A review of Palaearctic species of Artemicoccus and Coccidohistrix (Homoptera: Coccinea: Pseudococcidae)

Abstract

Two morphologically close genera of mealybugs, Artemicoccus Balachowsky, 1953 and Coccidohistrix Lindinger, 1943, are considered based mainly onthe Palaearctic fauna. The key for all Palaearctic species is provided, and A. bispinus (Borchsenius, 1949) and C. artemisiae Kiritshenko, 1937 areredescribed and illustrated. Lectotypes are designated for three nominal species. The following new synonymy is established: Artemicoccus bispinus (Borchsenius, 1949) = A. unispinus (Borchsenius, 1949), syn. nov.

Two new species of Coccidohystrix Lindinger (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) with notes on the related genus Artemicoccus Balachowsky

“…The collecting of two new species referred to Artemicoccus -Coccidohystrix gave us the opportunity to reconsider the morphology of these two controversial taxa, also on the basis of a recent phylogenetical study that resulted these two genera as separate ones in a very distinct clade (Kaydan et al, 2015) In the present study the authors agree with Balachowsky (1953b), Ben-Dov (1994), Danzig et al (2012) and regard Coccidohystrix and Artemicoccus as separate genera and described two new Coccidohystrix species, collected in Turkey and Bulgaria with new identification key of the genus. In addition the type material of C. zangherii was studied and the species transferred to the genus Artemicoccus.…”

“…Comments. The genus Coccidohystrix can be distinguished by combination of the following characters (i) 7-9 segmented antennae; (ii) cerarii numbering 16-18 pairs, present on body margin, each cerarius formed of an elevated sclerotized prominence bearing several (1-12) enlarged conical setae, several minute discoidal pores and 1 or 2 spine-like setae, (iii) similar prominences distributed in longitudinal rows on dorsum, medial ones not divided; (iv) prominences and cerarii do not bear any trilocular pores (except in case of some population of C. artemisiae (Danzig et al, 2012).…”

“…After the detailed studies of Danzig et al (2012) Comments. It was mentioned by the authors in the original description that this species could have been placed into the genus Artemicoccus (Kozár & Pellizzari, 1989).…”

“…In recent years the genera Artemicoccus and Coccidohystrix have been in the scope of several papers in which the above reported taxa are considered as separate genera (Danzig et al, 2012) or as synonyms (Gavrilov-Zimin & Matile-Ferrero, 2014;Danzig & Gavrilov-Zimin, 2014).…”

“…Later Kozár & Pellizzari (1989) described the new species C. zangherii Kozár & Pellizzari in Coccidohystrix but admitted that it could be placed into the genus Artemicoccus; at that time they considered that the characters reported by Balachoswky were not sufficient to separate Artemicoccus from Coccidohystrix and concluded that a revision of these genera could led to the synonymy of Artemicoccus with Coccidohystrix. Danzig et al (2012) considered these two genera separately following Balachowsky (1953b) and Ben-Dov (1994) and provided a key for their differentiation. The main diagnostic morphological character between the two genera is the situation of dorsal conical setae: in Coccidohystrix the dorsal conical setae on dorsum are situated on elevated sclerotised prominences, while in Artemicoccus those are not on sclerotised prominences.…”