present designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 92PL104. Described: female. Notes: Specimens collected at Bagac, Bataan, type number 94PL-90, -145.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Pterospermum diversifolium [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring on the lower surface of the leaves. Females burrowing under the tomentum. Male tests on the surface of the tomentum, white, felted, and not carinate. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003,
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elliptic; abd IV gently lobed laterally; pygidium produced, obdeltate. Prepygidial derm membranous; segmentation indistinct, the intersegmental furrows being obscure except those between abd III and IV and between IV and V. Dorsal surface ofpygidium sclerotic, the ventral surface sclerotized towards the apex but not strongly. Antennae situated within the frontal margin, separated from each other by a space about twice as wide as one of their tubercles, each with a short seta. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar female differs from the adult female in the median trullae nearly triangular and in having marginal gland spines. Second-instar male heteromorphic, with a pair of glanduliferous craters, but also with the median trullae similar to those in the second-instar female. First-instar nymph with 5 antennal segments as in many Diaspidini. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 83, 108, 133-135].
Bayuraspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Bayuraspis Takagi, 2003: 98-99. Type species: Metandaspis javanensis Williams, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Analysis and description in Takagi, 2003.
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [behaviour, description, structure, taxonomy: 98].
Bayuraspis javanensis (Williams)NOMENCLATURE:
Metandaspis javanensis Williams, 1963b: 30-31. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Pterospermum javanicum, by A. Zimmerman. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: 8 paratypes in BMNH.
Bayuraspis javanensis; Takagi, 2003: 98-99c. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Sterculiaceae: Pterospermum javanicum [Willia1963b], Pterospermum sp. [Takagi1992b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Willia1963b]). Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the lower surface of the leaves burrowing under the tomentum. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1963b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, smooth, elongate, about 1.5 mm long, but usually covered with reddish-brown matter. Male scale similar but smaller. Adult female elongate, sides subparallel, body membranous except for pygidium but older individuals often sclerotized on head margin and in a characteristic pattern on the prepygidial abdominal segments (Williams, 1963b).
SYSTEMATICS: Williams (1963b) states "there is some doubt as to whether this species belongs to the same genus as [M. recurvata]. The very prominent median lobes are the chief distinguishing characters together with the peculiar paraphyses on the ventral surface and the large basal scleroses. Rather than erect a new genus it may remain here until further related species are discovered." In 2003, Takagi described the new genus with Bayuraspis javanensis (=Metandaspis javanensis Williams) as the type species, stating that the notable differences between Metandaspis and Bayuraspis included the statement that the median trulla is symmetrical, with the inner and outer margins equal in length, teh second trullae are broad and unilobed, and the dorsal intersegmental furrow between abd V and VI is well marked throughout, attaining the marginal notch between the segments. He stated that Bayuraspis javanensis is similar to "Hexandaspis bataanensis in having prominent median trullae and broad second trullae, but that they differ in the symmetrical shape of each median trulla, the complete absence of the third trullae, the absence of megaducts, the presence of scattered dorsal ducts on the pygidium, and the complete demarcation of abd V from abd VI on the dorsal surface. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 20, 160]; Balach1968a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Takagi1992b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 46-47, 59, 69, 73]; Takagi2003 [description, distribution, illustration, host, taxonomy: 98-99]; Willia1963b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31].
Berlesaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Berlesaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Mytilaspis spinifera Maskell, by original designation.
Berleseaspis Lindinger, 1937: 180. Unjustified emendation.
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 61 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 44 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; MacGillivray 1921: 274 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 152]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 35]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 366]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 40]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 45]; GomezM1927a [distribution, taxonomy: 292]; GomezM1937 [description, taxonomy: 44, 160]; GomezM1946 [taxonomy: 61]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 180, 190]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 208, 222]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 274, 289]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 23]; RuizCa1951 [p. 57].
Berlesaspis spinifera (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis spinifera Maskell, 1894b: 69-70. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Urana, on Acacia pendula, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis spinifera major Maskell, 1898: 230. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Riverina, Hay, on Acacia pendula, by Mr. Musson. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 35.
Lepidosaphes spinifera; Fernald, 1903b: 314. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes spinifera major; Fernald, 1903b: 314. Change of combination.
Berlesaspis spinifera; MacGillivray, 1921: 289. Change of combination.
Berlesaspis spinifera major; Laing, 1929: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia pendula [Maskel1894b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1894b], Queensland [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1894b).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium white, exuviae light yellow. Larval exuviae smooth and subcircular. Male puparium white, with yellow exuviae; flattish, sub-cylindrical, not carinated. Adult female orange-yellow, darkening with age. Elliptical in form, with the thoracic and abdominal segments rather distinct. Larva yellow, elliptical (Maskell, 1894b).
SYSTEMATICS: Maskell (1898) described Mytilaspis spinifera forma major as being twice as large as M. spinifera.
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1927a: 292 (female) [Species of Berlesaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 289 (female) [Key to species of Berlesaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis spinifera; Australian species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis spinifera v. major; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 152]; BalachMa1980 [description, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 39, 43]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 40]; Frogga1896 [host: 382]; Frogga1907 [distribution, host: 374]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 46-47]; GomezM1927a [taxonomy: 292]; Green1904c [description, distribution, host: 463]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 31-32]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 180]; Lobdel1937 [taxonomy: 80]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-70]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 69]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host: 230]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 9]; Sulc1937 [taxonomy: 40]; WoodwaEvEa1970 [illustration: 429].
Caia WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Caia Williams, 1963b: 26. Type species: Caia quernea Williams, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus has close affinities with Andaspis MacGillivray, but differs mainly in the shape of the median lobes which have only 1 or 2 notches on the lateral margins and in the position of the anal opening which is situated towards the apex rather than at the base of the pygidium (Williams, 1963b).
KEYS: Williams & Brookes 1995: 185 [Key to genera of the subtribe Andaspidina]; Balachowsky 1968a: 62 (female) [Key to the 4 genera of the sub-tribe Andaspidina].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 13]; Balach1968a [taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 52]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 26]; Willia1963b [description, taxonomy: 26]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185].
Caia quernea WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Caia quernea Williams, 1963b: 26-28. Type data: PAKISTAN: Mana, on Quercus sp., 28/02/1960, by S.K. Kazimi. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes also in BMNH.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Sticholotis sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Willia1963b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Willia1963b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1963b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate oval, fusiform, about 1.0 mm long, membranous except for pygidium. Lateral sclerotized spurs absent. Anterior spiracles with 2 or 3 pores (Williams, 1963b).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution: 84]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13]; Balach1968a [distribution, host: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 52]; Danzig1983 [taxonomy: 523]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 42]; Willia1963b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28].
Cameronaspis Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Cameronaspis Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1988: 5-6. Type species: Cameronaspis linderae Takagi, Pong & Ghee, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi et al., (1988) discuss the relationship between Africaspis and Cameronaspis. The genus Cameronaspis is divisible into two groups based on the apical region of the pygidium in the adult female and may be separated in each group as follows: Linderae group. Second trullae well represented, set close to median trullae, leaving little space between them; marginal macroduct of abd VII opening at base of second trulla, with the orifice surrounded by the sclerosis associated with the trulla. C. linderae [Cameron Highlands, l600m, on Lindera]; C. pustulifera [Cameron Highlands, 1300-1600m, on 'Henslowia' and Euodia]; C. dilleniae [Mt. Kinabalu, 2750m, on Dillenia]. Adinandrae group. Second trullae less developed, separated from median trulla by a small membranous conical prominence, in which the marginal macroduct of the seventh abdominal segment opens. C. adinandrae [Cameron Highlands, 1300m, on Adinandra; Crocker Range, 1300-1400m, on Adinandra; Mt. Kinabalu, 1550m, on Vernonia; central and eastern Nepal, l470-2120m, on Eurya]; C. ilicis [Mt. Kinabalu, 3100-3300m, on Ilex]; C. orchidarum [Philippines and Singapore, on commercial orchids]. (Talagi, 2005)
CITATIONS: TakagiPoGh1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 5-7]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 58].
Cameronaspis adinandrae Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Cameronaspis adinandrae Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1988: 9-10. Type data: MALAYSIA: Semenanjung, Cameron Highlands, Tanah Rata, on Adinandra sarosanthera, 20/10/1986. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Vernonia arborea [Takagi2005]. Theaceae: Adinandra sarosanthera [TakagiPoGh1988], Eurya acuminata [Takagi2005], Eurya cerasifolia [TakagiPoGh1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1988]); Nepal [TakagiPoGh1988].
BIOLOGY: Females were found mainly on branches, often burrowing under a thin epidermal layer, and males on the lower surface of the leaves. Most female tests were hidden under mat-like mycelia of a fungus (probably belonging to Septobasidium)(Takagi, 2005)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of females and description of second instar female by Takagi et al. (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female tests covered by the thin upper epidermal layer of the host plant. Male tests white, flocculent (Takagi et al., 1988)
SYSTEMATICS: This species is distinguishable from Cameronaspis linderae and C. pustulifera by the roundish median lobes and the much reduced seconds lobes. It is hardly distinguishable in the numbers of the spiracular and perivulvar disk pores, but differs in the macroducts and gland spines tending to be fewer. It is clearly distinguishable in the second instar female and second instar male (Takagi et al., 1988).
KEYS: Takagi 2005: 158 (female) [The genus Cameronaspis].
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [description, host, taxonomy: 156-157]; TakagiPoGh1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-10, 18, 24, 25, 30]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 58].
Cameronaspis dilleniae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Cameronaspis dilleniae Takagi, 2005. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah (Borneo Is.), Gunong Kinabalu, Taman Kinabalu [Kinabalu National Park], on Dillenia sp., 10/1988, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined), by original designation; type no. SMKM. Described: female. Illust. Notes: collected at an altitude of 2750 m.
HOST: Dilleniaceae: Dillenia sp. [Takagi2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi2005]).
BIOLOGY: The female burrows in the lower surface of the leaves, leaving the first-instar exuvial cast exposed on the leaf surface; the affected spot of the leaf is slightly swollen on the lower surface and hardened on both upper and lower surfaces. This species seems to be especially closely related to C. pustulifera on account of the reactions of their host plants. The burrowing female of C. dilleniae causes hardening, and that of C. pustulifera a pustulous growth, on the leaf epidermis at the feeding spot.(Takagi, 2005)
SYSTEMATICS: Adult female is similar to the adult females of Cameronaspis linderae and C. pustulifera in the characters of the pygidial apex, especially in having well-developed second trullae and no marginal prominence between the median and second trullae, but distinguishable mainly in having submedian dorsal macro ducts on the third abdominal segment; pygidium broader; wax-secreting organs generally tending to be more numerous. (Takagi, 2005)
KEYS: Takagi 2005: 158 (female) [The genus Cameronaspis].
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 155-156,164-166].
Cameronaspis ilicis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Cameronaspis ilicis Takagi, 2005: 156. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah (Borneo Is.), Gunong Kinabalu, Taman Kinabalu [Kinabalu National Park], on Ilex revoluta, 9/30/1988, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Museum, Malaysia. Described: both sexes. Illust.
HOST: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex revoluta [Takagi2005].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi2005]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring mainly on the twigs and also on the leaves (at the base of the lower surface and at times on the upper surface) and petioles; males on the lower surface of the leaves. Females do not burrow, their tests being exposed, white, elongate, and convex dorsally, those on the leaves being broader; male nymphs settling themselves close together to make the shape of their individual tests obscure. (Takagi, 2005)
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustrations in Takagi, 2005.
SYSTEMATICS: Adult female similar to the adult female of Cameronaspis adinandrae in having small second trullae and a small pore prominence between the median and second trullae, but distinguishable from that species in having much more macroducts. No difference has been observed between the twig and leaf forms. Second-instar male similar to the second-instar male of Cameronaspis adinandrae in having many large modified ducts, which are, however, more numerous than in that species. (Takagi, 2005)
KEYS: Takagi 2005: 158 (female) [The genus Cameronaspis].
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 156, 167-169].
Cameronaspis linderae Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Cameronaspis linderae Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1988: 7-8. Type data: MALAYSIA: Semenanjung, Cameron Highlands, near Arcadia Villa, 30/11/1985; Gunong Jasar, on Lindera reticulosa, 17/10/1986. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Lindera reticulosa [TakagiPoGh1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1988]).
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at 1600m in altitude. Males and females both occurring on the underside of host plant leaves (Takagi et al., 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of adult female, and description of both sexes of second instar by Takagi et al. (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female tests pyriform, gently convex dorsally, covered by the thin upper epidermal layer of the leaves. Male tests white, covered by flocculent secretion.
KEYS: Takagi 2005: 158 (female) [The genus Cameronaspis].
CITATIONS: TakagiPoGh1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8, 17, 22, 25, 27-].
Cameronaspis orchidarum (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Africaspis orchidarum Ferris, 1955b: 23. Type data: PHILIPPINES: undetermined orchid, taken in quarantine in San Francisco, California, 1919. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Cameronaspis orchidarum; Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1988: 10. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Orchidaceae [Ferris1955b], Aranda deborah [Muntin1967], Vanda sp. [TakagiPoGh1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines [Ferris1955b]; Singapore [TakagiPoGh1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1955b).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is close to Neopinnaspis harperi and Africaspis chipingae (Ferris, 1955b).
KEYS: Takagi 2005: 158 (female) [The genus Cameronaspis]; Ben-Dov 1973a: 140 (female) [Key for separating the species of Africaspis]; Munting 1967: 3 (female) [Key for separating the world species of Africaspis MacG.].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; BenDov1973a [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 117]; Ferris1955b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-24]; Kozarz1974 [host: 24]; Muntin1967 [distribution, host: 23]; TakagiPoGh1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4, 5, 6, 10].
Cameronaspis pustilfera Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Cameronaspis pustilfera Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1988: 8-9. Type data: MALAYSIA: Tanah Rata, on Henslowia sp., 14/01/1986. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: immature. Illust.
HOSTS: Rutaceae: Euodia latifolia [TakagiPoGh1988]. Santalaceae: Henslowia sp. [TakagiPoGh1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1988]).
BIOLOGY: This species was recorded from altitudes of 1600m. The adult female, when occurring on the leaf, causes a white pustulous growth on the leaf tissue. The growth is nearly elliptical or pyriform when completed, enclosing the insect body and test. On the twigs of Euodia latifolia the female test are covered by the thin epidermal layer of the host plant (Takagi et al., 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi et al., (1988).
STRUCTURE: Male tests strongly tricarinate (Takagi et al., 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult female very similar to adult female of Cameronaspis linderae, differing only in the numbers of external secretory organs: macroducts, gland spines and disk pores (except anterior spiracular disk pores) tending to be fewer than in C. linderae. This species is recognized as distinct mainly on account of the second instar male which is remarkably different from that of C. linderae in the cup-like ducts and the marginal processes of the pygidium (Takagi et al., 1988).
KEYS: Takagi 2005: 158 (female) [The genus Cameronaspis].
CITATIONS: TakagiPoGh1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-9, 17, 23, 25, 29].
Carulaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Carulaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 305. Type species: Aspidiotus juniperi Bouché, by original designation.
Sarulaspis; Bodenheimer, 1953: 6. Misspelling of genus name.
BIOLOGY: Species in the genus are found on conifers only.
STRUCTURE: The adult females are almost circular to turbinate in shape, with the pygidium slightly pointed at apex, with median lobes small, rounded, separated by a space, L2 bilobate with medial lobule almost as large as L1, lateral lobule very small, L3 very small. With short gland spines between lobes and on abdominal margins. Marginal macroducts barrel-shaped, 4-6 pairs present, with or without a macroduct in medial space. Dorsal ducts arranged in short submedial and submarginal rows, with a few similar ducts on ventral submargin of abdomen. Anal opening a little posterior of mid pygidium. Microducts present on submedian dorsum and venter. Antenna with 1 seta. Anterior spiracles each usually with a trilocular pore, posterior spiracles without pores. Perivulvar pores in 5 well separated, rounded groups. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Kosztarab 1996: 410 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 327 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1971d: 837 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Ghauri 1962: 212 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidina]; Schmutterer 1959: 175 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 166 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 46 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 305 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Baccet1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 25, 64]; Balach1954e [description, taxonomy: 166, 202-203]; BazaroSh1971 [description, taxonomy: 142]; Boraty1952b [taxonomy: 455, 459, 460, 469,]; Boraty1957 [taxonomy: 246]; Boraty1968a [taxonomy: 41]; Borchs1949d [taxonomy: 193, 225]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 166, 206]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 160]; Bustsh1958 [description, taxonomy: 197]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 645, 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 837]; Danzig1993 [description, taxonomy: 380-381]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 203]; Eastop1979 [host: 127]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 41]; Ferris1937 [description, taxonomy: 11]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:46]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 212]; Goidan1960 [description, distribution, ecology, taxonomy: 1-38]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 507, 541]; Hender2011 [host, structure, taxonomy: 8,13-14,45,81]; Howell1980 [taxonomy: 91]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54, 59]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 433]; KosztaKo1988F [description, taxonomy: 329]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Kuznet1971 [biological control, host: 63]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 181]; Lupo1966 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 34-43]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 305]; Martin1983 [description, host, taxonomy: 49-50]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 30]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 175, 188]; Terezn1982 [description, taxonomy: 58, 61-62]; WilliaWa1988 [p. 79].
Carulaspis atlantica (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis atlantica Lindinger, 1911a: 28-29. Type data: CANARY ISLANDS: Hierro, Sabinosa, on Juniperus phoenicea, 06/05/1901. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Carulaspis atlantica; Balachowsky, 1954e: 204. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Callitris articulata [Balach1954e], Cupressus sempervirens [Balach1954e], Juniperus oxycedrus [Balach1954e], Juniperus phoenicea [Lindin1911a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Canary Islands [Lindin1911a, MatileOr2001]; Morocco [Balach1954e]; Spain [GomezM1960O].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Carulaspis atlantica is associated with C. visci in Morocco, but is yellow, while C. visci is red (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Lupo 1966: 43 (female) [Key to Carulaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 204 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: Baccet1960 [distribution, host: 25]; Balach1946 [distribution, host: 214]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203, 204-206, 209]; Boraty1957 [taxonomy: 246, 247]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 63]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 381]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203]; Goidan1960 [distribution, taxonomy: 35,37]; GomezM1960O [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 180-182]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114-115]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lindin1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 189]; Lindin1931a [p. 21]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; Lupo1966 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 40, 43]; MacGil1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 49]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 189]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 139]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 276, 279]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 112]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Carulaspis giffardi (Adachi & Fullaway)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria giffardi Adachi & Fullaway, 1953: 87-89. Type data: UNITED STATES: Hawaii, Oahu, Manoa Valley, on Araucaria excelsa, ?/04/1951, by M.S. Adachi. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BPBM.
Carulaspis giffardi; Borchsenius, 1966: 160-161. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Araucaria columnaris [Nakaha1981a], Araucaria cunninghamii [AdachiFu1953], Araucaria excelsa [AdachiFu1953], Araucaria heterophylla [Nakaha1981a].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a], Kauai [Nakaha1981a], Lanai [Nakaha1982], Maui [Nakaha1981a], Molokai [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [AdachiFu1953]); New Caledonia [Cohic1958, WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Adachi & Fullaway (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate-oval, thin, yellow brown with exuviae located at the anterior end. Female is turbinate (Adachi & Fullaway, 1953).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 79 (female) [Species of Carulaspis in the Tropical South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: AdachiFu1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87-89]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 19]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 395]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79].
Carulaspis juniperi (Bouché)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus Juniperi Bouché, 1851: 112. Type data: GERMANY: on Juniperus communis. Described: female.
Diaspis juniperi; Signoret, 1869d: 437. Described: female. Change of combination.
Diaspis visci; Lindinger, 1912b: 190. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis juniperi; MacGillivray, 1921: 313. Change of combination.
Diaspis carueli; Ferris, 1936a: 21. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis carueli; Ferris, 1936a: 41. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Borchsenius, 1937: 116. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Archangelskaya, 1937: 83. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; Ferris, 1937: SI-12. Described: female. Illust. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; Ferris, 1937: SI-12. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1946: 75. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Bodenheimer, 1949: 87. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; Borchsenius, 1949d: 226. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; Borchsenius, 1950b: 206. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Schmutterer, 1951: 129. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Zahradník, 1952: 175. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Merrill, 1953: 46. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Sarulaspis (Diaspis) visci; Bodenheimer, 1953: 6. Change of combination.
Carulaspis visci; Balachowsky, 1954e: 206. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; McKenzie, 1956: 91. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Reyne, 1957: 26. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visci; Lupo, 1957a: 427. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; Schmutterer, 1959: 189. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Carulaspis visci; Knechtel & Negru, 1959: 90. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis taxicola; Baccetti, 1960: 64. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille du genévrier [MawFoHa2000]; juniper scale [Koszta1963].
FOES: Phytoseiidae: Typhlodromus baccettii [HertinSi1972]. Tyroglyphidae: Monieziella sp. [HertinSi1972], Tyrophagus putrescentiae [HertinSi1972]. ACARI Cheyletidae: Cheletogenes ornatus [HertinSi1972], Cheletomimus berlesei [HertinSi1972]. Dermanyssidae: Androlaelaps casalis [HertinSi1972]. ACARIFORMES Cymbaeremaeidae: Scapheremaeus marginalis [KosztaKo1988F]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus renipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Exochomus flavipes [KosztaKo1988F], Exochomus quadripustulatus [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Myrrha octodecimguttata [KosztaKo1988F, UlgentSzUy2013], Vibidia duodecimguttat [KosztaKo1988F]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus dactylicus [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus flaviceps [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspidis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis proclia [HertinSi1972], Aphytis sp. [HertinSi1972], Archenomus bicolor [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Euaphycus botanicus [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella servinellus [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella sp. [HertinSi1972]. Mymaridae: Alaptus aurantii [HertinSi1972]. Pteromalidae: Mesopolobus sp. [HertinSi1972]. Torymidae: Megastigmus juniperi [HertinSi1972]. NEUROPTERA Coniopterygidae: Aleuropteryx juniperi [Wheele1981].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Biota sp. [MillerDa2005], Callitris sp. [MillerDa2005], Chamaecyperus sp. [Hender2011], Cryptomeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Cupresses sp. [Hender2011], Cupressocyparis sp. [MillerDa2005], Cupressus arizonica [Hender2011], Cupressus maqcrocarpa [Hender2011], Cupressus sempervirens [Hender2011], Cupressus sp. [MillerDa2005], Juniperus chinensis [Hender2011], Juniperus procera [Hender2011], Juniperus sp. [Hender2011], Libocedrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Thuja sp. [Hender2011]. Pinaceae: Biota orientalis [Bodenh1953], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana fletcheri [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana allumii [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana argentea [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana erecta [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana stewartii [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis nootkatensis [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis sp. [Deitz1979a], Chamaecyparis thyoides [BesheaTiHo1973], Cryptomeria japonica [Deitz1979a], Cupressocyparis leylandii [Boraty1957], Cupressus arizonica [Deitz1979a], Cupressus lawsoniana [Boraty1957], Cupressus lusitanica [Deitz1979a], Cupressus macrocarpa [Hudson1967], Juniperus communis [Goidan1960], Juniperus communis hibernica [Boraty1957], Juniperus phoenicea [Foldi2000], Juniperus sinensis [Boraty1957], Juniperus sinensis aurea [Boraty1957], Juniperus sinensis pfitzeriana [Boraty1957], Juniperus sinensis burkii [Boraty1957], Juniperus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Juniperus sp. [Deitz1979a], Juniperus virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973], Libocedrus decurrens [Boraty1957], Picea [Borchs1966], Pinus [Borchs1966], Pinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Sequoia sp. [MillerDa2005], Sequoia wellingtonia [Boraty1957], Thuja occidentalis [Boraty1957], Thuja sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [KosztaKo1988F]. Taxodiaceae: Cryptomeria japonica [Hender2011], Sequoiadendron giganteum [Deitz1979a], Sequoiadendron giganteum [Hender2011], Taxodium sp. [KosztaKo1988F]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [MillerDa2005] (Tasmania [Hudson1967]); New Zealand (South Island [Deitz1979a]). Nearctic: Canada [MillerDa2005] (British Columbia [MawFoHa2000], Ontario [MawFoHa2000]); United States of America (Arkansas [MillerDa2005], California [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [MillerDa2005], Delaware [MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Florida [MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Idaho [MillerDa2005], Indiana [MillerDa2005], Kansas [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Kentucky [MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [MillerDa2005], Michigan [MillerDa2005], Missouri [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [MillerDa2005], New York [MillerDa2005], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Oregon [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [MillerDa2005], South Carolina [MillerDa2005], Tennessee [MillerDa2005], Texas [MillerDa2005], Utah [MillerDa2005], Virginia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Washington [MillerDa2005], Wisconsin [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [MillerDa2005]; Brazil [MillerDa2005]; Chile [MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: Algeria [DanzigPe1998] [MillerDa2005]; Austria [KosztaKo1988F]; Azores [MillerDa2005]; Bulgaria [Kozar1985]; Canary Islands [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czechoslovakia [KosztaKo1988F]; Egypt [MillerDa2005]; France [KosztaKo1988F]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [KosztaKo1988F]; Greece [DanzigPe1998]; Hungary [KosztaKo1988F, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Italy [KosztaKo1988F]; Madeira Islands [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]; Malta [DanzigPe1998]; Morocco [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]; Netherlands [Jansen2001]; Norway [DanzigPe1998]; Poland [KotejaZa1969, SimonKa2011]; Portugal [DanzigPe1998]; Romania [Kozar1985]; Russia [KosztaKo1988F] (Caucasus [MillerDa2005]); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [DanzigPe1998]; Switzerland [KosztaKo1988F]; Turkey [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005]; Turkmenistan [MillerDa2005]; USSR [MillerDa2005]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [MillerDa2005]); United Kingdom (England [Boraty1957, MalumpBa2012]); Uzbekistan [MillerDa2005]; Yugoslavia [Kozar1983a].
BIOLOGY: Carulaspis juniperi living on Juniperus communis does not migrate to infest Viscum album (hemiparasitic on Pinus silvestris) even if the foliage of both plants is touching (Goidanich, 1960). C. juniperi has one generation per year. Oviposition begins in the middle of May and the eggs can be found until June. The crawlers appear during June and soon after settling moult into 2nd instars which can be found from about the middle of June until July. During the period of July through August, the males moult three times, passing through pre-pupal and pupal stages. Adult males emerge in August. During the same period, females moult only once into young adult females at the end of July or early August. After mating, the males die and the fertilized females overwinter without apparent change in size. In the following spring, they grow rapidly and after oviposition in May their dead and shrivelled bodies can be found under the scales together with batches of eggs (Boratynski, 1957). The juniper scale apparently has only 1 generation/year, although Brown and Eads (1967) stated "There is at least one generation annually and very likely several are produced." Mated adult females overwinter and begin laying eggs in March in warm areas to May in cooler regions (Johnson and Lyon 1976). Crawlers appear in late May in Delaware (Bray 1974), in late May or early June in Connecticut (Schread 1955), New Jersey (Allen and Weiss 1953), and Ohio (Neiswander 1951), and in June in Maryland (McComb and Davidson 1969), and Illinois (English 1970). Crawlers first appear in March or April in southern California (Brown and Eads 1967), but Gill (1997) suggests that this paper most likely refers to C. minima. Egg laying and crawler emergence continues over a 30 45 day period. Adult males may be present as early as mid July and as late as August in Ohio (Neiswander 1951, 1966). Males are winged. Winter kill is variable; Neiswander (1951) found 85% mortality in 1948 and 13% in 1950. Mussey and Potter (1997) studied the timing of egg hatch over a three-year period in Kentucky and reported that the day degree (DDF) requirement with a base of 45º F was 987 in 1992, 799 in 1993, and 791 in 1994. They found that flowering plant activity was a much better predictor of egg hatch than day degrees or absolute date. Egg hatch of juniper scale is closely correlated with 95% bloom of Ilex opaca and Cladrastris kentuckea. Garcia (1998) studied the interaction of this species on the fruit of Juniperus communis and the viability of the fruit. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of egg, nymphs, male and female adult by Bacetti (1960).
STRUCTURE: Eggs clear ochre. Adult female wine red (Baccetti, 1960). Adult females 0.5-2.0 mm in diameter, circular, moderately convex, white with yellow central or subcentral exuviae. Body yellow with green mottling. Male scale elongate, white, with terminal yellow exuviae and a slightly elevated median carina (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Carulaspis juniperi has often been misidentified as C. visci and C. minima. For more discussion see "systematics" of C. minima. C. juniperi can be told from other species of Carulaspis based on the following characters: pygidium with a marginal macroduct and gland spines between the median lobes, and abdominal segment VI without submarginal macroducts dorsally (Deitz, 1979a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a widespread and serious pest. Heavy juniper scale infestations cause foliage to turn yellow. Heavy populations cause needle drop and die back. Entire plants have been killed. Johnson and Lyon (1976) report this scale to be more serious in the eastern part of the United States. In California it is not a pest and seems to prefer the cooler parts of the state (Gill 1997). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 81 (female) [Key to Carulaspis adult females in New Zealand]; Kosztarab 1996: 433 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis of Northeastern North America]; Danzig 1993: 381 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 329 (female) [Key to the species of Carulaspis]; Lupo 1966: 42 (female) [Key to Carulaspis]; Boratynski 1957: 247 (female) [Key to the British species of Carulaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 203 (female) [as Carulaspis visci; Key to species of Carulaspis]; Borchsenius 1950b: 206 (female) [as Carulaspis visci; Key to species of Carulaspis]; Bodenheimer 1949: 87 (female) [as Diaspis visci; Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AbdElK1998 [life history: 306]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, illustration: 83, 86]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Babaev1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Baccet1960 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 64-90, 101-102]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203, 206-210]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 142-144]; BeardsGo1975 [taxonomy: 49]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 9]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87, 94-96]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host: 6]; Boraty1953 [illustration, taxonomy: 456, 468]; Boraty1955 [distribution, host: 67]; Boraty1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 247-249]; Boraty1968a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33, 34, 35]; BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 64]; BoratyWi1964 [taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 116]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 226]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 206]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 161]; Bouche1851 [description, host, taxonomy: 112]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,597]; Chiesa1948 [description, distribution: 178]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host: 96-97]; Comsto1916 [distribution, host: 557]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381-382]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; DarvasAbCa1994 [biological control, chemical control, life history: 54, 55, 56]; DarvasFaKo1985 [chemical control: 347]; DarvasZs1986 [chemical control: 341]; Davids1974 [chemical control, distribution, host: 4]; Davies1981 [taxonomy: 151]; Davies1983 [taxonomy: 144]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 101]; Deitz1979a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 459-460]; Deitz1979b [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 41]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-12]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 44]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 83]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 307]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 9,23]; Garcia1998 [distribution, host: 517-525]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127, 128]; Ghauri1962 [structure, taxonomy: 136, 212]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71, 72]; Goidan1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 9, 13, 15, 17]; GolanJa2002 [economic importance: 11]; GomezM1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-76]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 29]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 187]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8,29,81,84,86,224-22]; Henry1976 [biological control: 195]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 177]; HilburWe1984 [description, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 2]; Hudson1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 91]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 201]; Johnso1982 [taxonomy: 114]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 88-89]; Kaweck1962 [host, taxonomy: 22]; KnechtNe1959 [distribution, taxonomy: 90, 118]; Komosi1974a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 23-24]; Koszta1963 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 59-61]; Koszta1977a [host: 184]; Koszta1981 [host: 151]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 433, 434]; KosztaKo1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 149, 150-151]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 330-331]; Koteja1974b [structure, taxonomy: 84]; Koteja1976 [structure, taxonomy: 282]; KotejaLi1976 [structure, taxonomy: 678]; KotejaZa1969 [distribution, host: 367]; KotejaZa1983 [distribution: 483]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar1983a [distribution, host: 148]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar1999a [distribution, host: 141]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo1982 [distribution, host: 205]; KozarKo2002b [distribution: 376]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 74]; KozarTzVi1979 [distribution, host: 131]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; KozarzMi1984 [distribution, host: 406-407]; KozarzVl1981 [distribution: 16, 21, 23]; KozarzVl1982 [distribution, host: 195]; KreiteAuGe2006 [distribution, economic importance, host: 143]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 221]; Kuznet1970 [distribution, host: 1649-1651]; Lagows1998a [ecology: 65]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lindin1906b [taxonomy: 478]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 5]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 190]; Lindin1933c [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; Lupo1957a [taxonomy: 427]; Lupo1966 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 38, 42]; Lupo1966a [taxonomy: 42]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 52-53]; Malump2011a [host: 211]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, economic importance, host: 27,38-39,41]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 52-53]; Martin1983 [distribution: 50]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution: 44]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 1]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 91-93]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46-47]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 96]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 18]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 16]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Reh1904 [taxonomy: 30]; Reyne1957 [description, host, taxonomy: 26-27]; Schmut1951 [taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1952 [description, distribution, host: 573, 574]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 189-191]; Schmut1980 [taxonomy: 51]; Schude1975 [chemical control, host, illustration: 1]; Schude1979 [chemical control, host, illustration: 1]; Signor1869d [description, taxonomy: 437]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 239]; SoriaCaMu1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 273, 274, 276-282]; SoriaEsVi1996 [distribution, host, illustration: 247]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 338]; Stimme1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 19-20]; Stimme1977 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 19-20]; Stimme1979 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 222, 223, 224, 228]; Stoetz1976 [taxonomy: 323]; SwanPa1972 [host: 165]; Terezn1975 [taxonomy: 30, 31, 73, 105]; Terezn1982 [taxonomy: 62]; Terezn1986 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-64]; Vinis1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-66]; Weidha1968 [economic importance: 256]; Westco1973 [description, host, life history: 409]; Wheele1981 [biological control, distribution: 173]; Yanin1971 [distribution, host: 46]; Yanin1975 [taxonomy: 43]; Zahrad1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175-179]; Zahrad1972 [taxonomy: 428, 429]; Zahrad1977 [taxonomy: 120].
Carulaspis minima (Signoret)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis caruelii Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 736. Nomen nudum; discovered by Goidanich, 1960: 37-38. Notes: Targioni Tozzetti gives no description under this name, just that the host was Juniperi phoeniciae.
Diaspis minima Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 736. Nomen nudum; discovered by Goidanich, 1960: 37-38. Notes: Targioni Tozzetti gave no description under this name, just that the host was Thujae occidentalis. Targioni Tozzetti's original material is in Vienna (Boratynski, 1968a).
Diaspis carueli Signoret, 1869d: 436. Type data: ITALY: Orbitello, near Florence, ?/04/186?. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Synonymy by Boratynski, 1957: 246-251.
Diaspis minima Signoret, 1869d: 438-439. Type data: on Thuja occidentalis and T. cupressus. Syntypes. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: both sexes.
Diaspis visci; Leonardi, 1920: 192. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 160.
Carulaspis minima; Borchsenius, 1949d: 226. Change of combination.
Carulaspis Carueli; Baccetti, 1960: 26. Misspelling of species name.
Carulaspis caruelii; Borchsenius, 1966: 160. Change of combination.
Carulaspis carueli; Fetyko et al., 2010: 295. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: bermuda cedar scale [RosenDe1978]; juniper scale [Blicke1965]; minute cypress scale [Borchs1966].
FOES: Aphytis hispanicus [Watson2002a]. Dermanyssidae: Androlaelaps casalis [Gaprin1956]. Phytoseiidae: Typhlodromus baccettii [HertinSi1972]. Tyroglyphidae: Monieziella sp. [Gaprin1956], Tyrophagus putrescentiae [Gaprin1956]. ACARI Cheyletidae: Cheletogenes berlesei [Gaprin1956], Cheletogenes ornatus [Gaprin1956]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Cephaloscymnus occidentalis [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus distigma [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus renipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Exochomus quadripustulatus [HertinSi1972], Lindoruss lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Lotis neglecta [HertinSi1972], Microweisea suturalis [HertinSi1972], Pharoscymnus exiguus [HertinSi1972], Telsimia nitida [HertinSi1972], Telsimia sp. [HertinSi1972], Zagloba ornata [HertinSi1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus rufifrons [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis aonidiae [DeBachRo1976], Aphytis chilensis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Morley1909], Aphytis sp. [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Encarsia citrina [AbouEl2001], Encarsia lounsburyi [Hawkin1994], Prospaltella fasciata [Simmon1957], Prospaltellagus sp. [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Habrolepis rouxi [DeSant1979], Habrrolepis chrysomphali [DeSant1979]. Mymaridae: Alaptus aurantii [HertinSi1972], Alaptus sp. [HertinSi1972]. Thysanidae: Thysanus louisianae [HertinSi1972]. NEUROPTERA Coniopterygidae: Aleuropteryx juniperi [Wheele1981], Aleuropteryx simillima [Wheele1980].
HOSTS: Cephalotaxaceae: Cephalotaxus sp [Watson2002a]. Cupressaceae: Callitris sp. [MillerDa2005], Cupressocyparis sp. [MillerDa2005], Cupressus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cupressus sp. [PellizPoSe2011], Cuprocyparis leylandii [Hender2011], Juniperus sp. [MillerDa2005], Juniperus sp. [Hender2011], Platycladus sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Sequoia sp. [MillerDa2005], Thuja orientalis [Moghad2013], Thuja sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Biota [Borchs1966], Callitris articulata [McKenz1956], Cedrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana nana [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana stricta [Boraty1957], Chamaecyparis sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Cupressus arizonica [Goidan1960], Cupressus macrocarpa [WilliaWa1988], Cupressus sempervirens [ErlerKoTu1996], Juniperus bermudiana [Simmon1958a], Juniperus oxycedrus [Foldi2000], Juniperus virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973], Juniperus virginiana horizontalis [Boraty1957], Picea sp. [MillerDa2005], Sequoia giganteum [Goidan1960], Sequoia sempervirens [McKenz1956], Thuja cupressus [Signor1869d], Thuja occidentalis [Targio1868], Thuja sp. [PellizPoSe2011]. Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [Moghad2013]. Taxodiaceae: Cryptomeria sp. [KosztaKo1988F, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [Watson2002a]; Ethiopia [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Guinea [RosenDe1978, MillerDa2005]; South Africa [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]. Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Nakaha1981a]). Nearctic: Mexico [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (California [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923], Florida [FDACSB1982, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Britto1923], Missouri [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], New Mexico [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], New York [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Stimme1977, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Texas [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Utah [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Vermont [MillerDa2005], Virginia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Washington [MillerDa2005], West Virginia [Watson2002a]). Neotropical: Argentina [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Bermuda [Simmon1957, Luck1981, MillerDa2005]; Brazil [Watson2002a]; Chile [Charli1973, MillerDa2005]; Colombia [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Cuba [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Easter Island [WilliaWa1988]; Uruguay [MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: Algeria [RosenDe1978, MillerDa2005]; Armenia [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Austria [KosztaKo1988F, MillerDa2005]; Azores [MillerDa2005]; Bulgaria [KozarTzVi1979]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Egypt [Hall1922]; France [KosztaKo1988F, MillerDa2005]; Georgia (Georgia [Watson2002a]); Greece [Kozar1985, MillerDa2005]; Hungary [KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Kaussa1957, KozarFoZa1996, Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Israel [Bodenh1924, MillerDa2005]; Italy [KosztaKo1988F, MillerDa2005]; Jordan [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005, BenDov2006a]; Libya [Watson2002a]; Madeira Islands [MillerDa2005]; Morocco [RosenDe1978, MillerDa2005]; Portugal [RosenDe1978, MillerDa2005]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F, MillerDa2005]; Russia [KosztaKo1988F] (Caucasus [RosenDe1978], Krasnodar Kray [MillerDa2005]); Sardinia [PellizFo1996]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005]; Sweden [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Turkey [ErlerKoTu1996]; Ukraine [MillerDa2005] (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [RosenDe1978, MillerDa2005]); United Kingdom (England [Boraty1957, MillerDa2005]); Yugoslavia [ZakOga1967].
BIOLOGY: C. minima is typically a Mediterranean species and is found mostly in southern Europe, western Asia and south Africa (Bacetti, 1960). Carulaspis minima has one generation per year. Oviposition begins in the middle of May and the eggs can be found until June. The crawlers appear during June and soon after settling moult into 2nd instars which can be found from about the middle of June until July. During the period of July through August, the males moult three times, passing through pre-pupal and pupal stages. Adult males emerge in August. During the same period, females moult only once into young adult females at the end of July or early August. After mating, the males die and the fertilized females overwinter without apparent change in size. In the following spring, they grow rapidly and after oviposition in May their dead and shriveled bodies can be found under the scales together with batches of eggs (Boratynski, 1957). The minute cypress scale occurs mainly in the southern U.S. since it prefers a warm climate. It has 1 generation a year in the northern part of its distribution and possibly 2 in the south. Baccetti (1960) reported 2 generations a year in Italy and Boratynski (1957) found 1 generation in England. It is interesting that in the same locality in Italy, the minute cypress scale life cycle is about 2 weeks ahead of the juniper scale's life cycle, while in England, the opposite occurs. In Pennsylvania they are in synchrony (Stimmel 1979). In this state, the overwintering stage is the fertilized adult female; oviposition is in late April to mid-May; eggs hatch in about 1 week; peak crawler emergence is late May; second instars appear in mid-June; adults are present beginning in late June; and adult males were predominant in early July. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description of eggs, nymphs, adult male and female by Baccetti (1960).
STRUCTURE: Eggs lemon yellow. Adult female chestnut color with greenish tint, pygidium yellow. (Bacceti, 1960). Female scale rounded, dirty white. Male scale lengthened, very small, white, tricarinated (Signoret, 1869).
SYSTEMATICS: There has been much confusion about several species of the Carulaspis genus. Carulaspis minima and C. carueli have both been synonymized with C. visci (Lindinger, 1934) and have also been misidentified as C. juniperi. Targioni Tozzetti (1868) first proposed the names Diaspis minima and D. caruelii but gave no description, hence, his names must be considered nomen nuda. Signoret (1869d) is the author of both names as his descriptions were the first. Boratynski (1957) was the first to synonymize C. minima and C. carueli and although he did not follow page precedence by declaring C. minima the senior name, it is our opinion that his decision must be upheld as he was the first reviser of the species (according to Article 24 of the ICZN). Baccetti (1960) considered the names of Targioni Tozzetti to be nomina nuda and concurred that the author should be Signoret. He also agreed that C. minima and C. carueli were synonyms, but chose C. carueli as the senior name based on page preference. Danzig and Kerzhner (personal correspondence, 1999) argue that Boratynski cannot be considered as the first reviser because he examined and treated material of C. minima only. Thus, even though Boratynski specifically mentioned C. minima to have precedence over C. carueli, Danzig and Kerzhner believe that Boratynski's treatment has no validity as first reviser. Baccetti, on the other hand, examined material from the type localities of both species and followed the page precedence principle recommended in the ICZN (Recommendation 24A). We do not agree with the invalidation of Boratynski's act of synonymy as the first reviser simply because we find no mention of the requirement that the author examine authentic material of both species before making a decision as first reviser. Article 24(b) states "the first author to have subsequently cited together such names or nomenclatural acts published on the same date, or different original spellings of the same name, and to have chosen one of them to have precedence over the other(s), has determined the precedence of the chosen name, nomenclatural act or spelling..." Because C. minima has been used as the senior name by several authors and because Boratynski (in our opinion) is the first reviser, we consider C. minima to be the senior synonym.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a widespread and serious pest. Many species of Coccinellidae were introduced in Bermuda to control C. minima, but few species became established and they were unable to control C. minima. It is thought that predation of lizards (Anolis spp.) diminished the Coccinellidae populations to ineffective numbers (Simmonds, 1958a). This scale may be a serious pest of juniper. In Bermuda, in combination with Lepidosaphes pallida (Green), it nearly decimated the endemic Bermuda cedar, Juniperus bermudiana (Bennett and Hughes 1959). Damage to the host may include die back of the branches, leaf drop, and even death. Trees weakened by this scale are susceptible to other pests. Beardsley and González (1975) considered it to be one of the 43 principal armored scale pests in the world, and Miller and Davidson (1990) include it in their list of armored scale pests. Dekle (1977) indicated that this species is an important pest of ornamental hosts in commercial nurseries and control sprays with pesticides may be required. Gill (1982) considered it to be a minor pest of ornamental cypress and juniper in California. Gill (1997) stated that it was not a pest except in some wholesale nurseries. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 81 (female) [Key to Carulaspis adult females in New Zealand]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Kosztarab 1996: 433 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis of Northeastern North America]; Danzig 1993: 381 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 329 (female) [as Carulaspis carueli; Key to the species of Carulaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 79 (female) [Species of Carulaspis in the Tropical South Pacific Region]; Danzig 1971d: 844 (female) [as Carulaspis minima; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Lupo 1966: 43 (female) [Key to Carulaspis]; Danzig 1964: 649 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Boratynski 1957: 247 (female) [Key to the British species of Carulaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 203 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Borchsenius 1950b: 206 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Britton 1923: 366 (female) [as Diaspis carueli; Key to Diaspis of Connecticut]; Newstead 1901b: 152 (female) [as Diaspis Carueli; Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AbouEl2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 186]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Baccet1960 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 26, 64, 101-102]; Baccet1961 [distribution, illustration: 752-758]; BaetaN1954 [host: 192]; Baker1972 [description, distribution, host: 111]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203, 209, 210-212]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144-146]; BeardsGo1975 [taxonomy: 49]; BenDov2012 [distribution: 44]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; Bennet1974 [biological control: 88]; Bennet1974a [distribution, ecology: 226]; BennetHu1959 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 423]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 9]; Bielen1975 [physiology: 180]; BielenWe1967 [physiology: 118]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 294, 307]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Boraty1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 246-249, 251]; Boraty1968a [host, taxonomy: 33, 34]; BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 64]; BoratyWi1964 [taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1949d [taxonomy: 226]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 206]; Borchs1963a [taxonomy: 127]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 127]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host: 366, 367]; Brown1965 [taxonomy: 83-84]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 197]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-201]; ChalliWi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 220-222]; Charli1972 [taxonomy: 215]; Charli1973 [distribution, host: 113]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host: 310-311]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 86, 94, 96]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 459-460, 547, 555, 5]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 844]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203-204]; Davies1981 [taxonomy: 151]; Davies1983 [taxonomy: 144]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 101]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 144, 176]; DeMarz1996 [biological control, distribution: 135, 142]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 226, 311, 331]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 56]; FDACSB1982 [distribution, host: 10]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229, 231]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 83]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 307]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 9,23]; Gaprin1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 115-116, 133]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; GersonSc1981 [taxonomy: 201]; Gertss2011 [distribution, host: 43]; Ghauri1962 [structure, taxonomy: 142, 212]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: ill]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71, 73-74]; Goidan1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 23, 34]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 192-195]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 29]; Greath1989 [biological control: 31]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 191, 192, 275]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host: 33-34]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 548]; Hawkin1994 [biological control: 162]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy, distribution: 8,10,29,81,85-86,225]; Henry1976 [biological control: 195]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 177, 178]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 5, 7, 12, 21]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, economic importance, host: 88]; Kaussa1957 [distribution, host: 1]; Kaweck1962 [taxonomy: 22]; KnechtNe1959 [distribution, host, illustration: 90-92]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 433, 434, 436]; KosztaKo1978 [description, distribution, illustration: 149, 151]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 329-330]; Koteja1974b [structure, taxonomy: 84]; Kozar1983a [distribution, taxonomy: 148]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarTzVi1979 [distribution, host: 131]; KozarzMi1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 406-407]; Kuznet1966 [distribution, host: 46-47]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 221, 265]; Kuznet1970 [taxonomy: 1649]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 183, 192-195]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 125]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 144]; Luck1981 [biological control, distribution, host: 139]; Lupo1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122, 129-134]; Lupo1957a [taxonomy: 427]; Lupo1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 39, 43]; Lupo1966a [taxonomy: 42]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 52-53]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, economic importance, host: 28,38,41]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 52-53]; Martin1983 [distribution: 50]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 91]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 100]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 144]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 18]; Morley1909 [biological control: 257]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Myarts1972 [distribution: 54]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 395]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 16-17]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152, 162-165]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 204]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; NucifoWa2001 [distribution, host: 208]; Panis1981 [distribution: 7]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 311]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,297]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Rosen1978 [biological control, distribution: 25]; RosenDe1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 100-102]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 756]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 12]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 436, 438]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 4]; Simmon1958a [biological control, distribution, host: 601]; SoriaCaMu1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 273, 275-276]; Stimme1977 [chemical control, distribution, host: 19-20]; Stimme1977 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 19-20]; Stimme1979 [distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 222-229]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 736]; Terezn1966 [illustration, taxonomy: 32]; Terezn1967a [taxonomy: 474]; Terezn1968b [host: 44, 49]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18, 57, 73]; Terezn1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 62]; Terezn1986 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 65-66]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 67]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 67]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 147, 156, 157]; TerGri1969a [taxonomy: 91]; TripatTe1984 [life history: 24]; VieiraCaPi1983 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113-114]; Vinis1981a [taxonomy: 62]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Weidha1968 [taxonomy: 256]; Wheele1980 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 51]; Wheele1981 [biological control: 173]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 80]; Wilson1963 [biological control, distribution, host: 5]; Yanin1971 [taxonomy: 46]; Zagain1956 [taxonomy: 87]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 428]; ZakOga1967 [distribution, host: 215].
Carulaspis silvestrii LupoNOMENCLATURE:
Carulaspis silvestrii Lupo, 1966: 43-48. Type data: ITALY: on Juniperus. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Carulaspis silvestri; Danzig, 1993: 381. Misspelling of species name.
Carulaspis taxicola; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 204. Incorrect synonymy. Notes: This synonymy was entirely accidental, a lapsus calami (Danzig, personal communication, 26 October 1999).
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Italy [Lupo1966]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lupo (1966).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular or oval, depressed, dirty white in color (Lupo, 1966).
KEYS: Lupo 1966: 43 (female) [Key to Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; Lupo1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-48]; NucifoWa2001 [distribution, host: 208].
Carulaspis taxicola (Vayssière)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis taxicola Vayssière, 1913a: 124. Type data: ALGERIA: l'Atlas de Blida, on Taxus baccata, by M. Maire. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France.
Carulaspis taxicola; Borchsenius, 1966: 161. Change of combination.
HOST: Taxaceae: Taxus baccata [Vayssi1913a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Vayssi1913a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Vayssière (1913a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is rounded and white; larval and nymphal skins are yellow (Vayssière, 1913a).
CITATIONS: Baccet1960 [taxonomy: 64, 65]; Balach1927 [taxonomy: 182]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 206]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 161]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 204]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lindin1921 [taxonomy: 433]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 114]; Lindin1934e [taxonomy: 166]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 155]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 304]; Vayssi1913a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124].
Carulaspis visci (Schrank)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus visci Schrank, 1781: 296. Type data: AUSTRIA: on Viscum album.. Type depository: Sacramento: California State Collection of Arthropods, California Dept. Food & Agriculture, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Aspidiotus visci; Löw, 1872: 110. Change of combination.
Diaspis visci; Löw, 1872: 273. Change of combination.
Diaspis juniperi visci Lindinger, 1909b: 222-223. Type data: GERMANY: on Viscum album, 1908. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis taxicola; Balachowsky, 1927: 182. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 161.
Diaspis visor; Lindinger, 1932f: 201. Misspelling of species name.
Carulaspis visci; Ferris, 1941e: 49. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: mistletoe scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [VieiraCaPi1983]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis aonidiae [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis hispanicus [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis mytilaspidis [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis proclia [NikolsYa1966], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [NikolsYa1966], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [McGugaCo1962], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia lounsburyi [HuangPo1998].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Thuja sp. [Moghad2013]. Loranthaceae: Viscum album [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Austria [KosztaKo1988F]; Belgium [VerstrSe1969]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; Corsica [Foldi2003]; Czechoslovakia [KosztaKo1988F]; Egypt? [Ezzat1958]; France [Foldi2001]; Germany [KosztaKo1988F]; Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Hungary [KosztaKo1988F, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Moghad2013]; Italy [KosztaKo1988F]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Portugal [FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Sardinia [PellizFo1996] (The old record of Carulaspis visci (Schrank) is regarded as a misidentification of C. minima or, likely, of C.juniperi, with which. it was in the past confused, until the situation was clarified by Baccetti (1960). This is strengthen by the fact that the only host plant of the true C. visci, is Viscum album, and this epiphytic plant is absent in Sardinia (Zuber, 2004)); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [SoriaCaMu1993].
BIOLOGY: Carulaspis visci causes galls in the form of rounded swellings on the leaf of host. Scale is deeply imbedded in the center of a hemispheric cavity lined and covered with the follicle. The morphological alteration of the plant is caused by the hypotrophy of the parenchymatic cells in the area nearest to the insertion of the mouth stylets, and by the hypertrophy of the same tissue in the more distant parts of the mesophyll (Goidanich, 1960).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female is circular with the exuviae central; the scale is white, the exuviae dark yellow or brown (Comstock, 1883).
SYSTEMATICS: There has been much confusion about the species Carulaspis visci, C. juniperi, C. minima and C. caruelii(=C. minima). C. visci only occurs on mistletoe (Viscum spp.) and so records of it on any other host must be considered misidentifications of other Carulaspis species. All New Zealand records of C. visci are actually C. juniperi (Deitz, 1979a).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 381 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 844 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Lupo 1966: 42 (female) [Key to Carulaspis]; Danzig 1964: 649 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 203 (female) [Key to species of Carulaspis]; Borchsenius 1950b: 206 [Key to species of Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 25]; Baccet1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 23, 64]; Balach1927 [taxonomy: 182]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203, 206-210]; BeardsGo1975 [host: 48]; Boraty1957 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246-247]; Boraty1968a [host, taxonomy: 33, 34, 35]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 206]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 161]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 96-97]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 557-558]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 844]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381, 384-385]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204-205]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution, host: 12, 13]; Deitz1979a [distribution: 459]; Deitz1979b [distribution: 23]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 330, 331]; DouttDe1964 [distribution, host: 121]; Ezzat1958 [distribution: 244]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 49]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:49]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 9,23]; Goidan1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-12]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 507, 548, 552, 554,]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859, 1910]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 198]; Kaweck1962 [host: 22]; KnechtNe1959 [distribution, host, illustration: 90]; Korone1934 [pp. 85, 90]; KosztaKo1978 [illustration, taxonomy: 150, 151]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 331-332]; Kozar1983a [distribution, taxonomy: 148]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 133]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 5]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 222]; Lindin1911a [taxonomy: 31]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 134]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 146]; Low1872 [description, taxonomy: 275-277]; Lupo1966 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 38, 42]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 189]; McGugaCo1962 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 38, 53]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-93]; Meyer1987 [physiology: 128]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 144]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 35]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 18]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 196, 199, 204, 206,]; Panis1981 [distribution, taxonomy: 2, 7]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 311-312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; RosenDe1978 [taxonomy: 100, 102]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 756]; Savesc1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 23, 24]; Schran1781 [description: 296]; Signor1869c [description, host: 134]; Signor1877 [description, host, taxonomy: 603]; SoriaCaMu1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 273, 274-275]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 339]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139-140]; Terezn1959 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 684-685]; Vayssi1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 298]; VerstrSe1969 [biological control, distribution, host: 34-36]; VieiraCaPi1983 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 114-115]; Vinis1981a [host, taxonomy: 62]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 48]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 429].
Chionandaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionandaspis Takagi, 2003: 75-76. Type species: Chionandapsis ramicola Takagi, by original designation.
BIOLOGY: Females burrow under the twig or leaf epidennis. (Takagi, 2005)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: Females of Chionandaspis possess prominent median trullae and much reduced second trullae as in Cameronaspis. They are noted for having remarkably well developed, peculiarly shaped scleroses at the basal corners of the median trullae and elongate slender marginal and dorsal macroducts. The second-instar males of the type species and another species of Chionandaspis are characteristic in having a pair of broad projections at the apex of the pygidium. (Takagi, 2005)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description: 75-76]; Takagi2005 [description, taxonomy: 160].
Chionandaspis 91 Kc-H
No valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Chionandaspis 91 Kc-H Takagi, 2005: 153-174. Unavailable name.
HOST: Dipterocarpaceae: Hopea sp. [Takagi2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2005]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Some descriptive remarks in Takagi, 2005 and Takagi, 2008a.
STRUCTURE: The median trullae are separated from each other by a slender but distinct slit. In C 91Kc-H, only the mesal one of the marginal marcoducts occurring on the sixth abdominal segment is evidently longer than the other. It always appears at one extreme, which is relatively primitive to the other species in the genus.
SYSTEMATICS: This species was referred to the genus by Takagi in 2005, but it has not been named but tagged "C. 91Kc-H" owing to the inadequate condition of the single specimen available of the adult female.
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 161-162]; Takagi2008a [description: 121-122].
Chionandaspis foliicola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionandaspis foliicola Takagi, 2003: 77-78. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sarawak, Kuching district, Santubong (Damai Beach). Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML277.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Swintonia glauca [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the upper surface ofthe leaves, burrowing under a thin epidermal layer; tests thin and white, looking pale brownish through the epidermal layer. Males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves; tests white, made of fluffy wax. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body elongate; meso- and metathoarx and abd I-III lobed laterally, metathorax and abd I and II being especially strongly produced; pygidium obdeltate, produced apically so abruptly as to appear excavated subapically. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: Chionandaspis foliicola differs remarkably from Chionandaspis ramicola in the shape ofthe pygidium, which is excavated subapically, but it does resemble the latter species in the details of the pygidial apex and the dorsal macroducts. These species are also very similar in the second-instar males. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, illustration, host, physiology, taxonomy: 77, 107, 123-124].
Chionandaspis glutae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionandaspis glutae Takagi, 2008a: 117-126. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Pulau Pinang (Penang Island), Bukit Chendana, on Gluta elegans, 11/16/1991, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined). Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Gluta elegane [Takagi2008a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi2008a]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the lower surface of the leaf, burrowing into the leaf blade just beside the midrib or other veins. The burrow is visible through a tranparent upper epidermal layer of the leaf, showing a white patch within, which should be secreted wax or the test. (Takagi, 2008a)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Takagi, 2008a.
SYSTEMATICS: Among the five known species of the genus, Chionandaspis glutae is the most derivative in having fused median trullae in the adult and second-instar females, which are highly adapted to burrowing. (Takagi, 2008a) This species is very similar to the other two leaf-associated species, C. foliicola and C. Palawanensis, but differs from them in the following characters (C. foliicola and C. palawanensis in brackets): Pygidium with lateral margins straight [concave subapically]; median trullae fused together apically [set close together, but not fused], notched once on lateral margin [minutely serrate]; sclerosis occurring between bases of median trullae oblong [shaped like an inverted U]; both abd III and IV with submedian and submarginal series of dorsal macroducts [abd IV without submedian dorsal macroducts]; lateral macroducts occurring only on abd I and II [occurring also on meso- and metathorax]; no gland spines on thorax [with gland spines on meso and metathorax]. Furthermore it differs from C. foliicola in having the anus situated at the center of the pygidium [in C. foliicola", the anus is situated much posteriorly to the level of the vulva]. (Takagi, 2008a)
CITATIONS: Takagi2008a [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 117-126].
Chionandaspis palawanensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionandaspis palawanensis Takagi, 2003: 78. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Palawan, Brooke's point (Maasin Forest). Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. UPLB. Described: female.
HOST: Moraceae: Antiaris toxicaria [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the lower surface ofthe leaves, mostly on the midrib, burrowing under a thin translucent epidermal layer. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illlustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: Very similar to Chionandaspis foliicola, but distinguishable by the following characters: anus distinctly larger than a perivulvar disc pore, and situated at the level of the vulva; submedian microducts occurring on the ventral surface of abd IV enlarged, somewhat smaller than the dorsal macroducts of the segment. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration physiology, taxonomy: 78, 107, 125].
Chionandaspis ramicola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionandaspis ramicola Takagi, 2003: 76-77. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sarawak, Kuching district, Santubong (Damai Beach). Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ml-52. Described: both sexes.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Swintonia glauca [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females burrowing into the epidermis of the twigs. Males occurring mainly on the upper surface of the leaves; a few tests were found on the lower surface of the leaves and on the twigs; tests white, made of fluffy wax. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illlustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body elongate, stout; cephaloprothorax with a pair of small marginal protuberances a little anterior to the anterior spiracles; meso- and metathorax and abd I-III lobed laterally, especially metathorax and abd I and II strongly produced to form digiti form processes; pygidium broad, obdeltate. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, physiology, structure, illustration, taxonomy: 76, 107, 120-122].
Chionaspis SignoretNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis Signoret, 1868: 871. Type species: Coccus salicis Linnaeus. Subsequently designated by Cooley, 1899: 3, 9-10.
Phenacaspis Cooley & Cockerell in Cockerell, 1899a: 398. Type species: Chionaspis nyssae. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1953: 48.
Chianaspis; Froggatt, 1908: 489. Misspelling of genus name.
Fundaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 307. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936: 21.
Chiomaspis; Borchsenius, 1938: 139. Misspelling of genus name.
Marchaliella Bodenheimer, 1951: 331. Type species: Chionaspis lepineyi Balachowsky. Synonymy by Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 205.
Chionapsis; Mouillefert, 1903 in Lindinger, 1954: 620. Misspelling of genus name.
BIOLOGY: In some species of Chionaspis occurring on deciduous trees, leaf-feeding individuals are remarkably different from conspecific bark-feeding ones in the shape of the median lobes and the leaf-associated forms are interpreted as seasonal manifestations of ancestral phenotypes (Takagi, 1985).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed treatment of North American Chionaspis species by Liu et al. (1989).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1985) proposes the evolutionary scenario that Chionaspis originated in eastern Asia and invaded North America in a comparatively recent time. Some species of Chionaspis are phenotypically plastic for characters that have been used to define genera, specifically the shape of themedian lobes of the pygidium. Individuals developing on bark can have very differently shaped lobes from those on leaves (Takagi, 1990b). In a phylogenetic analysis by Morse and Normark, 2006, the six included species were scattered across five different places among the Diaspididae.
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 408 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 11 (female) [Key to the genera of the subtribe Chionaspidina in North America]; Danzig 1988: 721 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 326 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Chen 1983: 33 (female) [Key to genera of the Phenacaspidina]; Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1980b: 721 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 383 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini of Egypt]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Ghauri 1962: 213 (female) [Key to genera of Chionaspidina]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Bodenheimer 1952: 333 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Zahradník 1952: 98 (female) [Schlüssel zur bestimmung der gattungen der Cechoslovakischen Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 373 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 61 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [Key to genera]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 44 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; Borchsenius 1936: 138 (female) [Key to species of Diaspinae]; Kuwana 1933a: 45 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 97 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 12 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 361 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; Hollinger 1923: 7 (female) [Genera of Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 307 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini]; Leonardi 1920: 28 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Brain 1919: 229 (female) [Key to genera near Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 206 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Robinson 1917: 16 (female) [Synoptic table of Diaspinae genera]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 262 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Lindinger 1913: 65 (female) [Gruppe Diaspides]; Newstead 1901b: 79 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [description, taxonomy: 80, 88]; Ashmea1891 [taxonomy: 101]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 170, 171, 317-318, 3]; BerlesLe1898a [taxonomy: 11]; Bodenh1924 [taxonomy: 21]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 30, 40-41]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 331]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 332, 333]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 45]; Borchs1937a [description, taxonomy: 97, 98, 109]; Borchs1938 [taxonomy: 138]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 192, 212-213]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 164, 191-192]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 94, 118]; Brain1918 [taxonomy: 116]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 229]; Britto1923 [description, taxonomy: 361]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 163]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 6-7, 63-66]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 80-82]; Cocker1893d [description: 9]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy: 4]; Cocker1897r [distribution, taxonomy: 69]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1905b [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Comsto1881a [description: 313]; Comsto1883 [description, taxonomy: 54, 97]; Comsto1916 [description, taxonomy: 462, 515, 558]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 8-10]; Cooley1903 [taxonomy: 48]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 645, 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; Danzig1988 [description, taxonomy: 721, 722-723]; Danzig1993 [description, taxonomy: 317]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 205-206]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 262, 263-264, 276]; Dougla1886 [taxonomy: 245]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; EzzatAf1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 383]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 213, 237]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 22, 24, 42, 54]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: SI-13, SI-91, SI-118]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46, 75]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 11]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 42]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 62]; Ferris1955d [description, taxonomy: 41-43]; Ferris1956 [description, taxonomy: 67]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 26, 27]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 40, 100]; Frogga1914 [description, taxonomy: 985-986]; Fullaw1932 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 97, 103]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 213]; Gill1997 [p. 74]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 44, 213]; GomezM1946 [taxonomy: 61]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, description: 24]; GrandpCh1899 [taxonomy: 9]; Green1896e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Green1899a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 105]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1927 [distribution, taxonomy: 3]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 507, 521, 528, 543,]; Hollin1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 7, 68, 69]; Jorgen1934 [p. 277]; Korone1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 51]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54, 90]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 436-438]; KosztaKo1988F [p. 332]; Kuwana1926 [distribution, taxonomy: 7, 8, 30]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 2-3]; Kuwana1931a [description, taxonomy: 1-2]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; LagowsHo2012 [taxonomy: 60-61]; Lawson1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 206, 259]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 225]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 4, 6]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1913d [taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 181, 185, 193]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; LinKoGu2013 [molecular data, phylogeny: 257]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 11-18]; Low1882c [taxonomy: 522]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 270]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 307, 308, 337-338]; Mamet1951 [distribution, taxonomy: 227]; Maskel1882 [taxonomy: 216]; Maskel1887 [taxonomy: 39, 54]; Maskel1889 [taxonomy: 102]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 27]; Morgan1888a [taxonomy: 47]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 35, 153]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Myers1927LE [distribution, taxonomy: 342]; Newste1901b [description, taxonomy: 79, 179-180]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 12]; Robins1917 [description, taxonomy: 16, 20]; RuizCa1944 [distribution, taxonomy: 57]; Sander1904a [taxonomy: 31]; Schmut1959 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 176, 228-229]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 442]; Silves1939 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 790-791]; Takagi1961 [description, taxonomy: 4, 20, 33, 34]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100, 101]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 69-70]; Takagi1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 5-9]; Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 154]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 109]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 17]; Takaha1952a [description, taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1953 [taxonomy: 48]; Tang1986 [p. 234]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 58-59]; Varshn2002 [catalogue, distribution: 58-59]; Varshn2005 [catalogue: 161, 163]; Wang1982c [description, taxonomy: 46, 47, 82, 83, 113]; WilliaWa1988 [p. 80]; Xie1998 [taxonomy: 133]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 223]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 98, 183]; Zimmer1948 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 373, 384].
Chionaspis acer (Takagi & Kawai)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis acer Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 112. Type data: JAPAN: Tokyo and Amagi-san, Sizuoka-ken, on Acer palmatum, by S. Kawai. Syntypes. Type depositories: Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan, and Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis acer; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 30. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Acer palmatum [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kuwana (1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis acer is close to C. sozanica, which occurs in Taiwan on Acer, but is distinguished by lacking submedian dorsal macroducts on abdominal segment VI (Takagi & Kuwana, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution: 37-38]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution: 293]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 206]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 88]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 72]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host: 38]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111, 112]; TakagiKa1967 [physiology: 30, 38].
Chionaspis acericola HollingerNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis acericola Hollinger, 1923: 20-21. Type data: UNITED STATES: Missouri, Gentry County, on Acer saccharinum, 1916, by H.B. Parks. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Although most of Hollinger's material is in the USNM, we are unable to locate material of Chionaspis acericola.
COMMON NAMES: maple chionaspis [Hollin1923]; maple scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer rubrum [Koszta1963], Acer saccharinum [Hollin1923], Acer saccharum [Ferris1937], Acer sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Betulaceae: Betula nigra [LiuKoRh1989]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus sp. [LiuKoRh1989]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Georgia [LiuKoRh1989], Maryland [McCombDa1969], Missouri [Hollin1923], North Carolina [LiuKoRh1989], Ohio [Koszta1963], Pennsylvania [Sleesm1945], Texas [Ferris1937]).
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis acericola overwinters in egg stage and there were unhatched eggs under female scales as late as April 24, 1960 (Kosztarab, 1963).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Hollinger (1923), Ferris (1937) and Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Male scale small, slender, more or less oval, exuvia terminal and light brown, about one third the length of the female scale. Female scale is whitish, often partly covered with extraneous adhesive material, about 2 mm long; more or less broadly pyriform to irregular in shape; flat and rather thin; exuviae relatively large (Hollinger, 1923).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1937) states that Chionaspis acericola is quite distinct. It can be told from C. gleditsiae and C. parkii (= C. platani) by paying careful attention to the degree of fusion of the median lobes, the nature of their zygosis and the distribution of the dorsal ducts.
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 440 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 17 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1971: 282 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 19 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri].
CITATIONS: Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-14]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19-21]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-63]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 441-443]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-22]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 1]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 282]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 17]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44, 47]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 37]; TippinBe1970b [taxonomy: 1023].
Chionaspis acuta DanzigNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis acuta Danzig, 1976: 3. Type data: USSR: Maritime Province, on Rhamnus ussuriensis, 22/06/1963, by E. Danzig. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Illust.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Celastrus orbiculatus [Tang1986]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus ussuriensis [Danzig1976].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China (Liaoning [Tang1986]); Russia (Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1986a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Danzig (1986a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female fist lobe is triangular, notched, diverging at an acute angle. L2 triangular, tapering, inner lobule longer, with notched margins, outer short. L3 not developed (Danzig, 1986a).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis acuta resembles C. discadenatus in the arrangement of ducts and pectens (Danzig, 1986a).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 319 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of the Far East USSR]; Danzig 1986a: 368 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1980b: 310 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Danzig1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 5]; Danzig1977b [distribution, host: 51]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76, 310, 315, 317]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 368, 373, 375-376]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 723]; Danzig1993 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 206]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host: 38]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 299]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 77].
Chionaspis agonis FullerNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis agonis Fuller, 1897b: 1344. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, on Agonis flexuosa. Unknown type status. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Chionaspis agonidis Lindinger, 1907a: 20. Unjustified emendation.
Duplachionaspis agonis; MacGillivray, 1921: 335. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis agonis; Ferris, 1955d: 44. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Agonis flexuosa [Fuller1897b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Fuller1897b]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, long, narrow. Last segment of female has 6 lobes; median short, wide and conspicuous, remainder inconspicuous. Male puparium faintly carinated (Fuller, 1897b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 335 (female) [as Duplachionaspis agonis; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 986]; Fuller1897b [description, distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host: 471]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 20]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 335].
Chionaspis agranulata ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis agranulata Chen, 1983: 7-8. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on Fagaceae tree. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis agranulaxa; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 206. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fagaceae [Chen1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
STRUCTURE: Body of adult female elongate, slender. Median lobes stout and plump, wider than long, second lobes very small, but inner lobule pronounced. Dorsal macroducts tend to become smaller from the caudal rows forward (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis agranulata is close to C. lithocarpi, but can be distinguished by the total absence of thoracic granules on the ventral side of the body and by the number and size variation of dorsal macroducts (Chen, 1983). C. agranulata also resembles C. sivapuriana in having squat, broadly rounded median lobes. C. agranulata differs from C. sivapuriana in the basal zygosis of the median lobes not much produced anteriorly, in having many small submedian dorsal ducts on the 2nd to 5th abdominal segments, in the disc pores associated with the anterior spiracle much fewer (4-10), in lacking disc pores at the posterior spiracles, etc (Takagi, 1985).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 7 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8, 90]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19, 38]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78].
Chionaspis alnus KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis alnus Kuwana, 1928: 7-8. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Alnus japonica, by S.I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis alnicola Lindinger, 1949: 211. Unjustified replacement name for Chionaspis alni Signoret; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 118. Notes: Lindinger (1949) created the replacement name Chionaspis alnicola, stating that the species name C. alnus was improperly formed and should have been C. alni. Since C. alni was described by Signoret in 1869, Lindinger suggested a replacement name for what he thought was the junior homonym. However, the original species name Chionaspis alnus is valid and therefore the replacement name is invalid.
Phenacaspis alnus; Borchsenius, 1950b: 198. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis alnicola; Ferris, 1955d: 44. Change of combination.
Chionaspis betulae Chen, 1983: 90. Type data: CHINA: Liaoning, Shenyan, on Betula platyphylla, ?/06/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1984b: 129. Homonym of Chionaspis betulae Tippins & Beshear 1970b.
Chionaspis cheni Takagi, 1985: 21. Replacement name for Chionaspis betulae Chen 1983.
COMMON NAMES: alder scale [Danzig1986a]; Japanese alder scale [KSPP1972].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus kuwanae [Ivanov1972]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Apterncyrtus microphagus [HertinSi1972]. Mymaridae: Gonatocerus sp. [HertinSi1972]. Platygasteridae: Allotropa sp. [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus hirsuta [Borchs1938], Alnus japonica [Kuwana1928], Alnus sp. [Muraka1970], Betula platyphylla [Tang1984b], Betula sp. [Takagi1985]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes sachalinensis [Danzig1986a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [Tao1999] (Liaoning [Tang1984b]); Japan (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [Kuwana1928], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Mongolia [Danzig1986a] [Takagi1985]; Russia (Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1986a], Sakhalin Oblast [Danzig1986a]); South Korea [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: Eggs hibernate, nymphal emergence near Novoaleksandrovsk was observed in late May and imago was seen in late July. Egg laying took place in early September. In the subtropical regions of Korea and Japan, there are two generations per year, females of the summer generation live on leaves (Danzig, 1986a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1928) and Danzig (1986a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female roughly parallel-sided, widest across the metathorax. Dorsal pores in at least 6 rows (Ferris, 1955d).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis alnus somewhat resembles C. wistariae, except the anterior group of 3rd row and posterior row of dorsal gland orifices are smaller than the other groups; Also, the orifices in each group of circumgenital gland orifices are numerous (Kuwana, 1928).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 319 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of the Far East USSR]; Danzig 1986a: 367 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1980b: 310 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 33 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 55 (female) [as Chionaspis alnus; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 354]; Borchs1937 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 113]; Borchs1937a [host: 255]; Borchs1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139-140]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 198]; Borchs1963a [host, taxonomy: 186]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 118-119]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 90]; Danzig1977a [distribution: 202]; Danzig1977b [distribution: 40, 43, 48, 51, 55]; Danzig1978 [distribution, host: 19]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 310, 312-313]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 367, 369-371]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 723]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-45]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 188]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Ivanov1972 [biological control, distribution, host]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 288-290]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KSPP1972 [taxonomy: 105]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 7-8]; Lindin1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 211]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 88]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 309-310]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host: 24, 33]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 8, 21, 22, 38-39]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 38]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 8]; Takaha1953 [taxonomy: 55]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host, illustration: 8]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 299]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 77, 78]; TelengBo1936 [taxonomy: 77].
Chionaspis americana JohnsonNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis americana Johnson, 1896: 150-151. Type data: UNITED STATES: Illinois, on Ulmus americana. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, and Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female.
Chionaspis furfurus ulmi Cockerell, 1897m: 766. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Brownsville, on elm, by C.H.T. Townsend. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1985: 50. Notes: We have been unable to locate type material of this species either in the USNM or the BMNH.
Chionaspis furfura ulmi; Fernald, 1903b: 219. Misspelling of species name.
Fundaspis americana; MacGillivray, 1921: 338. Change of combination.
Jaapia americana; Lindinger, 1932f: 200. Change of combination.
Chionaspis ulmi; Borchsenius, 1966: 101. Change of status.
COMMON NAMES: Elm chionaspis [Johnso1896]; elm scurfy scale [Blicke1965, Borchs1966]; elm tree white scale [MerrilCh1923]; white elm scale [Britto1920].
FOES: ACARI Acaridae: Thyreophagus entomophagus [WillouKo1974]. Camisiidae: Nothrus sp. [WillouKo1974]. Cheyletidae: Cheyletia pyriformis [WillouKo1974]. Cymbaeremaeidae: Scapheremaeus sp. [WillouKo1974]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [WillouKo1974]. Phytoseiidae: Typhlodromus longipilis [WillouKo1974]. Saproglyphidae: Czenspinskia lordi [WillouKo1974]. Tarsonemidae: Tarsonemus smithi [WillouKo1974]. Tydeidae: Tydeus sp. [WillouKo1974]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bivulnerus [WillouKo1974]. DIPTERA Chamaemyiidae: Leucopis nigricornis [Fulmek1943]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis diaspidis [Koszta1963], Aphytis proclia [RosenDe1979], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [WillouKo1974], Coccophagus lycimnia [WillouKo1974], Marietta pulchella [WillouKo1974], Physcus varicornis [Giraul1911a], Physcus variicornis [Morley1909]. Encyrtidae: Aphycus lounsburyi [WillouKo1974], Aphycus pulvinariae [WillouKo1974], Aphycus sp. [WillouKo1974], Apterencyrtus microphagus [WillouKo1974], Blastothrix longipennis [WillouKo1974], Perissopterus pulchellus [WillouKo1974], Plagiomerus diaspidis [WillouKo1974], Prospaltella elongata [WillouKo1974]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora pulchra [Giraul1913]. Thysanidae: Thysanus pulcher [WillouKo1974].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Carpinus caroliniana [LambdiWa1980], Carpinus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Morus [Borchs1966], Morus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [Takagi1985, MillerDa2005], Syringa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Platanaceae: Platanus occidentalis [Koszta1963], Platanus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Crataegus coccinea [DietzMo1916a], Crataegus sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus sp. [Takagi1985, MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [MillerDa2005]. Tiliaceae: Tilia sp. [Takagi1985, MillerDa2005]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Ulmus americana [Johnso1896], Ulmus rubra [LambdiWa1980], Ulmus sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Takagi1985, MillerDa2005], Colorado [MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Delaware [MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Florida [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Scott1900, MillerDa2005], Illinois [Johnso1896, MillerDa2005], Indiana [DietzMo1916a, MillerDa2005], Iowa [DrakeGu1931, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Fernal1903b, MillerDa2005], Michigan [MillerDa2005], Minnesota [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Herric1911, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005], Nebraska [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [MillerDa2005], New York [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Sleesm1945, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island, South Carolina [MillerDa2005], South Dakota [Severi1920, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980, MillerDa2005], Texas [Cocker1897m, MillerDa2005], Virginia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], West Virginia [MillerDa2005], Wisconsin).
BIOLOGY: In Missouri, Chionaspis americana is thought to have three broods (Hollinger, 1923). C. americana overwinters in the egg stage and the eggs hatch in May. An average of 57 eggs per female were counted (Kosztarab, 1963). This species has 2 generations a year and overwinters in the egg stage. Crawlers have been reported in May in Delaware, Illinois, and Ohio, and late April to May in Virginia. In Virginia, Willoughby and Kosztarab (1974) report that first instars molt to second instars in late May and early June. Adults appear in June and July. Females lay eggs in July. Crawlers of the second generation hatch in July and develop into adults in late August and early September. Overwintering eggs are laid in October and November. Females occur mainly on the bark while males prefer the undersides of leaves. Adult males are predominantly apterous in the fall generation and apterous and brachypterous in the spring. Hollinger (1923) indicated that the species may have 3 "broods" in Missouri. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kosztarab (1963) and by Willoughby & Kosztarab (1974). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female oystershell shaped, white or grayish white, 1.5-2.5 mm in length. Female is spindle shaped, segments deeply lobed, reddish brown, length on slide1.0-1.3 mm. Eggs are ovoid and yellowish red (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Prominent characters of Chionaspis americana include: male scale distinctly tricarinate; median lobes projecting; fused along most of their inner margins; apex rounded; with two notches on outer margin midway of its length; inner lobule of second pair of lobules notched on outer margin midway of its length; anal opening about central in pygidium; circumgenital gland pores with limits of variations as follows: anterior median (7 to 38), anterior lateral (8 to 42), posterior lateral (7 to 30)(Hollinger, 1923).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Chionaspis americana is considered to be of economic importance in Missouri as it is a great pest to the American elm. It can yellow and destroy the host leaves, causing whole branches to die (Hollinger, 1923). Miller & Davidson (1990) also list this insect as a pest. The elm scurfy scale has been treated as a pest in Connecticut (Britton and Friend 1935), Iowa (Drake 1934), Michigan (Pettit 1928), Minnesota (Lugger 1900), Ohio (Houser 1908), and Pennsylvania (Dodge and Rickett 1943, Trimble 1929). In Missouri it has been reported to kill elm twigs, branches, and sometimes small trees. Large trees are weakened by heavy infestations. The feeding of second instar males on leaves causes small chlorotic spots (Hollinger 1923). Miller and Davidson (1990) treat this species as an occasional economic pest. Note that most records of damage are older than the 1950's. The species has not been reported as a pest in recent years. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 75 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 134 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 15 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1971: 280 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 49 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 19 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 263 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Baker1972 [distribution, economic importance, host: 108]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 326]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 9]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 292, 305]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 101]; Britto1905 [distribution, host: 10]; Britto1920 [taxonomy: 64]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362-363]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 136-140]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1897m [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 766]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 41-43]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 269]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9, 32]; DeSant1940 [biological control: 35]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 263, 264-265]; Dougla1912 [distribution, host, illustration: 185-187]; DrakeGu1931 [p. 29]; DrakeGu1931 [chemical control, distribution, host, life history: 13]; Essig1926 [biological control: 828]; Felt1901 [distribution, host: 360]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213-214, 219]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 54]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-15]; Ferris1942 [description, taxonomy: SIV-446:49]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 23, 34]; Garcia1912 [biological control, distribution: 131]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77]; GillMiDa1982 [description, taxonomy: 11, 13, 14, 17]; Giraul1909 [distribution, host, life history: 355]; Giraul1911a [biological control, distribution, host: 183]; Giraul1913 [biological control, distribution: 197, 217]; Hamilt1936 [economic importance, host: 155]; Harned1928 [taxonomy: 24]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-24]; Herric1935 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 101-102]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19, 21-22, 69]; Houser1918a [distribution, host: 290-291]; HowellTi1976 [taxonomy: 179]; Hunter1900 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102-103]; Hunter1902 [distribution, host: 118, 139-140]; Johnso1896 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 150-151]; Johnso1896a [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 390-393]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, host, illustration: 322]; King1900c [distribution, host: 117]; King1902b [distribution, host: 62]; KnipscMiDa1976 [taxonomy: 5-12]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-65]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 443-445]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 260]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 200]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; LiuKoRh1989 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Lugger1900 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 238]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307, 338]; Mani1976 [biological control: 63]; McAtee1926 [ecology: 87]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 1]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 282, 284-285]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 93]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-30]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212-213]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 102]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 17]; Newell1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152-154]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Rao1953 [taxonomy: 64]; Robiso1977 [structure: 45, 47]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 756]; Ruhl1914 [taxonomy: 39]; Ryan1946 [distribution, economic importance: 124]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-44]; Schuma1919a [taxonomy: 305]; Scott1900 [distribution, host: 52]; Severi1920 [distribution: 10]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44]; Stoetz1976 [description, taxonomy: 323]; SwanPa1972 [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 269]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 69]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 23, 38]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 37]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 398]; WillouKo1974 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 5-9, 14-53].
Chionaspis arkhola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis arkhola Takagi, 1985: 11-14. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Dunche and Syabru, on Lithocarpus elegans (=L. spicata), 17/09/1975 and 30/09/1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus elegans [Varshn2002], Lithocarpus sp. [Takagi1985]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1985].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
STRUCTURE: Takagi (1985) states that "it is noteworthy that the spiracular disc pores are 4-locular in this species, because, so far as I am aware, this type of spiracular disc pores occurs only in a few peculiar genera (Haliaspis, Collubia)."
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis arkhola is similar to C. himalaica, another species associated with Quercus (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-14, 38]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59].
Chionaspis austriaca LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis austriaca Lindinger, 1912b: 252. Type data: AUSTRIA: Piesting, on Pinus laricio nigricans. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Chionaspis barbeyi Balachowsky, 1930d: 267. Type data: SPAIN: Sierra del Nieves, Andalusia, on Abies pinsapo, ?/05/1929, by M. Barbey. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1957: 547.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) austriaca; Balachowsky, 1930d: 267-269. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis austriaca; Lindinger, 1932f: 193. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Austrian pine scale [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies pinsapo [Balach1930d], Pinus austriaca [Lindin1921].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Austria [Lindin1931a]; Corsica [Schmut1959]; France [Schmut1959, Foldi2001]; Hungary [KosztaKo1988F, KozarKoFe2013]; Italy [Schmut1959]; Spain [Balach1930d]; Switzerland [Schmut1959]; Yugoslavia [KosztaKo1988F].
BIOLOGY: This species was found at altitudes of 1800 m (Balachowsky, 1935b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kosztarab & Kozár (1988).
STRUCTURE: Test of female wide oystershell-shaped, white with yellowish exuviae. Adult female oval, red, about 1mm long, .5 mm wide (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1985) states that this species is "unretainable in Chionaspis," but does not say where it should be placed.
KEYS: Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 333 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 333 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Schmutterer 1959: 229 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Chionaspis-Arten]; Balachowsky 1954e: 320 (female) [Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Balachowsky 1930d: 266 (female) [Tableau de détermination des Chionaspis Sign. (sensu lato) vivant aux dépens des Conifères]; Balachowsky 1930d: 267 (female) [as Chionaspis Barveyi; Tableau de détermination des Chionaspis Sign. (sensu lato) vivant aux dépens des Conifères]; MacGillivray 1921: 330 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1930d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 266-268]; Balach1935b [distribution, host: 262]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 320, 336-338]; Balas1938 [distribution, taxonomy: 40-41]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 96]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 151]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 224-227]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 7, 10]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 95]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host: 153]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333]; KozarKo1982 [p. 205]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, structure: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lindin1912b [description: 252]; Lindin1921 [host: 432]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 144, 147]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 20]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 193]; Lindin1934e [taxonomy: 164]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 151, 154]; Lindin1943b [distribution, host: 217]; Lindin1943c [taxonomy: 248]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 616]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 547]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 330]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 52-53]; MalumpKa2011a [description, host, illustration: 52-53]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 50]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 72]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 229, 233-235]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 338]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 44]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 174]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 430].
Chionaspis brachycephalon Vea et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis brachycephalon Vea et al., 2012: 41-44. Type data: MEXICO; Durango state, Navios, 23°53.95'N, 105°2.83'W, on needle of Pinus cooperi Blanco, 09/24/2007, by R. Gwiazdowski and A. Garcia Arévalo. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Mexico: Coleccion Entomologica, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico; type no. D1765A. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus cooperi [VeaGwNo2012], Pinus pseudostrobus [VeaGwNo2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Durango [VeaGwNo2012], Nayarit [VeaGwNo2012]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed illustration, description and Diagnostic morphological characters for six species of pine-feeding Chionaspis by Vea et al. (2012)
STRUCTURE: All pine-feeding Chionaspis discussed in Vea et al (2012), including C. heterophyllae and C. pinifoliae, are indistinguishable by eye in the field. The adult female for all species possesses a white oystershell-shaped and slightly convex cover, with the amount of posterior expansion varying according to the diameter of host needles. Body elongate, color varying from yellow when immature to reddish brownish in specimens containing eggs, with lateral protrusion on the anterior abdominal segments. Found on needles. (Vea et al.2012)
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis brachycephalon Vea differs from other Chionaspis by the following combination of characters : small head, gland spine formula variable from 1-1-1 to 2-2-2 (median: 2-2-2), microduct formula also variable from 2-2-2 to 3-3-4 (median: 3-2-2); numerous marginal gland spines on abdominal segments 3 to 5, absent from abdominal segment 1 and 2; variable number of notches present on all pygidial lobes. (Vea et al. 2012)
KEYS: Vea et al. 2012: 53-54 (female).
CITATIONS: VeaGwNo2012 [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-44].
Chionaspis broughae Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis broughae Williams & Watson, 1988: 82. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Trobriand Is, Kiriwina, on dicotyledon, 27/10/1985, by E.J. Brough. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Cyperaceae: Cyperus sp. [SureshMo1996]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [SureshMo1996]. Poaceae: Cenchrus ciliaris [SureshMo1996], Cenchrus glauca [SureshMo1996]. Rhizophoraceae: Palmarosa sp. [SureshMo1996]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]. Oriental: India (Karnataka [SureshMo1996], Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis broughae seems to be related to C. linderae, in the general arrangement of the dorsal ducts and the shape of the median lobes. It differs from C. linderae in possessing 3 pairs of well-developed lobes instead of 2, and in the development of the prosomal tubercles (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Lagowska & Hodgson 2012: 66 (female) [Key to adult female Diaspididae closely related to “Chionaspis” recorded from the tropical South Pacific and New Zealand]; Williams & Watson 1988: 80 [Key to species of Chionaspis of the Tropical South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: LagowsHo2012 [taxonomy: 66]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 250]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80, 82].
Chionaspis cacti Kuwana & MuramatsuNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis cacti Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a: 648-649. Type data: GERMANY: taken in Tokyo, on cactus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Cactaceae [KuwanaMu1931a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Germany [KuwanaMu1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana & Muramatsu (1931a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, convex, white. Pygidium of female with 2 pairs of lobes, short; median pair much smaller than the 2nd. Cicumgenital gland orifices in five groups, median of 9-12, cephalolaterals 14-19, caudolaterals 13-17 (Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1957) suggested that Chionaspis cacti Kuwana could be a junior synonym of Optuniaspis philococcus, but Borchsenius (1966) rejected this idea. Although he did not assign the species to a new genus, Takagi (1985) states that Chionaspis cacti is unretainable in Chionaspis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 96]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; KuwanaMu1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 648-649, 657]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 547]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 44].
Chionaspis camphora (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis camphora Chen, 1983: 68-69. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Chengdu, on Cinnamomum camphora, 1973. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora [Chen1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Tao1999], Hunan [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis camphora is similar to Pseudaulacaspis ericacea in general appearance. The main differing characters are: in C. camphora, the antennae are separated much more widely than that of P. ericacea, the number of anterior spiracular disk pores is fewer, the median lobes are quite different in external appearance, and without a pair of small setae between them. Also, the dorsal ducts are arranged more irregularly and with more number, and their distribution is an important trait to distinguish it from other species (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 64 [Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68, 69, 94]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 192]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 300]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78].
Chionaspis caryae CooleyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis caryae Cooley, 1898: 86-87. Type data: UNITED STATES: Washington D.C., on Carya sp. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 26. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Fundaspis caryae; MacGillivray, 1921: 338. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: hickory chionaspis [Hollin1923]; hickory scale [Dekle1965c]; hickory scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Cornaceae: Nyssa sylvatica [Amos1933]. Juglandaceae: Carya alba [LiuKoRh1989], Carya glabra [LiuKoRh1989], Carya illinoensis [Dekle1965c], Carya laciniosa [Amos1933], Carya ovata [Koszta1963], Carya sp. [Koszta1963], Carya tomentosa [Koszta1963], Juglans nigra [DietzMo1916a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Connecticut [Britto1920], District of Columbia [Cooley1899], Florida [MerrilCh1923], Indiana [DietzMo1916a], Iowa [Koszta1963], Kansas [Ferris1942], Louisiana [LiuKoRh1989], Missouri [Hollin1923], North Carolina [LiuKoRh1989], Ohio [Koszta1963], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928], Virginia [Koszta1996]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustration by Cooley (1898), Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female irregular, oystershell-shaped, convex, dirty white, 1.5-2 mm long, exuviae brown. Female elongate, spindle-shaped, segments produced laterally, 1.0 mm long on slide (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Cooley (1899) states: "This species has no near relatives so far as is known, the only insect resembling it being Chionaspis americana, which also has the inner edges of the median lobes fused together. The two species can be readily distinguished by the lobes, C. americana being distinctly notched, while in C. caryae they are entire."
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: In some sections of the United States, Chionaspis caryae has proven injurious to young hickory trees, malforming the branches and twigs (Hollinger, 1923). Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 15 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; Britto1920 [distribution: 64]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 363]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cooley1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86-87]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 40-41]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 33]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264, 266]; DoaneVaCh1936 [distribution, host: 377]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-386, SIV-446: 50]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 22, 69]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62, 65-66]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 445]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 263-264]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22, 24-27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 338]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 17]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Quayle1938a [p. 398]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 44]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44, 46]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 37]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 407]; WillouKo1974 [taxonomy: 5].
Chionaspis castanopsidis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis castanopsidis Takagi, 1985: 14-15. Type data: NEPAL: Kosi Zone, Sankranti, on Castanopsis tribuloides, 14/11/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Castanopsis tribuloides [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis castanopsidis was collected at an altitude of 2000 meters (Takagi, 1985).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis castanopsidis is similar to C. arkhola, but differs from the latter in the median lobes very large in comparison with 2nd, in the 3rd lobes much reduced and in other details. In all examined specimens of C. castanopsidis there have been found no small dorsal ducts in addition to the macroducts, while in C. arkhola some of the examined specimens have many small dorsal ducts. C. castanopsidis may also be similar to C. dryina (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-15, 38]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59].
Chionaspis caudata Vea et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis caudata Vea et al., 2012: 44-47. Type data: MEXICO; Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Hwy 175, 16°11'59"N, 96°31'30.9"W, 28/09/2007, on Pinus patulata longipedunculata, by R. Gwiazdowski and M. Dahlberg. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Mexico: Coleccion Entomologica, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico; type no. D1703D. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus chiapensis [VeaGwNo2012], Pinus patulata longipedunculata [VeaGwNo2012], Pinus pseudostrobus oaxacana [VeaGwNo2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [VeaGwNo2012], Puebla [VeaGwNo2012], Veracruz [VeaGwNo2012]). Neotropical: Mexico (Chiapas [VeaGwNo2012]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description, illustration and table of diagnostic morphological characters for six species of pine-feeding Chionaspis also in Vea et al. (2012).
STRUCTURE: All pine-feeding Chionaspis discussed here, including C. heterophyllae and C. pinifoliae, are indistinguishable by eye in the field. The adult female for all species possesses a white oystershell-shaped and slightly convex cover, with the amount of posterior expansion varying according to the diameter of host needles. Body elongate, color varying from yellow when immature to reddish brownish in specimens containing eggs, with lateral protrusion on the anterior abdominal segments. Found on needles.
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis caudata Vea differs from other Chionaspis with the following combination of characters (Table 1): median lobes (L1) unyoked, parallelsided, with a single gland spine between them, subtended by a microduct; submedian microducts absent on abdominal segment 7; gland spine absent on abdominal segment 5; head square-shaped, body with an extended thorax relative to other pine-feeding Chionaspis. Chionaspis caudata Vea differs from the other species by the rather squareshaped head and noticeably longer body, the presence of a single gland spine subtended by one microduct between the median lobes, and the gland spine formula. The presence of the median gland spine is striking as this feature prevents this species from keying to the genus Chionaspis (or indeed any related genus) in available keys to genera; however, the phylogenetic analyses of Gwiazdowski et al. (2011) unambiguously place C. caudata Vea within Chionaspis.(Vea et al. 2012)
KEYS: Vea et al. 2012: 53-54 (female).
CITATIONS: VeaGwNo2012 [description,distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy,].
Chionaspis cinnamomicola (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis machilicola cinnamomicola Takahashi, 1935: 15. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, Kussha near Shikikun, on Cinnamomum erythrophloia, 14/08/1934, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis cinnamomicola; Borchsenius, 1966: 170. Change of status.
Chionaspis cinnamomicola; Takagi, 1970: 34. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chionaspis [NeserPr2001].
HOST: Lauraceae: Cinnamomum erythrophoia [Takaha1935].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000]); Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, circular, thin, somewhat convex dorsally, without striae on the secretion, about 1.8 mm in diameter. Exuviae pale brown, at center of scale (Takahashi, 1935).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 34, 69]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15]; Takaha1936 [distribution, host: 80]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 102]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78].
Chionaspis clematidis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis clematidis Takagi, 1985: 15-16. Type data: NEPAL: Mechi Zone, near Ilam, on Clematis grata, 05/11/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ranunculaceae: Clematis grata [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis clematidis was collected at an altitude of 540 meters (Takagi, 1985).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: In the shape of the median lobes, the number and arrangement of the dorsal macroducts and other features this species is similar to the leaf-form of Chionaspis linderae, which occurs in Japan on deciduous Lauraceae. It differs from the latter in having definitely more numerous perivulvar disc pores (total 85-121 in C. clematidis; 37-65 in the leaf form of C. linderae, n=38), and also more numerous spiracular disc pores (in the leaf-form of C. linderae the anterior spiracle with 3-15 disc, n=42, and the posterior spiracle with 1-5, n=72). Further, in the leaf form of C. linderae the inner lobule of the 2nd lobe extends posteriorly beyond the apices of the median lobes, and the outer lobule of the 3rd lobe is reduced to marginal serrations (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15-16, 39]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59].
Chionaspis comys Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis comys Williams & Watson, 1988: 82-85. Type data: INDONESIA: Irian Jaya, Sentani, nr Jayapura, on undetermined tree, 24/06/1959, by T. Maa. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Williams & Watson (1988) state that this "new species should probably be included in a new genus possessing unusual gland spines, each with 2-4 microducts, on the free abdominal segments, but is left in Chionaspis for the present."
KEYS: Lagowska & Hodgson 2012: 66 (female) [Key to adult female Diaspididae closely related to “Chionaspis” recorded from the tropical South Pacific and New Zealand]; Williams & Watson 1988: 80 [Key to species of Chionaspis of the Tropical South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: LagowsHo2012 [taxonomy: 66]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80, 82-85].
Chionaspis corni CooleyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis corni Cooley, 1899: 15. Type data: UNITED STATES: Massachusetts, Reading, on Cornus paniculata, by A.H. Kirkland. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 30. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille du cornouiller [MawFoHa2000]; dogwood scale [Koszta1963, Blicke1965].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis diaspidis [Koszta1963]. Encyrtidae: Prospaltella sp. [Koszta1963].
HOSTS: Adoxaceae: Viburnum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cornaceae: Cornus alternifolia [DietzMo1916a], Cornus amomum [Koszta1963], Cornus asperifolia [Koszta1963], Cornus candidissima [Britto1923], Cornus florida [Koszta1963], Cornus obliqua [LiuKoRh1989], Cornus paniculata [Cooley1899], Cornus racemosa [Koszta1963], Cornus sanguinea [Koszta1963], Cornus sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Cornus stolonifera [LiuKoRh1989]. Lauraceae: Lindera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada (Ontario [King1901h, MillerDa2005]); United States of America (California [Takagi1985, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1920, MillerDa2005], Idaho [MillerDa2005], Illinois [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Dougla1912, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Dean1909, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Michigan [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Koszta1996], New York [FeltMo1928, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], Utah [Takagi1985, MillerDa2005], Virginia [LiuKoRh1989], Wisconsin [SeveriSe1909, MillerDa2005]).
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis corni overwinters as an egg (Houser, 1918). The dogwood scale overwinters as eggs on the bark (Houser 1918). Kosztarab (1963) found adult females in mid-September in Ohio. To our knowledge there is no detailed life history of this species. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Cooley (1899) and by Liu et al. (1989). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female elongate, broadening posteriorly, white, 1.8-2.5 mm long; exuviae orange yellow. Female spindle-shaped, expanded posteriorly, margins lobed, 1.2-1.3 mm long on slide (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: "Among the North American species in this genus, this species is very close to C. ortholobis in several respects such as the arrangement and number of dorsal macroducts. However, it is easy to distinguish this species from others as soon as the most distinctive character is recognized, namely, the appearance of the median lobes. In C. corni their inner margins are parallel about half of their length, and then separated, and the strongly divergent markings are long and straight in typical specimens (Lie et al., 1989)."
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. According to Baker (1972) this scale often damages ornamental dogwoods in the midwest. Weigel and Baumhofer (1948) reported that heavily infested branches of dogwoods were killed. This species is considered to be an occasional pest by Miller and Davidson (1990). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 76 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 440 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 136 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 17 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 331 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Baker1972 [distribution, host: 109]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 292, 305]; Britto1920 [distribution: 64]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 363]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-143]; Chambe1933 [distribution: 96]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 15-16]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 269]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264, 267]; DodgeRi1943 [distribution, host: 236]; Dougla1912 [distribution, host: 187]; Englis1976 [distribution, host: 20]; Felt1924 [host: 152]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 198]; FeltRa1932 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-16]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77]; Harris1972 [distribution: 74]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 101]; Herric1935 [distribution, host: 343]; Houser1918a [distribution, host: 290]; King1901h [distribution, host: 315]; King1902b [distribution, host: 61]; King1902d [distribution, host: 161]; Koszta1963 [distribution, host: 66-67]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 445-448]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 264-265]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-31]; MacGil1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 331]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution: 44]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 1]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 93-97]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 106]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 17]; Osborn1903 [taxonomy: 46]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 45]; Schmid1939 [taxonomy: 157]; SeveriSe1909 [distribution, host: 297]; Sheaff1930 [distribution, host: 25]; SOC1931 [distribution, host: 18]; SwaineHu1926 [chemical control, distribution, host: 51]; SwanPa1972 [distribution, host: 165]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16, 39]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 38]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113]; Weidha1968 [distribution, host: 256]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 398].
Chionaspis cornigera TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis cornigera Takagi, 1985: 39. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, near Kathmandu, Siwapuri, on evergreen lauraceous tree (probably belonging to Litsea), 28/08/1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis cornigera was collected at an altitude of 2600 meters (Takagi, 1985).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis cornigera is unique in the development of eyes which form a 2-pointed tubercle. It bears little resemblance to any of the other species of the genus associated with lauraceous plants (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59].
Chionaspis crypheaformis Newstead nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis crypheaformis Newstead, 1907a: 15. Nomen nudum. Notes: Although Newstead (1907a) refers to "Chionaspis crypheaformis n. sp.," no description or any other mention of this name can be found.
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Egypt [Newste1907a].
CITATIONS: Newste1907a [distribution: 15].
Chionaspis discadenata DanzigNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis discadenatus Danzig, 1976: 3. Type data: RUSSIA: Primor'ye Kray, near Tigrovoy, on Syringa robusta, 22/06/1962, by E. Danzig. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis discadenata; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Oleaceae: Syringa robusta [Danzig1976].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Russia (Primor'ye Kray [DanzigPe1998]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Danzig (1986a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with anterior spiracles with a large cluster of pores, posterior spiracles with 3 or 4 pores. L1 longer than their width with broadly rounded apices diverging at an acute angle. L2 elongated, especially the inner lobule. L3 well developed, bilobate, inner lobule very large. Pectens seen only on abdomen. Dorsal ducts developed on I-IV abdominal terga: on I-III terga are only small ducts; on IV small and large or only small; on V-VI large ones. Small ducts form double rows. Submarginal dorsal ducts on thorax and I-II abdominal terga small; large ones seen on III-V. Large submarginal ducts of uniform size, equal to marginal ducts. Along margin of thorax and I-III abdominal segments numerous large ducts seen (Danzig, 1986a).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 319 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of the Far East USSR]; Danzig 1986a: 368 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1980b: 310 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Danzig1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3]; Danzig1977b [distribution, host: 53]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 310, 315, 316]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 368, 373, 374]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 723]; Danzig1993 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 207]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39].
Chionaspis dryina (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis enkianthi Takahashi, 1953: 51-53. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Enkianthus perulatus. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 207. Notes: Type specimens in Takahashi's collection as well as the collection of the Plant Quarantine Laboratory in Yokohama (Takahashi, 1953).
Phenacaspis dryina Ferris, 1953: 63. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Quercus schottkyana, 02/06/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis enkianthi; Ferris, 1956: 69. Change of combination.
Chionaspis dryina; Takagi, 1985: 44. Change of combination.
Chionaspis drylina; Shi & Liu, 1991: 164. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis dryina; Tao, 1999: 112. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Ericaceae: Enkianthus perulatus [Takaha1953], Enkianthus sp. [Muraka1970]. Fagaceae: Quercus schottkyana [Ferris1953]. Tiliaceae: Craigia yunnanensis [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Hainan [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Yunnan [Ferris1953]). Palaearctic: Georgia [DanzigPe1998]; Japan (Honshu [Takaha1953]).
BIOLOGY: Females of the overwintering generation were taken in May (Takahashi, 1953).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1953).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 1.5mm long on slide, body elongate oval, lateral margins of the prepygidial abdominal segments prominently produced (Ferris, 1953).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 319 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 [as Phenacaspis dryina; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis dryina; Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [as Chionaspis enkianthi; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1953: 63 (female) [as Phenacaspis dryina; Keys to species from the vicinity of Kunming]; Takahashi 1953: 55 (female) [as Chionaspis enkianthi; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 68]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120, 121]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142, 150]; Chou1986 [illustration: 561]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38, 67, 317, 319, 32]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63]; Ferris1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69, 73]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 186, 187, 275]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149, 159]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 192]; Kawai1972 [distribution: 38]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 291]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 88]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24, 34]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 39]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 38]; Takaha1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 51-53, 55]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 300]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 247].
Chionaspis ethelae FullerNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis Ethelae Fuller, 1897b: 1344. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Swan River, on Eucalyptus sp., by C. Fuller. Unknown type status female. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Duplachionaspis ethelae; MacGillivray, 1921: 335. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus ethelae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis ethelae; Ferris, 1955d: 48. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Fuller1897b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Fuller1897b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Fuller (1899).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, broad behind, exuviae reddish brown, remainder of scale dull white, about 0.1 inch long. Adult female elongate, distinctly segmented, with lateral groups of spines, particularly prominent on the 4 abdominal segments. Male puparium white, opalescent, sides parallel, distinctly tricarinate, with 2 additional and faint carinae between each lateral and the median (Fuller, 1899).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 335 (female) [as Duplachionaspis ethelae; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 48]; Ferris1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-70, 73]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 987]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 61]; Fuller1897b [description, distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 471-472]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, host, taxonomy: 335]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, behaviour: 340].
Chionaspis etrusca LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis etrusca Leonardi, 1908a: 184-186. Type data: ITALY: Tuscany, on Tamarix sp. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 34. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis engeddensis Bodenheimer, 1924: 40-42. Type data: ISRAEL: En Geddi, west bank of the Dead Sea, on Tamarix sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 321.
Chionaspis enggedensis; Balachowsky, 1928a: 140. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis etrusca engeddensis; Bodenheimer, 1930a: 370. Change of status.
Chionaspis sassceri; Ferris, 1937: SI-17. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1937: SI-17. Notes: Ferris (1937) states that he has misidentified Chionaspis etrusca as Chionaspis sassceri, but does not state in which publications he had done so.
Chionaspis singularis Bazarov & Shmelev, 1971: 124. Type data: TAJIKISTAN: on Tamarix sp. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 321.
Chionaspis variabilis Bazarov & Shmelev, 1971: 124. Type data: TAJIKISTAN: on Tamarix sp.,. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 321.
COMMON NAMES: tamarix scale [Gill1982c]; tamarix scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus cacti [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Scymnus sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Azotus elegantulus [NikolsYa1966], Coccobius sumbarensis [Myarts1995], Marietta karakalensis [Myarts1995]. Encyrtidae: Halerolepis fanari [BalachMa1970].
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Tamaricaceae: Myricaria sp. [DanzigPe1998], Tamarix africana [Balach1928a], Tamarix aphylla [LiuKoRh1989], Tamarix articulata [Balach1927], Tamarix gallica [Balach1927], Tamarix odesseyana [LiuKoRh1989], Tamarix pentandra [LiuKoRh1989], Tamarix sp. [Bodenh1924], Tamarix sp. [BenDov2012]. Tiliaceae: Tilia sp. [DanzigPe1998]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritania [BalachMa1970]. Nearctic: Mexico (Chihuahua [Takagi1985]); United States of America (Arizona [ODell1931b], California [Ferris1937], New Mexico [LiuKoRh1989], Texas [LiuKoRh1989]). Oriental: India (Punjab [Beeson1941]); Pakistan [NucifoWa2001]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Algeria [DanzigPe1998]; Armenia [TerGri1962]; Azerbaijan [Takagi1985]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; Corsica [Balach1933a]; Egypt [Balach1958a]; France [Balach1958a, Foldi2001]; Georgia [NucifoWa2001]; Greece [DanzigPe1998]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996] (Occurs in Kermanshah province.); Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Israel [Bodenh1924, DanzigPe1998]; Italy [Leonar1908a, LongoMaPe1995]; Japan [LiuKoRh1989]; Kazakhstan [Balach1954e]; Mongolia [Danzig1972b]; Morocco [Vayssi1920]; Sardinia [PellizFo1996]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1984c]; Sicily [NucifoWa2001]; Spain [GomezM1954]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Balach1954e]; Tunisia [Balach1927]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Turkmenistan [Balach1954e]; Uzbekistan [Balach1954e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Leonardi (1908a) and Lupo (1938a). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female elongated, fusiform (Leonardi, 1908a). Scale of adult female wide, ham shaped, flat, greyish white. Exuviae eccentric, situated on the front margin. Exuviae of the first stage short, oval, almost concentric over that one of the second stage, but smaller, dark brown (Bodenheimer, 1924).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis etrusca approaches C. ortholobis, but differs from it chiefly in the lateral notching of the well-separated median pygidial lobes. The median lobes of C. ortholobis are set closely together, smoothly rounded and without notches (McKenzie, 1956).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Gill 1997: 76 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1993: 318 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 136 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 17 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 117 (female) [as Chionaspis engeddensis; Key to species of central Asia]; Borchsenius 1963a: 207 (female) [as Chionaspis engeddensis; Key to species on Tamarix]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 320 (female) [Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 194 (female) [as Chionaspis engeddensis; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 88 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 332 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Leonardi 1920: 226 (female) [Key to Italian species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AlimdzBr1956 [taxonomy: 151]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1923 [distribution, host: 263]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88, 93-94]; Babaev1980 [distribution: 59]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 182]; Balach1928a [distribution, host: 140]; Balach1933a [distribution, host: 41]; Balach1937 [distribution, host: 339]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 320, 333-336]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 43, 48]; BalachMa1970 [biological control, distribution, host: 1083]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-129]; Beeson1941 [distribution, host: 744]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 29, 44]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Bibby1961 [distribution, host: 330]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-42]; Bodenh1930a [distribution: 370]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 247, 271]; Bodenh1935b [host: 308]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 217]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 5]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 109-111]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12, 13]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 114]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 194]; Borchs1963a [taxonomy: 207]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 97]; Borchs1973 [taxonomy: 207]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 143-145]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30-31]; Danzig1972b [distribution, host: 346]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host: 582]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 321-324]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207-208]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-17]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 72]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 151]; Gavalo1927 [p. 211]; Gavalo1932 [distribution, host: 138]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78, 277]; GomezM1937 [taxonomy: 222]; GomezM1954 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134-136]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 50]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 7, 12]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-128]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 180, 181, 274]; Hall1927 [distribution, host: 108]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 269]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 24-26]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Leonar1908a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 184-186]; Leonar1918 [distribution, host: 212]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226, 234-236]; LepineMi1931 [p. 249]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 155, 330]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 318]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 217]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-35]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 272, 283-288]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332]; Martin1983 [distribution: 50]; Mateso1955 [distribution, host: 200]; Mateso1958 [distribution, host: 131]; Mateso1971 [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 221]; Matile1988 [distribution, host: 25]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 189]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 96-97]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Mityae1958 [distribution, host: 79, 93]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 30]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 18]; MoghadTa2010 [description: 32-33]; Monaco1977 [distribution: 159]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Myarts1995 [biological control, distribution: 432]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 17]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 236]; NucifoWa2001 [distribution, host: 209]; ODell1931b [distribution: 38]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 311]; PellizFo1996 [distribution, host: 121, 133]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; SancheBe2010 [distribution, host: 319]; Stickn1934 [illustration, structure: 155-160]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39, 42, 43, 45]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 10]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 146]; TerGri1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 87]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59]; Vayssi1920 [distribution, host: 258]; Vayssi1921 [distribution, host: 360].
Chionaspis fidavs Miyoshi nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis fidavs Miyoshi, 1926: 306. Nomen nudum. Notes: Miyoshi (1926) lists the species "Chionaspis fidavs Comst.," but no Comstock species of this name can be found. It is most likely a misspelling, but at this time we are unable to determine what species Miyoshi was treating.
CITATIONS: Miyosh1926 [distribution: 306].
Chionaspis floridensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis americana; Dekle, 1965c: 32. Misidentification; discovered by Takagi, 1969: 269.
Chionaspis floridensis Takagi, 1969: 269-271. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, O'Leno State Park, on Fraxinus sp., 19/08/1961, by G.W. Dekle & V.F. McCowan. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 38. Type depository: Gainesville: Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: Florida scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Betula nigra [LiuKoRh1989], Betula sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus sp. [Takagi1969, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Takagi1969]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1969).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female oystershell-shaped, white or dirty white, frequently covered by some extraneous material, about 2.0-2.5 mm long and 0.7-1.5 mm wide, posterior end broader; first exuviae pale yellow; second exuviae brown or dark brown, occupying about one fourth to one third of total length of scale. Ventral scale white and thin, remaining on host when scale is removed (Liu et al., 1989).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis floridensis is very similar to C. americana and they can only be distinguished in the bark-feeding form. In this form, the absence of submedian dorsal macroducts on the 6th abdominal segment in C. americana and the presence of these macroducts in C. floridensis (Takagi, 1969).
KEYS: Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 15 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America].
CITATIONS: Dekle1976 [p. 49]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-38]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 18]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Takagi1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 269-271]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; WillouKo1974 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 5-6].
Chionaspis formosa GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis formosa Green, 1904c: 462-463. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, on Eucalyptus tereticornis, by W.W. Froggatt; Victoria, Goulburn Valley, by C. French. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis formosa; MacGillivray, 1921: 352. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Green1904c], Eucalyptus tereticornis [Green1904c].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Green1904c], Victoria [Green1904c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1904c).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium snowy white, 1st pellicle yellow, 2nd pellicle reddish, secretionary area smooth, usually broadly dilated, sometimes narrower and more elongate. Male puparium much smaller and narrower, feebly tricarinate, median carina distinct, lateral carinae obsolescent. Adult female narrowed in front, broadest across median abdominal areas (Green, 1904c).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 352 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Green1904c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 462-463]; Laing1929 [distribution, host, illustration: 17]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 352].
Chionaspis frenchi GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis frenchi Green, 1915d: 48-49. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Mallee, on Eucalyptus sp., by C. French. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis frenchi; MacGillivray, 1921: 333. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Green1915d]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1915d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1915d).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium white, pellicles reddish, broadest across the middle, rounded behind, moderately convex, 2.5-2.75 mm long. Male puparium white, flattish, very obscurely carinate, 1.5 mm long. Adult female elongate, narrowed in front, broadest across the abdominal area, lateral margins of abdominal segments moderately protuberant (Green, 1915d).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 333 (female) [as Duplachionaspis frenchi; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Green1915d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-49]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 98].
Chionaspis furfura (Fitch)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus furfurus Fitch, 1857: 352-353. Type data: UNITED STATES: New York, Rochester, in garden of L.B. Langworthy, on pear tree. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA. Described: female.
Coccus Harrisii Walsh, 1866: 31. Type data: UNITED STATES: on Malus sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-18. Notes: Walsh (1866) states that this species was described but not named by Harris. We have been unable to locate Harris' publication.
Aspidiotus harrisii; Walsh, 1868a: 53-55. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Diaspis Harrisii; Signoret, 1877: 604. Change of combination.
Chionaspis furfurus; Comstock, 1881: 315. Change of combination.
Chionaspis furfura; Cooley, 1899: 23. Change of combination.
Chionaspis furfurus fulvus King, 1899: 334-336. Type data: UNITED STATES: Massachusetts, Lawrence, on Rhamnus catharticus, 15/10/1898. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 97.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille écailleuse [MawFoHa2000]; Harris's bark-louse [Walsh1866]; scurfy bark louse [Fitch1857]; scurfy scale [Hollin1923].
FOES: ACARI : Tyroglyphus malus [Cooley1899]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bivulnerus [King1899], Chilocorus stigma [HertinSi1972], Coccinella novemnotata [Koszta1963], Coccinella trifasciata [Koszta1963], Hippodamia convergens [Koszta1963], Hyperaspidius sp. [King1899], Microweisea misella [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus clisiocampae [Morley1909], Aphytis fuscipennis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis mytilaspidis [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis proclia [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis sp. [Koszta1963], Physcus varicornis [Giraul1911a]. Encyrtidae: Prospaltella fasciativentris [Garcia1912].
HOSTS: Annonaceae: Annona sp. [MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Betula alba [LiuKoRh1989], Betula sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Clethraceae: Clethra alnifolia [Cooley1899]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes sanguineum [Cooley1899], Ribes sp. [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005]. Juglandaceae: Juglans cinerea [Koszta1963], Juglans nigra [Koszta1963], Juglans sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus catharticus [Cooley1899], Rhamnus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Amelanchier canadensis [King1899], Amelanchier sp. [MillerDa2005], Aronia arbutifolia [LiuKoRh1989], Aronia atropurpurea [LiuKoRh1989], Cerasus sp. [Borchs1966], Chaenomeles japonica [LiuKoRh1989], Chaenomeles sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Cotoneaster sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Crataegus ageralus [LiuKoRh1989], Crataegus crus-galli [LiuKoRh1989], Crataegus opaca [BesheaTiHo1973], Crataegus oxyacantha [LiuKoRh1989], Crataegus pinnatifolia [LiuKoRh1989], Crataegus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Cydonia japonica [King1899], Cydonia sp. [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Malus pumila [Koszta1963], Malus sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Persica vulgaris [King1899], Prunus avium [Koszta1963], Prunus caroliniana [LiuKoRh1989], Prunus cerasus [Koszta1963], Prunus domestica [LiuKoRh1989], Prunus maritima [LiuKoRh1989], Prunus pennsylvanica [Koszta1963], Prunus pennsylvanica [King1899], Prunus persica [LiuKoRh1989], Prunus seratina [King1899], Prunus serotina [Koszta1963], Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus virginiana [King1899], Pyracantha coccinea var. lalandi [Koszta1963], Pyracantha sp. [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Pyrus arbutifolia [Cooley1899], Pyrus communis [King1899], Pyrus floribunda [Cooley1899], Pyrus heterophylla [Cooley1899], Pyrus japonica [King1899], Pyrus malus [Amos1933], Pyrus nigra [Cooley1899], Pyrus pinnafolia [Cooley1899], Pyrus pyrifolia [LiuKoRh1989], Pyrus salicifolia [Cooley1899], Pyrus sp. [King1899, MillerDa2005], Pyrus spectabilis [Cooley1899], Pyrus ussuriensis [LiuKoRh1989], Sorbus americana [Koszta1963], Sorbus aucuparia [Comsto1881a], Sorbus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Xanthoxylon americanum [LiuKoRh1989], Zanthoxylum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Populus grandidentata [King1900c].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada [MillerDa2005] (Alberta [MawFoHa2000], Manitoba [MawFoHa2000], Ontario [Jarvis1906], Saskatchewan [MawFoHa2000]); United States of America (Alabama [MillerDa2005], California [Comsto1881a, MillerDa2005], Colorado [MillerDa2005], Connecticut [King1899, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Florida [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Starne1897, MillerDa2005], Idaho [Merril1953], Illinois [Walsh1868, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Iowa [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Kentucky [King1899, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [LiuKoRh1989], Maine [MillerDa2005], Maryland [Walsh1868, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Walsh1868, MillerDa2005], Michigan [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Minnesota [MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Walsh1868, MillerDa2005], Montana [MillerDa2005], Nebraska [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], New Mexico [MillerDa2005], New York [Fitch1857, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Ohio [King1899, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Walsh1868, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [King1899, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [MillerDa2005], South Dakota [Cooley1899], Tennessee [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Texas [Herric1911, MillerDa2005], Utah [King1899, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], West Virginia [King1899, MillerDa2005], Wisconsin [SeveriSe1909, MillerDa2005]). Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [Cooley1899]).
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis furfura overwinters in the egg stage and the eggs begin hatching in late April. It is assumed that there are two generations per year in Ohio. An average of 64 eggs per female was found (Kosztarab, 1963). This species has 1 generation a year in northern areas (e.g., CT, northern IL, MT, OH) and 2 in southern areas (e.g., DC, NC, NY, southern IL, and VA). Crawlers have been reported from April to early May and again in mid-July in VA (Hill 1952) and NC (Turnipseed and Smith 1953), in late April in DE (Bray 1974), in late May or early June in OH (Houser 1918), CT (Britton 1903), MT (Cooley 1900), and IL (English 1970), and from May to early June and again in mid-July in NY (Hammer 1938). Eggs are the overwintering stage. Hill (1952) has correlated crawler hatch from overwintering eggs with the bloom period of apples; hatch is complete by petal fall. In NC Turnipseed and Smith (1953) report the following life history: Crawlers that hatch in early April molt to second instars by May 10, and molt to adult females by June 7. Eggs are laid by June 28 which hatch about mid-July. Second instars are present in mid-August and adult females are collected in early September. Egg laying begins in late September. Adult males are present from late May to mid-June and again in mid-August to early September. Preferred feeding sites seem to be on old wood, but heavy infestations that have two generations each year may infest new growth, fruit, and even leaves. There seems to be a preference for the woody undersides of lower branches. Winged morphs of males are prevalent, but Bullington et al. (1989) indicate that apterous morphs also exist based on their examination of a pupa. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Fitch (1857), Kosztarab (1963) and Liu et al. (1989). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Eggs are purplish in color, adult scale is white. The female scale is much larger and more oval than the male scale (Jarvis, 1906).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis furfura can be separated from all other Chionaspis species by the median lobes being low, rounded and not notched laterally. The median zygosis of this species is elongate and slender (McDaniel, 1971).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: This species occasionally becomes a pest in untreated orchards of Ohio. It causes reddish spots and small pits on the bark of twigs (Kosztarab, 1963). Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Scurfy scale is usually not a serious pest. Damaging populations have been reported, especially from apple and pear orchards, where spray schedules were not maintained. High populations have been reported to kill young trees and cause loss of vigor and die back on old trees. This species prefers lower branches of the host but in high populations it spreads to the new growth and fruit. On apples the scales cause small, red depressions which reduce the value of the fruit. It has been reported as a pest in Canada (Swaine and Hutchings 1926), Connecticut (Schread 1970), Illinois (Flint and Farrar 1940), Maryland (Langford and Cory 1939), New York (Blackman 1916, Hammer 1938), Ohio (Houser 1908), and Pennsylvania (Trimble 1929). Miller and Davidson (1990) treat this species as a serious pest in a small area of the world. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 76 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 440 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 17 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1971: 282 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 19 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 331 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [as Chionaspis furfurus; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1288]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 9]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 97]; Borg1919 [description, distribution, host, life history: 12, 19]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 364]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 145-148]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1901i [taxonomy: 387]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 315-316]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 103]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 464-465, 559, 564]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 10, 23-29]; DarlinJo1984 [biological control: 556, 558]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 269]; DeSant1940 [biological control: 35]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 264, 270]; Dougla1912 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 188-189]; Englis1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26]; Felt1901 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 296, 300-304]; Felt1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 217]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-18]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 43]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Fitch1857 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 352-353]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 100]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 11, 23]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 132, 135, 193]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78]; Giraul1904 [life history: 3]; Giraul1911a [biological control, distribution, host: 183, 184]; Gourla1935 [biological control: 223]; Hamilt1936 [taxonomy: 155]; Herric1911 [distribution, host: 10]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178]; Hoelsh1967 [life history: 673]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19, 23, 69]; Hought1904 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 48]; Howard1894c [biological control: 5]; Jarvis1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 291]; Jorgen1934 [description, distribution, host: 278]; King1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; King1900c [distribution, host: 117-118]; King1901j [distribution, host: 333]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 85-88]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68-69]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 448-450]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 268-269]; Lintne1895 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 270-271]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-43]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 344, 358]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 331]; Marlat1900a [taxonomy: 591]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution: 44]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 1]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 285-286]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 96-97, 99]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host: 31]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 110]; Morgan1890 [taxonomy: 43]; Morgan1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 18]; Newell1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 150-152]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 199, 204]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Osborn1898 [distribution, host, life history: 228]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; QuaintSa1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-8]; RileyHo1889 [taxonomy: 324]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 46]; Sander1910 [taxonomy: 60]; Schrea1970 [chemical control, distribution, host: 22]; SeveriSe1909 [distribution, host: 297]; Signor1877 [taxonomy: 604]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44]; Starne1897 [distribution, host: 27-28]; SwanPa1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 165]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59]; Walsh1866 [p. 31]; Walsh1868 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 53-55]; Walsh1868a [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 53-55]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 25]; Worsha1909 [distribution: 206].
Chionaspis gengmaensis (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis gengmaensis Chen, 1983: 75. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Gengma, on Populus sp., 1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis gengmaensis; Takagi, 1985: 39. Change of combination.
HOST: Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Chen1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
STRUCTURE: Scale of male prominently carinated (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis gengmaensis is similar to Chionaspis platani, but differs from it by the following characteristics: the 3rd pygidial lobes lacking, dorsal ducts are moderately irregular in arrangement and usually mingled with some smaller or microducts among the 2nd-4th abdominal segments (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 64 [as Phenacaspis gengmaensis; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75, 95]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108].
Chionaspis gilli Liu & Kosztarab in Liu, Kosztarab & RhoadesNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis gilli Liu & Kosztarab in Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1987: 516-519. Type data: UNITED STATES: New Mexico, Las Cruces, on Tamarix sp., 12/08/1975, by J.G. Watts. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAMES: Gill's tamarix scale [LiuKoRh1989]; tamarix scurfy scale [LiuKo1987].
HOSTS: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix articulata [LiuKoRh1989], Tamarix chinensis [LiuKo1987], Tamarix gallica [LiuKoRh1989], Tamarix sp. [LiuKo1987]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Sonora [LiuKoRh1989]); United States of America (Arizona [LiuKo1987], California [LiuKo1987], New Mexico [LiuKo1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female very similar to that of C. etrusca, oystershell-shaped or pear-shaped, white or dirty white, about 1.6-2.5 mm long, terminal exuviae yellowish brown, occupying about one third of total length of test. Ventral test thin, adheres to surface of host when dorsal test is removed (Liu et al., 1989).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis gilli is close to C. etrusca, but can be told from it as follows: in C. gilli, the median lobes are elongate and narrow, strongly divergent, poorly sclerotized, without, rarely with, irregular notches on both mesal and outer margins, and with 2 gland spines and 1 long seta just overlapping with the median lobes, and protruding distinctly beyond the apex of pygidium; further, in the second pair of lobes only the inner lobule is distinct and elongate, and the outer lobule is reduced to very small projections; while in C. etrusca, the median lobes are well developed, short and broad, conspicuous, notched on both inner and outer margins, straight and rounded apically, and the gland spines and setae beside the median lobes are not as long as those in the new species (Liu & Kosztarab, 1987).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 76 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 17 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America].
CITATIONS: Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78]; LiuKo1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 516-519]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-46]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347].
Chionaspis gleditsiae SandersNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis gleditsiae Sanders, 1903: 413. Type data: UNITED STATES: Ohio, Columbus, on Gleditsia triacanthos. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 52. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paralectotypes in UCDC, CDAE, NYSM and USNM.
Phenacaspis spinicola Dietz & Morrison, 1916a: 101-102. Type data: UNITED STATES: Indiana, Indianapolis, on Gleditsia triacanthos, 15/09/1915; Vincennes, on Gleditsia triacanthos, 31/08/1915. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, Columbus: Ohio State University Collection of Insects and Spiders, Ohio, USA, and Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 34.
Trichomytilus spinicola; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: honey locust chionaspis [Hollin1923]; honey locust scale [Dekle1965c]; honey-locust scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOES: ACARINA Acaridae: Thyreophagus entomophagus [Koszta1963]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [Koszta1963]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Scymnus sp. [Koszta1963].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Carpinus americana [LiuKoRh1989], Carpinus caroliniana [LiuKoRh1989], Ostrya virginiana [LiuKoRh1989]. Fabaceae: Albizia sp. [LiuKoRh1989], Gleditsia aquatica [LiuKoRh1989], Gleditsia sp. [LiuKoRh1989], Gleditsia triacanthos [Sander1903], Robinia pseudoacacia [LiuKoRh1989]. Hamamelidaceae: Liquidambar styraciflua [Dekle1965c]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia virginiana [Dekle1965c]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus americana [Koszta1963], Fraxinus nigra [Koszta1963], Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. lanceolata [Koszta1963], Fraxinus sp. [Koszta1963]. Rosaceae: Rubus sp. [LiuKoRh1989]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956], Florida [Merril1953], Illinois [LiuKoRh1989], Indiana [DietzMo1916], Kansas [Lawson1917], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maine [Koszta1996], Maryland [Koszta1963], Massachusetts [LiuKoRh1989], Mississippi [Merril1953], Missouri [Hollin1923], New York [LiuKoRh1989], North Carolina [LiuKoRh1989], Ohio [Sander1903], Pennsylvania [Sleesm1945], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [Ferris1937], Virginia [LiuKoRh1989]).
BIOLOGY: This species overwinters as mature females with an average of 21 eggs counted under females in June (Kosztarab, 1963).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Sanders (1903). Later detailed description and illustration by Liu et al. (1989). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female oystershell-shaped, light gray to dirty white, about 1.5-2.0 mm long, exuviae at one end. Scale of male elongated, white, about .6 mm long, exuviae yellow. Female spindle-shaped, segments laterally rounded, overwintering females yellow, after laying eggs brown (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis gleditsiae can be told from other Chionaspis species by the median lobes that appear to be fused for about half their length. Also, the median zygosis is weakly developed (McDaniel, 1971).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 75 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 16 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1972a: 336 (female) [as Phenacaspis spinicola; Key to the Texas species of the genus Phenacaspis Cooley and Cockerell]; McDaniel 1971: 282 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1963: 91 [as Phenacaspis spinicola; Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 19 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 328 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio].
CITATIONS: Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148-152]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 35]; DietzMo1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-102]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264, 271, 276, 277]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-19, SI-95]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50, SIV-446:]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Herric1911 [distribution, host: 26]; Herric1935 [distribution, host: 169]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19, 24, 36, 69]; Houser1918a [distribution, host: 293]; Howell1980 [physiology: 92]; KnipscMiDa1976 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71, 97-98]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 450-453]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 266-268]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-54]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 8]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 1]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 285, 287-288]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 99]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host: 31]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 18]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Sander1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 413]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 46]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44, 46]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 34]; TippinBe1970b [taxonomy: 1023]; WillouKo1974 [taxonomy: 1, 9].
Chionaspis gryphaeformis Newstead nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis gryphaeformis Newstead, 1906: 71. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 377. Notes: The original Newstead material was examined and contains specimens of both Contigaspis zillae and Lineaspis striata (D.J. Williams, personal communication, August 14, 2002).
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Egypt [Newste1906].
CITATIONS: Draper1907 [distribution: 15]; Newste1906 [distribution: 71]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 48].
Chionaspis hamoni Liu & KosztarabNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis hamoni Liu & Kosztarab, 1987: 513-516. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Steinhatchee, on Salix nigra, 02/12/1981, by F. McHenry. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Gainesville: Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in VPIC, FSCA, USNM, UCDC and CDAE.
COMMON NAME: Florida willow scale [LiuKo1987].
HOSTS: Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [LiuKo1987], Salix caroliniana [LiuKo1987], Salix discolor [LiuKo1987], Salix nigra [LiuKo1987], Salix sp. [LiuKo1987]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [LiuKo1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Test of adult female elongate oystershell-shaped, white or dirty white, sometimes of same color as bark, thus difficult to detect; rather small, about 1.5- 2.0 mm long, moderately concave. Exuviae terminal, occupying about one third of total length of test, yellowish brown. Ventral test very thin, white. Body of adult female spindle-shaped, produced laterally and broadened posteriorly, widest at abdominal segment I or II (Liu et al., 1989).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis hamoni is close to C. longiloba and all previous specimens from Florida were identified and confirmed as C. longiloba by previous workers. It differs from C. longiloba by having dorsal submedian and submarginal macroducts on abdominal segment II, while in C. longiloba these macroducts are absent; also the median lobes are not as long and as acutely pointed, with more or less sclerotized base on each lobe in the new species, whereas C. longiloba is characterized by the elongated and acutely pointed median lobes (Liu & Kosztarab, 1987).
KEYS: Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 18 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America].
CITATIONS: LiuKo1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 513-516]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-57]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347].
Chionaspis heterophyllae CooleyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis pinifoliae heterophyllae Cooley, 1897: 281-282. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, on Pinus heterophylla, by A.L. Quaintance. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Phenacaspis heterophyllae; MacGillivray, 1921: 347. Change of combination and rank.
Chionaspis heterophyllae; Borchsenius, 1966: 122. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis pinifoliae; Nielsen & Johnson, 1973: 34-43. Misidentification.
COMMON NAMES: pine scale [Butche1959]; pine scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus stigma [NielseJo1973]. FUNGUS : Sphaerostilbe aurantiicola [Quayle1938a]. HYMENOPTERA Eulophidae: Prospaltella bella [NielseJo1973].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies balsamea [KosztaRh1999], Abies fraseri [KosztaRh1999], Abies sp. [MillerDa2005], Picea sp. [MillerDa2005], Pinus caribaea [Ferris1942], Pinus clausa [BesheaTiHo1973], Pinus elliottii [BesheaTiHo1973], Pinus heterophylla [Cooley1897], Pinus mitis [Cooley1899], Pinus resinosa [Koszta1963], Pinus rigida [Andres1957], Pinus sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Pinus sylvestris [Cooley1899], Pinus taeda [BesheaTiHo1973], Pinus virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada [MillerDa2005]; Mexico [MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Alabama [USDAAP1978, MillerDa2005], Arkansas [MillerDa2005], California [MillerDa2005], Connecticut [MillerDa2005], Delaware [MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Florida [Cooley1897, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Indiana [MillerDa2005], Kentucky [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [MillerDa2005], Michigan [MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Missouri [MillerDa2005], New Hampshire [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Andres1957, MillerDa2005], New York [FeltMo1928, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [MillerDa2005], Tennessee [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Texas [MillerDa2005], Virginia [MillerDa2005], Washington [MillerDa2005], West Virginia [MillerDa2005]).
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).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
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).
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)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: 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)
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 136 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 15 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1972a: 337 (female) [as Phenacaspis heterophyllae; Key to the Texas species of the genus Phenacaspis Cooley and Cockerell]; Kosztarab 1963: 91 [as Phenacaspis heterophyllae; Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [as Chionaspis pinifoliae heterophyllae; Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 347 [Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [as Chionaspis pinifoliae heterophyllae; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Andres1957 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81-83]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 9]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 365]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 153-155]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 84]; Cooley1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281-282]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 34]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 109]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 198]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-93]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-406, SIV-446:60]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host: 70, 73]; GwiazdNo2014 [biological control, life history: 356-363]; GwiazdVeAn2011 [description, distribution, molecular data, phylogenetics: 47-62]; Herric1911 [description: 28]; HodekHo2009 [biological control: 235]; Johnso1982 [taxonomy: 119]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-92]; Koszta1977a [taxonomy: 184]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 453-456]; KosztaRh1999 [distribution, host: 122]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57-62]; LuckDa1974 [taxonomy: 310]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 347]; MacGow1983 [taxonomy: 9]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 3]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 337]; Mead1983 [taxonomy: 3]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 216]; Miller1983JW [distribution, taxonomy: 6]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 112]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 18]; Newell1927 [distribution, taxonomy: 88]; NielseJo1973 [biological control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 34-43]; PhilpoBeMi2009 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 381-385]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Quayle1938a [biological control: 172]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host: 30, 38]; Tippin1968 [host: 13]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 8]; USDAAP1978 [distribution, host: 1]; Weidha1968 [taxonomy: 256]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 48]; Wray1950 [distribution, host: 15]; Wray1967 [distribution, host: 34].
Chionaspis himalaica TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis himalaica Takagi, 1985: 16-18. Type data: INDIA: Himachal Pradesh, Bharat, Kufri, on Quercus semecarpifolia, 26/10/1978; NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Langtang Valley, Ghora Tobela, on Quercus semecarpifolia, 09/23/1975. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus semecarpifolia [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Himachal Pradesh [Takagi1985]); Nepal [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at altitudes of 2500 and 3000 meters (Takagi, 1985).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description of adult, second instar and first instar females with illustration by Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1985) states that "it is noteworthy that in this species the spiracular disc pores are, while normally 3-locular, occasionally 4- or 5-locular." Chionaspis himalaica is similar to C. arkhola and is distinguished by the spiracular disc pores normally 3-locular and more numerous, by the perivulvar disc pores also tending to be more numerous, by the submedian dorsal microducts always few. C. himalaica may also be related to C. saitamaensis (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-18]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 59]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, distribution, host, illustration: 163-164].
Chionaspis kabyliensis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis kabyliensis Balachowsky, 1930d: 269-272. Type data: ALGERIA: Tikdjeda, massif du Djurdjura, Kabylie, on Cedrus libanotica atlantica, 08/06/1930, by P. Peyerimhoff. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Cedrus libanotica atlantica [Balach1930d].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1930d]; Morocco [Mimeur1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1930d).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 320 (female) [Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Balachowsky 1930d: 267 (female) [Tableau de détermination des Chionaspis Sign. (sensu lato) vivant aux dépens des Conifères].
CITATIONS: Balach1930d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 267, 269-273]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 863]; Balach1954b [distribution, host: 110]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320, 340-341]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98]; Chen1983 [taxonomy: 11, 91]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; Mimeur1933 [distribution, host: 260-261]; Rungs1934 [distribution, host: 22]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 338].
Chionaspis keravatana Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis keravatana Williams & Watson, 1988: 85-87. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Keravat, on Eucalyptus deglupta, ?/07/1976, by T. Porpiu. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus deglupta [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis keravatana may be found in areas where there is reforestation with Eucalyptus deglupta (Williams & Watson, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis keravatana is unlike most species of Chionaspis. C. lumbiniana has similar median lobes, separated by only a narrow space, but has gland spines much further forward (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Lagowska & Hodgson 2012: 66 (female) [Key to adult female Diaspididae closely related to “Chionaspis” recorded from the tropical South Pacific and New Zealand]; Williams & Watson 1988: 80 [Key to species of Chionaspis of the Tropical South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: LagowsHo2012 [taxonomy: 66]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80, 85-87].
Chionaspis kosztarabi Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis kosztarabi Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 35-37. Type data: UNITED STATES: Ohio, Wood County, on Fraxinus americana, 08/07/1961, by M. Kosztarab; Ohio, Ottawa County, on Fraxinus nigra, 03/09/1960, by M. Kosztarab; Maryland, Baltimore, on Fraxinus sp., 14/08/1958, by M. Kosztarab. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Blacksburg: Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, USA, and Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type series also includes material from Pennsylvania, Cheltenham, on Fraxinus americana, 28/02/1944.
COMMON NAME: ash scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOES: ACARI Acaridae: Thyreophagus entomophagus [WillouKo1974]. Bdellidae: Bdella sp. [WillouKo1974]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [WillouKo1974]. Tarsonemidae: Tarsonemus confusus [WillouKo1974]. Tydeidae: Triophydeus sp. [WillouKo1974]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus sp. [WillouKo1974], Microterys claripennis [WillouKo1974], Plagiomerus cyaneus [WillouKo1974]. Eulophidae: Ablerus clisiocampae [WillouKo1974], Aphytis diaspidis [WillouKo1974], Aphytis near mytilaspidis [WillouKo1974], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [WillouKo1974], Marietta mexicana [WillouKo1974], Physcus varicornis? [WillouKo1974].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Ostrya virginiana [Nakaha1982]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus americana [TakagiKa1967], Fraxinus nigra [TakagiKa1967], Fraxinus sp. [TakagiKa1967]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Hamon1983b], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973], Maryland [TakagiKa1967], Mississippi [WillouKo1974], North Carolina [WillouKo1974], Ohio [TakagiKa1967], Pennsylvania [TakagiKa1967], South Carolina [WillouKo1974], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Virginia [BesheaTiHo1973]).
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis kosztarabi is bivoltine in Virginia, overwintering as mature fertilized females. Eggs were deposited in the spring and were present through the last week of June. Crawlers were first present in early June, continuing through the first week of July (Willoughby & Kosztarab, 1974).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1967). Detailed descriptions and biological information by Willoughby & Kosztarab (1974). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Eggs are pale orange or light yellow, elliptical (Willoughby & Kosztarab, 1974).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis kosztarabi is close to C. gleditsiae, but distinguishable both in the adult female and in the 2nd stage male. As adult females, they are distinguishable by the ventral microducts of the prosoma: in C. gleditsiae, these microducts are numerous in 2 groups around the anterior spiracle, whereas in C. kosztarabi such groups are absent. In the bark-feeding forms, C. kosztarabi has submedian dorsal macroducts which are always present on the 4th and 5th abdominal segments, whereas in C. gleditsiae they are usually absent on the 4th segment. In C. kosztarabi, the basal zygosis of the median lobes is distinct, extending anteriorly beyond the bases of the lobes, whereas in C. gleditsiae its barely prominent (Takagi & Kawai, 1967).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 440 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 17 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America].
CITATIONS: BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 155-160]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 11, 13, 14, 17]; Hamon1983b [distribution, host: 46]; Howell1980 [structure: 92]; KnipscMiDa1976 [taxonomy: 6-12]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 456-458]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-63]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 19]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Robiso1977 [structure: 42, 45, 47]; Takagi1969 [host: 269]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host: 23, 40]; TakagiKa1967 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-37]; WillouKo1974 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 9-14, 53, 55-74].
Chionaspis lepineyi BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lepineyi Balachowsky, 1928c: 273-277. Type data: MOROCCO: Mamora, on Quercus suber, ?/06/1927, by J. de Lepiney. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Marchaliella lepineyi; Bodenheimer, 1951: 331. Change of combination.
Chionaspis parastigma Balachowsky, 1954e: 328-330. Type data: IRAN: Louristan, Kermanchah, on Quercus sp., 17/06/1951, by Farahhakche. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 329.
COMMON NAME: oak scurfy scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Coccophagoides similis [Koszta1956a], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998]. Encyrtidae: Thomsonisca amathus [KosztaKo1988F], Thomsonisca typica [HertinSi1972]. Thysanidae: Thysanus ater [HertinSi1972], Thysanus citrinus [Koszta1956a], Thysanus subaeneus [Koszta1956a].
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Castanea sativa [BurgesGa1982], Quercus calliprinos [BytinsSt1967, SpodekBeMe2014], Quercus ilex [GomezM1960O, MilonaKoKo2008], Quercus ithaburensis [BytinsSt1967, SpodekBeMe2014], Quercus robur [BachmaGe1950], Quercus sp. [Balach1954e], Quercus suber [Balach1928c].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [TerGri1962]; Czechoslovakia [KosztaKo1988F]; France [Foldi2000]; Georgia (Abkhaz ASSR [Borchs1939a]); Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Hungary [KozarOrKo1977, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [BytinsSt1967, SpodekBeMe2014]; Italy [PellizCa1991a]; Morocco [Balach1928c]; Russia [KosztaKo1988F]; Slovakia [Zahrad1962]; Spain [GomezM1960O]; Switzerland [BachmaGe1950]; Turkey [KaydanKoAt2009].
BIOLOGY: Male tests commonly found in large white patches on infested trees. This bisexual species has one generation per year that overwinters as adult females. Each female lays about 60 eggs during the second half of May, and crawlers emerge in June (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Balachowsky (1928c and 1954e).
STRUCTURE: Test of female pear-shaped, grayish white, 1.6-2.1mm long. Adult female spindle-shaped, red (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 318 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 333 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 333 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 319 (female) [Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Balachowsky 1954e: 319 (female) [as Chionaspis parastigma; Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 194 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 39]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; BachmaGe1950 [distribution, host: 119]; Balach1928c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 273-277]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 319, 325-330]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 28, 43]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1939a [distribution, host: 44, 50]; Borchs1949 [taxonomy: 215]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 194]; Borchs1963a [illustration, taxonomy: 188, 189, 196]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 188, 196]; BurgesGa1982 [distribution, host: 108]; BytinsSt1967 [distribution, host: 126]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 208]; Danzig1993 [p. 328]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 83]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; GomezM1960O [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 171-173]; Hadzib1956a [taxonomy: 157, 169]; Hadzib1956b [distribution, host: 50]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 181, 275]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 20]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host: 20, 21]; KaydanKoAt2009 [distribution: 135-138]; KnipscMiDa1976 [taxonomy: 5]; Koszta1956a [biological control, host: 408]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 334-335]; Kozar1974 [taxonomy: 535]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar1999a [distribution, host: 141]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo1982 [distribution, host: 205]; KozarKo2002b [distribution: 376]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 74]; KozarSaSz2009 [catalogue, distribution: 436]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lepine1928 [distribution, host: 320]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 547]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 51]; MilonaKoKo2008 [distribution, host: 33]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 30]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 19]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 261, 264]; PellizCa1991a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 112]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 10]; SpodekBeMe2014 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 102-103,114,115,117]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 69]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 146]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 73]; Trjapi1964 [p. 687]; WillouKo1974 [taxonomy: 5]; Zahrad1962 [distribution, host: 91, 94]; Zahrad1972 [taxonomy: 430]; Zahrad1977 [distribution: 120].
Chionaspis linderae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis linderae Takahashi, 1952a: 10-11. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Mt Takao, near Tokyo, on Lindera obtusiloba and L. triloba, 22/08/1949 and 16/07/1950, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis linderae; Ferris, 1955d: 50. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis neolinderae Chen, 1983: 95. Type data: CHINA: Jiangxi, on Lindera sp., 1978. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 300.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Laurus nobilis [Muraka1970], Lindera glauca [Tao1999], Lindera obtusiloba [Takaha1952a], Lindera sp. [Chen1983], Lindera triloba [Takaha1952a], Parabenzoin praecox [Muraka1970], Parabenzoin trilobum [Muraka1970]. Rubiaceae: Benzonia obtusilobum [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Takagi1985], Hainan [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Chen1983]). Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986]); Japan (Honshu [Takaha1952a], Kyushu [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1952a) and Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale white, rather thin, flattened, widened posteriorly, about 1.25-1.4 mm long, about 0.6-0.85 mm wide, exuviae pale yellowish brown. Body rather narrow, narrowed anteriorly, broadest at the basal abdominal segment (Takahashi, 1952a).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis linderae is close to C. wistariae, from which it is distinguished mainly by having less numerous macroducts (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis neolinderae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [as Chionaspis linderae; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78, 95]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208-209]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-51]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution: 292]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 88]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28, 34]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 16, 40]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 38]; Takaha1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11]; Takaha1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 56]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 300]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78].
Chionaspis lintneri ComstockNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lintneri Comstock, 1883: 103. Type data: CANADA: Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, on Betula papyrifera, by Fletcher. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 67. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paralectotypes in NYSM (McCabe & Johnson, 1980).
Chionaspis Lintneri betulae Cooley, 1898: 89. Type data: CANADA: Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, on Betula papyrifera, by James Fletcher. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-20.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille de Lintner [MawFoHa2000]; Lintner scale [Dekle1965c]; Lintner scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus glutinosa [LiuKoRh1989], Alnus incana [King1901f], Alnus rugosa [LiuKoRh1989], Alnus serrulata [Cooley1899], Alnus sp. [LiuKoRh1989], Betula papyrifera [Cocker1895e], Betula sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum alnifolium [LiuKoRh1989], Viburnum lantanoides [Comsto1883]. Cornaceae: Cornus alternifolia [Cooley1899], Cornus florida [King1903a], Cornus paniculata [LiuKoRh1989], Cornus racemosa [LiuKoRh1989], Cornus sp. [LiuKoRh1989], Cornus stolaniger [Cooley1899]. Corylaceae: Corylus americana [Cooley1899], Corylus avellana [LiuKoRh1989], Corylus sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Juglandaceae: Juglans cinerea [Koszta1963], Juglans sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Lauraceae: Lindera odorifera [Cooley1899]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus sp. [McDani1971], Syringa sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Rosaceae: Amelanchier canadensis [King1899d]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Cooley1899]. Styracaceae: Ostrya virginiana [LiuKoRh1989], Styrax pulverulenta [Dekle1965c], Styrax sp. [Takagi1985]. Thymelaeaceae: Dirca palustris [LiuKoRh1989].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada (British Columbia [MawFoHa2000], New Brunswick [MawFoHa2000], Nova Scotia [LiuKoRh1989], Ontario [Jarvis1911], Prince Edward Island [Cocker1895e], Quebec [Cooley1899]); United States of America (California [Essig1926], Colorado? [Essig1926], Connecticut [Britto1920], District of Columbia [Ferris1937], Florida [Dekle1965c], Illinois [LiuKoRh1989], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maine [LiuKoRh1989], Massachusetts [Cooley1898], Michigan [Koszta1963], New Hampshire [Ferris1937], New York [Comsto1883], Ohio [King1903a], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928], Texas [McDani1971]).
BIOLOGY: Ferris (1937) states that records of Chionaspis lintneri from the western United States are "almost certainly in error."
GENERAL REMARKS: Liu et al. (1989) provide a detailed description and illustration. Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female elongate oystershell-shaped, white to grayish white, about 2.5 mm long, exuviae yellow brown, ventral scale thin and white. Adult female spindle-shaped, laterally lobed, 1.3-1.4 mm long on slide. Male scale is oblong, tricarinate, white, 0.8-1.0 mm long, exuviae yellow (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis lintneri can be distinguished from other Chionaspis species by the presence of submedian dorsal ducts; the gland spines on the prepygidial segments are numerous and prominent (McDaniel, 1971).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 75 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 441 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 18 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1971: 282 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 328 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Baker1972 [distribution, host: 109]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98]; Britto1920 [distribution: 64]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 364]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160-162]; Cocker1895e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33-34]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98, 103-104]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host: 559, 564-565]; Cooley1898 [distribution, host: 89]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 22-23]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 36]; DoaneVaCh1936 [host: 377-378]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 310]; Essig1931 [taxonomy: 578]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 198]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-20]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Jarvis1911 [distribution, host: 71]; King1899d [distribution, host: 252]; King1901f [distribution, host: 200]; King1901j [distribution, host: 333]; King1902d [distribution, host: 161]; King1903a [distribution, host: 204]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71-72]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 458-459]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-67]; MacGil1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Martin1965 [distribution, host: 46]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 8]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 288-289]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 201]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 19]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 30]; TippinBe1974 [taxonomy: 146]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45].
Chionaspis lithocarpi TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lithocarpi Takahashi, 1942b: 31-32. Type data: THAILAND: Mt Sutep, on Lithocarpus sp., 01/04/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1942b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1942b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, slightly widened posteriorly, white, with pale yellow exuviae (Takahashi, 1942b).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis lithocarpi is characterized by the presence of a pair of longitudinal groups of spines on the thorax, and by the stout median lobes (Takahashi, 1942b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; Chen1983 [taxonomy: 7, 90]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 47]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32].
Chionaspis lithocarpicola TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lithocarpicola Takahashi, 1942b: 32-33. Type data: THAILAND: Mt Sutep, on Lithocarpus sp., 12/04/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1942b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1942b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale narrow, a little widened posteriorly, convex, white, about 1 mm long, exuviae pale yellowish-brown (Takahashi, 1942b).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis lithocarpicola is characterized by the very few dorsal gland ducts on the pygidium, the antennae situated nearly on the front margin, the large median lobes and the presence of 2 very short wide fimbriated processes on each side of the pygidium (Takahashi, 1942b).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 47]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32-33].
Chionaspis longiloba CooleyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis longiloba Cooley, 1899: 16-17. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, on Populus sp., 14/04/1896, by H.H. Eldnyde. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAMES: long-lobed chionaspis [Hollin1923]; longiloba scale [Dekle1965c]; longiloba scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Perissopterus pulchellus [Herric1911].
HOSTS: Ericaceae: Thamnus purshiana [TakagiKa1967]. Salicaceae: Populus canadensis [LiuKoRh1989], Populus deltoides [Hartma1916], Populus sp. [LiuKoRh1989], Salix nigra [LiuKoRh1989], Salix sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [LiuKoRh1989], Arkansas [LiuKoRh1989], California [LiuKoRh1989], Florida [Dekle1965c], Kansas [Dean1909], Louisiana [Barber1911], Michigan [Koszta1963], Missouri [Hollin1923], Nebraska [LiuKoRh1989], Ohio [Hartma1916], Oregon [SchuhMo1948], Texas [Cooley1899]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, oystershell-shaped, white, about 1.5 mm long, exuviae yellowish brown. Adult female spindle-shaped, segments produced laterally, 0.8-0.9 mm long (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis longiloba can be told from other Chionaspis species by the zygosis of the median lobes being rather short and broad and the second lobes being well developed and broad (McDaniel, 1971).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 441 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 18 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1971: 280 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 49 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 329 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Barber1911 [distribution, host: 450]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 162-165]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 16-17]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 269]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 37]; DoaneVaCh1936 [taxonomy: 378]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 198]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-21]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:49]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-28]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host: 20, 24, 69]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 72-73]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 460]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 272-273]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68-71]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 329]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 288, 290-291]; Mead1983 [distribution, host: 3]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 19]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 47]; SchuhMo1948 [distribution: 46]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host: 30, 38].
Chionaspis lutea NewsteadNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lutea Newstead, 1911a: 169-170. Type data: TANZANIA: Amani, on unidentified tree, ?/08/1902, by A. Zimmermann.. Type depository: Berlin: Museum fur Naturkunde der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis lutea; Sasscer, 1912: 90. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) lutea; Newstead, 1917b: 133. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus leteus; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Diaspis lutea; Hargreaves, 1937: 516. Change of combination. Notes: Lindinger (1949) stated that Diaspis lutea Newstead was an invalid name due to the senior name Diaspis lutea Lancry, however, the two names are not homonyms, having never been in Diaspis at the same time. Even Lindinger, who noted the problem, did not suggest a replacement name. It is probable that Hargreaves created the new combination accidentally.
HOST: Apocynaceae: Funtumia sp. [Newste1917b]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ghana [Newste1917b]; Nigeria [Medler1980]; Sierra Leone [Hargre1937]; Tanzania [Newste1911a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1911a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of male smooth and flat, without any trace of carinae. Female puparium narrowly pyriform, sometimes slightly curved, exuviae and secretionary portion yellow, thin and semitransparent, revealing the sublying skins (Newstead, 1911a).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis lutea is close to Indian species like Unaspis flava and Aulacaspis litzeae, but is distinguished chiefly by the absence of long spinose gland spines on the pygidium, and the broader duplex lobes (Newstead, 1911a). Hall (1946a) felt that Chionaspis lutea does not belong in Chionaspis. He states that the characters of the pygidium are typical of Diaspis, yet the body shape is not turbinate and the female scale is typically Chionaspiform with terminal exuviae. The shape of the scale shows considerable variation according to position, some being narrowly elongate while others are much broadened posteriorly. Were it not for this, one would have no hesitation in assigning it to the genus Diaspis."
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 347 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 508, 550]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 75]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 347]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 123]; Newste1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 169-170]; Newste1917b [distribution, taxonomy: 133]; Sassce1912 [distribution, host: 90].
Chionaspis machilicola (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis machilicola Takahashi, 1935: 13-15. Type data: TAIWAN: Taito, Chipponsan, on Machilus sp., 23/03/1934, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis machilicola; Takagi, 1970: 34. Change of combination.
HOST: Lauraceae: Machilus sp. [Takaha1935]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, rather thick, flattened, not convex, subcircular or irregular in shape, about 3.5 mm long, with many irregular transverse striae on the secretion, the venter closed by a white secretion easily separable from the dorsal secretion. Exuviae consist of some very thin layers easily separable, pale yellow, on margin of scale (Takahashi, 1935).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-15]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3].
Chionaspis megazygosis ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis megazygosis Chen, 1983: 9, 90-91. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Gengma, on Eurya sp., ?/12/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Theaceae: Eurya sp. [Chen1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis megazygosis is allied to C. parkii(=C. platani), but differs from it in the forms and arrangements of the dorsal ducts, the numbers of parastigmatic pores and marginal gland spines, in addition to the special xygosis (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 7 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9, 90-91]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host: 40]; Tao1999 [distribution: 78].
Chionaspis montanoides TangNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis montanoides Tang, 1986: 78. Type data: CHINA: Xinjiang, Aksu County, on Salix sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Tang1986], Salix sp. [Tang1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1986], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate fusiform, about 1.35 mm long. Pygidium broad and with 3 pairs of lobes; median lobes with smaller basal zygosis and ventral paraphyses (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis montanoides is close to C. montana (=C. salicis), but differs from it in that the 6th abdominal segment has only macroducts submedially, the presence of basal paraphyses on the ventrum of the median and the 2nd pairs of lobes and by microducts on the 1st abdominal segment submedially and laterally (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79, 299]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78].
Chionaspis nyssae ComstockNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis nyssae Comstock, 1881a: 316-317. Type data: UNITED STATES: North Carolina, Bakersville, on Nyssa multiflora. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Knipscher, Miller & Davidson, 1976: 5. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 629. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis nyssae; Cockerell, 1899a: 398. Change of combination.
Chionaspis sylvatica Sanders, 1904: 95-96. Type data: UNITED STATES: Ohio, Fairfield Country, Sugar Grove; Licking County, Newark; Perry County, Somerset; Guernsey County, Quaker City; all on Nyssa sylvatica, by J.G. Sanders. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 33.
Fundaspis sylvatica; MacGillivray, 1921: 338. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus nyssae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: sour gum chionapsis [Hollin1923]; sour-gum scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989]; sourgum scale [Borchs1966]; tupelo gum scale [Dekle1965c].
FOES: ACARINA Cymbaeremaeidae: Scapheremaeus marmoratus [Koszta1963]. Haplozetidae: Peloribates sp. [Koszta1963]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Chiloneurinus microphagus [Koszta1963], Prospaltella sp. [Koszta1963].
HOSTS: Corylaceae: Carpinus sp. [Dekle1965c]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [KnipscMiDa1976]. Lauraceae: Lindera benzoin [KnipscMiDa1976]. Nyssaceae: Nyssa aquatica [BesheaTiHo1973], Nyssa multiflora [Comsto1881a], Nyssa sylvatica [Sander1904]. Rosaceae: Crataegus sp. [KnipscMiDa1976]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos tinctoria [KnipscMiDa1976]. Ulmaceae: Celtis occidentalis [Koszta1963].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [KnipscMiDa1976], Connecticut [Koszta1996], District of Columbia [MerrilCh1923], Florida [MerrilCh1923], Georgia [Scott1900], Indiana [DietzMo1916a], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [Koszta1963], Mississippi [KnipscMiDa1976], Missouri [Hollin1923], New Jersey [KnipscMiDa1976], New York [KnipscMiDa1976], North Carolina [Comsto1881a], Ohio [Sander1904], Pennsylvania [Sleesm1945], South Carolina [KnipscMiDa1976], Texas [Ferris1937], Virginia [Ferris1937], West Virginia [MerrilCh1923]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of Chionaspis sylvatica by Sanders (1904) and Knipscher et al., (1976). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongated, oystershell-shaped, white, 1.5-2.0 mm long. Male scale elongated, oval, tricarinate, white, 0.7-0.9 mm long, exuviae yellow (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis nyssae can be distinguished by the median lobes being fused almost to the apices so that only a small, median notch remains. The outer margins are long and slightly serrate (McDaniel, 1971).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 438 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 14 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1972a: 337 (female) [as Phenacaspis nyssae; Key to the Texas species of the genus Phenacaspis Cooley and Cockerell]; McDaniel 1971: 280 (female) [as Chionaspis sylvatica; Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [as Chionapsis sylvatica; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1963: 91 [as Phenacaspis nyssae; Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis]; Ferris 1942: 49 [as Chionaspis sylvatica; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [as Chionaspis sylvatica; Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 351 [Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [as Chionaspis sylvatica; Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [illustration, taxonomy: 67]; BeardsGo1975 [taxonomy: 50]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 58]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; Brimle1942 [distribution, host: 10]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 165-170]; Cocker1891 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 316-317]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 105]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 465-466, 559, 566]; Cooley1903 [taxonomy: 48]; Couch1931 [ecology, host: 395]; Danzig1980b [taxonomy: 310]; Davies1981 [taxonomy: 151]; Davies1983 [taxonomy: 144]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 99]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 39, 110]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 276-277]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 239]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 77]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-25, SI-92]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:49, 59]; Ferris1953 [taxonomy: 62]; Ferris1955d [illustration, taxonomy: 43]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71, 74]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 11, 12, 14]; Herric1935 [distribution, host: 297]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 28, 69]; Howell1980 [taxonomy: 88]; Howell1981 [ecology, taxonomy: 26]; Howell1984 [ecology, taxonomy: 329]; HowellTi1976 [structure: 179]; KnipscMiDa1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 3-13]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77-78, 92-93]; Koszta1987 [taxonomy: 218]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 460, 462-464]; KosztaRh1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Kuwana1926 [taxonomy: 30]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71-74]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 338, 351]; MacGow1983 [taxonomy: 9]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 57]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 1]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291, 293]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 337-338]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 70]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195, 217, 247-248]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerKo1979 [life history: 5]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 19]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Robiso1977 [structure: 45, 47]; Sander1904 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 50-51]; Schmid1940 [taxonomy: 245]; Scott1900 [distribution, host: 52]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44, 47]; Takagi1967a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 55-56]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 69]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 3, 40]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 109]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 38]; Tippin1968 [host: 13]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 8]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; USDAAP1978 [distribution, host: 1]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 422]; Yang1982 [illustration, taxonomy: 246].
Chionaspis obclavata ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis obclavata Chen, 1983: 78. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Wuyi mountain, on Quercus sp., ?/05/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis obclavuta; Shi & Liu, 1991: 164. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Chen1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
STRUCTURE: Body of adult female elongate, invertedly clavate, length of cephalothorax two to three times more than the abdomen. Median lobes short and plump, projecting parallel backward, second lobes very small, inner lobule with triangular apex, marginal gland spines long and slender, three pairs only (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis obclavata resembles C. kabyliensis, but the larger median lobes, fewer and different scattering of dorsal ducts make it distinct from the latter (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 7 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 11, 91]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78].
Chionaspis ortholobis ComstockNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis ortholobis Comstock, 1881a: 317-318. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, San Bernardino, on Salix sp. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 77. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. C94b. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAMES: California willow scale [Borchs1966]; cottonwood scale [Essig1926]; cottonwood scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989]; straight lobed chionaspis [Hollin1923]; willow scale [Carnes1907].
FOE: DIPTERA Chamaemyiidae: Leucopis nigricornis [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus [Borchs1966]. Ericaceae: Arbutus menziisii [LiuKoRh1989], Arctostaphylos patula [LiuKoRh1989], Arctostaphylos sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Fabaceae: Cytisus scoparius [LiuKoRh1989]. Platanaceae: Platanus occidentalis [DietzMo1916a]. Rhamnaceae: Ceanothus cordulatus [LiuKoRh1989], Ceanothus integerrimus [TakagiKa1967], Ceanothus martini [LiuKoRh1989], Ceanothus sanguineus [LiuKoRh1989], Ceanothus sp. [LiuKoRh1989], Ceanothus velutinus [LiuKoRh1989], Rhamnus purshiana [Ferris1937]. Salicaceae: Populus grandidentata [King1900c], Salix sp. [Comsto1881a]. Sterculiaceae: Fremontia [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada (British Columbia [Venabl1939]); United States of America (Arizona [LiuKoRh1989], California [Comsto1881a], Colorado [GilletBa1895], Idaho [LiuKoRh1989], Indiana [DietzMo1916a], Iowa [Newell1899a], Kansas [Cooley1899], Massachusetts [King1900c], Missouri [Hollin1923], Nebraska [Cocker1894l], New Mexico [Essig1926], Oregon [LiuKoRh1989], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928], Utah [LiuKoRh1989], Washington [LiuKoRh1989], Wyoming [LiuKoRh1989]).
BIOLOGY: Eggs of Chionaspis ortholobis were found under scales in mid September, indicating that the species overwinters as an egg (Cooley, 1899).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration also by Liu et al. (1989). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2-2.5 mm long, moderately elongated, broadest near the middle of the scale, exuviae dirty white, .8 mm long, brown. Male scale .6-.8 mm long, oval, without carinae, exuvia pale brown or almost colorless (Cooley, 1899). Eggs are dark purple (Comstock, 1881a).
SYSTEMATICS: Kosztarab (1963) states that Chionaspis ortholobis is identical to Chionaspis parkii, but Takagi (1985) lists C. ortholobis as a valid name and C. parkii as a junior synonym of C. platani.
KEYS: Gill 1997: 77 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 135 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 18 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 327 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 348]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 122]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 364]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 85-88]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 170-174]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195-196]; Chambe1931 [economic importance, taxonomy: 30]; Cocker1894l [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 189]; Cocker1905b [taxonomy: 202]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 317]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 105]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 466, 559, 566]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 17-18]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 270]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 264, 273-274]; Essig1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Essig1931 [taxonomy: 578]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-22]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 24]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79]; GilletBa1895 [distribution, host: 129]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Herric1935 [distribution, host: 285, 319]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Hunter1900 [distribution, host: 101]; Hunter1902 [distribution, host: 117, 139]; King1900c [distribution, host: 117]; King1902b [distribution, host: 62]; Koszta1963 [distribution, taxonomy: 73-74]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 273-275]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74-78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 98-99, 101]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 19]; Newell1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration: 154-155]; Osborn1898 [distribution, host: 228]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; RileyHo1894 [taxonomy: 328]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43, 48]; Schuma1919a [biological control: 305]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 38]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Venabl1939 [distribution, host: 24]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113].
Chionaspis osmanthi (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis osmanthi Ferris, 1953: 64. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Osmanthus sp., 29/10/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis osmanti; Chou, 1982: 142. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis osmanthi; Takagi, 1985: 41. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis osmanthi; Tao, 1999: 113. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Oleaceae: Osmanthus fragrans [Hua2000], Osmanthus sp. [Ferris1953]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1953]); Taiwan [Tao1999].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis osmanthi was frequently found associated with fungi in the Septobasidium genus (Ferris, 1953).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale rather broadly oval. Adult female elongate, somewhat fusiform, widest across the mesothorax, with slight constrictions between the various segments (Ferris, 1953).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis osmanthi; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis osmanti; Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Ferris 1953: 62 [as Phenacaspis osmanthi; Keys to species from the vicinity of Kunming].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 70]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142, 151]; Chou1986 [illustration: 565]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62, 64]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host: 71, 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 247].
Chionaspis pinifoliae (Fitch)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus Pinifoliae Fitch, 1856: 488-491. Type data: UNITED STATES: Illinois, Cook Co., Springfield, on Pinus sp., 9/?/1855, by R. W. Kennicott. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA. Described: female.
Mytilaspis pinifoliae; LeBaron, 1872: 83. Change of combination.
Chionaspis pinifoliae; Comstock, 1881a: 318. Change of combination.
Chionaspis pinifoliae semiaurea Cockerell, 1895u: 730-731. Type data: UNITED STATES: Colorado, on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 354. Notes: We have been unable to locate material of Chionaspis pinifoliae semiaurea either in the USNM or the BMNH.
Leucaspis pinifoliae; García Mercet, 1912: 215. Change of combination.
Chionaspis pinifolia; Ruhl, 1913: 80. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) pinifoliae; Balachowsky, 1930d: 266. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus pinifolii; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Misspelling of species name.
Polyaspis pinifolii; Lindinger, 1935: 140. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis pinifoliae; Ferris, 1937: SI-93. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille des aiguilles du pin [MawFoHa2000]; guagua de las hojas del pino [AlayoS1976]; pine leaf scale [Britto1922, Hollin1923]; pine needle scale [Koszta1963, Gorham1922]; pine-leaf scale [Herric1929]; pine-leaf scale-insect [Lintne1889]; pine-tree scale [Newste1907a]; white pine needle scale [Gill1997]; white pine scale [Brown1916].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspidis [Watson2002a], Coccobius howardi [Watson2002a], Coccobius varicornis [Watson2002a]. Eulophidae: Closterocerus phenacapsius [Watson2002a]. ACARI Ceratozetidae: Trichoribates sp. [Koszta1963]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes sp. [CooperCr1999]. Oribatulidae: Zygoribatula pyrostigmata [Koszta1963]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bivulnerus [Cooley1899, Lintne1889, Britto1922], Chilocorus kuwanae [Lambdi1995], Chilocorus orbus monticolus [RobertLuDa1973], Chilocorus stigma [HertinSi1972], Coccidophilus atronitens [CooperCr1999], Coccidophilus atronitens [RobertLuDa1973], Coccinella picta [Cooley1899], Harmonia picta [Britto1914, Britto1922], Microweisea marginata [Gorham1922, MartelSh1970], Scymnus sp. [Cooley1899, Britto1922]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus nigritulus [Cooley1899, Britto1922]. DIPTERA Chamaemyiidae: Leucopis nigricornis [Fulmek1943]. HEMIPTERA Anthocoridae: Melanocoris nigricornis [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus atomon [Watson2002a], Aphelinus mytilaspidis [Cooley1899, MartelSh1968, Ruhl1913, Britto1922], Aphytis chilensis [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis diaspidis [Fulmek1943, MartelSh1968], Aphytis longiclavae [Garcia1930], Aphytis proclia [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis sp. [Koszta1963], Aspidiophagus citrinus [NikolsYa1966], Azotus pinifoliae [Fulmek1943], Coccobius varicornis [CooperCr1999], Coccophagus flavifrons [CooperCr1999], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia sp. [CooperCr1999], Euaphycus pinicola [Fulmek1943], Marietta mexicana [MartelSh1968], Marietta pulchella [Fulmek1943], Physcus howardi [RobertLuDa1973], Physcus sp. [DeSant1940], Physcus varicornis [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Perissopterus mexicanus [Garcia1912], Perissopterus pulchellus [Cooley1899, Britto1922], Prospalta aurantii [Morley1909], Prospaltella bella [RobertLuDa1973], Prospaltella leucaspidis [Fulmek1943], Waterstonia prima [Fulmek1943]. Eulophidae: Achrysocharis phenacapsia [RobertLuDa1973]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora conjugalis [Fulmek1943]. NEUROPTERA Chrysopidae: Chrysopa sp. [Cooley1899, Britto1922].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Cupressus sp. [Watson2002a], Juniperus sp. [MillerDa2005], Juniperus virginiana [LambdiWa1980]. Pinaceae: Abies alba [Cooley1899], Abies balsamea [KosztaRh1999], Abies concolor [Jorgen1934], Abies excelsa [Cooley1899], Abies fraseri [KosztaRh1999], Abies grandis [King1901f], Abies nigra [Cooley1899], Abies sp. [MillerDa2005], Cedrus [Borchs1966], Cedrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Picea abies [Koszta1963], Picea alba [King1901f], Picea engelmanni [Jorgen1934], Picea orientalis [Koszta1963], Picea pungens [Amos1933], Picea pungens var. glauca [Koszta1963], Picea rubens [LambdiWa1980], Picea sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Pinus austriaca [Cooley1899, Lintne1889], Pinus caribaea [AlayoS1976], Pinus cembra [Cooley1899], Pinus densiflora [Britto1922], Pinus excelsa [Cooley1899], Pinus flexilis [HorninBa1970], Pinus halepensis [Newste1907a], Pinus heterophylla [Ballou1926], Pinus laricis [Cooley1899], Pinus longifolia [Newste1907a], Pinus mitis [Cooley1899], Pinus mughus [Britto1905], Pinus nigra [Koszta1963], Pinus pumilio [Cooley1899], Pinus pyrenaica [Cooley1899], Pinus radiata [Brown1916], Pinus resinosa [Cooley1899, Gorham1922], Pinus rigida [Koszta1963], Pinus scopulorum [Cocker1910b], Pinus sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Pinus strobus [Cooley1899, Lintne1889, Gorham1922], Pinus sylvestris [Cooley1899], Pinus tropicalis [AlayoS1976], Pinus virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973], Pseudotsuga mucronata [Jorgen1934], Pseudotsuga sp. [MillerDa2005], Pseudotsuga taxifolia [Cooley1899], Tsuga canadensis [BesheaTiHo1973], Tsuga sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Torreya sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada [MillerDa2005] (Alberta [MawFoHa2000], British Columbia [King1901f, Prover1956], New Brunswick [Gorham1922], Nova Scotia [Watson2002a], Ontario [Cooley1899], Prince Edward Island [Watson2002a], Quebec [MartelSh1968], Saskatchewan [MawFoHa2000]); Mexico [MacGre1974, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Alabama [Willia1977aML], Arizona [MillerDa2005], California [Cooley1899, LuckDa1975, MillerDa2005], Colorado [Cocker1895u, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1905, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Florida [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Idaho [HorninBa1970, MillerDa2005], Illinois [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Dean1909, MillerDa2005], Iowa [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Hunter1900], Kentucky [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maine [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Michigan [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Minnesota [MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923], Montana [MillerDa2005], Nebraska [MillerDa2005], Nevada [Herric1929], New Hampshire [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], New Mexico [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], New York [Cooley1899, Lintne1889, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], North Dakota [Herric1929, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Oregon [SchuhMo1948, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Sleesm1945, MillerDa2005], South Dakota [MillerDa2005], Tennessee [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1972a, MillerDa2005], Utah [Jorgen1934, MillerDa2005], Vermont [MillerDa2005], Virginia [French1942, MillerDa2005], Washington [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], West Virginia [MillerDa2005], Wisconsin [SeveriSe1909, MillerDa2005], Wyoming [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Chile [Watson2002a]; Cuba [Ballou1923, AlayoS1976, MestreHaEv2011] [MillerDa2005]; El Salvador [Watson2002a]; Honduras [Watson2002a]. Palaearctic: Germany [MillerDa2005]; Libya [DanzigPe1998]; United Kingdom [DanzigPe1998] [MillerDa2005].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis pinifoliae overwinters as eggs. There are two generations per year in Ohio (Kosztarab, 1963). In Canada, the western U.S., and the northern most eastern U.S. 1 generation per year is reported. From the southern U.S., Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and parts of New York there are 2 generations each year. This species usually overwinters in the egg stage, but Luck and Dahlsten (1974) discovered that gravid adult females overwintered on Jeffrey pine at South Lake Tahoe, California, while those on lodgepole pine in the same area overwintered in the normal manner as eggs. The lodgepole population is parthenogenetic, while the Jeffrey pine population has about a 50:50 mix of males and females. A generalized life history for the Jeffrey population is as follows: Egg laying began in late May, although a relatively small number of eggs were laid on warm days in the winter. Crawlers appeared in mid-June and persisted until August, 2nd instars were present from late July through September, adult males were present in September, and adult females appeared in early September. Stimmann (1969) found that adult females laid eggs throughout the winter in Oregon on lodgepole pine. Burden and Hart (1989) developed a degree-day model for egg eclosion of this species. Eliason and McCullough (1997) demonstrated different survival rates and fecundity on four varieties of Scotch pine suggesting the possibility of host plant resistance. Stimmel (2002, personal communication) indicated that this species overwinters as both eggs and gravid females in Pennsylvania. Shour (1986) examined feeding preferences based on needle surface (convex vs. concave) and needle age and also examined differencees in settling site preferences between males and females. There were slight differences compared with Chionaspis heterophyllae, pine scale. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). R. Gwiazdowski and B.B. Normark report sup to ~10% divergence in mitrochondrial DNA between populations acrossthe United States despite close morphological similarity.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Cooley (1899). Detailed treatment of male morphs by Bullington et al. (1989). This species was recorded by Newstead (1907a) and Hall (1923) in Egypt, but this record was based on a misidentification of Leucaspis pusilla.
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate oval, almost parallel sided on spruce, usually broader on pine needles, convex, snow white, 2.5-3.0 mm long. First exuviae almost colorless, second exuviae orange-yellow. Male scale elongate oval, slightly broadened posteriorly, tricarinate, white, 1.0 mm long, 0.4 mm wide, exuviae pale yellow (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: The armored scale insects Chionaspis pinifoliae (Fitch) and Chionaspis heterophyllae Cooley 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 conÞrms 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) Cockerell (1895u) described the subspecies Chionaspis pinifoliae semiaureus based on specimens whose exuviae was bright orange instead of the usual yellow.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Common pest of conifers, especially in urban environments, also in Christmas tree plantations. It is considered one of the most serious pests of ornamental pines, especially mugho and Scotch pines in the USA (Johnson & Lyon, 1991). Miller & Davidson (1990) also list this insect as a serious pest. The pine needle scale can build to large populations which cause the needles of infested trees to appear gray from a distance. In heavy infestations needles turn yellow and eventually drop. The lower branches usually die first and entire trees may be killed. Cumming (1953) considered this species to be a serious pest of spruce and pine in ornamental plantings in the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious pest in a small area of the world. (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)
KEYS: Vea et al. 2012: 53-54 (female) [Pine-feeding Chionaspis of North America]; Gill 1997: 75 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bullington, Kosztarab & Jiang 1989: 134 (male) [Key to 17 adult male morphs of 12 species of North American Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 15 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1972a: 337 (female) [as Phenacaspis pinifoliae; Key to the Texas species of the genus Phenacaspis Cooley and Cockerell]; Kosztarab 1963: 91 [as Phenacaspis pinifoliae; Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [as Phenacaspis pinifoliae; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Balachowsky 1930d: 266 (female) [Tableau de détermination des Chionaspis Sign. (sensu lato) vivant aux dépens des Conifères]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 326 (female) [as Chionaspis pinifoliae; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [as Chionaspis pinifolii; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [as Chionaspis pinifolii; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1286]; AlayoS1976 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18-19]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Baker1972 [distribution, host: 109]; Balach1930d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 266]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 351, 354-356]; Ballou1923 [distribution: 86]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 15]; BeardsGo1975 [economic importance: 49]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Bonafo1981 [p. 168]; BoratyWi1964 [p. 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124-125]; Boyd1946 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 99-100]; Britto1905 [distribution, host, illustration: 11]; Britto1914 [biological control, distribution: 14]; Britto1922 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 181-183]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 365]; Britto1926 [chemical control, distribution, life history: 228, 237]; Brown1916 [biological control, distribution, ecology, host, illustration: 415-418]; Brown1958CE [distribution, ecology, host: 685-690]; Brown1959CE [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 529-535]; Brown1960 [chemistry: 163, 165]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 182-194]; BruesGl1921 [ecology: 300]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 139]; BullinKoJi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 174-177]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 196]; Cocker1895u [distribution, taxonomy: 730-731]; Cocker1905b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; Cocker1910b [distribution, host: 427]; Comper1936 [biological control, distribution: 315]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 318-319]; Comsto1883 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 105]; Comsto1916 [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 467-468, 559, 566]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 10, 30-34]; CooperCr1999 [biological control, distribution: 131-133]; Cummin1953 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 347-352]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 270]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution: 177]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 111]; DeSant1940 [biological control: 35]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 264, 268]; Dougla1912 [distribution, host: 190]; DrakeGu1931 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-13]; Edmund1973 [taxonomy: 766]; EliasoMc1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 1598-1608]; Englis1976 [distribution, host: 54-56]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-93]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 47]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:60]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host: 71-72, 74]; Fitch1856 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 488-490]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 24, 41]; French1942 [distribution: 9]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 24, 54]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 122]; Garcia1930 [chemical control: 53]; Garcia1931a [biological control: 668]; Ghesqu1933 [taxonomy: 345]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80-81]; Giraul1909 [life history: 356]; GlynnHe2004 [ecology: 748-755]; Gorham1922 [behaviour, biological control, distribution, ecology, economic importance, host, life history: 37-41]; Green1930 [distribution, host, illustration: 17]; GwiazdNo2008 [physiology: 36]; GwiazdNo2014 [biological control, life history: 356-363]; GwiazdVeAn2011 [description, distribution, molecular data, phylogenetics: 47-62]; Hagen1974 [biological control, host: 34-35]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 53-54]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Heriot1931 [taxonomy: 11]; Herric1929 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 198-201]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 188]; HilburWe1984 [distribution, host, life history: 1]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 26-27, 69]; HorninBa1970 [distribution, host: 22]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; Hunter1900 [distribution, host: 104]; Johnso1982 [distribution, host, life history: 117-119]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, host: 82, 90]; Jorgen1934 [distribution, host: 277]; Kelleh1984 [distribution, host: 64-65]; King1899d [distribution, host: 252]; King1900c [distribution, host: 117]; King1901f [distribution, host: 200]; King1901j [distribution, host: 333]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Koszta1977a [distribution, host: 185]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 464-466]; KosztaRh1999 [distribution, host: 122]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 238]; Lambdi1995 [biological control: 327-330]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 265-266]; Lindin1932c [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; Lintne1889 [biological control, description, economic importance, host, illustration: 266-267]; Lintne1895 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 271]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-84]; Luck1973 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 893]; LuckDa1974 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 309]; LuckDa1975 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 893-904]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 326]; MacGre1974 [distribution: 82]; Mani1976 [biological control: 63]; Martel1972 [chemical control, distribution, host: 20-23]; MartelSh1968 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration, life history: 19-25]; MartelSh1970 [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61-65]; MartelSh1975 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 11-14]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 8]; McClur1982 [distribution, host: 156]; McClurFe1977 [distribution, host: 807-811]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 3]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 338]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 149]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 11]; Miller1999 [taxonomy: 14]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 116]; MillerKo1979 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Morley1909 [biological control: 276]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 20]; Neiswa1966 [distribution, host: 10]; Newste1906 [distribution, host: 69]; Newste1907a [chemical control, description, distribution, host: 9]; NielseJo1973 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 1161-1164]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 194, 199, 204, 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Osborn1898 [distribution, host: 228]; Panis1969 [distribution, host: 384]; Pedgle1982 [taxonomy: 90]; Pettit1928 [distribution, host: 191]; PhilpoBeMi2009 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 381-385]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Prover1956 [chemical control, distribution, host: 653-655]; RauppHoSa2001 [chemical control, host: 204]; RobertLuDa1973 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration: 10-12]; RosenDe1977 [taxonomy: 11]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 763]; Ruhl1913 [biological control: 80]; Ruhl1913c [taxonomy: 80]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 49]; Sander1910 [taxonomy: 60]; Savos1979 [chemical control: 3]; SchildSc1928 [taxonomy: 237]; Schude1975 [chemical control: 1]; SchuhMo1948 [distribution, host: 49-50]; SeveriSe1909 [distribution, host: 297]; ShenefBe1955 [distribution, host: 36]; Signor1877 [taxonomy: 604]; Simmon1957 [p. 5]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 5]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 46]; Stimma1969 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 930-931]; Stimme1996b [illustration: 38]; Strong1922 [distribution, host: 418]; Sulliv1930 [distribution, host: 56]; SwanPa1972 [distribution, host: 165]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Tamaki1969 [taxonomy: 89]; Tippin1968 [distribution, taxonomy: 13]; TookerHa2000 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 1305-1311]; Treher1916 [distribution: 180]; TremblCa1972 [structure: 431]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; VeaGwNo2012 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-39,53-54]; Venabl1939 [distribution: 24]; Venabl1939 [distribution, host: 24]; Wallne1978 [taxonomy: 97]; WalstaNiJo1973 [distribution, ecology, host: 109-112]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113]; Weidha1968 [taxonomy: 256]; Westco1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 415]; Willia1977aML [distribution, host: 13]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 48].
Chionaspis platani CooleyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis platani Cooley, 1899: 36. Type data: UNITED STATES: Kansas, Riley Co., on sycamore, by P.J. Parrott. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 88. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis ortholobis; Dietz & Morrison, 1916a: 273-274. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1937: SI-23.
Phenacaspis platani; MacGillivray, 1921: 345. Change of combination.
Chionaspis parkii Hollinger, 1923: 25-26. Type data: UNITED STATES: Missouri, Boone County, Columbia, on Cottonwood. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 34. Notes: Although most of Hollinger's material is in the USNM, we have been unable to locate type material of Chionaspis parkii.
Trichomytilus platani; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis occidentalis Kosztarab, 1963: 93-94. Type data: UNITED STATES: Indiana, Indianapolis, on Platanus occidentalis, 02/08/1961, by M. Kosztarab. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Nakahara, 1975: 202.
Chionaspis occidentalis; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 38. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: sycamore bark chionaspis [Hollin1923]; sycamore bark scale [Borchs1966]; sycamore scale [Hollin1923]; sycamore scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Platanaceae: Platanus occidentalis [Amos1933], Platanus sp. [Koszta1963]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Nuevo Leon [LiuKoRh1989]); United States of America (Indiana [Amos1933], Kansas [Cooley1899], Louisiana [LiuKoRh1989], Maryland [LiuKoRh1989], Missouri [Hollin1923], North Carolina [LiuKoRh1989], Ohio [Koszta1963], Texas [Koszta1963], Virginia [LiuKoRh1989]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Cooley (1899).
STRUCTURE: Scale of male about .7mm long and .2mm wide, elongate, parallel sided, moderately thin, slightly elevated and highest at the caudal end of the exuviae, ventral scale thick and white. Scale of female about 2mm long and 1.5 to 1mm wide, distinctly pyriform or broadened posteriorly, thin to moderately thick, tough, flat to slightly convex, whitish. Adult female moderately large, rather ovate, yellowish brown to orange brown when immature, purplish at maturity (Hollinger, 1923). Female scale elongate, oystershell-shaped, convex, thin, white, 2.0 mm long, exuviae light yellow (Kosztarab, 1963).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 16 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McDaniel 1972a: 337 (female) [as Phenacaspis platani; Key to the Texas species of the genus Phenacaspis Cooley and Cockerell]; Kosztarab 1963: 90 [as Phenacaspis occidentalis; Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [as Chionaspis parkii; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1963: 91 [as Phenacaspis platani; Key to Ohio species of Phenacaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 (female) [as Chionaspis parkii; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [as Chionaspis parkii; Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 345 [Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; Amos1933a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210-211]; Balach1954e [distribution: 354]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; Brown1965 [physiology: 226]; Chen1983 [taxonomy: 9, 75, 91, 95]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 270]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 273-274]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-23, SI-94]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50, 60]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Herric1935 [distribution, host: 289]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 25-27, 69]; Hunter1900 [distribution, host: 103]; KnipscMiDa1976 [taxonomy: 9]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 90, 93-94, 96-97]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 466-469]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1902 [taxonomy: 77]; Kuwana1907 [taxonomy: 198]; Kuwana1917a [taxonomy: 15]; Kuwana1928 [taxonomy: 27-28]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 271-272]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84-91]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 345]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 20]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host: 30, 34, 38].
Chionaspis pusa RaoNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis pusa Fletcher, 1921: 19. Nomen nudum; discovered by Rao, 1953: 61. Notes: This nomen nudum was also used by Misra (1924CS) and Clausen (1933).
Chionaspis pusa Rao, 1953: 61-62. Type data: INDIA: Pusa, on Citrus sp., by T.B. Fletcher. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Misra1924CS]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Misra1924CS] (Bihar [Ali1969a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Rao (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, 1st exuviae pale yellow, 2nd light orange with a whitish wax secretion on top. Adult female elliptical. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes; median lobes large, meeting at base, with both inner and outer margins notched; 2nd lobes duplex, inner lobule elongated, outer lobule tooth-like; 3rd lobe also duplex, inner lobule much longer than outer. Margin of pygidium dentate in 2 regions beyond 3rd lobe. Pygidial margin with a single gland spine between median and 2nd lobes, a single gland spine between 2nd and 3rd lobes, 2 gland spines on the outer side of 3rd lobe and 3 between the two indented regions of the pygidial margin (Rao, 1953).
CITATIONS: Ali1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 16]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 268, 279]; Fletch1921 [distribution, host: 19]; MenonKh1963 [distribution: 281]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 348]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-62]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78, 79]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 75].
Chionaspis ramakrishnai RaoNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis ramakrishnae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 19. Nomen nudum; discovered by Rao, 1953: 64.
Chionaspis ramakrishnai Rao, 1953: 64. Type data: INDIA: Madras, Nilgiris, Coonoor, on Eugenia calophyllifolia, by Ramakrishna Ayyar. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [Sankar1984], Coccobius sp. [Sankar1984], Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984], Marietta sp. [Sankar1984], Pteroptrix chinensis [Sankar1984], Pteroptrix koebelei [RehmatAnKh2011], Pteroptrix sp. [Sankar1984]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus sp. [Sankar1984], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eugenia calophyllifolia [Ramakr1930], Syzigium cumini [Sankar1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1930]).
STRUCTURE: Female elliptical, broadest at the first and second abdominal segments (Rao, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis ramakrishnai resembles Chionaspis americana in possessing a median zygosis at the base of the median lobes, although in C. ramakrishnai it is more prominent and stalked (Rao, 1953).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102, 379]; FerrisRa1947 [p. 29]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 19]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution: 276]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 19]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 41]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 79]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60].
Chionaspis rotunda (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis rotunda Takahashi, 1935: 16-17. Type data: TAIWAN: Takao, Heito-Gun, Mutosan, on Quercus pseudomyrsinifolia, 23/03/1934, by R, Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis rotunda; Takagi, 1970: 70. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus pseudomyrisinifolia [Takaha1935].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, thin, not transparent, circular, not convex, about 2.0 mm in diameter. Exuviae yellow, narrowly brownish on the margin, on the marginal area of the scale, the first exuviae extending beyond the margin. Secretion with no striae and ridges. Adult female elongate, about 3 times as long as wide, nearly parallel on the sides, not sclerotic, not widened and with no tubercle (Takahashi, 1935).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis rotunda is related to Phenacaspis sozanica, but differs remarkably (Takahashi, 1935).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 64 [as Phenacaspis rotunda; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 352-353]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-17]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 102]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 79]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 247].
Chionaspis saitamaensis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis chinensis; Maskell, 1898: 231. Misidentification; discovered by Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 34.
Chionaspis solani Green, 1917a: 265. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ferris, 1956: 74.
Chionaspis saitamaensis Kuwana, 1928: 11-12. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Saitama & Miye & Wakayama-ken, all on Quercus glandulifera, 1923, by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis saitamensis; Takahashi, 1952a: 7. Misspelling of species name.
Phenacaspis saitamensis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 352. Misspelling of species name.
Phenacaspis saitamaensis; Takagi, 1961: 20. Change of combination.
Chionaspis pseudopolypora Chen, 1983: 79. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on Quercus sp., ?/11/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 299-300.
Phenacaspis sichuanensis Chen, 1983: 79. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, on undetermined Lauraceae. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tao, 1999: 79.
Phenacaspis sichuanensis; Chen, 1983: 80. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis saitamensis; Tang, 1984b: 130. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOSTS: Elaeagnaceae: Ealaeagnus pungens [Hua2000]. Fagaceae: Castanea [Borchs1966], Quercus dentata [Muraka1970], Quercus glandulifera [Kuwana1928], Quercus mongolica [Muraka1970], Quercus serrata [Muraka1970]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora [Hua2000], Litsea pungens [Tang1986], Machilus japonica [Tao1999], Machilus kusanoi [Tao1999], Machilus sp. [Tao1999], Phoebe namu [Hua2000], Phoebe sp. [Tao1999]. Tiliaceae: Tilia amurensis [Danzig1986a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Chen1983, Hua2000], Yunnan [Chen1983, Hua2000]); Sri Lanka [Ali1969a]; Taiwan [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: China (Jilin (=Kirin) [Tang1986], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tang1984b]); Japan [Tao1999] (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [Kuwana1928]); Russia [DanzigPe1998] (Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1986a]); South Korea [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1928) and Danzig (1986a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female elongate, slightly convex, white or dirty white, looks very much like bark of host plant. First exuviae dark, second exuviae covered with waxy secretion. Scale of male white, small, distinctly tricarinated (Kuwana, 1928).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis saitamaensis can be easily recognized by the large diverging median lobes and large marginal gland orifices (Kuwana, 1928).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 319 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of the Far East USSR]; Danzig 1986a: 368 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Chen 1983: 7, 64 [as Phenacaspis sichuanensis and Chionaspis pseudopolypora; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis, Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis saitamaensis; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Danzig 1980b: 310 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 33 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 55 (female) [as Chionaspis saitamensis; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 352]; Borchs1938 [taxonomy: 141]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126, 377]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11, 12, 79, 80, 91]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 353-354]; Chou1986 [illustration: 482]; Danzig1976 [taxonomy: 3, 5]; Danzig1977b [taxonomy: 41, 51]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 313-315]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 368, 371-373]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 723]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 326-328]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209-210, 211]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 34]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-52]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Green1917a [taxonomy: 265]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 290]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 11-12]; Maskel1898 [distribution, host: 231]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 88]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Stanna1965 [taxonomy: 573]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-24, 33]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 38]; Takaha1952a [host, taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 53-54, 55]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 130]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 299]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 79]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60]; Yang1982 [distribution, host: 248].
Chionaspis salicis (Linnaeus)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus salicis Linnaeus, 1758: 456. Type data: on Salix hermaphrodita. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Linnean Society of London, England.
Coccus cryptogamus Dalman, 1826: 357-363. Type data: SWITZERLAND: in forest, 17/07/1825. Unknown type status. Described: both sexes. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1935: 132.
Coccus (Aspidiotus) Salicis; Ratzeburg, 1844: 195. Change of combination.
Aspidiotes salicis; Bouché, 1844: 294. Change of combination.
Myzaegirus salicifex Amyot, 1847: 479. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 100.
Aspidiotus Populi Baerensprung, 1849: 167. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin. Syntypes. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1934e: 168. Notes: Type material presumed lost.
Aspidiotus salicis; Baerensprung, 1849: 167. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus minimus Baerensprung, 1849: 167-168. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on Populus sp. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 99. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Diaspis nivea Bremi, 1849: 327. Type data: SWITZERLAND: on Vaccinium myrtillus. Described: female. Synonymy by Signoret, 1869: 874. Notes: Although Borchsenius (1966) treated Diaspis nivea as an incertae sedis, most other authors (Signoret 1869, Comstock 1883 & 1916a, Lindinger 1935 & 1936) agreed it was a junior synonym of Chionaspis vaccinii (=C. salicis).
Aspidiotus saliceti Bouché, 1851: 111. Type data: GEMANY: Berlin. Syntypes, female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 100. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Aspidiotus Vaccinii Bouché, 1851: 111. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on Vaccinium sp. Syntypes, female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1934e: 165. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Aspidiotus salicis-nigrae Walsh, 1868: 40. Type data: UNITED STATES: Illinois, on Salix nigra, by B.D. Walsh. Unknown type status. Described: female. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1018. Notes: "Walsh's type of the species is lost, probably having been burned with the rest of his collection in the great Chicago fire (Cooley, 1899)."
Mytilaspis Maquarti Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 737. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 99.
Mytilaspis cryptogama; Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 738. Change of combination.
Diaspis myriadus Signoret, 1869: 871. Nomen nudum.
Chionaspis aceris Signoret, 1869d: 442. Type data: AUSTRIA: Vienna, by M. Mayr. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1937: 181.
Chionaspis alni Signoret, 1869d: 443. Type data: SWITZERLAND: Grindelwald. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1899a: 398.
Chionaspis fraxini Signoret, 1869d: 445. Type data: Europe. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Synonymy by Douglas, 1886: 249.
Chionaspis salicis; Signoret, 1869d: 447. Change of combination.
Chionaspis vaccinii; Signoret, 1869d: 448. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis salicis LeBaron, 1872: 140. Type data: UNITED STATES: Illinois, Stark County, on gray willow. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-24. Homonym of Chionaspis salicis (Linnaeus).
Diaspis salicicorticis Bessey, 1874: 244. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 100. Notes: Bessey gives the combination Diaspis salicicorticis authored by Riley, but as yet, no use of this name has been found in Riley's literature. Since Bessey did not intend to describe a new species, there is no type data included.
Lecanium Vaccinii; Kaltenbach, 1874: 420. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus mytilus Glaser, 1877: 49. Type data: GERMANY: Rhine area. Unknown type status. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1932f: 179. Notes: Although Lindinger (1932f) placed this in synonomy with Chionaspis salicis, Borchsenius (1966) treated it as an incertae sedis.
Chionaspis salicis; Comstock, 1881a: 320. Change of combination.
Coccus (Aspidiotus) mytilus; Glaser, 1886. Change of combination.
Chionaspis sorbi Douglas, 1893a: 130-131. Type data: FINLAND: Abo, on Sorbus aucuparia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 100.
Chionaspis ortholobis; Cockerell, 1894l: 189. Misidentification; discovered by Cockerell, 1898f: 133. Notes: Cockerell (1898f) states that his (1894l) redescription of Chionaspis ortholobis was actually a misidentification of his newly named species Chionaspis ortholobis bruneri, which is now considered a junior synonym of C. salicis.
Chionaspis ortholobis Bruneri Cockerell, 1898f: 133.
Chionaspis salicis-nigrae; Cooley, 1899: 10, 19. Change of combination.
Chionaspis bruneri; Cockerell, 1905b: 203. Change of combination and rank.
Chionaspis micropori Marlatt, 1908c: 25-26. Type data: CHINA: Shansi, Wu Tai Shan, on Populus tremula, by F.N. Meyer. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 14144. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1018. Notes: Paratype in NYSM (McCabe & Johnson, 1980).
Diaspis niveus; Comstock, 1916: 110. Misspelling of species name.
Aspidiotus cryptogamus; Lindinger, 1932: 27. Change of combination.
Diaspis populi; Lindinger, 1935: 132. Change of combination.
Chionaspis salicis Archangelskaya, 1937: 88. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1018.
Aspidiotus aceris; Ferris, 1941e: 40. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus alni; Ferris, 1941e: 40. Change of combination.
Chionaspis minimus; Ferris, 1941e: 45. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus salicifex; Ferris, 1941e: 48. Change of combination.
Chionaspis salicifex; Ferris, 1941e: 48. Change of combination.
Chionaspis montana Borchsenius, 1949b: 347. Type data: RUSSIA: Kirghiz, banks of Karakol River, near the mouth of the Susamyr, 1913, by V. Chernavin; Zailinskii Ala-tau, 1938, by P. Ovchinikov, on Salis sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1986a: 368. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia; type no. 54/39. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1018.
Chionaspis polypora Borchsenius, 1949b: 347. Type data: RUSSIA: Przhevalsk Semirechensk region, by D. Pedashenko. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1986a: 368. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia; type no. 145-10. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1018.
Chionaspis caucasioni Hadzibejli, 1963: 432. Type data: RUSSIA:. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1018.
COMMON NAMES: black willow bark louse [Walsh1868]; black willow scale [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005]; cochenille dartreuse du saule [MawFoHa2000]; cochenille du saule [Foldi2001]; cottonwood scale [MillerDa1990]; willow scale [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005]; willow scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Aphytis stepanovi [Watson2002a], Encarsia gigas [Watson2002a], Pteroptrix longicornis [Watson2002a]. Encyrtidae: Thomsonisca amanthus [Watson2002a], Zaomma lambinus. Phalangiidae: Platybunus pinetorum [KosztaKo1988F]. ACARI Acaridae: Histiogaster entomophagus [KosztaKo1988F]. Cymbaeremaeidae: Scapheremaeus sp. [Koszta1963]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes budensis [FainRi1998], Hemisarcoptes malus [Danzig1959]. ACARIFORMES Tyroglyphidae: Tyrophagus dimidiatus [KosztaKo1988F]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Danzig1959], Chilocorus bivulnerus [Cocker1910b], Chilocorus kuwanae [Lambdi1995], Chilocorus renipustulatus [Danzig1959], Chilocorus sp. [HertinSi1972], Novius suturalis [KosztaKo1988F], Scymnusrus suturalis [HertinSi1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus politus [HertinSi1972]. HEMIPTERA Anthocoridae: Anthocoris limbatus [HertinSi1972], Anthocoris minki [HertinSi1972]. Miridae: Orthonotus rufifrons [HertinSi1972], Pilophorus clavatus [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus celsus [Watson2002a], Aphelinus fuscipennis [KosztaKo1988F], Aphelinus mytilaspidis [Ruhl1913], Aphytis abnormis Howard [UlgentErKa2008], Aphytis diaspidis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis fuscipennis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis maculicornis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis mytilaspidis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis proclia [HertinSi1972], Aphytis sp. [HertinSi1972], Aphytis sugonjaevi [KosztaKo1988F], Archenomus bicolor [HertinSi1972], Archenomus longicornis [HertinSi1972], Azotus celsus [KosztaKo1988F], Casca chinensis [HertinSi1972], Coccophagoides similis [HertinSi1972], Coccophagus insidiator [HertinSi1972], Hispaniella lauri [HertinSi1972], Pteroptrix dimidiata [KosztaKo1988F]. Encyrtidae: Anabrolepis zetterstedti [KosztaKo1988F], Aphytis diaspidis [Koszta1963], Aphytis proclia [RosenDe1979], Apterencyrtus microphagus [HertinSi1972], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [HertinSi1972], Cheiloneurus microphagus [KosztaKo1988F], Euussuria sp. [HertinSi1972], Habrolepis zetterstedti [Morley1909], Heterencyrtus sumavicus [HertinSi1972], Prospaltella gigas [KosztaKo1988F], Thomsonisca typica [Danzig1959]. Mymaridae: Gonatocerus sp. [HertinSi1972], Polynema sp. [HertinSi1972]. Platygasteridae: Allotropa sp. [HertinSi1972]. Thysanidae: Thysanus ater [HertinSi1972]. LEPIDOPTERA Tortricidae: Brysoptera rufifrons [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer pseudoplatanus [Tao1999], Acer sp. [new], Acer vulgare [Tao1999]. Adoxaceae: Viburnum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Alnus communis [Tao1999], Alnus glutinosa [Willia1985c], Alnus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Betula alba [MatilePe2002], Betula sp. [Tang1984b, MillerDa2005], Corylus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum [Borchs1966]. Celastraceae: Celastrus orbiculatus [Xie1998], Euonymus [Borchs1966]. Cistaceae: Helianthemum [Borchs1966], Helianthemum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cornaceae: Cornus asperifolia [Cooley1899], Cornus pubescens [Cooley1899], Cornus sanguinea [Tao1999], Cornus sericea [Cooley1899], Cornus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cornus stolonifera [Cooley1899]. Elaeagnaceae: Hippophae sp. [KosztaKo1988F]. Ericaceae: Andromeda sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Arctostaphylos sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Erica [Borchs1966], Erica carnea [Lindin1936], Ledum [Borchs1966], Ledum sp. [MillerDa2005], Lyonia [Borchs1966], Lyonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Oxycoccus sp. [Borchs1966], Rhododendron [Borchs1966], Rhododendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Vaccinium myrtillus [Bremi1849], Vaccinium sp. [Comsto1883, MillerDa2005], Vaccinium uliginosum [Tao1999], Vaccinium vitis-idaea [Tao1999]. Fabaceae: Cytisus [Borchs1966], Genista [Borchs1966], Genista sp. [MillerDa2005], Laburnum sp. [KosztaKo1988F], Sarcothamnus [Borchs1966], Sarcothamnus scoparius [Cooley1899], Sarcothamnus vulgaris [Tao1999], Sarothamnus sp. [MillerDa2005], Sophora sp. [KosztaKo1988F]. Fagaceae: Quercus [Borchs1966], Quercus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Grossulariaceae: Grossularia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Hamamelidaceae: Liquidambar styraciflua [LambdiWa1980]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [KosztaKo1988F]. Magnoliaceae: Liriodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Liriodendron tulipifera [Cooley1899]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus [Borchs1966], Myrtus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus americana [Koszta1963], Fraxinus excelsior [BognarVi1979], Jasminum [Borchs1966], Jasminum sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum [Borchs1966], Ligustrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Syringa [Borchs1966], Syringa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Paeoniaceae: Paeonia sp. [KosztaKo1988F]. Rhamnaceae: Ceanothus sp. [Cooley1899], Rhamnus sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhamnus ussuriensis [Borchs1966]. Rosaceae: Amelanchier canadensis [Cooley1899], Amelanchier sp. [MillerDa2005], Cotoneaster [Borchs1966], Malus sp. [Tao1999], Padus sp. [Tang1984b], Pyrus [Borchs1966], Pyrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Rosa sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Sorbus aucuparia [Dougla1893a], Sorbus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Chosenia bracteosa [Muraka1970], Populus alba [Borchs1966], Populus canadensis [Borchs1966], Populus deltoides [Amos1933], Populus grandidentata [Koszta1963], Populus jackii [LiuKoRh1989], Populus nigra [BognarVi1979, Moghad2013], Populus pyramioides [Tao1999], Populus simonii [BognarVi1979], Populus sp. [Cheo1935, MillerDa2005], Populus tremula [Borchs1938, MatilePe2002], Populus tremuloides [Koszta1963], Salix alba [Cooley1899], Salix alba camellia [Cooley1899], Salix alba [MalumpOsPy2010], Salix amygdaloides [LiuKoRh1989], Salix babylonica [LiuKoRh1989], Salix brachycarpa [LiuKoRh1989], Salix caprea [MatilePe2002], Salix capreae [MalumpOsPy2010], Salix cordata [Hartma1916], Salix daphnoides [MatilePe2002], Salix exigua [LiuKoRh1989], Salix hermaphrodita [Tao1999], Salix holoserica [Tao1999], Salix interior [Koszta1963], Salix interior pedicellata [Koszta1963], Salix interior wheeleri [Koszta1963], Salix laevigata [LiuKoRh1989], Salix lasiolepis [LiuKoRh1989], Salix nigra [Walsh1868], Salix sp. [Willia1985c, MillerDa2005, MatilePe2002], Salix viminalis [Tao1999]. Saxifragaceae: Grossularia [Borchs1966], Ribes sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [KosztaKo1988F]. Tiliaceae: Tilia parvifolia [Tao1999]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Vitaceae: Vitis [Borchs1966], Vitis sp. [MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada [Tao1999, MillerDa2005] (British Columbia [Venabl1939], Ontario [Cooley1899]); Mexico [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Alabama [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Arizona [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Arkansas [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], California [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Colorado [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Florida [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Idaho [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Illinois [McDani1971, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Iowa [Osborn1898, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Dean1909, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Maine [Cooley1899], Maryland [MillerDa2005, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Michigan [MillerDa2005], Minnesota [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005], Montana [MillerDa2005], Nebraska [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [MillerDa2005], New Mexico [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], New York [Cooley1899, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], North Dakota [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Hartma1916, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], South Dakota [Severi1920, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1971, MillerDa2005], Virginia [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Washington [Cooley1899], Wisconsin [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005], Wyoming [LiuKoRh1989, MillerDa2005]). Oriental: India (Bihar [Watson2002a], Jammu & Kashmir [Watson2002a]). Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Oriental: Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: Albania [DanzigPe1998]; Algeria [DanzigPe1998]; Armenia [TerGri1962]; Austria [Signor1869d]; Belgium [DanzigPe1998]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; China [MillerDa2005] (Gansu (=Kansu) [Hua2000], Gansu (=Kansu) [Watson2002a], Jilin (=Kirin) [Tang1986], Liaoning [Tao1999], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Watson2002a], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1984b], Qinghai (=Chinghai) [Hua2000], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Marlat1908c], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1986], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Corsica [KosztaKo1988F]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [DanzigPe1998]; Czechoslovakia [KosztaKo1988F]; Denmark [Kozarz1986, Gertss2001]; Finland [Dougla1893a]; France [KosztaKo1988F]; Germany [Baeren1849]; Greece [Korone1934]; Hungary [Erdos1957, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996] (Occus in Kermanshah, Ilam, and Hamadan provinces); Ireland [Green1934d]; Italy [Leonar1901a, LongoMaPe1995, MatilePe2002]; Japan [Tao1999] (Honshu [Muraka1970]); Kazakhstan [Danzig1986a]; Lithuania [MalumpOsPy2009]; Luxembourg [DanzigPe1998]; Malta [Borg1932]; Mongolia [Danzig1972b]; Morocco [DanzigPe1998]; Netherlands [KosztaKo1988F]; Norway [Gertss2001]; Poland [KosztaKo1988F, SimonKa2011]; Portugal [KosztaKo1988F]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F]; Russia [Borchs1938] (Caucasus [Danzig1986a], Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1986a], Sakhalin Oblast [Danzig1986a]); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; South Korea [Danzig1986a, MillerDa2005]; Spain [GomezM1937]; Sweden [Tragar1939, Gertss2001]; Switzerland [Dalman1826]; Turkey [KosztaKo1988F]; USSR [MillerDa2005]; United Kingdom (Channel Islands [Watson2002a], England [Newste1907a, KosztaKo1988F], Northern Ireland [Watson2002a], Scilly Isles [Willia1985c], Scotland [Watson2002a]); Yugoslavia [KosztaKo1988F].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis salicis has 1 generation per year and has males or reproduces parthenogenetically. Red eggs overwinter and hatch in Germany at the end of April. Some nymphs settle under tests of females, a few on leaves, first molt at end of May. Winged or wingless males are active from mid-June through mid-July. Eggs are laid at the end of August (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988). In Missouri, United States, Chionaspis salicis overwinters as an egg. Eggs are laid in the middle of September and young emerge about the middle of June. Adult males are recorded by July first. There are at least two generations a year (Hollinger, 1923). According to Langford (1926) this species has 2 generations each year in Colorado and overwinters in the egg stage. First generation crawlers appear in late April and molt in mid May. Adults are present from early to mid June and eggs begin to appear in late June. Crawlers of the second generation are present in July and adults appear in late August. Overwintering eggs are laid in September. Crawlers have been reported in Missouri in mid June (Hollinger 1923) and in Ohio in late May early June (Kosztarab 1963). In Tennessee this species has 3 generations each year and overwinters as eggs. Crawlers of each generation begin emerging during the third week of April, the second week of June, and the fourth week of August; second instars appear the first week of May, second week of July, and first week of September. Adult males begin emerging the fourth week of May, first week of August, and the second week of September; adult females are present the third week of May, fourth week in July, and third week of September. Adult females laid from 18-265 eggs with an average of 152; this is very different from that found in Colorado where 11 to 54 eggs were laid, with an average of 33 (Lambdin 1990). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Early descriptions and illustrations by Cooley (1899), Marlatt (1908c) and Borchsenius (1949b). Later detailed descriptions and illustrations by Danzig (1986a) and Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Test of female broad oystershell-shaped, convex, white, about 2-3mm long, with yellow exuviae. Adult female spindle-shaped, 1.3-1.7mm long, widest at 1st or 2nd abdominal segment, red (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988). Female scale 2.5 mm long, expanding posteriorly, usually more or less curved, secretion white, smooth and dense, distinct ventral scale. Male scale about 1 mm, with distinct median carina. Adult female dark purple, with eggs or young also dark purple (Marlatt, 1908c). Adult female elongated, pygidium broadly rounded (Borchsenius, 1949b).Female scale is oystershell-shaped, broad, convex, white, 2.5-3.5 mm long, exuviae yellowish. Male scale elongate oval, slightly tricarinated, white, 0.8-1.0 mm long, exuviae brownish to almost colorless (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Because of the polyphagous nature and distinctly manifest sexual dimorphism of Chionaspis salicis, it has been repeatedly described under different names (Danzig, 1986a). Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. The willow scale can build to large populations which completely cover twigs and branches. It has been reported to kill branches, and Langford (1925) states it may "become so severe as to cause the dying of branches, and in some cases the entire tree." Young trees are reported to be most affected. According to Danzig (1980) the willow scale is a pest of currants, aspen, and willow. This species was apparently a more serious pest in the early part of the last century, but Lambdin (1990) reported that it can be a pest on ornamental willows in Tennessee where it causes loss of plant vigor, die back, stunting, and eventual death of the affected plant. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Miller & Davidson 2005: 20-36 (female) [Key to adult females and field key.]; Gill 1997: 76 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 440 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1993: 319 (female) [Key to species of Chionapis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 16 (female) [as Chionaspis salicisnigrae; Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of the Far East USSR]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 333 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 333 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1986a: 367 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Chen 1983: 7 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 (female) [as Chionaspis salicis-niger, C. micropori; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis]; Danzig 1980b: 310 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 117 (female) [as C. polypora, C. montana, C. singularis and C. variabilis; Key to species of central Asia]; Danzig 1971d: 843 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; McDaniel 1971: 282 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Chionaspis Signoret]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Schmutterer 1959: 229 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Chionaspis-Arten]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 320 (female) [Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Balachowsky 1954e: 321 (female) [Clef d'identification du g. Chionaspis Sign. de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 192 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 50 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 88 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 20 (female) [Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 325 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 330 (female) [as Chionaspis salicis-nigrae; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Leonardi 1920: 226 (female) [Key to Italian species of Chionaspis]; Lawson 1917: 260 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis in Kansas]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 264 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Indiana]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [distribution: 84]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; AnneckPr1974 [biological control, distribution: 38]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 88, 92-93]; Ashmea1900 [biological control, taxonomy: 409]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 431]; Aurivi1888 [biological control, taxonomy: 144]; Bachma1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 176]; Baeren1849 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 167]; Baker1972 [distribution, host: 109]; Balach1927 [distribution, taxonomy: 181]; Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 320, 321, 341, 344,]; Barnes1930 [biological control, taxonomy: 321, 328]; Bazaro1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 71]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, taxonomy: 92]; Bazaro1971c [distribution, taxonomy: 87]; BazaroSh1971 [distribution, taxonomy: 117, 122]; BeardsGo1975 [taxonomy: 54]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 86, 97, 98]; Bodenh1949 [distribution, taxonomy: 109, 113]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 13]; Bodenh1953a [distribution, taxonomy: 159]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 18]; Boraty1953 [structure, taxonomy: 457, 469]; Boraty1955 [distribution, taxonomy: 67]; BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 64]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 113]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110, 111, 186]; Borchs1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140]; Borchs1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213, 215]; Borchs1949b [taxonomy: 347]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 192]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 146, 226, 227, 228]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 369, 372]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 226]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 13-14]; Bouche1844 [taxonomy: 294]; Bouche1851 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 111]; BrandtBo1948 [taxonomy: 2]; Branig1914 [taxonomy: 296]; Bremi1849 [taxonomy: 327]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 365]; BurgesGa1982 [distribution, host: 108]; Chen1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9-10, 12-14, 90]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 96]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82-86]; Chou1986 [illustration: 478]; Chou1986 [illustration: 479]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1895e [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Cocker1896i [taxonomy: 55]; Cocker1898f [distribution, host, taxonomy: 133]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1905b [distribution, taxonomy: 203]; Cocker1910b [distribution: 427]; CockerRo1909aWW [taxonomy: 107]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 107-108, 110]; Comsto1916 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 568, 569, 571]; Comsto1916a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 571]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 10, 11-15, 19-22]; Dalman1826 [distribution, taxonomy: 357]; Danzig1959 [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 450]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 1018-1020]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 843]; Danzig1972b [distribution, host: 346]; Danzig1977b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39, 48, 53, 55]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 310, 311, 313]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 367, 368-369]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 723]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210-211]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 270]; DeBachRo1976 [taxonomy: 176]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 38]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 264, 272-273]; Dingle1924 [taxonomy: 369]; Dinthe1950 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 173, 199-252]; DoaneVaCh1936 [distribution: 377]; Dougla1885a [distribution, taxonomy: 159]; Dougla1891a [taxonomy: 97]; Dougla1893a [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130]; Dougla1912 [distribution: 193]; Erdos1957 [biological control, distribution: 368]; Essig1915a [distribution, economic importance: 163]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 310]; FainRi1998 [biological control, distribution: 33-39]; Felt1901 [distribution: 360]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 198]; FeltRa1932 [distribution, host: 461]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223-225]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 42]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-24]; Ferris1941e [distribution, taxonomy: 40, 43, 45, 47, 48,]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:50]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-44]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 17, 49]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 307]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 151]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 9,23]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 10, 15, 24, 55]; Garcia1921 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Gavalo1927 [distribution, host: 211]; Gertss2000 [distribution, host: 152]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127]; Gertss2008 [taxonomy: 56]; Ghauri1962 [distribution, physiology, taxonomy: 9, 13, 19, 23, 147,]; Giraul1909 [life history: 356]; Glaser1877 [description, distribution: 49]; Goethe1884 [distribution, taxonomy: 116]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214, 219]; GomezM1946 [distribution, host: 83]; Green1927a [distribution, host: 59]; Green1934d [distribution: 114]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38, 181, 182, 275]; HadzibGe1983 [host, taxonomy: 181, 275]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 508]; Harris1944 [distribution, host: 110]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Hellen1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 121]; Henrik1921 [distribution, taxonomy: 306]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178-179]; HodekHo2009 [biological control: 295]; Hofer1903 [taxonomy: 480]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 76]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 27-28, 69]; Houser1918a [distribution, host: 289-290]; HowellTi1977 [description, taxonomy: 125]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Hunter1900 [distribution, host: 101]; Ibraim1961 [distribution, host: 209]; Ibraim1962 [distribution, host: 8]; Jancke1955 [taxonomy: 297]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 201]; Kalten1874 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 420, 587]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 38]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 290-291]; Kaweck1936a [taxonomy: 321]; Killin1936 [distribution: 156]; King1902b [distribution, host: 61]; Kiritc1928 [distribution, host: 116]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106-108]; Korone1934 [description, distribution: 55, 57]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-77]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 469-472]; KosztaKo1978 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 150, 153]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 335-336]; Koteja1974b [physiology, taxonomy: 84]; Koteja2000a [distribution: 172]; Koteja2000d [distribution: 243]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Kozarz1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 308]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31]; Kuwana1927 [distribution: 72]; Lagows1998a [ecology: 65]; LagowsKo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; Lambdi1995 [biological control, distribution: 327-330]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Langfo1926 [distribution, host, life history: 50-57]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 269-270]; LeBaro1872 [p. 140]; Lellak1966 [taxonomy: 301]; Leonar1901a [taxonomy: 562]; Leonar1918 [distribution, taxonomy: 212]; Leonar1920 [distribution, taxonomy: 226, 230]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 151]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 88]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 301]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 147, 152]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 106]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 90-91]; Lindin1932 [taxonomy: 27]; Lindin1932f [distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Lindin1934e [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; Lindin1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 167]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 181]; Lindin1949 [taxonomy: 211]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; Linnae1758 [host: 456]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-98]; Lomaki1967 [distribution, host: 37]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 144]; Low1883 [taxonomy: 6]; Luff1904 [distribution, taxonomy: 276]; Lupo1938a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 271, 277]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; Macqua1847 [description, distribution, taxonomy: LXXV]; Macqua1849 [distribution, taxonomy: 47]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution: 28]; MalumpOsPy2009 [description, distribution, host: 120-127]; MalumpOsPy2010 [distribution: 253]; MalumpOsPy2010 [distribution, host: 259]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 63]; Marlat1908c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25-26]; Masi1931 [biological control: 423]; Maskel1891 [taxonomy: 9]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; Mateso1955 [distribution, host: 200]; Mateso1958 [distribution, host: 130-131]; Mateso1971 [distribution, host: 25]; MatesoMiIu1962a [taxonomy: 121]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 356]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 8]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291-292]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 31, 101]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 217]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 118]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Misra1924CS [distribution: 350]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 30]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 19]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 33]; Morgan1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Morley1909 [biological control: 257]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 88]; Myers1927LE [taxonomy: 342]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 20]; Newell1899a [distribution, economic importance: 155-156]; Newste1889 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 436]; Newste1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 234]; Newste1901b [distribution, taxonomy: 180]; Newste1907a [chemical control, description, distribution, host: 9]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Osborn1898 [distribution, taxonomy: 227]; Panis1981 [distribution, host: 7]; Pierce1917 [distribution, economic importance: 11, 26. 45, 48, 141,]; Podsia1987 [taxonomy: 290]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Rasina1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Rasina1960 [distribution, host: 14]; Ratzeb1844 [description, taxonomy: 195]; Reh1904 [taxonomy: 24-27]; Reyne1957 [taxonomy: 27, 33]; Riley1894 [taxonomy: 69]; RosenDe1979 [biological control: 756]; RossemBuBu1965 [taxonomy: ???]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Rubtso1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 179-182]; Ruhl1913c [taxonomy: 80]; Ruhl1919 [taxonomy: 40]; Sachtl1944 [taxonomy: 74]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 49-50]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 11]; Savesc1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; SchildSc1928 [biological control: 267]; Schmid1939 [taxonomy: 136]; Schmut1952 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 578-579]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229, 230]; Severi1920 [distribution: 10]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Signor1869 [taxonomy: 871, 874]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 443, 445, 447, 448]; Signor1877 [host, taxonomy: 620]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 240]; Siraiw1939 [distribution: 75]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44]; SmirnoWi1933 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 415-424]; Sugony1958 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 311]; Sugony1962 [biological control, distribution: 178]; Sugony1962a [biological control, distribution: 755-756]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 137, 139]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 3, 8, 41-42]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 38]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 160]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 299]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 78-79]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 737, 738]; Terezn1959c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 795, 796, 797]; Terezn1963c [distribution, host: 1528]; Terezn1967b [distribution, host: 562]; Terezn1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 66]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 66]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 145]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 73]; Tomlin1892 [description, distribution, host: 289]; Tozlu2001 [host: 133]; Tragar1939 [distribution, host: 399-400]; Treher1916 [distribution: 181]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Tsalev1972 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Tschor1939 [distribution: 90]; Tudor1982 [biological control: 88, 89]; Tullgr1906 [taxonomy: 85]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60]; Venabl1939 [distribution, host: 24]; Walsh1868 [host: 40]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 426]; Willia1985c [distribution, host: 137]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 18,26,33,42]; Wolff1911 [taxonomy: 66]; Wu1935 [taxonomy: 201]; Wunn1925 [taxonomy: 119]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 133]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 237, 238]; Yasnos1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 486, 494, 501]; Yasnos1979 [biological control, distribution: 211]; Zahrad1952 [taxonomy: 184]; Zahrad1972 [taxonomy: 430-432]; ZakOga1958 [biological control, distribution: 142]; ZakOga1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 368, 397, 398].
Chionaspis sassceri Cockerell & RobbinsNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sassceri Cockerell & Robbins, 1909a: 105-107. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, San Diego County, Fallbrook, on Citrus sp., by F. Austin. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 101. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAMES: Sasscer scale [Essig1926]; western scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Rhamnaceae: Ceanothus prostratus [LiuKoRh1989], Ceanothus sp. [Ferris1942], Ceanothus velutinus [LiuKoRh1989]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [CockerRo1909aWW]. Sterculiaceae: Fremontodendron sp. [LiuKoRh1989]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [LiuKoRh1989]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [CockerRo1909aWW], Oregon [LiuKoRh1989]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937). Liu et al. (1989) also provide a detailed description and illustration.
STRUCTURE: Scale of female 1.5 mm long, expanding posteriorly, somewhat curved, exuviae gray, smooth, not dense. Adult female .5 to .8 mm long (Cockerell & Robbins, 1909a).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis sassceri closely resembles C. micropori, but C. sassceri has much larger dorsal pores and the scale of C. micropori differs by being very dense and chalky white (Cockerell & Robbins, 1909a).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 77 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 18 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 51 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 329 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Bodenh1930 [host: 15]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 101]; CockerRo1909aWW [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 105-107]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance: 268]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 310]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-17]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-387, SIV-446:51]; Gill1982c [taxonomy: ill]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 116]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98-101]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 329]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 101]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 20]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host: 42]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 38-39].
Chionaspis sivapuriana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sivapuriana Takagi, 1985: 18-19. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, near Kathmandu, Siwapuri (Sheopuri), on Quercus glauca, 19/10/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus glauca [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis sivapuriana was collected at an altitude of 1900 m. (Takagi, 1985).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis sivapuriana resembles C. agranulata in having squat, broadly rounded median lobes. C. agranulata differs from C. sivapuriana in the basal zygosis of the median lobes not much produced anteriorly, in having many small submedian dorsal ducts on the 2nd to 5th abdominal segments, in the disc pores associated with the anterior spiracle much fewer (4-10), in lacking disc pores at the posterior spiracles, etc (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60].
Chionaspis sonorae Vea et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sonorae Vea et al., 2012. Type data: MEXICO, Sonora state, Yecora, 28°22.45'N, 108°56.11'W, on needle of Pinus engelmannii Carr, 08/08/2007, by R. Gwiazdowski, T.R. Van Devender and A. Lilia Reina. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Mexico: Coleccion Entomologica, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico; type no. D1781A. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus elgelmannii [VeaGwNo2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Sonora [GwiazdNo2008]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description, illustration and table of diagnostic morphological characters for six species of pine-feeding Chionaspis by Vea et al. (2012)
STRUCTURE: All pine-feeding Chionaspis discussed in Vea et al. (2012), including C. heterophyllae and C. pinifoliae, are indistinguishable by eye in the field. The adult female for all species possesses a white oystershell-shaped and slightly convex cover, with the amount of posterior expansion varying according to the diameter of host needles. Body elongate, color varying from yellow when immature to reddish brownish in specimens containing eggs, with lateral protrusion on the anterior abdominal segments. Found on needles. (Vea et al. 2012)
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis sonorae Vea is distinguishable from other Chionaspis by the combination of the following characters : median lobe shape unusual, broad, medial margins parallel or slightly convergent in basal half, abruptly angled near midpoint, with distal half divergent, serrated; yoke horseshoe-shaped; microducts sparse. (Vea et al. 2012)
KEYS: Vea et al. 2012: 53-54 (female).
CITATIONS: VeaGi2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy].
Chionaspis sozanica TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sozanica Takahashi, 1933: 41-43. Type data: TAIWAN: Sozan, near Taihoku, on Acer sp., 03/07/1932, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus sozanica; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis sozanica; Takahashi, 1942b: 35. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer oblongum [Takagi1970], Acer sp. [Takaha1933]. Araliaceae: Agalma lutchuensis [Ferris1956]. Elaeocarpaceae: Elaeocarpus elliptica [Ferris1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takagi1970]; Taiwan [Takaha1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1933).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis sozanica is related to Pseudaulacaspis tenera Green, but can be separated by the character of the median lobes. Also resembles P. strobilanthi Green, differing in having fewer circumgenital pores and dorsal gland orifices (Takahashi, 1933).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 64 [as Phenacaspis sozanica; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 354-355]; Chou1986 [illustration: 491]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 211-212]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 292]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-72]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 112]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-43]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 17]; Takaha1942b [taxonomy: 35]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution: 102]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 79]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 239, 247].
Chionaspis spartiophila Signoret nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis spartiophila Signoret, 1870: 99. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 377.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 377]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 200]; Signor1870 [taxonomy: 99].
Chionaspis sterculiae LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sterculiae Laing, 1932: 62. Type data: ZAIRE: Lopori, on Sterculia ?elegantiflora, ?/05/1927, by Hutch. & Dalz. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Sterculia elegantiflora? [Laing1932].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zaire [Laing1932].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1932).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis sterculiae is closely related to Rolaspis chaetachmae Brain, which has median lobes more widely separated, the duplex lateral pair more strongly developed and does not have the series of distinctive tubercles on the thoracic and first abdominal regions (Laing, 1932).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; Ghesqu1932 [distribution, host: 58]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 508]; Laing1932 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-63]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 34].
Chionaspis styracis Liu & Kosztarab in Liu, Kosztarab & RhoadesNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis styracis Liu & Kosztarab in Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 101-105. Type data: UNITED STATES: Alabama, Auburn, on Styrax americana, 03/05/1973, by M.L. Williams. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: styrax scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Styracaceae: Styrax americana [LiuKoRh1989], Styrax grandiflora [LiuKoRh1989], Styrax sp. [LiuKoRh1989]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [LiuKoRh1989], Florida [LiuKoRh1989], Georgia [LiuKoRh1989], Mississippi [LiuKoRh1989]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Test of adult female elongate, oystershell-shaped, white or dirty white, quite small, about 2.1-3.0 mm long and 0.6-1.0 mm wide. Exuviae at pointed end, first instar exuviae light yellow, second light brown, occupying about one fourth of test length. Ventral test white and very thin. Adult female spindle-shaped, distinctly segmented and laterally lobed, broadest at abdominal segment I or metathorax (Liu et al., 1989).
SYSTEMATICS: The bark form of C. platani is similar to this species in general appearance, but it has a more pointed apex of the median lobe; also the outer lobule of the third pair of lobe is distinct, and it has so far only been found on Platanus. C. styracis can be told form C. hamoni and C. longiloba by the distinctly different shape of the median lobes, the marginal serrations of all marginal lobes and the reduction of the outer lobule of the third lobe (Liu et al., 1989).
KEYS: Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 18 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America].
CITATIONS: LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-105]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347].
Chionaspis subrotunda (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis subrotunda Chen, 1983: 108. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Qingcheng mountain, on unidentified Fagaceae, 1974. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis subrotunda; Takagi, 1985: 42. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae [Chen1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female white, nearly round, convex on the back. Adult female is fusiform, with a group of disk pores associated with posterior spiracles (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis subrotunda resembles Chionaspis quercus Kuwana in the arrangement of dorsal macroducts, but their median lobes are quite different in form (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 64 [as Phenacaspis subrotunda; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 81-82, 96]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108].
Chionaspis tangana (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis tangana Lindinger, 1910b: 45-46. Type data: TANZANIA: Tanga, on Dracaena sp., 11/05/1906. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
Chionaspis tangana; Lindinger, 1913: 75. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus tanganus; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
HOST: Liliaceae: Dracaena sp. [Lindin1905b]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Lindin1910b].
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 348 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 552]; Lindin1910b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-46]; Lindin1913 [distribution, host: 75-76]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 20, 43, 180]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 348]; WeidneWa1968 [taxonomy: 178].
Chionaspis targionii Signoret nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis targionii Signoret, 1869: 872. Nomen nudum. Notes: Signoret (1869) lists Chionaspis targionii Signoret as "nov. spec." and states its from Europe, but neither a description, nor further mention of this name can be found.
CITATIONS: Signor1869 [distribution: 872].
Chionaspis torreyanae Vea et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis torreyanae Vea et al., 2012: 50-53. Type data: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, California, Channel Islands, Santa Rosa Island, 33°59.09'N, 120°1.42'W, on needle of Pinus torreyana insularis Schoenherr et al., 01/23/2008, by C. Greene. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Mexico: Coleccion Entomologica, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico; type no. D2238A. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus torreyana insularis [VeaGwNo2012], Pinus torreyana [VeaGwNo2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [VeaGwNo2012]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed illustration, description and table of diagnostic morphological characters for six species of pine-feeding Chionaspis by Vea et al. (2012)
STRUCTURE: All pine-feeding Chionaspis discussed in Vea et al. (2012), including C. heterophyllae and C. pinifoliae, are indistinguishable by eye in the field. The adult female for all species possesses a white oystershell-shaped and slightly convex cover, with the amount of posterior expansion varying according to the diameter of host needles. Body elongate, color varying from yellow when immature to reddish brownish in specimens containing eggs, with lateral protrusion on the anterior abdominal segments. Found on needles. (Vea et al. 2012)
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis sonorae Vea is distinguishable from other Chionaspis by the combination of the following characters: median lobe shape unusual, broad, medial margins parallel or slightly convergent in basal half, abruptly angled near midpoint, with distal half divergent, serrated; yoke horseshoe-shaped; microducts sparse. (Vea et al. 2012)
KEYS: Vea et al. 2012: 53-54 (female).
CITATIONS: VeaGwNo2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy].
Chionaspis triformis Tippins & BeshearNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis betulae Tippins & Beshear, 1970b: 1022-1023. Type data: UNITED STATES: Georgia, Jasper Co., east bank of Ocmulgee River, near State Route 16, on Betula nigra, 11/02/1968. Holotype female. Type depository: Athens: University of Georgia, Department of Entomology Collection, Georgia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Homonym of Chionaspis lintneri betulae Cooley 1898; discovered by Tippins & Beshear, 1974: 146. Notes: Paratypes in personal collections of authors and also in NMNH.
Chionaspis triformis Tippins & Beshear, 1974: 146. Replacement name for Chionaspis betulae Tippins & Beshear.
COMMON NAME: birch scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Betula nigra [TippinBe1970b], Betula sp. [LiuKoRh1989]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Nakaha1982], Georgia [TippinBe1970b]).
BIOLOGY: Chionaspis betulae has a bark form and a leaf form (Tippins & Beshear, 1970b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tippins & Beshear (1970b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female spindle shaped, margin of free abdominal segments lobed laterally, length on slide 0.9 mm (Tippins & Beshear, 1970b).
SYSTEMATICS: The bark form of Chionaspis betulae resembles C. acericola, but differs as follows: median lobes of C. acericola symmetrical and laterally notched, in C. betulae asymmetrical and not notched; gland spines absent on the 1st abdominal segment in C. acericola, always present in C. betulae; several small submedian macroducts on abdominal segments 3 and 4, these lacking in C. betulae. The leaf form of C. betulae resembles the leaf form of C. gleditsiae. It differs in having fewer (less than 10) dorsal macroducts, while C. gleditsiae reportedly has more than 20 (Tippins & Beshear, 1970b).
KEYS: Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 16 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; Chen 1983: 7 (female) [as Chionaspis betulae; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 9]; KnipscMiDa1976 [physiology: 9]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 105-111]; Miller2005 [distribution: 485]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 21]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host: 42]; TippinBe1970b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1022-1023]; TippinBe1974 [taxonomy: 146].
Chionaspis trochodendri (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis trochodendri Takahashi, 1936d: 4-7. Type data: TAIWAN: Chikushiko, near Sozan, Hichiseisan, Rarasan, near Urai, on Trochodendron aralioides, 25/12/1953, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis trochodendri; Takagi, 1969a: 24. Change of combination.
HOST: Trochodendraceae: Trochodendron aralioides [Takaha1936d].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1936d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1936d).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis trochodendri is closely allied to Phenacaspis fujicola, but differs in the narrower median lobes slightly serrate, the 2nd lobes wider than the median, the pygidium wider, rounded and produced on the basal part of the side, the antennae more apart from the front margin (Takahashi, 1936d).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 65 [as Phenacaspis trochodendri; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71-72]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98, 84, 97]; Chou1985 [taxonomy: 355]; Chou1986 [illustration: 492]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72-73, 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74, 76-77]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 42]; TakagiTi1972 [illustration: 185]; Takaha1936d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4-7]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 102]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 248].
Chionaspis wistariae CooleyNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis wistariae Cooley, 1897: 280-281. Type data: JAPAN: taken in San Francisco, on Wisteria, 08/07/1897, by Mr. Craw. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades, 1989: 116. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Notes: Paralectotype in MOSU (Montana State University).
Phenacaspis wistariae; MacGillivray, 1921: 349. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis fujicola Kuwana, 1931a: 8-9. Type data: JAPAN: Angyo, Saitama-ken, on Wistaria chinensis var. multiguga, ?/09/1924, by Y. Tanaka. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1952a: 8.
Trichomytilus wistariae; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus fujicola; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Chionaspis vistariae; Hua, 2000: 149. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: fujicola scale [McKenz1956]; wistaria scurfy scale [LiuKoRh1989].
FOE: Aphelinidae: Encarsia citrina [Pelliz2010a].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus japonica [Kuwana1902]. Fabaceae: Wistaria multijuga [LiuKoRh1989], Wistaria nankinensis [LiuKoRh1989], Wistaria sinensis multiguga [Kuwana1931a], Wistaria sinensis [LiuKoRh1989], Wistaria sp. [Cooley1897], Wisteria brachybotrys [Pelliz2010a], Wisteria floribunda [LiuKoRh1989]. Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [Kuwana1902].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Koszta1963], Pennsylvania [Sleesm1945]). Oriental: China (Hainan [Hua2000], Yunnan [Hua2000]); Taiwan [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: China [Tang1984b]; Japan [Cooley1897] (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [Muraka1970]); Romania [Pelliz2010a].
BIOLOGY: C. wistariae develops two generations per year; a summer generation that develops on the leaves and a second generation that settles on the bark and overwinters as adult females. (Pellizzari, 2010a)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale variable in shape and size. Elongate oystershell-shaped, white, cover, 1.5-2.5 mm long. The adult females exhibit two morphological forms linked to the feeding site, differing in the shape of pygidial lobes: the leaf-infesting form and the branch-infesting form. Male scale elongated, oval, white, distinctly tricarinate, 1.0 mm long, exuviae yellowish brown (Kosztarab, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis wistariae is distinguished from other species of Chionaspis by the median lobes. It is similar to C. platani, but that species has longer median lobes and are more plainly serrate. In C. wistariae the male scale is very plainly carinated, while in C. platani it is very feebly carinated or without carinae (Cooley, 1899).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 75 (female) [Key to California species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 439 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 441 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 16 (female) [Key to the species of Chionaspis in North America]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis fujicola; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Kosztarab 1963: 62 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 30 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1942: 49 [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1931a: 2 (female) [as Phenacaspis fujicola; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 349 [as Phenacaspis wistariae; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 197-198]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 74, 75]; Cooley1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 280-281]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 39-40]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 310]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host: SIV-388]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-54]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 73, 74]; Hewitt1943 [distribution, host: 269]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149, 159]; Kanda1941b [taxonomy: 186]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 38]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 201-202, 292]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 473-475]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 198-199]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 15]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 4-7]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-9]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; LiuKoRh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111-117]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349]; Maskew1914 [distribution: 171]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 34, 101-103, 147]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 89]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 21]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Paik1978 [taxonomy: 310]; Pelliz2010a [description, distribution, host: 147-151]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 269]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 44, 47]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26, 34]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 38]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 8]; Takaha1936d [taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 8, 11]; Takaha1953 [distribution, host, life history: 48-49 56]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129].
Chionaspis xanthorrhoeae FullerNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis xanthorrhoeae Fuller, 1897b: 1346. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Swan River, on Xanthorrhoea sp. Unknown type status. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Duplachionaspis xanthorrhoeae; MacGillivray, 1921: 336. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis xanthorrhoeae; Borchsenius, 1966: 127. Change of combination.
HOST: Xanthorrhoeaceae: Xanthorrhoea sp. [Fuller1897b, MalumpHa2012]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Fuller1897b]). Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [MalumpHa2012]).
BIOLOGY: Its biology is unknown but all developmental stages were observed in Britain during May, and it may therefore have overlapping generations. (Malumphy & Halstead, 2012) and breed continuously if conditions allow.
STRUCTURE: Female scale shiny, white, pyriform, exuviae light yellow. Adult female yellow. Male puparium elongate, convex sides parallel, not carinated. Last segment of female depressed along the median (Fuller, 1899b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 336 (female) [as Duplachionaspis xanthorrhoeae; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127-128]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 988]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 63]; Fuller1897b [description, distribution, host: 1346]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 472]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; MalumpHa2012 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 193-194]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 50].
Chionaspis yanagicola (Kuwana & Muramatsu)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis yanagicola Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1932a: 95-96. Type data: JAPAN: Osaka, on Salix gymnolepis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan.
Chionaspis yanagicola; Takahashi, 1953: 55. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [Takagi1961], Salix gracilistyla [Muraka1970], Salix gymnolepis [KuwanaMu1932a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [KuwanaMu1932a]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale broadly ovate and white, exuviae yellowish-brown. Pygidium of adult female with 3 pairs of lobes, median large and diverged, second and third pairs of lobes divided (Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1932a).
KEYS: Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [as Chionaspis yanagicola; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 128]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 81, 95]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 291]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KuwanaMu1932a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 89]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 34]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 38]; Takaha1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 55, 56].
Chlidaspis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Chlidaspis Borchsenius, 1949c: 736. Type species: Phenacaspis prunorum Borchsenius (= Chlidaspis asiatica Archangelskaya), by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Female scale pear-shaped, white; 2 larval exuviae, successively projecting from the narrower, cephalic end of the scale. Scale 1.6 mm long. Adult female body nearly regularly oval. Pygidium with 2 or 3 pairs of lobes; 1st pair of lobes in a deep pygidial depression, 2nd and 3rd pairs of lobes bifurcate; pectinae of the pygidium seta-like; dorsal glands arranged in groups along the margin of the pygidium and in oblique rows elsewhere (Borchsenius, 1949c).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1949) erected this genus for Phenacaspis prunorum. Balachowsky (1954e) referred both Chionaspis asiatica and Phenacaspis prunorum to Tecaspis, suppressing Chlidaspis as a synonym of Tecaspis. Danzig (1993) united C. asiatica and P. prunorum in one species, and referred it to Neochionaspis. Thus Chlidaspis was suppressed as a synonym of Neochionaspis. However, since asiatica does not appear to be closely related to the type species of Neochionaspis (N. kirgisica) Takagi & Verma (2001) consider Chlidaspis to be a valid genus.
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 369]; Borchs1949c [description, taxonomy: 736]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 192, 220-221]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 164, 202]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 88]; BorchsWi1963 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 357-358, 360]; Bustsh1958 [description, taxonomy: 206]; DanzigPe1998 [taxonomy: 313]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 36]; Wang1982c [description, taxonomy: 47, 112-113].
Chlidaspis asiatica (Archangelskaya)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis asiatica Archangelskaya, 1930a: 93-96. Type data: IRAN: Mesched; Beergand; Toorbet, on Prunus sp. and Amygdalus sp., ?/07&08/1928, by A.M. Ilijnsky. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 361. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female.
Phenacaspis prunorum Borchsenius, 1939a: 44,50. Type data: ARMENIA: on Prunus domestica, 05/09/1932. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 363.
Neochionaspis asiatica; Borchsenius, 1947a: 343. Change of combination.
Chlidaspis prunorum; Borchsenius, 1949d: 221. Change of combination.
Tecaspis prunorum; Balachowsky, 1954e: 370. Change of combination.
Tecaspis asiatica; Balachowsky, 1954e: 373. Change of combination.
Voraspis prunorum; Balachowsky & Kaussari, 1955a: 301. Change of combination.
Voraspis adlei Balachowsky & Kaussari, 1955a: 301-304. Type data: IRAN: Chiraz, on Prunus armeniaca, 06/09/1955, by G. Remaudiere & M. Kaussari. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 360.
Tecaspis (Neochionaspis) asiatica; Bazarov, 1969: 34. Change of combination.
Chlidaspis asiatica; Takagi & Verma, 2001: 195. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Asiatic plum scale [MillerDa1990]; Central Asian plum scale [Danzig1972c]; plum scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis proclia [HertinSi1972], Coccophagoides similis [HertinSi1972], Hispaniella lauri [HertinSi1972], Physcus mesasiaticus [YasnosMy1971a], Physcus testaceus [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Anagyrus bohemani [HertinSi1972], Metaphycus mayri [HertinSi1972]. Mymaridae: Polynema sp. [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Rosaceae: Amygdalus bucharica [Bazaro1963a], Amygdalus communis [Archan1937, Seghat1977], Amygdalus cucharica [Bazaro1963a], Amygdalus sp. [Archan1930a], Armeniaca vulgaris [Seghat1977], Cerasus sp. [Borchs1966], Cydonia vulgaris [Archan1937], Malus communis [Seghat1977], Malus domestica [TakagiVe2001], Malus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Persica sp. [Borchs1966], Prunus amygdalus [Moghad2013a], Prunus armeniaca [Archan1937], Prunus cerasus [Archan1937], Prunus divaricata [Archan1930a], Prunus domestica [Archan1937, Moghad2013a], Prunus lycioides [Moghad2013a], Prunus persica [Archan1937], Prunus scoparia [Moghad2013a], Prunus sp. [Archan1930a], Prunus spinosa [Moghad2013a], Pyrus amygdaliformis [Moghad2013a], Pyrus communis [ErlerKoTu1996, Moghad2013a], Pyrus malus [Archan1937]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [Archan1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Himachal Pradesh [TakagiVe2001]). Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Armenia [Archan1937]; Iran [Archan1930a, KozarFoZa1996]; Russia [Archan1937]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Archan1937] (Leninabad Oblast [Archan1937]); Turkey [ErlerKoTu1996]; Turkmenistan [Archan1937, Bustsh1960] (Ashkahabad Oblast [Archan1937]); Uzbekistan [Balach1954e] (Bukhara Oblast [Archan1937], Fergana Oblast [Archan1937], Samarkand Oblast [Archan1937], Tashkent Oblast [Archan1937]).
BIOLOGY: In Turkmenistan, larvae emerged on May 12th, mass flight of males was on June 16th and females oviposited on June 30th (Bustshik, 1960). In the former USSR, C. asiatica has two generations per year (Danzig, 1993).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions of twig-associated and leaf-associated adult females and 2nd instar male with illustrations by Takagi & Verma (2001).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale mussel like, convex and slightly curved, white. Male scale narrow, 0.75-1.25 mm long and 0.25-0.35 mm wide, white, with 3 faintly marked longitudinal ridges. Larval exuviae is orange and partly covered by an excretion. Adult female body is oval, broader in the rear, orange, 1.0-1.25 mm long. Eggs and larvae are orange (Archangelskaya, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Chlidaspis asiatica differs from Neochionaspis kirgisica in the median lobes being zygotic with a conspicuous basal yoke and in having a pair of well-developed setae between the median lobe in the adult and 2nd instar females. This species may be referable to Voraspis or Tecaspis, but these genera are at least largely African (Takagi & Verma, 2001).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Balachowsky (1954e) lists this as a pest of stone fruits in Central Asia and Danzig (1993) lists it as damaging to plum, apricot and almond.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 361 (female) [Key to species of Neochionaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 96 (female) [as Tecaspis prunorum and Tecaspis asiatica; Key to species of Tecaspis]; Bustshik 1958: 186 (female) [Species of the tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 370 (female) [as Tecaspis prunorum and Tecaspis asiatica; Key to species of Tecaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 88 (female) [as Chionaspis asiatica; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 153]; Archan1930a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83, 93-96]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88, 89, 91]; Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 370-374]; BalachKa1955a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 301-304]; Bazaro1962 [distribution: 60]; Bazaro1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71]; Bazaro1968a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92, 93-94]; Bazaro1969 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, taxonomy: 34-36]; Bazaro1971c [distribution: 87]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96, 99-101]; Beccar1959 [distribution, host: 78-79]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 85, 86, 97, 99]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110, 112, 186]; Borchs1939a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44,50]; Borchs1947a [taxonomy: 343]; Borchs1949c [taxonomy: 737]; Borchs1949d [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 220-221]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 22, 79, 80, 102, 141]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86, 88]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 102, 141]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 357, 358, 360]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 186, 206-207]; Bustsh1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177]; Danzig1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1021]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 582]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 361-363]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313-314]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 102]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance: 175]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 190]; Kaussa1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 20]; Kaussa1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-50]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21]; Kiritc1932a [distribution, host: 249]; KonstaKoJa1984 [distribution, host: 351]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 373]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 301, 305]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 32]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 19]; Myarts1972 [distribution: 54]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 211, 264]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 10]; TakagiVe2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195-202]; TerGri1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-52]; TerGri1969a [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 41, 47, 50]; TorabiVaHo2010 [distribution, host: 155]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 47, 112]; Yasnos1968 [biological control, distribution: 121]; Yasnos1973 [biological control: 908]; Yasnos1978 [biological control, distribution: 489, 496]; YasnosBo1974 [biological control: 36]; YasnosMy1971a [biological control, distribution: 35].
Chlidaspis sinensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Chlidaspis sinensis Tang, 1977: 158-159. Type data: CHINA:. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tao1999]).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356-357]; Chou1986 [illustration: 494]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 158-159]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 79-80]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 112-113].
Coccomytilus LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus Leonardi, 1898: 45. Type species: Mytilaspis convexa Maskell. Subsequently designated by Fernald, 1903b: 304.
GENERAL REMARKS: Generic characters described by Leonardi (1898) and Morrison & Morrison (1922).
KEYS: Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; Bodenheimer 1952: 332 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 276 (female) [Genera of the Lepisosaphini].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [taxonomy: 68, 76]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 117]; Beards1966 [taxonomy: 548]; Bodenh1949 [description, taxonomy: 28, 42]; Bodenh1952 [description: 332]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 24]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 31]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 108, 164]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 243]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 304]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SII-300]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 508-509]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 91]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 45,46]; Leonar1903 [description, taxonomy: 4, 9]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 276, 292, 293]; MorrisMo1922 [description, taxonomy: 100-103]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 41]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 41]; Silves1939 [taxonomy: 812].
Coccomytilus acaciae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis acaciae Maskell, 1896b: 387. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Hornsby, near Sydney, on Acacia linifolia, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: both sexes. Illust. Notes: Subsequently mounted material is in USNM and BMNH.
Mytilaspis acaciae albida Maskell, 1897: 304. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, on Acacia sp., by Mr. Lea. Syntypes, larva. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: larva. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 31.
Coccomytilus acaciae; Leonardi, 1903: 10, 14. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus acaciae albida; Leonardi, 1903: 14. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes acaciae; Fernald, 1903b: 304. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes acaciae albida; Fernald, 1903b: 304. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia linifolia [Maskel1897], Acacia sp. [Maskel1896b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Leonar1903] (New South Wales [Maskel1896b], Western Australia [Maskel1897]).
BIOLOGY: Female covers were massed in great numbers on twigs, quite separately from the equally numerous male covers; and these latter, from their orange red pellicles, presented altogether a more ruddy appearance than the former (Maskell, 1896b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1896b).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium mussel-shaped, slightly convex and usually curved, dark greyish brown in color. Larval pellicle small, yellow, terminal. Male puparium mussel shaped, not carinated, greyish brown in color, but lighter than the female. Adult female dark brown, elongated. Adult male red, normal in form, with no special features (Maskell, 1896b).
SYSTEMATICS: Maskell (1897) states the differences in the subspecies Coccomytilus acaciae albida are that the covers are lighter in color, the median abdominal lobes are more prominent.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 294 (female) [Species of Coccomytilus]; Leonardi 1903: 10 (female) [Species of the genus Coccomytilus]; Cockerell 1899f: 13 (female) [as Mytilaspis acaciae; Australian species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 13 (female) [as Mytilaspis acaciae v. albida; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 13]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; Frogga1907 [distribution, host: 374]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 605]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 14-15]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 294]; Maskel1896b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 387-388]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; Pierce1917 [distribution, economic importance, host: 9].
Coccomytilus convexus (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis convexa Maskell, 1894b: 70. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Sydney, on Acacia sp., by Mr. Olliff. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes convexa; Fernald, 1903b: 307. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus convexa; Ferris, 1941: 15. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus convexus; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Maskel1894b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1894b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1894b).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium dirty greyish white, somewhat expanded posteriorly, very convex. The second pellicle is generally so much raised up that its posterior edge forms quite a ridge over the secreted portion. Male puparium similar in color, convex, elongate, subcylindrical, not carinate. Adult female of normal form, brown in color. Abdomen ending in two median lobes, not adjacent, broadly rounded with short straight sides, the posterior margins very minutely serrulate (Maskell, 1894b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 294 (female) [Species of Coccomytilus]; Leonardi 1903: 10 (female) [as Coccomytilus convexus; Species of the genus Coccomytilus]; Cockerell 1899f: 13 (female) [as Mytilaspis convexa; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 117, 158]; Beards1966 [taxonomy: 548]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 31]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 13]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 307]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 12,15]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 609]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Green1900e [taxonomy: 449]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 509]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 15-17]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 294]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution, host: 70]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; MorrisMo1922 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 100-102].
Collubia MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Collubia Munting, 1968: 209-211. Type species: Collubia dentata Munting.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of the type species in Munting, 1968.
STRUCTURE: Body elongate with the pygidium very broadly rounded. Median lobes not zygotic, but clearly yoked by a sclerotic band.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus differs from all other genera in having the margin of the pygidium with such a regular series of pointed, plate-like structures. It comes closest to Moraspis Hall in having such a regular marginal row of ducts, but differs from it in the absence of gland spines, the form and distribution of the dorsal pygidial ducts, and the length of the submedian setae on the dorsal and ventral derm of the abdominal segments.
CITATIONS: Muntin1968 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 209-211].
Collubia dentata MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Collubia dentata Munting, 1968: 209-211. Type data: ETHIOPIA: Collubi, on Maytenus sp., 3/8/1964, by B.G. Hill. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Maytenus sp. [Muntin1968]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ethiopia [Muntin1968].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Munting, 1968.
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female white, elongate, becoming very broad posteriorly, sometimes giving the scale an almost circular appearance. First instar without the two dorsocephalic macroducts; anteriof cephalic margin with a broad indentation between the bases of the antennae. Antennae five-segmented, with the terminal segment short and non-annulate. Male scale white, elongate, parallel-sided, non-annulate.
SYSTEMATICS: This species bears some resemblance to Moraspis euphorbiae. Adult female elongate, almost parallel-sided, usually broadest across the prosoma which is slightly sclerotized at maturity.
CITATIONS: Muntin1968 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 209-211].
Contigaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 309. Type species: Chionaspis subnudata Newstead, by original designation.
Artemisaspis Borchsenius, 1949c: 736. Type species: Artemisaspis artemisiae Borchsenius, by original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993.
Eremaspis Bodenheimer, 1951: 330. Type species: Pinnaspis zillae Hall, by original designation. Synonymy by Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a: 360.
Eremohallaspis Bodenheimer, 1951: 330. Type species: Coccomytilus farsetiae Hall, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 353.
Paragadaspis Kaussari & Balachowsky, 1954: 161. Type species: Paragadaspis sarkissiani Kaussari & Balachowsky, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 353.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description of genus by Borchsenius (1949c).
STRUCTURE: The female pygidium with cylindrical glands that are nearly equal in size making this genus very peculiar and readily separated from others (Borchsenius, 1949c).
KEYS: Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 383 (female) [as Eremohallaspis and Eremaspis; Key to the genera of Diaspidini of Egypt]; Balachowsky 1954e: 26 (female) [as Eremohallaspis; Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 13]; Balach1952a [taxonomy: 98, 101]; Balach1953g [distribution, taxonomy: 751]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 157-158, 169, 276, 4]; Bazaro1962 [distribution, taxonomy: 62]; Bodenh1951 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 330]; Borchs1949c [description, taxonomy: 736]; Borchs1949d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 192, 221-222]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 164, 204]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 81-82]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 83]; BorchsWi1963 [description, taxonomy: 357]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 322]; EzzatAf1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 383]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 27]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 509]; Kaussa1955a [taxonomy: 230]; Kaussa1959 [taxonomy: 132]; Kaussa1964 [description, taxonomy: 23]; KaussaBa1954 [p. 161]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 309]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 15, 45, 145]; Muntin1970 [taxonomy: 14]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 94]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 60].
Contigaspis abdita (Munting)NOMENCLATURE:
Artemisaspis abdita Munting, 1968a: 417-419. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Tosca, Vryburg District, on Rhigozum brevispinosa, 08/03/1967, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 2599/1. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM and BMNH.
Contigaspis abdita; Danzig, 1993: 353. Change of combination. Notes: Danzig (1993) synonymized the genus Artemisaspis Borchsenius with Contigaspis MacGillvray creating the combination Contigaspis abdita, but did not explicitly list it.
HOSTS: Bignoniaceae: Rhigozum brevispinosa [Muntin1968a], Rhigozum trichotomum [Muntin1969]. Fabaceae: Lebeckia linearifolia [Muntin1969].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1968a].
BIOLOGY: Adult female well hidden under the surface layers of the host plant's bark, not easily detected (Munting, 1968a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow in front, typically chionaspiform, about 3.5 mm long. Male puparium non-carinate, elongate, broadening posteriorly, dirty white in color (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [chemical control: 230]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 417-419]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host: 121].
Contigaspis bilobis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis bilobis Newstead, 1895b: 233-234. Type data: ALGERIA: Biskra, on Deverra scoparia, 02/03/1895, by A.E. Eaton. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis bilobis; MacGillivray, 1921: 333. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis bilobis; Hall, 1925: 19. Change of combination.
Pinaspis bilobis; Lindinger, 1935: 131. Misspelling of genus name.
Eremaspis bilobis; Bodenheimer, 1951: 330. Change of combination.
Contigaspis bilobis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 420. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Capparidaceae: Capparis spinosa [Balach1929a]. Cruciferae: Farsetia sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Globulariaceae: Globularia alypum [Balach1927]. Poaceae: Panicum turgidum [Hall1927b]. Resedaceae: Ochradenus baccatus [Hall1927b]. Umbelliferae: Deverra scoparia [Newste1895b], Foeniculum vulgare [Bodenh1926a], Pithyranthus tortuosus [Hall1927b], Pituaranthos scoparius [Balach1929a], Pituaranthos tortuosus [Balach1929a], Pituranthos sp. [Balach1954e]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Newste1895b]; Egypt [Hall1922]; Israel [Bodenh1926a]; Morocco [Balach1954e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1895b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pure white, more or less pyriform, suddenly widened immediately behind the second molt, or elongated with sides parallel, very convex, larval and second molt yellowish or frequently pure white. Scale of male and larval molt pure white, with distinct lateral and central carinae. Adult female dull crimson, black after treatment with potash (Newstead, 1895b).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis bilobis is easily distinguished from C. zillae, with which it is often confused by the more robust structure of L2, twinned glandular spines on the pygidium margin and especially the regular range of the marginal macropores on VI and VII (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 595 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Ezzat 1958: 246 (female) [as Pinnaspis bilobis; Key to species of Pinnaspis known to occur in Egypt]; Balachowsky 1954e: 413 (female) [Key to Palearctic species of Contigaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 333 (female) [as Duplachionaspis bilobis; Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1927 [distribution, host: 182]; Balach1929a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Balach1932d [taxonomy: 33]; Balach1933c [distribution, host: 254]; Balach1934d [distribution, host: 147]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 413, 420-423]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 45, 48]; Bazaro1962 [distribution: 62]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 28, 43]; Bodenh1926a [distribution, host: 189]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 248]; Bodenh1935c [description: 1155]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 218]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 330]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 595, 598]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219-220]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 344]; GomezM1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 97-99]; GomezM1968 [distribution, host: 548]; Hall1922 [distribution, host: 28]; Hall1923 [taxonomy: 44]; Hall1925 [taxonomy: 19]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 30, 38, 41]; Hall1927b [distribution, host: 150-151, 176]; Kaussa1959 [taxonomy: 131]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 267]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 51]; Newste1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 233]; Rungs1934 [distribution, host: 22]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 277]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 113]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 46]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60].
Contigaspis coimbatorensis Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis coimbatorensis Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a: 598. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Madras, Coimbatore, on Abutilon indicum, 18/01/1953, by T.S. Muthukrishnan. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in ZMAS.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Tephrosia hirta [Sankar1984], Tephrosia sp. [BorchsWi1963a]. Malvaceae: Abutilon indicum [BorchsWi1963a]. Moringaceae: Moringa olifera [TulsyaPr1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Bihar [TulsyaPr1985], Karnataka [Sankar1984], Tamil Nadu [BorchsWi1963a]); Sri Lanka [BorchsWi1963a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is elongate, pyriform, convex, white or yellowish with bright brownish exuviae protruding from narrow end, 2 mm long. Scale of male nymph elongate, white with distinct longitudinal grooves, 1-1.2 mm long. Adult female oviform (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis coimbatorensis is closely related to C. indigoferae. The females of C. coimbatorensis are differentiated by their better developed pygidial plates, longer median pygidial lobes and smaller dorsal ducts in the median part of pygidium (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 596 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 13]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 596, 598, 610]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 21]; TulsyaPr1985 [distribution, host: 225-226]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60].
Contigaspis cyanogena (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis cyanogena Cockerell, 1901l: 226. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Durban, on unknown host, by Fuller. Holotype. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 177. Described: female.
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) cyanogena; Brain, 1920: 103. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis cyanogena; Green, 1922: 464. Change of combination.
Contagaspis cyanogena; Hall, 1946a: 500. Misspelling of genus name.
Contigaspis cyanogena; Hall, 1946a: 510, 549. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Amaranthaceae: Alternanthera sessilis [BorchsWi1963a], Alternaria sp. [Cocker1902g]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Cocker1901l]; Zambia [Giliom1966]. Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Hall (1920).
STRUCTURE: Female scale just under 2.0 mm long, slightly convex, white, narrow. Exuviae vary from orange to pale yellow. Male scale not carinate (Cockerell, 1901l).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis cyanogena is differentiated from related Ethiopian species C. subnudata, C. indigoferae and also from Oriental C. coimbatorensis, by the greater number of circumvulvar pores, particularly in the antero-lateral groups; formula 8-18 (15-21) 13-17 (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 595 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Hall 1946a: 510 [Key to Ethiopian species of Contigaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 341 (female) [as Hemichionaspis cyanogena; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis cyanogena; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; Bazaro1962 [taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 595, 598, 610]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 103]; Cocker1901l [description, distribution, taxonomy: 226]; Cocker1902a [distribution: 25]; Cocker1902b [taxonomy: 82]; Cocker1902g [description, distribution, host: 111]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 240]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Green1922 [distribution: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 322]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 510, 549]; Kaussa1959 [taxonomy: 131]; Kaussa1964 [taxonomy: 21]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60-61].
Contigaspis davatchii KaussariNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis davatchii Kaussari, 1959: 131-134. Type data: IRAN: near Ispahan, Mont Djauzdan, on Cousinia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Amaranthaceae: Noaea mucronata [Moghad2013a]. Asteraceae: Cousinia sp. [Kaussa1959]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Kaussa1959, KozarFoZa1996].
BIOLOGY: Contigaspis davatchii was collected at altitudes of 1700-2000 meters (Kaussari, 1959).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kaussari (1959).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female large, pyriform or oval, white, fairly convex. Male scale white (Kaussari, 1959).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis davatchii resembles C. cyanogena, but differs by median lobes of pygidium (L1) serratulate and more raised out from the margin. It differs from C. monticola(=C. zillae) by the non-truncate apex of L1 (Kaussari, 1959).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 596 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; BorchsWi1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 596, 598, 610]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Kaussa1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131-134]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 32]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 20]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 11].
Contigaspis euphorbiarum Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis euphorbiarum Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a: 598. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on Euphorbia sp., ?/04/1917, by C. Fuller. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in ZMAS.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [BorchsWi1963a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BorchsWi1963a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is short pyriform, convex, white with yellow exuviae protruding from the narrower end of the scutum, 1.6 mm long. Scutum of male nymph elongate, white 1.0-1.2 mm long. Female body ovoid (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis euphorbiarum is related to C. subnudata, but is clearly differentiated by the grouping of the dorsal ducts on the sides of the marginal lobes (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 595 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 596, 598, 610]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423].
Contigaspis farsetiae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus farsetiae Hall, 1926a: 23-24. Type data: EGYPT: Masara, on Farsetia aegyptiaca, 06/04/1926, by Mohd. Taha. Holotype female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Cairo: Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt. Described: female. Illust.
Targionia Dumonti Balachowsky, 1928: 91-93. Type data: TUNISIA: Nefta Oasis, on Frankenia thymifolia, ?/02/1927, by M.C. Dumont. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 159.
Targionia duplidens Bodenheimer, 1929b: 107-108. Type data: SINAI PENINSULA: on Haloxylon sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 159.
Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) farsetiae; Goux, 1935a: 93. Change of combination.
Pinaspis farsetiae; Lindinger, 1936: 155. Change of combination. Notes: This is also a misspelling of the genus epithet Pinnaspis.
Artemisaspis artemisiae Borchsenius, 1949c: 736. Type data: UZBEKISTAN: southern slope of Mogol-tau; TADJIKISTAN: Shaartuzsky, on Artemisia, 1944. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 356.
Rhizaspidiotus artemisiae; Balachowsky, 1953g: 751. Change of combination. Homonym of Rhizaspidiotus artemisae Hall 1926; discovered by Balachowsky, 1953g: 751.
Rhizaspidiotus mesasiatica Balachowsky, 1953g: 751. Replacement name for Rhizaspidiotus artemisiae Borchsenius; synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 751.
Eremohallaspis farsetiae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 159. Change of combination.
Artemisaspis farsetiae; Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 356. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Amaranthaceae: Anabasis sp. [Moghad2013a], Salsola sp. [Moghad2013a], Seidlitzia rosmarinus [Moghad2013a]. Asteraceae: Artemisia abrotanum [Moghad2013a], Artemisia sp. [Borchs1949c]. Caryophyllaceae: Spergula sp. [Balach1954e]. Chenopodiaceae: Anabasis sp. [Balach1954e], Arthrocnemum glaucum [Balach1954e], Haloxylon sp. [Bodenh1929b], Salsola sp. [Seghat1977], Seidlitzia rosmarinus [Seghat1977]. Cruciferae: Farsetia aegyptiaca [Hall1926a]. Fabaceae: Coronilla ramosissima [Balach1954e]. Frankeniaceae: Frankenia thymifolia [Balach1928]. Globulariaceae: Globularia alypum [Balach1954e]. Polygonaceae: Atraphaxis spinosa [Seghat1977], Calligonum comosum [Moghad2013a]. Umbelliferae: Pituranthos tortuosus [Balach1954e]. Zygophyllaceae: Halimiphyllum sp. [DanzigPe1998], Zygophyllum eurypterum [Seghat1977], Zygophyllum sp. [Balach1954e]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [DanzigPe1998]; Egypt [Hall1926a]; France [Balach1954e, Foldi2001]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996]; Morocco [Balach1954e]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Borchs1949c]; Tunisia [Balach1928]; Uzbekistan [Borchs1949c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1949c).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female white or grayish, 1.2mm long and .6-.9mm wide. Dark raspberry in color. Pygidium widely rounded off; lobes of the pygidium large, apex of lobes blunt, outer margin of the lobes with deep incision joined at the base by the inner margin of the lobes. Cylindrical glands on both aspects of the pygidium in groups along the margin and arranged in irregular sometimes double rows (Borchsenius, 1949c).
SYSTEMATICS: Hall (1926a) states that this unusually large species is easily recognizable both alive and mounted and is quite unlike other Egyptian species.
KEYS: Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 88 (female) [as Contigaspis artemisiae; Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-93]; Balach1928a [distribution, host: 138]; Balach1932d [distribution, host: xiii]; Balach1953g [distribution, taxonomy: 751]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 159-162]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 42, 48]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 94]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Bodenh1929b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107-108]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1155]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 330]; BodenhTh1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 107-108]; Borchs1949c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 736]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 203]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 356, 357]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 356-358]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 244]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 395-397]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 85]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 340-341]; Goux1935a [distribution, host: 93]; Hall1926a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-24, 37, 40]; Hall1927b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146-147, 175]; Hall1927d [distribution, host: 278]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Korone1934 [distribution, host: 89]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 81]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 155, 166]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 32]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 21]; Muntin1968a [distribution, taxonomy: 419]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 113]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 11]; TakagiVe2001 [taxonomy: 200-201].
Contigaspis indigoferae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) indigoferae Hall, 1928: 286-287. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Sinoia, on Indigofera sp., 21/11/1927. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Contigaspis indigoferae; Hall, 1946a: 509. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Indigofera malacostachys [Borchs1966], Indigofera sp. [Hall1928], Indigofera tinctoria [RaoKu1952].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Chad [Medler1980]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928]. Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [RaoKu1952]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1928).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of adult female small, of variable shape, narrowed in front, broadened behind; exuviae overlapping the margin, larval exuviae dark greenish brown, paler round the margin; nymphal exuviae yellow to gold, covered by a thin film of white secretionary matter. Exuviae occupy from one quarter to one third the length of the puparium. Secretionary appendix white. Ventral scale very thin, remaining attached to host. Male puparium with pale brown exuviae, broadening very slightly posteriorly and faintly tricarinate, 1 mm long. Adult female small oval (Hall, 1928).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis indigoferae is closely related to the Oriental C. coimbatorensis, but is differentiated by the shorter and broader median pygidial lobes which are very close together and fused at their bases (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 595 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Hall 1946a: 510 [Key to Ethiopian species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-14]; Bazaro1962 [taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 595, 604, 610]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 286]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 509, 510]; Kaussa1959 [taxonomy: 131]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host: 7]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 61].
Contigaspis kochiae BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis kochiae Borchsenius, 1949b: 349-350. Type data: ARMENIA: near Megri and Erevana, on Kochia prostrata, ?/05/1947 and ?/09/1948, by N. Borchsenius. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 354. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Azotus elegantulus [NikolsYa1966], Physcus contigaspidis [Yasnos1968], Physcus testaceus [NikolsYa1966].
HOST: Chenopodiaceae: Kochia prostrata [Borchs1949b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [Borchs1949b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1949b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pear-shaped, convex, white; exuviae yellow or light brown. Adult female egg-shaped or elongate egg-shaped in outline (Borchsenius, 1949b).
SYSTEMATICS: Although Balachowsky (1954e) considered Contigaspis kochiae to be a junior synonym of C. zillae we agree with Borchsenius and Williams (1963a) who treated them as distinct. Borchsenius & Williams (1963a) state "the females of C. kochiae are differentiated from females of C. zillae by the smaller dorsal ducts in the median part of the pygidium, the more developed pygidial plates, the shorter median lobes and the developed disk pores near the posterior spiracles."
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 323 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Borchsenius 1950b: 204 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 414, 416]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 89, 92]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 349-350]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81-82]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 597, 604, 610]; Danzig1993 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 354]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution: 221]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution, host: 211, 236]; Yasnos1968 [biological control, distribution: 121, 123]; Yasnos1978 [biological control, distribution: 488, 492].
Contigaspis naudei HallNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis naudei Hall, 1946a: 509. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Zululand, Port Durnford, on Cassia mimosoides, 20/12/1926, by P.C. Kotze. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Cassia mimosoides [Hall1946a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Hall1946a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by (Hall, 1946a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female small, white, with a smooth rather glossy surface that is often partially obscured by extraneous matter, moderately to highly convex and moderately broadened posteriorly. Exuviae pale lemon colored. Ventral scale very thin, remaining on host. Male scale very small with more or less parallel sides and apparently with a median carina only. Adult female broadly oval (Hall, 1946a).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis naudei can be differentiated from other members of Contigaspis by the small number of dorsal ducts on the pygidial margin and the sclerotized patch at the base of the median lobes (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 595 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Hall 1946a: 510 [Key to Ethiopian species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Bazaro1962 [taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; BorchsWi1963a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 595, 604, 609]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1946a [catalogue: 509,510]; Kaussa1959 [taxonomy: 131].
Contigaspis salsolae Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Contigaspis salsolae Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a: 606. Type data: RUSSIA: Turkmenia, Bairam-Ali, on Salsola richteri, ?/08/1958, by Redzhenov. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in BMNH.
HOST: Chenopodiaceae: Salsola richteri [BorchsWi1963a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Turkmenistan [BorchsWi1963a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale short, pyriform or almost round, strongly convex, white with yellow larval exuviae, 1.4-1.6 mm long. Scale of male nymph elongate oval, white, no ridges on top, 0.8 - 1.0 mm long (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis salsolae differs from other species in lacking circumvulvar pores and only small dorsal ducts (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 88 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 597 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 94-95]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 82]; BorchsWi1963a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 597, 606, 610]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 358]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82].
Contigaspis sarkissiani (Kaussari & Balachowsky in Balachowsky)NOMENCLATURE:
Paragadaspis sarkissiani Kaussari & Balachowsky in Balachowsky, 1954e: 162. Type data: IRAN: Tehran, on Artemisia sp., 1953, by M. Sarkissian. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Contigaspis sarkissiani; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 220. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Artemisia sp. [Balach1954e], Astragalus sp. [Moghad2013a]. Boraginaceae: Heliotropium sp. [Seghat1977]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular or subcircular, white. Exuviae more or less the length of the scale (Balachowsky, 1954e).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 424-427]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 86]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 358, 360-361]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Kaussa1954 [distribution, host: 162]; Kaussa1955 [taxonomy: 20]; Kaussa1964 [pp. 23, 24]; KaussaBa1954 [pp. 162-164]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 33]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 21]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 11].
Contigaspis subnudata (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis subnudata Newstead, 1912: 20. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Groß-Namaland, Brukkarossberg, on "lobarus," ?/08/1905, by L. Schultze. Syntypes. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK.
Contigaspis subnudata; MacGillivray, 1921: 354. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis subnudata; Lindinger, 1931a: 68. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Newste1912].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1912).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female broadly pyriform, faintly and irregularly striated transversely, white with a trace of pale slate grey anteriorly; larval pellicles varying from yellow to dark grey or dark brown. Puparium of male white, with sharply defined median ridge, sides rounded. Adult female subpyriform, widening considerably in the region of the free abdominal segments (Newstead, 1912).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis subnudata is allied to Augulaspis nudata, but is easily distinguished from by the form and position of the median lobes and also the shape of the adult female (Newstead, 1912).
KEYS: Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 595 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Hall 1946a: 510 [Key to Ethiopian species of Contigaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 354 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration: 14]; Bazaro1962 [taxonomy: 62]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 86]; Borchs1949b [taxonomy: 349]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, host: 359]; BorchsWi1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 595, 609, 610]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 236-237]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 29]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; GomezM1965 [taxonomy: 97]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 510]; Kaussa1959 [distribution: 131]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 68]; MacGil1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 309, 354]; MunroFo1936 [distribution: 79]; Muntin1967 [taxonomy: 2]; Newste1912 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20].
Contigaspis zillae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis zillae Hall, 1923: 27-28. Type data: EGYPT: in desert east of Cairo, on Zilla spinosa. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis zilloe; Rungs, 1942: 108. Misspelling of species name.
Pinnaspis acantholimoni Bodenheimer, 1949: 141. Type data: TURKEY: on Acantholimon sp., 1941. Described: female. Synonymy by Bodenheimer, 1951: 330.
Pinnaspis astragali; Bodenheimer, 1949: 142. Misspelling of species name. Notes: Danzig (1993) states that Bodenheimer's use of Pinnaspis astragali is a lapsus calami for Pinnaspis acantholimoni.
Contigaspis monticola Borchsenius, 1949b: 349. Type data: TAJIKISTAN: Gissarsky Mountains, near village of Kondara, on unknown host, 06/18/1940, by N. Borchsenius. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 356. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 356.
Eremaspis acantholimoni; Bodenheimer, 1951: 330. Change of combination.
Eremaspis zillae; Bodenheimer, 1951: 330. Change of combination.
Eremaspis astragali; Bodenheimer, 1953: 31. Change of combination.
Contigaspis kochiae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 414. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a: 597.
Contigaspis zillae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 414. Change of combination.
Contigaspis borchsenii Bazarov, 1967: 56. Type data: TAJIKISTAN: Pamir, on Centaurea squarrosa, 04/07/1965. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 356.
Contigaspis zilla; Al Dhafer et al., 2012: 233. Misspelling of species name.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Scymnus includens [HertinSi1972], Scymnus includens [PriesnHo1940]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus flaviceps [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Azotus chrysomphali [Yasnos1978], Coccophagus differens [NikolsYa1966], Physcus contigaspidis [Yasnos1978], Physcus tetaceus [NikolsYa1966].
HOSTS: Amaranthaceae: Bassia prostrata [Moghad2013a]. Asclepiadaceae: Calotropis procera [Bodenh1926a], Caralluma sp. [BorchsWi1963a], Daemia tomentosa [Hall1926a], Pergularia tomentosa [Rungs1942]. Asteraceae: Centaurea squarrosa [Bazaro1967], Helichrysum sp. [Kaussa1955]. Boraginaceae: Heliotropium sp. [Kaussa1955], Trichodesma africana [Hall1926a], Trichodesma calcaratum [Rungs1943a]. Cactaceae [BenDov2012]. Capparidaceae: Capparis sp. [BorchsWi1963a]. Chenopodiaceae: Kochia prostrata [Borchs1949b]. Crassulaceae: Telephium sphaerospermum [Hall1925]. Cruciferae: Farsetia aegyptiaca [Hall1925], Zilla spinosa [Hall1923]. Cucurbitaceae: Citrullus colycynthis [Hall1927d]. Fabaceae: Acantholimon sp. [Bodenh1949], Crotolaria aculeata De Wild [AlDhafAlEl2012], Indigofera argentea [Moghad2013a]. Labiatae: Scutellaria semenovi [BazaroSh1971], Scutellaria vilutina [BazaroSh1971]. Lamiaceae: Thymus vulgaris [Moghad2013a]. Moraceae: Ficus nitida L. [AlDhafAlEl2012]. Resedaceae: Ochradenus baccatus [Hall1925], Reseda pruinosa [Hall1925]. Rosaceae: Crataegus azarollus [Moghad2013a]. Rutaceae: Haplophyllum halipensis [Hall1925]. Santalaceae: Osyris alba [Bodenh1926a]. Umbelliferae: Pithyranthus tortuosus [Hall1925], Pituranthos sp. [BorchsWi1963a], Pycnocycla sp. [BorchsWi1963a], Pycnocyla spinosa [Kaussa1955].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [BorchsWi1963a]; Mauritania [Rungs1942]; Nigeria [BorchsWi1963a]. Oriental: Pakistan [Varshn2002]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Armenia [Borchs1949b]; Egypt [Hall1923]; Iran [BorchsWi1963a, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Hall1927]; Morocco [BorchsWi1963a]; Russia [BorchsWi1963a]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1988, AlDhafAlEl2012]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Bazaro1962]; Turkey [BorchsWi1963a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Hall (1923), Borchsenius (1949b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pear-shaped, convex, white, 1.0 - 1.2 mm long, 0.4-0.7 mm wide. Exuviae yellow or light brown. Adult female egg-shaped or elongate egg-shaped (Borchsenius, 1949b).
SYSTEMATICS: Contigaspis monticola (=C. zillae) is related to C. kochiae, but differentiated by the larger apertures of the dorsal ducts in the median part of the pygidium (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a). Balachowsky (1954e) considered Contigaspis kochiae to be a junior synonym of C. zillae. The females of C. kochiae can be differentiated from those of C. zillae by the smaller dorsal ducts in the median part of the pygidium, the more developed pygidial plates, the shorter median lobes and the developed disk pores near the posterior spiracles (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963a).
KEYS: Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 88 (female) [as Contigaspis borchsenii, C. monticola; Key to species of Contigaspis]; Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 597 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 597 (female) [as Contigaspis monticola; Key to species of Contigaspis]; Borchsenius & Williams 1963a: 597 (female) [Key to species of Contigaspis]; Ezzat 1958: 246 (female) [as Pinnaspis zillae; Key to species of Pinnaspis known to occur in Egypt]; Balachowsky 1954e: 413 (female) [as Contigaspis monticola; Key to palearctic species of Contigaspis].
CITATIONS: AlDhafAlEl2012 [distribution, economic importance, host: 243]; Balach1929a [distribution, host: 305]; Balach1932d [distribution, host: 52]; Balach1934d [distribution, host: 147, 152]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 413, 414-420]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 44, 48]; BalachMa1970 [biological control, distribution, host: 1083]; Bazaro1962 [distribution: 62]; Bazaro1963a [distribution: 71]; Bazaro1967 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56-57]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, taxonomy: 94]; Bazaro1971c [distribution, host: 87]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 89-92]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 28, 42]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29, 30]; Bodenh1926a [distribution, host: 189]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 371]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248, 260, 270]; Bodenh1935c [taxonomy: 1156]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 7, 26, 218]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 141-142]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 330]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 31, 32]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 349]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81, 82]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 361]; BorchsWi1963a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 597, 604, 609, 610]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host: 582]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 354-356]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220-221]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 393-395]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 29]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 344-345]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution: 84]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27]; Hall1925 [distribution, host: 22, 27]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 32, 38, 40, 41]; Hall1927 [distribution, host: 108]; Hall1927b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 151-153, 174-176]; Hall1927d [distribution, host: 277]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 179]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 20]; Kaussa1959 [taxonomy: 131]; Kaussa1964 [taxonomy: 21]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 163]; Matile1988 [distribution, host: 25]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 33]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 21]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, taxonomy: 211]; PriesnHo1940 [biological control, distribution: 65-66]; Rungs1935 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277-279]; Rungs1942 [distribution, host: 108]; Rungs1943a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 109-110]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 11]; Varshn1962 [distribution, host: 61].
Cooleyaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Cooleyaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 308. Type species: Chionaspis praelonga Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Cooleyaspis is distinct due to its deeply notched median lobes, yoked at the base, and the second lobes well developed, the lobules set wide apart with the inner lobules wider and longer than the median lobes. The dorsal ducts form a submedian row on segment 6 and transverse rows on the anterior segments. Perivulvar pores present in three groups with a transverse median supplementary group of 7-12 pores (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Cooleyaspis differs from Rolaspis Hall and Voraspis Hall in the median lobes forming a deep notch in the pygidium. The single supplementary group of perivulvar pores is distinctive but other supplementary groups are present in some species of Rolaspis and Voraspis. Although the marginal pygidial ducts are larger than the dorsal ducts this is also true of certain species of Rolaspis and it may be that some species now placed in Rolaspis could be transferred to Cooleyaspis (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 308 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; BorchsWi1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 360]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 510, 530, 543]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 45].
Cooleyaspis praelonga (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis praelonga Newstead, 1920: 203-204. Type data: UGANDA: Bufumira Island, Sesse Islands, Lake Victoria, on unknown tree, 12/10/1918, by C.C. Gowdey. Described: female. Illust.
Cooleyaspis praelonga; MacGillivray, 1921: 353. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus praelongus; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Acokanthera schimperi [DeLott1967a]. Loganiaceae: Strychnos sp. [DeLott1967a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Uganda [Newste1920].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1920).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium very elongate, length can be 9 to 10 times the width, sides parallel, pure white in color, texture smooth and slightly polished. Exuviae pale yellowsih-brown, ventral pellicle complete. Male puparium pure white and very faintly tricarinate. Female adult very elongate, about 4 times as long as wide, cephalic margin slightly narrower than the pygidium (Newstead, 1920).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 353 (female) [Key to species of Cooleyaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 362]; Brown1965 [structure, taxonomy: 89-92]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 116]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Hall1946a [distribution: 546, 551]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 353]; Newste1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203-204].
Coronaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Coronaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Type species: Chionaspis coronifera Green, by original designation.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 8]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 511]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 312, 362]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 46].
Coronaspis coronifera (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis coronifera Green, 1905a: 353. Type data: SRI LANKA: Galgammuwa, ?/08/????, on unidentified tree. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Coronaspis coronifera; MacGillivray, 1921: 362. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1905a].
BIOLOGY: Female covers are attached to the extreme margins of the leaves. Male covers grouped on under surface (Green, 1905a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium white, sometimes tinged with ochreous, pellicles reddish. Strongly convex, the sides sloping up and forming a median longitudinal rounded ridge. This form is probably accentuated by the situation of the puparium on the extreme margin of the leaf, 2 mm in length. Male puparium white, distinctly tricarinate, pellicle pale yellow, 1.50 mm long. Adult female reddish, densely chitinous, with exception of penultimate segment (Green, 1905a).
SYSTEMATICS: The antennae of Coronaspis coronifera strongly resemble those of Dentachionaspis auratilis (Newstead, 1920).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 362 (female) [Key to species of Coronaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 42]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 8]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 353]; Green1922 [distribution: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 318]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 511]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 312, 362]; Newste1920 [taxonomy: 205]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, taxonomy: 352]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 42].
Coronaspis malabarica TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Coronaspis malabarica Takagi, 1999a: 104-105. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Anaimalai, on undetermined plant, 03/12/1978. Holotype female. Type depository: Calcutta: National Zoological Collection, Zoological Survey of India, India. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Zanthoxylum ovalifolium [Takagi1999a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Takagi1999a]).
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 900m (Takagi, 1999a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, brown. Male scale felt-like, white, obscurely tricarinate (Takagi, 1999a).
SYSTEMATICS: Coronaspis malabarica is very similar to C. malesiana, differing in the following characters: the pygidium is broader and more roundish along the margin; the sclerotized spiniform processes occurring between the median lobes are shorter than in C. malesiana, and are applied to the base of a membranous slender process which occurs between them and projects beyond the apices of the median lobes; 2 or 3 marginal macroducts are associated with the serrate marginal processes of the 5th abdominal segment; no median macroducts occur on prepygidial abdominal segments (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104-105,116,128,134].
Coronaspis malesiana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Coronaspis malesiana Takagi, 1999a: 103. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah, Tawau, Ulu Segama, Danum Valley Conservation Area, on Spatholobus oblongifolia, 23/10/1988. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Lophopetalum beccarianum [Takagi1999a], Reissantia indica [Takagi1999a]. Fabaceae: Spatholobus oblongifolia [Takagi1999a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi1999a]); Philippines (Luzon [Takagi1999a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, with median ridge, dirty brown, pale brown or nearly white. Male scale felt-like in texture, white, with a median carina. Adult female elongate, fusiform, 1.3 mm long, membranous except for pygidium, which is weakly sclerotized, rather narrow, nearly triangular and slightly roundish along the margin (Takagi, 1999a).
SYSTEMATICS: Coronaspis malesiana is very similar to C. malabarica. For a detailed description of their differences, see the "Systematics" section under C. malabarica.
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 103-104,116,127,133].
Costalimaspis LepageNOMENCLATURE:
Costalimaspis Lepage, 1937: 239. Type species: Costalimaspis eugeniae Lepage, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Costalimaspis comes close to Gymnaspis (Lepage, 1937).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 184]; Ferris1938b [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 57, 58, 60]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-321]; Lepage1937 [description, taxonomy: 239]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 47]; Silves1939 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 801-802].
Costalimaspis eugeniae LepageNOMENCLATURE:
Costalimaspis eugeniae Lepage, 1937: 239-242. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Jardim da Luz, on Eugenia sp., 12/03/1936, by H.S. Lepage. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Rio de Janeiro: Fundacao Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Described: female.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Lepage1938], Siphoneugenia reitzii [ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Espirito Santo [SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [Lepage1938]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black and shining, convex (Lepage, 1938).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 93-96]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 241]; Ferris1938b [illustration, taxonomy: 57, 60]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-321]; Lepage1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 239-242]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 402]; Lepage1942 [taxonomy: 178]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 173]; Silves1939 [taxonomy: 802]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 18].
Crassaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Crassaspis Ferris, 1941d: 274. Type species: Pseudodiaspis multipora Ferris, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female turbinate in form, with the prosomatic region heavily sclerotized at full maturity. Pygidium without gland spines or with these at the most exceedingly small and very few. Median lobes present, well developed, widely separated and without basal scleroses of any kind. Second and third lobes represented merely by flattened points or prominences, the second lobe not bilobulate. Dorsal ducts of the pygidium numerous, very small, scattered over the entire pygidium even to the area anterior to the median lobes. Scale of female round or ovoid, thick both dorsally and ventrally, the exuviae central or subcentral. Scale of male elongate, slender, white, with the exuviae terminal (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 47 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 155]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-274]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:47]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 507]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 47].
Crassaspis maculata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Crassaspis maculata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-275. Type data: MEXICO: Sinola, near Mazatlan, on Celtis iguanea, 1925, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudodiospis maculata; Lindinger, 1957: 547. Change of combination. Notes: Lindinger (1957) misspelled Pseudodiaspis as Pseudodiospis.
HOST: Ulmaceae: Celtis iguanea [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Sinola [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, convex, slightly elongate. Male scale white or slightly brown. Adult female about .9 mm long, turbinate (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 (female) [Key to species of Crassaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-275]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:51]; Lindin1957 [p. 547].
Crassaspis multipora (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis multipora Ferris, 1919e: 275-276. Type data: CALIFORNIA: San Diego County, Julian, on Phoradendron flavescens. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Situlaspis multipora; Ferris, 1937: 123. Change of combination.
Crassaspis multipora; Ferris, 1942: SIV-446:51. Change of combination.
Pseudodiospis multipora; Lindinger, 1957: 547. Misspelling of genus name.
COMMON NAME: mistletoe situlaspis scale [Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Cercidium sp. [Ferris1921]. Loranthaceae: Phoradendron flavescens [Ferris1919e].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]); United States of America (California [Ferris1919e]).
BIOLOGY: Crassaspis multipora occurs on the stem of its host, with a tendency to concealment under any irregularities (Ferris, 1937).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1919e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1 mm in diameter, white, circular, convex, exuviae subcentral, with a thick ventral scale. Male scale elongate, white, exuviae terminal (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Crassaspis multipora is a peculiar species, perhaps most closely resembling Situlaspis condaliae, but differing in many respects, especially in not having the cephalothorax produced laterally and in the deeply furrowed appearance of the pygidium (Ferris, 1919e).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 261 (female) [as Situlaspis multipora; Key to California species of Situlaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 35 (female) [as Situlaspis multipora; Key to species of Situlaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV:446:51 (female) [Key to species of Crassaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 364 (female) [as Pseudodiaspis multipora; Key to species of Pseudodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155]; Ferris1919e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 275]; Ferris1921 [distribution, host: 101]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 120, 123]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-274]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:51]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 261, 262, 265]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 507]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 547]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 364]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 157]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 26]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Credodiaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Credodiaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 313. Type species: Cryptodiaspis limuloides Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Hall (1946a) states that "this genus was erected by MacGillivray for a single species Cryptodiaspis limuloides Lindinger, from the Cameroon. In the key to genera given by that author the only character separating it from the genus Cryptodiaspis Lindinger is the absence of perivulvar pores. This in itself would be insufficient grounds for the separation but unfortunately neither limuloides nor the other two species of Cryptodiaspis have been seen and no opinion can, therefore, be expressed."
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 313 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 184]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 511]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 313]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 47].
Credodiaspis limuloides (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Cryptodiaspis limuloides Lindinger, 1909e: 30-32. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, in jungle, on Cynometra sp., 1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis limuloides; Sasscer, 1911: 69. Change of combination.
Credodiaspis limuloides; MacGillivray, 1921: 366. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Cynometra sp. [Lindin1909e]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 511, 550, 555]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-32]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1942b [taxonomy: 381]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 313, 366]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Sassce1911 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Crockeraspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Crockeraspis Takagi, 2000: 47-48. Type species: Crockeraspis fungosa Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Crockeraspis is related to Pseudaulacaspis in having strongly zygotic median trullae and a pair of well-developed setae between them, but differs in having the 2nd trullae reduced into small pointed processes, in lacking well-differentiated marginal macroducts on the pygidium and in having a number of small, short ducts on the dorsal surface of the prosoma (Takagi, 2000).
CITATIONS: Takagi2000 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 47-48].
Crockeraspis fungosa TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Crockeraspis fungosa Takagi, 2000: 48-49. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah, near Gunung Rinangsan, between Keningau and Ulu Kimanis, on the roadside, on Adinandra sp., 08/11/1988. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 88ML284. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Theaceae: Adinandra sp. [Takagi2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi2000]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration of adult female, male and female second instars and first instar by Takagi (2000).
STRUCTURE: Female scale globular, dirty grayish brown, appearing like a mass of hyphae; beneath this the central body is hard and shell-like in texture, forming a space to accommodate the insect body. Male scale oblong, white, smooth, with no median carina. Female scale is composed mostly of tubular wax filaments, while the male scale is composed mostly of coiled ribbon-like filaments. Adult female robust, pyriform, broadest across metathorax and base of abdomen, narrowing towards head (Takagi, 2000).
CITATIONS: Takagi2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 48-49, 67-75].
Cryptaspidus LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptaspidus Lindinger, 1910b: 43. Type species: Cryptaspidus nucum Lindinger, by monotypy.
SYSTEMATICS: (Lindinger, 1957) states that Cryptaspidus is the cryptogynous form of Pseudoparlatorea Cockerell.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 183]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Lindin1910b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 10]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; Lindin1942b [taxonomy: 381]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 543]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 309]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 48].
Cryptaspidus nucum LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptaspidus nucum Lindinger, 1910b: 43. Type data: MADAGASCAR: on Cocos nucifera sp., ?/06/1907. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Lindin1910b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Lindin1910b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lindinger (1910b).
STRUCTURE: Scale oblong, weakly widens posteriorly, whitish, 1.5 - 1.75 long, .75 mm wide (Lindinger, 1910b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Lindin1910b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-44]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 10, 20]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; Lindin1942b [taxonomy: 381]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 357]; Mamet1943a [catalogue: 158]; Mamet1950 [distribution, host: 18].
Crypthemichionaspis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Crypthemichionaspis Lindinger, 1910: 192. Nomen nudum.
Crypthemichionaspis Lindinger, 1911: 175. Type species: Crypthemichionaspis nigra Lindinger, by monotypy.
Cryptohemichionaspis; Ferris, 1941a: 16. Misspelling of genus name.
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger considered this genus to be a junior synonym of Anamefiorinia. Ferris (1936a) considered it a synonym of Trullifiorinia, but later (1941a) left its validity uncertain pending further investigation. Borchsenius (1966) treated the genus as valid.
KEYS: Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Bodenh1924 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 148]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 26]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1941f [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 12, 16]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1911 [description, taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 10]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 372]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 49]; Sassce1912 [taxonomy: 91]; Takaha1956a [taxonomy: 58].
Crypthemichionaspis nigra LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Crypthemichionaspis nigra Lindinger, 1911: 175-176. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, Mt. Lyndhurst, on Acacia salicina, ?/05/1899. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Trullifiorinia nigra; MacGillivray, 1921: 376. Change of combination.
Anamefiorinia nigra; Lindinger, 1935: 133. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia salicina [Lindin1911], Acacia sp. [Borchs1966], Phyllodium sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (South Australia [Lindin1911]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Crypthemichionaspis nigra Lindinger 1911 is a senior homonym of C. nigra Lindinger 1932f (=Formosaspis takahashii.)
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 376 (female) [as Trullifiorinia nigra; Key to species of Trullifiorinia].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 148]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 12, 16]; Lindin1910c [taxonomy: 374]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175-176]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 10, 20]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 186]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 376]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 293].
Cryptodiaspis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptodiaspis Lindinger, 1909e: 26. Type species: Cryptodiaspis conservans Lindinger. Subsequently designated by Sasscer, 1911: 69.
Credodiaspis; Lindinger, 1937: 182. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 184.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 183]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 511]; Lindin1909e [description, taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 10]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 199]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1942b [distribution, taxonomy: 381]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218, 223]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 309, 357-358]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 50].
Cryptodiaspis conservans LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptodiaspis conservans Lindinger, 1909e: 26. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, in jungle, on Euphorbiaceae, 1904. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis (Cryptodiaspis) conservans; Sasscer, 1911: 69. Change of combination.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale roundish, about 1.05 mm in diameter, brownish, flat. Larva oval, dark yellow when dead (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 357 (female) [Key to species of Cryptodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 549, 554]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1942b [distribution, taxonomy: 381]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Sassce1911 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Vayssi1913 [taxonomy: 430].
Cryptodiaspis hamata LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptodiaspis hamata Lindinger, 1909e: 28-30. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, in jungle, on Macrolobium zenkeri, 1904. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis (Cryptodiaspis) hamata; Sasscer, 1911: 69. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Macrolobium zenkeri [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium of adult female with furcapectinae in second and third incisurae; median pair of lobes small, bluntly rounded, faintly notched on mesal margin; second and third pairs of lobes deeply incised, mesal lobelet much longer and broader than lateral and truncate (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 358 (female) [Key to species of Cryptodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550, 555]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-30]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1942b [distribution, taxonomy: 381]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 358]; Sassce1911 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Vayssi1913 [taxonomy: 430]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Cupidaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Cupidaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Type species: Leucaspis cupressi Coleman, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Cupidaspis MacGillivray was considered to be a junior synonym of Lineaspis by coccid workers including Ferris (1936a & 1937), Lindinger (1937) and Balachowsky (1954e). However, Howell & Tippins (1977a) resurrected the genus based on its lack of perivulvar pores, gland spines between median lobes and elongate setae on the antennal tubercles.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 312 [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 401]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 92-93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 19, 21, 24, 25]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-77, SI-78]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 312, 363]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 52].
Cupidaspis beshearae Howell & TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Cupidaspis beshearae Howell & Tippins, 1977a: 898-900. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Grand Canyon, on Juniperus osteosperma, 07/08/1972, by R.J. Beshear. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 359-72. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in University of Georgia, VPIC, Auburn, UCDC and BMNH.
COMMON NAMES: Beshear scale [Gill1997]; California lineaspis scale [Gill1997].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Calocedrus decurrens [HowellTi1977a], Cupressus macrocarpa [HowellTi1977a], Juniperus osteosperma [HowellTi1977a], Juniperus sp. [HowellTi1977a], Juniperuss scopulorum [HowellTi1977a], Libocedrus decurrens [HowellTi1977a], Libocedrus sp. [HowellTi1977a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [HowellTi1977a], California [HowellTi1977a], Colorado [HowellTi1977a], Utah [HowellTi1977a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Howell & Tippins (1977a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.0-1.5 mm long, oystershell-shaped, moderately convex, pure white, with yellow or whitish terminal exuviae. Adult female body dark red. Scale covers often irregular and undulated, as a result of conforming with the irregularly shaped host needles. Males elongate, white, smaller than females, with a terminal yellow exuviae (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Cupidaspis beshearae can be told from C. cupressi by lacking a dorsal submarginal macroduct on the 6th abdominal segment and by the shape of the submarginal ducts on the prepygidial segments. In C. cupressi these ducts, although much smaller, are the same shape as the pygidial macroducts. In C. beshearae, they are much smaller and noticeably more slender than the pygidial macroducts. In addition, dorsal submedian microducts are present on abdominal segments 3-4 in C. beshearae but are absent in C. cupressi and the position of the anus is usually posterior to the vulva in C. beshearae but anterior to the vulva in C. cupressi (Howell & Tippins, 1977a).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 107 (female) [Key to California species of Cupidaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1977a: 900 [Key to species of Cupidaspis].
CITATIONS: Gill1982c [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: ill]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107-108, 109]; HowellTi1977a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 898-900]; HowellTi1981 [taxonomy: 419]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Cupidaspis cupressi (Coleman)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis cupressi Coleman, 1903: 71-72. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Lake County, on Toll road between Calistoga and Lakeport, on Cupressus goveniana, 21/06/1901, by G.A. Coleman. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Coleman (1903) states that the types are in the collection of Stanford University. This collection has since been incorporated into the collection of the University of California at Davis, but Cupidaspis cupressi is not on the list of material held in the Davis collection.
Lepidosaphes cupressi; Lindinger, 1906: 57. Change of combination.
Cupidaspis cupressi; MacGillivray, 1921: 363. Change of combination.
Lineaspis cupressi; Jorgensen, 1934: 227. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: California lineaspis scale [Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Cupressus macnabiana [Ferris1937], Juniperus monosperma [Ferris1937], Juniperus pachyphloea [Ferris1919a], Juniperus sp. [Jorgen1934], Juniperus utahensis [Ferris1937]. Pinaceae: Cupressus forbesii [McKenz1956], Cupressus goveniana [Colema1903], Cupressus macrocarpa [McKenz1956], Libocedrus decurrens [Ferris1919a], Libocedrus utahensis [McKenz1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Colema1903], Colorado [Ferris1937], New Mexico [Ferris1919a], Texas [Ferris1937], Utah [Jorgen1934]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Very minute, scale cover 1.0-1.5 mm long, fairly convex, elongate, transparent white, with yellow terminal exuviae (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Cupidaspis beshearae can be told from C. cupressi by lacking a dorsal submarginal macroduct on the 6th abdominal segment and by the shape of the submarginal ducts on the prepygidial segments. In C. cupressi these ducts, although much smaller, are the same shape as the pygidial macroducts. In C. beshearae, they are much smaller and noticeably more slender than the pygidial macroducts. In addition, dorsal submedian microducts are present on abdominal segments 3-4 in C. beshearae but are absent in C. cupressi and the position of the anus is usually posterior to the vulva in C. beshearae but anterior to the vulva in C. cupressi (Howell & Tippins, 1977a).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 107 (female) [Key to California species of Cupidaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1977a: 900 [Key to species of Cupidaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 404]; Colema1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 71-72]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59-60]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 45]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-78]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107, 108, 110]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 460]; HowellTi1977a [distribution, taxonomy: 898]; Jorgen1934 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Leonar1906b [distribution, host: 29]; Leonar1907c [distribution, host: 94]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 6, 57]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 133]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Cynodontaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Cynodontaspis Takagi, 1962: 46. Type species: Cynodontaspis piceae Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Cynodontaspis is referable to the tribe Diaspidini Ferris by having two-barred ducts. Body elongate, fusiform. Pygidium produced marginally into thickly sclerotized processes, among which the median lobes are distinctly separated, conical, and sharply pointed apically and the lateral lobes duplex, with the lobules more or less similar to the median lobes in shape (Takagi, 1962).
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1980b: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 75]; Danzig1980b [description: 308]; Danzig1986a [description: 362]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 287]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 225]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 53]; Takagi1962 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 46-48].
Cynodontaspis edentata Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Cynodontaspis edentata Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 107. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo (Ogôti, Okutama), on Abies firma. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Abies firma [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium quite broad, rugged with small marginal dentations rather irregularly variable in shape; among these dentations the marginal pore prominences are rather produced and the median lobes broad and variously dentate, with a pair of spinous processes between them (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Cynodontaspis edentata differs from C. piceae by the pygidial processes being much less prominent (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 225]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 151]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 258]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 80]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107].
Cynodontaspis piceae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Cynodontaspis piceae Takagi, 1961: 42. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1962: 48.
Cynodontaspis piceae Takagi, 1962: 48. Type data: JAPAN: Hokkaido, Yamabe, on Picea excelsa, 10/09/1960; Kitami-Esasi, on Abies sachalinensis, 16/09/1960, both by S. Tagaki. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: FUNGI : Septobasidium kameii [Takagi1962].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies sachalinensis [Takagi1962], Picea ajanensis [Danzig1980b], Picea excelsa [Takagi1962], Picea koraiensis [Danzig1980b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1962]); Russia (Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1980b], Sakhalin Oblast [Danzig1980b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1962).
STRUCTURE: Adult female broadly fusiform, membranous except for pygidium, very weakly produced laterally in free abdominal segments, about 1.0 mm long and 0.6 mm wide. Pygidium broad, well sclerotized, shallowly and rather widely concave apically (Takagi, 1962).
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 722 (female) [Key to Far East USR species of Cynodontaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Danzig1977b [distribution, taxonomy: 41, 52]; Danzig1978 [distribution, host: 19]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 308]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 362, 365-366]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 722]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287, 290]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 225]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 258]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 80]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 42]; Takagi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 107].
Dactylaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dactylaspis Ferris, 1937: 26. Type species: Dactylaspis dactylifera Ferris, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus has "two-barred" ducts, which are scattered and not arranged in definite rows or groups on the dorsum and are present to the 7th or even the 8th segment. Body elongate, fusiform. Perivulvar pores lacking (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 44 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 32]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-26]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 4, 10]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 44, 45, 46]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 54]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 61].
Dactylaspis acuta (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes acuta Ferris, 1921: 111-112. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, Cabo San Lucas, on undetermined shrub. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Dactylaspis acuta; Ferris, 1937: SI-27. Change of combination.
HOST: Solanaceae: Lycium sp. [Ferris1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1937], Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]).
BIOLOGY: Dactylaspis acuta has been found with Rugaspidiotus fuscitatis (Ferris, 1938a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female about 2 mm long, white, almost porcelaneous in appearance. Male scale resembles that of female both in form and texture. Adult female with pygidium acute, the median lobes almost completely united, the 2nd lobes represented by sclerotic points, the 3rd lobes entirely lacking; marginal ducts present but small. Derm of the entire body becoming quite sclerotic at maturity (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis acuta differs from the other species in the genus in the complete absence of gland spines, marginal spurs and the marginal lobes of the abdominal segments (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111-112]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-26, SI-27]; Ferris1938a [distribution, host: SII-170]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218].
Dactylaspis calcarata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes calcarata Ferris, 1921: 112-114. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, La Paz, on Haematoxylon boreale. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis calcarata; Lindinger, 1932f: 202. Change of combination.
Dactylaspis calcarata; Ferris, 1937: SI-28. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia flexicaulis [Ferris1921], Cassia occidentalis [Ferris1921], Haematoxylon boreale [Ferris1921], Lysiloma candida [Ferris1937], Lysiloma sp. [Ferris1921], Olneya tesota [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1937], Baja California Sur [Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1921 and 1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pure white, almost porcelaneous, about 2 mm long (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis calcarata can be told from other species in this genus by the large marginal ducts of the pygidium and the single large duct associated with the lobes of abdominal segments 2-5, together with the sclerotized thoracic region (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 112-114]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-28]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-139]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 80].
Dactylaspis crotonis (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis crotonis Cockerell, 1893j: 256. Illust. Nomen nudum; discovered by Cockerell, 1893p: 156.
Mytilaspis crotonis Cockerell, 1893p: 156. Type data: JAMAICA: Kingston, on Croton sp., by J.J. Bowrey. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Coccomytilus crotonis; Leonardi, 1903: 10, 18. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes crotonis; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Dactylaspis crotonis; Ferris, 1942: SIV-389. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: croton mussel scale [Borchs1966]; guagua del Croton [AlayoS1976].
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha wilkesiana [Ballou1926], Codiaeum variegatum [Mosque1976], Croton scouleri [Willia1977ML], Croton sp. [Cocker1893j]. Fabaceae: Delonix regia [ColonFMe1998], Inga laurina [ColonFMe1998], Inga vera [Martor1945]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Ballou1926]. Sapindaceae: Melicoccus bijugatus [ColonFMe1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands? (Oahu [Kirkal1904]). Neotropical: Colombia [Figuer1952, Mosque1976]; Cuba [Ballou1923]; Galapagos Islands [Willia1977ML]; Jamaica [Cocker1893j]; Panama [Marlat1921a]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Martor1945]).
BIOLOGY: Dactylaspis crotonis can occur in great abundance on the stems of its host. The females are covered in bark tissue making them difficult to distinguish (Ferris, 1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate. Adult female about 1.75 mm long, body more or less fusiform and tending to be curved or distorted. Abdominal segments only slightly lobed laterally. Derm membranous throughout except for the pygidium (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis crotonis is similar to D. calcarata and D. lobata, but differs from both in the enlarged antennae and in the presence of distinct leg vestiges (Ferris, 1942). Zimmerman (1948) states that Kirkaldy (1904) may have misidentified Lepidosaphes tokionis as D. crotonis.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris]; MacGillivray 1921: 295 (female) [as Coccomytilus crotonis; Key to species of Coccomytilus]; Leonardi 1903: 10 (female) [as Coccomytilus crotonis; Coccomytilus species].
CITATIONS: AlayoS1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; Ballou1923 [distribution: 86]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 28]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 8]; Cocker1893j [distribution, host, illustration: 256]; Cocker1894d [description: 312]; Cocker1897h [distribution, host: 109]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 89-90]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 308]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-389, SIV-446: 51]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 34]; Gowdey1926 [distribution, host: 50]; Kirkal1904 [distribution, host: 229]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 18-20]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 547]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; Marlat1921a [distribution: 19, 31]; Martor1945 [distribution, host: 412]; Martor1976 [distribution: 144]; Maxwel1902 [distribution: 253]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 87]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 33]; Newell1927 [distribution: 82, 41]; Willia1977ML [distribution, host: 94]; Wolcot1936 [distribution, host: 142]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 177]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy: 426].
Dactylaspis dactylifera FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dactylaspis dactylifera Ferris, 1937: SI-29. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Manzanillo, on Lonchocarpus sericeus, 1925, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Lonchocarpus sericeus [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale gray, with transverse ridges, about 2 mm long. Male scale is similar (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis dactylifera is similar to D. lobata, but differs especially in lacking the marginal lobes of the abdominal segments, which are extremely well developed in the latter (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-26, SI-29]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218].
Dactylaspis flaccida FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dactylaspis flaccida Ferris, 1938a: SII-139. Type data: MEXICO: Morelos, Cuernavaca, on Lantana camera, by A. Koebele. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Verbenaceae: Lantana camera [Ferris1938a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Morelos [Ferris1938a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white, thick, somewhat irregular; male scale similar in form, color and texture. Adult female about 1.4 mm long, body membranous throughout, very flabby and shapeless in preparations, even the pygidium being weakly sclerotized (Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis flaccida closely resembles D. calcarata in its structural characteristics, but differs especially in its sclerotized derm and flabby body, the other species being quite heavily sclerotized at maturity and having very definite and distinctive form (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-139]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51].
Dactylaspis lobata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dactylaspis lobata Ferris, 1937: SI-30. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Brownsville, on Celtis mississippiensis, 1921, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in TAMU (McDaniel, 1971).
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Erythrina sp. [Borchs1966], Mimosa bracatinga [SilvadGoGa1968], Mimosa scabrella [CorseuSi1971]. Ulmaceae: Celtis mississippiensis [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937]). Neotropical: Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul [CorseuSi1971]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis lobata is rather intermediate between D. dactylifera and D. calcarata, being separable from the former chiefly by the presence of pronounced, cylindrical lobes at the anterior-lateral angles of abdominal segments 2-5, but these lobes bearing several small ducts instead of the single large duct which is borne by them in D. calcarata. Thoracic region not sclerotized at maturity. Leg vestiges lacking. Small, sclerotic spurs present on the margins of the prepygidial abdominal segments as in D. dactylifera, and the gland spines approaching those of the latter species in conspicuousness. Marginal ducts of the pygidium lacking or very small. Median lobes close together, 2nd lobes barely indicated, 3rd lobes perhaps slightly indicated by sclerotized points (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host: 109]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-30]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 294]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 27]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 173].
Dactylaspis serratiloba FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dactylaspis serratiloba Ferris, 1938a: SI-140. Type data: MEXICO: Guerrero, La Providencia, near Acapulco, on Eugenia?, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp.? [Ferris1938a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1938a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female white, elongate, moderately broad, quite thick and heavy. Male scale similar in form, color and texture. Adult female about 1.4 mm (Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: Dactylaspis serratiloba does not closely resemble any of the species of its genus. It is marked immediately by the form and size of the pygidial lobes (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 [Key to species of Dactylaspis Ferris].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-140]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51].
Damaia TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Damaia Takagi, 2003: 71-72. Type species: Damaia swintoniae, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female is diagnosed by the presence of a broadly flat frontal margin, slender dorsal ducts, three pairs ofw.:ll-developed trullae, and narrowly rectangular gland spines between the trullae. These glar.d spines are quite unique, being of the same thickness throughout, with the apex truncated. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description,illustration: 71-72].
Damaia swintoniae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Damaia swintoniae Takagi, 2003: 72-73. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sarawak, Kuching district, Santubong (Damai Beach). Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML-24. Described: both sexes.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Swintonia glauca [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves. Females burrowing under a thin epidermal layer of the leaf; tests visible through the epidermal layer, elongate, moderately expanded posteriorly, and dark brown. Males not burrowing; tests white, felted, and tricarinate. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: Hypaspidiotus jordani (Kuwana), a member of the subfamily Aspidiotinae, is very similar to Damaia swintoniae in having three pairs of well-developed dentate trullae. It burrows under the vestiture on the lower surface of the leaves of Castanopsis cuspidata in Japan. Though belonging to the different subfamilies, these two species may represent a particular type of the pygidial fringe adapted to burrowing. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, illustration: 72-73, 114-116].
Daraspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Daraspis Hall, 1946a: 511. Type species: Chionaspis bussii Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Daraspis comes closest to Sinistraspis MacGillivray, from which it differs in the median lobes not being yoked together, in having a marginal macropore and two gland spines between the median lobes and in lacking any asymmetrically developed characteristic (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 544 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 39]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 511-512, 544]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 55].
Daraspis bussii (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis bussii Newstead, 1911a: 171-172. Type data: GUINEA: on Macrolobium sp., ?/06/1902, by Dr. Busse. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Berlin: Museum fur Naturkunde der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis bussi; Sasscer, 1912: 90. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus bussei; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus bussei Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Unjustified emendation.
Daraspis bussii; Hall, 1946a: 511. Change of combination.
Daraspis cussii; Balachowsky, 1954e: 23. Misspelling of species name.
Poliaspis bussei; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOST: Fabaceae: Macrolobium sp. [Newste1911a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Newste1911a]; Zaire [Medler1980].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1911a).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium narrowly elongate, sides parallel behind the 2nd exuviae, margin broadly flattened, dusky ochreous to pale ochreous brown in color. Adult female long and narrow, 4- 4.5 times as long as wide (Newstead, 1911a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 348 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23, 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 39]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 511, 548]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 348]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Newste1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 171-172]; Sassce1912 [distribution, host: 90].
Dentachionaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Dentachionaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 310. Type species: Chionaspis capensis Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: MacGillivray (1921) differentiates Dentachionaspis from other genera in the tribe Diaspidini by its having the pygidium with furcapectinae on lateres, median pair of lobes incised and smaller than second pair. Dentachionaspis is close to Inchoaspis MacGillivray, but species of the latter genus are much larger (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 542 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 310 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 89]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 39]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 512-513, 542]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 310, 358]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 56]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 61].
Dentachionaspis auratilis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis auratilis Newstead, 1920: 204-205. Type data: UGANDA: Jana Island, Sesse Islands, Lake Victoria, on unknown plant, 09/10/1918, by C.C. Gowdey. Described: female. Illust.
Coronaspis auratilis; MacGillivray, 1921: 362. Change of combination.
Dentachionaspis auratilis; Hall, 1946a: 511. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Newste1920].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1920).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium moderately elongate, sides generally parallel behind the exuviae, strongly convex, the convexity commencing abruptly in the middle region of the second exuviae. Pure glistening white in color and finely laminated. Larval exuviae rich dark orange-yellow. Second exuviae dark orange-brown, with distal portion much paler. Male puparium strongly tricarinate. Larval exuviae rich dark orange-yellow, secretionary portion of a dull gold color. Adult female ovoviviparous, elongate, gradually narrowed anteriorly (Newstead, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: Two characteristic features of Dentachionaspis auratilis are the bright golden color of the male cover and the exceptionally large peritreme or depression to the anterior stigmata. The remarkable form of the antennae of this species bears a close resemblance to that of Chionaspis coronifera (=Coronaspis coronifera), but these two species are otherwise easily separable (Newstead, 1920).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 513 (female) [Key to species of Dentachionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 362 (female) [as Coronaspis auratilis; Key to species of Coronaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Hall1929a [taxonomy: 373]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 511, 512, 513]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362]; Newste1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204-205].
Dentachionaspis berlesei (Malenotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis berlesei Malenotti, 1916a: 347-349. Type data: SOMALIA: Giuba, on Cadaba sp.?, 26/09/1913, by G. Paoli. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types presumed lost (Salvatore Marotta, personal communication, May 15, 2001).
Trichomytilus rehi Lindinger, 1934: 64. Unjustified replacement name for Dinaspis berlesei Malenotti; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 89. Notes: Lindinger (1934) moved both Chionaspis berlesei Leonardi 1898 and Dinaspis berlesei Malenotti 1916 into Trichomytilus creating a secondary homonymy. He proposed the replacement name T. rehi for the Malenotti species, which was the junior name. According to Article 59.3 of the INCZ, since the replacement name is not in use and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric, the replacement name is rejected.
Dentachionaspis berlesei; Borchsenius, 1966: 89. Change of combination.
HOST: Capparidaceae: Cadaba sp. [Maleno1916a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Somalia [Maleno1916a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Malenotti (1916a).
SYSTEMATICS: Hall (1946a) considered Dentachionaspis berlesei to be a probable synonym of D. lounsburyi.
KEYS: Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [as Dinaspis berlesei; Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Costan1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 513, 548]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Maleno1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 347-349].
Dentachionaspis capparisi (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis capparisi Brain, 1919: 233-234. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Peninsula, on Capparis albitrunca, 1898, by C. Fuller. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 37. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 146/1. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis capparisi; MacGillivray, 1921: 335. Change of combination.
Chionaspis capparidis; Lindinger, 1932f: 196. Misspelling of species name.
Trichomytilus capparidis; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Misspelling of species name.
Trichomytilus capparidis; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Dentachionaspis capparisi; Munting, 1965: 230. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Capparaceae: Boscia albitrunca [MunroFo1936]. Capparidaceae: Capparis albitrunca [Brain1919].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1919].
BIOLOGY: Adult female viviparous (Brain, 1919).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Brain (1919).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is about 2.2 mm long, comparatively wide, moderately convex, widest around the middle, clean specimens appearing slightly glossy, but felted, exuviae brown. Male puparium white, non-carinated, exuviae yellowish or yellowish brown (Brain, 1919).
SYSTEMATICS: The scales of Dentachionaspis capparisi, both male and female, are similar to those of D. lounsburyi, but the insect itself differs from the latter in having the anterior part of the body less chitinized, in a few of the pygidial characters and in the possession of circumgenital glands (Brain, 1919).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 335 (female) [as Duplachionaspis capparisi; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231, 233-234]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 512, 548]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 196]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 230-232]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 37].
Dentachionaspis centripetalis RaoNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis centripetalis Fletcher, 1921: 19. Nomen nudum; discovered by Rao, 1953: 64.
Chionaspis centripetalis Misra, 1924: 348. Nomen nudum; discovered by Rao, 1953: 64.
Dentachionaspis centripetalis Rao, 1953: 64. Type data: INDIA: Kashmir, on "apple" (Malus sp.), 1916, by T.B. Fletcher. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Oleaceae: Olea europiaca [Ramakr1934]. Rosaceae: Malus sp. [Misra1924CS]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Jammu & Kashmir [Rao1953], Tamil Nadu [Misra1924CS]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Rao (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, first exuviae pale yellow with darker markings and the second exuviae reddish brown. About 3 mm long and 1.5 mm wide. Adult female nearly oval, narrow anteriorly (Rao, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentachionaspis centripetalis resembles D. pseudonivea, but can be separated from it by the larger number of submedial and submarginal dorsal ducts on the pygidium (Rao, 1953).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 42]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89, 377]; Fletch1921 [p. 19]; Konsta1976 [host: 49]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 348]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1934 [distribution, host: 60]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-66]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78, 79]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 61].
Dentachionaspis lounsburyi (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis lounsburyi Leonardi, 1914: 216-218. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis capensis Newstead, 1917: 378. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on Acacia sp., 1914, by de Charmoy. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Hall, 1946a: 512.
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) lounsburyi; Brain, 1920: 101. Change of combination.
Dentachionaspis capensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 358. Change of combination.
Dentachionaspis lounsburyi; Hall, 1946a: 513, 550. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Gymnosporia buxifolia [Brain1920], Gymnosporia sp. [Hall1929a]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Newste1917]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Leonar1914]; Zimbabwe [Brain1920].
BIOLOGY: Adult female viviparous (Brain, 1920).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, first exuviae bronze to bronze-brown; second exuviae brown, slightly pointed behind. Scale of adult female about 2 mm long, elongate, generally straight, but varying in shape according to the position on the plant, condition of crowding etc. Puparium of male about 0.8 mm long, white, non-carinated, with orange pellicles (Brain, 1920).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 513 (female) [Key to species of Dentachionaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [as Dinaspis lounsburyi; Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [taxonomy: 42]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 234]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 39]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1929a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 512, 513, 548, 550,]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 216]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 358]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Newste1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378-379].
Dentachionaspis margaritae (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis margaritae Brain, 1919: 231. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: on Aloe sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis margaritae; MacGillivray, 1921: 336. Change of combination.
Dentachionaspis margaritae; Hall, 1946a: 513. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis capensis [DeBachRo1976a], Aspidiotiphagus flavus [Fulmek1943], Aspidiotiphagus latipennis [Fulmek1943], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Fulmek1943]. Encyrtidae: Metaphycus aspidiotinorum [Comper1940a], Metaphycus stramineus [Comper1940a].
HOST: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Brain1919]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Almeid1973]; South Africa [Brain1919].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Brain (1919).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female about 2.5 mm long, moderately broad and convex, white, very smooth and glossy or pearly in appearance with brownish exuviae. Second exuviae sometimes only slightly covered (Brain, 1919).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentachionaspis margaritae differs from D. lounsburyi in having five well developed groups of perivulvar pores (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 513 (female) [Key to species of Dentachionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 336 (female) [as Duplachionaspis margaritae; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Almeid1973 [distribution: 4]; AnneckMy1981 [biological control, distribution: 35]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231]; Comper1940a [biological control, distribution: 26, 28]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control, distribution: 544]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 24]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 513, 534, 539, 550,]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1965b [taxonomy: 190]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 758].
Dentachionaspis pittospori (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) pittospori Hall, 1929a: 373-374. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Sinoia, on Uapaca nitida, 21/09/1927; Banket, on Uapaca nitida, 16/07/1928; Mazoe, on Pittosporum viridiflorum, 08/11/1927. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Dinaspis pittospori; Hall, 1946a: 512. Change of combination.
Dentachionaspis pittospori; Hall, 1946a: 513. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Uapaca nitida [Hall1929a]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum viridiflorum [Hall1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of the adult female elongate, narrowed in front and broadening posteriorly, highly convex. Larval exuviae pale brown, golden brown or reddish brown, nymphal exuviae pinkish or reddish brown. Adult female elongate, but much narrowed anteriorly (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentachionaspis pittospori differs from D. lounsburyi in the much shallower nature of the notch between the median lobes (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 513 (female) [Key to species of Dentachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 373-374]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 512, 513, 551].
Dentachionaspis pseudonivea (Malenotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis pseudonivea Malenotti, 1916a: 349-351. Type data: SOMALIA: El Sai, on Hyphaene pyrifera, 21/06/1913. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types presumed lost (Salvatore Marotta, personal communication, May 15, 2001).
Dentachionaspis pseudonivea; Hall, 1946a: 513. Change of combination.
HOST: Arecaceae: Hyphaene pyrifera [Maleno1916a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Somalia [Maleno1916a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Malenotti (1916a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 513 (female) [Key to species of Dentachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 513, 551]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; Maleno1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 342,349]; Rao1953 [taxonomy: 66].
Dentachionaspis quadrispinosa MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Dentachionaspis quadrispinosa Munting, 1965b: 189-190. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Addo, on Maytenus cymosus, 09/12/1963, by J.Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Maytenus cymosus [Muntin1965b], Putterlickia pyracantha [Muntin1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1965b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2 mm long. Waxy secretion white, glossy, broad, sometimes giving the scale a subcircular appearance. Male scales appear to be parallel-sided, white, with pale yellow exuviae and about 0.8 mm long. Adult female fusiform or sometimes oval in shape, with prosoma slightly sclerotized at maturity (Munting, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentachionaspis quadrispinosa is similar to D. margaritae, but may be distinguished from it in having fewer perivulvar pores and only 4 pygidial gland spines (Munting, 1965b).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 189-190].
Dentachionaspis ritchiei (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis ritchiei Ritchie, 1928: 36. Nomen nudum; discovered by Laing, 1929a: 483.
Chionaspis ritchiei Laing, 1929a: 483. Type data: TANZANIA: Bukoba, Bugabu, on Coffea arabica, by A.H. Ritchie. Holotype female, by original designation. Described: female. Illust.
Dentachionaspis ritchiei; Hall, 1946a: 513. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Rubiaceae: Coffea arabica [Laing1929a], Coffea liberica [Laing1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Sierra Leone [Laing1929a]; Tanzania [Laing1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female snowy white, slightly waxy in appearance, long, narrow, broadening posteriorly; larval pellicle pale honey brown, second pellicle a darker brown, overlaid in front with white. Puparium of male snow-white, woolly in appearance, not much longer than pellicle, rather broad posteriorly, uncarinate; larval pellicle very pale yellow-brown, dusted in places with white powder, oval, with a narrow elongate median elevation. Adult female long and narrow, length from three to three and one half times the breadth, widest across penultimate abdominal segment; dorsum with transverse bead-like striae rather widely separated, ventral surface minutely spinulose and closely striated (Laing, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is probably related to Chionaspis usambarica (=Voraspis usambarica), but differs in the shape of the median trullae and in other minor respects. The pygidial fringe also resembles that found in Chionaspis dentilobis (=Inchoaspis dentilobis), but apart from the obvious difference of the absence of perivulvar pores in the latter, C. ritchiei has but a single arch of dorsal pores in each series, C. dentilobis (=Inchoaspis dentilobis) has each arch composed of several rows (Laing, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 513 (female) [Key to species of Dentachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 513, 552]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Laing1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 483-484]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; Morsta1936 [distribution: 101]; Ritchi1928 [distribution, host: 36]; Roba1935 [distribution, host: 304].
Dentaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Dentaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Type species: Chionaspis substriata Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Body small, fusiform to globose with delicate hyaline dermis. Mouthparts, typically, unusually close to the anterior margin. Anterior spiracles situated in a shallow but clearly defined pit (Hall, 1946a).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentaspis is close to Inchoaspis, but in that genus the females are unusually large, whereas in Dentaspis the reverse is the case (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 542 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 35]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 46]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 513, 542]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 312]; Mamet1950 [taxonomy: 35]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 56].
Dentaspis chir (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis chir Green, 1919c: 435-436. Type data: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh, Almora, Kumaon, on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes chir; Lindinger, 1933: 32. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus griffithii [AhmadGh1972], Pinus sp. [Green1919c]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Uttar Pradesh [Hall1946a]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1972].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female snowy white, smooth and shining. Exuviae reddish, often partially obscured by a layer of white secretion which is long-ovate or pyriform, rather strongly convex in transverse section. Adult female oblong ovate, narrower in front, broadly rounded behind (Green, 1919c).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [distribution, host: 84]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution, host: 84]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 435-436]; Lindin1933 [taxonomy: 32]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 61].
Dentaspis gibber (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) gibber Hall, 1929a: 372-373. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Darwendale, on unknown shrub, 28/11/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Dentaspis gibber; Hall, 1946a: 514. Change of combination.
Unaspis gibbera; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination.
Unaspis gibbera; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of adult female small and pyriform, so highly convex that it appears humpbacked. Larval exuviae golden brown, nymphal exuviae of a similar color, entirely covered by a thin film of white secretionary matter which is often knocked off over the larval exuviae, but remains intact over the nymphal exuviae and partially obscures the color. Adult female pyriform (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: The extraordinary humpbacked nature of the female scales, the relatively small number of dorsal pores on the pygidium and their large size are characteristic of Dentaspis gibber (Hall, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 514 (female) [Key to species of Dentaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 337 [as Unachionaspis globosus; Species of Unachionaspis].
CITATIONS: BalachFe1965b [taxonomy: 234]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 372-373]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 514, 538, 550]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548].
Dentaspis globosa (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis globosus Brain, 1919: 236. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Seymour, on Euphorbia sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 38. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
Unachionaspis globosus; MacGillivray, 1921: 337. Change of combination.
Dentaspis globosus; Hall, 1946a: 514, 538. Change of combination.
Unachionaspis globosa; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [Brain1919]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1919].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Brain (1919).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female small, about 1 mm long, very convex, almost globular, shiny white, with very pale yellowish to orange-brown exuviae. Puparium of male white, with broad median rounded ridge, exuviae pale yellow or orange. Adult female broadly oval, with the two extremities about equally rounded, thin, hyaline, with posterior margin exhibiting a series of rounded projections (Brain, 1919).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 514 (female) [Key to species of Dentaspis].
CITATIONS: BalachFe1965b [taxonomy: 234]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 236]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 514, 538, 550]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 337]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host: 38].
Dentaspis hargreavesi (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis hargreavesi Laing, 1925a: 61. Type data: UGANDA: Masaka, on "Nzo," by H. Hargreaves. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Dentaspis hargreavesi; Borchsenius, 1966: 35. Change of combination.
HOST: Rutaceae: Teclea simplicifolia [DeLott1967a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Uganda [Laing1925a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1925a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, more or less parallel-sided, occasionally slightly expanded posteriorly, very highly convex, the perpendicular sides of the median part sometimes faintly constricted; ventral scale membranous, white, adhering closely to surface of leaf. Larval exuviae of a bright orange brown. Adult female very dark brown, almost black, much contracted, especially so in pygidial region where segments are humped up and highly convex (Laing, 1925a).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentaspis hargreavesi is close to Inchoaspis amaniensis (Laing, 1925a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 514 (female) [Key to species of Dentaspis].
CITATIONS: BalachFe1965b [taxonomy: 234]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 116]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 514, 550, 557]; Laing1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61].
Dentaspis langloisi Balachowsky & FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Dentaspis langloisi Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1965b: 233-236. Type data: CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Boukoko, on Strychnos icaja, 03/02/1964, by A.S. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Loganiaceae: Strychnos icaja [BalachFe1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Central African Republic [BalachFe1965b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky & Ferrero (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale longer than wide, white. Adult female pyriform (Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentaspis langloisi is close to D. hargreavesi and D. gibber (Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1965b).
CITATIONS: BalachFe1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 233-236].
Dentaspis pygaei (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) pygaei Hall, 1937: 120-122. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Melsetter, on Pygaeum africanum, ?/07/1934, by R.W. Jack. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Inchoaspis pygaei; Hall, 1946a: 522. Change of combination.
Dentaspis pygaei; Borchsenius, 1966: 36. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Rosaceae: Pygaeum africanum [Hall1937], Pygaeum sp. [Hall1946a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1937].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1937).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of adult female relatively large, narrowed in front and broadening posteriorly, highly convex, larval exuviae golden. Nymphal exuviae a reddish-brown and covered by a thin film of dirty white secretionary matter which obscures the color, but is readily peeled off. The exuviae occupy more than one-third of the entire puparium. Secretionary appendix a dirty white with rather unusually conspicuous transverse striations. Ventral scale white and thin, usually broken away to a greater or lesser degree over the posterior half. Adult female is large, globose and pyriform (Hall, 1937).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 522 [as Inchoaspis pygaei; Key to species of Inchoaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35-36]; Hall1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 120-122]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 522, 551, 556]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549].
Dentaspis rugosa HallNOMENCLATURE:
Dentaspis rugosa Hall, 1946: 62-64. Type data: UGANDA: on unknown host, by G.H.E. Hopkins. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Hall1946].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1946).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female white, so highly convex as to be almost globular, but somewhat compressed laterally. Secretionary appendix with regular transverse corrugations and of a felted, rather soft, nature. Larval exuviae golden, nymphal exuviae pale. Ventral scale persisting round the margin in the anterior region. Male scale white, parallel-sided, with golden exuviae, uncarinated. Adult female broadly pyriform, sharply narrowed anteriorly, globose and membranous (Hall, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: Dentaspis rugosa is close to D. substriata, but differs in having 5 groups of perivulvar pores, gland spines of the pygidial fringe of a different form, more numerous dorsal pores, and the median lobes being more widely set apart (Hall, 1946).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 514 (female) [Key to species of Dentaspis].
CITATIONS: BalachFe1965b [taxonomy: 234]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Hall1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-64]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 514, 552].
Dentaspis substriata (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis substriata Newstead, 1910c: 197. Type data: UGANDA: Entebbe, Botanic Gardens, on unidentified Palmae, 29/03/1909, by C.C. Gowdey.; type no. 304. Described: female. Illust.
Dentaspis substriata; MacGillivray, 1921: 362. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae [Newste1910c], Phoenix sp. [Hall1946a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Hall1946a]; Uganda [Newste1910c]; Zaire [Hall1946].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Newstead (1910c).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium satiny white; transversely striate, striae equidistant and well defined; adult female with narrowed cephalic region; pygidium broadly rounded (Newstead, 1910c).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is distinguished by the serrated lobes and the forward position of the proboscis (Newstead, 1910c).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 514 (female) [Key to species of Dentaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; BalachFe1965b [taxonomy: 234]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 46]; Gowdey1913 [distribution, host: 249]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 189]; Hall1946 [distribution, taxonomy: 64]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 514, 552, 556]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312, 362]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Newste1910c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 197]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 162].
Diaspidistis HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspidistis Hempel, 1900a: 522. Type species: Diaspidistis multilobis Hempel, by original designation.
Diaspidistus; Morrison & Morrison, 1966: 57. Misspelling of genus name.
Diaspiditis; Fonseca, 1969: 31. Misspelling of genus name.
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1937a) states that Diaspidistis is evidently close to Pseudoparlatoria.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 305 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 305 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 159]; Cocker1902p [taxonomy: 257]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 4, 11]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 522]; Hempel1901a [description, taxonomy: 110]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 305]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 59]; WolffCl2010 [description, taxonomy: 225-226].
Diaspidistis fonsecai Wolff & ClapsNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspidistis squamosa; Fonseca, 1969: 9-40. Misidentification.
Diaspidistis fonsecai Wolff & Claps, 2010: 229-30. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, Morumbi, on unidentified plant, 8/?/1963, by J.P. da Fonseca. Holotype female (examined), . Type depository: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [WolffCl2010]; Brazil (Sao Paulo [WolffCl2010]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff & Claps, 2010.
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of Diaspidistis fonsecai differ from other species of the genus, except D. multilobis by having a pronounced notch in the middle of the anterior margin (females of D. multilobis also have a notch on the margin, but it is less pronounced) and have a small number of well-marked dorsal glands. The figure presented by Fonseca (1969) as D. squamosa shows the microscopic characters of Diaspidistis fonsecai.
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females].
CITATIONS: WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 229-230].
Diaspidistis gomescostai (Lepage & Giannotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria gomescostai Lepage & Giannotti, 1946: 42. Type data: BRAZIL: Rio Grande do Sul, on Eugenia pungens, by R. Gomes Costa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspidistis gomescostai Wolff & Claps, 2010: 228.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia pungens [LepageGi1946, SilvadGoGa1968].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul [LepageGi1946, SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [WolffCl2010]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage & Giannotti (1946).
STRUCTURE: Adult female tapering, 1.0 mm wide, derm membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, median regular sized, tapering, with a small notch in each side. 2nd and 3rd pair of less developed, but distinctly bilobed (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: The great number of dorsal macroducts on the pygidium distinguish Pseudoparlatoria gomescostai from other members of this genus (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946). This species is similar to D. multilobis by the condition of the median lobes, but differs by having a notch on the anterior margin. It was transferred to this genus because it has pores near the anterior spiracles and marginal and submarginal glands on the dorsum of similar shape and size.
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; GomesC1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72-74]; GomesC1958 [p. 128]; GomesCRe1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 228-229]; LepageGi1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180]; Willia1985e [taxonomy: 255]; WolffCl2008 [taxonomy: 73]; WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228].
Diaspidistis memorabilis (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria memorabilis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-318. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Dolega, on Eugenia sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspidistis memorabilis; Wolff & Claps, 2010: 228. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, usually irregular because of pressure of host leaf hairs, but probably circular, exuviae subcentral. Male scale oval, exuviae central. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.5 mm long, almost circular. Pygidium with distinctive characters. Median lobes relatively large, heavily sclerotized, retracted into body and with transverse, sclerotized bars reinforcing their bases. Between them, however, are the usual pair of gland spines. 2nd and 3rd lobes very small but distinctly present, both pairs bilobulate. Gland spines more numerous than in other species, those toward apex of the pygidium tending to be slightly irregular or even fringed (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria memorabilis is very distinctive, the extraordinary development of the median lobes separating it immediately from other members of the genus (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [as Pseudoparlatoria memorabilis; Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-318]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; WolffCl2008 [taxonomy: 73]; WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228].
Diaspidistis multilobis HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspidistis multilobis Hempel, 1900a: 522-523. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Ypiranga, on unidentified Myrtaceae, 25/04/1900. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspidistis multilobia; MacGillivray, 1921: 314. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspidistis multiloba; Ferris, 1936a: 21. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudoparlatorea multilobis; Lindinger, 1937: 194. Change of combination.
Diaspidistis multilobis; Wolff & Claps, 2010: 226. Revived combination.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Heterothalamus brunioides [WolffCl2010]. Myrtaceae [Hempel1900a], Eugenia dombeyi [Lepage1938], Psidium sp. [Lepage1938]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [WolffCl2010]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [WolffCl2010]; Brazil (Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [Hempel1900a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular, somewhat convex, light brown in color. Exuviae yellow, central, superimposed. Male scale somewhat elongate, not carinated. Adult female cordate to subcircular in outline, anterior margin being always notched in the middle. Adult male small, light yellow, thoracic band of the same color (Hempel, 1900a).
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females]; MacGillivray 1921: 314 [Key to species of Diaspidistis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 159]; Cocker1902p [distribution, taxonomy: 257]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 190]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 11]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 522-523]; Hempel1901a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 110-111]; Hempel1937 [taxonomy: 28]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 402]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, host, taxonomy: 314]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 173]; WolffCl2008 [taxonomy: 73]; WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226].
Diaspidistis multipunctata (Lepage & Giannotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria multipunctata Lepage & Giannotti, 1946: 40-41. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Campos de Jordao, on undetermined host, by P. Mello. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspidistis multipunctata; Wolff & Claps, 2010: 229. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [LepageGi1946, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage & Giannotti (1946).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval, 1.0 mm wide, derm membranous except for sclerotized pygidium. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, median lobes well developed and with a strong sclerotized band at the base, triangular and with crenulated margins. 2nd and 3rd pairs less developed, bilobed, each with a small notch (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspidistis multipunctata is similar to D. punctata Ferris (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946) and D. squamosa (Wolff & Claps, 2010).
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; LepageGi1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-41]; WolffCl2008 [taxonomy: 73]; WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229].
Diaspidistis petasata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria petasata Ferris, 1942: SIV-419. Type data: MEXICO: Veracruz, Santa Lucrecia, from undetermined tree, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspidistis petasata; Wolff & Claps, 2010: 228. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Veracruz [Ferris1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pygidium somewhat elongate, broadly rounded apically. Median lobes moderately large, separated by slightly less than the width of one of them and with a bifurcate gland spine between. Median and 2nd lobes well developed, distinctly bilobulate, the outer lobule in each but slightly smaller than the inner, the whole lobe nearly equal to a median lobe in width, but slightly shorter. Margin of the pygidium with very small gland spines at frequent intervals (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: This species was transferred to Diaspidistis by Wolff & Claps (2010) because, in addition to the dosal glands cited by Ferris (1942), it also has marginal and submarginal tubular glands of similar size and shape.
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 164]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-419, SIV-446:62]; WolffCl2008 [taxonomy: 73]; WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228].
Diaspidistis squamosa HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspidistis squamosa Hempel, 1937: 27-28. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Araçatuba, on unidentified host, 23/06/1928. Holotype female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 138. Described: female.
Pseudoparlatorea squamosa; Lindinger, 1943b: 219. Change of combination.
Diaspidistis squamosa; Wolff & Claps, 2010: 226-227. Revived combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Lepage1938]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Hempel1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hempel (1937).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female irregular and circular. Female adult cordiform (Hempel, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspidistis squamosa is close to D. multilobis, but can be distinguished from it by the female scale and the first pair of lobes are much wider (Hempel, 1937).
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 159]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31]; Hempel1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27-28]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 402]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 173]; WolffCl2008 [taxonomy: 73]; WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226-227].
Diaspidistis tucumanensis Wolff & ClapsNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspidistis tucumanensis Wolff & Claps, 2010: 231-232. Type data: ARGENTINA: Tucumán: San Pedro de Colalae, on Eugenia mato, 8/?/1996, by L. Claps. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Tucuman: Fundacion e Instituto Miguel Lillo, Universidade Nactional de Tucuman, Argentina. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia mato [WolffCl2010].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Tucuman [WolffCl2010]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff & Claps, 2010)
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of Diaspidistis tucumanensis differ from other species of this genus by having the whole body strongly sclerotized, piriformis and greater number of short spines on the anterior margin of the third pigidial lobe. This species is similar to D. memorabilis but without abdominal pigidial lobes and with median lobes with a sclerotized base.
KEYS: Wolff & Claps 2010: 232 (female) [Key to Diaspidistis, based on the characters of adult females].
CITATIONS: WolffCl2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231-232].
Diaspis CostaNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis Costa, 1828a: 453. Type species: Diaspis calyptroides Costa. Subsequently designated by Cockerell, 1902d: 58.
Diapsis; Targioni Tozzetti, 1867: 38, 51. Misspelling of genus name.
Ferrisidiaspis Bodenheimer, 1951a: 329.
Diplacaspis; Jacobson by Mann, 1969: 150-151. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Body turbinate, membranous except for pygidium. Ducts 2-barred. Median lobes, although sometimes close together, never yoked or zygotic. Second and third lobes, bilobed, usually well developed. Often a pronounced spur in position of each fifth lobe. Marginal pygidial macroducts usually arranged as 6 on each side. Submarginal ducts the same size or smaller, in varying numbers. Dorsal ducts usually smaller, in definite submarginal and submedian groups. Perivulvar pores present in 5 groups. Gland spines small, never between median lobes, but a pair of setae always present in this position (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: According to Neave (1939, Nomencl. Zool. 2: 105), Jacobson proposed Diplacaspis as a new name for Diaspis Lacordaire, 1848, a genus of Coleoptera, the latter being preoccupied by Diaspis Costa, 1828, in the Hemiptera. Mann published the new combination "Diplacaspis echinocacti" (Bouche), a lapsis for Diaspis Costa.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female); Chou 1982: 117 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Diaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1971d: 838 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Ghauri 1962: 212 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidina]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 165 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 332 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Zahradník 1952: 98 (female) [Schlüssel zur Bestimmung der Gattungen der Cechoslovakischen Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 374 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 60 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 46 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [Key to genera]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 43 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 97 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 12 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 360 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; Hollinger 1923: 6 (female) [Genera of Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 306 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Lawson 1917: 206 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 262 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Lindinger 1913: 65 (female) [Gruppe Diaspides]; Newstead 1901b: 78 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera]; Hempel 1900a: 497 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae]; Cockerell 1897r: 69 (female) [Table of the Coccidae of Brazil].
CITATIONS: Archan1929 [distribution, taxonomy: 189]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 80, 82]; Ashmea1891 [taxonomy: 101]; Atkins1886 [taxonomy: 272]; Balach1954e [description, illustration, taxonomy: 165, 173-176]; BerlesLe1898 [taxonomy: 11]; BerlesLe1898a [distribution, taxonomy: 132]; Bodenh1924 [description, taxonomy: 22]; Bodenh1949 [description, taxonomy: 29, 39]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 329]; Bodenh1952 [description, taxonomy: 332]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 5]; Borchs1937 [distribution, description, taxonomy: 97, 103]; Borchs1937a [description, taxonomy: 99]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 193, 226]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 166, 207]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 166]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 366]; Brain1918 [description, taxonomy: 116]; Britto1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 360, 366]; Charmo1899 [taxonomy: 28]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 117, 118]; Cocker1893d [description, taxonomy: 8]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy: 4]; Cocker1897r [taxonomy: 69]; Cocker1905b [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Comsto1881a [description, taxonomy: 310]; Comsto1883 [description, taxonomy: 54, 85]; Comsto1916 [description, taxonomy: 459, 515, 546]; Costa1828a [description, taxonomy: 453, 454]; Costa1835 [taxonomy: 19]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 645, 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 838]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 374]; DietzMo1916a [taxonomy: 262, 286]; Dougla1886 [taxonomy: 245]; Ezzat1958 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 243]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 227]; Ferris1920b [description, taxonomy: 44]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 47]; Ferris1937 [description, illustration, taxonomy: SI-31]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 47]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 40, 79]; Frogga1914 [description, taxonomy: 879]; Frogga1915 [description, taxonomy: 52]; Fullaw1932 [taxonomy: 97, 102]; Ghauri1962 [description, taxonomy: 212]; Gill1997 [distribution, taxonomy: 124]; Goethe1884 [taxonomy: 113]; GomezM1937 [description, taxonomy: 43, 185]; GomezM1946 [description, taxonomy: 60]; GomezM1957 [description, taxonomy: 96]; Gowdey1921 [taxonomy: 24]; GrandpCh1899 [taxonomy: 7]; Green1896e [description, taxonomy: 38, 86]; Green1927 [taxonomy: 3]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 515, 541]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 497]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,45,87]; Hollin1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 6, 67]; Kuwana1926 [description, taxonomy: 14]; Kuwana1933a [taxonomy: 44]; Lawson1917 [taxonomy: 206, 243]; Leonar1920 [description, taxonomy: 27, 181]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 354]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1913a [taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; LinKoGu2013 [molecular data, phylogeny: 257]; Low1882c [taxonomy: 521]; Lupo1938 [distribution, taxonomy: 121]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 306]; Maskel1879 [taxonomy: 192, 200]; Maskel1887a [taxonomy: 39, 45]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 29]; Morgan1888a [taxonomy: 47]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 59-60]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Myers1925 [taxonomy: 165]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 78, 151]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 12]; Schmut1951 [distribution, taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 176, 177]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 33, 34]; Signor1869b [description, taxonomy: 99, 431]; Takagi1970 [description, taxonomy: 32]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 61-62]; Wang1982c [taxonomy: 47]; WilliaWa1988 [description, taxonomy: 100]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 224]; Zahrad1952 [taxonomy: 98, 174]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 374, 412].
Diaspis aequalis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis aequalis Munting, 1967a: 254. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Bain's Kloor, Wellington District, on Leucadendron daphnoides, 01/09/1965, by D.J. Rust. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM and BMNH.
HOST: Proteaceae: Leucadendron daphnoides [Muntin1967a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1967a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, subcircular, about 1.3 mm in diameter, exuviae subcentral or lying at the margin; ventral scale very well developed, united with the dorsal scale so as to entirely enclose the female. Male puparium white, elongate, parallel-sided, non-carinate, about 0.8 mm long. Adult female broadly turbinate, 0.7-1.2 mm long (Munting, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis aequalis differs from other Diaspis species in having as many as 3-5 gland spines in the 1st and 2nd interlobular spaces. Other unusual characters include the dorsal and marginal macroducts are the same size, more than one marginal macroduct may occur between the median lobes, and the numerous ventral pygidial microducts (Munting, 1967a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 254-255]; Takagi2011 [taxonomy: 48].
Diaspis africana LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis africana Lindinger, 1909e: 22. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, Urwaldgebiet, on Syzygium guineense, 1904. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis regularis; Lindinger, 1932f: 201. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 167.
Diaspis subregularis spatulata; Lindinger, 1943b: 219. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 167.
HOSTS: Connaraceae: Connarus smeathmanni [Vayssi1913]. Myrtaceae: Syzygium guineense [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Medler1980].
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 319 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 167]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 548]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-24]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 21]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 319]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Diaspis alba FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis alba Fonseca, 1969: 29-30. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, on Merostachys neesii, ?/08/1965, by J. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 853. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Merostachys neesii [Fonsec1969].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1969]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fonseca (1969).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29].
Diaspis amantei FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis amantei Fonseca, 1973: 257-258. Type data: BRAZIL: Minas Gerais, Rio Pardo, on unidentified plant, ?/11/1963, by E. Amante. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 864. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Minas Gerais [Fonsec1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fonseca (1973).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Fonsec1973 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 257-258].
Diaspis antiquorum GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis antiquorum Green, 1922a: 1011. Type data: SRI LANKA: Elephant Pass, on Euphorbia antiquorum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia antiquorum [Green1922a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female, sub-circular, moderately convex, white, opaque, exuviae eccentric, larval pellicle bright castaneous, nymphal pellicle concealed, 2.5 mm in diameter. Adult female broadly ovate, narrower behind. Pygidium with median lobes recessed, divergent, their bases confluent, their free margins very obscurely serrate (Green, 1922a).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 167]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 335]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1011]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 315]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 62].
Diaspis asparagi Giard nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis asparagi Giard, 1892: cxcix. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 377.
HOST: Liliaceae: Asparagus horridus [Giard1893].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Giard1893].
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1912b) suggests that Diaspis asparagi could be a junior synonym of Chionaspis berlesei (=Duplachionaspis berlesei).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 327]; Giard1892 [distribution, host: cxcix]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 366].
Diaspis aurantii Signoret nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis aurantii Signoret, 1883: lxiii. Nomen nudum; discovered by Fernald, 1903b: 327.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Signor1883]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Guyana [Signor1883].
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1934) lists Diaspis aurantii as a junior synonym of Apteronidia ziziphi(=Parlatoria ziziphi).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Cocker1894d [distribution: 312]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 62]; Quayle1938a [distribution, host: 296]; Signor1883 [distribution, host: lxiii].
Diaspis australis HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis australis Hempel, 1900a: 521-522. Type data: BRAZIL: Ypiranga, on unidentified Myrtaceae. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 15.720. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis australis; Lepage & Giannotti, 1943: 335. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae [Hempel1900a].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil [Hempel1900a] (Sao Paulo [ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hempel (1900a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, oblong, very convex, about 2.75 mm long. Exuviae brown, close to margin. Male scale narrow, white, uncarinated, forming a full sack, exuviae brown, 1.5 mm long (Hempel, 1900a). Adult female yellowish, posterior end of abdomen light brown, oval, widest anteriorly, three segments before the pygidium produced laterally (Hempel, 1901a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 320 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 167]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249-250]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 58]; Cocker1902p [distribution, taxonomy: 257]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 119]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 190]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 227]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 521]; Hempel1901a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 109]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 403]; LepageGi1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 335-337]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 179].
Diaspis barbatus Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis barbatus Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 341. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 377. Notes: Ramakrishna Ayyar (1924) cites Diaspis barbatus as a Green manuscript name.
HOST: Poaceae: Ischaemum hirsutum [Ramakr1924].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, host, taxonomy: 377]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 341]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 14, 52]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 62].
Diaspis barrancorum LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis barrancorum Lindinger, 1911a: 29. Type data: CANARY ISLANDS: Tenerife, Valle de Taoro, on Euphorbia regisjubae. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
Prontaspis barrancorum; MacGillivray, 1921: 360. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia balsamifera [MatileBa1972], Euphorbia canariensis [MatileBa1972], Euphorbia regis-jubae [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Canary Islands [Lindin1911, MatileOr2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Lindinger (1911) and Gómez Menor Guerrero (1967).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, with more or less dusty surface, almost circular. Exuviae in central position, yellowish brown. Male scale with almost parallel sides. Adult female pyriform (Gómez Menor Guerrero, 1967).
KEYS: Schmutterer 1959: 178 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der deutschen Diaspis-Arten]; Balachowsky 1954e: 177 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa]; MacGillivray 1921: 360 (female) [as Prontaspis barrancorum; Key to species of Prontaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177, 188-189]; BalachMa1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 1084]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 270]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 167]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-111]; Lindin1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-30]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 150]; Lindin1918 [taxonomy: 52]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1928 [host, taxonomy: 102-103]; Lindin1931 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Lindin1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 133, 147]; LorenzPrCa1991 [p. 2]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 360]; MatileBa1972 [distribution, host: 113]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 189]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Rungs1942a [taxonomy: 61]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178, 181-182]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Diaspis bicolor LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis bicolor Laing, 1932: 63-65. Type data: ZAIRE: Haut-Lopori, on Baikiaea insignis, ?/06/1927, by J. Ghesquière. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Baikiaea insignis [Laing1932].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zaire [Laing1932].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1932).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium broadly ovate, thin and papery in texture, pale brownish-white, almost translucent. Exuviae dark reddish-brown, first pellicle with median longitudinal carina. Two exuviae together forming almost half the scale. Adult female broadly oval, clears completely in potash (Laing, 1932).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis bicolor is near D. carissae and D. subregularis (Laing, 1932).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 516 [Key to species of Diaspis]; Hall 1946a: 516 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 167-168]; Ghesqu1932 [distribution, host, illustration: 59]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 516, 548]; Laing1932 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-65]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 34].
Diaspis boisduvalii SignoretNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus palmarum; Bouché, 1834: 17. Misidentification; discovered by Danzig, 1993: 377.
Diaspis Boisduvalii Signoret, 1869d: 432-433. Type data: FRANCE: Louxembourg Botanical Garden in Paris, on orchids, by M. Boisduval. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Diaspis trinacis Colvée, 1881: 19-20. Type data: SPAIN: on Thrinax sp. Unknown type status. Notes: Types are probably lost. Although Borchsenius (1966) treats Diaspis trinacis as an incertae sedis, we here agree with Lindinger (1912b) who synonymized it with Diaspis boisduvalii.
Diaspis cymbidii McIntire, 1889: 355. Nomen nudum; discovered by Fernald, 1903b: 229. Notes: Fernald (1903b) placed Diaspis cymbidii as a placed nomen nudum of D. cattleyae which is now considered a junior synonym of D. boisduvalii.
Aulacaspis boisduvalii; Cockerell, 1893c: 180. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis cattleyae Cockerell, 1899n: 30. Type data: MEXICO: in quarantine at SanFrancisco, California, on Cattleya sp., 1899, by A. Craw. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-32.
Diaspis cattleyae; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis cymbidii; Fernald, 1903b: 229. Change of combination.
Diaspis bromeliae; Bodenheimer, 1949: 87. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 169.
Diaspis boisduvalii; Borchsenius, 1966: 168. Justified emendation.
COMMON NAMES: Boisduval scale [Gill1982c]; cocoa-nut snow scale [Maxwel1903]; cocos scale [Borchs1966].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Simmon1957], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Prospaltella sp. [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Simmon1957], Coccidencyrtus malloi [PanisPi2001], Coccidencyrtus ochraceipes [Simmon1957], Encyrtus lecaniorum [HertinSi1972], Euaphycus tucumanus [HertinSi1972], Plagiomerus sp. [PanisPi2001a]. Thysanidae: Thysanus niger [Simmon1957].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline indivisa [CarnerPe1986]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave [Borchs1966]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Watson2002a], Schinus sp. [Watson2002a], Tapirira guianensis [NormarMoKr2014]. Araliaceae: Hedera helix [Lepage1938]. Arecaceae: Archontophoenix cunninghamiana [Malump2012b], Areca sapida [Balach1954e], Areca sp. [MillerDa2005], Arecastrum romaxofalium [HodgesHo2002a], Astrocaryum sp. [MillerDa2005], Attalea sp. [MillerDa2005], Bactris [Borchs1966], Bactris sp. [MillerDa2005], Chamaedorea siefrizii [Hender2011], Chamaedorea sp. [MillerDa2005], Chamaerops [Borchs1966], Chamaerops sp. [Seghat1977, MillerDa2005], Chamaerops tomentosa [CarnerPe1986], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Pelot1950], Chrysalidocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos [Borchs1966], Cocos campestris [LepineMi1931], Cocos nucifera [Mamet1943a], Cocos plumosa [Balach1929], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos weddelliana [Balach1929], Copernicia [Watson2002a], Corozo sp. [MillerDa2005], Corypha [Borchs1966], Dypsis lutescens [Malump2012b], Elaeis sp. [MillerDa2005], Euterpe [Borchs1966], Guilielma sp. [MillerDa2005], Howea sp. [Watson2002a], Kentia sp. [Amos1933, MillerDa2005], Latania [Borchs1966], Latania commersoni [Cocker1897g], Latania sp. [MillerDa2005], Livistona [Borchs1966], Livistona rotundiflora [Felt1901], Livistona sp. [Cocker1897g, MillerDa2005], Nannorrhops [Borchs1966], Nypa sp. [MillerDa2005], Oreodoxa regia [Lepage1938], Phoenix canariensis [Felt1901], Phoenix dactylineata [Felt1901], Phoenix reclivata [Felt1901], Phoenix roebellini [CarnerPe1986], Phoenix sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Rhopalostylis sapida [CarnerPe1986], Roystonea sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Seaforthia elegans [Felt1901], Thrinax sp. [Colvee1881], Trachycarpus fortunei [Tao1999], Trachycarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Washingtonia [Borchs1966], Washingtonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asteraceae: Baccharis [Borchs1966]. Bromeliaceae: Aechmea [Borchs1966], Aechmea sp. [MillerDa2005], Ananas comosus [CarnerPe1986], Ananas sativus [DeLott1967a], Ananas sp. [MillerDa2005], Aregelia [Borchs1966], Billbergia sp. [MillerDa2005], Bromelia magdalenae [YunusHo1980], Bromelia pinguin [Cocker1897g], Catopsis sp. [MillerDa2005], Guzmania [Borchs1966], Neoglaziovia sp. [MillerDa2005], Nidularium sp. [MillerDa2005], Pitcairnia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Puya sp. [MillerDa2005], Ronnbergia sp. [MillerDa2005], Tillandsia brachycaulos [Malump2012], Tillandsia juncea [Malump2012], Tillandsia sp. [ColonFMe1998, MillerDa2005], Tillandsia spaerocephala [Malump2012], Vriesia sp. [KozarzRe1975, MillerDa2005]. Cactaceae: Echinopsis atacamensis (Phil.P H. Friedrich & G.D. Rowley [MalumpRe2011], Ferocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Harrisia sp. [Watson2002a], Hylocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Opuntia [Borchs1966], Opuntia sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhipsalis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Celastraceae: Maytenus sp. [Watson2002a]. Crassulaceae: Aeonium cuneatum [CarnerPe1986]. Cyperaceae: Cyperus alternifolia [Amos1933]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Balach1954e], Baikiaea insignis [Gowdey1917], Cassia sp. [Watson2002a], Leucaena sp. [MillerDa2005]. Flacourtiaceae: Casearia sp. [Watson2002a]. Guttiferae: Garcinia mangostana [YunusHo1980]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Persea americana [Watson2002a], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Phormium [Borchs1966]. Loranthaceae: Ligaria sp [Watson2002a], Loranthus [Borchs1966], Struthanthus urugensis [CorseuSi1971]. Marantaceae: Calathea sp. [MillerDa2005], Ctenanthe [Borchs1966], Maranta [Borchs1966], Maranta sp. [MillerDa2005]. Melastomaceae: Miconia sp. [Watson2002a], Pleiochiton ebracteatum [CostaL1936]. Meliaceae: Cedrela sp. [Watson2002a]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Musaceae: Heliconia [Borchs1966], Musa acuminata [CarnerPe1986], Musa sepientium [Amos1933], Musa sp. [MillerDa2005], Strelitzia reginae [Colvee1881]. Myrsinaceae: Mirsine [Borchs1966], Myrsine umbellata [CorseuSi1971]. Orchidaceae: Acineta sp. [MillerDa2005], Ananas comosus [CulikMaVe2008], Angraecum sp. [MillerDa2005], Anguloa [Borchs1966], Bletia sp. [MillerDa2005], Brassavola sp. [MillerDa2005], Brassia sp. [HodgsoHi1990, MillerDa2005], Brassocattleya [Borchs1966], Broughtonia sanguinea [Cocker1893k], Broughtonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Bulbophyllum [Borchs1966], Catleya loddigesii [KozarzRe1975], Cattleya sp. [Amos1933, MillerDa2005], Caularthron sp. [MillerDa2005], Coelogyne [Borchs1966], Cycnoches sp. [MillerDa2005], Cymbidium sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Dendrobium sp. [YunusHo1980, MillerDa2005], Encyclia amphistomum [ZettleZeRi2012], Encyclia nocturnum [ZettleZeRi2012], Encyclia rigidum [ZettleZeRi2012], Encyclia selligera [PicartMa2000], Epidendrum [Borchs1966], Epidendrum amphistomum [RayMcSt2012], Epidendrum nocturnum [RayMcSt2012], Epidendrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Epipremnum sp. [MillerDa2005], Laelia [Borchs1966], Laelia purpurata [CorseuSi1971], Laelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Lycaste sp. [MillerDa2005], Maxillaria sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Miltonia sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Neofinetia sp. [MillerDa2005], Odontoglossum [Borchs1966], Odontoglossum grande [KozarzRe1975], Odontoglossum sp. [MillerDa2005], Oncidium sp. [MillerDa2005], Oncidium tetrapetalum [Cocker1893k], Ornithidium [Borchs1966], Peristeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Pleurothallis sp. [MillerDa2005], Prosthechea cochleata [RayMcSt2012], Prosthechea cochleata [ZettleZeRi2012], Renanthera sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhynchostylis retusa [Tao1999], Schomburgkia sp. [MillerDa2005], Sophronitis sp. [MillerDa2005], Stanhopea sp. [MillerDa2005], Trichopilia sp. [MillerDa2005], Vanda [Borchs1966], Vanda sp. [MillerDa2005], Xylobium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Pandanus utilis [Balach1954e]. Potaliaceae: Fragraea sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Rosaceae: Eriobotrya sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Rosa sp. [Watson2002a]. Rubiaceae: Coffea robusta [DeLott1967a], Ravnia africana [Amos1933]. Ruscaceae: Dracaena sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Watson2002a]. Santalaceae: Jodina sp. [Watson2002a], Phorodendron sp. [Watson2002a]. Sapotaceae: Achras sp. [MillerDa2005]. Strelitziaceae: Ravenala madagascariensis [Cocker1897g], Ravenala sp. [MillerDa2005], Strelitzia reginae [Felt1901], Strelitzia reginia [Amos1933], Strelitzia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos sp. [MillerDa2005]. Thymelaeaceae: Nectandra sp. [Watson2002a]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Vayssi1913]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Balach1954e]; Guinea [Balach1954e]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Sierra Leone [Hargre1937]; South Africa [Brain1919]; Uganda [Gowdey1917]; Zaire [Balach1929]. Australasian: Australia (Tasmania [Hudson1967]); Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Fiji [WilliaWa1988]; French Polynesia (Tahiti [WilliaWa1988]); Hawaiian Islands [Maxwel1902, MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Heu2002] (First observed in 1966? (Heu 2001).), Kauai [Heu2002], Maui [Heu2002], Oahu [Heu2002]); New Zealand [Wise1977, Hender2011]; Palau [Beards1966]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Canada [Maxwel1902]; Mexico [Maxwel1902, MillerDa2005] (Tamaulipas [Cocker1897g]); United States of America (Alabama [MillerDa2005], Alaska [MillerDa2005], California [McKenz1956], Colorado [GilletBa1895, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], Delaware [MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Florida [Butche1959, HodgesHo2002a, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Illinois [MillerDa2005], Indiana [Amos1933], Iowa [MillerDa2005], Kansas [Hunter1902], Kentucky [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [MillerDa2005], Maryland [MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [King1899c, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005], New Hampshire [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [MillerDa2005], New York [Felt1901], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1971, MillerDa2005], Virginia [MillerDa2005], Washington [MillerDa2005], Wisconsin [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Watson2002a]); Argentina (Buenos Aires [Watson2002a], Catamarca [Watson2002a], Cordoba [Watson2002a], Entre Rios [Watson2002a], Formosa [Watson2002a], Jujuy [Watson2002a], La Rioja [Watson2002a], Rio Negro [Watson2002a], Salta [Watson2002a], Santiago del Estero [Watson2002a], Tucuman [Watson2002a]); Bahamas [Watson2002a]; Barbados [Cocker1893j]; Belize [Watson2002a]; Bermuda [Simmon1957]; Brazil (Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Minas Gerais [CostaL1936], Parana [Watson2002a], Para [Watson2002a], Piaui [Watson2002a], Rio Grande do Sul [CostaL1936], Rio de Janeiro [CostaL1936], Sao Paulo [CostaL1936]); Colombia [Mosque1976]; Costa Rica [Watson2002a]; Cuba [Houser1918, MestreHaEv2011]; Dominica [Watson2002a]; Ecuador [Watson2002a]; El Salvador [Berry1959]; Grenada [Watson2002a]; Guyana [Cocker1897g]; Honduras [Watson2002a]; Jamaica [Cocker1893c]; Mexico (Tabasco [Cocker1899d]); Panama [Watson2002a, NormarMoKr2014]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [NakahaMi1981]); Saint Lucia [Watson2002a]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Cocker1897g]); U.S. Virgin Islands [MiskimBo1970]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Hainan [Tao1999]); India (Tamil Nadu [Varshn2002]); Malaysia [YunusHo1980]; Sri Lanka [Green1937] [SuhJi2009]; Taiwan [Tao1978]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1929]; Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Azores [FrancoRuMa2011]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; Croatia [MastenSi2008] (Found only on imported pineapple.); Denmark [KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Hall1922]; France [KozarzRe1975]; Georgia [DanzigPe1998]; Germany [Bouche1834]; Hungary [KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a]; Italy [KozarzRe1975, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1926]); Madeira Islands [Balach1954e, FrancoRuMa2011]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Portugal [KozarzRe1975, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [DanzigPe1998]; Spain [Colvee1881]; Sweden [KozarzRe1975]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; United Kingdom (England [Maxwel1902]).
