Valid Names Results

Chionaspis heterophyllae Cooley, 1897 (Diaspididae: Chionaspis)

Nomenclatural History

• Chionaspis pinifoliae heterophyllae Cooley 1897: 281-282. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, on Pinus heterophylla, by A.L. Quaintance. Syntypes, female, Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; accepted valid name
• Phenacaspis heterophyllae (Cooley, 1897); MacGillivray 1921: 347. change of combination and rank
• Chionaspis heterophyllae Cooley, 1897; Borchsenius 1966: 122. change of combination
• Phenacaspis pinifoliae; Nielsen & Johnson 1973: 34-43. misidentification

Common Names

• pine scale Butche1959
• pine scurfy scale LiuKoRh1989

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 1 | Genera: 3

Foes:

Families: 3 | Genera: 3

Geographic Distribution

Keys

• MillerDa2005: pp.29 ( Adult (F) ) [Field Key to Economic Armored Scales]
• MillerDa2005: pp.20-21 ( Adult (F) ) [Armored Scales]
• Koszta1996: pp.439 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Chionaspis]
• BullinKoJi1989: pp.136 ( Adult (M) ) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]
• LiuKoRh1989: pp.15 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]
• McDani1972a: pp.337 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Phenacaspis Cooley and Cockerell] Key as: Phenacaspis heterophyllae
• Koszta1963: pp.91 ( ) [Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis] Key as: Phenacaspis heterophyllae
• Britto1923: pp.362 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Chionaspis] Key as: Chionaspis pinifoliae heterophyllae
• MacGil1921: pp.347 ( ) [Key to species of Phenacaspis]
• Cooley1899: pp.10 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Chionaspis] Key as: Chionaspis pinifoliae heterophyllae

Remarks

• Systematics: Chionaspis heterophyllae and C. pinifoliae have been greatly confused over the years and in older literature it is difficult to determine which species was actually being discussed. They overlap broadly in host range and geographic distribution and are so similar in morphology that they can be distinguished only by a subtle morphological character of the adult females: the form of the median pygidial lobes. However, this character is quite variable for both species. The consistent absence of heterozygotes at the three allozyme loci and the large mitochondrial sequence difference confirms that the morphology of the pygidial lobes is a reliable and convenient character for identifying C. pinifoliae and C. heterophyllae and supports the hypothesis that they are not only separate, but very old species. (Philpott, et al., 2009)
• Structure: Scale of female elongate, strongly convex, white, 2.0-3.2 mm long, exuviae yellow. Male scale elongated, white, 1.0 mm long, median carina (Kosztarab, 1963).
• Biology: Chionaspis heterophyllae overwinters as purplish red eggs. Eggs begin to hatch in April. It is assumed there are two generations per year (Kosztarab, 1963). Kosztarab (1963) reports that the species overwinters as eggs which begin hatching in mid-April. Egg laying females were noted in mid-May. Crawlers occur in early June in Maryland, in mid-April in Ohio (Kosztarab 1963). Nielson and Johnson (1973) misidentified this species as Phenacaspis pinifoliae (Shour 1986) but undertook a fairly detailed study of the life history and population dynamics of this pest. Their research was done in central New York on mugo pine, red pine, and Scots pine. They observed 2 generations each year. The overwintering stage was the egg which began hatching in early to mid-May. About 90% of the eggs hatched within a 3-day time span. Within a week of settling the crawlers changed from bright red to pale amber. Nearly all crawlers molted to the second instar by June 1, and adult females began to appear in mid-June. Adult males were evident in the third week of June, and egg laying began in early July. The summer generation crawlers were present from mid July to early September. Adults first appeared in mid August and egg laying began in early September. The pine scale occurs on the needles of its host. Only alate males have been collected (Bullington et al. 1989). Shour (1986) examined feeding preferences based on needle surface (convex vs. concave) and needle age and also examined differencees in settling site for males and females. There were slight differences compared with Chionaspis pinifoliae, pine needle scale.n (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
• Economic Importance: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. We have observed the pine scale causing extensive die back to mature specimen plantings of Mugo pine in College Park, Maryland. Until a few years ago economic entomologists generally were unaware of the existence of the pine scale. Some of the economic literature dealing with the closely related pine needle scale (C. pinifoliae) undoubtedly refers to pine scale or mixed infestations of both species. Negron and Clarke (1995) indicated that this species became a serious pest in loblolly pine seed orchards when the trees were treated with pesticides. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). Morphological and biological similarities between C. pinifoliae and C. heterophyllae have led to taxonomic confusion. The timing of crawler emergence is critical for managing armored scale insects because the crawler stage is the most vulnerable to pesticides. Pest managers can more accurately predict when crawlers will emerge if they have correctly identiÞed the scale species. Agreement between the allozyme and DNA sequence results and the morphology was complete, with no exceptions. These Þndings confirm that entomologists can make slide mounts of the pygidia of scale insect specimens and assign them to C. pinifoliae or C. heterophyllae with a high probability of accuracy. (Philpott, et al., 2009)
• General Remarks: Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).

Illustrations

Citations