0.3 : 0.2 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.2–0.3 (foreleg); 1: 0.9–1.0 : 0.3 : 0.1–0.3 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.2–0.3 (midleg); 1: 1.0–1.1 : 0.4 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.1 : 0.2 (hindleg).

Posterior margin of apical ventrite in male distinctly lobed medially (Fig. 22). Receptacle of spermatheca 2.4 times wider than long (Fig. 28). Tignum widened proximally; membranous apex wider towards posterior (Fig. 32).

Aedeagus in lateral view (Fig. 26) with greatest width near middle, narrow in proximal 1/4, apex curved like a parrot’s beak with an acute tip. In ventral view (Fig. 24), greatest width at base, narrowing abruptly in apical 1/3; ventral aspect depressed in basal 1/2, then distinctly raised in the form of a narrow ridge which reaches the apex.

Etymology.

Named after the Andaman Islands, where the new species occurs.

Material examined.

Holotype ♂ “INDIA: Andaman & Nicobar / North Andaman: Diglipur / 13°14'53.9"N, 92°58'37.5"E, / 15 mts. 24.iv.2014. At light / Yeshwanth H. M.” (white label); “HOLOTYPE / Madurasia andamanica / Prathapan sp. nov., 2015” (red label) (BMNH).

Paratypes (104). 5♂, 8♀ same data as holotype; 7♂, 19♀ same data as holotype, but 23.iv.2014; 2♀ INDIA: Andaman & Nicobar / South Andaman: Sippighat / 11°67'26"N, 92°67'12"E, / 44 mts. 18.iv.2014, Light trap / Yeshwanth H. M.; 1♂, 16♀ India: South Andaman / Garacharama / 12.xi.2014 / Bharathimeena Coll. / Ex Redgram; 16♂, 7♀, 1 unsexed same data but 8.I.2015; 2♂, 20♀ same data but 4.XII.2014 and collector Krishnaveni (5 BMNH, 5 USNM, 5 JBC, 5 KAU, 5 UASB, 40 NBAIR, 39 INPC).

Distribution.

India (Andaman Islands) (Fig. 34).

Figure 34.

Figure 34.

Open in a new tab

Distribution of Madurasia andamanica sp. n. on the Andaman Islands.

Remarks.

Color pattern in Madurasia andamanica sp. n. (Fig. 21) appears to be consistent and less variable compared to that in Madurasia undulatovittata (Motschulsky, 1866), where the color of specimens collected on the same host at the same locality on the same day varied greatly. Madurasia andamanica sp. n. resembles Madurasia undulatovittata externally. However, it can be distinguished based on the structure of the aedeagus and the number of labral setae, as described under Madurasia undulatovittata.

Host.

Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. (Fabaceae) (red gram or pigeon pea) (Bharathimeena T., pers. comm. 2015).

Madurasia undulatovittata

(Motschulsky) comb. n.

Figs 1 , 3–7 , 8–20 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 35

Figure 35.

Figure 35.

Open in a new tab

Distribution of Madurasia undulatovittata (Motschulsky) in the Afrotropical and Oriental regions (red triangles = literature records).

Description.

Body: length 2.0–3.0 mm; width 1.0–1.3 mm; 2.0–2.3 times longer than wide. General color pattern consistent but highly variable in intensity (Figs 1, 3, 5–7). Head dark brown to pale brown, often darker than pronotum. Basal antennomeres 3–6 pale straw brown, distal antennomeres becoming progressively darker. Pronotum more or less pale brown, generally paler than head. Background color of elytron paler than pronotum. Lateral margin of dark elytral stripe emarginate in anterior 1/3 and posterior 1/3; stripe broadening posteriorly, covering width of elytral apex. In some specimens, elytra darker laterally giving the impression of a pale, medially narrowed line on a dark elytron. Intensity of stripe’s darkness varies from pale straw brown (Fig. 1) to dark brown. In type of Madurasia undulatovittata, elytral stripes are hardly visible (Fig. 1). In some specimens, widest region in middle of stripe extends to lateral elytral margin, thus dividing pale colored lateral area into anterior and posterior spots (Figs 6, 7). Ventral aspect (Fig. 4) generally paler than head. Metasternum slightly darker than pro– or mesosternum. Metepisternum darker than metasternum. Abdomen darker laterally and posteriorly in many specimens. In darkest specimens, ventral side dark brown to piceous. Legs pale brown, all femora nearly concolorous with abdominal ventrites; metafemora darker distally in some specimens. All tibiae paler than femora. Metatibia and first metatarsomere whitish in some specimens. Claw tarsomere and bilobed tarsomere often darker than preceding ones.

Antenna (Fig. 9) reaches middle of elytron or a little beyond. Proportionate length of antennomeres 1–11: 1: 0.54–0.57 : 0.44–52 : 0.65–0.69 : 0.59: 0.66: 0.66–0.69: 0.62–0.75: 0.73–0.75: 0.69–0.72: 0.69–0.71: 0.81–0.91. Transverse diameter of eye 5.3–8.8 times width of orbit, 2.9–4.4 times width of interantennal space, 1.7–1.8 times width of antennal socket, 0.6 times distance between eyes. Pronotum (Fig. 14) 1.3 times wider than long, posterior 1.1 times wider than anterior.

