Valid Names Results

Prococcus cameronensis (Takahashi, 1952) (Coccidae: Prococcus)

Nomenclatural History

• Coccus cameronensis Takahashi 1952: 16. Type data: MALAYSIA: Cameron Highlands, on undetermined tree.. Syntypes, female, Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; accepted valid name Notes: Type material originally held at Kuala Lumpur: Selangor Museum, Malaysia. Moved in 1955.
• Prococcus cameronensis (Takahashi, 1952); Cao, et al. 2022: 118. change of combination Notes: Lectotype (designated in Cao, et al., 2022) + paralectotype. Top label: Coccus / cameron- / ensis / Takah. Lower label: Coccus / acutissimus / Green, subsp. / 29.ix.1944 / Cameron / Highlands / R. Takahashi. [Takahashi (1952) states that the specimens were collected on an undetermined tree.]

Common Names

Ecological Associates

Geographic Distribution

Keys

• CaoWaHo2022: pp.119 ( Adult (F) ) [Prococcus species]
• Tang1991: pp.76 ( Adult (F) ) [China]

Remarks

• Systematics: Outwardly, C. cameronensis is much more similar to P. acutissimus than to C. hesperidum Linnaeus (the type species of Coccus). However, the presence in P. cameronensis of: (i) very large marginal setae anteriorly and posteriorly, (ii) a discal seta on each anal plate, (iii) the shape and distribution of the dorsal setae, and (iv) the absence of submarginal tubercles all suggest that its relationship to P. acutissimus is not close. Prococcus cameronensis also differs in having (character-states for C. acutissimus given in brackets): (i) dorsal setae clustered into about 11 submarginal groups on each side of body (evenly distributed over dorsum); (ii) dorsal setae slender, spinose, pointed, and slightly curved distally (robust and slightly tapering with bluntly rounded apices, and straight). Despite these differences, C. cameronensis is here thought to be closer to P. acutissimus than to C. hesperidum and was transferred to Prococcus as Prococcus cameronensis (Takahashi, 1952). (Cao, et al., 2022)
• Structure: Adult female body very elongate and narrow, slightly banana-shaped and rather pointed at each end, 6.5‒7.0 mm long and 1.6‒1.8 mm at widest point. Anal cleft 0.9 mm long. Stigmatic clefts small (compared with size of insect) but distinct. Dorsum with well-spaced areolations, these perhaps more abundant medially. Eyespots displaced onto dorsum, situated well away from margin. (Cao, et al., 2022)
• General Remarks: Detailed description and illustration in Cao, et al., 2022.

Illustrations

Citations