BIOLOGY: This species is known from all over the world in greenhouses, chiefly on palms, but also on other hosts like orchids and cacti (Ali, 1970). Detailed life history by Bohart (1942). The following information is taken from Bohart (1942). In the greenhouse on orchids the period from egg to egg laying females requires about 50 days; adult males require about 33 days. Eggs hatch in 5 to 7 days after being laid. The crawler stage lasts about 9 days, the second instar female about 8 days. Adult males leave the scale cover about 15 days after the first molt. Adult females may live as long as 7 months, and each produces about 200 eggs. The ratio of males to females is about 1:1. Settling occurs on all aerial parts of the plant, but there appears to be a preference for the midrib and the part of the petiole that is covered by the sheath. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Signoret (1869d) and Williams & Watson (1988). Description and illustration of first instar by Hodges & Howell (2002a). Hodgson (2002) used this species in a phylogenetic analysis of non-margarodid Coocoidea. Watson (2002a) included this species in an expert system on a CD. Colour photographs of live insects and their damage on orchids in Johnson, 2010.
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover opaque, circular, flat, exuvia central; male scale cover elongate, carinate with pale terminal exuvium, and associated white woolly wax. Female body creamy with dark pygidium when young, pale yellow when mature, eggs yellow. (Henderson, 2011) Prosoma usually with lateral lobes, main pygidial characters are the 6 macroducts on each side and 1 macroduct between median lobes. Median lobes forming a deep notch at apex; inner margins of each lobe diverging, serrate, and much longer than the outer margins (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis boisduvalii is sometimes found on palms and pineapple, where it can be confused with D. bromeliae (Williams & Watson, 1988). Although Diaspis boisduvalii is considered by some (Danzig, 1993) to be a senior synonym of Diaspis coccois they are here treated as separate valid taxa. Borchsenius (1966) lists Diaspis cymbidii as an incertae sedis.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Diaspis boisduvalii is a serious pest of orchids in greenhouses in California (Gill, 1997). Boisduval scale is the most important insect pest of orchids in Florida (Dekle 1977). Bohart (1942) reports that only a few scales are necessary to cause damage. A few days after settling, a large chlorotic spot develops surrounding the body of the scale. Heavy infestations cause leaves to turn yellow and fall from the plant; entire plants are sometimes killed. Steinweden (1945) indicated that in 5 months 7 adult females on Cattleya produced 10,000 scales. The species also is reported as a minor pest of bananas, pineapple (Chua and Wood 1990), coffee (Balachowsky 1929), and coconuts (Munoz Ginarte 1937). Examples of countries or states where this species is considered to be a pest are as follows: California (Koehler 1964, Gill 1997); Colorado (Cockerell 1922); Hawaii (Kotinsky 1909); North Carolina (Baker 1994); Ohio (Steiner 1987); Zaire (Balachowsky 1929); West Indies (Ballou 1922); Argentina (Chiesa Molinari 1948); Spain and Portugal (Efimoff 1937); French West Africa and Togo (Mallamaire 1954); England (Miles and Miles 1935); Mauritius (Moutia and Mamet 1947); Bulgaria (Tzalev 1964); Trinidad (Urich 1893); Cuba (Munoz Ginarte 1937); France (Panis and Pinet 1998); Czechoslovakia (Zahradnik 1990a); Canary Island (Gomez-Menor Ortega 1958); and Sierra Leone (Hargreaves 1937). Panis and Pinet (1998) discuss the biological control of this pest in greenhouses using the parasite Coccidencyrtus malloi Blanchard. Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 91 [Key to species of Diaspis of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 125 (female) [Key to California species of Diaspis]; Wolff & Corseuil 1993a: 154 (female) [Diaspidid species on mango in Brazil]; Williams & Watson 1988: 100 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis in the tropical South Pacific Region]; Chou 1982: 118 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Diaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 845 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 531 (female) [Key to known Micronesian species of Diaspis]; Schmutterer 1959: 178 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der deutschen Diaspis-Arten]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to the species of Diaspis Costa]; Balachowsky 1954e: 178 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa]; Hall 1946a: 515 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 82 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Fullaway 1932: 95 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 319 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Newstead 1901b: 152 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15-16]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1929 [taxonomy: 190]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82, 83-84]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Balach1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 145]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178-182]; Beards1966 [distribution, host: 531]; Beatty1944 [distribution, host: 126]; Berry1959 [distribution: 228]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-4]; Bohart1942 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, life history, taxonomy: 365-368]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 103, 104]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 117]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 226]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 208]; Borchs1963a [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 24, 223, 224, 277]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 168, 170, 372]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 224, 277]; Bouche1834 [taxonomy: 17]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 366, 367]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 363]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,599]; ChoJeKa2013 [distribution, host: 405]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 118-120]; Chou1986 [illustration: 522]; Cocker1893c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 180]; Cocker1893cc [distribution, host: 101]; Cocker1893j [distribution, taxonomy: 256]; Cocker1893k [description, distribution, host: 548]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1894d [distribution, taxonomy: 312]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 335]; Cocker1897g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Cocker1898r [distribution: 240]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1899d [distribution: 167]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 29, 30]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; Cocker1905b [taxonomy: 201]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-92]; Colvee1881 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19-20]; Comsto1883 [taxonomy: 86]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 547-549]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host: 109]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 190]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 845]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 377-379]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244-245]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance: 176]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 53]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 116]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287-288]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 245]; FDACSB1987 [distribution, economic importance, host: 5]; Felt1901 [distribution, host: 359]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228, 229, 232]; Ferris1937 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-32]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 11,23]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 879]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 52]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 95, 102]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Ghabbo1999 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87-88]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 345]; Ghauri1962 [structure, taxonomy: 130, 212]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125-126, 129]; GilletBa1895 [distribution, host: 129]; GomesC1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114-115]; GomesCRe1947 [distribution, host: 123]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185, 189-192]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 189]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 315]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 192, 193, 275]; Hall1922 [distribution, host: 33]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 515, 548]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Haywar1944 [distribution, host: 7]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 518]; Hempel1936 [taxonomy: 175]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8,13-14,30,87,90,92,]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 179]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 21]; HodgesHo2002a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118-123]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 4, 6, 8, 12, 14-17]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 23]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host: 32, 67]; Houser1918 [distribution, host: 161]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 150]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; Hudson1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 91]; Hunter1902 [distribution, host: 145]; Jarvis1911 [distribution, host: 72]; Johnso2010 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, structure: 170-177]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 263]; King1899c [distribution, host: 228]; King1901f [distribution, host: 199]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 19]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, host: 32]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15-17]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 243]; Leonar1901a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 576]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 182, 186]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 403, 426]; LepageFi1947 [distribution, host: 37]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 19]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 75, 360, 367]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 122, 138]; Lupo1957a [distribution, taxonomy: 427]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304, 319]; Malump2012 [distribution, host: 54-58]; Malump2012b [distribution, host: 210,212]; MalumpRe2011 [host: 108]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 158]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Martin1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 52]; MartorMe1974 [distribution, host: 113]; Maskel1879 [distribution, host: 200]; Maskel1887 [distribution, host: 46]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, taxonomy: 248-249]; Maxwel1903 [description, distribution, illustration, host: 42]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 35]; McDani1971 [distribution, host: 296]; McInti1889 [distribution, taxonomy: 355]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 31, 103]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution: 11]; Miller2005 [distribution]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 180]; MiskimBo1970 [distribution, host: 30]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 34]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 28]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 33, 87]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 9]; MunozG1937 [taxonomy: 9]; Nakaha1981a [taxonomy: 397]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 30]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 33]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152, 153]; Newste1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 260, 263]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; NormarMoKr2014 [distribution, host: 39]; Paik1978 [distribution, host: 319-321]; PanisPi2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 419-422]; PanisPi2001a [biological control, distribution: 423]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 499]; Pelot1950 [distribution, host: 17]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PicartMa2000 [distribution, host: 16]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 256]; RayMcSt2012 [distribution, host: 312-318]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Ruther1915a [distribution, host: 106]; Saakya1954 [economic importance: 29-31]; Sander1904a [distribution, host: 51]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host: 574]; Schmut1957a [distribution, host: 135]; Schmut1957b [distribution, host: 149]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 178, 186]; Scott1952 [distribution, host: 35]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 12]; Signor1869a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 432-433]; SilvadGoGa1968 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 4]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 338]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 98]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 83]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 67]; Townse1896 [distribution, economic importance, host: 12, 13]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 213]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 62]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Westco1973 [description, distribution, economic importance, host: 390]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101, 103]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 64]; Wilson1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 7]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 22, 62]; Yasnos1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 497]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 33]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; ZettleZeRi2012 [host: 127-134]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 412].
Diaspis brevinatis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis brevinatis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-276. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Boquete, on Byrsonima crassifolia, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Malpighiaceae: Byrsonima crassifolia [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, moderately convex, roughly circular or oval, the first exuviae alone or exposed, pale. Male scale almost non-carinate. Adult female about 0.75 mm long, almost circular, pygidium projecting only a little (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis brevinatis is readily recognized by its huge and projecting median lobes, the reduction of other lobes, the few dorsal ducts and the shortness of the pygidium (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 169]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-276]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52].
Diaspis bromeliae (Kerner)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus bromeliae Kerner, 1778: 1-56. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo; EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA; MEXICO; on Bromelia pinguin, Hibiscus sp., Canna sp., Billbergia zebrina, Olea fragrans. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Aspidiotus bromeliae; Curtis, 1843d: 588. Change of combination.
Aspidiotes Bromeliae Bouché, 1844: 295. Type data: WEST INDIES: on Ananas sativus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 169. Homonym of Coccus bromeliae Kerner 1778. Notes: This is also a misspelling of the generic epithet Aspidiotus.
Chermes bromeliae; Boisduval, 1868: 281. Change of combination.
Diaspis Bromeliae; Signoret, 1869d: 434. Change of combination.
Diaspis tillandsiae; Del Guercio, 1894: 156. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 169.
Aulacaspis bromeliae; Cockerell, 1894: 33. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: pineapple scale [Fuller1907, Blicke1965].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigritus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus politus [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Orcus sp. [HertinSi1972], Rhyzobius sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [Balach1954e], Aphytis proclia [Balach1954e], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Balach1954e], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998]. Encyrtidae: Coccidencyrtus malloi [PanisPi2001], Coccidencyrtus ochraceipes [Watson2002a], Plagiomerus hospes [DeSant1979], Plagiomerus sp. [PanisPi2001a].
HOSTS: Amaryllidaceae: Agave vivipara [Hall1925]. Araliaceae: Hedera helix [Lepage1938]. Arecaceae: Chamaerops sp. [Borchs1966], Cocos campestris [LepineMi1931], Cocos weddelliana [LepineMi1931], Howea forsteriana [LepineMi1931], Kentia sp. [GhabboMo1996], Palmae sp. [Watson2002a], Phoenix paludosa [Balach1954e], Trachycarpus excelsus [LepineMi1931]. Bromeliaceae: Aechmea fasciata [KozarzRe1975], Aechmea sp. [MillerDa2005], Ananas [Brimbl1956b], Ananas comosus [Takaha1931b], Ananas sativus [Bouche1844], Ananas sp. [MillerDa2005], Aregelia sp. [Borchs1966], Billbergia sp. [MillerDa2005], Billbergia zebrina [Kerner1778, Comsto1883], Bromelia pinguin [Kerner1778, Cocker1899n], Bromelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Chevalieria sp. [MillerDa2005], Guzmania sp. [MillerDa2005], Neoregelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Nidularium innocentii [KozarHi1996], Nidularium sp. [MillerDa2005], Tillandsia amoena [DelGue1894], Tillandsia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cannaceae: Canna sp. [Kerner1778, Essig1910a]. Lauraceae: Ocotea sp. [Watson2002a]. Liliaceae: Anthericum sp. [Borchs1966], Draceana sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Kerner1778, Balach1954e]. Oleaceae: Olea fragans [Kerner1778, Essig1910a], Osmanthus sp. [Borchs1966]. Orchidaceae: Ananas comosus [CulikMaVe2008], Brassia sp. [Borchs1966], Cattleya sp. [MillerDa2005], Oncidium bifolium [Lizery1939]. Poaceae: Saccharum officinarum [Lepage1938]. Santalaceae: Iodina rhombifolia [Lizery1939], Jodina sp. [Watson2002a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Seychelles [Merril1953]; Sierra Leone [Giliom1966]; South Africa [Brain1919]. Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Frogga1914]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Watson2002a]; Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Watson2002a], Ponape Island [Beards1966]); Fiji [Hinckl1963]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [Watson2002a], Tahiti [WilliaWa1988]); Hawaiian Islands [Fullaw1932, MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Heu2002], Kauai [Heu2002], Lanai [Heu2002], Maui [Heu2002], Molokai [Heu2002], Oahu [Kirkal1904b, Heu2002]); New Caledonia [Watson2002a] [Watson2002a]; Pitcairn Island [Watson2002a]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Balach1954e] [Watson2002a] (Veracruz [Cocker1899n]); United States of America (California [Carnes1907, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923], District of Columbia [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Florida [Cocker1897j, MillerDa2005], Illinois [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Massachusetts [King1899c], Missouri [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [MillerDa2005], New York [Felt1901, MillerDa2005], Ohio [WebsteBu1902, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [MillerDa2005], Texas [MillerDa2005], Virginia [MillerDa2005], Wyoming [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda [Watson2002a]; Argentina [Lizery1939] (Buenos Aires [Watson2002a], Cordoba [Watson2002a], Salta [Watson2002a], Tucuman [Watson2002a]); Bahamas [Merril1953]; Belize [Watson2002a]; Brazil [CostaL1936] (Bahia [Watson2002a], Minas Gerais [Watson2002a], Rio Grande do Sul [Watson2002a], Rio de Janeiro [Lepage1938], Sao Paulo [Lepage1938]); Costa Rica [Merril1953]; Cuba [Merril1953]; Dominican Republic [Merril1953]; Guadeloupe [Watson2002a]; Guatemala [Watson2002a]; Guyana [Watson2002a]; Haiti [Watson2002a]; Jamaica [Giliom1966]; Martinique [Watson2002a]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Merril1953]); Saint Lucia [Watson2002a]; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Watson2002a]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [DeSant1979]); Venezuela [Watson2002a]. Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [Tao1999]; China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000]); India [Watson2002a]; Malaysia [Watson2002a]; Philippines [Watson2002a]; Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Watson2002a]; Taiwan [Tao1999]. Palaearctic: Austria [Watson2002a, Malump2011a] (Established on indoor plantings.); Azores [Balach1954e]; Belgium [Balach1954e]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China [DanzigPe1998] [Tao1999]; Czechoslovakia [KozarzRe1975]; Denmark [KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Hall1925] [Watson2002a]; France [Balach1954e, Foldi2001]; Germany [Balach1954e]; Hungary [FogaraKo1977, KozarKoFe2013]; Italy [Balach1954e, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Watson2002a] (Honshu [Kuwana1926]); Madeira Islands [Balach1954e]; Malta [Watson2002a]; Morocco [LepineMi1931] [Watson2002a]; Netherlands [Watson2002a]; Poland [Watson2002a]; Portugal [DanzigPe1998]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia [Archan1929]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [DanzigPe1998]; Spain [Watson2002a]; Sweden [KozarzRe1975]; Switzerland [KozarHi1996]; Turkey [DanzigPe1998] [Watson2002a]; United Kingdom (England [Balach1954e]).
BIOLOGY: Little information is available on this species. Brimblecombe (1956) states that development from the egg to adult takes about two months in the summer in Australia; several generations occur each year. Males are common. The preferred feeding site seems to be at the bases of the leaves. Heavy infestations also occur on the fruit and the leaf blade. Dziedzicka (1989) indicates that the "...species produces few generations per year." According to Murray (1980, 1982), in Australia the pineapple scale lays eggs that hatch in about 7 days, and development from the egg to the adult takes about 2 months. Reproduction is continuous with eggs present at all times of the year although there are several periods when adult females are most abundant. Adult males are common. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, flat, thin, white, exuviae subcentral. Male scale white, elongate, definitely tricarinate (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis bromeliae is similar to D. boisduvalii, but differs in easily distinguishable characters. In D. boisduvalii the large submarginal macroducts number 2 on each side just anterior to the second and third lobes, in D. bromeliae they number 6 or more (Williams & Watson, 1988).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. D. bromeliae is a pest of pineapples (Williams & Watson, 1988). The pineapple scale occasionally builds to severe infestations in pineapple plantations in Australia, but the populations usually are very localized and apparently are brought under control relatively rapidly by natural enemies. According to Brimblecombe (1956) dense colonies give the leaves a gray appearance and cause a lack of vigor in the plant. Heavily infested plants produce small fruit and numerous suckers. On many hosts the area surrounding the scale cover turns chlorotic. Ornamental bromeliads subjected to heavy infestations become unsightly with abundant yellow spotting. Murray (1980) states that heavily infested plants become weak and stunted, show conspicuous dying back of the foliage, and produce undersized, pinched-looking fruit in pineapple fields in Australia. Williams and Watson (1988) mention this species as a pest of pineapple. Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 91 [Key to species of Diaspis of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 125 (female) [Key to California species of Diaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 100 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis in the tropical South Pacific Region]; Chou 1982: 118 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Diaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 844 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 531 (female) [Key to known Micronesian species of Diaspis]; Schmutterer 1959: 178 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der deutschen Diaspis-Arten]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to the species of Diaspis Costa]; Balachowsky 1954e: 177 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa]; Hall 1946a: 515 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 82 (female) [Key to sepcies of Diaspis]; Fullaway 1932: 95 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 321 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Newstead 1901b: 152 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Almeid1971 [distribution, host: 10]; Archan1929 [distribution, host: 190]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82, 84-85]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Balach1938a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177, 182-185]; Beards1966 [distribution, host: 531]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 297, 307]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 2]; Boisdu1868 [host, taxonomy: 281]; Boraty1968a [taxonomy: 33-34]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 104, 105]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 169]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Bouche1844 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295-296]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222-223]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 142]; Brimbl1956b [description, distribution, economic importance, chemical control: 217-218]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 366, 367]; Brown1965 [chemistry, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105-108]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36-37]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199-200]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 118, 120-121]; Chou1986 [illustration: 523]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1895x [distribution, host: 260]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 335]; Cocker1897g [taxonomy: 107]; Cocker1897j [distribution, host: 4]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 29]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86, 89-91]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 547, 550-552]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 191]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Curtis1843 [p. 588]; Curtis1843d [taxonomy: 588]; Danzig1964 [description, taxonomy: 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 844]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 10, 54]; DelGue1894 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152-158]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 116]; DeSant1979 [biological control, distribution: 233]; Essig1910a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213-214]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, host: 245]; FDACSB1982 [distribution, host: 10]; Felt1901 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 359]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-33]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 41]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 296]; FogaraKo1977 [pp. 389-391]; FogaraKo1977 [distribution: 388, 390, 392]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 11,23]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 880]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 95, 102]; Fuller1907 [taxonomy: 1035]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 345]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125, 126, 130]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Hall1925 [description, distribution, host: 14-15]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 515, 548]; Hender2011 [distribution, structure: 92]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 179-180]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 21]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 39]; HodgesHo2002a [taxonomy: 118]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 23]; Howell1975a [description, taxonomy: 414]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 262]; Kerner1778 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-56]; King1899c [distribution, host: 227]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Kotins1906a [distribution, host: 136]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, host: 33]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 15, 17-18]; Lamb1974 [distribution, economic importance: 42]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 133-134]; Leonar1901a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 576]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 183, 190-192]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 403-404]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 250]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 66]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1932 [taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 181, 182]; Lindin1934e [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; Lindin1938 [taxonomy: 9]; Lizery1939 [distribution, host: 198-199]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122, 134-138]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 321]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 56-58]; Malump2012b [distribution: 210]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 57,58]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 159]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 31, 105]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-45]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 182]; MoutiaMa1946 [biological control: 460]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 9]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 89]; Murray1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125-130]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 30]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 199, 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; PanisPi2001 [biological control: 419]; PanisPi2001a [biological control, distribution: 423]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 477,499]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 758]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 29]; Samway1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 99]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 575]; Schmut1957b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 178, 183]; Scott1952 [distribution, host: 35]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 434]; SilvadGoGa1968 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Takaha1931b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 377-378]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 98]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 83]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 213]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host: 120]; WalkerDe1979 [distribution: 76]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 112]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 415]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 12]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102-103]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 64]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 47]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 22, 63]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; YunusHo1980 [biological control, distribution: 33, 214]; Zahrad1957 [distribution, taxonomy: 50]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 412, 415].
Diaspis carissae HallNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis carissae Hall, 1928: 278-279. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Umtali, on Carissa edulis var. tomentosa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Apocynaceae: Carissa edulis tomentosa [Hall1928].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1928).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium oval, exuviae semi-transparent, delicate green or brown. Male puparium with pale brown or colorless semi-transparent exuviae, conspicuously tricarinate. Adult female oval (Hall, 1928).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis carissae is near Diaspis regularis (=Umbaspis regularis), but differs from it in the absence of the conspicuous tooth-like prominence on each side of the pygidium. It possesses the same projecting pores simulating lobes as occurring in D. regularis (Hall, 1928).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 516 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 169-170]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 278-279]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 516, 548]; Laing1932 [taxonomy: 65]; Muntin1967a [taxonomy: 257].
Diaspis carmanica Davatchi & BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis carmanicus Davatchi & Balachowsky, 1956: 106-109. Type data: IRAN: Kerman, on Pistacia khinjuk, ?/09/1955, by G. Remaudière. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis carmanica; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia khinjuk [DavatcBa1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [DavatcBa1956, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Davatchi & Balachowsky (1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis carmanicus is close to D. syriaca which is also found on Pistacia species (Davatchi & Balachowsky, 1956).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Danzig1993 [p. 374]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Davatc1958 [distribution, host: 40, 147, 157]; DavatcBa1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106-109]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17-18]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 28]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 12].
Diaspis carneti Mani nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis carneti Mani, 1976: 64. Nomen nudum. Notes: It seems clear that Mani (1976) meant to list an existing scale species, but it is uncertain what species he meant to cite.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus mytilaspidis [Mani1976].
CITATIONS: Mani1976 [biological control: 64].
Diaspis casuarinae Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis casuarinae Williams & Watson, 1988: 104-105. Type data: NEW CALEDONIA: Plume Farm, on Casuarina sp., 31/05/1928, by T.D.A. Cockerell. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH and BPBM.
HOSTS: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina collina [WilliaWa1988], Casuarina sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Caledonia [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, but sides "clasping" branchlets, about 1.2 mm long, white, smooth, convex, with yellow-brown exuviae terminal. Male scale elongate, about 0.75 mm long, ridged, white, but more transparent. Adult female turbinate, about 1.3 mm long, 0.75 mm wide, membranous except for pygidium (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis casuarinae is an unusual species in having groups of tubular ducts in the mid-head region. It bears some relationship to D. chilensis, but this species has much larger pygidial lobes (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 100 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis in the tropical South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: Takagi2011 [distribution, taxonomy: 49]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104-105].
Diaspis chilensis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis chilensis Cockerell, 1895t: 6. Type data: CHILE: Salto de Ramon, on unidentified tree, 12/01/1895, by F. Lataste. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Skytanthus acutus [ClapsWoGo2001]. Euphorbiaceae: Colliguaja odorifera [ClapsWoGo2001], Colliguaja salicifolia [ClapsWoGo2001]. Lauraceae: Beilschmiedia berteroana [ClapsWoGo2001]. Rosaceae: Quillaja saponaria [ClapsWoGo2001]. Solanaceae: Solanum nigra [ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Chile [Cocker1895t, GonzalCh1968] (This species is native to Chile (Gonzalez & Charlin, 1968).) (Santiago [ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Cockerell (1895t).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, flattened, slightly convex, 3 mm in diameter, dull white, smooth. Exuviae broadly oval, small, placed a little to one side, first skin naked, yellowish, shiny easily deciduous, placed wholly on second skin and not much away from its center, second skin pale orange, covered more or less, often so much covered by the white secretion as to have an indistinct outline. Adult female brown, colorless when boiled in caustic alkali (Cockerell, 1895t).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis chilensis is allied to D. cacti (=D. echinocacti) (Cockerell, 1895t).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Cocker1895t [description, distribution, taxonomy: 6]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Lindin1949 [taxonomy: 212].
Diaspis coccois LichtensteinNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis coccoïs Lichtenstein, 1882d: xxxvi-xxxvii. Type data: FRANCE: Montpellier, Botanical Garden, on Cocos sp., by J. Lichtenstein. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Diaspis tentaculatus Morgan, 1893a: 41. Type data: JAMAICA: near Montego Bay, on Cocos sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-32. Notes: Type material presumed lost.
Aulacaspis tentaculatus; Cockerell, 1893j: 256. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis coccois; Cockerell, 1899j: 273. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis boisduvali tentaculata; Cockerell, 1899n: 29. Change of status.
Diaspis boisduvalii coccois; Fernald, 1903b: 228. Change of status.
Diaspis cocois; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspis boisduvalii cocois; Schmutterer, 1957a: 135. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspis cocois; Gill, 1997: 126-127. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspis tenaculatus; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 245. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cochinilla blanca de la palmera [Chiesa1948]; cocos scale [Dekle1965c].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Coccidencyrtus malloi [PanisPi2001], Plagiomerus sp. [PanisPi2001a].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Arecastrum romanzoffianum [SoriaMoVi2000a], Chamaerops sp. [Borchs1966], Cocos nucifera [Balach1954e], Cocos romanzoffiana [Balach1954e], Cocos sp. [Lichte1882d], Kentia sp. [Borchs1966], Latania commersoni [Cocker1896k], Livistona [Borchs1966], Phoenix [Borchs1966], Roystonea [Borchs1966]. Orchidaceae: Epidendrum aromaticum [Dekle1965c], Laelia grandiflora [Dekle1965c].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Gill1997], Florida [Dekle1965c]). Neotropical: Chile [Charli1972]; Jamaica [Cocker1893j]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Cocker1896k]). Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1954e]; Italy [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Spain [SoriaMoVi2000a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Soria et al. (2000a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, flat, thin, white, semitransparent, 1.2-2.25 mm in diameter, exuviae central to subcentral (Dekle, 1965c).
SYSTEMATICS: Although Diaspis boisduvalii is considered by some (Danzig, 1993) to be a senior synonym of Diaspis coccois they are here treated as separate valid taxa.
KEYS: Gill 1997: 125 (female) [Key to California species of Diaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to the species of Diaspis Costa]; Balachowsky 1954e: 178 (female) [Tableau d'identification des espèces du Diaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178, 182]; Boraty1968a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33, 35]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; Chiesa1948 [chemical control, description: 176]; Chiesa1948a [distribution, host: 352]; Cocker1893j [distribution: 256]; Cocker1894d [distribution, taxonomy: 312]; Cocker1896k [distribution, host: v]; Cocker1899j [taxonomy: 273]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 244-245]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11, 55]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; Ferris1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SI-32]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; Fleury1935a [distribution: 64]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 74]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125, 126, 131]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 180]; JohnsoLy1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; Lichte1882d [description, distribution, taxonomy: xxxvi-xxxvii]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 360]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Mackie1935 [distribution, host: 429]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, host: 33]; MatileWi2007 [description: 85-88]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 31, 105]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Morgan1893a [description: 41]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 31]; PanisPi2001 [biological control, distribution: 419, 420]; PanisPi2001a [biological control, distribution: 423]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Schmut1957a [distribution, host: 135]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 186]; Scott1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; SoriaMoVi2000a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 317-321]; Wester1918 [host: 53]; Zahrad1968 [taxonomy: 18]; Zahrad1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 120].
Diaspis colvei PenzigNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis colvei Penzig, 1887: 497. Type data: Location of type unknown. Collected on Citrus sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Penzig1887]
SYSTEMATICS: Borg (1922) states that Diaspis colvei is probably only a variety of D. monserrati. Bodenheimer (1930) states that Diaspis colvei is apparently synonymous with Parlatoria zizyphus. Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 372]; Borg1922 [taxonomy: 76-77]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 179]; Lindin1949 [taxonomy: 210]; Penzig1887 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 497-498].
Diaspis conocarpi McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis conocarpi McKenzie, 1947b: 110. Type data: MEXICO: Oaxaca, Salina Cruz, on Conocarpus sp., 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Combretaceae: Conocarpus sp. [McKenz1947b]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Oaxaca [McKenz1947b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McKenzie (1947b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale almost circular, about 1.25 mm in diameter, yellowish brown, exuviae subcentral or quite near one end. Male scale elongate and somewhat lighter in color, exuviae near one end (McKenzie, 1947b).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis conocarpi closely resembles D. texensis, but may be differentiated from it by having fewer pygidial macroducts, not counting the large marginal ones, numbering 25 or less, by the presence of a few scattered minute submarginal ducts on the first abdominal segment, meta and a portion of mesothorax, these lacking in D. texensis, and the lateral spur on pygidial margin broad at base and tapering to a sharp point as compared to a blunt spur in D. texensis (McKenzie, 1947b).
KEYS: McKenzie 1947b: 108 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; McKenz1947b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 110].
Diaspis cuneata Vernalha et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis cuneatus Vernalha et al., 1965: 5-7. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Claro, on Eugenia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Curitiba: Departamento de Zoologia, Setor de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal do Parana, Brazil, and Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis cuneata; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Cynara cardunculus [ClapsWoGo2001]. Lauraceae: Ocotea indecora [ClapsWoGo2001]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [VernalRoLo1965]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Minas Gerais [ClapsWoGo2001], Sao Paulo [VernalRoLo1965]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Vernalha et al. (1965).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, with truncated edges, gray, slightly transparent at edges. Slide-mounted adult female with prosoma circular (Vernalha et al., 1965).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; VernalRoLo1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-7].
Diaspis delottoi MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis delottoi Munting, 1967a: 254-257. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on Combretum gueinzii, 11/02/1965, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 1774/1. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH and USNM.
HOST: Combretaceae: Combretum gueinzii [Muntin1967a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1967a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dirty white, usually irregular in shape due to the pubescent surface of the host, but otherwise subcircular, exuviae pale yellow and situated at one end. Male puparium elongate, about 1 mm long, more or less parallel-sided with a faint median carina. Adult female turbinate, 0.5-0.8 mm long, prosoma membranous at maturity except for the cephalic margin which is slightly sclerotized (Munting, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis delottoi resembles D. carissae Hall in the shape and size of the median lobes, but differs in having the 2nd and 3rd lobes monolobulate and in having many more pygidial gland spines (Munting, 1967a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 254, 256-257].
Diaspis diacanthi RungsNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis diacanthi Rungs, 1942a: 59-61. Type data: MOROCCO: Beni Mellal, on Euphorbia (Diancanthium) resinifera, 27/05/1939, by Girard. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 1132. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis diachanti; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 245. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia echinus [Rungs1942], Euphorbia resinifera [Rungs1942a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Morocco [Rungs1942a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Rungs (1942a).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis diacanthi is close to D. barrancorum (Rungs, 1942a).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 177 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 177, 186]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Rungs1942 [distribution, host: 106, 108]; Rungs1942a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59-61].
Diaspis digna HokeNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis dignus Hoke, 1928: 671-672. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Round Island, on Eryngium aquaticum, 30/09/1927, by G.H. Lobdell. Holotype female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM.
Diaspis digna; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Umbelliferae: Eryngium aquaticum [Hoke1928], Eryngium aromaticum [Merril1953].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Merril1953], Mississippi [Hoke1928]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Hoke (1928) and Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, often tinged with yellow near center, 1.24-1.46 mm long, 0.9-1.0 mm wide, thin, slightly convex; exuviae central or subcentral, first superimposed on anterior half of second, shiny straw colored with secretion removed, secretion easily rubbed off, ventral scale a mere film. Adult female membranous except small portions of pygidium (Hoke, 1928).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspsis dignus is similar to D. bromeliae, but differs in the smaller size and fewer dorsal pores, slighter and more lightly chitinized median lobes, more slender pore and duct between median lobes (Hoke, 1928).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; FDACSB1983 [distribution, host: 8]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-34]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; Hoke1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 671-672]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45-46]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Schief2000 [distribution, host: 8].
Diaspis diospyri FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis diospyri Ferris, 1937: SI-35. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, near Sinton, on Diospyros texana, 1921, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ebenaceae: Diospyros texana [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937, Miller2005]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is more or less concealed under epidermis of host bark. Adult female prosoma with distinct lateral lobes; median pygidial lobes forming a distinct notch, their apices projecting only slightly (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: In its structural characters Diaspis diospyri resembles D. miranda, but the distinctive, bicolor scale of the latter indicates at least a physiological difference between the two (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-35]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Diaspis doumtsopi Schneider in Schneider et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis doumtsopi Schneider in Schneider et al., 2013: 810-812. Type data: CAMEROON: Nikolbisson, 1.429.83N, 11.429.83E, elevation 602 m, in nest galleries of M. weissi from Mangifera sp., 4/22/2012, by A. Doumtsop. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Amherst: University of Massachusetts Entomology
Collection; type no. D3670A. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: HYMENOPTERA Formicidae: Melissotarsus weissi [SchneiGiDo2013].
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera sp. [Schnei1902]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [SchneiGiDo2013].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Schneider et al., 2013.
STRUCTURE: Features of scale covering unknown; all specimens of type series lacking scale. Mounted on a microscope slide, body oval, 0.63-0.7mm long, widest at metathorax, 0.53-0.56mm wide. Median lobes appear serrate with one medial notch and two lateral notches, well developed and sclerotized with large paraphysis-like sclerotizations along the medial edge and smaller sclerotizations at the lateral base, medial edges parallel or only slightly divergent, with one short pair of simple setae between median lobes; second and third lobes poorly developed and membranous. (Schneider, et al., 2013)
SYSTEMATICS: http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:0A98FE 3D-0E53-4CC1-9FC4-BEE05EB1E80B Schneider et al. placed this species in Diaspis on the basis of DNA evidence indicating that D. doumtsopi is more closely related to the type species of Diaspis than to the type species of Epidiaspis, however, it resembles adult females of the only African species of Epidiaspis, Epidiaspis ficifoliae Hall, of Zimbabwe, but differs from E. ficifoliae in having perivulvar pores and furcate gland spines with multiple microducts.
KEYS: Schneider et al. 2013: 816-817 (female) [Key to the species of ant-associated armoured scale insects (adapted from Ben-Dov, 2010)].
CITATIONS: SchneiGiDo2013 [description, ecology, ecology, host, host, taxonomy: 810-812, 816-817].
Diaspis echinocacti (Bouché)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus luteus Lancry, 1791: 484. Type data: FRANCE: on Opuntia sp. Described: female. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 375. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Diaspis Calyptroides Costa, 1829: 20-21. Type data: ITALY: on Cactus (=Opuntia) cochenillifer. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Notes: Type material probably lost (Pellizzari, personal communication to Yair Ben-Dov, 1990).
Aspidiotus Echinocacti Bouché, 1833: 53. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on Echinocactus sp. Syntypes. Notes: Type-material lost (Sachtleben, 1944).
Chermes echinocacti; Boisduval, 1868: 281. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus Calyptroides; Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Change of combination.
Diaspis cacti Comstock, 1883: 91-94. Type data: UNITED STATES: New York, Ithaca, in a conservatory, on cactus, by J. Comstock. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-36.
Diaspis opunticola Newstead, 1893: 281. Replacement name for Diaspis opuntiae; synonymy by Cockerell, 1894g: 127-128.
Diaspis opuntiae Newstead, 1893d: 188. Type data: GUYANA: Demerara, on Opuntia elongata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1894g: 127-128.
Diaspis cacti opuntiae Cockerell, 1893j: 256. Type data: JAMAICA: Kingston, on Opuntia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1894g: 127-128.
Diaspis cacti opunticola; Cockerell, 1894e: 462. Change of status.
Diaspis calyptroides opuntiae; Cockerell & Parrott, 1899: 277. Change of status.
Diaspis calyptroides cacti; Charmoy, 1899: 29. Change of status.
Diaspis echinocacti; Fernald, 1903b: 229. Change of combination.
Diaspis echinocacti cacti; Fernald, 1903b: 230. Change of status.
Diaspis echinocacti opuntiae; Fernald, 1903b: 230. Change of status.
Chionaspis cacti; Autran, 1907: 152. Change of combination.
Diaspis lutea; Lindinger, 1943: 249. Change of combination.
Diaspis dactylproides; Bodenheimer, 1949: 87. Misspelling of species name.
Carulaspis calyptroides; Bodenheimer, 1953a: 164. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: cactus scale [Merril1953, Blicke1965]; cochenille des cactées [Foldi2001]; prickly pear scale [Gill1997].
FOES: Coccinellidae: Coccidophilus citricola [Watson2002a], Curinus sp. [Watson2002a]. Eupalopsellidae: Saniosulus nudus [Watson2002a]. ACARI Coccinellidae: Pentilia egena [Watson2002a]. Eupalopsellidae: Exothorhis echinocactii [Watson2002a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Calloeneis sp. [Watson2002a], Chilocorus nigrita [LimaGa2001], Chilocorus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972], Pharoscymnus horni [Sankar1984], Rhyzobius lophantae [RussoSi1994], Sticholotis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Zagreus bimaculosus [LimaGa2001]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephaluls sp. [Lima2002], Cybocephalus refifrons [Balach1954e]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chilensis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis chrysomphali [RosenDe1979], Aphytis cochereaui [RosenDe1979], Aphytis debachi [RosenDe1979], Aphytis diaspidis [Fulmek1943, MyartsRu2000], Aphytis fuscipennis [Balach1954e], Aphytis holoxanthus [RosenDe1979], Aphytis lingnanensis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis maculicornis [AbdRab2001a], Aphytis margaretae [RosenDe1979, MyartsRu2000], Aphytis melinus [RosenDe1979, MyartsRu2000], Aphytis mytilaspidis [ElirazRo1978], Aphytis obscurus [RosenDe1979], Aphytis opuntiae [RosenDe1979], Aphytis paramaculicornis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis proclia [Balach1954e], Aphytis vandenboschi [RosenDe1979], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [GomezM1937], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia lounsburyi [AbdRab2001a]. Encyrtidae: Plagiomerus diaspidis [Fulmek1943], Plagiomerus diaspidis [Fulmek1943, PanisPi2001a], Plagiomerus sp. [PanisPi2001a], Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella simmondsi [AhmadGh1972], Zaomma cestus [Prinsl1979]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Aleurodothrips fasciapennis [Watson2002a].
HOSTS: Aizoaceae: Lithops sp, [MazzeoSuRu2008]. Asteraceae: Chuquiraga sp. [Watson2002a]. Cactaceae: Acanthocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ancistrocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ariocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Astrophytum sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Cephalocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cereus giganteus [CostaL1936], Cereus gounellei [LimaGa2001], Cereus hildemannianus [LimaGa2001], Cereus jamacaru [LimaGa2001], Cereus macrogonus [CostaL1936], Cereus peruvianus [CarnerPe1986], Cereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cereus squamosus [LimaGa2001], Copiapoa sp. [MillerDa2005], Corryocactus [Watson2002a], Coryphantha sp. [MillerDa2005], Dendrocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Echinocactus echidnae [AhmadGh1972], Echinocactus ottonis [Hua2000], Echinocactus sp. [Bouche1833, MillerDa2005], Echinocactus tenuispinus [Hua2000], Echinocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Echinofossulocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Echinopsis sp. [MillerDa2005], Epiphyllum oxypetalum [LimaGa2001], Epiphyllum sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Erdisia [Borchs1966], Ferocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Gymnocalycium sp. [JiSu2012], Harrisia sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Hatiora sp. [Watson2002a], Heliocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Hylocereus [Borchs1966], Hylocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Lemaireocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Leuchtenbergia sp. [MillerDa2005], Lobivia sp. [MillerDa2005], Lophocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Mammillaria [Borchs1966], Mammillaria sp. [MillerDa2005], Melocactus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Myrtillocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Nopalea cochenillifera [CarnerPe1986], Nopalxochia sp. [MillerDa2005], Opuntia [BenDov2013], Opuntia brasiliensis [CarnerPe1986], Opuntia cochenillifera [GomezM1937], Opuntia dillenii [Tao1999], Opuntia engelmannii [CoronaRuTr1998], Opuntia ficus-indica [Martin1983], Opuntia glaucophylla [GomezM1937], Opuntia inamoena [LimaGa2001], Opuntia leucotricha [GomezM1937], Opuntia megacantha [Nakaha1981a], Opuntia micro-dassi [Martin1983], Opuntia monacantha [Mamet1943a], Opuntia nana [GomezM1937], Opuntia occidentalis [Martin1983], Opuntia polyantha [GomezM1937], Opuntia sp. [MillerDa2005], Opuntia stricta [GomezM1937], Opuntia tomentosa [GomezM1937], Opuntia tuna [Mamet1943a], Opuntia vulgaris [GomezM1937], Pachycereus sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Parodia sp. [MillerDa2005], Pelecyphora sp. [MillerDa2005], Peniocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pereskia grandifolia [LimaGa2001], Pereskia sp. [MillerDa2005], Pilosocereus royenii [ColonFMe1998], Pterocactus sp. [Watson2002a], Rebutia sp. [MillerDa2005], Schlumbergera sp. [Watson2002a], Selenicereus megalanthus K. Schaum, ex Valpel) [MedinaKo2012], Thelocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Trichocereus sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Turbinocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Weberocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Wilcoxia sp. [MillerDa2005], Zygocactus sp. [MillerDa2005], Zygocactus truncatus [Nakaha1981a], Zygophyllum xanthoxylum [Tao1999]. Crassulaceae: Cotyledon sp. [MillerDa2005], Dudleya sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fabaceae: Cassia sp. [Watson2002a]. Portulacaceae: Portulaca sp. [Watson2002a]. Urticaceae: Boehmeria caudata? [SilvadGoGa1968].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ascension Island [Watson2002a]; Cameroon [Watson2002a]; Cape Verde [Watson2002a]; Guinea [Watson2002a]; Madagascar [Watson2002a]; Mauritius [MerrilCh1923, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Reunion [Mamet1957, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014]; Saint Helena [Giliom1966]; South Africa [Brain1919]. Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Watson2002a]); Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Kauai [Nakaha1981a], Maui [Nakaha1981a], Niihau [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Nakaha1981a]); Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005] (Jalisco [Essig1910a], Tamaulipas [CoronaRuTr1998]); United States of America (Alabama [MillerDa2005], Arizona [Howard1895a, MillerDa2005], California [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Florida [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Howell1975a], Indiana [Amos1933], Iowa [Cocker1894g], Kansas [Lawson1917, MillerDa2005], Kentucky [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Maryland [MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [MerrilCh1923], Michigan [MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MillerDa2005], Missouri [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [MillerDa2005], New Mexico [Newste1901b, MillerDa2005], New York [Comsto1883, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Oregon [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [Herric1911, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Wyoming [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Maxwel1902]); Argentina [Autran1907] (Buenos Aires [Watson2002a], Catamarca [Watson2002a], Cordoba [Watson2002a], Formosa [Watson2002a], Jujuy [Watson2002a], La Rioja [Watson2002a], Mendoza [Watson2002a], Salta [Watson2002a], San Juan [Watson2002a], Santiago del Estero [Watson2002a], Tucuman [Watson2002a]); Bahamas [Merril1953]; Barbados [Maxwel1902]; Brazil [MerrilCh1923] (Alagoas [LimaGa2001], Bahia [SilvadGoGa1968], Parana [SilvadGoGa1968], Pernambuco [LimaGa2001], Rio Grande do Sul [CostaL1936], Rio de Janeiro [CostaL1936], Sao Paulo [SilvadGoGa1968]); Chile [GonzalCh1968] (Atacama [Watson2002a], Coquimbo [Watson2002a], O'Higgins [Watson2002a], Santiago [Watson2002a]); Cuba [MerrilCh1923]; Guyana [Newste1893d] [Watson2002a]; Haiti [Watson2002a]; Jamaica [Cocker1893j]; Netherlands Antilles (Curacao [Reyne1964]); Peru [Watson2002a]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Maxwel1902]); Saint Croix [Nakaha1983]; Trinidad and Tobago [Watson2002a]; U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983]; Uruguay [Giliom1966]; Venezuela (Venezuelan Antilles [Watson2002a]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Watson2002a], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); India [Maskel1896a] (Karnataka [VarshnMo1987], Kerala [Sankar1984], Maharashtra [VarshnMo1987], Odisha [VarshnMo1987], Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1919]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Taiwan [Tao1999]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Newste1901b]; Armenia [TerGri1969a]; Azores [FrancoRuMa2011]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China [Tang1977] (Beijing (=Peking) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Hua2000], Xizang (=Tibet) [Tao1999]); Croatia [Schmid1973]; Denmark [KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Newste1911, AbdRab2001a]; France [DanzigPe1998]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [Bouche1833]; Gibraltar [Giliom1966]; Greece [ArgyriStMo1976]; Hungary [Ordogh1976, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, Moghad2013a]; Iraq [DanzigPe1998]; Israel [Bytins1966] (Bytinski-Salz (1966) states that this species of Neotropical origin was probably introduced on Opuntia.); Italy [Leonar1920, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Tao1999]; Lithuania [Vengel1965]; Madeira Islands [Giliom1966]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [Giliom1966]; Portugal [Watson2002a]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia [Borchs1937]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995, PellizFo1996] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [DanzigPe1998]; Spain [GomezM1937]; Tunisia [Mamet1943a]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998]; United Kingdom (England [Newste1901b]).
BIOLOGY: Description of life history by Oetting (1984). Lima & Gama (2001) report the dissemination of the neonate scale transported on the body surface of the predators Chilocorus nigrita and Zagreus bimaculosus. The only definitive study on the life history of this species is by Oetting (1984). He found "that development from the egg to adult required from 23 to 26 days under constant 27 C or greenhouse conditions with males requiring 1 to 2 days longer than females. Adult females had a preoviposition period of 12 to 23 days followed by 1 to 2 months of oviposition." An individual female laid about 100 to 200 eggs. The species is reported to have 2 generations each year in greenhouses in Moscow, USSR (Saakyan Baranova 1954). It frequently is found on the pads and fruit of its cactus host; it is occasionally reported on the subterranean crown and roots. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale approximately circular, rather thin, grayish white to greenish white, distinct median carina or ridge; exuviae terminal (Merrill & Chapin, 1923).
SYSTEMATICS: There is much uncertainty about the validity of Diaspis echinocacti Bouché, 1833 as a valid name. In 1791 Lancry described Coccus luteus as a small white diaspidid on cactus. This name was unused until 1943c when Lindinger cited it as the senior synonym of both D. echinocacti and D. calyptroides (Costa, 1829). Aspidiotus calyptroides(=D. calyptroides) was first considered as a synonym of D. echinocacti by Targioni Tozzetti (1868) who cited D. calyptroides as the senior name, but Fernald (1903b) considered D. calyptroides as the junior synonym and variable usages of those names both as the junior and senior synonym were cited from then on. The initial use of D. echinocacti as the senior name could be explained by confusion over the date of the Costa publication. It was considered by some to be published in 1835, not in 1829. This issue was resolved by D'Erasmo (1949) and Option 1247 of the ICZN. Though Borchsenius (1966) considered D. luteus to be incertae sedis, more recent authors have considered the three names, echinocacti, luteus and calyptroides synonymous (Morrison & Morrison, 1966 and Danzig, 1993). Morrison & Morrison (1966) acknowledge Lindinger's work, but stated that "for more than 60 years the majority of coccid workers have cited echinocacti Bouché, 1833, as the type species of Diaspis Costa." Many authors considered D. echinocacti the senior name including Bodenheimer (1924), Ferris (1937), Balachowsky (1954e), Gill (1997) Gómez-Menor Ortega (1937, 1965, 1967) and Mamet (1949). Based on Morrison & Morrison (1966), Danzig (1993) cited D. calyptroides and D. luteus as nomina oblita and retained D. echinocacti as the senior name. According to the most recent rules, a nomen oblitum is described as a "senior synonym or homonym [which] has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years." In this instance, it seems clear that since D. calyptroides was used as a senior name over the years by several authors (MacGillivray 1921, Balachowsky 1927, Lupo 1938, Bodenheimer 1949, Silva d'Araujo et al. 1968) and D. luteus was cited as the senior name by Lindinger (1943c, 1949, 1957 and 1958) that neither name meets the criteria of a nomen oblitum. Because D. echinocacti is so widely used and because D. calyptroides and D. luteus have only rarely been treated as the senior name, a petition should be written to the Commission to decide the issue. Until that time, we will continue general usage of D. echinocacti realizing full well that D. luteus has seniority. Diaspis echinocacti differs from all the other species in the Pacific area in possessing a prominent pair of median lobes which are rounded and, although they may diverge, they do not form a deep notch at the apex of pygidium. The dorsal ducts are numerous on segments 5 and 6, where they are particularly conspicuous in compact submedian groups (Williams & Watson, 1988).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Williams & Watson (1988) state that this insect is found wherever species of Cactaceae are grown. Discussion of economic importance also by Russo & Siscaro (1994). Damage appears to be variable. Many publications state that the cactus scale has little or no effect on its host, while others record it as an important pest. This variation probably reflects the presence or absence of natural enemies and/or the susceptibility of the various host plants. According to Russo and Siscaro (1994) this species recently has become a problem on prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) on some farms in Sicily, requiring specific measures of chemical control. Feeding resulted in the presence of chlorotic areas on the fruit. The encyrtid Plagiomerus diaspidis was the most effective natural enemy in the study area, giving rates of parasitism greater than 40%. This species is considered to be an important world pest by Miller and Davidson (1990). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females) ]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 90 [Key to species of Diaspis of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 124 (female) [Key to California species of Diaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 100 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis in the tropical South Pacific Region]; Chou 1982: 118 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Diaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 844 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Schmutterer 1959: 178 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der deutschen Diaspis-Arten]; Ezzat 1958: 245 (female) [Key to Diaspis species of Egypt]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to the species of Diaspis Costa]; Balachowsky 1954e: 177 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa]; Hall 1946a: 515 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:51 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 83 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Fullaway 1932: 95 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 320 (female) [as Diaspis calyptroides; Key to species of Diaspis]; Newstead 1901b: 152 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1119]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 175, 176]; AbouEl2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 187]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 85]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 16]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host: 10]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; Amos1933a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 211]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 85-86]; ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 26]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Arruda1983 [taxonomy: 274]; Arruda2002 [biological control, chemical control, description, life history: i]; Autran1907 [distribution, host: 152]; Baker1976 [host, life history: 3]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177, 189-192, 194]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 138-140]; Beatty1944 [distribution, host: 127]; Benass1961 [structure: 332]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 44]; BenDov2013 [distribution, illustration: 72]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Bibby1961 [distribution, host: 330]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 290, 307]; Bodenh1924 [distribution, host: 38]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 95]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87, 91-93]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4-5]; Bodenh1953a [taxonomy: 164]; Boisdu1868 [distribution, host: 281]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 104, 105, 117]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 170, 171, 372]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 12]; Bouche1833 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Bouche1834 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223-224]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 142]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 366, 368]; Brown1965 [structure: 278]; Burmei1835 [distribution, taxonomy: 68]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 363]; Bytins1966 [distribution, economic importance, host: 18, 27, 28]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Charli1972 [distribution, host: 215]; Charmo1899 [taxonomy: 29]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 118, 121-122]; Chou1986 [illustration: 521]; Cocker1893j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256]; Cocker1894e [distribution, host: 462]; Cocker1894g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127-128]; Cocker1895p [distribution, host: 244]; Cocker1896a [description, distribution, host: 258]; Cocker1902d [host, taxonomy: 58]; Cocker1902t [distribution, host: 471]; Cocker1905b [taxonomy: 201]; CockerPa1899 [distribution, host: 277]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-93]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 552-555, 556]; Costa1829 [description, distribution, host: 20-21]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Costan1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 844]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245-246]; Davis1896 [distribution, host: 37]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution, host: 12, 13, 14]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11, 57]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 233, 312, 314, 316]; ElirazRo1978 [biological control, distribution, host: 96]; Essig1910a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214-215]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 245]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229, 230]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 47]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-36]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 43]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 51]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 296]; FogaraKo1977 [pp. 388, 389]; FogaraKo1977 [distribution, host: 392]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 11,23]; Fullaw1932 [taxonomy: 95, 102]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 31]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 345]; Ghauri1962 [physiology, taxonomy: 5]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124, 127-128, 132, 2]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186-189]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 107]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107-108]; GomezM1967O [distribution, host: 132]; GomezM1968 [distribution, host: 547]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Goot1912 [distribution, host: 287]; GordhLa1976 [biological control: 132]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 25]; GrandpCh1899 [distribution, host: 7, 9]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 188]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 193, 275]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34-35]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 47, 58]; Hall1925 [distribution, host: 25]; Hall1926a [taxonomy: 38]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 515, 546, 549]; Haywar1944 [distribution, host: 7]; Hempel1900a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 520]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-38]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, taxonomy: 180]; HodgesHo2002a [taxonomy: 118]; Howard1895a [distribution, host: 360]; Howell1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 409-411]; HowellTi1977 [description: 128]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150-151]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 193]; JiSu2012 [distribution, host, illustration: 1-5]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 261]; Kirkal1906a [taxonomy: 254]; Komosi1974 [taxonomy: 345]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, host: 32]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19, 45]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lancry1791 [description, distribution, host: 484]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 133]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 243, 244]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 183, 196-199]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lima2002 [biological control: 157]; LimaGa2001 [distribution, host: 479-480]; Lindin1911a [host: 30]; Lindin1912b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 234-235]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 124]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; Lindin1943c [taxonomy: 249]; Lindin1949 [taxonomy: 212]; Lobdel1937 [taxonomy: 78]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122, 123-129]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 159]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Mamet1957 [distribution: 369]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 52]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 40]; Maskel1896a [distribution, host: 225]; Maskel1897 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 298-299]; Matile1976 [distribution, host: 308]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 249]; Maxwel1903 [description, distribution, host: 44]; MazzeoSuRu2008 [distribution, host: 149-152]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 7]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration: 296, 299]; MedinaKo2012 [host: 44]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 46]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231-232]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 186]; MiskimBo1970 [distribution, host: 30]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 28-29]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 9]; MurakaAbCo1984 [biological control: 242]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution: 10, 12, 25]; Myers1925 [biological control: 165]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 397]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 31]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 10]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 33]; Newste1893d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 188]; Newste1893f [taxonomy: 281]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152, 159-162]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; Newste1911 [distribution, host: 87]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Oettin1984 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 88-92]; Ordogh1976 [distribution, host: 422]; Ordogh1977 [distribution, host: 2438]; Osborn1898 [distribution, host: 228]; PanisPi2001a [biological control, distribution: 423-427]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 256]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 477,501]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PicartMa2000 [distribution, host: 16]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Porcel2001 [illustration, structure: 141-152]; PriesnHo1940 [biological control, distribution, host: 59]; Prinsl1979 [biological control, distribution, host: 73]; Ramakr1919 [distribution, host: 622]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Ramakr1926 [taxonomy: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-14]; Reali1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-49]; Reyne1964 [distribution, host: 97]; Rosen1973 [biological control: 52]; RosenDe1978 [biological control: 104]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 758]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; RussoSi1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-76]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 28-29]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 21-22]; Schmid1973 [distribution, host: 441]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 178, 179]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 434-435]; SilvadGoGa1968 [biological control, distribution, host: 174]; SoaresDe1999 [distribution, ecology, host: 141-142]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 83]; Targio1867 [distribution, host: 13]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 735]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 67]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 6, 93, 96]; TremblCa1972 [physiology: 431]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 62]; VarshnMo1987 [distribution, host: 177]; Vengel1965 [distribution, taxonomy: 128]; Wang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 162-164]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Westco1973 [chemical control, distribution, host: 391]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 20,30]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104, 106-107]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 64]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 11]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 412, 415].
Diaspis elaeidis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis elaeidis Munting, 1969: 122-123. Type data: ANGOLA: Novo Redondo, on Elaeis guineensis, 16/02/1967, by H. Cardoso. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3020/4. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Elaeis guineensis [Muntin1969]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros mannii [CouturMaRi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [Muntin1969]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Muntin1969]; Nigeria [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale exceedingly thin and papery, whitish with golden yellow exuviae. Adult female 0.7-0.9 mm long, oval, with lateral margins of metathorax and first two abdominal segments rounded and produced (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis elaeidis is close to Chionaspis lutea Newstead (=D. echinocacti), but differs from it in the distribution of the dorsal pygidial ducts (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; CouturMaRi1985 [biological control, distribution, host: 278]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122-123]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 4].
Diaspis ferrisi McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis texensis; Ferris, 1942: 6. Misidentification; discovered by McKenzie, 1947b: 109.
Diaspis ferrisi McKenzie, 1947b: 109-110. Type data: MEXICO: Oaxaca, Salina Cruz, on unidentified shrub, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Oaxaca [McKenz1947b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McKenzie (1947b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale almost circular, about 1.5 mm in diameter, light brown with exuviae subcentral. Male scale elongate, snowy white and smaller than the female, exuviae near one end (McKenzie, 1947b).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis ferrisi resembles D. parasiti and D. texensis, but is separable from them in the narrow, pointed and much reduced median pygidial lobes, the presence of a series of minute submarginal ducts on the prosoma including the meta an mesothorax, and a very large group of dorsal submarginal macroducts on the first abdominal segment (McKenzie, 1947b).
KEYS: McKenzie 1947b: 108 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 6]; McKenz1947b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 109].
Diaspis flava HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis flava Hempel, 1919: 455-457. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Campinas, on unidentified tree, 10/06/1912, by G. Bondar. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Hempel1919]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hempel (1919).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is flat, thin and circular or sub-circular, about 1.5 mm in diameter and light yellow. Exuviae central and light yellow, but of a more intense color than the scale. Adult female oval, 1.4 mm long (Hempel, 1919).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 842]; Hempel1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 455-456]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 404].
Diaspis fraxini FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis fraxini Ferris, 1937: SI-37. Type data: MEXICO: Sonora, near Imuris, near Magdalena River, on Fraxinus toumeyi, ?/05/1934, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Oleaceae: Fraxinus toumeyi [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Sonora [Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, somewhat oval and irregular, moderately convex; exuviae submarginal. Adult female prosoma without lateral lobes; median pygidial lobes large and prominent, somewhat divergent and forming a slight median notch (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspsis fraxini most closely resembles D. townsendi, from which it differs in the even greater reduction of the second and third pygidial lobes and in the absence of submedian pore groups on the prepygidial abdominal segments (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-37]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; McKenz1963 [taxonomy: 34].
Diaspis fraxinicola Bodenheimer nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis fraxinicola Bodenheimer, 1930a: 378. Nomen nudum.
HOST: Oleaceae: Fraxinus syriacus [Bodenh1930a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Israel [Bodenh1930a].
CITATIONS: Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 378].
Diaspis gilloglyi McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis gilloglyi McKenzie, 1963: 33-34. Type data: MEXICO: in quarantine at United States, California, Los Angeles County, Culver City, on Tillandsia sp., 16/03/1960, by L.R. Gillogly & A. Beresford. Holotype female. Type depository: Sacramento: California State Collection of Arthropods, California Dept. Food & Agriculture, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: Gillogly scale [McKenz1963].
HOST: Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [McKenz1963]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [McKenz1963]. Neotropical: Belize [Nakaha1982]; Guatemala [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Nakaha1982].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McKenzie (1963).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is white, circular, flat, transparent, exuviae situated central or subcentral, and almost completely concealed under the epidermis of the host leaf. Male scale elongate, white, exuviae at anterior extremity and mostly concealed under leaf epidermis of host (McKenzie, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis gilloglyi appears to be related to D. fraxini, but differs in the absence of dorsal submedian groups of ducts on fifth abdominal segment, and the presence of well-developed first, second and third pygidial lobes. D. fraxini, on the other hand, possesses dorsal submedian groups of ducts on fifth abdominal segment, and the first to third pygidial lobes are greatly reduced in size (McKenzie, 1963).
CITATIONS: BenDov1989 [host: 2]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; McKenz1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-34]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 32]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Diaspis helveola LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis helveola Laing, 1932: 65-67. Type data: ZAIRE: Kasai, on Baikiaea robynsii, 01/02/1931. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Baikiea robynsii [Laing1932].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zaire [Laing1932].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1932).
STRUCTURE: Puparium pale greenish yellow, subcircular, flat, thin and papery in texture; exuviae subcentral and greenish yellow, 1.5-2.0 mm in diameter. Adult female clearing completely in potash, thin, broadly ovate, cephalic end distinctly flat (Laing, 1932).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 515 [Key to species of Diaspis]; Hall 1946a: 515 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Ghesqu1932 [distribution, host, illustration: 58]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 515, 550]; Laing1932 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65-67]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 35].
Diaspis hererina MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis hererina Munting, 1969: 123-124. Type data: NAMIBIA: Windhoek, on Loranthus sp., 29/08/1967, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3090/7. Described: female. Illust.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Zaomma carinae [Prinsl1979].
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Muntin1969]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, subcircular, about 2 mm in diameter, exuviae brown, placed at margin. Male cover parallel-sided, white, faintly tricarinate, about 1.2 mm in length. Adult female broadly turbinate or more or less oval, 1.0-1.3 mm long, prosoma slightly sclerotized at maturity (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis hererina is similar to D. texensis, but is distinguishable from it in that the inner and outer lobules of the 2nd and 3rd lobes of the adult female are subequal in size, the 1st instar has 6-segmented antennae and no dorsocephalic ducts. It also resembles D. regularis (=Umbaspis regularis) in the development of the 2nd and 3rd lobes, but may be distinguished from it in the number and distribution of the dorsal ducts (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 123-124]; Prinsl1979 [biological control, distribution, host: 70].
Diaspis iodinae BoratynskiNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis iodinae Boratynski, 1968a: 36-41. Type data: URUGUAY: on Iodina rhombifolia, by H.L. Parker. Holotype female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM.
HOST: Santalaceae: Iodina rhombifolia [Boraty1968a].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Uruguay [Boraty1968a].
BIOLOGY: Scales found in clusters on the underside of host leaves with both sexes probably occurring together (Boratynski, 1968a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Boratynski (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female subcircular or broadly pyriform, about 0.7 mm long and wide (Boratynski, 1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis iodinae is closely related to D. boisduvalii and D. miranda, but differs from both by the large number and the distribution of submarginal dorsal macroducts, position of the anal opening, non-tuberculate prosomatic micropores, small number of paraspiracular pores, as well as by the details of pygidial structures; the scales of the female are also distinctive (Boratynski, 1968a).
CITATIONS: Boraty1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-41]; HodgesHo2002a [taxonomy: 119]; Howell1975a [taxonomy: 409]; HowellBe1975 [structure: 267]; HowellTi1975a [structure: 429].
Diaspis manzanitae (Whitney)NOMENCLATURE:
Aulacaspis manzanitae Whitney, 1913: 50-52. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Bowman, by H.H. Bowman; Colfax by E.O. Essig; Dutch Flat, Towle, Blue Canon, by E.K Carnes & E.J. Branningan & B.B. Whitney, all on Manzanita sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: In the original description of Diaspis manzanitae, Whitney does not give type collection dates, nor does he specifically refer to types. However, based on the information given, two slides in the USNM have been determined to be syntypic. Because the publication data were scare, we believe it is possible that material now held in UCDC and CDAE could be syntypic as well.
Diaspis manzanitae; Ferris, 1920b: 45-46. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: manzanita scale [Essig1926].
HOST: Ericaceae: Arctostaphylos sp. [Whitne1913]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Whitne1913]).
BIOLOGY: Diaspis manzanitae seems to only occur at altitudes of over 1,500 feet (Ferris, 1937).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Whitney (1913) and Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light brown, moderately convex, circular, with subcentral exuviae (McKenzie, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis manzanitae is close to D. parasiti, differing from it in possessing dorsal submedian groups of macroducts from the pygidium to metathorax. A few dorsal microducts are in this same area in D. parasiti. Furthermore, D. manzanitae is apparently restricted to "manzanita" whereas D. parasiti is found only on mistletoe (McKenzie, 1956).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 125 (female) [Key to California species of Diaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to the species of Diaspis Costa]; McKenzie 1947b: 108 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 322 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Essig1913c [distribution, host: 597]; Essig1926 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; Ferris1920b [distribution, host, illustration: 45-46]; Ferris1921 [taxonomy: 96]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-38, SI-42]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125, 128, 133]; GullanMa2009 [illustration: 963]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; McKenz1947b [taxonomy: 108]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 107]; Misra1924CS [taxonomy: 350]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 32]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; Whitne1913 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-52].
Diaspis mihiriya GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis mihiriya Green, 1922a: 1014-1015. Type data: SRI LANKA: Bogawantalawa, on Dichopsis grandis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Dichopsis grandis [Green1922a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of adult female pale ochreous, opaque; very irregularly circular or broadly ovate, very slightly convex; exuviae eccentric, often projecting beyond the margin. Male cover snowy white, very obscurely tricarinate, thickly covered with dense white secretionary matter which completely conceals the exuviae. Adult female sub-circular, pygidium broadly rounded (Green, 1922a).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 337]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1014-1015]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 315]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Takagi2011 [illustration, taxonomy: 49]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 63].
Diaspis minensis HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis minensis Hempel, 1918: 205-206. Type data: BRAZIL: Minas Geraes, Christina, on unidentified host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 17.348. Described: female.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Minas Gerais [Hempel1918]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Hempel (1918).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular to sub-circular, barely convex, white, 1.6-1.8 mm in diameter. Exuviae exposed and nearly marginal, light brown. Adult female is widely oval, light brown, with hard derm (Hempel, 1918).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242-243]; Hempel1918 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 205-206]; Lepage1938 [catalogue, distribution, host: 404-405].
Diaspis miranda (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aulacaspis miranda Cockerell, 1898j: 437-438. Type data: MEXICO: Cuautla, 25/07/1897 on Cherimoya; 27/09/1897, on Zapote. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Diaspis miranda; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of combination.
Carulaspis miranda; MacGillivray, 1921: 313. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Persea americana [MillarChMc2012]. Sapotaceae: Achras sapote [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [MillarChMc2012] (Veracruz [Cocker1898j]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions by Cockerell (1898j) and Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.25 mm in diameter, flat, irregularly subcircular to subtriangular, black, with sort of whitish bloom, extreme margin whitish; exuviae lateral, very pale yellowish. Male scale obscurely tricarinate, but very fluffy. Adult female pale yellow after boiling in potash, median lobes wide apart, minutely serrated, striated, produced, but not conspicuously (Cockerell, 1898j).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis miranda is most like D. boisduvalii, but may be distinguished easily (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Boraty1968a [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Cocker1898j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 437-438]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1899n [distribution: 29]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-39]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; MillarChMc2012 [host: 497]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 93]; RugmanMoSt2009 [DNA sequencing, economic importance, taxonomy: 1948-1953]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35].
Diaspis muntingii FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis muntingii Fonseca, 1973: 255-256. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Serra da Cantareira, on Solanacea sp., ?/07/1959, by J. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 863. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Solanaceae: Solanacea sp. [Fonsec1973]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1973]).
BIOLOGY: Diaspis muntingii was found with Septobasidium (Fonseca, 1973).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fonseca (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slightly convex; exuviae yellowish and subcentral (Fonseca, 1973).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis muntingii is close to D. hereriana (Fonseca, 1973).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Fonsec1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 255-257].
Diaspis myristicae (Rutherford)NOMENCLATURE:
Aulacaspis myristicae Rutherford, 1914: 260. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Myristica laurifolia, 15/07/1913. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female.
Diaspis myristicae; Borchsenius, 1966: 172. Change of combination.
HOST: Myristicaceae: Myristica laurifolia [Ruther1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Rutherford (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale coarse, white or brown, oval and enclosing the second exuviae which is reddish-brown. Adult female pear shaped (Rutherford, 1914).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis myristicae resembles D. fagraeae (=Aulacaspis fragraeae), but the plates in the 4th space are more numerous, the circumgenital pores are more numerous, D. fagraeae (=Aulacaspis fragraeae) having (8-10)(15-18)(20-30), and the median lobes are of a different shape. As compared to D. barberi (=Pseudaulacaspis barberi), the median lobes are not expanded distally on both sides, but only laterally, they are not slightly incised, and the circumgenital pores and the plates are more numerous, D. barberi having pores as (6-9)(18-23)(19-23) (Rutherford, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 318 [as Aulacaspis myristicae; Key to species of Aulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 314]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 318]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Ruther1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 260]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; Takagi2011 [taxonomy: 49]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 63].
Diaspis obliqua CostaNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis obliquus Costa, 1829: 21. Type data: ITALY: on "Leandro". Unknown type status. Described: female. Notes: Type material probably lost (Pellizzari, personal communication to Ben-Dov, 1990).
Aspidiotus obliquus; Walker, 1852: 1067. Change of combination.
Diaspis obliqua; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Italy [Costa1835].
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis. Fernald (1903b) lists it as a junior synonym of Aspidiotus hederae as does Lindinger (1912b), but in his 1932f paper he lists it as a junior synonym of Aspidiotus cyanophylli and by 1949 he says its a junior synonym of Aspidiotus obliquus.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 372]; Costa1835 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 260]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 367]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1949 [taxonomy: 210]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Walker1852 [distribution, taxonomy: 1067].
Diaspis parasiti McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis parasiti McKenzie, 1947b: 108. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Riverside County, San Jacinto, on Phoradendron flavescens, 23/12/1946, by R.P. Allen. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA; type no. 46L299. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: mistletoe scale [Borchs1966].
HOST: Loranthaceae: Phoradendron flavescens [McKenz1947b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1947b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McKenzie (1947b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, 1.5 mm in diameter, light brown with exuviae central. Male scale elongate, similar in color, but smaller, exuviae near one end (McKenzie, 1947b).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis parasiti is closely related to D. ferrisi, differing chiefly by having much larger and broader median lobes which are rounded apically, whereas in D. ferrisi these structures are small, narrow and pointed apically, forming a distinct median notch. D. parasiti also resembles D. texensis, but may be separated by the possession of a submarginal cluster of dorsal macroducts on the first abdominal segment, the presence of a distinct sclerotized prosomal lateral lobe and a greater number of anterior lateral perivulvar pores (McKenzie, 1947b).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 125 (female) [Key to California species of Diaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to the species of Diaspis Costa]; McKenzie 1947b: 108 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172-173]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125, 128, 134]; McKenz1947b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-109]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 107-108]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 32]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Diaspis parva LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis parva Lindinger, 1910b: 44-45. Type data: TANZANIA: Usambara, Bombuera, on Loranthus undulatus var. sagittifolius, ?/02/1893. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus undulatus [Lindin1910b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Lindin1910b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1910b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 323 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Hall1946a [distribution: 551]; Houard1922 [host: 213]; Lindin1910b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-45]; Lindin1913 [host, taxonomy: 77, 94]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 323]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Diaspis parvinatis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis parvinatis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-277. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, David, on Byrsonima crassifolia, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Malpighiaceae: Byrsonima crassifolia [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: Scales are found on the underside of host leaves (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale small, white, flat, thin, with the exuviae almost marginal. Male scale white, elongate, slender, the exuviae almost colorless. Adult female about 0.6 mm long (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis parvinatis is very distinct, separated from other species by the very large, very divergent and retracted median lobes, the large second lobes, the reduced marginal spur and the paucity of dorsal ducts (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-277]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53].
Diaspis paulista Lepage & GiannottiNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis paulista Lepage & Giannotti, 1946: 44-45. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Jardim da Luz, on unidentified Combretaceae. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Combretaceae [Lepage1942].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; LepageGi1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-45]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 174].
Diaspis pelargonii CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis pelargonii Cockerell, 1892b: 333. Notes: We are unable to locate any type material for this species.
HOST: Geraniaceae: Pelargonium sp. [Cocker1892b]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Jamaica [Cocker1892b].
SYSTEMATICS: Cockerell (1892b), states only that this species is "near to D. rosae (=Aulacaspis rosae), but seems to differ somewhat." Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 372]; Cocker1892b [distribution, host: 333]; Lindin1932c [distribution, taxonomy: 204].
Diaspis portulacariae WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis portulacariae Williams, 1955a: 250-251. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Salem, on Portulacaria afra, ?/08/1946, by C.J. Skead. Holotype. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 3004. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Portulacaceae: Portulacaria afra [Willia1955a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Willia1955a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Williams (1955a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female pale buff, circular and white with the exuviae subcentral. Scale of male greyish white, sides subparallel, posterior end rounded, uncarinated (Williams, 1955a).
SYSTEMATICS: The three pairs of prominent lobes and the small number of dorsal ducts distinguish this species from others recorded from the Ethiopian Region. The lobes are similar to those of Diaspis radicicola Ferris but the latter species has numerous dorsal ducts (Williams, 1955a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Willia1955a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 250-251].
Diaspis purpuripennis Lindinger nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis purpuripennis Lindinger, 1911: 356. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 377.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Cryptomeria sp. [Borchs1966], Thuja sp. [Borchs1966]
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1911) states that Diaspis purpuripennis could be a misidentification of D. juniperi (=Carulaspis juniperi) and in 1912b he states its a junior synonym of D. visci (=Carulaspis visci).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 356]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 367].
Diaspis radicicola FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis radicicola Ferris, 1937: SI-40. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, San Patricio Co., Sinton, from undetermined tuberous roots. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Cactaceae: Opuntia [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937]). Palaearctic: Algeria [Nakaha1982].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, rather hard and brittle, very flat, scarcely distinguishable from the substratum, circular; exuviae subcentral. Male scale yellowish, elongate, felted; exuviae at one extremity (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis radicicola is very similar to D. echinocacti and were it not for the differences in habit and scale characteristics it could be considered an extreme variant (Ferris, 1937). McDaniel (1971) states that D. radicicola can be separated from the other species by the median lobes that are apically acute and the second and third lobes which are both quite well developed.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 178 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178, 192-194]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: SI-40]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; McDani1971 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 300]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 32]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Tang1977 [taxonomy: 194]; Willia1955a [taxonomy: 250].
Diaspis refertinatis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis refertinatis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-278. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Boquete, from Eugenia sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: Female scales occur on the under side of host leaves, close to the midrib (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scales somewhat oval, white, granular in texture, rather thin, moderately convex, with but the pale first exuviae exposed. Male scale with fluffy wax which sometimes can almost conceal the scale. Adult female about 1 mm long, almost circular, pygidium projecting little (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis refertinatis is readily recognizable by the very large median lobes, the reduction of the other lobes and the numerous dorsal ducts which are as large as the marginal ducts (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-278]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52].
Diaspis simmondsiae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis simmondsiae Ferris, 1921: 95-96. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, La Paz, on Simmondsia californica. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: jojoba scale [DeBach1984].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis simmondsiae [DeBach1984, MyartsRu2000].
HOSTS: Buxaceae: Simmondsia californica [Ferris1921], Simmondsia chinensis [Bibby1961]. Fouquieriaceae: Idria sp. [Nakaha1982]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982] (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921, MyartsRu2000]); United States of America (Arizona [Bibby1961]).
BIOLOGY: Female scales occur on host leaves and male scales often occur in masses about the females (Ferris, 1937).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1921 and 1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, circular, flat, with exuviae subcentral. Male scale white, noncarinate (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis simmondsiae is similar in form to D. texensis, D. manzanitae and D. toumeyi.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Bibby1961 [distribution, host: 330]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; DeBach1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 104, 110]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-41]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 13, 25]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 33]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Diaspis stilosa LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis stilosa Lindinger, 1909e: 25-26. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, Urwaldgebiet, on Strychnos cinnabarina, 1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Loganiaceae: Strychnos cinnabarina [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 323 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 552]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25-26]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 21]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, host, taxonomy: 323]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Diaspis subregularis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis subregularis Hall, 1929a: 362-363. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Rusape, on Loranthus sp., 16/03/1928; Macheke, on Carissa arduina, 11/06/1928; Mtoroshanga Pass, Umbukwes, on unknown host, 05/08/1928, all collected by Dept. of Agric., Salisbury. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Umbaspis subregularis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 198. Change of combination.
Diaspis subregalis; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Misspelling of species name.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Metaphycus sigillatus [AnneckMy1981].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Carissa arduina [Hall1929a]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [AnneckMy1981]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Hall1929a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [AnneckMy1981]; Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female puparium more or less circular, convex, but flattened at the margin. Exuviae tilted forward, within margin, but to one side. Male puparium white and very strongly tricarinate, exuviae pale brown. Adult female broadly pyriform, abdominal segmentation distinct, the margins of the segments being produced laterally (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis subregularis can be told from D. spatulata (=Umbaspis spatulata) by the presence of a marginal spur on segment IV, the shape of the lobes and the absence of dorso-submedian pygidial ducts in the latter species (Munting, 1973).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 516 [Key to species of Diaspis]; Hall 1946a: 516 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AnneckMy1981 [biological control, distribution, host: 8]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 198, 200]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Fonsec1969 [taxonomy: 33]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 362-363]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 516, 552]; Laing1932 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; Muntin1973 [taxonomy: 21].
Diaspis syriaca LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis syriaca Lindinger, 1912b: 264. Type data: SYRIA: Damascus, on Pistacia vera. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Ferrisi (Diaspis) syriaca; Bodenheimer, 1953: 5. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia atlantica [BenDov2012], Pistacia khinjuk [Lindin1928], Pistacia palestina [Bodenh1935], Pistacia terebinthus [Bodenh1926], Pistacia vera [Lindin1912b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Greece [Korone1934]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a]; Israel [Balach1954e]; Syria [Lindin1912b]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
BIOLOGY: Diaspis syriaca seems to have only one generation per year (Bodenheimer, 1953).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Adult female circular or subcircular (Balachowsky, 1954e). Exuviae yellow. Male puparium elongate, white, with 3 carinae. Adult female broadly pyriform, pygidium broadly triangular with distinct median emargination, reddish, pygidium yellow (Bodenheimer, 1953).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 178 (female) [Tableau d'indentification des espèces du Diaspis Costa]; MacGillivray 1921: 320 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178, 195-197]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 43]; Bodenh1924 [distribution: 3]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 42, 43]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248]; Bodenh1937 [distribution: 218]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 85, 95, 99]; Bodenh1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 87, 93-94]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 329]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 5-6]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173-174]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Davatc1958 [distribution, host, illustration: 40, 42]; DavatcBa1956 [taxonomy: 109]; Hariri1972 [distribution, host: 146]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kaussa1964 [taxonomy: 7, 18]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host: 84-85, 90]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1912b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Lindin1928 [distribution, host: 102]; Lindin1931 [distribution, host: 120]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 21]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 134]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 320]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 29]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Diaspis texensis (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aulacaspis texensis Cockerell, 1896j: 83. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, San Antonio, on Sophora secundiflora, 27/11/1895, by C.H.T. Townsend. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Diaspis texensis; Fernald, 1903b: 232. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Sophora secundiflora [Cocker1896j], Wisteria sp. [Nakaha1982]. Koeberliniaceae: Koeberlinia spinosa [Bibby1931]. Simarubaceae: Castela nicholsoni [Bibby1931].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (Texas [Cocker1896j]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, quite flat, white or grayish, exuviae subcentral. Male scale elongate, white or grayish, slightly tricarinate (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis texensis most nearly resembles D. manzanitae, but the latter differs in its much fewer pygidial ducts, combined with the presence of both submarginal and submedian groups on all the prepygidial abdominal segments (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: McKenzie 1947b: 108 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 322 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Bibby1931 [distribution, host: 590]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 335]; Cocker1896j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 232]; Ferris1921 [taxonomy: 96]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-35, SI-38, SI-42,]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration: 300]; McKenz1947b [distribution, taxonomy: 108, 109, 110]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 124]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 33]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35].
Diaspis toumeyi CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis toumeyi Cockerell, 1895l: 56. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, near Maricopa, on Holacantha emoryi, ?/04/1895, by Prof. Toumey. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Pseudaulacaspis toumeyi; MacGillivray, 1921: 316. Change of combination.
Diaspis toumeli; McDaniel, 1971: 303. Misspelling of species name.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus cacti [Cocker1899t].
HOSTS: Koeberliniaceae: Koeberlinia spinosa [Nakaha1982]. Simarubaceae: Holacantha emoryi [Cocker1895l].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (Arizona [Cocker1895l], Texas [Nakaha1982]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white or slightly gray, circular, moderately convex, exuviae subcentral, dark. Male scale gray or white, noncarinate (Ferris, 1937). Female when boiled in soda is pale brownish (Cocker1895r).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis toumeyi is close to D. simmondsiae, from which it is readily distinguishable by the small second lobes and the group of large, submarginal pores of the 6th and 7th abdominal segments especially (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 316 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis toumeyi; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Bibby1961 [distribution, host: 330]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Cocker1895l [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56]; Cocker1895r [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 4]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 335]; Cocker1899t [biological control, distribution, host: 275]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 232]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-52]; Ferris1921 [taxonomy: 96]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-43]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 316]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 33]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Diaspis townsendi CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis townsendi Cockerell, 1899n: 28. Type data: MEXICO: Aguas Calientes, on Prosopis sp., 01/05/1898. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Prosopis sp. [Cocker1899n]. Sterculiaceae: Guazuma [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Aguascalientes [Cocker1899n]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is dirty to snow white, more or less oval; exuviae dark reddish-brown, placed to one side. Male scale with only one keel, and that feeble; some specimens woolly, resembling a mealybug male pupa (Cockerell, 1899n).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis townsendi is highly variable, but extremely close to D. texensis, differing significantly, only in the somewhat heavier median lobes and in the absence or marked reduction of the outer lobule of the second lobes (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:52 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 321 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Cocker1899n [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 58]; Cocker1902t [distribution, host: 471]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 232]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-37, SI-44]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:52]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 321].
Diaspis uniglandulosa Balachowsky & FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis uniglandulosus Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967: 985-988. Type data: GUINEA: Béna, on Copaifera copallifera, 17/12/1951, by A.S. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 311. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis uniglandulosa; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Fabaceae: Copaifera copallifera [BalachFe1967].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [BalachFe1967].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky & Ferrero (1967).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, male scale carinated longitudinally (Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspis uniglandulosus differs from other West African members of Diaspis by the structure of the numerous dorsal pygidial and prepygidial pores (marginal, submarginal and submedian) which are all the same size (Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967).
CITATIONS: BalachFe1967 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 985-988]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946].
Diaulacaspis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Diaulacaspis Takahashi, 1942b: 39. Type species: Diaulacaspis siamensis Takahashi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Takahashi (1942b) states that Diaulacaspis resembles Aulacaspis in the shape of body, but differs as follows: thorax very prominently constricted behind the mesothorax, metathorax with a prominent lateral spine. Lateral gland ducts on the posterior abdominal segments protruding, forming small, but distinct, blunt tubercles. Median lobes not sunken. Dorsal gland ducts on the pygidium slender. Cellular markings not discernible on the abdomen. Body sclerotized throughout when matured.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 141]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 61]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 39].
Diaulacaspis siamensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Diaulacaspis siamensis Takahashi, 1942b: 40-42. Type data: THAILAND: Chiengmai, on Dipterocarpus sp., ?/05/1940; Ubon, on unidentified Lauraceae tree, 04/05/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Quernaspis siamensis; Ali, 1970: 25. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Dipterocarpaceae: Dipterocarpus sp. [Takaha1942b], Dipterocarpus sp. [Ali1970]. Guttiferae: Mesua ferrea [TakagiPoGh1989]. Lauraceae [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1989]); Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1942b) and Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale elliptical, pale brown, very thin, flattened, with pale brown larval skins at the center. Female body resembles Aulacaspis in shape, flattened, sclerotised throughout, prominently constricted behind the mesothorax (Takahashi, 1942b).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 141]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 153-159]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-42].
Diaulacaspis xerospermi Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Diaulacaspis xerospermi Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1989: 160-166. Type data: MALAYSIA: Semenanjung, Negeri Sembilan, Jeram Toi, on Xerospermum noronhianum, 29/09/1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapindaceae: Xerospermum noronhianum [TakagiPoGh1989].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1989]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, flat, yellowish gray, with exuvial casts central or subcentral. Male test a white flossy mass. Adult female deeply constricted in metathorax, divided thereby into a rounded prosoma and a rounded abdomen. Second instar female broadly obovoid. Second instar male obovoid with segmentation indistinct (Takagi et al., 1989).
CITATIONS: Takagi2011 [structure, taxonomy: 47]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160-166].
Dinaspis LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis Leonardi, 1911: 282. Type species: Dinaspis ichesii Leonardi. Subsequently designated by Sasscer, 1912: 95.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1943b) considered Dinaspis to be a junior synonym of Unaspis.
KEYS: Yang 1982: 199 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphedini]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:45, 46 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 12 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 276 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini]; Brain 1919: 229 (female) [Key to genera near Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 229]; Ferris1920b [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-126]; Ferris1938 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 40, 45]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-279]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 45, 46]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 516]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 480]; Leonar1911 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 282]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219, 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 276]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 61]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 12]; Rao1949 [distribution, taxonomy: 59-60]; Weber1930 [taxonomy: 399]; Weber1933 [taxonomy: 534]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 199].
Dinaspis aculeata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis aculeata Ferris, 1942: SIV-390. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Armuelles, on Corozo oleifera, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatorea aculeata; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Corozo oleifera [Ferris1942], Geonoma sp.? [Ferris1942]. Musaceae: Heliconia sp. [Ferris1942]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Mosque1976].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Mosque1976]; Panama [Ferris1942].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, light brown, thin, slightly translucent. Adult female about 1.3 mm long, derm membranous throughout except for pygidium and for a sclerotization of the lateral margins of the 3rd and 4th abdominal species which seems at times to be present (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Dinaspis aculeata is a peculiar species, distinguished at once by the position and character of the antennae (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [Key to species of Dinaspis Leonardi].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-390, SIV-446: 53]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 87].
Dinaspis chiriquiensis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis chiriquiensis Ferris, 1942: SIV-391. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, at about 9,000 feet in elevation on Volcan de Chiriqui, above Boquete, on Macleaya sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Papaveraceae: Macleaya sp. [Ferris1942]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1942].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and slender, pale brown, exuviae terminal. Adult female about 1.75 mm long, derm membranous throughout or with a faint suggestion of sclerotization of the prosomatic region, the pygidium weakly sclerotized (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Dinaspis chiriquiensis is close to D. ichesii, but differs in the presence of perivulvar pores, the pronounced lateral lobing of the 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments and the apparent lack of sclerotazation of the presomatic region (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [Key to species of Dinaspis Leonardi].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-391, SIV-446:53].
Dinaspis dilatilobis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes dilatilobis Green, 1922a: 1010. Type data: SRI LANKA: Sigiriya and Ambalangoda, on undertermined shrub. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis dilatilobis; Lindinger, 1932f: 202. Change of combination.
Dinaspis dilatilobis; Borchsenius, 1966: 74. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Derris sp. [Green1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
BIOLOGY: Scales are crowded in irregular patches on the undersurface of the host leaves. Their presence is indicated by a purplish-brown discoloration of the upper leaf surface (Green, 1922a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium flattish, pale stramineous, thin, translucent; two opaque and often reddish lines mark the position of a median ventral channel on each side of which the scale extends to a width of more than half that of the channel. Male puparium paler and more regular in outline, posterior half depressed and slightly concave (Green, 1922a).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 56]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Green1922a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1010]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 328]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 46].
Dinaspis giffardi LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis giffardi Leonardi, 1914: 215-216. Type data: GUINEA: undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Leonar1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1914).
KEYS: Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Hall1928 [taxonomy: 290]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 550]; Leonar1914 [distribution, host: 215]; Maleno1916b [distribution, host: 193].
Dinaspis ichesii LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis ichesii Leonardi, 1911: 282-283. Type data: ARGENTINA: Cacheuta, on Ephedra andina. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatorea ichesi; Lindinger, 1934: 16. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Ephredraceae: Ephedra andina [Leonar1911a]. Zygophyllaceae: Bulnesia retamo [Lahill1919].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [Leonar1911] (Mendoza [ClapsWoGo2001]); Chile [ClapsWoGo2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Leonardi (1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Dinaspis ichesii is near D. lahillei, but differs in having the body more extended, having six marginal macroducts instead of seven and less visible pygidial lobes (Claps, 2000).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 295 (female) [Key to species of Dinaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 17]; Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Claps2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92, 95]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [distribution, illustration: 37, 40]; Lahill1919 [distribution, host: 599]; Laing1929a [distribution, taxonomy: 480]; Leonar1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 282]; Leonar1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-49]; Lindin1934 [p. 16]; Lizery1939 [distribution, host: 168, 202]; MacGil1921 [pp. 276, 295]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 193]; Yang1982 [illustration, taxonomy: 217, 219].
Dinaspis lahillei LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis lahillei Leonardi, 1911a: 49-50. Type data: ARGENTINA: Cacheuta, on Bulnesia retana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatorea lahillei; Lindinger, 1934: 16. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Cyclolepis genistoides [Claps2000]. Fabaceae: Prosopis sp. [Borchs1966]. Zygophyllaceae: Bulnesia retamo [Chiesa1942a], Bulnesia retana [Leonar1911a].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [Leonar1911a] (Catamarca [ClapsWoGo2001], La Rioja [Claps2000], Mendoza [Claps2000], Salta [ClapsWoGo2001]).
BIOLOGY: This species is ovoviviparous (Claps, 2000).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1911a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale barely convex, widened behind, silver. Larval exuviae yellow. Adult female lengthened, pear-shaped (Leonardi, 1911a).
SYSTEMATICS: Dinaspis lahillei is near D. ichesii, but differs in the body not being so extended, seven marginal macroducts (Four large ones and three smaller) instead of six and more visible pygidial lobes (Claps, 2000).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 295 (female) [Key to species of Dinaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Chiesa1942a [distribution, host: 217]; Claps2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92-93, 95]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Lahill1919 [distribution, host: 599]; Leonar1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 283-284]; Leonar1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; Lizery1939 [distribution, host: 168, 202]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 193].
Dinaspis magna FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis magna Ferris, 1941d: SIII-280. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Volcan de Chiriqui, at 8000 feet, on unidentified Bambuseae, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus magna; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambuseae sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: Dinaspis magna is found concealed among the bracts and profuse branches of host (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and slender, pale brown, blends in with host. Adult female about 2.6 mm long, unusually large (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [Key to species of Dinaspis Leonardi].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-280]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 53]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548].
Dinaspis paulistana LepageNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis paulistana Lepage, 1942: 173-174. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Jardim da Luz, on unidentified Combretaceae, 26/05/1942. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Secao de Entomologia Agricola do Instituto do Biologia Vegetal, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Combretaceae [Lepage1942].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1942).
STRUCTURE: Adult female long, 2 mm, derm strongly sclerotized (Lepage, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Lepage1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 173].
Dinaspis pseudomorpha LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis pseudomorpha Leonardi, 1914: 218-220. Type data: GUINEA: Conakry, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Leonar1911a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1911a).
KEYS: Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 551]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 218-220]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 193].
Dinaspis silvestrii LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis silvestrii Leonardi, 1914: 220-221. Type data: GUINEA: Conarky, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Leonar1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1911a).
KEYS: Malenotti 1916b: 192 (female) [Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 516, 552]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 220-221]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 192].
Dinaspis taiwana TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis taiwana Takahashi, 1936b: 427-428. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten, on Actinodaphne pedicellata, 22/04/1936, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Actinodaphne pedicellata [Takaha1936b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1936b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1936b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale long, narrow, convex dorsally, not expanded posteriorly, straight or a little curved, white, about 2.5 mm long. Larval skins pale yellow, the first skin much longer than wide, about 0.38 mm long, with antennae at the front. The second skin elongate, not thick, about 0.79 mm in length. Adult female yellow, elongate, parallel sided (Takahashi, 1936b).
SYSTEMATICS: Dinaspis taiwana is characterized by the indistinct median lobes and by the pygidium not notched at hind end (Takahashi, 1936b).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 135]; Takaha1936b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 427-428]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 96]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 218].
Discodiaspis KoronéosNOMENCLATURE:
Discodiaspis Koronéos, 1934: 88. Type species: Discodiaspis suaedae Koronéos (= Discodiaspis salicorniae Gomez Menor Ortega), by monotypy.
Protargionia; Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1937: 43. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 155.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 749 (female) [Tableau de Genres des Rugaspidiotina]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 43 (female) [as Protargionia; Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos].
CITATIONS: Balach1949 [taxonomy: 109]; Balach1953g [description, taxonomy: 749, 754-755]; Balach1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 161]; BenDov1974c [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 155]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 53]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 246-247]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 110]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; GomezM1937 [taxonomy: 43, 130]; GomezM1946 [taxonomy: 60]; Korone1934 [description, taxonomy: 88]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 62].
Discodiaspis consolidata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Chortinaspis consolidata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-338. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, San Bernardino County, near Old Woman Springs, on Hilaria rigida, 1939, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, and St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Discodiaspis consolidata; Munting, 1968a: 421. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Hilaria rigida [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, somewhat convex, oval, with the exuviae toward one end, ventral scale thin. Male scale white, elongate, with exuviae apical. Adult female 1.25 mm long (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1941d) states that Discodiaspis consolidata might be the type of a new genus, but is similar to Chortinaspis frankliniana.
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1970 [taxonomy: 161]; BenDov1974c [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-338]; Muntin1968a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 421]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 347].
Discodiaspis gallamformans Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Discodiaspis gallamformans Ben-Dov, 1974c: 25. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Namaqualand, Nababeep, on Zygophyllum sp., 07/10/1972, by Y. Ben-Dov. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 4843/1. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Zygophyllaceae: Zygophyllum sp. [BenDov1974c]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1974c].
BIOLOGY: Females are enclosed within galls which are formed on the host's twigs, usually very close to the nodes. The gall is rounded oval; its upper wall is white brownish with few tiny black spots, and it arises convexly above the twig's surface, its lower wall is invaginated into the bark; a slit occurs in the gall's margin opposite to the female's pygidium, through which, presumably, the young crawlers emerge (Ben-Dov, 1974c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1974c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, enveloping the female's body dorsally and ventrally. Dorsal and ventral portions of the larval exuviae incorporated in the dorsal and ventral portions of the scale, respectively. Adult female oval, rounded at anterior apex, pointed at the pygidial one (Ben-Dov, 1974c).
SYSTEMATICS: Discodiaspis gallamformans resembles D. globosa (Ben-Dov, 1974c).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDov1974c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25]; HodgsoMiGu2011 [distribution, host, life history: 1].
Discodiaspis globosa MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Discodiaspis globosa Munting, 1968a: 421-423. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Bloemfontein, on Chrysochoma sp., 19/07/1966, by J.F. Louw. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 2339/4. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Asteraceae: Chrysochoma sp. [Muntin1968a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1968a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, very convex, subcircular, 1 mm in diameter and 1 mm high; ventral scale well developed. Male puparium also white, with a faint median carina, oval and very short (about 0.5 mm) indicating that males are probably apterous. Adult female globose, subcircular; pygidium obtuse, but slightly pointed (Munting, 1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: Discodiaspis globosa closely resembles D. numidicus, but it can be distinguished by its absence of tubercles on the prothorax and the distribution of the ducts (Munting, 1968a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 161]; BenDov1974c [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 421-423].
Discodiaspis janinae BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Discodiaspis janinae Balachowsky, 1970: 161-164. Type data: CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: La Maboké, in equatorial forest, on "Kakombé," 31/12/1965, by J. Charpentier. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Central African Republic [Balach1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1970).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 161-164]; BenDov1974c [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88].
Discodiaspis numidica (Balachowsky)NOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus numidicus Balachowsky, 1949: 107-108. Type data: ALGERIA: Oran, Nemours, on Helianthemum virgatum, 09/04/1920, by R. Maire. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Discodiaspis numidicus; Balachowsky, 1953g: 758. Change of combination.
Discodiaspis numidica; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Cistaceae: Cistus sp. [GomezM1965], Helianthemum pilosum subobtusum [Balach1949], Helianthemum violaceum [GomezM1965], Helianthemum virgatum [Balach1949].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1949]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; Spain [GomezM1965].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1949).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, very convex, large, exuviae central, yellow. Adult female pyriform (Balachowsky, 1949).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1965: 102 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis of Spain]; Balachowsky 1953g: 755 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis of the Palearctic Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107-108]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 755, 758-760]; Balach1970 [taxonomy: 161]; BenDov1974c [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246-247]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 101]; GomezM1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104-107]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 52]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Muntin1968a [taxonomy: 423]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316].
Discodiaspis salicorniae (Gómez-Menor Ortega)NOMENCLATURE:
Protargionia salicorniae Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1928: 346-350. Type data: SPAIN: Almería, Roquetas del Mar, on Salicornia fructicosa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Spain. Described: female. Illust.
Discodiaspis suaedae Koroneos, 1934: 88-89. Type data: GREECE: Volos-Alykès, on Atriplex portulacoides (=Obione portulacoides), Salicornia fruticosa, Arthrocnemum glaucum, Suaeda fruticosa. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 755. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Targionia suaedae; Lindinger, 1936: 155. Change of combination.
Discodiaspis salicorniae; Balachowsky, 1953g: 33. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Chenopodiaceae: Arthrocnemum glaucum [Korone1934], Atriplex fructicosa [Balach1953g], Atriplex portulacoides [Korone1934], Atriplex sp. [GomezM1946], Salicornia fruticosa [GomezM1928], Salicornia macrostachya [GomezM1968], Salicornia sp. [GomezM1965], Suaeda fruticosa [Korone1934], Suaeda maritima [Rungs1935]. Thymelaeaceae: Thymelaea hirsuta [Martin1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Greece [Korone1934]; Morocco [Rungs1935]; Spain [GomezM1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Balachowsky (1953g) and Gómez-Menor Ortega (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very convex, adult female orange. Exuviae is subcentral or off-center, yellow, but often white and poorly visible (Koroneos, 1934).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1965: 102 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis of Spain]; Balachowsky 1953g: 754 (female) [Key to species of Discodiaspis of the Palearctic Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1935b [distribution, host: 260]; Balach1949 [taxonomy: 109]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 754-758]; Balach1970 [taxonomy: 161]; BenDov1974c [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 247]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 110]; GomezM1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 346-350]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-133]; GomezM1946 [distribution, host: 73]; GomezM1948 [distribution, host: 74]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 49]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 8, 11]; GomezM1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102, 103-104]; GomezM1968 [distribution, host: 547]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-89, 91]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 155]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 52]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Muntin1968a [taxonomy: 423]; Rungs1935 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 280-282].
Ductofrontaspis Young & HuNOMENCLATURE:
Ductofrontaspis Young & Hu, 1981: 212. Type species: Ductofrontaspis huangyangensis Young & Hu.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender. Disc pores present on top of head, each disc with 3-4 small pores in central region. Antenna with 2 setae. Anterior spiracles with disc pores. Pygidial lobes 2 pairs. Marginal gland spines of pygidium well developed. Marginal macroducts on pygidium greatly enlarged. Dorsal ducts arranged in rows on abdominal segments. Perivulvar pores in 5 groups (Young & Hu, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: Ductofrontaspis is close to Paralepidosaphes, but differs in having disc pores present on top of head (Young & Hu, 1981).
CITATIONS: Tao1999 [distribution, taxonomy: 83]; YoungHu1981 [distribution, distribution, taxonomy: 212].
Ductofrontaspis garciniae Young & HuNOMENCLATURE:
Ductofrontaspis garciniae Young & Hu, 1981: 209. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Cheli, on Garcinia sp., 08/04/1955. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Guttiferae: Garcinia sp. [YoungHu1981]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [YoungHu1981]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young & Hu (1981).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, 1.15-1.56 mm in length, broadest about the 1st abdominal segment, 0.44-0.45 mm wide; with many small dermal points and with 2 disc pores on top of head (Young & Hu, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: Ductofrontaspis garciniae is similar to D. jingdongensis, but differs by many small dermal points on top of head, and by dorsal ducts on abdominal segments II-IV arranged in double rows (Young & Hu, 1981).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 83-84]; YoungHu1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 209, 212-213].
Ductofrontaspis huangyangensis Young & HuNOMENCLATURE:
Ductofrontaspis huangyangensis Young & Hu, 1981: 209. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang, Huangyan, on unidentified shrub, 18/04/1960. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Ductofrontaspis huangyangennnnsis; Tao, 1999: 83. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Verbenaceae: Vitex sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [YoungHu1981]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young & Hu (1981).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, 0.96-1.43 mm long, 0.46-0.66 mm wide, broadest about the 1st abdominal segment; with 2-7 disc pores on top of head; antenna with 2 setae; thoracic spiracles 2 pairs (Young & Hu, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: Ductofrontaspis huangyangensis is close to D. jingdongensis, but is distinguished from the latter by the tubercles with macroduct opened at its apex and by the dorsal ducts being absent on 1st abdominal segment (Young & Hu, 1981).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 84]; YoungHu1981 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 209-210, 213].
Ductofrontaspis jingdongensis Young & HuNOMENCLATURE:
Ductofrontaspis jingdongensis Young & Hu, 1981: 210. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Jingdong, on unidentified shrub, 20/03/1957. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Verbenaceae: Vitex sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [YoungHu1981]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young & Hu (1981).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, 1.21-1.48 in length, 0.42-0.54 mm wide, widest at 2nd abdominal segment. 2-6 disc pores on top of head, antenna with 2 setae, thoracic spiracles 2 pairs, anterior spiracle with 2-7 disc pores (Young & Hu, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: Ductofrontaspis jingdongensis is close to D. garciniae, but can be distinguished by the small dermal points absent on top of head and additional transverse row of dorsal ducts absent in front of submarginal and submedian series of abdominal segments II and IV (Young & Hu, 1981).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 84]; YoungHu1981 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 210-211, 214].
Dungunia TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Dungunia Takagi, 1993: 4-5. Type species: Dungunia cnestis Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: In the adult female, this genus is hardly distinguishable from some species of Protodiaspis. It is recognized as distinct because of its host plant Connaraceae and first instar larval characters (Takagi, 1993).
KEYS: Takagi 1993: 24 (female) [A tentative key to the genera of the subtribe Protodiaspidina].
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4-5].
Dungunia cnestis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Dungunia cnestis Takagi, 1993: 3-4. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Terengganu, Kuala Dungun, on Cnestis palala, 18/07/1990. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 90ML257. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust.
HOST: Connaraceae: Cnestis palala [Takagi1993].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female scale largely composed of thin, translucent exuvial casts, with a short white secretory part behind. Male scale with secretory part white, thin, elongate and slightly carinate medially. Adult female body plump, ovoid with both ends rounded; segmentation indistinct (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-4].
Duplachionaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 307. Type species: Chionaspis graminis Green, by original designation.
Nelaspis Hall, 1946a: 526. Type species: Chionaspis exalbida Cockerell, by original designation. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 374.
Duprachionaspis; Chou, 1982: 57. Misspelling of genus name.
KEYS: Dooley & Evans 2012: 2-3 (female) [Key to the genera of armored scales in Australia similar to Protomorgania]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 10 (female) [Key to the genera of the subtribe Chionaspidina in North America]; Chen 1983: 33 (female) [Key to genera of the Phenacaspidina]; Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [as Nelaspis; Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 171 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 45 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 307 (female) [as Nelaspis; Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 171, 374, 376-377]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 164, 190]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 128, 132]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 58-59]; Chou1982 [p. 75]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 75]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 339-340]; DooleyEv2012 [taxonomy: 2]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 48]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-45]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:45]; Ferris1954 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 42]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 516, 526, 542, 545]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 307]; Mamet1951 [taxonomy: 229]; Mamet1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 251]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 64, 129]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 7-8]; Takagi1961 [host, taxonomy: 16-17]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1963e [distribution: 121]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 38-39]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 63]; Varshn2005 [catalogue: 163]; Willia1955 [taxonomy: 140]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 223]; YuSu2012 [description, distribution: 63-67].
Duplachionaspis africana MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis africana Munting, 1977: 9. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Villiersdorp, on Tetraria thermalis, 10/04/1967, by A. Boonzaaier. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 2807/5. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Cyperaceae: Tetraria thermalis [Muntin1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female broadening posteriorly, about 2.3 mm long, uniformly smooth texture, without transverse striations, white, with pale yellow exuviae at anterior end. Male scale parallel-sided, with strong median keel, about 1 mm long, white. Adult female fusiform, 1.1-1.5 mm long, prosoma membranous at maturity. Second instar exuviae without any submedial pygidial ducts. First instar exuviae with five-segmented antennae and the terminal segment non-annulate. Cephalic margin notched between antennae and paired dorsocephalic ducts absent (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis africana closely resembles D. cymbopogoni, but differs in that the dorsosubmedian ducts are more numerous, macroducts are always present submarginally on segment I and the perivulvar pores are also more numerous. The adult female also resembles that of D. graminella, but in D. graminella the pygidial gland spines are always single (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 9].
Duplachionaspis androkae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis androkae Mamet, 1959a: 434-435. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Androka, on Aloe sp., ?/05/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 563. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Mamet1959a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, convex, pure white; exuviae terminal. Male scale carinated, white. Adult female elongate oval, broadest across the metathorax and first abdominal segment, membranous throughout (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 128]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 380, 434-435]; Muntin1977 [taxonomy: 22]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis arthrocnemi (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis arthrocnemi Lindinger, 1911: 354. Type data: TURKEY: Berat, on Arthrochemum macrostachyum. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany; type no. 739. Described: female.
Phenacaspis arthrocnemi; MacGillivray, 1921: 344. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis arthrocnemi; Borchsenius, 1966: 128. Change of combination.
HOST: Chenopodiaceae: Arthrocnemum macrostachyum [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Turkey [Lindin1911].
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, widening to the rear, 1.3 mm long, 0.80 mm wide; exuviae apical, light yellow; second stage exuviae 0.7 mm long, 0.4 mm wide (Lindinger, 1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Balachowsky (1954e) states that Duplachionaspis arthrocnemi may well be a junior synonym of D. noaeae and Ferris (1956) supports this.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 344 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 380]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 15-16]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 128]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 247-248]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 354]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 362]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis asparagi (Laing & Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis asparagi Laing & Cockerell, 1929: 1-2. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Umzumbi, 16 miles N.E. of Port Shepstone, on Asparagus sp., by R.B. Cowles. Holotype female. Type depository: New York: American Museum of Natural History, Department of Entomology Collection, New York, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis asparagi; Hall, 1946a: 516, 548. Change of combination.
HOST: Liliaceae: Asparagus sp. [LaingCo1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [LaingCo1929].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, 1-1.3 mm long. Second instar exuviae without submedian pygidial ducts. First instar exuviae with five segmented antennae and terminal segment non-annulate. Paired dorsocephalic ducts present. Cephalic margin notched between antennae (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis asparagi is close to D. natalensis and D. stanotophri, but may be distinguished from both in that the terminal antennal segment of the first instar exuviae is non-anulate (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 9 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 516 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 388, 392]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 128]; Cocker1936 [distribution: 156]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 516, 548]; LaingCo1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-2]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9, 11-12]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis bara MametNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis bara Mamet, 1959a: 435-437. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ambila Lemaitso, on unidentified Gramineae, ?/03/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 447. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae [Mamet1959a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, broadest behind, dirty white, very thin, somewhat translucent, low convex, exuviae terminal; larval exuviae shiny, colorless, transparent. Adult female elongate, widest across metathorax, 1 mm long, derm membranous throughout (Mamet, 1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis bara is close to D. erianthi from which it is separable by the shape and size of the lobes, the more numerous ducts on the second and third abdominal segments submargially and the fewer gland spines on the second abdominal segment (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 129]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 435-437]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis berlesii (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis berlesii Leonardi, 1898b: 117-118. Type data: ITALY: Portici, on Asparagus acutifolia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis berlesei; Lindinger, 1907a: 19. Misspelling of species name.
Duplachionaspis arthrocnemi; Lindinger, 1912b: 362. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 380.
Phenacaspis berlesii; MacGillivray, 1921: 352. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus berlesei; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Polyaspis berlesei; Lindinger, 1935: 131. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Polyaspis) berlesei; Fulmek, 1943: 23. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis berlesei; Bodenheimer, 1949: 117. Misspelling of species name.
Duplachionaspis Berlesei; Balachowsky, 1954e: 387. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis longiclavae [Balach1928d], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Balach1930e], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Balach1928d], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998].
HOSTS: Chenopodiaceae: Arthrocnemum macrostachyum [Bodenh1949], Salsole sp. [Bodenh1949]. Cneoraceae: Cneorum pulverulentum [Bodenh1949]. Fabaceae: Cytisus filipes [Bodenh1949]. Labiatae: Micromeria sp. [Bodenh1949]. Liliaceae: Asparagus acutifolius [Leonar1898b], Asparagus aphyllus [BenDov2012], Asparagus horridus [Balach1928a]. Poaceae: Andropogon hirtum [Korone1934], Arundo plinii [Korone1934], Cartaeria selloana [Bodenh1949], Cortaderia selloana [Korone1934]. Rubiaceae: Plocama pendula [Bodenh1949]. Rutaceae: Ruta oreojasma [Bodenh1949].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Leonar1920]; Canary Islands [Leonar1920]; Corsica [Balach1931a]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; France [Balach1930e, Foldi2001]; Greece [Korone1934]; Israel [Bodenh1935]; Italy [Leonar1898b, LongoMaPe1995]; Jordan [Bodenh1924]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Sardinia [PellizFo1996]; Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Garcia1930]; Tunisia [Balach1954e]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
STRUCTURE: Female scale mussel-shaped, long and straight, slightly convex, white; exuviae yellowish. Adult female oblong oval, wine-red (Bodenheimer, 1924).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 378 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill]; MacGillivray 1921: 352 [as Phenacaspis berlesii; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Leonardi 1920: 226 (female) [as Chionaspis berlesei; Key to Italian species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1928a [distribution, host: 140]; Balach1928d [biological control, distribution, host: 293, 295, 304]; Balach1930e [biological control, distribution, host: 218]; Balach1931a [distribution, host: 99]; Balach1933e [distribution, host: 4]; Balach1946 [distribution: 212]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378, 387-390]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Bodenh1924a [distribution, host: 124]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 244, 247]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 217]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 117-119]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15-16]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host: 114]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 14]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Costan1937 [distribution, host: 237]; Costan1950 [p. 10]; Danzig1993 [p. 345]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 214]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 84]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 151]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 23, 60]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 54, 70]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214, 222-224]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 50]; GomezM1958a [distribution: 6]; Hall1925 [taxonomy: 14, 21]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51-52, 56]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; LaingCo1929 [taxonomy: 2]; Leonar1898b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 117]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226, 236-238]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 19]; Lindin1909b [distribution, host: 221]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host: 78]; Lindin1914 [distribution: 244]; Lindin1931 [description, distribution, host: 119-120]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1943a [distribution, taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1943b [distribution, taxonomy: 224]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 271, 288-294]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332, 352]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 193]; Marcha1909 [distribution, host: 872]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 53]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 204, 261]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 29]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Silves1939 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 793]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174].
Duplachionaspis boquetensis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis boquetensis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-281. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Boquete, on the plateau known as the Salto, on undetermined Gramineae, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Poliaspis boquetensis; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: Duplachionaspis boquetensis occurs on leaves of host (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, slender, white. Male scale similar but smaller and very faintly carinate. Adult female about 1.25 mm long, slender, segments not lobed laterally, derm membranous throughout except for the pygidium (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis boquetensis is distinguished by the complete absence of any suggestion of the 3rd pair of lobes, the arrangement of the pygidial gland spines singly, the fact that the submarginal ventral setae of the pygidium are not enlarged, the arrangement of the dorsal pygidial ducts in rows and the fact that they are all the same size (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-281]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; Takagi1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 17]; Takagi1963e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis brevipora MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis brevipora Munting, 1969: 125-126. Type data: NAMIBIA: Windhoek, on Aloe sp., 28/08/1968, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Muntin1969]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, rough, not broadening conspicuously posteriorly, white, about 2.5 mm long. Male puparium elongate, parallel-sided with a median keel, white, about 1 mm long. Adult female broadly fusiform when mounted, membranous at maturity and about 1.2 mm long. First instar exuviae with 5-segmented antennae; terminal segment non-annulate. Dorsosubmarginal cephalic ducts present (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis brevipora is similar to D. exalbida, but differs in having groups of short ventral microducts submarginally on the thoracic segments. Though this seemed to be a minor character at first, an examination of type material and several lots of D. exalbida show that they are without exception absent (Munting, 1969).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125-126]; Muntin1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 8, 15]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis circularis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis circularis Munting, 1977: 12-13. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Ladismith, on Aloe sp., 11/01/1969, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3403/1. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Muntin1977]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, subcircular, about 2 mm in diameter, but with 1st and 2nd instar exuviae projecting from margin. Male puparium, parallel-sided, white, about 1 mm long, secretory portion of a velvety texture. Adult female elongate, broadest across mesothorax, about 1.3 mm long. First instar with five segmented antennae, terminal segment non-annulate. Cephalic margin notched and paired dorsocephalic ducts absent (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 9 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [chemical control: 231]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9, 12-13].
Duplachionaspis cryptoloba MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis cryptoloba Munting, 1977: 12-15. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Ceres, on grass, 09/05/1962, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 1263/2. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae [Muntin1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, broadest across the middle, secretory portion transversely striate; about 2 mm long. Male cover white, parallel-sided, tricarinate, about 1.3 mm long. Adult female elongate, fusiform, 0.9-1.2 mm long, prosoma membranous at maturity. Second instar exuviae with dorsosubmedium ducts on segments iv to vii. First instar exuviae with 5-segmented antennae, apical segment non-annulate. Cephalic margin notched. Paired dorsocephalic ducts absent (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 12-15].
Duplachionaspis cymbopogoni MametNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis cymbopogoni Mamet, 1959: 127. Type data: REUNION: Plaine des Affouches, on Cymbopogon excavatus, ?/05/1957, by J. Bosser. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Cymbopogon excavatus [Mamet1959].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Reunion [Mamet1959, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, broadest across its middle, pure white, exuviae towards one end. Exuviae dark brown to blackish, about 2.5 mm long. Male scale pure white, felted, tricarinate, with larval exuviae dark brown to blackish and terminal. Adult female membranous throughout except for the central area of the pygidium dorsally, 1.3 mm long (Mamet, 1959).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis cymbopogoni is close to D. stenotaphri (=D. natalensis) from which it is separated by the constant occurrence of large dorsal ducts with oval openings on the 4th segment submedially, the absence or at the most the presence of only 1 or 2 small dorsal ducts on the 2nd segment submedianally, the outer lobule of the 2nd lobes which is poorly developed and the 2nd lobes which are normally more prominent than the median lobes (Mamet, 1959).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Mamet1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124, 127]; Muntin1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 65].
Duplachionaspis displicata MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis displicata Munting, 1977: 15. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Ladysmith, on Aloe sp., ?/08/1968, by M.J. Jacobs. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3265/3. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Muntin1977]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white with pale yellow apical exuviae, slender, about 2.3 mm long. Male puparium white, parallel-sided, about 1 mm long. Adult female oval, 0.8-1.2 mm long, prosoma membranous. Second instar female with submedian ducts on segments V to VI and sometimes segment VII. First instar larvae with antennae five segmented and terminal segment non-annulate. Paired dorsocephalic ducts present (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: The presence of the marginal group of microducts anterior to the level of the anterior spiracles and the coalescing submedian and submarginal ducts on segment vi serve to separate this species from all its congeners. The former character is also present in D. brevipora described from South West Africa, while the latter places it near D. welwitschiae from Angola (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 15-16].
Duplachionaspis divergens (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis graminis divergens Green, 1899a: 123. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Andropogon nardus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis graminis var. near divergens Green, 1916e: 58. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Darwin, on grasses. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Green, 1937: 316.
Duplachionaspis divergens; MacGillivray, 1921: 334. Change of combination.
Chionaspis miscantheae Kuwana, 1928: 10-11. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Yokaichi, on Miscanthus sinensis, 02/09/1923, by K. Tanaka. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 39-41.
Greenaspis graminis divergens; Ferris, 1952a: 7. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis miscanthi; Takahashi & Tachikawa, 1956: 10. Misspelling of species name.
Duplachionaspis miscantheae; Takagi, 1961: 17. Change of combination.
Greenaspis divergens; Borchsenius, 1966: 108. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA : Aphytis lingnanesis [EvansHo2007]. Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [Sankar1984], Encarsia citrina (Craw) [EvansHo2007], Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus mysorensis [Sankar1984], Parablastothrix indicus [ShafeeAlAg1975], Thomsonisca amathus [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Agrostis alba [Hall1922], Agrostis verticillata [Hall1923], Andropogon nardus [Green1899a], Andropogon sorghum [Fletch1919], Andropogon sp. [Borchs1966], Arundo donax [Hall1923], Arundo formosana [Takagi1970], Arundo pliana [Balach1927], Bambusa sp. [Tao1999], Cymbopogon sp. [DanzigPe1998], Imperata cylindrica koenigii [TakahaTa1956], Miscanthus sinensis [Kuwana1928], Miscanthus sp. [Takagi1961], Paspalum notatum Flugge [EvansHo2007], Paspalum scrobiculatum [Hoffma1927], Saccharum sp. [PruthiRa1942], Spinifex littoreus [Takaha1929], Stenatophrum secundatum Kuntze [EvansHo2007], Zoysia matrella [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1916e]). Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [EvansHo2007], Florida [Miller2005], Texas [EvansHo2007]). Neotropical: Colombia [EvansHo2007]; Venezuela [EvansHo2007]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Wu1935]); India (Himachal Pradesh [Green1908a], Karnataka [ShafeeAlAg1975], Punjab [Green1908a], Tamil Nadu [PruthiRa1942]); Sri Lanka [Green1899a]; Taiwan [Takaha1929]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Trabut1910]; China [Hoffma1927] [FangWuXu2001]; Egypt [Hall1922]; Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1928], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); South Korea.
BIOLOGY: It is reported that females lay an average of 130 eggs and that 9 generations/year occur with an average generation time of 39 days. (Evans & Hodges, 2007)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1928) and Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, fusiform, 1.46 mm long and 0.64 mm wide. Free segments each slightly produced laterally; pygidium nearly triangular, weakly sclerotized (Takagi, 1961). Adult female cover flat, broadly oyster-shell shaped; skins marginal, yellow to brown. Male over elongate, white, felted with 3 faint, logitudinal ridges; shed skins light yellow (Yu & Su 2013)
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis divergens is easily diagnosed by its divergent median lobes (Takagi, 1961). The scale cover of the adult female resembles that of false oleander scale (Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli Cooley)in that they appear as small white "tear drops" that are about 3 mm long. Male covers are much smaller and appear as white tricarinate tubes. (Evans & Hodges, 2007)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: D. divergens has been reported as a minor pest of sugarcane in India and Columbia. Sugarcane growers usually implement natural control strategies and seldom use pesticides. (Evans & Hodges, 2007)
KEYS: Yu & Suh 2012: 66 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from East Palaearctic Region]; Chen 1983: 59 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Chou 1982: 75 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Duplachionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [as Chionaspis miscantheae; Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 334 [Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 49]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 181]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 59-60]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75, 77-78]; Chou1986 [illustration: 468]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; EvansHo2007 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 392-393]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 7]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 296]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Green1908a [distribution, host: 37]; Green1916e [distribution, host: 58]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 316]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28-29]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-21, 44]; Hall1927b [taxonomy: 167]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 74]; HowellTi1975a [taxonomy: 433]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 286-287]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 10-11]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334]; Malump2012c [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration,: 23-30]; Mamet1959a [taxonomy: 439]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Muntin1977 [taxonomy: 22]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 89]; PruthiRa1942 [distribution, economic importance, host: 87]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; RaoSa1969 [distribution, economic importance, host: 338]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 23]; ShafeeAlAg1975 [biological control, distribution, host: 105]; ShuklaTr1979 [distribution, economic importance: 535]; Tachik1955 [distribution: 58]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17-18]; Takagi1969a [distribution: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 39-41]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 16, 26, 73]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 31]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 10]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 89]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 46]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 63]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 63]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, distribution, host: 163]; Wu1935 [distribution: 200]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 230, 239]; YuSu2012 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-67].
Duplachionaspis erianthi BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis herbae Archangelskaya, 1937: 136. Type data: UZBEKISTAN: Samarkand, on Erianthus ravennae, 1927. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 340. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Homonym of Chionaspis herbae Green 1899a; discovered by Borchsenius, 1949b: 345.
Duplachionaspis erianthi; Borchsenius, 1949b: 345. Change of combination and replacement name for Chionaspis herbae Archangelskaya 1937.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Erianthus purpurascens [Borchs1949b], Erianthus raveli [BazaroSh1971], Erianthus ravennae [Archan1937], Sorghum halepense [DoganlYiBe2010].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [DanzigPe1998]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Borchs1949b]; Turkey [DoganlYiBe2010]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998]; Uzbekistan [Borchs1949b].
BIOLOGY: Duplachionaspis erianthi overwinters in the egg stage under the scale cover of the female. Crawlers are observed in August. (Doganlar, et al., 2010)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations by Borchsenius (1949b) and Bazaov & Shmelev (1971).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, widened toward posterior end, white; exuviae yellow, projecting from the narrow end of the scale, 2.9 mm long. Adult female narrow (Borchsenius, 1949b).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis erianthi is near D. herbae (Borchsenius, 1949b).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 339 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 378 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill].
CITATIONS: AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 151]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 136]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378, 384-387]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107-109]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 345-346]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Chen1983 [taxonomy: 61, 93]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 339, 340-341]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; DoganlYiBe2010 [biological control,, distribution, host: 231-236]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Mamet1959a [taxonomy: 437]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis eritreana WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis eritreana Williams, 1955: 140-142. Type data: ERITREA: Asmara, on Aloe eru, 07/03/1948. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in Musée Royal du Congo Belge.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Aloe eru [Willia1955], Aloe sp. [Willia1955]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [Willia1955].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1955).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, smooth, elongate, broadened posteriorly. Exuviae pale brown. Male scale very small, 0.7 mm long, the posterior end pointed, with distinct median carina. Adult female 1.0 long and 0.55 mm wide, elongate oval and widest across the metathorax. Pygidium with two pairs of lobes (Williams, 1955).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis eritreana is close to D. humilis, but differs in having less numerous dorsal ducts. Furthermore in E. eritreana there is always a pair of gland spines lateral to the second lobes whilst in D. humilis the gland spines are longer and there is only a single spine lateral to the second lobes (Williams, 1955).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Willia1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-142].
Duplachionaspis exalbida (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis exalbida Cockerell, 1902g: 112. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Howick, on Aloe sp., by C. Fuller. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 38. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 3872. Described: female.
Duplachionaspis exalbida; MacGillivray, 1921: 333. Change of combination.
Nelaspis exalbida; Hall, 1946a: 526. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis griseus [RosenDe1979]. Encyrtidae: Zaomma cestus [Prinsl1979].
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Cocker1902g], Aloe variegata [Green1926a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [DeLottNa1955]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; South Africa [Cocker1902g]; Zimbabwe [Hall1929a]. Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [Green1926a]).
BIOLOGY: Duplachionaspis exalbida often becomes extremely numerous on aloes particularly the larger species and may completely cover them. However, the plant is seldom killed by such an infestation (Munting, 1977).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Male covers parallel-sided, white, smooth or fairly carinate. Adult female elongate, slightly fusiform, about 1.1 mm long, prosoma membranous. Second instar exuviae with numerous dorsosubmedian pygidial ducts. First instar exuviae with numerous dorsosubmedian pygidial ducts. First instar exuviae with 5-segmented antennae, apical segment non-annulate. Cephalic margin notched and paired dorsocephalic ducts present (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 526 [as Nelaspis exalbida; Key to species of Nelaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 333 (female) [as Duplachionaspis exalbida; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Almeid1971 [distribution, host: 10]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 376]; BoratyWi1964 [taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132-133]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 230-231]; Cocker1902g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; DeLottNa1955 [distribution, host: 54]; Ferris1954 [description, taxonomy: 42]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Green1926a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 181-182]; Hall1929a [distribution, host: 365]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 526, 549]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 10]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333]; Malump2012c [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, economic importance: 28-29]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 15, 17-18]; Prinsl1979 [biological control, distribution: 73]; RosenDe1979 [biological control: 762]; SalisbMaHa2011 [host: 218]; Sassce1920 [taxonomy: 184]; Willia1955 [taxonomy: 140].
Duplachionaspis fujianensis ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis fujianensis Chen, 1983: 60. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Wuyi Mountain, on undetermined tree, 1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Chen1983]).
STRUCTURE: Adult female is fusiform, widest across the 1st abdominal segment. Median lobes are very small, basal end unfused, inner margins parallel, widest part of each lobe just as wide as the adjacent marginal ducts (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis fujianensis resembles D. ugandae Hall, but differs in the form of the body and median lobes (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Yu & Suh 2012: 66 [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from East Palaearctic Region]; Chen 1983: 59 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 60, 93]; Hua2000 [distribution: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution: 84]; YuSu2012 [taxonomy: 66].
Duplachionaspis graminella (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis graminis; Archangelskaya, 1937: 136. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 130. Notes: Archangelskaya's 1937 treatment of Chionaspis graminis Green is actually a misidentification of Duplachionaspis phragmitidis (=D. graminella).
Chionaspis graminella Borchsenius, 1949b: 348. Type data: UZBEKISTAN: Bukhara, on Phragmites communis, 17/10/1927, by A. Archangelskaya. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 340. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis phragmitidis Borchsenius, 1949b: 348-349. Type data: Uzbekistan: Bukhara, on Phragmites communis, 1927, by A. Archangelskaya. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1970: 1020.
Duplachionaspis phragmitidis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 384. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis graminella; Balachowsky, 1954e: 392. Change of combination.
Chionaspis graminellus Alimdzhanov & Bronshtein, 1956: 151. Unjustified emendation. Notes: This change in spelling is not technically an emendation, according to the ICZN, but rather is an incorrect change in ending for gender agreement.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus mysorensis [Myarts1982b], Asitus phragmitidis [Myarts1982b].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Erianthus purpurescens [Danzig1972c], Panicum turgidum [Matile1988], Phragmites australis [Myarts1982b], Phragmites communis [Borchs1949b], Phragmites communis [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [AlimdzBr1956]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Danzig1972c, KozarFoZa1996]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1988]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Borchs1949b] (\); Turkmenistan (Charadzhou Oblast [Myarts1982b]); Uzbekistan [Borchs1949b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1949b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, spindle-shaped, white; exuviae yellow or brown. Adult female oval, pygidium broad (Borchsenius, 1949b).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 339 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 105 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 379 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill]; Borchsenius 1950b: 194 (female) [as Chionaspis graminella; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Borchsenius 1950b: 194 (female) [as Chionaspis phragmitidis; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AlimdzBr1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 151]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 136]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 379, 384, 392-394]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 105-107]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 348-349]; Borchs1950b [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 194-195]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129, 130]; Danzig1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 1020]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host: 582]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 339, 340, 342-343]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248-249]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 20]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Matile1988 [distribution, host: 25]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 32]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 29]; MoghadTa2010 [description: 34]; Muntin1977 [taxonomy: 9]; Myarts1982b [biological control, distribution, host: 146, 154]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis graminis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis graminis Green, 1896: 3. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Andropogon sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Duplachionaspis graminis; MacGillivray, 1921: 334. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus graminis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Poliaspis graminis; Lindinger, 1943b: 224. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus fuscipennis [Garcia1912], Aphelinus mytilaspidis [Green1899a], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aspidiotiphagus citrinis [DeSilv1961]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus chionaspidis [DeSilv1961], Anthemus chionaspidis [Green1899a], Encyrtus chionaspidis [Green1899a].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Andropogon nardus [Green1899a], Andropogon sp. [Green1896], Magnifera indica [Cheo1935], Zoisia matrella [Wu1935].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1896]. Palaearctic: China [Cheo1935]; Japan? [Cheo1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, elongate, moderately dilated behind, ventral scale well developed and often coming away unbroken. First exuviae pale transparent fulvous; Adult female elongate, reddish-orange. Exuviae of male dark brown. Adult male bright orange-red, with 3 knobbed digitules on feet (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: Archangelskaya's 1937 treatment of Chionaspis graminis Green is actually a misidentification of Duplachionaspis phragmitidis (=D. graminella).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 334 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis graminis; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 42]; Ashmea1900 [biological control: 402]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 376]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 104]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host: 186]; Borchs1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 165]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Buxton1920 [biological control, distribution: 297]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 96]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 6]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 119]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 48]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-45]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 7]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 23]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 84]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 54, 70]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 3]; Green1899a [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 123-124]; Green1937 [description, distribution, host: 316]; Hall1923 [taxonomy: 20]; Hall1946 [taxonomy: 65]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 516]; HowardAs1895 [biological control: 635, 637, 643]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 15]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 26-27]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334]; MacMil1935 [distribution: 461]; Mani1938 [biological control, distribution: 94]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 63]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Morley1909 [biological control: 257]; Muntin1977 [taxonomy: 7]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 204]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1925a [biological control, distribution: 246]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 16]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 478]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 39, 41]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Takaha1929 [taxonomy: 73]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 105]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 200]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 241].
Duplachionaspis hova (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Nelaspis hova Mamet, 1951: 252-253. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Andringitra, rocaille 2.050 m, on leaf of Aloe sp., by J. Millot. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 79. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis hova; Mamet, 1962: 161. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Aloe ibitensis [Mamet1954, Borchs1966], Aloe sp. [Mamet1951]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1951].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1951).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, dilated behind; exuviae terminal, larval exuviae shiny. Male scale similar to female, but smaller and not carinated. Adult female elongate, very dark to black, derm membranous (Mamet, 1951).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis hova is close to D. humilis from which is differs by the presence of more numerous dorsal pores and by the shape of the lobes (Mamet, 1951).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 133]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; Mamet1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 229, 252, 253]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 19]; Mamet1962 [distribution, host: 161]; Willia1955 [distribution, taxonomy: 140].
Duplachionaspis humilis (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis humilis Brain, 1919: 231. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on Aloe sp., 19/09/1914, by C.K. Brain. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 38. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 149/2.
Phenacaspis humilis; MacGillivray, 1921: 351. Change of combination.
Nelaspis humilis; Hall, 1946a: 526. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis albicus Williams, 1962a: 130-132. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Somerset East, on Asparagus sp., 02/03/1960, by A.H. de Vries. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 4644. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Munting, 1977: 20.
Duplachionaspis humilis; Williams, 1962a: 132. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis albicans; Giliomee, 1966: 423. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Aloe ficksburgiensis [Muntin1977], Aloe marlothii [Muntin1977], Aloe parvibraeteata [Muntin1977], Aloe sp. [Brain1919], Asparagus racemosus [Muntin1977], Asparagus sp. [Willia1962a], Asparagus sp. [Muntin1977], Asparagus striatus [Muntin1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Lesotho [Muntin1977]; Mozambique [Almeid1973]; South Africa [Brain1919] [Willia1962a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1977). Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1962a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, broadening considerably posteriorly, smooth, not transversely striate; about 1.8 mm long. Male scale white with a faint to well developed median keel, parallel-sided, exuviae golden-yellow, about 1 mm long. Adult female broadly oval, typically broadest across mesothorax. Second instar exuviae with submedian dorsopygidial ducts present. First instar exuviae with 5-segmented antennae, apical segment non-annulate. Cephalic margin notched between antennae. Paired dorsocephalic present (Munting, 1977).Female scale white, smooth, elongate, broadened posteriorly, exuviae terminal, 1.8 mm long. Exuviae of second stage brown, but covered in whitish wax. Exuviae of first stage brown. Male scale elongate with a median carina, white; terminal exuviae brown, about 1 mm long. Adult female elongate oval, about 1.2 mm long, membranous except for pygidium (Williams, 1962a).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis albicus is close to D. humilis, but D. albicus differ in having the gland spines shorter than the median lobes and arranged in pairs on some of the segments; the median lobes are not so divergent and the submedian ducts are always scattered (Williams, 1962a).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 526 [as Nelaspis humilis; Key to species of Nelaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 350 [as Phenacaspis humilis; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Almeid1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 376]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 128, 133]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231]; Ferris1954 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 526, 550]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 351]; Mamet1951 [taxonomy: 253]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1969 [host, taxonomy: 128]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 18-20]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Willia1955 [taxonomy: 140, 142]; Willia1962a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-132]; Willia1962a [taxonomy: 132].
Duplachionaspis maroccana BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis maroccana Balachowsky, 1954e: 390-392. Type data: MAROCCO: Plaine du Sous on Asparagus foeniculatus, 17/04/1932, by R. Maire. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Asparagus foeniculatus [Balach1954e], Asparagus horreus [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Morocco [Balach1954e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 379 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 379, 390-392]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis monodi (Rungs)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis noaeae monodi Rungs, 1943a: 108. Type data: CHAD: Dohone, on Panicum turgidum, 10/03/1940; LIBYA: Tibesti, on Panicum turgidum, 10/03/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female.
Duplachionaspis Monodi; Balachowsky, 1954e: 398. Change of combination and rank.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Aristida pungens [Balach1954e], Eragrostis barbinodis [Muntin1969], Panicum coloratum makarikariensis [Muntin1969], Panicum turgidum [Rungs1943a], Stipagrostis uniplumis [Muntin1969], Stipagrostis uniplumis neesii [Muntin1969].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Chad [Rungs1943a]; Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Muntin1969]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1954e]; Egypt [Balach1954e]; Libya [Rungs1943a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, broadening posteriorly, about 3 mm long, white, pale yellow exuviae. Male puparium elongate, parallel-sided, with a median carina and pale yellow exuviae; about 1.2 mm long. Adult female fusiform, membranous, about 1.8 mm long. First instar exuviae with 5-segmented antennae, terminal segment non-annulate, submarginal dorsocephalic ducts absent (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis monodi is close to D. noaeae, but differs in having the gland spines paired on segments VII and VIII, in the shape of the median lobes which are parallel sided. D. monodi also always has some smaller dorsal ducts submedially on segment VI which according to Balachowsky (1954e) are always absent on this segment in D. noaeae. D. monodi also resembles D. humilis but can be told by having paired gland spines on segments VII and VIII in the adult instar and in the absence of submarginal dorsocephalic ducts in the first instar. Finally, D. monodi is known exclusively from grasses while D. humilis is known exclusively from members of the Liliaceae (Munting, 1969).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa]; Balachowsky 1953g: 377 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 377, 398-401]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 44, 48]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 34-35]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126-128]; Muntin1977 [host, taxonomy: 8]; Rungs1943a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 108-109]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis natalensis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis spartinae natalensis Maskell, 1896b: 390-391. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Richmond, on "Rhodesian Lemon Grass," ?/05/1895, by A.M. Cooper. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 39. Type depository: Nelson: Cawthron Institute, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis stanotophri Cooley, 1899: 35. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Town, on Stanotophrum glabrum, by C.P. Lounsbury. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1985: 49.
Chionaspis natalensis; Fernald, 1903b: 220. Change of status.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) natalensis; Brain, 1920: 100. Change of combination.
Chionaspis graminis divergens; Hall, 1922: 28. Misidentification; discovered by Hall, 1923: 21.
Chionaspis graminis aegyptiaca Hall, 1923: 20. Type data: EGYPT: on Agrostis verticillata, A. donax and Imperata cylindrica. Described: female. Synonymy by Bodenheimer, 1935: 247.
Chionaspis stenotaphri; Laing & Cockerell, 1929: 2. Misspelling of species name.
Trichomytilus stanotophri; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Polyaspis stanotophri; Lindinger, 1936: 154. Change of combination.
Poliaspis stanotophri; Lepage, 1938: 416. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis stanotophri; Hall, 1946a: 516. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis herbicola Mamet, 1959a: 437-439. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Perinet, on undetermined Gramineae, ?/04/1951, by A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 515. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Munting, 1977: 22.
Duplachionaspis natalensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 130. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis stantophri; Tao, 1999: 84. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: mango scale [MunroFo1936].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Azotus chionaspidis [Fulmek1943]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus atomon [AbdRab1999], Aphytis mytilaspidis [AbdRab2001a], Encarsia lounsburyi [AbdRab2001a]. Encyrtidae: Metaphycus aspidiotinorum [Comper1940a].
HOSTS: Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [GomezM1948]. Cupressaceae: Cupressus sp. [AbdRab2001a]. Poaceae [Mamet1959a], Agrostis verticillata [Hall1923], Andropogon hirtum [Martin1983], Andropogon sischnaemum [Martin1983], Arundo donax [Hall1923], Arundo mauretanica [Balach1954e], Arundo sp. [Balach1954e], Chloris gayana [BenDov2012], Cymbopogon citratus [BenDov2012], Cymbopogon giganteus [Hall1929a], Cynodon dactylon [Moghad2013a], Eragrostis bipinnata [Balach1954e], Erianthus ravennae [Bodenh1924], Eriantus sp. [BenDov2012], Eulalia gracilis [Brain1919], Imperata cylindrica [Hall1923], Lygeum spartum [Balach1930c], Panicum parlatorei [Rungs1942], Phragmites australis [BenDov2012], Phragmites communis [GhabboMo1996], Saccharum officinarum [Tao1978], Saccharum ravennae [BenDov2012], Sporobolus fimbriatus [Muntin1977], Stanotaphrum glabrum [Cooley1899], Vossia cuspidata [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954]; Mauritania [BalachMa1970]; South Africa [Maskel1896b]; Zimbabwe [Hall1929a]. Neotropical: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro [CostaL1936]). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Takaha1936a]; Taiwan [Takaha1929]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Rungs1942]; China [Balach1954e]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Cyprus [Giliom1966]; Egypt [Hall1922, AbdRab2001a]; Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a]; Israel [Bodenh1924]; Morocco [Balach1954e]; Spain [Balach1935b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, white, about 2 mm long, exuviae golden-yellow not covered with wax. Male puparium parallel-sided, tricarinate, white, with golden-yellow exuviae, about 1.3 mm long. Adult female slender, fusiform, 1.5 to 1.6 mm long. Second instar larva with only marginal macroducts present, dorsosubmedian ducts absent. Fist instar exuviae with 5 or sometimes 6 segmented antennae, terminal segment long, annulate. Cephalic margin notched. Dorsocephalic ducts present or absent (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 59 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Chou 1982: 75 (female) [as Duplachionaspis stanotophri; Key to Chinese species of Duplachionaspis]; Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa]; Ezzat 1958: 244 (female) [as Chionaspis stantophri; Key to Egyptian species of Chionaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 379 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill]; Hall 1946a: 516 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 348 [Key to species of Phenacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 326 (female) [as Chionaspis stanotophri; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1118]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 174, 175, 176]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 43]; Balach1930c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Balach1935b [distribution: 262]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 376, 379, 395-398]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 44, 48]; BalachMa1970 [distribution, host: 1084]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 107]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 44]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-44]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 247]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1155]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 217]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130, 131]; Box1953 [distribution, host: 52]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 232-233, 237]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 100]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 142]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 59, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75, 76-77]; Chou1986 [illustration: 471]; Comper1940a [biological control: 26]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 35]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 190]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220, 226]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 25]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 343]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; GomezM1937 [taxonomy: 222]; GomezM1948 [distribution, host: 78]; GomezM1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-53]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 8, 14]; GomezM1968 [distribution, host: 548]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28-29]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-21]; Hall1925 [taxonomy: 21]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 37, 39]; Hall1927b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 166-167, 175]; Hall1929 [taxonomy: 345]; Hall1929a [distribution, host: 365]; Hall1931 [distribution, taxonomy: 288]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 516, 550, 552]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178, 180]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 20]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; LaingCo1929 [taxonomy: 2]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 416]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165, 166]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304, 326]; Mamet1954 [host, distribution: 17]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 437]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 53]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; Maskel1896b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 390-391]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 29]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 12, 20-22]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295]; PriesnHo1940 [biological control, distribution: 60]; RaoSa1969 [distribution, host: 338]; Rungs1942 [distribution, host: 109]; Schmid1940 [taxonomy: 197]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 178]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 39, 70]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 16, 73]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 104]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 31]; Takaha1936a [distribution, host: 218]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 84]; Wester1920 [host: 64]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239]; YuSu2012 [taxonomy: 66].
Duplachionaspis noaeae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis noaeae Hall, 1925: 13-14. Type data: EGYPT: on Noaea mucronata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis berlesei; Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1937: 244. Misidentification; discovered by Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1957: 50.
Chionaspis noaeae; Borchsenius, 1949d: 216. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis noeae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 379. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis noeae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 379. Misspelling of species name.
Duplachionaspis salsolae Borchsenius, 1964: 152. Type data: ARMENIA: near Megri, on Salsola sp., 21/05/1947, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 343.
COMMON NAME: goosefoot armored scale [Borchs1964].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus noeae [Yasnos1978]. Encyrtidae: Coccidencyrtus duplachionaspidis [Myarts1981a].
HOSTS: Chenopodiaceae: Anabasis articulata [Hall1927b], Arthrocnemon glaucum [Balach1934d], Arthrocnemum indicum [Balach1953g], Arthrocnemum macrostachium [Rungs1934], Haloxylon schweinfurtii [Hall1927b], Noaea mucronato [Hall1925], Salicornia fructicosa [Balach1929a], Salicornia sp. [Balach1953g], Salsola longifolia [GomezM1957], Salsola mucronata [Martin1983], Salsola sp. [Borchs1964], Salsola webbi [Martin1983], Suaeda fructicosa [GomezM1967G], Suaeda vera [CarnerPe1986]. Fabaceae: Ulex sp. [Martin1983]. Poaceae: Panicum turgidum [Hall1925].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1933c]; Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Canary Islands [GomezM1967G, MatileOr2001]; Egypt [Hall1925]; Georgia [Hadzib1983]; Iran [Moghad2013a]; Morocco [Balach1934d]; Spain [GomezM1957]; Tunisia [Balach1929a]; Turkmenistan [Myarts1981a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ezzat & Afifi (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate oval, 1.2 mm long and 0.9 mm wide, prepygidial segmentation well marked by lateral constrictions (Ezzat & Afifi, 1966).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 340 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Ezzat 1958: 244 (female) [as Chionaspis noaeae; Key to Egyptian species of Chionaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 378 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill]; Borchsenius 1950b: 196 (female) [as Chionaspis noaeae; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1929a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303-305]; Balach1933c [distribution, host: 254]; Balach1934d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378, 379-382]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 43, 48]; BenDov1976 [distribution: 204]; Bodenh1929b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 104, 109, 116]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 247, 260]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1155]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 7, 26, 217]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 216]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 196]; Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152, 153, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 340, 343-345]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 391-393]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 345]; GomezM1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 8, 11]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 96]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 125-126]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 275]; Hall1925 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-14]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 33-34, 37, 39]; Hall1927b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145-146]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 155]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 53]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 29]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 127]; Myarts1981a [biological control, distribution, host: 73]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Rungs1934 [distribution, host: 22]; Rungs1943a [distribution, host: 109]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Yasnos1978 [biological control: 488].
Duplachionaspis paolii (Malenotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis paolii Malenotti, 1916a: 351-353. Type data: SOMALIA: Bur Meldàc, on Mariscus chaetophyllus, 23/07/1913. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis paolii; Borchsenius, 1966: 130. Change of combination.
HOST: Cyperaceae: Mariscus chaetophyllus [Maleno1916a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Somalia [Maleno1916a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Malenotti (1916a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 516, 551]; Maleno1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 351-353]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis rotundata ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis rotundata Chen, 1983: 61-62. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, unknown host, ?/05/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Chen1983]).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female is usually with two short carinae on both sides of the back. Adult female is fusiform, with 4 rows of dorsal macroducts which are similar in shape and size with the marginal ducts, gland spines singlely in each situation (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis rotundata is similar to D. erianthi, but can be told by the following features: width of each median lobe is more or less equal to the adjacent marginal duct, 3rd and 2nd lobes are of equal width, metathorax and basal three abdominal segments are with intermediately lateral ducts, the parastigmatic pores and the ventral microducts are much fewer than the latter (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Yu & Suh 2012: 66 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from East Palaearctic Region]; Chen 1983: 59 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 61, 62, 93]; YuSu2012 [taxonomy: 66].
Duplachionaspis saccharifolii (Zehntner)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sacchari-folii Zehntner, 1897: 1-10. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Saccharum officinarum. Syntypes. Described: female and first instar. Illust. Notes: Type material lost (Zehntner, 1954).
Chionaspis saccharifolia; Earle, 1928: 173. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis saccharifolii; Dammerman, 1929: 252. Justified emendation.
Duplachionaspis saccharifolii; Takagi, 1971: 130. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis saccharjolii; Yu & Suh, 2012: 66. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cane leaf scale of Java [Dammer1929]; tubo scale [VelasqRi1969].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus melanophthalmus [SchildSc1928]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus simplex [Garcia1912].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Phragmites communis [Hua2000], Saccharum officinarum [Zehntn1897].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Zehntn1897]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999]); Philippines [Pember1963].
BIOLOGY: Females lay 100-130 eggs and the life cycle is completed in 24-30 days (RaoSa1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, oblong, 3-5 mm long. Adult female yellow. Adult males resemble those of Chionaspis madiunensis, but are smaller (Dammerman, 1929).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: On older sugarcane leaves D. saccharifolii causes yellowish red spots, younger leaves may be killed entirely (Dammerman, 1929).
KEYS: Yu & Suh 2012: 66 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from East Palaearctic Region]; Chen 1983: 59 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Chou 1982: 75 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; Box1953 [distribution, host: 52]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 62]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75-76]; Chou1986 [illustration: 470]; Dammer1929 [distribution, economic importance, host: 252]; Earle1928 [distribution, economic importance, host: 173]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 24]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 89]; Hazelh1929 [distribution, host: 3]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 151]; Kalsho1981 [distribution, host, illustration: 173]; Koning1908 [distribution, taxonomy: 4]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host: 304]; Pember1963 [distribution, host: 681]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 206]; Quaint1913 [distribution, host: 63]; RaoSa1969 [biological control, distribution, host: 337]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 759]; SchildSc1928 [biological control, distribution: 268]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 84]; vanDev1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246-248]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution: 196]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239]; YuSu2012 [taxonomy: 66]; Zehntn1897 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-18].
Duplachionaspis sansevieriae WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis sansevieriae Williams, 1955: 142-144. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Mkuzi Game Reserve, on Sansevieria sp., ?/08/1946, by H.K. Munro. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. SN2628. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in the Musée Royal du Congo Belge.
HOST: Liliaceae: Sansevieria sp. [Willia1955]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Almeid1971]; South Africa [Willia1955].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1955).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate with pale brown exuviae. Male scale small with parallel sides, posterior end rounded; with a median carina. Adult female 1.2 mm long and 0.6 mm wide. Pygidium with two pairs of lobes (Williams, 1955).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis sansevieriae is distinct due to the presence of a duct lying between the median lobes (Williams, 1955).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 8 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: Almeid1971 [distribution, host: 11]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130-131]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Muntin1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 8]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Willia1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 142-144].
Duplachionaspis sicula (Lupo)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis graminis sicula Lupo, 1938a: 294-299. Type data: ITALY: Sicily and Palermo, on Arundo plinii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis sicula; Balachowsky, 1954e: 382. Change of combination and rank.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Aphyllanthes monspessulanus [Balach1954e]. Poaceae: Arundo plinii [Lupo1938a], Lygeum spartum [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1954e]; France [Balach1954e, Foldi2001]; Italy [Lupo1938a]; Sicily [Lupo1938a, LongoMaPe1995].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lupo (1938a).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 378 (female) [Clef d'identification des espèces paléarctiques du g. Duplachionaspis Mc. Gill].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378, 382-384]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 107, 109]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 213]; Costan1950 [p. 11]; Costan1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 343]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249-250]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 271, 294-299]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis subtilis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis subtilis Borchsenius, 1958: 164-165. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, near Kwangchow, on unidentified Gramineae, 10/11/1954, by N. Shutova. Holotype female. Type depository: Beijing: Institute of Entomology, Academy of Sciences, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae [Borchs1958].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Borchs1958]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1958).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, narrow, white, about 3.5 mm long; exuviae yellow. Male scale white with clear longitudinal grooves, about 3.5 mm long and 0.3 mm wide; exuviae yellow. Adult female elongate, narrow, 1.3-1.5 mm long (Borchsenius, 1958).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis subtilis is close to D. graminis, but can be told from the latter by a broader mesothorax, the quantity of tubular glands and their shape and the shape of the middle lobes (Borchsenius, 1958).
KEYS: Yu & Suh 2012: 66 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from East Palaearctic Region]; Chen 1983: 59 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; Chou 1982: 75 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 164-165, 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 61-62, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75, 78]; Chou1986 [illustration: 469]; Danzig1993 [p. 340]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 84]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 240]; YuSu2012 [taxonomy: 66].
Duplachionaspis ugandae HallNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis ugandae Hall, 1946: 64-65. Type data: UGANDA: Kampala, on unidentified Gramineae, 20/11/1926, by H. Hargreaves. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae [Hall1946].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Hall1946].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female creamy white, moderately convex and much broadened posteriorly although the true shape is uncertain as scales were quite crowded together. Scale is thin, with faint transverse striations. Exuviae very pale brown and usually masked by a thin film of white secretionary matter. Ventral scale thin, white and entire, except for a small hole anteriorly in some individuals. Male scale small, white, parallel-sided, uncarinated, with pale brown exuviae. Adult female fusiform with sclerotization confined to the pygidial region (Hall, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis ugandae is distinguished by the nature of the pygidial lobes, which are squat and relatively inconspicuous (Hall, 1946).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 516 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Chen1983 [taxonomy: 60, 93]; Hall1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-65]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 516, 552]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130].
Duplachionaspis welwitschiae WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis welwitschiae Williams, 1955: 144-146. Type data: ANGOLA: Mossamedes Desert, on Welwitschia bainsii, ?/05/1949, by E. Dartevelle. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in the Musée Royal du Congo Belge.
HOST: Gnetaceae: Welwitschia bainsii [Willia1955].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [Willia1955].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams (1955).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate and broadened posteriorly. Exuviae pale brown. Male scale much smaller, only slightly broadened posteriorly and with a median carina. Adult female 1.0 mm long and 0.6 mm wide, fusiform, widest across the metathorax and first abdominal segment (Williams, 1955).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis welwitschiae can be distinguished in having a submarginal macroduct on the 6th segment which may be linked with the submedian ducts (Williams, 1955).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Muntin1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host: 130]; Willia1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140, 144].
Duplachionaspis zuluensis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis zuluensis Munting, 1977: 22-24. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Babanango, on Aloe sp., ?/11/1962. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 1421/1. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Muntin1977]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale relatively broad, about 2 mm long, of a uniformly smooth texture without transverse striations; white with pale yellow exuviae. Male cover parallel-sided, with a median keel; white. Adult female about 1 mm long, fusiform, prosoma entirely membranous. Second instar exuviae with submedian pygidial ducts at least on segment VI and usually also on segments V and IV. First instar exuviae with 5-segmented antennae and apical segment non-annulate. Cephalic margin notched. Paired dorsocephalic ducts present in male and female exuviae (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Duplachionaspis zuluensis resembles D. androkae, but as far as the adult female is concerned, may be distinguished from it in that the posterior spiracles have associated parastigmatic pores, in that gland tubercles are present on prepygidial abdominal segments and the metathorax, in having at least some pygidial segments with the gland spines paired and in that small dorsosubmedian ducts are absent on segment VI (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 9 (female) [Key to species of Duplachionaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9, 22-24].
Duplaspis GouxNOMENCLATURE:
Duplaspis Goux, 1937d: 229. Type species: Duplaspis fraxini Goux, by monotypy and original designation.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 168 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 18, 168, 299]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 103]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 11]; Goux1937d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 229]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 64].
Duplaspis fraxini GouxNOMENCLATURE:
Duplaspis fraxini Goux, 1937d: 229-231. Type data: FRANCE: Bessenay, on Fraxinus excelsior, ?/09/1936, by L. Goux. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Oleaceae: Fraxinus excelsior [Goux1937d].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: France [Goux1937d, Foldi2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Goux (1937d) and Balachowsky (1953g).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 299-301]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 103]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 11]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Goux1937d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 229-231]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 430].
Epidiaspis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis (Epidiaspis) Cockerell, 1899a: 398. Type species: Aspidiotus piricola Del Guercio. Subsequently designated by Fernald, 1903b: 250.
Cockerellaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 306. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-49.
Ambigaspis; Lindinger, 1937: 178. Incorrect synonymy.
Parapudaspis Borchsenius, 1964: 152. Type species: Parapudaspis zygophylli Borchsenius, by original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 385.
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular to oval, convex, usually white. Adult female pear-shaped to circular; disc pores associated with anterior spiracles, rarely lacking at posterior ones. Pygidium with well developed L1; L2 and L3 usually reduced or lacking; gland spines large, often with forked or curved tip; dorsal ducts scattered, of different sizes; perivulvar pores in 5 (rarely 7) groups (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1920) synonymized Epidiaspis with Diaspis, but later (1936) considered it valid. Takagi & Tippins (1972) discuss reasons for the validity of the genus.
KEYS: Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 327 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1971d: 838 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 166 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 332 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Zahradník 1952: 98 (female) [Schlüssel zur bestimmung der gattungen der Cechoslovakischen Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 47 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Borchsenius 1937a: 96 (female) [Key to genera]; Britton 1923: 360 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 306 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 166, 217]; Bodenh1924 [description, taxonomy: 22]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 29, 39]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 332]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 9]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 99]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 96, 101]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 193, 227]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 166, 208]; Borchs1964 [taxonomy: 152, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 179]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 157]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 222]; Britto1923 [taxonomy: 360]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 645, 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 838]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 385]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 255-256]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 250]; Ferris1920b [taxonomy: 44]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 49]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-31, SI-49]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:47]; Gill1997 [distribution, taxonomy: 137]; GomezM1957 [distribution, taxonomy: 96, 99]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 502, 507, 516-517, 5]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54, 79-80]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 499]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, taxonomy: 343]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 354]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182, 184]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 306, 318]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 67]; NarzikLu1966 [taxonomy: 33]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 176, 194]; Takagi2011 [taxonomy: 49]; TakagiTi1972 [taxonomy: 180]; Terezn1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 54, 57]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 98, 188].
Epidiaspis baccharidis (Townsend & Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis baccharidis Townsend & Cockerell, 1898: 179-180. Type data: MEXICO: Amecameca, on Baccharis glutinosa, 01/06/1897, by Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 1758. Described: female.
Epidiaspis baccharidis; Ferris, 1937: SI-50. Change of combination.
HOST: Asteraceae: Baccharis glutinosa [TownseCo1898].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [TownseCo1898].
STRUCTURE: Female scale broad, oyster-shell shaped, 2.0-2.5 mm long, 1.5-2.0 mm wide, flattened, exuviae at smaller end which corresponds to the hinge end of an oyster shell, leaving a whitish film on bark when detached. The underside of the scale is grayish. Outside surface of scale is wholly covered in all cases with a grayish-brown fungus. Male scale distinctly tricarinate, white, exuviae at one end, brownish-yellow. Adult female subcircular, tinged with brownish-yellow, three pairs of lobes, median largest (Townsend & Cockerell, 1898).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 321 (female) [as Diaspis bacchardis; Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 28]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 58]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-31, SI-50]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; Hall1941 [taxonomy: 230]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 321]; TownseCo1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179-180].
Epidiaspis ficifoliae HallNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis ficifoliae Hall, 1941: 228-230. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Acropolis, on Ficus sp., 13/06/1937. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Hall1941]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1941]. Palaearctic: Croatia [MastenSi2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1941).
STRUCTURE: Covers of female so covered with extraneous matter that they are difficult to distinguish from the bark of the host. They are broadly oval to subcircular and pale brown overlaid with a comparatively thick coating of whitish secretionary matter which is obscured by brown extraneous matter. Exuviae either marginal or very near the margin and brown. Ventral scale white and thin remaining attached to the host plant with the exception of the marginal portion which usually comes away with the dorsal scale when it is removed. Male covers elongate with parallel sides, white tinged with brown and with a golden yellow exuviae and faintly tricarinated. Adult female broadly oval with dermis membranous except for the pygidium (Green, 1941).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Hall1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 228-230]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 549]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119].
Epidiaspis gennadii (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis gennadii Leonardi, 1898b: 115. Type data: GREECE: on Pistacia terebinthus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Epidiaspis gennadiosi; Lindinger, 1912b: 265. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis gennadii; MacGillivray, 1921: 315. Change of combination.
Dinaspis gennadii; Özkök, 1940: 32. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis gennadii; Bodenheimer, 1949: 96. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia atlantica [BenDov2012], Pistacia lentiscus [Balach1954e], Pistacia mutica [Bodenh1924], Pistacia palestina [BenDov2012], Pistacia terebinthus [Leonar1898b], Pistacia vera [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Croatia [Davatc1958, MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [Davatc1958]; Greece [Leonar1898b]; Iran [Davatc1958, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a]; Israel [Bodenh1924]; Italy [Balach1954e]; Jordan [BenDov2006a]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Syria [Bodenh1927b]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Leonardi (1898b) and Bodenheimer (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale irregular circular, convex, pale yellow, with white irregular margin. Exuviae sub to excentric. Second larval skin shows about the shape of the adult animal and the notch on the back margin. Male scales oblong, narrow, with parallel longitudinal margins, white (Bodenheimer, 1924).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 219 (female) [Clef des espèces paléarctiques du g. Epidiaspis Ckll]; MacGillivray 1921: 315 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis gennadii; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 176]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 219, 223-226]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 46-47]; Bodenh1927b [distribution, host: 80]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 374, 375]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 248, 270]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 96, 98-99]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-9]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256]; Davatc1958 [distribution, host: 38, 148]; DavatcBa1956 [distribution, host: 105]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 231]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 151]; GomezM1928 [taxonomy: 346]; GomezM1937 [taxonomy: 201]; Hariri1972 [distribution, host: 146]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86-87, 91]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Leonar1898b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115]; Lindin1908 [taxonomy: 89, 94]; Lindin1912b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 265]; Lindin1930 [distribution, host: 102]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 134]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122, 147-152]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 315]; Maleno1916 [distribution, host: 315]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 32]; Ozkok1940 [distribution: 30, 32]; Panis1981 [distribution: 8]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 171]; Sassce1914 [distribution, host: 243]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222].
Epidiaspis leperii (Signoret)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis Leperii Signoret, 1869d: 437-438. Type data: FRANCE: on Prunus persica. Syntypes. Described: female. Notes: Type material assumed lost.
Diaspis ostreaeformis; Signoret, 1869d: 439. Misidentification; discovered by Del Guercio, 1894: 142.
Diaspis pyri Colvée, 1881b: li. Type data: SPAIN: from pear in pear orchard, ?/03/1881, by P. Colvée. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-49. Notes: Type material assumed lost. Borchsenius (1966) treated Diaspis pyri as an incertae sedis.
Aspidiotus piricola Del Guercio, 1894: 142-148. Type data: ITALY: on pear. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-51. Notes: Type material probably lost (Pellizzari Scaltriti, 1990, personal communication to Ben-Dov).
Aspidiotus pyricola; Berlese, 1896: 185. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspis fallax Horvath, 1897: 95. Unjustified replacement name for Diaspis ostreaeformis Signoret 1869d; discovered by Marlatt, 1900a: 590. Notes: Horvath (1897) created the replacement name Diaspis fallax for what Signoret (1869d) misidentified as D. ostreaeformis. D. fallax was synonymized with D. piricola which in turn was synonymized with E. leperii.
Diaspis piricola; Cockerell, 1897i: 4. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis piricola; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis leperei; Lindinger, 1911: 357. Misspelling of species name.
Epidiaspis betulae; Lindinger, 1912b: 388. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 180.
Epidiaspis pyri; MacGillivray, 1921: 318. Change of combination.
Diaspis betulae; Koroneos, 1934: 87. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis leperii; Ferris, 1937: SI-51. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis peperii; Schvester et al., 1955: 410. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille rouge du poirier [Geoffr1976, Foldi2001]; European pear scale [Gill1997]; grey pear scale [KosztaKo1988F]; Italian pear scale [Britto1923, Blicke1965]; pear-tree oyster scale [Borchs1966]; red pear scale [Gill1997].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Ablerus marchali [Watson2002a]. ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [Watson2002a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [KosztaKo1988F], Chilocorus renipustulatus [Watson2002a], Exochomus quadripustulatus [KosztaKo1988F], Lindorus lophanthae [Gaprin1956]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus atomon [Fulmek1943], Aphytis diaspidis [GomezM1937], Aphytis maculicornis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis moldavicus [RosenDe1979], Aphytis mytilaspis [Zahrad1972], Aphytis proclia [KosztaKo1988F], Archenomus bicolor [Fulmek1943], Archenomus maritimus [KosztaKo1988F], Azotus marchali [Garcia1922], Coccophagoides similis [Zahrad1972], Encarsia maritimus [Watson2002a], Encarsia perniciosi [Watson2002a], Pteroptrix dimidiatus [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Berberidaceae: Berberis sp. [Borchs1937a]. Cornaceae: Cornus [Borchs1966]. Ericaceae: Arbutus unedo [Borchs1937a]. Fabaceae: Gleditsia triacanthos [Balach1954e]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes sp. [MillerDa2005]. Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus hippocastanum [Borchs1937a]. Juglandaceae: Juglans sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Olea europaea [Borchs1937a], Olea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Pinus communis [Chiesa1948]. Polygonaceae: Persica vulgaris [Borchs1937a]. Rosaceae: Amygdalus communis [Borchs1937a, MatilePe2002], Cerassus juliana [GomezM1954], Crataegus monogyna [Kozar1980], Crataegus sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005], Cydonia vulgaris [Borchs1937a], Heteromeles arbutifolia [Ferris1937], Heteromeles sp. [MillerDa2005], Malus communis [GomezM1954], Malus domestica [Kozar1980], Malus malus [Borchs1937a], Malus pumila [Peleka1962], Malus sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Mespilus germanica [Borchs1937a], Photinia [Borchs1966], Prunus avium [Borchs1937a], Prunus cerasus [Foldi2000], Prunus domestica [LepineMi1931], Prunus persica [Signor1869d], Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus spinosa [Borchs1937a], Prunus vulgaris [Borchs1937a], Pyrus betulifolia [BognarVi1979], Pyrus communis [LepineMi1931], Pyrus elaeagnifolia [Borchs1937a], Pyrus malus [Borchs1937a], Pyrus sativa [KozarOrKo1977], Pyrus silvestris [Borchs1937a], Pyrus sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Sorbus aria [BognarVi1979], Sorbus aucuparia [Borchs1937a], Sorbus aucuparia [BognarVi1979]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes nigrum [Borchs1937a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (California [Fernal1903b, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Missouri [MillerDa2005], Montana [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Smith1910], New York [Fernal1903b, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Blanch1939, MillerDa2005] (Buenos Aires [Watson2002a], Entre Rios [Watson2002a]); Chile [Cocker1905d, MillerDa2005] (Antofagasta [Watson2002a], Atacama [Watson2002a], Biobio [Watson2002a], Coquimbo [Watson2002a], Maule [Watson2002a], O'Higgins [Watson2002a], Santiago [Watson2002a], Valparaiso [Watson2002a]); Uruguay [Trujil1942, Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]. Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]; Albania [DanzigPe1998]; Algeria [Trabut1911, MillerDa2005]; Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Austria [DanzigPe1998]; Azerbaijan [Imamku1966]; Azores [MillerDa2005]; Belgium [DanzigPe1998]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; Corsica [Foldi2003]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czechoslovakia [Zahrad1972]; France [Signor1869d, Foldi2001]; Georgia [KozarYaKo1982]; Germany [Fernal1903b]; Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Hungary [Zahrad1972, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Italy [Fernal1903b, LongoMaPe1995, MatilePe2002]; Madeira Islands [Balach1938a, MillerDa2005]; Malta [Borg1919]; Morocco [LepineMi1931, MillerDa2005]; Netherlands [Zahrad1972, Jansen2001]; Norway [Fjeldd1996]; Poland [DanzigPe1998]; Portugal [Fernal1903b]; Romania [DanzigPe1998]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, PellizFo1996]; Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Fernal1903b]; Switzerland [Geier1949]; Tunisia [MillerDa2005]; Turkey [Bodenh1924, MillerDa2005]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Terezn1968c], Zakarpat'ye (=Transcarpathia) Oblast [Terezn1959c]); United Kingdom (England [Fernal1903b]); Yugoslavia [Zahrad1972].
BIOLOGY: Epidiaspis leperii hibernates as immature females. The main oviposition in Turkey is April-May, with about 50 eggs per female. Larvae hatch in June, only one annual generation (Bodenheimer, 1953). Additional biological information by Geier (1949), Kosztarab & Kozár (1988) and Geoffrion (1976). A detailed study of this species was carried out in Switzerland by Geier (1949). There is one generation each year and the species overwinters as mated, adult females. Eggs are present in late May, June, and early July. Crawlers predominate in June but also are present in May, July, and early August. Adult males are apterous and are found in July and August; adult females are present at all times of the year. The preferred feeding site seems to be on two year branches in protected areas. In Hungary there is one generation each year, there is an obligate diapause over the winter, mated adult females are the overwintering stage, egg laying and hatching can last up to two months, egg laying begins at the end of May when pears are in blossom, most first instars emerge between June 5 and June 15, the first instar lasts about one month, the second instar requires about 20 to 30 days, and adults are first observed at the end of July or early August (Kosztarab and Kozár 1988). Bodenheimer (1953) observed 1 generation each year in Turkey with the "immature females" overwintering and oviposition taking place in April and May. Crawlers hatched in June. A pheromone is known for this species (El-Kareim and Kozár 1988a). A detailed study of the biology, economic damage, and natural enemies was carried out by Geoffrion (1976) in France. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of physiology and bodily systems by Childs (1914). Discussion of life history by Bianchi & Benassy (1979). Detailed description and illustration by Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.5 mm wide, circular, light gray, flattened, exuviae covered by a film of secretion and inconspicuous, but when film is rubbed off it is shiny and orange-brown. Adult female with median lobes large and prominent (Britton, 1923).
SYSTEMATICS: Signoret's (1869d) discussion of Diaspis ostreaeformis Curtis actually refers to Epidiaspis leperii. Lindinger's (1912b) treatment of Epidiaspis betulae is actually E. leperii, the real Epidiaspis betulae is a junior synonym of Quadraspidiotus ostreaformis Curtis.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Gill (1997) reports Epidiaspis leperii as a pest in walnut groves in California. The Italian pear scale is an economic pest on many rosaceous plants including pears, apples, prunes, and peaches. It causes distortion of branches, gumosus, and early fruit drop. It is an important pest in some parts of Europe. In Hungary it has caused serious problems on pears (Kosztarab and Kozár 1988); it can cause serious problems on olives in the Mediterranean (Argyriou 1990). El-Kareim and Kozár (1988) report that egg production, sex ratio, and level of infestation differ significantly among cultivars of plum, apple, and pear; in fact, the apple varieties Jonathan and Starling were free of infestation in one experiment. Gill (1997) reported damage to walnuts in California; large populations caused weakened trees and smaller nut size. Examples of countries where this species is considered of economic importance are: Republic of Georgia (Aleksidze 1995, Yasnosh 1995); France (Bianchi and Bénassy 1979, Blaisinger 1979, Geoffrion 1976); Argentina (Chiesa Molinari 1948); Hungary (El-Kareim and Kozár 1988, Kosztarab and Kozár 1988, El-Kareim et al. 1988); Norway (Fjelddalen 1996); England and Wales (Fryer 1936); Switzerland (Geier 1949); California (Gill 1997); Italy (Melis 1949); Uruguay (Trujillo Peluffo 1942); Turkey (Bodenheimer 1953). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 137 (female) [Key to California species of Epidiaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 410 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1971d: 844 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Balachowsky 1954e: 219 (female) [Clef des espèces paléarctiques du g. Epidiaspis Ckll]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1937 [taxonomy: 535, 550]; AbdElK1998 [behaviour: 306]; AbdElKKo1988b [biological control, chemistry: 79-84]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [taxonomy: 6]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 430-431]; Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 176]; BaetaN1954 [distribution, host: 194]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 182]; Balach1933e [distribution, host: 4]; Balach1938a [distribution, host: 153]; Balach1946 [distribution: 216]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206, 219, 220-223]; BalasSa1982 [distribution, host: 412]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; Berles1896 [distribution, host: 185]; BerlesLe1898 [distribution, host: 96]; BianchBe1979 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 494-511]; Blanch1939 [distribution, host: 182]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 294, 308]; Bodenh1949 [distribution, host: 96]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, life history: 7]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 19]; Boraty1953 [taxonomy: 475]; Boraty1968a [distribution, taxonomy: 33, 35]; Borchs1935 [taxonomy: 128]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host: 119]; Borchs1937a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-103]; Borchs1949d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 227]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Borchs1950c [distribution, host: 369, 372]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179-181, 372]; Borg1919 [distribution, host: 29]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 12]; BrandtBo1948 [taxonomy: 3]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host: 368]; Brown1965 [taxonomy: 213]; Carnes1907 [distribution, host: 204]; Chabou1950 [distribution, economic importance, host: 59-62]; ChabouRa1951 [chemical control, distribution, host: 62-67]; Charli1972 [distribution, host: 215]; Chiesa1948 [distribution, host: 142-143]; Childs1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 47-57]; Cocker1895x [description, distribution, host: 260-261]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 333]; Cocker1897i [distribution, host: 4]; Cocker1902d [distribution: 59]; Colvee1881 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33-35]; Colvee1881b [distribution, taxonomy: LI]; Comsto1881a [distribution, host: 311]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86, 94, 96]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 460, 547, 555]; Costan1950 [distribution, taxonomy: 9]; Danzig1964 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 844]; Danzig1972 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256]; DarvasAbCa1994 [chemical control: 52]; DavidsDiFl1991 [chemical control, host: 23]; DeBachRo1976 [taxonomy: 175]; DelGue1894 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142-148]; Dikshi1966a [taxonomy: 254]; DumasVa1950 [biological control: 235]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 343]; Ehrhor1907 [distribution, host: 224]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; EssigHo1944 [distribution, economic importance: 104, 133]; FarahbMo1975 [distribution, host: 66]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 200]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 231, 232, 250]; Ferris1920b [description, distribution, host: 46]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 49]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-49, SI-51]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 47]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 18]; Flachs1931 [economic importance: 67]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 84]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 121]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 2,11,24]; FrankKr1898 [taxonomy: 399]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 80]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 32]; Garcia1922 [biological control: 197]; Geier1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 177-266]; Geoffr1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-31]; GeoffrGo1978 [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 3-4]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127, 128]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 5]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137-138, 140]; Goethe1884 [distribution, host: 114, 115]; Goethe1899 [distribution, host: 20]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 195-198, 201]; GomezM1954 [distribution, host: 121]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100-102]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 49, 100]; GomezM1958a [taxonomy: 13]; GomezM1960O [distribution, host: 173]; GomezM1968 [distribution, host: 547]; Goot1912 [taxonomy: 287]; Hadzib1950 [distribution, host: 261]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host: 194, 276]; Hall1941 [taxonomy: 230]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 180]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 267]; Horvat1897 [taxonomy: 95]; Howard1907 [biological control, distribution: 75]; Imamku1966 [distribution, economic importance, host: 48]; InserrCa1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 90]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 201]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kiritc1940 [distribution, host: 118]; Kohler1983 [taxonomy: 449]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-102]; Korone1934 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87, 91]; Korone1939 [distribution, economic importance, host: 43]; Koszta1963 [distribution, host: 80]; Koszta1996 [biological control, description, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 499-501]; KosztaKo1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 143, 157, 159]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 343-345]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar1982 [distribution, host: 91, 93]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar1987 [taxonomy: 100]; Kozar1999a [distribution, host: 141]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo2002b [distribution: 376]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarKoSa2002 [catalogue, distribution: 39]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 74]; KozarOs1987 [distribution, host: 94]; KozarTzVi1979 [distribution, host: 131]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; KozarYaKo1982 [distribution, host: 334, 335]; KozarzVl1982 [distribution: 196]; Lasaro1940 [distribution, host: 19, 22-23]; Lazare1975 [distribution, host: 56]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 182, 183]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lichte1881 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: LII]; Lindin1907 [distribution, taxonomy: 5]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 191, 260, 261]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 357]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 187, 213, 229, 2]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 124]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 134]; Lindin1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 184]; Lizery1915 [distribution, host: 570]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 357]; Lizery1942 [distribution, host: 75]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Lupo1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 122, 143]; Lupo1957a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 427]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 318]; Mahdih1939 [taxonomy: 1232]; Maleno1927 [taxonomy: 52]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54,56-57]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54, 57]; Marlat1900a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 590]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 53-54]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 109]; Melis1949 [distribution, host: xxiv]; Melis1951 [taxonomy: viii]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 198]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 32]; Morgan1888a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46, 119]; Morgan1890 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Morsta1908 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349-365, 408-424]; Nakaha1982 [taxonomy: 35]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 251, 283]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 259]; Parr1940 [behaviour, taxonomy: 7]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 62]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; Pierce1917 [distribution, economic importance: 23, 169]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Porter1912 [distribution, host: 23]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 167-168]; Priore1965 [distribution, host: 135]; Reh1904 [taxonomy: 32-34]; Reyne1957 [taxonomy: 27, 33]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 759]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Sassce1915 [distribution, taxonomy: 270]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 27, 31, 155, 195]; SchvesMiGi1955 [taxonomy: 410]; Seabra1941 [distribution, host: 8]; ShafikHu1938 [chemical control, host: 363]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 437-439]; Signor1877 [taxonomy: 603]; Streri1924 [distribution, host: 11-12]; Takagi2011 [taxonomy: 49]; Targio1884 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 391]; Terezn1959c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 796]; Terezn1963 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 183, 184, 187]; Terezn1967b [distribution, taxonomy: 562]; Terezn1968b [distribution, taxonomy: 48]; Terezn1968c [distribution, host: 46, 47, 49]; TerGri1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52-53]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 147]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 5, 49, 50]; ThiemGe1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 543]; ThiemGe1934a [taxonomy: 132]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 61]; Trujil1942 [description, distribution, host: 198-199]; Tschor1939 [distribution, host: 72, 89]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host: 121-122]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 408]; Winkle1920 [taxonomy: 123]; Wunn1913 [taxonomy: 258]; Yasnos1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 486, 494]; Zahrad1952 [taxonomy: 189]; Zahrad1972 [taxonomy: 429].
Epidiaspis michoacana FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis michoacana Ferris, 1938a: SII-141. Type data: MEXICO: Michoacan, in the mountains south of Carrizal, on unidentified tree, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Michoacan [Ferris1938a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very flat, circular, brown, exuviae central. Male scale elongate, brown, similar in texture to that of female, strongly tricarinate, exuviae terminal. Adult female about 1 mm long (Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: Epidiaspis michoacana is similar to E. montana, but the character of the scale indicates that they are different. In E. michoacana the pygidal lobes are somewhat larger and seem to be more heavily sclerotized and the ventral scleroses of the median lobes are somewhat larger. It is not at all impossible that further collecting will show them to be the same species, since E. montana is at present only imperfectly known (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: SII-141]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; MacGre1974 [distribution: 82]; TakagiTi1972 [taxonomy: 182].
Epidiaspis montana (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aulacaspis montana Cockerell, 1896m: 226. Type data: UNITED STATES: New Mexico, Pinos Altos, on Quercus wrightii, 08/06/1896. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Diaspis montana; Fernald, 1903b: 231. Change of combination.
Cockerellaspis montanus; MacGillivray, 1921: 319. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis montana; Ferris, 1937: SI-52. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus emoryi [Ferris1919a], Quercus wrightii [Cocker1896m].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1919a], New Mexico [Cocker1896m]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, circular to slightly oval. Male scale brownish-white, distinctly tricarinate. Adult female with median pygidial lobes low, broad, with a pair of setae between them. Second lobes inconspicuous but definitely present and bilobed. Dorsal ducts very few, small, except for the two large submarginal ducts of the 6th and 7th segments (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1919a) stated that Epidiapis montana closely resembles E. pyricola (=E. leperii).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Cocker1896m [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226]; Cocker1898c [distribution, host: 65]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 231]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-51]; Ferris1920b [taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 43]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-52]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-141, SII-142]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Ibraim1961 [distribution, host: 210]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306, 319]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 35]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Scott1952 [distribution, host: 35]; TakagiTi1972 [taxonomy: 182].
Epidiaspis peragrata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis peragrata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-282. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Manzanillo, on Struthanthus venetus, 1925, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Loranthaceae: Struthanthus venetus [Ferris1941d]. Menispermaceae: Hyperbaena denticulata [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1941d]). Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, circular, slightly convex, white or slightly brown, more or less concealed under bark flakes or under the epidermis of host. Male scale white or slightly brown. Adult female about 0.75 mm long, derm slightly sclerotized, especially in the anterior regions (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-282]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54].
Epidiaspis persimilis (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis persimilis Cockerell, 1897u: 267. Type data: MEXICO: Laguna, Carmen Island, on fruit of "chico sapote," 24/04/1896. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Diaspis phoradendri Cockerell, 1898j: 437. Type data: MEXICO: Cuautla, on Phoradendron sp., 31/05/1897, by Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 7960. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-392.
Aulacaspis persimilis; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis persimilis; MacGillivray, 1921: 316. Change of combination.
Pseudoparlatorea persimilis; Lindinger, 1937: 194. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis phoradendri; Ferris, 1937: SI-53. Change of combination.
Epidiaspis persimilis; Ferris, 1942: SIV-446:53. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Loranthaceae: Phoradendron sp. [Balach1954e]. Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon mermulana [Green1915a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Cocker1897u]. Palaearctic: United Kingdom [Green1915a] (England [Balach1954e]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, subcircular, quite convex, the exuviae subcentral. Male scale white, felted, with a faint median carina (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 220 (female) [Clef des espèces paléarctiques du g. Epidiaspis Ckll]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 315, 320 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis persimilis and Diaspis phoradendri; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis and Key to species of Diaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 320 (female) [as Diaspis phoradendri; Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218, 220, 229]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 213]; Cocker1897u [description, distribution, taxonomy: 267]; Cocker1898j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 437]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 28]; Cocker1902d [distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 232, 235]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-9, SI-10, SI-53]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-282]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-392, SIV-446:53]; Green1915a [distribution, host: 183]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 316, 320]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35].
Epidiaspis praecepta FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis praecepta Ferris, 1941d: SIII-283. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Boquete, from undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatorea praecepta; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, flat, thin, white. Female 0.8 mm long, derm slightly sclerotized in cephalic region (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: According to Ferris (1941d), this is a very extreme member of the genus Epidiaspis and were it not for the connecting link furnished by Epidiaspis tuta, and the presence of the perivulvar pores it could very well be referred to the genus Situlaspis, which is closely related to Epidiaspis. It shares with E. tuta the reduction in the number of dorsal pygidial ducts, but differs from that species in the absence of the pygidial spur, in the distinct separation of the median lobes, and the distinct development and sclerotization of the second lobes.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-283]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548].
Epidiaspis salicicola FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis salicicola Ferris, 1938a: SII-142. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Phoenix, on Phoradendron californicum, 1925, by D.C. George. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: salicicola scale [Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Loranthaceae: Phoradendron californicum [Ferris1938a]. Platanaceae: Platanus sp. [Gill1997]. Salicaceae: Populus [Borchs1966], Salix sp. [Ferris1938a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1938a], California [Ferris1938a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.5-2.0 mm in diameter, circular, slightly convex, white, with a tan subcentral exuviae. Males elongate, white, with a tan terminal exuviae (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Epidiaspis salicicola most closely resembles E. michoacana and E. montana, but differs from both in the much greater number of dorsal ducts and gland spines and from both in the character of the scales of both male and female (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 137 (female) [Key to California species of Epidiaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-142]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137, 139, 140]; Kaussa1964 [taxonomy: 19]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 111]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 35]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Epidiaspis salicis (Bodenheimer)NOMENCLATURE:
Thymaspis salicis Bodenheimer, 1944b: 94-95. Type data: IRAN: Teheran, on bark of Salix sp., ?/07/1943. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female.
Epidiaspis salicis; Borchsenius, 1949d: 229. Change of combination.
HOST: Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Bodenh1944b]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [Balach1954e]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Turkey [KaydanKoAt2009].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Bodenheimer (1944b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale round or elongate, moderately convex, covered by a dense layer of whitish secretion, pale yellowish. Exuviae eccentric, yellow. Adult female short oval, pygidium in old females restricted, broadest about or just before the middle of the body (Bodenheimer, 1944b).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 219 (female) [Clef des espèces paléarctiques du g. Epidiaspis Ckll].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 219, 226-229]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Bodenh1944b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94-95]; Borchs1949d [distribution, illustration: 229]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 208]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256-257]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19]; KaydanKoAt2009 [distribution: 139]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 35]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 32]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 12]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 67-68]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 147].
Epidiaspis tillandsiae Takagi & TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis tillandsiae Takagi & Tippins, 1972: 10. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Everglades, on Tillandsia usneoides, 23/12/1969, by M. Smith. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 222-69. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in FSCA.
HOST: Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia usneoides [TakagiTi1972].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [TakagiTi1972], Georgia [Miller2005]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Tippins (1972).
STRUCTURE: Adult female obovate, 1.5 times as long as wide, free abdominal segments little lobed out laterally and with pygidium triangular (Takagi & Tippins, 1972).
SYSTEMATICS: Epidiaspis tillandsiae is quite different from other Epidiaspis species in having comparatively well developed lateral lobes. It is referred to Epidiaspis because the marginal pore prominence of the 4th abdominal segment is not produced into a "gland spur" and the median lobes are quite enlarged and produced beyond the apex of the pygidium. It closely resembles E. montana and E. michoacana, but its triangular, serrate median lobes are quite characteristic (Takagi & Tippins, 1972).
CITATIONS: BenDov1989 [host: 2]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 35]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; TakagiTi1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 181-182]; TippinBe1975 [distribution, host: 50].
Epidiaspis tuta FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis tuta Ferris, 1941d: SIII-284. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Armuelles, on undetermined fabaceous tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Inga sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very thin, concealed beneath the epidermal layer of the host leaf, with only the first exuviae exposed, the whole appearing merely as a circular yellowish blotch. Male scale white, felted, tricarinate, with exuviae apical. Adult female 1 mm long (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Epidiaspis tuta can be distinguished by the absence of gland spines, absence of any but the few marginal and submarginal pygidial ducts and the partial fusion of the median lobes separate it immediately from any other members of Epidiaspis (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Epidiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-284]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54].
Epidiaspis zygophylli (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Parapudaspis zygophylli Borchsenius, 1964: 152-153. Type data: TAJIKISTAN: Vakhshsh Valley, on Zygophyllum sp., ?/06/1944, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Epidiaspis zygophylli; Danzig, 1993: 387. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Zygophyllacea scale [Borchs1964].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Coccopilatus babaevi [MyartsSu1974], Coccopilatus zygophylli [MyartsSu1975].
HOST: Zygophyllaceae: Zygophyllum sp. [Borchs1964]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Borchs1964]; Uzbekistan [BazaroSh1971].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964).
STRUCTURE: Female scale convex, white or grayish-white, 1.5-1.8 mm in diameter; larval exuviae yellow, usually covered with secreted material, placed in the center or margin of scale. Adult female with 3-4, sometimes 2, disc glands next to anterior spiracles. Pygidium broadly rounded (Borchsenius, 1964).
CITATIONS: BazaroSh1971 [distribution, host: 133]; Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 387, 389-390]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 257]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MyartsSu1974 [biological control, distribution: 88]; MyartsSu1975 [biological control: 75]; NarzikLu1966 [taxonomy: 33].
Epifiorinia TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Epifiorinia Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 52.
Epifiorinia Takagi, 1970: 52-53. Type species: Fiorinia tsugae Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Original description by Takagi (1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Epifiorinia resembles Fiorinia, but differs from the latter by the median lobes which are distinctly non-zygotic in both of the adult and second instar females. It is not easy to determine whether it is a distinct genus or a mere aberrant form of Fiorinia.
KEYS: Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 365]; Takagi1970 [description, taxonomy: 52-53]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 224].
Epifiorinia tsugae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Epifiorinia tsugae Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 52.
Epifiorinia tsugae Takagi, 1970: 53. Type data: TAIWAN: Tung-Pu, on Tsuga chinensis var. formosana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Tsuga chinensis formosana [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with median lobes slender, sunken in the pygidium for most of their length, roughly serrate on the apical half of the inner margin, with the apex pointed. Second lobes well developed. Exuviae dark brown, posterior half blackish, with a pair of large yellowish patches on the lateral sides (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Epifiorinia tsugae can be told from Fiorinia species by the distinctly non-zygotic median lobes in both adult and second instar female (Takagi, 1970).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 365-366]; Chou1986 [illustration: 518]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 85]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 254, 257, 258].
Eucleaspis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Eucleaspis Munting, 1968a: 423. Type species: Eucleaspis echinata Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Eucleaspis resembles Mancaspis, but may be distinguished by the presence of gland spines, of ducts over the entire dorsum and by the shape of the female scale which, in Eucleaspis, covers the entire adult female. It also bears some resemblance to certain species of Situlaspis, from which it may be distinguished in that the median lobes are well separated, the absence of macroducts between these lobes, the presence of macroducts over the entire dorsum and in having the anal orifice near the base of the pygidium (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 423].
Eucleaspis echinata MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Eucleaspis echinata Munting, 1968a: 423-425. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on Euclea crispa var. crispa, 28/01/1965, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 1776/5. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Euclea crispa crispa [Muntin1968a], Euclea sp. [Muntin1968a], Euclea undulata [Muntin1968a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1968a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, irregular shape due to its tendency to live in cracks of bark, 1.5 mm long. Second exuviae bright orange and quite conspicuous when the first instar exuviae and the thin secretory covering have been rubbed off. Male puparium white, 1 mm long, parallel-sided, non-carinate and covered with flocculent secretory matter. Adult female pyriform, with prosoma and often the whole derm strongly sclerotized (Munting, 1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: Eucleaspis echinata can easily be distinguished by its many gland tubercles (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 423-425].
Eucleaspis imbricata (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) imbricata Brain, 1920: 100. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Durban, on Euclea natalensis, 22/07/1916, by C.P. van der Merwe. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 39. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 157/1. Described: female. Illust.
Protodiaspis imbricata; MacGillivray, 1921: 365. Change of combination.
Dinaspis imbricata; Borchsenius, 1966: 74. Change of combination.
Eucleaspis imbricata; Munting, 1968a: 425. Change of combination.
HOST: Ebenaceae: Euclea natalensis [Brain1920].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1920].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Brain (1920). Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale small, elongate, almost parallel-sided, white, with orange to brown exuviae. Male puparium smaller. Adult female about 0.75 mm long and 0.48 mm wide. Anterior end broadly rounded (Brain, 1920).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 365 (female) [Species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: BalachFe1967b [taxonomy: 1024]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 530]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 365]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 193-195]; Muntin1968a [taxonomy: 425]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39].
Eudinaspis Lizer y TrellesNOMENCLATURE:
Eudinaspis Lizer y Trelles, 1942: 76. Type species: Eudinaspis jorgenseni Lizer y Trelles, by monotypy.
GENERAL REMARKS: Redescription of the genus by Claps (1991).
SYSTEMATICS: Eudinaspis is close to Dinaspis, but differs in the form of the scale, which is elliptical, the presence of three pairs of lobes (Lizer y Trelles, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 107]; Claps1991 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 33-37]; Lizery1942 [description, taxonomy: 76]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 71].
Eudinaspis calchaquensis ClapsNOMENCLATURE:
Eudinaspis calchaquensis Claps, 1991: 36-37. Type data: ARGENTINA: Salta, Animaná, 25° 59' S, 65° 58' W, on Capparis atamisquea, 21/12/1986, by L. Claps. Holotype female. Type depository: Castelar: Departamento de Patologia Vegetal, INTA, C.C. no. 25, Castelar, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Capparaceae: Capparis atamisquea [Claps1991].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Catamarca [Claps1991], Cordoba [Claps1991], La Rioja [Claps1991], Salta [Claps1991], Tucuman [Claps1991]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Claps (1991).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elliptical, 3 mm long, dark chestnut brown, exuviae yellow, parallel edges, widening in the later end, smooth texture. Male scale similar to female, but 1.0-1.5 mm long. Adult female elliptical, violet (Claps, 1991).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Claps1991 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340].
Eudinaspis jorgenseni Lizer y TrellesNOMENCLATURE:
Eudinaspis jorgenseni Lizer y Trelles, 1942: 76-78. Type data: ARGENTINA: Catamarca, ?/09/1914; Cordoba; Tucuman; Santiago del Estero; all on Cassia aphylla. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Claps, 1991: 34. Type depository: Castelar: Departamento de Patologia Vegetal, INTA, C.C. no. 25, Castelar, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Cassia aphylla [Lizery1942], Zuccagnia punctata [Claps1991].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Catamarca [Lizery1942], Chaco [Claps1991], Cordoba [Lizery1942], La Rioja [Claps1991], Mendoza [ClapsWoGo2001], Santiago del Estero [Lizery1942], Tucuman [Lizery1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Lizer y Trelles (1942). Redescription and illustration by Claps (1991).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elliptical, slightly convex, white with shiny specks, 1.8-2.0 mm long. Second exuviae slightly longer than first exuviae. Adult female narrow, parallel-sided, 1.3-1.4 mm long (Lizer y Trelles, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Claps1991 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34-36]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Haywar1943 [distribution, host: 71]; Lizery1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-78].
Exuviaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Exuviaspis Ferris, 1941d: 285. Type species: Exuviaspis enceliae, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description of generic characters by Ferris (1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 148]; Ferris1941d [description, taxonomy: SIII-285]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:41]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 76].
Exuviaspis enceliae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Exuviaspis enceliae Ferris, 1941d: SII-286. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, Todos Santos, on Encelia palmeri, 1919, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Encelia palmeri [Ferris1941d], Encelia sp. [Gill1997]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1941d]); United States of America (California [Gill1997]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.5-2.0 mm long, elongate, flat, pupillarial, with only one apparent exuviae, off white, but often appearing black because the hardened second exuvial skin can be seen through the thin, nearly transparent white wax covering. Wax cover is fragile and may be easily lost. Male scale elongate, white (Gill, 1997).
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 148]; BrownMc1962 [chemistry, taxonomy: 165]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-286]; Ferris1942 [distribution: SIV-446:54]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-142]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 35]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Faureaspis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Faureaspis Munting, 1968a: 425-427. Type species: Gymnaspis faurei Brain, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Faureaspis is close to Paraleucaspis but differs in the complete fusion of the lobes in the adult and in having monolobulate second lobes in the second instar (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 425-427].
Faureaspis faurei (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis faurei Brain, 1919: 218. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Bloemfontein, on Rhus sp., ?/11/1914, by J.C. Faure. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 38. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 288/1. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia faurei; Lindinger, 1931a: 28. Change of combination.
Faureaspis faurei; Munting, 1968a: 427. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Rhus sp. [Brain1919]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1919].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 520, 549, 553]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 28, 114]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 86]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 425-427]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38].
Felixiella AlmeidaNOMENCLATURE:
Felixiella Almeida, 1973: 5. Type species: Felixiella infulenensis Almeida, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Definition and characters by Almeida (1973).
SYSTEMATICS: The type species of this genus is a pupillarial scale insect. The genus was assigned to the Aonidina of the Aspidiotinae, and affinity was indicated to Doriopus Brimblecombe and Hybridaspis Green.
CITATIONS: Almeid1973 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 5]; Almeid1973 [taxonomy, description: 5]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 497]; KosztaBeKo1986 [taxonomy, catalogue: 6].
Felixiella infulenensis Almeida, D.M.NOMENCLATURE:
Felixiella infulenensis Almeida, D.M., 1973: 5. Type data: MOZAMBIQUE: Infulene, on Androstachys johnsonii. Holotype female. Type depository: Lisbon: Coleccoes do Centro de Zoologia do Instituto de Investigacao Cientifica Tropical, Portugal. Described: female. Illust.
Felixiella infulenensis Almeida, 1973: 5-7. Type data: MOZAMBIQUE: Infulene, on Androstachys johnsonii, 03/02/1947, by E.S. Oliveira. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France, and Lisbon: Coleccoes do Centro de Zoologia do Instituto de Investigacao Cientifica Tropical, Portugal. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Androstachys johnsonii [Almeid1973], Androstachys johnsonii [Almeid1973].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Almeid1973].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Almeida (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, made up of 2nd exuviae, transparent showing body of female. Male puparium brown (Almeida, 1973).
CITATIONS: Almeid1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-7]; Almeid1973 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 5-7]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 497].
Fernaldanna MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Fernaldella Leonardi, 1903: 105. Type species: Mytilaspis indentata Green, by monotypy. Homonym of Fernaldella Hulst 1897 Lepidoptera; discovered by MacGillivray, 1921: 276. Notes: This name was proposed by MacGillivray (1921: 276) as a replacement name for Fernaldella Leonardi, 1903, preoccupied in Lepidoptera.
Fernaldiella; Leonardi, 1903: 4. Misspelling of genus name.
Fernaldanna MacGillivray, 1921: 276. Replacement name.
SYSTEMATICS: Leonardi (1903) described the genus Fernaldella which was preoccupied in Lepidoptera (Fernaldella Hulst 1897). In the same paper he also uses the name Fernaldiella, but only as a lapsus. It would seem that Sanders (1909a) attempted to use the lapsus name Fernaldiella as the new valid name, but according to the ICZN Article 32(c) Fernaldiella is considered an incorrect original spelling and is unavailable as a replacement name. MacGillivray (1921) suggested the replacement name Fernaldanna which is now accept as valid.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 276 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 37]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 4, 12]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4, 105, 111]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 276]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 77]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 16]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 58].
Fernaldanna indentata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis indentata Green, 1900e: 448-449. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Bacchus Marsh, Werribee Gorge, on unidentified plant, by J. Lidgett. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Fernaldella indentata; Leonardi, 1903: 105. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes indentata; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Fernaldanna indentata; MacGillivray, 1921: 276. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1900e]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1900e).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium brownish-straw, sides and hinder part darker, with narrow white margin. First exuviae very pale yellow. Second exuviae almost colorless. Strongly convex, elongate, narrow, but widening slightly behind the exuviae. Ventral scale moderately developed. Adult female elongate, broadest across the basal abdominal segments, antenna consisting of the usual small tubercle and curved bristle (Green, 1900e).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 12]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 679]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 41]; Green1900e [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 448-449]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 105-106]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 296].
Ferreroaspis KozárNOMENCLATURE:
Ferreroaspis Kozár, 1983: 92. Type species: Acanthomytilus hungaricus Vinis, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Ferreroaspis is similar to Acanthomytilus by the character of sclerotization of the pygidium, by a small distance between L1 and by the presence of perivulvar pores, but differs from it by the presence of only L1. It is also near Nilotaspis, by the presence of only L1, by the small body size and by the woody host plants, but differs by the presence of cone-like tubular ducts at the posterior spiracles and by the perivulvar pores, by the short distance between L1, by the stronger sclerotization of the pygidium, by the form of L1 and body, also by the formula of dorsal, marginal macroducts (Kozár, 1983).
KEYS: Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 325 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kozár 1986: 177 (female) [Key to Hungarian genera of Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 258]; Kozar1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92-93]; Kozar1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 177].
Ferreroaspis hungarica (Vinis)NOMENCLATURE:
Acanthomytilus hungaricus Vinis, 1981: 203-207. Type data: HUNGARY: Budapest, on Acer campestre, 26/03/1980. Holotype female. Type depository: Budapest: Hungarian Natural History Museum, Zoological Department, Hungary. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in MNHN.
Andaspis acericola Danzig, 1983: 522-523. Type data: RUSSIA: on Acer pubescens, 21/05/1963, by E. Danzig. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1986: 21.
Ferreroaspis hungaricus; Kozár, 1983: 92. Change of combination.
Ferreroaspis hungarica; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
COMMON NAME: Vinis' armored scale [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer campestre [Vinis1981], Acer obtusatum [NucifoWa2001], Acer pubescens [Danzig1983]. Betulaceae: Ostrya carpinifolia [NucifoWa2001]. Rosaceae: Cerasus sp. [NucifoWa2001]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: France [Foldi2001]; Hungary [Vinis1981, KozarKoFe2013]; Sicily [NucifoWa2001]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [DanzigPe1998]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Vinis (1981).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with a shell like scale, somewhat distending towards abdomen, cephalad with two larval skins. Female lilac in color, elongate pyriform, cephalothorax and mesothorax the narrowest, abdomen broadest at 2nd segment (Vinis, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: This species resembles Lepidosaphes minima. Within the Acanthomytilus genus, the new species is closely related to A. intermittens. They differ from each other substantially in the number of lobes, that of marginal macroducts on the pygidium, and that of plates (Vinis, 1981).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: One generation per year, mature females overwinter, lay 16-18 eggs per female from late June until late July. Nymphs hatch in 6-8 days after egg laying; nymphs settle in bark crevices and molt twice, mature by the end of September. Adult males rare and present in low numbers (Vinis, 1981).
CITATIONS: Danzig1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 522-523]; Danzig1986 [taxonomy: 21]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 258]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 346]; Kozar1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92-93]; Kozar1986 [distribution: 177]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarNa1998 [distribution, host: 56]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; NucifoWa2001 [description, distribution, host: 210]; Vinis1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203-207].
Ferrisidea BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Ferrisidea Borchsenius, 1965: 368. Type species: Aspidiotus (Pseudodiaspis) dentilobis Cockerell, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Female body ovate, pygidium rounded, two pairs of pygidial lobes, not divided; cristulae large, each with the openings of several very long, narrow tubular ducts; no marginal ducts; dorsal ducts small. Female scale oval, with two larval skins situated in the sub-central part of scale. Scale of male nymph elongate, without sulci; larval skin protruding out of the narrower cephalic end of the scale (Borchsenius, 1965).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferrisidea can be recognized by the two pairs of lobes and the ventral clusters of very long, very thin tubular ducts on the pygidium (Gill, 1997).
CITATIONS: Borchs1965 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 368]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 158]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 142].
Ferrisidea dentilobis (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus (Pseudodiaspis) dentilobis Cockerell, 1898j: 438-439. Type data: MEXICO: Morelos, Cuautla, on unidentified shrub, 31/05/1897, by Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Pseudodiaspis dentilobis; Cockerell, 1899n: 27. Change of combination.
Hemiberlesia dentilobis; Leonardi, 1900: 338. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus dentilobis; Cockerell, 1905: 45. Change of combination.
Pseudodiaspis dentilobia; MacGillivray, 1921: 364. Change of combination.
Ferrisidea dentiloba; Borchsenius, 1966: 158. Change of combination.
Ferrisidea dentilobis; Miller & Gimpel, 2003. Revived combination.
ASSOCIATE: Fungi: Septobasidium sp. [Ferris1955b].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia pennatula [Ferris1955b], Acacia sp. [Cocker1898j], Mimosa sp. [Cocker1898j]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1955b], Morelos [Cocker1898j]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, 2.5 mm long, convex, with exuviae lateral, but within marginal limits, black, with greyish concentric striation, margin often white; exuviae large, first skin at margin of second, second skin more or less covered by blackish secretion or more often exposed, two skins both deep orange. Male scale elongate with larval skins at one end. Adult female colorless and transparent after boiling except the caudal portion which is striated and chitinized and remains yellowish brown (Cockerell, 1898j).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferrisidea dentiloba is similar to F. magna, but there is a distinct difference in the shape of the lobes. Lobes of F. dentilobis having the lateral margins parallel and the tips distinctly truncate. The ducts of F. dentilobis are much more slender than in F. magna (Ferris, 1921).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 [as Pseudodiaspis dentilobis; Key to species of Pseudodiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 364 (female) [as Pseudodiaspis dentilobia; Key to species of Pseudodiaspis]; Cockerell 1905: 45 [as Aspidiotus dentilobis; Key to Mexican species of Aspidiotus].
CITATIONS: Borchs1965 [distribution, taxonomy: 211]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; Cocker1898j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 438-439]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 396]; Cocker1899n [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; Cocker1905 [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 295]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64, 104, 106, 108]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-111, SI-114]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 42]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; Ferris1955b [distribution, host: 25]; Leonar1900 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 338]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 364].
Ferrisidea magna (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis magna Ferris, 1921: 103-105. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, La Paz, on unknown host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Ferrisidea magna; Borchsenius, 1966: 158. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: magna scale [Gill1997].
HOST: Solanaceae: Lycium sp. [McDani1973]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Gill1997] (Baja California Norte [Gill1997], Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]); United States of America (California [Nakaha1982], Texas [McDani1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Adult females 3.5-4.0 mm in diameter, circular, flat, white or grey, with submarginal exuviae. Second exuviae may be covered with a whitish secretion. Male scales white, oblong, with a terminal exuviae (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferrisidea magna is similar to F. dentilobis, but there is a distinct difference in the shape of the lobes. Lobes of F. dentilobis having the lateral margins parallel and the tips distinctly truncate. The ducts of F. dentilobis are much more slender than in F. magna (Ferris, 1921).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 [as Pseudodiaspis magna; Key to species of Pseudodiaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 67, 103-105, 108]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-114, SI-115]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 142-143]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 394, 395]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 36]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348].
Ferrisidea prosopidis (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis prosopidis Ferris, 1921: 106-108. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, La Paz, on unknown host. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Ferrisidea prosopidis; Borchsenius, 1966: 158. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Prosopis sp. [FerrisKe1923]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]); United States of America (California [FerrisKe1923]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale up to 3 mm in diameter, circular, quite convex, white, almost porcelaneous in appearance, the exuviae central, but covered with secretion. Adult female quite sclerotic throughout, the body broadly oval, the prosoma somewhat marked off from the postsoma (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferrisidea prosopidis is similar to F. dentilobis, but differs in the great numbers of small ducts, in the latter resembling F. magna and F. dentilobis, which, however, lack the scleroses of the lobes (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 [as Pseudodiaspis prosopidis; Key to species of Pseudodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 106]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-115]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: SII-227]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; FerrisKe1923 [distribution, host: 318].
Fijifiorinia Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fijifiorinia Williams & Watson, 1988: 109. Type species: Fijifiorinia oconnori Williams & Watson, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Fijifiorinia bears a superficial resemblance to Pinnaspis in possessing median lobes that are fused for most of their length. It is pupillarial, however, and its true affinities are with the genus Fiorinia. In Fiorinia the lobes are separated and there are always two setae between at the base (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 109 (female) [Key to species of Fijifiorinia].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 109].
Fijifiorinia astronidii Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fijifiorinia astronidii Williams & Watson, 1988: 109-110. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Lomaivuna, on Astronidium sp., 11/08/1963, by B.A. O'Connor. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Melastomaceae: Astronidium sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-oval, about 1.0 mm long, head and pygidium rounded, body membranous except for pygidium (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 109 (female) [Key to species of Fijifiorinia].
CITATIONS: HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 23]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109-110].
Fijifiorinia oconnori Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia sp. nr geigerae Hinckley, 1963: 42. Unavailable name; discovered by Williams & Watson, 1988: 112.
Fijifiorinia oconnori Williams & Watson, 1988: 111-112. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Sawani, on Myristica macrantha, 02/07/1956, by B.A. O'Connor. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Erythrina lithosperma [WilliaWa1988]. Myristicaceae: Myristica macrantha [Hinckl1963].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [Hinckl1963].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-oval, about 0.7 mm long, head and pygidium rounded. Only pygidium sclerotized (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 109 [Key to species of Fijifiorinia].
CITATIONS: Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 42]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 23]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109, 111-112].
Finaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Finaspis Hall, 1946a: 517. Type species: Lepidosaphes distincta Hall, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Finaspis appears to have some affinities with Africaspis, but differs in many obvious respects like the absence of sclerotized marginal macropores, gland spines arranged singly, and in the lack of arrangement and small size of the dorsal pores (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 33]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 517, 543]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 79].
Finaspis distincta (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes distincta Hall, 1929a: 375-376. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Mazoe, on Zizyphus jujuba, 18/01/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pygalataspis distincta; Lindinger, 1932f: 202. Change of combination.
Finaspis distincta; Hall, 1946a: 517. Change of combination.
HOST: Rhamnaceae: Zizyphus jujuba [Hall1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of adult female very elongate and narrow, broadening only very slightly posteriorly. Larval exuviae elongate with sides subparallel and rounded at either extremity; dark purplish brown. Nymphal exuviae much the same color as larval exuviae but sometimes paler, always purplish brown at posterior extremity and covered by a film of secretionary matter which completely obscures the color. Ventral scale poorly developed, remaining attached to host, 2.0-2.25 long and 0.4-0.5 mm wide. Male puparium the same shape as female, but smaller, exuviae dark reddish brown. Adult female very elongate with sides subparallel (Hall, 1929a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 375-376]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 517, 549, 556]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548].
Fiorinia Targioni TozzettiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Type species: Fiorinia pellucida Targioni Tozzetti, by monotypy.
Fiorina; Signoret, 1869: 845. Misspelling of genus name.
Uhleria Comstock, 1883: 110. Replacement name. Homonym of Uhleria Cooke 1881; discovered by Ferris, 1936a: 23. Notes: This name was first used by Cooke (1881) in the combination "Uhleria araucariae, Comstock." This is the first use of the generic name Uhleria and therefore must be attributed to Cooke. Apparently, Cooke was in contact with Comstock, but Comstock changed his mind about the use of Uhleria and treated it as a senior replacement name of the armored scale genus Fiorinia. Comstock (1883) presented an invalid nomenclatural scenario making Uhleria a valid armored scale name and included three species currently considered to be in the genus Fiorinia. Thus, Comstock's description of Uhleria is a junior homonym of Uhleria Cooke. We here consider Uhleria Comstock to be a junior synonym of Fiorinia.
STRUCTURE: Adult female with the median lobes forming a notch in the apex of pygidium and yoked together basally. Second lobes usually well developed. Gland spines present on pygidial margin, tubercular gland spines, if present, on ventral margins. Marginal ducts large or slender, 2-barred. Submarginal or medial ducts absent from pygidium. Perivulvar pores often present in 5 or fewer groups. Antennae tending to be elongate, conical and usually close together at the apex of the head, at times with a membranous process between. (Williams & Watson, 1988)
SYSTEMATICS: Comstock (1883) put forth the replacement name Uhleria for Fiorinia because Targioni Tozzetti changed the specific name of the type species. Fiorinia is close to Pseudaulacaspis but has more degenerate marginal gland spines and dorsal macroducts. However, Fiorinia is pupillarial whereas Pseudaulacaspis is not. (Wei, et al., 2013)
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 408 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Chou 1982: 101 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Fioriniinae]; Wang 1982c: 46 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1971d: 839 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Schmutterer 1959: 177 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 168 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 332 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 373 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 60 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 40 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 42 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; Kuwana 1933a: 45 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 97 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 12 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 360 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 372 (female) [Genera of Fioriniini]; Leonardi 1920: 28 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Lawson 1917: 206 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Robinson 1917: 16 (female) [Synoptic table of Diaspinae genera]; Lindinger 1913: 65 (female) [Gruppe Diaspides]; Newstead 1901b: 79 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera]; Hempel 1900a: 497 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Ashmea1891 [taxonomy: 102]; Atkins1886 [description, taxonomy: 273]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 163, 168, 302-303, 3]; BerlesLe1898 [taxonomy: 11]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 29, 41]; Bodenh1952 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 332]; Borchs1937 [description, taxonomy: 99]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 168, 179]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 142]; Brain1919 [description: 221]; Britti1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 281]; Britto1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 361, 370]; Chou1982 [description, taxonomy: 101, 103-105]; Cocker1893d [taxonomy: 9]; Cocker1905b [taxonomy: 200]; Comsto1881a [description, taxonomy: 328-329]; Comsto1883 [description, taxonomy: 110]; Comsto1916 [description, taxonomy: 477]; Danzig1964 [description, taxonomy: 646, 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 839]; Danzig1993 [description, taxonomy: 337]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 258-259]; DelGue1894a [taxonomy: 181]; Dougla1886 [taxonomy: 245]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243, 245]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 246]; Ferris1936a [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 53]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-54]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 529]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-147]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:40]; Ferris1950a [taxonomy: 77]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 881]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 106]; Gill1997 [distribution, taxonomy: 144]; GomezM1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 42, 205]; GomezM1946 [distribution, taxonomy: 60]; GomezM1957 [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, taxonomy: 28]; GrandpCh1899 [distribution, taxonomy: 13]; Green1896e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 38, 93]; Green1914 [taxonomy: 103]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 517, 540]; Hempel1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 497]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54, 81]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 501]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 1]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; Lawson1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 206, 252]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 45]; Leonar1903 [distribution, taxonomy: 3]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 17]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 218]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1913a [taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 189]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185, 197]; Low1882c [taxonomy: 521]; Lupo1938a [distribution, taxonomy: 310]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 372]; Maskel1884 [distribution, taxonomy: 122]; Maskel1887a [distribution, taxonomy: 39, 57]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27]; Morgan1888a [taxonomy: 47]; Morgan1892 [taxonomy: 12]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 79]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Newste1901b [distribution, taxonomy: 79, 133]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, taxonomy: 12, 20]; Robins1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 117]; Sander1904a [distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Sassce1912b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 75]; Schmut1959 [distribution, taxonomy: 177, 225]; Signor1869 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 99, 449]; Silves1939 [taxonomy: 799]; Suh2012 [description, taxonomy: 74,75]; Takagi1961 [description, taxonomy: 34, 40, 41, 101]; Takagi1963d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 117]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 53]; TakagiGe2008 [host: 128]; Targio1868 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 735]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 64]; Varshn2005 [catalogue: 163]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 46, 68]; WeiZhFe2013 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 92-95]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 112]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 224]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy: 373].
Fiorinia arengae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia taiwana arengae Takahashi, 1934: 26-27. Type data: TAIWAN: Kuraru, on Arenga engleri, 25/05/1932, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia arengae; Lindinger, 1943b: 220. Change of status.
HOST: Arecaceae: Arenga engleri [Takaha1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Hua2000]); Taiwan [Takaha1934].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1934) and Takagi (1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia taiwana arengae resembles F. vaccinii, but differs in the 2nd lobes pointed and in the fewer marginal glands on the pygidium, as well as in the 2nd skin narrower (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 44]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142-143]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 361]; Chou1986 [illustration: 517]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 220]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55, 59]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 258].
Fiorinia biakana Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia biakana Williams & Watson, 1988: 115-116. Type data: INDONESIA: Irian Jaya, Biak, on unidentified tree, 22/05/1959. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2.0 mm long, elongate with median dorsal ridge, pale brown, covered in translucent white wax, exuviae terminal, same color. Adult female elongate, 1.65 mm long, sides parallel, curving posteriorly to a truncated pygidium and anteriorly to a pointed head with a prominent interantennal process that is elongate (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia biakana is close to F. proboscidaria, but differs in having the median lobes wider apart, the marginal ducts wider and the ventral marginal duct tubercles separated into segmental groups instead of in a continuous row (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 115 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 113, 115-116].
Fiorinia bidens GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia bidens Green, 1905a: 351. Type data: SRI LANKA: Anaradhapura, on unidentified tree. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1905a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium consisting almost solely of the exuviae, with little or no marginal secretion; elongate, narrowly fusiform, highly convex. Lateral margins of nymphal exuviae deeply and irregularly crenulate. Male puparium snowy white, elongate, narrow, not carinate. Adult female elongate, narrow (Green, 1905a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 373 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 44]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 143]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 351]; Green1922 [distribution: 464]; Green1937 [distribution: 325]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 23-24]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Ramakr1921a [distribution: 354]; Varshn2002 [distribution: 64].
Fiorinia camelleosae YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia camelleosae Young, 1987: 123. Type data: CHINA: Hunan, cao shi, on Camellia oleosa, 08/11/1955. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Theaceae: Camellia oleosa [Young1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hunan [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, enclosed within hardened exuviae of second instar nymph (Young, 1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia camelleosae is close to F. pruinosa, but differs in the absence of a submarginal tubular duct cluster on the 3rd abdominal segment (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 123, 130].
Fiorinia citri YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia citri Young, 1987: 124. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Xi Shuang Ben Na, Meng La, on Citrus sinensis, 23/12/1973. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sinensis [Young1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, enclosed within hardened exuviae of 2nd instar nymph. Body membranous, 5.55 mm long and 2.49 mm wide (Young, 1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia citri is close to F. linderae, but differs in the absence of 2nd lobes on the pygidium (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124, 130-131].
Fiorinia coronata Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia coronata Williams & Watson, 1988: 116. Type data: SOLOMON ISLANDS: Guadalcanal, on Cocos nucifera, ?/06/1954, by E.S. Brown. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [WilliaWa1988], Nypa fruticans [WilliaWa1988]. Euphorbiaceae: Jatropha hastata [MartinLa2011]. Palmae: Dypsis lutescens Etang-salé [GermaiMiPa2014]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Reunion [GermaiMiPa2014]. Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]); Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]. Oriental: Hong Kong [MartinLa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female pupillarial, scale pale brown, elongate, flat, exuviae terminal. Male scales white. Adult female 0.65 mm long, broadly sub-rectangular, widest at about 2nd abdominal segment, then narrowing abruptly to a triangular-shaped pygidium; body membranous except for lightly sclerotized pygidium (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia coronata is related to F. euryae, but differs in possessing only 4 marginal pygidial ducts, whereas in F. euryae they number 6-9 (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Williams & Watson 1988: 115 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution, host: 23]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114, 115, 116].
Fiorinia cunninghamiana YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia cunninghamiana Young, 1987: 125. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Nan ping, on Cunninghamia lanceolata, 03/10/1955. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Taxodiaceae: Cunninghamia lanceolata [Young1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, enclosed within hardened exuviae of second instar nymph. Body membranous, 3.43 mm long and 2.34 mm wide (Young, 1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia cunninghamiana is close to F. quercifolii, but differs in the presence of second lobes on the pygidium (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125, 131].
Fiorinia dinghuensis Wei & Feng in Wei et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia dinghuensis Wei & Feng in Wei et al., 2013: 97-98. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong Province, Dinghu Mountain, 6/4/1963, by I.O. Chou. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Shaanxi: Entomological Museum of the Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Baishui, Shaanxi, China; type no. 63255. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Acronychia pedunculata (Linn.) [WeiZhFe2013].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [WeiZhFe2013]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Wei, et al., 2013.
STRUCTURE: Body outline oval to fusiform. Derm membranous except for pygidium. Antennae present close together on a sclerotized area on anterior margin of body; each with a long seta; without an interantennal process. Anterior spiracles each with 5 trilocular pores; pores absent from posterior spiracles. (Wei, et al., 2013)
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia dinghuensis can easily be distinguished from other Fiorinia species by the presence of a sclerotized area on the anterior margin of the head. It is similar to F. fioriniae Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, and F. proboscidaria Green, 1900, in having 2 pairs of pygidial lobes, but can be distinguished by (character states for F. fioriniae in brackets): 1) the presence of 28-32 gland tubercles on the margins of cephalothorax plus abdominal segment I (absent), and 2) absence of gland spines between L1 and L2 (present). F. dinghensis differs from F. proboscidaria by (character states for F. fioriniae in brackets): 1) absence of an inter-antennal process between antennae (with a prominent inter- antennal process), and 2) absence of gland spines on abdominal segments V, VI and VII (present). (Wei, et al., 2013)
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: WeiZhFe2013 [description, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 94,97-98].
Fiorinia distinctissima (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria distinctissima Newstead, 1896a: 133-134. Type data: PAKISTAN: Baluchistan, on Nerium oleander, 24/01/1894, by R. Tomlin. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia distinctissima; Cockerell, 1899a: 396. Change of combination.
Fiorinia distinctissima; Lindinger, 1910: 151. Change of combination.
Gymnaspis distinctissima; MacGillivray, 1921: 256. Change of combination.
Fiorinia afchari Bodenheimer, 1944b: 96. Type data: IRAN: Bender Abbas, on Periploeca aphylla, ?/07/1942, by Prof. Sherbinowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius & Williams, 1962: 67.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Newste1896a]. Asclepiadaceae: Periploeca aphylla [Bodenh1944b]. Capparaceae: Caparis decidua [Moghad2013a]. Solanaceae: Withania somnifera [Moghad2013a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Newste1896a]. Palaearctic: Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of Fiorinia afchari by Bodenheimer (1944b). Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale short, pyriform, dark black-brown, with 2 processes at the narrower end. Second exuviae entirely covering adult scale. First exuviae terminal, round, light brown. Adult female short, elliptic in early stages, with subparallel sides, suddenly narrowing towards end. Pygidium triangular, protruding (Bodenheimer, 1944b).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia distinctissima can be told by its broad body and by the scale of the adult female (Borchsenius & Williams, 1962).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 303 (female) [as Fiorinia afchari; Key to species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 256 (female) [as Gymnaspis distinctissima; Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [distribution, host: 86]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 44]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303, 306-309]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29]; Bodenh1944b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 96]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 143]; BorchsWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 67-68]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 338]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 396]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 259]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 302]; Green1908a [distribution: 35]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 151]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 89]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 31]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 33]; Newste1896a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133-134]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 12]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 64].
Fiorinia drimydis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis drimydis Maskell, 1879: 196. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Drimys colorata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis drymidis; Green, 1900e: 449. Misspelling of species name.
Lepidosaphes drimydis; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus drimydis; MacGillivray, 1921: 293. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis drimydis; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination.
Fiorinia drimydis; Borchsenius, 1966: 143. Change of combination.
HOST: Magnoliaceae: Drimys colorata [Maskel1879].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Maskel1879].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1879).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium is straight, long and narrow, dirty white, sometimes brown, yellow at the end with the discarded pellicles, which are oval, narrowing somewhat at the tip. Adult female is dull red, about twice as long as broad (Maskell, 1879).
SYSTEMATICS: Henderson, 2011, considered Fiorinia drimydis a nomen dubium because the only material that she found available was 2nd-instar male nymphs of an unidentifiable Leucaspis species.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 293 (female) [as Coccomytilus drimydis; Species of Coccomytilus].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 143]; Britti1916 [description, taxonomy: 425]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 584]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Green1900e [taxonomy: 449]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 9]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 293]; Maskel1879 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196-197]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 109].
Fiorinia euonymi YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia euonymi Young, 1987: 125-126. Type data: CHINA: Shanghai, Gu Hong-gen, on Euonymus japonica, 18/08/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Euonymus japonica [Young1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Shanghai [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, enclosed within hardened exuviae of 2nd instar nymph. Body membranous, with some sclerotized areas on the dorsum of pygidium, 4 mm long, 1.43 mm wide (Young, 1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia euonymi is close to F. turpiniae, but differs in the body not being top shaped, in the 2nd lobes with smaller outer lobule and in the fewer perivulvar pores (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 93]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125-126, 131-132].
Fiorinia euryae KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia euryae Kuwana, 1925b: 13-14. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tsuruga, on Eurya japonica, ?/12/1923, by M. Takai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex integra [Muraka1970]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Muraka1970], Eurya emarginata [Takagi1961], Eurya japonica [Kuwana1925b], Sakakia ochnacea [Takaha1956a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1925b], Kyushu [Muraka1970], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1925b) and Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, anterior margin round, tapering towards posterior extremity, yellowish brown, thinly covered with transparent secretion which extends slightly beyond margin of exuviae. Male scale white, tricarinate, exuviae yellow. Adult female elongate, sides nearly parallel, but narrower towards anterior end, yellow (Kuwana, 1925b).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia euryae is close to F. theae, but has 7 sometimes only 6 marginal gland ducts, while F. theae has only 5. F. euryae is also close to F. saprosmae, but the proboscis between the antennae of the antennae of the latter is more prominent and bears a number of small, spine-like points while that of the former is short and conical (Kuwana, 1925b).
KEYS: Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan]; Kuwana 1925b: 2 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 143]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 259]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Kawai1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 282-283]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 13-14]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 89]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-39, 41]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 52]; Takaha1956a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 11].
Fiorinia expansa MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia expansa Maskell, 1895b: 51. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Bankstown, near Sydney. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Adiscofiorinia expansa; MacGillivray, 1921: 379. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Melaleuca linarifolia [Maskel1895b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1895b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1895b).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium snow white, first exuviae standing out dark yellow, second hidden under white secretion that appears to be deposited in regular ridges. A few fine hairs stand out from the first exuviae; the whole scale broad and convex. Male puparium white, with a single exuviae, cylindrical and not carinated. Adult female yellow, elongate, segmented, cephalic extremity truncated, minute median depression, no lobes, on either side two or three very short spines; no spinnerets (Froggatt, 1914).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 373]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 37]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59, 246]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 983]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Green1900b [taxonomy: 11]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 379]; Maskel1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-52]; Maskel1896b [distribution, host: 391].
Fiorinia externa FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia fioriniae japonica; Sasscer, 1912b: 81. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1942: SIV-393.
Fiorinia externa Ferris, 1942: SIV-393. Type data: UNITED STATES: Maryland, Baltimore, on Tsuga sp., by H.S. McConnell. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia extranea; Ferris, 1942: SIV-446:55. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: elongate hemlock scale [Stimme1979a].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus kuwanae Silvestri [Cowles2010], Chilocorus stigma [TaleriMcGa1967], Scymnillus horni [XieLaLy2008]. FUNGUS : Colletotrichum acutatum [MarcelGoPa2009], Colletotrichum sp. [MarcelGiGo2008]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis moldavicus Yasnosh [Japosh1998], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [TaleriMcGa1967], Encarsia brimblecombei Girault [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia citrina [Koszta1996], Encarsia guerrierii Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia normarki Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia schmidti Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013], Prospaltella sp. [DavidsMc1958]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus albitibiae Gerault [JaposhAbNo2013], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis Aurivillius [JaposhAbNo2013], Thomsonisca noyesi Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Biota orientalis [Tao1999], Juniperus chinensis [Tao1999], Juniperus rigida [Tao1999]. Pinaceae: Abies fraseri [Stimme1979a], Abies sachalinensis mayriana [Muraka1970], Abies sp. [MillerDa2005], Cedrus deodara [Tao1999], Cedrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Picea sp. [Stimme1979a, MillerDa2005], Pinus sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005], Pseudotsuga menziesii [Stimme1979a], Pseudotsuga sp. [MillerDa2005], Tsuga canadensis [Stimme1979a], Tsuga caroliniana [TaleriMcGa1967], Tsuga diversifolia [TaleriMcGa1967], Tsuga sieboldii [Takagi1963d], Tsuga sp. [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada [Koszta1996]; United States of America (Connecticut [DavidsMc1958, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [TaleriMcGa1967, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Stimme1979a], Maryland [Ferris1942, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [TaleriMcGa1967, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [DavidsMc1958, MillerDa2005], New York [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Ohio [DavidsMc1958, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [DavidsMc1958, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [Stimme1979a, MillerDa2005], Virginia [TaleriMcGa1967, MillerDa2005]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999] (Honshu [Takagi1963d], Shikoku [Takagi1963d]); United Kingdom [MillerDa2005].
BIOLOGY: Ferris (1942) states that this species is undoubtedly an introduction into the western hemisphere. Fiorinia externa has one or more generations per year, depending on location. Two generations are reported from Connecticut and Maryland, but only one from New York (Talerico et al., 1967). Insect is found on host needles and new cones (Kosztarab, 1996). Additional extensive biological information by McClure (1978). The biology and ecology of this species have been studied extensively by Mark McClure of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. He found that the species has 1 generation and a partial second in Connecticut (McClure 1978); most individuals in the second generation perish during the winter months. Overwintering takes place as eggs within the pupillarial female or as fully mature adult females. Seasonal development of the species varies considerably depending on the climate. At two localities in Connecticut, McClure found a difference of 3 to 4 weeks in crawler activity. At Westport, Connecticut, crawlers appeared in May, second instars were present in June, adult males and females were present in early July. Species of Tsuga are the preferred hosts for this pest. According to Davidson and McComb (1958) the elongate hemlock scale has 2 generations a year in Maryland with crawler production peaks occurring in spring and fall. Heller (1977) reported 2 generations a year in Pennsylvania. Stimmel (1980) found multiple overlapping generations in Pennsylvania with eggs, second-instar males and females, and adult females present during the winter. Wallner (1964) reported one complete and one partial generation a year on Long Island. Monthly observations have shown adult females overwinter and active crawlers are present throughout the warm months (May October) indicating overlapping generations. Unlike most armored scales, members of this genus live as adult females within the enlarged shed skin of the second instar. As the adult female shrinks inside the second shed skin, eggs are laid in two rows with their ends meeting in the median longitudinal axis of the shed skin. The average number of eggs found behind one female at one time is 6; as these hatch more are laid. Females lay up to 20 eggs over a period of 1 to 1 ½ weeks. Eggs hatch in 3 4 weeks. Crawlers molt into second instars in 3 4 weeks. In 4 more weeks adult females appear. These mate with males and begin producing second-generation eggs 6 8 weeks later. Crawlers from these eggs produce the overwintering generation. McClure (1980b) reports a direct positive correlation between the concentration of nitrogen in young foliage and the rate of mortality and number of progeny produced by female elongate hemlock scales. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). The continuous development of F. externa in the United States is the most striking difference between results of this study and previously described conditions in Japan, where the scale is native and has synchronized life stages and generations (McClure, 1986). Abell & Van Driesche (2012) suggest that synchrony between F. externa and E. citrina is not possible in the United States and consequently, E. citrina alone will not control the scale. Control in the United States may still be possible by locating and identifying other parasitoid species in Japan that attack other life stages or that differ phenologically from E. citrina.
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale covered almost entirely of the sclerotized and elongate 2nd exuviae, pale yellow or slightly reddish brown, exuviae more or less translucent. Scale is peculiar in that the 1st exuviae is exceedingly thin and transparent and seems ordinarily to be detached from the 2nd, to which it is connected only by a thin film of wax. Adult female about 1 mm long. Derm membranous throughout except for the pygidium (Ferris, 1942).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Murakami (1970) states that Fiorinia externa is "undoubtedly an invader in North America from Japan." Needles of infested host become yellow and drop early (Kosztarab, 1996). Additional information by McClure (1978). In Connecticut, the elongate hemlock scale is reported to cause death of trees of various sizes both in natural and ornamental situations (McClure 1977c). The insects occur on the undersides of leaves and remove fluids from the internal mesophyll cells. Feeding eventually causes chlorosis, early leaf drop, decreased growth, and death in heavy infestations. Economic populations have been reported in CT, MD, and PA. This species is considered to be a serious pest in Pennsylvania, particularly on Abies Christmas trees (Stimmel, 2002, personal communication). McClure (1977c) reports heavy parasitism in several instances. Because crawlers occur throughout much of the summer, control with contact insecticides is relatively ineffective. Use of foliar systemic insecticides has proven to be quite effective as have "superior" dormant oils (Wallner 1964). In Japan this species is apparently not an economic problem (Murakami 1970). Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). Scale populations start on small trees, which are probablyuninfested at the time of planting followed by several years of exponential population growth until the time of sale. This pattern should be of great concern to "choose and cut" Christmas tree growers, because the practice of replanting next to fresh stumps maximizes the likelihood that scale populations will disperse to the newly planted trees from neighboring large, heavily infested trees. A bark spray of dinotefuran provided an effective way to treat Xhristmas trees and reduce armored scale populations while not adversely affecting predator and parasitoid populations. (Cowles, 2010) The predator, Scymnillus horni prefers to feed on male scales in all developmental stages. (Xie, et al., 2008) The fungus Colletotrichum acutatum var. fioriniae isolated from infected F. externa adults recovered from several localities in the North East US hemlock forests was highly pathogenic to this insect host, particularly in the crawler stage. (Marcelino, et al., 2009)
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Kosztarab 1996: 501 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Northeastern North America]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 206 (female) [Key to females]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 207 (male) [Clé des larves mâles du stade II]; Howell 1977: 836 (first instar) [Key to the first instars of Fiorinia]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:55 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of California].
CITATIONS: AbellVa2012 [biological control, distribution, ecology, host: 339-347]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Baker1972 [distribution, host: 111]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 143]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; Cowles2010 [, biological control, chemical control, life history: 1735-1743]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 259]; Davids1974 [chemical control, distribution, host: 3]; DavidsMc1958 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host, illustration, life history: 405-406]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-393, SIV-446: 55]; GarretLa1969 [description, distribution, host, economic importance, life history, taxonomy: 1221-1222]; GondaKRaPr2012 [ecology: 523-531]; Heller1977 [taxonomy: 2]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 180]; Howell1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 829-831]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; JaposhAbNo2013 [ecology: 541-554]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, economic importance, host: 86]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 281]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 81-82]; Koszta1996 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 502-503]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; LambdiGrRe2008 [distribution: 232]; MarcelGiGo2008 [biological control: 37-38]; MarcelGoPa2009 [biological control: 1-9]; MarcelGoPa2009a [biological control: 2-11]; Matile1990 [description, taxonomy: 206, 207]; McClur1977 [biological control, chemical control, economic, distribution, importance, taxonomy: 480]; McClur1977a [chemical control, distribution, life history, taxonomy: 539-544]; McClur1977c [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 551-555]; McClur1978 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 863]; McClur1979 [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 25-36]; McClur1979a [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 33-40]; McClur1979b [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 869-873]; McClur1980 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 72-79]; McClur1980a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1391-1401]; McClur1981 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47-54]; McClur1983b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1811-1815]; McClurFe1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 807-811]; McClurHa1984 [distribution, host, life history: 185-193]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 2]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 200]; MillerKo1979 [taxonomy: 4, 6, 8]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 89]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 36]; NielseJo1973 [taxonomy: 39]; Pedgle1982 [distribution, host: 90]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; RauppHoSa2001 [chemical control, host: 204]; Sassce1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81-82]; Savos1979 [chemical control, distribution: 2]; Schrea1970 [chemical control, distribution: 20]; Stimme1979a [chemical control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 13-14]; Stimme1980 [distribution, host, life history: 701-705]; Stoetz1976 [taxonomy: 323]; Takagi1963d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115-117]; Takagi1979 [physiology: 28]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 13]; TaleriMcGa1967 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 1-4]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 283]; Tao1999 [distribution: 86]; Tippin1970a [description, distribution, illustration, host, taxonomy: 95, 98]; Wallne1978 [distribution, economic importance: 98]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 407]; XieLaLy2008 [biological control: 205-211].
Fiorinia fijiensis Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia sp. Hinckley, 1963: 69. Unavailable name; discovered by Williams & Watson, 1988: 118.
Fiorinia fijiensis Williams & Watson, 1988: 116-118. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Vulgalei, on Alpinia boia, 31/12/1957, by J.S. Pillai. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Heliconiaceae: Heliconia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Zingiberaceae: Alpinia boia [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale reddish brown, hemispherical. Male scale white, flat, almost same length as female. Adult female about 0.9 mm long, elongate-oval, sides often parallel; pygidium triangular (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia fijiensis should be easily recognizable in the South Pacific area. It seems to have some relationship to F. nachiensis, but F. nachiensis has gland spines and the 2nd lobes are not so well developed (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 115 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 69, 85]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 23]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115, 116-118].
Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni Tozzetti)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis fioriniae Targioni Tozzetti, 1867: 14-15. Type data: ITALY: Florence, on Phytelephas macrocarpa. Described: female.
Chermes arecae Boisduval, 1868: 282. Type data: FRANCE: on Areca aurea. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 143. Notes: Type material probably lost (Matile-Ferrero, personal communication to Ben-Dov, 1991).
Fiorinia pellucida Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Unjustified replacement name; discovered by Cockerell, 1896b: 337. Notes: It is unclear why Targioni Tozzetti proposed the replacement name Fiorinia pellucida.
Fiorinia camelliae Comstock, 1881a: 329. Type data: UNITED STATES: on Camellia sp. and Kentia balmoriana and Cycas revoluta. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-55.
Uhleria camelliae; Comstock, 1883: 111. Change of combination.
Uhleria fioriniae; Comstock, 1883: 111. Change of combination.
Fiorinia fioriniae; Cockerell, 1893e: 39. Change of combination.
Fiorinia palmae Green, 1896: 4. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Coconut Palm. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1899a: 397.
Parlatoria fioriniae; Korean Society of Plant Protection, 1972: 108. Change of combination.
Parlatoreopsis camelliae; Kawai, 1972: 21. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: avocado scale [VelasqRi1969]; camellia scale [Frogga1914]; European fiorinia scale [Butche1959]; fiorinia scale [Arnett1985]; palm fiorinia scale [McKenz1956]; ridged scale [Cocker1897l].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Signiphora sp. [Watson2002a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Microweisea sp. [HertinSi1972], Rhyzobius pulchellus [Watson2002a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [HertinSi1972], Aspidiophagus lounsburyi [Balach1954e], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Balach1954e], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus agilior [Balach1954e], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Hispaniella lauri [Balach1954e]. Mymaridae: Allaptus aurantii [Balach1954e], Dicopus citri [Balach1954e]. THYSANOPTERA Thripidae: Karnyothrips flavipes [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Agave sp. [MillerDa2005]. Anacardiaceae: Anacardium sp. [MillerDa2005], Buchanania arborascens [Takagi1970], Mangifera indica [Takagi1970], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005], Pistacia lentiscus [Balach1954e], Rhus sp. [Borchs1966]. Annonaceae: Annona reticulata [Mamet1956], Polyalthia longifolia [Sankar1984], Polyalthia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex sp. [Borchs1966]. Araceae: Anthurium acaule [Morgan1892]. Araliaceae: Aralia [Borchs1966], Hedera helix [Cocker1898w], Hedera japonica [Kuwana1925b], Hedera rhombea [Muraka1970], Hedera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Areca aurea [Boisdu1868], Burretiokentia veillardii [PicartMa2000], Caryota urens [Sankar1984], Chamaerops excelsa [Balach1954e], Chamaerops humilis [Balach1954e], Cocos nucifera [Simmon1957], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Howea forsteriana [LepineMi1931], Howea selloviana [Balach1954e], Kentia balmoriana [Comsto1881], Kentia sp. [Cocker1897l, MillerDa2005], Latania sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Licuala sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Livistona sp. [Maskel1892], Phoenix canariensis [Balach1954e], Phoenix dactylifera [GhabboMo1996], Phoenix sp. [LepineMi1931, MillerDa2005], Phytelephas sp. [Borchs1966], Ptychosperma sp. [MillerDa2005], Trachycarpus excelsus [Kuwana1925b]. Asclepiadaceae: Asclepias [Borchs1966]. Bombacaceae: Ceiba pentandra [Sankar1984]. Buxaceae: Buxus balearica [Balach1954e], Buxus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Celastraceae: Cassine glauca [Sankar1984], Euonymus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cephalotaxaceae: Cephalotaxus drupacea koraiana [Muraka1970]. Clusiaceae: Garcinia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Commelinaceae: Dictyospermum album [GermaiMiPa2014]. Crassulaceae: Sedum sempervivoides [CarnerPe1986]. Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [Comsto1881], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Ericaceae: Cyathodes sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites sp. [MillerDa2005], Croton sp. [Borchs1966], Manihot sp. [Green1937]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Gnetaceae: Gnetum luofuense [MartinLa2011]. Hemerocallidaceae: Phormium sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Takagi1970], Laurus nobilis [Balach1954e], Laurus sp. [MillerDa2005], Machilus kusanoi [Takagi1970], Persea americana [Mamet1943a], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Laxmanniaceae: Cordyline sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Dracaena sp. [Borchs1966], Ruscus aculeata [BenDov2012]. Malvaceae: Sida sp [Watson2002a]. Moraceae: Artocarpus heterophyllus [ColonFMe1998], Artocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ficus carica [Muraka1970], Ficus nervosa [Takagi1970], Ficus pumila [Muraka1970], Ficus stipulata [Muraka1970], Morus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [MillerDa2005], Strelitzia sp. [Borchs1966]. Myricaceae: Myrica rubra [Muraka1970]. Myristicaceae: Myristica heterophylla [Takagi1970]. Myrtaceae: Callistemon sp. [MillerDa2005], Decaspermum fruticosum [Takagi1970], Eucalyptus sp. [LepineMi1931], Eugenia javanica [Tao1978], Eugenia sp. [MillerDa2005], Leptospermum sp. [Cocker1897l], Myrtus sp. [MillerDa2005], Psidium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Oleae sp. [Watson2002a]. Oxalidaceae: Averrhoa carambola [MartinLa2011]. Pinaceae: Araucaria sp. [Kuwana1925b], Cupressus juniperinus [Maskel1898], Larix sp. [Borchs1966], Pinus sinensis [Maskel1898], Pinus thunbergii [Kuwana1925b]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum tobira [Muraka1970]. Proteaceae: Macadamia sp. [Borchs1966], Macadamia ternifolia [Willia1973]. Rosaceae: Rosa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rubiaceae: Gardenia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ruscaceae: Ruscus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus reticulata [WilliaWa1988], Citrus sp. [Mamet1943a], Murraya paniculata [CulikMaVe2008], Ruta sp. [MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [Muraka1970], Salix koriyanagi [Muraka1970], Salix sp. [Tao1999]. Santalaceae: Santalum sp. [Borchs1966]. Sapotaceae: Manilkara sp. [MillerDa2005]. Solanaceae: Capsicum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sterculiaceae: Cacao sp. [Green1937]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus macrophylla [Kuwana1925b], Taxus sp. [Borchs1966]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Takagi1970], Camellia sasanqua [BesheaTiHo1973], Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [Comsto1881, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Camellia theifera [DEDAC1923], Thea japonica [Kuwana1925b], Thea sinensis [Muraka1970]. Ulmaceae: Celtis mauritiana [Lindin1910b], Celtis philippinensis [CockerRo1915a], Ulmus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a]; Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Reunion [GermaiMiPa2014]; Sao Tome and Principe [Simmon1969]; South Africa [Brain1919]; Tanzania [Balach1954e]; Zanzibar [Lindin1910b]. Australasian: Australia [Maxwel1902] (New South Wales [Frogga1897], Western Australia [Fuller1897b]); Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [WilliaWa1988]); Hawaiian Islands [Craw1896] (Hawaii [Heu2002], Lanai [Heu2002], Maui [Heu2002] (First observed in 1977 (Heu 2001)), Oahu [Willia1973, Heu2002]); New Caledonia [Laing1933]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico (Sinola [Cocker1899n]); United States of America (Alabama [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], California [Craw1896, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Florida [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Illinois [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Massachusetts [King1899d, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Weiss1916], New Mexico [Cocker1898w], New York [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [MillerDa2005], South Carolina [MillerDa2005], Texas [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Lizery1938]; Barbados [Cocker1897l]; Bermuda [Waters1941]; Brazil [Maxwel1902] (Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Rio Grande do Sul [CorseuSi1971]); Jamaica [Cocker1892a]; Peru [Mamet1943a]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Ballou1936a]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000], Hainan [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; India [Green1937]; Philippines [CockerRo1915a]; Sri Lanka [Green1896]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Mamet1943a]; Azores [FrancoRuMa2011]; Belgium [Craw1896]; Canary Islands [GomezM1967O, MatileOr2001]; China (Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tao1999]); Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Egypt [Alfier1929]; France [Boisdu1868, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1983]; Germany [DanzigPe1998]; Greece [Korone1934]; Ireland [Green1934d]; Israel [GersonZo1973]; Italy [Targio1867, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Craw1896] (Honshu [Shinji1936b], Kyushu [Muraka1970]); Madeira Islands [Balach1938a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1932]; Monaco [Balach1954e]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Romania [Knecht1930]; Russia [DanzigPe1998]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Spain [GomezM1937]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; United Kingdom [DanzigPe1998].
BIOLOGY: Fiorinia fioriniae has three generations per year. Eggs are laid in May, July and August (Kuwana, 1911). Johnson & Lyon (1976) indicated overlapping generations in the southern U.S. There are few reports dealing with the life cycle of palm fiorinia scale. Johnson and Lyon (1976) indicate overlapping generations in the southern U.S. Murakami (1970) states that it has 3 generations annually in Japan with eggs laid in May, July, and August. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elliptical, shield-shaped, thin; translucent, brownish yellow to orange-brown, lateral margins slightly curved; 1-1.3 mm in length. First exuviae terminal, pale yellow, projecting partly beyond the second exuviae. The second exuviae covers the insect entirely. The thin waxy secretionary cover extends over the 2nd exuviae and slightly beyond the margin of the 2nd exuviae (Dekle, 1965c).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia fioriniae can be identified by its head without a tubercle or fleshy process between the antennae; pygidium with usually only 3 or sometimes 4, large marginal ducts in the adult female (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. The palm fiorinia scale is regarded as a pest of avocado (Williams and Watson 1988, Perez Guerra 1986, Cohic 1958), palms (Hodgson and Hilburn 1991, Dekle 1977), tea (Nagarkatti and Sankaran 1990), and ornamentals (Dekle 1977). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Gill 1997: 144 [Key to California species of Fiorinia]; Williams & Watson 1988: 115 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia]; Howell 1977: 836 (first instar) [Key to the first instars of Fiorinia]; Gerson & Zor 1973: 516 (female) [Key to armoured scale insects which infest avocado in Israel]; Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 532 (female) [Key to Micronesian species of Fiorinia]; Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to Californian species of Fiorinia]; Balachowsky 1954e: 303 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of California]; Fullaway 1932: 96 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; Kuwana 1925b: 3 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 374 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Robinson 1917: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of the Philippine Islands]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Green 1896e: 93 (female) [Ceylon species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Alfier1929 [distribution, host: 8]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 44-5]; Almeid1971 [distribution: 11]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Badr2014 [distribution, host: 51]; Balach1938a [distribution, host: 155]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 302, 303-306, 312, 3]; Ballou1936a [distribution, host: 9]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 532]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 44]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host: 119]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 159]; Boisdu1868 [description, distribution, host: 282]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 180]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 13]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 221-222]; Britto1923 [distribution, host: 370]; Britto1933a [distribution, host: 91, 136]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 363]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-39]; Charmo1899 [taxonomy: 37]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 101]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105-106]; Chou1986 [illustration: 507]; Cocker1892a [distribution, host: 55]; Cocker1892b [distribution, host: 333]; Cocker1893e [taxonomy: 39]; Cocker1897l [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149-150]; Cocker1898r [distribution: 240]; Cocker1898w [distribution, host: 503]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 27]; CockerRo1915a [distribution, host: 426]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 94]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host: 329]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host: 111]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 478, 572]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host: 109]; CostaL1928 [p. 121]; Costan1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11]; Craw1896 [description, distribution, host: 39]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Dammer1929 [description, host: 252]; Danzig1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 337-339]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 259-260]; Dash1916 [distribution, host: 42]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 15]; DelGue1894a [distribution, taxonomy: 182]; Ebelin1959 [economic importance, taxonomy: 318]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 199]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 53]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-55]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:54]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 22]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 11,24]; Frogga1897 [distribution, host: 6]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 983]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host: 96, 106]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, taxonomy: 34]; Gentry1965 [distribution, economic importance: 17]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution, host: 23]; GersonZo1973 [distribution, economic importance, host: 516, 517, 527]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 346]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144-145]; GomesCRe1947 [distribution, host: 124]; GomesCRe1948 [distribution, host: 50]; GomezM1937 [distribution, host: 206]; GomezM1956 [distribution, host: 96]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 96]; GomezM1967O [distribution, host: 132]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 28]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 14]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host: 4]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Green1900a [distribution, host: 256]; Green1934d [distribution, host: 114]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 324]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 188, 275]; Hall1922 [distribution, host: 37]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 38]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 549]; Hatch1938 [distribution: 180]; Hempel1900a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 509]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 180]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 26]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16]; Howell1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 831]; HowellTi1977 [description, distribution, host: 130]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 194]; Kawai1972 [p. 21]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 280]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 23]; King1899d [distribution, host: 252]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Knecht1930 [distribution, host: 237]; Korone1934 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50, 56]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; KSPP1972 [taxonomy: 108]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 79]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 200]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-5]; Kuwana1927 [distribution: 72]; Kuwana1927b [taxonomy: 152]; Laing1933 [distribution, host: 676]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 32-36]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 255, 405]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 358]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1938 [taxonomy: 9, 10]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 357]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 311]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 367, 374]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 160]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36-37]; Mamet1956 [distribution, host: 138]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 380]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; Maskel1892 [description, distribution, host: 16]; Maskel1892b [distribution: 71]; Maskel1893b [description, distribution, host: 211-212]; Maskel1897 [taxonomy: 307]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Maskel1898 [distribution, host: 232]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 239, 248]; McDani1924 [distribution, taxonomy: 42]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111]; MedinaGa1977 [distribution, host: 411]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 47]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host: 233]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 204]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Morgan1888a [illustration, taxonomy: 46]; Morgan1892 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12-13]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 9]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, life history: 90]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 397]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 36]; Newste1900a [distribution, host: 235]; Newste1901b [distribution, host: 134]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 256, 258, 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PicartMa2000 [distribution, host: 16]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; PriesnHo1940 [biological control, distribution: 60, 67]; Reh1904b [taxonomy: 176]; RileyHo1889 [taxonomy: 376-377]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; RolfsFa1908 [taxonomy: 10]; Ruther1915a [distribution, host: 113]; Sander1904a [distribution, host: 54]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 23]; Sassce1912 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76, 79]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 226]; SchmutPiKl1978 [taxonomy: 330]; SeljakMa2012 [description, taxonomy: 453-455]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 95]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 449-450]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 4]; Simmon1969 [distribution, host: 20]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 41]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53, 59, 61]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 13, 18, 27, 76]; Takaha1935 [distribution, host: 3]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; Targio1867 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 735]; Timber1924 [biological control, distribution: 436]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 9]; Trabut1910 [taxonomy: 40, 41]; VanDin1904 [taxonomy: 375]; VanDin1906 [taxonomy: 348]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 64]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 196]; Waters1941 [distribution, host: 19]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Weiss1916 [distribution, host: 24]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Wester1918 [host: 53]; Wester1920 [distribution, host: 66]; Willia1973 [distribution, host: 90]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115, 118-119, 121]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 24]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 23, 63]; Wu1935 [taxonomy: 213]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 258, 259, 268]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 376, 377].
Fiorinia fletcheri LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia fletcheri Laing, 1929a: 484. Type data: INDIA: Bihar, Pusa, on Aegle marmetus, by T. Bainbrigge Fletcher. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Aegle marmetus [Laing1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Bihar [Laing1929a]).
BIOLOGY: Specimens were crowded together on under surface of leaf and covered to a slight extent by a woolly secretion (Laing, 1929a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Male scale snow-white, narrowly elongate, with sides more or less parallel and a single median longitudinal carina; larval exuviae pale buff. Nymphal exuviae elongate, broad at head-end, tapering gradually posteriorly, pale buff to pale brown, with a distinct median longitudinal keel of a dark brown to blackish color; larval exuviae light brown; pygidium with median pair of lobes well developed, divergent and serrated on inner margin, the second pair bilobed, the second lobule small and somewhat conical. Adult female enclosed entirely within second exuviae, narrow in front and behind, parallel sided medianly (Laing, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: The interantennal process of this species seems to be intermediate between that found in F. proboscidaria and F. theae while the characters of the pygidial margin approach those found in F. odinae (Laing, 1929a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 144]; Laing1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 484-485]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 64].
Fiorinia formosensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia formosensis Takahashi, 1933: 50-52. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten, on Ficus sp., 05/09/1932, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia formosaensis; Tao, 1999: 86. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus foveolata [Takagi1970], Ficus sarmentosa henryi [Tao1999], Ficus sp. [Takaha1933]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish-yellow, shining. First skin extending a little beyond the 2nd. Second skin elongate, nearly parallel on the sides, or somewhat narrowed posteriorly, about 2.4 times as long as wide. Adult female wide, with a few small conical lateral processes, about 0.5 mm long (Takahashi, 1933).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia formosensis can be distinguished from F. euryae by the number of marginal glands on the pygidium, by the eminently serrated median lobes, and by the more slender 2nd skin, as well as by the presence of the 2nd lobes (Takahashi, 1933).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 144]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 362]; Chou1986 [illustration: 517]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-63]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-52]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 25]; Takaha1936d [taxonomy: 7]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 258].
Fiorinia frontecontracta GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia frontecontracta Kasargode, 1914: 135. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1919c: 447.
Fiorinia frontecontracta Green, 1919c: 447. Type data: INDIA: Maharashtra, Bombay, on Garcinia indica, by H.H. Mann. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 41. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Guttiferae: Garcinia indica [Kasarg1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Kasarg1914] (Maharashtra [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female pale castaneous, usually with a darker medio-longitudinal stripe running through both larval and nymphal exuviae. Little or no secretionary appendix, elongate, narrow, 2.0-2.25 mm long. Nymphal exuviae elongate, narrow, anterior extremity with a sharply defined depressed area where it is overlapped by the larval exuviae. Male puparium white, larval exuviae pale stramineous. The white secretionary appendix wider towards the posterior extremity, flattish, with a single, often obscure, medio-longitudinal carina. Adult female with anterior extremity contracted and transversely wrinkled (Green, 1919c).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 144]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 447]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 64].
Fiorinia fuzhouensis YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia fuzhouensis Young, 1987: 126. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Fuzhou, Kui qi, on undetermined shrub, 09/10/1955. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, enclosed within hardened exuviae of 2nd instar nymph. Body membranous, 0.83 mm long, 0.42 mm wide. Head narrowed and pointed at anterior end (Young, 1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia fuzhouensis is close to F. proboscidaria, but differs in the median lobes without basal zygosis at proximal end (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132-133].
Fiorinia geijeriae FroggattNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia geijeriae Froggatt, 1914: 984. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, near Narrabri, on Geijera salicifolia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female.
HOST: Rutaceae: Geijera salicifolia [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium black, fringed with white secretion, nearly oval or elongate oval, but variable. Adult female yellow, elongate, cephalic portion forming 3 lobes on the outer margin; abdominal segments well defined, rounded on the outer margin. Pygidium darker yellow, with the outer margin serrate (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 984]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58].
Fiorinia gelonii GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia saprosmae gelonii Green, 1900a: 256. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Gelonium lanceolatum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trullifiorinia saprosmae gelonii; MacGillivray, 1921: 377. Change of combination.
Fiorinia geloniae; Green, 1937: 324. Change of combination and rank.
Fiorinia geloniae; Green, 1937: 324. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Gelonium lanceolatum [Green1900a], Gelonium sp. [Green1919c]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Green1937]); Sri Lanka [Green1900a].
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia gelonii differs from F. saprosmae in having more prominent and distinctly serrate median lobes (Green, 1900a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 376 (female) [as Trullifiorinia saprosmae gelonii; Key to species of Trullifiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Green1900a [description, distribution: 246]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 448]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 324]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution: 21]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 26].
Fiorinia hederae Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia hederae Hall & Williams, 1962: 23. Type data: PAKISTAN: Murree, on Hedera helix, 24/02/1961. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 185. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia hederac; Ali, 1969a: 45. Misspelling of species name.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [Lesche2000]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [AhmadGh1972], Aspidiotiphagus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Hedera helix [HallWi1962], Hedera nepalensis [AhmadGh1972]. Convolvulaceae: Convolvulus sp. [AhmadGh1972]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [HallWi1962].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consists of yellow or pale brown enlarged 2nd exuviae overlaid by a white secretionary film that extends beyond the exuviae to give a narrow fringe laterally and posteriorly. 1st exuviae terminal, dark brown, with the covering secretionary film worn off in some specimens. Adult female membranous, about 1.1 mm wide (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia hederae resembles F. kandyensis in having a well developed interantennal process, in having trilocular parastigmatic pores and in the number and nature of the pygidial ducts in both the adult and second stage females. The adult of F. kandyensis, however, has very much longer setae on the margin of the pygidium than those found in F. hederae, and a shorter interantennal prominence, as well as other small differences (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 86]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65].
Fiorinia himalaica TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia himalaica Takagi, 1975: 26-28. Type data: NEPAL: Pati Bhanjyang, on Rhododendron arboreum, 09/04/1968. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron arboreum [Takagi1975].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Himachal Pradesh [Varshn2002]); Nepal [Takagi1975].
BIOLOGY: Fiorinia himalaica was collected at an altitude of 1840 m (Takagi, 1975).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1975).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oblong, with head margin truncate. Pygidium triangular, free margins practically straight, forming apically a right or more or less acute angle. 2nd instar exuvial cast not thickly sclerotized, oblong, gradually tapering caudad, with comparatively large, rounded pygidium (Takagi, 1975).
CITATIONS: Takagi1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28]; Takagi1975a [distribution: 52]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Takagi1980 [taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 14, 15]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, distribution, host, illustration: 163,165].
Fiorinia hisakakii TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia vaccini hisakakii Takahashi, 1936d: 7. Type data: TAIWAN: Takao, Chushinron, near Rokki, on Eurya sp., by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female.
Fiorinia euryae hisakaki; Takahashi, 1956a: 60. Change of combination. Notes: Takahashi (1956a) considered Fiorinia vaccini to be a junior synonym of F. euryae and thus changed the name F. vaccini hisakakii to F. euryae hisakaki.
Fiorinia hisakakii; Borchsenius, 1966: 145. Change of status.
HOST: Theaceae: Eurya sp. [Takaha1936d]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1936d].
STRUCTURE: Female exuviae about 2.6 times as long as wide, with no median ridge (Takahashi, 1936d).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia hisakakii differs from F. formosensis in the longer antennae, the presence of more marginal glands on the pygidium, and in the shape of the 2nd lobes. In F. formosensis, the antennae are very short and wider than long and the interantennal process is provided with many minute spines in some specimens (Takahashi, 1936d).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host: 55, 135]; Takaha1936d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1956a [distribution, taxonomy: 60]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 258, 261].
Fiorinia horii KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia horii Kuwana, 1927b: 151-152. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo and Yokohama, on Rhododendron hymnathes, Rhododendron hymnathes var. heptamerum, Rhododendron hymnathes var. pentamerum, Rhododendron hymnathes var. angustifolia, 1923. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: horri-konoha-kaigara [Takagi1975a].
HOSTS: Ericaceae: Rhododendron hymnathes rentamerum [Tao1978], Rhododendron hymnathes angustifolia [Kuwana1927b], Rhododendron hymnathes heptamerum [Kuwana1927b], Rhododendron hymnathes [Kuwana1927b], Rhododendron hymnathes pentamerum [Kuwana1927b], Rhododendron lasiostylum [Tao1999], Rhododendron makinoi [Takagi1975a], Rhododendron metternichii [Muraka1970], Rhododendron sasakii [Takaha1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takaha1934]. Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [Kuwana1927b], Kyushu [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oblong or rather fusiform, pygidium broad, triangular or more or less rounded (Takagi, 1975a).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Takagi 1961: 42 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Chou1985 [description, taxonomy: 362-363]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 260]; FoxWil1939 [distribution, economic importance, host: 2315]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 284]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kuwana1927b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151-152]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 90]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 39-40, 42]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 55]; Takagi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-52]; Takagi1979 [taxonomy: 18]; Takagi1980 [taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1981 [taxonomy: 11]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 14]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host: 27]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 28]; Takaha1956a [taxonomy: 61]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 258].
Fiorinia hymenanthis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia hymenanthis Takagi, 1975a: 37-42. Type data: JAPAN: Hokkaidô, Sapporo, on Rhododendron metternichii, 20/05/1970, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: syakunage-konoha-kaigara [Takagi1975a].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Takagi1975a].
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron metternichii [Takagi1975a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1975a], Honshu [Takagi1975a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1975a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oblong, with head margin broadly rounded. 2nd instar exuviae oblong, with head margin flatly rounded and with pygidium comparatively small and triangular in outline (Takagi, 1975a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia hymenanthis is similar to F. horii, but is distinguishable by the 2nd lobes being comparatively well developed, by having two pairs of marginal gland spines around the apex of the pygidium and by the ventral microducts of the pygidium much fewer. It is also similar to F. odaiensis and F. nachiensis, but can be told by the number of marginal macroducts (Takagi, 1975a).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 260]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 284]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; Takagi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-42]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 3]; Takagi1980 [taxonomy: 100-103]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 13-14].
Fiorinia iavanica LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia Iavanica Leonardi, 1907: 17-19. Type data: INDONESIA: JAVA, on Ilex sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis javanica; Lindinger, 1907d: 159. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Fiorinia javanica Lindinger, 1931a: 44. Unjustified emendation.
Fiorinia iavanica; Borchsenius, 1966: 145. Justified emendation.
HOST: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex sp. [Leonar1907]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Leonar1907]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1907).
STRUCTURE: Median pair of lobes uniformly rounded, entire, not notched, scarcely adjacent, mesal margins divergent (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 291 (female) [as Pinnaspis javanica; Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; CockerRo1914 [distribution: 330]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Leonar1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17-19]; Lindin1907d [taxonomy: 159]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 44, 180]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291].
Fiorinia japonica KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia fioriniae japonica Kuwana, 1902: 79. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on grounds of Nishigahara Experiment Station, on Podocarpus chinensis and Pinus sp., by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Fiorinia Iuniperi; Leonardi, 1906c: 18. Misspelling of species name.
Fiorinia Juniperi Leonardi, 1906c: 39-41. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Juniperus bermudiana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936: 4. Notes: Through the assistance of Antonio Garonna, of Portici, Italy, we have confirmed that Fiorinia juniperi Leonardi is in fact a synonym of F. japonica. Type material mounted and studied by Matile-Ferrero (1990) clearly shows the 4 large marginal macroducts characteristic of F. japonica.
Fiorinia japonica; Ferris, 1921a: 215. Change of status.
COMMON NAMES: coniferous fiorinia scale [McKenz1956]; Japanese scale [VelasqRi1969]; juniper fiorinia scale [McKenz1956].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Tao1999], Phoenix sp. [Kuwana1925b]. Aucubaceae: Aucuba japonica [Kuwana1925b]. Cephalotaxaceae: Cephalotaxus drapacea [Kuwana1925b], Cephalotaxus drapacea fastigiata [Kuwana1925b], Cephalotaxus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cupressaceae: Cupressus sp. [MillerDa2005], Juniperus bedfordiana [Mamet1954a], Juniperus bermudiana [Leonar1906c], Juniperus chinensis [Ali1969a], Juniperus communis [McKenz1956], Juniperus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Ficus foroelata [Kuwana1925b]. Pinaceae: Abies firma [Kuwana1925b], Abies sp. [MillerDa2005], Abies veitchii [Kuwana1925b], Cedrus atlantica [Takagi1970], Keteleeria davidiana [Takagi1970], Picea excelsa [Muraka1970], Picea pungens [Muraka1970], Picea sp. [MillerDa2005], Pinus densiflora [Kuwana1925b], Pinus elata [Kuwana1925b], Pinus koraiensis [Kuwana1925b], Pinus nageia [Kuwana1925b], Pinus pentaphylla [Kuwana1925b], Pinus sp. [Kuwana1902, MillerDa2005], Pinus thunbergii [Ali1969a], Tsuga sieboldi [Kuwana1925b], Tsuga sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum tobira [Kuwana1925b]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sciadopityaceae: Sciadopitys sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus chinensis [Kuwana1902], Podocarpus elata [Muraka1970], Podocarpus macrophylla [Kuwana1925b], Podocarpus macrophylla maki [Kuwana1925b], Podocarpus nageia [Kuwana1925b], Taxus mairei [Takagi1970], Taxus sp. [MillerDa2005], Torreya nucifera [Kuwana1925b], Torreya sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxodiaceae: Sciadopitys vericillata [Kuwana1925b]. Theaceae: Eurya japonica [Kuwana1925b], Thea japonica [Kuwana1925b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1954a, WilliaWi1988]. Australasian: Australia [WilliaWi1988]. Nearctic: United States of America (California [Essig1910a, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Maryland [MillerDa2005], New York [Britto1935a], Virginia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Tao1999]; India (West Bengal [Ali1969a]); Philippines [Tao1999]; Sri Lanka [Leonar1906c]; Taiwan [Tao1999, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: China (Hebei (=Hopei) [Tao1999], Henan (=Honan) [Tao1999]); France [Matile1990]; Japan [Kuwana1925b, MillerDa2005] (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [Kuwana1902]); South Korea [Suh2012].
BIOLOGY: As far as we can determine, the biology of this species has never been studied. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, sides nearly parallel, anterior margin round, covered with a white powdery substance; median carina indicated and frequently not visible, brown, exuviae yellow. Male scale white, not carinated, exuviae yellow, about 1 mm long. Adult female elongate thin, yellowish (Kuwana, 1925b).
SYSTEMATICS: Many references in literature to Fiorinia juniperi (a junior synonym of F. japonica) actually refer to F. pinicola.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. The coniferous fiorinia scale is a pest of conifers in the Washington D.C. area; it causes chlorosis of the leaves, leaf drop, and an unsightly appearance. Tang (1984) considered it to be a serious pest of pine trees in Beijing, China. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Suh 2012: 76 (female, adult) [Key to the Korean Pupillarial Species]; Gill 1997: 144 [Key to California species of Fiorinia]; Kosztarab 1996: 501 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Northeastern North America]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 206 (female) [Key to females]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 207 (male) [Clé des larves mâles du stade II]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia]; Howell 1977: 836 (first instar) [Key to the first instars of Fiorinia]; Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to Californian species of Fiorinia]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:55 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of California]; Kuwana 1925b: 3 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 373 (female) [as Fiorinia juniperi; Key to species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 374 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [as Fiorinia iuniperi; Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303, 312]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Britto1935a [distribution, host: 160]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 127-131]; BrownMc1962 [chemistry, physiology, taxonomy: 165]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 108-109]; Chou1986 [illustration: 508]; Clause1931 [distribution, host: 83]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 84]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 260-261]; Essig1910a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 209-210]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 199]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host: 215]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 3, 4]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-394, SIV-446:55]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 22]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; GarretLa1969 [taxonomy: 1221]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 145]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 325]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 104]; Howell1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 831]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 194]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 86, 348]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 279, 280-281]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 23]; Koszta1996 [biological control, description, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 501, 502, 504-505]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 200]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 17]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 5-10]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36-37]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 126]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373, 374]; Mamet1954a [host, distribution: 262]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 40]; Matile1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 205-211]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 111-113]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 206]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 90]; Nakaha1982 [distribution: 37]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Rao1952 [distribution, host: 9]; Sassce1912b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; Stimme1980 [taxonomy: 700]; Suh2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74-76]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 41]; Takagi1963d [distribution, taxonomy: 115]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56-57]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17, 23, 76]; Takaha1930 [distribution, host: 43]; Takaha1936a [distribution, host: 220]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 152]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 86-87]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 9]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 196]; Wang1982c [distribution, host: 68, 70]; Weidha1968 [host, taxonomy: 256]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Whitne1933 [distribution, host: 66]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 66]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 23, 64]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 213]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 258, 261].
Fiorinia kandyensis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia kandyensis Green, 1922a: 1016-1017. Type data: SRI LANKA: Kandy, on undetermined shrub. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female consisting solely of the nymphal exuviae which is bright castaneous with a darker median longitudinal fascia, elongate, moderately convex, 1.5 mm long. Male puparium scattered, white, obscurely carinate, the carinations concealed by a covering of loose, woolly matter, 0.75 mm long. Adult female thin and delicate (Green, 1922a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia kandyensis can be distinguished by the unusually long setiform spines on the margin of the pygidium (Green, 1922a).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 45-46]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Green1922a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1016-1017]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 326]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 23]; Ramakr1926 [distribution: 456]; Varshn2002 [distribution: 65].
Fiorinia keteleeriae YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia keteleeriae Young, 1987: 127. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, on Keteleeria davidiana, ?/04/1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Keteleeria davidiana [Young1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia keteleeriae is close to Lineaspis junipericola, but differs in the median lobes with pointed tip, in the well-developed marginal gland spines on 2nd abdominal segment, and in the presence of a continuous line of minute gland spines arranged along lateral margins of meso- and metathoracic and 1st abdominal segments (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133].
Fiorinia kumatai TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia kumatai Takagi, 1975: 24-26. Type data: NEPAL: Biratani, on Citrus aurantium, 29/04/1968. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [Takagi1975].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1975].
BIOLOGY: Fiorinia kumatai was collected at an altitude of 1150 m (Takagi, 1975).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1975).
STRUCTURE: Adult female broadest about the metathorax and the base of abdomen, with the head margin broadly convex, with pygidium rather narrow. Derm membranous except for pygidium, which is weakly sclerotized in a broad median region dorsally and in a broad marginal region ventrally. 2nd instar exuviae pale yellow, not strongly sclerotized, translucent, oblong, more than twice as long as wide (Takagi, 1975).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia kumatai may be related to F. gelonii, F. saprosmae and F. similis (Takagi, 1975).
CITATIONS: Takagi1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65].
Fiorinia linderae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia linderae Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 63.
Fiorinia linderae Takagi, 1970: 63. Type data: TAIWAN: Taipei Hsien, on Lindera communis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Lindera communis [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [GhabboMoAl1996]); Taiwan [Takagi1970]. Palaearctic: Oman [GhabboMoAl1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female more or less elongate-oval, pygidium broad. Median lobes comparatively large, sunken in a distinct apical notch of the pygidium for most of their length, well divergent, rather roughly serrate and pointed apically (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia linderae is close to F. quercifolii, but may be distinguishable from the latter mainly by the second lobes distinctly divided into two lobules (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 363]; Chou1986 [illustration: 513]; Ghabbo1999 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-89]; GhabboMoAl1996 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-58]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 151]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63, 64]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 24, 64]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 258].
Fiorinia minor MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia camelliae minor Maskell, 1897: 307. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, on Palmae. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA.
Fiorinia fioriniae minor; Fernald, 1903b: 247. Change of combination.
Fiorinia chinensis Ferris, 1921a: 216. Type data: CHINA: taken in quarantine at San Francisco, California. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 63.
Fiorinia minor; Hoffman, 1927: 76. Change of status.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Trachycarpus fortunnei [Tao1999]. Moraceae: Ficus pumila [Takaha1929], Ficus sp. [Maskel1897a]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [Maskel1897a]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sinensis [Takaha1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a]. Palaearctic: China [Ferris1921a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 101]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 347]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 247]; Ferris1921a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 216]; Ferris1936 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4-5]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host: 983]; Hoffma1927 [distribution: 76]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 17]; Kuwana1927 [distribution: 72]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host: 16]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 189]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; Maskel1897 [distribution, host: 307]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Sassce1912b [distribution, host: 79]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55, 63]; Takagi1975a [taxonomy: 60]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 10, 14, 77]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 212, 214]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia multipora LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia odinae multipora Lindinger, 1911: 126. Type data: INDIA: Khasia, on Taxus wallichiana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
Fiorinia multipora; Lindinger, 1943b: 220. Change of status.
Fiorinia muitipora; Ali, 1969a: 46. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Taxaceae: Taxus wallichiana [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Lindin1911].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lindinger (1911).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with genacerores combined into a single large omnaceroris, total number of cerores 86-91 (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 373 (female) [as Fiorinia odinae multipora; Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-393]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 448]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 28]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 220]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Stimme1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 700]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176].
Fiorinia myricae YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia myricae Young, 1987: 128. Type data: CHINA: Jiangxi, Nan Chang, on Myrica rubra, 20/12/1982. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myricaceae: Myrica rubra [Young1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Young1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia myricae is close to F. pinicola, but differs in the absence of submarginal group of macroducts on 3rd abdominal segment (Young, 1987).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Young1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133-134].
Fiorinia nachiensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia nachiensis Takahashi, 1956a: 60-61. Type data: JAPAN: Wakayama, Nachisan, on Rhododendron sp., 13/07/1955, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: nati-konoha-kaigara [Takagi1975a].
HOSTS: Ericaceae: Rhododendron metternichii [Muraka1970], Rhododendron sp. [Takaha1956a]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takaha1956a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1956a) and Takagi (1975a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale yellowish brown, flattened. Second larval skin stout (Takahashi, 1956a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia nachiensis resembles F. turpiniae in the shape of the median lobes, but differs from that species in lacking an interantennal tubercle (Takahashi, 1956).
KEYS: Takagi 1961: 42 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 261]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 283]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 90]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40, 42]; Takagi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-48]; Takagi1979 [taxonomy: 10]; Takagi1980 [taxonomy: 100-103]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 14, 15]; Takaha1956a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60-61].
Fiorinia nanningensis Zhang & Feng in Zhang, et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia nanningensis Zhang & Feng in Zhang, et al., 2012: 222-226. Type data: CHINA:. Holotype female. Type depository: Yangling: Entomological Museum, Northwestern Agricultural University, Shaanxi Province, China.. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [ZhangZeFe2012].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration in Zhang, et al., 2012,
SYSTEMATICS: This species is similar to F. linderae Takagi, 1969, with both having gland spines absent on the pygidium, and second lobes reduced, at most represent by a slight prominence, or absent; but differing from the latter in: (1) median lobes of new species small and narrow, without notches, ends often truncated (median lobes large and serrate, pointed apically in F. linderae); (2) gland spines or gland tubercles absent on body (with 1-3 gland tubercles on metathorax and 3 or 4 on abdominal segment I, and 1-2 gland spines on abdominal segment II in F. linderae); (3) interantennal process absent between antennal bases (small and conical in F. linderae).
CITATIONS: ZhangZeFe2012 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 222-226].
Fiorinia neocaledonica LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia neo-caledonica Lindinger, 1911: 176. Type data: NEW CALEDONIA: on Baeckia pinifolia, 31/12/1902. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
Fiorinia neocaledonica; Borchsenius, 1966: 146. Justified emendation.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Baeckia pinifolia [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Caledonia [Lindin1911].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lindinger (1911).
STRUCTURE: Scale is 2.4 mm long and 0.25 wide, wide. Larval exuviae yellowish, elliptical, 0.55 mm long, 0.23 mm wide (Lindinger, 1911).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 375 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 16, 31]; Laing1933 [distribution, host: 676]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 176]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 375]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176].
Fiorinia neriifolii Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia neriifolii Borchsenius & Williams, 1962: 70. Type data: PAKISTAN: Rawalpindi, on Nerium sp., 05/11/1959, by M.A. Ghani. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [AhmadGh1972], Physcus flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium indicum [AhmadGh1972], Nerium sp. [BorchsWi1962]. Myrsinaceae: Myrsine africana [AhmadGh1972]. Rosaceae: Eriobotrya japonica [AhmadGh1972].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [BorchsWi1962].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1 mm long, composed of exuviae of 2nd stage, elongate oval, dark brown; exuviae of 1st stage same color, lying at one end. Adult female membranous except for pygidium, broadly pyriform, about 0.75 mm long, rounded posteriorly (Borchsenius & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia neriifolii is similar to F. turpiniae in that the median lobes of adult female do not form a notch at apex of pygidium, but it differs from this species in possessing shorter lobes and fewer gland spines (Borchsenius & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: Ahmad1970 [taxonomy: 711]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 87]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; BorchsWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-70]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 261]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65].
Fiorinia odaiensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia odaiensis Takagi, 1975a: 42-45. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Kii Peninsula, Odai-ga-hara, on Rhododendron metternichii, 12/10/1972, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: odai-konoha-kaigara [Takagi1975a].
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron metternichii [Takagi1975a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takagi1975a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1975a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia odaiensis is very similar to F. hymenanthis, differing only in the number and arrangement of the marginal macroducts (Takagi, 1975a).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 261]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 283]; Takagi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-45]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 8, 28]; Takagi1980 [taxonomy: 100-103]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 13-14].
Fiorinia odinae LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia Odinae Leonardi, 1906c: 24-26. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Odina woodice. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia odinae; Borchsenius, 1966: 146. Justified emendation.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Odina woodice [Leonar1906c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Leonar1906c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1906c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate. Larval exuviae castaneous. Adult female elongate, pyriform (Leonardi, 1906c).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 373 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 325]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 485]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 24-26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66].
Fiorinia pakistanensis AhmadNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia pakistanensis Ahmad, 1970: 709-711. Type data: PAKISTAN: Abbottabad, on Olea cuspidata, 07/12/1967. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH, USNM and the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Pakistan Station, Rawalpindi.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis citrinus [AhmadGh1972], Physcus flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Oleaceae: Olea cuspidata [AhmadGh1970], Olea europaea [AhmadGh1972].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Ahmad1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ahmad (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale composed of elongate-oval, and dark brown exuviae covered by a thin dull white secretion which extends slightly beyond the margins. Exuviae of 1st instar pale yellow, transparent and placed at the anterior margin of scale. Adult female membranous except for pygidium, measuring approximately 0.7-1.0 mm long and 0.4-0.5 mm wide. 2nd stage female about 0.5-0.6 mm long and 0.3 mm wide. Median lobes retracted into the apex of the pygidium, strongly divergent, bases yoked and inner edge serrated (Ahmad, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia pakistanensis is similar to F. neriifolii in having a well-developed interantennal process, but differs in the shape of median lobes and number of marginal macroducts (Ahmad, 1970).
CITATIONS: Ahmad1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 709-711]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 87]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution, host: 84]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66].
Fiorinia payaoensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia payaoensis Takahashi, 1942b: 43-44. Type data: THAILAND: Payao, north of Lampang, on undetermined tree, 16/04/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1942b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female yellowish-brown, shining, pale on margin, convex dorsally, with a rather wide ridge; 2nd skin narrow, gradually much narrowed towards front end, not thick, about 0.92 mm long and 0.3 mm wide (Takahashi, 1942b).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 43-44].
Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & RobinsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson, 1915: 108. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Mt. Makiling, on Neolitsea sp., 31/01/1914, by C.F. Baker. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia phantosura; MacGillivray, 1921: 373. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: phantasma scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOSTS: Arecaceae [Garcia2011]. Clusiaceae: Calophyllum inophyllum [Garcia2011]. Fabaceae: Cassia sp. [Garcia2011]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia caribaea [Garcia2011]. Lauraceae: Machilus sp. [Robins1917], Neolitsea sp. [CockerRo1915]. Moraceae: Ficus benjamina [Garcia2011]. Myoperaceae: Myoporum sandwicense [Garcia2011]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum japonicum [Garcia2011], Noronhia emarginata [Garcia2011]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus tectorius [Garcia2011]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum tobira [Garcia2011]. Rutaceae: Murraya paniculata [Garcia2011]. Strelitziaceae: Ravenala madagascariensis [Garcia2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Garcia2011]). Oriental: Philippines [CockerRo1915].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Cockerell & Robinson (1915).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.25 mm long, elongate, very pale greyish ochreous, very inconspicuous on host. First exuviae elongate oval, extending beyond anterior end. Adult female pale yellow, during gestation with the abdominal segments contracted; pygidium with median lobes widely divergent, not greatly produced, their inner margin with 4 to 6 teeth. Second stage female elongate; pygidial structure with well developed narrow second lobes (Cockerell & Robinson, 1915). Adult females inconsistently show red stripes, running the width of the scale covering. Some populations have a variation of clear, red-striped, and full red scale coverings. (Garcia, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia phantasma is close to F. saprosmae, but differing conspicuously in the shape of the abdomen and the number of circumgenital glands (Cockerell & Robinson, 1915). F. phantasma is closely related to F. fioriniae , a similar looking scale that is a pest of palms and protea.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Damage caused by F. phantasma is recognizable by the yellow blotches on the upper leaf surfaces of host plants. As the scale population increases, intense feeding damage to the leaf causes leaf drop. Horticultural oil has been used with closely related scale species, and should be effective against the crawler stage of F. phantasma. Systemic insecticides, including dinotefuran, and insect growth regulators, such as pyriproxyfen and/or buprofezin has also been proven to work with other similar scale pests, and may be effective against F. phantasma.(Garcia, 2011)
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 373 (female) [as Fiorinia phantosura; Key to species of Fiorinia]; Robinson 1917: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of the Philippine Islands].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; CockerRo1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108]; Garcia2011 [description, distribution, economic importance, host]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host: 18, 19]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution: 196].
Fiorinia phoenicis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia phoenicis Balachowsky, 1967a: 771-775. Type data: IRAN: Borazdjan Oasis, between Chirax and Bandar Abbas, on Phoenix dactylifera, 29/11/1966, by P. Gaillot. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Arecaceae: Phoenix dactylifera [Balach1967a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Balach1967a]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1984c]; Spain [SeljakMa2012].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale made up of nymphal exuviae, brown, translucent. Larval exuviae pale yellow. Male puparium tricarinated longitudinally, white, larval exuviae pale yellow (Balachowsky, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia phoenicis is unique for the regressive evolution of the adult female whose generic characters are extenuated in relation to the nymphal stage where they are striking with regard to imaginal stage (Balachowsky, 1967a).
CITATIONS: Balach1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 772-775]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 261]; Kaussa1968 [distribution, host: 81]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 221]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 31]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 33]; SeljakMa2012 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 453-455].
Fiorinia pinicola MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia pinicola Maskell, 1897a: 242. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, on Pinus sinensis; TAIWAN: on Cupressus juniperinus. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, Department of Entomology, California, USA, Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA, and USNM, CDAE. Described: female.
Fiorinia camelliae; Maskell, 1898: 232. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Ferris, 1936: 2-3.
Fiorinia juniperi; Ferris, 1921a: 215. Misidentification; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 309.
Fiorinia juniperi; Kuwana, 1925b: 8-10. Misidentification; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 309.
Fiorinia pruinosa Ferris, 1950a: 77-78. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, near Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Magnolia sp., 02/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 284.
Fiorinia juniperi; McKenzie, 1956: 32, 113. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 145. Notes: The description and illustration of McKenzie (1956) actually refer to Fiorinia pinicola despite his erroneous listing as Fiorinia juniperi Bouché (not Leonardi). McKenzie also confused Aspidiotus juniperi Bouché (=Carulaspis juniperi) with this species.
Fiorinia junipericola Borchsenius, 1966: 145. Described: female. Notes: Borchsenius (1966) lists Fiorinia junipericola as a "nomen nov." for Fiorinia juniperi McKenzie 1956, not Leonardi 1906. It appears that McKenzie's description and illustration of F. pinicola which was labeled as F. juniperi confused Borchsenius and caused him to think that the species was new to science. He therefore proposed a new name for the species.
Fiorinia pruninosa; Tao, 1999: 87. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: juniper fiorinia scale [Borchs1966].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Muraka1970].
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Schefflera heptaphylla [MartinLa2011]. Aucubaceae: Aucuba japonica [Balach1954e]. Cephalotaxaceae: Cephalotaxus sp. [Balach1954e]. Fagaceae: Quercus schottkyana [Ali1969a]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [Ferris1950a]. Moraceae: Ficus foveolata [Kuwana1925b], Ficus foveolata nipponica [Muraka1970], Ficus pumila [BesheaTiHo1973]. Myricaceae: Myrica rubra [TakahaTa1956]. Pinaceae: Cupressus juniperus [Maskel1897a], Pinus docarpus [Tao1999], Pinus latteri [Tao1999], Pinus macrophylus [Tao1999], Pinus massoniana [Tang1986], Pinus sinensis [Maskel1897a]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [Balach1954e], Pittosporum tobira [Kuwana1925b]. Taxaceae: Cephalotaxus drupacea [Kuwana1925b], Cephalotaxus drupacea koraiana [Muraka1970], Podocarpus macrophylla [Kuwana1925b], Podocarpus macrophylla maki [Kuwana1925b], Podocarpus nagi [Kuwana1925b], Podocarpus neriifolia [Balach1954e], Podocarpus sp. [Balach1954e], Torreya nucifera [Kuwana1925b]. Taxodiaceae: Sciadopitys verticillata [Kuwana1925b]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Muraka1970], Eurya japonica [Kuwana1925b], Thea japonica [Kuwana1925b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Hainan [Tao1999], Hunan [Hua2000], Yunnan [Ferris1950a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897a]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a]. Palaearctic: Italy [Pelliz2005]; Japan [Balach1954e] (Honshu [TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Portugal [BaetaN1954, FrancoRuMa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2 mm long, second exuviae covered with a thin, frost-like coating of wax which extends past the posterior end of the exuviae as a white appendage. Male scale fluffy. Adult female elongate oval, broadly rounded anteriorly. Median pygidial lobes quite large, apically divergent, forming a broad notch at the apex of body (Ferris, 1950a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia pinicola is similar to F. fioriniae (Ferris, 1936). Tang (2001) considers F. pinicola to be a junior synonym of F. fioriniae.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Gill 1997: 144 [Key to California species of Fiorinia]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 206 (female) [Key to Fiorinia]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 207 (male) [Clé des larves mâles du stade II]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [as Fiorinia pruinosa; Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia]; Howell 1977: 836 (first instar) [Key to the first instars of Fiorinia]; Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan]; McKenzie 1956: 32 [as Fiorinia juniperi; Key to species of Fiorinia Targioni]; Balachowsky 1954e: 303 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46-47]; BaetaN1954 [distribution, host: 192]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303, 309-312]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145-146]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 109-110, 112-11]; Chou1986 [illustration: 514, 515]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 261]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 247]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host: 215]; Ferris1936 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-3]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-393]; Ferris1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77-78]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 12,24]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 145]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 180]; Howell1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 831]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 194]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 279]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 24]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 8-10]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; Maskel1897a [description, distribution, host: 242]; Maskel1898 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 232]; Matile1990 [description, taxonomy: 206, 207]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 32, 113]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 90]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 37]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 501]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 56]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36, 41]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 13]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 11]; Tang1977 [taxonomy: 156]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; Tippin1970a [description, taxonomy: 94-99]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 9]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 24, 64]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260]; Yao1985 [physiology: 338].
Fiorinia pinicorticis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia pinicorticis Ferris, 1950a: 77. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, near Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Pinus yunnanensis, 02/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus yunnanensis [Ferris1950a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1950a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1950a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.3 mm long, composed entirely of exuviae of the second stage, this being covered with a thin coating of white or gray wax, flat yellowish to black where the wax covering has been removed; exuviae of first stage lying close to one end. Male scale formed by first exuviae short secretionary portion which is but little longer, this being white or gray and noncarinate. Adult female elongate oval, somewhat acute posteriorly, membranous throughout except for weakly sclerotized pygidium (Ferris, 1950a).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1950a) states that Fiorinia pinicorticis is an unusual species due to the character of the median lobes in the adult female which are parallel to each other, rather than divergent and do not form a notch in the apex of the body.
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 112]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Ferris1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77]; Hu1984 [taxonomy: 218]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia plana GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia plana Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 15-16. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1919c: 447-448.
Fiorinia plana Green, 1919c: 447-448. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore and Courtallum, on Elaeodendron glaucum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Jauravia dorsalis [HertinSi1972].
HOST: Celastraceae: Elaeodendron glaucum [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female pale stramineous, translucent; elongate-ovate, flattish or slightly convex above; consisting of the larval and nymphal exuviae, with little or no secretionary appendix. Larval exuviae small. Nymphal exuviae enlarged. Adult female with abdominal segments strongly retracted (Green, 1919c).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 447-448]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 181]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 97]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 20]; Takagi2003 [description: 77]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66].
Fiorinia proboscidaria GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia proboscidaria Green, 1900a: 256. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Gelonium lanceolatum, ?/08/18??. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002]. Apiaceae: Daucus carota [WilliaWa1988]. Araceae: Epipremnum pinnatum [Hinckl1963], Rhaphidophora vitiensis [WilliaWa1988]. Arecaceae: Areca catechu [WilliaWa1988], Areca sp. [Heu2002]. Euphorbiaceae: Gelonium lanceolatum [Green1900a]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia jambos [Takaha1940], Syzygium sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Piperaceae: Piper sp. [Borchs1966]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus macrophyllus [Tang1986]. Rosaceae: Rosa sp. [Hinckl1963, Heu2002]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium tachibana [Takaha1940], Citrus depressa [Takaha1955f], Citrus limon [Hinckl1963], Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988], Citrus paradisi [WilliaWa1988], Citrus poonensis [Takaha1940], Citrus reticulata [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002], Citrus sinensis [WilliaWa1988], Citrus sp. [Fletch1919], Fortunella japonica [WilliaWa1988]. Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [Dumble1954]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [WilliaWa1988]); Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Beards2002] (First observed in 1994)); Indonesia (Java [Clause1933]); Tonga [WilliaWa1988]. Neotropical: Jamaica [Fletch1919]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986]); India [PruthiMa1945] (Meghalaya [Varshn2002]). Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Clause1933]). Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1900a]; Taiwan [Takaha1940]. Palaearctic: China (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000]); Iran [Moghad2013a]; Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium elongate lanceolate, with a distinct median carina, golden brown, shining. First exuviae pale yellow, projecting from the anterior extremity. Remainder of puparium consisting of the enlarged 2nd exuviae. Adult female elongate, tapering at both ends (Green, 1900a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia proboscidaria is close to F. theae, but is distinguishable by the head narrowing towards the interantennal process and having a pair of lateral prominences; by anterior spiracles lacking disc pores except for the occasional presence of a single disc pore; by the marginal gland spines less prominent; and by the marginal ducts of the pygidium fewer (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Williams & Watson 1988: 115 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 374 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Beards2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 107-108]; Chou1986 [illustration: 509]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 16]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 42, 88]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, host: 270, 279]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 299]; Green1900a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 256-257]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 325]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 26]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 17, 42]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 24]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Kalsho1981 [distribution, host: 174]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 286]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 485]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 26-28]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 374]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 33]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 91]; NagarkPa1981 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 127-128]; Newste1917a [distribution, host: 133]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, host: 8]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65-67]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 30]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 28, 50]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host: 21]; Takaha1940 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 27]; Takaha1955f [distribution, host: 241]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 284]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115, 120, 121]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia quercifolii FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia quercifolii Ferris, 1950a: 78. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, near Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Quercus schottkyana, 02/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia guercifolii; Tang, 1977: 150. Misspelling of species name.
Fiorinia quercifolia; Tao, 1999: 87. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus schottkyana [Ferris1950a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1950a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]).
BIOLOGY: Scales were seen crowded against vein of host leaf (Ferris, 1950a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1950a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.75 mm long, second exuviae covered with a thin film of secretion which gives a pale gray or slightly yellowish color (Ferris, 1950a).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 113-114]; Chou1986 [illustration: 510]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Ferris1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 63]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 150-151]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia randiae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia proboscidaria randiae Takahashi, 1934: 20-21. Type data: TAIWAN: Hori, on Randia canthioides, 10/06/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia randiae; Borchsenius, 1966: 147. Change of status.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Takaha1934]. Rubiaceae: Randia canthioides [Takaha1934], Randia sinensis [Tao1999]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Takaha1934]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1934]. Palaearctic: Japan [Hua2000].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1934).
STRUCTURE: Adult female shining yellowish brown, first skin paler, extending beyond the anterior end of the 2nd. 2nd skin long, narrow, sometimes slightly curved, about 1.8 mm long with a distinct longitudinal carina and 3 pairs of lateral spines (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Fioriniae randiae can be told by the presence of eminent gland spines on the pygidium (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 284]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host: 135]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 261].
Fiorinia reducta Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia reducta Williams & Watson, 1988: 123. Type data: INDONESIA: Irian Jaya, Jayapura (formerly Hollandia), on unidentified tree, 24/01/1960, by T. Maa. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale brown and transparent laterally, elongate, flat. Male scale white, elongate, but smaller. Adult female about 0.5 mm long, oval, widest at head or prothorax; free abdominal segments showing some lateral development; body membranous except for pygidium (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia reducta has some affinities with F. fioriniae, but the latter possesses only 3 or 4 pairs of large pygidial macroducts, whereas F. reducta has 6 pairs. The perivulvar pores, restricted to the postero-lateral groups only, distinguish it from any other species of Fiorinia (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 115 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115, 122-123].
Fiorinia rhododendri TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia rhododendri Takahashi, 1935: 27-29. Type data: TAIWAN: Taito, Chipposan, on Rhododendron sp., 23/03/1934, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [Takaha1935]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, pale. 2nd skin without eminent lateral spines, about 1.2 mm long (Takahashi, 1935).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia rhododendri is near F. horii, but differs in the elongate body, the median lobes closely placed, the fewer marginal glands and the presence of the 2nd lobes. The interantennal tubercle resembles that of F. saprosmae and the median lobes have markings through the whole length (Takahashi, 1935).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 363-364]; FoxWil1939 [distribution, host: 2315]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 55]; Takagi1975a [distribution, taxonomy: 52]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-29]; Takaha1956a [taxonomy: 61]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 87]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia rhododendricola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia rhododendricola Tang, 1986: 110. Type data: CHINA: Fujian Province, Fuzhou, Gushan, on Rhododendron simsii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron simsii [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, yellowish-brown, 1st exuviae apical, 0.80 mm long. Male scale felted and white, tricarinated. Adult female oval, about 0.57 mm long (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia rhododendricola can be distinguished by the presence of submarginal macroducts on the ventrum of the pygidium, even on the 2nd stage female (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 283-284]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94].
Fiorinia sapindi GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia sapindi Kasargode, 1914: 135. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1919c: 448.
Fiorinia sapindi Green, 1919c: 448. Type data: INDIA: Maharashtra, Poona, on Sapindus trifoliatus, by H.H. Mann. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 20. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapindaceae: Sapindus trifoliatus [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Maharashtra [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium covered almost completely by the nymphal exuviae, with sometimes a very narrow colourless secretionary margin. Exuviae dark castaneous, lighter towards the margins. Nymphal exuviae rather narrow, posterior abdominal segments with lateral margin produced into small but acute points. Adult female minute, with very thin and delicate derm (Green, 1919c).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47-48]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 448]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66].
Fiorinia saprosmae GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia saprosmae Green, 1896: 5. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Saprosma sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Trullifiorinia saprosmae; MacGillivray, 1921: 376. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus albitibiae [AnneckPr1974], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Morley1909].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Trachycarpus sp. [Hua2000]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [Hua2000]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Takaha1929]. Rubiaceae: Saprosma sp. [Green1896], Saprosma zeylanicum [Green1896e].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1896]; Taiwan [Hua2000].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1896e).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium oblong oval, narrow margin of colorless transparent secretion surrounding the large second exuviae. Orange-yellow. Male puparium opaque white, obscurely tricarinate; exuviae pale yellow. Adult female pale yellow, pygidium brownish; margin flattened and almost colorless (Green, 1896e).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia saprosmae can be distinguished from F. fioriniae by the absence of lateral lobes on the pygidium; by the less conspicuous tubular spinnerets; by the structure of the antennae in the female and the presence between them of a prominent chitinous tubercle (Green, 1896e).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; MacGillivray 1921: 376 (female) [Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Green 1896e: 93 (female) [Ceylon species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; AnneckPr1974 [biological control, distribution: 38]; Ashmea1900 [biological control, distribution: 409]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; CockerRo1915 [taxonomy: 108]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 119]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 249]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 34, 80]; Garcia1921 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93, 96-97]; Green1900a [description, illustration: 256]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 324]; HowardAs1895 [biological control, distribution: 641]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Kuwana1925b [taxonomy: 14]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 19-21]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 376]; Mani1938 [biological control, distribution: 97]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 65]; Morley1909 [biological control: 256]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354]; Ramakr1925a [biological control, distribution: 246]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 55]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 26]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 25]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 29]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 261].
Fiorinia separata TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia separata Takagi, 1961: 35-36. Type data: JAPAN: Ryukyu Islands, Sumiyô, Amami-Osima, on undetermined non-coniferous plant, 14/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [Tang1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986]). Palaearctic: Japan [Muraka1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body membranous, pygidium approximately triangular or somewhat rounded along its free margin (Takagi, 1961).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia separata is easily identified by its widely separated median lobes (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 279-280]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 91]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36, 41]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 284]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94-95].
Fiorinia sikokiana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia grandilobis Takagi, 1975a: 48. Nomen nudum. Notes: Fiorinia grandilobis was the manuscript name that Takahashi used for this species. Takagi mentions it only to note that the type slide contains this name on its label.
Fiorinia sikokiana Takagi, 1975a: 48-49. Type data: JAPAN: Sikoku, Koti-ken, Senbon-yama, on Rhododendron sp., 14/11/1964, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia shikokiana; Kawai, 1980: 283. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: sikoku-konoha-kaigara [Takagi1975a].
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [Takagi1975a]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Shikoku [Takagi1975a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1975a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oblong, head margin broadly rounded or rather flat, pygidium triangular or slightly roundish marginally. Median lobes slightly divergent, almost wholly produced. Exuviae of 2nd instar female oblong, gradually narrowing posteriorly, pygidium triangular in outline (Takagi, 1975a).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia sikokiana is quite distinct due to the combination of the number of the marginal macroducts and the absence of gland spines on both the 7th and 8th abdominal segments. It is also unique in the 2nd instar female by lacking gland spines on the 7th and 8th abdominal segments (Takagi, 1975a).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 283]; Takagi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-49]; Takagi1979 [taxonomy: 14]; Takagi1980 [taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 14, 17].
Fiorinia similis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia similis Green, 1896e: 98. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on unidentified shrub. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trullifiorinia simillis; MacGillivray, 1921: 376. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1896e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1896e).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium delicate, transparent, without any dark median stripe, indistinct median longitudinal ridge, with short lateral ridge on each side, pale clear yellow or orange, form of insect and eggs visible through the scale. Male puparium white, tricarinate, ridges prominent and powdery. Adult female pale yellow, margin flattened and colorless. Adult male reddish orange. Young larvae yellow, oval, tapering behind. Eggs pale yellow (Green, 1896e).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia similis is similar to F. saprosmae, but distinguishable by the more widely separate antennae without median tubercle, also by the narrower and more pointed pygidium with its small erect median lobes (Green, 1896e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 376 (female) [Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Green 1896e: 93 (female) [Ceylon species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; Borchs1963a [taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93, 98]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 325]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 21-23]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 376]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 16]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 26].
Fiorinia smilaceti TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia smilaceti Takahashi, 1931a: 218-219. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten, on Smilax sp., ?/01/1927, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Lindera communis [Takaha1934]. Liliaceae: Smilax sp. [Takaha1931a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1931a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pygidium with 3 pairs of marginal glands, and about 5 small slender glands on the submarginal area of each side (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia smilaceti is characterized by the large median lobes of the 2nd larval skin (Takahashi, 1931a).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 364]; Chou1986 [illustration: 516]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 55]; Takaha1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218-219]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 105]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 33, 62]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-24]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 24, 64]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia sp.NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia sp. Williams & Miller, 2010: 46. Notes: specimens are not satisfactory to describe or illustrate.
HOST: Guttiferae: Calophyllum inophyllum [WilliaMi2010].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [WilliaMi2010]).
CITATIONS: WilliaMi2010 [distribution, host: 46].
Fiorinia taiwana TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia saprosmae; Takahashi, 1929: 15. Misidentification; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 57.
Fiorinia taiwana Takahashi, 1934: 24-26. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku; Shirin; Sozan, on Quercus glauca and Myrica rubra, 11/10/1931. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Arenga engleri [Takagi1970], Arenga saccharifera [Tao1999], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Takagi1970]. Fagaceae: Cyclobalanopsis glauca [Tao1978], Quercus glauca [Ali1969a], Quercus sp. [Takaha1934]. Myricaceae: Myrica rubra [Takaha1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986]); Taiwan [Takaha1934]. Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1934) and Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, flattened, pale brownish yellow, usually covered with a thin white secretion, with an indistinct median ridge, about 1.4 mm long. Adult female broadened toward abdomen, with 10-12 short gland spines in an interrupted row on the side (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia taiwana is closely allied to F. saprosmae, but differs in the narrower 2nd skin without an eminent projection on the side of abdomen (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 264, 364-365]; Chou1986 [illustration: 516]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57-59]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 15]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 284]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 24, 65]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260].
Fiorinia theae GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia fioriniae camelliae; Morgan, 1894: 995. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1942: SIV-395.
Fiorinia theae Green, 1900c: 3-4. Type data: INDIA: Assam and Kangra, on Thea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Chionaspis flava; Shiraki, 1913: 95. Misidentification; discovered by Takahashi, 1929: 76.
COMMON NAME: tea scale [McKenz1956, Blicke1965].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Aphytis theae [Watson2002a], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [Watson2002a], Encarsia sankarani [Watson2002a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bivulnerus [Sassce1912b], Jauravia quadrinotata [HertinSi1972], Microweisea misella [Sassce1912b], Scymnus sp [Watson2002a], Scymnus sp. [HertinSi1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus nigritulus [Sassce1912b]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis fioriniae [Watson2002a, RehmatAnKh2011], Aphytis sp. [HertinSi1972], Encarsia elongata [HuangPo1998].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Spondias sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex cornuta [BesheaTiHo1973], Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005], Ilex vomitoria [BesheaTiHo1973]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Muraka1970]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005]. Dioscoreaceae: Dioscorea sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Ostodes sp. [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Ostodes zeylanicus [Takagi1970]. Oleaceae: Olea glandulifera [MerrilCh1923], Olea sp. [Green1903a]. Rubiaceae: Gardenia sp. [MillerDa2005], Thysanospermum diffucum [Takaha1934]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Ferris1942, MillerDa2005]. Ternstroemiaceae: Eurya sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [MerrilCh1923], Camellia sasanqua [BesheaTiHo1973], Camellia sinensis [McKenz1956], Camellia sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Cleyera ochnacea [Tachik1962], Eurya japonica [Kuwana1925b], Thea sp. [Green1900c]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [Reyne1961]). Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Alabama [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Arkansas [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], California [Fleury1938, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Florida [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Koszta1996], Kansas [Lawson1917], Kentucky [Merril1953], Louisiana [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New York [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [Sassce1912b, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1972a, MillerDa2005], Virginia [French1942, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina (Tucuman [Watson2002a]); Bahamas [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Costa Rica [Merril1953]; Honduras [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]. Oriental: Brunei [Watson2002a]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [ChenWo1936], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Yunnan [ChenWo1936]); Hong Kong [Nakaha1982]; India [MillerDa2005] (Assam [Green1900c], Himachal Pradesh [Green1900c, PruthiBa1960], West Bengal [Ali1969a]). Oriental: Indonesia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]. Oriental: Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [Nickel1979]; Malaysia [Watson2002a]; Nepal [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005]; Philippines [Watson2002a]; Sri Lanka [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Taiwan [Takaha1929, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: China [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Japan [MillerDa2005] (Honshu [Kuwana1925b], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
BIOLOGY: When male scales are crowded they appear to be covered with a flocculent secretion (Dekle, 1965c). Several generations per year in the southern U.S. Lays 10-16 eggs, which hatch in 7-21 days depending on weather (Westcott, 1973). Additional biological information by Munir & Sailer (1985). Tea scale is most commonly found on camellias in the U.S. English and Turnipseed (1940) reported a 60 70 day life cycle in warm weather in Alabama with nymphs hatching throughout the year. They noted overlapping generations with continuous crawler production from March to November. Females are reported to lay up to 4 eggs each day with an average of 32 eggs per female (Das and Das 1962). Egg production totals reported by English and Turnipseed (1940) are 10 16 per female. Eggs are laid in 2 longitudinal rows within the second shed skin which hatch in 7 to 21 days in Alabama (English and Turnipseed 1940) or 4 to 6 days in India (Das and Das 1962). Total developmental time from egg hatching to emergence of adult females is 24 27 days; for adult males it is 22 24 days in May in Tocklai, India. Winged males often are abundant and apparently are required for the production of viable crawlers. Das and Das (1962) report that this scale appears to prefer shaded areas in tea plantations in India. In Florida the biology of this species was studied in the Laboratory at 25ºC and 70% RH on butternut squash (Munir and Sailer 1985). Females lay 17-43(28) eggs that hatch in about 10 days. Crawlers move over the host for 1 to 4 days, settle and insert their mouthparts into the host. Molting to the second instar occurs about 10 days after settling. The duration of the male life stages is as follows: second instar 11 days, third instar prepupa 5 days, fourth instar pupa 4 days, adult male 1 day; the male life cycle is completed in about 34 days. The duration of the female life stages is: Second instar 6 days; adult female 17 days; the female cycle is completed in about 65 days. Munir and Sailer (1985) indicate that there is a strong male-biased sex ratio of about 2:1. In the field they observed that the tea scale is multivoltine with overlapping generations, and development continues throughout the year but is slowed in the winter. They indicated that camellia and holly seemed to be preferred hosts. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female oval, shield-shaped, moderately thick, dark brown to almost black, 1.0-1.3 mm long. First exuviae terminal, usually grayish, sometimes with a tinge of yellow. The second exuviae covers the insect entirely. The thin waxy secretionary cover extends over the second exuviae and slightly beyond the margin of the second exuviae. There is a prominent central ridge lengthwise on the second exuviae. Male with sides nearly parallel, snow-white, faintly tricarinate to non-carinate, 1 mm long, exuviae terminal, pale yellow (Dekle, 1965c).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia theae is the only U.S. species of Fiorinia possessing small marginal macroducts (Gill, 1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Gill (1997) states that Fiorinia theae is a serious pest of camellias and other ornamental plants. Leaves of infested plants get yellow blotches and drop prematurely (Kosztarab, 1996). The tea scale is a serious pest of camellias in the southeastern U.S. (English 1990). Heavily infested leaves are covered with a cottony mass on the under surfaces, have chlorotic spots around the cover of the female, and eventually become completely yellow and fall from the plant (English 1990). Plants become stunted, have an unsightly appearance, and have a decrease in bloom productivity. This scale has been considered the most important pest of camellia in the south (English and Turnipseed 1940) and one of the ten most important scale pests in Florida (Dekle 1977). The tea scale apparently is not a serious problem on tea in certain parts of India (Das and Das 1962) because it is kept in check by a complex of natural enemies including several parasites in the genera Aphytis and Encarsia, a complex of predators, and fungi in the genera Aschersonia and Fusarium (Nagarkatti and Sankaran 1990). The tea scale also is commonly found on several species of holly in the eastern United States (McComb 1986). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Gill 1997: 144 [Key to California species of Fiorinia]; Kosztarab 1996: 501 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Northeastern North America]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia]; Howell 1977: 836 (first instar) [Key to the first instars of Fiorinia]; Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan]; McKenzie 1956: 31 (female) [Key to Californian species of Fiorinia]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:54 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Kuwana 1925b: 2 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 375 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 300, 308]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; BrownMc1962 [physiology: 165]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 101]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 99]; ChiuKo1980 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 327-331]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 106-107]; Chou1986 [illustration: 511]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 16]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262-263]; DasDa1962 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 27-35]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 15]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, host: 227, 270. 279]; FeltMo1928 [taxonomy: 199]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-395, SIV-446:54]; Ferris1950a [distribution, host: 79]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 299]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 19]; French1942 [distribution, host: 8]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 145, 149-150]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Green1900c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-4]; Green1903a [distribution, host: 102]; Green1908a [distribution, host: 39]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 326]; GreenMa1907 [distribution, host: 343]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 181]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 268]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 74]; Howell1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 831, 835-836]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1871]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 194]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 284, 285, 286]; Kiritc1932a [distribution, host: 64]; KnorrMo1971 [distribution, host: 77]; Koszta1996 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 501, 505-507]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 10-13]; Kuwana1927b [taxonomy: 152]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 485]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 252]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 28-29]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 127]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 375]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; McComb1986 [distribution, host: 55]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 2]; McDani1972a [distribution, host: 321]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 113, 114]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 48]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 234]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 210]; Morgan1894 [distribution, host: 995]; MorseNo2006 [taxonomy, phylogeny: 340]; MunirSa1985 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 742, 747]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 91]; Murale1983 [distribution, host: 6]; NagarkJa1981 [biological control, distribution: 123]; NagarkPa1981 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 127-128]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 37]; Newell1927 [distribution, host: 90, 110]; Nickel1979 [distribution, economic importance, host: 42]; Pierce1917 [economic importance, host: 156, 212]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; PruthiBa1960 [distribution, host: 29]; PruthiMa1945 [biological control, distribution: 8]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution, host: 274]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution, host: 275]; Reyne1961 [distribution: 123]; Ryan1946 [distribution, economic importance: 124]; Sassce1912b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-79]; Sassce1914 [taxonomy: 242]; SchildSc1928 [biological control, taxonomy: 237, 269]; Schmid1939 [taxonomy: 152]; Shirak1913 [taxonomy: 95]; Silves1929 [distribution, host: 904]; Stebbi1902 [taxonomy: 133]; Stimme1985 [chemical control, description, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 17-18]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host: 37, 41]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 65]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 30]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 11, 28, 76]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host: 37]; Takaha1935 [distribution, host: 2]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 69, 73, 74]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 154]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tippin1970a [description, taxonomy: 94-99]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 46]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66]; Wang1980 [description, taxonomy: 170]; Wang1982c [distribution, host: 69]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; WattMa1903 [distribution, host: 306]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 422-423]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 24-25, 65]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 214]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 260]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 33].
Fiorinia tianshuiensis Wei & Feng in Wei et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia tianshuiensis Wei & Feng in Wei et al., 2013: 94-97. Type data: CHINA: Gansu province, Tianshui City, 6/4/1964, by I.O. Chou. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Shaanxi: Entomological Museum of the Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Baishui, Shaanxi, China; type no. Coc6400. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Cupressaceae: Thuja orientalis L. [WeiZhFe2013].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Gansu (=Kansu) [WeiZhFe2013]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Wei, et al., 2013.
STRUCTURE: Body outline oval to fusiform; derm membranous except for pygidium. Antennae, small and simple, with 1 long seta on tubercle-like base, set close together on anterior margin of head; interantennal process absent. Anterior spiracles each with 3 or 4 trilocular pores; pores absent from posterior spiracles.
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia tianshuiensis is similar to F. japonica Kuwana, 1902, and F. hymenanthis Takagi, 1975, in body shape and in the number of pygidial lobes, but can be distinguished by (character states for F. japonica in brackets): 1) gland spines absent on pygidium (present), and 2) antennal tubercle not elongated in new species (produced into a long process). The species is also similar to F. hymenanthis Takagi, 1975, but can be distinguished by (character states for F. hymenanthis in brackets): 1) gland spines absent on pygidum (present); and 2) with 4 obvious notches on each inner margin (without obvious notches on either inner margin). Wei, et al., 2013)
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: WeiZhFe2013 [description, distribution, host, host, structure, taxonomy: 94-97].
Fiorinia tumida LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia tumida Leonardi, 1906c: 38-39. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Grewia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Grewia sp. [Leonar1906c]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Leonar1906c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1906c).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 374 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 326]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 38-39]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 374]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 66].
Fiorinia turpiniae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia theae turpiniae Takahashi, 1934: 21-22. Type data: TAIWAN: Kahodai near Hassenzan, on Turpinia formosana, 06/06/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia turpiniae; Ferris, 1950a: 78. Change of status.
HOSTS: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Ferris1950a]. Staphyleaceae: Turpinia formosana [Takaha1934]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Tao1999]. Neotropical: Honduras [Tao1999]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Ferris1950a]); Hong Kong [Tao1999]; India [Tao1999]; Philippines [Tao1999]; Sri Lanka [Tao1999]; Taiwan [Takaha1934]. Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1934). Takagi (1975) also provides a detailed description and illustration.
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish yellow or dark yellowish-brown, elongate, convex on the dorsum, with a distinct median carina, about 1.55 mm long. Adult female elongate, a little narrowed on the anterior part, with many minute glands nearly in a row on the side (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia turpiniae is close to F. theae, but can be told by the normal small gland spine and short, rounded gland prominence between the median and second lobes, as many as 8-10 marginal ducts on the pygidium and seems to lack the small sclerotized areas flanking the median sclerotized region of the pygidium (Ferris, 1950a). It would appear that Tang (1977:154) treats F. turpiniae as a junior synonym of F. theae, however, no other author can be found to agree with this.
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Chou 1982: 105 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48-49]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 303]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 111-112]; Chou1986 [illustration: 512]; ChowHuLi1966 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-80]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 263]; Ferris1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 40]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host: 135]; Takagi1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-30]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; Takaha1956a [distribution, host: 61]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 101]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 261].
Fiorinia vacciniae KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia vacciniae Kuwana, 1925b: 15-16. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Higashino, Hyogoken, on Vaccinium bracteatum, ?/05/1924, by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: One possible original slide in USNM that matches type data, but with a different collection date.
Fiorinia vaccinii; Lindinger, 1932f: 197. Misspelling of species name.
Fiorinia cephalotaxi Takahashi, 1952a: 12. Synonymy by Tang, 1977: probably.
Fiorinia euryae; Takahashi, 1956a: 60. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Muraka1970].
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex sp. [Muraka1970]. Ericaceae: Pieris sp. [DanzigPe1998], Rhododendron sp. [Borchs1966], Vaccinium bracteatum [Kuwana1925b]. Magnoliaceae: Eurya japonica [Muraka1970], Illicium religiosum [Takagi1961]. Taxaceae: Cephalotaxus drupacea [Muraka1970], Cephalotaxus harringtonia [Takagi1961], Torreya nucifera [Takagi1961]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tachik1962], Camellia sp. [Muraka1970], Cleyera japonica [Takagi1961], Cleyera ochnacea [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Hua2000]). Palaearctic: China [DanzigPe1998]; Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1961], Honshu [Kuwana1925b], Kyushu [Takagi1961], Shikoku [Tachik1962]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1925b) and Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, sides nearly parallel, anterior margin round, tapering slightly towards posterior end, median longitudinal ridge rather distinct, flat and thin, yellowish brown. Thinly covered with a transparent secretion which extends slightly beyond the margin of exuviae. Male scale white, tricarinate, exuviae pale yellow, about 1 mm long. Adult female elongate, sides parallel, anterior margin broad and round, yellow (Kuwana, 1925b).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia vacciniae is close to F. euryae, but the latter has a well developed second lobe, while the former does not (Kuwana, 1925b). F. vacciniae is also so close to F. pinicola that they may prove to be the same species, but for the present can be distinguished especially in the second stage: in F. pinicola the female has a marginal gland spine on either side just caudal of the marginal macroduct which comes in second from the anterior and may belong to the 4th abdominal segment, whereas in F. vacciniae this gland spine is absent. In the adult female of F. pinicola the antennal tubercles are set close together, without a membranous process between them, each tubercle being produced into a very elongate process, whereas in that of F. vacciniae the antennal tubercles are set somewhat apart, often with a membranous process between them, and each of them is usually not elongate in shape, although at times is produced into a somewhat elongate, conical projection (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China]; Matile-Ferrero 1990: 206 (female) [Key to females]; Takagi 1961: 41 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia of Japan]; Kuwana 1925b: 2 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: AnneckPr1974 [biological control: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 263]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 281, 282]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 15-16]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 197]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Matile1990 [description, taxonomy: 206, 207]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host: 91]; Phipps1930 [distribution, host: 188]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36-37, 41]; Takagi1979 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host: 25, 27]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 12]; Takaha1956a [taxonomy: 60]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 156-157]; Tao1999 [distribution: 88]; Wang1982c [distribution, host: 69]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 258].
Fiorinia yunnanensis HuNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia yunnanensis Hu, 1984: 215. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, on Pinus yunnanensis, 29/03/1975. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus yunnanensis [Hu1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hu1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hu (1984).
STRUCTURE: Adult body 1.0-1.08 mm long, pygidial lobes 3 pairs, median lobes large, projecting, notched on both sides, rounded apically, each with a pair of basal paraphyses (Hu, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: Fiorinia yunnanensis is close to F. pinicorticis, but is distinguishable by the presence of many ducts behind the mouth and anterior spiracle (Hu, 1984).
KEYS: Wei et al. 2013: 94-95 (female) [Key to the adult females of Fiorinia species known from China].
CITATIONS: Hu1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215, 216, 218]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; WeiZhFe2013 [taxonomy: 94].
Fissuraspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Fissuraspis Ferris, 1937: SI-56. Type species: Crypthemichionaspis ulmi Hoke, by monotypy and original designation.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; BalachKa1951 [taxonomy: 7]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 184]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-56]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 4, 13]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-147]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-298]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:41]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 220]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 79].
Fissuraspis ulmi (Hoke)NOMENCLATURE:
Crypthemichionaspis ulmi Hoke, 1927: 350-352. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, A&M College, on Ulmus americana, 15/10/1926, by J.N. Roney. Holotype female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM.
Anamefiorinia ulmi; Lindinger, 1935: 133. Change of combination.
Fissuraspis ulmi; Ferris, 1937: SI-57. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: elm scale [Dekle1965c].
HOSTS: Tiliaceae: Tilia sp. [BesheaTi1977]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus alata [BesheaTi1977], Ulmus americana [Hoke1927], Ulmus sp. [Ferris1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arkansas [BesheaTi1977], Florida [Dekle1965c], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973], Mississippi [Hoke1927], Texas [Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hoke (1927).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, 0.8-0.9 mm long, 0.4 mm wide, pygidial portion much narrower, very convex; ventral scale white, adhering to insect except beneath abdomen where it apparently usually adheres to bark. First exuviae at anterior end, delicate, covered by secretion, pale yellow when removed, black of 2nd exuviae showing through when in place. Male scale white, 0.8 mm long and 0.3 mm wide, sides parallel, concentrically ringed, exuviae terminal covered with white secretion, pale yellow, posterior end of scale open to allow for exit of male. Adult male 0.56 long, 0.75 mm long with wings folded back. Adult female 0.44-0.59 mm long, 0.39 mm wide; derm membranous (Hoke, 1927).
SYSTEMATICS: The very large pygidial gland spines of the second stage are characteristic of Fissuraspis ulmi (Ferris, 1937).
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 241]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; BalachKa1951 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; BesheaTi1977 [distribution, host: 180]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11, 63]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-57]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 4, 13]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-309]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host: SIV-446:55]; Hoke1927 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 350-352]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 220]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544]; Lobdel1937 [taxonomy: 77]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration: 321]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 38]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 348]; Schief2000 [distribution, host: 7].
Fraseraspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fraseraspis Takagi, 1999: 150. Type species: Fraseraspis litseae Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Fraseraspis is close to Pseudaulacaspis and can be separated mainly by the lateral lobes of the pygidium modified into spiniform membranous processes (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 150].
Fraseraspis litseae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Fraseraspis litseae Takagi, 1999: 150-151. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Bukit Fraser, 1300m, Pahang, on Litsea sp., 26/10/1986. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Litsea sp. [Takagi1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999]).
BIOLOGY: Females usually hidden beneath a fungus (Septobasidium?) (Takagi, 1999).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999).
STRUCTURE: Female test white and circular. Male test slender, flat and tricarinate (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 150-151].
Fulaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Fulaspis Balachowsky, 1952: 121. Type species: Fulaspis guilliermi Balachowsky, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: The distinguishing feature of Fulaspis is the presence of either one or two macroducts between the median lobes (Williams, 1960c).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 25 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique].
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 121-122]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 25, 142]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 39]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 265]; Hender2011 [distribution, host: 10]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 82]; Willia1960c [taxonomy: 391].
Fulaspis bytinskii BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Fulaspis bytinskii Balachowsky, 1954e: 143-146. Type data: ISRAEL: Wadi Fukra, on Acacia spirocarpa, 05/07/1950, by Bytinski-Salz. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia spirocarpa [Balach1954e], Acacia tortilis [BenDov2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Israel [Balach1954e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale small, mytiliforme, lengthened and widened towards the apex, brown, larval exuviae yellow. Adult female fusiform elongate (Balachowsky, 1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Fulaspis bytinskii is close to F. guilliermi, but can be distinguished by the form and length of the marginal gland spines (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Williams 1960c: 391 [Key to species of Fulaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 143-146]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 42, 48]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 30, 42]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 39]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Willia1960c [distribution, host: 391].
Fulaspis guilliermi BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Fulaspis guilliermi Balachowsky, 1952: 124-125. Type data: GUINEA: Fouta-Djalon, 7 km from Dalaba, on unidenitified host, 08/01/1952, by A. Balachowsky; Lola, 50 km south of Nzérékoré, on Macaranga huraefolia, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Macaranga huraefolia [Balach1952], Macaranga sp. [Willia1960c]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Balach1952].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1952).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytiliform, elongate, clear brown with larval exuviae. Male puparium without longitudinal carina (Balachowsky, 1952).
KEYS: Williams 1960c: 391 [Key to species of Fulaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-125]; Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 144]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Willia1960c [distribution, host: 391].
Fulaspis mazoeensis (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes mazoeensis Hall, 1931: 288-289. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Mazoe, on Acacia sp., 28/03/1929. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidomytilus mazoeensis; Hall, 1946a: 503. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus mazoensis; Lindinger, 1957: 545. Change of combination.
Fulaspis karroo Williams, 1960c: 389-391. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal, Pienaarspoort, on Acacia karroo, 15/12/1954, by E.C.G. Bedford. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Munting, 1965: 191.
Insulaspis mazoeensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Fulaspis mazoeensis; Munting, 1965b: 191. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia karroo [Willia1960c], Acacia sp. [Hall1931], Albizia adianthifolia [Almeid1971].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Almeid1971]; South Africa [Willia1960c]; Zimbabwe [Hall1931].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Hall (1931) and Williams (1960c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellowish white, elongate, exuviae pale brown, 1.5 mm long. Male scale 1 mm long, whitish, smooth, uncarinated, exuviae pale brown. Adult female fusiform, 1.2 mm long, body membranous except for pygidium (Williams, 1960c).
SYSTEMATICS: Fulaspis mazoeensis is unique in the curious form of the squamae on the pygidium (Hall, 1931). F. mazoeensis is close to F. guilliermi in possessing perivulvar pores, but differs from it and F. bytinskii in possessing a more rounded pygidium (Williams, 1960c).
KEYS: Williams 1960c: 391 [as Fulaspis karroo; Key to species of Fulaspis]; Hall 1946a: 503 (female) [as Aonidomytilus mazoeensis; Key to species of Aonidomytilus].
CITATIONS: Almeid1971 [distribution, host: 11]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39, 64]; Hall1931 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 288-289]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, host: 503, 550, 555]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 545]; Muntin1965b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Willia1960c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389-391].
Fulaspis monoloba MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Fulaspis monoloba Munting, 1965b: 191-193. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, Rosslyn, on Acacia karroo, 21/08/1963, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 1351. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia etbaica [Richar1976], Acacia karroo [Muntin1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [Richar1976]; South Africa [Muntin1965b].
BIOLOGY: Fulaspis monoloba was found associated with Parastictococcus delottoi (Richard, 1976).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, 1.5-2.0 mm long, exuviae dark brown. Male cover non-carinate, about 1 mm long, with pale brown exuviae. Adult female membranous at maturity except for pygidium (Munting, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Fulaspis monoloba is close to F. mazoeensis, but may be distinguished from it by the fact that the median lobes only are well developed (Munting, 1965b).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 191]; Richar1976 [distribution, host: 659].
Furchadaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Furchadaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 310. Type species: Diaspis zamiae Morgan, by monotypy and original designation.
Furchadiaspis; Ferris, 1936a: 21. Misspelling of genus name.
Furcadaspis; Lupo, 1938a: 255. Misspelling of genus name.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Danzig 1971d: 838 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 166 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 332 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 47 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [Key to genera]; MacGillivray 1921: 310 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 166, 212]; Bodenh1949 [distribution, taxonomy: 29, 39]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 332]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 114]; Borchs1937a [taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 166, 209]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 159]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 645, 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 838]; Danzig1993 [description, taxonomy: 390]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 266]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 55]; Ferris1937 [description, taxonomy: SI-58]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:47]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 150]; Hall1941 [distribution, taxonomy: 226]; Hall1943 [taxonomy: 3]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 518, 541]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8.44.92]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 255]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 310]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 82]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 176, 191].
Furchadaspis zamiae (Morgan)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis zamiae Morgan, 1890: 44-45. Type data: PORTUGAL: Oporto, on Zamia villosa, by A.C.E. Morgan. Described: female. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Howardia elegans Leonardi in Berlese & Leonardi, 1896: 348. Type data: ITALY: on Cycadis revoluta. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1920a: 63.
Aulacaspis elegans; Cockerell & Parrott, 1899: 276. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis zamiae; Gahan, 1907: 11. Change of combination.
Howardia ramiae; Paoli, 1915: 255. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspis rhusae Brain, 1919: 225. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Rondebosch, on Rhus sp., 15/06/1915, By C.P. Lounsbury. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 40. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 161/1. Synonymy by Hall, 1946a: 518.
Howardia zamiae; Leonardi, 1920: 215. Change of combination.
Furchadaspis zamiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 358. Change of combination.
Diaspis rhois Lindinger, 1932f: 197. Unjustified emendation.
Furchadiaspis zamiae; Ferris, 1937: SI-59. Misspelling of genus name.
Furchadiaspis rhusae; Hall, 1941: 230. Misspelling of genus name.
Diaspis jamiae; Scott, 1952: 35. Misspelling of species name.
Megalodiaspis zamiae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 214. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: cycad scale [Borchs1966]; zamia scale [Gill1997].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus sp. [Poutie1928], Aphytis diaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis funicularis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis longiclavae [Balach1954e], Aphytis proclia [Balach1954e], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Balach1954e], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Physcus testaceus [Poutie1928]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Balach1954e], Coccidencyrtus poutiersi [Poutie1928], Neococcidencyrtus alula [Balach1954e], Neococcidencyrtus poutiersi [Balach1954e].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Rhus sp. [Brain1919, MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Thevetia sp. [Gill1997, MillerDa2005]. Araliaceae: Aralia sp. [Gill1997, MillerDa2005], Cussonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cussonia spicata [Balach1954e]. Arecaceae: Metroxylon sp. [MillerDa2005], Trachycarpus sp. [Gill1997, MillerDa2005]. Celastraceae: Elaeodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Maytenus sp. [Gill1997, MillerDa2005]. Cycadaceae: Cycas circinolis [KozarHi1996], Cycas revoluta [BerlesLe1896, LepineMi1931], Cycas sp. [CarnerPe1986, MillerDa2005], Encaphalartos longifolius [Hender2011], Zamia villosa [Morgan1890]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [Gill1997, MillerDa2005]. Strelitziaceae: Strelitzia nicolai [McKenz1956], Strelitzia sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005]. Zamiaceae: Ceratozamia mexicana [Balach1954e], Ceratozamia sp. [MillerDa2005], Dioon edule [Boisdu1867, Balach1938a], Dioon sp. [MillerDa2005], Encephalartos sp. [KozarzRe1975, MillerDa2005], Macrozamia sp. [KozarzRe1975, MillerDa2005], Stangeria sp. [KozarzRe1975, MillerDa2005], Zamia sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Balach1954e]; Mozambique [Watson2002a]; South Africa [Brain1919]; Swaziland [Watson2002a]; Zimbabwe [Watson2002a]. Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Beards1979b, MillerDa2005] (Kauai [Heu2002] (First observed in 1999), Oahu [Heu2002] (First observed in 1976)); New Zealand (North Island [Hender2011]). Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [CockerPa1899, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Weiss1916], New York [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Wisconsin [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Lizery1938] (Buenos Aires? [Watson2002a] (not recorded since 1938 (Claps et al., 2001a))); Bermuda [CockerPa1899]; Chile [Nakaha1982]; Guatemala [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: India [Balach1954e]; Sri Lanka [Balach1954e]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1954e]; Austria [Malump2011a] (Established on indoor plantings.); Azores [Nakaha1982, FrancoRuMa2011]; Canary Islands [Leonar1920, MatileOr2001]; Czechoslovakia [Zahrad1965]; Denmark [KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Hall1926a]; France [Leonar1920, Foldi2001]; Germany [Leonar1920]; Italy [BerlesLe1896, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Kuwana1926]; Madeira Islands [Balach1938a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Poland [Komosi1968]; Portugal [Morgan1890, FrancoRuMa2011]; Russia [KozarzRe1975]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [Paik1978]; Spain [GomezM1946]; Sweden [Ossian1959]; Switzerland [KozarHi1996]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Terezn1975]); United Kingdom [Newste1901b] (England [Leonar1920]).
BIOLOGY: Diaspis dionis (=F. zamiae) overwinters as larvae, probably undergoing its metamorphosis only in spring (Boisduval, 1867). According to Saakyan-Baranova (1954) this species has 2 generations a year under greenhouse conditions. Nothing else is known about the biology of zamia scale except that it is ovoviviparous and is parthenogenetic at least in California (Gill 1997), Turkey (Bodenheimer 1953), and Russia (Danzig 1964). (Milller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, oval or subcircular, slightly convex, exuviae marginal. Adult female regularly oval, derm about the anterior margin of the prosoma tending to be slightly sclerotic; median lobes of the pygidium widely separated, divergent, forming a notch within which are two large, fimbriate gland spines (Ferris, 1937). Females often with associated fine waxy threads; female body pale lemon with darker pygidium. Males unknown in New Zealand. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Although Borchsenius (1966) treats Diaspis dionis as incertae sedis, we concur with Lindinger (1935) who considered Diaspis dionis to be a junior synonym of D. zamiae.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Zamia scale is considered to be a serious pest of cycads in California causing chlorosis of the leaves, reducing the aesthetic characteristics of ornamental plants (Brown and Eads 1967). The species is an occasional pest in greenhouses and ornamental gardens in the following: California (Dreistadt et al. 1994); Egypt (Alfieri 1929); Poland (Komosinska 1968); Germany (Lengerken 1932); Russia (Saakyan-Baranova 1954); and Czechoslovakia (Zahradník 1990). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Danzig 1971d: 845 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Archangelskaya 1937: 83 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis]; Newstead 1901b: 152 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 87-88]; Arnett1985 [distribution: 241]; Balach1938a [distribution, host: 154]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214-217]; BazaroSh1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 135-137]; Beards1979b [distribution: 40]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; BerlesLe1896 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 348-349]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 99-101]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution: 88]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 274, 276]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 159-160, 372]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 276]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 225]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 366, 368]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; CockerPa1899 [distribution, host: 276]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 845]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 390-392]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 266]; DeSant1940 [biological control, distribution: 36]; Dingle1924 [taxonomy: 368]; Ezzat1958 [distribution: 245]; Felt1901 [distribution, host: 359]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 233, 324]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 55]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-59]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-409, SIV-446:55]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 12,24]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 31, 34]; Gahan1907 [taxonomy: 11]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 346-347]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 150-151, 153]; GomezM1946 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-83]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Hall1926a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 25-26]; Hall1928 [taxonomy: 281]; Hall1941 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 230]; Hall1943 [taxonomy: 3]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 518, 551]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,13-14,31,91-92,]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 180]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 27]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 8]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; King1899c [distribution, host: 228]; King1899h [distribution, host: 350]; King1900c [distribution, host: 118]; Komosi1968 [distribution, host: 206-207]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 20]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213, 215-217]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 250]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 127]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 197]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 134, 148]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 368]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 357]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 256-260]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 358]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 56-58]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 57,58]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 54]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 2]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 113-115]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 218]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 218]; Morgan1890 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44-45]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 86]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Nakaha1981a [distribution: 398]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 38-39]; Neves1936 [distribution: 172, 201]; Newste1901b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152, 165]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 194, 199, 211, 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; Paik1978 [distribution, host: 319]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 255]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance: 477]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 501]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PicartMa2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 17, 18]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Poutie1928 [biological control, distribution: 270]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 649, 759]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 31]; Schmut1951 [biological control, distribution, host: 575]; Schmut1957b [distribution, host: 149]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 192]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; Seabra1941 [distribution, host: 8]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 4]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 50]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host: 75]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 122-123]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy ]; WeigelSa1923 [distribution, host: 53]; Weiss1916 [distribution, host: 23]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 426]; Yasnos1968 [biological control, distribution: 121]; Zahrad1965 [distribution, host: 306]; Zahrad1968 [taxonomy: 11]; Zahrad1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 120]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16].
Fusilaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Fusilaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 275. Type species: Mytilaspis phymatodidis Maskell, by original designation.
Fusilaspis; Henderson, 2011: 92. Revived status.
GENERAL REMARKS: Original description in MacGillvray, 1921. Redescription of genus, based on its type species, with differences to Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti), the type species of Pseudaulacaspis, noted which were taken from Williams & Watson, 1988.
SYSTEMATICS: Fusilaspis was synonymized with Pssudaulacaspis by Deitz & Tocker in 1980. Henderson, 2011, reinstated the genus citing many differences between the type species Mytilaspis phymatodidis Maskell and Pseudaulacaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; MacGillivray 1921: 275 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 185]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,10,23,45,92]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 275]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 83].
Fusilaspis phymatodidis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis phymatodidis Maskell, 1880: 292-293. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Wellington, on Phymatodes billardieri. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 41. Type depository: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand. Notes: Lectotype is the smaller and younger of two adult females on an original slide labeled: "Mytilaspis/phymatodidis/females/from Phym. Billardieri/Feb. 4 1879 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Mytilaspis/phymatodidis, 1880/desig. Deitz & Tocker/1979." Material also in NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Chionaspis dubia Maskell, 1882: 216-217. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Coprosma sp., ?/05/1881, by W.M. Maskell. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 35. Type depository: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand. Described: female. Synonymy by Henderson, 2011: 93-99. Notes: Lectotype on original slide bearing labels: "Chionaspis dubia/from Coprosma/Female/May 1881 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Chionaspis/dubia/Maskell, 1882/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979." Material also in BMNH, NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Phenacaspis dubia; Fernald, 1903b: 237. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes phymatodidis; Fernald, 1903b: 313. Change of combination.
Fusilaspis phymatodidis; MacGillivray, 1921: 289. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus dubius; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus phymatodidis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis dubia; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 35. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis phymatodidis; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 41. Change of combination.
Fusilaspis phymatodidis; Henderson, 2011: 92-99. Described: larva. Revived rank. Notes: LECTOTYPE female, subsequent designation by Deitz & Tocker (1980: 35): NEW ZEALAND, the smaller and younger of 2 adult females on an original slide labelled "Mytilaspis phymatodidis, females, from Phym. Billardieri Feb.y 1879, W.M.M.". [1]:Barcode NZAC02008433.(NZAC). Chionaspis dubia Maskell. LECTOTYPE female, subsequent designation by Deitz & Tocker (1980: 36): NEW ZEALAND, on an original slide labelled "Chionaspis dubia, from Coprosma, Female, May 1881, W.M.M.",
HOSTS: Aspleniaceae: Asplenium bulbiferum [Hender2011], Asplenium flaccidum [Hender2011], Asplenium oblongifolium [Hender2011], Asplenium polyodon [Hender2011], Asplenium sp. [Hender2011]. Blechnaceae: Blechnum discolor [Hender2011], Blechnum filiforme [Hender2011], Blechnum fraseri [Hender2011], Blechnum membranaceum [Hender2011], Blechnum sp. [Hender2011], Blechnum sp. [MalumpHa2012], Doodia media [Hender2011], Woodwardia radicans (L.) [MalumpHa2012]. Cyathaceae: Cyathea dealbata [Hender2011], Cyathea medullaris [Hender2011], Cyathea sp. [Hender2011]. Cyatheaceae: Cyathea dealbata [Green1929]. Dicksoniaceae: Dicksonia antarctica Labill [MalumpHa2012], Dicksonia fibrosa [Hender2011], Dicksonia squarrosa [Hender2011]. Dryopteridaceae: Dryopteris sp. [MalumpHa2012], Lastreopsis glabella [Hender2011], Polystichum neozelandicum [Hender2011], Polystichum vestitum [Hender2011]. Epacridaceae: Cyathodes sp. [Maskel1891]. Gleicheniaceae: Gleichenia dicarpa [Hender2011], Gleichenia sp. [Hender2011], Sticherus cunninghamii [Hender2011]. Grammitidacee: Grammitis billardierei [Hender2011]. Hymenopohyllaceae: Hymenophyllum atrovirens [Hender2011], Hymenophyllum demissum [Hender2011], Hymenophyllum dilatatum [Hender2011], Hymenophyllum pulcherrimum [Hender2011], Hymenophyllum sp. [Hender2011], Trichomanes reniforme [Hender2011]. Marattiaceae: Marattia salicina [Hender2011]. Myrtaceae: Leptospermum sp. [Maskel1891]. Oleandraceae: Arthropteris tenella [Hender2011]. Polypodiaceae: Adiantum sp. [Hinckl1963], Asplenium sp. [Maskel1882], Microsorum pustulatum [Hender2011], Microsorum scandens [Hender2011], Microsorum sp. [Hender2011], Phymatodes billardieri [Maskel1880]. Pteridaceae: Adiantum cunnighamii [Hender2011], Adiantum fulvum [Hender2011], Adiantum sp. [Hender2011], Adiantum viridescens [Hender2011], Pellaea rotundifolia [Hender2011]. Pteridophyta: Pellaea sp. [Maskel1887a]. Rosaceae: Rubus sp. [Maskel1882]. Rubiaceae: Coprosma sp. [Maskel1882]. Shizaeaceae: Lygodium articulatum [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [Green1915c, Hinckl1963]; New Zealand [Maskel1882] (North Island [Maskel1880, Maskel1887a, Hender2011], South Island [Maskel1887a], Three Kings Islands). Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [MalumpHa2012]).
BIOLOGY: On underside of fronds of its fern host.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of adult female, 1st-instar nymph and 2nd-instar male and female nymphs in Henderson, 2011.Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1887a).Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1887a) and Ferris (1955d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover pyriform, white to creamy white, with golden brown terminal exuvia; when on underside of fronds of silver fern (Cyathea dealbata) the scale covers are more silver-grey and blend with the colour of the substrate; female body bright yellow, eggs pale yellow. Male scale covers are similar but smaller, not carinated.Female scale flattish, pyriform, dirty white or brownish. Adult female greyish, elongate, segmented. Abdomen ending in 2 lobes with a median depression. There are several scaly processes on the terminal lobes and many spiny hairs on the sides of the body. 5 groups of spinnerets and many single ones scattered on corrugations of the body (Maskell, 1887a).Female scale white, flat, very thin, pyriform, exuviae small. Male scale white, elongate, irregularly oval, flat above, with two keels on under side, enclosing a longitudinal semicylindrical groove. Adult male reddish (Maskell, 1882).
SYSTEMATICS: Diagnostic features for the female are the recessed median lobes with dentate free margins, groups of gland tubercles near the anterior spiracles, perivulvar pores in distinctly separated groups, and free abdominal lobes weakly developed without groups of marginal gland spines. New Zealand species of Anzaspis, Pellucidaspis, and Pseudaulacaspis have more prominent, finely serrate median lobes. Poliaspis species also have dentate lobes and gland tubercles near the anterior spiracles but can be immediately separated by having 8 groups of perivulvar pores. F. phymatodidis is also easily distinguished by its host preference for ferns in New Zealand (Henderson, 2011) The reasons for reinstatement of the MacGillivray combination are (i) that this species is not congeneric with the type species of Pseudaulacaspis,namely Ps. pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti), and (ii) molecular data place it in a southern clade distinct from northern hemisphere species of Pseudaulacaspis (Andersen et al. 2010). It is restricted to ferns in New Zealand. It differs from F. phymatodidis as follows: (i) the perivulvar pores are in closely adjoining long groups, with the anterior and posterior lateral groups on one side coalesced; (ii) perispiracular pores absent by posterior spiracle; (iii) only 5 pairs of marginal macroducts (iv) gland spines on the margins of abdominal segments more numerous.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: It is not recorded as an economic pest, although it was causing chlorosis and necrotic spotting to Dicksonia tree ferns. (Malumphy & Halstead, 2012)
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 289 (female) [as Fusilaspis phymatodidis; Key to species of Fusilaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 31 (female) [as Mytilaspis phymatodidis; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120-121,185]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 339]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 125]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 586]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 35,41]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 237,313]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48]; Ferris1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 73]; Green1915c [distribution, host: 44]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 382]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,12-13,31,92-99,]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 54]; Hoy1961 [distribution, host: 60]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 91-93]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; MalumpHa2012 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 194-195]; Maskel1880 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 292-293]; Maskel1882 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216-217]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51,54-55]; Maskel1891 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 8]; Myers1922 [distribution: 200-201]; Myers1927JG [taxonomy: 690]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Thomso1922 [distribution: 331]; Willia2013 [distribution: 190]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 109,111].
Gadaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Gadaspis Hall, 1946a: 518. Type species: Chionaspis ((Pinnaspis)) combreti Hall, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Gadaspis comes close to Pinnaspis and Contigaspis. It differs from Pinnaspis in having large and prominent median lobes, the nature of the 2nd lobes if any, the presence of pores submarginally on segment 6 and the less regular arrangement of the dorsal pores on the segments anterior to this. From Contigaspis it differs in having large and prominent median lobes in the close apposition and well developed gland spines on the marginal fringe (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 169 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 169, 172, 412, 423]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 83]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 518, 543]; KaussaBa1954 [taxonomy: 161-162]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 83]; Muntin1970 [taxonomy: 14].
Gadaspis combreti (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) combreti Hall, 1928: 283-284. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Mazoe, on Combretum sp., 17/11/1927. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Gadaspis combreti; Hall, 1946a: 519. Change of combination.
Pinaspis combreti; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOST: Combretaceae: Combretum sp. [Hall1928]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1928).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female elongate pyriform, narrowed in front, broadening gradually posteriorly; frequently distorted in shape. Larval exuviae brown to dark bronze, nymphal exuviae brown or reddish brown, covered by a thin film of white secretionary matter, which obscures the color. Exuviae occupy about a third of the entire scale. Secretionary appendix white, often with portions of the brown tissues of the bark incorporated. Scales are generally pale brown and do not show up against host bark. Ventral scale thin, only remaining adherent round the margin when lifted from the host plant. 1.8-2.0 mm long and 0.7-0.8 mm wide. Male scale cover white, with straw colored exuviae, non-carinated. Adult female narrowed in front, broadest about the 2nd free abdominal segment (Hall, 1928).
SYSTEMATICS: The nature of the median lobes of Gadaspis combreti are unique (Hall, 1928).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 519 (female) [Key to species of Gadaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Balach1967 [taxonomy: 622]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 283-284]; Hall1929a [taxonomy: 368]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 519, 549]; KaussaBa1954 [taxonomy: 161]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Muntin1967 [taxonomy: 2].
Gadaspis excisa (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) excisa Hall, 1929a: 366-368. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Mazoe, on Combretum sp., 26/01/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Gadaspis excisa; Hall, 1946a: 519. Change of combination.
Pinaspis excisa; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOST: Combretaceae: Combretum sp. [Hall1929a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover of adult female pyriform to elongate pyriform, convex. Larval exuviae apparently dark bronze, but really a pale straw color (being transparent, the dark color of the sublying female gives them a darker appearance). Nymphal exuviae pale straw color. Exuviae covered by a thin film of secretionary matter. Exuviae occupy less than half the total length of scale cover, secretionary appendix white. Ventral scale thin and poorly developed, 1.25-1.5 mm long and 0.5-0.8 mm wide. Male scale cover non carinated, with straw colored exuviae. Adult female elongate oval (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: Gadaspis excisa is close to G. combreti, from which it may be distinguished by the broad and deep excision on each side of the median lobes and the nature of the lateral lobes (Hall, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 519 (female) [Key to species of Gadaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1967 [taxonomy: 622]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 366-368]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 519, 549, 554]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549].
Gadaspis grassei BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Gadaspis grassei Balachowsky, 1967: 619-623. Type data: NIGER: Maradi, on Lepsadenia hastata, 22/11/1949, by G. Remaudière. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Asclepiadaceae: Lepsadenia hastata [Balach1967].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Niger [Balach1967].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1967).
SYSTEMATICS: Gadaspis grassei differs from the other members of its genus by the structure of the large median lobes, crenulated on their outer margin, and separated by a narrow furrow which is not complete till the base, the form of L2a, the lack of L2b and the general arrangement of dorsal pores of the pygidium and of the last abdominal segments (Balachowsky, 1967).
CITATIONS: Balach1967 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 619-623]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88].
Gadaspis tuberculata (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) tuberculata Hall, 1929a: 368-369. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Theydon, on Uapaca kirkiana, 17/03/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Gadaspis tuberculata; Hall, 1946a: 518. Change of combination.
Pinaspis tuberculata; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Uapaca kirkiana [Hall1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover of adult female elongate pyriform, narrowed in front and broadened posteriorly; convex. Larval exuviae semitranslucent, pale brown at posterior extremity; nymphal exuviae same. Exuviae about 2/5 as long as entire scale cover. Secretionary appendix semitranslucent white. Adult female pale green when living, dark brown when dead. Ventral scale very thin and delicate, remaining attached to the host plant. 1.25-1.5 mm long, 0.6-0.8 mm wide. Male scale cover with parallel sides; exuviae semitranslucent with posterior half brown. Secretionary appendix whiter and less translucent than that of female; faintly tricarinate. Adult female elongate ovate (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: Gadaspis tuberculata is allied to G. combreti and G. excisa, but can be distinguished from both by the nature of the female scale, the presence of tubercles carrying spines on the venter of the thorax and free abdominal segments and the shape of the median lobes (Hall, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 518 (female) [Key to species of Gadaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1967 [taxonomy: 622]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 29]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 368-369]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 518, 552, 554]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549].
Galeomytilus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Galeomytilus Takagi, 1995a: 32. Type species: Galeomytilus obesus Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Galeomytilus is similar to Mercetaspis, but the resemblance is due to loss or reduction (concerning the development of lobes and the number of marginal macroducts) and therefore, may be superficial (Takagi, 1995a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1995a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 32, 37]; TakagiMa2010 [structure, taxonomy: 45-46].
Galeomytilus obesus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Galeomytilus obesus Takagi, 1995a: 30-32. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Palawan, Batarasa, Salogon, on Colona serratifolia, 17/08/1993. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 93PL-78. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Colona serratifolia [Takagi1995a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Takagi1995a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1995a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, elongate, slender, parallel-sided, cylindrical with ventral portion complete, dorsal surface with transverse curved ribs; 2nd exuvial cast swollen to form a helmet-like covering at anterior end of test; 1st exuvial cast often absent. Male scale similar, lighter in color and with transverse ribs more prominent. Adult female body plump and cylindrical (Takagi, 1995a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1995a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-32, 59-60, 75-79]; Takagi2003 [host, structure: 108]; Takagi2008 [taxonomy: 93]; TakagiMa2010 [phylogeny, structure, taxonomy: 45-46].
Geodiaspis Tippins & HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Geodiaspis Tippins & Howell, 1973: 399-403. Type species: Geodiaspis arundinariae, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Geodiaspis bears a striking resemblance to certain Aspidiotini, particularly Melanaspis, which may occur on the same host. The scale of the male, which occurs on the leaves as well as rhizomes, is more typical of the Diaspidini, being elongate, with a somewhat felted appearance. Geodiaspis arundinariae is definitely referable to the Diaspidini but does not fit the combination of characters of any existing genera (Tippins & Howell, 1973).
KEYS: Tippins & Howell 1973: 403 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: TippinHo1973 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 399-403].
Geodiaspis arundinariae Tippins & HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Geodiaspis arundinariae Tippins & Howell, 1973: 399-403. Type data: UNITED STATES: Georgia, Spaulding Co., near Sunnyside, on Arundinaria sp., 28/01/1972. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [TippinHo1973]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Georgia [TippinHo1973]).
BIOLOGY: Only non-gravid adult females were found until May 5th, at which time only a few were gravid. Eggs, motile, and settled 1st stage crawlers, as well as ovipositing and spent females were found May 19th. On June 28th ovipositing females and all immature stages were present. Adult males emerged July 15th from material collected and caged July 11, 1972. Collections on August 14th contained all stages except eggs (Tippins & Howell, 1973).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female, second stage male and female, first stage male and female by Tippins & Howell (1973).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body subcircular to broadly turbinate, 1.9 mm long and 1.5 mm wide. Derm lightly sclerotized except for large oval membranous areas.
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 241]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 10]; GillMiDa1982 [description, taxonomy: 11, 13, 14]; HowellBe1975 [taxonomy: 267]; HowellTi1975a [taxonomy: 429]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 119]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 39]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; StoetzDa1974 [taxonomy: 138]; Takagi2011 [taxonomy: 48]; TippinBe1978 [distribution, host: 14]; TippinHo1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 399-403].
Getulaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Getulaspis Balachowsky, 1954e: 365. Type species: Chionaspis bupleuri Marchal, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Getulaspis is similar to Voraspis, but differs in the presence of 3 dorsal macropores, the total absence of submarginal dorsal macropores on each segment (which are present in Voraspis) (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 171 (female) [Genera of Diaspidina, Chionaspiformes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 171, 358, 365]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 88]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 267]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 85].
Getulaspis bupleuri (Marchal)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis bupleuri Marchal, 1904b: 454-455. Type data: ALGERIA: Oran, on Bupleurum gibraltaricum, ?/03/1904, by L. Trabut. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female.
Phenacaspis bupleuri; Sanders, 1906: 12. Change of combination.
Chionaspis canariensis Lindinger, 1911a: 26. Type data: CANARY ISLANDS:. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 267. Notes: We presume type material is in ZMUH.
Duplachionaspis canariensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 332. Change of combination.
Chionaspis oleae; Pagliano, 1929: 274. Change of status.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) bupleuri oleae Balachowsky, 1929a: 302-303. Type data: ALGERIA: Hoggar, on Olea laperrinei, 15/03/1928, by R. Maire. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 365.
Chionaspis bupleuri oleae; Balachowsky, 1932d: 25. Change of combination.
Getulaspis bupleuri; Balachowsky, 1954e: 365. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis canariensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 119. Change of combination.
Getulaspis canariensis; Gómez-Menor Guerrero, 1967: 122. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Phoenix dactylifera jubae [CarnerPe1986]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [CarnerPe1986]. Buxaceae: Buxus balearica [Rungs1935]. Chenopodiaceae: Salsola longifolia [Lindin1911a]. Cneoraceae: Cneorum pulverulentum [Lindin1911a], Neochamaelea pulverulenta [CarnerPe1986]. Crassulaceae: Monanthes laxiflora [CarnerPe1986]. Fabaceae: Cytisus filipes [Lindin1911a], Spartocytisus filipes [CarnerPe1986]. Globulariaceae: Globularia alypum [Balach1958a]. Labiatae: Micromeria ericifolia [Lindin1911a], Micromeria linki [Lindin1911a], Micromeria sp. [Lindin1911a], Micromeria teneriffae [Lindin1911a], Micromeria terebinthacea [Lindin1911a], Micromeria varia [CarnerPe1986]. Oleaceae: Olea europea [Balach1934d], Olea laperrinei [Balach1929a]. Pinaceae: Juniperus [Borchs1966], Juniperus oxycedrus [PellizPoSe2011]. Rubiaceae: Plocama pendula [Lindin1911a]. Rutaceae: Ruta oreojasme [Lindin1911a]. Salvadoraceae: Salvadora persica [Matile1984c]. Sapotaceae: Argania spinosa [Rungs1952]. Umbelliferae: Bupleurum gibraltaricum [Marcha1904b], Bupleurum lateriflorum [Balach1927], Bupleurum spinosum [LepineMi1931].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Marcha1904b]; Canary Islands [Lindin1911a, MatileOr2001]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Libya [DanzigPe1998]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1984c]; Tunisia [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions by Balachowsky (1929a) and Balachowsky (1954).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 350 [as Phenacaspis bupleuri; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 332 (female) [as Duplachionaspis canariensis; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1927 [distribution, host: 181]; Balach1929a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 302-303]; Balach1932d [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Balach1934d [distribution, host: 146-147]; Balach1946 [distribution: 212]; Balach1949 [taxonomy: 100]; Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 365, 380]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 43, 49]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 88, 119]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host: 39-40, 64]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122-125]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84, 86]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 362]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 154]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332, 350]; Marcha1904b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 454-455]; Marcha1910 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 221]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Paglia1929 [host: 274]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 156]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 271, 276]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 113]; Rungs1952 [economic importance: 70-73]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 12]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 46]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60].
Gramenaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Gramenaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 309. Type species: Chionaspis africana Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 185]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 519]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 546]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 186]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 309, 353, 354]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 86].
Gramenaspis africana (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis africana Newstead, 1912: 19-20. Type data: NAMIBIA: Steinkopf (Klein-Namaland), on unknown host, 1904, by L. Schultze. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type material of this species was not found in the BMNH (Hall, 1946) nor in ZMHB (J. Deckert, personal communication, 14 December 2001) so they are presumed lost.
Gramenaspis africana; MacGillivray, 1921: 354. Change of combination.
Gymnaspis africana; Hall, 1946a: 520. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Newste1912].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1912).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female elongate, widened posteriorly; secretionary portion dense, pure white and faintly but irregularly striated; exuviae yellow, 2.0 mm long. Adult female ellipsoidal, segmentation very faint, 1.25 mm long (Newstead, 1912).
SYSTEMATICS: Gramenaspis africana can be distinguished by the more or less rudimentary lobes and the relatively few dorsal glands (Newstead, 1912).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 520 (female) [as Gymnaspis africana; Key to species of Gramenaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 255 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 185]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 238]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 519, 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 309, 354]; MunroFo1936 [distribution: 78]; Newste1912 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-20].
Greenaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Canaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 308. Synonymy by Ferris, 1952a: 6.
Greenaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 307. Type species: Mytilaspis elongata Green, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Body with head and thorax together distinctly more than twice as long as abdomen (MacGillivray, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Greenaspis resembles Albataspis (Hall, 1946a). According to Takagi (1970) Greenaspis is very similar to Chionaspis, but can be told by the elongate body shape, the small pygidial lobes and the peculiar shape of the median lobes.
KEYS: Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 222 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 307 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171, 172, 176, 276]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 107]; Chen1983 [description, taxonomy: 14-15]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 78-79]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 269]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 25, 57]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 7]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1952a [description, taxonomy: 6-7]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 519, 530, 543, 546]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 181, 186]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 307, 308, 339]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 86]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4, 18]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 80-81]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 66]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 47]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 222].
Greenaspis arundinariae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis arundinariae Green, 1899a: 127. Type data: SRI LANKA: Kelani Valley, Udagama, on Arundinaria sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: fossil. Illust.
Canaspis arundinariae; MacGillivray, 1921: 353. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus arundinariae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Greenaspis arundinariae; Ferris, 1952a: 7. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis arundinariae; Ferris, 1956: 68. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Green1899a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale whitish, very faintly tinged with ochreous, irregular in outline, broadest immediately behind the second exuviae. Male scale white, very thin and delicate, faintly carinate, sides sub-parallel, exuviae pale ochreous, with opaque spots and marginal spines. Adult female oblong, broadest across mesothorax, pale yellow (Green, 1899a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Wang et al. (1998) cite this species as a minor pest of bamboo.
KEYS: Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis arundinariae; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 49]; Balach1954e [distribution: 376]; BhasinRo1954 [distribution, host: 90]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 7]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68, 73]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 127]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 317]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 208]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 353]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host: 80]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 67]; WangVaXu1998 [distribution, economic importance, host: 86, 185].
Greenaspis bambusifoliae (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis bambusifoliae Takahashi, 1930: 14-16. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, Taihoku, on Bambusa sp., ?/01/1930, by R.Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Greenaspis bambusifoliae; Borchsenius, 1966: 108. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1930).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very long, narrow, straight or slightly curved, parallel-sided, moderately convex on the dorsum, rounded on the posterior extremity, without dorsal ridges, about 2.5 mm long. 1st exuviae pale yellowish brown, extending beyond the anterior extremity of the 2nd exuviae. 2nd exuviae pale yellowish brown, much shorter than half the length of the scale, broadly rounded on the anterior end. Adult female orange yellow, very elongate, narrow, almost parallel-sided, broadly rounded on the front, transversely striate between the posterior spiracles and the 1st free abdominal segment, about 6 times as long as wide (Takahashi, 1930).
SYSTEMATICS: Greenaspis bambusifoliae is close to G. elongata, but is easily distinguished by free abdominal segments not protruding laterally; pygidium with fewer gland orifices; pygidium with fewer gland spines; marginal spines on the free abdominal segments abruptly broadened on the base and the median lobes broad on the distal part (Takahashi, 1930).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 15 (female) [Key to species of Greenaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 15, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61, 63]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 347-348]; Chou1986 [illustration: 474]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 7]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Takagi1970 [distribution: 70]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-16]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 103]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 89]; WangVaXu1998 [distribution, host: 86, 186]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 25, 65]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 230, 237].
Greenaspis chekiangensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Greenaspis chekiangensis Tang, 1977: 180-181. Type data: CHINA: Chekiang, on Arundinaria sp., 04/05/1954 and 25/03/1969. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Tang1977], Bambusa sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1977]). Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, 3 mm long, long and narrow. Adult female elongate, 0.82 mm long and 0.25 mm wide (Tang, 1980).
SYSTEMATICS: Greenaspis chekiangensis is peculiar in having submedian and submarginal rows of dorsal macroducts in segment 6 (Tang, 1980).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 14 (female) [Key to species of Greenaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 348-349]; Chou1986 [illustration: 475]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 269]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 180-181]; Tang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202-203, 205]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 89].
Greenaspis decurvata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis decurvata Green, 1903: 63. Type data: INDIA: on Oryza sativa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis decurvata; MacGillivray, 1921: 348. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus decurvata; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Greenaspis decurvata; Ferris, 1952a: 7. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Platynaspis luteorubra [Stebbi1903b, Ramakr1930], Platynaspis villosa [Green1903]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Encyrtidae: Coccidencyrtus sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Phoenix sp. [VarshnMo1987]. Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Fletch1919], Cymbopogon citratus [VarshnMo1987], Oryza sativa [Green1903].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Green1903] (Maharashtra [Fletch1919], Odisha [VarshnMo1987], Tamil Nadu [Ali1969a], West Bengal [Ramakr1921a]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1972].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1903).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, exuviae pale, moderately convex, oblong, tapering posteriorly, ventral scale well developed. Male scale white, semi-transparent, obscurely tricarinate. Adult female elongate, yellow, broadest across the metathorax and the base of the abdomen (Green, 1903).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 348 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 87]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 49]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 108]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 205]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 296]; Green1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 348]; ParidaMo1981 [chemistry: 13]; ParidaMo1982 [chemistry: 20]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 339]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 16]; Stebbi1903b [biological control, distribution: 57]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 67]; VarshnMo1987 [distribution, host: 177].
Greenaspis elongata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis elongata Green, 1896: 4. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Arundinaria sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Chionaspis elongata; Green, 1899a: 125. Change of combination.
Greenaspis elongata; MacGillivray, 1921: 339. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus elongatus; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Greenaspis yunnanensis Ferris, 1952a: 7. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, near Kunming, Sishan, on Arundinaria, 08/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 81.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Cassine holstii? [Hall1946a]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Hua2000]. Poaceae: Arundinaria murielae [Chen1983], Arundinaria sp. [Green1896], Bambusa multiplex [Hoffma1927], Bambusa philippinensis [LitBa1994], Bambusa spinosa [LitBa1994], Bambusa vulgaris [DEDAC1923], Dendrocalamus sp. [TakagiPoGh1989], Gigantochloa aspera [LitBa1994], Phragmites communis [Tao1999], Phragmites sp. [Takaha1932a], Phyllostachys niger [Tang1986], Sasa sp. [Tang1986], Schizostachyum diffusum [LitBa1994], Schizostachyum lumampao [LitBa1994], Schizostachyum sp. [TakagiPoGh1989], Schizostachyum zollingeri [TakagiPoGh1989].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Somalia [Hall1946a]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Ferris1952a]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; India [Green1937] (Sikkim [Tao1999], Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1930]); Malaysia (Malaya [Takaha1942b]); Philippines (Luzon [LitBa1994], Mindanao [LitBa1994]); Sri Lanka [Green1896]; Taiwan [Green1937]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986]); Japan (Kyushu [Takagi1962a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale up to 3 mm long, very slender, usually somewhat sinuous because of pressure from leaf hairs, white, exuviae pale yellow (Ferris, 1952a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Wang et al. (1998) cite this species as a minor pest of bamboo.
KEYS: Chen 1983: 15 (female) [Key to species of Greenaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 339 (female) [Key to species of Greenaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis elongata; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 49-50]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Beeson1941 [distribution, host: 744]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 108]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 16, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79-80]; Chou1986 [illustration: 472, 473]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 269]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 8]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 57]; Ferris1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 4]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 125-126]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 438]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 317]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 519, 549]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149, 152]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 293]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Lepage1935 [taxonomy: 167]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 221]; LitBa1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378, 382]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307, 339]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 91]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 16]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 376, 478]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19]; Takagi1962a [distribution, host: 52]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 81-82]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196-199]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 8, 73]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 16]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 104]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 31]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 42]; Tang1977 [taxonomy: 180]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 292]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 103]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 89-90]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 67]; WangVaXu1998 [distribution, economic importance, host: 86, 185]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 25, 66]; Wu1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 229, 230, 239]; Yao1985 [p. 338].
Greenaspis gejiuensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Greenaspis gejiuensis Tang, 1986: 180. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, Mengzi and Jinghong Counties, Gejui, on unidentified grasses. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white, 3 mm long, exuviae pale yellow, apical. Male scales carinated. Adult female elongate with parallel sides, 1.45-1.60 mm long (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Greenaspis gejiuensis is distinct in the central position of the anus, the presence of disc pores accompanied with the posterior spiracles and also by numerous perivulvar pores (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 270]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 180, 292]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 90].
Guineaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Guineaspis Balachowsky, 1952a: 104. Type species: Guineaspis mignardi Balachowsky, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Guineaspis is similar to Pinnaspis (Balachowsky, 1952a).
CITATIONS: Balach1952a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 98-100]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 276]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 116]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 88].
Guineaspis mignardi BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Guineaspis mignardi Balachowsky, 1952a: 100-101. Type data: GUINEA: Kindia, at the station centrale des Fruits et Agrumes, on Cassia occidentalis, 30/11/1951, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Cassia occidentalis [Balach1952a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Balach1952a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1952a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, elongate, flattened, slightly widened towards the apex but often irregular in form, clear brown, blending in with host bark. Larval exuviae a little darker yellow gilded, 1.9-2.0 mm long. Adult female lemon-yellow. Male scale linear, small, 1 mm long, tricarinated, white (Balachowsky, 1952a).
CITATIONS: Balach1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100-101]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 276]; Balach1967 [taxonomy: 622]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116].
Guizhoaspis YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Guizhoaspis Young, 1986: 205-206. Type species: Guizhoaspis subterraneus Young, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-fusiform, anterior and posterior spiracles each accompanying a group of disc pores. Dorsal macroducts arranged in groups on abdominal segments. Marginal macroducts same as dorsal ones on pygidium in size, more in number (Young, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Guizhoaspis is similar to Serrachionaspis, but differs in the form of median lobes and in the arrangement of dorsal macroducts on the pygidium (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Young1986 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 205-206].
Guizhoaspis subterranea YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Guizhoaspis subterraneus Young, 1986: 205-206. Type data: CHINA: Guizhou, Gui-yang, on unidentified gramineous plant, ?/08/1958. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Guizhoaspis subterranea; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Poaceae [Young1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Young1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1986).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate-fusiform, derm sclerotized, anterior and posterior spiracles each with group of disc pores about 20-30 in number. Dorsal macroducts arranged in submarginal and submedian rows on 2nd to 6th abdominal segments, and with an additional submarginal group on these segments (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution: 152]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Young1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206, 210].
Gynandraspis Balachowsky & Matile-FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Gynandraspis Balachowsky & Matile-Ferrero, 1980: 69-70. Type species: Gynandraspis gabonensis Balachowsky & Matile-Ferrero, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Gynandraspis is similar to Marchalaspis and Triraphaspis, but is distinguishable by the presence of 4 pairs of lobes, L2 and L3 bilobed, a median space occupied by a pair of gland spines, supernumerary cluster of circumgenital glands and the absence of a median macroduct (Balachowksy & Matile-Ferrero, 1980).
CITATIONS: BalachMa1980 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 69-70].
Gynandraspis gabonensis Balachowsky & Matile-FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Gynandraspis gabonensis Balachowsky & Matile-Ferrero, 1980: 70-74. Type data: GABON: Makokou, M'Passa, west of Ivindo, on undetermined tree, 27/11/1973, by A.S. Balachowsky. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Gabon [BalachMa1980].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky & Matile (1980).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular, larval exuviae sublateral, beige, sheltering the male scale. Male scale clear, translucent, linear, sitting side by side under the female scale. Adult female elongate (Balachowsky & Matile, 1980).
CITATIONS: BalachMa1980 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 70-74]; Matile1982 [taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 17].
Haliaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Haliaspis Takagi, 1963e: 118-119. Type species: Chionaspis spartinae Comstock, by original designation.
BIOLOGY: Haliaspis seems to be halophilous so far as all known species of the genus live on the beach (Takagi, 1963e).
SYSTEMATICS: In general appearance this genus resembles Duplachionaspis, but is distinguishable by having enlarged setae on the ventrum of the pygidium. Haliaspis is also peculiar in the first stage exuviae of which the head is deeply invaginated and the antennae are much shorted (Takagi, 1963e).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 131]; HowellTi1975a [description, taxonomy: 429]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 175]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 507]; Takagi1963e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 118-119]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 39]; Takagi1971 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 126-127].
Haliaspis arecibo HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sp. near spartinae Wolcott, 1936: 134. Unavailable name.
Chionaspis distichlii; Wolcott, 1948: 175. Misidentification; discovered by Howell, 1978: 401.
Haliaspis arecibo Howell, 1978: 401-407. Type data: PUERTO RICO: Arecibo, on Sporobolus bertoreanus, 21/05/1923, by G.N. Wolcott. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: Arecibo scale [ColonFMe1998].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Sporobolus berteroanus [Wolcot1948], Sporobolus indicus [ColonFMe1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Howell1978]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Howell (1978).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-oval, prepygidial abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally, derm membranous throughout except for pygidium. Pygidium rounded apically (Howell, 1978).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of Haliaspis arecibo are similar to H. uniolae in having modified marginal macroduct with a sclerotized frame on segment 7. H. arecibo differs from H. uniolae in having a similar duct on segment 6 and occasionally in other locations on the abdomen. In addition, H. arecibo has gland spines on only segments 6 and 7, while H. uniolae has well developed gland spines on segments 5-8 (Howell, 1978).
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 98 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis of Puerto Rico]; Liu & Howell 1994: 137 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98]; Howell1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 401-403, 407]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 137]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 33]; Wolcot1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 134]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Haliaspis asymmetrica (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis asymmetrica Ferris, 1954: 43. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Limestone, on "wire grass," 01/01/1952, by G.W. Dekle. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis assymetrica; Wray, 1967: 158. Misspelling of species name.
Haliaspis asymmetrica; Takagi, 1971: 126. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: asymmetric scale [Dekle1965c].
HOSTS: Poaceae [Ferris1954], Aristida sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Spartina patens [Wray1967].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Ferris1954], Georgia [TippinBe1978], North Carolina [Wray1967]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1954).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 1.0 mm long, pygidial lobes almost or quite concealed beneath the rolled-over margin of the body and thus scarcely distinguishable from the other irregularities of the margin, very short and apically rounded (Ferris, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Haliaspis asymmetrica is distinct from other North American species especially by the asymmetrical distribution of the dorsal ducts (Ferris, 1954).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1976: 180 (male) [Key to second-stage males of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1975a: 433 (first instar) [Key to first instars of Haliaspis]; Howell 1974: 42 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Takagi 1971: 127 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 58]; Ferris1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43]; Foldi1983b [structure: 340]; Howell1974 [taxonomy: 40, 42]; Howell1978 [taxonomy: 401]; HowellTi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429, 433]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175, 180]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muntin1977 [distribution: 7]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 40]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 126, 128]; TippinBe1978 [distribution, host: 14]; Wray1967 [distribution, host: 158].