Proportionate length of femur–tibia–tarsomeres 1–4 as follows: 1: 1.0–1.1 : 0.3 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.3 (foreleg); 1: 0.9–1.0 : 0.3 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.2–0.3 (midleg); 1: 1.1–1.2 : 0.4 : 0.1–0.2 : 0.1 : 0.2 (hindleg). Two visible apical tergites completely exposed in most females, particularly when killed in alcohol.

Posterior margin of apical ventrite in male (Fig. 23) indistinctly lobed medially. Receptacle of spermatheca 1.6 times wider than long (Fig. 29). Tignum not widened proximally (Fig. 33); membranous distal region widest medially.

Aedeagus in lateral view (Fig. 27) strongly curved after basal 1/2, acutely narrowed in proximal 1/3, with weakly curved apex. In ventral view (Fig. 25), widest in proximal 1/3, narrowing sharply towards apex in apical 1/3, lateral margin a little abruptly narrowed preapically. Ventral aspect of aedeagus depressed with a convex portion in middle.

Material examined.

Types. Madurasia undulatovittata: Lectotype ♀. “Teinodactila / undulato / vittata Motch / Ceylon”; “Monolepta / undulatovittata Mots. / 1926 D. Ogloblin det.”; “LECTOTYPUS / des Döberl 2005” (ZMUM).

Madurasia obscurella: Lectotype ♀. “Type” (rectangular red label); “Andrewes / Bequest. / B. M. 1922–221.”; “Madura”,“738” (3 in 738 is not legible as pierced by pin); “Madurasia obscurella Jac. /Type”; “SYNTYPE” (white circular disc with sky blue margin); “Lectotype / Madurasia obscurella Jacoby / des. K. D. Prathapan, 2015” (here designated, specimen on card, right antenna missing) (BMNH).

Paralectotype ♀. “Type / H. T.” (white circular disc with red border); “Madura”; “Jacoby Coll. 1909–28a.”; “Madurasia / obscurella / Jac. Type” (Blue label); “SYNTYPE” (white circular disc with sky blue margin); “Paralectotype / Madurasia obscurella Jacoby / des. K. D. Prathapan, 2015” (BMNH).

Non-type material.

AFRICA: Sudan: ♀ British Sudan, S. R. J. Madani, 22.ix.1923, H. M. Bedford, feeding on ‘adis’ (illegible) sudani leaves / Blue Nile A 3024 / Pres by Imp. Bur. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1925–228 / standing as Neorudolfia (sic) bedfordi; 1 unsexed R. F. Wadmedanai J. W. Cowland 21/9/32 Shotholing seedlings of Phaseolus mungo / Ent. Coll. C 12147 / AFRICA 250,000 55–G Map / Pres. by Imp. Inst. Ent. BM 1933–415 / Standing as Neorudolphia bedfordi / SUDAN Govt.; 1 unsexed Blue Nile 5429 / Aenk H. H. & D. King 26.5.13 On boot / Pres. by Imp. Bur. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1927–103 / Neorudolphia bedfordi V. Laboissière–Dèt. (all BMNH).

ASIA: Bangladesh: ♀ (India) Dacca, 2.vi.1945, D. Leston; ♀ (India) Dacca, 10.v.1945, D. Leston (both BMNH); India: Andhra Pradesh: 3 unsexed Vizagapatnam Dist., Chipurupalli, B.M. 1924–7; Gujarat: 2♀ Baruch, 10.xii.1987, Pigeon pea, CIE A19617; Navasari, 15.iii.1992, Assoc with cowpea, IIE 22432, Madurasia obscurella Jac det. M. L. Cox 1992 (all BMNH); Karnataka: 1 macerated specimen Belgaum, 1–2.viii. 2008, at light, K. Swamy; 2♀, 1♂ Chikkaballapur, 13°25'48"N, 7°43'12"E 694 mt., 29.viii.2010, Nirmala P., at light (all UASB); Kerala: 7♂, 2 ♀ Vellayani, N 08°25'47.5"E, 76°59'8.3", 21.vii.2015, 18 m, Prathapan KD; 19 ♀ , same data except for the date 5.vii. 2015 and ex Green gram (NBAIR, JBC, INPC, BMNH); Maharashtra: 3♀ Bandra, Jayakumar, 1905–152; 2 unsexed Bombay (Mumbai), 79.15 ; 1♀ Bombay, G. Bryant, 1919–147; 1 unsexed, Poona (Pune), 27.viii.1944, D. Leston, BM 1946–365; 1♀ 21.x.1944, D. Leston, BM 1945–86 (all BMNH); Meghalaya: 1♂, 1 ♀ SW of Cherapunjee, 23°13'15"N/ 91°40'E, 500–900 m, 11–12.v.2004, R. Businsky (all JBC); New Delhi: 4♀, 6 unsexed 21.viii.1968, on cowpea, Phaseolus and urd (all BMNH); Rajasthan: 1♀Jodhpur N 26°21'4.6"E, 73°2'39"5.VIII.2015 255 m, Prathapan K. D. (KAU); 10 unsexed Banswara 24.ix.2015, S. Ramesh Babu (KAU); Uttar Pradesh: Saharanpur Div., Siwalik Hills, 8.iv.1928, H. G. Champion, B.M. 1928–518 (BMNH); Uttarakhand: 1 ♀ Dehra Dun, 8.ix.’16, H. G.Champion, BM. 1953– 156; 1 ♀ Ranikhet, 6–8. ’16, H. G.Champion, BM. 1953–156 (both BMNH); West Bengal: 2 unsexed Sarda, H. G. Champion, B.M. 1953–156; 2 unsexed Sunderbans, H. G. Champion, B.M. 1953–156 (all BMNH); Sri Lanka: 2 unsexed, 1♀ Girandurukotte no. 68, 16.xii.86 on cowpea, CIE A18795; 2♀ Maha Illupallama, 1976, R. W. Fellowes, R. W. Fellowes, on Glycine & Vigna, CIE A9047 (all BMNH); Yemen: 2 ♀ Al Hudaydah gov., Jabal Bura Valley forest N. P., (stream valley), 240–350 m, 15°52.4–5'N, 43°24.6–25.2'E, J. Bezdӗk, 4.xi.2010; 1♂, 2♀ Socotra Island, wadi Ayhaft, 12°36.5'N, 53°58.9'E, 200 m, J. Bezdӗk, 7–8.xi.2010 (all JBC).

