Valid Names Results

Rhizoecus coffeae Laing, 1925 (Rhizoecidae: Rhizoecus)

Nomenclatural History

• Rhizoecus coffeae Laing 1925: 384. Type data: SURINAM: Paramaribo, on roots of coffee. Holotype, female, Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; accepted valid name Illustr.
• Rhizoecus lendea Pickel 1927: 24. Type data: BRAZIL: Parahyba State, Bananeiras, on roots of coffee. Syntypes, female, Type depository: Tapera: Ecola Superior de Agricultura, Brazil; Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; junior synonym (discovered by Pickel1928, 369).
• Ripersia lendea (Pickel, 1927); Schmidt 1940: 220. change of combination
• Neorhizoecus coffeae (Laing, 1925); Hambleton 1946: 42. change of combination
• Rhizoecus coffeae Laing, 1925; Ben-Dov 1994: 449. revived combination (previously published)

Common Names

• Coffee rhizoecus mealybug KondoRaCa2022
• Cochinilla americana del suelo KondoRaCa2022
• cochinilla hipogea del café KondoRaCa2022

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 6 | Genera: 9

Associates:

Families: 1 | Genera: 1

Geographic Distribution

Keys

• CaballKo2024: pp.16 ( Adult (F) ) [Species associated with coffee roots in Colombia]
• KaydanKoKo2019: pp.3-4 ( Adult (F) ) [Neotropical Rhizoecus species]
• RamosPCa2016: pp.61-66 ( Adult (F) ) [Species of the genus Rhizoecus known from Colombia]
• Hodgso2012: pp.49-50 ( Adult (M) ) [Key to the adult males of Rhizoecinae seen during this study:]
• KozarKo2007: pp.132-137 ( Adult (F) ) [world]
• WilliaGr1992: pp.496 ( Adult (F) ) [Central and South America]
• Hamble1946: pp.41 ( Adult (F) ) [World]

Remarks

• Systematics: The male of Rh. coffeae differs from those of the other species in having the following combination of character states: (i) body highly hirsute; (ii) presence of the "nipple-like" structure on the venter of the prothorax, and (iii) 5- to 7-segmented antennae. (Hodgson, 2012) Although both wings are missing, Hodgson (2012) considered that the males of Rh. coffeae are probably brachypterous (rather than macropterous) because: (a) the body shape and structure are very similar to the brachypterous Rh. dianthiGreen, (b) the mesothorax appears to be poorly sclerotised, suggesting weak or absent wing muscles, and (c) the structure of metathorax dorsally is very similar to abdominal segments.
• Structure: Although both wings were missing from the male described in Hodgson (2012), he considered that the males of Rh. coffeae are probably brachypterous (rather than macropterous) because: (a) the body shape and structure are very similar to the brachypterous Rh. dianthi Green, described below; (b) the mesothorax appears to be poorly sclerotised, suggesting weak or absent wing muscles, and (c) the structure of metathorax dorsally is very similar to abdominal segments. The homology of the "nipple-like" structure present ventrally between the procoxae is uncertain; it might represent the position of the labium but it seems unlikely that this would have a group of such robust setae; or perhaps it is related to the "mammillate organ" present at the anterior end of the prosternum of some Phenacoleachia species (Theron, 1962; Hodgson & Foldi, 2006).
• Biology: Occurring on the roots of the host plant.
• General Remarks: Description and illustration of adult female by Laing (1925), Ferris (1953a), Williams & Granara de Willink (1992) and by Kozár & Konczné Benedicty (2007). Althought no holotype was designated by Laing (1925), there is only one specimen bearing the appropriate data in BMNH. Hambleton (1977a) and Williams & Granara de Willink (1992) referred to this specimen as the holotype.

Illustrations

Citations