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



others under this name. Costa did not mention this name in his paper. We 

 have found no tie-up that could permit acceptance of this attempted type-species 

 fixation and since the subsequent Targioni-Tozzetti Catalog (1868) offers no 

 confirmation of such a choice of type-species for Diaspis, we conclude that the 

 proposal has no validity. 



The first type-species designation with apparent validity that we have encoun- 

 tered, occurred in Cockerell, 1902d : 58, where he stated: "The type of Diaspis is 

 D. calyptroides . . . ." Searches in coccid literature by different workers have 

 brought published opinions that Costa's calyptroides was identical with Coccus 

 luteus Lancry, 1791, and with Aspidiotus echinocacti BouchS, 1833, and the evi- 

 dence from the description of these forms seems to lend plausible support to the 

 published opinions. Lindinger, 1943c: 249, accepting 1829 as the date of pub- 

 lication of calyptroides Costa, gave it priority over echinocacti Bouch£, 1833, but 

 held that both of these species were predated by luteus Lancry, 1791. For more 

 than 60 years the majority of coccid workers have cited echinocacti BouchS, 

 1833, as type-species of Diaspis Costa. 



The problem of the status of the coccid genus Diaspis seems to be further com- 

 plicated by its proposal, apparently wholly independently of the Costa publica- 

 tion, by Bremi, or Bremi-Wolf, first in Ver. Schweiz. Naturf. Gesell., 1847: 43, 

 where no species were included, and again, 1849: 327, where the species name 

 Diaspis nivea was included. (Lindinger, 1936: 167, offered his opinion that this 

 is Chionaspis salicis (L.) Sign.) Diaspis also was used in the Coleoptera in 1848 

 according to Neave, 1939, Nomen. Zool. II : 63, but the Costa use, whatever the 

 date of its appearance, seems to have ample priority. 



"With respect to zoological usage, this genus has been applied with relative 

 consistency, especially since the Cockerell type-species and the Fernald Catalogue 

 acceptance, to a group of diaspidine coccids centering on the common armored 

 scale found on many Cactus species. Balachowsky, 1954e : 173, placed this genus 

 in Diaspidina, group I, diaspiform. We believe that this application should be 

 accepted. 



Diasprotecus Signoret, 1868, Soc. Ent. de France Ann. (ser. 4) 8 : 511. 

 A variation of spelling of Diaprosteci Costa. 



Diaste Dalle Torre, 1898, Cat. Hymenopterorum 5 : 220, footnote 3. 



We believe that this name, as listed by Dalle Torre, resulted from an inade- 

 quate examination of the paper on North American Aphelinae by L. O. Howard, 

 on which it was based. Howard reported one of his parasites as coming from 

 "Mytilaspis on an orchid, an undetermined species of Dy caste from Japan." 

 Dycaste does not seem to be a recognized plant genus and we are persuaded that 

 the spelling was a lapsus for Lycaste, a well-known orchid genus. This error 

 appears to have been compounded by Morley, 1909, Entomologist 42 : 257, in his 

 review of the Hymenopterous Parasites of Coccidae, where he further transposed 

 Diaste into Diaspis. 



Diastolaspis Brimblecombe, 1959, Queensland Jour. Agr. Sci. 16 : 132. 



type-species : Diastolaspis novata Brimblecombe, 1959, by original designa- 

 tion and monotypy. 



The describer placed this genus close to Pseudotargionia Lindinger. 