Distribution.

Africa (Sudan); Asia (Bangladesh, India [Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, New Delhi, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal], Nepal, Sri Lanka, Yemen) (Fig. 35).

Remarks.

Madurasia undulatovittata and Madurasia andamanica sp. n. are very similar. However, they can be separated as follows: eight labral setae present in Madurasia andamanica sp. n. (only six labral setae visible in Madurasia undulatovittata, though eight pores are present); elytral stripes are highly variable in Madurasia undulatovittata, even in specimens from the same locality, collected during the same season and on the same host. The elytral pattern in Madurasia andamanica sp. n. is rather consistent. The stripe in Madurasia undulatovittata is wider apically in specimens where it is well defined, while in Madurasia andamanica sp. n., it is narrowed apically. In Madurasia andamanica sp. n., the stripe is distinct and well defined against the pale background color. Verma (1995) recorded variation in elytral color pattern. Lobe in the middle of the posterior margin of the apical abdominal ventrite in males distinct in Madurasia andamanica sp. n., but poorly distinguishable in Madurasia undulatovittata. The two species can easily be separated by the structure of the aedeagus. In lateral view, the apex of aedeagus of Madurasia andamanica sp. n. is curved and pointed, like the beak of a parrot (Fig. 26), while the same in Madurasia undulatovittata is narrowly rounded, and smoothly curved in apical 1/3 (Fig. 27). The sharply raised ridge on the ventral aspect of the aedeagus in Madurasia andamanica sp. n. (Fig. 24) is characteristic, however, this ridge is absent in Madurasia undulatovittata (Fig. 25). Madurasia andamanica sp. n. is confined to the Andaman Islands and reported to feed on pigeon pea, while Madurasia undulatovittata is transcontinental in distribution and a significant pest of a number of species of pulses in southern Asia and Africa (Sudan).

A photograph of the labels provided by Wagner & Bieneck (Fig. 38a in Wagner and Bieneck 2012) shows three labels, two of which show different information for Madurasia undulatovittata (Fig. 2). Labels currently on the specimen indicate that M. Döberl designated the lectotype in 2005. However, no publication by Döberl could be traced in which this specimen is mentioned. According to Wagner and Bieneck (2012), the lectotype was designated by Wagner, and they provide photographs of both the lectotype and its labels. The photograph (Fig. 38b) in Wagner and Bieneck (2012), confirms that the specimen examined by me is the one designated as lectotype by Wagner (Fig. 1). Moreover, Wagner and Bieneck (2012) also mention that the only other specimen, a paralectotype in Motschulsky’s collection, is a male from which the aedeagus has been dissected and subsequently lost. Dr Wagner’s lectotype designation stands valid as that alone is published (Wagner and Bieneck 2012). Dr Döberl designated the same specimen as lectotype in 2005 as there was a long gap of nearly a decade between the lectotype designation by Dr Wagner and the publication of the same in Wagner and Bieneck 2012 (T. Wagner and M. Döberl, pers. comm., 2016). The specimen collected by Bedford on 22.ix.1923, identified as Neorudolphia bedfordi by Laboissière from the BMNH, probably belongs to the type series of Neorudolphia bedfordi. The lectotype for Madurasia obscurella is here designated, to have a unique name bearer and standard for its application.

Host plants.

Fabaceae: Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. (red gram or pigeon pea); Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybean); Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet (= Dolichos lablab L.) (lablab bean); Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Marechal (moth bean); Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper (= Phaseolus mungo L. = Phaseolus radiatus Roxb. non L.) (black gram); Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek (= Phaseolus aureus Roxb. = Phaseolus radiatus L.) (green gram or moong); Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek var. sublobata (Roxb.) (= Phaseolus sublobatus Roxb.); Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & Ohashi (rice bean) and Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (= Vigna sinensis (L.) Savi ex Hausskn.) (cowpea).

Biology and management.

Information on the host plants and biology of Madurasia undulatovittata was generated by agricultural entomologists in India, under the name Madurasia obscurella, where it is a widely distributed pest of legume crops across many agro climatic zones. The first record of this species as a pest of pulses is that by Menon and Saxena (1970). According to Naresh and Thakkur (1972), it was reported as a major pest of black gram by Naresh and Nene in 1968. However, there is no mention of this leaf beetle in Naresh and Nene (1968). Saxena et al. (1971) described it as a pest of cowpea, green gram or moong and black gram or urd, indicating that it made holes in the leaf lamina. Other recorded host plants include Glycine (CAB International Institute of Entomology 1990), moth bean (Pareek et al. 1983), lablab bean (Gupta and Singh 1984a, b), pigeon pea (Saxena 1977, Mishra and Saxena 1983), rice bean (Satyanarayana et al. 1995a, b) and Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek var. sublobata (Roxb.) (=Phaseolus sublobatus Roxb.) (Kalaichelvan and Verma 2005).

