Phorodon persifoliae Shinji (1922)

Cranshaw, Whitney S., Halbert, Susan E., Favret, Colin, Britt, Kadie E. & Miller, Gary L., 2018, Phorodon cannabis Passerini (Hemiptera: Aphididae), a newly recognized pest in North America found on industrial hemp, Insecta Mundi 662, pp. 1-12: 4

publication ID

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Phorodon persifoliae Shinji (1922)


Phorodon persifoliae Shinji (1922)  

was described from peach ( Prunus persica   (L.) Batsch) ( Rosaceae   ) in Japan. The description mentions rhinaria on antennal segment III and a black head and thorax, indicating that the specimens were alate. The collection date is 30 May, suggesting that the aphid was described from spring migrants. The description indicates that the cauda and siphunculi are the same length, so this species cannot belong to Phorodon   . In addition, the original specimens were yellowish green and covered in a waxy powder. Although the species was treated as valid by Eastop and Hille Ris Lambers (1976) and Remaudière and Remaudière (1997), Takahashi (1965) had previously proposed the species as a synonym of Hyalopterus pruni (Geoffroy)   . Given the host association and morphological description, we concur that the species is probably a member of Hyalopterus Koch. However   , because the original description is based on alatae which at this time are not identifiable to species, it is cur- rently impossible to place P. persifoliae   in one of the valid species of the genus, H. pruni (Geoffroy)   , H. arundiniformis Gulamullah   , or H. amygdali (Blanchard)   (the first two are known to colonize peach). Regardless of which species with which Phorodon persifoliae   may actually be synonymous, by the Principle of Priority ( ICZN 1999), it would be considered the junior synonym of any of them. We here transfer Phorodon persifoliae   to Hyalopterus   in agreement with Takahashi (1965) but, per Favret et al. (2017) and pending an association with one of the three species of Hyalopterus   , we consider it a nomen dubium.