Valid Names Results

Suturaspis archangelskyae (Lindinger, 1929) (Diaspididae: Suturaspis)

Nomenclatural History

Leucaspis archangelskyae Lindinger 1929: 113. Type data: UZBEKISTAN: Samarkand, on Pyrus communis. Syntypes, female, Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany; accepted valid name
Leucodiaspis archangelskyae (Lindinger, 1929); Lindinger 1932b: 107. change of combination
Suturaspis archangelskyae (Lindinger, 1929); Borchsenius 1937a: 95. change of combination
Leucaspidiopsis crataegi fraxinicola Bodenheimer 1943: 11. junior synonym (discovered by Balach1953g, 889).
Suturaspis archangelskajae (Lindinger, 1929); Borchsenius 1949d: 202. misspelling of species epithet
Salicicola Archangelskaiae Balachowsky 1953g: 889. misspelling of both genus and species names
Salicicola archangelskyae; Kozar 1998b: 353. misidentification

Common Names

Archangelskaya scale MillerDa1990

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 10 | Genera: 19

Cannabaceae

Celtis australis | Moghad2013a

Fagaceae

Quercus | KaydanKoAt2009

Juglandaceae

Juglans regia | InserrCa1985

Lythraceae

Punica | Borchs1966

Myrtaceae

Myrtus communis | Seghat1977

Oleaceae

Fraxinus | Seghat1977
Fraxinus excelsior | Bodenh1943
Olea europaea | ErlerKoTu1996
Syringa | Borchs1966

Rosaceae

Amygdalus | Borchs1966
Amygdalus reuteri | Moghad2013a | (= Prunus reuteri)
Cerasus | Borchs1966
Crataegus monogyna | UlgentDo2019
Cydonia | Borchs1966
Malus domestica | Hadzib1983 InserrCa1985 | (= Malus communis)(= Pyrus malus)
Mespilus | Borchs1966
Mespilus germanica | InserrCa1985
Prunus armeniaca | InserrCa1985 | (= Armeniaca vulgaris)
Prunus avium | Seghat1977
Prunus domestica | InserrCa1985
Prunus lycioides | MoghadWa2021
Prunus persica | Borchs1966 | (= Persica vulgaris)
Pyrus communis | Lindin1929 | (= Pyrus pyraster)

Salicaceae

Populus | Balach1953g

Sapindaceae

Acer monspessulanum | Moghad2013a | ssp. cinerascens

Thymelaeaceae

Daphne mucronata | Moghad2013a | (= Daphne angustifolia)

Foes:

Families: 1 | Genera: 1

Aphelinidae

Aphytis proclia | MyartsLe1975

Geographic Distribution

Countries: 10

Afghanistan | FowjhaKo1994

Armenia | TerGri1956

Georgia (Republic of) | BatsanKaKi2017 Hadzib1983

Iran | Kaussa1955 KozarFoZa1996

Iraq | Bodenh1943

Italy | Porcel1992

Sicily | InserrCa1985

Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) | AlimdzBr1956

Turkey | ErlerKoTu1996 KozarKoAk1979

Turkmenistan | Archan1930 Lashin1956

Uzbekistan | Balach1953g

Andizhan Oblast | XafizdSaSo2024
Samarkand Oblast | Lindin1929

Keys

MoghadWa2021: pp.220 ( Adult (F) Second instar (F) ) [Suturaspis in Iran]
WatsonDuLi2000a: pp. ( Adult (F) ) [Expert system on a CD] Key as: Salicicola archangelskyae
Danzig1993: pp.127 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Salicicola] Key as: Salicicola archangelskyae
Balach1953g: pp.884 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Salicicola] Key as: Salicicola archangelskyae