Haliaspis distichlii (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis distichlii Ferris, 1921: 109-110. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, near La Rivera, Eureka Ranch, on Distichlis spicata. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis distichlii; Ferris, 1937: SI-46. Change of combination.
Haliaspis distichlii; Takagi, 1963e: 119. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Distichlis spicata [Ferris1921].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]).
BIOLOGY: Haliaspis distichlii occurs on the upperside of host leaves (Ferris, 1937).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1921) and Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, about 1 mm long, 1st exuviae naked, 2nd covered with secretion. Male scale slightly shorter than that of female, non-carinate. Adult female .75 mm long, derm membranous throughout except for pygidium (Ferris, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Haliaspis distichlii is distinguishable from other North American species by the mixture of large and small dorsal ducts, mostly smaller than the marginal ducts of the pygidium and those of the 6th segment not in a row; perivulvar pores in much smaller groups; submarginal setae of the ventral side of the pygidium enlarged (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1976: 180 (male) [Key to second-stage males of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1975a: 433 (first instar) [Key to first instars of Haliaspis]; Howell 1974: 42 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Takagi 1971: 127 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [as Duplachionaspis distichlii; Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 376]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109-110]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; Howell1974 [taxonomy: 40, 42]; Howell1978 [taxonomy: 403]; HowellTi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175, 180]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; McDani1971 [taxonomy: 307]; Takagi1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 17]; Takagi1963e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119-120]; Takagi1971 [taxonomy: 127]; TippinBe1968a [taxonomy: 135].
Haliaspis litoralis (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis litoralis Ferris, 1937: SI-47. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Corpus Christi, on Monanthochloe litoralis, 1921, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Haliaspis litoralis; Takagi, 1963e: 120. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Monanthochloe litoralis [Ferris1937], Sporobolus littoralis [McDani1971], Sporobolus wrightii [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Haliaspis litoralis can be told from other North American species in the character and number of the dorsal ducts, which are all the same size and as large as the marginal ducts of the pygidium, very few, those of the 6th segment represented only by 2 ducts of the submedian group, with 3 or 4 in the submarginal groups of the 3rd to 5th segments and 1 or 2 in the submedian groups, or these lacking, on the 3rd and 4th segments (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1976: 180 (male) [Key to second-stage males of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1975a: 433 (first instar) [Key to first instars of Haliaspis]; Howell 1974: 42 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; McDaniel 1971: 303 (female) [as Duplachionaspis litoralis; Key to the Texas species of Duplachionaspis]; Takagi 1971: 127 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [as Duplachionaspis litoralis; Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-47]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; Howell1974 [taxonomy: 40, 42]; Howell1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 401, 407]; HowellTi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429, 433]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175, 180]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303, 305]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 40]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Takagi1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 17]; Takagi1963e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 127].
Haliaspis mackenziei (McDaniel)NOMENCLATURE:
Duplachionaspis mackenziei McDaniel, 1971: 307-308. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Cameron County, Padre Island, on Monanthochloe littoralis, 03/03/1963. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in UCDC.
Haliaspis mckenziei; Howell, 1974: 42. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Monanthocloe littoralis [McDani1971].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [McDani1971]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McDaniel (1971).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with derm membranous, body elongate, perivulvar pores present in 5 groups (McDaniel, 1971).
SYSTEMATICS: Haliaspis mackenziei can be distinguished by the presence of the small microducts on segments 5 and 6 arranged in distinct rows and in small groups from 4th pygidial segment to apex to head. It is similar to H. distchlii in that the enlarged submarginal row of ventral setae are paired, but differs in the presence of the microducts on the dorsum. In Texas, it is similar to H. spartinae, but differs in that the enlarged submarginal row of setae are paired in H. mackenziei and single in H. spartinae (McDaniel, 1971).
CITATIONS: Howell1974 [taxonomy: 42]; McDani1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 307-308]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 40].
Haliaspis milleri HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Haliaspis milleri Howell, 1978: 403-405. Type data: MEXICO: Puebla, 2 miles S.E. of Tehuacan, on Distichlis sp., 01/03/1972, by D.R. Miller & F.D. Parker. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 2087. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Distichlis sp. [Howell1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Puebla [Howell1978]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Howell (1978).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-oval, prepygidial abdominal segments faintly lobed laterally, derm membranous throughout except for pygidium (Howell, 1978).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of Haliaspis milleri are similar to H. distichlii, but differ in the following characters: numerous dorsal ducts present in H. distichlii which are much smaller than marginal macroducts (these small ducts fewer in H. milleri); 3 gland spines usually present on segments 6 and 7 in H. milleri, but 2 in H. distichlii; and 1-3 pores near anterior spiracle in H. milleri, but 3-8 in H. distichlii (Howell, 1978).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: Howell1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 403-405]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139].
Haliaspis nakaharai HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Haliaspis nakaharai Howell, 1978: 405-406. Type data: PUERTO RICO: near Pastilo, near junction of Route 531 and Route 1, on Sporobolus virginicus, 17/07/1977, by S. Nakahara. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: Nakahara scale [ColonFMe1998].
HOST: Poaceae: Sporobolus virginicus [Howell1978].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Howell1978]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Howell (1978).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white, fairly convex, widening only slightly posteriorly, 1.4-2.0 mm long, 0.25-0.50 mm wide; 1st exuviae terminal, 2nd exuviae faintly visible through waxy secretion. Adult female elongate oval, prepygidial segments moderately lobed laterally, derm generally membranous throughout except for pygidium; older specimens becoming more sclerotized with age (Howell, 1978).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of H. nakaharai are similar to H. peninsularis and H. milleri in general appearance. It can be separated from H. peninsularis by the gland spines, which are usually single on abdominal segments 6-8 while in H. peninsularis those on segments 6-8 are easily paired. In H. milleri, the 2nd lobes are easily distinguishable, and usually extend beyond the pygidial margin, while in H. nakaharai they are mere points. In H. nakaharai the gland spines are single on segments 6 and 7, but in H. milleri at least 3 are present on segments 6 and 7. Also, the submarginal setae on venter of abdominal segment 6 are ca. 5-9 um apart in H. nakaharai, and ca. 15-18 um apart in H. milleri (Howell, 1978).
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 98 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis of Puerto Rico]; Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99]; Howell1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 405-406, 407]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487].
Haliaspis peninsularis HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Haliaspis peninsularis Howell, 1974: 40-42. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Hernando County, near Hernando Beach, beside Highway 595, on Spartina spartinae, 24/11/1972, by R. Beshear. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in SAPO, BMNH, FSCA and UGCA.
COMMON NAME: marsh grass scale [MacGow1982].
HOSTS: Cyperaceae: Fimbristylis spadicea [MacGow1982]. Poaceae: Distichlis sp. [Howell1974], Spartina spartinae [Howell1974].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Howell1974]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Howell (1974).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white, fairly convex, with irregular thickenings of wax, giving a rough appearance. First exuviae apical and naked; the second only faintly visible through waxy secretion. Adult female elongate, prepygidial abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally, derm membranous throughout except for pygidium (Howell, 1974).
SYSTEMATICS: H. peninsularis is close to H. uniolae, but differs in that the marginal macroduct between the median and 2nd lobes is not different from the others as it is in H. uniolae (Howell, 1974).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1976: 180 (male) [Key to second-stage males of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1975a: 433 (first instar) [Key to first instars of Haliaspis]; Howell 1974: 42 [Key to species of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: Howell1974 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-42]; Howell1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 401, 405, 407]; HowellTi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429, 433]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175, 180]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; MacGow1982 [distribution, host: 13]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 40]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349].
Haliaspis spartinae (Comstock)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis spartinae Comstock, 1883: 106-107. Type data: UNITED STATES: Massachusetts, Woods Hole, on Spartina stricta, by W. Trelease. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA; type no. 8559. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus spartinae; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Duplachionaspis spartinae; Ferris, 1937: SI-48. Change of combination.
Haliaspis spartinae; Takagi, 1963e: 119. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: cord grass scale [Essig1915a]; salt marsh grass scale [Comsto1883].
FOE: LEPIDOPTERA Aphelinidae: Encarsia ellisvillensis [JaposhRu2012].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Distichlis sp. [Dekle1965c], Muhlenbergia capillaris [Miller1983JW], Spartina alterniflora [McDani1971], Spartina foliosa [Essig1915a], Spartina sp. [Hartma1916], Spartina stricta [Comsto1883].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Essig1915a], Delaware [Nakaha1982], Florida [Miller1983JW], Georgia [TippinBe1970], Massachusetts [Comsto1883], New Jersey [Nakaha1982], New York [Hartma1916], South Carolina [Nakaha1982], Texas [Ferris1937], Virginia [Nakaha1982]).
BIOLOGY: Haliaspis spartinae occurs on the dorsal side of host leaves (Ferris, 1937). It has been observed on plants at the same level as reproducing barnacles and observed covered with a thick layer of salt marsh detritus. H. spartinae is able to survive in the intertidal zone, tolerating submersion for at least 1 hour on each high tide. The insect overwinters in the egg stage on dead host material (Tippins & Beshear, 1971). It feeds on parenchyma cells but does not produce honeydew as do many phytophagous insects (Rosen, 1990) In Ellisville Marsh< Plymouth, Massachusetts, where the scale was observed at infestation levels, it may be subjected to sustained submergence for 3 hours or more. It may be that this insect's association with salt marsh vegetation is somehow indicative of compromised hydrology or water logging. (Japonshvili & Russell, 2012).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Comstock (1883) and Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale conspicuously white, rather rough and transversely quite convex, up to 3 mm long (Ferris, 1937). Male scale snowy white, larval skin bright yellow; lateral carinae weak (Comstock, 1883).
SYSTEMATICS: Haliaspis spartinae is distinguishable from other North American species by the dorsal ducts are as large as the marginal, are in sharply defined rows to the 6th segment, with 1 or 2 pores also that seem to belong to the 7th segment; perivulvar pores in very large clusters; submarginal setae on the ventral side of pygidium conspicuously large (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1976: 180 (male) [Key to second-stage males of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1975a: 433 (first instar) [Key to first instars of Haliaspis]; Howell 1974: 42 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; McDaniel 1971: 303 (female) [as Duplachionaspis spartinae; Key to the Texas species of Duplachionaspis]; Takagi 1971: 127 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:53 [as Duplachionaspis spartinae; Key to species of Duplachionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 325 (female) [as Chionaspis spartinae; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [as Chionaspis spartinae; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [as Chionaspis spartinae; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 376]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131-132]; BoyerZe1996 [distribution, host, life history: 1-12]; Cocker1894p [behaviour, distribution: 43]; Cocker1897m [host: 782]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98, 106]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 559, 567-568]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 59]; Essig1915a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 165]; Essig1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 310]; Essig1931 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 578]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 198]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226]; Ferris1920b [distribution, host, illustration: 44]; Ferris1921 [taxonomy: 110]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-48]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:53]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 154-155]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 103]; Howell1974 [taxonomy: 40, 42]; Howell1978 [taxonomy: 401, 407]; HowellBe1975 [structure: 267]; HowellTi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429, 433]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175, 180]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 119]; JaposhRu2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history: 493-494]; King1899d [distribution, host: 251-252]; Koszta1996 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 507-509]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 9]; McDani1971 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303, 306-307]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 109]; Miller1983JW [distribution, host: 5]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 41]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Sassce1908 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 141]; Takagi1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 17]; Takagi1963e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 119]; Takagi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; TippinBe1968a [taxonomy: 135]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 9]; TippinBe1971a [behaviour, distribution, host: 165]; TippinBe1972 [distribution, host: 287].
Haliaspis texana Liu & HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Haliaspis texana Liu & Howell, 1994: 134-140. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Laguna Atascosa Wildlife Refuge, on Spartina sp., 23/05/1978, by S. Nakahara. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Spartina sp. [LiuHo1994]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [LiuHo1994]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Liu & Howell (1994).
STRUCTURE: Adult female fusiform, with abdominal segments lobed laterally. Pygidium pointed at apex, median lobes well developed, mesal margins parallel, rounded at apex, slightly serrated on margin (Liu & Howell, 1994).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 139 [Key to species of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: LiuHo1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134-140]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349].
Haliaspis uniolae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Haliaspis uniolae Takagi, 1971: 128-129. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Walton Co., on Uniola paniculata, 18/08/1967, by H.H. Tippins; Cedar Key on Spartina patens, 24/08/1967, by G.W. Dekle & A. D'Ascoli. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, Athens: University of Georgia, Department of Entomology Collection, Georgia, USA, and Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Additional syntypes collected from: Georgia, Camden County, Cumberland Island, on Spartina sp., 05/09/1967, by R. Beshear; Cumberland Island, on Uniola paniculata, 15/03/1968, by R. Beshear; Glynn County, on Spartina sp., 17/09/1967, by H.H. Tippins
HOSTS: Poaceae: Spartina alterniflora [TippinBe1972], Spartina patens [Takagi1971], Spartina sp. [Takagi1971], Uniola paniculata [Takagi1971].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Takagi1971], Georgia [Takagi1971], Louisiana [Nakaha1982], South Carolina [BesheaTiHo1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1971).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with free abdominal segments weakly lobed laterally; pygidium triangular, apex blunt (Takagi, 1971).
SYSTEMATICS: Haliaspis uniolae is distinct in having a peculiar marginal macroduct on the 7th abdominal segment, which is similar in structure to the "cup-like duct" found in the 2nd instar males of genera like Chionaspis. The 2nd instar female also has a macroduct of the same type in the position corresponding to that in the adult female. H. uniolae is similar to H. distichlii in the enlarged pygidial setae, whereas in the dorsal macroducts it is related to H. spartinae and H. asymmetrica (Takagi, 1971).
KEYS: Liu & Howell 1994: 137 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Howell 1978: 407 (female) [Key to the adult females of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1976: 180 (male) [Key to second-stage males of Haliaspis]; Howell & Tippins 1975a: 433 (first instar) [Key to first instars of Haliaspis]; Howell 1974: 42 [Key to species of Haliaspis]; Takagi 1971: 127 (female) [Key to species of Haliaspis].
CITATIONS: BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Howell1974 [taxonomy: 40, 42]; Howell1978 [taxonomy: 401, 403, 407]; HowellTi1975a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429, 433]; HowellTi1975b [taxonomy: 1028]; HowellTi1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 179, 180]; LiuHo1994 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 137]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 41]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Takagi1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128-129]; TippinBe1972 [distribution, host: 287].
Heimaspis Balachowsky & FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Heimaspis Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967a: 37-39. Type species: Heimaspis centrafricanus Balachowsky & Ferrero, by monotypy and original designation.
CITATIONS: BalachFe1967a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 37-39].
Heimaspis centrafricana Balachowsky & FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Heimaspis centrafricanus Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967a: 40-42. Type data: CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: La Maboké, on unidentified host. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 3118. Described: female. Illust.
Heimaspis centrafricana; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Central African Republic [BalachFe1967a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky & Ferrero (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, lengthened, rectilinear or slightly bent, slightly widened towards the apex, pale white, translucent. Larval exuviae brownish. Male scale relatively short and broad, very clear, translucent silver plated white. Adult female elongate (Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967a).
CITATIONS: BalachFe1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-42]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946].
Helenococcus Liu & HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Helenococcus Liu & Howell, 1997: 72. Type species: Helenococcus hokeae Liu & Howell, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Diagnostic characters of Helenococcus include body pyriform, with free abdominal segments slightly lobed laterally, pygidium somewhat triangular, pygidial margin pointed at apex, median lobes well developed, ducts slender, arranged as submarginal rows along the posterior intersegmental line of each abdominal segments I-VII of dorsal surface, with a cluster of these ducts between median lobes, a number of such ducts may be irregularly scattered on marginal and submarginal areas of thorax and abdominal segments I-VII of both surfaces (Liu & Howell, 1997).
CITATIONS: LiuHo1997 [description, taxonomy: 72].
Helenococcus hokeae Liu & HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Helenococcus hokeae Liu & Howell, 1997: 72. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Native Dog Bore Darling River, on Hokeae [Hakea] pampliniana, 28/07/1910, by W.W. Froggatt. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: This material was found in the USNM collection labeled as Gymnaspis perpusilla.
HOST: Proteaceae: Hokea pampliniana [LiuHo1997].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [LiuHo1997]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Liu & Howell (1997).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pyriform, widest at metathorax or abdominal segment I. Derm membranous except for slightly sclerotized pygidial margin. Pygidium triangular and pointed at apex. Median lobes parallel, non-zygotic at base, equal or wider than long, apex truncate usually with a small invagination, both mesal and outer margins smooth, mesal margin straight or with a slightly invaginated curve (Liu & Howell, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Helenococcus perpusilla is characterized by having elongate ducts which are arranged in a marginal submarginal row on posterior intersegmental line of each abdominal segments I-VII, and a cluster on VIII and between median lobes (Liu & Howell, 1997). Liu and Howell misspelled the host genus as Hokea and formed the species epithet of the scale based on this error. Since they consistently misspelled the name, it must remain "hokeae."
CITATIONS: LiuHo1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-78].
HemiaspidisNOMENCLATURE:
Hemiaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 275. Type species: Lepidosaphes hemichionaspiformis Green, by monotypy and original designation. Homonym of Hemiaspis in Reptilia.
Hemaspidis Ferris, 1936a: 21. Replacement name for Hemiaspis.
Hemaspidus; Morrison & Morrison, 1966: 90. Misspelling of genus name.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 275 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 34]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 186]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 275, 291, 474]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 90].
Hemiaspidis hemichionaspiformis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes hemichionaspiformis Green, 1916e: 60-61. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Stapleton, on Melaleuca leucadendron, by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany; type no. 635. Described: female. Illust.
Hemiaspis hemichionaspiformis; MacGillivray, 1921: 291. Change of combination.
Hemaspidis hemichionaspiformis; Ferris, 1936a: 275. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Melaleuca leucadendron [Green1916e].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1916e]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1916e). Subsequent illustration by Ferris (1937a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale translucent white, exuviae pale stramineous, elongate, narrow, lateral margins flattened, 2 mm long. Male scale similar, but smaller, without margin flattened, 1 mm long. Adult female elongate, broadest across abdominal area. Lateral margins of abdominal segments moderately proturberant (Green, 1916e).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 14]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 337]; Green1916e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60-61]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 275, 291, 474].
Hexandaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Hexandaspis Takagi, 2003: 94-95. Type species: Hexandaspis bataanensis, by original designation.
BIOLOGY: Hexandaspis apparently represents a distinct type adapted to the burrowing mode of life. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: The genus is somewhat similar to Andaspis MacGillivray in the shape of the median trullae, but is peculiar in the enlarged trullae and especially in the broad unilobed second and third truulae. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female is diagnosed above all in having three pairs of extraordinarily developed trullae. The median trullae are quite large and elaborately serrate along their entire margin, and are asymmetrically conical, with the outer margin longer than the inner margin. The second and third thullae are also enlarged, less pronounced than the median trullae, but are very broad and serrate. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description: 94-95].
Hexandaspis bataanensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Hexandaspis bataanensis Takagi, 2003: 94-96. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Bataan, Luzon, on Pterospermum diversifolium (Sterculiaceae), Aug. 1994. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 94PL90. Described: female.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Pterospermum diversifolium [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, burrowing under the dense tomentum. Females occurring on the midrib and thick lateral veins; tests elongate, moderately convex dorsally, and light to blackish brown; male tests occurring on the blade, occasionally on veins, greyish brown. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate; at full growth, very long owing to the elongation of the mesothorax, with the lateral sides nearly parallel and with the free segments only gently lobed laterally; pygidium obdeltate, little roundish along the margin. Prepygidial derm membranous; dorsal surface of the pygidium broadly sc1erotized, the ventral surface with 2 pairs of sc1erotized areas arising from the median and second trullae and 3 pairs of sclerotic patches more laterally. Submarginal dorsal bosses always present on abd I, II, IV, and VI, often occurring on III and sometimes on V; and a small boss usually present on VII, situated mesad of the marginal macroduct of VI, sometimes hardly discernible or apparently lacking. Antennae situated in front of the mouth-parts, separated from e,ach other by a space a little narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts, each with 2 (rarely 1 or 3) slender setae. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 94-96, 154-156].
Himalaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Himalaspis Takagi, 2007a. Type species: Himalaspis clerodendri Takagi.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2007a)
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, rather slender, with pygidium roundish along margin. Median trullae small, pointed a[ically, notched on each side, separated from each other by a space about as wide as one of them and parallel to each other, basally with no yoke connecting them. (Takagi, 2007a)
SYSTEMATICS: the genus is very similar to Lineaspis MacGillvray, but remarkably different from the latter in having extraordinarily elongated marginal gland spines on the pygidium and in contradiction with this, in lacking gland spines between the median trullae. The anus is situated much anteriorly to the level of the vulva, and this may also be adopted as a diagnostic character. (Takagi, 2007a)
CITATIONS: Takagi2007a [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 71-72].
Himalaspis caroli (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis caroli Green, 1919c: 434-435. Type data: INDIA: Darjiling, on Thea sp., by C.B. Antram. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes caroli; Lindinger, 1933: 32. Change of combination.
Lineaspis caroli; Borchsenius, 1966: 104. Change of combination.
Himalaspis caroli; Takagi, 2007a. Described: female. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Thuja occidentalis [Bodenh1953]. Theaceae: Thea sp. [Green1919c]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (West Bengal [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, smooth; exuviae fulvous, form elongate, moderately dilated behind. Male scale white, narrow elongate, transverse section lenticular, without carinae. Adult female narrow in front, widest across abdomen, increasing in width up to the segment immediately preceeding the pygidium (Green, 1919c).
SYSTEMATICS: Lineaspis differs from Himalaspis especially in having a pair of gland spines between the median trullae. It is very similar to Himalaspis in other features.
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 104]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 434-435]; Lindin1933 [taxonomy: 32]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 67].
Himalaspis clerodendri TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Himalaspis clerodendri Takagi, 2007a. Type data: NEPAL: Gandaki, Pokhara District, on the way from Kaski to Pokhara, on Clerodendron infortunatum, 11/23/1983. Holotype female, male and first instar (examined). Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan; type no. NPL-234. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust. Notes: collected at an altitude of about 800 m.
HOSTS: Verbenaceae: Clerodendron infortunatum [Takagi2007a], Clerodendron viscoxum [Takagi2007a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi2007a].
BIOLOGY: Female and male tests occurring on the leaves; female tests more abundant on the upper surface and male tests on the lower surface. Female test elongate, convex dorsally, irregularly incised laterally and variously curved owing to dense hairs of the leaves, thite, with exuvial casts brown. Male test non-carinate, erect. The body of the adult female is usually distorted often badly, in accordance with the irregularly shaped test. (Takagi, 2007a)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2007a.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform with free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally; when full grown with pygidial margin set back on ventral surface, median and second trullae scarcely projecting and orifices of marginal macroducts distorted. Medial trullae notched once or twice on each side. Second instar female similar to adult female in pygidial margin, outer lobule of second trulla conical. First instar female head with a pair of enlarged dorsal ducts. Antennae 6 segmented, terminal segment not annulate, as long as preceding segments combined. Second-instar male, Heteromorphic, with small ducts strewn on abdomen. With small gland spines marginally on pygidium, otherwise with no marginal appendages. (Takagi, 2007a)
SYSTEMATICS: The species is closely similar to Himalaspis caroli (=Chionaspis caroli Green. H. clerodendri may be recognizable most easily in having a number of macroducts on the meso- and metathorax whereas H. caroli has macroducts on the thorax only occasionally. Another conspicuous character of H. clerodendri is the occurrence of dense spicules on the median ventral surface of the meso- and metathorax and the base of the abdomen, whereas Green's description has no mention of such spicules. In H. clerodendri the anus overlaps with the median perivulvar disc pores, whereas in H. caroli it is situated a little anteriorly to the level of these disc pores. The female tests of H. clerodendri occur irregularly on the leaf blade, whereas those of H. caroli are disposed on the recurved edge of the leaf. (Takagi, 2007a)
CITATIONS: Takagi2007a [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 72-74].
Hovaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Hovaspis Mamet, 1954: 55-56. Type species: Hovaspis perinetensis Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female membranous, more or less turbinate, with front margin flattened and showing a wavy course. Prosoma swollen, more developed than postsoma. Nymph enclosing the adult female (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 183]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 55-56]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 93].
Hovaspis perinetensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Hovaspis perinetensis Mamet, 1954: 56-58. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Périnet, on "Tavolo," 28/05/1950, by R. Mamet & A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 195. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptaspidus perinetensis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dull, with shiny and bright yellow larval exuviae in a subcentral depression; secretionary matter thin, semi-transparent, somewhat obscuring the underlying nymphal exuviae. Adult female scale, enclosed in nymphal exuviae, about 0.5 mm long, membranous, turbinate, with front margin flattened and showing a wavy course (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56-58].
Howardia Berlese & LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Howardia Berlese & Leonardi, 1896: 347. Type species: Chionaspis? biclavis Comstock. Subsequently designated by Cockerell, 1896a: 256.
Megalodiaspis Paoli, 1915: 255. Type species: Chionaspis biclavis Comstock, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1920: 63.
Horvadia; Schumacher, 1918: 228. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Balachowsky (1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1970) states that the median lobes of the pygidium of Howardia are quite similar in shape to those of Andaspis and that the 1st instar larvae of these genera are also much alike by having a pair of enlarged lobes on the posterior end of the body, but that the difference between the two genera is great in the marginal ducts of the pygidium, so its unlikely that they are closely related.
KEYS: Chou 1982: 117 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Diaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Schmutterer 1959: 175 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 167 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 374 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 60 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [Key to genera]; Kuwana 1933a: 43 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 12 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Lawson 1917: 206 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Archan1929 [distribution, taxonomy: 189]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 167, 212, 250]; BerlesLe1896 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 347]; BerlesLe1898 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 11]; BerlesLe1898a [structure: 132]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 112]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 166, 210]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 155-156]; Brain1918 [description, taxonomy: 116]; Brain1919 [description, taxonomy: 219]; Carnes1907 [distribution, taxonomy: 198]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 117, 123-124]; Cocker1896a [taxonomy: 256]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 286-287]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 275]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 226]; Ferris1920a [taxonomy: 63]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 25, 60]; Ferris1937 [description, taxonomy: SI-64, SI-123]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:43]; Fullaw1932 [description, taxonomy: 98, 105]; Gill1997 [distribution, taxonomy: 164]; GomezM1946 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 60, 77]; Green1922 [distribution, taxonomy: 460]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 520, 541, 546]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Lawson1917 [taxonomy: 206]; Leonar1901a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 563]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27, 212]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 189]; Lupo1938a [description, taxonomy: 255]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 312, 362, 363]; Marlat1921a [taxonomy: 2]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 93]; Paoli1915 [distribution, taxonomy: 255]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 12]; Schmut1959 [description, taxonomy: 175, 203]; Silves1939 [description, taxonomy: 788]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 31-32]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 47, 74]; Willia1960c [distribution, taxonomy: 391]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 137]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 224]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 374, 410].
Howardia biclavis (Comstock)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis? biclavis Comstock, 1883: 98-100. Type data: United States: Washington D.C., Department of Agriculture conservatory, on Diospyrus ebenum, Ficus laurifolia, Tamarindus sp., Ochras sapota and Etaecarpus cyanus. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Aspidiotus theae; Green, 1890: 13. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1941e: 49.
Chionaspis biclavis detecta Maskell, 1895b: 49. Type data: SANDWICH ISLANDS: Hawaii, Kona.. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 156.
Howardia biclavis; Berlese & Leonardi, 1896: 348. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Howardia) biclavis; Maxwell-Lefroy, 1902: 250. Change of combination.
Howardia biclavis detecta; Fernald, 1903b: 227. Change of combination.
Megalodiaspis biclavis; Paoli, 1915: 256. Change of combination.
Howardia (Chionaspis) biclavis; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1921a: 353. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Burrowing scale [Borchs1966]; Mining scale [Comsto1883].
FOES: DIPTERA Cecidomyiidae: Dyodiplosis generosi [Fulmek1943]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus theae [Morley1909], Aphytis fuscipennis [Balach1954e], Aphytis proclia [Balach1954e], Pteroptrix imitatrix [Fulmek1943]. Encyrtidae: Plagiomerus sp. [Simmon1957]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Haplothrips merilli [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Graptophyllum pictum [Ballou1926], Justicia sp. [Borchs1966], Strobilanthes isophyllus [MacGow1982], Thunbergia grandiflora [MestreHaEv2011]. Amaranthaceae: Alternanthera sp. [MillerDa2005], Iresine sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Anacardiaceae: Cotinus sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Dodonaea sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Mangifera indica [Ballou1926], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhus leucantha [Ballou1926], Schinus sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Toxicodendron sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Annonaceae: Annona muricata [Morgan1892], Annona reticulata [Mamet1949], Annona sp. [MillerDa2005], Annona squamosa [Marlat1921a], Cananga sp. [MillerDa2005], Monodora sp. [MillerDa2005], Polyalthia longifolia [Sankar1984]. Apocynaceae: Allamanda cathartica schottia [Cohic1958], Allamanda hendersonii [Ballou1926], Allamanda sp. [MillerDa2005], Annodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Dischidia sp. [MillerDa2005], Echites melaleuca [Archan1929], Landolphia florida [Archan1929], Landolphia heudelotii [Archan1929], Nerium oleander [ColonFMe1998], Plumeria alba [Cohic1958], Plumeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Tabernaemontana citrifolia [Ballou1926], Tabernaemontana coronaria [Maxwel1902], Tabernaemontana sp. [MillerDa2005], Trachelospermum jasminoides [Kuwana1909a]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex riedlaei [ColonFMe1998]. Araceae: Monstera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araliaceae: Centella sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Chrysalidocarpus lutescenses [ColonFMe1998]. Asteraceae: Artemisia abrotanum [Ballou1926], Centaurea sp. [MillerDa2005], Cosmos caudatus [ColonFMe1998], Eupatorium sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Microglossa zeylanica [Ali1969a], Tithonia diversifolia [Mamet1943a], Tithonia sp. [Borchs1966]. Begoniaceae: Begonia sp. [Borchs1966]. Bignoniaceae: Bignonia sp. [Brain1919], Delostoma sp. [MillerDa2005], Spathodea sp. [MillerDa2005], Tabebuia sp. [MillerDa2005], Tecomaria capensis [Ballou1926]. Bixaceae: Bixa orellana [Ballou1926], Bixa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bombacaceae: Matisia cordata [Mosque1976]. Boraginaceae: Cordia polycephala [ColonFMe1998], Cordia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buddlejaceae: Buddleia davidii [Ballou1926]. Burseraceae: Bursera gummifera [Ballou1926]. Calycanthaceae: Calycanthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Capparaceae: Steriphoma sp. [MillerDa2005]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Caricaceae: Carica papaya [Mamet1943a], Carica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Caryocaraceae: Caryocar sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cassiaceae: Cassia sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Chrysobalanaceae: Licania sp. [MillerDa2005], Parinari laurinum [Hinckl1963]. Clusiaceae: Clusia sp. [MillerDa2005], Mammea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Combretaceae: Combretum micropetalum [Archan1929], Quisqualis indica [Ballou1926], Terminalia catappa [Kuwana1909a], Terminalia sp. [MillerDa2005], Terminalia tomentosa [Balach1954e]. Convolvulaceae: Ipomea tiliacea [ColonFMe1998]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros ebenum [Comsto1883], Royena sp. [Borchs1966]. Ehretiaceae: Cordia interrupta [Mamet1943a], Cordia macrostachya [Mamet1949]. Elaeocarpaceae: Elaeocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Erythroxylaceae: Erythroxylum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha grandis [Mamet1943a], Acalypha sp. [Maxwel1902], Codiaeum variegatum [ColonFMe1998], Croton discolor [Maxwel1902], Croton lucidus [Ballou1926], Croton sp. [MillerDa2005], Croton sp. [LincanHoCa2010], Euphorbia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Hippomane mancinella [Ballou1926], Hippomane sp. [Mosque1976], Mabea buxifolia [Kuwana1909a], Macaranga sp. [Hinckl1963], Poinsettia sp. [Brain1919], Sapium sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Fabaceae: Acacia macracantha [LincanHoCa2010], Acacia melissima [Hinckl1963], Acacia sp. [MillerDa2005], Andira inermis [ColonFMe1998], Bauhinia monandra [ColonFMe1998], Bauhinia purpurea [DeLott1967a], Bauhinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Bauhinia variegata [Ballou1926], Caesalpinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cajanus cajan [Brown1965], Derris sp. [MillerDa2005], Desmodium incanum [ColonFMe1998], Erythrina sp. [MillerDa2005], Hymenaea sp. [MillerDa2005], Indigophora [Watson2002a], Inga laurina [ColonFMe1998], Inga sp. [MillerDa2005], Leucaena leucocephala [MestreHaEv2011], Leucaena sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Mundulea suberosa [Cohic1958], Pithecellobium dulce [ColonFMe1998], Pongamia sp. [MillerDa2005], Pterocarpus indicus [ColonFMe1998], Tamarindus sp. [Comsto1883], Wisteria sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Fagaceae: Castanea sp. [Borchs1966]. Flacourtiaceae: Casearia sylvestris [ColonFMe1998], Flacourtia sp. [Borchs1966], Hydnocarpus sp. [Borchs1966], Hydnocarpus wightiana [Mamet1943a]. Gesneriaceae: Gesneria pedunculosa [ColonFMe1998]. Guttiferae: Ascyrum sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Calophyllum brasiliense [ColonFMe1998], Calophyllum calaba [MestreHaEv2011], Calophyllum sp. [Hinckl1963], Clusia flava [Balach1954e], Clusia lacuma nervosa [Hua2000], Clusia rosea [ColonFMe1998], Mammea americana [Beatty1944, DonesEv2011]. Juglandaceae: Jatropha hastata [Ballou1926], Juglans sp. [Borchs1966]. Labiatae: Plectranthus amboinicus [ColonFMe1998]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Ocotea leucoxylon [ColonFMe1998], Persea americana [ColonFMe1998], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005], Phoebe sp. [MillerDa2005]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lythraceae: Cuphea sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Lagerstroemia indica [Kuwana1909a], Punica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malpighiaceae: Malphigia sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Malvaceae: Althaea sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Hibiscus mutabilis [Ballou1926], Hibiscus rosasinensis [Mamet1943a], Hibiscus sp. [Simmon1957, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus syriacus [Ballou1926], Hibiscus tiliaceus [Kuwana1909a], Matisia sp. [MillerDa2005], Montezuma sp. [MillerDa2005], Pachira sp. [MillerDa2005], Sida sp. [Watson2002a], Theobroma sp. [MillerDa2005], Urena sp. [Watson2002a], Waltheria ovata [LincanHoCa2010], Waltheria sp. [MillerDa2005]. Melastomaceae: Miconia laevigata [ColonFMe1998]. Meliaceae: Cedrela sp. [MillerDa2005], Guarea guidonia [ColonFMe1998], Khaya sp. [Watson2002a], Melia azederach [Simmon1957], Swietenia sp. [Watson2002a], Trichilia sp. [Brain1919, MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Artocarpus integrifolia [Kuwana1909a], Ficus benjamina [Morgan1892], Ficus carica [Ballou1926], Ficus laurifolia [Comsto1883], Ficus parcellii [Ballou1926], Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005], Morus nigra [Ballou1926]. Moringaceae: Microcitrus australasica [Ballou1926], Moringa oleifera [Mamet1943a], Moringa pterygosperma [Ballou1926]. Myricaceae: Myrica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myristicaceae: Myristica macrantha [Hinckl1963]. Myrtaceae: Metrosideros sp. [Brown1965], Myrica cerifera [BesheaTiHo1973], Psidium guajava [ColonFMe1998], Psidium sp. [MillerDa2005], Syzygium cleyeraefolium [Kuwana1909a]. Nyctaginaceae: Bougainvillea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ochnaceae: Ochna sopata [Comsto1883]. Oleaceae: Jacobinia mohintli [Ballou1926], Jasminum humile [Ballou1926], Jasminum sambac [Cohic1958], Jasminum simplicifolius [Ballou1926], Jasminum sp. [MillerDa2005], Jasminum trifoliatum [Ballou1926], Ligustrum sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Olea europaea [Kuwana1909a]. Onagraceae: Raimannia sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora laurifolia [ColonFMe1998], Passiflora sp. [MillerDa2005]. Phytolaccaceae: Phytolaca rivinoides [ColonFMe1998]. Piperaceae: Piper aduncum [ColonFMe1998], Piper methysticum [WilliaBu1987], Piper nigrum [Tao1999], Piper rivinoides [Archan1929], Piper sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Polygonaceae: Antigonon sp. [MillerDa2005]. Proteaceae: Grevillea robusta [Mamet1949], Grevillea sp. [MillerDa2005], Macadamia sp. [Willia1973, MillerDa2005], Macadamia ternifolia [Willia1973]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [Kuwana1909a]. Rosaceae: Cydonia oblonga [Ballou1926], Malus pumila [Hua2000], Malus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Osteomeles anthyllidifolia [Kuwana1909a], Photinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Photinia wrightiana [Kuwana1909a], Prunus sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Pyracantha sp. [MillerDa2005], Pyrus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Raphiolepis sp. [Brain1919]. Rubiaceae: Catesbaea spinosa [Ballou1926], Chiococca sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Cinchona sp. [MillerDa2005], Cinchona succirubra [DEDAC1923], Coffea arabica [Ballou1926], Coffea sp. [MillerDa2005], Gardenia augusta [ColonFMe1998], Gardenia florida [Ballou1926], Gardenia sp. [Hinckl1963, MillerDa2005], Genipa caruto [Ballou1926], Genipa sp. [MillerDa2005], Guettarda scabra [FDACSB1983], Ixora bandhuca [Ballou1926], Ixora coccinea [ColonFMe1998], Ixora sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Morinda sp. [Borchs1966], Mussaenda sp. [MillerDa2005], Psychotria uliginosa [ColonFMe1998], Randia aculeata [ColonFMe1998], Randia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantifolia [ColonFMe1998], Citrus limon [ColonFMe1998], Citrus medica [ColonFMe1998], Citrus sinensis [LincanHoCa2010], Citrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Feroniella sp. [MillerDa2005], Murraya exotica [Ballou1926], Ruta chalepensis [Ballou1926]. Salicaceae: Casearia sp. [MillerDa2005], Dovyalis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sapindaceae: Blighia sapida [Ballou1926], Cupania sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Elaeocarpus sp. [Borchs1966], Litchi sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Melicoccus bijugatus [ColonFMe1998], Nephelium longan [HowellBeTi1986], Nephelium sp. [MillerDa2005], Thouinia strata [ColonFMe1998]. Sapotaceae: Achras sapota [Marlat1921a], Achras sp. [MillerDa2005], Achras zapota [Cohic1958], Chrysophyllum cainito [Ballou1926], Chrysophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005], Lucuma mammosa [Ballou1926], Lucuma nervosa [Ballou1926], Lucuma serpentaria [Ballou1926], Lucuma sp. [MillerDa2005], Manilkara bidentata [ColonFMe1998], Manilkara sp. [MillerDa2005], Manilkara zapota [ColonFMe1998], Micropholis crysophylioides [ColonFMe1998], Mimusops sp. [MillerDa2005], Sideroxylon ferrugineum [Kuwana1909a]. Solanaceae: Brunfelsia nitida [Ballou1926], Brunsfelsia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cestrum diurnum [Ballou1926], Datura suaveolens [ColonFMe1998], Lycopersicon [Watson2002a], Solanum melangena [Ballou1926], Solanum seaforthianum [Ballou1926], Solanum sp. [ColonFMe1998]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005], Thea sp. [Borchs1966]. Tiliaceae: Conchorus siliquosus [MestreHaEv2011], Triumfetta semitriloba [ColonFMe1998]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sinensis [Kuwana1909a], Trema micranthum [ColonFMe1998]. Verbenaceae: Citharexylum sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Duranta plumieri [Mamet1943a], Duranta repens [Ballou1926], Duranta sp. [MillerDa2005], Lantana camara [ColonFMe1998], Lantana sp. [MillerDa2005], Lippia stoechadifolia [ColonFMe1998], Nyctanthes sambac [Wilson1921], Petrea sp. [MillerDa2005], Stachytarpheta jamaicensis [ColonFMe1998]. Viscaceae: Phoradendron sp. [Mosque1976]. Vitaceae: Cisuss sicyoides [ColonFMe1998]. Vitidaceae: Parthenocissus sp. [HodgsoHi1990]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ghana [Hall1946a]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Madagascar [Mamet1959a]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Rodriques Island [Mamet1956b, WilliaWi1988]; Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome [Hall1946a]); South Africa [Brain1919]; Zanzibar [Mamet1943a]; Zimbabwe [Hall1935]. Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Watson2002a]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Kuwana1909a]; Cook Islands [Watson2002a, WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Truk Islands [Takaha1942d]); Fiji [Hinckl1963]; French Polynesia (Tahiti [Green1907]); Hawaiian Islands [Maxwel1902, MillerDa2005] (Maui [Nishid2002], Niihau [Nishid2002], Oahu [Nishid2002]); Indonesia (Java [Clause1933]); New Caledonia [Cohic1956]; Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [Lindin1911]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Cocker1899n, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (California [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005] (reported eradicated from California), District of Columbia [Comsto1883], Florida [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Lawson1917], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New York [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Ohio [WebsteBu1902, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Maxwel1902]); Argentina (Buenos Aires [Watson2002a]); Bahamas [Marlat1921a]; Barbados [Maxwel1902]; Bermuda [Brown1965]; Brazil [Bondar1914] (Bahia [SilvadGoGa1968], Minas Gerais [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [SilvadGoGa1968]); Colombia [Figuer1952, Mosque1976]; Cuba [Ballou1926, MestreHaEv2011]; Dominica [Mamet1943a]; Dominican Republic [GomezM1941]; Ecuador [Nakaha1982]; French Guiana [Nakaha1982]; Galapagos Islands [Willia1977ML, LincanHoCa2010]; Guadeloupe [Vayssi1955]; Guyana [Bodkin1914]; Haiti [BerlesLe1898a]; Jamaica [Brown1965]; Martinique [Vayssi1955]; Montserrat [Maxwel1902]; Panama [Watson2002a]; Peru [Nakaha1982]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Maxwel1902, DonesEv2011]); Saint Croix [MiskimBo1970]; Saint Kitts and Nevis Islands (Saint Kitts [Maxwel1902]); Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Maxwel1902]); Venezuela [Ballou1945] [Watson2002a]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Tao1999]); India [Nakaha1982] (Karnataka [Singh1964], Tamil Nadu [Fletch1919]). Oriental: Indonesia [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: Philippines [Nakaha1982]; Singapore [Nakaha1982]; Sri Lanka [Maxwel1902]; Taiwan [Nakaha1982]. Palaearctic: Czech Republic [Zahrad1953]; France [DanzigPe1998]; Germany [Lindin1909b]; Ireland [Green1934d]; Italy [Leonar1918]; Japan [Tao1999]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Poland [Koteja1974b]; Portugal [FrancoRuMa2011]; Russia (St. Petersburg (=Leningrad) Oblast [Archan1929]); Sardinia [Paoli1915]; Spain [DanzigPe1998]; United Kingdom (England [Maxwel1902]).
BIOLOGY: According to Brown (1965) Howardia biclavis reproduces parthenogenetically without males. Kuwana (1911) and Murakami (1970) indicate that it has 1 generation each year in Japan. Of particular interest is the manner in which this pest becomes covered by a thin layer of the host's epidermis. Many comment in the literature about how the scale mines or burrows into the host, but these statements almost certainly are inaccurate since the crawlers have no unusual adaptations for burrowing. It seems more likely that crawlers find cracks in the bark and settle in the bark tissue. As the scale cover enlarges, it slowly forces its way under the epidermal layer. This hypothesis is substantiated by Fennah (1947) who observed that crawlers settle in minute crevices of the bark. To our knowledge, a detailed study of the biology of this species has not been under taken. According to Brown (1965) mining scale reproduces parthenogenetically without males. Kuwana (1911) and Murakami (1970) indicate that it has 1 generation each year in Japan. Of particular interest is the manner in which this pest becomes covered by a thin layer of the host's epidermis. There are many comments in the literature about how the scale mines or burrows into the host, but these statements almost certainly are inaccurate since the crawlers have no unusual adaptations for burrowing. It seems more likely that crawlers find cracks in the bark and settle in the bark tissue. As the scale cover enlarges, it slowly forces its way under the epidermal layer. This hypothesis is substantiated by Fennah (1947) who observed that crawlers settle in minute crevices of the bark. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Comstock (1883) and Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, but obscured by tissue of host, nearly circular. Exuviae marginal and project beyond the edge of scale (Comstock, 1883).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Dekle (1977) reported the mining scale as an economic pest on many woody ornamentals in Florida despite the fact that it often is parasitized. Azevedo Marques (1923) considered it to be an important economic pest of coffee in Brazil, and Plank and Winters (1949) described it as causing heavy damage to Cinchona ledgeriana in Puerto Rico. It also has been reported to cause damage to tea in Sri Lanka (Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930), India, Japan, and Malawi (Nagarkatti and Sankaran 1990), to citrus in Cuba (Grillo et al. 1983), to coffee in Cuba (Köhler et al. 1980), and to macadamia in India (Ebeling 1959). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Wolff & Corseuil 1993a: 153 (female) [Diaspidid species on mango in Brazil]; Williams & Watson 1988: 137 [Key to species of Howardia]; Fullaway 1932: 96 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [as Chionaspis biclavis; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 (female) [as Chionaspis biclavis; Synopsis of Chionaspis species]; Comstock 1881a: 98 [as Chionaspis biclavis; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1284]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 51]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1929 [distribution, host: 197]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 252-254]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 25-26]; Ballou1945 [distribution, host: 93]; Beards1966 [distribution, host: 533]; Beatty1944 [distribution, host: 126]; BerlesLe1896 [taxonomy: 348]; BerlesLe1898a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-129]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Bodkin1914 [distribution, host: 114]; BoedigSt1930 [host: 51-52]; Bondar1914 [distribution, host: 1103]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 112]; Borchs1937a [taxonomy: 115]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156-157]; Boyce1950 [taxonomy: 745]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 219-220]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 132-137]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 76]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124-125]; Chou1986 [illustration: 525]; Clause1933 [distribution: 16]; Cocker1896a [taxonomy: 256]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 30]; Cocker1899r [taxonomy: 900]; Cocker1902p [distribution: 257]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 15, 16, 20, 58]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 16, 25, 30, 34]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100-101]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98-100]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 559-561]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 119]; CostaL1942 [distribution, host: 272]; Craw1896 [taxonomy: 35, 40]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 275-276]; Dash1916 [distribution, host: 42]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 15]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Dekle1954 [distribution, host: 227]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 74]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 115]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 119]; DodgeRi1943 [distribution, taxonomy: 346]; DonesEv2011 [distribution, host: 2]; Draper1907 [distribution: 10]; FDACSB1983 [distribution, host: 7]; Felt1915 [taxonomy: 183]; Fennah1947 [behaviour, distribution: 65]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 227]; Ferris1920a [taxonomy: 63]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 22, 28, 60]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: SI-64-65]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 49]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Fletch1914 [distribution: 519]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 34, 37]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 297]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Fonsec1964 [distribution, host: 515]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 12,24]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host: 96]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 36]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 163, 164]; GomezM1941 [distribution, host: 137]; GrandpCh1899 [distribution, host: 30]; Green1890 [distribution, host: 13]; Green1896 [distribution, host: 2]; Green1899a [distribution, host: 108, 152]; Green1907 [distribution, host: 201]; Green1908a [distribution, host: 36]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 460]; Green1934d [distribution: 114]; Green1937 [distribution: 324]; Hall1935 [distribution, host: 84]; Hall1946a [distribution: 548]; Hart1896a [distribution: vi]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 181]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 45]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12-19,]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 24]; Houser1918 [distribution, host: 161]; HowellBeTi1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 1-3]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 260]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 22]; Kirkal1902 [distribution: 112]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Koteja1974b [structure: 84]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1909a [distribution, host: 161]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 16]; Kuwana1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4]; Lamb1974 [distribution, host: 42]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 206]; Leonar1918 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 194]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213-215]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 262, 408]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 223]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 177]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 148]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256, 261]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; MacGow1982 [distribution, host: 10]; Malump2012b [distribution: 213]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 161]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 12, 13]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Mamet1956b [distribution, host: 305]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 380]; Marlat1921a [distribution: 11]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 43, 56, 84, 168, 253]; Maskel1895b [distribution, host: 49]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 250-251, 299]; Maxwel1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 48]; McDani1924 [distribution, host: 41-42]; McDani1931 [distribution, host: 61]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 115]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 50]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host: 237]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 12]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 234]; MiskimBo1970 [distribution, host: 30]; Morgan1889a [taxonomy: 349]; Morgan1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 16]; Morley1909 [biological control: 256]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 41, 89]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 87]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 80]; Nakaha1981a [distribution: 399]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 44]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 34]; Newste1901b [distribution, host: 180, 190]; Newste1907a [distribution: 10]; Newste1914 [distribution, host: 311]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Pace1939 [host: 665]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 256]; Parkin1906 [distribution, host: 33, 56, 66, 69]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 502]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, host: 8]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 10]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 15]; RaoCh1950 [taxonomy: 23, 27]; Ronna1933 [distribution, host: 51-53]; Ruhl1930 [biological control, taxonomy: 20]; Russo1927 [distribution, taxonomy: 48, 203, 205]; Ryan1946 [distribution, economic importance: 124]; Sander1904a [distribution, host: 51]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 27]; Sassce1920 [taxonomy: 182]; Schmut1952 [taxonomy: 580]; Schmut1959 [distribution, taxonomy: 204]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 174]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 4]; Singh1964 [distribution, host: 219]; South1910 [distribution: 20]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Takagi1992b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-45, 55, 67, 72]; Takaha1942d [distribution, host: 355]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 91-92]; Timber1924 [biological control, distribution: 439]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 47]; Vayssi1955 [distribution: 257-267]; Wang1980 [distribution, host: 175]; Wang1982c [distribution, host: 74-76]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy ]; WatsonBe1937 [host: 15]; WattMa1903 [distribution, host: 309]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 113]; Willia1960c [taxonomy: 393]; Willia1973 [distribution, host: 91]; Willia1973 [distribution, host: 91]; Willia1977ML [distribution, host: 94]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137-138, 140]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 40]; Wilson1921 [taxonomy: 24]; Wolcot1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 134]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 26, 67]; Yang1982 [distribution, host: 264, 265]; Zahrad1953 [distribution, host: 143]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 410].
Howardia silvestrii LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Howardia Silvestrii Leonardi, 1914: 187-190. Type data: GUINEA: Kokoulima, on unidentified plant. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatorea silvestrii; Lindinger, 1937: 194. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Leonar1914].
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) considered Howardia silvestrii to be incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 373]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 211]; Hall1946a [distribution: 552]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 187-190]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194].
Howardia stricklandi WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Howardia stricklandi Williams, 1960c: 391-393. Type data: GHANA: Tafo, on Theobroma cacao, 06/06/1946, by A.H. Strickland. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Meliaceae: Khaya grandifolia [WilliaWa1988]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Willia1960c].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ghana [Willia1960c]. Australasian: Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams (1960c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale brown, elongate, exuviae terminal, 3.0 mm long, 1.0 mm wide. Adult female fusiform, 2.5 mm long, membranous except for pygidium (Williams, 1960c).
SYSTEMATICS: Howardia stricklandi differs from H. biclavis in its shape which is fusiform and membranous, while H. biclavis is turbinate and heavily sclerotized at maturity (Williams, 1960c).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 137 [Key to species of Howardia].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 4]; TakagiTi1972 [taxonomy: 186]; Willia1960c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 391-393]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137, 139, 140].
Hulaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Hulaspis Hall, 1946a: 520. Type species: Howardia dombeyae Hall, by monotypy and original designation.
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 157]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 520, 540]; Mamet1953 [distribution: 251]; Mamet1962 [taxonomy: 192]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 94].
Hulaspis dombeyae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Howardia dombeyae Hall, 1929a: 360-362. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Rusape, on Dombeya rotundifolia, 16/03/1928; same host in Macheke, 11/06/1928; Salisbury, 30/05/1917. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 874. Described: female. Illust.
Hulaspis dombeyae; Hall, 1946a: 520. Change of combination.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Dombeya rotundifolia [Hall1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the adult female more or less circular in outline and convex. Larval exuviae shiny brown with a median longitudinal carina. Nymphal exuviae usually pale brown and large. Exuviae with a very thin white secretionary covering film, which is often missing over the larval exuviae. Secretionary area white, but appearing dirty white or brown owing to particles of incorporated plant matter. Ventral scale extremely thin and delicate, remaining adherent to the host plant. Adult female circular in outline with antennae represented by minute tubercles each carrying one or two stout curved bristles and two minute setae (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: The margin of Hulaspis dombeyae is similar to Lepidosaphes moorsi (Hall, 1929a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1973b: 259 [Key to species of Hulaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 167]; BenDov1973b [taxonomy: 257, 259]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 360-362]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 520]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mamet1954 [taxonomy: 60].
Hulaspis namaquensis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Hulaspis namaquensis Ben-Dov, 1973b: 257-259. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Namaqualand, Anenous Pass, on Rhus undulata, 08/10/1972, by Y. Ben-Dov. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 4862/9. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH, MRAC and USNM.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Rhus undulata [BenDov1973b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1973b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1973b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale turbinate, white and slightly transparent; larval exuviae brown, placed at anterior apex, 1.0-1.4 mm long and 0.7-0.9 mm wide. Adult female oval, 0.5-0.9 mm long and 0.4-0.5 mm wide. Young female membranous, fully grown reproducing female highly sclerotized ventrally and dorsally. Male scale narrow and elongate, about 1 mm long, 0.3 mm wide, white (Ben-Dov, 1973b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1973b: 259 [Key to species of Hulaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDov1973b [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 257-259].
Hulaspis philippiae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Hulaspis philippiae Mamet, 1954: 58-60. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ambatoloana, on Philippia sp., ?/11/1950, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 277. Described: female. Illust.
Howardia philippiae; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOST: Ericaceae: Philippia sp. [Mamet1954]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale convex. Adult female turbinate, more or less sclerotic at maturity, 1.2 mm long (Mamet, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Hulaspis philippiae differs from H. dombeyae by the more numerous ducts in the submarginal groups of the 6th and 7th segments and by the occurrence of a submedian group of the 6th segment (Mamet, 1954).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1973b: 259 [Key to species of Hulaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDov1973b [structure: 257, 259]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157-158]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 58-60].
Hybridaspis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Hybridaspis Green, 1926: 64. Type species: Hybridaspis producta Green, by monotypy and original designation.
Hydridaspis; Borchsenius, 1966: 400. Misspelling of genus name.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 149]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 26]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 4, 15]; Green1926 [description, taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 186]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 94].
Hybridaspis producta GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Hybridaspis producta Green, 1926: 64-65. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Darwin, on Loranthus signatus, by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Anamefiorinia producta; Lindinger, 1935: 133. Change of combination.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus signatus [Green1926].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1926]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1926).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of the enlarged nymphal exuviae, with the small larval exuviae overlapping the anterior margin, without much secretionary appendix. Larval exuviae broadly ovate, pale, translucent stramineous, with large dark brown patches occupying the center of the thoracic and abdominal areas, or with the whole area, except a transverse median and a narrow marginal zone, filled in with dark brown. Nymphal exuviae elongate ovate. Male scale elongate, larval exuviae brown, with a narrow translucent pale border; appendix whitish, wider posteriorly, weakly tricarinate, about 1 mm long. Adult female broadest across the median area of abdomen (Green, 1926).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 15]; Green1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-65]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133].
Hyparrheniaspis Ghabbour & HamonNOMENCLATURE:
Hyparrheniaspis Ghabbour & Hamon, 1998: 75-85. Type species: Hyparrheniaspis campbelli Ghabbour & Hamon, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: The adult emale is characterrized by having prooves full of ducts along the pygidial margin. the lobes are represented by two pairs of found sclerotized prominences occurring submarginally on the ventral surfact in the second instar female and by one pair of prominences in the second instar male. In the adult remale, such prominences are indiscenible. there are two pairs of broad sclerotized stripes submarginally on the ventral surfact of the pygidium. The first instar larva is characterized by having double or triple enlarged ducts on the head. Two pairs of sclerotized processes occurring laterally to caudal setae. Antenna six segmented, the terminal segment with a single apical seta. submedian dorsal setae occurring through thoracic segments and abdominal segments 1-7. Tarsus with a distince seta ventrally. (Ghabbour & Hamon, 1998)
CITATIONS: GhabboHa1998 [description: 76].
Hyparrheniaspis cambelli Ghabbour & MohammadNOMENCLATURE:
Hyparrheniaspis campbelli Ghabbour & Mohammad, 1996. Type data: to be decided. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Gainesville: Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida, USA. Described: female, male and first instar. Notes: INCOMPLETE RECCORD
Hyparrheniaspis cambelli Ghabbour & Hamon, 1998: 76-85. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Blufield, on Hyperrhenia rufa, 6/25/1980, by E.W. Campbell. Holotype female and first instar (examined). Type depositories: Cairo: Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt, and Gainesville: Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida, USA. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Ctenium aromaticum [GhabboHa1998], Hyparrhenia rufa [GhabboHa1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [GhabboHa1998]).
STRUCTURE: Adult Female body semicircular, intersegmental constriction obviously marked. Derm membraneous except for sclerotized pygidial area. Cephalothorax slightly longer than abdomen. Pygidial margin with three deep grooves each with clusters of macroducts. Dorsal surface ducts: Marginal and submarginal occurring on pro- and metathorax, about 12-15 and 10-12 in number respectively. Marginal submarginal and median number of mactoducts on each segment of abdomen 1-7, distributed as follows: 18-20 on segment 1; 22-25 on segment 2; 12-14 on segment 3; 15-18 on segment 4; 12-15 on segment 5; 8-11 on segment 6; and 5-7 on segment 7. Marginal short setae on metathorax and abdominal segments 1-6. Few similar setae on head. Anal opening situated about 4 times its width from apex of pygidium. Antennae short, tuberculate, with 2 stout setae, of which one is quite long and curved. Ventral anterior spiracle with 8-10 trilocular disc pores; posterior spiracle with 10-13 disc pores. Macroducts equal in size to those on the dorsal surface. submarginally about 6-8 on metathorax, 4-5 on abdominal segment2; 6-8 on segment 3; and 5-7 on segment 4. Microducts of two different sizes. Three groups of larger microducts occurring marginally on metathorax and abdominal segments 1 and 2; each group with 3-5 microducts. Abundant small sized microducts scattered on cephalothorax, behind mouth-parts, and around and between the anterior and posterior spiracles. Few microducts medially on abdominal segments 1-3; numerous ones scattered over the pygidial area. A double row of submedian setae on abdominal segments 3-6. Perivulvar pores in 5 groups, medians 4-6, anterior laterals 8-11 and posterior laterals 4-6. First instar elliptical. Derm membranous except for sclerotized areas at the duct spot of head and the pygidial margin. Anal opening small, subapical. Two pair of sclerotized processes occurring lateral to caudal setae accompanid by anothr tubrcular process on each side. A pair of spinous processes between caudal setae. Second instar male broadly oval. Pygidium entirely without lobes. Derm membraneous except for pygidial area. Pygidial margin with 5 well developed grooves, separated by spinous processes fringed apically, each groove including a cluster of macroducts. Second instar female very similar to second instar male, differing by having only 3 grooves of macroducts at the pygidium and fewer macro- and microducts. The thorax appears devoid of macroducts. Spiracular disc pores more than three.
CITATIONS: GhabboHa1998 [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-84].
Ichthyaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Ichthyaspis Takagi, 1970: 120. Type species: Adiscofiorinia ficicola Takahashi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Ichthyaspis differs from Adiscofiorinia by the eminent marginal setae of the pygidium and by having marginal macroducts (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 101 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Fioriniinae]; Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Chou1982 [description, taxonomy: 101, 114-115]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Takagi1970 [description, taxonomy: 120]; Yang1982 [description, taxonomy: 224].
Ichthyaspis ficicola (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Adiscofiorinia ficicola Takahashi, 1931b: 380-381. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, Shinten, on Ficus foveolata, 14/06/1931, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Ichthaspis ficicola; Takagi, 1970: 120-121. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus foveolata [Takaha1931b], Ficus sarmentosa henryi [Tao1999], Ficus sp. [Takagi1970]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1931b]. Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1931b) and Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium nearly triangular in outline, a little roundish on the free margin. Median lobes rounded, entire, separated from each other for their apical two-thirds by a narrow but distinct space (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Takahashi (1931b) states that this species is "somewhat allied to Adiscofiorinia secreta Green, differing remarkably in the characters of the pygidium and in other structures." Takagi (1970) placed this species in the newly described genus Ichthyaspis.
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 150]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Chou1986 [illustration: 519]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 146, 153]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 307]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 120-121]; Takaha1931b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 380-381]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 29, 61]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 261-262].
Imerinaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Imerinaspis Mamet, 1954: 60. Type species: Imerinaspis perinetensis Mamet, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female almost circular, front margin produced, derm of entire body heavily sclerotized at maturity, body composed almost entirely of the enlarged prosoma; abdominal segments short and contracted (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 165]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 60]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 96].
Imerinaspis perinetensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Imerinaspis perinetensis Mamet, 1954: 60-62. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Périnet, on "Fanjava ala," 27/05/1950, by R. Mamet & A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale more or less circular, brittle, very flat, exuviae to one side. Secretionary matter very thin, somewhat transparent, showing adult female underneath, brownish in color. Adult female roughly circular, front margin produced and pygidium faintly projecting, 0.7 mm long. Derm of entire body heavily sclerotized at maturity (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 60]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 380].
Inchoaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Inchoaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 310. Type species: Chionaspis amaniensis Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation.
Remotaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Chionaspis dentilobis Newstead, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Hall, 1946: 521, 547.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with four pairs of lobes, scale usually elongate (MacGillivray, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Inchoaspis is similar to Aloaspis, but the latter has two pairs of lobes and dorsal ducts in irregular rows, while Inchoaspis has three pairs of lobes and the rows of dorsal ducts are much more regular (Williams, 1955a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 542 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 311 (female) [as Remotaspis; Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 103]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 23, 26, 82]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 499, 521, 542]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 187, 195]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 310, 311, 359]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 96]; Willia1955a [taxonomy: 248].
Inchoaspis argentata (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis argentata Hall, 1941: 231-232. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Inyanga, Nyamaziwa Falls, on Osyris abyssinica, 15/05/1939. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Inchoaspis argentata; Hall, 1946a: 521. Change of combination.
HOST: Santalaceae: Osyris abyssinica [Hall1941].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1941].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1941).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female elongate, moderately convex and much broadened posteriorly. Exuviae orange, covered by a thin film of white secretionary matter. Secretionary appendix shiny silvery white and faintly but definitely transversely striated. Ventral scale remaining attached to host. Male scale white, small, elongate, pale orange exuviae, no longitudinal carinae. Adult female pyriform and membranous with the exception of the pygidial region. Pygidium broad and flatly rounded (Hall, 1941).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 521 [Key to species of Inchoaspis].
CITATIONS: Hall1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231-232]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 521, 530]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Willia1955a [taxonomy: 248].
Inchoaspis dentilobis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis amaniensis Lindinger, 1910b: 42-43. Type data: TANZANIA: Amani, on Dictotylen sp., ?/04/1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1913: 75. Notes: Weidner & Wagner (1968) state that the material in ZMUH is a paratype, but since no mention of a type is made in Lindinger's original description it must be considered syntypic.
Chionaspis dentilobis Newstead, 1910c: 195. Type data: UGANDA: Entebbe, Botanical Gardens, on unknown shrub, 18/11/1910, by C.C. Gowdey.; type no. 1270. Described: female. Illust.
Inchoaspis amaniensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 359. Change of combination.
Remotaspis dentilobis; MacGillivray, 1921: 360. Change of combination.
Dinaspis dentilobis; Hall, 1931: 288. Change of combination.
Inchoaspis dentilobis; Hall, 1946a: 522. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae [Borchs1966]. Euphorbiaceae: Sapium mannianum [Gowdey1913]. Loranthaceae: Viscum sp. [Hall1931]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Lindin1910b]; Uganda [Newste1910c]; Zimbabwe [Hall1931].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Newstead (1910c). Subsequent illustration by Ferris (1936a).
SYSTEMATICS: Females may be readily distinguished by the curious form of the pygidial lobes (Newstead, 1910c).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 522 [Key to species of Inchoaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 82]; Gowdey1913 [distribution, host: 249]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 189]; Hall1929a [taxonomy: 373]; Hall1931 [distribution, host: 288]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 521, 548]; Laing1925a [taxonomy: 61]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 484]; Lindin1910b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-43]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 75]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 91]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311, 359, 360]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Newste1910c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195-196]; Newste1911 [distribution: 90]; Newste1917b [biological control, distribution: 133]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174].
Incisaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Inciaspis; MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Misspelling of genus name.
Incisaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Diaspis pugionifera Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with caudal margin with distinct pygidial incision (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 311 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 166]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 522]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 187]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 311, 361]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 96].
Incisaspis pugionifera (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis pugionifera Lindinger, 1909e: 24. Type data: CAMEROON: Viktoria, on Mitragyna macrophylla, ?/05/1907, by A. Weberbauer. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Incisaspis pugionifera; MacGillivray, 1921: 361. Change of combination.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Mitragyna macrophylla [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 166]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 551]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-25]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 21]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 361]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Ischnaspis DouglasNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis Douglas, 1887a: 21. Type species: Ischnaspis filiformis Douglas, by monotypy.
Ischinaspis; Kuwana, 1917a: 18. Misspelling of genus name.
Iachnaspis; Dunham, 1954: 66. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Redescription of the genus by Ben-Dov (1974).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, elongate, varying in color from bright brown to black, larval exuviae placed in anterior apex of scale. Adult female narrow and elongate, length 3-6 times the width (Ben-Dov, 1974).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974: 20 (female) [Key to genera allied to Ischnaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 644 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 25 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 374 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Britton 1923: 361 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 275 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini]; Newstead 1901b: 80 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera]; Hempel 1900a: 497 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Archan1929 [taxonomy: 189]; Balach1952 [taxonomy: 122]; Balach1954e [description, taxonomy: 25, 134-135]; BenDov1974 [description, taxonomy: 19-20]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 71, 80]; Borchs1937a [taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 164, 200]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 77]; Brain1918 [taxonomy: 116]; Brain1920 [description, taxonomy: 107]; Britto1923 [description, taxonomy: 361, 379]; Cocker1893d [taxonomy: 9]; Cocker1894v [taxonomy: 1051]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 644]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; Danzig1993 [description, taxonomy: 283]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 277]; Dougla1887a [description, taxonomy: 21]; Ehrhor1911 [taxonomy: 110]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 62]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-66]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 43]; Frogga1914 [description, taxonomy: 875]; Frogga1915 [description, taxonomy: 48]; Fullaw1932 [description, taxonomy: 98, 100]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 164]; Gowdey1921 [taxonomy: 34]; Green1896 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 522, 545]; Hempel1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 497]; Hempel1904 [taxonomy: 322]; HowardOl1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 57]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 513-515]; Kuwana1925 [description, taxonomy: 3]; Kuwana1933a [taxonomy: 44]; Leonar1903 [taxonomy: 4]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 187, 192]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 275, 291]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 98]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 80, 209]; Schmut1959 [description, taxonomy: 156, 169]; Silves1939 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 812-813]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 49]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 374, 404].
Ischnaspis ghesquierei Matile-FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis ghesquierei Matile-Ferrero, 1982: 64-66. Type data: ZAIRE: Lomami, on Scorodophloeus sp., ?/08/1924, by J. Ghesquière. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Macrolobium coeruleum [Matile1982], Scorodophloeus sp. [Matile1982]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zaire [Matile1982].
BIOLOGY: Ischnaspis ghesquierei was found associated with I. macrolobii (Matile-Ferrero, 1982).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Matile-Ferrero (1982).
STRUCTURE: Female scale shining black. Adult female elongate, sides parallel, membranous (Matile-Ferrero, 1982).
KEYS: Matile-Ferrero 1982: 68 [Key to species of Ischnaspis].
CITATIONS: Matile1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-66].
Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis longirostris Signoret, 1882a: xxxv. Type data: FRANCE: glasshouse of the Museum of Paris, plant from Senegal, on Napoleona heudloti. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female.
Ischnaspis filiformis Douglas, 1887a: 21. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, in conservatories of the Royal Botanic Society, on leaves of various palms Strychnos and Myristica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1898: 109.
Ischnaspis piliformis; Riley & Howard, 1893: 51. Misspelling of species name.
Ischnaspis longirostris; Hempel, 1900a: 509. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis Ritzemae Bosi Leonardi, 1901: 120. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Livistonia rutundifolia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1935: 148.
Lepidosaphes ritsemabosi; Fernald, 1903b: 314. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: black line scale [Cocker1897l]; black thread scale [Blicke1965]; black-thread scale [Newste1910c].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilochorus sp. [Lever1969], Chilocorus cacti [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus distigma [VeseyF1938], Chilocorus nigritus [DeBachRo1976], Chilocorus wahlbergi [VeseyF1938], Egius platycephalus [HertinSi1972], Exochomus flavipes [HertinSi1972], Exochomus sp. [Lever1969], Exochomus ventralis [HertinSi1972], Pentilia castanea [HertinSi1972], Scymnomorphus sp. [Vinson1936], Scymnomorphus sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysompali [HertinSi1972], Coccophagus caridei [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Eranthemum sp. [Maxwel1902], Justicia [Watson2002a], Thunbergia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave americana [GhabboMo1996]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Mangifera sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Spondias purpurea [ColonFMe1998]. Annonaceae: Annona cherimolia [Mamet1943a], Annona muricata [Mamet1943a], Annona reticulata [Mamet1943a], Annona sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Artaborys odaratissimus [CarnerPe1986], Polyalthia longifolia [LitBa1994]. Apocynaceae: Landolphia sp. [MillerDa2005], Nerium oleander [CarnerPe1986], Plumeria acutifolia [Mamet1943a], Tabernaemaontana sp. [MillerDa2005], Voacanga globosa [LitBa1994]. Araceae: Anthurium scandens [ColonFMe1998], Anubias sp. [MillerDa2005], Arum sp. [MillerDa2005], Dieffenbachia seguine [ColonFMe1998], Monstera deliciosa [ColonFMe1998], Monstera deliciosa [MestreHaEv2011], Monstera sp. [BenDov1974, MillerDa2005], Philodedndron sp. [MillerDa2005], Syngonium auritum [ColonFMe1998]. Arecaceae [Dougla1887a], Acrocomia sp. [MillerDa2005], Actinophloeus sp. [Borchs1966], Areca lutesens [BenDov1974], Areca sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Attalea sp. [Borchs1966], Brahea serrulata [Archan1929], Calamus sp. [Borchs1966], Caryota sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Chamaedorea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Chamaerops humilis [Archan1929], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Chrysalidocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Coccothrinax sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos flexuosa [Mamet1943a], Cocos nucifera [Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Dictyosperma alba [Mamet1943a], Dictyosperma sp. [MillerDa2005], Didymosperma sp. [MillerDa2005], Dypsis sp. [Mamet1943a], Elaeis guineenses [BenDov1974], Elaeis sp. [Mamet1943a, MillerDa2005], Geonoma princeps [Archan1929], Gronophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005], Heterospathe sp. [MillerDa2005], Howea forsteriana [Archan1929], Howea sp. [MillerDa2005], Howeia belmoreana [Mamet1949], Hyophorbe sp. [Borchs1966], Inodes sp. [Borchs1966], Iriartella sp. [MillerDa2005], Kentia balmoreana [Archan1929], Latania aurea [Archan1929], Latania verschaffeltii [Mamet1943a], Livistona chinensis [Mamet1949], Livistona rutundifolia [Leonar1901], Livistona sp. [MillerDa2005], Nephrosperma van houtteana [Mamet1943a], Nipa fruticans [Beards1966], Nypa sp. [MillerDa2005], Palmae [Watson2002a], Phoenix canariensis [CarnerPe1986], Phoenix dactylifera [Mamet1949], Phoenix reclinata [BenDov1974], Phoenix roebellini [CarnerPe1986], Phoenix sp. [MillerDa2005], Pritchardia gaudichaudii [Archan1929], Pritchardia sp. [Lever1969, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Ptychosperma macarthurii [Archan1929], Ptychosperma sp. [Borchs1966], Raphia ruffia [Mamet1943a], Raphia sp. [Mamet1943a], Rhopalostylus baueri [Archan1929], Roscheria melanachoetes [Mamet1943a], Roystonia sp. [HodgsoHi1990, MillerDa2005], Sabal adansonii [Archan1929], Sabal jagua [Archan1929], Sabal palmetto [Archan1929], Sabal sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Stevensonia grandifolia [Mamet1943a], Veitchia merrillii [LitBa1994], Verschaffeltia splendida [Mamet1943a], Wallichia sp. [MillerDa2005], Washingtonia sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Zalacca sp. [Lever1969]. Asclepiadaceae: Asclepias sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [MillerDa2005], Asparagus sprengeri [ColonFMe1998]. Bromeliaceae: Bromelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Vriesea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Borchs1966]. Cannaceae: Canna sp. [MillerDa2005]. Capparidaceae: Calanthea sp. [Mamet1943a]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera sp. [MillerDa2005], Viburnum tinus [BenDov1974]. Cardiopteridaceae: Gonocaryum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cornaceae: Aucuba sp. [Borchs1966]. Cucurbitaceae: Sechium edule [ColonFMe1998]. Cycadaceae: Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cyperaceae: Cyperus sp. [Borchs1966]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [WilliaWa1988], Diospyros sp. [BenDov1974, MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [Borchs1966], Garcinia [Watson2002a]. Fabaceae: Acacia confusa [Beards1966], Acacia mangium [LitBa1994], Acacia sp. [MillerDa2005], Amherstia nobilis [LitBa1994], Amherstia sp. [MillerDa2005], Andira inermis [ColonFMe1998], Bauhinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Brownea sp. [MillerDa2005], Coronilla sp. [MillerDa2005], Gliricidia sp. [MillerDa2005], Inga sp. [MillerDa2005], Inocarpus fagiferus [Hinckl1963], Mucuna [Watson2002a]. Gnetaceae: Gnetum sp. [Borchs1966]. Guttiferae: Mammea sp. [Borchs1966], Rheedia sp. [Borchs1966]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia latispatha [ColonFMe1998], Heliconia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Iridaceae: Moraea bicolor [Heu2002], Moraea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lamiaceae: Congea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Lever1969], Cinnamomum zeylanica [Mamet1943a], Litsea sp. [Borchs1966], Persea americana [CarnerPe1986]. Lecythidaceae: Napoleona heudloti [Signor1882a, Heu2002]. Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [BenDov1974], Asparagus sp. [Mamet1943a], Cordyline sp. [Borchs1966], Dracaena australis [BenDov1974], Dracaena kirkii [Archan1929]. Loganiaceae: Strychnos cinnabarina [MayneGh1934], Strychnos nux-vomica [WilliaWa1988], Strychnos sp. [Dougla1887a]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [Borchs1966]. Malvaceae: Gossypium sp. [BenDov1974], Hibiscus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Marantaceae: Calathea sp. [Borchs1966], Maranta sp. [MillerDa2005]. Marcgraviaceae: Norantea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Meliaceae: Carapa [Watson2002a], Guarea guidonia [ColonFMe1998], Swietenia macrophylla [ColonFMe1998], Swietenia sp. [MillerDa2005], Trichilia [Borchs1966], Trichilia hirta [MestreHaEv2011]. Monimiaceae: Tambourissa parvifolia [Mamet1954]. Moraceae: Artocarpus sp. [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], Ficus benghalensis [Sankar1984, Heu2002], Ficus microcarpa [ColonFMe1998], Ficus nautarum [Mamet1943a], Ficus nitida [CarnerPe1986], Ficus pumila [ColonFMe1998], Ficus sp. [CarnerPe1986, MillerDa2005]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [Mamet1943a, MillerDa2005]. Myristicaceae: Myristica sp. [Dougla1887a, MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [MillerDa2005], Eugenia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Psidium guajava [Mamet1943a]. Napoleonaeaceae: Napoleona sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Jasminum sambac [Beards1966], Jasminum sp. [Maxwel1902, MillerDa2005], Ligustrum japonicum [Hinckl1963]. Orchidaceae: Cattleya sp. [MillerDa2005], Caularthron sp. [MillerDa2005], Coelogyne sp. [Borchs1966], Grammatophyllum papuanum [WilliaWa1988], Odontoglossum sp. [MillerDa2005], Oncidium sp. [MillerDa2005], Schomburgkia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp. [Borchs1966, Heu2002, MillerDa2005]. Piperaceae: Piper nigrum [LitBa1994]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus jujuba [Mamet1943a, Borchs1966]. Rosaceae: Eriobotrya sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus armeniaca [Watson2002a], Rubus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rubiaceae: Cephaelis sp. [MillerDa2005], Coffea arabica [Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Coffea canephora [BenDov1974], Coffea robusta [BenDov1974], Coffea sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Gardenia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Genipa sp. [Borchs1966], Ixora sp. [Mamet1943a, MillerDa2005], Portlandia sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Psychotria marianensis [Beards1966], Psychotria sp. [MillerDa2005], Psyhotria zambamontanua [BenDov1974]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [BenDov1974], Citrus paradisi [ColonFMe1998], Citrus sinensis [ColonFMe1998], Citrus sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005]. Sapindaceae: Euphoria longana [Mamet1943a], Litchi chinensis [Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Litchi sp. [Lever1969, MillerDa2005], Nephelium litchi [Watson2002a], Nephelium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sapotaceae: Achras sp. [MillerDa2005], Lucuma sp. [Borchs1966], Manilkara sapota [Watson2002a], Mimusops bojeri [Mamet1943a], Pouteria dominigensis [MestreHaEv2011]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma [Borchs1966]. Strelitziaceae: Strelitzia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ulmaceae: Chaetacme aristata [BenDov1974]. Verbenaceae: Duranta sp. [MillerDa2005], Lantana sp. [MillerDa2005], Stachytarpheta sp. [Mamet1943a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [FerraoCa1972]; Cameroon [Watson2002a]; Cape Verde [Fernan1999]; Eritrea [BenDov1974]; Ethiopia [BenDov1974]; Ghana [Watson2002a]; Guinea [BenDov1974]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Madagascar [Mamet1954]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1973]; Nigeria [Mamet1943a]; Reunion [Mamet1957, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014]; Sao Tome and Principe (Principe [Simmon1969], Sao Tome [Laing1928]); Senegal [Signor1882a]; Seychelles [VeseyF1940]; Sierra Leone [BenDov1974]; South Africa [Brain1920]; Tanzania [Ritchi1928]; Uganda [Newste1910c]; Zaire [MayneGh1934]; Zanzibar [Green1916a] [Watson2002a]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928]. Australasian: Admiralty Islands [Takaha1939b]; Australia (Northern Territory [Watson2002a], Queensland [Watson2002a], South Australia [Maskel1897a]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Beards1966]; Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Dumble1954]); Fiji [OConno1949]; French Polynesia (Tahiti [WilliaWa1988]); Guam [Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Heu2002] (First observed in 1963), Kauai [Heu2002] (First observed in 1986), Lanai [Heu2002], Maui [Heu2002] (First observed in 1963), Molokai [Heu2002] (First observed in 1943), Niihau [Nishid2002], Oahu [Kirkal1904b, Heu2002] (First observed in 1932)); Indonesia (Java [Leonar1901]); New Caledonia [Watson2002a]; Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan Island [Beards1966]); Palau [Takaha1936c]; Papua New Guinea [Giliom1966]; Solomon Islands [BenDov1974]; Tonga [WilliaWa1988]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [Chazea1981]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Canada (Ontario [Jarvis1908TD]); Mexico [GonzalAt1984, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (California [Essig1915a, MillerDa2005, Gill1997] (According to Gill (1997) it has been eradicated from California.), Connecticut [Britto1920], Connecticut [MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Florida [Ferris1937, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Ferris1937, MillerDa2005], Illinois [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Barber1910, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [King1899d, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Watson2002a, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Weiss1915, MillerDa2005], New York [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Watson2002a], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [MillerDa2005], Virginia [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [RileyHo1893]); Argentina [Autran1907]; Bahamas [Watson2002a]; Barbados [Watson2002a]; Belize [Watson2002a]; Bermuda [Ogilvi1928]; Brazil (Bahia [Watson2002a], Distrito Federal (=Brasilia) [Watson2002a], Espirito Santo [Watson2002a], Minas Gerais [Watson2002a], Parana [Watson2002a], Para [Watson2002a], Pernambuco [Watson2002a], Rio Grande do Sul [GomesCRe1947], Santa Catarina [Watson2002a], Sao Paulo [BenDov1974]); Colombia [KondoKa1995]; Costa Rica [Watson2002a]; Cuba [Ballou1926, MestreHaEv2011]; Dominican Republic [Watson2002a]; Ecuador [Yust1958]; El Salvador [Berry1959]; Galapagos Islands [LincanHoCa2010]; Grenada [Cocker1897l]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]; Guatemala [Hamilt1967]; Guyana [McInti1889]; Jamaica [Cocker1892a]; Martinique [Kerveg1932]; Panama [Cocker1899n]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Maxwel1902]); Saint Croix [Nakaha1983]; Suriname [Bunzli1935, Dinthe1958]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Cocker1893j]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983]; Venezuela [Giliom1966]. Oriental: India (Karnataka [Watson2002a]); Malaysia (Malaya [BenDov1974]); Philippines (Luzon [LitBa1994]); Singapore [Watson2002a]; Sri Lanka [Green1922, Varshn2002]; Taiwan [Watson2002a]. Palaearctic: Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001] [Watson2002a]; Czechoslovakia [Zahrad1953]; Denmark [KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Hall1922]; France [DanzigPe1998]; Germany [Watson2002a]; Ireland [Green1934d]; Italy [LongoMaPe1995]; Japan [Craw1896]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Portugal [FrancoRuMa2011] [Seabra1918]; Sweden [Ossian1959]; United Kingdom (England [Dougla1887a]).
BIOLOGY: Vesey-Fitzgerald (1940) studied the life history of black thread scale in the Seychelles and found that females produced from 20 to 30 eggs each. Eggs hatch soon after being laid and crawlers settle to feed in about 24 hours. The second instar appears in about 3 days. Development proceeds throughout the year. Brown (1965) reported that this species is parthenogenetic. Vesey FitzGerald (1940) studied the life history of black thread scale in the Seychelles and found that females produced 20 to 30 eggs each. Eggs hatch soon after being laid, and crawlers settle to feed in about 24 hours. The second instar appears in about 3 days. Development proceeds throughout the year. Brown (1965) reported that this species is parthenogenetic. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescriptions and illustrations by Balachowsky (1954e) and Ben-Dov (1974).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black, anterior apex which incorporates the larval exuviae yellow, 1.4-3.0 mm long and 0.3-0.4 mm wide. Adult female narrow and elongate (Ben-Dov, 1974).
SYSTEMATICS: The elongate body, combined with paucity of dorsal ducts, the coarse reticulations of the pygidial dorsum, the large and widely separated median lobes, the pronounced sclerosis at the basis of the second lobes, together with the very small clusters of the perivulvar pores, are very distinctive (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. According to Dekle (1977) the black thread scale is occasionally a serious pest of palms and greenhouse plants in Florida. Martorell (1940) found it causing heavy chlorosis and defoliation of Honduras mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in Puerto Rico. Bondar (1924) reported the black thread scale as a pest of coffee in Brazil. In Guam it was noted as a pest of mango by Swezey (1936). In the Seychelles, Vesey FitzGerald (1940) recorded it as a serious pest of: Annona reticulata, A. cherimolia, Musa (all varieties), cinnamon, Coffea robusta, litchi, mango, oil palm, Raphia, Zizyphus jujuba. He did not find any effective parasites or predators. DeBach and Rosen (1976) later reported that the introduced coccinellids Chilocorus nigritus (Fabricius) and C. distigma (Klug) achieved complete control of the black thread scale on these islands. It also is reported as a greenhouse pest in many parts of the world (Burger and Ulenberg 1990), and is a pest of coconut in Malaysia (Chua and Wood 1990), of oil palms in India (Dhileepan 1992), of mango and avocado in the Canary Islands (Perez Guerra 1986), and of coffee in Mexico (Ibarra-Nunez 1990). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Wolff & Corseuil 1993a: 153 (female) [Diaspidid species on mango in Brazil]; Matile-Ferrero 1982: 68 [Key to species of Ischnaspis]; Ben-Dov 1974: 28 [Key to sepcies of Ischnaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Fullaway 1932: 96 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19]; Almeid1973 [distribution, host: 4]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1929 [distribution, host: 196]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Autran1907 [distribution, host: 154]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 135-139]; Balach1957c [distribution, host: 200]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 26-27]; Ballou1945 [distribution, host: 93]; Barber1910 [distribution, host: 425]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 533-534]; Beatty1944 [distribution, host: 127]; Bedfor1998a [distribution, economic importance, host: 160]; BenDov1974 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-23]; BentleBa1931 [economic importance: 26]; Berry1959 [distribution, host: 229]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 289, 310]; Bodkin1914 [distribution, economic importance: 117]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 80]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 111]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 201]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107-108]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 144]; Britto1920 [distribution, host: 66]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host: 379-380]; Bunzli1935 [distribution, host: 526, 573]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; CharleHe2002 [distribution: 608]; Chazea1981 [distribution: 14]; Cocker1892a [distribution, host: 55]; Cocker1893 [distribution, host: 17]; Cocker1893j [distribution, host: 256]; Cocker1896d [distribution: 307]; Cocker1897l [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 150]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 31]; Cocker1902p [distribution, host]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 20, 59]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-102]; Compto1930 [taxonomy: 69]; CostaL1942 [distribution: 273]; Craw1896 [distribution, host: 40]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Davis1896 [distribution, economic importance: 35]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution: 144]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11, 75]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 116]; Dinthe1950 [biological control, distribution, host: 49]; Dinthe1958 [distribution: 421]; Dinthe1960 [distribution, host: 49]; Dougla1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21]; Dumble1954 [distribution: 1-202]; Dupont1931 [distribution, host: M-205]; Esaki1940 [host: 413]; Esaki1940a [distribution, economic importance: 277, 279]; Essig1915a [distribution, host: 190]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314, 318]; Fernan1999 [distribution, host: 86]; FerraoCa1972 [distribution: 28]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 62]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-67]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 12,24]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 876]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 48]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host: 96]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 348]; Ghesqu1927 [distribution, host: 313]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 424]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 165-166]; GomesCRe1947 [distribution, host: 171]; GomezM1967G [distribution, host: 95]; GonzalAt1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214, 218, 221]; Goot1912 [distribution, host: 288]; Gowdey1913 [distribution, host: 249]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 189]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 34]; GreathPo1977 [biological control, distribution: 268]; Green1916a [distribution, host: 376]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1930b [distribution, taxonomy: 214]; Green1934d [taxonomy: 112]; GreveIs1983 [distribution, host: 18]; Hall1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 30, 38, 40]; Hall1928 [distribution, host: 278]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 522, 547]; Hamilt1967 [distribution: 1409-1413]; Hartma1916 [taxonomy: 108]; Hempel1900a [distribution, host: 509]; Hempel1904 [distribution, host: 323]; Henrik1921 [distribution, host: 315]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 181]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 33]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 47]; Jarvis1908TD [distribution, host: 52-53]; Kalsho1981 [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 175]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 257]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 22]; Kerveg1932 [distribution, host: 1671]; King1899d [distribution, host: 252]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Kondo2010 [distribution, host, illustration: 1-3]; KondoKa1995 [distribution, host: 56]; Koning1908 [distribution, taxonomy: 4]; Koszta1996 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 515-516]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, host: 33]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 202]; Kuwana1925 [distribution, host: 3]; Laing1928 [distribution, host: 215]; Leonar1901 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 48-51]; Leonar1914 [taxonomy: 222]; Lever1969 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance: 49-50]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 224]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 379]; LitBa1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378-379, 383]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lounsb1921 [distribution, host: 276]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Malump2012b [distribution: 213]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 161-162]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38, 39]; Mamet1952 [distribution, host: 171]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 18]; Mamet1957 [distribution: 369]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Matile1982 [taxonomy: 70]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 253-254]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 35]; McInti1889 [distribution, host: 353]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 238]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 12]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 238]; MiskimBo1970 [host: 30-31]; Morgan1889a [distribution, host: 349-350]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 43, 89]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 88]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 44]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 12]; Newste1898 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Newste1901b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Newste1906 [distribution, host: 71]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; Newste1910c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; Newste1914 [taxonomy: 311]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Nur1971 [taxonomy: 303]; OConno1949 [distribution, host: 88]; Ogilvi1928 [distribution, host: 28]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 502]; Pelot1950 [distribution, host: 17]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; RileyHo1893 [distribution, host: 51]; Ritchi1928 [distribution, host: 37]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Ruther1914 [distribution, host: c12]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 28]; Samway1984 [biological control: 99]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 28]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Seabra1918 [distribution, host: 164]; Seabra1921 [distribution, host: 100]; Signor1882a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: xxxv]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 175]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 4]; Simmon1969 [distribution, host: 20]; South1910 [biological control, ecology: 19]; Sweetm1958 [biological control, distribution: 453]; Takaha1936c [distribution, host: 117]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 266]; Trench1926 [distribution, host: 157]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 49]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; VeseyF1938 [biological control, distribution: 188]; VeseyF1940 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 259-262]; Vinson1936 [biological control: 26]; Ward1890 [economic importance: 305]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy ]; Weiss1915 [distribution, host: 102]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 421-143]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 9]; Wise1977 [distribution: 109]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 27, 68]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34]; Yust1958 [distribution, host: 76, 95, 120]; YustCe1956 [distribution, host: 436, 432]; Zahrad1953 [distribution, host: 140]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 404].
Ischnaspis macrolobii LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis macrolobii Laing, 1932: 67-69. Type data: ZAIRE: Lomami, on Macrolobium coeruleoides, ?/08/1924, by J. Ghesquière. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 832. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Macrolobium coeruleoides [Laing1932].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zaire [Laing1932].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Laing (1932) and Ben-Dov (1974).
STRUCTURE: Puparium linear, narrow, convex, straight or slightly curved, broadening out to the posterior end of the nymphal pellicle, light brown, sometimes with a faint reddish tint. Pellicle oval, pale brownish yellow. Nymphal pellicle usually the same color as puparium, but sometimes with a yellow tint. Adult female long, narrow, linear, older females rigid and strongly chitinized (Laing, 1932).
SYSTEMATICS: Ischnaspis macrolobii is allied to Trischnaspis bipindensis, but may be distinguished from it by the claviform thickening at the base of the mesal lobule of the first lateral, the difference in the pattern of the lattice-work area, the inner margins of the first pair of lateral lobules being non-serrated, and the absence of perivulvar pores (Laing, 1932).
KEYS: Matile-Ferrero 1982: 68 [Key to species of Ischnaspis]; Ben-Dov 1974: 28 [Key to sepcies of Ischnaspis]; Hall 1946a: 522 (female) [Key to species of Ischnaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 138]; BenDov1974 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19, 23-25]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Ghesqu1932 [distribution, host: 58]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 522, 550]; Laing1932 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 67-69]; Matile1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 63, 65, 68, 71]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 35].
Ischnaspis remaudierei Matile-FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis remaudierei Matile-Ferrero, 1982: 66-68. Type data: COTE D'IVOIRE: Touba, on unidentified host, 15/07/1978, by G. Remaudière. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Matile1982].
BIOLOGY: Ischnaspis remaudierei was found associated with I. macrolobii (Matile-Ferrero, 1982).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Matile-Ferrero (1982).
STRUCTURE: Female scale shining black, elongate, sides parallel, larval exuviae very clear. Male scale white. Adult female body elongate, sides parallel, membranous, pygidium large (Matile-Ferrero, 1982).
KEYS: Matile-Ferrero 1982: 68 [Key to species of Ischnaspis].
CITATIONS: Matile1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-68].
Ischnaspis silvestrii LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis silvestrii Leonardi, 1914: 222-224. Type data: GUINEA: Conakry, on unidentified host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Leonar1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1914).
SYSTEMATICS: Ben-Dov (1974) examined type material and believes the material to be only immatures of I. longirostris and an undetermined species of Diaspidini. It would be logical for the next reviser to designate a lectotype of one of the syntypes that is identical with I. longirostris so that this species would be a junior synonym of I. longirostris.
CITATIONS: BenDov1974 [distribution, taxonomy: 19, 28]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; Hall1946a [distribution, structure: 552]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222-224].
Ischnaspis spathulata LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis spathulata Lindinger, 1911: 127. Type data: INDIA: on Vatica obscura, 11/10/1889. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
Parischnaspis spathulata; MacGillivray, 1921: 296. Change of combination.
HOST: Dipterocarpaceae: Vatica obscura [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Lindin1911] (Tamil Nadu [Ali1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lindinger (1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Ben-Dov (1974) doubts that Ischnaspis spathulata is congeneric with I. longirostris. It differs from the latter by the presence of a macroduct between the median lobes, the presence of 3 pairs of pygidial lobes as well as in possessing more than 2 pairs of marginal macroducts in the pygidium.
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19]; BenDov1974 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19, 20, 28]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 446]; Laing1932 [taxonomy: 69]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 276, 296]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 50]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176].
Ischnaspis tecleae Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis tecleae Ben-Dov, 1974: 27-28. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal, Wyllie's Poort, on Teclea natalensis, 14/06/1972, by Y. Ben-Dov. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 4605/42. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in SANC, BMNH, USNM.
HOST: Rutaceae: Teclea natalensis [BenDov1974].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1974].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1974).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black, except for the anterior yellowish apex, which incorporates the exuviae, narrow and elongate, 1.0-1.25 mm long and 0.2-0.35 mm wide. Adult female narrow and elongate, membranous. Median dorsal area of pygidium with a reticulated pattern surrounding the anal opening. Two pairs of pygidial lobes present (Ben-Dov, 1974).
KEYS: Matile-Ferrero 1982: 68 [Key to species of Ischnaspis]; Ben-Dov 1974: 28 [Key to sepcies of Ischnaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDov1974 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28]; Matile1982 [taxonomy: 63, 68, 71].
Kandraspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Kandraspis Mamet, 1959a: 439. Type species: Kandraspis euphorbiae, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Kandraspis can not be confused with any other genus of Diaspidini. The 4 pairs of pygidial lobes, none bilobulate, very numerous short two-barred ducts and the 7 groups of perivulvar pores are all distinctive (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 158]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 439-440]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 98].
Kandraspis euphorbiae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Kandraspis euphorbiae Mamet, 1959a: 440. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Lambomakandro, on Euphorbia enterophora, ?/05/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 547. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia enterophora [Mamet1959a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large, circular, low convex, very pale buff color, exuviae subcentral. Adult female circular, pygidium protruding a little, 2.1 mm long. Derm membranous, except for that of the pygidium. Anterior spiracle with a small group of parastigmatic pores. Pygidium relatively small, with 4 pairs of broad, short lobes with flatly rounded apices and with conspicuous, lateral, sclerotized, inner prolongations (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 380, 440].
Keralaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Keralaspis Takagi, 2007a: 67-83. Type species: Keralaspis piperis Takagi.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2007a.
STRUCTURE: Adult female: Body elongate, but stout; pygidium broadly rounded marginally. This genus has bilobate lateral trullae and gland spines, and thus it belongs to the subfamily Diaspidinae. A pair of well-developed gland spines present between the tullae, located on the ninth abdominal segment and their presence is a primitive character. The second instar male of the type species is homomorphic in the structure around the pygidial apex, but possesses dorsal ducts of a modified type and forms an amorphous test fluffy with wax filaments, supporting the view that the genus belongs to the Diaspidini.
SYSTEMATICS: Keralaspis has no close relatives among the known genera. Balaspis might be a possible relative based on a description of the trullae, the dorsal macroducts uniform in size, and the marginal macroducts not well differentiated from the submarginal macroducts. It differs from Keralaspis in the median trullae small and conical and entirely produced beyond the pygidial margin, the second trullae also small and the third trullae nearly obsolete. Keralaspis differs from other genera of the Diaspidina in all the dorsal macroducts of the pygidium uniform in size, in the submarginal macroducts arranged in segmental and infrasegmental rows, and in having no marginal macroduct between the median trullae. (Takagi, 2007a)
CITATIONS: Takagi2007a [description, distribution, illustration: 69-71].
Keralaspis piperis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Keralaspis piperis Takagi, 2007a. Type data: INDIA: Bharat, Kerala, Periyar Tiger Reserve, on Piper sp., 12/19/1978. Holotype female, male and first instar (examined). Type depository: Calcutta: National Zoological Collection, Zoological Survey of India, India. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust. Notes: Altitude about 900 meters.
HOST: Piperaceae: Piper sp. [Takagi2007a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Kerala [Takagi2007a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Takagi, 2007a.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body growing oblong with free segments moderately lobed. Median trullae separated from each other by a space as wide as one of them, divergent, elongate and finely serate on mesal margin or around apex. Marginal gland spines slender; 2 between trullae. Marginal macroducts are not completely diffentiated. Especially on the third and abdominal segments, the marginal macroducts and the segmental submarginal macroducts form dontinuous series. On these segments, therefore, the marginal macroducts have been discriminated from the submarginal macroducts rather arbitrarily and their numbers counted are not stable. Second instar female fusiform with 5 marginal macroducts on abd III-VII. and 3 submarginal macroducts on abd IV-VI on each side. first-instar female broadly ovoid. Head with a pair of enlarged dorsal ducts. Antennae 6 segmented, terminal segment annulate, as long as segments III-V combined; segment III longer than each of II and IV. Second instar male similar to adult female in apical area of pygidium, but median trullae separated from each other by a sace much wider than in the adult female. Short gland spines occurring between median trullae.
SYSTEMATICS: Female and male tests occurring on the undersurface of leaves. Female test nearly rounded, moderately convex dorsally, white, with exuvial casts of margin. Male test of which 4 are teneral.
CITATIONS: Takagi2007a [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 70-71].
Koroneaspis BodenheimerNOMENCLATURE:
Koroneaspis Bodenheimer, 1943: 9. Type species: Lepidosaphes aegilopos Koroneos, by monotypy.
SYSTEMATICS: Koroneaspis is erected on the basis of the 2 long macroducts which extend to about twice the length of the median lobes from the median pygidial interval (Bodenheimer, 1943).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 24 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 163 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [taxonomy: 122]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 24, 98-99]; Bodenh1943 [description, taxonomy: 9]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 188]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 70]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 277]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 99].
Koroneaspis aegilopos (Koroneos)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes aegilopos Koroneos, 1934: 74-75. Type data: GREECE: Néa Ankhialos, on Quercus aegilops. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Whereabouts of type material unknown.
Mytilococcus aegylopos; Lindinger, 1936: 158. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Koroneaspis aegilopos; Bodenheimer, 1943: 9. Change of combination.
Koroneaspis aegylops; Balachowsky, 1954: 99. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus aegilops [Korone1934], Quercus calliprinos [SpodekBeMe2014], Quercus coccifera [PellizPoSe2011], Quercus ithaburensis [SpodekBeMe2014], Quercus persica [Bodenh1943], Quercus sp. [Kaussa1955]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus europaeus [Bodenh1943].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Greece [Korone1934]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996, Moghad2013a]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Israel [SpodekBeMe2014].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Koroneos (1934).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slightly mytiliforme, often spindle-shaped, sometimes very arched. Exuviae brown-red. Adult female pale pink (Koroneos, 1934).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 99 (female) [Key to species of Koroneaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 122]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99-102]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 71]; Bodenh1943 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; Borchs1949b [taxonomy: 344]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74-75]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 158]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 27]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 34]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 35]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; SpodekBeMe2014 [distribution, host, illustration: 99,104,112,115,117]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 427].
Koroneaspis lonicerae BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Koroneaspis lonicerae Borchsenius, 1949b: 343-344. Type data: ARMENIA: Megrinskii Region, Legvaz, on Lonicera tatarica, 05/28/1947, by N. Borchsenius. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 281. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus lonicerae; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera caprifolium [TerGri1962], Lonicera sp. [Balach1954e], Lonicera tatarica [Borchs1949b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [Borchs1949b]; Iran [Moghad2013a]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1949b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, often curved, convex, dark brown, 1.8-2.5 mm long, 0.5-0.8 mm wide; exuviae brown, shining. Adult female oval or elongate oval, lateral margins straight or slightly convex, pygidium wide (Borchsenius, 1949b).
SYSTEMATICS: Koroneaspis lonicerae is near K. aegilopos (Borchsenius, 1949b).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 99 (female) [Key to species of Koroneaspis].
CITATIONS: Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 122]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99, 102-104]; Bazaro1966 [distribution, host: 84-85]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, host: 91]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 72-73]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 343-344]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 188]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 176-177]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 177]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 281]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 35]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 144]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71].
Kuchingaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kuchingaspis Takagi, 2005: 160. Type species: Kuchingaspis hopeae Takagi.
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female of this genus is somewhat similar to Cameronaspis and Pinnaspis, but differs in having no distinct zygotic sclerosis basally on the median trullae, which are completely fused together to form a robust lobe. No other scleroses present on trullae and pygidial margin. Anus situated towards base of pygidium, superimposed on median group of perivulvar disc pores. (Takagi, 2005)
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 160].
Kuchingaspis hopeae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kuchingaspis hopeae Takagi, 2005: 160. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sarawak (Borneo Is.), Kuching, on Hopea sp., 9/28/1991m\, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Museum, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Dipterocarpaceae: Hopea sp. [Takagi2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2005]).
BIOLOGY: Females burrowing under a thin epidermal layer of the twig. Slender, tricarinate, and semierect male tests were found on the twigs. (Takagi, 2005)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2005.
STRUCTURE: Female test elongate, convex dorsally, probably white, appearing brownish owing to the colour of the covering host epidermis. (Takagi, 2005) Adult female body elongate, about 4 times as long as wide at full growth, with segments slightly lobed laterally; prepygidial derm remaining membranous; 3 submarginal dorsal bosses on each side of abdomen: 1 on each of abd I, III, and V; pygidium with apical sclerotized area on ventral surface well represented. Antennae on frontal margin, separated from each other by a space narrower than frame of mouth-parts, each with a short curved seta. (Takagi, 2005)
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [description, host, distribution, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 160, 170-171].
Kulatinganaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kulatinganaspis Takagi, 2003: 84-85. Type species: Kulatinganaspis quezonensis, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is pupillarial, belonging to the subtribe Fioriniina and is very similar to Bayokaspis in the adult and second-instar female stages. In the adult female, it differs from Bayokaspis in having no gland spines in the prepygidial region and in lacking submedian dorsal setae on abd VI and VII. (Kuiatinganaspis has submedian dorsal setae on the prepygidial segments and at times also on abd V, whereas Bayokaspis is provided with them on abd II-VII.) The median trullae are a little divergent, and each of them is nearly triangular, rounded apically, and minutely serrate on the entire margin. The pygidium is delimited on the dorsal surface by the intersegmental furrow between abd IV and V, but there is no intersegmental notch on the margin. In the first instar, Kuiatinganaspis differs from Bayokaspis in many characters, of which some are as follows [characters on Bayokaspis in brackets]: 1) the body is unusually elongate [moderately elongate]; 2) a tubercle is present on the frontal margin between the antennae, bearing a pair of setae [such a tubercle is absent]; 3) the antennae are six-segmented [five-segmented]; 4) the head is devoid of enlarged dorsal ducts [the head has a pair of enlarged dorsal ducts]; 5) the thorax is devoid of submedian dorsal ducts [the thorax has three pairs of submedian dorsal ducts]; 6) the pygidium is devoid of dorsal ducts [the pygidium has a pair of ducts posteriorly to the anus]; and 7) there are no gland spines on the body margin [well-developed gland spines are present around the thorax and abdomen]. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, taxonomy: 84].
Kulatinganaspis quezonensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kulatinganaspis quezonensis Takagi, 2003: 84-85. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Quezon, Santa Lucia, at te foot of Mt. Banahao. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 92PL-92. Described: female and first instar.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Pterospermum obliquum [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, burrowing under the tomentum. Second-instar exuvial casts of the female with the dorsum heavily sclerotized and black. Male tests white, with the caudal end exposed from the tomentum. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, with the lateral margins nearly parallel; pygidium broadly obdeltate. Prepygidial derm membranous; pygidium largely sclerotic dorsally, the ventral surface sclerotized towards the apex. Antennae situated within the frontal margin, separated from each other by a space narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts; at times with a small tubercle between them. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar female similar to that of Bayuraspis luzonensis, with the median trullae nearly triangular as in the latter . Second-instar male homomorphic, very similar to the adult and second-instar females in the shape of the median trullae. First-instar nymph characterized, above all, by the body extraordinarily elongate, the antennae with 6 segments, and the presence of an interantennal tubercle. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 84-85, 108, 136-138].
Kuwanaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Chionaspis hikosani Kuwana, by monotypy and original designation.
Tsukushiaspis Kuwana, 1928: 30. Type species: Leucaspis bambusae Kuwana (= Chionaspis pseudoleucaspis Kuwana), by original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936: 23.
Lepidosaphoides Lindinger, 1930: 106. Type species: Leucaspis bambusae Kuwana, by monotypy. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1930: 25.
Tsurushiaspis; Balachowsky, 1930a: 179. Misspelling of genus name.
Chuaspis Tao & Wong, 1982: 123-125. Synonymy by Takagi, 1999.
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1970) treats Kuwanaspis as a genus incertae sedis. He stated Kuwanaspis is close to Nikkoaspis and also to Unachionaspis, presumably forming together with the latter two a peculiar phylogenetic stock. Kuwanaspis and Nikkoaspis are so close that Takahashi united them into a single genus. It is not easy to come to a definite conclusion concerning the distinctness of Nikkoaspis until various forms of the two genera have been compared in detail. However, Nikkoaspis seems to be boreo-montane in distribution, whereas Kuwanaspis occurs in a wide range from tropical lowlands to the temperate region. This trait in distribution, together with the peculiar body shape and numerous dorsal macroducts, may afford a basis to accept Nikkoaspis as valid. Also, the genus Kuwanaspis may belong to the Diaspidini, but deviates from the main stock of the tribe by having plate-like processes on the pygidial margin and by lacking differentiated marginal macroducts.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 222 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 168 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 374 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Hall 1946a: 544 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 44 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [as Tsukushiaspis; Key to genera]; MacGillivray 1921: 311 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 168, 264-266]; Bellio1928 [description, taxonomy: 302-304]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 43]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 331]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 35]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 106]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 164, 198]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 90]; BorchsHa1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 375]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 204]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 60-61]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 346]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 645, 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 368-369]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 278]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 23, 25, 26, 89]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: SIII-287]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:44]; Fullaw1932 [description, taxonomy: 98, 105]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 165]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 522, 544]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,45,101]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 30-31]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1930 [description, taxonomy: 106]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 199]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 187, 188, 197]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 316-317]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 311, 361]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 100]; Rao1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 66]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 176, 211]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4, 5]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 121-122]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 25]; Takaha1937 [taxonomy: 69]; Tang1986 [description, taxonomy: 281-282]; TaoWo1982 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 123-125]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45, 110]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 222]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 374, 410].
Kuwanaspis annandalei (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis annandalei Green, 1919c: 434. Type data: INDIA: Bihar, Paresnath Hill, on Dendrocalamus strictus, 10/04/1909, by N. Annandale. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis annandalei; Borchsenius, 1966: 90. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis annandale; Ali, 1969a: 54. Misspelling of species name.
Kuwanaspis amandalei; Tao, 1978: 106. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa stenostachya [Tao1978], Dendrocalamus strictus [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000]); India (Bihar [Green1919c]); Taiwan [Ferris1921a]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
BIOLOGY: Kuwanaspis annandalei was collected at an altitude of 850 meters (Green, 1919c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Female cover white, exuviae castaneous, elongate, straight or slightly curved, very narrow; underside with ventral scale enclosing the insect and eggs, except for a narrow median slit which remains open, 2.0-2.5 mm long. Male cover pure white, indistinct median carina, exuviae castaneous, 1.25 mm long. Adult female elongate, linear (Green, 1919c).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is very close to or even identical with K. bambusicola (Takagi, 1999a).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1967a [distribution, host: 38]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 54]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 90]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host: 213]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 434]; Green1922a [taxonomy: 1018]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Rao1953 [taxonomy: 66]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 25]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 41]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226, 237].
Kuwanaspis arundinariae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis arundinariae Takahashi, 1938: 42-45. Type data: TAIWAN: Hattsukan, near Mt. Niitaka, on Arundinaria sp., ?/08/1936, by R. Takahashi; Taiheizan, on Arundinaria sp., 14/10/1937, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Nikkoaspis arundinariae; Yang, 1982: 227. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Takaha1938], Pleioblastus sp. [Tao1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1938]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1938).
STRUCTURE: Female scale broadest behind the middle, distinctly narrowed towards the hind end, strongly convex dorsally, with a median ridge, about 1.4 mm long. The 1st skin pale yellow, extending beyond the front end of the 2nd skin, with a pair of prominent gland ducts between the eyes. The 2nd skin blackish brown, paler on the margin, covered with greyish white secretions, widest about the middle, narrowed towards both ends, especially so towards the hind end, with a prominent transverse furrow at the middle and a smaller one anterior to the middle one. Adult female body broadest on the basal abdominal segments, tapering on the posterior part, convex dorsally, about 1.14 mm long (Takahashi, 1938).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis arundinariae can be separated from others of its genus by its strongly convex scale, the body prominently narrowed towards the hind end and in the characters of the pygidium (Takahashi, 1938). This species may be a peculiar montane form of Kuwanaspis or referable to another genus (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 90]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 343]; Chou1986 [illustration: 462]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153, 155]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Takaha1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-45]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 227].
Kuwanaspis bambusicola (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis bambusicola Cockerell, 1899c: 44. Type data: BRAZIL: Campinas, 12/05/1898, by H. Hempel. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK.
Coccomytilus bambusicola; Leonardi, 1903: 10. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes bambusicola; Fernald, 1903b: 305. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus bambusicola; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis bambusicola; Hall, 1946a: 509. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis shuichuensis Tao & Wong, 1982: 123-125. Type data: TAIWAN: Nantau Hsien, Shuichu, on Bambusa stenostachya, 08/02/1981, by C.Y. Wong. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1999a: 111.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa aurea [Balach1928a], Bambusa gracilis [PerontMiSo2001], Bambusa macroculmis [Balach1928a], Bambusa nana [Green1930c], Bambusa sp. [Balach1954e], Bambusa spinosa [Cocker1902w], Bambusa stenostachya [TaoWo1982], Dendrocalamus sp. [Balach1954e], Dendrocalamus strictus [Balach1928a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Senegal [Hall1946a]. Neotropical: Brazil [Balach1954e] (Sao Paulo [ClapsWoGo2001]). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Hu1982]). Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Green1930c]). Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1999a]; Taiwan [TaoWo1982]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Cocker1902w]; Azores [Takagi1999a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Balachowsky (1954e) and by Tao & Wong (1982).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2 mm long, first nymphal skin inserted in the second one. Second nymphal skin paler and larger than the first. Basal half of the second nymphal skin with whitish brown secretion which is elongate, sometimes a little curved, its shape depending on population density. Adult female body yellowish orange, elongate, about 4 times as long as wide, little narrowed at apical portion and slightly expanded towards caudal end, but more or less parallel sides (Tao & Wong, 1982).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis shuichuensis differs from K. neolinearis by the short broad triangular plates between the median and second lobe (Tao & Wong, 1982).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 265 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 294 (female) [as Coccomytilus bambusicola; Species of Coccomytilus].
CITATIONS: Balach1928a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 139-140]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 265, 266-269]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; Bodenh1935 [host: 258]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 217]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 345]; Chou1986 [illustration: 460]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Cocker1899c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Cocker1902p [taxonomy: 257]; Cocker1902w [p. 86]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 194]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Green1930c [distribution, host: 279, 281]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 509, 522, 548]; Hempel1900a [distribution, host: 515]; Hu1982 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 213, 215]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153, 154]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10-11]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 401]; Lindin1912b [description, taxonomy: 80-81]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 139]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 294]; Moreir1921b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 102]; PerontMiSo2001 [host: 248]; PerontMiSo2001 [host: 248]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 175]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 26]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 109]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 282]; TaoWo1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 123-125]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 41]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 284].
Kuwanaspis bambusifoliae (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis bambusifoliae Takahashi, 1934: 11-12. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, on Mt. Hichisei, on Bambusa sp., 27/03/1932 and 23/09/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis bambusifoliae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 265. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria hindsii [Hua2000], Bambusa sp. [Takaha1934]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takaha1934]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1934).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, very narrow, convex dorsally, straight or slightly curved, parallel on the sides, slightly narrowed on the anterior portion, with no ridge, about 2.7 mm long. Larval skins short, pale yellow. Secretion white, scarcely extending out of the lateral margins of the skins. Adult female very long, narrow, broadest on the abdomen, a little narrowed towards the head, broadly rounded at the front (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis bambusifoliae is closely allied to K. suishana, but differs in the color of larval skins, the dorsal gland orifices on the pygidium arranged in rows, the lobes much longer than the fimbriated plates, the median lobes not duplex, the 2nd lobes duplicated. K. bambusifoliae differs from K. vermiformis in the rounded lobes (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 61 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Kuwanaspis]; Hu 1982: 214 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 54]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61, 63]; Chou1986 [illustration: 462]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 214]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 6]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112-113]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-12]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kuwanaspis daliensis HuNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis daliensis Hu, 1982: 214-215. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Dali, on Phragmites sp., 17/04/1957. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Phragmites sp. [Hu1982]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hu1982]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hu (1982).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform, broadest about the 2nd abdominal segment, pygidial lobes 2 pairs, median lobes longer than wide, notched once on either side, rounded apically (Hu, 1982).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis daliensis is close to K. howardi, but is distinguished by the submedian series present on the 2nd abdominal segment, by the submarginal dorsal bosses present on the 1st and 3rd abdominal segments and by the marginal gland spines arranged in 2-2-2-2 on each side of pygidium (Hu, 1982).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 214 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214-216]; Hua2000 [distribution: 153]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Tao1999 [distribution: 94].
Kuwanaspis elongata (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis elongata Takahashi, 1930: 18-20. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp., ?/10/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis elongata; Balachowsky, 1954e: 265. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1930).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate, slender, straight or somewhat curved, almost parallel-sided, but sometimes slightly broadened behind the middle, tapering on the posterior portion, roof-like on the dorsum sloping rather abruptly from the dorso-median line to the lateral margins, with no ridge, closed by white secretion on the venter, about 3.0-3.5 mm long. First larval skin is yellowish brown, located at anterior extremity, extending beyond the 2nd larval skin which is mostly black, but yellowish brown on marginal area and whitish on the middle longitudinally. Grayish white secretion occupying most of the scale, slightly extending beyond the lateral margins of the 2nd larval skin. Adult female very elongate, slender, somewhat widened behind the middle, slightly tapering towards the anterior end which is rounded, with numerous marginal glands on the posterior portion (Takahashi, 1930).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis elongata is similar to K. hikosani, but is easily distinguished from it by the shape of the lobes on the pygidium (Takahashi, 1930). It is also similar to Xiphuraspis ctenopyga. The presence of mid-pygidial dorsal macroducts is especially noteworthy. However, the figure accompanying the original description shows that the mid-pygidial macroducts do not form a large median group as in X. ctenopyga (Takagi, 1999a).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 54]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 343-344]; Chou1986 [illustration: 461]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-20]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 27, 69]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kuwanaspis elongatoides Tang & Hu in TangNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis elongatoides Tang & Hu in Tang, 1986: 92. Type data: CHINA: Anhui, Maanshan, on Bambusa sp., by Wu Shi-jun. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, roof-like, white, 2 mm long. Adult female 1.2-1.7 mm long, anterior spiracle with 6-10 disc pores (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis elongatoides differs from K. elongata by the following characters: K. elongata with slender body, about 2.2 mm long, the scale about 3.3-3.5 mm long, but K. elongatoides with abdomen broadened and conical in shape, scale and body size much smaller; the last 3 abdominal segments each with many lateral gland spines in K. elongata, but there are many fewer in K. elongatoides; the macroducts between the median lobes are two in K. elongatoides, but only single one in K. elongata (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92, 282]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94].
Kuwanaspis foliosa WuNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis foliosus Wu, 1986: 306-307. Type data: CHINA: Auhui, Huangshan, on Indocalamus migoi, 28/04/1982, by S.J. Wu. Holotype female. Type depository: Maanshan: Scientific Committee of Maanshan, Anhui Province, China. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis foliosa; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Poaceae: Indocalamus migoi [Wu1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Wu1986]).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale white, 3.2mm long, .5mm wide. Body elongate, 1.8mm long and .3mm wide, orange in color (Wu, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis foliosus is close to K. elongata and K. suishana, but with 6 projections in the 2nd lobe area (Wu, 1986).
CITATIONS: FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; Wu1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 306-307].
Kuwanaspis hikosani (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis hikosani Kuwana, 1902: 76. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Hikosan, on Phyllostachys bambusiodes. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis hikosani; MacGillivray, 1921: 361. Change of combination.
Tsukushiaspis hikosani; Kuwana, 1928: 33. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis hikosani hongkongensis Takahashi, 1942: 66. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, on Bambusa sp., 08/03/1940, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: fossil. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 91-92.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa nigra [Bodenh1953], Bambusa sp. [Tao1999], Phyllostachys bambusoides [Kuwana1902], Phyllostachys pubescens [Tao1999], Sasa sp. [Takagi1961]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Miller2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986]); Hong Kong [Tao1999]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986]); Japan (Honshu [Shinji1936b], Kyushu [Kuwana1902]); South Korea [Paik1978]; Turkey [Bodenh1953].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana (1902).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very long and slender, about 2.5 mm long, 0.4 mm wide, sides straight, parallel, sometimes curved; snow white. First exuviae elliptical, almost transparent; median longitudinal ridge distinct; second exuviae very much longer, slightly convex, posterior end yellowish, exuviae .75 mm long. Adult female very small, less than 1 mm long, about 0.3 mm wide (Kuwana, 1902).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 61 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Kuwanaspis]; Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Paik 1978: 332 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Takagi 1961: 7 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 264]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-38]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61, 64-65]; Chou1986 [illustration: 457]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278-279]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 64]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-287]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; HowellTi1973 [distribution: 241]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 44]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 264]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 198]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 15]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 33-35]; Kuwana1931b [distribution, host: 168]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 317]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311, 361]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 41]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 101]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 332]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 212]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 58]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 5, 7]; Takagi1966 [distribution, host: 109]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 121]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 20, 24]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy: 216]; Takaha1942 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 283]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; TippinBe1972 [distribution, host: 287]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 388]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 224-226, 227, 239].
Kuwanaspis howardi (Cooley)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis howardi Cooley, 1898: 88-89. Type data: East India: taken at quarantine at Washington D.C., on bamboo. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Duplachionaspis howardi; MacGillivray, 1921: 336. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis howardi; Ferris, 1942: SIV-396. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis phyllostachydis Borchsenius & Hadzibejli, 1950: 14. Type data: CAUCASUS and CRIMEA. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 369. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 272-274.
Kuwanaspis howarai; Wang et al., 1998: 187. Misspelling of species name.
Kuwanaspis howadi; Wu, 2001b: 256. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: bamboo white scale [MillerDa1990]; woolly bamboo scale [Gogua1976].
FOES: ACARI Cheyletidae: Cheletomimus berlesei [HertinSi1972]. Dermanyssidae: Androlaelaps casalis [HertinSi1972]. Tyroglyphidae: Monieziella sp. [HertinSi1972]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus renipustulatus [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [BorchsHa1950].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Tao1999], Bambusa multiplex nana [Hua2000], Bambusa sp. [Cooley1898], Phragmites sp. [Tao1999], Phyllostachys aurea [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys bambusoides [BesheaTiHo1973], Phyllostachys dulcis [GangLi2000], Phyllostachys edulis [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys mitis [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys nigra [TakagiKa1966], Phyllostachys praecox [GangLi2000], Phyllostachys puberula nigra [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys pubescens [Tao1999], Phyllostachys reticulata [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys reticulata simonsonii [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys sp. [BorchsHa1950], Phyllostachys viridiglaucescens [BorchsHa1950].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [BesheaTiHo1973], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973], Louisiana [Miller2005]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986, Wu2001b]). Palaearctic: Azerbaijan [Imamku1966]; China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986]); Georgia [DanzigPe1998] (Abkhaz ASSR [Bustsh1958]); Iran [Moghad2013a]; Japan (Honshu [Muraka1970]); Russia (Caucasus [BorchsHa1950]); Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [BorchsHa1950]).
BIOLOGY: Males are found with females on host, but sometimes form separate groups in colonies covered by waxy fluffs. In mid July a mass flight of males was observed and egg laying was in progress. (Bustshik, 1958). In Caucasus and Crimea K. howardi has 2 generations per year. It overwinters as 2nd instar larvae. In the first half of May females lay about 32-60 eggs over 20-50 days. Eggs hatch in 12-14 days with larvae emerging at the end of May (Borchsenius & Hadzebejli, 1950).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e). Description and illustration of immature stages by Howell & Tippins (1973).
STRUCTURE: Scale secretion white with two longitudinal grooves, exuviae greenish yellow, sometimes almost colorless. Male orange, 0.96 mm long, 0.27 mm wide (Bustshik, 1958).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis howardi is close to K. pseudoleucaspis (Balachowsky, 1954e). It is also related to K. bambuae (Takagi, 1999a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Wang et al. (1998) cite this species as a major pest of bamboo.
KEYS: Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Chou 1982: 61 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Kuwanaspis]; Hu 1982: 214 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 843 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Balachowsky 1954e: 265 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:55 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis of California]; MacGillivray 1921: 336 (female) [as Duplachionaspis howardi; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 265, 272-275]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host: 24, 27, 271]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host: 271]; BorchsHa1950 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-15]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 186, 204]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61, 63-64]; Chou1986 [illustration: 456]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cooley1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 88-89]; Danzig1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 843]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host: 213]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 369, 371]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279]; Essig1931 [taxonomy: 663]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-396, SIV-446:55]; GangLi2000 [chemical control, distribution, host, life history: 78-80]; Gaprin1956 [distribution, host: 118, 134]; Gogua1976 [chemical control, distribution, host, illustration: 196-199]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 179, 180, 274]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 181]; HowellTi1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 241-244]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 215]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 196]; Imamku1966 [distribution, host: 48]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 44]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 25]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; KSPP1972 [distribution, host: 107]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 369]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 35]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 101]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Paik1978 [taxonomy: 332]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Schmut1957b [distribution, host: 150]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 123]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; TakagiKa1966 [distribution, host: 109]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 282]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94-95]; TippinBe1968a [distribution, host: 135]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 10]; Wang1982c [distribution, host: 110]; WangVaXu1998 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 85, 187]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Wu2001b [distribution: 256]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 226, 239].
Kuwanaspis linearis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis linearis Green, 1922a: 1018. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Bambusa sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Tsukushiaspis linearis; Green, 1937: 323. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis linearis; Takahashi, 1942: 65. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: bamboo long scale [ColonFMe1998].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Green1922a], Bambusa vulgaris [ColonFMe1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Mosque1976]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Malaysia (Malaya [Takaha1942]); Singapore [Takaha1942]; Sri Lanka [Green1922a]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female white, exuviae pale stramineous, very long and narrow, filiform, posterior extremity tapering to a point, secretionary appendix with a median longitudinal ridge, 2 mm long. Nymphal exuviae elongate, narrow, posterior margin very similar to that of the adult insect. Adult female long and slender, pale yellow, pygidium pointed with a mesal pair of narrow hastate lobes, rather widely separate and two lateral lobes of the same form, on each side (Green, 1922a).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis linearis is allied to K. annandalei from which it differs in the possession of circumgenital pores (Green, 1922a).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 55]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61, 66]; Chou1986 [illustration: 459]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 103-104]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1018]; Green1937 [distribution: 323]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 90]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 34]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Rao1953 [distribution, host: 66]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113-114]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 14]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy: 216]; Takaha1942 [distribution, host: 65]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 41]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 200]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kuwanaspis multipora TangNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis multiporus Tang, 1986: 95. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, on Bambusa sp.; Guangxi, Nanning, on Asparagus plumosus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis multipori; Fang, Wu & Xu, 2001: 107. Misspelling of species name.
Kuwanaspis multipora; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Asparagaceae: Asparagus plumosus [Tang1986]. Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Tang1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Tang1986]). Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, 1.8-2.2 mm long, yellowish white, exuviae copper-red. Adult female slender, 1.0-1.5 mm long, anterior spiracle with 7-11 disc pores, median lobes unilobulated, the 2nd bi- or tri-lobulated (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis multipora is similar to K. suishana and K. elongatoides, but differs from the two by the different color of the exuviae which are copper-red in K. multipora, but dark brown in the other two; the plate-like processes are much shorter than the others; there are no gland spines on the 5th abdominal segment, no transverse series of ventral ducts on the 1st abdominal segment (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 283]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95].
Kuwanaspis neolinearis (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis neolinearis Takahashi, 1930: 21-22. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, on Bambusa sp., 02/10/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis neolinearis; Takahashi, 1942: 65. Change of combination.
Chuaspis neolinearis; Tao & Wong, 1982: 123. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999a]); Nepal [Takagi1999a]; Singapore [Takaha1942]; Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale very long, narrow, straight or somewhat curved, convex on the dorsum, with no dorsal ridge, about 1.8-2.0 mm long. The 1st larval skin almost white, pale brownish on the middle area, scarcely extending beyond the anterior extremity of the 2nd larval skin. 2nd skin is pale whitish brown, broadest about the middle, rounded on both ends, somewhat curved, about 4 times as long as wide, much shorter than the excretion. White excretion occupying most of the scale, not extending out of the lateral margins of the 2nd larval skin, with 2 or 3 slight concavities on the side. Adult female body elongate, about 6.5-7.0 times as long as wide, almost parallel on the sides, rounded on the front.
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 55]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 7]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 25]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125, 127-128]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy: 216]; Takaha1942 [distribution, host: 65-66]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; TaoWo1982 [taxonomy: 123]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 41]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 27, 69]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kuwanaspis pectinata TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis pectinata Takagi, 1999a: 98-99. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Selangor, Ulu Gombak, University of Malaya, Gombak Field Research Centre, on Gigantochloa scortechinii, 27/11/1988. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Gigantochloa scortechinii [Takagi1999a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, cylindrical, tinged with light brown, exuvial casts brown. Adult female cylindrical, 3-4 times as long as wide, about 1.0 mm long; lateral margins nearly parallel, with no intersegmental notches (Takagi, 1999a).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis pectinata differs from other known species of Kuwanaspis in having no sclerotized appendages recognizable as trullae (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98-99, 114, 118, 140].
Kuwanaspis phragmitis (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis phragmitis Takahashi, 1931a: 216-217. Type data: TAIWAN: Suo, Chippon, Daichikko near Daibu, on Phragmites sp., 30/12/1924, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis phragmitis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 265. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis phrygmitis; Chou, 1985: 344. Misspelling of species name.
Kuwanaspis phragmites; Hua, 2000: 154. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundo donax [Takaha1935], Phragmites sp. [Takaha1931a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi(1931a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very long, narrow, scarcely curved, not widened posteriorly, white, about 2.6 mm long. Exuviae yellowish brown, 1st exuviae on the anterior extremity of scale. 2nd exuviae much shorter than half the length of scale, long narrow, about 4.5 times as long as wide, about 0.9 mm long with a distinct transverse furrow behind mid-length and about 5 transverse furrows on the posterior portion. Adult female body elongate, somewhat narrowed towards the front on the anterior half, broadly rounded at the posterior end, about 3.5-4.5 times as long as wide (Takahashi, 1931a).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 55]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 7]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Takaha1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 216-217]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 104]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 31, 60]; Takaha1935 [distribution, host: 2]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kuwanaspis pseudoleucaspis (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis bambusae Kuwana, 1902: 74. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Kokura, on Bambusa sp., by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Homonym of Chionaspis bambusae Cockerell 1896h.
Lepidosaphes bambusae; Lindinger, 1906: 7. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis bambusae; Marchal, 1909: 872. Change of combination.
Chionaspis pseudoleucaspis; Kuwana, 1923c: 323. Change of combination and replacement name for Chionaspis bambusae Kuwana 1902.
Tsukushiaspis bambusae; Bellio, 1928: 304. Change of combination.
Tsukushiaspis pseudoleucaspis; Kuwana, 1928: 31. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphoides bambusae; Lindinger, 1931a: 44. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis pseudoleucaspis; Lindinger, 1935: 139. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis bambusae; Lobdell, 1937: 78. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: bamboo diaspidid [DanzigPe1998]; bamboo scale [CharleHe2002].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus kuwanae [LuoTaLa1999]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [BorchsHa1950], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Bambusa multiplex nana [Hua2000], Bambusa nigra [Bodenh1953], Bambusa sp. [Kuwana1902, MillerDa2005], Cynodon sp. [HodgsoHi1990, MillerDa2005], Fargesia sp. [MillerDa2005], Paspalum sp. [HodgsoHi1990, MillerDa2005], Phyllostachys aurea [Hender2011], Phyllostachys bambusoides [BesheaTiHo1973], Phyllostachys nigra [Paik1978], Phyllostachys nigra henonis [Paik1978], Phyllostachys pervernalis [LuoTaLa1999], Phyllostachys pubescens [Tao1999], Phyllostachys reticulata [Paik1978], Phyllostachys sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Pleioblastus simonii [Muraka1970], Pleioblastus sp. [MillerDa2005], Sasa albo-marginata [Muraka1970], Sasa nipponica [Muraka1970], Sasa sp. [MillerDa2005], Sasamorpha gracilis [Paik1978], Sasamorpha purpurascens borealis [Paik1978], Sasamorpha sp. [MillerDa2005], Semiarundinaria sp. [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Sinobambusa sp. [MillerDa2005], Sinobambusa toctsik [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005] (Oahu [Nishid2002]); New Zealand [ArchibCoDe1979] (South Island [CharleHe2002]). Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], California [Ferris1941d, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Florida [Dekle1965c, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Weiss1916, MillerDa2005], New York [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005] (the original record is questionable), South Carolina [Nakaha1982], Virginia [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Bermuda [HodgsoHi1990]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Tao1999, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1954e]; Azerbaijan [DanzigPe1998]; China [MillerDa2005] [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1986], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000]); Croatia [MastenSi2008]; France [Balach1930a, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [Schmut1956b]; Italy [Balach1954e, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [MillerDa2005] (Honshu [Shinji1936b], Kyushu [Kuwana1902]); Morocco [Rungs1935]; Poland [Komosi1968]; Portugal [Neves1954, FrancoRuMa2011]; Russia [Archan1929]; Slovenia [Seljak2008] (Specimens found in Nova Gorica on older plants of Phyllostachys bambusoidesis the only known location in Slovenia.); South Korea [Paik1978, MillerDa2005]; Sweden [Ossian1959]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Balach1954e]); United Kingdom [BoratyWi1964].
BIOLOGY: In Georgia there is one generation per year (Hadzibejli, 1983). The bamboo diaspidid is reported to have 2 generations a year in China (Yan Aojin et al. 1985) and a single generation each year in Georgia of the Former Soviet Union (Hadzibejli 1983). Although Brown (1965) suggested that the species is parthenogenetic, Kuwana (1928) and Gill (1997) provided a description of the male cover. Howell and Tippins (1973) and Danzig (1964) also noted the absence of males. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Good description and illustration by Kuwana (1902). Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytilaspiform to ham-shaped from specimens which are almost parallel sided to those which enlarge suddenly just before the middle. Posterior margins broadly rounded; flat in the broad form to convex in the narrow form and of moderately thick texture. First exuviae elliptical, dark yellowish brown with longitudinal crest and a number of lateral ribs. Second exuviae elliptical, of same color, but thinly covered with white waxy secretions. Adult female body stout, pygidium broadly rounded, not heavily chitinized (Bodenheimer, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwana (1923) moved Leucaspis bambusae Kuwana 1902 into Chionaspis creating a homonym with Chionaspis bambusae Cockerell 1896h. He proposed the replacement name Chionaspis pseudoleucaspis for the Kuwana species. Although neither species remains in Chionaspis (Chionaspis bambusae Cockerell= Unachionaspis bambusae and C. bambusae Kuwana = Kuwanaspis), according to the ICZN Article 59(b) "A junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid."
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Wang et al. (1998) cite this species as a major pest of bamboo. In severe outbreaks, the culms of bamboo turn white as they become encrusted with scale covers giving the plants an unthrifty appearance. Heavily infested stands of bamboo sustain a general reduction in growth vigor (Wang Haojie et al. 1998). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Chou 1982: 61 (female) [as Kuwanaspis bambusae; Key to Chinese species of Kuwanaspis]; Hu 1982: 214 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Paik 1978: 332 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 843 (female) [as Kuwanaspis pseudoleucaspis; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961: 7 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 266 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:55 (female) [as Kuwanaspis pseudoleucaspis; Key to species of Kuwanaspis of California]; MacGillivray 1921: 264 (female) [as Leucaspis bambusae; Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 54]; Archan1929 [distribution, host: 196]; ArchibCoDe1979 [distribution, host: 205]; Balach1930a [distribution, host: 179]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 266, 269-272]; Bellio1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 304-309]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Bodenh1935 [host: 258]; Bodenh1949 [distribution, host: 145]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-38]; Bodenh1953a [taxonomy: 164]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution, host: 88]; BoratyWi1964a [distribution, host: 103]; Borchs1934 [distribution, host: 26]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 112]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24, 27, 271]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 271]; BorchsHa1950 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 12-13, 15, 17]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 146-147]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,599]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61-63]; Chou1986 [illustration: 455]; Danzig1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host: 213]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 369-370]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279]; Deitz1979b [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host: 12, 76]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 89]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-288]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-396, SIV-446:55]; Ferris1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; Fullaw1932 [taxonomy: 95]; Gaprin1950 [biological control, distribution, host: 93]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 165, 167]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 459]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 187]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 178, 179, 274]; Hender2011 [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8,13,32,101,104-105,]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 181]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 3, 4, 8]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 76]; HowellTi1973 [taxonomy: 241]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 214]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 44]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 265]; Komosi1968 [distribution, host: 207]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74]; Kuwana1923c [distribution, host: 323]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-33]; Kuwana1931b [distribution, host: 168]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28]; Leonar1907c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 93-94]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 81]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 125]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 44, 122]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 205]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 139]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; LuoTaLa1999 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host: 49-52]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 317-322]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Marcha1909 [distribution, host: 872]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 115-117]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 51]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host: 245]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 240]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 101]; Nakaha1981a [distribution: 399]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Neves1954 [distribution, host: 234]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 332-334]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 502]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 275]; Sakai1935 [distribution, host: 300]; Schmut1956b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Schmut1957b [distribution, host: 150]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 212]; Seljak2008 [distribution, host: 121-127]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 58]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 5, 7]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 24]; Takaha1936a [taxonomy: 220]; Takaha1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 94]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 50]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host: 75, 99]; TippinBe1972 [distribution, host: 287]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; WangVaXu1998 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 84-85, 187]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Weiss1916 [distribution, host: 214]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 36]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 209, 226]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 410].
Kuwanaspis suishana (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis suishanus Takahashi, 1930: 16-18. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp., 02/11/1929, by R. Takahahsi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis suishanus; Takahashi, 1942b: 36. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis suisana; Chou, 1982: 61. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930], Phyllostachys edulis [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Wu2001b]); Nepal [Takagi1999a]; Taiwan [Takaha1930]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001]; Japan [Takagi1999a].
BIOLOGY: Kuwanaspis suishana has been collected at altitudes of about 1,300-1,400m (Takagi, 1999a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Body very elongated, slender, lateral margins practically parallel, pygidium narrow. Median lobes unilobate or bilobulate, all lobules small, acute apically and often once notched subbasally on each side (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 55]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 346-347]; Chou1986 [illustration: 462]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 198]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 123-125]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-18]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 12]; Takaha1936a [taxonomy: 220]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host: 36]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 283]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 41]; Wu2001b [economic importance: 257]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kuwanaspis takahashii TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis takahashii Takagi, 1961: 5-7. Type data: JAPAN: Kyusyu, Kagosima, Siro-Yama, on undetermined bamboo, 12/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Muraka1970]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Kyushu [Takagi1961]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, slender, convex dorsally and white. Adult female elongate owing to the prolongation of the thoracic region, attaining about 9 times as long as wide, 1.98 mm in length at maximum; derm remaining membranous (Takagi, 1961).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis takahashii resembles K. bambusifoliae from which it may be distinguishable by the absence of perivulvar pores and by the less numerous macroducts of the pygidium. It differs from K. vermiformis and K. phragmitis by the absence of perivulvar pores, by the pygidial lobes more produced and by having a single fimbriate process between the median lobes. It can be distinguished from K. neolinearis by the pygidial lobes deeply notched, by having more numerous macroducts on the pygidium and by having a single fimbriate process between the median lobes (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Paik 1978: 332 (female) [Key to species of Kuwanaspis]; Takagi 1961: 7 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 44]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 266]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340,342]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 101]; Paik1978 [taxonomy: 332]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-7]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114].
Kuwanaspis tanzawensis Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Kuwanaspis tanzawensis Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 109. Type data: JAPAN: Tanzawa, Kanagawa-ken, on Sasa sp., by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Sasa sp. [TakagiKa1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan [TakagiKa1966] (Honshu [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-fusiform, prolonged in the mesothoracic region, broadest across the metathorax and tapering towards both ends, but less posteriorly. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis tanzawensis is close to K. bambusicola, but may be distinguishable from the latter by the shape of the body, by the anterior spiracles with numerous disc pores, by having numerous gland spines on Abd. II (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 280]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 44]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 266]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 101-102]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109].
Kuwanaspis vermiformis (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis vermiformis Takahashi, 1930: 12. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, Tosei, on Bambusa stenostachya, Bambusa sp., Dendrocalamus latiflorus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis vermiformis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 265. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa multiplex nana [Hua2000], Bambusa sp. [Takaha1931a], Bambusa stenostachya [Takaha1931a], Dendrocalamus latiflorus [Takaha1931a], Sinocalamus latiflorus [Takagi1970], Sinocalamus oldhmaii [Takagi1970], Streptogyna gerontogaea [CouturMaRi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [CouturMaRi1985]; Madagascar [Mamet1954]. Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Beards1979b] (Hawaii, Kauai [Nishid2002], Oahu). Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Miller2005]). Neotropical: Colombia [Mosque1976]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takaha1931a]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, lateral margins practically parallel and pygidium narrow. Median lobes unilobed, the 2nd bilobulate, all practically same in shape and size, small, acutely pointed apically, usually deeply once-notched subasally on each side (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Kuwanaspis vermiformis is similar to K. annandalei and K. linearis in body shape, but differs from them remarkably in the characters of the 2nd larval skin and pygidium (Takahashi, 1930).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 61 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Kuwanaspis]; Hu 1982: 213 [Key to species of Kuwanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 55]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Balach1957c [taxonomy: 202]; Beards1979b [distribution: 41]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61, 65-66]; Chou1986 [illustration: 158]; CouturMaRi1985 [distribution, host: 279]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host]; Hu1982 [taxonomy: 213]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Mamet1954 [host, distribution: 18, 19]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 45, 90]; Nakaha1981a [distribution: 399]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 7]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125-126]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy, illustration, host, distribution: 215, 216]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 26, 28, 60]; Takaha1942 [distribution, host: 65]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 283]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 226].
Kyphosoma TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kyphosoma Takagi, 1993: 8. Type species: Kyphosoma kinabaluense Takagi, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, plump, humpbacked at full growth, being abruptly swollen dorsally in thorax and then gradually decreasing in height posteriorly. Pygidium with 2 pairs of pectinae; median pectinae widely separated from each other, lateral pair duplex. Gland spines occurring along margin in a segmentally interrupted row. Macroducts strewn dorsally on pygidium and laterally to the row of gland spines. Test highly convex dorsally, with secretory part compressed (Takagi, 1993).
KEYS: Takagi 1993: 23 (female) [A tentative key to the genera of the subtribe Protodiaspidina].
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, taxonomy: 8].
Kyphosoma kinabaluense TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kyphosoma kinabaluense Takagi, 1993: 5-6. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah, Kinabalu National Park, Pinosuk Plateau, on Lithocarpus sp. and Castanopsis sp., 5-7/10/1988. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Castanopsis sp. [Takagi1993], Lithocarpus sp. [Takagi1993]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration of adult female, both sexes of second instars and both sexes of first instar exuvial cast by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female test with secretory part white, elongate, with exuvial casts terminal and translucent; completed test is highly convex dorsally, the secretory part being compressed laterally and in cross section, very thick on the ridge thus formed. Male test with secretory part white, elongate and tricarinate. Adult female body plump, elongate; at full growth abruptly and highly swollen dorsally in thorax, then gradually decreasing in height toward posterior end. Derm remaining membranous and segmentation indistinct (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-6, 21, 25, 31-33].
Kyphosoma melayuense TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kyphosoma melayuense Takagi, 1993: 7-8. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Perak, Maxwell Hill, Bukit Larut, on Lithocarpus wallichianus, 07/10/1986. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takagi1993], Lithocarpus wallichianus [Takagi1993].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration of adult female, both sexes of second instars, first instar female exuvial cast and first instar male by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female test is not smooth, but rugged with transverse ribs and in cross section with no particularly thickened part. Adult female without median transverse rows of enlarged dorsal macroducts (Takagi, 1993).
SYSTEMATICS: Kyphosoma melayuense is characterized by having 1-4 gland spines in front of anterior spiracle; 1-4 gland spines posteriorly to anterior spiracle, 1 or 2 (usually 1) anteriorly to posterior spiracle, 1-3 posterolaterally to posterior spiracle, 3-7 on abdominal segment I, 1 or 2 on segments II-V each and 1 on VI-VIII each (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8, 21, 36-37].
Kyphosoma pinosukense TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Kyphosoma pinosukense Takagi, 1993: 6-7. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah, Kunabalu National Park, Pinosuk Plateau, on Lithocarpus sp., 22/10/1988. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takagi1993]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi1993]).
BIOLOGY: Kyphosoma pinosukense was collected at an altitude of 1,500 meters (Takagi, 1993).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration of adult female, female second instar exuvial cast, second instar male and both sexes of first instar exuvial casts by Takagi (1993).
SYSTEMATICS: Tests of Kyphosoma pinosukense are similar to those of K. kinabaluense. Adult female is also similar to K. kinabaluense, but differs in gland spines arrangement and structure (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-7, 21, 34-35].
Laingaspis Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Laingaspis Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 364-365. Type species: Poliaspis lanigera Laing, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Body of adult female oval. Pygidium slightly pointed at apex, with one pair of broadly placed median lobes. Gland spines wide. Marginal macroducts absent. Dorsal ducts two-barred, each with a heavily sclerotized rim surrounding orifice, resembling dorsal ducts of Parlatoria, arranged in a wide submarginal band; smaller ducts with orifice without sclerotized rim forming groups and short rows on the posterior part of the body. Ventral surface with microducts and groups of small gland spines. Perivulvar pores in five groups and with a supplementary row of 3 groups anteriorly. Female scale white, pyriform, granular, with 2 yellow exuviae terminal. Male scale elongate, white, granular, uncarinated, with terminal exuviae yellow (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: The females of Laingaspis differ from others in the Diaspidini tribe by the position of the dorsal ducts and by the peculiar sclerotized rim surrounding the orifice of each pygidial duct (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 93]; BorchsWi1963 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 364-365]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 103].
Laingaspis lanigera (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis lanigera Laing, 1929: 20-21. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Darwin, on unidentified mangrove, G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Laingaspis lanigera; Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 365. Illust. Change of combination. Notes: Lectotype female designated by Hardy & Henderson, 2011, adult female on slide labelled: Australia, NT, Darwin, on mangrove, GF Hill, BM 1916-225 [with "Type" label] (BMNH).
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha milkeriana [HardyHe2011]. Myrsinaceae: Aegiceras corniculatum [HardyHe2011]. Rhizophoraceae [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Laing1929], Queensland [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Laing (1929) and Borchsenius & Williams (1963). Redescription and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scales densely massed together on the host, entirely covered with a thick, snowy white, woolly looking secretion, rough and irregular in texture; when disinterred from the mass, the puparium short, broadly mytiliform, the actual covering shield, with the secretion removed, very thin, white and tissue paper like; exuviae very pale brownish yellow, entirely concealed by the white secretion, the larval and perhaps also the nymphal, pellicle with long, thin, white, dorsal threads curling above the general secretionary matter, 1.7 mm long. Male cover slightly wider behind than in front, non-carinated, pellicle exposed, free from secretion, pale brownish yellow, 1 mm long. Adult female dark brown to almost black, clearing completely in potash; cuticle soft, membranous; broadly oval (Laing, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Laingaspis lanigera is unique in its pygidial characters, the multilobate nature of the lateral margin, the many rows of dorsal pores on the lateral area and running parallel with the margin (Laing, 1929). This species has the diagnostic distribution of perivulvar pores found among species of Poliaspis but differs in an important feature: namely, 1-barred ducts arranged in a dense marginal swath on the pygidial dorsum. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 93]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 364-365]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 337]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 35,37-38]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21].
Lapazia FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Lapazia Ferris, 1937: SI-68. Type species: Lepidosaphes obtecta Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Female scale of indeterminable form due to its occurrence in cracks of host bark, composed largely of second exuviae, which does not at all envelope the adult female. Adult female elongate-turvinate, derm membranous except for pygidium. Median pygidial lobes distinctly non-zygotic, close together, but with a pair of gland spines between (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Howell & Beshear 1975: 267 (female) [Key to genera of Texas]; Ferris 1942: 46 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 69]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-68]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 4, 16]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:46, 55]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 221]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 103]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 50].
Lapazia obscura Howell & BeshearNOMENCLATURE:
Lapazia obscura Howell & Beshear, 1975: 265-268. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, near Fritch, Lake Meredith, off highway 136, on Atriplex sp. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM, BMNH, VPIC, UCDC and UGCA.
HOST: Chenopodiaceae: Atriplex sp. [HowellBe1975]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [HowellBe1975]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Howell & Beshear (1975).
SYSTEMATICS: Lapazia obscura can be separated from L. obtecta by the presence of perivulvar pores and by conspicuous sclerotizations at the bases of lobes 1, 2 and 3. L. obtecta has neither perivulvar pores nor scleroses at the bases of the lobes. In addition, the bulla of the marginal macroducts in L. obtecta is longer than the duct itself, while in L. obscura it is much shorter (Howell & Beshear, 1975).
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 241]; HowellBe1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 265-268]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 46].
Lapazia obtecta (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes obtecta Ferris, 1921: 116-118. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, La Paz, on Atriplex sp., Fouquieria peninsularis. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lapazia obtecta; Ferris, 1937: SI-69. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus obtecta; Lindinger, 1943b: 222. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Chenopodiaceae: Atriplex sp. [Ferris1921]. Fabaceae: Mimosa sp.? [Ferris1921]. Fouquieriaceae: Fouquieria peninsularis [Ferris1921].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Adult female about .75 mm long, elongate oval, tapering posteriorly, derm membranous throughout except for the pygidium, the greater part of the body occupied by the cephalothorax. Margins of the abdominal segments projecting but little, without gland spines but with numerous small ducts. Pygidium rounded, bearing two or perhaps three pairs of lobes. Median pair quite large with a deep notch on the outer margin, separated by a small space in which are two small gland spines (Ferris, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Lapazia obtecta is unique in the few and scattered dorsal ducts, which do not extend past the 6th segment; the undivided 2nd lobes, the few and small gland spines with their very long and slender ducts and the position of the anal opening, which is well toward the anterior margin of the pygidium (Ferris, 1937).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 69]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 116-118]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-69]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 16]; Ferris1942 [distribution, taxonomy: SIV-445:6, 446:55]; HowellBe1975 [taxonomy: 265]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 222]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549].
Ledaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Ledaspis Hall, 1946a: 522-523. Type species: Chionaspis (Dinaspis) mashonae Hall, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Body fusiform with anterior half usually more or less heavily sclerotized. Pygidium rounded with median lobes not zygotic, separated by a distinct notch, but with their bases yoked. Second lobes duplex, small and somewhat inconspicuous. A pair of small setae between the median lobes, but gland spines and pores wanting. Female scale pyriform, convex and white with terminal exuviae. Male scale white, with subparallel sides, uncarinated or with the median carina faintly indicated (Hall, 1946a).
SYSTEMATICS: Ledaspis belongs to the group of genera of the Chionaspis complex, from which it differs in lacking perivulvar pores. It is closest to Tecaspis (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 132]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 522, 543]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 106]; Muntin1977 [description, taxonomy: 24].
Ledaspis atalantiae (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis atalantiae Takahashi, 1933: 44-46. Type data: TAIWAN: Kontei, near Koshun, on Atalantia lilocularis, 24/05/1932, by R.Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus atalantiae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis atalantiae; Ferris, 1955d: 45. Change of combination.
Ledaspis atalantiae; Munting, 1977: 24. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis atalantiae; Williams & Watson, 1988: 235. Change of combination. Notes: Williams & Watson (1988) intended to refer to this species as Phenacaspis atalantiae (Williams, personal communication, 19 December 2001).
Chionaspis atlantiae; Tao, 1999: 77. Misspelling of species name.
Fiorinia atlantiae; Tao, 1999: 86. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet. Notes: Chionaspis atalantiae Takahashi, which was considered to be Fiorinia atalantiae by Tao (1999), should not be confused with Adiscofiorinia atalantiae which was considered to be in Fiorinia by Sanders (1909).
HOSTS: Rutaceae: Atalantia buxifolia [Hua2000], Atalantia lilocularis [Takaha1933], Atalantia zeylanica [Hua2000], Severinia buxifolia [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Hua2000]; Taiwan [Takaha1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1933).
SYSTEMATICS: Takahashi (1933) states that this species is closely allied to Unaspis permutans, but differs in the following characters: scale white, not transparent; dorsal gland orifices distributed differently; median lobes in an incision. This species is peculiar in the body strongly chitinized, with areolations discernible on the pygidium, and in lacking circumgenital pores. Somewhat resembles Pseudaulacaspis gynandropsidis, but differs in lacking circumgenital pores and in many other characters.
KEYS: Chen 1983: 65 [as Phenacaspis atalantiae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 67]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 361-362]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 151]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Muntin1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 44]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-46]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 77, 86]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy: 235]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 237, 245].
Ledaspis distincta (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis distincta Leonardi, 1914: 213-214. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Dinaspis distinta; Malenotti, 1916b: 193. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) distincta; Brain, 1920: 102. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) proteae Hall, 1928: 289-290. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Rusape; Clevland Dam; Darwendale; on Faurea saligna, Protea abyssinica, Protea sp., 06/09/1927; 04/12/1927; 14/12/1937; 26/03/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Hall, 1929: 345.
Dinaspis proteae; Hall, 1929: 345. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus distinctus; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Ledaspis distincta; Hall, 1946a: 523. Change of combination.
Poliaspis distincta; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
Ischnaspis distincta; Giliomee, 1966: 424. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis confusus [DeBachRo1976a].
HOSTS: Proteaceae: Faurea saligna [Hall1928], Faurea saligna [Muntin1977], Faurea sp. [Muntin1977], Faurea speciosa [Muntin1977], Protea abyssinica [Hall1928], Protea caffra [DeBachRo1976a], Protea hirta [Brain1920], Protea sp. [Hall1928]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Malawi [Lee1971]; South Africa [Leonar1914]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928].
BIOLOGY: Ledaspis distincta is viviparous (Brain, 1920).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2.2 mm long, moderately broad, convex and roughened, dull white or greyish white in color, with exuviae dark orange-brown; second exuviae covered. Male puparium robust, buff-colored and non-carinate, with yellowish or orange exuviae. Adult female elongate, narrow in front, gradually broadening to behind the middle, to which point the body is highly chitinized; posterior to this it is thin, hyaline (Brain, 1920).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 24 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 523 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 193 (female) [as Dinaspis distinta; Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control, distribution, host: 543]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 289-290]; Hall1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 345]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 523]; Lee1971 [distribution, host: 41]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213-214]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 193]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 760].
Ledaspis dura (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis dura Newstead, 1920: 205-206. Type data: UGANDA: Bufumira Island, Sesse Islands, Lake Victoria, on unknown tree, 12/10/1918, by C.C. Gowdey. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Asymmetraspis dura; MacGillivray, 1921: 361. Change of combination.
Chionaspis uapacae; Hall, 1928: 291. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Munting, 1977: 33.
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) dura; Hall, 1929: 346. Change of combination.
Dinaspis dura; Hall, 1941: 228. Change of combination.
Ledaspis dura; Hall, 1946a: 504. Change of combination.
Poliaspis dura; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Uapaca kirkiana [Muntin1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Newste1920]; Zimbabwe [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium pure white, exuviae nude and of a dull orange color, elongate, convexity not greater behind the second exuviae than elsewhere. Dead adult female dusky yellow to dull orange, very elongate (Newstead, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: The large divergent lobes, the peculiar form of the antennae and the semichitinised upper portion of the body are distinguishing features of Ledaspis dura (Newstead, 1920).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 24 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 523 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 361 (female) [as Asymmetraspis dura; Species of Asymmetraspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Hall1928 [taxonomy: 291]; Hall1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 346]; Hall1941 [taxonomy: 228]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 504, 523, 535]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 361]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24, 26-27]; Newste1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 205-206].
Ledaspis kirkianae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis kirkianae Hall, 1941: 227-228. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Melsetter, on Uapaca kirkiana, 28/06/1939. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Ledaspis kirkianae; Hall, 1946a: 524. Change of combination.
Poliaspis kirkianae; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Uapaca kirkiana [Hall1941], Uapaca sp. [Muntin1977]. Loganiaceae: Strychnos angolensis [Muntin1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Muntin1977]; Zimbabwe [Hall1941].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dirty white, elongate, broadened posteriorly and very highly convex. First exuviae very pale, almost colorless. Male puparium, with exuviae as in the female, small and white with subparallel sides. Median carina usually present, usually well developed. Adult female oval, 1.0-1.3 mm long, derm slightly sclerotized at full maturity (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Ledaspis kirkianae is similar to L. dura and L. mashonae, but differs from both in the squat nature of the median lobes, from L. dura in the greater number of dorsal pores on the pygidium and from L. mashonae in the smaller number of gland spines on the 5th abdominal segment (Hall, 1941).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 24 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 524 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Hall1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 227-228]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 524]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24, 26, 28].
Ledaspis longiloba MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Ledaspis longiloba Munting, 1977: 29-30. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Aberfoyle Tea Estates, Honde Valley, on Strychnos angolensis, 12/08/1965, by C.J. Hodgson. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3874/4. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Loganiaceae: Strychnos angolensis [Muntin1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Muntin1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Adult females elongate tapering evenly anteriorly from 2nd abdominal segment; 1.5 mm long. Prosoma not sclerotized at maturity (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: The long basal sclerosis projecting into the pygidium from the inner lobule of the well developed second lobes distinguishes this species from all its congeners (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 24 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24, 26, 29, 30].
Ledaspis mashonae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) mashonae Hall, 1928: 287-288. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Banket, on Uapaca nitida, 22/09/1927. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Dinaspis mashonae; Hall, 1941: 225. Change of combination.
Ledaspis mashonae; Hall, 1946a: 523. Change of combination.
Poliaspis mashonae; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Uapaca kirkiana [Lee1971], Uapaca nitida [Hall1928]. Fabaceae: Acacia mearnsii [Lee1971].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Malawi [Lee1971]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large and convex, narrowed in front and much broadened behind, secretory appendix white, 3.0-3.75 mm long. Adult female elongate, slightly pyriform, 1.8-2.2 mm long (Munting, 1977).
KEYS: Munting 1977: 24 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis from southern Africa]; Hall 1946a: 523 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287-288]; Hall1941 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 225, 228]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 523]; Lee1971 [distribution, host: 41]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24, 30, 31].
Ledaspis reticulata (Malenotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Dinaspis reticulata Malenotti, 1916a: 343-346. Type data: Unknown. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust.
Dinaspis reticulata minor Malenotti, 1916a: 346-347. Type data: SOMALIA: on Balanites somalensis, 24/09/1913. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 132.
Chionaspis (Dinaspis) reticulata Hall, 1928: 290. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Mazoe, on Capparis corymbifera, ?/09 & 10/1927. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Hall, 1929: 346. Homonym of Dinaspis reticulata Malenotti 1916. Notes: Hall (1928) described Chionaspis (Dinaspis) reticulata as new creating a junior homonym of Dinaspis reticulata Malenotti 1916a and since Hall's species has since been determined to be identical to Malenotti's, it is also a junior synonym.
Trichomytilus reticulatus; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Ledaspis reticulata; Hall, 1946a: 523. Change of combination.
Poliaspis reticulata; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Capparidaceae: Capparis corymbifera [Hall1928], Capparis persicaefolia [DeLott1967a], Capparis sp. [DeLott1967a]. Salvadoraceae: Dobera macalusoi [Maleno1916a]. Zygophyllaceae: Balanites somalensis [Maleno1916b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [DeLott1967a]; Ethiopia [Muntin1977]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Somalia [Maleno1916a]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Malenotti (1916a) and Hall (1928).
STRUCTURE: Cover of adult female mytilaspiform, often curled and very convex. Exuviae overlapping the margin; larval exuviae golden or shiny brown; nymphal exuviae similar but covered with a thin coating of white secretionary matter. Secretionary appendix white, almost silvery white, with obscure transverse striations. Ventral scale thin. Male cover white, small with subparallel sides, either non-carinated or with the median longitudinal carina poorly developed, exuviae shiny brown to golden. Adult female elongate pyriform, narrowed anteriorly, with the frontal margin flattened (Hall, 1928).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 523 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 192 (female) [as Dinaspis reticulata; Key to Dinaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 218-219]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 290-291]; Hall1929 [taxonomy: 346]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 523, 551]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Maleno1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 343-347]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 192]; Muntin1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24].
Ledaspis tenuiloba De LottoNOMENCLATURE:
Ledaspis tenuiloba De Lotto, 1956: 18-19. Type data: KENYA: Nairobi, on Elaeodendron stuhlmanni, 12/04/1953, by G. De Lotto. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Elaeodendron stuhlmanni [DeLott1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by De Lotto (1956).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female silvery-white, elongate, moderately convex, exuviae pale yellow, 2.1-2.5 mm long. Male scale tricarinate, pure white, exuviae golden yellow, 1.0-1.3 mm long. Adult female very elongate with prosoma heavily chitinized at maturity (De Lotto, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Ledaspis tenuiloba is close to L. reticulata, from which it is separable by having the ducts of the marginal series provided with very long microducts and by the much smaller median lobes (De Lotto, 1956).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 219]; DeLott1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19].
Ledaspis uapacae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis uapacae Hall, 1928: 291-292. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Mazoe, on Uapaca kirkiana, 1/07/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Dinaspis uapacae; Hall, 1929: 346. Change of combination.
Ledaspis uapacae; Munting, 1977: 30-32. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Uapaca kirkiana [Hall1928], Uapaca sp. [Muntin1977]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Muntin1977]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Munting (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female cover opaque white, elongate, broadening slightly posteriorly and highly convex, secretionary appendix white, with obscure transverse striations, 1.7-2.0 mm long. Male puparium white, tricarinated, with shiny brown or golden exuviae. Adult female more or less fusiform, about 1.4 mm long; prosoma sclerotized at full maturity (Munting, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Hall placed Ledaspis uapacae as a junior synonym of L. dura, but Munting (1977) stated that the distribution of the macroducts on segment VI differ in that the submedian series is lacking in L. dura. Also, in L. uapacae the antennal tubercles are also clearly figured as being widely separated and posterior parastigmatic pores are said to be absent. Munting considered these characters sufficient evidence to show the two species are distinct and retained L. uapacae as a valid species.
KEYS: Munting 1977: 24 (female) [Key to species of Ledaspis from southern Africa].
CITATIONS: Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291-292]; Hall1929 [taxonomy: 346]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24, 31-33].
Lepidosaphes ShimerNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilicoccus; Schlectendal, 1858: 408. Misspelling of genus name.
Mytilococcus Amerling, 1858a: 101. Nomen nudum; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 28-30. Notes: Lindinger (1936) insisted that the generic name Mytilococcus Amerling, 1858, had precedence over Lepidosaphes Shimer, 1868. Morrison & Morrison (1966) questioned this substitution because the name was never spelled consistently (Amerling lists it as Mytillicoccus, Mytilococcus and as Mytilicoccus), there was no generic description to associate with the name and no specific descriptions associated with any of the forms named in association with Mytilococcus. Most current coccid workers (Balachowsky, Borchsenius, Ferris, Hall, Schmutterer, Takahashi) have used Lepidosaphes as the senior name.
Lepidosaphes Shimer, 1868: 373. Type species: Lepidosaphes conchiformis Shimer, by monotypy.
Mytilaspis Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 737. Type species: Mytilaspis linearis Targioni Tozzetti. Subsequently designated by Lindinger, 1936: 149. Synonymy by Fernald, 1903b: 304. Notes: Signoret suggested that the name Mytilaspis Targioni Tozzetti was older than Lepidosaphes Shimer, which was published in January 1868. Morrison & Morrison (1966) found no evidence to support this allegation and they concluded that Lepidosaphes has priority over Mytilaspis. Over the years, many coccid workers have incorrectly listed Signoret as the author of Mytilaspis.
Mytalaspis; Cooke, 1881: 37. Misspelling of genus name.
Mytilapsis; Cockerell, 1897g: 108. Misspelling of genus name.
Phaulomytilus; Fernald, 1903b: 304. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Morrison & Morrison, 1922: 96.
Mytilepiss; Kuwana, 1917: 18. Misspelling of genus name.
Cephalaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Mytilaspis cocculi Green, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1939: 265. Homonym of Cephalaspis Agassiz 1835 in Pisces.
Cornuaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Mytilaspis ocellata Green, by original designation. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 28.
Scobinaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Mytilaspis serrifrons Leonardi, by monotypy and original designation. Notes: Ferris (1937) made Scobinaspis dentata the type species of Velataspis and stated that it was not particularly related to S. serrifrons, but Balachowsky (1954e) moved S. serrifrons to Velataspis also. This action would make Scobinaspis the senior synonym of Velataspis, but this synonymy was not supported by other authors. Danzig (1993) however, considers Scobinaspis as a junior synonym of Lepidosaphes and does not treat Velataspis.
Insulaspis Mamet, 1950: 32. Type species: Lepidosaphes vermiculus Mamet, by original designation. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 28.
Lipidosaphes; Borchsenius, 1958a: 168. Misspelling of genus name.
Paralepidosaphes Borchsenius, 1962b: 863. Type species: Paralepidosaphes coreana Borchsenius, by original designation. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 1.
Cornimytilus Borchsenius, 1963: 1165. Type species: Lepidosaphes afganensis Borchsenius. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 1.
Eucornuaspis Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Type species: Mytilaspis machili Maskell. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 1.
Parainsulaspis Borchsenius, 1963: 1162-1163. Replacement name for Cephalaspis MacGillivray 1921; synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 1. Notes: Borchsenius (1963) states that Parainsulaspis is a replacement name for Cephalaspis MacGillivray 1921 which is preoccupied by Cephalaspis Agassiz 1835 in Pisces. However, Borchsenius changed the type species from MacGillivray's choice of Mytilaspis cocculi Green 1896 to Lepidosaphes laterochitinosa Green 1925, which is not in accordance to Article 67.8 of the ICZN. See Russell (1970) for further information.
Pinomytilus Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Type species: Lepidosaphes pseudotsugae Takahashi. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 1.
Pistaciaspis Borchsenius, 1963: 1165. Type species: Lepidosaphes pistaciae Archangelskaya. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 1.
Palaeomytilus Borchsenius, 1978: 110. Type species: Palaeomytilus daphniphylli Borchsenius, by original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 244.
Lepidosaphes (Insulaspis); Danzig, 1980b: 304. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes (Paralepidosaphes); Danzig, 1980b: 303. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes (Pinomytilus); Danzig, 1980b: 306. Change of status.
STRUCTURE: Female body fusiform, usually with well developed lateral abdominal lobes, these with marginal gland spines, or gland tubercles further forward. Median lobes (L1) not yoked, separated, with 1 pair of gland spines in medial space, L2 bilobed, paraphyses if present short, L3 insignificant. The three burrowing species of Lepidosaphes differ from the non-burrowing species of the genus in having dentate or serrate trullae. Macroducts exhibit a tendency towards reduction in number, size, or shape. (Takagi, 2003) Dorsal ducts 2-barred, usually 6 pairs of marginal macroducts, ducts on submargin and submedian abdomen often numerous, with similar ducts also on submargins of anterior abdomen and thorax. Dorsal submarginal bosses often present. Lateral tubercles or spurs often present between some abdominal segments. Perivulvar pores present in 5 groups. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1962b and 1963) divided Lepidosaphes into 10 smaller genera. We here agree with Takagi (1970) and Danzig & Pellizari (1998) that the genus should remain in tact and the smaller genera are here considered junior synonyms.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1988: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 326 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kozár 1986: 177 (female) [Key to Hungarian genera of Diaspididae]; Chou 1982: 152 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Lepidosaphinae]; Wang 1982c: 46 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 198, 199 (female) [as Cornuaspis, Eucornuaspis, Paralepidosaphes, Mytilaspis; Key to genera of Lepidosaphedini]; Danzig 1980b: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 644 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab 1963: 55 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Mamet 1959a: 381-382 (adult female) [Key to genera of Madagascar]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 26 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 163 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 374 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 61 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 45 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 44 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; Borchsenius 1936: 138 (female) [Key to species of Diaspinae]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 13 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 361 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; Hollinger 1923: 7 (female) [Genera of Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 274 (female) [as Cornuaspis, Cephalaspis; Key to genera of Lepidosaphini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Lawson 1917: 206 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Robinson 1917: 17 (female) [Synoptic table of Diaspinae genera]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 262 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Lindinger 1913: 65 (female) [Gruppe Diaspides]; Newstead 1901b: 80 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera]; Hempel 1900a: 497 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae]; Cockerell 1897r: 69 (female) [Table of the Coccidae of Brazil].
CITATIONS: Amerli1858a [taxonomy: 101]; Archan1929 [taxonomy: 189]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 68-69]; Ashmea1891 [description, taxonomy: 101]; Atkins1886 [description, taxonomy: 273]; Balach1954e [description, illustration, taxonomy: 26, 28-30]; Berles1896 [taxonomy: 80]; Bodenh1924 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 41-42]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 332]; Borchs1937a [taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 191, 202-203]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 163, 180]; Borchs1958a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 168]; Borchs1959b [taxonomy: 1821]; Borchs1962b [description, taxonomy: 861, 863,870]; Borchs1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 1162, 1165, 1167, 11]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 39, 42, 43, 52, 55,]; Borchs1978 [taxonomy: 110]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 364]; Brain1918 [distribution, taxonomy: 116]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 105-106]; Britto1923 [taxonomy: 361, 378]; Bustsh1958 [taxonomy: 186]; Charmo1899 [taxonomy: 32]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 152-156]; Cocker1893d [description, taxonomy: 8]; Cocker1897r [taxonomy: 69]; Cocker1905b [taxonomy: 200, 203]; Comsto1881a [description: 320]; Comsto1883 [description: 54, 116]; Comsto1916 [description: 469, 515, 577]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 644, 648, 649, 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; Danzig1980b [description, taxonomy: 299]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 719, 721-722]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 243-246]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 280-281]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 262, 279]; Dougla1886 [description, taxonomy: 245]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; Fernal1903a [taxonomy: 90]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, structure: 304]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 20, 21, 22, 23, 25,]; Ferris1937 [description, illustration, taxonomy: SI-70, SI-78, SI-126]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3, 4, 9]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 38, 45, 46]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-149]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 45, 55]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 40, 89]; Frogga1914 [description, taxonomy: 604-605]; Frogga1915 [description, taxonomy: 33]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 98, 99]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 9, 119, 212]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 168]; Goethe1884 [taxonomy: 117]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 44, 162-163]; GomezM1946 [taxonomy: 61]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 72-73]; Gowdey1921 [taxonomy: 33]; GrandpCh1899 [taxonomy: 11]; Green1896e [description, taxonomy: 37, 77]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1927 [taxonomy: 12, 3]; Green1928b [taxonomy: 152]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 524, 545]; Hempel1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 497]; Hempel1904 [taxonomy: 322]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, structure, taxonomy: 8,14,22,45,105]; Hollin1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 7, 68, 69]; HowardOl1985 [description: 58]; Korone1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 55, 82, 83]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 515-517]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, taxonomy: 346-347]; Kozar1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; Kuwana1925a [description: 2-3]; Kuwana1933a [taxonomy: 44]; Lawson1917 [taxonomy: 206, 253]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 45-47]; Leonar1920 [description, taxonomy: 27, 149-150]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1913d [taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 147]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 148-149]; Lindin1936a [taxonomy: 444]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182, 188, 190, 195]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 369]; LinKoGu2013 [molecular data, phylogeny: 257]; Low1882c [taxonomy: 522]; Lupo1939 [description, taxonomy: 69-70]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 274, 286]; Mamet1950 [description, taxonomy: 32-33]; Marlat1892 [taxonomy: 151]; Maskel1879 [taxonomy: 192]; Maskel1887a [description, taxonomy: 39, 48]; Maskel1891 [description, taxonomy: 4-7]; McKenz1949 [taxonomy: 124]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 29]; Morgan1888a [taxonomy: 47]; Morgan1888b [taxonomy: 118]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 96, 99, 100, 103, 10]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 46, 97, 107, 126, 14]; Myers1927LE [taxonomy: 343-344]; Newste1901b [description, taxonomy: 80, 193-194]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 13]; Robins1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 17, 34]; Russel1970 [taxonomy: 8]; Sander1904a [taxonomy: 31, 73]; Schmut1951 [taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 156]; Shimer1868 [description, taxonomy: 373]; Signor1869 [taxonomy: 841]; Signor1869b [taxonomy: 99]; Signor1870 [description, taxonomy: 91-92]; Silves1902 [taxonomy: 127]; Silves1939 [taxonomy: 803]; Takagi1960 [description, taxonomy: 75-76]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Takagi1962 [taxonomy: 48]; Takagi1970 [description, taxonomy: 1-3]; Takagi2003 [structure, taxonomy: 86-87,107]; Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 154]; TakagiGe2008 [host: 128]; Takaha1939b [taxonomy: 265]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 67]; Tang1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 737]; Targio1881 [taxonomy: 158]; Terezn1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 58]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 47,50,51,53]; Vayssi1923a [taxonomy: 420]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 46]; Willia1971b [description, taxonomy: 8]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 143]; Wolff1911 [taxonomy: 80]; WolffCo1994 [distribution, taxonomy: 128]; Xie1998 [taxonomy: 114]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 198-199]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 98, 161]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 374, 417].
Lepidosaphes abdominalis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes abdominalis Takagi, 1960: 80-82. Type data: JAPAN: Ryukyu Islands, Amami Islands, Sumiyo, on undetermined non-coniferous tree, 14/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis abdominalis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Cornuaspis abdominalis; Borchsenius, 1966: 55. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Rhodea japonica [Tang1986]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Myrtaceae: Myrica rubra [Tang1986]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus fragrans [Tao1999], Osmanthus sp. [Tang1986]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosperum tobira [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Hubei (=Hupei) [Tang1986]); Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takagi1960]. Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1960).
STRUCTURE: Scales of both sexes rather slender, convex dorsally and dark brown. Adult female slender, 1.26 mm long and 0.50 mm wide; prosoma elongate, slender, very flatly rounded along the anterior extremity. Second exuviae of female elongate, fusiform, flatly rounded along anterior extremity; pygidium trapezoidal (Takagi, 1960).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes abdominalis is apparently close to L. kamakurensis, from which it can be told by its having ventral ducts between the posterior spiracles and by the free abdominal segments more strongly produced laterally (Takagi, 1960).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 155 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 338 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 55]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155, 172-173]; Chou1986 [illustration: 580]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Muraka1970 [distribution: 80]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 338]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80-82, 93]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 276]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 82]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 200, 209].
Lepidosaphes aberrans LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes aberrans Lindinger, 1909e: 33-34. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Cynometra sp., 1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis aberrans; Vayssière, 1913: 431. Change of combination.
Triaspis aberrans; MacGillivray, 1921: 279. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Cynometra sp. [Lindin1909e]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e]; South Africa [MacGil1921].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Scale dark brown, long, with brighter seam, and brighter yellow-translucent apical exuviae, 1.31-1.87 mm long and 0.48-0.5 mm wide (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 279 (female) [as Triaspidis aberrans; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 135]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-34]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 26]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 176].
Lepidosaphes abietis (Signoret)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis abietis Signoret, 1870: 92. Type data: on Pinus sp.
Mytilaspis confusus Horvath, 1897: 95. Unjustified replacement name; discovered by Cockerell, 1899j: 275.
Lepidosaphes abietis; Fernald, 1903b: 304. Change of combination.
HOST: Pinaceae: Abies sp. [Colema1903]
STRUCTURE: Female scale similar to L. linearis (=L. ulmi), long, more or less circumvented in form of comma, brown (Signoret, 1870). Adult female grayish brown, broad towards the caudal end and narrow towards the head. 5 groups of spinnerets; the mesal consist of 15-17; the cephalo-laterals each of 20; and the caudo-laterals of 10-12 (Comstock, 1883).
SYSTEMATICS: There was some early confusion over Mytilaspis abietis Signoret and Aspidiotus abietis Schrank. Cockerell (1899j) states that Signoret knew that this insect was different from Schrank's, which was an Aspidiotus. Horvath (1897) proposed the replacement name confusus, but since they were never homonyms, Cockerell's claim that this replacement name was unnecessary is considered correct. Lindinger (1912b) incorrectly considered Lepidosaphes abietis to be a junior synonym of L. ulmi. Borchsenius (1966) considered L. abietis incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Cocker1899j [taxonomy: 274-275]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 83]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 121]; Comsto1916 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 582]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; Horvat1897 [host, taxonomy: 95]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 371]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 107]; Pierce1917 [distribution, economic importance: 79]; Signor1870 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Signor1882b [host: clxxxv].
Lepidosaphes afganensis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes afganensis Borchsenius, 1962b: 861. Type data: AFGHANISTAN: Kabul, on Salix sp., 13/09/1942, by A. Kostylev. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Cornimytilus afganensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1167. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus infernalis [AhmadGh1966, AhmadGh1972], Chilocorus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972], Sticholotis sp. [AhmadGh1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Coccophagus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Pteroptrix chinensis [AhmadGh1972]. Eulophidae: Tetrastichus sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Salicaceae: Salix acmophylla [AhmadGh1972], Salix sp. [Borchs1962b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [AhmadGh1966, AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Borchs1962b, KozarFoZa1996]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1962b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, pear-shaped Female scale brownish, protuberant, transversely ribbed on top, 2.4-2.8 mm long (Borchsenius, 1962b).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1966 [biological control, host: 101]; AhmadGh1970 [host: 106]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 85]; Borchs1962b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 861, 870]; Borchs1963 [description, taxonomy: 1167]; Borchs1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host: 582]; Danzig1993 [p. 244]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 35]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 46]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 8]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration: 203-204].
Lepidosaphes agalegae (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Insulaspis agalegae Mamet, 1974: 168. Type data: AGALEGA ISLANDS: North Island, on Pisonia macrophylla, 21/05/1955, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 29. Described: female.
HOST: Nyctaginaceae: Pisonia macrophylla [Mamet1974].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Agalega Islands [Mamet1974].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Mamet (1974).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish. Adult female membranous throughout except for the pygidium with cephalic extremity rounded and somewhat produced medially 0.8 mm long. Anterior spiracles with one parastigmatic pore. Abdominal segments weakly lobed laterally. 5th abdominal segment with a faint suggestion of a gland spur (Mamet, 1974).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes agalegae is related to L.tokionis from which it can be separated by the absence of cephalic lobes and by a submedian group of dorsal ducts on the 1st abdominal segment, the fewer number of dorsal ducts in the submedian groups of the 2nd and 6th abdominal segments and the much larger median lobes (Mamet, 1974).
CITATIONS: Mamet1974 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 166].
Lepidosaphes albizziae Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes albizzae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 341. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378. Notes: Ramakrishna Ayyar (1924) lists Lepidosaphes albizzae as authored by Green and found in India, Coimbatore, on Albizzia lebbek, but gives no valid description.
Mytilaspis albizziae; Varshney, 1967a: 78. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Albizia sp. [Borchs1966]
SYSTEMATICS: Rao & Kumar (1952) considered Lepidosaphes albizzae to be a junior synonym of Parlatoreopsis chinensis (Marlatt).
CITATIONS: BhasinRo1954 [distribution, host: 46]; Borchs1966 [taxonomy: 378]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 30]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78].
Lepidosaphes alnicola (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Cornimytilus alnicola Borchsenius, 1978: 106. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, western bank of Lake Tien Chih south of Kunming, on Alnus sp., 20/03/01955, by T. Bushchik. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes alnicola; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 281. Change of combination.
HOST: Betulaceae: Alnus sp. [Borchs1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Borchs1978]). Palaearctic: China [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1978).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pyriform, about 2 mm long and 1.1 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1978).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes alnicola is distinguished from some other members of the genus by the lesser number of marginal pores on the pygidium, of which there are 4 pairs instead of the usual 6 pairs (Borchsenius, 1978).
CITATIONS: Borchs1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106, 110]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281]; Hua2000 [distribution: 150]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 81].
Lepidosaphes ambigua RutherfordNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ambigua Rutherford, 1914: 264-265. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Mesua ferrea. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female.
Scrupulaspis ambigua; MacGillivray, 1921: 288. Change of combination.
HOST: Guttiferae: Mesua ferrea [Ruther1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Rutherford (1914).
STRUCTURE: Adult female several times as long as broad. Segments in front of the pygidium laterally distinct. Pygidium with prominent marginal pores. Body tapering cephalad to a blunt point (Rutherford, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 288 [as Scrupulaspis; Key to species of Scrupulaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 56]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 47]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 463]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 328]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 288]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Ruther1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264-265]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 50].
Lepidosaphes antakaranae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes antakaranae Mamet, 1959a: 441-442. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Mt d'Ambre, Petit Lac, on an undetermined plant, 30/05/1950, by R. Mamet. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 215. Described: female. Illust.
Cornuaspis antakaranae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
Insulaspis antakaranae; Matile-Ferrero, 1978: 55. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale much elongated, narrow, brownish. Exuviae terminal. Adult female membranous, with cephalic extremity broadly rounded, broadest across the first abdominal segments, 0.7 mm long. Median pygidial lobes slightly divergent, fairly broad, with apical margin faintly notched once or twice on the inner side, separated from each other at base by a space equal to about the width of one of them (Mamet, 1959a).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 382 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 382, 441-442]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 55].
Lepidosaphes araucariae BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes araucariae Beardsley, 1965b: 51-54. Type data: UNITED STATES: Hawaii, Oahu, Honolulu Zoo, on Araucaria excelsa, 10/11/1964, by J.W. Beardsley. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Araucariacae: Araucaria excelsa [Beards1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Beards1965b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Beardsley (1965b). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale brown, terminal first exuviae amber, about 1.5-2.0 mm long. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female 0.6-0.85 mm long. Body elongate, slightly fusiform, widest across metathorax and abdominal segment 1. Pygidium with median lobes short, moderately broad, with single weakly developed lateral notch on each side (Beardsley, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes araucariae is similar to L. maskelli and L. sciadopitysi, but can be separated from these by the smaller, more numerous dorsal tubular ducts and by the absence of gland spines and gland tubercles on the anterior abdominal segments and metathorax (Beardsley, 1965b).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female).
CITATIONS: Beards1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-54]; Beards1979b [distribution: 41]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 37, 40-42]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 399]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141].
Lepidosaphes australis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis pallens alba Maskell, 1896b: 388. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Sydney, on Xanthorrhoea sp., by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Homonym of Mytilaspis albus Cockerell 1893p; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 47.
Lepidosaphes pallens alba; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis alba; Ferris, 1941d: 271. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes australis Borchsenius, 1966: 47. Replacement name for Mytilaspis pallens alba Maskell 1896b.
HOST: Liliaceae: Xanthorrhoea sp. [Maskel1896b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1896b]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy-white, elongated, narrow. Exuviae terminal, pale yellow. Male scale similar, but smaller, not carinated (Maskell, 1896b).
KEYS: Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis pallens v. alba; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: 271]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Maskel1896b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 388].
Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus anguinus Boisduval, 1868: 282. Type data: FRANCE. Unknown type status. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Notes: It would appear that Boisduval did not intend to describe a new species.
Coccus beckii Newman, 1869: 217-218. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, on Citrus sp. and Malus sp. Unknown type status. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Aspidiotus citricola Packard, 1869: 527. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, on Citrus sp. Unknown type status. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Quayle, 1938a: 169. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Mytilaspis flavescens Targioni Tozzetti, 1876: 84. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1896b: 336.
Mytilaspis citricola; Comstock, 1881a: 321. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis citricola tasmaniae Maskell, 1897: 303-304. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Tasmania, on Pomaderris apetala, by H.S. Dove. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1956: 83.
Mytilaspis tasmaniae; Cockerell, 1899f: 14. Change of status.
Mytilaspis beckii; Cockerell, 1899j: 275. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pinnaeformis; Newstead, 1901b: 204. Described: female. Illust. Misidentification; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 61.
Lepidosaphes pinnaeformis; Kirkaldy, 1902: 110. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 61.
Lepidosaphes beckii; Fernald, 1903b: 305. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes fulva; Souza da Camara, 1906: 148. Described: female. Misidentification. Notes: Souza da Camara's treatment of "Mytilaspis fulva" is a misidentification of Lepidosaphes beckii. Additionally, M. fulva is a misspelling of M. flava.
Lepidosaphes pinniformis; Lindinger, 1910b: 45. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 55.
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) beckii; Newstead, 1913: 81. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes citricola; Vayssière, 1921: 356. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) beckii; Hall, 1922: 37. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis anguineus; Lindinger, 1924: 183. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pinniformis; Bodenheimer, 1924: 51-53. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 55.
Mytilococcus piniformis; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus beckii; Lupo, 1939: 80. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pinifolii; Balachowsky, 1954e: 61. Change of combination.
Cornuaspis beckii; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
Parlatoria beckii; Traboulsi & Benassy, 1965: 2. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphis beckii; Kfoury & El Amil, 1998: 38. Misspelling of genus name.
COMMON NAMES: citrus mussel scale [WoodruBeSk1998]; cochenille virgule de l'oranger [Foldi2001]; comma scale [Gill1997]; common mussel scale [Fuller1907]; escama purpura [CoronaRuMo1997]; escama purpurea [PeralL1968]; mussel scale [SmithBeBr1997]; orange mussel scale [Newste1907a]; orange scale [Gill1997]; purple scale [WatsonBe1937, Blicke1965].
ASSOCIATES: Fungi: Myiophagus sp. [Boyce1950], Nectria diploa [Boyce1950], Podonectria coccicola [GonzalHeSi1991], Sphaerostilbe aurantiicola [GonzalHeSi1991, Boyce1950]. ACARI Acaridae: Monieziella mali [Coorem1951]. HYMENOPTERA Formicidae: Casca chinensis [Balach1954e].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Aphytis proclia Walker [UlgentErKa2008]. Chrysopidae: Chrysopa sp. [Watson2002a]. Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigrita [Watson2002a], Pentilia egena [Watson2002a], Rhyzobius pulchellus [Watson2002a]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [Watson2002a]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus sp. [Watson2002a]. Phlaeothripidae: Haplothrips merrilli [Watson2002a], Karnyothrips flavipes [Watson2002a]. Rosaceae: Prunus sp. [Watson2002a], Raphia sp. [Watson2002a]. Vitidaceae: Vitis sp. [Watson2002a]. ACARI : Tyroglyphid sp. [Searle1964]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [Balach1954e, Coorem1951]. COLEOPTERA Chrysopidae: Chrysopa sp. [Searle1964]. Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [ArgyriStMo1976], Chilocorus bivulnerus [WatsonBe1937], Chilocorus distigma [Searle1964], Chilocorus solitus [Searle1964], Chilocorus sp. [Searle1964], Cidonia lunata [Searle1964], Cryptolaemus montrouzieri [Searle1964], Exochomus flavipes [Searle1964], Exochomus marginipennis childreni [WatsonBe1937], Exochomus quadripustulatus [ArgyriStMo1976], Halmus chalybeus [SmithBeBr1997], Lindorus lophanthae [ArgyriStMo1976, Smirno1950], Lotis neglecta [Searle1964], Lotis nigerrima [Searle1964], Lotis nigritula [Searle1964], Lotis sp. [Searle1964], Pharoscymnus sexguttatus [Searle1964], Rodolia icerya [Searle1964], Scymnus kobonotensis [MayneGh1934], Scymnus sp. [Searle1964], Stethorus sp. [Searle1964]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [Searle1964], Letaba bedfordi [Searle1964]. Tenebrionidae: Epitragodes tomentosus [WatsonBe1937]. HEMIPTERA Anthocoridae: Cardiastethus nazarenus Reuter [UlgentSzUy2013]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [Balach1954e, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis cochereaui [RosenDe1979], Aphytis columbi [RosenDe1979], Aphytis diaspidis [DeSant1979], Aphytis holoxanthus [MalipaDuSm2000, CaveMa1994], Aphytis lepidosaphes [ClancyMu1959, MyartsRu2000, Jimene1958, CaveMa1994, PeralL1968, Benass1977b], Aphytis lepidosaphes [RehmatAnKh2011, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis lingnanensis [DeBach1958b, MalipaDuSm2000, CaveMa1994], Aphytis maculicornis [Balach1954e], Aphytis melinus [BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Balach1954e, MyartsRu2000], Aphytis sp. [GonzalHeSi1991, BenassOnPa1973], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Balach1954e, Ruhl1913], Aspidiotiphagus destructor [Marcha1909d], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Anneck1963], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [GonzalHeSi1991], Aspidotiphagus citrinus agilior [Balach1954e], Coccophagus lycimnia [MalipaDuSm2000], Coccophagus sp. [Packar1869], Encarsia berlesi [BasheeAsRa2014], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998, BasheeAsRa2014], Encarsia elongata [HuangPo1998], Encarsia lounsburyi [HuangPo1998, CaveMa1994], Encarsia perniciosi [CaveMa1994], Encarsia singularis [HuangPo1998], Eretmocerus corni [Balach1954e], Physcus sp. [Clause1958a]. Cynipidae: Heterobelyta chilensis [Balach1954e]. Encyrtidae: Aphycus flavus [Morley1909], Prospaltella aurantii [Morley1909], Prospaltella singularis [Balach1954e]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora flavopalliata [Morley1909]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Haplothrips callani [Searle1964].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Agave sisalana [Watson2002a]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Watson2002a], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [BenDov2012]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex cornuta [BesheaTiHo1973], Ilex europea [Takagi1970], Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005], Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araceae: Cocos nucifera? [Heu2002]. Araliaceae: Hedera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bromeliaceae: Ananas sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buxaceae: Buxus hyrcana [Moghad2013a]. Cercidiphyllaceae: Cercidiphyllum japonicum [Muraka1970], Cercidiphyllum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cupressaceae: Cupressus sp. [Tao1999], Juniperus chinensis [Hua2000]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [Takagi1970, MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [MillerDa2005], Codiaeum variegatum [Takagi1970], Croton scouleri [LincanHoCa2010], Croton sp. [Maskel1895b, MillerDa2005], Croton sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fabaceae: Cassia sp. [MillerDa2005], Erythrina sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Tao1999, MillerDa2005]. Hydrophyllaceae: Wigandia caracasana [CarnerPe1986]. Labiatae: Coleus sp. [DeVill1998]. Lauraceae: Persea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Lindin1910b]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [CarnerPe1986]. Malpighiaceae: Malpighia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Meliaceae: Melia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Muraka1970], Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Musaceae: Musa acuninata [LincanHoCa2010]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [MillerDa2005], Psidium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Olea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Orchidaceae: Cymbidium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Pinus massoniana [Tao1999]. Piperaceae: Piper [Borchs1966]. Proteaceae: Banksia integrifolia [Maskel1895b]. Rhamnaceae: Pomaderris apetala [Maskel1897]. Rosaceae: Malus sp. [Newman1869], Pyrus communis [CarnerPe1986]. Rubiaceae: Coffea sp. [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005], Gardenia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Balsamocitrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Chalcas sp. [MillerDa2005], Citrus aurantium [Hinckl1963, BenDov2012], Citrus grandis buntan [Muraka1970, BenDov2012], Citrus limon [CarnerPe1986], Citrus maxima [WilliaBu1987], Citrus medica [Nakaha1981a], Citrus paradisi [MacGow1982, BenDov2012], Citrus reticulata [Nakaha1981a, BenDov2012], Citrus sinensis [Nakaha1981a], Citrus sp. [Packar1869, Muraka1970, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Citrus unshiu [Muraka1970], Fortunella sp. [MillerDa2005], Murraya exotica [Maxwel1902, Ferris1921a, Heu2002], Murraya paniculata [Takagi1970], Murraya sp. [MillerDa2005], Poncirus [Borchs1966], Toddalia aculeata [Ali1969a]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [MillerDa2005]. Santalaceae: Phoradendron sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma [Borchs1966]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Taxus cuspidata [Muraka1970]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Moghad2013a], Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Verbenaceae: Verbena sp. [MillerDa2005]. Viscaceae: Phoradendron serotinum [Mead1982].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [Muntin1969]; Cameroon [Balach1954e]; Cape Verde [Fernan1999]; Comoros [Matile1978]; Ethiopia [Abebe1987]; Ghana [Newste1917b]; Guinea [Balach1954e]; Madagascar [Mamet1943a]; Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Anneck1963]; Nigeria [Marcha1909d]; Reunion [WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014]; Rodriques Island [WilliaWi1988]; Saint Helena [Matile1976]; Sao Tome and Principe (Principe [Simmon1969], Sao Tome [Laing1928]); Seychelles [Mamet1943a]; Sierra Leone [Hargre1927]; South Africa [Brain1920]; Uganda [Gowdey1913]; Zaire [MayneGh1934]; Zanzibar [Newste1913]; Zimbabwe [HallFo1933]. Australasian: Australia [Maxwel1902] (New South Wales [Maxwel1902], Queensland [SmithBeBr1997], South Australia [Maskel1895b], Tasmania [Maskel1897], Victoria [Maskel1895b]); Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1966], Truk Islands [Beards1966]); Fiji [Maxwel1902]; French Polynesia (Tahiti [Maxwel1902]); Guam [Dumble1954]; Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1904b, MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]); Indonesia (Java [Kalsho1981]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988]; Marshall Islands [Beards1966]; New Caledonia [Dumble1954]; New Zealand [Maxwel1902, Hender2011]; Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Norfolk Island [WilliaWa1988]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [Dumble1954]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987]; Western Samoa [Dumble1954]. Nearctic: Mexico [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005] (Colima [MyartsRu2000], Nayarit [MyartsRu2000], Veracruz [MyartsRu2000]); United States of America (Alabama [MillerDa2005], California [Carnes1907, MillerDa2005], Colorado [GilletBa1895], Connecticut [Britto1920], Florida [Packar1869, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Indiana [DietzMo1916a], Kansas [Dean1909, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Maxwel1902, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Herric1911], Missouri [MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Weiss1916], New York [Hartma1916, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [Herric1911], Utah [Jorgen1934], Wisconsin [SeveriSe1909]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [RileyHo1893], Barbuda [WoodruBeSk1998]); Argentina (Corrientes [Autran1907], Entre Rios [Autran1907], Misiones [Autran1907], Salta [Autran1907], Tucuman [Autran1907]); Barbados [Bovell1912]; Bermuda [Maxwel1902]; Brazil [MoraesSi1987a] (Bahia [Azeved1923aA], Pernambuco [CarvalCa1939], Rio Grande do Sul [CorseuSi1971]); Chile [Porter1912]; Colombia [Figuer1952]; Cuba [Houser1918, OteroCaMo1996]; Dominica [WoodruBeSk1998]; Dominican Republic [WoodruBeSk1998]; Ecuador [Koch1989]; French Guiana [WoodruBeSk1998]; Galapagos Islands [LincanHoCa2010]; Grenada [Ballou1912a]; Guadeloupe [WoodruBeSk1998]; Guyana [Bodkin1914]; Jamaica [Cocker1893b]; Martinique [WoodruBeSk1998]; Montserrat [Cocker1897g]; Netherlands Antilles (Curacao [WoodruBeSk1998]); Paraguay [Berton1923]; Peru [Rust1914, Hawkin1994]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [WoodruBeSk1998]); Saint Kitts and Nevis Islands (Nevis [WoodruBeSk1998], Saint Kitts [WoodruBeSk1998]); Saint Lucia [Ballou1912a]; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Ballou1912a]; Suriname [Maxwel1902]; Trinidad and Tobago (Tobago [WoodruBeSk1998], Trinidad [Cocker1897g]). Oriental: Bangladesh [MalumpHaSa2012]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [HuangPo1998], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tao1999], Hainan [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Tao1999]; India (Karnataka [Sankar1984], Kerala [Sankar1984], Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996], West Bengal [Nath1972]). Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Kalsho1981, WatsonMuSh2014]). Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1975]; Sri Lanka [Cocker1897g]; Taiwan [Ferris1921a]; Thailand [Ali1969a]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1930d]; Azores [Maxwel1902, FrancoRuMa2011]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Hebei (=Hopei) [Hua2000]); Corsica [Balach1954e]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [Balach1954e]; Cyprus [Hall1922]; Egypt [Newste1907a, Hall1922]; France [DanzigPe1998, Germai2011]; Georgia [Gogibe1938]; Germany [Bouche1851]; Greece [Hall1922, DeBach1964d]; Hungary [KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Balach1954e]; Israel [Bodkin1925, Bytins1966] (Bytinski-Salz (1966) states that this species of tropical American origin was introduced to Israel from Spain in 1912.); Italy [Packar1869, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Clause1927] (Kyushu [Takagi1960]); Lebanon [Talhou1950]; Madeira Islands [Maxwel1902, FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1919]; Morocco [DanzigPe1998]; Portugal [Souzad1906, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia [Balach1954e]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [Monast1962, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Slovenia [Seljak2008]; Spain [Maxwel1902]; Syria [Hall1922, BasheeAsRa2014]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1970]; Tunisia [DanzigPe1998]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956]; United Kingdom (England [Newman1869] (Lepidosaphes beckii is one of the most commonly imported scale insect species in Britain and often listed, incorrectly, as established in Britain. (Malumphy, et al., 2012))).
BIOLOGY: In the Eastern Cape of South Africa, four generations occur per year (DeVilliers, 1998). Female lays 50-100 pearly eggs in two rows under the scale cover. Eggs hatch in two weeks. Crawlers settle in sheltered sites, on older leaves and beneath fruit calyx lobes. Life cycle takes about 6-8 weeks in Australia (Smith et al., 1997). Ebeling (1959) points out that purple scale prefers humid areas. In California it does not occur in the interior districts, but it is an important pest in the coastal areas. Females produce 40 48 eggs over a period of about 3 weeks. Hatching begins 2 weeks after oviposition in summer and after 2 months in winter. The first molt occurs 2 weeks after hatching in summer. The second molt requires about 3 weeks in summer. Mating occurs soon after the second molt, and eggs are laid about 15 days later. Johnson and Lyon (1976) state that purple scale females lay 60 80 eggs. Quayle (1912) found that in Whittier, California purple scale completed its life cycle in 3 months or less in the summer, with a fourth generation possible during warm winters. Thompson and Griffiths (1949) reported a life cycle of about 3 months in the summer in Florida, with crawler peaks in March April, June July, and September October. Outdoor insectary studies at Auburn, Alabama by English and Turnipseed (1940) resulted in minimum and maximum generation times from birth to egg hatch of 42 and 198 days, respectively, with 77.3 days the average. In Chile, Zuniga (1971) reported 3 generations a year in the northern region, 2 3 generations a year in the central region, and 1 generation a year in the southern region. In Australia, Hely and Gellatley (1961) found that purple scale preferred Citrus, but heavy infestations also occurred on Ilex. They found that the first deposited eggs hatch when the parent female is about 90 days old. The average number of crawlers produced by each female is about 150 in spring and 70 in autumn. Generally only 2 ½ generations occur each year between September and May. In Israel, Avidov and Harpaz (1969) reported that summer development of purple scale required at least 50 days (44 days for males) while in winter about 110 days were needed. They concluded that the temperature threshold of development is 8 C, and 1,104 day-degrees are required for the production of 1 generation. They noted that this scale prefers trees with thick foliage and settles more on leaves and fruit than on young branches. They also found that females on fruit were more fecund than females on leaves. In the coastal plain, Bodenheimer and Steinitz (1937) found 4 generations a year, i.e., April, late June, late August to early September, and November to January. Bodenheimer (1951) reported the sex ratio from 373 individual matings to be 39.4% female and 60.6% male. He found facultative parthenogenesis common. Lindgren and Dickson (1941) never observed oviposition from isolated females in California. Bénassy et al. (1975) reported that purple scale has 2 generations a year in France at Cote D Azur, 4 in Italy at Naples, 4 in Egypt, and 3 in Tunisia. Smirnoff (1960) found 4 generations a year in Morocco. In South Africa, Hulley (1962) noted that egg hatch of purple scale is influenced by light and temperature. He found a positive phototaxis but no geotaxis. Most eggs hatched in the morning and crawlers settled more rapidly on dusty than clean leaves. In Nigeria, Eguagie (1972) found that purple scale fecundity was identical on orange, grapefruit, tangerine, and lime, with an incubation period of 10 25 days during June July, at a mean temperature of 25.1 C and 77.5% R.H. at 16.00 hrs. Claps (1987) reported 5 generations in the insectary in Argentina and provided descriptions and illustrations of all stages (Claps 1991). Rodrigo and Garcia-Mari (1994) studied the seasonal variation of populations of the purple scale and its distribution in different parts of the tree. Foldi (1990) provided information on the formation of the scale cover of this species. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988). Description and illustration of first instar nymph by Ghabbour (2001).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is mussel shaped, 3-4 mm long, light brown. Male scale is half as long, narrower and lighter in color. Adult female is white and held in place under the scale by a thin white membrane (Smith et al., 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes beckii can be distinguished from that of Lepidosaphes ulmi by the pointed, serrate median lobes (Williams & Watson, 1988). The presence of lateral double dorsal bosses on the head distinguishes L beckii from other Lepidosaphes species in New Zealand. L. beckii is most similar to L. ulmi in possessing a ventral band of ducts between the posterior spiracles, and dorsal abdominal bosses, but lacks the lateral abdominal spinose spurs of L. ulmi. L. beckii shares prominent groups of gland spines on the free abdominal segments with L. pinnaeformis, but lacks its spinose eye. (Henderson, 2011)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Detailed discussion of life history, economic importance and biological control by DeVilliers (1998). Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. According to Dekle (1977) the purple scale has been reduced to a minor citrus pest in Florida since the appearance of the parasite Aphytis lepidosaphes Compere. Muma and Clancy (1961) state this specific parasite was discovered in Florida in 1958. It apparently spread into Florida from Mexico and Texas from California reared material. It was imported into the latter from China in 1948 49. It is most common in the southern U.S. on citrus. Simanton (1976) states that in Florida a 50% parasitism rate appears adequate to keep purple scale effectively controlled. Ebeling (1959) states that purple scale attacks all parts of the tree, and injury can be severe. In California defoliation and die back usually occur on the lower north side of trees. Feeding scales cause yellow spots on leaves. Similar areas on the fruit do not attain their normal color and remain green. The purple scale was ranked the fourth most important pest of Texas citrus in 1950 (Ebeling 1950). He also noted that in parts of Mexico, the West Indies, Central America, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil, and certain areas of southeast Asia, purple scale is the most important citrus pest. The authors note that Aphytis lepidosaphes may have been introduced into some of these areas since Ebeling wrote the above, and this situation may have changed. Dean (1975) reported that purple scale, although once the 4th most important pest of Texas citrus, was now under complete biological control by Aphytis lepidosaphes. Avidov and Harpaz (1969) found that in Israel, populations of purple scale on citrus fruit are highest between September and January, and in certain cases about 30% of the yield was rejected for export because of contamination by the many adhering scales. They also found that heavily infested leaves are shed prematurely, and that when too many leaves are lost, trees are stunted and die back occurs. Damage is more serious in mature groves where foliage is dense, and less serious in young groves where the foliage is less abundant and trees are not crowded together. This species is considered a major pest of citrus in South Africa (Bedford and Cilliers 1994), and in Spain (Rodrigo and Garcia-Mari 1990). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 105 (female) [Key to Lepidosaphes adult females in New Zealand]; Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Ghabbour 2001: 78 (first instar) [Key to first-instar nymphs of three species of Lepidosaphes]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 105 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams & Watson 1988: 143 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 337 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar]; Ezzat 1958: 246 (female) [Key to adult female Lepidosaphes]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 73 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Spain]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 70 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 33 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Zimmerman 1948: 418 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes reported in Hawaii]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Britton 1923: 378 (female) [Key to Connecticut species of Lepidosaphes]; Cockerell 1900k: 349 (female) [as Mytilaspis becki; Table to separate the commoner scales (Coccidae) of the orange]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis citricola; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1120]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution: 173-177]; Abebe1987 [distribution: 977-980]; AlayoS1976 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10-11]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Anneck1963 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 211-212]; Archan1937 [distribution, host: 69, 73]; ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 26]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 242]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 434]; Autran1907 [distribution, host: 154, 166]; Avidov1961 [distribution, host: 165, 511, 540]; Azeved1923aA [distribution, host: 151]; Azim1961 [biological control, distribution: 107]; Badr2014 [distribution, host: 51]; Balach1931a [distribution, host: 98]; Balach1932d [distribution, host: xvii-xviii]; Balach1935b [distribution, host: 261]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 33, 61-64]; Balach1959a [distribution, host: 362]; Ballou1912a [distribution, host: 420]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 27-28]; BarbagNu1981 [economic importance: 32]; BasheeAsRa2014 [biological control, distribution, host: 50-52]; BatcheWe1948 [chemical control, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 711-714]; BazaroSh1970 [distribution, host: 109]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 535-536]; Beatty1944 [distribution, host: 127]; Beccar1959 [distribution, host: 79]; Benass1977 [biological control, ecology, economic importance: 2]; Benass1977a [biological control: 1]; Benass1977b [behaviour, biological control, economic importance, life history: 432-437]; BenassBi1983 [biological control, life history: 119-124]; BenassOnPa1973 [biological control: 118, 122]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 44]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 67]; Berles1896 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 84, 152, 213, 281, 2]; BerlesLe1898a [illustration, taxonomy: 132]; Berton1923 [biological control, distribution: 54]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 297, 310]; BockTa1995 [distribution, host: 360]; Bodenh1924 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-53]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 85, 86, 95]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122-124]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host: 16]; Bodkin1913 [distribution, host: 117]; Bodkin1922 [distribution, host: 59]; Bodkin1925 [distribution, host: 144]; Boisdu1868 [taxonomy: 282]; Borchs1936 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123-124]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 75, 79]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 182]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; Borg1919 [distribution, host: 16]; Borg1922 [distribution, host: 82]; Bovell1912 [biological control, distribution: 401]; Boyce1950 [economic importance, host, taxonomy, chemical control: 742, 744, 752, 759,]; BoyeroAnMo2000 [economic importance: 673]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 106]; Britto1920 [distribution: 65]; Britto1923 [description, distribution: 378]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Bytins1966 [distribution, economic importance: 18, 28]; Carneg1957a [behaviour, host: 164-169]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42-43]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 217-219]; CarvalCa1939 [distribution, host: 30]; CaveMa1994 [biological control: 5]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,601-602]; Charmo1899 [distribution, taxonomy: 32, 33]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 101]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 169-171]; Chou1986 [illustration: 571]; Chou1986 [illustration: 594]; ClancyMu1959 [biological control, distribution, host: 1025-1026]; Clause1927 [distribution, host: 3, 4, 5, 8]; Clause1958a [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 447]; Cocher1969 [distribution: 86]; Cocker1893b [distribution, host: 160]; Cocker1893p [distribution, host: 155-156]; Cocker1897g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 108-109]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; Cocker1899j [taxonomy: 275]; Cocker1899n [taxonomy: 31-32]; Cocker1900k [host, taxonomy: 349]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 105-106]; Colvee1881 [distribution, host: 25]; Comsto1881a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 321]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 117, 123]; Comsto1916 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 470, 578]; Coorem1951 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 30-31]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host: 110]; CostaL1921 [taxonomy: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 194]; CostaL1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 273]; CostaL1949 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 71-72, 78, 86]; Craw1896 [taxonomy: 40]; Crouze1971 [distribution, economic importance: 200]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 279]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281-282]; DarvasAbCa1994 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host: 51, 54, 55, 56]; Dash1916 [distribution, host: 42]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 275]; DeBach1951a [biological control, chemical control, economic importance, host: 444]; DeBach1958b [biological control, chemical control: 190-192]; DeBach1964 [biological control, distribution, host: 678]; DeBach1964d [biological control: 6]; DeBachRo1977 [chemical control: 9]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; DelGue1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 267-269]; DeSant1979 [biological control, distribution: 213, 248, 300, 311-3]; DeVill1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 123-127]; DeVill1998 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 149-153]; DietzMo1916a [distribution, host: 279, 280]; Dinthe1950 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, illustration: 49]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 22]; Dougla1912 [distribution, host: 221]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 43, 89]; Ebelin1951 [economic importance: 80]; Eguagi1975 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 99-107]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, host: 246]; EzzatRa1966 [chemical control: 1]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Fernan1999 [distribution, host: 86]; FerraoCa1972 [distribution: 28]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host, illustration: 216]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:56]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Flande1953b [biological control: 541]; Flande1971 [distribution, host: 860]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 303]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; Fonsec1936 [distribution, host: 408]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 99]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 608]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host: 97, 100]; Fuller1907 [taxonomy: 1035, 1042]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 52]; Garcia1912 [biological control, distribution: 7, 118, 182, 205, 27]; GarciaRo1995 [life history: 119]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 158, 151]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Ghabbo1999 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86]; Ghabbo2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74-76]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 349]; Ghesqu1943 [biological control, distribution: 391]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 169-170, 177]; GilletBa1895 [distribution, host: 129]; Giraul1913 [biological control, distribution: 196, 200]; GirolaAr1925 [distribution, host: 39]; Gogibe1938 [distribution, host: 50, 51]; Gomes1940 [distribution, host: 64, 83, 87]; GomesCRe1947 [distribution, host: 172]; GomesCRe1948 [distribution, host: 59]; GomezC1943 [distribution, host: 303]; GomezC1946 [distribution, economic importance, host: 14]; GomezM1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24, 38, 164, 175]; GomezM1956 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83-90]; GonzalHeSi1991 [biological control, distribution, host: 434, 436-437]; Gowdey1913 [distribution, host: 249]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 36, 189]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 34]; GrandpCh1899 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11-12]; Graven1977 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 656-659, 673, 677]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 29]; Greath1989 [biological control: 32]; Green1896 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77-78]; Green1916a [distribution, host: 376]; Green1923b [distribution, host: 89]; GriffiTh1949a [distribution, host: 4]; Hadzib1965 [distribution, host: 5]; HafezSa1969a [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 517-532]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-38, 46, 53]; Hall1924a [distribution, host: 5, 25, 28]; Hall1946a [distribution: 524]; HallFo1933 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Hargre1927 [distribution, host: 114]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 108]; Hawkin1994 [biological control, distribution: 161]; Hempel1900a [distribution, host: 513]; Hempel1904 [distribution, host: 322]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11,33,105,107,112,]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-41]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 35]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 267]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 47]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 6, 13]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 25]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host: 33, 68]; Houser1918 [distribution, host: 169]; Howard1907 [biological control, distribution: 80, 84]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860, 1871, 1910, 19]; Huergo1908 [biological control: 16]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 193]; Jimene1958 [biological control: 37-40]; Jorgen1934 [distribution, host: 278]; Kalsho1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 174-5]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 247]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 22]; KfouryEl1998 [distribution: 38]; Kiritc1929 [economic importance, host: 173]; Kirkal1902 [taxonomy: 110]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 158]; Koch1989 [biological control, distribution, host: 7, 8]; Korone1934 [distribution, host: 68, 80, 82]; Kotins1906a [distribution, host: 135, 139, 142]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kunkel1967 [taxonomy: 50]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 14-15]; Laing1928 [distribution, host: 215]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 254]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 29, 65]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 151, 152]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 265, 409]; LePell1973 [distribution, host: 123]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host: 45]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 183]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149]; Lizery1942 [distribution, host: 75]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 148]; LopesFiMa2008 [distribution, host: 153-154]; Luck1981 [biological control: 144]; Lupo1939 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 80]; Lupo1957a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 427]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; MacGow1982 [distribution, host: 13]; MalipaDuSm2000 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 3, 9, 54, 55, 56, 57]; Mallam1954 [distribution, host: 114]; Malump2012b [distribution: 210]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 4-5]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 162]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 39]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 218, 228]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 19]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 381]; Mansfi1920 [distribution, host: 151]; Marcha1909d [distribution, host: 181]; Martin1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; Maskel1890 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 135]; Maskel1895b [distribution, host: 48-49]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303-304]; Maskew1916 [distribution, host: 308]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; Matile1976 [distribution, host: 308]; Matile1978 [distribution, host: 40, 53, 54]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 252]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 36]; McCall1921 [economic importance: 9]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 323]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 55]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 32, 117]; Mead1982 [distribution, host: 2]; Medler1980 [description: 88]; Melis1930 [distribution, host: 90]; Merril1922 [biological control, distribution: 37]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 240]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 244]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 23]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 35]; Monast1962 [biological control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 67-88]; MoraesSi1987a [distribution, host, life history: 27-39]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 91]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host: 122]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 80]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 11, 12, 25]; Myers1922 [distribution, host: 201]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 399]; Nath1972 [distribution, host: 3]; Neves1936 [distribution, host: 199]; Newman1869 [distribution, host: 217]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204-206]; Newste1907a [chemical control, distribution, host: 10, 15]; Newste1913 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; Newste1917b [distribution, host: 134]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; OteroCaMo1996 [distribution, economic importance, host: 530, 531]; Packar1869 [biological control, distribution, host: 527]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 31]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 265]; Peleka1974 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 17]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 477,481,487,502]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295]; PeralL1968 [biological control: 25]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 5]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Porter1912 [distribution: 23]; Pratt1956 [distribution, host, life history: 90-93]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 171]; Priore1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 139]; Quayle1911 [behaviour: 301-306]; Quayle1912 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 319-340]; Quayle1938a [distribution, taxonomy: 169]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 23-24]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; RangelGo1945 [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; RauppHoSa2001 [chemical control, host: 204]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, host, distribution: 274]; RileyHo1893 [distribution, host: 51]; Ringue1924 [distribution, host: 65]; RiomFa1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 193]; Risbec1937 [distribution, host: 178-183]; RodrigGaRo2004 [life history, chemical control: 569-575]; RodrigTrGa1996 [biological control, distribution: 77, 80, 87]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 757]; Ruhl1913 [taxonomy: 80]; Ruhl1919 [taxonomy: 44]; Rungs1950 [biological control: 10]; Russo1951 [biological control, distribution: 90]; Rust1914 [distribution, host: 471]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 27]; Sander1904a [distribution, host: 73]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 28-29]; Schmid1973 [distribution, host: 443]; Schmut1957b [distribution, taxonomy: 150]; Seabra1918 [distribution, host: 164]; Seabra1922 [distribution, host: 9]; Searle1964 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 8-9]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 13]; Seljak2008 [distribution, host: 121-126]; SeveriSe1909 [distribution, host: 298]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Shirak1913 [distribution, host: 100]; Signor1877 [distribution, host: 604]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 176]; Simant1960 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 5-7]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 4]; Simmon1969 [distribution, host: 20]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 220,222]; SmailiAbBo2013 [biological control: 157]; SmailiAfAa2000 [biological control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 281-290]; SmailiAfAa2000 [distribution, host, life history: 281-290]; Smirno1950a [biological control, economic importance: 190, 191]; SmithBeBr1997 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 73-74]; SotoCoAl1994 [chemical control: 357]; Soukup1945 [distribution, host: 280]; Souzad1906 [distribution, host: 148-149]; Starne1897 [distribution, host: 27]; Stimme1987 [distribution, host: 19-20]; Stofbe1937 [taxonomy: 3-29]; Strick1947a [distribution, host: 498]; Summer1934 [distribution, economic importance: 17-20]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 251-252]; Swezey1913 [distribution, economic importance: 194]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80, 93]; Takagi1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 71, 73]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host: 70]; Talhou1950 [distribution, host: 138]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 82]; Targio1876 [taxonomy: 84]; Targio1881 [distribution, taxonomy: 159]; Targio1884 [taxonomy: 392]; Thomps1932 [chemical control: 71-72]; Thomps1933 [chemical control: 78]; Thomps1934 [chemical control: 84]; Thomps1935a [chemical control: 100]; Thomps1936 [chemical control: 114]; Thomps1937 [chemical control: 132]; Thomps1938b [chemical control: 146-147]; Thomps1939b [chemical control: 145-147]; Thomps1942a [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host: 51-58]; ThompsGr1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5-12]; TrabouBe1965 [biological control, distribution: 2, 5]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Tschor1939 [distribution: 90]; Vacant1985a [distribution, ecology: 749, 754, 757]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 46]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; Vayssi1920 [distribution, host: 257]; Vayssi1921 [distribution, host: 356]; Viggia1974 [biological control, host: 117, 119, 120]; Viggia1985 [taxonomy: 879]; Vilard1974 [distribution, host: 76]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; WatsonBe1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 9-21]; WatsonMuSh2014 [distribution, host: 1595]; Weiss1916 [distribution: 24]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 8,11]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 143, 145-146, 148]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 64]; Wilson1917 [distribution: 51]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; WolffCo1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 136-138]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 22, 62]; WoodruBeSk1998 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 200, 202]; Zahrad1972 [taxonomy: 424]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 418]; Zuniga1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 285-290].
Lepidosaphes belutchistana BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes belutchistanus Balachowsky, 1954e: 75-77. Type data: IRAN: Bompour, on Prosopis spicigera, ?/03/1954, by M. Sarkissian. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis belutchistanus; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Avicenniae officinalis [Moghad2013a]. Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Moghad2013a], Periploca aphylla [Moghad2013a]. Arecaceae: Nannorrhops ritchiana [Moghad2013a]. Asclepiadaceae: Periploca aphylla [Seghat1977]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Moghad2013a], Prosopis spicigera [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Rajasthan [Varshn2002]); Pakistan [Varshn2002]. Palaearctic: Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale with parallel sides, brown (Balachowsky, 1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes belutchistana is close to L. granati (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 75-77]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kaussa1964 [description, distribution, host: 15]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 23]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 36]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 14]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 51].
Lepidosaphes boguschi McDanielNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes boguschi McDaniel, 1972a: 323-324. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Cameron County, Padre Island, on Maurandia antirrhiniflora, 16/04/1960, by B. McDaniel & S. McDaniel. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in UCDC.
HOST: Scrophulariaceae: Maurandia antirrhiniflora [McDani1972a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [McDani1972a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McDaniel (1972a).
STRUCTURE: Female derm membranous; body elongate; perivulvar pores present in 5 groups; medium group with from 1 to 2 pores; lateral groups with from 4 to 6 in a group. Median lobes well developed (McDaniel, 1972a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes boguschi may be separated from other Lepidosaphes species by the presence of the sclerotized bosses on the abdominal segments and the double row of microducts on abdominal segment 6. In North America, it is similar to L. beckii in having the sclerotized bosses on abdominal segments 1, 2 and 4, but differs in the presence of a boss on abdominal segment 5 and the double row of microducts on segment 6 (McDaniel, 1972a).
KEYS: McDaniel 1972a: 323 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: McDani1972a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 323-324, 326]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349].
Lepidosaphes buzenensis (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) buzenensis Kuwana, 1909: 155-156. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Buzen, on unidentified vine, ?/06/1907, by S. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types assumed lost.
Lepidosaphes buzenensis; Sasscer, 1911: 71. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus foveolata [Takaha1955e], Ficus nipponica [Takagi1960], Ficus pumila [Takagi1960]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Kyushu [Kuwana1909]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana (1909).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, straight, widening gradually toward posterior extremity, dark brown, opaque, with very narrow irregular flattened border, which is whitish gray and transversely marked by curved lines of growth. Exuviae pale yellow, subtransparent, occupying about one third the total length of the scale. 1st exuviae oval; segmentation distinct. Ventral scale incomplete, broadly divided. Male scale resembles female, but is smaller. Adult female long, elliptical, lateral margins nearly straight, slightly wider toward posterior end (Kuwana, 1909).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes buzenensis is allied to L. gloverii, but the large second exuviae and rather short scale widening gradually toward posterior extremity are good characters for separating it from the latter (Kuwana, 1909).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 284 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; Kawai1972 [distribution: 32]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1909 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 155-156]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41]; Kuwana1931b [distribution: 167]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 158]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 284]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 80]; Sassce1911 [distribution, taxonomy: 71]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76, 91]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70].
Lepidosaphes camelliae HokeNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes camelliae Hoke, 1921: 339-340. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Big Point, on Camellia joponica, 29/06/1917, by R.L. Eberhard; 25/06/1918, by J.C. Roberts; Laurel Hill, 19/10/1918, by J.S. McGhee; Magnolia, 01/09/1920, by W.M. Lampton; Moss Point, 27/12/1918, by G.B. Bowen. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Additional syntypes from South Pascagoula, ?/01/1921, by R.P. Barnhart & E.K. Bynum; Woodville, ?/?/1920, by J.C. Hamilton
Mytilococcus camelliae; Lindinger, 1958: 369. Change of combination.
Insulaspis camelliae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: camellia parlatoria scale [Koszta1996]; camellia scale [Hewitt1943].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Hispaniella lauri [Koszta1996].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Cupressus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Raphiolepis sp. [Merril1953, MillerDa2005]. Ternstroemiaceae: Cleyera sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005], Ternstroemia sp. [Merril1953, MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Hoke1921], Camellia oleifera [Tao1999], Camellia sasanqua [BesheaTiHo1973], Camellia sp. [McDani1972a, MillerDa2005], Ilex cornuta [BesheaTiHo1973], Thea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Alabama [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Arkansas [MillerDa2005], California [Hewitt1943, MillerDa2005] (this species has been eradicated in California), Connecticut [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Koszta1996], Florida [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Georgia [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Hoke1921, MillerDa2005], Missouri [MillerDa2005], New York [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Oregon [SchuhMo1948, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1972a, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Cuba [Merril1953]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hunan [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China [MillerDa2005]; Japan [Clause1931, MillerDa2005] (Honshu [Muraka1970], Kyushu [Muraka1970]).
BIOLOGY: L. camelliae has 4 to 5 annual generations (Gill, 1997). In Georgia, Cooper and Oetting (1989) studied the life history of the camellia scale and estimated that there were 4 or 5 overlapping generations. At 25 C, development from egg hatching to the adult on Camellia japonica was about 29 days for males and 23 days for females. Females reared at this temperature laid about 96 eggs which hatched in about 10 days. In Alabama, English and Turnipseed (1940) found that females deposit 25-55 eggs which hatched in 11-24 days. The first molt occurred 12-27 days after hatching, and the second molt occurred 6-10 days later. Eggs were deposited 38-54 days after the eggs of the previous generation hatch. The life cycle was completed in 60 to 70 days. English and Turnipseed (1940) found the camellia scale to be less active than the tea scale on camellia in the winter. Few crawlers appeared from October to March on plants grown outdoors, but hatching continued in cold frames. Because of overlapping generations, all stages of the scale were present in the summer months. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of first and second instars of both sexes by Liu et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale brown, broadest at posterior end, straight or curved, usually straight when not crowded; ventral scale white, median portion usually adhering to host plant. Male scale similar to female, but smaller and darker, sides more nearly parallel; exuviae and posterior hinged portion each occupying one fourth of total length of scale. Adult female twice as long as broad, broadest through pre-abdominal segments; gland tubercle numerous along lateral portion of pre-abdominal segments and along lateral margin of metathorax and caudal portion of lateral margin of mesothorax, extending mesad from margin as far as metaspinacles (Hoke, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes camelliae is close to L. euryae, but differs from it in having the plates of the 3rd incisura well developed, never smaller than the other plates and usually much longer and larger (Hoke, 1921). Ferris (1937) states that this species has probably been often misidentified as L. newsteadi.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Dekle (1977) states the camellia scale is occasionally a serious pest on camellia and holly in central and northern Florida. English and Turnipseed (1940) report that this pest may severely damage young plants and cuttings in nurseries. Even though it does not discolor leaves in heavy infestations, the foliage is devitalized and leaves drop prematurely. Cooper and Oetting (1989) consider it to be a pest in Georgia. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be a serious pest in a small area of the world. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Gill 1997: 169 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab 1996: 518 (female) [Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 336 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; McDaniel 1972a: 323 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 92 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 70 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 5 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [economic importance: 242]; Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 84]; BesheaTi1977 [distribution, host: 181]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 290, 310]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 176-177]; Chou1986 [illustration: 572]; Clause1931 [distribution, host: 77]; Creigh1942 [distribution: 228]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; Davids1974 [chemical control: 3]; DeitzTo1980 [p. 44]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12, 78]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-72]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-146]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:56]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 24]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 21]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 169, 171, 178]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 267]; Hoke1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 339]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 579]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 196]; Hunt1939 [distribution: 556]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 32]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 242]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 518-519]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 7-9]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 369]; LiuCoOe1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-13]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 55]; McComb1986 [distribution, host: 61]; McCombDa1969 [taxonomy: 2]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 324-325]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 119]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-55]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 241-242]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 248]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 81]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 47]; Newell1927 [distribution, host: 64]; Paik1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Schief2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-7]; SchuhMo1948 [chemical control, distribution, host: 49]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SwanPa1972 [distribution, economic importance, taxonomy: 164]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 92]; Takaha1939b [taxonomy: 268]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 71]; Tang1977 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 216]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Wang1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 181]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 49, 51, 52]; Westco1973 [description, economic importance: 393]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes caribaeae Williams & Miller in Miller, Williams & DavidsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes caribaeae Williams & Miller in Miller, Williams & Davidson, 2006: 26-29. Type data: TRINIDAD: Valencia on Pinus caribaea, 24/5/1975 by F.D. Bennett. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: In addition there are 8 paratype adult female specimens with same data (1 specimen in USNM, others in BMNH) and 9 paratype adult females labelled JAMAICA: Mt. Airy Nursery on Pinus caribaea, by S.K. Kazimi, 2/6/1975 (1 specimen in USNM, other in BMNH).
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus caribaea [MillerWiDa2006].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Jamaica [MillerWiDa2006]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [MillerWiDa2006]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Good description and illustration in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006) Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
SYSTEMATICS: This species is similar to L. pallida in many respects in the general distribution of dorsal ducts but, whereas L. pallida possesses only a single slender dorsal duct anterior to each second lobe, L. caribaeae also had a similar duct medially anterior to the gland spines between the median lobes. The widely-spaced dorsal submarginal ducts on abdominal segment VI in L. caribaeae are similar in position to those of L. murreeana and differ in position to the paired submedial ducts on abdominal segment VI in L. pallida. Furthermore, there are lateral swellings or tubercles on the margins of abdominal segments II-IV in L. caribaeae but only on abdominal segments III and IV in L. pallida. Sometimes those swellings in L. caribaeae have a minute sclerotized point at the apex, which is always absent in L. pallida. Although L. pallidula possesses lateral abdominal spurs on segments II and sometimes III, the submedial ducts on abdominal segment VI are at the base of the pygidium, near the anal opening, whereas in L. caribaeae the ducts are often widely spaced and submarginal in position. A striking character of L. caribaeae is the anterior head margin with numerous minute spinules similar in several other conifer-infesting species (L. okitsuensis, L. piniphila), and L. pitysophila).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: MillerWiDa2006 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-29, 36, 40-42].
Lepidosaphes carolinensis BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes euryae; Takahashi, 1936c: 117. Misidentification; discovered by Beardsley, 1966: 537.
Lepidosaphes carolinensis Beardsley, 1966: 537-539. Type data: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA: Yap Island, Yap, on Alocasia sp., 02/07/1956, by McDaniel. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM.
HOSTS: Araceae: Alocasia sp. [Beards1966]. Cycadaceae: Cycas sp. [Beards1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Beards1966], Yap [Beards1966]); Palau [Beards1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Beardsley (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 1.0-1.3 mm long. Body moderately elongate, fusiform, widest across abdominal segment 1. Pygidium with median lobes moderately small, apical margin rounded, entire, mesal and sometimes outer margin with a slight notch (Beardsley, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes carolinensis is allied to L. euryae. Both are relatively robust species without conical spines or minute spicules on the head, but otherwise similar to L. tubulorum and others which possess characteristic minute dorsal tubular ducts and an elongate dorsal sclerosis extending posteriorly from anal opening. However, L. euryae differs from L. carolinensis in that it lacks sclerotized spines on lateral margins of abdominal segments 2 to 4 and has fewer dorsal microducts and fewer perispiracular disc pores (Beardsley, 1966).
KEYS: Beardsley 1966: 535 [Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 537-539]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Takaha1936c [distribution, host: 117].
Lepidosaphes cassiniae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis cassiniae Green, 1905b: 4-5. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Cassinia aculeata, by R. Brown. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 62. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes cassiniae; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination.
HOST: Asteraceae: Cassinia aculeata [Green1905b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1905b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Green (1905b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, sides subparallel, often curved, dull reddish brown. Exuviae reddish, almost concealed, 2.75-3.5 mm long. Male scale similar in color, but shorter and straighter, about 1 mm. Adult female deep reddish-brown (Green, 1905b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 284 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 607]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Green1905b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 4-5]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 17].
Lepidosaphes casuarinae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis casuarinae Maskell, 1893b: 209. Type data: AUSTRALIA: on Casuarina sp., Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes casuarinae; Fernald, 1903b: 306. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis casuarinae; MacGillivray, 1921: 288. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) casuarinae; Froggatt, 1933: 363. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus casuarinae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Scrupulaspis) casuarinae; Fulmek, 1943: 52. Change of combination.
Poliaspis casuarinae; Lindinger, 1943a: 149. Change of combination. Homonym of Poliaspis casuarinae Lidgett 1898a.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Baeoanusia marginiscutellum [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina equisetifolia? [Maskel1895b], Casuarina lepidophloia [Frogga1933], Casuarina sp. [Maskel1893b], Casuarina suberosa [Frogga1933]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Frogga1933]. Santalaceae: Exocarpus cupressiformis [Frogga1933].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Maskel1893b] (New South Wales [Frogga1933], Queensland [Frogga1933], Western Australia [Frogga1933]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1893b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, convex, elongate, narrow. Exuviae terminal, orange-red. Male scale narrow, elongate, more flat than that of female, but without sign of carination, greyish; exuviae yellow. Adult female brown, elongate (Maskell, 1893b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1943a) moved "casuarinae" Maskell 1893b into the genus Poliaspis, however the species Poliaspis casuarinae Lidgett 1898a already existed. Because P. casuarinae Lidgett was a newer name, Lindinger replaced it with P. casuarinicola.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 288 [as Scrupulaspis casuarinae; Key to species of Scrupulaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 28 (female) [as Mytilaspis casuarinae; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis casuarinae; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48, 374]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 34]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 243, 306]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 607, 877]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 49]; Frogga1933 [distribution, host: 363-364]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 52, 77]; Laing1929 [distribution, taxonomy: 30]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 38-40]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Maskel1893b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 209]; Maskel1895b [host: 45-46].
Lepidosaphes caucasicus Hadzibejli nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes caucasicus Hadzibejli, 1957a: 100. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378.
HOST: Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Borchs1966]
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [taxonomy: 378]; Hadzib1957a [taxonomy: 100].
Lepidosaphes celtis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes celtis Kuwana, 1925a: 28-30. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Osaka, on Celtis sinensis var. japonica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes celti; Tao, 1999: 95. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Ulmaceae: Celtis sinensis japonica [Kuwana1925a], Celtis sp. [Takagi1960]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999] (Honshu [Kuwana1925a]).
BIOLOGY: Eggs are laid beneath the scale irregularly and hatch in the first part of June (Kuwana, 1925a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1925a) and Tang (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, convex, curved or straight, posterior end wider; tough, with lines of growth noticeable, dark brown; exuviae chestnut-brown. Male scale similar to female, but much smaller. Adult female elongate, not heavily chitinized, segmentation distinct, sides projected, white. Eggs are white also (Kuwana, 1925a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes celtis is related to L. kuwacola, but the arrangement of the dorsal gland orifices is quite different (Kuwana, 1925a).
KEYS: Paik 1978: 338 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [taxonomy: 177]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1165]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 32]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 245, 248]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; KSPP1972 [distribution, host: 107]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 28-30]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 338]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 94]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 25]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 71]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-201]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 206].
Lepidosaphes ceodes KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ceodes Kawai, 1972a: 26-30. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Chichi-jima, on Ceodes umbellifera. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: udonoki-kaki-kaigaramushi [Kawai1972a].
HOST: Nyctaginaceae: Ceodes umbellifera [Kawai1972a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kawai1972a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kawai (1972a).
STRUCTURE: Lepidosaphes ceodes has distinct dimorphic forms which are caused by the difference of feeding sites on the host. These dimorphic forms, however, are connected by diverse intermediate forms and there are no other difference sufficient to divide them into distinct species (Kawai, 1972a).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; Kawai1972a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-30]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 245-246].
Lepidosaphes chamaecyparidis Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes chamaecyparidis Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 98-99. Type data: JAPAN: Sikoku, Yanase, on Chamaecyparis obtusa, by S. Takagi; Honshu, Tokyo, on C. obtusa, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: fossil. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Chamaecyparis obtusa [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966], Shikoku [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Adult female body small in size, free abdominal segments hardly lobed laterally. Pygidium trapezoidal, with 2 pairs of well developed lobes, the 3rd reduced to mere marginal serrations (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes chamaecyparidis resembles L. japonica and L. maskelli, but is easily distinguishable from them by L2 with inner lobule quite large in comparison with L1 and with the outer lobule disproportionately narrow (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 32]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 239]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98-99].
Lepidosaphes chinensis ChamberlinNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes chinensis Chamberlin, 1925a: 85-86. Type data: CHINA: Guangdon, Canton, on Magnolia sp., 1925, by F. Silvestri. Holotype female. Type depository: San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, Department of Entomology, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH, UCDC and USNM.
Cornuaspis chinensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Chinese lepidosaphes scale [McKenz1956]; Chinese Mussel Scale [MalumpHaSa2012].
HOSTS: Asparagaceae: Beaucarnea recurvata Lem. [MalumpHaSa2012], Dracaena sanderiana Sander ex Mast. [MalumpHaSa2012], Sansevieria trifasciata Prain. [MalumpHaSa2012], Yucca elephantipes Regel ex Trel. [MalumpHaSa2012]. Convallariaceae: Liriope sp. [Tang1986]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus umbellata [Takaha1936a]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia elegans Spreng. [MalumpHaSa2012]. Fabaceae: Indigofera tinctoria [Tao1999]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [Chambe1925aJC]. Orchidaceae: Cymbidium aloifolium [Takaha1936a], Cymbidium sinense [MartinLa2011], Cymbidium sp. [Ferris1938a], Schomburgkia sp. [Nakaha1982]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp. [Hunt1939]. Verbenaceae: Caryopteris incana [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Ferris1938a] (Gill (1997) indicated that it has been eradicated.)). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Chambe1925aJC], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Shanghai [Takaha1936a]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Philippines [Hunt1939]; Singapore [Nakaha1982]; Taiwan [Takaha1936a]. Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [MalumpHaSa2012] (In a conservatory heated all year round to 30°C in a private property, near Northwich, Cheshire, England.)).
BIOLOGY: All developmental stages occur on the stems and foliage (upper and lower surfaces) of the host plant. It is sexually reproductive and each female lays between 32 and 38 eggs. All life stages (except adult males, although male pupae were present) were observed in November which suggests that it may have overlapping generations and be multivoltine if environmental conditions are favourable. There were approximately two male scale covers for every female scale, although the sex ratio varied considerably on different leaves. (Malumphy, et al., 2012)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a). Photographs in Malumphy, et al., 2012.
STRUCTURE: Female scale moderately broad. Male scale quite long and slender, both are light brown. Adult female about 0.9 mm long (Ferris, 1938a). The adult female scale covers are up to 3.0 mm in length, moderately broad, slightly convex, and pale to orange brown with a dark orange terminal exuviae. Adult female bodies are white with the margin of the pygidium yellow to orange. Male scale covers are much smaller and narrower than the female covers, up to 1.5 mm in length elongate oval, slightly convex, and pale brown with a dark orange terminal exuviae. Male prepupae and pupae are pale lilac, with their eyes deep purple. First instars (crawlers) of both sexes are white and their covers are also white. Second instar scale covers are brown with a dark orange terminal exuvia. (Malumphy, et al., 2012)
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes chinensis may most easily be confused with L. ulmi and L. beckii. It may be distinguished from the latter by the presence of marginal spurs, which are lacking in the L. beckii and by the presence of bosses on segments 1 to 5, while in L. beckii these bosses are present only on segments 1, 2 and 4 (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 155 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 41]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Chambe1925aJC [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 85-86]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155, 171-172]; Chou1986 [illustration: 573]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282-283]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-143]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:56]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 168, 171, 179]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 150]; Hunt1939 [distribution, host: 556]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kozarz1974 [host: 23]; Mackie1935 [distribution, host: 428]; MalumpHaSa2012 [description, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 1943.1-1943,11]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 119]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 47]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Ryan1946 [distribution, economic importance: 125]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 13]; Takaha1931b [taxonomy: 380]; Takaha1936a [distribution, host: 220]; Takaha1955e [taxonomy: 70, 71]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 276]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 82]; Wu1935 [distribution: 239]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 200, 209].
Lepidosaphes chitinosa LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) chitinosus Lindinger, 1909e: 34-35. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Berlinia sp., 1904. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes chitinosus; Sasscer, 1911: 71. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis (Coccomytilus) chitinosus; Vayssière, 1913: 431. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus chitinosus; MacGillivray, 1921: 294. Change of combination.
Chionaspis chitinosa; Lindinger, 1933: 32. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Lepidosaphes chitinosa; Pellizzari & Williams, 2013: 409. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
HOST: Fabaceae: Berlinia sp. [Lindin1909e]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Scale 1.8 mm long and 1.8 mm wide. Female larva elliptical, 0.43 mm long and 0.29 mm wide (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 294 (female) [as Coccomytilus chitinosus; Species of Coccomytilus].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 509, 549, 555]; Laing1929 [taxonomy: 33]; Leonar1914 [distribution: 211]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34-35]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1933 [taxonomy: 32]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 294]; PellizWi2013 [taxonomy: 409]; Sassce1911 [taxonomy: 71]; Vayssi1913 [host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Lepidosaphes citrina (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Insulaspis citrina Borchsenius, 1964: 160. Type data: INDIA: Haryana, near New Delhi, on Citrus sp., 16/08/1957, by N. Alexandrov. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes citrina; Borchsenius, 1966: 62. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Indian citrus scale [Borchs1964].
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Borchs1964]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Haryana [Borchs1964]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light brown, narrow, 2.2-2.4 mm long. Male scale 1.2 mm long. Adult female body elongate, pyriform (Borchsenius, 1964).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes citrina is close to L. gloverii, but is easily differentiated by wider body, absence of abdominal tubercles with spines, size of dorsal and abdominal glands and by the shape of the pygidial lobes (Borchsenius, 1964).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 51]; Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160, 168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48].
Lepidosaphes clerodendri TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes clerodendri Takagi, 2003: 88-89. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Perlis, Anak Chelong. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML407. Described: female.
HOST: Verbenaceae: Clerodendron villosum [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the lower surface of the leaves on the sides ofthe veins, which are densely hairy; tests visible in situ, but apparently burrowing under the hairs, dull brown, the dorsal surface coarse with growing lines. Males present on the upper surface of the leaves; tests brown. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body rather robust, fusiform, with the free segments moderately lobed laterally, and with the pygidium broad obdeltate, slightly rounded marginally. Prepygidial derm membranous; dorsal surface of the pygidium sclerotic on a broad median area, the ventral surface with 2 pairs of sci erotized areas arising from the bases of the median and second trullae and with a pair of slender sclerotic patches laterally to them. No dorsal bosses present. Antennae situated between the frontal margin and the mouth-parts, separated from each other by a space narrower than the frame of the mouthparts, each with 3 or 4 setae, which are usually sub equal in size. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 87,88-89, 107, 145-1].
Lepidosaphes cocculi (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis cocculi Green, 1896e: 81-82. Type data: SRI LANKA: Kandy, on Cocculus macrocarpus, ?/07/????. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes cocculi; Fernald, 1903b: 307. Change of combination.
Cephalaspis cocculi; MacGillivray, 1921: 286. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis occuli; MacGillivray, 1921: 286. Misspelling of species name.
Mytilococcus cocculi; Lindinger, 1958: 366. Change of combination.
Parainsulaspis cocculi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: cocculus scale [VelasqRi1969].
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigritus [YunusHo1980].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Plumeria acuminata [Takaha1939b]. Arecaceae: Hyophorbe verschaffeltii [Takaha1939b]. Cycadaceae: Cycas circinalis [Takaha1939b]. Euphorbiaceae: Hevea brasiliensis [YunusHo1980], Hevea sp. [Rao1965]. Gnetaceae: Gnetum luofuense [MartinLa2011]. Lecythidaceae: Lecythis ollaria [YunusHo1980]. Melastomaceae: Sonerila rudis [YunusHo1980]. Menispermaceae: Cocculus macrocarpus [Green1896e]. Oleaceae: Erythropalum scandens [Robins1917]. Orchidaceae: Dendrobium [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Takaha1939b]); Palau [Takaha1939b]. Oriental: Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Philippines [Cocker1905f]; Sri Lanka [Green1896e]; Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1938).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, widening very gradually towards the posterior extremity; dark purplish brown, opaque, with narrow irregular paler flattened border; dorsal scale transversely marked by curved lines of growth, the more prominent of which are a paler color. Male scale similar to female, but smaller; lines of growth not so pronounced, pale transverse band marking the position of the usual hinge near the posterior extremity. Ventral scale greenish, well developed and rather solid, with a broad median longitudinal division. Adult female whitish, abdominal extremity reddish; cephalic extremity narrowest. Eggs white (Green, 1896e).
SYSTEMATICS: Beardsley (1975) states that it is possible that both Lepidosaphes mcgregori and L. cocculi may be identical to L. laterochitinosa, if so, the name L. cocculi (Green) would have priority.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Rao (1965) lists Lepidosaphes cocculi as a pest on rubber. Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Robinson 1917: 34 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [as Mytilaspis cocculi; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Green 1896e: 77 (female) [as Mytilaspis cocculi; Key to species of Mytilaspis of Ceylon].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 62]; Beards1966 [taxonomy: 537]; Beards1975 [taxonomy: 661]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Cocker1905f [distribution, host: 135]; Esaki1940 [distribution, host: 414]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 38]; Green1896e [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77, 81-82]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 327]; Kuwana1925a [taxonomy: 19]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 29, 54-55]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 158]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Rao1965 [economic importance, host: 30]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 36-37]; Shirak1913 [taxonomy: 99]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 1]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; Takaha1941b [distribution, host: 219]; Takaha1942b [distribution: 42]; Takaha1942d [taxonomy: 357]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 53]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 9]; YunusHo1980 [biological control, distribution, host: 34, 153, 192].
Lepidosaphes colchicum Hadzibejli nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes colchicum Hadzibejli, 1957a: 102. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378.
HOST: Rosaceae: Prunus sp. [Borchs1966]
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 378]; Hadzib1957a [taxonomy: 102].
Lepidosaphes conchiformis (Gmelin)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus conchiformis Gmelin, 1790: 2221. Type data: on Ulmus sp. Unknown type status. Described: female. Notes: Type material presumed lost (Matile-Ferrero, personal communication, December 2, 1999).
Diaspis conchiformis; Targioni Tozzetti, 1867: 14, 22. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis saliceti; Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 737. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 53.
Mytilaspis conchiformis; Signoret, 1870: 93. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis ficus Signoret, 1870: 94-95. Type data: FRANCE: Cannes, Alpes-Maritimes. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1912b: 153. Notes: Types probably lost.
Mytilaspis minima Newstead, 1897a: 95. Type data: ALGERIA: Mansourah, ON Ficus carica, 24/10/1895. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female and first instar. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1912b: 153.
Mytilaspis ficifolii Berlese, 1903: 3-5. Type data: ITALY: Portici, Calabria, on Ficus carica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lupo, 1943: 196-205.
Lepidosaphes ficus; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes minima; Fernald, 1903b: 311. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ficifolii; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) ficus; Newstead, 1906: 72. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ficifoliae ulmicola Leonardi, 1907b: 168. Type data: ITALY: Portici. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 69.
Lepidosaphes conchiformis; Lindinger, 1912b: 97. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) ficus; Hall, 1922: 38. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) minima; Hall, 1922: 39. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes conchyformis; Balachowsky, 1927: 181. Misspelling of species name.
Lepidosaphes rubri Thiem, 1931: 557. Type data: GERMANY: Naumberg, on Carpinus betulae. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1933c: 167.
Lepidosaphes conchiformis ulmi Koroneos, 1934: 70-71. Type data: GREECE: Larissa, Athens, Volos, on Ulmus campestris, Celtis australis, Ficus carica and Pistacia terebinthus. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 65. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Mytilococcus ficifoliae; Lupo, 1939: 124. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Mytilococcus ficifoliae ulmicola; Lupo, 1939: 124. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Mytilococcus conchiformis; Lupo, 1939: 72, 96. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes rubi; Pflugfelder, 1939: 73. Misspelling of species name.
Mytilococcus minimus; Bodenheimer, 1943: 6. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus conchyformis; Bodenheimer, 1949: 122. Misspelling of species name.
Lepidosaphes conchyformis minima; Balachowsky, 1954e: 69. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes turkmenica Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1955: 304. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 271. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1963: 1173.
Lepidosaphes conchiformioides Borchsenius, 1958a: 168-169. Type data: CHINA: Hubei, Wuhan, on Prunus mume, 14/12/1954, by N. Borchsenius; NORTH KOREA: Sariwon, on Malus, 23/07/1950, by N. Borchsenius sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 271. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 269.
Mytilaspis conchiformioides; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis rubri; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
Insulaspis minima; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes conchiformes; Gill, 1997: 17. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille virgule du figuier [Foldi2001]; fig oystershell scale [KosztaKo1988F]; fig scale [AAEE1937, Blicke1965]; greater fig mussel scale [Bodenh1924]; Mediterranean fig scale [Essig1926]; pear oystershell scale [KSPP1972]; red oystershell scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [HertinSi1972], Hemisarcoptes sp. [HertinSi1972]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bivulnerus [SchildSc1928], Chilocorus stigma [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Pharoscymnus flexibilis [GhaniMu1974]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. HEMIPTERA Miridae: Pilophorus cinnamopterus [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus mytilaspidis [Balach1925a], Aphytis chrysomphali [KosztaKo1988F], Aphytis hispanicus [Yasnos1978], Aphytis maculicornis [AhmadGh1971], Aphytis melinus [AhmadGh1972], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis proclia [KosztaKo1988F], Aphytis sp. [Ebelin1959], Azotus atomon [KosztaKo1988F], Azotus pinifoliae [HertinSi1972], Coccophagoides similis [KosztaKo1988F], Coccophagus insidiator [KosztaKo1988F], Hispaniella lauri [KosztaKo1988F], Physcus testatus [Yasnos1968], Prospaltella leucaspidis [HertinSi1972], Pteroptrix dimidiata [KosztaKo1988F]. Encyrtidae: Adelelencyrtus chionaspidis [AhmadGh1972], Apterencyrtus microphagus [HertinSi1972], Cheiloneurus microphagus [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972], Zaomma lambinus [JaposhCe2010]. Mymaridae: Anaphes gracilis [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer pseudoplatanus [Schmut1952], Acer sp. [MillerDa2005]. Anacardiaceae: Pistacia sp. [Komosi1969a, MillerDa2005], Pistacia terebinthus [Korone1934]. Betulaceae: Betula alba [Balach1934c], Betula sp. [MillerDa2005], Betula verrucosa [Schmut1952], Carpinus betulae [Thiem1931], Carpinus caucasica [TerGri1962], Carpinus orientalis [Hadzib1950], Carpinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Corylus avellana [Schmut1952], Corylus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cannabaceae: Celtis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Tachik1962], Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus orientalis [BenDov2012], Elaegnus angustifolia [Tang1984b]. Euphorbiaceae: Ricinus communis [AhmadGh1971]. Fabaceae: Ceratonia siliaqu [Bodenh1924], Wistaria sp. [Nakaha1982]. Fagaceae: Castanea sativa [Terezn1966], Fagus betulus [Borchs1939a], Fagus sylvatica [Terezn1966], Fagus taurica [Terezn1968c]. Juglandaceae: Juglans regia [Terezn1959], Juglans sp. [Komosi1969a, MillerDa2005]. Linaceae: Reinwardtia trigyna [AhmadGh1971]. Lythraceae: Punica granatum [GhabboMo1996]. Malvaceae: Althea sp. [Nakaha1982]. Meliaceae: Melia azedarach [AhmadGh1971]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Newste1897a, Balach1927, BenDov2012], Ficus lyrata [Martor1976], Morus alba [BognarVi1979]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus excelsior [Schmut1952], Fraxinus ornus [BognarVi1979], Fraxinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Olea sp. [DanzigPe1998], Syringa emodi [Schmut1952], Syringa sp. [MillerDa2005], Syringa vulgaris [Komosi1969a]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus spina-christi [BenDov2012]. Rosaceae: Cerasus sp. [Borchs1960b], Crataegus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Cydonia sp. [Nakaha1982], Eriobotrya japonica [SismanUl2010], Malus pumila [Muraka1970], Malus sp. [Borchs1958a, MillerDa2005], Prunus domestica [Efimof1937], Prunus glandulosa [Paik1978], Prunus mume [Borchs1958a], Prunus persica [Paik1978], Pyrus communis [Efimof1937], Pyrus malus [Efimof1937], Pyrus serotina [Muraka1970], Pyrus sp. [Takagi1960, MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus acida [AhmadGh1971], Citrus medica [GhaniMu1974]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [BenDov2012]. Styracaceae: Styrax officinale [Bodenh1924]. Tiliaceae: Tilia argentea [BognarVi1979], Tilia cordata [Komosi1969a], Tilia euchlora [Komosi1969a], Tilia platyphyllos [Thiem1931], Tilia sp. [Komosi1969a, MillerDa2005]. Ulmaceae: Celtis campestris [Korone1934], Celtis caucasica [TerGri1962], Ulmus campestris [Korone1934, Foldi2002], Ulmus foleaceae [Hadzib1983], Ulmus scabra [Terezn1968c], Ulmus sp. [Komosi1969a, MillerDa2005], Zelkova sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [AhmadGh1971]. Nearctic: United States of America (California [SchildSc1928, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Nakaha1982], Maryland [Nakaha1982], Missouri [Nakaha1982]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda [Green1915a, MalumpBa2012] (It is no longer known to occur in Britain. (Malumphy, et al., 2012)); Argentina [Lizery1938, MillerDa2005]; Chile [Porter1912, MillerDa2005]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Martor1976]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Borchs1958a], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1971, MillerDa2005]; Taiwan [BazaroSh1971]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Algeria [Newste1897a]; Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Azerbaijan [Borchs1937a]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968, KozarNa1998]; China [Ali1970] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Gansu (=Kansu) [Tang1984b], Hebei (=Hopei) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Liaoning [Hua2000], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tang1984b]); Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Czech Republic [KosztaKo1988F]; Egypt [Hall1922, Ghabbo2001]; Finland [Hellen1921]; France [Ferris1937, Foldi2001, Foldi2002]; Georgia [Hadzib1950]; Germany [Thiem1931]; Greece [Korone1934]; Hungary [Danzig1972, KozarKoFe2013]; Iran [Kaussa1948, KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Iraq [Bodenh1944a, MillerDa2005]; Israel [AhmadGh1971, MillerDa2005]; Italy [Sander1906, LongoMaPe1995, MillerDa2005]; Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1925a, Takagi1960], Kyushu [Muraka1970], Shikoku [Tachik1962]); Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; North Korea [Borchs1958a]; Poland [Komosi1969a, SimonKa2011]; Portugal [Seabra1918, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [Kozar1985]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, PellizFo1996]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Garcia1930]; Switzerland [KosztaKo1988F]; Syria [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Turkey [Bodenh1924, MillerDa2005]; USSR [MillerDa2005]; Ukraine (Zakarpat'ye (=Transcarpathia) Oblast [Terezn1959c]).
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes conchiformis has two generations annually, overwintering in the fertilized female adults. The female deposits about 60 eggs beneath the scale irregularly in the next April. The eggs hatch in May to June (first generation) and in August to September (second generation) (Murakami, 1970). Lupo (1943) discovered that this species has a leaf form and stem form that are quite different morphologically. Stafford and Barnes (1948) studied the fig scale on Adriatic figs in the vicinity of Fresno, CA. They found about 5% of the overwintering twig-inhabiting females were ovipositing in February when local almonds were in bloom. About 90% of the females were ovipositing when apricot blooms were falling. At this time Adriatic fig tree buds were about 3/4 inch long. Overwintering females on bark produced an average of 30.2 eggs each. Hatching began on April 5 and was nearly complete on June 24. Male crawlers settled mostly on the upper surfaces of leaves while female crawlers settled mainly on the lower leaf surfaces. Over 90% of the crawlers settle on leaves in this generation. Summer generation females on leaves produced an average of 12.4 eggs each which hatch from July to October. These crawlers tend to settle on twigs. Nearly all first generation males emerged by mid-July. Second generation males were present from late September to November. These males fertilized females on bark which became the overwintering generation. An overwintering, a first summer, and partial second summer generation are indicated on figs in Fresno, California. Bodenheimer (1924) reported 2 generations a year in Palestine. Komosinska (1975) reported only 1 generation a year in Poland. Fertilized adult females constitute the overwintering stage. Eggs are laid in May. Crawlers appear from mid-May to late June. Second instars occur from late June to late July. Male prepupae and pupae occur from late July to early August. Adult males appear around August and mate with adult females. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1925a), Ferris (1937), Balachowsky (1954e), Borchsenius (1958a). Description and illustration of first-instar nymph by Ghabbour (2001).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light brown, small, wide posteriorly, 1.2-2.7 mm long, curved or straight, often distorted by pressure of surrounding leaf hairs. Male scale slender, membranous, white to purplish white, 0.7-1.0 mm long. Adult female fusiform, 0.7-1.4 mm long, membranous except for pygidium, but after completion of oviposition prepygidial abdominal segments distinctly sclerotized (Ahmad & Ghani, 1971). Eggs are white (Kuwana, 1925a). Female scale elongate, widened toward the posterior end, brown, 1.8-2.3 mm long. Male scale about 1.0 mm long. Adult female body elongate and widest at the anterior half of the abdomen, approximately 1.2 mm long and 0.6 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1958a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Stafford and Barnes (1948) reported that although heavy populations of fig scale occur on the leaves and twigs, little immediate damage results. Such populations, however, will result in fig fruit infestation, and this will seriously affect the market value of figs because the scales caused dark green spots on fruits. In 1944, infested fruit grown for canning had to be used for jam stock, and hence were worth only about 70% of their value canned. Ahmad and Ghani (1971) noted the fig scale seriously damaged Citrus, Malia, and Ricinus. Komosinska (1969) found that heavy infestations caused bark "ruptures" on Tilia. Chua and Wood (1990) suggest that this species is an important pest of figs. Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Ghabbour 2001: 78 (first instar) [as Lepidosaphes ficus; Key to first-instar nymphs of three species of Lepidosaphes]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 104 (female) [Key to Puerto Rican species of Lepidosaphes]; Gill 1997: 169 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab 1996: 518 (female) [as Lepidosaphes conchiformioides; Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 347 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 336 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 842 (female) [as Lepidosaphes rubri; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Borchsenius 1960b: 218 (female) [Key to species of coccid fauna of KNR]; Takagi 1960: 92 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 73 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Spain]; McKenzie 1956: 33 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ficus; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 70 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ficus, Lepidosaphes ficifoliae; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 30 (female) [Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1937 [taxonomy: 533]; AhmadGh1971 [biological control, description, distribution, illustration: 69-74]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 88]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1925a [biological control, distribution: 168]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 181]; Balach1932d [distribution, host: 18]; Balach1933e [distribution, host: 4]; Balach1934c [taxonomy: 130]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 35, 36, 41, 65-6]; BarnesSt1949 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 48-55]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60, 67-69]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Berles1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-5]; Blanch1939 [distribution, economic importance: 84]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 293, 310]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 48-49]; Bodenh1930a [biological control: 270, 275, 376, 378]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host: 6]; Bodenh1944a [distribution: 83]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122, 124-127]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 16]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 18]; Borchs1934 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 109]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 74, 78, 173, 245, 25]; Borchs1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 184-185]; Borchs1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168-169, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168, 1172]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 219, 253-254]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52-53, 55, 64]; BorchsBu1955 [distribution, host: 304]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 7, 12]; Bustsh1958 [distribution, host: 185, 187]; Bustsh1960 [distribution, host: 174]; Charli1972 [distribution, host: 215]; Chiesa1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 242, 262]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 174]; Chou1986 [illustration: 574]; Chou1986 [illustration: 594]; Clause1931 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 27]; Cocker1897o [host: 5]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106-107]; Colvee1881 [taxonomy: 30]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 123, 124]; Comsto1916 [distribution, taxonomy: 583, 584, 585]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Costan1937 [distribution, host: 239]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 12]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 842]; Danzig1972 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 269-272]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283-284]; DavidsDiFl1991 [chemical control, host: 27]; DeBach1962 [biological control, distribution: 71]; DeBach1964 [biological control, distribution, host: 679]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 145, 177]; DelassBaBr1927 [distribution, host: 167-168]; Dougla1886a [taxonomy: 27]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 373-374]; Efimof1937 [distribution, host: 48, 50, 66, 99]; Essig1926 [description, distribution: 306]; EssigHo1944 [distribution, host: 69]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308, 311]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-70, SI-73]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 5]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-144]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:56]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2002 [distribution: 247]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; FrankKr1900 [distribution, taxonomy: 99]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 52]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 152, 269]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; Ghabbo2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-78]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 348]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 351]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 55]; Ghesqu1933 [distribution, host: 346]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 169, 171-172, 180]; Gmelin1790 [host, taxonomy: 2221]; Goethe1884 [taxonomy: 118]; GomezM1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 163, 164, 169-171, 1]; GomezM1946 [distribution, host: 73]; GomezM1956 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73, 78-81]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Green1915a [distribution, host: 184]; Green1916 [distribution, host: 29]; Hadzib1965 [description, distribution, host: 4, 9, 10]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 169, 274]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-39]; Hall1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 49]; Hawkin1994 [biological control: 165]; Hellen1921 [distribution: 121]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 182]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 119]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 155]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 197-198]; Imamku1966 [distribution, host: 48]; JaposhCe2010 [distribution: 134]; Kaussa1948 [distribution, host: 7]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 32]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 152]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 245]; KnipscMiDa1976 [taxonomy: 1]; Komosi1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 267-269]; Komosi1974 [taxonomy: 344, 361]; Komosi1974a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15-19]; Komosi1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-148]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-72, 81, 83]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 517, 518, 520-521]; KosztaKo1978 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 348-350]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarKo1982 [host: 205]; KozarKoFe2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; KozarNa1998 [distribution, host: 56]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84-85]; KSPP1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Kuwana1925 [taxonomy: 7]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 5-7]; Lagows1998a [ecology: 65]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46-47]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 71-72]; Leonar1907b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168-169]; Leonar1918 [distribution, host: 211]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 163, 173, 175]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 379]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 97, 372, 373]; Lindin1932g [taxonomy: 225]; Lindin1933c [taxonomy: 167-168]; Lindin1933d [taxonomy: 39]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 63-64]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 158, 159]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 617]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 354]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 144]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 72, 96-101, 124]; Lupo1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196-205]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282, 283, 286]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, host: 33]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 5]; Mani1938 [biological control, host: 120]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 66]; Maranh1945 [taxonomy: 386]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 55, 56]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 117]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 2]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 121-122]; Melis1930 [distribution, host: 17]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 250]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 23]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 36]; Morgan1890a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 226, 230]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, life history: 81]; Myarts1972 [distribution, host: 54]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; Neves1936 [distribution, host: 199]; Newste1897a [p. 95]; Newste1901b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 194, 202]; Newste1906 [distribution, host: 70, 72]; Newste1907 [p. 55]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 211]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 336, 339-341]; Panis1981 [distribution, host: 8]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 266]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295]; Pflugf1939 [distribution, taxonomy: 73]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 102]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Porter1912 [distribution, host: 22-23]; PriesnHo1940 [distribution: 60]; PruthiMa1940 [biological control, distribution: 26]; RosenDe1978 [biological control: 111-112]; Roulla1917 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246-248]; Sander1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Sassce1923 [distribution: 155]; Savesc1961 [distribution, host: 30-31]; SchildSc1928 [taxonomy: 269]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 576]; Schmut1959 [distribution, taxonomy: 158, 167]; Seabra1918 [distribution, host: 9]; Seabra1941 [distribution, host: 8]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 14]; Signor1870 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 93-95]; Silves1939 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 811]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 240]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; StaffoBa1948 [distribution, host, life history: 567-598]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 92]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 25]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 8]; Takaha1955a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 208]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Targio1867 [taxonomy: 14, 22]; Targio1884 [taxonomy: 396]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29, 40, 73, 76]; Terezn1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 144]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71]; Thiem1931 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 557]; Thiem1933a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 640]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 23-24]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 63]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 215]; Tsalev1972 [distribution, host: 86]; Vappul1965 [distribution, host: 170]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 51]; ViggiaJe1985 [biological control, distribution: 879]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 401]; Willco1922 [distribution, host: 218]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 10]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 17]; Yang1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209, 212-213]; Yasnos1968 [biological control, distribution: 121]; Yasnos1978 [biological control, host: 482]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 425].
Lepidosaphes contorta LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes contorta Laing, 1929: 35-36. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Tasmania, Ross Midlands, on Acacia sp., by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Laing1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Tasmania [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, curved or twisted into various shapes, dark castaneous brown, often darker from adhering to bark debris or sometimes with a faint greyish appearance. Ventral scale ruptured in the middle, whitish grey, often left on bark when scale removed. Exuviae yellowish brown, nymphal exuviae much darker owing to a thin covering similar to puparium proper, 3 mm long. Adult female clearing completely in potash, membranous, pygidium somewhat darker, elongate oval, narrow in front, widest across 1st abdominal segment, the length considerably more than twice the breadth (Laing, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes contorta is similar to L. multipora (Laing, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36].
Lepidosaphes coreana (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Paralepidosaphes coreana Borchsenius, 1962b: 865-866. Type data: NORTH KOREA: Sariwan, on Acer sp., Syringa sp., 21/07/1950; Ku-pukchen, on Acer sp., 1/08/1950; Pkhen'ian, on Malus sp., all by N. Borchsenius. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes coreana; Takagi, 1970: 1. Change of combination.
Paralepidosaphes ulmicola Xu, 1981: 133-135. Type data: CHINA: Liaoning, Shenyang, on Ulmus pumila and Rosa rugosa, 1978. Syntypes, female. Type depository: SMIL. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 278.
Lepidosaphes ulmicola; Chou, 1985: 387. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Korean comma scale [Borchs1962b].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [Borchs1962b]. Fabaceae: Caragana chamlagu [Tang1986], Gleditschia sinensis [Tang1986]. Oleaceae: Syringa sp. [Borchs1962b]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Tao1999], Malus sp. [Borchs1962b], Rosa rugosa [Tang1984b]. Rutaceae: Zanthoxylum simulans [Tang1986]. Ulmaceae: Celtis bungeana [Tang1986], Ulmus pumila [Tang1984b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [Tang1984b] (Liaoning [Tang1986]); North Korea [Borchs1962b, FrancoRuMa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1962b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish, 1.0-2.5 mm long, mostly without exuviae and secretory part of scale, grayish delicate covering on top (Borchsenius, 1962b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes coreana is close to L. tubulorum, from which it is easily separated by the tinier dorsal glands in the median area of the abdomen and the strongly developed spines on sclerotized tubercules along sides of metathorax and abdomen (Borchsenius, 1962b).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1962b: 864 [as Paralepidosaphes coreana; Key to species of Paralepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1962b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 864, 865, 871]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1162]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39-40]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 161-162]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 387]; Chou1986 [illustration: 581, 589]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 2]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 19]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 278]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 9]; Xu1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133-135]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 206].
Lepidosaphes corni TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes corni Takahashi, 1957b: 111. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Cornus controversa, 25/07/1950, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis corni; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
Insulaspis corni; Kawai, 1980: 241. Change of combination.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus kuwanae [Kato1968].
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Euonymus alatus [Tao1999], Euonymus japonicus [Takagi1960]. Cornaceae: Cornus controversa [Takaha1957b]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Takagi1960]. Oleaceae: Jasminum sambas [Tang1986]. Rutaceae: Acronychia pedunculata [MartinLa2011]. Theaceae: Eurya emarginata [Takagi1960].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hubei (=Hupei) [Tao1999], Hunan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takagi1960]. Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1986], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tang1986]); Japan (Honshu [Takaha1957b], Kyushu [Takagi1960], Shikoku [Tachik1971]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1957b) and Hu et al. (1992).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body rather narrow, with the prepygidial segments a little convex laterally, not sclerotized. Antennae with 2 long setae (Takahashi, 1957b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes corni is close to L. maskelli, but is differentiated from that species chiefly by the presence of a blunt lateral tubercle on the prepygidial segments; and is different from L. japonica Kuwana, in the smaller second lobe and in the presence of a submarginal dorsal duct in front of the 2nd lobe. L. corni is also close to L. yanagicola, from which it may be separated by the shape of the pygidium. These two species appear to be closely related to L. sciadopitysi, from which they may be separated by having submedian dorsal ducts on the 2nd abdominal segment (Takagi, 1960).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 336 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 91 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 182]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 195]; Kato1968 [biological control, distribution, host: 29-38]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 32]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 161]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 241]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 81]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 336]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Tachik1971 [distribution, host: 34]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78-79, 91]; Takaha1957b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 277]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes cornuta Ramakrishna AyyarNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes cornutus Ramachandran & Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1934: 70. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1937: 147.
Lepidosaphes cornutus Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1937: 147. Type data: INDIA: North Arcot District, Thirukulum, on Piper betle. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes cornuta; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
COMMON NAME: betelvine scale insect [JoshiMa1966].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigritus [MuthukGo1965], Scymnus guimeti [MuthukGo1965].
HOST: Piperaceae: Piper betle [Ramakr1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Ramakr1936] (Rajasthan [JoshiMa1966], Tamil Nadu [MuthukGo1965]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is light to dark brown, with posterior end slightly broadened (Muthukrishnan & Gopalan, 1965).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes cornutus resembles L. piperis, but differs in the short tubercular spine on either side of the head (Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1937). Borchsenius (1966) treated this species as an incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Jalalu1999 [distribution, host: 150]; JoshiMa1966 [distribution, host: 566-567]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; MuthukGo1965 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 361-362]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 70]; Ramakr1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 351]; Ramakr1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 478]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 50].
Lepidosaphes corrugata GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes corrugata Green, 1904a: 209-210. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Coffea arabica, by Zimmerman. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Coffea arabica [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Green1904a]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dull black, thick and opaque; exuviae reddish-fulvous, exposed. Form widening gradually behind; outline usually sinuous; somewhat flattened above, with many curved transverse corrugations. Ventral scale stout; persistent along the margin; usually interrupted along the median line. Adult female broadest across abdominal segments, which are moderately produced at the margins. Median lobes of pygidium conspicuous, bluntly pointed, with irregularly crenulate or dentate edges (Green, 1904a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 283 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Green1904a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209-210]; Kalsho1981 [description, distribution, host: 174]; Koning1908 [distribution, taxonomy: 3]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283].
Lepidosaphes cortrioides (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis cortrioides Froggatt, 1914: 609. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Mittagong, on Acacia decurrens. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes cortrioides; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia decurrens [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover forming parallel ridges along the sides of the small branches, light reddish brown, straight, rather short, somewhat flattened along the dorsal surface. Exuviae pale yellow, shield-shaped. Adult female dull yellow, irregularly oval, tip of abdomen rounded, with two large irregularly rounded lobes projecting beyond the margin, widely separated from each other and somewhat serrate on the extremities. Pygidium thick and opaque (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 609]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 37].
Lepidosaphes crassa (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis crassa Froggatt, 1914: 609. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Bowral, on Melaleuca sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes crassa; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Melaleuca sp. [Frogga1914]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover snow white, pellicle dull yellow, peg-shaped, carinated, fitting closely into the base of the scale, covered with white secretion. Scale very convex, narrowed into a neck behind the 1st exuviae, the 2nd exuviae covered with white secretion forming the neck, swelling out, short and broadly rounded. Adult female light yellow, cephalic portion narrow rounded, rest oval, pygidium chitinous, other margin showing no distinct lobes, but indented round the edges in a crenulated pattern, the whole very finely striated (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 609]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 37].
Lepidosaphes crataegicola SavescuNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes crataegicola Savescu, 1985: 128-130. Type data: ROMANIA: Bucarest, on Crataegus oxyacantha, 1950. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bucarest: Academie des Sciences Agricoles et Forestieres, Romania. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rosaceae: Crataegus oxyacantha [Savesc1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Romania [Savesc1985].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Savescu (1985).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytiliform, with clear exuviae, 2.0-3.0 mm long and 0.50-0.77 mm long. Male scale is yellow with yellow exuviae, 1.0-1.2 mm long and 0.32-0.35 mm wide. Female body pyriform, opaque white, pygidium orange; 1.2-1.6 mm long and 0.62-0.70 mm wide (Savescu, 1985).
CITATIONS: FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Savesc1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128-130].
Lepidosaphes crotonifolii TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes crotonifolii Takagi, 2003: 87-88. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML457. Described: female.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Croton argyratus [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, burrowing under the dense cover of peltate scales, their presence being suggested by slight swellings on the cover; tests thin, pale in colour. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body rather slender, with abd I strongly lobed laterally; pygidium broad obdeltate, slightly roundish on the margin; prepygidial derm membranous; ventral surface of the pygidium with 2 pairs of sclerotized areas arising from the bases of the median and second trullae, and with 2 pairs of slender sclerotic patches more laterally. No dorsal bosses present. Antennae situated between the frontal margin and the mouth-parts, separated from each other by a space as wide as the frame of the mouthparts, each with 2 curved setae, of which one is smaller than the other. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: This species is well characterized by abd I being strongly lobed and the median and second trullae dentate. It reminded Takagi (2003) of Lepidosaphes abdominalis Takagi, in which, however, not only abd I but also the other free segments of the abdomen are strongly lobed. Takagi stated that in Borchsenius' classification, L. crotonifolii may belong to Mytilaspis.
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 87-88,107, 143-144].
Lepidosaphes crudiae LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes crudiae Lindinger, 1909e: 35-36. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Crudia zenkeri, 1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis crudiae; Vayssière, 1913: 431. Change of combination.
Triaspidis crudiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 278. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Crudia zenkeri [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Scale 2 mm long and 0.6 mm wide. Larva 0.38 mm long and 0.23 mm wide (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 278 (female) [as Triaspidis crudiae; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538, 549]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Lepidosaphes cupressi BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes cupressi Borchsenius, 1958a: 169-170. Type data: CHINA: Nankin, on Cupressus sp., 10/10/1954, by N. Shutova. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes foliicola Borchsenius, 1961a: 252. Unjustified replacement name for Lepidosaphes cupressi. Notes: Takagi (1962a) states that the name L. cupressi was once used by Coleman to describe an American species now placed in Lineaspis, but in 1963, Takagi changes his view, stating the following: "In 1961 Borchsenius rejected the name Lepidosaphes cupressi Borchsenius, 1958, as a junior secondary homonym of Leucaspis cupressi Coleman, 1903, giving the new name Lepidosaphes foliicola. So far as I am aware, Leucaspis cupressi Coleman is not a member of the genus Lepidosaphes Shimer, but belongs truly to the genus Lineaspis MacGillivray as Ferris already treated it in 1937. Accordingly, acting upon the ICZN, Article 59(c), the name Lepidosaphes cupressi Borchsenius should be restored as the valid name for the present species."
Cornuaspis cupressi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
FOES: ACARI Phytoseiidae: Ambylseius eharai [XuZhWu1995]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus aulacaspudus [XuZhWu1995].
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Takagi1962a]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus [Borchs1966]. Pinaceae: Cupressus sp. [Borchs1958a], Juniperus chinensis [Tao1999], Juniperus sp. [Takagi1962a], Pinus massoniana [Tang1986]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Tao1999], Rosa sp. [Borchs1966], Rubus sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [XuZhWu1995], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011] (Intercepted from Hong Kong at London Heathrow airport, U. The occurrence of this species in Hong Kong is somewhat uncertain.). Palaearctic: China [Borchs1958a]; Japan [Tao1999] (Honshu [Takagi1962a]).
BIOLOGY: Detailed description of life history by Xu et al. (1995).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1958a). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Female scale, strongly broadened toward the posterior end, approximately 2.2 mm long, brown. Adult female elongate, about 1.5 mm long and 0.7 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1958a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes cupressi is close to L. beckii, but can be told by the developed spines along the sides of the abdomen and large number of plates (Borchsenius, 1958a).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female); Chou 1982: 155 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 41]; Borchs1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 169-170, 175]; Borchs1961a [taxonomy: 252]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Chen1992 [distribution, host: 23]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155, 173-174]; Chou1986 [illustration: 576]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 150, 154]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 32-33]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 247-248]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 5]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 41]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 81]; Takagi1962a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-51]; Takagi1963 [taxonomy: 123]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 11]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 276]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 82]; XuZhWu1995 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 57-62]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 202, 209]; Yao1985 [physiology: 338].
Lepidosaphes cycadicola Kuwana in Kuwana & MuramatsuNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes cycadicola Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a: 651-652. Type data: TAIWAN: in Japan, Yokohama Customs, on Cycas revoluta. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Depidosaphes cycadicola; Takahashi, 1940: 26. Misspelling of genus name.
Lepidosaphes cicadicola; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 283. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [KuwanaMu1931a], Cycas sp. [Takagi1970]. Euphorbiaceae: Sapium sebiferum [Hua2000]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus fragrans [MartinLa2011]. Verbenaceae: Vitex negundo [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Tang1986]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Taiwan [KuwanaMu1931a]. Palaearctic: China (Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, dark brown. Pygidium of female large, well chitinized. Two pairs of lobes well formed; median pair much larger than the 2nd, rather close to each other, 2 or 3 notches on each side (Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes cycadicola is evidently close to L. beckii and L. cupressi. It is distinguishable from the former by having less numerous gland cones and by having a cluster of 2 or 3 ducts in front of the 2nd lobes. It can be told from the latter by having a lateral process only between 3rd and 4th abdominal segments and by the cluster of ducts in front of the 2nd lobe (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 155 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155, 160-161]; Chou1986 [illustration: 575]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; KuwanaMu1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 651-652, 658]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 9-11]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 28, 61]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 25]; Takaha1940 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 26-27]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 276]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 28, 69]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 206].
Lepidosaphes daphniphylli (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Paleomytilus daphniphylli Borchsenius, 1978: 110. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on Daphniphyllum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes daphniphylli; Danzig, 1993: 244. Change of combination.
HOST: Daphniphyllaceae: Daphniphyllum sp. [Borchs1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Borchs1978]).
CITATIONS: Borchs1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 110]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; Hua2000 [distribution: 156].
Lepidosaphes defecta (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis defecta Maskell, 1897: 304. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Darling Ranges, on unidentified host, by Mr. Lea. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis defecta tincta Maskell, 1897: 304. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Geraldton , on Hakea sp., by Mr. Lea. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 48.
Lepidosaphes defecta; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes defecta tincta; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis defecta; MacGillivray, 1921: 288. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus defectus; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
HOST: Proteaceae: Hakea sp. [Fuller1897b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Maskel1897]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1897).
STRUCTURE: Puparium of female snowy white, somewhat pyriform; pellicles yellow; texture loose. Male puparium similar, but more slender. Adult female yellowish-brown, elongate (Maskell, 1897).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 287 [as Scrupulaspis defecta; Key to species of Scrupulaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 28 (female) [as Mytilaspis defecta; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 13 (female) [as Mytilaspis defecta and as Mytilaspis defecta v. tincta; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 35, 44]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 609-610]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Laing1929 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 33-35]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 304].
Lepidosaphes diaspidiformis MalenottiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes diaspidiformis Malenotti, 1916b: 185-188. Type data: CHILE: Los Lagos, Llanquihue, on Myrceugenia planipes, 29/03/19??, by M.E. Bustos. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types presumed lost (Salvatore Marotta, personal communication, May 15, 2001).
Pseudoparlatorea diaspidformis; Lindinger, 1937: 194. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Myrceugenia planipes [Maleno1916b].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Chile [GonzalCh1968] (This species is native to Chile (Gonzalez & Charlin, 1968).) (Los Lagos [Maleno1916b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Malenotti (1916b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; Maleno1916b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-188].
Lepidosaphes dorsalis Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes dorsalis Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 99-101. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo and Hatizyo-sima, and Idu Islands, on Ilex integra, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex integra [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, prosoma being as long as the postsoma. Free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally. Pygidium trapezoidal, with 2 pairs of lobes (L1 and L2) well developed, the 3rd reduced to marginal serrations (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes dorsalis is close to L. noxia, but differs as follows: antenna with 3 setae, one of which is quite fine; metathorax with gland spines (gland tubercles) situated in the submedian region; and the perivulvar pores fewer (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 240]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 82]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99-101].
Lepidosaphes duponti GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes duponti Green, 1916f: 195-196. Type data: SEYCHELLES: Silhouette, on Cocos nucifera. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis duponti; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Dupont scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Green1916f].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Seychelles [Green1916f]. Australasian: Northern Mariana Islands [Dumble1954]. Oriental: Philippines [VelasqRi1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1916f).
STRUCTURE: Female cover brown, older examples have the median longitudinal area flattened or even slightly concave, the depressed area bordered on each side by a more or less well marked ridge which is usually of a deeper color than the other parts of the scale. Outside this ridge the sides fall away sharply and then expand into a narrow flattened margin. Other examples do not show this marked depression, but the darker lateral bands are indicated. 2.5-3.0 mm long, 1.0 mm wide. Male cover paler, with traces of lateral darker bands; no median depression, 1.5 mm long. Adult female broadest across the base of the abdomen. Lateral margins of abdominal segments moderately produced (Green, 1916f).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes duponti is characterized by the exceptionally large inner lobule of the duplex lateral lobes, which equals the median lobes in size (Green, 1916f).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 286 (female) [as Lepidosaphes duponti; Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [taxonomy: 540]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 43, 98]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Green1916f [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195-196]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 162]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 162]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197].
Lepidosaphes ellipticus Amerling nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilococcus ellipticus Amerling, 1858a: 103. Described: no description. Illust. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378.
Lepidosaphes ellipticus; Balachowsky, 1954e. Change of combination. Notes: Although Balachowsky (1954e) did not specifically move ellipticus into the genus Lepidosaphes the change in combination was made when he treated Mytilococcus as a junior synonym of Lepidosaphes.
HOST: Rosaceae: Prunus domestica [Amerli1858].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Czech Republic [Amerli1858].
CITATIONS: Amerli1858a [taxonomy: 103]; Borchs1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149].
Lepidosaphes elmerrilleae Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes elmerrilleae Williams & Watson, 1988: 148. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Morobe, Buso, on Elmerrillea [Elmerrillia] papuana, 13/10/1979, by J.H. Martin. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Magnoliaceae: Elmerrillia papuana [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval, 1.0 mm long, widest at 2nd abdominal segment, head rounded, apex of pygidium straight; minute sclerotized pointed tubercles present between metathorax and abdominal segment 1 and on anterior edges of lateral lobes of segments 2 to 4, each tubercle with an accompanying duct (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes elmerrilleae is related to L. pseudomachili, but differs in having fewer duct tubercles. In L. elmerrilleae these are present on the metathorax and the 1st and 2nd abdominal segments, but in E. pseudomachili they are present also on the mesothorax and 3rd abdominal segment (Williams & Watson, 1988). The generic name of the host was consistently misspelled in the original description as was the species epithet based on it.
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 147, 148].
Lepidosaphes esakii TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes esakii Takahashi, 1939b: 266-268. Type data: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA: Ponape, on Pandanus patina, 13/01/1938; Truk, Toloas, on Pandanus sp., 21/01/1938. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes duponti; Fullaway, 1946: 160. Misidentification; discovered by Beardsley, 1966: 539.
Parainsulaspis esakii; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Esaki scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Cocus nucifera [Takaha1941b]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus fragrans [Beards1966], Pandanus odoratissimus [WilliaWa1988], Pandanus patina [Takaha1939b], Pandanus sp. [Takaha1939b], Pandanus tectorius [Beards1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Takaha1939b], Kosrae (=Kusaie) [Beards1966], Ponape Island [Takaha1939b], Truk Islands [Takaha1939b]); Guam [Beards1966]; Kiribati [WilliaWa1988]; Marshall Islands [Dumble1954]; Northern Mariana Islands [Dumble1954] (Saipan Island [Takaha1941b]). Oriental: Philippines [VelasqRi1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1939b), Beardsley (1966) and Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 1.75 mm long, tending to be broadly oval, widest at mesothorax; lateral lobes of abdominal segments only moderately developed; head and pygidium rounded (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes esakii is close to L. duponti, but the median lobes of the latter are wider and closer together than in the former. The inner lobule of the second lobes of L. duponti is much wider than that of L. esakii (Beardsley, 1966).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region]; Beardsley 1966: 535 [Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 535, 539-540]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 60]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 43]; Fullaw1946 [taxonomy: 160]; Hunt1939 [host: 556]; Sugarm1972 [distribution: 288]; Takaha1939b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 266-268]; Takaha1941b [distribution, host: 218-219]; Takaha1942d [distribution, host: 355]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 148-150].
Lepidosaphes europae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes europae Mamet, 1956: 133-134. Type data: EUROPA ISLAND: near buildings of the meterological station, on a halophile tree, ?/06/1951. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis europae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
HOST: Monimiaceae: Tambourissa sp. [Matile1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Europa Island [Mamet1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1956).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female pale buff to dark. Male scale same color. Adult female about 1 mm long. Derm at full maturity somewhat sclerotized in frontal and ocular areas and from the posterior half of 1st abdominal segment to the 4th abdominal segments (Mamet, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes europae is close to L. newsteadi, from which it differs by the more numerous dorsal ducts in the submarginal and submedian groups of the abdominal segments (Mamet, 1956).
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Mamet1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133-134]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 55].
Lepidosaphes euryae (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis euryae Kuwana, 1902: 80-81. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Hikosan, on Eurya ochnacea, by I. Kuwana. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes euryae; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes euriae; Ehrhorn, 1913: 123. Misspelling of species name.
Parainsulaspis euryae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
Paralepidosaphes euryae; Tang, 1986: 278. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [YunusHo1980]. Celastraceae: Euonymus japonica [Muraka1970], Euonymus radicans [Muraka1970]. Theaceae: Cleyera ochnacea [Takaha1955e], Eurya emarginata [Takagi1960], Eurya japonica [Takagi1960], Eurya ochnacea [Kuwana1902], Thea sinensis [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Tang1986]); Vietnam [Tao1999]. Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Shinji1936b], Kyushu [Kuwana1902], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana (1902).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female 3.0-4.0 mm long, narrow, widened posteriorly, straight, sometimes curved; dark brown. First skin pale brown, showing segmentation distinctly, second skin more or less covered by the secretion. Adult female 1.35 mm long, 0.6 mm wide, pale brown, posterior region yellow (Kuwana, 1902).
SYSTEMATICS: References of Lepidosaphes euryae on Cycas are probably misidentifications of L. carolinensis (Beardsley, 1966).
KEYS: Paik 1978: 339 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Ehrhor1913 [taxonomy: 123]; Esaki1940 [host: 414]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Ferris1936 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8]; Hua2000 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 250]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80-81]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 82]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 339]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 94-95]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 90, 94]; Takaha1939b [distribution, taxonomy: 265, 272]; Takaha1942d [taxonomy: 357]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 72]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 278]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 102-103]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34].
Lepidosaphes eurychlidonis Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes eurychlidonis Williams & Watson, 1988: 150-153. Type data: INDONESIA: Irian Jaya, Biak, on herbaceous vine, 24/05/1959. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]); Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, 2.5 mm long, dark brown, exuviae pale brown to pale yellow. Male scale about 1.5 mm long, fusiform, pale yellow. Adult female membranous except for pygidium, up to 1.2 mm long, elongate, fusiform, widest at metathorax (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes eurychlidonis resembles L. tapleyi, but differs in lacking the lateral spurs between segments 2 and 3. Furthermore, the duct immediately above each 2nd lobe is about half the width of a dorsal duct and has a conspicuous sclerotized orifice. In L. tapleyi the duct in this position is filamentous and the orifice is barely perceptible (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 150-151, 153].
Lepidosaphes flava (Signoret)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis flava Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 737. Described: female. Nomen nudum; discovered by Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 285.
Mytilaspis flava Signoret, 1870: 96-97. Type data: ITALY: on Olea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Notes: Although some workers have treated Targioni Tozzetti as the author of flava (Signoret 1870, Borchsenius, 1966), Targioni Tozzetti's treatment is not a valid description and Signoret is the true author of the species.
Lepidosaphes flava; Kirkaldy, 1902: 111. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes destefanii Leonardi, 1907b: 167-168. Type data: ITALY: Palermo, on Phillyrea media, by T. DeStefani. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1963: 1168.
Scrupulaspis destefanii; MacGillivray, 1921: 289. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis fulva; Borg, 1922: 82. Misspelling of species name.
Lepidosaphes palaestinensis Bodenheimer, 1924: 50. Type data: ISRAEL: near Tel-Aviv, on Olea europaea. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Bodenheimer, 1953: 16. Notes: No syntypes in ICVI.
Lepidosaphes conchiformis phillyreae Koroneos, 1934: 73-74. Type data: GREECE: Latomion, Volos-Ghoritsa, on Phillyrea media. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Bodenheimer, 1953: 16. Notes: Koroneos types are presumed lost.
Lepidosaphes phillyreae; Koroneos, 1934: 80-83. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes conchiformis destefanii; Sachtleben, 1935: 148. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus destefanii; Lupo, 1939: 106. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis conchyformis; Bodenheimer, 1949: 122. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus conchyformis destefanii; Bodenheimer, 1949: 127. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus De Stefanii; Costantino, 1950: 12. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: De Stefan scale [McKenz1956].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Prospaltella fasciata [NikolsYa1966].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Ceratonia siliqua [PellizPoSe2011]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [Gill1997], Olea europaea [PellizPoSe2011], Olea europea [Bodenh1924], Phillyrea angustifolia [Goux1941a], Phillyrea media [Leonar1907b]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus licyoides [GomezM1968].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Kauai [Nishid2002]). Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956]). Palaearctic: Algeria [PellizFo1996]; Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Azerbaijan [PellizFo1996]; Corsica [Balach1954e]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [PellizFo1996]; France [Balach1954e, Foldi2001]; Greece [Korone1934]; Israel [Bodenh1924, BenDov2012]; Italy [Leonar1907b, LongoMaPe1995]; Montenegro [Balach1954e]; Sardinia [PellizFo1996]; Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [GomezM1937]; Syria [DanzigPe1998]; Tunisia [Balach1954e]; Turkey [DanzigPe1998]; Turkmenistan [Balach1954e]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Balach1954e]).
BIOLOGY: In Italy there is only one generation per year and the insect overwinters as a mature fertilized female. Each female produces 25-30 eggs. Males emerge from August until early November (Bibolini, 1958).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Balachowsky (1954e) and Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, elongate, mytiliform, 2.4-3.0 mm long. Male puparium clear brown, 1.8 mm long (Balachowsky, 1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) places L. destefanii as a junior synonym of L. flava, however Ferris (1937) considers flava to be a nomen nudum (without a description and thus not useable) and Gill (1997) follows that concept. We accept Signoret (1870) as the validation source for the species.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Bibolini (1958) treats it as a serious pest of olives.
KEYS: Gill 1997: 169 (female) [as Lepidosaphes destefanii; Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 248 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 842 (female) [as Lepidosaphes flava; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 73 (female) [as Lepidosaphes destefanii; Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Spain]; McKenzie 1956: 33 (female) [as Lepidosaphes destefanii; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [as Lepidosaphes destafanii; Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 289 (female) [as Scrupulaspis destefanii; Key to species of Scrupulaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 76-81]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 58-60]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host: 29]; Biboli1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 5-47]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-51]; Bodenh1943 [taxonomy: 7]; Bodenh1949 [taxonomy: 126]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 16-17]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 209]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 186]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 255]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 54]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 255]; Borg1919 [description, distribution: 11, 18]; Borg1922 [description, distribution: 82]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution: 185, 193]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, taxonomy: 590,608-609]; Colvee1882 [distribution, taxonomy: 15]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host: 123]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host: 584]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 12]; Danzig1964 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 842]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 248, 274, 276-277]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284-285]; Dougla1886 [distribution, host: 249]; FarahbMo1975 [distribution, host: 66]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 5]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 169, 172-173, 181]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 164, 172-173]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73, 81-83]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 7, 12]; GomezM1968 [distribution, host: 547]; Goux1941a [distribution, host: 40]; Herce1926 [distribution, economic importance, host: 53]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 182]; Kirkal1902 [taxonomy: 111]; Korone1934 [pp. 73, 81, 83]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129-130]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Leonar1907b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 167-168]; Leonar1918 [distribution, host: 211]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 165-166]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 371, 372]; Lindin1932g [taxonomy: 225]; Lindin1933c [taxonomy: 168]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 158, 159]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 618]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 106-109]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 5]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 56]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 119-121]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Morgan1890a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226-228]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 280]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Osborn1953 [distribution, host: 215]; Pegazz1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291-299]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 121, 134]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Sachtl1935 [taxonomy: 148]; Signor1870 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 96]; Targio1868 [host, taxonomy: 737]; Targio1879a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 8-9]; Targio1881 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 159]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 50]; Terezn1968c [distribution, host: 49]; Terezn1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74, 77]; Terezn1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Terezn1986 [p. 38]; Vayssi1921 [distribution, host: 341]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 239].
Lepidosaphes froggatti LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis chitinosa Froggatt, 1914: 607. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Condobolin, on Templetonia egena. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes chitinosa; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination. Homonym of Lepidosaphes chitinosus Lindinger 1909e; discovered by Laing, 1929: 33.
Lepidosaphes froggatti Laing, 1929: 33. Replacement name for Lepidosaphes chitinosa Froggatt 1914.
HOST: Fabaceae: Templetonia egena [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover white, long, slender, cylindrical and usually straight or only slightly curved. Exuviae pale yellow, but often encrusted with white secretion, narrowed at apex. Adult female light chocolate brown, elongate; pygidium broadly rounded chitinous, with a pair of rounded median lobes projecting beyond the margin, with 2 serrate angular point projections on either side that are apparently not true lobes; edges finely serrate, with scattered hairs; anal aperture rounded (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 607]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36]; Laing1929 [taxonomy: 33]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 37].
Lepidosaphes fulleri FernaldNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis elongata Fuller, 1899: 469-470. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Perth, on Banksia ilicifolia. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Homonym of Mytilaspis elongata Green 1896; discovered by Fernald, 1903b: 309. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Lepidosaphes fulleri; Fernald, 1903b: 309. Change of combination and replacement name for Lepidosaphes elongata Fuller 1899.
Mytilaspis fulleri; Froggatt, 1914: 677. Change of combination.
Triaspidis elongata; MacGillivray, 1921: 277. Change of combination.
HOST: Proteaceae: Banksia ilicifolia [Fuller1899].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Fuller1899]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fuller (1899).
STRUCTURE: Female scale grey, very long and narrow. Adult female elongate, last segment broadly rounded and presenting the following characters, 6 conspicuous lobes, median pair wide, sides parallel, somewhat truncate with 2 small notches on the lateral margin near the apex; 2nd pair wide deeply incised on the lateral margin, apex of lobes truncate, lobule conical; 3rd pair short, wide with 2 small notches at the apex; beyond the 3rd lobes 2 thickenings of the margin; spines small; 2 hair-like plates between the median lobes, one between them and the 2nd lobes, a broader one between the 2nd and 3rd lobes and 2 tapering and conspicuous plates before the thickenings of the margin (Fuller, 1899).
SYSTEMATICS: Fernald (1903b) and Froggatt (1914, 1915) state that it was Cockerell who suggested the replacement name L. fulleri for L. elongata in 1902, however, it appears that Cockerell did not publish the new name (Fernald 1903b cites him as "in litt."). Therefore, Fernald is considered the author of the new name.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 277 (female) [as Triaspidis elongata; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 677]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 469-470]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277].
Lepidosaphes garambiensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes garambiensis Takahashi, 1933: 47. Type data: TAIWAN: Garambi near Koshun, on undetermined shrub, 26/05/1932, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis garambiensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes garanbiensis; Tao, 1978: 94. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1933).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale dark reddish brown or dirty yellowish brown, shining. Elongate, narrow, straight or a little curved, nearly parallel-sided, somewhat convex dorsally. Body long, narrow, a little dilated towards the penultimate segment, a little more than three times as long as wide, with some small lateral glands on the abdomen. Antennae widely separated, with two long very stout curved bristles. Anterior spiracles with a parastigmatic pore. The last 3 abdominal segments distinctly protruding laterally, with some short lateral glands, some small glands on the median area, 2 lateral gland spines and a lateral seta, but lacking chitinized spurs; the lateral glands on the last segment larger, nearly as large as the dorsal glands on the pygidium; the gland spines on the anterior segment shorter. Pygidium a little wider than long, with many longitudinal lines on the dorsum, nearly straight on the hind margin. Anal opening large, a little wider than long, near the base. Dorsal gland orifices narrowed, arranged in 3 rows and about 11 on each side; the glands stout, short, wider than long. Marginal glands very large, long, 6 on each side, of which the posterior one is a little smaller, distinctly protruding. Short and very small denticles present on the lateral margins of the posterior half. Median and 2nd lobes large, rounded apically, not serrate, arranged in a straight row, parallel, extending inwards; median lobes stout, somewhat longer than wide, usually with a slight notch on each side; the 2nd lobes divided; the inner lobules large, slightly narrowed at the base, a little smaller than the median lobes, usually not notched, stout; the outer lobules much smaller, slender, much longer than wide. The 3rd lobes absent. A pair of spines between the median lobes reaching the apices of median lobes. Gland spines rather short, 4 on each lateral margin. Circumgenital pores in 5 loose clusters; the median group with 2 pores, the upper lateral with 4 or 5 pores, the lower with 4 pores (Takahashi, 1933).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is characterized by the very long marginal glands on the pygidium, and may be easily distinguished from Lepidosaphes lasianthi Green by the shape of the median lobes, to which this new species seems to be related (Takahashi, 1933).
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 382]; Hua2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 153]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 3]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes geniostomae Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes geniostomae Williams & Watson, 1988: 153. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Nadarivatu, on Geniostoma sp., 01/09/1955, by R. Morwood. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Loganiaceae: Geniostoma sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, 1.25 mm long, head and thorax narrow, subparallel, expanding to wider anterior abdominal segments, widest at 2nd segment (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes geniostomae lacks duct tubercles on the metathorax, a character often associated with the presence of dorsal microducts, but the ducts in this species are much larger than microducts. Furthermore, there are only 5 marginal macroducts on each side instead of 6, an unusual character but by no means unique. With the elongate sclerotization in the normal positions of the 3rd lobes and the combination of characters given above, this species is easily recognizable (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 25]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 152-153].
Lepidosaphes glaucae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes glaucae Takahashi, 1932: 47-48. Type data: TAIWAN: Shirin, Urai, on Quercus glauca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Parainsulaspis glaucae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes glancae; Tao, 1978: 94. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Cyclobalanopsis glauca [Tao1978], Quercus glauca [Takaha1932]. Flacourtiaceae: Scolopia olhamii [Tao1999]. Rhizophoraceae: Kandelia candel [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1932]. Palaearctic: Japan (Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1960).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 1.03 mm long and 0.42 mm wide, body slender, only slightly broadened abdominally; free abdominal segments each weakly produced laterally; pygidium rounded along its free margin. Second female exuviae elongate, weakly expanded in abdominal region, slightly narrowing anteriorly in cephalothoracic region, 0.84 mm long and 0.38 mm wide (Takagi, 1960).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes glaucae is characterized by the very wide 2nd lobes (Takahashi, 1932).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 338 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 163-164]; Chou1986 [illustration: 587]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 82]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 338]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-90, 94]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 3]; Takaha1932 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 105]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 32, 61]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 209, 221].
Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus gloverii Packard, 1869: 527. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, on Citrus sp. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Mytilaspis gloverii; Comstock, 1881a: 323. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes gloverii; Kirkaldy, 1902: 111. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pallida; Kuwana, 1909a: 161. Misidentification; discovered by Beardsley, 1966: 541.
Mytilaspis (Aspidiotus) gloverii; Froggatt, 1914: 677-678. Described: female. Change of combination.
Mytiella sexspina Hoke, 1921: 341-342. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Logtown, on Citrus sp., 22/08/1916, by E.C. Lindsey; Florida, Fort Pierce, on "Satsuma oranges," 07/01/1920, by G. Hoke. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: ???. Notes: Additional types from: Mississippi, Laurel, on Euonymus japonica, ?/08/1920, by H.L. Dozier, L.E. Miles, R.C. Price & J.V. Vernon; Mississippi, Yazoo City, ?/02/1921, by R.N. Lobdell & G.D. Dorroh. Hoke also misspelled Mytilella Leonardi as Mytiella.
Coccus gloverii; Essig, 1931: 872. Change of combination. Notes: Several authors, including Essig (1931) and Ferris (1941e) have listed Packard as using the combination of Coccus gloverii. Packard apparently never used this combination.
Lepidosaphes glowerii; Balachowsky, 1931a: 98. Misspelling of species name.
Mytilococcus gloverii; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
Opuntiaspis sexspina; Lindinger, 1937: 191. Change of combination.
Insulaspis gloverii; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Cornuaspis gloverii; Alayo Soto, 1976: 12. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes gloveri; Tao, 1978: 94. Misspelling of species name.
Mytilella sexspina; Gill, 1997: 173. Misspelling of genus name.
Mitiella sexpina; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 285. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Lepidosaphis gloverii; Kfoury & El Amil, 1998: 38. Misspelling of genus name.
COMMON NAMES: citrus long scale [BasuNaCh1969]; escama de Glover [PeralL1968]; escama larga [CoronaRuMo1997]; Glover scale [Butche1959, Blicke1965]; Glover's mussel scale [Fuller1907]; Glover's scale [Comsto1881]; guagua larga [AlayoS1976]; long mussel scale [Maxwel1903]; long scale [Craw1896, Boyce1950]; mussel-shell scale [Boyce1950].
ASSOCIATES: Fungi: Podonectria coccicola [GonzalHeSi1991, Boyce1950, AwerbuGoHe2013]. ACARI Acaridae: Monieziella mali [Coorem1951]. FUNGI : Sphaerostilbe aurantiicola [GonzalHeSi1991, AwerbuGoHe2013]. Ascomycotina: Myrianguium duriaei [AwerbuGoHe2013].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Aphytis immaculatus [Watson2002a]. Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigrita [Watson2002a]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Watson2002a]. ACARI Cheyletidae: Prosocheyla hepburni [Bruwer1998]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes coccophagus [Bruwer1998], Hemisarcoptes malus [HertinSi1972, Coorem1951]. Phytoseiidae: Iphiseius quadripilis [Ferris1937]. Trombidiidae: Allothrombium sp. [HertinSi1972]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus bivulnerus [Britto1914], Chilocorus circumdatus [SmithBeBr1997], Chilocorus distigma [Bruwer1998], Chilocorus nigritus [Bruwer1998], Chilocorus renipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus stigma [HertinSi1972], Exochomus quadripustulatus [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Orcus australasiae [Frogga1902a], Orcus bilunulatus [Frogga1902a], Pharoscymnus tomeensis [Bruwer1998], Rhyzobius lophanthae [Bruwer1998]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus flaviceps [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus fuscipennis [Morley1909], Aphytis chrysomphali [HertinSi1972], Aphytis diaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis hispanicus [DeBachRo1976], Aphytis lepidosaphes [HertinSi1972], Aphytis lingnanensis [MalipaDuSm2000], Aphytis maculicornis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis sp. [PeralL1968], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [GomezM1937], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [AwerbuGoHe2013], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia elongata [HuangPo1998], Encarsia herndoni [TeranCl1983, ViggiaLi1989], Encarsia inquirenda [HuangPo1998], Encarsia lounsburyi [CaveMa1994], Encarsia perniciosi [CaveMa1994], Physcus sp. [GomezM1937], Prospaltella aurantii [Garcia1931a], Prospaltella elongata [Fulmek1943, Boyce1950], Prospaltella inquirenda [Fulmek1943], Prospaltella inserens [Fulmek1943], Prospaltella sp. [HertinSi1972, PeralL1968]. Encyrtidae: Anabrolepis sp. [GomezM1937], Chiloneurinus sp. [GomezM1937]. Mymaridae: Alaptus aurantii [HertinSi1972]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora flavopalliata [Morley1909]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Haplothrips merrilli [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [GhabboMo1996]. Annonaceae: Annona glabra [AlayoS1976], Annona reticulata [AlayoS1976], Annona sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Carissa carandas [Takaha1929]. Araceae: Alocasia macrorhiza [WilliaWa1988], Alocasia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae [Borchs1966], Areca catechu [Robins1918], Cocos nucifera [Wilson1921], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Pritchardia filimentosa [Craw1896], Trachycarpus excelsa [Muraka1970]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus plumosus [AlayoS1976]. Buxaceae: Buxus sinica [Tao1999]. Celastraceae: Euonymus japonicus [Hoke1921], Euonymus sp. [Ferris1937, MillerDa2005]. Clusiaceae: Calophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cyperaceae: Cyperus lusitanica [Merril1953]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005], Codiaeum variegatum [ColonFMe1998], Croton griffithii [YunusHo1980], Croton sp. [Wilson1921, Heu2002]. Fabaceae: Erythrina sp. [WilliaWa1988, MillerDa2005]. Guttiferae: Calophyllum calaba [AlayoS1976]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia fuscata [Cheo1935], Magnolia sp. [Ferris1937]. Meliaceae: Aglaia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005], Maclura sp. [MillerDa2005]. Musaceae: Musa sapientum [Wilson1921]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus sp. [Merril1953], Psidium guajava [ColonFMe1998], Psidium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Sciadopitys sp. [Borchs1966], Tsuga chinensis [Hua2000]. Rosaceae: Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rubiaceae: Damnacanthus indicus [Tao1999], Faramea occidentalis [HertinSi1972]. Rutaceae: Citropsis sp. [MillerDa2005], Citrus aurantifolia [AlayoS1976], Citrus aurantium [Bodenh1924], Citrus decumana [Amos1933], Citrus grandis [GomezM1941], Citrus histrix [AlayoS1976], Citrus limon [Hinckl1963], Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988], Citrus nobilis [ChenWo1936], Citrus nobilis deliciosa [ChenWo1936], Citrus paradisi [AlayoS1976], Citrus reticulata [AlayoS1976], Citrus reticulata unshiu X maxima [AlayoS1976], Citrus sinensis [AlayoS1976], Citrus sp. [Packar1869, Boyce1950, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Citrus tardiferax [ChenWo1936], Fortunella japonica [AlayoS1976], Fortunella sp. [MillerDa2005], Murraya paniculata [AlayoS1976], Murraya sp. [MillerDa2005], Poncirus trifoliata [TakahaTa1956]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Tao1999], Salix sp. [Borchs1966]. Sapindaceae: Nephelium lappaceum L. [HernanNiMa2011]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Hua2000]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ghana [MalumpHaSa2012]; Madagascar [Mamet1950]; Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Nigeria [Eguagi1975]; Reunion [WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014]; Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome [Laing1928]); South Africa [Brain1929]; Uganda [Newste1917b]. Australasian: Australia [Maxwel1902] (New South Wales [Frogga1914], Queensland [SmithBeBr1997], Victoria [Frogga1914]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [TakahaTa1956]; Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Takaha1939b], Ponape Island [Takaha1939b], Truk Islands [Takaha1939b]); Fiji [Hinckl1963]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988]); Guam [Dumble1954]; Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1902] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]); Indonesia (Irian Jaya [Reyne1961], Java [WatsonMuSh2014]); New Caledonia [WilliaWa1988]; Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Northern Mariana Islands [Dumble1954] (Saipan Island [Takaha1936c]); Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [Laing1927]. Nearctic: Mexico [Maxwel1902] (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]); United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], California [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923], District of Columbia [MillerDa2005], Florida [Packar1869, MillerDa2005], Georgia [MillerDa2005], Indiana [DietzMo1916a], Kansas [Lawson1917], Louisiana [Comsto1881a, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Hoke1921, MillerDa2005], Nebraska [MillerDa2005], New York [FeltMo1928], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], South Carolina [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1972a, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina (Tucuman [TeranCl1983]); Barbados [Maxwel1902]; Bolivia [Squire1972]; Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul [Koszta1963]); Colombia [Figuer1952, Balach1959a]; Cuba [AlayoS1976, MestreHaEv2011, AwerbuGoHe2013]; Dominican Republic [GomezM1941]; Ecuador [YustCe1956]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]; Montserrat [Maxwel1902]; Netherlands Antilles (Curacao [Reyne1964]); Puerto Rico & Vieques Island [Miller2005] (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]); Saint Croix [Wilson1921]; U.S. Virgin Islands [Wilson1921]; Uruguay [MalumpHaSa2012]. Oriental: Bangladesh [MalumpHaSa2012]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Chen1936], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Hua2000], Hainan [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ChenWo1936], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Chen1936]); Hong Kong [Chen1936]; India (Bihar [Ali1968], Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996], West Bengal [BasuNaCh1969]); Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [Nickel1979]; Pakistan [KazimiGh1964]; Philippines [Ali1969a] (Luzon [Robins1918]); Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [TakahaTa1956]; Sri Lanka [Maxwel1902]; Taiwan [Tao1978]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: Algeria [DanzigPe1998]; Azerbaijan [Archan1937]; China [Maxwel1902] (Hebei (=Hopei) [ChenWo1936], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [Chen1936], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Corsica [Mamet1943a]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Egypt [Hall1924a, AbdRab2001a]; France [DanzigPe1998]; Georgia (Abkhaz ASSR [Archan1937], Adzhar ASSR [Archan1937]); Greece [DanzigPe1998]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Bodenh1924]; Italy [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Kirkal1902] (Honshu [TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [Takagi1960]); Lebanon [KfouryEl1998]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Portugal [Seabra1941, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Sardinia [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Spain [GomezM1937]; Sweden [DanzigPe1998]; Turkey [DanzigPe1998]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956]; United Kingdom (England [Mamet1943a] (Lepidosaphes gloverii is very common on imported Citrus fruit (together with L. beckii), and is often listed incorrectly as established in Britain. (Malumphy, 2012))); Uzbekistan (Tashkent Oblast [Archan1937]).
BIOLOGY: Female lays 50-100 pearly white eggs in two rows under the scale cover. Eggs hatch in 2 weeks. Crawlers settle in sheltered sites, on older leaves and beneath fruit calyx lobes. In Australia, the life cycle takes 6-8 weeks. In Queensland there are 5-6 generations per year while in New South Wales there are 2-4 (Smith et al., 1997). This pest prefers humid climates and often is found associated with purple scale. According to Murakami (1970) Glover scale has 2 generations annually in Japan. Mated females overwinter and oviposit in March. The eggs are arranged in 2 rows beneath the scale cover. First generation males appear in late July, and second generation males occur in late October. Eguagie (1972) found that in Nigeria females produce an average of 46 eggs on orange, 38 on grapefruit, 31 on tangerine, and 27 on lime; there are 2 generations annually. The incubation period in June July is 28 30 days at 25.1 C mean temperature at 77.5% R.H. at 16.00 hrs. G.M.T. In November December incubation takes 20 24 days at 26.5 C mean temperature at 60.0% R.H. at 16 hrs. G.M.T. According to Simanton (1976) Glover scale is now the most widely distributed scale insect on Florida citrus. Before 1959, it occurred as light infestations with heavier purple scale infestations. It began to increase in 1959, following the 1958 appearance of Aphytis lepidosaphes Compere, which depressed purple scale populations. In about 1966, both species more or less stabilized with Glover scale populations highest. Under insectary conditions, Claps (1987) recorded 6 generations a year when reared on Citrus in Argentina. According to Bruwer and Schoeman (1990) the four factors influencing the population size of this scale in South Africa are: predation, primarily by Chilocorus nigritus, ectoparasitism by Aphytis lepidosaphes, endoparasitism by Aspidiotiphagus citrinus, and an unknown mortality factor. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Scale is 5-6 mm long, slender, with parallel sides. Cover is light to dark brown. Body of adult female is white (Smith et al., 1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Detailed discussion of economic importance and biological control by Bruwer (1998). Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. According to Dekle (1977), Glover scale was a serious pest of Florida citrus, where it occurred more often on twigs and small branches than on leaves and fruit. Ebeling (1959) noted that this species was of little importance in California, generally being confined to the San Juan Capistrano Valley in southern Orange County. In South Africa it is not a problem when orchards are sprayed for California red scale, but it can be found in integrated control orchards around Nelspruit (Bedford, 1978). Bruwer (1998) also discusses the economic importance of this pest in South Africa. Rose (1990b), in his summary of armored scale pests of citrus, reported Glover scale as a pest in Spain, Japan, Texas, Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, the Mediterranean, Former Soviet Union, and South Africa. It has been reported as a citrus pest by Konar and Ghosh (1990) in India, and also as a pest of mango in India (Chua and Wood 1990). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this scale to be one of 43 serious armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). On the upper surface of the leaves there are more fungi per scale than in the lower surface of the leaf and in general there is a higher parasitization rate on the upper surface. While scales themselves might not prefer one location over the other, as they get parasitized more survivors will be found on the North surface and fewer on the West side of the tree. An analysis of parasitization rate on each of the directions found that in general the fungi preferred scales on the west side while this side was least preferred by wasps and the scales themselves as determined by the crawlers. Awerbuch-Friedlander, et al., (2013) concluded that the use of pesticides might be counter productive and perhaps the best intervention was not to intervene.
KEYS: Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 104 (female) [Key to Puerto Rican species of Lepidosaphes]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 246 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 336 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; McDaniel 1972a: 323 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Lepidosaphes]; Beardsley 1966: 535 [Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 91 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar]; Ezzat 1958: 246 (female) [as Lepidosaphes gloverii; Key to adult female Lepidosaphes]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 73 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Spain]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 32 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Zimmerman 1948: 418 (female) [as Lepidosaphes gloverii; Key to species of Lepidosaphes reported in Hawaii]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:55 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 3 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Britton 1923: 378 (female) [Key to Connecticut species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 283 (female) [as Lepidosaphes gloverii; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Cockerell 1900k: 349 (female) [as Mytilaspis gloveri; Table to separate the commoner scales (Coccidae) of the orange]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis gloverii; Australian species of Mytilaspis]; Green 1896e: 77 (female) [as Mytilaspis gloverii; Key to species of Mytilaspis of Ceylon].
CITATIONS: AAEE1937 [taxonomy: 534, 553]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 176]; AhmadGh1972 [distribution, host: 89]; AlayoS1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Ali1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 134-135]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 52]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69, 74-75]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; AwerbuGoHe2013 [biological control, ecology, host, life history: 6-21]; Balach1931a [economic importance, host: 98]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 51-54]; Balach1957c [distribution, host: 200]; Balach1959a [distribution, host: 363]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 28]; BasuNaCh1969 [distribution, host: 174]; BatcheWe1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 714]; BazaroSh1970 [distribution, host: 109]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 535, 540-541]; BeattiGe1983 [distribution, host: 3]; Bedfor1978 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132]; BerlesLe1898a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 293, 310]; BockTa1995 [distribution, host: 360]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-49]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host, illustration: 147, 151, 159]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 86, 95]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 121, 127-130]; Bodenh1953a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 76]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 106]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 184]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; Boyce1950 [distribution, economic importance, host, chemical control, biological control: 743-744]; Brain1920 [distribution, host: 106]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 144]; BrandtBo1948 [taxonomy: 2]; Britto1914 [biological control: 10]; Britto1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; Brooks1977 [distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 365-367]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 14]; Bruwer1984 [biological control, distribution: 23-25]; Bruwer1998 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 153-157]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 185, 190]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Bytins1966 [distribution: 28]; ChapotDe1964 [distribution, host: 211-212]; Charmo1899 [distribution, host: 32, 34]; Chen1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210, 225-226]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 101-102]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 100]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 174-176]; Chou1986 [illustration: 577]; Chou1986 [illustration: 594]; Clause1933 [distribution, economic importance, host: 16, 25]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; Cocker1900k [distribution, taxonomy: 349]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107-108]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 323-324]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 117]; Comsto1916 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 472, 578]; Coorem1951 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 30]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Craw1896 [distribution, economic importance, host: 41]; Crouze1971 [distribution, economic importance: 200]; Dale1959 [distribution: 12]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 246, 260-261]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285]; Dash1916 [distribution, host: 43]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution: 177]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12, 79]; DietzMo1916a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 279, 281]; Dinthe1950 [chemical control, distribution, illustration: 49]; Dinthe1960 [p. 49]; DoaneFe1916 [distribution, host: 401]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 43-44, 89]; Ebelin1959 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 203-204]; Efimof1937 [distribution, host: 17, 19, 73]; Eguagi1975 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 99-107]; Esaki1940 [host: 413]; Esaki1940a [distribution, economic importance: 278]; Essig1931 [taxonomy: 872]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309]; Ferris1921 [distribution, host: 65, 115]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-71, SI-74, SI-79]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 44]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:55]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Flande1971 [distribution, host: 860]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; Frogga1902a [biological control: 904]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 677-678]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 100]; Fuller1907 [taxonomy: 1035]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 52]; GaoQu1981 [biological control, host: 57-58]; Garcia1931a [biological control, distribution: 668]; Gavalo1929 [distribution, host: 166]; Gavin1961 [distribution, host: 20]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 347-348]; Ghesqu1943 [distribution: 391]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 168, 173-174, 182]; GomezC1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 305-307]; GomezC1946 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 163, 164-169]; GomezM1941 [distribution, host: 138]; GomezM1957 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-78]; GonzalHeSi1991 [biological control, distribution, host: 433]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 188]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 13]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77, 83-84]; Green1917a [distribution, host: 266]; Green1928a [host: 30]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; Guo1992 [taxonomy: 2]; Hadzib1965 [distribution, host: 6]; Hadzib1983 [p. 174]; Hall1924a [distribution, host: 22]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 524]; Hartma1916 [taxonomy: 108]; HernanNiMa2011 [host: 379-380]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 183]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 35]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 267]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 47]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 25]; Hoke1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 341-342]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33, 68]; HosnyEz1957 [distribution, host: 332]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859, 1871, 1894]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 196]; Kaussa1946a [distribution, host: 8]; Kaussa1951 [distribution, host: 39]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 241-242]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 23]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 37]; KfouryEl1998 [distribution: 38]; Kiritc1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Kiritc1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 3]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, host: 111]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 158]; Kobakh1965 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 326-327]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1909a [distribution, host: 161]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 16-17]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Laing1927 [distribution, host: 42]; Laing1928 [distribution, host: 215]; Lal1952 [distribution, host: 62]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Lawson1917 [distribution, host: 254, 255]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 57-60]; Leonar1907 [distribution, host: 22]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 168-169]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lever1945 [distribution: 43]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 106]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 77]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 191]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 148]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283]; MalipaDuSm2000 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 3, 9, 54, 57, 58, 68]; Mallam1954 [distribution, host: 36]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 5]; Mamedo1971 [distribution, host: 356]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 162]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Mamet1950 [distribution, host: 23]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 228]; Mamet1959a [distribution, taxonomy: 381]; ManiglAgPe1995 [biological control, distribution: 131-135]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 54-55]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; Maskel1891 [distribution, host: 8]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 252]; Maxwel1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 46]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 324-326]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 121, 123]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 242-243]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 13]; Miller2005 [distribution: 497]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 254]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 24]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 36]; Monast1955 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87-136]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 48-49, 91]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 89]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 82]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 11, 25]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Nath1972 [distribution, host: 3]; Newste1907a [distribution: 10]; Newste1917b [distribution, host: 134]; Nickel1979 [distribution, economic importance, host: 43]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 199, 260, 279]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; OteroCaMo1996 [distribution, economic importance, host: 530-531]; Packar1869 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 527]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 31]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 342-343]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 121]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 480,487,502]; PeralL1968 [biological control: 25]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; PruthiBa1960 [distribution, host: 74]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, economic importance, host: 11]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 29, 31]; Reyne1961 [distribution, host: 126]; Reyne1964 [distribution, host: 98]; Robins1918 [distribution, host: 147]; RosenDe1979 [biological control: 760]; Ruhl1919 [taxonomy: 40]; Sander1904a [taxonomy: 74]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 27]; Schief2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; Seabra1941 [distribution: 8]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 13]; SelhimBr1977 [biological control, host: 477]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 176]; Smirno1950a [biological control, economic importance: 190-192]; SmithBeBr1997 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 74-75]; Squire1972 [distribution, host: 96]; Starne1897 [distribution, host: 27]; Strong1922 [distribution, host: 70]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 252]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 91]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 7-8]; TakagiRo1981 [biological control, distribution: 318]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 3, 9, 11, 75]; Takaha1936c [distribution, host: 117]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 71, 73]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 265]; Takaha1940a [distribution, host: 332]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 42]; Takaha1942d [distribution, host: 355]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 72]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 12]; Talhou1975 [distribution, economic importance, host: 23]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 210]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Tardo1951 [distribution, host: 116]; Targio1884 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 395]; Targio1885 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; TeranCl1983 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-37]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host: 75]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Tryon1889 [distribution, host: 134]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48]; Vayssi1921 [taxonomy: 356]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; ViggiaLi1989 [biological control: 79-81]; Vilard1974 [distribution, host: 76]; Wang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 181-182]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; WatsonBe1937 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21-22]; WatsonMuSh2014 [distribution, host: 1595]; Weiss1916 [distribution, host: 24]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 404]; Wester1918 [host: 53]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 24]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 153-155]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 36]; Wilson1921 [distribution, host: 25]; Wilson1922 [distribution, host: 16, 20]; WilsonGo1962 [economic importance: 54]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 176]; WolffCo1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 139-141]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 26-27, 68]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 240]; Wunn1925c [distribution, host: 437, 449]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 220]; Yother1923 [distribution, host: 19]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 27, 34]; Yust1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 7, 23]; YustCe1956 [distribution, host: 435]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, economic importance, host: 418, 420].
Lepidosaphes granati KoroneosNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes conchiformis granati Koroneos, 1934: 72-73. Type data: GREECE: Latomion and Athens, on Rhamnus oleoides and Punica granatum. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Mytilococcus granati; Lupo, 1939: 101. Change of combination and rank.
Lepidosaphes crataegi Borchsenius, 1949b: 343. Type data: ARMENIA: on Crataegus sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 272. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 72.
Lepidosaphes granati; Balachowsky, 1954e: 72. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes turanica; Balachowsky, 1954e: 72. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 55.
Lepidosaphes conchyformis granati; Balachowsky, 1954e: 72, 75. Misspelling of species name.
Mytilaspis granati; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: hawthorn oystershell scale [KosztaKo1988F]; pomegranate scale [MillerDa1990].
HOSTS: Elaeagnaceae: Eleagnus angustifolia [Balach1954e], Eleagnus sp. [Kaussa1955]. Fabaceae: Acacia cultriformis [ErlerKoTu1996]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [ErlerKoTu1996]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [Korone1934]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus oleoides [Korone1934]. Rosaceae: Crataegus oxyacantha [BognarVi1979], Crataegus sp. [Borchs1949b]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [ErlerKoTu1996], Ulmus sp. [ErlerKoTu1996], Zelkova sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [Borchs1949b]; Azerbaijan [Imamku1966]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Georgia [Borchs1949b]; Greece [Korone1934]; Hungary [BognarVi1979]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Italy [Lupo1939, LongoMaPe1995]; Morocco [Balach1954e]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Turkey [ErlerKoTu1996]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Borchs1949b]).
BIOLOGY: 2 yearly generations develop in southern USSR. Mated females overwinter and begin laying eggs in mid-April. About 25 eggs per female. This species has been collected at an elevation of 1,700 m (Danzig, 1972c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Koroneos (1934), Balachowksy (1954e) and Borchsenius (1949b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale comma-like, sometimes curved, brown or dark brown, 2.0-2.2 mm long and 0.48-0.72 mm wide. Larval skins brown. Adult female pear-shaped, pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes (Borchsenius, 1949b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes granati is near L. rubri (Borchsenius, 1949b).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 348 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 842 (female) [as Ledpidosaphes crataegi; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Balachowsky 1954e: 35 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 72-75]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 18]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 343]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 209]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 185]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 135]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 54]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 135]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 842]; Danzig1972 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: ???]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 272-274]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; Hadzib1950 [distribution, taxonomy: 260]; Hadzib1965 [distribution, taxonomy: 11]; Imamku1966 [distribution, economic importance: 48]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kaussa1964 [taxonomy: 15]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 72-73, 81, 83]; KosztaKo1978 [host, taxonomy: 162]; KosztaKo1988F [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 158]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 617]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71, 101-106]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 36]; Terezn1967a [distribution, taxonomy: 475]; Terezn1968c [distribution, host: 47]; Terezn1975 [distribution, taxonomy: 74]; TerGri1956 [distribution, host: 50]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 144]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 215]; ViggiaJe1985 [distribution: 879].
Lepidosaphes grisea (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis grisea Maskell, 1890: 133-134. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, on Eucalyptus sp. and Acacia sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes grisea; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis grisea; MacGillivray, 1921: 288. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Maskel1890]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Maskel1890]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1890]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1890).
STRUCTURE: Female cover light grey, narrowish, elongate, slightly curved, convex, rather solid, mussel-shaped; pellicles rather small. Male cover similar, but much smaller, not carinated. Adult female dark red or nearly black, elongate (Maskell, 1890).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 288 [as Scrupulaspis grisea; Key to species of Scrupulaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 31 (female) [as Mytilaspis grisea; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis grisea; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host: 678]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host: 41]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [distribution, host: 469]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 99-100]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Maskel1890 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133-134].
Lepidosaphes ixorae Cockerell & RobinsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ixorae Cockerell & Robinson, 1915a: 425-426. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Los Baños, on Ixora coccinea, 05/01/1915, by C.F. Baker. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Coccomytilus ixorae; MacGillivray, 1921: 293. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: santan scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOST: Rubiaceae: Ixora coccinea [Robins1917].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines [Robins1917] (Luzon [Ali1969a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Cockerell & Robinson (1915a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale broadly elongate, somewhat convex, often curved, about 3.5 mm long, surface with ridges diverging from a center near the exuviae; exuviae orange. Adult female elongate-oval, abdominal segments produced; laterally, bearing spines (Robinson, 1917).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 293 (female) [as Coccomytilus ixorae; Species of Coccomytilus]; Robinson 1917: 34 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 57]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; CockerRo1915a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 425-426]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 293]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host: 34, 36]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197].
Lepidosaphes janguai BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes janguai Balachowsky, 1954e: 82-83. Type data: PAKISTAN: 30 km west of Karachi, on Tamarix sp., 05/05/1954, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis janguai; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
HOST: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [Balach1954e]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Balach1954e]. Palaearctic: Iran [KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 82-83]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 54]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host: 16]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 24]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 37]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 51-52].
Lepidosaphes japonica (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis pomorum japonica Kuwana, 1902: 80. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Hikosan, on Abies firma, by S. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes ulmi japonica; Fernald, 1903b: 317. Change of combination and rank.
Lepidosaphes japonica; Ferris, 1921a: 217. Change of status.
Insulaspis japonica; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Kusamaki scale [KSPP1972].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chilensis Howard [JaposhAbNo2013], Aphytis chrysomphali Mercet [JaposhAbNo2013], Aphytis proclia Walker [JaposhAbNo2013], Aphytis sp. [JaposhAbNo2013], Coccophagus lycimnia Walker [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia aurantii Howard [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia brimblecombei Girault [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia citrina Crawford [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia leucaspidis Mercet [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia sp [JaposhAbNo2013], Pteroptrix chinensis Howard [JaposhAbNo2013], Pteroptrix kamatai Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis Aurivillius [JaposhAbNo2013], Coccidencyrtus shiyakei Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Chamaecyparis sp. [Takagi1970]. Pinaceae: Abies firma [Kuwana1902], Abies sachalinensis [Takagi1960], Abies sachalinensis mayriana [Muraka1970], Abies sp. [Muraka1970], Keteleeria sp. [Borchs1966], Picea excelsa [Takagi1960], Picea jezoensis hondoensis [Takagi1970], Picea pungens [Takagi1961], Picea sp. [Takagi1960], Pinus densiflora [Takagi1970], Tsuga canadaensis [Kuwana1925a], Tsuga chinensis formosana [Takagi1970], Tsuga diversifolia [Kuwana1925a, JaposhAbNo2013], Tsuga sieboldii [Kuwana1925a, Muraka1970], Tsuga sp. [Tao1999]. Taxaceae: Taxus cuspidata umbraculifera [Muraka1970], Taxus sp. [Muraka1970]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takagi1970]. Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1984b], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tao1999]); Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1960], Honshu [Kuwana1925a], Kyushu [Kuwana1902], Shikoku [Tachik1962]); South Korea [Takagi1970].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes japonica was collected at an altitude of 2,650 meters (Takagi, 1970).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1970). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Adult female body with metathorax and basal 4 abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally, and with the pygidium trapezoid-shaped. Median lobes as wide as or a little wider than long, flatly roundish apically, separated from each other by a space a little narrower than one of them (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes japonica is close to L. maskelli, from which it is distinguishable by the median lobes flatly roundish on the apical margin, by the second lobes with a wider inner lobule, and by having microducts between the antennae. Furthermore, it has 1-3, usually 2-3 submarginal macroducts on the 5th abdominal segment, whereas L. maskelli has always one in this position (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 337 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [as Insulaspis japonica; Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae]; Takagi 1960: 92 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 5 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 52]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 63]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 180-181]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 317]; Ferris1921a [description, distribution, host, illustration: 217-218]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; JaposhAbNo2013 [ecology: 541-554]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 239]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; KSPP1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 11-13]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 82]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 337, 344-345]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 94]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host: 76, 92]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host: 42]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 3-4]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 99]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 72-73]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 111]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 47]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes juniperi LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes juniperi Lindinger, 1912b: 188. Type data: TURKEY: Anatolia, Amasia, on Juniperus excelsa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany; type no. 826.
Mytilococcus juniperi; Bodenheimer, 1943: 5. Change of combination.
Insulaspis juniperi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: juniper comma scale [MillerDa1990]; juniper oyster scale [DanzigPe1998]; juniper oystershell scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Archenomus opacus [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella nr. aurantii [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Callitris quadrivalvis [GomezM1965]. Pinaceae: Abies bornmülleri [BalachAl1956], Biota orientalis [Hadzib1983], Cupressus sempervirens [Balach1954e], Juniperus communis nana [Balach1933a], Juniperus excelsa [Lindin1912b], Juniperus foetidissima [Hadzib1983], Juniperus oxycedrus [GomezM1937], Juniperus rufescens [Hadzib1983], Juniperus sabina [MatilePe2002], Juniperus sp. [Balach1954e], Pinus halepensis [Korone1934], Pinus nigra [Bodenh1953], Pinus sylvestris [Balach1954e], Thuja orientalis [Korone1934], Thuja sp. [Bodenh1944b]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Azerbaijan [Balach1954e]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Corsica [Balach1954e]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; France [Balach1933a, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Greece [Bodenh1928]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Italy [LongoMaPe1995, MatilePe2002]; Poland [Komosi1969a]; Russia (Karachay-Cherkessia AR [Danzig1985]); Spain [GomezM1937]; Switzerland [Balach1954e]; Turkey [Lindin1912b]; Turkmenistan [Balach1954e]; Uzbekistan (Fergana Oblast [Archan1923], Samarkand Oblast [Archan1923], Syrdar'ya Oblast [Archan1923]); Yugoslavia [KozarzMi1984].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes juniperi was collected at an elevation of 2,200 m in elevation (Kosztarab & Kozár).
GENERAL REMARKS: Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Lepidosaphes juniperi is considered an economic pest (Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1958a & Miller & Davidson, 1990).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 347 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [as Lepidosaphes juniperi; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae]; Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 282 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Archan1923 [distribution, host: 263]; Archan1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 70-71]; Balach1933a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-40]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 86-87]; BalachAl1956 [taxonomy: 323]; BalachKa1955 [taxonomy: 240]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65-67]; Bodenh1928 [distribution, host: 191]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 247]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 217]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host: 5]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 95]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121, 128-130]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 69, 80]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 208]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 184]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 63]; Bustsh1960 [distribution, host: 176]; Cocker1927 [distribution: 837]; Danzig1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 648]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; Danzig1985 [distribution: 147]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 265, 267]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; GolanJa2002 [economic importance: 11]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; GomezM1958a [distribution, economic importance: 7]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 90]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 187]; Hadzib1965 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 175, 274]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 183]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; Kiritc1931 [distribution, host: 320]; Kiritc1940 [distribution, host: 118]; Komosi1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 269-270]; Komosi1974a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-21]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-78]; KosztaKo1978 [taxonomy: 161]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349-350]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarKo1982 [host: 205]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; KozarzMi1984 [biological control, distribution: 406, 407]; KozarzVl1981 [distribution, host: 16, 23]; KozarzVl1982 [distribution, host: 196]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 221, 256]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1912b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 122]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Lupo1966 [taxonomy: 41, 48]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 55]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; Mesnil1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82-83]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 24]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 37]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 251]; RosenDe1979 [biological control: 760]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 13]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host, illustration: 337]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host: 73]; Terezn1967a [distribution, host: 474]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 49]; Terezn1968c [distribution, host: 44]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host: 73]; Terezn1982 [distribution, host: 58-59]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 143]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 91]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 215]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449]; Yanin1971 [distribution, host: 46]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 425].
Lepidosaphes junipericola (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Cornimytilus junipericola Tang, 1986: 69. Type data: CHINA: Shanxi, Taigu County, on Juniperus rigida. Syntypes. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes junipericola; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 286. Change of combination.
HOST: Cupressaceae: Juniperus rigida [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Female scale dark brown, about 2.5 mm long, exuvia golden yellow. Male scale similar in color, around 1 mm long. Adult female near oval, about 0.9-0.95 mm long (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes junipericola is close to C. pseudotsugae, but differs in the distribution of gland tubercles, with fewer disc pores, different body form (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 279]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 81].
Lepidosaphes kamakurensis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes kamakurensis Kuwana, 1925a: 18-19. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, on Thea japonica, by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis kamakurensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Heterosmilax japonica [Hua2000]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [TakahaTa1956], Camellia sp. [Takagi1960], Thea japonica [Kuwana1925a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1925a], Kyushu [Takagi1960], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana (1925a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, widening slightly towards the posterior end, dark brown, opaque, narrow, flattened paler border. First exuviae pale, 2nd dark brown. Ventral scale grayish, broadly divided. Male scale smaller and gradually broadening posteriorly, dark brown with pale yellow exuviae. Adult female elongate, pale yellowish-white, posterior end of body yellow (Kuwana, 1925a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes kamakurensis is allied to L. cocculi in general, but the ventral scale of the latter is complete, while that of L. kamakurensis is widely divided (Kuwana, 1925a). L. kamakurensis has been misidentified as L. bladhiae(=L. laterochitinosa) (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Paik 1978: 338 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 70 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 3 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 52]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 64]; Clause1931 [distribution, economic importance: 77]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 18-19]; Lindin1932 [taxonomy: 26]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 82-83]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 338]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80, 93]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 3]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 73-74]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 13]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 97]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 210, 221].
Lepidosaphes kamerunensis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes kamerunensis Lindinger, 1909e: 37-38. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Loranthus sp., 1904. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis kamerunensis; Vayssière, 1913: 431. Change of combination.
Triaspidis kamerunensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 277. Change of combination.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Lindin1909e]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Scale 1 mm long. Larva oval, 0.26 mm long and 0.15 mm wide (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 277 (female) [as Triaspidis kamerunensis; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538, 550]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-38]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Lepidosaphes karkarica Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes karkarica Williams & Watson, 1988: 155-157. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Madang, Karkar, on Cocos nucifera, 11/10/1979, by G. Young. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, 1.15 mm long, thorax subparallel, abdominal segments with lateral lobes moderately developed. Median area of head with numerous minute spicules (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes karkarica is similar to L. laterochitinosa, but differs in the form of the lateral tubercles, which are longer and narrower, and in the shorter distance between the median lobes. L. cocculi also has well-developed lateral tubercles, but has a conspicuous group of 6 or 7 gland spines on segment 2, which are fewer in L. karkarica; furthermore, there tend to be more gland spines generally in L. cocculi, but further research is needed on a greater range of material (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 155-157].
Lepidosaphes keteleeriae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes keteleeriae Ferris, 1953: 61. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Keteleeria davidiana, 28/04/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parainsulaspis kateleeriae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Andaspis keteleeriae; Young & Hu, 1981a: 219. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes kateleeriae; Chou, 1982: 156. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Keteleeria davidiana [Ferris1953], Keteleeria fortunei [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1953]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1953). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female pale brown, elongate, about 2.0 mm long, flat. Adult female 1.5 mm long, body membranous throughout except for pygidium. Pygidium is slightly less obtuse than is usual, median lobes relatively large and apically rounded, more or less fan shaped (Ferris, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes keteleeriae is unique in the very few and small dorsal ducts and the rather large and somewhat fan-shaped median lobes (Ferris, 1953). Tao (1999) treats Parainsulaspis keteleeriae and Andaspis keteleeriae. Since Tao gives no description or illustration of what he calls Parainsulaspis keteleeriae and Andaspis keteleeriae we can only guess at the species that he was treating. Based on the fact that the two keteleeriae species described by Ferris (1953) are very different morphologically and that it is unlikely that Tao would place "Phenacaspis" keteleeriae in either Andaspis or Parainsulaspis we assume that Tao placed the same species ("Lepidosaphes" keteleeriae Ferris) in both (Andaspis and Parainsulaspis).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 64 [as Phenacaspis keteleeriae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 62]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 171, 174, 176]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 166]; Chou1986 [illustration: 487]; Chou1986 [illustration: 582]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61, 70]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149, 156]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 210]; YoungHu1981 [taxonomy: 215].
Lepidosaphes kuwacola KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes kuwacola Kuwana, 1925a: 23-25. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nishigahara, Tokyo, on Morus sp., and Ginkgo sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes ume Kuwana, 1925a: 25-27. Type data: JAPAN: Yokkaichi, on Prunus mume, summer 1924, by K. Tanaka & I. Morino. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1955e: 74.
Eucornuaspis kuwacola; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
Cornimytilus kuwacola; Yang, 1982: 203. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Acanthopanax spinosum [Muraka1970], Hedera japonica [Kuwana1925a], Hedera rhombea [TakahaTa1956], Kalopanax septemlobus [Takagi1960]. Celastraceae: Euonymus europaea [Kuwana1925a], Euonymus sieboldiana [Muraka1970], Orixa japonica [Kuwana1925a]. Cornaceae: Cornus controversa [Muraka1970]. Euphorbiaceae: Mallotus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Ginkgoaceae: Ginkgo biloba [Kuwana1925a]. Moraceae: Morus alba [Kuwana1925a], Morus bombycis [Muraka1970], Morus sp. [Takagi1960]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus mandschurica japonica [Takagi1960], Ligustrum ibota [Kuwana1925a], Ligustrum japonicum [Takagi1960], Ligustrum obtusifolium [Muraka1970], Osmanthus sp. [Muraka1970]. Rosaceae: Prunus mume [Kuwana1925a], Pyrus serotina [Muraka1970]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Takagi1960]. Simarubaceae: Picrasma quassioides [Kuwana1925a]. Taxaceae: Taxus cuspidata [Takagi1960]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [DanzigPe1998], Ulmus davidiana japonica [Takagi1960]. Verbenaceae: Caryopteris incana [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China [ZhangHa1999]; Japan (Hokkaido [Kuwana1925a], Honshu [Kuwana1925a], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana (1925a) and Kawai (1980).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, widened posteriorly, often curved, tough, with concentric layers of growth noticeable, brown, first exuviae pale yellow and second brown. Ventral scale complete and dusky white. Male scale similar to female, smaller, sides nearly parallel, exuviae pale yellow. Adult female elongate, much narrower towards anterior end, abdominal region widest, not heavily chitinized and pale purple (Kuwana, 1925a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Paik 1978: 337 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 92 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ume; Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1962b [taxonomy: 861]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Clause1931 [distribution, host: 11]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 33]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 244]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 23-25]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 369]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 83]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 337]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79-80, 92]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 2]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 102, 103]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 74-75]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 12]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 81]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 203].
Lepidosaphes lasianthi (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis lasianthi Green, 1900a: 253-254. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Lasianthus strigosus, ?/11/????. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes lasianthi; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Insulaspis lasianthi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
ASSOCIATE: FUNGI : Prenomycetes-Hypocreales sp. [Parkin1906].
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum variegatum [Robins1917], Croton humilis [Jones1917], Croton sp. [Green1900a]. Rubiaceae: Lasianthus strigosus [Green1900a].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Green1905]). Neotropical: Bermuda [Simmon1957]; Guyana [Bodkin1922]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Green1922]). Oriental: India (West Bengal [Maxwel1908]); Sri Lanka [Green1900a].
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes lasianthi has been confused with L. tokionis in Micronesian (Beardsley, 1966). Takagi (1970) states that records of this species in Hawaii, the Philippines and North America are all misidentifications of L. tokionis, thus it would appear that references by Fleury (1938), Robinson (1917) and Ferris (1938a) are also misidentifications.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 281 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Robinson 1917: 34 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 30 (female) [as Mytilaspis lasianthi; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1925 [host, taxonomy: 42]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 52-53]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 92]; Beards1966 [taxonomy: 546]; Bodenh1930 [distribution: 15]; Bodkin1922 [distribution: 60]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 64]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 17]; Esaki1940 [host: 414]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 303]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 21]; Green1900a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 253-254]; Green1905 [distribution: 28]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 463]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 327]; Jones1917 [distribution, host: 14]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 242]; Kotins1910 [distribution, host: 130]; Kuwana1925a [taxonomy: 9]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 70-71]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281]; Maxwel1908 [distribution, host: 134]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; Newell1927 [distribution, host: 41, 82]; Parkin1906 [distribution, ecology, host: 33, 67]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, host: 11]; Quayle1938a [distribution, host: 299]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; RaoKu1952 [taxonomy: 10]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 35]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 4]; Takagi2003 [description: 85-86]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 48]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 20]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 21]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48]; Waters1941 [distribution, host: 19]; Whitne1912 [distribution, host: 737-739]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34].
Lepidosaphes laterochitinosa GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes laterochitinosa Green, 1925: 41-43. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, Surrey, Wisley, Horticultural Society Gardens, on Coelogyne sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis kamakurensis; Takahashi, 1929: 75-76. Misidentification; discovered by Takahashi, 1935: 22.
Lepidosaphes bladhiae Takahashi, 1931b: 379-380. Type data: TAIWAN: Shirin, Heito, on Bladhia sieboldii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 14.
Parainsulaspis bladhiae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
Parainsulaspis laterochitinosa; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes spinulosa Beardsley, 1966: 543-545. Type data: PALAU: Koror, on Glochidion sp., ?/04/1954, by J. Beardsley. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Beardsley, 1975: 660.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Takaha1933]. Apocynaceae: Alstonia scholaris [Beards1966], Plumeria acuminata [Takagi1970]. Araceae: Epipremnum mirabile [Takagi1970]. Araliaceae: Agalma lutchuense [Takaha1935], Heptapleurum octophyllum [Takaha1929], Schefflera actinophylla [MartinLa2011], Schefflera octophylla [Takagi1970]. Arecaceae: Areca catechu [Beards1966], Cocos nucifera [Takagi1960a], Hyophorbe verschaffeltii [Beards1966]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Beards1966]. Cycadaceae: Cycas circinalis seemanii [Takagi1970], Cycas circinalis [Beards1966], Cycas sp. [Takagi1970]. Euphorbiaceae: Glochidion sp. [Beards1966], Hevea sp. [Takagi1970], Manihot esculenta [Beards1966]. Fagaceae: Castanea sp. [Tao1999]. Guttiferae: Garcinia sp. [Borchs1966]. Lauraceae: Machilus kusanoi [Takagi1970]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia asiatica [Beards1966]. Liliaceae: Heterosmilax japonica [Takaha1929]. Magnoliaceae: Illicium anisatum [Takaha1933], Illicium philippinense [Takagi1970]. Moraceae: Artocarpus communis [Beards1966]. Myrsinaceae: Ardisia crenata [Hua2000], Ardisia japonica [Tao1999], Ardisia sieboldii [Takagi1970], Ardisia sp. [Takaha1929], Bladhia sieboldi [Takaha1931b], Bladhia sp. [Takaha1932a], Maesa sp. [Takaha1935]. Myrtaceae: Psidium sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus fragrans [EastonPu1999]. Orchidaceae: Coelogyne sp. [Green1925]. Rhizophoraceae: Bruguiera hexangula [Beards1966], Bruguiera sp. [Beards1966], Rhizophora mucronata [Beards1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Beards1966]. Smilacaceae: Smilax china [Takagi1970], Smilax glabra [Tao1999], Smilax sp. [Takagi1970]. Solanaceae: Cestrum sp. [Beards1966]. Strelitziaceae: Ravenala sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Eurya japonica [Takagi1970], Eurya sp. [Takagi1970], Ternstroemia gymnanthera [Tao1999]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [Takaha1933], Vitis vinifera [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1966], Yap [Beards1966]); Guam [Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [Beards1975]; Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan Island [Beards1966]); Palau [Beards1966]; Wake Island [Beards1966]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [EastonPu1999], Hainan [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1970]); Philippines (Luzon [Takagi1960a]); Taiwan [Takaha1929]. Palaearctic: Japan [Hua2000]; United Kingdom (England [Green1925] (It was originally described by Green (1925) from specimens collected from Coelogyne sp. (Orchidaceae) at the RHS Garden, Wisley, and consequently has often been incorrectly recorded as occurring in Britain. Transient incursions have been found at nurseries. (Malumphy, et al., 2012))).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Green (1925) and by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, with the free abdominal segments well lobed laterally, and with the pygidium rounded. Derm at full maturity sclerotized on the mesothorax in a broad lateral area and on the metathorax less extensively. Pygidial lobes rather small (Takagi, 1970). Adult female 0.7-0.9 mm long. Body elongate fusiform, widest across metathorax or abdominal segment 1. Pygidium with median lobes moderately broad and well developed (Beardsley, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Green (1925) states that Lepidosaphes laterochitinosa is nearly allied to L. tubulorum, from which it differs principally in the incrassated margins of the thorax, and in the smaller number of spiniform processes on the lateral margins of the abdominal segments. Beardsley (1975) states that it is possible that both Lepidosaphes mcgregori and L. cocculi may be identical to L. laterochitinosa, if so, the name L. cocculi (Green) would have priority.
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Beardsley 1966: 535 (female) [as Lepidosaphes bladhiae; Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 32 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 61]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 54-57]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 536-537]; Beards1975 [distribution, taxonomy: 660-661]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution: 88]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60-61]; Borchs1978 [taxonomy: 106]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 162-163]; Chou1986 [illustration: 578]; Danzig1993 [p. 243]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; EastonPu1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7]; Green1925 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-43]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 250]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 23]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, host: 33]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 6]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141,142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Su1982 [distribution, host: 62]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1960a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 14-15]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 75-76]; Takaha1931b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 379-380]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 60]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 97]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 9]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 29, 71]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 209, 221].
Lepidosaphes leei TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes leei Takagi, 1970: 18-20. Type data: TAIWAN: Tai-pei Hsien, on Ilex formosana; Fen-chi-hu on Viburnum arboricolum; A-li, on Symplocos eriobotryaefolia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parainsulaspis leei; Yang, 1982: 221. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex formosana [Takagi1970]. Arecaceae: Cocos caudata [Hua2000]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum arboricolum [Takagi1970], Viburnum dilatatum [Tao1999]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos caudata [Tao1978], Symplocos eriobotryaefolia [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, with free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally and with the pygidium broadly rounded. Pygidial lobes rather small. Median lobes a little wider than long, apical margin convex, with a notch on each side (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes leei is close to L. laterochitinosa, from which it differs by the lateral tubercles of the metathorax, the absence of dorsal ducts between the median lobes and in front of the second lobes, the sparse granulations of the head and the longer antennal setae. It is related to L. coreana and L. ussuriensis by having lateral tubercles on the metathorax, but can be told by having basal scleroses on the pygidial lobes (Takagi, 1970).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 382-383]; Chou1986 [illustration: 583]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-20]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 29, 71]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 210, 221].
Lepidosaphes lidgetti (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis lidgetti Lidgett, 1899: 37. Nomen nudum; discovered by Cockerell, 1899f: 14.
Mytilaspis lidgetti Cockerell, 1899f: 14-15. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Eucalyptus rostrata and E. goniocalyx, by J. Lidgett. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes lidgetti; Fernald, 1903b: 311. Change of combination.
Triaspidis lidgetti; MacGillivray, 1921: 280. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus goniocalyx [Cocker1899f], Eucalyptus rostrata [Cocker1899f].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Cocker1899f]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, usually more or less curved, moderately convex, snow-white, the exuviae bright reddish orange, but the second skin more or less covered by a thin whitish film. Male scale much smaller, snow-white, rather broad, more or less loosely woven, so as to appear woolly; no keel; exuvia deep orange (Cockerell, 1899f).
SYSTEMATICS: Female scales of Lepidosaphes lidgetti appear like those of L. casuarinae. The female of casuarinae, however, is very easily distinguishable from lidgetti by the depression between the median lobes, which are broad, little produced and strongly crenulate (Cockerell, 1899f).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 280 (female) [as Triaspidis lidgetti; Key to species of Triaspidis]; Leonardi 1903: 31 (female) [as Mytilaspis lidgetti; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis lidgetti; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Bellio1928 [taxonomy: 303]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50, 378]; Cocker1899f [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 679-680]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 100-102]; Lidget1899 [taxonomy: 37]; Lindin1906a [taxonomy: 7]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 280].
Lepidosaphes lithocarpi TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes lithocarpi Takahashi, 1934: 18-20. Type data: TAIWAN: Hori, Suisha, on Lithocarpus sp., ?/06/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis lithocarpi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1934]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1934].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1934).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish yellow, a little shining, long, narrow, slightly narrowed on the anterior part, slightly convex dorsally, nearly straight or a little curved with a very narrow thin whitish secretion on the margin, about 2.5 mm long. 1st skin exceeding only a little beyond the front of the 2nd. 2nd skin about 0.7 mm long with 5 marginal glands on each side of the pygidium, the basal one being smaller. Adult female elongate, narrow, little broadened towards the abdomen, with some small glands on the sides of meso- and metathorax (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes lithocarpi is allied to L. lasianthi and L. pallida, but differs in the abdomen eminently projecting laterally (Takahashi, 1934).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 53]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 64]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 383]; Chou1986 [illustration: 593]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 3]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-20]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes lithocarpicola (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Cornimytilus lithocarpicola Tang, 1986: 71. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Shuize County, on Lithocarpus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes lithocarpicola; Miller et al., 2003: 941. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Tang1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scales yellowish brown, exuviae yellowish, 2.5 mm long. Male scale about 1 mm long. Adult female 0.75-0.85 long (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is close to L. machili and L. kuwacola, but differs from the latter two by having many fewer dorsal ducts on the 6th abdominal segment (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 941]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 279-280]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 81].
Lepidosaphes lobulata (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis lobulatus Froggatt, 1914: 680. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Gunnedah, on Casuarina sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes lobulatus; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes lobulata; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Frogga1914]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover white, very convex, short, distinctly transversely ribbed, sloping from the middle towards both extremities. First exuviae long, narrow, ridged down the center, forming a regular stalk, pale yellow on margins, green in the center. Second exuviae very large, merged into and apparently occupying nearly half the basal portion of the true cover, reddish brown. Adult female brown, with pygidium distinctly defined, the outer margin deeply serrate, showing about nine short serrate lobes divided in the center, but somewhat irregular in form and not projecting far beyond the margin (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 680]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 197]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 37].
Lepidosaphes luzonica RobinsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes luzonica Robinson, 1917: 35-36. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Benguet, Baguio, on Ficus sp., by Baker. Syntypes, female (examined). Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type material presumed lost as it is neither in USNM nor in Colorado.
COMMON NAME: Luzon scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Robins1917]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Robins1917]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Robinson (1917).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish white or very pale brown, about 2 mm long, broadly elongated, slightly convex; exuviae light reddish brown. Male scale about 1.75 mm long, white, not carinate, sides nearly parallel; exuviae pale yellow. Adult female pale yellow, dark brown at time of gestation (Robinson, 1917).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 57]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 35-36]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197].
Lepidosaphes macadamiae WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes macadamiae Williams, 1973: 84-85. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Baffle Creek, on Macadamia sp., 1969, by D.A. Ironside. Holotype female. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in ANIC, BMNH and USNM.
HOST: Proteaceae: Macadamia sp. [Willia1973]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Willia1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, sides subparallel, about 3.5 mm long, light brown or pale yellowish brown with the exuviae about the same color or slightly darker. Male scale same color, 1.5 mm long. Adult female broadly oval, about 1.25 mm long, blunt at anterior end, free abdominal segments distinctly lobed laterally, marginal lobe of the 2nd segment with a detached finger-like process at posterior end (Williams, 1973).
SYSTEMATICS: One of the most striking features of Lepidosaphes macadamiae is the presence of 3 distinct pairs of lobes (Williams, 1973).
CITATIONS: Willia1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84-85].
Lepidosaphes macella WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes macella Williams, 1973: 86-87. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Sydney, Botanical Gardens, on Macadamia tetraphylla, 05/02/1954, by L.A.S. Johnson. Holotype female. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in ANIC, BMNH and USNM.
HOST: Proteaceae: Macadamia tetraphylla [Willia1973].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Willia1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, 1.75 mm long, dark brown to black-brown, exuviae pale brown. Male scale reddish-brown, 1.25 mm long, elongate. Adult female elongate, sides parallel, about 1.0 mm long, free abdominal segments distinctly lobed, widest at the 3rd segment (Williams, 1973).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes macella has only 5 marginal macroducts on each side, which separates it from other Australian species of Lepidosaphes (Williams, 1973).
CITATIONS: Willia1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86-87].
Lepidosaphes madagascariensis (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Insulaspis madagascariensis Mamet, 1950: 33-34. Type data: MADAGASCAR: 75 miles East of Miandrivazo, on Haronga madagascariensis, ?/07/1949, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus madagascariensis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes madagascariensis; Mamet, 1959a: 445. Change of combination.
HOST: Guttifae: Haronga madagascariensis [Mamet1950].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1950].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1950).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate, narrow, whitish and translucent; exuviae terminal. Adult female membranous, with cephalic extremity flatly rounded, 1.2 mm long. Median pygidial lobes much broader than long, with sloping outer and inner margins notched several times (Mamet, 1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes madagascariensis differs from L. vermicula in the absence of the submarginal pore of the 7th segment, by the much shorter pygidial gland spines, by the presence of sclerotized areas associated with the lobes and by the nature of the female scale (Mamet, 1950).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mamet1950 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-34]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 228]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381, 382, 445-447]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 21].
Lepidosaphes malicola BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes malicola Borchsenius, 1947: 142. Type data: ARMENIA: Oktemberiansk, Mrgashat, on Malus sp., ?/09/1932, by S. Grigorian. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 254. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes kirgisica Borchsenius, 1949b: 341-343. Type data: KAZAKHSTAN: Mt. Ala-tau, Kirghiz, on west bank of Lake Issyk-kul'Kutemaldy, on Berberis sp., ?/07/1910, by A. Kiritchenko. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 254. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 276.
Mytilococcus kirgisica; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes kalandadzei Hadzibejli, 1957a: 102. Nomen nudum; discovered by Hadzibejli, 1960b: 318.
Lepidosaphes kalandadzei Hadzibejli, 1960b: 318-321. Type data: GEORGIA: Borzhomi. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 254. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 254.
COMMON NAMES: Armenian comma hard scale [Bustsh1958]; Armenian comma scale [MillerDa1990]; kirgis comma scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Watson2002a], Scymnus [Watson2002a]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [Watson2002a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis libanicus Traboulsi [UlgentErKa2008], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Watson2002a], Aphytis sp. [Watson2002a], Coccobius testaceus Hayat [UlgentErKa2008], Physcus testaceus [Watson2002a]. Encyrtidae: Zaomma lambinus [JaposhCe2010].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [Borchs1966]. Apocynaceae: Apocynum sp. [Borchs1949b]. Berberidaceae: Berberis heteropoda [Mateso1955], Berberis sp. [Borchs1949b]. Betulaceae: Betula sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera sp. [Borchs1966]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [Borchs1966]. Cignoniaceae: Catalpa sp. [Borchs1966]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [Borchs1966]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus angustifolia [Borchs1949d], Hippophae rhamnoides [Bazaro1971c]. Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [Borchs1966]. Fabaceae: Astragalus sp. [Moghad2013a], Cercis sp. [Borchs1966], Ceris siliquastrum [Moghad2013a], Robinia sp. [Borchs1966]. Juglandaceae: Juglans regia [Borchs1949d]. Lythraceae: Punica granatum [Moghad2013a]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus excelsior [Moghad2013a], Fraxinus sp. [Borchs1966], Jasminum sp. [Borchs1966], Ligustrum sp. [Borchs1966], Syringa sp. [Borchs1966]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus sp. [Borchs1966]. Rosaceae: Armeniaca vulgaris [Borchs1949d], Cerasus sp. [Borchs1949d], Cotoneaster vulgaris [Moghad2013a], Malus sp. [Borchs1947], Mespilus germanica [Borchs1949d], Persica sp. [Borchs1966], Prunus armeniaca [Moghad2013a], Prunus persica [Tang1986], Pyrus sp. [Borchs1966], Rosa sp. [Borchs1949d]. Salicaceae: Populus nigra [Moghad2013a], Populus sp. [Borchs1949d], Salix sp. [BazaroSh1971]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes rubrum [BazaroSh1971]. Solanaceae: Lycium sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Thymelaeaceae: Daphne angustifolia ` [Moghad2013a]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus sp. [Moghad2013a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Jammu & Kashmir [Varshn2002]). Palaearctic: Armenia [Borchs1947]; Bulgaria [DanzigPe1998]; China (Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1984b]); Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [DanzigPe1998]; Kazakhstan [Borchs1949b]; Kyrgyzstan (=Kirgizia) [Borchs1949b]; Turkey [UlgentErKa2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Borchsenius (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale coma-like, dark yellow, 2.2-3.0 mm long and 0.9-1.4 mm wide. Near the front thoracic spiracles there are 2-4 (rarely 5) disc glands (Borchsenius, 1947).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Bustshik 1958: 185 (female) [Species of the tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 33 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 181 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 42-47]; Bazaro1971c [distribution, host: 87]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-51]; Borchs1947 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 341-343]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 203, 204, 253, 2]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 181]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1165]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 95, 133]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43, 44, 378]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 95, 133]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185, 193]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 254-256]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Hadzib1957a [taxonomy: 102]; Hadzib1960b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 318-321]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 164]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; IukhneMaMi1958 [distribution, host: 18]; JaposhCe2010 [p. 134]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mateso1955 [distribution, host: 200]; Mateso1971 [distribution: 25]; MatesoMiIu1962a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 121]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 24]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 37]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 35]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 130]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 276]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; TerGri1953 [chemical control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79-88]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 65-66]; TerGri1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-50]; TerGri1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 142-143]; TorabiVaHo2010 [distribution, host: 156]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 50]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy].
Lepidosaphes marginalis LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes marginalis Leonardi, 1914: 211-213. Type data: GUINEA: Mamou, on unknown host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis marginalis; Lindinger, 1932f: 203. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus marginalis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Hall1946a].
SYSTEMATICS: Hall (1946a) and Takagi (1985) state that the generic position of this species is indeterminate, but it is not Lepidosaphes. However, since no author has moved the species to a different genus, it remains in Lepidosaphes for the time being.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 550]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 211-213]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 47].
Lepidosaphes marginata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes marginata Ferris, 1935: 130-131. Type data: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Marquesa, Hivaoa, Matauuna, on Reynoldisa tahitensis(=R. marchionensis), 03/03/1930. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Cheirodendron marquesense [WilliaWa1988], Reynoldsia marchionensis [Ferris1935].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: French Polynesia [Ferris1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1935) and Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, pale yellow, about 2 mm long. Male scale same color, but smaller. Adult female up to 1.5 mm long, oval, widest at about 1st abdominal segment; membranous, except for lightly sclerotized pygidium and heavily sclerotized marginal zone on 3rd and posterior segments. Lateral lobes of abdominal segments moderately developed (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes marginata can be easily recognized by the heavily sclerotized pygidial margin (Ferris, 1935).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Ferris1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-131]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 157-158, 160].
Lepidosaphes mcgregori BanksNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes mcgregori Banks, 1906: 233-234. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Manila, on Cocos nucifera. Holotype female. Type depository: Manila: Entomological Collection, Bureau of Science, Philippines; type no. 10142. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes macgregori; MacGillivray, 1921: 37. Misspelling of species name.
Insulaspis mogregori; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Misspelling of species name.
Insulaspis mcgregori; Borchsenius, 1966: 64. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes megregori; Ali, 1969a: 57. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: McGregor scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera [Borchs1966]. Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Banks1906].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Guam [Fullaw1946]. Oriental: India (Kerala [VisalaRaNa1982]); Philippines (Luzon [Banks1906]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Banks (1906) and Robinson (1917).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, diverging posteriorly, 2.5 mm long, 0.75 mm wide, clear reddish-brown, exuviae yellow. Male scale with anterior portions pale yellow brown, posterior and lateral margins narrowly white, 1.45 mm long and 0.35 mm wide. Adult female elongate; median lobes of caudal margin low and broad with crenulate surface (Robinson, 1917).
SYSTEMATICS: Beardsley (1975) states that it is possible that both Lepidosaphes mcgregori and L. cocculi may be identical to L. laterochitinosa, if so, the name L. cocculi (Green) would have priority.
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 57]; Banks1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222, 233-234]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 64]; Fullaw1946 [distribution, host: 160]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 37]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; VisalaRaNa1982 [chemical control, description, distribution, host: 500]; Wester1918 [host: 53].
Lepidosaphes melaleucae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis melaleucae Maskell, 1896b: 389. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Richmond River, Ballina, on Melaleuca sp., by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes melaleucae; Fernald, 1903b: 311. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Melaleuca sp. [Maskel1896b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1896b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Maskell (1896b) and Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover elongate, pyriform, convex, secreted portion greyish-white, exuviae terminal, orange. Male cover elongate, subcylindrical, convex, not carinated, secretion white, exuviae terminal, orange. Adult female yellow, elongate (Maskell, 1896b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes melaleucae is close to L. casuarinae and Mytilaspis spinifera (=Berlesaspis spinifera) and also to P. exocarpi, but the abdominal characters are distinct (Maskell, 1896b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 280 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [as Mytilaspis melaleucae; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis melaleucae; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 680-681]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 41-43]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 280]; Maskel1896b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389].
Lepidosaphes meliae (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Paralepidosaphes meliae Tang, 1986: 278. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Shantou, on Melia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes meliae; Miller et al., 1998: 941. Change of combination. Homonym.
HOST: Meliaceae: Melia sp. [Tang1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scales dark brown, elongate, 2.5 mm long. Male scales about 1 mm long. Adult female body 1.0-1.15 mm long, 0.6 mm wide. At maturity, the head is sclerotized and strewn with conical granules (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: This species comes very close to Andaspis mori, in the general distribution of ducts and in the shape of median lobes but differs in possessing much larger second lobes and lacking the sclerotized spurs on the margins of the abdomen (Williams, 1963b).Lepidosaphes meliae is quite close to L. tubulorum, from which it differs by the absence of lateral tubercles on the metathorax, by the median area of the 2nd to 5th abdominal segments without enlarged ducts and head with rather smaller gland spines and gland tubercles existing together, but there are no gland tubercles on the submarginal areas of these segments in L. tubulorum (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 941]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 278].
Lepidosaphes meridionalis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes meridionalis Lindinger, 1909e: 38-40. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Macrolobium palisoti, 1904. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis meridionalis; Vayssière, 1913: 431. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Macrolobium palisoti [Lindin1909e].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Scale brown, 2.08 mm long and 1.2 mm wide (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 278 (female) [as Triaspidis meridionalis; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538, 551]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-40]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Lepidosaphes mexicana (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis mexicana Cockerell, 1898j: 438. Type data: MEXICO: Morelos, Cuautla, on "nettle tree" and Ficus sp., 02/07/1897, by Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes mexicana; Fernald, 1903b: 311. Change of combination.
Triaspidis mexicana; MacGillivray, 1921: 278. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Cocker1898j]. Solanaceae: Solanum sp. [Cocker1902t]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Morelos [Cocker1898j]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale broad and flat, gray. Male scale more slender (Ferris, 1937). Adult female colorless after boiling, caudal portion strongly striated longitudinally. Median lobes large, a short distance apart, inner margins parallel, apex rounded (Cockerell, 1898j).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 278 (female) [as Triaspidis mexicana; Key to species of Triaspidis]; Leonardi 1903: 31 (female) [as Mytilaspis mexicana; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 54]; Cocker1898j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 438]; Cocker1899n [distribution: 32]; Cocker1902t [distribution, host: 472]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-75]; Ferris1942 [p. 56]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 95-96]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278].
Lepidosaphes micronesiensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes micronesiensis Takahashi, 1942d: 355-357. Type data: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA: Ponape, Paliker, on Bentinckiopsis ponapensis, 30/12/1939, by T. Esaki. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Bentinckiopsis ponapensis [Takaha1942d], Coelococcus amicarum [Beards1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Beards1966], Ponape Island [Takaha1942d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1942d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale purplish brown, but brownish black in older females, very narrowly paler at the margin, moderately widened posteriorly, somewhat curved, about 2.25 mm long and 0.9 mm wide. Second larval skin paler on the abdomen, especially on the marginal area, 0.62-0.75 mm long and 0.3-0.38 mm wide (Takahashi, 1942d).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes micronesiensis is related to L. cocculi and L. euryae, but is much different from L. marginata from the Marquesas Islands, in which the pygidium is very widely sclerotized on the margin (Takahashi, 1942d).
KEYS: Beardsley 1966: 534 [Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 57]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 534, 541]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Takaha1942d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 355-357].
Lepidosaphes morafenobensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes morafenobensis Mamet, 1959a: 448. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Morafenobe, Mahajeby Forest, on Ravensara sp., ?/05/1952, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 652. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis morafenobensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
HOST: Lauraceae: Ravensara sp. [Mamet1959a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes morafenobensis is closely related to L. pitsikahitrae, from which it differs by the cephalic extremity which is somewhat sclerotized, truncated and rectangular in shape and by the eyes which are not modified into sclerotized, thorn-like spurs (Mamet, 1959a).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 65]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381, 382, 448]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40, 55].
Lepidosaphes mulgae (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis mulgae Froggatt, 1914: 681. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Darling River, Pera Bore, on Acacia cambagei, 12/05/1899, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes mulgae; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia cambagei [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best available description by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very short, 1st exuviae reddish-yellow, 2nd exuviae larger. Adult female dark brown, short cephalic portion rounded, narrowed to base of rostrum, swelling out, broadly rounded to the tip of abdomen. Pygidium broadly rounded, with 2 short broad rounded terminal lobes with 2 rather angulate depression on either side (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 681]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 37].
Lepidosaphes multipora (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis multipora Leonardi, 1903: 87-89. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Aukland, on Pittosporum undulatam. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes multipora; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination. Notes: LECTOTYPE female designated in Henderson, 2011, to preserve nomenclatural stability: NEW ZEALAND, Auckland, ca.1903-1904, J. Lidgett, Pittosporum undulatum stem/ bark, #07-093b, [1]: 1 F. Barcode NZAC02005957
Mytilaspis eucalypti Froggatt, 1914: 610. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Mittagong, on Eucalyptus piperita. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female. Synonymy by Charles & Henderson, 2002: 602.
Lepidosaphes eucalypti; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ulmi novozealandica Green, 1929: 378. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Governor's Bay, on Prunus sp., 1922. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Charles & Henderson, 2002: 602.
Mytilococcus eucalypti; Lindinger, 1943a: 150. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes novozealandica; Borchsenius, 1966: 50. Change of status.
COMMON NAME: eucalyptus mussel scale [Miller1925].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Prospaltella aurantii [Morley1909].
HOSTS: Brassicaceae: Capsella bursa-pastoris [Hender2011]. Fabaceae: Acacia melanoxylon [Hudson1967], Acacia stricta [Frogga1914]. Myrtaceae: Eucaluptus regnans [Hender2011], Eucalyptus globulus [Green1929], Eucalyptus piperita [Frogga1914], Eucalyptus sp. [Hender2011]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum undulatum [Leonar1903]. Rosaceae: Armeniaca sp. [Borchs1966], Prunus sp. [Green1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914], Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Frogga1914]); New Zealand [Leonar1903, Green1929, Hender2011].
