6 MORPHOLOGY AND TAXONOMY OF ADULT MALES 



present study therefore was (i) to carry out a detailed morphological study of 

 the available male representative of the two groups ; (2) to evaluate the various 

 characters for classificatory purposes ; (3) to determine the status and relationships 

 of the two groups with each other and with other families of Coccoidea ; and (4) 

 to suggest a classification for each of these groups. 



REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 



The literature on the males of Coccoidea has been well covered by Ghauri (1962) 

 and Giliomee (1967) ; therefore only the papers either omitted by these authors, 

 or published subsequent to their works, will be discussed here. 



One of the early papers not mentioned by them is Comstock's (1881) First Report 

 on Scale Insects, in which the main features of the males of a number of species of 

 the subfamilies Diaspinae (=Diaspididae) and one eriococcid, Rhizococcus 

 araucariae (Mask.) are briefly discussed. In many other early papers, however, the 

 reference to the males are restricted to brief accounts mainly on the shape, size and 

 colour of their bodies, or on the available puparia, apparently the empty ones 

 (e.g. Rutherford, 1914 ; Brain, 1920 ; Hall, 1928 ; Takahashi, 193 1). A paper 

 by Kuwana (1923) (mentioned by neither Ghauri nor Giliomee) includes descrip- 

 tions and illustrations of four scale insects, one mealybug, and one margaroid. 

 MacDougall (1926) provided generalized descriptions of the males of Pseudococcus 

 comstocki Kuwana. Rao (1943) drew attention to the existence of the apterous 

 males of Trionymus sacchari Ckll. but made no description of any morphological 

 importance. Beardsley published several papers dealing with a large number of 

 pseudococcid males occurring in Hawaii (i960, 62, 63, 64 and 65) ; his illustrations 

 of almost all the species only included ventral aspects of the penial sheath. In his 

 paper of 1964 he suggested close relationship between Phenacoleachia and Pseudo- 

 coccidae, which was also recognized by Giliomee (1967). In 1965, Beardsley 

 showed that the males of Antonina crawii Ckll., unlike their counterpart females, 

 do not exhibit features departing from the usual pseudococcid male type. 

 Dziedzicka (1961), while studying the developmental stages of Gossyparia spuria 

 (Modeer), described two forms of the adult males (the brachypterous and the 

 macropterous) ; her descriptions are concise and her interpretation of the abdominal 

 segments is inaccurate. Lellakova-Duskova (1965) briefly described the different 

 male stages of Quadraspidiotus marani Zahradnik, including the adult. Jakubski 

 (1965) provided short accounts on the available males of the family Margarodidae. 

 Pesson & Bielenin (1966) redescribed the males of Icerya corticalis Vayssiere ; 

 they sank it as a synonym of /. maxima Newstead, for which they erected the new 

 genus Gigantococcus. Giliomee (1967) studied in great detail the males of 23 species 

 of the family Coccidae ; he recorded few structures not previously observed, 

 suggested a classification of the family based on the males, and discussed inter and 

 intra-family relationships within Coccoidea. 



MATERIAL, TECHNIQUE AND ILLUSTRATIONS 



Material. 



The males of 24 species, belonging to 17 genera and two coccid groups were 



