34 MISC. PUBLICATION 1015, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



Chelonicoccus A. Costa, 1866, Accad. clelle Sci. Fis. e Mat. Napoli, 

 Atti 3 (7) : 10; Silvestri, 1920, in Leonardi, Monografia delle Coc- 

 ciniglie Italiane, p. 500. 

 type-species : Chelonicoccus lutens Costa, 1866, by monotypy. 



Originally described as a "singular" Italian coccid, Silvestri reported that 

 examination of the type specimen showed it to be a part of a lepidopterous 

 chrysalid, probably of a lycaenid. 



Chemnaspidiotus MacGillivray, 1921, The Coccidae, p. 391. 



type- specie s : Crypt ophyllaspis liquidamoaris Kotinsky, 1903, by original 

 designation and monotypy. 



Lindinger, 1937 : 181, placed this name as a synonym of Aspidiotus Bouche. 

 Ferris, 1938a : SII-223, considered that the type-species belonged in the genus 

 Dia spiff lotus Berlese and Leonardi. Recent usage has avoided the use of the 

 name. 



Chentraspis Leonardi, 1897, Riv. di Patol. Veg. (Nov. 1896-Feb. 

 1897) 5: 284, 286; 1897, 6: 111 (again presented as a new genus). 



ttpe-species : Aspidiotus unilools Maskell. 1895, by subsequent restriction 

 by Cockerell, 1899a : 395, where he included only the species nniloois under 

 this generic heading, and by subsequent designation by Fernald. 1903b : 

 251. 



Morrison and Morrison, 1922 : 93, were in error when they alleged that only one 

 species was included in the genus at the time it was established. Actually an- 

 other species, Aspidiotus extensus Maskell, 1895, was also assigned here. Lin- 

 dinger, 1937 : 181, designated extensus as type-species, apparently on a "first 

 species" selection basis, and ignored the prior designations cited above. In the 

 same lists he indicated that Chentraspis, as discussed by Leonardi in 189S 

 [apparently 1897b: 111], represented a different concept than the original pres- 

 entation and proposed a new genus, Neglectaspls, for this, with uniloois Maskell 

 as type-species. Lindinger, 1937: 190, also considered Neoleonardia MacGil- 

 livray to be a synonym of Chentraspis as he restricted it, but this can be true 

 only if his type fixation is accepted. Ferris, 1937e: 528, rejected Lindinger s 

 1937 type-species selection because of the action presented in the Fernald Cata- 

 logue. Lindinger, 1943b : 217, again insisted that extensus was the type-species 

 of the genus, apparently this time basing his contention on the fact that the 

 combination Chentraspis extensus occurs one page before Chentraspis unilohis 

 in Cockerell's, 1897i : 26-27, list of Australian aspidiotine species. We do not 

 agree with this, and consider that the earlier type assignment of unilohis has 

 validity to fix the nature of the genus, which, on this basis, seems definitely to 

 be aspidiotine in character. 



Chermes Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire Abregee des Insectes qui se trouvont 

 aux environs de Paris, v. 1 : 498-504. 



In this spelling and authorship this genus appears to have no current status in 

 the Coccoidea although several early species of coccids were described under the 

 name. The name was proposed first by Linnaeus in 1758 and seems definitely not 

 to be applicable to any coccid. In Amyot and Serville, 1843, Hist. Nat. Ins. Hem., 

 p. 630, this name was used as an alternate for the coccid Kermes Boitard, 1828, 

 but wholly without nomenelatorial justification according to presently accepted 

 rules. 



