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



Columna Signoret, 1877, Soc. Ent. cle France Ann. (ser. 5) 6: 658. 



Signoret presented this name only as "Columna Targ.-Tozz. = Ceroplastes." 

 Since he used Columnea elsewhere, it seems correct to conclude that Columna 

 was a lapsus for Columnea. Columna was preoccupied in 1811 in the Mollusca, 

 according to Neave, 1939, Xomen. Zool. 1 : 806. 



Columnea Targioni-Tozzetti, 1866, E. Accad. dei Georg. Atti (n. s.) 

 13: 131, 138, 142; 1867, Soc. Ital. di Sci. Nat, Mem. 3 (3) : 11. 



type-species : Coccus caricae Fabricius, 1794, by subsequent restriction. 



The proposer of this name originally presented it as a substitute for Ceroplastes 

 Gray and included in the genus 10 species names, several of which he offered 

 as substitutes for already published, available names. Subsequently, 1867: 11, 

 he deliberately restricted the use of Columnea to Coccus caricae Fabricius, and 

 assigned the other species to the genus Ceroplastes. All of his inclusions that 

 have been recognized are currently assigned to Ceroplastes, but we consider that 

 Columnea might be available if Ceroplastes should be split into smaller generic 

 units. 



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



type-species : Aspidiotus perniciosus Comstock, 1881, by original designa- 

 tion. 



There has been some variation of opinion on the status of this genus in recent 

 years. Silvestri, 1939 : 841, made use of it in his Compendio, and Bodenheimer, 

 1952 : 341, argued in favor of its use. Ferris, 1937c : 50, 53, 56, first assigned the 

 name to synonymy under Foroesaspis MacGillivray, but later, 1938a : SII-255, 

 placed both names as synonyms of Quadraspidlotus MacGillivray. Balachowsky, 

 1950b : 397, followed the Ferris assignments. 



Comstockiella Cockerell, 1896, 111. State Lab. Nat. Hist. 4 : 320. 



type-species : Aspidiotus sabalis Comstock, 1883, by original designation 

 and monotypy. 



Cockerell established this genus in a purely negative fashion by proposing it 

 for Aspidiotus saoalis Comstock because "Comstock's excellent description and 

 figures show that it is not Aspidiotus." Subsequent critical mention seems to 

 have been restricted to various observations by Ferris, especially in 193Sa : SII- 

 212-213, who characterized the genus and redescribed the type-species on the 

 basis of examples from Texas. He strongly questioned the aspidiotine affinities 

 of the genus but left it in the Aspidiotini. Brown, 1957 : 362, and 1960: 160-162, 

 commented on the strong digression of the chromosome pattern from the aspidio- 

 tine standards now known. Altogether, it seems doubtful that this genus as- 

 sociates with any aspidiotine genera, but no satisfactory assignment has thus 

 far been found. 



Conchaspis Cockerell, 1893, Jamaica Bot. Dept. Bui. (March 1893) 

 40: 9; 1893, Gard. Chron. (May 1893) 13: 518. 



type-species: Conchaspis angraeci Cockerell, 1S93, by monotypy. 



In both citations Cockerell presented genus and species names as new. Mamet, 

 1954b: 190, in his thorough review of the Conchaspididae, accepted the genus as 

 based on the Jamaica Bot. Dept. Bui. citation, and reviewed its status as the 



