6 MORPHOLOGY AND TAXONOMY OF ADULT MALES 



A number of Russian workers have given attention to male Coccidae. Hadzibejli 

 (1955), when describing a new species (Neopulvinaria imeretina), gave an account of 

 the male. Borchsenius (1957), in a monograph on the Coccidae of the USSR, 

 included original descriptions and illustrations of the males of 11 species, short 

 notes on others, and repeated some of the published descriptions ; he also (i960) 

 briefly described the male from each of the families Kermococcidae, Asterolecaniidae 

 and Aclerdidae. Bustshik & Saakjan-Baranova (1962) dealt with some aspects of 

 the life history, morphology and internal anatomy of the male of Coccus hesperidnm. 

 The descriptions of these workers follow the same general pattern, i.e. the morphology 

 is described in general terms only, but some attention is given to the details of the 

 head, antennae, scutellum, as well as the genital and pregenital segments. The 

 main contribution of these papers collectively, and that of Borchsenius in particular, 

 is that they clearly show the availability of characters in the male which can be 

 used for taxonomic purposes. 



Apart from Bustshik and Saakjan-Baranova, Bielenin (1962, 1963, 1963a) also 

 studied the internal anatomy of a male soft scale, Parthenolecaniam pomeranicum 

 (Raw.). 



As far as families other than the Coccidae are concerned, mention can be made 

 here of a paper on the Aclerdidae by McConnel (1954), in which the male of the 

 family is briefly described, with the statement that " considerable diversity of form 

 existed among the few species available ". 



As pointed out by Ghauri (1962), a new standard of detail and accuracy was 

 reached by Theron (1958) and the latter's study should form the foundation on which 

 any study of male Coccidae is based. Using Theron's interpretations and termin- 

 ology, Giliomee (1961) gave a detailed account of the morphology of 3 species of the 

 genus Pseudococcus (Pseudococcidae) ; he also studied the chaetotaxy and discussed 

 a number of characters which can be used to separate the 3 species. One of the 

 species (P. maritimus Ehrhorn) is described as consisting of two " types " which 

 show small differences, rather smaller than those observed between the other two 

 species of Pseudococcus or the interspecific differences recorded by Beardsley (i960). 

 However, in view of Wilkey & McRenzie's (1961) finding (from a study of the 

 females) that more than one distinct, but very similar species have been involved 

 under the name P. maritimus, it now seems likely that the two " types " of male 

 described were in fact two species. 



Ghauri (1962), in an excellent paper on the males of the Diaspididae, critically 

 examined and amended Theron's (1958) definition of the male of this family ; he 

 studied 24 species (representing 4 tribes and 16 genera) and proved convincingly 

 that male characters could be used at all taxonomic levels. 



A few papers on male Coccoidea have appeared since the publication of Ghauri 's 

 work. Beardsley (1962) published a paper in which he described the males of 

 another 5 species of the Pseudococcidae, including the interesting species Puto 

 yuccae (Coquillet) and Rhizoecus falcifer Runckel d'Herculais. Husseiny & Madsen 

 (1962) dealt with the life history of Lecanium kunoensis Ruw. and included a des- 

 cription of the adult male. This description is very inadequate and shows that the 



