AN ANNOTATED LIST OF GENERIC NAMES OF THE COCCOIDEA 107 



Leonardianna MacGillivray, 1921, The Coccidae, p. 393. 



type-species : Aspidiotus pimentae Newstead, 1917, by original designation. 



Lindinger, 1937 : 188, placed this name as a synonym of Dycryptaspis Cockerell. 

 Ferris, 1941 d : SIII-345, accepted it as valid and placed it in the Aspidiotini. 

 Balachowsky, 1953g : 727, 731, attached it provisionally to the Odonaspidina. 



Lepidaspidis MacGillivray, 1921, The Coccidae, p. 275. 



type-species : Mytilaspis unilooa Kuwana, 1909, by original designation and 

 monotypy. 



The author placed this genus in the Lepidosaphini. Lindinger, 1937 : 188, said, 

 " = Jaapia Ldgr." Ferris and Rao, 1947:26-27, placed the name in synonymy 

 with Pinnaspis Cockerell. 



Lepidaspis Riley, 1923, Zool. Rec. for 1921, p. 249. 



A lapsus for Lepidaspidis MacGillivray. Lindinger, 1937: 188, said, " = Jaapia 

 Ldgr." 



Lepidosaphes Shimer, 1868, Amer. Ent. Soc. Trans., pp. 372-373. 



type-species : (Coccus conchiformis Gmelin, 1789, of Shimer) —Coccus 

 ulmi Linnaeus, 1758, of current concepts, by monotypy. 



Signoret, 1870:91, claimed that Mytilaspis Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868, was pub- 

 lished earlier than Lepidosaphes, but we have found nothing to confirm this. 

 Lindinger, 1936 : 148-149, insisted that the generic name Mytiiococcus Amerling, 

 1858, had precedence over Lepidosaphes Shimer, 1868. For good reasons we 

 question this substitution. The name appeared in three different spellings in 

 the year of its publication, first as Mytillicoccus Amerling without included 

 species, second as Mytiiococcus Amerling with included species and illustrations 

 but no actual descriptions, and third as Mytilicoccus in a review by von Schlech- 

 tendal of Amerling's work. There is no generic description to associate with 

 the name and no specific descriptions associated with any of the forms named 

 in association with Mytiiococcus. A few coccid workers have utilized the name 

 Mytiiococcus since its rediscovery by Lindinger, but most current workers 

 (Balachowsky, Borchsenius, Ferris, Hall, Schmutterer, Takahashi) have con- 

 tinued to use Lepidosaphes. Thus far Mytiiococcus has been used in coccid 

 literature perhaps 150 to 200 times ; Lepidosaphes has built up a usage running 

 to 3,500 to 4,000 times, and is common in current usage. There are practical 

 advantages in continuing the use of the latter name, and we believe that its use 

 should be accepted, and stabilized by formal action if necessary. 



The question of the status of the type-species of Lepidosaphes and its synonyms 

 presents its own problems. Cockerell, 1899j : 275, apparently was the first to 

 note that Coccus ulmi Linnaeus, 1758 : 455, was based on Reaumur's "Insectes 

 4. t. 2, 5. f. 5-7." Fernald, 1903b: 314, placed Coccus linearis Modeer, 1778, 

 and Coccus conchiformis Gmelin, 1789, both bearing their author's citations to 

 the same Reaumur plate figures noted above, in synonymy with Coccus ulmi 

 Linnaeus. The acceptance of ulmi Linnaeus over the several other names used 

 for this species, first in Mytilaspis and after publication of the Fernald Cata- 

 logue, 1903b, in combination with Lepidosaphes, has become very widespread, 

 if not universal, and we believe it is correct. We believe further that continued 

 use of conchiformis (Gmelin) as a valid name (see Balachowsky, 1954e : 64), 

 and the attempt to resurrect the name linearis (see Lindinger, 1954: 617) are 

 arbitrary actions not legitimate under the Rules of the 1961 Code. 

 208-496—66 8 