Gupta and Singh (1984a, b) provided the first account of its life cycle. They recorded the total life cycle as varying between 32 and 44 days and that it completes two generations a year on green gram. A second, more detailed study of the life history was reported by Oza et al. (1996) on cowpea. Eggs were laid singly on soil near the root zone of the plant. The total duration of the life cycle, from egg to death of adult, varied between 35 and 48 days in males and 43 to 58 days in females.

The growth of plants is retarded by severe foliage injury, especially in young plants (Srivastava and Singh 1976). Leaf damage on green gram in summer and rainy season crops ranged between 5–10% and 15–50% respectively (Sinha et al. 1985). Larvae are soil dwelling and feed on root hairs (Srivastava and Singh 1976; Gupta and Singh 1981). Odak and Thakur (1978) reported larval feeding on the root nodules. Gowda and Kaul (1982) recorded adult feeding on leaves, buds and flowers. Gowda et al. (2006) also observed feeding damage by adults on the buds and flowers of pigeon pea. Reddy and Varma (1986) established transmission of southern bean mosaic virus in cowpea by Madurasia undulatovittata. The success in transmission varied from 25 to 43%.

The extent of damage on black gram, green gram and cowpea was 20–60% (Srivastava and Singh 1976). This is a common pest of mung bean in the first crop season (kharif) in India, coinciding with the southwest monsoon (June to October) (Tiwari 1978). Singh and Gupta (1982) estimated damage to the leaves of green gram and black gram. Infestation was more pronounced in black gram than in green gram. Infestation starts when the plants are in the two leaf-stage and the insects remain active until flowering (Dhuri and Singh 1983, Nayak et al. 2005).

In Haryana, Yadav and Yadav (1983) recorded it from cowpea and Mrig and Singh (1985) observed maximum damage on Dolichos lablab during the third week of September, with the pest disappearing after the first week of November. Feleiro and Singh (1985) carried out yield–infestation studies to fix the critical stages of crops requiring protection. They observed that infestation in summer resulted in heavy yield losses, while the pest attack during the rainy season had no significant effect on yield.

Lal (1985) reviewed information on the biology and control of insect pests of mung bean, including Madurasia undulatovittata, in India.

According to Faleiro et al. (1986), Madurasia undulatovittata is a sporadic, but major pest of cowpea. A peak population of 10.0–10.25 beetles/10 plants in summer and 29.50–30.25 beetles/10 plants in the rainy season were recorded by Gupta and Singh (1993) in green gram. Sahoo and Patnaik (1994) recorded the incidence of insect pests in green and black gram, and their seasonal activity and the extent of damage in Orissa. Madurasia undulatovittata was severe on both the crops in the seedling and vegetative stages, and was the first pest to appear at seedling stage on rice bean, continuing to occur until flowering (Satyanarayana et al. 1995b). Ganapathy and Durairaj (1995) reported it as an important pest on black gram and green gram in drought prone Pudukottai District, Tamil Nadu. There was more damage in black gram (9.78%) than in green gram (1.45%). However, there are also reports of Madurasia undulatovittata only being a minor pest (Devesthali and Joshi 1994, Kumar et al. 1998).

Dhuri et al. (1984) observed population buildup of Madurasia undulatovittata under ambient temperature of about 32°C, longer duration of bright sunshine and high relative humidity coupled with intermittent rainfall. Sardana and Verma (1986) showed that maximum temperature and sunshine were negatively, but significantly, correlated with the population of the pest, while rainfall showed a significantly positive correlation. Maximum temperature, minimum temperature, sunshine hours and wind velocity had a significantly negative correlation with damage (Irulandi and Balasubramanian 1999). Nayak et al. (2004) reported a significantly negative correlation with minimum temperature and relative humidity during population buildup on black gram. The population did not show any correlation with maximum temperature, relative humidity and rainfall, but it was highly and significantly correlated with minimum temperature (Kumar et al. 2007).

Various cultivars of green gram (Srivastava et al. 1975, Sahoo et al. 1989, Sahoo and Hota 1991) and black gram (Sahoo et al. 1989) vary significantly in their susceptibility to the pest. Pandey et al. (1995) reported that varieties with thicker leaves were preferred by the pest.

Chemical control remains the most effective option against this pest. Several broad spectrum insecticides have been tried against Madurasia undulatovittata, with varying degrees of success (Saxena et al. 1971, Naresh and Thakur 1972, Saxena et al. 1975, Verma and Pant 1975, Verma and Lal 1976, Vyas and Saxena 1977, Verma and Lal 1978, Yadav et al. 1979, Vyas and Saxena 1981, Chaudhary et al. 1981, Rajendran et al. 1981, Vyas and Saxena 1982, Mishra and Saxena 1983, Singh et al. 1983, Singh and Gupta 1984, Sinha 1985, Gattoria and Singh 1988, Rahman 1988, 1991a, b, Chander and Singh 1989, Sinha and Sharma 1989, Verma and Dikshit 1990, Logiswaran and Gopalan 1993, Uddin et al. 1994, Das 1999, Gowda et al. 2006 and Pandey et al. 2007). Application of neem seed kernel extract had no significant effect to increase yield in mung bean (Yadav et al. 1979). Soundararajan and Chitra (2011) tried biological control agents such as Pseudomonas flourescens and Beauveria bassiana and reported that intercropping black gram with sorghum reduced infestation (Soundararajan and Chitra 2012).