BIOLOGY: There are at least two generations per year (Miller, 1925).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1903).Best description by Froggatt (1914); description and illustration by Miller (1925).Best description and illustration by Green (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale covers appear medium brown with a pale posterior section and gold-brown terminal exuvia. (Henderson, 2011)Female scale light chocolate brown, closely resembling the color of the host bark, general form slender, convex, but somewhat flattened on the apical margins. Exuviae light reddish brown, 3 mm long. Male cover about half the size of the female, broadest at apex, which is sometimes whitish; 2nd shed skin shield-shaped, carinated (Froggatt, 1914).Pygidium of adult female with median lobes relatively smaller and lateral lobes relatively larger. Median lobes show no indication of a trilobate condition, except in the early adult stage, when they may be obscurely tricuspid (Green, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: The presence of numerous submedian microducts on the mesothorax distinguishes L multipora from other Lepidosaphes species in New Zealand. L. multipora is most similar to L. ulmi in possessing numerous dorsal ducts but lacks the ventral band of ducts between the posterior spiracles, the lateral abdominal spinose spurs, and dorsal abdominal bosses of L. ulmi. L. multpora differs from L. beckii by lacking lateral double bosses, and from L. pinnaeformis by lacking eye spurs. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 105 (female) [Key to Lepidosaphes adult females in New Zealand]; Leonardi 1903: 30 (female) [as Mytilaspis multipora; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49,50]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,602]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 610,681]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 55]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 182]; Garcia1931a [biological control, distribution: 668]; Green1905b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6]; Green1929 [distribution, host: 377]; Green1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,13,33,105-6,108]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Laing1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 87-89]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285]; Miller1925 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31]; Morley1909 [biological control: 278]; Myers1922 [distribution: 201]; Sander1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy: 37]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 107-108]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; Zondag1979 [distribution, host: 85-89].
Lepidosaphes murreeana Williams & Miller in Miller, Williams & DavidsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes murreeana Williams & Miller in Miller, Williams & Davidson, 2006: 29-31. Type data: PAKISTAN: Murree, on Abies pindrow, 22/05/1970. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: In addition there are 2 paratype adult female specimens with same data also in BMNH.
HOST: Pinaceae: Abies pindrow [MillerWiDa2006].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [MillerWiDa2006].
GENERAL REMARKS: Good description and illustration of the adult female given by Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
SYSTEMATICS: This species has similar dorsal submarginal ducts, placed well apart on abdominal segment VI, to those of L. caribaeae but differs in lacking the lateral swellings on abdominal segment II, lacking minute spinules on the head, and in possessing a smooth anterior head margin. The widely-spaced dorsal submarginal ducts on abdominal segment VI and the lack of a slender duct anterior of second lobes also separate L. murreeana from L. pallida.
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: MillerWiDa2006 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-31, 40-42].
Lepidosaphes newsteadi (Šulc)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis newsteadi Šulc, 1895a: 8-12. Type data: CZECHOSLOVAKIA: on Pinus silvestris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Abbotsford: Department of Entomology, Museum of Victoria, Victoria, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes newsteadi; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) newsteadi; Lindinger, 1907: 6. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus newsteadi; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
Insulaspis newsteadi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
Leucaspis newsteadi; Soria et al., 2000: 339. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Newstead scale [MillerDa1990]; Newstead's scale [Merril1953]; pine oysterhell scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [HertinSi1972]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspidis [Balach1954e], Aphytis sp. nr. phoenicus [UlgentErKa2008], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Azotus sp. [Simmon1957], Prospaltella aurantii [Balach1954e], Prospaltella intermedia [HertinSi1972], Prospaltella leucaspidis [Balach1954e], Pteroptrix dimidiata [Yasnos1978].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Moghad2013a]. Cupressaceae: Juniperus bermudiana [Balach1954e], Retinospora leptoclada [Merril1953]. Pinaceae: Abies alba [Schmut1951], Abies bornmulleri [Balach1954e], Abies nordmanniana bornmuelleriana [WilliaEd1985], Cedrus libani [WilliaEd1985], Cedrus sp. [WilliaEd1985], Picea excelsa [Schmut1951], Picea pungens [MatilePe2002], Picea sp. [Balach1954e], Pinus mugo [Boraty1955], Pinus mugo mughus [WilliaEd1985], Pinus nigra [Bodenh1953], Pinus silvestris [Sulc1895a], Pinus sp. [Merril1953]. Taxodiaceae: Cryptomeria japonica [Balach1954e], Sciadopitys verticillata [Colema1903]. Theaceae: Camellia sp. [Balach1954e], Thea japonica [Kuwana1902].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California? [Colema1903] (McKenzie (1956) considers this record to be based on misidentification and incorrect.), Connecticut [Britto1923], Florida [Merril1953], Mississippi? [Ferris1938a, Miller2005] (McKenzie (1956) considers this record to be based on misidentification and incorrect.)). Neotropical: Bermuda? [Balach1954e] (Williams & Edland (1985) consider all records of Lepidosaphes newsteadi in Bermuda to be misidentifications of L. pallida.). Palaearctic: Austria [Boraty1955, Malump2011a]; Bulgaria [KosztaKo1988F]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czech Republic [Sulc1895a]; France [Balach1954e, Foldi2001]; Germany [Ferris1938a]; Hungary [BognarVi1979]; Iran [DanzigPe1998]; Iraq [DanzigPe1998]; Italy [Ferris1938a, MatilePe2002]; Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1902]); Lebanon [WilliaEd1985]; Netherlands [Balach1954e]; Norway [WilliaEd1985, Gertss2001]; Poland [Szulcz1926, KotejaZa1983, SimonKa2011]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F]; Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995]; Sweden [DanzigPe1998]; Switzerland [Balach1954e]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
BIOLOGY: One yearly generation. Fertilized females overwinter and lay 7-56 eggs per female in Germany, from the end of April until late May. Eggs hatch in 40-50 days; adults develop by early August (Schmutterer, 1952).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1938a) and Bodenheimer (1953). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Scales of both sexes pale brown and quite slender. Adult female about 1.0 mm long. Derm at full maturity showing a tendency to be somewhat sclerotized from the 2nd abdominal segment to the end of the body (Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: Balachowsky (1954e) gives good characters to separate Lepidosaphes newsteadi from L. maskelli (=L. pallida (Maskell)).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 347 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [as Lepidosaphes newsteadi; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae]; Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Britton 1923: 378 (female) [Key to Connecticut species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1933a [taxonomy: 40]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 83-86]; Bennet1974 [biological control: 88]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121, 130-131]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-21]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 18]; Boraty1955 [distribution, host: 67]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 184]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 65]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378, 379]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 74]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 13]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 265-266]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287-288]; DouttDe1964 [distribution, host: 121]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-146]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:56]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 18]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127, 128]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 30]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 183]; Komosi1969a [taxonomy: 267]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 351]; KotejaZa1983 [distribution, host: 483]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kozarz1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 308]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 81]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 202]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 256]; Lagows1998a [ecology: 65]; LagowsKo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 55-57]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 170-171]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 252]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 139]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 144]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71, 119-123]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54,56-57]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54,57]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Mesnil1949 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 74-83]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 38]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Pelliz1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-16]; RoversBaFa1993 [distribution, host: 53]; Ryan1946 [distribution, economic importance: 125]; Schmut1951 [host, taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 158, 164-167]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 4]; Simmon1958a [distribution, host: 601]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 240]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 339]; Sulc1895a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-12 ,19]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; Takaha1955e [taxonomy: 73]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Terezn1975 [taxonomy: 57, 73]; ViggiaJe1985 [taxonomy: 879]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 33]; WilliaEd1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Wolff1911 [taxonomy: 80]; Yanin1971 [distribution, taxonomy: 46]; Yanin1975 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Yasnos1978 [biological control, distribution: 494, 500]; Zahrad1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 162, 166-170]; Zahrad1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 425-426]; Zahrad1977 [host: 120].
Lepidosaphes nivalis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes nivalis Takagi, 1969a: 23. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970.
Lepidosaphes nivalis Takagi, 1970: 4-5. Type data: TAIWAN: Tung-pu, on Tsuga chinensis var. formosana; A-li, on Abies kawakamii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis nivalis; Yang, 1982: 220. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies kawakamii [Takagi1970], Tsuga chinensis formosana [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1970). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body with metathorax and basal 4 abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally, with trapezoid-shaped pygidium. Median lobes a bit wider than long, with apex obtuse-angulated (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes nivalis is close to L. japonica, but is easily distinguishable from the latter by having numerous macroducts on the thorax and abdomen. Moreover, among Lepidosaphes species, its white scale is unique (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidoxaphes].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 383-384]; Chou1986 [illustration: 584]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25,36,40-42]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4-5]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92]; Yang1982 [distribution, host: 220].
Lepidosaphes noxia McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes noxia McKenzie, 1946b: 611-613. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, San Leandro Alameda County, in orchid nursery, on Dendrobium dearei, 09/02/1944, by M.R. Bell. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis noxia; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: noxius scale [McKenz1956].
HOSTS: Orchidaceae: Dendrobium dearei [McKenz1946b], Dendrobium sp. [Nakaha1981a], Vanda sp. [Nakaha1982]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [McKenz1946b, Nishid2002]). Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1946b]). Oriental: Philippines [Nakaha1982].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by (McKenzie, 1946b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2.2 mm long, pale brown, terminal exuviae. Male scale lighter in color, exuviae terminal. Adult female 1.25 mm long; derm membranous at full maturity (McKenzie, 1946b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes noxia is related to L. mackieana, but differs in the character of the median lobes which are only slightly once notched on each side, whereas in L. mackieana they are laterally serrate (McKenzie, 1956).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Gill 1997: 169 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; McKenzie 1956: 33 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Zimmerman 1948: 418 (female) [as Lepidosaphes noxia; Key to species of Lepidosaphes reported in Hawaii].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 65]; Gill1997 [illustration, taxonomy: 169, 174, 184]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 24]; McKenz1946b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 611-613]; McKenz1947a [taxonomy: 31]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 125-126]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 101]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 418, 422].
Lepidosaphes ocellata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis ocellata Green, 1907: 206-207. Type data: SEYCHELLES: on fronds of Davallia sp., by R. Dupont. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes ocellata; Sanders, 1909a: 57. Change of combination.
Cornuaspis ocellata; MacGillivray, 1921: 286. Change of combination.
HOST: Polypodiaceae: Davallia sp. [Green1907]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Seychelles [Green1907].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes ocellata was collected at an altitude of 3000 feet (Green, 1907).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1907).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, mostly straight, moderately convex above, with or without a narrow flattened border, pale fulvous. Larval exuviae ochreous yellow. Surface usually with fine transverse corrugations, occasionally smooth, 2.0-2.5 mm long, 0.50 mm wide. Male scale similar, but smaller, 1.25 mm long. Adult female broadest across the median abdominal segment, with well-defined eye spots on the lateral margins of cephalic segment (Green, 1907).
SYSTEMATICS: L. ocellata is close to L. pallida, but in the latter the lateral lobules are more than half the size of the median lobes, in the former, the lateral lobules are markedly smaller and narrower (Green, 1907).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 286 [as Cornuaspis ocellata; Key to species of Cornuaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 9]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Green1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206-207]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 57]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 8].
Lepidosaphes ogasawarensis KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ogasawarensis Kawai, 1972a: 30. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Chichi-jima and Haha-jima, on Livistona boninensis. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Arecaceae: Livistona boninensis [Kawai1972a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kawai1972a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kawai (1972a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with the anterior margin of head truncated or nearly so, with metathorax and basal 4 abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally, and with the pygidium trapezoidal. Median lobes as long as wide (Kawai, 1972a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes ogasawarensis is close to L. serrifrons, but differs by lacking gland spines on the metathorax, by having sclerotized lateral processes on the prepygidial abdominal segments and by one or two submarginal dorsal macroducts in front of the second lobe (Kawai, 1972a).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Kawai1972a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-30]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 242].
Lepidosaphes okitsuensis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes okitsuensis Kuwana, 1925a: 33-35. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Okitsu, Imperial Horticultural Experiment Station, on Abies firma, spring 1914, by I. Kuwana,. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Velataspis okitsuensis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 92. Change of combination.
Parainsulaspis okitsuensis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
Paralepidosaphes okitsuensis; Yang, 1982: 206. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Japanese silver fir scale [KSPP1972].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies firma [Kuwana1925a], Abies sp. [Takagi1960]. Taxaceae: Cephalotaxus drupacea [TakahaTa1956], Torreya nucifera [Takagi1960].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]). Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1984b], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tang1984b]); Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1925a], Kyushu [Takagi1960], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kuwana (1925a). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, convex, narrow, sides nearly straight, broadening slightly towards posterior end; straight or curved, dark brown to black. Male scale similar to female, but smaller, sides almost parallel, dark brown, exuviae pale yellow. Adult female elongate, segmentation distinct, heavily chitinized, purple (Kuwana, 1925a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes okitsuensis resembles L. euryae in the shape of the body and the pygidial fringe, but it has small tubercular spines on the head and thickly sclerotized spurs on the abdomen like L. tubulorum (Takagi, 1960).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 339 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 3 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 92]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 165-166]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KSPP1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 33-35]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 37, 40-42]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 83]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 348-350]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 91, 94]; Takaha1936d [taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 76]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 12]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 130]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 206].
Lepidosaphes olivina LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes olivina Leonardi, 1913c: 68-70. Type data: ERITREA: on Oleae sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis olivina; Silvestri, 1915: 262. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus distigma [Silves1915]. HYMENOPTERA Eulophidae: Tetrastichus sicarius [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Oleaceae: Olea chrysophylla [Silves1915], Olea sp. [Leonar1913c]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [Leonar1913c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1913c).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate. Female scale cream colored (Leonardi, 1913c).
SYSTEMATICS: Hall (1946a) lists this species as indeterminate, not Lepidosaphes.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 24]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 551]; Leonar1913c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68-70]; SchildSc1928 [distribution, host: 268]; Silves1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 262-263].
Lepidosaphes orsomi MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes orsomi Mamet, 1954: 62-63. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tsimbazaza, on Gastrorchis sp., ?/11/1950, by R. Paulian. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 253. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis orsoni; Borchsenius, 1966: 66. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Cussonia bojeri [Mamet1959a]. Liliaceae: Dracaena sp. [Mamet1959a]. Orchidaceae: Gastrorchis sp. [Mamet1954]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale whitish. Adult female elongate, fusiform, 1 mm long. Derm not showing sign of strong sclerotization. Median pygidial lobes separated with a pair of gland spines between their bases (Mamet, 1954).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Kozarz1974 [host: 23]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19, 62]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 381]; Takaha1955e [taxonomy: 77].
Lepidosaphes palauensis BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes palauensis Beardsley, 1966: 541-543. Type data: PALAU: Ngurukdabel, on unidentified tree, ?/08/1953, by J. Beardsley. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in USNM.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Palau [Beards1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Beardsley (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 0.8-1.2 mm long. Body elongate, fusiform, widest across 1st abdominal segment. Pygidium relatively elongate, anal opening situated farther from posterior apex than from lateral margins of abdominal segment 4 (Beardsley, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes palauensis can be distinguished by the elongate pygidium, triangular median lobes and well-developed lateral spines on abdominal segments 2 to 4 (Beardsley, 1966).
KEYS: Beardsley 1966: 534 [Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 534, 541-543].
Lepidosaphes pallens (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis pallens Maskell, 1890: 134. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, in greenhouse, on unidentified "fan-palm". Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes pallens; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Fusilaspis pallens; MacGillivray, 1921: 289. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus pallens; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Poliaspis pallens; Lindinger, 1943a: 149. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Marietta capillata [Fulmek1943].
HOST: Liliaceae: Xanthorrhoea sp. [Fernal1903b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1890]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover light greyish-green, elongated, flat, thin; rather widely pyriform in many specimens, exuviae small. Male scale cover resembling that of female, but much smaller and a little more convex; not carinated. Adult female dark brown or purple, cephalic region comparatively large. Adult male dark brown (Maskell, 1890).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pallens is allied to L. phymatodius (=Pseudaulacaspis phymatodius) (Froggatt, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 289 (female) [as Fusilaspis pallens; Key to species of Fusilaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 31 (female) [as Mytilaspis pallens; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis pallens; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 682]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 34, 52]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 93-95]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Maskel1890 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134].
Lepidosaphes pallida (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis pallida var ? Maskell, 1895b: 46. Type data: JAPAN: taken in Honolulu Hawaii, on Podocarpus sp., by Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female.
Mytilaspis pallida maskelli Cockerell, 1897q: 704. Unjustified replacement name for Mytilaspis pallida Maskell 1895b; discovered by Borchsenius, 1937a: 77. Notes: Cockerell (1897q) realized that Maskell's Mytilaspis pallida was different from Green's M. pallida and proposed M. pallida maskelli as a replacement name for the Maskell species. However, since the Maskell species is the senior name, Cockerell's replacement name is unnecessary.
Lepidosaphes pallida maskelli; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes newsteadi; Ferris, 1938a: SII-146. Misidentification; discovered by McKenzie, 1956: 123.
Lepidosaphes pallida; Zimmerman, 1948: 418. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes maskelli; Balachowsky, 1954e: 87. Change of status.
Insulaspis maskelli; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Jnsulaspis mackelli; Hadzibejli, 1965: 7. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Insulaspis pallida; Williams, 1969b: 60. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Maskell scale [McKenz1956].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis hispanicus [RosenDe1979].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Avicennia officinalis [Moghad2013a]. Apocynaceae: Nerium sp. [Moghad2013a]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex integra? [Muraka1970]. Araucariacae: Araucaria sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Cephalotaxaceae: Cephalotaxus drupacea koraiana [Muraka1970], Cephalotaxus drupacea [Kuwana1925a], Cephalotaxus drupacea fastigiata [Kuwana1925a], Cephalotaxus fastigiata [Borchs1937a], Cephalotaxus fortunei [Borchs1937a], Cephalotaxus harringtonia [Takagi1960]. Cupressaceae: Juniperus bermudiana [WilliaEd1985], Juniperus chinensis procumbens [Muraka1970], Juniperus chinensis sargenti [Muraka1970], Juniperus communis [Moghad2013a], Juniperus conferta [BesheaTiHo1973], Juniperus rigida [Muraka1970], Juniperus sargentii [Takagi1960], Juniperus sp. [Takagi1960]. Fagaceae: Quercus glauca? [Kuwana1925a]. Pinaceae: Abies firma [Muraka1970], Picea sp. [McKenz1956], Pinus sp. [Seghat1977]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus chinensis [Muraka1970], Podocarpus macrophylla [Borchs1937a], Podocarpus sp. [Maskel1895b]. Rhizophoraceae: Kandelia rheedii? [Tao1999]. Rosaceae: Mespilus germanica [Moghad2013a]. Rutaceae: Citrus acida? [Green1914c]. Salicaceae: Salix koriyanagi? [Muraka1970]. Taxaceae: Taxus baccata globosa [Kuwana1925a], Taxus cuspidata [Muraka1970], Taxus cuspidata umbraculifera [Muraka1970], Torreya nucifera [Kuwana1925a]. Taxodiaceae: Cryptomeria japonica [Kuwana1925a], Cryptomeria sp. [Moghad2013a], Sciadopitys verticilata [Kuwana1925a], Sequoia sempervirens [McKenz1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [TakahaTa1956]; Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1904b, MillerDa2005] (Oahu [Nishid2002]); New Zealand [CharleHe2002]. Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Florida [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Ferris1938a, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], New York [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Bermuda [WilliaEd1985, MillerDa2005] (All records of Lepidosaphes newsteadi in Bermuda are considered to be misidentifications of L. pallida.). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [TakahaTa1956]; Taiwan [ChenWo1936, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: China [MillerDa2005] (Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999]); Iran [Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Japan [Maskel1895b, MillerDa2005] (Honshu [Shinji1936b], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Lebanon [MillerDa2005]; South Korea [MillerDa2005]; Turkey [MillerDa2005]; USSR [MillerDa2005].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes pallida is now accepted as a Holarctic species on conifers (Williams, 1969b). The life history of this species is poorly known. According to Waterston (1949), in Bermuda the winter is spent as adult females. Eggs are laid beginning in late March. Crawlers are present between July and November and probably occur earlier in the year. Males are reported. In Europe, Schmutterer (1951) found that it had 1 generation each year and overwintered as fertilized females. Crawlers begin hatching in June. Adult males and females appeared in mid-August. In Maryland adult males are present in late September to early October along with all other stages, i.e., eggs, crawlers, second instars and adult females. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). In New Zealand, it is found on leaves or base of leaves of its conferous hosts. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1925a), Balachowsky (1954e) and Takagi (1970). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, with the metathorax and basal 4 abdominal segments gently lobed laterally and with the pygidium rather of the shape of a trapezoid. Median lobes as long as wide, with the apical margin convex, and with a slight notch on each side (Takagi, 1970). Female scale cover light yellow-brown or tan, with pale, slender, terminal exuvia lying further forward from position of female body, which is pale, eggs pale. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Maskell (1895b) described Mytilaspis pallida imported into Honolulu, from Japan on Podocarpus sp., but credited the species to Green. This record preceded the description of Mytilaspis pallida by Green (1896). It is clear that Maskell's species was not the same as Green's. Cockerell (1897q) proposed the replacement name Mytilaspis pallida var. maskelli for Maskell's species. However, since Maskell's description was valid, his species has precedence over Green's. Thus, Cockerell's name is a junior synonym of Lepidosaphes pallida Maskell. Williams (1969b) proposed the replacement name pallidula for Green's species. Since the two species have been confused, it is impossible to be sure that all references actually apply to the named species. Lepidosaphes pallida can be told from L. gloverii in lacking the spur on each side of the penultimate and 2 preceding segments of the body, while L. gloverii has a sharp spur on the corresponding segments (Kuwana, 1925a). It is also close to L. newsteadi and L. juniperi, differing chiefly in the presence of a single submarginal dorsal pygidial macroduct on the 5th abdominal segment as compared to 3 or 4 in the other species (McKenzie, 1956). Balachowsky (1954e) gives good characters to separate Lepidosaphes newsteadi from L. maskelli (=L. pallida (Maskell)).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Dekle (1977) reports that Maskell scale is occasionally a serious pest of juniper in Florida. In concert with minute cypress scale, Maskell scale nearly eliminated the Bermuda cedar on Bermuda. The foliage of heavily infested trees turns pale yellow, and entire trees may be killed if remedial action is not taken. Hodgson and Hilburn (1991) indicated that Maskell scale is uncommon on Bermuda, being replaced by Carulaspis minima. The authors have seen die back due to this pest on Cryptomeria in Maryland. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be a serious pest in a small area of the world. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 105 (female) [Key to Lepidosaphes adult females in New Zealand]; Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Gill 1997: 169 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab 1996: 517 (female) [Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 337 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae]; Takagi 1960: 92 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; McKenzie 1956: 33 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 70 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 34 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 184 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Zimmerman 1948: 418 (female) [as Lepidosaphes maskelli; Key to species of Lepidosaphes reported in Hawaii]; Kuwana 1925a: 5 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Green 1896e: 77 (female) [as Mytilaspis pallida; Key to species of Mytilaspis of Ceylon].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [taxonomy: 53]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 87-91]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 105]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 77]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; Borchs1958a [taxonomy: 168]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172, 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 64]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-575,602-603]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 181-182]; Cocker1897j [distribution, host: 5]; Cocker1897q [distribution, host, taxonomy: 704]; Cocker1898r [taxonomy: 239-240]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 265, 268-269]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, host: 40]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 103]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-146]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 96, 100]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 169, 174-175, 185]; Hadzib1965 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-9]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,13,33,105,109,112,]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 12]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153, 154]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 241]; KawaiMaUm1971 [taxonomy: 23]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, taxonomy: 111]; Kirkal1904b [distribution: 158]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 517, 521-523]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-11]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 256]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 373]; Maskel1895b [description, distribution, host: 46]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 55]; McKenz1955 [distribution, taxonomy: 187, 190]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 123, 125-126]; Miller2005 [distribution, illustration: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 256]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Miyosh1926 [distribution: 306]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 26]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 38]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 83]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 347-348]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; RosenDe1979 [biological control: 760]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 13]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 93-94]; Shirak1913 [distribution, taxonomy: 100]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76, 92]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 4, 6]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 75-76]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 111]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 12]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 92, 93]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48]; Willia1969b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60-61]; Willia1969f [taxonomy: 114]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449]; WilliaEd1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 220]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 418, 422, 426]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 418].
Lepidosaphes pallidula (Williams)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis pallida Green, 1896: 5. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on leaves of unidentified shrubs. Lectotype. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Homonym of Mytilaspis pallida Maskell 1895b.
Mytilaspis gloverii pallida; Green, 1896e: 85. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes pallida; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pallidus; Green, 1919c: 446. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Lepidosaphes gloverii pallida; MacGillivray, 1921: 283. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) pallida; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 31. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus pallidus; Lindinger, 1936: 159. Change of combination.
Insulaspis pallida; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
Insulaspis pallidula Williams, 1969f: 114. Replacement name for Mytilaspis pallida Green 1896.
Lepidosaphes pallidula; Kawai, 1980: 240. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis hispanicus [RosenDe1979], Aphytis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Encarsia lounsburyi [AbdRab2001a]. Encyrtidae: Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [AhmadGh1972]. Annonaceae: Mangefera sp. [MillerWiDa2006]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [Mamet1949]. Flacourtiaceae: Scolopia sp. [MillerWiDa2006]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [MillerWiDa2006]. Myrtaceae: Psidium guajava [Moghad2013a], Psidium sp. [Ali1969a]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora sp. [MillerWiDa2006]. Rhizophoraceae: Rhizophora sp. [MillerWiDa2006]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Mamet1949], Murraya sp. [MillerWiDa2006]. Solanaceae: Solanam melongena [TakagiMo2005].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]. Australasian: Australia [WilliaWi1988]. Oriental: India [Green1919c] (Uttar Pradesh [Misra1924CS]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Sri Lanka [Green1896]. Palaearctic: Egypt [GhabboMo1996]; Iran [Moghad2013a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
SYSTEMATICS: Maskell (1895b) described Mytilaspis pallida imported into Honolulu, from Japan on Podocarpus sp., but credited the species to Green. This record preceded the description of Mytilaspis pallida by Green (1896). It is clear that Maskell's species was not the same as Green's. Cockerell (1897q) proposed the replacement name Mytilaspis pallida var. maskelli for Maskell's species. However, since Maskell's description was valid, his species takes precedence over Green's. Thus, Cockerell's name is a junior synonym of Lepidosaphes pallida Maskell. Williams (1969b) intended to propose the replacement name pallidula for Green's species, but due to an oversight, did not actually use the name until 1969f. Since the two species have been confused, it is impossible to be sure that all references actually apply to the named species. A detailed redescription and illustration was provided by Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
KEYS: Ghabbour 2001: 82 (first instar) [as Insulaspis pallidula; Key to two species of Insulaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 283 (female) [as Lepidosaphes gloverii pallida; Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 175, 176]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 89]; Ali1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 87]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Cocker1897q [distribution, host, taxonomy: 704]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Ghabbo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 348]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77, 85]; Green1900a [taxonomy: 254]; Green1914c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 233]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 446]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 183]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 240-241]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, taxonomy: 111]; Kuznet1967 [distribution, host: 256]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 159]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40-41]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 55]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-35]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 38]; Parkin1906 [ecology: 69]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 24]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 31]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 760]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 49]; Willia1969b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60-61]; Willia1969f [taxonomy: 114]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 67].
Lepidosaphes pandani LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pandani Laing, 1929: 32-33. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Koolpinyah, on Pandanus odoratissimus, by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parainsulaspis pandani; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
HOST: Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [Laing1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale linear, parallel-sided, very slightly expanded at anterior end, or widening out gently at the median area, 6-8 times as long as broad, rich castaneous to dark brown, with a narrow area on anterior margin much paler, surface with transverse ridges, the distance between ridges varying considerably; exuviae pale yellowish brown, the nymphal somewhat darker than the larval, up to 4 mm long. Adult female membranous, widest across abdominal segments, the length from 2.5 to 4 times the breadth (Laing, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32-33]; Takaha1939b [taxonomy: 268].
Lepidosaphes pauliani MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pauliani Mamet, 1959a: 442-443. Type data: MADAGASCAR: 60km East of Maevatanana, on an undetermined host, ?/10/1949, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, pale brown; exuviae terminal. Adult female membranous, with cephalic extremity rounded, 0.8 mm long. Median pygidial lobes fairly broad, with apical margin smooth, separated from each other at base by a space equal to about half the width of one of them (Mamet, 1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pauliani is easily separable from other Lepidosaphes occurring in Madagascar by the absence of the outer lobule of the 2nd pygidial lobe (Mamet, 1959a).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381, 382, 442-443].
Lepidosaphes perlonga (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis perlonga Cockerell, 1898e: 202. Type data: BRAZIL: Campinas, on Baccharis sp., ?/01/1898, by F. Noack. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, and Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes perlonga; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Triaspidis perlonga; MacGillivray, 1921: 279. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Baccharis dracunculifolia [Fernal1903b], Baccharis sp. [Cocker1898e]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Misiones [ClapsWoGo2001]); Brazil (Minas Gerais [SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [Cocker1898e]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, 3.5 mm long, just under 1.0 mm wide, convex, straight, very pale ochreous, exuviae shining apricot, with a coppery tint, 1st skin exposed, 2nd covered. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female orange brown, median lobes fairly large, but not produced (Cockerell, 1898e).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes perlonga can be distinguished by the very large gland spines and the one spine in the first interlobular interval (Cockerell, 1898e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 279 (female) [as Triaspidis perlonga; Key to species of Triaspidis]; Leonardi 1903: 31 (female) [as Mytilaspis perlonga; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 245-246]; Cocker1898e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; Cocker1898k [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 514]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 97-99]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 421]; Lizery1939 [distribution, taxonomy: 201]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279]; Sassce1923 [distribution, host: 155]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 181].
Lepidosaphes piceae (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Cornimytilus piceae Tang, 1986: 73. Type data: CHINA: Gansu, Qilian Mountain, on Picea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes piceae; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 289. Change of combination.
HOST: Pinaceae: Picea sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Gansu (=Kansu) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Scale color varies from white to greyish brown, exuviae golden yellow. Male scale is about 1 mm long, while the female scale is about 2.5 mm long (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is unique in its possession of 3 marginal ducts on the 5th abdominal segment instead of the usual 2 (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 280]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 81-82].
Lepidosaphes pinea (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Insulaspis pinea Borchsenius, 1964: 164. Type data: NORTH KOREA: Pyongyang, on Pinus sp., 02/07/1950, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes pinea; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 289. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Borchs1966], Pinus taeda [MartinLa2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [Tao1999]. Palaearctic: South Korea [Borchs1964].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Borchsenius (1964) and Paik (1978). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Female body elongate oval, 1-2 disc glands present near anterior spiracles, 2 pairs of abdominal tubercles (Borchsenius, 1964).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pinea is close to L. pini Maskell, but is easily differentiated by elastic meso- and metathorax and by the absence of spines on abdominal tubercles of the 3-4th abdominal segments (Borchsenius, 1964).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae].
CITATIONS: Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 164, 168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 66]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 153]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 350-351]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 447]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes pineti BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pineti Borchsenius, 1958a: 170. Type data: CHINA: Beijing, Pekin, Letnego Dvortsa park, on Pinus sp., 18/08/1954, by N. Borchsenius. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis pineti; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus massoniana [Tao1999], Pinus sp. [Borchs1958a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Borchs1958a], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1958a). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, 2.0-2.4 mm long, brown, narrow depressed light band along the margin. Male scale 0.9 mm long, brown. Adult female elongate, slightly broadened towards the posterior half, approximately 0.8 mm long and 0.4 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1958a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pineti is close to L. pini, but is well differentiated by the shorter and broader marginal and dorsal glands of the pygidium, longer plates of the pygidium and the shape of the plates (Borchsenius, 1958a).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to the conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 53]; Borchs1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 170, 175]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 179-180]; Chou1986 [illustration: 592]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 264]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214-215]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 220].
Lepidosaphes pini (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis pini Maskell, 1897a: 242. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Miyanoshita, on Pinus densiflora. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, Department of Entomology, California, USA, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and UCDC, USNM. Described: female.
Chionaspis (Poliaspis) pini; Balachowsky, 1930d: 267. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pini; Takahashi, 1955e: 76. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus pinorum Lindinger, 1957: 549. Unjustified replacement name for Poliaspis pini Maskell 1897a. Notes: It would appear that Lindinger felt that Morrison & Morrison (1922) were either describing a new species or were moving Poliaspis pini Maskell into Lepidosaphes. He appears to be concerned about homonymy and proposed the replacement name Mytilococcus pinorum specifically citing the Morrison & Morrison paper. It seems as though Morrison & Morrison were doing neither of these things and were simply describing pini as a Lepidosaphes-like species. Since there is no evidence of a homonym Lindinger's name is considered invalid.
Insulaspis pini; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Oriental pine scale [MillerDa1990]; pine oystershell scale [Koszta1996].
ASSOCIATE: FUNGI : Nectria coccophila [Muraka1970].
HOSTS: Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [TakahaTa1956], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Abies sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Pinus australia [Tao1999], Pinus densiflora [Maskel1897a], Pinus luchuensis [Muraka1970], Pinus sp. [Muraka1970, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Pinus thunbergi [Kuwana1925]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus macrophyllus [Tao1999], Taxus sp. [Tang1984b, MillerDa2005], Torreya sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Taxodiaceae: Cunninghamia lanceolata [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [MillerDa2005]; Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1971)). Nearctic: United States of America (Maryland [Stimme1994, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005] (Kosztarab (1996) states that this species was apparently introduced to the USA from the Orient.), New Jersey [Stimme1994, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005] (Kosztarab (1996) states that this species was apparently introduced to the USA from the Orient.), Pennsylvania [Stimme1994, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005] (Kosztarab (1996) states that this species was apparently introduced to the USA from the Orient.)). Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takaha1934, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: China [MillerDa2005] (Hebei (=Hopei) [Tao1999], Liaoning [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tao1999]); Japan [MillerDa2005] (Hokkaido [TakahaTa1956], Honshu [Maskel1897a], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); South Korea [MillerDa2005].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes pini has two generations per year, overwintering in the fertilized female adults. The female lays about 30 eggs the next April. Male emergence is in early August and mid-October (Murakami, 1970). The life history of this species is poorly known. Smith-Fiola (1997, personal communication) indicated that in New Jersey the adult female is the overwintering stage; eggs are present in March and August; and crawlers occur in June and September. According to Murakami (1970), in Japan it has 2 generations each year and overwinters as fertilized adult females. In April, about 30 eggs are laid, and adult males are reported in August and mid-October. Xu (1981) studied this species in China and also reported that the species has 2 generations each year and overwinters as adult females. Stimmel (1994) hypothesized that it has only one yearly generation in Pennsylvania, with eggs serving as the overwintering stage. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1898), Paik (1978) and Chou (1982). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, mussel-shaped, brown with orange exuviae. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female brown, elongate, abdomen ending in an emarginate curve, minutely serrated (Maskell, 1898).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. The pine oystershell scale has been reported as a pest of pines by Schmutterer et al. (1957), Tang (1984), Zahradnik (1990b), Chai et al. (1999), and Xu (1981). In recent years it has caused damage in the coastal areas of New Jersey and has required the use of chemical controls (Smith-Fiola 1994) (misidentified as Lepidosaphes pallida). This pest causes chlorosis of the base of the needles (Stimmel 1994). Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 336 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [as Insulaspis pini; Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae]; Takagi 1960: 92 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 68 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1930d: 267 (female) [as Chionaspis pini; Tableau de détermination des Chionaspis Sign. (sensu lato) vivant aux dépens des Conifères].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24]; Balach1930d [host, taxonomy: 267]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 170, 176]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1964 [taxonomy: 164]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 178-179]; Chou1986 [illustration: 592]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 264]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 35]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 243]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 517, 523, 524]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 1-3]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 355]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 6]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 231]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 260]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 35, 40-42]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 83-84]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 351-353]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Shinji1936b [distribution: 93]; Stimme1994 [chemical control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 19-20]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 92]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host: 18]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68, 76-77]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 12-13]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 108]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449]; Xu1981a [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 314-316]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 221].
Lepidosaphes pinifolii (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Pinomytilus pinifolii Borchsenius, 1964: 160. Type data: NORTH KOREA: Pyongyang, on Pinus sp., 02/07/1950, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes (Pinomytilus) pinifolii; Danzig, 1980b: 362. Change of combination.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Borchs1964]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: South Korea [Borchs1964].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Borchsenius (1964) and Danzig (1980b). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with constriction between meso- and metathorax hardly perceptible. Marginal tubercles located on II to IV abdominal segments; the two anterior ones with one small spine (Danzig, 1980b).
SYSTEMATICS: L. pinifolii is close to L. pseudotsugae, but can be differentiated by the barely perceptible contraction between the meso- and metathorax, longer serrated gland spines and fewer number of circumgenital glands (Borchsenius, 1964)
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 36 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 246 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1986a: 355 (female) [as Lepidosaphes (Pinomytilus) pinifolii; Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 246, 263-264]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 353-354]; Takagi1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 8].
Lepidosaphes piniphila BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes piniphilus Borchsenius, 1958a: 171. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Kwangchow, in park of Linang University, 12/12/1954, by L. Su-tsun & N. Borchsenius; Nankin, 10/10/1954, by N. Shutova. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Parainsulaspis piniphila; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus massoniana [Tao1999], Pinus sp. [Borchs1958a], Pinus thunbergii [Tao1999]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus macrophylla [Tachik1962], Podocarpus macrophyllus makaii [Takagi1960], Podocarpus sp. [Takagi1960], Podocarpus sp. [Muraka1970]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Borchs1958a], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Borchs1958a], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: Japan (Kyushu [Takagi1960], Shikoku [Takagi1960]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1958a). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, slightly widened toward posterior end, brown, 1.7 mm long. Adult female body elongate, widened upwards to the 2nd abdominal segment, reaches 1.4 mm long and 0.55 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1958a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes piniphila is close to L. tubulorum, from which it is separated by the shape of the body and the shape of sclerotized spines, located on sides of abdomen. It is also close to L. keteleeriae and L. okitsuensis, from these species also separated by the sclerotized spines of the abdomen (Borchsenius, 1958a).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 339 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 62]; Borchs1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 171, 176]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 164-165]; Chou1986 [illustration: 592]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 196-197]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 251]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 37, 40-42]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 84]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 339]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84-86, 94]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206-207]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 278-279]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 222].
Lepidosaphes piniroxburghii TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes piniroxburghii Takagi, 1975: 13-18. Type data: NEPAL: Larjung, on Pinus roxburghii, 07/05/1968, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus roxburghii [Takagi1975].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1975].
BIOLOGY: L. piniroxburghii was collected at an altitude of 2550 m (Takagi, 1975).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1975). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Body of adult female narrow, 2.4 times as long as wide, fusiform, with distinct constriction between the meso- and metathorax, and with the free postsomatic segments moderately lobed. Derm membranous except for a broad median dorsal area and other small areas of pygidium (Takagi, 1975).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes piniroxburghii is close to L. pseudotsugae. The adult females exhibit a common structural pattern readily perceptible as a combined effect of their agreements in body shape, multisetose antennae, ocular spines, size and arrangement of macroducts and pygidial lobes (Takagi, 1975).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 37, 40-42]; Takagi1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-18]; Takagi1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 26-30]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 53].
Lepidosaphes pinnaeformis (Bouché)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus pinnaeformis Bouché, 1851: 111. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on Cymbidium oleifolium. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Mytilaspis pinnaeformis; Signoret, 1870: 97. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis machili Maskell, 1898: 230-231. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Yokohama, on Machilus thunbergii, by Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 39.
Lepidosaphes machili; Fernald, 1903b: 311. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pinnaeformis; Green, 1905: 28. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes tuberculata Malenotti, 1916b: 183-185. Type data: ITALY: Florence, on Cymbidium tracyanum, 03/03/1916. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1934e: 165. Notes: Types presumed lost (Salvatore Marotta, personal communication, May 15, 2001).
Lepidosaphes tubercolata; Leonardi, 1920: 166-167. Misspelling of species name.
Lepidosaphes tuberculatus; Green, 1921: 198. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Scrupulaspis machili; MacGillivray, 1921: 288. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pinnaeformis; Bodkin, 1922: 60. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes cymbidicola Kuwana, 1925a: 27-28. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Yokohama and Kobe, on "orchids," by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1934e: 165.
Lepidosaphes ezokihadae Kuwana, 1932c: 147. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Morioka, on Phellodendron sachalinense, 16/12/1931, by G. Toba. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1957: 549.
Lepidosaphes cinnamomi Takahashi, 1933: 48-50. Type data: TAIWAN: Kanko, near Shinten, on Cinnamomum kanehirai, 05/09/1932, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-397.
Lepidosaphes piniformis; Lindinger, 1934e: 165. Misspelling of species name.
Mytilococcus piniformis; Lindinger, 1936: 159. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus tuberculata; Lupo, 1939: 91. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pinniformis; Schmutterer, 1952: 578. Change of combination.
Eucornuaspis machili; Borchsenius, 1963: 1169. Change of combination.
Eucornuaspis pinnaeformis; Wise, 1977: 108. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus machili; Zahradník, 1977: 120. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: cymbidium scale [McKenz1956]; Machilus oystershell [KSPP1972]; mussel scale [Brain1929].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Encarsia aspidioticola [Watson2002a], Encarsia aurantii [Watson2002a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus sp. [Fulmek1943], Coccidophilus citricola [Fulmek1943], Exochomus sp. [Fulmek1943]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus aspidioticola [Fulmek1943], Aphytis diaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis maculicornis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis proclia [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Fulmek1943], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Fulmek1943], Casca chinensis [Fulmek1943], Encarsia citrina [Watson2002a], Encarsia lounsburyi [Watson2002a], Encarsia singularis [Watson2002a], Encarsia singularis [Watson2002a], Euaphycus flavus [Fulmek1943], Marietta carnesi [Fulmek1943], Prospaltella aurantii [Fulmek1943], Prospaltella maculata [Fulmek1943], Prospaltella singularis [Fulmek1943], Pteroptrix chinensis [Watson2002a], Signiphora flavopalliata [Fulmek1943]. Encyrtidae: Metaphycus flavus [Watson2002a]. THYSANOPTERA Thripidae: Karnyothrips flavipes [PalmerMo1990].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline sp. [Hender2011]. Arecaceae: Rhapis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asteraceae: Tetradymia glauca [McKenz1956], Tetradymia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cercidiphyllaceae: Cercidiphyllum japonicum [Lepage1938], Cercidiphyllum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [Takaha1929], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005]. Daphniphyllaceae: Daphniphyllum membranaceum [Takagi1970], Daphniphyllum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [LepineMi1931, MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Croton sp. [Fernal1903b, MillerDa2005]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Lepage1938, MillerDa2005]. Illiciaceae: Illicium religiosum [Takagi1960], Illicium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lardizabalaceae: Stauntonia keitaoensis [Takagi1970], Stauntonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora [Takaha1933], Cinnamomum japonicum [Takagi1970], Cinnamomum kanchirai [Takaha1933], Cinnamomum pedunculata [Balach1954e], Cinnamomum sp. [Takaha1936a, MillerDa2005], Lindera communis [Takagi1970], Lindera oldhamii [Takagi1970], Lindera sp. [MillerDa2005], Litsea glauca [Muraka1970], Litsea sp. [MillerDa2005], Machilus kusanoi [Takagi1970], Machilus sp. [Takaha1936a, MillerDa2005], Machilus thunbergii [Maskel1898], Machilus thunbergii glaucescens [Muraka1970], Neolitsea sericea [Takagi1970], Neolitsea sp. [MillerDa2005], Persea sp. [Watson2002a], Phoebe sp. [Tao1999, MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia grandiflora [RaoKu1952], Magnolia sp. [MillerDa2005], Michelia compressa [Muraka1970], Michelia orchidis [Muraka1970], Michelia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Lepage1938, MillerDa2005]. Orchidaceae: Cattleya sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Cymbidium oleifolium [Bouche1851], Cymbidium pendulum [Fernal1903b], Cymbidium sp. [Bouche1851], Cymbidium tracyanum [Maleno1916b], Cymbidium virescens [Muraka1970], Cymbidium yamajii [Tachik1962], Dendrobium sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Proteaceae: Banksia sp. [Lepage1938, MillerDa2005]. Rhamnaceae: Pomaderris apetala [Lepage1938], Pomaderris sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Prunus persica [LepineMi1931], Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pyrus cydonia [LepineMi1931], Pyrus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ruscaceae: Ophiopogon sp, [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [GomezM1937], Citrus sp. [LepineMi1931, MillerDa2005], Phellodendron amurense [Takagi1960], Phellodendron sachalinense [Kuwana1932c], Phellodendron sp. [MillerDa2005]. Taxaceae: Taxus cuspidata [Lepage1938], Taxus sp. [MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [FerraoCa1972]. Australasian: Australia [MillerDa2005] (Tasmania [Hudson1967]); Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1904b, MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a]); New Zealand [Hender2011]. Nearctic: United States of America (California [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Florida [Merril1953, Dekle1976, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New York [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Autran1907]; Brazil [Lepage1938]; Guatemala [Nakaha1982]; Guyana [Bodkin1922]. Oriental: China (Hainan [Hua2000]); India [Merril1953] (West Bengal [RaoKu1952]); Taiwan [Takaha1929, Tao1999]; Vietnam [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: Azores [FrancoRuMa2011]; China [RaoKu1952] (Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tao1999]); Crete [Ayouta1940]; Czechoslovakia [Balach1954e] (Found under glass.); Egypt [Archan1937]; France [Foldi2001]; Germany [Bouche1851, Balach1954e]; Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Iran [Archan1937]; Italy [Maleno1916b, LongoMaPe1995]; Japan [Ali1969a] (Hokkaido [Takagi1960], Honshu [Maskel1898, Kuwana1932c], Kyushu [Takagi1960], Shikoku [Tachik1962]); Latvia [Danzig1993] (Found under glass.); Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Portugal [Seabra1941, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; South Korea [SuhJi2009]; Spain [GomezM1937]; Syria [Archan1937]; Turkey [Archan1937]; United Kingdom (England [Fernal1903b, MalumpHaSa2012]); Uzbekistan (Tashkent Oblast [Archan1937]).
BIOLOGY: In Central European greenhouses there are about 4 generations per year. The reproduction is bisexual; males are available in all colonies. Females lay 31-132 eggs, with larvae hatching about 10 days later (Schmutterer, 1959). The life history of this species is poorly known. According to Schmutterer (1959), it has about 4 generations each year in greenhouses. Females lay 31 to 132 eggs which hatch in about 10 days. Males are present in all colonies. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body robust, with the free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally and with the pygidium broad and little rounded. Median lobes about as wide as or a little wider than long, rounded apically, notched or serrate on each side, separated from each other by about half width of one of them (Takagi, 1970). Female scale cover mussel shell shaped, shades of medium and light brown arranged in concentric rings; 1st-exuvium small and translucent, 2nd exuvium light brown, short and broad. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) refers to Bodkin's 1922 citation of Parlatoria pinnaeformis Bouché as incertae sedis. We are unable to determine why he did so. L. pinnaeformis has been confused with L. beckii and much of the literature pertaining to L. pinnaeformis on citrus refers to L. beckii and not L. pinnaeformis. There is also controversy about the distinctness of L. pinnaeformis and L. machili. We have accepted the synonymy presented by Borchsenius (1966) since there seems to be no obvious differences between L. pinnaeformis and L. machili. Both are elongate scales that are most common on orchids, particularly cymbidium orchids. The presence of modified eyes as a stout spine on each side of the head distinguishes L. pinnaeformis from other Lepidosaphes species in New Zealand. (Henderson, 2011)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. The cymbidium scale was considered a serious pest of orchids grown in nurseries in California in the 1930s to 1950s (McKenzie 1956) but now is not of major importance because it is easily controlled (Gill 1997). It can build to heavy populations and cause significant damage when left unchecked. It is a pest in nearly any area of the world where cymbidium orchids are grown. It has been considered to be a pest in the following: Britain (Miles and Miles 1935); California (Steinweden 1948); Germany (Schmutterer 1959); and Russia (Saakyan-Baranova 1954), to name a few. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 105 (female) [Key to Lepidosaphes adult females in New Zealand]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili; Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 246 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 155 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili; Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 32 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili; Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [as Lepidosaphes machili, Lepidosaphes cymbidicola; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 284, 288 (female) [as Scrupulaspis machili; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 28 (female) [as Mytilaspis pinnaeformis; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 43-44]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [distribution, host: 73]; Autran1907 [distribution, host: 154]; Ayouta1940 [distribution: 3M]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 47-51]; Bodkin1922 [distribution: 60]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host: 182]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168, 1169]; Borchs1964 [taxonomy: 160]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58, 374]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 12]; Bouche1851 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 144]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,603]; ChoJeKa2013 [distribution, host: 405]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155, 166-168]; Chou1986 [illustration: 579]; Cocker1893k [distribution, host: 548]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 125]; Comsto1916 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 586]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 256-258]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289-290]; Davies1981 [taxonomy: 151]; Davies1983 [taxonomy: 144]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 101]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Dekle1976 [distribution, host, illustration: 102]; Dougla1887a [distribution, host: 21]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311]; FerraoCa1972 [distribution: 29]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-71]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-397, SIV-446:56]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 52-53, 55]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 125, 212]; Ghesqu1927 [distribution, host: 310, 313]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168, 174, 183]; GomezM1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175-180]; GomezM1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; Green1905 [taxonomy: 28]; Green1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 198-199]; Green1925 [distribution, host: 44]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11,13,22,33,105-6,]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 183]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 151, 153]; Hudson1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 91]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 243-244]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 158]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 19]; KSPP1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Kuwana1909 [distribution, host: 157]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 27-28, 35-37]; Kuwana1932c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 147]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 37-38, 65-69]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 166-167]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 409]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1934e [distribution, taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 159]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71, 91-96]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Maleno1916b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 183-185]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 6]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 230-231]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 123-124]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 262]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution: 38]; Morgan1890a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229-230]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 83]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 341-342, 345-347]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 62]; Perrie1926 [distribution, host: 126]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host: 9]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 27]; Schmut1952 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 578]; Schmut1957b [taxonomy: 150]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 158, 161-164]; Seabra1941 [distribution: 8]; Signor1870 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 97]; Silves1921 [taxonomy: 1]; Silves1926a [biological control, distribution: 97, 99-100]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 78]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 93]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 2, 13-14]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 12, 22, 74]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-50, 61]; Takaha1936a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 71, 73]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 42]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 75]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196]; Tang1984b [distribution: 130]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 97]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 85]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 47]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Whitne1933 [distribution, host: 67]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 8]; Wise1977 [distribution: 108]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 23, 63]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 203, 205, 209]; Zahrad1977 [distribution, host: 120].
Lepidosaphes piperis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis piperis Green, 1908a: 34-35. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Madras, on Piper nigrum, by C.A. Barber. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes piperis; Sanders, 1909a: 57. Change of combination.
Cornuaspis piperis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
FOE: DIPTERA Cecidomyidae: Streptodiplosis indica [Barnes1930].
HOST: Piperaceae: Piper nigrum [Green1908a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Green1908a]); Sri Lanka [Green1922].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1908a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish red, exuviae bright reddish, 2.25-3.0 mm long, 0.70 mm wide. Male scale similar, but smaller, 1.25 mm long. Adult female with crowded series of small dorsal pores on the pygidium, median lobes small (Green, 1908a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Lepidosaphes piperis can sometimes severely infest black pepper (Piper sp.) (Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 284 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 41]; Barnes1930 [biological control, distribution: 328]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 299]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 303]; Green1908a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34-35]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 463]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 328]; Janjua1956 [distribution, host: 311]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 151]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 6]; Maxwel1909 [distribution, host: 761]; Misra1924CS [distribution: 350]; Ramakr1919 [distribution, economic importance, host: 623]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 341]; Ramakr1930 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-30]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 478]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 57]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 46].
Lepidosaphes pistaciae ArchangelskayaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pistaciae Archangelskaya, 1930a: 91. Type data: TURKMENISTAN: Pulihatum, on Pistacia vera, 20/07/1927, by P.G. Estifjev. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 258. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia.
Mytilococcus pistaciae; Bodenheimer, 1943: 7. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pistacicola Borchsenius, 1949b: 343. Type data: TURKMENISTAN: Kushka; ARMENIA: Legvaz Megrinskii, on Pistacia vera and P. mutica, 05/28/1947, by N. Borchsenius. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 258. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 258.
Pistaciaspis pistacicola; Borchsenius, 1963: 1165. Change of combination.
Pistaciaspis pistaciae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1166. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: yellow pistachio hard scale [Bustsh1958]; yellow pistachio scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus pistacicolus [Yasnos1968]. Encyrtidae: Aphytis maculicornis [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia integerrima [AhmadGh1972], Pistacia khindjuk [Beccar1959], Pistacia mutica [Borchs1949b], Pistacia terebinthus [Bodenh1953, Georgh1977], Pistacia vera [Archan1930a]. Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [Watson2002a]. Euphorbiaceae: Stillingia sp. [Watson2002a]. Fabaceae: Ceratonia siliqua [SismanUl2010]. Lauraceae: Sassafras [Watson2002a]. Rhamnaceae: Ceanothus sp. [Watson2002a]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Watson2002a], Prunus armeniaca [Watson2002a], Pyrus sp. [Watson2002a], Rosa sp. [Watson2002a], Sorbus sp. [Watson2002a]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Watson2002a], Salix sp. [Watson2002a]. Simaroubaceae: Alianthus sp. [Watson2002a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [DanzigPe1998]; Armenia [Borchs1949b, TerGri1969a]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Georgia [Hadzib1965]; Iran [Archan1937, Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Kazakhstan [Archan1937]; Kyrgyzstan (=Kirgizia) [Archan1937]; Syria [DanzigPe1998]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Bazaro1969]; Turkey [Bodenh1943]; Turkmenistan [Archan1930a] (Ashkahabad Oblast [Bustsh1958]); Uzbekistan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Archangelskaya (1930a, 1937), Borchsenius (1949b) and Bodenheimer (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very short and broad. Margins flat, yellow-brown, to whitish, central part moderately convex, reddish-brown. Exuviae on cephalic end, first shining yellow, second dark brown, 2.0-2.3 mm long, 1.0-1.2 mm wide. Male scale narrow with parallel margins, whitish to light grey, exuviae light yellow, 0.8-1.0 mm long, 0.3 mm broad. Adult female body elliptical to pyriform (narrower on cephalic end). Segmentation fairly distinct, free margins roundly and flatly protracted, yellow (Bodenheimer, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Balachowsky's (1954e) treatment of Lepidosaphes pistaciae "forma typica" and L. pistaciae "forma pistacicola" as subspecies has no status according to the ICZN.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 31 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 31 (female) [as Lepidosaphes pistaciae forma pistacicola; Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes Shimer].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 89]; Archan1930a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 91-93]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-70]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31, 57-60]; Bazaro1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44, 46-48]; Beccar1959 [distribution, host: 79]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; Bodenh1944b [distribution: 85, 86]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121, 131-133]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-24]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 343]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 205]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1165, 1166]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185, 189]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 258-259]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; Davatc1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 43]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 152, 159]; Hadzib1965 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 128]; MehrneAk2001 [economic importance: 315]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 26]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 39]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 35]; NarzikLu1966 [taxonomy: 33]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 15]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 220,222]; TerGri1956 [distribution, host: 50]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 143]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 65-66]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 53]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy]; Yasnos1968 [biological control, distribution: 120].
Lepidosaphes pitsikahitrae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes madagascariensis; Mamet, 1951: 228. Misidentification; discovered by Mamet, 1959a: 447. Notes: Material listed by Mamet (1951) on "Mahogo ala" at Tsaratanana Mt (No. 117) is now considered L. pitsikahitrae.
Lepidosaphes pitsikahitrae Mamet, 1959a: 444-445. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ambila, on "Pitsikahitra à petites feuilles," ?/03/1951, by A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis pitsikahitrae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes pitsikahitrae was collected at an altitude of 1700 m (Mamet, 1959a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, brownish; exuviae terminal. Adult female membranous, with cephalic extremity flatly rounded, 0.8 mm long (Mamet, 1959a).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 228]; Mamet1959a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 381, 383, 444-445]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 55].
Lepidosaphes pitysophila (Takagi)NOMENCLATURE:
Parainsulaspis pitysophila Takagi, 1970: 16-18. Type data: TAIWAN: Chiao-shi, on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Paralepidosaphes pitysophila; Tang, 1986: 278-279. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pitysophyla; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 290. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Takagi1970]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Taiwan [Takagi1970]. Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1970). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, with free abdominal segments strongly lobed laterally. Derm sclerotized at maturity. Pygidial lobes small, median lobes rounded, about twice as wide as long (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pitysophila is close to L. laterochitinosa, from which it is distinguishable by the granulations or minute conical processes of the head are less thick than in L. laterochitinosa and almost confined to the dorsal side; one or rarely two gland spines occur on the 5th abdominal segment and always one on the 6th (in L. laterochitinosa a pair of gland spines occur on each of these segments); the dorsal ducts are absent in the median region of the prepygidial abdominal segments and the submedian ducts of the 2nd and 3rd segments are distinctly larger than those of the 4th and 5th segments (in L. laterochitinosa the dorsal ducts are strewn across the median and submedian regions of the 2nd to 4th segments; although these ducts as well as the submedian ducts of the 5th segment are more or less enlarged, their enlargement is not always remarkable); the dorsal ducts are usually absent between the bases of the median lobes in L. laterochitinosa 1 or 2 dorsal ducts are always present between the median lobes). L. pitysophila is quite distinct from L. piniphila by the granulations of the head, the marginal gland spines of the pygidium, the numerous gland cones on the 1st abdominal segment, the presence of the submedian dorsal ducts on the 2nd abdominal segment, the distinct enlargement of the submedian ducts on the 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 384]; Chou1986 [illustration: 585]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 195-196]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 251]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-18]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 278-279]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 29, 72]; Yang1982 [distribution, host: 222].
Lepidosaphes pometiae Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pometiae Williams & Watson, 1988: 160-162. Type data: SOLOMON ISLANDS: Guadalcanal, Mt. Austen, on Pometia pinnata, 11/01/1984, by M. Bigger. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Pometia pinnata [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female about 1.0 mm long, elongate oval, head and pygidium rounded. Head profusely covered with minute spicules (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pometiae is similar to L. karkarica and L. laterochitinosa. It differs from both in having the median lobes separated by a space less than half the width of 1 lobe. Weak lateral tubercles, each usually tipped with 2 minute points, are present only between segments 2 and 3, whereas in the other two species, tubercles are present between 3 abdominal segments; furthermore, the duct tubercles on segment 1 number only 7-12 on each side, whereas in the other two species they number 17-30. L. pometiae also lacks the minute dorsal duct just anterior to the median gland spines (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 159-160, 162].
Lepidosaphes pseudogloverii (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Insulaspis pseudogloverii Borchsenius, 1964: 160. Type data: VIETNAM: on Citrus sp., 16/04/1962, by L. Konchaveli. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes pseudogloverii; Miller et al., 2003: 941. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: pseudo-rodshaped scale [Borchs1964].
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Borchs1964]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Vietnam [Borchs1964].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, slightly widening toward 1st abdominal segment. 2-4 disc glands present near the anterior spiracles. Abdominal tubercles small, on the 2nd abdominal segment tubercles with protruding sclerotized plates and with 1-2 small spines (Borchsenius, 1964).
SYSTEMATICS: L. pseudogloverii is close to L. gloverii, but can be distinguished by the elastic meso- and metathorax and also the absence of spines on abdominal tubercles of the 3rd and 4th abdominal segments (Borchsenius, 1964).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 53]; Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160, 168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 941].
Lepidosaphes pseudomachili (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Eucornuaspis pseudomachili Borchsenius, 1964: 157. Type data: NORTH KOREA: Pyonguang, on Magnolia sp., 02/07/1950, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes pseudomachili; Paik, 1978: 354-355. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Thuja sp. [Tang1984b]. Fabaceae: Indigofera tinctoria [Hua2000]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [Borchs1964]. Pinaceae: Tsuga sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hua2000]). Palaearctic: China (Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984b]); South Korea [Borchs1964].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate pyriform, strongly developed cephalic spine in place of eyes, 4-6 disc glands present near anterior spiracles (Borchsenius, 1964).
SYSTEMATICS: L. pseudomachili is close to L. machili from which it is separated by the fact that the marginal glands of the 5th abdominal segment are equal in size to the other marginal glands (Borchsenius, 1964).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 155 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 157, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155, 168-169]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 354-355]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 198]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 130]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 85]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 47]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 203].
Lepidosaphes pseudotsugae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pseudotsugae Takahashi, 1957b: 108. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nara Prefecture, Odaiga-hara, on Pseudotsuga japonica, 18/08/1956, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pinomytilus pseudotsugae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Pinomytilus) pseudotsugae; Danzig, 1980b: 307. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Encarsia brimblecombei Girault [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia citrina Crawford [JaposhAbNo2013], Encarsia lambei Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013], Pteroptrix chinensis Howard [JaposhAbNo2013]. Encyrtidae: Coccidencyrtus shiyakei Japoshvili [JaposhAbNo2013], Coccidencyrtus sp. [JaposhAbNo2013], Zaomma lambinus Walker [JaposhAbNo2013].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies firma [Muraka1970], Abies sachalinensis [Danzig1980b], Picea ajanensis [Danzig1980b], Pseudotsuga japonica [Takaha1957b], Tsuga sp. [Takagi1960]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takaha1957b]); Russia (Kuril Islands [Danzig1980b], Sakhalin Oblast [Danzig1980b]).
BIOLOGY: Second stage nymphs hibernate (Danzig, 1980b). This species was collected at an altitude of 1000 meters (Takahashi, 1957b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1957b) and Danzig (1993). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body with a deep constriction between meso- and metathorax. Marginal tubercles with single very prominent spine present on II to IV abdominal segments; sometimes, some of the spines bifurcated or notched (Danzig, 1980b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes pseudotsugae is related to L. machili, but differs as follows: body narrower, gland tubercles fewer, lateral spurs pointed, sclerotized, dorsal ducts slightly stouter, submedian dorsal ducts wanting on the 2nd abdominal segment, perivulvar pores fewer, median lobes somewhat smaller, not notched (Takahashi, 1957b).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 246 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1986a: 355 (female) [as Lepidosaphes (Pinomytilus) ussuriensis; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 337 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1964 [taxonomy: 160]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Danzig1980b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 307-308]; Danzig1986 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 362-363]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 246, 264]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290-291]; JaposhAbNo2013 [ecology: 541-554]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 37, 40-42]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 84]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 337]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80, 93]; Takagi1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16-18]; Takaha1957b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-109].
Lepidosaphes pyrorum TangNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pyrorum Tang, 1977: 202-203. Type data: CHINA: Shanxi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Rosaceae: Pyrus sp. [Tang1984b]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus pumila [Xie1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [Tang1977] (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984b]).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 384-385]; Chou1986 [illustration: 586]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202-203]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 130]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 117-118].
Lepidosaphes rubrovittata CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes rubrovittatus Cockerell, 1905f: 135-136. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Manila, on Eugenia malaccensis, 05/06/????, by T.D.A. Cockerell. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK.
Mytilaspis fasciata Green, 1911: 31-32. Type data: SRI LANKA: Heneratgoda, on Hevea brasiliensis. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams & Watson, 1988: 162. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Williams & Watson, 1988: 162.
Mytilaspis rubro-vittatus; Green, 1915e: 632. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) fasciata; Robinson, 1917: 35. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes fasciata; MacGillivray, 1921: 281. Change of combination.
Insulaspis fasciata; Borchsenius, 1963: 1172. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ulapa Beardsley, 1966: 546. Type data: PALAU: Koror, on Eugenia javanica, ?/01/1954, by J. Beardsley. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Beardsley, 1975: 661.
Insulaspis rubrovittata; Borchsenius, 1966: 66. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis rubrovittatus; Tang, 1986: 50. Justified emendation.
COMMON NAMES: guava scale [ColonFMe1998]; tampoi scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Tapirira guianensis [NormarMoKr2014]. Annonaceae: Annona muricata. Araucariacae: Araucaria hunsteinii [WilliaWa1988], Araucaria sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Cycadaceae: Cycas sp. [Beards1975]. Euphorbiaceae: Hevea [Borchs1966], Hevea brasiliensis [Green1922]. Fabaceae: Inocarpus fagifer [WilliaWa1988], Inocarpus sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Moraceae: Ficus lyrata [ColonFMe1998], Ficus sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia javanica [Beards1966], Eugenia malaccensis [Cocker1905f], Psidium guajava [ColonFMe1998]. Rhizophoraceae: Cassipourea elliptica [NormarMoKr2014].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988]; Guam [Beards1975]; Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]); Northern Mariana Islands (Rota Island [Beards1975]); Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [WilliaWa1988]. Neotropical: Jamaica [MalumpHaSa2012]; Panama [NormarMoKr2014]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]); Saint Lucia [Malump2012b]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Tang1986]); Philippines (Luzon [Cocker1905f]); Sri Lanka [Green1922].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 0.7-1.0 mm long. Body elongate, slightly fusiform, widest across abdominal segment 1. Pygidium with median lobes well developed, distance between them approximately equal to width of one (Beardsley, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Superficially, Lepidosaphes rubrovittata resembles L. tokionis, however, in L. rubrovittata the lateral angles of the head have concentrations of spicules, whereas in L. tokionis the lateral angles of the head are sclerotized and lack spicules (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 104 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Puerto Rico]; Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region]; Beardsley 1966: 535 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ulapa; Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 281 (female) [as Lepidosaphes fasciata; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 282 (female) [as Lepidosaphes rubrovitatus; Species of Lepidosaphes]; Robinson 1917: 34 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 51, 57]; Beards1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 535, 546-547]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62, 66]; Cocker1905f [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135-136]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-109]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Green1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32]; Green1915e [taxonomy: 632]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 463]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 328]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281, 282]; Malump2012b [distribution, host: 210,212]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 6]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; NormarMoKr2014 [distribution, host: 39]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Sander1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 277]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 48]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 161-162, 164].
Lepidosaphes salicina BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes salicina Borchsenius, 1958a: 171. Type data: CHINA: Jilin, Gunchzhulin, on Salix sp., 23/08/1954, by N. Borchsenius & N. Shutova. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 250. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes (Lepidosaphes) salicina; Danzig, 1980b: 301. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: far eastern oystershell scale [Danzig1986a].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [JiYaSh1993], Hemisarcoptes salicina [LiuLiLi2000]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus kuwanae [Xie1998], Exochomus mongol [Xie1998], Propylea japonica [Xie1998]. Cybocephalidae: Cybocephalus nipponicus [Xie1998]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis proclia [JiYaSh1993].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Betula platyphylla japonica [Takagi1960]. Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [Danzig1980b]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes sp. [Danzig1980b]. Juglandaceae: Juglans ailanthifoliae [Takagi1960]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus sp. [Danzig1980b], Syringa sp. [Danzig1980b]. Rosaceae: Padus sp. [Danzig1980b], Rosa sp. [Danzig1980b], Spiraea sp. [Danzig1980b]. Rutaceae: Phellodendron amurense [Danzig1980b]. Salicaceae: Populus nigra italica [Takagi1960], Salix sp. [Borchs1958a]. Tiliaceae: Tilia sp. [Danzig1980b]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Gansu (=Kansu) [Tao1999], Heilongjiang (=HeilungKiang) [Tao1999], Henan (=Honan) [Tao1999], Jilin (=Kirin) [Tao1999], Liaoning [Tao1999], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1986], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tao1999]); Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1960]); Russia (Khabarovsk Kray [Danzig1980b], Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1980b]); South Korea [Danzig1980b].
BIOLOGY: Discussion of life history by Ji et al. (1993).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best descriptions and illustrations by Borchsenius (1958a) and Danzig (1980b, 1986a, 1993).
STRUCTURE: Female scale comma-like, often curved, convex, dark brown, 3.5-4.0 mm long. Male scale brown, 1.2 mm long. Adult female body elongate oval, 1.6 mm long and 0.72-0.78 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1958a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes salicina is close to L. kirgisica, separated from the latter by the presence of a sclerotized spur between the 1st segments of the abdomen, quantity of sclerotized tubercles and tubular glands on the body surface. It is also close to L. ulmi and L. celtis and can be told by the large number of tubular glands on the 7th abdominal segment (Borchsenius, 1958a).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1986a: 355 (female) [as Lepidosaphes (Lepidosaphes) salicina; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 338 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 171, 176]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 159-160]; Chou1986 [illustration: 587]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 301-302]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 356-357]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 250-251]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; JiYaSh1993 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 454-455]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 246]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; LinLiLi2000 [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 52-54]; LiuLiLi2000 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 48-51]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 84]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 338]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83-84, 93]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host: 275-276]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 95-96]; Xie1998 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114-116]; ZhangHu1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 174-177].
Lepidosaphes schimae KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes schimae Kawai, 1972a: 30-33. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Chichi-jima, on Schima mertensiana. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: himetsubaki-kaki-kaigaramushi [Kawai1972a].
HOST: Theaceae: Schima mertensiana [Kawai1972a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kawai1972a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Kawai (1972a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body robust, with free abdominal segments moderately lobed literally and with the pygidium broadly rounded. Median lobes prominent, slightly divergent, separated from each other by a little less than the width of one of them (Kawai, 1972a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes schimae is close to L. tokionis, but is distinguishable from the latter by the absence of submedian dorsal macroducts on the 2nd abdominal segment and by having submarginal macroducts on the 6th (Kawai, 1972a).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Kawai1972a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-33]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 242].
Lepidosaphes sciadopitysi McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes sciadopitysi McKenzie, 1955: 188-190. Type data: UNITED STATES: Connecticut, Greenwich, on Sciadopitys verticillata, 10/11/1908, by C.T. Hatling. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis sciadopitysi; Borchsenius, 1963: 32, 125. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: umbrella pine lepidosaphes [Koszta1996].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Sophora japonica [Koszta1996]. Pinaceae: Sciadopitys verticillata [McKenz1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956] (Gill (1997) lists this species as assumed eradicated in California.), Connecticut [McKenz1955], District of Columbia [McKenz1955], Maryland [Koszta1996], New York [McKenz1955], Ohio [Nakaha1982], Pennsylvania [McKenz1955]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1955). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Female scale quite slender, about 1.40 mm long, brownish, exuviae terminal; male scale smaller, similar in color, exuviae terminal (McKenzie, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes sciadopitysi and L. pallida are indistinguishable externally on host. Microscopically, L. sciadopitysi differs from the latter chiefly in the presence of 3 sets of lateral abdominal spurs, these lacking in L. pallida and a two-spined antenna as compared to only one-spined in L. pallida (McKenzie, 1955).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab 1996: 517 (female) [Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Williams 1971: 449 (female) [Key to species of Insulaspis on Coniferae]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 168, 175, 186]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 517, 523, 525-526]; McKenz1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 188-190]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 125-126, 128]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 449].
Lepidosaphes securicula Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes securicula Williams & Watson, 1988: 164. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Kassam, Kratke Mts., on unidentified Sapotaceae, 15/11/1959, by T. Maa. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BPBM and BMNH.
HOST: Sapotaceae [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female up to 1.0 mm long, elongate-oval, but sides often straight, widest at 2nd abdominal segment; pygidium rounded; head curved to straight; lateral lobes of abdominal segments well developed. Pygidium with median lobes well developed, each with a notch on either side (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes securicula is a distinctive species with 4 macroducts the same size on each side, but the 6th is narrower. The inner lobule of each second lobe is distinctly hatchet-shaped, and the eye spot is modified into a small spur. It differs from L. pinnaeformis another species with 5 marginal macroducts and spurs on the head, in possessing larger, but much fewer, dorsal ducts (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 163-164, 166].
Lepidosaphes serrifrons (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis serrifrons Leonardi, 1898b: 118. Type data: ITALY: Padua, on Croton undulatum and C. majesticum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes serrifrons; Sanders, 1909a: 57. Change of combination.
Scobinaspis serrifrons; MacGillivray, 1921: 287. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus serrifrons; Lupo, 1939: 109. Change of combination.
Velataspis serrifrons; Balachowsky, 1954e: 91. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Croton majesticum [Leonar1898b], Croton sp. [Leonar1898b], Croton undullatum [Leonar1898b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Italy [Leonar1898b, LongoMaPe1995].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
KEYS: Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [as Mytilaspis serrifrons; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-94]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Hoke1921 [taxonomy: 341]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Leonar1898b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118-120]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 45-48]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151, 171-172]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 109-114]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 274, 287]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 57]; ViggiaJe1985 [distribution: 879]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 8].
Lepidosaphes shanxiensis ShiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes shanxiensis Shi, 1990G: 135-139. Type data: HUNGARY, CHINA, JAPAN. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Xie1998]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [Shi1990G]; Hungary [Shi1990G]; Japan [Shi1990G].
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, light brown, about 1.8-2.0 mm long and 0.5-0.8 mm wide. Male scales are 0.9-1.1 mm long and 0.4-0.45 mm wide. Adult females elongate, oval, about 0.9-1.1 mm long and 0.4-0.5 mm wide, membranous except for pygidium, with lateral sclerotized spurs. Anterior spiracles are accompanied with a group of 5-12 pores and posterior with 1-3 pores. Submarginal boss present on the 5th and 6th segments separately. Two median lobes are developed, each with 1 or 2 lateral notches. Secondary lobes are well developed, bilobed, inner lobule being larger than the outer one. Gland spines are arranged in pairs on pygidium. There are 6 pairs of marginal macroduct (Shi, 1990).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes shanxiensis is similar to L. ulmi, but can easily be separated by the posterior spiracles with disco-pores (Shi, 1990).
CITATIONS: Shi1990G [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 135-139]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 118-119].
Lepidosaphes shikohabadensis DuttaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes shikohabadensis Dutta, 1990: 153-156. Type data: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh, Shikohabad, on Mangifera indica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Dutta1990].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Uttar Pradesh [Dutta1990]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Dutta (1990).
STRUCTURE: Female 1.28 mm long, 0.34 mm wide, flat, elongate, with concentric fine layers pale white with small dark spots scattered throughout and with only one anteriorly extended exuviae. Male 1.4 mm long, 0.37 mm wide, flat, thick, elongate, white to very light pink (Dutta, 1990).
CITATIONS: Dutta1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 153-156].
Lepidosaphes similis BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes bladhiae; Beardsley, 1966: 536. Misidentification; discovered by Beardsley, 1975: 660.
Lepidosaphes similis Beardsley, 1975: 660. Type data: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA: Ponape, Colonia, on Ravenalia madagascariensis, 16/11/1953, by J.W. Beardsley. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female.
HOST: Strelitziaceae: Ravenalia madagascariensis [Beards1975].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1975], Yap [Beards1975]); Northern Mariana Islands [Beards1975]; Palau [Beards1975]; Wake Island [Beards1975].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Beardsley (1975).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes similis is virtually identical to L. laterochitinosa, but differs in type of minute ornamentation on anterior part of head (Beardsley, 1975).
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [distribution, host: 536]; Beards1975 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 660].
Lepidosaphes smilacis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes smilacis Takagi, 1960: 86-88. Type data: JAPAN: Ryukyu Islands, Amami-Osima, Koniya and Naze, on Smilax sp., 17 and 20/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parainsulaspis smilacis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1163. Change of combination.
HOST: Liliaceae: Smilax sp. [Takagi1960]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takagi1960].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1960).
STRUCTURE: Scales of both sexes slender, convex dorsally and very dark. Adult female body slender, 1.13 mm long and 0.48 mm wide; free abdominal segments each but slightly produced laterally. Second exuviae female fusiform, 0.84 mm long and 0.48 mm wide (Takagi, 1960).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes smilacis is similar to L. piniphilus and L. glaucae. It is distinguishable from L. piniphilus by lacking minute granules on the head, by the lateral tubercles not produced into heavily sclerotized spurs and by the median lobes larger and set more closely. It is distinct from L. glaucae by the lateral tubercles not produced into heavily sclerotized spurs, by the inner lobules of the 2nd lobes nearly as long as wide and by the pygidial gland spines occurring in 3 pairs on each side laterad of the second lobe (Takagi, 1960).
KEYS: Paik 1978: 339 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 249-250]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 84]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 339]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86-88, 94]; Takagi1960a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 13].
Lepidosaphes somalensis MalenottiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) somalensis Malenotti, 1916a: 353-354. Type data: SOMALIA: on Acacia asak, ?/09/1913. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type presumed lost (Salvatore Marotta, personal communication, May 15, 2001).
Coccomytilus somalensis; Hall, 1946a: 509, 552. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes somalensis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
Pinaspis somalensis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia asak [Maleno1916a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Somalia [Maleno1916a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Malenotti (1916a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 509, 552, 555]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Maleno1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 353-354].
Lepidosaphes sp. nr. tubulorumunavailable nameNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes sp. nr. tubulorum Yunus & Ho, 1980: 34. Unavailable name.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [YunusHo1980].
CITATIONS: YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34].
Lepidosaphes spinosa (Fuller)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis spinosa Fuller, 1899: 469. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Swan River, on Melaleuca sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Lepidosaphes spinosa; Fernald, 1903b: 314. Change of combination.
Berlesaspis spinosa; MacGillivray, 1921: 289. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Melaleuca sp. [Fuller1899]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Fuller1899]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, woolly in texture, broadly pyriform, generally curved, exuviae yellow. Adult female brown, sub-elliptical (Fuller, 1899).
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1927a: 292 (female) [as Berlesaspis spinosa; Key to species of Berlesaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 289 (female) [as Berlesaspis spinosa; Key to species of Berlesaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 875]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 469]; GomezM1927 [taxonomy: 292]; Leonar1903 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 108]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289].
Lepidosaphes stepta Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes stepta Williams & Watson, 1988: 166. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Naduruloulou, on Stachytarpheta sp., ?/10/1949, by B.A. O'Connor. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites moluccana [WilliaWa1988], Croton sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Verbenaceae: Stachytarpheta sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female about 1.25 mm long, narrow, elongate, sides almost parallel, widest at 1st abdominal segment; lateral lobes of abdominal segments moderately developed; pygidium rounded; head rounded, but jagged because of numerous quite large pointed tubercles or spurs which become sclerotized, occupying anterior edge and area between antennae (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes stepta is distinctive and can be easily separated from other Pacific species in possessing numerous large tubercles or spurs on the head margin. It is related to L. okitsuensis, but this species has more numerous ducts posterior to segment 5 on the pygidium. L. stepta is very close to L. serrifrons, it differs from L. stepta in lacking the sclerotized tubercles on segments 2 and 3 of abdomen, and the long microduct above each second lobe (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 25]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 165-166].
Lepidosaphes subnivea LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes subnivea Laing, 1929: 34-35. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Dimboola, on Calycothrix tetragona, by C. French. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Calycothrix tetragona [Laing1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale usually rather convex in front, or towards the middle, with steepish sides and often not very expanded posteriorly, owing to the narrowness of the host plant leaves. White, with a distinct waxy appearance; exuviae warm yellowish brown, the nymphal exuviae often overlaid by a thin covering of wax, 2 mm long. Male scale parallel sided, or slightly expanded posteriorly, snow-white, somewhat woolly, non-carinated; exuviae warm yellowish brown, 1.7 mm long. Adult female about twice as long as broad; membranous (Laing, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes subnivea is close to L. nivea, but can be separated by the pygidial characters, in particular the distance separating the median pair of lobes. In L. nivea these are nearer together and united basally by a chitinous bar, while they are also of a totally different shape (Laing, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34-35].
Lepidosaphes subspiculifera (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis subspiculifera Froggatt, 1914: 875. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Whitton, on Exocarpus aphylla, 10/07/1900. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes subspiculifera; Borchsenius, 1966: 51. Change of combination.
HOST: Santalaceae: Exocarpus aphylla [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dull white, variable in form, short and broad, broadest and rounded behind convex, exuviae dull yellowish brown, 1st small, 2nd larger. Male scale similar, but smaller and shorter. Adult female yellow, elongate, rounded at apex. Pygidium darker, with the outer margin serrate and fringed with distinct scattered bristles, the terminal lobes large, broad, projecting, separated from base with an angular lobe on outer side (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 875]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47].
Lepidosaphes szetchwanensis (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Parainsulaspis szetchwanensis Borchsenius, 1978: 110. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan Province, on unidentified dicotyledon, 1958. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes szetchwanensis; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 291. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Borchs1978]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1978).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, weakly broadening toward posterior end, brown, smooth, 2.5 mm long. Male scale 1.0-1.5 mm long. Adult female elongate, surface of anterior margin with fine granular structure (Borchsenius, 1978).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes szetchwanensis is close to L. laterochitinosa, but differs in the absence of sclerotized spot on the head and spines on the abdominal spurs, small size of all dorsal ducts, large number of gland spine on the sides of abdomen and short distance between middle lobes (Borchsenius, 1978).
CITATIONS: Borchs1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Hua2000 [distribution: 156].
Lepidosaphes takahashii (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Cornimytilus takahashii Borchsenius, 1964: 157. Type data: JAPAN: on Citrus sp., 1947. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Andaspis takahashii; Young & Hu, 1981a: 220. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes takahashi; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 292. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: Takahashi comma scale [Borchs1964].
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Borchs1964]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan [Borchs1964].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, 3.1 mm long and 1.2 mm wide. Adult female elongate oval (Borchsenius, 1964).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes takahashii is easily differentiated by the following characters: abdominal tubercles without spines, pygidial lobes without large, sclerotized areas at base of hairs, more circumgenital glands (Borchsenius, 1964).
CITATIONS: Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 157, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 292]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 82]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 8].
Lepidosaphes takaoensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes takaoensis Takahashi, 1935: 23-25. Type data: TAIWAN: Takao, on Celtis sinensis, 26/03/1934, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum variegatum [Tao1978]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sinensis [Takaha1935].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellowish brown, slightly covered with white secretions. Very wide, broadest about the middle, narrowed towards the front end, very slightly more than twice as long as wide, curved, distinctly convex dorsally, with no ridge, about 1.5 mm long. Adult female wide, broadest on the metathorax or basal abdominal segment, narrowed on the anterior part, with some very small glands in a group behind the antennae, which are smaller than the ones on the lateral thorax (Takahashi, 1935).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes takaoensis is related to L. cycadicola, but differs in the wider scale and the median lobes more widely separated. Differs from L. celtis in the wider scale, the median lobes notched twice on either side (Takahashi, 1935).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 57-58]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 385-386]; Chou1986 [illustration: 593]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-25]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 96].
Lepidosaphes tapiae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes madagascariensis; Mamet, 1951: 228. Misidentification; discovered by Mamet, 1959a: 447. Notes: Material listed as L. madagascariensis on "Tapia" at Arivonimamo (No. 78) is now considered L. tapiae.
Lepidosaphes tapiae Mamet, 1959a: 448-450. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Arivonimamo, on "Tapia," ?/09/1949, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 78. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis tapiae; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, brownish; exuviae terminal. Adult female membranous, with cephalic extremity flatly rounded, 1 mm long. Median pygidial lobes fairly broad, with apical margin rounded and smooth, separated from each other at base by a space equal to about one-third the width of one of them. Second lobes bilobular (Mamet, 1959a).
KEYS: Mamet 1959a: 382 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 228]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 382, 383, 447, 448-4].
Lepidosaphes tapleyi WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes tapleyi Williams, 1960c: 393-395. Type data: SUDAN: Shendi, on Mangifera indica, 16/01/1958, by W.J. Hall. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis tapleyi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: guava long scale [DanzigPe1998]; oyster scale [TandonLa1977].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilochorus sp. [Swaile1973], Scymnus sp. [Swaile1973], Stethorus sp. [Swaile1973]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [Swaile1973], Encarsia citrina [Watson2002a]. NEUROPTERA Chrysopidae: Chrysopa vulgaris [Swaile1973].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Barleria sp. [SureshMo1996]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave sisalana [Willia1960c]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Willia1960c]. Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Swaile1972], Plumeria rubra [WilliaWa1988]. Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [WilliaWa1988]. Asclepiadaceae: Caralluma sp. [MalumpHaSa2012]. Boraginaceae: Cordia dichotoma [MalumpHaSa2012]. Convolvulaceae: Ipomoea batatass (L,) Poir. [MalumpHaSa2012]. Fabaceae: Ceratonia siliqua [Swaile1972]. Flacourtiaceae: Aberia caffra [Swaile1972], Dovyalis sp. [Watson2002a]. Lauraceae: Laurus nobilis [Swaile1972]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Moraceae: Ficus nitida [Swaile1972], Ficus sycamorus [Swaile1972]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Swaile1972], Psidium guajava [GhabboMo1996], Tristania compherta [Swaile1972]. Oleaceae: Jasminium sambac [Swaile1972], Jasminum humilis [Swaile1972], Olea europea [Swaile1972]. Pinaceae: Pinus elliottii [MartinLa2011]. Punicaceae: Punica sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Rosaceae: Rosa sp. [Swaile1972]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Willia1960c]. Solanaceae: Capsicum frutescens [WilliaWa1988], Lycopersicon esculentum [WilliaWa1988]. Sterculiaceae: Sterculia diversifolia [Swaile1972].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Benin [GermaiVaMa2010]; Gambia [MalumpHaSa2012]; Ghana [MalumpHaSa2012]; Kenya [MalumpHaSa2012]; Mali [MuniapWaVa2012]; Sudan [Willia1960c]; Tanzania [Willia1960c]. Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988] (Phoenix Islands [WilliaWa1988]); Tuvalu [WilliaWa1988]. Oriental: Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; India [TandonLa1977] (Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996]); Pakistan [MalumpHaSa2012]. Palaearctic: Egypt [Swaile1972].
BIOLOGY: Detailed description of life history by Swailem (1972 & 1973).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Williams (1960c) and by Williams & Watson (1988). Description and illustration of first-instar nymph by Ghabbour (2001).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, 2.5 mm long, dull pale brown to shiny reddish brown, exuviae same color. Male scale pale brown, 1.2 mm long. Adult female about 1.0 mm long, elongate-oval, widest across the 2nd abdominal segment; derm membranous except for pygidium. 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments each with a small pointed marginal tubercle which is heavily sclerotized (Williams, 1960c).
SYSTEMATICS: L. tapleyi is close to L. pallidula, but differs from it as follows: the marginal tubercles on the 2nd and 3rd segments are always pointed and heavily sclerotized, whereas in L. pallidula only the tubercles on the 2nd segment are pointed, those on the 3rd are flat and rounded. The submarginal tubercles on the 2nd segment in L. tapleyi are always 3 in number but there are 5-6 in L. pallidula. Posteriorly the gland spines in L. tapleyi are always in pairs whereas in L. pallidula there are usually 3-4 on the 3rd and 4th segments (Williams, 1960c).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Lepidosaphes tapleyi was observed causing severe, but localized damage to sisal on the sides of dusty roads (Williams, 1960c).
KEYS: Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Ghabbour 2001: 82 (first instar) [Key to two species of Insulaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 292]; GermaiVaMa2010 [distribution: 127]; Ghabbo2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79-80, 82]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 349]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 6]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; MuniapWaVa2012 [distribution: 1-5]; Panis1981 [distribution: 8]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 252]; Swaile1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 163-170]; Swaile1973 [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 67-72]; TandonLa1977 [description, distribution, host: 193]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 49]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Willia1960c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 393-395]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 167-168].
Lepidosaphes tenuior LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes tenuior Lindinger, 1909e: 40. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Cynometra sp., 1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis tenuior; Vayssière, 1913: 431. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Cynometra sp. [Lindin1909e]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1909e).
STRUCTURE: Larvae elliptical, 0.48 mm long and 0.17 mm wide (Lindinger, 1909e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 281 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 281 (female) [Species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 552]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Lepidosaphes theae Ryan, H.J. nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes theae Ryan, H.J., 1946: 125. Nomen nudum. Notes: This name was mentioned by Ryan (1946) apparently as an error but it is unclear to which species he was referring.
CITATIONS: Ryan1946 [taxonomy: 125].
Lepidosaphes tokionis (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis newsteadi tokionis Kuwana, 1902: 81. Type data: JAPAN: Tokyo, green-house, on Codiaeum sp. Syntypes. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Illust.
Lepidosaphes newsteadi tokionis; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis auriculata Green, 1907: 205-206. Type data: SEYCHELLES: on Croton sp. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-398.
Lepidosaphes auriculata; Sanders, 1909a: 56. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes tokionis; Takahashi, 1935: 21. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes lasianthi; Wolcott, 1936: 142. Misidentification; discovered by Martorell, 1976: 75.
Lepidosaphes lasianthi; Ferris, 1938a: 145. Misidentification; discovered by Beardsley, 1966: 545.
Insulaspis tokionis; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Croton mussel scale [Arnett1985]; croton scale [VelasqRi1969].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Zimmer1948]. Encyrtidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [Zimmer1948].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline terminalis [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Araceae: Anthurium sp. [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum cariegatum pictum [Nakaha1981a], Codiaeum sp. [Kuwana1902, Heu2002], Codiaeum variegatum [Kuwana1902, Heu2002], Codiaeum variegatum pictum [Heu2002], Croton sp. [Green1907], Croton tiglium [Tao1999]. Malvaceae: Gossypium sp. [WilliaWa1988], Gossypium sp. [Watson2002a]. Rutaceae: Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988]. Solanaceae: Capsicum sp. [Beards1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Kuwana1902]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Reunion [Mamet1957, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014]; Seychelles [Green1907]; Zanzibar [Mamet1956]. Australasian: Australia [Mamet1943a] (South Australia [Brooke1957]); Federated States of Micronesia (Yap [Beards1966]); Fiji [Hinckl1963]; Guam [Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [Mamet1943a] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Oahu [Zimmer1948, Heu2002]); Indonesia (Java [Ali1969a], Sulawesi (=Celebes) [WatsonMuSh2014]); Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Takagi1970] (Guerrero [Ferris1942], Sinola [Ferris1942]); United States of America (California [McKenz1956] (Gill (1997) cites this species as eradicated from California.), Mississippi [Ferris1938a]). Neotropical: Barbados [Mamet1943a]; Bermuda [HodgsoHi1990]; Cuba [Takagi1970]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Wolcot1936]). Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ali1969a], West Bengal [Green1919c]); Philippines (Luzon [Ali1969a]); Singapore [Mamet1943a]; Sri Lanka [Mamet1943a]; Taiwan [Tao1978]; Thailand [Ali1969a]. Palaearctic: Japan [Kuwana1902] (Honshu [Kuwana1902]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, with the lateral sides almost parallel; head with a more or less pronounced lobe on each side; basal 4 abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally; pygidium rather broad, trapezoidal (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes tokionis is recognizable by the development of cephalic lobes on the anterior prosoma and by the acute median pygidial lobes which are serrate on mesal margin (McKenzie, 1956). Takahashi (1936-1941) misidentified L. tokionis as L. lasianthi (Beardsley, 1966).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Watson 2002a (female) [Expert system on a cd]; Watson et al. 2000a (female) [Expert system on a CD]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 105 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Williams & Watson 1988: 144 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of the South Pacific Region]; Beardsley 1966: 535 [Key to known Micronesian species of Lepidosaphes]; Mamet 1959a: 381 [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in Madagascar]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Zimmerman 1948: 418 (female) [as Lepidosaphes tokionis; Key to species of Lepidosaphes reported in Hawaii]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 53-54]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12-13]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 242]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 84, 92]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 535, 545-546]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Brooke1957 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 386]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109-110]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 292]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-145]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-398, SIV-445:56]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 24]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 21, 83]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 606]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Fullaw1920 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 95, 100]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 168, 175, 187]; Green1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204, 205-206]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 446]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 463]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 327]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 35]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 48]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 7]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 25]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 242]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 23]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81-82]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 202]; Kuwana1925a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Leonar1903 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 108]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 282]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 7]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 162]; Mamet1956 [distribution, host: 138]; Mamet1957 [distribution: 369]; Mamet1959a [distribution, taxonomy: 381]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 19]; Matile1978 [taxonomy: 55]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 127, 130]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Miller2005 [distribution]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 400]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Sander1909a [distribution, host: 56]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-7]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 49]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 197]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WatsonMuSh2014 [distribution: 1595]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 144, 168-170]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Wolcot1936 [distribution, host: 142]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 177]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 418, 426].
Lepidosaphes towadensis Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes towadensis Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 101-102. Type data: JAPAN: Towada, Aomori-ken, on Acer japonicum, by S. Kawai; Amagi-san, Sizuoka-ken, on Acer mono, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer japonicum [TakagiKa1966], Acer mono [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform, tapering towards both ends. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes (L1 and L2), the 3rd and 4th represented by sclerotized serrations (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes towadensis is close to L. kuwacola, from which it is distinguishable by lacking a lateral tubercle between Abd. I and II and also II and III (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 292]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 35]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 245]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 84]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 356-357]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-102].
Lepidosaphes tritubulata BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes tritubulatus Borchsenius, 1958a: 172. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Dintan, on unidentified evergreen, 1/12/1954, by V. Ui-tsian. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis tritubulata; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
HOST: Celastraceae: Euonymus alatus [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Borchs1958a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1958a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, brown, approximately 2.02 mm long. Adult female body elongate, 1.0 mm long and 0.5 mm wide (Borchsenius, 1958a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes tritubulata is separated from other species by the presence of a large number of marginal glands, which in this species are 2 or 3 in the 2nd group and 3 in the 3rd group of glands on each side of the body (Borchsenius, 1958a).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 172-173, 177]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 182-183]; Chou1986 [illustration: 587]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 221].
Lepidosaphes tsugaedumosae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes tsugaedumosae Takagi, 1977: 21-30. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Syabru, on Tsuga dumosa, 21/09/1975, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan; type no. 75NPL25. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Tsuga dumosa [Takagi1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1977].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes tsugaedumosae was collected at an altitude of 2600 m (Takagi, 1977).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1977). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female fusiform, with a constricted meso- and metathorax; pygidium rather narrow, roundish rather than trapezoid along free margin. Derm membranous except for a broad median dorsal area and other smaller areas of pygidium (Takagi, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: L. tsugaedumosae is close to L. pseudotsugae and L. piniroxburghii, all of which are associated with pinaceous plants (Takagi, 1977).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 37, 40-42]; Takagi1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-30]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 53].
Lepidosaphes tubulorum FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes tubulorum Ferris, 1921a: 216-217. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, on Sapium sebiferum. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus tubulorum; Lindinger, 1943a: 149. Change of combination.
Paralepidosaphes tubulorum; Borchsenius, 1962b: 864, 871. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: dark oystershell scale [KSPP1972]; tube scale [VelasqRi1969].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Telsimia nigra [Muraka1970]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis fuscipennis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis vittatus [RosenDe1979], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Muraka1970]. Encyrtidae: Anabrolepis extranea [Muraka1970], Apterencyrtus microphagus [HertinSi1972], Zaomma lambinus [JaposhCe2010]. Eulophidae: Tetrastichus sp. [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex crenata [Ferris1953]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [Fullaw1946]. Betulaceae: Alnus sp. [Takagi1960], Betula sp. [Takagi1960]. Burseraceae: Hedwigia japonica [Ferris1953]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Cercidiphyllaceae: Cercidiphyllum japonicum [Takaha1936d]. Clethraceae: Clethra barbinervis [Takagi1960]. Cornaceae: Cornus kousa [Muraka1970]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Hua2000]. Ericaceae: Enkianthus sp. [Takagi1960], Rhododendron simsii [Tang1986]. Euphorbiaceae: Sapium sebiferum [Ferris1921a]. Fabaceae: Erythrina sp. [Borchs1966]. Fagaceae: Castanea crenata [Muraka1970], Quercus sp. [Takagi1960]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes rubrum [Muraka1970]. Hydrangeaceae: Hydrangea sp. [Takagi1960]. Lauraceae: Lindera sp. [Takagi1960]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia obovata [Takagi1960]. Meliaceae: Melia azedarach [Tao1978], Melia sp. [Tang1984b]. Moraceae: Ligustrum tschonoskii [Takagi1960], Morus alba [Hua2000], Morus sp. [Borchs1966]. Myrsinaceae: Ardisia crispa [Muraka1970]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus mandschuria japonica [Takagi1960], Fraxinus sieboldiana [Takagi1960], Ligustrum obtusifolium [Muraka1970]. Rosaceae: Malus sp. [Borchs1938], Prunus mume [Hua2000], Prunus persica [Hua2000], Prunus pseudoserasus [Hua2000], Rosa rugosa [Takagi1960], Sorbus sp. [Takagi1960], Syringa sp. [Takagi1960]. Salicaceae: Populus maximowiczi [Takagi1960], Populus sp. [Borchs1938], Salix glandulosa warburaii [Tao1978], Salix warburgi [Ferris1921a]. Theaceae: Camellia oleifera [Tao1999], Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [Takagi1960], Schima wallichii [Takagi1975], Thea sinensis [Tang1986]. Vitaceae: Vitis coignetiae [Takagi1960].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Guam [Fullaw1946]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Tang1986], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Ferris1953], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Nepal [Takagi1975]; Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Taiwan [Ferris1921a]. Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Hebei (=Hopei) [Tang1984b], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Jilin (=Kirin) [Hua2000], Liaoning [Hua2000], Shandong (=Shantung) [Hua2000], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Japan (Hokkaido [Takaha1936d], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]).
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes tubulorum has one generation per year, overwintering in the egg stage. Eggs hatch in the middle of May. Male adults emerge at the end of June and mate with females. Females begin egg-laying in August (Murakami, 1970).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana (1925a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dark brown, 2.75-3.0 mm long. Male scale similar. Adult female 1.1 mm long, elongate, rather broad; derm membranous except the pygidium (Ferris, 1921a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 339 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1962b: 864 [as Paralepidosaphes tubulorum; Key to species of Paralepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 94 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1938: 138 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in the Fareastern Region of the SSSR]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [distribution, host: 89]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 60]; Borchs1938 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 138]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 180]; Borchs1962b [distribution: 864, 871]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1162]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Chou1986 [illustration: 588]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 292]; Ferris1921a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 216-217]; Ferris1936 [illustration, taxonomy: 9]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61]; Fullaw1946 [distribution, host: 160]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 183]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154, 156]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 199]; JaposhCe2010 [p. 134]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 35]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 248-249]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KSPP1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-33]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 84-85]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 357-358]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 762]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 94]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 90, 94]; Takagi1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18-19]; Takaha1936d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 77]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 12]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204-205]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 278]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 103-104]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 29-30, 72]; Xu1981 [taxonomy: 133]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206-207].
Lepidosaphes turanica ArchangelskayaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes turanica Archangelskaya, 1937: 75. Type data: UZBEKISTAN: Tashkent; Fergana; Katta-Kurgan; Andizhan; all on Eleagnus sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 274. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus turanicus; Lindinger, 1943b: 222. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis turanica; Matesova, 1958: 132. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: dzhid comma armored scale [Mateso1958].
HOSTS: Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus angustifolia [Mateso1958], Elaeagnus sp. [Archan1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Gansu (=Kansu) [Tang1984b], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Hua2000], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1984b], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1984b]); Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Uzbekistan (Andizhan Oblast [Archan1937], Fergana Oblast [Archan1937], Tashkent Oblast [Archan1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Archangelskaya (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale small, 1.25-2.0 mm long, narrow and not extending behind, with parallel margins, light brown with a faint stripe. The larval skin is reddish-brown, ventral scale with broad longitudinal groove. Male scale is considerably smaller and narrower than the female, whitish. Body of female is elongate and somewhat rounded, yellow or yellowish-brown, pygidium with two pairs of lobes (Archangelskaya, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes turanica is similar to L. gloverii, but differs by its smaller size and by the color of the body. The microscopic characters are closer to L. conchiformis, but differs in the tri-sectional lobes of the 1st pair and the smaller lobes of the 2nd pair (Archangelskaya, 1937). Balachowsky (1954e) considered L. turanica to be a junior synonym of L. granati.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69, 75]; Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 72]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-64]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 185]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; Bustsh1960 [distribution, host: 177]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 274-275]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 293]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 222]; Mateso1958 [distribution, host: 132]; Moghad2013a [distribution: 39]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 130]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 277].
Lepidosaphes ulmi (Linnaeus)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus ulmi Linnaeus, 1758: 455. Type data: on Ulmus campestris. Unknown type status. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Coccus berberidis Schrank, 1801: 146. Type data: on "barberry". Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1932f: 199. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Coccus amygdali Schrank, 1801: 147. Type data: GERMANY: on "peach". Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1932f: 201.
Diaspis linearis; Costa, 1829: 21-22. Described: female. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 44.
Aspidiotus conchiformis Curtis, 1843: 735-736. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, on apple and pear trees. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Melbourne: National Museum of Victoria, Victoria, Australia. Described: female.
Aspidiotus falciformis Baerensprung, 1849: 168. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on fruit trees. Unknown type status female. Described: female. Synonymy by Morgan, 1890a: 226-228. Notes: Type material presumed lost.
Aspidiotus pomorum Bouché, 1851: 110. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on Cornus sp. and other fruit trees. Unknown type status. Described: female. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1899j: 275. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Aspidiotus conchiformis; Fitch, 1855: 735-742. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 45.
Aspidiotus juglandis Fitch, 1855: 739. Type data: UNITED STATES: New York, on Ribes floridum. Synonymy by Morgan, 1890a: 226-228.
Mytilococcus communis Amerling, 1858a: 103. Type data: CZECHOSLOVAKIA: Prague. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 148. Notes: Borchsenius (1966) treats Mytilococcus communis Amerling as an incertae sedis. Type material presumed lost.
Lepidosaphes conchiformis; Shimer, 1868: 373. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 45.
Mytilaspis juglandis; Signoret, 1870: 95. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pomorum; Signoret, 1870: 98. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pomicorticis Riley, 1873: 73-74. Type data: UNITED STATES: Missouri, on apple. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 37.
Mytilaspis ulmicorticis Riley, 1874: 246. Type data: UNITED STATES: Iowa, on "red elm". Unknown type status. Described: female. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 37.
Aspidious fraxini Altum, 1882: 364-365. Type data: EUROPE:. Syntypes. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Fernald, 1903b: 315. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Mytilaspis vitis Goethe, 1884: 118. Type data: GERMANY: Reine. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1928: 107. Notes: Whereabouts of type material unknown.
Fiorinia grossulariae Maskell, 1884: 123. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Amberly, on "gooseberry," by Dr. Morris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Charles & Henderson, 2002: 603.
Mytilaspis ulicis Douglas, 1886: 249-250. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, Blackheath, on Ulex europaeus, 14/12/188?. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Boratynski & Williams, 1964: 104.
Aspidiotus pyrus-malus Cockerell, 1894: 33. Nomen nudum; discovered by Cockerell, 1894: 33. Notes: Cockerell lists this name as authored by "Kenn." Fernald (1903b) gives the author as Kennicott, 1854, but we have been unable to track down any descriptions or publications by Kennicott and so here consider the name to be a placed nomen nudum.
Mytilaspis ceratoniae Gennadius, 1895: cclxxvii. Type data: CYPRUS: on "Caroubier". Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1937: 180.
Mytilaspis ulmi; Cockerell, 1899j: 275. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pomorum candidus Newstead, 1901a: 82. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, Sussex, Petworth, Halfway Bridge, on "Hawthorn," by E.E. Green. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Boratynski & Williams, 1964: 104.
Mytilaspis pomorum ulicis; Newstead, 1901b: 200-201. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes pomorum; Kirkaldy, 1902: 111. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ceratoniae; Fernald, 1903b: 307. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes juglandis; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ulmi candida; Fernald, 1903b: 317. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ulmi ulicis; Fernald, 1903b: 317. Change of combination and rank.
Lepidosaphes ulmi vitis; Fernald, 1903b: 317. Change of combination and rank.
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) bicolor Newstead, 1906: 72. Type data: EGYPT: Cairo, Gizeh, on unknown host, by F. Willcocks. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams, 2002a: 156. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: male. Synonymy by Williams, 2002a: 156. Notes: Although Hall (1923) thought that Newstead's material was never described and probably lost in a fire and Borchsenius (1966) treated Lepidosaphes bicolor as incertae sedis, Williams (2002a) found original slides in the BMNH and determined that Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) bicolor was a junior synonym of L. ulmi. Additionally, part of the original Newstead material described is a misidentification of Salicicola kermanensis (Williams, 2002a).
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) pomorum; Lindinger, 1907: 6. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pomorum vitis; Newstead, 1907a: 10. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes beckii oleae Leonardi, 1908a: 190-191. Type data: SICILY: on Olea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 40.
Lepidosaphes ulmi; Girault, 1909: 357. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes bicolor; Sanders, 1909a: 57. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes pinniformis; Lindinger, 1912b: 228. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 44.
Lepidosaphes pinnaeformis oleae; Leonardi, 1920: 157. Change of status.
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) ulmi; Hall, 1922: 39. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes vulva Nel, 1933: 441, 443. Nomen nudum; discovered by Lindinger, 1936b: 286.
Lepidosaphes ulmi unisexualis Thiem, 1933a: 640. Type data: GERMANY: on Rosa sp., Cydonia vulgaris, Pyrus communis, Sorbus aucuparia, S. torminalis, S. intermedia, Malus sp. and Cotoneaster lucida. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Schmutterer, 1952: 576. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Lepidosaphes ulmi bisexualis Thiem, 1933a: 641-642. Type data: GERMANY: Naumburg; Kösen, Rothenstein, on Betula sp., Corylus avellana, Fagus silvatica, Quercus spp., Buxus sempervirens, Acer spp., Calluna vulgaris, Vaccinium myrtillus. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 37. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Lepidosaphes ulmi cotini Koroneos, 1934: 61-64. Type data: GREECE: Promyri, Arghalasti, on Cotinus coggygria. Unknown type status. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 159. Notes: Whereabouts of type material unknown.
Lepidosaphes ulmi oleae Koroneos, 1934: 64-65. Type data: GREECE: Méghara and Spata, on Olea europaea. Unknown type status. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 159. Notes: Type depository unknown.
Lepidosaphes ulmi rosae Koroneos, 1934: 65-67. Type data: GREECE: Volos, on Platanus orientalis and Rosa spp.; Edipsos-Bain, on Pyrus amygdaliformis; Melissiatika, on Pyrus communis. Unknown type status. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 159. Notes: Whereabouts of type material unknown.
Lepidosaphes linearis; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus saliceti; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 46.
Coccus conchiformis; Ferris, 1936: 22, 65. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 44.
Mytilococcus ulmi; Lindinger, 1936a: 444. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus oleae; Lupo, 1939: 72, 86. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus saliceti; Ferris, 1941e: 48. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 46.
Lepidosaphes fici Lindinger, 1954: 617. Nomen nudum. Notes: Lindinger (1954) lists "Lepidosaphes fici Condit." as a junior synonym of Mytilococcus linearis (Costa), which is in turn now considered a junior synonym of L. ulmi. We are unable to determine who described this species and thus consider it a nomen nudum.
Mytilococcus linearis; Lindinger, 1954: 617. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes oleae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 40. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes tiliae Savescu, 1955: 915-920. Type data: ROMANIA: Bucharest, on Tilia europaea. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bucarest: Academie des Sciences Agricoles et Forestieres, Romania. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 252.
Lepidosaphes populi Savescu, 1955: 915-925. Type data: ROMANIA: Ploesti, Valenii de Munte, on Populus pyramidalis, P. tremula, Salix viminalis, Fraxinus excelsior, Robinia pseudocacia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bucarest: Academie des Sciences Agricoles et Forestieres, Romania. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 252.
Mytilococcus ulmi; Monti, 1956: 154-164. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes mesasiatica Borchsenius, 1962: 861. Type data: KAZAKHSTAN: Chimaent Oblast, Dzhambul, on Persica sp., 07/09/1939, by N. Borchsenius; UZEBEKISTAN: Denau, on Salix sp., 2/06/1944; Tashkent on Populus sp., 16/09/1961; TAJIKISTAN: Dushanbe, on Malus sp., 09/09/1939. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 252.
Mytilaspis fraxini; Borchsenius, 1966: 373. Change of combination. Notes: Borchsenius (1966) treats Lepidosaphes fraxini as an incertae sedis.
Mytilococcus populi; Zahradník, 1972: 426. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus tiliae; Zahradník, 1972: 426. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Lepidosaphes) ulmi; Danzig, 1980b: 302. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: apple mussel scale [CharleHe2002]; apple oystershell scale [Danzig1980b]; appletree bark louse [Lintne1895, Borchs1966]; butternut bark-louse [Fitch1855]; cochenille virgule du pommier [MawFoHa2000]; cochenille virgule du pommier [Foldi2001]; linden oystershell scale [KosztaKo1988F]; mussel scale [Borchs1966]; oyster-shell bark-louse [Jarvis1906]; oyster-shell bark-louse of the apple [Riley1873]; oyster-shell scale [Borchs1966]; oystershell scale [DeBach1964]; poplar oystershell scale [KosztaKo1988F]; vine mussel scale [Newste1907a].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [Balach1954e, Whitco1974]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Borg1919], Chilocorus kuwanae [Muraka1970], Lindorus lophantae [Smirno1950a]. HYMENOPTERA : Apteroptrix longiclava [Balach1954e], Metallonoidea britannica [Balach1954e]. Aphelinidae: Aphelinus abnormis [Morley1909], Aphelinus fuscipennis [Morley1909], Aphelinus mytaspidis [Morley1909, Ruhl1913], Aphytis abnormis [Balach1954e], Aphytis dubius [ArgyriStMo1976], Aphytis maculicornis [AbdRab2001a], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Balach1954e], Aphytis proclia [Balach1954e], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Balach1954e], Azotus celsus Walker [UlgentErKa2008], Coccophagus niger [Balach1954e], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998, Viggia1987], Encarsia herndoni [Viggia1987], Encarsia perniciosi [HuangPo1998], Physcus testaceus [Balach1954e]. Encyrtidae: Anabrolepis zetterstedti [Danzig1959], Apterencyrtus microphagus [Danzig1959], Chiloneurinus microphagus [GomezM1937], Chiloneurus diaspidinarum [Morley1909], Epitetracnemus zetterstedtii [MoglanMo1997b], Gyranusa matritensis [Balach1954e], Habrolepis zetterstedti [Balach1954e], Microterys machacrus [Balach1954e], Rhopus testaceus [Balach1954e], Zaomma lambinus [MoglanMo1997b]. Mymaridae: Anaphes gracilis [Morley1909]. Proctotrupoidea [MoglanMo1997b].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer ginnala [Danzig1959a], Acer negundo [Jorgen1934], Acer pennsylvanicum [QuaintSa1916], Acer platanoides [Thiem1933a], Acer rubrum [QuaintSa1916], Acer saccharum [QuaintSa1916], Acer sp. [Borchs1962b, MillerDa2005], Acer spicatum [QuaintSa1916], Negundo aceroides [Danzig1959a]. Adoxaceae: Viburnum sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005]. Agavaceae: Yucca sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005]. Anacardiaceae: Continus coggygria [ArgyriStMo1976], Cotinus coggygria [Korone1934], Cotinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pistacia lentiscus [Balach1933e, PellizPoSe2011], Pistacia sp. [MillerDa2005], Spondias sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [ErlerKoTu1996]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex aquifolium [McKenz1956], Ilex crenata [QuaintSa1916]. Araliaceae: Panax quinquefolium [QuaintSa1916], Panax sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [QuaintSa1916]. Asclepiadaceae: Araujia sp. [McKenz1956], Vincetoxicum sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Asteraceae: Artemisia sp. [MillerDa2005], Fitchia sp. [MillerDa2005], Helianthus sp. [QuaintSa1916]. Berberidaceae: Berberis sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Berberis vulgaris [BognarVi1979]. Betulaceae: Alnus glutinosa [Moghad2013a], Alnus rugosa [QuaintSa1916], Alnus viridis suaveolens [Balach1933a], Betula ermani [Thiem1933a], Betula nigra [Thiem1933a], Betula pendula [Rasina1960], Betula populifolia [QuaintSa1916], Betula pubescens [Thiem1933a], Betula sp. [Thiem1933a, MillerDa2005], Betula verrucosa [Thiem1933a], Corylus avellana [Moghad2013a]. Bignoniaceae: Catalpa sp. [MillerDa2005], Catalpa speciosa [Jorgen1934]. Brassicaceae: Arabis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buxaceae: Buxus sempervirens [Thiem1933a], Buxus sp. [Lawson1917, MillerDa2005], Pachysandra sp. [MillerDa2005], Pachysandra terminalis [QuaintSa1916], Sarcococca sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cannabaceae: Celtis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Symphoricarpos sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Celastraceae: Celastrus scandens [QuaintSa1916], Celastrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Euonymus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Chenopodiaceae: Beta sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cistaceae: Helianthemum chamaecistus [QuaintSa1916], Helianthemum vulgare [Green1925]. Commelinaceae: Cyanotis sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Cornaceae: Cornus alba [QuaintSa1916], Cornus alba sibirica [QuaintSa1916], Cornus alterna [QuaintSa1916], Cornus californica [QuaintSa1916], Cornus californicus [Cocker1895x], Cornus controversa [Takagi1960], Cornus sanguinea [QuaintSa1916], Cornus sp. [Bouche1851, MillerDa2005], Thelycrania tatarica [Danzig1959a]. Corylaceae: Carpinus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Corylus avellana [Thiem1933a], Corylus sp. [QuaintSa1916]. Cruciferae: Lepidium suffruticosum [QuaintSa1916]. Cupressaceae: Chamaecyparis sp. [MillerDa2005], Cupressus sp. [Bodenh1953]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Takaha1955e], Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus angustifolius [GomezM1960G], Elaeagnus argentea [QuaintSa1916], Elaeagnus sp. [MillerDa2005], Hippophae rhamnoides [MoglanMo1997b]. Ericaceae: Andromeda polyfolia [Danzig1959], Arctostaphylos uvaursi [Danzig1959], Calluna sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Calluna vulgaris [Thiem1933a], Chamaedaphne calyculata [QuaintSa1916], Chimaphila sp. [DanzigPe1998], Erica sp. [QuaintSa1916], Erica tetralix [Green1925], Ledum palustre [Danzig1959], Oxycoccus quadripetalus [Danzig1959], Oxycoccus sp. [QuaintSa1916], Oxydendrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhododendron sp. [Tao1999, MillerDa2005], Vaccinium macrocarpon [Frankl1952], Vaccinium myrtillus [Thiem1933a], Vaccinium sp. [MillerDa2005], Vaccinium uliginosum [Danzig1959], Vaccinium vitis-idaea [Danzig1959]. Euphorbiaceae: Colmeiroa sp. [GomezM1960G], Euphorbia verrucosa [Danzig1959a], Ricinus communis [Bodenh1924], Sapium sebiferum [QuaintSa1916], Stillingia sebifera [Wilson1917]. Fabaceae: Amorpha sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Caesalpinia sp. [DanzigPe1998], Cajanus indicus [Hall1922], Ceratonia sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Cercis siliquastrum [ErlerKoTu1996], Cercis sp. [MillerDa2005], Cytisus nubigensus [QuaintSa1916], Cytisus scoparius [QuaintSa1916], Cytisus sp. [GomezM1960G, MillerDa2005], Genista sp. [Balach1954e], Gleditschia triacanthos [Hadzib1941], Gleditsia aquatica [QuaintSa1916], Gleditsia sp. [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005], Laburnum sp. [DanzigPe1998], Lupinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Maackia sp. [DanzigPe1998], Retama sp. [BenDov2013], Robinia pseudocacia [QuaintSa1916], Robinia sp. [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005], Sarothamnus scoparius [Martin1983], Sarothamnus sp. [Martin1983, MillerDa2005], Sesbania sp. [Hall1922], Spartium junceum [BenDov2012], Spartium sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005], Spartocytisus supranubius [CarnerPe1986], Ulex europaeus [Dougla1886], Ulex sp. [Bodenh1953]. Fagaceae: Castanea americana [QuaintSa1916], Castanea sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Fagus atropunicea [QuaintSa1916], Fagus silvatica [Thiem1933a], Fagus sp. [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005], Quercus hartwissiana [Hadzib1941], Quercus pedunculata [QuaintSa1916], Quercus robur [Thiem1933a], Quercus sessilis [Thiem1933a], Quercus sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Quercus tuneri pseudoturneri [BognarVi1979]. Gentianaceae: Centaurium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Geraniaceae: Geranium sp. [DanzigPe1998], Pelargonium sp. [Hall1922]. Ginkgoaceae: Ginkgo sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes alpinum [QuaintSa1916], Ribes comminis [Kuwana1925a], Ribes cynosbati [QuaintSa1916], Ribes floridum [Fitch1855], Ribes nigrum [Danzig1959a], Ribes rubrum [Danzig1959a], Ribes sp. [Maskel1884, MillerDa2005]. Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus glabra [QuaintSa1916], Aesculus hippocastanum [QuaintSa1916], Pavia sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Hydrangeaceae: Hydrangea arborescens [MalumpOsPy2009], Hydrangea sp. [MillerDa2005], Philadelphus caucasicus [Danzig1959a]. Hypericaceae: Hypericum sp. [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]. Iridaceae: Gladiolus sp. [McKenz1956]. Juglandaceae: Juglans cinerea [QuaintSa1916], Juglans regia [QuaintSa1916], Juglans sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005]. Lamiaceae: Thymus vulgaris [MatilePe2002]. Lardizabalaceae: Holboellia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora [QuaintSa1916], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005], Sassafras officinale [Wilson1917], Sassafras sassafras [QuaintSa1916], Sassafras sp. [MillerDa2005]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Liriodendron tulipifera [QuaintSa1916], Magnolia sp. [MillerDa2005], Magnolia tripetala [QuaintSa1916], Michelia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Malus pumila [MatilePe2002]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [QuaintSa1916], Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005], Maclura sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Myrica sp. [DanzigPe1998], Myrtus sp. [QuaintSa1916]. Oleaceae: Chionanthus sp. [MillerDa2005], Forsythia sp. [MillerDa2005], Fraxinus americana [QuaintSa1916], Fraxinus excelsior [Savesc1955], Fraxinus ornus [BognarVi1979], Fraxinus pennsylvanica [Jorgen1934], Fraxinus sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Ligustrum japonicum [ArgyriStMo1976], Ligustrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum vulgare [Rasina1960], Olea europaea [Korone1934], Olea sp. [MillerDa2005], Syringa persica [QuaintSa1916], Syringa reflexa [Rasina1960], Syringa sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Syringa vulgaris [QuaintSa1916]. Paeoniaceae: Paeonia sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Abies firma [QuaintSa1916], Abies sp. [MillerDa2005], Picea sp. [MillerDa2005], Tsuga sp. [MillerDa2005]. Platanaceae: Platanus orientalis [GomezM1937], Platanus sp. [QuaintSa1916]. Plumbaginaceae: Armeria sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Poaceae: Melica sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Polemoniaceae: Phlox sp. [MillerDa2005]. Polygonaceae: Eriogonum parvifolium [McKenz1956]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [Bodenh1924]. Ranunculaceae: Clematis paniculata [QuaintSa1916], Clematis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rhamnaceae: Ceanothus americanus [QuaintSa1916], Ceanothus sp. [MillerDa2005], Hovenia dulcis [QuaintSa1916], Hovenia sp. [QuaintSa1916], Rhamnus cathartica [QuaintSa1916], Zizyphus sp. [Hall1922], Zizyphus spinae [Bodenh1924]. Rosaceae: Amelanchier sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Amygdalus cerasus [Korone1934], Amygdalus communis [Martin1983], Amygdalus persica [Korone1934], Amygdalus persica nectarina [QuaintSa1916], Aruncus sylvester [QuaintSa1916], Cerasus sp. [GomezM1954], Cotoneaster integerrima [Danzig1959], Cotoneaster lucida [Thiem1933a], Cotoneaster sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Crataegus ambigua [Moghad2013a], Crataegus crus-galli [QuaintSa1916], Crataegus jezoana [Muraka1970], Crataegus monogyna [BognarVi1979], Crataegus oxyacantha [QuaintSa1916], Crataegus sp. [Kuwana1925a, MillerDa2005], Cydonia vulgaris [Thiem1933a], Geum sp. [MillerDa2005], Malus baccata [Danzig1959a], Malus communis [GomezM1937], Malus domestica [Danzig1959], Malus manshurica [Danzig1980b], Malus pumila [Muraka1970], Malus purpurea [BognarVi1979], Malus sp. [Thiem1933a, MillerDa2005], Malus sylvestris [QuaintSa1916], Mespilus cuneata [QuaintSa1916], Mespilus germanica [Moghad2013a], Mespilus sp. [MillerDa2005], Padus maackii [Danzig1959a], Padus racemosa [Danzig1959a], Persica sp. [Borchs1962b], Photinia arbutifolia [McKenz1956], Potentilla erecta [Danzig1959a], Prunus amygdalus [McKenz1956], Prunus armeniaca [QuaintSa1916], Prunus cerasifera [BognarVi1979], Prunus domestica [QuaintSa1916], Prunus emarginata [McKenz1956], Prunus gymnodonta [Rasina1960], Prunus persica [LepineMi1931], Prunus salicina [Muraka1970], Prunus sargentii [QuaintSa1916], Prunus sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Prunus spinosa [QuaintSa1916], Pyrus communis [Thiem1933a], Pyrus malus [LepineMi1931], Pyrus sativus [MoglanMo1997b], Pyrus serotina [Muraka1970], Pyrus sp. [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005], Rosa canina [Danzig1959a], Rosa rugosa [QuaintSa1916], Rosa sp. [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005], Rubus idaeus [Danzig1959], Rubus sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Sorbaria sorbifolia [Danzig1959a], Sorbaria sp. [MillerDa2005], Sorbus americana [QuaintSa1916], Sorbus aucuparia [Thiem1933a], Sorbus intermedia [Thiem1933a], Sorbus sp. [Takagi1960, MillerDa2005], Sorbus torminalis [Thiem1933a], Spiraea sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Spirea salicifolia [BognarVi1979]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Phellodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Ptelea trifoliata [QuaintSa1916]. Salicaceae: Populus alba [QuaintSa1916, BenDov2011], Populus balsamifera [QuaintSa1916], Populus berolinensis [Danzig1959a], Populus chilensis [BenDov2012], Populus communis [GomezM1937], Populus deltoides [QuaintSa1916], Populus euramericana [Tsalev1967], Populus fastigiate [Newste1907a], Populus lombardi [Jorgen1934], Populus nigra [LepineMi1931], Populus nigra italica [QuaintSa1916], Populus pyramidalis [Borchs1938], Populus simonii [BognarVi1979], Populus sp. [Hall1922, MillerDa2005], Populus tremula [Savesc1955], Salix aegyptiaca [QuaintSa1916], Salix alba [Tsalev1967], Salix amygdaloides [Jorgen1934], Salix babylonica [QuaintSa1916], Salix caprea [QuaintSa1916], Salix linearis [Danzig1959a], Salix matsudana [DanzigPe1998], Salix pedicellata [QuaintSa1916], Salix purpurea [Tsalev1967], Salix sp. [Bodenh1924, MillerDa2005], Salix sp. [BenDov2012], Salix viminalis [QuaintSa1916]. Sapindaceae: Aesculus sp. [MillerDa2005], Koelreuteria sp. [MillerDa2005]. Simarubaceae: Ailanthus cacodendron [QuaintSa1916], Ailanthus glondulosa [Tao1999]. Solanaceae: Lycium sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Staphyleaceae: Staphylea sp. [MillerDa2005], Staphylea trifolia [QuaintSa1916]. Styracaceae: Styrax officinalis [ErlerKoTu1996, BenDov2012]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix africana [QuaintSa1916], Tamarix sp. [Bodenh1953]. Taxaceae: Taxus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia sp. [QuaintSa1916]. Thymelaeaceae: Dirca palustris [QuaintSa1916]. Tiliaceae: Tilia americana [QuaintSa1916], Tilia angustifolia [QuaintSa1916], Tilia cordata [Danzig1959], Tilia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ulmaceae: Celtis occidentalis [QuaintSa1916], Planera keakei [QuaintSa1916], Planera sp. [MillerDa2005], Ulmus campestris [Linnae1758], Ulmus carpinifolia [McKenz1956], Ulmus scabra purpurea [QuaintSa1916], Ulmus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Viscaceae: Viscum sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Vitaceae: Ampelopsis quinquefolia [QuaintSa1916], Parthenosisscus sp. [ErlerKoTu1996], Vitis sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Vitis vinifera [QuaintSa1916, BenDov2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Balach1954e]. Australasian: Australia [Kirkal1902] (Tasmania [Balach1954e]); Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1902]; New Zealand [Kirkal1902, Hender2011] (South Island [Maskel1884]). Nearctic: Canada [TurnbuCh1961, Tao1999] (Alberta [MawFoHa2000], British Columbia [Treher1914a, Venabl1939], New Brunswick [Koszta1996], Nova Scotia [PicketPa1953, Koszta1996], Ontario [Jarvis1906], Prince Edward Island [Koszta1996]); Mexico [Balach1954e]; United States of America (Arkansas [MillerDa2005], California [Cocker1895x, MillerDa2005], Colorado [MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Hought1904, QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Florida [Wilson1917, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Starne1897, MillerDa2005], Idaho [MillerDa2005], Illinois [QuaintSa1916, Glenn1920, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Dougla1912, MillerDa2005], Iowa [DrakeGu1931, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Lawson1917, MillerDa2005], Kentucky [MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maine [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Maryland [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [MillerDa2005], Michigan [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Minnesota [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Riley1873, MillerDa2005], Montana [MillerDa2005], Nebraska [MillerDa2005], New Hampshire [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], New York [Fitch1855, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Sherma1913, MillerDa2005], North Dakota [MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [MillerDa2005], Oregon [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Stimme1980b, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [MillerDa2005], South Dakota [Severi1920, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Utah [Jorgen1934, MillerDa2005], Vermont [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Virginia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Washington [MillerDa2005], West Virginia [QuaintSa1916, MillerDa2005], Wisconsin [MillerDa2005], Wyoming [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Tao1999]; Brazil [Hempel1900a]; Chile [Balach1954e]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Tao1999], Hunan [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); India (Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996]). Oriental: Macau [Merril1953]. Oriental: Taiwan [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Merril1953]; Armenia [TerGri1956]; Austria [Merril1953]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001, BenDov2013]; China [Kirkal1902] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Gansu (=Kansu) [Tao1999], Hebei (=Hopei) [Tao1999], Heilongjiang (=HeilungKiang) [Tao1999], Henan (=Honan) [Tao1999], Jilin (=Kirin) [Tao1999], Liaoning [Tao1999], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [Hua2000], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tao1999], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tao1999], Xizang (=Tibet) [Tao1999]); Corsica [Balach1933a]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czechoslovakia [DanzigPe1998]; Denmark [Kozarz1986, Gertss2001]; Egypt [Newste1906, Newste1907a, Hall1922, AbdRab2001a]; Finland [Kozarz1986, Gertss2001]; France [Balach1933e, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [Schran1801]; Greece [Korone1934]; Hungary [KozarOrKo1977]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [DanzigPe1998]; Israel [Bodenh1924, BenDov2012]; Italy [LongoMaPe1995]; Japan [Tao1999] (Hokkaido [Takagi1960], Honshu [Shinji1936b]); Kazakhstan [Danzig1980b] (Chimkent Oblast [Borchs1962b]); Latvia [Rasina1960]; Lithuania [MalumpOsPy2009]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1919]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Netherlands [HelsenBlTr1996]; Norway [Kozarz1986, Gertss2001]; Poland [Szulcz1926, KotejaZa1983, SimonKa2011]; Portugal [Seabra1941, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [Savesc1955]; Russia [Merril1953] (Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1980b], St. Petersburg (=Leningrad) Oblast [Danzig1959]); Sardinia [PellizFo1996]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1984c, Shalab1961]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [GomezM1937]; Sweden [Tullgr1906, Gertss2001]; Switzerland [KozarHi1996]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Borchs1962b]; Tunisia [MansouMkGr2011]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956]; United Kingdom (England [Dougla1886, Newste1907a, MalumpBa2012]); Uzbekistan [Borchs1962b].
BIOLOGY: Jarvis (1906) states that "this insect is one-brooded and winters over in the egg stage. The eggs can be easily seen if at any time in the fall or winter the old scales be lifted up and examined beneath. Numbers of very small whitish yellow eggs will be seen. Here beneath this oyster-shaped scale they remain until early in the summer. The first instars escape from the eggs during the last week in May and the first week in June. They wander for a few hours, or a few days, on the limb, then settle down and secrete a scale. The larvae moult, or shed their skins, twice in the course of their growth during the summer. The adult female dies soon after the laying of the eggs, about 60 in number, in the fall." Griswold (1925), Danzig (1959), Samarasenghe & ReRoux (1966) and Garrett (1972) also discuss life history. In North America, Griswold (1925), Samarasinghe and LeRoux (1966), and Garrett (1972) made detailed life history studies of oystershell scale. Griswold (1925) noted an apple and a lilac form in New York. The former has longer, more narrow scale covers which are uniformly brown, has fewer pores, and develops about 2 weeks earlier than the lilac form. The latter has shorter, wider scale covers which are banded when new and pale gray when old, has more perivulvar pores, and develops about 2 weeks later than the apple form. She found the lilac or banded form on more different host plants, particularly shade trees, than the apple or brown form. She was able to induce apple forms to develop on lilac but the reverse host transfers failed. In Quebec, Canada Samarasinghe and LeRoux (1966), studied a brown form on apple which was unisexual and univoltine. Females laid 20-110 eggs each from late August to early September. These hatched from early May to mid June. Second instars occurred from mid June to late July. Adults appeared from early August to late September. They found Hemisarcoptes malus and Aphelinus mytilaspidus to be the 2 most important mortality factors in the egg and adult stages of oystershell scale. In Maryland, Garrett (1972) worked with a yellow banded, unisexual, univoltine form on poplar and willow which produced 20-101 eggs per female and hatched in late May. He also studied a gray, bisexual, bivoltine form on maple, lilac, and boxwood. Females of the latter produced 16-94 eggs which hatched from late April to mid May. In addition, the eggs and second instars were larger than in the univoltine form. There was no significant difference in perivulvar pore numbers between the uni and bivoltine forms. Apple was an unacceptable host to both forms studied by Garrett. The following egg hatching dates have been observed in North America: June and July, British Columbia (Madsen and Arrand 1971); , May, Oregon (Schuh and Mote 1948); late June to early July, Wyoming (Spackman 1980); early May to early June, North Dakota (McBride 1975); one week after apple petal fall, generally late May to early June, Minnesota, (Hodson and Lofgren 1970); May and July, Indiana, (Sadof 1992); about apple blossom time, Wisconsin (McDowell 1960); late May, Illinois (English 1970); late May to early June, Pennsylvania (Heller 1977); mid May to late May, Vermont (Nielsen 1970); late May to mid June, Connecticut (Schread 1970); between silver tip and pre pink of apple, first week of April to first week of May with second generation crawlers in July, North Carolina (Turnipseed and Smith 1953). Kozár (1990) found that eggs begin to hatch when there has been an accumulation of >130.8 C day- degrees, and this event closely coincides with the appearance of apple blossoms. In Russia Danzig (1959) found a unisexual, univoltine form on apple, barberry, pear, cotoneaster, and walnut and a bisexual, bivoltine form on poplar, willow, lilac, boxwood, and a few others. The latter form was more tolerant of low temperatures. Schmutterer (1951) noted a bisexual, bivoltine form in Germany (L. ulmi bisexualis). In Japan, Murakami (1970) recorded 1 generation a year with egg hatch in May. In Chile, it is reported to have a single generation each year and overwinter in the egg stage (Carrillo et al. 1995). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1937) and Borchsenius (1962b).
STRUCTURE: Female body milky white, as are eggs (Danzig, 1980b). Female scales light brown or yellow, 2.5-3.0 mm long. Scales of male nymphs lighter than female scales about 1 mm long. Adult female body elongate-pear shaped (Borchsenius, 1962b). The position of the spiracles in all feeding instars is summarized by Podsiadlo (2002). Female scale cover elongate mussel shell-shaped, rich mahogany brown with a pale section at posterior end, terminal exuvia more goldenbrown; female body pale with yellow pygidium, eggs white. (Henderson, 2011)Female puparium irregularly oval, formed mainly by the 2nd exuviae, with a narrow edge of fibrous secretion. Exuviae dark yellow. Adult female with cephalic end slightly prolonged into a compressed cylinder (Maskell, 1884).
SYSTEMATICS: The list of synonyms for L. ulmi is very extensive and it is often difficult to know if all are correct. We have synthesized the listings given by Borchsenius (1966) and Danzig & Pellizzari (1998). Lepidosaphes ulmi can be told from L. salicina by its absence of the row of dorsal tubes beginning from second notch of pygidium (Danzig, 1980b). In New Zealand, The presence of abdominal dorsal bosses and spinose spurs distinguishes L ulmi from other Lepidosaphes species in New Zealand. L. ulmi is most similar to L. beckii in possessing numerous dorsal ducts and the ventral band of ducts between the posterior spiracles, but L. beckii has the lateral double head bosses (absent on L. ulmi). (Henderson, 2011)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Not considered a serious pest of cranberry vines (Franklin 1952). Griswold (1925) summarized numerous references in the early literature about the destructive nature of oystershell scale. The most serious of these outbreaks was noted by Sterrett (1915) in northern Ohio where entire stands of ash trees were killed. Garrett (1972) also discussed the economic importance of oystershell scale in the U.S. Spackman (1980) described oystershell scale as "probably the insect pest most destructive to lilacs in Wyoming." He noted that heavy infestations kill entire lilac bushes as well as ash and willow trees. Turnipseed and Smith (1953) state that oystershell scale is a serious pest of apples at higher elevations in western North Carolina. Recent literature discussing economic damage to specific hosts are as follows: Apples (Aleksidze 1995, Erol and Yasar 1996); olives (Agryriou 1990, Katsoyannos 1992); ornamentals (Davidson and Miller 1990); and walnut (Chua and Wood 1990). It appears that this pest is not as abundant today as it was in the early 1900s. In many situations the large diversity of natural enemies prevents the oystershell scale from becoming a pest (Kozár 1990a). An interesting discovery by Mendel et al. (1992) is that if this species feeds on alkaloid-containing plants, the predators that feed on the scale have significantly diminished levels of survival. Beardsley and González (1975) consider this to be one of 43 major armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 105 (female) [Key to Lepidosaphes adult females in New Zealand]; Ghabbour 2001: 78 (first instar) [Key to first-instar nymphs of three species of Lepidosaphes]; Gill 1997: 168 (female) [Key to California species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab 1996: 517 (female) [Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 347 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1986a: 355 (female) [as Lepidosaphes (Lepidosaphes) ulmi; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 338 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; McDaniel 1972a: 323 (female) [Key to the Texas species of the genus Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Takagi 1960: 93 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Bustshik 1958: 185 (female) [Species of the tribe Diaspidini]; Ezzat 1958: 245 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ulmi; Key to adult female Lepidosaphes]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 73 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ulmi v. oleae; Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Spain]; McKenzie 1956: 32 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 69 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 33 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1938: 138 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in the Fareastern Region of the SSSR]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Britton 1923: 378 (female) [Key to Connecticut species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 374 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [Key to species of Fiorinia]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [as Mytilaspis nivea M. pomorum; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis pomorum; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1120]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 175]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 58]; Altum1882 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 364-365]; Amerli1858a [host: 103]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 71-72]; ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 26]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 241]; Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Baeren1849 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 168]; Balach1933a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40-41]; Balach1933e [distribution, host: 4]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 37-42]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-57]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; BenDov2013 [distribution, host: 72]; Berles1895b [taxonomy: 85, 168]; Berles1896 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 214, 297]; BerlesLe1898a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-54]; Bodenh1944b [distribution: 86, 96]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122, 133-135]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, life history: 24]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 17]; Boraty1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 467-468]; Boraty1970a [taxonomy: 66-67]; BoratyWi1964a [taxonomy: 104]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 73, 77, 107]; Borchs1938 [distribution, description, host, taxonomy: 139]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 204]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Borchs1962b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 861, 870]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44-47,144,373-374]; Borg1919 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 18-19]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 12]; Bouche1851 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; BrandtBo1948 [taxonomy: 2]; Britta1915 [description, economic importance, life history: 42]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378, 379]; BurgesGa1982 [distribution, host: 108]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185, 191-192]; Bustsh1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Carnes1907 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; CarrilCiMu1995 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 5-8]; Charle1998 [distribution, economic importance: 51]; CharleAlWe1998 [biological control, distribution, host: 93, 97]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 589-595,603-604]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156-159]; Chou1986 [illustration: 570, 594]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1895x [distribution, host: 259-260]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; Cocker1899j [taxonomy: 275]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 118-121, 124]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 474-475, 579-582, 58]; Costa1829 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21-22]; Curtis1843e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 735-736]; Danzig1959 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 449]; Danzig1959a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 879-886]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 302-303]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 356, 358]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 247, 248, 251-254]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 293-295]; DeBach1964 [biological control, distribution, host: 679]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution, host: 12, 13]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 282-283]; Dingle1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 369-370]; Dougla1886 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249-250]; Dougla1886a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27, 28]; Dougla1886c [description: 152]; Dougla1912 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222-225]; DrakeGu1931 [chemical control, distribution, host, illustration: 13]; Draper1907 [distribution: 15]; DumasVa1950 [biological control: 235]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; ErolYa1999 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 151]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Farooq1998 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 509-513]; Fassot2003 [life history: 24]; Fassot2003a [life history: 60]; Felt1901 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 297-298]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248,307,310,314-317]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 65]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-76]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 5]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 43, 48]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 446: 56]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Fitch1855 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 735-742]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 18-19]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; Foldi2003a [behaviour: 7]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; FrankKr1900 [distribution, host: 90, 99]; Frankl1952 [economic importance, host: 12]; Frogga1907 [distribution, host: 374]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-46]; Gennad1895 [description, distribution, host: cclxxvii]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; Gertss1997 [distribution, host, illustration: 115, 116]; Gertss2000 [distribution, host: 152]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127]; Gertss2008 [taxonomy: 56]; Ghabbo2001 [taxonomy: 78]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 349]; Ghauri1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 119, 212]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168, 175-176, 188]; Giraul1909 [life history: 357]; Glenn1920 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 173-177]; Goethe1884 [p. 188]; GomesCRe1947 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173-174]; GomezM1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 164, 180-184]; GomezM1954 [distribution, host: 121]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73, 94-95]; GomezM1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49, 90-94]; GomezM1960G [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 169-170]; Graora1997 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 127-137]; Green1921 [taxonomy: 199-200]; Green1925 [distribution, host: 44]; Green1929 [distribution, host: 378]; Griswo1922 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 184-191]; Griswo1925 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 5-55]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 187]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39-40]; Hall1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; HelsenBlTr1996 [biological control, chemical control, distribution: 145-149]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 512-513]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11,33,105,106,111,]; Heriot1931 [life history: 6-13]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-42]; Hill1989a [economic importance: 177]; Hofer1903 [description, distribution, host: 480-481]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 33, 34, 69]; Hought1904 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 44-47]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860, 1934]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 197]; Hunter1899 [distribution, host: 14]; Ibraim1961 [distribution, host: 210]; IukhneMaMi1958 [distribution, host: 19]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 201]; JaposhCe2010 [distribution: 134]; Jarvis1906 [description, distribution, illustration, life history: 289-290]; Jorgen1934 [distribution, host: 278]; Karsem1973 [biological control: 122]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 35]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 246-247]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, host: 111]; Kirkal1904b [distribution: 158]; Komosi1974 [taxonomy: 361]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 103-106]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-67, 80-83]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 517, 526-528]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 351-355]; Koteja2000a [distribution: 172]; Koteja2000d [distribution: 243]; KotejaZa1983 [distribution, host: 483]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar1999a [distribution, host: 141]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo2002b [distribution: 376]; KozarKoSa2002 [catalogue, distribution: 39]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 74]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kozarz1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 308]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 21-23]; Lagows1998a [ecology: 65]; LagowsKo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 128]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 254, 256-258]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 60-63]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 18, 37-38]; Leonar1908a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 190-191]; Leonar1908b [description, distribution, host: 43]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 151, 157, 158]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1912b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212, 228, 371, 372,]; Lindin1933c [taxonomy: 168]; Lindin1934e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 154-155]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 149, 159]; Lindin1936a [taxonomy: 444]; Lindin1936b [taxonomy: 286]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 617]; Linnae1758 [description, host: 455]; Lintne1895 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 269]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 144]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 72, 73-80, 86-91]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 284-285,374]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution: 29]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 7]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 7]; MalumpOsPy2009 [distribution, host: 120-127]; MalumpOsPy2010 [distribution, host: 253,260]; MansouMkGr2011 [distribution, economic importance: 315-322]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 55]; Maskel1879 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 192-194]; Maskel1884 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 123]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-53,59]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; Mateso1955a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92-99]; MatesoMiIu1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34-35]; MatesoMiIu1962a [taxonomy: 121]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 221]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 127, 129-130]; McLeod1954 [biological control, distribution, host: 24]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59-60]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 244]; Miller1999 [illustration, taxonomy: 14]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 266]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 39]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 36]; MoglanMo1997b [biological control, distribution: 51-52]; MoraalJa2011 [ecology: 53, 57]; Morgan1888a [taxonomy: 45]; Morgan1888b [illustration, taxonomy: 119]; Morgan1890a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226-228]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 85]; Myers1922 [distribution: 200]; Myers1927LE [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 344-345]; NarzikLu1966 [taxonomy: 33]; Newste1901a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194, 200-201]; Newste1906 [distribution, taxonomy: 72]; Newste1907a [behaviour, description, distribution, host: 10, 15]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; OzgokcYaKa2001 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 318-320]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 31]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 359-361]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 266]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 62]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Picket1960 [biological control, distribution, host: 202]; PicketPa1953 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 474]; PicketPuLe1958 [biological control: 170]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 121]; Podsia2002 [structure: 159]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; QuaintSa1916 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-6]; Rasina1959 [p. 133]; Rasina1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11]; Reh1904 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19-22]; Reyne1957 [taxonomy: 33]; Riley1873 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; Riley1874 [description, distribution: 246]; RileyHo1890a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Ruhl1913 [biological control: 80]; Sachtl1944 [taxonomy: 74]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74-75]; Sander1909a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 56, 57]; Sander1910 [taxonomy: 60]; Savesc1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 915-922]; Savesc1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 197-200]; Schmut1951 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 576-577]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 158-161]; Schran1801 [description, host: 146-147]; Seabra1941 [distribution: 8]; Severi1920 [distribution: 10]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; Sherma1913 [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history: 1-23]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Shimer1868 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 94]; Signor1870 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96, 98-99]; Signor1877 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 605-606]; Silves1902 [distribution, host: 146]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 240]; Smirno1950a [biological control, economic importance: 190]; SmirnoPo1934 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 29-40]; SmirnoPo1934a [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 311-332, 406-414]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 338, 339]; SrivasSi1966b [structure: 129]; Starne1897 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Stimme1980b [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, illustration, taxonomy: 17-18]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 253]; Suter1932 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 347, 394-415]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 137, 140]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 93]; TakagiRo1981 [biological control, distribution: 318]; Takaha1955e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 77]; Tang1986 [distribution, illustration: 275]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 96]; TerGri1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47-48]; TerGri1962 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142]; Thiem1933a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 638-657]; TorabiVaHo2010 [distribution, host: 156]; Treher1914a [chemical control, description, distribution, host, life history: 24-25]; TrenchGoTr2008 [distribution, host: 137-141]; TrenchGoTr2009 [behaviour, distribution, host: 216, 221]; TrenchPa1981 [biological control, distribution: 35-37]; Tsalev1967 [biological control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 59-66]; Tsalev1972 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Tschor1939 [distribution: 90]; Tullgr1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 85-87]; TurnbuCh1961 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 703-704, 725]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Valent1963 [biological control, distribution: 7, 8, 11]; Valent1967 [biological control, distribution: 1119, 1122, 1167]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 51]; Venabl1939 [distribution, host: 24]; Viggia1987 [biological control: 136,147]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Webste1915 [description, distribution, ecology, host, life history, taxonomy: 371-375]; Whitco1974 [biological control, distribution: 154]; Willia2002a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 156]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 8,11,12,17,29,44,46,]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host, illustration: 45]; Wise1977 [distribution: 110]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 116-117]; YadavaCh1968 [taxonomy: 605]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Zahrad1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 426-427].
Lepidosaphes unicolor BanksNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes unicolor Banks, 1906: 234. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Manila, on Cocos nucifera, by C.S. Banks. Holotype female. Type depository: Manila: Entomological Collection, Bureau of Science, Philippines; type no. 10171. Described: female. Illust.
Cornuaspis unicolor; MacGillivray, 1921: 286. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: buko scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Banks1906].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Banks1906]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Banks (1906) and Robinson (1917).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.8 mm long and 0.5 mm wide, sides nearly parallel; dark red, including the exuviae (Robinson, 1917).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 286 [as Cornuaspis unicolor; Key to species of Cornuaspis]; Robinson 1917: 35 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 58]; Banks1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222, 234-235]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 37]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; Wester1918 [host: 53].
Lepidosaphes ussuriensis (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes tubulorum; Kuwana, 1925a: 4, 30, 35. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 40.
Lepidosaphes tubulorum; Borchsenius, 1950b: 180. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 40.
Paralepidosaphes ussuriensis Borchsenius, 1962b: 864. Type data: RUSSIA: Primor'ye Kray, Vladivostok, on Malus sp., Populus sp., 16/05/1934, by V. Khukrianskaia; on Syringa amurensis, Betula sp., Ulmus sp., 24/08/1950 and 08/06/1950, by B. Chumakova. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 248. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Paralepidosaphes spinulata Borchsenius, 1964: 157. Type data: NORTH KOREA: Pyongyang, on Ficus sp., 02/07/1950, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 248.
Lepidosaphes spinulata; Paik, 1978: 355. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes ussuriensis; Kawai, 1980: 248. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Paralepidosaphes) ussuriensis; Danzig, 1980b: 303. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: ussuri oystershell scale [Danzig1986a]; ussurian comma scale [Borchs1962b].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Habrolepis sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus nitida [AhmadGh1972], Betula sp. [Borchs1962b]. Celastraceae: Euonymus [Borchs1966]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Kuwana1925a]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Tang1984b], Bauhinia variegata [AhmadGh1972]. Fagaceae: Castanea pubinervis [Kuwana1925a]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Borchs1964]. Oleaceae: Syringa amurensis [Borchs1962b]. Rosaceae: Malus sp. [Borchs1962b], Physocarpus amurensis [Danzig1980b], Prunus armeniaca ansu [Kuwana1925a], Prunus domestica [Kuwana1925a], Prunus mume [Kuwana1925a], Pyrus serotina [Kuwana1925a]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Borchs1962b], Salix sp. [Kuwana1925a]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus sp. [Borchs1962b]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [Kuwana1925a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Varshn2002]; Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: China [Tang1984b] (Heilongjiang (=HeilungKiang) [Hua2000]); Japan (Hokkaido [Danzig1980b], Honshu [Danzig1980b]); Russia (Primor'ye Kray [Borchs1962b]); South Korea [Borchs1962b].
BIOLOGY: Eggs hibernate. Emergence of first stage nymphs was noticed in early June and egg laying in late August. Fertility 75 to 77 eggs (Danzig, 1980b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Borchsenius (1962b) and Danzig (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish black, protuberant, about 2.5 mm long (Borchsenius, 1962b). Eggs violet (Danzig, 1980b).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes ussuriensis is close to L. tubulorum, but can be told by the tubercles bearing 1-2 spines on the sides of the metathorax (Borchsenius, 1962b).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1986a: 355 (female) [as Lepidosaphes (Paralepidosaphes) ussuriensis]; Borchsenius 1962b: 864 [as Paralepidosaphes ussuriensis; Key to species of Paralepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 95]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host: 108]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 180]; Borchs1962b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 864, 866, 871]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1162]; Borchs1963a [taxonomy: 95, 181, 226]; Borchs1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 157, 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79, 200, 219, 226]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 303-305]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 358-360]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 248-249]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution, host: 83]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 35]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 248]; Konsta1976 [distribution: 50]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 30-35]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 355-356]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 19]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 53]; Xu1981 [taxonomy: 133-134].
Lepidosaphes vermiculus MametNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes vermiculus Mamet, 1937: 174-176. Type data: MAURITIUS: Ilot aux Benitiers, on Cocos nucifera, 24/04/1933, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus vermiculus; Lindinger, 1943b: 149. Change of combination.
Insulaspis vermiculus; Mamet, 1950: 32. Change of combination.
Insulaspis vermicularis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Misspelling of species name.
Insulaspis vermicula Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Unjustified emendation.
COMMON NAME: elongate coconut scale [ColonFMe1998].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Mamet1937].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Yucca sp. [VisalaRaNa1982, ColonFMe1998]. Palmae: Cocos nucifera [Mamet1937, GermaiMiPa2014].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1937, WilliaWi1988]; Reunion [GermaiMiPa2014]; Rodriques Island [Mamet1956b, WilliaWi1988]. Neotropical: Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [NakahaMi1981, ColonFMe1998]); Saint Croix [Nakaha1983]; U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish, a little shining, narrow, narrower at its anterior part, convex dorsally, somewhat transparent, straight or slightly contorted. First exuviae very shiny, golden yellow, transparent, extending beyond the front of the 2nd exuviae which are longer and yellowish, with the sub-posterior margin brownish and obscured by a thin layer of secretion. Adult female yellowish, elongate, broadest across the abdominal segments, 1.0-1.3 mm long and 0.2-0.3 mm wide (Mamet, 1937).
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 105 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes of Puerto Rico].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [taxonomy: 51]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 64]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 110-111]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 54]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution, host: 23]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 184]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Mamet1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 174-176]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 26]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 41]; Mamet1950 [illustration, taxonomy: 32]; Mamet1956b [distribution, host: 305]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 13]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 34]; VisalaRaNa1982 [distribution, host: 500]; Willia1971 [taxonomy: 447]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 9]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 68].
Lepidosaphes yakusimana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes yakusimana Takagi, 2003: 89-90. Type data: JAPAN: Kyusyu, 1400-1900m, on Rhododendron yakusimanum. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female.
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron yakusimanum [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan [Takagi2003].
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, burrowing under the dense tomentum; tests dark chestnut brown. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform, with the free segments moderately lobed laterally; pygidium broad, roundish along the margin. Prepygidial derm membranous; head with or without conical processes, which, when present, are rather numerous and scattered along the frontal margin, mostly on the ventral surface; ventral surface of the pygidium with 2 pairs of sclerotized areas arising from the bases of the median and second trullae and with another pair laterally. No dorsal bosses present. Antennae situated between the frontal margin and the mouth-parts, separated from each other by a space narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts, each with 2 or 3 setae usually unequal in size. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: This species belongs to Paralepidosaphes in Borchsenius' classification, and may be distinguishable from the other species of that group by the following combination of characters: the median trullae are serrate; the prepygidial submedian dorsal ducts are not enlarged, and each row is disconnected from the submarginal dorsal ducts, which are quite few; a sclerotized patch of derm is present in the posterolateral comer of the metathorax, often with a few spinous processes. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, structure: 89-90, 147-148].
Lepidosaphes yamahoi TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes cycadicola yamahoi Takahashi, 1935: 26-27. Type data: TAIWAN: Takao Prefecture, Heito, on unknown shrub, 28/05/1932, by R. Yamaho. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Paralepidosaphes yamahoi; Borchsenius, 1963: 1162. Change of combination and rank.
Lepidosaphes yamahoi; Chou, 1984: 387-388. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Hua2000]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish black, elongate, a bit broadened towards the posterior end, straight or curved, convex dorsally, about 3.0 mm long and 1.1 mm wide. Exuviae yellowish brown or dark brownish, 2nd skin wide, with a distinct transverse furrow, many small translucent areas and 3 longitudinal broad indistinct stripes on the abdomen. Adult female stout, widened posteriorly, with many minute lateral glands on the thorax (Takahashi, 1935).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 61]; Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1162]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 387-388]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 3]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 19]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 28, 70]; Xu1981 [distribution, taxonomy: 133]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 209].
Lepidosaphes yanagicola KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes yanagicola Kuwana, 1925a: 19-21. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Saitama, on Salix sp., by S. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes yanogicola; Borchsenius, 1937a: 187. Misspelling of species name.
Lepidosaphes atunicola Siraiwa, 1939: 69. Type data: RUSSIA: Sakhalin, Honto, on Ulmus laciniata. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1960: 76. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Insulaspis yanagicola; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes (Insulaspis) yanagicola; Danzig, 1980b: 304. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis yanagicola; Tang, 1986: 277. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: euonymus alatus scale [Stimme1983]; firebush scale [MillerDa1990]; Primorye scale [Danzig1980b]; yanagicola oystershell scale [Koszta1996]; yanagicola scale [LambdiWa1980].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Mymaridae: Alaptus aurantii [HertinSi1972], Alaptus torquatus [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Alnus sp. [Borchs1966]. Buxaceae: Pachysandra sp. [Tippin1977, MillerDa2005]. Celastraceae: Celastrus sp. [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Euonymus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [Tang1986]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Euonymus alatus [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Euonymus alatus compacta [Koszta1963], Euonymus fortunei vegetus [Koszta1963]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Tang1984b], Albizia julibrissin [Takagi1960], Albizia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cladrastis lutea [LambdiWa1980], Maackia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Robinia sp. [Tang1986]. Juglandaceae: Juglans sp. [Tang1984b]. Moraceae: Morus alba [Hua2000], Morus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Syringa amurensis [Borchs1938], Syringa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Tang1986], Salix babylonica [Muraka1970], Salix koriyanagi [Muraka1970], Salix sp. [Kuwana1925a, MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Thea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Tiliaceae: Tilia heterophylla [Tippin1977], Tilia japonica [Takagi1960], Tilia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus laciniata [Siraiw1939].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Georgia [Tippin1977, MillerDa2005], Indiana [Schude1954, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Nakaha1982], New Jersey [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [Tippin1977, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], West Virginia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]). Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Danzig1980b]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]. Palaearctic: China (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1986], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tang1984b], Shandong (=Shantung) [Danzig1980b], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1984b]); Japan [MillerDa2005] (Hokkaido [Takagi1960], Honshu [Kuwana1925a], Kyushu [Takagi1960]); Russia (Khabarovsk Kray [Danzig1980b], Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1980b], Sakhalin Oblast [Siraiw1939, MillerDa2005]); South Korea [Danzig1980b, MillerDa2005].
BIOLOGY: L. yanagicola has one annual generation in Pennsylvania. Fertilized adult females overwinter and begin to oviposit in mid-June. They produce eggs for nearly a month and for this reason all stages can be found from late July into August. By the time cold fall weather arrives, all have matured and mated, the males have died and only fertilized females remain (Stimmel, 1983). Porter et al. (1959) reported that in Ohio females overwinter and produce eggs from early June into July. Crawlers appear by June 20 and all stages are present after late July. McComb and Davidson (1969) reported crawlers in June in Maryland. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1960).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, gradually widening posteriorly, convex, brown, with grayish margins. Exuviae orange-yellow. Ventral scale divided. Male scale small, same color as female, slightly wider towards the posterior end, 1 mm long (Kuwana, 1925a). Adult female elongate, broadest across 2nd or 3rd abdominal segment, 1.29 mm long and 0.60 mm wide; free abdominal segments each, but weakly produced laterally; pygidium more or less rounded along its free margin (Takagi, 1960).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes yanagicola is extremely close to L. corni. It is distinguished by the pygidium which is not trapezoidal like the latter, but is rounded along its free margin. In L. corni there is always a submarginal dorsal duct in front of the 2nd lobe (Takagi, 1960).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. The authors have observed heavy infestations of fire bush scale causing premature leaf drop and die back of the host in Beltsville, Maryland. According to Kosztarab (1963) several cases of heavy infestations and damage have been reported in Ohio nurseries. Kosztarab (1996) indicated that damage can be caused with premature leaf drop and twig dieback in nurseries in the northeastern U.S. on winged euonymus. Stimmel (2002, personal communication) indicated that although this scale builds to heavy populations in Pennsylvania, it rarely causes damage to firebush. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 518 (female) [Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1993: 247 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Danzig 1986a: 356 (female) [as Lepidosaphes (Insulaspis) yanagicola; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Chou 1982: 156 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Lepidosaphes]; Paik 1978: 336 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takagi 1960: 91 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Takahashi 1955e: 70 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Borchsenius 1938: 138 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes in the Fareastern Region of the SSSR]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Baker1972 [distribution, host: 109]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host: 187, 255]; Borchs1938 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 182, 236]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1963a [taxonomy: 199-200]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156, 177-178]; Chou1986 [illustration: 590]; Danzig1977b [distribution: 43, 51]; Danzig1978 [distribution, host: 20]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 304]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 722]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247, 277-278]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 184]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 35]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 241]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87-88]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 518, 528-530]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 19-21]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; MalumpHaSa2012 [distribution, host: 7]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 41]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 2]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 270]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 85]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Neiswa1966 [distribution, host, life history: 7]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 336, 361-362]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; Schude1954 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 173]; Schude1975 [chemical control, illustration: 2]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 94]; Siraiw1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69]; Stimme1983 [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 17-18]; Stoetz1976 [taxonomy: 323]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-78, 91]; Takaha1955e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 78]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220-221]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 277]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; TelengBo1936 [biological control, distribution: 77-78]; Tippin1977 [distribution, host: 84]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 399]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 221].
Lepidosaphes yoshimotoi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes yoshimotoi Takagi, 1970: 11-13. Type data: TAIWAN: A-li Shan, on Chamaecyparis formosensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Insulaspis yoshimotoi; Yang, 1982: 221. Change of combination.
HOST: Cupressaceae: Chamaecyparis formosensis [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1970). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body robust, with the free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally and with the pygidium broad. Median lobes comparatively small, a little wider than or as wide as long, rounded apically; are separated from each other by the width of one of them (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes yoshimotoi is close to L. beckii, L. chinensis, L.cycadicola and L. cupressi by the dorsal bosses and by the median lobes being smaller and widely separated from each other. All five species form a close group, which is presumably native to eastern Asia (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 388]; Chou1986 [illustration: 591]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 36, 40-42]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-13]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 96]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 221].
Lepidosaphes zelkovae Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes zelkovae Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 102-103. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Zelkova serrata, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ulmaceae: Zelkova serrata [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform, tapering towards both ends. Pygidium with the median lobes well developed and with the lateral lobes much reduced (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes zelkovae is close to L. kuwacola, but differs from the latter by the eyes not produced into horn-like processes and by having 1 or 2 gland spines in the cephalo-prothoracic region between the antenna and anterior spiracle (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 35-36]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 245]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 85]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102-103].
Leptodiaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Leptodiaspis Takagi, 2011: 43-44. Type species: Leptodiaspis nigra Takagi.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Takagi, 2011.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is referable to the subtribe Diaspidina. In this subtribe, Leptodiaspis is unique in having an elongate tripartite body in the adult female at full growth. The spiracular disc pores are not trilocular as usual in the Diaspidini, but quadrilocular. These pores are arranged in transverse rows, the rows associated with the anterior spiracles, extending far laterad of the spiracles. The black female test is unusual. Leptodiaspis is similar to the Diaulacaspis in the characters of the pygidium, but is distinguishable in that the teneral female does not reveal the charcteristic body shape as do the Diaulacaspis. In addition, the occurrence of quadrilocular spiracular disc pores separates the two genera.
CITATIONS: Takagi2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 41-60].
Leptodiaspis nigra TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Leptodiaspis nigra Takagi, 2011: 44-45. Type data: INDIA: Kerala, Thekkady, Periyar Tiger Reserve, on Cinnomomum malabatrum 12/20/1978, by S. Tekagi. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan; type no. 78IND. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Cinnamomum malabatrum [Takagi2011], Cinnamomum verum [Takagi2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Kerala [Takagi2011]).
BIOLOGY: Female tests occurring on the lower surface of leaves, closely along veins; black, slender with lateral margins parallel or nearly so; exuvial casts terminal. (Takagi, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Takagi, 2011.
CITATIONS: Takagi2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 44-45].
Ligaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Ligaspis Takagi, 2002: 67-69, 87-93. Type species: Ligaspis maculata Takagi, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations of included species by Takagi (2002).
SYSTEMATICS: Placed in the Parlatorini by Takagi (2002).
CITATIONS: Takagi2002 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 67-69, 87-93]; Takagi2008 [taxonomy: 91-95].
Ligaspis maculata TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Ligaspis maculata Takagi, 2002: 68. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Laguna, grounds of the University of the Philippines at Los Baños,on unknown host, 7/08/1994 [94PL-10]. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines. Described: female and first instar. Illust. Notes: Paratypes also from same locality as holotype but collected 24/09/1992 [92PL-15] and Bagac, Bataan, 22/08/1992 [94PL-92].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2002]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations of adult female, second-instar male and female, and first instar provided by Takagi (2002).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult female with anterior spiracles usually without disc pores, rarely with 1. Perivulvar pores 1-4(3) in submedian group. Lobes conical. Plates, when completely represented, 9 in total; 1 between median lobes, 2 between median and second, and 2 lateral of second, the outer at times lacking. Small ducts forming a sparse row on prepygidial part of body along margin, about 11-28 on one side (Takagi, 2002).
CITATIONS: Takagi2002 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 68, 87-90].
Ligaspis pala TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Ligaspis pala Takagi, 2002: 68, 91-93. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Puerto Azul, Ternate, Cavite, host unknown, 8/08/1992 [92PL-102]. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2002]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Excellent illustrations of the adult female, second-instar male, and first instar given by Takagi (2002).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult female with anterior spiracles usually with 1 disc pore, rarely none. Perivulvar pores 1-2(2) in submedian group; usually 1 or 2 similar pores present on the last prepygidial segment (abd. V), rarely none. Two pairs of distinct lobes, conical or irregularly incised, the third lobe at times suggested by a small conical process. Two plates between median lobes, 2 between median and second, and 2 lateral of second, several rudimentary spiniform plates lateral of third lobes (or the position thereof). About 11-33 small gland tubercles scattered within margin of prepygidial part of body as far foward as mesothorax (Takagi, 2002).
CITATIONS: Takagi2002 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 68-69, 91-93].
Lineaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Lineaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 308. Type species: Chionaspis striata Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Cupidaspis was considered by many (Ferris, 1936a; Balachowsky, 1954e) to by a junior synonym of Lineaspis. Howell & Tippins (1977a) resurrected the genus based on the lack of perivulvar pores, gland spines between median lobes and elongate setae on the antennal tubercles. Lineaspis differs from Himalaspis especially in having a pair of gland spines between the median trullae. It is very similar to Himalaspis in other features.
KEYS: McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 170 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 333 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 163 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 308 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 170, 401-403]; Bodenh1949 [description, taxonomy: 30, 41]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 333]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 191, 210]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 163, 190]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 103]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 300]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 92, 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 19, 21, 22, 24, 25,]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-78, SI-77]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:43]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; HowellTi1977a [taxonomy: 898]; HowellTi1981 [taxonomy: 419]; Kaussa1955a [distribution, taxonomy: 230]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183, 188]; Lupo1938a [distribution, taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 312, 363]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 110]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 67].
Lineaspis striata (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis striata Newstead, 1897a: 96-97. Type data: ALGERIA: Constantine, on the side of the Mansourah, on Cupressus sp., 1896, by A.E. Eaton. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis straita; Newstead, 1907a: 15. Misspelling of species name.
Lineaspis striata; MacGillivray, 1921: 340. Change of combination.
Lineaspis junipericola Borchsenius, 1949b: 345. Type data: ARMENIA: Megrinskii, near Vartanidzor, on Juniperus sp., 08/21/1948. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 350. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 350.
Lineaspis ciliciae Balachowsky, 1954e: 406-407. Type data: TURKEY: Adana and Antalaya, on Thuja occidentalis, 04/03/1939, by F.S. Bodenheimer. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 353.
Lineaspis thelophlora Borchsenius, 1961: 141-143. Type data: EGYPT: Cairo, on Thuja sp., 25/08/1958, by G. Kalbergenova. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 353.
COMMON NAMES: cypress snow scale [AvidovHa1969]; snow scale [Bodenh1924].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Pharoscymnus setulosus [Balach1928d], Pharoscymnus varius [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspis [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Garcia1930], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Comper1936], Coccobius sp. [UlgentErKa2008], Coccobius testaceus Hayat [UlgentErKa2008], Physcus testaceus [NikolsYa1966].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Cupressus sempervirens [BenDov2012], Tetraclinis quadrivalvis [Balach1927]. Pinaceae: Callitris articulata [Balach1954e], Callitris quadrivalvis [Lindin1910c], Callitris sp. [Balach1933a], Cupressus lambertiana [Balach1927], Cupressus macrocarpa [GomezM1957], Cupressus sempervirens [Balach1927], Cupressus sp. [Newste1897a], Juniperus communis [Balach1954e], Juniperus foetidissima [Hadzib1983], Juniperus macrocarpa [Balach1954e], Juniperus nana [Balach1954e], Juniperus oxycedrus [Balach1954e], Juniperus phoenicea [Balach1954e, PellizFo1996], Juniperus sp. [Balach1933a], Juniperus thurifera [Rungs1948], Thuja africana [Lindin1910c], Thuja occidentalis [Balach1927], Thuja orientalis [Alfier1929], Thuja sp. [Bodenh1924]. Taxaceae: Taxus baccata [Balach1954e]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Encarsia citrina [AbouEl2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Newste1897a]; Armenia [Borchs1949b]; Corsica [Lindin1912b]; Crete [Panis1981, PellizPoSe2011]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Egypt [Lindin1910c]; France [Balach1954e, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1983]; Greece [Korone1934, DeBach1964d]; Israel [Avidov1961, BenDov2012]; Jordan [BenDov2006a]; Kazakhstan [Archan1923]; Morocco [Balach1933a]; Sardinia [PellizFo1996]; Spain [GomezM1946]; Syria [Bodenh1926]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Borchsenius (1949b) and Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pear-shaped, sometimes curved, convex, white, 1.5-2.0 mm long and 0.8 mm wide; larval exuviae yellow. Adult female nearly oval, convex. Pygidium wide, posterior end of pygidium slightly concave (Borchsenius, 1949b).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Ezzat 1958: 244 [as Chionaspis striata; Key to species of Chionaspis in Egypt]; Balachowsky 1954e: 402 (female) [Key to species of Lineaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 88 (female) [as Chionaspis striata; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Balachowsky 1930d: 267 (female) [as Chionaspis striata; Tableau de détermination des Chionaspis Sign. (sensu lato) vivant aux dépens des Conifères].
CITATIONS: AbouEl2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 187]; Alfier1929 [distribution, host: 8a]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1923 [distribution, host: 263]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88, 91-92]; Avidov1961 [distribution, host: 168, 521]; AvidovHa1969 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 215-216]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 181]; Balach1928d [biological control, host: 289]; Balach1933a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 403-408]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44-45]; Bodenh1925 [distribution, host: 673]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 41, 43, 46]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, life history: 354]; Bodenh1935 [taxonomy: 243]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 217]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116-117]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-15]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 181]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 345]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 211]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 190]; Borchs1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 141-143]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 104]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Cocker1897o [host: 5]; Comper1936 [biological control: 296]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 350-353]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 300-301]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution: 6]; Draper1907 [distribution, economic importance, host: 9]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 67]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-77]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 25]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 70]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 151-152, 159]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 350]; GomezM1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83-87]; GomezM1954 [distribution, host: 122]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 53]; GomezM1958a [distribution: 7]; GomezM1960G [distribution, host: 170]; Goux1936a [distribution, host: 356]; Goux1946 [distribution, host: 32]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 182, 275]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 29-30]; Hall1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Hall1926a [taxonomy: 37]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 186]; HowellTi1977a [taxonomy: 898]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-55, 57]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Laing1929 [taxonomy: 20]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1909b [distribution, host: 222]; Lindin1910c [distribution, host: 376]; Lindin1912b [description, taxonomy: 126]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 147]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Lupo1966 [taxonomy: 41]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Newste1897a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96-97]; Newste1906 [distribution: 69]; Newste1907a [description, distribution: 9]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 211]; Panis1981 [distribution, economic importance: 2, 8]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution, host: 122]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 25, 94, 139]; PriesnHo1940 [distribution, host: 60, 61, 65]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 276, 279]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 112]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; SoriaEsVi1996 [distribution, host: 246]; TerGri1962 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 144-145]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 91]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 46]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Willco1922 [distribution: 269]; Yasnos1968 [biological control: 121]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 432].
Madagaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madagaspis Mamet, 1950: 34. Type species: Madagaspis pauliani Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Mamet (1950) placed Madagaspis near Dentaspis, while Balachowsky (1954e) suggested its closeness to Kuwanaspis.
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 94]; Mamet1950 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 34-35]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 113].
Madagaspis ambilae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madagaspis ambilae Mamet, 1959a: 450-452. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ambila Lemaitso, on "Matanando," ?/03/1951, by A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 450. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, broadest across its middle, convex, pale cream, somewhat shiny; exuviae terminal. Adult female elongate, well-sclerotized except for posterior extremity which is only weakly sclerotized; frontal margin rounded; abdomen relatively very short, about 1/6th the length of the whole body; 2.4 mm long (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 383, 450-452].
Madagaspis pauliani MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madagaspis pauliani Mamet, 1950: 35-36. Type data: MADAGASCAR: 75 km East of Miandrivazo, on leaf of "Tavolo" Ravensara sp., ?/07/1949, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Ravensara sp. [Mamet1950]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1950].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1950).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white; exuviae terminal. Male scale elongate, white, fairly convex, without carinae; exuviae terminal. Adult female elongate oval, more or less completely sclerotized. (Mamet, 1950).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Mamet1950 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36]; Mamet1951 [taxonomy: 248].
Madagaspis robinsoni MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madagaspis robinsoni Mamet, 1954: 62-65. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Périnet, on "Tavolo malama," 27/05/1950, by R. Mamet & A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 180. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954, Borchs1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, narrow, elongate; exuviae to one end; larval exuviae yellowish; nymphal exuviae dark red, with posterior apex yellowish. Adult female elongate, deeply sclerotized at maturity, with rounded frontal margins (Mamet, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Madagaspis robinsoni is distinct from other species of the genus by the more developed median lobes and by the small number of dorsal ducts (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19, 62-65].
Madagaspis tsaratananae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madagaspis tsaratananae Mamet, 1951: 246-248. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tsaratanana Mt. on "Motrobe antinana" and on "Fotsyavadica," ?/10/1949, by R. Paulian. Syntypes. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 71, 125. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Helichrysum sp. [Mamet1951]. Euphorbiaceae: Croton sp. [Mamet1951]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1951].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 2000 m (Mamet, 1959a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1951).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, thin, dilated posteriorly, white; exuviae terminal. Male scale elongate, parallel-sided, not carinated, white; exuviae terminal. Adult female elongate, deeply sclerotized at maturity, with apex of prosoma flattish or flatly rounded (Mamet, 1951).
SYSTEMATICS: Madagaspis tsaratananae is near M. pauliani from which it can readily be separated by the occurrence of fully developed gland spines (Mamet, 1951).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Mamet1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 229, 246-248]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 383].
Madaparlaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madaparlaspis Mamet, 1962: 194. Type species: Madaparlaspis bosseri Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Mamet (1962).
SYSTEMATICS: The genus Madaparlaspis may be differentiated from Parlatoria and other allied genera by the occurrence of well-developed, sclerotized processes arising from the bases of the median and second lobes. The extraordinary development of the pygidial lobes is also characteristic (Mamet, 1962).
CITATIONS: Mamet1962 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 194].
Madaparlaspis bosseri MametNOMENCLATURE:
Madaparlaspis bosseri Mamet, 1962: 195. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tuléar, on Cedrelopsis grevei, ?/12/1956, by J. Bosser. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 726. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Meliaceae: Cedrelopsis grevei [Mamet1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1962].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1962).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-oval, with dorsal derm fairly sclerotized. Prosoma somewhat swollen, 1.0 mm long. Antennae with 4 setae. Anterior and posterior spiracles each with a group of 1-2 pores (Mamet, 1962).
CITATIONS: Mamet1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195-196].
Magnospinus MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Magnospinus Munting, 1970: 6. Type species: Magnospinus anneckei Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Median lobes basally yoked, without gland spines, macroducts or marginal pygidial notch between them, and without any basal scleroses projecting into pygidium; 2nd lobes not clearly differentiated and also without any basal scleroses projecting into pygidium. Dorsal ducts small, not conspicuously double-barred. Gland spines very well developed, enormous on some segments. Anal opening near base of pygidium. Perivulvar pores present (Munting, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Magnospinus belongs to the tribe Chionaspidini. It is distinct in that no other genus has gland spines which are so extravagantly developed (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 6].
Magnospinus anneckei MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Magnospinus anneckei Munting, 1970: 6-8. Type data: NAMIBIA: Ovamboland, Oshikango, on Diospyros mespilliformis, ?/10/1969, by C.G. Coetzee. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ebenaceae: Diospyros mespilliformis [Muntin1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scales in situ usually hidden under a cottony mass of waxy threads which gives it the appearance of a mealybug infestation to the naked eye. Female scale about 2.3 mm long. Male scale parallel-sided, faintly tricarinate, about 1.0 mm long. Mounted adult female more or less oval in shape, 0.9-1.4 mm long. Derm uniformly but not very heavily sclerotized at maturity. 2nd instar female with gross pygidial characters similar to those of adult except that only one large gland spine occurs and that on segment VI dorsal ducts are almost absent and median lobes not so squat. 1st instars have 5-segmented antenae with terminal segment non-annulate. Paired dorsocephalic ducts present (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-8].
Mammata MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Mammata Munting, 1969: 128. Type species: Mammata lueckorum Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Median lobes basally yoked by a sclerotic band. Numerous dorsopygidial macroducts present on segment vi where the submarginal and submedian series sometimes coalesce. Normal pygidial gland spines present as well as segmentally arranged submarginal groups of supplementary, mammillate gland tubercles on segments iii to vii (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Mammata is similar to Tecaspis Hall, but differs in having the supplementary, submarginal gland tubercles on segments iii-vii (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 128].
Mammata lueckorum MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Mammata lueckorum Munting, 1969: 128-129. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, 44 miles Union's End to Nossob Camp, on Boscia albitrunca, 27/08/1967, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Capparidaceae: Boscia albitrunca [Muntin1969].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, broad, about 2.5 mm long, white, velvety in texture. Male scale more or less parallel-sided, without carinae, white, about 1.5 mm long, usually grouped together and covered by a mass of flocculent secretory matter. Mounted adult female broadly fusiform, membranous at maturity, about 1.6 mm long (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128-129, 153].
Mancaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Mancaspis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-293. Type species: Mancaspis lunata Ferris, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: The species of Mancaspis resemble members of the European genus Discodiaspis, but in this the pygidial ducts are all small, the larger marginal dorsal series being absent. There is also a certain degree of resemblance to some of the species previously referred by the author to the genus Pseudodiaspis, but in all these the gland spines are well developed on the pygidial margin (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 47 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 179]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-293]; Ferris1942 [structure: SIV-446:7].
Mancaspis lunata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Mancaspis lunata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-294. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, on Enterolobium cyclocarpum, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Enterolobium cyclocarpum [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: The small, white secretionary scale and exuviae cover only the attenuated posterior end of the adult female. Slide mounted adult female about 1.4 mm long, roughly pyriform, expanded prosomatic region being somewhat variable in shape to conform to its surroundings. Derm very heavily sclerotized and pigmented throughout, except for the 2 prepygidial abdominal segments (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Mancaspis lunata is unique in the size and form of the dorsal lunate folds of the pygidium and in the extent and markings of the ventral median sclerotized region of the pygidium (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [Key to species of Mancaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-294]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:7]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320].
Mancaspis piriformis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Mancaspis piriformis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-295. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Ixtlahuacan, on undetermined host, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Small, dark brown, secretionary scale and exuviae covering only the attenuated posterior extremity of the adult female. Slide mounted adult female 1.75 mm long, roughly piriform, expanded prosomatic region being somewhat variable in shape to conform to its surroundings (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Mancaspis piriformis is close to M. lunata. The secretionary scale in the former is brown, not white. The dorsal folds on the pygidium are much smaller than in M. lunata and the sclerotizations supporting them are much more conspicuous; ventral sclerotized area of pygidium extends to the vulva and lacks the characteristic chevron-like furrows found in other species (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [Key to species of Mancaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-295]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320].
Marchalaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Marchalaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Type species: Chionaspis vuilleti Marchal, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Body of adult female with deep transverse constriction between mesothorax and metathorax (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 140]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 525]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 188]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 312]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 115].
Marchalaspis vuilleti (Marchal)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus (Hemiberlesia) vuilleti Marchal, 1909c: 69. Type data: GUINEA: Konakry, on unknown host, by J. Vuillet. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female.
Marchalaspis vuilleti; MacGillivray, 1921: 363. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Copaifera guibourtiana [Marcha1909d].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Marcha1909c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Marchal (1909d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 3.0-3.5 mm long, 2.0-2.7 mm wide, yellowish. Male scale smaller (Marchal, 1909c).
CITATIONS: BalachMa1980 [taxonomy: 70, 72]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 552]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 244]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, host, taxonomy: 312, 363]; Marcha1909c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Marcha1909d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175-177]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430].
Maskellanna MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Maskellanna MacGillivray, 1921: 276. Type species: Mytilaspis (Fernaldella) beyeriae Green, by monotypy and original designation.
Maskellana; MacGillivray, 1921: 490. Misspelling of genus name.
Maskellana; Ferris, 1936a: 22. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with median pair of lobes four or more times width of median lobe apart; median and 2nd pairs of lobes minute (MacGillivray, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Maskellanna is considered the correct spelling of the generic epithet. MacGillivray (1921) in the description of the species used both Maskellanna and Maskellana. The primary treatment of the genus including the key (pg. 276) and the description (pg. 296) used Maskellanna. The index (pg. 490) used Maskellana. It seems clear that MacGillivray intended for the spelling to be Maskellanna and the spelling in the index is a lapsus. Ferris (1936a) agreed, and as the first reviser established Maskellanna as the correct spelling. Morrison and Morrison (1966) erroneously used Maskellana as the correct spelling.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 276 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 34]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 4, 17]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 189]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 276]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 116].
Maskellanna beyeriae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis beyeriae French, 1907: 184. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1915d: 51-52.
Lepidosaphes beyeriae Sanders, 1909a: 56. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1915d: 51-52.
Mytilaspis (Fernaldella) beyeriae Green, 1915d: 51-52. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Mallee, on Beyeria viscosa, by C. French. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Maskellanna beyeriae; MacGillivray, 1921: 296. Change of combination.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Beyeria viscosa [Green1915d].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [French1907] (Victoria [Green1915d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1915d).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with median pair of lobes minute, narrow, rounded, entire, constricted on proximal portion, very distant; 2nd pair of lobes minute, subequal in size to median and similar in form, distant from median; plates wanting. Body of adult female strongly chitinized, no differentiation between pygidium and other parts (MacGillivray, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: The unusually wide interval between the median lobes and the rigid derm of the body of the insect are characters that distinguish this species from any other known members of the genus (Green, 1915d).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 378]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 17]; French1907 [distribution, taxonomy: 184]; Green1915d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-52]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 296]; Sander1909a [distribution, host: 56].
Mauritiaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Mauritiaspis Mamet, 1939b: 583. Type species: Mauritiaspis malloti Mamet, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Nymphal exuviae and scale cover of adult female incorporated with tissues of food plant. Pygidium of adult female sclerotized, with 5 groups of perivulvar pores and three pairs of lobes. Plates few, short and simple. Spines short. Oval dorsal pores absent. Small tubular pores present throughout body, particularly in abdominal region (Mamet, 1939b).
SYSTEMATICS: Mauritiaspis is related to Parachionaspis, from which it differs by the nature of the male scale cover and by the characters of the pygidium of the adult female (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 32]; Ferris1941 [illustration, taxonomy: 11, 12, 18]; Mamet1939b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 583]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 117].
Mauritiaspis malloti MametNOMENCLATURE:
Mauritiaspis malloti Mamet, 1939b: 583-585. Type data: MAURITIUS: Les Mares, on Mallotus integrifolius, 07/05/1938, by R. Mamet; Macabé, on M. integrifolius, ?/04/1938, by J. Vinson. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Mallotus integrifolius [Mamet1939b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1939b, WilliaWi1988].
BIOLOGY: Mauritiaspis malloti forms galls on plant host. It was collected at altitudes of 1900-2200 feet (Mamet, 1939b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1939b).
STRUCTURE: Male scale minute, somewhat elongate, broadest across posterior extremity, not carinated, pale brown. Adult female elongate, broadest across cephalothorax broadly rounded in front and tapering behind, white to fain red. Margin of pygidium well sclerotized (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Beards1984 [distribution, host: 87, 99]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Ferris1941 [illustration, taxonomy: 11, 12, 18]; Mamet1939b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 583-585]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 48]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 42]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68].
Mauritiaspis mimusopis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Mauritiaspis mimusopis Mamet, 1939b: 585-586. Type data: MAURITIUS: Les Mares, on leaves of Mimusops petiolaris, 07/05/1938, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Mimusops petiolaris [Mamet1939b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1939b, WilliaWi1988].
BIOLOGY: Mauritiaspis mimusopis was collected at an altitude of 2200 feet (Mamet, 1939b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1939b).
STRUCTURE: Larval exuviae of female pale golden yellow, shiny, situated in a small depression in portion of gall which projects on under surface of leaves, 0.5 mm long, 0.2 mm wide. Nymphal exuviae and female scale cover incorporated with tissues of gall which then develop a brownish color. Gall represented by a globular protuberance with a small depression at its middle on under surface of leaves and as a hollow ellipsoid projection on upper surface of leaves. Gall is 3.5-5.0 mm long and 1.5-3.0 mm wide. Adult female deep wine colored (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Beards1984 [distribution, host: 87, 99]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Mamet1939b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 585-586]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 50]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 42]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 69].
Mayonia TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Mayonia Takagi, 2003: 81-82. Type species: Mayonia callicarpae, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed analysis in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: The genus is close to Pseudaulacaspis and may be regarded as a peculiar form of the latter. It is, however, distinguishable from Pseudaulacaspis by the combination of the following characters in the adult female: presence of a small pyriform sclerosis at the inner base of the second trulla; the median trullae are elongate and serrate; the second trullae are extremely reduced; there are no submedian macroducts. The body is fusiform, with the pygidium delimited by the intersegmental furrow between abd IV and V on the dorsal surface. So far as represented in the collection at hand, Pseudaulacaspis seems to be one of the largest genera in the family, including a number of undescribed species occurring in tropical Asia. Because the boundaries of Pseudaulacaspis are still not clear, the erection of Mayonia was rather tentative. Mayonia and Rutherfordia are both diagnosed by having a small sclerosis on the inner base of the second trulla. Rutherfordia is peculiar in having a pair of enlarged ducts at the posterior end of the body in the first-instar nymph, whereas such ducts are absent in Mayonia callicarpae (based on exuvial casts). (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, taxonomy: 81].
Mayonia callicarpae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Mayonia callicarpae Takagi, 2003: 82. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Albay, foot of Vulcano Mayon, 850 m. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 92PL49. Described: female.
HOST: Verbenaceae: Callicarpa sp. [Takagi2003]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occur on the lower surface of the leaves, both burrowing under the tomentum; tests elongate, thin, and white, those of the male much narrower. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body moderately elongate, fusiform; metathorax and free abdominal segments gently lobed laterally; pygidium roundish marginally. Prepygidial derm membranous; abd I with a rather large submarginal dorsal boss; pygidium sclerotic dorsally, the ventral surface sclerotized towards the apex. Antennae situated within the frontal margin, separated from each other by a space narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts, each with a long seta. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar male homomorphic, with the median trullae elongate and serrate as in the adult female and the second-instar female. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 82, 107, 131-132].
Medangaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Medangaspis Takagi, 1999a: 102. Type species: Medangaspis payunga Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Dermal features of the adult female are simplified undoubtedly in association with the pupillarial mode of life. The marginal appendages of the pygidium are apparently reductive, but they still hold the kuwanaspidine pattern: they are composed of lobes, plates and gland spines, and the median lobes are separated from each other by a pair of plates. This pattern is also represented in the 2nd instar female, which differs from the adult female in having 3 plates (instead of 1) on the 6th abdominal segment (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 102].
Medangaspis payunga TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Medangaspis payunga Takagi, 1999a: 102. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Selangor, Kepong, on grounds of Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, on Actinodaphne pruinosa, 21/11/1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Actinodaphne pruinosa [Takagi1999a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female wholly covered with larval exuvial casts. Male scale felt-like, white, curved up so that the posterior end is directed above. Body cylindrical (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102, 116, 126, 132].
Megacanthaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis Takagi, 1960: 68. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1961a: 97.
Megacanthaspis Takagi, 1961a: 97. Type species: Megacanthaspis actinodaphnes Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
Nanmuapsis; Tang, 1977: 148. Misspelling of genus name.
Nanmusaspis Tang, 1977: 148. Type species: Nanmuaspis phoebia Tang, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Takagi, 1981: 4.
Nanmuaspis; Takagi, 1981: 1. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Takagi (1981).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, membranous throughout; pygidium small, rounded apically. Antennae set apart, with a seta. Macroducts with the orifice elliptical and surrounded by a slender rim, tending to be arranged in segmental rows (Takagi, 1961a).
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is so peculiar that any close affinities can not be suggested. It lacks sclerotized lobe-like processes on the pygidium in all the stages of the female and is provided with a series of small, membranous, apically fimbriated processes along the apical margin of the pygidium both in the adult female and in the second stage female. It is particularly characterized by having very prominent, conical, glanduliferous processes along the margin of the abdomen. In some respects this genus resembles Mercetaspis, from which it is distinct by the dorsal macroducts occurring along the pygidial margin which are not particularly enlarged, that is, the absence of megapores (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Takagi 1993: 23 (female) [A tentative key to the genera of the subtribe Protodiaspidina]; Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 93]; Chou1985 [taxonomy: 336]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 302-303]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 117]; Takagi1960 [taxonomy: 68, 69]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 97, 101]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 128-129]; Takagi1981 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 1-43]; Takagi1983a [taxonomy: 107]; Takagi1993 [taxonomy: 13]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 148]; Tang1981 [description, taxonomy: 50-51]; Wang1982c [description, taxonomy: 46, 111]; WeiFe2012 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 1-3]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 223].
Megacanthaspis actinodaphnes TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis actinodaphnes Takagi, 1961a: 98-99. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Kagosima, on Actinodaphne longifolia, 12/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Actinodaphne longifolia [Takagi1961a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Kyushu [Takagi1961a], Shikoku [Takagi1983a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, slender, highly convex dorsally, felted and grayish. Adult female body slender, without intersegmental constrictions, attaining 0.78 mm in length. Anterior spiracles each with a few accompanying disc pores. Dorsal macroducts rather sparse (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi]; Takagi 1981: 9 [Key to species of Megacanthaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 336-337]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 45]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 267]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 102]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98-99]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 128, 130]; Takagi1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 9, 38-40]; Takagi1983a [distribution: 107]; Yang1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 250, 253].
Megacanthaspis hainanensis Wei & FengNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis hainanensis Wei & Feng, 2012: 4-7. Type data: CHINA: Hainan Rov., Gaotuo mountain, 5/19/1963, by Chou. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Shaanxi: Entomological Museum of the Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Baishui, Shaanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [WeiFe2012]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Wei & Feng, 2012.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body outline fusiform, with obscure segmentation. Antennae each with a long seta and a tubercle. Anterior spiracles each with 2–4 trilocular pores; pores absent from posterior spiracles. (Wei & Feng, 2012)
SYSTEMATICS: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1B66EA08-618D-47FD-B808-0 A3BB90D6901 This species is very similar to M. phoebia, but can be distinguished by by having (character-states on M. phoebia in brackets): (i) 5 pairs of marginal gland spines (6 pairs); (ii) a macroduct present medially between the median gland spines (absent). (Wei & Feng, 2012)
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi].
CITATIONS: WeiFe2012 [description, distribution, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 2-6].
Megacanthaspis hangzhouensis Wei & FengNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis hangzhouensis Wei & Feng, 2012: 1-5. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang Prov., Hangshou, Hangzhou botanical garden, on Pleioblastus amarus, 5/1/1982, by Chou. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Shaanxi: Entomological Museum of the Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Baishui, Shaanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Pleioblastus amarus [WeiFe2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [WeiFe2012]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Wei & Feng, 2012.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body oblong oval, with indistinct segmentation. Antennae each with a long seta and a tubercle. Anterior spiracles with 1-2 trilocular pores, pores absent from posterior spiracles. (Wei & Feng, 2012)
SYSTEMATICS: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C2F9DCB3-51BB-494E-B298-5 ABE9A9001A5 This species is very close to M. phoebia in having 6 pair of marginal gland spines. But differs in having (character-states of M. phoebia in brackets): (i) 2 pairs of gland spines on abdominal segments V and VI (only single on segments V & VI); (ii) marginal dorsal macroducts absent from apex of pygidium between median gland spines (present); (iii) gland tubercles absent (present). (Wei & Feng, 2012)
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi].
CITATIONS: WeiFe2012 [description, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 1-5].
Megacanthaspis langtangana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis langtangana Takagi, 1981: 7-8. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Langtang Valley, on Machilus duthiei, 03/09/1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Machilus duthiei [Takagi1981].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1981].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1981).
STRUCTURE: Female scale secretory cover felty in texture, dark brown, highly convex dorsally. Male scale subparallel on lateral sides, flattened posteriorly, whitish, with a brown stripe medially. Adult female body with segmentation indistinct. Pygidium rather narrowly rounded on posterior margin, with serrate marginal processes on abdominal segments vi-viii (Takagi, 1981).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi]; Takagi 1981: 9 (female) [Key to species of Megacanthaspis].
CITATIONS: Takagi1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8, 34-37, 43]; Takagi1993 [taxonomy: 15]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 40].
Megacanthaspis leucaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis leucaspis Takagi, 1981: 5-6. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nati, Wakayama-ken, on Actinodaphne longifolia, 06/11/1971. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Actinodaphne longifolia [Takagi1981].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takagi1981], Kyushu [Takagi1983a], Shikoku [Takagi1983a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1981).
STRUCTURE: Female scale with secretory cover smooth, white, convex dorsally, with lateral sides subparallel. Male scale secretory cover white, subparallel on lateral sides, flattened posteriorly, with slight median carina. Adult female body with segmentation rather distinct. Pygidium broadly rounded, with serrate marginal processes on abdominal segments v-viii; apically with another pair of processes, which are much narrower than the adjacent serrate processes, shallowly incised once or twice, and a little retreated (Takagi, 1981).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi]; Takagi 1981: 8 [Key to species of Megacanthaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Takagi1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-6, 22-26]; Takagi1983a [distribution, host: 107]; Takagi1993 [taxonomy: 13].
Megacanthaspis litseae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Megacanthaspis litseae Takagi, 1969a: 25. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 130.
Megacanthaspis litseae Takagi, 1970: 129-130. Type data: TAIWAN: Fen-chi-hu, on Litsea akoensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Litsea akoensis [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, quite highly convex dorsally, dark brown, felted in appearance. Pygidium with 3-5 pairs of plate-like processes around the apical margin. Abdomen with 7 pairs of thickened conical gland spines, the posteriormost gland spines are separated from each other by a space about twice as wide as one of them (Takagi, 1970.
SYSTEMATICS: Megacanthaspis litsea is close to M. actinodaphnes, from which it is distinguished mainly by having 7 pairs of thickened conical marginal gland spines, of which the posterior-most are not appressed together (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi]; Chou 1985: 337 [Key to species of Megacanthaspis]; Takagi 1981: 9 (female) [Key to species of Megacanthaspis].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 337, 406]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 25]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 129-130]; Takagi1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-7, 31-33]; Tang1981 [taxonomy: 55]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 98]; WeiFe2012 [distribution, taxonomy: 2-3]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 253].
Megacanthaspis phoebia (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Nanmuapsis phoebia Tang, 1977: 148. Type data: CHINA: Hangzhou, on Phoebe sheareri, 30/03/1969. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Megacanthaspis phoebia; Takagi, 1981: 6. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Phoebe sheareri [Tang1981], Phoebe sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1981]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1981).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, convex, brownish, larval exuviae apical, 1.5 mm long. Male scale is elongate, white, exuviae terminal, 0.50 mm long. Adult female body elongate fusiform, but smaller end anteriorly about 0.65 mm long and 0.39 mm wide. Pygidium with 6 pairs of plate-like processes, each process apically with 5-6 sclerotic spines (Tang, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: Megacanthaspis phoebia is close to M. litseae, but is easily distinguished by the last 2 pairs of the gland spines not being enlarged, and also by the structure of the perivulvar pores (Tang, 1981).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012: 3 (adult, female) [Key to adult female Megacanthaspis Takagi]; Chou 1985: 337 [Key to species of Megacanthaspis]; Takagi 1981: 9 [Key to species of Megacanthaspis].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 337, 406]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Takagi1981 [taxonomy: 6]; Takagi1983a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148]; Tang1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-52, 54-55]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 98]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 111-112]; WeiFe2012 [distribution, taxonomy: 2-3].
Melayumytilus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Melayumytilus Takagi, 1992b: 46. Type species: Melayumytilus smilacis Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Takagi (1992b).
SYSTEMATICS: Melayumytilus differs from Mitulaspis mainly by having well-developed pore prominences and by the lateral tubercles sclerotized to spurs. By these characters and also by the widely separated L1s, it may be distinguished from Coccomytilus (Takagi, 1992b).
CITATIONS: Takagi1992b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 46].
Melayumytilus smilacis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Melayumytilus smilacis Takagi, 1992b: 45-46. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Selangor, Kepong, on grounds of the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, on Smilax sp., 01/11/1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Takagi1992b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1992b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1992b).
STRUCTURE: Scales coriaceous and dark brown. Adult female body oblong, attaining about 1.5 mm in length and 0.6 mm in width. At maturity, head, thorax and 1st abdominal segment form a thickly sclerotized region occupying about 2/3 of body length, with no trace of segmentation marginally; pygidium broad, dorsal surface tending to be irregularly reticulate about the middle (Takagi, 1992b).
CITATIONS: Takagi1992b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-46, 53, 72, 79].
Mempelaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Mempelaspis Takagi, 2000: 52. Type species: Mempelaspis serpentina Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Mempelaspis is unique in having plates provided with a glanduliferous spine-like process and occurring on the 7th-9th abdominal segments. It has simple (non-glanduliferous) plates, too, on the pygidium (Takagi, 2000).
CITATIONS: Takagi2000 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 52].
Mempelaspis serpentina TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Mempelaspis serpentina Takagi, 2000: 52-56. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sarawak, Kuching District, Santubong, on Tetracera sp., ?/10/1991. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML276. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOST: Dilleniaceae: Tetracera sp. [Takagi2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2000]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of adult female, male and female second instars and first instar larva by Takagi (2000).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, very long when completed, often curved, highly convex dorsally, with conspicuous transverse ridges making it look segmented, brown and coriaceous. Male scale much shorter, straight, light brown. Adult female small, attaining about 0.5 mm in length, slender, cylindrical, with lateral sides nearly parallel and with both ends rounded (Takagi, 2000).
CITATIONS: Takagi2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52-56, 76-82].
Mercetaspis Gómez-Menor OrtegaNOMENCLATURE:
Mercetaspis Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1927a: 292. Type species: Mercetaspis sphaerocarpae Gómez-Menor Ortega, by monotypy and original designation.
Nilotaspis Ferris, 1941d: 300. Type species: Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) halli Green, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 290.
Haplaspis Borchsenius, 1949: 735. Type species: Haplaspis calligoni Borchsenius, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 118. Notes: Haplaspis Borchsenius 1949 was preoccupied by Haplaspis Townes 1944 in the Hymenoptera (Morrison & Morrison, 1966).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1927a).
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is close to Adiscodiaspis (Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1927a).
KEYS: Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 383 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini of Egypt]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 25 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Borchsenius 1950b: 163 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 59 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Ferris 1942: 46 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 42 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 25, 116-118, 126-127]; BazaroSh1971 [description, taxonomy: 80-81]; Borchs1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 191, 211-212, 735]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 163, 164, 188, 201]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 76, 77]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 290-291]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 305]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; EzzatAf1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 383]; Ferris1937b [taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-300]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-445:46]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 203]; GomezM1927a [description, taxonomy: 292]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 42, 227]; GomezM1946 [taxonomy: 59]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 524]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 189]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 135]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 97]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 52].
Mercetaspis arthrophyti BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Mercetaspis arthrophyti Borchsenius, 1962b: 866. Type data: KAZAKHSTAN: Ul'kun-Kalkan Mountains, on Arthrophytum sp., 03/04/1951, by G. Matesova. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: haloxylon comma scale [Borchs1962b].
HOSTS: Chenopodiaceae: Arthrophytum sp. [Borchs1962b], Salsola arbuscula [BazaroSh1971], Salsola richteri [BazaroSh1971].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Kazakhstan [Borchs1962b]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998]; Uzbekistan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1962b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white or yellowish-white, narrow, protuberant, 1.0 mm long. Adult female body irregularly oval, more or less constricted at anterior and posterior ends (Borchsenius, 1962b).
SYSTEMATICS: M. arthrophyti can be told from other members of its genus by the large pygidial lobes (Borchsenius, 1962b).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 291 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 81 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis].
CITATIONS: BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 81-82]; Borchs1962b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 866, 871]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291, 296, 298]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Mateso1971 [distribution: 26].
Mercetaspis baluchistanensis (Rao)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes baluchistanensis Rao, 1939: 61-63. Type data: PAKISTAN: Baluchistan, Zhob District, on almond trees, ?/09/1937. Holotype female. Type depository: New Delhi: Division of Entomology, National Pusa Collections, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus baluchistanensis; Lindinger, 1958: 369. Change of combination.
Nilotaspis baluchistanensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 76. Change of combination.
Mercetaspis baluchistanensis; Danzig, 1993: 290. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Annonaceae: Polyalthia amygdalus [AhmadGh1972]. Rosaceae: Amygdalus sp. [Borchs1966], Prunus amygdalus [KazimiGh1964, Janjua1959].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Janjua1956, Janjua1959].
BIOLOGY: Detailed description and life history by Janjua (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish yellow, long, narrow, more so anteriorly than posteriorly, slightly convex dorsally, a little curved or mytiliform. Male scale more or less similar to that of female, but with sides more parallel, dirty white. Adult female body elliptical, a little broadened in the abdominal region (Rao, 1939).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 89]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Janjua1956 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 302, 311-315]; Janjua1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 237, 248]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 37]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 369]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; Rao1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-63]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 52].
Mercetaspis benitezi Gómez-Menor OrtegaNOMENCLATURE:
Mercetaspis benitezi Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1960: 177-180. Type data: SPAIN: Cádiz, Chiclana, on Ulex parvifolia. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Spain. Described: female.
HOST: Fabaceae: Ulex parvifolia [GomezM1960O].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Spain [GomezM1960O].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1960).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elliptical, very extended, sometimes asymmetric, whitish. Exuviae at one end, yellow, quite convex. Male scale extended, parallel-sided, quite convex. Exuviae located at the end, yellow, but rest of scale milky white, without keels (Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1960).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; GomezM1960O [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177-180]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 55].
Mercetaspis bicuspis (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes bicuspis Hall, 1923: 22-23. Type data: EGYPT: Upper Egypt, Armand, on Tamarix sp., 14/12/1921. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Cairo: Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus bicuspis; Lindinger, 1936: 158. Change of combination.
Nilotaspis bicuspis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 121. Change of combination.
Acanthomytilus bicuspis; Ezzat & Afifi, 1966: 384-386. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Mercetaspis bicuspis; Danzig, 1993: 290. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Amaranthaceae: Suaeda nudiflora [Moghad2013a]. Sapindaceae: Stocksia brahuica [Moghad2013a]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix mannifera [Balach1954e], Tamarix sp. [Hall1923, BenDov2012]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1923]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Israel [Bodenh1924, BenDov2012].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ezzat & Afifi (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval, slightly tapering anteriorly, about 0.9 mm long and 0.5 mm wide; outer margin of the body quite smooth or very slightly notched intersegmentally. Derm membranous except for pygidium (Ezzat & Afifi, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Mercetaspis bicuspis differs from species of Lepidosaphes and Acanthomytilus by having only one pair of lobes (Ezzat & Afifi, 1966).
KEYS: Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 18 (female) [Key to adult females of Acanthomytilus]; Ezzat 1958: 245 (female) [as Lepidosaphes bicuspis; Key to adult female Lepidosaphes]; Balachowsky 1954e: 118 (female) [as Nilotaspis bicuspis; Tableau des espèces du g. Nilotaspis Green].
CITATIONS: Balach1950b [taxonomy: 544]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118, 121-123]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 41-42]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47-48]; Bodenh1930a [distribution: 370]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 247]; Bodenh1935b [distribution, host: 308]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 217]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host: 5]; BodenhTh1929 [distribution, host: 109, 116]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 290, 291, 296]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 245]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 384-386]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 351]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Hall1925 [distribution, host: 22]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 32, 38]; Hall1927b [distribution, host: 167]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 524]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 158]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 27]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 41]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 15]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 25]; UlgentKo2011 [structure, taxonomy: 63].
Mercetaspis calligoni (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Haplaspis calligoni Borchsenius, 1949c: 736. Type data: TURKMENISTAN: Repetek, on Calligonum sp., 1928, by Archangelskaya; 1944, by N. Borchsenius. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 299. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Mercetaspis calligoni; Balachowsky, 1954e: 128. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Polygonaceae: Atraphaxis spinosa [Moghad2013a], Calligonum denticulatum [Moghad2013a], Calligonum sp. [Balach1949c]. Zygophyllaceae: Halimiphyllum sp. [DanzigPe1998]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; Turkmenistan [Borchs1949c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1949c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale curved, 0.85-0.95 mm long and 0.28-0.40 mm wide. Body of female up to 0.6 mm long and 0.4 mm wide. Small cylindrical glands are located on all the dorsal aspects of the body, being particularly numerous on the thorax and the 1st 4 segments of the abdomen. Margin of pygidium finely serrate. Cylindrical glands of the pygidium smaller than the marginal glands, located in 3 rows on each side of pygidium (Borchsenius, 1949c).
SYSTEMATICS: Mercetaspis calligoni lacks lobes and gland spines but possesses megaducts. The species is nevertheless related to other species of Mercetaspis possessing gland spines and well developed or reduced lobes (Danzig, 1993).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 291 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 81 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 127 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 127, 128-131]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82-84]; Borchs1949c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 736]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 201]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23, 222, 223]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host: 222]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291, 299-300]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 27]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 42]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 14]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185].
Mercetaspis ephedrae (Bodenheimer)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus halli ephedrae Bodenheimer, 1943: 8. Type data: IRAQ: near Zakho, on Ephedra alte, 07/10/1942. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: No type material in ICVI (Ben-Dov & Harparz, 1985).
Nilotaspis ephedrae; Borchsenius, 1966: 76. Change of combination and rank.
Mercetaspis ephedrae; Danzig, 1993: 291. Change of combination.
HOST: Gnetaceae: Ephedra alte [Bodenh1943].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iraq [Bodenh1943].
CITATIONS: BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Bodenh1943 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 8]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85].
Mercetaspis halimodendronis (Borchsenius & Matesova)NOMENCLATURE:
Nilotaspis halimodendronis Borchsenius & Matesova, 1955: 229-230. Type data: KAZAKHSTAN: near Ili River and its tributary Kaskelen, on Halimodendron halodendron, 1951, by G. Matesova. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 293. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Mercetaspis halimodendronis; Danzig, 1993: 293. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Astragalus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Caragana [Borchs1966], Halimodendron halodendron [BorchsMa1955].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Georgia [DanzigPe1998]; Kazakhstan [BorchsMa1955]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998]; Uzbekistan [DanzigPe1998].
BIOLOGY: Mercetaspis halimodendronis has one generation per year. Fertilized females overwinter. Oviposition begins in late June with 2nd and 3rd instar larvae observed in late August (Borchsenius & Matesova, 1955).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius & Matesova (1955).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish white, small, elongate, slightly widened in the middle and rounded along the posterior margin, often somewhat curved, 0.8-1.0 mm long; 1st exuviae yellow, 2nd light brown, covered by white secretions. Male scale white, with nearly parallel sides, slightly smaller than that of female. Adult female elongate oval, 0.65 mm long and 0.28 mm wide (Borchsenius & Matesova, 1955).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 291 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 74 (female) [as Nilotaspis halimodendronis; Key to species of Nilotaspis].
CITATIONS: BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74-76]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; BorchsMa1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 229-230]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291, 293, 295-296]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Mateso1955 [distribution, host: 200]; Mateso1971 [taxonomy: 27].
Mercetaspis halli (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) halli Green, 1923: 63. Type data: EGYPT: Cairo, on Prunus sp., by W.J. Hall. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) zlocistii Bodenheimer, 1924: 54-55. Type data: ISRAEL: Ben Shemen, on Persica vulgaris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 118.
Lepidosaphes zlocistii; Bodenheimer, 1927b: 80. Change of combination.
Chionaspis zlocistii; Lindinger, 1932f: 203. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus halli; Lindinger, 1936: 159. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus halli; Archangelskaya, 1937: 76. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus zlocistii; Archangelskaya, 1937: 76. Change of combination.
Nilotaspis halli; Ferris, 1941d: 301. Change of combination.
Koroneaspis halli; Bazarov, 1968a: 91. Change of combination.
Mercetaspis halli; Danzig, 1993: 291-293. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Hall scale [Gill1982c, FosenCrAr1953]; Hall scale [Blicke1965]; Hall's scale [Hewitt1943].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus californicus [HertinSi1972, Kartma1946], Cybocephalus sp. [Kartma1946]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Haplothrips cahirensis [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia khinjuk [Moghad2013a]. Fabaceae: Astragalus sp. [Moghad2013a], Caragana turkestanica [Bazaro1966], Ebenus stellata [Moghad2013a]. Polygonaceae: Calligonum caputmedusae [Bodenh1953]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [Bodenh1953]. Rosaceae: Amygdalus communis [Korone1934, BenDov2012], Amygdalus lycioides [Moghad2013a], Amygdalus persica [Bodenh1944a], Amygdalus reuteri [Moghad2013a], Amygdalus scoparia [Moghad2013a], Amygdalus sp. [MillerDa2005], Armeniaca [Borchs1966], Armeniaca vulgaris [Moghad2013a], Caragana sp. [MillerDa2005], Cerasus sp. [Balach1954e], Cydonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cydonia vulgaris [Bodenh1953], Malus sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Persica sp. [MillerDa2005], Persica vulgaris [Bodenh1924], Prunus amygdalus [McKenz1956, Janjua1959], Prunus armeniaca [Bodenh1927b, BenDov2012], Prunus avium [Bodenh1953], Prunus bokhariensis [McKenz1956], Prunus cerasus [Bodenh1953], Prunus divaricata [Bodenh1953], Prunus domestica [Bodenh1953, BenDov2012], Prunus persica [Matile1984c, BenDov2012], Prunus reuteri [Moghad2013a], Prunus sorparia [Moghad2013a], Prunus sp. [Green1923, MillerDa2005], Prunus spinosa [Moghad2013a], Prunus syriaca [Bodenh1953], Pyrus communis [Bodenh1953], Pyrus malus [Matile1984c], Pyrus malus [Bodenh1953], Pyrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Spiraea sp. [MillerDa2005], Spiraea veitchi [McKenz1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Bodenh1953, MillerDa2005] (Gill (1997) lists this species as officially eradicated.)). Oriental: Pakistan [Janjua1959, KazimiGh1964]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Bodenh1953, KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Crete [Podsia1983a, PellizPoSe2011]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Egypt [Green1923, MillerDa2005]; Georgia [Hadzib1983]; Greece [Korone1934, MillerDa2005]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Israel [Bodenh1924, BenDov2012]; Jordan [BenDov2006a]; Russia [Balach1954e]; Saudi Arabia [Matile1984c]; Syria [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Bodenh1953]; Turkey [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005]; Turkmenistan [Bodenh1953]; USSR [MillerDa2005]; Uzbekistan [Bodenh1953].
BIOLOGY: In California, Nilotaspis halli has one full and one partial generation per year. Overwinters as adult females (Gill, 1997 & Fosen et al., 1953). In Israel there are population peaks of crawlers in April, June-July, and September-October suggesting that there are 3 generations per year (Berlinger et al. 1984). The gravid adult females are the overwintering stage and males are reported (Fallek et al. 1988). Fosen et al. (1953) found non-gravid females as the overwintering stage in California. They indicated that crawlers began to emerge in April or late March; the first molt took place in mid-May, adult female and males were present in late June, gravid females were present in late July, and by mid-October all stages could be located. Based on this information they concluded that there was at least a partial second generation. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Gill (1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Fosen et al. (1953) considered this to be a potentially serious pest of fruit trees. This species was considered to be a serious enough pest that when it was first detected in California a major eradication program was implemented (Fosen et al. 1953). Ebeling (1959) believed that Hall scale would become more serious on almonds than on either San Jose scale or European fruit lecanium if it were not eradicated from California. Fosen et al. (1953) suggested that the most important injury by this pest results from infestation of the fruit, where it makes conspicuous blotches especially on peaches. In Israel, settling sites of Hall scale develop pits and red spots on the skin of ripe fruit and are an economic problem on peaches and nectarines (Berlinger et al. 1984). Hall scale is considered to be an important pest in the southern part of the Palearctic region, especially on stone fruits (Kozár 1990). It is mentioned as a serious pest in Tadzhikistan by Bazarov (1962). Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious pest of a small area of the world. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 291 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 74 (female) [as Nilotaspis halli; Key to species of Nilotaspis]; Ezzat 1958: 244 (female) [as Nilotaspis halli; Key to species of Nilotaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 118 (female) [as Nilotaspis halli; Tableau des espèces du g. Nilotaspis Green]; Borchsenius 1950b: 190 (female) [as Nilotaspis halli; Key to species of Nilotaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [distribution, host: 90]; AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 153]; Archan1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76-78, 115, 140, 141]; Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 117-121]; Bazaro1966 [distribution, host: 85]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, host: 91-92]; Bazaro1969 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-34]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73, 76-78, 84]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29]; BerlinDaBe1983 [chemical control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 722-725]; BerlinFaDa1996 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 1453-1459]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 294, 312]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-55]; Bodenh1927b [distribution, host: 80]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 238]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 248]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1156]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 218]; Bodenh1943 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 8]; Bodenh1944a [distribution, host: 82]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135-137]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, host: 342]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-27]; Bodenh1953a [distribution: 158]; BodenhTh1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 109-110, 116]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 186]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 190]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22, 78, 134, 146, 17]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78, 134, 146, 175]; BorchsMa1955 [taxonomy: 230]; Bustsh1960 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 217]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291-293]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306-307]; Doutt1954a [distribution, host: 39]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 354]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-300, SIII-301]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; Fleury1934a [distribution, host: 287]; FosenCrAr1953 [behaviour, chemical control, description, economic importance, host, life history: 1-16]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 152]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 351]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202-203]; GomezM1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 95]; Green1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 63]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 177, 178, 274]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 29, 59]; Hall1926a [taxonomy: 37]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 524]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 186]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 266]; Hunt1939 [distribution, host: 565]; Janjua1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 237, 248]; Kartma1946 [biological control: 814]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 37]; Kiritc1932a [taxonomy: 251]; KonstaKoJa1984 [distribution, host: 351]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79, 81, 83]; Kozar1982 [distribution: 93]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarKo1981 [distribution: 214, 221]; KozarKo1981a [distribution: 128]; KozarKoAk1979 [distribution, host: 537-539]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; KozarYaKo1982 [distribution: 335]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 130]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 159]; Mackie1935 [distribution: 41]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 222]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 135]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 288]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 27]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 42]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 37]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Palouk1984 [distribution: 353]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295]; Podsia1983a [distribution, host: 274]; PriesnHo1940 [distribution: 67]; Ramase1985 [distribution, host: 23]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 15]; Silves1939 [distribution, host: 812]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 52]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117].
Mercetaspis isis (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus isis Hall, 1923: 21-22. Type data: EGYPT: Luxor, on Tamarix sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Cairo: Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus isis; Lindinger, 1936: 155. Change of combination.
Nilotaspis isis; Borchsenius, 1950b: 190. Change of combination.
Mercetaspis isis; Danzig, 1993: 296. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix mannifera [Balach1954e], Tamarix sp. [Hall1923, BenDov2012]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [DanzigPe1998]. Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1923]; Iran [Balach1954e, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Israel [Bodenh1926a, BenDov2012]; Jordan [Balach1954e]; Sicily [NucifoWa2001]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Bodenh1953]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Hall (1923) and Ezzat & Afifi (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate oval, about 0.9 mm long and 0.5 mm wide; lateral margins of body slightly notched intersegmentally, derm quite membranous except for very slight pygidial sclerotization (Ezzat & Afifi, 1966).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 291 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 74 (female) [as Nilotaspis isis; Key to species of Nilotaspis]; Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 397 [Key to species of Nilotaspis of Egypt]; Borchsenius 1963a: 207 (female) [Key to species on Tamarix]; Ezzat 1958: 244 (female) [as Nilotaspis isis; Key to species of Nilotaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 118 (female) [as Nilotaspis isis; Tableau des espèces du g. Nilotaspis Green]; Borchsenius 1950b: 190 (female) [as Nilotaspis isis; Key to species of Nilotaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118, 122-125]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 41]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74, 78-80]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Bodenh1926a [distribution, host: 189]; Bodenh1930a [distribution: 370]; Bodenh1935b [distribution, host: 308]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1155]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 7, 26, 217]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9, 29]; BodenhTh1929 [distribution, host: 109, 116]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 190]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291, 296-297]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 397, 398-400]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 352]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 37]; Hall1927 [distribution, host: 109]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 524]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 19]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 130-131]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 155]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 28]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 42]; NucifoWa2001 [description, distribution, host: 209]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 15]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 52].
Mercetaspis peshawarensis (Rahman & Ansari)NOMENCLATURE:
Lapazia peshawarensis Rahman & Ansari, 1941: 828-829. Type data: PAKISTAN: Taru Jabba (Peshawar), on peaches. Holotype female. Type depository: UAFP. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus peshawarensis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
Mercetaspis peshawarensis Danzig, 1993: 290.
HOSTS: Rosaceae: Prunus bokhariensis [KazimiGh1964], Prunus persica [KazimiGh1964].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [RahmanAn1941].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Rahman & Ansari (1941).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 0.82-1.18 mm long, 0.36-0.51 mm wide, elongate, whitish gray to yellowish gray, convex, except apical third which is flattened. Exuviae terminal, reddish brown, covering at least half of scale. Adult female broad, elongate, fusiform, translucent white or slightly yellowish, pygidium always deeper yellow (Rahman & Ansari, 1941).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [distribution, host: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 37]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; RahmanAn1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 817, 828-829]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 50].
Mercetaspis sphaerocarpae Gómez-Menor OrtegaNOMENCLATURE:
Mercetaspis sphaerocarpae Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1927a: 293-295. Type data: SPAIN: Madrid, Vaciamadrid, on Retama sphaerocarpa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Spain. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Retama sphaerocarpa [GomezM1927a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Italy [DanzigPe1998]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [GomezM1927a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1927a).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 127 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1935b [distribution, host: 261]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-129]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 80]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 101]; GomezM1927a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 293-295]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 227-230]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 7, 14]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 189]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 56].
Mercetaspis sureyana (Bodenheimer)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus sureyanus Bodenheimer, 1941: 66. Type data: TURKEY: Eskisehir, on small sandy hill near Plantbreeding station, on Astragalus sp., ?/04/1934 and ?/04/1939, by Bodenheimer and Bagda. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel, and Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Nilotaspis sureyanus; Balachowsky, 1954e: 118. Change of combination.
Mercetaspis sureyana; Danzig, 1993: 293. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Astragalus sp. [Bodenh1941]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Georgia [DanzigPe1998]; Iran [Moghad2013a]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Turkey [Bodenh1941]; Turkmenistan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Bodenheimer (1941).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very irregularly shaped, mainly due to mutual pressure of individuals, ham-shaped, not highly convex, pale yellow, almost transparent in the hind third. First exuviae brownish-black, 2nd exuviae bright reddish-brown. Second exuviae not invariably on the cephalic end, but often at some distance from it. Adult female 0.7-1.0 mm long and 0.3-0.6 mm wide. Female body short oval to ellipsoid, broadest about the middle (Bodenheimer, 1941).
SYSTEMATICS: Balachowsky (1954e) considered Mercetaspis sureyanus to be a junior synonym of Mercetaspis halli.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 291 (female) [Key to species of Mercetaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 118, 121]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Bodenh1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host: 9, 29]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135, 137-139]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-29]; Bodenh1953a [distribution: 158]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 291, 293, 294]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307]; Hadzib1983 [p. 274]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Moghad2013a [description, host: 42]; PellizWi2013 [taxonomy: 409].
Metandaspis WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Metandaspis Williams, 1963b: 28. Type species: Mytilaspis recurvata Froggatt, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Metandaspis comes close to Andaspis, differing in lacking marginal macroducts which are replaced by minute ducts similar to the dorsal ducts. The shape of the median lobes appears to be variable, but the lateral margin is diagonal to the longitudinal axis of the body (Williams, 1963b).
KEYS: Williams & Brookes 1995: 185 [Key to genera of the subtribe Andaspidina]; Balachowsky 1968a: 62 (female) [Key to the 4 genera of the sub-tribe Andaspidina].
CITATIONS: Balach1968a [taxonomy: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 32]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 119]; Willia1963b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 28]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185].
Metandaspis recurvata (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis recurvata Froggatt, 1914: 683. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Cowra, on Acacia decurrens, 07/06/1900, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes recurvata; Sasscer, 1915: 37. Change of combination.
Metandaspis recurvata; Williams, 1963b: 28. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia decurrens [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Froggatt (1914), redescription and illustration by Williams (1963b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover white, exuviae reddish brown, 2nd one very large, crenulated. Scale short, very convex, rounded and depressed at apex. Male scale cover similar, but smaller. Adult female pale yellow, elongate, broadly rounded to the apex. Pygidium bright yellow, chitinous, finely striated, terminating in 2 large rounded lobes with a smaller rounded lobe on either side, and the margin finely serrate but showing no distinct lobes further round (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 20]; Balach1968a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60, 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 683]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 46]; Sassce1915 [distribution, host: 37]; Willia1963b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 183].
Mimusaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Mimusaspis Mamet, 1942: 37. Type species: Lepidosaphes mimusaspis Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Small dorsal pores with narrow tubular ducts present on the submarginal areas of metathorax and all abdominal segments. Few dorsal macropores with fairly long ducts on margin of 6th and 7th segments of abdomen. Median pygidial lobes close together, but non-zygotic, without any plates between them. Second pair of lobes obsolete, represented by a sclerotized serrated incrassation of margin of pygidium (Mamet, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Mimusaspis is somewhat related to Andaspis MacGillivray (Mamet, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 73]; Mamet1942 [description, taxonomy: 37]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 121].
Mimusaspis badulae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Mimusaspis badulae Mamet, 1943: 127-128. Type data: MAURITIUS: Macabé forest, on leaves of Badula insularis, 02/03/1940. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrsinaceae: Badula insularis [Mamet1943].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1943, WilliaWi1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1943).
STRUCTURE: Female scale almost linear, straight sided, pale buff. Larval exuviae pale yellowish, situated at anterior end of cover and beyond nymphal exuviae. Nymphal exuviae darker than larval, 2.5-3.3 mm long and 0.7-0.9 mm wide. Male scale smaller and paler than that of female. Adult female long and narrow, broadest across the first abdominal segments, 0.9-1.1 mm long, 0.3 mm wide. Frontal margin with a few minute setae (Mamet, 1943).
SYSTEMATICS: Mimusaspis badulae is very closely related to M. mimusopis, from which it differs by the greater number of perivulvar pores, the presence of 3 macropores on the margin of the 6th and 7th abdominal segments instead of only 2 in M. mimusopis and the absence of pores near the posterior spiracles (Mamet, 1943).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; Mamet1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 164]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 43]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 69].
Mimusaspis mimusopis (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes mimusopis Mamet, 1939b: 581-583. Type data: MAURITIUS: Les Mares, on upper of leaves of Mimusops erythroxylon, 07/12/1935, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Mimusaspis mimusopis; Mamet, 1942: 37. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Sapotaceae: Mimusops erythroxylon [Mamet1939b], Mimusops petiolaris [Mamet1959].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1939b, WilliaWi1988]; Reunion [Mamet1959, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014].
BIOLOGY: Mimusaspis mimusopis was collected at an altitude of 2200 feet (Mamet, 1939b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1939b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, narrow, usually straight, widening gradually towards posterior extremity, with a well-defined narrow flattened border, reddish-brown to pale castaneous, with paler margin. Larval exuviae yellow to orange-yellow; nymphal exuviae elongate and darker. Both exuviae occupying about one third of the total length of cover. Male scale much smaller and more delicate than female, whitish. Adult female yellowish, long and narrow, broadest across first abdominal segments, 1.0-1.2 mm long and 0.3-0.4 mm wide (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Mamet1939b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 581-583]; Mamet1942 [taxonomy: 36-37]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 164]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, structure: 43]; Mamet1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 69].
Mitraspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Mitraspis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-296. Type species: Mitraspis heresiarcha Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: The extraordinary modification of the marginal pygidial macroducts is something that occurs in no other species of Diaspididae, although in other respects the type species of this genus is quite an ordinary member of the Diaspidini (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 37]; Ferris1941d [description, taxonomy: SIII-296]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-42]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 122].
Mitraspis heresiarcha FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Mitraspis heresiarcha Ferris, 1941d: SIII-297. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, near Boquete, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate and slender, pure silvery white, terminal exuviae being yellow. Male scale similar. Slide mounted adult female 1.75 mm long. At full maturity derm entirely membranous except for pygidium (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The extraordinary modification of the marginal pygidial macroducts is something that occurs in no other species of Diaspididae, although in other respects Mitraspis heresiarcha is quite an ordinary member of the Diaspidini (Ferris, 1941d).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-297]; Ferris1942 [distribution: SIV-446: 57].
Mitulaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Mitulaspidis; MacGillivray, 1921: 310. Misspelling of genus name.
Mitulaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 358. Type species: Chionaspis funtumiae Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1992b).
STRUCTURE: Mitulaspis has more or less triangular lobes and is a primitive genus of the tribe Lepidosaphini, probably of the subtribe Coccomytilina (Takagi, 1992b).
SYSTEMATICS: MacGillivray (1921) used the two spellings Mitulaspis and Mitulaspidis in his original description. Ferris (1936a) acting as the first revisor chose the spelling Mitulaspis which was adopted by later authors (Balachowsky, 1954e). Morrison & Morrison (1966) incorrectly give the valid spelling as Mitulaspidis and Mitulaspis as a lapsus.
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 544 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 310 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 94]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22, 25, 69]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 525, 544]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 189]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 310, 358]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1992b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 36-39]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185].
Mitulaspis funtumiae (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis funtumiae Newstead, 1914: 310-311. Type data: UGANDA: Entebbe, on Funtumia latifolia, 27/05/1913, by C.C. Gowdey. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Mitulaspidis funtumiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 310. Misspelling of genus name.
Mitulaspis funtumiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 358. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes funtumiae; Lindinger, 1932f: 200. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Funtumia latifolia [Newste1914]. Rubiaceae: Gaertnera vaginans [Takagi1992b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Newste1914]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1992b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Newstead (1914). Detailed redescription and illustration by Takagi (1992b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale opaque white, broadly dilated immediately behind the 2nd exuviae. Larval exuviae dull yellow, with a dusky median area. 2nd exuviae partly covered with a thin translucent secretion. Male scale opaque white, not carinated, sides bulging slightly, very narrowly pyriform or rarely parallel. Adult female narrowed in front (Newstead, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 358 (female) [Key to species of Mitulaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22, 69]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 189]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 525]; HallWi1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 200]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310, 358]; Newste1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 310-311]; Takagi1992b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-43, 50, 64].
Mitulaspis malayana Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Mitulaspis malayana Hall & Williams, 1962: 23-26. Type data: MAYLASIA: Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, on Cinnamomum camphora, 04/05/01927, by G.H. Corbett. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 3815. Described: female. Illust.
Mitlaspis malayana; Danzig & Konstantinova, 1990: 49. Misspelling of genus name.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Lophopetalum floribundum [Takagi1992b]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora [HallWi1962], Cinnamomum iners [Takagi1992b], Cinnamomum zeylanicum [Ali1970], Dehaasia incrassata [Takagi1992b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [HallWi1962]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female low convex, very broadly pyriform, almost circular, opaque white, but usually appearing dark brown owing to incorporated matter. Exuviae set marginally, golden yellow, masked by a thin film of white secretionary matter. In some examples the scale shows indications of fluting. Male scale white, rounded at either end, slightly wider about the middle, uncarinated. Adult female about 1.0 mm wide, broadly ovate, membranous with clearly demarked thoracic and abdominal segmentation (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Mitulaspis malayana is very close to M. funtumiae, but is much smaller, of a different shape and unlike M. funtumiae in possessing perivulvar pores and gland tubercles on the thoracic segments (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 21]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-26]; Takagi1992b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 51-52, 54, 65].
Mohelnaspis ŠulcNOMENCLATURE:
Mohelnaspis Šulc, 1937: 1. Type species: Mohelnaspis moravica Šulc, by monotypy and original designation.
Evallaspis Lupo, 1939: 130. Type species: Mytilaspis ampelodesmae Newstead, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 301.
Takahashiella Borchsenius, 1964: 164,168. Type species: Chionaspis vermiformis Takahashi. Synonymy by Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 308.
GENERAL REMARKS: Generic characters described by Šulc (1937).
STRUCTURE: The male and female scales of this species resemble those of Lepidosaphes (Šulc, 1937).
KEYS: Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 325 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Chou 1982: 152 (female) [as Takahashiella; Key to Chinese genera of Lepidosaphinae]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 644 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Balachowsky 1954e: 27 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Zahradník 1952: 98 (female) [Schlüssel zur bestimmung der gattungen der Cechoslovakischen Diaspidinae].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27, 147, 152, 154]; Bodenh1949 [taxonomy: 28, 42]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 331]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 35]; Borchs1964 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 164,168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 30, 31, 69]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 152, 185]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 644, 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 308]; Ferris1938b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57, 58, 62]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 164-165]; Kozar1986 [taxonomy: 178]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 222]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 70,130]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 75, 123]; Schmut1959 [description, taxonomy: 156, 172]; Sulc1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 1, 29-30]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy]; Zahrad1952 [description, taxonomy: 98, 170].
Mohelnaspis ampelodesmae (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis ampelodesmae Newstead, 1897a: 95. Type data: ALGERIA: Constantine, on Ampelodesma tenax, 05/12/1895 and 07/11/1895 and 08/11/1895, by A.E. Eaton. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes ampelodesmae; Fernald, 1903b: 305. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus ampelodesmae; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
Evallaspis ampelodesmae; Lupo, 1939: 131-136. Described: both sexes. Illust. Change of combination.
Mohelnaspis ampelodesmae; Danzig, 1993: 301. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [Viggia1971], Physcus sp. [Viggia1971]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus evallaspidis [Viggia1971].
HOST: Poaceae: Ampelodesma tenax [Newste1897a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Newste1897a]; Italy [Lupo1939, LongoMaPe1995]; Sicily [Lupo1939, LongoMaPe1995].
BIOLOGY: This species is found in dense colonies on the branches and leaves of its host (Balachowsky, 1954a). In Campania, Italy, this species has three generations per year (Viggiani, 1970).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Balachowsky (1897a).
STRUCTURE: The scale of female long and narrow, sides parallel, white; larval scale cover white or pale yellow, transparent; second scale cover red-brown inclining to piceous in the center, usually covered with white secretion; ventral scale white or yellowish white, and apparently incomplete. Adult female very elongate, sometimes attenuated and curved in front. Rostral filaments very short (Newstead, 1897a). Female is orange in life (Balachowsky, 1954e). Scale of the male is white, a little convex. Larval scale cover yellowish. Second stage male has antennae of six nearly equal joints (Newstead, 1897a).
SYSTEMATICS: Newstead (1897a) states that this species is allied to Pseudaulacaspis cordylinidis in the form and character of the scale, but the structure of the pygidium is clearly distinct.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Viggiani (1970) describes several predator prey relationships involving this species.
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1965: 92 (female) [Species of Evallaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 280 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ampelodesmae; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; MacGillivray 1921: 280 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ampelodesmae; Key to species of Lepidosaphes]; Leonardi 1903: 28 (female) [as Mytilaspis ampelodesmae; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1927 [distribution, host: 180]; Balach1928d [distribution, host: 305]; Balach1932d [distribution: 25, 29]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148-150]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308-309]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 52, 56]; GomezM1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92-94]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 40-41]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 66]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 139]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73, 131]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 280]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 54]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 75]; Newste1897a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Newste1906 [distribution, taxonomy: 70]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; Trabut1910 [biological control, distribution: 24]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 63]; Viggia1971 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 61-76]; ViggiaJe1985 [taxonomy: 879]; Yasnos1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 108].
Mohelnaspis graminicola (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis graminicola Takahashi, 1934: 9. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten near Taihoku, on unidentified Gramineae, ?/12/1932 and ?/1/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Acanthomytilus graminicola; Borchsenius, 1966: 68. Change of combination.
Takahashiella graminicola; Ali, 1970: 28. Change of combination.
Mohelnaspis graminicola; Danzig, 1993: 301. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae [Takaha1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Ali1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1934).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale very long, slender, straight, somewhat broadened posteriorly, somewhat convex dorsally, with no ridge, pale yellowish brown, white on the hind end, about 5mm long. First larval skin paler, at the front end of the scale. Secretion occupying most of the scale. Body very long, slender, with many small glands on the side of posterior half. Antennae widely separated, with 2 long bristles. Anterior spiracles with 1 or 2 parastigmatic pores, the posterior ones lacking them. Last 3 abdominal segments convex laterally, with an eminent lateral process on each side, 2 or 3 short lateral gland spines and some lateral glands; the glands as large as the dorsal ones on the pygidium, the preceding 2 segments with some small conical spines in a group on each side. Length of body about 1.5mm. Pygidium much wider than long, with many longitudinal dorsal lines, the hind end nearly straight, not incised, but with a pair of very small median processes. Anal opening large, circular, near the base. Dorsal gland orifices transversely oval, chitinized on the margin, moderate in size. Glands much smaller than the marginal ones, rather small, much longer than wide. Marginal glands 5 on each side, of which the basal one is eminently protruding. Median lobes rather large, somewhat wider than long, very broadly rounded on the distal margin, not serrate, very widely separated, parallel, shorter than the marginal glands, very slightly notched on the mesal margin; the 2nd lobes divided; the inner lobules similar in shape, but much smaller than the median lobes; the outer lobules much smaller, longer than wide, conical, more or less pointed apically; 3rd lobes absent. Gland spines 8 on each side, of which posterior 5 are very long, and one of them is between the median lobes and twice as long as the lobes; basal 3 very short. Circumgenital pores in 5 groups; median group with about 2-4 pores in a row; upper lateral with about 6-8, lower lateral with about 4-6 (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Ali (1970) states that Mohelnaspis graminicola is allied to M. vermiformis. This species differs from M. vermiformis Takahashi in the shape of the lobes of pygidium and in many other structures (Takahashi, 1934).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; Chou1985 [description, taxonomy: 389-390]; Chou1986 [illustration: 598]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 301]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 146]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 25, 70]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-10]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 95-96]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 68]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 18, 58]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 217, 239].
Mohelnaspis longissima (Rao)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis longissima Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1926: 455. Nomen nudum; discovered by Rao, 1953: 66.
Kuwanaspis longissima Rao, 1953: 66. Type data: INDIA: Madras, North Malabar, Dhoney Valley, on Bambusa sp., by T.V. Ramakrishna. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Takahashiella longissima; Borchsenius, 1966: 69. Change of combination.
Acanthomytilus longissima; Takagi, 1970: 25. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Ramakr1930]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Ali1969a] (Kerala [Ramakr1930]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Rao (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate, slender, sides nearly parallel, straight or curved, yellowish brown, 3.0-4.0 mm long, 0.25 mm wide. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female very slender, delicate, not highly chitinized, sides nearly parallel, anterior portion being very slightly narrower (Rao, 1953).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Wang et al. (1998) cite this species as a minor pest of bamboo.
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 55]; Beeson1941 [distribution, host: 744]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 16]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63, 66]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 25]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; WangVaXu1998 [distribution, economic importance, host: 185].
Mohelnaspis massiliensis (Goux)NOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspidoides massiliensis Goux, 1937: 35-42. Type data: FRANCE: near Marseille, on Brachypodium ramosum, 1931, by L. Goux. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
Mohelnaspis moravica Šulc, 1937: 4, 30. Type data: CZECHOSLOVAKIA: Mohelno, on Festuca glauca. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 157.
Mohelnaspis recepi Bodenheimer, 1941: 66-69. Type data: TURKEY: on hills behind the Cubuk Baraj (near Ankara), on Alopecurus agrestis, 06/05/1939. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France, and Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 154.
Berleseaspis moravica; Lindinger, 1943b: 208. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis massiliensis; Lindinger, 1943b: 219. Change of combination.
Mohelnaspis massiliensis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 154. Change of combination.
Melanaspis recepi; Ben-Dov & Harpaz, 1985: 29. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: grass scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus sp. [Parker1960].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Alopecurus agrestis [Schmut1959], Brachypodium phoenicoides [Foldi2002], Brachypodium ramosum [Goux1937], Brachypodium sp. [Goux1937], Festuca glauca [Schmut1959], Festuca ovina [Goux1937], Festuca rubra [Kozar1986], Sesleria calcaria [Zahrad1962], Sesleria sadleriana [Kozar1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Czech Republic [Sulc1937]; France [Goux1937, Foldi2001, Foldi2002]; Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; Hungary [Kozar1986]; Turkey [Schmut1959].
BIOLOGY: This species has one generation per year and overwinters as adult female (Schmutterer, 1959). The first stages appear at the end of May and in early June. Second stages were collected during the last week of June, males and adult females appeared on June 10th (Šulc, 1937). Goux (1937) states that there are at least 3 generations per annum. The first resulting from females having overwintered and giving adult females in June. The second generation from June to September to October. The third from October to March.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of both sexes of larvae and adults by Šulc (1937). Goux (1937) also describes and illustrates female and larvae.
STRUCTURE: The female scale may be covered with a thin whitish layer of wax and if this is the case, it is opaque. If the wax layer has fallen off, it is metallic yellowish green and shiny. Male scale similar to female in structure and color, but it falls off the host leaf more easily. Young female is light orange and dark orange on dorsal and ventral middle pygidium. Male body is slender, legs well developed, wings long, narrow, opaque with an orange pocket. The whole body and legs are light orange, thickened thoracic sutures are dark red (Šulc, 1937). Test of female very narrow and elongate oystershell shaped; brownish gray. Female elongate spindle shaped, orange- yellow, with sclerotized pygidial end (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
KEYS: Danzig 1971d: 841 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 647 (female).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 154]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29]; BenDovTa1974 [distribution, taxonomy: 46]; Bodenh1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-69]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 43, 142-145]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 31]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 841]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309]; Ferris1938b [illustration, taxonomy: 57, 62]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2002 [distribution: 247]; Goux1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 35-42]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 186]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 165, 167]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 360-361]; Kozar1986 [distribution, host: 178]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKoSa2002 [catalogue, distribution: 39]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1943b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 208, 219]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 123]; Parker1960 [biological control, distribution, host: 168]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 173-175]; Sulc1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 4-41]; Zahrad1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 171-174]; Zahrad1957a [distribution: 5]; Zahrad1962 [distribution, host: 91, 93, 94]; Zahrad1977 [taxonomy: 120].
Mohelnaspis toletana (Gómez-Menor Ortega)NOMENCLATURE:
Berlesaspis toletanus Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1927a: 289-292. Type data: SPAIN: Toledo, on Stipa tenacissima. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Spain. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
Evallaspis toletanus; Balachowsky, 1954e: 151. Described: female and first instar. Illust. Change of combination.
Mohelnaspis toletanus; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 309. Change of combination.
Mohelnaspis toletana; Miller et al., 2003: 946. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Lygaeum spartum [Balach1954e, GomezM1965], Lygeum sp. [Borchs1966], Stipa sp. [Borchs1966], Stipa tenecissima [GomezM1957].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Morocco [Rungs1936]; Spain [GomezM1927a].
BIOLOGY: This species was found living with Macrochloa tenacissima (Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1927a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description of female and larva by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1927a).
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1965: 92 (female) [Species of Evallaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 148 (female) [as Evallaspis toletanus; Evallaspis species]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1927a: 292 (female) [as Berlesaspis toletanus; Species of Berlesaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1935b [distribution, host: 261]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148, 151-152]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 31]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309]; GomezM1927a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 289-292]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 160-162]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 50]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 7, 13]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 92, 94-95]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 180]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 54]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 946]; Rungs1936 [distribution, host: 333]; Sulc1937 [taxonomy: 40].
Mohelnaspis vermiformis (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis vermiformis Takahashi, 1930: 12-14. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp., ?/10/1929 and ?/11/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Takahashiella vermiformis; Borchsenius, 1964: 164. Change of combination.
Acanthomytilus vermiformis; Takagi, 1970: 27-28. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Mohelnaspis vermiformis; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 308. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930], Bambusa vulgaris [MartinLa2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Takagi1970]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very long, narrow, straight or slightly curved, parallel-sided, moderately convex on the dorsum, rounded on the posterior extremity, without dorsal ridges, about 2.5 mm long. First larval exuviae pale yellowish brown, extending beyond the anterior extremity of the 2nd exuviae which is also pale yellowish brown and much shorter than half the length of the scale. Adult female body orange-yellow, very elongate, narrow, almost parallel-sided, broadly rounded on the front, transversely striate between the posterior spiracles and the 1st free abdominal segment (Takahashi, 1930).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is distinguished by the extremely elongate body and by the elongate dorsal macroducts. In other respects, it shows a unmistakable resemblance to the authentic species of Acanthomytilus (Takagi, 1970).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; Borchs1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 164]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 69]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 185-186]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-28]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-14]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 10]; Takaha1942 [distribution, host: 65]; Tang1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 275]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 275]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 96]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 119]; Yang1982 [illustration, taxonomy: 217, 218]; YoungHu1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 191, 194].
Moraspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Moraspis Hall, 1946a: 525-526. Type species: Chionaspis euphorbiae Brain, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hall (1946a). Redescription by Munting (1973).
SYSTEMATICS: Moraspis falls within the complex of genera of the Chionaspis type, which is so strongly developed in the Ethiopian region. It is characterized by the quite abnormal development of marginal pores, the lack of gland tubercles on the abdominal thoracic segments and the extremely dense sclerotization of the anterior two-thirds of the body (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 88]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 525-526, 543]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 125]; Muntin1968 [taxonomy: 209]; Muntin1970 [taxonomy: 10]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution: 13].
Moraspis euphorbiae (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis euphorbiae Brain, 1919: 234. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: East London, on Euphorbia sp., 23/06/1915, by Miss Impey. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 37. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 151/1.
Duplachionaspis euphorbiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 335. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus euphorbiae; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Moraspis euphorbiae; Hall, 1946a: 525. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Zaomma cestus [Prinsl1979].
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia caerulescens [Muntin1973], Euphorbia sp. [Brain1919]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1919].
BIOLOGY: This species has only been recorded from the Eastern Cape, South Africa and is very common in the Noorsveld where in some parts Euphorbia caerulescens overwhelmingly dominates the flora as the result of overgrazing (Munting, 1973).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, pyriform, moderately broadened posteriorly and finely striated transversely. Male scale white and uncarinated or obscurely carinated. Adult female body elongate oval and heavily sclerotized at maturity anterior to the 2nd free abdominal segment. Pygidium broadly rounded with 2 pairs of inconspicuous lobes (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 335 (female) [as Duplachionaspis euphorbiae; Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1946 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 525, 549]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1968 [taxonomy: 211]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-14]; Prinsl1979 [biological control, distribution: 73].
Multispinaspis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Multispinaspis Munting, 1969: 131. Type species: Multispinaspis monechmae Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Body turbinate. Anterior and posterior spiracles with parastigmatic pores. Median lobes well developed, apparently basally yoked, no scleroses arising from bases, 2nd lobes not differentiated from margin which is conspicuously notched between segments, and heavily sclerotized from dorsomarginal setae of segments vi to median lobes (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Multispinaspis is unique in having gland spines which are so numerous and conspicuously grouped (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 131].
Multispinaspis maricoensis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Multispinaspis maricoensis Munting, 1970: 8-10. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal, Groot Marico, on Reullia patula, 08/12/1969, by A. Pienaar. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3887/6. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Acanthaceae: Ruellia patula [Muntin1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very broadly chionaspiform, white, 2.5 mm long. Adult female turbinate, young adults subcircular, 2.0 mm long at maturity (Munting, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Multispinaspis maricoensis differs from M. monechmae in having far more dorsosubmedian ducts and by the presence of groups of ventrosubmarginal ducts on the abdominal segments (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-12].
Multispinaspis monechmae MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Multispinaspis monechmae Munting, 1969: 131-132. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, on Monechma sp., 10/12/1961, by D.P. Annecke. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Acanthaceae: Monechma sp. [Muntin1969]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Adult female turbinate, prosoma heavily sclerotized at maturity; 1.3-1.7 mm long, when mounted. Prothorax with a ventrosubmarginal boss; bosses absent on abdominal segments (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131-132].
Myrtaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Myrtaspis Takagi, 1999: 147. Type species: Myrtaspis marginalis Takagi, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is erected for species which apparently have a close relation to Aulacaspis, but cannot be referred to that genus in having lateral macroducts and gland spines on the body part anterior to the 2nd abdominal segment. Myrtaspis differs from Chionaspis in the median lobes being only weakly zygotic and only a little differentiated in shape and size from the lobules of the well-developed 2nd and 3rd lobes. Myrtaspis is also similar to Narayanaspis, in which the pygidial lobes are all similar in shape and size and the median lobes are definitely non-zygotic and parallel (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 147-148]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 67].
Myrtaspis jambosicola (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Semichionaspis jambosicola Tang, 1986: 173-174. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong Province, Zhaoqing City, on Syzygium jambos. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis jambosicola; Tao, 1999: 112. Change of combination. Notes: Tao (1999) treats jambosicola Tang in both Semichionaspis and Pseudaulacaspis.
Myrtaspis jambosicola; Takagi, 1999: 149. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Syzygium jambos [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white. Male scales tricarinated. Adult female body fusiform, 1.0-1.16 mm long, thorax not swollen (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is apparently similar to Myrtaspis syzygii, from which it may be distinguished by the median lobes set close together and by having well-developed interantennal swellings (which are connected together to form a broad prominence) (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Takagi1999 [taxonomy: 149]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 173-174, 291-292]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112, 117].
Myrtaspis marginalis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Myrtaspis marginalis Takagi, 1999: 148. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Rantau Abang, Terengganu, on Eugenia grandis, 09/08/1990. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia grandis [Takagi1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999).
STRUCTURE: Female test white, elongate oval, narrow when occurring on leaf margin; exuvial casts yellowish brown. Male test tricarinate (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148].
Myrtaspis putianensis (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Semichionaspis putianensis Tang, 1986: 175-176. Type data: CHINA: Fujian Province, Suize County, Putian, on undetermined plant. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Myrtaspis putianensis; Takagi, 1999: 149. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scales elongate, fusiform, white. Male scales tricarinated. Body of adult female fusiform, 0.83-0.93 mm long. Mesothorax much less broadened. Gland tubercles present on the 1st abdominal segment (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is close to M. jamosicola, from which it was distinguished mainly in having fewer dorsal macroducts. The bases of the median lobes are widely separated from each other which is probably a more important difference (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution: 161]; Takagi1999 [taxonomy: 149]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 175-176, 292]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 117].
Myrtaspis syzygii (Takagi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis syzygii Takagi, 1985: 9-11. Type data: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh, Dehra Dun, on Syzygium jambos, on Syzygium jambos, 02/11/1978; NEPAL: Lumbini Zone, Butwal, on Syzgium cumini, 13/12/1983. Syntypes. Type depositories: Calcutta: National Zoological Collection, Zoological Survey of India, India, and Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Myrtaspis syzygii; Takagi, 1999: 148. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Cleistocalyx operculatus [Takagi1985], Syzgium cumini [Takagi1985], Syzygium jambos [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Uttar Pradesh [Takagi1985]); Nepal [Takagi1985].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is excluded from Chionaspis, having 5-segmented antennae in the first instar. Adult female with weakly zygotic median lobes, and subequal size to and nearly of same shape as lobules of well-developed 2nd and 3rd lobes. These characters of the pygidial lobes may justify the transference of this species to Myrtaspis. M. syzygii differs from M. marginalis mainly in the lateral macroducts occurring as anteriorly as the pro- or mesothorax, in lacking derm swellings and derm pockets between the antennae, and in the head and thoracic segments remaining wholly membranous at full growth (Takagi, 1999).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-11]; Takagi1999 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 148-149]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 67].
Namibia MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Namibia Munting, 1969: 133. Type species: Formosaspis karroo Munting, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Belonging to the tribe Diaspidini sens. lat. Adult female completely enclosed by 2nd instar exuviae, body elongate but varying in shape according to position on host plant. Median lobes conspicuously long to very long, never solidly sclerotized but hollow with ducts inside, never yoked, without basal scleroses, bearing long setae; other lobes present or absent. Gland tubercles and pygidial gland spines absent in adult female. Dorsal macroducts when present few in number and together with those in the lobes have an extremely long microduct on their inner ends, which is long enough to reach or extend beyond posterior spiracles. Perivulvar pores absent (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: The prodigious development of the median lobes which may occur in this genus is quite remarkable (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 257-259]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host,, taxonomy: 133-134].
Namibia karroo (Munting)NOMENCLATURE:
Formosaspis karroo Munting, 1967a: 257-259. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Worcester, east of Touwsriver, Avondrus, on Acacia grandicornuta, 24/02/1966, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 2081/3. Described: female. Illust.
Namibia karroo; Munting, 1969: 133. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia giraffae [Muntin1969], Acacia grandicornuta [Muntin1967a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Botswana? [Muntin1969]; Namibia (=South West Africa)? [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Muntin1967a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female enclosed within the 2nd stage exuviae which is black, broadest across the middle, but often distorted; about 1.3 mm long. Adult female membranous except the venter in the vicinity of the mouthparts which is slightly sclerotized, fusiform (Munting, 1967a).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 134 [Key to species of Namibia].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 257-259]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 133, 134].
Namibia quadriloba MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Namibia quadriloba Munting, 1969: 134-135. Type data: NAMIBIA: Kalkrand, on Acacia hebeclada, 25/08/1967, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia hebeclada [Muntin1969].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black, granulose, shiny, covered with a thin layer of opaque secretory matter, varying in shape according to situation on host, but usually pyriform with 1st instar exuviae at broadest end; about 1.5 mm long. Male scale dirty white, elongate, non-carinate, about 1.2 mm long. Mounted adult female elongate, 1.2-1.5 mm long. 2nd instar female with median lobes well separated, apically serrate, 2nd lobes absent (Munting, 1969).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 134 [Key to species of Namibia].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134-135, 157].
Namibia spinosa MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Namibia spinosa Munting, 1969: 135. Type data: NAMIBIA: Namib Desert, about 25 miles north east of Gobabeb, Namib Desert Research Station, on Acacia sp., 28/08/1967, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia giraffae [Muntin1969], Acacia sp. [Muntin1969]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black, finely granulose, shiny, covered with a thin opaque layer of secretory matter, varying in shape according to situation on host plant, but usually pyriform with light brown first instar exuviae at one end, 1.8 mm long. Male scale non-carinate, dirty white, elongate, broadening slightly posteriorly, with brown 1st instar exuviae at anterior end, about 1.6 mm long. Adult female roughly fusiform, 1.2-1.5 mm long (Munting, 1969).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 134 [Key to species of Namibia].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, taxonomy: 134, 135, 158].
Nanhaiaspis Takagi & MartinNOMENCLATURE:
Nanhaiaspis Takagi & Martin, 2010: 38-47. Type species: Nanhaiaspis chiulungensis Taikagi & Martin.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Takagi & Martin, 2010.
STRUCTURE: The adult female Nanhaiaspis is elongate ovoid, broadest across the base of the abdomen, head narrowly and pygidium broadly rounded. characteristic in having 7 groups of perivulvar disc pores instead of the usual 5. The occurrence and arrangement of pygidial macroducts on the dorsal and ventral surfaces are characteristic of the genus. The first-instar female and male are chacteristic in having spinous marginal processes around the abdomen and meta- and mesothorax. The second=instar male has a unique character pattern.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is referable to the Diaspidinae and to the Diaspidini and possibly to the Fioriniina or the Kuwanaspidina, but it is not easy to find its relationships to other genera of the Diaspidini.
CITATIONS: TakagiMa2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 38-40].
Nanhaiaspis chiulungensis Takagi & MartinNOMENCLATURE:
Nanhaiaspis chiulungensis Takagi & Martin, 2010: 40-41. Type data: HONG KONG: Chiulung (Kowloon Peninsula), arborteum area in Shin Mun, on undetermined banboo, 12/15/2001, by J.H. Martin. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. JHM7593. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [MartinLa2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [TakagiMa2010].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi & Martin, 2010.
STRUCTURE: Female and male tests white; female test bivalvate (with the ventral portion formed the same as the dorsal and separated from the latter along the posterior margin), ovoid in outline; male test elongate cylindrical.
SYSTEMATICS: Pygidium shallowly recessed apically, the recess with a pair of flat irregularly incised, sclerotic processes, which apparently represent the median trullae.
CITATIONS: MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; TakagiMa2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 40-41, 51-54].
Nanhaiaspis communis (Hu)NOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus communis Hu, 1986: 220-221. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Hainan Island, on Phragmites communis, 05/05/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Nanhaiaspis communis; Takagi & Martin, 2010: 41-42. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Phragmites communis [Hu1986J, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Hu1986J, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1986J).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate oval, 0.99-1.04 mm long. Pygidial lobes absent (Hu, 1986J).
SYSTEMATICS: Rugaspidiotus communis is close to R. nebulosus, but differs in the posterior spiracle with disc pores and by the perivulvar pores in 7 groups (Hu, 1986J). Takagi & Martin, 2011, state that the arrangement of the pygidial macroducts shown in Hu's figure "gives a rather strange impression." They illustrated a rearrangement of these macroducts onto the dorsal and ventral surfaces, whereby the segmental macroducts are retained on the dorsal surface and the infrasegmental macroeducts were removed onto the ventral surface. When placed in the genus (Nanhaiaspis), Takagi & Martin state that it differs from N. chiulungensis by the number of wax-secreting organs (expecially the macroducts and the spiracular and perivulvar disc pores), which are apparently fewer in the later.
CITATIONS: Hu1986J [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220-221, 226-227]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; TakagiMa2010 [description, distribution, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 41-43, 50]; Tao1999 [distribution, host].
Narayanaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Narayanaspis Takagi, 1985: 20. Type species: Narayanaspis eugeniae Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Many characters as in Chionaspis, but L1 definitely non-zygotic, parallel, with a pair of well-developed paraphyses. L2 and L3 well developed, their lobules similar to L1 in size and shape. Ventral sclerotization of pygidium divided medially by a slender space, which is edged with a pair of slender scleroses. Submedian macroducts divided into 2 series on abd III and IV, one series occurring infrasegmentally in front of the other; submarginal macroducts forming an irregularly multiple row on III (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Takagi1999 [taxonomy: 149]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68].
Narayanaspis eugeniae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Narayanaspis eugeniae Takagi, 1985: 20-21. Type data: NEPAL: Narayani Zone, near crossing of the highway and the Pasaha River, in jungle of Terai, on Eugenia sp., 20/12/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eugenia polyantha [Takagi1999], Eugenia sp. [Takagi1985], Eugenia subdecussata montana [Takagi1999], Eugenia symingtoniana [Takagi1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999]); Nepal [Takagi1985].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1985).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with L1 and lobules of L2 and L3 oblongish, rounded apically, obscurely notched subapically. Paraphyses well developed on L1 and L2a, less on other lobules. Marginal gland spines of abdominal segments IV and V slender, 7-10 on IV and 2-3 on V (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21, 59, 73]; Takagi1999 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68].
Neochionaspis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Neochionaspis Borchsenius, 1947a: 344. Type species: Neochionaspis kirgisica Borchsenius, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Scale of female pear-shaped, white; 2 larval skins, successively projecting from the narrower cephalic end of the scale. Scale up to 1.6 mm long. Body of the adult female nearly rectangularly oval in shape (Borchsenius, 1949c).
KEYS: Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Balachowsky 1954e: 171 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 171, 369, 408, 413]; Borchs1947a [description, taxonomy: 344]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 191, 192, 219-220]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 164, 201]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 83]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 361]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 313]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 370]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 129]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 94].
Neochionaspis kirgisica BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Neochionaspis kirgisica Borchsenius, 1947a: 344. Type data: KYRGYZSTAN: (Fergan Mt. Ridge); KAZAKHSTAN: Alma-ata, southwest slope of the shores of Little Almaatinka river, 1937, on Ribes sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1993: 363. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: It is unclear which locality the lectotype is from.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer regelii [Bazaro1963a], Acer sp. [Balach1954e], Acer turkestanicum [Bazaro1963a]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes mayeri [Mateso1955], Ribes nigrum [Borchs1947a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Kazakhstan [Mateso1955]; Kyrgyzstan (=Kirgizia) [DanzigPe1998]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Balach1954e]; Uzbekistan [Balach1954e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Adult female comma shaped, white, 1.3mm long and .5 mm wide. Margin of body from prothorax to third segment of abdomen with groups of cylindrical ducts and groups of short seta-like plates. 2-3 pairs of lobes, first pair broadly rounded, second and third pairs bifurcate, small and conical. Second and third incisions of pygidium with one plate, the rest of the margin of the pygidium with four plates. The cylindrical ducts are situated in a narrow band along the margin of the pygidium and in longitudinal rows on the remaining aspect of the pygidium. The formula of the circumgenital pores is 4-9 (7-11); frequently 5-8 (8-11) 7-9 (Borchsenius, 1947a).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 361 (female) [Key to species of Neochionaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 33 (female) [Tableau de détermination des espèces du g. Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 409-411]; Bazaro1962 [distribution: 61]; Bazaro1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71]; Bazaro1968a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Bazaro1969 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35-36]; Bazaro1971c [distribution: 87]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102-104]; Borchs1947a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 201]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 96, 162, 163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 162]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 217]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 363-365]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; IukhneMaMi1958 [distribution, host: 19]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lomaki1967 [distribution, host: 38]; Mateso1955 [distribution, host: 200]; Mateso1958 [distribution, host: 132]; Mateso1971 [distribution, host: 25]; MatesoMiIu1962a [taxonomy: 121]; TakagiVe2001 [taxonomy: 200].
Neoischnaspis FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Neoischnaspis Fonseca, 1969: 18. Type species: Neoischnaspis orthosoma Fonseca, by monotypy and original designation.
CITATIONS: Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 18].
Neoischnaspis orthosoma FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Neoischnaspis orthosoma Fonseca, 1969: 18-20. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Cantareira, on unidentified host, ?/10/1967, by J. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1969]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Fonseca (1969).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-20].
Neoparlaspis HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlaspis Hempel, 1934: 145. Type species: Neoparlaspis myrciariae Hempel, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hempel (1935).
SYSTEMATICS: "This is a genus with a combination of characters that does not allow of its exact inclusion in any of the tribes that compose the sub-family Diaspidinae, but it seems to be nearest to the tribe Parlatoriini, as the male scale is similar to that of the members of the genus Parlatoria, while that of the adult female is like that of the members of the genus Aonidia, however with the larval exuviae extending beyond the anterior margin and the larval antennae folded back upon the exuviae" (Hempel, 1935).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 183]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 104, 114]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Hempel1934 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 145]; Hempel1935 [description, taxonomy: 57]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 223].
Neoparlaspis myrciariae HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlaspis myrciariae Hempel, 1934: 145-147. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, on Myrcia glomerata, 18/04/1932, by J.P. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female.
Cryptodiaspis myrciariae; Lindinger, 1943b: 218. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Myrcia edulis [Lepage1938], Myrcia glomerata [Hempel1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Hempel1934]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hempel (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale composed of 2nd nymph, which completely encloses the insect. Form is sub-circular, with the posterior extremity slightly pointed, and slightly longer than wide. Dorsal surface is flat. 1st larval exuviae is fixed to the anterior extremity where it extends beyond the margin, and has the antennae folded back up on the sub-marginal area. Scale is yellow. Adult female is smaller than 2nd nymphal form (Hempel, 1935).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; CostaL1936 [distribution: 195]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 114]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 337]; Hempel1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145-147]; Hempel1935 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58-59]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 412]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190]; Lindin1942b [taxonomy: 381]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution: 182].
Neopinnaspis McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Neopinnaspis McKenzie, 1949: 123. Type species: Neopinnaspis harperi McKenzie, by monotypy.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1949), redescription by Takagi (1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1959b) states this genus is close to Lepidosaphes and Andaspis, but is separated from both by the acute pygidium terminating in two pairs of fused or closely set lobes. Ferris (1955b) synonymized Neopinnaspis with Africaspis but McKenzie (1956) did not accept the synonymy and considered both genera distinct.
KEYS: Chou 1982: 152 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Lepidosaphinae]; Yang 1982: 199 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphedini]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 276]; Borchs1959b [description, taxonomy: 1821]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 74]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 152, 193-194]; Ferris1955b [taxonomy: 23]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 200]; McKenz1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 123]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 135]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 132]; Muntin1967 [taxonomy: 1]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 29]; Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 154]; TakagiKa1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 107, 109]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 52]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 199].
Neopinnaspis harperi McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Neopinnaspis harperi McKenzie, 1949: 124-126. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Santa Barbara County, Montecito, on Ceratonia siliqua, 12/04/1949, by R.W. Harper. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Africaspis harperi; Ferris, 1955b: 23. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Harper scale [McComb1986].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer palmatum [McKenz1949]. Anacardiaceae: Schinus molle [McKenz1949], Schinus terrebinthifolia [McKenz1949]. Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [McKenz1949]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex myrtifolia [McComb1986], Ilex opaca [BesheaTiHo1973], Ilex sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Ilex vomitoria [BesheaTiHo1973]. Celastraceae: Euonymus japonicus [McKenz1949]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [McKenz1949]. Ericaceae: Arbutus unedo [McKenz1949]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites fordii [BesheaTiHo1973]. Fabaceae: Acacia decurrens dealbata [McKenz1949], Acacia longifolia [McKenz1949], Acacia melanoxylon [McKenz1949], Caesalpinia echinata [McKenz1949], Ceratonia siliqua [McKenz1949], Ceratonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cytisus scoparius [McKenz1949]. Fagaceae: Castanopsis cupidata [TakagiKa1966], Lithocarpus edulis [Muraka1970], Pasania edulis [TakagiKa1966], Quercus laurifolia [BesheaTiHo1973], Quercus nigra [BesheaTiHo1973], Quercus virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973], Shiia cuspidata [Muraka1970]. Flacourtiaceae: Aberia caffra [McKenz1949], Azara microphylla [McKenz1949]. Hamamelidaceae: Hamamelis virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973], Liquidambar styraciflua [BesheaTiHo1973]. Juglandaceae: Carya illinoensis [BesheaTiHo1973], Carya sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Juglans nigra [McKenz1949], Juglans regia [McKenz1949]. Lauraceae: Persea americana [McKenz1949], Persea borbonia [BesheaTiHo1973], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005], Umbellularia californica [McKenz1949]. Loranthaceae: Viscum [Borchs1966]. Magnoliaceae: Illicium floridanum [BesheaTiHo1973], Magnolia soulangeana [BesheaTiHo1973], Magnolia sp. [McKenz1949]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus rosa-sinensis [Takagi1970], Lagunaria patersonii [McKenz1949]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [McKenz1949]. Myricaceae: Myrica cerifera [Merril1953]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus sp. [McKenz1949], Jasminum revolutum [McKenz1949], Ligustrum obtusifolium [TakagiKa1966], Ligustrum ovalifolium [McKenz1949], Olea europaea [McKenz1949]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum undulatum [McKenz1949]. Platanaceae: Platanus occidentalis [BesheaTiHo1973]. Proteaceae: Hakea saligna [McKenz1949], Macadamia sp. [MillerDa2005], Macadamia ternifolia integrifolia [McKenz1949]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [McKenz1949]. Rhamnaceae: Ceanothus arboreus [McKenz1949], Ceanothus spinosus [McKenz1949]. Rosaceae: Cotoneaster microphylla [McKenz1949], Crataegus opaca [BesheaTiHo1973], Crataegus sp. [McKenz1949], Eriobotrya japonica [BesheaTiHo1973], Eriobotrya sp. [MillerDa2005], Laurocerasus sp. [Borchs1966], Photinia serrulata [McKenz1949], Prunus amygdalus [McKenz1949], Prunus caroliniana [McKenz1949], Prunus ilicifolia [McKenz1949], Prunus lusitanica [McKenz1949], Prunus lyoni [McKenz1949], Prunus persica [McKenz1949], Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pyrus communis [McKenz1949], Rosa sp. [McKenz1949], Rubus [Borchs1966]. Rubiaceae: Cephalanthus occidentalis [BesheaTiHo1973]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [McKenz1949], Salix discolor [McKenz1949], Salix sp. [McKenz1949]. Saxifragaceae: Escallonia rubra [McKenz1949]. Styracaceae: Styrax sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [McKenz1949]. Tiliaceae: Grewia caffra [McKenz1949], Sparmannia sp. [McKenz1949]. Viscaceae: Phoradendron flavescens [BesheaTiHo1973].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Oahu [Nishid2002]). Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1949, MillerDa2005], Florida [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Georgia [TippinBe1970, MillerDa2005]). Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: Japan [MillerDa2005] (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
BIOLOGY: We have been unable to find an account of the biology of this species. According to McKenzie (1956), Harper scale primarily occurs on the bark of twigs and branches; in cases of heavy infestations, it may be found on the trunk, occasionally on petioles, and rarely on leaf surfaces. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by McKenzie (1949) and Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Adult females 1-2 mm long, narrow, irregularly elongate, fairly flat, tan or bronze or reddish-brown terminal exuviae. Body pink or red (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Neopinnaspis harperi has some affinities for certain Pinnaspis and Lepidosaphes species, and for this reason it is suspected to be an introduced rather than a native species (McKenzie, 1956). In California, N. harperi is close to Lepidosaphes conchiformis and L. destefanii (Gill, 1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: McComb (1986) lists N. harperi as a pest of holly. Miller & Davidson (1990) also list this insect as a pest. Harper scale is reported as a pest of apple in the eastern part of the Former Soviet Union (Konstantinova 1976). In the United States it infests a wide range of host plants indicating the potential for economic importance. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 194 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Neopinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 12, 23]; Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Borchs1959b [distribution, taxonomy: 1821]; Borchs1963a [taxonomy: 70]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194-195]; Chou1986 [illustration: 607]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, host: 318]; Ferris1955b [taxonomy: 23, 24]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-202, 203]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 36]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 153]; Konsta1976 [host: 49]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82-83]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; McComb1986 [description, distribution, host: 68]; McKenz1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-126]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 132, 133, 135]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 63]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 294]; Muntin1967 [taxonomy: 1]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 85]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-31]; TakagiKa1966 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 97]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100]; TippinBe1970 [distribution: 10]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Willia1973 [distribution, host: 91].
Neopinnaspis miduensis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Neopinnaspis miduensis Borchsenius, 1959b: 1821. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, 43km south of Midu, 1700m above sea level, on undertermined shrub, 02/04/1957, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: Beijing: Institute of Entomology, Academy of Sciences, China. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in ZMAS.
Neopinnaspis meduensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 75. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Borchs1959b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1959b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body .8mm long and .3mm wide. Near each anterior spiracle are placed two disc glands. Median lobes of the pygidium acute, trilobed, fused with the lobes of the second pair; all the lobes together form the posterior strongly sclerotized end of the body. Gland spines not developed between the lobes, along the sides of the pygidium arranged in three groups 2-2-2 spines; along the sides of the body on 3rd and 4th abdominal segments are placed in twos or threes setae-like gland spines; on segment 2 of the abdomen are a group of 4-5 shorter gland spines, on sides of segment 1- approximately 10 short, stout gland spines. Marginal glands large, arranged in 4 groups of 1-2-2-1 glands; marginal glands between the lobes strongly removed from pygidial margin. Dorsal glands small (but not minute). Formula for perivulvar glands 4-5 (6-7) 4-4. Female scale elongate, comma-like moderately convex, whitish-yellow or yellow. Larval exuviae 2, both yellow; scale 1.0-1.2mm long and .3-.4mm broad (Borchsenius, 1959b).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is close to Neopinnaspis travancorensis Lindinger, but differs in the smaller size of the scale and fused lobes (Borchsenius, 1959b).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 194 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Neopinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1959b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1821-1822]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194, 195]; Chou1986 [illustration: 608]; Hua2000 [distribution: 155]; Muntin1967 [distribution: 1]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100].
Neopinnaspis travancorensis (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes travancorensis Lindinger, 1911: 127. Type data: INDIA: Kerala (Travancore), on Aglaia minutiflora, 20/03/1899. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Triaspidis travancorensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 279. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) travancorensis; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 30. Change of combination.
Neopinnaspis travancorensis; Borchsenius, 1959b: 1821. Change of combination.
HOST: Meliaceae: Aglaia minutiflora [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [BhasinRo1954] (Kerala [Lindin1911], Tamil Nadu [Ali1969a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Most detailed description by Lindinger (1911).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, narrow, gradually widened, brown, 2.5 mm long, 0.4 mm wide. Exuviae apical, yellow. Larval exuviae 0.4mm long and 0.2 mm wide (Lindinger, 1911).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 279 (female) [as Triaspidis travancorensis; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 58]; BhasinRo1954 [distribution, host: 41]; Borchs1959b [taxonomy: 1821]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279]; Muntin1967 [distribution: 1]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 24]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 30]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 52]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Neoquernaspis Howell & TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Neoquernaspis Howell & Takagi, 1981: 487-488. Type species: Quernaspis nepalensis Takagi, by original designation.
Pseudochionaspis Hu, 1985: 263. Type species: Pseudochionaspis quercus Hu, by original designation. Synonymy by Liu & Tippins, 1988: 44.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Howell & Takagi (1981).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoquernaspis is referable to Diaspidinae: Chionaspidini and is morphologically similar to Quernaspis (Howell & Takagi, 1981).
CITATIONS: Howell1981a [distribution, taxonomy: 616]; HowellTa1981 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 487-488]; Hu1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 265]; LiuTi1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 36, 42]; TakagiTa1982 [description, taxonomy: 103]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 68].
Neoquernaspis beshearae Liu & TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Neoquernaspis beshearae Liu & Tippins, 1988: 40-42. Type data: NEPAL: Mechi, Mahabharat Range, Sukhe Pokhri, on Lithocarpus pachyphylla, 11/11/1983, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus pachyphylla [LiuTi1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [LiuTi1988]. Palaearctic: China [Zeng2001].
BIOLOGY: Neoquernaspis beshearae was collected at an altitude of 1300 m (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu & Tippins (1988) and Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large, oystershell shaped; exuviae terminal, pale brown to yellowish brown; 1st instar and 2nd instar combined about one-half to one-third total body length; secretion white or grayish white; strongly convex dorsally in the middle of test, behind exuviae. Adult female elongate, spindle-shaped; posterior widened and slightly lobed laterally (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: This species can be distinguished from others of its genus by the more associated trilocular pores anteriolateral of both anterior and posterior spiracles than in other species; more perivulvar pores, macroducts, gland spines and gland tubercles than in other species and the antennae with 3 thick finger-like processes (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis]; Liu & Tippins 1988: 42 [Key to species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: LiuTi1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40-42]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 176-178]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68]; Zeng2001 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 530, 532].
Neoquernaspis chiulungensis (Takagi in Takagi & Howell)NOMENCLATURE:
Quernaspis chiulungensis Takagi in Takagi & Howell, 1977: 52-55. Type data: CHINA: Kowloon Peninsula, opposite Hong Kong Island, on Castanopsis indica, 22/04/1965, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Neoquernaspis chiulungensis; Howell & Takagi, 1981: 487. Change of combination.
Quernaspis chilungensis; Hua, 2000: 160. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fagaceae: Castanopsis indica [TakagiHo1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [TakagiHo1977]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]. Palaearctic: China [TakagiPoGh1989] [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Howell (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, very convex dorsally, with exuvial casts terminal and pale yellow, and with secretion grayish white; whole scale about 1.5 mm long. Male scale with secretion white and carinate. Adult female on slide elongate, 2.5 times as long as wide and attaining about 1 mm in length. Cephalothorax gradually broadening posteriorly, free abdominal segments little or slightly lobed laterally; pygidium roundish along free margin. Derm remaining membranous except for pygidium. Median lobes set quite close together, united basally, each lobe pointed apically, roughly serrate on long sloping outer margin (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis]; Liu & Tippins 1988: 43 [Key to species of Neoquernaspis]; Howell 1981a: 622 (female) [Key to 1st instars of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Howell1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 618, 621, 622]; HowellTa1981 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 487]; Hua2000 [distribution: 160]; LiuTi1988 [taxonomy: 43]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 41]; TakagiHo1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52-55]; TakagiPoGh1989 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 174-176]; TakagiTa1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 103]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 115]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis hainanensis (Hu)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudochionaspis hainanensis Hu, 1985: 263-266. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Hainan, on undetermined Fagaceae, 08/05/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Neoquernaspis hainanensis; Liu & Tippins, 1988: 44. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis hainanensis; Tao, 1999: 112. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae [Hu1985], Quercus sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hu1985], Hainan [Hua2000], Yunnan [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1985).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, 0.5-0.64 mm long, broadest about 2nd abdominal segment, 0.23-0.24 mm wide. Antenna with a seta. Anterior spiracle with 1 disc pore. Median lobes projecting, rounded apically, notched on both sides, with a sclerotized area between them (Hu, 1985).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 263-265]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159, 160]; LiuTi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis howelli Liu & TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Neoquernaspis howelli Liu & Tippins, 1988: 38-40. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati, Swayambhu, near Kathmandu, on Quercus glauca, 28/10/1983, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus glauca [LiuTi1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [LiuTi1988].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 1300m (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu & Tippins (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oystershell-shaped, flat. Exuviae terminal, pale brown; 1st instar exuviae small; 1st and 2nd together occupying about one half to one third of total body length; secretion behind exuviae white or dirty white, firm texture. Adult female elongate, spindle shaped; widened posteriorly at abdomen, slightly lobed laterally (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoquernaspis howelli differs from N. chiulungensis in having more perivulvar pores, the total number in the 5 groups ranges from 41-60 in this species and 19-25 in the latter (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
KEYS: Liu & Tippins 1988: 43 [Key to species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: LiuTi1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-40, 43]; TakagiPoGh1989 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68].
Neoquernaspis leptosipha ZengNOMENCLATURE:
Neoquernaspis leptosipha Zeng, 2001: 26. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Menghai, ?/05/1974, by Chou & Sun. Holotype female. Type depository: Yangling: Entomological Museum, Northwestern Agricultural University, Shaanxi Province, China.. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Zeng2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Zeng (2001).
STRUCTURE: Adult female fusiform. Median lobes zygotic basally, separated apically, lateral margin with 2-3 serrations. 2nd and 3rd pairs of lobes absent (Zeng, 2001).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoquernaspis leptosipha is similar to N. takagii and N. hainanensis, but differs in having abdominal segment V without submedial macroducts and abdominal segments II-IV with submedial microducts (Zeng, 2001).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Zeng2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 528-532].
Neoquernaspis lithocarpi (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis lithocarpi Takahashi, 1931a: 214-215. Type data: TAIWAN: Hori, Suisha, on Lithocarpus sp., 23/11/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Quernaspis lithocarpi; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of combination.
Neoquernaspis lithocarpi; Howell & Takagi, 1981: 487. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1931a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1931a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, elongate, widened towards the posterior end, convex on the dorsum, sometimes somewhat curved, white, without ridges, about 2.0 mm long. The 1st larval exuviae pale yellowish brown, slightly extending beyond the anterior extremity of the 2nd. Female body narrow, elongate, somewhat widened towards the last free abdominal segment. Abdomen with many glands similar to those on the pygidium, lacking long spines. Pygidium much wider than long, with 2 distinct indentations on each side, chitinized on the posterior margin (Takahashi, 1931a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is allied to Africaspis chionaspiformis, but differs in the shape of the median lobes (Takahashi, 1931a). N. lithocarpi is close to N. chiulungensis, differing from the latter by the median lobes wholly fused together and not serrate. The macroducts and perivulvar disc pores may be more numerous in N. lithocarpi than in N. chiulungensis (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis]; Liu & Tippins 1988: 43 [Key to species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; Chen1983 [taxonomy: 99]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 350-351]; Chou1986 [illustration: 477]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Howell1981a [taxonomy: 616]; HowellTa1981 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 487]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; LiuTi1988 [taxonomy: 43]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 105]; TakagiHo1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50-52]; TakagiTa1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 103]; Takaha1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 214-215]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 104]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 30, 60]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 105]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis nepalensis (Takagi in Takagi & Howell)NOMENCLATURE:
Quernaspis nepalensis Takagi in Takagi & Howell, 1977: 47-50. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Sheopuri, on Quercus semecarpifolia, 31/08/1975, by S. Takagi; Dunche, on Q. semecarpifolia, 18/09/1975, by S. Takagi; Syabru, on Q. semecarpifolia, 20/09/1975, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: It is unclear which collection group the holotype was from.
Neoquernaspis nepalensis; Howell & Takagi, 1981: 487. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Castanopsis indica [TakagiPoGh1989], Castanopsis tribuloides [TakagiPoGh1989], Quercus lanuginosa [TakagiHo1977], Quercus semecarpifolia [TakagiHo1977], Quercus sp. [HowellTa1981]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [TakagiHo1977]. Palaearctic: China [Zeng2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Howell (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, highly convex dorsally, exuvial casts terminal, yellowish brown, with white secretion, smooth, appearing tough; whole scale attaining about 2 mm in length. Male scale with secretion white, flat and carinate. Adult female elongate, on slide about 2.2-2.4 times as long as wide and attaining about 1.6 mm in length. Cephalothorax slender, gradually broadening towards robust abdomen, free abdominal segments little or slightly lobed laterally; pygidium broad, roundish along free margin. Derm remaining membranous except for pygidium. Sclerotized submarginal dorsal bosses 1 on each of abd. i, iii and v, at times also on abd. iv. Second instar male elongate ovate. Pygidial margin ragged with sclerotized tooth-like processes (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis]; Liu & Tippins 1988: 42 [Key to species of Neoquernaspis]; Howell 1981a: 622 (female) [Key to 1st instars of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Howell1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 618, 620]; HowellTa1981 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 487]; Hu1984 [p. 219]; JiangCh1984 [taxonomy: 239, 240]; LiuTi1988 [taxonomy: 36, 42]; TakagiHo1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-50]; TakagiPoGh1989 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176]; TakagiTa1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 103]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis quercus (Hu)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudochionaspis quercus Hu, 1985: 263-265. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Mengyang, on Quercus sp., 01/04/0957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Neoquernaspis quercus; Liu & Tippins, 1988: 44. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Hu1985]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hu1985]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1985).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, 0.6-1.2 mm long, broadest about 2nd abdominal segment, 0.26-0.31 mm wide. Anterior spiracle with 1-2 disc pores. Median lobes projecting, rounded apically, one notched on the outside, with a scleroid slice between them (Hu, 1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoquernaspis quercus is close to Unachionaspis tenuis, but is different from the latter in having 1 pair of pygidial lobes, by the shape of the median lobes and by the marginal gland spines arranged in 1-1-1-1 on each side of pygidium (Hu, 1985).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis]; Comstock 1916: 559 (female) [as Chionaspis quercus; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 265]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; LiuTi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 114]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis takagii Liu & TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Neoquernaspis takagii Liu & Tippins, 1988: 36-38. Type data: NEPAL: Mechi, Phidim, on Castanopsis tribuloides, 11/11/1983, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in HUSJ and SFAZ.
HOST: Fagaceae: Castanopsis tribuloides [LiuTi1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [LiuTi1988].
BIOLOGY: Neoquernaspis takagii was collected at an altitude of 1700 m (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Liu & Tippins (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate, exuviae terminal, yellowish brown or dark brown, the end of 2nd exuviae yellow; 1st instar exuviae small; secretion behind exuviae white or grayish white. Adult females elongate, broadened posteriorly and moderately lobed laterally (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is distinguished from others in the genus in having a very elongated body, very few macroducts, perivulvar pores and associated trilocular pores anteriolaterally of anterior spiracles (Liu & Tippins, 1988).
KEYS: Liu & Tippins 1988: 43 [Key to species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: LiuTi1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-38, 43]; TakagiPoGh1989 [distribution, host: 176]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68]; Zeng2001 [taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis tengjiensis (Hu)NOMENCLATURE:
Quernaspis tengjiensis Hu, 1984: 215. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Tengjie, on unidentified host, 10/05/1955. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Neoquernaspis tengjiensis; Liu & Tippins, 1988: 44. Change of combination.
HOST: Verbenaceae: Vitex sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hu1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1984).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform, 1.55-1.95 mm long, 2nd abdominal segment broadest, 0.7-0.96 mm wide. Antennae with 2 setae. 2 pairs pygidial lobes. Median lobes set quite close together, each lobe rounded apically, not notched on both sides (Hu, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoquernaspis tengjiensis is close to N. nepalensis, but differs in the 2nd lobe being bilobulate in shape, by the number of perivulvar pores and by the absence of dorsal ducts on the 7th abdominal segment (Hu, 1984). Tao (1999) erroneously lists Aulacaspis flacourtiae Rutherford (=Rutherfordia major) as a junior synonym of Neoquernaspis tengjiensis.
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215-219]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; LiuTi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 115]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Neoquernaspis unciformis Jiang & ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Neoquernaspis unciformis Jiang & Chen, 1984: 237-240. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, on undetermined Fagaceae, ?/05/1974. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [JiangCh1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Jiang & Chen (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, convex, curved into a "V" shape. Adult females very thin and slightly sclerotized, without constrictive serrates along the marginal side between every two abdominal segments. No parastigmatic pores around the spiracles. Median lobes separated from the base, general shape is triangular, with 4 marginal dorsal ducts, first pair each with a pore prominence beside median lobe (Jiang & Chen, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoquernaspis unciformis is similar to N. nepalensis, but the former has median lobes diverged from the base and with a short gap between them, while those of the latter are fused in the base and separated only at the top end of the lobes. Also, the former has fewer dorsal ducts than that latter and there are no pores around the 2 pairs of spiracles (Jiang & Chen, 1984).
KEYS: Zeng 2001: 532 (female) [Key to the Chinese species of Neoquernaspis].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; JiangCh1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 237-240]; LiuTi1988 [distribution, host: 44]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100]; Zeng2001 [distribution, taxonomy: 532].
Nicholiella FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Nicholiella Ferris, 1941d: SIII-298. Type species: Nicholiella bumiliae Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1941d) suspected that there was some connection with Nicholiella and Fissuraspis and Pelliculaspis. There is a certain similarity in habit that suggests a connection, but certainly the details of structure in both 2nd stage and adult female present such as a diversity that at the present time it seems unjustifiable to place these species in a single genus.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 184]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-298]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:41]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 134].
Nicholiella bumeliae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Nicholiella bumeliae Ferris, 1941d: SIII-299. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Gleeson, on Bumelia rigida, 13/07/1940, by L.P. Wehrle & G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Bumelia rigida [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Adult female roughly circular, membranous except for the weakly sclerotized pygidium and a quite conspicuous ventral sclerotized area which lies just behind and partially around the mouthparts. Pygidium somewhat variable in form, but is in general with median lobes set close together, quite large, prominent and more or less toothed (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1943: 76 [Key to species of Nicholiella].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; Brown1960 [chemistry: 163, 165, 168]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 222]; Brown1977 [chemistry: 155]; BrownMc1962 [chemistry: 465]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-299]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; Ferris1943 [taxonomy: 76]; Kitchi1970 [chemistry: 182, 187, 194]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 59]; Nur1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 112, 118]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 18].
Nicholiella digitata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Nicholiella digitata Ferris, 1943: 75-76. Type data: MEXICO: Guerrero, Taxco, Kilometer 184 on the road to Acapulco, on undetermined host, 1/02/1940, by J.M. Couch. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: Septobasidiaceae: Septobasidium sp. [Ferris1943]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1943]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1943).
STRUCTURE: Adult female about 0.5 mm long, very slightly sclerotic or membranous throughout except for the quite strongly sclerotized pygidium. Body narrowly turbinate. Pygidium short and broad, terminating in 3 somewhat elongate, flattened and apically more or less truncate lobes which in appearance and texture are continuous with the pygidium itself (Ferris, 1943).
KEYS: Ferris 1943: 76 [Key to species of Nicholiella].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; Ferris1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-76, 79].
Nikkoaspis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Nikkoaspis Kuwana, 1928: 37. Type species: Nikkoaspis shiranensis Kuwana, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1970) stated Nikkoaspis is close to Kuwanaspis and also to Unachionaspis, presumably forming together with the latter two a peculiar phylogenetic stock. Kuwanaspis and Nikkoaspis are so close that Takahashi united them into a single genus. It is not easy to come to a definite conclusion concerning the distinctness of Nikkoaspis until various forms of the two genera have been compared in detail. However, Nikkoaspis seems to be boreo-montane in distribution, whereas Kuwanaspis occurs in a wide range from tropical lowlands to the temperate region. This trait in distribution, together with the peculiar body shape and numerous dorsal macroducts, may afford a basis to accept Nikkoaspis as valid.
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 721 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 222 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1980b: 721 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Kuwana 1933a: 45 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57-58]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 721, 724]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 372]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 315]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 105]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 37-38]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 51]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 135]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4, 7-8]; Takagi1961a [distribution, taxonomy: 100]; Takagi1999a [description, taxonomy: 114-115]; Takaha1930 [taxonomy: 24]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 15]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 222].
Nikkoaspis berincangensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Nikkoaspis berincangensis Takagi, 1999a: 99. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Pahang, Mt. Brinchang, Gunung Batu Berincang, on Bambusa magica, 16/10/1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa magica [Takagi1999a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999a]).
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 1900m (Takagi, 1999a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, broadly expanded posteriorly. Male scales felt-like in texture, tricarinate on dorsal surface. Adult female body up to 1.3 mm long, elongate pyriform, broadest across base of abdomen; pygidium broadly roundish along margin (Takagi, 1999a).
SYSTEMATICS: Nikkoaspis berincangensis may be close to N. simaoensis, but disagrees with the description of the latter mainly in having only 2 pairs of lobes, in lacking plates on the 4th abdominal segment and in the elongate marginal gland spines (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99, 115, 119-120, 12].
Nikkoaspis formosana (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis formosanus Takahashi, 1930: 23-25. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp., 23/11/1929 and 26/01/1930, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Tsukushiaspis formosa; Takahashi, 1934: 14. Misspelling of species name.
Kuwanaspis formosana; Lindinger, 1935: 149. Change of combination.
Nikkoaspis formosana; Borchsenius, 1966: 92. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1930).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flattened, moderately convex on the dorsum, narrowed towards the front, rounded on the posterior margin, without dorsal ridge, about 2.3 mm long. 1st larval skin yellowish brown, yellow on the posterior marginal area, situated on or slightly extending beyond the anterior end of the 2nd larval skin. 2nd skin blackish brown, brown on the posterior marginal area, much shorter than half the length of the scale, broad. Adult female flattened, broadest on the abdomen, gradually narrowed towards the front, abruptly narrowed towards the posterior end, variable in shape (Takahashi, 1930).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 54]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [taxonomy: 61]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 198]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 14]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 227].
Nikkoaspis hichiseisana (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis hichiseisana Takahashi, 1934: 12-15. Type data: TAIWAN: Mt. Hichisei, near Taihoku, on Bambusa sp., 23/09/1933. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis hichiseisana; Balachowsky, 1954e: 265. Change of combination.
Nikkoaspis hichiseisana; Takagi, 1961: 8. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria formosana [Tao1978], Bambusa sp. [Takaha1934], Phragmites sp. [Tao1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1934]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1934).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, somewhat narrowed anteriorly, moderately convex, not curved, about 3.5 mm long and 1.2 mm wide. Secretion white, thick, not smooth on the surface, with many transverse striae, with no longitudinal ridge. 1st skin black, pale yellowish brown on the marginal area, a little extending beyond the front of the 2nd. 2nd skin black, narrowly brownish on the margin, extending beyond the front end of the secretion, about 1.0 mm long. Female body elongate, broadened on the abdomen and widest at the middle, distinctly narrowed towards the head. Meso- and metathorax with numerous lateral glands similar to those on the abdomen, some smaller glands present in a group behind each anterior spiracle (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is closely allied to N. shiranensis, but may be separated by the more narrow body and the lobes rounded apically. Nikkoaspis formosana is also an allied species, but differs in the lobes broader, 2nd skin wider, the pygidium comparatively smaller and in the gland spines longer and more numerous (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 58 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Nikkoaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 54]; Balach1954e [distribution, taxonomy: 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58-59, 61]; Chou1986 [illustration: 454]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Takagi1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 8]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-15]; Takaha1936a [taxonomy: 220]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 227].
Nikkoaspis sasae (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Tsukushiaspis sasae Takahashi, 1936a: 218. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang, Chekiang, on Sasa sp., ?/08/1938, by S.P. Chu. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Nikkoaspis sasae; Takagi, 1961: 8. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis sasae; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 279. Change of combination. Notes: Danzig & Pellizzari (1998) treat sasae Takahashi in both Kuwanaspis and Nikkoaspis. It would appear that the listing of Kuwanaspis sasae was in error.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Tao1999], Sasa sp. [Takaha1936a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Takaha1936a]). Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1936a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale rather narrow, broadest about the middle, a little narrowed on the posterior part, strongly convex dorsally on the middle, with no median ridge, about 2.3-2.5 mm long, 0.7 mm wide. Secretion white, thick, with many eminent transverse striae. 1st larval exuviae pale yellow. Adult female body narrow, broadest on the abdomen, narrower towards the front, rounded on the hind end, densely with numerous lateral glands (posteriorly to the hind spiracles) (Takahashi, 1936a).
SYSTEMATICS: Nikkoaspis sasae is close to Kuwanaspis suishana and Nikkoaspis hichiseisana, but differs from the former in the shorter gland spines on the pygidium, in the wider body and 2nd exuviae, in the shorter fimbriated plates more numerous. It differs from the latter in the narrower body, with fewer gland ducts and fimbriated plates on the pygidium (Takahashi, 1936a).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 58 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Nikkoaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58, 59-60, 61]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 279, 315]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154, 155]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Takagi1961 [distribution, structure: 8]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Takaha1936a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218-220]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 146-147]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100-101]; Yang1982 [distribution, host: 227].
Nikkoaspis shiranensis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Nikkoaspis shiranensis Kuwana, 1928: 38-39. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nikko, Yumoto, on Sasa albomarginata, summer 1924, by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Tsukushiaspis shiranensis; Takahashi, 1934: 14. Change of combination.
Kuwanaspis shiranensis; Lindinger, 1935: 149. Change of combination.
Nikkoaspis spiranensis; Ferris, 1936a: 22. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Sasa albomarginata [Kuwana1928], Sasa peniculata [Siraiw1939], Sasa sp. [Siraiw1939]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [Kuwana1928], Kyushu [Muraka1970]); Russia (Sakhalin Oblast [Siraiw1939]).
BIOLOGY: Adult insects were observed in early June in Sernovdsk. Egg laying began in late June and continued for a month. Hatching of 1st stage nymphs was observed on July 9th, their emergence occurring at the same time as egg laying. Almost all female nymphs settle on young plants, while males partially develop on old trees (Danzig, 1986a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana (1928) and Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, convex, sides nearly parallel, thick, opaque white. 1st exuviae pale to brown; 2nd exuviae darker, covered with waxy secretion. 3.5-4.2 mm long and 0.8-1.0 mm wide. Adult female elongate, not heavily chitinzied, orange, segmentation not very distinct. Abdominal area greatly expanded to form a flask shape. Pygidium round, not heavily chitinized. Two pairs of lobes well developed, but smaller, pointed (Kuwana, 1928).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host: 236]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 270]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 270]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 222-223]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host: 217]; Danzig1977b [distribution: 52]; Danzig1978 [distribution, host: 20-21]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 330-333]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 392-394]; Danzig1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 724]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 372-374]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 315]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Hu1987a [taxonomy: 140]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, host: 45]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host: 266]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-39]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 102]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Siraiw1939 [distribution, host: 71]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-9]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 114-115]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 14]; TremblCa1972 [physiology: 431]; Yang1982 [distribution, host: 228].
Nikkoaspis sikokiana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Nikkoaspis sikokiana Takagi, 1999a: 99-100. Type data: JAPAN: Sikoku, Kochi Prefecture, Koti-ken, on Sasa sp., 10-11/11/1964. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Sasa sp. [Takagi1999a]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Shikoku [Takagi1999a]).
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 1000m (Takagi, 1999a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, convex dorsally. Male scale felt-like, tricarinate dorsally. Adult female body 1.7 mm long, pyriform, broadest across base of abdomen; prepygidial segments little lobed laterally (Takagi, 1999a).
SYSTEMATICS: Nikkoaspis sikokiana is similar to N. shiranensis, but differs from the latter in the marginal gland spines longer than the plates and projecting beyond the apices of the latter throughout the 3rd to 5th abdominal segments and pygidium. In N. shiranensis the marginal gland spines, except those occurring just laterally to the median and 2nd lobes, are as long as or shorter than the plates (so that they may easily be overlooked when overlapping with plates). Furthermore, N. sikokiana is usually provided with 2 plates between the median and 2nd lobes, whereas N. shiranensis with one plate and only rarely with two in this space (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99-100, 115, 121-122].
Nikkoaspis simaoensis HuNOMENCLATURE:
Nikkoaspis simaoensis Hu, 1987a: 138. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Simao, on Bambusa sp., 27/03/1957. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Hu1987a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hu1987a]). Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1987a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, 0.96-1.07 mm long, broadest about the 3rd abdominal segment, 0.5-0.6 mm wide, derm membranous except for the pygidium. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, median lobes longer than wide, a little notched on either side, rounded apically (Hu, 1987a).
SYSTEMATICS: Nikkoaspis simaoensis is similar to N. shiranensis, but differs in having 3 pairs pygidial lobes, ventral ducts in group at the rear of anterior spiracle and posterior spiracle in submarginal group on the 1st to 2nd abdominal segments and by small gland tubercles in submarginal group on the 1st to 2nd abdominal segments (Hu, 1987a).
CITATIONS: FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hu1987a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 138-140]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 101].
Nimbaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Nimbaspis Balachowsky, 1952: 125. Type species: Nimbaspis molardi Balachowsky, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Nimbaspis is close to Rugaspidiotus MacGillivray (Balachowsky, 1952). Nimbaspis deviates remarkably from the typical rugaspidiotine pattern as represented by Rugaspidiotus arizonicus. It seems that the adult female Nimbaspis is an atavistic form originated from a diaspidine with well-developed lobes. The 2nd instar female is a simplified copy of the adult female as usual in the family, while the 1st instar is supposed to have remained relatively unchanged (Takagi, 1995a).
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 125-126]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 298, 308]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 154]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 135]; Takagi1995a [distribution, taxonomy: 35].
Nimbaspis molardi BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Nimbaspis Molardi Balachowsky, 1952: 128-129. Type data: GUINEA: Nimba, in the Réserve naturelle of the Institut Francais de l'Afrique Noire, on unidentified host, 21/01/1952, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Nimbaspis molardi; Borchsenius, 1966: 154. Justified emendation.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Macaranga huraefolia [Balach1952].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Medler1980]; Guinea [Balach1952].
BIOLOGY: Nimbaspis molardi was collected at an altitude of 1200 m (Balachowsky, 1952).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1952).
STRUCTURE: Female scale convex, sub-oval, flocculent white. Larval exuviae straw yellow. Nymphal exuviae mixed in with white secretion of the scale. 1.8-2.0 mm. Male scale similar, but narrower, 1.5mm. Adult female cephalothorax thickened (Balachowsky, 1952).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1958b: 308 [Key to species of Nimbaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-129]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 308-310]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89].
Nimbaspis reticulata BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Nimbaspis reticulatus Balachowsky, 1952: 129-132. Type data: GUINEA: 7 km from Dalaba, on Harungana paniculata, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Nimbaspis reticulata; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOST: Guttiferae: Harungana paniculata [Balach1952].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Medler1980]; Guinea [Balach1952].
BIOLOGY: Nimbaspis reticulata was collected at an altitude of 1000 m (Balachowsky, 1952).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1952).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow oval, pure white. Larval exuviae straw yellow. Nymphal exuviae mixed with the secretion of the adult (Balachowsky, 1952).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1958b: 308 [Key to species of Nimbaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 129-132]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 308, 310-312]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947].
Nimbaspis squamosa Balachowsky & FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Nimbaspis squamosus Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967b: 1021-1025. Type data: CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Boukoko, Bébé, on unidentified Combretaceae, ?/01/1966. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Nimbaspis squamosa; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOST: Combretaceae [BalachFe1967b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Central African Republic [BalachFe1967b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky & Ferrero (1967b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular, larval exuviae yellow and secretion of adult female is white and cottony. Male scale with parallel sides, white. Adult female reddish orange (Balachowsky & Ferrero, 1967b).
CITATIONS: BalachFe1967b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1021-1025]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947].
Niveaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 276. Type species: Mytilaspis argentata Cockerell, by monotypy and original designation.
Lyraspis Ferris, 1938a: SII-149. Type species: Lepidosaphes ilicis Hoke, by original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1941d: SIII-302.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with 2 pairs of distinct lobes, median pair as large as 2nd pair; preabdomen with caudo-lateral angles of segments with strong finger-like processes (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 44 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 276 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 22, 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3, 5]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, taxonomy: SII-149]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 57, 58, 61]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-302]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 44]; Lepage1939 [taxonomy: 313]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 191]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 276]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 112, 136].
Niveaspis argentata (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis argentatus Cockerell, 1898l: 43-44. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Campinas, on unidentified tree, by F. Noack. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Coccomytilus argentatus; Leonardi, 1903: 10, 11. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes argentata; Fernald, 1903b: 305. Change of combination.
Niveaspis argentata; MacGillivray, 1921: 296. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Hedera helix [ClapsWoGo2001]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus sp. [Lizery1939]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Cocker1902t], Guerrero [Ferris1941d]). Neotropical: Argentina (La Rioja [ClapsWoGo2001], La Rioja [Lizery1939], Santiago del Estero [ClapsWoGo2001], Tucuman [ClapsWoGo2001]); Brazil (Sao Paulo [Cocker1898l]); Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and slender, very thin and silvery white, the dark body of the adult showing through. Male scale similar, but more oval. Mounted adult female about 2.0 mm long, very long and slender, usually more or less irregular in shape, sometimes curved (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 10 (female) [as Coccomytilus argentatus; Key to species of Coccomytilus].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Cocker1898l [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-44]; Cocker1899c [distribution, host: 44]; Cocker1902p [distribution: 257]; Cocker1902t [distribution: 472]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3, 5]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-302, SIII-303]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 514-515]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10, 11-13]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 409]; Lepage1939 [taxonomy: 313]; Lizery1939 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 201]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 276, 296]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 102].
Niveaspis cattleyae LepageNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis cattleyae Lepage, 1942: 174-175. Type data: BRAZIL: at mansion of Mr. H. Blosfeld, on Orchid, 16/06/1941. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Myrtus sp. [ClapsWoGo2001]. Orchidaceae [Lepage1942], Cattleya sp. [ClapsWoGo2001]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1942]); Colombia [Mosque1976].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, long, straight; larval exuviae yellow-orange; 1.5-2.0 mm long and 0.15-0.2 mm wide. Male scale similar to that of female (Lepage, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 23]; Lepage1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 174-175]; LepageFi1947 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 92]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Niveaspis fenestrata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis fenestrata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-304. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Tonila, on Bumelia sp., 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Bumelia sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1941d]).
BIOLOGY: Niveaspis fenestrata was collected at an altitude of 7000 feet (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale quite thick, lacking the silvery sheen of some species in this genus. Male scale similar to that of female, but rather slender. Slide-mounted adult female 2.3 mm long. Derm very heavily sclerotized over entire prosomatic region at full maturity. Pygidium relatively rather large and slightly acute. Median lobes quite large and prominent (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: N. fenestrata is closest to N. vulcania, but differs most conspicuously in the heavy sclerotization of the body, the slighter lobing of the prepygidial abdominal segments, the more acute pygidium and the more prominent median pygidial lobes (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-304]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; Koteja1974a [structure: 249]; Koteja1974b [structure: 84]; Koteja1976 [structure: 283].
Niveaspis gracilis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis gracilis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-305. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, David, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very slender, quite thin and silvery white. Male scale similar. Slide-mounted adult female 1.5 mm long, slender. Pygidium quite acute and somewhat elongate. Median lobes relatively prominent (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Niveaspis gracilis most closely resembles N. townsendiana, but differs in the large size of the 1st lobule of the 3rd pygidial lobe (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-305]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58].
Niveaspis hempeli (Lepage)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis hempeli Lepage, 1935: 167-170. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Sao Vicente, Ilha Porchat, on Metrodorea nigra, 24/06/1935, by H. Lepage. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Niveaspis hempeli; Ferris, 1941d: SIII-302. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Rutaceae: Esenbeckia nigra [SilvadGoGa1968], Metrodorea nigra [Lepage1935, ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1935]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, straight, sides parallel, 2.8-4.0 mm long by 0.3-0.4 mm wide. Male scale similar, ventral scale delicate and adhering to host, 1.4-2.0 mm long and 0.28-0.4 mm wide (Lepage, 1935).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 58]; Ferris1941d [distribution, taxonomy: SIII-302]; Lepage1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 167-170]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 398]; Lepage1939 [taxonomy: 313]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host, structure: 177].
Niveaspis ilicis (Hoke)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ilicis Hoke, 1927: 352-353. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Horse Shoe Lake, Tallahatchie River bottom, near Como, on Ilex opaca, 19/10/1921, by G.H. Lobdell. Holotype female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female. Illust.
Lyraspis ilicis; Ferris, 1938a: 150. Change of combination.
Niveaspis ilicis; Ferris, 1941d: SIII-302. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus ilicis; Lindinger, 1957: 550. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex cassine [TippinBe1969], Ilex myrtifolia [BesheaTi1977], Ilex opaca [Hoke1927], Ilex sp. [TippinBe1970], Ilex vomitoria [BesheaTiHo1973]. Oleaceae: Forestiera pubescens [Nakaha1982].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Georgia [TippinBe1969], Mississippi [Hoke1927], Texas [McDani1972a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of male and female scale, male and female adults, and second stage female by Hoke (1927) and Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.48 mm long, very slender, slightly broader than exuviae, transparent, body of insect showing through very distinctly, scale appearing on leaf as nearly white; exuviae occupying one-half of total length of scale, 1st exuviae projecting entirely beyond scale, overlapping 2nd only slightly, covered with thin white secretion, faint glistening straw-yellow with secretion removed; ventral scale very delicate, not noticeable on leaf and only apparent as fringe along lateral margins beneath dorsal scale. Male scale slightly shorter than that of female, slightly opaque, with only one exuviae. Slide-mounted adult female 1.0 mm long, 0.24 mm wide (Hoke, 1927 and Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: The absence of dorsal pygidial ducts will at once separate N. ilicis from N. townsendiana (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; BesheaTi1977 [distribution, host: 181]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-150]; Ferris1938b [illustration, taxonomy: 57, 58, 61]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-302, SIII-307]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58]; Hoke1927 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 352-353]; Lepage1939 [taxonomy: 313]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 328]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; Schief2000 [distribution, host: 7-8]; TippinBe1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 10].
Niveaspis insularis LepageNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis insularis Lepage, 1939: 313-314. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Ilha Porchat, Cidade de Santos, Praia do José Menino, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1939]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lepage (1939).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, long, narrow, parallel-sided, comma shaped; larval exuviae orange. Adult female elongate, orange (Lepage, 1939).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Lepage1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 313-314].
Niveaspis lepagei GiannottiNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis lepagei Giannotti, 1942: 213-214. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Rondinha, on unidentified host, ?/06/1942, by O. Giannotti. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Myrciaria dubia [Foldi1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Amazonas [ClapsWoGo2001], Sao Paulo [Gianno1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Foldi (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, 1.3 mm wide, sides parallel, gray, exuviae central or subcentral, orange. Male scale similar, but clear, exuviae subcentral. Adult female 0.8 mm, elongate (Giannotti, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Foldi1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83-84]; Gianno1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213-214].
Niveaspis tecta FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis tecta Ferris, 1941d: SIII-306. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Boquete, on Xylosma sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: Fungi: Septobasidium sp. [Ferris1941d].
HOST: Flacourtiaceae: Xylosma sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Scales so obscured by associated fungus as to be almost unrecognizable. Slide-mounted adult female 1.3 mm long. Derm membranous except for the pygidium, the anterior portion marked by very delicate transverse striations which in a shrunken specimen cause a slight appearance of sclerotization. Body elongate and slender (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Niveaspis tecta lacks most of the distinctive characters of Niveaspis, such as the regular notching of the pygidial margin with the accompanying regular and step-like arrangement of the marginal macroducts, the lyriform arrangement of the ventral pygidial sclerotized area and the tubercle or sclerotization between the antennal bases. However, there is a suggestion of the last mentioned character in the fold at the base of each antenna and the general body form is suggestive of Niveaspis. It may be referred to this genus for the present (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-306]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58].
Niveaspis tenuis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis tenuis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-307. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, on undetermined shrub, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: N. tenuis was collected at an altitude of 7000 feet (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Scale forms a purplish discoloration on leaves of host. Female scale thin and silvery. Male scale similar. Adult female about 1.75 mm long, extremely slender and delicate, the derm without the slightest trace of sclerotization except for the pygidium. Lateral margins of the prepygidial abdominal segments very weakly lobed. Pygidium elongate, median lobes acutely rounded at the apex (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: N. tenuis resembles N. ilicis in the smallness of the median processes between the antennae and in the absence of dorsal ducts from the pygidium, but differs from it especially in having ducts on the dorsum of the prepygidial abdominal segments and in the form of the 1st lobule of the 2nd pygidial lobe, as well as in the form of the median lobes (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-307]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57].
Niveaspis townsendiana (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes townsendiana; Fernald, 1903b: 37. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis townsendiana Cockerell, 1903b: 46. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, on "garabatillo," 13/07/1902, by T.D.A. Cockerell. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Coccomytilus townsendiana; MacGillivray, 1921: 293. Change of combination.
Lyraspis townsendiana; Ferris, 1938a: 151. Change of combination.
Niveaspis townsendiana; Ferris, 1941d: SIII-305. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Cocker1903b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Cockerell (1903b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.0 mm long, convex, narrow, often curved; white, with orange-brown exuviae. Adult female pale yellowish green after being boiled in KOH; two segments anterior to the terminal portion much produced at the sides, into rounded lobes directed backwards, these lobes having many round glands. Second stage female pink after boiling, lobes formed as in adult, but with 2nd lobe low and entire (Cockerell, 1903b).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 293 (female) [as Coccomytilus townsendiana; Species of Coccomytilus].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 37]; Cocker1903b [distribution, distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 151]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SIII-302]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 58]; Ferris1941d [distribution, taxonomy: SIII-305, SIII-308]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58]; Lepage1939 [taxonomy: 313]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 293].
Niveaspis vulcania FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Niveaspis vulcania Ferris, 1941d: SIII-308. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, near crater of Volcan de Chiriqui, on Vaccinium sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ericaceae: Vaccinium sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: Niveaspis vulcania was collected at an altitude of about 10,000 feet near the crater of the Volcan de Chiriqui (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale similar to others of this genus, but thicker and lacking the silvery sheen. Slide-mounted adult female about 2.3 mm long. No evidence of sclerotization in mature specimens. Lateral margins of the 1st to 3rd abdominal segments are produced into small lobes, which, because of the membranous nature of the derm are sometimes obscured in the preparation of specimens. Pygidial lobes all quite small, 1st lobule of the 2nd lobe resembling the median lobes in shape, the 1st lobule of the 3rd lobe enlarged and with minutely serrate margin (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Niveaspis vulcania is in general quite similar to N. townsendiana, but is apparently distinct. It is nearly twice as large, the cluster of small ducts flanking each side of the anal opening is much smaller, there are seven, instead of six, marginal macroducts from the 5th to 8th segments and the lobing of the prepygidial abdominal segments seems to be different. It is possible that extensive collection may show that the two are merely variants of a single species, but on the basis of present information separation seems justified (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Niveaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-308]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58].
Notandaspis Williams & BrookesNOMENCLATURE:
Notandaspis Williams & Brookes, 1995: 185. Type species: Mytilaspis (Coccomytilus) hymenantherae Green, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Notandaspis lacks megaducts and possesses dorsal pygidial macroducts all about the same size. It is related to Saotomaspis, an anomalous genus without gland spines in the adult female but with all the other characters of the subtribe Andaspidina (Williams & Brookes, 1995).
KEYS: Williams & Brookes 1995: 185 [Key to genera of the subtribe Andaspidina].
CITATIONS: WilliaBr1995 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 185].
Notandaspis hymenantherae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis (Coccomytilus) hymenantherae Green, 1905b: 5. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Hymenanthera banksii, by J. Lidgett. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams & Brookes, 1995: 186. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: The lectotype designated is one of six specimens on a single slide labeled "Mytilaspis hymenantherae Green, Type, from Hymenanthera dentata, Victoria, Australia, coll. J. Lidgett No. 63" and is clearly marked in red ink. The other five specimens are paralectotypes (Williams & Brookes, 1995).
Lepidosaphes hymenantherae; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus hymenantherae; MacGillivray, 1921: 293. Change of combination.
Andaspis hymenantherae; Borchsenius, 1966: 71. Change of combination.
Notandaspis hymenantherae; Williams & Brookes, 1995: 186. Change of combination.
HOST: Violaceae: Hymenanthera banksii [Green1905b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1905b]).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 293 [as Coccomytilus hymenantherae; Key to species of Coccomytilus].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 71]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 678-679]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Green1905b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 293]; Sander1906 [distribution, host: 17]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 21]; WilliaBr1995 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185, 186-187].
Notandaspis oodnadattae Williams & BrookesNOMENCLATURE:
Notandaspis oodnadattae Williams & Brookes, 1995: 186-189. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, 70 km west of Oodnadatta, on Acacia aneura, 01/10/1976, by F.D. Morgan. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in ANIC and BMNH.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia aneura [WilliaBr1995].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (South Australia [WilliaBr1995]).
BIOLOGY: At first sight, Notandaspis oodnadattae resembles an ovisac of many species of Eriococcus (Eriococcidae) (Williams & Brookes, 1995).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Brookes (1995).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale white, 4 mm long, exuviae apical, pale white, cork layer of plant in some instances growing in strands over scale cover (Williams & Brookes, 1995).
SYSTEMATICS: The shape of the median lobes distinguishes Notandaspis oodnadattae from N. hymenantherae which possesses almost triangular median lobes. The positions of the anal opening and vulva are reversed in both species, the anal opening of N. oodnadattae lying posterior to the position of the vulva and in N. hymenantherae the anal opening lying anterior to the position of the vulva (Williams & Brookes, 1995).
CITATIONS: WilliaBr1995 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186-189].
Nudachaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Nudachaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Type species: Chionaspis fodiens Green, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Nudachaspis was erected in Diaspidinae, Diaspidini. Lindinger (1937) placed the name as a synonym of Ancepaspis Ferris. However, Ferris (1937a) considered the genus valid (Morrison & Morrison, 1966).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 80]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 5, 18]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 191]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 312, 365, 366]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 136]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 68].
Nudachaspis fodiens (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis fodiens Green, 1899a: 155-157. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Loranthus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Nudachaspis fodiens; MacGillivray, 1921: 366. Change of combination.
Ancepaspis fodiens; Green, 1922: 461. Change of combination.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Green1899a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
BIOLOGY: Adult female does not construct any cover, but imbeds itself in the tissues of the bark and leaves, without forming any definite cell. The position of the insect is marked by a small wart-like swelling on the surface, with a central depression and perforation which is closed by the first exuviae (Green, 1899a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female bright orange, deepening to orange red in older examples; extremity of pygidium dark brown. The dorsal area bears an irregular dark colored crest. Pygidium long and narrow, sides slightly incurved, extremity roundly truncate (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: Green 1899a: 109 (female) [as Chionaspis fodiens; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 60]; Beards1984 [behaviour, distribution, host: 87, 99]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 18]; Green1899a [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109, 155-157]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 461]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 312, 365-366]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 68].
Opuntiaspis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis (Opuntiaspis) Cockerell, 1898j: 439. Type species: Mytilaspis philococcus Cockerell, by monotypy.
Mytilella Leonardi, 1903: 4, 20. Type species: Mytilaspis carinata Cockerell, by monotypy. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 25.
Opuntiaspis; Lindinger, 1908b: 97. Change of status.
Mytiella; Hoke, 1921: 341. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with "two-barred" ducts, which are arranged in definite segmental rows on all abdominal segments down to and including the 7th; the pygidial margin with the usual Diaspidine pattern of large ducts which are in part arranged in pairs. Median pygidial lobes widely separated, with a pair of gland spines between; 2nd lobes well developed, deeply bilobed; 3rd lobes but slightly indicated. Body elongate, more or less parallel-sided, the entire thoracic region and the abdominal segments to and including the 3rd, heavily sclerotic at maturity, the prosoma separated by a sharply defined break from the postsoma. Leg vestiges present. Anal opening near the anterior margin of the pygidium. Perivulvar pores present in 5 small groups or lacking. Gland spines present along the pygidium. Scale of the female elongate, usually showing a median ridge, the exuvia terminal, color gray or brown; of the male similar in form and texture (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: The two genera Opuntiaspis and Mytilella have in the past been separated because of the presence of perivulvar pores in the latter and their absence in the former. Such a division entirely conceals the fact of the very close relationship of the included species and is unsupportable (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 26 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Ferris 1942: 44 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 275 (female) [as Mytilella; Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 26, 94-95]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 38]; Cocker1898j [description, taxonomy: 438]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 319-320]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 18, 19, 22, 25, 68,]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, structure: SI-79]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 44, 58]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4, 6, 20-21]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190, 191]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 275, 276, 295]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 137]; Nakaha1973 [taxonomy: 486].
Opuntiaspis carinata (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis carinatus Cockerell, 1896h: 21. Type data: CENTRAL AMERICA: on undetermined plant, by Craw. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Mytilaspis nigra Cockerell, 1899n: 32. Type data: MEXICO: Veracruz, Coatzocoalcos, on "laurel tree," 24/04/1898, by Townsend. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Nakahara, 1973: 486.
Mytilella carinata; Leonardi, 1903: 21. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes carinata; Fernald, 1903b: 306. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes nigra; Fernald, 1903b: 312. Change of combination.
Opuntiaspis carinata; Ferris, 1937: 80. Change of combination.
Opuntiaspis nigra; Ferris, 1942: 4. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: keeled mytilaspis [Craw1896].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Mymaridae: Polynema aspidioti [Fulmek1943]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora aleyrodis [Giraul1913].
HOSTS: Amaryllidaceae: Agave sp. [Cocker1902t]. Araceae: Anthurium sp. [Hamon1978], Philodendron sp. [Hamon1978]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [BenDov1989]. Euphorbiaceae: Pedilanthus sp. [Hamon1978]. Liliaceae: Beaucarnea recurvata [Hamon1978], Dracaena sp. [Nakaha1982], Nolina sp. [Hamon1978], Yucca sp. [Cocker1902t]. Orchidaceae: Oncidium sp. [Hamon1978]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantifolia [Nakaha1982], Citrus sp. [Hamon1978]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Nakaha1982], Theobroma sp. [Hamon1978]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Craw1896], Veracruz [Cocker1899n]); United States of America (Florida [Wilson1917, Hamon1978] (Hamon (1978) states that Opuntiaspis carinata arrived in the U.S. on infested plants from Mexico, via Texas.)). Neotropical: Belize [Nakaha1982]; Guatemala [Hamon1978]; Peru [Nakaha1982].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 3.5 mm long, pitch-black, with a narrow white margin, very narrow, very convex in a transverse direction, with a dorsal keel. Exuviae elongate, half of first skin on second, first skin dull orange, second skin dull dark reddish brown. Adult female greatly elongated, yellow, turning green in caustic soda; circumgenital glands present (Cockerell, 1899n).
SYSTEMATICS: Opuntiaspis carinata differs from O. philococcus chiefly in the presence of perivulvar pores, which are in 5 small groups, containing 2-6 pores. Smaller (1.5 mm long) and body form more slender than in O. philococcus, there are slight differences in arrangement of the dorsal ducts, which, however, are scarcely greater than might be expected to be due to normal variation (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Economic importance of this species is unknown, but one old record is on "lime" so precautions should be taken to limit its spread (Hamon, 1978).
KEYS: Nakahara 1973: 486 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 95 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-445:58 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 281, 292 (female) [as Lepidosaphes nigra and Mytilella; Key to species].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 95]; BenDov1989 [host: 2]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Cocker1896g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45-46]; Cocker1896h [description, distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Cocker1899n [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Cocker1902t [description, distribution, host: 471-472]; Craw1896 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Denmar1980 [distribution, host: 32]; Essig1926 [biological control: 842]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306, 312]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 68]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-80]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-445:4, SIV-446:]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 56]; Giraul1913 [biological control: 196, 209]; Hamon1978 [chemical control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1]; Hamon1980 [distribution, host: 1]; Hunt1939 [distribution, host: 556]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-23, 108]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 191]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 80]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 281, 292]; MerrilCh1923 [taxonomy: 243-244]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1973 [taxonomy: 486]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 64]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35].
Opuntiaspis javanensis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Opuntiaspis javanensis Green, 1905: 28-29. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Agave mexicana, by A. Zimmerman. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 51. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes javanensis; Lobdell, 1937: 80. Change of combination.
Opuntiaspis iavanensis; Lindinger, 1957: 550. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Amaryllidaceae: Agave decipiens [Nakaha1973], Agave fourcroydes [Nakaha1973], Agave mexicana [Green1905], Agave sisalana [Nakaha1973], Agave sp. [Nakaha1973], Agave xylonacantha [Nakaha1973]. Bromeliaceae: Bromelia sp. [Nakaha1973]. Liliaceae: Beaucarnea sp. [Nakaha1973], Xanthorrhoea arborea [Hamon1980].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Green1905]). Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1973]; United States of America (Florida [Hamon1980] (Hamon (1980) states that Opuntiaspis javanensis was collected once in Florida.)).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1905).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow; sides subparallel; carinae not very prominent; margin and posterior extremity flattened; reddish-brown to deep purplish brown; margin and posterior extremity whitish. Exuviae reddish. Male scale similar. Adult female elongate, narrow, a transverse furrow and deep lateral cleft approximately bisecting the insect, between meso- and meta-thorax. Derm chitinous (Green, 1905).
SYSTEMATICS: Although Ferris (1937) considered Opuntiaspis javanensis Green to be a junior synonym of O. philococcus (Cockerell), Nakahara (1973) determined the two species were in fact distinct.
KEYS: Nakahara 1973: 486 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 295 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host: 96]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-79, SI-81]; Green1905 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; Hamon1980 [distribution, host: 1]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 370]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 80]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 486].
Opuntiaspis philococcus (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis philococcus Cockerell, 1893q: 252. Type data: MEXICO: Guanajuato, on Cactus, by T.D.A. Cockerell. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA.
Mytilaspis (Opuntiaspis) philococcus; Cockerell, 1898j: 438. Change of combination.
Opuntiaspis philococcus; Leonardi, 1903: 7. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes philococcus; Fernald, 1903b: 313. Change of combination.
Opuntiaspis javanensis; Ferris, 1937. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Nakahara, 1973: 486. Notes: Although Ferris (1937) considered Opuntiaspis javanensis Green to be a junior synonym of O. philococcus (Cockerell), Nakahara (1973) determined the two species were in fact distinct.
Chionaspis cacti; Lindinger, 1957: 547. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 96. Notes: Lindinger (1957) suggested that Chionaspis cacti Kuwana could be a junior synonym of Optuniaspis philococcus, but Borchsenius (1966) rejected this idea.
HOSTS: Amaryllidaceae: Agave sp. [Cocker1902t]. Cactaceae [KuwanaMu1931a], Cactus sp. [Cocker1893q], Cephalocereus chrysacanthus [Fleury1938], Cereus geometrizans [Fleury1938], Cereus marginatus [Fleury1938], Lamaireocereus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Myrtillocactus monstruosus [Fleury1938], Myrtillocactus sp. [Fleury1938], Opuntia sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Cycadaceae: Zamia sp. [Balach1954e]. Liliaceae: Yucca sp. [Cocker1902t]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guanajuato [Cocker1893q], Jalisco [Cocker1902t]). Palaearctic: France [DanzigPe1998]; Germany [KuwanaMu1931a]; Japan [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale grey, flat, with a slight central ridge, about 3.0 mm long. Male scale similar but more slender (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Opuntiaspis philococcus is distinguishable from O. carinata, chiefly by the absence of perivulvar pores. In addition, the adult female seems to be noticeably larger (2.5 mm) and broader (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Nakahara 1973: 486 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 95 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 295 (female) [Key to species of Opuntiaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-98]; BenDovShMi1985 [distribution, host: 2128]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-39]; Brown1965 [physiology: 223]; Cocker1893q [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 252-253]; Cocker1894e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 462]; Cocker1898j [distribution, host, taxonomy: 438]; Cocker1899n [distribution: 32]; Cocker1902t [distribution, host: 472]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 73]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-81]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 58]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 23]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GonzalAt1984 [distribution, host: 214, 221]; Hamon1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 7-8]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 125]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 547]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 80]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; MacGre1974 [distribution: 82]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Nakaha1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 486]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; Reh1904b [taxonomy: 177]; Townse1896 [distribution, host: 14].
Osiraspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Osiraspis Hall, 1923: 24. Type species: Osiraspis balteata Hall, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hall (1923).
STRUCTURE: Female scale with the nymphal exuviae enlarged, heavily chitinized, without secretionary covering and completely enclosing the adult female. Pygidium of adult female densely chitinized without lobes or circumgenital pores. Abdominal segments with sharply defined, transverse, densely chitinized bands giving the body a characteristic belted appearance (Hall, 1923).
SYSTEMATICS: Osiraspis differs from Fiorinia in the non-carinate character of the male scale and in the complete absence of any secretionary covering on the female scale. The remarkable belted structure of the abdomen of the adult female is a distinctive character of the genus (Hall, 1923).
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 728, 751-752]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 298, 306]; Balach1971a [taxonomy: 223]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 154]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 320]; Ezzat1958 [distribution: 247]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 26, 74]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 24-25]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 140].
Osiraspis balteata HallNOMENCLATURE:
Osiraspis balteata Hall, 1923: 25-26. Type data: EGYPT: Luxor, on Tamarix sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [Hall1923]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1923].
BIOLOGY: Female scales are not easy to find, being small and hidden in the smallest crevice or at the base of a broad shallow pit covered by male scales (Hall, 1923).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Hall (1923) and Ezzat & Afifi (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female completely enclosed in the nymphal or 2nd exuviae, which is devoid of secretionary covering and shining reddish brown, irregularly ovate in shape, 0.25-0.75 mm long, 0.3-0.5 mm wide. Male scale white, usually broadening slightly posteriorly, exuviae terminal and yellow, secretionary appendix without carinae. Adult female ovate, pygidium rugose, strongly chitinized, broadly rounded and truncated. Lobes and plates wanting. A pair of minute setae on the truncate portion and a pair just lateral of the truncate region (Hall, 1923).
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 752-754]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 306-307]; Balach1971a [distribution, taxonomy: 223]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 7, 8]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248, 270]; Bodenh1935b [distribution: 308]; Bodenh1937 [distribution: 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154-155]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 247]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 404-406]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22, 74]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 352]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25-26]; Hall1926a [distribution: 38]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 161].
Palauaspis BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Palauaspis Beardsley, 1966: 548. Type species: Palauaspis multiductus Beardsley, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Diaspidinae with numerous small double barred ducts; at least a few marginal gland spines on posterior part of pygidium; without fringe plates. Antennal tubercles bearing 2 or more setae; anterior spiracles each with an adjacent group of several disc pores. Body form elongate, fusiform. Thorax and prepygidial abdominal segments without elongate gland spines; gland tubercles wanting or at most represented by a few poorly defined tubercles on lateral margins of abdominal segment 3 in the type species. Pygidium with median lobes small, well separated, and not yoked basally by an internal sclerosis; second pair of lobes reduced to small bilobate sclerotized protuberances. Dorsum of pygidium with numerous small macroducts with sclerotized oral rims; similar ducts present on both dorsum and venter of prepygidial abdominal segments, thorax, and head, particularly in lateral areas. Venter of pygidium and prepygidial abdominal segments with numerous very small tubular ducts (Beardsley, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Palauaspis is allied to the Lepidosaphes group of genera, particularly Coccomytilus Leonardi (Beardsley, 1966).
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 548].
Palauaspis multiductus BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Palauaspis multiductus Beardsley, 1966: 548-550. Type data: PALAU: Ngerkabesang, on Barringtonia sp., ?/02/1954, by J. Beardsley. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM and the University of Hawaii collection.
HOST: Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia sp. [Beards1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Palau [Beards1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Beardsley (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 0.9-1.3 mm long. Body fusiform, broadest across 1st abdominal segment. Pygidium with a pair of small, roughly triangular, median lobes (Beardsley, 1966).
CITATIONS: Beards1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 548-550].
Pallulaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pallulaspis Ferris, 1937: SI-82. Type species: Pallulaspis ephedrae Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with "two-barred" ducts. Body elongate, fusiform. Derm membranous, except for pygidium. Median lobes distinctly non-zygotic, with a pair of gland spines between; 2nd lobes well developed, bilobed; third lobes slightly developed. Marginal, pygidial ducts present, large, but single. Dorsal ducts scattered, present to the 7th and perhaps even the 8th segment, but no duct between the median lobes. Prepygidial abdominal segments not lobed laterally and without lateral spurs or lobules. Perivulvar pores lacking. Anus near the anterior margin of the pygidium. Gland spines of the pygidium all very small, apparently lacking on the prepygidial segments. Scale of female elongate, the 2nd exuviae relatively large, but shed in the normal manner by the rupturing and pushing back of the ventral derm, not at all enclosing the adult female. Scale of male similar to that of female in form and in texture (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: In certain respects the type of this genus is similar to the species of Velataspis, but the unpaired marginal ducts of the pygidium, combined with the absence of perivulvar pores and the character of the scale, indicate the desirability of generic separation (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 25 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Ferris 1942: 45 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 25, 114]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 75]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 291]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 321]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-82]; Ferris1937a [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 5, 20]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:45, 58]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 211]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 223]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 142]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Takagi1962 [taxonomy: 48]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 107].
Pallulaspis ephedrae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pallulaspis ephedrae Ferris, 1937: SI-83. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Inyo County, Darwin Mesa, on Ephedra nevadensis, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: ephedra scale [McKenz1956].
HOST: Gnetaceae: Ephedra nevadensis [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.5 mm long, thin, white, almost transparent, with the 2nd exuviae, which occupies about half its length, showing as a brown patch, the exuviae terminal. Scale of male white, elongate, exuviae terminal (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Pallulaspis ephedrae is distinguishable from any similar North American species by the absence of perivulvar pores, combined with the well-separated, broad median pygidial lobes, the well-developed 2nd lobes, the unpaired marginal ducts of the pygidium, the few and scattered dorsal ducts and the absence of gland spines on the prepygidial abdominal segments (Ferris, 1937).
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [distribution, host: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-83]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 20]; Ferris1942 [distribution, taxonomy: SIV-446:58]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 211-212]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 135]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 64]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 25].
Pallulaspis lantanae (Green & Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes (Coccomytilus) lantanae Green & Laing, 1923: 131. Type data: ARGENTINA: Posadas, on Lantana sp., by T.D.A. Cockerell.; type no. 2521.
Pallulaspis lantanae; Borchsenius, 1966: 75. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Thysanus merceti [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Haywar1944]. Asteraceae: Baccharis sp. [Lizery1939]. Chenopodiaceae: Suaeda divaricata [Haywar1944]. Euphorbiaceae: Ricinus comunis [Haywar1944]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus mutabilis [Lizery1939]. Verbenaceae: Lantana sp. [GreenLa1923]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [GreenLa1923] (Cordoba [ClapsWoGo2001], Corrientes [ClapsWoGo2001], Misiones [Lizery1939], Tucuman [Haywar1943]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Green & Laing (1923).
STRUCTURE: Female cover dirty white to pale yellowish brown, exuviae bright reddish brown, typically mussel-shaped or contracted and broadened posteriorly. Cover of male white, more or less parallel-sided, exuviae fulvous (Green & Laing, 1923).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; GreenLa1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131]; Haywar1943 [distribution, host: 71]; Haywar1944 [distribution, host: 7]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 179]; Lizery1939 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 201].
Pallulaspis quercus TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Pallulaspis quercus Takahashi, 1957b: 107. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Osaka Prefecture, on Quercus glauca, 03/05/0957, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus glauca [Takaha1957b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takaha1957b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1957b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale moderately broadened posteriorly, convex on the median area, dark purplish brown, gray on the margin, 2.5 mm long. Adult female body almost parallel on the sides, scarcely convex laterally on the prepygidial segments, about 2.5 times as long as wide, not sclerotized (Takahashi, 1957b).
SYSTEMATICS: Pallulaspis quercus is unique in the presence of a lateral tubercle and a gland spine on the prepygidial segments (Takahashi, 1957b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 321]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 36]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 257]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 86]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 100]; Takaha1957b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107].
Pallulaspis retamae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus retamae Hall, 1926a: 24-25. Type data: EGYPT: Wadi Ibtadi, 2 days camel ride from Helwan, on Retama raetam, 03/05/1925. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Cairo: Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilaspis retamae; Lindinger, 1936: 155. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus retamae; Lindinger, 1936: 155. Change of combination.
Pallulaspis retamae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 114. Change of combination.
Nilotaspis retamae; Ezzat, 1958: 244. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Artemisia sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Fabaceae: Retama radam [GhabboMo1996], Retama raetam [Hall1926a, BenDov2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1926a, EzzatAf1966]; Israel [Hall1927b, BenDov2012]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ezzat & Afifi (1966).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate oval, broadest in the middle or slightly behind, about 0.8 mm long and 0.4 mm wide, prepygidial segments indicated by intersegmental constrictions (Ezzat & Afifi, 1966).
KEYS: Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 398 [as Nilotaspis retamae; Key to species of Nilotaspis of Egypt]; Ezzat 1958: 244 (female) [as Nilotaspis retamae; Key to species of Nilotaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114-116]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 41]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 43]; Bodenh1927a [distribution, host: 177]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 378]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248]; Bodenh1935b [taxonomy: 308]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1155]; Bodenh1937 [distribution: 7, 26]; BodenhTh1929 [distribution, host: 4, 7, 109, 116]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 321]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; EzzatAf1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 398, 400-402]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 353]; Hall1926a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-25]; Hall1927b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147-148, 176]; Hall1927d [distribution, host: 278-279]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 524]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 155]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147].
Pallulaspis rhamnicola Tang in Tang & LiNOMENCLATURE:
Pallulaspis rhamnicola Tang in Tang & Li, 1988: 146-149. Type data: CHINA: Nei Monggol, Baotou, on Rhamnus leptophylla, 23/05/1986. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus erythroxylno [Tao1999], Rhamnus leptophylla [TangLi1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [TangLi1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang & Li (1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Pallulaspis rhamnicola is near P. ephedrae and P. retamae, but is characterized by double gland spines on the margin of pygidium between the 2nd and 3rd and also 3rd and 4th lobes (Tang & Li, 1988).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; TangLi1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 146, 148-149, 221-22]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 102].
Pandanaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Pandanaspis Mamet, 1967a: 92. Type species: Mytilaspis greeni Grandpré & Charmoy, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Scale of female elongate; exuviae terminal. Scale of male smaller. Adult female elongate, somewhat sclerotized throughout, with a conspicuous articulation between the pro- and mesothorax, between the meso- and metathorax and between the 1st and 2nd abdominal segments; 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments well-differentiated and strongly produced laterally; with pygidium composed of the remaining abdominal segments; lateral margins of mesothorax and 1st abdominal segment with a truncate projection (Mamet, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pandanaspis is characterized by the peculiar segmentation of the female body. It seems to be somewhat allied to Opuntiaspis Cockerell from which it can be at once distinguished by its characteristic segmentation, absence of vestigial legs, arrangement of the dorsal ducts and the number of macroducts on the pygidial margin (Mamet, 1967a).
CITATIONS: Mamet1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92].
Pandanaspis greeni (Grandpré & Charmoy)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis greeni Grandpré & Charmoy, 1899: 33. Type data: MAURITIUS: on Pandanus utilis. Holotype. Illust. Notes: Type-material lost (Mamet, 1941).
Lepidosaphes greeni; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Coccomytilus greeni; Mamet, 1941: 33. Change of combination.
Pandanaspis greeni; Mamet, 1967a: 92. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pandanaceae: Pandanus microcarpus [Mamet1941], Pandanus utilis [GrandpCh1899].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, WilliaWi1988]; Reunion? [Mamet1957] (According to Williams & Williams (1988) the record of Pandanaspis greeni on Reunion is a misidentification of Parapandanaspis reunioniensis.).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female elongate, broadest across posterior extremity, flattish, yellowish to brownish, exuviae terminal, yellowish to brownish. Scale of male elongate, smaller than female, flat, translucent, dirty-white in color, larval exuviae yellowish, terminal. Adult female elongate, somewhat sclerotized dorsally and ventrally, with a conspicuous articulation between pro- and mesothorax, between meso- and metathorax and between first and second abdominal segments (Mamet, 1967a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Cocker1899r [distribution: 900]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 310]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 34]; Green1907 [distribution: 204]; Leonar1903 [distribution: 108]; Mamet1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32, 33]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 158]; Mamet1948 [taxonomy: 54]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33-34]; Mamet1952 [distribution, host: 171]; Mamet1953a [taxonomy: 152]; Mamet1957 [distribution: 369]; Mamet1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92-95]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 70].
Parachionaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Parachionaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 309. Type species: Chionaspis galliformens Green, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Insects always live in abnormal growths or galls on host plant. Scale of adult female lines cavity of gall, exuviae placed in orifice of gall; pygidium of adult female with triangular, median, lobe-like projection (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974: 19 (female) [Key to genera allied to Ischnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 177]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 5, 21]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 223]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 309]; Mamet1939b [taxonomy: 583]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 143]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 68].
Parachionaspis galliformens (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis galliformens Green, 1899a: 158-159. Type data: SRI LANKA: Kalutara, on Hedyotis lessertiana, ?/02 & 03/189?. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parachionaspis galliformens; MacGillivray, 1921: 354. Described: female. Change of combination.
Parachionaspis gallamformans; Lindinger, 1943: 223. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Hedyotis lessertiana [Green1899a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
BIOLOGY: P. galliformens forms galls on young stems, petioles and midribs of leaves (MacGillivray, 1921).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with median pair of lobes prominent, conical processes, projecting, mesal margins entire, lateral serrate; 2nd pair of lobes incised, lobelets serrate, subequal, each subequal to a median lobe, mesal margin of mesal lobelets entire, lateral margin and both margins of lateral lobelets serrate (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: Green 1899a: 109 (female) [as Chionaspis galliformens; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 60]; Beards1984 [behaviour, distribution, host: 87, 99]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 21]; Green1899a [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109, 158-159]; Green1937 [behaviour, distribution, host: 320]; Lindin1943b [behaviour, taxonomy: 223]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309, 354]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 69].
Paradiaspis LahilleNOMENCLATURE:
Paradiaspis Lahille, 1919: 595-596. Type species: Paradiaspis lizeriana Lahille, by monotypy.
STRUCTURE: Female scale almost circular. Exuviae almost central and concentric. Perivulvar disc pores in five groups (and never in four like in Diaspidistis). Pygidium lacks the marginal continuous series of lobes, that characterizes Diaspidistis. Male scale extended, parallel-sided, constituting a complete envelope, lacking carina. It shows rough, concentric striae of growth. Larval exuvia at apex and more or less centered (Lahille, 1919).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 176]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 158]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 116]; Lahill1919 [description, taxonomy: 595]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 144].
Paradiaspis lizeriana LahilleNOMENCLATURE:
Paradiaspis Lizerianus Lahille, 1919: 596-599. Type data: ARGENTINA: Chubut, on Chuquiraga avellanedae, 16/10/1919. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: No mention is made about a depository for type material, but Lahille does state that the material was sent to the "Laboratoria de Zoología del Ministerio de Agricultura," where presumably he worked.
Paradiaspis lizeriana; Ferris, 1937: 116. Justified emendation.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus perfuscipennis [DeSant1954, HertinSi1972], Aphytis chrysomphali [DeSant1941a]. Encyrtidae: Coccidencyrtoides blanchardi [DeSant1954, HertinSi1972]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora desantisi [DeSant1941a].
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Chuquiraga avellanedae [Lahill1919]. Lauraceae: Ocotea acutifolia [ClapsWoGo2001]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [ClapsWoGo2001]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Buenos Aires [ClapsWoGo2001], Chubut [Lahill1919]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lahille (1919). Illustration by Ferris (1937d).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 176]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; DeSant1941a [biological control, distribution: 122]; DeSant1954 [biological control, distribution: 191-197]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 116]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 186]; Lahill1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 596-599]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; Lizery1939 [distribution, host: 164, 165, 168, 199].
Paraepidiaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Paraepidiaspis Balachowsky, 1954e: 230-232. Type species: Epidiaspis staticicola Gómez-Menor Ortega, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraepidiaspis is similar to Epidiaspis, but can be distinguished by the adult female body regularly circular. Pygidium with lobes 1-3 well developed, conical but never bilobate; lobe 4 generally present. Lobe 1 not amalgamated at its base by an internal sclerosis (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 167 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 167, 230-232]; Balach1956a [taxonomy: 564]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 157]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 321]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 144].
Paraepidiaspis silvestrii BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Paraepidiaspis Silvestrii Balachowsky, 1956a: 564-567. Type data: LIBYA: Benghazi, on unknown host, similar to Statice sp., 25/05/1922, by F. Silvestri. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Paraepidiaspis silvestrii; Borchsenius, 1966: 157. Justified emendation.
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Libya [Balach1956a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1956a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, slightly convex, satiny white, larval exuviae central, yellow and 1.2-1.6 mm wide. Male scale slightly carinated, 0.8 mm long. Adult female nearly circular, derm membranous except for a cephalodorsal area which is slightly thickened (Balachowsky, 1956a).
CITATIONS: Balach1956a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 564-567]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 321-322]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85].
Paraepidiaspis staticicola (Gómez-Menor Ortega)NOMENCLATURE:
Epidiaspis staticicola Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1928: 343-346. Type data: SPAIN: Almería, Roquetas del Mar, on Statice sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Spain. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis staticicola; Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1937: 198-201. Change of combination.
Paraepidiaspis staticicola; Balachowsky, 1954e: 232. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Plumbaginaceae: Limonium asperrimum [Rungs1948], Limonium chrysopotamicum [Rungs1948], Limonium pectinatum [CarnerPe1986], Limonium tuberculatum [CarnerPe1986], Statice manriquorum [GomezM1967G], Statice pectinata [GomezM1967G], Statice sp. [GomezM1928]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Canary Islands [GomezM1967G, CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; Morocco [Balach1954e]; Spain [GomezM1928].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1928) and Balachowsky (1954e).
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 186 [as Diaspis staticicola; Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1935b [distribution, host: 262]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 232-235]; Balach1956a [taxonomy: 567]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; GomezM1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 343-346]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 198-201]; GomezM1946 [distribution, host: 73]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 7, 11]; GomezM1967G [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119-120]; GomezM1967O [distribution, host: 132]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 156]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 56]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 317]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 112].
Parafiorinia MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Parafiorinia MacGillivray, 1921: 372. Type species: Fiorina rubra Maskell, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium of adult female with single median pair of lobes (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 372 (female) [Genera of Fioriniini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 148]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7, 22]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 372]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 144].
Parafiorinia rubra (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia rubra Maskell, 1894b: 71-72. Type data: AUSTRALIA: on Acacia sp., by Mr. Olliff. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia rubra propinqua Maskell, 1897: 307. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Goudie, on Acacia sp., by Mr. French. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 41.
Parafiorinia rubra; MacGillivray, 1921: 378. Change of combination.
Anamefiorinia rubra; Lindinger, 1935: 133. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Maskel1894b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Maskel1894b] (Victoria [Maskel1897], Western Australia [Fuller1897b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover brownish white, but so hidden by the second exuviae that only a small portion of the secretion shows and it has a general dark orange or reddish tint. Exuviae elongated, rest broadly rounded. Male cover elongated, narrow, flattish, not carinated, longer than female. Adult female dark orange, elongated, abdomen ending in 2 broad lobes close together, nearly straight, with many serrations and spines on the margin (Froggatt, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 378 [Key to species of Parafiorinia].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 41-42]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248, 249]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7, 22]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 985]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1346]; Fuller1899 [distribution, host: 472]; Leonar1906c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 372, 378]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71-72]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307].
Parandaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Parandaspis Mamet, 1967a: 89. Type species: Lepidosaphes vinsoni Mamet, by monotypy and original designation. Notes: Parandaspis Mamet is the senior homonym of Parandaspis Balachowsky 1968a (=Saotomaspis).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, exuviae terminal. Male scale smaller. Median lobes prominent with sides parallel and apical margin notched, with a well-developed clavate paraphysis extending from base of each lobe into the pygidium. 2nd lobes obscurely bilobed; inner lobule well-developed, with a paraphysis extending from base of each into the pygidium; outer lobule reduced. 3rd lobes represented by a conspicuous incrassation of pygidial margin. Marginal pygidial macroducts in 5-7 pairs. Dorsal ducts present in the submarginal areas of meso- and metathorax and 1st to 7th abdominal segment and in the submedian areas of 2nd to 6th segment. Gland spines present on abdominal segments; a pair between median lobes (Mamet, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parandaspis is very close to Andaspis MacGillivray from which it can be distinguished by the occurrence of ventral submarginal gland tubercles on the cephalic segments and on the pro- and mesothorax. It differs from Caia Williams in the position of the anal opening which is situated at the base of the pygidium rather than towards the apex (Mamet, 1967a).
KEYS: Williams & Brookes 1995: 185 (female) [Key to genera of the subtribe Andaspidina].
CITATIONS: Balach1968a [taxonomy: 55]; Mamet1967a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 89]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185].
Parandaspis vinsoni (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes vinsoni Mamet, 1940: 71-72. Type data: MAURITIUS: Cocotte Mt., on a stem of Pilea balfouri, 27/11/1938. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Parandaspis vinsoni; Mamet, 1967a: 89-92. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Urticaceae: Pilea balfouri [Mamet1940], Pilea urticifolia [Mamet1949, Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1940, WilliaWi1988].
BIOLOGY: Lepidosaphes vinsoni was collected at an elevation of 2350 feet (Mamet, 1940).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Mamet (1940 and 1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, light reddish-brown, somewhat convex, rather wide posteriorly, about 2.7 mm long; exuviae terminal: larval exuviae bright golden yellow, shiny; exuviae of second stage reddish-brown, obscured by a layer of whitish secretion. Male scale elongate, smaller than that of female, not carinated, very pale brown to whitish; 0.8-1.0 mm long. Adult female oval, 0.7 mm long, weakly sclerotized except for pygidium which is somewhat sclerotized; lateral margins of mesothorax, metathorax and first 4 abdominal segments strongly lobed and wrinkled. Anterior spiracles with a compact group of 30-31 pores. Pygidium with median lobes prominent, each with apical margin notched thrice and lateral sides parallel, each furnished with a stout but short clavate paraphysis arising from the base of the lobe and extending into the pygidium (Mamet, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Characterized by the presence of clavate paraphyses associated with the pygidial lobes (Mamet, 1949).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Mamet1940 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71-72]; Mamet1942 [taxonomy: 37]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 57]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Mamet1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 89-92]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 70].
Parapandanaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Parapandanaspis Mamet, 1967a: 95. Type species: Parapandanaspis reunioniensis Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parapandanaspis is very close to Pandanaspis Mamet, from which it can be readily distinguished by the different segmentation of the body of the adult female and the occurrence of ventral gland tubercles on the metathorax and 1st and 2nd abdominal segments (Mamet, 1967a).
CITATIONS: Mamet1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95].
Parapandanaspis reunioniensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Pandanaspis greeni; Mamet, 1952: 171. Misidentification; discovered by Williams & Williams, 1988: 70.
Parapandanaspis reunioniensis Mamet, 1967a: 95-97. Type data: REUNION: St. Joseph, on Pandanus sp., 31/07/1951, by J.R. Williams. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp. [Mamet1967a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Reunion [Mamet1967a, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, light reddish-brown to brown, flatly-convex, widest posteriorly. Exuviae terminal, yellowish. Adult female elongate, somewhat sclerotized dorsally and ventrally, with a conspicuous articulation between pro- and mesothorax, between meso- and metathorax, between metathorax and 1st abdominal segment. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes; all lobes with conspicuous inner prolongation of their lateral margins (Mamet, 1967a).
CITATIONS: GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Mamet1952 [distribution, host: 171]; Mamet1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-97]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 70].
Pelliculaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pelliculaspis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-309. Type species: Pelliculaspis pellita Ferris, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Pelliculaspis has two-barred ducts, with gland spines and with the second pygidial lobes bilobulate. Pupillarial, the adult female being completely enclosed within the exuviae of the 2nd stage, this exuviae being very heavily sclerotized and deeply pigmented throughout, both dorsally and ventrally and dehisching about the lateral margins of its pygidium to permit the escape of the larvae. Adult female entirely membranous except for a slight sclerotization of the dorsum of the pygidium and papillations of the ventral side of the abdomen. Pygidium with the lobes forming three pairs of sclerotized teeth, the median and second lobes being bilobulate (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1941d) described Pelliculaspis saying that the type species did not fit in any named genus. However, it does resemble Fissuraspis ulmi and Nicholiella bumeliae.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 185]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-309]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:41]; McDani1972a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 334]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 151].
Pelliculaspis celtis McDanielNOMENCLATURE:
Pelliculaspis celtis McDaniel, 1972a: 334-336. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Kleberg County, Loyola Beach, along the shore of Baffin Bay, on Celtis spinosa var. pallida, 02/05/1964, by B. McDaniel. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ulmaceae: Celtis spinosa pallida [McDani1972a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [McDani1972a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McDaniel (1972a).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult about 0.88 mm long. Derm membranous; body elongate, 2 or 3 prepygidial segments narrower than the anterior portion of the body. Pygidium rounded, terminating into lobes, the median and second pairs of lobes. These lobes quite variable in their notching (McDaniel, 1972a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pelliculaspis celtis can be separated from other species of Pelliculaspis by the 2nd lobe not bilobulate and the continuous mammillate area that extends from just anterior of the arch of disc pores to the mouthparts. From P. durapyga, it can be further separated by the number of setae associated with the antennae there being 3 in P. durapyga, 6 in P. celtis and 4 in P. pellita (McDaniel, 1972a).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; McDani1972a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 334-336]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 69]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351].
Pelliculaspis durapyga FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pelliculaspis durapyga Ferris, 1941d: SIII-310. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Armuelles, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Anamefiorinia durapyga; Lindinger, 1957: 551. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scales small and black, more or less concealed in bark irregularities. Scale composed of the heavily sclerotized 2nd exuviae which is overlain by the 1st exuviae and a thin film of secretion. Male scale slightly elongate, white, exuviae black. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.4 mm long, elongate oval with the posterior end of the abdomen narrower. Derm at full maturity tending to be slightly sclerotized throughout, with the apical portion of the abdomen very heavily sclerotized, this sclerotization involving not only the pygidium, but at least one prepygidial segment (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Pelliculaspis durapyga is distinct in the pygidial structures of the 2nd stage and by the peculiar arrangement of the perivulvar pores in the adult female (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Pelliculaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 185]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-310]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:59]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; McDani1972a [taxonomy: 334].
Pelliculaspis pellita FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pelliculaspis pellita Ferris, 1941d: SIII-311. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Boquete, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Anamefiorinia pellita; Lindinger, 1957: 551. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Male scale elongate, white, with black exuviae at anterior end. Adult female on slide about 0.75 mm long, somewhat elongate oval, pygidium membranous except for a heavily sclerotized ring around the anus and a more weakly sclerotized, marmorate area occupying the anterior portion of the pygidium. Pygidium acute, terminating in 2 bilobulate, tooth-like, heavily sclerotized lobes (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Pelliculaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 185]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-311]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:59]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; McDani1972a [taxonomy: 334].
Pellucidaspis HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Pellucidaspis Henderson, 2011: 120-125. Type species: Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell. Subsequently designated by Henderson, 2011: 120.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Body fusiform, pygidium a narrow oval, with median lobes forming a point, body membranous except for sclerotised pygidium, lateral abdominal lobes moderately developed. Median lobes (L1) yoked, prominent, with basal paraphyses not extending onto venter; with 1 pair of small setae between median lobes, but these may be difficult to see; L2 usually not apparent, or as very small points, L3 not apparent or a serration on the margin. Pygidium gland spines long, pointed, 1 pair on each segment of pygidium then about 4 pairs on prepygidial segments. 6-7 pairs of small marginal macroducts. Submedian dorsal ducts tending larger than marginal ducts, few; submarginal dorsal ducts extending to metathorax and present on ventral submargins. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Pellucidaspis comes nearest to Pinnaspis which has closely spaced or contiguous yoked lobes, but Pinnaspis differs in having definite 2nd lobes that are as long as the median lobes, (Pinnaspis aspidistrae (Signoret) is the only member recorded in New Zealand). Serenaspis minima (Maskell) also has contiguous median lobes but differs in always having a group of 3 ducts each side of pygidium VI by the margin. The median lobes on Pellucidaspis epiphytidis diverge distally and the 2nd lobes are extremely small in comparison. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, structure, taxonomy: 8,10-11,45,120,125].
Pellucidaspis epiphytidis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell, 1885a: 21-22. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Astelia cunninghamii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes epiphytidis; Fernald, 1903b: 308. Change of combination.
Berlesaspis epiphytidis; MacGillivray, 1921: 289. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes asteliae Green, 1929: 377-378. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: North Island, York Bay, Wellington, on Astelia solandri, by J.G. Myers.. Type depository: Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Henderson, 2011: 125-126.
Symeria epiphytidis; Green, 1929: 379. Misidentification.
Chionaspis asteliae; Lindinger, 1933: 32. Change of combination.
Andaspis asteliae; Borchsenius, 1966: 70. Change of combination.
Pellucidaspis epiphytidis; Henderson, 2011: 123-126. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Astelia banksii [Hender2011], Astelia cunninghamii [Maskel1885a], Astelia solandri [Green1929], Astelia sp. [Green1929, Hender2011], Collospermum hastatum [Hender2011], Collospermum microspermum [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Maskel1885a, Hender2011] (North Island [Green1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1885a). Redescription and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Body colour of female is yellow with dark pygidium, the median lobes forming a point; eggs yellow. Scale cover of varying translucence; (a) when on Astelia species: botanically, leaves of Astelia species have a pellicle of fused scales that can lift off in long sheets P. epiphytidis utilises this semi-attached plant pellicle as an additional cover for the 1st and 2nd stadia, and as a substitute cover for the adult female. 1st- and 2nd-exuvia are present, but are often separated from the anterior end of the female’s body, which is clearly visible under the translucent plant pellicle, as are the eggs when they are produced; (b) when on Collospermum species: the adult female cover appears more opaque because the plant pellicle is more dense and there may be some wax added to it, however, this cover is effectivly a pocket in the plant epidermis and not easily lifted off the body of the underlying scale insect and an apparently more waxy scale cover is produced in a colder climate.Female scale flat, pyriform, brown, thin. Male scale narrower than that of female and a good deal darker, sometimes almost black, not carinated. Adult female abdomen ending in 2 median lobes, along the edge several deepish curvilinear incisions between which are some strong spines (Maskell, 1885a).
SYSTEMATICS: Synonymy is based on examination of the Maskell original slide (a good, uncleared female specimen) by Henderson, 2011, and a subsequent slide containing 2 females mounted in 1968 by J. A. de Boer from Maskell dry collection #10 of M. epiphytidis (good, well stained). There is no further Maskell dry material remaining. The statement by Green (1929) that Lepidosaphes asteliae was similar to Mytilaspis epiphytidis but that the latter had median lobes separated by an appreciable gap whereas in L. asteliae they were firmly fused together, pertains to the misidentifications of these species at that time. L. asteliae with yoked median lobes (firmly fused at the base only) is a junior synonym of P. epiphytidis while the other taxon with median lobes separated by an appreciable gap is in fact Symeria pyriformis. Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell. LECTOTYPE female, NEW ZEALAND, labelled "Mytilaspis epiphytidis, Female and puparium, from Astelia, Aug 1884, W.M.M." Maskell (1885) gave the host plant as Astelia cunninghamiii [=Astelia solandri] (NZAC) Lepidosaphes asteliae Green. LECTOTYPE female, NEW ZEALAND, WN, slide labelled "from Astelia solandri, York Bay, Wellington, New Zealand. Coll. J. G. Myers". "TYPE": [1]: 1 F (BMNH), and is the female on the end of the outer row nearest TYPE label, and indicated by a map on the slide cover. Paralectotypes: the remaining 3 females on the lectotype slide: 3F (BMNH).Green (1929) established the genus Symeria for the species identified by him as Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell 1885a. Morrison & Morrison (1966) determined that the original Maskell lot contained more than one species and that Green's description was not of epiphytidis. They proposed the new name Symeria zealandica. However, Morrison & Morrison did not describe zealandica sufficiently to qualify as a valid name under the rules of Zoological Nomenclature so it is treated as a nomen nudum. Rosa Henderson in a revision of the armored scales of New Zealand has determined that Symeria epiphytidis as described by Green in 1929 is synonymous with Symeria Pyriformis (Maskell).
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1927a: 292 (female) [as Berlesaspis epiphytidis; Species of Berlesaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 289 (female) [as Berlesaspis spiphytidis; Key to species of Berlesaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68.70]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 36]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23,87]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 335]; GomezM1927a [taxonomy: 292]; Green1929 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 279,377-380]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11,36,62,121-125,1]; Lindin1933 [taxonomy: 32]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 289]; Maskel1885a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22]; Maskel1887 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 190]; Myers1922 [distribution: 201]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 107-108].
Pentacicola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pentacicola Takagi, 1993: 11-12. Type species: Pentacicola spinosus Takagi, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female subrhombic to subpyriform, with pygidium produced; at full growth head, thorax and basal abdominal segments sclerotized, convex dorsally. Pygidium with pectinae. Prepygidial gland spines sclerotized, with a long apical extension; arranged in a continuous or interrupted row, which starts between the anterior and posterior spiracles, extends toward the margin, then curves along the margin to run on to the base of the pygidium. Macroducts strewn dorsally on pygidium and some prepygidial segments, and laterally to the row of gland spines (Takagi, 1993).
KEYS: Takagi 1993: 24 (female) [A tentative key to the genera of the subtribe Protodiaspidina].
Pentacicola echinatus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pentacicola echinatus Takagi, 1993: 10-11. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, in Bako National Park, Sarawak, on Pentace sp., 12/10/1991. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML137. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Pentace sp. [Takagi1993]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female scale with no distinct median ridge. Adult female elongate pyriform, broadest across metathorax; pygidium produced, round marginally; segmentation indistinct. Pygidium well sclerotized posteriorly to anus and vulva, which are situated near the base of the pygidium (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11, 21, 45-46].
Pentacicola fimbriatus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pentacicola fimbriatus Takagi, 1993: 9-10. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Selangor, Kepong, grounds of the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, on Pentace triptera, 05/11/1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 90ML23. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Pentace triptera [Takagi1993].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with acute pygidium; at full growth head, thorax and abdominal segments I and II sclerotized, convex dorsally, with a crestlike projection on head. Pectinae only in 1 pair at apex of pygidium; no marginal gland spines on pygidium (microducts present in place of gland spines) (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-10, 21, 42-44,].
Pentacicola spinosus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pentacicola spinosus Takagi, 1993: 8-9. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Terengganu, Daerah Dungun, Bukit Bauk, on Pentace sp., 14/07/1990. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 90ML202. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Pentace sp. [Takagi1993]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subrhombic and highly convex dorsally; exuviae terminal, reddish gray; secretory part occupying a small proportion of scale, grayish, attenuating posteriorly, with median ridge. Male scale with secretory part white, elongate, and depressed dorsoventrally; erect. Adult female subrhombic to subpyriform, pygidium produced. Segmentation indistinct; pygidium reticulate dorsally toward apex (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-9, 21, 38-41].
Phaulomytilus LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis (Phaulomytilus) Leonardi, 1898: 45. Type species: Mytilaspis striata Maskell, by monotypy.
Phaulomytilus; Morrison & Morrison, 1922: 96. Change of status.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Morrison & Morrison (1922).
STRUCTURE: Phaulomytilus has small conical lobes, lacks gland spines but possesses megaducts (Williams & Brookes, 1995).
SYSTEMATICS: Fernald (1903b) considered Phaulomytilus to be a junior synonym of Lepidosaphes and Lindinger (1937) considered it to be a junior synonym of Mytilococcus.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 276 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; BerlesLe1898a [taxonomy: 11]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 34]; Fernal1903b [taxonomy: 304]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 41]; Hall1946 [taxonomy: 71]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 45,46]; Leonar1903 [taxonomy: 4, 5]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 276]; MorrisMo1922 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 96-100]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 152-153]; Muntin1970 [taxonomy: 10]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 185].
Phaulomytilus striatus (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis striata Maskell, 1895b: 47. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Sydney, on Casuarina sp., by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, Sacramento: California State Collection of Arthropods, California Dept. Food & Agriculture, California, USA, and NZAC, USNM. Described: female. Illust.
Phaulomytilus striatus; Leonardi, 1903: 5. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Lepidosaphes striata; Fernald, 1903b: 314. Change of combination.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Maskel1895b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1895b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by (Maskell, 1895b) and Morrison & Morrison (1922).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover elongated, mussel-shaped, rather convex. The secreted portion exhibits many transverse bands of silvery-white color, separated by narrower bands of dark grey. Exuviae orange. Adult female orange, darkening with age to brown (Maskell, 1895b).
KEYS: Cockerell 1899f: 13 (female) [as Mytilaspis striata; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 34]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 13]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 41]; Frogga1907 [distribution, host: 374]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-6]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 296]; Maskel1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48]; MorrisMo1922 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96-100].
Pinangaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinangaspis Takagi, 2003: 79-80. Type species: Pinangaspis uniclavata, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: the adult female is greatly modified. The median trullae are set close together and parallel, and their inner bases are united by a robust mushroom-shaped sclerosis. The second and third trullae are well developed but unilobed, with no scleroses on their bases. The dorsal surface is devoid of the usual macroducts. Instead, there are small two-barred lateral ducts in the prepygidial region, groups of filiform submarginal ducts on some posterior abdominal segments, and single filiform marginal ducts on the pygidium. Tubercular gland spines occur mainly on the lateral lobes of the free abdominal segments, each with a long, filamentous apical extension. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is referable to the subtribe Chionaspidina, tribe Diaspidini, based on the second-instar male, which has modified ducts of the type usually observed in that subtribe. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, structure, taxonomy: 78].
Pinangaspis uniclavata TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinangaspis uniclavata Takagi, 2003: 79. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Bukit Cendana, Pulau Pinang [Penang Is.]. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML-49. Described: female.
HOST: Annonaceae: Fissistigma sp. [Takagi2003]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring on the lower surface of the leaves. Females burrowing, the tests appearing dark brown through the epidermis. Males not burrowing; tests white, obscurely tricarinate. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body broadly fusiform; free segments gently lobed laterally; pygidium obdeltate. Prepygidial derm membranous. Pygidium broadly sclerotic on the dorsal surface, the dorsal intersegmental furrow between abd V and VI forming a linear sclerosis across the sub-basal area; ventral surface widely sclerotized towards the apex. Antennae situated on or just within the frontal margin, separated from each other by a space narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts, each with a long seta. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar male heteromorphic, with poorly developed marginal processes on the pygidium (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 79, 107, 126-127].
Pinnaspis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis Cockerell, 1892d: 136. Type species: Mytilaspis pandani Comstock (= Aspidiotus buxi Bouché). Subsequently designated by Fernald, 1903b: 242.
Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis) Cockerell, 1897p: 592. Type species: Chionaspis aspidistrae Signoret, by original designation. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1913: 78.
Jaapia Lindinger, 1914: 158. Type species: Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) uniloba Kuwana, by monotypy. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 22. Notes: Lindinger (1914) created the new genus Jaapia for Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) uniloba because the type species differed from Lepidosaphes in having only one middle lobe, the perivaginal glands on the penultimate segment, 5 ventral chitinous stripes on the anal segment and by the absence of L2.
Lepidaspidis MacGillivray, 1921: 275. Type species: Mytilaspis uniloba Kuwana, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 22. Notes: Ferris (1936a) pointed out that MacGillivray (1921) used the same type for his Lepidaspidis as Lindinger (1914) did for his Jaapia.
Pinaspis; Lindinger, 1934: 16. Misspelling of genus name.
Lepidaspis; Lindinger, 1937: 188. Misspelling of genus name.
Piannaspis; Dunham, 1954: 72. Misspelling of genus name.
Penaspis; Dale, 1959: 12. Misspelling of genus name.
Hemiclonaspis; Singh, 1960: 300. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Species in this genus have 2-barred ducts and gland spines. The most distinctive feature is the pair of median lobes, which are united at the base by a more or less elongate zygosis; the inner edges of the lobes are parallel and very close together to the apices, appearing to be fused. 2nd lobes, when present, small, often indicated by the ventral paraphyses. Normally the marginal ducts are larger than the dorsal ducts, the latter usually few and represented by submarginal rows, although sometimes there are submedian series. Body elongate, with the free abdominal segments strongly lobed (Williams & Watson, 1988). The two burrowing species of Pinnaspis differ from the other congeneric species in having enlarged and minutely serrate median trullae. Moreover, in one of them (P simplior), all the marginal macroducts of the pygidium are single. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: The separation of Pinnaspis and Chionaspis is justifiable, but precise key characters are difficult to point out since Chionaspis infringes somewhat on Pinnaspis. However, in those species of Chionaspis in which the median lobes are more or less fused or are closely appressed the submedian dorsal pore groups are present, or the elongate median sclerosis which yokes the median lobes in Pinnaspis is lacking (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 11 (female) [Key to the genera of the subtribe Chionaspidina in North America]; Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 222 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Ghauri 1962: 213 (female) [Key to genera of Chionaspidina]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 169 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 373 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Hall 1946a: 543 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [as Hemichionaspis; Key to genera]; Kuwana 1933a: 45 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 12 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 361 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 308 (female) [as Hemichionaspis; Genera of Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 275 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Brain 1919: 229 (female) [Key to genera near Chionaspis]; Robinson 1917: 17 (female) [Synoptic table of Diaspinae genera]; Dietz & Morrison 1916a: 262 (female) [as Hemichionaspis; Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Lindinger 1913: 65 (female) [Gruppe Diaspides]; Newstead 1901b: 79 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera].
CITATIONS: Archan1929 [taxonomy: 189]; Archan1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 68, 78]; Balach1952a [taxonomy: 98, 101]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 169, 275-277]; Beards1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 554]; BerlesLe1898 [taxonomy: 132]; BerlesLe1898a [taxonomy: 11]; Bodenh1924 [taxonomy: 21]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 42]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1937 [distribution, structure: 97, 107]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 192, 218]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 164, 197]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 109]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 229]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 361, 366, 370]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 16-17]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 90-92]; Cocker1892d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 136]; Cocker1893d [description, taxonomy: 9]; Cocker1897p [description, taxonomy: 592]; Cocker1897s [taxonomy: 384]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 44-45]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 312]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 333]; DietzMo1916a [description, taxonomy: 262, 274]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 239, 242]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 22, 25, 59, 63]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-96]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 6]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 527]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:42]; Ferris1950a [taxonomy: 76]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 25-29]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 98, 101, 104]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 213]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 230]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 44, 209]; GomezM1946 [taxonomy: 60]; Gowdey1921 [description, taxonomy: 27]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 528, 543, 546]; Hempel1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 497]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,45,126,188]; Hollin1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 7, 68]; HowardOl1985 [description, taxonomy: 61]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 558-560]; Kuwana1923b [taxonomy: 3]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 35-36]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; Lawson1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 206, 258]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 45]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27, 28, 178, 222]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 65, 78]; Lindin1913a [taxonomy: 7, 20]; Lindin1914 [description, taxonomy: 158]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 171]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 186, 188, 193]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 148]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 299-300]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 275, 308]; McKenz1949 [taxonomy: 124-125]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 156]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Newste1901b [taxonomy: 206-207]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, taxonomy: 12]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 17, 37-38, 39]; Sander1904a [distribution, taxonomy: 31, 53]; Schmut1959 [description, taxonomy: 176, 214]; Suh2014 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 1-6]; Takagi1961a [distribution, taxonomy: 71, 101]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 104]; Takagi2003 [description,, structure, taxonomy: 79-80,107]; Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 194]; TakagiGe2008 [host: 128]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 69]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 47, 85]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 211-212]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 222]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 373, 388].
Pinnaspis alatae (Rutherford)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis alatae Rutherford, 1914: 262-263. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Cassia alata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female.
Pinnaspis alatae; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Cassia alata [Ruther1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Rutherford (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale inconspicuous, 3 mm long, dull pale brown. Exuviae situated at one end, similar in color. The secretion is comparatively broad, 2nd exuviae has a slight but distinct median longitudinal ridge. Male scale is white and tricarinate. Adult female with large median lobes, extending slightly caudad of 2nd lobes, the lateral edges sloping away to the pygidium and with 3 or 4 distinct notches. 2nd lobes are duplex, feebly chitinized but distinct, each half expanded towards the apex. 3rd lobes sometimes developed, duplex, mesal half longer than broad, lateral broader than long, both serrated on margin (Rutherford, 1914).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris & Rao (1947) state that Pinnaspis alatae is unrecognizable from the original description.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 340 (female) [as Hemichionaspis alatae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 62]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 109]; FerrisRa1947 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 30]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 322]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Ruther1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 262-263]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 69].
Pinnaspis albizziae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis minor; Cooley, 1899: 52-54. Described: female. Illust. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 30.
Chionaspis albizziae Green, 1899a: 115-116. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Albizia stipulata and Pithecolobium saman. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis albizziae; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 30. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilochorus circumdatus [Green1899a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus diaspidis [Green1899a], Aphytis diaspidis [DeSilv1961]. Encyrtidae: Prospalta aurantii [Green1899a].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Albizia stipulata [Green1899a], Pithecolobium saman [Green1899a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.5-2.0 mm long, white. Adult female with median lobes moderately large, with a distinct, median basal sclerosis, mesal margins closely appressed, lateral margins twice notched. 2nd lobes definitely present and bilobed, mesal lobe small and not expanded apically. 3rd lobe represented merely by serrations of the margin (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis albizziae has been considered a junior synonym of Chionaspis minor by coccid workers such as Fernald (1903b) and Green (1922).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Green 1899a: 107 [as Chionaspis albizzae; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1967a [taxonomy: 39]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 62-63, 65]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 112]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 109-110]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 52-54]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 118]; Fernal1903b [taxonomy: 240]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-407]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 30, 36, 44]; Green1899a [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107, 115-116]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 69].
