Valid Names Results

Coccus rhodesiensis (Hall, 1935) (Coccidae: Coccus)

Nomenclatural History

• Lecanium rhodesiensis Hall 1935: 76. Type data: ZIMBABWE [=RHODESIA]: El Dorado and Victoria Falls, on undetermined plant.. Syntypes, female, Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; accepted valid name Notes: Paratypes: 2 slides/6 afults in The British Museum of Natural History in London (Lecanium / rhodesiensis / Hall, /, on ? / El Dorado / WJH:24.iv.1929) Scratched on the glass at the top of slide and on a label at the bottom of the slide.
• Coccus rhodesiensis (Hall, 1935); De Lotto 1959: 170. change of combination
• Coccus rhodesiense (Hall, 1935); De Lotto 1959: 153. misspelling of species epithet

Common Names

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 1 | Genera: 1

Geographic Distribution

Keys

• LagowsHo2019: pp.382-384 ( Adult (F) ) [Coccus species from Africa]
• DeLott1959: pp.153-154 ( Adult (F) ) [Ethiopian Coccus sp.]

Remarks

• Systematics: Coccus rhodesiensis was first described by Hall (1935) as Lecanium rhodesiensis, based on adult females collected on an unidentified plant in Zimbabwe (=Rhodesia), and was then redescribed by De Lotto (1959) as C. rhodesiensis (Hall) based on the type series. We also have studied the type material of C. rhodesiensis and consider that the specimens from the Transvaal refer to this species. However, the latter specimens do differ from the type series as follows: (i) most appendages are slightly larger; (ii) the number of spiracular disc-pores in each disc-pore band is greater than on the type series, and (iii) multilocular disc-pores are present mesad of each mesoand procoxa on all specimens. Otherwise the two lots of material appear to be identical. De Lotto (1959) considered C. rhodesiensis to be similar to C. ehretiae. These species are similar but differ in: (i) the number of preopercular pores (C. rhodesiensiswith 21–34; C. ehretiae with only 3–10 pores (De Lotto 1959); and (ii) the number of loculi in each multilocular pore on abdominal segment VII, namely 5 loculi on C. ehretiae and mainly 10 on C. rhodesiensis. Coccus tangandae is also very similar to C. rhodesiensis but differs in having (character-states for C. rhodesiensis in brackets): (i) 14–21 submarginal tubercles (4–8 tubercles); (ii) 24–36 marginal setae on each side between stigmatic clefts (17–28 marginal setae), and (iii) antennae each 520–565 μm long (380–460 μm long).(Łagowska & Hodgson, 2019)
• Structure: Body elongate oval to almost round, 2.65–3.6 (2.2–2.9) mm long, 1.6–2.2 (1.6–1.8) mm wide; anal cleft about 1/3rd body length.(Łagowska & Hodgson, 2019)
• General Remarks: Redescription and illustration in Łagowska & Hodgson, 2019.

Illustrations

Citations