Discussion

A revision of the genus Medythia is required to define the boundaries between it and the genus Madurasia. Medythia and Madurasia share the same ecological niche and are often collected together on the same host plants, as well as at light. It is likely that economic entomologists have often misidentified one for the other. Medythia bukit and Medythia marginicollis, described by Mohamedsaid (1999) from Malaysia, with pronotum broader than wide, as well as a little narrower anteriorly than posteriorly, appear atypical for the genus. Reports of a 6.05mm, ovate beetle as Madurasia obscurella from Pakistan (Rizvi et al. 2012, Kamaluddin et al. 2012) are incorrect.

Madurasia andamanica sp. n. is a significant pest of red gram or pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) in the Great Andaman Islands (Bharathimeena T., pers. comm. 2015), similar to the pest status of Madurasia undulatovittata elsewhere. This endemic pest of the islands, in case of accidental introduction to the mainland India, is likely to become a pest of various pulses and spread far and wide, as in the case of Madurasia undulatovittata.

Supplementary Material

XML Treatment for Madurasia
zookeys.597.7520-treatment1.xml (28.3KB, xml)
XML Treatment for Madurasia andamanica
zookeys.597.7520-treatment2.xml (15.1KB, xml)
XML Treatment for Madurasia undulatovittata
zookeys.597.7520-treatment3.xml (121.6KB, xml)

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Drs L. N. Medvedev and A. Moseyko (Russian Academy of Sciences) for the loan of the syntype of Madurasia undulatovittata; Dr M. Geiser (BMNH) for the loan of the Jacoby types of Madurasia obscurella and other specimens from south-east Asia and Sudan, and to Dr Jan Bezděk (Mendel University) who provided specimens from Yemen and north-east India. Jan Bezděk helped with many inaccessible papers, critical suggestions and advices. Specimens of Madurasia andamanica sp. n. were provided by T. Bharathimeena and H. M. Yeswanth . I am grateful to Jennie Unnikrishnan, Nisha Rakesh and Tayan Raj Gurung, without whose help, it would have been impossible for me to access many obsolete economic entomology papers. Critical reviews by Drs C. A. Viraktamath, J. Poorani, Jan Bezděk, T. Wagner and E. Grobbelaar greatly improved the manuscript. M. C. Kiran prepared the maps. My work on leaf beetles is funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research through the Network Project on Insect Systematics.

Citation

Prathapan KD (2016) Revision of the legume-feeding leaf beetle genus Madurasia Jacoby, including a new species description (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Galerucini). In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (Eds) Research on Chrysomelidae 6. ZooKeys 597: 57–79. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.597.7520