Pinnaspis angustior Riley & Howard nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis angustior Riley & Howard, 1893: 50. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 377. Notes: Riley & Howard (1893) list this species as a possible variety of Chionaspis minor.
Pinnaspis angustior; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Montserrat [RileyHo1893].
SYSTEMATICS: Fernald (1903b) treated Pinnaspis angustior as a junior synonym of Hemichionaspis minor (=Chionaspis minor) while Borchsenius (1966) treated it as a nomen nudum.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Fernal1903b [taxonomy: 240]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; RileyHo1893 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50].
Pinnaspis aspidistrae aspidistrae (Signoret)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis aspidistrae Signoret, 1869d: 443. Type data: FRANCE: Paris, on Aspidistra sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Vienna: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis brasiliensis Signoret, 1869d: 444-445. Type data: BRAZIL: Bahia. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Cooley, 1899: 45-49. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Chionaspis brazailiensis; Comstock, 1883: 109. Described: female. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis latus Cockerell, 1896h: 21. Type data: JAPAN: Tokyo, on Citrus sp., by Takahashi. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Cooley, 1899: 46.
Chionaspis lata; Berlese & Leonardi, 1898a: 124. Misspelling of species name.
Hemichionaspis aspidistrae; Cooley, 1899: 45. Change of combination.
Hemichionaspis aspidistrae brasiliensis; Hempel, 1900a: 516. Change of status.
Hemichionaspis aspidistrae lata; Cockerell, 1900k: 349. Change of status.
Pinnaspis aspidistrae; Lindinger, 1912b: 79. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) aspidistrae; Brain, 1920: 104. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis (Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae; Dammerman, 1929: 252. Change of combination.
Pinaspis aspidistrae; Lindinger, 1935: 143. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinnaspis brasiliensis; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis arpidistrae; Figueroa Potes, 1952: 209. Misspelling of species name.
Pinnaspis ophiopogonis Takahashi, 1952a: 11-12. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Ophiopogon japonica, ?/09/1950, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 281-282.
Pinnapsis aspidistrae; Lindinger, 1954: 620. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinnaspis caricis Ferris, 1957: 212. Type data: HAWAII: Honolulu, on Carex japonicum, ?/08/1955, by M. Adachi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Nakahara, 1979: 31.
Penaspis aspidistrae; Dale, 1959: 12. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinnaspis aspidistrae latus; Kalshoven, 1981: 173. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: aspidistra scale [Butche1959]; Brazilian snow-scale [Cocker1896a]; cochenille des Fougères [Foldi2001]; escama del helecho [Mosque1976]; fern scale [AAEE1931]; guagua de helechos [AlayoS1976]; liriope scale [Gill1997]; piojo blanco [Mosque1976].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus circumdatus [Cooley1899]. DIPTERA Dasineura: Dentifibula obtusiloba [Fulmek1943]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis diaspidis [AbouEl2001], Aphytis flavus [AbouEl2001], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Balach1954e], Aphytis sp. [MurakaAbCo1984], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [GomezM1937], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Simmon1957], Aspidiotiphagus schoeversi [Fulmek1943], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia sp. [MurakaAbCo1984], Pteroptrix sp. [RodrigCa2012]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Paik1978], Arrhenophagus sp. [AbouEl2001].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Fittonia [Borchs1966], Strobilanthes sp. [Green1896, MillerDa2005], Strobilanthes viscosus [Ali1969a]. Adiantaceae: Adiantum sp. [Hall1925], Dictyogramma japonica [GomezM1946]. Agavaceae: Dracaena sp. [Mamet1943a]. Amaryllidaceae: Crinum asiaticum [WilliaWa1988], Crinum pedunculatum [WilliaWa1988], Crinum sp. [Borchs1966], Hippeastrum equestre [WilliaWa1988], Hippeastrum sp. [Borchs1966]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Tao1999]. Annonaceae: Annona muricata [Kondo2008a], Annona reticulata [Azeved1929a], Annona squamosa [Azeved1929a], Polyalthia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Plumeria acutifolia [WilliaWa1988]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex [Borchs1966]. Araceae: Acorus gramineus [Kuwana1926], Alocasia [Borchs1966], Anthurium sp. [MillerDa2005], Philodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Pothos [Borchs1966], Rhaphidophora acuminata [WilliaWa1988]. Arecaceae: Areca catechu [Maskel1892], Arecastrum [Borchs1966], Chamaerops humilis [Moghad2013a], Chamaerops sp. [Seghat1977], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Ballou1926], Chrysalidocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos nucifera [Hinckl1963, Heu2002], Cocos plumosa [Green1897], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Elaeis guineensis [WilliaWa1988], Kentia [Borchs1966], Livistona sp. [MillerDa2005], Phoenix sp. [CorseuSi1971], Rhapis excelsa [Hender2011], Rhapis humilis [Suh2014], Rhapis sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Roystonea regia [AlayoS1976]. Asparagaceae: Agave sp. [Kalsho1981], Aspidistra elatior [Suh2014], Liriope platyphylla [Suh2014]. Aspidiaceae: Cyrtomium sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Aspleniaceae: Asplenium nidis [Suh2014], Asplenium sp. [Newste1896, MillerDa2005], Neottopteris antiqua [Muraka1970], Neottopteris rigida [Paik1978]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buxaceae: Buxus sempervirens [Balach1938a]. Capparidaceae: Capparis moonii [Ali1969a], Cleome [Borchs1966]. Caricaceae: Carica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Combretaceae: Funckia sp. [Leonar1918], Lumnitzera sp. [Lupo1938a], Quisqualis [Mamet1951], Terminalia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Commelinaceae: Cyanotis sp. [Essig1910a]. Crassulaceae: Bryophyllum pinnatum [Nakaha1981a]. Cycadaceae: Ceratozamia [Borchs1966], Cycas revoluta [Waters1941, Heu2002], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cyperaceae: Carex japonicum [Ferris1957]. Dryopteridaceae: Polystichum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ericaceae: Gaultheria [Borchs1966], Pieris sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha godseffiana [WilliaWa1988], Croton [Borchs1966], Euphorbia pulcherrima [Nakaha1981a], Jatropha integerrima [AlayoS1976], Phyllanthus niruri [Mamet1941a]. Fabaceae: Acacia melanoxylon [Essig1910a], Acacia rubra [Laing1928], Caesalpinia pulcherrima [AlayoS1976], Cassia fistula [FerrisRa1947], Cassia siamea [FerrisRa1947], Desmodium sp. [Mosque1973], Erythrina indica [WilliaWa1988], Gliricidia maculata [Varshn2002], Inocarpus fagifer [WilliaWa1988], Samanea saman [Mosque1973]. Gesneriaceae: Saintpaulia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia [Mamet1943a], Heliconia brasiliensis [WilliaWa1988], Heliconia metallica [Green1897]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Tao1999], Persea sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Laxmanniaceae: Cordyline sp. [MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Agapanthus sp. [Archan1937], Asparagus sprengeri [CorseuSi1971], Aspidistra elatior [Borg1932], Aspidistra lurida [Craw1896], Cordyline cannaefolia [Ballou1926], Cordyline terminalis [AlayoS1976], Hosta sp. [Lupo1938a], Lilium sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Liriope graminifolia [Kuwana1926], Liriope muscari [LambdiWa1980], Liriope sp. [HowardOl1985, MillerDa2005], Liriope spicata [LambdiWa1980], Mondo japonicum [ColonFMe1998], Mondo sp. [Borchs1966], Ophiopogon japonicus [Balach1930c], Rohdea japonica [Hall1923], Ruscus hypoglossum [Balach1938a], Sansevieria sp. [CorseuSi1971], Smilax sp. [CockerRo1914], Taetsia neocaledonica [Cohic1958]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Kasarg1914]. Lythraceae: Lagerstroemia indica [Ballou1926], Lagerstroemia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Gossypium sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Hibiscus rosasinensis [AlayoS1976], Thespesia populnea [FerrisRa1947]. Meliaceae: Melia sp. [Borchs1966]. Moraceae: Artocarpus sp. [Varshn2002], Ficus bengalensis [FerrisRa1947]. Musaceae: Musa paradisiaca [WilliaWa1988], Musa sapientum [Dumble1954, WilliaWa1988], Musa sp. [Hinckl1963, MillerDa2005], Strelitzia nicolai [FDACSB1987]. Myrtaceae: Psidium guajava [CorseuSi1971]. Oleaceae: Erythropalum scandens [Robins1917]. Orchidaceae: Cymbidium ensifolium [Lupo1938a], Cymbidium sp. [Kuwana1926], Cypripedium sp. [MillerDa2005], Liparis sp. [MillerDa2005], Orchis sp. [Paik1978]. Paeoniaceae: Paeonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [WilliaWa1988], Pandanus sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Piperaceae: Piper betle [FerrisRa1947], Piper kadzura [Muraka1970], Piper nigrum [Green1905], Piper sp. [Robins1917, MillerDa2005]. Poaceae: Phalaris sp. [MillerDa2005]. Polygonaceae: Muehlenbeckia sp. [MillerDa2005], Polygonum chinense umbellatum [Muraka1970]. Polypodiaceae: Aspidium molle [GomezM1946], Asplenium indus [Kuwana1926], Asplenium nidum [Kuwana1931b], Blechnum brasiliensis [GomezM1946], Blechnum nudum [Hudson1967], Davallia moorei [King1901b], Dryopteris [Borchs1966], Gymnopteris [Borchs1966], Nephrolepis duffi [AlayoS1976], Nephrolepis exalta bostoniensis [Jones1917], Nephrolepis exaltata [CorseuSi1971], Nephrolepis piersom [Kuwana1926], Nephrolepis sp. [DietzMo1916a, MillerDa2005], Platycerium milincki [Henrik1921], Platycerium sp. [Essig1910a, MillerDa2005], Polypodium aureum [Ghauri1962], Polypodium milincki [Henrik1921], Pteris cretica [LambdiWa1980], Pteris serrulata [GomezM1946], Pteris sp. [Almeid1971, MillerDa2005]. Portulacaceae: Portulaca lutea [WilliaWa1988]. Pteridaceae: Pycnodaria sp. [HodgsoHi1990]. Pteridophyta: Elaphoglossum villosum [Ghauri1962], Lemmaphyllum sp. [Muraka1970]. Rhamnaceae: Scutia commersoni [Mamet1949, Borchs1966], Ziziphus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ziziphus spina-christi [Moghad2013a]. Rosaceae: Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rubiaceae: Guettarda speciosa [WilliaWa1988], Uncaria gambir [Green1905]. Ruscaceae: Aspidistra sp. [Signor1869d, MillerDa2005], Ophiopogon sp. [HowardOl1985, MillerDa2005], Ruscus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Atalantia sp. [MillerDa2005], Citrus aurantifolia [Nakaha1981a], Citrus aurantium [Azeved1929a], Citrus limon [Nakaha1981a], Citrus nobilis deliciosa [ChenWo1936], Citrus reticulata [CulikMaVe2008], Citrus sinensis [Nakaha1981a], Citrus sp. [Cocker1896h, MillerDa2005], Citrus trifoliata [AlayoS1976], Murraya paniculata [AlayoS1976]. Schizaeaceae: Anemia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Selaginellaceae: Selaginella [Borchs1966]. Solanaceae: Capsicum annum [Wilson1921], Lycopersicon esculentum [WilliaWa1988], Solanum melongena [WilliaWa1988], Solanum torvum [AlayoS1976]. Sterculiaceae: Guazuma ulmifolia [AlayoS1976]. Strelitziaceae: Strelitzia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Ternstroemiaceae: Eurya sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Ghauri1962], Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005], Eurya japonica [Hua2000], Thea sinensis [Muraka1970]. Urticaceae: Boehmeria grandiflora [Kuwana1926], Boehmeria longispica [Muraka1970], Boehmeria sp. [Borchs1966]. Vitaceae: Ampelopsis arborea [FDACSB1983], Cissus sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Zingiberaceae: Amomum sp. [Varshn2002]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [FerraoCa1972]; Madagascar [Mamet1951]; Mauritius [Mamet1941a, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome [Laing1928]); Seychelles [Green1907]; Sierra Leone [Hargre1937]; South Africa [Lounsb1914]; Tanzania [Hall1946a]. Australasian: Australia (South Australia [Cocker1896a, Brooke1964], Tasmania [Hudson1967]); Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Takaha1939b, Beards1966]); Fiji [Lever1945]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [Lindin1914], Tahiti [FerrisRa1947]); Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Ferris1957, Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1910.)); Indonesia (Java [Green1905]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988]; New Caledonia [Cohic1958, WilliaWa1988]; New Zealand (North Island [ArchibCoDe1979]); Niue [Cottie1936, WilliaWa1988]; Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [Reyne1961, WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [Dale1959, WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Canada (Ontario [Jarvis1911], Quebec [MawFoHa2000]); Mexico (Sinola [FerrisRa1947]); United States of America (Alabama [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Arkansas [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], California [Cooley1899, McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Colorado [Cocker1910b], Connecticut [Britto1923, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Cooley1899, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Florida [Butche1959, MillerDa2005], Georgia [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Illinois [Compto1930, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Indiana [DietzMo1916a, MillerDa2005], Iowa [DrakeGu1931, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Dean1909, Lawson1917, MillerDa2005], Kentucky [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Nakaha1982, HowardOl1985, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [King1901b, MillerDa2005], Michigan [Fulmek1943, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Weiss1916, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], New York [Hartma1916, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Oregon [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, Stimme1987, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980, MillerDa2005], Texas [McDani1973, MillerDa2005], Utah [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina (Corrientes [Lizery1936]); Bermuda [Waters1941]; Brazil (Amazonas [SilvadGoGa1968], Bahia [Signor1869d, Foldi1988], Distrito Federal (=Brasilia) [Lepage1938], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Maranhao [SilvadGoGa1968, Foldi1988], Minas Gerais [Lepage1938, Foldi1988], Paraiba [SilvadGoGa1968, Foldi1988], Parana [SilvadGoGa1968, Foldi1988], Para [SilvadGoGa1968, Foldi1988], Rio Grande do Sul [Lepage1938, Koszta1963, CorseuSi1971], Rio de Janeiro [Lepage1938, Foldi1988], Santa Catarina [SilvadGoGa1968, Foldi1988], Sao Paulo [Hempel1900a, Foldi1988]); Chile [GonzalCh1968]; Colombia [Figuer1952, Mosque1973]; Costa Rica [SuhJi2009]; Cuba [Houser1918, AlayoS1976, MestreHaEv2011]; Guyana [Bodkin1922]; Panama [FerrisRa1947]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Jones1917, ColonFMe1998]); Saint Croix [Wilson1921]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Cocker1894c]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Wilson1921]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [ChenWo1936], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [ChenWo1936], Hubei (=Hupei) [Tao1999], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ChenWo1936], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Shanghai [Wu1935], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [ChenWo1936]); Hong Kong [Wu1935]; India [Maskel1892] (Karnataka [Fletch1919, Ali1969a], Kerala [FerrisRa1947], Madhya Pradesh [Ali1969a], Maharashtra [Ramakr1921a], Tamil Nadu [Fletch1919, SureshMo1996], Tripura [Varshn2002]). Oriental: Indonesia [Kalsho1981]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Ghauri1962]); Philippines [CockerRo1914] (Luzon [Robins1917]); Sri Lanka [Cocker1896a, ChenWo1936]; Taiwan [Cooley1899, ChenWo1936] [SuhJi2009]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1954e]; Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Belgium [Ghesqu1933]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1972]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China [SuhJi2009] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [Cheo1935], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984b], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Croatia [MastenSi2008] (Found only in greenhouses.); Czech Republic [KozarzRe1975]; Denmark [Henrik1921, KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Hall1923, Ezzat1958]; Finland [Vappul1965, KozarzRe1975]; France [Signor1869d, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [Balach1954e]; Hungary [Aczel1936, BalasSa1982]; Iran [Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [DanzigPe1998]; Ireland [Green1934d]; Israel [Bytins1966]; Italy [Leonar1918, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Craw1896] (Honshu [Cocker1896h, TakagiRo1981], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Madeira Islands [Balach1938a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1932]; Monaco [Balach1954e]; Morocco [Balach1930c]; Netherlands [Goot1912]; Poland [Szulcz1926, KozarzRe1975]; Portugal [Seabra1918, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia [Balach1954e]; Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [SuhJi2009, Suh2014] (Although this species was recorded in Korea, it is considered to have failed to establish in the exterior environment and greenhouses because it has not been collected in the field and greenhouses during the last 7 years. Therefore, the presence of both of these species in Korea should be regarded as uncertain.); Spain [GomezM1937, Martin1983]; Sweden [KozarzRe1975]; Syria [Bodenh1926]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Ukraine [Terezn1986]; United Kingdom (England [Cooley1899, Ghauri1962]).
BIOLOGY: According to Werner (1931) eggs hatched on fern in 18 days at 70 85 °F and 60 70 % RH. The female life span averaged about 95 days, and that of the male about 37 days. Fertilized adult females lived an average of 68 days, and unfertilized females lived an average of 65.5 days. Unmated females did not lay eggs. Eggs were observed developing 8 days after mating, and oviposition began 12 days after mating. Up to 6 eggs were laid per female per day. Females produced an average of 57 eggs each with 108 the maximum number. The sex ratio of second instars was 75.3 percent males to 24.7 percent females. Saakyan Baranova (1954) reported 2 generations per year on ferns in a greenhouse in Moscow, Russia. Schmutterer (1952b) found that eggs hatched about 10 days after being laid. Brown (1965) studied a fern scale population in California that had the sexual diaspidid chromosome system. Takahashi and Tachikawa (1956) reported 2 strains of fern scale in Japan. One was found on Ophiopogon, Liriope, and Rohdea outdoors, but never was found on Aspidistra. It lacked males and was parthenogenetic throughout the year. Another strain that had males occurred on Nephrolepis and Platycerium ferns in greenhouses, rarely on Aspidistra outdoors, and never on Ophiopogon. Ghauri (1962) described the adult male,and saw only winged males from ferns and camellias. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris & Rao (1947) and Balachowsky (1954e). Detailed redescription and illustration in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.0-2.25 mm long, irregularly shaped, distinctly broadened behind, with caudal extremity rounded, thin, delicate, semitransparent, pale brown; exuviae 0.8 mm long, similar in color; ventral scale thin and semitransparent. Male scale 1.0-1.2 mm long, elongate, slender, sides nearly parallel, distinct and prominently tricarinate, white; exuviae pale yellow, about one-fifth to one-fourth total length of scale (Dietz & Morrison, 1916a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis aspidistrae is distinguishable in slide preparations chiefly by the strongly lobed metathorax, the presence of 2 or more ducts in the submarginal abdominal series and the stronger development of the sclerosis which forms a yoke between the median lobes (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Lawson (1917) lists P. aspidistrae as a common greenhouse pest on ferns in Kansas. Beardsley and González (1975) considered fern scale to be one of the 43 principal armored scale pests of the world. Dekle (1977) noted that this species often is a serious pest on ferns and other foliage plants in Florida. Considering only Citrus, Talhouk (1975) reported it as a very important pest in Japan and Venezuela; an important pest in Chile, SE Asia, and India; and a minor pest in Brazil and Florida. Giacometti (1983) and Nascimento (1981) both considered this scale to be a serious pest of citrus in Brazil. Chua and Wood (1990) discussed this species as a pest on the fruit of oil palm and the leaves and stems of rubber trees in Malaysia and on banana on several Pacific islands. Fern scale also has been reported to injure coconut in Sri Lanka (Rutherford 1914), bananas in Fiji (Jepson 1915), Dracena in Poland (Labanowski 1999), and Ficus in India (Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930). Heavy infestations on ferns makes the plants unsightly because male covers turn the leaves white, and female feeding sometimes causes chlorotic spots on green foliage (Baker and Shearin 1992). In Pennsylvania this species is considered an important pest of foliage plants particularly Liriope and ferns in the genera Aspidistra and Nephrolepis. When populations are heavy, severe chlorosis occurs and leaf tissue may be killed (Stimmel 1997). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh 2014: 6 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis from Korea]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult female)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 119 [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 230 (female) [Key to California species of Pinnaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 408 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1993: 312 [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 212 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 61 (female) [Key to Pinnaspis species of Louisiana]; Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chou 1982: 92 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis]; Wang 1982c: 85 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Paik 1978: 375 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 113 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 843 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 554 (female) [Key to known Micronesian species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1963c: 68 [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1961a: 75 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan]; Ezzat 1958: 246 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis known to occur in Egypt]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 277 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:60 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Lupo 1938a: 300 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Fullaway 1932: 96 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; Archangelskaya 1929: 190 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Kuwana 1926: 36 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 343 (female) [as Hemichionaspis aspidistrae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis aspidistrae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1900k: 349 (female) [as Hemichionaspis aspidistrae var. lata; Table to separate the commoner scales (Coccidae) of the orange]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis aspidistrae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Green 1899a: 107 [as Chionaspis aspidistrae; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1301]; AbouEl2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 187]; Aczel1936 [chemical control, distribution: 44]; AlayoS1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 63]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1929 [taxonomy: 189]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79]; ArchibCoDe1979 [description, distribution, host: 206]; Azeved1923aA [distribution, host: 151-152]; Azeved1929a [distribution: 126]; Balach1930c [distribution, host: 120]; Balach1937c [distribution, host: 3]; Balach1938a [distribution, host: 154]; Balach1946 [distribution: 213, 216]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 277, 281-284]; BalasSa1982 [distribution, host: 414]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 23]; BatcheWe1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 717]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 113]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 554-555]; BerlesLe1898a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123-125]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12, 13]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 292, 314]; BockTa1995 [distribution, host: 360]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 43, 46]; Bodenh1930 [distribution: 17]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 248]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 139-141]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host: 29]; Bodkin1922 [distribution: 57]; Bondar1914 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1099-1100]; Borchs1937a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-109]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 198]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 110, 112]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 13]; Brain1920 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 104]; BrainKe1917 [distribution, host: 185]; Brick1912 [distribution, host: 7]; Britto1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 366]; Brooke1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; Brown1965 [physiology: 226]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 97]; Butani1979 [distribution, host: 38]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Bytins1966 [distribution, host: 28]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-575,605]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; Chen1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210, 224-225]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-20, 110-111]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 99]; ChoJeKa2013 [distribution, host: 404-405]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92-94]; Chou1986 [illustration: 496]; Cocker1894c [distribution, host: 306]; Cocker1894d [distribution: 312]; Cocker1896a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 257]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1896h [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21]; Cocker1896i [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-54]; Cocker1897p [distribution, host, taxonomy: 592]; Cocker1897r [description, taxonomy: 71]; Cocker1897s [distribution, host, taxonomy: 383-384]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1900k [host, taxonomy: 349]; Cocker1902b [taxonomy: 82]; Cocker1910b [distribution, host: 427]; CockerRo1914 [distribution, host: 328]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 9, 11, 17, 73, 74]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 18, 21, 23, 24, 30]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 119-120]; Compto1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 22, 56, 64, 99]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 108-109]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 569-570]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-49]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 120]; CostaL1942 [distribution, taxonomy: 270, 271]; Costan1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11]; Cottie1936 [distribution, host: 25]; Craw1896 [distribution, host: 35]; Crouze1971 [distribution, economic importance: 200]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Dale1959 [distribution, host: 12]; Dammer1929 [distribution, host: 252]; Danzig1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 843]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 314-315, 317]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333-334]; Davids1974 [chemical control, distribution, host: 3]; Dean1909 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 271]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control: 177]; Deitz1979b [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Dekle1965a [distribution, host: 1-2]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 112]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 129, 131]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 274-275]; Dinthe1950 [distribution, host: 50]; Dinthe1960 [distribution, host: 50]; DrakeGu1931 [distribution, illustration: 41]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44, 89, 98, 137]; Dupont1931 [distribution, host: 12]; Essig1910a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 210-211]; Essig1931 [distribution, host: 871]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; FDACSB1983 [distribution, host: 7]; FDACSB1987 [distribution, host: 6]; Felt1915 [taxonomy: 16]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 199]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 239]; Fernan1972 [taxonomy: 13]; FerraoCa1972 [distribution: 5, 13, 17]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21, 59]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-97]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:60]; Ferris1950a [taxonomy: 77]; Ferris1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 30-32, 44]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 209]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 22-23]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 262, 300]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 298]; Foldi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 96, 105]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 23, 35]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 355]; Ghauri1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 158-163, 213]; Ghesqu1933 [distribution, host: 345]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 230-231]; Gomes1940 [distribution: 83]; GomesC1949 [distribution: 68]; GomesCRe1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226-227]; GomezM1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 209-212]; GomezM1946 [distribution, host: 83]; GonzalAt1984 [distribution, host: 214, 222]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Goot1912 [distribution, host: 287]; Goot1935 [distribution, host: 31]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Green1896 [distribution, host: 2]; Green1897 [distribution, host: 70]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107, 110-112]; Green1905 [distribution, host: 29]; Green1907 [distribution, host: 201]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1930b [distribution, host: 214]; Green1934d [distribution: 114]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 187]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 185, 275]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 26-27]; Hall1925 [distribution, host: 24, 27]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 529, 546, 548]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Hargre1948 [distribution: 36]; Hartma1916 [distribution: 104]; Hatch1938 [distribution, host: 180]; Haywar1944 [distribution, host: 7]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 516-517]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,13,125-128,233,258]; Henrik1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 315]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 39-40]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 188]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 50]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 55]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 3, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 26]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 32-33, 68]; Houser1918 [distribution, host: 162]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-62]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 199-200]; Iherin1897 [distribution, host: 410]; Jarvis1911 [distribution, host: 72]; Jones1917 [distribution, host: 10]; Kalsho1981 [description, distribution, host: 173]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40-41]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 304]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 24]; King1901b [distribution, host: 154]; KolesiDe2014 [biological control: 102]; Kondo2008a [distribution, host: 28]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 560-561]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, economic importance, host: 35-36]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 75]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 198]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 16]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-38]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Kuwana1931b [distribution, host: 167]; Laing1928 [distribution, host: 215]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Laport1948 [biological control, distribution: 36]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 258-259]; Leonar1918 [distribution, host: 212]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222-225]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 415]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 78]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 117]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 176]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 124]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 143]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 620]; Lizery1936 [distribution, host: 114]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 356]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lounsb1914 [distribution, host: 7]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 300-305]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 343]; Mallam1954 [distribution, host: 44]; Mamet1941a [distribution, host: 40]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 165]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 25]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 229]; Mamet1956 [distribution, host: 138]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 384]; Mamet1962 [distribution, host: 162]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 5]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 57]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 42]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 174]; Maskel1892 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Maskel1893b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210-211]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution: 68]; Maskel1896a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223-224]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305-306]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Maskew1916 [distribution, host: 75]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution: 45]; Maxwel1902 [distribution: 252]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389-390]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 148, 150]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 71]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host: 236]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 13]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 340]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 29]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 48]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Mosque1973 [description, distribution, host: 57, 61]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 55-57, 93]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host: 91-92]; MurakaAbCo1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 237, 239, 241]; Nakaha1979 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 31]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 403]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 69]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 35]; Neves1936 [distribution, host: 200]; Newell1921 [distribution, host: 50, 54, 63]; Newste1896 [distribution, host: 60]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 180, 187-190]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 204, 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Ossian1955 [distribution, host: 9]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; OtanesBu1939 [economic importance, host: 365]; Paik1978 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 375-376]; Paik1982 [biological control, distribution: 52]; Parkin1906 [biological control, distribution: 46, 72]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 481,503]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 317]; Perrie1926 [distribution, host: 126]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Ramakr1919 [distribution, host: 622-623]; Ramakr1919a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-14]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 340]; Ramakr1930 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 17-18, 125]; Ramakr1936 [taxonomy: 146]; RangelGo1945 [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Rasina1955 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; Reyne1961 [distribution: 122]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38, 39]; Robins1918 [distribution, host: 146]; RodrigCa2012 [distribution, biological control: 33-36]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Ruther1914a [distribution, host: 319]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 30]; Sander1904a [distribution, host: 54]; SchildSc1928 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 268]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host: 579-580]; Schmut1957b [distribution, host: 149]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215, 220-222]; Seabra1918 [distribution, host: 10]; Seabra1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Seabra1930a [taxonomy: 144]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 11]; Sheaff1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 53-54]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 443-444]; Signor1883 [distribution, host: 443]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 177-178]; Silves1929 [distribution, host: 904]; Silves1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 793-796]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 5]; Stimme1987 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21-22]; Suh2014 [distribution, host: 1,6]; SuhJi2009 [illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Sulliv1930 [distribution, host: 56]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 256-257]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; Takagi1961a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71, 75]; Takagi1963c [taxonomy: 66, 68]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 104, 106-107]; TakagiRo1981 [biological control, distribution: 318]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 7, 14, 22, 73]; Takaha1930 [distribution, host: 1, 39]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 29, 33]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 69, 71, 73]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 264]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 35]; Takaha1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-12]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 106]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11-12]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 164-165]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 298]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 105]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109]; TeranGu1969 [distribution, host: 138]; Terezn1986 [distribution, host: 52]; Traver1935 [distribution, host: 61, 165]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Tsalev1972 [distribution, host: 86]; Vappul1965 [distribution, host: 170]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 70]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 196]; Vernal1957 [distribution, host: 14]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host: 133]; Wang1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 85-87]; Waters1941 [distribution, host: 23]; WatsonBe1937 [distribution, host: 16]; Weiss1916 [distribution, host: 23]; Werner1931 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 517-541]; Wester1918 [host: 53]; Wester1920 [distribution, host: 66]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212-215]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 71]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 5]; Wilson1921 [distribution, host: 24]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 179]; WolffCo1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128-131]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 31, 74]; Woodwo1909 [distribution, host: 359]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, economic importance: 35]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; ZamarCl2003 [description, host, illustration: 35-42]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 387].
Pinnaspis aspidistrae yunnanensis ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis aspidistrae yunnanensis Chen, 1983: 20. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on unknown plant, 1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 18-21, 91-92]; Hua2000 [distribution: 158]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109].
Pinnaspis bauhiniae Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis bauhiniae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 340. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28.
Pinnaspis bauhiniae; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 19. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Bauhinia racemosa [Ramakr1924], Bauhinia sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 340]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 19]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 70].
Pinnaspis boehmeriae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis boehmeriae Takahashi, 1957b: 105-106. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Wakayama Prefecture, Mt. Koya, on Boehmeria spicata, 23/08/1955, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Cirsium spicatum [Takagi1961a], Synurus palmatapinnatifolia [Takaha1957b]. Liliaceae: Liriope graminifolia [Takaha1957b]. Rosaceae: Rubus crataegifolius [Muraka1970]. Urticaceae: Boehmeria japonica [Muraka1970], Boehmeria nipponivea [Muraka1970], Boehmeria spicata [Takaha1957b], Boehmeria tricuspis [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takaha1957b], Kyushu [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1957b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale blackish brown, broadened posteriorly, about 2.2 mm long. Exuviae yellow, 2nd exuviae about 0.73 mm long. Male scale white, tricarinate. Adult female body stout, convex laterally on the prepygidial segments (Takahashi, 1957b).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis boehmeriae is related to P. aspidistrae Signoret, but differs in the greater number of submarginal dorsal ducts (Takahashi, 1957b).
KEYS: Takagi 1963c: 68 [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1961a: 75 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334]; Kawai1972 [taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 92]; Takagi1961a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72]; Takagi1963c [taxonomy: 66, 68]; Takagi1966 [distribution, host: 119]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 107]; Takaha1957b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 105-106].
Pinnaspis buxi (Bouché)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus buxi Bouché, 1851: 111. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on Buxus sempervirens. Holotype. Illust. Notes: Type material lost (Sachtleben 1944).
Mytilaspis buxi; Signoret, 1870: 93. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis pandanni Comstock, 1881a: 324-325. Type data: UNITED STATES: Massachusetts, Cambridge, Harvard Botanical Garden, on Pandanus sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1893e: 38.
Mytilaspis pandani; Comstock, 1883: 118. Misspelling of species name. Notes: Comstock consistently corrected pandanni to pandani, however the original spelling must be considered correct.
Coccus (Diaspis) vandalicus Reimer, 1890: 278. Type data: CUBA: on Palmae. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1893e: 38. Notes: Reimer (1890) gives the author of Coccus (Diaspis) vandalicus as Galvez, however we are unable to find a reference for such an author and so the species is considered to be authored by Reimer. Location of type unknown.
Chionaspis vandalicus; Cockerell, 1892a: 54. Described: female. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis pandani; Cockerell, 1892d: 136. Change of combination.
Diaspis vandalicus; Cockerell, 1893e: 38. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis bambusae Cockerell, 1893p: 157. Type data: JAMAICA: Hope Gardens, on Bambusa sp., by T.D.A. Cockerell. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-445:6.
Fiorinia pandaniana; Del Guercio, 1894a: 181. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Fiorinia buxi; Del Guercio, 1894a: 182. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis pandani alba Cockerell, 1894c: 307. Type data: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Trinidad, St. Anns, on unidentified palm. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1935: 149. Notes: No types of Pinnaspis pandani albus can be located.
Pinnaspis buxi pandani; Cockerell, 1896b: 336. Change of status.
Pinnaspis pandani albus; Cockerell, 1896k: v. Misspelling of species name.
Pinnaspis buxi; Newstead, 1901b: 207. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis buxi alba; Maxwell-Lefroy, 1902: 253. Change of status.
Mytilaspis (Pinnaspis) buxi; Maxwell-Lefroy, 1903: 47. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis buti; Newstead, 1907a: 10. Misspelling of species name.
Pinnaspis siphonodontis Cockerell & Robinson, 1915: 110. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Los Baños, on Siphonodon celastrineus, 01/02/1914, by C.F. Baker. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29, 32.
Hemichionaspis pseudaspidistrae Green, 1916e: 58-59. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Koolpiniyah, on Pandanus odoratissimus, by Hill. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams & Watson, 1988: 215. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29.
Pinaspis buxi; Greenwood, 1929: 350. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinaspis pandani; Lindinger, 1934: 164. Misspelling of genus name.
Chionaspis simulatrix Froggatt, 1936: 18. Nomen nudum; discovered by Williams & Watson, 1988: 215. Notes: Chionaspis simulatrix was apparently a Green manuscript name.
Pinnaspis alba; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of status.
Pinnapsis buxi; Lindinger, 1954: 620. Misspelling of genus name.
COMMON NAMES: bamboo mussel-scale [Cocker1897l]; boxwood scale [McKenz1956]; coconut scale [Lever1969]; escama del balazo [Mosque1976]; pandanus scale [Cocker1897l]; screw pine scale [ColonFMe1998]; small mussel scale [Maxwel1903].
ASSOCIATE: HYMENOPTERA Formicidae: Technomyrmex albipes [Lever1969].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus circumdatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus distigma [VeseyF1941, HertinSi1972], Chilocorus nigritus [VeseyF1941, HertinSi1972], Chilocorus sp. [Lever1969], Chilocorus wahlbergi [HertinSi1972], Cryptognatha nodiceps [HertinSi1972], Cryptogonus orbiculus [HertinSi1972], Exochomus flavipes [HertinSi1972], Exochomus sp. [Lever1969], Exochomus ventralis [HertinSi1972], Heipharis cautus [HertinSi1972], Lotis bicolor [HertinSi1972], Platynaspis kollari [HertinSi1972], Scymnus guttiger [HertinSi1972], Scymnus njalensis [HertinSi1972], Scymnus trepidulus [HertinSi1972], Serangium kunowi [HertinSi1972], Sticholotis punctata [HertinSi1972], Telsimia nitida [Lever1969]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972, Lesche2000]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Aphytis diaspidis [Balach1954e], Aphytis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Garcia1930], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998]. Encyrtidae: Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium odorum [FerrisRa1947]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex vomitoria [ColonFMe1998]. Araceae: Aglaonema philippinensis [CockerRo1914], Alocasia [Borchs1966], Anthurium crystallinum [Cocker1897l], Anthurium grandi [Nakaha1983], Anthurium magnificum [Bodkin1922, Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Anubias [Borchs1966], Colocasia esculenta [WilliaWa1988], Epipremnum sp. [Maxwel1902], Homalomena philippinensis [Robins1917], Monstera deliciosa [Newste1901b, AlayoS1976, Heu2002], Monstera sp. [Maxwel1902], Philodendron pertusum [Leonar1918], Philodendron sp. [Balach1954e, Heu2002], Pothos seemanii [Takagi1970], Rhodospatha [Borchs1966], Scindapsus aureus [Nakaha1981a], Scindapsus sp. [Nakaha1981a], Spathiphyllum sp. [Maxwel1902]. Arecaceae [Reimer1890], Acrocomia media [ColonFMe1998], Acrocomia sp. [Lever1969], Areca catechu [Cocker1897l], Areca lutescens [Cocker1897l], Areca sp. [WilliaWa1988], Calamus sp. [Lever1969], Chamaerops sp. [Archan1937], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Newste1901b, AlayoS1976], Cocos nucifera [CostaL1928, Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Daemonorops lewisianus [Newste1901b], Dictyosperma album [Cocker1897l], Dictyosperma sp. [Lever1969], Howeia belmoreana [Ballou1926, AlayoS1976], Howeia forsteriana [Ballou1926, AlayoS1976], Licuala grandis [Newste1901b, AlayoS1976], Neodypsis [Mamet1951], Phoenix sp. [Borchs1966], Pinanga kuhlii [Cocker1897l], Raphia sp. [Mamet1959a], Rhapis sp. [Borchs1966], Tachycarpus sp. [Lever1969], Thrinax excelsa [CostaL1928], Trachycarpus [Borchs1966], Veitchia joannis [Hinckl1963]. Asteraceae: Chrysanthemum morifolium [Paik1978]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [ColonFMe1998], Vriesea polonia [ColonFMe1998]. Burseraceae: Canarium commune [WilliaWa1988]. Buxaceae: Buxus sempervirens [Bouche1851], Buxus sp. [Balach1954e]. Celastraceae: Siphonodon celastrineus [CockerRo1915]. Cucurbitaceae: Momordica charantia [WilliaWa1988], Momordica sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Cyperaceae: Cyperus alternifolius [Ballou1926]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros oleoides [AhmadGh1972], Diospyros sp. [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites montana [FerrisRa1947], Hevea brasiliensis [YunusHo1980]. Fabaceae: Cassia fistula [FerrisRa1947], Hardwickia binata [FerrisRa1947], Inocarpus fagifer [WilliaWa1988], Kentia sp. [Newste1901b], Phaseolus vulgaris [WilliaWa1988], Tamarindus indica [FerrisRa1947]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia bihai [Cocker1897l], Heliconia sp. [Mamet1943a]. Iridaceae: Dietes bicolor [CulikMaVe2008], Moraea bicolor [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Juncaceae: Prinonium [Borchs1966]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia edulis [WilliaWa1988]. Liliaceae: Aloe [Mamet1959a], Cordyline fruticosa [ColonFMe1998], Cordyline terminalis [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002], Dracaena sp. [Cocker1897l]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia glandiflora [FerrisRa1947, SureshMo1996], Michelia chambaka [FerrisRa1947, SureshMo1996]. Malvaceae: Gossypium barbadense [ColonFMe1998], Hibiscus [Borchs1966], Hibiscus arnottianus [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Sida sp. [CulikMaVe2008]. Marantaceae: Maranta [Borchs1966]. Meliaceae: Dysoxylum sp. [WilliaMi2010], Sandoricum [Borchs1966], Trichilia [Borchs1966]. Moraceae: Artocarpus heterophyllus [WilliaWa1988], Artocarpus integrifolia [FerrisRa1947], Ficus glomerata [FerrisRa1947]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002]. Ochnaceae: Schuurmansia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Oleaceae: Olea cuspidata [AhmadGh1972], Olea sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Orchidaceae: Dendrobium sp. [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Epidendrum sp. [Lupo1938a]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus conideus [Newste1901b], Pandanus hornei [Mamet1943a], Pandanus odoratissimus [Green1916e], Pandanus seychellarum [GreenLa1921], Pandanus sp. [Comsto1881, Heu2002], Pandanus upoluensis [WilliaWa1988], Pandanus utilis [Cocker1897l, AlayoS1976]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Tang1986]. Piperaceae: Piper sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Poaceae [Borchs1966]. Polypodiaceae: Asplenium sp. [Mamet1959]. Proteaceae: Helicia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Pteridaceae: Adiantum aethiopicum [WilliaWa1988]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [FerrisRa1947]. Rubiaceae: Coprosma laevigata [WilliaWa1988], Morinda citrifolia [WilliaWa1988]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Frogga1936]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Solanaceae: Lycopersicon esculentum [WilliaWa1988]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Tao1999]. Strelitziaceae: Strelitzia reginae [Nakaha1981a], Strelitzia sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Taxodiaceae: Cunninghamia sp. [Tang1986]. Thymelaeaceae: Daphne oleoides [Varshn2002]. Ulmaceae: Celtis philippinensis [Ali1969a]. Verbenaceae: Lantana commersoni [Cocker1896k].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Hall1946a]; Comoros [Matile1978]; Ghana [Hall1946a]; Madagascar [Mamet1951]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Reunion [Mamet1959, WilliaWi1988, GermaiMiPa2014]; Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome [Fernan1974]); Seychelles [GreenLa1921, VeseyF1940]; Sierra Leone [Hargre1927]; Tanzania [Lindin1910b]; Togo [MerrilCh1923]; Zaire [Balach1954e]. Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1916e]); Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1966], Truk Islands [Nakaha1982]); Fiji [Simmon1924]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [Nakaha1982]); Guam [Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [Nakaha1982] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1917.)); Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988], Java [WilliaMi2010]); Palau [Nakaha1982]; Papua New Guinea [Frogga1936, WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (California [McKenz1956] (This species had only been found in California nurseries and has subsequently eradicated in the state (McKenzie, 1956).), District of Columbia [MerrilCh1923], Florida [MerrilCh1923, Dekle1965c], Illinois [MerrilCh1923], Massachusetts [Comsto1881a], New York [MerrilCh1923], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Maxwel1902]); Argentina [Nakaha1982]; Barbados [Cocker1897l]; Belize [MerrilCh1923]; Brazil [MerrilCh1923] (Bahia [Azeved1929], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Rio de Janeiro [Cocker1902k, Lepage1938], Sao Paulo [Green1930b]); Colombia [Mosque1976]; Costa Rica [SuhJi2009]; Cuba [Reimer1890, AlayoS1976]; Dominica [Maxwel1902]; Ecuador [Nakaha1982]; Grenada [Cocker1897l]; Guyana [Cocker1897l]; Jamaica [Cocker1892a]; Montserrat [Maxwel1902]; Panama [MerrilCh1923]; Peru [Nakaha1982]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [NakahaMi1981]); Suriname [Nakaha1982]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Cocker1897l]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983]; Venezuela [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Nakaha1982]; India [Ali1969a] (Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996]). Oriental: Indonesia [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Nakaha1982]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Philippines (Luzon [CockerRo1914]); Singapore [Nakaha1982]; Sri Lanka [Green1937]; Taiwan [Takagi1970]; Thailand [Nakaha1982]. Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1984b], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tang1984b], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984b]); Czechoslovakia [Zahrad1957, KozarzRe1975]; Denmark [Henrik1921, KozarzRe1975]; Egypt [Ezzat1958]; France [FerrisRa1947]; Germany [Bouche1851, MerrilCh1923]; Ireland [Green1934d]; Italy [Leonar1918, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [FerrisRa1947]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia [DanzigPe1998]; Spain [Garcia1930]; Sweden [Ossian1959]; Switzerland [Ferris1937]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; United Kingdom (England [Newste1901b]).
BIOLOGY: First stage active nymphs settle on feeding surface and soon become immobile. Second stage nymphs shelter under skin of 1st stage nymphs (Vesey-Fitzgerald, 1940). Although McKenzie (1956) presumed this species to be parthenogenetic, Cockerell (1892a) and Mamet (1959) did describe males.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1956). Description of male scales by Mamet (1959).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very small, pale brownish or almost colorless. Adult female pale yellowish. Male scale white with 3 strong carinae (Cockerell, 1892a).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) lists Diaspis vandalicusas an unplaced nomen nudum. While Reimer (1890) states only that it is "an insect of diminutive size, barely visible to the naked eye" this must be considered a valid description. Cockerell (1893e) considered Diaspis vandalicus to be a junior synonym of Mytilaspis buxi Bouché. Long time confusion of Pinnaspis buxi with P. aspidistrae means that host and distribution records for each could be erroneous (Balachowsky, 1954e).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Suh 2014: 6 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis from Korea]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 119 [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Puerto Rico]; Danzig 1993: 312 [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 212 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chen 1983: 17 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chou 1982: 92 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis]; Wang 1982c: 85 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Paik 1978: 375 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 113 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 843 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 554 (female) [Key to known Micronesian species of Pinnaspis]; Ezzat 1958: 246 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis known to occur in Egypt]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 277 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris & Rao 1947: 43 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Hall 1946a: 529 (female) [Key to species of Ethiopian species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:60 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Lupo 1938a: 299 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Fullaway 1932: 96 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 290, 341 (female) [as Hemichionaspis pseudaspidistrae, Pinnaspis siphonodontis; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 95]; AlayoS1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15-16]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 63]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79]; Azeved1929 [distribution, host: 113]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 277-280]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 29-30]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114-116]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 554, 555]; Berles1896 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 368]; Bodkin1914 [distribution, host: 115]; Bodkin1922 [distribution: 57]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 197]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 111, 377]; Bouche1851 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 111]; Brick1910 [taxonomy: 7]; Britto1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 370]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 40]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-22, 112]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92, 96-98]; Chou1986 [illustration: 495]; Cocker1892a [description, distribution, host: 54]; Cocker1892b [distribution, host: 333]; Cocker1892d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 136]; Cocker1892f [taxonomy: 119]; Cocker1893a [distribution, host: 174]; Cocker1893e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-39]; Cocker1893j [distribution: 256]; Cocker1893p [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157-158]; Cocker1894c [description, distribution, host: 307]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Cocker1896k [distribution, host, taxonomy: v]; Cocker1897l [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Cocker1902k [distribution, host: 456]; CockerRo1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 329-330]; CockerRo1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 110]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 120-121]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 324-325]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 118, 121-122]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 121]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 843]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 312-314]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334]; Dash1916 [distribution: 42]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 145]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 113]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130]; DelGue1894a [taxonomy: 181, 182]; Ezzat1958 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 246]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 199]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 242, 328]; Fernan1974 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-2]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 76]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-98]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 41]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-445:6, SIV-446:6]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 29, 32-33, 43]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Frogga1936 [distribution, host: 18]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 96, 105]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 70]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Gill1997 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 232, 234]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 25, 27]; Green1897 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69-70]; Green1916e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 58-59]; Green1930b [distribution, host: 214]; Green1934d [distribution: 114]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 323]; GreenLa1921 [distribution, host: 127]; Greenw1929 [distribution, host: 350]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 529, 547, 548]; Hargre1927 [distribution, host: 116]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Hempel1904 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 318-319]; Henrik1921 [distribution, taxonomy: 314-315]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 188-189]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 50]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 20, 55]; HodekHo2009 [biological control: 235]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 26]; Hoffma1927 [distribution: 76]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 200]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303-304]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 24]; King1899c [distribution: 229]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, economic importance, host: 36]; Leonar1918 [distribution, host: 211]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 179-181]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 415]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lever1969 [description, distribution, economic importance, host: 50-51]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 225]; Lindin1909e [distribution, host: 40]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 176]; Lindin1934e [taxonomy: 164]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1954 [taxonomy: 620]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 299, 305-310]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290, 341]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 165]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 46-47]; Mamet1951 [host, distribution: 229]; Mamet1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-126]; Mamet1959a [host, distribution: 384]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 26]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 42]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 5, 55, 84, 126, 139,]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 56]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Maxwel1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 148, 150-151]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 72]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 348]; Morgan1888b [illustration, taxonomy: 119]; Morgan1890a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Mosque1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57-58, 94]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 403]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 69]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 14]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 35]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207-209]; Newste1914 [distribution, host: 311]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 375, 377-378]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Reh1904 [taxonomy: 23]; Reimer1890 [distribution, host: 278]; Reyne1961 [distribution, host: 121, 122]; Robins1917 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39, 40]; RosenDe1978 [distribution, host: 98-99]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Saakya1954 [host: 27]; Samway1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 99]; Sassce1923 [distribution, host: 155]; Schmut1952 [taxonomy: 579]; Schmut1957b [taxonomy: 149]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215-217]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; Signor1870 [taxonomy: 93]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 178]; Silves1939 [taxonomy: 796]; Simmon1924 [distribution, host: 53]; Simmon1938 [distribution, host: 39]; Suh2014 [distribution: 1,6]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 257]; Sweetm1958 [biological control, distribution: 453]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105-106]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 166-167]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 297, 298]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 105]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109]; Terezn1986 [distribution, host: 52]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 70]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 196]; VeseyF1940 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 262-264]; VeseyF1941 [biological control, distribution, host: 161-162]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 88, 85]; Ward1890 [economic importance: 308]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Wester1918 [host: 53]; Wester1920 [host: 64]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 47]; WilliaMi2010 [distribution, host: 46]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212, 215, 218]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 71]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 31-32, 74]; WoodruBeSk1998 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Yang1982 [illustration, taxonomy: 232, 233]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 35]; Zahrad1957 [distribution, host: 51]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 387, 390].
Pinnaspis chamaecyparidis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis chamaecyparidis Takagi, 1961a: 72-73. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Toyama-ken, Namerikawa, on Chamaecyparis obtusa, 08/01/1955 & 16/04/1956. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Juniperus chinensis [Suh2014]. Pinaceae: Chamaecyparis obtusa [Takagi1961a]. Taxodiaceae: Cryptomeria japonica [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takagi1961a], Shikoku [Muraka1970]); South Korea [Suh2014].
BIOLOGY: This species has two generations per year and hibernates as an adult female in Japan (Kawai 1980).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi (1961a). Photographs in Suh, 2014.
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, moderately convex dorsally, white. Male scale tricarinate. Adult female fusiform, 0.73 mm long and 0.32 mm wide; free segments each slightly convex laterally (Takagi, 1961a). Adult female cover narrowly to broadly oyster-shell shaped, light to dark brown; shed skins margin, yellow brown to brown. Male cover smaller, felted, white, elongate, with slight median carina; shed skin yellowish. (Suh, 2014)
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis chamaecyparidis is similar to P. juniperi from which it differs mainly by the second lobes which are well developed, with the inner lobule slightly expanded apically (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Suh 2014: 6 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis from Korea]; Takagi 1961a: 75 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 92]; Suh2014 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 2-4,6]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 72-73, 75]; Takagi1965a [taxonomy: 451]; Takagi1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 119-120].
Pinnaspis diaspiformis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia diaspiformis Newstead, 1906a: 74. Nomen nudum; discovered by Newstead, 1908b: 35.
Fiorinia diaspitiformis Lindinger, 1907a: 20. Nomen nudum; discovered by Newstead, 1908b: 35.
Fiorinia diaspiformis Newstead, 1908b: 35-36. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, Smeroe, on Bambusa sp. and Piper sp., 01/07/1903. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Anamefiorinia diaspidiformis; Lindinger, 1935: 132. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Pinnaspis diaspiformis; Borchsenius, 1966: 113. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Piperaceae: Piper sp. [Newste1906a]. Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Newste1908b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Newste1906a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Newstead (1908b).
STRUCTURE: Female cover purplish-brown, margins paler. Exuviae pale yellow, terminal, irregular. Ventral exuviae complete, thin anteriorly, thick posteriorly, 1.75-2.75 mm long, 1.50-2.00 mm wide. Male scale white, thickly felted and very strongly tricarinate. Adult female oviparous, not highly chitinized, ovate. Pygidium somewhat produced; median lobes small, approximate, margins strongly dentate (Newstead, 1908b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 374 (female) [as Fiorinia diaspiformis; Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 44]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 374]; Newste1906a [distribution, host: 74]; Newste1908b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36]; Pierce1917 [taxonomy: 32]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 51].
Pinnaspis dracaenae (Cooley)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis dracaenae Cooley, 1899: 57. Type data: YEMEN: Socotra Island, on Dracaena cinnabari, by W.S. MacDougall. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis dracaenae; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 17. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Areca catechu [BhasinRo1954]. Bombacaceae: Pachira aquatica [Green1905]. Euphorbiaceae: Hevea brasiliensis [Green1922], Hevea sp. [Green1937]. Liliaceae: Dracaena cinnabari [Cooley1899].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Yemen [Cooley1899]. Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Green1905]). Oriental: India [Ali1969a] (Kerala [Fletch1919]); Sri Lanka [Green1922].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.3-1.6 mm long, pyriform, thin and delicate, white; exuviae 0.6 mm long, brownish. Male scale 0.8 mm long, delicate in texture, feebly uncarinated. Exuviae yellowish-brown, occupying nearly one half of the length of the scale. Adult female broad, nearly oval, feebly segmented. Median lobes quite long and narrow, irregularly crenate, usually slightly separated along their inner edges (Cooley, 1899).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 43 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 340 (female) [as Hemichionaspis dracaenae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis dracaenae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis dracaenae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 63-64]; BhasinRo1954 [distribution, host: 82]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Cocker1902b [taxonomy: 82]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 57]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 33-34, 43]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 298]; Green1905 [distribution, host: 29]; Green1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 13]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 96]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 17]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 70].
Pinnaspis exercitata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis exercitata Green, 1896: 3. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Thea sp., and Psychotria sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Chionaspis theae ceylonica Green, 1905a: 354. Type data: SRI LANKA:. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 34.
Hemichionaspis theae ceylonica; Sanders, 1906: 12. Change of combination.
Hemichionaspis theae exercitata; Cockerell, 1906b: 35. Change of combination and rank.
Chionaspis ceylonica; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of status.
Pinnaspis excercitata; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 34. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites montana [FerrisRa1947]. Fabaceae: Cassia siamea [FerrisRa1947]. Nyctaginaceae: Mirabilis sp. [Tang1986]. Piperaceae: Piper nigrum [Tang1986]. Rhamnaceae: Zizyphus sp. [FerrisRa1947]. Rubiaceae: Psychotria sp. [Green1896], Psychotria sp. [Varshn2002]. Theaceae: Camellia assamica [YunusHo1980], Camellia sinensis [YunusHo1980], Eurya japonica [FerrisRa1947], Thea sinensis [Tang1986], Thea sp. [Green1896]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Hainan [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986]); India (Karnataka [Varshn2002], Odisha [FerrisRa1947], Tamil Nadu [Ali1969a], West Bengal [Varshn2002]); Malaysia [YunusHo1980]; Pakistan [KazimiGh1964, Janjua1959]; Sri Lanka [Green1896].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, flat, brown, yellowish or white. Adult female with median pygidial lobes very small, exceeded by or scarcely equalling in length the 2nd lobes, their mesal margins closely appressed. Median lobes distinctive, each being apically acute and with its lateral margin slanting and slightly twice notched. 2nd lobes well developed, mesal lobule expanded apically, but not hatchet-shaped, outer lobule also well developed but shorter. 3rd lobes represented merely by slight serrations of the pygidial margin (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 95]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 64]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1906b [taxonomy: 35]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 34-35, 42, 44]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 3]; Green1905a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 354]; Green1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 464]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Janjua1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 237, 248]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 37]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 12]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 12]; Tang1977 [taxonomy: 166]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 298]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 71]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 35].
Pinnaspis fici (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis fici Green, 1908a: 37-38. Type data: INDIA: West Bengal, on Ficus glomerata, by H.M. Lefroy. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis fici; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus glomerata [Green1908a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Bihar [Ramakr1921a], West Bengal [Green1908a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Green (1908a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, thin and semi-transparent, broad and irregular in form. Male scale opaque white, sharply tricarinate. Adult female broadest across median abdominal segments, margins of which are produced into broadly rounded lobes. Median lobes large and prominent, closely approximated, minutely serrate or crenulate on free edge, together forming a semi-circle (Green, 1908a).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris & Rao (1947) state that the original description and figure make it impossible to recognize this species.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 340 (female) [as Hemichionaspis fici; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 64]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; FerrisRa1947 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 35]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 298]; Green1908a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-38]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; Maxwel1909 [distribution: 762]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 102]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 70].
Pinnaspis fonsecai ArrudaNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis fonsecai Arruda, 1972: 3-17. Type data: BRAZIL: Pernambuco, on Cordyline dracaenoides, by G.P. Arruda. Syntypes, female. Type depository: IPAP. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Cordyline dracaenoides [Arruda1972].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Pernambuco [Arruda1972]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Arruda (1972).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale elongate, exuviae apical. clear brown. 2.2 mm long and 1.0 mm at widest part (Arrudo, 1972).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis fonsecai is near P. buxi, but can be told by the form of the tubercular antennae, the form of the abdomen, the number and placement of the perivulvar pores and the pygidial lobes (Arrudo, 1972).
CITATIONS: Arruda1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-17]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249].
Pinnaspis frontalis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis frontalis Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 115.
Pinnaspis frontalis Takagi, 1970: 115-116. Type data: TAIWAN: Chu-chi, on Eurya japonica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis fronlis; Chen, 1983: 17. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Theaceae: Eurya japonica [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale quite slender, highly convex dorsally and dark brown. Adult female body slender, with the free segments slightly lobed out laterally and with the pygidium narrow and only slightly rounded. Median lobes rather small, tightly appressed together mesally, notched twice on the lateral side. 2nd lobes well developed, either lobule much elongate, constricted basally, often with a subapical notch on each side and without basal scleroses. 3rd lobes reduced to mere marginal serrations (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis frontalis is unique by the presence of the interantennal tubercle (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 17 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 17, 99]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; Chou1986 [illustration: 500]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115-116]; Tang1986 [taxonomy: 297]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 105]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis hainnanensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis hainnanensis Tang, 1986: 231. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Zhaoqing, on unidentified Euphorbiaceae; Hainan, Yaxian County, undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Hainan [Tang1986]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pyriform and white. Male scale with median ridge. Adult female 0.7 mm long, pygidium triangular. Pygidial lobes in 2 pairs; occasionally the 2nd pair lost or only its inner lobule present, but very small, acute, with ventral paraphyses. Median lobes large and projecting, with lateral margin notched a few times (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis hainnanensis is close to P. uvariae, but can be separated by the different body shape, scale color and distribution of dorsal ducts (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 42]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 296-297]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109].
Pinnaspis hibisci TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis hibisci Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 113.
Pinnaspis hibisci Takagi, 1970: 113-115. Type data: TAIWAN: Chia-i, on Hibiscus rosaesinensis; Kuan-tzu-ling, on H. taiwanensis and Boehmeria densiflora; Heng-chun, on H. rosaesinensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Malvaceae: Hibiscus rosaesinensis [Takagi1970], Hibiscus taiwanensis [Takagi1970]. Urticaceae: Boehmeria densiflora [Takagi1970], Boehmeria sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970]. Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white. Adult female body robust, with the pygidium broad and triangular in outline. Median lobes large, tightly appressed mesally but not fused, deeply notched twice or thrice on the lateral margin. 2nd lobes quite reduced yet rather variable in size, with the outer lobule at times obsolete. 3rd lobes practically obsolete (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: P. hibisci comes close to P. yamamotoi, from which it may be distinguished by having gland spines as anteriorly as the mesothorax, by having more numerous lateral macroducts, and by the white scale. It differs from P. shirozui mainly by the unfused median lobes; the well-developed preanal scleroses, the presence of the submarginal macroducts on the 5th abdominal segment (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 18, 99]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; Chou1986 [illustration: 501]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334-335]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 113-115]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 105]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 32, 75]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis hikosana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis hikosana Takagi, 1961a: 73-74. Type data: JAPAN: Kyusyu, Hiko-San, near summit (1199 m), on Viburnum sp., 10/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Ilex integra [Suh2014], Lannea coromandelica [Tao1999]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex crenata [Takagi1966]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum dilatatum [Takagi1966], Viburnum plicatum [Suh2014], Viburnum sieboldii [Suh2014], Viburnum sp. [Takagi1961a]. Clethraceae: Clethra barbinervis [Suh2014]. Cornaceae: Cornus controversa [Suh2014], Cornus macrophylla [Suh2014], Cornus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Daphniphyllaceae: Daphniphyllum macropodum [Takagi1966]. Styracaceae: Styrax japonica [Suh2014]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Suh2014], Cleyera japonica [Takagi1966], Eurya japonica [Takagi1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Muraka1970], Kyushu [Takagi1961a]); South Korea [Suh2014].
BIOLOGY: This species has two generations per year, hibernates as an adult female and the fi rst generation appears in mid-May to early June in Japan (Kawai 1980).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, dark brown. Adult female body fusiform, 1.02 mm long, 0.51 mm wide, free segments each moderately convex laterally; pygidium triangular. Derm membranous except for sclerotized areas of pygidium (Takagi, 1961a). Adult female cover narrowly to broadly oyster-shell shaped, dark brown; shed skins marginal, yellow brown to brown. Male cover smaller, felted, white, elongate, with tricarinate (Kawai 1980)
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis hikosana seems to be related to P. mussaendae, P. rhododendri and P. scrobicularum. It appears to come closest to P. rhododendri, from which it may be separated by the metathorax and prepygidial abdominal segments which are moderately convex laterally, the median lobes deeply incised on the outer side, and the preanal scars normal in shape. It differs from P. mussaendae by the 2nd lobes apparently present and by having fewer submarginal macroducts. It differs from P. scrobicularum by lacking submedian macroducts and by having fewer submarginal macroducts (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Suh 2014: 6 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis from Korea]; Takagi 1961a: 75 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 305-306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 92]; Suh2014 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 4-6]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-74, 75]; Takagi1965a [taxonomy: 451]; Takagi1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109].
Pinnaspis indivisa FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis indivisa Ferris, 1950a: 76-77. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Cornus sp., 01/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [Ferris1950a], Dendrobenthamia japonica chinensis [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1950a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1950a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.50 mm long, flat, very light brown, elongate, broadening posteriorly, its form varying with its position on host. Adult female about 1.10 mm long, somewhat turbinate, with the lateral margins of the metathorax and first 3 abdominal segments quite strongly lobed. Median pygidial lobes apparently completely fused, quite small, apically rounded and with 3 slight lateral notches (Ferris, 1950a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis indivisa most closely resembles P. uniloba, but a key character for their separation is the complete absence of the 2nd lobes in P. uniloba (Ferris, 1950a).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 17 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chou 1982: 91 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 64]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 17, 99]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91, 99-100]; Chou1986 [illustration: 502]; Ferris1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76, 93]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 12]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 109]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis javanensis (Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis javanensis Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a: 650. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Cocos sp. taken in quarantine in Kobe, Japan. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis javanensis; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos sp. [KuwanaMu1931a]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [KuwanaMu1931a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana & Muramatsu (1931a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale small, slender; grayish brown. Adult female pygidium with 2 pairs of prominent lobes, median pair much longer than the 2nd, inner margins nearly parallel, a notch on the outer margin near tip. 5 groups of circumgenital gland orifices, median of 2-8, cephalolaterals 8-15, caudolaterals 8-11 (Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; KuwanaMu1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 650, 657]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 46].
Pinnaspis juniperi TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis juniperi Takahashi, 1956a: 57-58. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nara Prefecture, Habiki Hills, Minami-Kawachi-gun, Osaka-fu; also Unebi, all on Juniperus rigida, ?/01/1955, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis junituperi; Chen, 1983: 17. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Juniperus chinensis [Hua2000], Juniperus rigida [Takaha1956a], Juniperus sp. [Takagi1961a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Takaha1956a], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1956a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, narrow, slender, slightly broadened posteriorly, straight, 1.5 mm long. Exuviae yellow, 2nd exuviae not enlarged. Adult female body narrow, slightly broadened posteriorly, not convex laterally on metathorax and abdominal segments. Pygidium triangular, without preanal scares. Median lobes small, protruding, closely appressed, but with a trace of division, one distinct notch on lateral margin; 2nd lobes obsolete, represented by 2 short rounded protuberances (Takahashi, 1956a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis juniperi is unique in the abdominal segments not being laterally convex and in the triangular pygidium and is also marked by the dorsal macroducts being greatly reduced (Takahashi, 1956a).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 17 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Wang 1982c: 85 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1961a: 75 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23, 113]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 307]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 92]; Takagi1961a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 73, 75]; Takagi1965a [taxonomy: 451]; Takagi1966 [distribution, host: 119]; Takaha1956a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57-58]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 170-171]; Tao1999 [distribution: 110]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 89].
Pinnaspis liui TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis liui Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 110.
Pinnaspis liui Takagi, 1970: 110-111. Type data: TAIWAN: A-li Shan, on Adinandra lasiostyla, Eurya acuminata and E. strigillosa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [Tao1999]. Fabaceae: Albizia slipulata [Tao1999]. Geraniaceae: Pelargonium sp [Tao1999]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp [Tao1999]. Meliaceae: Melia azedarach [Tao1999]. Solanaceae: Capsicum sp. [Tao1999]. Theaceae: Adinandra lasiostyla [Takagi1970], Eurya acuminata [Takagi1970], Eurya strigillosa [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown. Adult female body slender, with free abdominal segments only gently lobed laterally and with the pygidium rather narrow and slightly roundish along the margin. Median lobes small, loosely appressed together, with several notches on the lateral side, their inner basal margins usually separated by a narrow space. 2nd lobes well developed (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis liui is unique in having 1 or 2 submarginal macroducts on the 6th abdominal segment, which is an unusual character in Pinnaspis (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 18, 99]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357-358]; Chou1986 [illustration: 503]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 110-111]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 105]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis longula (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes longula Leonardi, 1907: 20-22. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Persea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes (Hemichionaspis) longula; Lindinger, 1907d: 159. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis longula; MacGillivray, 1921: 287. Change of combination.
Pinaspis longula; Lindinger, 1934: 16. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinnaspis longula; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of combination.
HOST: Lauraceae: Persea sp. [Leonar1907]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Leonar1907]).
BIOLOGY: Pinnaspis longula was found in company with P. rombica (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
SYSTEMATICS: According to Ferris & Rao (1947) there is nothing in the original description which will permit the identification of this species.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 287 [as Scrupulaspis longula; Key to species of Scrupulaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 64]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Ebelin1959 [distribution: 318]; FerrisRa1947 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 35-36]; Leonar1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-22]; Lindin1907d [taxonomy: 159]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 122]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 30].
Pinnaspis melaleucae LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis melaleucae Laing, 1929: 15-16. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Townsville, on Melaleuca leucadendron, by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Melaleuca leucadendron [Laing1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale straight, not curved, rather markedly dilated behind, often expanded more strongly on one side than the other, the greatest breadth about two-thirds the length, snowy white, opaque, smooth; exuviae blackish grey, paler around the margins, 1.6 mm long. Male scale narrow, elongate, parallel-sided, tricarinate; exuviae very pale stramineous, 1.1 mm long. Adult female clearing completely in potash, oval, length quite twice the breadth (Laing, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: The shape of the median lobes are similar to P. minima, but the few dorsal pores and the color of the exuviae should distinguish it (Laing, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15-16].
Pinnaspis minima (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis minima Green, 1908a: 38-39. Type data: INDIA: West Bengal, Pusa, on Ficus sp., by H.M. Lefroy. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis minima; Laing, 1929: 16. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus bengalensis [Ali1967a], Ficus sp. [Green1908a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Bihar [Green1908a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1908a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale whitish, almost colorless, more or less translucent. Moderately elongate, broadest across the middle. Exuviae pale yellow. Male scale white opaque, obscurely tricarinate. Exuviae very pale yellow. Adult female narrowed in front, broadest across the base of the pygidium. Median pygidial lobes closely approximated, scarcely projecting beyond margin, widest towards extremity which is strongly denticulate (Green, 1908a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis minima is unique in its very small size (Green, 1908a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 343 (female) [as Hemichionaspis minima; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1967a [distribution, host: 39]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 65]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Efimof1937 [distribution, host: 60, 99]; FerrisRa1947 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 36]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 298]; Green1908a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-39]; Laing1929 [taxonomy: 16]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 151]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 343]; Maxwel1909 [distribution: 762]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 102]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 71].
Pinnaspis muntingi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis muntingi Takagi, 1965a: 446-448. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Umkomaas, on Abutilon sp., by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Araceae: Anthurium sp. [Takagi1965a]. Malvaceae: Abutilon sp. [Takagi1965a]. Moraceae: Ficus swinhoei [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Takagi1965a]. Oriental: Sri Lanka [Takagi1965a]; Taiwan [Takagi1965a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1965a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown. Adult female fusiform; prepygidial abdominal segments well lobed laterally. Antennae with a seta. Median lobes moderate in size, closely appressed mesally, notched several times laterally, with median basal zygosis apparently protruding anteriorly beyond their bases. 2nd lobes well developed, inner lobule with a pair of basal paraphyses. 3rd lobes reduced to mere marginal serrations (Takagi, 1965a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis muntingi is close to P. aspidistrae and P. strachani from which it can be distinguished from the former by lacking disc pores in association with the posterior spiracles and from the latter by lacking distinct preanal scars and by the brown female scale (Takagi, 1965a).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-24, 114]; Takagi1965a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 446-448]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107-108]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 71]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis musae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis musae Takagi, 1963b: 137-138. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Illigan, on Musa sp., 12/06/1962, by M. Yamamoto. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Musaceae: Musa sapiens [Tao1978], Musa sp. [Takagi1963b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines [Takagi1963b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1963b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale broad and brown. Adult female slender, fusiform, membranous except for sclerotized areas of pygidium, attaining 1.4 mm in length. Median lobes moderately large, strongly sclerotized, appressed along entire mesal length, incised 3 or 4 times on lateral margins (Takagi, 1963b).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis musae is related to P. aspidistrae and P. strachani, from which it can be recognized by the combination of the following characters: presence of submedian macroducts on 3rd to 5th abdominal segments, presence of preanal scars, absence of basal paraphyses on inner lobules of 2nd lobes, presence of disc pores at posterior spiracles and the brown scale (Takagi, 1963b).
KEYS: Takagi 1963c: 68 [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Takagi1963b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137-138]; Takagi1963c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66, 68]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 107].
Pinnaspis mussaendae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis aspidistrae mussaendae Green, 1896: 2. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Mussaenda frondosa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Hemichionaspis mussaendae; Cooley, 1899: 49. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination and rank.
Chionaspis mussaendae; Green, 1899a: 117-118. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis mussaendae; Green, 1922: 460. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus diaspidis [Cooley1899]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus chionaspidis [DeSilv1961].
HOSTS: Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Cooley1899]. Rubiaceae: Mussaenda frondosa [Green1896]. Urticaceae: Debregaesia sp. [Cooley1899], Debregeasia wallichiana [Green1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia? [Green1937]. Neotropical: Brazil? [Green1937]. Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1896].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris & Rao (1947).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 43 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 344 (female) [as Hemichionaspis mussaendae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis mussendae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis mussaendae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Green 1899a: 107 [as Chionaspis mussaendae; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 65]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113-114]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1902b [taxonomy: 82]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 47, 49-50]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 119]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 49]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 241]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-407]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 36-37, 43]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 2]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107, 117-118]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [distribution, host, structure: 321-322]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; Maskel1896a [taxonomy: 224]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 113]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 71].
Pinnaspis orlandi (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis Orlandi Leonardi, 1906: 5-6. Type data: BRAZIL: Matto Grosso, Cujaba, on undetermined host, by G. Orlandi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Hemichionaspis orlandii; Lindinger, 1907a: 19. Misspelling of species name.
Hemichionaspis orlando; MacGillivray, 1921: 344. Misspelling of species name.
Pinnaspis orlandi; Borchsenius, 1966: 114. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil [Lepage1938] (Mato Grosso [Leonar1906, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1906).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris & Rao (1947) state "there is nothing in the description of this species which will permit its definite identification."
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 344 (female) [as Hemichionaspis orlando; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; FerrisRa1947 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28, 37]; Leonar1906 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 5-6]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 416]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 19]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 114]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 344].
Pinnaspis piperis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis piperis Takagi, 1963c: 64-66. Type data: JAPAN: Ryukyu Islands, on Piper kadzura; 21/05/1957, by S. Takagi; 26/08/1962, by T. Isobe. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Piperaceae: Piper kadzura [Takagi1963c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takagi1963c]. Palaearctic: Japan (Kyushu [Muraka1970], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1963c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale broad, brown. Male scale white, felted and tricarinate. Adult female fusiform, strongly lobed laterally in free segments, 1.3 mm long, 0.6 mm wide. Derm membranous except for pygidium. Median lobes moderate in size, closely appressed medially, forming a half circle, with 3 or 4 lateral incisions. 2nd lobes bilobed, inner lobule with basal paraphyses, outer also well developed, shorter than the inner. 3rd lobes indicated by a low serrate process (Takagi, 1963c).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis piperis is very close to P. aspidistrae, but can be distinguished by the preanal scars normally well developed and the submarginal dorsal macroducts more numerous. It may also be separated from P. boehmeriae by the well developed preanal scars and by lacking submedian dorsal microducts (Takagi, 1963c).
KEYS: Takagi 1963c: 68 [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; Kawai1972 [taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 92-93]; Takagi1963c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-66, 68]; Takagi1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 107].
Pinnaspis pseudotuberculata Feng et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis pseudotuberculatus Feng et al., 2004: 19-22. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, Hekou, Dawei mountain, on Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, 7/10/1974, by I. Chou and Y. Feng. Holotype. Type depository: Shaanxi: Entomological Museum of the Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Baishui, Shaanxi, China; type no. 74324. Described: female.
Pinnaspis pseudotuberculata; Pellizzari & Williams, 2013: 410. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
HOST: Malvaceae: Abutilon theophrasti Medicus [FengWaLi2004].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [FengWaLi2004]).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is similar to P. tuberculatus Tang 1986 and P. frontalis Takagi 1970. but differs from the latters by the following characters: 1)submaginal glands present on each of the third to fifth abdominal segments 7-9, 6-8, 3-6; but P. tuberculatus on the third and forth abdominal segments 0-4, 0-3; and P. frontalis on the forth and fifth abdominal segments, one on each; 2) minute ducts in submedian area present on segments 3 and 4, while P. tuberculatus present on segments 2 to 4, P. frontalis has no minute duct in submedian. (Feng, et al., 2004)
CITATIONS: FengWaLi2004 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19-22].
Pinnaspis rhododendri (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis rhododendri; Cooley, 1899: 56. Change of combination.
Chionaspis rhododendri Green, 1899a: 119-120. Type data: SRI LANKA: Nuwara Eliya, on Rhododendron arboreum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis rhododendri; Green, 1922: 460. Change of combination.
HOST: Ericaceae: Rhododendron arboreum [Green1899a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oblong, narrowed in front, dilated behind, often irregularly curved. 1st exuviae very pale fulvous; 2nd exuviae concealed beneath the covering of hairs that adhere to the whole surface of the scale, 1.25-1.50 mm long. Male scale slightly wider behind; indistinctly tricarinate, lateral carinae almost surpressed, white, 0.75 mm long. Adult female oblong, widest across median area, bright pale yellow, extremity of pygidium tinged with red (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis rhododendri is allied to P. scrobicularum, from which it may be distinguished by its more elongate form, narrower and more pointed pygidium and the scarcity of dorsal pores (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 342 (female) [as Hemichionaspis rhododendri; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis rhododendri; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis rhododendri; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Green 1899a: 107 [as Chionaspis rhododendri; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 65]; Cocker1902b [taxonomy: 82]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 56-57]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 58]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 38, 44]; FoxWil1939 [distribution, host: 2315]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107, 119-120]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 342]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 115]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 71].
Pinnaspis rombica LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis rombica Leonardi, 1907: 16-17. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Persea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis rhombica; Lindinger, 1907d: 159. Misspelling of species name.
Hemichionaspis rhombica; Cockerell & Robinson, 1914: 330. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOST: Lauraceae: Persea sp. [Leonar1907]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Leonar1907]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1907).
STRUCTURE: Female scale rhombus-shaped, slightly convex, slightly carinated longitudinally. Male scale white, delicate and tricarinated. Adult female elongate (Leonardi, 1907).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 290 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 65]; CockerRo1914 [distribution, taxonomy: 330]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 318]; FerrisRa1947 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29, 37]; Leonar1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-17]; Lindin1907d [taxonomy: 159]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 198]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290].
Pinnaspis sciadopityos TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis sciadopityos Takagi, 1965a: 450-451. Type data: JAPAN: Wakayama Experiment Forest of the Hokkaido University, on Sciadopitys verticillata, by S. Takagi; Omogo-Kei, on S. verticillata, by S. Takagi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Taxodiaceae: Sciadopitys verticillata [Takagi1965a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1965a], Honshu [Muraka1970], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1965a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, thin and white. Adult female much elongated, almost parallel-sided. Median lobes quite prominent, closely appressed mesally, serrate laterally, with median basal zygosis protruding anteriorly beyond their bases. 2nd lobes reduced in size. 3rd lobes obsolete (Takagi, 1965a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis sciadopityos is unique in the acute pygidium which terminates in the prominent median lobes (Takagi, 1965a).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 93]; Takagi1965a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 450-451].
Pinnaspis scrobicularum (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis scrobicularum; Cooley, 1899: 55. Change of combination.
Chionaspis scrobicularum Green, 1899a: 121-122. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Elaeocarpus amoenus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis scrobicularum; Green, 1922: 460. Change of combination.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Elaeocarpus amoenus [Green1899a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale concealed in pits on host leaves. Male scales similarly situated, usually several together. Adult female bright yellow; extremity of pygidium reddish. Pygidium broad; median lobes very prominent, inner edges in close apposition, the two together forming a regular semicircle with finely crenulate margin (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 341 (female) [as Hemichionaspis scrobicularum; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis scrobicularum; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis scrobicularum; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis scrobicularum; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 65-66]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Cocker1902b [taxonomy: 81]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45, 55-56]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 31]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 241]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 38-39, 44]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 121-122]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 115]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 71].
Pinnaspis serrulata TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis serrulata Takagi, 2003: 80. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Bataan, Mariveles. Holotype both sexes, by original designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 94PL-10. Described: female.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Pterospermum celebicum [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females and males occur on the lower surface of the leaves. Females burrowing under the tomentum, the presence of a female being suggested by a slight swelling on the tomentum; tests white. Males occurring on the surface of the tomentum; tests white, tricarinate. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, somewhat fusiform, at times becoming very long owing to the elongation of meso- and metathorax; free abdominal segments weakly lobed laterally; pygidium obdeltate. Prepygidial derm membranous; abd I with a submarginal dorsal boss; pygidium sclerotic on the dorsal surface, with a pair of slender scleroses (preanal scleroses) in the median subbasal area, the ventral surface sclerotized towards the apex. Antennae separated from each other by a space a little narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts, each with a long seta. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar male peculiar in having a series of prominent angular lobes along the pygidial margin. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 80, 128-129].
Pinnaspis shirozui TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis shirozui Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 111.
Pinnaspis shirozui Takagi, 1970: 111-113. Type data: TAIWAN: Heng-chun, on Ficus cuspidatocaudata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis shirozni; Chen, 1983: 18. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus cuspidatocaudata [Tao1978].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Tao1978].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown. Adult female body with free segments strongly lobed, and with the pygidium rather broad and triangular in outline. Median lobes comparatively large, strongly appressed mesally and seemingly fused together, with their apices separated by a deep median notch and with the lateral margin deeply notched twice. 2nd lobes various in development, but even if both lobules are present quite small in size (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis shirozui may be close to P. strachani, but is also similar to P. mussaendae and its allies. It can be recognized by the seemingly fused median lobes, which are, however, separated apically by a distinct notch, the absence of distinct preanal scleroses and the submarginal macroducts usually lacking on the 5th abdominal segment (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 18, 99]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 358]; Chou1986 [illustration: 504]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111-113]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 32, 75]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis siamensis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis lithocarpi siamensis Takahashi, 1942b: 35. Type data: THAILAND: Mt. Sutep, on Lithocarpus sp. 09/04/1940, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis siamensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 114. Change of status.
Quernaspis siamensis; Ali, 1970: 25. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1942b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1942b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pygidium with a very small blunt process at hind end. Median lobes slightly smaller, a little separated, diverging on the mesal sides (Takahashi, 1942b).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; TakagiHo1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35].
Pinnaspis simplior TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis simplior Takagi, 2003: 80-81. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Albay, Guinobatan, Banao. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 92PL-37. Described: female.
HOST: Sterculiaceae: Pterospermum celebicum [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, burrowing under the tomentum, the presence of a female being suggested by a slight swelling on the tomentum; tests white. No male tests found on the leaves. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pinnaspis serrulata [2.5.1] especially in having enlarged serrate median trullae, but differing in having a single marginal macroduct on each ofabd V and VI as well as on abd VII (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 80, 107, 130].
Pinnaspis sp.NOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis sp. Varshney, 2002: 69.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Varshn2002]. Fabaceae: Acacia modesta [Varshn2002]. Moraceae: Ficus bengalesis [Varshn2002]. Pinaceae: Abies pindrow [Varshn2002].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Bangladesh [Varshn2002]; India (Karnataka [Varshn2002]); Pakistan [Varshn2002].
CITATIONS: Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 69].
Pinnaspis sp. (nr strachani)NOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis sp. (nr strachani) Varshney, 2002: 69.
HOSTS: Malvaceae: Hibiscus sabdariffa [Varshn2002], Hibuscus cannabinus [Varshn2002]. Moraceae: Artocarpus heterophyllus [Varshn2002]. Tiliaceae: Corchorus capsularis [Varshn2002].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (West Bengal [Varshn2002]).
CITATIONS: Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 69].
Pinnaspis sp. nr. exercitataNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis sp. (nr. exercitata) Varshney, 2002: 69.
HOST: Oleaceae: Olea cuspidata [Varshn2002].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Varshn2002].
CITATIONS: Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 69].
Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis minor; Cooley, 1898: 89-90. Misidentification.
Hemichionaspis minor strachani Cooley, 1899: 54-55. Type data: NIGERIA: Abeokuta, on unknown host, by H. Strachan. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Hemichionaspis Marchali Cockerell, 1902b: 81-83. Type data: GUINEA: Konakry, on Elaeis guineensis, by Dr. Marchal. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28.
Hemichionaspis townsendi Cockerell, 1905f: 135. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Tayabas (=Quezon), on Gossypium sp., 12/04/????. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29.
Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae gossypii Newstead, 1906a: 74. Nomen nudum; discovered by Lindinger, 1935: 143.
Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae gossypii Newstead, 1908b: 37. Type data: TOGO: Kpeme, on Gossypium hirsutum, ?/01/1905. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 3678. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1935: 143.
Hemichionaspis aspidistrae gossypii; Sanders, 1909a: 49. Change of combination.
Hemichionaspis proxima Leonardi, 1914: 193-195. Type data: SENEGAL: Dakar, on Calotropis procera, Thiès, on Mango; GUINEA: Conakry, on Annona sp.; NIGERIA: Lagos; BENIN: Cotonou; ANGOLA; SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 284.
Hemichionaspis (Pinnaspis) marchali; Lindinger, 1914: 244. Change of combination.
Hemichionaspis minor; Wilson, 1917: 35. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 114.
Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis) minor; Newstead, 1917b: 133. Misidentification.
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) proxima; Brain, 1920: 104. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis minor; Kuwana, 1926: 38. Misidentification; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 114.
Pinnaspis minor strachani; Kuwana, 1926: 40. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis proxima; Lindinger, 1928: 107. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis (Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae gossypii; Mayné & Ghesquière, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis temporaria Ferris, 1942: SIV-407. Type data: PANAMA: Armuelles, on Mangifera indica, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29, 39.
Hemichionaspis minor; Fulmek, 1943: 35. Misidentification.
Pinnaspis aspidistrae gossypii; Hall, 1946a: 528. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis gossypii; Hall, 1946a: 529. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis marchali; Hall, 1946a: 529. Change of combination.
Hemichionaspis gossypii; Hall, 1946a: 550. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis) gossypii; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 28. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis townsendi; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis strachani; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 39. Change of combination and rank.
Pinaspis minor strachani; Lindinger, 1957: 551. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinaspis strachani; Lindinger, 1958: 371. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinnaspis stracheni; Brookes, 1964: 18. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cotton white scale [Gill1997]; escama nieve menor [CoronaRuMo1997]; guagua nevada menor [AlayoS1976]; hibiscus snow scale [VelasqRi1969]; lesser snow scale [Dekle1954]; small snow scale [Newste1907a].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [GersonSc1981]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigritus [Sankar1984], Chilocorus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972], Cybocephalus sp. [Sankar1984], Microscymnus sp. [Mosque1976], Pharoscymnus flexibilis [GhaniMu1974], Pharoscymnus horni [Sankar1984], Pharoscymnus simmondsi [GhaniMu1974], Pseudoscymnus simmondsi [AhmadGh1972], Sticholotis sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus nigritus [AhmadGh1972], Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972, Lesche2000]. DIPTERA Cecidomyiidae: Dentifibula sp. [Sankar1984]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus fuscipennis [Ruhl1913], Aphelinus quaylei [Ruhl1913], Aphytis chrysomphali [Fulmek1943], Aphytis diaspidis [DeSilv1961], Aphytis melinus [AhmadGh1972], Aphytis pinnaspidis [MyartsRu2000], Aphytis sp. nov. nr. citrinus [AhmadGh1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972, Ruhl1913], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Simmon1957], Azotus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Coccobius albipodus [Sankar1984], Coccobius fulvus [RehmatAnKh2011], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984], Marietta sp. [Sankar1984]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus coxalis [HayatAlAg1975], Adelencyrtus funiculus [Mani1976], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Simmon1957], Habrolepis apicalis [Fulmek1943], Plagiomerus sp. [Sankar1984], Prospaltella aurantii [DeSilv1961], Prospaltella berlesei [DeSilv1961], Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella peruviana [Fulmek1943], Prospaltella simmondsi [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Eupelmidae: Eupelmus coccidivorus [Fulmek1943]. Signiphoridae: Neosigniphora nigra [Fulmek1943], Signiphora flavopalliata [Fulmek1943], Signiphora lutea [Fulmek1943], Signiphora sp. [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Manoranjitham sp. [SureshMo1996]. Acanthaceae: Justicia sp. [WilliaWa1988], Thunbergia grandiflora [AlayoS1976]. Agavaceae: Agave americana [CarnerPe1986], Agave sisalana [Mamet1959a], Furcraea gigantea [Mamet1949], Yucca sp. [MillerDa2005]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave fourcroytes [AlayoS1976], Crinum asiaticum [WilliaWa1988], Crinum sp. [WilliaBu1987], Eucharis sp. [Hinckl1963], Polianthes tuberosa [AlayoS1976]. Anacardiaceae: Anacardium occidentale [WilliaWa1988], Mangifera indica [Ferris1942, CarnerPe1986], Mangifera odorata [YunusHo1980], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Annonaceae: Annona muricata [AlayoS1976, CouturMaRi1985, Malump2012b], Annona reticulata [AlayoS1976], Annona sp. [Leonar1914, MillerDa2005], Annona squamosa [AlayoS1976], Cananga odorata [Hinckl1963], Polyalthia longifolia [Sankar1984], Uvaria sp. [Balach1954e]. Apocynaceae: Nerium [Borchs1966], Nerium oleander [LincanHoCa2010], Pachypodium [Mamet1959a], Parsonsia sp. [Cooley1899], Plumeria alba [Cohic1958], Plumeria rubra [AlayoS1976], Plumeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Plumeria tuberculata [AlayoS1976], Vallesia glabra pubescens [Willia1977ML]. Araceae: Colocasia esculenta [WilliaWa1988], Rhaphidophora sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Araliaceae: Arailia sp. [MillerDa2005], Schefflera sp. [Hinckl1963]. Arecaceae: Acanthophoenix sp. [Mamet1943a], Attalea gomphocarpa [FerrisRa1947], Chamaedorea erumpens [CulikMaVe2008], Chamaerops [Borchs1966], Chrysalidocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos nucifera [Mamet1943a, Borchs1966], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Elaeis guineensis [Cocker1902b, FerrisRa1947, WilliaWa1988], Heterospathe sp. [MillerDa2005], Howea [Borchs1966], Kentia sp. [Balach1959a], Latania sp. [MillerDa2005], Licuala sp. [MillerDa2005], Livistona sp. [MillerDa2005], Phoenix dactylifera [AlayoS1976], Rhapis [Borchs1966], Roystonea regia [AlayoS1976], Sabal sp. [MillerDa2005], Thrinax sp. [MillerDa2005], Trachycarpus [Borchs1966], Veitchia joannis [Hinckl1963], Verschaffeltia [Borchs1966]. Asclepiadaceae: Calotropis procera [Leonar1914, Brain1920, ColonFMe1998]. Asteraceae: Chrysanthemum indicum [AlayoS1976], Fitchia sp. [WilliaWa1988], Psiadia [Mamet1954, Borchs1966], Scalesia affinis [Willia1977ML], Scalesia incisa [Willia1977ML]. Bombacaceae: Ceiba pentrandra [AlayoS1976], Ochroma [Borchs1966], Pachira insignis [AlayoS1976], Vitis vinifera [Cooley1898, AlayoS1976], Waltheria ovata [Willia1977ML]. Boraginaceae: Coldenia fusca [Willia1977ML], Heliotropium arborescens [AlayoS1976], Messerschmidia argentea [Beards1966], Tiquilia darwinii [LincanHoCa2010], Tournefortia argentea [WilliaWa1988], Tournefortia sp. [Willia1977ML]. Bromeliaceae: Ananas comosus [YunusHo1980], Bromelia sp. [AlayoS1976]. Cannaceae: Canna indica [WilliaWa1988]. Combretaceae: Conocarpus erecta [Willia1977ML], Terminalia calamansanay [WilliaWa1988], Terminalia catappa [WilliaWa1988], Terminalia complanata [WilliaWa1988], Terminalia sp. [WilliaWa1988, MillerDa2005]. Convolvulaceae: Ipomoea batatas [SchmutPiKl1978], Ipomoea grandiflora [Beards1966]. Crassulaceae: Bryophyllum pinnata [NakahaMi1981]. Cruciferae: Thelypodium [Borchs1966]. Cucurbitaceae: Benincasa cerifera [Ali1967a], Cucumis dipsaceus [LincanHoCa2010], Cucurbita maxima [WilliaWa1988], Cucurbita pepo [Mamet1943a], Cucurbita sp. [MillerDa2005], Sechium edulis [Mamet1943a], Sechium sp. [MillerDa2005], Trichosanthes sp. [FerrisRa1947]. Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [Kuwana1902, Heu2002], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005], Dioon edule [AlayoS1976], Zamia sp. [TippinBe1970]. Dioscoreaceae: Dioscorea alata [WilliaBu1987], Dioscorea bulbifera [WilliaWa1988], Dioscorea sp. [Hinckl1963, MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros chloroxylon [Ali1967a], Diospyros kaki [WilliaWa1988]. Ehretiaceae: Cordia alba [AlayoS1976], Cordia leucophlyctis [LincanHoCa2010], Cordia lutea [Willia1977ML], Cordia macrostachya [Mamet1949, Borchs1966]. Elaeocarpaceae: Muntingia calabura [AlayoS1976]. Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [MartinLa2011]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha wilkesiana [Myers1926, AlayoS1976], Aleurites moluccana [WilliaWa1988], Chamaesyce amplexicaulis [Willia1977ML], Croton lucidus [AlayoS1976], Croton scouleri [LincanHoCa2010], Croton sp. [Ali1967a, MillerDa2005], Euphorbia heterophylla [WilliaWa1988], Euphorbia nivulia [Sankar1984], Euphorbia pulcherrima [AlayoS1976], Euphorbia sp. [Beards1966, MillerDa2005], Excoecaria agallocha [Hinckl1963], Hevea brasiliensis [Balach1954e, Foldi1988], Hippomane mancinella [Willia1977ML], Jatropha curcas [Newste1917b, AlayoS1976], Manihot esculenta [WilliaWa1988], Manihot sp. [MillerDa2005], Pedilanthus sp. [WilliaWa1988], Ricinus communis [WilliaWa1988, ColonFMe1998]. Fabaceae: Acacia melanoxylon [FerrisRa1947], Acacia sp. [Moghad2013a], Albizia sp. [MayneGh1934], Albizia stipulata [Ali1967a], Bahuinia variegata [AlayoS1976], Bauhinia pauletia [ColonFMe1998], Bauhinia purpurea [AlayoS1976], Bauhinia sp. [FerrisRa1947], Bauhinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Caesalpinia crista [Beards1966], Caesalpinia pulcherrima [Hinckl1963], Caesalpinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cajanus cajan [AlayoS1976], Cajanus indicus? [AlayoS1976], Cajanus sp. [MillerDa2005], Canavalia microcarpa [Beards1966], Cassia alata [AlayoS1976], Cassia occidentalis [Balach1954e, WilliaWa1988], Cassia tora [Ali1967a], Crotalaria hirsuta [Ali1967a], Crotalaria sp. [WilliaWa1988, MillerDa2005], Crotalaria usaramoensis [WilliaWa1988], Delonix regia [AlayoS1976], Desmodium lasiocarpum [MayneGh1934], Enterolobium cyclocarpum [AlayoS1976], Erythrina glauca [Simmon1969], Erythrina indica [SureshMo1996], Erythrina lithosperma [WilliaWa1988], Erythrina poeppigiana [AlayoS1976], Erythrina sp. [Cocker1896d, Beards1966], Erythrina subumbrans [WilliaWa1988], Galactia striata [ColonFMe1998], Inocarpus fagiferus [Hinckl1963], Intsia bijuga [Beards1966], Lablab purpureus [ColonFMe1998], Leucaena leucocephala [WilliaWa1988], Lonchocarpus pentaphyllus [AlayoS1976], Macroptilium lathyroides [ColonFMe1998], Mimosa pigra [AlayoS1976], Mimosa pudica [Hinckl1963], Neptunia plena [LincanHoCa2010], Parkinsonia aculeata [LincanHoCa2010], Phaseolus vulgaris [WilliaWa1988], Pithecolobium saman [Ali1967a], Prosopis sp. [FerrisRa1947], Pueraria thunbergiana [MayneGh1934], Samanea saman [AlayoS1976], Sophora tomentosa [Hinckl1963], Tamarindus sp. [Varshn2002], Wistaria [Borchs1966]. Geraniaceae: Geranium [Borchs1966], Pelargonium radula [AlayoS1976], Pelargonium zonale [ColonFMe1998]. Gesneriaceae: Saintpaulia sp. [McKenz1956]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Hernandiaceae: Hernandia ovigera [WilliaWa1988], Hernandia peltata [WilliaWa1988]. Labiatae: Hyptis sp. [LincanHoCa2010]. Lamiaceae: Ocimum gratissimum [WilliaWa1988]. Lauraceae: Cassytha filiformis [WilliaWa1988], Cinnamomum camphora [AlayoS1976], Persea americana [AlayoS1976]. Laxmanniaceae: Cordyline sp. [Borchs1966]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia asiatica [WilliaWa1988], Barringtonia butonica [WilliaWa1988], Barringtonia sp. [WilliaWa1988], Barringtonia thurstonii [Hinckl1963]. Liliaceae: Aloe [Borchs1966], Asparagus officinalis [FerrisRa1947], Asparagus plumosus [Hinckl1963], Asparagus sprengeri [AlayoS1976], Cordyline terminalis [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002], Ophiopogon intermedius [AhmadGh1972], Ophiopogon japonicus [Hadzib1983], Rhipogonum scandens [Cooley1899], Sansevieria [McKenz1956], Sansevieria metallica [AlayoS1976], Sansevieria trifusciata [LincanHoCa2010], Yucca gloriosa [AlayoS1976]. Lythraceae: Lagerstroemia indica [AlayoS1976], Punica granatum [Cocker1893b]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia grandiflora [AlayoS1976]. Malvaceae: Abutilon depauperatum [LincanHoCa2010], Abutilon hybridum [WilliaWa1988], Abutilon sp. [BeardsTu1959, WilliaBu1987], Althaea officinalis [AlayoS1976], Bastardia vicosa [AlayoS1976], Ceiba sp. [MillerDa2005], Dombeya sp. [MillerDa2005], Gossyparium darwinii [LincanHoCa2010], Gossypium arboreum [AlayoS1976], Gossypium barbadense darwinii [Willia1977ML], Gossypium hirsutum [Newste1908b, ColonFMe1998, OtanesBu1939], Gossypium sp. [Cocker1905f, Simmon1924a, FerrisRa1947, Hinckl1963, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus esculentus [CouturMaRi1985], Hibiscus manihot [WilliaWa1988], Hibiscus mutabilis [AlayoS1976], Hibiscus rosa-sinensis [Hinckl1963], Hibiscus sabdariffa [AlayoS1976], Hibiscus sp. [Mamet1949, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus syriacus [AlayoS1976], Hibiscus tiliaceus [AlayoS1976], Malvastrum americanum [AlayoS1976], Malvaviscus arboreus [WilliaWa1988], Sida acuta [AlayoS1976], Sida paniculata [LincanHoCa2010], Sida sp. [Ali1967a], Thespesia propulnea [WilliaWa1988], Thespesia sp. [SureshMo1996, MillerDa2005], Urena lobata [Hinckl1963]. Marantaceae: Calathea zebrina [AlayoS1976], Maranta sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Meliaceae: Cedrela salvadorensis [Mead1982], Melia azedarach [Cooley1899]. Menispermaceae: Cissampelos pareira [ColonFMe1998]. Moraceae: Artocarpus altilis [WilliaWa1988], Artocarpus heterophyllus [WilliaWa1988, Tao1999], Ficus carica [Beccar1971], Ficus palmata [AhmadGh1972], Morus nigra [AlayoS1976]. Moringaceae: Moringa oleifera [AlayoS1976]. Musaceae: Musa sapientum [WilliaWa1988], Musa sp. [Hinckl1963, MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus grandis [WilliaWa1988]. Nyctaginaceae: Bougainvillea sp. [Nakaha1983, MillerDa2005], Cryptocarpus pyriformis [Willia1977ML]. Ochnaceae: Lophira alata [Balach1954e]. Olacaceae: Schoepfia sp. [Butche1959]. Oleaceae: Jasminum grandifolium [AlayoS1976], Jasminum sambac [Sankar1984]. Orchidaceae: Aerides [Borchs1966], Cymbidium sp. [McKenz1956], Cypripedium sp. [FerrisRa1947], Dendrobium [Borchs1966], Odontoglossum sp. [MillerDa2005], Orchis sp. [WilliaWa1988], Paphiopedilum insigne [Komosi1961], Phalaenopsis sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Renanthera [Borchs1966], Rhynchostylis [Borchs1966], Trichoglottis [Borchs1966]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [WilliaWa1988], Pandanus sp. [WilliaBu1987, MillerDa2005]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora edulis [Brooke1964], Passiflora quadrangularis [LincanHoCa2010]. Piperaceae: Piper nigrum [RamachRa1934]. Poaceae: Cenchrus ciliaris [SureshMo1996], Cenchrus glauca [SureshMo1996], Cymbopogon sp. [SureshMo1996], Cynodon dactylon [SureshMo1996], Panicum sp. [SureshMo1996]. Polygonaceae: Antigonon leptopus [AlayoS1976], Antigonon sp. [FerrisRa1947], Coccoloba sp. [WilliaWa1988], Polygala andersonnii [Willia1977ML], Polygala galapageia [Willia1977ML], Polygala sancti-georgii oblanceolata [Willia1977ML], Polygonum glabrum [Sankar1984]. Polypodiaceae: Niphobolus fissus [SureshMo1996]. Portulacaceae: Portulaca sp. [Reyne1961, WilliaWa1988]. Proteaceae: Grevillea heliosperma [Green1916e], Grevillea robusta [AlayoS1976], Persoonia sp. [Cooley1898]. Pteridaceae: Asplenium nidus [WilliaWa1988]. Pteridophyta: Neottopteris rigida [Paik1978], Nephrolepis davalliodes [AlayoS1976], Platycerium grande [AlayoS1976]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [Tang1986]. Rhamnaceae: Colubrina arborences [ColonFMe1998], Scutia pauciflora [Willia1977ML], Ziziphus jujuba [Nakaha1983], Ziziphus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ziziphus spina-christi [Moghad2013a]. Rhizophoraceae: Bruguiera gymnorhiza [Hinckl1963], Rhizophora mangle [NakahaMi1981, WilliaWa1988]. Rosaceae: Prunus persica [AlayoS1976], Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pyrus sp. [Mamet1943a]. Rubiaceae: Chiococca alba [LincanHoCa2010], Genipa sp. [MillerDa2005], Morinda citrifolia [WilliaWa1988], Morinda royoc [AlayoS1976], Randia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ruscaceae: Dracaena sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Liriope sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Aegle marmelos [AlayoS1976], Atlantia citrioides [AlayoS1976], Balsamocitrus chevaliere [AlayoS1976], Balsamocitrus dawei [AlayoS1976], Balsamocitrus paniculata [AlayoS1976], Casimiroa sp. [MillerDa2005], Citrus aurantifolia [Vilard1974], Citrus aurantium [AlayoS1976], Citrus grandis [Muraka1970], Citrus limon [AlayoS1976], Citrus macrophylla [Vilard1974], Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988], Citrus paradisi [AlayoS1976], Citrus sinensis [Mamet1948], Citrus sinensis [CulikMaVe2008], Citrus sp. [Mamet1951, MillerDa2005], Citrus unshiu [Muraka1970], Feronia limonia [Borchs1966], Feroniella pentaphylla [Borchs1966], Limonia acidissima [AlayoS1976], Limonia glutinosa [AlayoS1976], Micromelum minutum [Hinckl1963], Murraya exotica [Maxwel1902], Murraya koenigii [HayatAlAg1975], Murraya paniculata [AlayoS1976], Zanthoxylum fagara [LincanHoCa2010], Zanthoxylum martinicense [AlayoS1976], Zanthoxylum sp. [HodgsoHi1990, MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [AlayoS1976], Salix chilensis [AlayoS1976], Salix sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sapindaceae: Dodonaea viscosa [FerrisRa1947], Litchi chinensis [WilliaWa1988], Melicoccus bijugatus [AlayoS1976], Melicoccus sp. [MillerDa2005], Sapindus sp. [FerrisRa1947]. Sapotaceae: Pouteria obavata [Tao1999]. Solanaceae: Capsicum annuum [WilliaWa1988], Capsicum frutescens [WilliaWa1988], Capsicum sp. [Cooley1898], Cestrum diurnum [AlayoS1976], Datura metel [WilliaWa1988], Lycopersicon esculentum [WilliaWa1988], Solanum erianthum [AlayoS1976], Solanum melongena [Beards1966], Solanum seaforthianum [AlayoS1976], Solanum sp. [MayneGh1934, MillerDa2005], Solanum torvum [AlayoS1976], Solanum wendlandii [AlayoS1976]. Sterculiaceae: Guazuma ulmifolia [Balach1959a], Sterculia sp. [AlayoS1976]. Strelitziaceae: Ravenala madagascariensis [AlayoS1976], Strelitzia sp. [WilliaBu1987, MillerDa2005]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos sp. [Ali1967a]. Tiliaceae: Triumfetta semitriloba [ColonFMe1998]. Ulmaceae: Trema guineensis [MayneGh1934], Trema micranthum [ColonFMe1998]. Urticaceae: Laportea sp. [WilliaWa1988], Soleirolia sp. [AbouEl2001]. Verbenaceae: Clerodendron thomsonae [YunusHo1980], Gmelina arborea [WilliaWa1988], Lantana involucrata [Beatty1944, ColonFMe1998], Lantana peduncularis [LincanHoCa2010], Stachytarpheta sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Viscaceae: Viscum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Vitaceae: Cissus sp. [MillerDa2005], Vitis sp. [MillerDa2005], Vitis tilifolia [MestreHaEv2011]. Zingiberaceae: Alpinia purpurata [WilliaWa1988], Zingiber officinale [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Agalega Islands [Mamet1936a]; Angola [Leonar1914, Brain1920, FerrisRa1947]; Benin [Marcha1909a, Brain1920, FerrisRa1947]; Cameroon [Nakaha1982]; Cape Verde [Fernan1972]; Comoros [Matile1978]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [CouturMaRi1985]; Gambia [Nakaha1982]; Ghana [Newste1917b, Nakaha1982]; Guinea [Cocker1902b, FerrisRa1947]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Madagascar [Mamet1951]; Mali [Vilard1974]; Mauritania [BalachMa1970]; Mauritius [Mamet1949, WilliaWi1988]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Nigeria [Cooley1899]; Reunion [Mamet1954a, GermaiMiPa2014]; Rodriques Island [Nakaha1982]; Sao Tome and Principe (Principe [Simmon1969], Sao Tome [Simmon1969]); Senegal [Leonar1914, Brain1920, FerrisRa1947]; Seychelles [Nakaha1982]; South Africa [Leonar1914, Brain1920, GroveDeDa2013]; Tanzania [Nakaha1982]; Togo [Newste1908b]; Uganda [GreathPo1977]; Zaire [MayneGh1934]; Zanzibar [Mansfi1920]. Australasian: Australia (South Australia [Brooke1964]); Christmas Island [Nakaha1982]; Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Beards1966], Ponape Island [Beards1966], Truk Islands [Beards1966], Yap [Beards1966]); Fiji [Simmon1924a, FerrisRa1947]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [FerrisRa1947, WilliaWa1988]); Guam [Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Lanai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1975.), Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Heu2002], Niihau [BeardsTu1959, Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1910.)); Indonesia (Irian Jaya [Reyne1961, WilliaWa1988], Java [Ali1969a]); Kiribati [Beards1966] (Gilbert Islands [Beards1966]); Marshall Islands [Beards1966]; Midway Islands [Suehir1960]; New Caledonia [Cohic1958, WilliaWa1988]; Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Northern Mariana Islands (Rota Island [Beards1966]); Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Tokelau [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [Dumble1954, WilliaWa1988]; Tuvalu [WilliaWa1988]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987]; Wake Island [Beards1966]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [MyartsRu2000], Oaxaca [FerrisRa1947], Sinola [MyartsRu2000], Veracruz [FerrisRa1947]); United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], California [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005] (eradicated (Gill, 1997)), Florida [Cooley1899, Dekle1954, MillerDa2005], Georgia [TippinBe1970], Louisiana [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Maryland [MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Texas [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [RileyHo1893]); Barbados [Dash1916]; Bermuda [Simmon1957]; Brazil (Amazonas [Foldi1988], Bahia [Azeved1923aA], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Pernambuco [CarvalCa1939], Rio Grande do Sul [WolffCo1994], Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968]); Cayman Islands [Maxwel1902]; Chile [Charli1972]; Colombia [Figuer1952, Mosque1976]; Costa Rica [SuhJi2009]; Cuba [Myers1926, AlayoS1976, MestreHaEv2011]; Dominican Republic [Russo1929]; Ecuador [Ebelin1959]; El Salvador [Berry1959]; Galapagos Islands [Willia1977ML]; Grenada [Cocker1896d, WoodruBeSk1998]; Guyana [BenDovShMi1985]; Jamaica [Cocker1893b]; Netherlands Antilles (Curacao [Reyne1964]); Panama [Cooley1899]; Peru? [RosenDe1978]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [NakahaMi1981]); Saint Croix [MiskimBo1970, Nakaha1983]; Saint Kitts and Nevis Islands (Saint Kitts [Gordon1978]); Saint Lucia [Malump2012b]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Maxwel1902]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983]; Venezuela? [Ballou1945]. Oriental: Brit. Indian Ocean Terr. (=Chagos Arch.) [Mamet1943a]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Hainan [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; India [FerrisRa1947] (Andhra Pradesh [HayatAlAg1975], Jammu & Kashmir [Varshn2002], Karnataka [Sankar1984], Kerala [RamachRa1934], Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996], Tripura [GangulGh1964], West Bengal [Green1908a]); Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [Nickel1979]; Malaysia [YunusHo1980]; Nepal [Nakaha1982]; Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Philippines (Luzon [Cocker1905f]); Singapore [Nakaha1982]; Sri Lanka [FerrisRa1947]; Taiwan [FerrisRa1947]; Thailand [Nakaha1982]; Vietnam [Nakaha1982]. Palaearctic: Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; Croatia [MastenSi2008] (Found only in greenhouses.); Egypt [AbouEl2001]; France [Germai2008]; Germany [HertinSi1972]; Iran [Moghad2013a]; Italy [PellizDa1997] (Pellizzari & Danzig (1997) cite this species as invasive from Africa.); Japan [Kuwana1902] (Honshu [TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Poland [Komosi1961, DanzigPe1998] (Found in greenhouses.); Saudi Arabia [Shalab1961]; Slovenia [Seljak2008]; South Korea [Suh2014] (Although this species was recorded in Korea, it is considered to have failed to establish in the exterior environment and greenhouses because it has not been collected in the field and greenhouses during the last 7 years. Therefore, the presence of both of these species in Korea should be regarded as uncertain.); United Kingdom (England [Green1934d, BoratyWi1964]).
BIOLOGY: Hadzibejli (1983) indicated that there was a full generation and a partial second in the warmer parts of Georgia. According to Johnston and Lyon (1976) lesser snow scale engages in continuous reproduction in the subtropics, producing several generations each year. The development in Cuba was 22.6 and 44.5 days for males and females, respectively on grapefruit (Fernandez et al. 1996). The biology of this species probably is very similar to the life history of the fern scale. Brown (1965) sampled populations on various hosts from Mexico, Jamaica, Brazil, and Peru and found only the diaspidoid sexual chromosome system. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris & Rao (1947) and Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white or slightly gray. Adult female with median pygidial lobes somewhat variable in size and form but usually moderately large and projecting somewhat past the neighboring structures, their lateral margins twice or thrice-notched (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris & Rao (1947) state that most references to Hemichionaspis minor Maskell probably refer to this species. Many authors have misidentified strachani as minor such as Green (1908a, 1934d), Mamet (1943a) and Boratynski & Williams (1964). Rugman-Jones, et al. (2009) state that this species can be separated from other pests on "Hass" avocados by using the polymerase chair reacion (PCR) on ribosomal DNA.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Considered to be a pest of soursop in Costa Rica (Soto & Saunders, 2001). Beardsley and González (1975), Miller and Davidson (1990), and Arnett (1985) treat this species as a serious pest. According to Rosen and DeBach (1978) the cotton white scale of Peru is probably the same as the lesser snow scale. Based on the material in the U.S. National Museum, we agree. This pest was first noted in Peru in 1905 on perennial cotton in the Rio Piura and Chira cotton districts. A poorly documented biological control program was carried out during 1909 1912. Introduced parasites along with changes in cotton cultivation practices were credited with providing economically satisfactory control of lesser snow scale in Peru. This scale has seriously damaged coconut palm in Guam (Vandenberg 1929). Bondar (1926) considered it to be a pest of pineapple in Brazil, while Gowdey (1925) reported it as the worst pest of citrus in Jamaica. It occasionally causes serious damage to Hibiscus spp. in the Seychelles (Dupont 1918), New Caledonia (Cohic 1958), and Florida (Dekle 1965). It also is reported as a pest on tamarind (Butani 1978), citrus (Delucchi 1975, Fernandez et al. 1998), black pepper (Koya et al. 1996), arecanut (Areca catechu) (Nair et al. 1963), olives (Canales Canales and Valdivieso Jara 1999), and several wild plants (Sankaran et al. 1984). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh 2014: 6 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis from Korea]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 119 [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 230 (female) [Key to California species of Pinnaspis]; Danzig 1993: 312 [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 212 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 61 (female) [Key to Pinnaspis species of Louisiana]; Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chou 1982: 92 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis]; Paik 1978: 375 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Beardsley 1966: 554 (female) [Key to known Micronesian species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1963c: 68 [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1961a: 75 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 277 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Hall 1946a: 529 (female) [as Pinnaspis marchali, Pinnaspis gossypii; Key to species of Ethiopian species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:60 (female) [as Pinnaspis temporaria; Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Archangelskaya 1929: 190 (female) [as Pinnaspis minor; Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 341, 343, 344 (female) [as Hemichionaspis marchali, H. minor strachani, H. townsendi; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis marchali; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis minor; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: AbouEl2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 187]; AhmadGh1970 [taxonomy: 106]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 95]; AlayoS1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 16-18]; Ali1967a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Ali1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 65-66]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; AnneckPr1974 [biological control, distribution: 38]; Archan1929 [taxonomy: 190]; Azeved1923aA [p. 153]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 277, 284-288]; Balach1959a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; BalachMa1970 [distribution: 1083]; Ballou1945 [distribution, host: 18, 94]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 554, 555-557]; BeardsTu1959 [distribution, host: 58]; Beccar1971 [distribution, host: 195]; BenDovShMi1985 [distribution, host: 2128]; Berry1959 [distribution, host: 228, 244]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 13]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104-105]; Brooke1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; CarvalCa1939 [p. 30]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, taxonomy: 590,609]; Charli1972 [distribution: 216]; ChatteBo1934 [biological control: 8]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26, 115]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92, 95-96]; Chou1986 [illustration: 497]; Cocker1893b [p. 160]; Cocker1896d [distribution, host: 307]; Cocker1902b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82-83]; Cocker1905f [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 17, 25, 74]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 18, 22, 25, 29, 34]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 121-122]; Cooley1898 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 89-90]; Cooley1899 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 52-55]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CotoSa2001 [economic importance: 60]; CouturMaRi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 278-279]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 312, 316-317]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 335-336]; Dash1916 [p. 42]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance, taxonomy: 175]; Dekle1954 [distribution, host: 227]; Dekle1965a [distribution, host: 1-2]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 114]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 252]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 121]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 45, 112]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 227, 250, 273, 279,]; FDACSB1983 [distribution, host: 7]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 240, 241]; Fernan1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-14]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-407, SIV-446:60]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26, 28, 29, 36, 37,]; Figuer1946 [p. 215]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Foldi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 35]; GangulGh1964 [distribution, host: 359]; Garcia1930 [distribution, host: 70]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; GermaiVaMa2010 [distribution: 127]; GersonSc1981 [biological control, economic importance: 201]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 63]; Gill1997 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 230, 233-234]; GonzalAt1984 [distribution, host: 214, 221]; Gordon1978 [p. 206]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; GreathPo1977 [biological control, distribution: 268]; Green1908a [p. 39]; Green1928a [distribution, host: 31]; Green1934d [pp. 112-113]; GreveIs1983 [distribution, economic importance: 109]; GroveDeDa2013 [distribution, host: 379]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 185-186, 275]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 529, 550]; HayatAlAg1975 [biological control, distribution, host: 79]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 189]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 50]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 55-56]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 7]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 26]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-62]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 304]; Komosi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226-228]; Kondo2008a [host, distribution: 28]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 75]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 16]; Kuwana1926 [distribution, taxonomy: 36, 38, 40]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 193-195]; Leonar1933 [distribution: 106]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 244]; Lindin1928 [structure: 107]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 143]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 341, 343, 344]; Mallam1954 [distribution: 115]; Malump2012b [distribution, host, illustration: 208,211,212]; Mamet1936a [distribution, host: 153]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 166]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 25]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47-48]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 229]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 20]; Mamet1954a [distribution, host: 264, 265]; Mamet1957 [distribution, host: 369, 377]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 384]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 68]; Mansfi1920 [p. 147]; Marcha1909a [distribution, host: 587]; Marcha1909d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177-178]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-118]; Matile1977 [taxonomy: 151]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 56]; Matile1978a [taxonomy: 37]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 222]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, taxonomy: 251]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 36]; McComb1986 [distribution, host: 69]; McDani1973 [taxonomy: 390]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 151-153]; Mead1982 [distribution, host: 3]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 72]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 13]; MillarChMc2012 [host: 497]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 344]; MiskimBo1970 [distribution, host: 31]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 29]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 48]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Mosque1973 [description, distribution, host: 61]; Mosque1976 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 94]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 93]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 12, 25]; Myers1926 [distribution, host: 107]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 403-404]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 70-71]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 14]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 35]; Newste1906a [taxonomy: 74]; Newste1907a [distribution: 10]; Newste1908b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; Newste1917b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 133]; Nickel1979 [distribution: 61]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 199, 261]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; OtanesBu1935 [economic importance: 168]; OtanesBu1939 [economic importance, host: 365]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 375, 378-379]; PanisFeTo1974 [distribution, host: 24]; PellizDa1997 [distribution, host: 175]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 317]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 70]; Ramakr1937 [distribution, host: 146]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution, host: 275]; Reyne1961 [distribution, host: 167]; Reyne1964 [distribution, host: 99]; RileyHo1893 [p. 50]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38-39]; RosenDe1978 [biological control, distribution, host: 118-119]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; RugmanMoSt2009 [DNA sequencing, economic importance, taxonomy: 1948-1953]; Ruhl1913 [biological control: 80]; Russo1929 [p. 3]; Samway1984 [biological control: 99]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 49]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 35-36, 42]; Schmut1957b [taxonomy: 149]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215, 218-220]; SchmutPiKl1978 [distribution, host: 330-331]; Seljak2008 [distribution, host: 121-127]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 178]; Simmon1924a [distribution, host: 61]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 5]; Simmon1969 [distribution, host: 21]; Suehir1960 [p. 292]; Suh2014 [distribution, host: 2,6]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 257-258]; SzentI1959 [distribution, host: 426]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 71, 75]; Takagi1963c [taxonomy: 66, 68]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-110]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 11]; Tang1977 [taxonomy: 164]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 298]; Tao1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 105-106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 72]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 430]; Vayssi1930 [distribution, host: 404]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 196]; Vilard1974 [distribution, host: 73-75]; WalkerDe1979 [biological control, distribution, host: 76]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Whitne1933 [distribution, host: 67]; Willia1977ML [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 71]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 35]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 178-179]; WolffCo1994 [pp. 131-133]; WoodruBeSk1998 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 35]; Yust1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 55, 65]; YustCe1956 [distribution, host: 428]; Zacher1913 [economic importance: 224]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 387, 390].
Pinnaspis theae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis theae Maskell, 1891a: 60. Type data: INDIA: Assam on Thea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Aspidiotus theae; Cotes, 1893: 25. Change of combination.
Chionaspis aspidistrae theae; Maskell, 1897: 306. Change of status.
Hemichionaspis theae; Cooley, 1899: 51. Change of combination.
Chionaspis separata Green, 1900c: 5-6. Type data: INDIA: West Bengal, Darjeeling, on Thea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29, 42.
Hemichionaspis separata; MacGillivray, 1921: 340. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis theae; Takahashi, 1929: 74. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus theae; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis separata; Ramachandran & Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1934: 8. Change of combination.
Pinaspis theae; Lindinger, 1958: 371. Misspelling of genus name.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus theae [Cooley1899].
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Cordyline sp. [Balach1957c], Cordyline terminalis [Balach1959a]. Punicaceae: Punica [Borchs1966]. Rubiaceae: Psychotria sp. [Cooley1899]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos theafolia [FerrisRa1947]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tao1999], Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Eurya japonica [Green1937], Thea chinensis [Takaha1929], Thea japonica [Takaha1929], Thea sp. [Maskel1891a]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Balach1959a, Mosque1976]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]; Martinique [Balach1957c]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Hua2000], Hainan [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Tao1999], Hunan [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); India [Fernal1903b] (Assam [Maskel1891a], West Bengal [Green1900c, Ali1969a]); Sri Lanka [Cooley1899, DEDAC1923]; Taiwan [Takaha1929]. Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tao1999]); Japan [Clause1931].
BIOLOGY: Male scales tend to arrange themselves in great number on host leaves, close together and all pointing in the same direction (Ferris & Rao, 1937).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).
STRUCTURE: Female scale normally brown, but at times white. Adult female with median pygidial lobes very small, at times shorter than the 2nd lobes, slightly separated, their outer margins variously notched; basal sclerosis small, but distinct. 2nd lobes unusually strongly developed, the mesal lobe expanding toward the apex and apically somewhat hatchet-shaped, the outer lobule but slightly smaller, apically rounded. 3rd lobe also well developed (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
SYSTEMATICS: Because Chionaspis theae Maskell 1891a (=Pinnaspis theae) was considered synonymous with Chionaspis prunicola theae Maskell 1896b (=Pseudaulacaspis prunicola theae according to Borchsenius (1966), citations of either name could be incorrect and refer to the other species.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Chen 1983: 18 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chou 1982: 92 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis]; Ferris & Rao 1947: 43 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 340 (female) [as Hemichionaspis separata; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 342 (female) [Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cockerell 1902b: 82 [as Hemichionaspis theae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Cooley 1899: 45 (female) [as Hemichionaspis theae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis]; Green 1899a: 107 [as Chionaspis theae; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Balach1957c [distribution, host: 202]; Balach1959a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 115]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27, 116]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 92, 94-95]; Chou1986 [illustration: 498]; Clause1931 [distribution, host: 77]; Cocker1894r [distribution, host: 620]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cooley1899 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 47, 51-52]; Cotes1893 [chemical control, distribution, host: 25]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; Das1976 [distribution, host: 13]; DasGa1961 [distribution, host: 253]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 15]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 241]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 41-42, 43]; Fletch1914 [distribution, host: 520]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 22]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 107, 113-114]; Green1900c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-6, 12]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 321]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 200]; Koning1908 [distribution, taxonomy: 5]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 143]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 340, 342]; Maskel1891a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60]; Maskel1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; Maskel1897 [taxonomy: 306]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 95]; Murale1983 [economic importance, host: 6]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 9]; Ramakr1919 [distribution, host: 623]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18-19]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 130]; Rao1965 [distribution, host: 30]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; Shirak1913 [distribution, host: 96]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 140]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 74]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168-169]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration: 296]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 72]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 85, 88]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232].
Pinnaspis tuberculata TangNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis tuberculatus Tang, 1986: 297-298. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Menghai County, on Magnolia sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis tuberculata; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Hua2000]. Chenopodiaceae: Kalidium gracile [Tang1986]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [Tang1986]. Rhizophoraceae: Rhizophora apiculata [Tang1986]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Hua2000], Thea sinensis [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Tang1986]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.0 mm long, pale brown. Adult female body 0.86-0.90 mm long, parallel-sided, sometimes with pronounced prosomatic tubercles. Pygidial lobes in 2 pairs, 2nd pair hatch-shaped (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis tuberculatus resembles P. buxi, but the latter is without an interantennal tubercle. P. tuberculatus also resembles P. frontalis, but differs in the position of the anus, distribution of ducts and appearance of pygidial lobes (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 297-298]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110].
Pinnaspis uniloba (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) uniloba Kuwana, 1909: 156. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Hiogo (=Kobe), on Osmanthus sp., ?/03/1907, by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type material presumed lost (Takagi, personal communication to Ben-Dov, January 30th, 1989).
Lepidosaphes uniloba; Sasscer, 1911: 72. Change of combination.
Jaapia uniloba; Lindinger, 1914: 158. Change of combination.
Lepidaspidis uniloba; MacGillivray, 1921: 292. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis simplex Ferris, 1921a: 214. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Foochow (=Fuzhou), on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris & Rao, 1947: 42.
Pinnaspis uniloba; Takahashi, 1929: 74. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Alyxia olivaeformis [Nakaha1981a], Alyxia sp. [Heu2002]. Fabaceae: Bauhinia racemosa [Ali1969a]. Magnoliaceae: Michelia sp. [Wang1981TC]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus fortunei [Takagi1970], Osmanthus fragrans [Kuwana1925a], Osmanthus sp. [Kuwana1909]. Rutaceae: Aegle marmelos [FerrisRa1947]. Theaceae: Adinandra milletti [Takagi1970], Adinandra ryukyuensis [Suh2014], Adinandra sp. [Takaha1934], Camellia japonica [Takagi1970], Cleyera japonica [Takagi1970], Cleyera ochnacea [Takaha1929, TakahaTa1956], Eurya japonica [Takaha1929, Ali1969a], Thea japonica [Takaha1929, Ali1969a].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [TakahaTa1956] (Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1971.), Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Ferris1921a], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Tang1986, Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); India (Assam [Varshn2002], Tamil Nadu [FerrisRa1947]); Taiwan [Takaha1929, TakahaTa1956]. Palaearctic: China (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000]); Japan [Ali1969a] (Honshu [Kuwana1909, TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); South Korea [Suh2014].
BIOLOGY: This species has one generation per year, hibernates in the egg stage and the fi rst generation appears in May in Japan. It lacks males and is parthenogenetic (Kawai 1980).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, elongate, slender. Adult female with median pygidial lobes fused into a single lobe, but retaining the elongated median basal sclerosis. 2nd and 3rd lobes entirely lacking. Dorsal pygidial ducts entirely lacking except for those along the margin and one or two on the 4th abdominal segment. Dorsal pygidial scars quite strongly developed (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
KEYS: Suh 2014: 6 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis from Korea]; Chen 1983: 17 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Chou 1982: 91 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis]; Wang 1982c: 85 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Takagi 1961a: 74 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis of Japan]; Ferris & Rao 1947: 43 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; Kuwana 1925a: 4 (female) [as Lepidosaphes uniloba; Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 66]; Almeid1969 [taxonomy: 159]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 275]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 115-116]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 17, 99]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 91, 98-99]; Chou1986 [illustration: 499]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336-337]; Ferris1921a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 214]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 25, 63]; Ferris1957 [taxonomy: 212]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 42, 43]; Fullaw1932 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Heu2002 [distribution, host]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 200]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1909 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 156]; Kuwana1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 37-39]; Kuwana1927 [distribution: 72]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 158]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 10]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 275, 292]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 93]; Nakaha1979 [taxonomy: 31]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 404]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Sassce1911 [taxonomy: 72]; Suh2014 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 6-7]; Takagi1961a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104, 116-118]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 28]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host: 33]; Takaha1955e [distribution, taxonomy: 67, 77]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 11]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 296]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 106]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 72]; Wang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194-196]; Wang1981TC [distribution, host: 291]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 85, 87]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 32, 75]; Wu1935 [distribution: 211]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 232]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 387, 392].
Pinnaspis uvariae (Cockerell & Robinson)NOMENCLATURE:
Hemichionaspis uvariae Cockerell & Robinson, 1914: 330. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Los Baños, on Uvaria sp., by C.F. Baker. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, and Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pinnaspis uvariae; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29, 42, 44. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: uvaria scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOST: Annonaceae: Uvaria sp. [CockerRo1914]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines [CockerRo1914].
STRUCTURE: Female scale rich reddish-brown, about 1.5 mm long, very narrow, almost linear; exuviae paler and yellower. Male scale hardly over 0.5 mm long, white, parallel-sided, with an obtuse median keel and no distinct lateral ones. Adult female greatly elongated, sides not prominently lobed; yellowish, turning greenish in KOH (Cockerell & Robinson, 1914).
KEYS: Ferris & Rao 1947: 44 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 342 (female) [as Hemichionaspis uvariae; Key to species of Hemichionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 67]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; CockerRo1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 330]; FerrisRa1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 42-43, 44]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 104]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 342]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; Tang1986 [taxonomy: 297]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 196].
Pinnaspis yamamotoi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis yamamotoi Takagi, 1965a: 448-451. Type data: VENEZUELA: at Japan, Kobe, on Dracaena sp., by M. Yamamoto. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Liliaceae: Dracaena sp. [Takagi1965a]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Venezuela [Takagi1965a]. Oriental: China (Yunnan [Hua2000]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1965a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown. Adult female fusiform, robust. Median lobes prominent, closely appressed mesally, notched 3 or 4 times laterally, with median basal zygosis much protruding anteriorly beyond their bases. 2nd lobes much reduced, yet somewhat variable in size; inner lobule with basal paraphyses rudimentary or practically obsolete. 3rd lobes reduced to marginal serrations (Takagi, 1965a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis yamamotoi is similar to P. hikosana in that the 2nd lobes are much reduced in size, but it is distinguished by having more numerous submarginal dorsal macroducts (Takagi, 1965a).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 17 (female) [Key to species of Pinnaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27, 117]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; Takagi1965a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 448-451]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 115]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110].
Poliaspis MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis Maskell, 1880: 293. Type species: Poliaspis media Maskell, by monotypy.
Maskeliella Leonardi, 1897b: 108. Unjustified replacement name; discovered by Ferris, 1937a: 4. Notes: Leonardi (1897b) stated that "Polyaspis" was preoccupied in Acari and proposed the replacement name Maskeliella. Since Poliaspis is not a homonym of Polyaspis, the replacement name Maskeliella is invalid (Ferris, 1937a).
Polyaspis; Leonardi, 1897b: 108. Misspelling of genus name.
Leonardaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Mytilaspis wilga Leonardi, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 33.35-36.
Albastaspis; Lindinger, 1937: 178. Incorrect synonymy.
Maskelliella; Ferris, 1937a: 4. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Morrison & Morrison (1922). Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963). Redescription in Henderson 2011 and Hardy & Henderson 2011.
STRUCTURE: Maskell (1880) describes Poliaspis as having spinnerets in more than 5 groups and in a double row on the edge of the abdomen. Pygidium of adult female always with a single pair of distinct lobes (MacGillivray, 1921). Female scale cover generally white, with or without flocculent wax, shape broadly rounded to elongate-ovate, exuvia terminal; male scale cover white, exuvium at one end, non-carinated, often with a coating of flocculent wax. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Poliaspis is similar to Leucaspis (Maskell, 1887a). Brittin (1926) states that a key characteristic of Poliaspis is the circumgenital glands are arranged in 8 groups, whereas in Chionaspis, a closely allied genus, there are never more than 5 groups. Ferris (1942) stated that "No detailed study of this entire group has yet been made and consequently generic limits are very doubtful, nor can many of the species at present be identified from the existing literature. Whether or not Poliaspis, as presently understood, constitutes a natural group remains to be determined." In 2011, Hardy and Henderson, state that "nearly all other armored scale insect species have perivulvar pores in no more than 5 clusters, and restricted to abdominal segment 7. Species of Leucaspis Signoret and Lopholeucaspis Balachowsky are exceptions to this generalization; more than 5 clusters of multilocular pores may be present on the abdomen, but the extra pores occur on the submargin of abdominal segments 6 and 5."..."Described African species with extra groups of perivulvar pores invariably have marginal macroducts with elongate ductules. This feature is enough of a reason for us to refrain from taking any nomenclatural action at this time."
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Balachowsky 1954e: 171 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 274 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini]; MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini]; Brain 1919: 229 (female) [Key to genera near Chionaspis]; Newstead 1901b: 79 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera].
CITATIONS: Ashmea1891 [taxonomy: 102]; Balach1954e [description, taxonomy: 171, 427-428]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 35, 133]; BorchsWi1963 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 366-367]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 229]; Britti1926 [distribution, taxonomy: 287]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Comsto1883 [description, taxonomy: 54, 126]; Comsto1916 [description, taxonomy: 515, 587]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 337]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3, 4, 6]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 527]; Ferris1938 [illustration, taxonomy: 37, 42, 45, 46]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIV-408, SIV-446:42]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 876]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 49]; Fuller1899 [taxonomy: 470]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 234]; Green1896e [taxonomy: 38]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 499, 529-530]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1-40]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 6,8,10-12,22-23,45,1]; Kuwana1925 [distribution, taxonomy: 1]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Leonar1897b [taxonomy: 108]; Lidget1898a [taxonomy: 14]; Lindin1906a [taxonomy: 4]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 187, 189, 193]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; LinKoGu2013 [molecular data, phylogeny: 257]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 274, 309]; Maskel1880 [description, taxonomy: 293]; Maskel1884 [taxonomy: 121]; Maskel1887a [description, taxonomy: 39, 56]; Maskel1891 [description, taxonomy: 9-11]; Morgan1888b [taxonomy: 118]; MorrisMo1922 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 86-89]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 106, 158]; Newste1901b [taxonomy: 79, 176]; Takaha1955e [taxonomy: 77]; UlgentPe2013 [description, structure, taxonomy: 494]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 72].
Poliaspis alluvia Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis alluvia Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 6-8. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Mt. Whitestone [-27.67, 152.16], on Loranthaceae, by M. Taylor. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:62654309-96F2-413D-BD3C-1 DF6CFA5BCBA
HOST: Loranthaceae [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body outline pyriform, thoracic and abdominal lobes weakly produced. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes divergent, with dentate apex; margin between lobes incised to a variable degree; second lobe bi-lobed, each lobule with basal sclerosis, more strongly developed on medial lobule. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: The relatively large number (ca 8) of submedial ducts on abdominal segment 6, as well as the large number of perivulvar pores (ca 90) can be used to distinguish P. alluvia from other species of Poliaspis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 4-8].
Poliaspis araucariae Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis araucariae Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 8-9. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Taromeo [-26.83, 152.12], on Araucaria bidwillii, 9/1/1937, by A. Brimblecombe. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes: 10 adult females: Queensland, Gallangowan [-27.93, 151.67], on Araucaria cunninghamii, 2/15/1944, (QDPI); 8 adult females: same data as holotype, (QDPI).
HOSTS: Araucariacae: Araucaria bidwillii [HardyHe2011], Araucaria cunninghamii [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline fusiform-pyriform, thoracic and abdominal lobes produced. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes divergent, connected medially by narrow sclerotic strap, lobes with rounded apex; margin between lobes weakly incised; second lobe bi-lobed, each lobule with basal sclerosis, more strongly developed on medial lobule. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: The one or two submedial ducts on abdominal segment 6, in addition to the absence of setae between the median lobes (also absent in P. callitris, and P. nitens) can be used to distinguish P. araucariae from other species of Poliaspis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8-9].
Poliaspis attenuata BrimblecombeNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis attenuata Brimblecombe, 1959b: 401-403. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Yarraman, on Croton insularis, ?/09/1948. Holotype female. Type depository: Brisbane: Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia; type no. T5798. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype number T5799 is also in QMBA. Paratype: 1 adult female: Yarraman [-26.84, 151.98], ex Croton insularis, 9/1/1948, A Brimblecombe (QDPI).
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Croton insularis [Brimbl1959b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Brimbl1959b]).
BIOLOGY: Insects occur singly, lining the leaf margin (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Brimblecombe (1959b). Redescription in Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
STRUCTURE: Scales linear and white. Covers dark orange in color. Adult female very long and slender, membranous (Brimblecombe, 1959b). Slide-mounted paratype female body outline linear, abdominal lobes weakly produced. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes divergent, longer than wide, connected medially by narrow sclerotic strap, each lobe with dentate apex; margin between lobes incised; second lobe bi-lobed, medial lobule with basal sclerosis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of P. attenuata are most similar to those of P. elongata Brimblecombe. Both have elongate, linear bodies. P. attenuata females can be distinguished on the basis of the longer-than wide, divergent median lobes (wider than long in P. elongata, with rounded apices). (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (female, adult) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 133]; Brimbl1959b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 401-403]; Brimbl1959c [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 10-11].
Poliaspis callitris LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis callitris Laing, 1929: 19-20. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Mallee, on Callitris, by J.E. Dixon. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype female designated in Hardy & Henderson, 2011, 1 of 8 specimens on slide labelled "Australia, VIC, Mallee, on Callitris sp., JE Dixon, no.11,1919, IBE 1385, EE Green det. ?Chionaspis striata (crossed out), Poliaspis callitris Laing sp. n." Lectotype is the only un-distorted adult female on slide. (BMNH) Paralectotypes: (i) the remaining 7 females on the lectotype slide; (ii) 2 adult females on second slide with same collection data and no BM number (BMNH)
Lineaspis callitris; Borchsenius, 1966: 103. Change of combination.
Poliaspis callitris; Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 10,12-13. Revived combination. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1C15AF8B-51E2-4C01-B689-1 D43E4598E3F
HOST: Pinaceae: Callitris sp. [Laing1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [HardyHe2011], Victoria [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929). Redescription and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
STRUCTURE: Adult female snowy white, exuviae very pale stramineous, 2.2 mm long (Laing, 1929). Slide-mounted adult female body outline fusiform, without distinct thoracic and abdominal lobes. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes zygotic, much smaller than medial lobule of second lobe, each lobe with pointed apex; margin between median lobes not incised; second lobe bi-lobed, lateral lobule minute in some specimens (including holotype), medial lobule with strong basal sclerosis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Laing (1929) was hesitant to describe this as a new species because it was so close to Chionaspis striata. Adult females of P. callitris can be distinguished from other species of Poliaspis on the basis of (1) setae between median lobes absent (also absent in P. araucariae and P. nitens); and (2) the relatively large number of pores near anterior spiracle (9-15) and no pores near posterior spiracle (other species of Poliaspis having many pores near anterior spiracle have at least a few near posterior spiracle). It shares having only 1 small gland spine on the margin of abdominal segments 6 and 7 with P. ceraflora, but that species has non-zygotic median lobes. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 103]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 10, 12-13]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-20].
Poliaspis casuarinicola LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis casuarinae Lidgett, 1898a: 14. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Casuarina suberosa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Notes: Poliaspis casuarinicola Lindinger (1943a) is a replacement name for Poliaspis casuarinae Lidgett (1898a) which is a junior secondary homonym of Poliaspis casuarinae Maskell 1893b (=Lepidosaphes casuarinae).
Poliaspis casuarinicola Lindinger, 1943a: 149. Replacement name for Poliaspis casuarinae Lidgett 1898.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina suberosa [Lidget1898a].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Lidget1898a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lidgett (1898a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, tapering at one end; exuviae terminal, brown. Male scale dull white, similar in shape to that of female, very slightly if at all carinated; exuviae terminal, yellow. Adult female deeply segmented, elongate, abdomen ending in 2 lobes (Lidgett, 1898a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1943a) moved Mytilaspis casuarinae Maskell 1893b into the genus Poliaspis, creating a secondary homonym with Poliaspis casuarinae Lidgett 1898. Lindinger proposed the replacement name P. casuarinicola for the Lidgett species. Although the Maskell species was not kept in Poliaspis the replacement name casuarinicola must be considered valid under Article 59.2 of the ICZN. Borchsenius (1966) treated Poliaspis casuarinicola as an incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 374]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 877]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Frogga1933 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 364]; Lidget1898a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 2-3]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88].
Poliaspis ceraflora Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis ceraflora Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 13-15. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Perth [-31.95, 115.86], on Chamelaucium uncinatum, 7/?/1989, by J. Donaldson. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1C15AF8B-51E2-4C01-B689-1 D43E4598E3F Paratypes: 5 adult females from Western Australia with the same data as holotype (QDPI); 6 adult females: Perth City Council Nursery, ex Melaleuca sp., 8/?/1973 (ANIC).
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Chamelaucium uncinatum [HardyHe2011], Melaleuca sp. [HardyHe2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline pyriform, thoracic and abdominal lobes weakly produced (undulate). Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes non-zygotic (separate), each lobe with rounded apex; margin between median lobes not incised; second lobe bi-lobed, lateral lobule minute, medial lobule with small basal sclerosis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: This is the only species of Poliaspis with non-zygotic median lobes. The two pairs of minute gland spines are also distinctive, although P. callitris Laing shares the character of possessing only two pairs of small gland spines. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 13-15].
Poliaspis chathamica HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis chathamica Henderson, 2011: 129-133. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Chatham Island, Long Beach, near Henga Reserve, on Olearia traversii stems, 5/20/2007, by B.J. Rogan. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 07-083d. Described: other. Illust. Notes: Paratypes: collection data as for holotype female, #07-083a–c, e–k [10]: 12 F, 4 exuv2, 6 exuv1 (NZAC)
HOST: Asteraceae: Olearia traversii [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Hender2011].
BIOLOGY: On stems of host. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover white, exuvia terminal. Body shape fusiform with lateral abdominal lobes produced, rounded. Median lobes (L1) prominent, extending 50–70% beyond margin (length from a horizontal line at lateral body margin to lobe apex relative to total lobe length measured from exterior margin of yoke to lobe apex). (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: The absence of large dorsal cephalic ducts on the 1st-instar / 1st-exuvium distinguishes P. chathamica from all the other Poliaspis species found in New Zealand. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)]; Henderson 2011 (female) [Key to Poliaspis adult females in combination with 1st-instar nymphs/exuvia in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 18,12-13,128-133,233].
Poliaspis elongata BrimblecombeNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis elongata Brimblecombe, 1959b: 403-405. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Tungun, on Leptospermum whitei, ?/09/1947. Holotype female. Type depository: Brisbane: Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia; type no. T5795. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes T5796 and T5797 are in QMBA. Paratypes: 6 adult females: Queensland, Tugun [-28.14, 153.5], ex Leptospermum whitei, 9/30/1947, by A Brimblecombe (QDPI).
HOST: Myrtaceae: Leptospermum whitei [Brimbl1959b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Brimbl1959b]).
BIOLOGY: Insects occurring singly, lining the margin of leaves (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Brimblecombe, 1959b).
STRUCTURE: Scales elongate and white. Exuviae dark orange in color. Adult female long and slender, membranous (Brimblecombe, 1959b). Slide-mounted adult female body outline linear, with margins of anterior abdominal segments distinctly lobed. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes zygotic, each lobe wider than long, with rounded apex; margin between lobes not deeply incised; second lobe bi-lobed, lateral lobule small, medial lobule with strong basal sclerosis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: This species is close to Poliaspis attenuata, but differs in having the median lobes wider than long and each lobe practically of symmetrical shape (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; Brimbl1959b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 403-405]; Brimbl1959c [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 15-16].
Poliaspis exocarpi MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis exocarpi Maskell, 1892: 17. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Mordalloc, near Melbourne, on Exocarpus cupressiformis, by Mr. French. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, and London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype: female, designated in Hardy & Henderson, 2011. On an original slide labelled "Poliaspis exocarpi, adult female, 1891, W.M.M.". AUSTRALIA, Mordialloc [-38.00, 145.09], near Melbourne, on Exocarpus cupressiformis, by Mr. French (NZAC). Paralectotypes: 1 female, slide label data as above (NZAC); 1 (BMNH); 12 (USNM).
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Daviesia corymbosa [Laing1929], Daviesia latifolia [Laing1929], Daviesia ulicina [Hudson1967], Dillwynia ericifolia [Maskel1896b], Dillwynia sp. [Maskel1895b, Frogga1907], Oxylobium sp. [Frogga1907], Oxylobium trilobatum [Maskel1895b]. Myrtaceae: Leptospermum sp. [Frogga1914]. Santalaceae: Exocarpos cupressiformis [Maskel1892, Laing1929], Exocarpos stricta [Hudson1967], Pultenaea juniperina [Hudson1967], Santalum sp. [Frogga1914]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1895b], Northern Territory [Frogga1914], Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Maskel1892, Laing1929], Western Australia [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1892). Redescription by Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongated, usually nearly straight, slightly dilated posteriorly, exuviae yellow. Male scale white, similar to that of female, but faintly carinated, if at all. Adult female brown, darkening with age, elongated, segmented (Maskell, 1892).
SYSTEMATICS: P. exocarpi is the most polyphagous and wide spread species of Poliaspis in Australia. There is also a considerable amount of morphological variation present among samples (e.g. the number of submedial ducts on dorsum of abdominal segment 6). The relatively small size of the median lobes (smaller than or equal in size to second lobes) and the relatively long size of the gland spines (about 5 x the length of medial lobes) are also diagnostic. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: Banks1977 [chemistry: 53]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 36]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Frogga1907 [distribution, host: 374]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 877]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49-50]; Hall1941 [taxonomy: 232]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 17-19]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Laing1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 21]; Lidget1898a [taxonomy: 3]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 355]; Maskel1892 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17]; Maskel1895b [distribution, host: 52]; Maskel1896b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 391]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88].
Poliaspis floccosa HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis floccosa Henderson, 2011: 133-138. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Auckland, Glen Eden, on Phormium tenax underside of leaves, 11/23/2009, by R.C. Henderson. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 09-435d. Described: both sexes. Illust.
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline australis [Hender2011], Cordyline obtecta [Hender2011], Cordyline sp. [Hender2011], Furcraea sp. [Hender2011], Phormium cookianum [Hender2011], Phormium tenax [Hender2011]. Iridaceae: Libertia ixioides [Hender2011], Libertia peregrinans [Hender2011]. Liliaceae: Arthropodium cirratum [Hender2011], Dianella sp. [Hender2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (North Island [Hender2011], Three Kings Islands).
BIOLOGY: On leaves, usually in massed groups. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations in Henderson, 2011)
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover white, often with a coating of flocculent wax when immature, terminal exuvia pale to light gold; female body and eggs bright yellow; male scale cover always with a coating of flocculent wax, adult male body red. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)]; Henderson 2011: 129 (female) [Key to Poliaspis adult females in combination with 1st-instar nymphs/exuvia in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11-12,37,128-129,1]; Willia2013 [distribution: 190].
Poliaspis incisa Takagi & De FaveriNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis incisa Takagi & De Faveri, 2011: 14-16. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Cambridge Gulf, Wyndham, on undetermined mangrove, 1/20/2010, by C. Palmer. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Mangrove [TakagiDe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [TakagiDe2011]).
BIOLOGY: Female and male scales occurring on the upper surface of leaves. Female test elongate oyster-shell shaped, white; exuvial casts brownish. Male test non-carinate, with first-instar exuvial cast brownish. (Takagi & DeFaveri, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi & De Faveri, 2011.
SYSTEMATICS: The general features of Poliaspis incisa are similar to P. media. However, P. media has two setae on each antenna, has a dednse group of small spinous processes medially on the ventral surfact posteriorly to the mouth-parts, and possesses dorsal macroducts on the second to sixth abdominal segments. In P.incisa the antennae are unisetose, and there are no spinous processes medially on the ventral surface and no dorsal macroducts on the second abdominal segment. (Takagi & DeFaveri, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: TakagiDe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 14-16].
Poliaspis intermedia FullerNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis intermedia Fuller, 1897b: 5. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, on unidentified Leguminous plant. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Olearia fragrantissima [Green1929]. Fabaceae [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Fuller1897b]); New Zealand (South Island [Green1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fuller (1899).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pyriform, generally curved, very convex, white. Exuviae terminal, light yellow. Adult female yellow (Fuller, 1899).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 877]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Fuller1897b [description, distribution: 5]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 470-471]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 382]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 355]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88]; Wise1977 [distribution: 109].
Poliaspis lactea (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis lactea Maskell, 1895b: 48. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Wellington and Woodville, on Fuchsia excorticata, by W.M. Maskell. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes lactea; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Fusilaspis lactea; MacGillivray, 1921: 290. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis lactea; Lindinger, 1932f: 203. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus lactea; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Poliaspis lactea; Henderson, 2011: 134-144. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Olearia arborescens [Hender2011], Olearia sp. [Hender2011], Olearia x macrodonta [Hender2011], Ozaothamnus leptophyllus [Hender2011]. Epacridaceae: Epacris apuciflora [Hender2011]. Liliaceae: Astelia sp. [Hender2011]. Myrsinaceae: Myrsine australis [Hender2011]. Onagraceae: Fuchsia excorticata [Maskel1895b]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum tenuifolium [Hender2011]. Rubiaceae: Coprosma sp. [Hender2011]
BIOLOGY: On stems (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Maskell (1895b). Redescription and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover shiny white, frequently covered with a thin layer of bark cells from the host plant, with light yellow terminal exuvia; female body dark caramel colour; Maskell, 1895b) described the female body as dull pink turning to brown, and the male scale cover as small, snowy white, semi-cylindrical, not carinated (Maskell 1895).
SYSTEMATICS: Maskell (1895b) mistakenly described this species as having 5 groups of perivulvar pores instead of the 8 groups clearly present on the lectotype slide, hence its erroneous placement by earlier workers outside the appropriate genus Poliaspis. (Henderson, 2011) LECTOTYPE female: NEW ZEALAND, on an original slide labelled "Mytilaspis lactea, adult female, 1894, W.M.M.", [1]: 1 F, cleared and lightly stained. Barcode NZAC02008413 (NZAC). Paralectotypes. (i) on an original slide labelled as above except "female puparium", [1]: a whole scale cover with its 1st- and 2nd-exuvia. Barcode NZAC02007965. (ii) "from Maskell dry material #416, mounted by JA de Boer, 28 vi 1968", [2]: 7 F, 9 exuv2, 3 exuv1 (NZAC).
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)]; MacGillivray 1921: 290 (female) [as Fusilaspis lactea; Key to species of Fusilaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 30 (female) [as Mytilaspis lactea; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,23,37,134,128-9,13]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 83-84]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; Maskel1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48]; Myers1922 [distribution: 201]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 107].
Poliaspis media MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis sp. Maskell, 1879: 203. Unavailable name; discovered by Maskell, 1880: 293.
Poliaspis media Maskell, 1880: 293-294. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Veronica sp. and Leucopogon fraseri. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand, and NZAC, USNM. Described: female. Illust.
Poliaspis cycadis Comstock, 1883: 126-128. Type data: UNITED STATES: Washington D.C., in conservatory, on Cycas revoluta, Dion edula and Microsemia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia media; Cockerell, 1896b: 338. Change of combination.
Poliaspis argentosis Brittin, 1915: 150-151. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Crushington, near Reefton, on Coprosma sp., by R.W. Raithby. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Henderson, 2011: 144-146.
Poliaspis gaultheriae Green, 1920: 126-129. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: Scotland, Edinburgh, Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, on Gaultheria depressa and G. rupestris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 428.
Trichomytilus argentosis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus cycadis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus medius; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Poliaspis gautierae; Lindinger, 1943b: 224. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Paleomytilus mediae; Borchsenius, 1978: 110. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: cycad poliaspis scale [Gill1997].
HOSTS: Aizoaceae: Disphyma australe [Hender2011]. Araliaceae: Raukaua anomalus [Hender2011]. Asteraceae: Craspedia sp. [Britti1926], Ozothamnus leptophyllus [Hender2011], Sonchus sp. [Hender2011]. Chenopodiaceae: Chenopodium sp. [Hender2011]. Cruciferae: Microsemia sp. [Comsto1883]. Cycadaceae: Cycas circinalis [RaoKu1952], Cycas revoluta [Comsto1883], Dioon edule [Comsto1883]. Epacridaceae: Acrothamnus colensoi [Hender2011], Cyanthodes acerosa [Maskel1887a], Cyathodes sp. [Hender2011], Dracophyllum latifolium [Hender2011], Dracophyllum lessonianum [Hender2011], Dracophyllum oliveri [Hender2011], Dracophyllum recurvum [Hender2011], Dracophyllum sp. [Hender2011], Dracophyllum traversii [Hender2011], Leptecophylla juniperina [Hender2011], Leucopogon fasciculatus [Hender2011], Leucopogon fraseri [Maskel1880], Leucopogon sp. [Britti1926], Pentachondra pumila [Hender2011]. Ericaceae: Gaultheria depressa [Green1920, Hender2011], Gaultheria rupestris [Green1920], Gaultheria sp. [Hender2011]. Filicinae [Borchs1966]. Liliaceae: Astelia fragrans [Hender2011]. Myrsinaceae: Myrsine australis [Hender2011], Myrsine divaricata [Hender2011], Myrsine salicina [Hender2011]. Myrtaceae: Leptospermum scoparium [Hoy1961]. Orchidaceae [Hender2011]. Podocarpaceae: Lepidothamnus laxifolius [Hender2011]. Primulaceae: Samolus repens [Hender2011]. Ranunculaceae: Clematis afoliata [Britti1926]. Restionaceae: Emposidisma minus [Hender2011]. Rubiaceae: Coprosma arborea [Green1929], Coprosma chathamica [Hender2011], Coprosma cheesemanii [Hender2011], Coprosma depressa [Hender2011], Coprosma propinqua [Hender2011], Coprosma pumila [Hender2011], Coprosma rhamnoides [Hender2011], Coprosma robusta [Hender2011], Coprosma rubra [Hender2011], Coprosma sp. [Britti1915], Coprosma spathulata [Hender2011], Coprosma tenuifolia [Hender2011], Coprosma virescens [Hender2011]. Rutaceae: Leionema nudum [Hender2011]. Santalaceae: Exocarpos bidwillii [Hender2011]. Scrophulariaceae: Hebe decumbens [Hender2011], Hebe elliptica [Hender2011], Hebe macrantha [Hender2011], Hebe odora [Hender2011], Hebe sp. [Hender2011], Hebe subalpina [Hender2011], Hebe venustula [Hender2011], Heliohebe pentasepala [Hender2011], Veronica halkeana [Green1929], Veronica sp. [Maskel1880, Britti1926]. Thymelaeaceae: Pimelea nr. aridula [Hender2011], Pimelea prostrata [Hender2011], Pimelea urvilleana [Hender2011]. Violaceae: Melicytus alpinus [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [Ferris1938]; New Zealand [Maskel1880] (North Island [Maskel1887a], South Island [Maskel1887a, Britti1915], Three Kings Islands). Nearctic: United States of America (California [Gill1997], District of Columbia [Comsto1883, Ferris1942] (Ferris (1942) states that Poliaspis cycadis has been introduced into North America.)). Oriental: India (Maharashtra [RaoKu1952]). Palaearctic: Greece [MilonaKoKo2008a]; United Kingdom (England [Ferris1942], Scotland [Green1920]).
BIOLOGY: Normally on underside of leaves of host plants, less often on stems; in addition, inducing various galls on certain host plants, for example, leaf tip rolls on Myrsine australis, and leaf rosette galls on Coprosma spp. (Henderson & Martin, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Brittin (1915). Detailed description and illustrations by Comstock (1883) and Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Female cover is white and broad. Adult female is unusually greenish-white, and shows rudimentary antennae. Abdominal extremity is jagged, with a median depression and with a few scattered hairs. Adult male is bright scarlet or deep orange. The antennae, covered with longish hairs, have 10 joints (Maskell, 1880).Scale of adult female elongate-ovate, convex; secretion white and loosely felted. Exuviae light yellow. Adult female elongated, yellow, convex above, flat beneath. Pygidium large and well defined, with 8 groups of circumgenital glands, 3 anterior groups each consisting of 2-5 glands; subanterior group with 2-4; anterior lateral 14-20; posterior laterals 21-25. Adult female 1.22 mm long (Brittin, 1915).Female scale 2.5-3.0 mm long, oystershell-shaped, shiny white except for a yellowish terminal exuviae. Male scale felt-like, elongate, white, with terminal exuviae and uncarinated (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes media is close to Poliaspis argentosis and can be told from it by the shape of median and second pair of lobes, anterolateral circumgenital glands, plates, number of tubular spinnerets at margin of segments (Brittin, 1926). Borchsenius (1978) moved this species to Paleomytilus, which is no longer considered a valid genus by coccid workers (Danzig, 1993). Since they do treat Poliaspis and since media is the type species of Polisapis it must be considered Poliaspis media.Brittin (1926) compares and contrasts Poliaspis argentosis and P. media. Henderson (2011) synonymized these two species after reviewing Brittin's and Maskell's slides: Poliaspis media Maskell. LECTOTYPE female, NEW ZEALAND, labelled "Poliaspis media, females, from Leucopogon Fraseri (epacrid), June 1878 W.M.M.", [1]: 1 F. Barcode NZAC02008420 (NZAC). This is one of 3 slides remounted from 1 original Maskell slide by R.C. Henderson, 2001. Paralectotypes: (i) collection data as above (the remaining 2 slides from remounting), [2]: 2 F; (ii) labelled "Poliaspis media, females, 2 stages, from Veronica, Jan 1879 W.M.M.", [3]: 2 F [1 pharate], 1 f2nd; these are 3 slides remounted from 1 original Maskell slide by R.C. Henderson, 2001 (NZAC). Poliaspis argentosis Brittin. LECTOTYPE female, NEW ZEALAND, on an original slide labelled "Poliaspis argentosis, (Type) (1.), No. 47, On Coprosma, Crushington, 11 Dec 1913, G. Brittin", [1]: 1 F. Barcode NZAC02008423 (NZAC). Of 2 slides with the same label data as above and outlined in red by Brittin, the chosen lectotype is in better condition than the other female, which becomes a paralectotype. A 3rd slide with the same collection data but not outlined in red or labelled type is also a paralectotype (NZAC). (Henderson, 2011) The type material of P. cycadis is morphologically inseparable from P. media. Both species were discovered at about the same time (1880s) and at first the host differences (cycads versus wide host range) and geographic disjunction of North America and New Zealand presented a conundrum. Examination of the type material of P. gaultheriae, previously synonymized with P. cycadis by Balachowsky (1954), revealed it to be conspecific, but the only recorded host of P. gaultheriae was Gaultheria depressa, an endemic New Zealand plant that had been transported from NZ to Scotland. Thus the connection to P. media as the senior synonym became more credible. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011) Ferris (1942) states that Poliaspis cycadis might be confused with Furcadaspis zamiae, since the two scales are somewhat similar in habit and appearance. On the slide, however, the two are immediately separable, since F. zamiae entirely lacks the perivulvar pores and is rotund in form.
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-24]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 427-430]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 133-134]; Britti1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 150-151]; Britti1926 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287-288]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 338]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126-128]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 587,589]; Cumber1954 [distribution, host, illustration: 63-64]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Dougla1887a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 22-23]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1938 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 42]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-409]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 336]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234-235, 236]; Green1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126-129]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 382]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 530]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11-13,38,128-9,144]; Hoy1961 [distribution, host: 59-60]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lidget1898a [taxonomy: 3]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356-357]; Maskel1879 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 203]; Maskel1880 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 293-294]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 86,88]; Myers1922 [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Myers1925 [distribution, host: 200]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 71]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177-179]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host: 10]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 72-73]; Willia2013 [distribution: 190]; Wise1977 [distribution: 109].
Poliaspis naamba Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis naamba Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 21-23. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Nambour [-26.63, 152.96], on Melaleuca sp., 2/4/2005, by C. Freebaim. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Brisbane: Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:4B995A20-0F3B-47C9-97EB-9 7CC3B0B52DC Paratypes: 2 adult females: Queensland, Brisbane, Bray Park, [-27.3, 152.98], ex Melaleuca sp., 3/6/2005, C Freebaim (QDPI); 3 adult females: Cooloola National Park [-26.1,153.04], on leaves and stems of Monotoca scoparia, 7.4.1987, J Donaldson (QDPI);
HOSTS: Epacridaceae: Monotoca scoparia [HardyHe2011]. Myrtaceae: Melaleuca bracteata [HardyHe2011], Melaleuca nodosa [HardyHe2011], Melaleuca sp. [HardyHe2011]. Sapindaceae: Guoia semiglauca.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline fusiform to pyriform, with weakly-developed lobes on prepygidial abdominal segments. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes zygotic, divergent, lobes connected via strong sclerosis, each lobe wider than long, with rounded, dentate apex; margin between lobes incised; second lobe bi-lobed, medial lobule larger and with stronger basal sclerosis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: P. naamba is very similar to P. waibenensis. P. naamba adult females can be distinguished from those of P. waibenensis by (1) lacking a strong duct spur between the medial and second lobes (present in P. waibenensis); (2) having pores associated with the posterior spiracles (lacking in P. waibenensis); and (3) with prepygidial margin of abdomen only weakly lobed (strongly lobed in P. waibenensis). The two species also have different host associations, with P. naamba almost always collected from Melaleuca species, and P. waibenensis from mangrove plants. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 21-23].
Poliaspis nalbo Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis nalbo Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 23-25. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Maleny [-26.76, 152.85], in flower heads of Cryptandra scortechinii 9/?/1987, by D. Hockings. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:393A0E21-FA95-4361-8242-C ACB6473FEC1 Paratypes: 4 adult females: same data as holotype (QDPI).
HOST: Rhamnaceae: Cryptandra scortechinii [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline elongate oval, margin of thorax and pre-pygidial abdominal segments undulate. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes large, zygotic, parallel, lobes connected via sclerotic strap, each lobe wider than long, rounded, with dentate apex; margin between lobes incised; second lobe not bi-lobed. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: P. nalbo can be recognized easily by (1) the large, rounded, parallel median lobes; (2) the extra gland spines on the margin of abdominal segments 5 and 6; (3) the cluster of gland tubercles present on the ventral surface of the head (also present in P. narungga); (4) the absence of microducts from the dorsal surface of the head. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 23-25].
Poliaspis narungga Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis narungga Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 25-26. Type data: AUSTRALIA:South Australia, Inneston, Yorke Peninsula [-35.28,136.94], on Correa ?reflexa, 1/?/1975, by D. Symon. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:5685916A-CDD0-448F-A4BD-D 38EF9B8E7D7 Paratypes: 7 adult females: on same slide as holotype (ANIC).
HOSTS: Rutaceae: Correa ?reflexa [HardyHe2011], Goeznowia vericosa (=verrucosa) [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (South Australia [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline elongate oval. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes zygotic, parallel, lobes connected via narrow sclerotic strap, each lobe ca. as wide as long, pointed, smaller than second lobes, margin between lobes not incised; second lobe bi-lobed, each lobule triangular, with blunt or pointed tip. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: P. narungga is the only species of Poliaspis in which the adult females lack gland spines, but gland tubercles are numerous in submarginal areas of the abdomen and thorax, including a cluster anterior to the anterior spiracle. Also distinctive are (1) the lack of differentiation between marginal and dorsal ducts, and (2) the dorsal macroducts on the pygidium not being arranged into distinct submedial and submarginal clusters. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 25-26].
Poliaspis nitens FullerNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis nitens Fuller, 1897b: 5. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Swan River, on Daviesia sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Trichomytilus nitens; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Daviesia sp. [Fuller1897b], Gastrolobium sp. [HardyHe2011]. Santalaceae: Exocarpus (=Exocarpos) cupressiformis [HardyHe2011], Exocarpus (=Exocarpos) stricta [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [HardyHe2011], Western Australia [Fuller1897b, Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fuller (1899). Redescription and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale pyriform, broad, convex, generally straight. Exuviae light, reddish-yellow, 2nd lighter than the 1st, remainder of scale pure silvery white. Adult female yellow, elongate (Fuller, 1899).
SYSTEMATICS: Poliaspis nitens differs from P. exocarpi in having only 7 groups of spinnerets; 6 arranged in 3 pairs, the 7th median and before the anterior laterals (Fuller, 1897b).
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 878]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Fuller1897b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 470]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 27-28]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88].
Poliaspis ozothamnae Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis ozothamnae Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 29-30. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Brisbane [-27.47, 153.02], on Ozothamnus diosmifolius, 4/17/1986, by N. Gough. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1E486663-2B38-4C1A-A2B7-2 25A5062FA40 Paratypes: 6 adult females: same data as holotype (QDPI)
HOSTS: Compositae: Ozothamnus diosmifolius [HardyHe2011]. Fabaceae: Pulteneae involucrata [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline turbinate. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes zygotic, parallel, closeset, lobes connected via narrow sclerosis, each lobe wider than long, apex obtuserounded and dentate; margin between lobes not incised; second lobe not bi-lobed, roughly pointed, apex notched in some specimens, close to medial lobe. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: P. ozothamnae is distinguishable from other species of Poliaspis by having (1) the second lobe close set to medial lobe, without a gland spine near lateral edge of medial lobe; (2) only 2 differentiated marginal ducts; (3) the 2-8 pores near each posterior spiracle; and (4) having multiple gland spines on each pygidial segment other than 8. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 29-30].
Poliaspis raouliae HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis raouliae Henderson, 2011: 153-158. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Bay of Plenty, Pukeamaru, Karakatuwhero Valley, riverbed in shallows on Raoulia sp. stems, 3/3/1993, by J.S. Dugdale. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 93-201g. Described: other. Illust.
HOST: Asteraceae: Raoulia sp. [Hender2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (North Island [Hender2011]).
BIOLOGY: The type series was in a riparian habitat, on stems of the host plant that were partly submerged at the edge of the riverbed. (Henderson, 2011)
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover white, with terminal exuvia; colour of female body and eggs not recorded; male scales small, white, not coated in flocculent wax or carinated. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (female, adult) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)]; Henderson 2011: 129 [Key to Poliaspis adult females in combination with 1st-instar nymphs/exuvia in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,12,128-9,145,153-1].
Poliaspis salicornicola HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis salicornicola Henderson, 2011: 154,159-161. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Three Kings Island, South West, on Sarcocornia quinqueflora, 11/26/1983, by C.F. Butcher. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 83-349f. Described: other. Illust. Notes: Holotype Barcode NZAC02008425
HOST: Chenopodiaceae: Sarcocornia quinqueflora [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (Three Kings Islands).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Body shape on slide roundly oval with prominent median lobes (L1) at apex; on more mature specimens the distal pygidium appears folded over towards the midpygidium. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female of P. salicornicola can be distinguished from adult female P. floccosa and P. media by having only 2 pairs of marginal macroducts on the pygidium, i.e., a single duct each side on the margin of segment VI instead of 2 or more ducts there, and by the much reduced pygidial gland spines. In addition, each L2 is coalesced into a single lobe instead of being bilobed. The female 2nd-instar nymph of P. salicornicola can immediately be distinguished from those of P. media and P. floccosa by the absence of marginal macroducts on the pygidium, and by the much reduced pygidial gland spines. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)]; Henderson 2011: 129 (female) [Key to Poliaspis adult females in combination with 1s-tinstar nymphs/exuvia in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,12-13,44,128-9,154]; Willia2013 [distribution: 190].
Poliaspis syringae LaingNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis syringae Laing, 1929: 17-19. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Kew, on Syringa sp., by C. Plumridge. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype female designated in Hardy & Henderson, 2011: Australia, Victoria, Kew, on lilac, by C Plumridge, No. 40 (1925), L.B.E. 1413 (BMNH).
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Bedfordia salicina [Hudson1967]. Capparaceae: Capparis nobilis [HardyHe2011], Capparis sp. [HardyHe2011]. Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [HardyHe2011]. Oleaceae: Syringa sp. [Laing1929]. Rutaceae: Eremocitrus glauca [HardyHe2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [HardyHe2011], Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929). Redescription and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, smooth, shining, broad in front, tapering behind; exuviae pale brownish yellow, occasionally with a faint orange tint, terminal. Male scale snow white, surface presenting a somewhat woolly appearance, more or less parallel-sided, or slightly broader in front and tapering gently posteriorly, non-carinated; exuviae very pale yellowish brown. Adult female clearing completely in potash, broadly ovate (Laing, 1929). Slide-mounted adult female body outline oval, margin of thorax and abdomen undulate. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes large, zygotic, divergent, connected via a narrow strap, each lobe wider than long, apex rounded and dentate; margin between lobes incised; second lobe bi-lobed, lateral lobule minute, each lobule with rounded apex, basal scleroses absent. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Poliaspis syringae is close to P. media, but the median pair of lobes are larger and rather more protruding (Laing, 1929). P. syringae is most similar to P. naamba and P. waibenensis. Adult females of P. syringae can be distinguished from those by (1) median lobes much larger than second lobes (similar in size in P. naamba and P. waibenensis); and (2) second lobes without basal sclerosis (present in P. naamba and P. waibenensis). (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 29,32]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17-19].
Poliaspis waibenensis Hardy & HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis waibenensis Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 31,33-34. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Thursday Island [-10.58,142.22], on leaves of Lumnitzera racemosa, 9/2/2004, by B. Waterhouse. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:4A9E74E1-428A-4257-9FCE-6 5A2FDDC1AE1 Paratypes: 10 adult females: Queensland, Atherton [-17.27, 145.48], on leaves of Parsonsia straminea, 2/1/1982, by J. Donaldson
HOSTS: "mangrove" [HardyHe2011]. Apocynaceae: Parsonsia straminea [HardyHe2011]. Combretaceae: Lumnitzera racemosa [HardyHe2011]. Lythraceae: Pemphis acisula [HardyHe2011]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [HardyHe2011]. Rhizophoraceae: Rhizophora sp. [HardyHe2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [HardyHe2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hardy & Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female body outline fusiform to pyriform, with weakly-developed lobes on pre-pygidial abdominal segments. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes zygotic, divergent, lobes connected via broad (more than half width of lobes) sclerosis, each lobe wider than long, with rounded apex; margin between lobes incised; second lobe bi-lobed, ca. as large as medial lobe, medial lobule larger and with stronger basal sclerosis. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: P. waibenensis is very similar to P. naamba. P. naamba adult females can be distinguished from those of P. waibenensis by (1) lacking a strong duct spur between the medial and second lobes (present in P. waibenensis); (2) having pores associated with the posterior spiracles (lacking in P. waibenensis); and (3) with prepygidial margin of abdomen only weakly lobed (strongly lobed in P. waibenensis). The two species also have different host associations, with P. naamba almost always collected from Melaleuca species, and P. waibenensis from mangrove plants. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)].
CITATIONS: HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 31,33-34].
Poliaspis wilga (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis wilga Leonardi, 1903: 43-44. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Condobolin, on Geijera parviflora, 17/10/1900, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy, and London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 339. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes wilga; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination.
Leonardaspis wilga; MacGillivray, 1921: 287. Change of combination.
Poliaspis wilga; Hardy & Henderson, 2011: 33,35-36. Change of combination. Notes: Lectotype female designated in Hardy & Henderson, 2011, slide labelled: "on wilga, Geijera parviflora, Condobolin, 17.x.1900, WW Froggatt (339), BM 1964-4, CIE" (BMNH).
HOST: Rutaceae: Geijera parviflora [BorchsWi1963].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Leonar1903] (New South Wales [BorchsWi1963]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with only a single pair of distinct lobes, the median pair short, about as broad as long, distal margin broad, notched on mesal and lateral margins; plates arranged 2, 3, those of median incisura short and small, hardly longer than median pair of lobes, those of each lateris much longer and arranged singly and distant from each other; margin of lateris thickened, toothed (MacGillivray, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: P. wilga is the only species of Poliaspis to have only the median lobes present. It can also be recognized by the loose groupings of more than 2 marginal ducts on abdominal segments 6 and 7. (Hardy & Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Hardy & Henderson 2011: 4-6 (adult, female) [Key to species of Poliaspis (excluding P. intermedia, and P. casuarinicola)]; MacGillivray 1921: 287 (female) [Key to species of Leonardaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 29 (female) [as Mytilaspis wilga; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 35]; BorchsWi1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 366-367]; HardyHe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 33,35-36]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 43-44]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 274, 287]; Sander1906 [distribution, taxonomy: 17].
Poliaspoides MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Natalaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 309. Type species: Chionaspis simplex Green. Subsequently designated by Ferris, 1938b: 71. Notes: Poliaspoides was regarded as an objective synonym of Natalaspis by Ben-Dov & Takagi (1974). Brain's (1920) unnamed species Chionaspis simplex Green, var. was named Odonaspis simplex Green, var. formosana by Takahashi (1930). Ben-Dov & Takagi (1974) concluded that Odonaspis simplex formosana Takahashi is conspecific and identical with Chionaspis simplex Green, var. (sensu Brain, 1920) and designated the former as the type species of Natalaspis. They also regarded Natalaspis as the valid name and Poliaspoides as the junior synonym but Ferris (1938b) as the first reviser considered Poliaspoides to be the available name.
Poliaspoides MacGillivray, 1921: 309. Type species: Odonaspis simplex formosana. Subsequently designated by Ben-Dov & Takagi, 1974: 45. Notes: The genus Natalaspis was established by MacGillivray (1921) for an unnamed species, described by Brain (1920) as Chionaspis simplex Green, var. A few lines further in the same page, MacGillivray introduced the genus Poliaspoides with Chionaspis simplex Green, 1899a as its type species. Ferris (1938b) as the first reviser decided that Poliaspoides should be considered the valid name since the type species was clearly delimited and treated Natalaspis as a junior synonym. Later, Ben-Dov & Takagi (1974) decided that Natalaspis was the valid name, but this designation does not take percedence over Ferris (1938b). For more information see the notes under Natalaspis.
Poliaspidoides; Goux, 1937: 35. Misspelling of genus name.
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1937) incorrectly considered Natalaspis and Poliaspoides to be junior synonyms of Dycryptaspis.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Wang 1982c: 44 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 223 [as Poliaspoides; Key to genera of Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [as Poliaspoides; Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1949 [taxonomy: 109]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 28]; BenDovTa1974 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 43-53]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 151]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 335]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 6, 33, 34, 40]; Ferris1938b [illustration, taxonomy: 71, 74]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-312]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Goux1937 [taxonomy: 35]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,23,44,161]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190, 193]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description: 309]; MorrisMo1966 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 128, 158-159]; Takagi1995a [description, taxonomy: 36-37]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 44, 103]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 223].
Poliaspoides bambusae Ülgentürk & PellizzariNOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspoides bambusae Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013: 493-499. Type data: TURKEY: Ankara, on Bambusa siamensis, 2/15/2011, by Ülgentürk. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Ankara: Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Turkey; type no. 3007. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Bambusa siamensis imported and growing indoors at a shopping center in Ankara
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa siamensis [UlgentPe2013].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Turkey [UlgentPe2013].
BIOLOGY: The absence of perivulvar pores in the adult female is usually associated with viviparity or ovoviviparty, and this is confirmed by the presence of first-instar nymphs within the body of P. bambusae. (Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013.
STRUCTURE: Body elongate, inversely pyriform, 1.2 (0.95-1.45) mm long and 0.67 (0.56-0.77) mm wide at mesothorax. Derm sclerotised on margins of thorax and abdomen, medial part membranous. (Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013) First instar nymph: oval, with lateral margin almost parallel, 240 µm long and 132 µm wide. (Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013)
SYSTEMATICS: Poliaspoides bambusae differs from P. formosana (characters of P. formosana in brackets) in the absence of perivulvar pores (present in 5 groups), presence of dorsal ducts of two sizes (one size only), and in having only 1-4 trilocular pores associated with each anterior spiracle (4-10), The adult female of P. bambusae differs from that of P. simplex (characters of P. simplex in brackets) in the absence of perivulvar pores (present in 5-7 groups) and the absence of spiracular pores near each posterior spiracle but with a group of microducts in this position (1-3 spiracular pores around posterior spiracles (Green, 1899)). (Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013) The first-instar nymph of Poliaspoides bambusae is similar to that of P. formosana described by Ben-Dov & Takagi (1974) and by Takagi (1995) but differs in having 6 processes, each with 2–6 cusps, along each margin of the abdomen (P. formosana has 8 tricuspidal processes). Moreover, P. bambusae lacks the pair of sharp sclerotised processes between the two anal lobe setae noted on P. formosana. The first-instar nymph of P. leptocarpi, described by Henderson (2011), clearly differs from P. bambusae and P. formosana (characters of P. bambusae and P. formosana in brackets) in having: 6 segmented antennae (5 segmented), no abdominal processes (present) and no pairs of enlarged ducts on head (present). (Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013)
KEYS: Ülgentürk & Pellizzari 2013: 496 [Key to Poliaspoides living on bamboos (Poaceae) based on adult females].
CITATIONS: UlgentPe2013 [description, distribution, host, illustration, physiology, taxonomy: 493-499].
Poliaspoides formosana (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis simplex mauritiensis Grandpre & Charmoy, 1899: 5. Nomen nudum; discovered by Mamet, 1946: 244.
Chionaspis simplex var. Brain, 1920: 96-97. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ben-Dov & Takagi, 1974: 46.
Odonaspis simplex formosana Takahashi, 1930: 29. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, Maruyama, on Bambusa stenostachya, Bambusa sp., Dendrocalamus latiflorus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Poliaspoides simplex formosana; Mamet, 1943a: 166. Change of status.
Poliaspoides formosana; Mamet, 1946: 244. Change of combination.
Poliaspoides simplex; Almeida, 1973: 4. Misidentification.
Natalaspis formosana; Ben-Dov & Takagi, 1974: 46. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa multiplex [Mamet1943a], Bambusa sp. [Brain1920], Bambusa stenostachya [Takaha1930], Bambusa vulgaris [DeLott1967a], Dendrocalamus sp. [Takaha1930], Schyzostachium diffusum [Takagi1995a], Schyzostachium lumampao [Takagi1995a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a]; Mozambique [Almeid1973]; Reunion [Mamet1957, BenDovTa1974, GermaiMiPa2014]; South Africa [Brain1920]. Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Descriptions and illustrations by Brain (1920), Takahashi (1930) & Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium of adult female wide, less indented on margin, circumgenital pores in 5 groups, anterior spiracles with 7-10 parastigmatic pores (Takahashi, 1930). The second-instar male is characterized by having at the posterior end of the body a pair of slender processes, which aredilated and sometimes frayed apically. (Takagi & Martin, 2010)
SYSTEMATICS: Poliaspoides formosana is close to N. simplex from which it can be distinguished by the more numerous pygidial ducts (Takagi, 1969a). In the first instar, it has apically cleft spinous processes around the abdomen and metathorax.
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1976a: 29 [Key to species of Natalaspis].
CITATIONS: Almeid1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 4-5]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; BenDov1976a [taxonomy: 29]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 8]; BenDovTa1974 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-53]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 151]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96-97]; Brown1965 [chemistry, distribution, host: 243]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 335-336]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 109, 117]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 71]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; GrandpCh1899 [taxonomy: 5]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 119]; Kawai1980 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 198]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309, 354]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 166]; Mamet1946 [taxonomy: 244]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 17]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Mamet1954a [distribution, host: 265]; Mamet1957 [distribution: 369]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, economic importance, host: 10]; Nur1971 [physiology: 303]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 58-60]; Takagi1995a [taxonomy: 37]; TakagiMa2010 [structure, taxonomy: 44-45]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 116]; TremblCa1972 [physiology: 430]; UlgentPe2013 [taxonomy: 496]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 103-104]; Willia2011 [taxonomy: 66]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 32-33, 75, 76]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 250, 252].
Poliaspoides leptocarpi (Brittin)NOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis ? leptocarpi Brittin, 1916: 425-426. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, New Brighton, on Leptocarpus sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1976a: 27. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female.
Dycryptaspis leptocarpi; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Natalaspis leptocarpi; Ben-Dov, 1976a: 27-29. Change of combination.
Poliaspoides leptocarpi; Miller & Gimpel, 2009: 722. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Restionaceae: Apodasmia similis [Hender2011], Leptocarpus sp. [Britti1916]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1916, Hender2011]).
BIOLOGY: The adult female and eggs are dark grey-purple. The adult female produces a thick white, open-ended cover into which eggs are laid in 2 rows, thus forming an ovisac, with just her posterior covered while she lies mostly naked further in under the leaf sheath. Groups of up to 8 females with ‘ovisacs’ may be packed together under one sheath. No males have been observed. Habitat beneath the leaf sheath on stem nodes, with usually a tell-tale portion of white scale cover(s) visible at the sheath margin, or the sheath appears more swollen than normal; 1st-instar nymphs settle under the lip of the sheath at a previously unoccupied node, the 1st and 2nd scale covers are pale to translucent except that before each moult a sclerotised band forms around the head (absent on the adult female); development time from settled 1st-instar to adult female is apparently fast and the greatest size increase is in the adult stage.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1976a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female always found packed closely together. Ventral scale complete, white, remains attached to host; dorsal portion white, elongate. Exuviae yellow and appears to be situated rather to one side. Mounted adult females narrow and elongate, 0.8-1.4 mm long, 0.4-0.8 mm wide. Pygidial margin rounded, serrated, without lobes or plates (Ben-Dov, 1976a).
SYSTEMATICS: The presence of numerous dorsal ducts would normally signify a male nymph, however all the slide-mounted ductiferous 2nd-instar nymphs and many of those with fewer ducts or without any dorsal ducts are recorded containing incipient or pharate adult females, not male prepupae. Therefore they are all considered female, and males are absent. The adult female of the non-bamboo feeding P. leptocarpi differs from the other Poliaspoides species in having the antennal tubercle with 3 or 4 setae and both anterior and posterior spiracles without spiracular pores (Ben-Dov, 1976). Its first instar, described by Henderson (2011), is also clearly different from the first instars of P. formosana and P. bambusae. Takagi (1995) doubted whether P. leptocarpi was correctly placed in the genus Poliaspoides (Takagi, 1995, p.37, as Natalaspis leptocarpi) because of these differences and because of the different host plant: P. leptocarpi is monophagous on Apodasmia (=Leptocarpus) similis (Restinaceae), endemic to New Zealand. The differences in the first-instar nymph morphology, highlighted by Henderson (2011), support Takagi’s views. (Ülgentürk & Pellizzari, 2013)
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1976a: 29 [Key to species of Natalaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDov1976a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-29]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 8]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 224]; Britti1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 425-426]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11-14,36,161-165,1]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 134]; Takagi1995a [taxonomy: 37]; UlgentPe2013 [structure, taxonomy: 498]; Wise1977 [distribution: 110].
Poliaspoides simplex (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis simplex Green, 1899a: 160-161. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Bambusa sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Natalaspis simplex; MacGillivray, 1921: 354. Change of combination.
Poliaspoides simplex; MacGillivray, 1921: 357. Change of combination.
Odonaspis (Chionaspis) simplex; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1921a: 357. Change of combination.
Odonaspis simplex; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 27. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis Simplex; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa siamensis [UlgentPe2013], Bambusa sp. [Green1899a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1930]); Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, opaque, elongate, narrow, moderately convex above, often curved or much distorted. Exuviae yellow, transparent; 2nd exuviae usually partly obscured by an opaque covering of white secretion, the exposed parts appearing bright orange from the color of the insect below. Adult female bright orange, oblong oval, narrowly rounded in front, bluntly pointed behind (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1976a: 29 [Key to species of Natalaspis]; Green 1899a: 109 (female) [as Chionaspis simplex; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; BenDov1976a [taxonomy: 29]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 7, 8]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 151-152]; Brain1920 [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 71, 74]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-312]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 428]; Goux1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109, 160-161]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 461]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 336]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; Mamet1946 [taxonomy: 244]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 357]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 27]; Ruther1915a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 112-113]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 58]; TakagiMa2010 [structure, taxonomy: 44]; UlgentPe2013 [taxonomy: 496].
Praecocaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Praecocaspis Ferris, 1942: SIV-410. Type species: Praecocaspis diversa Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae referable to the tribe Diaspidini of the subfamily Diaspidinae. Differing from all other members of the family in the fact that the adult female emerges directly from the first stage larva, the second stage usually being omitted. Also differing from all other members of the family in the peculiar development of a portion of the macroducts on the dorsum of the pygidium, these ducts being much enlarged and funnel-shaped, the orifice being very small and the inner extremity much larger, the duct being bent in transverse section so that the inner extremity, if viewed end-on, presents a crescentic form. Scale of the female formed by a mass of felted wax threads which enclose the insect both dorsally and ventrally, the 1st exuviae alone present. Male scale composed of felted threads but of quite definite form, elongate, with the exuviae at one end (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 158]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIV-410, SIV-446: 42]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 161]; TakagiKo1997 [structure: 99].
Praecocaspis diversa FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Praecocaspis diversa Ferris, 1942: SIV-411. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Miami, on Trema sp., by G.H. Baker. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pracocaspis diversa; Beardsley & Gonzalez, 1975: 54. Misspelling of genus name.
COMMON NAME: diverse scale [Dekle1965c].
HOSTS: Rhamnaceae: Colubrina cubensis [Dekle1965c]. Ulmaceae: Trema sp. [Ferris1942]. Verbenaceae: Lantana involucrata [Dekle1965c].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Ferris1942, Nakaha1982]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1942). Detailed description and illustration of first and second instars by Howell & Tippins (1975b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale irregular or more or less circular mass of felted threads of wax which entirely encloses the insect and upon which lies the pale yellow 1st exuviae. Male scale also a mass of felted threads, elongate, with the exuviae at one end and pale yellow. The wax of both sexes is pure white. Adult female about 0.75 mm long, almost circular when slide-mounted. Pygidium without lobes or plates, its apex with a pair of low prominences which perhaps represent the lobes of the 8th segment. Dorsum of the pygidium quite strongly sclerotized, the relatively very large anal opening at about the center of this sclerotization (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Praecocaspis diversa is an entirely unique form quite unlike anything else that is currently known. The extraordinary pygidial macroducts are immediately distinctive. The male is winged (Ferris, 1942).
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; BeardsGo1975 [life history, taxonomy: 54]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 115]; Dekle1976 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-411]; Foldi1983b [structure: 340, 341]; HowellTi1975b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1028-1032]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 119]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 74]; Miller2005 [distribution]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 71]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351].
Primaspis HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Primaspis Howell, 1995: 202. Type species: Primaspis tippinsi Howell, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Primaspis is considered to be similar to Rugaspidiotus MacGillvray and Rugaspidiotinus Balachowsky by Howell (1995) and is placed in the "Diaspidini." However, he further indicates that the genus belongs in the Odonaspidinae; and explains that this agrees with the concepts of Balachowsky (1953g) and Takagi (1969a). Later he indicates that crawler characters of 6-segmented antennae, no row of ventral submedian abdominal setae, and no elongate seta present on the tarsi, the genus is clearly part of the Diaspidinae.
CITATIONS: Howell1995 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 202].
Primaspis tippinsi HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Primaspis tippinsi Howell, 1995: 203-206. Type data: UNITED STATES: New Mexico, 1 mile above school in Gullmas Canyon, N.W. of Las Vegas, on unidentified grass, 13/07/1947, by G. F. Ferris. Holotype female and first instar. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female and first instar. Illust. Notes: This may be the first time in the Coccoidea that the holotype is a first instar (Howell 1995) thus the name "prima" meaning first. Four first instar and 2 adult female paratypes also in USNM.
HOST: Poaceae [Howell1995].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (New Mexico [Howell1995]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations of the adult female and first instar are provided by Howell (1995).
SYSTEMATICS: The presence of gland spines on the pygidial margin, well-defined median lobes, and a bilobed second lobe on adult females are characters that separate Primaspis tippinsi from similarly appearing species of Rugaspidiotus and Rugaspidiotinus (Howell 1995). But it is the first instars that have the greatest morphological difference. In R. tippinsi the antennae are 6-segmented, there is no row of ventral submedian abdominal setae, and no elongate seta on the tarsi.
CITATIONS: Howell1995 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 203-206].
Proceraspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Proceraspis MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Type species: Chionaspis cinnamomi Green, by monotypy and original designation.
Porceraspis; Ferris, 1938b: 75. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, flat, more or less distinct median carina; body of adult female elongate, thorax occupying nearly three-fourths of length of the body, metathoracic spiracles located near middle of caudal half. Pygidium with median pair of lobes contiguous, 2 lobes together much broader than long, lateral margins oblique, minutely serrate (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 108]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 6, 23]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 193]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 312]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 161]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 73].
Proceraspis cinnamomi (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis cinnamomi Green, 1905a: 354. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Cinnamomum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Proceraspis cinnamomi; MacGillivray, 1921: 363. Change of combination.
HOST: Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Green1905a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1905a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale reddish, usually with a broad median longitudinal brownish fascia; elongate in form, narrow; secretionary area only slightly dilated; flattish with a more or less distinct median longitudinal ridge, 2.0-2.75 mm long, 0.75 mm wide. Adult female elongate, narrow. Pygidium pointed. Median lobes prominent, contiguous, inner edge longest, free edge minutely serrate and sloping evenly to the margin (Green, 1905a).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 72-73]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 21]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 23]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 354]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [description, distribution, host: 321]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 193]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 73].
Prodiaspis Young in Young & WangNOMENCLATURE:
Prodiaspis Young in Young & Wang, 1984: 211. Type species: Prodiaspis tamaricicola Young (= Prodiaspis sinensis Tang), by monotypy and original designation.
Circodiaspis Tang, 1986: 273-274. Type species: Adiscodiaspis tamaricicola Malenotti, by original designation. Synonymy by Takagi et al., 1997: 83.
SYSTEMATICS: Prodiaspis differs from Xanthophthalma in having numerous tubular ducts on both dorsal and ventral sides of abdominal segments, in having a valve-like sac at the aperture of the vulva, in the first instar larva having 6-segmented and non annulate antenna and having a trilocular disc pore accompanying the anterior spiracle (Young & Wang, 1984). Danzig (1993) considers Circodiaspis to be a junior synonym of Adiscodiaspis. Takagi et al. (1997) provide a taxonomic discussion of Prodiaspis and related genera.
CITATIONS: TakagiTaYa1997 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 83-84]; Tang1986 [description, taxonomy: 273-274]; YoungWa1984 [description, taxonomy: 211-213].
Prodiaspis sinensis (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Prodiaspis tamaricicola Young in Young & Wang, 1984: 211. Type data: CHINA: Ningxia Hui, Yinchuan, Yinchuan City Park, on Tamarix sp., 08/04/1983 by J. Wang. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in Institute of Forestry, Ningxia Academy of Forestry, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.
Circodiaspis sinensis Tang, 1986: 14. Type data: CHINA: Xinqxia, Autonomous Regions, on Tamarix pentandra and Myricaria daburica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust. Junior synonym replacing a junior homonym.
Adiscodiaspis sinensis; Danzig, 1993: 395. Change of combination.
Prodiaspis sinensis; Takagi et al., 1997: 83. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Tamaricaceae: Myricaria daburica [Tang1986], Tamarix chinensis [Tao1999], Tamarix pentandra [Tang1986], Tamarix sp. [YoungWa1984]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Ningxia (=Ningsia) [YoungWa1984], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tang1986], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tao1999]); Egypt [GhabboMo1996].
BIOLOGY: This species causes great damage to Tamarix (Tang, 1986).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Young & Wang (1984) and Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale white in color, circular or pyriform in shape, yellowish exuviae, nearly central in position, ventral scale thick (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: When Takagi et al. (1997) moved tamaricicola Malenotti 1916 into Prodiaspis they created a homonymy with tamaricicola Young 1984. Instead of creating a new replacement name, they used the synonym sinensis Tang as the replacement name. Adiscodiaspis sinensis is close to A. tamaricicola, but differs in the following ways: antenna of the former with 4 thin setae and pyramidal in form, but the latter with 4 strong spines and hemispherical in shape; all segments of the antenna in the 1st stage larva equal in length in tamaricicola, but the 3rd segment is the longest in sinensis; the marginal groups of dorsal ducts 14 in number on each side of the abdomen in sinensis, but there are only 10 in tamaricicola (Tang, 1986).
CITATIONS: Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 395]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 344]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 150]; TakagiTaYa1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84-85]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-15, 274]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 110]; YoungWa1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 211-214].
Prodiaspis tamaricicola (Malenotti)NOMENCLATURE:
Adiscodiaspis tamaricicola Malenotti, 1916: 313-315. Type data: EGYPT: Matarieh, on Tamarix sp., 1912, by G. Paoli & F.C. Willcocks. Unknown type status. Described: female. Illust.
Abiscodiaspis tamaraxicola; Borchsenius, 1937a: 186. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Rugaspidiotus tamaricicola; Balachowsky, 1953g: 42. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Circodiaspis tamaricola; Tang, 1986: 273. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Prodiaspis tamaricicola; Takagi et al., 1997: 83. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: tamarisk scale [MillerDa1990]; white hawthorn armored scale [Bustsh1960]; white tamarisk hard scale [Bustsh1958].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Cybocephalidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Coccobius kurbani [Myarts1995], Marietta karakalensis [Myarts1995], Physcus flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Rhinanthus sp. [Archan1937]. Tamaricaceae: Myricaria sp. [DanzigPe1998], Reaumuria soongorica [Danzig1972b], Tamarix chinensis [Hua2000], Tamarix gallica [PellizPoSe2011], Tamarix hampeana [Balach1953g], Tamarix leptostachys [Mateso1968], Tamarix pallasii [Balach1953g], Tamarix sp. [Maleno1916, BenDov2012]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Oriental: Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Armenia [DanzigPe1998]; Azerbaijan [DanzigPe1998]; China (Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tao1999], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1984b]); Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Egypt [Maleno1916]; Greece [Korone1934]; Iran [Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Balach1953g]; Kazakhstan [Archan1937] [Mateso1955]; Mongolia [DanzigPe1998]; Saudi Arabia [Shalab1961]; Turkey [Bodenh1953]; Turkmenistan [Archan1937]; Uzbekistan [Archan1937]; Yugoslavia [Borchs1966].
BIOLOGY: Bustshik (1958) states that in early May females were almost continuously stuffed with eggs and by mid May larvae appeared. In mid June the flight of the males was noted and it had almost completely stopped by the end of June. The mass flight of the males occurs in the evening.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of males by Bustshik (1958) and by Ghauri (1962).
STRUCTURE: Scale short to oblong oval, very strong convex, strongest convexity on the front end, greyish white. Exuviae excentric, the yellow-brown larval skin quite irregularly situated (oblique, or in the longitudinal axis). The scale of the second stage covered by a grey-white mass over the whole scale. Scale of the second stage circular, very strongly convex, with yellow brown, sub to excentric, oval exuviae. The adult female is short oval and brown yellow. The hind end shows only wide, flat lobes and is bare of all characteristics of a diaspineous pygidium (Bodenheimer, 1924).
SYSTEMATICS: Prodiaspis sinensis is close to Adiscodiaspis tamaricicola, but differs in the following ways: antenna of the A. sinensis with 4 thin setae and pyramidal in form, but A. tamaricicola with 4 strong spines and hemispherical in shape; all segments of the antenna in the 1st stage larva equal in length in tamaricola, but the 3rd segment is the longest in sinensis; the marginal groups of dorsal ducts 14 in number on each side of the abdomen in sinensis, but there are only 10 in tamaricicola (Tang, 1986). Adiscodiaspis ericicola and A. tamaricicola were considered to be synonyms by many workers such as Lindinger (1936) and Balachowsky (1953g).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Borchsenius 1963a: 207 (female) [as Adiscodiaspis tamaricicola; Key to species on Tamarix]; Bustshik 1958: 186 (female) [Species of the tribe Diaspidini]; Mitiaev 1958: 93 [Species harming Tamarix]; Balachowsky 1953g: 762 (female) [as Rugaspidiotus tamaricicola; Palaeartic species of Rugaspidiotus].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 98]; AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 152]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [distribution, host: 80]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 434]; Babaev1980 [distribution: 59]; Balach1949 [distribution, host: 109]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 762, 764-767]; Bazaro1962 [taxonomy: 61]; Bazaro1963a [host: 71]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, host: 94-95]; Bazaro1971c [distribution, host: 88]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-132]; Beccar1971 [distribution, host: 195]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56]; Bodenh1924a [distribution, host: 122]; Bodenh1929b [distribution, taxonomy: 104, 116]; Bodenh1930a [taxonomy: 370]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 249]; Bodenh1935b [distribution, host: 308]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1156]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 7, 26, 218]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution: 107, 109]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12]; Bodenh1953a [distribution: 158]; BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 64]; Borchs1937a [host: 186]; Borchs1948f [host, taxonomy: 264]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy: 211]; Borchs1963a [host, illustration, taxonomy: 207, 208]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 151]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 186, 207-209, 210]; Bustsh1960 [description, distribution, host, life history: 177, 179-180]; Danzig1972b [distribution, host: 346]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host: 582]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 176]; Davies1981 [taxonomy: 151]; Davies1983 [taxonomy: 144]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 101]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance: 175]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 56]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 247]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 344]; Ghauri1962 [description, distribution, illustration: 22, 32, 34, 35, 174-]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host: 188-191, 273]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host: 23]; Hall1923 [taxonomy: 41]; Hall1926a [taxonomy: 37]; Hall1927 [distribution, host: 109]; Hall1927a [description, distribution, host: 165-166, 176]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 146, 159]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration: 6]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91, 92-93]; Koteja1974b [distribution: 84]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 81]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 152]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 373]; Maleno1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 313-315]; Mateso1955 [distribution, host: 200]; Mateso1958 [host: 131-132]; Mateso1968 [distribution, host: 126]; Mateso1971 [taxonomy: 27]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 220]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance: 300]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Mityae1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80, 93]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 36]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 49]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 38]; Myarts1972 [taxonomy: 54]; Myarts1995 [biological control, distribution: 432]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; TakagiTaYa1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84-92]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang1986 [taxonomy: 273]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 69]; TerGri1962 [taxonomy: 147-148]; TerGri1969a [illustration, taxonomy: 87, 88]; Willco1922 [biological control, host: 310-311, 466]; Willia1969a [taxonomy: 336]; ZakOga1967 [distribution, host: 215].
Prodigiaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Prodigiaspis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-312. Type species: Prodigiaspis septunx Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, exuviae at one end with thick ventral scale. 2nd exuviae heavily sclerotized both dorsally and ventrally and dehisces about the margin. Adult female elongate oval, derm at maturity remaining membranous except for the pygidium and the lateral margins of 2 or 3 prepygidial abdominal segments. Median pygidial lobes not yoked at base; 2nd and 3rd lobes mere low rounded prominences (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-312]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 161].
Prodigiaspis septunx FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Prodigiaspis septunx Ferris, 1941d: SIII-313. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Boquete, on Nectandra sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Nectandra sp. [Ferris1941d]. Liliaceae: Smilax sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, quite rough, white in fresh specimens, but becoming brown with weathering. Scale of male similar in form, usually in more exposed locations, very white. Slide-mounted adult female about 1.75 mm long, oval, posterior extremity slightly pointed. Pygidium relatively small. Median lobes very low and broad, separated slightly from each other with a pair of small and slender gland spines, two between median and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd lobes and a group of 3 or 4 on the 5th and 6th segments (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Prodigiapsis septunx is unique and there is nothing in the North American fauna with which it can easily be confused (Ferris, 1941d).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 32]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-313]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:60]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551].
Protancepaspis Borchsenius & BustshikNOMENCLATURE:
Protancepaspis Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1959: 160. Type species: Protancepaspis bidentata Borchsenius & Bustshik, by monotypy and original designation.
Protacepaspis; Chou, 1982: 101. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Takagi & Kawai (1973) revise the description of Protancepaspis and its relation to Ancepaspis.
STRUCTURE: Adult female broadly pear-shaped with an elongated and acute abdomen, up to 1.2 mm long. Outer body covering weakly sclerotized except for a small portion of the dorsal pygidial surface. All body segments fused, no clear division between pygidium and the remaining abdominal segments (Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1959).
SYSTEMATICS: Protancepaspis is closely related to Ancepaspis Ferris. The adult female may be distinguished by the developed marginal tubular and perivulvar ducts of the pygidium, the presence of discoidal pores before the anterior spiracles and tubular ducts behind the posterior spiracles and also by the location of the anal aperture, which is situated at the base of the pygidium anterior to the vaginal opening (Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1959).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 101 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Fioriniinae]; Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 79]; BorchsBu1959 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 160]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 160]; Chou1982 [description, taxonomy: 101, 115-116]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 337]; TakagiKa1973 [description, taxonomy: 49-52]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 223].
Protancepaspis bidentata Borchsenius & BustshikNOMENCLATURE:
Protancepaspis bidentata Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1959: 160. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Omeishan Mountains, southwest of Ch'engtu, on Rubus parkeri, 1955, by O. Pingyung & T.N. Bustshik. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in ZMAS.
HOST: Rosaceae: Rubus parkeri [BorchsBu1959].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius & Bustshik (1959).
STRUCTURE: Female scale composed of the swollen and sclerotized 2nd exuviae, 1st skin whitish, usually lost; secretionary material very sparse. Adult female body pear-shaped, about 1.0-1.2 mm long. Pygidium narrow, apically divided by a deep cleft into two large lobes, with a central dorsal sclerotization (Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1959).
SYSTEMATICS: Protancepaspis bidentata is similar to species of Ancepaspis. The adult female differs from the latter in having pygidial marginal tubular ducts, some discoidal pores close to the anterior spiracles, some small tubular ducts close to the posterior spiracles, and in the anterior position of the anal aperture (Borchsenius & Bustshik, 1959).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; BorchsBu1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160-163]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; Chou1986 [illustration: 520]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; TakagiKa1973 [taxonomy: 49, 52]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 111]; Yang1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 254-255].
Protancepaspis torreyae Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Protancepaspis torreyae Takagi & Kawai, 1973: 44-52. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nisigahara, Tokyo, on Torreya nucifera, 28/10/1968 and 22/11/1971, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Taxaceae: Torreya nucifera [TakagiKa1973].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of adult female, both sexes of 2nd instar and 1st instar larva by Takagi & Kawai (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, with cephalothorax embedded in waxy secretion. Male scale white, elongate, depressed, with a rather smooth appearance. Adult female pupillarial, body elongate-pyriform, with a narrow pygidium; segmentation indistinct; derm membranous, with a broad median region of pygidial dorsum weakly sclerotized and finely striate. Pygidium deeply and narrowly invaginated apically, the invagination occupying about one-third the length between pygidial apex and anal opening, which is situated towards the bottom of the pygidium.
SYSTEMATICS: Adult females of P. torreyae can be told from those of P. bidentata in the antenna in the former had 1 tubercle and as many as 8 in the latter (Takagi & Kawai, 1973).
CITATIONS: Howell1980 [taxonomy: 94]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 134]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 153]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 184-185]; TakagiKa1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-52].
Protargionia LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Protargionia Leonardi, 1911a: 46. Type species: Protargionia larreae Leonardi, by monotypy.
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Leonardi (1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1932f, 1937) considered Protargionia to be a junior synonym of Pseudoparlatoria. Borchsenius & Williams (1963) considered it distinct and very similar to Diaspis.
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 60 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 43 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; MacGillivray 1921: 306 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 165]; BorchsWi1963 [description, taxonomy: 366]; Ferris1936a [structure: 23]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 52]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 106]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 43]; GomezM1937 [description, taxonomy: 43, 130]; Leonar1911 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 280]; Leonar1911a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 193]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 306, 324]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 162]; Weber1930 [taxonomy: 399]; Weber1933 [taxonomy: 534].
Protargionia larreae LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Protargionia Larreae Leonardi, 1911a: 46-47. Type data: ARGENTINA: Mendoza, Cacheuta, on Larrea divaricata and L. cuneifolia. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy, and London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatorea larreae; Lindinger, 1932f: 204. Change of combination.
Protargionia larroae; De Santis, 1941a: 122. Misspelling of species name.
Protargionia larreae; Borchsenius, 1966: 165. Justified emendation.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Coccidophilus citricola [Fulmek1943]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [DeSant1941a]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora desantisi [DeSant1941a]. Thysanidae: Thysanus desantisi [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Aspidosperma quebracho blanco [Lizery1939, ClapsWoGo2001]. Euphorbiaceae: Manihot tweediana [Lizery1939, Claps2000]. Fabaceae: Cercidium praecox [Claps2000], Senna aphylla [Claps2000], Sophora japonica [Lizery1939, Claps2000]. Lauraceae: Laurus nobilis [Lizery1939, Claps2000]. Liliaceae: Zuccagnia punctata [Lizery1939, Claps2000, ClapsWoGo2001]. Zygophyllaceae: Larrea cuneifolia [Leonar1911, Claps2000], Larrea divaricata [Leonar1911a].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Buenos Aires [ClapsWoGo2001], Catamarca [Lizery1942, Claps2000], Chaco [ClapsWoGo2001], Chubut [ClapsWoGo2001], Cordoba [Claps2000], La Rioja [Claps2000], Mendoza [Leonar1911, Claps2000], Salta [Claps2000], Santiago del Estero [Claps2000], Tucuman [Claps2000]).
BIOLOGY: This species is ovoviviparous (Claps, 2000).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Claps (2000).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, slightly convex, exuviae situated anteriorly. Larval exuviae yellow, nymphal exuviae pale yellow. Adult female body oval (Leonardi, 1911).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, host, illustration: 368]; Claps2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93-94]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; DeSant1935 [biological control, distribution, host: 262, 263, 266-269]; DeSant1941 [biological control, distribution: 13]; DeSant1941a [biological control, distribution: 122]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 60]; GomezM1928 [taxonomy: 350]; GomezM1937 [taxonomy: 133]; Haywar1944 [distribution: 16]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 171]; HurdLi1975 [distribution, host: 106]; Lahill1919 [distribution, host: 599]; Leonar1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 280]; Leonar1911a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 46-47]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 151]; Lizery1939 [biological control, distribution, host: 199-200]; Lizery1942 [distribution, host: 75]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 324]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Teran1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202-205]; TrabouBe1965 [biological control: 4].
Protodiaspis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis Cockerell, 1898j: 428. Type species: Protodiaspis parvula Cockerell, by monotypy and original designation.
Essigaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 306. Type species: Protodiaspis agrifoliae Essig, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1921b: 93.
Obluctaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Protodiaspis lobata Ferris, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1921b: 93.
Variaspis Lindinger, 1932f: 186. Type species: Protodiaspis lagunae Ferris, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937a: 6.
BIOLOGY: McKenzie & Nelson-Rees (1962) state that Protodiaspis is probably native to the Western Hemisphere, where it occurs almost exclusively on oaks.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Protodiaspis secretes no distinct scale, but females are enveloped in a cottony secretion, the male pupae resembling those of Diaspis, but extremely short. No grouped circumgential glands (Cockerell, 1898j).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1937) stated "In the writer's opinion, whatever division of Protodiaspis may eventually be made, the three species P. agrifoliae, P. lobata and P. lagunae, the first two of which have been used as the types of genera, are definitely congeneric with P. parvula."
KEYS: Takagi 1993: 23 (female) [A tentative key to the genera of the subtribe Protodiaspidina]; McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Ferris 1942: 46 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 306, 311, 312 (female) [as Obluctaspis, Essigaspis; Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 152]; BrownMc1962 [chemistry, taxonomy: 141, 151-161]; ClapsWo2008 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71]; Cocker1898j [description, taxonomy: 428]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 213]; Ferris1919a [distribution, taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1920 [description, taxonomy: 29]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 23, 24, 26, 50]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-99]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 6, 24, 31]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:46-47]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 235]; Green1915d [taxonomy: 53]; Howell1980 [taxonomy: 94]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 186]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184, 186, 193, 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 306, 311, 312, 324,]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 29]; McKenzNe1962 [description, taxonomy: 133]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 162]; Takagi1981 [taxonomy: 12]; Takagi1993 [taxonomy: 15].
Protodiaspis agrifoliae EssigNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis agrifoliae Essig, 1914a: 76-80. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Ventura County, Santa Paula Canyon, near Santa Paula, on Quercus agrifolia, 1910, by S.H. Essig. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Essigaspis agrifoliae; MacGillivray, 1921: 324. Change of combination.
Pseudodiaspis agrifoliae; Ferris, 1921b: 93. Change of combination.
Anamefiorinia agrifoliae; Lindinger, 1935: 132. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: oak protodiaspis scale [Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus [Borchs1966], Quercus agrifolia [Essig1914a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Essig1914a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Essig (1914a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale covers less than 1 mm diameter, circular, white or grey with reddish-brown marginal exuviae. Male scale elongate, white, with a brown terminal exuviae(Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis agrifoliae is close to P. parvula (Ferris, 1920).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:60 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: BeardsGo1975 [structure: 66]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 228]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 153]; Essig1914a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-80]; Ferris1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 30]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 50]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-99, SI-100, SI-10]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:60]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 335]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 235, 237]; Green1915d [taxonomy: 53]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306, 324]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 153]; McKenzNe1962 [taxonomy: 137]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 71]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Stickn1934 [taxonomy: 155].
Protodiaspis chichi McKenzie & Nelson-ReesNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis chichi McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, 1962: 134-136. Type data: GUATEMALA: Sololá Province, between Santo Tomás Chichicastenango and the Inter-American Highway, on Quercus crassifolia, 24/07/1960, by W.A. Nelson-Rees & S.W. Brown. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus crassifolia [McKenzNe1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Guatemala [McKenzNe1962].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie & Nelson-Rees (1962).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female 0.6 mm long, ovoid. Derm membranous except for area on dorsum of pygidium from anus to posterior margin. Sclerotized area wedge-shaped, median dorsal with apex at anus and extending toward posterior margin. Pygidial lobes various, usually 3, but 2nd and 3rd often divided (McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis chichi is extremely similar to P. infidelis. The only reliable external morphological difference is the nature of the apical serrations of the pygidial lobes. These are jagged and uneven in P. chichi, but much less deeply incised and more regular in P. infidelis, especially when there are more than 2 teeth (McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, 1962).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 229]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 151-152]; McKenzNe1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134-136].
Protodiaspis cinchonae McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis cinchonae McKenzie, 1944: 57. Type data: BOLIVIA: Coroico, La Paz, on Cinchona calisaya var. josephiana, ?/02/1943, by M. Cardenas. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Cinchona calisaya josephiana [McKenz1944].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Bolivia [McKenz1944].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McKenzie (1944).
STRUCTURE: Female scale occurring within tiny green leaf galls, strongly resembling those produced by many eriophyid mites. Slide-mounted adult female with derm membranous at maturity, pygidium acute, perivulvar pores lacking; median pygidial lobes widely separated, divergent, 2nd and 3rd lobes irregularly shaped but definitely present (McKenzie, 1944).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiapis cinchonae is related to P. praetexta, but differs in that it possesses a more acute pygidium, far greater number of dorsal macroducts, lacks disc pores associated with anterior spiracles and has a membranous prosoma (McKenzie, 1944).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; McKenz1944 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57]; Takagi1981 [taxonomy: 12].
Protodiaspis colimae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis colimae Ferris, 1937: SI-101. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Volcano of Colima, on Quercus sp., ?/12/1925, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Ferris1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1937], Michoacan [Ferris1937]).
BIOLOGY: Protodiaspis colimae was collected at an altitude of 5000 feet (Ferris, 1937).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale concealed far beneath the bark of host, little or no external evidence of their presence. 2nd exuviae ruptures longitudinally and between its halves lies the adult female, which is enveloped in a mass of waxen threads. Adult female practically circular, except for the projecting pygidium, derm membranous, except for pygidium, and thickly strewn both dorsally and ventrally with minute ducts (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis colimae is apparently most closely related to P. emoryi, but it is possible that these two should be separated into a distinct genus (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152-155]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-101]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61].
Protodiaspis didymus McKenzie & Nelson-ReesNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis didymus McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, 1962: 137. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Greenlee County, 25 miles north of Clifton, near Highway 666, on Quercus grisea, 07/09/1960, by W.A. Nelson-Rees & S.W. Brown. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus grisea [McKenzNe1962], Quercus turbinella [Nakaha1982].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [McKenzNe1962]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, (1962). Description and illustration of first instar by Howell & Tippins (1981a).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female 0.6 mm long, ovoid. Derm membranous. The margin of pygidium is quite regularly crenulate, without lobes, plates, or gland spines. Perivulvar pores absent. Minute tubular ducts abundant over entire dorsal and ventral surfaces, those on venter slightly smaller than on dorsum (McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis didymus is very near P. agrifoliae, differing from it in the absence of perivulvar pores, these structures being present in P. agrifoliae (McKenzie & Nelson-Rees, 1962).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 228-229]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 151-152]; Howell1980 [structure: 94]; HowellTi1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration: 418-419]; McKenzNe1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 71]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Takagi1993 [taxonomy: 15].
Protodiaspis emoryi FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis emoryi Ferris, 1937: SI-102. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Fort Davis, on Quercus emoryi, 1921, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus emoryi [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937, McDani1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale in cracks of host bark, but not usually deeply hidden, quite well formed, shape depending on environment. Male scale definitely formed, minute. Adult female turbinate, derm of head and thoracic region becoming quite heavily sclerotic, both dorsally and ventrally at maturity and the pygidium likewise heavily sclerotic. Dorsum and margins of the venter with numerous minute ducts. Pygidium somewhat elongate, marked with heavy furrows both dorsally and ventrally. Vulva well forward of the anus. Perivulvar pores lacking (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiapis emoryi is most closely related to P. colimae (Ferris, 1937). It is readily recognized by the pygidium being short and broad and with only dorsal longitudinal furrows. These furrows divide the pygidium into 5 rather weakly defined areas which are not indicated on the ventral side (McDaniel, 1973).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 391 (female) [Key to the Texas species of Protodiaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-102]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 391]; Miller2005 [distribution]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 72]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351].
Protodiaspis infidelis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis infidelis Ferris, 1942: SIV-412. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Boquete, on Byrsonima crassifolia, 1938, by G.F. Ferris; MEXICO: Guerrero, La Providencia, near Acapulco, on Quercus sp., 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus castanea [McKenzNe1962], Quercus sp. [Ferris1942]. Malpighiaceae: Byrsonima crassifolia [Ferris1942].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1942]). Neotropical: Guatemala [McKenzNe1962]; Panama [Ferris1942].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, of indeterminate form. Slide-mounted adult female 0.8 mm long, oval, derm membranous throughout except for small area on the dorsum of the pygidium. Pygidium with narrow median dorsal sclerotized area extending from the anus to the posterior margin. 3 pairs of pygidial lobes, all apically serrate, 2nd and 3rd pairs completely divided into two lobules (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis infidelis most closely resembles P. lagunae, but differs in the apically serrate lobes (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:60 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 229, 230]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 155]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-412, SIV-446:60]; McKenzNe1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 135, 137].
Protodiaspis lagunae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis lagunae Ferris, 1921b: 91-93. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, Cape Region, La Lagua and Santiago, on Quercus brandegeei. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in UCDC and USNM.
Variaspis lagunae; Lindinger, 1932f: 186. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus brandegeei [Ferris1921b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1921b and 1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale more or less circular, less than 1.0 mm in diameter, variable in size and form in conformity with its environment, quite highly convex, normally well formed, but in certain cases where the insect is deeply buried in a crack the scale is composed merely of loose threads. Male scale elongate, white, non-carinate, with exuviae at one end. Adult female 0.5-0.6 mm long, broadly oval; derm membranous throughout except for a slight chitinization of the pygidium and sometimes of the anterior portion of the body. Pygidium with 2 pairs of weakly chitinized lobes which are frequently very obscure; with a few very minute and scattered dorsal ducts and with the circumgenital pores present in 5 groups which in some specimens are nearly confluent. Adult male apterous, body terminating in a long style, the head with a dorsal and a ventral pair of ocelli, the body entirely hairless, the antennae 9-segmented, very slightly clavate (Ferris, 1921b).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis lagunae differs from P. lobata and P. parvula in the presence of the circumgenital pores and from P. agrifoliae in the presence of well developed lobes (Ferris, 1921b).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:60 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 155]; Ferris1921b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-103]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 31]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:60]; Hoke1928 [taxonomy: 674]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 186]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; Stickn1934 [taxonomy: 155].
Protodiaspis lobata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis lobata Ferris, 1920: 31. Type data: UNITED STATES: New Mexico, 4 miles east of Santa Fe, on Quercus gambelii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Obluctaspis lobata; MacGillivray, 1921: 361. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus gambelii [Ferris1920], Quercus grisea [Ferris1937], Quercus sp. [Ferris1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Colorado [Ferris1937], New Mexico [Ferris1920], Texas [Ferris1937, McDani1973]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale occurring in cracks of host bark, sometimes rather fluffy. Adult female ovoid, derm membranous throughout, pygidium having merely a faint sclerotization about the anal opening and in small, irregular areas. 2 pairs of pygidial lobes present, these quite weakly developed and irregular (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis lobata is characterized by the pygidium having 2 pairs of lobes which are distinguished by their stronger sclerotization. The gland spines are in a continuous series from the pygidium to the head (McDaniel, 1973).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 391 (female) [Key to the Texas species of Protodiaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152-153]; Ferris1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 72]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-104]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311, 361]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, physiology: 391-392]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 72]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351].
Protodiaspis parvula CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis parvulus Cockerell, 1898j: 428-429. Type data: MEXICO: Mexico State, Amecameca, on Quercus sp., 06/06/1897, by Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Protodiaspis parvula; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus firmifolia [Ferris1955b]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Cocker1898j]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Ferris1937] (Mexico State [Cocker1898j]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale on bark of host, exposed or in cracks, consisting of a mass of loosely consolidated or of fluffy white wax in which the exuviae are loosely imbedded. Scale of male minute, white, definitely formed or partially composed of threads of wax, pale exuviae at one end. Slide-mounted adult female broadly oval or nearly circular, derm sufficiently sclerotic to retain the segmental lines but not pigmented except perhaps slightly so at the anterior end, quite uniformly beset both dorsally and ventrally with small ducts. Pygidium small and short, non-sclerotic except for an unusually conspicuous ring about the anus, with few dorsal ducts (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis parvula is very similar to P. agrifoliae, differing chiefly in the absence of circumgenital pores. The dorsum of the pygidium possesses numerous small ducts, as in the latter species (Ferris, 1920).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 365 (female) [Species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152]; Cocker1898j [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 428-429]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1899n [distribution: 33]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; Ferris1919a [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1920 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29, 30]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-105]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 24]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; Ferris1955b [distribution, host: 24]; Hoke1928 [taxonomy: 674]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 186]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 193]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 365]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947]; Takagi1993 [taxonomy: 15].
Protodiaspis praetexta FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis praetexta Ferris, 1941d: SIII-314. Type data: MEXICO: Oaxaca, Chivela, on Quercus sp., 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Oaxaca [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 0.5 mm long, more or less turbinate, at maturity with the prosomatic region sclerotized both dorsally and ventrally. Pygidium rather short and broad, with the dorsal surface sclerotized and with its surface marked by somewhat vermiculate lines. 2nd stage with 2 well defined pairs of pygidial lobes, these toothed apically and the 2nd pair distinctly bilobulate (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis praetexta is similar to P. pulchra. A key characteristic for their separation is the absence of the morphologically marginal series of gland spines which in P. pulchra extends from the pygidium to the antennae but in P. praetexta is represented only by one or two spines between the spiracles and occasionally one near each antenna, some specimens with part or all of these lacking (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 155]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-314]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; McKenz1944 [taxonomy: 57].
Protodiaspis pulchra FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis pulchra Ferris, 1920: 31-32. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Chiricahua Mountains, Pedestal Rock, on Quercus toumeyi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Borchs1966], Quercus toumeyi [Ferris1920].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Oaxaca [Ferris1937]); United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1920]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, circular, quite highly convex. Adult female 0.5 mm long, form slightly elongate oval or somewhat irregular; cephalothorax and pygidium tending to be quite heavily chitinized. Pygidium somewhat acuminate, the tip narrowly rounded. Two pairs of lobes present, the inner pair quite close together and widely separated from the outer pair. Outer lobes composed of 2 lobules, of which the outer is smaller (Ferris, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: Except for the absence of pygidial lobes, this species is most like P. varus Hoke (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 365 (female) [Species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 153]; Ferris1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-106]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-314]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 365]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 72]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351].
Protodiaspis signata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis signata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-315. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Volcan de Chiriqui, on Quercus sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus castanea [McKenzNe1962], Quercus obtusata [McKenzNe1962], Quercus sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Mexico State [McKenzNe1962], Michoacan [McKenzNe1962], Veracruz [Ferris1955b]). Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: Protodiaspis signata was found entirely concealed by the mycelium of a species of Septobasidium (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female about 0.5 mm long, more or less turbinate. Anterior end of the body becomes slightly sclerotized at maturity and in some specimens this sclerotization tends to extend over almost the entire dorsum. Pygidium heavily sclerotized, both dorsally and ventrally, apically rounded. Pygidial dorsum marked with vermiculate lines and bearing a few very minute ducts (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis signata is similar to P. varus, but it differs in the much less developed pygidial lobes, in the complete absence of gland spines and in the peculiar form of the vulva (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; Brown1965 [chemistry, taxonomy: 230-231]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 153, 155]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-315]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; Ferris1955b [distribution: 25]; McKenzNe1962 [distribution, host: 137].
Protodiaspis sulcata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis sulcata Ferris, 1942: SIV-413. Type data: MEXICO: Guerrero, La Providencia, near Acapulco, on Quercus sp., 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Ferris1942]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Adult female about 0.7 mm long, elongate oval, the narrow pygidium projecting posteriorly. Derm for the most part quite heavily sclerotized, there being merely a short area between the pygidium and the remainder of the body that is membranous. Pygidium strongly sclerotized, forming more or less parallel-sided and apically rounded plate which is divided longitudinally by furrows, both dorsally and ventrally into 5 lobe-like areas, the apices of which project very slightly from the margin. 2nd stage heavily sclerotized dorsally and ventrally, its pygidium without lobes and apparently without ducts, but irregularly furrowed (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis sulcata is quite similar to P. emoryi and somewhat similar to P. colimae. It differs from the former in the strongly furrowed and elongate pygidium and from the latter in the very few and very minute ducts (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152, 153, 158, 159]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-413, SIV-434, SI].
Protodiaspis syncarpiae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia syncarpiae Maskell, 1893b: 212-213. Type data: AUSTRALIA: on Syncarpia laurifolia, by Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia syncarpiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 463. Change of combination.
Protodiaspis syncarpiae; Borchsenius, 1966: 154. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Syncarpia laurifolia [Maskel1893b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Maskel1893b] (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best descriptions and illustrations by Maskell (1893b) and Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female cover indefinite, forming masses on leaves, two exuviae forming a somewhat elliptical convex scale, covered with numerous fine white filaments. Male cover more definite in form, subcircular, consisting of a yellow exuviae and loose white cottony filaments. Adult female brownish yellow, elongate (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; Cocker1898j [taxonomy: 428]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Ferris1920 [taxonomy: 29, 32]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 985]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Green1915d [taxonomy: 53]; Leonar1906c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 61-62]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 463]; Maskel1893b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212-213].
Protodiaspis vara HokeNOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis varus Hoke, 1928: 672-674. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Meridian, on Quercus laurifolia, 11/06/1928, by M.L. Grimes. Holotype female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in USNM.
Protodiaspis vara; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus hypoleuca [Ferris1937], Quercus laurifolia [Hoke1928], Quercus palustris [LambdiWa1980], Quercus texana [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Ferris1937, BesheaTi1977]; United States of America (Arkansas [BesheaTi1977], Mississippi [Hoke1928], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [Ferris1937, BesheaTi1977]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937). Description and illustration of first and second-instars by Howell & Tippins (1981a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, varying from 0.5-1.0 mm long, about one-third as broad, thin and fragile, very convex, 1st exuviae small, pale yellow, at anterior end of scale and of 2nd exuviae very easily rubbed off, 2nd exuviae large, covered by 1st exuviae and its attendant secretion, but usually exposed and conspicuous on old scales. Male scale about half as large as that of female, exuviae at anterior end, shiny yellow color, white, cylindrical, often flattened posteriorly after emergence of male through opening at posterior end, scale loosely constructed, some loose wooly threads often associated with it. Adult female body varying in size from 0.363-0.528 mm long, 0.21-0.36 mm broad. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes, short, broad, truncate, distal end apparently serrate, median pair less than the width of one lobe apart, 2nd pair deeply incised, lateral lobelet almost as large as mesal (Hoke, 1928).
SYSTEMATICS: Protodiaspis varus can be separated from other species of Protodiaspis by the pygidial lobes that are represented by 2 pairs of small, almost hyaline, apically serrate processes. The gland spines are in a series from the apex of the head to about the 2nd or 3rd abdominal segment and are feebly indicated on the pygidium (McDaniel, 1973).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 391 (female) [Key to the Texas species of Protodiaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 (female) [Key to species of Protodiaspis].
CITATIONS: BesheaTi1977 [distribution, host: 181]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-107]; Ferris1941d [distribution, taxonomy: SIII-315]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; Hoke1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 672-674]; Howell1980 [structure: 94]; HowellTi1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration: 415-418]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 391-392]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerGiWi1984 [taxonomy: 947]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 72]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Schief2000 [distribution, host: 8].
Pseudaulacaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 305. Type species: Diaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti, by original designation.
Sasakiaspis Kuwana, 1926: 7-8. Type species: Diaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti, by original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936: 23.
Euvoraspis Mamet, 1951: 227-228. Type species: Chionaspis cordiae Mamet, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 41.
Pseudodaulacaspis; Laffoon, 1961: 191. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description in Ferris, 1937.
STRUCTURE: Female scale. White, suborbicular or long pyriform. Exuviae terminal. Male scale. Same colour as female scale, elongate. (Wei & Feng, 2012)
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis is closely related to Chionaspis and Aulacaspis and the presence of a pair of setae between the median lobes clearly separates it from these genera (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Kosztarab 1996: 408 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1988: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 327 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Chou 1982: 117 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Diaspinae]; Wang 1982c: 47 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1980b: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Tippins & Howell 1973: 403 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1971d: 838 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Ghauri 1962: 213 (female) [Key to genera of Chionaspidina]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; Ezzat 1958: 243 (female) [Key to the genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 165 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Bodenheimer 1952: 332 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 373 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Borchsenius 1937a: 96 (female) [Key to genera]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [as Sasakiaspis; Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 305 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 165, 235-236]; Beards1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 557]; Bodenh1949 [distribution, taxonomy: 29, 40]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 332]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 96, 99]; Borchs1937a [description, taxonomy: 99]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 193, 224-225]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 166, 205-206]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 174]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 117, 141-142]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 645, 650]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 838]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 318]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 719, 723]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 331-332]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 339-340]; DeitzTo1980 [taxonomy: 41]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 243]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23, 26]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-108]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:42]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 213]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 238]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 530, 540]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,22-23,45,57,165]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 12-15]; HowardOl1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 62]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 566]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 7-8]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; Lizery1938 [taxonomy: 353]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 305]; Mamet1951 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 227-228]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 75,164,179]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 176, 200]; Takagi1961a [distribution, taxonomy: 88, 101]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 41-42]; TakagiGe2008 [host: 128]; TakagiKa1967 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 39-40]; TippinHo1983 [taxonomy: 195]; Varshn2002 [catalogue: 73]; Varshn2005 [catalogue: 165]; Wang1982c [description, taxonomy: 47, 89]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 10]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 220]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 224]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 373, 381].
Pseudaulacaspis abbrideliae (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis abbrideliae Chen, 1983: 66. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan province, on unknown tree, ?/12/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis abbrideliae; Takagi, 1985: 43. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis abbrideliae is characterized by the presence of stout median lobes, developed 3rd lobes which round in the apices, and few gland spines on the laterally basal part of the pygidium (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-15 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis abbrideliae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-67, 94]; Hua2000 [distribution: 159]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 31]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 43]; Tao1999 [distribution: 107-108]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15].
Pseudaulacaspis australis (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis australis Laing, 1925a: 61-62. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Sydney, on unidentified plant, probably a Eucalyptus sp., by G.A.K. Marshall. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus australis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis australis; Takagi, 1985: 44. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Phoenix sp. [Hudson1967]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp.? [Laing1925a], Eugenia sp. [Hudson1967]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Laing1925a], Tasmania [Hudson1967]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1925a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, narrow in front, very broad posteriorly, sometimes almost subcircular; exuviae brownish fulvous, the larval exuviae darker than nymphal, 3.0 mm long and 2.0 mm wide. Adult female elongate, narrow, twice as long as wide, relatively narrower at cephalic end than caudal. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes; median pair widely divergent, prominent, inner margins entire; 2nd and 3rd pairs duplex, the 2nd lobule of each pair much reduced (Laing, 1925a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68, 73]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Laing1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-62]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 44].
Pseudaulacaspis biformis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis biformis Takagi, 1956: 113-116. Type data: JAPAN: Hokkaido, Sapporo, on Cercidiphyllum japonicum, 17/05/1954, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Kalopanax septemlobus [Takagi1956]. Cercidiphyllaceae: Cercidiphyllum japonicum [Takagi1956]. Cornaceae: Cornus controversa [Takagi1956]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia kobus borealis [Takagi1956]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum tschonoskii glabrescens [Takagi1956], Syringa vulgaris [Takagi1956]. Rosaceae: Sorbus sp. [Takagi1956]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus davidiana japonica [Takagi1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular, white, convex at dorsal aspect; ventral scale thin, remaining on host plant. 2nd exuviae brown, marginal or submarginal. 1st exuviae pale yellow, translucent, sometimes projecting beyond margin of scale, 2.0 mm at maximum. Adult female body broadly ovate, broadest in thoracic region, about 1.5 mm long, 1.0 mm wide. Median lobes prominent, strongly zygotic basally; two types of median lobes present (Takagi, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis biformis is close to P. pentagona, from which it may be distinguished by the arrangement of the dorsal macroducts. The presence of 2 different types (triangular and semicircular) of the median lobes may be one of the remarkable features of this species. Both types are always found even in a single colony (Takagi, 1956).
KEYS: Takagi 1961a: 92 [Key to Japanese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Takagi 1956: 113 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174-175]; Kawai1972 [taxonomy: 42]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 274]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 218]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 93]; Takagi1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 113-116]; Takagi1961a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88, 92]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 46]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 40]; TakahaTa1956 [taxonomy: 10].
Pseudaulacaspis brideliae (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis brideliae Takahashi, 1933: 43-44. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten, Taihoku, on Bridelia sp., 04/09/1932. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus brideliae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis brideliae; Takahashi, 1942b: 35. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis brideliae; Chou, 1984: 378. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Bridelia sp. [Takaha1933], Brideliae ovata [Ali1969a]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi, 1933).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale white, elongate, narrow, moderately broadened posteriorly, barely convex, 2.0 mm long, larval skins pale yellowish brown. Adult female elongate, narrow, nearly parallel on the sides (Takahashi, 1933).
SYSTEMATICS: P. brideliae is related to P. strobilanthi Green, but differs in that the 2nd lobes are larger and the scale is more elongate, and may be easily separated from P. tenera Green by possessing eminent gland spines on the pygidium and also by the 2nd lobes not extending inwards (Takahashi, 1933).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis brideliae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 67]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 66-67, 98]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 378-379]; Chou1986 [illustration: 560]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-46]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 41, 70]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-44]; Takaha1942b [taxonomy: 35]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 10]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 111]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 238, 245].
Pseudaulacaspis brimblecombei WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis eugeniae major Froggatt, 1914: 988. Nomen nudum; discovered by Williams, 1973: 89.
Pseudaulacaspis brimblecombei Williams, 1973: 88-89. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Baffle Creek, on Macadamia sp., 1969, by D.A. Ironside. Holotype female. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in ANIC, BMNH and USNM.
COMMON NAME: waratah scale [CharleHe2002].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline australis [Hender2011], Cordyline indivisa [Hender2011]. Iridaceae: Libertia ixioides [Hender2011], Libertia sp. [Hender2011]. Proteaceae: Embothrium coccineum [Hender2011], Lomatia myricoides [Hender2011], Macadamia sp. [Willia1973], Protea nerifolia [Hender2011], Telopea oreades [Hender2011], Telopea sp. [Hender2011], Telopea speciosissima [Frogga1914]. Rutaceae: Melicope ternata [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914, Willia1973], Queensland [Willia1973]); New Zealand [Hender2011]. Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [MalumpHa2012]).
BIOLOGY: Prefers the underside of leaves of its host plants. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1973). Redescription and illustrations by Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale silvery white or almost transparent, up to 4 mm long and 2 mm wide. Exuviae terminal, pale yellow. Male scale about 1.25 mm, same color, with a few light and dark longitudinal lines. Adult female fusiform, attaining a length of 1.75 mm, widest at the mesothorax or metathorax which are strongly lobed laterally; free abdominal segments also lobed laterally (Williams, 1973).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis brimblecombei comes closest to Pseudaulacaspis chinensis in possessing numerous dorsal ducts, many of which, on the free abdominal segments, form supplementary rows. It differs in the form of the median lobes which are sunk into the apex of the pygidium whilst those of P. chinensis project as far as the apices of the 2nd lobes (Williams, 1973).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: In Australia it is a minor pest of macadamia nut production and in New Zealand it is a pest of ornamental proteas such as Telopea. Large populations of the scale can look spectacular, smothering the foliage and stems in white scales. (Malumphy & Halstead, 2012)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 165 (female) [Key to Pseudaulacaspis adult females in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-575,606-607]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host: 988]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,23,39,98,145,15]; Ironsi1980 [distribution, host: 1]; MalumpHa2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 195-196]; Willia1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 81, 88-89].
Pseudaulacaspis camelliae (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis camelliae Chen, 1983: 67. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on Camellia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis camelliae; Takagi, 1985: 44. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [Chen1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis camelliae resembles Pseudaulacaspis sasakawai, but has two rows of dorsal ducts arranged irregularly in the submedian zone of the 6th abdominal segment (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis camellia; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 67-68, 94]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 157]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14].
Pseudaulacaspis canarium HuNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis canarium Hu, 1986J: 220. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Hainan, on Canarium sp., 14/05/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Burseraceae: Canarium album [Tao1999], Canarium sp. [Hu1986J]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hu1986J], Hainan [Hu1986J, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1986J).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body oval, 1.13-1.70 mm long, broadest at mesothorax, 0.88-1.45 mm. Median lobes large, projecting, rounded apically, with a sclerotized area at base. 2nd lobes small, not bilobulate (Hu, 1986J).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis canarium is close to P. hwangyensis (=Rutherfordia major), but differs in having dorsal ducts of submedian series present on metathorax and 1st abdominal segment and on the lateral region of the mouth small ducts and 2 dermal pockets are present (Hu, 1986J).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1986J [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220, 226]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 111-112]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13].
Pseudaulacaspis celtis (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis celtis Kuwana, 1928: 8-10. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Osaka, Kawasaki, Yokohama, on Celtis chinensis, 1923, by I. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis celtis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 354. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis celtis; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 40. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Betulaceae: Alnus japonica [Balach1954e]. Ulmaceae: Celtis chinensis [Kuwana1928], Celtis sinensis japonica [Muraka1970], Celtis sp. [Takagi1961], Ulmus pumila [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986]). Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tao1999]); Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1928, Takagi1961]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana (1928) and Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, straight or curved, convex, white in color. 1st exuviae pale yellow with orange yellow caudal end; 2nd exuviae golden yellow, thinly covered with a white waxy secretion. Ventral scale partly developed, 1.5 mm long, 0.9 mm wide. Male scale small, elongate tricarinate; exuviae pale, 0.9 mm long (Kuwana, 1928). Adult female body widest across 1st abdominal segment. Median lobes comparatively very large, with a pair of setae between them, the basal zygosis not protruding anteriorly. 2nd lobes very small, the outer lobule at times almost obsolete. 3rd lobes represented by low processes (Takagi, 1961).
SYSTEMATICS: P. celtis is close to P. cockerelli, but differs by the presence of gland tubercles on the mesothorax and by the fewer dorsal macroducts (there are 4 pairs in P. celtis and 5 pairs in P. cockerelli) in the 2nd stage female (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 16 (adult, female) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [as Chionaspis celtis; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [as Chionaspis celtis; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host: 354]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 46]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Howell1980 [taxonomy: 94]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Kanda1941 [taxonomy: 35]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41-42]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 153]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 272-273]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 8-10]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 93]; Stanna1965 [taxonomy: 573]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29, 34]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 112]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 40]; Takaha1952a [host, taxonomy: 7]; Takaha1953 [host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50, 56]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 16].
Pseudaulacaspis centreesa (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis centreesa Ferris, 1953: 63. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, An-lin-wen-chian, near Kunming, on Myrsine sp., 04/27/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis centreesa; Takagi, 1985: 44. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis centresa; Wu, 2001b: 257. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Euonymus alatus [Hua2000], Euonymus pungens [Ferris1953]. Myrsinaceae: Ardisia japonica [Hua2000], Myrsine africana [Chen1983], Myrsine sp. [Ferris1953]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum lucidum [Chen1983]. Santalaceae: Osyris sp. [Ferris1953]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Ferris1953], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Wu2001b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1953).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female 2.0 mm long, body rather slender, expanding from the head to the posterior margin of the apparent 1st abdominal segment, then beginning to constrict to the rather short and apically rounded pygidium, with the lateral margins of the abdominal segments quite strongly lobed. Median lobes quite small, strongly divergent, not projecting apically. 2nd lobes well developed, distinctly bilobed. 3rd lobes represented by a low, apically notched prominence (Ferris, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: The most distinctive character of Pseudaulacaspis centreesa is the area of minute, sclerotized points on the ventral side of the body (Ferris, 1953).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis centreesa; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 (female) [as Chionaspis centreesa; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1953: 62 [as Phenacaspis centreesa; Keys to species from the vicinity of Kunming].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 67]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 88-89]; Chou1986 [illustration: 485]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62, 63]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 73]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 44]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14]; Wu2001b [host: 257]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 245].
Pseudaulacaspis chinensis (Cockerell in Craw)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis chinensis Cockerell in Craw, 1896: 37. Type data: CHINA: at quarantine in California, San Francisco, on Quercus sp., ?/05/1896, by A. Craw. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis eugeniae chinensis; Maskell, 1898: 231. Change of status.
Phenacaspis chinensis; Cockerell, 1899a: 398. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) chinensis; Kuwana, 1927: 72. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus chinensis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis chinensis; Takagi, 1985: 45. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus acuta [Maskel1898], Quercus sp. [Craw1896]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [Craw1896] (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Hua2000]); Japan [Kuwana1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1955d). Cheo (1935) reported this species from the United States in California but this distribution record has not been confirmed by any other author and apparently is an error.
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.75 mm long, 1.75 mm white, snow white, broad, flat; exuviae clear orange. Male scale small, white, with no distinct keel, not fluffy, exuviae orange. Adult female with brown median lobes which are wide apart, even at the base, diverging, low, little produced, the longer inner margin crenate. 2nd and 3rd lobes each represented by a pair of rounded lobules, of which the mesad is the larger (Craw, 1896).
SYSTEMATICS: The unusual number of rows of dorsal ducts make this species quite easily recognizable (Ferris, 1955d).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 15 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis chinensis; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 (female) [as Chionaspis chinensis; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 67]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 102]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 89-90]; Chou1986 [illustration: 480]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cooley1903 [taxonomy: 48]; Craw1896 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 237]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 46, 51]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 16]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-14]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Maskel1898 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 231]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 45]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 19]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13-16]; Willia1973 [taxonomy: 89]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 207]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 34, 245].
Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis cockerelli Cooley, 1897: 278-279. Type data: CHINA: from quarantine at United States, San Francisco, on unidentified Palmae, 11/07/1897, by A. Craw. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Chionaspis aucubae Cooley, 1897: 279-280. Type data: JAPAN: taken at quarantine in San Francisco, on Aucuba sp., by A. Craw. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1955d: 46.
Chionaspis dilatata Green, 1899a: 148. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, ?/06/1897, by E.E. Green. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams & Watson, 1988: 222. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1955d: 46.
Phenacaspis natalensis Cockerell, 1902a: 25. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Durban, on Mangifera sp., by C. Fuller. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Hall, 1929: 345.
Phenacaspis aucubae; Fernald, 1903b: 237. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis cockerelli; Fernald, 1903b: 237. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis dilatata; Fernald, 1903b: 237. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) dilatata; Green, 1905: 29. Change of combination.
Chionaspis candida Banks, 1906: 232-233. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Manila, on upper surface of leaves of Cocos nucifera. Holotype female. Type depository: Manila: Entomological Collection, Bureau of Science, Philippines. Described: female. Illust. Homonym of Chionaspis candida Green 1905b; discovered by Banks, 1906a: 787.
Chionaspis inday Banks, 1906a: 787. Replacement name for Chionaspis candida Banks 1906; synonymy by Williams & Watson, 1988: 222.
Phenacaspis inday; Robinson, 1917: 20. Described: female. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) natalensis; Brain, 1920: 100. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis dilatata; Wester, 1920: 64. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis natalensis; Wester, 1920: 64. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis eugeniae; Ferris, 1921a: 213. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1955d: 46.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) dilatata; Hall, 1929: 345. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis eugeniae sandwicensis Fullaway, 1932: 103-104. Type data: UNITED STATES: Hawaii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1955: 46.
Trichomytilus aucubae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus cockerelli; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus dilatatus; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus inday; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus natalensis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Chionaspis syringae Borchsenius, 1938: 140-141. Type data: RUSSIA: Primorsky Kray, Vladivostok, city garden, on Syringa amurensis, 16/05/1934, by I.P. Shmorgunova. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Danzig, 1980b: 318. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 46.
Chionaspis hattorii Kanda, 1941b: 185-186. Type data: SOUTH KOREA: Suigen, on Deutzia scabra var.crenata, by S. Nakayama & D. Kanda. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Yokohama: S. Kanda Collection, Asano Senior High School, Kanagawa-ku, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 46.
Phenacaspis sandwicensis; Zimmerman, 1948: 386. Illust. Change of status.
Chionaspis akebiae Takahashi, 1952a: 8-10. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Mt. Takao and Hikawa, near Tokyo, on Akebia lobata, 9/08/1950 and 16/07/1950, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1961: 31-33.
Phenacaspis syringae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 351. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis akebiae; Ferris, 1956: 74. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis cockerelli sandwicensis; Takahashi & Tachikawa, 1956: 8. Change of status.
Phenacaspis ferrisi Mamet, 1959a: 459-461. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ambilobe, on undetermined plant, ?/04/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 488. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi, 1970: 46.
Phenacaspis hattorii; Borchsenius, 1966: 122. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 40. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: false oleander scale [Sankar1984]; Fullaway oleander scale [Borchs1966]; magnolia white scale [Gill1982c]; mango scale [Fuller1907]; oleander scale [Zimmer1948, EastonPu1999]; oyster scale [EastonPu1999].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus chalybeatus [ZouZh1993], Chilocorus nigritus [SankarNaNa1984], Lindorus lophanthae [Zimmer1948], Scymnomorphus sp. [Vinson1936], Telsimia sp. [SankarNaNa1984]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [Sankar1984]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sankarani [RehmatAnKh2011], Aphytis sp. [Sankar1984], Aspidiophagus citrinus [Zimmer1948]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus albipes [Zimmer1948], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Muraka1970], Epitetracnemus kosef Li et byum [LiByCh2002], Thomsonisca sankarani [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Zorisma ovalifolia [Hua2000]. Actinidiaceae: Actinidia [Borchs1966]. Adoxaceae: Viburnum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Agavaceae: Yucca sp. [MillerDa2005]. Amaryllidaceae: Agapanthus sp. [Nakaha1981a], Eurycles sp. [Green1899a]. Anacardiaceae: Anacardium occidentale [Sankar1984], Campnosperma brevipetiolata [Takaha1941b, Beards1966], Mangifera indica [Robins1917, Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Mangifera sp. [Cocker1902a, MillerDa2005]. Annonaceae: Annona squamosa [KawaiMaUm1971], Artabotrys hexapetutus [Varshn2002], Canangium odoratum [Zimmer1948]. Apocynaceae: Adenium sp. [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005], Allamanda sp. [Nakaha1981a], Alyxia olivaeformis [Nakaha1981a], Nerium indicum [Muraka1970], Nerium oleander [Beards1966, Heu2002], Nerium sp. [MillerDa2005], Plumeria acuminata [Nakaha1981a], Plumeria acutifolia, Plumeria sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Thevetia peruviana [Nakaha1981a], Trachelospermum asiaticum [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Trachelospermum jasminoides [Muraka1970], Trachelospermum sp. [Muraka1970, MillerDa2005], Willughbeia sp. [Green1905]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex cinerea [MartinLa2011], Ilex crenata [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Ilex integra [KawaiMaUm1971], Ilex latifolia [McComb1986], Ilex sp. [Muraka1970, MillerDa2005], Ilex viridis [MartinLa2011]. Araceae: Acorus gramineus [Chen1983], Alocasia sp. [Nakaha1981a], Philodendron sp. [Ferris1955d]. Araliaceae: Fatsia japonica [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Hedera canariensis [Dekle1965], Hedera helix [Tippin1968], Hedera rhombea [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]. Arecaceae [Cooley1897], Archontophoenix alexandrae [Dekle1965], Areca catechu [Mamet1943a, KawaiMaUm1971], Areca sp. [MillerDa2005], Arecastrum romanzoffianum [Dekle1965], Arenga engleri [KawaiMaUm1971], Butia capitata [Dekle1965], Caryota sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Chamaerops humilis [Dekle1965], Chrysalidocarpus dictyospermi [Mamet1954], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Mamet1943a], Chrysalidocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Clinostigma savoryana [KawaiMaUm1971], Clinostigma sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos nucifera [Banks1906, Mamet1943a, DeLott1967a, Heu2002], Cocos sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Corypha elata [Ali1969a], Elaeis sp. [Chen1983], Howeia sp. [HowardOl1985], Livistona sp. [MillerDa2005], Neodypsis baroni [Mamet1954], Nipa fruticans [Beards1966], Phoenix roebelenii [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Rhapis humilis [Chen1983], Sabal mexicana [Dekle1965], Seaforthia sp. [MillerDa2005], Serenoa repens [Dekle1965], Trachycarpus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asclepiadaceae: Calotropis gigantea [Nakaha1981a]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asteraceae: Helianthus annuus [Nakaha1981a], Helianthus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pyrrhopappus carolinianus [Tippin1968]. Berberidaceae: Nandina domestica [Chen1983]. Bignoniaceae: Tabebuia pentaphylla [Nakaha1981a]. Bromeliaceae: Bromelia sp. [Nakaha1981a], Vriesea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Burseraceae: Canarium album [MartinLa2011]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Cannaceae: Canna generalis [KawaiMaUm1971]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum arboricolum [Muraka1970], Viburnum awabuki [Muraka1970], Viburnum odoratissimum [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Weigela sp. [Muraka1970]. Caricaceae: Carica papaya [WilliaWa1988]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sacrosancta [Danzig1986a], Schaefferia sp. [Dekle1965]. Clusiaceae: Calophyllum inophyllum [KawaiMaUm1971]. Combretaceae: Terminalia catappa [Nakaha1981a]. Cornaceae: Aucuba japonica [Kuwana1909, BesheaTiHo1973], Cornus controversa [Muraka1970], Cornus florida [Tippin1968]. Crassulaceae: Bryophyllum sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Cycadaceae: Cycas circinalis [Dekle1965], Cycas revoluta [Nakaha1981a], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005], Zamia floridana [Dekle1965], Zamia sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Daphniphyllaceae: Daphniphyllum sp. [Muraka1970, MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros lotus [Chen1983], Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005]. Elaeocarpaceae: Elaeocarpus decipiens [Muraka1970], Elaeocarpus photiniaefolius [KawaiMaUm1971]. Ericaceae: Chimaphila maculata [Tippin1968], Rhododendron sp. [Takagi1970]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites moluccana [Zimmer1948], Aleurites sp. [MillerDa2005], Bischofia javanica [Takaha1933, KawaiMaUm1971], Daphniphyllum glaucescens [TakahaTa1956], Daphniphyllum macropodum [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Daphniphyllum teijsmanni [Muraka1970], Euphorbia humistrata [Tippin1968], Excoecaria orientalis [Takaha1933, Takagi1970], Hevea brasiliensis [Green1905], Hevea sp. [MillerDa2005], Jatropha hastata [Nakaha1981a], Sapium sebiferum [Dekle1965]. Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Chen1983]. Garryaceae: Aucuba sp. [Cooley1897, MillerDa2005]. Gnetaceae: Gnetum luofuerise [MartinLa2011]. Hamamelidaceae: Liquidambar formosana [Takagi1970]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Hemerocallidaceae: Dianella sp. [Mamet1954, MillerDa2005]. Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus turbinata [Muraka1970]. Hydrangeaceae: Deutzia scabra crenata [Kanda1941b]. Iridaceae: Iris sp. [Dekle1965], Moraea bicolor [Zimmer1948]. Lardizabalaceae: Akebia lobata [Takaha1952a], Akebia quinata [Muraka1970], Akebia trifoliata [Muraka1970]. Lauraceae [Borchs1966], Machilus kobu [KawaiMaUm1971], Persea americana [Nakaha1981a]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia speciosa [KawaiMaUm1971]. Liliaceae: Cordyline terminalis [Nakaha1981a], Dianella ensifolia [Chen1983], Dianella montana [Nakaha1981a], Dianella tasmanica [Dekle1965], Liriope muscari [Tippin1968], Nolina sp. [Dekle1965], Phormium tenax [Dekle1965], Sansevieria nilotica [KawaiMaUm1971], Yucca gloriosa [Kuwana1931a], Yucca recurvifolia [Muraka1970]. Loganiaceae: Fagraea berteriana [Nakaha1981a]. Loranthaceae: Dendrophthoe falcata (L.f) Ettingsh [MudgalMuGu2011]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia denudata [Chen1983], Magnolia grandiflora [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Magnolia kobus [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Magnolia officinalis [Chen1983], Magnolia soulangeana [Dekle1965], Magnolia sp. [Muraka1970], Magnolia virginiana [Dekle1965, Nakaha1981a], Michelia alba [Takaha1933, Takagi1970], Michelia champaca [Chen1983], Michelia compressa [Muraka1970], Michelia figo [EastonPu1999], Michelia fuscata [Ferris1921a, Takagi1970], Michelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Schizandra chinensis [Danzig1986a]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Almeid1971]. Marantaceae: Clinogyne virgata [Ramakr1924, Ali1969a]. Melastomaceae: Melastoma sp. [KawaiMaUm1971]. Meliaceae: Aglaia odorata [Chen1983]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Chen1983], Ficus microcarpa [MartinLa2011], Ficus pumila [Chen1983], Ficus sp. [Green1905], Ficus wightiana [KawaiMaUm1971], Morus alba [Hua2000], Morus sp. [Takaha1953, Muraka1970]. Musaceae: Musa paradisiaca [KawaiMaUm1971], Musa sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Strelitzia nicolai [Dekle1965], Strelitzia reginae [Dekle1965]. Myristicaceae: Myristica fragrans [Green1905], Myristica laurifolia [Green1899a], Myristica moschata [Green1899a], Myristica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Callistemon sp. [Dekle1965], Eugenia [Mamet1959a], Pimenta officinalis [Nakaha1981a], Syzigium eumini [Varshn2002]. Oleaceae: Olea sp. [Nakaha1981a], Osmanthus fragrans [Chen1983], Syringa amurensis [Borchs1938, Danzig1986a]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [Green1914c]. Phyllanthaceae: Bischofia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Poaceae [Borchs1966], Bambusa sp. [Chen1983]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus nagi [Dekle1965]. Polygonaceae: Polygonum [Borchs1966]. Pteridophyta: Adiantum sp. [Hinckl1963]. Rhizophoraceae: Rhizophora mangle [Nakaha1981a], Rhizophora sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Prunus padus [Chen1983]. Rubiaceae: Adina rubella [Chen1983], Gardenia jasminoides [Dekle1965], Gardenia sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Ixora coccinea [Varshn2002]. Ruscaceae: Dracaena sp. [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Calodendrum [Borchs1966], Citrus sp. [Hua2000, MillerDa2005]. Sarraceniaceae: Sarracenia purpurea [Tippin1968]. Saxifragaceae: Deutzia [Borchs1966], Ribes sp. [Danzig1986a]. Solanaceae: Capsicum annuum [KawaiMaUm1971]. Strelitziaceae: Ravenala madagascariensis [Dekle1965], Strelitzia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos ramosissima [Takagi1975]. Taxaceae: Taxus cuspidata [Danzig1986a], Taxus sp. [Tippin1968], Torreya sp. [Dekle1965]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Chen1983], Camellia oleifera [Tao1999], Camellia sasanqua [Chen1983], Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [Takaha1935, MillerDa2005], Eurya acuminata [Takagi1970], Eurya crenatifolia [Takagi1970], Eurya japonica [Takagi1970], Eurya strigillosa [Takagi1970], Thea sinensis [Chen1983]. Trochodendraceae: Trochodendron aralioides [Takagi1970]. Ulmaceae: Aphananthe sp. [Muraka1970]. Verbenaceae: Stachytarpheta jamaicensis [KawaiMaUm1971].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Madagascar [Frappa1931, Mamet1943a]; Mauritius [Charmo1899, Giliom1966]; Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Reunion [Green1937, Mamet1952, GermaiMiPa2014]; Rodriques Island [Mamet1956b]; Seychelles [Green1907, Mamet1943a] (Aldabra Island [Mamet1943a, Borchs1966]); South Africa [Cocker1902a, Brain1920, Giliom1966]; Sudan [Razig2014a]; Zanzibar [Giliom1966]; Zimbabwe [Hall1928]. Australasian: Australia [TakahaTa1956, Giliom1966] (Northern Territory [Green1914c]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Beards1966, KawaiMaUm1971] (Kawai et al. (1971) state that this species probably invaded during or after World War II.); Federated States of Micronesia (Yap [Takaha1941b, Beards1966]); Fiji [Hinckl1963]; Guam [Fullaw1946, Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [Fullaw1932, Giliom1966] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Lanai [Heu2002] (First observed in 1876 (Heu 2001).), Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Zimmer1948, Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (Zimmerman (1948) states that P. cockerelli is an immigrant to Hawaii.), Oahu [Zimmer1948, Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (Zimmerman (1948) states that P. cockerelli is an immigrant to Hawaii. First observed in 1898 (Heu 2001).)); Indonesia (Java [Green1905, Giliom1966], Sulawesi (=Celebes) [WatsonMuSh2014]); Lord Howe Island [WilliaWa1988]; New Caledonia [WilliaWa1988]; Palau [Takaha1936c, Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [Giliom1966]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [BesheaTiHo1973, TippinHo1983] (Tippins & Howell (1983) state that this species was introduced to the United States.), California [TippinHo1983, Gill1997] (Tippins & Howell (1983) state that this species was introduced to the United States.), Florida [Merril1953, TippinHo1983] (Tippins & Howell (1983) state that this species was introduced to the United States.), Georgia [Merril1953, BesheaTiHo1973, TippinHo1983] (Tippins & Howell (1983) state that this species was introduced to the United States.), Louisiana [TippinHo1983] (Tippins & Howell (1983) state that this species was introduced to the United States.), Missouri [McComb1986], South Carolina [McComb1986], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [McComb1986, Koszta1996], Virginia [Koszta1996]). Neotropical: U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983]. Oriental: Bangladesh [Ali1968]; China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [EastonPu1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [EastonPu1999], Hunan [EastonPu1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [EastonPu1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [EastonPu1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [EastonPu1999], Yunnan [EastonPu1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [EastonPu1999, Wu2001b]); Hong Kong [Nakaha1982]; India [Green1937] (Andhra Pradesh [MudgalMuGu2011], Bihar [Ali1968], Karnataka [Fletch1919, Ali1968], Maharashtra [Kasarg1914, Fletch1919], Tamil Nadu [Ali1969a], West Bengal [Fletch1919, Ali1968]); Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [Takaha1942b]; Malaysia (Malaya [Giliom1966]); Nepal [Takagi1975]; Philippines [Banks1906, Mamet1943a] (Luzon [Robins1917]); Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takaha1953, YamaguNoOm2000]; Singapore [Ali1969a, HodgsoMa2001]; Sri Lanka [Green1899a, Giliom1966]; Taiwan [Ferris1921a, EastonPu1999]; Thailand [Takaha1942b, Giliom1966]; Vietnam [Ali1969a]. Palaearctic: China [Cooley1897] (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [EastonPu1999]); Egypt [Green1937, Giliom1966]; France [PicartMa2000] (From a greenhouse.); Italy [PellizDa1997] (Pellizzari & Danzig (1997) cite this species as invasive from East Asia.); Japan [Cooley1897] (Honshu [Kuwana1909, Muraka1970], Kyushu [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]); Russia (Primor'ye Kray [Borchs1938, Danzig1986a]); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Slovenia [Seljak2008]; South Korea [Kanda1941b, Danzig1986a]; United Kingdom (England [MalumpBa2012]).
BIOLOGY: Univoltine in the USSR. Egg laying has been observed in late May (Danzig, 1986a). Tippins (1968) reported that false oleander scale occurred in Georgia as far north as Atlanta. Reproduction continued year around in southern Georgia where 50 to 60 days were required for a generation. The female to male sex ratio was 61:39. The upper leaf surface was preferred for settling by 70% of the female crawlers, but by only 2% of the male crawlers; the remainder settled on the lower leaf surface. Both sexes principally were found on leaves with an occasional individual on fruit or tender twigs. Greenhouse studies showed the minimum period to egg hatch was 3 days and all eggs hatched in 8 days. The first nymphal stadium averaged 9.4 days. The second stadium averaged 17.9 days. The minimum preoviposition period of adult females was 23 days. Reproducing females lived about 61 days and appeared dead within 1 week after all their crawlers had emerged. Virgin females remained alive for about 10 months. Takagi and Kawai (1967) recognized that this species produced two morphs depending on where feeding occurred: a broad median lobe form on bark; and a narrow median lobe form on leaves. Danzig (1980) reported 2 generations each year in southeastern Russia. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988). Description of 1st instar by Tippins & Howell (1983). Colour photographs in Mudgal, et al., 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female body orange, elongate-oval. 1st lobe with widely spaced apices, triangular, with depressions on notches along side. Inner lobule of 2nd lobe elongate. 3rd lobe not developed. Gland spines seen on abdomen, meta- and mesothorax. Eggs yellow (Danzig, 1986a).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1955d) notes that Takahashi recorded P. cockerelli from Taiwan under the names P. eugeniae and P. dilata, but Ferris does not specify which records are misidentifications.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. A serious pest of ornamental plants in Florida (Dekle, 1976). Dekle (1970) reported that false oleander scale was introduced into Florida in 1942. It rapidly spread throughout Florida on infested nursery stock. Soon it was the most serious economic pest of ornamentals in Florida, and known hosts included many of the major ornamental plants found in commercial nurseries (Dekle 1977). It has recently been reported as a pest in Italy (Russo and Mazzeo 1992) and France (Picart and Matile-Ferrero 2000). It has been reported to be a serious pest of Mangifera in Australia (Jarvis 1946), India (Fletcher 1921), Mauritius (Moutia 1935), and Madagascar (Frappa 1937). Dupont (1926) noted it as 1 of 10 coconut pests in the Seychelles. The false oleander scale is a pest of kiwi fruit in China (Zou and Zhou 1993). Hara et al. (1993) developed a hot water treatment that will kill all stages of this species on bird of paradise plants, Strelitzia reginae. Crawlers seemed to be the most resistant to the treatment. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be a serious pest in a small area of the world. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 15 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Hodgson & Lagowska 2011: 14-15 (female) [Key to adult female Pseudaulacaspis sp. known from Fiji.]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Kosztarab 1996: 566 (female) [Key to Northeastern North American species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Danzig 1993: 332 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 222 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis cockerelli; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Tippins & Howell 1983: 199 (first instar) [Key to first instars of North American species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Wang 1982c: 90 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Beardsley 1966: 553 (female) [as Phenacaspis cockerelli and Phenacaspis inday; Key to Micronesian species of Phenacaspis]; Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [as Chionaspis cockerelli; Key to species of Chionaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [as Phenacaspis sandwicensis; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 351 (female) [as Phenacaspis syringae; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [as Chionaspis akebiae, C. miyakoensis and C. aucubae; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1931a: 2 (female) [as Phenacaspis dilatata and P. aucubae; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 346, 351 (female) [as Phenacaspis aucubae and Phenacaspis dilata; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Robinson 1917: 20 (female) [as Phenacaspis inday; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 (female) [as Chionaspis dilatata; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1968 [distribution, host: 136]; Ali1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68, 69]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; Almeid1972 [economic importance, host: 3]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Arnett1985 [economic importance, taxonomy: 242]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 351-354]; Banks1906 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution : 232]; Banks1906a [taxonomy: 787]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 553-554]; Beeson1941 [distribution, host: 744]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 13]; BhasinRo1954 [distribution, host: 82]; Bianch1940 [distribution: 387]; Borchs1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-141, 145]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 199-200]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119-120, 121, 122, 1]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 200]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 100]; BurditBa1981 [biological control, economic importance: 88]; Chang1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Charmo1899 [description, distribution, host: 31]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-72]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 102]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1899r [distribution, taxonomy: 900]; Cocker1902a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Cooley1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278-280]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host: 220]; Danzig1977b [distribution, taxonomy: 41, 48, 51]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 318-322]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378-379]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 723]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 334-337]; Dekle1965 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-2]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 108]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 136]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 34]; EastonPu1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, host: 318, 385]; Esaki1940 [distribution, host: 413]; Essig1931 [distribution, host: 573]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 237, 238]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; Ferris1953 [taxonomy: 64]; Ferris1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68, 72, 73, 74]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 228]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 296]; Fletch1921 [distribution, host: 19]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 28]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Frappa1931 [biological control, distribution, host: 188]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 94, 96, 103]; Fullaw1946 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Fuller1907 [taxonomy: 1035]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: ill]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 238-239, 240]; GrandpCh1899 [distribution, host: 9, 10]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 148]; Green1905 [distribution, host: 29]; Green1907 [distribution, host: 201]; Green1908a [distribution, host: 36]; Green1914c [distribution, host: 232]; Green1916e [distribution, host: 58]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 319]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 55]; Hall1928 [distribution, host: 287]; Hall1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 345]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 528, 549, 551]; HansenHaCh1991 [chemical control, host: 533]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 103]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 188]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 52]; HillNe1982 [taxonomy: 228]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 54]; HodgesHoBu2003 [description, chemical control, biological control, distribution]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14,26]; HodgsoMa2001 [distribution, host: 228]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 581]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149, 158, 159]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 201]; Kanda1941b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-186]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 274-275]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24-25]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 566, 567-568]; Kotins1907 [distribution, host: 306]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Krauss1965 [distribution, host: 99]; KSPP1972 [distribution, host: 109]; Kuwana1909 [distribution, host: 155]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 16]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 3-6]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; LiByCh2002 [biological control]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 345, 346, 348, 351]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, host: 41]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 165]; Mamet1948 [distribution: 24]; Mamet1950 [distribution, host: 18]; Mamet1951 [host, distribution: 229]; Mamet1952 [distribution, host: 171]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19-20]; Mamet1956b [distribution, host: 306]; Mamet1957 [distribution: 369]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 384, 459-461]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 19]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42,118]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 8]; McComb1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 149-150]; Mead1987 [distribution, host: 2]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70]; Miller1975JW [distribution, host: 4]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 356]; Misra1920 [p. 588]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 348]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10, 22]; MudgalMuGu2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 282-286]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host: 93-94]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 404]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 14]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NorrisKo1980 [ecology, distribution: 3]; Otanes1936 [host: 130]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 383-386]; PaikKi1977 [distribution, host: 48-49]; PellizDa1997 [distribution, host: 176]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; Pelot1950 [distribution, host: 17]; PicartMa2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 17]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 162]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1919a [description, distribution, host: 9-10]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 339]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 337, 373, 478]; Rao1965 [distribution, host: 30]; Razig2014a [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-5]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution, host: 275]; Reiner1976 [taxonomy: 518]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-21]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 2, 38]; SankarNaNa1984 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 410]; Sassce1914 [distribution, host: 242]; Sassce1923 [distribution, host: 155]; Seljak2008 [distribution, host: 121-126]; Stimme1987 [distribution, host: 22]; Strong1922 [distribution, host: 776]; Su1982 [distribution, host: 62]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 58]; Tachik1956 [distribution, host: 38]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-33 34]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-46, 70]; Takagi1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1977 [distribution: 3]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 40]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 26, 28, 31, 46]; Takaha1935 [distribution, host: 3]; Takaha1936c [distribution, host: 117]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Takaha1941b [distribution, host: 218]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33, 35]; Takaha1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-10]; Takaha1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-56]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 8]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 172-173]; Tang1984b [taxonomy: 129]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Tippin1968 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 13-15]; TippinHo1973 [taxonomy: 403]; TippinHo1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 195, 197, 199]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 73-74]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 196]; Vinson1936 [biological control: 26]; Wang1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 189]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 83, 90]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WatsonMuSh2014 [distribution, host: 1595]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 394]; Wester1920 [host, taxonomy: 64]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 96]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222-225]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 33-34, 77-78]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Wu2001b [distribution: 257]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 125]; YamaguNoOm2000 [distribution, host: 133]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 238, 245, 248]; Yao1985 [physiology: 338, 339]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 386]; ZouZh1993 [biological control, distribution: 174-176].
Pseudaulacaspis coloisuvae Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis coloisuvae Williams & Watson, 1988: 225. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Colo-i-Suva, on unidentified host, 23/03/1957, by B.A. O'Connor. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis coluisuvae; Hodgson & Lagowska, 2011: 14. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Combretaceae: Terminalia colamasanae [HodgsoLa2011]. Moraceae: ?Ficus [HodgsoLa2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [HodgsoLa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female, slide-mounted, up to 1.2 mm long, elongate; pygidium rounded; head straight at anterior margin; lateral lobes of free abdominal segments moderately produced; body membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium with median lobes well developed, each with the inner margins much longer than outer margins, forming a deep notch at apex of abdomen. 2nd lobes well developed, inner lobules projecting beyond median lobes, outer lobules shorter. 3rd lobes moderately developed (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis coloisuvae is peculiar in possessing dorsal ducts at the lateral angles and midline of the head. One specimen has one duct lacking at one side. In its arrangement of the other characters, however, it seems to be related to P. brideliae, but the latter has a narrower and more rounded head (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Hodgson & Lagowska 2011: 14-15 (female) [as Psdudaulascaspis coluisuvae; Key to adult female Pseudaulacaspis sp. known from Fiji.]; Williams & Watson 1988: 222 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15,26]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222-225].
Pseudaulacaspis dendrobii (Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis dendrobii Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a: 650. Type data: HONG KONG: taken at quarantine in Kobe, Japan, on Dendrobium sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis dendrobii; Chou, 1982: 90. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis dendrobii; Tao, 1999: 112. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [MartinLa2011], Rhapis excelsa [Hua2000], Rhapis flubelliformis [Ferris1955d], Rhapis humilis [Chen1983], Rhapsis sp. [Tang1986], Trachycarpus fortunnei [Tao1999]. Cyperaceae: Lepironia articulata [MartinLa2011]. Fagaceae: Quercus dentata [Chen1983]. Orchidaceae: Dendrobium sp. [KuwanaMu1931a]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tao1999], Thea sinensis [Chen1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [KuwanaMu1931a, Ferris1955d, Tao1999]; Philippines [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana & Muramatsu (1931a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular or somewhat elongate, white. Adult female with large pygidium, median lobes small, but well chitinized, strongly diverged; 2nd lobes divided, much shorter than the median. 5 groups of circumgenital gland orifices, median of 4, cephalolaterals 10-13, caudolaterals 8-11 (Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-15 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis dendrobii; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 (female) [as Chionaspis dendrobii; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 72-73]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 90]; Chou1986 [illustration: 481]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Hsu1935 [taxonomy: 581]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149, 158]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 24]; KuwanaMu1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 650, 657]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 290]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13]; Wu1935 [distribution: 208]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 247].
Pseudaulacaspis difissata (Brimblecombe)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis difissata Brimblecombe, 1959b: 399-400. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Tungun, on Banksia integrifolia, ?/12/1948. Holotype female. Type depository: Brisbane: Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia; type no. T5789. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Also in QMBA is paratype number T5790.
Pseudaulacaspis difissata; Takagi, 1985: 45. Change of combination.
HOST: Proteaceae: Banksia integrifolia [Brimbl1959b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Brimbl1959b]).
BIOLOGY: Insects found singly on underside of leaves (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
STRUCTURE: Scales elongate-oval to pyriform, white. Adult female elongate oval and membranous. This scale resembles Phenacaspis megaloba (Green) in having a deep pygidial incision but differs in having a segmental series of ducts on the second abdominal segment. The third pair of lobes may be sclerotized marginal serrations similar to those in the fourth lobe position. Sometimes the serrations in the latter position also may be indistinct. The ventral groups of small, broad-based spines resemble those of P. eugeniae (Maskell) but P. difissata differs from that species in having two pairs of these groups of spines, a large pygidial incision and longer pygidial lobes (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Brimbl1959b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 399-400]; Brimbl1959c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 45].
Pseudaulacaspis ericacea (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis ericacea Ferris, 1953: 63-64. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, An-lin-wen-chian, on Vaccinium sp. 1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female, by monotypy and original designation. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis ericacea; Chou, 1982: 86. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis ericacea; Takagi, 1985: 45. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Ericaceae: Azalea sp. [Ferris1953], Rhododendron sp. [Tao1999], Vaccinium sp. [Ferris1953]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus agnifolium [Ferris1953]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Tao1999]. Scrophulariaceae: Brandisia sp. [Ferris1953]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Ferris1953, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1953).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female 1.75 mm long. Body fusiform, abdominal segments slightly lobed laterally. Pygidium with median lobes quite large, strongly divergent, projecting little or not at all. 2nd lobes well developed, distinctly bilobed. 3rd lobes bilobed, mesal lobe quite prominent, flattened and apically toothed, the outer lobe being merely a slight projection (Ferris, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: P. ericacea closely resembles Phenacaspis keteleeriae (=Pseudaulacaspis momi), but the character having to do with the degree of separation of the antennae serves to separated the two species (Ferris, 1953). Tang (1986) considers it to be a junior synonym of P. cockerelli.
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis ericacea; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 [as Chionaspis ericacea; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1953: 63 (female) [as Phenacaspis ericaceae; Keys to species from the vicinity of Kunming].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 68]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-74]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 86-87]; Chou1986 [illustration: 486]; Danzig1977b [distribution: 44, 53]; Danzig1978 [distribution: 5]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-64]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 45]; Tang1986 [taxonomy: 286]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 247].
Pseudaulacaspis ernesti Miller et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis grandilobis Green, 1922a: 1015. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Diospyros thwaitesii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: In 1985 Takagi moved Mytilaspis grandilobis Maskell into Pseudaulacaspis creating a secondary senior homonym of Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis Green.
Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis; Lindinger, 1935: 130. Change of combination. Homonym of Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis (Maskell) 1894b; discovered by Miller & Gimpel, 2002: ?????????.
Chionaspis grandilobis; Takagi, 1970: 52. Change of combination. Notes: It seems that Takagi intended to place grandilobis Green in Pseudaulacaspis. His reference to Chionaspis grandilobis Green appears to be in error, but must still be considered a new combination.
Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis; Takagi, 1975: 23. Change of combination. Homonym.
Pseudaulacaspis ernesti Miller et al., 2003: 941. Replacement name for Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis Green 1922a.
HOST: Ebenaceae: Diospyros thwaitesii [Green1922a, Green1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1922a). Redescription and illustrations by Milller, et al., 2003
STRUCTURE: Female scale creamy white, exuviae reddish, 2.0 mm wide. Adult female 1.25-1.75 mm long, with parastigmatic pores at each spiracle, but more crowded at the anterior pair. Mesal lobes of pygidium very large and dense, bases confluent, free margins prominent, broadly rounded, minutely but obscurely crenulate. Lateral lobes duplex, outer lobule of 2nd pair represented by a broad cristate marginal prominence (Green, 1922a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis ernesti became a junior secondary synonym of P. grandilobis Maskell when it was moved into Pseudaulacaspis by Takagi 1985. Pseudaulacaspis ernesti is similar to P. takahashii. P. takahashii differs from P. ernesti by having a less squat body, by lacking numerous large dorsal ducts on the median areas of the head and thorax and by lacking numerous pores around the 2nd spiracle (Takagi, 1975).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host: 16]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1015-1016]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 315]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 130]; MillerGiWi2003 [illustration, structure, taxonomy: 941-943]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 23]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy: 212]; Varshn2002 [host: 74].
Pseudaulacaspis eucalypticola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis eucalypticola Tang, 1986: 164. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan Province, Mount Emei, on Eucalyptus rostrata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus rostrata [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale nearly circular, white, about 2.0 mm wide. Adult female body 0.7 mm long, 0.48 mm wide. Pygidial lobes developed, in 3 pairs; median lobes robust and sunken with a pair of setae between them and free margin serrated; 2nd and 3rd pairs small and divided (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: P. eucalypticola is close to P. megaloba, but differs by the absence of dorsal macroducts of the submarginal series on the 6th abdominal segment and gland tubercles on the metathorax and 1st abdominal segment (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 289-290]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14].
Pseudaulacaspis eugeniae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis eugeniae Maskell, 1892: 14. Type data: AUSTRALIA: 1892. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 36. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype on original slide labeled: "Chionaspis/eugeniae/adult female/1891 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Chionaspis/eugeniae/Maskell, 1892/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979." Material also in BMNH, ASCT, NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Chionaspis xerotidis Maskell, 1895b: 50-51. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Sydney, on undetermined aquatic sedge, by W.W. Froggatt. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 44. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Charles & Henderson, 2002: 607. Notes: Lectotype on original slide labeled "Chionaspis/xerotidis/female and puparium/1894 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Chionaspis/xerotidis/Maskell, 1895/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979." Material also in BMNH, NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Phenacaspis eugeniae; Cockerell, 1899a: 398. Change of combination.
Howardia eugeniae; Kirkaldy, 1902: 112. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis xerotidis; Fernald, 1903b: 239. Change of combination.
Chionaspis xerotides; Froggatt, 1907: 374. Misspelling of species name.
Aulacaspis eugeniae; Wester, 1920: 64. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus eugeniae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus xerotidis; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Poliaspis eugeniae; Lindinger, 1943a: 150. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis xerotidis; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 44. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis eugeniae; Takagi, 1985: 45. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: oleander scale [EhrhorFuSw1913]; waratah scale [DeitzTo1980]; white palm scale [Zeck1954].
FOES: Aphelinidae: Encarsia citrina [Hill1989a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Scymnus flavifrons [Flande1940]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus albipes [Fulmek1943], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Morley1909].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline australis [Hender2011]. Arecaceae: Archontophoenix cunninghami [Fleury1935a], Kentia sp. [Maskel1897a], Livistona [Borchs1966], Phoenix canariensis [Hender2011]. Asteraceae: Chrysanthemoides monolifera [Hender2011], Pachystegia insignis [Hender2011]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum sp. [Maskel1892]. Euphorbiaceae: Ricinus communis [Cheo1935]. Juncaceae: Xeroties longifolia [Frogga1914]. Lauraceae: Beilschmiedia tawa [Hender2011]. Liliaceae: Astelia sp. [Hender2011], Lomandra longifolia [Hudson1967], Xanthorrhoea sp. [Fuller1897b]. Lomandraceae: Lomandra longifolia [Hender2011]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia grandiflora [Hender2011], Michelia alba [Hua2000], Michelia figo [Hua2000], Michelia fuscata [Ferris1921a]. Moraceae: Ficus elastica [Hender2011], Ficus rubiginosa [Hender2011]. Myrtaceae: Agonis flexuosa [Hender2011], Agonis sp. [Hender2011], Callistemon salignus [Hender2011], Corymbia ficifolia [Hender2011], Corymbia sp. [Hender2011], Eucalyptus microcorys [Hender2011], Eucalyptus sp. [Maskel1893b], Eugenia elliptica [Maskel1892, Ali1969a], Feijoa sellowiana [Hender2011], Leptospermum laevigatum [Maskel1892, Hoy1959], Leptospermum sp. [Frogga1914], Lophostemon confertus [Hender2011], Melaleuca ericifolia [Maskel1892], Melaleuca hypericifolia [Hender2011], Melaleuca sp. [Hender2011], Metrosideros kermadecensis [Hender2011], Tristania [Borchs1966]. Proteaceae: Persoonia sp. [Frogga1914]. Rosaceae: Prunus sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Giliom1966]. Australasian: Australia [Maskel1892, Giliom1966] (New South Wales [Maskel1895b, Frogga1914, Flande1940], Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Maskel1893b, Frogga1914], Western Australia [Fuller1897b]); Hawaiian Islands [Maskel1897, Kirkal1904b]; New Zealand [Giliom1966] (South Island [Green1929]). Oriental: China (Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897a]; Malaysia (Malaya [Giliom1966]); Philippines (Luzon [Cocker1905f, Robins1917]); Sri Lanka [Maskel1897]; Taiwan [Ferris1921a]. Palaearctic: China [Maskel1897]; Japan [Maskel1897].
BIOLOGY: Prefers the underside of leaves of its host plants. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1892) and Ferris (1955d). Redescription and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.Detailed descriptions by Maskell (1895b) and Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white or sometimes yellow, elongated, pyriform, flattish. Exuviae terminal, yellow, not large. Male scale white, elongate, soft and cottony; often appearing like a small irregular mass of cotton, but in individuals of normal form a distinct carination is visible. Adult female elongate, yellow or brown (Maskell, 1892).Female scale whitish, flattish, pyriform. Exuviae yellow, small. Male scale whitish, elongate, narrow, carinate. Adult female yellow, elongate (Maskell, 1895b).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1955d) states that some records of P. eugeniae may be misidentifications of P. cockerelli. Takahashi's 1929 reference to Phenacaspis eugeniae is a misidentification of Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Takagi, 1970). Differences noted between Pseudaulacaspis brimblecombei and P. eugeniae in New Zealand by Henderson (2011) include: (i) the shape of the median lobes, digitatae or notched both sides in P. eugeniae (smooth laterally in P. brimblecombei); (ii) ventral gland tubercles of 2 sizes, particularly large on abdomen, small on thorax in P. eugeniae (all about same smaller size on P. brimblecombei). Vestigial leg patches not detected.
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Henderson 2011: 165 (female) [Key to Pseudaulacaspis adult females in New Zealand]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis eugeniae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 68]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; AnneckPr1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 38]; Ashmea1900 [biological control: 409]; AtkinsChDi1956 [taxonomy: 283]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121,128]; Brimbl1959b [taxonomy: 400]; Bryan1915 [distribution, host: 391]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,607]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 102]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1898r [distribution: 240]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; Cocker1905f [distribution, host: 134]; Cooley1903 [taxonomy: 48]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 36,44]; Ehrhor1907 [host: 26]; EhrhorFuSw1913 [taxonomy: 300]; Essig1931 [taxonomy: 294]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 238-9]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host: 213]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-49,54]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73-74]; Flande1940 [biological control, distribution: 202]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 28]; Fleury1938 [host: 37]; Frogga1896 [distribution, host: 87]; Frogga1907 [description, distribution, host: 374]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 987-989]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 62-63]; Fullaw1920 [biological control, distribution: 244]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [distribution, host: 472]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 57]; Garcia1921 [biological control: 54]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 29]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 382]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,39,62,170-176,2]; Hill1989a [economic importance: 177-178]; Hoy1959 [distribution, host: 10]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 580]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, host: 112]; Kirkal1904 [distribution, host: 229]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Koteja1974b [physiology: 84]; Koteja1976 [physiology: 283]; KotejaLi1976 [physiology: 678]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 16]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 12-13]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165-166]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 19]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 42]; Maskel1892 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14]; Maskel1893b [distribution, host: 211]; Maskel1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-51]; Maskel1897 [distribution: 306]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 146, 219]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20, 21]; Sassce1923 [distribution, host: 155]; Swezey1925 [distribution, host: 294]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 46]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Valent1967 [biological control, distribution: 1119, 1167]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; Wester1920 [host, taxonomy: 64]; Wilson1963 [biological control: 5]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 109]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 208]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 247, 248]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 33]; Zeck1954 [chemical control, description, distribution, host, illustration: 425].
Pseudaulacaspis ficicola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis ficicola Tang, 1986: 148. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Zhaoqing, on Ficus retusa. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus retusa [Tang1986]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sinensis [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, brownish-white, 2.0 mm wide, exuviae central and yellowish-brown. Male scale elongate, white, felted with waxen threads. Female body nearly circular, 1.18 mm long. Pygidial lobes in 2 pairs, median ones robust, with the margin serrate, 2nd ones very small and bilobulated. A pair of setae present between the 2 median lobes with basal zygosis well developed (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis ficicola is close to Rutherfordia major, but differs in the distribution of the dorsal macroducts, which are present on the meso- and metathorax, the 1st and 6th abdominal segments with the median series (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14].
Pseudaulacaspis forsythiae (Kanda)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis forsythiae Kanda, 1941c: 220-221. Type data: SOUTH KOREA: Ruisan, near Keijyo (Seoul), Keikido, on Forsythia viridissima, ?/08/1940, by D. Kanda. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Yokohama: S. Kanda Collection, Asano Senior High School, Kanagawa-ku, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis forsythiae; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
HOST: Oleaceae: Forsythia viridissima [Kanda1941c].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: South Korea [Kanda1941c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kanda (1941c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oblong, narrow in front and strongly broadened posteriorly, snowy white, 1st exuviae brown, 2nd exuviae yellowish brown, 2.0-3.0 mm long, 1.2-1.5 mm wide. Male scale snowy white, elongate, parallel-sided, dorsal keel prominent but not very distinct, 1.0-1.2 mm long, 0.3-0.5 mm wide. Adult female elongate, broadest about abdomen, distinctly segmented. Pygidium triangular, not heavily chitinized, with 2 pairs of well-developed lobes. Median lobes long and narrow, each lobe fused together at the base, outer margin slightly concave (Kanda, 1941c).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis forsythiae is similar to Phenacaspis fujicola (=Chionaspis wistariae), but can be separated by the shape of the median lobe and its conspicuous notches (Kanda, 1941c).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 122]; Kanda1941c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220-221]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86].
Pseudaulacaspis frutescens (Hu)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis frutescens Hu, 1986J: 217. Type data: CHINA: Hainan, Guangdong, on Henslowia frutescens, 12/05/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis frutescens; Miller et al., 2003: 941. Change of combination.
HOST: Crypteroniaceae: Henslowia frutescens [Hu1986J].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Hu1986J, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1986J).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body slender, 1.15-1.51 mm long, 0.54-0.60 mm wide. Anal opening near the base of pygidium. Between median lobes with a sclerotized area. Second lobes bilobulate, inner lobule with 2 sclerotized bars at the base (Hu, 1986J).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis frutescens is unique in the dorsal ducts on the head (Hu, 1986J).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1986J [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 217, 225]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 941]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15].
Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis grandilobis Maskell, 1894b: 70-71. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, near Melbourne, on Banksia sp., by Mr. French. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 38. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype an adult female on original slide labeled "Mytilaspis/grandilobis/adult female/1893 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Mytilaspis/grandilobis/Maskell, 1894/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979." Material also in NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Lepidosaphes grandilobis; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis grandilobis; MacGillivray, 1921: 288. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis grandilobis; Borchsenius, 1966: 122. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis grandilobis; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Rhyzobius ventralis [Richar1981].
HOST: Proteaceae: Banksia sp. [Maskel1894b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Maskel1894b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1894b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, elongate and mussel-shaped, or slightly pyriform, frequently obscured by white cottony fluff. Male scale snowy white, semi-cylindrical, parallel sides, not carinated. Adult female yellowish or orange, sometimes with conspicuous segments (Maskell, 1894b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 288 [as Scrupulaspis grandilobis; Key to species of Scrupulaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 28 (female) [as Mytilaspis grandilobis; Key to species of Mytilaspis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis grandilobis; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 678]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40-41]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Laing1929 [taxonomy: 32]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 35-37]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71]; Richar1981 [biological control: 34]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 46]; TakahaKa1939a [taxonomy: 187].
Pseudaulacaspis gynandropsidis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis gynandropsidis Green, 1922a: 1017. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Gynandropsis sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus gynandropsidis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis gynandropsidis; Ferris, 1955d: 49. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis gynandropsidis; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Capparidaceae: Gynandropsis sp. [Green1922a]. Combretaceae: Quisqualis indica [Varshn2002]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha wilkesiana [Varshn2002]. Solanaceae: Solanum sp. [Green1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Seychelles [Green1937] (Aldabra Island [HillNe1982]). Oriental: India (Karnataka [Varshn2002]); Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, exuviae bright fulvous, elongate, sinuous, broadest posteriorly, 2.25 mm long. Adult female reddish yellow, ovate, broadest across the abdomen. Small group of parastigmatic pores at the anterior spiracles only. Mesal lobes of pygidium varying considerably in size and form, large, divergent, partly recessed, their bases confluent, their free margins finely serrate; 1st lateral lobes well developed, duplex, inner lobule dilated, sometimes projecting beyond the mesal lobes, but usually shorter (Green, 1922a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis gynandropsidis resembles P. subcorticalis from which it may be distinguished by the much stronger development of the 1st lateral lobes and by the smaller spiniform plates (Green, 1922a). Takagi (1985) states that P. gynandropsidis may in fact be a junior synonym of P. subcorticalis.
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 69]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1017]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 319]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 227, 229]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 46]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 46]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 74].
Pseudaulacaspis hartii (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes hartii Laing, 1929: 31-32. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Gippsland, Bairnsdale, on Banksia serrata, by T.S. Hart. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis hartii; Borchsenius, 1966: 122. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis hartii; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
HOST: Proteaceae: Banksia serrata [Laing1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytiliform shape, white, slightly waxy in appearance, smooth, 3 times as long as wide posteriorly; exuviae warm reddish brown, nymphal exuviae overlaid by a thin layer of whitish secretion, 3 mm long. Male scale resembling that of female, but not quite so broad posteriorly, white, but not waxy, more woolly in texture; exuviae pale stramineous, 1.5 mm long. Adult female cleared completely in potash, derm membranous, rather narrow in front, widening out to the prepygidial segment, then contracting sharply to form a low, broad pygidium (Laing, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Lepidosaphes hartii is most closely related to L. grandilobis, but the median pair of lobes, though the same general shape, are considerably shorter and broader and more widely separated, while the second pair, though small, are quite well defined and not reduced to minute triangular projections, such as they are in L. grandilobis, nor are the spiniform plates so numerous nor so strongly developed (Laing, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 46].
Pseudaulacaspis hilli (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes hilli Laing, 1929: 29-30. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Biniguy; Queensland, Chinchilla, on Casuarina sp., by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis hilli; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Laing1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Laing1929], Queensland [Laing1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytiliform, moderately convex at the middle, rather short, broad behind, snow-white; exuviae orange-red, the nymphal pellicle overlaid by a thin layer of wax, 2 mm long. Male puparium broadening out very slightly posteriorly, white, non-carinated; pellicle warm casteaneous brown. Adult female becoming entirely membranous in caustic potash, ovate, rather narrow in front, broadest across the 1st abdominal segment, the breadth about three-fifths the length (Laing, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis hilli is close to Lepidosaphes casuarinae but differs in the latter's mesal lobes are separated, not united basally, nor are they so pronounced and projecting (Laing, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Frogga1933 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 364]; Laing1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-30]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 46].
Pseudaulacaspis kentiae (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis kentiae Kuwana, 1931a: 10-11. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Yamamoto, Hyogo-ken, on Kentia sp., ?/03/1930, by S. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus kentiae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Chionaspis kentiae; Paik, 1972: 2. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis kentiae; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Kentia sp. [Kuwana1931a], Trachycarpus fortunei [Tao1999]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1931a]); South Korea [Paik1972].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana (1931a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, slightly convex, irregular, usually broadly round or much dilated behind, thick and often showing vein-like markings on the surface, 2.2-2.5 mm long, 1.5-2.0 mm wide. 1st exuviae very pale straw; 2nd yellowish brown to dark brown with yellowish end, usually slightly covered with a grayish secretion. Ventral scale barely developed. Male scale small, elongate, parallel-sided, keel distinct, 1.0 mm long, 0.4 mm wide; exuviae pale straw. Adult female body elongate, anterior end narrow, broadest at the metathoracic region, segmentation distinct. Pygidium small and narrow. Median lobes very broad and stout, widely separated, inner margins parallel at the base then strongly divergent, distinctly serrated, outer margins slightly concave. Second lobes divided into two lobules, narrow with round apices, inner lobules much longer than the outer, but usually not exceeding the median lobes (Kuwana, 1931a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis kentiae resembles P. aucubae (=P. cockerelli) in the shape of the female, but can be readily separated by the morphological differences in the female pygidium (Kuwana, 1931a).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 15 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis kentiae; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Kuwana 1931a: 2 (female) [as Phenacaspis kentiae; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 65, 98]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; HuangNiTa2004 [biological control: 357-359]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KSPP1972 [distribution, host: 105]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 10-11]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Paik1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 2]; Paik1978 [taxonomy: 309]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; Wang1980 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 191]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 83, 84-85]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15].
Pseudaulacaspis kiushiuensis (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis kinshinensis Kuwana, 1909: 155. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Fukuoka, on Quercus sp., 1907, by S. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Yokohama: Yokohama Plant Quarantine Service Station, Honshu, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: This spelling was corrected by Kuwana (1928) to kiushiuensis and since it has been the prevailing spelling (see ICZN (1999) article 33.3.1) it is accepted as a justified emendation.
Chionaspis kinoshinensis; Kuwana, 1909: 158. Misspelling of species name.
Phenacaspis kinshinensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 347. Change of combination.
Chionaspis kiushiuensis; Kuwana, 1928: 12. Justified emendation. Notes: Kuwana, in the original description used the spelling kinshinensis and kinoshinensis. In 1928, he emended his original spelling to kiushiuensis. Although this could be considered an unjustified emendation because it wasn't one of the original spelling, according to ICZN article 33.3.1 when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage it is deemed to be a correct original spelling. Prevailing usage definitely is kiushiuensis.
Chionaspis kiushinensis; Kuwana, 1928: 13. Misspelling of species name.
Phenacaspis quercus Kuwana, 1931a: 6-7. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Yokohama, Honmoku, on Quercus myrsinaefolia, ?/04/1924, by Y. Tanaka. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1952a: 8. Homonym.
Trichomytilus kiushiuensis; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus quercus; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Chionaspis kuwanai Takahashi, 1953: 50. Replacement name for Chionaspis quercus Kuwana 1931; synonymy by Kawai, 1980: 273.
Chionaspis quercus; Takahashi, 1953: 50. Change of combination. Homonym of Chionaspis quercus Comstock 1881.
Phenacaspis kuwanai; Ferris, 1955d: 50. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis saitamensis; Ferris, 1955d: 51. Misidentification; discovered by Takagi, 1961: 24.
Phenacaspis kinshiuensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 123. Described: nymphal stages. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis kiushiuensis; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 40. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis kuishiuensis; Wei & Feng, 2012a: 16. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Castanea crenata [Takagi1961], Castanea mollissima [Tang1986], Castanea pubinervis [TakahaTa1956], Castanea sp. [Tao1999], Quercus acuta [Hua2000], Quercus gilva [Muraka1970], Quercus myrsinifolia [Kuwana1931a, Ali1969a], Quercus serrata [Ferris1955d, Takagi1970], Quercus sp. [Kuwana1909, Ferris1956]. Moraceae: Morus alba [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Ferris1955d]. Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000]); Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1931a, Takagi1961], Kyushu [Kuwana1909, Muraka1970], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1928) and (Takagi, 1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with dorsal macroducts in single or irregularly double segmental rows; submedian macroducts absent or few present on 2nd abdominal segment, always present on 3rd to 5th, absent on 6th. Median lobes comparatively very large, slightly divergent, minutely serrate, rounded apically, with a pair of setae between them, the basal zygosis scarcely protruding anteriorly. 2nd lobes very small, bilobulate. 3rd lobes represented by low processes (Takagi, 1961).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis kinshinensis is allied to Chionaspis colemani (=Unachionaspis signata) in the shape, color and texture of the scale, but is distinguished by the structure of the last abdominal segment (Kuwana, 1909).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [as P. kuishiuensis; Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis quercus; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Wang 1982c: 90 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis kuwanai; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Takagi 1961: 34 (female) [as Chionaspis kuwanai; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [as Chionaspis kiushiuensis and C. kuwanai; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1931a: 2 (female) [as Phenacaspis quercus; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 347 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 69]; Balach1954e [distribution, host: 354]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Chang1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 379]; Chou1986 [illustration: 563]; Ferris1953 [distribution, host: 63]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50, 51-52]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 74]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 273]; Kuwana1909 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 155]; Kuwana1917a [taxonomy: 16]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 12-14]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 6-7]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 158]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165, 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 347]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 94]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164, 165]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20, 24, 29, 34]; Takagi1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41, 70, 140]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 40]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 18]; Takaha1952a [taxonomy: 8]; Takaha1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 50, 55, 56]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 8]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 176-177]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 288]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 90, 92]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 16]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 247, 270].
Pseudaulacaspis latiloba (Takagi & Kawai)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis latiloba Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 112. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo and Tanzawa, on Carpinus laxiflora, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan, and Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis latiloba; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 30. Change of combination.
HOST: Betulaceae: Carpinus laxiflora [TakagiKa1966, Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966, Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Female body robust, fusiform, free segments little lobed laterally. Pygidium broad, with 2 pairs of lobes well developed, 3rd reduced to low angular processes (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis latiloba is close to P. celtis, but is distinguished by having numerous gland spines on the prosoma (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 273]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 94]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 112]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 40]; Tang1986 [taxonomy: 289].
Pseudaulacaspis latisoma (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis latisoma Chen, 1983: 75. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Jinghoing, on unknown vine, 1974. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis latisoma; Takagi, 1985: 47. Change of combination.
HOST: Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis latisoma resembles P. takahashii, but differs in the shape of the body and the median lobes, in addition, the dorsal ducts are not to be found on the 1st abdominal segment. It is easily distinguished by the arrangement of the dorsal ducts on sub-marginal regions of the posterior free segments (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis latisoma; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-76, 95]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14].
Pseudaulacaspis leveri Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis leveri Williams & Watson, 1988: 225-227. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Tomanivi, on unidentified Pandanaceae, 06/07/1944, by R.A. Lever. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pandanaceae [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: An elongate species; adult female about 0.9 mm long; pygidium and head rounded; body membranous except for pygidium; lateral lobes of free abdominal segments only moderately developed. Median lobes prominent but recessed into pygidium, forming a notch at apex, the inner edges longer than outer edges, each lobe rounded distally. 2nd lobes bilobed, much smaller than median lobes. 3rd lobes represented by serrations on margins. Gland spines arranged singly on each side of 5th and posterior segments. Ventral surface with numerous perivulvar pores present in 5 elongate groups (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis leveri resembles some species of Aulacaspis, but there are 2 short setae present between the median lobes. They are difficult to see in some specimens, but the species is left in Pseudaulacaspis for the present. P. subcorticalis (Green) has a similar arrangement of dorsal ducts, and may be a close relative; but P. leveri has the median lobes recessed into the apex of the pygidium to form a notch, whereas the median lobes of P. subcorticalis are prominent (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Hodgson & Lagowska 2011: 14-15 (female) [Key to adult female Pseudaulacaspis sp. known from Fiji.]; Williams & Watson 1988: 222 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15,26]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222, 224-227].
Pseudaulacaspis loncerae TangNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis loncerae Tang, 1986: 287-288. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang, Wuyi County, on Lonicera japonica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis lonicerae; Hua, 2000: 159. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera japonica [Tang1986, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pyriform, white, 2.0-3.0 mm long. Male scale carinated. Body of adult female 0.95-1.05 mm long, with 3 pairs pygidial lobes, the median ones sunken and with a pair of setae between them; the lateral two pairs much smaller, divided (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: P. loncerae is close to P. cockerelli, but differs by the antennae being set apart from each other, by the dorsal macroducts on the 6th abdominal segment set between the submedian and submarginal areas (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287-288]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112-113]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14].
Pseudaulacaspis manni (Green in Green & Mann)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis Manni Green in Green & Mann, 1907: 344-347. Type data: INDIA: Assam, on Thea sp., by H.H. Mann; West Bengal, Darjeeling and Calcutta, on Ficus sp. and Solanum melongena, by H.H. Mann & I.H. Burkill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis manni; MacGillivray, 1921: 349. Change of combination. Notes: This is a justified emendation of "Manni" to "manni."
Diaspis gordoniae Takahashi, 1931a: 211-212. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, on Gordonia axillaris, 27/12/1930, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takahashi, 1934: 6-7.
Trichomytilus manni; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Diaspis manni; Takahashi, 1934: 6. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis manni; Chou, 1985: 379-380. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [Sankar1984], Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros discolor [Takaha1934]. Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1934]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [GreenMa1907, Ferris1956]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Sankar1984]. Solanaceae: Solanum melongena [GreenMa1907, Ferris1956]. Theaceae: Camellia assamica [YunusHo1980], Camellia sinensis [Hua2000], Gordonia anomala [Takaha1933, Tao1999], Gordonia axillaris [Takaha1931a, Ali1970], Thea sp. [GreenMa1907, Ferris1956]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000]); India (Assam [GreenMa1907, Ali1969a], Himachal Pradesh [Varshn2002], Tamil Nadu [Varshn2002], West Bengal [GreenMa1907, Ali1969a]); Malaysia [YunusHo1980]; Taiwan [Takaha1931a, Ali1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green & Mann (1907).
STRUCTURE: Female scale irregular, broadly dilated posteriorly, usually curved. Exuviae at anterior extremity projecting beyond margin of scale, larval exuviae fulvous; nymphal exuviae castaneous, more or less concealed beneath a thin coating of greyish secretion, pygidial margin with prominent median lobes, 2.3-2.8 mm long, 1.10-2.15 mm wide. Adult female narrowest in front, broadest across abdominal area. In the early adult female, the pygidium occupies fully one third of the whole area, later, the thoracic segments increase in size. Pygidium rounded or obtusely pointed. Median lobes large, prominent, their bases confluent, the apices rounded, divergent, occupying a shallow median cleft, projecting far beyond the margin. 2nd lobes duplex, prominent, narrow (Green & Mann, 1907).
SYSTEMATICS: Fletcher (1919) considered Chionaspis manni (=Pseudaulacaspis manni) to be synonymous with Chionaspis prunicola var. theae (=P. prunicola theae).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 349 [as Phenacaspis manni; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 70]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 379-380]; Das1976 [distribution, host: 13]; Das1978 [distribution, host: 44]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71, 74]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 22, 26]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 296]; Green1908a [distribution, host: 37]; GreenMa1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 344-347]; Houard1923 [host: 557]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; MenonKh1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 281]; Narasi1987 [distribution, economic importance, host: 10]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 102]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 34]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 34, 41, 70]; Takaha1930 [distribution, host: 37]; Takaha1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 211-212]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 104]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 60]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-7]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; Varshn1965 [taxonomy: 5]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 74]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, distribution, host: 165-166]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13-16]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 268]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34].
Pseudaulacaspis megacauda TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis megacauda Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 48.
Pseudaulacaspis megacauda Takagi, 1970: 48-50. Type data: TAIWAN: A-li Shan, on Eurya acuminata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis megacauda; Chen, 1983: 77. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Tao1999]. Meliaceae: Cedrela sp. [Tao1999]. Oleaceae: Syringa Sp. [Tao1999]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Tao1999]. Theaceae: Eurya acuminata [Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986, Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate-oval or fusiform, free abdominal segments rather weakly lobed laterally. Median lobes quite large. 2nd lobes much smaller than the median, yet well developed; inner lobule longer than wide, broadly rounded apically, with a pair of distinct basal scleroses; outer lobule smaller, with basal scleroses much reduced (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis megacauda is similar to P. poloosta, however the former has fewer spiracular disc pores (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis megacauda; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chang1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77-78]; Chou1986 [illustration: 564]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-50]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 289]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 270].
Pseudaulacaspis megaloba (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis megaloba Green, 1899a: 149. Type data: SRI LANKA: Kandy, on Psidium sp., January, by A. Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis megaloba; Fernald, 1903b: 238. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) megaloba; Misra, 1924: 348. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus megalobus; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Pseudaulacaspis megaloba; Takagi, 1985: 47. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Actinodaphne molochina [Ferris1956], Tetranthera sp. [Ali1969a]. Moraceae: Ficus sp.? [Takaha1942b]. Myrtaceae: Psidium sp.? [Green1899a, Ferris1956]. Rhamnaceae: Zizyphus jujuba [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Bihar [Fletch1919, Ali1968]); Sri Lanka [Green1899a, Ferris1956]; Thailand? [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale whitish or very pale ochreous, semi opaque, surface with numerous hairs detached from the leaf of host, exuviae pale yellow, moderately convex, oblong, 1.25 mm long, 0.80 mm wide. Ventral scale thin, remains attached to host. Male scale opaque white, conspicuously tricarinate, rather broad, widened behind, 1.0 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Adult female abruptly narrowed in front, broadly rounded behind, yellow. Pygidium broad, deeply incised at extremity, sides of the cleft occupied by the very large and conspicuous median lobes, their bases united, their free edges minutely serrate, their distal extremity scarcely projecting beyond the margin. 2nd and 3rd lobes minute, duplex, each lobule with simple rounded extremity (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 345 [Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 (female) [as Chionaspis megaloba; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1968 [distribution, host: 136]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 70]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Brimbl1959b [taxonomy: 400]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 1, 57]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 238]; Ferris1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 71, 74]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 297]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 149]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 438]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 320]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 345]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 348]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 131]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 47]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 33]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 74]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15].
Pseudaulacaspis mirabilis HuNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis mirabilis Hu, 1986: 219. Type data: CHINA: Hainan, Guangdong, on Mirabilis sp., 13/05/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Bixaceae: Bixa sp. [Tao1999]. Nyctaginaceae: Mirabilis sp. [Hu1986J]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hu1986J], Hainan [Hu1986J]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1986).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body almost round, 1.16 mm long, 1st abdominal segment broadest. Median lobes large, projecting, with a sclertized area at base. 2nd lobes small, not bilobulate. 3rd lobes small, bilobulate. Dorsal ducts present on metathorax and 1st to 6th abdominal segments (Hu, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis mirabilis is close to P. hwangyensis (=Rutherfordia major), from which it is distinguished by 3 pairs pygidial lobes, by the perivulvar pores in 6 groups, by dorsal ducts present at the 6th segment and with dermal pockets (Hu, 1986).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hu1986J [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 225-226]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13].
Pseudaulacaspis miyakoensis (Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis miyakoensis Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1931a: 649. Type data: JAPAN: Okinawa, Miyakojima, on Morus acidosa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis miyakoensis; Ferris, 1955d: 51. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis midyakoensis; Ferris, 1955d: fig. 44. Described: female. Illust. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis miyakoensis; Shoubu & Kawai, 2002: 151-160. Described: immature. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex crenata [Takagi1961]. Cornaceae: Aucuba japonica [Takagi1961]. Moraceae: Morus acidosa [KuwanaMu1931a]. Ulmaceae: Aphananthe sp. [Ferris1955d]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [KuwanaMu1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Excellent illustration and description provided by Ferris (1955d) based on specimens collected by Takahashi on Apananthe from the Loochoo Islands in Japan.
SYSTEMATICS: Placed in synonymy with Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli by Takagi (1961) but Shoubu & Kawai (2002) discovered differences in the second-instar males suggesting that P. miyakoensis is a valid species.
CITATIONS: Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 51]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 274]; KuwanaMu1931a [description, illustration, taxonomy: 657]; ShoubuKa2002 [description, host, taxonomy: 151]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 31, 33]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 43]; Takaha1953 [taxonomy: 54].
Pseudaulacaspis momi (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis momi Kuwana, 1931a: 9-10. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Shizuoka-ken, Mt. Hakko, on Abies firma, ?/01/1924, by J. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis keteleeriae Ferris, 1953: 64. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Keteleeria davidiana, 28/04/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 288.
Pseudaulacaspis momi; Takagi & Kawai, 1967: 40. Change of combination.
Phenocaspis keteleeriase; Ali, 1969a: 69. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Chionaspis keteleeriae; Takagi, 1985: 46. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspidis Le Baron [JaposhAbNo2013].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies firma [Kuwana1931a, Ferris1956, Muraka1970], Abies sp. [Takagi1961], Keteleeria [Borchs1966], Keteleeria daiana [Tao1999], Keteleeria davidiana [Ferris1953], Keteleeria evebyniana [Tao1999], Keteleeria fortunei [Tao1999], Tsuga sieboldii [JaposhAbNo2013].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1953]). Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1931a, Muraka1970], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1931a) and Ferris (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, opaque, stout, broadly and roundly dilated, slightly convex. 1st exuviae pale yellow; 2nd exuviae yellowish brown, 2.1-2.5 mm long, 1.7-2.0 mm wide. Female body elongate. Pygidium broad, median lobes small, outer margin slightly concave, inner margins parallel near the base, gradually diverging, the apices flatly rounded and strongly serrate. 2nd lobes consisting of 2 lobules of which the inner lobule is much larger and the apices broadly rounded, the outer lobule is conical. 3rd lobes well formed, broad, divided (Kuwana, 1931a).
SYSTEMATICS: P. momi is similar to P. ericacea, but differs in a number of small details such as the size of the median lobes (Ferris, 1953). The female scale resembles that of P. cockerelli, but can be separated by the shape of the pygidial lobes (Kuwana, 1931a).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 64 (female) [as Phenacaspis keteleeriae; Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 (female) [as Chionaspis keteleeriae; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 33 (female) [as Chionaspis momi; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Ferris 1953: 63 [as Phenacaspis keteleeriae; Keys to species from the vicinity of Kunming]; Takahashi 1953: 56 (female) [as Chionaspis momi; Key to some Japanese species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1931a: 2 (female) [as Phenacaspis momi; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 69]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 64, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 88]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 343-344]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-64, 77]; Ferris1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 71, 74, 81]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; JaposhAbNo2013 [ecology: 545]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 274]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 9-10]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 94]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host: 28, 34]; Takagi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 46]; TakagiKa1967 [taxonomy: 40]; Takaha1952a [host, taxonomy: 8]; Takaha1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 55, 56]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 8]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 288]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 70]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 247].
Pseudaulacaspis multiducta Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis multiducta Williams & Watson, 1988: 228-231. Type data: INDONESIA: Irian Jaya, Sarmi District, Bodem, on unidentified dicotyledonous plant, 17/07/1959, by T. Maa. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BPBM and BMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, brilliant white, exuviae yellow-brown. Adult female narrowly elongate, longest specimens 1.5 mm long, free abdominal segments moderately developed, head rounded. Pygidium elongate with median lobes well developed, divergent and wide, straight or rounded, giving the lobes a squat appearance; each lobe with distal edge notched; median lobe bases recessed into apex, forming a notch. 2nd lobes prominent, bilobed, each lobule rounded, inner lobule longer than median lobes. 3rd lobes represented by notches on margin (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Important distinguishing characters of this species are the almost continuous rows of small ducts across the metathorax and first 3 abdominal segments, and the unusually long gland spines on the pygidium. Another species with similar gland spines is P. centreesa, but it possesses numerous spicules on the ventral surface and lacks the continuous rows of ducts anterior to the pygidium which are present in P. multiducta (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 220 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220, 228-231].
Pseudaulacaspis nishikigi (Kanda)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis nishikigi Kanda, 1941: 33. Type data: SOUTH KOREA: Suigen, Keikido, on Euonymus alata, ?/09/1937, by Nakayama; Husan, on Euonymus alata, ?/08/1940, by S. Kanda. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Yokohama: S. Kanda Collection, Asano Senior High School, Kanagawa-ku, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis nishikigi; Borchsenius, 1966: 124. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis nishikigi; Takagi, 1985: 48. Change of combination.
HOST: Celastraceae: Euonymus alata [Kanda1941].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: South Korea [Kanda1941].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kanda (1941).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, straight or curved, narrowed toward front, white, 1.5 mm long. 1st exuviae oval, brown, situated on or extending beyond the anterior end of the 2nd exuviae, which is rather large, circular and blackish or reddish brown. Adult female oblong. Pygidium wider than long, with numerous longitudinal lines on dorsum. Median lobes large, prominent, divergent, contiguous at base, slightly concave at outer margin, inner margin roughly serrate 3 or 4 times, with a spine near the base of each lobe. 2nd lobes small, divided, each lobule entire and tapering on distal part. Inner lobules longer than wide. Outer lobules smaller. 3rd lobes not developed (Kanda, 1941).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis nishikgi is allied to P. celtis, but is easily distinguishable from it by the characters of the abdominal areas and arrangement of the marginal glands in the pygidium (Kanda, 1941).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; Kanda1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-35]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KSPP1972 [distribution, host: 105]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 48]; Takaha1952a [distribution, taxonomy: 10].
Pseudaulacaspis nitida (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis nitida Maskell, 1892: 15-16. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Melbourne, on Daviesia corymbosa, by Mr. French; Adelaide, on Daviesia corymbosa, by Mr. Tepper. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia, and NZAC, USNM. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus nitida; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis nitida; Ferris, 1955d: 51. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis nitida; Takagi, 1985: 48. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Daviesia corymbosa [Maskel1892].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (South Australia [Maskel1892], Victoria [Maskel1892]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1892).
STRUCTURE: Female scale silvery-white and shining, elongate, smooth, slightly convex, sides somewhat parallel. Exuviae terminal, larval exuviae bright yellow, 2nd exuviae greyish. Male scale silvery white, elongate, parallel sided, slightly convex, with an inconspicuous longitudinal median groove. Exuviae bright yellow. Adult female golden brown, elongate, abdomen ending in 2 small floriated lobes with a median depression, margin crenulated, with a few small spines (Maskell, 1892). Froggatt (1914) describes the male scale as much smaller than that of female, with exuviae reddish brown.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 988]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 63]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; Maskel1892 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15-16]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 48].
Pseudaulacaspis papayae (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis papayae Takahashi, 1942b: 33-35. Type data: THAILAND: Bankok, on Zizyphus jujuba and papaya, ?/04/1940 and ?/05/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis papayas; Ali, 1969a: 70. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis papayae; Takagi, 1985: 48. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Caricaceae: Carica sp. [Borchs1966]. Musaceae: Musa paradisiaca sapientum [Takagi1960a]. Rhamnaceae: Zizyphus jujuba [Takaha1942b, Ferris1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Takagi1960a]). Oriental: Thailand [Takaha1942b, Ferris1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1942b) and Takagi (1960a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, slightly widened posteriorly, white, with pale yellowish brown exuviae, about 2.7 mm long. Adult female body narrow. Pygidium tapering with anus nearer to the base than the apex. Median lobes rather large, stout, much longer than wide, rounded apically, distinctly serrate, slightly diverging, inner lobules rounded, a little longer than wide, not notched, much narrower than the median lobes (Takahashi, 1942b). There may be two forms of this species as to the shape of the median lobes: in one form the median lobes are somewhat produced, their apices scarcely or very slightly exceeding the 2nd lobes, while in the other, the median lobes are more or less retracted into the pygidium and are distinctly exceeded by the 2nd lobes (Takagi, 1960a).
SYSTEMATICS: P. papayae is close to P. brideliae, but different in the larger median lobes, which are wider than the lobules of the 2nd lobes. Related to P. dilatata (=P. cockerelli), but the scale and body being much narrower. P. papayae can be differentiated from Chionaspis sozanica by the median lobes being further apart, with a pair of setae between them (Takahashi, 1942b).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 70]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71, 74]; Takagi1960a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 48]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-35].
Pseudaulacaspis papulosa Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis papulosa Williams & Watson, 1988: 230-231. Type data: INDONESIA: Irian Jaya, Baliem Valley, Wamena, on Casuarina sp., 24/02/1960, by T. Maa. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BPBM, BMNH and USNM.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, convex, edges often wrapped around branchlets; white, exuviae yellow-brown. Adult female fusiform, about 1.85 mm long; anterior end narrow but rounded, free abdominal segments with lateral lobes distinct but not well developed. Pygidium with median lobes separated by a space equal to width of 1 lobe, narrowly yoked at base; each lobe almost quadrate, the distal edge usually with 2 deep notches present. 2nd lobes much smaller than median lobes, the lobules elongate and rounded, often covered by overlapping pygidial margins, and recognizable by the presence of ventral paraphyses. 3rd lobes represented by serrations of margin (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis papulosa is so close to P. hilli that there may be some justification in uniting them. In all the material at hand of P. hilli, however, the ventral spicules are few, represented by 2-4 large ones on the mesothorax and 2 on the metathorax, with only 1 or 2 that are minute in the same areas. In P. papulosa they are abundant in the median areas, reaching as far forward as the labium (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 220 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220, 230-231].
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti, 1886: 1. Type data: ITALY: Canzo, on Morus sp., 11/02/1982, by A. Tranfaglia. Neotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Davidson et al., 1983: 756. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy.
Diaspis Amygdali Tryon, 1889: 89-92. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Brisbane; New South Wales, Sydney. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Brisbane: Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia. Described: female. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1899n: 28.
Diaspis lanatus Morgan & Cockerell in Cockerell, 1892d: 137. Type data: JAMAICA: Kingston, on Capsicum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Salmón de los Heros, 1933: 468. Notes: Cockerell (1892d) contains a description of Diaspis lanatus fully in quotes and clearly written by Morgan. Cockerell has added, in parenthesis, a few extra notes. According to Article 50.1 of the ICZN, this authorship should be cited as Morgan & Cockerell in Cockerell. Some earlier authors have not followed this and the name has been cited as Morgan in Cockerell and sometimes just as Cockerell.
Diaspis patelliformis Sasaki, 1894: 107-124. Type data: JAPAN: on Morus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Tokyo: Imperial Agricultural Experiment Station, Tachikawa, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Fullaway, 1932: 93.
Aspidiotus vitiensis Maskell, 1895a: 40. Type data: FIJII: on several unidentified trees, by Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1941: 49.
Diaspis lanata; Green, 1896: 4. Justified emendation.
Diaspis gerannii Maskell, 1897: 299. Nomen nudum; discovered by Lindinger, 1932c: 204.
Aulacaspis (Diaspis) pentagona; Newstead, 1901b: 173. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis pentagona; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of combination.
Diaspis (Aulacaspis) pentagona; Brain, 1919: 226. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona; MacGillivray, 1921: 315. Change of combination.
Sasakiaspis pentagona; Kuwana, 1926: 8. Change of combination.
Diaspis rosae geranii; Lindinger, 1932c: 204. Change of status. Notes: Diaspis rosae var. geranii is a change of level of D. geranii. It is not clear why Lindinger (1932c) made the change. He may have meant to make D. geranii a junior synonym of Aulacaspis rosae or he could have confused it with Diaspis amygdali var. rubra which is mentioned by Maskell (1897:241). We will assume the latter and place the name under Pseudaulacaspis pentagona.
Epidiaspis vitiensis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus lanatus; Ferris, 1941e: 45. Change of combination.
Diaspis gerannii; Borchsenius, 1966: 176. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis pentaggona; Zhang, Wang & Chen, 1993: 173. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille du mûrier [SchvesMiGi1955]; cochinilla blanca del duraznero o Diaspis [DeSant1941a]; mulberry scale [ManiKoSc1997]; west indian peach scale [Britto1923]; West Indian scale [Wilson1923]; white peach scale [AAEE1937]; white plum scale [Danzig1986a]; white scale [Tryon1889].
ASSOCIATES: Fungi: Septobasidium bogoriense [WilliaWa1988]. FUNGI : Fusarium coccidicola [WilliaWa1988], Septobasidium sp. [Kalsho1981].
FOES: Coccinellidae: Chilocorus politus [GuyotQu1987]. ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [GersonSc1981]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Bodenh1953, UygunEl1998], Chilocorus cacti [DeBach1964], Chilocorus hupehanus [ZhangWaCh1993], Chilocorus kuwanae [Jiang1985, Xie1998], Chilocorus nigritus [GuyotQu1987], Chilocorus orbus [Hagen1974], Chilocorus politus [Kalsho1981], Chilocorus rubidus [KosztaKo1988F], Chilocorus simili [Nakaya1912], Coccidophilus cariba [Gordon1978], Cryptognatha nodiceps [Hinckl1963, Hagen1974], Exochomus quadripustulatus [KosztaKo1988F], Hyperaspis japonica [KosztaKo1988F], Lindorus lophantae [Smirno1950a], Lindorus lophanthae [ArgyriStMo1976, Danzig1993], Nephus phosphorus [Yasuda1981a], Paramysia oblongoguttata [KosztaKo1988F], Pharoscymnus exiguus? [Simmon1969], Pharoscymnus horni [Sankar1984], Pseudoscymnus hareja [KosztaKo1988F], Rodolia concolor [KosztaKo1988F], Rodolia limbata [Yasuda1981a], Scymnomorphus sp., Scymnus hilaris [Yasuda1981a], Scymnus sp. [Kalsho1981], Serangium japonicum [Yasuda1981a], Stethorus japonicus [KosztaKo1988F], Stethorus sp. [Yasuda1981a], Sticholotis gomyi [GuyotQu1987], Sticholotis madagassa [GuyotQu1987], Sticholotis punctata [KosztaKo1988F], Sukunahikona japonica [Yasuda1981a], Telsimia nigra [KosztaKo1988F]. Cybocephalidae: Cybocephalus pullus [GuyotQu1987]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus gibbulus [KosztaKo1988F], Cybocephalus nipponicus [Yasuda1981a], Cybocephalus rufifrons [KosztaKo1988F, Kartma1946], Cybocephalus sp. [Bodenh1953, Sankar1984]. DIPTERA Cecidomyidae: Silvestrina silvestrii [Barnes1930], Tricontarinia ciliatipennis [Barnes1930], Tricontarinia japanica [Barnes1930]. Cecidomyiidae: Arthrocnodax diaspidis [Barnes1930], Arthrocnodax moricola [Barnes1930], Dentifibula sp. [Yasuda1981a], Dyodiplosis generosi [DeSilv1961], Lestodiplosis sp. [Yasuda1981a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus clisiocampae [KosztaKo1988F], Ablerus perspeciosus [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Aphytis chrysomphali [Jiang1985], Aphytis diaspidis [Simmon1957, Rauled2011], Aphytis fuscipennis [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Aphytis proclia [DeSant1941a], Aphytis sp. [AbouEl2001], Aphytis vandenboschi [TakagiRo1981], Archenomus orientalis [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Cocker1896a, DeSant1941a, Yasuda1981a, Kalsho1981], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [Simmon1957], Azotus capensis [Garcia1922], Azotus celsus Walker [UlgentErKa2008], Azotus chionaspidis [Garcia1922], Azotus perniciosus (Girault) [UlgentErKa2008], Azotus perspeciosus [Muraka1970], Azotus platensis [DeSant1941a], Cales noaki [DeSant1941a], Coccobius sp. [Sankar1984], Coccophagoides kuwanae [Muraka1970], Coccophagus kuwanae [KosztaKo1988F], Encarsia berlesei [Greath1989, ManiKoSc1997, Viggia1987], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia diaspidicola [HuangPo1998], Encarsia fasciata [AbouEl2001], Encarsia flexa [HuangPo1998], Encarsia niigatae [HuangPo1998], Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984], Marietta javensis [Sankar1984], Marietta mexicana [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Marietta sp. [Jiang1985], Prospaltella aurantii [Brethe1914, Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella berlesei [Berles1909, Poutie1919, Simmon1957], Prospaltella diaspidicola [Gahan1925, Balach1954e], Prospaltella murtfeldti [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella niigatae [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Pteroptrix dimidiata [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Pteroptrix orientalis [PedataGa2001]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus aulacaspidis [KosztaKo1988F], Adelencyrtus sp. [Sankar1984], Anabrolepis lindingaspidis [Yasuda1981a], Anabrolepis sp. [Sankar1984], Anicetus sp. [Yasuda1981a], Aphycus flavidulus [DeSant1941a], Apterencyrtus microphagus [KosztaKo1988F], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Sankar1984, KreiteDiDo2000], Chiloneurus sp. [Sankar1984], Dimacrocerus platensis [Brethe1914, Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Psilomirinus flavicaudus [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Thomsonisca amathus [KosztaKo1988F], Thomsonisca typica [Muraka1970], Zoamma lambinus [Sankar1984]. Eulophidae: Prospaltoides howardi [Brethe1914], Tetrastichus canadensis [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Tetrastichus purpureus [Sankar1984]. Mymaridae: Diaspidophilus pallidus [Brethe1914]. Procotrupoidae: Passalida spinifera [Brethe1914]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora caridei [Brethe1914, DeSant1941a], Signiphora endophragmata [DeSant1941a], Signiphora platensis [Brethe1914, DeSant1941a], Thysanus aspidioti [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Thysanus caridei [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F], Thysanus platensis [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F]. Trichogrammatidae: Trichogrammatoidea signiphoroides [Brethe1914]. LEPIDOPTERA Arctiidae: Eilema griseola aegrota [KosztaKo1988F], Lithosia quadradives [KosztaKo1988F], Milthochrista calamina [KosztaKo1988F], Stigmatophora flava [KosztaKo1988F]. Nitidulidae: Eublemma sp. [Lee1971]. NEUROPTERA Chrysopidae: Chrysopa boninensis [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Acanthus sp. [MillerDa2005], Asystasia [Borchs1966], Crossandra sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aceraceae: Acer [Borchs1966]. Actinidiaceae: Actinida chinensis [Moghad2013a], Actinidia arguta [Muraka1970], Actinidia polygama [Muraka1970], Actinidia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Amaranthaceae: Gomphrena sp. [MillerDa2005]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [WhitmoMe1974], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhus chinensis [MartinLa2011], Rhus sp. [Maskel1897a, MillerDa2005], Schinus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Spondias sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Allamanda cathartica [Hinckl1963, WilliaWa1988], Allamanda grandiflora [Hall1937], Allamanda sp. [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Catharanthus roseus [WilliaWa1988], Ervatamia orientalis [WilliaWa1988], Nerium oleander [Mamet1943a], Nerium sp. [MillerDa2005], Plumeria acutifolia [Hinckl1963], Plumeria alba [Ballou1926, Cohic1958], Plumeria rubra [WilliaWa1988], Plumeria sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Rhynchospermum sp. [ChabouSc1958], Rhynchospermum verticulatum [Bodenh1949], Vinca rosea [Ballou1926]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex opaca [McComb1986], Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araceae: Philodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Symplocarpus [Borchs1966]. Araliaceae: Arailia sp. [MillerDa2005], Aralia elata [Muraka1970], Aralia spinosa [HowardOl1985], Hedera sp. [MillerDa2005], Kalopanax septemlobus [Muraka1970]. Arecaceae: Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Ballou1926], Cocos nucifera [WilliaWa1988], Phoenix [McKenz1956]. Asclepiadaceae: Asclepius sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Calotropis [Borchs1966], Calotropis procera [RileyHo1894, ColonFMe1998], Cynanchym perrieri [Mamet1959a, Borchs1966], Marsdenia clausa [Ballou1926], Tylophora asthmatica [Green1896, Ali1970]. Asteraceae: Arctium sp. [Maskel1897a], Bahia fastigata [Merril1953], Helianthus annuus [Hinckl1963, WilliaWa1988], Helianthus sp. [WilliaWa1988], Mikania [Borchs1966]. Berberidaceae: Berberis [Borchs1966], Mahonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Osmanthus asiaticus [Muraka1970], Osmanthus ilicifolius [Muraka1970], Ostrya [Borchs1966]. Bignoniaceae: Bignonia [Borchs1966], Catalpa bignonioides [ManiKoSc1997], Catalpa bungei [Britto1923], Catalpa ovata [Muraka1970], Catalpa sp. [MillerDa2005], Catalpa syringifolia [GhabboMo1996], Catalpa vulgaris [Kozarz1988], Catalpa yunnanensis [Ferris1950a], Tecoma sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Bombacaceae: Montezuma speciosissima [WhitmoMe1974]. Boraginaceae: Ehretia acuminata [TakahaTa1956], Ehretia ovalifolia [Muraka1970], Heliotropium peruvianum [Ballou1926], Messersmidia argentea [Cohic1958], Tournefortia argentea [WilliaWa1988]. Brassicaceae: Brassica rapa [Nakaha1983], Brassica willdenovii [ColonFMe1998], Iberis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cannabaceae: Trema sp. [MillerDa2005]. Capparaceae: Cleome spinosa [Ballou1926]. Caricaceae: Carica papaya [Cocker1894a, Mamet1943a, Heu2002], Carica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Caryophyllaceae: Dianthus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Casuarinaceae: Casuarina [Borchs1966]. Celastraceae: Euonymus alata striata [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Euonymus europaea [Bodenh1949], Euonymus sp. [MillerDa2005], Orixa japonica [Maskel1897a]. Chenopodiaceae: Salicornia fruticosa [Foldi2002]. Clusiaceae: Calophyllum sp. [WilliaWa1988], Mammea americana [WhitmoMe1974]. Convolvulaceae: Argyreia nervosa [WilliaWa1988], Argyreia speciosa [RileyHo1894], Ipomea batatas [Mamet1943a], Ipomea purpurea [Mamet1949], Ipomea sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Ipomoea tiliacea [ColonFMe1998]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005]. Crassulaceae: Bryophyllum calycinum [Maxwel1902], Bryophyllum pinnatum [Simmon1957], Kalanchoe nadijae [Mamet1959a, Borchs1966], Kalanchoe orgyalis [Mamet1959a, Borchs1966], Kalanchoe pinnatum [Mamet1954], Kalanchoe sp. [MillerDa2005], Sedum sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005]. Cucurbitaceae: Citrullus vulgaris [Bodenh1949], Cucurbita sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cycadaceae: Cycas media [RileyHo1894], Cycas revoluta [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966], Cycas sp. [MillerDa2005], Zamia [Borchs1966]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [BiezanFr1939, BesheaTiHo1973], Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005], Diospyros virginiana [BesheaTiHo1973]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus [Borchs1966]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites [Borchs1966], Codiaeum sp. [WilliaWa1988], Croton sp. [MillerDa2005], Euphorbia sp. [MillerDa2005], Hevea [Borchs1966], Jatropha curcas [YunusHo1980], Jatropha gossypifolia [Nakaha1983], Jatropha integerrima [Halber2000], Jatropha sp. [MillerDa2005], Macaranga sp. [WilliaWa1988], Mallotus japonicus [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Manihot esculenta [Beards1966], Manihot sp. [MillerDa2005], Pedilanthus tithymaloides [WilliaWa1988], Poinsettia [Borchs1966], Ricinus communis [WilliaWa1988], Ricinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Sapium sebiferum [BesheaTiHo1973], Sebastiana ligustrina [BesheaTiHo1973], Securinega leucophrus [Varshn2002]. Fabaceae: Acacia arabica [GhabboMo1996], Acacia sp. [MillerDa2005], Albizia stipulata [WilliaWa1988], Bauhinia sp. [Ferris1950a], Cajanus cajan [Mamet1943a, Borchs1966], Cassia alata [Cohic1958, Heu2002], Cercis canadensis [HowardOl1985], Cercis sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Crotaleria juncea [Chang1972], Crotolaria sp. [WilliaWa1988, MillerDa2005], Cytisus nigricans [ChabouSc1958], Cytisus scoparius [Muraka1970], Erythrina glauca [WhitmoMe1974], Erythrina indica [YunusHo1980], Erythrina poeppigiana [WhitmoMe1974], Erythrina sp. [BoedigSt1930, Beards1966, Heu2002], Genista sp. [Bodenh1949], Gleditschia ferox [ChabouSc1958], Gleditschia sp. [Bodenh1949], Gleditschia triacanthos [ChabouSc1958], Glycine max [BesheaTiHo1973, Heu2002], Kennedya [Borchs1966], Lespedeza sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Ononis sp. [Bodenh1949], Phaseolus vulgaris [WilliaWa1988], Pueraria sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005], Robinia pseudoacacia [Muraka1970], Sarothamnus [Borchs1966], Sophora japonica [BognarVi1979], Vigna sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Fagaceae: Castanea crenata [Muraka1970], Castanea sp. [MillerDa2005], Quercus acutissima [Muraka1970]. Flacourtiaceae: Flacourtia [Mamet1943a, Borchs1966]. Geraniaceae: Geranium sp. [GhabboMo1996, MillerDa2005], Pelargonium inquinans [Muraka1970], Pelargonium sp. [Mamet1943a, AbouEl2001, MillerDa2005], Pelargonium zonale [ChabouSc1958]. Ginkgoaceae: Ginkgo [Borchs1966]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes sp. [MillerDa2005]. Guttiferae: Hypericum sp. [Ferris1950a]. Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus hippocastanum [Bodenh1949], Aesculus pavia [BesheaTiHo1973]. Hydrangeaceae: Hydrangea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Juglandaceae: Juglans mandshurica sieboldiana [Muraka1970], Juglans nigra [Kozarz1988], Juglans regia [Bodenh1949], Juglans sp. [MillerDa2005], Pterocarya stenoptera [Muraka1970]. Labiatae: Nepeta sp. [Ferris1950a]. Lamiaceae: Callicarpa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum [Borchs1966], Sassafras sp. [MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Draceana sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Loganiaceae: Buddleia davidii [Ballou1926], Gelsemium sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Loranthus: Loranthus sp. [Maskel1897a]. Lythraceae: Lagerstroemia flos-reginae [Hinckl1963]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Althaea rosea [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Althaea sp. [Cohic1958], Dombeya sp. [MillerDa2005], Gossypium brasiliense [WilliaWa1988], Gossypium sp. [Wilson1923, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus diversifolius [WilliaWa1988], Hibiscus esculentum [RileyHo1894, McKenz1956], Hibiscus manihot [Hinckl1963], Hibiscus mutabilis [Mamet1943a], Hibiscus rosa-sinensis [ColonFMe1998], Hibiscus sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus tiliaceus [WhitmoMe1974], Malachra sp. [MillerDa2005], Malvastrum tricuspidatum [WilliaWa1988], Sida [Borchs1966], Sterculia sp. [Borchs1966], Urena lobata [Hinckl1963], Urena sinuata [Ballou1926]. Meliaceae: Cedrela sp. [MillerDa2005], Cedrela toona [WilliaWa1988], Melia azedarach [Mamet1943a], Melia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Menispermaceae: Cissampelos pareira [MestreHaEv2011]. Moraceae: Broussonetia kazinoki [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Broussonetia papyrifera [Ferris1950a], Broussonetia sp. [WilliaWa1988, MillerDa2005], Castilla sp. [MillerDa2005], Ficus sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Morus alba [Kuwana1926, Kobakh1965], Morus bombycis [Muraka1970], Morus indica [BesheaTiHo1973], Morus nigra [Ballou1926, Balach1954e, ErlerKoTu1996], Morus rubra [BesheaTiHo1973], Morus sp. [Sasaki1894, McKenz1956, MillerDa2005, PellizPoSe2011]. Musaceae: Strelitzia [Borchs1966]. Myoperaceae: Myoporum pictum [AbouEl2001]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Matile1978], Psidium [Borchs1966]. Olacaceae: Olea europea [ArgyriKo1981]. Oleaceae: Chionanthus virginicus [BesheaTiHo1973], Fraxinus chinensis [Ferris1950a], Fraxinus excelsior [Ali1970], Fraxinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Jasminum sp. [Bodenh1949], Jasminum sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum ibota [Britto1923], Ligustrum japonicum [Hinckl1963], Ligustrum obtusifolium [Muraka1970], Ligustrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Osmanthus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Syringa sp. [Bodenh1949], Syringa vulgaris [ChabouSc1958]. Onagraceae: Fuchsia sp. [Borchs1966]. Orchidaceae [MillerDa2005], Ellaeanthus sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Stanhopea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus sp. [GhabboMo1996]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora edulis [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002], Passiflora quadrangularis [Hinckl1963], Passiflora sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Moghad2013a]. Piperaceae: Piper sp. [MillerDa2005], Piper umbellatum [Myers1926], Potomorphe umbellata [ColonFMe1998]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Platanaceae: Phytolacca rivinoides [ColonFMe1998], Platanocephalus indicus [WilliaWa1988], Platanus [Borchs1966]. Polygalaceae: Polygala [Borchs1966]. Ranunculaceae: Clematis sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Delphinium sp. [Cohic1958], Paeonia [Borchs1966]. Rhamnaceae: Hovenia dulcis glabra [Muraka1970], Rhamnus alaternus [ChabouSc1958], Rhamnus elaternum [Bodenh1949], Rhamnus sp. [Balach1954e, MillerDa2005], Ziziphus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Amygdalus armeniaca [Bodenh1949], Amygdalus communis [Bodenh1949], Amygdalus persica [Bodenh1949], Amygdalus sp. [MillerDa2005], Armeniaca [Borchs1966], Cerasus [Borchs1966], Cliffortia polygonifolia [WilliaWa1988], Cotoneaster sp. [Merril1953], Cydonia oblonga [Muraka1970], Cydonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cydonia vulgaris [BiezanFr1939], Kerria japonica [Muraka1970], Malus formosana [Chang1972], Malus pumila [Muraka1970], Malus sylvestris [ArgyriStMo1976], Persica vulgaris [Kozarz1988], Photinia serrulata [Merril1953], Prunus amygdaloides [Hinckl1963], Prunus armeniaca [ErlerKoTu1996], Prunus avium [Muraka1970], Prunus cerasus [Foldi2000], Prunus communis [Takagi1970], Prunus domestica [ChenWo1936], Prunus laurocerasus [Bodenh1949, Kozarz1988], Prunus mume [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Prunus persica [Mamet1943a, TakahaTa1956, Takagi1970], Prunus pognostyla [Takagi1970], Prunus pseudocerasus serrulata [Muraka1970], Prunus salicina [Muraka1970], Prunus sargentii [Takagi1956], Prunus sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus subhirtella [Muraka1970], Prunus yedoensis [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Pyrus serotina [Muraka1970], Rosa [Borchs1966], Rubus [Borchs1966], Sorbus commixta [Muraka1970], Spiroea japonica [GhabboMo1996], Stranvaesia niitakayamensis [Takagi1970]. Rubiaceae: Bouvardia [Borchs1966], Cinchona sp. [MillerDa2005], Galium sp. [HodgsoHi1990], Morinda citrifolia [WilliaWa1988], Palicourea sp. [MillerDa2005], Psychotria horizontalis [MestreHaEv2011]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [Bodenh1949], Citrus bigaradia [Moghad2013a], Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988, Heu2002], Citrus reticulata [WilliaWa1988], Citrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Evodia rutaecarpa [Muraka1970], Zanthoxylum [Borchs1966], Zanthoxylum piperitum [Muraka1970]. Salicaceae: Populus alba [Muraka1970], Populus sieboldi [Muraka1970], Populus sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Salix babylonica [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Salix chaenomeloides [Muraka1970], Salix glandulosa [TakahaTa1956], Salix kinuyanagi [Muraka1970], Salix nigra [HowardOl1985], Salix sp. [Ferris1950a, MillerDa2005], Salix warburgii [Muraka1970]. Sapindaceae: Koelreuteria paniculata [BesheaTiHo1973], Nephelium [Borchs1966]. Sapotaceae: Sideroxilon marmulano [CarnerPe1986]. Saxifragaceae: Deutzia scabra [Merril1953], Ribes grossularia [ChabouSc1958], Ribes rubrum [ChenWo1936], Ribes sinanense [Muraka1970]. Scrophulariaceae: Angelonia salicariaefolia [WilliaWa1988], Buddleja sp. [HodgsoHi1990, MillerDa2005], Paulownia sp. [Balach1954e], Paulownia tomentosa [Bodenh1949, Muraka1970], Scrophularia [Borchs1966], Veronica [Borchs1966]. Simaroubaceae: Ailanthus glandulosa [Bodenh1949], Picrasma quassioides [Muraka1970]. Solanaceae: Capsicum annum [Mamet1943a], Capsicum grossum [WilliaWa1988], Capsicum sp. [Cocker1892d, WilliaWa1988, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Datura suaveolens [ColonFMe1998], Lycopersicon esculentum [WilliaWa1988], Nicotiana tabacum [WilliaWa1988], Solanum auriculatum [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966], Solanum rugosum [ColonFMe1998], Solanum sp. [MillerDa2005], Solanum uporo [WilliaWa1988], Solanum verbascifolium [WilliaWa1988]. Sterculiaceae: Firmiana plantanifolia [BesheaTiHo1973], Firmiana simplex [TakahaTa1956, Tao1999], Guazuma ulmifolia [RileyHo1894], Sterculia plantifolia [ChabouSc1958], Theobroma sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005], Thea sinensis [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]. Tiliaceae: Tilia miqueliana [Muraka1970], Triumfetta bartramia [WilliaWa1988]. Ulmaceae: Aphananthe aspera [Muraka1970], Celtis australis [Bodenh1949], Celtis sinensis japonica [Muraka1970], Trema lamarckiana [WhitmoMe1974], Trema micrantha [WhitmoMe1974], Ulmus campestris [ChabouSc1958], Ulmus sp. [Bodenh1949], Zelkova serrata [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]. Urticaceae: Boehmeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Urtica dioica [Bodenh1949]. Verbenaceae: Callicaria superba [KosztaKo1988F], Callicarpa americana [BesheaTiHo1973], Callicarpa lanata [BerlesLe1898a, DEDAC1923], Lantana sp. [MillerDa2005], Stachytarpheta dichotoma [WilliaWa1988], Stachytarpheta indica [Cohic1958, WilliaWa1988], Stachytarpheta jamaicensis [ColonFMe1998], Stachytarpheta mutabilis [WilliaWa1988], Stachytarpheta sp. [WilliaWa1988], Stachytarpheta urticaefolia [Hinckl1963], Stachytarpheta urticifolia [WilliaWa1988], Verbena bonariensis [WilliaWa1988], Verbena sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Viscaceae: Phoradendron flavescens [BesheaTiHo1973]. Vitaceae: Quinaria [Borchs1966], Vitis sp. [MillerDa2005], Vitis vinifera [Bodenh1949, Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Ghana [Nakaha1982]; Madagascar [Mamet1943a, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Madagascar.); Malawi [Lee1971]; Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, Mamet1943a, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Mauritius.); Reunion [Balach1954e, Mamet1952, GermaiMiPa2014] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Reunion.); Saint Helena [Blanch1939, Giliom1966]; Sao Tome and Principe (Principe [Giliom1966], Sao Tome [Laing1928, Giliom1966]); Seychelles [Mamet1943a]; South Africa [Cocker1896a, Brain1919, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to South Africa.); Tanzania [Lindin1910b, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Tanzania.); Zanzibar [Balach1954e, Giliom1966] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Zanzibar.); Zimbabwe [Hall1937]. Australasian: Australia [Cocker1896a, Maxwel1902, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) stated that P. pentagona was introduced to Australia.) (New South Wales [Tryon1889], Queensland [Tryon1889, Brimbl1962]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Nakaha1982]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Dumble1954, Beards1966], Ponape Island [Nakaha1982], Truk Islands [Beards1966]); Fiji [Maskel1895a, Hinckl1963]; Guam [Dumble1954]; Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1904b, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Hawaii.) (Hawaii [Heu2002] (First observed in 1997 (Heu 2001).)); Indonesia (Java [Dammer1929, Balach1954e]); New Caledonia [Cohic1958, WilliaWa1988]; Norfolk Island [WilliaWa1988]; Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan Island [Beards1966]); Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [GreveIs1983, WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Tonga [WilliaWa1988]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Canada [Wu1935]; Mexico [Wu1935]; United States of America (Alabama [Balach1954e, BesheaTiHo1973] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), California [Cocker1895x, Fernal1903b, Balach1954e, Nakaha1982] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S. Nakahara (1982) states this was eradicated in California.), Connecticut [Britto1920, Balach1954e] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Delaware [Nakaha1982] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), District of Columbia [Cocker1896a, Hartma1916, Balach1954e] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Florida [Cocker1896a, Ferris1937, Balach1954e, Dekle1965c] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Georgia [Cocker1896a, Ferris1937, Balach1954e, BesheaTiHo1973] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Indiana [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Louisiana [Balach1954e, HowardOl1985] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Maryland [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Massachusetts [Cooley1898a] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Mississippi [Herric1911, DavidsMiNa1983] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Missouri [Hollin1923, Balach1954e] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), New Jersey [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), New Mexico [DavidsMiNa1983] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), New York [Hartma1916, Balach1954e] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), North Carolina [DavidsMiNa1983] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Ohio [Sander1904a, Balach1954e] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Oregon [Nakaha1982] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Pennsylvania [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Rhode Island [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), South Carolina [DavidsMiNa1983] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Tennessee [Balach1954e, LambdiWa1980] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Texas [Ferris1937, Balach1954e, McDani1973] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), Virginia [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.), West Virginia [Balach1954e, Koszta1996] (Balchowksy (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to the U.S.)). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [RileyHo1893], Barbuda [WoodruBeSk1998]); Argentina [Autran1907, Brethe1914, DeBach1964]; Bahamas [Nakaha1982]; Barbados [Maxwel1902]; Bermuda [Balach1954e, Simmon1957] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Bermuda.); Brazil [Maxwel1902, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Brazil.) (Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Pernambuco [CarvalCa1939], Rio Grande do Sul [BiezanFr1939, CorseuSi1971], Sao Paulo [CostaL1924]); Cayman Islands [Cocker1894a]; Chile [Wu1935]; Colombia [Figuer1952, Balach1959a]; Costa Rica [Nakaha1982]; Cuba [Myers1926, MestreHaEv2011]; Dominica [Maxwel1902]; Dominican Republic [GomezM1941]; French Guiana [WoodruBeSk1998]; Grenada [Maxwel1902]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]; Guyana [Wu1935]; Honduras [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Cocker1892d, Maxwel1902, Balach1954e] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Jamaica.); Martinique [Cocker1896a]; Montserrat [WoodruBeSk1998]; Panama [Cocker1899n, Tao1999]; Peru [DeBach1964]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Maxwel1902]); Saint Croix [Wilson1923, Nakaha1983]; Saint Kitts and Nevis Islands (Saint Kitts [WoodruBeSk1998]); Saint Lucia [WoodruBeSk1998]; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Maxwel1902]; Suriname [WoodruBeSk1998]; Trinidad and Tobago (Tobago [WoodruBeSk1998], Trinidad [Cocker1894a]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983]; Uruguay [DeBach1964]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [ChenWo1936], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ChenWo1936], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Shanghai [Wu1935], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Li1991], Yunnan [Ferris1950a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [ChenWo1936, Wu2001b]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897, Maxwel1902]; India (Assam [Singh1964], Uttar Pradesh [Ali1970], West Bengal [Singh1964]). Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Nakaha1982]); Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [TakahaTa1956]; Singapore [Tao1999]; Sri Lanka [Maskel1897, Balach1954e, Ali1970] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona was introduced to Sri Lanka.); Taiwan [TakahaTa1956, Ali1970]; Vietnam [Nakaha1982]. Palaearctic: Austria [DeBach1964, KozarNa1998]; Azores [FrancoRuMa2011]; Balearic Islands [Balach1954e]; Bulgaria [KosztaKo1988F]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1984b], Gansu (=Kansu) [ChenWo1936, Tang1984b], Hebei (=Hopei) [ChenWo1936, Tang1984b], Heilongjiang (=HeilungKiang) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Tao1999], Jilin (=Kirin) [Tao1999], Liaoning [Tang1984b], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tang1984b], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tao1999], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [ChenWo1936], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984b], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tao1999], Xizang (=Tibet) [Tao1999]); Corsica [Balach1954e]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Egypt [Alfier1929, Giliom1966]; France [Vayssi1918, Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F, Foldi2002]; Georgia [Kobakh1965, Danzig1986a] (Abkhaz ASSR [Kobakh1965, Nakaha1982], Adzhar ASSR [Kobakh1965]); Germany [Schmut1959, KosztaKo1988F]; Greece [Balach1954e, ArgyriStMo1976]; Hungary [BognarVi1979]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Nakaha1982]; Italy [Barnes1930, LongoMaPe1995, MatilePe2002] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Sasaki1894, Britto1923] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona is probably native to Japan.) (Hokkaido [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona is probably native to Japan.), Honshu [Shinji1936b, Muraka1970] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona is probably native to Japan.), Kyushu [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona is probably native to Japan.), Shikoku [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970] (Balachowsky (1954e) states that P. pentagona is probably native to Japan.)); Madeira Islands [Nakaha1982]; Malta [Borg1932]; Netherlands [Tao1999]; Portugal [FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia (Adygey (=Adigei) Aut. Oblast [Balach1954e], Sakhalin Oblast [Nakaha1982]); Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [SuhJi2009]; Spain [Balach1954e]; Switzerland [Balach1954e, ManiKoSc1997]; Syria [Balach1954e]; Turkey [Bodenh1949, ErlerKoTu1996]; Ukraine [Nakaha1982]; United Kingdom (England [Giliom1966]); Yugoslavia [Balach1954e, MihajlKo1983].
BIOLOGY: There are two separate generations per year in northern Switzerland. The flight of the males of the first generation starts in the middle or end of June and continues until the middle or end of July. The flight of the second generation lasts from the middle or end of August to the end of September or early October. Due to adverse climatic conditions the flight of the second generation is often poor (Mani et al., 1997). Fecundity studies by Souissi & Panis (1999). Matile (1978) records this species at an altitude of 600m. Kyparissoudas (1992) found that there were three flight periods for the males of this species in northern Greece and these periods corresponded with the emergence periods of the crawlers. The white peach scale is easy to rear on potatoes (Dustan 1953). As a result much work has been done on its biology. Bennett and Brown (1958) reported that in Trinidad and Bermuda, females deposited all their eggs in 8 9 days. Individual eggs hatched in 3 4 days and female crawlers were more active than male crawlers. Both sexes molted to second instars in 7 8 days. Females completed the final molt to the third instar in 19 20 days. Males molted to third instars in 12 days and the fifth instars (adults) appeared in 19 22 days. Males emerged in late afternoon and immediately began to inseminate females. Fertilization occurred while the eggs were in the egg follicles. Oviposition began 14 16 days after mating. A generation was completed in 36 40 days during the summer at about 25oC average temperature and in 80 90 days during the winter. Van Duyn and Murphey (1971) reported a generation time from 49 to 51 days in the lab at 21oC and 65% RH on potatoes. Ball (1980) found a minimum generation time of 40.4 days at 26.4oC and 110.8 days at 13.3oC in the lab on potatoes. Bennett and Brown (1958) reported that mating was required for reproduction. They also noted that the eggs and crawlers exhibited sexual dimorphism by color differences; eggs containing female embryos were coral when laid while male embryo containing eggs were pinkish white. This color difference persisted up to the end of the first instar. They also noted dichronism; eggs containing females were laid first, and male containing eggs were laid last. They pointed out that the latter trait was a valuable tool because potatoes could be infested exclusively with either female or male crawlers. Monti (1955) recorded orange female eggs and white male eggs in Italy, and Bedford (personal communication in Bennett and Brown 1958) also saw 2 color groups of eggs in South Africa. Brown and Bennett (1957) reported P. pentagona to be a haplodiploid species with 16 chromosomes in the female and 8 in the male. The male haploidy resulted from chromosome elimination during early embryogeny. They found the sex ratio to be close to 1:1, but this varied widely, with some individual females producing nearly all males or females. They also found this to be true when old virgins were mated. Brown (1960) noted an instance of tetraploidy in this species. Nelson Rees (1960) reported that exposure of egg bearing females to X rays stimulated higher male production. Morere and Seuge (1976) found reduced fecundity in females reared on previously irradiated potato tubers and reduction was dosage dependent. Tremblay (1969) discovered that the symbionts (mycetocytes) are carried by maternal cells which penetrate the developing oocytes in the ovary. The number of white peach scale generations in the U.S. has been reported to be 4 in the central Florida (Kuitert 1967), 3.5 to 4 in northern Florida (Van Duyn and Murphey 1971), 3 in North Carolina (Smith 1969), 3 in Virginia (Bobb et al 1973), and the authors have observed 3 in Maryland. We have not reported literature dealing with P. pentagona north of Maryland since the species studied was probably P. prunicola (Maskell) (white prunicola scale). Reported generation times in other countries were 4 5 in Bermuda (Bennett and Brown 1958), 3 in the Mediterranean areas of France and Italy (Bénassy 1958, Monti 1955, Battaglia et al. 1994), 3 in Turkey (Bodenheimer 1953), 4 in Turkey (Erkilic and Uygun 1998), 3 in Russia (Kunincka 1970), 3 in Japan (Murakami 1970), 3 in Romania (Brailoiu Tanase 1998). Crawler appearance times in the U.S. were reported as follows: Central Florida (Kuitert 1967) - first generation about mid-February, second generation about mid-May, third generation about mid-July, fourth generation about early October; North Carolina (Smith 1969)- first generation early May, second generation late July, third generation late August; Virginia (Bobb et al. 1973) - first generation early May, second generation early August, third generation early September; central Maryland 1981, Davidson, personal observation) - first generation mid-May, second generation early July, third generation late August. Murakami (1970) summarized 5 papers treating this pest in Japan as follows: Overwintering females began to enlarge in mid-February and their ovaries matured in April. From April to mid-May 100 to 150 eggs were deposited by each female on mulberry with about 50 eggs less per female on tea plants. First generation crawlers appeared in early May, those of the second generation in late July, and those of the third generation from September to October. Males of the last generation appeared in early November to mate with the females which overwintered. Better results were obtained rearing this pest on squash than on potato. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). Kozár, Mani, and Hope (2009) found that the maximum emergence of the males occurred at 10:00-14:00 hours and that the daily rhythm of flight was determined mainly by the light intensity. On days with sunshine, the maximum flight of males occurred between 16:00 and 20:00 hours and on days with clouds, the flight already started at 10:00 hours. Flight was inhibited by wind speeds higher than 2 m/sec.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Balachowsky (1954e) and Williams & Watson (1988). Tippins & Howell (1983) describe the first instar. Several publications have listed this species from New Zealand including Fernald (1903), Wu (1935), and Balachowsky (1954e). These apparently all originated from the erroneous record given by Fernald (1903) where she apparently assumed the Maskell's papers listed only New Zealand records when he actually wrote that P. pentagona was in Australia (Charles and Henderson, 2002).
STRUCTURE: Female scale opaque, white, nearly circular, convex; exuviae yellow near margin. Male scale white, faintly tricarinate. Adult female with large median lobes, slightly separated at base, both margins free and deeply and coarsely notched. 5 large groups of circumgenital gland-orifices, varying in number, but groups well separated (Britton, 1923).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Chemical control of this pest is only necessary when the attack is severe (Mani et al., 1997). Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. This species is a serious pest of peach and flowering cherry trees in southeastern United States (Bobb et al., 1973) and of pear in Taiwan (Chang, 1972). Beardsley and González (1975) listed white peach scale as one of the 43 principal armored scale pests of the world. Dekle (1977) reported it as an economic pest in Florida. Johnson and Lyon (1976) noted that this scale was very destructive to ornamental trees and shrubs such as those in the following genera: Catalpa, Diospyros, Hibiscus, Ligustrum, Prunus, and Syringa. They list Kwansan cherry (Prunus serrulata) as a favorite host which is highly susceptible to damage by this pest. This observation probably pertains to white prunicola scale. They also note it as a serious stone fruit pest in the Carolinas and Virginia. Snapp (1954) reported white peach scale to be as injurious to peach trees as San Jose scale. Bertels (1956) recorded it as a pest of great economic importance in Brazil on Prunus and Pyrus. Milaire (1962) claimed that white peach scale was fatal to peaches in an area on the Mediterranean coast and adjacent areas. Vashadze (1955) reported it to be highly injurious to Japanese quince, decorative cherry, Cerasus avium and mulberry along the Black Sea Coast of western Georgia, SSR. Yasumatsu and Watanabe (1965) list it in a parasite predator catalogue of injurious insects in Japan. In Bermuda it nearly eradicated oleander (Simmonds 1958). The white peach scale has been reduced to subeconomic levels in most of South America and Europe, principally as a result of the introduced parasite Encarsia berlesei. In Bermuda control has been sustained by Aphytis diaspidis and Aspidiotiphagus spp. A detailed study of the life history, host plants and natural enemies of white peach scale is presented by Hanks and Denno (1993a). They also present additional ecological information on this species in a series of other papers (Hanks and Denno 1993b, 1993c, 1994). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).The wasp, Encarsia diaspidicola may be an effective biocontrol according to laboratory tests reported by Wood, 2009.
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Hodgson & Lagowska 2011: 14-15 (female) [Key to adult female Pseudaulacaspis sp. known from Fiji.]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult female)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 123 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis of Puerto Rico]; Kosztarab 1996: 566 (female) [Key to Northeastern North American species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Danzig 1993: 332 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Danzig 1988: 723 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Williams & Watson 1988: 220 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 63 (female) [Key to Pseudaulacaspis of Louisiana]; Tippins & Howell 1983: 199 (first instar) [Key to first instars of North American species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Wang 1982c: 90 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 844 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961a: 92 [Key to Japanese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Takagi 1956: 113 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Chou 1949: 14 (female) [as Aulacaspis pentagona; Key to the genera of Aulacaspis in China]; Zimmerman 1948: 384 (female) [Key to Hawaiian species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Kuwana 1926: 9 (female) [as Sasakiaspis pentagona; Key to species of Sasakiaspis from Japan]; Britton 1923: 369 (female) [as Aulacaspis pentagona; Key to species of Aulacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 315 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis pentagona; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1937 [taxonomy: 543]; AbouEl2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 187]; Alfier1929 [distribution, host: 8a]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Argyri1977 [biological control, distribution: 361]; ArgyriKa1977 [biological control, distribution: 339]; ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 27]; Arnett1985 [economic importance, taxonomy: 242]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 429]; Auchin1913 [distribution, host: 9]; Autran1907 [distribution, host: 152, 168]; Azim1961 [biological control, distribution: 106]; Bachma1953 [distribution, taxonomy: 176]; Balach1928b [taxonomy: 173]; Balach1946 [distribution: 216]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 236-240]; Balach1957c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; Balach1959a [distribution, host: 363]; Balduf1935 [biological control, distribution: 152]; Ballou1923 [distribution, host: 85]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 13]; Ballou1934 [distribution, host: 48, 52, 53]; Ballou1936a [distribution, host: 9]; Ballou1945 [distribution, host: 91]; Barnes1930 [biological control, distribution: 324, 328]; BassinBe1973 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 160-165]; BattagLeMa1994 [distribution, host: 77-80]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 557]; Beatty1944 [distribution, host: 127]; Benass1959b [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host: 867-872]; Benass1959b [biological control, chemical control]; BenassBiEi1983 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host: 28-30]; BenassBiMi1964b [chemical control: 27]; BennetBr1958 [life history, physiology: 317-324]; BerlesLe1898a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 121-122]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 13]; BianchGuMa1995 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration: 47-50]; BianchPaGu1994 [description, taxonomy: 73, 74, 75]; BiezanFr1939 [distribution, host: 11]; BiezanSe1939 [distribution, host: 7]; Blanch1939 [distribution, host: 80, 167, 169]; BobbWePo1973 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 1290-1292]; Bodenh1930 [distribution, host: 18]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 278]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104-107]; Bodenh1953 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 11-12]; BoedigSt1930 [host: 52]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 18]; Bolle1914 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 198-213]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 99, 118]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 224]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Borchs1960b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 216, 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 175-177, 377]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 13]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226-228]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 142]; BrandtBo1948 [distribution, host: 3]; Brethe1914 [biological control, distribution: 1-16]; Brick1912 [distribution, host: 6]; Brimbl1962 [distribution, host: 224]; Britto1920 [distribution: 65]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 369]; BrittoZa1927a [distribution, host: 155, 159-160]; BrittoZa1929a [distribution: 691]; Brown1965 [physiology: 231, 278]; Brun1992a [description, economic importance, life history: 49-50]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 10]; Bryan1915 [distribution, host: 391]; Buchne1965 [taxonomy: 240]; Bytins1966 [distribution: 29]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46-47]; Carnes1907 [distribution: 160]; CarvalCa1939 [distribution, host: 31]; Castel1971 [distribution, host: 35]; ChabouSc1958 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 170-178]; Chang1972 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 81-86]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, taxonomy: 590,610]; Charmo1899 [taxonomy: 28]; Chazea1981 [biological control: 12, 14]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 104]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 95]; Chiesa1937 [distribution, host: 167]; Chiesa1938 [economic importance: 2, 114]; Chiesa1939 [economic importance: 6, 7, 36]; Chou1949 [distribution: 2]; Chou1982 [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142-146]; Chou1986 [illustration: 442, 449]; Chou1986 [illustration: 558-559]; Chu1935 [distribution, host, life history: 158]; CintiCrVi1993 [chemical control, distribution, illustration: 216-217]; Clause1940 [taxonomy: 157, 570]; Cocker1892d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 137]; Cocker1892e [distribution, host: 5]; Cocker1894a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Cocker1895x [distribution, host: 260]; Cocker1896a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host: 257-258]; Cocker1897i [description, distribution: 25]; Cocker1898bb [distribution, host: 95]; Cocker1899j [taxonomy: 275]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 28]; Cocker1901l [distribution, host, taxonomy: 225]; Cocker1902d [distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Cocker1902p [distribution: 257]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 5, 20, 26]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 18, 25, 32, 35]; Cooley1898a [distribution, host: 232]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; CostaL1921 [taxonomy: 38, 40]; CostaL1924 [distribution: 135]; CostaL1930a [distribution, host: 88]; Craw1896 [economic importance: 39]; Craw1906 [distribution, host: 139]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Dammer1929 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 253]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 844]; Danzig1972 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 220]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 318]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 376-377]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 723]; Danzig1993 [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332-334]; DarvasAbCa1994 [chemical control: 52, 53]; DarvasZs1986 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host: 341-346]; DavidsMiNa1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 757-759]; DeBach1964 [biological control, distribution, host: 674, 680, 691]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 145, 177]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 5, 13]; DeGreg1916 [taxonomy: 6]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 37, 41, 42]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 120]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 138]; DeSant1941 [biological control, distribution: 12]; DeSant1941a [biological control, distribution: 122]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 246, 312, 320, 330-3]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 121]; DijouxKr1999 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 113-118]; Ding2003a [biological control: 264-265]; Dingle1924 [taxonomy: 368]; Dinthe1950 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host: 49-50]; Dinthe1960 [distribution, economic importance, host: 49-50]; DodgeRi1943 [distribution, host: 502, 505]; Dozier1933 [biological control: 93]; DumasVa1950 [biological control: 235]; Dumble1954 [distribution: 122, 135]; Dunham1954 [distribution: 67]; Dustan1953 [distribution, host: 1-7]; Efimof1937 [distribution, economic importance: 38, 72]; Ehrhor1907 [distribution, host: 25]; Ellis1924 [economic importance: 151]; ElMinsElHa1974a [distribution, host: 265]; ErkiliUy2001 [distribution, host, life history: 389]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; Essig1926 [distribution, economic importance, host: 309, 828]; Essig1931 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 340, 342, 349, 907]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 247]; FainRi1998; Fehn1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1-5]; Fehn1980 [chemical control, distribution, host: 1-5]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 199]; FeltRa1932 [distribution, host: 192, 369]; Fennah1947 [distribution: 63]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 234-235]; Fernan1973 [biological control: 137]; Ferris1921a [distribution, host: 214]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-9, SI-109]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 40, 49]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; Ferris1950a [distribution, host: 76]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 209]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 22]; Flachs1931 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 89, 105, 197, 20]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 15]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 84]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2002 [distribution: 247]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; FolletGa1999 [biological control, distribution: 506]; Fonsec1934a [distribution, host: 265]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; Fraser1924 [distribution, taxonomy: 439, 743]; French1942 [distribution, host: 8]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 880]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host: 93]; Fuller1907 [taxonomy: 1035]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 18, 31, 61]; Gahan1925 [biological control, distribution, host: 14]; Gaprin1950 [taxonomy: 93, 249]; Garcia1922 [biological control, distribution: 197]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 52, 53, 66, 70, 73,]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Gerson1970 [biological control, economic importance: 990]; GersonSc1981 [biological control, economic importance: 201]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 356]; Ghauri1962 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 168-173, 213]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Gill1997 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 239, 241]; GomesC1940 [chemical control, distribution, host: 349]; GomesC1941 [distribution, host: 627]; GomesC1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 126-128]; GomesCRe1947 [distribution, host: 227]; GomezM1941 [distribution, host: 126]; Gordon1978 [biological control, distribution: 206]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 26]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; GrandpCh1899 [distribution, host: 7, 8]; Greath1989 [biological control: 32]; Green1896 [distribution, host: 4]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86-87]; Green1915a [distribution, host: 183]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 313]; GreenLa1921 [distribution, host: 128]; Greenw1940 [distribution, host: 216]; GreveIs1983 [distribution, host: 90]; GullanCo1986 [chemistry: 632]; GuoSh2003 [chemical control: 45-46]; Gurkan1982 [biological control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 179-197]; GuyotQu1987 [biological control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 583-592]; GuyotQu1987 [ecology, biological control, life history: 593-592]; Habibi1981 [biological control: 65]; Hagen1974 [biological control, distribution: 30, 34]; HagenFr1973 [biological control, distribution: 451, 453, 464]; Halber2000 [distribution, host: 4]; Hall1922 [distribution, host: 27]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 44, 58]; Hall1925 [distribution, host: 19]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 30, 37, 39, 40, 41]; Hall1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 120]; Hall1946a [distribution: 530]; HanksDe1993 [life history, natural enemies, ecology: 1081-1091]; HanksDe1993a [life history, host, distribution, natural enemies: 79-98]; HanksDe1994 [ecology, life history: 2301-2310]; Hargre1948 [distribution, host: 36]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 103]; Haywar1942 [distribution, host: 48]; HegyiMe2002 [economic importance: 355]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 519-520]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 22]; Herric1920 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66]; Herric1925 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 137, 138]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 189-190]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 52]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 21, 59]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, chemical control, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 74]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18, 67]; Houser1918 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Howard1912 [biological control, distribution, host: 325-328]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-64]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 579]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; HuangLiWe2003 [biological control: 28-30]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860, 1880, 1924]; Huergo1908 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-16]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 202]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 201]; Jeszen1971 [distribution, host: 424-427]; Jiang1985 [biological control, distribution, host: 19-20]; Jones1917 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9-10]; Kalsho1981 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 170-172]; Kartma1946 [biological control: 814]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42-43]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 153]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 276-277]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 25]; Kirkal1904 [distribution, host: 229]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Kobakh1965 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 324]; Komosi1974 [physiology: 345]; Koning1908 [distribution, taxonomy: 4]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-66]; Koszta1956a [taxonomy: 393]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 566, 567, 569-572]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 5, 143, 166]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, life history, taxonomy: 365-366]; Kozar1976a [distribution, host: 36]; Kozar1979a [distribution, host: 135]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarDa1986 [distribution, ecology: 214]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo1981 [distribution, host: 214, 218, 220]; KozarKo2004a [ecology: 19-24]; KozarKoAk1979 [distribution, host: 537-539]; KozarKoSa2002 [catalogue, distribution: 39]; KozarMaCr1997 [distribution, host, life history: 43-49]; KozarMaHi2009 [behaviour: 185-191]; KozarNa1998 [distribution, host: 56]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 74]; KozarSaSz2009 [catalogue, distribution: 436]; KozarSz2005 [distribution, ecology: 208-216]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KozarYaKo1982 [distribution, host: 334, 335]; Kozarz1988 [description, distribution, life history, taxonomy: 257-265]; KozarzMi1983 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60-72]; KreiteAuGe2006 [distribution, economic importance, host: 143]; KreiteDiDo2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 121-126]; KreiteMaDi1998 [taxonomy: 32]; KreitePaTo1999 [description, distribution, physiology: 33-36]; KreiteThCl2002 [biological control: 222]; Kuninc1970 [description, distribution, host: 47]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8, 9-11]; Kuwana1927 [distribution: 72]; Kypari1992 [life history: 21]; Kypari1992 [life history]; Laing1928 [distribution, host: 215]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Larter1937 [distribution: 72]; Lee1971 [distribution, host: 42]; Leonar1908 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-21]; Leonar1908b [taxonomy: 1]; Leonar1918 [distribution: 211]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-207]; Leonar1932 [distribution, host: 135]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 417]; LePell1973 [distribution, economic importance: 123]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43]; Li1991 [biological control, distribution: 143]; LiMa1935 [distribution, host: 265]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 191]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host: 217]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 60, 75, 80]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 155]; Lindin1921 [taxonomy: 432]; Lindin1921a [taxonomy: 12]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 124]; Lindin1932c [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 130]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 372]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 353]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 78]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 148]; Lounsb1906 [distribution: 83]; Lounsb1914 [distribution, host: 6, 7, 18]; Lounsb1922 [distribution, host: 2]; Luck1981 [biological control: 159]; Lugare1982 [pp. 31-34]; Lupo1938 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 123, 152-157]; Lupo1957a [taxonomy: 427]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 315, 399]; MacGow1982 [distribution, host: 13]; Malump2011a [economic importance, host, illustration: 48-49]; Malump2011a [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 55-57]; Malump2012b [distribution: 211]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, host: 33,41,42]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 49,54]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 167]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; Mamet1950 [distribution: 18]; Mamet1952 [distribution, host: 172]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 21]; Mamet1956 [distribution, host: 138]; Mamet1957 [distribution, host: 369, 377]; Mamet1959 [distribution, host: 126]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 385]; Mani1938 [biological control, distribution: 119]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 61]; ManiKoSc1997 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 399-408]; Maranh1946 [taxonomy: 177]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; Martor1945 [distribution, host: 404]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 35, 43, 58, 135, 163]; Maskel1895a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 40]; Maskel1897 [distribution, taxonomy: 299]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; Maskel1898 [taxonomy: 228]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 249-250, 298, 301, 3]; Maxwel1923 [taxonomy: 286]; MazzonCr1999 [behaviour, distribution, economic importance, host: 101-106]; McCall1921 [economic importance: 9]; McCall1922 [chemical controll, distribution, taxonomy: 7]; McComb1986 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 71]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 3]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 393-394]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 153-155]; McLaugAs1977 [ecology, life history: 209]; Melis1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15, 96]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-77]; MerrilCh1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 232]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 13]; Middle1931 [taxonomy: 52]; MihajlKo1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 296-299]; Miller1989 [economic importance, life history: 201]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 360]; MillerGiWi1984 [taxonomy: 704]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 348]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 31]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 49]; Monaco1981 [economic importance, biological control: 29]; Monte1930 [distribution, host: 11]; Monter1985 [biological control, economic importance: 10]; Moreir1921a [distribution, host: 124]; Moreir1929a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 143, 218]; Morley1909 [biological control: 257]; Morris1924 [taxonomy: 232]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; MoutiaMa1946 [biological control: 460]; Muraka1970 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 94-95]; Myers1926 [p. 107]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 9, 15]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 36]; Nakaya1912 [biological control: 934]; Nalepa1987 [biological control: 55-56]; Newell1921 [distribution, host: 53, 54, 55, 63]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168, 173-176]; Nicola1988 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194-206]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 199, 254, 258, 260,]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Oda1963 [distribution, host, life history: 41-46]; OuvrarKoGu2013 [economic importance: 3]; Paik1958 [taxonomy: 32]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 383, 386-389]; Paik1982 [taxonomy: 27, 50]; Palouk1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 353-356]; Paoli1915 [biological control, distribution: 256]; Passon1908 [distribution, host: 824, 884]; Patoui1921 [taxonomy: 39]; PedataGa2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 53-59]; Peleg1982 [chemical control: 47-48]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 477,480,481,488,504]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 317]; PicartMa2000 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 16, 18]; Pirone1941 [taxonomy: 297]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Poutie1919 [biological control: 334-335]; PriesnHo1940 [biological control, distribution: 63]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 166]; Priore1965 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134]; PruthiBa1960 [chemical control, distribution, host, life history: 89]; Quayle1938a [distribution, host: 294, 434]; RanLiZh1998 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 593-596]; RaoCh1950 [distribution, taxonomy: 25, 28]; Rauled2011 [biological control: 51-58]; Reh1904 [distribution, host: 31-32]; Reyne1961 [distribution, host: 126]; Reyne1964 [distribution, host: 97, 100]; RhoadeKoRa1985 [distribution, host: 545-553]; RileyHo1893 [distribution, host: 51]; RileyHo1894 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 287-295]; RipkaRe1990 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-11]; Ronna1928 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 159]; Ronna1933 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30, 32, 51, 52, 53]; Rosen1973 [biological control, distribution: 48]; RosenDe1978 [biological control, distribution: 119-123]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 763]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; RossPeSh2010 [physiology: 14]; Ruhl1930 [taxonomy: 20, 21]; Russo1927 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 102, 105, 237]; Russo1951 [biological control, distribution: 87]; Ruther1914a [distribution, host: 319]; Sakai1935 [distribution, host: 299]; Salmon1933 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 468]; Samway1984 [biological control: 99]; Sander1904a [distribution, host: 53]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39, 43]; SankarNaNa1984 [biological control, distribution: 410]; Sasaki1894 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 107-124]; SchildSc1928 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246, 248, 267, 268]; Schmid1939 [distribution, host: 37, 88, 148]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-203]; SchvesMiGi1955 [biological control, description, distribution, host: 407-419]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; Seabra1921 [distribution, host: 86, 99]; Seabra1922 [distribution, host: 10, 114, 118]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 12]; Seuge1970 [life history: 1258-1260]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; ShinanTeIm1976 [distribution, host, life history: 47-52]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 95]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 179]; Silves1915c [biological control: 655]; Simmon1957 [biological control, distribution, host: 5]; Simmon1958 [distribution, host: 478]; Simmon1958a [biological control, distribution, host: 601]; Simmon1958b [distribution, host: 478]; Simmon1969 [biological control, distribution, host: 21, 23, 24]; Singh1964 [distribution, host: 218]; Siraiw1939 [distribution, host: 70]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; Smirno1950a [biological control, economic importance: 190]; SouissPa1999 [distribution, life history, taxonomy: 87-92]; Starne1897 [distribution, host: 25]; Stimme1982 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 128-133]; Stoetz1976 [taxonomy: 323]; StoetzDa1974 [physiology: 138]; Streri1924 [taxonomy: 11]; Strick1947 [taxonomy: 498]; Strong1922 [taxonomy: 776]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Sweetm1936 [biological control: 39, 351, 355, 276, 2]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 56]; Takagi1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 113-114]; Takagi1961a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 88, 92]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 42-43]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 40]; TakagiRo1981 [biological control, distribution: 319]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 71, 73]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Takeda2004 [life history: 15-26]; Tamaki1970 [taxonomy: 107]; TamakiKa1969 [taxonomy]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178-179]; Tang1984b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129-130]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; Targio1886 [taxonomy: 1]; TargioFr1890 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Tatara1999 [chemical control, host, life history: 155-161]; Theron1958 [taxonomy: 2, 15-17, 37-41, 52]; Tikhon1966 [economic importance, host: 93]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 11]; TippinHo1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 195-197]; Tremat1994 [illustration, taxonomy: 75]; Trembl1958a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215-246]; Trembl1972 [taxonomy: 303]; TremblCa1972 [physiology: 429]; TremblPo2001 [illustration, physiology, structure: 157-163]; TrenchTrTo2010 [distribution, host: 118]; Tryon1889 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, taxonomy: 89-92]; Tsalev1972 [biological control, distribution: 87]; Tudor1982 [biological control, host: 89]; UgolinBr1977 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 11-12]; UlgentErKa2008 [host: 253-264]; UygunEl1998 [biological control, distribution, host: 153-162]; Vacant1985a [taxonomy: 749]; VanDuyMu1971 [chemical control, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 91-95]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 74-75]; Vayssi1918 [biological control, distribution, host: 242-243]; Vayssi1923a [taxonomy: 419]; Viggia1987 [biological control: 135]; Vinson1936 [biological control: 26]; Wang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196-198]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 90, 91-92]; WangZh1991 [taxonomy: 42]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Weber1933 [distribution, host: 569, 659]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 425, 426]; WhitmoMe1974 [distribution, host, illustration: 276-278]; Whitne1912 [distribution, host: 737-739]; Wille1925 [distribution: 419]; Wille1940 [distribution, host: 204, 374]; Wille1941 [distribution, host: 223]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 96]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220, 231-235]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72-73]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 61]; Wilson1921 [distribution: 24]; Wilson1922 [distribution, host: 14, 15, 17]; Wilson1923 [distribution, host: 9]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Wolcot1933 [distribution, host: 496]; Wolcot1958 [biological control, distribution: 512]; Wolcot1960 [biological control: 170]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 34, 78]; Wood2009 [biological control: 10-11]; WoodruBeSk1998 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 205-206]; Wu2001b [distribution: 257]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 119-125]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 245]; Yasnos1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 494, 500]; Yasuda1981a [biological control, distribution, host: 236-243]; Yasuda1983 [distribution, host, life history: 9-12]; YonceJa1974 [distribution, host, life history: 213-216]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 35, 192]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 429-430]; ZakOga1967 [distribution, host: 215]; ZhangHu1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 178-179]; ZhangWaCh1993 [biological control, distribution: 173]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 384].
