20 APHIDS OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 
Genus Cinara Curtis 
Cinara Curtis, 1835: sec. 576; Hottes, 1930b:185. 
Lachniella Del Guercio, 1909a:286 (syn. of Lachnus, same type set). 
Wilsonia Baker, 1919a:212 and 1920a:18 (preoccupied). 
Dilachnus Baker, 1919a:253 and 1920a:16 (preoccupied). 
Lachnus Burmeister, (misidentification), Baker, 1920a:16. 
Panimerus Laing, 1925:322 (preoccupied). 
Neochmosis Theobald, 1929:129. 
Characters. Body usually 3-5 long, robust and bearing numerous moderate 
to long erect hairs; color usually brown or black, rarely green except in nymphs 
and often with more or less of a pattern of white powdery secretion. Antenna 
shorter than body, hairy, six-segmented and with unguis shorter than half of 
base. Cornicle mere rim usually on conelike or mammiform hairy base. 
Rostrum attaining abdomen or exceeding body, segments IV and V elongate 
and lancelike in shape, V distinct. Tarsal I elongated, distinctly trapezoidal in 
lateral aspect; tibiae long and hairy. Fore wing with stigma rather elongate, 
radial sector straight, media faint and either once or twice-forked. Living on 
bark of twigs and limbs of Coniferae. 
Genotype (fixed by Curtis 1835: sec. 576), Aphis pini Linnaeus. 
This genus has heretofore been designated by the writer, Baker, and others 
as Lachnus Burmeister (1835:91). Lachnus Burmeister is here used to replace 
Pterochlorus Rondani. This change of concept was necessitated by the facts 
set forth by Schumacher (1921a:185) who states that the first type-setting for 
Lachnus, Aphis roboris L. by Westwood (formerly considered invalid because 
the name Aphis roboris did not appear in Burmeister’s list of included species) 
is validated by the statement by Burmeister (1835:1006) that his L. fasciatus is 
a synonym of L. roboris which statement is confirmed by examination of the 
type specimen of L. fasciatus. Indeed, none of the species listed under Lachnus 
by Burmeister fall in the concept for the genus for which the name of Cinara is 
here used. 
Key to Species of Cinara* 
Doubtless some of these species are the same as Old World Species but the inade- 
quacy of the descriptions of the latter and lack of type specimens make it advisable at 
present to use American names in many cases for the sake of clarity. 
1. Cornicle not on distinct conical base. (Base very inconspicuous, narrow and not 
raised.) On Abies and Pseudotsuga taxifolia (Fig. 38 and Plate I, 1-7)............---:-:0--see00=-- 2 
Cornicle on distinct conical base, mammiform (Fig. 14))...-2.-.0.-.-.-.<.-1:.-0.sss01tssscneeeeee eee 4 
2. Hairs on dorsal side of hind tibia fine, numerous, reclinate; rostral IV 
PAG Vong (pio 42), cet nee ocere pape soccer pseudotaxifoliae 
Hairs on dorsal side of hind tibia rather spinelike, hardly numerous, semierect 
(Figs) 39)) 2283.0 5.0it. S E e oees  r 3 
3. Distal half of hind tibia blackish; antennal III at least 3 times length of rostral 
LV? (p.043) -cceeb ee ctockecnd SEO eee BO BAT ee TAs Ir ea ee ee pseudotsugae 
Distal tip, only, of hind tibia blackish; antennal III 2-3 times length of rostral IV 
(pe 48) As hss heciotisccsccte ci seec oes eg ec ee ee splendens 
4. Cornicle base bearing both long and short hairs (Mig. 44) o.22.2c2..c-2-c-s.cseacsees eee 5 
Cornicle base bearing only one Jengthiof baits. ccsesee nce rr cere eee 6 
5. Hairs on cornicle fine and numeréus .02 and heavy and sparse .05-.07 long; hind 
tarsal IT °27; rostral 1V -20-.23% antennal- IDI 250) (p47) eee solitaria 
Hairs on cornicle fine and numerous .07 long and heavy and sparse .12-.14 long; 
hind tarsal II .45; rostral IV .20; antennal III .63-.65 (p. 38).........--.-:cseccssceeceeceeceeneeeees osborni 
As above except hind tarsal II .29; rostral IV .12-.16; IIT .26-.35 (p. 46)......-...:---+- sibiricae 
*Many species of Cinara from closely related host plants are separated with consid- 
erable difficulty, especially without comparison with typical specimens. A great deal 
of time has been spent by the writer on this group with the resulting conclusion that the 
Species seem usually to be specific as to host. It seems best therefore to hold these 
species distinct until host transfer tests indicate otherwise. A number of such tests 
were attempted by the writer but none proved successful, seeming to indicate that the 
species of this genus are specific as to hosts. Further and more extensive tests should 
be made and carried through the sexual cycle. 