References

  1. Aslam NA. (1972) On the genus Drasa Bryant (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) with some nomenclatural notes on the Galerucinae. Journal of Natural History 6: 483–501. doi: 10.1080/00222937200770451 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beenen R. (2010) Galerucinae. In: Löbl I, Smetana A. (Eds) Catalogue of Palearctic Coleoptera Vol. 6: Chrysomeloidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 924 pp. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bezděk J. (2012) Galerucinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Socotra Island, with a review of taxa recorded from Yemen. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 52, Supplementum 2: 403–428. [Google Scholar]
  4. CAB International Institute of Entomology (1990) Distribution maps of pests. Series A (Agricultural). Map no. 517.
  5. Chander S, Singh Y. (1989) Control of galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby infesting green gram, Vigna radiata (L.) Wiczek. Indian Journal of Entomology 51(2): 185–191. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaudhary JP, Singh AK, Yadav LS. (1981) Effect of disulfoton granules on pest complex, crop growth and yield of green gram. Indian Journal of Entomology 43(4): 369–372. [Google Scholar]
  7. Das SB. (1999) Management of flea beetle in green gram, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Insect Environment 5(1): 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  8. Devesthali S, Joshi M. (1994) Infestation and varietal preference of insect pests in green gram. Indian Agriculturist 38(4): 263–272. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dhuri AV, Singh KM. (1983) Pest complex and succession of insect pests in black gram Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper. Indian Journal of Entomology 45(4): 396–401. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dhuri AV, Singh KM, Singh RN. (1984) Incidence of insect pests in black gram Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper. Indian Journal of Entomology 46(3): 270–276. [Google Scholar]
  11. Faleiro JR, Singh KM. (1985) Yield–infestation studies associated with insects infesting cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. in Delhi. Indian Journal of Entomology 47(3): 287–291. [Google Scholar]
  12. Faleiro JR, Singh KM, Singh RN. (1986) Pest complex and succession of insect pests in cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp. Indian Journal of Entomology 48(1): 54–61. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ganapathy N, Durairaj C. (1995) Pest status of pulses in Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu. Madras Agricultural Journal 82(4): 322. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gatoria GS, Singh H. (1988) Effect of insecticidal and fertilizer applications on chewing insect pests of green gram. Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University 25(2): 225–232. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gemminger M, Harold EV. (1876) Chrysomelidae. In: Catalogus Coleopterorum locusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus. Monachius, Paris & London, 3479–3676. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gowda CLL, Kaul AK. (1982) Pulses in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Dhaka, 472 pp. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gowda DKS, Yelshetty S, Patil BV. (2006) Flea beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby on pigeonpea. Insect Environment 11(4): 154. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gupta PK, Singh J. (1981) Important insect pests of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in agroecosystem of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Zootomy 22(2): 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gupta PK, Singh J. (1984a) Biology of Madurasia obscurella Jacoby, an important pest of rainy-season pulses. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 54(10): 931–934. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gupta PK, Singh J. (1984b) Ecological studies on galerucid beetle (Madurasia obscurella Jacoby), an important pest of green gram. Plant Protection Bulletin, India 36(4): 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gupta PK, Singh J. (1993) Population studies on insect pests of green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Indian Journal of Entomology 55(1): 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  22. Irulandi S, Balasubramanian G. (1999) Effect of weather parameters on galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella (Jacoby) (Galerucidae: Coleoptera) and stemfly, Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon) (Agromyzidae: Diptera) on green gram. Insect Environment 5(1): 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jacoby M. (1886) Description of the new genera and species of phytophagous Coleoptera obtained by Mr. Andrews in India. Part II–Chrysomelidae, Halticinae and Galerucinae. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 40: 250–304. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jacoby M. (1887) Description of some new genera and species of phytophagous Coleoptera contained in the Leyden Museum. Notes from the Leyden Museum 9: 220–243. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jolivet P, Hawkeswood TJ. (1995) Host-plants of Chrysomelidae of the world: An Essay about the Relationships between the Leaf-beetles and their Food-plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 281 pp. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kalaichelvan T, Verma KK. (2005) Checklist of leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Bhilai-Durg. Zoos’ Print Journal 20(4): 1838–1842. doi: 10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1114.1838-42 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamaluddin S, Rizvi SG, Javed T. (2012) Cladistic analysis of the Galerucinae Species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae) from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Entomology 27(2): 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kimoto S. (2005) Systematic catalog of the Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) from Nepal and Bhutan. Bulletin of the Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History and Human History, Series A 3: 13–114. [Google Scholar]
  29. Konstantinov AS. (1998) Revision of the Palearctic species of Aphthona Chevrolat and cladistic classification of the Aphthonini (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae). Memoirs on entomology, International 11: 1–429. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kumar A, Sinha AK, Yazdani SS. (1998) Incidence of insect pests in urd [Vigna mungo (Linn.) (Hepper)]. Shashpa 5(1): 113–114. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kumar R, Ali S, Chandra U. (2007) Seasonal incidence of insect-pests on Vigna mungo and its correlation with abiotic factors. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 15(2): 366–369. [Google Scholar]
  32. Laboissière V. (1926) Description d’un nouveau genre et de trois nouvelles espèces de Galerucini africains (Col.). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 1926: 190–193. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lal SS. (1985) A review of insect pests of mungbean and their control in India. Tropical Pest Management 31(2): 105–114. [Google Scholar]