Remarks

Systematics: Danzig (1993) considered the description of Lindinger (1929) to be a nomen nudum and credited Archangelskaya as the author of the species. Archangelskaya (1930) was the next person after Lindinger to use the name and include a description. Examination of the original description of Lindinger reveals that there definitely is a description of the species, although very brief. Therefore the species should be cited as Suturaspis archangelskayae (Lindinger), 1929. Balachowsky (1953) and Danzig (1993) Salicicola, Suturaspis, and Leucaspidopsis in one genus. There is no good basis for the generic separation in the adult females. In the second-instar females of the type species, which were studied by Balachowsky (1953), Suturaspis is quite distinct from Salicicola and Leucaspidopsis in the pattern of the pygidial appendages. In diaspidids, in general, congeneric species and even species of closely related genera are very similar in the second-instar females, especially in the pygidial fringe. When this generalization is applied to the three nominal genera, Salicicola and Leucaspidopsis could be united in one genus and Suturaspis should not be so closely related to them as suggested by the similar adult females. (Takagi & Modhaddam, 2005) Suturaspis archangelskyae is distinguishable from Suturaspis crataegi in the following characters: in the adult female, the pygidium is nearly conical, and the median and second trullae are usually represented by low prominences, which are broadly rounded and sclerotized along the margin; in the second-instar female, both trullae and pectinae are well represented, occupying a broad apical margin of the pygidium. The trullae are sometimes very low and almost obsolete in the adult female but, even in that case, the pygidium is nearly conical, not conforming to the broadly rounded pygidium of S. crataegi. (Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005)
Structure: Female scale irregular oval, white. Exuviae cephalic, pale yellow. Adult female body oval, but variable, narrowing cephalad, usually broadest in the last body third, then narrowing suddenly, with the much narrower pygidium broadly rounded, produced. Pygidium narrow, broadly rounded at end, with very marked radiation from the vulva, caudad of anus, ending in a dense margin crenulation, which often resembles pseudolobes (Bodenheimer, 1943). In the adult female specimens examined in Takagi & Moghaddam (2005) each anterior spiracle is provided with one to three quinquelocular disc pores, and there are no microducts laterally to the mouth-parts except for a few ducts occasionally present on one or either side. In the specimens of the second-instar female, each anterior spiracle is provided with one or two quinquelocular disc pores. A broad variation was observed in the development of the trullae in the second-instar female. The trullae are sclerotized, but tend to be frayed apically. They are sometimes similar to the neighbouring pectinae in size and shape, thus being not easily distinguishable from the latter. Usually the trullae are elongated in various degrees, and sometimes form extraordinary, narrow oblong processes. Slide-mounted second-instar female pyriform. Antennae each with 4 or 5 setae. Anterior and posterior spiracles without associated disc pores. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median and second lobes (L1 and L2) similar in shape and size, each lobe apically rounded. Dorsal marginal macroducts numbering 5 on each side of prepygidium and pygidium; smaller submarginal and submedian ducts present also on pygidium. (Moghaddam & Watson, 2021)
Economic Importance: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
General Remarks: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953g). (However, in describing Salicicola Archangelskaiae, Balachowsky (1953) did not clearly discriminate between the two forms, S.archangelskyae and S. crataegi. Most of the figures on Planche CXLIX in his monograph represent Suturaspis archangelskyae, and Figs 1 and 2 on Planche CL show the pygidia of the adult and second-instar females of Suturaspis crataegi (Fig. 3 on this plate has no explanation, and it is not certain which part of the body is depicted in the figure). (Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005)

Illustrations

Citations

AlimdzBr1956: distribution, 152
Archan1930: distribution, taxonomy, 82
Archan1937: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 65, 67-68
AyazUlOz2015: distribution,
Babaev1980: distribution, 59
Balach1953g: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 884, 886, 889-895
Balach1958b: structure, 340
BatsanKaKi2017: distribution, host, 261
Bazaro1962: taxonomy, 61
BazaroSh1971: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 166-167
BenDovHa1986: distribution, host, taxonomy, 29
Bodenh1943: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 10-11
Borchs1937a: description, distribution, host, taxonomy, 95
Borchs1949d: distribution, taxonomy, 202
Borchs1950b: distribution, taxonomy, 179
Borchs1963a: distribution, illustration, taxonomy, 22, 85, 136, 200, 25
Borchs1966: catalog, distribution, host, taxonomy, 221-222
Borchs1973: distribution, taxonomy, 86, 136, 200, 257
Bustsh1960: distribution, taxonomy, 174
Danzig1972: distribution, taxonomy, 221
Danzig1993: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 129-130
DanzigPe1998: catalog, distribution, host, taxonomy, 353
ErlerKoTu1996: distribution, host, 58
FowjhaKo1994: distribution, host, 344-347
FowjhaKo1999: distribution, host, 122
Gavril2018: reproduction, 244
Hadzib1983: distribution, taxonomy, 214, 277
InserrCa1985: distribution, host, 88
JaposhBaKi2020: distribution, host, 65
Kaussa1947: distribution, host, 17
Kaussa1955: distribution, host, 18
Kaussa1970: distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 10
KondoWa2022a: distribution, histology, host, list, 19
KonstaKoJa1984: distribution, host, 351
Kozar1987: economic importance, 100
KozarFoZa1996: distribution, 68
KozarKo1981: taxonomy, 214
KozarKo1981a: distribution, 128
KozarKoAk1979: distribution, host, 537
KozarWa1985: catalog, distribution, 87
KozarYaKo1982: distribution, host, 335
Lashin1956: distribution, host, taxonomy, 127-128
Lindin1929: description, distribution, host, taxonomy, 113
Lindin1932b: taxonomy, 107
Lindin1957: taxonomy, 552
Lindin1958: taxonomy, 373
LongoMaPe1995: distribution, 129
LongoMaPe1999a: distribution, 145
MillerDa1990: economic importance, taxonomy, 305
Moghad2004: distribution, host, 8
Moghad2013a: distribution, host, 51
MoghadTa2010: distribution, 38
MoghadWa2021: diagnosis, distribution, host, illustration, key, natural enemies, nymph, taxonomy, 220-221, 222, 250
MyartsLe1975: biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy, 58-61
Porcel1992: distribution, host, taxonomy, 36
RouhanVaMa2018a: distribution, host, 4
Seghat1977: distribution, host, 16
Takagi2008: taxonomy, 93
TakagiMo2005: description, illustration, taxonomy, 50, 67
TerGri1954: distribution, host, 65
TerGri1956: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 46-47
TerGri1962: description, distribution, host, taxonomy, 142
TerGri1969a: distribution, host, taxonomy, 42, 43, 69
UlgentDo2019: distribution, host, 486
UlgentErYa2022: distribution, host, S121
UlgentKaKo2013: distribution, host, 28
Watson2001: list, 177
Watson2002: description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration,
WeidneWa1968: distribution, host, 177
Willia2017a: catalog, list of species, 218
XafizdSaSo2024: distribution, host, 42