Pseudaulacaspis poloosta (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis poloosta Ferris, 1953: 64-65. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, near Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Eurya nitida, 1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis poloosta; Takagi, 1985: 48. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum tobira [Hua2000], Pittosporum yunnanensis [Ferris1953]. Theaceae: Eurya japonica [Hua2000], Eurya nitida [Ferris1953].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Hua2000], Yunnan [Ferris1956]).
BIOLOGY: Pseudaulacaspis poloosta was often found associated with members of the fungus genus Septobasidium (Ferris, 1953).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1953).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis poloosta; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Ferris 1953: 62 (female) [as Phenacaspis poloosta; Keys to species from the vicinity of Kunming].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Balach1954e [distribution, host: 354]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 125]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 66, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142, 149]; Chou1986 [illustration: 566]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62, 64]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 247].
Pseudaulacaspis polygoni (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis polygoni Green, 1899a: 134-135. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Polygonum chinensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus polygoni; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis polygoni; Ferris, 1956: 72. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis polygona; Ali, 1969a: 70. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis polygoni; Takagi, 1985: 48. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Polygonaceae: Polygonum chinensis [Green1899a, Ferris1956], Polygonum glabrum [Sankar1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a, Ali1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, more or less tinged with reddish brown from adherent particles of the membranous stipules of the plant, beneath which the scales are often concealed. Exuviae pale straw colored. Ventral scale remaining attached to host, 2.0-3.0 mm long. Male scale slightly widened behind. Carinae smooth and not very prominent, 1.25 mm long. Adult female yellow, deepening to reddish orange during gestation. Median area broadest. Median lobes large and prominent, bluntly conical. Adult male bright red (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 326 (female) [as Chionaspis polygoni; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis polygoni; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 125]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 56]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 134-135]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 317]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 326]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 34]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 48]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 75].
Pseudaulacaspis ponticula Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis ponticula Williams & Watson, 1988: 235. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Morobe, Buso, on fern, 13/10/1979, by J.H. Martin. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Adult female on slide elongate-oval, widest at about mesothorax; 0.95 mm long; head gently rounded to flat; body membranous except for sclerotized pygidium, median areas of pygidium heavily sclerotized. Pygidium with median lobes diverging, recessed into apex, forming a notch; each lobe with inner margins longer than outer margins, notched a few times and tending to be pointed apically; the ventral paraphyses well developed and divergent (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis ponticula should be easily distinguishable from other species of Pseudaulacaspis in the southern Pacific area in lacking perivulvar pores. In this respect it resembles Ledaspis atalantiae, but this species has the head and thorax sclerotized, whereas in P. ponticula it is membranous (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 220 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220, 234-235].
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola prunicola (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis prunicola Maskell, 1895b: 49. Type data: UNITED STATES: Hawaii, on "Japanese plum," by Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Diaspis amygdali rubra Maskell, 1898: 228. Type data: JAPAN: on Orixa japonica, by Mr. Koebele. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Davidson et al., 1983: 757. Notes: Maskell's 1898 type series contained two species. The material from Ceylon are misidentifications of Pseudaulacaspis barberi. The material from Japan is a junior synonym of P. prunicola (Davidson et al., 1983).
Diaspis auranticolor Cockerell, 1899i: 106-107. Type data: JAPAN: quarantined in San Francisco, on Osmanthus illicifolia, 03/02/1899, by A. Craw. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Kawai, 1980: 276.
Howardia prunicola; Kirkaldy, 1902: 112. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis auranticolor; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis pentagona auranticolor; Fernald, 1903b: 235. Change of status.
Aulacaspis pentagona rubra; Fernald, 1903b: 235. Change of combination.
Diaspis amygdali theae; Fernald, 1903b: 235. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona auranticolor; MacGillivray, 1921: 315. Change of combination.
Diaspis rubra; Scott, 1952: 35. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis auranticolor; Scott, 1952: 35. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: white prunicola scale [DavidsMiNa1983].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Nerium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Alnus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bignoniaceae: Catalpa sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Cucurbitaceae: Cucurbita sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ericaceae: Rhododendron sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Croton sp. [MillerDa2005]. Garryaceae: Aucuba sp. [MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Maskel1897a]. Oleaceae: Forsythia sp. [MillerDa2005], Fraxinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum sp. [DavidsMiNa1983, MillerDa2005], Osmanthus aquifolium [Cocker1899i], Osmanthus illicifolia [Fernal1903b], Osmanthus sp. [MillerDa2005], Syringa sp. [DavidsMiNa1983, MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Malus sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus serrulata [DavidsMiNa1983], Prunus sp. [DavidsMiNa1983, MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Orixa japonica [Maskel1898]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [MillerDa2005], Salix sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Maskel1895b] (This species has not been reported in Hawaii since its original collection (Fullaway, 1932).). Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [DavidsMiNa1983], California [Fernal1903b, DavidsMiNa1983], Connecticut [DavidsMiNa1983], District of Columbia [DavidsMiNa1983], Florida [DavidsMiNa1983], Louisiana [DavidsMiNa1983], Maryland [DavidsMiNa1983], Massachusetts [DavidsMiNa1983], Mississippi [DavidsMiNa1983], New Jersey [DavidsMiNa1983], New York [DavidsMiNa1983], North Carolina [DavidsMiNa1983], Ohio [DavidsMiNa1983], Oregon [DavidsMiNa1983], Pennsylvania [DavidsMiNa1983], Rhode Island [DavidsMiNa1983], Virginia [DavidsMiNa1983], West Virginia [DavidsMiNa1983]). Oriental: Taiwan [DavidsMiNa1983]. Palaearctic: China [DavidsMiNa1983]; Japan [Cocker1899i]; South Korea [DavidsMiNa1983].
BIOLOGY: This species has 3 generations per year (Davidson et al., 1983).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Davidson et al. (1983).
STRUCTURE: Female scale whitish, very broadly pyriform, margin widening so directly from the 1st exuviae that the whole seems almost elliptical or even subcircular. The white secretion is easily rubbed off and the yellow or yellowish-brown exuviae are then exposed (Maskell, 1895b). Adult female with pygidium with 3rd space usually having 2 or more gland spines; 2nd, 3rd and 4th spaces usually have simple gland spines only; there are 0-15 small macroducts on each side of the metathorax and abdominal segment 1; there are 38-86 large macroducts on each side of the body; there are 35-99 perivulvar pores on each side of the pygidium. Eggs are light salmon colored (Davidson et al., 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola theae was incorrectly considered a junior synonym of Pinnaspis theae Maskell by Borchsenius (1966). Due to this confusion, citations of either name could be incorrect and refer to the other species. Because Maskell (1898) had two species in his type series, it is important that a lectotype be designated. To preserve taxonomic stability, we feel that this lectotype should be designated from material from Japan, which is conspecific with P. prunicola prunicola. Type slides from Ceylon are misidentifications of P. barberi.
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Danzig 1993: 332 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 315 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis pentagona auranticolor; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 25]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997]; Barlow1897 [taxonomy: 60]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174, 176]; Carnes1907 [host: 160]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1898r [taxonomy: 240]; Cocker1899i [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 106-107]; Cocker1901l [taxonomy: 225]; Cocker1902d [distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Cooley1898a [distribution, host: 232]; DavidsMiNa1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 757-759]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 235]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 296]; Fullaw1932 [distribution: 93]; Green1908a [taxonomy: 37]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 275-276]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, host: 112]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1926 [taxonomy: 14]; Leonar1901a [taxonomy: 559-560]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 315]; Maskel1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 242]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 364]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 48]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 13].
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola theae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis prunicola theae Maskell, 1896b: 389-390. Type data: INDIA: Northern India (no locality mentioned) on Thea sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 44. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype slide bears original label "Chionaspis/prunicola/var. theae/adult female/1895 W.M.M." and new label "LECTOTYPE/Chionaspis/prunicola/theae/Maskell, 1896/ design. Deitz & Tocker 1979/ ENTOMOLOGY DIVISION D.S.I.R. NZ."
Aulacaspis pentagona theae; Fernald, 1903b: 235. Change of combination and rank.
Trichomytilus theae; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination and rank.
Pseudaulacaspis theae; Ali, 1970: 25. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola theae; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 44. Change of status.
HOST: Theaceae: Thea sp. [Maskel1896b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Maskel1896b].
BIOLOGY: White prunicola scale long has been confused with white peach scale, Pseudaulacaspis pentagona. Most published biologies probably deal with white peach scale since they usually report work done in warm areas of the world on hosts other than Prunus. White prunicola scale prefers a north temperate climate. Stimmel (1982) studied the seasonal history of P. prunicola on Prunus serrulata Lindl. (Japanese flowering cherry) in northeastern Pennsylvania. We have examined voucher specimens from his study. To our knowledge this is the only published life history of this. He found that the scale was bivoltine with mated adult females as the overwintering stage. In each generation of 1981, oviposition began May 15 and July 22, females produced an average of 27.2 and 78 eggs, crawlers first appeared May 20 and July 28, and adults first appeared July 8 and September 3. We observed the species in College Park, Maryland in 1981, on Prunus serrulata where it had 3 generations each year. First generation crawlers were present in early May; these became adults in early June and egg laying began the last week of June. Second generation crawlers were present in early July. Adults were seen the first week of August. Egg laying began in mid-August and the first crawlers of the third generation were found in late August. Only mated adult females overwintered. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
STRUCTURE: Maskell (1896b) separated P. prunicola theae with the female scale more elongate and the anterior abdominal margin has fewer spines, but the terminal lobes and serrations are identical to P. prunicola.
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) erroneously treated Pseudaulacaspis prunicola theae as a junior synonym of Pinnaspis theae (Maskell, 1891). Fletcher (1919) erroneously considered Chionaspis manni (=Pseudaulacaspis manni to be synonymous with Chionaspis prunicola var. theae (=P. prunicola theae).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: White prunicola scale is a serious pest of Prunus, especially in temperate areas. Moderate infestations have caused defacing die back to the flowering cherry trees growing around the scenic tidal basin area of Washington, D.C., and heavy infestations have killed many of these priceless trees (personal observations of authors). Maskell (1895) in the original description reported that it was causing significant damage to Japanese plum in Hawaii. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Barlow1897 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 398]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 235]; Fletch1919 [taxonomy: 296]; Green1900c [taxonomy: 2, 12]; Green1908a [taxonomy: 37]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Maskel1896b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 389-390]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 50]; WattMa1903 [distribution, taxonomy: 310].
Pseudaulacaspis pyrrosiae Hodgson & LagowskaNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis dubia; Lever, 1945: 43. Misidentification.
Phenacaspis dubia; Hinckley, 1963: 54. Misidentification.
Pseudaulacaspis pyrrosiae Hodgson & Lagowska, 2011: 12-14. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Suva, Thurston Gardens, on Pyrrosia adnescens, July 14, 2009, by C.J. Hodgson. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype females: remaining specimens on holotype slide plus 1/1adf (poor) + several exuviae; as previous but collected 24.vii.2009 (BMNH): 1/4adff + 3 exuviae. Other material: Fiji, Viti Levu, Savura Forest Reserve, on maidenhair fern, 15.vii.2009, C.J. Hodgson #96 (BMNH): 1/1pupa, 1st & 2nd exuviae; as previous, on Pteris sp., 24.vii.2009, C.J. Hodgson #51 (BMNH): 1/2adff + 2 exuviae; Taveuni, Bouma, on maidenhair fern, 22.vii.2009, C.J. Hodgson #92 (BMNH): 2/6adff + prepupa. (BMNH; USDA). Also: Fiji, Suva, Adiantum fern, no date, F.P. Jepson No 46 (BMNH): 1/7adff + 4 spread females (good – originally identified as Chionaspis dubia Maskell); and Viti Levu, Nausori, maidenhair fern, 9.ix.1955, B.A. O’Connor 1363 (BMNH, CIE 3691/14526): 3/4adff (fair to good).
HOSTS: Adiantaceae: Adiantum sp. [HodgsoLa2011]. Polypodiaceae: Pyrrosia adnescens [HodgsoLa2011]. Pteridaceae: Pteris sp. [HodgsoLa2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [HodgsoLa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Hodgson & Lagowska, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Scale test rather translucent when fresh, but becoming whitish to silvery when dry, with exuviae at one end. Slide mounted specimens small, body elongate; pygidium rounded to slightly V-shaped; anterior margin of head mainly rounded; lateral lobes of free pygidial segments moderately produced; body membranous apart from pygidium Mounted adult female pygidium with mediaum lobes well developed, zygotic and with a pari of setae medially.
SYSTEMATICS: Initially, it was thought that this species was P. coluisuvae Williams & Watson, but it differs in a few significant characters, namely (character-states for P. coluisuvae in brackets): (i) 2-barred ducts absent on head (present); (ii) margins of median lobes clearly serrated (poorly serrated); (iii) smaller anterior gland spines extend only to abdominal segment II (to the mesothorax); and (iv) each anterior spiracle with a group of more than 10 Pseudalaucaspis pyrrosiae is similar to P. coluisuvae Williams & Watson, but it differs by (character-states for P. coluisuvae in brackets): (i) 2-barred ducts absent on head (present); (ii) margins of median lobes clearly serrated (poorly serrated); (iii) smaller anterior gland spines extend only to abdominal segment II (to the mesothorax); and (iv) each anterior spiracle with a group of more than 10 loculate pores (6–9). P. pyrrosiae is the same species as that listed by Lever (1945a) as P. dubia (Maskell), which was collected on the fern Adiantum sp. and later listed as Phenacaspis dubia by Hinckley (1965). However, P. dubia is currently only known from New Zealand and differs from P. pyrrosiae in having (i) a group of gland spines near the anterior spiracles, and (ii) a group of trilocular pores by the posterior spiracles. Williams & Watson (1988a, p.17) also commented that the species were different.
KEYS: Hodgson & Lagowska 2011: 14-15 (female) [Key to adult female Pseudaulacaspis sp. known from Fiji.].
CITATIONS: Hinckl1963 [catalogue, host: 54]; HodgsoLa2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-14]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43].
Pseudaulacaspis rubra (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis amygdali rubra; Maskell, 1898: 228. Misidentification; discovered by Davidson et al., 1983: 757. Notes: Maskell's 1898 type series contained two species. The material from Ceylon is a misidentification of Pseudaulacaspis barberi. The material from Japan is a junior synonym of P. prunicola (Davidson et al., 1983).
Diaspis barberi Green, 1908a: 35-36. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Tanjore (=Thanjavur), on Loranthus sp., by C.A. Barber. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aulacaspis barberi; Rutherford, 1915a: 110. Described: female. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis barberi; MacGillivray, 1921: 316. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis rubra; Miller et al., 2003: 943-946. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis bangalorensis [RehmatAnKh2011]. Encyrtidae: Thomsonisca sankarani [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Sankar1984], Mangifera sp. [Ramakr1930]. Loranthaceae: Helixanthera intermedia [Sankar1984], Loranthus sp. [Green1908a]. Myristicaceae: Myristica fragrans [Green1922].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Ali1970] (Karnataka [Ramakr1930, Sankar1984], Maharashtra [Kasarg1914], Tamil Nadu [Green1908a]); Sri Lanka [Ruther1915a, Ali1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1908a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale opaque white, subcircular, sometimes bluntly pointed at posterior extremity, moderately convex above. Exuviae eccentric, placed towards anterior margin, larval exuviae reddish, exposed; nymphal exuviae castaneous or ochreous, very thinly coated with secretion. Adult female widely turbinate, broadest across thoracic segments. Margins of abdominal segments slightly roundly produced. Median lobes divergent, prominent, broadly flabelliform, constricted at base, the rounded outer edge slightly and irregularly incised (Green, 1908a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 315 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; DavidsMiNa1983 [taxonomy: 757]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 297]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 335]; Green1908a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 314]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 151, 330]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 130]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 316]; Maskel1898 [taxonomy: 228]; Maxwel1909 [distribution, host: 762]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 943-947]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 12]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution, host: 274]; Ruther1914 [taxonomy: 260]; Ruther1915a [description, distribution, host: 110]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 38]; SankarNaNa1984 [biological control: 410]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 73].
Pseudaulacaspis samoana (Doane & Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis samoana Doane & Ferris, 1916: 399-400. Type data: WESTERN SAMOA: on Cocos sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis samoana; MacGillivray, 1921: 346. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus samoanus; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis sanoana; Borchsenius, 1966: 126. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis samoana; Takagi, 1985: 49. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Hinckl1963], Cocos sp. [DoaneFe1916]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [Hinckl1963]; Tonga [Dumble1954, WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [DoaneFe1916, WilliaWa1988]. Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takaha1940a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale fusiform, about 1.5 mm long; white; yellow exuviae terminal. Adult female on slide elongate-oval, widest at about 1st abdominal segment; body membranous except for pygidium; free abdominal segments moderately developed. Pygidium with median lobes prominent, rounded, the mesal margins slightly longer than outer margins, with a few notches present; yoked at base, ventral paraphyses well developed. 2nd lobes much smaller than median lobes, bilobed. 3rd lobes represented by notches on body margin (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: The paucity of dorsal ducts and the prominent median lobes are the main distinguishing characters of this species (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Hodgson & Lagowska 2011: 14-15 (female) [Key to adult female Pseudaulacaspis sp. known from Fiji.]; Williams & Watson 1988: 222 (female) [Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 346 [as Phenacaspis samoana; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; DoaneFe1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 399-400]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44, 98]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 54]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15,26]; Laing1927 [taxonomy: 39]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 346]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 162]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 49]; Takaha1940a [distribution: 332]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222, 235-237].
Pseudaulacaspis sasakawai TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis sasakawai Takagi, 1969a: 24. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 47.
Pseudaulacaspis sasakawai Takagi, 1970: 47-48. Type data: TAIWAN: A-li, on Stauntonia keitaoensis and Symplocos arisanensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis sasakawai; Chen, 1983: 68. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Hedera nepalensis [Takagi1975]. Caricaceae: Carica sp. [Tao1999]. Lardizabalaceae: Stauntonia heitaoensis [Takagi1970]. Symplocaceae: Symplocos arisanensis [Takagi1970], Symplocos lancifolia [Takagi1970], Symplocos stellaris [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1975]; Taiwan [Takagi1970].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 2440 m (Takagi, 1975).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female fusiform, with meso- and metathorax and basal three abdominal segments well lobed laterally and with the pygidium rather narrow; at full growth there is a slight indication of the swelling of the thoracic region (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis sasakawai is very close to P. cockerelli, but is separated by the constant presence of submarginal macroducts on the 6th abdominal segment. In P. cockerelli, a few macroducts are rarely found in the submarginal region of the 6th abdominal segment, but these macroducts are irregular in position, occurring at times close to the marginal macroducts and at times rather close to the submedian macroducts. In P. sasakawai the submarginal macroducts of the 6th abdominal segment always forms a stable row (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 65 (female) [as Phenacaspis sasakawai; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chang1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 66, 68, 94]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 380-381]; Chou1986 [illustration: 568]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48]; Takagi1975 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 23-24]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 113]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 75]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 270].
Pseudaulacaspis simplex TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona; Takagi, 1956: 113. Misidentification; discovered by Takagi, 1961a: 91.
Pseudaulacaspis simplex Takagi, 1961a: 90-92. Type data: JAPAN: Hokkaido, Sapporo, on Prunus sargentii, 31/05/1954; 13/10/1958. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Sapium discolor [MartinLa2011]. Rosaceae: Prunus sargentii [Takagi1961a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]. Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1961a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular, weakly convex dorsally, white. Adult female body stout, broadly oval, 1.5 mm long, 1.0 mm wide; meso- and metathorax and free abdominal segments each strongly produced laterally; pygidium broad, subtriangular, well sclerotized. Median lobes prominent, projecting, united basally through a strongly sclerotized yoke, each lobe subtriangular with the inner and outer margins convergent posteriorly and incised (Takagi, 1961a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis simplex is very close to P. pentagona, but is characterized by the presence of accompanying disc pores of the posterior spiracles, the marginal gland spines of the pygidium which are simple in shape and not divided apically and in the 2nd stage female, the absence of submarginal macroducts (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Takagi 1961a: 92 [Key to Japanese species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 275]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 95-96]; Takagi1956 [taxonomy: 113]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 90-92]; TakagiKa1967 [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 40]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4].
Pseudaulacaspis sordida HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis sordidus Hempel, 1932: 333-334. Type data: BRAZIL: Minas Gerais, on undetermined Anonaceae, 28/09/1931, by E.J. Hambleton. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female.
Pseudaulacaspis sordida; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Annonaceae [Hempel1932], Anona sp. [CostaL1936], Anona squamosa [ClapsWoGo2001]. Rutaceae: Fagara subserrata [ClapsWoGo2001]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Minas Gerais [Hempel1932, ClapsWoGo2001], Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hempel (1932).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 193]; Hempel1932 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333-334]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 417]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 130]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180].
Pseudaulacaspis strobilanthi (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis strobilanthi Green, 1905a: 352-353. Type data: SRI LANKA: Haputale, on Strobilanthes sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis strobilanthi; Sanders, 1906: 12. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus strobilanthi; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis strobilanthi; Takagi, 1985: 49. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis strobilanthis; Varshney, 2002: 75. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Acanthaceae: Strobilanthes sp. [Green1905a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1905a, Ali1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, with faint creamy tinge, dense, opaque. Surface with a few irregular raised lines. Ventral scale well developed. Exuviae very pale yellow. Oblong, strongly dilated posteriorly, 3.0 mm long and 1.5-2.0 mm wide. Male puparium white; obscurely tricarinate, densely covered with curling silky filaments, 1.5 mm long. Adult female bright yellow, abdominal segments scarcely produced. Pygidium with conspicuous median incision, the sides of the cleft occupied by the media lobes which are large, united at the base, widely divergent, the free edge minutely serrate. 2nd lobes minute, duplex, inconspicuous. 3rd lobes represented by only small marginal prominences (Green, 1905a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis strobilanthi is allied to P. megaloba, from which it differs in the considerably larger size, in the narrower mesal lobes and in the presence of conspicuous oval pores on the margins of the thorax (Green, 1905a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 350 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 63]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72, 74]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 352-353]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 320]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 350]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Sander1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Takagi1975 [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 49]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 43, 44]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 75].
Pseudaulacaspis subcorticalis (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis subcorticalis Green, 1905a: 351-352. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, Matale, beneath loose bark on Artocarpus integrifolia and other trees. Syntypes. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis subcorticalis; MacGillivray, 1921: 352. Change of combination.
Chionaspis cordiae Mamet, 1936: 95-96. Type data: MAURITUS: Rose Hill, Cordia myxa, 21/05/1933, by R. Mamet. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Matile-Ferrero, 1978: 59.
Pseudaulacaspis cordiae; Mamet, 1949: 48. Change of combination.
Euvoraspis cordiae; Mamet, 1951: 227. Change of combination.
Euvoraspis vicinus Mamet, 1954: 52. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Sakaramy, on undetermined plant, 29/05/1950, by R.Mamet. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 206. Illust. Synonymy by Matile-Ferrero, 1978: 59.
Phenacaspis cordiae; Ferris, 1955d: 47. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis comorensis Mamet, 1960: 160. Type data: COMOROS: Mohéli, Fomboni, on undetemined host, ?/06/1954, by A. Robinson. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Matile-Ferrero, 1978: 59.
Pseudaulacaspis subcorticalis; Nakahara, 1975: 202. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Ferris1957]. Apocynaceae: Nerium indicum [Varshn2002]. Ehretiaceae: Cordia myxa [Mamet1936, Mamet1949]. Fabaceae: Cajanus cajan [Mamet1949, Borchs1966], Cajanus indicus [CharmoGe1921]. Labiatae: Leucas hirta [Varshn2002]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Mamet1951, Borchs1966], Sida sp. [GreenLa1921, Mamet1943a, Borchs1966]. Moraceae: Artocarpus altilis [Nakaha1981a], Artocarpus integrifolia [Green1905a, Mamet1943a]. Myrtaceae: Rhodomyrtus tomentosa [Hoffma1927]. Solanaceae: Lycopersicon esculentum [Mamet1943a, Borchs1966], Solanum indicum [Mamet1949, Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Madagascar [Mamet1951, Mamet1959a]; Mauritius [Mamet1936, Mamet1949]; Reunion [Matile1978, GermaiMiPa2014]; Seychelles [Green1937] (Aldabra Island [GreenLa1921, Mamet1943a]). Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Matile1978] (Oahu [Nakaha1981a]). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Matile1978], Yunnan [Hua2000]); India (Karnataka [Varshn2002]); Sri Lanka [Green1905a, Mamet1943a, Borchs1966]. Palaearctic: China [Hoffma1927].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1957).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white and elongate. Adult female 0.5 mm long, widest across the anterior portion of the abdomen, entirely membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium quite acute, median lobes large and prominent, projecting beyond the margin of the pygidium, roughly triangular, fused and strongly yoked together basally, their apices diverging and with a distinct notch between them. 2nd lobes extremely small, each consisting merely of a slight, acute, sclerotized point, between which and the median lobes is a slender acute gland prominence and a small gland spine (Ferris, 1957).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis subcorticalis is near P. polygoni, but differs in the larger median lobes, the obsolescent 3rd pair of lobes and in the greater number of dorsal pores (Green, 1905a).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis subcorticalis; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 82 (female) [as Chionaspis subcorticalis; Key to Chinese species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 352 [as Phenacaspis subcorticalis; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; BhasinRo1954 [distribution: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 120, 126, 127]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 66, 98]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82, 86]; Chou1986 [illustration: 483]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 7]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48, 52]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73, 74]; Ferris1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 212-215]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 351-352]; Green1922a [taxonomy: 1017]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 319]; GreenLa1921 [distribution, host: 127]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 149, 160]; KnipscMiDa1976 [taxonomy: 5]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 352]; Mamet1936 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 165]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 16, 28]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 45, 48]; Mamet1951 [distribution, host: 227]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17, 52]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 384]; Mamet1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59-60]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 404]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Ruther1915a [distribution, host: 104]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 76]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 203]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 247].
Pseudaulacaspis subrhombica (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis subrhombica Chen, 1983: 82. Type data: CHINA: Fujian Province, Wuyi mountain, on unidentified Fagaceae, ?/05/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis surrhombica; Takagi, 1985: 49. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Phenacaspis surrhombica; Shi & Liu, 1991: 165. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fagaceae [Chen1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Chen1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1983).
STRUCTURE: Body of adult female is rhombic, widest across the metathorax, antennae are very close together (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis subrhombica resembles P. brideliae Takahashi, but the median lobes are much stouter and more strongly produced beyond the caudal margin of pygidium and 2nd lobes prominently smaller. Dorsal macroducts are also very different in type (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 15 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis surrhombica; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82, 96]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 158]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 49]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 108]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15].
Pseudaulacaspis syzygicola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis syzygicola Tang, 1986: 161. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong Province, Zhaoqing, on Syzygium jambos. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Syzygium jambos [Tang1986].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scales pyriform, white, about 3.0 mm long. Male scales felted and with a median ridge. Adult female body 1.02-1.38 mm long. Pygidial lobes in 2 pairs; median pair developed and produced, with 1 pair of setae between them and the free margin of the lobes serrated; 2nd pair much smaller, divided and without basal paraphyses (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: P. syzygicola resembles P. latiloba, but differs in the absence of posterior spiracular pores and by the presence of numerous macro- and microducts on the head (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 288-289]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 114]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15].
Pseudaulacaspis taiwana (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis taiwana Takahashi, 1935: 17-19. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku Prefecture, Suo-Gun, Kinyan, on Quercus sp., 16/08/1934, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudaulacaspis taiwana; Takagi, 1970: 70. Change of combination.
Chionaspis taiwana; Yang, 1982: 239. Change of combination.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Takaha1935]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935, Takagi1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, flattened, thin, expanded towards the hind margin, nearly triangular, longer than wide, broadly rounded on the hind margin, about 1.6 mm long, without striae and ridges on the secretion. Larval exuviae pale yellow, at the anterior end of the scale, 2nd exuviae slightly covered with secretion, lacking ridges, about twice as long as wide, about 0.785 mm long. Adult female body parallel on sides. Pygidium slightly wider than long, not more sclerotic than other parts of body, with many longitudinal dorsal lines (Takahashi, 1935).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis taiwana is close to P. kinshinensis, but differs as follows: larval exuviae pale yellow, with no ridge on 2nd; pygidium narrower, nearly as long as wide, with fewer dorsal orifices and circumgenital pores, with no median gland (Takahashi, 1935).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis taiwana; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 66, 98]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 381]; Ferris1953 [distribution, host: 63]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; Matile1976 [taxonomy: 310]; ShiLi1991 [host: 165]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42, 70, 140]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17-19]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 100]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 114]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 247].
Pseudaulacaspis takahashii (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis takahashii Ferris, 1955d: 52-53. Type data: TAIWAN: Taipeh, Yuan Fung-shi Monastery, on undetermined host, by T. Maa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis takahashii; Tao, 1978: 102. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis takahashii; Xie, 1998: 125. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros discolor [Takagi1970, Xie1998], Diospyros kaki [Hua2000]. Theaceae: Schima wallichii [Takagi1975], Thea sinensis [Tang1986, Xie1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Yunnan [Tang1986]); Nepal [Takagi1975]; Taiwan [Ferris1955d, Takagi1970, Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body broad, widest across the metathorax, lateral lobes of the segments prominent. Dorsal ducts in six rows. Median lobes quite large and moderately prominent, with a pair of setae between them. 2nd lobes of normal shape, but small. 3rd lobes consisting of a pair of rather narrow prominences which are strongly serrate at their apices. Perivulvar pore groups noticeably large (Ferris, 1955d).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis takahashii is similar to P. grandilobis (=P. ernesti). P. takahashii differs from P. ernesti by having a less squat body, by lacking numerous large dorsal ducts on the median areas of the head and thorax and by lacking numerous pores around the 2nd spiracle (Takagi, 1975).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis]; Chen 1983: 66 (female) [as Phenacaspis takahashii; Key to Chinese species of Phenacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Chang1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 66, 76, 95]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142, 148-149]; Chou1986 [illustration: 569]; Ferris1955d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 24]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 50-52, 70]; Takagi1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-23]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 287]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 102]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 114]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 76]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 15]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 34, 78]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 125-126]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239, 248].
Pseudaulacaspis tenera (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis tenera Green, 1922a: 1019. Type data: SRI LANKA: Maha Illuppalama, on undetermined shrub. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus tener; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis tenera; Ferris, 1955d: 53. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis tenera; Takagi, 1985: 50. Change of combination.
HOST: Pandanaceae: Pandanus fascicularis [Varshn2002].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Karnataka [Varshn2002]); Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, very thin, delicate, elongate, narrow, gradually widening to the middle and then more abruptly narrowing to the posterior extremity; with median longitudinal channel. Larval exuviae pale stramineous; nymphal exuviae colorless, concealed, 2.25 mm long. Male scale uncarinated. Adult female pale yellow, elongate, narrow. Pygidium with the mesal lobes narrow, recessed, widely divergent, their bases confluent, their free margins minutely serrate. A single pair of prominent, duplex, lateral lobes, the base of the inner lobule extended inwards, 1.0-1.50 mm long (Green, 1922a).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 71]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Green1922a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1019]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 320]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Ramakr1926 [distribution: 455]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 50]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 42, 44]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 76].
Pseudaulacaspis ulmicola Tang in Tang & LiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis ulmicola Tang in Tang & Li, 1988: 222. Type data: CHINA: Nei Manggol, Chifeng, on Ulmus pumila, 08/04/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ulmaceae: Ulmus pumila [TangLi1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [TangLi1988]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang & Li (1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis ulmicola is closely related to P. celtis, but differs in the shape of the median lobes and also in having more dorsal macroducts and marginal gland spines on the pygidium (Tang & Li, 1988).
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; TangLi1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186-187, 222]; WeiFe2012a [taxonomy: 14].
Pseudaulacaspis varicosa (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis eugeniae varicosa Green, 1896: 2. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Gelonium lanceolatum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Chionaspis varicosa; Green, 1899a: 146. Change of status.
Phenacaspis varicosa; Fernald, 1903b: 239. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) varicosa; Green, 1905: 29. Change of combination.
Chionaspis nilgirica Fletcher, 1919: 297. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919: 11.
Trichomytilus varicosus; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis varicosa; Takagi, 1985: 50. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Gelonium lanceolatum [Green1896]. Lauraceae: Litsea sp. [Borchs1966]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Green1919c]. Piperaceae: Piper nigrum [Green1905], Piper sp. [Green1919c]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Green1905]). Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [Misra1924CS]; India (Karnataka [Varshn2002], Tamil Nadu [Green1919c, Ali1969a]); Sri Lanka [Green1896].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, opaque, stout in texture; broadly and roundly dilated, flattish, with the surface veined with irregular raised lines. Exuviae pale fulvous, the 2nd often tinged with red, 3.0 mm long. Male scale white, exuviae pale yellow, oblong, narrow, carinae feebly indicated. Adult female pale yellow, pygidium reddish, oblong. Adult male bright reddish orange (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudaulacaspis varicosa differs from P. eugeniae in that the female scale is proportionally broader and marked with ramifying raised creases resembling veins (Green, 1896).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 346 [Key to species of Phenacaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis varicosa; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 72]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127, 371]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 36]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 239]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 73, 74]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 297]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 2]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 146-147]; Green1905 [distribution, host: 29]; Green1919c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 437]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 319]; Kuwana1926 [taxonomy: 30]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 346]; Misra1924CS [distribution: 348]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 96]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15]; Robins1917 [taxonomy: 22]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 50]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 8]; Takaha1940a [taxonomy: 332]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 60]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 76].
Pseudaulacaspis venui (Menon & Khan)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis venui Menon & Khan, 1961: 425-426. Type data: INDIA: Panjab, Kangra, Palampure, on Ficus palmata, 12/03/1902. Syntypes, female. Type depository: New Delhi: Division of Entomology, National Pusa Collections, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India. Described: female.
Chionaspis venni; Ali, 1969a: 40. Misspelling of species name.
Pseudaulacaspis venui; Takagi, 1985: 50. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus palmata [MenonKh1961].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [MenonKh1961] (Gujarat [Ali1969a], Himachal Pradesh [Ali1969a], Punjab [MenonKh1963]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Menon & Khan (1963).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval and distinctly segmented, broadest at the second abdominal segment. Male scale 1.5mm long, female scale 2.9 mm long (Menon & Khan, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Chionaspis venui is close to Pseudaulacaspis pusa Rao and Pseudaulacaspis manni Green (Mennon & Khan, 1963).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 40]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; MenonKh1961 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 425]; MenonKh1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 280-282]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 76]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, distribution, host: 166].
Pseudaulacaspis zhenyuanensis Wei & FengNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudaulacaspis zhenyuanensis Wei & Feng, 2012a: 11. Type data: CHINA: Guizhou Prov., Zhenyuan County, 8/13/1996, on Spermadictyon suaveolens, by Zeng. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Shaanxi: Entomological Museum of the Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Baishui, Shaanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Spermadictyon suaveolens [WeiFe2012a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guizhou (=Kweichow) [WeiFe2012a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Wei & Feng, 2012a.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body outline fusiform, derm membranous except for pygidium. Normally widest at metathorax and abdominal segment I, lateral abdominallobes well-developed, with large gland spines on the margin of prepygidial and pygidial segments. Cephalothorax. Antennae each with 1 long fleshy seta. (Wei & Feng, 2012a)
SYSTEMATICS: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:AB75F5D8-7BDF-42D4-9DA9-1 3F4DFD1D43F This species is similar to P. chinensis (Cockerell, 1896) in body shape and the number of pygidial lobes, but can be distinguished by the following features (those for P. chinensis in brackets): 1) dorsal macroducts absent on abdominal segment VI (present); 2) L1 prominent the pygidium (sunken into the pygidium). (Wei & Feng, 2012a)
KEYS: Wei & Feng 2012a: 13-16 (female, adult) [Key to Chinese species of the genus Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: WeiFe2012a [distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 11-13].
Pseudodiaspis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus (Pseudodiaspis) Cockerell, 1897i: 21. Type species: Aspidiotus (Pseudodiaspis) larreae Cockerell, by monotypy.
Pseudodiaspis; Ferris, 1919a: 52. Change of status.
Pseudodiospis; Lindinger, 1957: 547. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Diaspine referable by the character of the tubular ducts to the Diaspis series; with more or less conspicuous paraphyses at the bases of the lobes, the lateral lobes not bilobed; with few dorsal ducts, not arranged in definite transverse rows; with the microducts very long and slender; with the circumgenital pores present or absent; gland spines few or lacking; the scale of female more or less circular with the exuviae subcentral, exuviae occurring by the pushing back of the ventral derm. Male scale somewhat elongate, exuviae at one end (Ferris, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudodiaspis is peculiar to North America and as far as known, characteristic of southwestern United States and Mexico (Ferris, 1937). Lindinger (1957) erroneously considered Pseudodiaspis to be a senior synonym of Situlaspis.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 46 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 181]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy: 21]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 295]; Ferris1919a [description, taxonomy: 52-53]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 96-97]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 26, 79]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-110]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 55]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 528]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 35]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:46, 47]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 312]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 166].
Pseudodiaspis bahamensis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis bahamensis Ferris, 1954: 42. Type data: BAHAMAS: quarantine at Florida, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Bahamas [Ferris1954].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1954).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female 1.25 mm long, deltoid, anterior end slightly sclerotized. Lateral margins strongly sculptured, the abdominal segments strongly lobed laterally, each lobe terminating in a large gland spine which encloses 3 or 4 slender microducts bearing a small sclerotic spur. Pygidium small. Median lobes large, somewhat separated, 2nd lobes smaller, one-lobed; 3rd lobes represented by slight marginal projection (Ferris, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudodiaspis bahamensis is near P. larreae and P. elaphrii, but differs in lacking all large submarginal macroducts (Ferris, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; Ferris1954 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 42].
Pseudodiaspis elaphrii FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis elaphrii Ferris, 1921: 99-101. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, Cabo San Lucas, on Elaphrium microphyllum, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Burseraceae: Elaphrium microphyllum [Ferris1921].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2.0 mm wide, circular, flat, gray, exuviae central and entirely covered by secretion; ventral scale lacking. Adult female 1.0 mm long, somewhat elongate. Pygidium rather large, with 2 pairs of rather small lobes. Median lobes slightly separated, acute at the apex, with a deep lateral notch and continuous with a conspicuous, club-shaped paraphysis. Between the median and 2nd lobes is a small pore prominence. 2nd lobes resembling 1st, but slightly smaller (Ferris, 1921).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 [Key to species of Pseudodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99-101]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-112]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; Ferris1954 [taxonomy: 42].
Pseudodiaspis larreae (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus (Pseudodiaspis) larreae Cockerell, 1897i: 21. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Yuma, on Larrea tridentata, 1897, by H.G. Hubbard. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Targionia Larreae; Leonardi, 1900: 344. Change of combination.
Pseudodiaspis larreae; Fernald, 1903b: 295. Change of combination.
HOST: Zygophyllaceae: Larrea tridentata [Cocker1897i].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Cocker1897i, Ferris1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1921 & 1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.0 mm in diameter, flat, irregular, round to suboval, dull white with a slightly creamy tint; exuviae not visible in mature scale, but in younger scales the elongate-oval, pale straw 1st exuviae is exposed, sublateral or even lateral. Male scale small, elongate, mytiliform, white. Adult female about 2.0 mm long, turbinate, cephalothorax heavily chitinized. Pygidium quite large, median lobes alone developed, these broad, low, rounded at apex (Ferris, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudodiaspis larreae is distinguishable from any known species by the turbinate body, of which the thoracic region is quite heavily sclerotized both dorsally and ventrally (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:61 [Key to species of Pseudodiaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 364 (female) [Key to species of Pseudodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; Cocker1897i [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 295]; Ferris1919a [taxonomy: 52]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 97-99]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 79]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-113]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:61]; Ferris1954 [taxonomy: 42]; Leonar1900 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 344]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 364]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 76]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352].
Pseudodonaspis HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodonaspis Henderson, 2011: 176-181. Type species: Pseudodonaspis mollyae Henderson.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover thick dorsally and ventrally, white; male scale cover white, non-carinated, exuvium on 1 side. body roundly ovate to fusiform, derm membranous except for strongly sclerotised margins of the pygidium. Dorsal ducts 2-barred, numerous, with sclerotised openings; marginal macroducts not much different in size to submarginal ducts on pygidium; submedian ducts present on segments VI-IV; submarginal dorsal ducts present as far forward as head, not extending onto venter. Dorsal bosses absent. Anal opening approximately circular, positioned nearer anterior edge than apex of pygidium. Median lobes widely separated by a deep median cleft and with long basal scleroses forming sides of a ventral channel at base of medial cleft; lobes divergent, prominent, with several pairs of associated setae; 2nd lobes small, unilobular, 3rd lobes not visible. Gland spines absent. Stout segmental setae present (these could be mistaken for gland spines because their sockets apparently blend in with the sclerotised margin). Perivulvar pores, small ventral ducts, and gland tubercles absent. Microducts numerous, with sclerotised openings, distributed as large groups on submargin of abdominal segments, numerous microducts scattered on submedian abdomen, metathorax, and a few further anteriorly. Anterior spiracles each with a group of trilocular pores, pores absent by posterior spiracles. Antenna with 2 or 3 long setae. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: This monotypic genus demonstrates convergent evolution, induced by the grass-feeding habit shared with Odonaspis species; however, molecular evidence places P. mollyae closer to Symeria pyriformis (Maskell). (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,44,176-181].
Pseudodonaspis mollyae HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodonaspis mollyae Henderson, 2011: 177-182. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Nelson, Lake Sylvester, on Chionochloa australis base stems under sheath, 1/10/2005, by G.L. & R.C. Henderson. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 05-003c. Described: other. Illust.
COMMON NAME: Molly’s grass scale [Hender2011].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Agrostis capillaris [Hender2011], Agrostis spp. [Hender2011], Chionochloa australis [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Hender2011].
BIOLOGY: Hidden under leaf sheaths at base of grasses. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Both upper and basal female scale covers tough, white, terminal exuvia fawn, shape of covers broad, nearly round; female body colour pale with darker pygidium margin. (Henderson, 2011)
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,12,40,177-182,237,].
Pseudoparlatoria CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria Cockerell, 1892d: 136. Type species: Pseudoparlatoria ostreata Cockerell. Subsequently designated by Fernald, 1903b: 300.
Pseudoparlatorea; Lindinger, 1907a: 20. Misspelling of genus name.
Malleolaspis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-290. Type species: Malleolaspis sculpta Ferris, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria with two large divergent plates between the median lobes; median lobes large, widely separated and notched (Cockerell, 1892d). Without much doubt, the genus is native to North America (Ferris, 1937). Ferris (1941d) states in a discussion of Malleolaspis, now a synomym of Pseudoparlatoria: "This is an extraordinary little genus, evidently derived from the group of which Pseudoparlatoria may be taken as typical, the pygidium being essentially the same as in the latter. But this pygidium is attached to a body that might well belong to the genus Aulacaspis, with which, however, the genus has nothing at all to do. Since the Pseudoparlatoria group as a whole is definitely Neotropical it may be assumed that this genus likewise is so and that more species remain to be discovered in that Region."
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Danzig 1971d: 838 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Schmutterer 1959: 175 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der Subtribus Diaspidina]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 166 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Borchsenius 1937a: 97 (female) [Key to genera]; MacGillivray 1921: 305 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Lindinger 1913: 65 (female) [as Pseudoparlatorea; Gruppe Diaspides]; Hempel 1900a: 497 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 166, 254-256]; Balach1959 [distribution, taxonomy: 350]; BalachMa1980 [taxonomy: 72]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 98]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 105-106]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 166, 209]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 161-162]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 231, 278]; Cocker1892d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 136]; Cocker1893d [distribution, host: 8]; Cocker1897g [taxonomy: 108]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 838]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 392]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 346]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 300]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23, 26, 80]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-116]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-290, SIII-321]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:43]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 239]; GomezM1957 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 53-54]; Gowdey1921 [taxonomy: 33]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 530, 541]; Hempel1900a [taxonomy: 497]; Hempel1920 [distribution, structure: 140]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,45,182]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 572]; Leonar1920 [description, taxonomy: 27, 176]; Lepage1942 [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 97]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1913a [taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 16]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 543]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 33]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 305]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 114, 167]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 175, 206-207]; Wolff2001 [description, taxonomy: 69]; WolffCl2008 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 71].
Pseudoparlatoria aeranthos WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria aeranthos Wolff, 2001: 69. Type data: BRAZIL: Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, bairro Ipanema, 3/5/2000, on Tillandsia aeranthos, by V.R.S. Wolff & L.E. Claps. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Museu de Ciências e Tecnologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil; type no. MCTP107. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia aeranthos (Loiseleur) L.B. Smith [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul [Wolff2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria chiapensis, but the shape of the body and the lobes on the pygidium; L1 differs, having more distance between the anus and the margin and higher number of macroducts on the pigidial macrocondutos on the submargin.
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 69]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 393].
Pseudoparlatoria antarctica Lindinger in Brick nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatorea antarctica Lindinger in Brick, 1910: 506. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 379.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Chile [Brick1910].
SYSTEMATICS: The only notes accompanying the name Pseudoparlatorea antarctica in Brick (1910) are that it was collected from a dicotyledon from Chile. Borchsenius (1966) treats it as a nomen nudum.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 379]; Brick1910 [distribution: 506].
Pseudoparlatoria anthurium WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria anthurium Wolff, 2001: 70. Type data: COLOMBIA: S.A. at Hoboken, on Anthurium angustisectum, 3/2/1955, by unknown. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Araceae: Anthurium angustisectum Engl. [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria maculata Ferris, 1942
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 70]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 292].
Pseudoparlatoria argentata HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria argentata Hempel, 1912: 63-66. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Campinas, on Aglaia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Secao de Entomologia Agricola do Instituto do Biologia Vegetal, Brazil. Described: female.
Parlatoreopsis argentata; Lizer y Trelles, 1942: 234. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex paraguayensis [CorseuSi1971, ClapsWoGo2001], Ilex sp. [CorseuSi1971]. Lauraceae: Laurus nobilis [Wolff2008]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Lizery1942c], Phoradendron sp. [Lizery1942c]. Meliaceae: Aglaia sp. [Hempel1912]. Myricaceae: Myrica sp. [CorseuSi1971]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Wolff2008]. Sapotaceae: Chrysophyllum lucumifolium [ClapsWoGo2001], Chrysophyllum sp. [Borchs1966]. Theaceae: Camellia sp. [GomesCRe1947]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Corrientes [ClapsWoGo2001], Misiones [Wolff2008]); Brazil (Bahia [Wolff2008], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Mato Grosso [Wolff2008], Minas Gerais [Wolff2008], Parana [SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001], Rio Grande do Sul [SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001], Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001], Sao Paulo [Hempel1912, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Redescription in Portugese in Wolff, 2008.
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular to subcircular, slightly flattened at anterior margin, hard, flat, black, with eccentric circle and marginal area transparent. Exuviae marginal, 1st small and light yellow, 2nd is large with transparent margin, remainder forming a black, triangular spot. Male scale similar, but more elongate, smaller. Adult female subcircular, light yellow or white, posterior margin rounded. Pygidium with 5 groups of circumgenital glands (Hempel, 1912).
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria constricta Fonseca with reduced marginal macroducts; submarginal macroducts much smaller than those on the margin, abdominal first segments; Pre-abdominal lobes and around the pygidium Pygidium differs by not showing constriction at the margin of the apical cephalothorax. (Wolff, 2008)
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host: 110]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 192]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; GomesC1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66-67]; GomesCRe1947 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Hempel1912 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51, 63-66]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 413]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; Lizery1942c [distribution, host: 234]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 177]; Soares1945 [distribution, host: 51]; Vernal1957 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 24-26]; VernalNo1953 [description, host, illustration: 107-108]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 293].
Pseudoparlatoria browni McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria browni McKenzie, 1963: 36-37. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, La Paz, on undetermined shrub, 29/10/1958, by S.W. Brown. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: Brown pseudoparlatoria scale [Borchs1966].
HOST: Ephredraceae: Ephedra andina C.A. Mey [Wolff2008].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [McKenz1963]). Neotropical: Chile [Wolff2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1963).
STRUCTURE: Slide-mounted adult female 1.0 mm long and 0.80 mm wide, turbinate. Pygidium with median lobes well developed, once-notched on each side, widely separated, and with paired gland spines between them which present a forked appearance; 2nd and 3rd lobes smaller than median ones, but well developed and distinctly bilobulate (McKenzie, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria browni seems nearest to P. occulata from which it differs in the larger size, number and arrangement of the dorsal macroducts on pygidium and in position of anal opening which appears much nearer to pygidial margin than is characteristic of P. occulata (McKenzie, 1963).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 231-232]; McKenz1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 293-294].
Pseudoparlatoria campinensis Lepage & GiannottiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria campinensis Lepage & Giannotti, 1946: 42-44. Type data: BRAZIL: Campinas, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [LepageGi1946, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage & Giannotti (1946).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval, membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium small compared with rest of body, with 3 pairs of lobes, 3rd pair very inconspicuous. Median lobes tapered, non-zygotic. A pair of glandular spines between the median lobes resemble a fish tail (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria campinensis resembles P. parlatorioides, but the form of the gland spines and general aspects of the pygidium separate them (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fèmeas adultas. (Key to identification of the species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on adult female characters)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; LepageGi1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-44]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, structure, taxonomy: 292, 294].
Pseudoparlatoria carolilehmanni BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria carolilehmanni Balachowsky, 1959: 350-351. Type data: COLOMBIA: 30 km west of Popayan, on undetermined host, 19/02/1957. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil [Wolff2008]; Colombia [Balach1959].
BIOLOGY: Pseudoparlatoria carolilehmanni was collected at an altitude of 1600 meters (Balachowsky, 1959).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1959).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria carolilehmanni differs from other known American species by the presence of a median macropore ending over lobe 1, the many marginal and submarginal glands on segments i-vii and the identical structure of the pygidial glands, without differentiation of macropores and micropores (Balachowsky, 1959).
CITATIONS: Balach1959 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 350-351]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Mosque1976 [distribution: 97]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 294-295].
Pseudoparlatoria caucae BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria caucae Balachowsky, 1959: 352. Type data: COLOMBIA: Navarro, Rio Cauca, on undetermined host, 12/02/1957, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Balach1959].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1959).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Balach1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 352]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26]; Mosque1976 [distribution: 97]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 295].
Pseudoparlatoria chiapensis WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria chiapensis Wolff, 2001: 70. Type data: MEXICO: on Tillandsia chiapensis, 10/10/1985, by S. Sanner. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia chiapensis C.S. Gardner [Wolff2001], Tillandsia ehlersana [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides (Comstock, 1883), in the shape and position of the anus, macroducts restricted to the pygidium; differs by more elongated body shape, smaller amount of macroducts and median lobes higher. (Wolff, 2001)
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 70]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 293].
Pseudoparlatoria chilina (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatorea chilina Lindinger, 1909c: 450. Type data: CHILE: Santiago, on Saxegothaea conspicua, 16/10/1908; Valdivia on Podocarpus nubigenus. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams, 1985e: 253. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Carulaspis chilina; MacGillivray, 1921: 313. Change of combination.
Pseudoparlatoria chilina; Borchsenius, 1966: 162. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Nothofagus sp. [Hoy1962a]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus nubigenus [Lindin1909c, ClapsWoGo2001], Saxegothaea conspicua [Lindin1909c, ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Chubut [ClapsWoGo2001]); Chile [Lindin1909c, Charli1972] (This species is native to Chile (González & Charlín, 1969).) (Santiago [Willia1985e]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1985e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large, up to 3 mm in diameter, brown with whitish margin, exuviae eccentric. Slide-mounted adult female ovoid, pygidium rounded, moderately sclerotized. Antennae with 6 setae. Pygidium with prominent median lobes, rounded, about as long as wide, slightly notched on either side, separated by about the width of one lobe. 2nd lobes bilobed, inner lobules almost same size as median lobes, outer lobules smaller. 3rd lobes also bilobed (Williams, 1985e).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria chilina is distinct in having numerous dorsal ducts as far forward as the mesothorax. The only species with comparable numbers is P. gomescostai, but the ducts forward from the pygidium are marginal, whereas the ducts in P. chilina extend to the submedian areas of the thorax (Williams, 1985e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 313 (female) [as Carulaspis chilina; Key to species of Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution: 110]; Hoy1962a [distribution, host: 512]; Lindin1909c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 450]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-12]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; MillerGo1975 [distribution, host: 131]; Porter1912 [distribution: 23]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 178]; Willia1985e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 253-255].
Pseudoparlatoria circularis LepageNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria circularis Lepage, 1942: 176-177. Type data: BRAZIL: Campos do Jordão, on undetermined plant, 12/12/1941. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil [Lepage1942] (Sao Paulo [ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, 1.2 mm in diameter, dark chestnut, with yellow margins, exuviae yellow, subcentral. Male scale 0.8 mm wide, clear yellow, exuviae terminal. Adult female nearly circular, derm membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium large, with 3 pairs of lobes (Lepage, 1942).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Lepage1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 176-177]; LepageGi1943 [taxonomy: 333]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, structure, taxonomy: 292, 295].
Pseudoparlatoria clapsae WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria clapsae Wolff, 2001: 70-71. Type data: ARGENTINA: Cordoba, on Euonymus sp., 9/28/1944, by Molinari. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [Wolff2001], Maytenus sp. [Wolff2001], Maytenus spinosa [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria caucaeBalachowsky, 1959, in the shape of the body, the lobes of the pygidium and the quantity and distribution of the marginal macroducts; differs due to its higher number of glands and dorsal submarginal circungenitais. (Wolff, 2001)
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 70-71]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 292].
Pseudoparlatoria constricta FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria constricta Fonseca, 1975: 83. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, Aguas da Prata, on undetermined Solanaceae sp., ?/03/1974, by J. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Solanaceae [Fonsec1975].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul [Wolff2008], Sao Paulo [Fonsec1975, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Fonseca (1975).
STRUCTURE: Female scale smooth, circular, weakly convex, black (Fonseca, 1975).
SYSTEMATICS: The constriction on the anterior margin is the primary character distinguishing Pseudoparlatoria constricta from other species of its genus (Fonseca, 1975).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fèmeas adultas. (Key to identification of the species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on adult female characters)].
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Fonsec1975 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 295-296].
Pseudoparlatoria cristata (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatorea cristata Lindinger, 1911: 10-12. Type data: ARGENTINA: Rio Negro, Japura, on Gnetum leyboldi, ?/01/1820. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Carulaspis cristata; MacGillivray, 1921: 313. Change of combination.
Pseudoparlatoria cristata; Borchsenius, 1966: 162. Change of combination.
HOST: Gnetaceae: Gnetum leyboldii [Lindin1911, ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Rio Negro [Lindin1911]); Brazil (Amazonas [CostaL1936, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lindinger (1911).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 313 (female) [as Carulaspis cristata; Key to species of Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162-163]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 193]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 419]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-12]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 178].
Pseudoparlatoria elongata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria elongata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-316. Type data: MEXICO: Distrito Federal, Desierto de los Leones, near Mexico City, on Pseudotsuga taxifolia, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pseudotsuga taxifolia [Ferris1941d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Distrito Federal [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light brown or straw colored, elongate, quite slender, exuviae terminal. Male scale similar, but shorter. Adult female about 1.25 mm long, elongate oval. Derm membranous at full maturity. Median lobes well developed, with the usual pair of gland spines between. 2nd and 3rd lobes smaller than the median lobes, but well developed and both distinctly bilobulate (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria elongata is distinct in its elongate body form. It resembles only one other species P. turgida, which differs in the fact that the body seems not to become sclerotized at maturity and that the submarginal zone of pygidial pores extends to the prepygidial segment (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-316, SIII-319]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; Tippin1970 [taxonomy: 819]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 293, 296].
Pseudoparlatoria fusca FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria fusca Ferris, 1941d: SIII-317. Type data: MEXICO: Vera Cruz, Puerto Mexico, on undetermined tree, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Maytenus ilicifolia Schrad. [Wolff2008, VitoriZaMa2013].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Veracruz [Ferris1941d]). Neotropical: Brazil (Bahia [Wolff2008]); Colombia [Balach1959]; Panama [Wolff2008]; Uruguay [Wolff2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, quite convex, oval, exuviae submarginal on one of the long sides. Male scale oval, exuviae terminal. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.6 mm long, turbinate. Pygidium with small median lobes, widely separated, usual paired gland spines between. 2nd lobes clearly developed, bilobulate. 3rd lobes slightly indicated. Perivulvar pores in 5 groups, median group with 2 or 3 pores and perhaps at time lacking (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The very distinctive scale and definite clusters of pygidial ducts distinguish this species from all others (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 353-354]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-317]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:62]; Mosque1976 [distribution: 97]; VitoriZaMa2013 [distribution, host, structure: 176-179]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 296].
Pseudoparlatoria fusiformis FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria fusiformis Fonseca, 1969: 22-24. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, on various hosts, ?/06/1957, by J. Fonseca. Holotype female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Flacourtiaceae: Casearia sp. [Wolff2008], Casearia sylvestris [Wolff2008]. Myrtaceae: Myrcia jaboticaba [Wolff2008].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1969, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Fonseca (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, fine, semi-transparent, exuviae subcentral (Fonseca, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to P. mammata and P. sculpta in the shape of the body, differs from them by not showing abdominal lobes pre-pygidium, macroducts restricted to submarginal pygidium and absence of macroducts marginal between the median lobes. (Wolff, 2008)
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-24]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 296-297].
Pseudoparlatoria indigena WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria indigena Wolff, 2001: 71. Type data: BRAZIL: Água Funda, São Paulo, on unknown plant, 5/?/1961, by J.P Fonseca. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 858. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Araceae: Philodendron squamiferum [Wolff2001]. Celastraceae: Maytenus sp. [Wolff2001]. Combretaceae: Myrtaceae sp. [Wolff2001]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [Wolff2001]; Brazil (Sao Paulo [Wolff2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria noacki Cockerell, 1898. Wolff (2001) stated that Fonseca (1969) erroneously determined this material to be Pseudoparlatoria caucae Balachowsky, 1959.
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Fonsec1969 [description, structure: 24-26]; Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 71]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 292].
Pseudoparlatoria juncea WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria juncea Wolff, 2001: 72. Type data: MEXICO: 10/10/1985, on Tillandsia juncea, by D. Riley. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 015988. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia elersana [Wolff2001], Tillandsia juncea [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria tillandsiae Tippins.
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 72]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 292].
Pseudoparlatoria lentigo FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria lentigo Ferris, 1942: SIV-414. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Boquete, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1942].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellow, very thin and flat, circular, with the exuviae at one side. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.9 mm long, turbinate. Derm membranous throughout except for pygidium. Pygidium more elongate than in other species of the genus, 4th abdominal segment being definitely included within it. Median lobes not notched laterally, separated from each other by about the width of one of them and with a bifurcate gland spine between. 2nd lobes quite well developed, distinctly bilobulate. 3rd lobes distinct, but low and broad, bilobulate. Perivulvar pores in 4 groups. Margins of the prepygidial segments with none but a very few extremely small microducts (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: The presence of a macroduct between the bases of the median lobes, the rather elongate pygidium and the row of marginal macroducts on the 4th abdominal segment definitely distinguish this species (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-414, SIV-446:62]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 297].
Pseudoparlatoria lobata WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria lobata Wolff, 2001: 72. Type data: BRAZIL: Foracéia, São Paulo, 2/1/1961, on unknown plant, by J.P. Fonseca. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 156. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Wolff2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria occultata (Hempel, 1937).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 72]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 293].
Pseudoparlatoria maculata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria maculata Ferris, 1942: SIV-415. Type data: MEXICO: Guerrero, near Acapulco, La Providencia, on undetermined tree, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very small, flat, circular, thin, slightly yellow, with a dark maculation on both the 2nd and 1st exuviae showing conspicuously, exuviae relatively very large, submarginal. Male scale similar, slightly elongate, exuviae with dark maculation. Slide-mounted adult female 0.5 mm long. Derm membranous throughout except for pygidium. Form broadly turbinate. Pygidium with dorsal sclerotization confined to a submarginal band which extends across the posterior border involving the area posterior to the 4th abdominal segment. Median lobes with usual bifurcate gland spine between their bases. 2nd and 3rd lobes well developed and distinctly bilobulate (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: The maculation of the exuviae is a very unique character of this species. Otherwise, it is close to Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-415, SIV-446:62]; LepageGi1946 [taxonomy: 39]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, structure, taxonomy: 292, 297].
Pseudoparlatoria mammata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Malleolaspis mammata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-291. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Armuelles, undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatoria mammata; Wolff, 2008: 297-298. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Compositae: Cynara cardunculaus [Wolff2008]. Fabaceae [Wolff2008]. Moraceae: Brosimum utile [NormarMoKr2014].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Wolff2008]); Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, distinctly yellow, quite thin, subcircular, exuviae subcentral. Adult female about 0.9 mm long. Derm quite heavily sclerotized over the entire body (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The acute lateral lobes of the metathorax and the 1st abdominal segment and the narrow and slender dorsal pygidial ducts, as well as minor differences in form, separated this species from other members of its genus (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [as Malleolaspis mammata; Key to species of Malleolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-291]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; NormarMoKr2014 [distribution, host: 39]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 297-298].
Pseudoparlatoria noacki CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria noacki Cockerell, 1898e: 201-202. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, Campinas, on undetermined tree, ?/01/1898, by F. Noack. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
HOST: Lauraceae: Nectandra sp. [CockerPa1899, Lepage1938]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Cocker1898e, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Cockerell (1898e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat or very slightly convex, circular or nearly so, brown. Exuviae central to sublateral, rather large, exposed, 1st skin near margin or 2nd, both orange-brown. Male scale smaller, broad oval, flat, semitransparent white (Cockerell, 1898e).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; Cocker1898e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 201-202]; Cocker1898k [description, distribution, host: 42]; Cocker1902p [distribution: 257]; CockerPa1899 [distribution, host: 277]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 193]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 300]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 511-512]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 419]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 292, 298-299].
Pseudoparlatoria occultata (Hempel)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis occultata Hempel, 1937: 28-29. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, on undetermined host, ?/10/1936, by J.P. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female.
Pseudoparlatoria occultata; Lepage & Giannotti, 1943: 334. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Pseudoparlatorea occultata; Lindinger, 1957: 548. Misspelling of genus name.
HOST: Asteraceae: Baccharis sp. [Lepage1938]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Hempel1937, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hempel (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale more or less circular, white. Adult female brown and cordiform. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes, lateral margins slightly chitinized and serrated (Hempel, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria occultata somewhat resembles Diaspis visci (Hempel, 1937).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; Hempel1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28-29]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 405]; LepageGi1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 334-335]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; McKenz1963 [taxonomy: 36]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 293, 298-299].
Pseudoparlatoria ostreata CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria ostreata Cockerell, 1892d: 136-137. Type data: JAMAICA: Kingston, on Acalypha and Solanum, by T.D.A. Cockerell. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Diaspis tricuspidata Leonardi, 1914: 192-193. Type data: NIGERIA: Olokemeji, on undetermined plant. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 258.
Pseudoparlatorea tricuspidata; Lindinger, 1928: 107. Change of combination.
Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides; Ferris, 1937: SI-117. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1942: SIV-416.
COMMON NAMES: acalypha scale [Cocker1897g, Merril1953]; gray scale [Borchs1966].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus cacti [HertinSi1972, ColonFMe1998], Pentilia castanea [HertinSi1972], Scymnillodes sp. [BrunerScOt1945]. HYMENOPTERA Eupelmidae: Lecanobius cockerelli [Fulmek1943, Balach1954e]. LEPIDOPTERA Tineidae: Ereunetis minuscula [BrunerScOt1945].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Eranthemum bicolor [Laing1929a]. Agavaceae: Agave echinoides [MalumpRe2012], Agave ghiesbreghtii [MalumpRe2012], Agave lechuguilla [MalumpRe2012], Agave sp. [MillerDa2005]. Amaranthaceae: Iresine diffusa [ColonFMe1998]. Apocynaceae: Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco Schelechtendal [Wolff2008]. Araceae: Dieffenbachia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asteraceae: Senecio sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [Wolff2008]. Cactaceae: Opuntia sp. [ColonFMe1998, MillerDa2005]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Caricaceae: Carica papaya [CockerRo1909aWW, Balach1954e, ColonFMe1998], Carica sp. [MillerDa2005], Cercidium praecox [Wolff2008], Cercidium sp. [Wolff2008]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Chenopodiaceae: Suaeda divaricata Moq. [Wolff2008]. Chrysobalanaceae: Chrysobalanus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Convolvulaceae: Ipomoea tiliacea [ColonFMe1998]. Crassulaceae: Bryophyllum pinnata [NakahaMi1981], Bryophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005], Kalanchoe pinnatum [ColonFMe1998]. Cucurbitaceae: Sechium edule [ColonFMe1998]. Dioscoreaceae: Dioscorea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Empetraceae: Ceratiola ericoides [FDACSB1983]. Ephredraceae: Ephedra andina [Wolff2008]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha marginata [Cocker1892d], Acalypha sp. [Cocker1897g, MillerDa2005], Acalypha wilkesiana [Ballou1926]. Fabaceae: Bauhinia sp. [Schmut1959], Cajanus cajan [Nakaha1983], Cassia aphylla [Wolff2008], Cassia stricta Schrank [Wolff2008], Parkinsonia aculeata L. [Wolff2008], Prosopis alba Griseb. [Wolff2008]. Geraniaceae: Pelargonium sp. [Cocker1893gg, Schmut1959, MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Jasminum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Orchidaceae: Barkeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Catasetum sp. [MillerDa2005], Cattleya bowringeana Veitch. [Wolff2008], Cattleya sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Cordula bellatula [Schmut1959], Cycnoches sp. [MillerDa2005], Epidendrum [Borchs1966], Ionopsis sp. [MillerDa2005], Laelia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Oncidium sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora laurifolia [ColonFMe1998]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [FDACSB1983]. Piperaceae: Lepianthes umbellatum [ColonFMe1998], Piper medium Jacq. [Wolff2008], Piper nigrum L. [Wolff2008]. Poaceae: Merostachys sp. [Wolff2008]. Polygonaceae: Antigonon sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rubiaceae: Pentas sp. [Merril1953], Psychotria sp. [MillerDa2005]. Solanaceae: Cestrum nocturnum [Ballou1926], Cestrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Solanum seaforthianum Andr. [Wolff2008], Solanum sp. [Cocker1892d, MillerDa2005], Solanum torvum [ColonFMe1998], Solanum veinlandii [Balach1954e]. Verbenaceae: Verbena sp. [MillerDa2005]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Balach1954e, Nakaha1982]; Guinea [Nakaha1982]; Nigeria [Leonar1914]; Senegal [Balach1954e, Nakaha1982]; Sierra Leone [Hargre1937, Nakaha1982]. Nearctic: Mexico [Balach1954e]; United States of America (Florida [Dekle1965c], Texas [Wolff2008]). Neotropical: Argentina (Catamarca [Wolff2008], La Rioja [Wolff2008], Neuquen, Santiago del Estero [Wolff2008], Tucuman); Chile (Santiago [Wolff2008]); Cuba [CockerRo1909aWW, Ballou1926, Merril1953]; Dominican Republic [GomezM1941, Nakaha1982]; Ecuador [Yust1958, Nakaha1982]; Guadeloupe [Nakaha1982]; Guatemala [McKenz1935, Merril1953]; Guyana [Bodkin1922, Nakaha1982]; Haiti [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Cocker1892d]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Ferris1942, NakahaMi1981]); Saint Croix [MiskimBo1970, Nakaha1982]; Venezuela [Merril1953]. Palaearctic: France [Nakaha1982] (In greenhouses.); Germany [Schmut1959] (In greenhouses.); United Kingdom (England [MalumpRe2012]).
BIOLOGY: We have been unable to find a published account detailing the life cycle of the gray scale. Brown (1965) reported that this species has the diaspidid (sexual) chromosome system. The material he examined was from Jamaica and Brazil. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e). Photographs in Malumphy & Readstone, 2012.
STRUCTURE: Female scale thin, papery, dark grey, exuviae subcentral. Male scale similar in color and texture, but elongate and with exuviae at one end. Slide-mounted adult female 1.2 mm long. Pygidium with 2nd lobes small, but distinctly developed, flattened and bilobulate. 3rd lobes consisting merely of a very small, flattened single lobule. margin beyond the 3rd lobe very slightly sclerotized. Dorsal ducts numerous, occupying a broad submarginal zone that extends from the 7th to the 2nd abdominal segments, the ducts slightly smaller than those of the margin (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria ostreata and P. parlatorioides have been confused. Ferris (1937) considered P. ostreata to be a junior synonym of P. parlatorioides. P. ostreata is separable from P. parlatorioides by the much greater number of dorsal macroducts and by the fact that these ducts extend forward as far as the 2nd abdominal segment in ostreata, while in parlatorioides they are few and confined to the pygidium. It is also similar to P. serrulata (Ferris, 1942).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Dekle (1977) noted that gray scale occasionally was a serious pest on copperleaf (Acalypha wilkesiana) in Florida. It also has been reported as an important pest of papaya (Carica papaya) in Puerto Rico (Wolcott 1937, Martorell 1945). Wolcott and Martorell (1943, 1944) indicated that the scale was under reasonable control with the lady beetle Chilocorus cacti (Linnaeus). It is an occasional pest of avocado (McKenzie 1935a). (Miller & Davidson, 2005). Malumphy & Redstone (2012) published a record of P. ostreata breeding in Britain, but stated that the population was controlled. They state that it is a sub-tropical species that is unlikely to be able to naturalise in Britain but can clearly establish in glasshouse botanical collections. It is a successful coloniser and has been introduced to North and South America, Africa and Europe (on indoor plantings only).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 126 [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria of Puerto Rico]; Danzig 1993: 392 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 256, 258-261]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 36]; Bodkin1922 [distribution, host: 59]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 163]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 232]; BrunerScOt1945 [biological control, distribution, host: 30]; Cocker1892d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 136-137]; Cocker1893cc [distribution, host: 103]; Cocker1893gg [distribution, host: 373]; Cocker1893j [distribution: 256]; Cocker1897g [distribution: 109]; CockerRo1909aWW [distribution, host: 105]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126-127]; Danzig1993 [distribution, taxonomy: 392]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 122]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 179]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 318]; FDACSB1983 [distribution, host: 7, 8]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23, 80]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-117]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-416, SIV-446:62]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 69]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GomezM1941 [distribution, host: 140]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Gowdey1926 [distribution, host: 49]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 530, 552]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 190]; Jones1917 [distribution, host: 13]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 24]; Laing1929a [distribution, host, illustration: 499-500]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 192-193]; Leonar1932 [distribution, host: 135]; Leonar1933 [distribution, host: 120]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 116]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 114]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; MalumpRe2012 [behaviour, description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 107-114]; Martor1945 [distribution, host: 273, 412]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 4, 54, 193, 243, 268]; Maxwel1902 [distribution: 248]; McKenz1935 [distribution: 39]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 370]; MiskimBo1970 [distribution, economic importance, host: 31]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 76]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 15]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 36]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Sassce1918 [economic importance: 127]; Schmut1957b [taxonomy: 150]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 210-211]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180]; Wolcot1933 [distribution, economic importance, host: 496]; Wolcot1958 [biological control, distribution: 512]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 293, 299-300]; Yust1958 [distribution, host: 151]; YustCe1956 [distribution: 431].
Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides (Comstock)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus parlatorioides Comstock, 1883: 64-65. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, Fort George, on Persea carolinensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides; Cockerell, 1897s: 383. Change of combination.
Pseudoparlatorea parlatoreoides; Lindinger, 1907a: 20. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Pseudoparlatoria pusilla Green, 1922a: 1010-1011. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Theobroma cacao. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-417.
COMMON NAMES: false parlatoria scale [McKenz1956]; parlatoria-like scale [Borchs1966].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Schmut1959].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Jacobinia [Borchs1966]. Amaranthaceae: Alternanthera bettzickiana Nichols. [Wolff2008], Celosia floribunda [Ferris1921]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005], Schinus dependens [Lizery1942c], Schinus sp. [Wolff2008], Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi [Wolff2008]. Annonaceae: Anona sp. [Wolff2008]. Apocynaceae: Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco [Wolff2008], Nerium [Borchs1966], Nerium oleander L. [Wolff2008]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex vomitoria [BesheaTiHo1973]. Araceae: Anthurium sp. [MillerDa2005], Nephthytis sp. [MillerDa2005], Philodendron sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araliaceae: Hedera helix L. [Wolff2008], Hedera sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Chamaedorea sp. [MillerDa2005], Chamaerops sp. [Wolff2008], Cocos sp. [MillerDa2005], Phoenix sp. [MillerDa2005], Sabal palmetto [BesheaTiHo1973], Seaforthia sp. [Wilson1917], Trachycarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Washingtonia robusta [Wilson1917], Washingtonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aristolochiaceae: Aristolochia leuconeura [Schmut1959], Aristolochia sp. [Lindin1910b], Asclemius sp. [Wolff2008]. Asclepiadaceae: Asclepias sublata [Ferris1921]. Asteraceae: Gerbera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Begoniaceae: Begonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bignoniaceae: Bignonia sp. [MerrilCh1923], Kigelia pinnata DC [Wolff2008], Pyrostegia ignea (Vell.) [Wolff2008], Pyrostegia sp. [Wolff2008], Tecomaria capensis [Simmon1957]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Burseraceae: Elaphrium microphyllum [MerrilCh1923]. Cactaceae: Cephalocereus sp. [MillerDa2005], Rhipsalis [Borchs1966]. Capparaceae: Forchammeria watsoni [Ferris1921, MerrilCh1923]. Caprifoliaceae: Loncera sp. [Wolff2008], Viburnum odoratissimum Ker. [Wolff2008], Viburnum tinus L. [Wolff2008]. Caricaceae: Carica papaya [Ballou1926]. Caryophyllaceae: Dianthus [Borchs1966], Dianthus caryophyllus L. [Wolff2008]. Celastraceae: Cercidium sp. [Wolff2008], Cercis canadensis L. [Wolff2008], Elaeodendron sp. [MillerDa2005], Maytenus sp. [Wolff2008], Rhacoma ilicipolia (Poir.) [Wolff2008]. Chenopodiaceae: Suaeda divaricata Moq. [Wolff2008]. Combretaceae: Laguncularia racemosa [ColonFMe1998]. Cycadaceae: Elaphrium microphyllum (A. Gray) Rose [Wolff2008], Zamia integrifolia Ait. [Wolff2008]. Ericaceae: Eryrthrina sp. [Wolff2008], Euonymus sp. [Wolff2008], Gaylussacia [Borchs1966], Hamelia patens Jacq. [Wolff2008], Howeia sp. [Wolff2008], Vacciniumn sp. [Wolff2008]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha sp. [MerrilCh1923], Acalypha wilkesiana [Ballou1926], Jatropha sp. [MillerDa2005], Sapium sp. [Wolff2008]. Fabaceae: Calliandra haematocephala Hassk. [Wolff2008], Cercidium praecox [Lizery1942c], Cercidium sp. [Ferris1921], Cynometra oaxacuna [Wolff2008], Cynometra sp. [Wolff2008], Erythrina [Borchs1966], Inga sp. [MillerDa2005], Inga sp. [Wolff2008], Inga uruguensis [Haywar1941], Lablab purpureus [ColonFMe1998], Prosopis huntzei [Wolff2008]. Flacourtiaceae: Casearia aculeata [MestreHaEv2011]. Labiatae: Coleus [Borchs1966]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Persea amearicana Mill. [Wolff2008], Persea bordonia [McDani1973], Persea carolinensis [Cocker1897s, Lepage1938, SilvadGoGa1968], Persea palustris (Raf.) [Wolff2008], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Chlorophytum macrophyllum [Schmut1959], Smilax sp. [Wolff2008], Yucca sp. [Wolff2008]. Loganiaceae: Buddleia davidii [Ballou1926]. Lythraceae: Punica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Drimys sp. [MerrilCh1923], Illicium floridanum [BesheaTiHo1973], Magnolia grandiflora [Borchs1937a, SilvadGoGa1968], Magnolia obovata Thumb. [Wolff2008], Magnolia sp. [Lepage1938, SilvadGoGa1968, MillerDa2005], Magnolia virginiana L. [Wolff2008]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus [Borchs1966], Theobroma sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Melastomaceae: Tibouchina sp. [Wolff2008]. Moraceae: Artocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Dorstenia sp. [Schmut1959], Ficus [Borchs1966], Ficus rubiginosa Vent. [Wolff2008], Poulsenia armata [NormarMoKr2014]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [Lepage1938, MillerDa2005], Myecaria edulis [Wolff2008]. Myristicaceae: Virola sebifera [NormarMoKr2014]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia guabiju [CorseuSi1971], Eugenia pungens Berg. [Wolff2008], Myrcia jaboticaba Berg. [Wolff2008], Myrciaria edulis [Lizery1942c], Myrciaria jaboticaba [CulikMaVe2008], Pimenta sp. [MillerDa2005], Psidium guajava L. [Wolff2008], Psidium sp. [Hempel1900a, MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Jasminum [Borchs1966], Ligustrum sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Olea [Borchs1966], Olea europea L. [Wolff2008], Osmanthus fragrans Lour. [Wolff2008]. Orchidaceae: Batemannia sp. [MillerDa2005], Brassavola sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Broughtonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cattleya mossiae Hooker [Wolff2008], Cattleya sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Cattleya sp. [Wolff2008], Comparettia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cordula insignis [Schmut1959], Cymbidium [Borchs1966], Cypripedium callosum [Schmut1959], Cypripedium carneum luteum [Schmut1959], Cypripedium insigne [Schmut1959], Cypripedium sp. [MillerDa2005], Cyrtopodium punctatum (L.) [Wolff2008], Epidendrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Epidendrum tampense Ldl. [Wolff2008], Huntleya sp. [MillerDa2005], Laelia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Lycaste skinneri [Schmut1959], Lycaste sp. [MillerDa2005], Maxillaria sp. [MillerDa2005], Odontoglossum sp. [MillerDa2005], Oncidium cavendishianum [Schmut1959], Oncidium pulvinatum [Schmut1959], Oncidium sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005], Oncidium varicosum [Cocker1897s, MerrilCh1923, SilvadGoGa1968], Orchis sp. [Lupo1947], Paphiopedilum fairieanum [VieiraCaPi1983], Paphiopedilum insigne [Schmut1959], Peristeria sp. [MillerDa2005], Reinhardtia sp. [MillerDa2005], Schomburgkia sp. [MillerDa2005], Sobralia sp. [MillerDa2005], Spiranthes sp. [MillerDa2005], Stanhopea devonensis [Schmut1959], Stanhopea tigrina [Schmut1959], Vanda hookeriana Rchb. [Wolff2008], Vanda teres (Roxb.) [Wolff2008], Vanilla sp. [Schmut1959, MillerDa2005], Zygopetalum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Palmae: Butia capitata (Mart.) [Wolff2008], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens Wendl. [Wolff2008], Cocos nucifera L. [Wolff2008], Phoenix canariensis Chaub. [Wolff2008], Phoenix sp. [Wolff2008], Ptychosperma sp. [Wolff2008], Roystonea sp. [Wolff2008], Washingtonia sp. [Wolff2008]. Phytolaccaceae: Trichostigma sp. [Merril1953]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Pinus taeda [BesheaTiHo1973]. Piperaceae: Peperomia sp. [MillerDa2005], Piper chaba [Schmut1959]. Polygonaceae: Polgala rugelii Schuttlw [Wolff2008]. Pyrolaceae: Chimaphila maculata [BesheaTiHo1973]. Rhamnaceae: Reynosia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Laurocerasus caroliana [Simmon1957], Prunus persica [Lepage1938], Prunus sp. [Wolff2008], Rosa sp. [MillerDa2005], Rubus sp. [Wolff2008]. Rubiaceae: Borrera sp. [MillerDa2005], Borreria laevis [Simmon1957], Cinchona sp. [MillerDa2005], Genipa sp. [Wolff2008], Ixora [Borchs1966]. Ruscaceae: Dracaena sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Amyris elimifera [ColonFMe1998], Amyris parvifolia [Bibby1931, McDani1973], Amyris sp. [MillerDa2005], Citrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ruta chalepensis [Ballou1926]. Santalaceae: Jodina rhombifolia Hook & Am. [Wolff2008]. Sapindaceae: Melicoccus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Solanaceae: Cestrum diurnan L. [Wolff2008], Cestrum nocturnum L. [Wolff2008], Cestrum sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Sterculiaceae: Sabal sp. [Wolff2008], Serenoa repens (Bart.) [Wolff2008], Tamarix sp. [Wolff2008], Theobroma cacao [Green1922a], Theobroma cocao L. [Wolff2008]. Theaceae: Camellia [Borchs1966], Camellia japonica L. [Wolff2008]. Theophrastaceae: Jacquinia sp. [Wolff2008], Thrinax sp. [Wolff2008]. Zygophyllaceae: Porliera angustifolia [Bibby1931].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Lindin1910b]. Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Nakaha1981a]); New Zealand (North Island [Ward1968, CharleHe2002]). Nearctic: Mexico [Leonar1920] (Baja California Sur [MerrilCh1923, Wolff2008], Coahuila [Wolff2008], Guanajuato [Cocker1899n], Guerrero [Cocker1897p], Jalisco [Cocker1899n], Nayarit [Wolff2008], Sonora [Cocker1899d]); United States of America (Alabama [McComb1986, Koszta1996], California [Ferris1942] (Nakahara (1982) states this species has been eradicated from California.), District of Columbia [Cocker1897s], Florida [Cocker1897s, Leonar1920, BesheaTiHo1973], Georgia [TippinBe1970], Maryland [McComb1986, Koszta1996], New Jersey [McComb1986, Koszta1996], South Carolina [MerrilCh1923], Texas [Bibby1931, Ferris1942, Koszta1996]). Neotropical: Argentina [Haywar1941] (Catamarca [Wolff2008], Chaco [Wolff2008], Formosa [Wolff2008], La Rioja [Wolff2008], Tucuman [Wolff2008]); Bahamas [MerrilCh1923]; Bermuda [Simmon1957]; Brazil [Cocker1897s, Leonar1920] (Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Minas Gerais [Wolff2008], Minas Gerais [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio Grande do Sul [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio de Janeiro [Hempel1900a, Lepage1938, SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [Hempel1900a, Lepage1938]); Colombia [Figuer1952]; Cuba [MerrilCh1923, MestreHaEv2011]; Ecuador [YustCe1956]; Guatemala [Wolff2008]; Honduras [Merril1953]; Jamaica [Merril1953]; Panama [Ferris1942, NormarMoKr2014]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [NakahaMi1981]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Merril1953]. Oriental: India [Green1937]; Sri Lanka [Green1922a, Wolff2008]. Palaearctic: Belgium [Nakaha1982] (In greenhouses.); Czechoslovakia [Nakaha1982]; France [Nakaha1982]; Germany [Leonar1920]; Italy [Leonar1918]; Madeira Islands [VieiraCaPi1983]; Netherlands [Nakaha1982]; Spain [GomezM1957, Martin1983]; Sweden [Ossian1959]; United Kingdom (England [Nakaha1982]).
BIOLOGY: We could find no definitive life history study of this species. Brown (1965) noted that specimens from São Paulo, Brazil on Eugenia jaboticaba had a haploid compliment of 5 chromosomes and found both male and female embryos. Schmutterer (1952b) indicated that both sexes occurred in populations in greenhouses in Germany, but because of the paucity of males he believed that the species might be at least partially parthenogenetic. Under greenhouse conditions in middle Europe adult females lay 30 130 eggs, and the larvae apparently hatch in about 10 days. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Balachowsky (1954e) and description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, thin, papery, yellow or yellowish brown, circular or oval, exuviae submarginal. Male scale similar in color and texture, somewhat elongate, exuviae at one end. Slide-mounted adult female 0.75 mm long. Median pygidial lobes somewhat variable in size and prominence, separated by a distance greater than the width of one of them and with the usual forked gland spine between. 2nd and 3rd lobes small, but definitely developed, both bilobulate, flattened and not sclerotic (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides may be confused with P. ostreata in tropical regions (Balachowsky, 1954e). Ferris (1937) considered P. ostreata to be a junior synonym of P. parlatorioides, however, P. ostreata is separable from P. parlatorioides by the much greater number of dorsal macroducts and by the fact that these ducts extend forward as far as the 2nd abdominal segment in ostreata, while in parlatorioides they are few and confined to the pygidium (Ferris, 1942).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Strickland (1947a) lists Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides as a pest of Cacao. This species was considered to be a serious pest in a small area of the world by Miller and Davidson (1990) and Arnett (1985). Merrill and Chaffin (1923) reported false parlatoria scale in Florida as an occasionally very serious pest, especially on Acalypha and palms. Steinweden (1945) listed P. parlatorioides as one of the more important orchid pests in California; it has since been eradicated from this state. These reports are possibly misidentifications of P. ostreata. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 126 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria of Puerto Rico]; Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1971d: 845 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 314 (female) [as Carulaspis parlatoroides; Key to species of Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 256-258]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 36]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 13]; Bibby1931 [distribution, host: 193]; Boraty1968a [taxonomy: 33, 36]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 106, 114]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, structure: 210]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 164]; Brick1912 [distribution, host: 7]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 232]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 8]; Charle2011 [distribution: 589]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,607-608]; Cocker1892d [taxonomy: 136]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy: 9, 10]; Cocker1897p [distribution, host: 591]; Cocker1897s [distribution, host: 383]; Cocker1898w [distribution, host, taxonomy: 503]; Cocker1899d [distribution, host: 167]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 31]; Cocker1899s [distribution, host: 258]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-128]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57, 64-65]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 519, 525-526]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 392-393]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 123]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-109]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-117]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-415, SIV-417]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Gill1997 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 242-243]; GomezM1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-58]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1010-1011]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 530, 551, 552]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 108]; Haywar1941 [distribution, host: 85]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 511]; Hempel1920 [description, distribution, host: 142-143]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,13,182-183,237,258]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 4]; Houser1918 [distribution, host: 169]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 263]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 573-574]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; Leonar1918 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 193]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 176-178]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 419]; LepageFi1947 [chemical control, economic importance: 43]; Lindin1905a [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 12]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 79, 92]; Lizery1942c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 234]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34-39]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; MacGre1974 [economic importance, taxonomy: 82]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 4]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 57]; Martor1945 [distribution, host: 412]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 10, 154]; McComb1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 72]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 3]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 395, 396]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 154-155]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 18, 78-79]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 251-252]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 14]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 374]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68, 97]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 404]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 76]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 36]; Newell1927 [distribution, host: 74, 88]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Ogilvi1928 [distribution, host: 28]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ruther1915 [distribution, host: 112]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 31]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host: 580]; Schmut1957b [taxonomy: 150]; Schmut1959 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207-209]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 6]; Strick1947a [distribution, economic importance, host: 521]; Terezn1975 [taxonomy: 75]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 134]; VitoriZaMa2013 [description, distribution, host: 176-179]; Ward1968 [distribution, host: 50]; Waters1941 [distribution, host: 10]; Wilson1917 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 46-47]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 300-302]; Wunn1925b [taxonomy: 296]; Wunn1925c [taxonomy: 438, 440, 449]; Yust1958 [distribution, host: 108]; YustCe1956 [distribution, host: 432].
Pseudoparlatoria perparvula FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria perparvula Ferris, 1942: SIV-418. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Manzanillo, on Hyperbaena denticulata, 1925, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Menispermaceae: Hyperbaena denticulata [Ferris1942].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scales are exceedingly small, variable in form according to the surroundings, but when free apparently slightly elongate and quite convex, of a whitish color suffused with purple; exuviae at one end. Male scale elongate, exuviae apical. Slide-mounted adult female 0.5 mm long. Pygidium very small and short (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: This minute species is distinguishable by the minute 2nd and 3rd lobes and the arrangement of the marginal macroducts of the pygidium (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 164]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-418, SIV-446:62]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 293, 302].
Pseudoparlatoria pisai (Hempel)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus Pisai Hempel, 1904: 320. Type data: BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro, Itatiaya, on Drymis sp. Syntypes. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female.
Pseudoparlatoria pizai; Lepage & Giannotti, 1943a: 332. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Pseudoparlatoria pisai; Borchsenius, 1966: 164. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Winteraceae: Drymis sp. [Hempel1904, ClapsWoGo2001], Drymis winterii [SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro [Hempel1904, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Hempel (1904).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, somewhat wider near posterior end, convex, dark brown. Exuviae at anterior end, clear yellow, 1.6 mm long and 1.1 mm wide. Adult female subcircular, 0.82 mm in diameter, with more or less rigid derm of clear yellow. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, median pair large with wide space between the two. 2nd and 3rd pairs of lobes each with 2 lobules each (Hempel, 1904).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria pisai somewhat resembles P. circularis, but can easily be distinguished by the form and size of the pygidial lobes, the number of marginal macroducts and the distribution of the dorsal ducts (Lepage & Giannotti, 1943).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fèmeas adultas. (Key to identification of the species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on adult female characters)]; MacGillivray 1921: 400 (female) [as Aspidiotus pisai; Key to species of Aspidiotus].
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 47]; Hempel1904 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 320]; LepageGi1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 332-334]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 180]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 546]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 400]; Sander1906 [distribution, host: 14]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 180].
Pseudoparlatoria podocarpus WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria podocarpus Wolff, 2001: 72-73. Type data: VENEZUELA: 8/1/1974, on P. oleifolius, by F.R. Planer. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 8799. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Araceae: Monstera sp. [Wolff2001]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus oleifolius [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Wolff2001]; Venezuela [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseucoparlatoria lobata.
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 72-73]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 393].
Pseudoparlatoria pontiaguda WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria pontiaguda Wolff, 2001: 73. Type data: PERU: 72 km NE of Lima, on the road Tingo Maria Esp. Sto., 8/?/1944, on Cinchona sp., by J.G. Sanders. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 570682. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Cinchona sp. [Wolff2001]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Peru [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria argentata Hempel, in the great amount of small glands in the ventral and dorsal pygidium, and the number of marginal macroducts. It differs in body shape and median lobes and display only a pair of lobes pre-pygidium.
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 73]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 292].
Pseudoparlatoria punctata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria punctata Ferris, 1942: SIV-420. Type data: MEXICO: Guerrero, 30 km east of Acapulco, on undetermined mimosaceous plant, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale roughly circular, white or slightly gray, thin and papery, exuviae at one side. Male scale similar to that of female, but slightly elongate, exuviae terminal. Adult female about 0.6 mm long, turbinate. Pygidium with the median lobes moderately large, separated by slightly less than the width of one of them and with the usual bifurcate gland spine between. 2nd lobes well developed and distinctly bilobulate. 3rd lobes weakly developed, outer lobule sometimes being merely a point (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria punctata is unique in the extension of the dorsal macroducts to the 3rd abdominal segment and by the row of small marginal macroducts (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 164]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-420, SIV-446:62]; LepageGi1946 [taxonomy: 40]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 302-303].
Pseudoparlatoria rossettae FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria rossettae Fonseca, 1969: 20-22. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, Siqueira Campos, on Cassaria sylvestris, ?/08/1967, by J. Fonseca. Holotype female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Flacourtiaceae: Cassaria sylvestris [Fonsec1969, ClapsWoGo2001]. Myrtaceae: Myrcia jaboticaba [Wolff2008]. Rubiaceae: Genipa sp. [Wolff2008]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1969, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Fonseca (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, slightly convex, semitransparent, exuviae subcentral, yellow. Adult female nearly circular. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes (Fonseca, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria rossettae is near P. caucae (Fonseca, 1969).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251-252]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-22]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 303].
Pseudoparlatoria sculpta (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Malleolaspis sculpta Ferris, 1941d: SIII-292. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui Province, Volcan de Chiriqui, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Pseudoparlatoria sculpta; Wolff, 2008: 303-304. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 6500 feet (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale distinctly yellow, circular, flat, thin, with exuviae subcentral. Mounted adult female 1.25 mm long. Metathoracic segment not produced laterally, its lateral margins only slightly lobed. 1st and 2nd abdominal segments closely united and together forming slightly produced lateral lobes, 3rd segment likewise being slightly lobed (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The fact that the lateral margins of the metathorax and the 1st abdominal segment are not produced into acute lobes, and the large size of the dorsal pygidial ducts, as well as minor differences in form, separate this species from other members of its genus (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [Key to species of Malleolaspis].
CITATIONS: BalachMa1980 [taxonomy: 70]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 162]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-292]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 303-304].
Pseudoparlatoria serrulata Townsend & CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria serrulata Townsend & Cockerell, 1898: 180. Type data: MEXICO: Sonora, Hermosillo, on undetermined tree, 23/04/1897, by Koebele. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Pseudoparlatoria parlatorioides; Ferris, 1937: SI-117. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1942: SIV-421.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Thithrinax campestris (Burm.) [Wolff2008]. Capparidaceae: Forchhammeria watsoni [Ferris1942]. Chenopodiaceae: Dalea sp. [Wolff2008], Sueda divaricata Moq. [Wolff2008]. Fabaceae: Cercidium sp. [Ferris1942], Cercidium sp. [Wolff2008], Merostachys sp. [Wolff2008]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus [Borchs1966]. Orchidaceae [Wolff2008]. Theophrastaceae: Jacquinia sp. [Ferris1942]. Ulmaceae: Celtis pallida [Ferris1942]. Viscaceae: Arceuthobium bicarinatum Urban [Wolff2008]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [Wolff2008]. Zygophyllaceae: Larrea divaricata Cav. [Wolff2008].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1942], Colima [Ferris1942], Durango [Wolff2008], Guerrero [Wolff2008], Sonora [TownseCo1898, Ferris1942]). Neotropical: Argentina (Catamarca [Wolff2008], Formosa [Wolff2008]); Brazil (Sao Paulo [Wolff2008]); Dominican Republic [Wolff2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale moderately convex, quite thin and papery, slightly wrinkled, white or gray, exuviae submarginal. Male scale similar to female in color and texture, flat and oval, exuviae terminal. Adult female 0.9 mm long. Pygidium with the median lobes quite small, in some specimens very inconspicuous, widely separated and with the usual bifurcate gland spine between. 2nd and 3rd lobes slightly serrate and slightly sclerotized (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Distinguishable by the minutely serrulate character of the lobes (Townsend & Cockerell, 1898).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 314 (female) [as Carulaspis serrulata; Key to species of Carulaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 31]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-116, SI-117]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-421, SIV-446:62]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; TownseCo1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 180]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 304].
Pseudoparlatoria subcircularis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria subcircularis Balachowsky, 1959: 352-353. Type data: COLOMBIA: Cali, Navarro, Rio Cauca, on undetermined host, 17/02/1957, by A. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Sapota [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Balach1959, Wolff2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1959).
CITATIONS: Balach1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 352-353]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 304].
Pseudoparlatoria suelda WolffNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria suelda Wolff, 2001: 73. Type data: COLOMBIA: Medellin, 5/?/1971 on Phorodendron sp., by A. Madrigal. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Loranthaceae: Phorodendron sp. [Wolff2001]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Wolff2001].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Wolff2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Portugese and illustration in Wolff, 2001.
SYSTEMATICS: Similar to Pseudoparlatoria subcircularis Balachowsky in body shape and pygidium; distinguished by the absence of macroducts on the L1 margin, fewer submarginal glands.
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Wolff2001 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 73]; Wolff2008 [structure, taxonomy: 292].
Pseudoparlatoria tillandsiae TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria tillandsiae Tippins, 1970: 818-819. Type data: UNITED STATES: Georgia, Echols County, 1 mile NW of the point at which the Suwannee River enters Florida, on Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides, growing on Quercus virginiana, 04/05/1968, by R. Beshear. Holotype female. Type depository: Athens: University of Georgia, Department of Entomology Collection, Georgia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia recurvata [BesheaTiHo1973], Tillandsia usneoides [Tippin1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [BesheaTiHo1973], Georgia [Tippin1970], South Carolina [TippinBe1975]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tippins (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light purplish brown to whitish, 1.5 mm long and 0.5 mm wide. Slide-mounted adult female averages 0.85 mm long and 0.37 mm wide. Pygidium acutely rounded, with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes unusually large, acute, and with 3 or 4 notches on each margin. 2nd lobes well developed, bilobulate, variously notched. 3rd lobe small but sclerotized and bilobulate (Tippins, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria tillandsiae is close to P. elongata, but differs in the form of the median lobes, the size of the anal opening, the number of marginal ducts in the 2nd interlobular space and the presence of an ocular spur (Tippins, 1970).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: BenDov1989 [host: 2]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 14]; DaviesBo1979 [physiology: 99]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 77]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; TakagiTi1972 [taxonomy: 180]; Tippin1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 818-819]; TippinBe1975 [distribution, host: 50]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 304-305].
Pseudoparlatoria triangularis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria triangularis Mamet, 1954: 72-74. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Périnet, on "Fanjava ala," 27/05/1950, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 172. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954, Borchs1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, greyish, delicate; exuviae towards one side. Adult female triangular, with front end somewhat produced; prosoma shorter than postsoma; 0.7 mm long. Derm somewhat sclerotized. Pygidium elongate, broadly rounded apically. Median lobes moderately large, broadly rounded apically, separated by slightly more than the width of one of them, with a bifurcate gland spine between them. 2nd and 3rd lobes well developed, distinctly bilobulate, the whole lobe much broader than median lobe (Mamet, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria triangularis differs from other species of the genus by the absence of perivulvar pores and by its characteristic triangular shape (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21, 72-74].
Pseudoparlatoria trimaculata Lepage & GiannottiNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria trimaculata Lepage & Giannotti, 1946: 37-40. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Campos de Jordao, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [LepageGi1946, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage & Giannotti (1946).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, exuviae subcentral. Male scale more elongate, yellow. Adult female approximately circular, 1.0 mm wide, derm membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, 1st and 2nd well developed, 3rd inconspicuous (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoparlatoria trimaculata is near P. maculata Ferris (Lepage & Giannotti, 1946).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; LepageGi1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-40]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 305].
Pseudoparlatoria turgida FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria turgida Ferris, 1941d: SIII-319. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Armuelles, on undetermined host, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Pyrenoglyphus sp. [Ferris1941d]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Jalisco [Wolff2008]). Neotropical: Argentina (Chaco [Wolff2008]); Panama [Ferris1941d, Wolff2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellowish or pale, thin and transparent, more or less circular, with exuviae submarginal. Slide-mounted adult female about 1.2 mm long, ovoid, tapering posteriorly. Derm becoming more or less sclerotized over entire body at maturity. Median lobes quite large, with the usual pair of gland spines between them. 2nd and 3rd lobes developed, but very small, 2nd bilobulate. Marginal ducts presenting the usual distribution, the submarginal ducts very few, confined to a narrow submarginal zone on the pygidium itself and except for one pair, all smaller than marginal ducts (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The elongate form of the body separates P. turgida from all other species of the genus except P. elongata. From that species it differs in having the body sclerotized at maturity and in having the dorsal pygidial ducts very few and confined to the pygidium (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Wolff 2008: 292-293 (female) [Chave para identificação das espécies de Pseudoparlatoria, baseada nos caracteres de fêmeas adultas. (A key to species of Pseudoparlatoria, based on the characters of adult females)]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:62 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; CouturQuGo1997; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-316, SIII-319]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Wolff2008 [description, distribution, host, structure, taxonomy: 292, 305-306].
Pudaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Pudaspis Hall, 1946a: 530-531. Type species: Diaspis newsteadi Leonardi, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Pudaspis differs from Diaspis in having only a median pair of lobes, the marginal pores relatively small and no larger than the dorsal pores an the pygidial gland spines replaced by several conspicuous plate-lie structures a pair of which occur between the median lobes (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [structure: 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 157]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 530-531, 541]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 169].
Pudaspis newsteadi (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis newsteadi Leonardi, 1914: 190-192. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on undetermined plant. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Epidiaspis Newsteadi; Lindinger, 1928: 107. Change of combination.
Pudaspis newsteadi; Hall, 1946a: 530. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus diaspidis [Anneck1963a]. Encyrtidae: Zaomma cestus [Prinsl1979].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia horrida [Brain1919], Acacia karroo [Anneck1963a]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Brain1919]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Leonar1914, Anneck1963a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Leonardi (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large, 2.6 mm wide, almost circular, somewhat elongate, very convex, rounded, white, sulphur yellow exuviae forming a distinct cap at or near center of scale. Male scale large, white, non-carinate, with bright exuviae (Brain, 1919).
CITATIONS: Anneck1963a [biological control, distribution, host: 343]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 224-225]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 530]; Leonar1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 190-192]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 114]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 85]; Prinsl1979 [biological control, distribution, host: 71].
Pygalataspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pygalataspis Ferris, 1921a: 218. Type species: Pygalataspis miscanthi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1921a).
SYSTEMATICS: In the abundance and distribution of the ducts and the correlated characters of the scale this genus most closely resembles Odonaspis, but the peculiarly shaped plates and the extraordinarily large lobes are quite unlike anything else (Ferris, 1921a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 155]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 333]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 348]; Ferris1921a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 218]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 41, 101]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1955c [taxonomy: 30]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 517]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 194]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 170]; Takagi1997a [taxonomy: 100]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 293].
Pygalataspis miscanthi FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Pygalataspis miscanthi Ferris, 1921a: 218-219. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, on Miscanthus sinensis. Holotype female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: 9 paratypes in UCDC, 1 in USNM.
HOST: Poaceae: Miscanthus sinensis [Ferris1921a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986]); Hong Kong [Ferris1955c, Tao1999]; Taiwan [Ferris1921a, Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1921a). Subsequent description by Takagi (1969a). Detailed description and analysis of taxanomic placement in Takagi (1997a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.5 mm long, elongate, white or brownish. Male scale similar, but only 1.0 mm long. Adult female elongate, with nearly parallel sides, the margins of the abdominal segments projecting but little or not at all, derm membranous except for the pygidium and the lateral margins of the last 2 or 3 abdominal segments which are heavily chitinized. Pygidium with the marginal area heavily chitinized and more or less folded. 2 pairs of large, rounded lobes or lobe-like processes present, each with a broad, flattened, irregularly toothed plate arising from the outer margin, the plates of the 2nd pair larger than those of median pair (Ferris, 1921a). Newly hatched larva elongate elliptical. No ducts dorsally; nine enlarged ducts occurring slong margin on ventral surface on each side of body. Submedian dorsal setae occurring as posteriorly as 7th abdominal segment. (Takagi, 1997a)
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60-61]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 7-8]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 155]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333-334]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 348]; Ferris1921a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 218-219]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 41, 101]; Ferris1955c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 160]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; Takagi1997a [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100-105]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 20, 74]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 281]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 114]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 296-297].
Quernaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Quernaspis Ferris, 1937: SI-118. Type species: Chionaspis quercus Comstock, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with "two-barred" ducts. Body elongate, fusiform. Median lobes fused into a single broad lobe with no trace of division. 2nd lobes present, bilobed. Dorsal ducts of the abdomen present, except at the margin, only as far as the 5th segment, scattered. Marginal ducts of the pygidium with their mouths surrounded by a conspicuous ring-like sclerosis. Perivulvar pores present in 5 groups (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 11 (female) [Key to the genera of the subtribe Chionaspidina in North America]; Yang 1982: 222 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Ferris 1942: 42 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 102]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-118]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3, 6, 25]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:42]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 246]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 64]; HowellTa1981 [taxonomy: 487]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 585]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 27]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 171]; TakagiHo1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 31]; TakagiTa1982 [description, taxonomy: 103]; TippinBe1970a [taxonomy: 808]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 222].
Quernaspis insularis Howell in Takagi & HowellNOMENCLATURE:
Quernaspis insularis Howell in Takagi & Howell, 1977: 37-42. Type data: UNITED STATES: Georgia, Glynn County, on Quercus virginiana, 16/03/1972, by H.H. Tippins. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 144-72. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in USNM, HUSJ, VPIC, BMNH (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus alba [HowardOl1985], Quercus laurifolia [TakagiHo1977], Quercus sp. [TakagiHo1977], Quercus stellata [TakagiHo1977], Quercus virginiana [TakagiHo1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arkansas [TakagiTa1982], Florida [TakagiTa1982], Georgia [TakagiHo1977], Louisiana [HowardOl1985], Texas [TakagiTa1982]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Howell (1977). Description and illustration of first instars by Howell (1981a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, narrow anteriorly widening posteriorly, about 1.5 mm long. First exuviae terminal. Adult female body fusiform, widest across abdominal segments 1-2. Prepygidial abdominal segments lobed laterally. Pygidium broadly triangular, margins subtending an angle of about 100° or less (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Quernaspis insularis is separable from Q. quercus in having a more acute pygidium, fewer dorsal submedian macroducts on abdominal segments 3-5, and usually fewer submarginal macroducts on abdominal segment 4. It is easily distinguished from Q. quercicola, by the fused median lobes. In Q. quercicola, the median lobes are clearly separated on the apical half (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
KEYS: Howell 1981a: 618 (first instar) [Key to 1st instars of Quernaspis]; Takagi & Howell 1977: 46 (male, female) [Key to species of Quernaspis].
CITATIONS: HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-65]; Howell1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 616-617]; HowellTa1981 [taxonomy: 487]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 79]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 15, 17]; TakagiHo1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-42]; TakagiTa1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 103].
Quernaspis quercicola Tippins & BeshearNOMENCLATURE:
Quernaspis quercicola Tippins & Beshear, 1970a: 808-809. Type data: UNITED STATES: Georgia, Cumberland Island, Dungeness, on Quercus laurifolia, 14/06/1969, by R.J. Beshear. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Quercus laurifolia [TippinBe1970a], Quercus nigra [BesheaTiHo1973], Quercus sp. [TakagiHo1977, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Georgia [TippinBe1970a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tippins & Beshear (1970a) and Takagi & Howell (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, oyster-shell shaped, exuviae terminal. Scale 2.0 mm long, 0.5 mm wide, white, but appearing gray because of extraneous material. Male scale white, smooth, elongate without a carina. Adult female 610-1114 µ long and 252-375 µ wide; body fusiform, widest across abdominal segments 3-4; free pygidial segments well lobed (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female of Quernaspis quercicola is an aberrant form of Quernaspis. The separation of the median lobes immediately separates it from all known North American species. It is further separated by the absence of pygidial macroducts in the submedian and submarginal series, and by the more pronounced asymmetrical club-like paraphysis which arises from the sclerotized ring around the orifice of the macroduct in the first interlobular space (Takagi & Howell, 1977).
KEYS: Howell 1981a: 618 (first instar) [Key to 1st instars of Quernaspis]; Takagi & Howell 1977: 46 (male, female) [Key to species of Quernaspis].
CITATIONS: BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 14]; Chou1986 [illustration: 649]; Howell1981a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 618-619]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 80]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; TakagiHo1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-46]; TakagiTa1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 103]; TippinBe1970a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 808-809].
Quernaspis quercus (Comstock)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis quercus Comstock, 1881a: 319. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, San Fernando Valley, on Quercus lobata. Holotype fossil (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Fundaspis quercus; MacGillivray, 1921: 338. Change of combination.
Jaapia quercus; Lindinger, 1931: 44. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis quercus; Lobdell, 1937: 78. Change of combination.
Quernaspis quercus; Ferris, 1937: SI-119. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Fundaspis) quercus; Fulmek, 1943: 24. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Quernaspis) quercus; Merrill, 1953: 31. Change of combination.
Quernaspis kuercus; McDaniel, 1973: 397. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: Oak scale [McKenz1956].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus varicornis [Garcia1912, Koszta1996].
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [MillerDa2005], Pasania densiflora [Ferris1920b], Quercus agrifolia [Ferris1937, MillerDa2005], Quercus alba [MillerDa2005], Quercus brandegeei [Ferris1921], Quercus chrysolepis [MillerDa2005], Quercus douglasii [TakagiHo1977, MillerDa2005], Quercus garryana [Hatch1938, MillerDa2005], Quercus kelloggii [MillerDa2005], Quercus lobata [Comsto1881a, MillerDa2005], Quercus macrocarpa [Koszta1963], Quercus nigra [BesheaTiHo1973], Quercus pungens [MillerDa2005], Quercus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973, MillerDa2005], Quercus stellata [MillerDa2005], Quercus velutina [TakagiHo1977, MillerDa2005], Quercus virginiana [TippinBe1970]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Mamet1943a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1937, Koszta1996]); United States of America (Arizona [Nakaha1982], California [Comsto1881a], Florida [Ferris1937, Merril1953], Georgia [TippinBe1970], Louisiana [Nakaha1982], New Mexico [Cocker1895p, Merril1953], Ohio [Koszta1963, Koszta1996], Texas [Ferris1937, Merril1953], Washington [Hatch1938]).
BIOLOGY: According to Riley (1903) the oak scale overwinters as adult females or partly grown females in California; eggs are laid; male "larvae" and pupae have been collected as late as August. We believe that the overwintering stage must be adult females since males were not found in winter. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Howell (1977). Description and illustration of first instars by Howell (1981a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale white, oystershell-shaped, 1.5-2.5 mm long with yellow or tan terminal exuviae. The body is reddish-orange. Male scale cover white, elongate, feebly carinate with a terminal exuviae (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Quernaspis quercus is separable from Q. insularis in having more dorsal submedian macroducts on abdominal segments 3-5 (especially 5) and more submarginal macroducts on abdominal segment 4. It is easily separable from Q. quercicola because the median lobes in Q. quercus are fused, while those in Q. quercicola are separated on the apical half (Takagi & Howell, 1977). Quernaspis quercus should not be confused with its junior secondary homonym Chionaspis quercus Kuwana (=Chionaspis kuwanai).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Herbert (1936) reported the oak scale as causing damage to oaks in California and New Mexico. Essig (1915) gave control suggestions, indicating economic importance in California. Apparently it rarely reaches pest proportions. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 408 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Howell 1981a: 618 (first instar) [Key to 1st instars of Quernaspis]; Takagi & Howell 1977: 46 (female, male) [Key to species of Quernaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration, taxonomy: 25]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 326]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 14]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102]; BrownEa1965a [distribution, host: 15]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Carnes1907 [distribution, host: 197]; Cocker1895p [distribution: 244]; Cocker1895x [distribution, host: 260]; Cocker1905b [distribution, taxonomy: 202]; Comsto1881a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 319]; Comsto1883 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98, 105-106]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 468, 559, 566]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 128]; Essig1909b [distribution, host: 93]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 310]; Essig1931 [distribution, host: 578]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1920b [distribution, host, illustration: 43]; Ferris1921 [distribution, host: 65, 111]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-25, SI-119]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 25]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 24, 34]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 131]; Gill1982c [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1-2]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 250-251]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 102]; Hatch1938 [distribution, host: 180]; Herber1936 [distribution, host: 39]; Howell1981a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 618]; HowellTa1981 [taxonomy: 487]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, host, illustration: 344]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100-101]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 587-588]; LeLong1890 [distribution, host: 178, 179, 202]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 44]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 147]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 338]; Mamet1946 [taxonomy: 241, 242, 243]; Mani1976 [biological control, distribution: 63]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 396-397]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 155-156]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216-217]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 376]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 80]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; PruthiMa1940 [biological control: 26]; Schmid1940 [distribution, host: 208]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 15]; TakagiHo1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-37]; TakagiTa1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 103]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; TippinBe1970a [taxonomy: 808]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 411]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 41]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 231].
Ramachandraspis RaoNOMENCLATURE:
Ramachandraspis Rao, 1953: 66. Type species: Ramachandraspis fenestrata Rao, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Body ovate. Pygidium without marginal ducts, lobes or plates; margin dorsally with closely arranged groups of circular to elliptical thick-rimmed pores; with irregular network like sculpturing in the center of the pygidium posterior to the anal opening; dorsal ducts numerous, irregularly arranged. Circumgenital pores present in 5 groups (Rao, 1953).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 154]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 172]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 66].
Ramachandraspis fenestrata RaoNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia fenestrata Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 340. Nomen nudum; discovered by Rao, 1953: 67.
Ramachandraspis fenestrata Rao, 1953: 67. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Nilgiris, Coonoor, on Elaeocarpus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Elaeocarpus sp. [Rao1953]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Rao1953, Ali1969a]).
BIOLOGY: Ramachandraspis fenestrata was collected at an altitude of 6,000 feet (Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Rao (1953).
STRUCTURE: Adult female ovate, broader anteriorly. Pygidium without marginal ducts, lobes or plates; dorsal margin with 5 closely arranged groups of circular to elliptical thick-rimmed pores having irregular slit-like openings; at the margin the groups are separated in each case by a single fine seta (Rao, 1953).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 73]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154, 378]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 340]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 20]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 67]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 79].
Relhaniaspis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Relhaniaspis Munting, 1970: 10. Type species: Relhaniaspis acuminata Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Median lobes small, well separated, bilobulate, not yoked by an internal sclerotic band; 2nd lobes also bilobulate, similar in shape to median lobes; 3rd lobes spinose. Gland tubercles well developed but pygidial gland spines poorly developed; absent between median lobes. Dorsopygidial ducts not differentiated in size from those on the margin; arranged segmentally. Submarginal ducts well represented on segments VI to VIII. One or two marginal ducts present between median lobes. Anal opening situated at basal third of pygidium (Munting, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Relhaniaspis bears some resemblance to Phaulomytilus but differs in having the lobes bilobulate, and in that the marginopygidial ducts are not differentiated in size from those on the dorsum. The numerous marginal ducts on segment VI are reminiscent of the genus Moraspis but it differs from it in the distribution of other pygidial ducts and in that the median lobes are not yoked (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1970 [description, taxonomy: 10].
Relhaniaspis acuminata MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Relhaniaspis acuminata Munting, 1970: 10-12. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, 26 miles along main road from Laingsburg to Touwsriver, 1/10/1969, on Relhania genistaefolia, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Asteraceae: Relhania genistaefolia [Muntin1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, broad, roughly parallel sided, 3.0 mm long, 2nd exuviae completely covered with white secretory matter. Male scale white, broadening slightly posteriorly, about 1.4 mm long, covered by a mass of flocculent secretory matter. Slide-mounted adult female broadly fusiform, entirely membranous at maturity, about 1.3 mm long. Pygidium rounded, with 3 pairs of lobes, not notched between median lobes. Median lobes well separated, bilobulate, lobules apically pointed; 2nd lobes well separated from median, bilobulate, pointed with a faint basal sclerosis projecting into pygidium; 3rd lobes well separated from 2nd, slanting towards the meson, usually bilobulate, pointed (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-12].
Rolaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis Hall, 1946a: 531-532. Type species: Phenacaspis whitehilli Hall, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions by Hall (1946a) and Borchsenius & Williams (1963).
STRUCTURE: Body elongate, fusiform, often slightly sclerotized at maturity except intersegmentally. Median lobes more or less prominent, usually longer than broad with typically a V-shaped notch between and with their bases clearly yoked together. A pair of setae, but without gland spines or marginal pores, between lobes. 2nd lobes duplex, well developed, the lobules rounded apically (Hall, 1946a).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis differs from Tecaspis in the arrangement of the dorsal pores on segment 6, in having some pores in the median region of segments 1-3 and in having a well-developed pair of 2nd lobes. It differs from Voraspis in the nature of the median lobes and the arrangement of dorsal pores (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 544 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172, 357]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 84]; BorchsWi1963 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 366, 369-370]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 531-532, 544]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 176]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 139].
Rolaspis anacantha De LottoNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis anacantha De Lotto, 1956: 20-21. Type data: KENYA: Nairobi, on Osyris weightiana, 04/08/1952, by G. De Lotto. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Santalaceae: Osyris weightiana [DeLott1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by De Lotto (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale madreperlaceous white, very elongate and narrow, moderately convex; larval exuviae translucent yellow; nymphal exuviae brown, 3.2-4.1 mm long. Male scale elongate, not carinate, opaque white, 1.2-1.5 mm long. Adult female body membranous, elongate with lateral margin of free abdominal segments prominent and broadly pointed. Pygidium broadly rounded with only 2 pairs of lobes. Median lobes small, apically rounded, without any indentation on their edges and yoked together by a basal sclerosis forming a U-shaped notch. 2nd lateral lobes broader and longer, duplex, with inner lobule smoothly rounded and outer one pointed (De Lotto, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: The unusual absence of the pygidial gland spine distinguishes Rolaspis anacantha from other species of Rolaspis (De Lotto, 1956).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 139 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 233-234]; DeLott1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 139].
Rolaspis angularis (Munting)NOMENCLATURE:
Tecaspis angularis Munting, 1967a: 267-268. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Kingwilliamstown District, Keiskamma Hoek, on Scutia myrtina, 15/10/1965, by D.P. Annecke. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
Rolaspis angularis; Munting, 1969: 141. Change of combination.
HOST: Rhamnaceae: Scutia myrtina [Muntin1967a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1967a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 3.0 mm long, 0.5 mm wide and white; 2nd exuviae pale yellow but covered with a thin layer of wax. Male scale about 1.3 mm long, parallel-sided with a faint median carina, white, exuviae pale yellow. Adult female long and slender, prosoma not heavily sclerotized at maturity. Pygidium broadly rounded. Median lobes projecting slightly, apically dentate, parallel-sided and converging; 2nd lobes well developed, bilobulate, rounded, inner lobule larger than outer and with a conspicuous basal sclerosis; other lobes obsolete (Munting, 1967a).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis angularis resembles Tecaspis kiggelariae, but differs from it in the length of the microducts on the inner ends of the marginal macroducts on segments 6 and 7, the distribution of the ducts on the prepygidial segments, and in the angular shape of the lateral margins of segment 2 (Munting, 1967a).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 267-268]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140, 141].
Rolaspis carissae (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Poliaspis carissae Cockerell, 1902g: 112. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Durban, on Carissa sp., by Fuller. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Albany: New York State Museum Insect Collection, New York, USA. Described: female.
Chionaspis (Poliaspis) carissae; Brain, 1920: 102-103. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus carissae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Rolaspis carissae; Hall, 1946a: 534. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Carissa grandiflora [Cocker1902g], Carissa haematocarpa [Muntin1965b], Carissa macrocarpa [Muntin1965b], Carissa sp. [Brain1920]. Buxaceae: Buxus [Borchs1966]. Celastraceae: Cassine pubescens [Muntin1965b]. Ulmaceae: Chaetachme aristata [Brain1920].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Cocker1902g].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Brain (1920) and Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.8-2.0 mm long, usually straight, widest shortly behind the 2nd exuviae and somewhat abruptly narrowed and attenuated posteriorly; white, glossy with brown exuviae. Male scale very long, distinctly tricarinate; exuviae almost colorless. Adult female body long, narrow in front, almost parallel sided to the free abdominal segments, with the posterior margin regularly and broadly rounded (Brain, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis carissae is characterized by the long microducts on the marginal pygidial macroducts, the dorsal ducts scattered across the mediodorsal area of the metathorax and the shape of the median lobes (Munting, 1965b).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102-103]; Cocker1902g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1941 [distribution, taxonomy: 232]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 532, 534]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356]; McCabeJo1980 [taxonomy: 7]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196-199]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140].
Rolaspis chaetachmae (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis chaetachmae Brain, 1919: 235. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Durban, on Chaetachme aristata, 12/10/1914, by C. Fuller. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 37. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 152/8. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) lounsburyi ekebergiae Brain, 1920: 99. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Durban, on Ekebergia sp., ?/07/1915, by C. Fuller. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Munting, 1969: 141.
Duplachionaspis chaetachmae; MacGillivray, 1921: 334. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis lounsburyi ekebergiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 349. Change of combination.
Chionaspis chaetachmes; Lindinger, 1932: 196. Misspelling of species name.
Rolaspis lounsburyi ekebergiae; Hall, 1946a: 534. Change of combination.
Rolaspis chaetachmae; Hall, 1946a: 543. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis ekebergiae; Ferris, 1955: 48. Change of status.
Rolaspis ekebergiae; Ferris, 1956: 73. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis funicularis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis rolaspidis [DeBachRo1976a], Aphytis setosus [DeBachRo1976a], Aspidiotiphagus fuscus [Comper1936].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Elaeis guineensis [Muntin1969], Phoenix dactylifera [Hall1929a]. Meliaceae: Ekebergia sp. [Brain1920], Trichilia sp. [Hall1946a]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Muntin1969]. Ulmaceae: Chaetachme aristata [AnneckPr1974].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Brain1920, AnneckPr1974].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large, 3.0-3.4 mm long, elongate, white, smooth, glossy, very long and narrow. Exuviae brownish, 2nd exuviae completely covered with secretion. Ventral scale formed by the thick inturned edge of the dorsal scale. Male scale 1.0 mm long, very flat, white, non-carinated; exuviae straw-colored. Adult female 2.0 mm long, narrow in front and gradually broadening (Brain, 1919).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 139 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [as Rolaspis lounsburyi var. ekebergiae; Key to species of Rolaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 334 (female) [as Duplachionaspis chaetachmae; Species of Duplachionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 349 (female) [as Phenacaspis lounsburyi ekebergiae; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: AnneckPr1974 [distribution, host: 44]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 235]; Brain1920 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 99]; Comper1936 [biological control, distribution: 296]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control: 544, 545]; Ferris1955d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 23]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1929a [distribution, host: 364]; Hall1946 [taxonomy: 70]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 534, 543, 550]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 178]; Laing1932 [taxonomy: 63]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 196]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 334, 349]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 78-79]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 198-199]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139, 141]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 37]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 764].
Rolaspis compositae HallNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis compositae Hall, 1946a: 532. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Prince Albert, on Senecio sp?, 17/11/1917, by J.C. Faure & S.H. Skaife. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: The type series had a sender number of SN2483.
HOST: Asteraceae: Senecio sp.? [Hall1946a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Hall1946a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale silvery white, moderately convex, elongate and slender. Exuviae brown, somewhat obscured by a thin silvery white secretionary film. Ventral scale thin, usually persisting along the lateral margins; 2.5-3.5 mm long, 0.8-1.0 mm wide. Male scale white, with parallel sides, uncarinated. Adult female elongate, fusiform, membranous with margins of abdominal segments moderately produced. Pygidium rounded with the fringe between the 5th and 6th and between the 6th and 7th segments rather deeply indented. Median lobes slightly divergent apically, rounded and coarsely serrated with a V-shaped notch between carrying a pair of minute setae and with their bases yoked together by a sclerotic band. 2nd lobes duplex, inner lobule being same size and shape as the median lobe but not serrated apically; outer lobule separated from the inner, small and sharply pointed (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 532-533 ,534]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140]; Willia1955a [taxonomy: 254].
Rolaspis euryopis WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis euryopis Williams, 1955a: 252-254. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Drakensberg, Cathedral Peak Area, on Euryops tysonii, ?/07/1946, by W.E. Marriott. Holotype. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: The type series had a sender number of SN2595.
HOST: Asteraceae: Euryops tysonii [Willia1955a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Willia1955a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Williams (1955a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female white, smooth, elongate and moderately convex; exuviae pale brown. Male scale about half the length of female scale, white, sides roughly parallel, posterior end rounded, uncarinated (Williams, 1955a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species comes close to Rolaspis compositae also described from South Africa. The latter species differs, however, in having two marginal and no submarginal ducts on the sixth segment. Also, the ducts on segments 3 to 5 are in 2 regular parallel rows whilst in euryopis these ducts occupy single rows on the posterior edges of the segments. Both species are similar in having a very narrow sclerotic band between the median lobes which is difficult to see in some specimens. In this respect these 2 species differ from all the other members of the genus Rolaspis which have the median lobes clearly yoked basally. It is possible that euryopis and compositae belong to a different genus but this cannot be determined until further species have been found (Williams, 1955a).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue: 85]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140]; Willia1955a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 252-254].
Rolaspis halli De LottoNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis halli De Lotto, 1956: 20. Type data: KENYA: Nairobi, on Chaetachme aristata, 1/02/1953, by G. De Lotto. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Ulmaceae: Chaetachme aristata [DeLott1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by De Lotto (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale translucent white, large, elongate, fairly convex, at times asymmetric; larval exuviae pale yellow; nymphal exuviae white, 4.1-5.3 mm long. Adult female body fusiform, remaining membranous at maturity. Pygidium rounded with two pairs of lobes. Median lobes small, their bases strongly yoked together forming a deep U-shaped notch and having their margin cristate. 2nd lobes represented by two lobule, both rounded at the apices (De Lotto, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis halli is unique in the presence of the 2 large protuberances on the venter and by the small chitinized bosses on the dorsum (De Lott, 1956).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; DeLott1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20, 22-23]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140].
Rolaspis incisa MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis incisa Munting, 1965: 234-236. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Pretoria, on Diospyros whyteana, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis funicularis [RosenDe1979].
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros whyteana [Muntin1965]. Santalaceae: Osyris lanceolata [Muntin1965].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1965].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1965).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, broadening posteriorly, 2.8 mm long; exuviae thin and very pale yellow. Male scale white, elongate, noncarinate with a thin opaque exuviae situated at the anterior extremity. Adult females fusiform. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes: median lobes not projecting much and with a deep notch between them, yoked by a sclerotic band, apical margin serrate and sloping outward; 2nd lobes bilobulate, rounded, inner lobule largest and may project beyond the median lobes (Munting, 1965).
SYSTEMATICS: In the pygidial structures Rolaspis incisa comes close to R. lounsburyi but may easily be distinguished from it by not being sclerotized at maturity and having a deeper notch between the median lobes (Munting, 1965).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 141 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234-236]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 141]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 764].
Rolaspis leucadendri (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis leucadendri Brain, 1920: 98. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Town, National Botanical Gardens, 27/01/1914, by H.H.W. Pearson. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 39. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 145/1. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Munting (1970a) notes that "Brain's accession book gives the above collecting date whereas his published data and slide labels give 27.VII.1914."
Duplachionaspis leucadendri; MacGillivray, 1921: 336. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus leucadendri; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Rolaspis leucadendri; Hall, 1946a: 534. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: silver-leaf-tree chionaspis [Brain1929].
HOST: Proteaceae: Leucadendron argenteum [Brain1920].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1920].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Brain (1920) and Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2.6 mm long, white, smooth, slightly glossy, not very convex, long and narrow, somewhat widened and flattened behind. Exuviae brown; 2nd exuviae covered by a very thin layer of secretion. Male scale large, 1.4 mm long, narrow in front, but quickly widening to about middle, whence it gradually narrows again to the median lobes. Body moderately chitinized (Brain, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: The distribution of the dorsal ducts in Rolaspis leucadendri is similar to that of Voraspis carpenteri (Munting, 1965b).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [Key to species of Rolaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 336 (female) [as Duplachionaspis leucadendri; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 85]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 142]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 534]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-203]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Schmid1940 [taxonomy: 241].
Rolaspis lounsburyi (Cooley)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lounsburyi Cooley, 1898: 87-88. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony, Ceres, on unidentified host, by C.P. Lounsbury. Described: female.
Phenacaspis lounsburyi; Fernald, 1903b: 238. Change of combination.
Dinaspis lounsburyi; Malenotti, 1916: 193. Change of combination.
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) lounsburyi; Brain, 1920: 99. Change of combination.
Chionaspis chaetachmae imbricata Hall, 1929a: 364-365. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Umvukwes, Mtoroshanga Pass, on undetermined tree, 19/07/1928. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Synonymy by Munting, 1969: 141.
Chionaspis braini Lindinger, 1931a: 43. Unjustified replacement name for Chionaspis lounsburyi Cooley 1898. Notes: Lindinger (1931a) properly proposed the replacement name Chionaspis braini for Chionaspis lounsburyi (=Rolaspis) Cooley 1898. However, it would appear that no other author treated this name except as a junior synonym of R. lounsburyi. According to the ICZN, Fourth Edition, Article 59.3 "a junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid unless the substitute name is not in use and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric, in which case the junior homonym is not to be rejected on grounds of that replacement." Therefore, we retain lounsburyi as the senior name and braini as a junior synonym.
Trichomytilus lounsburyi; Lindinger, 1933: 165. Change of combination.
Rolaspis spiculata Hall, 1946a: 532, 534, 552. Replacement name for Chionaspis chaetachmae var. imbricata Hall; synonymy by Munting, 1969: 141. Notes: Hall (1946a) raised Chionaspis chaetachmae imbricata to specific rank which created a junior secondary homonym of Chionaspis imbricata Brain 1920. He never used the actual combination Chionaspis imbricata Hall, instead proposing the replacement name and new generic assignment of Rolaspis spiculata.
Rolaspis lounsburyi; Hall, 1946a: 535. Change of combination.
Rolaspis lounsbury; Ferris, 1956: 74. Misspelling of species name.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis griseus [RosenDe1979]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagoidea rolaspidis [AnneckPr1974].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Rhus thunbergi [Brain1920]. Apocynaceae: Carissa sp. [BalachMa1970]. Capparaceae: Boscia albitrunca [BalachMa1970], Boscia foetida [BalachMa1970]. Oleaceae: Olea capensis [Muntin1965b]. Proteaceae: Grewillea sp. [Almeid1974], Leucadendron sp. [BalachMa1970]. Salvadoraceae: Salvadora persica [BalachMa1970]. Santalaceae: Colpoon compressum [Muntin1965b]. Sapotaceae: Mimusops caffra [BalachMa1970]. Zygophyllaceae: Balanites aegyptica [BalachMa1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritania [BalachMa1970]; Mozambique [BalachMa1970]; Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Cooley1898, AnneckPr1974]; Zimbabwe [Hall1929a, Muntin1965b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 3.0 mm long, white, glossy and pearly, sides almost parallel when at the margin of leaf, but usually broadened behind the middle when on the blade; evenly rounded behind, often with faint transverse ridges. Ventral scale absent or represented only by the incurved margins of the dorsal scale and an extremely delicate layer which remains on the leaf. Exuviae orange-yellow; 1st exuviae paler, 2nd covered by a pearly white layer of secretion. Male scale about 1.0 mm long, similar to that of female, but smaller, non-carinated. Adult female elongate, colorless, hyaline, except for mouthparts and lobes which are faintly yellow (Brain, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis lounsburyi can be distinguished by the characteristic appearance of its scales, particularly those of the female (Cooley, 1898).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 141 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 535 [Key to species of Rolaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 349 (female) [as Phenacaspis lounsburyi; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Almeid1974 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 62]; AnneckPr1974 [biological control, distribution: 42]; BalachMa1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1084]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; Brain1920 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 99]; Cooley1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87-88]; DeLott1956 [taxonomy: 23]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 238]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 364-365, 373]; Hall1946 [taxonomy: 66, 70]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 532, 534, 535, 550,]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1965 [taxonomy: 236]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202-207]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 141]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 765]; Willia1960c [taxonomy: 399].
Rolaspis monile WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis monile Williams, 1960c: 395-397. Type data: ANGOLA: Missao de Santa Cruz, Cuando, N. Riquinha, on Diospyros batocana, 02/08/1952, by H.K. Munro. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Willia1960c]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros batocana [Willia1960c].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [Willia1960c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1960c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale shiny white, elongate, about 2.5 mm long, exuviae pale brown. Male scale white, 1.0 mm long. Adult female elongate-oval, 1.75 mm long. Dorsum at maturity becoming sclerotized in a characteristic fashion. Pygidium with a small ring situated towards base. With two pairs of lobes; median lobes very short and wide, slightly divergent with a distinct U-shaped notch between and yoked at the base by a narrow sclerotized band, posterior edges straight and divergent; 2nd lobes bilobed, inner lobule about as long as wide and projecting further than median lobes, apex rounded, outer lobule similar in shape but much smaller (Williams, 1960c).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis monile comes closest to P. procera, but differs in having many fewer dorsal ducts and also in the character of the marginal pygidial ducts which are normal instead of possessing microducts on the capitate heads (Williams, 1960c).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140]; Willia1960c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 395].
Rolaspis munroi HallNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis munroi Hall, 1946a: 533-534. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Vryheid, on Salix sp., 20/09/1905; Cape Province, Kenhardt, ?/04/1917, by J.C. Faure. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Tecaspis munroi; Hall, 1946a: 539. Change of combination.
Rolaspis monroi; Munting, 1969: 140. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Hall1946a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Hall1946a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale glossy white, sometimes faintly striated transversely and with extraneous matter obscuring the glossy surface; moderately convex and broadened posteriorly, exuviae brown. Ventral scale very thin, usually remaining attached to host, 2.5-3.5 mm long, 1.0-1.25 mm wide. Male scale white, more or less parallel sided, uncarinated. Adult female fusiform with derm faintly sclerotized at maturity. Pygidium broadly rounded. Median lobes rather squat and flatly rounded, separated by a shallow U-shaped notch, with a pair of small setae between and with their bases strongly yoked together. 2nd lobes duplex, small and inconspicuous, 3rd lobes not clearly differentiated (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 424]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 533-534]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140].
Rolaspis parviloba De LottoNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis parviloba De Lotto, 1956: 23-24. Type data: KENYA: Nairobi, on Gelonium procerum, 15/03/1951, by G. De Lotto. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Gelonium procerum [DeLott1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by De Lotto (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, much broadened posteriorly, only slightly convex, white; larval exuviae very pale yellow; nymphal exuviae white, 3.0-3.9 mm long. Male scale elongate with lateral margins parallel, not carinate, white; exuviae pale yellow, 1.4-1.6 mm long. Adult female fusiform or oval with dorsal dermis of thorax and 1st abdominal segment moderately chitinized at maturity. Prosoma sometimes provided with broadly rounded lateral lobes. Pygidium rounded with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes small, broader than long, crenulate at the apex and yoked basally to form the characteristic U-shaped notch. 2nd lobes duplex, somewhat larger than median ones; inner lobule normally larger than outer lobule, both rounded. 3rd lobes also bilobed, but very inconspicuous, sometimes recognized as mere points (De Lotto, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis parviloba is close to R. spiculata(=R. lounsburyi), from which it can be separated by the presence of a third pair of pygidial lobes and the bosses on the dorsal side of the abdomen (De Lotto, 1956).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; DeLott1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140].
Rolaspis polypora MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis polypora Munting, 1965b: 204-206. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Zuurberg Pass, about 14 miles north of Addo, on Pleurostylia capensis, 9/12/1963, by G.De Lotto. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Pleurostylia capensis [Muntin1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1965b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, smooth, broadening posteriorly, up to 2.5 mm long. Adult female derm membranous except for pygidial segments which are sclerotized. Pygidium broadly rounded; median lobes squat, apically serrate, slightly converging and yoked by a sclerotized band; 2nd lobes bilobulate, with inner lobule largest and provided with a conspicuous basal sclerosis projection into the pygidium; other lobes obsolete (Munting, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis polypora is unique in the numerous ducts scattered over the dorsum (Munting, 1965b).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 140 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204-205]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 140].
Rolaspis procera De LottoNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis procera De Lotto, 1956: 23-23. Type data: KENYA: Nairobi, on Elaeodendron stuhlmanni, 21/06/1953, by G. De Lotto. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Elaeodendron stuhlmanni [DeLott1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by De Lotto (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale silvery-white, very elongate and narrow, convex; larval and nymphal exuviae yellow, 3.2-3.5 mm long. Male scale opaque white, elongate, with a single median carina, 1.2-1.4 mm long. Adult female body very elongate with prosoma heavily chitinized. Pygidium broadly rounded with only two pairs of lobes. Median lobes small, almost recessed into pygidium, with apical edges stoutly crenulate. 2nd lobes very large, duplex. Inner lobule about twice the length of the median lobes and broadly rounded, outer lobule small and pointed. Marginal pygidial macroducts large and provided with a moderately long microduct inserted on the capitate head (De Lotto, 1956).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis procera is unique in having the inner lobule of the 2nd pair of pygidial lobes distinctly larger than the median ones (De Lotto, 1956).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 141 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; DeLott1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 141]; Willia1960c [taxonomy: 397].
Rolaspis syrinx WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Rolaspis syrinx Williams, 1960c: 397-399. Type data: SIERRA LEONE: Njala, on Bulbophyllum falcipetalum, 02/11/1948, by F.A. Squire. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Orchidaceae: Bulbophyllum falcipetalum [Willia1960c].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Nigeria [Medler1980]; Sierra Leone [Willia1960c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1960c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, slightly widened apically; exuviae pale brown, 2.0 mm long. Male scale white with smooth surface, uncarinated, 1.2 mm long. Adult female small, elongate, 1.0 mm long. Pygidium with a small anal ring situated towards base. 2 pairs of lobes; median lobes well developed, divergent, the space between forming a V, inner and outer edges serrated and the bases yoked together by a narrow sclerotized band; 2nd lobes bilobed, inner lobule longer than wide with a notch on either side, projecting a little more posteriorly than median lobes, outer lobule similar in shape to inner lobule but much smaller (Williams, 1960c).
SYSTEMATICS: Rolaspis syrinx is closest to R. lounsburyi, but differs in having each gland spine on the pygidium accompanied by a small adventitious gland spine and also in the fewer dorsal ducts in the submedian group of the 6th segment (Williams, 1960c).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 139 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 23]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 139]; Willia1960c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 397-399].
Rolaspis whitehilli (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis whitehilli Hall, 1946: 68-70. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Whitehill, on Euphorbia sp., 26/11/1931, by T.D.A. Cockerell. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Rolaspis whitehilli; Hall, 1946a: 534. Change of combination.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [Hall1946]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BorchsWi1963].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, convex, only moderately broadened posteriorly and opaque waxy white. Exuviae pale brown covered by a thin film of white secretionary matter. Ventral scale persistent except at the posterior extremity and along a median channel; 4-5 mm long, 1.25-1.5 mm wide. Male scale small, parallel-sided, non-carinated, with pale brown exuviae. Adult female fusiform. Pygidium broadly rounded. Median lobes prominent, slightly divergent, rounded apically, with bases clearly yoked but separated by a distinct median notch. 2nd lobes duplex with the inner lobule relatively long and narrow (Hall, 1946).
KEYS: Munting 1969: 141 (female) [Key to species of Rolaspis]; Hall 1946a: 534 [Key to species of Rolaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 369]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Hall1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66, 68-70]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 531, 534, 552]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 141].
Roureaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Roureaspis Takagi, 1997b: 112-113. Type species: Roureaspis dungunensis Takagi.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustrations in Takagi, 1997b.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is somewhat similar to odonaspidines in the adult female, but peculiarly characterized by the anus, which is situated not within the pygidium but on the segment anterior to the pygidium, and by the antennae, which are situated laterally to the mouth=parts in a pocket of the derm.
CITATIONS: Takagi1997b [description, taxonomy: 112-113].
Roureaspis dungunensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Roureaspis dungunensis Takagi, 1997b: 105-110. Type data: MALAYSIA: Terengganu, Kuala Dungun, on Rourea rugosa, 7/22/1990, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust.
HOST: Connaraceae: Rourea rugosa [Takagi1997b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia [Takagi1997b].
BIOLOGY: Male and female tests are crowded together in a mass on the undersurface of the leaflet, on the lateral side of the midvein, which is densely grown with long erect hairs. (Takagi, 1997b)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Takagi, 1997b.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body obovoid or inversely pyriform. Pygidium composed of 5th and succeeding abdominal segments dorsally; supposed
CITATIONS: Takagi1997b [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 105-110].
Rugaspidiotinus BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotinus Balachowsky, 1953g: 749. Type species: Rugaspidiotus circumdatus (Ferris), by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Rugaspidiotinus is distinguished by the presence of two types of glands on the pygidium, one type of normal diameter and others which are very narrow (Balachowsky, 1953g).
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, taxonomy: 749-750]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 298]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 152]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 177]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 8].
Rugaspidiotinus circumdatus (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus circumdatus Ferris, 1938a: SII-169. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Norte, San Sebastian Vizcaino Bay, Miller's Landing, on Frankenia palmeri, 1934, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Rugaspidiotinus circumdatus; Balachowsky, 1953g: 28. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Chenopodiaceae: Atriplex sp. [Ferris1938a]. Frankeniaceae: Frankenia palmeri [Ferris1938a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1938a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and white. Male scale similar. Slide-mounted adult female 0.9 mm long, broadly oval, entire cephalothoracic region and a portion of the abdomen tending to be definitely sclerotized. Pygidium very weakly or not at all sclerotized, broadly rounded, its margin ruffled only by slight intersegmental notches; dorsally with numerous short, broad, definitely two-barred ducts, each of which has a narrow sclerotic rim about the mouth; ventrally with numerous ducts in a submarginal zone, these very noticeably smaller than the dorsal ducts and less clearly two-barred (Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: Rugaspidiotinus circumdatus most closely resembles Rugaspidiotinus fuscitatis from which it differs in having the ventral pygidial ducts markedly smaller than the dorsal ducts (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:65 (female) [as Rugaspidiotus circumdatus; Key to species of Rugaspidiotus].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 750]; BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 51]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-169]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:65]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 8].
Rugaspidiotinus fuscitatis (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus fuscitatis Ferris, 1938a: SII-170. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, Cabo San Lucas, on Lycium?, 1919, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Rugaspidiotinus fuscitatis; Balachowsky, 1953g: 28. Change of combination.
HOST: Solanaceae: Lycium sp.? [Ferris1938a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1938a]).
BIOLOGY: R. fuscitatis was collected under the scales of Dactylaspis acuta (Ferris, 1938a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow, slender, irregular, with a thick ventral scale and of an irregularly brown and whitish color. Male scale similar. Slide-mounted adult female 0.75 mm long, somewhat fusiform and tending to be rather strongly sclerotized throughout, especially in the caphalothoracic region. Pygidium rounded, its margin interrupted only by slight notches which mark the intersegmental points, both dorsally and ventrally with numerous short, broad ducts with a sclerotized rim about the mouth, those of the venter being fully as large as those of the dorsum (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:66 (female) [as Rugaspidiotus fuscitatis; Key to species of Rugaspidiotus].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [structure: 750]; BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 51]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-169, SII-170]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:65]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 8].
Rugaspidiotinus nebulosus (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus nebulosus Ferris, 1938a: SII-171. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Azusa, on Eriogonum fasciculatum, by L.E. Myers. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Rugaspidiotinus nebulosus; Takagi, 1983: 8. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: nebulose scale [Borchs1966].
HOST: Polygonaceae: Eriogonum fasciculatum [Ferris1938a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1942, Nakaha1982], California [Ferris1938a, Gill1997]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a) and Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale covers 2.0-2.5 mm long, elongate, flat, white, with yellow terminal exuviae. Male scale covers similar to female but smaller. Scales usually produce white woolly wax secretions (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Rugaspidiotus nebulosus is closely related to Rugaspidiotinus circumdatus and R. fuscitatis, but the character of the scale, the membranous body, the irregular margin of the pygidium and the arrangement of the pygidial ducts indicate that it is clearly distinct (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 253 [Key to California species of Rugaspidiotus]; McKenzie 1956: 37 (female) [as Rugaspidiotus nebulosus; Key to California species of Rugaspidiotus]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:65 (female) [Key to species of Rugaspidiotus].
CITATIONS: BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 51]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-171]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-446:9, 65]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 255-256]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 167]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 81]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 8].
Rugaspidiotus MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus MacGillivray, 1921: 393. Type species: Diaspis arizonicus Cockerell, by original designation.
Rugaspidis; MacGillivray, 1921: 449. Misspelling of genus name.
Rugaspis; Balachowsky, 1953g: 760. Misspelling of genus name.
Rugaspitiotus; Balachowsky, 1953g: 761. Misspelling of genus name.
BIOLOGY: Rugaspidiotus is a genus of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. The known species are very retiring forms, occurring in cracks in the bark of their host, or even under the scales of other species (Ferris, 1938a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1957).
SYSTEMATICS: Diaspididae probably referable to the tribe Odonaspidini having a bivalve type of exuviae in at least the 2nd exuviae; with the ducts of the pygidial region numerous both dorsally and ventrally and not arranged in definite rows or in poriferous furrows (Ferris, 1938a). Balachowsky (1953g) considered Rugaspidiotus MacGillivray 1921 and Adiscodiaspis Marchal 1909 to be synonyms and listed Rugaspidiotus as the senior name. Danzig (1993) states that the two genera are distinct and points out that were they not, Adiscodiapis would be the seniority.
KEYS: Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Ezzat 1958: 247 (female) [Key to genera of Odonaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 393 (female) [Key to genera of Aspidiotini].
CITATIONS: Balach1948b [taxonomy: 264]; Balach1949 [description, taxonomy: 108-109]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 750, 760-762]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 7]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 247]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33, 34]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, taxonomy: SII-167]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:65]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 253]; GomezM1957 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 195]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 393, 449-450]; Takagi1983 [taxonomy: 8]; Takagi1987 [taxonomy: 7].
Rugaspidiotus arizonicus (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis arizonicus Cockerell, 1900d: 131. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, several miles west of Phoenix, Wooton, near Kellner's Ranch, on Prosopis velutina, 11/10/1899.Female. Described: female.
Diaspis arisonica; Fernald, 1903b: 227. Misspelling of species name.
Rugaspidis arizonica; MacGillivray, 1921: 450. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Rugaspidiotus arizonicus; Ferris, 1938a: SII-168. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Arizona rugaspidiotus scale [Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia flexicaulis [Ferris1921], Albizia occidentalis [HowellBeTi1986], Lysiloma sp. [Ferris1921], Prosopis velutina [Cocker1900d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921, HowellBeTi1986]); United States of America (Arizona [Cocker1900d], California [McKenz1956, Gill1997]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover elongate, white or tan, exuviae terminal, cover tapered posteriorly. Male covers white, elongate, smaller than female, exuviae terminal (Gill, 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is remote enough from typical Diaspis, but by reason of the median interlobular structure, and the arrangement of the dorsal glands, it approaches Epidiaspis. It is probable that it will later be made the type of a new genus (Cockerell, 1900d).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 253 [Key to California species of Rugaspidiotus]; McKenzie 1956: 37 (female) [Key to California species of Rugaspidiotus]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:65 (female) [Key to species of Rugaspidiotus]; MacGillivray 1921: 450 (female) [Key to species of Rugaspidiotus].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 750]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy: 7, 8]; BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 51]; Bodenh1929 [taxonomy: 108]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Cocker1900d [description, distribution, host: 131-132]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 58]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 227]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50]; Ferris1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66, 95]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33, 43]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-168, SII-171]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:65]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 253-254]; HowellBeTi1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 3-5]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; MacGil1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 450]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37, 165, 167]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 81]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320]; Takagi1987 [taxonomy: 7]; TakagiMa2010 [structure, taxonomy: 42-43].
Rugaspidiotus sculpturatus FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus sculpturatus Ferris, 1938a: SII-172. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Norte, near San Augustin, on Encelia farinosa, 1934, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Asteraceae: Encelia farinosa [Ferris1938a, Nakaha1982], Franseria dumosa [Nakaha1982].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1938a]); United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1942, Nakaha1982]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, thick, white. Male scale similar. Slide-mounted adult female 1.1 mm long, fusiform, the cephalothoracic region and the pygidium strongly and the remainder of the body more weakly sclerotized. Pygidium with its margin deeply indented at the intersegmental points and with minor emarginations which give it a strongly sculptured appearance, marked both dorsally and ventrally with irregular furrows. Ducts rather small and moderately slender, clearly two-barred, numerous on the dorsum even to the 8th segment, on the ventral side of the pygidium confined to a marginal zone (Ferris, 1938a).
SYSTEMATICS: Rugaspidiotus sculpturatus is distinguished by the elongate body and the deep sculpturing of the pygidium (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:65 (female) [Key to species of Rugaspidiotus].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 750]; BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 51]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-172]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-446:9, 65]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 81]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352].
Rugpapuaspis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Rugpapuaspis Ben-Dov, 1991a: 49-51. Type species: Rugpapuaspis proxantennata Ben-Dov, by monotypy and original designation.
Rugpapuaspis proxantennata Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Rugpapuaspis proxantennata Ben-Dov, 1991a: 49-51. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Dalu Pass, on bamboo, 29.ix.1987, collected by J.M.Cox. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 776. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes are in Volcani Center, Israel
HOST: Poaceae [BenDov1991a].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [BenDov1991a].
BIOLOGY: Occurring in leaf sheaths of creeping bamboo.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1991a).
CITATIONS: BenDov1991a [description, illustration, taxonomy: 49-51].
Rutherfordia MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Rutherfordia MacGillivray, 1921: 306. Type species: Chionaspis malloti Rutherford, by monotypy and original designation.
Tianquernaspis Young, 1986: 208. Type species: Tianquernaspis uniloba Young, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Takagi et al., 1989: 178.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body fusiform to broadly turbinate. L1 prominent, zygotic basally, tightly appressed or almost fused together throughout, or separated from each other except basally and with a pair of well-developed setae between. Lateral lobes rudimentary if present (Takagi et al., 1989).
SYSTEMATICS: Rutherfordia appears to be closely related to Pseudaulacaspis. A number of species which may or may not fall into Pseudaulacaspis have one or two of the characters of Rutherfordia, but none of them fulfill the full requirements. Rutherfordia is adopted only provisionally (Takagi et al., 1989).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 306 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 116]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 195]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 306, 323]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 178]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 178-182]; Young1986 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 208].
Rutherfordia major (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis major Riley & Howard, 1893: 51. Nomen nudum.
Chionaspis major Cockerell, 1894a: 43. Type data: ANTIGUA: on Heliotrope sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Diaspis euphoriae Grandpré & Charmoy, 1899: 28. Type data: MAURITIUS: on Euphoria longana. Holotype. Illust. Synonymy by Mamet, 1941: 30. Notes: Type-material lost (Mamet, 1941).
Aulacaspis flacourtiae Rutherford, 1914: 259-260. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Flacourtia ramontchii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female. Synonymy by Morrison, 1924: 231.
Diaspis (Aulacaspis) flacourtiae; Green & Laing, 1921: 128. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis flacourtiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 316. Change of combination.
Unachionaspis major; MacGillivray, 1921: 337. Change of combination.
Aulacaspis major; Morrison, 1924: 232. Change of combination.
Diaspis major; Takahashi, 1929: 71. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis hwangyensis Chen, 1937: 384-385. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang, Hwangyen, on undetermined tree, 30/09/1936. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi et al., 1989: 188. Notes: Author states that types are in his personal collection.
Pseudaulacaspis euphorbiae; Mamet, 1941: 30. Change of combination.
Pseudaulacaspis major; Mamet, 1941: 30. Change of combination.
Rutherfordia major; Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1989: 188. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: escama del sauce [Mosque1976]; large snow-scale [Cocker1896a]; lychee bark scale [Butche1959].
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus circumdatus [DeSilv1961].
HOSTS: Annonaceae: Annona muricata [LincanHoCa2010]. Boraginaceae: Cordia lutea [Willia1977ML], Cordia myxa [Mamet1941], Heliotropium [Borchs1966]. Dipterocarpaceae: Vateria indica [TakagiPoGh1989]. Ehretiaceae: Cordia macrostachya [Mamet1949, Borchs1966]. Euphorbiaceae: Croton scouleri [LincanHoCa2010], Euphorbia sp. [Borchs1966], Hippomane mancinella [Willia1977ML]. Fabaceae: Pithecellobium sp. [Butche1959], Poinciana pulchrissima [Mamet1949]. Flacourtiaceae: Casearia fragilis [Mamet1941], Casearia sp. [Borchs1966], Flacourtia cataphracta [Mamet1943a], Flacourtia indica [Dekle1976], Flacourtia inermis [Butche1959], Flacourtia ramontchi [Ruther1914, Mamet1959a], Flacourtia sp. [GreenLa1921], Scolopia crenata [Takaha1929, Ali1970], Scolopia oldhami [Tao1999]. Moraceae: Ficus beecheyana [Takaha1933, Takagi1970], Ficus retusa [Nakaha1981a]. Poaceae: Sinocalamus oldhami [Hua2000]. Rhamnaceae: Alphitonia excelsa [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Rutaceae: Zanthoxylum fagara [LincanHoCa2010]. Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [Mamet1954], Salix humboldtiana [Ballou1945]. Santalaceae: Santalum haleakalae [Nakaha1981a]. Sapindaceae: Cupania americana [Ballou1926, ColonFMe1998], Elattostachys falcata [WilliaWa1988], Euphoria longana [Mamet1943a], Litchi chinensis [Merril1953, Dekle1976, GermaiMiPa2014], Nephelium [Borchs1966], Nephelium longan [Mamet1941, Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Madagascar [Mamet1954]; Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, Mamet1941, WilliaWi1988]; Reunion [GermaiMiPa2014]; Seychelles [GreenLa1921, Mamet1943a]; Tanzania [WilliaWi1988]; Zanzibar [Matile1978]. Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Merril1953] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1871 (Heu 2001).), Kauai [Nakaha1981a], Maui [Nakaha1981a], Niihau [BeardsTu1959], Oahu [Zimmer1948, Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (Zimmerman (1948) states this species is an immigrant from the West Indies.)); Indonesia (Java [Merril1953]); Tonga [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Merril1953, Dekle1965c, Miller2005]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Cocker1894a, Merril1953]); Colombia [Mosque1976]; Costa Rica [Merril1953]; Cuba [Ballou1926]; Dominican Republic [GomezM1941]; Galapagos Islands [Willia1977ML]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]); Venezuela [Ballou1945, Clavij1977]. Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Chen1937, Tao1999]); India (Kerala [TakagiPoGh1989]); Nepal [TakagiPoGh1989]; Sri Lanka [Ruther1914, Ali1970]; Taiwan [Takaha1929, Ali1970]. Palaearctic: China [Wu1935, Merril1953]; France [Germai2008].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Williams & Watson (1988) and Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale normally white but obscured by plant tissue, color ranges from reddish brown to black; subcircular to oval, with brown exuviae marginal. Adult female broadly oval to turbinate, widest at about 1st abdominal segment, the prepygidial segments with well-developed lateral lobes; body becoming moderately sclerotized at maturity. Pygidium with well-developed and prominent median lobes rounded, the edges with numerous notches, yoked deeply at base. 2nd lobes represented by points. Gland spines "fleshy" on segments 6-8, arranged singly, each rounded at apex (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Tao (1999) erroneously lists Aulacaspis flacourtiae Rutherford (=Rutherfordia major) as a junior synonym of Quernaspis tengjiensis (=Neoquernaspis tengjiensis). Takagi et al. (1989) state that this could be a junior synonym of Rutherfordia major.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Ebeling (1959) states that Rutherfordia major could be an economic pest of Lychee in Florida.
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 123 [as Pseudaulacaspis major; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis of Puerto Rico]; Williams & Watson 1988: 220 (female) [as Pseudaulacaspis major; Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Tippins & Howell 1983: 199 (first instar) [as Pseudaulacaspis major; Key to first instars of North American species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Chou 1982: 142 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Pseudaulacaspis]; Fullaway 1932: 95 [as Aulacaspis major; Key to species of Hawaii]; MacGillivray 1921: 316, 337 [as Pseudaulacaspis flacourtiae and Unachionaspis major; Species of Unachionaspis and Key to species of Pseudaulacaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 13]; Ballou1945 [distribution, host: 64, 90-91]; BeardsTu1959 [distribution: 58]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 63]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Chang1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 86]; Charmo1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Chen1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 384-385]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 142, 146-148]; Chou1986 [illustration: 562]; Clavij1977 [distribution, host: 116]; Cocker1892e [taxonomy: 5]; Cocker1893 [distribution, host: 17]; Cocker1894a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Cocker1894g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Cocker1896a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 257]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1899r [distribution: 900]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-126]; CostaL1923 [distribution, host: 10]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 119]; Dekle1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137]; DeSilv1961 [biological control, distribution: 118]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance: 388]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220, 230]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 95, 102]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution, host: 24]; GomezM1941 [distribution: 129]; GrandpCh1899 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 28]; Green1907 [distribution: 202]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 314]; GreenLa1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 52]; HillNe1982 [distribution: 228]; Hoffma1927 [distribution: 76]; Hu1986J [taxonomy: 226]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 159, 160-161]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1926 [taxonomy: 14]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 130]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304, 316, 337]; Mamet1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-32]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 166-167]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 22]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 48-49]; Mamet1953a [taxonomy: 152]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 20]; Mamet1956 [distribution, host: 138]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 385]; Martor1945 [distribution, host: 168]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 91]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 57, 59]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 251-252]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 83-84]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Morris1924 [distribution, taxonomy: 232]; Mosque1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60-61, 95]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; Nakaha1975 [taxonomy: 202]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 404]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 36]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; RileyHo1893 [taxonomy: 51]; Russo1927 [distribution, host: 48]; Ruther1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 259-260]; SchildSc1928 [taxonomy: 268]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 35]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 41, 140-141]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 188-190]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71-72]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy: 212]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 28]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 99]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 112, 116]; TippinHo1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 197-199]; Varshn1993 [taxonomy: 272]; Willia1977ML [distribution, host: 96]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220, 226-229]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 72]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 178]; Wu1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 204]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 268, 269-270]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381, 383-384].
Rutherfordia malloti (Rutherford)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis malloti Rutherford, 1914: 263-264. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Mallotus philippinensis, 07/07/1914. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female.
Diaspis malloti; MacGillivray, 1921: 306. Change of combination.
Rutherfordia malloti; MacGillivray, 1921: 323. Change of combination.
Jaapia malloti; Lindinger, 1932f: 200. Change of combination.
Tianquernaspis uniloba Young, 1986: 201-203. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Bank of Lan-cang-jiang River, on undetermined shrub, ?/05/1955. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takagi et al., 1989: 178.
HOSTS: Connaraceae: Agelaea borneensis [TakagiPoGh1989]. Euphorbiaceae: Croton sp. [TakagiPoGh1989], Macaranga pustulata [TakagiPoGh1989], Mallotus philippinensis [Ruther1914, Green1937, TakagiPoGh1989]. Verbenaceae: Vitex sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1986, Tao1999]); Nepal [TakagiPoGh1989]; Sri Lanka [Ruther1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale more or less circular, convex, covered with hairs from the host. Exuviae eccentric, covered with secretion (Rutherford, 1914). Adult female body fusiform to broadly turbinate. L1s prominent, zygotic basally, tightly appressed (or almost fused) together throughout, or separated from each other except basally and with a pair of well-developed setae between. Lateral lobes rudimentary if present. Marginal gland spines well developed on pygidium, the posteriormost overlapping L1 dorsally (Takagi et al., 1989).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 319]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 200]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 306, 323]; Ruther1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 263-264]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 180-188]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 116]; Young1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 201-203, 208].
Rutherfordia shoreae Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Rutherfordia shoreae Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1989: 190-196. Type data: MALAYSIA: Semenanjung, Selangor, Kepong, on Shorea acuminta, 22/11/1985. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Dipterocarpaceae: Shorea acuminata [TakagiPoGh1989].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1989]).
BIOLOGY: Female scales occurring on petioles, concealed beneath the epidermal layer. Male scales also occurring on the petioles on the lower side, erect, depressed dorsoventrally, with both dorsal and ventral portions well formed and gently broadened backward (Takagi et al., 1989).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Adult female fusiform, meso and metathorax and abdominal segments I-III moderately lobed laterally. Second-instar male body elongate obovoid, with segmentation indistinct. First instar with 5-segmented antennae, terminal segment as long as 3rd and 4th segments combined, not annulate (Takagi et al., 1989).
CITATIONS: TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 190-196].
Salaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Salaspis Hall, 1946a: 535. Type species: Chionaspis tenuidisculus Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Body fusiform, much narrowed anteriorly, moderately sclerotized with a reticulated pattern. Anterior spiracles sunk in a definite shallow pit. Pygidium broadly rounded with 2 pairs of lobes, median lobes squat, broader than long, well separated by a shallow notch, but not yoked together basally, with one or two conspicuous marginal pores between them and a pair of minute setae but no gland spines. 2nd lobes present, duplex, but outer lobule very small and inconspicuous (Hall, 1946a).
SYSTEMATICS: Salaspis is closest to Ledaspis Hall. It differs in not having the median lobes definitely yoked together but in having a conspicuous marginal pore between them and several oval vacuoles medioventrally on the pygidium (Hall, 1946a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 90]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 535, 545]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 179].
Salaspis tenuidisculus (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis tenuidisculus Newstead, 1920: 202-203. Type data: UGANDA: Bukassa Island, Sesse Islands, Lake Victoria, on "creepers with large fleshy leaf in forest," 10/10/1918, by C.C. Gowdey. Described: female. Illust. Notes: The species epithet is considered to be a noun meaning a "thin disk" and therefore does not require ending changes to agree with the generic epithet gender.
Asymmetraspis tenuidisculus; MacGillivray, 1921: 360. Change of combination.
Salaspis tenuidisculus; Hall, 1946a: 504. Change of combination.
Poliaspis tenuidisculus; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Newste1920].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1920).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium somewhat oblong, sides almost parallel, highly convex, the convexity commencing abruptly near the middle region of the second exuviae. Larval exuviae nude, orange-yellow to golden yellow. Second exuviae bright orange-yellow, secretionary covering thin, semitranslucent, white. Secretionary portion pure white, slightly polished and very strongly laminate. Adult female dull yellow to reddish brown dead, cuticle rather strongly chitinised (Newstead, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: The large vacuoles of the pygidium resemble species of Lecanium, but there are no gland-pores associated with the structures in Salaspis tenuidisculus and these curious cuticular characters should be distinguishing (Newstead, 1920). Hall (1946a) states that S. tenuidisculus is not congeneric with Asymmetraspis distorta nor Ledaspis. dura, but it probably comes closest to L. dura. It differs in not having the median lobes definitely yoked together but in having a conspicuous marginal pore between them and several oval vacuoles medioventrally on the pygidium.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 360 (female) [as Asymmetraspis tenuidisculus; Species of Asymmetraspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 90]; Hall1929a [taxonomy: 373, 374]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 504, 535]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 360]; Newste1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202].
Santubongia TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Santubongia Takagi, 2003: 97. Type species: Santubongia swinoniae, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Analysis and description in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: In the adult female, the configuration of the pygidial apex is remarkably similar to that in Neopinnaspis McKenzie. However, it has no differentiated marginal macroducts. The median and second trullae are well developed, strongly sclerotized, and closely appressed together at the apex of the pygidium. There are no gland spines discernible between the median trullae, nor between the median and second trullae, in spite ofthe presence of welldeveloped slender gland spines on the pygidium laterally to these trullae and also on the prepygidial segments anteriorly as far as abd II. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, structure, taxonomy: 97].
Santubongia swintoniae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Santubongia swintoniae Takagi, 2003: 97-98. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Sarawak, Kuching district, Damai Beach, Oct 1991, on Swintonia glauca (Anacardiaceae). Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91ML52. Described: female.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Swintonia glauca [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak).
BIOLOGY: The female burrows into the epidermis of the bark. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, fusiform, with the free segments slightly lobed laterally; pygidium obdeltate, roundish on the basal margin. Prepygidial derm membranous; dorsal surface of the pygidium sclerotic especially over a broad median area, the intersegmental furrow between abd V and VI thickly sclerotized, and the posterior border of VI also sclerotized in a nearly straight line across the submedian and submarginal areas; ventral surface of the pygidium apically with a sclerotized area forming 4 peaks associated with the median trullae. Submarginal dorsal bosses numbering 6 on each side, belonging to abd I-VI, fairly large and well sclerotized. Antennae situated in front of the mouth-parts, separated from each other by a space narrower than the frame of the mouth-parts, each with 2 setae, of which one is much smaller than the other. (Takagi, 2003) First-instar nymph with the terminal (sixth) antennal segment not annulate. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, illustration, physiology, structure, taxonomy: 97-98, 157-159].
Saotomaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Parandaspis Balachowsky, 1968a: 55. Type species: Parandaspis castelbrancoi Balachowsky, by monotypy and original designation. Homonym of Parandaspis Mamet 1967a; discovered by Balachowsky, 1973: 225.
Saotomaspis Balachowsky, 1973: 225. Replacement name for Parandaspis Mamet 1967a.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Balachowsky (1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: Saotomaspis Balachowsky is similar to Metandaspis Williams (Balachowsky, 1968a).
KEYS: Williams & Brookes 1995: 186 (female) [Key to genera of the subtribe Andaspidina].
CITATIONS: Balach1968a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 55]; Balach1973 [taxonomy: 225]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 183].
Saotomaspis castelbrancoi (Balachowsky)NOMENCLATURE:
Parandaspis castelbrancoi Balachowsky, 1968a: 56-60. Type data: SAO TOME & PRINCIPE: Sao Tome, Monte Café, on Coffea arabica. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Saotomaspis castelbrancoi; Balachowsky, 1973: 225. Change of combination.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Coffea arabica [Balach1968a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome [Balach1968a]).
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 600 meters (Balachowsky, 1968a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: Saotomaspis castelbrancoi is similar to Metandaspis recurvata, but can be distinguished by the absence of glandular spines and the presence of macropores (Balachowksy, 1968a).
CITATIONS: Balach1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56-60]; Balach1973 [taxonomy: 225]; LePell1973 [distribution, host: 123]; WilliaBr1995 [taxonomy: 184].
Scleromytilus HallNOMENCLATURE:
Scleromytilus Hall, 1946: 71. Type species: Scleromytilus hargreavesi Hall, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: The affinities of this genus are not clear. In the nature of the lateral margins of the free abdominal segments it bears some resemblance to Phaulomytilus, but the pygidial characters bear no resemblance to that genus. It appears to bear some relationship to Aonidomytilus, from which it differs in having a single pair of lobes, the presence of perivulvar pores, marginal and dorsal ducts of much the same size and the conspicuous indentation of the lateral projections of the margins of the free abdominal segments. It is probably closest to Mitulaspis, despite the obvious difference in the shape and number of the pygidial lobes and the character of the lateral projections of the free abdominal segments (Hall, 1946).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 32]; Hall1946 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 71]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 535, 545, 547]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 181].
Scleromytilus hargreavesi HallNOMENCLATURE:
Scleromytilus hargreavesi Hall, 1946: 71-73. Type data: UGANDA: Kampala, on Loranthus sp., 03/07/1929, by H. Hargreaves. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Hall1946]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Hall1946].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pyriform, off white, with faint transverse striations, very highly convex and hemispherical in side view. Larval exuviae terracotta, nymphal exuviae brown. Scale is tough. Ventral scale entire, white, thin, but tough. Female scale 1.5-2.0 mm long, 0.8 mm wide. Male scale pale brown with terracotta exuviae, uncarinated and more or less similar to female. Adult female with entire thoracic region and 1st abdominal segment very strongly sclerotized, 2nd, 3rd and 4th abdominal segments membranous but with lateral marginal projections somewhat sclerotized, pygidium with a sclerotic pattern. Pygidium broadly rounded with a conspicuous pair of median lobes which are large, acutely rounded, with the outer edge falling away sharply, separated by a distance of about one-quarter the width of one. Other lobes wanting (Hall, 1946).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Hall1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71-73]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 535, 550, 555]; Muntin1965b [taxonomy: 209].
Scleromytilus litothrix MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Scleromytilus litothrix Munting, 1965b: 207-209. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Piesangkloof, 30 miles east of Rustenburg, on Viscum combreticola, 11/08/1964, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Viscum combreticola [Muntin1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1965b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, varying in shape according to position on host plant, about 1.5 mm long, always pressed into the crevices of host bark. Male scale also white, more or less parallel sided non-carinated and about 1.0 mm long. Slide-mounted adult female fusiform, slightly narrower towards the head, up to 1.2 mm long. Pygidium broadly rounded with conspicuous, projecting median lobes which have their outer margins sloping away, much longer than the mesal margin and diagonal to the long axis of the body; 2nd lobes bilobulate, very small but clearly discernable as small sclerotized points of the pygidial margin; 3rd lobes also very small and sometimes not apparent (Munting, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Scleromytilus litothrix differs from S. hargreavesi in having gland spines that are never forked apically (Munting, 1965b).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207-209].
Sclopetaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Sclopetaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 307. Type species: Chionaspis laniger Newstead, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1992b).
SYSTEMATICS: Sclopetaspis seems to be an isolated genus, probably having no particular relation with the other genera referred by Borchsenius (1966) to the Sclopetaspidina and also with his Augulaspidina (Takagi, 1992b).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; MacGillivray 1921: 307 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 80]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 360]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 117]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 535, 545]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 195]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 307]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 181]; Takagi1992b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 39-40].
Sclopetaspis danumensis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Sclopetaspis danumensis Takagi, 1992b: 47-48. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah, Bahagian Tawau, Ulu Segama, Danum Valley Conservation Area, on Ellipeia sp., 23/10/1988. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Annonaceae: Ellipeia sp. [Takagi1992b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Indonesia (Kalimantan (=Borneo) [Takagi2000]). Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [Takagi1992b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1992b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale appearing like a small mass of fungal growth, being composed of abundant loose wax filaments; beneath the loose filaments the central body or core is a hard mass, which is probably made of wax filaments agglutinated together by the anal substance; grayish brown, with wax filaments around the core white. Male scale similar, but smaller, without loose filaments on the posterior part of the core. Adult female fusiform, up to 1.0 mm long and 0.5 mm wide. Pygidium rather narrow, little rounded along margin on each side. Derm membranous except for pygidium; reticulate on dorsal surface of pygidium around anus (Takagi, 1992b).
SYSTEMATICS: S. danumensis differs from S. laniger by the anus situated more posteriorly and by having much less numerous macroducts. The two are similar in the pygidial fringe not only in the adult female but also in the 2nd instar female, while these stages are, exceptionally to non-pupilarial Diaspidini, rather remarkably different from each other in the pygidial fringe (Takagi, 1992b).
CITATIONS: Takagi1992b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48, 60-63, 70, 74]; Takagi2000 [description, distribution, structure: 47, 49-50].
Sclopetaspis lanigera (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis laniger Newstead, 1920: 206-207. Type data: UGANDA: Kampala, on Loranthus entebbiensis, 10/12/1918, by C.C. Gowdey. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: It appears that Newstead (1920) intended for the species epithet to be an adjective meaning woolly and not a noun meaning ram; thus the name should be lanigera.
Sclopetaspis laniger; MacGillivray, 1921: 324. Change of combination.
Sclopetaspis lanigera; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus entebbiensis [Newste1920].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Newste1920].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Newstead (1920).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium somewhat mytiliform, but very highly convex, composed, externally of white felted woolly material, which when perfect is very strongly and coarsely laminated transversely, beneath the woolly exterior the puparium is hard and shell-like in texture. Ventral scale more or less complete (Newstead, 1920).
SYSTEMATICS: The unique character of the puparia, together with the structural details of the pygidium, should serve as distinguishing features of Sclopetaspis lanigera (Newstead, 1920).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 324 (female) [Key to species of Sclopetaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 117]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 535, 550]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 324]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947]; Muntin1970 [taxonomy: 14]; Newste1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206-207]; Takagi1992b [taxonomy: 48].
Sclopetaspis malawica MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Sclopetaspis malawicus Munting, 1970: 12-14. Type data: MALAWI: Mlanje Mountain, on Diplolophium buchanii, 18/07/1966, by C.J. Hodgson. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
Sclopetaspis malawica; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Justified emendation.
HOST: Apiaceae: Diplolophium buchanii [Muntin1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Malawi [Muntin1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, with secretory portion transversely striate; elongate, about 4.0 mm long. Male scale white with bright yellow apical exuviae, secretory portion smooth, with a very faint median carina. Slide-mounted adult female about 2.0 mm long, broadly rounded posteriorly; prosoma not sclerotized at maturity. Median lobes well developed and bases clearly yoked by a well sclerotized band; 2nd lobes bilobulate and without any basal projections in to pygidium; 3rd and 4th lobes present as sclerotized points of the margin. Pygidial margin deeply to very deeply notched between median lobes (Munting, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Sclopetaspis malawica differs from S. lanigera in having the submarginal groups of macroducts on segments VI and VII fused and coalescing with the submedian group on segment VI (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-14].
Scytalaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Scytalaspis Ferris, 1955b: 24. Type species: Scytalaspis quadriclavata Ferris, by monotypy and original designation. Notes: The type species of Scytalaspis is listed in one place as Clavataspis quadriculavata. This is an error, since no such genus exists.
Clavataspis; Ferris, 1955b: 24. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with two-barred ducts and referable to the Diaspidinae and the Lepidosaphes series. Body elongate, pygidium with the median lobes alone present, these prominent and close together, but not yoked at their bases, each with a prominent, somewhat clavate paraphysis arising from each basal angle (Ferris 1955b).
SYSTEMATICS: Scytalaspis resembles Andaspis in some respects, but can be separated from species of that genus by the position of the anal ring (Ferris, 1955b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 73]; Ferris1955b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 24]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 181].
Scytalaspis quadriclavata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Clavataspis quadriclavata; Ferris, 1955b: 24. Change of combination. Notes: The use of the combination Clavataspis quadriclavata was apparently an error as no such genus exists.
Scytalaspis quadriclavata Ferris, 1955b: 24. Type data: MEXICO: Guerrero, neat Taxco, on undetermined host, by N. Couch. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: Fungi: Septobasidium sp. [Ferris1955b]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Guerrero [Ferris1955b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1955b).
STRUCTURE: Character of female scale entirely obscured by intermingled hyphae of associated fungus. Slide-mounted adult female 1.0 mm long. Body elongate, expanding posteriorly, the abdominal segment, not strongly lobed laterally. Pygidium rather short, rounded apically. Median lobes alone present, well developed, set close together at the base, with a pair of small setae in the notch, the lobes parallel (Ferris, 1955b).
SYSTEMATICS: Scytalaspis quadriclavata resembles species of Andaspis in some respects, but can be separated from those by the position of the anal ring (Ferris, 1955b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; Ferris1955b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 24].
Semonggokia TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Semonggokia Takagi, 2003: 73-74. Type species: Semonggokia xylopiae, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: The body ofthe full-grown adult female is sclerotized throughout, with distinct intersegmental furrows. The pygidium is well defined by the intersegmental furrow between abd IV and V on the dorsal surface but, on the margin, the posterior half of abd IV including the marginal macro duct forms part of the pygidium. This genus is apparently referable to the tribe Diaspidini, but no macro ducts of the type usual in the tribe have been found. (Takagi, 2003)
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is similar to Mauritiaspis Mamet described from Mauritius, and especially to M malloti Mamet, the type species of Mauritiasps, in possessing minutely serrate trullae and pygidial margin. On Semonggokia, however, the second and third trullae are unilobed, the outer lobules being considered to be obsolete, whereas on Mauritiaspis both of these trullae are bilobulate. On Semonggokia, the antennae are unisetose, whereas on Mauritiaspis they are multisetose, with four or five stout setae. In diaspidids, in general, such a difference in the antennae suggests a remote relationship and, therefore, the resemblance between the two genera may be due to convergence in association with their cryptic modes of life. Semonggokia burrows into the epidermis of the leaves, whereas Mauritiaspis induces a leaf gall. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 71-72].
Semonggokia xylopiae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Semonggokia xylopiae Takagi, 2003: 74-75. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sarawak, Kuching district, Santubong (Damai Beach). Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 91MK-23. Described: female.
HOST: Annonaceae: Xylopia ferruginea oxyantha [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sarawak [Takagi2003]).
BIOLOGY: Femlaes occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, burrowing into the epidermis. The presence of a burrowing female is suggested by a slight swelling of the epidermis. Males occur on the upper surface of the leaves, sitting in the sunken midrib, and sometimes also on the lower surface; tests white, with or without an amorphous mass of fluffy wax. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: At full growth, body narrowly obovoid, sclerotic throughout, with the free segments demarcated by strongly sclerotized intersegmental furrows; dorsally the meso- and metathorax and abd I-IV subequal in size and shape, similar in the arrangement of the ducts and the pattern of sclerotization, and little or only gently lobed laterally; pygidium nearly obdeltate, a little roundish marginally. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar female with 3 pairs of well-developed serrate trullae and slender marginal macroducts as in the adult female. Second-instar male heteromorphic, with many pectina-like processes and a good number of modified ducts along the pygidial margin. (Takagi, 2003).
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 74, 117-119].
Serenaspis HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Serenaspis Henderson, 2011: 182,188. Type species: Fiorinia minima Maskell.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Scale cover of female translucent on leaves, to off white opaque on stems, exuviae light beige; body of female pale when on leaves, pinkish colour when on stems. Male nymph scale covers carinate, felted. Adult males apterous. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Slide-mounted adult female fusiform with slightly produced lateral lobes. Pygidium broadly rounded in shape, with 3 pairs of lobes: median lobes yoked and close together, rectilinear or rounded, smooth or with small serrations; 2nd lobes bilobed, rounded; 3rd lobes apparently trilobed as the pore prominence medial to the main lobule appears to be combined with lobular material, lobules rounded. 3-4 pairs marginal macroducts, barrel-shaped, 2- barred, with an additional macroduct submarginally on segment VI thus forming a characteristic group of 3 (occasionally 4) ducts each side. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,45,182,188].
Serenaspis minima (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia minima Maskell, 1884: 122-123. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Canterbury, Port Hills, on Brachyglottis repanda and Panax arboreum. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis dysoxyli Maskell, 1885a: 22-23. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Dysoxylon spectabile. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 36. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Henderson, 2011: 188-189. Notes: Lectotype the smaller of two adult females on an original slide labeled: "Chionaspis/dysoxyli/puparium and females/from Dysoxylum/Aug 1884 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Chionaspis/dysoxyli/Maskell, 1885/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979/Entomology Division D.S.I.R. NZ." Material also in USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Chionaspis minor Maskell, 1885a: 23. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Parsonsia sp., ?/11/1884, by W.M. Maskell. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Henderson, 2001a: 89. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Synonymy by Henderson, 2001a: 89-90.
Chionaspis timidus Riley & Howard, 1893: 50. Nomen nudum. Notes: Riley & Howard (1893) list Chionaspis timidus as a Cockerell manuscript name with the note "Morgan makes it = Ch. minor."
Chionaspis quercus; Granpré & Charmoy, 1899: 30. Misidentification; discovered by Mamet, 1946: 242.
Hemichionaspis minor; Hempel, 1900a: 517. Change of combination.
Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) minima; Leonardi, 1906c: 42. Change of combination.
Trullifiorinia minima; MacGillivray, 1921: 376. Change of combination.
Pinaspis minor; Lindinger, 1935: 143. Misspelling of genus name.
Pinnaspis timidus; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 29. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis minor; Ferris & Rao, 1947: 36. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis dysoxyli; Borchsenius, 1966: 121. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis dysoxyli; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 36. Change of combination.
Serenaspis minima; Henderson, 2011: 188-189. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Serene scale [Hender2011].
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigritus [Stebbi1903b].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Parsonsia sp.? [Maskel1885a]. Araliaceae: Panax arboreum [Maskel1884, Leonar1906c], Pseudopanax arboreus [Hender2011]. Asteraceae: Brachyglottis repanda [Maskel1884, Leonar1906c]. Fabaceae: Cajanus sp [Maxwel1902]. Liliaceae: Rhipogonum scandens [Maskel1885a]. Malvaceae: Hoheria angustifolia [Fernal1903b]. Meliaceae: Dysoxylum spectabile [Maskel1885a]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora tetranda [Hender2011]. Violaceae: Melicytus macrophyllus [Hender2011], Melicytus micranthus [Hender2011], Melicytus obovatus [Hender2011], Melicytus ramiflorus [Fernal1903b], Melicytus ramiflorus [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Leonar1906c]; New Zealand [Maskel1884, Maskel1885a, Wise1977] (North Island [Maskel1887a], South Island [Maskel1887a, Green1929]).
BIOLOGY: Most commonly on underside of leaves and often in preference along veins. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Maskell (1887a).Best description and illustration by Maskell (1885a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, elongated, oval; 1st exuviae comparatively large, yellow. Male scale rather longer than that of female, but much narrower, carinated. Adult female elongated, segmented, pink. Abdominal segment with edge broken by a number of deepish curvilinear serrations and ending in two inconspicuous median lobes with 3 other smaller lobes on each side (Maskell, 1884).Female puparium thin, flattish, pyriform, white with a faint pink tinge when the egg-mass beneath shows through. 2nd exuviae is comparatively large. Male puparium white, narrow, carinated. Adult female not very deeply corrugated; yellowish red. Abdomen ending in a broken curve with many curvilinear incisions. There are 14 lobes, of which the 2 median are the largest; separated from them by a spine on each side are two others rather smaller; then another spine and a short open space; and then 3 smaller lobes and another spine; another space and then a single small lobe followed by a spine. 5 groups of spinnerets: lowest pair with 12-14 orifices; upper pair with 7-10; uppermost group, 4-6. A few spiny hairs are on the edge of the abdomen (Maskell, 1885a).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris & Rao (1947) state that Chionaspis minor was erroneously placed in Pinnaspis, but that its generic status was uncertain. The error arose from Maskell himself, who misidentified specimens sent to him from the West Indies by Cockerell. Upon the basis of this misidentification the name minor was used by Cooley, who placed Chionaspis albizziae Green as a synonym of it and since that time the name has been widely used. Actually, as it has been used it has certainly involved at least two species and very probably more. Therefore, none of the published records which have appeared under the name minor can be definitely assigned to any species until the specimens upon which they were based have been re-examined; although it is probable that most of them refer to Pinnaspis strachani. For a more recent discussion of this confusion, see Henderson (2001a). Henderson (2011) examined specimens collected by Maskell to synonymize Trullifiorinia minima, Pinnaspis dysoxyli, and Chionaspis minor to resolve the situation by creating a new genus, Serenaspis. The specimens that she used were as follows: Fiorinia minima Maskell. LECTOTYPE female, NEW ZEALAND, on an original slide labelled "Fiorinia minima, from ‘Panax’ [=Pseudopanax], female in puparium, Dec. 1882, W.M.M.", [1]: 1 F, pharate and with 1st-exuvium attached, good, cleared, unstained. Barcode NZAC02008427 (NZAC). Chionaspis dysoxyli Maskell. LECTOTYPE female, subsequent designation by Deitz & Tocker (1980: 36): NEW ZEALAND, on an original slide labelled: "Chionaspis dysoxyli, puparium and females, from Dysoxylum, Aug. 1884, W.M.M.", [1]: 1 F, the smaller and clearer of 2 adult females on the slide. Barcode NZAC02008424 )NZAC). Paralectotype: the 2nd female on the above lectotype slide [1]: 1 F (NZAC). Chionaspis minor Maskell. LECTOTYPE female, subsequent designation by Henderson (2001: 89): NEW ZEALAND, on an original slide labelled: "Chionaspis minor, adult female, from Parsonsia, Dec. 1884, W.M.M.", [1]: F. Barcode NZAC02008421 (NZAC).
KEYS: Lagowska & Hodgson 2012: 66 (female) [Key to adult female Diaspididae closely related to “Chionaspis” recorded from the tropical South Pacific and New Zealand]; MacGillivray 1921: 331 (female) [as Chionaspis dysoxyli; Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 376 (female) [as Trullifiorinia minima; Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 41 (female) [as Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) minima; Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Cooley 1899: 10 (female) [as Chionaspis dysoxyli; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; BoratyWi1964a [taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 121,148,371,377]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cooley1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 37-38]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36, 39]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215-216,248]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-407]; FerrisRa1947 [taxonomy: 28, 36]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 382]; Green1934d [host, taxonomy: 112-113]; Hender2001a [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 11, 188-190]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11,40,62,125,184-1]; Kirk1907 [distribution, host: 172]; LagowsHo2012 [taxonomy: 66]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 41, 42-43]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 276,331]; Mamet1946 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Maskel1884 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122-123]; Maskel1885a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55-56,59-60]; Maskel1890 [description, taxonomy: 135, 137]; Maskel1891 [distribution, host: 8]; Maskel1895b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Myers1922 [distribution, host: 200]; Stebbi1903b [biological control, distribution: 55]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 109-110].
Serenaspis rhaphidophorae (Williams & Watson)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis rhaphidophorae Williams & Watson, 1988: 90. Type data: FIJI: Viti Levu, Naivicula, on Rhaphidophora sp., 04/12/1957, by B.A. O'Connor. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Serenaspis rhaphidophorae; Lagowska & Hodgson, 2012: 65-66. Change of combination.
HOST: Araceae: Rhaphidophora sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
SYSTEMATICS: When compared with the species from the South Pacific area, the species known as Chionaspis rhaphidophorae has a superficial resemblance to two turbinate species of Pseudaulacaspis. It does not possess setae between the median lobes, however, and is therefore excluded from Pseudaulacaspis. Among the Holarctic species of Chionaspis that have median lobes almost fused throughout their length, or close together are C. lumbiniana, C. caryae and C. ortholobis, but these species are fusiform, whereas C. rhaphidophorae is broadly oval or even turbinate. The extremely slender thoracic gland spines, which are sclerotized and blunt, are characters that separate this species from any other in the Pacific area (Williams & Watson, 1988). Serenaspis rhaphidophorae (Williams & Watson) is very close to S. minima (Maskell), currently only known from New Zealand, sharing the presence of: (i) duct tubercles as far forward as at least the mesothorax, (ii) spiracular disc-pores associated with both anterior and posterior spiracles. and (iii) median lobes close together, with inner margins more or less parallel along most of their length and lacking a strong yoke linking the lobes together. On this basis, C. rhaphidophorae was transferred to Serenaspis.by Lagowska & Hodgson, 2012.
KEYS: Lagowska & Hodgson 2012: 66 (female) [Key to adult female Diaspididae closely related to “Chionaspis” recorded from the tropical South Pacific and New Zealand]; Williams & Watson 1988: 80 [as Chionaspis rhaphidophorae; Key to species of Chionaspis of the Tropical South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 23]; LagowsHo2012 [distribution, life history, taxonomy: 65-66]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80, 89, 90].
Serrachionaspis YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Serrachionaspis Young, 1986: 203. Type species: Serrachionaspis phragmitis Young, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Serrachionaspis is near Pinnaspis, but differs in having more dorsal macroducts and more marginal macroducts on the pygidium (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Young1986 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 203, 208-209].
Serrachionaspis phragmitis YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Serrachionaspis phragmitis Young, 1986: 203. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Xia-guan, on Phragmites sp., ?/04/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Phragmites sp. [Young1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1986, Tao1999]).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate-fusiform. Derm sclerotized. Pygidial lobes 2 pairs. Median lobes contiguous at their bases, without marginal setae or gland spines between, without basal zygotic sclerosis. 2nd lobes unilobulate (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 117]; Young1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203, 209].
Serrataspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Serrataspis Ferris, 1955c: 31. Type species: Serrataspis maculata Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae belonging to the Diaspis series. Derm membranous throughout except for the strongly sclerotic pygidium. Body oval. Pygidium broad and rather short, its dorsal side in well-stained specimens marked by a number of oval, less sclerotized areas. Median lobes not zygotic, quite prominent and apically acute, notched on both mesal and lateral margins, quite widely separated (Ferris, 1955c).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 117 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Diaspinae]; Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 165]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 117, 122-123]; Ferris1955c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 31]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 183]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 224].
Serrataspis maculata FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Serrataspis maculata Ferris, 1955c: 31. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Yeung Kong, on Eugenia jambos, 01/04/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: Fungi: Septobasidium sp. [Ferris1955c].
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eugenia jambos [Ferris1955c], Syzygium jambos [Ali1970], Syzygium kwangtungensis [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Ferris1955c, Ali1970]); Hong Kong [Ferris1955c, Tao1999].
BIOLOGY: Serrataspis maculata is associated with a Septobasidium fungus which forms a small soft brown and white ball over each scale appearing much like a species of the genus Lecanium or Ceroplastes (Ferris, 1955c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1955c).
STRUCTURE: Adult female 1.0 mm long, body oval. Pygidium broad and rather short, its dorsal side in well-stained specimens marked by a number of oval, less sclerotized areas. Median lobes not zygotic, quite prominent and apically acute, notched on both mesal and lateral margins, quite widely separated (Ferris, 1955c).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 165]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 123]; Chou1986 [illustration: 524]; Ferris1955c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 42]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 265, 266].
Shansiaspis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Shansiaspis Tang, 1981: 49. Type species: Shansiaspis sinensis Tang, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Shansiaspis is close to Chionaspis, but is peculiar in having 2 marginal macroducts and some submarginal ones between the median and 2nd lobes (Tang, 1981).
KEYS: Chen 1983: 33 (female) [Key to genera of the Phenacaspidina].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 82-83]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 358-359]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 357]; Tang1981 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 49, 54].
Shansiaspis ovalis ChenNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis engeddensis; Borchsenius, 1950b: 194. Misidentification; discovered by Tang, 1986: 293.
Shansiaspis ovalis Chen, 1983: 83. Type data: CHINA: Ningxia, Yinchuan, on Tamarix sp., ?/06/1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Shanxiaspis ovalis; Hua, 2000: 161. Misspelling of genus name.
HOST: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [Chen1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Hua2000]; Pakistan [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: China (Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Chen1983]); Iraq [Hua2000].
STRUCTURE: Adult female wide, elliptical, frontal margin of the cephalothorax broad, median lobes inconspicuously represented except the sclerotized part, a pair of marginal ducts in each first situation nearby the lobe (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 359 (female) [Key to species of Shansiaspis]; Chen 1983: 83 (female) [Key to species of Shansiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 194]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96, 170]; Chou1985 [taxonomy: 359]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 293]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118].
Shansiaspis sinensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Shansiaspis sinensis Tang, 1981: 49. Type data: CHINA: Shanxi, Taiyuan, on Salix matsudana, 10/05/1970. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Shansiaspis salicis Chen, 1983: 96-97. Type data: CHINA: Ningxia, on Tamarix chinensis, ?/04/1974. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 293.
Shanxiaspis sinensis; Hua, 2000: 161. Misspelling of genus name.
HOSTS: Salicaceae: Salix matsudana [Tang1981], Salix sp. [Tang1984b]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix chinensis [Chen1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Chen1983], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1981]).
STRUCTURE: Adult female shuttle-shaped, with widest part usually near caudal end. Median lobes rather small, connected at the base, zygosis obscure or very small, inner margins with base part parallely backward, then diverging to the apices, indistinctly serrated, deeply sunken into caudal margin of pygidium (Chen, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: Shansiaspis sinensis is similar to Chionaspis trochondendri, but usually with a pair of marginal ducts instead of single in the first position (Chen, 1983).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 359 (female) [Key to species of Shansiaspis]; Chen 1983: 83 (female) [Key to species of Shansiaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 84-85, 96-97, 17]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 359, 360-361]; Chou1986 [illustration: 505]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 357]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Liu1989 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24-26]; Tang1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50, 54]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 182, 293]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118].
Singapuraspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Singapuraspis Takagi, 2003: 85. Type species: Singapuraspis lasianthi, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female is diagnosed by the absence of differentiated marginal macroducts and the presence of segmental clusters of dorsal macroducts on the marginal to submarginal area of the pygidium. In these characters, Singapuraspis is similar to Rolaspis Hall. The new genus is distinguishable by the following combination of characters: the median trullae are not zygotic in spite of the presence of a sclerosis between them; the pygidial margin laterally to the median trulla is rugged, with a continuous series of conical or tubercular processes, among which the lateral trullae are not distinguishable in shape;. there are no gland spines on the pygidial margin, nor in the prepygidial region; and the dorsal surface of the pygidium is reticulate over a large central area. The pygidium is well defined on the dorsal surface by the intersegmental furrow between abd IV and V, and on the margin by the notch between them. (Takagi, 2003)
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, taxonomy: 85].
Singapuraspis lasianthi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Singapuraspis lasianthi Takagi, 2003: 85-86. Type data: SINGAPORE: Bukit Timah. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depositories: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan, and Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan; type no. 92SP-29. Described: female.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Lasianthus maingayi [Takagi2003].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Singapore [Takagi2003].
BIOLOGY: Females and males occurring among the dense erect hairs covering the nodes of the twigs. Males also occur on other parts of the twigs and along the midrib on the lower surface of the leaves, these parts being densely covered with shorter hairs. Female tests deeply inserted and held erect among the dense hairs, long elliptic, with both dorsal and ventral portions well formed and gently swollen; blackish brown. Male tests also inserted among the hairs, white, and not carinate. (Takagi, 2003)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Takagi, 2003.
STRUCTURE: Body oblong to broad obovate, with the free segments gently lobed laterally; pygidium broad, roundish on the margin. At full growth, the derm sclerotic throughout, with the intersegmental furrows heavily sclerotized; pygidium reticulate over a large central area of the dorsal surface, wrinkled longitudinally on other parts. Antennae situated within the frontal margin, separated from each other by a space nearly as broad as the frame of the mouth-parts, each with a short curved seta. (Takagi, 2003) Second-instar female with each meruan trulla asymmetrical, laterally followed by angular processes occurring nearly along the entire pygidial margin; gland spines absent. Second-instar male sirpilar to the second-instar female in the pygidial appendages, but the median trullae with a rather deep incision, thus appearing bilobulate.
CITATIONS: Takagi2003 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 85-86, 107, 139-142].
Sinistraspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Sinistraspis MacGillivray, 1921: 309. Type species: Chionaspis unilateralis, by monotypy and original designation.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 134]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 26, 84]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 512]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 196]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 309]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 184].
Sinistraspis unilateralis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis unilateralis Newstead, 1913: 79-80. Type data: BARBADOS: Merton Lodge, on Thrinax sp., 22/01/1913, by H.B. Bannister. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis unilateralis; Sasscer, 1915: 36. Change of combination.
Sinistraspis unilateralis; MacGillivray, 1921: 353. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus unilateralis; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Dracontomelon dao [Takagi2000], Swintonia schwenkii [Takagi2000]. Arecaceae: Arenga pinnata [Takagi2000], Thrinax sp. [Newste1913, Takagi2000]. Burseraceae: Dacryodes rostrata [Takagi2000]. Chrysobalanaceae: Parinari bicolor [Takagi2000]. Euphorbiaceae: Drypetes sp. [Takagi2000]. Fabaceae: Spatholobus sp. [Takagi2000]. Loganiaceae: Strychnos ignati [Takagi2000], Strychnos sp. [Takagi2000]. Moraceae: Artocarpus integer [Takagi2000], Streblus elongatus [Takagi2000]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Takagi2000], Leptospermum flavescens [Takagi2000]. Rosaceae: Parastemon urophyllus [Takagi2000]. Sterculiaceae: Scaphium macropodum [Takagi2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Barbados [Newste1913]. Oriental: India (Kerala [RaoKu1952, Ali1970]). Oriental: Indonesia (Kalimantan (=Borneo) [Takagi2000]). Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi2000], Sabah [Takagi2000], Sarawak [Takagi2000]); Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2000], Palawan [Takagi2000]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (2000).
STRUCTURE: Female test slender, white, thin; exuvial casts pale yellow to light brown; male test felted, with a median carina (Takagi, 2000).
SYSTEMATICS: Sinistraspis unilateralis is characteristic in the asymmetrical occurrence of some features and especially in having huge multiglandular spines on the left lobes of the 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments (Takagi, 2000).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135]; Dash1916 [distribution, host: 42]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 84]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309, 353]; Newste1913 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 79-80]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host: 9]; Sassce1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Takagi2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42-47, 63-66].
Sinoquernaspis Takagi & TangNOMENCLATURE:
Sinoquernaspis Takagi & Tang, 1982: 100. Type species: Sinoquernaspis gracilis Takagi & Tang, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Takagi & Tang (1982).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with posteriormost macroduct with a thick, deltoid rim around the orifice and with no trace of pore prominence associated. Median lobes zygotic, well sclerotized, without setae between. 2nd lobes well developed, but much less sclerotized (Takagi & Tang, 1982).
CITATIONS: TakagiTa1982 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 100-102].
Sinoquernaspis gracilis Takagi & TangNOMENCLATURE:
Sinoquernaspis gracilis Takagi & Tang, 1982: 101-102. Type data: CHINA: Fukien, Sha County, on Quercus sp., 05/09/1977. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [TakagiTa1982]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [TakagiTa1982, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Tang (1982).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, convex dorsally, white. Male scale tricarinate. Adult female body slender, attaining more than 4 times as long as broad. Derm membranous. Pygidium narrow. Marginal setae of pygidium all reduced to a point. Median lobes parallel, robust, notched on each side, flatly rounded apically. 2nd lobes with both lobules almost membranous; inner lobule elongate and notched; outer lobule also well developed, similar to inner lobule or shorter and broader than inner. 3rd lobes obsolete (Takagi & Tang, 1982).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [pp. 349-350]; Chou1986 [illustration: 476]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; TakagiTa1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 35, 79].
Situlaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Neosignoretia MacGillivray, 1921: 389. Type species: Aspidiotus yuccae Cockerell. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: 125.
Situlaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Pseudodiaspis condaliae Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
BIOLOGY: Situlaspis is a genus that seems to be characteristic of the desert regions of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1957) erroneously considered Pseudodiaspis to be a senior synonym of Situlaspis.
KEYS: McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Ferris 1942: 47 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 311 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 177]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 94]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 26, 71, 85]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-68, SI-120]; Ferris1941d [distribution, taxonomy: SIII-320]; Ferris1942 [description, taxonomy: SIV-445:7, SIV-446:4]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 260]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 507, 536, 547]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 196]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 311, 361, 389]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 185].
Situlaspis atriplicis (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis atriplicis Ferris, 1919a: 53-54. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Tempe, on Atriplex sp.; UNITED STATES: California, Barstow and Lone Pine, on Atriplex sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Situlaspis atriplicis; Ferris, 1937: SI-121. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: atriplex scale [McKenz1956].
HOST: Chenopodiaceae: Atriplex sp. [Ferris1919a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1937, McKenz1956], California [Ferris1919a, McKenz1956]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale just barely 1.0 mm in diameter, white, circular, convex, exuviae central. Male scale similar, exuviae terminal. Slide-mounted adult female 0.75 mm long, almost circular, entire thoracic region and 1st abdominal segment tending at full maturity to be more or less sclerotized. Dorsal ducts very few, mostly in submarginal groups. Median lobes prominent, close together (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Situlaspis atriplicis most closely resembles P. yuccae from which it is distinguishable most easily by its form and the position and minuteness of the anal opening (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 261 [Key to California species of Situlaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 35 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 364 (female) [as Pseudodiaspis atriplicis; Key to species of Pseudodiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 178]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-54]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-121]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 261, 263]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 364]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 155-157]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 82]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352].
Situlaspis condaliae (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis condaliae Ferris, 1919a: 54-55. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Tucson, on Condalia spathulata. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Situlaspis condaliae; MacGillivray, 1921: 361. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Rhamnaceae: Condalia sp. [Ferris1937], Condalia spathulata [Ferris1919a], Microrhamnus ericoides [McDani1973], Microrhamnus sp. [Ferris1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1919a], California [Nakaha1982], Texas [Ferris1937, Miller2005]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1919a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, highly convex, exuviae central or subcentral, 1st exuviae naked, 2nd covered by secretion; ventral scale extremely thick at the margins, thinner in the center, light brown. Male scale resembling that of female, with sides more or less parallel, exuviae at one end. Adult female 0.8 mm long. Pygidium with median lobes alone well developed, these broad and low with tips rounded, notched laterally. At each basal angle is a very small spine. A much larger spine marks the position of the obsolete 2nd and 3rd lobes. Between the 1st lobe and the position of the 2nd lobe is a single low gland prominence and just beyond the 2nd lobe is a gland spine or plate (Ferris, 1919a).
SYSTEMATICS: There is no species which could possibly be confused with Situlaspis condaliae (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 397 (female) [Key to Texas species of Situlaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 167]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 178]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-55]; Ferris1919e [taxonomy: 276]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 94]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 85]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: SI-122]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 361]; McDani1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 397-398]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 82]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352].
Situlaspis daleae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Situlaspis daleae Ferris, 1941d: SIII-320. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Riverside County, foot of the mountains north of Indio, on Dalea sp., 1912, by J.C. Bridwell. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: dalea scale [McKenz1956].
HOST: Fabaceae: Dalea sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale irregular, but roughly circular, quite high convex, white, with exuviae central or subcentral and black. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.9 mm long, broadly turbinate. Anterior portion of the body, probably including the 1st abdominal segment, is very heavily sclerotized dorsally, less so ventrally, the remainder of the body being membranous except for the pygidium. Pygidium relatively short and broad. Median lobes quite small, 2nd lobes present but very low, 3rd lobes represented at the most by a low point. Dorsal setae at the bases of the lobes with scleroses of their sockets noticeably enlarged. Gland spines present only as minute points between the lobes and with one or two along the margin beyond the 3rd lobe; perivulvar pores lacking (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Situlaspis daleae most closely resembles S. ruelliae, but in the latter the 2nd and 3rd pygidial lobes are prominent and strongly sclerotized and the pygidium is quite acute (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 261 [Key to California species of Situlaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 35 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 178]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-320]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 261-262, 264]; McKenz1956 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 157, 158]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 83]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352].
Situlaspis ruelliae (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudodiaspis ruelliae Ferris, 1921: 101-102. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California Sur, Cabo San Lucas, Ruellia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoreopsis ruelliae; Lindinger, 1932f: 204. Change of combination.
Situlaspis ruelliae; Ferris, 1937: SI-124. Change of combination.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Ruellia sp. [Ferris1921]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, about 0.75 mm wide, slightly convex and of a distinctly yellowish color; exuviae subcentral, the 1st naked, the 2nd covered with secretion; ventral scale quite thick. Male scale white, elongate with an obscure median carina and with the exuviae at one end. Adult female 1.0 mm long, turbinate, thorax not separated from the abdomen by a constriction, the abdominal segments projecting but little at the margins. Pygidium rather acute at apex. Median lobes quite large, prominent, straight and with their apices nearly truncate. 2nd and 3rd pairs consisting merely of an acute prominence (Ferris, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: The strongly sclerotic points representing the 2nd and 3rd lobes distinguish this species immediately from others in the genus (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 178]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-102]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-124]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-320]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Koteja1974b [structure: 84]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552].
Situlaspis yuccae (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus yuccae Cockerell, 1896h: 20. Type data: MEXICO: Coahuila, Ciudad Porfirio Diaz, on Yucca sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Hemiberlesia Yuccae; Leonardi, 1897b: 119. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus (Chrysomphalus) yuccae; Cockerell, 1897i: 25. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus yuccae neomexicanus Cockerell & Parrott, 1899: 278. Type data: UNITED STATES: New Mexico, Mesilla Valley, on Yucca elata, 1898, by C.H.T. Townsend. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1920: 64.
Diaspis celtidis Cockerell, 1899i: 106. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, San Antonio, on Celtis sp., 23/06/1898, by C.H.T. Townsend. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1920: 65.
Xerophilaspis Parkinsoniae Cockerell, 1900d: 131. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Phoenix, on Parkinsonia torreyana, 23/10/1899. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA, and UCEC. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1920: 64.
Targionia parkinsoniae; Fernald, 1903b: 298. Change of combination.
Targionia yuccae; Fernald, 1903b: 298. Change of combination.
Targionia yuccae neomexicana; Fernald, 1903b: 298. Change of combination.
Pseudodiaspis parkinsoniae; Ferris, 1919a: 56-57. Change of combination.
Pseudodiaspis yuccae; Ferris, 1920: 64. Change of combination.
Neosignoretia yuccae; MacGillivray, 1921: 424. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus celtis Lindinger, 1932d: 197. Unjustified emendation.
Situlaspis yuccae; Ferris, 1937: SI-125. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus neomexicanus; Ferris, 1941: 46. Change of status.
COMMON NAMES: celtis scale [Gill1997]; small situlaspis scale [McKenz1956]; yucca scale [Gill1997].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Agave sp. [MillerDa2005], Yucca sp. [Cocker1896f, MillerDa2005]. Amaranthaceae: Celosia floribunda [Ferris1921]. Araliaceae: Hedera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Phoenix sp. [MillerDa2005]. Buxaceae: Simmondsia californica [Ferris1921]. Cactaceae: Cereus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Capparaceae: Forchammeria watsoni [FerrisKe1923]. Euphorbiaceae: Pedilanthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fabaceae: Acacia berlianderi [Bibby1931], Acacia farnesiana [Bibby1931], Acacia sp. [Ferris1921, MillerDa2005], Cassia sp. [MillerDa2005], Cercidium microphyllum [Bibby1961], Cercidium sp. [Ferris1921, MillerDa2005], Cercis sp. [MillerDa2005], Coursetia sp. [MillerDa2005], Gleditsia sp. [MillerDa2005], Parkinsonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Parkinsonia torreyana [Cocker1900i], Prosopis sp. [MillerDa2005], Robinia [Borchs1966]. Liliaceae: Hesperoyucca sp. [Ferris1937], Yucca elata [CockerPa1899]. Oleaceae: Forsythia sp. [MillerDa2005], Fraxinus sp. [Ferris1937, MillerDa2005], Olea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rhamnaceae: Condalia sp. [Ferris1937]. Rosaceae: Rosa [Borchs1966]. Ruscaceae: Dasylirion sp. [MillerDa2005], Nolina sp. [MillerDa2005]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes [Borchs1966]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [Cocker1899i, Ferris1921]. Vitaceae: Vitis [Borchs1966]. Zygophyllaceae: Larrea sp. [Ferris1937], Porlieria sp. [Ferris1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921], Coahuila [Cocker1896f]); United States of America (Arizona [Bibby1961, Nakaha1982], California [Ferris1937], Florida [Nakaha1982], New Mexico [CockerPa1899, Nakaha1982], Oklahoma [Nakaha1982], Texas [Cocker1899i, Ferris1937, McDani1973]).
BIOLOGY: Brown (1960) reported this species to have a typical diaspidoid chromosome system with a 2n chromosome number of 10. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.0 mm long, oval, flat, white, with the large, dark exuviae central. Male scale white, elongate oval, with exuviae near one end. Adult female small, scarcely exceeding 0.6 mm in length, slightly elongate oval, with thoracic region and 1st abdominal segment quite strongly sclerotized; pygidium acute; median lobes strongly developed, non-zygotic (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. It is a pest of ornamental plants in Arizona (Gill, 1997). The yucca scale is considered to be of occasional economic importance by Miller and Davidson (1990). Gill (1997) indicated that it is a troublesome pest of ornamentals in Arizona and is abundant on a number or yard plants especially ivy and yucca. He indicated that the pest is transported on nursery stock into the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 261 [Key to California species of Situlaspis]; McDaniel 1973: 397 (female) [Key to Texas species of Situlaspis]; McKenzie 1956: 35 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Situlaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Bibby1931 [distribution, host: 590]; Bibby1961 [distribution, host: 330]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 178]; Brown1960 [physiology: 168, 170, 171]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 234]; Cocker1896f [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 32]; Cocker1896h [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Cocker1897i [distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Cocker1899i [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 106]; Cocker1899t [distribution, host: 275]; Cocker1900d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 58]; Cocker1905 [distribution, taxonomy: 46]; Cocker1905b [distribution, taxonomy: 201]; CockerPa1899 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 278-279, 282]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 303]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 298]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56-57]; Ferris1920a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 64-65]; Ferris1921 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 26, 71]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-125]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 46, 49]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIV-445:7, SIV-446:6]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 86]; FerrisKe1923 [distribution, host: 318]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 261, 262, 266, 277]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 536]; Leonar1897b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119, 127-128]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 197]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 546]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 424]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 398-399]; McKenz1939 [taxonomy: 55]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 157, 159-160]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 388]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199].
Smilacicola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Smilacicola Takagi, 1969a: 55. Type species: Smilacicola apicalis Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1983).
STRUCTURE: Body elongate-pyriform, being swollen and rounded in the cephalothorax; free abdominal segments little lobed laterally. Derm strongly sclerotized on pygidium and the lateral area of posterior prepygidial segments. Pygidium produced apically into a broad protuberance (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Smilacicola is referable to the tribe Rugaspidiotini. In adult females, Smilacicola is similar to Rugaspidiotinus, but in the 1st instar larvae some noticeable differences include 6-segmented antennae in Smilacicola as opposed to 5-segmented in Rugaspidiotinus (Takagi, 1983). Placed in tribe Smilacicolini by Takagi (2002).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Takagi1969a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 55]; Takagi1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 3-5, 8-9]; Takagi2002 [illustration, taxonomy: 59, 94-95]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 223].
Smilacicola apicalis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Smilacicola apicalis Takagi, 1969a: 55-58. Type data: TAIWAN: Ken-ting, on Smilax sp. 1965, by S. Takagi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Takagi1969a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takagi1969a, Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).Illustration of second-instar male given by Takagi (2002).
STRUCTURE: Female with pygidium roughly the shape of a trapezoid in outline, with the margin slightly and sparsely notched around, and with the apical protuberance broad, extending laterally beyond the most apical marginal setae. Whole pygidium and the lateral area of the preceding segment thickly strewn with larger ducts (macroducts) on the dorsal surface and with much smaller ducts (microducts) on the ventral surface (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Smilacicola apicalis is close to S. heimi but is easily distinguishable from heimi by the antennae with less numerous setae, the spiracular disc pores less numerous, the apical protruberance of the pygidium broader, the ventral ducts of the pygidium all minute (Takagi, 1969a). The second-instar male is very similar to the adult female and second instar of Parlatoria (Takagi, 2002).
CITATIONS: BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 51]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 336]; Chou1986 [illustration: 709-710]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 102]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55-58]; Takagi1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8]; Takagi2002 [illustration, taxonomy: 59, 94-95]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 88]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 250-251].
Smilacicola crenatus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Smilacicola crenatus Takagi, 1983: 5-6. Type data: HONG KONG: on Smilax sp., 23/04/1965. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Takagi1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [Takagi1983, Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations of adult female, second-instar female and second-instar male by Takagi (1983). Illustration of first instar given by Takagi (2002).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with pygidium roundish, but a little pointed apically, crenate on whole margin, irregularly reticulate on dorsal surface, and striate on ventral surface except around vulvar opening; with a pair of setae apically.
CITATIONS: MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; Takagi1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-6]; Takagi2002 [illustration, taxonomy: 59, 95]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118-119].
Smilacicola heimi (Balachowsky)NOMENCLATURE:
Rugaspidiotus heimi Balachowsky, 1947: 21-23. Type data: VIETNAM: Bah-Nah, near Annam, with Septobasidium xylostroma, 24/02/1939, by E. Poilane. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Rugaspidiotinus heimi; Balachowsky, 1953g: 28. Change of combination.
Smilacicola heimi; Takagi, 1983: 6-7. Change of combination.
ASSOCIATE: Fungi: Septobasidium xylostroma [Balach1947].
HOST: Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Takagi1983]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Vietnam [Balach1947, Takagi1983].
BIOLOGY: Smilacicola heimi was collected at an altitude of 1450 m (Balachowsky, 1947).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustration by Balachowsky (1947) and Takagi (1983).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with 6 antennal setae; practically equal in length, but often one or two among them are less developed than the others (Takagi, 1983).
CITATIONS: Balach1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-23]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 750]; BenDovTa1974 [taxonomy: 55]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 55]; Takagi1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-7]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy].
Stramenaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Stramenaspis Ferris, 1937: SI-126. Type species: Leucaspis kelloggi Coleman, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with "two-barred" ducts. Body elongate and slender, derm becoming sclerotized throughout at maturity. Ducts present both dorsally and at the margins on all abdominal segments to and including the 7th, arranged in loose rows. 3 pairs of quite well-developed lobes present, the 2nd and 3rd pair bilobed, members of the median pair widely separated (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: The type of Stramenaspis has been in Leucaspis, Suturaspis, Lepidosaphes and Dinaspis. There is a faint suggestion of a relationship with Lineaspis (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: McKenzie 1956: 29 (female) [Key to the genera of tribe Diaspidini]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:45 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172, 265]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 38]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-126]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 6, 27]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:45]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 267]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 29]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 189].
Stramenaspis kelloggi (Coleman)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis kelloggi Coleman, 1903: 68-71. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Siskiyou County, Mt. Shasta, near Sissons, on Abies concolor, 04/09/1901, by E.M. Ehrhorn. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes kelloggi; Lindinger, 1906: 57. Change of combination.
Dinaspis kelloggi; Ferris, 1920b: 47. Change of combination.
Suturaspis kelloggi; MacGillivray, 1921: 268. Change of combination.
Stramenaspis kelloggi; Ferris, 1937: SI-127. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Kellogg scale [McKenz1956].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus standfordi [DeSant1940].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Libocedrus sp. [Nakaha1982]. Pinaceae: Abies concolor [Colema1903, Ferris1937], Abies grandis [Ferris1937], Abies shastensis [Ferris1937], Abies sp. [Ferris1937], Abies venusta [Ferris1937], Pinus edulis [Ferris1942], Pinus radiata [Ferris1937], Pseudotsuga taxifolia [Ferris1920b], Tsuga sp. [Nakaha1982]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (Arizona [Ferris1942, Nakaha1982], California [Colema1903, Ferris1937, McKenz1956], New Mexico [Nakaha1982], Oregon [SchuhMo1948], Texas [Nakaha1982, Miller2005], Washington [Nakaha1982]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1956).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover 3 to 5 mm long, elongate, fairly convex, tan, with terminal yellow first instar and tan second instar exuviae. Males similar, but smaller (Gill, 1997).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 268 [as Suturaspis kelloggi; Key to species of Suturaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host: 38]; Colema1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 68]; DeSant1940 [biological control, distribution: 37]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 828]; Essig1928 [distribution: 78]; Ferris1920b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-127]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 3, 27]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-445:7-8, SIV-446]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 64]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 267, 268]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 461]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 104]; Howard1914 [biological control: 84]; Leonar1906b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29]; Leonar1907c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 6, 57]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 118]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 123]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 44]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 268]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 159-160]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; SchuhMo1948 [distribution, host: 49].
Symeria GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Scrupulaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Mytilaspis intermedia Maskell, by original designation. Synonymy by Henderson, 2011: 189-190.
Symeria Green, 1929: 380. Type species: Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell, by monotypy and original designation.
Eulepidosaphes Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 364. Type species: Lepidosaphes marshali Laing (= Eulepidosaphes pyriformis Maskell), by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of genus and synonomy in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Adult females of Symeria are characterized by the pair of large median lobes with their axes set at an angle and set apart by a space about half the width of one lobe, the space occupied by a pair of short gland spines. 2nd and 3rd lobes not bilobed, represented at most by sclerotized points but with the ventral surface of each lobe with prominent paraphyses. Described as Scrupulaspis in Borchsenius & Williams, 1963.
SYSTEMATICS: Symeria species resemble those of Lepidosaphes in the structure of male and female scale, but differ from typical species of that genus in the presence of ligulate and laciniate squamulae on the pygidial margin, in place of the usual gland spines, which are entirely absent (Green, 1929). Green (1929) established the genus Symeria for the species identified by him as Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell 1885a. Morrison & Morrison (1966) determined that the original Maskell lot contained more than one species and that Green's description was not of epiphytidis. They proposed the new name Symeria zealandica. However, Morrison & Morrison did not describe zealandica sufficiently to qualify as a valid name under the rules of Zoological Nomenclature so it is treated as a nomen nudum. Rosa Henderson (2011) states that she examined a slide in the Natural History Museum (BMNH), London, in August 2001 which was labelled "Symeria [Lepidosaphes crossed out] epiphytidis (Mask.), from Astelia cunninghamii, NZ (Wellington) coll. J.G. Myers, 7.ix.1921". This was part of the material studied by Green, and it contained 6 adult females and 4 2nd-instar nymphs of M. pyriformis. Ferris illustrated the genotype of Symeria from material of ‘Symeria epiphytidis’ that he apparently received from Green’s collection and Henderson determined that this also was M. pyriformis. In addition, Ferris sent part of this lot back to NZAC. A further 2 slides were made by J. A. de Boer in 1968, NZAC labelled ‘no. 228, collected at Days Bay, 7 Sep 1921, E.H.A., on Astelia cunninghami.’ These 2 slides are also labelled "dry material det. Ferris" as Lepidosaphes epiphytidis and contain the following: (1) 1 female? of M. epiphytidis sensu Maskell, 1885 (referred here to Pellucidaspis epiphytidis, new comb.) + 8 female M. pyriformis; a 3rd label in de Boer’s writing "Symeria zealandica Morr.&Morr."; (2) M. pyriformis: 6 adult females + 6 2nd-instar female nymphs. Symeria zealandica Morrison & Morrison, 1966:190. A new species name zealandica was designated by Morrison & Morrison because Green’s description and figure did not agree with type specimens of Maskell’s epiphytidis, and because a genus should have for its type a species that represents that generic description. L. epiphytidis (Maskell) could not be that type, but the genus Symeria remains valid and needed a type. Morrison & Morrison provided a name without a specimen, but must have concluded that Green was looking at a specimen when he wrote the description of Symeria. As shown from Henderson's examination that specimen was undoubtedly M. pyriformis, and therefore it is the type species of Symeria. Eulepidosaphes: the type species Lepidosaphes marshalli Laing was synonymised with M. pyriformis by Williams (1985). Deitz & Tocker (1980) made the combination Eulepidosaphes pyriformis, but the genus Eulepidosaphes is here sunk because Symeria takes precedence. No other species have been assigned to Eulepidosaphes. Prior to Green’s (1929) introduction of the name Symeria, Scrupulaspis was erected by MacGillivray in 1921. The type species was given as Scrupulaspis intermedia (Maskell), but it fails as a valid combination because MacGillivray gave erroneous key characters for it. In addition, not enough is known about ‘Scrupulaspis’ victoriae (Green) (from Australia) and its placement is uncertain. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 38,68,73]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, distribution, taxonomy: 364,370]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 164]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 257]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 26, 87]; Green1929 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 380]; Hender2011 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 6,8,10,22-23,44,189,]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 195-196]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 274, 287]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 73,181,190].
Symeria intermedia (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis intermedia Maskell, 1891: 7-8. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Reefton, on Leptospermum scoparium. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes intermedia; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis intermedia; MacGillivray, 1921: 287. Change of combination.
Symeria intermedia; Henderson, 2011: 190-193,203-204. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Kunzea ericoides [Hender2011], Leptospermum scoparium [Maskel1891, Hoy1961].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Maskel1891, Hoy1961, Hender2011]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: "Female puparium yellowish-brown, the posterior end usually exhibiting a narrow border of white. Being placed transversely on small twigs of the plant, and coiling round them, it frequently appears very convex, the two ends meeting: the proper shape would probably be flat and pyriform." ... and ... "Male puparium of similar colour to that of the female, elongated, without carinations. It also is placed on small twigs, but longitudinally so that the form is not affected:it usually is placed amongst loose bud scales which it much resembles in colour and size." (Maskell, 1891).
SYSTEMATICS: S. intermedia is closest to S. phyllocladi, sharing slightly developed abdominal lobes, and a group of duct tubercles near each anterior spiracle, but differs in usually lacking dorsal ducts on pygidium VII, in possessing more numerous microducts, especially between the medial lobes, and its host preference for Kunzea ericoides. MacGillivray (1921) in the key to his genus Scrupulaspis on page 274 erroneously characterised Mytilaspis intermedia Maskell under "Pygidium of adult female always without plates in median incisura." By plates he meant gland spines. Because Mytilaspis intermedia does have gland spines in the medial space (although not always extending much beyond the margin on slide-mounted specimens), the conclusion here is to ignore MacGillivray’s combination of Scrupulaspis intermedia. (Hendernson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 189 (female) [Key to Symeria adult females in combination with 1st-instars/ 1st-exuvia]; MacGillivray 1921: 287 [as Scrupulaspis; Key to species of Scrupulaspis]; Leonardi 1903: 30 (female) [as Mytilaspis intermedia; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 371]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 679]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Hender2008 [phylogeny: 89-94]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11,41,190-193,204,]; Hoy1961 [distribution, host: 58-59]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 79-81]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; Maskel1891 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8]; Myers1922 [distribution: 201]; Wise1977 [distribution: 108].
Symeria leptospermi (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis leptospermi Maskell, 1882: 215-216. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Leptospermum sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 38. Type depository: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype on original slide labeled "Mytilaspis/Leptospermi/from Manuka tree/puparium and female/April 1881 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Mytilaspis/leptospermi/Maskell, 1882/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979." Material also in BMNH, NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Lepidosaphes leptospermi; Fernald, 1903b: 310. Change of combination.
Triaspidis leptospermi; MacGillivray, 1921: 277. Change of combination.
Symeria leptospermi; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 38. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Leptospermum ericoides [Hoy1961], Leptospermum scoparium [Maskel1887a, Hoy1961], Leptospermum sp. [Maskel1882]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Maskel1882, Hender2011] (North Island [Maskel1887a, Hoy1961], South Island [Hoy1954a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, elongated, irregularly pyriform, light brown. The secretion forming the scale is mixed with bark from host, arranged longitudinally. Male scale narrower and darker. Adult female greyish-green, elongated, segmented (Maskell, 1887a).
SYSTEMATICS: S. leptospermi is closest to S. pyriformis but differs in the absence of dorsal ducts on the pygidium, the presence of dorsal ducts wrapped around body on to venter, and the median lobes more broad and prominent.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 277 (female) [as Triaspidis leptospermi; Key to species of Triaspidis]; Leonardi 1903: 30 (female) [as Mytilaspis leptospermi; Key to speceis of Mytilaspis leptospermi].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 38]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 310]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,13,190,194,204,237]; Hoy1954a [distribution, host: 601]; Hoy1961 [distribution, host: 58-59]; Kirk1907 [distribution, host: 172]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30, 81-83]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Maskel1882 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 215-216]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; Myers1922 [distribution: 201]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 107].
Symeria phyllocladi HendersonNOMENCLATURE:
Symeria phyllocladi Henderson, 2011: 195-198,205-206. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Auckland, Waitakere Ra, Destruction Gully Track, in galls on Phyllocladus trichomanoidea cladodes, 4/21/2002, by N.A. Martin. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 02-086a. Described: other. Illust. Notes: Paratypes. As above, the remaining 2 females on the holotype slide, [1]: 2 F; also with same collection data, #02-086b–c, [2]: 1 F (very young), 1 M (pre-emergent) (NZAC).
HOSTS: Phyllocladaceae: Phyllocladus alpinus [Hender2011], Phyllocladus trichomanoides [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Hender2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011,
STRUCTURE: Scales are normally inquiline in cladode galls previously induced by Eriococcus arcanus Hoy (Eriococcidae) on Phyllocladus trichomanoides and P. alpinus, either in the gall of the male nymph, that is available sooner because of the shorter duration male life cycle, or the gall of the female after she has died. Original galls inhabited by the eriococcid are invariably green, whereas those galls subsequently inhabited by the diaspidid become chlorotic at the base. Sometimes S. phyllocladi scales are found on cladode surfaces, as well as within galls. Scale covers are pale and narrow when inquiline in galls, and often the detached covers of several females plus some exuvia form a loose plug at the gall entrance, while naked females lie near the base of the gall. Female body and eggs pale pinkish-brown. More than 1 generation of S. phyllocladi has been observed in a gall with males and females developing there. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: S. phyllocladi is closest to S. pyriformis but can be separated by the line of submedian-submarginal ducts on pygidium VII and by its host preference for Phyllocladus spp. (Henderson, 2011)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 190 [Key to Symeria adult females in combination with 1s-tinstars/ 1st-exuvia].
CITATIONS: Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,13,41,190,195-198,].
Symeria pyriformis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis pyriformis Maskell, 1879: 194-195. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: on Dysoxylum spectabile. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 42. Type depository: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype one of three adult females on an original slide labeled "Mytilaspis pyriformis/from Freycinetia/puparium and/three females/July 1877 W.M.M." and "Lectotype/Mytilaspis/pyriformis/Maskell, 1879/desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979." Material also in BMNH, NZAC and USNM (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Lepidosaphes pyriformis; Fernald, 1903b: 313. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis nitidus Brittin, 1915: 151-152. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Oamaru, on Pittosporum sp. and Astelia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Green, 1916d: 51.
Triaspidis pyriformis; MacGillivray, 1921: 277. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes marshalli Laing, 1925a: 64-65. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Wellington, Day's Bay, on Freycinetia banksi, by G.A.K. Marshall. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams, 1985c: 138. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Williams, 1985c: 138.
Symeria epiphytidis; Green, 1929: 380. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1936: 89.
Eulepidosaphes marshali; Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 363. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Symeria zealandica Morrison & Morrison, 1966: 190. Nomen nudum.
Eulepidosaphes marshali; Borchsenius, 1966: 38. Misspelling of species name.
Eulepidosaphes pyriformis; Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 42. Change of combination.
Symeria pyriformis; Henderson, 2011: 190,199-201. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: pukatea pear-shaped scale [Miller1925].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Cordyline banksii [Hender2011], Cordyline obtecta [Hender2011]. Araliaceae: Meryta sinclairii [Hender2011], Raukaua anomalus [Hender2011], Schefflera digitata [Hender2011]. Arecaceae: Rhopalostylis sapida [Hender2011], Trachycarpus fortunei [Willia1985c]. Asteraceae: Olearia rani [Hender2011]. Cunoniaceae: Ackama rosifolia [Hender2011], Weinmannia racemosa [Hoy1958], Weinmannia sp. [Hender2011]. Cupressaceae: Libocedrus bidwillii [Hender2011]. Cyperaceae: Carex sp. [Hender2011], Gahnia sp. [Hender2011]. Elaeocarpaceae: Elaeocarpus hookerianus [Willia1985c]. Epacridaceae: Dracophyllum latifolium [Hender2011]. Escalloniaceae: Ixerba brexioides [Hender2011], Quintinnia serrata [Hender2011]. Lauraceae: Beilschmiedia tarairi [Hender2011], Beilschmiedia tawa [Willia1985c], Beilschmiedia tawaroa [Hender2011], Litsea calicaris [Hender2011]. Liliaceae: Astelia solandri [Hender2011], Astelia sp. [Britti1915], Collospermum [Hender2011], Phormium tenax [Willia1985c], Rhipogonum scandens [Willia1985c], Rhipogonum sp. [Fernal1903b]. Loganiaceae: Geniostoma rupestre [Hender2011]. Malvaceae: Hoheria sp. [Hender2011]. Meliaceae: Dysoxylum spectabile [Maskel1879]. Monimiaceae: Atherosperma novae zaelandiae [Maskel1887a], Hedycarya arborea [Hender2011], Laurelia novae-zelandiae [Hender2011]. Myrsinaceae: Elingamita johnsonii [Hender2011], Myrsine australis [Hender2011]. Oleaceae: Nestegis cunninghamii [Hender2011], Nestegis lanceolata [Hender2011], Nestegis sp. [Hender2011]. Orchidaceae: Earina macronata [Willia1985c]. Pandanaceae: Freycinetia banksii [Laing1925a], Freycinetia banksii [Hender2011]. Phyllocladaceae: Phyllocladus alpinus [Willia1985c]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Fernal1903b]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum bicolor [Willia1985c], Pittosporum crassifolium [Willia1985c], Pittosporum sp. [Britti1915], Pittosporum tenuifolium [Willia1985c]. Poaceae: Carex sp. [Willia1985c]. Podocarpaceae: Dacrydium cupressinum [Willia1985c], Halocarpus biformis [Hender2011], Manoao colensoi [Hender2011], Podocarpus dacrydioides [Willia1985c], Podocarpus ferruginea [Willia1985c], Podocarpus hallii [Willia1985c], Podocarpus totara [Willia1985c], Prumnopitys ferruginea [Hender2011], Prumnopitys taxifolia [Hender2011]. Proteaceae: Knightia excelsa [Hender2011], Toronia toru [Hender2011]. Ripogonaceae: Ripogonum scandens [Hender2011]. Rubiaceae: Coprosma arborea [Hender2011], Coprosma foetidissima [Hender2011], Coprosma macrocarpa [Hender2011], Coprosma rhamnoides [Hender2011], Coprosma rotundifolia [Hender2011], Coprosma sp. [Maskel1887a]. Scrophulariaceae: Hebe sp. [Hender2011]. Verbenaceae: Vitex lucens [Willia1985c]. Winteraceae: Pseudowintera axillaris [Hender2011], Pseudowintera colorata [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Maskel1879, Hender2011] (North Island [Maskel1885a], South Island [Maskel1887a], Three Kings Islands). Palaearctic: United Kingdom (Scilly Isles [Willia1985c]).
BIOLOGY: "Because this species is polyphagous it could easily be dispersed around the Isles of Scilly (Williams, 1985c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1985c). Detailed description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Scale cover normally pyriform (pear-shaped), except the width is constrained when on stems or narrow leaves; colour variable from light brown when on underside of leaves to orange-brown or medium brown when on upperside of leaves, to very dark brown when on stems or leaf midribs of some tree species. With an exceptional amount of fluffy wax produced by 1st-instar nymphs when on rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum). Female body generally pale with lemon yellow pygidium and pale eggs, or on various host plants such as podocarps the body is pinkish with pinkish eggs; body colour not related to colour of scale cover. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Green (1929) established the genus Symeria for the species identified by him as Mytilaspis epiphytidis Maskell 1885a. Morrison & Morrison (1966) determined that the original Maskell lot contained more than one species and that Green's description was not of epiphytidis. They proposed the new name Symeria zealandica. However, Morrison & Morrison did not describe zealandica sufficiently to qualify as a valid name under the rules of Zoological Nomenclature so it is treated as a nomen nudum. Rosa Henderson (2011) examined type material designated by Deitz & Tocker (1980): NEW ZEALAND "Mytilaspis pyriformis, From Freycinetia, Puparium and three females, July 1877, W.M.M.", [1]: 1 F + scale cover glued to 2nd label; stained & remounted on 1 new slide by RC Henderson, 2001. Barcode NZAC02000110 (NZAC) and determined the current synonymy and nomenclature.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 190 (female) [Key to Symeria adult females in combination with 1st-instars/ 1st-exuvia]; MacGillivray 1921: 277 (female) [as Triaspidis pyriformis; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 38, 51]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, taxonomy: 363]; Britti1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 151-152]; Britti1915a [description, distribution, illustration: 157]; CharleHe2002 [distribution: 590]; Cocker1892d [taxonomy: 136]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution: 125]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 42]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; Green1916d [taxonomy: 51]; Hender2008 [phylogeny: 89-94]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,11-14,41-43,190,19]; Hoy1958 [distribution, host: 198]; Laing1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64-65]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77-79]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Maskel1879 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194-195]; Maskel1882 [description, distribution: 215]; Maskel1884 [taxonomy: 121]; Maskel1885a [description, distribution, host: 22]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-54]; Miller1925 [distribution, host: 32, 63]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 190]; Myers1922 [distribution, taxonomy: 201]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 501]; Willia1985c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137-140]; Willia2013 [distribution: 190]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 107-108].
Symeria victoriae (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis intermedia victoriae Green, 1905b: 5-6. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Acacia montana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes intermedia victoriae; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis intermedia victoriae; MacGillivray, 1921: 287. Change of combination.
Scrupulaspis victoriae; Borchsenius, 1966: 73. Change of status.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia montana [Green1905b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1905b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Green (1905b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.5-1.75 mm long. Adult female with median lobes narrow, other lobes obsolescent, 1.25-1.50 mm long (Green, 1905b).
SYSTEMATICS: Scrupulaspis victoriae differs from S. intermedia in the lateral margins of the abdominal segments not markedly produced, median lobes narrow, other lobes not noticeable, circumgenital glands few, spiniform squames small (Froggatt, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 287 (female) [as Scrupulaspis intermedia victoriae; Key to species of Scrupulaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 73]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 679]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Green1905b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5-7]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; Sander1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17].
Takagiaspis VarshneyNOMENCLATURE:
Takagiaspis Varshney, 2002: 78. Type species: Chionaspis lumbiniana Takagi.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus was erected in Varshney, 2002, based on Takagi's (1999) ideas about the uncertainty of the generic position of C. lumbiniana. Therefore, a monotypic genus was established to provide a placement for C. lumbiniana, although, the genus, itself, was not described nor illustrated by Varshney. (Takagi & De Faveri, 2011)
CITATIONS: TakagiDe2009 [taxonomy: 115]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78].
Takagiaspis lumbiniana (Takagi)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis lumbiniana Takagi, 1985: 19-20. Type data: NEPAL: Lumbini Zone, Nawal-Parasi District, Terai, on Syzygium cumini, 15/12/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Calcutta: National Zoological Collection, Zoological Survey of India, India. Described: female. Illust.
Takagiaspis lumbiniana; Varshney, 2002: 78. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Syzygium cumini [Takagi1985].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1985].
BIOLOGY: Female deeply mining under the bark. Males scales are often crowded together especially at parts of branches where females are mining. Male scales are perpendicular to the surface of the bark, standing on their anterior end and supporting each other.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration of first instar larva, both sexes of second instar and adult female as Chionaspis lumbinianain Takagi (1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagiaspis lumbiniana may be close to Chionaspis ramakrishnai. It does not have serrate lobes, single gland spines on the 6th and 7th abdominal segments, more numerous spiracular disc pores, but there seems to be no serious difference between the two species in the arrangement of the dorsal macroducts (Takagi, 1985).
CITATIONS: Takagi1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-20]; TakagiDe2009 [taxonomy: 115]; Varshn2002 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 78].
Takahashiaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Takahashiaspis Takagi, 1960: 68, 69. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1961a: 92.
Takahashiaspis Takagi, 1961a: 92-94. Type species: Takahashiaspis macroporana Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Takahashiaspis may be related to Neochionaspis, Contigaspis, Gadaspis and Paragadaspis, but appears to be a very distinct one as well. The resemblance of this genus to Neochionaspis, especially, seems to be fairly close, but may be distinguishable from the latter chiefly by having many dorsal macroducts scattered over the cephalothorax and free abdominal segments in both submedian and submarginal regions (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Danzig 1980b: 719 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 177]; Danzig1986a [description, taxonomy: 387]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 719, 724]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 359]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 192]; Takagi1960 [taxonomy: 68, 69]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 4]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 92-94, 101].
Takahashiaspis macroporana TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Takahashiaspis macroporana Takagi, 1961a: 94. Type data: JAPAN: Hokkaido, Abasiri, on Acer mono, 11/06/1956. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer mono [Takagi1961a, Muraka1970], Acer pictum [Danzig1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1961a]); Russia (Primor'ye Kray [Danzig1986a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, convex dorsally, white. Male scale elongate, felted and white, with slight median longitudinal carina. Adult female body moderate in size, broadest across metathorax or 1st abdominal segment (Takagi, 1961a).
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 724 (female) [Key to species of Takahashiaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 177]; Danzig1977b [distribution, taxonomy: 41, 51]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 327-328]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 387-388]; Danzig1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 724]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 394-395]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 359]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 263-264]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 96]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93-94].
Tamuraspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Tamuraspis Takagi, 1989: 127-140. Type species: Tamuraspis malloti Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female fusiform; pygidium remarkably striate on both surfaces; pygidial lobes large and heavy; median lobes appressed together, but not zygotic; lateral lobes bilobulate; 2nd lobe set close to median lobe; marginal gland spines present on pygidium, but no gland spines (no spaces for gland spines) between median lobes and between median and 2nd lobes; macroducts 2-barred, all small in size, strewn over dorsal surface of pygidium; no differentiated marginal macroducts present; no spurs or other marginal prominences on prepygidial abdomen; spiracular disc pores trilocular; antennae with more than 1 seta (Takagi, 1989).
SYSTEMATICS: Tamuraspis in the adult female is similar to some species of Dactylaspis, however the male test is of a felted nature and the 2nd-instar male possesses 3 pairs of enlarged modified ducts on the abdominal margin (Takagi, 1989).
CITATIONS: Takagi1989 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 127-140].
Tamuraspis malloti TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Tamuraspis malloti Takagi, 1989: 124-127. Type data: NEPAL: by the River Tamur, on the way from Phidim, Mechi Zone to Sankranti, Kosi Zone, on Mallotus philippinensis, 13/11/1983. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Mallotus philippinensis [Takagi1989].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1989].
BIOLOGY: Tamuraspis malloti was collected at an altitude of 400-500 m (Takagi, 1989).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1989).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytiliform, highly convex dorsally, thick, dark brown; often covered wholly or partly with the epidermal tissue of the host plant. Male scale white, felted and tricarinate. Adult female body elongate, fusiform; 2.3 mm long at maturity, remaining membranous along prepygidial intersegmental borders and on head; head disproportionately narrow. Pygidial lobes large and heavy, serrate, irregularly notched or almost entire; median lobes appressed together on most of their mesal margins, roundish apically, oblique and nearly straight on lateral margins, then a little constricted basally. Second-instar female with pygidial lobes nearly as in adult female; marginal gland spines 1 on 3rd to 7th abdominal segments each. Dorsal ducts small, occurring in submedian and marginal-submarginal series on 4th (or 5th) to 7th segments and in posterolateral corners of preceding segments as far forward as meta- or mesothorax, few in each series. Second instar male body somewhat ovoid, membranous. Pygidial lobes well developed, sclerotized, broad and serrate; median lobes set close together, rounded; 2nd lobes separated from median lobe by a narrow space, bilobulate, lobules somewhat smaller than median lobe; 3rd lobe similar to 2nd, but smaller (Takagi, 1989).
CITATIONS: Takagi1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-140].
Tanaparlatoria MametNOMENCLATURE:
Tanaparlatoria Mamet, 1962: 195-197.
STRUCTURE: Tanaparlatoria with two-barred dorsal pygidial ducts and with the openings of the marginal pygidial macroducts set transversely and surrounded by a crescentic sclerotization. Adult female non-pupillarial, with body typically circular and membranous, except for pygidium which shows some slight degree of sclerotization. Pygidium broad, with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes non-zygotic; 2nd and 3rd lobes not bilobed (Mamet, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Tanaparlatoria is distinguished from those genera of the Parlatoria series by the extraordinary development of both the marginal macroducts of the pygidium and of the microducts of the pygidial plates (Mamet, 1962).
CITATIONS: Mamet1962 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 195-197].
Tanaparlatoria erythroxyloni MametNOMENCLATURE:
Tanaparlatoria erythroxyloni Mamet, 1962: 197-199. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tananarive, 28 km on road south, on Erythroxylon ferrugineum, by J. Bosser. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 750. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Erythroxylaceae: Erythroxylon ferrugineum [Mamet1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1962].
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, conical, dark brown. Exuviae centrally placed. 1st stage exuviae shiny, circular, with a narrow band of white to yellowish-white secretion along its margin; exuviae of 2nd stage circular, obscured by a peripheral band of dirty white secretion. Male scale roughly rectangular, longer than wide, rotund, brown, somewhat shiny; exuviae towards one extremity, straw colored, with central dot. Adult female circular, 0.4 mm long. 3 pairs of well-developed, pygidial lobes present; median lobes notched on both margins, with apex rounded, separated from each other by a space equal to a little less than twice the width of one of them, without any basal process. 2nd lobes about twice the size of median lobes, variously notched on both margins, with apex either rounded or more or less conical. (Mamet, 1962).
CITATIONS: Mamet1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 197-199].
Tecaspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Tecaspis Hall, 1946a: 536-537. Type species: Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) visci v. umtalii Hall, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Munting (1973).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius & Williams (1963) state that although Balachowsky (1954e) synonymized Chlidaspis with Tecaspis Hall, the differences justify the separation of the two genera. Tecaspis is separable from related genera by the relatively poor development of the second lobes of which the median lobules have no basal scleroses. Even so, Tecaspis may still be divided into 2 groups. One group which includes the type species as well as mytilaspiformis and visci has a pair of gland spines between the median lobes whose presence is always betrayed by the microducts leading to them. The other group which includes kiggelariae, retigera, rhizobium and sinoiae has no gland spines between the median lobes. This character may prove to be sufficient motivation for the erection of a new genus (Munting, 1973).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 171 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Hall 1946a: 544 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 171, 369-370]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 86]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 357, 360, 370]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 536-537, 544]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 193]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 14].
Tecaspis allophylli (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Poliaspis) kiggelariae allophylli Hall, 1929a: 374-375. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Umtali, on Allophyllus sp., 10/06/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Poliaspis kiggelariae allophylli; Hall, 1941: 232. Change of combination.
Tecaspis allophylli; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination and rank.
Chionaspis (Poliaspis) allophylli; Hall, 1946a: 548, 550. Change of combination.
Tekaspis allophylli; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
HOST: Sapindaceae: Allophyllus sp. [Hall1929a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.8-2.0 mm long, 0.7-0.9 mm wide (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: T. allophylli is close to T. kiggelariae, but differs by being smaller, antennal tubercles carry two stout curved bristles, there is no marked sclerotization of the anterior portion of body, the ventral thoracic dermis between the spiracles is markedly imbricated, the aciculate gland spines at the base of the pygidium and on the last two free abdominal segments are much larger and the duplication and larger size of the plates on the pygidium (Hall, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 374-375]; Hall1941 [distribution, taxonomy: 232]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 530, 537, 548, 550]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552].
Tecaspis diplasia (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes diplasia Laing, 1925a: 65-66. Type data: TANZANIA: Nzuki, Tabora Area, on "mzagazi", by A.H. Ritchie. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis diplasia; Lindinger, 1932f: 202. Change of combination.
Tecaspis diplasia; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination.
Poliaspis diplasia; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
Tekaspis diplasia; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Laing1925a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Laing (1925a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snowy white, more or less straight, narrow in front, widening very gradually posteriorly, rather convex; larval exuviae varying from pale brown or slightly orange to dark brown through a mixture of extraneous matter from the host. Adult female longish ovate, rather narrow in front, widening out gradually posteriorly till the greatest width is reached at a distance of two-thirds the length. Pygidium with median lobes very prominent, separated by a distance subequal to breadth of a single lobe basally parallel-sided with apex rather flat or very low conical and serrated; 2nd pair of lobes consisting of conical projections; a 3rd pair of lobes represented by a very low and often inconspicuous bicuspid projection (Laing, 1925a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 537]; Laing1925a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65-66]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549, 552].
Tecaspis fiorii (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes fiorii Leonardi, 1913a: 35-38. Type data: ERITREA: on Rhus aztechesan. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis fiorii; Lindinger, 1932c: 203. Change of combination.
Tecaspis fiorii; De Lotto, 1967a: 117. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Rhus abyssinica [DeLott1967a], Rhus aztechesan [Leonar1913a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Eritrea [Leonar1913a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1913a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, almost parallel. Larva body oval. Adult female elongate (Leonardi, 1913a).
SYSTEMATICS: Hall (1946a) lists the combination Lepidosaphes fiorii, but states that it is "indeterminate, not Lepidosaphes."
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 49]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 549]; Leonar1913a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-38]; Lindin1932c [taxonomy: 203].
Tecaspis kiggelariae (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Poliaspis) kiggelariae Brain, 1919: 238-239. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Orchard Siding, on willow, 08/06/1915, by C.P. Lounsbury. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 39. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 169/1. Described: female. Illust.
Poliaspis kiggelariae; MacGillivray, 1921: 356. Change of combination.
Tecaspis kiggelariae; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination.
Tekaspis kiggelariae; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
COMMON NAME: willow scale [Brain1929].
HOSTS: Flacourtiaceae: Kiggelaria africana? [Brain1919]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Brain1919]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Brain1919, Muntin1967a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 3.0 mm long, narrow in front, gradually widening to beyond the middle and moderately broad and rounded behind, smooth, faintly glossy, without distinct growth-lines or covered with a matt deposit which is greyish or yellowish. Exuviae yellowish to bright reddish-brown; 2nd exuviae faintly covered. Male scale small, non-carinate, with pale yellowish or brownish exuviae. Adult female dark brown to black, elongate, whole anterior portion and 1st abdominal segment uniformly highly chitinized. L1 shorter than broad, evenly rounded, striate; L2 similar but smaller, often apparently absent (Brain, 1919).
SYSTEMATICS: A re-examination of the specimens in Brain's collection identified by him as Chionaspis (Poliaspis) kiggelariae revealed that more than one species is involved. Two lots from Salix sp. are conspecific and form the basis for the identity of T. kiggelariae. The lot collected from Kiggelaria africana is conspecific with T. visci. Because the "holotype" of T. kiggelariae was selected by Brain from the willow specimens (subsequent lectotype by Munting, 1967a) T. kiggelariae does not become a synonym of T. visci (Munting, 1967a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 356 [as Poliaspis kiggelariae; Key to species of Poliaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 238-239]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 142]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Hall1929a [taxonomy: 374]; Hall1941 [taxonomy: 232]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 530, 537]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356]; MorrisMo1922 [taxonomy: 88]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 268, 270-272, 273]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Muntin1973 [taxonomy: 14]; Schmid1940 [taxonomy: 270].
Tecaspis mytilaspiformis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis mytilaspiformis Newstead, 1912: 19. Type data: NAMIBIA: Groß-Namaland, Chamis am Koankip, on Rhus lancea, ?/09/1905, by L. Schultze. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis mytilaspiformis; MacGillivray, 1921: 333. Change of combination.
Tecaspis mytilaspiformis; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination.
Tekaspis mytilaspiformis; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Rhus lancea [Newste1912, Muntin1973], Rhus sp. [Borchs1966]. Asteraceae: Lopholaena sp. [Muntin1973]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Newste1912, Muntin1973]; Zimbabwe [Muntin1973].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1973).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, narrowing anteriorly, about 1.5 mm long; prosoma not sclerotized. Pygidium rounded. Only median lobes well developed (Munting, 1973).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 333 (female) [as Duplachionaspis mytilaspiformis; Key to species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 237-238]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 537]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 333]; MunroFo1936 [distribution: 79]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 17]; Newste1912 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19].
Tecaspis retigera (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis retigera Cockerell, 1901l: 249-250. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Durban, unidentified host, by Fuller. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Duplachionaspis retigera; MacGillivray, 1921: 332. Change of combination.
Chionaspis tursioides Laing, 1929: 480-481. Type data: TANZANIA: Kilimanjaro, Mkuu, on "common thorn-bush," by A.H. Ritchie. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Hall, 1946a: 552.
Trichomytilus tursioides; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Tecaspis retigera; Hall, 1946a: 538. Change of combination.
Tekaspis retigera; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
HOSTS: Capparidaceae: Boscia [Borchs1966], Capparis albitrunca [Brain1919]. Rhamnaceae: Scutia myrtina [DeLott1967a]. Ulmaceae: Chaetachme [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1967a]; South Africa [Cocker1901l, Brain1919, Giliom1966]; Tanzania [Laing1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Scale snowy white, distinctly woolly, with low transverse ridges, widening gradually from front to rear, very highly convex in the middle, with steep, almost vertical sides, the curved back forming a sharp edge with ventral surface anteriorly and posteriorly; no ventral scale, except remnants anteriorly; exuviae golden brown. Adult female very blackish brown, flattish at head and pygidial ends, with the median segments highly domed. Derm clearing completely in potash (Laing, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is closely related to Africaspis fici, but differs from it in the shape, and distance apart, of the median trullae, the different arrangement of the marginal gland orifices, the presence of the large median anterior group of, dorsal pores, and the smaller number of perivulvar pores (Laing, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 538 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 332 (female) [as Duplachionaspis retigera; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 234]; Cocker1901l [description, distribution, taxonomy: 249]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538, 551]; Laing1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 480-481]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 332]; MunroFo1936 [distribution: 79]; Muntin1973 [taxonomy: 14].
Tecaspis rhizobium MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Tecaspis rhizobium Munting, 1965b: 21-215. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Durban, on Isoglossa woodii, 25/08/1964, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. HC-1615. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Acanthaceae: Isoglossa woodii [Muntin1965b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1965b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1965b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, white with yellow exuviae and about 2.5 mm long. Male scale parallel-sided, noncarinate, 1.5 mm long, with almost colorless apical exuviae. Adult female membranous except for pygidium which is sclerotized. Pygidium with a deep notch between the median lobes, which have their inner distal edges divergent and serrate, the notch about equal in width to that of the lobes; 2nd lobes bilobulate with inner lobule largest, rounded and without a basal sclerosis projecting into the pygidium; other lobes obsolete (Munting, 1965b).
SYSTEMATICS: Tecaspis rhizobium is close to T. subvisci from which it may be distinguished by the deeper notch between the median lobes, the more numerous anterior parastigmatic pores (about 10 present in subvisci), the fact that the pygidial gland spines on segments V-VIII always occur singly and the adult female is membranous at maturity. The shape of the median lobes is reminiscent of the genus Chlidaspis Borchsenius as figured by Borchsenius & Williams (1963), but the presence of the submarginal ducts on segment VI suggests a closer affinity to Tecaspis (Munting, 1965b).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1965b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213-215]; Muntin1973 [taxonomy: 14].
Tecaspis sinoiae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis sinoiae Hall, 1928: 281-283. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Sinoia, on undetermined host, 22/09/1927. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Tecaspis sinoiae; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination.
Tekaspis sinoiae; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1928, Muntin1973].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1973).
STRUCTURE: Mature adult female elongate, narrow anteriorly, about 2.0 mm long. Prosoma membranous. Median lobes well developed, scalloped along their apical margins; second lobes very much smaller, indistinctly bilobulate, without a ventral sclerosis projecting into pygidium (Munting, 1973).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Hall1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 281-283]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 537]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 19].
Tecaspis subvisci (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) subvisci Hall, 1929a: 369-370. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Umtali, on Elaeodendron capense, 10/06/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus subvisci; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Tecaspis subvisci; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination.
Tekaspis subvisci; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
HOST: Celastraceae: Elaeodendron capense [Hall1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale of variable form, generally pyriform to elongate pyriform and convex. Larval exuviae yellow or golden, nymphal exuviae brown with a thin white secretionary covering film. The exuviae occupy rather more than one-third of the scale. Ventral scale thin, but usually remaining intact when scale is lifted, 2.0 mm long and 0.8 mm wide. Male scale white with subparallel sides and pale brown exuviae; non-carinated, shape is often obscured by a dense mass of short silky white filaments. Adult female narrowed anteriorly. Pygidium broadly rounded. Median lobes set apart by a distance less than the width of one, broader than long and rounded at apex. Median notch is V-shaped with a minute seta arising from either side and a conspicuous narrow chitinous band joining the bases of the lobes. 1st lateral lobes duplex, the inner lobule rounded and slightly longer than broad, the outer lobule slightly smaller and usually more pointed with a notch on the outer edge (Hall, 1929a).
SYSTEMATICS: Tecaspis subvisci is close to T. visci from which it differs in the different shape and more conspicuous nature of the lateral lobes; the median notch is also different (Hall, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 369-370]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 537]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1965b [taxonomy: 215].
Tecaspis umtalii (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) visci umtalii Hall, 1929a: 370-371. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Umtali, Christmas Pass, on Allophyllus sp., 06/06/1928. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Tecaspis umtalii; Hall, 1946a: 538. Change of combination.
Tekaspis umtalii; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of genus name.
HOST: Sapindaceae: Allophylus sp. [Hall1929a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a, Muntin1973].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1973).
STRUCTURE: Mounted adult female elongate, tapering anteriorly; prosoma membranous at full maturity. Median lobes well developed, slightly broader than long, separated by a distance roughly equal to the width of one of them, yoked basally by a very distinct sclerotized band (Munting, 1973).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 538 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis].
CITATIONS: BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 96]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 370-371]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 19, 21].
Tecaspis visci (Brain)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) visci Brain, 1919: 235-236. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Tzaneen, on Mistletoe, 20/10/1914, by Mr. Mogg. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Munting, 1970a: 40. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 148a/1. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis visci; MacGillivray, 1921: 350. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus visci; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Tecaspis visci; Hall, 1946a: 537. Change of combination.
Carulaspis (Phenacaspis) visci; Ferris, 1956: 74. Change of combination.
Tekaspis visci; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis cercinus [RosenDe1979].
HOSTS: Flacourtiaceae: Kiggelaria africana [Muntin1967a]. Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Muntin1967a], Viscum combreticola [Muntin1967a], Viscum sp. [Brain1919, Muntin1967a]. Zygophyllaceae: Balanites sp. [Hall1929a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [Muntin1969]; South Africa [Brain1919, Muntin1967a]; Zimbabwe [Hall1946a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Brain (1919) and Munting (1967a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.2 mm long, elongate, more or less parallel-sided, convex, usually straight, silky, white, with transverse ridges small, numerous, close together. 1st exuviae greyish or brownish; 2nd exuviae covered, brown. Male scale white, moderately elongate, usually with prominent median ridge and two lateral ones, which are especially conspicuous at posterior end. Exuviae pale yellow or almost colorless. Slide-mounted adult female 1.6 mm long. Median notch is wide, with 2 short plates and two short spines. L1 wider than long, uniformly rounded when not worn; L2 composed of two lobules, which may be somewhat rounded, but most often pointed (Brain, 1919).
SYSTEMATICS: A re-examination of the specimens in Brain's collection identified by him as Chionaspis (Poliaspis) kiggelariae revealed that more than one species is involved. Two lots from Salix sp. are conspecific and form the basis for the identity of T. kiggelariae. The lot collected from Kiggelaria africana is conspecific with T. visci. Because the "holotype" of T. kiggelariae was selected by Brain from the willow specimens T. kiggelariae does not become a synonym of T. visci (Munting, 1967a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 537 (female) [Key to species of Tecaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 350 (female) [as Phenacaspis visci; Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 235]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 74]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Hall1929a [distribution, host: 370]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 537, 552]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 350]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 79]; Muntin1967a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 272-273]; Muntin1969 [distribution, host: 142]; Muntin1970a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40]; Muntin1973 [taxonomy: 14]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 765].
Tenuiaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Tenuiaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 308. Type species: Chionaspis minuta Green, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Tenuiaspis species have body with head and thorax not abnormal in length, together only slightly longer than the abdomen (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 308 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 108]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 6, 28]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 308, 339]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 194].
Tenuiaspis minuta (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis minuta Green, 1896: 3. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Tetranthera sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Tenuiaspis minuta; MacGillivray, 1921: 339. Change of combination.
HOST: Lauraceae: Tetranthera sp. [Green1896]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Green1937, Ali1969a] (Kerala? [Ramakr1930]); Sri Lanka [Green1896, Ali1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: A very small species, appearing to the naked eye like a minute yellowish speck under surface of host leaf. Female scale colorless and transparent. Male scale also very thin. Adult female very pale yellow with minute black eye-spots. Pygidium with a median longitudinal rounded ridge from anal orifice to extremity. Median and 1st lateral lobes projecting, but very minute and inconspicuous. Other lobes obsolete (Green, 1899a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 339 (female) [Key to species of Tenuiaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis minuta; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 73]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 172]; DoAC1923 [distribution, host: 65]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [illustration: 28]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 3]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 128]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 317]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 339]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Ramakr1930 [distribution: 55].
Thoa TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Thoa Takagi, 1993: 13. Type species: Thoa lophopetali Takagi, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Thoa is characterized in the 1st instar by having a number of small spines scattered over the thorax and abdomen (Takagi, 1993).
KEYS: Takagi 1993: 23 (female) [A tentative key to the genera of the subtribe Protodiaspidina].
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 13].
Thoa lophopetali TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Thoa lophopetali Takagi, 1993: 12. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Pahang, Kuala Rompin, Mencali Forest Reserve, on Lophopetalum floribundum, 17/08/1990. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 90ML533. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Lophopetalum floribundum [Takagi1993].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1993]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1993).
STRUCTURE: Female scale highly convex dorsally; secretory part dark brown, with transverse ribs; exuviae terminal, pale yellow, reddish at posterior apex. Male scale largely composed of 1st instar exuviae with a small amount of waxy material behind. Adult female robust, much swollen dorsally, derm remaining membranous, wrinkled in an elaborate network in a broad marginal region of metathorax and abdomen. Pygidium broadly round marginally, with a continuous series of pectinae and gland spines (Takagi, 1993).
CITATIONS: Takagi1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12, 22, 47-48].
Thysanofiorinia BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Thysanofiorinia Balachowsky, 1954e: 312. Type species: Fiorina nephelii Maskell, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, body oval, with the free segments little lobed laterally, and with the pygidium triangular in outline. Derm membranous except for the pygidium. Median lobes prominent, sunken in a broad apical recess of the pygidium, distinctly non-zygotic, being separated from each other by a space, with a pair of marginal setae between them. 2nd lobes quite reduced. Marginal gland spines small and few, absent between the median lobes. Dorsal ducts quite reduced in size and scattered within the pygidial margin.
SYSTEMATICS: Thysanofiorinia has nothing to do with Fiorinia because it has median lobes which are distinctly non-zygotic in both the adult and 2nd-instar female. It is particularly characterized in the 1st instar by having prominent marginal setae. Greenaspis also has setae around the body in the 1st instar, but a close relation between it and Thysanofiorinia is doubtful since the two differ in the median lobes of the adult and 2nd instar female. Tulefiorinia also has enlarged marginal setae in the 1st instar, but they are confined to the abdomen (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 101 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Fioriniinae]; Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 168 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 168, 312-314]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 149]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 101-102]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 363]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 196]; Takagi1961 [taxonomy: 4]; Takagi1970 [description, taxonomy: 37]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 223].
Thysanofiorinia leei WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Thysanofiorinia nephelii; Takahashi, 1942b: 42. Misidentification; discovered by Williams, 1971: 451.
Thysanofiorinia leei Williams, 1971: 450-451. Type data: HONG KONG: Governor's Lodge, on Nephelium sp., 10/10/1969, by H.Y. Lee. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Sapindaceae: Litchi chinensis [TakagiPoGh1989], Nephelium sp. [Willia1971, Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Kauai [Nishid2002], Oahu [Nakaha1981a]). Oriental: Hong Kong [Willia1971, Tao1999]; India (Uttar Pradesh [TakagiPoGh1989]); Taiwan [Willia1971].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Williams (1971) and Takagi et al. (1989).
STRUCTURE: Adult female retained within the exuviae of the 2nd stage which forms the scale. Scale is subcircular to oval, pale yellow brown with the prominent exuviae of the 1st stage of the same color and lying at one end. Adult female ovoid, about 0.7 mm long, membranous except for slightly sclerotized pygidium and an area between the anterior and posterior spiracles which is also slightly sclerotized containing derm granulations. Pygidium rounded without noticeable lobes except for two small short projections each with dentate distal edge representing the median lobes, these separated by a space equal to about twice the width of one lobe, the space forming a wide and shallow notch (Williams, 1971).
SYSTEMATICS: Thysanofiorinia leei differs from T. nephelii in lacking the prominent median lobes in the adult female and in possessing 6 pairs of gland spines on the 3rd and posterior segments whilst in T. nephelii they number only 3 pairs situated on the pygidium only (Williams, 1971).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 42]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 405]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; TakagiPoGh1989 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 167-170]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42-43]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 120]; Willia1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 450-451]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 254].
Thysanofiorinia nephelii (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia nephelii Maskell, 1897a: 242. Type data: CHINA: on Nephelium longana=Dimocarpus longan; AUSTRALIA: Queensland, on Nephelium longana=Dimocarpus longan; TAIWAN: on Nephelium longana=Dimocarpus longan. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, Department of Entomology, California, USA, Sacramento: California State Collection of Arthropods, California Dept. Food & Agriculture, California, USA, and NZAC, USNM. Described: female.
Fiorinia hirsuta Marchal, 1906: 145. Type data: ALGERIA: Alger, on Nephelium longana, by Trabut. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936: 5.
Fiorina hirsuta; Trabut, 1910: 41. Misspelling of genus name.
Parafiorinia hirsuta; MacGillivray, 1921: 378. Change of combination.
Parafiorinia nephelii; MacGillivray, 1921: 378. Change of combination.
Fiorinia (Adiscofiorinia) nephelii; Costa Lima, 1923: 9. Change of combination.
Thysanofiorinia nephelii; Balachowsky, 1954e: 314. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: longan scale [MuniapShWa2011].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Kentia sp. [Trabut1911]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia longena [Takaha1942b]. Fabaceae: Cassia [MuniapShWa2011], Indigofera sp. [Borchs1966]. Sapindaceae: Dimocarpus longan [Tao1999], Litchi chinensis [BrunerScOt1945, Tao1999], Nephelium longanum [Maskel1897a, Frogga1914], Nephelium sp. [Ali1969a]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Maskel1897a], Queensland [Leonar1906c]); Hawaiian Islands [Fullaw1932, Zimmer1948, Beards1966] (Zimmerman (1948) states that this species is an immigrant to Hawaii.) (Oahu [Zimmer1948, Nakaha1981a] (Zimmerman (1948) states that this species is an immigrant to Hawaii.)); Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan Island [Takaha1936c, Beards1966]). Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Miller2005]). Neotropical: Brazil [Takagi1970, Tao1999] (Rio de Janeiro [Lepage1938, SilvadGoGa1968]); Cuba [BrunerScOt1945]. Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [Tao1999]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986, Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tang1986, Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986, Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [Tao1999] (Miller and Gimpel (2009) indicated that Maskell (1897a) included type material from Hong Kong. This was in error. Maskell recorded it from China, Taiwan (= Formosa), and Australia.); India (Karnataka [RaoKu1952], West Bengal [Ali1969a]); Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [MuniapShWa2011]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a, Wu1935, Takagi1970]; Thailand [Takaha1942b, Ali1969a]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Marcha1906, Takagi1970, DanzigPe1998]; Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e) and illustration by Takagi (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with median lobes produced out of the apical recess of the pygidium, separated from each other by about the width of one of them, divergent, serrate on the inner margin, which is much longer than the outer margin, the apex rounded. 2nd lobe reduced into a point. One marginal gland spine between the median and 2nd lobes, scarcely extending beyond the apex of the median lobe; one on the supposed 3rd to 5th abdominal segments each, broadened basally and somewhat conical (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: The material Takahashi (1942b) described from Taiwan is a misidentification of T. leei (Williams, 1971).
KEYS: Beardsley 1966: 532 (female) [as Fiorinia nephelii; Key to Micronesian species of Fiorinia]; Zimmerman 1948: 377 (female) [as Fiorinia nephelii; Key to Fiorinia species from Hawaii]; MacGillivray 1921: 378 [as Parafiorinia nephelii and P. hirsuta; Key to species of Parafiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 177, 180]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 314-316]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 532]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 100]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 101]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 99]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 102-103]; Chou1986 [illustration: 506]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; CostaL1923 [distribution, host: 9]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 121]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 194]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Ferris1936 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-7]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 984-985]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 94, 95, 106, 109]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 284]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Leonar1906c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59-60]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 413]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 224]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 135]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; Marcha1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 42]; Maskel1897a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234-235]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MuniapShWa2011 [distribution, host: 168,171-172]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 405]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host: 9]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 177]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 37-38]; TakagiPoGh1989 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 167]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 14, 21]; Takaha1936c [distribution, host: 118]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 272]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 42-43]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 285]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 98]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 120]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 61]; Willia1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 451]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 36, 80]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 214]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 254, 256]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 376, 377].
Torosaspis Ülgentürk in Ülgentürk & KozárNOMENCLATURE:
Torosaspis Ülgentürk in Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011: 64. Type species: Torosaspis turcica Ülgentürk and Kozár.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description in Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Scale of female oyster-shell shaped. Adult female elongate, oval, derm membranous. Antennae reduced to one-segmented stubs, each with 2 or 3 thick setae. Trilocular disc pores associated with anterior spiracle. Glandular tubercles present submarginally on metathorax and abdominal segments I-III. Pygidium with 2 pairs of well-developed lobes, L3 reduced. Median gland spines at least as long as median lobes; other gland spines well developed, as long as median lobes. Marginal macroducts all single on segments IV–VII (formula 1,1,1,1). Perivulvar pores when present, in 5 distinct groups. (Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Torosaspis may be related to Acanthomytilus and Lepidosaphes Shimer (1868), but distinguishable from the latter two in having the marginal macroducts all single. In this character, it agrees with Pallulaspis Ferris (1937) and Mercetaspis Gomez Menor Ortega (1927). It differs from these genera in the distribution of dorsal macroduct on the pygidium. Furthermore, Mercetaspis is very peculiar in lacking marginal appendages on the pygidium. (Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011)
Torosaspis cedricola (Balachowsky & Alkan)NOMENCLATURE:
Acanthomytilus cedricola Balachowsky & Alkan, 1956: 320. Type data: TURKEY: Gaziantep, gardens at the Institut des Rescherches Agronomiques de Gizantep (alt 900m), on Cedrus libanotica, 1956, by B. Alkan. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust.
Torosaspis cedricola; Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011: 67. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. nr. phoenicus [UlgentErKa2008]. Torymidae: Megastigmus schimitscheki [Acatay1961].
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Cupressus [UlgentKo2011]. Pinaceae: Cedrus libani [UlgentKo2011], Cedrus libanotica libani [BalachAl1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Moghad2013a]; Turkey [BalachAl1956].
SYSTEMATICS: This species is morphologically similar to two other species on conifers Lepidosaphes juniperi Lindinger and Acanthomytilus farsianus Balachowsky & Kaussari (Balachowsky & Alkan, 1956).
KEYS: Ülgentürk & Kozár 2011: 67 (female) [Key to adult female Torosaspis species].
CITATIONS: Acatay1961 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration: 5, 6]; BalachAl1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 320-323]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; KozarWa1985 [taxonomy: 81]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 28]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 54]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 25]; UlgentKo2011 [structure, taxonomy: 63].
Torosaspis farsianus (Balachowsky & Kaussari)NOMENCLATURE:
Acanthomytilus farsianus Balachowsky & Kaussari, 1955: 238. Type data: IRAN: Abadeh, on Cupressus sempervirens, 1955, by M. Kaussari. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Torosaspis farsianus; Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011: 67. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Cupressus sp. [Moghad2013a]. Pinaceae: Cupressus sempervirens [BalachKa1955].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [BalachKa1955, KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky & Kaussari (1955).
SYSTEMATICS: Acanthomytilus farsianus is similar to Pallulaspis ephedrae Ferris. (Takagi, 1970)
CITATIONS: BalachAl1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 323]; BalachKa1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 238-240]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Kaussa1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 16-17]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [taxonomy: 81]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 55]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 25]; UlgentKo2011 [structure, taxonomy: 63].
Torosaspis turcica Ülgentürk & KozárNOMENCLATURE:
Torosaspis turcica Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011: 64-66. Type data: TURKEY: Burdur, Garden of Anadolu, Sanat Liesesi (N:37°46'05.50",E:30°33'17.31"), on needlse of Pinus brutia, 7/20/2009, by S. Ülgentürk. Holotype female, male and first instar (examined). Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus brutia [UlgentKo2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Turkey [UlgentKo2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description, colour photographs and illustration in Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female flat, broadest posteriorly, elongate, oyster-shell shaped, light brown in colour, with two larval exuviae pale yellow and transparent. Living female cream in colour, with pygidium darker. Male test yellowish-brown, parallel-sided, narrower and shorter than female scale. Mounted female: Body elongate oval, membranous, except for sclerotised pygidium. This species is characterized in having the following combination of morphological characters: (a) 3 large setae and 2 short conic setae on each antenna, (b) a band of glandular tubercles near each posterior spiracle, (c) unilobular L2 lobes, (d) single marginal macroducts on each of segments IV–VII, and (e) presence of 1 pair of gland spines between the median lobes, 2 between L1 and L2, and 3 lateral to L2. (Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: T. turcica resembles T. cedricola, but the latter differs in having: (a) only 2 setae on each antenna, (b) bilobed L2 lobes, (c) only 1 gland spine between L1 and L2, and (d) more median and submedian macroducts dorsally on abdominal segments I-III. T. turcica is also similar to T. farsianus, both having: (a) 1 marginal macroduct on each of segments IV-VII, and (b) gland tubercles near each anterior spiracle, but the latter species differs in having: (a) L2 bilobed, (b) no perivulvar disc pores, (c) 1 gland spine between L1 and L2, and laterad to L2, and (d) absence of macroducts submarginally on thorax and head. (Ülgentürk & Kozár, 2011)
KEYS: Ülgentürk & Kozár 2011: 67 [Key to adult female Torosaspis species].
CITATIONS: UlgentKo2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 63-67].
Triaspidis MacGilivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Triaspidis MacGilivray, 1921: 273. Type species: Mytilaspis bicornis Green, by original designation.
Triaspis; Balachowsky, 1954e: 23. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Pygidium of adult female always with 3 pairs of lobes (MacGilivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 273 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 34]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 6]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 538]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 273]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 197].
Triaspidis alba (Froggatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis bicornis alba Froggatt, 1914: 606-607. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Parkes, on Eucalyptus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female.
Lepidosaphes bicornis alba; Laing, 1929: 34. Change of combination.
Triaspidis alba; Borchsenius, 1966: 34. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus melliodora [Frogga1914], Eucalyptus rostrata [Laing1929], Eucalyptus sp. [Frogga1914]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914], Victoria [Laing1929]).
SYSTEMATICS: Triaspidis alba was described as a subspecies of Triaspidis bicornis based on its larger size and whiter color (Froggatt, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 606-607]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Laing1929 [distribution, host: 34]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265].
Triaspidis bicornis (Green & Lidgett in Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis bicornis Green & Lidgett in Green, 1900b: 9-10. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Eucalyptus globulus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Lepidosaphes bicornis; Sanders, 1906: 17. Change of combination.
Triaspidis bicornis; MacGillivray, 1921: 277. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus globulus [Green1900b], Eucalyptus sp. [Hall1946a]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1900b]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale reddish brown, paling to white at posterior extremity, dilated behind, often irregularly contorted, 1.5-2.0 mm long. Adult female narrowest in front, broadest across the abdominal segments. Pygidium broadly rounded, lobes rather small, often scarcely projecting beyond the margin; median pair simple, extremity broad and slightly rounded, without any indentations or crenulations. Male scale dull white; exuviae yellowish; ventral scale well developed, completely enclosing the insect, 1.25 mm long (Green, 1900b).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Green (1900b) suspects that Triaspidis bicornis is a native of Tasmania and may have been imported into Australia on young Eucalyptus globulus plants.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 277 (female) [Key to species of Triaspidis]; Leonardi 1903: 28 (female) [as Mytilaspis bicornis; Key to species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 29]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 606]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Green1900b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9-10]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 538]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 30, 85-87]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 17].
Trichomytilus LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Trichomytilus Leonardi, 1898: 45-46. Type species: Mytilaspis formosa Maskell, by monotypy.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Morrison & Morrison (1922).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 273 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini]; Leonardi 1903: 4 (female) [Key to genera of the Mytilaspides group].
CITATIONS: BerlesLe1898a [description, taxonomy: 11, 132]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 94]; Fernal1903b [taxonomy: 304]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1941b [illustration, taxonomy: 12, 21]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 45,46]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4, 23]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 273]; MorrisMo1922 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 103-106]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 198]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 17].
Trichomytilus formosus (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis formosa Maskell, 1894b: 68-69. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, Renmark, on Eucalyptus orbifolia and E. corynocalyx. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus formosus; Leonardi, 1903: 23. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes formosa; Fernald, 1903b: 309. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus corynocalyx [Maskel1894b], Eucalyptus orbifolia? [Maskel1894b], Eucalyptus sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914], South Australia [Maskel1894b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Maskell (1894b) and Morrison & Morrison (1922).
STRUCTURE: Female scale snow white, first exuviae small, dull yellow, 2nd much larger and dark reddish yellow. Adult female dark orange, elongate, with 2 median lobes, with two spines between them and a smaller lobe on either side (Froggatt, 1914).
KEYS: Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis formosa; Australian species of Mytilaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 37]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 309]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1941 [illustration, taxonomy: 12, 21]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 677]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1346]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 46]; Leonar1903 [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 155]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 2676]; Maskel1894b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68-69]; MorrisMo1922 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 103-106].
Triraphaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Triraphaspis Balachowsky, 1954e: 139. Type species: Lepidosapehs desmidioides Green, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
SYSTEMATICS: Balachowsky (1954e) described Triraphaspis as an aberrant genus of the Diaspidini.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 24 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 24, 139-140]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 39]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 363-364]; Mamet1957 [distribution, taxonomy: 367]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 199].
Triraphaspis desmidioides (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes desmidioides Green, 1917a: 267. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, London, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew., on Nephrodium sp.(in greenhouse). Holotype. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Illust.
Opuntiaspis desmidioides; Lindinger, 1937: 191. Change of combination.
Triraphaspis desmidioides; Balachowsky, 1954e: 140. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aspidiaceae: Nephrodium [Green1917a, Borchs1966]. Cyatheaceae: Cyathea borbonica [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966]. Gleicheniaceae: Gleichenia [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966]. Shizaeaceae: Shizaea digitata [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966]. Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [Green1917a, Borchs1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale irregularly pyriform with irregular margins, white, semi-translucent, 1.75 mm long. Male scale linear with median in relief compared with margins, 1.5 mm long. Adult female pygidium with L1 well developed, L2 very small, but present (Balachowsky, 1954e).
KEYS: Mamet 1959: 126 [Key to species of Triraphaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-142]; BalachMa1980 [taxonomy: 70]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 89]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 364]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-390]; Green1917a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 267]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 191]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 162]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 31, 41]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 40]; Mamet1957 [distribution, host: 367, 386]; Mamet1959 [taxonomy: 126].
Triraphaspis hymenophylli MametNOMENCLATURE:
Triraphaspis hymenophylli Mamet, 1959: 129-131. Type data: REUNION: Plateau de Bélouve, on Hymenophyllum sp., ?/06/1957, by J. Bosser. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pteridophyta: Hymenophyllum sp. [Mamet1959]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Reunion [Mamet1959, GermaiMiPa2014].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 1500-1600 meters (Mamet, 1959).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, a little convex, white, thickly textured with exuviae terminal. Male scale elongate, more slender, without carinae, white, thin textured, more or less translucent and shiny. Adult female with distinct metathoracic segment. Pygidium with 2 pairs of developed lobes. Median lobes divergent, longer than broad, with inner margin notched 3 times and outer margin with one broad notch, situated in a depression of the pygidial margin, each with a sclerotized basal process extending into pygidium, separated from each other by a space equal to about twice the width of one of them and in which occur a pair of gland spines and a marginal dorsal duct (Mamet, 1959).
KEYS: Mamet 1959: 126 [Key to species of Triraphaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 24]; Mamet1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126,129].
Triraphaspis trilobis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Triraphaspis trilobis Mamet, 1957: 384-386. Type data: REUNION: Bélouve, on an undetermined fern, ?/1/1955, by R. Paulian. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Reunion [Mamet1957, GermaiMiPa2014].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1957).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, broad, a little convex, white of rather thick texture, with exuviae terminal. Male scale elongate, more slender, without carinae, white, of rather thin texture, more or less translucent, shiny (Mamet, 1957).
SYSTEMATICS: Triraphaspis trilobis differs from T. desmidioides by the presence of a well-developed 3rd lobe, the smaller median lobes, the shape of the outer lobule of the 2nd lobes, the presence of a submedian series of dorsal ducts on the 2nd abdominal segment, the more numerous dorsal ducts and the absence of gland tubercles on the 1st and 2nd abdominal segments submarginally (Mamet, 1957).
KEYS: Mamet 1959: 126 [Key to species of Triraphaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 39]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 24]; Mamet1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 377, 384]; Mamet1959 [taxonomy: 126].
Trischnaspis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Trischnaspis Ben-Dov, 1974: 29. Type species: Ischnaspis bipindensis Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: The main characters of Trischnaspis are a reticulated pattern which occupies the dorsopygidial area around the anal opening; presence of two pygidial lobes; presence of 3 pygidial macroducts, one between the median and second lobes and two ducts, very close to each other, just exteriorly to the 2nd lobe; the sclerotic prolongation extending from the base of the inner lobule of the 2nd lobe; presence of a long spine, longer than a median lobe, arising dorsally from the middle of the base of each median lobe; absence of gland spines between median lobes; absence of dorsal bosses on the submarginal area of the abdominal segments (Ben-Dov, 1974).
SYSTEMATICS: Trischnaspis is closely related to Ischnaspis from which it differs by the presence of 3 pairs of pygidial macroducts, as compared with 2 pairs in Ischnaspis and the presence of the long spine of the median lobe, which is lacking in Ischnaspis (Ben-Dov, 1974).
CITATIONS: BenDov1974 [description, taxonomy: 20, 29]; Matile1982 [description, taxonomy: 68].
Trischnaspis balachowskyi Matile-FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Trischnaspis balachowskyi Matile-Ferrero, 1982: 68. Type data: GABON: Makokou, M'Passa, on undetermined tree, 27/11/1973, by A.S. Balachowsky. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Gabon [Matile1982].
BIOLOGY: Trischnaspis balachowskyi was found associated with Ischnaspis longirostris and Gynandraspis gabonensis (Matile Ferrero, 1982).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Matile Ferrero (1982).
SYSTEMATICS: T. balachowskyi is easily distinguished from T. bipindensis by the round shape of L1, the strong development of L2, the reduced number of circumgenital glands and their transverse layout and by the presence of marginal-thoracic glandular tubercules (Matile Ferrero, 1982).
CITATIONS: Matile1982 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68-70].
Trischnaspis bipindensis (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Ischnaspis bipindensis Lindinger, 1909e: 32. Type data: CAMEROON: Bipinde, on Strychnos cinnabarina and Cyclostemon bipindensis, 1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
Trischnaspis bipindensis; Ben-Dov, 1974: 29. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Acokanthera schimperi [DeLott1967a, BenDov1974]. Euphorbiaceae: Cyclostemon bipindensis [Lindin1909e, BenDov1974]. Loganiaceae: Strychnos cinnabarina [Lindin1909e], Strychnos sp. [DeLott1967a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Lindin1909e, BenDov1974]; Guinea [Hall1946a, BenDov1974]; Kenya [DeLott1967a, BenDov1974].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Ben-Dov (1974).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light brown, 3 mm long, 0.5 mm wide, narrow, elongate, very gradually broadening and with distinct constrictions which correspond to the larval and second instar scales. Adult female yellowish, 1.01-1.82 mm long and 0.23-0.24 mm wide (Ben-Dov, 1974).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 138]; BenDov1974 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19, 29-31]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 138]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 116]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 548]; Laing1932 [taxonomy: 69]; Leonar1914 [distribution, host: 222]; Lindin1909e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 291]; Matile1982 [taxonomy: 68]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176].
Trullifiorinia LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) Leonardi, 1906c: 41. Type species: Fiorinia acaciae Maskell. Subsequently designated by MacGillivray, 1921: 372.
Trullifiorinia; Ferris, 1936a: 23, 26. Change of status.
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; MacGillivray 1921: 372 (female) [Genera of Fioriniini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 148]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 26, 88]; Ferris1941f [description, taxonomy: 12]; Hender2011 [taxonomy: 8,23,44,208]; Leonar1906c [description, taxonomy: 17, 41]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 372]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 199]; Sassce1912 [taxonomy: 75].
Trullifiorinia acaciae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia acaciae Maskell, 1892: 16. Type data: AUSTRALIA: on Acacia pycnantha, 1890, by Mr. Crawford. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia acaciae bilobis Fuller, 1897b: 5. Unknown type status. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1935: 132. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) Acaciae; Leonardi, 1906c: 43. Change of combination.
Crypthemichionaspis acaciae; Lindinger, 1911: 175. Change of combination.
Trullifiorinia acaciae; MacGillivray, 1921: 376. Change of combination.
Anamefiorinia acaciae; Lindinger, 1935: 132. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia floribunda [Hender2011], Acacia longifolia [Frogga1907], Acacia pulchella [Frogga1914], Acacia pycnantha [Maskel1892, Frogga1914], Acacia sp. [Green1916e], Acacia vertidillata [Hender2011], Paraserianthes lophantha [Hender2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Maskel1892] (Northern Territory [Green1916e], South Australia [Frogga1914]); New Zealand [Wise1977, CharleHe2002].
BIOLOGY: On petioles, stems or leaves, usually aligned lengthwise along grooves on the plant stem or petiole. (Henderson, 2011)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations in Henderson, 2011.
STRUCTURE: Female puparium dark brown, almost black, elongate, convex, first exuviae yellowish brown. Adult female dark brown, elongate abdominal extremity truncate with a single median lobe with two deep incisions, 4 or 5 spiny hairs, 5 groups of spinnerets. Male puparium snowy white, deeply ribbed down the center, narrow with parallel sides and the apex almost truncate (Froggatt, 1914). Membranous female enclosed in small, pitch black, elongate pupillarium that has a membranous pygidium at posterior end with 4 pairs of sclerotised gland spines on abdominal margin; 1st-exuvium either black or translucent. Female 2nd-instar scale cover fawn-coloured, not carinated, with terminal exuvium. Male scale cover white, tricarinate, composed of somewhat loose wax, with grey-brown to dark brown or black terminal exuvium; the white part is short when over a 2nd-instar male, then becomes elongate during the following developmental stages. 1st-instar crawler light orange or apricot colour. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: LECTOTYPE female: AUSTRALIA, on an original slide labelled "Fiorinia acaciae, adult female, Australia, 1890, W.M.M.", [1]: 1 F, uncleared and unstained mature female, with some embryos squashed out from body. Barcode NZAC02008250 (NZAC). (Henderson, 2011) Specimens of Maskell’s material held in NZAC are all of the recessed, thorn-like lobes variant. Collections of the New Zealand naturalised population are all basically the second variant with prominent median lobes, although these may be less contiguous and sometimes apically notched as if nearly subdivided. Molecular data does not support the existence of more than one species as the New Zealand T. acaciae is nested deep inside a cluster of Australian T. acaciae samples (Andersen et al. 2010).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 376 (female) [Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 41 (female) [as Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) acaciae; Key to species of Trullifiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [taxonomy: 48]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 148]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-575,608]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; DelGue1894a [description, taxonomy: 182]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 88]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 12]; Frogga1907 [distribution, host: 374]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 882]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56-57]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 5]; Fuller1899 [distribution, host: 472]; Green1900b [taxonomy: 11]; Green1916e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-63]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,14,23,43,208-21]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41, 43-44]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43, 114]; Lindin1932a [taxonomy: 79]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 376]; Maskel1892 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 9]; Wise1977 [distribution: 110].
Trullifiorinia macroprocta LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Trullifiorinia macroprocta Leonardi, 1907: 19-20. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Rhaphis flavelliformis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorinia macroprocta; Sanders, 1909a: 51. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Rhaphis flabelliformis [Leonar1907, Ali1969a].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Leonar1907, Ali1969a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1907).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, pale yellow. Adult female pygidium elongate, straight (Leonardi, 1907).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 377 (female) [Key to species of Trullifiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 46]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 148]; Leonar1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-20]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 51].
Trullifiorinia rubrolineata (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) rubrolineata Leonardi, 1906c: 44-46. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradenyia, on Murraya exotica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Fiorina rubrolineata; Sanders, 1909a: 51. Change of combination.
Trullifiorinia rubrolineata; MacGillivray, 1921: 377. Change of combination.
HOST: Rutaceae: Murraya exotica [Leonar1906c, Ali1969a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Leonar1906c, Ali1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Leonardi (1906c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, comprised exclusively of the 1st exuviae, reddish yellow. Adult female body not strongly segmented (Leonardi, 1906c).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 377 (female) [Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 41 (female) [as Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) rubrolineata; Key to species of Trullifiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 47]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Ferris1921a [taxonomy: 216]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 12]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 464]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 326]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41, 44-46]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 355]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 51].
Trullifiorinia scrobicularum (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia scrobicularum Green, 1896: 5. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Gaertnera koenigii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) scrobicularum; Leonardi, 1906c: 46. Change of combination.
Trullifiorinia scrobicularum; MacGillivray, 1921: 377. Change of combination.
Fiorinia serobicularum; Ali, 1969a: 48. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Gaertnera koenigii [Green1896].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1896, Ali1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1896e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very narrow in front, widened behind; pale yellowish with reddish median area. Adult female pale yellow, pygidium with a deep median cleft (Green, 1896).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 377 (female) [Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Leonardi 1906c: 41 (female) [as Fiorinia (Trullifiorinia) scrobicularum; Key to species of Trullifiorinia]; Green 1896e: 93 (female) [Ceylon species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 48]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 12]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93, 100-101]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 325]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41, 46-48]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 354].
Tsimbazaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Tsimbazaspis Mamet, 1962: 199-200. Type species: Tsimbazaspis euphorbiae Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Tsimbazaspis is referable to the subfamily Diaspidinae in having two-barred ducts with gland spines and bilobulate 2nd pygidial lobes. Adult female elongate. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes; median lobes non-zygotic, set far apart from each other, without gland spines between them (Mamet, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Tsimbazaspis comes close to Angulaspis and Inchoaspis from which it differs in having a group of pores between the bases of the median lobes and in the sclerotization surrounding the orifices of the marginal ducts of the 6th and 7th segments (Mamet, 1962).
CITATIONS: Mamet1962 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 199-200].
Tsimbazaspis euphorbiae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Tsimbazaspis euphorbiae Mamet, 1962: 200-202. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tsimbazaza, on Euphorbia davei, ?/07/1957, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 729. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia davei [Mamet1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1962].
STRUCTURE: Female scale pure white in color, elongate, broadest behind, rather convex; exuviae of 1st stage pale buff, terminal; exuviae of 2nd stage pinkish-brown, obscured by whitish secretion. Male scale elongate, narrow, obscurely tricarinate, white; exuviae pale buff, terminal. Adult female elongate, membranous, 1.2 mm long. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes non-zygotic, set quite apart from each other in a depression of the pygidial margin, diverging, each with apical margin rounded, with a pair of minute, ventral setae between their bases. 2nd lobes bilobulate; inner lobule larger, with rounded apex; outer lobule more or less conical. 3rd lobes not well developed, bilobulate; inner lobule larger, with rounded apex, outer lobule somewhat broad at base, conical (Mamet, 1962).
CITATIONS: Mamet1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-202].
Tulefiorinia MametNOMENCLATURE:
Tulefiorinia Mamet, 1959a: 461-462. Type species: Tulefiorinia simplex Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Tulefiorinia belongs to the tribe Diaspidini, having 2-barred ducts, pupillarial, the adult female being enclosed in the exuviae of the 2nd stage. Adult female elongate, with a marked depression or constriction of the margin about the level of the 2nd or 3rd abdominal segment. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes. Median lobes well developed, non-zygotic at base. 2nd lobes small, not bilobed (Mamet, 1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Tulefiorinia is closely related to Thysanofiorinia, but differs in having 2 pairs of pygidial lobes and the total absence of gland spines on the pygidial margin of the female; the shape of the 2nd stage which is definitely elongated and the occurrence of marginal spines only on the abdominal segments of the 1st stage (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 149]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 461-462]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 200].
Tulefiorinia simplex MametNOMENCLATURE:
Tulefiorinia simplex Mamet, 1959a: 461-464. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tuléar, on undetermined plant, ?/06/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a, Borchs1966].
STRUCTURE: Female scale almost entirely composed of 2nd exuviae, elongate oval, broadest across anterior third, black, shiny, with a median longitudinal carina. Larval exuviae pale straw colored, situated at anterior extremity which is broadly rounded. Male scale elongate, longitudinally tricarinate, parallel-sided, white. Adult female pupillarial, elongated, broadest across the 1st abdominal segment, with a sharp depression of the margin about the level of the 2nd and 3rd abdominal segments. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes. Median lobes well developed, non-zygotic at base, variable in size and shape, usually separated from each other by a space equal to about one-third the width of one of them, sometimes set close together but never fused, with apex smooth or variously notched and usually broadly rounded. 2nd lobes smaller than median lobes, usually notched on outer margin, sometimes obscurely bilobed (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 462].
Umbaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Umbaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 306. Type species: Diaspis regularis Newstead, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Females of Umbaspis with pygidium with truncate lobe-like projections located in incisurae other than median (MacGillivray, 1921).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1970) considered Umbaspis to be a junior synonym of Diaspis.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 165 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Diaspiformes]; MacGillivray 1921: 306 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 165, 176, 198-199]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 166]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 365]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 105, 119]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 515, 547]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 306, 323]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 201]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 32].
Umbaspis regularis (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis regularis Newstead, 1911: 86-87. Type data: UGANDA: Entebbe, Mubendi, on unknown host, 10/08/1909, by C.C. Gowdey. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis senegalensis Vayssière, 1914a: 206-207. Type data: SENEGAL: Koulikoro, on Khaya senegalensis, by M.J. Vuillet. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1954e: 199.
Umbaspis regularis; MacGillivray, 1921: 323. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Marietta marchali [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Anabrolepis diaspidis [HertinSi1972]. Eulophidae: Tetrastichus pulvinariae [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Chamaerops sp. [Komosi1968]. Bignoniaceae: Daniella olivieri [Balach1954e]. Bromeliaceae: Ananas sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Meliaceae: Khaya senegalensis [Vayssi1914a, Balach1929]. Moraceae: Chlorophora excelsa [Gowdey1913], Chlorophora sp. [DanzigPe1998]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Balach1954e]; Guinea [Balach1954e]; Mali [Vayssi1914a]; Niger [Balach1929]; Nigeria [Medler1980]; Senegal [Balach1954e]; Uganda [Newste1911, Gowdey1913]. Palaearctic: Italy [PellizDa1997, DanzigPe1998] (Pellizzari & Danzig (1997) cite this species as invasive from Africa.); Poland [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Newstead (1911).
STRUCTURE: Female scale more or less circular; margins flat, narrow at the sides, and wide posteriorly; central portion highly convex; texture smooth and almost wax-like in appearance, yellowish-white or creamy white, margins paler. Exuviae tilted forward. Adult female broadly pyriform, abdominal segments suddenly attenuated. Pygidium with 5 widely separated groups of circumgenital pores (Newstead, 1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1932f) cited this species as a junior synonym of Diaspis africana.
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 515 (female) [as Diaspis regularis; Key to species of Diaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 322 (female) [as Diaspis senegalensis; Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 145]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 176, 199-201]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 166]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 365]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 105, 119]; Fonsec1969 [taxonomy: 33]; Gowdey1913 [distribution, host: 249]; Gowdey1917 [distribution, host: 189]; Hall1928 [taxonomy: 279]; Hall1929a [taxonomy: 363]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 515, 547, 551, 552]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 180]; Komosi1968 [distribution, host: 207]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Laing1932 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 129]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322, 323]; Medler1980 [distribution: 90]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 124]; Newste1911 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 86-87]; PellizDa1997 [distribution, host: 176]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 504]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 32]; Vayssi1914a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206-207]; Vayssi1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 296-297].
Umbaspis regularis brasiliensis FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Umbaspis regularis brasiliensis Fonseca, 1969: 33-35. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Siqueira Campos, on undetermined host, ?/1/1966, by J. Fonseca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Viscaceae: Phorodendron sp. [ClapsWoGo2001]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1969, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Fonseca (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale perfectly circular, slightly convex with lightly depressed margins, white; exuviae medium brown-dark; second exuviae almost perfectly circular, occupying a little more than one-third the total area of the scale. Adult female circular, pygidium with 4 pairs of lobes (Fonseca, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Umbaspis regularis brasiliensis is similar to U. regularis, but differs in the presence of a depression on the margin anterior to the cephalothorax, in the presence of 8-13 glandular parastigmatic pores and in the presence of 23-25 microducts on the first prepygial segment (Fonseca, 1969).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; Fonsec1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-35].
Umbaspis spatulata (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis subregularis spatulata Hall, 1929a: 363-364. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Embeza, on Sapium mannianum, 11/03/1928. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis spatulata; Hall, 1946a: 515. Change of status.
Umbaspis spatulata; Balachowsky, 1954e: 198. Change of combination.
Diaspis spatula; Fonseca, 1969: 33. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Sapium mannianum [Hall1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1973).
STRUCTURE: Adult female roughly pyriform, about 1 mm long, marginal thoracic turbercles well developed (Munting, 1973).
SYSTEMATICS: Umbaspis spatulata is easily distinguishable from Diaspis subregularis by the presence of a marginal spur on segment IV, the shape of the lobes and the absence of dorso-submedian pygidial ducts (Munting, 1973).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 515 (female) [Key to species of Diaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 198, 200]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173]; Fonsec1969 [taxonomy: 33]; Giliom1966 [distribution, host: 423]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 363-364]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 515, 552]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 219]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 548]; Muntin1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21].
Unachionaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Unachionaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 307. Type species: Chionaspis colemani Kuwana, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Danzig (1986a).
STRUCTURE: Female body elongate or elongate-oval. Pygidium with two pairs of small conical lobes. L1 widely separated. Dorsal macroducts of same size as marginal; on pre-pygidial abdominal segments and sometimes on the pygidium itself are distinct submarginal groups and medial rows of ducts. Marginal ducts faintly distinguishable from other dorsal ducts by their greater sclerotization at base (Danzig, 1986a).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1970) stated Unachionaspis is close to Kuwanaspis and also to Nikkoaspis, presumably forming together with the latter two a peculiar phylogenetic stock.
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 721 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Yang 1982: 223 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1980b: 721 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 307 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 84]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 360]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 87-88]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 327-330]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 387-389]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 721, 724]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 365]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 365]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 27, 90]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 307]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 201]; Takagi1961 [description, taxonomy: 4, 8, 10]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 130]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 47]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 223].
Unachionaspis bambusae (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis bambusae Cockerell, 1896h: 21. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Bambusa sp., by Takahashi. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Unachionaspis bambusae; Takagi, 1961: 11. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sinica [Hua2000], Bambusa sp. [Cocker1896h, Muraka1970], Phyllostachys pubescens [Tao1999], Sasa sp. [Takagi1961]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]). Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1927]; China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tao1999], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000]); Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1961], Honshu [Cocker1896h, Shinji1936b]); Russia (Kuril Islands [Danzig1986a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body broadest across 1st abdominal segment, gradually narrowing both anteriorly and posteriorly; free abdominal segments each moderately produced laterally; pygidium broadly rounded (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 365 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Danzig 1988: 724 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Danzig 1986a: 389 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Paik 1978: 395 (female) [Key to Korean species of Unachionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 14 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [as Chionaspis bambusae; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: ArchibCoDe1979 [taxonomy: 205]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 181]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 270]; Bellio1928 [taxonomy: 303]; Bodenh1935 [host: 258]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 234-235]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-89, 174]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Cocker1896h [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21]; Cocker1896i [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-55]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 221]; Danzig1977b [taxonomy: 52]; Danzig1978 [distribution, host: 21]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 330]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389, 391]; Danzig1988 [taxonomy: 724]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 367-368]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 365]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 23]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 70]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 101]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, host: 45]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 268]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 76]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 198]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 15]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3, 17-19]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 102]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 395]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; Poutie1928 [biological control, distribution: 269]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-12, 14]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 162]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 122]; WangVaXu1998 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 85-86, 185]; Wu1981 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 163-164].
Unachionaspis signata (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia signata Maskell, 1897a: 242. Type data: JAPAN: Miyanoshita, on Bambusa tessellata. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, Department of Entomology, California, USA, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and UCDC, USNM. Described: female.
Chionaspis colemani Kuwana, 1902: 77-78. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Hikosan, on Bambusa sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1937: 197.
Unachionaspis colemani; MacGillivray, 1921: 337. Change of combination.
Chionaspis signata; Kuwana, 1928: 21. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Kuwana1902], Bambusa tessellata [Maskel1897a], Sasa albomarginata [Muraka1970], Sasa sp. [Takagi1961]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan [Maskel1897a] (Hokkaido [Takagi1961], Honshu [Kuwana1925b], Kyushu [Kuwana1902, Takagi1961]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body broadest across the 1st abdominal segment, rather abruptly narrowing anteriorly on the prosoma, free abdominal segments each weakly produced laterally. Anterior spiracles each with several accompanying disc pores; few pores on posterior spiracles. Submarginal dorsal macroducts present anteriorly as far as 2nd abdominal segment, scattered along free margin of pygidium; submedian dorsal macroducts present on 2nd to 6th abdominal segments; smaller macroducts scattered along lateral margins of meso- and metathorax and 1st to 3rd abdominal segments. Rather numerous submarginal gland spines occurring on meso- and metathorax, several on free abdominal segments. Median lobes and both lobules of 2nd lobes conical or nearly so, sometimes entire, and pointed or narrowly rounded apically, sometimes distinctly incised, sometimes becoming wider and dentate apically (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Paik 1978: 395 (female) [Key to Korean species of Unachionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 14 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [as Chionaspis signata; Key to species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 337 [as Unachionaspis colemani; Species of Unachionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 375 (female) [as Fiorinia signata; Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 365]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 42]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215, 249]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 90]; Green1900b [taxonomy: 11]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 268]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Kuwana1902 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 77-78]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 199]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 15]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19]; Kuwana1928 [taxonomy: 3, 21]; Leonar1906c [taxonomy: 60]; Lindin1908 [taxonomy: 91]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 307, 337, 375]; Maskel1897a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 231-232]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 342]; Muntin1967a [taxonomy: 253]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 102]; Paik1978 [distribution, taxonomy: 395]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 97]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11, 14]; Takaha1936d [taxonomy: 4]; WangVaXu1998 [distribution, host: 86, 189]; Yang1982 [illustration: 236].
Unachionaspis tenuis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia tenuis Maskell, 1897a: 242-243. Type data: JAPAN: Miyanoshita, on Bambusa sp. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Kuwanaspis tenuis; Lindinger, 1935: 149. Change of combination.
Chionaspis sakaii Takahashi, 1936: 2-4. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Kagoshima Prefecture, Tanegashima, Omotemachi, on Bambusa sp., 21/04/1935, by K. Sakai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Takahashi & Tachikawa, 1956: 10.
Unachionaspis tenuis; Takahashi & Tachikawa, 1956: 10. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Maskel1897a], Phyllostachys bambusoides [Muraka1970], Phyllostachys nigra [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Phyllostachys pubescens [Tao1999], Pleioblastus simonii [Muraka1970], Pleioblastus variegatus viridis [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Sasa sp. [Takagi1961], Shibataea kumasaca [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1986, Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986, Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tang1986, Tao1999]); Japan [Maskel1897a] (Honshu [Kuwana1925b, TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]); Russia (Sakhalin Oblast [Danzig1986a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1898) and Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, slender; meso- and metathorax more or less expanded laterally; pygidium narrow. Anterior spiracles each with one or two accompanying disc pores; posterior spiracles with or without a single pore. Dorsal macroducts few, present anteriorly as far as 3rd or usually 2nd, or at times even 1st abdominal segment, scattered on pygidium. 2-5 tubercular submarginal gland spines present on mesothorax; similar ones present or absent on metathorax and free abdominal segments, if present, few. Median lobes and both loubles of 2nd lobes very small, entire (Takagi, 1961).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Danzig 1993: 365 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Danzig 1988: 724 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Danzig 1986a: 389 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Paik 1978: 395 (female) [Key to Korean species of Unachionaspis]; Takagi 1961: 14 (female) [Key to species of Unachionaspis]; Kuwana 1925b: 2 (female) [as Fiorinia tenuis; Key to Japanese species of Fiorinia]; MacGillivray 1921: 375 (female) [as Fiorinia tenuis; Key to species of Fiorinia].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Danzig1977b [distribution: 52]; Danzig1978 [distribution, host: 21]; Danzig1980b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 330]; Danzig1986a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389-390]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 724]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 365-366]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 366]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7]; Green1900b [taxonomy: 11]; Hu1985 [taxonomy: 266]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, host: 45]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Kawai1977 [distribution: 156]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 268]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host: 17]; Kuwana1925b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2, 16-18]; Leonar1906c [distribution, host: 62]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 10]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 275, 375]; Maskel1897a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 232-233]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 102]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 395-397]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 32]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Tachik1955 [distribution: 55]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-14]; Takaha1936d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-4]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Tang1986 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 285]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 237, 261].
Unaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Ametrochaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Chionaspis flava Green, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Rao, 1949: 59-60.
Graphaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 310. Type species: Chionaspis permutans Green, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Rao, 1949: 59-60.
Prontaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 311. Type species: Chionaspis citri Comstock, by original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936: 26.
Unaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 308. Type species: Chionaspis acuminata Green, by monotypy and original designation.
Uniaspis; Kalshoven, 1981: 173. Misspelling of genus name.
Tegmelanaspis Chen, 1983: 92. Type species: Tegmelanaspis mediforma Chen, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Tang, 1986: 131.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions by Balachowsky (1954e) and Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish, elongate, usually with a median longitudinal ridge; exuviae terminal. Male scale white, felted, elongate. The important characters are 2-barred ducts; dorsal ducts numerous on pygidium posteriorly to eighth (median lobe) segment; 3 pairs of lobes present, the median lobes not zygotic, the 2nd and 3rd lobes bilobed. Gland spines absent from between median lobes but present laterally. Perivulvar pores present or absent (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Liu, Kosztarab & Rhoades 1989: 11 (female) [Key to the genera of the subtribe Chionaspidina in North America]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 326 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Chou 1982: 57 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Chionaspinae]; Yang 1982: 222 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Schmutterer 1959: 176 (female) [Bestimmungstabelle der mitteleuropäischen Gattungen der subtribus Diaspidina]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1954e: 170 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Borchsenius 1950b: 164 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 545 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 44, 45 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1937a: 97 (female) [as Prontaspis; Key to genera]; MacGillivray 1921: 308, 310, 311 (female) [as Graphaspis, Ametrochaspis, Prontaspis; Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 170, 288-290]; Beards1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 558]; Borchs1937a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 97, 115]; Borchs1949d [taxonomy: 192, 196]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 164, 196]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 104-105]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 92]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 66-67]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 645]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 306]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 366-367]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 19, 23, 26, 27, 78,]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-128]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 4]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:44, 45]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 270]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 538, 545]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 65]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54, 101]; Koszta1996 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 589-591]; Kuwana1923b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 3]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 40-41]; Kuwana1933a [taxonomy: 45]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 480]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179, 186, 193, 197]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 224, 265]; LitBa2014 [distribution, taxonomy: 1]; Lupo1938a [taxonomy: 271]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 308, 310, 311, 359,]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 201]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 59-72]; Schmut1959 [description, taxonomy: 176, 222-223]; Silves1939 [description, taxonomy: 796-797]; Takagi1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 34-35]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 131]; Terezn1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 57, 60, 61]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 47, 101]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 247]; Xie1998 [taxonomy: 128]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 222].
Unaspis acuminata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis acuminata Green, 1896: 3. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Ardisia sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Unaspis acuminata; MacGillivray, 1921: 339. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [Sankar1984].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Tao1999]. Apocynaceae: Carissa sp. [Beeson1941]. Celastraceae: Euonymus [Borchs1966], Euonymus revoluta [Ali1969]. Chenopodiaceae: Bassia latifolia [Beeson1941], Bassia sp. [Rao1949]. Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [Tang1986]. Dipterocarpaceae: Dipterocarpus [Borchs1966]. Moraceae: Ficus [Borchs1966]. Myrsinaceae: Ardisia sp. [Green1896, Rao1949]. Rubiaceae: Morinda [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Tao1999], Evodia sp. [Green1919c, Rao1949], Severinia buxifolia [Hoffma1927]. Staphyleaceae: Turpinia formosana [Hua2000]. Vitaceae: Leea sp. [Sankar1984]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Wu1935, Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tao1999], Hainan [Tang1986, Tao1999]); India [Green1919c, Tao1999] (Kerala [Rao1949, Sankar1984]); Sri Lanka [Green1896, Rao1949, Tao1999]; Taiwan [Hua2000]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: China [Hoffma1927].
BIOLOGY: Unaspis acuminata was collected at an altitude of 2,000 feet (Green, 1919c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899) and Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.0 mm long, bluish gray, with pale margins and with a median ridge. Adult female with body membranous throughout. Median pygidial lobes retracted little or not at all into body, parallel or very slightly divergent, their apices rounded and not serrate. 2nd and 3rd pairs of lobes well developed, each lobule almost or quite as large as the median lobes (Rao, 1949).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Tang 1986: 131 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chen 1983: 29 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chou 1982: 67 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Rao 1949: 64 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 339 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis acuminata; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; Beeson1941 [host: 744]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 29, 99]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67, 73-74]; Chou1986 [illustration: 463]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 91]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-128, SI-130]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Green1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 3]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 136-137]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 438]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 317]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 74]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 339]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 11]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 96]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 16]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60, 61, 64]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 41]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 34]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 35]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131, 132, 285]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 199]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 234, 235, 237]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis aei TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis aei Takagi, 1969a: 23. Nomen nudum; discovered by Takagi, 1970: 35.
Unaspis aei Takagi, 1970: 35-36. Type data: TAIWAN: A-li Shan, on Euonymus echinatus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Euonymus chinensis [Chou1985], Euonymus echinatus [Takagi1970, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1970, Tao1999].
STRUCTURE: Female scale brown, broadened posteriorly, convex dorsally, with a slight median ridge. Adult female body robust, free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally and with the pygidium rounded along the margin. Median lobes comparatively small, subparallel or slightly divergent, longer than wide, rounded apically, separated from each other by little less than the width of one of them. 2nd and 3rd lobes each with both lobules rather similar to the median lobes and with the outer lobule a little shorter than the inner. 4th and 5th lobes reduced to marginal serrations (Takagi, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis aei is close to U. euonymi, from which it is distinguished by the narrower median lobes and by having median dorsal ducts on the 2nd-5th abdominal segments (Takagi, 1970).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Chen 1983: 29 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 29, 99]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 347]; Chou1986 [illustration: 467]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8, 16]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 23]; Takagi1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-37]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 98]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 234]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis aesculi TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis aesculi Takahashi, 1957b: 104-105. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Nara Prefecture, Odaiga-hara, on Aesculus turbinata, 15/08/1956, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Unaspis aesculus; Tao, 1999: 121. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus turbinata [Takaha1957b]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus utilis [Tang1986, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tang1986]). Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999] (Honshu [Takaha1957b]).
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 1000 meters (Takahashi, 1957b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1957b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale brown, whitish at margin, much broadened posteriorly, thin, without median carina, about 1.1-1.2 mm long and 0.8 mm wide; exuviae pale yellowish brown. Male scale white, with median carina, about 1.1 mm long; exuviae pale yellowish brown. Adult female not sclerotized, broad, broadest at the basal abdominal segment, much narrowed anteriorly at maturity (Takahashi, 1957b).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis aesculi is related to U. euonymi, but differs in the stout and shorter pygidial dorsal ducts and in the shorter pygidial gland spines arranged singly. Resembles U. turpiniae Takahashi in the stout dorsal ducts, but is much different in the median lobes being distinctly larger than the 2nd and 3rd lobes, the shorter dorsal ducts and in the greater numbers of pygidial dorsal ducts and perivulvar pores (Takahashi, 1957b).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Tang 1986: 131 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Takagi 1961: 16 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 367]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 271]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 96]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Takagi1970 [distribution, structure: 35]; Takaha1957b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104-105]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131, 138-139, 286]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis assimilis (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis assimilis Maskell, 1889: 102-103. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, on Eucalyptus sp., by Mr. Craw. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Unachionaspis assimilis; MacGillivray, 1921: 337. Change of combination.
Unaspis assimilis; Borchsenius, 1966: 105. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus sp. [Maskel1889]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (South Australia [Maskel1889]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, pyriform, slightly curved, scarcely convex, dark brown, exuviae at one end, yellow. Male scale brownish white, narrow, semi-cylindrical, exuviae yellow. Adult female elongate, cephalic region smooth (Maskell, 1889).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis assimilis is close to U. euonymi but differs in color, the lobes of the abdominal extremity and in the absence of a ventral scale (Maskell, 1889).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 337 [as Unachionaspis assimilis; Species of Unachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105]; Cocker1895x [distribution: 260]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 337]; Craw1896 [distribution, host: 35]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 33]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 986]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 60]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 337]; Maskel1889 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102-103]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Zeng2000 [distribution: 51].
Unaspis atricolor (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis acuminata atricolor Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 11. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1922a: 1017.
Chionaspis acuminata atricolor Green, 1922a: 1017. Type data: SRI LANKA: Maha Iluppalama, on Carissa sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Unaspis atricolor; Rao, 1949: 61. Change of status.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus clavatus [HayatAlAg1975].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Carissa sp. [Green1919c]. Fabaceae: Tamarindus indica [Ali1969]. Moraceae: Ficus retusa [Ramakr1926, Green1937]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Ali1969]. Sapotaceae: Achras sapota [Rao1949].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Andhra Pradesh [HayatAlAg1975], Bihar [Rao1949], Odisha [Rao1949], Tamil Nadu [Green1919c]); Sri Lanka [Ali1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Rao (1949).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and narrow, almost parallel-sided, with median elevated ridge, showing a distinct median ridge. Adult female body long, slender fusiform. Median pygidial lobes forming a definite notch in the apex of the pygidium, the mesal margin of the lobes being much longer than the lateral margin, the apices projecting little, the lobes narrow, divergent and with the mesal margin finely serrate. 2nd lobes large and prominent, the outer lobule somewhat smaller than the mesal lobule. 3rd lobes smaller than the 2nd, but of the same form (Rao, 1949).
KEYS: Rao 1949: 64 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 82]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 438]; Green1922a [distribution, host: 1017]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 318]; HayatAlAg1975 [biological control, distribution: 83]; Mani1976 [biological control: 71]; Ramakr1919a [taxonomy: 11]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 339]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60, 61, 64].
Unaspis citri (Comstock)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis euonymi; Comstock, 1881a: 313. Illust. Misidentification; discovered by Ferris, 1937: SI-129.
Chionaspis citri Comstock, 1883: 100-102. Type data: UNITED STATES: Louisiana, on Citrus sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Howardia citri; Berlese & Leonardi, 1896: 348. Change of combination.
Chionaspis citricola; Froggatt, 1902a: 903, 908. Misspelling of species name. Notes: Froggatt (1902a) consistently spelled the name Chionaspis citricola which was never used elsewhere. He appearently was referring to Unaspis citri since he used the common name white louse which refers to this species.
Dinaspis annae Malenotti, 1916b: 188-192. Type data: BARBADOS: on Citrus medica acida, 04/07/1916, by Prof. Ballou. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Laing, 1929a: 480. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Prontaspis citri; MacGillivray, 1921: 359. Change of combination.
Dinaspis veitchi Green & Laing, 1923: 123. Type data: FIJI: Rarawai, on unknown host, by R. Veitch. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams & Watson, 1988: 247. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Rao, 1949: 62.
Trichomytilus veitchi; Lindinger, 1934: 64. Change of combination.
Diaspis annae; Wu, 1935: 204. Change of combination.
Unaspis citri; Ferris, 1937: SI-129. Change of combination.
Chionaspis annae; Lindinger, 1943b: 265. Change of combination.
Uniaspis citri; Kalshoven, 1981: 173. Misspelling of genus name.
Unaspis crtri; Tang, 1986: 131. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: citrus snow scale [WatsonBe1937]; cochinilla acanalada de los citricos [Alvara1939]; cochonilha branca da laranjeira [Bertel1956]; guagua nevada de los cítricos [AlayoS1976]; la escama de nieve en citricos [CoronaRu1992]; orange chionaspis [Hall1924a]; orange snow scale [Newste1907a, Borchs1966]; white louse [Frogga1902a, Borchs1966]; white louse scale [SmithBeBr1997]; white snow scale [Tanaka1981a].
ASSOCIATES: Fungi: Podonectria coccicola [GonzalHeSi1991], Sphaerostilbe aurantiicola [GonzalHeSi1991].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [GersonSc1981]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus circumdatus [SmithBeBr1997], Chilocorus rubidus [GressiDj1950], Cryptolaemus montrouzieri [Frogga1902a], Orcus chalybeus [Frogga1902a], Scymnus notescens [Frogga1902a], Telsimia elainae [Chazea1984], Zagloba beaumonti [CoronaRuJa2000]. DIPTERA Asilidae: Atomosia macquarti [CoronaRu1999]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis debachi [RosenDe1979], Aphytis gordoni [DeBachRo1976a], Aphytis lingnanensis [TakagiRo1981, MyartsRu2000, CaveMa1994], Aspidiophagus lounsburyi [SilvadGoGa1968], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Beingo1967], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [GonzalHeSi1991], Encarsia citrina [SmithBeBr1997], Encarsia inquirenda [HuangPo1998], Encarsia lounsburyi [CaveMa1994], Encarsia perniciosi [MalipaDuSm2000], Marietta sp. [GressiDj1950], Physcus flaviceps [GressiDj1950]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [Fulmek1943]. Eupelmidae: Tineobius citri [Fulmek1943].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [GermaiVaMa2010], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Annonaceae: Annona muricata [WilliaWa1988]. Arecaceae: Cocos sp. [SilvadGoGa1968]. Bromeliaceae: Ananas sp. [MillerDa2005], Tillandsia usneoides [TippinBe1975]. Celastraceae: Euonymus japonicus [Newste1907a], Euonymus latifolia [Comsto1881a, Borchs1966]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [MillerDa2005], Inga sp. [LincanHoCa2010]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Myrtaceae: Psidium guajava [WilliaWa1988]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Persea americana [Ballou1945]. Rutaceae: Chalcas exotica [Ballou1945], Citrus aurantifolia [YunusHo1980, Malump2012b], Citrus aurantium [Mamet1943a], Citrus decumana [Laing1929a], Citrus deliciosa [CorseuSi1971], Citrus grandis [LitBa1994], Citrus limon [Hinckl1963], Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988], Citrus medica acida [Maleno1916b], Citrus nobilis [LitBa1994], Citrus paradisi [ColonFMe1998], Citrus reticulata [WilliaWa1988], Citrus sinensis [ColonFMe1998], Citrus sp. [CoronaRu1992, MillerDa2005], Fortunella sp. [MillerDa2005], Glycosmis parviflora [AlayoS1976], Murraya paniculata [LitBa1994], Poncirus sp. [MillerDa2005], Severina sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Sapindaceae: Nephelium lappaceum L. [HernanNiMa2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Benin [Nakaha1982]; Cameroon [Nakaha1982]; Comoros [GermaiAtBa2008]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Nakaha1982]; Guinea [Hall1946a, Nakaha1982]; Liberia [Nakaha1982]; Madagascar [Nakaha1982]; Mali [Nakaha1982]; Mauritius [Kuwana1926, Mamet1943a]; Nigeria [Giliom1966, Medler1980]; Senegal [Nakaha1982]; Seychelles [GermaiAtBa2008]; Sierra Leone [Laing1929a]; South Africa [Laing1929a]; Togo [Nakaha1982]; Zaire [MayneGh1934]. Australasian: American Samoa [MerrilCh1923]; Australia [Maxwel1902] (New South Wales [SmithBeBr1997], Queensland [Summer1934, SmithBeBr1997]); Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1966], Truk Islands [Nakaha1982]); Fiji [Green1915c, OConno1949]; Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Kotins1910]); Indonesia (Java [Kalsho1981]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988]; New Caledonia [Laing1933, WilliaWa1988]; New Zealand [Maxwel1902] (Charles & Henderson (2002) state that they found literature records to be erroneous and Unaspis citri is not considered to be present in New Zealand. They state that Maskell (1884, 1887) reported that U. citri (as C. citri) "...occurs here sparingly on oranges imported from Sydney...", and later reported it from Tonga and Sydney (1892). Subsequent specimens in NZAC are clearly identified as intercepted at the New Zealand border. There is no evidence that it has ever established, even temporarily, in New Zealand. Thomson (1922) reported C. citri as "originally imported from America" and "found on species of citrus in the north of the North Island", but almost certainly referred to Californian red scale, Aondiella aurantii (q.v.).); Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Papua New Guinea [Giliom1966]; Solomon Islands [Dumble1954, Giliom1966]; Tonga [Cocker1896a, Dumble1954]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [Laing1929a, WilliaBu1987]; Wallis and Futuna Islands (Wallis Island [Dumble1954]); Western Samoa [Dumble1954, WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Maxwel1902] (Tamaulipas [Cocker1899n, CoronaRu1992, MyartsRu2000], Veracruz [Cocker1899n]); United States of America (California [MerrilCh1923, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis citri is undoubtedly introduced into the United States.), Florida [MerrilCh1923, Ferris1937, Miller2005] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis citri is undoubtedly introduced into the United States.), Georgia [Miller2005], Louisiana [Comsto1883, Ferris1937, Miller2005] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis citri is undoubtedly introduced into the United States.), Mississippi [Miller2005], Virginia [Comsto1881a, Ferris1937, Miller2005] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis citri is undoubtedly introduced into the United States.)). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Maxwel1902]); Argentina [MerrilCh1923, SilvadGoGa1968]; Barbados [Maleno1916b]; Bermuda [Maxwel1902, HodgsoHi1990]; Bolivia [Squire1972]; Brazil (Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Mato Grosso [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio Grande do Sul [GomesCRe1947, Koszta1963], Rio de Janeiro [Cocker1902k, SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [SilvadGoGa1968]); Chile [Porter1934]; Colombia [Figuer1946, Giliom1966]; Cuba [Morgan1892, OteroCaMo1996]; Dominican Republic [Russo1927]; Ecuador [YustCe1956]; El Salvador [Berry1959]; Grenada [Ballou1912a]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]; Guatemala [Alvara1939]; Guyana [Cocker1896a, Bodkin1922]; Jamaica [Maxwel1902]; Netherlands Antilles (Curacao [Reyne1964]); Panama Canal Zone [MerrilCh1923]; Peru [Soukup1945, Beingo1967]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Maxwel1902, Miller2005]); Saint Croix [Beatty1944, MiskimBo1970]; Saint Lucia [MerrilCh1923]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Maxwel1902]); Uruguay [Kuwana1926]; Venezuela [Martor1939, Ballou1945]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936, Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Tang1986], Hubei (=Hupei) [ChenWo1936, Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [GressiDj1950, Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [Wu1935, RosenDe1979]. Oriental: Indonesia (Kalimantan (=Borneo) [Giliom1966]). Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Clause1933, Giliom1966]); Philippines (Luzon [LitBa1994], Mindanao [LitBa1994]); Singapore [Clause1933, Nakaha1982]; Taiwan [Hua2000]; Thailand [Nakaha1982]; Vietnam [Lamb1974, Nakaha1982]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Trabut1910]; Armenia [TerGri1969a]; Azores [Laing1929a, SoaresElSc1997]; China (Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Hua2000]); Egypt [Newste1907a]; Greece [Nakaha1982] (Pellizzari (personal communication, July 10, 2006) indicated that this species does not occur in Europe.); Italy [Newste1907a] (Pellizzari (personal communication, July 10, 2006) indicated that this species does not occur in Italy or Europe.); Japan [Mamet1943a]; Portugal [Giliom1966, FrancoRuMa2011] (Pellizzari (personal communication, July 10, 2006) indicated that this species does not occur in Europe.); Spain [Nakaha1982] (Pellizzari (personal communication, July 10, 2006) indicated that this species does not occur in Europe.).
BIOLOGY: Male scales form a pre-pupa and a pupa before the short-lived winged adult emerges. Females produce up to 150 eggs over 2-3 months. Eggs hatch almost immediately and crawlers move over the host. The life cycle takes about 8 weeks in summer. Crawlers may be produced all year round, with the largest numbers appearing in autumn. They are dispersed mainly by wind, but also on farm machinery, clothing and plants (Smith et al., 1997). Citrus snow scale has several unsynchronized generations each year in Florida (Bullock and Brooks 1975). Brooks (1977) reported 4 widely overlapping generations a year as common in typical citrus growing areas of the world. Borchsenius (1950) recorded 2 3 generations in Japan with eggs as the overwintering stage. Tikhonov (1966) and Kuhmina (1970) stated that there are 2 or 3 generations in the citrus growing areas of the Former Soviet Union. In Australia, Smith et al. (1997) indicated that there are 5-6 generations in Queensland and 3-4 in New South Wales. They also stated that each female produces up to 150 eggs over 2 or 3 months, and a life cycle takes about 8 weeks during warm months (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Male scale is white, 1 mm long, narrow, and rectangular with 3 longitudinal ridges. Adult male has orange body and transparent wings. Female scale is mussel-shaped, 2 mm long and dark brown in color; body is orange (Smith et al., 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis citri differs from U. yanonensis by having reduced numbers of macroducts on the pygidium (Lit & Balatibat, 1994). The two were confused over the years making some host and distribution records erroneous (Kuwana, 1926).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Heavy infestations of Unaspis citri can cause extensive drying and splitting of the bark on the trunk and main limbs of citrus trees. Heavy infestations are more common on older trees (Smith et al., 1997). This species is considered a serious pest by Beardsley and González (1975) and Miller and Davidson (1990). Talhouk (1975) suggested that it was a citrus pest of major economic importance with control measures usually required more than once each season in Australia, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Florida, tropical Central America, Mexico, and China. He considered it to be an important pest requiring occasional control measures in Peru, Chile, and Brazil. Ebeling (1959) suggested that this pest is not a problem in temperate areas such as California. In Florida the spread of citrus snow scale began in 1963 after a major citrus kill, and it apparently was dispersed throughout the state on infested nursery stock (Simanton 1976). Dekle (1977) and Bullock and Brooks (1975) both considered this species to be a serious pest in Florida. The latter authors believed that the pest was exceeded in importance in Florida only by citrus rust mite and greasy spot disease. They supported their point with the following information: Prior to 1960 less than 1% of Florida's citrus groves contained this scale, but in 1972 50% of the groves were infested and 25% of these required extra chemical treatments specifically for this species. Infestations generally were confined to the trunk, scaffold limbs, and smaller branches, with only occasional infestations on fruit and leaves. Heavy infestations cause bark splitting, loss of large limbs, and sometimes tree death. Before the introduction of Aphytis lignanensis, two thorough scalacide applications were required each year for adequate control. Studies conducted by Muma (1970) in Florida showed that orange and grapefruit trees were severely attacked by the citrus snow scale, while tangerine trees were nearly immune. With the introduction of the Hong Kong variety of A. lingnanensis many thought that this parasite had achieved major success in controlling this devastating pest (Mead 1975). However, it is now evident that reduction of citrus snow scale populations to subeconomic levels has not been achieved; the situation in Florida is difficult to evaluate because of the introduction and natural occurrence of so many different strains of A. lingnanensis that are morphologically identical (Browning 1994). The lady beetle, Chilocorus circumdatus Gyllenhal, is reported to be a reasonably successful biological control agent in Australia (Smith et al. 1997). Balachowsky (1959) reported that orange, mandarin, and lime trees were severely attacked in Colombia and sometimes had premature leaf drop. Hearn (1979) found that SUNBURST, a moderately vigorous hybrid of Citrus reticulata and C. paradisi, was tolerant of this pest. Hangartner et al. (1976) demonstrated that a growth regulator reduced population sizes of this scale by interfering with larval molts, male metamorphosis, and female fertility (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Danzig 1993: 307 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Tang 1986: 131 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 65 (female) [Key to Unaspis species of Louisiana]; Chen 1983: 29 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chou 1982: 67 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Dekle 1965a: 2 (female) [Key to snow scales on Florida Citrus]; Balachowsky 1954e: 290 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Rao 1949: 64 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Kuwana 1926: 41 (female) [as Prontaspis citri; Key to species of Prontaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 359 (female) [as Prontaspis citri; Key to species of Prontaspis]; Comstock 1916: 558 (female) [as Chionaspis citri; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 192 (female) [as Dinaspis annae; Key to Dinaspis]; Cockerell 1900k: 349 (female) [as Chionaspis citri; Table to separate the commoner scales (Coccidae) of the orange]; Comstock 1881a: 97 [as Chionaspis citri; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AlayoS1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; Alvara1939 [description, economic importance, host: 147]; ArgudiDo1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 109]; AriasRBr1995 [host, life history: 1189-1195]; Arnett1985 [economic importance, taxonomy: 243]; Auchin1913 [distribution, host: 9]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 290-293]; Balach1957c [distribution, host: 202]; Balach1959a [distribution, host: 363]; Ballou1912a [distribution, host: 420]; Ballou1913 [distribution, host: 63]; Ballou1945 [distribution, host: 96-97]; BatcheWe1948 [chemical control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 716]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 558]; Beatty1944 [distribution: 126]; Beingo1967 [biological control, distribution, host: 77]; Benass1977a [biological control: 1]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 68]; BerlesLe1896 [taxonomy: 348]; BerlesLe1898a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 125-127]; Berry1959 [distribution: 198]; Bertel1956 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 313]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 14]; Blanch1939 [distribution, host: 82, 168]; BockTa1995 [distribution, host: 360]; Bodenh1930 [distribution: 17]; Bodkin1922 [distribution: 57]; Borchs1937a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116-117, 243]; Borchs1949d [taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 196-197]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105]; Bourne1921 [distribution: 14]; Bovell1912 [distribution, host: 402]; BrooksTh1963 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host: 279]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 235-236]; Bruner1930 [biological control, distribution: 17]; CaveMa1994 [biological control: 5]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, taxonomy: 590,610]; Chazea1984 [biological control, distribution, host: iii]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31, 119]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 96]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67, 70-71]; Chou1986 [illustration: 464]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 16, 25, 33]; Cocker1893j [distribution: 256]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1894d [taxonomy: 312]; Cocker1895q [distribution, host: 62]; Cocker1896a [description, distribution, economic importance, host: 256-257]; Cocker1897p [distribution, host: 592]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 30]; Cocker1900k [host, taxonomy: 349]; Cocker1902k [distribution, host: 456]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 7, 87]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-131]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 313, 314]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 97, 100]; CoronaRu1992 [chemical control, economic importance, host, life history: 49-50]; CoronaRu1999 [biological control, distribution: 81-82]; CoronaRuJa2000 [biological control, distribution, taxonomy: 277-278]; CoronaRuMo1997 [economic importance, distribution: 39, 40]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host: 111]; CostaL1942 [distribution, host: 272]; Craw1896 [distribution, host: 38]; Crouze1971 [distribution, economic importance: 200]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Dale1959 [distribution, host: 12]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 221]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 307, 309-310]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 367]; DarvasAbCa1994 [chemical control: 53]; Dash1916 [distribution, host: 42]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution: 178]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control, distribution, host: 545]; Dekle1965a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-2]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 132]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 183, 330, 331]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 47, 90]; Ebelin1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206, 280]; EMPPO1955 [host: 299-301]; EMPPO2004 [life history: 43]; Essig1915a [distribution, host: 156]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; FernanWa1997 [biological control, host: 138]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23, 78]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-129]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 30]; FonsecAu1932a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 211-212]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; Frogga1902a [biological control: 903, 908, 910]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 986-987]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 23]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution, host: 129-135]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GermaiVaMa2010 [distribution: 127]; Gerson1994 [distribution, host: 71]; GersonSc1981 [biological control, economic importance: 201]; Ghesqu1927 [distribution, host: 313]; GibsonCa1959 [distribution, host: 69]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Gill1982c [distribution, host: 1]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 6, 8, 11]; Gomes1940 [distribution, host: 83]; GomesC1958 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131-132]; GomesCRe1947 [distribution, host: 226]; GomesCRe1948 [distribution, host: 8]; Gonzal1969 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 839]; GonzalHeSi1991 [distribution, host: 434]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, host: 24]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Green1915c [distribution: 44]; GreenLa1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 123]; GressiDj1950 [biological control, distribution: 17, 18, 19]; GuiradAmAr2003 [chemical control: 329-335]; Hall1924a [description, distribution, host: 26]; Hall1946a [distribution: 549]; Hargre1937 [distribution, host: 516]; Hart1896a [distribution, host: vi]; Haywar1939 [distribution, economic importance, host: 209-210]; HernanNiMa2011 [host: 379-380]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 191]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 66]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 6]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 26]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 76]; Houser1918a [taxonomy: 160]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65]; HowellWi1976 [distribution, economic importance: 188]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161-162]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1894]; Huergo1908 [taxonomy: 11, 16]; JerezR1983 [biological control, distribution, host: 83-91]; Jones1917 [distribution, host: 9]; Kalsho1981 [description, distribution, illustration: 173-174]; Kondo2008a [distribution, host: 29]; Kondo2010 [distribution, host: 2]; KondoKa1995 [distribution, host: 57]; Kotins1910 [distribution, host: 128]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Kuhmin1970 [distribution, economic importance, host: 95]; Kuwana1917a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 15]; Kuwana1923b [taxonomy: 3]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41, 43-44]; Laing1929a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 480]; Laing1933 [distribution, host: 676]; Lamb1974 [distribution, host: 44]; Leonar1901a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 563]; Leonar1914 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 398]; LepageGi1942 [distribution, host: 450]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43, 369]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 152]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 106]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 64]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; LitBa1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 379, 384]; LitBa2014 [distribution, host: 1]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 343, 345, 354]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311, 359]; Maleno1916b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188-192]; MalipaDuSm2000 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 2, 3, 9]; Malump2012b [distribution, host: 211,212]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 168]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50-51]; Mamet1950 [distribution, host: 23]; Marlat1900b [distribution, host: 271]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 43]; Martor1939 [distribution, host: 193]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 60, 61, 63, 66, 166,]; Maskel1885a [distribution, host: 23]; Maskel1887a [distribution, host: 54]; Maskel1893b [distribution, host: 211]; Maxwel1901 [distribution, host: 58]; Maxwel1902 [distribution, host: 251]; MayneGh1934 [distribution, host: 34]; Medler1980 [distribution: 90]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82-83]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194, 214]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 392]; MiskimBo1970 [distribution, host: 31]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Morgan1889a [distribution, host: 349]; Morgan1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14-15]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 74, 101]; Mosque1979a [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 53-56]; MoutiaMa1947 [distribution, host: 10]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 11, 16, 25]; Myers1922 [distribution: 200]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 16]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 36]; Newste1907a [chemical control, description, distribution, host: 9]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; OConno1949 [distribution, host: 52, 55, 88]; Ogilvi1928 [distribution, host: 26]; OteroCaMo1996 [distribution, economic importance, host: 531]; Paik1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 398]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Porter1934 [distribution: 123]; PrunaAl1973 [distribution, host: 3]; RangelGo1945 [distribution, taxonomy: 25]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 60, 61, 62, 64,]; Reyne1961 [distribution, host: 121]; Reyne1964 [distribution, host: 97]; RileyHo1891 [distribution, host: 214]; Ronna1933 [distribution, host: 334]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 765]; Russo1927 [distribution, host: 440]; SchildSc1928 [taxonomy: 266]; Schmid1939 [taxonomy: 147]; SelhimBr1977 [biological control, distribution, host: 477]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 181]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 6]; SmithBeBr1997 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 70-72]; SmithFl1949 [taxonomy: 996]; SmithHu1973 [biological control, distribution, host: 34]; SmithSmSm1998 [biological control: 136]; SoaresElSc1997 [distribution, host: 449]; Soukup1945 [distribution, host: 281]; South1910 [distribution, host: 20]; Squire1972 [distribution, host: 249-268]; Summer1934 [distribution, host: 20-22, 190]; TakagiRo1981 [biological control, distribution: 318]; Tanaka1981a [distribution: 90-91]; Tang1984b [host: 130]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131, 136-137, 286]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 25]; Thomso1922 [distribution: 331]; Tikhon1966 [distribution, host: 102]; TippinBe1975 [distribution, host: 50]; Townse1896 [distribution, host: 11, 13]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 47]; Trujil1942 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199-201]; Tryon1889 [biological control, description, distribution: 127-128]; Vilard1974 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76-78]; Ward1890 [economic importance: 305]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WatsonBe1937 [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, taxonomy: 28]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 96]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 247-248]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 74]; Wilson1917 [distribution: 44]; Wise1977 [distribution: 109]; Wolcot1948 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174-175]; WolffCo1994 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 133-136]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 199-200, 204]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 238]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 35, 153]; YustCe1956 [distribution, host: 435]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis emei TangNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis emei Tang, 1986: 134. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Mount Emei, on Schoepfia jasminodora. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Olacaceae: Schoepfia jasminodora [Tang1986, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate fusiform, 2.0-3.0 mm long, brown with lighter margin and median ridge. Male scale whiter, felted, with median ridge. Adult female slender and sclerotized slightly, 1.5-1.8 mm long. Median lobes with the mesal margin not serrate. Marginal gland spines occur singly on the pygidium except 3 toward the base of the pygidium (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis emei is near U. flava, but differs in the median lobes retracted, slightly parallel or very slightly divergent and by the presence of dorsal macroducts anterior to the anus (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Tang 1986: 131 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 368]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131, 134-135, 285-28]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis euonymi (Comstock)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis euonymi Comstock, 1881a: 313-314. Type data: UNITED STATES: Virginia, Norfolk, on Euonymus latifolia, by H.P. Worcester. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Gill et al., 1982: 9. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis evonymi; Targioni Tozzetti, 1884: 396. Misspelling of species name.
Chionaspis Nemausensis Signoret, 1886: ix. Nomen nudum; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 294.
Unaspis euonymi; Ferris, 1937: SI-130. Change of combination.
Unaspis nakayamai Takahashi & Kanda, 1939a: 185-187. Type data: SOUTH KOREA: Suigen, on Ilex serrata var. sieboldii, 05/11/1937, by S. Nakayama. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Rao, 1949: 63.
Unaspis evonymi; Bodenheimer, 1953: 13. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Unaspis evonymi; Balachowsky, 1954e: 294. Misspelling of species name.
Unaspis hakayamai; Borchsenius, 1966: 106. Misspelling of species name.
Unaspis euconymi; Tao, 1999: 121. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: cochenille du fusain [MawFoHa2000]; euonymus scale [Hollin1923, Blicke1965]; spindle berry scale [Vinis1977]; spindle tree hard scale [Bustsh1958].
FOES: ACARI Anystidae: Anystis sp. [GillMiDa1982]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes budensis [FainRi1998], Hemisarcoptes malus [GillMiDa1982]. ACARIFORMES Phytoseiidae: Typhlodromus sp. [Gaprin1956]. Tyroglyphidae: Tyrophagus entomophagus [KosztaKo1988F]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Gaprin1956], Chilocorus kuwanae [Kato1968, Koszta1996], Chilocorus renipustulatus [Gaprin1956, Rauled2011], Chilocorus stigma [GillMiDa1982]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus nipponicus [JefferScBr1995], Cybocephalus sp. [DreaCa1987]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus fuscipennis [Morley1909, GillMiDa1982], Aphelinus maculicornis [Poutie1928], Aphelinus sp. [Poutie1928], Aphytis diaspidis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis gordoni [RosenDe1979], Aphytis proclia [DeBachRo1976], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Poutie1928], Coccophagoides similis [KosztaKo1988F], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998, Viggia1987]. Encyrtidae: Aenasioidea hispanica [Balach1930e, KosztaKo1988F], Coccidencyrtus poutiersi [KosztaKo1988F], Neococcidencyrtus poutiersi [GillMiDa1982], Prospaltella gigas [KosztaKo1988F]. Mymaridae: Alaptus excisus [KosztaKo1988F], Dicopus citri [Balach1954e, KosztaKo1988F]. Pteromalidae: Pachyneuron coccorum [Fulmek1943]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora merceti [GillMiDa1982], Thysanus merceti [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex serrata sieboldii [TakahaKa1939a], Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araliaceae: Hedera colchica [Hadzib1983], Hedera helix [Hadzib1983]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Tao1999, MillerDa2005], Pachysandra sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Pachysandra terminalis [Koszta1963, SadofSc2000]. Caprifoliaceae: Symphoricarpos sp. [MillerDa2005]. Celastraceae: Celastrus scandens [Felt1901, BognarVi1979], Celastrus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Euonymus europaeus [LepineMi1931], Euonymus fortunei [BognarVi1979], Euonymus japonica [Hollin1923, Moghad2013a], Euonymus latifolia [Comsto1881, Ferris1937], Euonymus nana [BognarVi1979], Euonymus pulchellus [Martin1983], Euonymus radicans [Hollin1923], Euonymus sp. [Ferris1937, MillerDa2005], Pachistima [Borchs1966], Tripterygium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Hydrangeaceae: Philadelphus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Aspidistra elatior [Borg1932]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Althaea sp. [MillerDa2005], Hibiscus [Borchs1966]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus excelsior [Hadzib1983], Fraxinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Jasminum [Borchs1966], Ligustrum sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Olea [Borchs1966], Syringa [Borchs1966]. Perichymenum: Lonicera [Borchs1966]. Primulaceae: Primula sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Prunus pissardi [Felt1901], Prunus salicina [Tao1999]. Rutaceae: Citrus grandis? [Tao1999], Citrus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Thymelaeaceae: Daphne sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Viscaceae: Viscum album [Hadzib1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Canada (British Columbia [MawFoHa2000]); Mexico [Koszta1996]; United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982], Arizona [GillMiDa1982], Arkansas [Nakaha1982], California [MerrilCh1923, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Connecticut [Britto1905, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Delaware [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), District of Columbia [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Florida [Ferris1937, MacGow1982] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Georgia [Scott1900, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Illinois [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Indiana [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Kentucky [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Louisiana [BrewerOl1984], Maine [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Maryland [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Massachusetts [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Michigan [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Mississippi [MerrilCh1923, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Missouri [Hollin1923, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Nebraska [Nakaha1982], New Hampshire [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), New Jersey [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), New Mexico [Nakaha1982], New York [Felt1901, Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), North Carolina [Merril1953], Ohio [MerrilCh1923, Ferris1937] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Oklahoma [Nakaha1982], Pennsylvania [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Rhode Island [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), South Carolina [Merril1953], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [MerrilCh1923, Ferris1937, McDani1973] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Virginia [Comsto1881a, Ferris1937, BesheaTiHo1973] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), West Virginia [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.), Wisconsin [Ferris1937, Koszta1996] (Ferris (1937) states that Unaspis euonymi is undoubtedly introduced into North America.)). Neotropical: Argentina [Lizery1942, Koszta1996]; Bolivia [Squire1972]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]; Algeria [Nakaha1982]; Armenia [Balach1954e, Nakaha1982]; Austria [MerrilCh1923, Malump2011a]; Azerbaijan [Borchs1937a]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [Wu1935, Tao1999], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Xie1998], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Egypt [Balach1954e, DanzigPe1998]; France [MerrilCh1923, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941] (Abkhaz ASSR [Borchs1937a], Adzhar ASSR [Borchs1937a]); Greece [Korone1934, Kozar1985]; Hungary [Koszta1956a, Vinis1977]; Iran [Balach1954e, Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Bodenh1927a, Koszta1996]; Italy [MerrilCh1923, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan (Hokkaido [Muraka1970], Honshu [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970]); Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Portugal [DanzigPe1998]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F]; Russia (Krasnodar Kray [Zagain1956]); Sardinia [Melis1930, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [TakahaKa1939a]; Spain [GomezM1937, Martin1983]; Switzerland [Balach1954e]; Turkey [Bodenh1949, Koszta1996]; Ukraine [Nakaha1982] (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Borchs1937a, Bustsh1958, Nakaha1982]); United Kingdom (England [MerrilCh1923, MalumpBa2012]); Uzbekistan [Nakaha1982]; Yugoslavia [Kozar1983a].
BIOLOGY: Unaspis euonymi has 2 generations per year in Pennsylvania. Fertilized adult females overwinter and begin producing eggs as the weather warms, usually around late April. Eggs hatch and crawlers begin to emerge around mid-May, heavy crawler emergence continues for 1-2 weeks. Crawlers settle and soon begin feeding and mature in about 6 weeks. Oviposition ensues and second generation crawlers appear from late July through mid-August. From late August through September males emerge and fertilize the second generation adult females (Stimmel, 1979b). Additional life history information by Savopoulou-Soultani (1996). An extensive treatment of the life history of this species was given by Gill et al. (1982). The following summarizes that paper. In the northern areas of the United States there are 2 generations per year and in the South there are 3. There are 1 or 2 reports that are inconsistent with these generalities. The overwintering stage is the adult female; immatures apparently are unable to survive the winter. In Maryland egg laying began in early May and ended in late May or early June. Crawlers were present in early May to early July. Adult males occurred from mid-to late June, and adult female of the first generation first appeared in mid-June. Eggs of the second generation began in late June and crawlers appeared in mid-July. Adult males of this generation were observed in early to mid-September and adult females began to occur in late August. Savopoulou-Soultani (19197) conducted a detailed analysis of the life history of this species under controlled conditions in the laboratory. Mussey and Potter (1997) pointed out that plant phenology was a better predictor of the developmental stages of this and several other species of scale than were calendar dates (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustrations by Gill et al. (1982).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dark brown or purplish, broad and flattened, usually with a slight median ridge. Male scale white, felted, tricarinate (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis euonymi is close to U. acuminata. It can be separated from U. citri, the only other species of the genus known to occur in North America, by the presence of 5 small groups of perivulvar pores and the lack of sclerotization of the derm of the thorax and 1st abdominal segment (Ferris, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: In Missouri, Unaspis euonymi is a pest both in greenhouses and out- of-doors. It attacks almost all parts of the host above ground (Hollinger, 1923). Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. This scale has been reported as a serious pest of Euonymus in most areas of the world where it occurs (e.g., U. S. -- Gill 1997, Cockfield and Potter 1990; France -- Chauvel 1999; Germany -- Schmutterer 1998; Hungary -- Asef 1999; Poland -- Labanowski and Soika 1998; Yugoslavia -- Kozarzhevskaya and Vlainic 1982). Van Driesche et al. (1998) calculated annual economic losses by this scale on Euonymus fortunei in Massachusetts at approximately $355,000 and for all of New England about $711,000. If these costs were extended to the entire United States the annual cost would be multiple millions of dollars, and these figures do not consider the cost of control strategies. Gill et al. (1982) discussed the economic importance of euonymus scale in detail and presented a lengthy literature search. They noted that insecticides were the major control method but suggested that plant resistance and biological control were alternatives worth investigation. They have been proved correct, since in recent years several biological control agents have been introduced into the United States with some success (Drea and Carlson 1987, Alvarez and Van Driesche 1998, Hendrickson et al. 1991, Jefferson et al. 1995, Van Dreische et al. 1998). Host-plant resistance also has been examined, and it is clear that certain species and varieties are more susceptible than others (Brewer and Oliver 1987, Jefferson and Schultz 1995, Sadof and Raupp 1991). In Maryland this scale is rarely found on hosts other than Euonymus. Although dieback has been observed on several species of Euonymus including decumbent species, only E. japonica cultivars are consistently killed by the pest. In a study area used by Gill et al. (1982) for their research, specimens of E. japonica and E. kiautschovica (=E. sieboldiana) were growing together in a hedge and were observed for more than 2 years. Several of the E. japonica plants were killed by the scale during the study and the others were heavily infested and showed obvious symptoms of serious scale damage. The E. kiautschovica plants, on the other hand, showed no signs of damage and had only light infestations. Euonymus fortunei also is reported to sustain severe damage. Warner (1949) found similar evidence of resistance in the Arnold Arboretum. Among heavily infested plants, he found specimens of E. alata Cv 'Compacta', E. sachalinensis, and E. sanguinea that were uninfested. Beardsley and González (1975) consider this to be one of 43 major armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) treat this species as a serious world pest(Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1993: 306 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 65 (female) [Key to Unaspis species of Louisiana]; Chen 1983: 29 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chou 1982: 67 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 843 (female) [Key to species of family Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961: 16 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Unaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 289 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Rao 1949: 64 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 63 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Archangelskaya 1937: 88 (female) [Key to species of Chionaspis]; Kuwana 1928: 3 (female) [as Chionaspis euonymi; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Britton 1923: 362 (female) [as Chionaspis euonymi; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Hollinger 1923: 19 (female) [as Chionaspis euonymi; Species of Chionaspis known to occur in Missouri]; MacGillivray 1921: 325 (female) [as Chionaspis euonymi; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Leonardi 1920: 226 (female) [as Chionaspis evonymi; Key to Italian species of Chionaspis]; Comstock 1916: 558 (female) [as Chionaspis euonymi; Key to species of Chionaspis]; Sanders 1904a: 43 (female) [as Chionaspis euonymi; Key to Chionaspis species of Ohio]; Comstock 1881a: 97 [as Chionaspis euonymi; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1280]; AlvareVa1998a [biological control: 429]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-89]; Arnett1985 [economic importance, taxonomy: 243]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 431]; Balach1930e [biological control, host: 220]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 289, 294-298]; Balach1957 [taxonomy: 33]; BalasSa1982 [distribution, host: 415]; Beffa1937 [distribution, host: 66]; BentleBa1931 [description, taxonomy: 27]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 14]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 292, 317]; Bodenh1927a [distribution, host: 177]; Bodenh1928 [distribution, host: 191]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 355]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 109, 111-113]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host: 13]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 18]; BoratyWi1964 [taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1934 [taxonomy: 26]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 114]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host: 11, 111, 251]; Borchs1949d [taxonomy: 216]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 196]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 13]; BrewerOl1984 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 10-12]; BrewerOl1987 [distribution, host: 119-122]; Britto1905 [distribution, host: 10-11]; Britto1920 [distribution: 64]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 362, 363]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 236]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 200-202]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 31, 63]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 31-32, 120]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67, 71-73]; Chou1986 [illustration: 465]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 313-314]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 97, 102]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 462, 558, 563]; CostaL1949 [biological control, host: 71]; Costan1950 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Cowles2010 [biological control: 1736]; Craw1896 [distribution, host: 38]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 649]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 843]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 306, 307]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 368]; Davis1896 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 38]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution: 6]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control: 178]; DeSant1941a [biological control, distribution: 122]; DreaCa1987 [biological control, distribution, host: 307-309]; Englis1976 [distribution, host: 33-34]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; Essig1931 [distribution, host: 340]; FainRi1998 [biological control, distribution, host: 33]; Felt1901 [distribution, host: 360]; Felt1924 [distribution, host: 148, 153]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-130]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 63]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Feytau1916 [taxonomy: 9]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 23]; Gahan1907 [distribution, host, life history: 10]; Gaprin1950 [biological control, distribution: 53, 250]; Gaprin1954 [distribution, taxonomy: 588]; Gaprin1956 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116-117, 133]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 7, 75]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 53]; Gavalo1928 [distribution, host: 54]; Gavalo1929 [distribution, host: 167]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; GillMiDa1982 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 1-21]; GomezM1937 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11, 23, 213, 214-219]; GomezM1954 [distribution, host: 122]; GomezM1958a [taxonomy: 8]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 187]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 183-184, 275]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 24-25]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 191]; HodekHo2009 [biological control: 235]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 76]; Hollin1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 19, 23, 68, 69]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65, 66]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 202-203]; JefferScBr1995 [biological control, distribution, host: 273-277]; Kato1968 [biological control, distribution, host: 29-38]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 271]; Kiritc1928 [distribution, host: 116]; Korobi1967 [distribution, host: 184]; Korone1934 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 57-58]; Koszta1956a [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 408]; Koszta1963 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 102-103]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 591-592]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177, 178]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 385-387]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 70]; Kozar1983a [distribution, host: 148]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKoSa2002 [catalogue, distribution: 39]; KozarTzVi1979 [taxonomy: 132]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; KozarzVl1981 [distribution, host: 16, 21, 23]; KreiteAuGe2006 [distribution, economic importance, host: 143]; Kuwana1928 [distribution, host: 3, 14]; Lambdi1995 [biological control, distribution, host: 327-330]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 81]; Leonar1920 [distribution, host: 226]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 361]; Lindin1911 [structure: 354]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 102]; Lizery1942 [distribution, host: 75]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 129]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 148]; Lupo1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 271, 272-277]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 55-57]; MalumpBa2012 [distribution, economic importance, host: 29-30,38,39,41]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54, 57]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 57]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 43]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MawFoHa2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 45]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 3]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 399-401]; McKenz1947 [distribution, host: 32]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 159, 161, 163]; Melis1930 [distribution, host: 15]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194, 214-215]; MihajlKo1983 [biological control, distribution, host: 298-299]; Miller1999 [taxonomy: 14]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 396]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Modugn1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 113-135]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 29]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 55]; Morgan1892 [distribution: 16]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, life history: 96]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 85]; Neiswa1966 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 6]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 199, 260, 264, 283]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 398-399]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 254]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 481,504]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316, 318]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Poutie1928 [biological control, description: 269]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 170]; Priore1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 138]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60, 62, 64]; Robiso1977 [physiology: 42, 45, 48]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 765]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Ruhl1919 [taxonomy: 40]; SadofSc2000 [chemical control, distribution, host, life history: 120-125]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43, 45-46]; Savopo1996 [distribution, economic importance, host: 103-105]; Savopo1997 [host, life history: 955-960]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 223-225]; Schrea1970 [chemical control, distribution, host: 6]; Schude1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 173-175]; Scott1900 [distribution, host: 52]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 11]; Signor1886 [taxonomy: ix]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 46]; Squire1972 [distribution: 249]; Stimme1979b [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 23-24]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SwanPa1972 [distribution, host: 165]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 37]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 105]; TakahaKa1939a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-187]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 11]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 184-185]; Tang1984b [host: 130]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; Targio1884 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 396]; Targio1885 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; Teodor1930 [distribution, host: 69]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 49]; Terezn1982 [distribution, illustration: 61]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 66-67]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 146]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 5, 72]; TrenchPa1981 [biological control, distribution: 37]; TrenchTrTo2010 [distribution, host: 118]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 211]; Tsalev1972 [biological control, distribution: 86]; Tschor1939 [distribution: 90]; VanDriKiRo1998 [distribution, economic importance, host: 217-220]; Viggia1987 [biological control: 136]; Vinis1977 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5-10]; Wang1981TC [description, distribution, host: 290]; Weiss1915 [distribution, host: 165]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 23]; Woodwo1909 [distribution, host: 359]; Worsha1909 [distribution, host: 207]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 200]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128-129]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 239]; Yasnos1978 [biological control: 498, 501]; Zagain1956 [distribution, host: 87]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis flava (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis flava Green, 1899a: 150-151. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pudaluoya, on Antidesma bunius. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Phenacaspis flava; Fernald, 1903b: 238. Change of combination.
Ametrochaspis flava; MacGillivray, 1921: 359. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus flava; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Dinaspis flava; Green, 1937: 323. Change of combination.
Unaspis flava; Rao, 1949: 63. Change of combination.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Antidesma bunius [Green1899a, DEDAC1923].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a, DEDAC1923].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Green (1899a) and Rao (1949).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pointed in front, roundly dilated behind, surface marked with irregular raised lines, canary yellow. Exuviae yellowish, median area of 2nd exuviae thin and transparent. Ventral scale rather strongly developed, and persistent towards the margins, where it forms a ragged fringe partially enveloping the insect, 3.0 mm long, 1.75 mm wide. Male scale snowy white, exuviae yellowish. Adult female bright yellow, pygidium reddish. Pygidium with a deep median cleft containing the median lobes, which are elongate, diverging and serrate on the free edge. 2nd and 3rd lobes prominent, duplex, each lobule constricted at base. Adult male bright red (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: Green described two species from Antidesma bunius from the same locality, Pundaluoya, Ceylon, one being U. flava and the other U. permutans. The two are very similar and may be the same. However, they differ as follows: in U. permutans the scale is much more slender; the area occupied by the sclerotized prosoma of the adult female involves one more abdominal segment in U. permutans than it does in U. flava; and the dorsal ducts of the pygidium are much more numerous in U. flava, which has up to 40, than in U. permutans, which has as few as 26 (Rao, 1949).
KEYS: Rao 1949: 65 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 (female) [as Chionaspis flava; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; BhasinRo1954 [host: 79]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 6]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 238]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 20]; Ferris1956 [taxonomy: 73]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 150-151]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 323]; GreenLa1923 [taxonomy: 123]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311, 359]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 352]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63, 65]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 34]; Takaha1929 [taxonomy: 76].
Unaspis kanoi (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccomytilus kanoi Takahashi, 1935a: 444-447. Type data: TAIWAN: Botel Tobago, on undetermined tree, 1935, by T. Kano. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Unaspis kanoi; Borchsenius, 1966: 107. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis konoi; Tao, 1978: 105. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935a, Hua2000].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1935a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale blackish brown, covered with whitish secretions, stout, a little or not curved, not expanded posteriorly, moderately convex dorsally, with no ridge, about 1.6-1.8 mm long. 1st exuviae yellowish brown, extending beyond the front end of the scale. 2nd exuviae stout, about 1.65 times as long as wide, narrowed on anterior part, very broadly rounded on the front, without paler areas and furrows, with stout median lobes closely placed. Adult female broadest across abdomen, narrowing towards front end, with segmentation rather distinct. Pygidium much wider than long, more sclerotized especially on the median area, rounded at the base of each side, with many stout longitudinal lines. Median lobes protruding, large, as long as wide, narrowed towards the tip on the distal part, rounded apically, scarcely or not notched, slightly serrate, parallel, very closely placed, with no seta between them. 2nd lobes much smaller than the median, close to the median, divided, the inner lobules much larger than the outer, serrate. 3rd lobes shorter than 2nd, stout, divided, the lobules wider than long (Takahashi, 1935a).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis kanoi is characterized by the large median lobes which are closely placed to each other (Takahashi, 1935a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Hua2000 [distribution: 158]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Takaha1935a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 444-447]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3].
Unaspis mabilis Lit & BarbechoNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis mabilis Lit & Barbecho, 2014: 1-4. Type data: PHILLIPINES: Luzon, Mount Makiling, Los Baños, Laguna, on Lansium domesticum, 2/14/2014, by N.M. Barbecho. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Meliaceae: Lansium domesticum (=parasiticum) [LitBa2014].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [LitBa2014], Mindanao [LitBa2014], Mindoro [LitBa2014], Panay [LitBa2014]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration in Lit & Barbecho, 2014.
STRUCTURE: Scale of female dark gray with whitish border, elongate, somewhat mussel-shaped, with median longitudinal ridge, exuvia of earlier instars, light to dark brown, all at anterior tip of scale cover. Scale of males cottony white, at most a fifth the size of adult female scale. Mounted body of adult female fusiform, with free abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally; derm largely membranous at maturity, except for pygidial area. (Lit & Barbecho, 2014)
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis mabilis is morphologically closest to U. citri particularly in having relatively large median lobes that are sunken into the pygidium and are divergent but quite close together at their bases. However, U. mabilis has numerous perivulvar pores and macroducts and lacks the general slightly sclerotized nature of the anterior prosoma. (Lit & Barbecho, 2014)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: The species infesting lanzones trees in the Philippines has been called the lanzones “mussel scale” and was, in fact, referred to in initial pest bulletins as Lepidosaphes sp. (Lit & Barbecho, 2014)
CITATIONS: LitBa2014 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 2-7].
Unaspis mediforma (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Tegmelanaspis mediforma Chen, 1983: 92. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, on unknown bush, 1980. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Chengdu: Plant Protection Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Sichuan, China. Described: female. Illust.
Unaspis mediforma; Tang, 1986: 131, 285. Change of combination. Notes: Although Tang (1986) did not mention Tegmelanaspis mediforma, he did treat Tegmelanaspis as a junior synonym of Unaspis and so indirectly moved this species to Unaspis.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Chen1983]).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female is blackish-brown. Male is white. Adult female is fusiform, median lobes keep apart from each other, pygidium is strongly sclerotized (Chen, 1983).
CITATIONS: Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28, 92, 118].
Unaspis nanningensis ZengNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis nanningensis Zeng, 2000: 51-52. Type data: CHINA: Guangxi, Nanning, on unknown host, 13/09/1996, by T. Zeng. Holotype female. Type depository: Yangling: Entomological Museum, Northwestern Agricultural University, Shaanxi Province, China.; type no. 96311. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Zeng2000]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Zeng (2000).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body pyriform, derm membranous, free abdominal segments lobed laterally. Antennae each with long setae (Zeng, 2000).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis nanningensis is close to U. emei, but differs in having median lobes close to each other, broadly rounded on the apical margin; prosoma derm membranous and posterior spiracles with disc pores (Zeng, 2000).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: Zeng2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-52].
Unaspis permutans (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis permutans Green, 1899a: 130-131. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Antidesma bunius. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis permutans verecunda Green, 1899a: 131. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Antidesma sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: fossil. Illust. Synonymy by Rao, 1949: 63.
