Diaspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)

Smith-Pardo, Allan H., Evans, Gregory A. & Dooley, John W., 2012, A review of the genus Chrysomphalus Ashmead (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Diaspididae) with descriptions of a new species and a new, related genus, Zootaxa 3570, pp. 1-24: 19-20

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.282977

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:68A889B1-51C1-40B2-A264-DE8AE782B94C

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/0382231A-FFD2-FFA9-1398-FD60FC1DFB96

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Diaspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)
status

 

Diaspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)   , 1896 ( Fig. 11 View FIGURE 11 ), stat. rev.

Fig. 21 View FIGURE 21

Chrysomphalus degeneratus Leonardi   in Berlese & Leonardi, 1896: 345. Type data: Italy (Portici) on leaves of Pandanus graminifolia   . Type depository: Portici: Dipartimento de Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria di Portici, Universita di Napoli Federico II, Italy

Aspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)   ; Cockerell, 1896: 334.

Aspidiotus (Chrysomphalus) degeneratus (Leonardi)   ; Cockerell, 1897: 29.

Hemiberlesia degenerata (Leonardi)   ; McKenzie, 1939: 54.

Abgrallaspis degeneratus (Leonardi)   ; Balachowsky, 1948: 317; Miller & Davidson, 2005: 42.

Diaspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)   ; Borchsenius, 1950: 225.

Dynaspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)   ; Borchsenius, 1966: 282; Danzig, 1993: 151.

Distribution: Nearctic: USA; Western Palearctic: Georgia, Greece, Italy, Portugal; Eastern Palearctic: China, Japan, North Korea.

Host families: Araliaceae   , Aquifoliaceae   , Celastraceae   , Ericaceae   , Oleaceae   , Pandanaceae   , Rutaceae   , and Theaceae   .

Discussion: Scale insect workers have found it difficult to place Chrysomphalus degeneratus   in an appropriate genus based on its morphology, since it lacks some of the characteristics that define the various genera and/or exhibits characteristics intermediate between genera. Since Leonardi described it in 1896, it has been placed in the following genera: Abgrallaspis   , Aspidiotus   , Diaspidiotus   , Dynaspidiotus   and Hemiberlesia   . Prior to this study, it was placed in the genus Abgrallaspis   . Research on the molecular systematics of diaspidid species by Andersen et al. (2010) and by Rugman-Jones et al. (2010), which included Abgrallaspis degeneratus   , Chrysomphalus aonidum   , C. dictyospermi   , Abgrallaspis cyanophylli   (the type species of the genus Abgrallaspis   ) and numerous species from several other aspidiotine genera, showed a very close relationship between A. degeneratus   and species of Chrysomphalus   , Aonidiella   and Diaspidiotus   and a relatively distant relationship to the Abgrallaspis   species included in their study. After discussion with Benjamin Normark (pers. comm.) and consideration of the results of Anderson et al. (2010) and Rugman-Jones et al. (2010) it was decided to examine the morphology of Abgrallaspis degeneratus   to determine whether it supported the molecular findings.

Although the genus Abgrallaspis   has been shown to be paraphyletic (Andersen et al., 2010; Rugman-Jones et al., 2010) and its limits poorly-defined, it appears that the species currently placed in Abgrallaspis   lack the paraphysis in the L 2 –L 3 interlobular space and lack the long and slender paraphysis arising from the mesal corner of L 1 typical of Chrysomphalus   , Aonidiella   and certain species of Diaspidiotus   [as well as in A. degeneratus   ]. In Abgrallaspis   , the paraphysis arising from the mesal corner of L 1 is entirely absent, extremely short, or forms a wide basal sclerosis, at least half the width of L 1, and the paraphysis arising from the lateral corner of L 1 is either absent, or relatively short and/or weakly developed. In addition, most Abgrallaspis   species have 3 pairs of well-developed pygidial lobes. Unlike Chrysomphalus   species, the paraphyses of A. degeneratus   are less well-developed, about as long as, or shorter than, the pygidial lobes, the paraphysis in the interlobular space between L 2 and L 3 is absent or very short and inconspicuous, and the margin anterior to L 3 has a series of 3 short glandular spines, whereas in Chrysomphalus   the paraphyses are well-developed, usually longer than the pygidial lobes with a well-developed, elongate paraphysis in the interlobular space between L 2 and L 3 and the margin anterior to L 3 has a series of plates with clubbed, fringed or bifurcate apices. Based on these characters, we believe that A. degeneratus   is better placed in Diaspidiotus   , the genus in which Borchsenius (1950) had placed it. It is most similar to Diaspidiotus africanus ( Marlatt, 1908)   in the presence of perivulvar pores and in the shape of the lobes, paraphyses, plates and spines.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Hemiptera

Family

Diaspididae

Genus

Diaspidiotus

Loc

Diaspidiotus degeneratus (Leonardi)

Smith-Pardo, Allan H., Evans, Gregory A. & Dooley, John W. 2012
2012
Loc

Dynaspidiotus degeneratus

Danzig 1993: 151
Borchsenius 1966: 282
1966
Loc

Diaspidiotus degeneratus

Borchsenius 1950: 225
1950
Loc

Abgrallaspis degeneratus

Miller 2005: 42
Balachowsky 1948: 317
1948
Loc

Hemiberlesia degenerata

McKenzie 1939: 54
1939
Loc

Aspidiotus (Chrysomphalus) degeneratus

Cockerell 1897: 29
1897
Loc

Chrysomphalus degeneratus

Berlese 1896: 345
1896
Loc

Aspidiotus degeneratus

Cockerell 1896: 334
1896