  34. Logiswaran G, Gopalan M. (1993) Effect of seed treatment with insecticides on black gram galerucid beetle. Madras Agricultural Journal 80(2): 39–41. [Google Scholar]
  35. Maulik S. (1926) The Fauna of British India including Burma and Ceylon. Coleoptera. Chrysomelidae. (Chrysomelinae and Halticinae). Taylor and Francis, London, 442 pp. [Google Scholar]
  36. Maulik S. (1936) The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Chrysomelidae (Galerucinae). Taylor & Francis, London, 439 pp. [Google Scholar]
  37. Medvedev LN, Sprecher-Uebersax E. (1999) Katalog der Chrysomelidae von Nepal. Entomologica Basiliensia 21: 261–354. [Google Scholar]
  38. Medvedev LN, Sprecher–Uebersax E. (2005) A key to the leaf beetle genera of Nepal (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomologica Basiliensia et Collection Frey 27: 297–336. [Google Scholar]
  39. Menon MGR, Saxena HP. (1970) The common pulse Galerucid beetle at Delhi. Labdev Journal of Science and Technology 8–B(1): 62–63. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mishra PN, Saxena HP. (1983) Phytotonic effects of insecticides in pigeon pea Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Madras Agricultural Journal 70(5): 309–311. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mohamedsaid MS. (1997) The galerucine beetles of Sri Lanka, with descriptions of two new species (Coleoptera: Galerucinae). Stobaeana 9(15): 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mohamedsaid MS. (1999) Two new species of Medythia Jacoby from Malaysia (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). Genus 10(3): 415–420. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mohamedsaid MS. (2000) List of the non–Malaysian Chrysomelidae in the collection of UKM. Serangga 5(2): 361–377. [Google Scholar]
  44. Motschulsky V. (1866) Essai d’un catalogue desinsectes de l’ile de Ceylan. Bulletin de la Sociètè Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou 39(2): 393–446. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mrig KK, Singh R. (1985) Incidence of insect-pests on garden bean, Dolichos lablab Linn. Bulletin of Entomology 26(1): 5–7. [Google Scholar]
  46. Naresh JS, Nene YL. (1968) Survey and evaluation of economic importance of insect pests of pulses. Annual Report 1968–69, Uttar Pradesh Agricultural University, Pant Nagar, 177–178. [Google Scholar]
  47. Naresh JS, Thakur RP. (1972) Efficacy of systemic granular and spray insecticides for the control of insect pests of black-gram (Phaseolus mungo Roxb.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42(8): 732–735. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nayak SK, Ujagir R, Chhibber RC. (2004) Effect of abiotic factors on the insect population build up on black gram, Vigna mungo L. crop. Shashpa 11(1): 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nayak SK, Chhibber RC, Ujagir R. (2005) Pest complex and their succession on black gram, Vigna mungo L. Shashpa 12(1): 60–62. [Google Scholar]
  50. Odak SC, Thakur BS. (1978) New record of Madurasia obscurella Jacoby (Coleoptera–Chrysomelidae; Galerucinae) feeding on root nodules of leguminous crops. Science and Culture 44(7): 328–329. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ogloblin DA. (1930) De quelques espèces de Halticinae (Col. Chrysomelidae) de la collection de V. Motschulsky. Museo Nacional de Sciences Naturales Madrid 10: 83–112. [Google Scholar]
  52. Oza RU, Patel MB, Patel CB. (1996) Biology of galerucid flea beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby (Galerucinae : Chrysomelidae : Coleoptera) on cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal 21(2): 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pandey KC, Hasan N, Bhaskar RB, Ahmad ST, Kohli KS. (1995) Genetic evaluation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) lines for multiple pest resistance. Indian Journal of Genetics & Plant Breeding 55(2): 198–203. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pandey A, Pandey A, Srivastava SP. (2007) Management of pest complex of summer mung by granular insecticides. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 15(2): 376–380. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pareek BL, Sharma RC, Yadav CPS. (1983) Record of insect faunal complex on mothbean, Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Marechel in semi arid zone of Rajasthan. Bulletin of Entomology 24(1): 44–45. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rahman MM. (1988) Efficacy of some promising insecticides on pest incidence, plant growth and grain yield of cowpea. Tropical Grain Legume Bulletin 35: 19–22. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rahman MM. (1991a) Progress and Prospects of Minor Pulses in Bangladesh. In: Advances in pulses research in Bangladesh: proceedings of the second national workshop on pulses, 6–8 Jun 1989, Joydebpur, Bangladesh International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rahman MM. (1991b) Control Measures for Important Insect Pests of Major Pulses. In: Advances in Pulses Research in Bangladesh: proceedings of the Second National Workshop on Pulses, 6–8 Jun 1989, Joydebpur, Bangladesh International Crops Research Institute for the Semi–Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rajendran R, Gopalan M, Janarthanan R. (1981) A note on the control of pod-borers in black gram and green gram with dust formulations. Pesticides 15(10): 35–36. [Google Scholar]
  60. Reddy DVR, Varma A. (1986) Madurasia obscurella Jacoby–a new vector of southern bean mosaic virus. Current Science 55(2): 109–110. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rizvi SG, Kamaluddin S, Javed T. (2012) Madurasia obscurella Jacoby: a newly recorded species from Pakistan (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). Pakistan Journal of Entomology 27(2): 85–87. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sahoo BK, Hota AK. (1991) Field screening of green gram germplasm against insect pest and disease complex. Madras Agricultural Journal 78(1–4): 84–86. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sahoo BK, Patnaik NC. (1994) Insect pests in green gram and black gram in the South Coastal Region of Orissa with notes on their seasonal activity. Orissa Journal of Agricultural Research 7(suppl.): 74–76. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sahoo BK, Sontakke BK, Rath LK. (1989) Varietal susceptibility of different green gram and black gram cultivars to the leaf beetles and pod borer complex. Environment and Ecology 7(2): 345–347. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sardana HR, Verma S. (1986) Preliminary studies on the prevalence of insect pests and their natural enemies on cowpea crop in relation to weather factors at Delhi. Indian Journal of Entomology 48(4): 448–458. [Google Scholar]
  66. Satyanarayana J, Singh KM, Singh RN. (1995a) Pest complex of rice bean Vigna umbellata. Bulletin of Entomology 36(1/2): 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  67. Satyanarayana J, Singh KM, Singh RN. (1995b) Insect pest succession in rice bean. Bulletin of Entomology 36(1/2): 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  68. Saxena MC. (1977) Water, fertilizer and pest control management in food legumes. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, Technology for increasing food production. Proceedings of the Second FAO/SIDA Seminar on Field Food Crops in Africa and the Near East, Lahore, Pakistan, 18 September to 5 October 1977, 653–658. [Google Scholar]