Dinaspis permutans; Malenotti, 1916b: 192. Change of combination.
Dinaspis permutans verecunda; Malenotti, 1916b: 192. Change of combination.
Graphaspis permutans; MacGillivray, 1921: 359. Change of combination.
Dinaspis (Chionaspis) permutans; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1921a: 353. Change of combination.
Diaspis permutans; Green, 1922: 460. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus permutans; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Unaspis permutans; Rao, 1949: 63, 65. Change of combination.
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus fuscipennis [Garcia1912], Aphelinus mytilaspidis [HowardAs1895, Morley1909].
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Antidesma bunius [Green1899a, Ali1969]. Rutaceae: Evodia sp. [Green1919c]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Kerala [Green1919c]); Sri Lanka [Green1899a, Ali1969]. Palaearctic: Spain [Garcia1912].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Rao (1949). This species was reported as occurring in Illinois, USA by Fulmek (1943) but there is no evidence that this record is correct.
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and moderately slender, very slightly broadened posteriorly, yellow, transparent, showing the form of the insect within, 2.0-2.5 mm long. Male scale white, tricarinate. Adult female elongate, but narrowly elliptical. Median pygidial lobes set in an apical notch, with their apices scarcely free, narrow, their mesal margin somewhat convex and serrate, the mesal margin much longer than the outer margin (Rao, 1949).
SYSTEMATICS: Green described two species from Antidesma bunius from the same locality, Pundaluoya, Ceylon, one being U. flava and the other U. permutans. The two are very similar and may be the same. However, they differ as follows: in U. permutans the scale is much more slender; the area occupied by the sclerotized prosoma of the adult female involves one more abdominal segment in U. permutans than it does in U. flava; and the dorsal ducts of the pygidium are much more numerous in U. flava, which has up to 40, than in U. permutans, which has as few as 26 (Rao, 1949).
KEYS: Rao 1949: 65 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Malenotti 1916b: 192 (female) [as Dinaspis permutans; Key to Dinaspis]; Green 1899a: 108 [as Chionaspis permutans; Synopsis of Chionaspis species].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; BhasinRo1954 [host: 79]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; DEDAC1923 [distribution, host: 6]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 4]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 24, 32, 34]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 84]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 54]; Ghesqu1933 [taxonomy: 346]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Green1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108, 130-131]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 438]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [description, distribution, host: 323]; HowardAs1895 [biological control: 635]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 359]; Maleno1916b [taxonomy: 192]; Morley1909 [biological control: 277]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 204]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 11]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 96]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 353]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 19]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60, 63, 65]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 34]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 46].
Unaspis pseudaesculus TangNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis pseudaei; Tang, 1986: 131. Misspelling of species name.
Unaspis pseudaesculus Tang, 1986: 140. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Mount Emei, on undetermined host. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Unaspis psedaesculus; Zeng, 2000: 51. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1986, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1986).
STRUCTURE: Female body elongate fusiform, 0.63-0.75 mm long, membranous except for pygidium. Median lobes apically acute or rounded and with mesal margin serrated or not (Tang, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis pseudaesculus is near U. aesculi, from which it is distinguished by having fewer dorsal pygidial macroducts and by the absence of gland spines on the mesothorax (Tang, 1986).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Tang 1986: 131 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 368]; Hua2000 [distribution: 162]; Tang1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131, 140-141, 286]; Tao1999 [distribution: 121]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis rousseti BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis rousseti Balachowsky, 1957: 29-33. Type data: THAILAND: Bangkok, near the Pagode scarée de marbre, on Mangifera indica, 23/02/1954, by A.S. Balachowsky. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Balach1957].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Thailand [Balach1957].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1957).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mytiliform elongate, brown, with 2nd exuviae darker. Median ridge carinated and well marked over the entire length of the scale. Adult female elongate; pygidium with 3 pairs of well developed lobes. First lobes robust, inserted in the pygidial margin, divergent and not joined at their base by a sclerosis. 2nd lobes mostly conical, symmetrical (Balachowsky, 1957).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis rousseti can be distinguished from other species of Unaspis by several important characters: the presence of double pygidial gland spines; the small separated groups of peristigmatic glands and the large number of dorsal micropores (70-86) surpassed only by U. yanonensis which has up to 150 (Balachowsky, 1957).
CITATIONS: Balach1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-33]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Davatc1958 [host: 152]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 35].
Unaspis turpiniae TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis acuminata turpiniae Takahashi, 1934: 10-11. Type data: TAIWAN: Kahodai, near Hassenzan, on Turpinia formosana, 06/06/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis turpinae; Rao, 1949: 60. Change of combination.
Unaspis turpiniae; Rao, 1949: 60. Change of status.
Unaspis turpinae; Tao, 1999: 121. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Staphyleaceae: Turpinia formosana [Takaha1934, Takagi1970], Turpinia ternata [Takaha1956a, Takagi1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1934, Takagi1970]. Palaearctic: Japan [Takagi1970] (Kyushu [Takaha1956a, Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, 1.96 mm long and 0.35 mm wide. Cephalothorax elongate, thickly sclerotized at maturity, gradually narrowing anteriorly. Median lobes set close, separated by a space narrower than one of them, parallel, slightly sunken into apex of pygidium, rounded apically. 2nd and 3rd lobes well developed, bilobulate, each lobule nearly as large as median lobe, slightly dilated, flattened apically (Takagi, 1961).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis turpiniae differs from U. acuminata in having shorter pygidial glands, a short gland spine present between the 2nd and 3rd lobes, chitinized cephalothorax in older females and apically broadly rounded median lobes (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Chen 1983: 30 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chou 1982: 67 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Takagi 1961: 16 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Unaspis]; Rao 1949: 64 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Chen1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 99]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67, 74]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 368]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 8]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 270]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 96]; Rao1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60, 64]; Takagi1961 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-16]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35, 141]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11]; Takaha1956a [description, distribution, host: 58]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 105]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 98]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 232]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis xianensis ZengNOMENCLATURE:
Unaspis xianensis Zeng, 2000: 51. Notes: It is clear that Zeng (2000) is not describing Unaspis xianensis as new, however, we have been unable to find an original description of this species.
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis].
CITATIONS: Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51].
Unaspis yanonensis (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis citri; Kuwana, 1907. Misidentification; discovered by Kuwana, 1926: 43.
Prontaspis yanonensis Kuwana, 1923b: 3-17. Type data: JAPAN: Kyushu, Ikiriki, near Nagasaki, on Citrus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female, male and first instar. Illust.
Unaspis yanonensis; Takahashi & Kanda, 1939a: 187. Change of combination.
Unaspis janonensis; Ter-Grigorian, 1969a: 25. Misspelling of species name.
Unaspis yannonensis; Chou, 1982: 67. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: arrow-head scale [Borchs1966]; arrowhead scale [MillerDa1990]; escama de Yanon [CoronaRuMo1997]; yanon scale [Xie1998]; yanone scale [Clause1927, VelasqRi1969].
FOES: Fungi: Fusarium coccophilum [BlackbMi1984a], Fusarium oxysporum [BlackbMi1984a], Microcera rectispora [BlackbMi1984a], Podonectria coccicola [BlackbMi1984a], Sphaerostilbe coccophila [BlackbMi1984a]. ACARI Stigmaeidae: Agistemus terminalis [BlackbMi1984a]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus amammensis [BlackbMi1984a], Chilocorus bipustulatus [BlackbMi1984a], Chilocorus hupehanus [RenGuXi1992], Chilocorus kuwanae [Chou1982, YangShGu1997], Chilocorus stigma [Benass1969], Cybocephalus nipponicus [SongHuHu1990], Lindorus lophanthae [BlackbMi1984a], Platynaspis lewisii [Chou1982], Propylea japonica [BlackbMi1984a], Pseudoscymnus hareja [BlackbMi1984a], Pseudoscymnus quinquepunctatus okinawanus [BlackbMi1984a], Rodolia pumila [BlackbMi1984a], Scymnus dorcatomoides [BlackbMi1984a], Scymnus hoffmanni [Chou1982], Scymnus ishidai [BlackbMi1984a], Scymnus phosphorus [BlackbMi1984a], Scymnus ryuguus [BlackbMi1984a], Scymnus sp. [GongChLi1999], Stethorus japonica [BlackbMi1984a], Sukunahikona bicolor [BlackbMi1984a], Telsimia chujoi [BlackbMi1984a], Telsimia emarginata [HuangWaZh1983a], Telsimia nigra [BlackbMi1984a]. Endomychidae: Saula japonica [BlackbMi1984a]. Nitidulidae: Cryptogonus orbiculus [BlackbMi1984a], Cybocephalus gibbulus [BlackbMi1984a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus sp. [Fulmek1943], Aphytis aonidiae [Chou1982], Aphytis chrysomphali [Chou1982], Aphytis lingnanensis [TakagiRo1981], Aphytis melinus [BlackbMi1984a], Aphytis proclia [Chou1982], Aphytis sp. [Chou1982], Aphytis unaspidis [GongChLi1999], Aphytis yanonensis [Takagi1983c, KreiteMaDi1998, ArzoneAl1987], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [BenassPi1972], Coccobius fulvus [KreiteMaDi1998, ArzoneAl1987], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Marietta carnesi [BlackbMi1984a], Physcus fulvus [Tanaka1981]. Encyrtidae: Anisotylus albifrons [Fulmek1943], Arrhenophagus chinoaspidis [GongChLi1999], Coccidencyrtus longicaudatus [TanZh1998]. NEUROPTERA Chrysopidae: Chrysopa boninensis [Ishii1932a, GongChLi1999], Chrysopa carnea [BlackbMi1984a].
HOSTS: Rubiaceae: Damnacanthus sp. [Wang1981TC]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium daidai [Muraka1970], Citrus deliciosa [Muraka1970], Citrus grandis [Muraka1970], Citrus medica sarcodactylus [Muraka1970], Citrus natsudaidai [Muraka1970], Citrus nobilis unshiu [Kuwana1923b], Citrus sp. [Kuwana1923b, Muraka1970, ArzoneAl1987], Citrus unshiu [TakahaTa1956, Muraka1970], Fortunella japonica [Kuwana1923b, Muraka1970], Fortunella japonica margarita [Muraka1970], Poncirus trifoliata [Kuwana1923b, Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [BlackbMi1984a]; Fiji [Lever1945, BlackbMi1984a]. Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [BlackbMi1984a]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [ChenWo1936, GongChLi1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tao1999], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [ChenWo1936], Hunan [Wang1936], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ChenWo1936], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [ChenWo1936, Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [HuangWaZh1983a, Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [ChenWo1936, Hua2000]); Hong Kong [BlackbMi1984a]; India [BlackbMi1984a]. Oriental: Indonesia [BlackbMi1984a]. Oriental: Malaysia [BlackbMi1984a]; Pakistan [BlackbMi1984a]; Philippines [VelasqRi1969, BlackbMi1984a] (Unaspis yanonensis was included by VELASQUEZ & RIMANDO (1969) in their checklist of diaspids but noted that its occurrence in the Philippines is doubtful.); Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [TakahaTa1956]; Taiwan [BlackbMi1984a] (Chiu (1979) states that this species has been eradicated.); Thailand [BlackbMi1984a]; Vietnam [BlackbMi1984a]. Palaearctic: Armenia [TerGri1969a]; China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Gansu (=Kansu) [Wu1935, Tao1999], Hebei (=Hopei) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tao1999], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); France [Benass1969, Foldi2001]; Italy [ArzoneAl1987, PellizDa1997] (Pellizzari & Danzig (1997) cite this species as invasive from East Asia.); Japan [Balach1954e, Tao1999] (Honshu [Kuwana1923b, TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [Kuwana1923b, OhgushMi1963], Shikoku [Kuwana1923b, TakahaTa1956]); South Korea [BlackbMi1984a].
BIOLOGY: The overwintering population of Unaspis yanonensis consists of 2nd instar larvae and full grown male larvae and juvenile and mature female adults. In early May the 1st brood begins to hatch (Ohgushi & Miyasita, 1963). Unaspis yanonensis typically has between two and four generations annually in China, Japan, and the Mediterranean region. In Korea, the overwintered females start to produce their progenies (first generation) in mid-May. New female adults of the first generation start appearing in late June and peak in mid-July. The second generation female adults, occur starting in mid-September, and gradually increase in number until late October. (Kim, et al., 2010)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Kuwana (1926) and Blackburn & Miller (1984a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.5-3.6 mm long, oyster-shell shaped, wax blackish brown, margin paler, dorsomedial longitudinal ridge wrinkled on sides. Exuviae terminal, brownish yellow. Male scale elongate, 1.3-1.6 mm long, felted, white, 2 or 3 longitudinal ridges. 1st exuviae brownish yellow, situated at anterior end of cover. Adult female body elongate, pygidium with 3 pairs of definite lobes, 4th lobes weakly indicated. Median lobes with conspicuous, paraphysislike sclerotization or yoke, median margins diverging apically and with conspicuous notches, medial margin noticeably longer than lateral margin. 2nd lobes bilobed, slightly smaller than median lobes, protruding beyond apex of median lobes, without notches. 3rd lobes bilobed, without notches. 4th lobes inconspicuous, simple or bilobed, represented by low series of notches (Blackburn & Miller, 1984a).
SYSTEMATICS: Unaspis yanonensis is similar to U. citri, but can be distinguished from it by having 48-64 macroducts on each side of the pygidium, 1 gland spine between the pygidial lobes, strongly diverging median lobes and 51-79 gland spines on each side of the body anterior of segment 4. U. citri has 18-35 macroducts on each side of the pygidium, 2 gland spines between the 2nd and 3rd lobes and between the 3rd and 4th lobes, slightly diverging median lobes and 27-39 gland spines on each side of the body anterior of segment 4 (Blackburn & Miller, 1984a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. It is a very destructive pest of Citrus spp. in Japan (Watanabe, 1958). Huang & Zhang (1990) found that "machine oil emulsions" controlled 77 to 94% of immatures and adult females. Sprays of petroleum spay oil and lime sulfur were most effective against first and second instar nymphs, but later stage nymphs tended to produce abnormal scale covers which left them more open to attack by predators. (Kim, Seo and Choi, 2010) Two and three peak models have been developed by Kim, et al., 2010, to predict crawler occurrence in citrus orchards.
KEYS: Zeng 2000: 51 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Danzig 1993: 306 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chen 1983: 29 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Chou 1982: 67 (female) [Key to Chinese species of Unaspis]; Takagi 1961: 16 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Unaspis]; Balachowsky 1954e: 289 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Rao 1949: 65 (female) [Key to species of Unaspis]; Kuwana 1926: 41 (female) [as Prontaspis yanonensis; Key to species of Prontaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 82-83]; ArzoneAl1987 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host: 533-538]; Balach1954e [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 289, 293-195]; Balach1957 [taxonomy: 33]; Balduf1939 [biological control, distribution: 283]; BatcheWe1948 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 717]; BazaroSh1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 109]; Benass1969 [distribution, economic importance, host: 793, 794]; Benass1977 [biological control, ecology, economic importance: 1]; BenassBi1967 [distribution, economic importance, host: 248-250]; BenassPi1972 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 187-212]; BenassViRo1979 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 284]; BlackbMi1984a [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-14]; Borchs1937a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116, 117]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host: 197]; CaiLuWe2001 [chemical control: 28]; Chen1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210, 228]; Chen1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29, 32-33, 121]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 104]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 102]; Chiu1979 [distribution: 527]; Chou1982 [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67-70]; Chou1986 [illustration: 466]; Clause1927 [distribution, economic importance, host: 4]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 16, 26]; Clause1978 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 288]; CommeaSo1964 [distribution, host: 49-50]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 221]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 306, 310-311]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 368-369]; DarvasAbCa1994 [chemical control: 53]; DeBachRo1982 [biological control, host: 626]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 235, 280]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-130]; Fleury1934 [distribution, host: 493]; Fleury1935 [distribution, host: 517]; Foldi1982 [structure: 318]; Foldi1983b [structure: 340, 341, 345]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, host: 60]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; GillMiDa1982 [taxonomy: 6, 8, 16]; GongChLi1999 [biological control, distribution, host: 95-99]; Guo1992 [taxonomy: 2]; HashimMiKo1985 [biological control, distribution, host: 204-205]; HashimMiMi1987 [biological control, distribution, host: 189-191]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 191]; HodekHo2009 [biological control: 235]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 76]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859]; HuangWaZh1983a [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 640-643]; HuangZh1990 [chemical control: 9-10]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 203]; Ishii1932a [biological control: 195]; ItiokaInMa1997 [biological control, host: 65-74]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-44]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 270]; KimChLe2010 [behaviour, chemical control, life history: 93-101]; KimKi2013 [chemical control, economic importance, life history: 60-63]; KimSeCh2010 [chemical control: 283-288]; KorenaHiSh1981 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 17-25]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; KreiteAuGe2006 [distribution, economic importance, host: 143]; KreiteMaDi1998 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32-33]; Kuhmin1970 [distribution, economic importance, host: 93]; Kuwana1923b [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 3-17]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-43]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lever1945 [distribution, host: 43]; LitBa2014 [distribution: 1]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Luck1981 [biological control, distribution, host: 174]; MartinLa2011 [distribution: 43]; MatsumItNi2002 [ecology: 83]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MiyajiHa1987 [biological control, distribution, host: 192-194]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 96]; Nakao1962 [biological control: 197]; NakataSuTa2000 [biological control, distribution, host: 21-25]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; Noguch1932; NoharaNaNa2000 [chemical control, distribution, host: 271-281]; OhgushMi1963 [distribution, host, life history: 291-299]; OhgushMoIt1964 [description, life history, taxonomy: 24-25]; OhkuboYoNa1986 [biological control, distribution, host: 194-199]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 32]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 397, 399-402]; Paik1982 [biological control, distribution: 20, 27, 28]; PellizDa1997 [distribution, host: 177]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 477,487,504]; Rao1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64, 65]; RenGuXi1992 [biological control, distribution: 75]; RosenDe1978 [biological control: 128]; SakagaKo1982 [distribution, host, life history: 35-51]; Savopo1996; Schmid1940 [distribution, host: 273]; Silves1939 [distribution, host: 799]; SongHuHu1990 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 233-236]; Stouth2003 [biological control: 93-113]; SugiurTa1998 [biological control: 185-188]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 55]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 16]; Takagi1983b [biological control, distribution: 93]; Takagi1983c [biological control, distribution, host: 153]; Takagi1991 [biological control, distribution: 505]; Takagi2003b [biological control: 351-355]; TakagiRo1981 [biological control, distribution: 318]; TakahaKa1939a [taxonomy: 187]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 11]; TamakiKa1969 [structure: 80]; Tanaka1981 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 165-166]; Tanaka1981a [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 81-92]; Tanaka1981b [chemical control, taxonomy: 93-100]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 182]; Tang1984b [host: 130]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; TanZh1998 [biological control, distribution: 300-302]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 121-122]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Tikhon1966 [distribution, host: 102]; Trembl1999 [distribution: 20]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution, host: 197]; Wang1936 [distribution: 386]; Wang1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; Wang1981TC [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 101, 102]; WangZh1991 [taxonomy: 41]; Watana1958 [biological control, distribution, host: 515]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 203]; Xie1998 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 130]; XuMi1982 [biological control, distribution, host: 19-21]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 239]; YangShGu1997 [biological control: 249-258]; Yao1985 [structure: 338]; YokomiNaOh1985 [biological control, distribution: 210-212]; Zeng2000 [distribution, taxonomy: 51]; ZhangWaCh1993 [biological control, distribution: 173].
Ungulaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Ungulaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 274. Type species: Lepidosaphes ungulata Green, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: The common character of species in this genus is the lateral margins of the abdomen which are produced laterally, curve downwards and bear noticeable gland-spines at the apices. The genus, as now understood, possibly contains a mixture of species (Williams, 1971b).
KEYS: Chou 1982: 152 (female) [Key to Chinese genera of Lepidosaphinae]; Yang 1982: 198 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphedini]; MacGillivray 1921: 274 (female) [Key to genera of Lepidosaphini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 67]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 152, 183]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 369]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 6, 30]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 197]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 274]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 202]; Willia1971b [description, taxonomy: 7]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 198].
Ungulaspis ficicola (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ficicola Takahashi, 1931b: 378-379. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten, on Ficus nervosa, 14/06/1931, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Ungulaspis ficicola; Borchsenius, 1966: 68. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus nervosa [Takaha1931b, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1931b, Borchs1958a]. Palaearctic: Japan [Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi, 1931b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale slender, slightly widened towards the posterior part, straight or slightly curved, with an indistinct median ridge, about 2.8 mm long. 1st exuviae yellowish brown, reaching beyond the front margin of the 2nd exuviae. 2nd exuviae dark yellowish brown, broadened on the abdomen, with a transverse furrow about the middle and 4 distinct projections on the side of the abdomen. Adult female body long, narrow, nearly parallel-sided, with a constriction behind the middle, about 1.4 mm long. Pygidium nearly as long as wide, with distinct notch on the side. Median lobes large, wider than long, rounded on the distal margin, not serrate, notched on each side, parallel, moderately separated, with a pair of spines between them. 2nd lobes large, nearly as large as median, obliquely truncate on the distal margin; minute process present outside of the 2nd lobes (Takahashi, 1931b).
SYSTEMATICS: Ungulaspis ficicola is similar to U. pinicolous, but the dorsal ducts are minute (Williams, 1971b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1958a [distribution: 168, 174]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; Chen1937 [taxonomy: 385]; Chou1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 183]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy: 3]; Takaha1931b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 378-379]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 29, 60]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 20]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 97]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 7]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 209].
Ungulaspis pinicolous (Chen)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes pinicolous Chen, 1937: 385-386. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang, Hwangyen, on Pinus sp., 09/01/1936, by F. Chen. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus pinicola; Lindinger, 1949: 222. Change of combination.
Insulaspis pinicolous; Borchsenius, 1963: 1173. Change of combination.
Ungulaspis pinicolous; Borchsenius, 1966: 68. Change of combination.
Ungulaspis pinicolus; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 369. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus massoniana [Tang1986], Pinus sp. [Chen1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1986], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1986]). Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1984b], Shandong (=Shantung) [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Chen (1937). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very slender, usually straight and nearly parallel-sided. 1st exuviae light yellow to brownish yellow, with most of it reaching beyond the cephalic margin of the 2nd exuviae which is dark brown to blackish brown, sometimes with a light, brownish margin along the caudal abdomen, 3 mm long (Chen, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Ungulaspis pinicolous can be separated from other species of this genus in having large dorsal ducts, no lateral abdominal tubercles and flat ocular tubercles (Williams, 1971b).
KEYS: Miller et al. 2006: 35-37 (female) [Key to conifer infesting species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1173]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; Chen1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 385-386]; Chou1982 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 183-184]; Chou1986 [illustration: 595]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 369]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Lindin1949 [taxonomy: 222]; MillerWiDa2006 [description, taxonomy: 25, 35,,40-42]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 131]; Tang1986 [distribution, host: 275]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93, 122]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 7]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 200].
Ungulaspis ungulata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Lepidosaphes ungulata Green, 1905: 30-31. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, on Syzygium pseudojambolanum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Ungulaspis ungulata; MacGillivray, 1921: 286. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Syzygium pseudojambolanum [Green1905].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [Green1905]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1905).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dark reddish-brown, margin and exuviae paler. Elongate, narrow, usually sinuous, median area moderately convex, margins flattened; surface dull, obscurely transversely corrugated, 2.0-3.0 mm long, 0.8-1.0 mm wide. Male scale smaller, dark brown, with a pale transverse band towards the hind extremity. Adult female elongate, broadest across abdominal area; the cephalothoracic area occupying fully two-thirds of the total length. Margins of the 4 abdominal segments strongly produced and armed with claw-like processes, 0.75-1.0 mm long and 0.40 mm wide (Green, 1905).
SYSTEMATICS: The remarkable unguliform processes on lateral margins of abdominal segments sufficiently distinguish this from allied species (Green, 1905).
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 30]; Green1905 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 286]; Takaha1931b [taxonomy: 379]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 7]; Yang1982 [illustration: 201].
Velataspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Velataspis Ferris, 1937: SI-131. Type species: Scobinaspis dentata Hoke, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with "two-barred" ducts. Body elongate. Median pygidial lobes distinctly non-zygotic, with a pair of gland spines between their bases. Dorsal ducts present to the 7th abdominal segment. Marginal pygidial ducts large, arranged in the usual pattern, there being one between median and 2nd lobes, a pair marking the position of the obsolete 3rd lobe, a pair on the margin and a pair on the 5th segment, and one associated with a slight spur on the margin of the 4th segment (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 26 (female) [Tableau de détermination des genres de Lepidosaphedina de la région paléarctique]; Ferris 1942: 45 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 26, 91]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 59]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-131]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 6, 32]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-149]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-445:45]; Gangul1957 [description, taxonomy: 243]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 66]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; Mamet1950 [taxonomy: 33]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 202]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 53]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 7].
Velataspis aberrans (Lepage)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoparlatoria aberrans Lepage, 1942: 176. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Osasco, on undetermined plant, 29/03/1942, by O. Costa. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Velataspis aberrans; Lepage & Giannotti, 1943: 349. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1942, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, 2.2 mm long, exuviae terminal. Adult female elongate, 1.1 mm long. Derm fine and transparent, except for part of cephalic region and pygidium where it is sclerotized. Pygidium rounded off at an angle of more than 90 degrees. Median lobes rounded off, margins crenulate. 2nd lobes bilobed. 3rd pair well developed with crenulated contours (Lepage, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; Lepage1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 176-180]; LepageGi1943 [taxonomy: 349].
Velataspis anasterias FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Velataspis anasterias Ferris, 1937: SI-132. Type data: UNITED STATES: Texas, Marathon, Tornillo Creek, on Acacia constricta, 1921, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Mytilococcus anasterias; Lindinger, 1943: 222. Change of combination.
Mytilaspis anasterias; Borchsenius, 1963: 1168. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia constricta [Ferris1937], Acacia vernicosa [Nakaha1982], Mimosa [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Sur [Ferris1937], Oaxaca [Ferris1942]); United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937, McDani1973]). Neotropical: Nicaragua [Nakaha1982]; Panama [Nakaha1982].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1937).
STRUCTURE: Scale whitish or gray-brown. Eyes mere sclerotized points, without the "star-fish" shaped developments of Velataspis mimosarum. Median lobes conspicuously large and broad; second lobes much reduced (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Velataspis anasterias is unique in the absence of a row of minute, irregular, sclerotized points which are usually present across the ventral side of the head anterior to the antennae. The 2nd pygidial lobes are reduced to mere sclerotized points (McDaniel, 1973).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 400 (female) [Key to Texas species of Velataspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 64 [as Velataspis anasterias; Key to species of Velataspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-132]; Ferris1942 [distribution, taxonomy: SIV-445:8, SIV-446:]; Gangul1957 [description, taxonomy: 243]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 222]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 400-401]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 85]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352].
Velataspis cornigera FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Velataspis cornigera Ferris, 1941d: 326. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, David, on undetermined shrub, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Tapirira guianensis [NormarMoKr2014].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d, NormarMoKr2014].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale grayish-brown, younger specimens slightly purplish. Male scale similar in form and texture. Slide-mounted adult female 1.0 mm long. Lateral cephalic margins slightly produced and each bearing a series of sclerotized points, of which one is directed forward, one posteriorly, with 4 or 5 smaller points directed laterally (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Velataspis cornigera resembles V. dentata in the divided dorsal sclerotization of the pygidium, but differs in the ocular spines and in the absence of small spines or tubercles on the ventral side of the head between the antennae, there being in this species merely a few minute ducts in this region (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:63 [Key to species of Velataspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-326]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:63]; Gangul1957 [description, taxonomy: 243]; Koteja1974b [physiology: 84]; NormarMoKr2014 [distribution, host: 39].
Velataspis dentata (Hoke)NOMENCLATURE:
Scobinaspis dentata Hoke, 1921: 340. Type data: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Vicksburg, on Acer sp., ?/04/1920, by L. Brown. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Mississippi State (Starkeville): Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.. Notes: Additional syntype material as follows: UNITED STATES: Mississippi, Cat Island, on Bumelia lanuginosa, 08/09/1920, by R.P. Barnhart
Lepidosaphes dentata; Merrill & Chaffin, 1923: 242. Change of combination.
Velataspis dentata; Ferris, 1937: 133. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus dentatus; Lindinger, 1943b: 222. Change of combination.
Velataspis (Velataspis) dentata; Merrill, 1953: 55. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: dentate scale [Dekle1965c].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer negundo [HowardOl1985], Acer rubrum [Dekle1965c], Acer sp. [Ferris1937]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave [Borchs1966]. Annonaceae: Asimina sp. [TippinBe1970]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex sp. [Merril1953]. Betulaceae: Betula nigra [BesheaTiHo1973]. Bignoniaceae: Catalpa bignioides [BesheaTiHo1973]. Caprifoliaceae: Sambucus sp. [BesheaTi1977], Viburnum sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Clethraceae: Clethra sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Cornaceae: Cornus florida [LambdiWa1980], Cornus sp. [BesheaTi1977]. Ericaceae: Leucothoe sp. [BesheaTiHo1973], Vaccinium sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Fabaceae: Cercis canadensis [HowardOl1985]. Lauraceae: Linderaa sp. [Merril1953]. Liliaceae: Asparagus sprengeri [MerrilCh1923]. Loganiaceae: Gelsemium sempervirens [BesheaTiHo1973]. Magnoliaceae: Liriodendron tulipifera [BesheaTiHo1973], Magnolia grandiflora [BesheaTiHo1973], Magnolia sp. [BesheaTi1977], Magnolia virginiana [HowardOl1985]. Moraceae: Ficus sp. [BesheaTi1977], Maclura pomifera [BesheaTiHo1973]. Myricaceae: Myrica cerifera [BesheaTiHo1973]. Rhamnaceae: Berchemia scandens [HowardOl1985]. Rosaceae: Persea sp. [Dekle1965c]. Rubiaceae: Pinckneya pubens [BesheaTiHo1973]. Rutaceae: Zanthoxylum sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Salicaceae: Salix sp. [Ferris1937]. Sapotaceae: Bumelia lanuginosa [MerrilCh1923], Bumelia sp. [Ferris1937]. Sarraceniaceae: Sarracenia purpurea [BesheaTiHo1973]. Saxifragaceae: Itea virginica [Merril1953]. Tiliaceae: Tilia americana [BesheaTiHo1973]. Ulmaceae: Celtis aculaeta [McDani1973], Celtis sp. [Ferris1937], Ulmus sp. [BesheaTiHo1973]. Viscaceae: Phoradendron flavescens [BesheaTiHo1973].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [BesheaTiHo1973], Florida [MerrilCh1923, BesheaTi1977], Georgia [TippinBe1970], Louisiana [BesheaTi1977, HowardOl1985], Mississippi [MerrilCh1923], Tennessee [BesheaTiHo1973], Texas [Ferris1937, McDani1973]). Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1942, Nakaha1982].
STRUCTURE: Female scale extremely long and slender, 1.0-1.5 mm long; parallel-sided, white with a tinge of yellowish green. Exuviae terminal. Second exuviae equal or slightly less than one half the length of the scale. Male scale shorter and broader than the female and similar in color, exuviae terminal (Merrill, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Velataspis dentata may be recognized by the presence of a row of minute, irregular, sclerotized points across the ventral side of the head in front of the antennae. 2nd pygidial lobes are well developed (McDaniel, 1973).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 400 (female) [Key to Texas species of Velataspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:64 [Key to species of Velataspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration, taxonomy: 29, 30]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 91]; BesheaTi1977 [distribution, host: 181-182]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 14]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14, 134]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-133]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 3, 32]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-326]; Ferris1942 [distribution, taxonomy: SIV-445:8, SIV-446:]; Gangul1957 [description, taxonomy: 243]; GonzalAt1984 [distribution, host: 214, 221, 222]; Hoke1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 340-341]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 66-67]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 81]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 222]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 78]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 401-402]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55-56]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 242]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerHo1981 [taxonomy: 164]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Schief2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; TippinBe1970 [distribution, host: 12]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 7].
Velataspis grandidentes FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Velataspis grandidentes Ferris, 1941d: SIII-327. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Volcan de Chiriqui, on Inga sp., 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fabaceae: Inga sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Scales of both male and female a clear pale yellow. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.75 mm long. Derm membranous throughout except for pygidium. Median lobes very large but short, their margins broadly rounded and minutely crenulate. 2nd lobes with outer lobule suppressed, 1st lobule relatively large, flattened (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Velataspis grandidentes resembles V. mimosarum in the form of the ocular tubercle, but it differs in the very large apically rounded median pygidial lobes and in the form of the ventral sclerotizations arising from these lobes and also in the flattened and elongate lobule of the second lobes (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:63 [Key to species of Velataspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-327]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 63]; Gangul1957 [description, taxonomy: 243].
Velataspis mimosarum (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis mimosarum Cockerell, 1903b: 45-46. Type data: MEXICO: Jalisco, Zapotlan, on Mimosa sp., 6/4/1903, by C.H.T. Townsend. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Mytilaspis chilopsidis Marlatt, 1908c: 27-28. Type data: MEXICO: Oaxaca, Tehuantepec City, on Chilopsis linearis?, 26/05/1896, by C.H.T. Townsend. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-134.
Lepidosaphes chilopsidis; Sanders, 1909: 57. Change of combination.
Triaspidis chilopsidis; MacGillivray, 1921: 278. Change of combination.
Triaspidis mimosarum; MacGillivray, 1921: 279. Change of combination.
Velataspis mimosarum; Ferris, 1937: 134. Change of combination.
Mytilococcus mimosarum; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Bignoniaceae: Chilopsis linearis? [Marlat1908c]. Fabaceae: Acacia farnesiana [Ferris1942], Acacia sp. [Ferris1942], Cercidium floridanum [Ferris1937], Mimosa sp. [Cocker1903b, Ferris1937], Pithecolobium sp. [Ferris1937], Prosopis chilensis [McDani1973], Prosopis sp. [Ferris1937], Strombocarpos cinerascens [Ferris1937]. Juglandaceae: Carya illinoiensis [Nakaha1982]. Myrtaceae: Psidium sp. [Nakaha1982]. Simarubaceae: Castela nicholsoni [Ferris1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1921], Colima [Ferris1942], Jalisco [Cocker1903b, Ferris1937], Nayarit [Ferris1942], Oaxaca [Marlat1908c], Sinola [Ferris1942]); United States of America (Texas [Ferris1937, McDani1973]). Neotropical: Guatemala [Nakaha1982].
BIOLOGY: Adult females were gravid with young in late May (Marlatt, 1908c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1921).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.0-3.0 mm long, brownish white, narrow, convex, usually curved; exuviae orange-brown. Adult female greenish or pale orange after boiling in KOH. Only 1 pair of distinct lobes, these large and brownish, rounded, slightly crenulated or entire, separated by an interval in which 2 are pointed gland spines (Cockerell, 1903b).
SYSTEMATICS: Velataspis mimosarum is immediately separable from any other North American species by the extraordinary development of the eyes which form a five-pointed, "starfish" shaped tubercles (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: McDaniel 1973: 400 (female) [Key to Texas species of Velataspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:64 [Key to species of Velataspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 279 (female) [as Triaspidis mimosarum; Key to species of Triaspidis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Cocker1903b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45-46]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 311]; Ferris1921 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115-116]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-134]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-327]; Ferris1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: SIV-445:8, SIV-446:]; Gangul1957 [description, taxonomy: 243]; Leonar1903 [distribution, host: 108]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 80]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 278, 279]; Marlat1908c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-28]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 402-403]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 85-86]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Sander1909a [distribution, host: 57].
Velataspis serrulata GanguliNOMENCLATURE:
Velataspis serrulata Ganguli, 1957: 241-244. Type data: INDIA: Assam, Borbhetta, on Camellia sinensis, 15/07/1954. Holotype female. Type depository: New Delhi: Division of Entomology, National Pusa Collections, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Theaceae: Camellia simensis [Gangul1957], Thea [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Assam [Gangul1957, Ali1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ganguli (1957).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, narrow, gradually widening towards the posterior extremity, purplish brown to dark brown, transversely traversed by curved lines of growth, 2.8-3.1 mm long. Exuviae pale yellow, transparent, placed anteriorly, 2nd exuviae quite large. Male scale 1.2-1.5 mm long. Adult female pale yellow, 1.1-1.4 mm long, elongated, tapering somewhat anteriorly. Median pygidial lobes non-zygotic with a pair of gland spines between them, 2nd pair bilobed (Ganguli, 1957).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Das1978 [distribution, host: 44]; DasGa1961 [description, distribution, host: 254]; Gangul1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 241-244]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 54].
Velataspis sp.NOMENCLATURE:
Velataspis sp. Lincango et al., 2010: 5.
HOST: Celastraceae: Maytenus octogona [LincanHoCa2010].
CITATIONS: LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5].
Vinculaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Trigonaspis Ferris, 1941d: SIII-321. Type species: Trigonaspis inclusa Ferris, by original designation. Homonym of Trigonaspis Hartig 1840; discovered by Ferris, 1942: SIV-423.
Vinculaspis Ferris, 1942d: 423. Replacement name for Trigonaspis Ferris 1941d.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale composed of the 2nd exuviae, at the anterior end of which lies the 1st exuviae, but there is a very thin waxy covering over all. Male scale elongate, white, exuviae at one end. Adult female membranous throughout, even the dorsum of the pygidium weakly sclerotized. Median pygidial lobes separated, between them, at least in 2nd stage being the forked gland spine which is characteristic of the Pseudoparlatoria series. 2nd lobes present, toothed, faintly divided into two lobes. 3rd lobe indicated merely by a marginal sclerotization. Dorsal pygidial macroducts present both along the margin and in a submarginal zone in the type species, absent in the other included species. Body of the adult female in the type having a very definitely triangular form, less so in the other included species. Perivulvar pores present in five groups (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Vinculaspis is evidently a member of the series of which Pseudoparlatoria may be taken as type, the curious forked median gland spine and the arrangement of the macroducts of the pygidium being distinctive of this group (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 182]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-321]; Ferris1942 [description, taxonomy: SIV-423, SIV-446:41]; Lepage1942 [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 203]; Vernal1953a [description, taxonomy: 109-110].
Vinculaspis atibaiensis (Lepage)NOMENCLATURE:
Costalimaspis atibaiensis Lepage, 1937: 245-247. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Atibaia, on undetermined host, 14/02/1937, by S. Lepage. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptaspidus atibaiensis; Lindinger, 1943: 218. Change of combination.
Vinculaspis atibaiensis; Vernalha, 1953: 109. Change of combination.
Trigonaspis atibaiensis; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1937, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lepage (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale formed exclusively of larval exuviae, black, hardened and without secretion. Adult female pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes triangular; 2nd pair bilobed with incised margins (Lepage, 1937).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 252-253]; Ferris1941d [distribution, taxonomy: SIII-321]; Lepage1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 245-247]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 401-402]; Lepage1942 [taxonomy: 178]; Lindin1942b [taxonomy: 381]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109].
Vinculaspis cheloniformis (Lepage)NOMENCLATURE:
Costalimaspis cheloniformis Lepage, 1937: 242-245. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Jardim da Luz, on Eugenia sp., ?/03/1936, by S. Lepage. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptaspidus cheloniformis; Lindinger, 1943b: 218. Change of combination.
Vinculaspis cheloniformis; Vernalha, 1953a: 197. Change of combination.
Trigonaspis cheloniformis; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Lepage1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Lepage1937, SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lepage (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale formed exclusively from 2nd exuviae, hardened, black, convex, rounded off. Larval exuviae clear. Adult female very reduced, white, rounded off, 0.50 mm long and 0.32 mm wide. Pygidium rounded off (Lepage, 1937).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Ferris1941d [distribution, taxonomy: SIII-321]; Lepage1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 242-245]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 402]; Lepage1942 [taxonomy: 178]; Lindin1942b [taxonomy: 381]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 218]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 181]; Silves1939 [taxonomy: 802]; Vernal1953 [distribution, host: 197]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109].
Vinculaspis inclusa (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Trigonaspis inclusa Ferris, 1941d: SIII-322. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Volcan de Chiriqui, on undetermined shrub. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Vinculaspis inclusa; Ferris, 1942: SIV-423. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 9000 feet (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale somewhat elongate ovoid, composed of sclerotized but translucent 2nd exuviae which is covered with a thin film of wax. Male scale elongate, firm, white with exuviae at anterior end. Adult female triangular with pygidium projecting from the base, membranous throughout except for slightly sclerotized pygidium. Median lobes well developed, triangular, sharply pointed, with their margins slightly serrate, the gland spine between them forked. 2nd lobe bilobed, both lobes being merely slightly serrate teeth. 3rd lobe merely a serrate marginal thickening. Antennae set very close to the anterior margin of the head, of very peculiar type, each consisting of 3 low mounds from each of which rises an acorn-shaped seta. Second stage female distinctive, due to the prolongation of the prepygidial abdominal segments into acute lobes (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The peculiar lobed body of the 2nd stage and the unusual antennae of the adult alone are sufficient to separate this species from others of the genus (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 64 (female) [Key to species of Vinculaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-322]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-423, SIV-446:64]; Lepage1942 [taxonomy: 178]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109].
Vinculaspis laniata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Trigonaspis laniata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-323. Type data: MEXICO: Oaxaca, Chivela, on undetermined shrub, 1926, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Vinculaspis laniata; Ferris, 1942: SIV-423. Change of combination.
Cryptaspidus lanata; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
Trigonaspis lanata; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fabaceae [Borchs1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Oaxaca [Ferris1941d]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale ovoid, composed of 2nd exuviae which is covered by a very thin film of wax; the central portion of the dorsum of the 2nd exuviae is pitch black, the remainder yellowish. Male scale white, firm, elongate, with the black exuviae of the 1st stage at one end. Adult female entirely membranous except for the sclerotized dorsum of the pygidium, roughly circular with the pygidium projecting posteriorly. Median pygidial lobes prominent, pointed, their sides more or less serrate (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1941d) considered the proper placement of this species problematic. It generally seemed to belong to Vinculaspis, but it had a possible relationship to Lapazia.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 64 (female) [Key to species of Vinculaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-323]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-423, SIV-446:64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109].
Vinculaspis lepagei (Silvestri)NOMENCLATURE:
Costalimaspis Lepagei Silvestri, 1939: 802. Type data: ARGENTINA: Misiones, on "spontaneous shrub". Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Trigonaspis lepagei; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
Vinculaspis lepagei; Borchsenius, 1966: 182. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina (Misiones [Silves1939, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Silvestri (1939).
STRUCTURE: Male scale lengthened, subrectangular. Adult female body concave, sub-oval, tapered posteriorly (Silvestri, 1939).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 253, 254]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Lepage1942 [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Silves1939 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 802].
Vinculaspis mamillata FonsecaNOMENCLATURE:
Vinculaspis mamillatus Fonseca, 1973: 254-255. Type data: BRAZIL: Sao Paulo, Parque Siqueira Campos, on "planta silvestre," ?/02/1973. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil; type no. 865. Described: female. Illust.
Vinculaspis mamillata; Miller et al., 2003: 947. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Sao Paulo [Fonsec1973, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Fonseca (1973).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black, fragile, cordiform, weakly convex; lateral margins curved in the central region of the body, tapering posteriorly; 2nd exuviae oblong, placed in the cephalic extremity of the scale, with a weak dorsal longitudinal keel and a series of small transverse keels; 1.0 mm long, 0.5 mm of wide. Male scale white, elongate, with weak transverse ridges; lateral margins parallel. Exuviae oval, black. Scale is 1.0 mm long. Adult female white, rounded off. Pygidium relatively short, with 3 pairs of lobes. 1st pair triangular, apical extremity obtuse. 2nd and 3rd pairs bilobed (Fonseca, 1973).
CITATIONS: ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Fonsec1973 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 254-255]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 947].
Vinculaspis mendicula (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Trigonaspis mendicula Ferris, 1941d: SIII-324. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, Armuelles, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Vinculaspis mendicula; Ferris, 1942: SIV-423. Change of combination.
Cryptaspidus mendicula; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale composed of the 2nd exuviae which is covered with a thin film of wax and is sclerotized but not pigmented, the color being pale yellow. Male scale irregularly oval, with the exuviae near one side or one end, the whole of a pale yellow color. Slide-mounted adult female about 0.6 mm long, flattened, roughly circular with the pygidium and prepygidial abdominal segments produced. Pygidium with median lobes well developed, narrow, acute and quite widely separated and without a gland spine between them (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: The complete absence of perivulvar pores and dorsal ducts, combined with the absence of gland spines separates Vinculaspis mendicula from other species of this genus (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 64 (female) [Key to species of Vinculaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 182-183]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-324]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-423, SIV-446:64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109].
Vinculaspis montei (Lepage)NOMENCLATURE:
Trigonaspis Montei Lepage, 1942: 180. Type data: BRAZIL: Minas Gerais, on Loranthus sp., by R. Xavier. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
Vinculaspis Montei; Vernalha, 1953: 197. Change of combination.
Cryptaspidus Montei; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
HOST: Loranthaceae: Loranthus sp. [Lepage1942, SilvadGoGa1968]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Minas Gerais [Lepage1942, SilvadGoGa1968, ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lepage (1942).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black about 2 mm long, 1st exuviae subcentral. Male scale is white, elongate with exuviae terminal. Adult female quadrangular, about 1 mm long, rounded off, pygidium emerging from one side. Pygidium more or less triangular. Median lobes more or less triangular, with dentated sides; 2nd lobes only slightly represented (Lepage, 1942).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Lepage1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 180]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 181]; Vernal1953 [taxonomy: 197].
Vinculaspis virgata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Trigonaspis virgata Ferris, 1941d: SIII-325. Type data: MEXICO: Colima, Tonila, on undetermined tree, 1925, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Vinculaspis virgata; Ferris, 1942: SIV-423. Change of combination.
Cryptaspidus virgata; Lindinger, 1957: 522. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: fasciola scale [ColonFMe1998].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Neorudolphia volubilis [ColonFMe1998]. Malpighiaceae: Stigmaphyllon periplocifolium [ColonFMe1998]. Viscaceae: Phoradendron sp. [Ferris1941d]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1941d], Veracruz [Ferris1941d]). Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is marked by a conspicuous median black stripe and being otherwise opaque. Male scale elongate, firm, with exuviae at one end. Adult female slightly triangular, but sometimes almost circular, with pygidium projecting; membranous throughout, even the pygidium (Ferris, 1941d).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446: 64 (female) [Key to species of Vinculaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131-132]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-325]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-423, SIV-446:64]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Vernal1953a [taxonomy: 109].
Voraspis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Voraspis Hall, 1946a: 539-540. Type species: Chionaspis carpenteri Laing, by original designation.
STRUCTURE: Body elongate, fusiform. Pygidium rounded with two pairs of lobes. Median lobes small, squat, broader than long with serrated apices, separated by a marginal notch, but with their bases yoked together. A pair of setae between the lobes but without gland spines or marginal pores. 2nd lobes duplex, the inner lobule much larger than the outer and longer than broad (Hall, 1946a).
SYSTEMATICS: Voraspis is similar to Rolaspis and Tecaspis (Hall, 1946a). The distribution of the dorsal ducts is one of the most important characters separating this genus from Rolaspis (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 171 (female) [Tableau des genres de Diaspidina Chionaspiformes]; Hall 1946a: 544 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [description, distribution, taxonomy: 356-358]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 87]; BorchsWi1963 [description, taxonomy: 370]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 369]; Ferris1955d [taxonomy: 42]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 539-540, 544]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 203]; Willia1960c [taxonomy: 397].
Voraspis bauhiniae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis bauhiniae Hall, 1946: 65-70. Type data: SENEGAL: M'Bambey, on Bauhinia rufescens, 1944, by J. Risbec. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Voraspis bauhiniae; Hall, 1946a: 540. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Bauhinia rufescens [Hall1946].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Senegal [Hall1946].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall (1946).
STRUCTURE: Female scale silvery white, low convex broadened posteriorly, exuviae pale golden. Ventral scale thin but entire except towards the posterior extremity; 2.5 mm long, 1.3 mm wide. Male scale white, uncarinated. Adult female with median lobes broader than long with inner edges divergent and apically serrate, separated by a distance of about the width of one and definitely yoked together at their bases. 2nd lobes duplex, inner lobule being much larger than the outer and flatly rounded (Hall, 1946).
SYSTEMATICS: Voraspis bauhiniae is close to V. nigerensis, but the median lobes are of different shape and more closely set together, and the dorsal and perivulvar pores are less numerous. It is also close to Voraspis usambarica, but has much shorter pygidial plates. It differs from V. carpenteri in having smaller and very much less prominent lateral lobes (Hall, 1946).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key to species of Voraspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 368]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Ferris1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68, 73]; Hall1946 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65-66]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 540, 548]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551, 552]; Medler1980 [distribution: 90].
Voraspis carpenteri (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis carpenteri Laing, 1929a: 481-482. Type data: UGANDA: Nkosi Island, S. Sesse, Lake Victoria, by G.D. Hale Carpenter. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Voraspis carpenteri; Hall, 1946a: 540. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Uganda [Laing1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1929a). Reillustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female snowy white, sides more or less straight, seldom curved, long, narrow, widening slightly posteriorly, length in a well-developed scale at least three times its greatest breadth; exuviae usually overlaid with a white secretion, but larval infrequently, and nymphal occasionally, bare, pale golden brown. Scale of male white, more or less parallel-sided, occasionally widening somewhat posteriorly, tricarinate, but neither the median nor lateral ridges very conspicuous; exuviae golden brown. Adult female long, narrow, widening gradually to prepygidial segments, about 3 times longer than greatest width, body soft (Laing, 1929a).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key to species of Voraspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 357]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, illustration: 372]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 481-482]; Hall1946 [taxonomy: 66]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 540, 548]; Laing1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 481-482]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Muntin1965b [taxonomy: 201].
Voraspis ceratoniae (Marchal)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) ceratoniae Marchal, 1904b: 452-454. Type data: ALGERIA: Algiers, on Ceratonia siliqua, 1902, by Trabut. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Chionaspis ceratoniae; Trabut, 1911: 61. Change of combination.
Phenacaspis ceratoniae; MacGillivray, 1921: 350. Change of combination.
Trichomytilus ceratoniae; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Polyaspis ceratoniae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 362. Change of combination.
Voraspis ceratoniae; Balachowsky, 1954e: 362. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Exochomus anchorifer [Balach1928d]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Prospaltella sp. [Balach1928d].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Ceratonia siliqua [Marcha1904b, LepineMi1931]. Oleaceae: Olea europaea [LepineMi1931]. Sapotaceae: Argania spinosa [Balach1954e].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Marcha1904b]; Morocco [Balach1927]; Tunisia [Balach1927].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, opaque, mytiliform with weak concentric striations. Adult female oblong. Pygidium with median lobes separated from each other by a space equal or larger than their width and placed on the side of a shallow notch in the shape of arch; their internal edges divergent and barely crenulated. 2nd lobes are bilobed, with the external lobe much less developed than internal lobe. 3rd lobes are very slight or absent (Marchal, 1904b).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 358 (female) [Key to species of Voraspis]; Balachowsky 1932d: 25 (female) [as Chionaspis ceratoniae; Key to Mediterrean species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 350 [Key to species of Phenacaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1927 [distribution, taxonomy: 181-182]; Balach1928d [biological control, distribution: 286, 298]; Balach1932d [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 25-28]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 358, 362-365]; BalachKa1955a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 261, 270]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Borg1922 [economic importance, host: 124-125]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 369-370]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 23, 60]; Kaussa1964 [host, taxonomy: 21]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1910c [distribution, host: 375]; Lindin1912b [description, taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 146]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 373]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 350]; Marcha1904b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 452-454]; Medler1980 [distribution: 90]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; Panis1981 [distribution, economic importance: 2, 8]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 12]; Trabut1910 [description, host, illustration: 45-46]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60]; Vayssi1920 [distribution, host: 258]; Vayssi1921 [taxonomy: 355].
Voraspis nerii (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis nerii Newstead, 1895b: 234-235. Type data: ALGERIA: Constatine and Biskra Marsh, on Nerium oleander, ?/06/1894 and ?/03/1895, by A.E. Eaton. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus nerii; Lindinger, 1933a: 165. Change of combination.
Chionaspis ceratoniae; Lindinger, 1935: 131. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Balachowsky, 1954e: 362.
Polyaspis nerii; Lindinger, 1935: 131. Change of combination. Notes: This is also a misspelling of the genus epithet Poliaspis.
Voraspis nerii; Balachowsky, 1954e: 358. Change of combination.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus palmarum [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Newste1895b, LepineMi1931]. Oleaceae: Olea europaea [Newste1897a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Algeria [Newste1895b, Lindin1910c]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Tunisia [Panis1981].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1954e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, anterior portion sometimes dusky or straw colored. Larval and 2nd exuviae more or less yellowish-white, tinged with pale brown; 2nd exuviae distinctly raised, convex, projecting beyond the scale. Ventral scale white, very thick, complete. Male scale with exuviae white. Adult female ovate, widely rounded in front and behind. Median lobes very broad, widely separated; 2nd pair much smaller, with or without slight marginal indentations; 3rd pair triangular, but almost obsolete (Newstead, 1895b).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1954e: 358 (female) [Key to species of Voraspis]; Balachowsky 1932d: 25 (female) [as Chionaspis nerii; Key to Mediterrean species of Chionaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 325 (female) [as Chionaspis nerii; Key to species of Chionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1927 [distribution, taxonomy: 181]; Balach1929a [distribution, host: 302, 318]; Balach1932d [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 25-28]; Balach1933c [distribution, host: 253-254]; Balach1934d [distribution, host: 146, 151]; Balach1954e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 358-361]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 43, 49]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 261]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 237]; Cocker1897o [host: 5]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 370]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 191]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 249]; Lindin1910c [distribution, taxonomy: 376]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 225]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 165]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 131]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; Marcha1910 [distribution, host: 246]; Newste1895b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234-235]; Newste1897a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 96]; Newste1906 [distribution, host: 71]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; Panis1981 [distribution, host: 8]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 156]; Trabut1910 [distribution: 46]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60]; Vayssi1920 [distribution, host: 258]; Vayssi1921 [distribution, host: 360]; Vayssi1927 [distribution, host: 111].
Voraspis nigerensis (Vayssière)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis nigerensis Vayssière, 1912: 368. Type data: NIGER: Koulikoro, on Ximenia americana, by J. Vuillet. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Duplachionaspis nigerensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 336. Change of combination.
Voraspis nigerensis; Hall, 1946a: 540. Change of combination.
HOST: Olacaceae: Ximenia americana [Vayssi1912].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Niger [Vayssi1912]; Nigeria [Hall1946a]; Senegal [Hall1946a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Vayssière (1912).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, with transverse striations; exuviae yellow. Adult female more or less pyriform. Pygidium semi-circular, with 3 pairs of lobes, the internal pair being the largest and having 3 small serrations (Vayssière, 1912). Male scale elongate, parallel-sided, 1.0 mm long, 0.4 mm wide (Vayssière, 1913).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key to species of Voraspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 336 (female) [as Duplachionaspis nigerensis; Species of Duplachionaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1954e [taxonomy: 357]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Hall1925 [taxonomy: 14]; Hall1946 [taxonomy: 65]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 540]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 336]; Medler1980 [distribution: 90]; Vayssi1912 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 368]; Vayssi1913 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 428-429].
Voraspis usambarica (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis usambarica Lindinger, 1913d: 76-77. Type data: TANZANIA: Usambara, Muoa, on Sideroxylon inerme, ?/08/1893. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Trichomytilus usambarica; Lindinger, 1933a: 166. Change of combination.
Voraspis usambarica; Hall, 1946a: 540. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Meliaceae: Xylocarpus [Borchs1966]. Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon inerme [Lindin1913].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [Lindin1913].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1913).
STRUCTURE: Female scale, even, thin, white with yellow exuviae, 2.5-3.0 mm long, 1 mm wide. Adult female long and narrow, gradually widening, 1.65 mm long, 0.5 mm wide (Lindinger, 1913).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 88]; Hall1946 [structure: 66]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 540, 552]; Laing1929a [taxonomy: 484]; Lindin1913 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76-77]; Lindin1913d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-19]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 20]; Lindin1933a [taxonomy: 166]; Maleno1916a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 349]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174].
Xanthophthalma Cockerell & Parrott in CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Xanthophthalma Cockerell & Parrott in Cockerell, 1899n: 33. Type species: Xanthophthalma concinnum Cockerell & Parrott, by monotypy and original designation.
Xanthopthalmus; MacGillivray, 1921: 312. Misspelling of genus name.
Xanthopkthmalma; Ferris, 1957b: 65. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Generic characters described by Cockerell (1899n) and Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Cockerell (1899n) describes this genus as having a peculiar scale, an abdominal margin ending in rounded processes at the end of which are small bristles.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is apparently allied to Protodiaspis (Cockerell, 1899n). Brown & McKenzie (1962) state that this genus is morphologically between Phoenicococcus and a typical armored scale.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 312 (female) [as Xanthopthalmus; Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1948b [taxonomy: 262]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 29]; BrownMc1962 [distribution, taxonomy: 162-163]; Cocker1899n [description, taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 18]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 34, 44]; Ferris1938a [description, taxonomy: 173]; Ferris1938b [description, taxonomy: 65]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:21, 23, 66]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 198]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 312]; Miller1990 [taxonomy: 169-177]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 204]; TakagiKo1997 [structure: 99].
Xanthophthalma concinnum Cockerell & Parrott in CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Xanthophthalma concinnum Cockerell & Parrott in Cockerell, 1899n: 33. Type data: MEXICO: Veracruz, Coatzocoalcos, on "laurel", 24/04/1898, by Townsend. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Acrocomia sp. [Ferris1938a], Cocos nucifera [Willia1969c], Cocos sp. [Ferris1938a]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Veracruz [Cocker1899n]). Neotropical: Cuba [MestreHaEv2011]; Panama [Ferris1938a]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Willia1969c]).
BIOLOGY: Scales on under surface of leaf, scattered all over in numbers, but not massed, distributed at regular intervals, though five or six often bunched together (Cockerell, 1899n).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description of adult male and female and female scale by Cockerell (1899n). Description and illustration of female by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female very small, white, with the first skin bright orange and placed longitudinally. The first skin is large for the size of the scale, eye-shaped, with longitudinal bright orange ridge, and the depressed areas on each side of this blackish, the whole looking like a lizard's eye, closed. The second skin is placed beneath the first and is inconspicuous. The scale is convex and presents a succession of transverse crest or ridges so that it seems as if made of a number of discs threaded together. Adult female is nearly circular and transparent after boiling. The end of the abdomen minutely serrulate and ending in six approximately equal rounded processes on the end of each of which is a small bristle. Male on leaf is usually in small pits (Cockerell, 1899n). The exuviae are yellow or brown (Ferris, 1938a).
CITATIONS: AlayoS1976 [description, host, taxonomy: 8-9]; Balach1948b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 262]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 44]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 29-30]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 162, 163]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution: 54]; Cocker1899n [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 213]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 34, 44]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 174]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:66]; Koteja1976 [illustration, structure: 281, 283]; Koteja1980 [illustration, structure: 79]; KotejaLi1976 [illustration, structure: 677, 680]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 198]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 366]; MestreHaEv2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 14]; Miller1990 [taxonomy: 170, 176, 177]; Stickn1934 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 157, 161]; Willia1969c [distribution, host: 97].
Xerophilaspis CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus (Xerophilaspis) Cockerell, 1897i: 14. Type species: Aspidiotus prosopidis Cockerell, by monotypy and original designation.
Xerophilaspis; Cockerell, 1899n: 27. Change of status.
SYSTEMATICS: The relationships of this genus are entirely obscure. The original description of its type species as an Aspidiotus and the assignment of the genus to the Aspidiotini by MacGillivray (1921) are quite in error (Ferris, 1937).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 224 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 184]; Cocker1897i [description, distribution, taxonomy: 14, 31]; Cocker1899n [taxonomy: 27]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 299]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 57]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 94]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 27, 92]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-135]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 528]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 35]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:41]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 86]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 273]; Leonar1897a [taxonomy: 375]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 198]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 395]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 27]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 205]; TakagiKo1997 [structure: 99].
Xerophilaspis prosopidis (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus prosopidis Cockerell, 1895z: 15-16. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, 4 miles west of Phoenix, in Salt River Valley, on Prosopis sp., ?/09/1895, by Prof. Toumey. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Aspidiotus (Xerophilaspis) prosopidis; Cockerell, 1897i: 14. Change of combination.
Xerophilaspis prosopidis; Cockerell, 1899a: 396. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: mesquite scale [McKenz1956].
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bivulnerus [Essig1926].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Prosopis chilensis [Bibby1931], Prosopis juliflora [Cocker1899n, HowellBeTi1986], Prosopis sp. [Cocker1895z], Prosopis velutina [Cocker1900d].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [HowellBeTi1986] (Baja California Sur [Ferris1921], Sonora [Cocker1899n, Ferris1937]); United States of America (Arizona [Cocker1895z, McDani1973], California [Ferris1919a, HowellBeTi1986], Texas [Bibby1931, Gill1997]). Neotropical: Mexico (Campeche [FerrisKe1923]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1919a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale minute, shiny black, slightly convex, from circular to very broad pyriform. Exuviae remarkably large for the size of the scale. Male scale oval, larger than that of female, white, with yellowish exuviae towards one end. Males scales are not ridged. Adult female extremely small, transparent after boiling in soda. Lobes small, two pairs, median rounded, nearly as far apart as the diameter of one. 2nd lobes also rounded, but broader and lower than median, nearly as far from them as the diameter of one (Cockerell, 1895z).
SYSTEMATICS: Xerophilaspis prosopidis is distinguished from all other North American species by the curiously shaped body of the adult female, with the produced and sclerotized cephalic margin; the reduced pygidium with its 2 pairs of rounded lobes and its lack of perivulvar pores (Ferris, 1937).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 997-1003]; Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 243]; Bibby1931 [distribution, host: 193]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 237]; Cocker1895z [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15-16]; Cocker1897i [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 22]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 396]; Cocker1899n [distribution, host: 27]; Cocker1900d [distribution, host: 132]; Cocker1905 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Essig1926 [biological control: 425]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 299]; Ferris1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 58-59]; Ferris1921 [distribution, host: 66, 94]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 92]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-136]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 47]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:64]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 86]; FerrisKe1923 [distribution, host: 318]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 272-273, 277]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 107]; HowellBeTi1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 5-7]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 465]; McDani1973 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 403-404]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35, 161, 163]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 86]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Stoetz1976 [structure: 328].
Xiphuraspis Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Xiphuraspis Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 370. Type species: Chionaspis spiculata Green, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Xiphuraspis is a distinctive genus apparently allied to Kuwanaspis MacGillivray but differing in the absence of pygidial lobes and broad serrate processes (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 93]; BorchsWi1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 370]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 205].
Xiphuraspis ctenopyga TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Xiphuraspis ctenopyga Takagi, 1999a: 100-102. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Selangor, Kepong, on Dendrocalamus sp., 14/06/1990. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Dendrocalamus sp. [Takagi1999a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi1999a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1999a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, very narrow, with a thin median ridge, brown, exuvial casts darker than secretionary part. Male scale similar, but much shorter than the completed female scale, median ridge narrowly white. Adult female body slender, 1.6 mm long, more than 6 times as long as wide, the meso- and metathorax becoming especially elongate, and these segments and basal 2 abdominal segments sclerotized dorsally (Takagi, 1999a).
SYSTEMATICS: Xiphuraspis ctenopyga is remarkable in having a median group of dorsal macroducts on the pygidium. This group occupies a broad median space between the anus and the apex of the pygidium, ending with a macroduct occurring between the median trullae (Takagi, 1999a).
CITATIONS: Takagi1999a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100-102, 116, 124-12].
Xiphuraspis spiculata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis spiculata Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 11. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1919c: 437.
Chionaspis spiculata Green, 1919c: 437. Type data: INDIA: Kerala, North Malabar, Peria Ghat, on Bambusa sp., by Ramakrishna. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Kuwanaspis spiculata; Lindinger, 1935: 149. Change of combination.
Xiphuraspis spiculata; Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 373. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Ramakr1919b], Phyllostachys sp. [WangVaXu1998]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Kerala [Green1919c, Ali1969]). Palaearctic: China [WangVaXu1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963).
STRUCTURE: Female scale long and narrow, white, with longitudinal median carina; the 2 exuviae terminal, yellowish. Body of adult female narrow and long. Pygidium pointed, without lobes. Pygidial gland spines sharply pointed, seta-like. Small gland spines and ducts present on the metathorax and 1st abdominal segment. Dorsal ducts two-barred, numerous over almost entire surface of pygidium and forming submarginal groups and transverse rows on the 1st few prepygidial segments. Marginal macroducts absent. Perivulvar pores in 5 groups. Anterior spiracles each with a group of pores (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Xiphuraspis spiculata was collected at an altitude of 2000 feet (Green, 1919c). Wang et al. (1998) cite this species as a minor pest of bamboo.
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 83]; Beeson1941 [host: 744]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 370, 373]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 437]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 149]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 11]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 96]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 351]; Ramakr1924 [taxonomy: 339]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Takagi1999a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; WangVaXu1998 [distribution, economic importance, host: 185].
Yomaspis MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Yomaspis Munting, 1968a: 431. Type species: Yomaspis ventropora Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Munting (1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: Yomaspis has some resemblance to Salaspis Hall, in that translucent areolae occur on the pygidium, but differs from it in the following important characters: the median lobes are basally yoked, there are no macroducts between them and the macroducts also occur on the ventral surface of the pygidium (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 431].
Yomaspis ventropora MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Yomaspis ventropora Munting, 1968a: 431-432. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Whiteriver, on Diospyros whyteana, ?/02/1964, by F. White & J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [Muntin1968a], Diospyros whyteana [Muntin1968a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1968a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, about 1.5 mm long, secretory matter completely enclosing the insect which is usually found in cracks or cavities in the bark and between the pedicel of the leaf and the stem. Male scale elongate, white, non-carinate, about 0.8 mm long, with pale yellow exuviae at one end. Adult female with prosoma heavily sclerotized at maturity; 0.7-1.2 mm long. Median lobes small, rounded, well separated, but yoked basally; 2nd lobes present only as sclerotized apices of projections of the pygidial margin and extending well beyond the apices of projections of the pygidial margin notch in the pygidium; other lobes obsolete (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 431-432].
Youngus YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Yunnanaspis Young, 1986: 203. Type species: Yunnanaspis rubus Young, by monotypy and original designation.
Yunnanaspis Young, 1986: 203. Homonym of Yunnanaspis Zhang, 1966.
Youngus Özdikmen, 2011: 476. Replacement name for Yunnanaspis.
GENERAL REMARKS: The armored scale genus Yunnanaspis Young, 1986 was established for a genus with the type species Yunnanaspis rubus Young, 1986 by original designation from Jing-dong, Yunnan, China in the family Diaspididae. Nevertheless the name Yunnanaspis is already occupied. Zhang (1966) described a trilobite genus Yunnanaspis with the type species Yunnanaspis bilongispinus Zhang, 1966 from Tsanglangpu Fm, Yunnan, China in Trilobita. Thus the genus Yunnanaspis Young, 1986 is a junior homonym of Yunnanaspis Zhang, 1966. So Özdikmen (2011) suggested that Yunnanaspis Young, 1986 should be replaced with Youngus as a replacement name.
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval, with 3 pairs pygidial lobes. Median lobes contiguous at their bases, without marginal setae or gland spines between, without basal zygotic sclerosis. 2nd lobes and 3rd lobes unilobulate, each with a capitate sclerosis at their sides; a similar capitate sclerosis beyond the 3rd lobes at the position of the supposed 4th lobes (Young, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Yunnanaspis is near Epidiaspis, but differs in the arrangement of dorsal macroducts and gland spines on the pygidium. Its dorsal macroducts arranged in submarginal and submedian rows, not mingled with small macroducts on the pygidium. The gland spines are restricted to pygidial margins and much more in number on the 4th and 5th abdominal segments (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Ozdikm2011 [taxonomy: 476]; Young1986 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 203, 209].
Youngus rubus (Young)NOMENCLATURE:
Yunnanaspis rubus Young, 1986: 204. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Jing-dong, on Rubus sp., ?/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Youngus rubus; Özdikmen, 2011: 476. Change of combination and replacement name.
HOST: Rosaceae: Rubus sp. [Young1986, Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1986, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1986).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval. Derm sclerotized. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes contiguous at their bases, without marginal setae or gland spines in between, without basal zygotic sclerosis. 2nd and 3rd lobes uni-lobulate, each with a capitate sclerosis at inner base; and a similar capitate sclerosis beyond the 3rd lobes at the position of supposed 4th lobes (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; Ozdikm2011 [taxonomy: 476]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Young1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204, 209-210].
Yuanaspis YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Yuanaspis Young, 1986: 200. Type species: Yuanaspis ficus Tang, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female cylindrical in shape. Derm sclerotized. Anterior spiracles accompanying a group of disc pores. Dorsal macroducts in 2 sizes. Marginal macroducts greater than dorsal ones of the pygidium. Pygidial lobes in 2 pairs. Median lobes contiguous at their bases, not deeply invaginated into pygidium, without marginal setae or gland spines between them. 2nd lobes bilobed (Young, 1986).
SYSTEMATICS: Yuanaspis is near Voraspis Hall, but differs in dorsal macroducts in two sizes and in their different arrangement (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Young1986 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 200].
Yuanaspis ficus YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Yuanaspis ficus Young, 1986: 200. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Yuan-jiang, on Ficus sp., ?/03/1955. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Young1986]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1986, Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Young (1986).
STRUCTURE: Adult female cylindrical, derm sclerotized. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes. Median lobes contiguous at their bases, not deeply invaginated into pygidium, without marginal setae or gland spines in between, with a small zygotic sclerosis. 2nd lobes bilobulate, with longer inner lobule (Young, 1986).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 162]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Young1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200, 207-208].
Tribe Diaspidini
Subtribe Chionaspidina
Larutaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Larutaspis Takagi, 2005: 161. Type species: Larutaspis lithocarpi Takagi.
STRUCTURE: In the adult female this genus is similar to Cameronaspis and Pinnaspis, but is distinguishable from the latter mainly in the median trullae with a pair of slender transverse scleroses arising at the outer basal corners and in the anus situated posteriorly to the centre of the pygidium. The median trullae are prominent, roundish on the margin, and elaborately striate, with a round zygotic sclerosis basally. (Takagi, 2005)
SYSTEMATICS: Referable to the subtribe Chionaspidina, tribe Diaspidini.
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [description, taxonomy: 161].
Larutaspis lithocarpi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Larutaspis lithocarpi Takagi, 2005: 162. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Perak, Bukit Larut [Maxwell Hill], on Lithocarpus wallichianus, 10/7/1986, by S. Takagi. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Museum, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus wallichianus [Takagi2005].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Takagi2005]).
BIOLOGY: Females occurring on the upper surface of the leaves, mainly on veins and beside the midrib. A few tricarinate male tests were also found on the upper surface of the leaves. (Takagi, 2005)
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration in Takagi, 2005.
STRUCTURE: Female test slender, thin, and white, with the exuvial casts yellow. Body elongate, attaining about 3 times as long as wide, flat on frontal margin, with free segments gently lobed; prepygidial derm remaining membranous; pygidium with apical sclerotized area on ventral surface produced anteriorly into a pair of slender prong-like extensions. Antennae near frontal margin, separated from each other by a space a little narrower than frame of mouth-parts,
CITATIONS: Takagi2005 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 162-163, 173-174].
Larutaspis megaloba (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Pinnaspis megaloba Takahashi, 1942b: 36. Type data: VIETNAM: Haiphon, on orchid, 30/06/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Larutaspis megaloba; Takagi, 2005. Change of combination.
HOST: Orchidaceae [Takaha1942b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Vietnam [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1942b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body narrow, little widened posteriorly, distinctly protruding laterally on the abdominal segments, with some rather long thin lateral ducts on the anterior 2 abdominal segments. Pygidium tapering, with anus near apex. Median lobes large, united, protruding, not notched, slightly serrate on the lateral part; other lobes absent (Takahashi, 1942b).
SYSTEMATICS: Pinnaspis megaloba is characterized by the large median lobes and by the circumgenital pores in 8 distinct groups (Takahashi, 1942b). It was transferred to Larutaspis by Takagi in 2005 on the basis of the original description. It agrees with Larutaspis lithocarpi in having a pair of slender transverse scleroses on the outer basal corners of the median trullae (the character clearly shown by the figure accompanying the description) and in the anus situated posteriorly to the centre of the pygidium ('near the apex' of the pygidium). It seems very similar to L. lithocarpi in other characters, too, except for the presence of eight groups of peri vulvar disc pores, an unusual character in diaspidids. (Takagi, 2005)
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 64-65]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Kozarz1974 [host: 24]; Takagi2003 [description: 79-80]; Takagi2005 [taxonomy: 163]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36].
Subfamily Leucaspidinae
Agrophaspis Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Agrophaspis Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 375. Type species: Aonidia buxtoni Laing, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: This genus comes close to Greeniella Cockerell in possessing peculiar projections in the adult female without any sign of lobes. The second stage female differs from that of Greeniella in possessing 3 definite pairs of lobes instead of 2 pairs (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 209]; BorchsWi1963 [description, taxonomy: 375]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 5].
Agrophaspis buxtoni (Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia buxtoni Laing, 1933: 676-678. Type data: NEW CALEDONIA: Tontouta, on "Switch grass," ?/06/1925, by P.A. Buxton.. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Agrophaspis buxtoni; Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 374. Change of combination.
HOST: Cyperaceae: Carex sp. [Cohic1958]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Caledonia [Laing1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Laing (1933).
STRUCTURE: Cover subcircular, highly convex, warm reddish brown; diameter .57mm. Early stage female of normal pyriform shape, with numerous rather strong setae on the cephalic region and around the margin (Laing, 1933).
SYSTEMATICS: This species bears some relationship to Aonidia viridis and A. javanensis, since both have 5 long finger-like processes; in A. viridis the 3 median processes are bifid and the outermost is divided into 3; in A. javanensis the second lateral pair of processes is entire (Laing, 1933).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; BorchsWi1963 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 374-375]; Cohic1958 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Laing1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 676-678]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 206]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544].
Aleucaspis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Aleucaspis Takagi, 1977: 5. Type species: Aleucaspis salla Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
CITATIONS: Takagi1977 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 5].
Aleucaspis salla TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Aleucaspis salla Takagi, 1977: 6-11. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Mt Phulchoki, Godavari, on Pinus wallichiana, 18/08/1975, by S. Takagi. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus wallichiana [Takagi1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1977].
BIOLOGY: Aleucaspis salla was collected at an altitude of 1600m (Takagi, 1977).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1977).
STRUCTURE: Adult female twice as long as wide, attaining over 1mm in length.
CITATIONS: Takagi1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-11]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 4].
Anamefiorinia LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Anamefiorinia Leonardi, 1906c: 48. Type species: Fiorinia casuarinae Maskell. Subsequently designated by MacGillivray, 1921: 372.
Crypthemichionaspis; Lindinger, 1937: 182. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 220.
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1937) considered Crypthemichionaspis to be a junior synonym of Anamefiorinia, but no subsequent authors agreed.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 372 (female) [Genera of Fioriniini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 220]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 20]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 12, 14]; Leonar1906c [description, taxonomy: 17, 48]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 372]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 8]; Sassce1912 [taxonomy: 75].
Anamefiorinia casuarinae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia casuarinae Maskell, 1897: 307-308. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Perth, on Casuarina sp.. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA.
Anamefiorinia casuarinae; Borchsenius, 1966: 220. Change of combination.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Maskel1897]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Maskel1897]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Maskell (1897).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium snowy white, but clouded by the second pellicle beneath the secretion giving it a dark brown tint, elongate, narrow. Adult female brown, without any lobes, but the pygidium finely serrate on margins, and two fine hairs at apex; no spinnerets but small circular openings within the margin (Froggatt, 1914).
SYSTEMATICS: This species, in the puparium, resembles that of Fiorinia stricta, but the absence of abdominal lobes in the adult separates it entirely (Maskell, 1897).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 378 (female) [Species of Anamefiorinia].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 34]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 246]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 20]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 12, 14]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 882]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Frogga1933 [description, distribution, host: 364]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [distribution: 472]; Green1900b [taxonomy: 11-12]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-50]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host: 378]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 307-308].
Anamefiorinia lidgetti (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia lidgetti Green, 1900b: 10. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Acacia decurrens, by J. Lidgett. Syntypes. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Anamefiorinia Lidgetti; Leonardi, 1906c: 48. Change of combination.
Crypthemichionaspis lidgetti; Lindinger, 1911: 175. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia armata [Green1900b], Acacia decurrens [Green1900b], Acacia melanoxylon [Green1900b]. Myrtaceae: Eucalyptus goniocalyx? [Frogga1915], Eucalyptus rostrata? [Frogga1915].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Green1900b]).
BIOLOGY: Scales are disposed transversely on the bark of host plant (Green, 1900b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Green (1900b).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium small, narrow oblong. First exuviae very pale straw color; second exuviae reddish fulvous, entirely concealed by a thin but compact coat of white secretion. Male puparium similar in external appearance, but whiter; posterior extremity broader; a very indistinct median carina. Adult female occupying the cavity of the second exuviae; oblong; broadest across the abdominal segments. Mouth parts rather large. Dorsal surface, especially mesothorax, with numerous small oval pores connected with short capitate spinneret ducts (Green, 1900b).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 378 (female) [Species of Anamefiorinia].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host: 248]; Ferris1941f [taxonomy: 12]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 984]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Green1900b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-12]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 91]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48, 50-52]; Lindin1911 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 89, 114]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host: 378].
Anotaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Anotaspis Ferris, 1941d: 269. Type species: Anotaspis particula Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
KEYS: Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 222]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIII-269]; Ferris1942 [description, taxonomy: SIV-446:24, 41, 48]; Ferris1955c [taxonomy: 31]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 11]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 95].
Anotaspis lepelleyi De LottoNOMENCLATURE:
Anotaspis lepelleyi De Lotto, 1956: 17-18. Type data: KENYA: Nairobi, on Teclea simplicifolia, 10/04/1953, by G. De Lotto. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Teclea simplicifolia [DeLott1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Kenya [DeLott1956].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by De Lotto (1956).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female reduced to larval and nymphal exuviae only, both strongly chitinized; elongate and highly convex; color evenly dark orange or reddish brown. Adult female elongate, tapering at both ends, with dorsal surface of pygidium and ventral median area of prosoma heavily chitinised at maturity (De Lotto, 1956).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; DeLott1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17-18].
Anotaspis particula FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Anotaspis particula Ferris, 1941d: SIII-270. Type data: PANAMA: Chiriqui, near David, on undetermined tree, 1938, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [Ferris1941d].
BIOLOGY: This species was found on the underside of leaves, with females always concealed along a vein, males scattered over the surface of the leaf and furnishing the principal evidence of the presence of the insect (Ferris, 1941d).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1941d).
STRUCTURE: Second stage female is exceedingly minute and is a little larger than the first exuvia, which overlies it and is black with its posterior extremity yellowish. Scale of male elongate, white, with blackish exuvia at one end (Ferris, 1941d).
SYSTEMATICS: This species can be compared to no species except Radiaspis indica. It differs especially in the complete absence of any marginal pygidial structures (Ferris, 1941d).
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 900]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; BrownMc1962 [chemistry, distribution: 166, 165]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-270]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:48].
Benaparlatoria BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Benaparlatoria Balachowsky, 1953a: 19-20. Type species: Benaparlatoria moityi Balachowsky, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Original description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953a).
SYSTEMATICS: Benaparlatoria differs from other Parlatorina by the structure of dorsal macropores and by the absence of circumgenital glands, and glandular tubercles glandular on the ventral face of the body (Balachowsky, 1958b).
CITATIONS: Balach1953a [description, taxonomy: 19-20]; Balach1958 [description, taxonomy: 315-316]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 204]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 23].
Benaparlatoria moityi BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Benaparlatoria Moityi Balachowsky, 1953a: 20-23. Type data: GUINEA: 40 km east of Tanané, 100 km north of Conakry, on Strychnos sp., ?/12/1951, by A. Balachowsky. Holotype female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type and paratypes in Musée Royal du Congo Belge à Tervuren (Balachowsky, 1958b).
Benaparlatoria moityi; Borchsenius, 1966: 204. Justified emendation.
HOST: Loganiaceae: Strychnos sp. [Balach1953a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Balach1953a]; Nigeria [Medler1980].
BIOLOGY: Benaparlatoria moityi was collected at 1.140m of altitude (Balachowsky, 1953a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953a).
CITATIONS: Balach1953a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-23]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 316-317]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; Medler1980 [distribution: 88].
Bigymnaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Bigymnaspis Balachowsky, 1958b: 342-343. Type species: Gymnaspis bilobis Green & Laing, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Bigymnaspis is distinguished from Gymnaspis by the of well developed L1, which are absent in Gymnaspis (Balachowsky, 1958b).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 342-343]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 205]; Chou1985 [description, taxonomy: 217-218]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 24]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Bigymnaspis bilobis (Green & Laing)NOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis bilobis Green & Laing, 1923: 130-131. Type data: TANZANIA: on sea coast, south of Dar-es-Salaam, on mangrove type plant, by A.H. Ritchie. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia bilobis; Lindinger, 1932: 224. Change of combination.
Bigymnaspis bilobis; Balachowsky, 1958: 344. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Tanzania [GreenLa1923].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green & Laing (1923).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium consists of incrassated nymphal exuviae alone. Broadly ovoid in form, bluntly pointed behind, median area strongly and roundly convex. Adult female turbinate, anteriorly almost as broad as long, tapering posteriorly to a point (Green & Laing, 1923).
KEYS: Hall 1946a: 520 (female) [as Gymnaspis bilobis; Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 344]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 205]; Chou1985 [taxonomy: 217]; GreenLa1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-131]; Hall1946a [description, taxonomy: 520]; Lindin1932g [taxonomy: 224]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 290].
Bigymnaspis bullata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia bullata Green, 1896e: 72-73. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on unidentified tree. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Gymnaspis bullata; Cockerell & Parrott, 1899: 280. Change of combination.
Bigymnaspis bullata; Borchsenius, 1966: 205. Change of combination.
FOE: Fungi: Microcera sp. [Parkin1906].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Nothopegia colebrookiana [Green1900a]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999]); Sri Lanka [Green1896e].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1896e).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium consisting of the 2nd pellicle only, without any supplementary secretionary matter. An empty detached scale, seen from below, has exactly the form of a ladle with a short, broad handle. Male puparium irregularly circular, thin and delicate, silvery white. Adult female occupying the anterior part of the cavity of the puparium; abdominal segments shrunken and withdrawn into the thoracic region; reddish purple (Green, 1896e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 256 (female) [as Gymnaspis bullata; Key to species of Gymnaspis]; Leonardi 1903a: 48 (female) [as Gymnaspis bullata; Key to species of Gymnaspis]; Cockerell & Parrott 1899: 280 (female) [as Gymnaspis bullata; Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 50]; Balach1958b [distribution, taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 205]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 218]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 339]; Cocker1897q [taxonomy: 703]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 396]; CockerPa1899 [taxonomy: 280]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution: 303]; Green1896e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68, 72-73]; Green1900a [description, host: 73]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 338]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 30]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 149]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 6, 48, 50-53]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 256]; Parkin1906 [description, distribution, ecology: 50, 73]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; Ramakr1926 [taxonomy: 456]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 77]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 4]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 284, 290].
Bigymnaspis edgerleyi (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis edgerleyi Mamet, 1954: 52-55. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Montagne des Français, on an undetermined plant. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Bigymnaspis edgerleyi; Borchsenius, 1966: 205. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium almost entirely composed of the nymphal exuviae, high conical, almost thimble shaped, dark reddish brown, very shiny; sub-basally with a ring like band of whitish to orange yellow secretion which lies on a base of dark brown or yellowish-buff secretion. Adult female almost circular, weakly sclerotized, entirely enclosed in nymphal exuviae. Nymph completely enclosing the adult female (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [distribution, taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 205]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17, 52-55].
Chimania MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Chimania Munting, 1970: 3-4. Type species: Chimania ferrugina Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate. Median lobes small, not basally yoked, close together. Gland tubercles absent, pygidial gland spines very long and conspicuous. Dorsal pygidial ducts large, few in number, confined to submarginal area and with an extremely long microduct on their inner ends. Anal opening near center of pygidium, vulva near apial one third. Perivulvar pores present. Second instar with submarginal pygidial ducts with their orifices more or less perpendicular to the margin (Munting, 1970).
SYSTEMATICS: This genus bears no resemblance to those placed by Borchsenius (1966) in the tribe Fioriniini. The adult female, however, resembles certain members of the Leucaspidini but differs from them in the presence of setaceous gland spines and in that the openings of the submarginal macroducts are more or less perpendicular to the pygidial margin. Chimania also resembles the genus Tenuiaspis, but differs from it in being a pupillarial genus (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [chemical control: 230]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 3-4].
Chimania ferrugina MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Chimania ferrugina Munting, 1970: 4-6. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Chimanimani Mountains, on Erythroxylum emarginatum, 21/09/1966, by C.J. Hodgson. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Erythroxylaceae: Erythroxylum emarginatum [Muntin1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Muntin1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1970).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of 1st and 2nd instar exuviae; reddish-brown, parallel-sided, narrow, 1.8 mm long. 1st instar exuviae discarded at anterior end. Male scale white, strongly tricarinate, parallel-sided, 1.3 mm long. Adult female parallel-sided, about 1.1 mm long; thoracic and 1st abdominal segments heavily sclerotized, cephalic and other abdominal segments only slightly sclerotized (Munting, 1970).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1970 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4-6].
Chimania natalensis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Chimania natalensis Ben-Dov, 1974c: 21-22. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Natal, Lower Mkuze, on Maytenus sp., 3/3/1972, by Y. Ben-Dov. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 4883/6. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Maytenus sp. [BenDov1974c]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1974c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Good description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1974c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow and elongate; reddish brown; second instar exuviae covered by thin layer of transparent wax; first instar exuviae brown; first exuviae at anterior apex of cover; adult female pupillarial (Ben-Dov, 1974c).
SYSTEMATICS: Slide-mounted adult female with 4 pairs of pygidial macroducts, no microducts on thorax, 2 pairs of gland spines, and perivulvar pores in 5 groups.
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Chimania].
CITATIONS: BenDov1974c [description, distribution, host, illustration: 21-22].
Chimania triductus Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Chimania triductus Ben-Dov, 1974c: 22-23. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Transvaal, Pretoria, Roodeplaat Dam, on Maytenus sp., by H.P.Insley. Holotype female, by original designation. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 4842/10. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Celastraceae: Maytenus sp. [BenDov1974c]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1974c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Good description and illustration by Ben-Dov (1974c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow and elongate, reddish brown; second instar exuviae covered by thin layer of transparent wax; first instar exuviae brown; first exuviae at anterior end of scale cover; adult female pupillarial.
SYSTEMATICS: Slide-mounted adult female with 3 pairs of pygidial macroducts, several microducts on thorax, 1 pair of gland spines, and perivulvar pores in 5 groups.
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1974c: 25 (female) [Key to species of Chimania].
CITATIONS: BenDov1974c [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23].
Cryptoparlatorea LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatorea Lindinger, 1905a: 132. Type species: Cryptoparlatorea leucaspis Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation.
Cryptoparlatoria Kuwana, 1917a: 18. Unjustified emendation.
Cryptoparlatores; Takagi, 1960: 71. Misspelling of genus name.
STRUCTURE: Female scale is oval to elliptical in outline, convex, black. The scale is composed of the first and second exuviae and wax secretions. The adult female is enclosed in the second larval skin. The male scale is elongate, white, not carinated (Kuwana, 1926).
SYSTEMATICS: Cryptoparlatorea is placed between Leucaspis and Parlatoria and the general characters of the female scale and pygidium of female body are similar to those of the former, while the shape of the marginal gland orifices are similar to those of the latter (Kuwana, 1926).
KEYS: Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 248 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 204]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 164]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 222]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 92]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 24, 44]; Kuwana1926 [description, taxonomy: 1-2]; Kuwana1933a [taxonomy: 44]; Lindin1905a [description, taxonomy: 132]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1909b [description, taxonomy: 108-109]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1911 [description, taxonomy: 89]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 10, 89]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 15, 26]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 183]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 248, 253-254]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 50]; Suh2012 [taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1960 [description, taxonomy: 71]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Varshn2005 [catalogue: 158].
Cryptoparlatorea leucaspis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatorea leucaspis Lindinger, 1905a: 132. Type data: JAPAN: on Juniperus sp., 09/05/1905. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Cryptoparlatoria leucaspis; Kuwana, 1926: 2. Misspelling of genus name.
Apteronidia leucaspis; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Chamaecyparis obtusa [Lindin1911], Cupressus sp. [Borchs1966], Juniperus chinensis [Lindin1911], Juniperus sp. [Lindin1905], Thujopsis dolabrata [Lindin1909]. Taxodiaceae: Cryptomeria japonica [Lindin1909], Cryptomeria japonica araucarioides [Muraka1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan [Lindin1905] (Honshu [Lindin1909], Kyushu [Muraka1970], Shikoku [Muraka1970]); South Korea [Suh2012].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kuwana (1926).
STRUCTURE: Female scale shiny black with reddish margin, oval to elliptical in shape, composed of the first larval skin, wax mass and the exuvium of the second larval skin. The first exuviae placed on the cephalic margin of the scale. 1-1.5 mm long and 0.4-0.5 mm wide. Male scale elongate, white, not carinated, about 1 mm long. Adult female small, enclosed within the second exuvium, pale yellow in color (Kuwana, 1926).
KEYS: Suh 2012: 76 (female, adult) [Key to the Korean Pupillarial Species]; MacGillivray 1921: 253 [Key to species of Cryptoparlatorea].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 14]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; Clause1940 [biological control: 606]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 92]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-21]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Kuwana1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 18]; Kuwana1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-4]; Lindin1905a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Lindin1909b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109-110]; Lindin1911 [distribution, host: 89]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 10, 21]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 36]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 66]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320]; Suh2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-74,76]; Tachik1955 [distribution, taxonomy: 57]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 71-72]; Takaha1938b [taxonomy: 272]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 13]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175].
Cryptoparlatorea pini TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatorea pini Takahashi, 1938b: 271-272. Type data: INDIA: Himachal Pradesh, Manali, Punjab, on Pinus sp., by Mr. Ansari. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Takaha1938b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Ali1970] (Himachal Pradesh [Takaha1938b], Punjab [Takaha1938b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1938b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellowish-brown, sometimes blackish, covered with whitish secretion, long, narrow, convex dorsally, straight, with no ridge, with no secretion behind and lateral of the 2nd skin; about 1.8-2.0 mm long (Takahashi, 1938b).
SYSTEMATICS: Cryptoparlatorea pini is allied to C. leucaspis, but differs in the elongate second skin, the median lobes being as long as the fimbriated plates, some plates outside of the last lobes being spine-like (Takahashi, 1938b).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Takaha1938b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 271-272]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 5]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, host: 158-159].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatoreopsis Borchsenius, 1947a: 343. Type species: Aonidia halli Bodenheimer, by monotypy and original designation.
Chaetaonidia Balachowsky, 1948: 29. Nomen nudum; discovered by Danzig, 1993: 106.
SYSTEMATICS: Cryptoparlatoreopsis may well be a connecting link between the subtribe Aonidina of the tribe Aspidiotini and the Parlatoriini, but the presence of gland tubercles on the thorax and duct carrying plates or projections marginally, the nature of the marginal macroducts in the adult and second stage females all suggest affinity to the Parlatoriini rather than the Aonidina (Hall & Williams, 1962).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1958b: 232 (female) [Key to genera of subtribe Aonidina]; Balachowsky 1951: 602 (female) [Key to genera of subtribe Aonidina]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of the Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Balach1951 [description, taxonomy: 602, 615-616]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 232, 240-244]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 161]; Borchs1947a [description, taxonomy: 343]; Borchs1949 [taxonomy: 54]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 168, 174]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 205-206]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 222-223]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 28]; Kaussa1955a [taxonomy: 232]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 50].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis euphorbiae Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatoreopsis euphorbiae Hall & Williams, 1962: 26-28. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore, Marudamalai, on Euphorbia antiquorum, 03/10/1951, by T.S. Muthukrishnan. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia antiquorum [HallWi1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [HallWi1962]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Second stage exuviae subcircular, reddish brown, within it the outline of the adult female can be seen. Exuviae coated with a thin film of white secretionary matter (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Cryptoparlatoreopsis euphorbiae is close to C. halli (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-15]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis halli (Bodenheimer)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia halli Bodenheimer, 1929: 104-105. Type data: EGYPT: Sinai Peninsula: on Tamarix sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis halli; Borchsenius, 1950b: 175. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Lythraceae: Punica granatum [Moghad2013a]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix mannifera [Balach1951], Tamarix sp. [Bodenh1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Danzig1972c]; Egypt [Bodenh1929]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Borchs1950b]; Turkmenistan [Borchs1950b].
KEYS: Borchsenius 1963a: 209 (female) [Key to species on Tamarix]; Balachowsky 1958b: 244 (female) [Key to African species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis]; Balachowsky 1951: 616 [Key to species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis]; Borchsenius 1950b: 175 (female) [Key to species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution: 85]; Ali1970 [taxonomy: 14]; AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 152]; Archan1937 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 112]; Balach1932d [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45, 46]; Balach1938a [taxonomy: 152]; Balach1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 616, 619-621]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 38]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 244]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 161-163]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Bodenh1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 104]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1155]; Borchs1947a [taxonomy: 344]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 175]; Borchs1963a [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 208-209]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 209]; Danzig1972c [distribution, host: 582]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 108-110]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 16]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 5]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 22]; Myarts1995 [biological control, distribution: 432]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 17]; Takaha1939d [taxonomy: 341].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis longispina (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia longispina Takahashi, 1939d: 339-341. Type data: INDIA: Punjab, Bannu, on "Ber," 16/08/1938, by Batra. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: The original publication states that types are in the author's personal collection, which we presume now is in TARI.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis longispina; Borchsenius, 1966: 206. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer negundo [ErlerKoTu1996]. Fabaceae: Acacia cultriformis [ErlerKoTu1996], Acacia cyanophylla [ErlerKoTu1996]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [ErlerKoTu1996]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Punjab [Takaha1939d]). Palaearctic: Turkey [ErlerKoTu1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1939d).
STRUCTURE: Female scale subcircular, convex dorsally, covered with a greyish white waxy layer on the dorsum, which is brittle and flakes off from the skins. First exuviae subcircular, second exuviae blackish brown, yellowish or reddish brown on the marginal area, shining, sclerotized, circular, slightly longer than wide, about 1.2-1.4 mm long, with a short, but distinct cleft at the front end which is sometimes closed (Takahashi, 1939d).
CITATIONS: Balach1951 [taxonomy: 615]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 56]; Takaha1939d [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 339-341]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 8].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis meccae (Hall)NOMENCLATURE:
Targionia meccae Hall, 1927c: 263-265. Type data: SAUDI ARABIA: Mecca, on Zizyphus sp., 10/07/1926, by Mohd. Taha. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia meccae; Balachowsky, 1932d: 46. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis meccae; Balachowsky, 1951: 244. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Beccar1971]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus lotus [Balach1928a], Zizyphus mauritiana [GhaniMu1974], Zizyphus sp. [Hall1927c], Zizyphus spina-christi [Matile1984c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Kaussa1955]. Palaearctic: Egypt [DanzigPe1998]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Morocco [Balach1928a]; Saudi Arabia [Hall1927c].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Hall (1927c) and Balachovsky (1951).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, convex and dirty white in color. The color is of the thin covering of secretionary matter which is easily knocked off revealing the shiny brown almost reddish brown, puparium underneath (Hall, 1927).
SYSTEMATICS: Cryptoparlatoreopsis meccae is close to C. tlaiae, but differs in the shape of the lobes and in the shorter setae on the pygidium (Takahashi, 1939d).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1958b: 244 (female) [Key to African species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis]; Balachowsky 1951: 616 [Key to species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis].
CITATIONS: Balach1928a [distribution, host: 138]; Balach1932d [distribution, host, illustration: 46]; Balach1938a [taxonomy: 152]; Balach1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 615, 616, 621-624]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 38, 47]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 244-246]; BalachMa1970 [distribution, host: 1082]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 163]; Beccar1971 [distribution, host: 194]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 108]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 86]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution, host: 84]; Hall1927c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 263-265]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 28]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 16]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 9]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 247]; Lindin1936 [distribution, host: 166]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 221]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 22]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 273]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 111]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; Takaha1939d [taxonomy: 341].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis spinosissima (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia spinosissima Lindinger, 1911: 12. Type data: INDIA: on Mimusops hexandra. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Greeniella spinosissima; MacGillivray, 1921: 461. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis spinosissima; Borchsenius, 1966: 206. Change of combination.
HOST: Sapotaceae: Mimusops hexandra [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Lindin1911].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1911).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 461 (female) [as Greeniella spinosissima; Key to species of Greeniella].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [catalogue, distribution, host: 45]; Balach1951 [taxonomy: 615]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 441]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 10]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 461]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 171].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis targioniopsis (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia targioniopsis Lindinger, 1911: 86. Type data: BURMA: Thabut, on Miliusa velutina, 31/05/1899. Holotype female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Greeniella targioniopsis; MacGillivray, 1921: 460. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis targioniopsis; Borchsenius, 1966: 206. Change of combination.
HOST: Annonaceae: Miliusa velutina [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [Lindin1911].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Lindinger (1911).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium of adult female not with lacinate pseudolobes, with 3 pairs of projections, lobe-like in form and arrangement, margin of each with two prominent indentations (MacGillivray, 1921).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 460 (female) [as Greeniella targioniopsis; Key to species of Greeniella].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [catalogue, distribution, host: 45]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 441]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 10]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 460]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 171].
Cryptoparlatoreopsis tlaiae (Balachowsky)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia tlaiae Balachowsky, 1927: 200. Type data: ALGERIA: Sahara occidental, 20 km north of Beni-Abbes (Oued Saoura), on Tamarix articulata, ?/05/1926. Holotype female. Type depository: Alger: Insectarium Jardin d'Essai, Algeria. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH and USNM.
Aonidia Tlaïae Balachowsky, 1928a: 123. Unjustified emendation.
Chaetaonidia tlaiae; Balachowsky, 1948b: 29. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis tlaiae; Balachowsky, 1951: 58. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatoreopsis telaïae; Kaussari, 1955: 16. Misspelling of species name.
Cruptoparlatoreopsis tlaiae; Borchsenius, 1966: 206. Misspelling of genus name.
FOE: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus flaviceps [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix articulata [Balach1927], Tamarix sp. [Kaussa1955]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Kaussa1970]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1927]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Morocco [Rungs1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Balachowsky (1927).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pyriform widened in cephalothoracic area and narrowing toward pygidium (Balachowsky, 1927).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1958b: 244 (female) [Key to African species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis]; Balachowsky 1951: 616 [Key to species of Cryptoparlatoreopsis].
CITATIONS: Balach1927 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 200-202]; Balach1928a [taxonomy: 123]; Balach1932d [distribution, host, illustration: 46]; Balach1938a [taxonomy: 152]; Balach1948b [taxonomy: 269]; Balach1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 615, 616-618, 621, 7]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 37-38, 47]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 244, 246]; BalachMa1970 [distribution, host: 1082]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 163]; BodenhTh1929 [taxonomy: 105]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 106]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 28]; Harned1928 [taxonomy: 24]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 168]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 16]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 9]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 66]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 83]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 247]; Lindin1936 [distribution: 152]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 22]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 273]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 17]; Takaha1939d [taxonomy: 341].
Doriopus BrimblecombeNOMENCLATURE:
Doriopus Brimblecombe, 1960a: 381. Type species: Doriopus bilobus Brimblecombe, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female enclosed in the enlarged and heavily sclerotized exuviae of the second stage nymph, subcircular, membranous. Pygidium with median pair of large contiguous lobes. Basal scleroses and paraphyses absent. Gland spines in a continuous row on pygidial and prepygidial segments. Dorsal ducts few and indistinct (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is related to the Australian genera Hybridaspis and Hemiaspidis in having the adult enclosed in the second exuviae but differs from these in that the gland spines on the pygidial margin are in continuous series and none are broad with a divided apex (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 205]; BorchsWi1963 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 375-376, 378]; Brimbl1959b [description, taxonomy: 407]; Brimbl1960a [distribution, taxonomy: 381]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 62].
Doriopus bilobus BrimblecombeNOMENCLATURE:
Doriopus bilobus Brimblecombe, 1959b: 397-398. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Gayndah, on Acacia bidwillii, ?/10/1954, by L. Pedley. Holotype female. Type depository: Brisbane: Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia; type no. T5791. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Also in QMBA are paratypes numbered T5792 to T5794 and one in BMNH.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia bidwillii [Brimbl1959b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Queensland [Brimbl1959b]).
BIOLOGY: Insects mostly single, embedded partly or wholly in the copious corky tissue on branches of the host (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female enclosed in the large second stage nymph, which is olive green in color. Adult female is subcircular and membranous. In some specimens, the lobes may be twice as long as wide with the indentations on a somewhat blunt apex. The lobes may also be slightly constricted basally on the inner margin. There may be marginal incisions on each side of the pair of lobes, making the lobes appear as surmounting an apical pygidial projection (Brimblecombe, 1959b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 205]; BorchsWi1963 [illustration, taxonomy: 376]; Brimbl1959b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 397-398]; Brimbl1960a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 397-398].
Emmereziaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Emmereziaspis Mamet, 1941: 36. Type species: Fiorina alluaudi v. galliformens Grandpré & Charmoy, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Emmereziaspis is differentiated from Fiorinia Targioni Tozzetti by having the median lobes not fused in both the female and nymphal stages; from Gymnaspis Newstead by its flat form, the absence of fimbriate plates and by the presence of well marked lobes in the adult female; from Pseudoleucaspis Mamet by the reniform shape of the adult female (Mamet, 1941).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Mamet1941 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 36]; Mamet1954 [taxonomy: 71]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 66].
Emmereziaspis alluaudi (Grandpré & Charmoy)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia Alluaudi Grandpré & Charmoy, 1899: 13-14. Type data: MAURITIUS: Le Pouce Mountain, unidentified host. Syntypes. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type-material lost (Mamet, 1941).
Aonidia allaudi; Cockerell, 1899r: 900. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Emmereziaspis alluaudi; Mamet, 1941: 36. Change of combination.
Cryptaspidus alluaudi; Lindinger, 1957: 544. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Meliaceae: Quivisia laciniata [Mamet1943a]. Rubiaceae: Chasalia capitata [Mamet1943a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, WilliaWi1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1941).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium circular, flat, consisting of the enlarged nymphal exuviae, brownish. Larval exuviae are flat and subcentral. Male puparium similar to, but smaller than that of female. Adult female reniform, more or less similar to Aonidiella aurantii, 1.2 mm long (Mamet, 1941).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Cocker1899r [distribution, taxonomy: 900]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 301]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 13-14]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544, 548]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 386]; Mamet1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-38]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 159]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 24, 60]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host: 35-36]; Mamet1953a [taxonomy: 152]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 65].
Emmereziaspis galliformens (Grandpré & Charmoy)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia alluaudi galliformens Grandpré & Charmoy, 1899: 14. Type data: MAURITIUS: Le Pouce Mountain, on unidentified host, by D. de Grandpré. Syntypes. Described: female. Notes: Type-material lost (Mamet, 1941).
Aonidia allaudi galliformens; Cockerell, 1899r: 900. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Emmereziaspis galliformens; Mamet, 1941: 39. Change of combination and rank.
Cryptaspidus alluaudi gallamformans; Lindinger, 1957: 544. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Gaertnera psychotrioides [Mamet1943a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1943a].
BIOLOGY: Emmereziaspis galliformens produces galls that resemble small swellings on the leaves of its host (Beardsley, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: Emmereziaspis galliformens differs from E. alluaudi by the adult female being smaller, with abdomen longer and broader and without clear patches on the pygidial area (Mamet, 1941).
CITATIONS: Beards1984 [behaviour, distribution, host: 87, 99]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Cocker1899r [distribution, taxonomy: 900]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 301]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 14]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544, 548]; Mamet1941 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 39]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 159]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 40]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Mamet1953a [taxonomy: 152]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 65].
Eugreeniella BrimblecombeNOMENCLATURE:
Eugreeniella Brimblecombe, 1958: 87. Type species: Aonidia (Greeniella) pulchra Green, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Original description and illustration by Brimblecombe (1958), subsequent description and illustration by Borchsenius & Williams (1963).
SYSTEMATICS: Eugreeniella resembles Greeniella in having filaments from the first exuviae and the adult female completely covered by 2nd exuviae. The indefinite pygidial apex is also a character shown by Greeniella. The absence of lobes in Eugreeniella is, however, an outstanding difference (Brimblecombe, 1958).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 210]; BorchsWi1963 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 378]; Brimbl1958 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 87-88]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 72].
Eugreeniella pulchra (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia (Greeniella) pulchra Green, 1905b: 4. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, Myrniong, on Calistemon salignis, by J. Lidgett. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 54. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia pulchra; Sanders, 1906: 16. Change of combination.
Eugreeniella pulchra; Brimblecombe, 1958: 88. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Myrtaceae: Callistemon salignus [Green1905b], Callistemon sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Victoria [Green1905b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Brimblecombe (1958).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consists of large, heavily chitinized 2nd exuviae, circular, 0.7 mm in diameter, strongly convex, brown, but covered with a pale grey suffusion which completely covers the adult female. First exuviae large, central, orange. Male scale oval, brownish black with a pale fawn margin, 1st exuviae eccentric and orange. Adult female membranous, subcircular, 0.6 mm long and 0.6 mm wide (Brimblecombe, 1958).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; BorchsWi1963 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 377, 378]; Brimbl1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-91]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 599-600]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25-26]; Green1905b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 4]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 464]; Sander1906 [distribution, host: 16].
Formosaspis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Formosaspis Takahashi, 1932: 47. Type species: Protodiaspis nigra Takahashi (= Formosaspis takahashii Lindinger), by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Formosaspis differs from Protodiaspis in possessing a well-developed scale and from Chionaspis and Leucaspis in the characters of the pygidium (Takahashi, 1932).
KEYS: Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 210]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 214]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 264]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 111]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1952a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 81]; Takaha1932 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 47]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45, 108]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Formosaspis formosana (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis formosanus Takahashi, 1931: 2-4. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp., 01/10/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Formosaspis formosana; Takahashi, 1932: 47. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatorea formosana; Lindinger, 1932f: 187. Change of combination.
Anamefiorinia formosana; Lindinger, 1935: 132. Change of combination.
Formosaspis nigra; Ferris, 1937d: 111. Misidentification; discovered by Takahashi, 1942: 67.
Formosaspis formosanus Fang, Wu & Xu, 2001: 102-110. Unjustified emendation.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Chou1985], Bambusa sp. [Takaha1931]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [Takaha1942]; Taiwan [Takaha1931]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Takahashi (1931).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of only larval skins, no secretion, about 1.0-1.1 mm long. First exuviae pale yellowish brown, extending a little beyond the anterior end of the 2nd skin, shorter than half the length of the 2nd. 2nd exuviae shining black, narrowly brownish or pale brown on the margin and on a part near the hind end. Adult female body oblong, rounded on both ends, broadest on the thorax, narrowing towards both ends, about 3.5 times as long as wide (Takahashi, 1931).
SYSTEMATICS: Formosaspis formosana differs from F. takahashii in the shorter scale and body (Takahashi, 1942).
KEYS: Chou 1984: 214 [Key to Chinese species of Formosaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17, 20]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214-215]; Chou1986 [illustration: 626]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Ferris1937d [illustration: 111]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 7, 8]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 187]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 40]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 133]; Takagi1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 135]; Takaha1931 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-4]; Takaha1932 [taxonomy: 47]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 26, 61]; Takaha1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-67]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002a [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy ]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 293].
Formosaspis pallida MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Formosaspis pallida Munting, 1968a: 427-429. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Capetown, Tulbagh, Mitchell's Pass, on Protea sp., 03/12/1964, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Proteaceae: Protea sp. [Muntin1968a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1968a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of black 2nd stage exuviae with a thin white secretory covering, irregularly fusiform, about 1 mm long. Male puparium brownish yellow, elongate, broadening posteriorly and with golden 1st instar exuviae at one end. Adult female irregularly fusiform, membranous, 0.7-0.9 mm long. 2nd instar female with gland spines present, also between median lobes, 2nd lobes bilobulate (Munting, 1968a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species does not belong in Formoaspis, but is placed here by Munting (1968a) tentatively.
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 231]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 427-429].
Formosaspis stegana FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Formosaspis stegana Ferris, 1952a: 8. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, near Kunming, Si-shan, on Arundinaria sp., 10/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Ferris1952a], Bambusa sp. [Ali1970]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Ferris1952a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Ferris (1952a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female totally enclosed within the strongly sclerotized, elongate-ovoid 2nd exuviae which is jet black except for the posterior portion which is dark brown (Ferris, 1952a).
KEYS: Chou 1984: 214 [Key to Chinese species of Formosaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 214, 216]; Chou1986 [illustration: 628]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Ferris1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 133]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 293].
Formosaspis takahashii (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Protodiaspis nigra Takahashi, 1930: 25-26. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambus sp., ?/11/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Leucaspis nigra; Takahashi, 1931: 4. Change of combination.
Formosaspis nigra; Takahashi, 1932: 47. Change of combination.
Crypthemichionaspis takahashii; Lindinger, 1932f: 186. Change of combination and replacement name for Crypthemichionaspis nigra Lindinger 1911.
Anamefiorinia takahashii; Lindinger, 1935: 133. Change of combination.
Formosaspis takahashii; Takagi, 1970: 136. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria sp. [Ferris1952a], Bambusa sp. [Takaha1931], Phyllostachys pubescens [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1952a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Taiwan [Takaha1931]. Palaearctic: China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tao1999]).
BIOLOGY: Formosaspis nigra occurs on the underside of the host leaves (Ferris, 1952a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Takahashi (1931). Detailed redescription and illustration by Ferris (1952a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female slender, elongate, black body, irregular in form, covered in part with a thin film of secretion with the relatively large first exuviae perched at one end (Ferris, 1952a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1932f) moved Protodiaspis nigra into Crypthemichionaspis creating a junior secondary homonym of C. nigra Lindinger 1911. The replacement name C. takahashii was not considered valid by Takahashi (1942), but Takagi (1970) reasserts it as the correct valid name for this insect.
KEYS: Chou 1984: 214 [Key to Chinese species of Formosaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17, 18]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214, 215-216]; Chou1986 [illustration: 627]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 21]; Ferris1937d [illustration: 104]; Ferris1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 7-8]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 186]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; Muntin1967a [taxonomy: 259]; Muntin1969 [taxonomy: 133]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 136]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25-27]; Takaha1931 [taxonomy: 4]; Takaha1932 [taxonomy: 47]; Takaha1942 [taxonomy: 67]; Tang1977 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 138]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 107]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 88]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 108]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 293].
Formosaspis wanglangensis JiangNOMENCLATURE:
Formosaspis wanglangensis Jiang, 2002: 100-101.
HOST: Poaceae: Phyllostachy bambusoides [Jiang2002].
CITATIONS: Jiang2002 [description, host: 100-101].
Galeraspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Galeraspis Mamet, 1939b: 588. Type species: Galeraspis eugeniae Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female enclosed in nymphal exuviae. Spiracles with very few parastigmatic pores. Pygidium with three pairs of lobes. Perivulvar pores absent. Squames absent. Oval dorsal pores absent. Very few tubular small roundish pores present on lateral surfaces of pygidium (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 11, 12, 17]; Mamet1939b [description, taxonomy: 588]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 83].
Galeraspis eugeniae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Galeraspis eugeniae Mamet, 1939b: 588-589. Type data: MAURITIUS: Les Mares, on under surface of leaves of Eugenia glomerata, 15/01/1938, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia glomerata [Mamet1939b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1939b, WilliaWi1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1939b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale narrow in front, widening behind, dark brown, concealed underneath upper layers of tissues of leaf and food plant and completely covering nymphal exuviae. Small semi-circular operculum with a whitish to pale stramineous boarder near posterior extremity of scale. Larval exuviae is exposed on surface of leaf and is very small, yellowish brown, tricarinated, 1.5-2.0 mm long, 0.6-0.5 mm wide. Male scale broader than females, operculum present, but larger than that found in female. Nymphal exuviae pale brown, elongate, semitranslucent, enclosing adult female which is apparent as darker blotch at anterior extremity. Adult female elongate, 0.8-1.1 mm long, 0.5-0.6 mm wide (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 11, 12, 17]; Mamet1939b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 588-589]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 160]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 37]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 66].
Gomezmenoraspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Gomezmenoraspis Balachowsky, 1953g: 907-908. Type species: Aonidia pinicola Leonardi, by monotypy and original designation.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 843 [Tableau des genres de Leucaspidina de la Région Paléarctique].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 843, 907-908]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 221]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 267]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 85]; SoriaMoVi2000 [taxonomy: 340].
Gomezmenoraspis pinicola (Leonardi)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia pinicola Leonardi, 1906a: 1-4. Type data: SPAIN: Valence, on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Gomezmenoraspis pinicola; Balachowsky, 1953g: 186. Change of combination.
FOE: Salicaceae: Populus sp. [SoriaMoVi2000].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus halepensis [Lindin1912b], Pinus sp. [Leonar1906a], Pinus sylvestris [Balach1935b].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Cyprus [Lindin1912b]; Portugal [FrancoRuMa2011]; Spain [Leonar1906a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Gómez-Menor Ortega (1928) and Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, convex, white, 1.8-2.0 mm long. Male scale similar to female, but smaller, 1.2 mm long (Balachowsky, 1953g).
KEYS: Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 100 [as Aonidia pinicola; Key to species of Aonidia].
CITATIONS: Balach1935b [distribution, host: 260]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 908-911]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 47]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 2,12,24]; GomezM1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 339-343]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 100, 104-109]; GomezM1958a [distribution: 8, 10]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 91]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Leonar1906a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-4]; Lindin1910c [distribution: 373]; Lindin1912b [description, distribution, host: 256]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 57]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 338, 340, 342]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 445].
Gymnaspis NewsteadNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis Newstead, 1898: 92. Type species: Gymnaspis aechmeae Newstead, by monotypy.
STRUCTURE: Female scale without larval exuviae or secretion, composed entirely of the naked moulted skin of the second stage female. Male scale with larval exuviae and secretionary margin, as in Aonidia (Newstead, 1898).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Danzig 1971d: 839 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 97 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 13 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 248 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Newstead 1901b: 78 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera]; Hempel 1900a: 496 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Archan1929 [taxonomy: 189]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 61, 64-65]; Balach1948b [taxonomy: 263]; Balach1953g [description, taxonomy: 771, 836-837]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 97]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 168, 175]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 207-208]; Brain1918 [distribution, taxonomy: 116]; Brain1919 [description, taxonomy: 218]; Brimbl1958 [taxonomy: 88]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 209-210]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 646-647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 839]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 270]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 303]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 25, 58]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SI-62]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-147]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:41]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 603-604]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Hall1946a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 520, 540]; Hempel1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 496, 508]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1909 [taxonomy: 148, 149]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 173]; Lindin1934c [taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 186]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 248, 255]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 89]; Newste1898 [description, taxonomy: 92]; Newste1901b [description, taxonomy: 78, 130]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 13, 28]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 130, 139]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Gymnaspis acaciae FroggattNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis acaciae Froggatt, 1914: 604. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Bourke, Pera Bore, on Acacia pendula, by W.W. Froggatt. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Orange: Agricultural Scientific Collections Trust, New South Wales Agriculture, NSW, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: There is 1 drymount topotypic specimen in ANIC from a different host (Gullan, personal communication, January 23, 2001).
Aonidia acaciae; Lindinger, 1937: 179. Change of combination.
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia pendula [Frogga1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1914]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale reddish brown, convex, but not as conical as in G. perpusilla, broader at base. Some scales are covered with a thin incrustation of white secretion. Adult female almost circular, whole surface chitinous, dull yellow and finely striated on the abdominal segments (Froggatt, 1914).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 256 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 604]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256].
Gymnaspis aechmeae NewsteadNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis aechmeae Newstead, 1898: 92-93. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, London, Kew Gardens, on Aechmea aquilegia, 24/04/1897. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in ZMUH.
Aonidia picea Leonardi, 1906: 6. Type data: SPAIN: Valencia, on Billartia officinalis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1909: 149.
COMMON NAME: fly speck scale [Dekle1965c].
ASSOCIATE: FLAVOBACTERIA [RosenbSaSa2012].
HOSTS: Araceae: Monstera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sprengeri [Merril1953]. Bromeliaceae: Acanthostachys sp. [Borchs1966], Acanthostachys strobilacea [Balach1953g], Aechmea angustifolia [ColonFMe1998], Aechmea aquilega [Newste1898], Aechmea chantini [ColonFMe1998], Aechmea nidularioides [KozarHi1996], Aechmea pubescens [ColonFMe1998], Aechmea sp. [Borchs1966, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Ananas comosus [Heu2002], Ananas sativus [Zahrad1953], Ananas sp. [FeltMo1928, MillerDa2005], Aregelia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Bilbergia nutans [Green1934d], Billbergia leopoldi [Archan1929], Billbergia saundersii [Miller1983JW], Billbergia sp. [Ferris1937, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Bromelia serra [Merril1953], Bromelia sp. [FeltMo1928, MillerDa2005], Hohenbergia erythrostachya [Archan1929], Hohenbergia sp. [FeltMo1928, Heu2002], Karatas amazonica [Archan1929], Karatas sp. [MillerDa2005], Neoregelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Nidularium princeps [Archan1929], Nidularium sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Pitcairnia sp. [Borchs1966], Quesnelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Quesnelia wittmackiana [Archan1929], Tillandsia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Vriesea sp. [MillerDa2005], Vriesia platzmanni [Archan1929]. Liliaceae: Caraguata weilbachii [Archan1929], Chlorophytum sp. [Borchs1966]. Menyanthaceae: Villarsia officinalis [Martin1983]. Orchidaceae: Cymbidium sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Heu2002] (First observed in 1987)). Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Florida [Ferris1937], Louisiana [Miller2005], Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], New York [FeltMo1928, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], West Virginia [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Autran1907]; Brazil (Mato Grosso [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio de Janeiro [Hempel1900a], Sao Paulo [SilvadGoGa1968]); Costa Rica [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Nakaha1982]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [MedinaGa1977]). Palaearctic: Belgium [Nakaha1982]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Czech Republic [Zahrad1953]; France [Balach1930a, Foldi2001]; Georgia (Abkhaz ASSR [Borchs1934]); Germany [Schmut1952]; Ireland [Green1934d]; Italy [Balach1953g, PellizDa1997] (Pellizzari & Danzig (1997) cite this species as invasive from the tropics.); Poland [Nakaha1982]; Romania [Nakaha1982]; Russia [Archan1929]; Spain [Leonar1906]; Sweden [Ossian1959]; Switzerland [KozarHi1996]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [BazaroSh1971]; USSR [MillerDa2005]; United Kingdom (England [Newste1898]).
BIOLOGY: Gymnaspis aechmeae has 2 generations a year in the warm moist parts of the greenhouse (Saakian-Baranova, 1954). First instars are laid by the adult female rather than eggs (Zahrdnik, 1968). This species has 2 generations a year in the warm moist parts of the greenhouse (Saakyan-Baranova 1954). Adult males are present (Schmutterer 1959), and first instars, rather that eggs, are laid by the adult female (Zahradnik 1968). According to Danzig (1964) the scale cover of the "young female" (probably second instar) is brown with a black crawler shed skin. The adult female loses the scale and remains inside of the second-instar shed skin. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Female scale composed entirely of the naked moulted skin of second stage female, which completely envelopes the adult insect; highly convex, more or less circular, anal extremity usually pointed, margins produced and convex, entire or constricted at the spiracles. Adult female circular, flat beneath, convex above, margins flat and thin, forming a flange except at the anal extremity, full purple (Newstead, 1898).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list Gymnaspis aechmeae as a pest. It is considered an important pest of bromeliads in Florida (Dekle, 1977) and in greenhouses in Europe (Schmutterer et al., 1957) and the Former Soviet Union (Borchsenius, 1966). This species is considered to be an important pest of bromeliads in Florida (Dekle 1977) and in greenhouses in Europe (Schmutterer et al. 1957) and the Former Soviet Union (Borchsenius 1963). Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; MacGillivray 1921: 257 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis]; Leonardi 1903a: 48 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis]; Cockerell & Parrott 1899: 280 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Archan1929 [distribution, host: 195-196]; Archan1937 [distribution, host: 64]; Autran1907 [distribution, host: 153]; Balach1930a [distribution: 179]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 837-841]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 163-165]; BenDov1989 [host: 2]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 11]; Borchs1934 [distribution, host: 21]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 103]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 273]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 277-279]; BrownMc1962 [chemistry, taxonomy: 165]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 363]; Cocker1902p [distribution: 256]; CockerPa1899 [taxonomy: 280]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96-97]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 195]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 270-271]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 201]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 58]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-63]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446: 55]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Gavalo1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GomezM1937 [distribution, host: 99, 109]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Green1934d [distribution, host: 111, 114]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 520]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 30]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host: 508-509]; Hempel1937 [taxonomy: 35]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 28]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 197]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 20]; Leonar1899 [taxonomy: 209]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6, 48, 53-55]; Leonar1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-7]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 407]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 103]; Lindin1909 [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1910a [taxonomy: 440]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 85]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 344, 358]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 257, 463]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 58]; MedinaGa1977 [distribution, host: 411-412]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 235-236]; Miller1983JW [distribution, host: 5]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 222]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 222]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muntin1968a [taxonomy: 427]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 40]; Newste1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 92-93]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 131-133]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 141]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 200]; PellizDa1997 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 172, 174]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 501]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; RosenbSaSa2012 [ecology, molecular data, physiology: 2357-2368]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Saakya1954 [distribution, host: 26]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host: 584]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host: 2, 3, 11, 31, 140, 1]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 182]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 214]; Vengel1965 [distribution, host: 128]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 176]; Whitne1933 [distribution, host: 67]; Yang1982 [illustration, taxonomy: 284, 286]; Zahrad1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; Zahrad1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy].
Gymnaspis affinis Ramakrishna AyyarNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis affinis Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 341. Nomen nudum.
Gymnaspis affinis Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 28. Type data: INDIA: Tinnevelly, Sivalapperi, on Ficus bengalensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus benegalensis [Ramakr1924].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) treated this species as a nomina nuda, but based on the comparison given below, this species was described as valid by Ramakrishna Ayyar (1930) as "Very near G. ficus, but differing in the much broader lobes of the nymphal pygidium"
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 341]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 6].
Gymnaspis cassida Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis cassida Hall & Williams, 1962: 28-30. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Marudamalai Hills, Coimbatore, on Euphorbia antiquorum, 03/10/1953, by T.S. Muthukrishnan. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 29. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia antiquorum [HallWi1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [HallWi1962]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pupillarial, highly convex, anterior portion broadly rounded, posterior half narrowed and flattened apically, black, but reddish brown towards the posterior extremity, 1.0 mm long. Male scale white, subcircular, with conspicuous and large black exuviae, sometimes masked by a little white secretionary matter. Adult female membranous, widest across mesothorax, anterior to this flatly rounded, posteriorly abruptly narrowed towards pygidium which is flattened apically. Second stage female heavily sclerotized (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Gymnaspis cassida is close to G. bullata but the pygidial lobes in the adult female are wider and the median lobes are much further apart in G. cassida than in G. bullata. The second stages differ in that of G. bullata has two additional macroducts submarginally, duplicating the first and second ducts on each side. These differences though small are consistent (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 50]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-30]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 4].
Gymnaspis clusiae LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis clusiae Lindinger, 1909: 153. Type data: JAMAICA: Kingston, on Clusia sp., 1905. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany.
HOST: Guttiferae: Clusia sp. [Lindin1909]
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description by Lindinger (1909).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Gowdey1926 [distribution, host: 50]; Hempel1937 [taxonomy: 35]; Lindin1909 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 153]; Lindin1910a [taxonomy: 440]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176].
Gymnaspis diospyros Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis diospyros Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 341. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378. Notes: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Tinnevelly, Mundanthorai, on Diospyros embryopteris
HOST: Ebenaceae: Diospyros embryopteris [Ramakr1924].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 59]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 341]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 28]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 4].
Gymnaspis ficus Ramakrishna AyyarNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis ficus Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 22. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Combatore, Kollegal, on Ficus retusa. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany; type no. 22. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia ficus; Lindinger, 1937: 179. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus retusa [Ramakr1919a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1919a]).
BIOLOGY: Gymnaspis ficus was collected at an altitude of 1600 feet (Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Scales are obscure and appear as small pale grey to green roundish dots on the leaf surface; not easily observed (Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species has generally been considered to be described by Green (1919c). However, a brief description was given by Ramakrishna Ayyar (1919a) and it predates Green's description by several months. Notes in the USNM concerning the date of publication of Ramakrishna Ayyar 1919a suggest that it was published May 30, 1919. The cover of Green (1919c) indicates that it was published in December 1919.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 286 (female) [as Lepidosaphes ficus; Key to species of Lepidosaphes].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 50]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 336]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 441-442]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; Ramakr1919a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359]; Ramakr1924 [taxonomy: 341]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 4].
Gymnaspis grandis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis grandis Green, 1916f: 194-195. Type data: SEYCHELLES: Praslin, on Lodoicea sechellarum. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Phaulaspis grandis; MacGillivray, 1921: 465. Change of combination.
Aonidia grandis; Lindinger, 1937: 179. Change of combination.
HOST: Arecaceae: Lodoicea seychellarum [Green1916f].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Seychelles [Green1916f].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1916f).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of naked nymphal exuviae, which is more or less hemispherical, jet black and highly polished, 1.5 mm in diameter. Adult female circular, pygidium projecting slightly (Green, 1916f).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 465 [as Phaulaspis grandis; Key to species of Phaulaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 208]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 336]; Green1916f [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 194-195]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 465]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 160].
Gymnaspis mangiferae Ramakrishna AyyarNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis mangiferae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 341. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Tinnevelly, Sivalapperi, on Mangifera sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera sp. [Ramakr1924]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
SYSTEMATICS: Gymnaspis mangiferae can be told from G. ramakrishnai in the more prominent pygidial lobes and in the presence of a fimbriated fringe surrounding the insect's body (Ramakrishna, 1924).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 4].
Gymnaspis perpusilla (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria perpusilla Maskell, 1897: 299-300. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Geraldton, on Hakea sp., by Mr. Lea. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Gymnaspis perpusilla; Cockerell & Parrott, 1899: 278. Change of combination.
Aonidia perpusilla; Lindinger, 1911: 173. Change of combination.
HOST: Proteaceae: Hakea sp. [Maskel1897]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Western Australia [Maskel1897]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Maskell (1897).
STRUCTURE: Female scale waxy, dark orange, semi-transparent, very convex, circular base. Male puparium probably white and elongated. Adult female anterior portion smoothly rounded, abdomen distinctly segmented and tapering, dark reddish brown (Maskell, 1897).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 256 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis]; Leonardi 1903a: 48 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis]; Cockerell & Parrott 1899: 280 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; CockerPa1899 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 278, 280, 284]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 303]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 604]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [description, taxonomy: 468]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 527, 551]; Leonar1903a [distribution, taxonomy: 48]; Lindin1909 [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1911 [description, taxonomy: 173]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 114]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 299-300]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 54].
Gymnaspis producta Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis producta Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 341. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378.
HOST: Ebenaceae: Diospyros embryopteris [Ramakr1924].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 133]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 59]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 341]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 456]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 28]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 4].
Gymnaspis ramakrishnai GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis ramakrishnae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 22. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 209.
Gymnaspis ramakrishnae Green, 1919c: 442. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Tinnevelli, Courtallum, on Hemigyrosa sp., by Ramakrishna. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 140. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia ramakrishnai; Lindinger, 1937: 179. Justified emendation.
Aonidia ramakrishnai; Lindinger, 1937: 179. Change of combination.
Gymnaspis ramakrishnai; Borchsenius, 1966: 209. Change of combination.
HOST: Sapindaceae: Hemigyrosa scanascens [Ramakr1919a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1919a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Female puparium consisting of the enlarged nymphal pellicle alone, the larval pellicle almost invariably becoming detached during the later growth of the nymph. Nymphal pellicle is broadly oval with sharply defined pygidial area. Adult female subspherical, pygidial area slightly projecting, weakly chitinized and with its inner boundary ill defined (Green, 1919c).
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 50]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 442]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 22]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359]; Ramakr1923 [taxonomy: 341]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 28]; Stickn1934 [taxonomy: 157]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 4].
Gymnaspis sclerosa MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis sclerosa Munting, 1968a: 429-430. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Worcester District, Du Toits Kloof Pass, on Protea sp., 24/02/1966, by J. Munting. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 2052/9. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Proteaceae: Protea sp. [Muntin1968a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1968a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Munting (1968a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale flat, subcircular, about 1 mm in diameter, first instar exuviae subcentral, pinkish. Dorsal and ventral scale heavily sclerotized. In the center of the ventral surface there is a somewhat irregular hexagonal opening in which a corresponding hexagonal sclerotized patch on the venter of the adult female fits like a plug. Adult female roughly circular, 0.8-0.9 mm in diameter (Munting, 1968a).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [chemical control: 231]; Muntin1968a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 429-430].
Gymnaspis sculpta HempelNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis sculpta Hempel, 1937: 32-35. Type data: BRAZIL: Matto Grosso, Capao Bonito, Lageado, on unidentified Aquifoliaceae, 04/09/1936, by W. Archer & A. Gehrt. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Aquifoliaceae [Hempel1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Mato Grosso [Hempel1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hempel (1937).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Hempel1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32-35]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 407]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 221]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 182].
Gymnaspis serrata FroggattNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis serratus Froggatt, 1933: 363. Type data: AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, on Casuarina sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Although there is at least one slide in ANIC labeled "holotype," it was added well after Froggatt and is erroneous (Gullan, personal communication, January 23, 2001).
Aonidia serrata; Lindinger, 1937: 179. Change of combination.
HOST: Casuarinaceae: Casuarina sp. [Frogga1933]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Frogga1933]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Froggatt (1933).
STRUCTURE: Female scale black, shining, circular, convex, scattered all over the host branchlets, 1 mm in diameter. Adult female light brown, broadly oval, broadest across the posterior portion. Derm showing no definite hairs or spines, slightly crenulated on sides (Froggatt, 1933).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Frogga1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 363]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179].
Gymnaspis spinomarginata GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis spinomarginata Green, 1905a: 348-349. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Mesua ferrea, ?/02/1905. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Apteronidia spinimarginata; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Clusiaceae: Mesua ferrea [Green1905a], Mesua sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1905a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Adult scale bright yellow, smooth and polished, minute, circular, very strongly convex (more than hemispherical), consisting of inflated nymphal exuviae with or without inconspicuous secretionary matter. Adult female yellow, oval, strongly convex (Green, 1905a).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 256 (female) [Key to species of Gymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 50]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 348-349]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 463]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 37]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 256]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 7].
Ischnafiorinia MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnafiorinia MacGillivray, 1921: 372. Type species: Fiorina bambusae Maskell, by monotypy and original designation.
Ishnofiorinia; Vesey-Fitzgerald, 1940: 270. Misspelling of genus name.
KEYS: Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; MacGillivray 1921: 372 (female) [Genera of Fioriniini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 210]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 216]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 25, 61]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 529]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 187]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 372]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 97]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Ischnafiorinia bambusae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorina bambusae Maskell, 1897a: 242. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, on Bambusa fortunei. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA, and USNM, CDAE. Described: female.
Ischnafiorinia bambusae; MacGillivray, 1921: 378. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Ambusa vulgaris [MartinLa2011], Bambusa fortunei [Maskel1897a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897a]; Malaysia (Malaya [Takaha1942b]); Taiwan [Tao1999]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: China [Cheo1935] [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Maskell (1898). Subsequent illustration by Ferris (1936a).
STRUCTURE: Second exuviae exceedingly elongated and narrow, thin and translucent, with irregularly serrated margin and small lobes. Adult female very elongated with two terminal lobes (Maskell, 1897a). Male scale white, exuviae yellow (Maskell, 1898).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210-211]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 98]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 217]; Chou1986 [illustration: 629]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 33]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Ferris1936 [taxonomy: 7]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 61]; Green1900b [taxonomy: 11]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58-59]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 10]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 221]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 372, 378]; MartinLa2011 [distribution, host: 41]; Maskel1897a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 233-234]; Pierce1917 [taxonomy: 32]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host: 44]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93]; Wu1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 214]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 260, 290, 292].
Ischnafiorinia bambusicola HuNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnafiorinia bambusicola Hu, 1987: 135. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Guanxian, on Bambusa sp., 05/12/1954. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa omeiensis [Tao1999], Bambusa sp. [Hu1987]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hu1987]). Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Hu (1987).
STRUCTURE: Adult female slender, 0.8-1.01 mm long, broadest about the metathorax, 0.2 mm wide. Pygidium broadly rounded along its free margin. 1 pair pygidial lobes. 1st instar larva with body elongate, 0.41 mm long and 0.18 mm wide. Second instar larva body slender, about 5 times as long as wide. Median lobes nail-shaped (Hu, 1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Ischnafiorinia bambusicola is similar to I. bambusae, but differs by ventral ducts in groups on the region of the prothorax and metathorax and on the pygidium, by perivulvar pores in 5 groups and by the exuviae of 2nd instar larva with gland spines long and processes a little on the pygidium (Hu, 1987).
CITATIONS: FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 107]; Hu1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 135-137]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 153]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 93-94].
Ischnafiorinia malayana TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Ischnafiorinia bambusae malayana Takahashi, 1942: 66. Type data: SINGAPORE: Kuala Lumpur, on Bambusa nana and Bambusa sp., 17/03/1940 and 20/03/1940, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female.
Ischnafiorinia malayana; Borchsenius, 1966: 211. Change of status.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa nana [Takaha1942], Bambusa sp. [Takaha1942]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Singapore [Takaha1942].
STRUCTURE: Adult female brownish black, 2nd larval exuviae about 1.75 mm long, 0.18 mm wide, median lobes moderately diverging, longer than wide, not slender, rounded apically, not curved, notched on each side, especially prominently so on the mesal side (Takahashi, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Ischnafiorinia malayana differs from I. bambusae in the shape of the median lobes of the 2nd exuviae. It resembles Formosaspis nigra in the long slender and blackish 2nd exuviae, but in that species the median lobes shorter, parallel; 2nd lobes duplicate, notched on each side and pygidium with longitudinal lines, a fimbriated plate between the median and 2nd lobes and with 3 fimbriated plates outside of the 2nd lobes (Takahashi, 1942).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 18]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 211]; Takaha1942 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66].
Labidaspis Borchsenius & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Labidaspis Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 378-379. Type species: Fiorina myersi Green, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female enclosed within the exuviae of the second stage female; broadly ovoid; entire surface with a freckled appearance due to small thickenings of the derm. Pygidium without lobes or plates but the margin broadly crenulated, the crenulations at the apex projecting and sclerotized to appear as lobes (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963).
SYSTEMATICS: "The relationships to this genus are rather obscure, but the second stage female comes nearest to that of Doriopus in possessing similar projecting median lobes and marginal ducts. Both genera probably belong to the same group although the adult females show some widely different characters (Borchsenius & Williams, 1963)."
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 210]; BorchsWi1963 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 378-379]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 100].
Labidaspis myersi (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorina myersi Green, 1929: 381-382. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: North Island, Wellington, York Bay, on Astelia salandri, by J.G. Myers. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea myersi; Lindinger, 1932f: 202. Change of combination.
Labidaspis myersi; Borchsenius & Williams, 1963: 379. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Astelia solandri [Green1929], Astelia sp. [Green1929]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (North Island [Green1929], South Island [Green1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very pale stramineous; flattish, completely covering and concealing the large nymphal exuviae; narrow in front, widening behind. Nymphal exuviae pale stramineous, translucent, enclosing the adult female, which appears as a reddish brown blotch at the anterior end. Adult female short and broad (Green, 1929).
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; BoerVa1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; BorchsWi1963 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 379]; CharleHe2002 [distribution: 591]; Green1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 381-382]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 111].
Leucaspis SignoretNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis Signoret, 1869: 865. Type species: Aspidiotus pini Hartig, by monotypy. Notes: Although Targioni Tozzetti is often cited as the author of Leucaspis, Danzig & Kerzhner (1984) explain that his original use of the name was a nomen nudum. Signoret's 1869 use of Leucaspis with pini makes the name available.
Leucodiaspis; Signoret, 1869b: 99. Misspelling of genus name.
Rhopaloaspis Del Guercio, 1903a: 188. Type species: Leucaspis riccae Del Guercio, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 25.
Leucodiaspis Kirkaldy, 1904a: 257. Unjustified replacement name for Leucaspis Signoret 1869; discovered by Ferris, 1936a: 25. Notes: Kirkaldy (1904a) considered Leucaspis Signoret 1869 preoccupied by Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835, in the Hymenoptera and suggested that the Signoret name be replaced with Leucodiaspis. Ferris (1936a) rejected this, considering it unnecessary (Morrison & Morrison, 1966).
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) Lindinger, 1905: 252. Type species: Leucaspis corsa Lindin (= Leucaspis signoreti Targioni Tozzetti), by monotypy. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 25. Notes: This name was originally proposed for a "sektion" of the genus Leucaspis. MacGillivray (1921: 262) invalidly nominated Coccus pini Hartig, for type species (Morrison & Morrison, 1966). According to the Fourth Edition of the ICZN Article 10.4 "A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division."
Pusillaspis Lindinger, 1906: 27. Type species: Leucaspis pusilla Löw. Subsequently designated by MacGillivray, 1921: 262. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 25. Notes: This name was proposed for an uncharacterized subdivision of a "sektion" of the genus Leucaspis Targioni Tozzetti. It was established as a definite subgenus with pusilla Löw designated as type by MacGillivray. Ferris, (1936a:23-24) and Balachowsky, (1953g: 860), considered the type species to be a Leucaspis (Morrison & Morrison, 1966).
Leucaspis (Actenaspis) Leonardi, 1906b: 25. Type species: Leucaspis pusilla Löw, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1936a: 25.
Leucaspis (Anamaspis) Leonardi, 1906b: 22. Type species: Leucaspis lowi Colvée, by monotypy. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937d: 104.
Actenaspis; Leonardi, 1906b: 4, 25. Misspelling of genus name.
Anamaspis Leonardi, 1906b: 4,22.
Actinaspis; MacGillivray, 1921: 262. Misspelling of genus name.
Maniaspis Borchsenius, 1964a: 869. Type species: Maniaspis manii Borchsenius, by original designation. Synonymy by Takagi, 1969a: 26.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: The nomenclature of this genus and associated groups has become much involved, chiefly through the activities of Lindinger. He followed Kirkaldy's 1904 resurrection of the name Leucodiaspis to replace Leucaspis, an uncalled for change as had been shown by Sanders (1909a). He unjustifiably rejected certain names proposed by Leonardi and substituted sub-generic and "section" names of his own with disregard of the rules of nomenclature. Moreover, these names are so proposed that it is even questionable whether they should be regarded as validly established. However, type selections made by MacGillivray in 1921 may be regarded as fixing the status of some of the names (Ferris, 1936a). For a detailed explanation of all aspects of this issue see Danzig & Kerzhner (1984) and (Tubbs, 1986).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 326 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Wang 1982c: 46 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Danzig 1971d: 839 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Borchsenius 1964a: 864 (female) [as Maniaspis; Key to genera of Leucaspidini known from India]; McKenzie 1956: 27 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1953g: 843 [Tableau des genres de Leucaspidina de la Région Paléarctique]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 59 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 540 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 40 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 97 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 42 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; Borchsenius 1936: 138 (female) [Key to species of Diaspinae]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 361 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 263 (female) [Genera of Leucaspidini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [taxonomy: 65]; Ashmea1891 [taxonomy: 102]; Atkins1886 [taxonomy: 273]; Balach1928a [distribution, taxonomy: 135]; Balach1948b [taxonomy: 263]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 754, 842, 844, 845]; BerlesLe1898 [taxonomy: 132]; Bodenh1924 [description, taxonomy: 22]; Bodenh1949 [description, taxonomy: 28, 44-45]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 90, 93]; Borchs1938 [distribution, taxonomy: 138]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 195, 200-201]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 168, 178]; Borchs1964a [description, taxonomy: 864, 869, 871]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 211-212, 218-219]; Britti1937 [description, taxonomy: 281-285]; Britto1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 361, 370]; Bustsh1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 196]; Chou1985 [description, taxonomy: 392, 393]; Comsto1883 [taxonomy: 129]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 646]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 839]; DanzigKe1984 [taxonomy: 101-104]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 295-296, 302]; DelGue1903a [description, taxonomy: 188]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 248]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 244]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 109]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 528]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 45]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, taxonomy: SII-147]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:40]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 878]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 51]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 189]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 42, 133-134]; GomezM1946 [distribution, taxonomy: 59]; Green1896e [taxonomy: 38]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 459, 463]; Green1929 [description, taxonomy: 382]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 525, 540]; Hender2011 [distribution, host: 10-12,44,47]; HenderSuRo2010 [host: 2]; Kanda1930a [taxonomy: 196]; Kirkal1904a [taxonomy: 257]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 35-36]; Kuwana1933a [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Leonar1903b [description, taxonomy: 15-18]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4, 22, 25]; Leonar1907a [taxonomy: 69, 90]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27, 117]; Lindin1905 [taxonomy: 252]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1-60]; Lindin1908a [host, taxonomy: 39]; Lindin1908d [taxonomy: 121]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 66]; Lindin1913a [taxonomy: 8]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 148]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 173]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 106, 107]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 222]; Low1882c [taxonomy: 521]; Lupo1944 [distribution, taxonomy: 206]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 262-263]; Maskel1887a [taxonomy: 40]; Maskel1893b [taxonomy: 209]; McKenz1956 [description, taxonomy: 27]; Morgan1888b [taxonomy: 118]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 8, 108-109]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 50]; Schmut1951 [taxonomy: 128]; Schmut1959 [taxonomy: 142]; Signor1869b [description, taxonomy: 99]; Signor1870 [description, taxonomy: 100]; SoriaMoVi2000 [taxonomy: 340]; Takagi1969a [description, taxonomy: 25-26]; Takaha1932 [taxonomy: 47]; Tang1977 [taxonomy: 142]; Targio1868 [description, taxonomy: 734]; Tubbs1986 [taxonomy: 231-232]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45, 109]; Wolff1911 [taxonomy: 80]; Zahrad1952 [description, taxonomy: 97, 99-100]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy: 373, 374].
Leucaspis albotecta Henderson in Henderson et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis albotecta Henderson in Henderson et al., 2010: 5-10. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: CO, Lake Roxburgh, on Korthalsella salicornioides on Kunzea ericoides, 01/11/2010, by A. Sultan. Holotype female (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 10-008a. Described: female and first instar. Illust. Notes: Paratypes: as for holotype #10-008b-d
HOST: Viscaceae: Korthalsella salicornioides [HenderSuRo2010].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [HenderSuRo2010].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustrations of adult female, 2nd instar female and male nymphs and puparia in Henderson, et al., 2010.
STRUCTURE: Puparium light brown with a white waxy coating; adult females membranous; male covers bright white and relatively thick with dark terminal exuviae. Mounted female elongate when young, shortened and roundly oval with shrunken abdomen when mature; derm membranous except for pygidial sclerotixation in patches and around anal opening. 2nd instar pupillarium: mounted material shape elongate. Ventral derm membranous, dorsal derm heavily sclerotised in a dense mosaic pattern of dark and clear spots from head to abdomen segment 1. 2nd instar female: body shape fusiform, narrower at head, pygidium rounded. 2nd instar male similar to female nymph, pygidium with 2 or 3 pairs of lobes.
SYSTEMATICS: The main diagnostic feature is the three pairs of lobes on the 2nd-instar puparium and female nymph. This feature shared with L. trilobata, L. senilobata (in which the 3rd pair of lobes in inconsistently present and has a 5-locular pore on the ventral pygidium just anterior to each 3rd lobe). A third undescribed species also has 3 lobes and is about half the size of L. albatecta.
KEYS: Henderson et al. 2010: 4 (female, pupa, second inst) [Key in three parts to separate the two Leucaspis species on Korthalsella species:].
CITATIONS: HenderSuRo2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5-8].
Leucaspis brittini GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis brittini Green, 1929: 389. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Oamaru, on Muehlenbeckia sp., by G. Brittin. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Leucodiaspis brittini; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
HOST: Polygonaceae: Muehlenbeckia sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Green1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, slender, rather strongly convex. Larval exuviae exposed, dull brown; nymphal exuviae completely concealed beneath the opaque white secretionary appendix, 2.5 mm long, 0.75 mm wide. Nymph elongate and narrow, 2 mm long, greatest breadth 0.6 mm. Adult female narrow, 1.5-1.75 mm long, width about 0.5 mm (Green, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis brittini is close to L. pittospori, but can be separated by the smaller paratrophic pores of the adult and by the much larger lobes and differently shaped squamulae of the nymph. It can be separated from L. melicytidis and L. cordylinidis by having the 3 middle groups of perivulvar pores distinctly separated (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 194-295]; Green1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Wise1977 [distribution: 111].
Leucaspis bugnicourti CohicNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis bugnicourti Cohic, 1958: 17. Nomen nudum; discovered by Cohic, 1958a: 49.
Leucaspis bugnicourti Cohic, 1958a: 49-54. Type data: NEW CALEDONIA: Nouméa, Institut français d'Océanie, on Ficus sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus sp. [Cohic1958]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Caledonia [Cohic1958].
BIOLOGY: This species appears to be specific to Banyan (Cohic, 1958a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Cohic (1958a).
SYSTEMATICS: This species is pupillarial and semms to be related to species of Fijifiornia in posessing median lobes that are contiguous for most of their length. It differs from Fijifiornia in possessing supplementary perivulvar pores on three segments anterior to the normal perivulvar pores, and in having a reddish brown scale instead of a black one. This species does not belong to Leucaspis as presently understood (Williams & Watson, 1998).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 17]; Cohic1958a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-54]; WilliaWa1988 [description, taxonomy: 17].
Leucaspis carpodeti BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis carpodeti Brittin, 1937: 289-290. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Nelson, on Carpodetus sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 255. Described: female.
HOST: Saxifragaceae: Carpodetus sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, straight, widening towards posterior extremity, secretion white. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female ovate, very convex (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis carpodeti is close to L. gigas in the paratrophic pores. Differs in the fewer parastigmatic pores, the well separated perivulvar pores and in the pygidial processes of the nymph (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 289-290]; Wise1977 [distribution: 111].
Leucaspis cinnamomum (Tang)NOMENCLATURE:
Maniaspis einnamomum Tang, 1977: 142-143. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang, Hangzhou, on Cinnamomum chekiangensis, 02/04/1969. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
Maniaspis cinnamomum; Tang, 1981: 52. Misspelling of species name. Notes: Although Tang (1981) describes Maniaspis cinnamomum as new, he published a valid description of it in 1977 as M. einnamomum. Since there was no evidence of a lapsus or printer's error, the original spelling must be retained.
Anamaspis einnamomum; Wang, 1982c: 110. Change of combination.
Leucaspis cinnamomi; Chou, 1985: 392. Misspelling of species name.
Leucaspis cinnamomum; Chou, 1985: 392. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Cinnamomum chekiangensis [Tang1981], Cinnamomum japonica [Tao1999]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus fragrans [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1981]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Tang (1981).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, slender, pupillarial, reaches a length of 1.50 mm, 1st exuviae apical, brown. Male scale white, similar in form to that of the female. Adult female body fusiform, 1.0 mm long. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, separated from one another, each lobe pointed apically, deeply notched on each side (Tang, 1981).
SYSTEMATICS: L. einnamomum is similar to Leucaspis incisa, but differs by lacking sclerotized conical process on the pygidial margin and supplementary groups of perivulvar pores only on the 3rd segment (Tang, 1981).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 392-393]; Chou1986 [illustration: 612]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 302]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154, 155]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 26]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 142-143]; Tang1981 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52-53, 55]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 97, 98]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 110].
Leucaspis coniferarum Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis coniferarum Hall & Williams, 1962: 30-31. Type data: PAKISTAN: Cherat, North West Frontier Province, on Pinus longifolia, 30/04/1916, by T.B. Fletcher. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Anamaspis coniferarum; Borchsenius, 1966: 219. Change of combination.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus nigritus [AhmadGh1972], Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sensorius [DeBachRo1976a], Aphytis sp. nr. aonidiae [AhmadGh1972], Azotus sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Encyrtidae: Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora pakistanensis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Acacia pindrow [AhmadGh1972]. Pinaceae: Pinus excetsa [Ali1970], Pinus griffithii [AhmadGh1972], Pinus halepensis [GhaniMu1974], Pinus longifolia [HallWi1962], Pinus roxyburghii [AhmadGh1972].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1977]; Pakistan [HallWi1962].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962). Redescription and reillustration by Takagi (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and slender, consisting of the pale brown sclerotized 2nd exuviae overlaid by a rather thick white secretionary film that masks the color and often the darker brown color of the terminally placed 1st exuviae. Length of 2nd exuviae about 1.8 mm. Adult female elongate oval, about 0.7 mm long, membranous. 2nd stage female with broadly rounded pygidium carrying 3 pairs of lobes, median pair tusk-like, apically rounded, 2nd pair similar and slightly smaller, 3rd pair shorter, but wider (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis coniferarum is close to L. loewi from which the adult female differs in lacking perivulvar pores, in having larger pygidial lobes of a different shape and much closer together, and in having fewer dorsal ducts on the pygidium (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 89]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 296]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control, distribution, host: 545]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 55-56]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 622, 753]; Takagi1975 [distribution, host: 10]; Takagi1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4-5]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 109].
Leucaspis cordylinidis MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis cordylinidis Maskell, 1893b: 209-210. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Sydney, on Cordyline sp., by Mr. Olliff. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Leucodiaspis cordylinidis; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Nothopanax arboreum [Green1929], Nothopanax sp. [Borchs1966]. Arecaceae [Green1929]. Fabaceae: Carmichaelia sp. [Britti1937]. Liliaceae: Cordyline sp. [Maskel1893b]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Leonar1907c] (New South Wales [Maskel1893b]); New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937, CharleHe2002] (Described by Maskell (1893) from Australia, and recorded once in New Zealand from a palm tree in Auckland in 1921 by Myers (Green 1929). Other collections in New Zealand (NZAC) are misidentifications, including that described by Brittin in 1937. (Charles & Henderson, 2002) This species may or may not still be present in New Zealand.)).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, usually straight, sometimes curved, secretion white. Exuviae of nymph elongate, narrow, lightly chitinized. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female elongate, widest across abdomen, 1.0 mm long and 0.5 mm wide (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: In some instances, references to L. cordylinidis may actually refer to L. portaeaureae (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 264 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [Species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 285, 293]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,604]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-399]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 878]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; Green1915 [description, taxonomy: 460]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 383]; Leonar1903b [taxonomy: 15]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 21-22]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 86-87]; Lindin1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 48]; Lindin1906 [taxonomy: 7]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Maskel1893b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 209-210]; Myers1927JG [distribution, taxonomy: 690]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 21]; Valent1967 [biological control, distribution: 1147, 1167]; Wise1977 [taxonomy: 111].
Leucaspis elaeocarpi BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis elaeocarpi Brittin, 1937: 297-298. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Westport, on Elaeocarpus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female.
HOST: Tiliaceae: Elaeocarpus sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, straight, secretion very thin, white. Larval exuviae dark-brown. Male scale similar, but smaller, pure white. Adult female elongate, narrow, with 2 slight constrictions near middle of body (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis elaeocarpi is close to L. melicytidis, from which it can be separated by the different shaped lobes, the different shape and larger number of squamulae and by the presence of a sub-anterior group of supplementary pores (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 297-298]; Wise1977 [distribution: 111].
Leucaspis fulchironiae (Boisduval)NOMENCLATURE:
Chermes fulchironiae Boisduval, 1867: 330. Type data: FRANCE: Luxembourg Botanical Garden in Paris, on Fulchironia Senegalensis and Elais Guineensis. Described: female. Notes: Type material presumed lost.
Leucodiaspis fulchironiae; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination.
Leucaspis fulchironiae; Borchsenius, 1966: 373. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Elaeis guineensis [Boisdu1867], Phoenix senegalensis [Boisdu1867], Phoenix sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Luxembourg [Boisdu1867].
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1935) treated L. fulchironiae a junior synonym of L. cockerelli. Borchsenius (1966) treats this species as an incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Boisdu1867 [description, distribution, host: 330]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 373]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 324]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 148].
Leucaspis gigas (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis gigas Maskell, 1879: 201-202. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch, Riccarton Bush. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Boer & Valentine, 1977: 155. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Notes: Material also in USNM.
Fiorinia asteliae Maskell, 1880: 292. Unjustified emendation; discovered by Green, 1916d: 51. Notes: Maskell, deciding that gigas did not belong to Diaspis moved it to Fiorinia and replaced the species epithet with asteliae.
Uhleria gigas; Comstock, 1883: 111. Change of combination.
Fiorinia gigas; Fernald, 1903b: 248. Change of combination.
Leucaspis gigas; Lindinger, 1906: 27. Change of combination.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) gigas; Lindinger, 1906: 27. Change of combination.
Leucaspis myersi Green, 1929: 386-389. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Wellington, on Pseudopanax crassifolium, 14/09/1921. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Boer & Valentine, 1977: 155.
Leucodiaspis gigas; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination.
Apteronidia myersi; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
Maniaspis gigas; Borchsenius, 1964a: 869. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: keikie scale [Miller1925].
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Meryta sinclairii [Green1929], Neopanax sp. [BoerVa1977], Nothopanax arboreum [Britti1937], Pseudopanax crassifolium [Green1929], Pseudopanax simplex [BoerVa1977]. Cornaceae: Griselinia littoralis [Britti1937, BoerVa1977], Griselinia sp. [Green1929]. Epacridaceae: Cyathodes acerosa [Maskel1885a]. Lauraceae: Beilschmiedia tawa [BoerVa1977]. Liliaceae: Astelia cunninghamii [Maskel1885a], Astelia sp. [Maskel1879]. Monimiaceae: Atherosperma novaezealandiae [Maskel1879], Hedycarya arborea [BoerVa1977], Laurelia novae-zealandiae [Miller1925]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum eugenioide [Maskel1890]. Rubiaceae: Coprosma sp. [Maskel1890]. Winteraceae: Wintera sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [Maskel1879] (North Island [BoerVa1977], South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Green (1929). Detailed redescription and illustration by Boer & Valentine (1977).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover yellowish brown, or dirty white, flat, panduriform, thin, transparent. Adult female and eggs creamy in color, enclosed in thin, translucent, creamy brown exuvium of 2nd instar female. Adult female broadly oval, about 1.4-1.8 mm long, derm membranous, mid-venter with fine, scaly granulations; pygidium with sclerotized area around anal opening and several small sclerotized patches over surface. Second instar female 1.6-2.3 mm long, broadly oval, similar to adult female in shape, but pygidium more acute (Boer & Valentine, 1977). Male puparium is long, narrow, whitish and with the appearance of a semi-cylinder lying up on a plane base (Maskell, 1879).
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1964) created the combination Maniaspis gigas, but from his discussion it is clear he was referring to Fiorinia morrisi and not Leucaspis gigas. Salicicola maskelli (Brittin) is sometimes confused with L. gigas (Boer & Valentine, 1977). Deitz & Tocker (1980) seemed to treat gigas and asteliae as valid species.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Borchsenius 1964a: 869 [as Maniaspis gigas; Key to species of Maniaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 846 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 264 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1906c: 18 (female) [as Fiorinia gigas; Key to species of Fiorinia]; Lindinger 1906: 27 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis gigas; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65-66]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 846, 847, 872-875]; BoerVa1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 153-157]; Borchs1964a [taxonomy: 869, 872]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 149]; Britti1916 [taxonomy: 425]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 287-289]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 338]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host: 111-112]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host: 572]; Deitz1979b [taxonomy: 23]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 33, 37]; DelGue1894a [description, taxonomy: 182]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1916d [taxonomy: 51]; Green1929 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 383, 386-389]; Hender2008 [phylogeny: 89-94]; Leonar1906c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18, 30-32]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 9, 10, 39-40]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 114]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 36]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Maskel1879 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 201-202]; Maskel1880 [taxonomy: 292]; Maskel1882 [description, taxonomy: 217-218]; Maskel1885a [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 58-59]; Miller1925 [description, distribution, host: 32, 64]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; Myers1922 [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 26]; Tang1981 [taxonomy: 52]; Wise1977 [distribution: 111-112].
Leucaspis greeni BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis greeni Brittin, 1937: 290. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Ohakune, on Winteria (=Wintera) colorata. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female.
HOST: Winteraceae: Wintera colorata [Britti1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, straight, secretion dirty white; larval exuviae light brown. Male scale similar but smaller. Adult female elongate, broadest across the abdominal half of the body, tapering towards the cephalic extremity (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis greeni is close to L. cordylinidis in size and shape, but differs in having only two supplementary groups. The parastigmatic groups are slightly larger, and the squamulae more broadly fimbriate (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 290]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis hoheriae BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis hoheriae Brittin, 1937: 298-299. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Nelson, on Hoheria sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Malvaceae: Hoheria sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, straight, covered with a semi-transparent white secretion. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female elongate, narrow, widest across middle (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis hoheriae is similar to L. cordylinidis, but differs in the paratrophic pores of the adult female which in this species are large and in the additional pair of supplementary groups (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 285, 298]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis incisa TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis incisa Takagi, 1969a: 26, 29-30. Type data: TAIWAN: Yang-ming Shan, on Machilus japonica, 1965. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Maniaspis incisa; Tang, 1981: 52. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Machilus japonica [Takagi1969a], Machilus kusanoi [Tao1999], Phoebe sp. [Hua2000]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate, about four times as long as wide, with the pygidium rather of the shape of a trapezoid. Derm membranous, with fine and dense spicules especially on the pygidium and posterior prepygidial segments; median region of the ventrum between the mouth-parts and the base of the pygidium with delicate scaly granulations in a narrow, segmentally interrupted, longitudinal band, and with microducts scattered among the granulations (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis incisa is similar to L. machili but differs by having 3 pairs of incised pygidial lobes and by having dorsal ducts on the pygidium (Takagi, 1969a).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 199-200]; Chou1986 [illustration: 611]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26, 29-30]; Tang1981 [taxonomy: 52]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 96]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 282].
Leucaspis knemion HokeNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis knemion Hoke, 1925: 36-39. Type data: LEBANON: Beirut, on Pinus pinea, 18/04/1923. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Leucodiaspis knemion; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Misspelling of genus name.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus brutia [GersonHaSh1976, BenDov2012], Pinus canariensis [GersonHaSh1976, BenDov2012], Pinus halepensis [GersonHaSh1976, BenDov2012], Pinus nigra [SismanUl2010], Pinus pinea [Hoke1925, BenDov2012].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]). Palaearctic: Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Israel [GersonHaSh1976]; Lebanon [GersonHaSh1976]; Syria [Hoke1925]; Turkey [SismanUl2010].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hoke (1925).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, straight, secretion white, larval exuviae dark brown. Adult female ovate, tapering somewhat towards posterior extremity. Exuviae of nymph elongate, straight, margin at sides appears slightly incurved (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: L. knemion is close to L. pini, but can be distinguished by the presence of 3 pairs of rudimentary legs in the nymph, nymphal exuviae and adult female, by the presence of 3 pairs of groups of accessory genacerores, by the greater number of plates on the pygidium, by the absence of cerores associated with the posterior spiracles, and by the greater proximity of the rostrum of the nymphal exuviae to the posterior margin of the pygidium (Hoke, 1925).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 847 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 847, 848, 857-860]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Bodenh1926 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 283, 285, 299]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 296]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 151, 158]; GersonHaSh1976 [description, distribution, host: 44]; Hoke1925 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-39]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 159]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 370]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 80]; Schief2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 7]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222].
Leucaspis lowi ColvéeNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis lowi Colvée, 1882: 10-12. Type data: SPAIN: Valencia, Jardin Botánico de nuestra cuidad, on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Leucaspis löwii Löw, 1883: 43. Unjustified emendation; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 219. Notes: Colvée (1882) states that he is naming his species in honor of "Low." According to Article 32.5.1 of the fourth edition of the ICZN, "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." So, the spelling of Leucaspis lowi must stand as correct.
Leucaspis pini; Morgan, 1892: 13. Misidentification; discovered by Newstead, 1894b: 232.
Leucaspis pini; Newstead, 1894: 181-182. Misidentification; discovered by Newstead, 1894b: 232.
Fiorinia sulcii Newstead, 1894b: 232-233. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Bodenheimer, 1949: 162.
Leucaspis loewi Cockerell, 1896b: 337. Unjustified emendation; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 219. Notes: Colvée (1882) states that he is naming his species in honor of "Low." According to Article 32.5.1 of the fourth edition of the ICZN, "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." So, the spelling of Leucaspis lowi must stand as correct.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) sulci; Lindinger, 1906: 27. Described: female, male and first instar. Change of combination.
Leucaspis šulci Lindinger, 1906: 40. Unjustified emendation; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 219.
Leucaspis löwi Lindinger, 1906: 9. Unjustified emendation; discovered by Lindinger, 1906: 9.
Anamaspis Loewi; Leonardi, 1906b: 23-25. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Leucaspis sulci; Lindinger, 1907: 6. Misspelling of species name.
Leucodiaspis sulci; Lindinger, 1909b: 224. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis löwi; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis loewi; Zahradník, 1952: 106. Change of combination.
Leucaspis loevi; Dziedzicka, 1970: 26. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: Löw's pine scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [KosztaKo1988F], Chilocorus renipustulatus [KosztaKo1988F], Exochomus flavipes [KosztaKo1988F], Myrrha octodecimguttata [KosztaKo1988F, UlgentSzUy2013], Vibidia duodecimguttata [KosztaKo1988F]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus atomon (Walker) [UlgentErKa2008], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [KosztaKo1988F], Azotus atomon [NikolsYa1966], Azotus pinifoliae [KosztaKo1988F], Coccophagoides similis [NikolsYa1966]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus funicularis [HertinSi1972], Anthemus leucaspidis [Koszta1956a], Anthemus pini [HertinSi1972], Parasauleia trjapitzini [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella aurantii [NikolsYa1966], Prospaltella intermedia [NikolsYa1966], Prospaltella leucaspidis [KosztaKo1988F].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies cephalonica [Korone1934], Pinus austriaca [Bodenh1949], Pinus halepensis [Balach1930c, BenDov2012], Pinus laricio [Bodenh1949], Pinus maderiensis [Costan1950], Pinus maritima [BenDov2012], Pinus maritimus [Morgan1892], Pinus montana [MatilePe2002], Pinus mugo [Boraty1955], Pinus nigra [Bodenh1953], Pinus pinaster [LepineMi1931], Pinus pinea [Costan1950, BenDov2012], Pinus pinea bruita [Bodenh1953], Pinus pumilio [Lindin1909b], Pinus radiata [GersonHaSh1976, BenDov2012], Pinus silvestris [Lindin1909b, MatilePe2002], Pinus sp. [Colvee1882]. Poaceae: Ampelodesmos tenax [Costan1950], Saccharum aegyptiacum [Costan1950], Stenotaphrum americanum [Costan1950].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]; Austria [Balach1953g]; Belgium [Balach1953g]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czechoslovakia [Balach1953g]; Denmark [Balach1953g, Gertss2001]; France [Cocker1902v, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1950]; Germany [Balach1953g]; Greece [Korone1934]; Hungary [KozarOrKo1977]; Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Ireland [Balach1953g]; Israel [GersonHaSh1976]; Italy [Balach1953g, LongoMaPe1995, MatilePe2002]; Lithuania [MalumpOsPy2009]; Madeira Islands [VieiraCaPi1983]; Morocco [Balach1930c]; Netherlands [Balach1953g]; Norway [Fjeldd1996]; Poland [Szulcz1926, Dziedz1970, SimonKa2011]; Portugal [Balach1953g, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [Knecht1930]; Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Colvee1882]; Sweden [Balach1953g, Gertss2001]; Switzerland [Balach1953g]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
BIOLOGY: One generation per year. In Germany, they overwinter as N2 and as mated or unmated adult females. Adults develop from overwintering N2 by early May and after mating lay about 26 eggs per female by late May or June. Eggs hatch in 18-20 days. Overwintering fertilized females often lay some eggs during the fall and complete their egg laying in May. From their eggs adult males and females develop by August and the ensuing mated females overwinter (Schmutterer, 1959).
SYSTEMATICS: Colvée (1882) states that he is naming his species in honor of Mr. "Low." According to Article 32.5.1 of the fourth edition of the ICZN, "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." So, changes to the species epithet such as "löwi" or "loewi" are unjustified and the original spelling of Leucaspis lowi must stand as correct.
KEYS: Watson et al. 2000a (female) [Expert system on a CD]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 356 (female) [as Leucaspis loewi; Key to species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 846 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Lindinger 1906: 27 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis sulci; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 433]; Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 183]; Balach1930c [distribution, host: 120]; Balach1953g [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 846, 848, 868-872]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160, 162-164]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 17]; Boraty1955 [distribution, host: 67]; BoratyWi1964a [distribution, taxonomy: 105]; Borchs1934 [distribution, host: 21]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 93, 105, 173, 179, 1]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 201]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; Borchs1950c [taxonomy: 369]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 125]; Brown1965 [taxonomy: 283]; Cocker1902v [distribution, host: 86]; Colema1903 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Colvee1882 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10-12]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 13]; Danzig1959 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 449]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 647]; Danzig1968 [distribution, host: 500]; Danzig1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 147]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 296-297]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 332]; Dziedz1970 [distribution, host: 26]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 20]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 109]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 19]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; Gavalo1932 [distribution, host: 140]; Gavalo1932a [distribution, host: 153]; GersonHaSh1976 [distribution, host: 44]; Gertss2000 [distribution, host: 152]; Gertss2001 [distribution: 127]; Gertss2011 [distribution, host: 44]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134, 135-138]; GomezM1946 [distribution, host: 62]; GomezM1954 [distribution, host: 122]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 49]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 8, 10]; GomezM1960G [distribution, host: 170]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 461]; Hadzib1950 [distribution, host: 256, 259, 262]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 30]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 185]; Hoke1925 [physiology: 38]; Jaap1914 [distribution, host: 140]; Kiritc1928 [distribution, host: 116]; Knecht1930 [distribution, host: 236]; Komosi1974a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 26-27]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 41-42, 48]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 6, 143, 162, 163]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356-357]; Koteja1971a [distribution, host: 324]; Koteja1974a [taxonomy: 249]; Koteja1974b [taxonomy: 84]; Koteja1976 [illustration, taxonomy: 282]; Koteja1984e [distribution: 676]; KotejaLi1976 [structure: 678]; KotejaZa1966 [distribution, host: 328]; KotejaZa1969 [distribution, host: 367]; KotejaZa1983 [distribution, host: 483]; Kozar1980 [distribution, economic importance: 69]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKoSa2002 [catalogue, distribution: 39]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 73]; KozarOs1987 [distribution, host: 94]; KozarTzVi1979 [distribution, host: 132]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 81]; Kozarz1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 308]; KozarzMi1984 [distribution, host: 406, 407]; KozarzRe1975 [distribution, economic importance, host: 29]; KozarzVl1981 [distribution, host: 16, 23]; KozarzVl1982 [distribution, host: 195]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 221]; Kuznet1970 [distribution, host: 1644]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 23-25]; Leonar1907c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 88]; Leonar1908a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 186-187]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 117, 132-135]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 9, 40-44]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1909b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 224-225]; Lindin1912b [description, taxonomy: 254]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1933 [taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 144]; Low1883e [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Lupo1944 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207, 208, 237-242]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; MalumpOsPy2009 [distribution, host: 120-127]; MalumpOsPy2010 [distribution, host: 260]; MalumpRe2011 [distribution: 72]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 57]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; Mesnil1949 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 95-96]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution: 39]; Morgan1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-14]; Newste1894 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 181-182]; Newste1894b [description, illustration, taxonomy: 232-233]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 237, 264, 280, 281]; Nur1971 [life history: 303]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 197]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 63]; Pelliz1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 8-10]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 73]; PodsiaMa2012 [description,, illustration, structure: 43-47]; Rasina1955 [distribution, host: 72]; Rasina1959 [distribution, host: 113]; Rogoja1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 295-297]; RosenDe1978 [biological control: 101]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Schmut1951 [host, taxonomy: 128]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 143, 147-149]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 240]; Sugony1962 [biological control, distribution: 179, 180]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; Terezn1963a [distribution, host: 54]; Terezn1963c [distribution, host: 1527]; Terezn1966b [distribution, host: 679]; Terezn1966c [distribution, host: 961]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host: 28, 29, 73, 75, 166]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 65]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 141, 153, 157]; TerGri1969a [distribution, host: 89, 90]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 212]; Tsalev1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 85]; Tschor1939 [distribution: 90]; Tudor1982 [biological control: 89]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host: 129]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 109]; Watson2002 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, economic importance, host]; Wolff1911 [taxonomy: 79, 80]; Wunn1925 [distribution, host: 246]; Wunn1925b [distribution, host: 281]; Yanin1975 [distribution, host: 44]; Yasnos1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 494, 498, 500, 501]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, host: 100, 106]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 442-443]; ZakOga1966 [distribution, host: 82]; ZakOga1967 [distribution, host: 215].
Leucaspis machili TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis machili Takagi, 1969a: 26-27. Type data: TAIWAN: Yang-ming Shan, on Machilus japonica; Chu-chi, on Machilus sp.; Kenting, on Machilus kusanoi, 1965. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Machilus japonica [Takagi1969a], Machilus kusanoi [Takagi1969a], Machilus sp. [Takagi1969a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body elongate-pyriform, with pygidium rounded. Derm finely and densely spiculous, especially so on the pygidium and posterior prepygidial segments; median region of the prepygidial ventrum posteriorly to the mouth-parts with delicate scaly granulations and with microducts scattered (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis machili is close to L. manii, but it may be distinguished from the latter by lacking conical, sclerotized, non-glanduliferous processes laterally to the mouth-parts, by lacking gland tubercles and by lacking dorsal ducts on the apex of the pygidium (Takagi, 1969a).
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; Chou1986 [illustration: 609]; Chou1986 [illustration: 610]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy: 134]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28]; Tang1981 [taxonomy: 52]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 96]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 282].
Leucaspis manii (Borchsenius)NOMENCLATURE:
Maniaspis manii Borchsenius, 1964: 869, 872. Type data: INDIA: Assam near Shillong, on unidentified tree, 13/02/1964, by N. Borschenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Leucaspis manii; Takagi, 1969a: 26. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Assam [Borchs1964a], Meghalaya [Ali1969a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964a).
STRUCTURE: Female body elongate-pyriform. Antennae with 4-5 setae. 9-14 disk glands present near front spiracles. 13-19 cylindrical glands between front spiracles and margin of body (Borchsenius, 1964a).
SYSTEMATICS: Maniaspis manii is close to M. gigas, but differentiated by the presence of 2 pairs of lobes, absence of strong hairs between median lobes and presence of supplemental groups of circumgenital glands on abdomen (Borchsenius, 1964a).
KEYS: Borchsenius 1964a: 869 [Key to species of Maniaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 59]; Borchs1964a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 869-871]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 26]; Tang1981 [p. 52].
Leucaspis maskelli (Brittin)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia maskelli Brittin, 1915a: 157-158. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Oamaru, on Plagianthus sp.; Bluff, on Veronica sp.; Christchurch, on Pittosporum sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Boer & Valentine, 1977: 163. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 59. Described: female. Illust.
Anamefiorinia maskelli; MacGillivray, 1921: 377. Change of combination.
Leucaspis maskelli; Brittin, 1937: 286. Change of combination.
Salicicola maskelli; Balachowsky, 1953g: 161. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Nothopanax sp. [Britti1937]. Malvaceae: Plagianthus sp. [Britti1915a]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [Britti1915a]. Scrophulariaceae: Veronica sp. [Britti1915a]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1915a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937). Detailed redescription and illustration by Boer & Valentine (1977)
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongated, generally straight, sometimes curved; convex; first exuviae yellow, second brown and entirely enclosing the insect. Male scale white, convex, elongated, with straight narrow sides, slightly shorter than that of female. Adult female white, at first elongate, but during gestation shrinking up; very convex (Brittin, 1915a).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [pp. 883, 309]; BoerVa1977 [pp. 163-164]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1915a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 157-158]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 286]; Deitz1979b [taxonomy: 23]; Green1916d [illustration, taxonomy: 51]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 377]; Myers1922 [distribution, host: 200]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis melicytidis BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis melicytidis Brittin, 1937: 290-291. Type data: NEW ZELAND: South Island, Waipara, on Melicytus ramiflorus. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female.
Leucaspis melicyrtides; Lindinger, 1957: 550. Misspelling of species name.
Leucodiaspis melicyrti; Lindinger, 1957: 550. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
HOST: Violaceae: Melicytus ramiflorus [Britti1937].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate, narrow, usually slightly curved, very convex, secretion transparent white. Male scale similar, secretion pure white. Adult female very elongate with straight parallel sides (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis melicytidis related to L. pittospori, but differs by having chitinous thickenings on the pygidium of the adult and by the 3 middle groups of perivulvar pores being confluent (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 290-291]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis mixta Boer & ValentineNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis mixta Boer & Valentine, 1977: 156-157. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Nelson, Whangamoa Saddle, on Pseudowintera axillaris, 18/09/1968, by J.A. de Boer. Holotype female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Pseudopanax arboreum [BoerVa1977], Pseudopanax crassifolium [BoerVa1977]. Meliaceae: Dysoxylum spectabile [BoerVa1977]. Proteaceae: Knightia excelsa [BoerVa1977]. Winteraceae: Pseudowintera axillaris [BoerVa1977], Pseudowintera colorata [BoerVa1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (North Island [BoerVa1977], South Island [BoerVa1977]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Boer & Valentine (1977).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover white, thin, transparent, fragile, occasionally absent in adult females. Adult female and eggs creamy, enclosed in medium to dark brown 2nd-instar female, which is heavily sclerotized except for pygidium. Adult female broadly oval, 1.2-1.8 mm long. Derm membranous; mid venter with fine, scaly granulations; pygidium and few prepygidial segments relatively granulate (Boer & Va1entine, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis mixta has been misidentified as L. gigas. The 2nd instar female of L. mixta is very similar to 2nd instar females of L. morrisi and L. ohakunensis, but the adult females have quite different pygidial plates (Boer & Valentine, 1977).
CITATIONS: BoerVa1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 156-157]; Deitz1979b [distribution, taxonomy: 23].
Leucaspis monophyllus Signoret nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis monophyllus Signoret, 1882b: clxxxv. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 378.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Borchs1966]
SYSTEMATICS: Fernald (1903b) states this is without description and adds that Cockerell stated it was probably a Monophlebus.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 378]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, taxonomy: 329]; Green1915 [host, taxonomy: 461]; Lindin1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 8, 48]; Lindin1906b [taxonomy: 483]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 349]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; Signor1882b [host, taxonomy: clxxxv].
Leucaspis morrisi (Brittin)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia morrisii Brittin, 1915: 149. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Ardgowan, on Neopanax sp., 03/12/1913, by G. Brittin. Lectotype female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand.
Leucaspis morrisi; Boer & Valentine, 1977: 159. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Neopanax arboreum [BoerVa1977], Neopanax sp. [BoerVa1977], Pseudopanax crassifolium [BoerVa1977], Pseudopanax sp. [BoerVa1977]. Griseliniaceae: Griselinia littoralis [BoerVa1977]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [BoerVa1977]
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Boer & Valentine (1977).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover white, thin, fragile, transparent, occasionally absent in adult. Adult female and eggs creamy to light purple, enclosed in medium to dark brown 2nd instar female, which is heavily sclerotized except for pygidium. Adult female broadly oval, 1.2-2.0 mm long. Derm membranous; mid venter with fine, scaly granulations (Boer & Valentine, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Green (1916) synonymized Leucaspis morrisi with L. gigas, but Boer & Valentine (1977) believe that Green's L. gigas was a misidentification.
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; BoerVa1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 158-159]; Borchs1964 [taxonomy: 443]; Britti1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 149]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 287]; Green1916d [taxonomy: 51].
Leucaspis ohakunensis BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis ohakunensis Brittin, 1937: 287. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Nelson, on Astelia sp. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Boer & Valentine, 1977: 161. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Illust.
ASSOCIATE: FLAVOBACTERIA [RosenbSaSa2012].
HOSTS: Araliaceae: Neopanax arboreum [BoerVa1977], Neopanax sp. [BoerVa1977]. Asteliaceae: Collospermum hastatum [BoerVa1977]. Epacridaceae: Cyathodes fasciculata [BoerVa1977], Cyathodes juniperina [BoerVa1977]. Griseliniaceae: Griselinia littoralis [BoerVa1977]. Liliaceae: Astelia sp. [Britti1937]. Malvaceae: Hoheria sp. [Britti1937]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and reillustration by Boer & Valentine (1977).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover white, thin, somewhat transparent, broader in females than in males. Adult females creamy, becoming light purple at full maturity, eggs light purple. Adult females enclosed in medium to dark brown 2nd instar female, which is heavily sclerotized except for pygidium (Boer & Valentine, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis ohakunensis is close to L. gigas, in lobes and confluent perivulvar pores of adult and also in the pygidium of the nymph. It differs in the paratrophic pores, the slightly fewer perivulvar pores, larger groups of parastigmatic pores, and in the presence of the short squamulae in the adult (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; BoerVa1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 160-163]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 215-216]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 287]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340,342]; RosenbSaSa2012 [ecology, molecular data, physiology: 2357-2368]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis pini (Hartig)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus flavus Hartig, 1839: 642. Syntypes. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 213. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839: 642. Type data: GERMANY: Triglitz, on Pinus sylvestris, 10/04/1909. Neotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female.
Diaspis Candida Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 734. Nomen nudum; discovered by Signoret, 1870: 102. Notes: Targioni Tozzetti (1868) cites "Sp. 1. Leucaspis Candida nob. Diaspis Candida nob. 1867." However, no mention of a "candida" in any genus can be found in Targioni Tozzetti (1867). Since no description was attached to this name is remains a nomen nudum.
Leucaspis Candida Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 734. Nomen nudum; discovered by Signoret, 1870: 102.
Leucaspis pini; Signoret, 1869: 865. Described: female. Illust. Change of combination.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) candida; Lindinger, 1906: 26. Change of combination.
Leucaspis affinis Leonardi, 1906b: 4. Type data: FRANCE: Nancy, on Pinus sylvestris. Synonymy by Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1937: 142.
Leucodiaspis candida; Lindinger, 1909: 224. Change of combination.
Chionaspis austriaca; Lindinger, 1943b: 217. Misidentification; discovered by Lindinger, 1943c: 248.
Leucodiaspis pini; Zahradník, 1952: 99. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Hartig's pine scale [KosztaKo1988F]; nille blanche des aiguilles de pin [Foldi2001]; smooth pine scale [MillerDa1990]; white pine scale [AvidovHa1969].
FOES: Pinaceae: Abies pinsapo [SoriaMoVi2000]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Neomysia oblongoguttata [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis abnormis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis luteus [RosenDe1979], Aphytis mytilaspidis [Balach1953g, SoriaMoVi2000], Aphytis sp. [ArgyriStMo1976], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [KosztaKo1988F], Azotus atomon [KosztaKo1988F], Azotus pinifoliae [Garcia1922], Debachiella pini [Yasnos1978]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus leucaspidis [Balach1953g, SoriaMoVi2000], Anthemus pini [Balach1953g, SoriaMoVi2000], Parasauleia trjapitzini [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella aurantii [Garcia1931a, SoriaMoVi2000], Prospaltella intermedia [Garcia1931a, SoriaMoVi2000], Prospaltella leucaspidis [Balach1953g, SoriaMoVi2000]. Eulophidae: Tetrastichus clavicornis [KosztaKo1988F], Tetrasticus clavicornis [Balach1953g]. Signiphoridae: Thysanus ater [HertinSi1972], Thysanus subaeneus [KosztaKo1988F]. Trichogrammatidae: Centrobia sp. [Balach1953g], Centrobia walkeri [Balach1953g].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus austriaca [Bodenh1949], Pinus brutia [Bodenh1949], Pinus halepensis [Bodenh1924], Pinus laricio [Bodenh1949], Pinus mugo [BognarVi1979], Pinus nigra [BognarVi1979], Pinus pinea [Bodenh1924], Pinus ponderosa [Pelliz1976], Pinus pumilio [Bodenh1949], Pinus sp. [Hall1922], Pinus sylvestris [Leonar1907c].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Austria [Lindin1906]; Bulgaria [KosztaKo1988F]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czechoslovakia [Lindin1906]; Egypt [Hall1922]; France [Leonar1907c, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1983]; Germany [Lindin1906]; Greece [Bodenh1928]; Hungary [BognarVi1979]; Israel [Bodenh1924] (1/22/01 gerson et al say in 76 that pini was never found in israel and reports that it were are erroneous.); Italy [Lindin1906, LongoMaPe1995]; Lebanon [Talhou1950]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [DanzigPe1998]; Netherlands [DanzigPe1998]; Norway [Fjeldd1996]; Poland [Szulcz1926, KosztaKo1988F, SimonKa2011]; Portugal [Souzad1906, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [Knecht1930]; Sicily [Costan1950, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Martin1983]; Sweden [Gertss1997]; Switzerland [Lindin1906]; Syria [DanzigPe1998]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Ukraine [Terezn1963a]; Yugoslavia [Lindin1906].
BIOLOGY: Leucaspis pini has been observed at elevations of 1,100 m. One generation per year. Each overwintered female lays between 17-51 eggs in May (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Balachowsky (1953) provides detailed morphological descriptions, illustrations and keys for the identification of adult females and second instars of all Leucaspis species present in Europe and the Mediterranean region.
STRUCTURE: Adult scale covers are elongate, almost parallel sided, white, with a single yellow, terminal exuvia, and 2.4–2.9mm in length. Adult female bodies are elongate, oval, initially greenish violet becoming dark purple with maturity, and are completely enclosed in the golden brown, sclerotised body of the second instar (a condition termed pupillarial).
SYSTEMATICS: Danzig & Pellizzari (1998) list Leucaspis candida Targioni Tozzetti, L. flavus Signoret and L. affini Leonardi as junior synonyms of L. podocarpi. All three of these species have long been treated as synonyms of L. pini. We have been unable to find an explanation of this change and consider it to be erroneous. For a detailed explanation of the identity of L. pini see Danzig & Kerzhner (1984).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. A single incursion of this species has occurred in Britain and the infested plant was destroyed (Malumphy & Redman, 2011)
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 517 (female) [Key to species of Northeastern North American Lepidosaphes]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 356 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Ezzat 1958: 249 [Key to Egyptian species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 847 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 265 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [Species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [as Leucaspis affinis; Species of Leucaspis]; Lindinger 1906: 26 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis candida; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration, taxonomy: 19]; ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 26]; AvidovHa1969 [distribution, host: 226]; Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 183]; Badr2014 [distribution, host: 51]; Balach1928a [taxonomy: 136, 139]; Balach1937c [distribution, host: 3]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 847, 848, 849-853]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56-57]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 43]; Bodenh1928 [distribution, host: 192]; Bodenh1935 [distribution: 248]; Bodenh1937 [host: 218]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160, 164-167]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 51]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 17]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212-213]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 11]; Bouche1851 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; CelikSeSa2002 [economic importance: 7]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 13]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; DanzigKe1984 [taxonomy: 102-103]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 297]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution, host: 12]; Essig1931 [distribution, host: 339]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Ferrie1927 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55-67]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 66]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Fjeldd1996 [distribution, host: 19]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; Garcia1922 [biological control: 197, 363, 369]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 54, 67, 73]; Garcia1931a [biological control, distribution: 668]; GersonHaSh1976 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Gertss1997 [distribution, taxonomy: 117]; Gertss2000 [distribution, host: 152]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 349-350]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 134, 142-144]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 49]; GomezM1958a [distribution, host: 8, 10]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 459, 460, 461]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 277]; Hall1922 [distribution, host, structure: 40]; Hall1923 [taxonomy: 50]; Hall1926a [taxonomy: 38]; Hartig1839 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 642]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 185]; Hoke1925 [physiology: 38]; Jancke1955 [taxonomy: 301]; Jansen2001 [distribution: 201]; Knecht1930 [distribution, host: 236]; Komosi1974a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27-29]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 40-41, 48]; Koszta1956a [biological control, taxonomy: 402]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 143, 163]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356, 357-358]; Koteja1971a [distribution, host: 324]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo2002b [distribution: 376]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lagows1998a [ecology: 65]; LagowsKo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; Leonar1903b [taxonomy: 15]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4, 5, 9-14]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 74-79]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 118, 122-125]; Lindin1905 [taxonomy: 253]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 26, 28-34]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 224]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 253]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1934e [distribution, host, taxonomy: 162-164]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; Lobdel1937 [taxonomy: 80]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Low1882a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 273-275]; Low1883 [taxonomy: 5]; Lupo1944 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207, 208-216]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; MalumpRe2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 69-75]; Mao1986 [taxonomy: 202]; Martin1983 [description, host: 58]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Morgan1892 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-14]; Neves1936 [distribution, host: 198]; Newste1894b [taxonomy: 232]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 238, 276, 280, 281]; Pelliz1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10-12]; Perrie1926 [distribution, host: 126]; Reh1904 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17-19]; Reyne1957 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27-29, 31]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 761]; Schmut1951 [host, taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 583-584]; Schmut1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 143, 144]; Signor1870 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 102, 108]; Signor1882b [distribution, host: clxxxiv]; SimonKa2011 [distribution: 240]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; SoriaMoVi2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 335-348]; Souzad1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 94-95]; Talhou1950 [distribution, host: 139]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 734]; Terezn1963 [distribution, host: 182]; Terezn1963a [distribution, host: 54]; Terezn1966c [distribution, host: 961]; Terezn1967a [distribution, taxonomy: 474]; Terezn1968c [distribution, host: 44]; Terezn1975 [illustration, taxonomy: 12, 28, 57, 73]; Tubbs1986 [taxonomy: 231-232]; Willco1922 [distribution, host: 281]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 37]; Wolff1911 [taxonomy: 78, 80]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 283]; Yasnos1978 [biological control: 486, 500]; Zahrad1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 99, 100-103]; Zahrad1972 [biological control, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 443-444].
Leucaspis pittospori BrittinNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis pittospori Brittin, 1937: 295-296. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Lyttelton, on Pittosporum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female.
HOST: Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, convex, secretion very thin, white. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female elongate, widest across abdomen, tapering slightly towards cephalic extremity, 0.82 mm lone and 0.54 mm wide (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis pittospori is close to L. melicytidis, but differs in the differently shaped lobes of the nymph and of the adult, in the 3 middle groups of perivulvar pores being well separated, and in the absence of chitinous thickenings on the pygidium of the adult (Brittin, 1937).
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 295-296]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis podocarpi GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis podocarpi Green, 1929: 385-386. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Christchurch, on Podocarpus totarae, 02/12/1920. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Williams, 1985c: 140. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Leucodiaspis podocarpi; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus flavus; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 297. Incorrect synonymy.
Diaspis Candida; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 297. Incorrect synonymy.
Leucaspis affinis; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 297. Incorrect synonymy.
HOSTS: Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus andinus [Willia1985c], Podocarpus hallii [Willia1985c], Podocarpus sp. [Borchs1966], Podocarpus totara [Green1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Green1929], South Island [Willia1985c]). Palaearctic: United Kingdom (Scilly Isles [Willia1985c]).
BIOLOGY: The adult female remains inside the exuviae of the second (middle) instar (Williams, 1985c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Green (1929) and by Williams (1985c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale ovate; larval exuviae naked and projecting anteriorly, the nymphal exuviae concealed beneath the opaque white, closely felted secretionary appendix, 2.5-3.0 mm long. Adult female broadly ovate, widest behind the median area, narrowed anteriorly, 0.5-0.75 mm long (Green, 1929).
SYSTEMATICS: Danzig & Pellizzari (1998) list Leucaspis candida Targioni Tozzetti, L. flavus Signoret and L. affini Leonardi as junior synonyms of L. podocarpi. All three of these species have long been treated as synonyms of L. pini. We have been unable to find an explanation of this change and consider it to be erroneous.
KEYS: Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 285, 300]; CharleHe2002 [distribution: 591]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 297]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-399]; Green1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 385-386]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; MalumpRe2011 [distribution: 72]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 502]; Willia1985c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-143]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis portaeaureae FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis portaeaureae Ferris, 1942: SIV-399. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, San Francisco, on Podocarpus acutifolia. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: podocarpus leucaspis scale [Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Taxaceae: Podocarpus acutifolia [Ferris1942], Podocarpus sp. [Ferris1942]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [Ferris1942]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1942) and Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate and slender, composed of the heavily sclerotized 2nd exuviae, which is overlaid at the anterior extremity by the elongate 1st exuviae and elsewhere by a thin film of wax that partially conceals the exuviae and reduces the brown color to a gray-brown (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: This species has in the past been identified as L. cordylinidis and specimens in some collections may be under this name (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 242]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; BrownMc1962 [taxonomy: 165]; CharleHe2002 [distribution: 590]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIV-399, SIV-446:56]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 189, 190]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 129, 131, 133]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 51]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis pusilla LöwNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis pusilla Löw, 1883: 3-5. Type data: AUSTRIA: on Pinus silvestris. Described: female.
Leucaspis leonardi Coleman, 1903: 84. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1914: 461.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) pusilla; Lindinger, 1906: 27. Change of combination.
Actenaspis pusilla; Leonardi, 1906b: 26. Change of combination.
Leucaspis leonardii; Lindinger, 1907: 19. Misspelling of species name.
Leucodiaspis pusilla; Lindinger, 1909b: 148. Change of combination.
Leucaspis perezi Green, 1915: 463-465. Type data: CANARY ISLANDS: Teneriffe, Santa Ursula, on Pinus halepensis and P. canariensis, by Dr. Perez. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1932f: 203.
Diaspis perezi; Lindinger, 1932f: 201. Change of combination. Notes: Borchsenius (1966: 377) treats Diaspis perezi Lindinger as a nomen nudum. However, Green (1915) properly described the species and Lindinger's treatment appears to be just a change in combination.
Pusillaspis pusilla; Lindinger, 1957: 551. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: pine scale [MillerDa1990]; small pine scale [DanzigPe1998].
FOES: DIPTERA Chamaemyiidae: Leucopis sp. [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Abrelus sp. [UlgentErKa2008], Alaptus sp. [HertinSi1972], Aphelinus sp. [Fulmek1943], Aphytis aonidiae [HertinSi1972], Aphytis mytilaspidis [NikolsYa1966], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [NikolsYa1966], Azotus atomon [NikolsYa1966], Azotus pinifoliae [HertinSi1972], Azotus sp. [HertinSi1972], Coccophagoides similis [KosztaKo1988F], Coccophagoides sp. [UlgentErKa2008], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia leucaspidis [Viggia1987], Prospaltella sp. [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus lecaspidis [HertinSi1972], Anthemus pini [KosztaKo1988F], Parasauleia trjapitzini [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella intermedia [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella leucaspidis [Garcia1931a], Prospaltella pusilla [Balach1953g].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Cedrus atlantica [Balach1927], Cedrus libanotica atlantica [Balach1953g], Pinus austriaca [Bodenh1949], Pinus brutia [Bodenh1943, BenDov2012], Pinus canariensis [Green1915, Borg1932, BenDov2012], Pinus caricio [Bodenh1953], Pinus filifolia [Bodenh1949], Pinus halepensis [Lindin1909b, PellizPoSe2011], Pinus insignis [LepineMi1931], Pinus laricio [Bodenh1949], Pinus longifolia [Balach1927], Pinus maritima [Balach1933e, BenDov2012], Pinus monspeliensis [Lindin1909b], Pinus montana [Pelliz1976], Pinus mugo [BognarVi1979], Pinus nigra [Korone1934, Malump2011a], Pinus picea [Colema1903], Pinus pinaster [LepineMi1931], Pinus pineae [Bodenh1924], Pinus pinifolia [Pelliz1976], Pinus pithyusa [Borchs1934], Pinus pyrenaica [Lindin1909b], Pinus radiata [GersonHaSh1976, BenDov2012], Pinus silvestris [Low1883], Pinus sp. [Britti1937]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [Lizery1938]. Palaearctic: Albania [Pelliz1976]; Algeria [DanzigPe1998]; Austria [Low1883, Malump2011a]; Azores [FrancoRuMa2011, BenDovSoBo2012]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Canary Islands [Green1915, MatileOr2001]; Corsica [Balach1931a]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011, JansenBeKa2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Czechoslovakia [KosztaKo1988F]; Egypt [Newste1907a, Hall1922, Hall1923]; France [Lindin1909b, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Greece [Bodenh1928]; Hungary [KozarOrKo1977]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Israel [Bodenh1924, BenDov2012]; Italy [Colema1903, LongoMaPe1995, MatilePe2002]; Madeira Islands [Balach1938a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Poland [DanzigPe1998]; Portugal [Balach1953g, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, PellizFo1996]; Sicily [Balach1953g, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Balach1953g, SoriaMoVi2000]; Switzerland [KozarHi1996]; Syria [Balach1953g]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Balach1953g]); Yugoslavia [DanzigPe1998].
BIOLOGY: L. pusilla is a bisexual species with one generation per year that overwinters as adult females in Hungary (Kosztarab & Kozár, 1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, secretion white. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female elongate, widest below middle (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1932f) states that Diaspis perezi is a Green manuscript name and that it is synonymous with Leucodiaspis pusilla.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 356 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Ezzat 1958: 248 [Key to Egyptian species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 846 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1928a: 135 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis in North Africa]; Lindinger 1906: 27 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis pusilla; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 18]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; AvidovHa1969 [distribution, host: 226]; Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 183]; Badr2014 [distribution, host: 51]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 179-180]; Balach1928a [distribution, host, structure: 135, 136]; Balach1931a [distribution, host: 98]; Balach1933e [distribution, host: 3]; Balach1938a [distribution, host: 153]; Balach1953g [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 846, 848, 860-864]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 68]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58]; Bodenh1928 [distribution, host: 192]; Bodenh1930a [distribution: 373]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host: 10, 28]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160, 167-169]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, structure: 51]; BognarVi1979 [distribution, host: 17]; Borchs1934 [distribution, host: 22]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 92]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213-214, 377]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 11]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283, 285, 292-293, 2]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 185, 196-197]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-44]; Chiesa1948 [distribution, taxonomy: 442]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 84]; Danzig1964 [distribution, taxonomy: 647]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 297-298]; Efimof1937 [distribution, host: 47, 99]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 248]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 20, 32]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-147]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 84]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 13,24]; Fulmek1943 [biological control: 54]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 73]; Garcia1931a [biological control, distribution: 665]; Gavalo1929 [distribution, host: 167]; Gavalo1932 [distribution, host: 140]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 151]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; GersonHaSh1976 [distribution, host: 44]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 350]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134, 138-142]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 49]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 95]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Green1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 461, 462, 463-465]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 186]; Hall1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; Hall1923 [distribution, economic importance: 50]; Haywar1941 [distribution, host: 85]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 185]; Hoke1925 [physiology: 38]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; JansenBeKa2011 [distribution, host: 484]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9]; Kiritc1931 [distribution, host: 321]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 42-43, 49]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 164]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356, 358-359]; Kozar1980 [distribution, host: 69]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar2009a [distribution: 583]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarHi1996 [distribution, host: 95]; KozarKiSa2004 [distribution: 61]; KozarKo2002b [distribution: 376]; KozarOrKo1977 [distribution, host: 74]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; KozarzMi1984 [distribution, host: 406-407]; Kuznet1966 [distribution, host: 46-47]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 221, 227-]; Kuznet1971 [distribution, host: 63]; Leonar1903b [taxonomy: 15]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-92]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 117, 118-122]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27, 44-46, 47]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 19]; Lindin1909b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 148, 224]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 255]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 344, 356]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Low1883 [description, distribution, host, structure: 3]; Lupo1944 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207, 208, 216-222]; Lupo1957a [taxonomy: 427]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; Malump2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54,56-57]; MalumpKa2011a [distribution, host, illustration: 54.57]; MalumpRe2011 [distribution: 72]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 58]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; MatilePe2002 [distribution, host: 357]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 7]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 40]; Morris1923 [distribution, host: 125]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340,343]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 204, 237, 260, 277]; Paoli1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 257-259]; Pelliz1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-8]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 73]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 165]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 143, 149-150]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 15]; Silves1939 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 815-816]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; SoriaMoVi2000 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 336-348]; Terezn1959b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 447, 448]; Terezn1963a [distribution, host: 54]; Terezn1967b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 562]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 141]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 45]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 212]; Tsalev1972 [distribution, host: 85]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Vayssi1927 [biological control, distribution: 111]; VieiraCaPi1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 129-130]; Viggia1987 [biological control: 152]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 100, 104]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 444]; ZakOga1967 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 215].
Leucaspis riccae Targioni TozzettiNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis Riccae Targioni Tozzetti, 1881: 160. Type data: ITALY: Calabria. Syntypes, female. Described: female.
Leucaspis epidaurica Gennadius, 1883: 31. Type data: GREECE: on Olea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Green, 1915: 460.
Rhopaloaspis riccae; Del Guercio, 1902: 185. Change of combination.
Howardia lobulata Del Guercio, 1903a: 179-185. Type data: ITALY: Catanzaro. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Leonardi, 1903: 1. Notes: Type material presumed lost.
Lepidosaphes riccae; Fernald, 1903b: 313. Change of combination.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) riccae; Lindinger, 1906: 26. Change of combination.
Leucaspis ephedrae Marchal, 1909b: 59-60. Type data: ALGERIA: Sud-Oranais, on Ephedra corsoniana, by Dr. Trabut. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1928a: 135-137.
Mytilaspis riccae; Trabut, 1911: 63. Change of combination.
Leucaspis riccai; Lindinger, 1912b: 138. Misspelling of species name.
Leucaspis oleae; Lindinger, 1912b: 372. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 214.
Leucaspis Lemmeti Balachowsky, 1927: 197-199. Type data: ALGERIA: near Ksabi, 100 km north of Adrar, on Ephedra alata, ?/05/1926. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: fossil. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1928: 135. Notes: Paratype in BMNH.
Leucodiaspis riccai; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis riccae; Lindinger, 1935: 140. Change of combination.
Leucaspis riecae; Ali, 1970: 19. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: white olive scale [AvidovHa1969].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [PriesnHo1940]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis libanicus [RosenDe1979], Aphytis mytilaspidis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis sp. [AbdRab1999].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [Kaussa1955]. Ericaceae: Erica arborea [Balach1953g], Erica manipuliflora [PellizPoSe2011], Erica sp. [Balach1953g]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia dendroides [PellizPoSe2011], Euphorbia sp. [Balach1953g]. Gnetaceae: Ephedra campylopoda [Korone1934], Ephedra corsoniana [Marcha1909b], Ephedra elata [Balach1927], Ephedra fragilis [Balach1953g], Ephedra sp. [Archan1923], Ephedra vulgaris [Korone1934]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [RamachRa1934]. Oleaceae: Olea europaea [Korone1934, ErlerKoTu1996, PellizPoSe2011], Olea sp. [Leonar1907c]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Argentina [Chiesa1937]. Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Marcha1909b]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [Newste1913]; Egypt [Newste1913, AbdRab2001a]; France [Fernal1903b]; Greece [Fernal1903b]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [RosenDe1979]; Italy [Leonar1907c, LongoMaPe1995]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Sicily [Balach1953g, LongoMaPe1995]; Syria [Balach1953g]; Tunisia [Trabut1910]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; Uzbekistan [Cocker1927]; Yugoslavia [DanzigPe1998].
BIOLOGY: In Attica, Greece, Leucaspis riccae has two generations per year. It overwinters at the second stage and in a small percentage as adult females. The oviposition starts by mid-April and continues slowly until July. Females of the 2nd generation start ovipositing in August and continue the oviposition until November depending on weather (Argyriou & Kourmadas, 1981).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Ezzat 1958: 249 [Key to Egyptian species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 847 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1928a: 135 (female) [as Leucaspis ephedrae and L. lemmeti; Key to species of Leucaspis in North Africa]; MacGillivray 1921: 265 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [Species of Leucaspis]; Lindinger 1906: 26 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis riccae; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1120]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 175]; Ali1970 [taxonomy: 18]; Archan1923 [distribution, host: 264]; Argyri1967 [distribution, host: 69]; Argyri1976 [distribution, host: 212]; Argyri1977 [distribution, host: 361]; ArgyriKo1981 [distribution, host, life history: 68]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 433]; AvidovHa1969 [distribution, host: 226]; Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 183]; Balach1927 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 197-199]; Balach1928a [distribution, taxonomy: 135, 136, 142]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 847, 848, 864-868]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 40, 47]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 31, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 58-59]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 260]; Bodenh1935c [distribution: 1156]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160, 171-173]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51-54]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 104]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, host, structure: 176]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 11]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283, 285, 296]; Chiesa1937 [distribution, host: 168]; Chiesa1938 [taxonomy: 3]; Cocker1927 [distribution: 837]; Costan1937 [distribution, host: 237]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 13]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 298]; DelGue1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-188]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 57]; Essig1917 [host: 61]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; FarahbMo1975 [distribution, host: 66]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244, 313]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23, 26, 83]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-147]; Gavalo1928 [distribution, host: 55]; Gennad1883 [description, distribution, host: 31]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 151]; Ghabbo1999 [taxonomy: 86]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 349]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 460, 462]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host: 41-42]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 50]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 34, 38]; Hall1927b [distribution, host: 173]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration: 9]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host: 43-45, 49]; Korone1939 [distribution, host: 42-43]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Kuwana1923c [taxonomy: 323]; Leonar1903 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-5]; Leonar1903b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-19]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 14-17]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 79-82]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118, 127-132]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 9, 26, 35-37]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 127]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 138, 372]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 106]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 187]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 159]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1944 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207, 208, 230-237]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; MalumpRe2011 [distribution: 72-73]; Marcha1909b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59-60]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 8]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 40]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 36]; MoursiHe1983 [distribution, host, life history: 119-124]; NadaMo1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 251-258]; Newste1913 [distribution, host: 81]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 62]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 156]; PriesnHo1940 [biological control: 69]; RamachRa1934 [host: 87]; RizkAh1981 [distribution, host, life history: 1-12]; RizkMo1981 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 1-12]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 761]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 11]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 16]; Silves1939 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 817]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; Targio1881 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 160]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 45]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 60]; Willco1922 [distribution, host: 226].
Leucaspis senilobata GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis cordylinidis senilobata Green, 1929: 383-385. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: South Island, Chirstchurch, on Griselinia littoralis, 13/08/1921. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea senilobata; Lindinger, 1932: 203. Change of combination and rank.
Apteronidia senilobata; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
Leucaspis senilobata; Jancke, 1955: 302. Change of combination.
HOST: Cornaceae: Griselinia littoralis [Green1929].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Green1929]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1929).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, rather strongly convex, straight of variously contorted; normally dead white, but often discolored by the adherence of dust and fragments of bark. Larval exuviae with anterior half yellowish and posterior half blackish, nymphal exuviae completely concealed beneath the white secertionary covering, 2.5 mm long. Male scale elongate, narrow, straight, similar to that of female, but less convex and usually recognizable by its cleaner and whiter secretionary appendix. Adult female elongate, broadest across abdominal region, narrowing to the frontal extremity, bluntly pointed behind, 1.75 mm long (Green, 1929).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Green1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 383-385]; Jancke1955 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 302-303]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 37]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis signoreti SignoretNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis Signoreti Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Nomen nudum; discovered by Signoret, 1870: 100.
Leucaspis signoreti Signoret, 1870: 100-101. Type data: FRANCE: on Pinus sp. CORSICA: on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) corsa Lindinger, 1905: 252-253. Type data: CORSICA: Vizzavona, on Pinus larcicio. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Synonymy by Green, 1915: 460.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) signoreti; Lindinger, 1906: 26. Change of combination.
Leucaspis Signoreti mauretanica Balachowsky, 1928a: 138-139. Type data: ALGERIA: Kabyle, on Pinus nigra mauretanica, ?/05/1927, by Mr. Peyerimhoff. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1935: 140.
Leucodiaspis signoreti; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Signoret's pine scale [KosztaKo1988F]; Southern Europe pine scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis abnormis [Fulmek1943], Aphytis luteus [RosenDe1979], Aspidiophagus citrinus [KosztaKo1988F], Azotus atomon [KosztaKo1988F], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus leucaspidis [KosztaKo1988F], Parasauleia trjapitzini [KosztaKo1988F], Prospaltella intermedia [Yasnos1978], Prospaltella leucaspidis [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus laricio [Lindin1905], Pinus nigra poiretiana [Balach1953g], Pinus nigra mauretanica [Balach1928a], Pinus sp. [Signor1870], Pinus sylvestris [Colema1903].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [Britti1937]). Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1928a]; Corsica [Signor1870]; Cyprus [KosztaKo1988F]; France [Signor1870, Foldi2001]; Italy [KosztaKo1988F]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F]; Russia (Moscow Oblast [Balach1953g]); Sardinia [Balach1953g, PellizFo1996]; Ukraine [Balach1953g].
BIOLOGY: In Corsica, L. signoreti was observed at elevations of up to 1,400 m (Balachowsky, 1953g).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 356 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Balachowsky 1928a: 135 (female) [as Leucaspis signoreti mauretanica; Key to species of Leucaspis in North Africa]; MacGillivray 1921: 265 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [Species of Leucaspis]; Lindinger 1906: 26 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis signoreti; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [taxonomy: 18]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Balach1928a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135, 136, 138-139]; Balach1931a [distribution, host, structure: 98]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 847, 848, 853-857]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 176]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 214-215]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 283, 285, 300]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 84]; Comsto1883 [distribution, taxonomy: 129]; Comsto1916 [distribution, taxonomy: 590]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 298]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 51]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-147]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 84]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Garcia1930 [biological control: 70]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 460, 466]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 207, 210]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 186]; Hoke1925 [physiology: 58]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 162, 163]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 356, 359-360]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Leonar1903b [taxonomy: 15]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 6-9]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 71-74]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118, 125-127]; Lindin1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 252-253]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 26, 34-35]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 254]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 127]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1944 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 207, 208, 223-230]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; MalumpRe2011 [distribution: 73]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 237, 261]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 761]; Sander1906 [taxonomy: 12]; Signor1870 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 100-101]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 339]; Targio1868 [host, taxonomy: 735]; Terezn1959b [taxonomy: 447]; Terezn1959c [distribution, taxonomy: 795, 797]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177]; Yasnos1978 [biological control: 501]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 445].
Leucaspis stricta (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia stricta Maskell, 1884: 124-125. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Hawkes Bay, on Dendrobium sp. and Hedycarya sp. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Christchurch: Canterbury Museum, New Zealand, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Leucaspis stricta; Leonardi, 1906b: 19. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis stricta; Lindinger, 1932f: 107. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Gourla1930].
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Hedycarpus sp. [Maskel1884]. Liliaceae: Astelia cunninghamii [Maskel1887a], Astelia sp. [Maskel1885a], Cordyline australis [Maskel1887a], Cordyline sp. [Maskel1885a], Phormium sp. [Maskel1885a], Phormium tenax [Maskel1887a]. Malvaceae: Hoheria angustifolia [Maskel1895b]. Orchidaceae: Dendrobium sp. [Maskel1884]. Polygonaceae: Muehlenbeckia sp. [Maskel1885a]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (North Island [Maskel1884], South Island [Maskel1887a]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very narrow, about 5 times as long as wide. 2nd exuviae fills almost the whole of it, half of the 1st exuviae appearing at the cephalic end, and a very narrow edge of secretion running down the sides, which are almost straight and parallel. Scale is almost black. Male scale is white. Adult female is very small, after gestation it shrinks up at the cephalic end so as to become difficult to detect (Maskell, 1884).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 264 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [Species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Britti1916 [taxonomy: 425]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 281]; Cocker1893k [description, distribution, host: 548]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 43]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Gourla1930 [biological control, distribution: 6]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 462]; Green1929 [distribution, taxonomy: 382, 383]; KirkCo1909b [distribution, host: 288]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 24]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 19-21]; Leonar1906c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 61]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 84-86]; Lindin1906 [distribution, taxonomy: 48]; Lindin1906a [taxonomy: 9]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 107]; Lobdel1937 [structure: 78]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 264]; Maskel1884 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-125]; Maskel1885a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 24]; Maskel1887a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60-61]; Maskel1895b [distribution, host: 51]; Myers1922 [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 158]; Tillya1926 [distribution, host: 174]; Valent1967 [biological control, distribution: 1119, 1147, 1167]; Wise1977 [distribution: 112].
Leucaspis trilobata Henderson in Henderson et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis trilobata Henderson in Henderson et al., 2010: 10-14. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Aramoana, on Korthalsella lindsayi parasitic on Coprosma areolata, 1/12/2010, by A. Sultan. Holotype female and first instar (examined), by original designation. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; type no. 10-007b. Described: female and first instar. Illust.
HOSTS: Viscaceae: Korthalsella clavata [HenderSuRo2010], Korthalsella lindsayi [HenderSuRo2010].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand (South Island [HenderSuRo2010]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description of adult female, 2nd instar puparium, 2nd instar female nymph and 2nd instar male nymph in Henderson, et al., 2010.
STRUCTURE: Puparium light brown with a white waxy coating, adult females membranous, male covers white tinged with golden-white, with dark terminal exuviae. Mounted adult female elongate when young, shortened and roundly oval with shrunken abdomen when mature, derm membranous except for pygidial sclerotisation in patches and around anal opening, with a ventral median longitudinal band on crenulae between mouthparts and abdominal segment III. Second instar female nymph body shape fusiform becoming wider from mesothorax to posterior abdomen and narrower at head when near 2nd moult. 2nd instar male nymph similar to female nymph.
SYSTEMATICS: The main diagnostic reature is the three pairs of lobes on the 2nd instar puparium and nymphs.
KEYS: Henderson et al. 2010: 4 (female, pupa, second inst) [Key in three parts to separate the two Leucaspis species on Korthalsella species:].
CITATIONS: HenderSuRo2010 [description, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 10-14].
Leucaspis vitis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis vitis Takahashi, 1935: 19-21. Type data: TAIWAN: Takao, on Vitis sp., 26/03/1934. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [Takaha1935], Vitis vinifera [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1st skin black, twice as long as wide, on the front margin of the 2nd, about 0.42 mm long. 2nd skin brownish black, long, a little curved, gradually narrowed on the anterior part, abruptly so on the posterior part, convex dorsally, with not ridge, about 1.25 mm long. Female body elongate, narrowed on both ends, wanting lateral processes and glands, faintly reticulated on the median area of venter (Takahashi, 1935).
SYSTEMATICS: Leucaspis vitis is characterized by the eminent median lobes of the pygidium. It is near L. cordylinidis (Takahashi, 1935). Takagi (1970) states that L. vitis "is not a true member of Leucaspis," but does not give the species a new generic assignment.
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 200, 393]; Chou1986 [illustration: 613]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 26]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 138]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19-21]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 96-97]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 282].
Lindingeria MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Lindingeria MacGillivray, 1921: 248. Type species: Gymnaspis aberemoae Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: MacGillivray (1921) distinguishes Lindingeria from other genera of Parlatoriini by the pygidium of the adult female having 2 groups of genacerores. Lindinger (1937) considered Lindingeria to be a junior synonym of Gymnaspis.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 248 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 205]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 188]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, taxonomy: 248]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 110].
Lindingeria aberemoae (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis aberemoae Lindinger, 1910a: 437-440. Type data: BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro, Serra da Bica, on Aberomoa rhizantha, ?/08/1897. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Lindingeria aberemoae; MacGillivray, 1921: 254. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Annonaceae: Aberemoa rhizantha [Lindin1910a], Aberemoa sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil [Lindin1910a] (Rio de Janeiro [ClapsWoGo2001]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Lindinger (1910a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes; median pair of lobes large, as broad as long, broadly rounded, entire; 2nd and 3rd pairs similar, slightly smaller, entire; plates truncate, subequal in length to lobes (MacGillivray, 1921).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 205]; Brain1919 [taxonomy: 218]; ClapsWoGo2001 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 126]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 195]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Hempel1937 [taxonomy: 35]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 406]; Lindin1910a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 437-440]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 26]; Lindin1934c [taxonomy: 45, 46]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248, 254]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 182]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176].
Lopholeucaspis BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Lopholeucaspis Balachowsky, 1953g: 875. Type species: Leucaspis japonica Cockerell, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription by Takagi (1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lopholeucaspis is presumably an Asiatic derivative of Leucaspis (Takagi, 1960). Lopholeucaspis differs from Leucaspis in the adult female possessing a continuous row of duct tubercles from the abdomen forward to thorax, and in lacking the group of duct tubercles lateral to the anterior spiracles (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Danzig 1988: 718 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Danzig 1980b: 718 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Borchsenius 1964a: 864 (female) [Key to genera ofLeucaspidini known from India]; Kosztarab 1963: 54 (female) [Key to the genera of the tribe Diaspidini in Ohio]; Takagi 1961a: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1953g: 843 [Tableau des genres de Leucaspidina de la Région Paléarctique].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 843, 875-877]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 335]; Beards1975 [taxonomy: 661]; Boraty1960 [taxonomy: 193]; Borchs1964a [taxonomy: 864, 871]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 216]; Chou1985 [taxonomy: 200]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 718, 721]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 301]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 193]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 530]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 111]; Schmut1959 [distribution, taxonomy: 142, 150]; Takagi1960 [distribution, taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1961a [description, taxonomy: 99]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 30-31]; Wang1982c [description, taxonomy: 45, 108]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 176-177]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Lopholeucaspis baluanensis Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Lopholeucaspis baluanensis Williams & Watson, 1988: 177-180. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Manus Province, Baluan I., on Citrus sp., 11/04/1985, by T. Mala. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in BMNH, USNM and New Zealand Arthropod Collection, DSIR.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female pupillarial; scale elongate, with longitudinal ridge on mid-line, dark brown, but covered in white wax. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female about 1.55 mm long, elongate oval, widest at thorax; membranous, except for sclerotized patches on pygidium; head and pygidium rounded. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes present. Median lobes well separated, elongate, projecting, bluntly pointed at apices (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: The complete lack of duct tubercles between the prothorax and 3rd abdominal segment, forming an interrupted row on each side, is a character that separates this species from any other in the genus (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 177 (female) [Key to species of Lopholeucaspis].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177-180].
Lopholeucaspis cockerelli (Grandpré & Charmoy)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia cockrelli Grandpré & Charmoy, 1899: 37. Type data: MAURITIUS: on Citrus sp. (grapefruit). Holotype female. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type-material lost (Mamet, 1941). The species epithet in the original description was consistently given as "cockrelli" but is considered an incorrect spelling because prevailing usage has been "cockerelli." See ICZN 33.3.1. Authorship of the species is discussed by Mamet (1953a).
Fiorinia cockerelli; Fernald, 1903a: 246. Justified emendation. Notes: This is the first use of the prevailing usage from 1903 to 2003 with the exception of Balachowsky (1958) who used "cockrelli."
Leucaspis cockerelli; Leonardi, 1903b: 15. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis cockerelli; Lindinger, 1908: 122. Change of combination.
Lopholeucaspis cockerelli; Balachowsky, 1953g: 155. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Cockerell scale [Dekle1965c].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Agave angustifolia marginata [ColonFMe1998], Sansevieria zeylanica [Mamet1949]. Amaranthaceae: Alternanthera amoena [Nakaha1981a]. Araliaceae: Schefflera sp.? [Hinckl1963]. Arecaceae: Bactris sp. [McKenz1956], Butia campestris [Nakaha1981a], Chamaedorea sp. [McKenz1956], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Lepage1938], Cocos nucifera [Nakaha1981a], Eupritchardia grandis [McKenz1956], Howea sp. [Borchs1966], Phoenix dactylifera [Nakaha1981a], Pritchardia grandis [Green1905a], Pyrenoglyphis sp. [Boraty1960], Sabal sp. [FeltMo1928], Trachycarpus sp. [FeltMo1928]. Asclepiadaceae: Asclepias sp. [Mamet1941], Hoya carnosa [Mamet1949]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia sp. [ColonFMe1998]. Cactaceae: Hylocereus undatus [Nakaha1981a]. Combretaceae: Terminalia catappa [WilliaWa1988]. Convolvulaceae: Ipomea sp. [Borchs1966], Ipomoea pupurea [Mamet1943a]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros mannii [CouturMaRi1985]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites moluccana [Nakaha1981a], Euphorbia sp. [Borchs1966], Hevea sp. [Balach1958b], Pinus caribaea [WilliaWa1988], Poinsettia sp. [Borchs1966]. Fabaceae: Inocarpus fagiferus [Hinckl1963]. Flacourtiaceae: Hydnocarpus sp. [Borchs1966], Hydnocarpus wightiana [Mamet1943a]. Guttiferae: Calophyllum inophyllum [WilliaWa1988]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia sp. [WilliaWa1988]. Labiatae: Plectranthus laciniatus [ColonFMe1998]. Lauraceae: Persea americana [WilliaWa1988]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia racemosa [WilliaWa1988], Barringtonia sp. [Hinckl1963]. Liliaceae: Asparagus plumosus [Lindin1910b], Dracaena cantleyi [Green1905a], Dracaena fragans [ColonFMe1998], Sansevieria sp. [Borchs1966], Smilax sp. [McKenz1956]. Moraceae: Ficus repens [Mamet1949]. Orchidaceae: Arundina bambusfolia [Nakaha1981a], Arundina sp. [Nakaha1981a], Bulbophyllum falcatus [Boraty1960], Cattleya sp. [McKenz1956], Coelogyne parishii [Boraty1960], Dendrobium densiflorum [DeLott1967a], Dendrobium sp. [Boraty1960], Epidendrum sp. [Borchs1966], Eulophia euglossa [Boraty1960], Eulophia paniculata [Boraty1960], Eulophidium ledieni [Boraty1960], Lycaste barringtoniae [Boraty1960], Odontoglossum sp. [Borchs1966], Rhynchostylis sp. [Boraty1960], Schomburgkia undulata [MedinaMa1973], Spathoglottis sp. [Hinckl1963], Vanda kimbaliana [Boraty1960], Vanda sp. [Boraty1960], Vanilla planifolia [Mamet1943a]. Pandanaceae: Mammea americana [ColonFMe1998], Pandanus sp. [Borchs1966]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora edulis [WilliaWa1988]. Pinaceae: Thuja orientalis [Boraty1960]. Piperaceae: Piper aduncum [Hinckl1963], Piper nigrum [Beards1975]. Proteaceae: Macadamia sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Rhizophoraceae: Rhizophora racemosa [Balach1958b], Rhizophora sp. [Borchs1966]. Rosaceae: Rosa sp. [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantifolia [Boraty1960], Citrus aurantium [ColonFMe1998], Citrus aurantium bigaradia [Boraty1960], Citrus limon [Nakaha1981a], Citrus maxima [GrandpCh1899, Mamet1941], Citrus medica [Boraty1960], Citrus nobilis [Boraty1960], Citrus paradisi [ColonFMe1998], Citrus sinensis [Boraty1960], Citrus sp. [GrandpCh1899]. Sapindaceae: Euphoria longana [Mamet1943a], Litchi chinensis [Nakaha1981a]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Matile1978]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus parvifolia [MartinLa2011], Ulmus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Balach1958b]; Comoros [Matile1978]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [CouturMaRi1985]; Guinea [Balach1958b]; Kenya [DeLott1967a]; Liberia [Nakaha1982]; Madagascar [Lindin1910b]; Mauritius [GrandpCh1899, WilliaWi1988]; Sao Tome and Principe (Principe [Simmon1969], Sao Tome [Simmon1969]); Seychelles [Nakaha1982]; Sierra Leone [Medler1980]; Tanzania [Hall1946a]; Zaire [Nakaha1982]. Australasian: Australia [WoodruBeSk1998]; Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1975]); Fiji [Merril1953, Hinckl1963]; Hawaiian Islands [Boraty1960] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Nakaha1981a]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988]; Niue [Nakaha1982]; Tonga [Nakaha1982]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (California [Boraty1960], Florida [Merril1953, Miller2005], Massachusetts [Nakaha1982], New York [FeltMo1928]). Neotropical: Bahamas [Nakaha1982]; Bermuda [Nakaha1982]; Brazil [Lepage1938]; Colombia [Merril1953]; Costa Rica [Merril1953]; Cuba [Nakaha1982]; Dominica [Nakaha1982]; Dominican Republic [Nakaha1982]; Ecuador [Nakaha1982]; El Salvador [Berry1959]; Grenada [Nakaha1982]; Honduras [Merril1953]; Jamaica [Merril1953]; Martinique [Nakaha1982]; Panama [Fleury1938]; Peru [Nakaha1982]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [MedinaMa1973]); Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Merril1953]); Uruguay [Figuer1946]; Venezuela [Merril1953]. Oriental: Hong Kong [Tao1999]; India (Tamil Nadu [Ali1969a]). Oriental: Indonesia [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: Philippines [Merril1953]; Sri Lanka [Green1905a]. Palaearctic: Germany [Mamet1943a]; Greece [Nakaha1982]; Japan [Tao1999]; United Kingdom (England [Boraty1960]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Boratynski (1960).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, slightly curved, light brown. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female elongate, tapering towards cephalic extremity (Brittin, 1937).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Watson et al. 2000a (female) [Expert system on a CD]; Williams & Watson 1988: 177 (female) [Key to species of Lopholeucaspis]; Borchsenius 1964a: 865 (female) [Key to Lopholeucaspis species known from India]; Balachowsky 1958b: 335 (female) [Key to species of Lopholeucaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 877 (female) [Key to species of Lopholeucaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:56 (female) [as Leucaspis cockerelli; Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [as Leucaspis cockerelli; Key to species of Leucaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 267 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Leonardi 1907c: 70 (female) [as Leucaspis Cockerelli; Species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1953g [description, taxonomy: 877, 880]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 335, 336-339]; Beards1975 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 662]; Berry1959 [distribution, host: 228, 244]; Boraty1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 193-197]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution: 89]; Borchs1964a [distribution, taxonomy: 865, 872]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 216-217]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 293]; BrownMc1962 [physiology, taxonomy: 165]; Cocker1899r [distribution, host: 900]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 111-112]; CouturMaRi1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 278]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12, 84]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; DonesEv2011 [distribution, host: 2]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 199]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Ferris1941d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SIII-289]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; Figuer1946 [distribution, host: 214]; Figuer1952 [distribution: 210]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 40]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Gill1997 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 192-193]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 354-356]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Hall1946a [distribution: 549]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 49]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 8]; HodgsoLa2011 [distribution, host: 25]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host: 186]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 18]; KonstaKo1990 [taxonomy: 8]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 24]; Leonar1903b [taxonomy: 15]; Leonar1906b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 17-19]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70, 82-84]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 410]; Lindin1906 [distribution, taxonomy: 9, 48]; Lindin1908d [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122-124]; Lindin1909b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1909d [taxonomy: 1]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1913b [distribution, host: 79]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 148]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 370]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; Mamet1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34-35]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 163]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Mamet1953a [taxonomy: 152]; Mamet1954 [distribution, host: 6]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41, 68]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 129, 131]; MedinaMa1973 [distribution, host: 250]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Mosque1976 [distribution, host: 91]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 401]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 52-53]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 34]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 502]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 215]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; Rao1952 [distribution, host: 10]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; SilvadGoGa1968a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 175]; Simmon1969 [distribution, host: 21]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 31]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 17]; Tang1980 [taxonomy: 206]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 97]; Watson2002 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, economic importance, host]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177, 180-182]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 68]; WoodruBeSk1998 [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 374].
Lopholeucaspis excoecariae BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Lopholeucaspis excoecariae Borchsenius, 1964: 865. Type data: INDIA: Calcutta, Garanbose Island, in mangrove thicket, on Excoecaria agallocha, 02/02/1964, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Euphorbiaceae: Excoecaria agallocha [Borchs1964a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (West Bengal [Borchs1964a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body narrow, with almost parallel margins, 1.8 mm long; cephalic segment strongly developed, with 2 pairs of sclerotized spots and round eyes (Borchsenius, 1964a).
SYSTEMATICS: Lopholeucaspis excoecariae is close to L. cockerelli. Females are differentiated by very long cephalic segment, by correlation of length of parts of body between cephalic margin of body and antennae and between antennae and front of spiracles; absence of cephalic spines; by the fact that the 2 anterior groups of circumgenital glands are fused (Borchsenius, 1964a).
KEYS: Borchsenius 1964a: 865 (female) [Key to Lopholeucaspis species known from India].
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [distribution, host: 59]; Borchs1964a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 865, 871]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 217]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 31].
Lopholeucaspis japonica (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis japonicus Cockerell, 1897d: 53. Type data: JAPAN: quarantined in United States, California, San Francisco, on Cytisus, ?/12/1896, by A. Craw. Unknown type status female. Described: female.
Leucaspis japonica; Fernald, 1903b: 244. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) japonica; Lindinger, 1906: 27. Change of combination.
Leucaspis japonica darwiniensis Green, 1916e: 61-62. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Darwin, on Ficus orbicularis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 877.
Leucodiaspis iaponica; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Leucodiaspis japonica; Takahashi, 1934: 14. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis hydrangeae Takahashi, 1934: 15-17. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, Sozan, near Taihoku, on Hydrangea integra, 11/06/1933, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 877.
Leucodiaspis japonica darwiniensis; Takahashi, 1934: 17. Change of combination.
Leucaspis hydrangeae; Takahashi, 1939: 89. Change of combination.
Lopholeucaspis japonica; Balachowsky, 1953g: 155. Change of combination.
Lopholeucaspis japonica darwiniensis; Balachowsky, 1953g: 157. Change of combination.
Lopholeucaspis menoni Borchsenius, 1964a: 865. Type data: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh, Agra, on Ficus religiosa, 15/12/1963, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 114.
Lopholeucaspis darwiniensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 217. Change of status.
Leucaspis menoni; Takagi, 1969a: 31. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: Japanese maple scale [MillerDa1990]; pear white scale [KSPP1972].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus renipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Exochomus quadripustulatus [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Scymnus bipunctatus [HertinSi1972], Telsimia nigra [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chrysomphali [HertinSi1972], Aphytis longiclavae [HertinSi1972], Aphytis mytilaspidis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis sp. [HertinSi1972], Archenomus longicornis [HertinSi1972], Archenomus maritima [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Azotus matritensis [HertinSi1972], Azotus mokrzeckii [HertinSi1972], Azotus pinifoliae [HertinSi1972], Azotus sp. [HertinSi1972], Casca chinensis [HertinSi1972], Coccophagus lycimnia [HertinSi1972], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Encarsia sp. [Sankar1984], Marlattiella prima [Chen1936, RosenDe1970], Physcus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella aurantii [HertinSi1972], Prospaltella intermedia [HertinSi1972], Prospaltella leucaspidis [HertinSi1972], Prospaltella sp. [HertinSi1972]. Encyrtidae: Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [HertinSi1972]. Mymaridae: Alaptus aurantii [HertinSi1972], Alaptus torquatus [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer insigne [Moghad2013a], Acer palmatum [Muraka1970], Acer saccharum [Koszta1963], Acer sp. [Ferris1938a, MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex sp. [MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Alnus japonica [Muraka1970], Alnus sp. [MillerDa2005], Corylus avellana [Moghad2013a]. Buxaceae: Buxus hyrcana [Moghad2013a]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera caprifolium [Moghad2013a], Viburnum macrocephalum keteleeri [Hua2000]. Celastraceae: Celastrus orbiculatus [Muraka1970], Celastrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Euonymus alata [Muraka1970], Euonymus japonicus [Moghad2013a]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Muraka1970], Diospyros sp. [MillerDa2005]. Ericaceae: Enkianthus sp. [Takagi1960, MillerDa2005], Rhododendron sp. [Takagi1969a]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [Borchs1966]. Fabaceae: Cytisus scoparius [Kuwana1928], Cytisus sp. [Cocker1897d, MillerDa2005], Robinia sp. [Moghad2013a], Wisteria sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fagaceae: Castanea sp. [MillerDa2005], Fagus sp. [Koszta1963]. Hamamelidaceae: Distylium racemosum [Muraka1970], Liquidambar formosana [Balach1953g]. Lauraceae: Laurus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia grandiflora [Moghad2013a], Magnolia souleana [Kuwana1902]. Menyanthaceae: Menyanthes sp. [MillerDa2005]. Moraceae: Ficus bengalensis [KaussaFa1968], Ficus carica [AhmadGh1972], Ficus glomerate [Dutta1990], Ficus orbicularis [Green1916e], Ficus religiosa [Green1919c], Ficus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Morus alba [Moghad2013a]. Oleaceae: Euonymus sp. [MillerDa2005], Fraxinus japonica [Muraka1970], Fraxinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Syringa sp. [MillerDa2005], Syringa vulgaris [KaussaFa1968]. Paulowniaceae: Paulownia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosperum tobira [Takagi1969a]. Ranunculaceae: Paeonia moutan [Kuwana1902], Paeonia sp. [Muraka1970, MillerDa2005], Paeonia suffruticosa [Muraka1970]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Chaenomeles lagenaria [Muraka1970], Chaenomeles sp. [MillerDa2005], Cotoneaster sp. [MillerDa2005], Cydonia oblonga [Moghad2013a], Cydonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Malus pumila [Muraka1970], Malus sp. [Borchs1960b, MillerDa2005], Mespilus germanica [Moghad2013a], Prunus mume [Borchs1960b], Prunus sp. [Borchs1960b, MillerDa2005], Pyracantha sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], Pyrus serotina [Muraka1970], Pyrus sp. [Borchs1960b, MillerDa2005], Rosa sp. [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [Bodenh1953], Citrus nobilis [Chen1936], Citrus nobilis deliciosa [Chen1936], Citrus sp. [Balach1953g, MillerDa2005], Poncirus sp. [MillerDa2005], Poncirus trifoliata [Muraka1970]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Borchs1960b, MillerDa2005], Salix aegyptiaca [KaussaFa1968], Salix sp. [MillerDa2005]. Salvadoraceae: Salvadora sp. [Borchs1966]. Saxifragaceae: Hydrangea integra [Takaha1934], Hydrangea sp. [Takaha1934]. Styracaceae: Styrax japonica [Muraka1970], Styrax sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Hua2000], Camellia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Eurya crenatifolia [Takagi1969a]. Tiliaceae: Tilia miqueliana [Muraka1970]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Zelkova serrata [Muraka1970], Zelkova sp. [MillerDa2005]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [Borchs1966], Vitis vinifera [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Congo [Dutta1990]. Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1916e]). Nearctic: United States of America (Connecticut [Britto1920, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [GillShDa2011a], Maryland [Koszta1963, MillerDa2005], New Jersey [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], New York [Ferris1938a, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [GillShDa2011a], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], Rhode Island [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Brazil [Kuwana1923c, MillerDa2005]. Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [MillerDa2005]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Chen1936, Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); India [MillerDa2005] (Haryana [Ali1969a], Rajasthan [Ali1969a], Uttar Pradesh [Borchs1964a], West Bengal [Green1919c]); Nepal [Dutta1990]; Pakistan [AhmadGh1972, MillerDa2005]; Taiwan [Takaha1934, Hua2000, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; China [Ali1969a, MillerDa2005] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Hebei (=Hopei) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Liaoning [Hua2000], Shandong (=Shantung) [Hua2000], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Hua2000]); Georgia [TabataYa2001] (Tabatadze & Yasnosh (2001) state that this species was probably introduced from Japan.); Germany [Dutta1990]; Greece [Kozar1985]; Iran [KaussaFa1968, KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Japan [Cocker1897d] (Hokkaido [Kuwana1902], Honshu [Kuwana1902], Kyushu [Kuwana1902], Shikoku [Muraka1970]); South Korea [MillerDa2005] [SuhJi2009]; Turkey [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005]; USSR [MillerDa2005]; United Kingdom (England [Dutta1990]).
BIOLOGY: Life history by Murakami (1970) and Stimmel (1995). The life history of this species is poorly understood in the U.S. although, Stimmel (1995) indicated that it has 1 generation per year and overwinters as adult females in Pennsylvania. According to Murakami (1970) the Japanese maple scale has 1 generation each year and overwinters as fertilized adult females in Japan. In Caucasus, there are 2 generations each year, and overwintering takes place in the second instar male and female (Kozarzhevskaya 1956). Although molting individuals can be observed as early as late March, adult females are not found until later in April. Prepupae and pupae appear at the end of March and adult males are present from late April to late May. In the spring, egg laying begins in late April and lasts until late June or early July. Crawlers appear in late May and are present until early August. Second instars were present from the last of June to late August and adult females could be found from July to October. Males in prepupal, pupal, and adult instars are present from the middle of July to the last of September. Eggs of the fall generation appear at the end of July and continue until October. Crawlers are present from August until October. Because egg laying periods are so long, generations are overlapping and it is possible to detect two generations only by using comparative information on percentages of individual instars through time. McComb and Davidson (1969) reported that crawlers were present in June in Maryland. Greenwood (1991, personal communication) studied the biology of this scale in Norfolk, Virginia. There are two overlapping generations each year, and overwintering occurs in the adult female. Adult males appear in the spring in early April. Oviposition begins in early May and continues for over a month; the average number of eggs under each scale is 25. Crawlers first appear in early June and are present until mid-July. Adults of the first generation appear in late July, and eggs and crawlers are present in August to October. The male was described by Bienowski (1993). A model was developed by Zheng et al. (1993) to make control decisions in China on tea. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). JMS has two generations per year in Maryland and overwinters as immature 2nd instar males and females. Egg laying and crawler emergence periods extend over long periods of time (average: 10 weeks 1st gen: 8 weeks 2nd gen.). (Gill, et al., 2011a)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1938a) and Takagi (1969a). Illustration of first instar and second-instar male given by Takagi (2002). Dutta (1990) mentioned that this species occurs in "Itali" but there is no evidence that this is the case.
STRUCTURE: Female scale comma-shaped, slightly curved towards the cephalic end, broadest in the last fourth, distinctly narrowing towards the posterior margin, convex, black to blackish-brown, exuviae cephalic, yellowish brown. Male scale smaller, usually not curved towards the cephalic end. Adult female elongate, elliptic, broadest at about the middle of the body, red (Bodenheimer, 1953).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. In Georgia, L. japonica is a major pest of citrus, other fruits, tea and ornamental plants (Tabatadze & Yasnosh, 2001). Japanese maple scale is a serious orchard pest, especially of citrus in southern areas of the Former Soviet Union (Yasnosh 1986). In the U.S. it is known to damage maple and pyracantha (Davidson and Miller 1990) causing severe die back. It also has been reported as a pest of deciduous fruit trees (Kozár 1990a) and holly (McComb 1986). In Pennsylvania it is not a major pest, but it sometimes causes die back, and limbs and smaller branches can be killed (Stimmel 1995). Recent literature portrays it as a serious pest of citrus and ornamentals in the Former Soviet Union (Konstantinova 1992); of citrus, other fruit, tea, tung and various ornamentals in the Republic of Georgia (Tabatadze and Yasnosh 1997, Tabatadze and Yasnosh 1998); and of tea in China (Zheng et al. 1993). Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be an important world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh 2012: 76 (female, adult) [Key to the Korean Pupillarial Species]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted females)]; Watson et al. 2000a (female) [Expert system on a CD]; Kosztarab 1996: 408 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1964a: 865 (female) [Key to Lopholeucaspis species known from India]; Balachowsky 1958b: 335 (female) [Key to species of Lopholeucaspis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 877 (female) [Key to species of Lopholeucaspis]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:57 (female) [as Leucaspis japonica; Key to species of Leucaspis]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 266 (female) [Key to species of Leucaspis]; Lindinger 1906: 27 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis japonica; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 90]; Ali1969a [distribution, host: 59]; Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 877-882]; Balach1958b [distribution, taxonomy: 335]; Beards1975 [taxonomy: 661]; Bienko1993 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 25-29]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 160-162]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 48-51]; Boraty1960 [taxonomy: 193]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 91, 92]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 199]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 176]; Borchs1960b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 217, 218]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 77, 128, 175, 220, 2]; Borchs1964a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 865, 868, 872]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 217, 218]; Brick1912 [distribution, host: 7]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 285, 301-302]; Britto1920 [distribution: 65]; Britto1923 [distribution, host: 370]; BrownMc1962 [structure, taxonomy: 165]; Chen1936 [biological control, distribution, host: 226]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 102]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 200-203]; Chou1986 [illustration: 614, 615]; Clause1927 [distribution, host: 3, 4]; Clause1931 [distribution, host: 11, 38]; Cocker1897d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53]; Cocker1897j [distribution, host: 5]; Comper1936 [biological control, distribution: 280]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 217]; Danzig1977b [distribution: 41, 51]; Danzig1988 [distribution, taxonomy: 721]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114-116]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 301-302]; Dutta1990 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157-158]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, host: 257, 271, 279]; Ehrhor1907 [distribution, host: 24]; Ezzat1956a [taxonomy: 358]; FeltRa1932 [distribution, host: 318, 434]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-148]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:57]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Gaprin1950 [biological control, distribution: 249]; Gaprin1954 [distribution, taxonomy: 588]; Gaprin1956 [biological control, taxonomy: 113, 131]; Garcia1912 [biological control: 48]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution: 58]; GillShDa2011a [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 1-3]; Green1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 460-461, 466-467]; Green1916e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 449]; Hadzib1957a [taxonomy: 102]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 211, 212, 277]; Hartma1916 [distribution, taxonomy: 104]; HertinSi1972 [biological control: 185]; HilburWe1984 [taxonomy: 2]; Howard1907 [biological control: 73]; Howell1980 [taxonomy: 91]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 154-155]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 197]; Kanda1930a [biological control, distribution: 196]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9]; KaussaFa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 67]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 20]; Kawai1977 [distribution, host: 152]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 186-187]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-77]; KonstaKoJa1984 [distribution, host: 350]; Koszta1963 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 89-90]; Koszta1981 [illustration, structure: 153]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 530-532]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; Kozar1987 [distribution, host: 100]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 67]; KozarKo1981 [distribution, host: 215]; KozarKo1981a [distribution, host: 128]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; KozarYaKo1982 [distribution, host: 334-335]; Kozarz1956a [distribution, host: 302]; KSPP1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 108]; Kuhmin1970 [distribution, economic importance, host: 90]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, economic importance, host: 74]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host: 197-198]; Kuwana1923c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 321-323]; Kuwana1927 [distribution: 72]; Kuwana1928 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37]; LangfoCo1939 [distribution, host: 38]; Leonar1906b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Leonar1907c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 93]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 9, 27, 37-38]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 266]; McComb1986 [taxonomy: 63]; Miller2005 [distribution: 487]; MillerDa1974 [illustration: iv]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 303]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 276]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 40]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, life history: 65-66]; Myers1922 [distribution, taxonomy: 200]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 53]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 150, 194, 260, 281]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 31]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 363-364]; Paik1982 [biological control, distribution: 52]; PellizVe1999 [distribution, host, illustration: 17-18]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 5, 32, 192]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 350]; Quayle1938a [ecology: 299]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; RosenDe1970 [biological control, distribution: 41]; RosenDe1979 [biological control: 761]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 30]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 16]; ShiLi1991 [host: 164]; Shinji1936b [distribution, taxonomy: 96]; Sleesm1945 [distribution, host: 47]; Suh2012 [distribution: 73, 76]; Suh2012 [taxonomy: 76]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; TabataYa2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 429-434]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 57]; Tachik1962 [distribution, host: 77]; Tachik1962a [biological control, distribution, host: 74-77]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 74-75]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 26, 31]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 137-138]; Takagi2002 [illustration, taxonomy: 59, 81-82]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15-17]; Takaha1939c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 89]; Takaha1940a [taxonomy: 332]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 13]; Talhou1975 [distribution, host: 23]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; Tang1980 [taxonomy: 206]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 97]; TelengBo1936 [biological control: 77]; Tikhon1966 [distribution, host: 77]; Trembl1999 [distribution: 21]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 45]; Trjapi1964 [biological control, distribution: 465]; Trjapi1981 [biological control, distribution: 5]; Wang1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 183]; Wang1981TC [distribution, host, taxonomy: 290]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76-77, 109]; Watson2002 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, economic importance, host]; Weidha1968 [economic importance: 256]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 408]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 212]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 281-282, 284]; Yasnos1974 [biological control, distribution: 247]; Yasnos1978 [biological control, distribution: 474, 482]; Yasnos1979 [biological control, distribution: 68]; ZhangHu1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 177-178].
Lopholeucaspis limoniae (Rutherford)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis limoniae Rutherford, 1915: 117-118. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Limonia alata, ?/08/1914. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female.
Leucodiaspis limonii; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Misspelling of species name.
Lopholeucaspis limoniae; Borchsenius, 1966: 218. Change of combination.
HOST: Rutaceae: Limonia alata [Ruther1915].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1915].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Rutherford (1915).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, dark brown, consisting chiefly of the large 2nd exuviae. Male scale with exuviae dark brown, white secretion must the same dimensions as the 2nd exuviae of female. Adult female several times longer than broad, greenish, abdominal segments not laterally produced (Rutherford, 1915).
SYSTEMATICS: Lopholeucaspis limoniae resembles L. cockerelli, but the lobes are of a different shape and are not notched, while the pectinae are longer (extending well beyond the lobes) and the median and cephalo-lateral groups of circumgenital pores form a continuous series (Rutherford, 1915).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 20]; Borchs1964a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 865]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1937 [distribution, host: 341]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; Ruther1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 117-118]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 3].
Lopholeucaspis massoniae TangNOMENCLATURE:
Lopholeucaspis massoniae Tang, 1980: 203. Type data: CHINA: Fukien, Amoy, on Pinus massoniana, 18/11/1973. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus massoniana [Tang1980].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1980]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1980).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very elongate and slender, about 2.25 mm long, 2nd exuviae may be covered by thin film of white wax. Male scale similar. Adult female elongate, fusiform, 0.88 mm long, 0.35 mm wide (Tang, 1980).
SYSTEMATICS: Lopholeucaspis massoniae is close to L. cockerelli, L. hydrangeae and L. darwiniensis, but differs in the shape of the pygidial lobes (Tang, 1980).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 302]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Tang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 203-204]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 97].
Lopholeucaspis sp.NOMENCLATURE:
Lopholeucaspis sp. Torabi et al., 2010: 156.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [TorabiVaHo2010]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [TorabiVaHo2010].
CITATIONS: TorabiVaHo2010 [distribution, host: 156].
Microparlatoria TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Microparlatoria Takahashi, 1956b: 26-27. Type species: Parlatoria itabicola Kuwana, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Adult female body subcircular, not sclerotized, minute, smaller than the larval pellicle. Many large gland spines arranged in a continuous series from the thorax to the anterior part of the pygidium, which are somewhat lanceolate or serrate, truncated or blunt at the tip (Takahashi, 1956b).
SYSTEMATICS: Microparlatoria is closely related to Parlatoria, but differs in the pygidial marginal macroducts reduced in number, with the orifice vertical to the margin and wanting an broad rim, and in the minute pygidial dorsal ducts with the orifice not surrounded by a broad rim (Takahashi, 1956b).
KEYS: Takagi 1961a: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 201]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 308]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 120]; Takagi1960 [distribution, taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 99]; Takaha1956b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 26-27].
Microparlatoria fici (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria fici Takahashi, 1942b: 45-46. Type data: THAILAND: Chiengmai, on Ficus retusa, 10/04/1940. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Microparlatoria fici; Takahashi, 1956b: 28. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Ficus retusa [Takaha1942b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Indonesia [SuhJi2009]. Oriental: Taiwan [SuhJi2009]; Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1942b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellowish brown, dark green or blackish on the median areas of the larval exuviae, ovate, convex dorsally, about 1.0-1.2 mm long. Second exuviae subcircular, about 0.47 mm long and 0.42 mm side, with the abdominal segments distinct on the median area and with rhachis-like markings like the larvae of some Aleyrodidae. Body subcircular, a little longer than wide; cephalothroax with some minute setae on the submarginal area (Takahashi, 1942b).
SYSTEMATICS: Microparlatoria fici is closely related to M. itabicola, differing in that the pygidial lobes are rounded apically (Takahashi, 1942b).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult females)].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host: 77]; Ali1970 [taxonomy: 20]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 201]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takaha1942b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-46]; Takaha1955f [taxonomy: 242]; Takaha1956b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28].
Microparlatoria itabicola (Kuwana)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria itabicola Kuwana, 1931b: 171. Type data: JAPAN: Ryukyu, Amami-oshima, Kikai-mura, on Ficus foreolata, 27/10/1930, by S. Kuwana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria imperatae; McKenzie, 1945: 65. Misidentification; discovered by McKenzie, 1946: 34.
Microparlatoria itabicola; Takahashi, 1956: 27. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus foveolata [Kuwana1931b], Ficus pumila [Takagi1960].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Kuwana1931b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed redescription and illustration by Takahashi (1956b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale yellowish brown, rather narrow, broadened posteriorly; larval exuviae subcircular, with distinct segmentation except for the marginal area and each abdominal segment divided by furrows into a median and 2 lateral parts. Female body without a lateral protuberance on the prosoma. Male scales common, greenish (Takahashi, 1956b). M
SYSTEMATICS: Microparlatoria itabicola is close to M. fici, but the latter differs in the fewer dorsal pygidial ducts which are almost wanting in front of the marginal macroducts (Takahashi, 1956b).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [as Parlatoria itabicola; Revised key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host: 77]; Ali1969a [taxonomy: 57]; Ali1970 [taxonomy: 20]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 201]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 308]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 196]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Kuwana1931b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 171]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 65, 77]; McKenz1946 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 66]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 74]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 54]; Takaha1942b [taxonomy: 46]; Takaha1955f [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 241-242]; Takaha1956b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-28].
Mixaspis TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Mixaspis Takahashi, 1932: 46-47. Type species: Leucaspis bambusicola Takahashi, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Mixaspis has characters intermediate between Leucaspis and Parlatoria and differs from the former in the shape of the fringed plates on the pygidium and from the latter in the shape of the lobes and fringed plates (Takahashi, 1932).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 209]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 212-213]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 104, 113]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 187]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 189]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 122]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 48-50]; Takaha1932 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 46-47]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 271].
Mixaspis bambusicola (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis bambusicola Takahashi, 1930: 26-28. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp., 02/10/1929, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Mixaspis bambusicola; Takahashi, 1932: 46. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatorea bambusicola; Lindinger, 1932f: 187. Change of combination.
Apteronidia bambusicola; Lindinger, 1934: 27. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takaha1930]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1930]. Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1930) and Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, consisting mostly of larval exuviae. Body elongate. Pygidium with no median notch; marginal glands well developed, a median one present; dorsal gland orifices present; lobes distinct, produced into a papilla on the distal part, the median lobes not united together; some eminent fringed plates present, which are produced into a papilla on the distal part, a pair between the median lobes; gland spines expanded basally (Takahashi, 1932).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 19-20]; Balach1954e [taxonomy: 269]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 210]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; Chou1986 [illustration: 625]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937d [host, illustration, taxonomy: 104, 113]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 187]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 27]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50]; Takaha1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-28]; Takaha1932 [taxonomy: 46]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 87]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 98]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 284, 290-291].
Mongrovaspis BodenheimerNOMENCLATURE:
Mongrovaspis Bodenheimer, 1951: 331. Type species: Leucaspis quadrispinosa Green, by original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Mongrovaspis is closely related to Leucaspis. Adult female cryptogynous, elongate elliptic, broadest about middle. Neither lobes nor plates on pygidial margin, which is however produced into at least 4 long, ensifom caudal processes, about as long as their base is distant from anus (Bodenheimer, 1951). Althought the second-instar female exuvial casts of Thysanaspis, Mongrovaspis, and Ligaspis are not similar in external appearance, all of them are strongly sclerotized throughout, thus completely enclosing the body of the adult female (Takagi, 2002). Takagi (2002) further indicates "Green (1934) supposed Fiorinia pygosema Green and Laing (1923) to be closely related to Leucaspis quadrispinosa, and Bodenheimer followed him in referring it to Mongrovaspis. I agree with Balachowsky that it should be excluded from Mongrovaspis."
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 843 [Tableau des genres de Leucaspidina de la Région Paléarctique].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 843, 904-905]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Bodenh1951 [description, taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 223]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 309]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 123]; Takagi2002 [description, illustration, taxonomy: 59, 63-66, 83-86].
Mongrovaspis quadrispinosa (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis quadrispinosa Green, 1934: 110-111. Type data: EGYPT: Mersa Halaib, on Avicennia officinalis, 23/09/1933, by H. Priesner. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust.
Leucodiaspis quadrispinosa; Lindinger, 1936: 160. Change of combination.
Mongrovaspis quadrispinosa; Bodenheimer, 1951: 331. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Verbenaceae: Avicennia marina [BenDov1980], Avicennia officinalis [Green1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Lombok [Takagi2002]). Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [Takagi2002], Mindoro [Takagi2002]). Palaearctic: Egypt [Green1934]; Iran [Moghad2013a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration by Green (1934). Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953g). Detailed description and illustration of adult female, second-instar female and male, and first instar given by Takagi (2002).
SYSTEMATICS: Green (1934) states that this species is "very similar, in general appearance, to Fiorinia pygosema, but differing in the presence of perivulvar pores and the smaller number of pygidial processes." According to Takagi (2002) the long processes of F. pygosema are gland spines or modified plates, whereas the long processes of M. quadrispinosa are probably modified lobes. He therefore did not agree with Green that the species are congeneric.
KEYS: Ezzat 1958: 248 [as Leucaspis quadrispinosa; Key to Egyptian species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 905-907]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; BenDov1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 265]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 248, 249]; Green1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 110-111]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 160]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 43]; Takagi2002 [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-66, 83-86].
Namaquea MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Namaquea Munting, 1969: 132. Type species: Namaquea simplex Munting, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Adult female completely enclosed by 2nd instar exuviae, body oval or broadly fusiform. Lobes, pygidial gland spines and gland tubercles completely lacking. Dorsal pygidial macroducts few in number. Perivulvar pores absent in type species. Anal opening at basal third of pygidium (Munting, 1969).
SYSTEMATICS: Namaquea resembles Anotaspis Ferris in the complete absence of any pygidial processes, but the presence of well developed, widely separated lobes and numerous segmentally arranged pygidial macroducts in the 2nd instar separate the two genera (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [catalogue: 230]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 132].
Namaquea simplex MuntingNOMENCLATURE:
Namaquea simplex Munting, 1969: 132-133. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Vioolsdrif, on Sysyndite spartea, 1/09/1967, by E. Mey. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa; type no. 3220/1. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Zygophyllaceae: Sysyndite spartea [Muntin1969].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1969].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Munting (1969).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, convex, brown with a white secretory covering which is, however, easily rubbed off, 1.5 mm long. Male scale non-carinate, about 1.0 mm long, consisting of yellow 1st instar exuviae and very short secretory portion. Adult female oval or broadly fusiform, about 1.1 mm long; pygidium faintly sclerotized (Munting, 1969).
CITATIONS: BenDovGi2014 [chemical control: 231]; Muntin1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132-133, 156].
Neoleucaspis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Neoleucaspis Green, 1926: 63. Type species: Neoleucaspis parallela Green, by monotypy and original designation.
SYSTEMATICS: Neoleucaspis is allied to Leucaspis, from which it differs, principally, in the complete absence of perivulvar pores. Characters of the nymphal exuviae typical of Leucaspis (Green, 1926).
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 223]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 283]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22, 25, 70]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 529]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Green1926 [description, taxonomy: 63]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 131].
Neoleucaspis parallela GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Neoleucaspis parallela Green, 1926: 63-64. Type data: INDIA: Malabar Coast, on Bambusa sp., by T.V. Ramakrishna Ayyar. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea parallela; Lindinger, 1932: 204. Change of combination.
Apteronidia parallela; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Green1926]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Green1926].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1926).
STRUCTURE: Female scale naked, consisting of the larval and nymphal exuviae, without any appreciable secretionary appendix; elongate, narrow, with straight parallel sides; reddish, median area brownish. Nymphal exuviae with elongate, longitudinal, sharply circumscribed, raised median area. Pygidial area sharply separated from the preceding segments by a deep lateral incision on each side. Margin of nymphal pygidium with 6 prominent, narrow, obscurely tridentate trullae, their bases inwardly produced into slender paraphyses. Adult female elongate, rounded anteriorly, posterior extremity bluntly truncate (Green, 1926).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 223]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22, 70]; Green1926 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 63-64]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 36]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 550]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 455]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 20, 55]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 7].
Neoparlatoria TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria Takahashi, 1931b: 381-382. Type species: Neoparlatoria formosana Takahashi, by monotypy and original designation.
Neoparlatorea Lindinger, 1937: 190. Unjustified emendation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1931b).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale nearly oval, consisting of larval skins and secretion. 2nd larval exuviae large, approximately at center of scale. Body nearly circular. Pygidium with marginal ducts, long simple gland spines, and 3 pairs of pointed conical lobes which are not defined on the base and process-like. Fimbriated plates, large dorsal gland orifices and a median marginal gland wanting (Takahashi, 1931b).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria is related to Parlatoria, differing from it in the characters of lobes and in possessing simple gland spines, as well as in lacking large dorsal gland orifices and fimbriated plates (Takahashi, 1931b).
KEYS: Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 204]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 205-206]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 314]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 104, 115]; Ferris1952a [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 132]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Takaha1931b [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 381-382]; Takaha1934 [taxonomy: 29]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45, 106]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Neoparlatoria excisi TangNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria excisi Tang, 1977: 136-137. Type data: CHINA:. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China [Tang1977].
KEYS: Wang 1982c: 106 (female) [Key to species of Neoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 393-394]; Chou1986 [illustration: 620]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 314]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 136-137]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 99]; Wang1982c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 106, 107-108].
Neoparlatoria formosana TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria formosana Takahashi, 1931b: 382-383. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, Shirin, on Quercus glauca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Neoparlatoria lithocarpi Takahashi, 1934: 28-29. Type data: TAIWAN: Shinten, Sozan, on Lithocarpus uraiana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1977: 136.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Cyclobalanopsis glauca [Tao1978], Cyclobalanopsis myrsinifolia [MartinLa2011], Fagus glauca [Tao1999], Lithocarpus sp. [Takagi1970], Lithocarpus uraiana [Takaha1934], Quercus acuta [Takaha1957b], Quercus glauca [Takaha1931b], Quercus sp. [Takagi1960]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Taiwan [Takaha1931b]. Palaearctic: China [DanzigPe1998]; Japan [Takagi1970] (Honshu [Takaha1957b], Kyushu [Takagi1960]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1931b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale wide, very thin, flattened, about 1.25-1.50 mm long, 0.9 mm wide. 1st larval exuviae small, a little longer than wide, slightly indented on the front margin, situated on the anterior part of the 2nd exuviae, not extending beyond the margin of it, pale yellow. 2nd exuviae very large, occupying most of the scale, wide, pale yellow, slightly covered with white secretion. Body circular, with pygidium protruding, 0.44 mm long. Pygidium wider than long, narrowly chitinized on the margin of the posterior part, without distinct lines (Takahashi, 1931b).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria formosana is close to Parlatoria vateriae Green from India, but is different from it in the characters of the pygidium (Takahashi, 1931b). Ali (1970) states that Lindinger (1934:37) considered this species identical to Apteronidia uberifera.
KEYS: Chou 1985: 206 (female) [Key to species of Neoparlatoria]; Wang 1982c: 107 (female) [Key to species of Neoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204-205]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206-208]; Chou1986 [illustration: 619]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 115]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 196-197]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 85]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 37]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 190]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43,118]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 66]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1960 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-74]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 43]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host: 138]; Takaha1931b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 382-383]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 105]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 32, 61]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-32]; Takaha1957b [distribution, host: 104]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134-135]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 87]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 99]; Wang1982c [taxonomy: 107]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287, 289].
Neoparlatoria lithocarpicola TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria lithocarpicola Takahashi, 1934: 30-31. Type data: TAIWAN: Tosei-Gun, Shinten, Suisha, Kahodai, Rirei; Hinokiyama near Urai, on Lithocarpus uraiana, Castanopsis sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Apteronidia lithocarpicola; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Castanopsis sp. [Takaha1934], Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1942b], Lithocarpus uraiana [Takaha1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1934]; Thailand [Takaha1942b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1934).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale yellow, flattened, thin, nearly circular, with no secretion evident, 0.7 mm long. Female body very wide, a little longer than wide, very broadly rounded on the front, abruptly narrowed on the abdomen which is contracted (Takahashi, 1934).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria lithocarpicola is remarkably different from other species of this genus in the characters of the pygidium. It resembles Aonidia, but differs in possessing circumgenital pores an din the structures of the exuviae (Takahashi, 1934).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 206 (female) [Key to species of Neoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 23]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 205]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206, 207]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 36]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1969a [distribution: 43]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 138]; Takaha1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-31]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 46]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 99]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 287].
Neoparlatoria maai TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria maai Takagi, 1969a: 44-45. Type data: TAIWAN: A-li Shan, on Castanopsis sp., 1965, by S. Takagi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Castanopsis sp. [Takagi1969a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body oblong, granulations of the derm just posteriorly to the mouthparts. Pygidial lobes in 3 pairs all practically same in shape and size, serrate on the oblique outer margin. Plates slender, much exceeding the lobes in length, each ended apically in a linear elongation. Second exuviae of female with the median to 3rd lobes well developed, all same in shape and size, being serrate on the oblique outer margin, the median lobes set close together (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria maai is unique in lacking dorsal macroducts in the adult female (Takagi, 1969a).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 206 (female) [Key to species of Neoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206, 208-209]; Chou1986 [illustration: 621]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-45]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 87]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 99]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 287].
Neoparlatoria miyamotoi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria miyamotoi Takagi, 1969a: 44-47. Type data: TAIWAN: Fen-chi-hu, on Castanopsis kusanoi, 1965, by S. Takagi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Castanopsis kusanoi [Takagi1969a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Female body broadest across the base of the abdomen, thence abruptly narrowing posteriorly. Granulations of the derm just posterior to the mouth-parts. Pygidial lobes in two pairs, conical, often variously incised or serrate; 2nd lobes smaller than the median. Second exuviae of female with pygidium demarked from the remainder of the body by a transverse sclerotized fold. Median lobes set quite close, leaving a slender space between them, convergent, with the outer margin finely serrate (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria miyamotoi has 2 pairs of pygidial lobes in the adult female like N. lithocarpicola, but it is easily distinguishable by the smaller pygidial lobes, the plates not being furcate apically, and the more numerous perivulvar pores. It is distinguishable from other species of the genus by lacking the 3rd lobes in the adult female (Takagi, 1969a).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 206 (female) [Key to species of Neoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206, 209]; Chou1986 [illustration: 622]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-47]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 87]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 99]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 287].
Neoparlatoria wuiensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria wuiensis Tang, 1980: 204-205. Type data: CHINA: Zhejiang (Chekiang), on Lithocarpus sp., 22/06/1972. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Tang1980]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1980]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1980).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale yellow, nearly circular, without secretion, flattened or slightly convex. 1st exuviae pale yellowish brown, with dusky spot near the center, about 0.30 mm long; 2nd exuviae brown, nearly circular, about 0.65 mm long and 0.53 mm wide. Female body nearly triangular, about 0.48 mm long, 0.52 m wide (Tang, 1980).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria wuiensis is distinguishable from other members of its genus by the lack of perivulvar pores, 2 pairs of pygidial lobes, singularly present plate between the median lobes, absence of dorsal macroduct and the two pairs of marginal macroducts on pygidium (Tang, 1980).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 314]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 155]; Tang1980 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 204-206]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100].
Neoparlatoria yunnanensis YoungNOMENCLATURE:
Neoparlatoria yunnanensis Young, 1985: 259-261. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Xi-shuang-ban-na, Mon-hai, on unidentified shrub, 11/12/1973. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Cyclobalanopsis myrsinifolia [MartinLa2011].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Young1985]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Young (1985).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial. Body broadest about metathoracic region, abruptly narrowed on the base of the abdomen and tapering towards posterior end; Membranous, antenna with a seta; no disc pores near thoracic spiracles (Young, 1985).
SYSTEMATICS: Neoparlatoria yunnanensis is close to N. miyamotoi, but differs in having more pygidial lobes, fewer thoracic tubercular ducts and a differently shaped pygidial plate (Young, 1985).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution: 155]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 100]; Young1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 259-261].
Neparla TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Neparla Takagi, 1987: 2. Type species: Neparla katus Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Neparla is apparently close to Parlatoria, but disagrees with the latter mainly in the following characters: In the adult female pygidial macroducts occur on the ventral surface as well, the perivulvar disk pores are arranged in an arch (which may be incomplete medially), the plates are rudimentary laterally to the 3rd lobes. In the 2nd instar female, the exuviation is of the bivalve type (Takagi, 1987).
CITATIONS: Takagi1987 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 2].
Neparla katus TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Neparla katus Takagi, 1987: 2-4. Type data: NEPAL: Godavari, near Kathmandu, on Castanopsis indica, ?/08/1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Castanopsis indica [Takagi1987].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1987].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1987).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, depressed and white; entirely enclosing the insect body, ventral portion being as well developed as dorsal; exuvial casts terminal; 2nd instar cast ruptured along the margin, but not completely, dorsal and ventral halves of skin remaining attached to each other by part of the margin, the ventral half less sclerotized, its central area including mouth-parts pushed back toward pygidium; 1st instar casts ruptured on the ventral surface of the head, retaining antennae, the rest of ventral skin much less sclerotized and eventually completely separated from dorsal skin, together with legs and mouth-parts pushed backward. Male scale much smaller, slender, with sides straight and parallel, pale brown dorsally and white ventrally. Adult female body broadly obovate; meso- and metathorax and abd I-IV well defined marginally by intersegmental constrictions; pygidium triangular rather than round on the free margin. Three pairs of well-developed pygidial lobes, presenting a converging appearance apically towards meson (Takagi, 1987).
CITATIONS: Takagi1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-4, 13-19]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 8].
Paraleucaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraleucaspis Mamet, 1953: 251. Nomen nudum; discovered by Mamet, 1954: 70-71.
Paraleucaspis Mamet, 1954: 70. Type species: Pseudoleucaspis halli Mamet, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Adult female elongate, more or less membranous; body destitute of all but minute ducts. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes which barely exceed the margin of the pygidium; median lobes non-zygotic, 2nd lobes not bilobed. Perivulvar pores absent. Gland spines absent. Body spines inserted in fairly developed sockets (Mamet, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraleucaspis differs from Pseudoleucaspis Mamet by the presence in the second stage of developed ducts on the margin of the pygidium and of bilobed second lobes. Paraleucaspis is related to Emmereziaspis Mamet, by the constitution of the pygidial margin of the second stage, but differs from this genus by the shape of the adult female (which is reniform in Emmereziaspis), by the absence of gland spines in the adult female and by the shape of the second stage (which is circular in Emmereziaspis) (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 219]; Mamet1953 [distribution: 251]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 145].
Paraleucaspis ankatotoensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraleucaspis ankatotoensis Mamet, 1959a: 454-456. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ambilobe, Ankatoto, on "Malitoroa," ?/04/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 473. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pupillarial, completely enclosed in exuviae of 2nd stage, elongate, narrow, 0.8 mm long on slide. Derm membranous except for median area of mesothorax which is a little sclerotized. Pygidium small, broadly rounded, with a membranous, lobe-like, median process protruding at apex. True lobes absent (Mamet, 1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraleucaspis ankatotoensis differs from other species of the genus by the absence of pygidial lobes and the occurrence of an apical membranous process on the margin of the pygidium in the adult female (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 454-456].
Paraleucaspis bidens MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraleucaspis bidens Mamet, 1959a: 456-458. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ankatoto, on "Voamasoandro," ?/04/1951, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 474. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale entirely composed of exuviae of 2nd stage which is elongate, narrow, somewhat convex, parallel sided, covered with a thin film of translucent glassy secretion. Larval exuviae terminal, translucent. Adult female pupillarial, elongate, enclosed in exuviae of 2nd stage, membranous except for the anterior extremity of the body which is weakly sclerotized. Median ventral area of meso- and metathorax with numerous short ridges with weakly sclerotized and minutely serrated apices, 0.7 mm long. Pygidium short, with apical margin broadly but strongly depressed, with only one pair of tooth-like structures (lobes) on the margin of the 6th segment on each side of the median depression (Mamet, 1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraleucaspis bidens can be distinguished from other species of the genus by the apical margin of the pygidium which is strongly depressed in the adult female (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 456].
Paraleucaspis halli (Mamet)NOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoleucaspis halli Mamet, 1940: 70. Type data: MAURITIUS: Le Pouce Mt., on leaves of an indigenous plant, 02/11/1938, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Paraleucaspis halli; Mamet, 1954: 70. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1940].
BIOLOGY: Paraleucaspis halli was collected at an elevation of 2661 feet (Mamet, 1940).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1940).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, straight, transparent, showing the black nymphal exuviae underneath it, white, glassy, somewhat convex where the nymphal exuvia is situtated, the rest being flattish. Larval exuviae pale golden, shiny, situated at the anterior extremity of the scale and projecting beyond its margin, 0.4-0.5 mm wide, 1.3-1.9 mm long. Male scale dull yellowish, translucent. Median area convex; submarginal area and posterior area flattish, dilated behind; larval exuviae shiny, darker, situated at anterior extremity of scale and projecting beyond, 0.7-0.9 mm wide, 1.6-1.9 mm long. Adult female completely enclosed in nymphal exuviae, elongate, flatly rounded in front, sharply pointed behind, broadest across the abdominal segments (Mamet, 1940).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraleucaspis halli is separated from Pseudoleucaspis based on the duplex 2nd pair of lobes and the presence of well-developed tubular pores on the pygidial margin of the nymphal exuviae (Mamet, 1940).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219]; Mamet1940 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 167]; Mamet1949 [distribution: 50]; Mamet1954 [taxonomy: 72]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 70].
Paraleucaspis madagascariensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraleucaspis madagascariensis Mamet, 1954: 71-72. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Sacaramy Foresty Station, on an undetermined plant. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954, Borchs1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, shiny, almost entirely composed of nymphal exuviae which is jet black and covered with a thin film of translucent, glassy secretion. Larval exuviae terminal, translucent, with its posterior extremity orange yellow. Male scale elongate, broadest behind, without carinae, pale straw colored. Adult female enclosed in exuviae of 2nd stage; membranous; median ventral area of meso- and metathorax with numerous, short ridges with sclerotized and minutely serrated apices. Pygidium broadly rounded, with 2 pairs minute, elongate lobes which scarcely project beyond margin; 2nd lobes not bilobed (Mamet, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraleucaspis madagascariensis is similar P. halli, from which it is differentiated by the broadly rounded pygidium of the female and by the shape of the lobes of the second stage (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 219-220]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 19, 71-72].
Paraleucaspis namorokae MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraleucaspis namorokae Mamet, 1959a: 458-459. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Namoroka, on an undermined plant, ?/09/1952, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 689. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Cover of female almost entirely composed of the exuviae of the 2nd stage, elongate, broadest across the anterior region, jet black, shiny, extremely sclerotized, covered with a very thin film of glassy secretion. Larval exuviae terminal, translucent. Male scale elongate, broadest behind, without carinae, pale straw colored. Adult female pupillarial, membranous. 0.3 mm long on slide. Pygidium broadly rounded laterally, apical margin appearing truncated. Pygidial lobes absent (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 458].
Paraparlagena MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraparlagena Mamet, 1959a: 452. Type species: Paraparlagena ifanadiana Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
SYSTEMATICS: Paraparlagena is near Parlagena McKenzie from which it differs by the elongate body of the female and the arrangement of the dorsal microducts in segmental rows (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 202]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, illustration, structure: 452]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 146].
Paraparlagena ifanadiana MametNOMENCLATURE:
Paraparlagena ifanadiana Mamet, 1959a: 452-454. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Ifanadiana, Ranomafana, on undermined plant, ?/12/1954, by R. Paulian. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 661. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1959a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1959a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very small, elongate, fairly convex, pure white. Exuviae terminal, yellowish. Anterior portion of scale concealed by the walls of the minute pits in which the species lives; only the posterior portion of the scale protrudes from the pits. Adult female elongate, about 0.7 mm long, membranous except for the pygidium. Pygidium with 3 pairs of well-developed, irregular lobes. Median lobes largest, notched once or twice on both outer and inner margins, well separated from each other, with a pair of gland spines between their bases (Mamet, 1959a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; Mamet1959a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 452-454].
Parlagena McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlagena McKenzie, 1945: 81-82. Type species: Parlagena inops McKenzie (= Parlagena buxi Takahashi), by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions by McKenzie (1945) and Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with body typically oval. With short "two-barred" macroducts, those situated along pygidial margins each with the orifices surrounded by a conspicuous sclerotized ring, each duct with the axis of its orifices almost parallel to pygidial margin, microducts on pygidium dorsum apparently not arranged in well-defined rows, the single median macroduct removed from the bases of the median lobes about the length of the lobes (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlagena can be differentiated from Parlatoria principally by the reduced pygidial plates, position of dorsal macroduct between median lobes and the absence of perivulvar pores (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Balachowsky 1953g: 773 [Key to genera of Parlatorina].
CITATIONS: Balach1950a [taxonomy: 17]; Balach1953g [description, host, illustration, taxonomy: 773, 833-834]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 202]; Chou1985 [taxonomy: 241]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 322]; Kaussa1955a [taxonomy: 232]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 81-82]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 148]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45, 105]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Parlagena bennetti WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Parlagena bennetti Williams, 1969c: 97-99. Type data: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Trinidad, Manzanilla, on Cocos nucifera, ?/05/1968, by F.D. Bennett. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria bennetti; Davies & Boratynski, 1979: 100. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: escama blanca del cocotero [Mosque1976].
FOE: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Zagloba aeneipennis [Gordon1978].
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Willia1969c].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Colombia [Mosque1976]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Willia1969c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams (1969c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, about 1.25 mm wide. Exuviae pale yellow, at edge of scale and often at right angles to the scale and leaf surface. Scale dome-shaped, of a distinct downy texture. The small dark brown adult female is completely surrounded by the downy wax, as seen when the top surface of the scale is removed. Male scale about 1.0 mm long, elongate, sides subparallel, of the same downy consistency as female scale. Exuviae pale yellow. Adult female about 0.60 mm long, slightly longer than wide, turbinate. Body membranous except for pygidium. Pygidium rounded. Median lobes small, short and rounded, as long as wide, with faint suggestion of a notch on outer margin (Williams, 1969c).
KEYS: Williams 1969c: 99 [Key to species of Parlagena].
CITATIONS: BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 76]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 100]; Gordon1978 [biological control: 209]; Mosque1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52-53, 93]; Mosque1977 [distribution, host: 8]; Willia1969c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 97-99].
Parlagena buxi (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Gymnaspis buxi Takahashi, 1936a: 220-222. Type data: CHINA: Jiangsu, Shanghai, on Buxus microphylla, ?/04/1935, by S.P. Chu. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia buxi; Lindinger, 1943: 206. Change of combination.
Parlagena inops McKenzie, 1945: 82. Type data: CHINA: Beijing, on unidentified shrub, 15/06/1908. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1952: 12-13.
Parlagena buxi; McKenzie, 1952: 12-13. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Buxaceae: Buxus microphylla [Takaha1936a], Buxus sinica [Hua2000]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [Tang1984b]. Rhamnaceae: Zizyphus sp. [Tang1984b]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus sp. [Tang1984b]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Takaha1936a]). Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [McKenz1945], Hebei (=Hopei) [Tao1999], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Hua2000], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984b]); Iran [KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1936a) and McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Female scale mostly composed of larval skins, flattened, black. 1st larval exuviae subcircular, shorter than half the 2nd, not situated on the margin of 2nd. 2nd exuviae thick, not becoming pale except on the hind end when treated with caustic potash, subcircular, a little longer than wide, with some irregular shallow indentations on the margin, about 0.83 mm long and 0.6 mm wide. Adult female body wide, broadest about the middle, longer than wide, broadly rounded on the front margin, subcircular in some specimens, with a few minute glands lateral of mouth parts. Pygidium much wider than long, sclerotized except on the basal area, more so along the margin, with many longitudinal lines (Takahashi, 1936a).
KEYS: Williams 1969c: 99 [Key to species of Parlagena].
CITATIONS: Balach1950a [taxonomy: 17]; Balach1953g [distribution, host, taxonomy: 833]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 241-242]; Chou1986 [illustration: 648]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kaussa1951 [taxonomy: 27, 44]; Kaussa1964 [taxonomy: 13]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 206]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 82]; McKenz1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12-13]; Moghad2013a [distribution: 44]; Takaha1936a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220-222]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 132]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 129]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 105-106]; Willia1969c [distribution, taxonomy: 99]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 278, 280, 286]; Yao1985 [structure, taxonomy: 338].
Parlagena mckenziei BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Parlagena McKenzei Balachowsky, 1950a: 18-20. Type data: IRAN: Iran-Chahre, Beloutchistan, on Tamarix sp., by M. Kaussari. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Parlagena Mc. Kenziei; Balachowsky, 1953g: 834. Misspelling of species name.
Parlagena mckenziei; Borchsenius, 1966: 202. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Fabaceae: Prosopis stephaniana [Moghad2013a]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [Balach1950a]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Balach1950a, KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1950a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, faintly convex, satiny white. Larval exuviae brown, subcentral, 1.0-1.2 mm long. Adult female pyriform, narrowed at abdominal segment III; cephalothoracic derm not sclerotized, entirely membranous. Pygidium with two pairs of well developed lobes, 3rd set of lobes entirely absent (Balachowsky, 1950a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlagena mckenziei is similar to P. buxi, but differs in the absence of median macropores, the form and number of plates and the number of peristigmatic glands (Balachowsky, 1950a).
KEYS: Williams 1969c: 99 [Key to species of Parlagena].
CITATIONS: Balach1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 18-20]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 834-836]; BalachKa1951 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322]; Kaussa1951 [taxonomy: 27, 44]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13-14]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 44]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 37]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 17]; Willia1969c [distribution, taxonomy: 99].
Parlagena remaudierei KaussariNOMENCLATURE:
Parlagena Remaudierei Kaussari, 1955a: 234-235. Type data: IRAN: Khour-Biabanak, on Zygophyllum sp., by N. Sarkissian. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Parlagena remaudierei; Borchsenius, 1966: 202. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Convolvulaceae: Convolvulus sp. [Moghad2013a]. Lythraceae: Punica granatum [Moghad2013a]. Zygophyllaceae: Zygophyllum eurypeterum [Moghad2013a], Zygophyllum sp. [Kaussa1955a]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iran [Kaussa1955a, KozarFoZa1996].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Kaussari (1955a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale covered with secretion which is easily detached. Larval exuviae dark brown and includes the adult female. Adult female entirely membranous, largely oval. Pygidium with two pairs of lobes. L1 robust and subparallel. L2 smaller and conical or subconical (Kaussari, 1955a).
KEYS: Williams 1969c: 99 [Key to species of Parlagena].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 322-323]; Kaussa1955a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234-235]; Kaussa1957 [distribution, host: 1]; Kaussa1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 14]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 44]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 37]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 17]; Willia1969c [distribution, taxonomy: 99].
Parlaspis McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlaspis McKenzie, 1945: 82-83. Type species: Parlatoria papillosa Green, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: With short "two-barred" macroducts, those situated along pygidial margins each with the orifices surrounded by a conspicuous sclerotized ring, each duct with the axis of the orifice set approximately at right angles to the axis of the pygidium, macroducts on pygidium dorsum few in number confined mainly to the margin itself; microducts present either dorsally or ventrally, appearing in segmental arrangement (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlaspis appears to be related to Parlatoria, but differs in body shape, and in the extraordinary development of the pygidial plates, which do not possess microducts (McKenzie, 1945).
CITATIONS: Balach1950a [taxonomy: 17]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 202]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 82-83]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 148].
Parlaspis papillosa (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria papillosa; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919b: 99. Change of combination.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) papillosa Green, 1919c: 443-444. Type data: INDIA: Kerala, Palghat, on Artocarpus integrifolia, by Ramakrishna Ayyar. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; type no. 137. Described: female. Illust.
Porogymnaspis papillosa; Bellio, 1929a: 223. Change of combination.
Apteronidia papillosa; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
Parlaspis papillosa; McKenzie, 1945: 83. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Artocarpus integrifolia [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Kerala [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1919c) and McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Cover of female minute, oval; consisting of nymphal exuviae without any secretionary appendix, the disc rising abruptly into a hemispherical boss, bright yellow or ochreous, median elevation jet black, 0.5 mm long. Male cover creamy white or very pale ochreous, larval exuviae dusky olivaceous; elongate ovate, broader in front, appendix moderately convex, with a broad medio-longitudinal depressed groove, 0.7 mm long. Adult female broadest across the anterior thoracic area, tapering behind (Green, 1919c).
SYSTEMATICS: The unusual shape of the adult female, together with the peculiar shape of the pygidial plates between the lobes, and the lack of accompanying ducts with these plates and those situated on the prepygidial abdominal segments, separate Parlaspis papillosa from other species of the genus (McKenzie, 1945).
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 81]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Bellio1929a [distribution, host: 223]; BhasinRo1954 [taxonomy: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 202]; Butani1979 [distribution, host: 38]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 443-444]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 35]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 36]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 26]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 99]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ramakr1924 [taxonomy: 342]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 33]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 8].
Parlatoreopsis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoreopsis Lindinger, 1912b: 191. Type species: Chionaspis longispina Newstead, by monotypy.
Anatolaspis Bodenheimer, 1949: 39. Type species: Anatolaspis abidini Bodenheimer (= Parlatoreopsis longispinus Newstead), by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 827. Notes: Although Bodenheimer (1949) lists Anatolaspis as being described in 1941, we have been unable to find any evidence of the genus having been mentioned in that year. In agreement with Morrison & Morrison (1966), 1949 is accepted as the date of description.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions by Ferris (1942) and Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Adult female only slightly longer than broad, derm membranous except for the short and rather acute pygidium. Median pygidial lobes well developed, set close together but with no basal zygosis and with a small dorsal pore but with no gland spine between them. Second lobes small, but strongly sclerotized, not bilobed. 3rd and 4th lobes lacking or the 3rd represented at times by a very minute point. Gland spines few and small, all simple, confined to the pygidial margin. Dorsal macroducts of the pygidium relatively few or almost lacking except for the marginal series and not arranged in definite rows; those of the marginal series each with the orifice surrounded by a sclerotized rim. Lateral margins of the prepygidial segments with small macroducts and in part with a few small gland tubercles. Perivulvar pores present in 4 or 5 small groups. Scale of female flat, thin, pale gray, roughly circular, with the exuviae subcentral (Ferris, 1942).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoreopsis is related to Parlatoria, but the separation of the two is simple enough as far as the species occurring in North America, all of which are introduced, are concerned, and the genus is quite valid. However, the group of species centering about Parlatoria is extensively developed in the Australian and Oriental regions and not until this entire group has been carefully reviewed can any statement be made as to the actual limits of the genera (Ferris, 1942).
KEYS: Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 270 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Takagi 1961a: 99 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 163 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; MacGillivray 1921: 309 (female) [Genera of Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1950a [taxonomy: 17]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 773, 827-829]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 29, 39, 44]; Bodenh1951 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 330]; Bodenh1952 [taxonomy: 331]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 9-11, 44-45]; Borchs1947a [taxonomy: 343]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 163, 172-174]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 202]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 105-106]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 323]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 248]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, taxonomy: SIV-404, SIV-446:43]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 213]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 548]; Lindin1912b [description, taxonomy: 191]; Lindin1932f [description, taxonomy: 185-186]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 309, 354, 355]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 48, 51, 52, 83, 87]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 28]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 148]; Takagi1960 [distribution, taxonomy: 74]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 99]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 40-41]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 94]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 45, 104]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 270].
Parlatoreopsis acericola Tang et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoreopsis acericola Tang et al., 1991: 461-462. Type data: CHINA: Shanxi, Changzhi, on Acer negunde, 21/08/1985, by G. Shi. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Aceraceae: Acer negunde [TangHaSh1991].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Shanxi (=Shansi) [TangHaSh1991]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang et al. (1991).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, with exuviae blackish brown, 2nd exuviae about 1.3 mm long, but adult female much smaller, only 06.0-0.63 mm long. Anterior spiracles each with 3-4 disc pores, pygidial lobes in 2 pairs, the 3rd ones never present (Tang et al., 1991).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoreopsis acericola is similar to P. tsugae, but can be distinguished by the presence of peribuccal granulations and ventral microducts bend laterad of posterior spiracle, by gland tubercles much fewer. It is also distinguished in its peculiar gland spines and smaller body size (Tang et al., 1991).
CITATIONS: TangHaSh1991 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 461-462, 464]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104].
Parlatoreopsis chinensis (Marlatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria chinensis Marlatt, 1908c: 30-32. Type data: CHINA: Tianjin, on "crab apple" (Malus sp.), 11/10/1901, by C.L. Marlatt. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatorea chinensis; Lindinger, 1910: 259. Change of combination.
Parlatoria chinensis; Sasscer, 1919: 135. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatoria chinensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 254. Change of combination.
Parlatoreopsis chinensis; Lindinger, 1932: 186. Change of combination.
Parlatoria (Parlatoreopsis) chinensis; Merrill, 1953: 66. Change of combination.
Parlatorepsis chinensis; Chou, 1985: 244. Misspelling of genus name.
Paralepidosaphes chinensis; Hua, 2000: 156. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Chinese obscure scale [Borchs1966, Blicke1965].
FOE: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [SummerHa1951].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia sp. [McKenz1956], Rhus sp. [McKenz1956]. Annonaceae: Asimina sp. [McKenz1956]. Apocynaceae: Nerium sp. [McKenz1956], Periploca sp. [MillerDa2005]. Berberidaceae: Mahonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Betula sp. [McKenz1956], Corylus sp. [McKenz1956]. Bignoniaceae: Catalpa sp. [Tang1984b]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum sp. [McKenz1956]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [McKenz1956]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [McKenz1956]. Cupressaceae: Thuja sp. [MillerDa2005]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [McKenz1956]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Hua2000], Albizia sp. [McKenz1956], Amorpha sp. [MillerDa2005], Bauhinia sp. [McKenz1956], Cassia sp. [McKenz1956], Gymnocladus sp. [MillerDa2005], Robinia sp. [McKenz1956]. Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus sp. [McKenz1956]. Juglandaceae: Juglans sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Althaea sp. [MillerDa2005], Hibiscus sp. [Marlat1908c, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus tiliaceus [Takagi1969a]. Moraceae: Broussonetia sp. [McKenz1956], Ficus altissima [Dekle1965c], Ficus bengalensis [Dekle1965c], Ficus elastica [Dekle1965c], Ficus nitida [Dekle1965c], Ficus sp. [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Maclura sp. [McKenz1956]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Olea europaea [Hua2000], Olea sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Syringa sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005]. Pinaceae: Thuja orientalis [Marlat1908c]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [McKenz1956]. Platanaceae: Platanus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus sp. [McKenz1956], Ziziphus jujuba [Hua2000], Ziziphus sp. [MillerDa2005], Zizyphus vulgaris mermis [Cheo1935]. Rosaceae: Aronia sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Chaenomeles sp. [MillerDa2005], Cotoneaster sp. [McKenz1956], Crataegus sp. [McKenz1956], Eriobotrya japonica [Takagi1960], Eriobotrya sp. [Borchs1966], Malus pumila [Hua2000], Malus sp. [Marlat1908c], Malus sp. [MillerDa2005], Photinia sp. [McKenz1956], Prunus mume [Hua2000], Prunus sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Pyracantha sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Pyrus mala tomentosa [ChenWo1936], Pyrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Rosa sp. [McKenz1956, MillerDa2005], Spiraea sp. [McKenz1956]. Rutaceae: Xanthoxylum sp. [Marlat1908c, MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [MillerDa2005], Salix sp. [McKenz1956]. Sapindaceae: Koelreuteria sp. [MillerDa2005]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes sp. [McKenz1956]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Hua2000]. Tiliaceae: Tilia sp. [McKenz1956]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1956, Takagi1969a, MillerDa2005] (Takagi (1969a) states that Parlatoreopsis chinensis was introduced to North America from the Old World.), Florida [Dekle1965c, Merril1953, Takagi1969a, MillerDa2005] (Takagi (1969a) states that Parlatoreopsis chinensis was introduced to North America from the Old World.), Missouri [SummerHa1951, Takagi1969a, MillerDa2005] (Takagi (1969a) states that Parlatoreopsis chinensis was introduced to North America from the Old World.)). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Wu1935], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000]); India? (Tamil Nadu? [RaoKu1952] (We presume this record to be a misidentification of P. longispinus.)); Philippines [Nakaha1982]; Taiwan [Takagi1969a]. Palaearctic: China [MillerDa2005] (Beijing (=Peking) [Marlat1908c], Hebei (=Hopei) [ChenWo1936], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Liaoning [Tao1999], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Hua2000], Shandong (=Shantung) [Marlat1908c], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tao1999], Tianjin (=Tientsin) [Marlat1908c], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Hua2000]); Egypt? [ChenWo1936] (We presume this record to be a misidentification of P. longispinus.); Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Japan [Marlat1908c] (Honshu [Takagi1960]).
BIOLOGY: Baker et al. (1943) found a 2:1 male to female ratio. They reported 2 complete generations and a partial third generation in St. Louis, Missouri. Apparently only fertilized second generation females overwintered. Each female produced a total of about 40 eggs which were laid a few at a time and hatched 5 to 12 days after being deposited. The generations were found to overlap. In 1942, eggs were present from April 24 to October 30; first generation crawlers were present from May 1 to July 24; second generation crawlers were present from July 10 to near the end of September; and third generation crawlers appeared in the last half of October. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1942) and Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Median lobes set quite close, leaving a slender space between them, each with the inner margin straight and then divergent for a short length, curving round apically to a long, serrate, oblique outer margin, and with a slender linear sclerosis arising from near each basal angle. 2nd lobes similar to the median in shape, but much smaller. 3rd lobes practically obsolete (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Marlatt (1908c) described Parlatoreopsis chinensis from China on crabapple. P. longispinus was described by Newstead in 1911. Hall (1922) incorrectly synonymized the two species and for quite a few decades the two were treated as such by authors like McKenzie (1945), Bodenheimer (1953) and Lindinger (1932f, 1958). In 1953g, Balachowsky determined the two to be distinct species and for the most part subsequent coccid workers agreed. However, due to the confusion of their validity, some citations for P. longispinus may actually apply to P. chinensis and vice versa. Parlatoreopsis chinensis can be recognized by the lateral cephalothoracic indentations and the clavate pygidial scleroses (Gill, 1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Baker et al. (1943) observed a few plants believed to have been killed by this scale. They found "young apple trees where local injury was caused by only a few specimens of the scale. On these trees, bark tissue first became red and then died at the points of infestation." According to Sasscer (1918), the Chinese obscure scale is "apparently a serious pest in China." According to L. Hanning (1981, personal correspondence) "In the Missouri Delta area many plantings of Rose of Sharon are receiving heavy damage from a scale which appears to be P. chinensis." Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult females)]; Danzig 1993: 106 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; Chou 1985: 244 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; Paik 1978: 369 (female) [as Parlatoria chinensis; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 828 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; Kuwana 1925: 5 (female) [as Parlatoria chinensis; Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 254 [as Cryptoparlatorea chinensis; Key to species of Cryptoparlatorea].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 80-81]; Arnett1985 [economic importance: 242]; Balach1953g [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 828, 829, 831-832, 9]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 290, 313]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-48]; Bodenh1953a [taxonomy: 159]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Borchs1960b [distribution, taxonomy: 216, 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 102]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 101]; Chiesa1938a [distribution, host: 3]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244-245]; Chou1986 [illustration: 650]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [distribution, taxonomy: 106]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 323]; Dekle1965c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 103]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 92]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: SIV-405]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 213-214, 216]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-44]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 51, 58, 59, 60, 61]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 38]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 579]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 155]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 195]; Konsta1976 [distribution, host: 49]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1917a [distribution: 17]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 5, 16-17]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Lindin1908e [taxonomy: 241]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 349]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 186]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 192]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 254]; Marlat1908c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 30-32]; Matile1991 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; Matile1991 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 3]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53, 83, 84]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 12]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33, 136-137]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 66-67]; Miller2005 [distribution]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 310]; Moghad2013a [distribution: 45]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 66]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 65]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Paik1978 [taxonomy: 369]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; RaoKu1952 [distribution, host: 10]; Sassce1919 [distribution, host: 135]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; SummerHa1951 [biological control, distribution: 818]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host: 74]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-43]; Tang1977 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 128]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86-87]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 8]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 104-105]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 394]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 243]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 275, 276].
Parlatoreopsis citri Matile-FerreroNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoreopsis citri Matile-Ferrero, 1991: 137-140. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Mahajunga, on Citrus sp., 20/05/1987, by M. Donskoff. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Matile1991]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Matile1991].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Matile-Ferrero (1991).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oblong, clear brown, exuviae yellow. Adult female pyriform, 0.5-0.6 mm long. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes (Matile-Ferrero, 1991).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoreopsis citri is close to P. pyri and P. tsugae with which it shares the presence of many submarginal ventral micropores going up to the thorax and the presence on the cephalothorax of ventral glandular tubercles submarginal as well as a group prothoracic. P. citri is unique in the absence of dorsal macropores on segments 1-5 and the absence of circumgenital glands (Matile-Ferrero, 1991).
CITATIONS: Matile1991 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137-140].
Parlatoreopsis longispina (Newstead)NOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis longispina Newstead, 1911: 88-89. Type data: EGYPT: Ghezireh, on Justica alba, 02/09/1910, by F.C. Willcocks. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoreopsis longispina; Lindinger, 1912b: 191. Change of combination.
Parlatoria chinensis; Hall, 1922: 43. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Balachowsky, 1953g: 832.
Anatolaspis abidini Bodenheimer, 1949: 101-102. Type data: TURKEY: Antalya, on Euphorbia sp., 01/03/1939. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France, and Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 829.
Anatolaspis abedini; Bodenheimer, 1951: 330. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoreopsis perplexus McKenzie, 1952: 11-12. Type data: EGYPT: Cairo, on grounds of Heliopolis Palace Hotel, on Nerium oleander, 20/09/1951, by A.M. Boyce. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 829.
Parlatoreopsis longispinus Balachowsky, 1953g: 106. Unjustified emendation.
Parlatoria longispinus; Bajoi, 1983: 9. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Asiatic pomegranate scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [Lesche2000]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Azotus sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Encyrtidae: Habrolepis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Justicia alba [Newste1911]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave americana [GhabboMo1996]. Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander [McKenz1952]. Berberidaceae: Berberis variegata [AhmadGh1972]. Bignoniaceae: Tecoma capensis [Bodenh1953]. Cactaceae: Opuntia vulgaris [GhabboMo1996]. Convolvulaceae: Convolvulus sp. [Kaussa1970]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia sp. [Bodenh1949]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [SismanUl2010], Albizia lebbekh [Bodenh1953], Bauhinia acuminata [GhabboMo1996], Cassia fistula [Ali1969], Robinia pseudacacia [Bodenh1953]. Lythraceae: Punica granatum [Moghad2013a]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Bodenh1953]. Oleaceae: Jasminum fuctians [GhabboMo1996], Olea europaea [Bodenh1953]. Polygonaceae: Calligonum comosum [Matile1988], Calligonum denticulatum [Seghat1977], Calligonum sp. [Kaussa1955]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [GhabboMo1996]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus spina-christi [Moghad2013a], Zizyphus sp. [Matile1988]. Rosaceae: Cotoneaster fistula [AhmadGh1972], Prunus domestica [Bodenh1953], Prunus spinosa [Seghat1977], Pyrus communis [Bodenh1953], Pyrus malus [Bodenh1953], Pyrus sp. [Bodenh1953], Rosa sp. [Moghad2013a]. Salicaceae: Salix babylonica [Bodenh1953]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [Moghad2013a]. Zygophyllaceae: Zygophyllum sp. [Seghat1977], Zygophyllum sp. [Moghad2013a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Pakistan [Ali1969]. Palaearctic: China? [Bodenh1953] (This record is presumed to be a misidentification of P. chinensis.); Egypt [Newste1911]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [DanzigPe1998]; Japan? [Bodenh1953] (This record is presumed to be a misidentification of P. chinensis.); Saudi Arabia [Matile1988]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [DanzigPe1998]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
BIOLOGY: The "mining" habits of the female are rather striking (Newstead, 1911).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Female scale varying from broadly ovate to elongate, and usually broadest immediately behind the exuviae. The general color is pale translucent grey; but many examples are bright ochreous brown, and there are also variations between the two. Scales are so completely concealed beneath the superficial layer of the bark of host and the true character of the secretion is rendered almost invisible. Exuviae dull yellow or orange yellow, 1.0-1.25 mm long. Adult female broadly ovate, cephalo-thoracic region being as wide as the free abdominal segments. There are no parastigmatic glands. Pygidium is strongly produced and furnished with 2 pairs of lobes; median pair large and tridentate on the anterior lateral margin, the dentations being broadly rounded; 2nd pair of lobes small and dentate on the outer lateral margin only. Plates more or less rudimentary (Newstead, 1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Marlatt (1908c) described Parlatoreopsis chinensis from China on crabapple. P. longispina was described by Newstead in 1911. Hall (1922) incorrectly synonymized the two species and for quite a few decades the two were treated as such by authors like McKenzie (1945), Bodenheimer (1953) and Lindinger (1932f, 1958). In 1953g, Balachowsky determined the two to be distinct species and for the most part subsequent coccid workers agreed. However, due to the confusion of their validity, some citations for P. longispina may actually apply to P. chinensis and vice versa.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 105 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 828 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 94]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Bajoi1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 9]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 829-833]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 101-102, 158-160]; Bodenh1951 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9, 45-48]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 257]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203]; Borchs1973 [distribution, taxonomy: 257]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106-107]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 323-324]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-405]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 353]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 43-44]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lindin1912b [distribution, taxonomy: 191]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 355]; Matile1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 25]; Matile1991 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53, 83]; McKenz1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-12]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 45]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 37]; Newste1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 88-89]; Panis1981 [distribution: 8]; RaoKu1952 [taxonomy: 10]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 762]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 17]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 222]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; TakagiKa1966 [taxonomy: 94]; Willco1922 [distribution, host: 342].
Parlatoreopsis pyri (Marlatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pyri Marlatt, 1908c: 29-30. Type data: CHINA: Shandong, Chefoo (Yantai), on "pear" (Pyrus sp.), 04/10/1904, by C. Marlatt. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatorea piri; Lindinger, 1908e: 240. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Cryptoparlatorea pyri; MacGillivray, 1921: 254. Change of combination.
Parlatoreopsis piri; Lindinger, 1932f: 186. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Parlatoria piry; Takagi, 1969a: 41. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer buergerianum [TakagiKa1966]. Cornaceae: Cornus controversa [TakagiKa1966]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [Nakaha1982]. Moraceae: Broussoneta papyrifera [Hua2000]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum japonicum [TakagiKa1966], Osmanthus fortunei [TakagiKa1966]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Tao1999], Prunus sp. [Borchs1966], Pyrus sp. [Marlat1908c]
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (District of Columbia [Nakaha1982], Maryland [Nakaha1982]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [ChenWo1936], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Wu1935], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]). Palaearctic: China (Hebei (=Hopei) [Tao1999], Heilongjiang (=HeilungKiang) [Hua2000], Jilin (=Kirin) [Hua2000], Liaoning [Marlat1908c], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [Marlat1908c], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Hua2000]); Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Marlatt (1908c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, 1.0-1.25 mm long, blackish, more or less covered with grayish secretion. Body of adult female about 0.8 mm long and 0.6 mm wide; prosoma membranous. Pygidium relatively acute. Median lobes well-developed, not fused at base, inner margins either once-notched or not notched at all, outer margins sloping usually with only 1 notch (Kosztarab, 1996).
KEYS: Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1993: 106 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; Chou 1985: 244 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; Balachowsky 1953g: 828 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoreopsis]; MacGillivray 1921: 254 [as Cryptoparlatorea pyri; Key to species of Cryptoparlatorea].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 828]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 238-240]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Borchs1960b [distribution, taxonomy: 216, 218]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203-204]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 101]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 244, 245-246]; Chou1986 [illustration: 651]; Danzig1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [distribution, taxonomy: 106]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 324]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 92]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-405]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 579]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 152]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 194-195]; Konsta1976 [distribution, host: 49]; KonstaKo1990 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 79-81]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 548-550]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1925 [taxonomy: 16]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; KuwanaMu1932 [distribution, host: 9-10]; Lindin1908e [taxonomy: 240]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 259]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 185, 186, 204]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 254]; Marlat1908c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-30]; Matile1991 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; McCombDa1969 [distribution: 3]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 84-85]; McKenz1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 65]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Quaint1913 [distribution, host: 63]; Sassce1923 [distribution, host: 155]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1966 [distribution, host: 94]; Takaha1938b [taxonomy: 272]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 130-131]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128-129]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 104, 105]; Westco1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 416]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 246]; Yang1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 275].
Parlatoreopsis tsugae Takagi & KawaiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoreopsis tsugae Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 94-96. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Tsuga diversifolia, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Tsuga diversifolia [TakagiKa1966], Tsuga sieboldii [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes well developed, 3rd pair quite small, but sclerotized. L1 once notched on either side, rounded apically. L2 smaller, with a lateral notch. Derm membranous except for pygidium (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoreopsis tsugae is similar to P. pyri, but it is easily distinguishable by having much fewer submarginal dorsal macroducts on the pygidium (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 324]; JaposhAbNo2013 [ecology: 541-554]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 151]; Kawai1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 195]; Matile1991 [distribution, taxonomy: 140]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 94-96].
Parlatoria Targioni TozzettiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Type species: Parlatoria orbicularis Targioni Tozzetti. Subsequently designated by Leonardi, 1899a: 208.
Apteronidia Berlese, 1895a: 80. Type species: Aonidia blanchardi Targioni Tozzetti, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-84.
Syngenaspis Šulc, 1895a: 2. Type species: Syngenaspis parlatoriae Šulc, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Leonardi, 1903a: 14.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) Leonardi, 1899a: 6. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-84.
Websteriella; Leonardi, 1900: 323. Change of status.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Leonardi, 1903a: 5. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937: SI-84, 87.
Fuparlatoria; Leonardi, 1903a: 15. Misspelling of genus name.
Parlatorea; Lindinger, 1905: 131. Misspelling of genus name.
Genaparlatoria MacGillivray, 1921: 248. Type species: Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus Lindinger, by original designation. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 82.
Parlatorie; Šulc, 1936: 66. Misspelling of genus name.
Archangelskaia Bodenheimer, 1951: 331. Type species: Parlatoria ephedrae Lindinger, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 773.
BIOLOGY: Parlatoria is tropicopolitan, with extensions into the temperate areas. Many species have been introduced throughout the world, but there are so many local species in south eastern Asia, that the genus probably originated there (Williams & Watson, 1988).
STRUCTURE: Female body circular to oval, abdomen contracting and becoming wrinkled post oviproduction, membranous with sclerotised pygidium. The 3 pairs of lobes unilobate, usually notched, median lobes not yoked. With a marginal macroduct present in each space between lobes including the medial space. With 2 or 3 fimbriate plates between lobes, then continuous on margin to about abdominal segment II, of various shapes from narrow to broad and each with 1 microduct; these becoming gland tubercles on abdomen I and thorax. Dorsal ducts 2-barred, barrelshaped, largest on pygidium margin, becoming progressively smaller towards anterior abdomen; each marginal duct with a sclerotised, lunate opening transverse to margin; submarginal ducts usually present as 2 pairs on pygidium, then in a band on prepygidium; submedian ducts present or absent. Anterior spiracles each with a small group of 5-locular pores, these absent by posterior spiracles. With or without derm pocket between each posterior spiracle and margin. Perivulvar pores often in 2 or 4 lateral groups. Antenna with 1 seta. Anal opening positioned about mid-pygidium. Vulva positioned in anterior 1/3 of pygidium. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: Female scale of various colors, oval to elongate, with exuviae terminal, often occupying greater part of scale. Male scale elongate and smaller than that of female. Body of adult female circular to oval; free abdominal segments not strongly produced; only pygidium becoming sclerotized with maturity. Dorsal ducts 2-barred, the orifice of each marginal duct, especially, surrounded by a sclerotized lunate rim (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 44-45 (female) [Key to Genera of Diaspididae in New Zealand]; Kosztarab 1996: 409 (female) [Key to the genera of the subfamily Diaspidinae]; Kosztarab & Kozár 1988: 326 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Wang 1982c: 45 (female) [Key to genera]; Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Danzig 1971d: 836 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 504 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Danzig 1964: 643 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Takagi 1961a: 100 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini]; McKenzie 1956: 28 (female) [Key to the genera of Tribe Diaspidini]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Zahradník 1952: 97 (female) [Schlüssel zur bestimmung der gattungen der Cechoslovakischen Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 163 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Zimmerman 1948: 374 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidini recorded from Hawaii]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1946: 60 (female) [Diaspinos de España]; Hall 1946a: 541 (female) [Key for the separation of the genera of Diaspidini recorded from the Ethiopian Region]; Ferris 1942: 43 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini]; Borchsenius 1937: 97 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1937: 43 (female) [Clave para diferenciar los géneros españoles de la subfamilia Diaspinos]; Kuwana 1933a: 44 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspinae]; Fullaway 1932: 98 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae in Hawaii]; Ramakrishna Ayyar 1930: 13 (female) [Generic synopsis of the Diaspinae]; Britton 1923: 360 (female) [Key to genera of subfamily Diaspinae]; Hollinger 1923: 6 (female) [Genera of Diaspinae]; MacGillivray 1921: 248 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Leonardi 1920: 27 (female) [Tavola sinottica dei generi di Diaspini]; Lawson 1917: 206 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspinae]; Robinson 1917: 16 (female) [Synoptic table of Diaspinae genera]; Newstead 1901b: 79 (female) [Synopsis of Diaspinae genera]; Hempel 1900a: 497 (female) [Chave dos generos da sub-familia Diaspinae].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [description, taxonomy: 61]; Ashmea1891 [taxonomy: 101]; Atkins1886 [taxonomy: 273]; Balach1948b [taxonomy: 263]; Balach1950a [taxonomy: 17]; Balach1953g [description, taxonomy: 50, 51, 98, 772, 824]; Balach1958b [description, taxonomy: 315, 318]; Beards1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 550]; Bellio1929a [taxonomy: 219]; Berles1895a [description, taxonomy: 79-80]; BerlesLe1898a [taxonomy: 10]; Bodenh1924 [taxonomy: 22]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 43-44]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 97]; Borchs1937a [description, taxonomy: 82, 84]; Borchs1949d [description, taxonomy: 191, 195]; Borchs1950b [description, taxonomy: 163, 169, 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 186, 200-201]; Brain1918 [distribution, taxonomy: 116]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 212, 214]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 360, 361, 380]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 108, 164]; Bustsh1958 [taxonomy: 213]; Chou1985 [description, taxonomy: 219-222, 240]; Cocker1893d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 8]; Cocker1897g [distribution, taxonomy: 107]; Comsto1881a [description, taxonomy: 326]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 54, 112-113]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 475, 515, 573-574]; Danzig1964 [structure: 644, 646]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 836]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 324-325]; DietzMo1916a [distribution, taxonomy: 263, 314]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 248]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 318]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 22, 25, 38]; Ferris1937 [description, taxonomy: SI-60, SI-84]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 527]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:43, SIV-446:]; FrankKr1900 [taxonomy: 40, 102]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 600]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, taxonomy: 98]; Fuller1899 [description: 466]; Ghauri1962 [taxonomy: 209]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 216-217]; GomezM1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 43, 145]; GomezM1946 [distribution, taxonomy: 60]; GomezM1957 [distribution, taxonomy: 54]; Gowdey1921 [distribution, taxonomy: 35]; GrandpCh1899 [description, taxonomy: 7, 27]; Green1896e [description, taxonomy: 37]; Green1899a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 162-163]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 519, 527, 536, 541,]; Hempel1900a [distribution, taxonomy: 497]; Hender2011 [description, distribution: 8,22,44,47,114,119]; Hollin1923 [taxonomy: 6, 67]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 69-70]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 550]; Kozar1986 [taxonomy: 179]; Kuwana1925 [taxonomy: 5]; Kuwana1933a [taxonomy: 44]; Lawson1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 206, 248]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 7]; Leonar1900 [taxonomy: 323]; Leonar1903a [description, taxonomy: 3, 13-15]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27, 136]; Lindin1905a [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1906a [taxonomy: 4, 8, 17, 18]; Lindin1908b [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 156]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 374]; Lindin1913 [taxonomy: 66]; Lindin1913a [taxonomy: 8]; Lindin1923 [taxonomy: 148]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 172]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 380, 387]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 15, 26]; Lindin1934c [taxonomy: 45]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 179, 186, 192, 198]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 265]; Low1882c [taxonomy: 521]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 39-40]; MacGil1921 [description, taxonomy: 248, 255]; Maskel1887a [distribution, taxonomy: 39]; Maskel1891 [distribution, taxonomy: 11]; McKenz1945 [description, taxonomy: 47-121]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13]; McKenz1956 [distribution, taxonomy: 28]; Morgan1888a [taxonomy: 47]; Morris1939a [distribution, taxonomy: 1]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 14, 84,191]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 343]; Newste1901b [description, taxonomy: 79, 139-140]; Palmer1905 [taxonomy: 131, 132]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 13]; Robins1917 [distribution, taxonomy: 16, 26]; Sander1904a [distribution, taxonomy: 30, 31, 75]; Schmut1952 [taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1959 [structure: 129, 130, 131, 137]; Signor1869b [taxonomy: 99]; Silves1902 [taxonomy: 124]; Sulc1895a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 2, 15]; Takagi1960 [distribution, taxonomy: 69]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 100]; Takagi2008 [taxonomy: 91-95]; TakagiGe2008 [host: 128]; TakagiKo1997 [structure: 99]; Takaha1931b [taxonomy: 382]; Takaha1932 [taxonomy: 47]; Takaha1956b [taxonomy: 27]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 735]; Targio1881 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 153-158]; Terezn1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 54, 56, 57]; WilliaWa1988 [description, taxonomy: 127]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271]; Zahrad1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 97, 110]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy: 374, 394].
Parlatoria abieticola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria abieticola Takagi, 1977: 12-16. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Langtang Valley, Ghora Tobela, on Abies spectabilis, 23/09/1975, by S. Takagi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Abies spectabilis [Takagi1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1977].
BIOLOGY: This species was collected at an altitude of 3200 m (Takagi, 1977).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1977).
STRUCTURE: Adult female obovate, meso- and metathorax and basal abdominal segments gently lobed laterally, pygidium rounded along free margin. Derm membranous except for broad median region of dorsal surface of pygidium (Takagi, 1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria abieticola and P. tsugicola have no close relatives among other known species of this genus. These two are similar to P. banksiae in having well-developed submedian series of macroducts, but are quite different from the latter in the characters of the pygidial margin (Takagi, 1977).
CITATIONS: Takagi1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 12-16]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 9].
Parlatoria acalcarata McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria acalcarata McKenzie, 1960b: 211. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, on Clausena lansium, 14/02/1957, by S.K. Cheng. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratype in USNM.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Encarsia perniciosi [HuangPo1998].
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Microdesmis caseariaefolia [McKenz1960b]. Rutaceae: Clausena lansium [McKenz1960b], Phellodendron chinensis [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [McKenz1960b]); Hong Kong [McKenz1960b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1960b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale with relatively few dorsal submarginal macroducts, an average of 25 on each side; no intermediate or median macroducts; with normally only 1 or 2 microducts above anterior lateral perivulvar pores, well within the dorsal sclerotized area of pygidium. 3 pairs of normally developed pygidial lobes, all approximately the same size, median pair distinctly notched on each side, 2nd and 3rd pair distinctly notched on outer margin, slightly notched if at all on inner margin; 4th and 5th lobes represented by projections of pygidial margin that closely simulate adjacent plates but are usually smaller and somewhat variable in details of outline (McKenzie, 1960b).
SYSTEMATICS: P. acalcarata is nearly a twin species of P. proteus, but it lacks the eyespot modified to form a stout spur situated on prosoma about opposite mouthparts, a feature characteristic of P. proteus. In addition, P. acalcarata has generally more dorsal submarginal tubular macroducts, ranging in number from 21-30, with an average of 25, as compared to normally fewer such structures in P. proteus, ranging from 11-25 with an average of 18 on each side (McKenzie, 1960b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1934]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43]; McKenz1960b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 211]; Tang1984 [distribution, host, illustration: 75-76]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria alba BellioNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria (Websteriella) alba Bellio, 1929a: 224-227. Type data: VIETNAM: Lang Son, unidentified host, by Silvestri. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea alba; Lindinger, 1931a: 43. Change of combination.
Parlatorea alba; Lindinger, 1931a: 44. Misspelling of genus name.
Apteronidia alba; Lindinger, 1934: 26. Change of combination.
Parlatoria alba; McKenzie, 1945: 55. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Vietnam [Bellio1929a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Bellio (1929a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female with median and 2nd lobes slightly notched on either side and bluntly pointed at apex; 3rd lobes replaced by a broad fimbriate plate. Pygidial short, broad and for the most part apically fimbriate (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: McKenzie (1945) states that P. alba Bellio is retained in Parlatoria only doubtfully.
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 13 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 77 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, taxonomy: 75]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 224-227]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Ferris1953 [taxonomy: 62]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 26]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50, 51, 52, 55-56, 7]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13].
Parlatoria aonidiformis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria aonidiformis Green, 1899a: 168-169. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Nothopegia colebrookiana. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) aonidiformis; Leonardi, 1899a: 7. Change of combination.
Parlatorea aonidiaeformis; Lindinger, 1907a: 20. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Cryptoparlatorea aonidiformis; Lindinger, 1911: 89. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis aonidiaeformis; MacGillivray, 1921: 252. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Apteronidia aonidiformis; Lindinger, 1934: 27. Change of combination.
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Nothopegia colebrookiana [Green1899a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very small; covered almost completely by the 2nd exuviae, very narrow secretionary border. Male scale oblong, slightly dilated behind; hinder part with median depression and faint trace of median ridge (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria aonidiformis somewhat resembles P. marginalis, P. artocarpi and P. atalantiae. It differs from these species in the possession of ventral cicatrices on what appears to be the 2nd segment of the abdomen and also in its fewer perivulvar pores (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Palmer 1905: 145 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 318]; Green1899a [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168-169]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 35]; Kuwana1926 [taxonomy: 3]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 7]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38, 42-44]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 20]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 89]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 123]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 136-137, 145]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ruther1915 [taxonomy: 114]; Takaha1931a [taxonomy: 218]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 9].
Parlatoria araucariae (Williams & Watson)NOMENCLATURE:
Genaparlatoria araucariae Williams & Watson, 1988: 127. Type data: PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Kratke Mountains, Kassam, on Araucaria sp., 01/11/1959, by T. Maa. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria araucariae; Danzig, 1993: 82. Change of combination.
HOST: Araucariacae: Araucaria sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration Williams & Watson (1988). Table of taxanomic characters distinguishing conifer infesting species in Miller, Williams & Davidson (2006)
STRUCTURE: Adult female about 1.25 mm long, almost turbinate, but with a pronounced constriction between prothorax and mesothorax; head and pygidium rounded; body heavily sclerotized, more so on head and thorax (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria araucariae differs from P. pseudaspidiotus in the pronounced constriction between the prothorax and mesothorax, and in possessing perivulvar pores and ventral microducts (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 127 [Key to species of Genaparlatoria of the South Pacific Region].
CITATIONS: WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-128, 130].
Parlatoria arengae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria arengae Takagi, 1969a: 36. Type data: TAIWAN: Taipei Hsien and Kenting, on Arenga engleri, 1965. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria arangae; Chou, 1985: 221. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Arenga engleri [Takagi1969a]. Rutaceae: Murraya exotica [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hunan [Hua2000]); Taiwan [Takagi1969a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Body oval. Peribuccal granulations present. Derm pockets absent. Median lobes longer than wide, little dilated, with a deep subapical notch on the outer side, and with a less distinct notch on the inner side slightly more apically; 2nd lobes practically as large as the median, 3rd smaller, these lateral lobes often lacking the inner notch. 4th lobe replaced by a membranous process, not distinguishable in shape from the adjacent glanduliferous plates (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria arengae is close to P. proteus, from which it is distinguishable by the prosomatic tubercles rounded (produced into spiniform processes in P. proteus), by the gland tubercles complete, not disappearing in any group and tending to be more numerous, by the derm pockets absent, by the perivulvar pores more numerous and by the pygidial lobes little dilated (Takagi, 1969a).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [as Parlatoria arangae; Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 395]; Chou1986 [illustration: 642]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 35-36]; Tang1984 [taxonomy: 73, 78, 112]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria artocarpi GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria artocarpi Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 26. Described: no description. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1930: 33.
Parlatoria artocarpi Green, 1919c: 442-443. Type data: INDIA: Kerala, North Malabar, Peria Ghat, on Artocarpus integrifolia, by Ramakrishna. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Apteronidia artocarpi; Lindinger, 1934: 27. Change of combination.
HOST: Moraceae: Artocarpus integrifolia [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Ramakr1919a] (Kerala [Green1919c], Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1919b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Adult female scale about 1.25 mm long and 0.75 mm wide, yellowish brown with a dark band centrally situated and running from the exuviae to the wax fringe at the posterior part of scale. Slide mounted female 0.50 mm long (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria artocarpi is most closely allied to P. marginalis and somewhat near P. aonidiformis, differing from both in the sclerotized anterior prosoma, the ventral derm pocket between antenna and anterior spiracle and shape of the pygidial lobes. It resembles P. machili in the possession of ventral derm reticulations on the segments behind the mouthparts but differs in the total absence of first and second abdominal duct tubercles and a dorsal anterior enlarged eye spot (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 16 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; BhasinRo1954 [host: 88]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 442-443]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 27]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 56-57, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 16]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 26]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 33]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 9].
Parlatoria asiatica BorchseniusNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria ephedrae; McKenzie, 1945: 63. Misidentification; discovered by Balachowsky, 1953g: 787.
Parlatoria asiatica Borchsenius, 1949b: 341. Type data: KAZAKHSTAN: Muiun-kumy, Kargaly-kul', on Ephedra sp., ?/04-05/1910, by A. Kiritchenko. Syntypes, female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria ephedrae; McKenzie, 1952: 15. Misidentification; discovered by Balachowsky, 1953g: 787.
HOSTS: Gnetaceae: Ephedra ciliata [BazaroSh1971], Ephedra equisetina [Bazaro1963a], Ephedra procera [Balach1953g], Ephedra przewalskii [Danzig1972b], Ephedra sp. [Borchs1949b]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Armenia [Borchs1949d]; Iran [Kaussa1970, KozarFoZa1996]; Kazakhstan [Borchs1949b]; Mongolia [Danzig1972b]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Bazaro1968a]; Turkmenistan [Balach1953g]; Uzbekistan [BazaroSh1971].
BIOLOGY: Mass flight of males of the summer generation at the end of June. Males emerge from under scales chiefly in the evening (Bustshik, 1960).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Borchsenius (1949b) and Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval or pear-shaped; secretory part of scale white, 1.4 mm long and 0.6-0.7 mm wide. Exuviae occupying not less than two-thirds of scale surface, dark green or black. Adult female oval, with large group of cylindrical glands found along the margin of the body on the meso- and metathorax (Borchsenius, 1949b).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria asiatica is near P. zizyphi (Borchsenius, 1949b).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 148 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Bustshik 1958: 186 (female) [Species of the tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1953g: 776 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 171 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 776, 787-790]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 322]; Bazaro1963a [distribution, host: 70]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, host: 88]; Bazaro1971c [distribution, host: 88]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148-150]; Borchs1949b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 341]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 198]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 217, 218]; Bustsh1960 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 172]; Danzig1972b [distribution, host: 346]; Danzig1974 [distribution, host: 71]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 86, 88-89]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 202-203, 276]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 7]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Mateso1955 [distribution: 200]; Mateso1968 [distribution, host: 125]; Mateso1971 [distribution, host: 26]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 63-64, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 1]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 45]; Myarts1972 [distribution: 54]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 18]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host: 140].
Parlatoria atalantiae GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria (Websteriella) atalantiae Green, 1905a: 350-351. Type data: SRI LANKA: Haragama, on Atalantia zeylanica. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria atalantiae; Sanders, 1906: 18. Change of combination.
Cryptoparlatorea atalantiae; Lindinger, 1909b: 109. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis atalantiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 252. Change of combination.
Apteronidia atalantiae; Lindinger, 1934: 27. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Annonaceae: Miliusa indica [Green1919c]. Gnetaceae: Gnetum sp. [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Atalantia zeylanica [Green1905a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1930]); Sri Lanka [Green1905a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale yellow, with very narrow fringe of whitish secretion, flattish, oval, larval exuviae slightly projecting in front. Posterior parts depressed, with indistinct median carina, 1.0 mm long. Male scale pale yellow, exuviae straw colored, narrow elongate, with parallel sides and rounded extremities. Posterior half depressed, with indistinct median carina, 0.80 mm long. Adult female pale yellow. No parastigmatic glands. Pygidium with 6 broad irregularly serrate lobes. Lobes elongate, narrow, with extremities very obscurely fimbriate (Green, 1905a).
SYSTEMATICS: P. atalantiae is allied to P. aonidiformis, but differs in the more oval form of the scale and its paler color. The lobes are also much broader and less prominent (Green, 1905a).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 75]; BhasinRo1954 [distribution, host: 92]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 350-351]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 445]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Lindin1909b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 89]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; McKenz1945 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 52, 57, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 34]; Ruther1915 [taxonomy: 115]; Sander1906 [distribution, host: 18]; Takaha1938b [taxonomy: 272]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 9].
Parlatoria bambusae TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria bambusae Tang, 1984: 78-79. Type data: CHINA: Anhui Province, Maanshan, on Bambusa sp., by X.J. Wu. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Tang1984]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Tang1984]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China [FangWuXu2001] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body pyriform, 0.60-0.78 mm long, 0.50-0.55 mm wide. Derm membranous except for pygidium (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria bambusae resembles P. arengae, but differs in the peculiar plates with a fleshy and long truncated process and by the pygidial lobes which are dilated and truncate apex (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325]; FangWuXu2001 [distribution, host: 108]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78-79, 111-112]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104].
Parlatoria banksiae (Maskell)NOMENCLATURE:
Mytilaspis banksiae Maskell, 1896b: 388-389. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, near Melbourne, on Banksia integrifolia, by Mr. French. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Deitz & Tocker, 1980: 333. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Lectotype on original slide labeled "Mytilaspis/banksiae/adult female/1895 W.M.M. and "LECTOTYPE/Mytilaspis/banksiae/Maskell, 1896/ desig. Deitz & Tocker 1979" (Deitz & Tocker, 1980).
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Banksiae; Leonardi, 1903a: 21. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes banksiae; Fernald, 1903b: 305. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis banksiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 249. Change of combination.
Triaspidis banksiae; MacGillivray, 1921: 277. Change of combination.
Parlatoria banksiae; Morrison, 1939a: 6. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Proteaceae: Banksia integrifolia [Maskel1896b], Banksia marginata [Hudson1967].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Maskel1896b]).
BIOLOGY: Parlatoria banksiae was collected "within full reach of the sea-spray" (Maskell, 1896b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.75 mm long and 1.25 mm wide, oval, moderately convex and of a general yellow brown color throughout, first exuviae somewhat darker. Male scale elongated oval, dirty gray with darker first exuviae. Slide mounted female 1.0 mm long, 0.9 mm wide (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: There has been some odd confusion about this species. Maskell only described one species of banksiae and yet MacGillivray places the species in two different genera within the same publication and Borchsenius did the same. Parlatoria banksiae is closely allied to P. cinerea, differing however, in the apparently consistent absence of a marginal macroduct between the median lobes (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 29 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 277 (female) [as Triaspidis banksiae; Key to species of Triaspidis]; Cockerell 1899f: 14 (female) [as Mytilaspis banksiae; Australian species of Mytilaspis ].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 47, 188]; Cocker1899f [distribution, taxonomy: 14]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Frogga1914 [distribution, host: 606]; Frogga1915 [distribution, host: 34]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 21-23]; MacGil1921 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249, 277]; Maskel1896b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 388-389]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 51, 57-58, 60, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-7, 29]; Takagi1977 [taxonomy: 16].
Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia Blanchardi Targioni Tozzetti, 1892: 69-82. Type data: ALGERIA: Ourir Oasis, south of Melrir, on Phoenix dactylifera, by R. Blanchard. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Illust.
Apteronidia blanchardi; Berlese, 1895a: 80. Change of combination.
Parlatoria victrix Cockerell, 1895l: 56. Type data: UNITED STATES: Arizona, Tucson, on Phoenix dactylifera, by Toumey. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Leonardi, 1903: 46.
Parlatoria proteus palmae Maskell, 1898: 229-230. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, Northern District, near Lake Harry, on Phoenix dactylifera, by A. Molineux. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Leonardi, 1903: 46-47.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) Blanchardi; Leonardi, 1899a: 7. Change of combination.
Parlatoria blanchardi victrix; Cockerell, 1899t: 283. Change of status.
Parlatoria Blanchardi; Leonardi, 1901a: 544. Change of combination.
Parlatoria blanchardii; Fernald, 1903b: 318. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatorea blanchardi; Lindinger, 1912b: 246. Misspelling of genus name.
Parlatorea (Websteriella) blanchardi; Malenotti, 1916a: 342. Change of combination.
Coccus blanchardi; Ferris, 1936a: 20. Change of combination.
Websteriella blanchardii; Ferris, 1937: SI-85. Change of combination.
Parlatoria brauchardi; Borchsenius, 1937a: 186. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria palmae; McKenzie, 1945: 53. Change of status.
Apteronidia blanchardii; Ghauri, 1962: 209. Change of combination. Notes: This is also a misspelling of the species epithet.
COMMON NAMES: date palm scale [Cocker1899t]; la cochenille blanche [MontaiMa1986]; parlatoria date scale [AAEE1931, Blicke1965].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [HertinSi1972, Coorem1951]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Adalia decempunctata [HertinSi1972], Adonia variegata [HertinSi1972], Axion plagiatum [Glick1922], Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus cacti [Cocker1899t], Chilorcorus bipustulatus iranensis [TourneLeMo1976], Clitostethus arcuatus [HertinSi1972], Coccinella doublieri [HertinSi1972], Coccinella septempunctata [HertinSi1972], Exochomus nigripennis [HertinSi1972], Exochomus quadripustulatus [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972], Pharoscymnus anchorago [Balach1925a], Pharoscymnus flexibilis [Batra1972], Pharoscymnus horni [AhmadGh1972], Pharoscymnus numidicus [Smirno1953, HertinSi1972], Pharoscymnus numidicus unicolor [RosenDe1978], Pharoscymnus ovoideus [Smirno1953, HertinSi1972], Pharoscymnus ovoideus deserti [RosenDe1978], Pharoscymnus ovoideus guttatus [RosenDe1978], Pharoscymnus ovoideus hamifer [RosenDe1978], Pharoscymnus setulosus [Smirno1953, HertinSi1972], Pharoscymnus simmondsi [AhmadGh1972], Scymnus deserticola [HertinSi1972], Scymnus gracilis [HertinSi1972], Scymnus interruptus [HertinSi1972], Scymnus morelleti [HertinSi1972], Scymnus pallidivestis [HertinSi1972], Scymnus soudanensis [HertinSi1972], Scymnus subvillosus [HertinSi1972], Scymnus suturalis [HertinSi1972], Stethorus punctillum [HertinSi1972]. Endomychidae: Mycetaea tafilaletica [HertinSi1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus dactylicus [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus flaviceps [Balach1925a], Cybocephalus mesopotamicus [Gharib1973], Cybocephalus micans [BlumbeSw1974a], Cybocephalus nigriceps nigriceps [BlumbeSw1974a], Cybocephalus palmarum [BalachMe1935, Gharib1973], Cybocephalus politus [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus rufifrons [Balach1925a, Gharib1973], Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972], Cybocephalus seminulum [Balach1925a], Cybocephalus syriacus [HertinSi1972], Nephus quadrimaculatus [Gharib1973]. HEMIPTERA Anthocoridae: Cardiastethus nazarenus [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspidis [Garcia1930, Laudeh1968], Aphytis paramaculicornis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis phoenicis [DeBachRo1976a], Physcus flexibilis [AhmadGh1972], Prospoltella sp. [BasheeAsRa2014]. Encyrtidae: Comperiella bifasciata [KazimiGh1964]. NEUROPTERA Chrysopidae: Chrysopa carnea [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Vinca major [Newste1907a]. Arecaceae: Chamaerops humilis [Moghad2013a], Hyphaene sp. [MillerDa2005], Hyphaene thebiaca [Balach1953g, BenDov2012], Latania sp. [Hall1922, MillerDa2005], Nannorrhops ritchiana [Moghad2013a], Neowashingtonia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Phoenix canariensis [Lupo1947, MillerDa2005], Phoenix dactylifera [Targio1892, Hall1922, MillerDa2005], Phoenix sp. [MillerDa2005], Pritchardia filifera [Balach1953g], Pritchardia sp. [MillerDa2005], Washingtonia filifera [McKenz1945], Washingtonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Oleaceae: Jasminum revolutum [Newste1907a], Jasminum sp. [Newste1906]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus mauritiana [KazimiGh1964].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Chad [Nakaha1982]; Mali [Nakaha1982]; Mauritania [BalachMa1970]; Mauritius [Nakaha1982]; Niger [Kaufma1977]; Somalia [Maleno1916a]; Sudan [Morris1939a, Siddig1975]. Australasian: Australia [Palmer1905, Gharib1973, MillerDa2005]. Nearctic: United States of America (Arizona [Cocker1896c, Craw1896, MouradZa1998, MillerDa2005] (Craw (1896) states that this species was imported to Arizona and California from Egypt. Nakahara (1982) states this species has been eradicated in Arizona.), California [Craw1896, Morris1939a, MouradZa1998, MillerDa2005] (Craw (1896) states that this species was imported to Arizona and California from Egypt. Nakahara (1982) states this species has been eradicated in California.), Texas [MillerDa2005] (This species should be eradicated in Texas.)). Neotropical: Argentina [MillerDa2005] (La Rioja [Lizery1942a]); Bolivia [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Brazil [MillerDa2005] (Pernambuco [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [Lepage1938]). Oriental: India [Morris1939a, CarpenEl1978, MillerDa2005] (Andhra Pradesh [Ramakr1937], Punjab [Ali1969]); Pakistan [Fletch1921, Gharib1973, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Nakaha1982]; Algeria [Targio1892, Palmer1905, CarpenEl1978, MillerDa2005]; Egypt [Newste1906, AbdRab2001a]; France [Foldi2001]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, CarpenEl1978, KozarFoZa1996, MillerDa2005]; Iraq [Dowson1921, Morris1939a]; Israel [Bodenh1924, CarpenEl1978, MillerDa2005]; Italy [Lupo1947, LongoMaPe1995, MillerDa2005] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Jordan [Nakaha1982, BenDov2006a]; Libya [Lupo1947, CarpenEl1978]; Morocco [LepineMi1931, CarpenEl1978]; Saudi Arabia [Morris1939a, Beccar1971, MillerDa2005]; Spain [Garcia1930]; Syria [Gharib1973, Nakaha1982]; Tunisia [Trabut1911, Paglia1934, CarpenEl1978, MillerDa2005]; Turkey [Morris1939a, Gharib1973]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956, Nakaha1982].
BIOLOGY: Parlatoria blanchardi has two generations per year in Egypt, three-four in Iran, two-three in Saudi Arabia and five in Iraq (El-Kareim, 1998). In the southwestern U.S., Stickney et al. (1950) found that egg hatch required 7 11 days in mid-March and 2 7 days in late March to early April. In March the first molt took place 21 27 days after hatching. Reproduction occurred throughout the year with a slight slow down during the winter months. Hussain (1974) found 4 generations per year in Iraq as did Khoualdia et al. (1993) in Tunisia. Avidov and Harpaz (1969) noted 4 5 generations annually in the lower Jordan Valley of Israel. Development required 16 days in late summer, 28 47 days in autumn and early winter, and 32 36 days in late winter and spring. During the same time periods, preoviposition was 96, 78, and 58 days, respectively. In late summer and autumn males represented about 25% of the population. In winter almost all scales were females. Crawlers were most abundant from October to November, and February and May. In Mauritania (Tourneur et al. 1975) parlatoria date scale populations peaked in the cooler periods from April to May at 21 to 32 °C, with a secondary peak in December. Populations are lowest in August at 40 °C and again during cold weather in February. Ghauri (1962) found a 10:1 ratio of winged to wingless males in material from West Pakistan and he described both forms. El-Kareim (1998) demonstrated that adult females release a sex pheromone when they are about 10 days old. Use of pheromone baited traps showed that adult males are active in the morning just as the sun rises. Winged males predominated in the spring, and wingless ones were most abundant in the summer generation. Generally, wingless individuals were more abundant at the end of each generation. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria blanchardi appears to be somewhat related to P. ephedrae, differing in the total absence of ventral duct tubercles on the prosoma (McKenzie, 1945).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: El-Kareim (1998) states that adult males of Parlatoria blanchardi were more attracted to blue and white sticky traps then yellow, green or red. Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. This species is a pest of commercial dates and other palms (Gill, 1997). Beardsley and González (1975) listed parlatoria date scale as one of the 43 major armored scale insect pests of the world. In Algeria, a major infestation of this scale caused the death of nearly 100,000 date palms in 1920 (Rosen 1990). Carpenter and Elmer (1978) noted that heavy infestations on the pinnae cause them to wither and die. This damage often rendered the dates unfit for human consumption and reduced tree vigor, but seldom killed trees. Stickney (1934) considered this scale to be the most serious insect enemy of the date palm and noted that it contributed to the death of neglected palms (Stickney et al. 1950). Bénassy (1990) provided a summary of the economic importance of this scale. Chemical control is difficult because all stages of the scale are present all year round, and there is a tendency for the scales to conceal themselves in areas where pesticides cannot efficiently reach them. The most effective method of control focuses on a pest management strategy of using few pesticides and several predators (Bénassy 1990). Biological control has been very successful in many situations (Rosen 1990). In a trial using pheromone baited blue sticky traps to attract and kill males, trees containing the traps had as much as a 39% reduction in scale numbers compared to control trees (El-Kareim 1998). Khoualdia et al. (1993) provided evidence that certain cultivars (particularly Kentichi) are more resistant to attack than others. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 216 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 148 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 321 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ezzat 1958: 249 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 776 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 170 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 527 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 29 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Palmer 1905: 145 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1285, 1305]; AbdElK1998 [biological control, distribution, life history, taxonomy: 301-307]; AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1121]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 175]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 91]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 75-76, 80]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 61, 141, 149]; Avidov1961 [distribution, structure: 173, 510, 528]; Balach1925 [distribution, host: 689]; Balach1925a [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 167-172]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 776, 782-787]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 40]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 320, 322-324]; BalachMa1970 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 1082-1083]; BalachMe1935 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, host, illustration: 602-610]; BasheeAsRa2014 [biological control, distribution, host: 52]; Batra1972 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 44]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148, 150-152]; Beccar1971 [distribution, host: 194]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 44]; Berles1895a [distribution, host: 80]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 296, 313]; BlumbeSw1974a [biological control, distribution: 3, 8]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 218]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 85, 86]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy: 102]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host: 186]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 22, 260, 261]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 188-189]; CarpenEl1978 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 4-5]; Chiesa1948 [taxonomy: 270]; Cocher1969 [distribution: 91]; Cocker1895l [description, distribution, host: 56]; Cocker1896c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52]; Cocker1897o [distribution: 5]; Cocker1899t [biological control, distribution, host: 283]; Cocker1907 [description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-190]; Coorem1951 [biological control, economic importance, distribution: 30]; Craw1896 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42-43]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 86-87]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 325-326]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 145, 177]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control: 544]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 40]; Dowson1921 [chemical control, distribution: 65]; Dziedz1961 [taxonomy: 212]; ElmerCaCl1968 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host: 80-81]; ElMinsElHa1974a [distribution, host: 269]; Essig1915a [distribution, economic importance, host: 191]; Essig1926 [distribution, economic importance, host: 304]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 318, 321]; Ferrie1927 [biological control: 57]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 20, 38]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-85]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58]; Fletch1921 [distribution, host: 20]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Foldi2003a [behaviour: 7]; Forbes1907 [chemical control, economic importance, host: 193-207]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 10, 57, 80]; Gaillo1967 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 130-135]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 54]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 353]; Gharib1973 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host, taxonomy: 7-9]; Ghauri1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54-64, 209]; Gill1997 [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 216-217, 222]; Glick1922 [distribution, host: 58-59]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54, 71-72]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 30]; Hall1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 42]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 50]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 527]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 186]; HodekHo2009 [biological control: 235]; Iperti1970 [biological control, distribution, host: 105-118]; IpertiBr1969 [biological control: 149-157]; IpertiLa1968 [biological control, distribution, host: 543-552]; IpertiLa1969 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 17-30]; Kaufma1977 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 882-884]; Kaussa1968 [distribution: 81]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 7]; KazimiGh1964 [biological control, distribution, host: 37]; Kehat1967a [biological control, distribution, host: 119]; Kehat1967b [biological control, distribution, host: 1053-1065]; KehatSw1964 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, host: 101-110]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KuwanaMu1932 [taxonomy: 15]; Lamb1974 [distribution: 43]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 125]; Laudeh1968 [biological control, distribution, host: 271-275]; LaudehChIp1970 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147-160]; LaudehFr1970 [distribution, host, life history: 247-251]; LaudehOrIp1969 [biological control, distribution, host: 395-406]; Leonar1899a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-47]; Leonar1901a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 544-545]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 38, 44-47]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 413-414]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 15, 27]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; Lizery1942a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 320-321]; Lizery1943 [taxonomy: 457]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 78, 80]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 147]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40, 48-54]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; Maleno1916a [distribution, host: 342]; Martin1958 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 120-121]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 58]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 229-230]; Mason1908 [distribution, host: 175]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 222]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53, 54, 58, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 137, 139]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 312]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 2]; Moghad2008 [distribution: 156]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 45]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 37-38]; MontaiMa1986 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 44-45]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 7-8, 29]; MouradZa1998 [biological control, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 389-395]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 65]; Newste1906 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Newste1907a [chemical control, distribution, host: 12]; Newste1911 [distribution, host: 92]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control: 204]; Nixon1945 [distribution, economic importance: 35]; Paglia1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-195]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 135-136, 145]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Ramach1922 [distribution, host: 10]; Ramakr1937 [distribution, host: 147]; Razig2014 [distribution, economic importance, host: 64]; Richar1960AM [distribution, host: 693]; RosenDe1978 [biological control, distribution, host: 113-114]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 762]; Rungs1948 [biological control, distribution, host: 113]; Salama1972 [distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 403-404]; Schmut1969 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 112-113]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 18]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; Siddig1975 [biological control, distribution, host: 13-19]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution: 182]; Smirno1953 [biological control, distribution, host: 144-160]; Smirno1954 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-42]; Smirno1957 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-100]; Stansl1984 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-39]; Stickn1934a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-67]; SticknBaSi1950 [distribution, economic importance, host: 3-8]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 6]; Talhou1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 109-110]; Targio1892 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-82]; TorabiVaHo2010 [distribution, host: 156]; Tourne1970 [biological control: 99]; TourneHu1975 [biological control, distribution, host: 773-782]; TourneLeMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 763-773]; TourneND1971 [biological control, distribution, host: 847-857]; TournePhHu1975 [distribution, host: 681-685]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 19-20]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 64]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 4]; Vayssi1921 [distribution: 357]; Vilard1974 [p. 74]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 177]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 11]; Wilsie1913 [distribution, host: 538].
Parlatoria boycei McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria boycei McKenzie, 1952: 10-11. Type data: INDIA: West Benal, Darjeeling, on "pear," 26/04/1951, by A.M. Boyce & N. Waters. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rosaceae: Pyrus sp. [McKenz1952]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (West Bengal [McKenz1952]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1952).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2.25 mm long, 1.50 mm wide, oval, moderately convex, white or gray, with brownish to brownish-black exuviae, 2nd exuviae not exceptionally large, more or less covered with wax. Adult female about 1.50 mm long and 1.25 mm wide when mounted. Submarginal dorsal macroducts numerous, observed range from 124-151 on each side. Three pairs of well developed pygidial lobes present, all similarly broad and stout (McKenzie, 1952).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria boycei resembles P. oleae and P. multipora in the occurrence of 4 pygidial plates between the 3rd and 4th lobes. It differs from P. oleae by having a larger anal opening situated about mid-pygidium and a ventral vulva in the same position, whereas in P. oleae the anal opening is smaller and situated about one-third of the length of the pygidium from pygidial apex, and the vulva is located approximately mid-pygidium (McKenzie, 1952).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 13 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 189]; McKenz1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11, 13]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 10].
Parlatoria camelliae ComstockNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pergandii camelliae Comstock, 1883: 114. Type data: UNITED STATES: Conservatory of the Department of Agriculture, on Camellia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria proteus virescens Maskell, 1897: 300-301. Type data: CHINA: Amoy, on Myrtus sp.; Macao, on Camellia sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 189.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Pergandii camelliae; Leonardi, 1903a: 36. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pergandei camelliae; Bellio, 1929: 232. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatorea Pergandei camelliae; Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1937: 154. Misspelling of genus name.
Parlatoria camelliae; Morrison, 1939: 31. Change of status.
COMMON NAME: camellia parlatoria scale [McKenz1956].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [HertinSi1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis maculicornis [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [HertinSi1972], Hispaniella howardi [Dozier1937], Hispaniella lauri [Koszta1996].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Anacardiaceae: Lithraea caustica [GonzalCh1968], Mangifera sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex crenata [Muraka1970]. Arecaceae: Gronophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Berberidaceae: Berberis sp. [McKenz1945]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [Tao1999]. Ericaceae: Azalea sp. [Morris1939a], Rhododendron ellipticum [Takagi1969a], Rhododendron sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [Borchs1966], Croton sp. [Borchs1966]. Fagaceae: Quercus glauca [Takagi1960], Quercus phillyraeoides [Takagi1960]. Garryaceae: Aucuba sp. [MillerDa2005]. Guttiferae: Calophyllum inophyllum [Takagi1969a]. Hamamelidaceae: Distylium racemosum [Takagi1960]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora [Balach1953g], Cinnamomum cassia [Hoffma1927], Cinnamomum sp. [MillerDa2005], Laurus nobilis [TakahaTa1956], Laurus sp. [MillerDa2005], Litsea sp. [MillerDa2005], Machilus kusanoi [Takagi1969a], Phoebe sp. [Tao1999]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Borchs1966]. Meliaceae: Azadirachta sp. [Morris1939a], Melia azadirachta [Ramakr1930]. Moraceae: Ficus cuspidatocaudata [Takagi1969a], Ficus pumila [Takagi1960], Ficus retusa [Muraka1970], Ficus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus sp. [Maskel1897]. Oleaceae: Jasminum undulatum [Hoffma1927], Olea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Osmanthus fragrans [Merril1953], Osmanthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Photinia pruniflora [Hoffma1927], Prunus sp. [Borchs1966], Pyrus sinensis [Maskel1897a, ChenWo1936]. Rubiaceae: Gardenia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Aegele sp. [Morris1939a], Aegle marmelos [Ramakr1925], Citrus sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Poncirus sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [YunusHo1980]. Ternstroemiaceae: Cleyera sp. [MillerDa2005], Eurya sp. [MillerDa2005]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Borg1932], Camellia oleifera [Tao1999], Camellia sp. [Comsto1883, MillerDa2005], Eurya japonica [Merril1953], Gordonia axillaris [Takagi1969a], Thea sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [Morris1939a]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Guinea [Leonar1914]; Nigeria [Medler1980]. Australasian: Australia [DanzigPe1998]; Indonesia (Java [Merril1953]). Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], California [Morris1939a, Hewitt1943, MillerDa2005], Delaware [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005], Florida [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Lawson1917, HowardOl1985, MillerDa2005] (Lawson (1917) reports that Parlatoria camelliae was collected at quarantine in Kansas, shipped from Baton Rouge, L.A.), Maryland [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [King1902b] (King (1902b) states that this species is an introduction to Massachusetts.), Mississippi [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Wray1950, MillerDa2005], Oregon [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Texas [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Merril1953, MillerDa2005], Washington [Ali1969]). Neotropical: Argentina [Morris1939a]; Chile [GonzalCh1968]; Panama [McKenz1945]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Cheo1935], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Cheo1935], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Cheo1935], Hunan [Cheo1935], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Ferris1950a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897a]; India [MillerDa2005] (Karnataka [Misra1924CS], Rajasthan [Misra1924CS], Tamil Nadu [Nakaha1982]). Oriental: Indonesia [MillerDa2005]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [YunusHo1980]); Pakistan [Misra1924CS, MillerDa2005]; Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [TakahaTa1956]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a, Takaha1930, MillerDa2005]. Palaearctic: China [MillerDa2005] (Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999]); Egypt [DanzigPe1998]; France [McKenz1945, Foldi2001, MillerDa2005]; Georgia (Abkhaz ASSR [MillerDa2005]); Iran [KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Carmin1950]; Italy [Morris1939a, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Maskel1897a, MillerDa2005] (Honshu [TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [Tachik1955], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Madeira Islands [VieiraCaPi1983]; Malta [Borg1932]; North Korea [McKenz1945]; Portugal [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; Sicily [Morris1939a, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); South Korea [DanzigPe1998, MillerDa2005]; Spain [Morris1939a]; Switzerland [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005].
BIOLOGY: We have been unable to find an account of the biology of this species. In Gridley, California in late July 1979 we collected the camellia parlatoria scale just at the end of the egg-laying period. Most adult females were shriveled but a few still had a few eggs under their covers. Settled crawlers were abundant. The infestation was restricted to the leaves of camellia, and both males and females were found on the top and undersides of leaves. There was a tendency for settling to occur close to the veins of the leaf. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by McKenzie (1945) and Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.5 mm long and 0.75 mm wide, elongate oval, moderately convex, white or gray, second exuviae pale except for a dark, median area which is yellowish or at times with a faint greenish hue. Male scale elongate, gray (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria camelliae is close to P. crotonis, although the absence of a strongly sclerotized ocular spur immediately separates it from the latter (McKenzie, 1945).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. McKenzie (1956) found this species to be the most important scale insect pest of camellias in California. Morrison (1946) treated it as one of the most important scale pests of camellia on the Pacific coast and noted that it was the most commonly collected species on this host. Steinweden (1942) reported that nurserymen were very cautious with this species and sprayed whenever it was found to prevent damage to infested hosts. Miller and Davidson (1990) consider this species to be an occasional pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Gill 1997: 216 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Kosztarab 1996: 551 (female) [Key to Northeastern North American species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 222 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 70 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Louisiana]; Wang 1982c: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Takagi 1960: 71 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 321 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 55 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 778 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 170 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 528 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 31 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1968 [distribution, host: 135]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 56, 797-800]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 321, 324-326]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 232-234]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 168, 212, 213, 266]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 189-190]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 11]; Carmin1950 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 1-10]; Charli1972 [distribution: 215]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 101]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 224-226]; Chou1986 [illustration: 631]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 575]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 93]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 326]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 44]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 104]; Dozier1937 [biological control, distribution: 126]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 224, 273, 279]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 320-321]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-88]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-400, SIV-446:59]; Ferris1950a [distribution, host: 76]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 236]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 14,24]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 57]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Ghesqu1932 [distribution, host: 59]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 217-218, 223]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 146, 154-155]; GonzalCh1968 [distribution, host: 111]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 198, 276]; Hall1946a [taxonomy: 528]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 186]; Hoffma1927 [distribution, host: 75]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 156]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 198]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1980 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191-192]; King1902b [distribution: 62]; Korone1934 [taxonomy: 35]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 551-553]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1925 [taxonomy: 6, 7]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248, 250]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 36-37]; Leonar1914 [distribution, host: 224]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137, 145-149]; Lizery1938 [taxonomy: 355]; Lizery1942c [distribution: 235]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41, 73-79]; Martin1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 43]; Maskel1897 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 300-301]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 58-59, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 138-139]; McKenz1960b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 204-206]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 66]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 316]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 345, 350]; Moghad2013a [distribution: 46]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 8-9, 31]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 66]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Ramakr1925 [distribution, host: 154]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 31, 34]; Ramakr1940 [distribution, host: 478]; SchuhMo1948 [distribution, host: 49]; Silves1939 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 826]; Tachik1955 [distribution, host: 56]; Takagi1956a [taxonomy: 47]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 71]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-34, 51]; Takaha1930 [distribution: 1]; Takaha1957b [taxonomy: 109]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 13]; Tanaka2010 [host, taxonomy: 179-183]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 124-125]; Tang1984 [taxonomy: 73]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 104-105]; VieiraCaPi1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 132]; Wang1982c [distribution, taxonomy: 78, 82]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 30, 72]; Wray1950 [distribution: 15]; Wray1967 [distribution: 34]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 244]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34].
Parlatoria cinerea Hadden in Doane & HaddenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cinerea Hadden in Doane & Hadden, 1909: 299-300. Type data: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Society Islands, on Citrus sp. and a "cultivated vine". Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Syngenaspis cinerea; MacGillivray, 1921: 249. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pseudopyri Kuwana in Kuwana & Muramatsu, 1932: 15-17. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, taken at Japan, on Jasminum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Ibaraki-ken: Insect Taxonomy Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Environmental Sciences, Kannon-dai, Yatabe, Tsukuba-shi, (Kuwana), Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 54.
Parlatoria fluggeae brasiliensis Costa Lima, 1934: 134. Type data: BRAZIL: Distrito Federal, Guaratiba, on Citrus aurantium, by A. Silva. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sao Paulo: Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lizer y Trelles, 1942c: 235.
Parlatoria brasiliensis; Quayle, 1938a: 299. Change of status.
Paraltorea fluggeae brasiliensis; Lindinger, 1943: 223. Misspelling of genus name.
Paraltoria braziliensis; McKenzie, 1945: 53. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Parlatoria cinarea; Chou, 1985: 221. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: apple parlatoria [PruthiBa1960]; tropical grey chaff scale [DeBachRo1976].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus schioedtei [WalkerDe1979], Lindorus lophanthae [WalkerDe1979], Rodolia pumila [WalkerDe1979], Sticholotis madegassa [WalkerDe1979]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis hispanicus [RosenDe1979], Coccophagoides abnormalicornis [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [KazimiGh1964]. Annonaceae: Annona muricata [WilliaWa1988]. Apocynaceae: Nerium indicum [Sankar1984]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum sp. [Borchs1966]. Meliaceae: Melia azedarach [KazimiGh1964]. Nyctaginaceae: Bougainvillaea sp. [Borchs1966]. Oleaceae: Jasminum sambac [Tao1999], Jasminum sp. [KuwanaMu1932]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [KazimiGh1964], Rosa sp. [Borchs1966]. Rubiaceae: Gardenia sp. [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantifolia [Sankar1984], Citrus aurantium [CostaL1934, BenDov2012], Citrus grandis [WilliaWa1988, BenDov2012], Citrus limon [Almeid1971], Citrus maxima [WilliaBu1987], Citrus paradisi [WilliaWa1988, BenDov2012], Citrus reticulata [WilliaWa1988, BenDov2012], Citrus sinensis [CorseuSi1971], Citrus sp. [DoaneHa1909], Malus sylvestris [WilliaWa1988]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Hua2000]. Tiliaceae: Grewia asiatica [KazimiGh1964]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Almeid1971]; South Africa [Morris1939a]. Australasian: Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [DoaneHa1909], Tahiti [Takaha1939b, McKenz1945]); Guam [Fullaw1946, Beards1966]; Indonesia (Java [Morris1939a]); New Caledonia [Morris1939a, WilliaWa1988]; Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan Island [Takaha1939b, Beards1966]); Pitcairn Island [WilliaWa1988]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987]; Western Samoa [DoaneFe1916]. Nearctic: Mexico [Fleury1934, Morris1939a]; United States of America (District of Columbia [Morris1939a], Maryland [Morris1939a]). Neotropical: Argentina [Morris1939a, Crouze1971]; Bahamas [McKenz1945]; Brazil [Morris1939a] (Distrito Federal (=Brasilia) [CostaL1934], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Paraiba [LepageGi1942], Rio Grande do Sul [GomesCRe1947], Rio de Janeiro [SilvadGoGa1968], Sao Paulo [Fonsec1965]); Colombia [Mosque1976]; Cuba [Morris1939a]; Dominica [Morris1939a]; Grenada [Morris1939a]; Guyana [Balach1953g]; Haiti [Morris1939a]; Jamaica [Morris1939a]; Montserrat [Morris1939a]; Netherlands Antilles [Balach1953g]; Panama [Fleury1934]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]); Saint Lucia [Morris1939a]; Suriname [Morris1939a]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Morris1939a]). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Hainan [Tao1999], Hainan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); Hong Kong [KuwanaMu1932]; India [Takaha1939b] (Haryana [PruthiBa1960], Punjab [Takaha1938b, PruthiBa1960], Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996], West Bengal [Ali1969]); Pakistan [Takaha1938b, KazimiGh1964]; Philippines [Morris1939a]; Taiwan [Takaha1930]; Thailand [Morris1939a, NakaoTaTa1977]; Vietnam [Ali1969]. Palaearctic: China [Takaha1939b]; Israel [Gerson1967, AvidovHa1969, BenDov2012]; Italy [Morris1939a]; Japan [Tao1999]; Spain [Morris1939a].
BIOLOGY: This tropicopolitan species is usually associated with citrus and is one of the commonest scale insects on citrus in the South Pacific. P. cinerea usually occurs with P. pergandii on citrus (Williams & Watson, 1988).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale whitish, elongate-oval; exuviae terminal, yellow-brown. Male scale similar, but smaller and more elongate. Adult female, slide-mounted, broadly oval, pygidium pointed; head rounded; free abdominal segments with lateral lobes poorly developed (Williams & Watson, 19898).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria cinerea closely resembles P. banksiae, although the absence of a macroduct between the median lobes readily separates it from the latter. It is also related to P. fluggeae, but differs in the possession of intermediate dorsal macroducts (McKenzie, 1945).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 113 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Puerto Rico]; Danzig 1993: 84 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Williams & Watson 1988: 202 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Beardsley 1966: 550 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria known from Micronesia]; Balachowsky 1953g: 777 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 13, 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 171 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 77 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 30 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 91, 94]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; AvidovHa1969 [distribution, economic importance, host: 223]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 777, 817-820]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 328]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550-551]; BeardsGo1975 [taxonomy: 50]; Bedfor1978 [distribution, economic importance, host: 130]; Bedfor1998a [distribution, host: 159]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 227-228]; BenDov1970a [taxonomy: 1]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 44]; Bodenh1953 [taxonomy: 41]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 190]; Bytins1966 [distribution: 29]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 234-235]; Chou1986 [illustration: 632]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 7, 72]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host, economic importance: 17]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 114]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; CostaL1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 195]; Crouze1971 [distribution, economic importance: 200]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Dale1959 [distribution, host: 12]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84, 101-102]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 326]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance: 175]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 312]; DoaneFe1916 [distribution, host: 402]; DoaneHa1909 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 299-300]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44, 89]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 273, 279]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-86]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:59]; Fleury1934 [distribution, host: 494]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 8, 23, 42]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 24, 37]; Fonsec1965 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 216, 218-219]; Fullaw1946 [distribution, host: 160]; Gentry1965 [distribution, host: 17]; Gerson1967 [distribution, host, life history: 872-873]; Gerson1967a [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 1145-1151]; Gerson1977 [illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Gerson1977a [taxonomy: 408]; GersonRo1977 [distribution: 864-865]; GomesCRe1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 226]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 186, 187]; Hsu1935 [distribution: 579]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 156]; IzraylGe1995a; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 193]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 18]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 37]; Kozar1979 [taxonomy: 130]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KuwanaMu1932 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15-17]; Laing1927 [distribution, host: 42]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 414]; LepageGi1942 [distribution, host: 449]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 151, 329]; Lindin1914 [distribution, taxonomy: 117]; Lindin1931 [taxonomy: 123]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 198]; Lindin1936 [distribution, host: 151]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 223]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; Lizery1942c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 234-235]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; Malump2012b [distribution: 210]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 29]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 43]; McKenz1943 [taxonomy: 156, 157]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53, 54, 59-60, 77, 7]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13, 14]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 7, 10-12, 30]; Mosque1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53-54, 93]; NakaoTaTa1977 [distribution, host: 65]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 201]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 214]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 59]; PruthiBa1960 [economic importance, distribution, host: 13, 97]; RahmanAn1941 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 817, 827-828]; Rao1941 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; RaoCh1950 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21]; Rosen1965 [biological control: 388-396]; Rosen1966 [biological control, distribution: 43]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 762]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 32]; SankarNaNa1984 [distribution, host: 410]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 182]; Singh1964 [distribution, host: 219]; SmithFl1949 [distribution, host: 996]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 255-256]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-39, 53]; Takaha1930 [distribution, host: 38-39]; Takaha1938b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 272]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 269]; Talhou1975 [distribution, economic importance, host: 23]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96, 97]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105]; TatemaSoKa2004 [taxonomy, description: 145]; TrabouBe1965 [biological control, distribution: 5, 6]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 10]; WalkerDe1979 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 73, 77]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 177]; WilliaBu1987 [distribution, host: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202-204]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 246]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria cingala GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cingala Green, 1899a: 166-167. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Flacourtia sp. and Scolopia sp. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Eberswalde: Institut fur Pflanzenschutzforschung, Germany, and London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) cingala; Leonardi, 1903a: 26. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis cingala; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Flacourtiaceae: Flacourtia sp. [Green1899a], Scolopia sp. [Green1899a]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1899a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, flattish, pale yellow or brownish. Exuviae overlapping, pale yellow; sub-marginal. Male scale white or faintly tinged with yellow; oblong, posterior half depressed, with indistinct sub-lateral ridges (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria cingala is closely related to P. namunakuli, differing principally in having the 4th lobe broadly rounded rather than lanceolate (McKenzie, 1945). Chiraki (1913) misidentifies Aulacaspis yabunikkei as Parlatoria cingala (Scott, 1952).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Palmer 1905: 145 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 190]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 319]; Gaedik1971 [distribution, host: 336]; Green1899a [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 163, 166-167]; Green1922a [taxonomy: 1019]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 209]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 26-27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 60, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 136, 145]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Scott1952 [taxonomy: 41]; Shirak1913 [taxonomy: 97]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 10].
Parlatoria cinnamomi RutherfordNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cinnamomi Rutherford, 1915: 114-115. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Cinnamomum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Caryota urens [Ruther1915]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Ruther1915]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1915].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Rutherford (1915).
STRUCTURE: Female scale golden yellow, with black area just caudal of the 1st exuviae; some with black area in the middle of the 1st exuviae; both exuviae covered with a thin, white, wax. Adult female broader than long, pygidium somewhat retracted. 3 pairs of lobes placed far apart. Median lobes have a deep notch on each side near the apex, which is narrow (Rutherford, 1915).
SYSTEMATICS: P. cinnamomi is near P. aonidiformis, but differs in the much broader pectinae and in the character of the processes on the margin of the pygidium as well as in the prominent, gland-pore projections (Rutherford, 1915).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 190-191]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; McKenz1945 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60-61, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ruther1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 10].
Parlatoria cinnamomicola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cinnamomicola Tang, 1984: 81. Type data: CHINA: Fukien, Zhanzhou, on Buxus microphylla and Cinnamomum pudmaculacum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Buxaceae: Buxus microphylla [Tang1984]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum pudmaculacum [Tang1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate oval, about 1.9 mm long, greyish white, translucent, exuviae yellowish brown. Adult female body pyriform, 0.68 mm long, 0.60 mm wide (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. cinnamomicola is close to P. pittospori, but differs by having a greater number of gland tubercles and by the absence of peribuccal granulations in the latter (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 81, 82, 112]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105].
Parlatoria citri McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria citri McKenzie, 1943: 155-156. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, in quarantine in Palo Alto, California, on Citrus sp., 11/05/1937, by V.E. Williams. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Rutaceae: Citrus sinensis [WilliaWa1988], Citrus sp. [McKenz1943]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Nigeria [Medler1980]. Australasian: Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Indonesia (Java [McKenz1943]). Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [SureshMo1996]); Thailand [NakaoTaTa1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale pale brown, exuviae terminal, slightly darker. Male scale smaller and narrower than female scale, but similar in color (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: P. citri is similar to P. cinerea, but differs in possessing only 1 or 2 dorsal ducts on either side of anus instead of 3 or 4. It differs from P. crypta in lacking dorsal intermediate ducts on segment 4. Whereas the lobes of P. cinerea tend to be pointed medially at apex, because of the long outer margins with a few notches, the lobes of P. citri are almost parallel, and have but a single notch on the outer margins (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 202 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; McKenz1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 155-156]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; NakaoTaTa1977 [distribution, host: 65]; Reyne1961 [distribution: 121]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 256]; WalkerDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 73]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202, 204-207]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34].
Parlatoria cristifera Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cristifera Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1921: 38. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 379.
HOST: Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Ramakr1921]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Karnataka [Ramakr1921]).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 379]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 273, 279]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, host: 12]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 18]; Ramakr1921 [distribution, host: 38]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 342]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 34]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78].
Parlatoria crotonis DouglasNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria proteus crotonis Douglas, 1887: 242. Type data: UNITED KINGDOM: England, on Croton sp., by Mr. Cameron. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Parlatoria pergandei crotonis Cockerell, 1892b: 334. Type data: JAMAICA: Kingston, on Croton sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Cockerell, 1899n: 31. Homonym of Parlatoria proteus crotonis Douglas 1887.
Parlatoria crotonis; Cockerell, 1902d: 59. Change of status.
Parlatoria greeni Banks, 1906: 231-232. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Manila, on Cocos nucifera, by C.S. Banks. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Manila: Entomological Collection, Bureau of Science, Philippines. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 53.
Syngenaspis crotonis; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis greeni; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: croton parlatoria scale [Cocker1897g].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis hispanicus [TrabouBe1965], Aphytis hispanicus [DeSant1979], Aphytis maculicornis [Dozier1933].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer sp. [Morris1939a]. Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Banks1906]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [Ballou1926], Codiaeum variegatum [FeltMo1928], Croton scouleri [LincanHoCa2010], Croton sp. [Dougla1887], Croton variegatum [Waters1941]. Fabaceae: Inocarpus edulis [OConno1949], Inocarpus fagifer [Dumble1954]. Lauraceae: Laurus sp. [Borchs1966]. Magnoliaceae: Illicium philippinese [Takagi1970], Illicium randaiense [Takaha1935], Magnolia sp. [Borchs1966]. Moraceae: Ficus armentosa henryi [Tao1999], Ficus foveolata [Takaha1932a], Ficus sp. [Morris1939a]. Oleaceae: Linoceira [=Chionanthus] lanceolata [WilliaMi2010]. Orchidaceae: Dendrobium moschatum [Takaha1929], Dendrobium sp. [Morris1939a]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [WilliaWa1988]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Rutaceae: Citrus medica [GhabboMo1996], Citrus sinensis [GhabboMo1996].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Nakaha1982]; Comoros [Matile1978]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [Balach1953g]; Guinea [Balach1953g]; Madagascar [Mamet1959a]; South Africa [Nakaha1982]. Australasian: Cook Islands [Nakaha1982, WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Truk Islands [Beards1966]); Fiji [OConno1949]; French Polynesia (Tahiti [Nakaha1982]); Hawaiian Islands [Fullaw1932] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Zimmer1948] (Zimmerman (1948) lists this species as an immigrant to Hawaii.)); Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988], Java [WilliaMi2010]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988]; New Caledonia [Cohic1958, WilliaWa1988]; Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Morris1939a]; United States of America (California [Merril1953, McKenz1956], District of Columbia [Merril1953], Florida [Merril1953], Illinois [Merril1953], Louisiana [Merril1953], Massachusetts [King1899c], New York [FeltMo1928], Ohio [Cocker1899s], Pennsylvania [Nakaha1982]). Neotropical: Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua [Cocker1897g]); Bahamas [Nakaha1982]; Bermuda [Waters1941, Simmon1957]; Brazil [Balach1953g]; Cayman Islands [Nakaha1982]; Costa Rica [Morris1939a]; Cuba [Ballou1926]; El Salvador [Nakaha1982]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]; Guyana [Morris1939a]; Haiti [Dozier1933]; Honduras [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Cocker1892b]; Netherlands Antilles [Balach1953g]; Nicaragua [Morris1939a]; Panama [Cocker1899d]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Morris1939a, ColonFMe1998]); Saint Croix [Nakaha1982]; Saint Lucia [Merril1953]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Morris1939a]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000]); India [Misra1924CS] (Bihar [Ali1969]); Philippines [Banks1906] (Luzon [Robins1917]); Taiwan [Takaha1929]. Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1925, GhabboMo1996]; France [DanzigPe1998]; Hungary [FogaraKo1977]; Israel [DanzigPe1998]; Italy [Cocker1897g]; United Kingdom (England [Dougla1887]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by McKenzie (1945) and Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate-oval, yellowish; exuviae similar color, terminal. Male scale yellowish and elongate, smaller than female. Adult female slide-mounted with median, 2nd and 3rd pairs of lobes prominent, successively decreasing only slightly in size, each with a single notch on either side. 4th lobes much smaller than 3rd lobes, pointed, always sclerotized. Plates fimbriate distally, narrow and parallel between lobes, wider beyond 3rd lobes. Dorsal ducts not numerous, present on margins and submargins forward to abdominal segment 1 (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria crotonis is close to P. camelliae, but differs in the enlargement of the eyespot into a stout prosomal marginal spur (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 113 [Key to Puerto Rican species of Parlatoria]; Gill 1997: 216 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Williams & Watson 1988: 202 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Beardsley 1966: 550 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria known from Micronesia]; Balachowsky 1958b: 321 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ezzat 1958: 249 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 778 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Zimmerman 1948: 396 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 30 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Fullaway 1932: 99 (female) [as Parlatoria proteus var. crotonis; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Britton 1923: 380 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Connecticut]; Robinson 1917: 27 (female) [as Parlatoria greeni; Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1967a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 39-40]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Balach1953g [distribution, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 778, 800-802]; Balach1957c [distribution, host: 206]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 321, 326-328]; Ballou1926 [distribution, host: 29]; Banks1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 222, 231-232]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550-551]; Bodkin1922 [distribution, host: 60]; BoratyWi1964 [distribution: 89]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 380]; Brown1965 [chemistry: 239]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 55]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 395-396]; Chou1986 [illustration: 633]; Cocker1892b [distribution, host: 334]; Cocker1895q [description, distribution, host: 62]; Cocker1897g [description, distribution, host: 107-108]; Cocker1898g [taxonomy: 109]; Cocker1899d [distribution, host: 167]; Cocker1899j [host, taxonomy: 275]; Cocker1899n [distribution: 31]; Cocker1899s [distribution, host: 258]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; Cohic1956 [distribution, host: 10, 72]; Cohic1958 [distribution, host: 17, 28, 34]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 93-94]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 326-327]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 105]; DeSant1979 [biological control: 312]; Dougla1887 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 242]; Dozier1933 [biological control, distribution, host: 90]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44, 125]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 319]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-401, SIV-446:58]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 24, 77]; FogaraKo1977 [distribution: 388, 389, 391]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Fullaw1932 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 95, 99]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 354]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 216, 218, 224]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host: 35]; Gowdey1926 [distribution, host: 50]; Hall1925 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 16-17]; Hall1926a [distribution: 38]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 187]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 54]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; King1899c [distribution: 228]; KosztaKo1978 [taxonomy: 144]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Leonar1903a [taxonomy: 36]; LincanHoCa2010 [distribution, host: 5]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; Malump2012b [distribution: 211]; Mamet1959a [distribution, host: 384]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 66]; Maxwel1902 [distribution: 248]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53, 61, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 138-139, 141]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 67]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 12-13, 30]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 402]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 66-67]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 13]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 35]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 146-147]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; OConno1949 [distribution, host: 88]; Ordogh1984 [distribution: 359]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 214]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27, 28]; Simmon1957 [distribution, host: 5]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 32]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 5, 12, 78]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 29]; Takaha1935 [distribution, host: 4]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 74]; Takaha1951b [taxonomy: 110]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 85]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105]; TrabouBe1965 [biological control, distribution: 5]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 10]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution: 196]; Waters1941 [distribution, host: 20]; WilliaMi2010 [distribution, host: 46]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202, 206-209]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 30, 73]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 396].
