io MORPHOLOGY AND TAXONOMY OF ADULT MALES 



In the general views of the body, the dorsal and the ventral arms of the midcranial 

 ridge were drawn just outside the median line, so that the degree of their develop- 

 ment could be shown. 



GENERAL MORPHOLOGY 



Newstead (1903) described, in general terms, the males of some species of the 

 subfamily Dactylopinae (=Pseudococcidae and Eriococcidae), giving some particulars 

 about the antennae, legs and the genital armature. Brain (1915) gave even shorter 

 accounts of the males of some species of the subfamily Pseudococcinae. Makel 

 (1942) was the first to carry out combined morphological and anatomical studies of 

 3 species of the genus Pseudococcus. Sulc (1943, 1944, 1945) gave comparatively 

 detailed descriptions and illustrations of the males of Phenacoccus aceris Signoret, 

 Peukinococcus piceae (Loew), and Nipaecoccus nipae (Mask.), respectively. 

 Morrison (1945) described the macropterous males of Heterococcus graminicola, 

 with generalized illustration of the body and more detailed drawings of antenna, 

 hind leg, abdominal penultimate and genital segments. Reyne (1954) similarly 

 treated the males of Puto antennatus Signoret, giving detailed accounts of the 

 structure of the head and the genital segment ; he concluded that the males of 

 Puto and Macrocerococcus are closely related, and included certain characters (e.g. 

 number of eyes, structure of penis, number of caudal filaments) widely separating 

 their type-species (P. antennatus Sign, and M. snperbus Leon.) from that of Phena- 

 coccus (P. aceris Sign., described by Sulc, 1943). He also supported the conception 

 of Borchsenius (1948) regarding the re-establishment of the genus Macrocerococcus. 

 Giliomee (1961) studied the males of Pseudococcus fragilis Brain, P. adonidutn 

 (Linn), and P. maritimus (Ehrhorn) comparatively ; he recognized two " types " 

 of the last species, although later (1967) decided that these " types " represent two 

 distinct species, as was confirmed by the present writer (see description of Pseudo- 

 coccus obscurus). 



In his excellent study on the subject, Theron (1958) recognized 10 general 

 morphological characters identifying the lecanoid type of male, based on studies of 

 two genera, Eulecanium (=Parthenolecanium-Coccida.e) and Pseudococcus (=Plano- 

 cocois-Pseudococcidae) ; he also indicated that the Pseudococcidae differ from 

 Coccidae by more generalized condition of the genitalia (primitive character), the 

 condition of the anterior tentorial arms and the ocular ridges (specialized characters). 

 Giliomee (1961) found that two of Theron's generalized characters do not apply to 

 Pseudococcidae and this was confirmed by the present study. Later, Giliomee 

 (1967) discussed the relationships between the males of Pseudococcidae and 

 Coccidae, listing 10 morphological characters (5 primitive and 5 specialized) separat- 

 ing the males of the two families. This again was confirmed by the present author. 



It was here found that the pseudococcid and the eriococcid males differ by a 

 number of morphological characters (listed later in the discussion), the importance 

 of which is comparable with those separating Pseudococcidae and Coccidae. There- 

 fore, it has been concluded that they deserve the status of separate families and 

 will be here treated as such. 



