Valid Names Results

Antecerococcus paradoxus (Maskell, 1889) (Cerococcidae: Antecerococcus)

Nomenclatural History

• Eriococcus paradoxus paradoxus Maskell 1889: 104. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, on Pittosporum undulatum, 1895, by W.M. Maskell. Lectotype, female, by subsequent designation (HodgsoWi2016,134). Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia; accepted valid name Notes: There are two slides labelled Eriococcus paradoxus indica Maskell, one in NZAC and the other in USNM. Lambdin & Kosztarab (1977) erroneously considered these to be C. paradoxus and made one of them the lectotype of Eriococcus paradoxus. These two slides were determined to be A. indicus not A. paradoxus. The Code states: 74.2. Lectotype found not to have been a syntype. If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype. The designation of this specimen as a lectotype of Eriococcus paradoxus is therefore revoked and a new lectotype is designated for E. paradoxus in Hogson & Williams (2016). NZAC: labelled Eriococcus paradoxus adult female, 1895, WMM: lectotype. Illustr.
• Antecerococcus punctiferus Green 1901: 560. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Bathurst, on Pittosporum eugenioides, by W.W. Froggatt. Lectotype, female, by subsequent designation (LambdiKo1977a,190). Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; junior synonym Illustr.
• Cerococcus punctiferus (Green, 1901); Green 1908: 41. change of combination
• Cerococcus paradoxus paradoxus (Maskell, 1889); Green 1910: 5. change of combination
• Antecerococcus punctifer Lindinger, 1910; Lindinger 1910: 124. change of combination and misspelling of species epithet
• Cerococcus punctifer (Lindinger, 1910); Lindinger 1910: 124. misspelling of species epithet
• Cerococcus auranticus Froggatt 1915: 1055. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Gunnedah, Bando Station, on Bursaria spinosa, 13/09/1902, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female, Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Unit, Orange Agricultural Institute, NSW, Australia; junior synonym (discovered by MorrisMo1927, 19-20). Illustr.
• Cerococcus puntiferus (Green, 1901); Balachowsky 1932d: 34. misspelling of species epithet
• Antecerococcus paradoxus (Maskell, 1889); Hodgson & Williams 2016: 133-134. change of combination

Common Names

• honey scale Frogga1900

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 2 | Genera: 3

Foes:

Families: 1 | Genera: 1

Geographic Distribution

Keys

• HodgsoWi2016: pp.20-21 ( Adult (F) ) [Species of Antecerococcus]
• Lambdi1987: pp.102 ( Adult (F) ) [Cerococcus species in the Australian region] Key as: Cerococcus paradoxus
• Lambdi1987: pp.102 ( Adult (F) ) [Cerococcus species in the Australian region] Key as: Cerococcus punctiferus
• HamonKo1979: pp.17 ( First instar ) [Cerococcus first instars] Key as: Cerococcus paradoxus
• HamonKo1979: pp.16 ( First instar ) [Cerococcus first instars] Key as: Cerococcus punctiferus
• LambdiKo1977a: pp.46 ( Adult (F) ) [Species of Cerococcus] Key as: Cerococcus paradoxus
• LambdiKo1977a: pp.45 ( Adult (F) ) [Species of Cerococcus] Key as: Cerococcus punctiferus

Remarks

• Systematics: Adult female resembles Eriococcus hoheriae (Maskell, 1899). Hamon & Kosztarab (1979) states that this species is close to Cerococcus punctiferus. Lambdin and Kosztarab (1977, p. 45) separate C. punctiferus from C. paradoxus by C. punctiferus having “large 8-shaped pores in five submedian clusters on each side, also along margin and encircling quinquelocular disc-pores in spiracular furrows; multilocular disc-pores absent on posterior abdominal segments”. With regard to A. paradoxus, they indicate that it does not have these submedial groups of large 8-shaped pores (although they are mentioned in their description of C. paradoxus) and has multilocular disc-pores in the posterior segments. However, Hodgson & Williams (2016) found a few large 8-shaped pores submedially in several places on the dorsum of A. paradoxus and, on both species, multilocular disc-pores were absent on segments VII and VIII but present on VI; however the number and frequency of multilocular disc-pores in the more anterior abdominal segments seemed variable.
• Structure: Test of adult female is made of a thick coat of reddish orange wax with a funnel shaped apical tube, spots on its surface and four spine like tufts of pale yellow. Body form is oval. Male tests scattered amongst the female tests, which are pale, bright yellow mottled with some red. Adult female is dark reddish brown and broadly oval (Froggatt, 1915). The adult female of A. paradoxus can be diagnosed by a combination of the following character-states: (i) large 8-shaped pores present on dorsum, at least around apex of each stigmatic pore band and marginally on about abdominal segment III, but often also occasionally in submedial whorls on head, thorax and anterior abdominal segments; (ii) large 8-shaped pores also present in a line of 8–16 pores along each margin of posterior abdominal segments; (iii) smallest 8-shaped pores present in apices of each stigmatic pore band; (iv) cribriform plates small, in groups of 2–4 submedially on each side of abdominal segment IV, each with a broad margin and large micropores; (v) leg stubs present, (vi) posterior stigmatic pore bands not bifurcated; (vii) all stigmatic bands very broad with more than 200 disc-pores, and (viii) multilocular disc-pores very sparse; when present, across abdominal segments II–VI and laterad to each metathoracic leg stub but often absent on several segments. In addition, (i) the antennae occasionally appear two segmented; and (ii) the remaining branch of the posterior stigmatic band is the posterior branch because of the presence of a “dog-leg”; a few disc-pores are present anterior to the spiracle that represent the remains of the anterior branch. This is the only Antecerococcus species outside the Afrotropical and Indian Regions with non-bifurcated posterior stigmatic pore bands. (Hodgson & Williams, 2016)
• Biology: Froggatt (1900) states that the honeydew excreted by this species completely covers the females making their tests and the whole infested area of the plant very sticky.
• General Remarks: Detailed description and illustration by Lambdin & Kosztarab (1977a). Hamon & Kosztarab (1979) provide a detailed description and illustration of the first instar.

Illustrations

Citations