Parlatoria crypta McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria crypta McKenzie, 1943: 156. Type data: INDIA: Rajapur, undetermined host, ?/08/1911, by R.S. Woglum. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria morrisoni McKenzie, 1943: 157. Type data: INDIA: Lahore, on Laurus nobilis, ?/07/1911, by R.S. Woglum. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 802.
Parlatoria sp. (?morrisoni) Ghauri, 1962: 48. Unavailable name.
COMMON NAME: mango white scale [Schmut1969].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus nigritus [Samway1984], Pharoscymnus flexibilis [GhaniMu1974], Sticholotis sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus kawanae [AhmadGh1972], Cybocephalus semiflavus [AhmadGh1972]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus sp. [KazimiGh1964], Aphytis maculicornis [AhmadGh1972], Aphytis sp. [KazimiGh1964], Azotus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Coccophagoides kuwanae [AhmadGh1972]. Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus odonaspidis [AhmadGh1972], Anabrolepis maculicornis [AhmadGh1972], Anabrolepis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Coccidencyrtus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Habrolepis sp. [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella flexibilis [AhmadGh1972], Prospaltella sp. [KazimiGh1964]. Eulophidae: Tetrastichus purpureus [AhmadGh1972], Tetrastichus sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Agavaceae: Agave Americana [Sankar1984]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Ali1969]. Apocynaceae: Calotropis procera [Moghad2013a], Nerium indicum [Dutta1990], Nerium odorum [Dutta1990], Nerium oleander [Balach1953g]. Araliaceae: Hedera syriacus [AhmadGh1972]. Arecaceae: Phoenix dactylifera [Moghad2013a]. Asclepiadaceae: Calotropis procera [Seghat1977], Calotropis sp. [Seghat1977]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [AhmadGh1972], Yucca baccata [Moghad2013a]. Betulaceae: Alnus lebbek [AhmadGh1972]. Boraginaceae: Cordia limm [Seghat1977], Cordia myxa [Balach1953g], Cordia obliqua [AhmadGh1972], Ehretia aspera [AhmadGh1972]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum vinifera [AhmadGh1972]. Celastraceae: Euonymus sp. [Borchs1966]. Convolvulaceae: Ipomoea sp. [Moghad2013a]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [AhmadGh1972]. Euphorbiaceae: Mallotus philippinensis [McKenz1945]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Moghad2013a], Albizia lebek [Seghat1977], Cassia sophera [AhmadGh1972], Glycyrrhiza glabra [Moghad2013a], Indigofera argentea [Moghad2013a]. Lauraceae: Laurus nobilis? [McKenz1945]. Lythraceae: Lawsonia inermis [Moghad2013a]. Meliaceae: Azadirachta indica [Matile1984c], Melia azedarach [Balach1953g]. Moraceae: Ficus bengalensis [Seghat1977], Ficus religiosa [AhmadGh1972], Ficus sp. [Borchs1966], Morus alba [Balach1953g]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus communis [Moghad2013a]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus excelsior [Moghad2013a], Jasminum bifarium [KazimiGh1964], Jasminum sambuc [Balach1953g], Olea europea [Balach1953g]. Polygonaceae: Calligonum comosum [Moghad2013a]. Rhamnaceae: Zizyphus spinachristi [Seghat1977]. Rosaceae: Malus domestica [Moghad2013a], Malus sp. [Borchs1966], Pyrus communis [Moghad2013a], Rosa sp. [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Aegle marmelos [Dutta1990], Citrus limonia [Moghad2013a], Citrus sp. [Borchs1966]. Sapindaceae: Dodonaea viscosa [Matile1984c]. Sapotaceae: Madhuca indica [Dutta1990], Madhuca latifollia [Dutta1990]. Verbenaceae: Clerodendron sp. [AhmadGh1972], Nyctanthes arbortritis [Sankar1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Comoros [Matile1978]; Mali [MuniapWaVa2012]; Sudan [Schmut1969] (Schmutterer (1969) states that Parlatoria crypta must have been introduced from the Middle East "a long time ago."). Oriental: India [McKenz1943] (Delhi [McKenz1945], Karnataka [Sankar1984], Punjab [Ali1969], Uttar Pradesh [Ali1969]); Pakistan [KazimiGh1964]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Iran [Balach1953g, Matile1984c, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Balach1953g, Matile1984c]; Saudi Arabia [Shalab1961].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Female scale approximately 1.25 mm long and 1.00 mm wide, slightly convex, rather flat, somewhat elongate oval, grayish white, and quite large. Second exuviae yellowish, 1st exuviae yellowish, exuviae placed at extremity of scale. Male scale elongate, grayish white, exuviae apical and yellowish. Slide mounted adult female 0.75 mm long and 0.60 mm wide. Submarginal dorsal macroducts variable in number, ranging from 10 to 46, average about 25 on each side (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria crypta is closely related to P. citri and P. cinerea. The presence of large numbers of intermediate spiracular, posterior spiracular, and 1st abdominal ventral duct tubercles readily separates this species from the others (McKenzie, 1943). Ghauri (1962) considers P. crypta and P. morrisoni as likely distinct. However, until another author looked into the matter in greater detail he describes as new Parlatoria sp.(?morrisoni) which is here considered an unavailable name that is placed.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 777 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1971 [biological control, distribution: 72]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 91-92]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Amin1987 [description, illustration: 51-55]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 777, 802-805, 916]; Beccar1959 [distribution, host: 80]; Beccar1971 [distribution, host: 194]; BoratyDa1971 [taxonomy: 64]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191-192]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 218]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 95-96]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; Davies1981 [taxonomy: 151]; Davies1983 [taxonomy: 144]; DaviesBo1979 [taxonomy: 101]; Dutta1990 [distribution, host: 156]; Ebelin1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 273, 279]; FarahbMo1975 [distribution, host: 67]; FowjhaKo1994; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 60]; Ghauri1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-48, 209]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 7]; KazimiGh1964 [biological control, distribution, host: 38]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; Lupo1966a [taxonomy: 43]; Matile1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 40, 66]; Matile1984c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; McKenz1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 156-157]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62-63, 67-68, 78]; McKenz1952 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 14]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 2]; Moghad2008 [distribution: 156]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 46]; MuniapWaVa2012 [distribution: 1-5]; Rao1953 [taxonomy: 68]; Samway1984 [biological control, host: 99]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 32]; Schmut1969 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 114-115]; Schmut1977 [distribution, host: 370]; Seghat1977 [distribution: 18]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11].
Parlatoria cupressi FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cupressi Ferris, 1953: 61-62. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, on campus of University at Kunming, on Cupressus ducluoxiana, 26/04/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria thujae Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 94-95. Type data: JAPAN: Tokyo, on Thuja standishi, by S. Kawai; Amagi-san, Sizuoka-ken, Wakayama Experiment Forest of Hokkaido University, Wakayama-ken, Siraga-yama, Koti-ken, on Chamaecyparis obtusa, by S. Takagi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Tang, 1984: 87.
Parlatoreopsis thujae; Kawai, 1972: 22. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Cupressaceae: Chamaecyparis obtusa [Muraka1970], Thuja orientalis [Tang1984b], Thuja standishi [TakagiKa1966]. Pinaceae: Cupressus ducluosiana [Ferris1953]. Taxaceae: Torreya sp. [DanzigPe1998]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tang1984], Yunnan [Ferris1953]). Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tao1999], Liaoning [Tang1984], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1984b], Shanxi (=Shansi) [Tang1984]); Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate oval, composed mostly of 2nd exuviae which is overlain by a layer of wax that extends beyond the extremity of the exuviae, white or slightly gray. Male scale elongate, white. Neither scale exceeds 1.0 mm in length. A practically pupillarial species, the adult female is enveloped dorsally by the exuviae of the 2nd stage, which is open ventrally. Adult female about 0.5 mm long and exuviae about 0.6 mm long. Membranous throughout, except for the slightly sclerotized dorsum of the pygidium (Ferris, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria cupressi is evidently near P. alba, sharing with it the presence of 2 pairs of pygidial lobes and having the same general features. It may even be a variant of P. alba, but it has no pores associated with the anterior spiracles, it has 4 instead of 5 groups of perivulvar pores, these with 4 pores, as opposed to 5 groups of as many as 15-16 pores. Also, it has fewer dorsal ducts on the pygidium (Ferris, 1953).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 239]; Chou1986 [illustration: 643]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; Ferris1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61-62]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Kawai1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 22-23]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22-23]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 68]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 94-95]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87, 89, 115]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; TangCh1983 [taxonomy: 302, 305]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria desolator McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria proteus virescens; Maskell, 1897a: 241. Misidentification; discovered by McKenzie, 1960b: 206.
Parlatoria virescens; McKenzie, 1945: 75. Misidentification; discovered by McKenzie, 1960b: 206.
Parlatoria virescens; Richards, 1960: 693. Misidentification; discovered by Henderson, 2000: 52.
Parlatoria desolator McKenzie, 1960b: 206. Type data: NEW ZEALAND: Henderson, on Pyrus communis, 09/01/1959, by H.G. King. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria disolator; Chou, 1985: 221. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Tang1984]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Hibiscus syriacus [Tang1984]. Myrtaceae [Borchs1966], Myrtus sp. [Tao1999]. Rosaceae: Malus domestica [Hender2011], Malus pumila [Tao1999], Malus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Malus spectabilis [Tao1999], Persica sp. [Borchs1966], Prunus persica [Tao1999], Prunus sp. [Tao1999], Pyrus communis [McKenz1960b], Pyrus sinensis [McKenz1960b]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: New Zealand [McKenz1960b, Hender2011] (This species has not been collected since the 1950s and may no longer be present in New Zealand. It was first misidentified as Parlatoria pergandii Comstock, or P. virescens Maskell (a junior synonym of P. camelliae. (Henderson, 2011) Comstock)). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897a]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a]. Palaearctic: Japan [Maskel1897a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1960b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.50 mm long, 0.75 mm wide, moderately convex, grayish-brown, exuviae blackish. Male scale elongate and similar in color to that of female (McKenzie, 1960b).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria desolator is closely related to P. fluggeae, differing in the possession of broader and more fimbriate plates between the 3rd and 4th pygidial lobes (McKenzie, 1945). Early records and identifications in New Zealand confused P. desolator with either P. pergandii, a cosmopolitan pest, or P. virescens described by Maskell from China (Henderson 2000). McKenzie (1960) determined that the material from China contained two species, P. virescens Maskell, a junior synonym of P. camelliae Comstock, and a previously undescribed species, P. desolator, which agreed with the New Zealand specimens. (Charles & Henderson, 2002)
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 119 (female) [Key to Parlatoria adult females in New Zealand]; Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Wang 1982c: 78 (female) [as Parlatoria virescens; Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 16 [as Parlatoria virescens; Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [as Parlatoria virescens; Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,605]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 236-237]; Chou1986 [illustration: 644]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; Hender2000 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 51-52]; Hender2011 [distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,13,116,119,232]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75-76, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 16]; McKenz1960b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 206-208]; Richar1960AM [distribution, host: 693]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 120-121]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 75, 77]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78, 81]; Wise1977 [distribution: 111]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272-273].
Parlatoria destructor Newstead in FroggattNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria destructor Newstead in Froggatt, 1914: 600-601. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Victoria, near Melbourne, on Malus sp., by C. French. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea destructor; MacGillivray, 1921: 253. Change of combination.
HOST: Rosaceae: Malus sp. [Frogga1914]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [McKenz1945], Victoria [Frogga1914]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Froggatt (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale approximately 1.0 mm long, elongate oval, dark brown, exuviae grayish brown, the 2nd stage female larger than adult female. This suggests pupillarity (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: The apparent tendency of Parlatoria destructor to be pupillarial, together with a reduction of the pygidial lobes in the adult female suggest that it should only be doubtfully retained in Parlatoria (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 13 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 77 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 253 [as Cryptoparlatorea destructor; Key to species of Cryptoparlatorea].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 600-601]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-28]; Konsta1976 [host: 49]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50, 63, 77]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13].
Parlatoria emeiensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria emeiensis Tang, 1984: 93. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Mount Emei, on undetermined Rosaceae. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Rosaceae [Tang1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate oval, 1.8 mm long, white; exuviae yellowish brown. Male scale 1.0 mm long. Adult female body pyriform, 0.88 mm long, 0.85 mm white. Prepygidial portion membranous. Pygidial lobes in 5 pairs (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. emeiensis is close to P. cinerea, but differs by more numerous dorsal macroducts, by the absence of peribuccal granulations and by having fewer notches on the outer sides of the median and 2nd lobes (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93, 95, 114-115]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105].
Parlatoria ephedrae (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatorea ephedrae Lindinger, 1911: 129. Type data: IRAN: Kerman, on Ephedra nebrodensis, 12/04/1892; E. intermedia, 11/04/1892; Kuh-i-Dschupar, E. nebrodensis var. procera, 12/04/1892. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Notes: Lindinger (1911) misspelled the genus epithet Parlatoria when he described ephedrae.
Genaparlatoria ephedrae; MacGillivray, 1921: 255. Change of combination.
Fiorinia africana; Hall, 1922: 35-36. Misidentification; discovered by Hall, 1925: 16.
Parlatoria ephedrae; Hall, 1925: 16. Change of combination. Notes: Hall's treatment of Parlatoria ephedrae is not really a change of combination since the species was described in Parlatoria. However, for the purposes of this database each unique spelling combination of a species must be included and so Hall's usage is here because Lindinger used Parlatorea as the original spelling of the genus.
Parlatoria ephedrarum; Borchsenius, 1937: 186. Misspelling of species name.
Syngenaspis ephedrae; Borchsenius, 1950: 172. Change of combination.
Archangelskaia ephedrae; Bodenheimer, 1951: 331. Change of combination.
Parlatoria olgae Borchsenius, 1964: 866. Type data: TAJIKISTAN: Hissar Ridge, Kondar Gorge, on Ephedra sp., 23/09/1960, by N. Borchsenius. Holotype female. Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Danzig, 1993: 89.
COMMON NAME: Tadzhikistan ephedra scale [Borchs1964].
HOSTS: Gnetaceae: Ephedra alte [Hall1927b], Ephedra equisetina [Bazaro1968a], Ephedra intermedia [Lindin1911], Ephedra nebrodensis [Lindin1911], Ephedra nebrodensis procera [Lindin1911], Ephedra procera [Balach1953g], Ephedra sp. [Bodenh1944b]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1925]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Balach1953g]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956]; Uzbekistan [Balach1953g].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Borchsenius (1964).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body oval, with 2-3 disc glands next to the anterior spiracles (Borchsenius, 1964).
SYSTEMATICS: P. olgae is close to P. asiatica and P. ephedrae, but can be told from the former by the absence of circumgenital glands and the shape of the pygidial lobes and from the latter by the well-developed pygidial lobes and black larval exuviae (Borchsenius, 1964).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 148 (female) [as Parlatoria olgae; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ezzat 1958: 249 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; Balachowsky 1953g: 776 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 255 (female) [as Genaparlatoria ephedrae; Key to species of Genaparlatoria].
CITATIONS: Archan1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 136, 141, 150]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 773, 775, 776, 787,]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 322]; Bazaro1963a [distribution, host: 70]; Bazaro1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 84]; Bazaro1968a [distribution, economic importance: 88]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148, 156-158]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248, 260]; Bodenh1937 [distribution: 218]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 85, 98, 99]; Bodenh1951 [taxonomy: 331]; Borchs1937 [distribution, host: 186]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 156]; Borchs1964a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 866, 879]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194, 201]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 89-91]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 327]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35-36]; Hall1925 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 16]; Hall1926a [distribution: 38]; Hall1927b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149-150, 174]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 7]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 81, 86]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1931 [distribution, host: 122]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 27]; Lindin1936 [distribution: 161]; Lindin1957 [distribution, host: 552]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 255]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 3]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 46]; NarzikLu1966 [taxonomy: 33]; PellizFo1996 [distribution, host: 121]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 178].
Parlatoria flava TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria flava Takahashi, 1951b: 109-110. Type data: INDONESIA: Riau Islands, on unknown host, ?/01/1946, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Indonesia [Takaha1951b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Takahashi (1951b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, oval or narrow, yellow, about 1.6 mm long. Body nearly subcircular, broadest at basal part of abdomen, without lateral spine (Takahashi, 1951b).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria flava is close to P. mytilaspiformis, but differs in the scale being not so elongate, the 2nd and 3rd lobes smaller than median lobe, the 4th replaced by plates, the basal abdominal segment with fewer macroducts, the distribution of submarginal ducts on the pygidium. It differs from P. crotonis in the more elongate scale, the absence of a lateral spine on the prosoma, the distribution of ducts on the pygidium. It differs from P. pittospori in the narrower scale, the paraphyses more developed and the narrower lobes (Takahashi, 1951b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 191-192]; Takaha1951b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 109-110].
Parlatoria fluggeae HallNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria fluggeae Hall, 1929a: 359-360. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Umtali, on Fluggea microcarpa, 02/12/1927. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria fluggae; Balachowsky, 1953g: 56, 86. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Asclepiadaceae: Calotropis sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites moluccana [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Fluggea microcarpa [Hall1929a], Jatropha hastata [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Fabaceae: Erythrina sp. [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Balach1953g]. Rutaceae: Xanthoxylum americanum [Balach1953g]. Urticaceae: Boehmeria densiflora [Takagi1969a].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Zimbabwe [Hall1929a]. Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002] (First observed in 1970)). Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1969a]. Palaearctic: Algeria [DanzigPe1998]; Morocco [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Hall (1929a), McKenzie (1945) and Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.0-1.25 mm long, 0.75-1.0 mm wide, very thin, delicate, often with plant tissue intermixed, grayish white. Male scale elongate and similar in color. Adult female 0.90 mm long, 0.75 mm wide (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria fluggeae appears to be close to P. multipora, but differs in the possession of only 3 plates between the 3rd and 4th pygidial lobes instead of 4, and in the fewer anterior and posterior lateral perivulvar pores. It is related to P. cinerea but differs in lacking the large, dorsal, intermediate pygidial macroducts. It also resembles P. virescens, but differs by the greater number of dorsal submarginal macroducts (McKenzie, 1945). Lindinger (1932f) incorrectly considered P. fluggeae to be a junior synonym of P. oleae.
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 321 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 778 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 16 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 527 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 778, 808-810]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure: 321, 328-329]; Beards1979b [distribution: 41]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 235-236]; Chou1986 [illustration: 634]; CostaL1934 [taxonomy: 134]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Hall1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 359-360]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 527]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 33]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 47]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1936 [distribution: 151]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 223]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 16]; McKenz1960b [taxonomy: 208]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 402]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 39-40, 54]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria fulleri MorrisonNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria viridis Fuller, 1897b: 4. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Perth, on Pittosporum sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Homonym of Parlatoria theae viridis Cockerell 1896h; discovered by Morrison, 1939a: 13. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Syngenaspis viridis; MacGillivray, 1921: 251. Change of combination.
Parlatoria fulleri Morrison, 1939a: 13. Replacement name for Parlatoria viridis Fuller 1897b.
HOSTS: Arecaceae [Borchs1966], Phoenix canariensis [Hender2011]. Buxaceae: Buxus sempervirens [Hender2011]. Cunoniaceae: Ceratopetalum gummiferum [Hender2011]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [Hender2000]. Fabaceae: Acacia sp. [Morris1939a]. Griseliniaceae: Griselinia littoralis [Hender2011]. Myrtaceae: Callistemon citrinus [Hender2011], Callistomon sp. [Hender2011], Leptospermum sp. [Hender2011], Lophostemon confertus [Hender2011], Melaleuca hypericifolia [Hender2011], Tristaniopsis laurina [Hender2011]. Pinaceae: Pine [Hender2011]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [Fuller1897b]. Proteaceae: Banksia integrifolia [Hender2011], Knightia excelsa [Hender2011], Macadamia sp. [Hender2011]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [Morris1939a], Western Australia [Fuller1897b]); New Zealand (North Island [Hender2000]). Palaearctic: France [DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Body oval to circular with a wide, rounded pygidium, with median lobes (L1) each with 1 notch on each side and apically pointed, L2 and L3 similar in shape and smaller; body length 0.58-0.92 mm, width 0.51-0.67 mm. Submarginal ducts on prepygidium numerous, 25-46 ducts each side. Submedian ducts absent. (Henderson, 2011)
SYSTEMATICS: The presence of platelike 4th and 5th lobes and the arrangement of the perivulvar pores in two elongate clusters seem to differentiate this species from all other species of the genus. It appears to resemble P. proteus to some extent (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 119 (female) [Key to Parlatoria adult females in New Zealand]; Balachowsky 1953g: 779 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 31 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 779, 805-808]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,605]; CharleHe2002 [distribution: 589]; Cocker1897p [taxonomy: 592]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 603]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 30]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 4]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 467]; Hartma1916 [host: 109]; Hender2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10,35,117,119-120,]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54, 64-65, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-15, 31]; Palmer1905 [description: 139-140]; Valent1963 [biological control, distribution: 8]; Valent1967 [biological control, distribution: 1119, 1167].
Parlatoria ghanii Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria ghanii Hall & Williams, 1962: 32-33. Type data: PAKISTAN: Rawalpindi, on Acacia modesta, 09/01/1961. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: 5 paratypes with same data as holotype, also in BMNH.
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Pharoscymnus flexibilis [GhaniMu1974]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus semiflavus [Lesche2000]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis maculicornis [GhaniMu1974].
HOST: Fabaceae: Acacia modesta [HallWi1962].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ZhangFeLi2006]); Pakistan [HallWi1962].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, broadly ovate with large pale brown exuviae, covered with a film of white secretion, 1.1 mm long, 0.9 mm wide. Male scale similar to female, but smaller and elongate. Adult female broadly ovate, about 0.75 mm long and 0.65 mm wide. Anterior spiracle with 1-5 pores. Pygidium with 3 pairs of well developed flatly rounded lobes, median pair set close to each other with a macroduct between and once notched on their outer margins, 2nd and 3rd lobes of similar shape, but successively smaller (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria ghanii is close to P. fluggeae and P. pittospori. From P. fluggeae it differs in the shape of the pygidial lobes, the very much fewer pores associated with the anterior spiracles and in lacking the rows of intermediate dorsal macroducts on the 3rd and 4th abdominal segments. From P. pittospori it differs in the shape of the pygidial lobes, the nature of the plates anterior to the 3rd lobes and the comparative absence of tubular ducts on the 1st abdominal and 2nd thoracic segments (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 92]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 60]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 32-33]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11]; ZhangFeLi2006 [description, host: 832-834].
Parlatoria hastata (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatorea hastata Lindinger, 1910c: 375. Type data: INDONESIA: Borneo, on Gnetum scandens. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Syngenaspis hastata; Massac, 1911: 251. Change of combination.
Parlatoria hastata; McKenzie, 1945: 65. Change of combination. Notes: McKenzie's treatment of Parlatoria hastata is not really a change of combination since the species was described in Parlatoria. However, for the purposes of this database each unique spelling combination of a species must be included and so McKenzie's usage is here because Lindinger used Parlatorea as the original spelling of the genus.
HOST: Gnetaceae: Gnetum scandens [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Indonesia (Kalimantan (=Borneo) [Lindin1911]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by McKenzie (1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria hastata is distinguished by having the median pygidial lobes narrow, lanceolate, marginally slightly serrate and somewhat smaller than the 2nd lobes. Plates between the median lobes are slender, marginally toothed, while others are apically fimbriate (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 77 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192, 374]; Lindin1910c [taxonomy: 375]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 27]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 65, 77]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 178].
Parlatoria hydnocarpus HuNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria hydnocarpus Hu, 1986: 221. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, Hainan Island, on Hydnocarpus hainanensis, 13/05/1984. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Entomology, China. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria hydrocarpus; Hua, 2000: 156. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Flacourtiaceae: Hydnocarpus hainanensis [Hu1986J].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Hainan [Hu1986J]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hu (1986J).
STRUCTURE: Adult female body almost round, 0.9 mm long, broadest at metathorax, 0.31 mm wide. Median lobes rounded apically, once notched on each side, with a pair of basal paraphyses. 2nd and 3rd lobes not bilobulate, each with 2 sclerotized bars at the base. Dorsal ducts few, present on the marginal or submarginal region of 3rd to 8th abdominal segments (Hu, 1986J).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria hydnocarpus is close to P. machili, but differs in the shape of pygidial lobes, by dorsal ducts more numerous and by lacking long antenna setae. It is also close to P. proteus, but differs by the shape of antenna, by having few perivulvar pores and by the lateral region of the mouth with small dermal pellet tubercles (Hu, 1986J).
CITATIONS: Hu1986J [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 221-222, 227]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105].
Parlatoria keteleericola Tang & ChuNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria keteleericola Tang & Chu, 1983: 301-302. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, near Kunming, Anning, on Keteleeria evelyniana, 13/02/1980. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Keteleeria evelyniana [TangCh1983].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [TangCh1983]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang & Chu (1983).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate-ovate, 2.5 mm long, white, exuviae terminal, dark, about 1/3 of total scale length. Adult female about 0.8 mm long (Tang & Chu, 1983).
SYSTEMATICS: P. keteleericola is close to P. piceae and P. cupressi, but differs from both in having more perivulvar pores, submarginal dorsal ducts and gland tubercles; and further from P. piceae in lacking derm pockets laterally to the posterior spiracles, and in having derm granulations posteriorly to the mouth parts (Tang & Chu, 1983).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 90-91]; TangCh1983 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 301-302, 305]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105].
Parlatoria ligustri Wu nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria ligustri Wu, 1935: 244. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 379.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Wu1935], Yunnan [Hua2000]).
SYSTEMATICS: Wu (1935) cites this species as Parlatoria ligustri Marlatt, however no evidence can be found that Marlatt described such a species. Borchsenius (1966) treated the species as an unplaced nomen nudum.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 379]; Hua2000 [distribution: 156]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 244].
Parlatoria limoniae Ramakrishna Ayyar nomen nudumNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria limoniae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924: 342. Nomen nudum; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 379.
HOST: Rutaceae: Limonia alata [Ramakr1924].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1924]).
BIOLOGY: Parlatoria limoniae was found in company with P. pergandii and Aspidiotus orientalis (Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1924).
SYSTEMATICS: Ramakrishna Ayyar (1924) lists this species as a Green manuscript name, but never described it. Borchsenius (1966) designated it an unplaced nomen nudum.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 379]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 342]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host: 34]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 78]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11].
Parlatoria liriopicola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria liriopicola Tang, 1984: 78. Type data: CHINA: Chekiang, Hangchow, on Liriope sp.; Huangyan, on Orchis sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Liliaceae: Liriope sp. [Tang1984]. Orchidaceae: Orchis sp. [Tang1984]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, yellowish white, exuviae brown, about 1.8 mm long. Male is similar, but smaller, about 1.0 mm long. Adult female elongate oval, about 0.78 mm long and 0.53 mm wide. Prosomatic portion membranous with 3 pairs of lobes (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. liriopicola is close to P. arengae, but is distinguishable by the submedian dorsal ducts and by the dilated lobes (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78, 80, 112]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106].
Parlatoria lithocarpi TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria lithocarpi Takahashi, 1935: 29-31. Type data: TAIWAN: Takao Prefecture, Heito-Gun, Mutosan, on Lithocarpus sp., 23/03/1934, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Fagaceae: Lithocarpus sp. [Takaha1935]. Meliaceae: Dysoxylum sp. [Tao1999]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1935].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takahashi (1935).
STRUCTURE: Female scale nearly circular, slightly convex dorsally, 1st exuviae oval, slightly indented at the anterior extremity and also behind the eye, extending beyond the front margin of the 2nd with a pair of setae at the front and a pair of large lobes at the hind end, about 0.32 mm long. Female body white, a little narrowed on the anterior end, with many small lateral glands on the metathorax and abdomen, which are as large as those on the basal part of pygidium and fewer on the metathorax. Pygidium much wider than long, with many longitudinal dorsal lines (Takahashi, 1935).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1970) states "It is open to doubt that this species is a real member of Parlatoria on account of the peculiar shape of the second instar exuvium of the female and some characters of the pygidium of the adult female."
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Chou1985 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 396]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 156]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 32]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Takaha1935 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29-31]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 105-106]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria machili TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria machili Takahashi, 1931a: 218. Type data: TAIWAN: Taihoku, Sozan, Hokuto, on Machilus sp., 26/04/1927, by R. Takahashi. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea machili; Lindinger, 1932: 188. Change of combination.
Apteronidia machili; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Machilus japonica [Takagi1969a], Machilus sp. [Takaha1931a], Phoebe zehnan [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000]); Taiwan [Takaha1931a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takahashi (1931a) and McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, 1.25 mm long, 0.50 mm wide, orange-yellow with blackish median area extending from exuviae to apical wax fringe. Slide-mounted adult female 0.50 mm long, 1.0 mm wide. Pygidium acute. Macroducts appearing along pygidial margin only, numbering from 11-14 on each side in the 2 examples observed (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria machili is related to P. aonidiformis and somewhat to P. artocarpi. It differs from both in the acute pygidium, well developed eyespot and numerous ventral duct tubercles situated on 1st and 2nd abdominal segments (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 228-229]; Chou1986 [illustration: 635]; Hu1986J [taxonomy: 227]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 188]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 36]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-38, 53]; Takaha1931a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 217-218]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 104]; Takaha1933 [taxonomy: 54]; Takaha1936 [distribution, host: 80]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96, 98]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria machilicola TakahashiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria machilicola Takahashi, 1933: 52-54. Type data: TAIWAN: Kuraru, near Koshun, on Machilus sp., 25/05/1932. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Apteronidia machilicola; Lindinger, 1934: 36. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Machilus kusano [Takagi1969a], Machilus sp. [Takaha1933], Phoebe zhenan [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takaha1933].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takagi (1969a) and McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.25 mm long, 0.65 mm wide, moderately convex, generally brownish with a black median area, exuviae brownish and situated at one end. Male scale elongate, light brown, exuviae at one end (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria machilicola is distinct due to the notching of the pygidial lobes and the peculiar shape and dentation of the pygidial plates (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220-221, 229]; Chou1986 [illustration: 636]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 36]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-67, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38, 53]; Takaha1933 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52-54]; Takaha1936 [distribution, host: 80]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 272].
Parlatoria marginalis McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria marginalis McKenzie, 1945: 67. Type data: INDIA: Delhi, on "Jaman" leaf, 17/02/1939, by A.P. Kapur. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Delhi [McKenz1945]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Slide mounted adult females approximately 0.60 mm long and 0.50 mm wide. Submarginal, dorsal, pygidial macroducts represented by not more than 1 to 3 ducts on each side. Marginal macroducts present, relatively few, ranging from 9 to 14 on each side of the body, and 1 present between median lobes (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: P. marginalis is most closely allied to P. artocarpi, from which it differs chiefly in the number and position of the ventral duct tubercles, fewer pygidial submarginal dorsal macroducts, the position of the vulva as compared to the anal opening and in the total absence of anterior prosomal sclerotization and ventral derm granulations. It also resembles P. aonidiformis to some extent (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 67, 78]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11].
Parlatoria mesuae RutherfordNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria mesuae Rutherford, 1914: 266-267. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Mesua ferrea. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female.
Parlatoria messuae; McKenzie, 1945: 53. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Guttiferae: Mesua ferrea [Ruther1914].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1914].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Rutherford (1914).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 1.0 mm long, long and narrow, black. The 2nd exuviae is about twice as long as the 1st. A slight, white, marginal secretion. Ventral scale more or less complete, incomplete at posterior end. Adult female is long and narrow (Rutherford, 1914).
SYSTEMATICS: In the broad, lobe-like pectinae that form the boundary of the notch containing the pore the insect bears a strong resemblance to species of Fiorina. The cover, however, is not quite closed and the broad, marginal pores suggest a relationship to Parlatoria (Rutherford, 1914).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ruther1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 266-267]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 65].
Parlatoria multipora McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria multipora McKenzie, 1945: 68-69. Type data: CHINA: Shanghai, at San Francisco, on unidentified plant "cuttings". Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria multipori; Yang, 1982: 273. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria multipoora; Chou, 1985: 230. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Shanghai [McKenz1945]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Adult female approximately 1.25 mm long, 1.0 mm wide. Dorsal submarginal macroducts relatively numerous, ranging from 40 to 79 on each side, with an average of about 60. Three pairs of well developed, slightly converging pygidial lobes, the median pair largest, usually once notched on inner and outer margins; 2nd and 3rd lobes approximately the same size, once notched on outer margin only; 4th lobe represented as an unsclerotized, rounded projection of the margin (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria multipora is closely related to P. fluggeae, but differs from it in the possession of 4 plates, instead of 3, between 3rd and 4th pygidial lobes and a greater number of anterior and posterior lateral perivulvar pores. It is also related to P. cinerea and P. virescens (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 810]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 328]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 230, 396-397]; Chou1986 [illustration: 645]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 68-69, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 11, 15]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273].
Parlatoria mytilaspiformis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria mytilaspiformis Green, 1899a: 164-165. Type data: SRI LANKA: Pundaluoya, on Psychotria thwaitesii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria pergandii mytilaspiformis; Green, 1905a: 350. Change of status.
Parlatorea mytilaspiformis; Lindinger, 1907: 20. Misspelling of genus name.
Parlatoria proteus mytilaspiformis; Green, 1908a: 35. Change of status.
Syngenaspis mytilaspiformis; MacGillivray, 1921: 251. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Kentia sp. [Green1908a]. Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta [Green1908a]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [Borchs1966]. Guttiferae: Garcinia indica [Ali1969]. Liliaceae: Dracaena sp. [Ali1969]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus sp. [Fleury1935a]. Orchidaceae: Aerides sp. [Fleury1935a], Vanda luzonica [Fleury1935a], Vanda sanderiana [Fleury1935a], Vanda tricolor [Kotins1910]. Rubiaceae: Psychotria thwaitesii [Green1899a]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Tao1999]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Tao1999], Thea sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [Fleury1935a]. Oriental: India (Karnataka [Fletch1919], Maharashtra [Green1908a]); Philippines [Fleury1935a]; Sri Lanka [Green1899a]; Taiwan [Takaha1934].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1899a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale brownish, semi-transparent, paler at margin; often irregularly veined. Exuviae clear yellow. Ventral scale attached a little within the margin of the dorsal scale and appearing as a ragged whitish sub-marginal zone on the upturned scale cover. Male scale elongate, median area depressed (Green, 1899a).
SYSTEMATICS: P. mytilaspiformis appears to be closely related to P. pergandii, but differs in the shape of the 2nd and 3rd lobes and the location of the anal opening and vulva (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 222 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 16 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 80 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Fullaway 1932: 99 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 193]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226-227]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 319]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 304]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 27]; Fullaw1932 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 96, 99]; Green1899a [catalogue, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 163-164]; Green1905a [distribution, taxonomy: 350]; Green1908a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 461]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 339]; Hartma1916 [taxonomy: 108]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Kotins1910 [distribution, host: 130]; Kozarz1974 [distribution, host: 24]; Leonar1903 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 35-36]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 20]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 251]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69, 80]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 16]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 138]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 360-361]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 32]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Takaha1934 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Takaha1951b [taxonomy: 110]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273].
Parlatoria namunakuli GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria cingala namunakuli Green, 1922a: 1019. Type data: SRI LANKA: Badulla, Namunakuli Hill, on undetermined shrub. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria namunakuli; McKenzie, 1945: 69. Change of status.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1922a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria namunakuli differs from P. cingala in the structure of the outermost lobe on each side of the pygidium of the adult female. In P. cingala this lobe is large and broadly rounded. In P. namunakuli it is small and lanceolate (Green, 1922a).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 76]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 193]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1019]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 339]; McKenz1945 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 69, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 11].
Parlatoria octolobata (Takagi & Kawai)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoreopsis octolobatus Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 98. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, Tokyo, on Cornus kousa, by S. Kawai; Amagi-san, Sizuoka-ken, on Acer palmatum, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria octolobata; Takagi, 1969a: 41. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer palmatum [TakagiKa1966]. Cornaceae: Cornus kousa [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes well developed and successively smaller, the 4th also well sclerotized, angular. L1 rounded apically, with a deep subapical notch on either side. L2 and L3 with a deep subapical notch on the sloping lateral margin. Derm membranous except for the pygidium (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: P. octolobata is close to P. sexlobatus, but easily distinguishable from it by the well sclerotized L4 (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 22]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 193]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 66]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 98]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183].
Parlatoria oleae (Colvée)NOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis oleae Colvée, 1880: 40. Type data: SPAIN: on Olea sp. Syntypes. Described: female. Notes: Part of Colvée's original description has subsequently been determined to be Aspidiotus nerii Bouché (Ben-Dov, personal communication, December 24th, 2000). The type material is presumed lost.
Parlatoria calianthina Berlese & Leonardi, 1896: 346. Type data: ITALY: Naples, on Rosa sp., Amygdalus communis, Amygdalus persica and Rhamnus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Synonymy by McConnell, 1930: 143.
Parlatoria affinis Newstead, 1897a: 97-98. Type data: ALGERIA: Constantine, along the Route de Sétif, near the Camp des Oliviers, on Fraxinus oxyphylla and Olea europaea, 06/11/1895, by A.E. Eaton. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 150.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) calianthina; Leonardi, 1903a: 15. Change of combination.
Diaspis squamosus Newstead & Theobald in Theobald, 1904: 185-187. Type data: EGYPT: Gizeh, on Prunus sp., 1903, by F. Fletcher. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Hall, 1923: 54.
Parlatoria cilianthina; Newstead, 1906: 71. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatorea oleae; Lindinger, 1912b: 111. Misspelling of genus name.
Parlatoria oleae; Leonardi, 1920: 137. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis oleae; MacGillivray, 1921: 248. Change of combination.
Parlatoria judaica Bodenheimer, 1924: 59-61. Type data: ISRAEL: near Tel-Aviv, in orchard, on Prunus armeniaca. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1931: 123.
Parlatoria iudaica Lindinger, 1928: 107. Unjustified emendation; discovered by Borchsenius, 1966: 193.
Syngenaspis (Parlatorea) oleae; Borchsenius, 1934: 20. Change of combination.
Parlatoria? pergandii; Bodenheimer, 1943: 10. Misidentification; discovered by Bodenheimer, 1944a: 82.
Parlatoria morrisoni Bodenheimer, 1944a: 82. Type data: IRAQ: Baghdad area, on Olea europaea,
Morus alba, Nerium oleander and
Jasminum sambuc; Ramadi on Nerium
oleander; Shatt al Arab, on Cordia
myxa, Rosa sp., Melia azederach,
Morus alba and Nerium oleander. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 193. Homonym of Parlatoria morrisoni McKenzie 1943.
Parlatoria olae; Dutta, 1990: 157. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: olive parlatoria scale [McKenz1956]; olive scale [Hewitt1943, Blicke1965].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Cheletomimus berlesei [HertinSi1972], Hemisarcoptes malus [HertinSi1972]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Doutt1954a], Chilocorus renipustulatus [HertinSi1972], Coccinella septempunctata [HertinSi1972], Exochomus nigripennis [HertinSi1972], Exochomus quadripustulatus [HertinSi1972]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus dactylicus [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus flaviceps [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus semiflavus [Lesche2000], Cybocephalus sp. [Doutt1954a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus sp. [Fulmek1943], Aphytis chilensis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis chrysomphali [HertinSi1972], Aphytis diaspidis [HertinSi1972], Aphytis fuscipennis [Garcia1930], Aphytis hispanicus [KosztaKo1988F, PeralL1968, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis maculicornis [NicholWe1935, AbdRab2001a, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis maculicornis [Clause1958a], Aphytis mytilaspidis [NicholWe1935], Aphytis paramaculicornis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis proclia [NicholWe1935], Archenomus sp. [HertinSi1972], Aspidiophagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [NicholWe1935], Aspidiotiphagus leitrinus Craw [UlgentErKa2008], Azotus chrysomphali [KosztaKo1988F], Coccophagoides similis [HertinSi1972], Coccophagoides sp. [AbdRab1999], Coccophagoides utilis [Koszta1996, Finney1966], Coccophagus lycimnia [HertinSi1972], Encarsia aurantii [AbdRab1999], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998], Hispaniella lauri [NicholWe1935], Marietta leopardina [AbdRab1999]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus inconspicuus [DeBachRoKe1971, Finney1966], Habrolepis pascuorum [HertinSi1972], Habrolepis rouxi [HertinSi1972], Metaphycus lounsburyi [JaposhCe2010], Prospaltella inquirenda [Fulmek1943]. Pteromalidae: Pachyneuron coccorum [KosztaKo1988F]. THYSANOPTERA Thripidae: Karnyothrips flavipes [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer rubrum [ErlerKoTu1996], Acer turkestanicum [Bazaro1963a]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Dutta1990], Pistacia lentiscus [Bodenh1928, Korone1934], Pistacia mutica [Moghad2013a], Pistacia sp. [MillerDa2005], Pistacia vera [BenDov2012], Rhus coriaria [Moghad2013a], Rhus sp. [Bodenh1944b], Schinus sp. [Bodenh1949], Schinus terebenthifolius [Hall1922]. Annonaceae: Saccopetalum sp. [Bodenh1949]. Apiaceae: Heracleum persicum [Moghad2013a]. Apocynaceae: Carissa sp. [Bodenh1949], Nerium indicum [KazimiGh1964], Nerium oleander [Hall1922, BenDov2012], Nerium sp. [MillerDa2005], Vinca sp. [Bodenh1949]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex aquifolium [Bodenh1924], Ilex sp. [Bodenh1949]. Araliaceae: Hedera helix [Korone1934]. Arecaceae: Phoenix sp. [Bodenh1949], Trachycarpus sp. [Bodenh1949]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus plumosus [Moghad2013a]. Berberidaceae: Berberis sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005], Berberis vulgaris [Seghat1977], Mahonia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Betulaceae: Corylus sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005]. Bignoniaceae: Bignonia sp. [Bodenh1949], Camosis sp. [Bodenh1949], Catalpa bignoides [ErlerKoTu1996], Kigelia sp. [Bodenh1949], Tecoma sp. [Borchs1966]. Boraginaceae: Cordia myxa [Bodenh1944a]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Borchs1966]. Cactaceae: Cactus sp. [Hall1922]. Caprifoliaceae: Lonicera sp. [Borchs1966], Symphoricarpos sp. [Borchs1966], Viburnum tinus [Korone1934]. Caryophyllaceae: Dianthus sp. [Bodenh1949]. Cistaceae: Cistus heterophyllus [Balach1953g]. Cornaceae: Cornus sp. [Borchs1966]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Hua2000], Diospyros sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005]. Ericaceae: Arbutus sp. [Borchs1966], Arctostaphylos sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleuritis sp. [Bodenh1949]. Fabaceae: Acacia julibrissin [Korone1934], Acacia sp. [Bodenh1949], Astragalus sp. [Moghad2013a], Caragana sp. [Borchs1966], Gleditschia caspica [Seghat1977], Gleditschia sp. [Borchs1966], Gleditsia sp. [Moghad2013a], Gymocladus sp. [Bodenh1949], Robinia pseudacacia [Korone1934], Sophora sp. [Borchs1966]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Moghad2013a]. Garryaceae: Aucuba sp. [MillerDa2005]. Grossulariaceae: Ribes sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Hippocastanaceae: Aesculus sp. [Borchs1966]. Juglandaceae: Juglans regia [Korone1934], Juglans sp. [Bodenh1949]. Labiatae: Rosmarinus officinalis [Korone1934], Rosmarinus sp. [Bodenh1949]. Lauraceae: Laurus nobilis [Korone1934], Laurus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Asparagus sp. [Bodenh1949], Convallaria majalis [Korone1934], Phormium sp. [Borchs1966], Ruscus hypophyllum [Korone1934]. Loganiaceae: Buddleia sp. [Borchs1966]. Loranthaceae: Phoradendron sp. [Borchs1966]. Lythraceae: Punica granatum [Moghad2013a]. Magnoliaceae: Michelia champaca [Green1919c], Michelia sp. [Green1919c]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus syriacus [Seghat1977]. Meliaceae: Melia azedarach [Bodenh1944a, KazimiGh1964]. Moraceae: Ficus glomerata [Dutta1990], Ficus sp. [Hall1922, MillerDa2005], Maclura aurantiaca [Korone1934], Morus alba [Bodenh1924]. Myricaceae: Myrica rubra [Hua2000]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia sp. [Borchs1966], Myrtus sp. [Bodenh1949]. Oleaceae: Forsythia sp. [Borchs1966], Fraxinus excelsior [Moghad2013a], Fraxinus ornus [Korone1934], Fraxinus oxyphylla [Newste1897a], Fraxinus sp. [MillerDa2005], Jasminum azoricum [Borg1932], Jasminum officinale [Borg1932], Jasminum officinalis [Moghad2013a], Jasminum pubigerum [KazimiGh1964], Jasminum sambae [Misra1924CS], Jasminum sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum ovalifolium [Ezzat1957], Ligustrum sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005], Olea europaea [Newste1897a, Korone1934, BenDov2012], Olea sp. [Colvee1880, MillerDa2005], Syringa vulgaris [Korone1934]. Orchidaceae: Orchis sp. [Hall1922]. Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Platanaceae: Platanus sp. [Borchs1966]. Poaceae: Oryza sativa [Hua2000]. Punicaceae: Punica granatum [ArgyriStMo1976]. Ranunculaceae: Clematis vitalba [Korone1934]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus sagorskii [Bachma1953], Rhamnus sp. [MillerDa2005], Ziziphus jujuba [Hua2000], Zizyphus sp. [Bodenh1944a]. Rosaceae: Amygdalus bucharica [Bazaro1963a], Amygdalus communis [GomezM1957, BenDov2012], Amygdalus persica [BerlesLe1896], Armeniaca sp. [Borchs1966], Cerasus mahaleb [Bazaro1963a], Cotoneaster sp. [Bodenh1949], Cotoneaster vulgaris [Moghad2013a], Crataegus ambigua [Moghad2013a], Crataegus monogyna [Korone1934], Crataegus sp. [MillerDa2005], Cydonia vulgaris [KazimiGh1964], Eriobotrya japonica [Korone1934], Eriobotrya sp. [MillerDa2005], Laurocerasus sp. [Borchs1966], Malus communis [Seghat1977], Malus domestica [BenDov2012], Malus pumila [KazimiGh1964], Malus sp. [Janjua1959], Malus sylvestris [Brimbl1962], Mespilus germanica [Stanev1964], Mespilus sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005], Padus sp. [Borchs1966], Persica sp. [Borchs1966], Persica vulgaris [Seghat1977], Photinia glabra [Korone1934], Photinia sp. [MillerDa2005], Prunus amygdalus [Bodenh1924, Janjua1959], Prunus armeniaca [Hall1922, BenDov2012], Prunus avium [Stanev1964], Prunus bokhariensis [KazimiGh1964], Prunus caspica [Moghad2013a], Prunus cerasus [Stanev1964], Prunus divaricata [Stanev1964], Prunus domestica [Hall1922, BenDov2012], Prunus lusitanica [GomezM1948], Prunus persica [Hall1922], Prunus persica [Moghad2013a], Prunus sp. [Theoba1904, Bachma1953, Janjua1959, MillerDa2005], Prunus spinosa [Seghat1977], Pyracantha sp. [Bodenh1949], Pyrus amygdalus [Bodenh1926], Pyrus communis [Bodenh1926], Pyrus malus [Hall1922, BenDov2012], Pyrus sp. [Bodenh1949, Janjua1959, MillerDa2005], Pyrus sp. [PellizPoSe2011], Rosa damascena [Moghad2013a], Rosa sp. [BerlesLe1896, MillerDa2005], Rubus sp. [Borchs1966], Sorbus sp. [Bodenh1949, MillerDa2005], Spiraea sp. [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [Bodenh1924, CarnerPe1986], Citrus medica [GhabboMo1996], Citrus sp. [Bodenh1944a, GhabboMo1996, MillerDa2005]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Bodenh1949], Populus tremula [Moghad2013a], Salix sp. [Bodenh1949]. Saxifragaceae: Philadelphus sp. [Borchs1966], Saxifraga sp. [Borchs1966]. Simarubaceae: Ailanthus sp. [Borchs1966]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Hua2000]. Tamaricaceae: Tamarix sp. [Borchs1966]. Thymelaeaceae: Thymelaea hirsute (L.) [Imamku1969]. Ulmaceae: Ulmus campestris [Moghad2013a], Ulmus sp. [Borchs1966]. Umbelliferae: Foeniculum sp. [Bodenh1949]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [MillerDa2005], Vitis vinifera [Korone1934].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ethiopia [Dutta1990]; Sudan [Nakaha1982]. Australasian: Australia [MillerDa2005] (New South Wales? [Morris1939a], Queensland [Brimbl1962]). Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005]; United States of America (Arizona [NicholWe1935, Balach1953g, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005] (Balachowsky (1953g) states that this species was introduced.), California [Mackie1934, Balach1953g, Doutt1954a, MillerDa2005] (Balachowsky (1953g) states that this species was introduced.), Delaware [Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Maryland [LangfoCo1939, Balach1953g, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005] (Balachowsky (1953g) states that this species was introduced.)). Neotropical: Argentina [Blanch1939, Balach1953g] (Balachowsky (1953g) states that this species was introduced.); Bolivia [Squire1972]; Brazil (Bahia [Lepage1938], Rio Grande do Sul [SilvadGoGa1968], Rio de Janeiro [Lepage1938]); Cayman Islands [Nakaha1982]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Hua2000], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Hua2000], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Guizhou (=Kweichow) [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Hua2000], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Hua2000]); India [Doutt1954a] (Bihar [Balach1953g] (Balachowsky (1953g) states that this species was introduced.), Himachal Pradesh [Misra1924CS], Tamil Nadu [Green1919c], West Bengal [Singh1964]). Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Oriental: Pakistan [RahmanAn1941, Doutt1954, Janjua1959]; Sri Lanka [Dutta1990]; Taiwan [Hua2000]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Doutt1954a, KozarFoZa1996]; Algeria [Newste1897a, Trabut1911]; Armenia [TerGri1956]; Azerbaijan [Imamku1966]; Belgium [DanzigPe1998]; Bulgaria [KozarTzVi1979]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China [Morris1939a] (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [Tao1999], Xingiang Uygur (=Sinkiang) [Tang1984b]); Corsica [StrettRoMa2014]; Crete [Argyri1967, PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [Doutt1954a]; Egypt [Newste1906, Hall1922, AbdRab2001a]; France [NicholWe1935, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [Dutta1990]; Greece [Bodenh1928, Korone1934, MillerDa2005]; Hungary [KosztaKo1988F]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Green1923a, Bodenh1943, Doutt1954a]; Israel [Bodenh1924, BenDov2012]; Italy [BerlesLe1896, LongoMaPe1995, MillerDa2005]; Jordan [Nakaha1982, BenDov2006a]; Kazakhstan [MatesoMiIu1962a]; Lebanon [Bodenh1926]; Libya [Morris1939a]; Malta [Borg1932]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Portugal [Morris1939a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [KosztaKo1988F]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, PellizFo1996]; Saudi Arabia [Shalab1961]; Sicily [Morris1939a, LongoMaPe1995]; Spain [Garcia1930, GomezM1937]; Syria [Morris1939a, Doutt1954a]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [AlimdzBr1956, Bazaro1962]; Tunisia [Morris1939a, MansouMkGr2011]; Turkey [Bodenh1949, ErlerKoTu1996]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956, Nakaha1982]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Terezn1968b]); United Kingdom (England [McKenz1945]); Uzbekistan [Nakaha1982]; Yugoslavia [Morris1939a].
BIOLOGY: In central Asia, P. oleae has two generations per year (Balachowsky, 1953g). Ezzat (1957) details the life history of Parlatoria oleae in Maryland, U.S., while Imamkuliyev (1969) treats it in Azerbaijan. The olive scale has from 1 (Imamkuliev 1966) to 4 (Grandi 1951) generations each year depending on the location; most areas have 2 generations although 3 generations are not uncommon. In the United States 2 generations are reported in California (Huffaker et al 1962) and Maryland (Ezzat 1957). Overwintering occurs as mated adult females, although a small portion of the population may overwinter as second instars (Huffaker et al. 1962). In areas where 2 generations occur, eggs are laid in early spring (mid April to early June in California on olive and late April to early July in Maryland on Ligustrum). Crawlers first appear 2 or 3 weeks after the first eggs are laid (early May in California and mid-May in Maryland) and reach peak abundance 1 or 2 weeks after the first crawlers appear. Adult females of the spring generation first appear in early summer (mid-June in California and early July in Maryland) and are present until late summer. Egg laying for the summer generation begins in mid summer (late July in California and mid-July in Maryland) and crawlers reach peak abundance in late summer (mid-August in California and late August in Maryland). Adult females are present in the fall through the winter. Adult males are necessary for reproduction (Stafford 1947) and are at peak abundance in California in late June or early July and again in September (Huffaker et al. 1962). Adult females each lay a maximum of about 100 eggs although 30 is about average (Huffaker et al. 1962). Egg laying for each female lasts 2 or 3 weeks (Huffaker et al. 1962). In Tucson, Arizona the generations are not in close synchrony. Eggs are found every month of the year except December and January; crawlers are present every month but January and February; and adult males occur every month except November, December, January and February. There are 2 major egg hatching periods in mid-April and mid-July, and 2 peak flight periods of males in early July and late October (Nichol 1935). The development threshold is about 10 °C, and about 1,300 day degrees are required for the development of a generation (Applebaum and Rosen 1964). According to Huffaker et al. (1962) and Stafford (1954) the life history may vary considerably depending upon host and climatic conditions. Biche and Sellami (1999) demonstrated that two different hosts caused differences in duration of oviposition, sex ratio, and body size. The species apparently does not do well under coastal conditions where the climate is relatively cool during the summer (Huffaker et al. 1962). Several forecasting models have been developed (Pinhassi et al. 1996, Nestel et al. 1995). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Ferris (1937) and Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Female scale ovate or slightly round, convex, whitish grey to pale grey. Exuviae yellowish brown, apical. Adult female ovate, whitish yellow to yellowish brown, excepting pygidial center which is pinkish-yellow, 0.69-0.85 mm long, 0.57-0.65 mm wide. Pygidium with 4 pairs of lobes (Rahman & Ansari, 1941).
SYSTEMATICS: This species was listed by Leonardi (1920) as a junior synonym of Aspidiotus hederae (=A. nerii) because Colvée's original description included material of both Diaspis oleae (=Parlatoria oleae) and A. oleae (=A. nerii). In the strong development of the pygidial lobes this species apparently most closely resembles P. pergandii, differing in the persistent occurrence of 4 apparent plates between the 3rd and 4th lobes (McKenzie, 1945). Lindinger (1932f) incorrectly considered P. fluggeae to be a junior synonym of P. oleae.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. This species has been reported as a pest in most areas where it occurs. It is especially important on olive (Huffaker et al. 1962, Argyriou 1990), certain stone fruits, apples (Sadeh and Gerson 1968) and pears (Kozár 1990a), and several ornamentals (Ezzat 1957). Although damage sometimes is incurred through devitalization caused by heavy scale populations, the most significant injury is sustained on the fruit. On apple, reddish spots develop around each feeding scale, and on olives feeding spots are black. Crawlers that settle during early fruit development cause abnormalities and deformations on the fruit making it unpalatable. According to Stafford (1948), heavily infested olives may have their oil content reduced by as much as 20 percent. The olive scale has been reported as a pest of peach and plum in Armenia (Babaian 1986); mango and almond in India (Chua and Wood 1990); and citrus and Prunus on the Canary Islands (Perez Guerra 1986). Although olive scale was once a serious economic problem in California, it now is effectively controlled as a result of the combined activities of two introduced wasps, Aphytis paramaculicornis DeBach and Rosen and Coccophagoides utilis Doutt. In most of the biological control literature Aphytis paramaculicornis is referred to as the Persian strain of Aphytis maculicornis (Masi). A. maculicornis also is a parasite of olive scale, but it is not nearly as effective in biological control as A. paramaculicornis under California environmental conditions. Beardsley and González (1975) consider olive scale to be one of 43 major armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) consider it to be a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 216 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Kosztarab 1996: 551 (female) [Key to Northeastern North American species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Bazarov & Shmelev 1971: 148 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Ezzat 1958: 250 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 54 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 777 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 13 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 172 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 527 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 77, 78, 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 29 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: AbdElK1998 [behaviour: 306]; AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1121]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 174, 175, 176]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 92-94]; Aleksi1995; Ali1968 [distribution, host: 135]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; AlimdzBr1956 [distribution, host: 152]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 61, 62-64]; Argyri1967 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 68]; ArgyriStMo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 27]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 432]; Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 182]; Bajoi1983 [distribution, host: 2, 7, 9, 13]; Balach1927 [distribution, host: 179]; Balach1928a [taxonomy: 142]; Balach1932d [taxonomy: xv]; Balach1953g [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 777, 794-797]; BasheeAsRa2014 [biological control, distribution, host: 50, 51]; Bazaro1962 [distribution: 61]; Bazaro1963a [distribution, host: 65, 71]; Bazaro1968a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 86-88]; Bazaro1971c [distribution, host: 88]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 148, 152-156]; BeardsGo1975 [economic importance: 49]; Benass1967a [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 165-171]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 44]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; BerlesLe1896 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 346]; Blanch1939 [distribution, host: 83]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 296, 313]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 59-61]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 42, 44, 46]; Bodenh1928 [distribution, host: 192]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 232, 238]; Bodenh1935 [distribution, host: 248]; Bodenh1937 [distribution: 218]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Bodenh1944a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 82]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 85, 86, 97]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147-152]; Bodenh1951a [distribution, economic importance, host: 337]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 38-41]; Borchs1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-21]; Borchs1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 128]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 100]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 85, 87]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 197]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 193-194]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 11]; BrandtBo1948 [illustration, taxonomy: 18]; Brick1912 [taxonomy: 10]; Brimbl1962 [distribution, host: 224]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 215-217]; Bustsh1960 [description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 172-174]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44]; ChafaaBiCh2013 [host, life history: 398-405]; Chen2003 [life history: 266-267]; Chiesa1937 [distribution, host: 169]; Chiesa1938 [distribution, host: 2-3]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 232-234]; Chou1986 [illustration: 637]; Clause1958a [biological control, distribution, host, economic importance: 447]; Cocker1897p [taxonomy: 592]; Colvee1880 [distribution, host: 40]; Colvee1881 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13-15]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 127]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 195]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 218-219]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 91-93]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 328-329]; DavidsDiFl1991 [chemical control, host: 28]; DeBach1958a [biological control: 762]; DeBach1964d [biological control, distribution, host: 12]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 145, 177]; DeBachRoKe1971 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 169, 172-176]; Dutta1990 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; Ezzat1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 351-363]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 250]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 232, 319]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 52]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-87]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:59]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Finney1966 [biological control: 337-343]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 304]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 26]; Foldi2000 [distribution, host: 84]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 2,14,24]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 57, 78]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 53]; Gentry1965 [distribution, host: 18]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 152]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 354]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host: 61-63]; Ghauri1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 37-43, 209]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 216, 218-219, 225, 2]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 146, 155-160]; GomezM1948 [distribution, host: 77]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54, 61-66]; GomezM1957 [distribution, host: 48]; GomezM1960G [distribution, host: 170]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 630]; Green1919c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 445]; Green1923a [distribution, host: 469]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 186]; Hadzib1950 [distribution, host: 259]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 203-206]; Hall1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 43]; Hall1923 [distribution, host: 50-51, 57, 58, 59, 6]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 527, 548, 551]; Hawkin1994 [biological control: 163]; Haywar1939 [distribution, host: 213]; Haywar1941 [biological control, distribution, host: 86]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 187]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 266]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1860]; HuffakKeFi1962a [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283-334]; Imamku1966 [distribution, host: 49]; Imamku1969 [biological control, chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 470-476]; ImamSa2013 [distribution, host: 42]; Janjua1959 [distribution, economic importance, host: 217, 248]; JaposhCe2010 [p. 134]; Kaussa1947 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 7]; KazimiGh1964 [distribution, host: 38]; Kiritc1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Kiritc1935 [distribution, taxonomy: 4]; Kiritc1940 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 118]; Kiriuk1948 [biological control, taxonomy: 22-23]; Kobakh1956 [distribution: 195]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 28-32, 39]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 551, 553-554]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, life history, taxonomy: 364]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarTzVi1979 [distribution, host: 132]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; LangfoCo1939 [distribution, host, life history: 39]; Lasaro1940 [taxonomy: 24]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 125-126]; Leonar1901a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550-551]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 16-18]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137-140]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 414]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 347]; Lesche2000 [biological control: 919]; Lindin1911 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129, 381]; Lindin1911a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 111]; Lindin1918 [taxonomy: 52]; Lindin1928 [distribution, host: 86, 105, 107]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 180]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1936 [distribution, taxonomy: 150, 161]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 145]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40, 54-61]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 248, 304]; Mackie1934 [distribution, host: 415]; MansouMkGr2011 [distribution, economic importance: 315-322]; Martin1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatesoMiIu1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; MatesoMiIu1962a [taxonomy: 121]; Matile1984c [distribution, host: 222]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; McCombDa1969 [distribution, host: 3]; McConn1930 [distribution, host: 143]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52, 53, 66, 69-70, 7]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 10, 13, 15]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 140-141, 143]; Melis1930 [distribution, host: 16]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 320]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 3]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 47]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 38]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 15-18, 29]; MurdocChCh1985 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 353-354]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 67]; NestelPiRe1995; Newste1897a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 97-98]; Newste1906 [distribution, host: 71, 72]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; NicholWe1935 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 201-235]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 199, 201, 204, 256,]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 201]; Pace1939 [distribution, host: 665]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 267]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 63]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PeralL1968 [biological control, economic importance, host: 25, 26]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Perkin1982 [biological control, distribution, host: 64]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 156]; PinhasNeRo1996 [behaviour, life history: 1-6]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 153]; PruthiBa1960 [biological control, economic importance, distribution, host, life history: 8, 13, 63, 67, 74, 8]; RahmanAn1941 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 817, 825-827]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 26]; Rao1941 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 341]; RaoCh1950 [distribution, host: 23, 28]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution: 274-270]; RosenDe1973 [biological control, distribution: 218]; RosenDe1978 [biological control, distribution, host: 114-117]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 762]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; RugmanAnMo2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 33,35,36]; RugmanAnMo2010 [molecular data, molecular data: 33]; Russo1951 [biological control, distribution: 90]; Sassce1923 [distribution, host: 155]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 18-19]; Shalab1961 [distribution, host: 216]; Sharip1980 [taxonomy: 381]; ShoemaHuKe1979 [biological control, distribution, economic importance, host: 183, 184]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 182]; Silves1902 [distribution, host: 125]; Sineln1937 [chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-22]; Singh1964 [distribution, host: 219]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, host: 220,222]; Southw1975 [distribution, host: 172]; Squire1972 [distribution, host: ?]; Stanev1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 12-17]; StrettRoMa2014 [distribution, economic importance, taxonomy: 54]; Takaha1938b [taxonomy: 272]; Talhou1950 [distribution, host: 134, 135]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84-85]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution: 106]; Targio1884 [distribution, host: 390-391]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 49]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 64]; TerGri1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 44-46]; TerGri1962 [distribution, host, illustration: 140]; Theoba1904 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 185-187]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host: 17, 41]; Trabut1911 [distribution, host: 64]; TrenchTrTo2010 [distribution, host: 117]; TurnbuCh1961 [biological control, distribution: 724]; Vayssi1921 [distribution, economic importance, host: 357]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117].
Parlatoria orientalis Ramakrishna AyyarNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) orientalis Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 24. Type data: INDIA: Coimbatore, on wild shrub, ?/09/1909, by T.V. Ramakrishna Ayyar. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Parlatoria orientalis; Rao, 1953: 67-68. Described: female. Change of combination.
Parlatoria orietnalis; Borchsenius, 1966: 194. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1919a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Rao (1953).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dirty white, 1st and 2nd exuviae dark to black in color, with whitish wax secretion on top, 1.50-1.75 mm long, 0.75 mm wide. Male scale white, exuviae brownish yellow, 0.75 mm long. Adult female almost circular, with a notch on each side anteriorly between the prosoma and the rest of the body. Anterior spiracle with 2 parastigmatic pores. Pygidium with 5 pairs of lobes; median lobe largest, with a notch on each side; 2nd smaller with a single notch on the outer side; 3rd lobe smaller than 2nd, all rounded apically (Rao, 1953).
SYSTEMATICS: This species was previously attributed to Newstead since Ramakrihna Ayyar (199a) listed Newstead as the author. It is clear from this same publication that the description given by Ramakrishna Ayyar meets the criteria of the ICZN. McKenzie (1945) incorrectly refers to Parlatoria orientalis as a nomen nudum. This species is allied to P. morrisoni(=P. crypta), but can be separated from it by the larger number of dorsal ducts on the pygidium, 5 groups of circumgenital pores, the better defined 4th and 5th lobes and the presence of a group of 4 submedian dorsal ducts in the 2 abdominal segments immediately in front of the pygidium (Rao, 1953).
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 53]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, taxonomy: 24]; Ramakr1919b [distribution: 98]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Rao1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 67-68]; Varshn1967a [taxonomy: 79].
Parlatoria parlatoreoides (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatorea parlatoreoides Lindinger, 1911: 89-90. Type data: INDIA: Kerala, Wynaad, on Xanthophyllum flavescens. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Parlatoria parlatoreoides; MacGillivray, 1921: 252. Change of combination.
Apteronidia parlatoreoides; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Polygalaceae: Xanthophyllum flavescens [Lindin1911].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Panama [NormarMoKr2014]. Oriental: India [Ramakr1921a] (Kerala [Lindin1911]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Lindinger (1911).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Malumphy and Readstone (2012) note that it is probable that transient incursions of P. parlatorioides have occurred in Britain on orchids and other plants grown indoors lasting for months or possibly even years (e.g. it was found on an orchid in a private glasshouse in 1951 with no recent import connection). There is, however, no recent evidence that it has established in Britain and they consider its status as absent.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 392 (female) [Key to species of Pseudoparlatoria].
CITATIONS: BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 13]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 194-195]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 845]; Danzig1993 [distribution, taxonomy: 392-393]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; Gill1997 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 242-243]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 89-90]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 21]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 37]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; Martin1983 [distribution, host: 57]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 362]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16].
Parlatoria parlatoriae (Šulc)NOMENCLATURE:
Syngenaspis parlatoriae Šulc, 1895a: 3-8. Type data: CZECHOSLOVAKIA: on Abies picea. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Brno: K. Sulc Collection, Moravian Museum, Czech Republic. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria Parlatoriae; Leonardi, 1899a: 209. Change of combination.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Parlatoriae; Leonardi, 1903a: 29. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis sulci Bodenheimer, 1941: 69-70. Type data: TURKEY: on Abies bornmulleriana. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel, and Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 85.
COMMON NAMES: fir scale [MillerDa1990]; Sulc's conifer scale [KosztaKo1988F].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Archenomus caucasicus [Yasnos1978], Prospaltella aurantii [Balach1953g].
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies bornmulleri [Bodenh1941], Abies nordmanniana [Hadzib1983], Abies picea [Sulc1895a], Abies sp. [Borchs1966], Cedrus sp. [Borchs1950b], Picea excelsa [Balach1953g], Picea omorica [Bachma1953], Picea orientalis [Pelliz1976], Picea pungens [Zahrad1972], Pinus silvestris [Balach1953g], Tsuga canadensis [Balach1953g], Tsuga sp. [Borchs1966]
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Austria [Zahrad1962]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011, JansenBeKa2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Czechoslovakia [Sulc1895a]; Georgia [Hadzib1959a]; Germany [Balach1953g]; Hungary [KosztaKo1988F]; Italy [KosztaKo1988F]; Kazakhstan [Mateso1968]; Poland [ZakOgaKo1964]; Romania [Rogoja1962]; Russia (Karachay-Cherkessia AR [Danzig1985], St. Petersburg (=Leningrad) Oblast [Danzig1959], Yakutia-Sakha (=Yakut) AR [Danzig1978a]); Turkey [Bodenh1941]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Danzig1959]); Yugoslavia [Zahrad1962].
BIOLOGY: Females had just reached adulthood and adult males had emerged on May 23, 1895 (Šulc, 1895a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Adult female oval, flat, yellowish; body distinctly segmented, metathorax and first 4 abdominal segments distinctly developed (Šulc, 1895a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Bachma1953 [distribution, host: 183]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 821-824]; Benass1963 [life history: 40]; BenDovHa1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 30]; Bodenh1941 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 69-72]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 156-158]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41-44]; Borchs1937a [distribution, taxonomy: 86, 89]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 172]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 116, 119, 121-122]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 200-201]; Danzig1959 [distribution, host: 449]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 646]; Danzig1968 [distribution, host: 500]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; Danzig1978a [distribution, host: 78]; Danzig1985 [distribution: 147]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 101, 103]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 329]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937d [illustration: 118]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 295]; Hadzib1957a [taxonomy: 101]; Hadzib1959a [distribution: 575]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 277]; Hall1946a [distribution, taxonomy: 536]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 190]; JansenBeKa2011 [distribution, host: 484]; Komosi1974a [taxonomy: 5]; KosztaKo1978 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 176]; KosztaKo1988F [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 382-383]; Koteja1974b [physiology: 85]; Koteja2000a [distribution: 172]; KotejaZa1966 [distribution, host, life history: 328]; Kozar1986 [distribution, taxonomy: 179]; KozarKo1982 [distribution, host: 205]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; KozarzMi1984 [distribution, host: 405-406]; Kuznet1966 [distribution: 46-47]; Kuznet1967 [taxonomy: 221, 247]; Kuznet1971 [distribution, host: 63]; LagowsKo1996 [distribution, taxonomy: 32]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 209]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 29-31]; Lindin1905a [taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1906a [taxonomy: 8]; Lindin1907 [taxonomy: 6]; Lindin1908 [taxonomy: 90]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 250]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 373]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 129]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; Mateso1968 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 125-126]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 85, 120]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; Pelliz1976 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-19]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295]; Rogoja1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 298-299]; Schmut1951 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; Schmut1952 [distribution, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 581-582]; Schmut1959 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 134-137]; Schmut1972 [taxonomy: 388]; Schmut1980 [distribution, host: 51-52]; SoriaMoVi2000 [distribution, host: 339]; Sulc1895a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 3-8, 15-19]; Takagi1956a [taxonomy: 47]; Terezn1967a [distribution: 474]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 49]; Terezn1968c [distribution, host: 44]; Terezn1975 [distribution, host: 73]; Terezn1982 [distribution, host: 57]; Terezn1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 215]; Vinis1981 [distribution, host: 206]; Yanin1971 [distribution, host: 46]; Yasnos1978 [biological control: 496]; Zahrad1952 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 110-112]; Zahrad1962 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 91, 93, 94]; Zahrad1972 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 441-442]; Zahrad1974 [taxonomy: 142]; Zahrad1977 [distribution: 121]; ZakOgaKo1964 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 431-432, 435].
Parlatoria pergandii ComstockNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pergandii Comstock, 1881a: 327-328. Type data: UNITED STATES: Florida, on Citrus sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria sinensis Maskell, 1897a: 241. Type data: CHINA: Hong Kong, on Citrus sp. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 54-55.
Parlatoria proteus pergandei; Cockerell, 1899a: 397. Change of status. Notes: This is also a misspelling of "pergandii."
Parlatoria pergandei; Hunter, 1900: 105. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria pergande; Kuwana, 1902: 78. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) pergandii; Leonardi, 1903a: 31. Change of combination.
Parlatorea pergandei; Lindinger, 1912b: 112. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Syngenaspis pergandei; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pergandi; Melis, 1930: 16. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoreopsis pergandii; Kawai, 1972: 22. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pargandii; Kawai, 1980: 191. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria pergadii; Kalshoven, 1981: 165. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: black parlatoria scale [MalipaDuSm2000]; chaff scale [WatsonBe1937, AAEE1931, Blicke1965]; chaffy scale [McDani1924]; escama paja [CoronaRuMo1997]; Parlatoria gris [Foldi2001]; Pergande's scale [Borchs1966].
ASSOCIATES: Fungi: Podonectria coccicola [GonzalHeSi1991], Sphaerostilbe coccicola [GonzalHeSi1991].
FOES: Coccinellidae: Lindorus pulchellus [Abbass1975]. ACARI Cheyletidae: Cheletogenes ornatus [Gerson1977], Cheletomimus berlesei [Gerson1977], Cheyletia sp. [HertinSi1972]. Eupalopsellidae: Eupalopsis maseriensis [Gerson1977], Saniosulus nudus [Gerson1977]. Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes coccophagus [Gerson1977]. Phytoseiidae: Typhlodromus sp. [HertinSi1972]. Trombidiidae: Allothrombium sp. [HertinSi1972]. Tyroglyphidae: Monieziella elongata [HertinSi1972]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [Gerson1977, Abbass1975], Chilocorus circumdatus [SmithBeBr1997], Chilocorus schioedtei [WalkerDe1979], Chilocorus stigma [HertinSi1972], Lindorus lophanthae [WalkerDe1979, Abbass1975], Rhyzobius lophanthae [Statha2001], Rodolia pumila [WalkerDe1979], Sticholotis madegassa [WalkerDe1979]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus fodori [Statha2001], Cybocephalus micans [Gerson1977], Cybocephalus sp. [HertinSi1972]. DIPTERA Cecidomyidae: Lestodiplosis sp. [Gerson1977]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus argentinus [Fulmek1943], Aphelinus fuscipennis [Comsto1883], Aphytis aonidiae [Hua2000], Aphytis chilensis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis chrysomphali [Hua2000], Aphytis comperei [DeBachRo1976a, MyartsRu2000, CaveMa1994], Aphytis hispanicus [HertinSi1972, MyartsRu2000, CaveMa1994, Abbass1975, SmailiAbBo2013], Aphytis lignanensis [CaveMa1994, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis maculicornis [Fulmek1943, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis melinus [BenassOn1975, MalipaDuSm2000, BasheeAsRa2014], Aphytis mytilaspis [Hua2000], Aphytis proclia [HertinSi1972], Aphytis sp. [Sankar1984], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [HertinSi1972], Aspidiotiphagus sp. [GonzalHeSi1991], Coccophagus lycimnia [MalipaDuSm2000], Encarsia berlesi Howard, Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998, Viggia1987, BasheeAsRa2014], Encarsia inquirenda [HuangPo1998, Viggia1987], Encarsia lounsburyi [CaveMa1994], Encarsia sp. [Statha2001], Marietta carnei [Hua2000], Prospaltella fasciata [HertinSi1972], Prospaltella inquirenda [Fulmek1943, Abbass1975], Prospaltella perniciosi [Hua2000]. Eulophidae: Perhymenes schrottky [CostaL1949]. Signiphoridae: Signiphora sp. group flavopalliata [CaveMa1994].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Thunbergia sp. [Mamet1943a]. Agavaceae: Yucca sp. [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave sp. [Dean1909]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Apocynaceae: Carissa sp. [MerrilCh1923], Nerium oleander [Bodenh1943], Rauvolfia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araceae: Anthurium sp. [Borchs1966]. Berberidaceae: Mahonia japonica [Costan1950]. Boraginaceae: Tournefortia argentea [WilliaWa1988]. Brassicaceae: Raphanus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bromeliaceae: Tillandsia usneoides [TippinBe1975]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Morris1939a]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum awabuki [Muraka1970], Viburnum sp. [MerrilCh1923]. Celastraceae: Euonymus alatus [Hua2000], Euonymus japonicum [Balach1953g], Euonymus sp. [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005]. Clusiaceae: Garcinia morella [Morris1939a], Garcinia sp. [Borchs1966]. Cornaceae: Aucuba japonica [Muraka1970]. Cycadaceae: Cycas sp. [MerrilCh1923]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [Morris1939a]. Euphorbiaceae: Aleurites fordii [MerrilCh1923], Croton sp. [Ramakr1919a]. Fabaceae: Inocarpus fagifer [WilliaWa1988], Parkinsonia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Hua2000]. Flacourtiaceae: Scolopia oldhamii [Takagi1970]. Garryaceae: Aucuba sp. [Fleury1935a, MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum cassia [Tao1999], Laurus sp. [Borchs1966], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus rosasinensis [HowardOl1985]. Moraceae: Ficus foveolata [Takagi1970], Ficus retusa [Takagi1970], Ficus sarmentosa henryi [Hua2000], Maclura sp. [MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Callistemon sp. [Borchs1966], Eugenia sp. [MerrilCh1923], Myrtus communis [Morris1939a]. Oleaceae: Jasminum sambac [EastonPu1999], Jasminum sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Jasminum undulatum [Morris1939a], Osmanthus fragrans [Takaha1929], Osmanthus ilicifolius [Paik1978], Osmanthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Orchidaceae: Cymbidium sinensis [Takaha1929]. Pandanaceae: Pandanus tecoruis [Takagi1970]. Pinaceae: Abies holophylla [Paik1978]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [WilliaWa1988], Photinia sp. [Tao1999], Prunus laurocerasus [Seghat1977]. Rutaceae: Aegle marmelos [Ramakr1930, Sankar1984], Aeglopsis chevalieri [FDACSB1983], Atalantia sp. [MillerDa2005], Citrus aurantium [Maskel1898, BenDov2012], Citrus bigaradia [Moghad2013a], Citrus grandis buntan [Muraka1970], Citrus grandis [GomezM1941], Citrus japonica [CostaL1928], Citrus limon [Gee1912, Bodenh1926, BenDov2012], Citrus maxima [WilliaWa1988], Citrus medica sarcodactylis [Hua2000], Citrus natsudaidai [TakahaTa1956], Citrus paradisi [ColonFMe1998], Citrus reticulata [ColonFMe1998], Citrus sinensis [HowardOl1985], Citrus sp. [Comsto1881a, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Citrus swinglei [YunusHo1980], Citrus unshiu [Muraka1970], Fortunella margarita [ColonFMe1998], Fortunella sp. [MillerDa2005], Limonica alata [Ramakr1930, Sankar1984], Poncirus sp. [MillerDa2005], Severina sp. [Borchs1966], Severinia buxifolia [Morris1939a]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Hua2000]. Scrophulariaceae [Lindin1910b]. Solanaceae: Lycium chinese [Hua2000]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Fleury1935a], Camellia sinensis [Tao1999], Eurya japonica [Hua2000], Eurya sp. [Takaha1932a], Thea japonica [Takaha1929], Thea sp. [Borchs1966], Tutcheria sp. [Borchs1966], Tutcheria spectabilis [Morris1939a]. Ulmaceae: Celtis philippinensis [Robins1917].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mozambique [Almeid1971]; Nigeria [Eguagi1975]; Senegal [Balach1953g]; Seychelles [MerrilCh1923, Mamet1943a]; Somalia [Balach1953g]; South Africa [Brain1919, Bedfor1998a]; Zanzibar [Lindin1910b]. Australasian: Australia [Morris1939a] (Queensland [SmithBeBr1997]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Beards1966]; Cook Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Takaha1939b, Dumble1954], Ponape Island [Takaha1939b, Beards1966], Truk Islands [Takaha1941b, Beards1966]); Hawaiian Islands [Cocker1899q, MillerDa2005] (Oahu [Zimmer1948, Heu2002] (Zimmerman (1948) lists this species as an immigrant to Hawaii.)); Indonesia (Java [Morris1939a, Kalsho1981]); New Zealand [Morris1939a] (Charles & Henderson (2002) state that they found literature records to be erroneous and Parlatoria pergandii is not considered to be present in New Zealand. They state that this species was recorded by Maskell from Hong Kong on orange, and was apparently intercepted at quarantine in the United States from citrus shipped via New Zealand (Morrison 1939). All other records from New Zealand are based on misidentifications of P. desolator (q.v.) (Henderson 2000).); Niue [WilliaWa1988]; Norfolk Island [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Canada [Morris1939a]; Mexico [MerrilCh1923] (Coahuila [Cocker1899n]); United States of America (Alabama [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], California [Carnes1907, MillerDa2005], Connecticut [Britto1923, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Florida [Comsto1881a, MillerDa2005], Georgia [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Illinois [MillerDa2005], Indiana [MerrilCh1923, Amos1933, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Hunter1900, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Barber1910, HowardOl1985, MillerDa2005], Maryland [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [King1899c], Mississippi [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005] (Hollinger (1923) lists this species as an introduction to Missouri.), New Jersey [Weiss1916], New York [FeltMo1928, MillerDa2005], North Carolina [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Ohio [Sander1904a, MillerDa2005], Oklahoma [Nakaha1982, MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], South Carolina [Gee1912, MillerDa2005], Texas [MerrilCh1923, McDani1972a, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Washington [MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Morris1939a, Crouze1971]; Belize [MerrilCh1923]; Bermuda [Morris1939a]; Brazil [Cocker1902p] (Bahia [Azeved1929a, SilvadGoGa1968], Distrito Federal (=Brasilia) [Lepage1938], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Rio Grande do Sul [Koszta1963], Rio de Janeiro [Hempel1900a, CostaL1928], Sao Paulo [Lepage1938]); Colombia [Mosque1976]; Cuba [Houser1918, GonzalHeSi1991]; Dominica [Morris1939a]; Dominican Republic [GomezM1941]; Ecuador [Morris1939a]; Grenada [Morris1939a]; Guatemala [Morris1939a]; Guyana [Morris1939a]; Honduras [MerrilCh1923]; Jamaica [Maxwel1902] (Fletcher (1919) states that this species was imported to Jamaica from India.); Montserrat [Ballou1912]; Nicaragua [Fleury1935a]; Panama Canal Zone [Fleury1935a]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Morris1939a, ColonFMe1998]); Saint Croix [Nakaha1983]; Saint Kitts and Nevis Islands (Saint Kitts [Morris1939a]); Saint Lucia [Morris1939a]; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Morris1939a]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Fleury1935a]). Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [Clause1933]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [ChenWo1936], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [EastonPu1999], Hainan [EastonPu1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [ChenWo1936], Hunan [ChenWo1936], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ChenWo1936], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [EastonPu1999], Shanghai [EastonPu1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [EastonPu1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [ChenWo1936]); Hong Kong [Maskel1897a]; India [MerrilCh1923] (Karnataka [Sankar1984], Rajasthan [Fletch1919, PruthiBa1960], Tamil Nadu [Fletch1919, Sankar1984]). Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Morris1939a]). Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Clause1933]); Philippines (Luzon [Robins1917]); Taiwan [Takaha1929]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Newste1897a]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1966]; Canary Islands [Morris1939a, CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [EastonPu1999], Beijing (=Peking) [Tao1999], Hebei (=Hopei) [EastonPu1999], Henan (=Honan) [EastonPu1999], Liaoning [EastonPu1999], Nei Monggol (=Inner Mongolia) [Tao1999], Qinghai (=Chinghai) [EastonPu1999], Shaanxi (=Shensi) [EastonPu1999], Shandong (=Shantung) [ChenWo1936], Shanxi (=Shansi) [EastonPu1999], Xizang (=Tibet) [Tao1999]); Corsica [Foldi2003]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Czechoslovakia [DanzigPe1998]; Denmark [Tao1999]; Egypt [Hall1923, GhabboMo1996]; France [MerrilCh1923, Balach1931a, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Gogibe1938]; Germany [MerrilCh1923]; Greece [Korone1934]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Ireland [MerrilCh1923]; Israel [Bodenh1924, Bytins1966, Gerson1977] (Bytinski-Salz (1966) states that this species of Indo-Malayan origin was introduced to Israel long ago.); Italy [MerrilCh1923, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [Fleury1935a] (Honshu [TakahaTa1956], Kyushu [Kuwana1902, TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Jordan [BenDov2006a]; Lebanon [Bodenh1926, KfouryEl1998]; Libya [Morris1939a]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Malta [Borg1919]; Morocco [LepineMi1931]; Portugal [Morris1939a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Saudi Arabia [DanzigPe1998]; Sicily [Morris1939a, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Spain [MerrilCh1923, GomezM1937]; Switzerland [Tao1999]; Syria [Morris1939a]; Turkey [Bodenh1949]; United Kingdom (England [Green1915a]); Yugoslavia [Morris1939a].
BIOLOGY: Adult female produces purple eggs which hatch into crawlers, which develop through two juvenile stages. Life cycle takes about 2 months. In Queensland Australia there are 5-6 generations per year (Smith et al., 1997). Chaff scale is reported to have 3 or 4 generations each year in Israel (Gerson 1967), 4 generations in Florida (Watson 1926), 3 generations in Alabama (English 1933), and 5 or 6 generations in Australia (Smith et al. 1997). This pest overwinters in all stages in Israel (Gerson 1967, Bodenheimer 1951), although it is reported to be predominately in the adult female form in the winter in Italy, with 14 15% of the population in the second instar (Lauricella 1957). Under normal circumstances, field populations have overlapping generations with all stages present at all times during the year (Bodenheimer 1951). Gerson (1967) found higher percentages of ovipositing females at 3 or 4 times during the year and therefore suggested that there were 3 or 4 generations. Extensive overlap of generations probably is caused by the long oviposition period. Bodenheimer (1951) reported a single female that oviposited for a period of 76 days, laying 1 or 2 eggs each day. The average number of eggs laid by each female is about 88, and hatching may require up to 2 weeks. Watson (1926) reported that crawlers were most abundant in Florida in March and April and again in September and October. Population lows occur in the dry summer months in Israel (Bodenheimer 1951, Gerson 1967). Chaff scale prefers well established trees that are 10 years or older. It most often is found on the inner parts of the tree and apparently prefers shady, humid areas on the host. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale is irregular oval in shape, 1.5 mm in diameter, greyish brown. Male scale is smaller (Smith et al., 1997).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria pergandii often occurs with Unaspis citri, Aonidiella aurantii and Lepidosaphes beckii, mainly on the limbs and trunks but also on twigs, leaves and fruit. P. pergandii can be distinguished from the other scales by the irregular oval shape of its scale cover and the purple color of its body (Smith et al., 1997). According to Balachowsky (1953g), many records of P. pergandii actually refer to P. theae.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Although some consider chaff scale to be a relatively minor pest of citrus (Rosen and DeBach 1978), it is included in every table presented by Rose (1990b) summarizing pests of citrus from various areas of the world. It is reported to be a very important pest in southern Japan and Italy, and an important pest in Spain, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Southeast Asia, Central America, Mexico, Florida, and Texas (Talhouk 1975). Under very dry conditions it causes severe twig damage in Texas (Dean 1955) and causes green areas on the ripe fruit of citrus (Gerson 1967) making it unsalable as fresh fruit. This pest apparently is not as much of a problem in young citrus groves but usually is found on trees 10 years and older. Biological control probably will be most successful with Aphytis comperei and A. paramaculicornis; A. hispanicus frequently is collected from chaff scale but it is not always effective (Rosen and DeBach 1979). This species is occasionally considered a pest of hosts other than citrus. In China it causes damage to camphor trees, Cinnamomum camphora (Shen and Liu 1990), and magnolia, Magnolia grandiflora (Chao and Zeng 1997); and in India it is a pest of pepper, Piper nigrum (Koya et al. 1996). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this to be one of 43 major armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) treat this species as a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 113 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 217 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Kosztarab 1996: 551 (female) [Key to Northeastern North American species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Williams & Watson 1988: 202 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 70 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Louisiana]; Wang 1982c: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Paik 1978: 370 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Beardsley 1966: 550 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria known from Micronesia]; Takagi 1960: 70 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 322 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ezzat 1958: 250 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 55 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 779 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 16 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 171 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Zimmerman 1948: 396 (female) [as Parlatoria pergandei; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 528 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 80 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 30 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Kuwana 1925: 6 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Britton 1923: 380 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Connecticut]; Hollinger 1923: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria in Missouri]; Robinson 1917: 27 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Newstead 1901b: 140 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Cocker 1900k: 350 (female) [as Parlatoria pergandei; Table to separate the commoner scales (Coccidae) of the orange].
CITATIONS: AAEE1931 [taxonomy: 1305]; Abbass1975 [biological control, economic importance, life history, ecology: 179-184]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Almeid1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 14]; Amos1933 [distribution, host: 207]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Andrie1932 [distribution, host: 25]; AvidovHa1969 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220-222]; Azeved1929a [distribution, host: 126]; Balach1931a [distribution, host: 98]; Balach1938a [distribution, host: 153]; Balach1946 [distribution: 213]; Balach1953g [biological control, description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 779, 816-817]; Balach1958b [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 322, 330, 333]; Ballou1912 [distribution, host: 77]; Ballou1923 [distribution: 86]; Barber1910 [distribution, host: 425]; BasheeAsRa2014 [biological control, distribution, host: 50-52]; BatcheWe1948 [chemical control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 715-716]; BazaroSh1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550, 551]; BeardsGo1975 [economic importance: 49]; Beccar1959 [distribution, host: 80]; Bedfor1998a [distribution, host: 159]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 229-232]; BenassOn1975 [biological control, distribution, host: 26]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 44]; BesheaTiHo1973 [distribution, host: 12]; Blicke1965 [taxonomy: 290, 313]; BockTa1995 [distribution, host: 360]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 62]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 44]; Bodenh1930 [distribution: 14]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 28]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 147, 152-156]; Bodenh1951a [economic importance, description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 321-333]; Bodenh1953 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 41]; BoratyWi1964a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 104]; Borchs1936 [distribution, host: 121]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 86, 88-89]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 195-196]; Borg1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21]; Borg1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; BourijBo1982 [distribution, life history: 303-315]; Boyce1950 [taxonomy: 744]; BoyeroAnMo2000 [economic importance: 673]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 212-213]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 141]; Brick1910 [distribution, host: 10]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 380-381]; BurditBa1981 [economic importance: 88]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; Bytins1966 [distribution: 29]; Cardin1915 [distribution, host: 120]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 44-45]; Carnes1907 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 221-222]; CaveMa1994 [biological control: 5]; ChapotDe1964 [distribution, host: 223]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, taxonomy: 590,609]; Chen1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 211, 227-228]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 102-103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 101]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 237-239]; Chou1986 [illustration: 630]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 17, 26]; Cocker1894d [distribution: 312]; Cocker1897p [taxonomy: 592]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Cocker1899n [distribution: 31]; Cocker1899q [distribution: 164]; Cocker1900k [distribution, host: 350]; Cocker1902d [taxonomy: 59]; Cocker1902p [distribution: 257]; CockerRo1915a [host, taxonomy: 426]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 116]; Comsto1881a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 327-328]; Comsto1883 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Comsto1916 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 476, 574]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 127]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 196]; CostaL1942 [taxonomy: 275]; CostaL1949 [biological control: 71, 75]; Costan1950 [distribution, host: 14]; Craw1896 [chemical control, distribution, host: 41-42]; Crouze1971 [distribution, economic importance: 200]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 219]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 95, 98-99]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; DarvasAbCa1994 [taxonomy: 52]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 275]; DeBachRo1976 [biological control, distribution, host: 145, 177]; DeBachRo1976a [biological control, distribution: 543]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 42]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 13, 106]; DeSant1979 [distribution, host: 312, 330, 340]; Dingle1924 [distribution, host: 371]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44]; EastonPu1999 [distribution, host: 103]; Eguagi1975 [distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 99-107]; Esaki1940 [distribution, host: 413]; Esaki1940a [distribution, economic importance: 278]; Essig1909 [distribution, host: 33]; Essig1926 [distribution, host: 305]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 250]; FDACSB1983 [distribution, host: 7]; FeltMo1928 [distribution: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 319-321]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-88]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-445:7, SIV-446:5]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 304]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 27-28]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Foldi2003 [distribution: 152]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 14-15,24]; FrankKr1900 [distribution, host: 104]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, description: 57, 78]; GarciaRo1995; GarciaRo1995 [life history: 119]; Gee1912 [distribution, host: 485]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 152]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; GermaiAtBa2008 [distribution: 129-135]; Gerson1967 [distribution, host, life history: 872-873]; Gerson1977 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 21-53]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 354]; Giliom1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 425]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 217, 219-220, 226]; Gogibe1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45-46]; GomezC1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 312]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 146, 150-154]; GomezM1941 [distribution, host: 138-139]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55, 66-71]; GomezM1965 [distribution, host: 90]; GonzalHeSi1991 [distribution, host: 434]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host: 35]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Green1905a [taxonomy: 350]; Green1915a [distribution, host: 184]; Green1916 [distribution, host: 30]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 201-202, 276]; Hall1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 26]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 528, 551]; Hariri1972 [distribution, economic importance: 145]; HasemaJo1934 [chemical control: 15]; Haywar1944 [distribution, host: 7]; Hempel1900a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 510-511]; Herric1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 42]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 187]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 47]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 267]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 6]; Hollin1923 [distribution, taxonomy: 34, 67]; Houser1918 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 170-171]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71]; Hua2000 [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859, 1894]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 198]; Hunter1900 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 105]; Hunter1902 [taxonomy: 144]; IzraylGe1995a; Kalsho1981 [distribution, host: 165]; Kaussa1946a [distribution, host: 8]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 22]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 18]; KfouryEl1998 [distribution: 38]; King1899c [distribution, host: 228]; King1902b [distribution, host: 59]; Kiritc1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Kiritc1935 [distribution, host: 4]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-35, 39]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 553, 555-556]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 78]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6, 7-10]; Kuwana1927 [distribution, host: 72]; Lal1952 [distribution, host: 62]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 248-250]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 209]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 31-36]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 414]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1910b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 47]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129-130]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 116, 118]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 176]; Lindin1928 [distribution, host: 105]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1936 [distribution: 150]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; Liotta1983 [biological control, distribution, life history: 553-561]; Lobdel1937 [physiology: 78]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 148]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 41, 67-73]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; MalipaDuSm2000 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 3, 122]; Malump2012b [distribution: 211]; Mamet1943a [catalogue: 164]; Martin1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; Maskel1898 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 228-229]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; Maxwel1902 [distribution: 248]; McDani1924 [distribution, host, life history: 42]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 330]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 54, 70-71, 80]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 16]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 140, 143]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Melis1930 [distribution, host: 16]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 67-68]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 246-247]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 324]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 4]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 47]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 18-20, 30]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Mosque1976 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55, 93]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 90]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; MyartsRu2000 [biological control, distribution: 10, 25]; Myers1926 [distribution, host: 107]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 402]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 67]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 13-14]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 35]; Newste1897a [distribution, host: 99]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140, 143-147]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 11]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 201]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 31]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 370-371]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 138]; PanisCaLi1977 [distribution, host: 139-143]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 268]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 487,503]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 214]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 155]; PruthiBa1960 [distribution, host: 29, 68]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, economic importance, host: 12]; Quayle1938a [distribution, host: 300]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 26]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ramakr1924 [distribution, host: 342]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33, 34]; Reyne1961 [distribution: 121]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27, 28]; RodrigGa1990; RodrigGaRo2004 [life history, chemical control: 569-575]; RosenDe1973 [biological control, distribution: 219]; RosenDe1978 [biological control, distribution, host: 117-118]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 762]; RugmanAnMo2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 33,35,36]; RugmanAnMo2010 [molecular data, phylogenetics: 33]; Ryan1946 [distribution, economic importance: 125]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75-76]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 1, 32, 43]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 19]; SilvadGoGa1968 [biological control, distribution, host: 182]; SmailiAbBo2013 [biological control: 157]; SmithBeBr1997 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 76-77]; SotoCoAl1994 [chemical control: 357]; Statha2001 [biological control, distribution, host: 207-214]; SureshMo1996 [distribution, host: 256]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 139]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host: 77]; Takaha1932a [distribution, host: 103]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 74]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 269]; Takaha1941b [distribution, host: 219]; Takaha1942b [distribution: 44]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 13]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-181]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 122-123]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106]; TaoChYa2004 [biological control: 161-163]; TatemaSoKa2004 [taxonomy, description: 145]; TippinBe1975 [distribution, host: 50]; TrabouBe1965 [biological control, distribution: 2, 5, 9]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 213]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; Viggia1987 [biological control: 136]; VitoriZaMa2013 [description, distribution, host: 176-179]; WalkerDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 77]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78-80]; Wardle1929 [taxonomy: 260, 374]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WatsonBe1937 [chemical control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 26-28]; Weiss1916 [distribution, host: 24]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202, 208-209]; Wilson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 13-14]; Wilson1921 [distribution, host: 25]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 111]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 244]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 396, 399-400].
Parlatoria phyllanthi GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pergandii phyllanthi Green, 1905a: 350. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Phyllanthus myrtifolius. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female.
Syngenaspis pergandei phyllanthi; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
Parlatoria proteus phyllanthi; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1921: 361. Change of combination.
Parlatoria phyllanthi; McKenzie, 1945: 71. Change of status.
HOSTS: Ebenaceae: Diospyros ebenum [Ruther1915]. Euphorbiaceae: Phyllanthus myrtifolius [Green1905a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1905a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Green (1905a).
STRUCTURE: Male scale with fascia on exuviae greenish. 1.0 mm long. Adult female broadly oval. Pygidium with 4th lobe small, about one-quarter the size of the other lobes, 0.60 mm long (Green, 1905a).
SYSTEMATICS: Green (1905a) states that Parlatoria phyllanthi differs from P. pergandi in the coloration of the female puparium, the secretionary area of which is pale transparent ochreous, and the exuviae bright castaneous or brownish orange, each with a broad black median fascia, 1.50 mm long.
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 16 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 80 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 196]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 350]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 339]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 250]; McKenz1945 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 71, 80]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 16]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ruther1915 [host: 116]; Ruther1915a [taxonomy: 106].
Parlatoria piceae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria piceae Takagi, 1956a: 45-47. Type data: JAPAN: Hokkaido, Sapporo, on Picea excelsa, 26/02/1956, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoreopsis piceae; Kawai, 1972: 22. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Abies firma [TakagiKa1966], Abies sachalinensis [TakagiKa1966], Picea excelsa [Takagi1956a], Picea pungens [Takagi1961], Pinus sp. [Borchs1966], Tsuga diversifolia [TakagiKa1966], Tsuga sieboldii [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Hokkaido [Takagi1956a], Honshu [Muraka1970], Shikoku [Muraka1970]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1956a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, almost parallel on lateral margins, dull yellow, thin and almost translucent; exuviae terminal, ovate, flat with a median longitudinal carina, golden yellow, translucent, 2.5 mm long at maximum. Adult female body elongate-oval, broadest in 1st abdominal segment or thoracic region; prosoma equal to postsoma in length; segmentation distinct, 1.0 mm long, 0.5 mm wide. Pygidium small, pygidial margin being round. Lobes in 3 pairs, well developed, all almost equal in size (Takagi, 1956a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria piceae is elongate like P. camelliae, P. crotonis or P. mytilaspiformis. In this respect and in the pygidial characters, this species resembles P. camelliae, but may be distinguished by the absence of rudimentary eye spots and the 4th lobe not represented as an angular sclerotized spine. It should also be mentioned that P. piceae is quite different from P. parlatoriae Šulc, which occurs on Picea or other coniferous hosts in Europe (Takagi, 1956a).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Takagi 1960: 71 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 196]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; JaposhAbNo2013 [ecology: 541-554]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host: 22]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 192-193]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 551]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; Takagi1956a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 45-47]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70, 71]; Takagi1961 [distribution, host: 42]; TakagiKa1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 94]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183]; Tang1984 [taxonomy: 91]; TangCh1983 [taxonomy: 302, 305].
Parlatoria pini TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pini Tang, 1984: 91. Type data: CHINA: Beijing, on Pinus tabulaeformis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Pinaceae: Pinus armandii [Hua2000], Pinus tabulaeformis [Tang1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tang1984], Hebei (=Hopei) [Tao1999]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate oval, 2.0-2.5 mm long, exuviae golden yellow, 1st exuviae 0.3 mm long, 2nd 0.7 mm long, waxy scale transparent. Adult female body elongate oval, 0.93 mm long and 0.58 mm wide, membranous except pygidium. 3 pairs of developed lobes, 3rd and 4th pairs smaller and serrated (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. pini is close to P. keteleericola, but differs by the presence of derm pockets (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 91-92, 113-114]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106].
Parlatoria pinicola TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pinicola Tang, 1984: 93. Type data: CHINA: Chekiang, Hangchow, on Pinus armandii. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus armandii [Tang1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate oval, 1.70 mm long, dark yellow. Male scale 1.0 mm long. Adult female body 0.93 mm long and 0.38 mm wide, membranous except for pygidium. 3 pairs of lobes, 4th pair smaller and sclerotized, 5th membranous and plate like (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. pinicola is close to P. pini, but is distinguishable by the 4 plates between the 3rd and 4th lobes and the 5th lobes are absent (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 93-94, 114]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106].
Parlatoria piniphila TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria piniphila Tang, 1984: 81. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, on Pinus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus sp. [Tang1984]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, about 1.8 mm long, exuviae yellowish. Adult female body 1.13 mm long and 0.65 mm wide. Prosoma membranous, 3 pairs of lobes, 4th and 5th small and serrate, very like the near plates (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. piniphila is close to P. pittospori and P. cinnamomicola, but differs from them both by having peculiar prosomatic tubercles and the submedian dorsal macroducts in more rows (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 157]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 81, 83, 113]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106].
Parlatoria pittospori MaskellNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pittospori Maskell, 1891: 11-12. Type data: AUSTRALIA: on Pittosporum undulatum, by Mr. French. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria myrtus Maskell, 1891: 12. Type data: AUSTRALIA: on Myrtus communis and Viburnum sp., by C. French. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK, Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand, and Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-402.
Parlatorea dryandrae Fuller, 1897b: 4. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Swan River, on Dryandra florabunda. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 53. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Parlatoria petrophilae Fuller, 1899: 468. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, on Petrophila linearis and Hakea ilicifolia. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by Ferris, 1942: SIV-402. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Myrtus; Leonardi, 1903a: 15. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis myrtus; MacGillivray, 1921: 249. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis petrophilae; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis dryandrae; MacGillivray, 1921: 251. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pittospoiri; Tang, 1984: 112. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: mauve pittosporum scale [DeitzTo1980]; pine parlatoria scale [DeitzTo1980]; pittosporum diaspidid [McKenz1956]; pittosporum scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: Encyrtidae: Encarsia citrina [Hill1989a]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis chilensis [RosenDe1979], Aphytis diaspidis [RosenDe1979], Aspidiotiphagus citrinus [Timlin1964].
HOSTS: Aizoaceae: Mesembryanthemum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Phoenix sp. [Timlin1964, MillerDa2005]. Asphodelaceae: Haworthia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Asteraceae: Pachystegia insignis [Hender2011]. Buxaceae: Buxus sp. [Borchs1966]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum sp. [Maskel1891, Maskel1896b], Viburnum tinus [Morris1939a]. Cornaceae: Corokia cotoneaster [Hender2011]. Cupressaceae: Callitris oblonga [Hender2011], Callitris rhomboidea [Hender2011], Callitris tasmanica [Hudson1967], Chamaecyparis lawsoniana [Timlin1964]. Cycadaceae: Cycas sp. [Timlin1964], Macrozamia corallipes [Morris1939a], Macrozamia sp. [Borchs1966]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus sp. [Hender2011]. Epacridaceae: Epacris pauciflora [Hender2011]. Ericaceae: Erica sp. [Borchs1966], Leucopogon sp. [MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Amperea xiphoclada [Hudson1967]. Fabaceae: Acacia baileyana [Timlin1964], Acacia decurrens [Timlin1964], Cytisus proliferus [Timlin1964], Cytisus scoparius [Timlin1964], Daviesia ulicina [Hudson1967], Mimosa sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Ulex europaeus [Timlin1964]. Liliaceae: Dracaena draco [McKenz1945], Dracaena sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Haworthia neilu [Morris1939a]. Loranthaceae: Nuytsia floribunda [Morris1939a], Nuytsia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Myrtaceae: Agonis sp. [Borchs1966], Callistemon sp. [Timlin1964], Eucalyptus sp. [MillerDa2005], Leptospermum laevigatum [McKenz1945], Leptospermum sp. [MillerDa2005], Melaleuca sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Myrtus communis [Maskel1891]. Oleaceae: Olea sp. [Borchs1966]. Pinaceae: Abies sp. [Green1929], Cedrus atlantica [Hender2011], Cedrus deodara [JohnsoLy1976], Pinus halepensis [Morris1939a], Pinus insignis [Morris1939a], Pinus nigra [Hender2011], Pinus radiata [JohnsoLy1976, Hender2000], Pinus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Pittosporaceae: Pittosporum sp. [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005], Pittosporum tobira [JohnsoLy1976], Pittosporum undulatum [Maskel1891]. Proteaceae: Banksia integrifolia [Hender2011], Banksia sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Dryandra floribunda [Fuller1899], Dryandra sp. [Timlin1964], Grevillea alpina [Hender2011], Hakea ilicifolia [Fuller1899], Hakea sp. [Timlin1964, MillerDa2005], Leucadendron sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Leucospermum bolusii [Hender2011], Petrophila linearia [Fuller1899], Petrophila sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Cotoneaster microphyllus [JohnsoLy1976], Malus domestica [Hender2011], Malus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Pyrus communis [Timlin1964], Pyrus malus [Morris1939a], Rosa sp. [Borchs1966]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Diosma sp. [Borchs1966], Nematolepis squamea [Hender2011]. Santalaceae: Exocarpos stricta [Hudson1967]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus elongata [McKenz1945]. Thymelaeaceae: Pimelea linifolia [Morris1939a], Pimelea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Xanthorrhoeaceae: Xanthorrhoea sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005]. Australasian: Australia [Maskel1891, MillerDa2005] (Queensland [Morris1939a], South Australia [Maskel1896b], Tasmania [Hudson1967], Victoria [Morris1939a, Webste1968], Western Australia [Fuller1897b]); New Zealand [Wise1977, MillerDa2005] (North Island [Hender2000], South Island [Green1929]). Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005] (McKenzie (1945) states that this species is an unquestioned introduction from Australia.)). Palaearctic: United Kingdom (England [MalumpHa2012] (Current status in Britain is uncertain (Malumphy & Halstead, 2012))).
BIOLOGY: In New Zealand, in the field, all stages of P. pittospori are found throughout the year. In August and September, most females were mature and were laying eggs. Main crawler emergence starts at the end of October and reaches a peak in December (Timlin, 1964). The life history of the pittosporum scale was studied by Timlin (1964b) in New Zealand on Monterey pine. All stages were found throughout the year. Ovipositing adult females were the predominant stage in August and September, and peak crawler emergence occurred in December. Each female laid about 46 eggs with a maximum of 62. In field experiments a generation required about 10 months. The preferred settling site was on the inside of the needles of the pine. Timlin also studied the pittosporum scale on apple. He was unable to collect the scale on any part of the host other than the fruit with the exception of one isolated case where he found a specimen on a smooth stem. He was able to infest smooth apple branches artificially with crawlers and development to a second generation occurred in about 10 months, but he found no evidence that this occurred in commercial orchards. In areas where apples were protected by windbreaks of Monterey pine, apple fruit commonly was contaminated with this scale. The pines apparently act as a reservoir of crawlers which are blown by the wind onto the fruit of the apples. Pesticides are believed to eliminate development of the scale on the apples themselves. A generation may develop as rapidly as 4 months on apple fruit. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1945).
STRUCTURE: Female scale dull dark greenish-gray, sometimes almost black; exuviae green, sub-central, sub-elliptical, flattish. Male scale elongate, not carinated, exuviae terminal. Adult female dark brown, segmented, sub-elliptical, but shrivelling at gestation to globular. Posterior extremity broadly rounded, ending in 6 trifoliate lobes not close together, and with equal spaces between them (Maskell, 1891).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria pittospori appears to belong to the P. pergandii P. proteus and P. crotonis complex, but may be separated from all of these by the presence of dorsal macroducts on the intermediate portion of the pygidium and of the segment anterior to this (McKenzie, 1945).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. Timlin (1964) discusses the status of P. pittospori as a pest on apples in New Zealand. McKenzie (1956) reported this species to be a minor pest of certain ornamentals in southern California. In Australia (Webster 1968) and New Zealand (Timlin 1964b) infested apple fruit is rejected for shipment to certain foreign countries because of the possibility of establishment of the pest in a new area. On certain green varieties of apples, feeding sites of the scale turn red giving the fruit an unsightly appearance (Richards 1960). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Henderson 2011: 119 (female) [Key to Parlatoria adult females in New Zealand]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult females)]; Gill 1997: 217 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 321 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 30 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [biological control, distribution, host, taxonomy: 790, 793]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 321, 330-331]; Bazaro1963a [p. 70]; Bazaro1968a [p. 88]; Borchs1950b [p. 172]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 196]; Charle1998 [distribution, economic importance: 51]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 589-595,605-606]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; DeitzTo1980 [distribution, taxonomy: 39, 41]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 319, 320]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-402, SIV-446:59]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 601, 602-603]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 28, 29]; Fuller1897b [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 1344]; Fuller1899 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 467-468]; Gerson1970 [economic importance: 990]; Gill1982c [distribution, host, illustration: 1]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 217, 220-221, 227]; Green1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 382]; HallWi1962 [taxonomy: 33]; Hender2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 52]; Hender2011 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 8,10-11,35,118,119,1]; Hewitt1943 [taxonomy: 267]; Hill1989a [economic importance: 177]; Hill1989a [economic importance: 178]; Hudson1967 [distribution, host: 92]; JohnsoLy1976 [distribution, host, illustration: 92]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 28-29]; Lindin1957 [p. 552]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249, 250, 251, 253]; MagueRe1983 [ecology: 692, 695]; MalumpHa2012 [description, distribution, host, illustration: 194-195]; Maskel1891 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 11-12]; Maskel1896b [distribution, host: 386]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53, 54, 71-72, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 142-143, 145]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 328]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 20-22, 30]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 67-68]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Richar1960AM [distribution, host: 693]; RosenDe1979 [biological control, distribution: 763]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takaha1951b [taxonomy: 110]; Tang1984 [taxonomy: 81, 112, 113]; Timlin1964 [biological control, chemical control, distribution, economic importance, host, life history: 536-550]; Timlin1964a [distribution, host: 531-535]; Valent1963 [biological control, distribution: 7, 8]; Valent1967 [biological control, distribution: 1119, 1167]; Webste1968 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 85-86]; Wise1977 [distribution: 111].
Parlatoria proteus (Curtis)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus Proteus Curtis, 1843b: 676. Type data: ENGLAND: on succulent leaf, maybe Aloe sp. or Amaryllis sp., by J. Curtis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Melbourne: National Museum of Victoria, Victoria, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
Diaspis parlatoris Targioni Tozzetti, 1867: 14. Type data: ITALY: Florence, on Phytelephas macrocarpa. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 55. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Parlatoria orbicularis Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Nomen nudum; discovered by Signoret, 1869: 867.
Parlatoria selenipedii Signoret, 1869d: 450. Nomen nudum; discovered by Lindinger, 1932f: 204. Notes: Signoret (1869d) states that his Parlatoria selenipedii is the same as Targioni Tozzetti's P. orbicularis and that they are both junior synonyms of P. proteus. However, we have been unable to find a valid description of P. selenipedii and so it is considered a place nomen nudum.
Parlatoria proteus; Signoret, 1869d: 867. Change of combination.
Diaspis monserrati Colvée, 1881: 21-24. Type data: SPAIN: Valencia, in Botanical Gardens, on Citrus sp. Described: both sexes. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1912b: 367. Notes: Type material apparently lost. Parlatoria monserrati has been considered to be a synonym of several species. Bodenheimer (1930) states that Diaspis monserrati is apparently synonymous with Parlatoria zizyphi, this is erroneous since the scale of P. monserrati is gray or light brown, while that of P. zizyphi is black. Gomez Menor (1937) lists this as a possible junior synonym of P. pergandii, but we feel this is incorrect since P. pergandii has 4 pairs of lobes while P. monserrati has 3. Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis and Martin Mateo (1983) agrees with Lindinger (1912b) who states that D. monserrati is a junior synonym of Parlatoria proteus. We agree with the latter and place P. monserrati in synonym of P. proteus based on Colvée's illustration and description which shows 3 pairs of lobes, the female scale cover as gray and the male cover as transparent.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Proteus; Leonardi, 1903a: 15. Change of combination.
Parlatorea proteus; Lindinger, 1912b: 112. Misspelling of genus name.
Parlatoria potens Leonardi, 1920: 149. Type data: ITALY:. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1932f: 204.
Syngenaspis proteus; MacGillivray, 1921: 251. Change of combination.
Diaspis parlatoria; Ferris, 1937: SI-89. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria monserrati; Gómez-Menor Ortega, 1956: 71. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: common parlatoria scale [Butche1959]; orchid parlatoria scale [Brimbl1962]; piojo blanco [GomezC1943]; poll-blanc [GomezC1943]; proteus scale [McKenz1956]; sanseveria scale [McKenz1956]; small brown scale [Borchs1966].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis fuscipennis [Garcia1930], Aspidiophagus lounsburyi [HertinSi1972], Bardylis australicus [Fulmek1943]. Pteromalidae: Selaginella sp. [Kuwana1925].
HOSTS: Acanthaceae: Hemigraphis sp. [MillerDa2005], Thunbergia grandiflora [MerrilCh1923], Thunbergia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Agavaceae: Chlorophytum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Amaryllidaceae: Agave sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Amaryllis sp. [Newste1901b]. Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Morris1939a, Heu2002], Mangifera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Annonaceae: Polyalthia longifolia [GhaniMu1974]. Apocynaceae: Carissa bispinosa [MerrilCh1923], Ervatamia coronaria [WilliaWa1988]. Araceae: Aglaonema sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Anthurium sp. [MillerDa2005], Dieffenbachia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Diffenbachia sequine [Morris1939a], Epipremnum pinnatum [WilliaWa1988], Monstera [Takagi1969a], Monstera deliciosa [Takaha1929], Philodendron sp. [Morris1939a, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Scindapsus aureus [Nakaha1981a], Scindapsus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araliaceae: Aralia sp. [MillerDa2005], Hedera sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Schefflera arboricola [CulikMaVe2008], Schefflera heptaphylla [MartinLa2011], Schefflera sp. [MillerDa2005]. Araucariacae: Araucaria sp. [MillerDa2005]. Arecaceae: Archontophoenix cunninghmi [Fleury1935a], Areca cathecu [Kuwana1925], Areca sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Cargota sp. [GhabboMo1996], Caryota sp. [MillerDa2005], Chrysalidocarpus lutescens [Pelot1950], Coccothrinax sp. [MillerDa2005], Cocos nucifera [Nakaha1981a], Cocos plumosa [HowardOl1985], Cocos sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Cocothrinax sp. [Morris1939a], Corypha sp. [MillerDa2005], Elaeis guineensis [Barber1910], Kentia pamoreane [Misra1924CS], Kentia sp. [MillerDa2005], Nipa fruticans [Beards1966], Nipa sp. [MillerDa2005], Phoenix canariensis [MartinLa2011], Phoenix dactylifera [Morris1939a], Phoenix sp. [MillerDa2005], Phytelephas macrocarpa [Targio1867], Pinanga sp. [MillerDa2005], Pritchardia sp. [Borchs1966], Sabal sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Thrinax sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Asclepiadaceae: Hoya sp. [LambdiWa1980]. Asparagaceae: Asparagus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Bixaceae: Bixa orellana [WilliaWa1988]. Brassicaceae: Microsemia sp. [Comsto1883]. Bromeliaceae: Aechmea sp. [MillerDa2005], Billbergia sp. [Bodkin1922]. Cactaceae: Rhipsalis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum odoratissimum [Kuwana1907]. Clusiaceae: Calophyllum brasiliense [ColonFMe1998], Calophyllum inophyllum [Willia1985b]. Combretaceae: Terminalia catappa [Newste1908b]. Cycadaceae: Cycas circinalis [Nakaha1981a], Cycas revoluta [Mamet1943a], Cycas sp. [MerrilCh1923, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Macrozamia sp. [MerrilCh1923]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros sp. [Tao1999]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus simonii [MerrilCh1923]. Euphorbiaceae: Acalypha sp. [MillerDa2005], Codiaeum sp. [Borchs1966], Croton sp. [Kuwana1925, MillerDa2005], Euphorbia milii [CulikMaVe2008], Jatropha hastata [Nakaha1981a], Pedilanthus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Fabaceae: Derris elliptica [WilliaWa1988]. Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Heliconiaceae: Heliconia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Iridaceae: Moraea sp. [Nakaha1981a]. Lamiaceae: Lamium sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Litsea sp. [Tao1999], Machilus sp. [Maskel1897a], Persea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lecythidaceae: Barringtonia sp. [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005]. Liliaceae: Aloe sp. [Newste1901b], Lilium sp. [MillerDa2005], Mondo japonicum [Nakaha1981a], Pincenectitia sp. [GhabboMo1996], Ruscus aculeatus [GhabboMo1996], Ruscus hypophyllus [GhabboMo1996], Sansevieria sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Yucca sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Talauma sp. [MillerDa2005]. Malvaceae: Gossypium sp. [Borchs1966], Hibiscus syriacus [Cheo1935]. Marantaceae: Calathea sp. [MillerDa2005], Maranta massangeana [Morris1939a], Maranta sp. [MillerDa2005]. Meliaceae: Melia azedarach [MartinLa2011]. Moraceae: Ficus benjamina [CulikMaVe2008], Ficus pandurata [HowardOl1985], Ficus retusa nitida [Kuwana1925], Ficus sp. [Dean1909, MillerDa2005], Ficus tinctoria [MartinLa2011]. Musaceae: Musa sp. [Tao1999]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia jambos [Kuwana1925], Eugenia javanica [Beards1966], Eugenia malaccensis [Cocker1905f], Myrtus sp. [CostaL1928], Syzygium malaccense [Hinckl1963]. Oleaceae: Jasminum sambac [Beards1966], Jasminum sp. [MillerDa2005], Ligustrum sp. [Nakaha1981a, MillerDa2005], Olea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Osmanthus fragrans [Tao1999]. Orchidaceae: Aerides sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Angraecum falcatum [Kuwana1902], Angraecum sp. [MillerDa2005], Arachnanthe maingayi [YunusHo1980], Arachnanthe rosea [Morris1939a], Arachnis moschifera [YunusHo1980], Arachnis sp. [MillerDa2005], Ascocentrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Brassia actinophylla [ColonFMe1998], Brassia sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Broughtonia sp. [MillerDa2005], Bulbophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005], Calanthe sp. [MillerDa2005], Catasetum sp. [MillerDa2005], Cattleya sp. [Morris1939a], Coelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Coelogyne flaccida [Morris1939a], Coelogyne sp. [Ramakr1930, MillerDa2005], Cymbidium aloifolium [Henrik1921], Cymbidium bicolor [Green1905a], Cymbidium sinense [Takaha1929], Cymbidium sp. [Ramakr1930, MillerDa2005], Cypripedium caudatum [HowellTi1977], Cypripedium insignis [Nakaha1981a], Cypripedium sp. [Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Dendrobium densiflorum [CorseuSi1971], Dendrobium sp. [Newste1901b, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Epidendrum pinnatum [Hinckl1963], Epidendrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Eria floribunda [Fleury1935a], Eria sp. [MillerDa2005], Gongora sp. [MillerDa2005], Grammatophyllum sp. [MillerDa2005], Grammatophyllum speciosum [Morris1939a], Laelia sp. [MillerDa2005], Lycaste sp. [MillerDa2005], Maxillaria sp. [MillerDa2005], Maxillaria tenuifolia [Morris1939a], Paphiopedilum sp. [MillerDa2005], Phalaenopsis amabilis [Takagi1969a], Phalaenopsis sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Pholidota sp. [MillerDa2005], Renantanda rosalind [YunusHo1980], Renanthera sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Rhynchostylis retusa [Misra1924CS], Rhynchostylis sp. [MillerDa2005], Saccolabium sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Schomburgkia lyonsi [Morris1939a], Schomburgkia sp. [MillerDa2005], Selenipedium sp. [Signor1869d], Sobralia sp. [MillerDa2005], Spathoglottis sp. [MillerDa2005], Stanhopea sp. [MillerDa2005], Stereochilus fasciata [Morris1939a], Trichocentrum allopurpurem [Morris1939a], Trichocentrum sp. [MillerDa2005], Trichoglottis sp. [MillerDa2005], Vanda dearei [Fleury1935a], Vanda luzonica [Fleury1935a], Vanda sp. [Signor1869d, Heu2002, MillerDa2005], Vanda superba [Lindin1909b], Vanda teres [Green1916, ColonFMe1998], Vanda tricolor [HowellTi1977], Vanilla [GermaiMiPa2014]. Pandanaceae: Freycinetia sp. [Hinckl1963], Pandanus artocarpus [YunusHo1980], Pandanus boninensis [Kuwana1925], Pandanus odoratissimus [Nakaha1981a], Pandanus sp. [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005]. Passifloraceae: Passiflora sp. [MerrilCh1923]. Pinaceae: Pinus insignis [Maskel1897], Pinus sp. [Borchs1966]. Podocarpaceae: Podocarpus sp. [Takagi1969a]. Proteaceae: Macadamia tetraphylla [WilliaWa1988]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Tao1999], Malus sylvestris [Brimbl1962], Prunus domestica [Brimbl1962], Prunus persica [Brimbl1962], Pyrus communis [Brimbl1962], Pyrus serotina culta [Paik1978]. Rubiaceae [Mamet1956], Coffea canephora [WilliaWa1988], Gardenia jasminoides [Beards1966], Gardenia radicans [Takaha1939b], Gardenia scandens [WilliaWa1988], Gardenia sp. [Beards1966, MillerDa2005], Psychotria sp. [Beards1966, MillerDa2005]. Ruscaceae: Aspidistra sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Beaucarnia sp. [MillerDa2005], Dracaena sanderiana [MartinLa2011], Dracaena sp. [MillerDa2005], Ophiopogon sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium [Beards1966], Citrus paradisi [Beards1966], Citrus sp. [Colvee1881, MillerDa2005], Triphasia sp. [MillerDa2005], Triphasia trifolia [Beards1966]. Saxifragaceae: Philadelphus sp. [Morris1939a]. Sterculiaceae: Theobroma cacao [Hinckl1963]. Theaceae: Camellia sansanqua [GhabboMo1996], Camellia sp. [Maskel1897a, MillerDa2005], Thea sasanqua [Kuwana1907]. Vitaceae: Vitis sp. [Takagi1969a], Vitis vinifera [Tao1999]. Zamiaceae: Encephalartos sp. [Lindin1913]. Zingiberaceae: Amomum sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Nigeria [Medler1980]; Reunion [GermaiMiPa2014]; South Africa [BrainKe1917]; Tanzania [Lindin1913]. Australasian: Australia [Maskel1897] (Queensland [Maskel1893b], Western Australia [Fuller1897b]); Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Kuwana1909a]; Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Takaha1939b, Dumble1954, Beards1966], Kosrae (=Kusaie) [Beards1966], Ponape Island [Takaha1939b, Beards1966], Truk Islands [Beards1966], Yap [Takaha1941b, Beards1966]); Fiji [OConno1949]; Guam [Fullaw1946, Dumble1954, Beards1966]; Hawaiian Islands [Kirkal1904b] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a], Kauai [Nakaha1981a], Maui [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Zimmer1948, Heu2002] (Zimmerman (1948) lists this species as an immigrant to Hawaii.)); Indonesia (Java [Newste1908b]); Nauru [Willia1985b]; Palau [Takaha1936c, Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Nakaha1982]; United States of America (California [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], District of Columbia [MerrilCh1923, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Florida [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Georgia [McKenz1945, MillerDa2005], Illinois [MerrilCh1923, MillerDa2005], Indiana [DietzMo1916a, MillerDa2005], Kansas [Dean1909, MillerDa2005], Louisiana [Barber1910, HowardOl1985, MillerDa2005], Maryland [Morris1939a, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Massachusetts [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Missouri [Hollin1923, MillerDa2005] (Hollinger (1923) lists this species as introduced to Missouri.), New Jersey [Morris1939a, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], New York [MerrilCh1923, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Ohio [MillerDa2005], Pennsylvania [Trimbl1928, MillerDa2005], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980], Texas [McKenz1945, McDani1972a, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Lizery1938]; Bahamas [Morris1939a]; Bolivia [Tao1999]; Brazil [Newste1901b] (Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008], Paraiba [SilvadGoGa1968], Pernambuco [CarvalCa1939, SilvadGoGa1968], Rio Grande do Sul [CorseuSi1971], Sao Paulo [SilvadGoGa1968]); Colombia [Nakaha1982]; Cuba [Ballou1923]; Dominican Republic [Morris1939a]; Ecuador [Nakaha1982]; Guatemala [Morris1939a]; Guyana [Bodkin1922]; Haiti [Morris1939a]; Jamaica [Cocker1893j]; Panama [Morris1939a]; Paraguay [Nakaha1982]; Peru [Nakaha1982]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]); Suriname [Morris1939a]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Morris1939a]); Venezuela [Morris1939a]. Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Tao1999], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Maskel1897a, ChenWo1936], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Hainan [Hua2000], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Tao1999], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tao1999], Yunnan [Tao1999], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [ChenWo1936]); Hong Kong [HowellTi1975]; India [Ramakr1919a] (Karnataka [Sankar1984], Maharashtra [Misra1924CS], Tamil Nadu [Ramakr1930, Sankar1984]). Oriental: Indonesia [Tao1999, Kalsho1981] (Kalimantan (=Borneo) [Fleury1935a], Sumatra [Clause1933]). Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Clause1933]); Pakistan [GhaniMu1974]; Philippines (Luzon [Cocker1905f, Robins1917]); Sri Lanka [Palmer1905]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a]; Thailand [Takaha1942b]. Palaearctic: Belgium [Morris1939a]; Bulgaria [Tsalev1968]; China (Anhui (=Anhwei) [Hua2000], Henan (=Honan) [Hua2000], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Czechoslovakia [Zahrad1957]; Denmark [Lindin1909b]; Egypt [Hall1922]; France [Signor1869d, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Gogibe1938]; Germany [Lindin1909b]; Iran [Kaussa1970, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel [Merkel1938]; Italy [Targio1867]; Japan [Maskel1897a] (Honshu [Kuwana1902]); Malta [Borg1922]; Monaco [Nakaha1982]; Poland [Szulcz1926, DanzigPe1998]; Romania [FetykoKoDa2010]; Russia [Balach1953g]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Spain [Colvee1881, Garcia1930]; Ukraine [Terezn1986]; United Kingdom (England [Curtis1843b, Newste1901b]).
BIOLOGY: We have been unable to find information pertaining to the life history of this species. On orchids it apparently reproduces slowly in the greenhouse; each female produces up to 30 eggs (Zahradnik 1968). Both parthenogenetic (Nur 1971) and sexual races (Schmutterer 1952b) are reported. Scales may be found on the leaves or branches of the host. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takagi (1969a) and Williams & Watson (1988). First-stage male described and illustrated by Howell & Tippins (1977).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, more or less oval, transparent brownish yellow, whitish toward border. Exuviae rounded oval. Male scale is light brown with black exuviae (Comstock, 1883).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria proteus appears to be closely related to P. pergandii, but may be separated from it by the presence of spur-like eyespot on the prosoma and the considerably lesser numbers of submarginal pygidial macroducts (McKenzie, 1945).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Proteus scale is considered to be a serious pest of ornamentals in Florida (Dekle 1977). It is a minor pest of citrus in Florida, China, Southeast Asia, Egypt, Argentina, (Talhouk 1975), and Brazil (Bondar 1914), and occasionally is found on avocado (Ebeling 1959). It also has been reported as a greenhouse pest of orchids and palms (Weigel and Sasscer 1923); lilies and amaryllis (Baker 1993); and bananas in the Canary Islands and Madagascar (Chua and Wood 1990). Beardsley and González (1975) consider this to be one of 43 major armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) treated it as a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 113 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Puerto Rico]; Gill 1997: 216 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Kosztarab 1996: 550 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Northeastern North America]; Danzig 1993: 84 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Williams & Watson 1988: 202 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Howard & Oliver 1985: 70 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Louisiana]; Wang 1982c: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Paik 1978: 369 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 550 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria known from Micronesia]; Ezzat 1958: 249 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 779 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 170 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Zimmerman 1948: 394 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 527 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 30 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Kuwana 1925: 5 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Britton 1923: 380 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Connecticut]; Hollinger 1923: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria in Missouri]; Robinson 1917: 27 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Palmer 1905: 145 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Newstead 1901b: 140 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Badr2014 [distribution, host: 51]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 779, 810-813]; Ballou1923 [distribution: 86]; Barber1910 [distribution, host: 425]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 147]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550, 551-552]; BeardsGo1975 [economic importance: 49]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 236-238]; Bodenh1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 17-18]; Bodkin1922 [distribution, host: 60]; Bondar1915 [distribution: 44]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 102]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 87, 89]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 197-198, 372]; Borg1922 [description, distribution, host: 76]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213]; BrainKe1917 [distribution, host: 185]; Brimbl1962 [distribution, host: 224]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 380-381]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; CarvalCa1939 [distribution, host: 30]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 101]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 230-232]; Chou1986 [illustration: 638]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 17, 26]; Cocker1893j [distribution, host: 256]; Cocker1894d [distribution: 312]; Cocker1897g [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 108]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 397]; Cocker1905f [distribution, host: 134]; Colema1903 [distribution, host: 85]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 116-117]; Colvee1881 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21-24]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 113-114]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 574, 575-576]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; CorseuSi1971 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 110]; CostaL1928 [distribution, host: 127]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 196]; CulikMaVe2008 [distribution, host: 1-6]; Curtis1843b [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 676]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84, 95, 97]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 330-331]; Dean1909 [distribution, host: 275]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 13, 107]; DietzMo1916a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 315-316]; Dougla1887 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 241-242]; Draper1907 [distribution, host: 11]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44, 89]; Esaki1940 [distribution, host: 413-414]; Esaki1940a [distribution, economic importance: 278]; Essig1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 305]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; FangWuXu2001 [taxonomy: 109]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 231, 320-321]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-89]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 5]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 47]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:59]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 28]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 602]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 29]; Fullaw1946 [distribution, host: 160]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [distribution, host: 466]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 57]; Garcia1930 [biological control, distribution: 53]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution, host: 23]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 354]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution, host: 84]; Gill1997 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, taxonomy: 216, 221, 228]; Gogibe1938 [distribution, host: 46]; GomezC1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 312-313]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 150-151]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 66-71]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host: 35-36]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; Green1905a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 349]; Green1916 [distribution, host: 30]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 338]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 197-198, 276]; Hall1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 527, 551]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 109]; Henrik1921 [distribution, host: 314]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 188]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 48]; Hinckl1963 [distribution, host: 54]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host: 34, 35, 67]; HowardOl1985 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 70-71]; HowellTi1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 125]; Hu1986J [taxonomy: 227]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 198]; Hunter1900 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 106]; Kalsho1981 [distribution, host: 165]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 192]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 18]; Kiritc1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; KonstaKo1990 [taxonomy: 8]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 550, 556-558]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host: 79]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5, 10-12]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lawson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 248, 251-252]; Leonar1899 [taxonomy: 218]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 209]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 23-25]; Leonar1920 [distribution, taxonomy: 149]; Lepage1938 [distribution, host: 414-415]; LepageFi1947 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-39]; Lindin1909b [distribution, host: 225]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 112, 367]; Lindin1913 [distribution, host: 79]; Lindin1924 [taxonomy: 176]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; Lizery1938 [distribution: 356]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 41, 61-67]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 251, 304]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 164]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43-44]; Mamet1956 [distribution, host: 138]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 29]; Martin1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 59-60]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 43]; Maskel1893b [distribution, host: 213]; Maskel1897 [distribution, host: 300]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; Maxwel1902 [distribution: 248]; McDani1924 [distribution, host: 42]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 330-332]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49, 50, 53, 54, 72,7]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 142, 145, 147]; McKenz1960b [taxonomy: 211]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merkel1938 [distribution: 98]; Merril1953 [distribution, host: 68-69]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 247]; MilesMi1935 [distribution, host: 90, 156]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 330]; Misra1924CS [distribution, host: 350]; Miyosh1926 [distribution, host: 306]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 48]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 22-24, 30]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 90]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 402-403]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 68]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 35]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140-143]; Newste1906a [distribution, host: 74]; Newste1908b [distribution, host: 37]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 199]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; OConno1949 [distribution, host: 88]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 32]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 369, 371-372]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 137-138, 145]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 267-268]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; Pelot1950 [distribution, host: 17]; Penzig1887 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 495-497]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 214]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 24-26]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1930 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31-33]; Rao1965 [distribution, host: 30]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 32]; Schmut1952 [taxonomy: 580-581]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132-134]; Signor1869 [taxonomy: 867]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 450-451]; SilvadGoGa1968 [distribution, host: 183]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Szulcz1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 140]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 52]; Takagi1987 [taxonomy: 10]; Takagi2008 [illustration, taxonomy: 91-95,111-114]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 11, 12, 20, 78]; Takaha1936c [distribution, host: 117-118]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 70]; Takaha1939b [distribution, host: 269]; Takaha1941b [distribution, host: 219]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 44]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 118-119]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 106-107]; Targio1867 [description, distribution, host: 14]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 735]; Targio1884 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 391]; Terezn1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20]; Trimbl1928 [distribution, host: 47]; Tsalev1968 [distribution, host: 213]; Vayssi1913 [distribution, host: 431]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution: 197]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78, 80-81]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WatsonBe1937 [chemical control, distribution, host: 14, 16]; Willia1985b [distribution, host: 53]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 202, 210-211]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 70-71]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 30-31, 73]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34]; Zahrad1957 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 49-50]; Zahrad1990c [distribution, host: 16]; Zimmer1901 [distribution, host: 19]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 394, 396, 401-402].
Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus Lindinger, 1905a: 131. Type data: SINGAPORE: on Vanda hookeriana, 07/06/1905. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Notes: Lindinger (1905a) misspelled the generic name as Parlatorea when describing this species.
Parlatoria mangiferae Marlatt, 1908c: 28-29. Type data: UNITED STATES: Washington D.C., on Mangifera indica, 28/01/1908, by J.G. Sanders. Holotype female (examined). Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1908e: 241.
Parlatorea mangiferae; Lindinger, 1908e: 241. Misspelling of genus name.
Leucaspis mangiferae; Wester, 1920: 64. Change of combination.
Genaparlatoria mangiferae; MacGillivray, 1921: 255. Change of combination.
Genaparlatoria pseudaspidiotus; MacGillivray, 1921: 255. Change of combination.
Aonidia pseudaspidiotus; Cockerell, 1922a: 149. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus; Ferris, 1936: 21. Change of combination. Notes: Ferris's treatment of Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus is not really a change of combination since the species was described in Parlatoria. However, for the purposes of this database each unique spelling combination of a species must be included and so Ferris's usage is here because Lindinger used Parlatorea as the original spelling of the genus.
Parlatoria (Genaparlatoria) pseudaspidiotus; Merrill, 1953: 69. Change of combination.
Pinnaspis pseudaspidiotus; Reyne, 1961: 122. Change of combination.
COMMON NAMES: vanda orchid scale [Dekle1965c]; vanda scale [VelasqRi1969].
FOE: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Balach1953g]. Burseraceae: Commiphora berryi [RamachRa1934]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia antiquorum [Green1922]. Orchidaceae: Aerides sp. [Borchs1966], Cattleya sp. [LambdiWa1980], Cymbidium sp. [WilliaWa1988], Cyrtopodium punctatum [MacGow1982], Dendrobium sp. [Borchs1966], Trichoglottis philippinensis [Balach1953g], Vanda hookeriana [Lindin1905a], Vanda jaquiem [Fleury1938], Vanda sp. [Kuwana1925], Vanda teres [Lindin1905a]. Verbenaceae: Caryopteris incana [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Medler1980]; South Africa [Schmut1969]; Sudan [Hall1946a]. Australasian: Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Nakaha1982]; Fiji [Merril1953]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [WilliaWa1988]); Guam [Nakaha1982]; Hawaiian Islands (Kauai [Nakaha1981a], Oahu [Zimmer1948]); Indonesia (Java [Merril1953]); Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Western Samoa [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: United States of America (Colorado [Cocker1922a], Florida [Merril1953], Tennessee [LambdiWa1980]). Neotropical: Barbados [Nakaha1982]; Colombia [Nakaha1982]; Costa Rica [Nakaha1982]; Guyana [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Balach1958b]; Panama Canal Zone [MartorMe1974]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [MedinaMa1973]); Suriname [Nakaha1982]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [Nakaha1982]). Oriental: Burma (=Myanmar) [Nakaha1982]; China (Yunnan [Tao1999]); India [Balach1958b] (Maharashtra [Fletch1919], Tamil Nadu [RamachRa1934]); Malaysia [McKenz1945]; Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Philippines [Sassce1920]; Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [YamaguNoOm2000]; Singapore [Lindin1905a]; Sri Lanka [Green1922]; Taiwan [Takaha1933]; Thailand [Nakaha1982]; Vietnam [Schmut1969]. Palaearctic: China [McKenz1945]; Germany [Merril1953]; Italy [LongoMaPe1995]; Japan (Honshu [Kuwana1925]); United Kingdom (England [McKenz1945]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Scale brown, with white waxy extension at one side (Ferris, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Adult female recognizable by the broadly oval body and rounded sclerotized head and thorax, tapering posteriorly to a rounded, but less sclerotized pygidium except for marginal areas (Williams & Watson, 1988).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Danzig 1993: 84 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Williams & Watson 1988: 127 [Key to species of Genaparlatoria of the South Pacific Region]; Paik 1978: 369 (female) [as Parlatoria mangiferae; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Kuwana 1925: 5 (female) [as Genaparlatoria mangiferae; Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; MacGillivray 1921: 255 (female) [Key to species of Genaparlatoria].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 87]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, illustration: 74-75]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Arnett1985 [taxonomy: 241]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 824-827, 917]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 318-319]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 201-202]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 240-241]; Chou1986 [illustration: 647]; Cocker1922a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 149]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-96]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84, 101, 104-105]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 331]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65]; DekleKu1968 [description, taxonomy: 5-6]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 21, 56]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-61]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:55]; Flachs1931 [distribution, host: 298]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 304]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 20]; GhaniMu1974 [distribution, host: 84]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1922a [distribution, taxonomy: 1011]; Green1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 315]; Hall1946a [distribution, host: 518, 551, 553]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 152]; Hunt1939 [distribution: 557]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 188]; KawaiMaUm1971 [distribution, host: 18]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 84]; Kozarz1974 [host: 24]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 5, 17-18]; KuwanaMu1932 [taxonomy: 11]; LambdiWa1980 [distribution, host: 80]; Lindin1905a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; Lindin1908e [taxonomy: 241]; Lindin1909b [taxonomy: 148]; Lindin1910 [taxonomy: 259, 330]; Lindin1914 [taxonomy: 160]; Lindin1931a [distribution: 27]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 199]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 223]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 368]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 126]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 149]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, description, distribution, taxonomy: 248, 255]; MacGow1982 [distribution, host: 11]; Marlat1908c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 28-29]; Marlat1921a [distribution, host: 19]; Martor1976 [distribution, host: 265]; MartorMe1974 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 116]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 53, 54, 81]; MedinaMa1973 [distribution, host: 251]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host: 69]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 302]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host: 398]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 39]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 33]; Paik1978 [taxonomy: 369]; Pape1936 [distribution, host: 311]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 5, 146, 158]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 349]; RamachRa1934 [distribution, host: 20]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host: 27]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 98]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ramakr1930 [description, distribution, host: 34-35]; Reyne1961 [distribution, taxonomy: 122]; RugmanAnMo2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 33,35,36]; RugmanAnMo2010 [molecular data, phylogenetics: 33]; Ruther1915 [taxonomy: 116]; Sander1909a [taxonomy: 58]; Sassce1914 [taxonomy: 242]; Sassce1920 [distribution, host: 184]; Schmut1959 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132, 137-139]; Schmut1969 [description, distribution, host, illustration, life history, taxonomy: 110-111]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 61]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 3]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 89]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 5]; VelasqRi1969 [distribution: 196]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 178]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 425]; Wester1920 [host: 64]; Whitne1933 [distribution, host: 67]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 129-130]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 245]; YamaguNoOm2000 [distribution, host: 133]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 278-279]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34]; Zimmer1948 [description, distribution, illustration: 394].
Parlatoria reedia Zhang et al.NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria reedia Zhang et al., 2006. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province (25º N., 102.7º E.), 3/1977. Holotype female. Type depository: Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Plant Physiology and Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [ZhangFeLi2006]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustrations in Zhang, et al. 2006.
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria reedia is similar to P. ghanii, but can be distinguished from the latter by: 1) pygidium with four pair of lobes well developed, 2) anterior spiracle with 14 to 18 pores. However, the latter has: 1) pygidium with three pair of lobes well developed, 2) anterior spiracle with 5 to 7 pores. (Zhang, et al. 2006)
CITATIONS: ZhangFeLi2006 [description, illustration: 832-834].
Parlatoria rutherfordi GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria zeylanica Rutherford, 1915: 114-115. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Cinnamomum sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female. Homonym of Parlatoria zeylanica Rutherford 1915. Notes: Rutherford (1915) used the name zeylanica for two species of Parlatoria which were described in the same paper. Green (1922) proposed the name rutherfordi for the second of these (McKenzie, 1945).
Parlatoria rutherfordi Green, 1922a: 1020. Replacement name for Parlatoria zeylanica Rutherford 1915.
HOST: Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [Ruther1915]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1915].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Rutherford (1915).
STRUCTURE: Female scale light brown, composed entirely of the exuviae. 2nd exuviae three times the length of the 1st, both covered with a whitish secretion. A pitchy black area just caudal of the 1st exuviae. Adult female with 3 pairs of lobes, median lobes longer than broad, triangular towards apex, irregularly indented. 2nd lobes often longer than broad or at least as long as broad, the lateral side slightly indented. 3rd lobes not always distinguishable from the lobe-like plates (Rutherford, 1915).
SYSTEMATICS: Rutherford used the name zeylanica for two species of Parlatoria which were described in the same paper. Green (1922) proposed the name rutherfordi for the second of these.
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, structure: 79]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 198]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1922a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1020]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 54, 73-74]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ruther1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 114-115]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 13].
Parlatoria serrula Hall & WilliamsNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria serrula Hall & Williams, 1962: 33-35. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Cocos sp., 06/09/1956, by B. Manickavasagar. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Notes: 2 paratypes in BMNH, same data as holotypes.
HOST: Arecaceae: Cocos sp. [HallWi1962]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [HallWi1962].
BIOLOGY: Three specimens of P. serrula were found on some coconut material heavily infested with Pseudococcus citriculus Green (Hall & Williams, 1962).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Hall & Williams (1962).
STRUCTURE: Slide mounted adult female broader than long, about 0.7 mm broad and 0.6 mm long. Anterior spiracles with 1-3 pores. Thoracic gland tubercles usually only 3, between the anterior spiracles and margin. In the same vicinity, but on the dorsal surface is an 8-shaped cicatrix-like structure one part of which is larger than the other. Pygidium broadly rounded with 3 pairs of lobes; median lobes broad at base, parallel sided over the basal half, with a small, triangular, apically rounded terminal half; 2nd lobes of similar deeply notched form and slightly smaller; 3rd lobes smaller without a notch on inner edge, but with 2 or 3 on outer margin (Hall & Williams, 1962).
SYSTEMATICS: P. serrula is clearly not a typical Parlatoria, but it is assigned to this genus until more is known of other closely allied genera. It bears a slight resemblance to P. aonidiformis Green and Parlaspis papillosa Green. It differs from both in the orientation of the pygidial marginal macroducts and the presence of bosses on the free abdominal segments. The pygidial lobes resemble those found in Parlaspis papillosa, but this species has no cicatrix-like structure. In Parlatoria aonidiformis, the pygidial lobes are of different form and although it has one or two cicatrix-like structures on either side these are on the 2nd abdominal segment and not in the vicinity of the anterior spiracles (Hall & Williams, 1962).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 198]; HallWi1962 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-35].
Parlatoria sexlobata (Takagi & Kawai)NOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoreopsis sexlobatus Takagi & Kawai, 1966: 96-97. Type data: JAPAN: Honshu, on Ilex latifolia and I. pedunculosa, by S. Kawai; Idu-Osima, on Eurya japonica, by S. Kawai. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
Parlatoria sexlobata; Takagi, 1969a: 41. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Aquifoliaceae: Ilex latifolia [TakagiKa1966], Ilex pedunculosa [TakagiKa1966]. Rosaceae: Prunus sp. [DanzigPe1998]. Theaceae: Eurya japonica [TakagiKa1966].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan (Honshu [TakagiKa1966]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi & Kawai (1966).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes well sclerotized and successively smaller, the 4th lobe reduced, low and much less sclerotized. L1 rounded apically, with a deep subapical notch on either side. L2 and L3 with a deep subapical notch on the sloping lateral margin. Derm membranous except for the pygidium (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria sexlobata is readily distinguishable from Parlatoreposis pyri and Parlatoreposis tsugae by L3 being well developed and from octolobatus by L4 reduced and not sclerotized (Takagi & Kawai, 1966).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan].
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 331]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 193]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 67]; Takagi1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 41]; TakagiKa1966 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96-97]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183].
Parlatoria stigmadisculosa BellioNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria stigmadisculosa Bellio, 1929a: 240-243. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on Graminaceae, 1/03/1925. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae [Bellio1929a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Bellio1929a]).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, slightly oval, slightly convex, dirty white, exuviae darker (McKenzie, 1945).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria stigmadisculosa is close to P. proteus differing by the greater number of disc pores associated with the anterior spiracles (McKenzie, 1945).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 13 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 77 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 240-243]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 198]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 234]; Chou1986 [illustration: 639]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 331]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 157]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 74, 77]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 107]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273].
Parlatoria theae CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria theae Cockerell, 1896h: 21. Type data: JAPAN: on Thea sp., by Takahashi. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female.
Parlatoria theae viridis Cockerell, 1896h: 21. Type data: JAPAN: on ornamental plant, by Craw. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Kuwana, 1925: 12.
Parlatoria theae euonymi Cockerell, 1897p: 591-592. Type data: JAPAN: on Euonymus sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Synonymy by Kuwana, 1925: 12.
Parlatoria viridis; Cockerell, 1897p: 592. Change of status.
Parlatoria pergandei theae; Kuwana, 1902: 78-79. Change of status.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Theae; Leonardi, 1903a: 15. Change of combination.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Theae viridis; Leonardi, 1903a: 19. Change of combination.
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) Theae Evonymi; Leonardi, 1903a: 20. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet. Notes: This is also a misspelling of euonymi.
Syngenaspis theae; MacGillivray, 1921: 249. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis theae viridis; MacGillivray, 1921: 249. Change of combination.
Syngenaspis theae euonymi; MacGillivray, 1921: 250. Change of combination.
Parlatoria pergandei dives Bellio, 1929a: 234-235. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, on Thea sp. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 53.
Parlatoria dives; McKenzie, 1945: 53. Change of status.
Parlatoria euonymi; McKenzie, 1945: 53. Change of status.
Parlatoreopsis theae; Kawai, 1972: 22. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: tea parlatoria scale [McKenz1956].
ASSOCIATE: FLAVOBACTERIA [RosenbSaSa2012].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer crataegifolium [Kuwana1902], Acer japonicum [Borchs1937a], Acer mono [Muraka1970], Acer palmatum [Kuwana1925], Acer pictum mono [Kuwana1902], Acer polymorphum [Borchs1937a], Acer sp. [Kuwana1925, MillerDa2005]. Adoxaceae: Viburnum sp. [MillerDa2005]. Aquifoliaceae: Ilex cornuta typica [Paik1978], Ilex pedunculosa [Cocker1899s], Ilex sp. [Borchs1937a]. Arecaceae: Rhapis humulis [Tang1984b]. Caprifoliaceae: Viburnum awabuki [Muraka1970], Viburnum dilatatum [Borchs1937a], Viburnum odoratissimum [Kuwana1925], Viburnum tomentosum [Muraka1970]. Celastraceae: Euonymus japonica [Kuwana1925], Euonymus radicans [Muraka1970], Euonymus sp. [Cocker1897p, MillerDa2005], Masakia japonica [Paik1978]. Cornaceae: Aucuba japonica [Takagi1960], Aucuba japonica typica [Paik1978], Cornus controversa [Muraka1970], Cornus macrophylla [Kuwana1902], Cornus sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005]. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki [Kuwana1902], Diospyros sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Elaeagnaceae: Elaeagnus pungens [Kuwana1925], Elaeagnus radicans [Borchs1937a], Elaeagnus sp. [Morris1939a]. Ericaceae: Enkianthus sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp. [Borchs1966], Croton sp. [MillerDa2005], Euphorbia sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Poinsettia sp. [Borchs1966]. Fabaceae: Bauhinia sp. [Borchs1937a]. Garryaceae: Aucuba sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005]. Hamamelidaceae: Corylopsis sp. [MillerDa2005]. Lauraceae: Neolitsea sericea [Paik1978], Persea sp. [Borchs1966]. Lythraceae: Punica sp. [MillerDa2005]. Magnoliaceae: Magnolia longifolia [Borchs1937a], Magnolia sp. [Borchs1937a]. Malvaceae: Althaea sp. [MillerDa2005], Hibiscus sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005], Hibiscus syriacus chinensis [Paik1978], Hibiscus syriacus [Kuwana1902]. Myricaceae: Myrica rubra [Cheo1935]. Oleaceae: Osmanthus fragrans [Kuwana1902], Osmanthus sp. [Morris1939a], Syringa sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rosaceae: Armeniaca sp. [Borchs1966], Armeniaca vulgaris [Borchs1937a], Cerasus sp. [Borchs1966], Cotoneaster sp. [MillerDa2005], Crataegus sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005], Cydonia japonica [Borchs1937a], Eriobotrya sp. [Borchs1966], Kerria japonica [Muraka1970], Lunoynus sp. [Borchs1937a], Malus pumila [Muraka1970], Malus sp. [Borchs1960b, MillerDa2005], Persica vulgaris [Borchs1937a], Photinia sp. [Borchs1937a], Prunus domestica [Cheo1935], Prunus mume [Muraka1970], Prunus persica [Muraka1970], Prunus sp. [Borchs1937a, MillerDa2005], Pyracantha sp. [Borchs1966], Pyrus serotina [Kuwana1925], Pyrus serotina culta [Paik1978], Pyrus simonii [TakahaTa1956], Pyrus sp. [MillerDa2005], Rosa sp. [Kuwana1925], Spiraea sp. [MillerDa2005]. Rutaceae: Citrus sp. [Morris1939a, MillerDa2005], Citrus trifoliata [Borchs1937a], Poncirus sp. [Morris1939a], Poncirus trifoliata [Kuwana1925], Xanthoxylum sp. [MillerDa2005], Zanthoxylum piperitum? [Borchs1937a]. Saxifragaceae: Ribes nigrum [Borchs1937a]. Smilacaceae: Smilax sieboldii [Paik1978]. Staphyleaceae: Staphylea sp. [Borchs1966, MillerDa2005]. Styracaceae: Styrax sp. [Borchs1937a]. Taxaceae: Podocarpus nagi [Kuwana1925], Podocarpus sp. [Morris1939a]. Theaceae: Camellia japonica [Muraka1970], Camellia oleoifera [Hua2000], Camellia sinensis [Hua2000], Camellia sp. [MillerDa2005], Eurya ochracea [Kuwana1925], Eurya sp. [Morris1939a], Thea japonica [Kuwana1925], Thea sinensis [Kuwana1925], Thea sp. [Cocker1896h]. Trochodendraceae: Trochodendron aralioides [Takagi1969a]. Ulmaceae: Celtis sp. [Borchs1966], Cleyera ochnacea [Muraka1970]. Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera [Kuwana1925].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands [MillerDa2005]. Nearctic: Canada (Ontario [Jarvis1911] (In the Ontario Agricultural College greenhouse at Guelph.)); United States of America (California [Craw1896, Morris1939a, MillerDa2005] (Craw (1896) found Parlatoria theae on ornamental plants from Japan.), District of Columbia [Morris1939a, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Georgia [Morris1939a], Maryland [Morris1939a, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005], Mississippi [MillerDa2005], Missouri [Morris1939a] (Hollinger (1923) states that this species is introduced to Missouri.), New York [FeltMo1928], North Carolina [Wray1967, MillerDa2005], Texas [Morris1939a, McDani1972a, MillerDa2005], Virginia [Morris1939a, Koszta1996, MillerDa2005]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Cheo1935], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Cheo1935], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Hua2000], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [Hua2000], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Hua2000], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Hua2000], Yunnan [Ferris1950a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Cheo1935]); Philippines [Morris1939a]; Taiwan [Takagi1969a]. Palaearctic: Belgium [Balach1953g]; China [Morris1939a] (Henan (=Honan) [Tang1984b], Liaoning [Hua2000], Ningxia (=Ningsia) [Tang1984b], Shandong (=Shantung) [Hua2000]); France [Balach1953g, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Gogibe1938]; Greece [Balach1953g]; Iran [Kaussa1970, KozarFoZa1996]; Italy [Balach1953g]; Japan [Cocker1896h, MillerDa2005] (Honshu [Kuwana1902], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Madeira Islands [Balach1953g, FrancoRuMa2011]; Netherlands [Balach1953g]; Portugal [Balach1953g, FrancoRuMa2011]; Russia [DanzigPe1998]; South Korea [SuhJi2009]; Spain [Balach1953g]; Ukraine [Terezn1986]; United Kingdom (England [Morris1939a]).
BIOLOGY: Very little biological information has been published about this species. It has been reported to have 2 (Hadzibejli 1983) or 2-3 (Borchsenius 1963) generations each year. Some biological data have been published by Chou (1984) and Kobakhidze (1954). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Body broadly oval. Derm pockets present. Pygidial lobes progressively smaller from the median to the 3rd, but not much; 4th and 5th each in small, sclerotized, angular, serrate process. Gland tubercles: 2-4 prespiraculars, 2-4 anterior spiraculars, 6-14 mesothoracics, 6-13 metathoracics and 7-10 first abdominals (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria theae is close to P. pergandii, but may be separated by the presence of a derm pocket between posterior spiracle and body margin and by the normally more numerous perivulvar pores in both anterior and posterior groups (McKenzie, 1945). According to Balachowsky (1953g), many records of P. pergandii actually refer to P. theae.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest. The tea parlatoria scale is considered to be a pest of apple (Kozár 1990a), pear (Clausen 1931), and tea (Ebeling 1959, Kobakhidze 1954). It has been reported as a citrus pest in Mediterranean areas (Balachowsky 1953), but these records may be based on misidentifications. The species was considered to be a serious enough threat to California agriculture that intensive control measures were taken and the species was eradicated from that state. Westcott (1973) considered it a serious pest of camellia in the southeastern U.S. Beardsley and González (1975) included it in their list of 43 armored scales considered as principal pests of the world. (Miller & Davidson, 2005). (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult females)]; Gill 1997: 217 (female) [Key to California species of Parlatoria]; Kosztarab 1996: 551 (female) [Key to Northeastern North American species of Parlatoria]; Kosztarab 1996: 551 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Northeastern North America]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Paik 1978: 370 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Takagi 1960: 70 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 322 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1956: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 778 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 171 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 79 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:59 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 31 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Kuwana 1925: 6 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Hollinger 1923: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria in Missouri].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79-80]; AndersWuGr2010 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 996-1003]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 778, 813-816]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 322, 331, 333]; BeardsGo1975 [economic importance: 49]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 234-235]; BenassBi1967 [distribution, host: 250]; BoratyWi1964a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 104]; Borchs1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 121-122]; Borchs1937a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 85, 88, 101]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 171]; Borchs1960b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 216, 218]; Borchs1963a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 130, 142, 163,]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 198-199]; Borchs1973 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 105, 142, 173, 212,]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Cheo1935 [distribution, host: 102]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 227-228]; Chou1986 [illustration: 640]; Clause1931 [distribution, host: 11, 27, 38, 41, 77,]; Cocker1896g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 43-44]; Cocker1896h [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 21]; Cocker1896i [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 55]; Cocker1897j [distribution, host, taxonomy: 5]; Cocker1897p [description, taxonomy: 591-592]; Cocker1899s [distribution, host: 258]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Craw1896 [distribution, host: 42]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 219]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 99-100]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 331-332]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance: 175]; Felt1901 [distribution, host: 360]; FeltMo1928 [distribution, host: 202]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 321]; Ferris1937 [taxonomy: SI-88]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-403, SIV-446:59]; Ferris1950a [distribution, host: 76]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 28]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 306]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Gill1997 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 217, 221, 229]; Gogibe1938 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 46]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 198-200, 276]; Hartma1916 [distribution, host: 109]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 35, 67]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 198-199]; Jarvis1911 [distribution, host: 73]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 8]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 22]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 22, 152]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 191]; Koszta1996 [catalogue, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 551, 558-559]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarKo1981 [distribution: 214, 220]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; KozarYaKo1982 [distribution, host: 334, 335]; Kuwana1902 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 78-79]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 199-200]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6, 12-16]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 15, 18-20]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 180]; Lindin1936 [distribution: 150]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 249, 250]; McDani1972a [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 332-333]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 53, 54, 74-75, 79]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; McKenz1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 145, 147]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 334]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 5]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 48]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 25-27, 31]; MorseNo2006 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 340]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 68]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 68]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; NormarJo2010 [ecology, host: 3]; Paik1958 [distribution, host: 32]; Paik1978 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 370, 373-374]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 139-140]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, host: 503]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351]; RosenbSaSa2012 [ecology, molecular data, physiology: 2357-2368]; SassceWe1923 [chemical control: 87]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 19]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 34, 51]; TakahaTa1956 [distribution, host: 13]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180-183]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 73-74]; Tang1984b [distribution, host: 128]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 107]; Terezn1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20-21]; Vayssi1921 [taxonomy: 357]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Whitne1912 [distribution, host: 737]; Wray1967 [distribution, host: 34]; Wu1935 [distribution, host: 246]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273].
Parlatoria tsugicola TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria tsugicola Takagi, 1977: 16-21. Type data: NEPAL: Bagmati Zone, Langtang Valley, Ghora Tobela, on Tsuga dumosa, 23/09/1975, by S. Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Pinaceae: Tsuga dumosa [Takagi1977].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Nepal [Takagi1977].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1977).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria tsugicola and P. abieticola have no close relatives among other known species of this genus. These two are similar to P. banksiae in having well-developed submedian series of macroducts, but are quite different from the latter in the characters of the pygidial margin (Takagi, 1977).
CITATIONS: Takagi1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-21]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 13].
Parlatoria tsujii TanakaNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria tsujii Tanaka, 2010: 179-183. Type data: JAPAN: Okinawa Is., Nakagami-gun, Nisihara (Nishihara), Senbaru, on Cycas revoluta, 4/28/2009, by K. Tsuji. Holotype female (examined). Type depository: Fujukan: University Museum, University of Ryukus, Japan. Described: female. Illust. Notes: 3 paratypes deposited in Dr. Kawai's scale insect collection at the Tokyo University of Agriculture
GENERAL REMARKS: Description, photograph and illustration in Tanaka, 2010.
STRUCTURE: Living adult female cast extremely elongated, mostly brownish yellow, exuvial casts on anterior margin. 1st instar cast whitish yellow, second instar cast yellow. Occuring on upper surface of Cycas needles. Slide mounted female body elongate oval, meso- and metathorax and basal abdominal segments moderately lobed laterally, prgidium almost rounded. Derm membranous except for a broad median region of dorsal surface of pygidium. Derm pockets present between posterior spiracles and body margin. (Tanaka, 2010)
SYSTEMATICS: P. tsujii resembles P. camelliae Comstock in the general features, however, the pygidial plates occurring between the median, second and third lobes are divided into two or three times. P. camelliae usually has fimbriated plates between the lobes, In addition, the test is extraordinarily elongated for a member of this genus. P. tsujii also resembles P. mytilaspiformis Green in the shape of the sult female, however, it differs in having submedian dorsal microducts that P. mytilaspiformis lacks. (Tanaka, 2010)
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan].
CITATIONS: Tanaka2010 [description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy: 179-183].
Parlatoria vandae McKenzieNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria vandae McKenzie, 1960b: 208-211. Type data: UNITED STATES: California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, on Vanda sp., 05/01/1960, by A. Beresford. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in UCDC and USNM.
HOSTS: Orchidaceae: Vanda sp. [McKenz1960b], Vanda terres [McKenz1960b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Guam [Nakaha1982]; Hawaiian Islands (Oahu [McKenz1960b]). Nearctic: United States of America (California [McKenz1960b]). Neotropical: Jamaica [Nakaha1982]; Panama Canal Zone [McKenz1960b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by McKenzie (1960b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 1.25 mm long, 0.90 mm wide, quite flat, grayish-brown with exuviae a slightly darker brown. Relatively few dorsal submarginal macroducts present, tabulated range from 12-28, with an average of 20.5 on each side. 3 pairs of normally developed pygidial lobes, plainly graduated in size from median to outer, median pair largest, distinctly notched on outer margin, slightly notched if at all on inner margin; 4th and 5th lobes represented by a definitely sclerotized asymmetrical short conical projection of body margin having usually 1 relatively large and conspicuous projecting tooth just inside its midline (McKenzie, 1960b).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria vandae is very similar to P. pergandii, particularly in the character of the pygidial fringe, but it differs in having fewer dorsal submarginal macroducts on pygidium. P. vandae also appears to be host specific on Vanda, whereas accurate records of P. pergandii indicate that it has not been found on orchids and its more of a general feeder (McKenzie, 1960b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; McKenz1960b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 208-211]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 403]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 69]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 351].
Parlatoria vateriae GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria (Websteriella) vateriae Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919a: 26. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1919c: 444.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) vateriae Green, 1919c: 444. Type data: INDIA: Kerala, Travancore, Quilon, on Vateria indica, by Ramakrishna. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Apteronidia vateriae; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Dipterocarpaceae: Vateria indica [Green1919c].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Kerala [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale irregularly ovate, flattish; consisting of larval and nymphal exuviae, without any secretionary appendix. Larval exuviae slightly projecting beyond anterior margin of nymphal exuviae; subcircular; very pale straminous. Adult female minute, about 0.5 mm long, entirely covered by nymphal exuviae. Thoracic area and pygidium rigid and indurated, the former with a small translucent oval space on each side of the rostrum (Green, 1919c).
SYSTEMATICS: With its long sharply pointed lobes and reduced semilunar pores, P. vateriae is very distinct from other Parlatoria species (Green, 1919c). Takagi (1969a) felt that P. vateriae was very close to Neoparlatoria.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 444]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 37]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 54]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 26]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 361]; Ramakr1924 [taxonomy: 342]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 33]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 43]; Takaha1931b [distribution, taxonomy: 383]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 13].
Parlatoria yanyuanensis TangNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria yanyuanensis Tang, 1984: 84. Type data: CHINA: Sichuan, Yanyuan, on Malus pumila; Xichang, Broussonetia papyrifera. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Shanxi: Entomological Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, China. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Broussonetia papyrifera [Tang1984]. Rosaceae: Malus pumila [Tang1984].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Sichuan (=Szechwan) [Tang1984]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Tang (1984).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, about 2.0 mm in diameter, white, exuviae yellowish brown. Male scale elongate, 1.0 mm long, similar in color. Adult female body near pyriform, about 1.38 mm long and 1.08 mm wide. Five pairs of well developed lobes (Tang, 1984).
SYSTEMATICS: P. yanyuanensis is close to P. oleae, but differs in having far more dorsal macroducts and in the different position of the anus which is closer to the center of pygidium (Tang, 1984).
CITATIONS: DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332]; Hua2000 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 157]; LuWu1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 17-19]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 84, 86, 113]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 107].
Parlatoria yunnanensis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria yunnanensis Ferris, 1950a: 76. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan, Kunming, An-lin-wen-chian, on Pistacia chinensis, 02/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Paratypes in UCDC and USNM.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia chinensis [Ferris1950a]. Fabaceae: Gleditschia delavayi [Ferris1950a]. Rhamnaceae: Rhamnus davrica [Tao1999], Rhamnus sp. [Ferris1950a]. Rosaceae: Prunus persica [Hua2000], Prunus salicina [Hua2000], Prunus sericina [Ferris1950a], Prunus sp. [Ali1969]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1950a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1950a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 2.0 mm long, oval, white, quite flat, with exuviae at one end; both exuviae more or less gray or with a slightly greenish tinge. Male scale shorter than that of female, elongate, slender, same texture and color as female; exuviae apical. Adult female about 1.0 mm long. Median pygidial lobes broad, straight and parallel, apically rounded, with very slight crenulation of the lateral margin toward the apex. 2nd and 3rd pygidial lobes low and broad, giving the appearance of pointing toward the midline (Ferris, 1950a).
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria yunnanensis is close to P. cinerea, but is distinct. In P. cinerea there is a longitudinal row of 3 or more pores on each side of the anal opening, and the submedian series is made up of a single or irregularly double row of pores which extends from a point anterior to the anal opening almost to the base of the 3rd lobe. In yunnanensis, there are no such pores on each side of the anal opening and the submedian group is quite compact, forming an irregular cluster or a convoluted line of 10 or more pores and in addition a submedian cluster of pores is present on the prepygidial segment (Ferris, 1950a).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 15 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 237]; Chou1986 [illustration: 646]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332]; Ferris1950a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 76, 92]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 157]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 15]; Tang1984 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 87-88]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 107]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273].
Parlatoria zeylanica RutherfordNOMENCLATURE:
Parlatoria zeylanica Rutherford, 1915: 113. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Bambusa sp., ?/08/1914. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: female. Notes: Rutherford (1915) used the name zeylanica for two species of Parlatoria which were described in the same paper. Green (1922) proposed the name rutherfordi for the second of these (McKenzie, 1945).
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Ruther1915]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ruther1915].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Rutherford (1915).
STRUCTURE: Adult female slightly longer than broad and broadly rounded at the anterior end. Abdominal segments distinct. Pygidium slightly chitinized, its base showing a faint tessellation (Rutherford, 1915).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1987) states that "Parlatoria zeylanica, described by Rutherford as an adult female, must be the second instar male of an Odonaspis species (O. secreta or O. greeni).
KEYS: McKenzie 1952: 13 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1945: 77 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria].
CITATIONS: Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199]; Green1922 [distribution, host: 465]; Green1922a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 1020]; Green1937 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 340]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 27]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 54, 76, 77]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 13]; Ramakr1926 [distribution, host: 457]; Ruther1915 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 113]; Takagi1987 [taxonomy: 8]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 13].
Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas)NOMENCLATURE:
Coccus ziziphi Lucas, 1853: xxix. Type data: FRANCE: on Ziziphus pinnachristi. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Chermes aurantii Boisduval, 1867: 338-339. Type data: ALGERIA: Blidah, on Citrus sp. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Synonymy by McKenzie, 1945: 54. Notes: Types presumed lost.
Parlatoria Lucassi Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 735. Nomen nudum; discovered by Ferris, 1937: SI-84.
Parlatoria zizyphi; Signoret, 1869a: 451. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria Lucasi; Targioni Tozzetti, 1884: 398. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria ziziphe; Osborn, 1898: 227. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria ziziphi; Grandpre & Charmoy, 1899: 27. Change of combination.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) Zizyphi; Leonardi, 1899a: 7. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Parlatoria zizyphus; Cockerell, 1900: 349. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria ziziphus; Fernald, 1903b: 322. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria zyziphi; Leonardi, 1907: 118. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatorea zizyphi; Lindinger, 1912b: 108. Misspelling of genus and species names.
Parlatoria zozypium; Froggatt, 1914: 601. Misspelling of species name.
Parlatoria (Websteriella) ziziphus; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919: 26. Change of combination.
Apteronidia ziziphi; Lindinger, 1934: 62. Change of combination.
Diaspis ziziphus; Lindinger, 1934: 62. Change of combination.
Parlatoreopsis ziziphi; Kawai, 1972: 23. Change of combination.
Parlatoria zyziphi; Guénaoui et al., 2003: 135. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAMES: black parlatoria scale [DeBachRo1976]; citrus parlatoria [DanzigPe1998]; cochenille noire de l'oranger [Foldi2001]; ebony scale [Bedfor1998a]; escama parlatoria negra [CoronaRuMo1997]; Mediterranean scale [VelasqRi1969].
ASSOCIATES: ACARI Acaridae: Monieziella mal [Coorem1951]. ACARIFORMES Cheyletidae: Cheletogenes ornatus [Coorem1951].
FOES: ACARI Hemisarcoptidae: Hemisarcoptes malus [HertinSi1972, Coorem1951]. COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [BlackbMi1984], Chilocorus nigritus [HertinSi1972], Chilocorus sp. [Fulmek1943], Exochomus quadripustulatus [BlackbMi1984], Exochomus sp. [Fulmek1943], Lindorus lophanthae [HertinSi1972, Smirno1950a], Orcus chalybeus [BlackbMi1984], Pharoscymnus taoi [BlackbMi1984], Rhyzobius lophanthae Blaisdell [StathaBoEl2005]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus flaviceps [HertinSi1972], Cybocephalus fodori Entrody Younga [Statha2008]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelinus sp. [Fulmek1943], Aphytis aonidiae [NikolsYa1966], Aphytis chrysomphali [HertinSi1972], Aphytis proclia [HertinSi1972], Aphytis sp. [AhmadGh1972, BenassOnPa1973], Arrhenophagus chionaspidis [HertinSi1972], Aspidiophagus agilior [Balach1953g], Aspidiophagus citrinus [Fulmek1943], Aspidiophagus lounsburyi [Dozier1933, Fulmek1943], Encarsia citrina [HuangPo1998, Viggia1987], Encarsia elongata [HuangPo1998], Encarsia lounsburyi [HuangPo1998], Habrolepis aspidioti [AbdRab1999], Marietta leopardina [AbdRab1999]. Mymaridae: Alaptus minutus [BlackbMi1984], Arescon auleurodiphaga [HertinSi1972], Mymariella parlatoreae [HertinSi1972].
HOSTS: Apocynaceae: Carissa sp. [BlackbMi1984]. Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera [Hua2000], Phoenix sp. [BlackbMi1984]. Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum sp.? [Mamet1943a]. Moraceae: Ficus nitida [ShafikHu1938]. Myrtaceae: Psidium sp. [Maskel1897a]. Oleaceae: Ligustrum sp. [Ferris1950a]. Orchidaceae: Cymbidium aloeifolium? [GrandpCh1899, Mamet1943a]. Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus sp. [GhabboMo1996, MillerDa2005], Zizyphus pimachristi [Lucas1853]. Rubiaceae: Damnacanthus sp. [Tao1999]. Rutaceae: Atalanta buxifolia [MartinLa2011], Citrus acida [Green1914c], Citrus aurantifolia [Sankar1984, Heu2002], Citrus aurantium [Beards1966, PellizPoSe2011], Citrus aurantium dulcis [Aysu1950], Citrus decumana [Fuller1899], Citrus deliciosa [DeLott1967a], Citrus grandis buntan [Muraka1970], Citrus grandis [Heu2002], Citrus limon [MartinLa2011], Citrus limonium [Hadzib1941], Citrus medica [GhabboMo1996], Citrus medica chirocarpa [ChenWo1936], Citrus nobilis [GhabboMo1996], Citrus nobilis deliciosa [ChenWo1936], Citrus paradisi [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Citrus reticulata [ColonFMe1998, Heu2002], Citrus sinensis [GhabboMo1996, Heu2002], Citrus sp. [Boisdu1867, MillerDa2005], Citrus tardiferax [ChenWo1936], Citrus unshiu [Muraka1970], Murraya exotica [ChenWo1936], Murraya sp. [MillerDa2005], Poncirus sp. [MillerDa2005], Poncirus trifolia [Tao1999], Severinia buxifolia [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Severinia sp. [MillerDa2005]. Sapindaceae: Nephelium lappaceum L. [HernanNiMa2011]. Theaceae: Camellia sinensis [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [Balach1953g]; Central African Republic [BlackbMi1984]; Côte d'Ivoire (=Ivory Coast) [BlackbMi1984]; Eritrea [DeLott1967a]; Ethiopia [BlackbMi1984]; Gambia [BlackbMi1984]; Ghana [BlackbMi1984]; Guinea [BlackbMi1984]; Liberia [BlackbMi1984]; Mali [BlackbMi1984]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, WilliaWi1988]; Nigeria [Medler1980]; Senegal [Balach1953g]; Sierra Leone [Balach1953g]; South Africa [Lounsb1914, BrainKe1917]; Togo [BlackbMi1984]; Zaire [Balach1953g]. Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1914c], Western Australia [Maskel1896b] (This record was a collection at quarantine from Italy (Maskell, 1896b).)); Federated States of Micronesia (Ponape Island [Beards1966], Truk Islands [BlackbMi1984]); Guam [BlackbMi1984]; Hawaiian Islands [Cocker1899q, Kirkal1904b, MillerDa2005] (Hawaii [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Kauai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Maui [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Molokai [Nakaha1981a, Heu2002], Oahu [Zimmer1948, Heu2002] (Zimmerman (1948) lists this species as an immigrant to Hawaii. First observed in 1898.)); Indonesia (Java [Morris1939a, Kalsho1981]); New Zealand [Morris1939a] (Charles & Henderson (2002) state that they found literature records to be erroneous and Parlatoria ziziphi is not considered to be present in New Zealand. They state that Maskell (1896) reported P. ziziphi from Western Australia on lemons and oranges imported from Sicily, and in 1897 received specimens from Hong Kong on orange. P. ziziphi was also intercepted at quarantine, United States, from citrus shipped via New Zealand (original source uncertain) (Morrison 1939, p. 11 footnote). There are no verified records of P. ziziphi from New Zealand (Henderson 2000).); Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [BlackbMi1984]. Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Wilson1917, MillerDa2005]). Neotropical: Argentina [Lizery1938]; Barbados [BlackbMi1984]; Bermuda [HodgsoHi1990]; Brazil [BlackbMi1984]; Colombia [BlackbMi1984]; Cuba [Morris1939a]; Dominica [Morris1939a]; Dominican Republic [BlackbMi1984]; Guatemala [BlackbMi1984]; Guyana [Mamet1943a]; Haiti [Dozier1933]; Jamaica [Fletch1919] (Fletcher (1919) states that this species was introduced to Jamaica from India.); Panama [BlackbMi1984]; Peru [BlackbMi1984]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [ColonFMe1998]); Saint Croix [Nakaha1983]; Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad [BlackbMi1984]); Venezuela [BlackbMi1984]. Oriental: Bangladesh [BlackbMi1984]; Burma (=Myanmar) [Clause1933]; China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Cheo1935], Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Cheo1935], Guangxi (=Kwangsi) [Tao1999], Hainan [Tao1999], Hubei (=Hupei) [Hua2000], Hunan [Wang1936], Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) [ChenWo1936], Jiangxi (=Kiangsi) [Tao1999], Sichuan (=Szechwan) [ChenWo1936], Yunnan [Ferris1950a], Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Cheo1935]); Hong Kong [Maskel1896b]; India [ChenWo1936] (Tamil Nadu [Fletch1919], West Bengal [Green1903a]). Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Clause1933]). Oriental: Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [Nickel1979]; Laos [BlackbMi1984]; Malaysia (Malaya [ChenWo1936, Bedfor1998a]); Pakistan [AhmadGh1972]; Philippines [CockerRo1915a] (Luzon [Robins1917]); Singapore [Fuller1899]; Sri Lanka [Balach1953g]; Taiwan [Maskel1897a]; Thailand [Takaha1942b, NakaoTaTa1977]; Vietnam [BlackbMi1984]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Boisdu1867]; Azerbaijan [Balach1953g]; Bulgaria [Tschor1939]; Canary Islands [CarnerPe1986, MatileOr2001]; China (Beijing (=Peking) [Tao1999], Hebei (=Hopei) [Cheo1935], Xizang (=Tibet) [Hua2000]); Crete [Ayouta1940, PellizPoSe2011]; Croatia [MastenSi2008]; Cyprus [Georgh1977]; Egypt [Newste1911, AbdRab1999]; France [Lucas1853, Perrie1926, Foldi2001]; Georgia [Hadzib1941]; Germany [DanzigPe1998]; Greece [Korone1934]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Israel? [BlackbMi1984] (This distribution record is based on an erroneous quarantine report. A passenger on an Israeli airline carrying an infested orange was quarantined, but the orange most likely came from another Mediterranean country. This species has not been collected in Israel (Ben-Dov, personal communication, 02/05/02).); Italy [Osborn1898, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Japan [MillerDa2005] (Honshu [Muraka1970], Kyushu [Kuwana1925]); Lebanon [BlackbMi1984]; Libya [Lupo1947]; Malta [Newste1911, Borg1919]; Morocco [Vayssi1920, LepineMi1931]; Poland [Komosi1964]; Portugal [Morris1939a, FrancoRuMa2011]; Romania [Knecht1930]; Sardinia [Paoli1915, LongoMaPe1995] (Longo et al. (1995) lists this as an introduced and acclimatized species.); Saudi Arabia [BlackbMi1984]; Sicily [Maskel1897, Morris1939a, Monast1962]; Spain [ChenWo1936]; Switzerland [Tao1999]; Syria [BlackbMi1984]; Tunisia [ChenWo1936, Lupo1947]; Turkey [Aysu1950]; Turkmenistan [Lashin1956]; Ukraine [Terezn1986] (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Terezn1968b]).
BIOLOGY: In the Levante region of Spain there are 3 to 5 generations each year (Gomez Clemente 1943). All stages of development can be found throughout the year. The adult female lays from 8 to 20 eggs which may serve as the overwintering form when they are laid in the fall (Gomez Clemente 1943). In the Caucasus, the scale produces 2 ½ generations each year, and overwinters in the second instar (Borchsenius 1950). In Taiwan, there are up to 7 generations each year; a generation requires about 42 days to develop from June to August and about 93 days during cooler weather. Depending on the season, the egg stage lasts 2-4 days, the first instar 6-13 days, the second instar 13-30 days, and the adult female lives 11-24 days. The oviposition period lasts 7-18 days (Chang and Tao 1963). There are 5 generations each year in Sicily, and the complete life cycle takes 30-40 days under favorable conditions (Monastero 1962). A generation requires 75-80 days in Tunisia during warm periods, and up to 160 days during cool periods (Bénassy and Soria 1964). (Miller & Davidson, 2005). P. ziziphi is biparental and oviparous and infests mainly the upper-leaf surfaces and the fruits of the sour-orange in Greece. All developmental stages are present throughout the year, indicating that the diaspidid completed several overlapping generations anually. The number of crawlers was very low during January and February, followed by a sharp increase in April. Male nymphs increased during April, June and July. A generation time of about 62 days was observed on sour-orange in the laboratory. (Stathas, et al., 2008)
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takagi (1969a) and Blackburn & Miller (1984). This species is often taken on fruit in markets. For example it has been reported in Iowa (Osborn, 1898), Mississippi (Herrick, 1911), and Missouri (Hollinger, 1923) in stores, but the species is not established in these states.
STRUCTURE: Female scale is long and black, due to the color of the exuviae which are so large that they cover nearly the whole scale. Male scale is dirty white with black exuviae (Comstock, 1883). The second instar male is broadly oval. Derm membranous except for the pygidium. The eyes very inconspicuous, visible as a pair of small marginal spots. Pygidium rounded, composed of 6-8 abdominal segments. Head and thorax nealy fused, metathorax and abdomenal segments 1-5 fairly well marked by intersegmental furrows. Anal opening nearly circular. Antennae reduced to small tubercles with a long stout seta at the base. The second instar males had a well developed gladular system, a pair of dorsal submedian setae on the 1st segment and three pairs of setae between antennae and anterior margin of clypeolabral shield. Second instar females differed from the second-instar males in less developed gladular system, lack of dorsal submedian setae on the 1st abdominal segment and lack of ventral setae between antennae and anterior margin of the clypeolabral shield. (Podsiadlo & Bugila, 2007)
SYSTEMATICS: Parlatoria ziziphi can be distinguished from all other species of Parlatoria by the earlike, marginal, prosomatic lobes laterad of the anterior spiracles; the rectangular, black scale cover and the white wax fringe that surrounds the posterior half of the cover (Blackburn & Miller, 1984).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a serious and widespread pest. Parlatoria ziziphi can cause dieback in twigs, premature drop of fruit and leaves and deformation of fruit, but it is most serious as a fruit contaminant (Blackburn & Miller, 1984). The black parlatoria scale has long been considered one of the major pests of citrus in certain areas. It is reported as important in the following countries: Brazil (Gravena et al. 1992), China (Chen 1936), Egypt (Coll and Abd-Rabou 1998, Hosny 1943), Iran (Zoebelein 1966), Italy (Liotta 1970), Libya (Martin 1954), Nigeria (Boboye 1971), Puerto Rico (Cruz and Segarra 1991), Taiwan (Chang and Tao 1963), and Tunisia (Bénassy and Soria 1964). Talhouk (1975) in his treatment of citrus pests of the world, lists black parlatoria scale as economically important in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and southeast Asia; he lists it as causing some damage in Greece, Italy, Spain, Israel, Egypt, and South Africa. He noted that in some countries the scale may not be considered a pest, but populations occasionally become a problem in localized areas. Rose (1990b) also included the black parlatoria scale as an important pest of citrus in many parts of the world. Heavy infestations of this scale cause chlorosis and premature drop of leaves, die back of twigs and branches, stunting and distortion of fruit, and premature fruit drop. Perhaps the most characteristic damage is the virtually unremovable scale cover on the fruit. Beardsley and González (1975) consider this to be one of 43 major armored scale pests, and Miller and Davidson (1990) treated it as a serious world pest. (Miller & Davidson, 2005).
KEYS: Tanaka 2010: 180-183 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of Japan]; Suh & Ji 2009: 1041-1043 (female) [Key to species of armored scales intercepted on imported plants (slide mounted adult females)]; Colón-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud 1998: 113 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Puerto Rico]; Danzig 1993: 83 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Williams & Watson 1988: 202 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Chou 1985: 221 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Wang 1982c: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Paik 1978: 369 (female) [as Parlatoria zizyphus; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Danzig 1971d: 840 (female) [Key to species of the family Diaspididae]; Beardsley 1966: 550 (female) [as Parlatoria zizyphus; Key to species of Parlatoria known from Micronesia]; Takagi 1960: 70 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1958b: 321 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ezzat 1958: 249 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria of Egypt]; Gómez-Menor Ortega 1956: 54 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Balachowsky 1953g: 776 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; McKenzie 1952: 14 [Revised key to species of Parlatoria]; Borchsenius 1950b: 170 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Zimmerman 1948: 394 (female) [as Parlatoria zizyphus; Key to species of Parlatoria]; Hall 1946a: 527 (female) [Key to Parlatoria species of the Ethiopian Region]; McKenzie 1945: 78 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Ferris 1942: SIV-446:58 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Morrison 1939a: 29 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Fullaway 1932: 96, 99 (female) [Key to species of Hawaiian Diaspinae]; Kuwana 1925: 5 (female) [Key to Japanese species of Parlatoria]; Britton 1923: 380 [Key to species of Parlatoria of Connecticut]; Hollinger 1923: 34 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria in Missouri]; Robinson 1917: 27 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Palmer 1905: 145 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Newstead 1901b: 140 (female) [Key to species of Parlatoria]; Cockerell 1900k: 349 (female) [as Parlatoria zizyphus; Table to separate the commoner scales (Coccidae) of the orange].
CITATIONS: AbdRab1999 [biological control, distribution: 1122]; AbdRab2001a [biological control, distribution, host: 174, 176]; AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 94]; Ali1969 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; AnneckPr1974 [biological control, distribution: 38]; Argyri1977 [distribution, host: 360]; Ayouta1940 [distribution: 3M]; Aysu1950 [distribution, host: 112]; Balach1953g [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 776, 779-782]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, taxonomy: 321, 332-334]; BatcheWe1948 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 715]; BazaroSh1970 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 550, 552]; BeardsGo1975 [economic importance: 49]; Bedfor1978 [distribution, economic importance, host: 130]; Bedfor1998a [distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 159]; Bellio1929a [distribution, host: 243]; BenassOnPa1973 [biological control: 118]; BlackbMi1984 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1-13]; Blanch1939 [distribution, host: 30]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 86, 97]; Boisdu1867 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 338-339]; Borchs1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 21]; Borchs1936 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 119-120]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 102]; Borchs1949d [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 196]; Borchs1950b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 170]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 199-200]; Borg1919 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 22-23]; Borg1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 79-81]; Borg1932 [distribution, host: 11]; Brain1919 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 213-214]; Brain1929 [distribution, host: 141]; BrainKe1917 [distribution: 185]; BrandtBo1948 [illustration, taxonomy: 18]; Britto1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 380, 381]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 47]; CarnerPe1986 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; CharleHe2002 [distribution, taxonomy: 590,609]; Chen1936 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 210, 226-227]; ChenWo1936 [distribution, host: 103]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222-224]; Chou1986 [illustration: 641]; Clause1933 [distribution, host: 17]; Cocker1894 [distribution, host: 33, 35]; Cocker1899q [distribution: 164]; Cocker1900k [host, taxonomy: 349]; CockerRo1915a [distribution, host: 426]; CollAb1998; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 117-118]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 115]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 574, 576]; Coorem1951 [biological control, distribution, economic importance: 30-31, 33]; CoronaRuMo1997 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40]; Danzig1971d [taxonomy: 840]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 219-220]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 83, 84-85]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 332]; DeBachRo1976 [economic importance: 175]; DelGue1906 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 265-266]; DeLott1967a [distribution, host: 117]; Dingle1924 [taxonomy: 371]; Dozier1933 [biological control, distribution: 89]; Dumble1954 [distribution, host: 44]; Ehrhor1907 [distribution, host: 25-26]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 249]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, structure: 322]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 22, 75]; Ferris1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SI-84, SI-90]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-446:58]; Ferris1950a [distribution, host: 76]; FetykoKoDa2010 [distribution: 298]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 304]; Fleury1935a [distribution, host: 28]; Foldi2001 [distribution, economic importance: 306, 308]; Fonsec1978 [biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 287-291]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 15,24]; FrankKr1900 [distribution, host: 104]; Frogga1914 [description, distribution, host: 601, 603]; Frogga1915 [description, distribution, host: 28, 30]; Fullaw1932 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 96, 99]; Fuller1897b [distribution, host: 1344]; Fuller1899 [distribution, host: 467]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution: 10, 57]; Gavalo1932 [distribution, host: 140]; Georgh1977 [distribution: 152]; Germai2008 [distribution: 77-87]; Germai2011 [distribution, economic importance: 31-34]; Germai2011a [distribution, economic importance: 8]; Ghabbo1999 [taxonomy: 86]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 355]; Ghesqu1932 [distribution, host: 59]; Gogibe1938 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 44-45]; GomezC1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 310-312]; GomezM1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 145-150]; GomezM1956 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55-61]; Goot1935 [distribution, host: 15]; Gowdey1921 [description, distribution, host: 36]; GranarCl2003 [host, distribution: 631]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 7, 27]; Greath1973 [distribution, host: 30]; Green1903a [distribution, host: 102]; Green1914c [distribution, host: 233]; GuenaoDeAl2003 [ecology: 135]; Guo1992 [taxonomy: 2]; Hadzib1941 [distribution, host: 186]; Hadzib1983 [description, distribution, host: 197, 276]; Hall1922 [distribution, host: 45, 46]; Hall1946a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 527]; Herber1922 [physiology: 284]; HernanNiMa2011 [host: 379-380]; Herric1911 [distribution, host: 12]; HertinSi1972 [biological control, distribution: 188]; Heu2002 [distribution, host: 48]; HodgsoHi1990 [distribution, host: 6]; Hollin1923 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34, 35-36, 67]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 157]; HuangPo1998 [biological control: 1859, 1871, 1910]; HuHeWa1992 [distribution, illustration: 199]; Imamku1966 [distribution, host: 49]; Jannon1940 [distribution, economic importance: 243]; Kalsho1981 [distribution, economic importance, host, illustration: 165]; Kalsho1981 [description, economic importance, host: 165]; Kaussa1946a [distribution, host: 8]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host: 6-7]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 23]; Kawai1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 23]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 194]; King1899c [distribution, host: 228]; Kiritc1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 174]; Kirkal1902 [distribution, taxonomy: 110]; Kirkal1904b [distribution, host: 157]; Knecht1930 [distribution: 237]; Komosi1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 208, 228-230]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-39]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 86]; Kuwana1907 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 200]; Kuwana1925 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 6-7]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 124]; LattinOm1983 [distribution, economic importance: 112]; Leonar1899a [taxonomy: 209]; Leonar1903a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 5, 38-42]; Leonar1907a [illustration, taxonomy: 118]; Leonar1920 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 137, 140-145]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 247]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246, 108]; Lindin1921 [distribution, host: 434]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 105]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 15, 62]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 142]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 371]; Lizery1938 [distribution, host: 355]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; LongoMaPe1999a [distribution: 148]; Lounsb1914 [distribution, host: 9]; Lucas1853 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: xxix]; Lupo1947 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 40, 41-47]; Lupo1957a [distribution, host, illustration: 426-427]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 252]; Mallam1954 [distribution, host: 119]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 165]; Mamet1949 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; Martin1983 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; Maskel1896a [distribution, host: 225]; Maskel1896b [distribution, host: 386-387]; Maskel1897 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 301-302]; Maskel1897a [distribution, host: 241]; MastenSi2008 [catalogue, distribution, host: 105-119]; MatileOr2001 [distribution: 190]; McKenz1943 [taxonomy: 155]; McKenz1945 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 52, 53, 54, 55, 76-7]; McKenz1952 [taxonomy: 14]; Medler1980 [distribution: 89]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 304]; MillerDa2005 [description, distribution, host, economic importance: 336]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 48]; Monast1962 [biological control, description, distribution, host, life history, taxonomy: 89-100]; Morris1939a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27-28, 29]; MunroFo1936 [distribution, host: 90]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host: 68]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 403]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host: 1]; Nakaha1983 [distribution, host: 14]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution, host: 35]; NakaoTaTa1977 [distribution, host: 65]; Newste1897a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 98]; Newste1901b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 140, 148-151]; Newste1906 [distribution, economic importance, illustration: 71]; Newste1907a [distribution, host: 15]; Newste1911 [distribution, economic importance, host: 91]; Nickel1979 [distribution, economic importance, host: 43]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 206]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 142]; Osborn1898 [distribution, host: 227]; Ossian1959 [distribution, host: 201]; Palmer1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 133-135, 145]; Panis1975 [biological control, distribution: 151]; Paoli1915 [distribution, host: 268]; Peleka1962 [distribution, host: 63]; Pelliz2011 [distribution: 312]; PellizFo1996 [distribution: 122]; PellizGe2010a [distribution, economic importance, host: 477,487,503]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; PerezG2008 [distribution: 214]; PerezGCa1985 [distribution: 316]; Perrie1926 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 126]; PodsiaBu2008 [description, host, illustration: 51-53]; Priore1964 [distribution, host, illustration, life history: 154]; PruthiBa1960 [distribution, host: 29]; PruthiMa1945 [distribution, economic importance, host: 12]; Ramakr1919a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 26]; Ramakr1930 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 34]; RehmatAnKh2011 [biological control, distribution: 275]; Reyne1961 [distribution: 122]; Robins1917 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 27]; Rungs1950 [biological control: 10]; Russo1951 [biological control, distribution: 90]; Samway1984 [biological control, host: 99]; Sander1904a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 75-76]; Sankar1984 [biological control, distribution, host: 1, 33]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 19]; ShafikHu1938 [chemical control, distribution, host: 395]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 451-452]; Sigwal1971 [distribution, host, life history: 5-15]; Silves1921 [taxonomy: 1]; Silves1926a [biological control, distribution: 97, 100]; Silves1939 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 626, 820-821]; Smirno1950a [biological control, economic importance: 190-192]; StathaElJa2008 [ecology, life history: 95-101]; SuhJi2009 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 1039-1054]; Takagi1960 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 70]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 36-37, 52]; Takaha1929 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 77-78]; Takaha1930 [distribution, host: 43]; Takaha1937a [distribution, host: 74]; Takaha1942b [distribution, host: 44]; Tanaka2010 [taxonomy: 180]; Tang1977 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126-127]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 86]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 107]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 735]; Targio1881 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 154-158]; Targio1884 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 398]; Terezn1968b [distribution, host: 50]; Terezn1986 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 20, 22]; Trabut1910 [distribution, host,, illustration, taxonomy: 13-16]; Tschor1939 [distribution: 90]; Varshn2002 [distribution, host: 13]; Vayssi1920 [distribution, host: 257]; Viggia1987 [biological control: 136]; Vilard1974 [distribution, host: 75-76]; Voute1935 [distribution, host: 47]; Wang1936 [distribution: 386]; Wang1982c [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 78, 82-83]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; Weber1930 [distribution, taxonomy: 271, 391]; Weber1933 [taxonomy: 568, 659]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution, host: 112]; Willco1922 [distribution, host: 169]; WilliaBe2009 [catalogue: 49]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host: 71]; Wilson1917 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 64]; Wise1977 [distribution, taxonomy: 111]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 31, 73]; Wu1935 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 246-247]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 273-274]; YunusHo1980 [distribution, host: 34]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 394, 404-405].
Porogymnaspis GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Porogymnaspis Green, 1916e: 55. Type species: Porogymnaspis rufa Green. Subsequently designated by Ferris, 1936a: 23.
Pyrogymnaspis; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919b: 99. Misspelling of genus name.
Porogmymnaspis; MacGillivray, 1921: 254. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Best descriptions by Green (1916e) and Ferris (1937a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale cover consisting of the enlarged nymphal exuviae, with or without a superimposed larval exuviae, but without any secretionary appendix or covering. Male scale cover with an oval or oblong secretionary appendix, with the larval exuviae situated at the anterior margin. Adult female entirely enclosed within the nymphal exuviae. Pygidium with circumgenital pores, posterior margin with small lobes and cuspidate marginal processes (Green, 1916e).
SYSTEMATICS: Porogymnaspis is associated with Gymnaspis, Parlatoria and Leucaspis, but is probably most closely related to Leucaspis. It differs from Gymnaspis in the presence of circumgential pores. It can be told from Parlatoria by the enlarged naked nymphal exuviae which completely encloses the adult insect and in the absence of semilunar marginal pores on the adult female. It can be told from Leucaspis by the total absence of any secretionary covering or appendix to the female scale (Green, 1916e). Lindinger (1931a) erroneously considered Porogymnaspis to be a junior synonym of Cryptoparlatorea (=Cryptoparlatoria) and incorrectly gives the author of the genus as Bellio 1929. Lindinger (1934) places Porogymnaspis as a junior synonym of Apteronidia.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 248 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 206]; BorchsWi1963 [taxonomy: 378]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 6, 22]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 529]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Green1916e [description, taxonomy: 55]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 89]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 193]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 248]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 160].
Porogymnaspis angulata GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Porogymnaspis angulata Green, 1916e: 57-58. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Koolpiniyah and Darwin on Pandanus odoratissimus, by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea angulata; Lindinger, 1932f: 204. Change of combination.
Apteronidia angulata; Lindinger, 1934: 26. Change of combination.
HOST: Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [Green1916e].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1916e]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1916e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of the naked yellow nymphal exuviae, with or without a superimposed larval exuviae; yellow or orange-yellow, with a broad transverse blackish or brownish fascia just behind the middle. Adult female minute, hind margin of thorax strongly produced on each side into a lateral angle which is studded with minute conical points. Pygidium with 2 groups of from 17-21 circumgenital pores, connected by a series of 3 or 4 isolated pores; 0.36 mm long (Green, 1916e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 255 (female) [Key to species of Porogymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206]; Green1916e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 57-58]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 255]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 68].
Porogymnaspis indica (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Pyrogymnaspis indica Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1919b: 99. Nomen nudum; discovered by Green, 1919c: 440.
Aonidia indica Green, 1919c: 440. Type data: INDIA: West Bengal, Calcutta, Indian Museum Compound, on undetermined host, by N. Annandale. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Porogymnaspis indica; Borchsenius, 1966: 206. Change of combination.
HOST: Dipterocarpaceae: Vateria indica [Ramakr1919b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (West Bengal [Green1919c]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1919c).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, moderately convex, median area usually depressed or slightly concave; secretionary margin very narrow, the center of the scale usually bare. Scale is pale castaneous in color, secretionary margin grayish brown, 0.5 mm wide. Male scale larger, broadly ovate, larval exuviae nearer one extremity, dull grayish brown, 0.75 mm long. Adult female circular, pygidium slightly prominent. Posterior extremity of pygidium somewhat truncate, 0.5 mm long (Green, 1919c).
SYSTEMATICS: Lindinger (1943b) considered Porogymnaspis indica to be a junior synonym of Aonidia loranthi Green 1896.
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 31]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 206-207]; Green1919c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 440]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 199]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; Ramakr1919b [distribution, host: 99]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 359].
Porogymnaspis mesochitinosa (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Aonidia mesochitinosa Green, 1922a: 1009. Type data: SRI LANKA: Hakgala, on Canthium montanum. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Porogymnaspis mesochitinosa; Borchsenius, 1966: 207. Change of combination.
HOST: Rubiaceae: Canthium montanum [Green1922a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1922a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1922a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale bright castaneous, regularly ovoid, dorsal area slightly concave, 1.0 mm long. Adult female subcircular, pygidium not projecting, its outer margin evenly rounded. Cephalothorax with a large circumscribed area more strongly chitinized. Margin of abdomen with a close series of minute, bluntly conical tubercles. Margin of pygidium with 5 pairs of short but moderately broad lobes, of which the median are the largest, the others decreasing in size to the outermost, 0.5-0.6 mm long (Green, 1922a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Green1922a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1009].
Porogymnaspis rufa GreenNOMENCLATURE:
Porogymnaspis rufa Green, 1916e: 55-56. Type data: AUSTRALIA: Northern Territory, Koolpinyah, on Pandanus odoratissimus, by G.F. Hill. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea rufa; Lindinger, 1932f: 204. Change of combination.
Apteronidia rufa; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
HOST: Pandanaceae: Pandanus odoratissimus [Green1916e].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (Northern Territory [Green1916e]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Green (1916e).
STRUCTURE: Female scale consisting of naked nymphal exuviae which is bright red or reddish yellow, broadly oval, highly convex, appearing as almost hemispherical to the naked eye; 0.75 mm long. Male scale oblong or broadly oval, moderately convex, sometimes with traces of 2 longitudinal ridges, whitish; 0.75-1.0 mm long. Adult female subcircular, posterior extremity slightly produced. Pygidium with its truncate extremity bearing a close fringe of prominent tricuspid processes, of which from 4-6 are usually more densely chitinous than the remainder and represent the pygidial lobes (Green, 1916e).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 254 (female) [Key to species of Porogymnaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration, taxonomy: 23]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 22]; Green1916e [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 55-56]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 204]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 37]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 254]; Takaha1942b [taxonomy: 46].
Porogymnaspis silvestrii BellioNOMENCLATURE:
Porogymnaspis silvestrii Bellio, 1929a: 220-224. Type data: VIETNAM: Than Hoa, on undetermined plant, by F. Silvestri. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptoparlatorea silvestrii; Lindinger, 1931a: 43. Change of combination.
Apteronidia silvestrii; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
Porogymnaspis silvestri; Borchsenius, 1966: 207. Misspelling of species name.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Vietnam [Bellio1929a, Ali1970] (Ali's (1970) record of Porogymnaspis silvestrii in Cambodia is erroneous. The source, Takahashi 1942b, states that he collected a similar species, but not P. silvestrii.).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Bellio (1929a).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration, taxonomy: 23]; Bellio1929a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 220-224]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43, 180]; Lindin1934 [distribution, taxonomy: 37]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 6]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 68]; Takaha1942b [distribution, taxonomy: 46].
Pseudoleucaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoleucaspis Mamet, 1939b: 586. Type species: Pseudoleucaspis monticola Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Mamet (1939b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, glassy white, translucent, mostly occupied by the nymphal exuviae. Male scale dilated behind, different in form and broader than that of female. Adult female completely enclosed in nymphal exuviae. Pygidium with 2 pairs of lobes (Mamet, 1939b).
SYSTEMATICS: Pseudoleucaspis is related to Leucaspis by the nature of the female scale and in that the female is enclosed in the nymphal exuviae, but differs from that genus by the nature of the male scale, the absence of perivulvar pores and fimbriate plates in the adult female (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 222]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 11, 19]; Mamet1939b [description, taxonomy: 586]; Mamet1954 [taxonomy: 71]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 166].
Pseudoleucaspis aelaeodendri (Grandpre & Charmoy)NOMENCLATURE:
Fiorinia aelaeodendri Grandpre & Charmoy, 1899: 14. Type data: MAURITIUS: Montagne du Pouce, on Elaeodendron sp., by D. de Grandpré. Unknown type status. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Type-material lost (Mamet, 1941).
Fiorinia alaeodendri; Fernald, 1903b: 246. Misspelling of species name.
Fiorinia (Aonidia) alaeodendri; MacGillivray, 1921: 386. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Pseudoleucaspis elaeodendri; Mamet, 1941: 24. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet. Notes: Mamet (1941) intended to correct the spelling of "aelaeodendri" to "elaeodendri" to reflect the host species Elaeodendron. However, according to the ICZN, the original spelling must be retained.
HOSTS: Celastraceae: Elaedendron orientale [Mamet1948], Elaeodendron sp. [GrandpCh1899]
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [GrandpCh1899].
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius (1966) lists this species as incertae sedis. Williams & Williams (1988) treat it as a nomen dubium.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 372]; Cocker1899r [distribution: 900]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 246]; GrandpCh1899 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14]; Green1907 [distribution, host: 202]; Leonar1906c [distribution: 58]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 386]; Mamet1941 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 22-23]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 167]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 35]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host: 50]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 66].
Pseudoleucaspis monticola MametNOMENCLATURE:
Pseudoleucaspis monticola Mamet, 1939b: 586-588. Type data: MAURITIUS: Corps de Garde Mountain, on Eugenia mespiloides, 30/01/1938, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Myrtaceae: Eugenia mespiloides [Mamet1939b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritius [Mamet1939b].
BIOLOGY: Pseudoleucaspis monticola was collected at 2350 feet in altitude (Mamet, 1939b).
GENERAL REMARKS: Best description and illustration by Mamet (1939b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow, transparent, showing black nymphal exuviae underneath, white, glassy. Larval exuviae whitish, situated at anterior extremity of scale and projecting beyond margin, 2.0-3.1 mm long, 0.5-0.6 mm wide. Male scale shiny, whitish to dull orange, with 2 longitudinal darker bands on each side, slightly convex, submarginal area flattish, dilated behind, 1.7-2.3 mm long, 0.6-0.9 mm wide. Adult female oval to elongate, broadest across metathorax, rounded in front, completely enclosed in nymphal exuviae. Pygidium broadly rounded, with 2 pairs of recessed lobes having serrate edges. Median pair smallest (Mamet, 1939b).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Ferris1941f [illustration, taxonomy: 11, 19]; Mamet1939b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 586-588]; Mamet1943a [distribution, host: 167]; Mamet1948 [distribution, host: 37]; Mamet1949 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 50]; WilliaWi1988 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 73].
Radionaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Radiaspis Ferris, 1938a: SII-152. Type species: Leucaspis indica Marlatt, by monotypy and original designation. Homonym of Radiaspis in Trilobita.
Radionaspis Ferris, 1942: SIV-422. Replacement name for Radiaspis Ferris 1938a. Notes: "The generic name Radiaspis was employed in 1917 for a genus of Trilobita, but was omitted from the index of the Zoological Record for that year and consequently was overlooked by the writer in proposing the same name for a genus of the Diaspididae (Ferris, 1942)."
SYSTEMATICS: Ferris (1938a) states that no suggestion can be made about the affinities of Radionaspis because the ducts that are visible are so small that their characters are obscured.
KEYS: Beardsley 1966: 502 (female) [Key to known tribes and genera of Micronesian Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1964a: 864 (female) [Key to genera ofLeucaspidini known from India]; Ferris 1942: 41 (female) [Key to genera in the tribe Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 842]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Beards1966 [distribution, taxonomy: 557]; Borchs1964a [distribution, taxonomy: 864, 871]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 218]; Ferris1938a [description, taxonomy: SII-152]; Ferris1938b [illustration, taxonomy: 57, 58, 63]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-422, SIV-446:41]; Ferris1955c [taxonomy: 31]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 172]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 95].
Radionaspis indica (Marlatt)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis indica Marlatt, 1908c: 26-27. Type data: INDIA: at United States, Florida, Miami, on Mangifera indica, by P.J. Wester. Syntypes, female (examined). Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Suturaspis indica; MacGillivray, 1921: 267. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis indica; Lindinger, 1932: 107. Change of combination.
Radiaspis indica; Ferris, 1938a: SII-153. Change of combination.
Radionaspis indica; Ferris, 1942: SIV-422. Change of combination.
Leucaspis (Radionaspis) indica; Merrill, 1953: 60. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: mango scale [Butche1959].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA : Pteroptrichoides perkinsi [Fullaw1920].
HOST: Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica [Marlat1908c, Ali1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cape Verde [Fernan1999]; Senegal [Nakaha1982]. Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands [Beards1966]); Hawaiian Islands [Beards1966, Nakaha1982] (Oahu [Nakaha1981a]); Indonesia (Java [Nakaha1982]); Palau [Beards1966]. Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [Ebelin1959, Butche1959, Miller2005] (Ebeling (1959) states that this species was introduced to Florida from India.)). Neotropical: British Virgin Islands [Nakaha1982]; Cuba [BrunerScOt1945, Nakaha1982]; Dominican Republic [Nakaha1982]; Jamaica [Nakaha1982]; Panama [Fleury1938]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [Jones1917, Ferris1938a, NakahaMi1981]). Oriental: India [Marlat1908c, Ebelin1959, Beards1966] (Ebeling (1959) states that this species was introduced to Florida from India.) (Maharashtra [Fletch1919, Ferris1938a]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1938a).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, elongate, narrow, convex, flattened at tip. Adult female entirely enclosed within the swollen, strongly chitinized 2nd stage which is 0.5-0.6 mm long, elongate oval, dark reddish brown. Adult female hyaline, elongate, sides subparallel (Marlatt, 1908c).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Radionaspis indica is a pest of mango (Ebeling, 1959).
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 267 [as Suturaspis indica; Key to species of Suturaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 25]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Beards1966 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 558]; Borchs1964a [taxonomy: 864]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 218]; BrownMc1962 [physiology, taxonomy: 166]; BrunerScOt1945 [distribution, host: 107]; Butche1959 [distribution, host: 364]; ColonFMe1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 129]; Dekle1965c [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 14, 129]; Ebelin1959 [chemical control, distribution, host: 385]; Fernan1999 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 86-89]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1938a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: SII-147, SII-152, SI]; Ferris1938b [illustration, taxonomy: 57, 63]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: SIII-270]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: SIV-422, SIV-445:8,]; Fletch1917a [distribution, host: 228]; Fletch1919 [distribution, host: 299]; Fleury1938 [distribution, host: 22]; Fullaw1920 [biological control, host: 239, 245]; Fulmek1943 [biological control, distribution, host: 54]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 449]; Jones1917 [distribution, host: 11]; Kasarg1914 [distribution, host: 135]; Lindin1908e [taxonomy: 240]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 149]; Lindin1943b [taxonomy: 264]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 267]; Marlat1908c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Martor1945 [distribution, host: 241, 406]; Merril1953 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 60]; MerrilCh1923 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 245]; Miller2005 [distribution: 488]; Moznet1922 [chemical control, distribution, host: 19]; Nakaha1981a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 405]; Nakaha1982 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 80]; NakahaMi1981 [distribution: 36]; Nishid2002 [catalogue: 143]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 5, 146]; PooleGe1997 [distribution: 352]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; Sassce1914 [taxonomy: 242]; Schmid1940 [taxonomy: 197]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 3]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WeidneWa1968 [taxonomy: 177]; Westco1973 [distribution, host: 410]; Wester1920 [host: 64]; Wilson1917 [distribution, host: 38]; Wolcot1933 [distribution: 511]; Wolcot1936 [distribution, host: 137]; Wolcot1948 [distribution, host: 179]; Zimmer1948 [distribution, host: 376].
Sakaramyaspis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Sakaramyaspis Mamet, 1954: 78. Type species: Sakaramyaspis beguei Mamet, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: Diaspididae with two-barred ducts. Pupillarial, the female being enclosed in the nymphal exuviae. Adult female greatly reduced, merely a membranous sac. Pygidium a little retracted into body, of a characteristic rectangular form. Pygidial margin with 3 pairs of small, hyaline, unsclerotized lobular prominences; 2nd and 3rd pairs of lobular prominences bilobular (Mamet, 1954).
SYSTEMATICS: Sakaramyaspis is close to Gymnaspis from which it differs by the presence of lobular processes on the pygidial margin of the female and by the occurrence of bilobular 2nd lobes in the nymph. It is also related to Porogymnaspis from which it differs by the presence of bilobulate 2nd and 3rd lobes in the nymph (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 207]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 78]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 179].
Sakaramyaspis beguei MametNOMENCLATURE:
Sakaramyaspis beguei Mamet, 1954: 79-81. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Sakaramy Foresty Station, on an undetermined plant, 29/05/1950, by R. Mamet. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France; type no. 207. Described: female. Illust.
Cryptaspidus beguei; Lindinger, 1957: 552. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954, Borchs1966].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Mamet (1954).
STRUCTURE: Female scale somewhat flat conical, very shiny, nearly quadrangular, dark bordeaux-red with yellow margin. Larval exuviae situated in a depression at one angle of the puparium, of the same color, with anterior margin yellow. Adult female pupillarial, enclosed in nymphal exuviae, greatly reduced, merely a membranous sac. Pygidium a little retracted into the body, rectangular shape, with lateral margins more or less parallel. Pygidial fringe somewhat variable; with 3 pairs of hyaline, short, unsclerotized lobular prominences. Median lobular prominences flat-conical, well-separated from each other by a space which is a little smaller than the basal width of one of them, non-zygotic at base, with a pair of stout, short, conical gland tubercles between them. 2nd lobular prominence bilobular, both lobules conical, inner lobule more developed than outer lobule. 3rd lobular prominence bilobular, somewhat variable, inner lobule conical and longer than outer lobule which is either conical or flatly rounded (Mamet, 1954).
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 342]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 207]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 552]; Mamet1954 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 21, 79-81].
Salicicola LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis (Salicicola) Lindinger, 1905: 253. Type species: Leucaspis kermanensis Lindinger, by monotypy. Notes: This name was originally proposed for a "sektion" of the genus Leucaspis. According to the Fourth Edition of the ICZN Article 10.4 "A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division."
Salicicola; MacGillivray, 1921: 264. Change of status.
Leucaspidopsis Lindinger, 1932f: 177-205. Type species: Leucaspidopsis vayssierei (Balachowsky). Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 162.
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 843 [Tableau des genres de Leucaspidina de la Région Paléarctique]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 843, 882-883]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 335, 339]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 28, 45]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 331]; Bodenh1953 [description, taxonomy: 56-61]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 90,94]; Borchs1949d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 195,201]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 168, 178-179]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 220-221]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 164]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 209-211]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 352-353]; Davatc1958 [taxonomy: 152]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 104, 112]; Lindin1905 [description, taxonomy: 253]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 202, 203]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 188, 195]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 179, 190]; TakagiMo2005 [description, taxonomy: 50]; TakagiMo2005 [distribution, taxonomy: 50-52]; Varshn2005 [catalogue: 158].
Salicicola indiaeorientalis (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucodiaspis indiae-orientalis Lindinger, 1910c: 373. Nomen nudum; discovered by Lindinger, 1911: 127.
Leucaspis indiae-orientalis; Sasscer, 1911: 127. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis indiae-orientalis Lindinger, 1911: 127. Type data: INDIA: Nahan, south of Simla, on Pinus khasya. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Suturaspis indiae-orientalis; MacGillivray, 1921: 268. Change of combination.
Salicicola indiae-orientalis; Balachowsky, 1953g: 882. Change of combination.
Suturaspis indiaeorientalis; Borchsenius, 1966: 222. Justified emendation.
HOST: Pinaceae: Pinus khasya [Lindin1911, Ali1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Lindin1911, Ali1970].
STRUCTURE: Female scale long, narrow, 1.6 mm long, 0.2-0.5 mm wide. Larval exuviae at top (Lindinger, 1911).
SYSTEMATICS: Balachowsky (1953g) states that Salicicola indiaeorientalis may be a junior synonym of S. kermanensis.
KEYS: MacGillivray 1921: 268 [as Suturaspis indiae-orientalis; Key to species of Suturaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 28]; Balach1928a [distribution, taxonomy: 135-137]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 179]; Borchs1964a [distribution: 864]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Green1915 [distribution, taxonomy: 460]; Hoke1925 [physiology: 38]; Lindin1910c [distribution, host: 373]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127]; Lindin1931a [distribution, taxonomy: 26]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 268]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; Sassce1911 [distribution, host: 69]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 4]; Varshn2005 [catalogue, distribution, host: 158]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Salicicola kermanensis (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis (Salicicola) kermanensis Lindinger, 1905: 253-254. Type data: IRAN: Kerman, on Populus euphratica, Salix persica and S. zygostemon. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female.
Fiorinia africana Newstead, 1911: 90-91. Type data: EGYPT: Gizeh, gardens of the Horticultural Society, on Populus sp., ?/03/1910, by F.C. Willcocks. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 159.
Crypthemichionaspis africana; Lindinger, 1912b: 270. Change of combination.
Leucaspis salicis Green, 1915: 465-466. Type data: PAKISTAN: Mushki, on Salix sp., by V. Iyer. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1936: 159.
Salicicola kermanensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 267. Change of combination.
Adiscofiorinia africana; MacGillivray, 1921: 378. Change of combination.
Aonidia parlatoroides Hall, 1922: 35. Nomen nudum; discovered by Lindinger, 1932f: 199. Notes: Hall (1922) states that some specimens of Aonidia parlatoroides Newstead are actually Salicicola kermanensis. However, there is no evidence that a description of A. parlatoroides was ever published. Therefore, Hall's use of the name must be considered a placed nomen nudum.
Leucodiaspis kermanensis; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination.
Leucaspis africana; Koroneos, 1934: 46. Change of combination.
Anamefiorinia africana; Lindinger, 1935: 132. Change of combination.
Salicicola africana; Bodenheimer, 1949: 175. Change of combination.
COMMON NAME: Iranian poplar scale [MillerDa1990].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Coccinellidae: Chilocorus bipustulatus [GhaniMu1974], Pharoscymnus flexibilis [GhaniMu1974], Scymnus sp. [GhaniMu1974]. Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus sp. [GhaniMu1974]. HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis mytilaspidis [NikolsYa1966], Azotus celsus [NikolsYa1966], Coccophagoides similis [UlgentErKa2008], Hispaniella lauri [NikolsYa1966]. Encyrtidae: Anthemus sp. [AhmadGh1972].
HOSTS: Gnetaceae: Ephedra sp. [Bodenh1953]. Oleaceae: Olea europea [Bodenh1924]. Salicaceae: Populus alba [Bodenh1944b, Hadzib1983], Populus canescens [Bodenh1924], Populus deltoides [Hadzib1983], Populus euphratica [Lindin1905, Seghat1977], Populus gracitis [Hadzib1983], Populus nigra [Seghat1977], Populus nigra italica [Bodenh1924], Populus sp. [Newste1911, Bodenh1944b], Salix acmophila [Bodenh1943], Salix babylonica [Bodenh1924], Salix persicae [Lindin1905], Salix safsaf [GhabboMo1996], Salix sp. [Green1915, Bodenh1953], Salix zygostemin [Lindin1905].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Britti1937]. Oriental: Macau [Atanas1959]. Oriental: Pakistan [Green1915, AhmadGh1972]. Palaearctic: Afghanistan [Balach1953g, KozarFoZa1996]; Armenia [TerGri1966a, Balach1953g]; Azerbaijan [Balach1953g]; Egypt [Newste1911, GhabboMo1996]; Georgia [Hadzib1950]; Greece [Korone1934, Kozar1985]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943, Balach1953g]; Israel [Bodenh1924, DanzigPe1998]; Morocco [Rungs1948, Balach1953g, DanzigPe1998]; Syria [DanzigPe1998]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [Balach1953g]; Turkey [Bodenh1949, Panis1981]; Turkmenistan [Archan1930, Lashin1956]; Uzbekistan [Balach1953g]; Yugoslavia [Panis1981].
BIOLOGY: Females laid 17-48 eggs (average 26). Of the hatching crawlers, 2-13 (average 8) were found dead under the scale. Low fecundity and high mortality of crawlers could explain the low incidence of Salicicola kermanensis in Pakistan (Ghani & Muzaffar, 1974).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Brittin (1937) and by Balachowsky (1953g).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very short, highly convex, exuviae dark brown, secretion white. Male scale similar, but smaller. Adult female elongate-oval, highly convex on dorsum (Brittin, 1937).
SYSTEMATICS: Part of the material described by Newstead (1906) as Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes bicolor) is a misidentification of Salicicola kermanensis (Williams, 2002a).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 127 (female) [Key to species of Salicicola]; Bustshik 1958: 186 (female) [Species of the tribe Diaspidini]; Balachowsky 1953g: 883 (female) [Key to species of Salicicola]; Brittin 1937: 285 (female) [as Leucaspis salicis; Key to species of Leucaspis].
CITATIONS: AhmadGh1972 [biological control, distribution, host: 98]; AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 152]; Archan1930 [distribution, taxonomy: 82]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65, 66-67]; Atanas1959 [distribution, host: 434]; Babaev1980 [distribution, host: 59]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 1883, 885, 901-904]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335, 339, 340]; BazaroSh1971 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 168-170]; BenDov2012 [catalogue,, distribution, host: 32, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45-46]; Bodenh1924a [distribution, host: 123]; Bodenh1925 [distribution, host: 672]; Bodenh1930a [distribution, host: 376, 377]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 7, 26, 218]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 10]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 85, 98]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 175, 177-179]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, taxonomy: 56-61]; Bodenh1953a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 158]; BoerVa1977 [taxonomy: 153]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 105]; Borchs1937a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 90, 94]; Borchs1949d [distribution, taxonomy: 201]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 178]; Borchs1963a [distribution, taxonomy: 23, 227, 228]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 220-221]; Britti1937 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 283, 285, 286, 291-2]; Bustsh1958 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 186, 211]; Bustsh1960 [distribution, taxonomy: 174]; Chiesa1938 [distribution, host: 3]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 127-128]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 353-354]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; Ezzat1958 [distribution, taxonomy: 244]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23]; Ferris1937a [illustration, taxonomy: 6, 26]; GhabboMo1996 [description, distribution, host: 357]; GhaniMu1974 [biological control, distribution, host, life history: 65-66]; Green1915 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 461, 465-466]; Green1919c [distribution, host: 449]; Hadzib1950 [distribution, host: 256, 259, 262]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, host: 213, 277]; Hall1922 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 35-36]; Hall1923 [taxonomy: 48]; Hall1925 [taxonomy: 16]; Hall1926a [distribution, host: 37, 41]; Hoke1927 [taxonomy: 352]; Kaussa1950 [distribution, host: 5]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10]; Kobakh1956 [distribution: 195]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 46-47, 49]; Kozar1985 [distribution: 203]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Lashin1956 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 127]; Leonar1906b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29]; Leonar1907c [distribution, host: 94]; Lindin1905 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 253-254]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 10, 27, 47-48]; Lindin1912b [taxonomy: 270]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 43]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 199]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 132]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 159]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262, 263, 267, 378]; MillerDa1990 [economic importance, taxonomy: 305]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 52]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 38]; Myarts1972 [distribution: 54]; Newste1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 90-91]; NikolsYa1966 [biological control, distribution: 204, 240, 256]; Panis1981 [distribution: 2, 8]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 181]; Ramakr1921a [distribution, host: 358]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 114]; Sander1906 [distribution, taxonomy: 12]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 16]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 66]; TerGri1954 [distribution, host: 65]; TerGri1962 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 141-142]; TerGri1966a [distribution, economic importance, host: 373]; TerGri1969a [distribution, taxonomy: 5, 70]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 3]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177]; Willco1922 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 291-292]; Willia2002a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 156]; Yasnos1978 [biological control: 494]; Zahrad1972 [distribution, host: 445].
Salicicola vayssierei (Balachowsky)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis Vayssierei Balachowsky, 1928a: 132-135. Type data: MOROCCO: Taroudan, on Rhus pentaphylla, ?/06/1927, by P. Vayssière. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Leucaspidopsis vayssièrei; Lindinger, 1932f: 203. Change of combination and misspelling of species epithet.
Leucaspis vayssieri; Ferris, 1936a: 22. Misspelling of species name.
Leucaspis vayssieri oxyacanthae Rungs, 1942: 109. Type data: MOROCCO: Guelta des Zemmour, on Rhus tripartitum, 26/04/1942; Metlani, on R. tripartitum, 09/05/1942. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 221.
Leucaspis vayssieri pentaphyllae Rungs, 1942: 109. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 221. Notes: When Rungs described the new subspecies Leucaspis vayssieri oxyacanthae, he proposed the name L. vayssieri pentaphyllae for the "forme typique." The new name should have been S. vayssierei vayssierei.
Salicicola Vayssierei; Balachowsky, 1953g: 162. Change of combination.
Salicicola vayssierei; Borchsenius, 1966: 221. Justified emendation.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Rhus pentaphylla [Balach1928a], Rhus tripartitum [Rungs1942]. Sapotaceae: Argania sideroxylon [LepineMi1931], Argania spinosa [Rungs1952].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Mauritania [Balach1958a]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1958b]; Morocco [Balach1928a].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1928a).
KEYS: Balachowsky 1953g: 884 (female) [Key to species of Salicicola]; Balachowsky 1928a: 135 (female) [as Leucaspis Vayssierei; Key to species of Leucaspis in North Africa].
CITATIONS: Balach1928a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 132-136]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 884, 885, 895-898]; Balach1958a [distribution, host: 40-41]; Balach1958b [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 339-341]; BalachMa1970 [distribution, host: 1082]; Bodenh1943 [taxonomy: 11]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 221]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 283]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 126]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 354]; Davatc1958 [distribution, economic importance, host: 40, 152]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 22]; Ferris1937d [illustration, taxonomy: 104, 112]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; LepineMi1931 [distribution, host: 248]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 203]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 160]; Rungs1935 [distribution, host: 276]; Rungs1942 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 109]; Rungs1948 [distribution, host: 114]; Rungs1952 [economic importance, host: 70-72]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 66].
Silvestraspis BellioNOMENCLATURE:
Silvestraspis Bellio, 1929: 159. Type species: Silvestraspis sinensis Bellio (= Silvestraspis uberifera Lindinger), by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: A pupillarial genus. Adult female often wider than long, with thorax prolonged postero-laterally into lobes. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes, small and single, well separated. Plates longer than lobes, swollen apically. Dorsal pygidial ducts represented by a few microducts on margins. Anus situated at center of pygidium. Perivulvar pores present in 3-5 groups. 2nd instars with fringed plates and 2-barred ducts, the duct orifices surrounded by sclerotized lunate rims (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Bellio1929 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 159]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 209]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 210-211]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 357]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 101, 104]; Ferris1941f [illustration: 20]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 89]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 196]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 184]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 243]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 271].
Silvestraspis ficaria Williams & WatsonNOMENCLATURE:
Silvestraspis ficaria Williams & Watson, 1988: 243. Type data: SOLOMON ISLANDS: Guadalcanal, Tenaru, on Ficus glandifera, 21/02/1984, by M. Bigger. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Moraceae: Ficus glandifera [WilliaWa1988], Ficus sp. [WilliaWa1988]
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Solomon Islands [WilliaWa1988].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, about 0.75 mm long, convex, yellow-brown, shiny except for dark center patch; exuviae of 1st instar terminal. Male scale smaller and flatter than female scale, elongate. Adult female on slide, small, 0.45 mm long, but usually about as wide as long and sometimes wider; membranous except for lightly sclerotized pygidium. Thorax prolonged laterally into weakly developed lobes. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes. Median lobes well separated, each pointed at apex, small, about as wide as long. 2nd and 3rd lobes small, triangular (Williams & Watson, 1988).
SYSTEMATICS: Silvestraspis ficaria can be told from S. uberifera by the poorly developed lateral lobes on the thorax, and the absence of gland spines lateral to the anterior spiracles (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 243 (female) [Key to species of Silvestraspis].
CITATIONS: Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 68]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 242-245].
Silvestraspis uberifera (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Cryptoparlatorea uberifera Lindinger, 1911: 126. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Insel Negros, Dumaguete Cuernos Mountains, on Mallotus philippinensis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Silvestraspis sinensis Bellio, 1929: 160-165. Type data: CHINA: Fujian, Foochow (=Fuzhou), Kusang, on undetermined host, ?/12/1924. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Described: female. Illust. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1932a: 79.
Apteronidia uberifera; Lindinger, 1934: 37. Change of combination.
Silvestraspis uberifera; Takahashi, 1942: 46. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Euphorbiaceae: Mallotus philippinensis [Lindin1911, WilliaWa1988], Mallotus sp. [Borchs1966]. Lauraceae: Cinnamomum sp. [DanzigPe1998], Cinnamomum zeylanicum [Takaha1933, Ali1970], Machilus kusanoi [Takagi1969a, Tao1999], Machilus sp. [DanzigPe1998], Zyzygium jambos [Takagi1969a]. Moraceae: Artocarpus sp. [Borchs1966]. Myrtaceae: Eugenia jambos [WilliaWa1988], Syzygium hancei [MartinLa2011], Syzygium jambos [MartinLa2011], Syzygium kwangtungensis [Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Irian Jaya [WilliaWa1988]). Oriental: China (Fujian (=Fukien) [Bellio1929, Tao1999], Hainan [Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Takagi1969a, Tao1999]; Kampuchea (=Cambodia) [Takagi1969a]; Philippines (Negros [Lindin1911]); Taiwan [Takaha1933, Takagi1969a]. Palaearctic: China [Ali1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Williams & Watson (1988).
STRUCTURE: Female scale about 0.75 mm long, pale yellow; exuviae of 1st instar terminal. Male scale smaller than female scale, elongate. Adult female, slide-mounted, about 0.6 mm wide and 0.5 mm long; wider than long, with thorax produced postero-laterally into long lobe-like processes; membranous except for lightly sclerotized pygidium. Pygidium with 3 pairs of lobes. Median pair pointed, triangular, longer than wide, each with 2-3 notches on each side. 2nd lobes narrower than median lobes, elongate. 3rd lobes wider than long. Plates longer than lobes, swollen apically, there being 2 present between median lobes; 2 between median and 2nd lobes; 3 between 2nd and 3rd lobes, and a series lateral to 3rd lobes, gradually shorter and more pointed further forward (Williams & Watson, 1988).
KEYS: Williams & Watson 1988: 243 (female) [Key to species of Silvestraspis]; MacGillivray 1921: 253 [as Cryptoparlatorea ubifera; Key to species of Cryptoparlatorea].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 26-27]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Bellio1929 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 16-165]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 209]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 211-212]; Chou1986 [illustration: 623-624]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 358]; Ferris1937c [taxonomy: 101]; Ferris1937d [taxonomy: 104]; Ferris1941f [illustration: 20]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Lindin1911 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 126]; Lindin1931a [taxonomy: 21]; Lindin1932a [taxonomy: 79]; Lindin1934 [taxonomy: 37]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 253]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 47-48]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 68]; Takaha1933 [distribution, host: 52]; Takaha1934 [distribution: 35]; Takaha1935 [taxonomy: 31]; Takaha1942b [distribution: 46-47]; Tang2001 [taxonomy: 4]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 87]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 118]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 175]; WilliaWa1988 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 244-245]; Wu1935 [distribution: 247]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 287, 288].
Sishanaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Sishanaspis Ferris, 1952a: 6. Type species: Sishanaspis quercicola Ferris, by monotypy and original designation.
STRUCTURE: With dorsal pygidial ducts of the two-barred type and with openings of the marginal pygidial macroducts in at least the 2nd stage set transversely and surrounded by a crescentic sclerotization. It may be considered pupillarial as the adult female, if not actually enclosed within, is at least completely enveloped by the sclerotized 2nd exuviae, which forms the greater part of the scale. Adult female with the body membranous throughout except for the pygidium, the form more or less circular, the pygidium short and apically rounded, protruding somewhat (Ferris, 1952a).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 270 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini].
CITATIONS: Balach1957 [taxonomy: 29]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 204]; Chou1985 [distribution, taxonomy: 242]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 358]; Ferris1952a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 6]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 184]; Yang1982 [taxonomy: 270].
Sishanaspis quercicola FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Sishanaspis quercicola Ferris, 1952a: 6. Type data: CHINA: Yunnan Province, Kunming, Si-shan, on Quercus sinensis, 08/05/1949, by G.F. Ferris. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sinensis [Ferris1952a, Ali1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1952a, Ali1970]).
BIOLOGY: Sishanaspis quercicola is sometimes associated with Septobasidium fungus (Ferris, 1952a).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1952a).
STRUCTURE: Scales are grey or in rubbed specimens yellow. Male scale is slightly brown. Adult female with pygidium quite variable, varying even as between the 2 halves of the same individual as to the number of marginal points and the number of perivulvar pores (Ferris, 1952a).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27]; Balach1957 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 29, 34]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 315]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 243]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 358]; Ferris1952a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; ShiLi1991 [taxonomy: 165]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 275, 277].
Sishanaspis templorum BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Sishanaspis templorum Balachowsky, 1957: 33-34. Type data: THAILAND: Bangkok, Pagode de marbre, on undetermined host, 23/02/1954. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Thailand [Balach1957].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky (1957).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, strongly curvate, almost entirely made up of larval exuviae. Male scale white, with larval exuviae pale yellow. Adult female subcircular, nearly as long as wide. Pygidium large, with one pair of lobes which are generally subquadrangular, but sometimes conical or irregular (Balachowsky, 1957).
SYSTEMATICS: Sishanaspis templorum differs from S. quercicola in the absence of submarginal glandular tubercules on the ventral side of the thoracic segments (there are 4 groups in S. quercicola), the anal opening is further forward than the width of the median lobe, the presence of 3 marginal macropores on the pygidium (absent in S. quercicola), dorsal micropores few in number (more in S. quercicola) and the circumgenital glands are absent (Balachowksy, 1957).
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27-28]; Balach1957 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 33-34]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 204].
Suturaspis LindingerNOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis (Suturaspis) Lindinger, 1906: 26. Type species: Leucaspis pistaciae Lindinger. Subsequently designated by MacGillivray, 1921: 268. Notes: Suturaspis was proposed as a division of the "sektion" Euleucaspis of the genus Leucaspis.
Suturaspis; MacGillivray, 1921: 264. Change of status.
Salicicola; Balachowsky, 1953g: 882. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Balachowsky, 1953g: 882.
SYSTEMATICS: 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 Suturaspis the pygidial appendages are trullae and pectinae, both of the usual types, whereas in the other two genera the appendages are strong trullae followed by a series of sclerotized, conical processes. 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. (TakagiMo, 2005)
KEYS: Borchsenius 1964a: 864 (female) [Key to genera of Leucaspidini known from India]; Bodenheimer 1952: 331 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspidinae]; Borchsenius 1950b: 168 (female) [Key to genera of Diaspididae].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, taxonomy: 843,882-883]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 27, 45]; Bodenh1952 [distribution, taxonomy: 331]; Bodenh1953 [description, taxonomy: 55-56]; Borchs1937 [distribution, taxonomy: 90,94-95]; Borchs1949d [description, distribution, taxonomy: 195,202-202]; Borchs1950b [description, distribution, taxonomy: 168,178-179]; Borchs1964a [taxonomy: 864]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 221-222]; BruesMeCa1954 [taxonomy: 164]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 352-353]; Ferris1921b [taxonomy: 93]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 23,26,86]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 26]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy: SII-152]; Lindin1906 [description, taxonomy: 26]; Lindin1911 [taxonomy: 129]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 196]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, taxonomy: 263,264]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 190].
Suturaspis archangelskyae (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
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. Described: female.
Leucodiaspis archangelskyae; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination.
Suturaspis archangelskyae; Borchsenius, 1937a: 95. Change of combination.
Leucaspidiopsis crataegi fraxinicola Bodenheimer, 1943: 11. Synonymy by Balachowsky, 1953g: 889.
Suturaspis archangelskajae; Borchsenius, 1949d: 202. Misspelling of species name.
Salicicola Archangelskaiae; Balachowsky, 1953g: 889. Misspelling of genus and species names.
COMMON NAME: Archangelskaya scale [MillerDa1990].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphytis proclia [MyartsLe1975].
HOSTS: Aceraceae: Acer cinerascens [Moghad2013a]. Juglandaceae: Juglans regia [InserrCa1985]. Myrtaceae: Myrtus communis [Seghat1977]. Oleaceae: Fraxinus excelsior [Bodenh1943], Fraxinus sp. [Seghat1977], Olea europaea [ErlerKoTu1996], Syringa sp. [Borchs1966]. Punicaceae: Punica sp. [Borchs1966]. Rosaceae: Amygdalus sp. [Borchs1966], Armeniaca vulgaris [InserrCa1985], Cerasus sp. [Borchs1966], Cydonia sp. [Borchs1966], Malus communis [InserrCa1985], Mespilus sp. [Borchs1966], Nespilus germanica [InserrCa1985], Persica vulgaris [Borchs1966], Prunus avium [Seghat1977], Prunus domestica [InserrCa1985], Prunus reuteri [Moghad2013a], Pyrus communis [Lindin1929], Pyrus malus [Hadzib1983]. Salicaceae: Populus sp. [Balach1953g]. Thymelaeaceae: Daphne angustifolia [Moghad2013a]. Ulmaceae: Celtis australis [Moghad2013a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Afghanistan [FowjhaKo1994]; Armenia [TerGri1956]; Georgia [Hadzib1983]; Iran [Kaussa1955, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943]; Italy [Porcel1992]; Sicily [InserrCa1985]; Tajikistan (=Tadzhikistan) [AlimdzBr1956]; Turkey [KozarKoAk1979, ErlerKoTu1996]; Turkmenistan [Archan1930, Lashin1956]; Uzbekistan [Balach1953g] (Samarkand Oblast [Lindin1929]).
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)
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, narrowly oblong processes.
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. 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)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
KEYS: Watson et al. 2000a (female) [as Salicicola archangelskyae; Expert system on a CD]; Danzig 1993: 127 (female) [as Salicicola archangelskyae; Key to species of Salicicola]; Balachowsky 1953g: 884 (female) [as Salicicola archangelskyae; Key to species of Salicicola].
CITATIONS: AlimdzBr1956 [distribution: 152]; Archan1930 [distribution, taxonomy: 82]; Archan1937 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 65, 67-68]; Babaev1980 [distribution: 59]; Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 884, 886, 889-895]; Balach1958b [structure: 340]; 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 [catalogue, 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 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 353]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; FowjhaKo1994 [distribution, host: 344-347]; FowjhaKo1999 [distribution, host: 122]; Hadzib1983 [distribution, taxonomy: 214, 277]; InserrCa1985 [distribution, host: 88]; Kaussa1947 [distribution, host: 17]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10]; KonstaKoJa1984 [distribution, host: 351]; Kozar1987 [economic importance: 100]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarKo1981 [taxonomy: 214]; KozarKo1981a [distribution: 128]; KozarKoAk1979 [distribution, host: 537]; KozarWa1985 [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]; MyartsLe1975 [biological control, description, distribution, economic importance, host, life history, taxonomy: 58-61]; Porcel1992 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 36]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 16]; Takagi2008 [taxonomy: 93]; 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]; Watson2002 [description, distribution, economic importance, illustration, economic importance, host]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177].
Suturaspis crataegi (Bodenheimer)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspidopsis crataegi Bodenheimer, 1943: 10-11. Type data: IRAQ: Shaklawa, on Crataegus monogyna, 11/10/1942. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Bet Dagan: Department of Entomology, The Volcani Center, Israel. Described: female. Illust.
Suturaspis archangelskyae; Balachowsky, 1953g: 889. Incorrect synonymy; discovered by Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005: 50-52.
Suturaspis crataegi; Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005: 50-52. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Punicaceae: Crataegus monogyna [Bodenh1943]. Thymelaeaceae: Daphne angustifolia [TakagiMo2005].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Iraq [Bodenh1943].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description in Bodenheimer, 1943. Redescription and illustrations in Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005.
SYSTEMATICS: The adult female is very similar to that of Suturaspis archangelskyae, from which it is distinguishable in the pygidium broadly rounded along the apical margin and crenulated on the entire margin; there is no trace of trullae. Each anterior spiracle is provided with one to three (or four?) quinque locular disc pores. There are no microducts laterally to the mouth-parts. In the second instar female, the median and second trullae are rudimentary and represented by low, roundish, somewhat sclerotized prominences, and there are no distinct pectinae as in S. archangelskyae. Each anterior spiracle is provided with one or two quinquelocular disc pores as in S. archangelskyae. Moreover, this species is unique and peculiar in having a pair of large fan-like processes on the ventral surface of the pygidium in the second-instar female. These processes, are called 'flabella' in Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005, and he stated that the presence or absence of flabella should be an infraspecific variation in Suturaspis crataegi.
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 884,886,889-895]; Bodenh1943 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10-11]; TakagiMo2005 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 50-52].
Suturaspis davatchi (Balachowsky & Kaussari)NOMENCLATURE:
Salicicola Davatchi Balachowsky & Kaussari, 1951: 6-7. Type data: IRAN: Saravan, on Pistacia khindjuk, by M. Kaussari. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
Salicicola Davatschii; Balachowsky, 1953: 162. Misspelling of species name.
Suturaspis davatchi; Borchsenius, 1966: 222. Change of combination.
Salicicola davatchii; Danzig & Pellizzari, 1998: 353. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia khindjuk [BalachKa1951], Pistacia mutica [Moghad2013a], Pistacia sp. [Borchs1966, Seghat1977], Pistacia vera [Davatc1958]. Moraceae: Ficus carica [Seghat1977]. Rosaceae: Prunus lycioides [Moghad2013a].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Afghanistan [KozarFoZa1996]; Iran [BalachKa1951, Seghat1977, KozarFoZa1996]; Turkey [Davatc1958, DanzigPe1998].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Balachowsky & Kaussari (1951).
STRUCTURE: Female scale rectangular, more or less convex. Exuviae pale yellow. Adult female elongate, nearly oval (Balachowsky & Kaussari, 1951).
SYSTEMATICS: Salicicola davatchi differs from other species of the genus by the round shape (not deltoid) of pygidium, the weak extent of the perianal plate and the small number and the particular structure of the dorsal tubular macropores (Balachowsky & Kaussari, 1951).
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 127 (female) [as Salicicola davatchi; Key to species of Salicicola]; Balachowsky 1953g: 884 (female) [as Salicicola davatchi; Key to species of Salicicola].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 884, 885, 898-901]; BalachKa1951 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 6-7]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 131]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 353]; Davatc1958 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 38-39]; DavatcBa1956 [distribution, host: 105]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1964 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 14-15, 17]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 10]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Moghad2004 [distribution, host: 9]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 52]; MoghadTa2010 [distribution: 38]; Seghat1977 [distribution, host: 16].
Suturaspis pistaciae (Lindinger)NOMENCLATURE:
Leucaspis (Euleucaspis) pistaciae Lindinger, 1906: 40. Type data: CYPRUS: on Pistacia lentiscus, ?/02/1903. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Hamburg: Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat von Hamburg, Germany. Described: female. Illust.
Suturaspis pistaciae; MacGillivray, 1921: 268. Change of combination.
Leucodiaspis pistaciae; Lindinger, 1932b: 107. Change of combination.
Salicicola pistaciae; Balachowsky, 1953g: 162. Change of combination.
Leucaspis pistaciae; Beccari, 1959: 78. Change of combination.
Suturaspis pistaciae; Takagi & Moghaddam, 2005: 52. Change of combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Ablerus perspeciosus Girault [UlgentErKa2008].
HOSTS: Anacardiaceae: Pistacia khinjuk [Bodenh1944b], Pistacia lentiscus [Lindin1906, BenDov2012], Pistacia mutica [Davatc1958], Pistacia palaestina [Bodenh1953], Pistacia terebinthus [Bodenh1926], Pistacia vera [Bodenh1953].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Cyprus [Lindin1906, DanzigPe1998]; Egypt [Bodenh1937]; Greece [Korone1934]; Iran [Bodenh1944b, KozarFoZa1996]; Iraq [Bodenh1943, DanzigPe1998]; Israel [Bodenh1924, Panis1981]; Lebanon [Bodenh1926]; Libya [Panis1981]; Syria [Panis1981, DanzigPe1998]; Turkey [Bodenh1949].
KEYS: Danzig 1993: 127 (female) [as Salicicola pistaciae; Key to species of Salicicola]; Balachowsky 1953g: 884 (female) [as Salicicola pistaciae; Key to species of Salicicola]; MacGillivray 1921: 268 [as Suturaspis pistaciae; Key to species of Suturaspis]; Lindinger 1906: 27 (female) [as Leucaspis Euleucaspis pistaciae; Key to species of Leucaspis Euleucaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [illustration, taxonomy: 28]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 884, 886]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 340]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 165]; Beccar1959 [distribution: 78]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 43]; Bodenh1924 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 57]; Bodenh1926 [distribution, host: 44]; Bodenh1930a [distribution: 374, 375]; Bodenh1935b [distribution: 308]; Bodenh1937 [distribution, host: 218]; Bodenh1943 [distribution, host: 10, 28]; Bodenh1944b [distribution, host: 98]; Bodenh1949 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 173-175]; Bodenh1953 [description, distribution, host, host, taxonomy: 55-56]; Borchs1950b [distribution, taxonomy: 179]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Britti1937 [taxonomy: 283]; Danzig1972 [distribution, taxonomy: 221]; Danzig1993 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 129]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 354]; Davatc1958 [distribution, host: 40]; DavatcBa1956 [distribution, host: 105]; ErlerKoTu1996 [distribution, host: 58]; Ferris1936a [illustration, taxonomy: 23, 86]; Georgh1977 [distribution, host: 152]; Green1915 [taxonomy: 461]; Hariri1972 [distribution, host: 146]; Kaussa1955 [distribution, host: 18]; Kaussa1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 9]; Kiriuk1946 [distribution, economic importance, host: 3]; Korone1934 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 45-46, 49]; KozarFoZa1996 [distribution: 68]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 87]; Lindin1906 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 27, 40]; Lindin1912b [distribution, host, taxonomy: 263]; Lindin1932b [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 140]; MacGil1921 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 262, 268]; MehrneAk2001 [economic importance: 315]; MilonaKoKo2008a [distribution: 143-147]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 52]; Panis1981 [distribution: 8]; Pierce1917 [economic importance: 171]; SismanUl2010 [distribution, economic importance, host: 220-223]; UlgentErKa2008 [biological control, host: 253-264]; Watson2002 [taxonomy: 117]; WeidneWa1968 [distribution, host: 177]; YanikYuAk2001 [economic importance: 301].
Tamilparla TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Tamilparla Takagi, 1987: 4. Type species: Tamilparla smilacis Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1987).
SYSTEMATICS: Tamilparla is related to Parlatoria, but is distinguishable from the latter mainly by the following characters. In the adult female: numerous macroducts, comparatively small in size, occur all over the dorsal surface of the pygidium except on the median basal area anterior to the anus, some marginal macroducts with an associated thick sclerosis superimposed on the rim of the orifice. In the 2nd instar female: the exuviation is of the bivalve type (Takagi, 1987).
CITATIONS: Takagi1987 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 4].
Tamilparla smilacis TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Tamilparla smilacis Takagi, 1987: 4-6. Type data: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Coonoor, Bharat, on Smilax sp., ?/11/1978. Holotype female. Type depository: Calcutta: National Zoological Collection, Zoological Survey of India, India. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Smilacaceae: Smilax sp. [Takagi1987]
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India (Tamil Nadu [Takagi1987]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1987).
STRUCTURE: Scale of female oval, pale brown dorsally, the ventral portion developed only on the sides, forming a trough-shaped cavity inside the scale; exuvial casts terminal; 2nd instar cast reddish brown, blackish medially, the ventral skin ruptured along margin, but remaining attached to dorsal skin by anterior margin, less sclerotized than dorsal skin. Male scale much smaller, elongate, pale brown dorsally. Adult female body broadly obovate; meso and metathorax and abdominal segments I-IV defined marginally from the prothorax often appearing deeper, giving the united head and prothorax an appearance of being set off from the rest of the body. Pygidial lobes in 4 pairs (Takagi, 1987).
CITATIONS: Takagi1987 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 4-6, 20-25].
Thysanaspis FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Thysanaspis Ferris, 1955c: 31. Type species: Thysanaspis acalyptus Ferris, by monotypy.
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description by Takagi (1961a).
STRUCTURE: Adult female contained within the sclerotized exuviae of the 2nd stage, elongate oval in shape, its pygidium semicircular in form and with merely a pair of small, sclerotized areas on the dorsal side. Margin of pygidium with 4 pairs of slender setae with a single very small duct of an indeterminable nature between the bases of each two pairs (Ferris, 1955c).
SYSTEMATICS: There are at least two known genera, Anotaspis and Radionaspis, which agree with Thysanaspis in the great reduction of the characters which are available for generic separation and of these genera the present one seems to approach most closely Radionaspis. It differs in the marginal fringe on the pygidium of the 2nd stage, in the absence of the pygidial lobes in the adult and in the presence of the perivulvar pores in the adult (Ferris, 1955c).
KEYS: Yang 1982: 271 (female) [Key to genera of Parlatoriini]; Takagi 1961a: 101 (female) [Key to genera of Japanese Diaspidini].
CITATIONS: Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 222]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 203]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, taxonomy: 362-363]; Ferris1955c [description, distribution, taxonomy: 31-32]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 195]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 94-95, 101]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, taxonomy: 105-108]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 59, 61]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 271].
Thysanaspis acalyptus FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Thysanaspis acalyptus Ferris, 1955c: 31. Type data: CHINA: Guangdong, 50 miles north of Canton, Fei Ha, on the North River, on undetermined host, 1948-1949, by G.F. Ferris. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Lauraceae: Litsea akoensis [Tao1999], Litsea pungens [Hua2000].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Ferris1955c, Tao1999]); Hong Kong [Tao1999]. Palaearctic: China [Ali1970].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris (1955c).
STRUCTURE: Adult female contained within the sclerotized exuviae of the 2nd stage, elongate oval in shape, its pygidium semicircular in form and with merely a pair of small, sclerotized areas on the dorsal side. Margin of pygidium with 4 pairs of slender setae with a single very small duct of an indeterminable nature between the bases of each two pairs (Ferris, 1955c).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 204 [Key to species of Thysanaspis].
CITATIONS: Ali1970 [distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 29]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 335]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 204]; Chou1986 [illustration: 618]; Ferris1955c [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 31]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution: 44]; Takagi1961a [taxonomy: 94, 97]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 105]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 58]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 120]; Yang1982 [distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 284, 285].
Thysanaspis litseae TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Thysanaspis litseae Takagi, 1961a: 95-97. Type data: JAPAN: Ryukyu Islands, Amami-Osima, Naze, on Litsea japonica, 21/05/1957. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Litsea japonica [Takagi1961a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Takagi1961a]. Palaearctic: Japan [DanzigPe1998] (Kyushu [Takagi2002]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1961a). Illustrations of adult female, second-instar male, and first instar given in Takagi (2002).
STRUCTURE: Female scale with 2nd exuviae brown and loosely covered by white secretionary material which is composed of curled individual threads. Male scale elongate, felted, non-carinate and white. Adult female body oval, pygidium approximately triangular (Takagi, 1961a).
SYSTEMATICS: Thysanaspis litseae is distinguishable from T. acalyptus by having accompanying disc pores and a cluster of slender ventral ducts laterad of each anterior spiracle, by lacking a marginal duct between the apical setae of the pygidium and by having five prominent marginal pore prominences on the pygidium in the 2nd stage female (Takagi, 1961a).
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 363]; Kawai1972 [description, distribution, host: 45]; Kawai1972 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 45]; Kawai1980 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 184]; KozarWa1985 [distribution: 88]; Muraka1970 [distribution, host, taxonomy: 101]; Takagi1961a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 95-97]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 105]; Takagi2002 [illustration, taxonomy: 58, 77-80].
Thysanaspis perkinsi TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Thysanaspis perkinsi Takagi, 1969a: 108. Type data: TAIWAN: Kuan-tzu-ling, on Litsea akoensis. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Lauraceae: Litsea akoensis [Takagi1969a, Tao1999].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Taiwan [Takagi1969a, Tao1999].
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed description and illustration by Takagi (1969a).
STRUCTURE: Pygidium triangular in outline, with 4 pairs of long setae and 6-8 slender ducts all around the apical margin, the marginal ducts being somewhat irregular in arrangement. 2nd instar female with 3 (1 median and 2 lateral) enlarged marginal ducts on the pygidium (Takagi, 1969a).
SYSTEMATICS: Thysanaspis perkinsi is close to T. litseae, from which it is distinguished mainly by the number of the enlarged marginal ducts on the pygidium of the 2nd-instar female: in T. perkinsi these ducts are present, in addition to the median one, only in one lateral pair, whereas in T. litseae in two lateral pairs (Takagi, 1969a).
KEYS: Chou 1985: 204 [Key to species of Thysanaspis].
CITATIONS: Chou1985 [description, distribution, taxonomy: 204]; Chou1986 [illustration: 616-617]; Hua2000 [distribution, host: 161]; Takagi1969a [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106-108]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 58]; Tao1978 [distribution, host: 94]; Tao1999 [distribution, host: 120]; WongChCh1999 [distribution, illustration: 35, 80]; Yang1982 [distribution, taxonomy: 284].
Subfamily Odonaspidinae
Batarasa TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Batarasa Takagi, 2009134. Type species: Batarasa lumampao Takagi, by monotypy and original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Generic characters described and defined by Takagi (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is referable to the tribe Odonaspidini, subfamily Aspidiotinae. The adult female has abundant minute ducts, which are not arranged in distinct rows but strewn on both surfaces of the body, especially in paratergal and parasternal areas, and is devoid of pectinae [plates] on the pygidium and prepygidial segments. The second-instar male, nevertheless, is provided with gland tubercles on the ventral surface of the prosoma. In the first instar the antennae are five-segmented, with the third segment longer than each of the second and fourth; the tibia and tarsus in each leg are completely fused. In the adult female the pygidium is interpreted to be composed of the fifth and succeeding abdominal segments; its dorsal surface is partitioned into a membranous anterior area, which appears to belong to the fifth abdominal segment, and a sclerotized posterior area, which is elaborately and extensively reticulate. The latter area, called 'caudal disc' hereafter, is almost devoid of ducts, and has no marginal scleroses (that mark intersegmental lines in other odonaspidines). The caudal disc is articulated with the anterior area through a strongly sclerotized transverse structure or 'hinge', which extends for most of the basal breadth of the disc. In full-grown specimens the hinge is remarkably developed; in slide-mounted specimens, it is irregularly undulate and overlaps the base of the caudal disc (in situ, the overlapping part should rise above the dermal surface), with the anterior part appearing to be inserted into the body cavity. The ventral surface of the abdomen remains membranous except for the marginal area. The marginal setae on the dorsal disc and those on the ventral side of the eighth segment are dislocated somewhat anteriorly. The anus opens on the membranous anterior area towards the base of the pygidium and thus appears to belong to the fifth abdominal segment; the vulva is placed also close to tbe base of the pygidium nearly at the level of the anus. Invaginated glanduliferous tubes occur on the margin of the pygidium (similar tubes also occur in the second-instar female and male, whereas the caudal disc is peculiar to the adult female). No complete test is formed in the female; the nymphal exuvial casts are not of the bivalve type, but ruptured irregularly, remaining around the body of the female.
CITATIONS: Takagi2009 [taxonomy, description: 131-147].
Batarasa lumampao TakagiNOMENCLATURE:
Batarasa lumampao Takagi, 2009: 135. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Palawan Island, Sitip Tig Wayan, Barangay Marrangas, Batarasa District [=Bataraza], near Brooke's Point, on Schizostachyum lumampao; collected 18.viii.1993. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 93PL-80. Described: female.
HOST: Poaceae: Schizostachyum lumampao [Takagi2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Takagi2009]).
BIOLOGY: This species builds a colony on the node, where branches grow out. In the colony, adult females are crowded closely together, standing on the head, and their bodies grow rather plump. The exuvial casts of both nymphal instars are irregularly ruptured, with the dorsal and ventral portions often disconnected from each other, and remain around the body of the adult female. The female does not construct any distinct test; this is natural, because the caudal disc is almost devoid of ducts. The body of the full-grown adult female is partly surrounded with the exuvial casts and waxy ubstance secreted around, but the posterior end is naked. The structure of the naked pygidium suggests that, in situ, the pygidium is bent towards the ventral side probably at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the body, and that the crowded colony, in which the adult females stand on the head, is roofed with their caudal discs held horizontal or nearly so. The pygidium, however, should be returned up to expose the vulva for copulation and also for oviposition or the release of crawlers. (All this is no more than a speculation in the present state of study, but there seems to be no other plausible and reasonable explanation.) This species is probably ovoviviparous, nymphs of the first instar having been observed within the bodies of some full-grown adult females. The male constructs a slender test, with both dorsal and ventral portions formed complete. Male and female specimens were obtained from the same colonies. It seems that the male tests are formed in narrow spaces among females or around the mass of females.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female and second-instar male nymph by Takagi (2009).
CITATIONS: Takagi2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 131-147].
Circulaspis MacGillivrayNOMENCLATURE:
Circulaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 393. Type species: Odonaspis canaliculata Green, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Definition and characters by MacGillivray (1921), Ferris (1938a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
SYSTEMATICS: This genus is distinguished from other genera of the Odonaspidinae in possessing one invaginated tube at apex of the pygidium (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 18 (female) [species World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 14 (female) [World]; McDaniel 1974: 417-418 (female) [species U.S.A.: Texas]; Ferris 1942: 64 (female) [North America]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [species North America].
CITATIONS: Balach1948 [taxonomy: 24]; Balach1948b [taxonomy: 264]; Balach1949 [taxonomy: 109]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 727]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 298]; BenDov1980a [taxonomy, description: 76]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description: 18]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 821]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 226]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33,37]; Ferris1938 [taxonomy: 46]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description: 156]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 64]; Kozar1990f [distribution: 142]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 182]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description: 393,449]; MorrisMo1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 38]; Varshn2002 [taxonomy: 15].
Circulaspis bibursella FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Circulaspis bibursella Ferris, 1938a: 158. Type data: MEXICO: State of Colima, Manzanillo, on undetermined coarse grass. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Graminae [Ferris1938a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Colima [Ferris1938a, BenDov1988b], Nayarit [Ferris1938a]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring exposed on the leaves and beneath the leaf sheaths.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1938a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the female brown, sometimes slightly fluffy from unconsolidated wax threads, broadly oval; scale of the male similar in color, slender (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 18 (female) [World]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 18-19,97]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 821]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 226]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution : 158]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 65].
Circulaspis canaliculata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis canaliculatus Green, 1900a: 72. Type data: SRI LANKA: Nuwara Eliya, on various kinds of bamboo. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aspidiotus canaliculata; MacGillivray, 1921: 226. Change of combination.
Circulaspis canaliculata; MacGillivray, 1921: 449. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis canaliculata; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Circulaspis canaliculata; Borchsenius, 1966: 226. Revived combination.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa [Green1900a, Green1922, Green1937, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [Ramakr1921a]; Sri Lanka [Green1900a, Ramakr1921a, Green1922, Green1937, BenDov1988b]. Palaearctic: China [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Green (1900a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very dense and compact: irregularly circular: black: pellicles yellowish, the second often concealed beneath the black secretionary layer. Diameter 1.50-1.75 mm. Male scale elongate: outline often sinuous: both pellicle and secretionary area black, the pellicle situated at anterior margin. Length 1.50 mm. Breadth 0.50 mm. (Green, 1900a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 18 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 19-20,98]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 657]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 821-822]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 226]; DEDAC1923 [host, distribution]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 299]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy, illustration: 33,37]; Green1900a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 72]; Green1922 [host, distribution: 463]; Green1937 [host, distribution: 335]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 393,449]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320]; Ramakr1921a [host, distribution: 358]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 16]; WangVaXu1998 [host, distribution: 86].
Circulaspis fistulata (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis fistulata Ferris, 1921: 121. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California, Punta Palmilla, near San Jose del Cabo, on Distichlis spicata. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Dycryptaspis fistulata; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Circulaspis fistulata; Ferris, 1938a: 159. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Distichlis spicata [Ferris1921, BenDov1988b], Monanthochloe [BenDov1988b], Sporobolus [Ferris1938a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1921]); United States of America (Texas [Ferris1938a, McDani1974]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring on the upper surface of the strongly revolute leaves of the host.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1921, 1938a), McDaniel (1974) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the female brown, broadly elongate; scale of the male white, slender, elongate (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 18 (female) [World]; McDaniel 1974: 418 (female) [U.S.A.: Texas]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 20-21,99]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 822]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 226-227]; Ferris1921 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 121-123]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 159]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 65]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; McDani1974 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 419]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 23].
Circulaspis fistulella FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Circulaspis fistulella Ferris, 1938a: 160. Type data: U.S.A.: Texas, Point Isabel, on Distichlis spicata. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
COMMON NAME: salt grass scale [Dekle1976].
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Signiphoridae: Signiphora [BenDov1988b].
HOSTS: Cyperaceae: Cladium jamaicense [BenDov1988b]. Poaceae: Cynodon dactylon [BenDov1988b], Distichlis spicata [Ferris1938a], Spartina [TippinBe1970, BenDov1988b], Spartina bakeri [BenDov1988b], Spartina patens [BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Sporobolus [Ferris1938a], Sporobolus indicus [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [BesheaTiHo1973, Dekle1976, BenDov1988b], Georgia [TippinBe1970, BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Texas [Ferris1938a, McDani1974, BenDov1988b]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring on the upper surface of the strongly revolute leaves of the host.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1938a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the female elongate oval, tapering posteriorly, brownish; that of the male slender, similar in color to the female (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 18 (female) [World]; McDaniel 1974: 418 (female) [U.S.A.: Texas]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, biological control: 21-22,72,100]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 823]; BesheaTiHo1973 [host, distribution: 14]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 227]; Dekle1976 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 62]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 160]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 65]; McDani1974 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 419-420]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 86]; TippinBe1970 [host, distribution: 8].
Dicirculaspis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Dicirculaspis Ben-Dov, 1988b: 23. Type species: Dicirculaspis philippina Ben-Dov, by original designation.
GENERAL REMARKS: Definition and characters by Ben-Dov (1988b).
SYSTEMATICS: This monotypic genus differs form other genera of the Odonaspidinae in possessing two invaginated tubes at the apex of the pygidium (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 14 (female) [World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 23 (female) [species World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description: 14,23]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 823].
Dicirculaspis bibursa (Ferris)NOMENCLATURE:
Circulaspis bibursa Ferris, 1938a: 157. Type data: U.S.A.: Texas, cliffs at Fort Davis, on grass. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 24. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA; type no. T/695. Described: female. Illust.
Dicirculaspis bibursa; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 23. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae [Ferris1938a], Stipa [BenDov1988b], Triodia pilosa [Ferris1938a, McDani1974, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [Ferris1938a, McDani1974, BenDov1988b]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring beneath the sheathing bases of the leaves.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1938a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the female white, elongate, oval, tapering posteriorly; that of the male white, slender, elongate (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 23 (female) [World]; McDaniel 1974: 417-418 (female) [U.S.A.: Texas]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 23-24,101]; BenDov1990a [taxonomy: 88]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 823-824]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 226]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 157]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 65]; McDani1974 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 418]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 23].
Dicirculaspis philippina Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Dicirculaspis philippina Ben-Dov, 1988b: 24. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon Island, Bikal, on Schizostachyum sp.; collected October 1925. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa [BenDov1988b], Schizostachyum [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Luzon [BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: No information is available on female scale cover; male unknown (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 23 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 24-25,102]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 824].
Froggattiella LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Targionia (Froggattiella) Leonardi, 1900: 300. Type species: Aspidiotus inusitatus Green, by monotypy.
Targionia (Froggattiella); Cockerell, 1900f: 72. Notes: Authorship of genus name credited to Leonardi.
Froggattiella; MacGillivray, 1921: 393. Change of status.
Frogattiella; Balachowsky, 1953g: 727. Misspelling of genus name.
Troggattiella; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Misspelling of genus name.
GENERAL REMARKS: Definition and characters by Williams & Watson (1988) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
SYSTEMATICS: Froggattiella was raised to generic rank by MacGillivray (1921) and interpreted as such by Ferris (1937a), who later (Ferris, 1938a) presumed there was no ground to separate it from Odonaspis. Balachowsky (1953g) and Takagi (1959, 1969a) concurred with Ferris and regarded Froggattiella as a synonym of Odonaspis, however Ben-Dov (1988b) regarded it as a distinct genus.
KEYS: Gill 1997: 31 (female) [Genera of California]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 26 (adult) [World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 26 (female) [species World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 14 (female) [World]; Williams & Watson 1988: 19 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Genera of China]; Chou 1985: 331 (female) [Species of China].
CITATIONS: Balach1949 [taxonomy: 109]; Balach1953g [taxonomy: 727]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description: 26]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 824-825]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 227]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description: 330-331]; Cocker1900f [taxonomy: 72]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 133]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 264-265]; Fernal1903b [taxonomy: 299]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33,38]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 82]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 150]; Kozar1990f [distribution: 142]; Leonar1900 [taxonomy, description: 300]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 185]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description: 393,450]; MorrisMo1966 [taxonomy: 81]; Takagi1959 [taxonomy: 92]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 60]; Tao1999 [taxonomy: 89]; Varshn2002 [taxonomy: 16]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, description: 123].
Froggattiella gigantochloae AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Froggattiella gigantochloae Aono, 2009: 28. Type data: MALAYSIA: Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, Grounds of Forest Research Institute, on Gigantochloa sp.; collected Sadao Takagim, 2.zi.1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML388. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Gigantochloa [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult femalem by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Froggattiella gigantochloae Aono is similar to FroggattielIa penicillata and F. mcclurei but differs from F. penicillata in the antennae located distinctly anterior to the clypeolabral shield and in the distribution and number of the gland spines, and from F mcclurei in the absence of perivulvar disc pores and in the gland spines on the pygidial apex occurring in separate pairs.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 28-29,75].
Froggattiella inusitata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus inusitatus Green, 1896e: 66. Type data: SRI LANKA: on Arundinaria sp. Lectotype female (examined), by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 27. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aspidiotus (Odonaspis) inusitatus; Cockerell, 1899a: 395. Change of combination.
Targionia (Froggattiella) inusitata; Leonardi, 1900: 300. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Odonaspis inusitata; Green, 1900a: 71. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus inucitata; Kuwana, 1907: 193. Misspelling of species name.
Odonaspis (Aspidiotus) inusitatus; Ramakrishna Ayyar, 1921: 357. Change of combination.
Froggattiella inusitata; MacGillivray, 1921: 450. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis inusitata; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Froggattiella inusitata; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 26. Revived combination.
Odonaspis inusittatus; Wang, Varma & Xu, 1998: 86. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria [Green1896e, Green1937, BenDov1988b], Bambusa [Green1900a].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [Green1896e, Green1900a, Ramakr1921a, Green1937, BenDov1988b]; Taiwan [Green1937]. Palaearctic: Japan [Kuwana1917a] (Kyushu [Kuwana1902, Kuwana1907]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Green (1896e), Chou (1985, 1986) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Colour illustration of the female scale cover by Green (1896e). Female scale very large; flat; oval in front, greatly elongated posteriorly; the supplemental portion usually narrower than the other; exuviae yellow, always more or less concealed by secretion; approximately central in early adult stage, subsequently becoming eccentric by the backward extension of the scale; ventral scale as well developed as dorsal, and bearing what appear to be the ventral halves of exuviae; the dorsal and ventral scale are so much alike that it is often difficult to decide which is the dorsal and which ventral after it has been detached from the stem; colour brownish-white or brownish-fulvous; length 3.5-7.5 mm; greatest breadth about 3.5 mm; male scale not known (Green, 1896e).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 26 (female) [World]; Chou 1985: 331 (female) [Species of China]; Green 1896e: 40 (female) [Sri Lanka].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 26-28,103]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 825-826]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 227]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 331-333]; Chou1986 [taxonomy, illustration: 703]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 27-28]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 395]; Cocker1900f [taxonomy: 72]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 265]; DEDAC1923 [host, distribution]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 299]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy, illustration: 33,38]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 44]; Ferris1943a [taxonomy: 86]; Green1896e [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 66-67]; Green1900a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 71-72]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1937 [host, distribution: 335]; Kuwana1902 [host, distribution: 65]; Kuwana1907 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 193]; Kuwana1917a [taxonomy, distribution: 176]; Leonar1900 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 300-302]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 450]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320]; Ramakr1921a [host, distribution, taxonomy: 357]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 89]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 16]; WangVaXu1998 [host, distribution: 86].
Froggattiella mcclurei Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Froggattiella mcclurei Ben-Dov, 1988b: 28. Type data: CHINA: Kwangtung, Yunq Hui, Wuchow, Kwanqs, on Bambusa sp.; collected xii.1928. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Froggattiella mccliurei; Tao, 1999: 89. Misspelling of species name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa [BenDov1988b], Bambusa nana [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Indonesia (Java [BenDov1988b]). Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [BenDov1988b]); Hong Kong [BenDov1988b]; Philippines [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide-mounted specimens of females were available (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 26 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 28-29,104]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 826]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 89].
Froggattiella penicillata (Green)NOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis penicillata Green, 1905a: 346. Type data: SRI LANKA: Peradeniya, on Gigantochloa aspera. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 29. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Froggattiella penicillata; Rutherford, 1915: 104. Change of combination.
Anoplaspis penicillata; Kuwana, 1933: 38. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis penicillata; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis penicillata; Ferris, 1938a: 164. Revived combination.
Froggattiella penicillata; Borchsenius, 1966: 227. Revived combination.
Odonaspis penicillata; Takagi, 1969a: 62. Revived combination.
Froggattiella penicillata; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 29. Revived combination.
COMMON NAME: penicillate scale [McKenz1956, Dekle1965c, Borchs1966].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus [BenDov1988b], Caenohomalopoda shikokuensis (Tachikawa) [Prinsl1983, BenDov1988b, Trjapi1989].
HOSTS: Poaceae [BesheaTiHo1973], Arundinaria [BenDov1988b], Arundinaria hindsii [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [McKenz1956, Takagi1959a, Dekle1965c, Muntin1965b, Takagi1969a, Hadzib1983, BenDov1988b, Danzig1993], Bambusa argentea-striata [BenDov1988b], Bambusa multiplex elegans [Aono2009], Bambusa nana [BenDov1988b], Bambusa pervariabilis [BenDov1988b], Bambusa stenostachya [Takaha1929, Ferris1921a, McKenz1956, BenDov1988b], Bambusa vulgaris [BenDov1988b], Bambusoides [Aono2009], Dendrocalamus [Danzig1993], Dendrocalamus latiflorus [Takaha1929], Dendrocalamus merrilliana [BenDov1988b], Gigantochloa [Danzig1993, Aono2009], Gigantochloa aspera [Green1905a, Sander1906, Green1937, McKenz1956, Takagi1969a], Gigantochloa levis [Aono2009], Ochlandra [Danzig1993], Ochlandra travancorica [McKenz1956], Panicum [TippinBe1970], Phyllostachys [BenDov1988b], Phyllostachys aurea [BenDov1988b], Phyllostachys bambusoides [BesheaTiHo1973], Phyllostachys nigra jenosis [Aono2009], Phyllostachys pubescens [BenDov1988b], Sasa [Aono2009], Schizostachyum glaucifolium [WilliaWa1988], Schizostachyum lumampao [Aono2009], Spartina [TippinBe1970].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [Muntin1965b, BenDov1988b]. Australasian: Fiji [WilliaWa1988, HodgsoLa2011]; Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii [Takagi1969a, BenDov1988b]); Palau [Beards1966]. Nearctic: Mexico [BenDov1988b]; United States of America (Alabama [BenDov1988b], California [McKenz1956, BenDov1988b], Florida [Dekle1965c, BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Georgia [TippinBe1970, BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Louisiana [BenDov1988b], Mississippi [BenDov1988b], Texas [BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Guyana [BenDov1988b]; Jamaica [BenDov1988b]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [BenDov1988b]). Oriental: China (Zhejiang (=Chekiang) [Wu2001b]); Hong Kong [BenDov1988b]; India [Takagi1969a, BenDov1988b] (Tamil Nadu [Green1919c]); Pakistan [BenDov1988b]; Philippines [Takagi1969a, BenDov1988b] (Palawan [Aono2009]); Sri Lanka [Green1922, Green1937, Takagi1969a, BenDov1988b]; Taiwan [Ferris1921a, Takaha1929, Takagi1969a, BenDov1988b, Aono2009]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Balach1953g, Takagi1969a, SaighiDoBi2005]; China [BenDov1988b] (Henan (=Honan) [Shen1993]); Georgia [Hadzib1983, BenDov1988b, Danzig1993]; Iran [Kaussa1955, BenDov1988b]; Japan [Takagi1959a, Takagi1969a, Kawai1980, BenDov1988b, Aono2009].
BIOLOGY: Occurring under the sheathing bases of the leaves, the specimens observed being attached to the stem and not to the leaf and showing no tendency to burrow beneath the epidermis.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Green (1905a), Kuwana (1933), Ferris (1938a), McKenzie (1956), Takagi (1969a), Chou (1985, 1986), Ben-Dov (1988b), Gill (1997) and by Colon-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud (1998).
STRUCTURE: Female scale very pale fulvous; exuviae orange, usually concealed beneath the whitish secretion, situated at anterior extremity; very firm and compact; the ventral scale as dense as the dorsal; the two scales so firmly adherent that it is difficult to extract the insect uninjured; elongate, broadest immediately behind the exuviae, tapering posteriorly; flattened beneath; strong convex in front, depressed towards hinder extremity; length 1.5-2 mm, greatest breadth 1-1.1 mm. Male scale similar, but smaller, narrower and paler, length 1 mm (Green, 1905a). Female scale brown, elongate, broad anteriorly and tapering posteriorly. Male scale brown, elongate and slender (Ferris, 1938a). Colour photograph by Gill (1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: A minor pest of bamboos (Ben-Dov, 1990e; Gill, 1997).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 26 (female) [World]; Chou 1985: 331 (female) [Species of China]; Kawai 1980: 199 (female) [Japan]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia]; Takagi 1959a: 93 (female) [Japan]; McKenzie 1956: 35 (female) [U.S.A.: California]; Balachowsky 1953g: 732 (female) [Mediterranean]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America]; Kuwana 1933: 37 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933: 37 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933b: 50 (female) [Japan].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 12,35,45,46]; Balach1953g [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 736-739]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, biological control: 29-31,72,105]; BenDov1990c [taxonomy: 121]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 826-829]; BesheaTiHo1973 [host, distribution: 14]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 227-228]; Brown1963 [taxonomy, structure: 360-406]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 331-332]; Chou1986 [taxonomy, illustration: 704,705]; ColonFMe1998 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 133]; Danzig1972 [taxonomy, host, distribution, economic importance: 218]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 133-134]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 265]; DEDAC1923 [host, distribution]; Dekle1965c [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 99]; Dekle1976 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution, economic importance: 120]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Ferris1921a [host, distribution: 219]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 164]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 65]; Foldi1990 [structure: 43-54]; Gill1997 [host, distribution, taxonomy, description, illustration, economic importance: 150,152]; Green1905a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 346-347]; Green1919c [host, distribution: 439]; Green1922 [host, distribution: 463]; Green1937 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 335]; Hadzib1983 [host, distribution: 215]; HodgsoLa2011 [host, distribution: 24]; Kaussa1955 [host, distribution: 17]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 200]; Kuwana1933 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 38-39]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 544]; Lobdel1937 [taxonomy, structure: 78]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 450]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 162-165]; Merril1953 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 63-64]; MillerDa2005 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, economic importance: 212-214]; Moghad2004 [host, distributionn: 10]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 33]; Muntin1965b [host, distribution: 193]; Muraka1970 [host, distribution: 68]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 62]; Nur1990a [taxonomy, structure, chromosomes: 184-185]; PorcelPeMa2012 [structure: 320]; Prinsl1983 [distribution, biological control: 26]; Ramakr1919a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 22]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 27]; RossHaOk2012 [phylogeny, taxonomy: 199]; Ruther1915a [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 104]; SaighiDoBi2005 [host, distribution: 429-433]; Sander1906 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 16]; Sassce1923 [host, distribution: 152-158]; Shen1993 [host, distribution: 59]; Takagi1959a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 94]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 61-62]; Takaha1929 [host, distribution: 78]; Tang1977 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 114-115]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 89]; TippinBe1970 [host, distribution: 10-11]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 16]; WangVaXu1998 [host, distribution: 86]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, illustration, host, distribution: 124-125]; Wu2001b [distribution: 257].
Froggattiella pentapeniculata AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Froggattiella pentapeniculata Aono, 2009: 29. Type data: MALAYSIA: Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, Grounds of the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, on Gigantochloa levis; collected, 30.IX.1986, Sadao Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML64. Described: female. Illust. Notes:
HOST: Poaceae: Gigantochloa levis [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female and second-instar female by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Froggattiella pentapeniculata Aono is distinguishable from other Froggattiella species in having 5 tufts of gland spines on the apex of the pygidium.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 29-30,76-77].
Odonaspis LeonardiNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis Leonardi, 1897: 286. Type species: Aspidiotus secretus Cockerell, by monotypy.
Aspidiotus (Dycryptaspis) Cockerell in Leonardi, 1897a: 375. Type species: Aspidiotus secretus Cockerell, by original designation. Synonymy by Morrison & Morrison, 1966: 64.
Spatheaspis Leonardi, 1897b: 109. Unjustified replacement name for Odonaspis Leonardi, 1897. Notes: Leonardi (1897b) suggested this replacement name, because he erroneously supposed that Odonaspis Leonardi, 1897 was a homonym of Odonaspis Agassiz, 1852.
Aspidiotus (Odonaspis); Cockerell, 1897i: 14. Change of status.
Anoplaspis Leonardi, 1900: 344. Type species: Aspidiotus (Odonaspis) bambusarum Cockerell, by monotypy and original designation. Homonym of Anoplaspis Leonardi, 1898: 47.
Odonaspis; Fernald, 1903b: 299. Revived rank.
Bakeraspis MacGillivray, 1921: 395. Type species: Odonaspis schizostachyi Cockerell & Robinson, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Ferris, 1937a: 33.
Berlesaspidiotus MacGillivray, 1921: 389. Replacement name.
Ligulaspis MacGillivray, 1921: 388. Type species: Odonaspis janeirensis Hempel (= Odonaspis saccharicaulis (Zehntner)), by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Lindinger, 1937: 188.
Dycryptaspis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of status.
Odontaspis Lindinger, 1937: 191. Replacement name. Homonym.
Berlesaspidiotus Aono, 2009: 6. Synonymy by Aono, 2009: 6.
GENERAL REMARKS: Definition and characters by Kuwana (1933) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
SYSTEMATICS: Berlesaspidiotus differs from other genera of the Odonaspidinae, in possessing small cuticular projections on head and thorax, and in the antennal tubercle placed in cylindrical invagination in cuticle. Although Anoplaspis was first described by Leonardi (1898) as a genus in the subfamily Diaspidinae, he (Leonardi,1900) rejected his 1898 usage of this name, and suggested it for an entirely different species Aspidiotus (Odonaspis) bambusarum) Cockerell, in the Odonaspidinae. Leonardi's (1900) action is unacceptable according to Article 12(b)(5) of ICZN, and Anoplaspis Leonardi, 1898 is a valid genus in the Diaspidinae. Anoplaspis Leonardi, 1900 is an homonym of Anoplaspis Leonardi, 1898. This case of homonymy was settled after MacGillivray (1921) introduced Berlesaspidiotus. For further discussion refer to Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 31 (female) [Genera of California]; Gill 1997: 208 (female) [Species of California]; Zahradnik 1990b: 73 (female) [Czech Republic]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 33-35 (adult) [World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 15 (female) [species World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 14 (female) [World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 33-35 (female) [species World]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 14 (female) [World]; Williams & Watson 1988: 19 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Genera of China]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Species of China]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [species Federated States of Micronesia]; Beardsley 1966: 502-504 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia]; Ezzat & Afifi 1966: 402 (female) [Egypt]; Danzig 1964: 645 (female) [Europe]; Takagi 1959a: 92 (female) [Japan]; Balachowsky 1958b: 299-300 (female) [species Africa]; Ezzat 1958: 247 (female) [Egypt]; Balachowsky 1953g: 733 (female) [species Mediterranean basin]; Borchsenius 1950b: 166 (female) [USSR]; Ferris 1942: 64 (female) [North America]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [species North America]; Borchsenius 1937: 100 (female) [USSR]; Borchsenius 1937a: 32-33 (female) [Palaearctic Region]; Kuwana 1933a: 43-45 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933a: 43-45 (female) [Japan]; Fullaway 1932: 97-98 (female) [Hawaii]; Robinson 1917: 16-17 (female) [Philippines].
CITATIONS: Almeid1969 [taxonomy, description: 157-158]; Aono2009 [taxonomy, description: 1-92]; Balach1942 [taxonomy: 47]; Balach1948b [taxonomy, description: 264]; Balach1949 [taxonomy: 109]; Balach1953g [taxonomy, description: 729-731]; Balach1958b [taxonomy, description: 298-299]; Beards1966 [taxonomy: 525]; BenDov1980a [taxonomy, description: 77]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description: 15,32-33]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 819,829-830]; BerlesLe1898 [taxonomy: 131,289]; Borchs1937a [taxonomy: 54,100]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy, description: 211]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 223,227]; Bustsh1958 [taxonomy, description: 212-213]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description: 328]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy: 14,31]; Cocker1899a [taxonomy: 395]; ColonFMe1998 [taxonomy, description: 132]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy: 650]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy: 132]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 317]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy: 247]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 299]; Ferris1936a [taxonomy: 18]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33-34,36,39]; Ferris1937e [taxonomy: 527]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description: 161]; Ferris1938b [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1941d [taxonomy: 345]; Ferris1942 [taxonomy: 64,65]; Fullaw1932 [taxonomy, description: 108]; Gill1997 [taxonomy: 207]; Hadzib1983 [taxonomy: 214-215]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy: 199]; Kuwana1933 [taxonomy, description: 34-35,37,43]; Leonar1897 [taxonomy, description: 284-286]; Leonar1897a [taxonomy: 375]; Leonar1897b [taxonomy: 109,115]; Leonar1898 [taxonomy: 47]; Leonar1900 [taxonomy, description: 344]; Lepage1938 [taxonomy: 412]; Lindin1908 [taxonomy: 98]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 188,191,196]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description: 388,389,395,423,459]; Mamet1949 [taxonomy: 51]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy: 35]; Miller1990 [taxonomy: 169-178]; MorrisMo1966 [catalogue, taxonomy: 11,23,64,137,186]; Ramakr1930 [taxonomy: 27]; Robins1917 [taxonomy, description: 16-17]; Takagi1969a [taxonomy: 332]; Tao1999 [taxonomy: 102]; Varshn2002 [taxonomy: 15,16]; Willia1969a [taxonomy: 332]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, description: 197]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy: 426].
Odonaspis anneckei Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis anneckei Ben-Dov, 1988b: 35. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, Tradouw Pass, on Ehrharta ramosa; collected by J. Munting, 11.I.1969. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Ehrharta ramosa [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval and narrow, about 2 mm long, 1mm wide; white yellowish; larval exuviae brown placed at anterior part of scale. Male scale oval and narrow, about 1 mm long, 0.3 mm wide; larval exuviae brown placed at anterior part of scale (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 35,106]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 831].
Odonaspis arcusnotata Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis arcusnotata Ben-Dov, 1988b: 35. Type data: TAIWAN: Suisha, on Bambusa sp.; collected 31.I.1930. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria hindsii [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [BenDov1988b], Pleioblasthus [Takagi2002, Aono2009], Pseudosasa chino [Aono2009], Sasa [Aono2009], Schizostachyum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]); Taiwan [BenDov1988b]. Palaearctic: China [BenDov1988b]; Japan [BenDov1988b, Takagi2002].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009). The unnamed species, Odonaspis sp. listed by Takagi (1969a: 62) very likely belongs to Odonaspis arcusnotata Ben-Dov, 1988b (Y. Ben-Dov, personal information, 2000).
STRUCTURE: Only slide-mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 13-14,45,47,48]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 35-36,107]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 831]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy, illustration, host, distribution: 59,96,97]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 102].
Odonaspis aristidae Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis aristidae Ben-Dov, 1988b: 36. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, 70 miles northwest of Vryburg, on Aristida diffusa var. burkei; collected by J. Munting, 12.IX.1968. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Aristida diffusa burkei [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elliptical in outline, 2.0-3.5 mm long, 1.0-1.3 mm wide; white brownish; larval exuviae brown, placed at anterior part of scale. Male scale oval and narrow, 0.8-1 mm long, 0.4-0.5 mm wide; white; larval exuviae brown, placed at anterior part of scale (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 36-37,108]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 831-832].
Odonaspis australiensis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis australiensis Ben-Dov, 1988b: 37. Type data: AUSTRALIA: South Australia, Glen Osmond, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, on stolons of Cynodon dactylon; collected June 1952. Holotype female. Type depository: Canberra: Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Australia. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Cynodon dactylon [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia (New South Wales [BenDov1988b], South Australia [BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide-mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 37-38,109]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 832].
Odonaspis bambusarum (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus (Odonaspis) bambusarum Cockerell, 1898b: 191. Type data: JAPAN: on stalks of bamboo from Japan, intercepted at San Francisco, California, USA. Lectotype (examined), by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 16. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA.
Anoplaspis bambusarum; Leonardi, 1900: 345. Change of combination.
Spatheaspis bambusarum; Cockerell, 1900f: 72. Change of combination.
Odonaspis bambusarum; Fernald, 1903b: 299. Change of combination.
Berlesaspidiotus bambusarum; MacGillivray, 1921: 424. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis bambusarum; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Froggattiella bambusarum; Borchsenius, 1966: 227. Change of combination.
Berlesaspidiotus bambusarum; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 15. Revived combination.
Odonaspis bambusarum; Aono, 2009: 6. Revived combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Anabrolepis japonica Ishii [BenDov1988b, Trjapi1989].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria simonii [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [Takagi1959a], Pleioblastus [Kawai1977, Aono2009], Sasa [Aono2009], Semiarundinaria fastosa [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Japan [Kuwana1907, Kuwana1917a, Kuwana1933, Takagi1959a, Kawai1977, Kawai1980, Aono2009] (Kyushu [BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Kuwana (1933) and by Ben-Dov (1988b). Description and illustration of second-istar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
STRUCTURE: Female scale 2 mm diameter, very dark sepia brown, almost black, tolerably convex, dull; exuviae between the center and the side; first skin exposed, light orange; second large, brown, covered; a well-formed ventral scale (Cockerell, 1898b). Colour photograph given by Kawai (1980).
SYSTEMATICS:
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 15 (female) [World]; Kawai 1980: 199 (female) [Japan]; Takagi 1959a: 93-94 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933: 37 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933b: 50 (female) [Japan].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 14-15,49,50]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, distribution, host, biological control: 15-16,72,95]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 657]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 819-820]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 227]; Cocker1898b [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 191]; Cocker1900f [taxonomy: 72]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 265]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 299]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy, illustration: 33,36]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 41]; Ferris1955c [taxonomy: 33]; Ishii1928 [host, distribution, biological control: 79]; Ishii1932a [host, distribution, biological control: 161]; Kawai1977 [host, distribution, economic importance: 163]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 200-201]; Kuwana1907 [host, distribution: 196]; Kuwana1917a [taxonomy, distribution: 176]; Kuwana1933 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 37-38,xi]; Leonar1900 [taxonomy: 345]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 424]; Muraka1970 [host, distribution: 68]; Takagi1959a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 94-95]; Trjapi1989 [biological control: 293]; Willia1985a [taxonomy: 232]; Woodwo1903 [taxonomy: 36].
Odonaspis batarazaensis AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis batarazaensis Aono, 2009: 4-5. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Sitip Tig Wayan, Bataraza, Palawan, on Schizostachyum lumampao; collected 18.Viii.1993. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 93PL-80. Described: female.
HOST: Poaceae: Schizostachyum lumampao [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Aono (2009). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Odonaspis batarazaensis Aono is similar to Odonaspis maasinensis Aono, but differs from the latter in the distribution of ducts on the pygidium, the presence of ducts on the postvulvar sternite, and the presence of the median group of perivulvar disc pores.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 4-5,15-16,39].
Odonaspis benardi BalachowskyNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis benardi Balachowsky, 1957c: 203. Type data: MARTINIQUE: Sainte-Marie, on Paspalum sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Crassulaceae: Echeveria [BenDov1988b]. Marantaceae: Maranta [BenDov1988b]. Poaceae: Andropogon [BenDov1988b], Paspalum [Balach1957c, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b, MatileEt2006], Paspalum notatum [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Veracruz [BenDov1988b]); United States of America (Texas [BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Costa Rica [BenDov1988b]; Cuba [BenDov1988b]; Guatemala [BenDov1988b]; Honduras [BenDov1988b]; Martinique [Balach1957c, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b, MatileEt2006]; Panama [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Balachowsky (1957c) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, 2 mm in diameter; wrinkled; bright brown; larval exuviae slightly subcentral. Male unknown (Balachowsky, 1957c).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: Balach1957c [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 203-206]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 304]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 38-39,110]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 832]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 224]; MatileEt2006 [host, distribution: 172].
Odonaspis bromeliae Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis bromeliae Ben-Dov, 1988b: 39. Type data: HONDURAS: on leaf of bromeliad (Bromeliaceae); collected 13.VIII.1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Bromeliaceae [BenDov1988b], Tillandsia [BenDov1988b], Tillandsia circinnata [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Guatemala [BenDov1988b]; Honduras [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 39-40,111]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 833].
Odonaspis collarifera AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis collarifera Aono, 2009: 30. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Bukit Fraser (1300m), Pahang, Malaysia, on Bambusa sp.; collected Sadao Takagi, 29.X.1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML349. Described: female. Illust. Notes:
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa [Aono2009], Schizostachyum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female and second-instar female by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Aono (2009: 30) indicated that Odonaspis collarifera Aono is referable to Berlesaspidiotus as understood by authors (see Remarks under Odonaspis densipora Aono. It is very similar to 0. crenulata (= B. crenulatus) but differs in having a pair of longitudinal rows of microducts on the perivulvar sternite and in the arrangement of the perivulvar disc pores.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 30-31,78,79].
Odonaspis crenulatus (Ben-Dov)NOMENCLATURE:
Berlesaspidiotus crenulatus Ben-Dov, 1988b: 16. Type data: INDIA: Madras, Pulney, on Arundinaria walkeriana; collected 18.xi.1913. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Odonaspis crenulatus; Aono, 2009: 6. Change of combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria walkeriana [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [BenDov1988b], Schizostachyum lumampao [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: India [BenDov1988b]; Philippines (Luzon [BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Ben-Dov (1988b) noted that scale cover of specimens from the type-series were not available. However, scale cover of female from Philippines, are circular, 3 mm in diameter; dorsal and ventral scales white; exuviae yellow, placed subcentrally (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 15 (female) [as Berlesaspidiotus crenulatus; World].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy: 6]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 16-17,96]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 657]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 820]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 15].
Odonaspis densipora AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis densipora Aono, 2009: 5. Type data: MALAYA: Malaysia, Sabah, Danum Valley, on Dinochloa pubiramea;, collected Sadao Takagi, 24.X.1988 (), Sadao Takagi. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 88ML224. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Dinochloa pubiraneae [Aono2009], Schizostachyum [Aono2009], Schizostachyum diffusum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009], Sabah [Aono2009]); Philippines (Luzon [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female, second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 5-6,16,53,54,40].
Odonaspis floridana Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis floridana Ben-Dov, 1988b: 40. Type data: U.S.A.: Florida, Highlands County, Archbold Biological Station, on large grass; collected 28.IV.1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Spartina patens [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Florida [BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 40-41,112]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 833]; Halber1997b [host, distribution].
Odonaspis galapagoensis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis galapagoensis Ben-Dov, 1988b: 41. Type data: ECUADOR: Galapagos, Santa Cruz Island, Academy Bay, on Sporobolus virginicus; collected 24.VI.1977. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Sporobolus virginicus [BenDov1988b, LincanHoCa2010].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Galapagos Islands [BenDov1988b, LincanHoCa2010].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 41-42,113]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 833]; LincanHoCa2010 [host, distribution: 5].
Odonaspis graminis BremnerNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis graminis Bremner, 1907: 368. Type data: U.S.A.: California, San Francisco, Presidio Hills, on roots of grass; collected by E.M. Ehrhorn. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Rugaspidis graminis; MacGillivray, 1921: 449. Change of combination.
Rugaspidis graminis; MacGillivray, 1921: 449. Misspelling of genus name.
Dycryptaspis graminis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis graminis; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 42. Revived combination.
COMMON NAME: grass root scale [McKenz1956, Borchs1966].
HOSTS: Juncaceae: Juncus [BenDov1988b]. Poaceae [Bremne1907], Danthonia [Borchs1966], Danthonia americana [BenDov1988b], Danthonia californica [Ferris1938a, McKenz1956].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico [Borchs1966, BenDov1988b] (Distrito Federal [Ferris1942]); United States of America (California [Bremne1907, Ferris1938a, McKenz1956, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring beneath the sheathing bases of leaves and among scales on the rootstocks.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1920b, 1938a) McKenzie (1956), Ben-Dov (1988b) and by Gill (1997).
STRUCTURE: Bremner (1907) described the female scale: "It has much the appearance of a clam, ranging in form from mytiliform to round, 1-1.5 mm in size, dirty-white in colour; the exuvia is at one side, and at the anterior extremity is glossy straw-coloured; the ventral scale is nearly as well developed as the dorsal, and has what appears to be the ventral half of the exuvia at the anterior end". Ferris (1938a) described the scale cover: "Female scale brown, broadly oval, exuviae apical. Scale of the male not seen".
KEYS: Gill 1997: 208 (female) [Species of California]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World]; McKenzie 1956: 37 (female) [U.S.A.: California]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America].
CITATIONS: Balach1957c [taxonomy: 206]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 42,114]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 834]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 224]; Bremne1907 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 368]; Ferris1920b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 57]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 162]; Ferris1942 [host, distribution: 8]; Gill1997 [host, distribution, taxonomy, description, illustration, economic importance: 208-209]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 449]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 37,162-163]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 62]; Sander1909a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 55].
Odonaspis greenii CockerellNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus secretus; Green, 1896a: 64. Misidentification; discovered by Ben-Dov, 1988b: 42.
Odonaspis secretus greenii Cockerell, 1902a: 25. Type data: SRI LANKA (=CEYLON): Pudaluoya, on Arundinaria sp.; collected by E.E. Green, iv.1995. Lectotype, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 43. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Odonaspis greenii; Zimmerman, 1948: 428. Change of status.
Odonaspis greeni; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 42. Misspelling of species name.
Odonaspis greeni; Aono, 2009: 16. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: Green's scale [Zimmer1948].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Caenohomalopoda chinensis Zhang & Hu [ZhangHu2006], Caenohomalopoda guamensis (Fullaway) [BenDov1988b, ZhangHu2006].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria [MacGil1921, Ferris1950, BenDov1988b], Bambusa [BenDov1988b, Porcel1992, Aono2009], Bambusa dissemulator [BenDov1988b], Bambusa glaucescens [Aono2009], Bambusa nana [BenDov1988b], Bambusa pervariabilis [BenDov1988b], Bambusa vulgaris [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988, MatileEt2006, Aono2009], Dinochloa scandens [BenDov1988b], Gigantochloa [Aono2009], Gigantochloa verticillata [BenDov1988b], Miscanthus [Aono2009], Miscanthus sinensis [Takagi1990], Schizostachyum diffusum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii [MacGil1921, Beards1966, BenDov1988b]); Western Samoa [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: United States of America (California [BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Guadeloupe [BenDov1988b, MatileEt2006]; Guyana [BenDov1988b]; Martinique [BenDov1988b]; Saint Lucia [BenDov1988b] [Malump2012b]; Suriname [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Ferris1950, BenDov1988b], Yunnan [Ferris1950]); Hong Kong [BenDov1988b]; India [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: Indonesia [MacGil1921, BenDov1988b]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]); Philippines [BenDov1988b] (Palawan [Aono2009]); Sri Lanka [MacGil1921, BenDov1988b]; Taiwan [BenDov1988b]; Thailand [BenDov1988b]; Vietnam [BenDov1988b]. Palaearctic: Czech Republic [BenDov1988b]; Italy [Porcel1992]; Japan [MacGil1921, BenDov1988b, Takagi1990]; Tunisia [BenDov1988b].
BIOLOGY: The young insect takes up its position upon the stem of the plant beneath the sheath; after the completion of the second moult the adult female insinuates itself into and between the layers of the sheath, excavating a cell for itself, and leaving the pellicle exposed upon the surface (Green, 1896e).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Green (1896e), Chou (1985, 1986), Ben-Dov (1988b), Zahradnik (1990) and by Porcelli (1992). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
STRUCTURE: In the original description of this species, Cockerell (1902a: 25) clearly referred to the description and illustration by Green (1896e: 64). Colour illustration of the scale cover by Green (1896e).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World]; Williams & Watson 1988: 198 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Species of China]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 16-18,35-36,55,56]; Balach1954e [description: 14]; Beards1966 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 528]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, biological control: 42-43,72,115]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 835-836]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 224]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 328,330]; Chou1986 [taxonomy, illustration: 701]; Cocker1902a [taxonomy: 25,26]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 317]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 300]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy, illustration: 33,39]; Ferris1950 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 75]; Green1896e [taxonomy: 40,64]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 19]; LongoMaPe1995 [distribution: 128]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 423]; Malump2012b [distribution: 210]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; MatileEt2006 [host, distribution: 172]; Porcel1992 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 33-36]; SoriaEsVi1998a [host, distribution: 337-342]; Takagi1990 [taxonomy, structure: 82,99,111-112]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 102]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 16]; Willia1985a [taxonomy: 234]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 198]; Zahrad1990b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 117-119]; ZhangHu2006 [biological control, host, distribution: 213-218]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 428].
Odonaspis lingnani FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis lingnani Ferris, 1955c: 33. Type data: CHINA: Kwangtung, Canton, Lingnan University, Old Bamboo Garden, on Bambusa multiplex. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 45. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa multiplex [Ferris1955c, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b], Bambusa vulgaris [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Ferris1955c, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b]). Oriental: Indonesia [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring massed in the closely crowded axils of the branches, so crowded that it has proven impossible to secure a scale by itself alone without destroying it and consequently no habit sketch can be given (Ferris, 1955c).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1955c), Chou (1985, 1986) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the female white (Ferris, 1955c).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Species of China].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [host, distribution: 36]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 45,116]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 836]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 224]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 328,330]; Chou1986 [taxonomy, illustration: 702]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Ferris1955c [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 33]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 102].
Odonaspis litorosa FerrisNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis litorosa Ferris, 1921: 119. Type data: MEXICO: Baja California, La Rivera, Eureca Ranch, on Rhachidospermum mexicanum; collected July 1919. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Dycryptaspis litorosa; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis litorosa; Borchsenius, 1966: 224. Revived combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundo? [Borchs1966], Milium [Borchs1966], Rhachidospermum [Borchs1966], Rhachidospermum mexicanum [Ferris1921, Ferris1938a, BenDov1988b], Sporobolus [Borchs1966], Sporobolus airoides [BenDov1988b], Sporobolus wrightii [Ferris1938a].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: Mexico (Baja California Norte [Ferris1921, Ferris1938a, BenDov1988b], Colima [Ferris1942], Guerrero [Ferris1942], Nayarit [Ferris1942], Oaxaca [Ferris1942], Sinola [Ferris1942], Veracruz [Ferris1942]); United States of America (Arizona [BenDov1988b], Colorado [BenDov1988b], Texas [Ferris1938a, BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Panama [Borchs1966]. Palaearctic: Madeira Islands [Borchs1966, FrancoRuMa2011].
BIOLOGY: Occurring beneath the sheathing bases of the leaves.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1921, 1938a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of the female white, broadly oval, tapering posteriorly. Male scale not seen (Ferris, 1938a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America].
CITATIONS: Balach1953g [taxonomy: 742,745]; Balach1957c [taxonomy: 206]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 302,304]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 45-46,117]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 836-837]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 224-225]; Ferris1921 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 119-121]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 163]; Ferris1942 [host, distribution: 8]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 14,24]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 62].
Odonaspis maasinensis AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis maasinensis Aono, 2009: 6. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Palawan, Maasin Forest, Brooke's Point, on Schizostachyum diffusum; collected Sadao Takagi, 24.viii.1993. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 93PL147. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Schizostachuym diffusum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female, second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 6-7,18-19,41,57,58].
Odonaspis minima Howell & TippinsNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis minima Howell & Tippins, 1978: 762. Type data: U.S.A.: Georgia, Charlton County, State Route 94, 8 km West of Saint George, on Aristida sp. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Aristida [HowellTi1978, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Georgia [HowellTi1978, BenDov1988b]).
BIOLOGY: Adult female on outer surface of leaf, usually below soil surface (Howell & Tippins, 1978).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Howell & Tippins (1978) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, narrowing posteriorly, about 1 mm long, 0.5 mm wide; exuviae terminal, yellow. Male scale similar but smaller (Howell & Tippins, 1978).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 46,118]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 837]; HowellTi1978 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 762-766]; HowellTi1990 [taxonomy, structure: 39]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 62].
Odonaspis miyakoensis AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis miyakoensis Aono, 2009: 7. Type data: JAPAN: Ryuku Islands, Okinawa Pref., Miyako-jimna, on Micanthus sinensis; collected Shozo Kawai, 5.X1.1970. Holotype female. Type depository: Sapporo: Entomological Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan; type no. 3302. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Miscanthus sinensis [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Aono2009].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Aono (2009). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 7-8,18-19,42,59,60].
Odonaspis morrisoni BeardsleyNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis morrisoni Beardsley, 1966: 525. Type data: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA: Truck Atoll, Dublon, on Cynodon dactylon; collected 17.X.1952. Holotype female. Type depository: Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Department of Entomology Collection, Hawaii, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae [WilliaWa1988], Cynodon dactylon [Beards1966, BenDov1988b], Distichlis [BenDov1988b], Setaria palmifolia [Aono2009], Zoysia matrella [Beards1966, BenDov1988b]. Rutaceae: Citrus limon [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Federated States of Micronesia (Truk Islands [Beards1966, BenDov1988b]); Fiji [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988, HodgsoLa2011]. Oriental: Hong Kong [BenDov1988b]; Philippines [Beards1966, BenDov1988b]; Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Aono2009].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Beardsley (1966) and by Ben-Dov (1988b). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
STRUCTURE: Only slide mounted females were available for the description by Beardsley (1966).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World]; Williams & Watson 1988: 198 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 19-20,61-62]; Beards1966 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 525-527]; BenDov1988 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 46-47,119]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 838]; HodgsoLa2011 [host, distribution: 25]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 198].
Odonaspis oshimaensis KuwanaNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis oshimaensis Kuwana, 1933: 35. Type data: JAPAN: Amami-Oshima, on Panicum sanguinale. Holotype female. Type depository: Davis: The Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, California, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Dycryptaspis oshimaensis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis oshimaensis; Borchsenius, 1966: 225. Revived combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae [Takagi1959], Digitaria ciliaris [Aono2009], Hemarthria sibirica [Aono2009], Panicum sanguinale [Kuwana1933, Balach1958b, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Shoto) [Aono2009]. Palaearctic: Japan [Kuwana1933, Takagi1959, Borchs1966, Kawai1980, BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Kuwana (1933) and by Ben-Dov (1988b). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
STRUCTURE: Kuwana (1933) did not describe the scale cover. Photograph of scale cover by Kawai (1980).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World]; Kawai 1980: 199 (female) [Japan]; Takagi 1959a: 93 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933: 35 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933b: 49 (female) [Japan].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 20-21,63-64]; Balach1957c [taxonomy: 206]; Balach1958b [host, distribution: 304]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 47,120]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 838]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 225]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 317-318]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 202]; Kuwana1933 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 35]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; Muraka1970 [host, distribution: 68]; Takagi1959 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 94].
Odonaspis pacifica Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis pacifica Ben-Dov, 1988b: 48. Type data: GUAM: Guam, on bamboo; collected 7.v.1946. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa [BenDov1988b], Dinochloa scandens [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Guam [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [host, distribution: 36]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 48,121]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 839].
Odonaspis panici HallNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis panici Hall, 1926a: 26. Type data: EGYPT: Abu Sueir, on Panicum turgidum; collected 20.VI.1925. Holotype female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia panici; Lindinger, 1932f: 189. Change of combination.
Odonaspis panici; Borchsenius, 1966: 225. Revived combination.
FOE: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Physcus [BenDov1988b].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Panicum [Ramakr1921a], Panicum turgidum [Hall1926a, Balach1953g, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b], Pennisetum ciliare [Rungs1937, Balach1953g, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Angola [Almeid1969]. Oriental: Sri Lanka [Ramakr1921a]. Palaearctic: Egypt [Hall1926a, Balach1953g, Ezzat1958, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b]; Iran [Borchs1966, BenDov1988b] [Moghad2004]; Israel [BenDov1988b]; Morocco [Rungs1937, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Hall (1926a) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale of adult female large, elongate, 2.5-3 mm long, 1.5-1.75 mm wide; broadened in front and somewhat narrowed behind; flattish and white in colour; exuviae near one end naked and orange; ventral scale entire, dense white and continuous with the dorsal scale. Male scale smaller, elongate with subparallel sides; exuviae orange; width of scale rather more than the width of the pellicle; length of scale of male 1 mm, breadth 0.5 mm (Hall, 1926a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 35 (female) [World]; Ezzat 1958: 247 (female) [Egypt]; Balachowsky 1953g: 733 (female) [Mediterranean].
CITATIONS: Almeid1969 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution, biological control: 158]; Balach1953g [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 746-748]; Balach1957c [taxonomy: 206]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, biological control: 49-50,72,122]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 42]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 839-840]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 225]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 318]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy, distribution, host: 247]; EzzatAf1966 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 402-404]; EzzatNa1987 [distribution: 87]; Hall1926a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 26-27]; Hall1927b [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 148-149]; Kaussa1955 [host, distribution: 17]; Lindin1932f [p. 189]; Moghad2004 [host, distributionn: 10]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 43]; MohammGh2008 [distribution: 153]; Ramakr1921a [host, distribution: 357]; Rungs1937 [host, distribution: 333].
Odonaspis paucipora Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis paucipora Ben-Dov, 1988b: 49. Type data: INDIA: Calcutta, Royal Botanic Gardens, on Bambusa tulda; collected 26.V.1909. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa tulda [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Guyana [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: India [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, 1-2 mm long, 0.8-1.5 mm wide; white; larval exuviae yellow brown placed at anterior end of scale. Male scale elongate, parallel-sided, about 1 mm long, 0.5 mm wide; white; larval exuviae yellow brown placed at anterior end of scale (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 49-50,123]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 840]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 17].
Odonaspis phragmitis HallNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis phragmitis Hall, 1935a: 221. Type data: ZIMBABWE: Inyazura, on Phragmites communis. Syntypes, female. Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK. Described: female. Illust.
Dycryptaspis phragmitis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis phragmitis; Borchsenius, 1966: 225. Revived combination.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Cynodon dactylon [Balach1958b], Hemarthria altissima [BenDov1988b], Panicum viride [Balach1958b], Phragmites [BenDov1988b], Phragmites communis [Hall1935a, Balach1958b, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Malawi [BenDov1988b]; Mauritius [Balach1958b]; Mozambique [Almeid1973]; South Africa [BenDov1988b]; Zimbabwe [Hall1935a, Balach1958b, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Hall (1935a), Balachowsky (1958b) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale large, oval, 3-3.5 mm long, 0.7 mm wide; flat, oval and white in colour; the texture of the dorsal scale is thin but tough. Male scale oblong, 1 mm long, 0.7 mm wide; tapering somewhat posteriorly, white with shiny brown naked exuvium (Hall, 1935a).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World]; Balachowsky 1958b: 300 (female) [Africa].
CITATIONS: Almeid1973 [host, distribution: 4]; Balach1958b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 300-301]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 50-51,124]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 840-841]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 225]; Hall1935a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 221-222]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184].
Odonaspis procera AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis procera Aono, 2009: 8. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Palawan, Maasin Forest, Brooke's Point, on Schizostachyum diffusum; collected Sadao Takagi, 24.VIII.1993. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 93PL147. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Schizostachyum diffusum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female, second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 8,21-22,43,65,66].
Odonaspis rugosa AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis rugosa Aono, 2009: 31. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Palawan, Sitip Tig Wayan, Bataraza, on Schizostachyum lumampao; collected Sadao Takagi, 18. VIII.1993. Holotype female. Type depository: Los Banos: Entomological Museum, Museum of Natural History, University of the Philippines at Los Banos, College, Laguna, Luzon, Philippines; type no. 93PL80. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Odonaspis rugosa Aono is distinguishable from 0. lingnani in having less numerous spiracular disc pores and microducts, in the well sclerotized intersegmental furrows of Abdominal segments III- V of the dorsal surface, and in the absence of marginal dark lines of body margin on the head on both surfaces, and from O. tapahensis Aono in both spiracles having less numerous disc pores, in the absence of marginal dark lines dorsally on the prosoma, and in having microducts over the postvulvar sternite.
HOST: Poaceae: Schizostachyum lumampao [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Philippines (Palawan [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female and second-instar female by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Odonaspis rugosa Aono is distinguishable from 0. lingnani in having less numerous spiracular disc pores and microducts, in the well sclerotized intersegmental furrows of Abdominal segments III- V of the dorsal surface, and in the absence of marginal dark lines of body margin on the head on both surfaces, and from O. tapahensis Aono in both spiracles having less numerous disc pores, in the absence of marginal dark lines dorsally on the prosoma, and in having microducts over the postvulvar sternite.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 31-32,80-81].
Odonaspis ruthae KotinskyNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis ruthae Ehrhorn, 1907: 26. Nomen nudum.
Odonaspis graminis; Kotinsky, 1910: 129. Misidentification; discovered by McKenzie, 1956: 165.
Odonaspis ruthae Kotinsky, 1915: 102. Type data: HAWAII: Honolulu, on Bermuda grass; collected July, 1905. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 52. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Aonidia ruthae; Lindinger, 1932f: 189. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis ruthae; Lindinger, 1943a: 150. Change of combination.
Odonaspis pseudoruthae Mamet, 1954: 67. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Mananjary, on a climbing Gramineae. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Illust. Synonymy by Ben-Dov, 1988b: 51.
Odonaspis ruthae; Borchsenius, 1966: 225. Revived combination.
COMMON NAMES: Bermuda grass scale [McKenz1956, Dekle1965c, Borchs1966]; couch scale [MillerDa2005]; hard grass scale [MillerDa2005]; Ruth's scale [MillerDa2005].
FOES: COLEOPTERA Nitidulidae: Cybocephalus pullus Enrodi-Younga [BenDov1988b]. HYMENOPTERA Encyrtidae: Adelencyrtus odonaspidis Fullaway [BenDov1988b, Trjapi1989]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Podothrips semiflavus Hood [BenDov1988b, PalmerMo1990].
HOSTS: Arecaceae: Nypa fruticans [WilliaWa1988]. Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia heterophylla [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988]. Juncaceae: Juncus [McKenz1956]. Malvaceae: Hibiscus [WilliaWa1988]. Orchidaceae: Cattleya [BenDov1988b]. Poaceae [Mamet1941a, BesheaTiHo1973], Andropogon [BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Axonopus compressus [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [BenDov1988b], Brachypodium distachyum [BenDov1988b], Cenchrus pauciflorus [BenDov1988b], Chloris [WilliaBu1987, BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988], Chloris gayana [BenDov1988b], Cortaderia selloana [BenDov1988b], Cymbopogon citratus [BenDov1988b], Cynodon [Bodenh1937, BesheaTiHo1973], Cynodon dactylon [Hall1925, Bodenh1935, Ferris1938a, Lepage1938, Hosny1939, Ferris1942, Mamet1949, McKenz1956], Cynodon dactylon [Dekle1965c], Cynodon transvaalensis [BenDov1988b], Digitaria milanjiana [BenDov1988b], Digitaria sanguinalis [BenDov1988b], Distichlis [BenDov1988b], Eleusine indica [BenDov1988b, MatileEt2006], Eremochloa ophiuroides [BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Festuca [BesheaTiHo1973], Lepturus repens [BenDov1988b], Panicum [BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988], Panicum maximum [BenDov1988b], Panicum viride [Hall1925], Paspalum conjugatum [MatileEt2006], Paspalum distichum [BenDov1988b], Setaria geniculata [BenDov1988b], Sorghum halepense [McKenz1956, BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Sorghum vulgare sudanense [McKenz1956], Spartina patens [BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Sporobolus [BesheaTiHo1973], Sporobolus indicus [BenDov1988b], Stenotaphrum dimidiatum [Mamet1957], Stenotaphrum secundatum [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Ethiopia [BenDov1988b]; Kenya [BenDov1988b]; Madagascar [BenDov1988b]; Mauritius [Mamet1941a, Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b]; Reunion [Mamet1957, GermaiMiPa2014]; South Africa [BenDov1988b]; Tanzania [BenDov1988b]; Zimbabwe [Hall1935a, Green1937, BenDov1988b]. Australasian: Australia [Hall1925, Green1937] (New South Wales [BenDov1988b], Queensland [BenDov1988b], South Australia [BenDov1988b], Western Australia [BenDov1988b]); Christmas Island [BenDov1988b]; Cook Islands [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988]; French Polynesia (Society Islands [WilliaWa1988], Tahiti [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988]); Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii [Hall1925, Green1937, Ferris1938a, Merril1953, BenDov1988b]); Kiribati [WilliaWa1988] (Gilbert Islands [BenDov1988b]); New Caledonia [Cohic1958]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]; Tuvalu [BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988]; Vanuatu (=New Hebrides) [WilliaBu1987, WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: Mexico [Merril1953, BenDov1988b]; United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982], Arizona [BenDov1988b], Arkansas [Nakaha1982], California [Ferris1938a, McKenz1956, Merril1953, BenDov1988b], Florida [Merril1953, Dekle1965c, BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Georgia [TippinBe1972, BesheaTiHo1973, BenDov1988b], Louisiana [Ferris1938a, Merril1953, BenDov1988b], Mississippi [BenDov1988b], North Carolina [BenDov1988b], South Carolina [BenDov1988b], Texas [Ferris1938a, Merril1953, BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Argentina (Chaco [BenDov1988b]); Bermuda [BenDov1988b]; Bolivia [BenDov1988b]; Brazil (Bahia [BenDov1988b], Distrito Federal (=Brasilia) [Lepage1938], Espirito Santo [CulikMaVe2008]); Chile [GonzalCh1968, BenDov1988b]; Cuba [BenDov1988b]; Guadeloupe [BenDov1988b, MatileEt2006]; Panama [BenDov1988b]; Peru [BenDov1988b]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island [BenDov1988b]; U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983, BenDov1988b]. Oriental: India [Hall1925]; Pakistan [BenDov1988b]; Sri Lanka [Green1922, Hall1925, Ferris1938a, Merril1953, BenDov1988b]. Palaearctic: Azores [BenDovSoBo2012]; Crete [PellizPoSe2011]; Egypt [Hall1925, Green1937, Hosny1939, Ferris1938a, Merril1953, BenDov1988b]; Israel [Bodenh1937, Green1937, BenDov1988b]; Lebanon [AbdulNMo2006]; Madeira Islands [FrancoRuMa2011]; Portugal [FrancoRuMa2011].
BIOLOGY: Occurring beneath the sheathing bases of the leaves and on the rootstocks.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ferris (1938a), McKenzie (1956), Ben-Dov (1988b), Gill (1997) and by Colon-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud (1998).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oyster shaped or mytiliform when fully grown, about 1.75 mm long, 0.75 mm wide; chalk white; exuvia, straw-coloured, at elevated end, partly or entirely covered with white waxy dust which rubs off easily; ventral scale well developed, with dorsal completely enclosing and sealing insects. Male scale same shape, but only about half the size of the female (Kotinsky, 1915). Scale of the female white, broad and elongate, tapering somewhat posteriorly; that of the male white, elongate, and slender (Ferris, 1938a). Colour photograph by Gill (1997).
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: The Bermuda grass scale, is the most polyphagous species among the Odonaspidinae, was reported to damage lawn grasses in Israel (Halperin, 1971; Berlinger & Barak, 1981) and to be a common pest of forage and turf grasses in the Southern United States (Dale and McCoy, 1964; Tippins & Martin, 1982).
KEYS: Gill 1997: 208 (female) [Species of California]; Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World]; Ezzat 1988: 247 (female) [Egypt]; Williams & Watson 1988: 198 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia]; Balachowsky 1958b: 299 (female) [Africa]; McKenzie 1956: 37 (female) [U.S.A.: California]; Balachowsky 1953g: 732 (female) [Mediterranean]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America]; Fullaway 1932: 95-97, 108 (female) [Hawaii].
CITATIONS: AbdulNMo2006 [host, distribution: 517-520]; AbouEl2001 [host, distribution, biological control: 185-195]; Balach1953g [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 743-746]; Balach1958b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 299]; BeardsDaHo1976 [economic importance: 103]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, economic importance, biological control: 51-55,67,71,139]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDov2012 [catalogue, distribution, host: 32, 43]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 841-843]; BenDovSoBo2012 [distribution: 68]; BerlinBa1981 [host, distribution, life history: 62-67]; BesheaTiHo1973 [host, distribution: 15]; Bodenh1935 [host, distribution: 247]; Bodenh1937 [host, distribution: 217]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 225]; ClapsWoGo2001a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 22]; Cock1985a [biological control: 3]; Cohic1958 [host, distribution: 19]; ColonFMe1998 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 133-134]; CostaCoHa2000 [host, distribution, control]; CostaCoHa2003 [control: 3365]; CostaL1934 [host, distribution: 136]; CulikMaVe2008 [host, distribution: 1-6]; DaleMc1964 [host, distribution, economic importance: 228]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue : 318]; Dekle1965c [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 100]; Dekle1976 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution, economic importance: 121]; Ehrhor1907 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 26]; Ezzat1958 [taxonomy, distribution: 247]; EzzatNa1987 [distribution: 87]; FDACSB1987 [host, distribution: 4-7]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 165]; Ferris1942 [description, host, distribution: 446]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 14,24]; Fullaw1932 [taxonomy: 95,108]; GermaiMiPa2014 [distribution: 23]; Gill1997 [host, distribution, taxonomy, description, illustration, economic importance: 208,210-211]; GonzalCh1968 [host, distribution: 111]; Green1922 [host, distribution: 463]; Green1937 [host, distribution: 335]; Hall1925 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 15]; Hall1935a [host, distribution: 222]; Halper1971 [host, distribution, chemical control: 141-147]; Hosny1939 [description, host, distribution: 15]; Kotins1910 [taxonomy: 129]; Kotins1915 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 102]; Lepage1938 [catalogue: 412]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 189]; Lindin1943a [taxonomy: 150]; Mamet1941a [host, distribution: 40]; Mamet1943a [catalogue: 164]; Mamet1949 [catalogue: 51]; Mamet1954 [taxonomy: 67]; Mamet1957 [host, distribution: 370,377]; Mamet1959a [host, distribution: 385]; MatileEt2006 [host, distribution: 172]; McKenz1956 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 164-165]; Merril1953 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 64]; MerrilCh1923 [host, distribution: 246]; MillerDa1990 [host, distribution, economic importance: 304]; MillerDa2005 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, economic importance: 306-308]; MohammGh2008 [distribution: 153]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 63]; Nakaha1983 [host, distribution: 13]; Nur1990b [taxonomy, life history: 196]; PalmerMo1990 [biological control: 67-76]; PellizPoSe2011 [distribution, host: 295,298]; RiherdCh1952 [host, distribution, economic importance, control: 1-5]; Shetla1994 [host, distribution, economic importance]; TippinBe1968a [host, distribution: 134-136]; TippinBe1972 [host, distribution: 287]; TippinMa1982 [economic importance, life history, host, distribution: 319-321]; Trjapi1989 [biological control: 291]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 17]; WilliaBu1987 [host, distribution: 95]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, illustration, host, distribution: 198-201]; Zimmer1948 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 426,428].
Odonaspis sabulincola Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis sabulincola Ben-Dov, 1988b: 55. Type data: NAMIBIA [= SOUTH WEST AFRICA]: Namib Desert, Gobabeb, on Stipagrostis sp.; collected Y. Ben-Dov, 28.II.1975. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Stipagrostis [BenDov1988b], Stipagrostis namaquensis [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Namibia (=South West Africa) [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover of young female circular, elongate oval in fully grown female, up to 4 mm long in reproducing female; white; larval exuviae yellow brown placed centrally. Male scale similar in colour and shape but smaller (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 55-56,126]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 844].
Odonaspis saccharicaulis (Zehntner)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus sacchari-caulis Zehntner, 1897a: 559. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, Pasoeroean, on "Glonggong" (a common name for Saccharum arundinaceum and Saccharum spontaneum). Neotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 56-58. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Odonaspis secretus saccharicaulis; Cockerell, 1899: 274. Change of combination and rank.
Aspidiotus (Odonaspis) janeirensis Hempel, 1900a: 500. Type data: BRAZIL: Ilha das Flores, Bahia do Rio de Janeiro, on grass. Syntypes, female. Type depositories: Sao Paulo: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Curitiba: Departamento de Zoologia, Setor de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal do Parana, Brazil; type no. 1540. Described: female. Synonymy by Ben-Dov, 1988b: 56.
Odonaspis janeirensis; Cockerell, 1902p: 256. Change of combination.
Odonaspis secreta saccharicaulis; Fernald, 1903b: 300. Change of combination.
Ligulaspis janeirensis; MacGillivray, 1921: 423. Change of combination.
Odonaspis saccharicaulis; Green & Laing, 1923: 128. Revived combination.
Dycryptaspis janeirensis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis saccharicaulis; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis saccharicaulis; Ben-Dov, 1988b: 56. Revived combination.
COMMON NAME: paragrass scale [Dekle1965c].
HOSTS: Heliconiaceae: Heliconia [BenDov1988b]. Poaceae [Lepage1938], Anadelphia arrecta [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [Cocker1899j], Chloris gayana [BenDov1988b], Cymbopogon citratus [BenDov1988b], Digitaria decumbens [BenDov1988b], Merostachys [ClapsWoGo2001], Panicum barbinode [BenDov1988b], Panicum purpurascens [Dekle1965c], Paspalum dissectum [BenDov1988b], Pennisetum [Balach1958b, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b], Pennisetum purpureum [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Dekle1965c, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b, ClapsWoGo2001], Phragmites communis [BenDov1988b], Phragmites karka [BenDov1988b], Saccharum [MatileNo1984, BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988], Saccharum arundinaceum [Borchs1966, BenDov1988b], Saccharum officinarum [Lepage1938, BenDov1988b, ClapsWoGo2001], Schizacirium [BenDov1988b], Scleria canescens [BenDov1988b], Sorghum [MatileNo1984], Sorghum halepense [Balach1953g, BenDov1988b], Sorghum vulgare [Borchs1966, BenDov1988b], Uniola paniculata [BenDov1988b], Zoysia matrella [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Cameroon [MatileNo1984, BenDov1988b]; Cape Verde [SchmutPiKl1978, VanHarCoWi1990]; Guinea [BenDov1988b]; Mauritius [Mamet1943a, Mamet1949, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b]; Mozambique [BenDov1988b]; Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome [GreenLa1923, Balach1958b]); Somalia [BenDov1988b]; South Africa [BenDov1988b]; Tanzania [BenDov1988b]; Uganda [Nakaha1982]. Australasian: Australia [BenDov1988b]; Fiji [WilliaWa1988, HodgsoLa2011]; Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii [Cocker1899j, BenDov1988b, Matsun2013] (In consideration of identivication errors, the 2012 field collections of O. saccharicaulis represent new state records for Hawaii, and any previous Hawaii distribution record of O. saccharicaulis is invalid.), Maui [Matsun2013]); Indonesia (Java [Merril1953, BenDov1988b]); Palau [Beards1966]; Papua New Guinea [WilliaWa1988]. Nearctic: United States of America (Alabama [Nakaha1982], Florida [Merril1953, Dekle1965c, BenDov1988b], Maryland [Nakaha1982], Texas [BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Bahamas [BenDov1988b]; Brazil [BenDov1988b] (Bahia [Hempel1900a, Lepage1938], Rio de Janeiro [Lepage1938, ClapsWoGo2001], Sao Paulo [Lepage1938, ClapsWoGo2001]); Costa Rica [BenDov1988b]; Cuba [BenDov1988b]; Guatemala [Nakaha1982]; Honduras [Nakaha1982]; Puerto Rico & Vieques Island (Puerto Rico [BenDov1988b, ColonFMe1998]); U.S. Virgin Islands [Nakaha1983, BenDov1988b]; Venezuela [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: India [BenDov1988b]. Oriental: Indonesia (Sumatra [Green1930c]). Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [BenDov1988b]); Pakistan [BenDov1988b]; Philippines [VelasqRi1969, BenDov1988b]; Sri Lanka [Cocker1899j]; Thailand [BenDov1988b]. Palaearctic: Japan [Cocker1899j]; Madeira Islands [Balach1938a, BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Balachowsky (1953g, 1958b), Ben-Dov (1988b) and by Colon-Ferrer & Medina-Gaud (1998).
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular to oval, 1.6-2.6 mm long, about 1 mm wide; white; larval exuviae yellow brown placed subcentrally. Male unknown (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
SYSTEMATICS: Cockerell (1897) changed the combination of Aspidiotus secretus Cockerell 1896 to Odonaspis secretus, and in 1899 he ranked A. (O.) saccharicaulis (Zehnter) as a variety of O. secretus. Cockerell (1899) also mentions a new locality collection of Aspidiotus (O.) secretus in Honolulu, Hawaii, on bamboo in 1899, but not of the particular saccharicaulis race.All specimens reviewed from the turn of the century were misidentified as O. secreta/secretus and later correctly determined to be O. greeni Cockerell. Beardsley collected specimens of O. saccharicaulis from "Palau: Koror" in June and July 1953. Ben-Dov may have read Beardsley’s label incorrectly or that it was illegible, leading him to assume that "Koror/Koru" must be an island in Hawaii, as this was the location of Beardsley’s work. Therefore, the status of O. secreta and O. saccharicaulis remains as not established in Hawaii. (Matsunaga, 2013)
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AND CONTROL: This sugarcane scale occurs in the major sugarcane growing areas of the world, but it has been recorded as a pest of this crop only from India and the Philippines (Rao and Sankaran, 1969; Kalshoven, 1981). It has been reported to be common in southern Africa on sugarcane as well as on other grasses (Ben-Dov, 1988b); however, Carnegie et al. (1974) did not record it among the coccoids that infest sugarcane in southern Africa.
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World]; Williams & Watson 1988: 198 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia]; Balachowsky 1958b: 299 (female) [Africa]; Balachowsky 1958b: 299 (female) [Africa]; Balachowsky 1953g: 732 (female) [Mediterranean].
CITATIONS: AgarwaSi1964 [host, distribution, economic importance: 149]; Balach1938a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 152]; Balach1953g [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 739-743]; Balach1957c [taxonomy, host, distribution: 204]; Balach1958b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 302-305]; Beards1966 [host, distribution: 528]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, economic importance: 56,67,127]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 844-846]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 225]; Box1953 [host, distribution, biological control: 52]; Claps1993 [taxonomy: 5,10]; ClapsWoGo2001 [host, distribution: 253-254]; ClapsWoGo2001a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 22]; Cocker1899j [taxonomy, host, distribution: 274]; Cocker1902p [taxonomy: 256]; ColonFMe1998 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 134-135]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 318-319]; Dekle1965c [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 101]; Dekle1976 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution, economic importance : 122]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 300]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 44,48]; FrancoRuMa2011 [distribution: 14,24]; Green1930c [host, distribution: 281]; GreenLa1923 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 129]; GreenLa1923 [taxonomy: 129]; Hazelh1929 [host, distribution: 1-8]; Hempel1900a [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 500-501]; Hempel1901a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 106]; HodgsoLa2011 [host, distribution: 25]; Kalsho1981 [distribution, host, illustration: 173]; Kirkal1905 [taxonomy: 78]; Koning1908 [host, distribution: 1-7]; Lepage1938 [catalogue: 412]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 423]; Mamet1943a [catalogue: 164]; Mamet1949 [catalogue: 51,52]; MatileNo1984 [host, distribution: 66]; Matsun2013 [distribution: 49-50]; Merril1953 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 64-65]; Merril1953 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 64-65]; MillerDa1990 [host, distribution, economic importance: 304]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 63]; Nakaha1983 [host, distribution: 13]; Nur1990a [taxonomy, structure, chromosomes: 181,184-185]; SchmutKlLu1957 [host, distribution, economic importance: 499]; SchmutPiKl1978 [host, distribution, economic importance: 330]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 102]; VanHarCoWi1990 [host, distribution: 137]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 17]; VelasqRi1969 [host, distribution: 195-208]; WilliaGr1990 [host, distribution, economic importance, biological control: 563-578]; WilliaGr1990 [host, distribution, economic importance, biological control: 563-578]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 201]; Zehntn1897a [taxonomy: 559]; Zehntn1897b [taxonomy, description, host, distribution, biology: 1-10].
Odonaspis schizostachyi Cockerell & RobinsonNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis schizostachyi Cockerell & Robinson, 1914: 327. Type data: PHILIPPINES: Luzon, Los Banos, on Schizostachyum sp.; collected December 1913. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 59. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
Bakeraspis schizostachyi; MacGillivray, 1921: 459. Change of combination.
Dycryptaspis schizostachyi; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Odonaspis schizostachyi; Borchsenius, 1966: 225. Revived combination.
COMMON NAME: anos scale [VelasqRi1969].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Schizostachyum zollingeri [Aono2009], Shizostachyum [CockerRo1914, MacGil1921, Ferris1937a, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b, Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]); Philippines (Luzon [CockerRo1914, MacGil1921, Ferris1937a, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Cockerell & Robinson (1914), Ben-Dov (1988b) and by Aono (2009). Description and illustration of second-instar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009)
STRUCTURE: Female scale circular, little over 1 mm diameter; dull white; concentrically wrinkled, the large first exuvia very pale yellowish (Cockerell & Robinson, 1914).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 22-23,67-70]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 58-59,128]; BenDov1990a [taxonomy: 89]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 846-847]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 225-226]; CockerRo1914 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 327-328]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy, illustration: 33,35]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 459]; Robins1917 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 17-18]; Sassce1915 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 35]; VelasqRi1969 [host, distribution: 195-208]; Willia1985a [taxonomy: 238].
Odonaspis secreta (Cockerell)NOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus secretus Cockerell, 1896h: 20. Type data: JAPAN: Tokyo, on bamboo. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 60. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; type no. 5944. Described: female. Illust.
Odonaspis secreta; Leonardi, 1897: 286. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus secretus lobulata Maskell, 1897a: 241. Type data: JAPAN: on Bambusa sp.; No. K1513. Syntypes, female. Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand. Described: female. Synonymy by Borchsenius, 1966: 226. Notes: Described again as Aspidiotus secretus Cockerell, var. lobulatus, var. nov., by Maskell, 1898: 224.
Aspidiotus (Dycryptaspis) secreta; Leonardi, 1897a: 375. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Spatheaspis secreta; Leonardi, 1897b: 115. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus (Odonaspis) secretus; Cockerell, 1897i: 14. Change of combination.
Spatheaspis secreta lobulata; Leonardi, 1900: 338. Change of combination requiring emendation of specific epithet for agreement in gender.
Odonaspis secreta; Fernald, 1903b: 300. Change of combination.
Parlatoria zeylanica Rutherford, 1915: 113. Type data: SRI LANKA: Paradeniya, on a 'small bamboo'; collected August, 1914. Syntypes, immature. Type depository: Paradeniya: Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka. Described: immature. Synonymy by Takagi, 1987: 8. Notes: Rutherford (1915, page 114) also described another new species that was named Parlatoria zeylanica. The latter was a homonym and was replaced by Parlatoria rutherfordi Green, 1922a, in the genus Parlatoria.
Dycryptaspis secreta; Lindinger, 1937: 184. Change of combination.
Aspidiotus lobulatus; Ferris, 1941e: 45. Change of combination and rank.
Odonaspis secreta; Borchsenius, 1966: 226. Revived combination.
Odonaspis senireta; Wang, Varma & Xu, 1998: 86. Misspelling of species name.
COMMON NAME: skritaya bambukovaya shitovka [Borchs1966].
FOES: HYMENOPTERA Aphelinidae: Aphelosoma plana Nikolskaya [Tachik1964, BenDov1988b, Viggia1990a], Bestiola mira Nikolskaja [Tachik1964], Encarsia citrina (Crawford) [BenDov1988b], Physcus odonaspidis Tachikawa [Tachik1964, BenDov1988b], Proaphelinoides bendovi Tachikawa [BenDov1988b], Proaphelinoides elongatiformis Girault [BenDov1988b], Proaphelinoides mirus (Nikolskaya) [BenDov1988b]. Encyrtidae: Caenohomalopoda koreana Tachikawa, Paik & Paik [TachikPaPa1981, BenDov1988b, Trjapi1989], Caenohomalopoda shikokuensis (Tachikawa) [Trjapi1989]. THYSANOPTERA Phlaeothripidae: Podothrips odonaspicola (Kurosawa) [BenDov1988b, PalmerMo1990], Podothrips sasacola Kurosawa [BenDov1988b, PalmerMo1990].
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria [Green1896e, MacGil1921, Kuwana1933, Borchs1934, Borchs1937, BenDov1988b, Danzig1993], Arundinaria japonica [Kuwana1933, BenDov1988b], Arundinaria simonii [Beards1966, KawaiMaUm1971, BenDov1988b], Bambusa [Maskel1897a, Borchs1934, Takagi1959a, Takagi1970, BenDov1988b, WilliaWa1988, Danzig1993], Bambusa fastuosa [Balach1930a, Balach1932d, Balach1951, BenDov1988b], Bambusa metake [Lindin1912b, BenDov1988b], Bambusa spinosa [Lindin1912b], Bambusa stenostachya [Takaha1929, Takagi1970], Bambusa tessellata [BenDov1988b], Bambusa veitchi-argenta [BenDov1988b], Miscanthus [Takagi1970], Phyllostachys hindsii [BenDov1988b], Pleioblastus [Kawai1977, Aono2009], Pleioblastus chino [KawaiMaUm1971], Sasa [Borchs1950b, Danzig1993], Sasa albo-marginata [TakahaTa1956], Sasa palmata [Aono2009], Sasa paniculata [BenDov1988b], Schizostachyum glaucifolium [WilliaWa1988].
DISTRIBUTION: Australasian: Australia [Leonar1897b]; Bonin Islands (=Ogasawara-Gunto) [Kuwana1909a, TakahaTa1956, Beards1966, KawaiMaUm1971, Kawai1987]; Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii [MacGil1921, Fullaw1932, Kuwana1933, Borchs1937, Ferris1938a] (All specimens reviewed from the turn of the century by Matsunaga 2013 were misidentified as O. secreta/ secretus and later correctly determined to be O. greeni Cockerell. Previous records of O. secreta being established in Hawaii by MacGillivray (1921), Fullaway (1932), Kuwana (1933), Borchsenius (1937, in Russian, cited in Ben-Dov 2013), and Ferris (1938) were most likely based on these misidentifications. Ferris in Zimmerman (1948) states that only O. greeni occurs in the Hawaiian Islands, and mentions that the two species have been confused here. No authentic material of O. secreta from Hawaii could be located.)); Indonesia (Java [MacGil1921, Borchs1937]); Western Samoa [Laing1927]. Nearctic: United States of America (Louisiana [BenDov1988b], New Jersey [BenDov1988b]). Neotropical: Cuba [Houser1918, Ferris1938a]; Guadeloupe [Balach1957c]. Oriental: China (Yunnan [Ferris1953]); Pakistan [BenDov1988b]; Sri Lanka [Green1896e, Leonar1897b, MacGil1921, Kuwana1933, Borchs1937, Ferris1938a, Takagi1970]; Taiwan [Takaha1929, TakahaTa1956, Takagi1970, WongChCh1999]. Palaearctic: Algeria [Lindin1912b, Borchs1937, Takagi1970]; China (Xizang (=Tibet) [BenDov1988b]); Corsica [Balach1932d]; Croatia [Masten2007]; Czech Republic [Zahrad1965, Zahrad1977]; France [Balach1930a, Balach1932d, Takagi1970, BenDov1988b]; Georgia (Abkhaz ASSR [Borchs1936, Borchs1937, Hadzib1983], Adzhar ASSR [Borchs1934, Borchs1936, Borchs1937, Hadzib1983]); Iran [Kaussa1955]; Japan [Cocker1896h, Maskel1897a, Leonar1897b, Cocker1899j, Cocker1900f, Kuwana1933, Ferris1938a, Takagi1970] (Honshu [TakahaTa1956, Takagi1959a], Kyushu [TakahaTa1956], Shikoku [TakahaTa1956]); Russia (Caucasus [Borchs1934, Borchs1950b, Danzig1993], St. Petersburg (=Leningrad) Oblast [Bustsh1958]); South Korea [TachikPaPa1981, SuhHo2007]; Ukraine (Krym (=Crimea) Oblast [Danzig1993]).
BIOLOGY: Occurring beneath the sheathing bases of the leaves, usually attached to the inner surface of the leaf rather than to the stem and very commonly buried within the tissues of the leaf.
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Kuwana (1933), Ferris (1938a), Balachowsky (1953g), Chou (1985, 1986), Tereznikova (1986) and by Ben-Dov (1988b). Description and illustration of second-instar male and second-instar female by Aono (2009). Description and illustration of adult male by Bustshik (1958).
STRUCTURE: Female scale white, flat, broadly elongate, exuviae apical; scale of the male white, elongate, slender (Ferris, 1938a). Colour photograph of scale cover by Wong et al. (1999).
SYSTEMATICS: Takagi (1987, p.8-9) suggested that Parlatoria zeylanica Rutherford 1915 page 113 (supposed by Rutherford to have been described as an adult female), was the second instar male of an Odonaspis species (O. secreta or O. greeni). Besides other characters described by Rutherford (1915), three features - absence of perivulvar pores, host plant bamboo, as well as "Associated with Chionaspis simplex Gr., and Aspidiotus secretus ... " - seem to be good reasons to accept Takagi's conclusion. Dr. Takagi (in letter, 30 August 2002, to Y. Ben-Dov), noted that Rutherford collection probably was lost, and re-iterated the conclusion that Parlatoria zeylanica is a synonym of Odonaspis secreta (Cockerell).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World]; Williams & Watson 1988: 2 (female) [Tropical South Pacific]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Species of China]; Kawai 1980: 201 (female) [Japan]; Beardsley 1966: 525 (female) [Federated States of Micronesia]; Takagi 1959a: 93 (female) [Japan]; Balachowsky 1953g: 733 (female) [Mediterranean]; Ferris 1942: 65 (female) [North America]; Kuwana 1933: 35 (female) [Japan]; Kuwana 1933b: 49 (female) [Japan]; Fullaway 1932: 95-97, 108 (female) [Hawaii]; Green 1896e: 40 (female) [Sri Lanka].
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 23-24,71-72]; Balach1930a [host, distribution: 179]; Balach1932d [taxonomy, host, distribution: XLVIII]; Balach1953a [taxonomy: 20]; Balach1953g [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 733-736]; Balach1957c [host, distribution: 202]; Balach1958b [taxonomy: 304]; Beards1966 [host, distribution: 528]; BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution, biological control: 60-61,71-72,129]; BenDov1990c [taxonomy: 122]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 847-850]; Borchs1934 [host, distribution: 30]; Borchs1935a [taxonomy: 32]; Borchs1936 [host, distribution: 135]; Borchs1937 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 135]; Borchs1937a [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 54-55]; Borchs1950b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 211,219]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 198,199,226]; Box1953 [host, distribution, biological control: 52]; Bustsh1958 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 213]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 328-330]; Chou1986 [taxonomy, illustration: 700]; Cocker1896b [distribution: 333]; Cocker1896h [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 20]; Cocker1896i [taxonomy: 51]; Cocker1897i [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 20]; Cocker1899j [distribution: 274]; Cocker1900f [description, host, distribution: 72]; Danzig1964 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 650]; Danzig1972 [taxonomy, host, distribution, economic importance: 218]; Danzig1993 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 132-133]; DanzigPe1998 [catalogue: 319]; DEDAC1923 [host, distribution]; DeitzTo1980 [taxonomy: 39]; DoaneFe1916 [host, distribution: 401]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Fernal1903b [catalogue: 300]; Ferris1937a [taxonomy: 33,39]; Ferris1938a [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 166]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 45,48]; Ferris1942 [description, distribution: 446: 65]; Ferris1950a [taxonomy: 75]; Ferris1953 [host, distribution: 65]; Foldi2001 [distribution: 303-308]; Fullaw1932 [taxonomy, distribution: 95,108]; Green1896a [taxonomy: 84]; Green1896e [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 64-65]; Green1922 [taxonomy: 460]; Green1922a [taxonomy: 1020]; Green1937 [host, distribution: 335]; Hadzib1983 [host, distribution, life history, biological control, economic importance: 215]; Houser1918 [description, host, distribution: 169]; HowardAs1895 [biological control: 633]; HowellTi1977 [taxonomy, description: 123]; Kaussa1955 [host, distribution: 17]; Kawai1977 [host, distribution, economic importance: 163]; Kawai1980 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 201]; Kawai1987 [host, distribution: 78]; KawaiMaUm1971 [host, distribution: 18]; Kozar1990a [life history, economic importance: 341-347]; Kuwana1902 [host, distribution: 66]; Kuwana1907 [host, distribution: 193-194]; Kuwana1909a [host, distribution: 160]; Kuwana1917a [taxonomy, distribution: 176]; Kuwana1933 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 36-37]; Leonar1897 [taxonomy: 286]; Leonar1897a [taxonomy: 375]; Leonar1897b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 115-117]; Leonar1900 [taxonomy: 338]; Lindin1912b [description, host, distribution: 81]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 141]; Lindin1937 [taxonomy: 184]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 423]; Maskel1897a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 241]; Maskel1898 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 224]; Masten2007 [host, distribution, taxonomy: 1-242]; MatileEt2006 [host, distribution: 172]; Matsun2013 [distribution, taxonomy: 49-50]; McKenz1945 [taxonomy: 73]; MillerDa1990 [host, distribution, economic importance: 304]; Moghad2013a [distribution, host: 44]; Morley1909 [host, distribution, biological control: 254-257]; Muraka1970 [host, distribution: 69]; Nakaha1982 [host, distribution: 63-64]; PalmerMo1990 [biological control: 67-76]; Ramakr1921a [host, distribution: 357]; Ruther1915 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 113-114]; SchmutKlLu1957 [host, distribution, economic importance: 499]; SuhHo2007 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 1-3]; Tachik1964 [host, distribution, biological control: 46-50]; TachikPaPa1981 [host, distribution, biological control: 183-186]; Takagi1959a [taxonomy, host, distribution: 94]; Takagi1970 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 138-139]; Takagi1987 [taxonomy: 8-9]; Takagi1990b [taxonomy, structure: 19-20]; Takaha1929 [host, distribution: 78]; TakahaTa1956 [host, distribution: 17]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 102]; Terezn1986 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 118-119]; Trjapi1989 [biological control: 295]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 17]; Viggia1990a [biological control: 123]; WangVaXu1998 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 86]; Willia1985a [taxonomy: 238]; WilliaWa1988 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 201]; WongChCh1999 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 29,71]; Zahrad1965 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 305]; Zahrad1977 [taxonomy, distribution: 120].
Odonaspis serrata Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis serrata Ben-Dov, 1988b: 61. Type data: SRI LANKA: Punduloya, on Arundinaria sp.; collected March, 1897. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Arundinaria [BenDov1988b], Bambusa [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Sri Lanka [BenDov1988b]; Vietnam [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide-mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 61-62,130]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 850]; Varshn2002 [host, distribution: 17].
Odonaspis siamensis (Takahashi)NOMENCLATURE:
Froggattiella siamensis Takahashi, 1942b: 50. Type data: THAILAND: Bangkok, on bamboo. Lectotype female, by subsequent designation Ben-Dov, 1988b: 62. Type depository: Taichung: Entomology Collection, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Wu-feng, Taichung, Taiwan. Described: female. Illust.
Odonaspis siamensis; Ferris, 1955c: 33. Change of combination.
Troggattiella siamensis; Lindinger, 1957: 549. Misspelling of genus name.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa [Takaha1942b, Ferris1955c, BenDov1988b], Bambusa glaucescens [MartinLa2011], Bambusa nana [BenDov1988b], Dendrocalamus [BenDov1988b], Dendrocalamus latiflorus [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: China (Guangdong (=Kwangtung) [Ferris1955c, BenDov1988b]); Hong Kong [MartinLa2011]; Philippines [BenDov1988b]; Thailand [Ferris1955c, Takaha1942b, Ferris1955c, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Takahashi (1942b), Chou (1985, 1986) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale white, with yellowish larval skins (Takahashi, 1942b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World]; Chou 1985: 328 (female) [Species of China].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 62-63,131]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 851]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 228]; Chou1985 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 328,333]; Chou1986 [taxonomy, illustration: 706]; FangWuXu2001 [host, distribution: 108]; Ferris1955c [taxonomy, host, distribution: 33]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549]; MartinLa2011 [catalogue, distribution, host: 44]; Takaha1942b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 50-51]; Tao1999 [taxonomy, host, distribution: 102].
Odonaspis sparsa AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis sparsa Aono, 2009: 9. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Grounds of Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, on Gigantochloa sp.; collected Sadao Takagi, 2.X1.1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML388. Described: female. Illust. Notes: Ulu Gombak (210m), Selangor, Malaya, on Gigantochloa scortechinii, 2.X.1986 (86ML-81 b), ST, 49 -'?- ; Ulu Gombak (1000111), on Gigantochloa scortechinii, 14.XI.l986 (86ML-467b), ST, 33 -'?- ; Kuala Kubu Baharu, Selangor, on an undetermined bamboo, 23.X.1986 (86ML-30 I a), ST, 38 -'?- ; Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, on Dendrocalamus sp., 28.IX. 1991 (91 M L-3), ST, 39 !f- . Holotype: adult female, from 86ML-81 b, deposited in FRIM.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Dendrocalamus [Aono2009], Gigantochloa [Aono2009], Gigantochloa scortechinii [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female, second-istar female and second-instar male by Aono (2009).
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 9,24-25,44,73,74].
Odonaspis spinulata AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis spinulata Aono, 2009: 32. Type data: MALAYSIA: Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, Malaya, Grounds of the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, on Gigantochloa levis; collected Sadao Takagi, 30.IX.1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML64. Described: female. Illust. Notes:
HOSTS: Poaceae: Gigantochloa [Aono2009], Gigantochloa levis [Aono2009], Gigantochloa sortechinii [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female and second-instar female by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Diagnosis (adult female). Odonaspis sp inul at a , sp. nov., is referable to Berlesaspidiotus as understood by authors (see Remarks under Odonaspis densipora, sp. nov., Part I), but differs from the other specie of Berlesaspidiotus in the peri vulvar disc pores arranged in an arch and in the presence of marginal dark lines on the prothorax to Abd IV on both surfaces. 0. spinulata, sp. nov., resembles Odonaspis densipora, sp. nov., but i distinguished by the presence of perivulvar disc pores and by the number of the spiracular disc pores.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 32-33,82,83].
Odonaspis stipagrostis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis stipagrostis Ben-Dov, 1988b: 63. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Province, 65 km west of Upington, at highway to Karasburg, on Stipagrostis namaquensis; collected Y. Ben-Dov, 10.IX.1974. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Stipagrostis namaquensis [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval, 1.0-1.6 mm long, 0.8-1.1 mm wide; white; larval exuviae yellow brown placed centrally. Scale of male similar in shape and colour to that of female but smaller (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 63,132]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 851].
Odonaspis tapahensis AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis tapahensis Aono, 2009: 33. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Tapah, Perak, on Schizostachyum sp.; collected Sadao Takagi, 19.X.1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML247. Described: female. Illust. Notes:
HOST: Poaceae: Schizostachyum [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female and second-instar female by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Odonaspis tapahensis Aono differs from 0. lingnani in the antennae situated marginally, in the absence of dark lines marginally on the ventral surface of the head, and in the absence of micro ducts on the postvulvar stemite.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 33-34,84,85].
Odonaspis texana Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis texana Ben-Dov, 1988b: 63. Type data: U.S.A.: Brewster, 8 miles north of Marathon, Texas, on Bouteloua sp.; collected 12.v.1976. Holotype female. Type depository: Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA. Described: female. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bouteloua [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Nearctic: United States of America (Texas [BenDov1988b]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Only slide-mounted females were available for the description by Ben-Dov (1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 33 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 63-64,133]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 851-852].
Odonaspis transkeiensis Ben-DovNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis transkeiensis Ben-Dov, 1988b: 64. Type data: SOUTH AFRICA: Transkei, Port St. Johns, on Dactyloctenium australe; collected Y. Ben-Dov, 2.VII.1973. Holotype female. Type depository: Pretoria: South African National Collection of Insects, South Africa. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Dactyloctenium australe [BenDov1988b], Digitaria [BenDov1988b], Stenotaphrum secundatum [BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: South Africa [BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Female scale oval elongate, about 2 mm long, 1 mm wide; white grayish; larval exuviae brown placed at anterior part of scale. Male scale oval and narrow, about 1 mm long, 0.4 mm wide; white grayish; larval exuviae brown placed at anterior part of scale (Ben-Dov, 1988b).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 64-65,134]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 852].
Odonaspis trispatulata AonoNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis trispatulata Aono, 2009: 34. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Ulu Gombak (500m), Selangor, on Bambusa vulgaris; collected Sadao Takagi, 16.X1.1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia; type no. 86ML495. Described: female. Illust. Notes:
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa trispatulata [Aono2009].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [Aono2009]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Aono (2009).
SYSTEMATICS: Odonaspis trispatulata Aono differs from other Odonaspis species in having deep notche on the pygidium between Abd VI and VII and between VII and Vllf and disc pores between the cIypeolabraI shield and the anterior spiracles.
CITATIONS: Aono2009 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 34,35,86].
Odonaspis tsinjoarivensis MametNOMENCLATURE:
Odonaspis tsinjoarivensis Mamet, 1954: 19. Type data: MADAGASCAR: Tsinjoarivo, on climbing bamboo. Holotype. Type depository: Paris: Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, France. Illust.
HOST: Poaceae: Bambusa [Mamet1954, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
DISTRIBUTION: Afrotropical: Madagascar [Mamet1954, Borchs1966, BenDov1988b].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description and illustration of adult female by Mamet (1954) and by Ben-Dov (1988b).
STRUCTURE: Scale cover not described by Mamet (1954).
KEYS: Ben-Dov 1988b: 34 (female) [World].
CITATIONS: BenDov1988b [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 65,135]; BenDov1990e [host, distribution: 658]; BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 852]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 226]; Mamet1954 [taxonomy, description, illustration, host, distribution: 19,67-70].
Subfamily Ulucoccinae
Ulucoccus Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Ulucoccus Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1990: 11. Type species: Ulucoccus gombakensis Takagi et al., by original designation. Notes: New subfamily Ulucoccinae described by Takagi (2002).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed discussion of the genus by Takagi (1998).
STRUCTURE: Adult female and 2nd instar larvae of both sexes globular, with segmentation indistinct, and with pygidium poorly demarcated from preceding part of body; legs entirely lacking. Spiracular disc pores trilocular (Takagi et al., 1990).
SYSTEMATICS: The genus Ulucoccus represents an early evolutionary stage within the Diaspididae and is an approximate ancestor of the tribe Diaspidini and the subfamily Diaspidinae (Takagi et al., 1990).
CITATIONS: Takagi1998 [description, taxonomy: 105-116]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 57]; Takagi2003 [structure, taxonomy: 105]; TakagiPoGh1990 [description, distribution, illustration, taxonomy: 11].
Ulucoccus danumensis Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Ulucoccus danumensis Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1990: 8-11. Type data: MALAYSIA: Sabah, Bahagian Tawau, Ulu Segama, Danum Valley Field Centre, on Dinochloa scabrida, 24/10/1988. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Bambusa sp. [Takagi1998], Dinochloa scabrida [TakagiPoGh1990], Schizostachyum dielsianum [Takagi1998].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Sabah [TakagiPoGh1990]); Philippines (Luzon [Takagi1998]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takagi et al. (1990) and Takagi (1998).
STRUCTURE: Adult female pygidium with 3 pairs of marginal processes, which are membranous, irregular in shape, and sometimes rudimentary, the mesalmost pair duplex when well represented, abdomen with tri- or quadrilocular disc pores submarginally on ventral surface, 1 on supposed 6th and 7th abdominal segments each, or only on one of them (Takagi et al., 1990).
CITATIONS: Takagi1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 58]; TakagiPoGh1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 8-11].
Ulucoccus gombakensis Takagi, Pong & GheeNOMENCLATURE:
Ulucoccus gombakensis Takagi, Pong & Ghee, 1990: 2-8. Type data: MALAYSIA: Malaya, Ulu Gombak, Selangor, Semenanjung, Gombak Field Reseach Centre, on Gigantochloa scortechinii, 02/10/1986. Holotype female. Type depository: Kepong: Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Selandgor, Malaysia. Described: female. Illust.
HOSTS: Poaceae: Dendrocalamus sp. [Takagi1998], Gigantochloa scortechinii [TakagiPoGh1990].
DISTRIBUTION: Oriental: Malaysia (Malaya [TakagiPoGh1990], Sarawak [Takagi1998]).
GENERAL REMARKS: Detailed descriptions and illustrations by Takagi et al. (1990) and Takagi (1998).
STRUCTURE: Adult female globular, somewhat longer than wide, membranous, with segmentation indistinct; pygidium not well demarcated from preceding part of body, with no marginal appendages except for small gland spines (Takagi et al., 1990).
CITATIONS: Takagi1998 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 106]; Takagi2000 [taxonomy: 47]; Takagi2002 [taxonomy: 58]; TakagiPoGh1990 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 2-8].
Incertae Sedis Species
Chionaspis planchonii SignoretNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis planchonii Signoret, 1869d: 446. Type data: FRANCE: on Quercus ilex, by G. Planchon. Syntypes, female. Described: female. Incertae sedis by Borchsenius, 1966: 371. Notes: Whereabouts of type material unknown.
Chionaspis planchoni; Lindinger, 1907a: 19. Misspelling of species name.
HOST: Fagaceae: Quercus sp. [Borchs1966]
SYSTEMATICS: Borchsenius(1966) and Takagi (1985) both treat Chionaspis planchonii as an incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 371]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Comsto1883 [description, distribution, host: 109]; Comsto1916 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 570]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 222]; Lindin1907a [taxonomy: 19]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 304]; Signor1869d [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 446]; Takagi1985 [taxonomy: 48].
Chionaspis rosae GoetheNOMENCLATURE:
Chionaspis rosae Goethe, 1884: 117. Type data: GERMANY: on Rosa pomifera. Described: female. Incertae sedis by Borchsenius, 1966: 371.
HOST: Rosaceae: Rosa pomifera [Goethe1884].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: Germany [Goethe1884].
SYSTEMATICS: Goeth (1884) in his brief description of Chionaspis rosae states that the female was white, larvae yellow and that the species was at least somewhat similar to Chionaspis vaccinii. Lindinger (1934e) treats this species as a junior synonym of Aulacaspis rosae and in 1958 as a synonym of Chionaspis salicis. Since neither of these species match the description given by Goethe, we concur with Borchsenius (1966) who treated C. rosae as incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, distribution, host, taxonomy: 371]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Fernal1903b [catalogue, distribution, taxonomy: 223]; Goethe1884 [description, distribution, host: 117]; Lindin1934e [taxonomy: 158]; Lindin1958 [taxonomy: 366]; MacGil1921 [taxonomy: 304].
Diaspis cordiae RübsaamenNOMENCLATURE:
Diaspis cordiae Rübsaamen, 1906: 123. Type data: BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro, Copacabana, on Cordia curassavica, ?/07/1899. Incertae sedis by Borchsenius, 1966: 377. Notes: Diaspis cordiae is considered an incertae sedis.
HOST: Boraginaceae: Cordia curassavica [Rubsaa1906].
DISTRIBUTION: Neotropical: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro [Rubsaa1906]).
STRUCTURE: Eriophyid type galls are 0.5-1.5 mm in diameter and are randomly scattered over leaf surface, but can be so dense that they crowd one another (Rubsaamen, 1906).
SYSTEMATICS: Rubsaamen's (1906) description is based mainly on a gall.
CITATIONS: Borchs1966 [catalogue, host, taxonomy: 377]; CostaL1936 [distribution, host: 191]; Rubsaa1906 [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 122-123].
Diaspis dionis (Boisduval)NOMENCLATURE:
Chermes dionis Boisduval, 1867: 327. Type data: FRANCE: On Dion edule. Unknown type status. Described: female. Notes: Type material probably lost.
Diaspis dioonis; Lindinger, 1935: 134. Change of combination.
Diaspis dioonis; Lindinger, 1935: 134. Misspelling of species name.
Diaspis dionis; Borchsenius, 1966: 372. Change of combination.
HOST: Cycadaceae: Dioon edule [Boisdu1867].
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: France [Boisdu1867].
SYSTEMATICS: Although Lindinger (1935) considered Diaspis dionis to be a junior synonym of Furchadaspis zamieae, the original description does not provide sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis. Borchsenius (1966) treated Diaspis dionis as incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: Boisdu1867 [description, host, life history, taxonomy: 327]; Borchs1966 [catalogue, host, taxonomy: 372]; Fernal1903 [catalogue, host, taxonomy: 372]; Lindin1935 [taxonomy: 134]; Lindin1957 [taxonomy: 549].
Lepidosaphes linearis (Modeer)NOMENCLATURE:
Chermes arborum linearis Geoffroy, 1764: 509. Unavailable name.
Coccus linearis Modeer, 1778: 22. Type data: FRANCE: Paris. Incertae sedis by Miller & Gimpel.
Mytilaspis linearis; Targioni Tozzetti, 1868: 737. Change of combination.
Lepidosaphes linearis; Lindinger, 1936: 149. Change of combination.
DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic: France [Geoffr1762].
SYSTEMATICS: There has been much confusion over the years about both the identity and authorship of Coccus linearis Modeer. It was originally described by Geoffroy, who did not consistently use binomial nomenclature (INCZ, Opinion 228). It was Modeer, in 1778, who gave the first valid description. The author of the species has been given as Targioni Tozzetti (Borchsenius, 1966), Geoffroy (Signoret ,1870) and as Geoffroy and Modeer (Douglas, 1886). Lepidosaphes linearis has been considered a junior synonym of L. conchiformis (Gómez Menor Ortega, 1937, 1956, Borchsenius, 1966) and of L. ulmi (Lindinger, 1911, 1931 and Green, 1928). Cockerell (1894) thought that it might be a senior synonym of L. pomorum Bouché (=L. ulmi). To further confuse matters, Diaspis linearis Costa is considered a junior synonym of L. ulmi by Borchsenius (1966). Because original material is apparently lost and we are unable to determine the true identity of this species, we consider it to be an incertae sedis. Webster & Burgess (1902) recorded this species from Ohio, USA, but we consider this record to be highly dubious.
CITATIONS: Ali1969a [taxonomy: 56]; Ali1970 [taxonomy: 21]; BazaroSh1971 [taxonomy: 57]; Borchs1963 [taxonomy: 1168]; Cocker1894 [taxonomy: 33]; Cocker1896b [taxonomy: 336]; Dougla1886a [distribution, host, taxonomy: 27-28]; Geoffr1762 [distribution, taxonomy: 509]; GomezM1937 [taxonomy: 169]; GomezM1956 [taxonomy: 78]; Green1928b [taxonomy: 152]; Lindin1928 [taxonomy: 107]; Lindin1936 [taxonomy: 149]; MillerGiWi2003 [taxonomy: 941]; Modeer1778 [description, taxonomy: 22]; Morgan1889a [taxonomy: 351]; Morgan1890a [description, distribution, host, taxonomy: 226-228]; Riley1873 [description, host, taxonomy: 92-93]; Signor1870 [description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy: 96]; Targio1868 [taxonomy: 737]; WebsteBu1902 [distribution: 112]; Willia1971b [taxonomy: 10].
Species Removed from Family
Aleyrodes gossypiiNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus gossypii Fitch, 1857f: 332. Notes: Current status: Aleyrodes gossypii (Fitch) in the whitefly family, Aleyrodidae; see Borchsenius (1966) and Mound & Halsey (1978).
Aspidiotus bicarinatusNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus bicarinatus Walker, 1858: 306. Notes: Current status: a lepidopteran larva; see Fernald (1903b: 330); Borchsenius (1966: 380).
Aspidiotus tiliae BoucheNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus tiliae Bouche, 1851: 111. Type data: GERMANY: Berlin, on twigs of Tilia sp. and Aleus sp. Syntypes, both sexes. Described: both sexes. Notes: Type material lost (Sachtleben, 1944).
Chionaspis tiliae Ferris, 1941e: 49. Notes: Although Aspidiotus tiliae has been considered a junior synonym of Chionaspis salicis (Lindinger, 1928, 1931) and as a valid species in Chionaspis (Ferris, 1941e), it remains placed as a valid species in Aspidiotus.
HOSTS: Aleus [Bouche1851]. Tiliaceae: Tilia [Bouche1851].
GENERAL REMARKS: Description of adult female and male by Bouche (1851).
STRUCTURE: Female scale elongate, narrow at base, white yellow (Bouche, 1851).
SYSTEMATICS: Leonardi (1898c: 38) and Fernald (1903b: 268) regarded Aspidiotus tiliae Bouche, 1851, a synonym of Quadraspidiotus ostreaeformis Curtis, whereas Borchsenius (1966) listed it among the species incertae sedis.
CITATIONS: BenDovGe2003 [catalogue: 239]; Borchs1966 [catalogue: 371]; Bouche1851 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 111]; Comsto1881a [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 83]; Comsto1883 [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 83]; Comsto1916a [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 544]; Fernal1903b [taxonomy: 268]; Ferris1941e [taxonomy: 49]; Lindin1932f [taxonomy: 200]; Signor1869c [taxonomy, description, host, distribution: 137].
Coccus hordeolumNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus hordeolum Walker, 1852: 1068. Notes: Current status: Coccus hordeolum Dalman, 1826 in the Coccidae.
Insect cryptusNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus cryptus Signoret, 1869: 850. Removed from family by Fernald, 1903b: 330. Notes: Signoret (1870: 108) suggested that it was an Hymenopteron, and this was accepted by Fernald (1903b: 33). Current status: Insect cryptus, Current status: Insect cryptus, not a scale insect (Coccoidea), more likely the eggs of an insect or a mite.
Luzulaspis luzulaeNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Aspidiotus luzulae Dufour, 1864: 208. Notes: Current status: Luzulaspis luzulae (Dufour, 1864) in the Coccidae.
Phenacoccus asteriNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Phenacaspis asteri Tao, 1999: 108. Notes: Tao (1999) accidentally listed asteri Takahashi as being in the diaspidid genus Phenacaspis instead of the pseudococcid genus Phenacoccus where it belongs.
Phyllostroma myrtilliNo valid record found for this speciesNOMENCLATURE:
Lecanium Myrtilli Kaltenbach, 1874: 420. Notes: Although considered by Fernald (1903b) to be a junior synonym of Chionaspis salicis, Lecanium myrtilli is now placed in the Coccidae as Phyllostroma myrtilli.