OF THE FAMILY COCCI DAK 5 



of genera, but the only comprehensive classification which has so far been published, 

 is that of Borchsenius (1957), who divided the family into 3 subfamilies, and one of 

 the subfamilies into 2 tribes. His classification was based mainly on a small number 

 of characters of the adult female, among which he used also the way in which the 

 body of the female and the eggs are protected. It was considered that a study of the 

 male would contribute substantially to our knowledge of this family and make it 

 possible to support or modify the classification suggested by Borchsenius, just as 

 Ghauri's work has done with regard to the Diaspididae. Thus the scope of the 

 present work was : (i) to make a detailed study of the morphology of a represent- 

 ative sample of the family Coccidae ; (ii) to describe these species in detail ; (iii) to 

 determine what characters are of taxonomic importance and on what levels they can 

 be used, and (iv) to advance our understanding of the relationships of members 

 within the family, and of this family with other subdivisions of the Coccoidea. 



REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 



The literature pertaining to male Coccoidea has been adequately reviewed by 

 Ghauri (1962) and one need only mention a number of papers, particularly referring 

 to the Coccidae, that were not discussed by him or were published subsequent to his 

 review. 



An early publication, not mentioned by Ghauri, is Xewstead's (1901, 190.5) 

 monograph on the British Coccoidea. Newstead described the males whenever they 

 were available, but mentioned only the most obvious features. He pointed to the 

 fact that the number and position of the eyes might be of generic importance. 

 Another early paper is that of Moulton (1907), who studied the monterey pine scale, 

 Physokermes insignicola (Craw). Following the pattern established by Putnam 

 (1879), he gave equal attention to all stages and included some information on their 

 internal anatomy. The morphology of the adult male was only briefly outlined, but 

 special attention was given to the eyes and terminal antennal segments. 



Silvestri (1919a, 1919b, 1920) published three papers dealing with Sphaerolecanium 

 prunastri (Fonsc), Eulecanium coryli (L.) and Ceroplastes sinensis D. Guerc. 

 respectively. His descriptions and illustrations of the males lack detail, but such 

 useful information as the number of eyes, and the structure of the genital and pre- 

 genital segments is given. These papers are included as an appendix to Leonardi's 

 (1920) monograph on the Coccoidea of Italy. Leonardi briefly described the males 

 of a wide variety of Coccoidea of which the following are only a few examples 

 (names as given by Leonardi) : Aspidiotits hederae (Vail.), Lichtensia viburni 

 Signoret, Aclerda berlesii Buffa, Pseudococcus citri (Risso), Eriococcus anricariae 

 Mask., Micrococcus silvestrii Leon., Trabutina leonardii Silv. and Ceroputo superbus 

 Leon. In all these descriptions only the more obvious features were mentioned, but 

 information such as the length of the body, antennae, hind legs and wings is included. 



In a paper by Smutterer (1954), the males of Eulecanium corni and E. crudum were 

 illustrated, but not described. Kawecki's (1958b) paper on Eulecanium coryli (L.) 

 also contains a brief reference to the male ; he suggested that the term " pseudo- 

 halteres " should be used for the reduced hind wings. 



