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



Eugreeniella Brimblecombe, 1958, Queensland Jour. Agr. Sci. 15 : 87. 



type-species: Aonidia (Greeniella) pulchra Green, 1905, by original desig- 

 nation and monotypy. 



The describer noted resemblances to Greeniella Cockerell and Aonidia 

 Targioni-Tozzetti in the Aspidiotini but concluded that the proper assignment of 

 this genus was in the Diaspidini with relationships to Gymnaspis Newstead 

 and Parlatoi'ia Targioni-Tozzetti. Borchsenius and Williams, 1963, Brit. Mus. 

 (Xat. Hist.) Ent. Bui. 13: 378, assigned it to the Parlatoriini, nearest to 

 Agrophaspis Borchsenius and Williams, noting that its affinities were shown in 

 the second-stage female. 



Eulaingia Brimblecombe, 1958, Queensland Jour. Agr. Sci. 15 : 80. 



type-species : Pseudaonidia stenophyllae Laing, 1929, by original designa- 

 tion and monotypy. 



Its proposer suggested affinities with Pseudotargionia Lindinger and Neo- 

 morgania MacGillivray in the Aspidiotini. Borchsenius and Williams, 1963, 

 Brit. Mus. (Xat. Hist.) Ent. Bui. 13: 384, confirmed its position in the 

 Aspidiotini. 



Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893, Amer. Ent, Soc. Trans. 20 : 54. 

 type-species : Coccus tiliae Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation. 



Because of the enormous confusion that exists over the proper assignment and 

 synonymy of the many specific names that have been proposed in the Coccidae 

 (str.), to which Eulecanium assigns, and perhaps because of some early cata- 

 loguing confusion, the treatment accorded this genus has been variable. This 

 name first appeared in print when Cockerell, 1893g: 54, presented it as a sub- 

 genus of Lecanium, ''taking L. tiliae as the type." He stated that he was able 

 to examine specimens of the 7 described species that he included in his "Third 

 Series," and his specimens of tiliae are clearly defined by his presentation of 

 adequate associated collection data. These particular specimens must be pre- 

 sumed to carry the burden of the zoological identity of the genus. However, 

 they have not been located. Therefore, we assume that the genus stands for a 

 complex which first began to take shape in terms of modern recognition when 

 Marchal, 1908: 295, redescribed and redefined Lecanium coryli (Linnaeus) 

 and placed Coccus tiliae Linnaeus as a synonym. Confusion over the probable 

 identity of this type-species was compounded by the action of Sulc, 1932: 47, 

 who used the name tiliae (Linnaeus) for the concept that Marchal called coryli 

 and the name coryli (Linnaeus) for the concept that Marchal, 1908: 264, 

 called corni (Bouche). Lindinger, 1937: 185, accepted Eulecanium as valid 

 in his list of coccid generic names, dating it from 1896, and citing as type-species 

 "E. aceris (Schr. )=con/Zi (L.)" because aceris was the first species included 

 under Eulecanium by Cockerell, 189Gb : 332, in his Check List. 



The most recent broad treatment of this genus occurred in Borchsenius 1957 : 

 384, 423. He accepted Eulecanium as valid, but cited as its type-species, Coccus 

 mail Schrank, 1781, on the ground that Coccus coryli Linnaeus of authors has 

 been applied, through the years, to several different species, and that the 

 Linnaean name must be considered to be a noinen nudum because the original 

 description is inadequate for acceptable recognition of the Linnaean species. 

 Borchsenius dated the genus from 1896 and presented (p. 423) Coccus tiliae 

 Linnaeus as a definitely recognizable form distinct from other elements of the 