  69. Saxena HP, Kumar S, Prasad SK. (1971) Efficacy of some systemic granular insecticides against Galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby infesting kharif pulses. Indian Journal of Entomology 33(4): 470–471. [Google Scholar]
  70. Saxena HP, Phokela A, Singh Y. (1975) Effectiveness of carbofuran as seed treatment for controlling pest complex of ‘moong’ (Phaseolus aureus) and ‘urd’ (Phaseolus mungo). Entomologists’ Newsletter 5(4): 27–28. [Google Scholar]
  71. Seeno TN, Wilcox JA. (1982) Leaf beetle genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomography 1: 1–221. [Google Scholar]
  72. Singh J, Gupta PK. (1982) Heavy leaf damage of green gram and black gram by galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) at Varanasi (U.P.). Entomon 7(1): 51–53. [Google Scholar]
  73. Singh J, Gupta PK. (1984) Relative efficacy of some granular insecticides against galerucid beetle (Madurasia obscurella Jacoby), an important pest of green gram. Indian Journal of Entomology 46(2): 221–231. [Google Scholar]
  74. Singh AK, Gupta DS, Hameed SF. (1983) Translocation and dissipation of disulfoton in mung bean, Vigna radiata var. aureus Hübn. Journal of Entomological Research 7(2): 127–132. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sinha SN. (1985) Field screening of insecticides for seed treatment of pulses. I. Green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Seed Research 13(1): 120–128. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sinha MM, Yazdani SS, Kumar A, Singh R. (1985) Observations of the seasonal occurrence of insect pests of green gram (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.) in north Bihar. Bulletin of Entomology 26(2): 210–211. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sinha SN, Sharma SP. (1989) Effect of application of carbofuran granule along with seed on plant growth and seed yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 59(7): 472–475. [Google Scholar]
  78. Soundararajan RP, Chitra N. (2011) Effect of bioinoculants on sucking pests and pod borer complex in urdbean. Journal of Biopesticides 4(1): 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  79. Soundararajan RP, Chitra N. (2012) Impact of intercrops on insect pests of black gram, Vigna mungo L. Journal of Entomology 9(4): 208–219. doi: 10.3923/je.2012.208.219 [Google Scholar]
  80. Srivastava KM, Singh LN. (1976) A review of the pest complex of kharif pulses in Uttar Pradesh. PANS 22(3): 333–335. doi: 10.1080/09670877609412068 [Google Scholar]
  81. Srivastava AS, Srivastava KM, Singh LN, Singh RP, Srivastava RL. (1975) Relative susceptibility of some green gram (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.) varieties to galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby and pod borer, Euchrysops cnejus Fabricius. Labdev Journal of Science and Technology, B (Life Sciences) 13(3/4): 221–222. [Google Scholar]
  82. Takizawa H. (1987) Chrysomelidae collected by the Japan–India cooperative survey in India, 1978. Part IV. Entomological Review of Japan 42(1): 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  83. Takizawa H. (1990) Chrysomelid beetles of Nepal, Northeastern India and Western Sikkim collected by the Himalaya expeditions of the National Science Museum, Tokyo. Japanese Journal of Entomology 58(2): 275–291. [Google Scholar]
  84. Takizawa H, Kimoto S. (1990) Notes on chrysomelid beetles of S. India preserved in the collection of the Staatliches Museum of Munich (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomological Review of Japan 45(1): 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  85. Tiwari AS. (1978) Mungbean varietal requirements in relation to cropping seasons in India. The 1st international mungbean symposium, 1978, Office of Information Services, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taiwan, 129–131. [Google Scholar]
  86. Uddin MB, Karim MA, Huq SB, Rahman MM, Alam MZ. (1994) Effect of some insecticides on leaf growth and leaf infestation by galerucid beetle and grain yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). Annals of Bangladesh Agriculture 4(2): 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  87. Verma KK. (1995) Elytral color pattern in Madurasia obscurella Jac. (Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae). Chrysomela 30: 7. [Google Scholar]
  88. Verma S, Dikshit AK. (1990) Efficacy and persistence of some insecticides against pests of cowpea. Journal of Insect Science 3(2): 162–166. [Google Scholar]
  89. Verma S, Lal R. (1976) Evaluation of phorate, monocrotophos and carbaryl against the pest of cowpea crop. Entomologists’ Newsletter 6(8/9): 52–53. [Google Scholar]
  90. Verma S, Lal R. (1978) Evaluation of pesticides against the pests of cowpea crop (Vigna sinensis Savi). Indian Journal of Entomology 40(1): 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  91. Verma S, Pant NC. (1975) Effect of phorate and endosulfan treatments on growth parameters of ‘moong’ and ‘arhar’ crops. Entomologists’ Newsletter 5(8/9): 41–42. [Google Scholar]
  92. Vyas HN, Saxena HP. (1977) Observations on the phytotoxicity and plant stand due to disulfoton and phorate seed treatment in Vigna radiata (‘moong’). Entomologists’ Newsletter 7(9/10): 44–45. [Google Scholar]
  93. Vyas HN, Saxena HP. (1981) Some observations on the effectiveness of disulfoton and phorate seed treatment against galerucid beetle, jassid, plant height and yield of green gram. Pesticides 15(10): 44. [Google Scholar]
  94. Vyas HN, Saxena HP. (1982) Comparative efficacy of some insecticides against galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella Jacoby, infesting green gram. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 52(10): 689–693. [Google Scholar]
  95. Wagner T, Bieneck S. (2012) Galerucinae type material described by Victor Motschulsky in 1858 and 1866 from the Zoological Museum Moscow (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). Entomologische Zeitschrift Stuttgart 122(5): 205–215. [Google Scholar]
  96. Weidner H. (1976) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Instituts und des Zoologischen Museums der Universität Hamburg. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut 73: 87–264. [Google Scholar]
  97. Wilcox JA. (1973) Coleopterorum Catalogus Supplementa Pars 78 Fasc. 3 Chrysomelidae: GalerucinaeLuperini: Luperina. W. Junk, Gravenhage, 433–664. [Google Scholar]
  98. Yadav LS, Yadav PR. (1983) Pest complex of cowpea (Vigna sinensis Savi) in Haryana. Bulletin of Entomology 24(1): 57–58. [Google Scholar]
  99. Yadav LS, Yadav PR, Poonia FS. (1979) Effectiveness of certain insecticides against the insect pests of mung bean. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 7(2): 165–169. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

XML Treatment for Madurasia
zookeys.597.7520-treatment1.xml (28.3KB, xml)
XML Treatment for Madurasia andamanica
zookeys.597.7520-treatment2.xml (15.1KB, xml)
XML Treatment for Madurasia undulatovittata
zookeys.597.7520-treatment3.xml (121.6KB, xml)

Articles from ZooKeys are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES