46 MISC. PUBLICATION 1015. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



The zoological validity of the genus is brought into further question by its pro- 

 poser's treatment of a second species, Cerococcus hibisci Green, which he included. 

 If we have correctly understood his initial 1933 discussion (in French), he con- 

 sidered that ornatus and hibisci may be separated by differences in the behavior 

 of their secretionary coverings in relation to various wax solvents, that of hibisci 

 dissolving on treatment, that of ornatus remaining resistant to wax solvents, 

 even under heat treatment. In contrast to this described difference, Mahdihas- 

 san, 1946a : 197, stated that "both these species .... do not produce wax." In 

 this 1948a note, the forms were discussed under the generic names Ceriococcus 

 and Coriococcus, which we accept as unintentional variants of the original 

 Coricoccus. 



Coriococcus Mahclihassan, 1946, Current Sci. [India] 15 : 19 



• . 



The author used this name to refer to the genus and two included species pre- 

 sented by him as Coricoccus in 1933 : 562. Lindinger, 1937 : 1S2, stated, "Corio- 

 coccus = Coricoccus." 



Cornoculus Ferris, 1955, Atlas of the Scale Insects of Xorth America, 



7: 81. 



type-species : Cornoculus oculatus Ferris, 1955, by original designation and 

 monotypy. 



The describer placed this genus in the Dactylopiidae as he recognized this 

 family, and indicated close relationship to Gymnococcus Douglas, as defined by 

 Ferris, 1955a : 178. 



Cornuaspis MacGillivray, 1921, The Cocciclae, pp. 274, 286. 



type-species : Mytilaspis ocellata Green, 1907, by original designation. 



This genus seems to have doubtful zoological validity. Lindinger, 1937 : 182, 

 said: i ' = Mytilococcus Amerling [Lepidosaphes]," and Ferris, 1937a: 4, con- 

 sidered its status doubtful. Balachowsky, 1954e : 28, placed the name as a 

 synonym of Lepidosaphes Shimer. 



Coronaspis MacGillivray, 1921, The Cocciclae, pp. 312, 362. 



type-species : Chionaspis coronifera Green, 1905, by original designation. 



The describer placed this genus in the Diaspidini. Ferris, 1937a : 3. indicated 

 that it is distinct from Chionaspis Signoret. Hall, 1946a: 511, 546, accepted it 

 as a valid genus. Balachowsky, 1954e : 23, assigned it to his Lepidosaphedina. 



Corylocecis Amyot, 1847, Soc. Ent, de France Ann. (ser. 2)5: 502. 



A uninomial designation proposed as a replacement for a proper binomial for 

 the species discussed. This appears to be Coccus coryJi Linnaeus, 1758, the 

 identity of which is confused in European coccid literature. We do not con- 

 sider that this name has proper status as representing a generic unit, but it is 

 included in Neave, 1939, Nomen. Zool. 1 : 844. 



Cosmococcus Borchsenius, 1959, Ent. Obozr. 38 : 842-843. 



type- specie s : Cosmococcus erythrinae Borchsenius, 1959, by original 

 designation. 

 The describer placed this genus in the Lecaniodiaspididae, which he sepa- 

 rated from the Asterolecaniidae as a new family. 



