\ 
| 
i 
SCALE INSECTS OF THE GENUS PARLATORIA 19 
not established. The 8 pairs of normally developed lobes not conspicuously 
large as in cinerea, or small as in camelliae, all similar in shape, but plainly 
graduated in size from median to outer, the actual size of the lobes and the 
degree of gradation varying considerably in the material studied, with a cor- 
responding influence on the general appearance of the apex of the pygidium;3 
fourth lobe represented by a definitely sclerotized asymmetrical short conical 
projection of body margin having usually 1 or 2 minute teeth on inner margin 
and 2 or 3 on outer; can be described also as a sclerotized projection of body 
margin having 1 relatively very large and conspicuous projecting tooth just in- 
side its midline and some minute teeth on each side of this; fifth lobe usually 
present and similar in appearance to fourth, not quite so prominent or so 
strongly sclerotized. Plates as in most other species, those between the 3 
pairs of fully developed lobes rather slender and with roughly parallel sides, 
strongly fimbriate at apices, but usually with one projection longer and more 
prominent than the others, the 3 plates between third and fourth lobes broad, 
especially the intermediate plate, and similarly fimbriate along apical margin; 
3 of the 4 plates between fourth and fifth lobes also broad, but the fimbria- 
tions fewer, shorter, and stouter, the fourth plate more slender; plates con- 
tinued to posterior corner of first abdominal segment, mostly short, stout at 
base, rounded, tapering to a Single projection of moderate length. Para- 
genitals relatively few in number, characteristically in 4 groups; tabulated 
range for anterior paragenitals 5 to 8, average 6.5; for posterior paragenitals 
5 to 9, average 6.6; totals, range 23 to 29, average 24.6. 
Because of the uncertainties associated with some of the host rec- 
ords published for this insect, no attempt 1s made here to summarize 
such published information. Large host lists for pergandii have been 
given by Merrill and Chaffin (45, p. 246) and by Kuwana (31, p. 10), 
and Merrill and Chaffin also give the recorded world distribution up 
to time of publication. The species readily establishes itself on citrus 
fruits, and because of this has been intercepted repeatedly by the 
plant quarantine inspection service of this Department.’ The distri- 
bution records of specimens from Citrus species and varieties (Rut- 
aceae) that have been examined in the course of this study include 
the following: From the United States: Alabama, California, Con- 
necticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Mis- 
sissippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and 
irginia (the records for the Northern’ States obviously are for 
greenhouse infestations, or from fruit shipped into the State). From 
other parts of continental North America: Canada, Canal Zone, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama. From the 
West Indies: Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Isle 
of Pines, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and 
Trinidad. From South America: Argentine, British Guiana, Brazil, 
and Ecuador. From Europe: Greece, France, Italy, Yugoslavia, 
Malta, Portugal, Sicily, and Spain (other European quarantine rec- 
ords rather certainly involve fruits not produced in country indi- 
cated as source). From the Asiatic area: Burma, China, Chosen, 
India, Japan, Java, Palestine, Philippine Islands, Siam, Straits Set- 
tlements, Sumatra, and Syria. From Africa: Algeria, Egypt, South 
Africa, Libya (Tripoli), and West Africa. Additional material on 
Citrus came from Australia, New Zealand, and from various islands 
including Bermuda, Canary Islands, and Hawaii. Specimens ex- 
amined from hosts other than Citrus include some on Awcuba (Corn- 
aceae) from Japan; on Bu«us (Buxaceae) from Mississippi and 
Louisiana; on Llaeagnus (Elaeagnaceae) from Louisiana; on Lvony- 
8 See comments on validity of such records in footnote 4. 
