Coccus phalaridis, Linnaeus, 1758

Williams, D. J. & Z. - Q, 2007, Carl Linnaeus and his scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) *, Zootaxa 1668 (1), pp. 427-490 : 449-450

Coccus phalaridis

Linnaeus (1758) listed this species as living on the roots of Phalaris canariensis [ Poaceae ] and included his earlier reference ( Linnaeus, 1746), where there is a fairly detailed description, thus validating the name. This description was later published in Linnaeus (1767) (q.v.). Linnaeus was doubtful whether it was a Coccus , Aphis or Chermes .

This species has always been regarded as unrecognisable ( Fernald, 1903). There is nothing to be gleaned from early authors after Linnaeus. Gmelin (1766) refers to Linnaeus (1746) and later added the description “oblongo-ovatus, vel pallide rubescens” ( Gmelin 1790), which can be translated as body oblong-ovate, even pale turning red. Linnaeus never described the body as this colour and Gmelin’s description is probably derived from Geoffroy (1762) who described it as “corpore roseo”. Despite its uncertain identity, Berkenhout (1769) listed it as a British species but misspelled it as Coccus philaridis . Berkenhout also described the insect as red-white, mealy, as did Turton (1802).

Cockerell (1899b) suggested that the insect was a species of the mealybug genus Ripersia (a genus now considered unrecognisable) and Lindinger (1937) listed it as Ripersia graminis (Koch) , a name based on Tychea graminis Koch. Lindinger (1943a ,b; 1949) regarded Coccus phalaridis to be Tychea phalaridis (L.). Although Morrison & Morrison (1966) claimed that aphidologists have regarded Tychea Koch as an aphid genus, this is not endorsed by aphidologists today.

Perhaps Cockerell (1899a) was correct in suggesting that it is a mealybug. The true identity of Coccus phalaridis has never been established by Swedish entomologists and further speculation is probably useless. The species is here left as incertae sedis. Specimens are absent from Linnaeus’ collection.

Coccus pilosellae (Family? Margarodidae )

Linnaeus (1758) named this species for an insect found on the roots of Hieracium pilosella and quoted the earlier references Sim. Paull. quadr. 113 (q.v.) and Act. ups. 1742 p. 54. t. 2. The earlier reference by Simon Paulli published in 1667 under the heading Pilosella (pages 113–115) refers to a plant commonly known as Mouse-ear. When discussing the Polish cochineal insect, Paulli (1667: 113–114, see index of authors section) referred to it as also found on the roots of Pilosella, the eggs of which to him, until then, were those of an unknown insect. In the article quoted about this species by Linnaeus (1758) as Act. ups. 1742 [actually not published until 1748 according to the title page], 10 small drawings of various instars of an insect are on plate 1I, which includes what appears to be an adult female. The plate is opposite Plate 1 containing drawings of similar instars of the Polish cochineal insect. It is difficult to distinguish anything worthwhile from the two plates although the description and the illustrations in Plate II validate the name Coccus pilosellae published by Linnaeus (1758). There must have been a time lag from when Linnaeus submitted his article and illustration and the actual date of publication. The name C. pilosellae was listed first in the Seventh Edition of Systema Naturae ( Linnaeus, 1748a).

In Fauna Svecica, Linnaeus (1761) quoted the reference of Simon Paulli as “ova insecti incogniti”, a reference he also quoted under Coccus polonicus . In the Twelfth Edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus (1767) omitted the reference to Simon Paulli in the entry for C. polonicus but retained it under C. pilosellae and added the remark “Affinis nimium C. polonicus ”, which can be translated as “Allied beyond measure to Coccus polonicus ”. Later authors such as Fabricius (1775), Modeer (1778), Goeze (1778) and Gmelin (1790) added no further information on the identity of this species and Fernald (1903) listed it as an unrecognisable species but credited the name to Fabricius (1775) instead of to Linnaeus. Linnaeus (1759b), for some reason, listed the species without the name.

Coccus pilosellae has not been recognised as a Swedish species since Linnaeus (1761) and, because Linnaeus (1767) must have had some doubt whether it was distinct from C. polonicus , it seems best to accept the synonymy of C. pilosellae with C. polonicus by Lindinger (1954) except that Lindinger’s placement of it in the genus Coccionella Hahnemanns has not been accepted by scale insect workers and Coccionella is regarded as a nomen oblitum by Ben-Dov (2005). The current placement of Coccus pilosellae would now be under Porphyrophora Brandt & Ratzeburg as a synonym of P.polonica (L.).