Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839

Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), Zootaxa 5369 (1), pp. 89-116 : 95

Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839

Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839: 642 , ♁. SYNTYPES: (lost), Pinus .

Coccus (Aspidiotus) pini ( Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Ratzeburg, 1844: 195).

Leucaspis pini ( Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Signoret, 1868: 865). Valid

Aspidiotus flavus Hartig, 1839: 642 , ♀ (junior synonym— Fernald, 1903: 245). SYNTYPES: 2 (field no. missing [1.11, 1.12]), Pinus .

Specimens. Two unlabelled specimens mounted in situ on pine needles on separate pins following specimen 379 ( Table 3 ). Presumed to be the females in Hartig’s description, but since immature males may also reside under scale covers and the preservation of the specimens does not allow for adequate differentiation of the sexes, their sex cannot be reliably determined. The original types for males of Aspidiotus pini [= Leucaspis pini ] Hartig, 1839, are presumed lost.

Remarks. Many authorities have postulated on the basis of Hartig’s descriptions that he confused the sexes of A. pini and Aspidiotus flavus Hartig, 1839 , such that the males and females of the former and latter, respectively, correspond to L. pini , and that the sexes in the opposite configuration correspond to Dynaspidiotus abietis ( Schrank, 1776) ( Fernald 1903; Leonardi 1908; Borchsenius 1966; Danzig & Kerzhner 1984). Hartig’s type specimens for these two species are consistent with this assertion. Specimens 893 and 894 of A. pini , as well as specimens 379 of A. flavus , have round, gray shields as in Hartig’s description for A. pini , and resemble D. abietis . Specimen 895 is a dull, orange-yellow male with a shiny black scutellum fitting Hartig’s description for A. flavus . Again, this specimen appears to be consistent with D. abietis , not L. pini , the species with which A. flavus is currently in junior synonymy and whose males are black. In contrast, the remaining two specimens associated with Hartig’s A. flavus label are mounted in situ on pine needles and match Hartig’s description of females of A. pini . Given that there are at least three Leucaspis Signoret, 1868 species recorded from pine in Germany ( Danzig & Kerzhner 1984; Garcia Morales et al. 2016), these specimens will need to be slide-mounted for a more definitive identification. Even then, we cannot be certain that the specimens represent the adult females on which the description is based.

Having located the type specimens for A. pini and A. flavus , in accordance with Article 75.8 of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (1999), the neotype formerly designated for A. pini by Danzig & Kerzhner (1984) from a single female collected from Pinus sylvestris in Triglitz, Germany on 10.VI.1909, and currently deposited in the Zoological Museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia, shall no longer be name-bearing. However, since the only remaining primary types for A. pini are not representative of this taxon (Article 75.6), and that those for A. flavus are neither diagnosable in their present state nor preserved in a manner consistent with current standards of curation (Article 75.5), this case will be referred to the ICZN with the recommendation that it uses its plenary power to set aside the newly discovered A. pini syntypes in favor of the prevailing use of the name L. pini with the existing neotype as the name-bearing type.