QREGQN BULLETIN OF THE CALIFORNIA INSECT SURVEY VOLUME 5 THE ARMORED SCALE INSECTS OF CALIFORNIA BY HOWARD L. McKENZIE (State of California Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1956 BULLETIN OF THE CALIFORNIA INSECT SURVEY Editors: E. G. LINSLEY,S. B. FREEBORN,R. L. USINGER Volume 5, pp. 1-210, plates 1-3, 183 figures in text Submitted by Editors April 4, 1955 Issued, August go, 1956 Price, Cloth, $6.00; Paper, $4.50 University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California Cambridge University Press London, England COPYRIGHT, 1956 BY ?ITIF. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Printed by Offset in the United States of America LIST OF COLORED PHOTOGRAPHS Many of the specimens used to produce the accompany- PLATE 2 ing colored photographs were collected by various indi- Aonidomytilits ccanothi Ferris, Larson Valley, El Dorado Co., De- viduals at my request. For those who participated in cember 27. 1954, on Ceaiiothus iiitegerrititus (L. Mobley). this project acknowledgments are here made. Aulacaspis rosae (BouchC), Sacramento, May 28, 19.54, on XU~US With the exception of the colored photograph of sp. (mammoth blackberry) (H. H. KeiCer). Hall scale, Nilotuspis hulli (Green) which has been en- Crrrulaspis visci (Schrank), Sacramento, May 26, 19.54, ott Juni- larged three diameters (xs), the remainder have been perus sp. (juniper) (H. L. McKenzie). photographed actual size on the infested plant part. Dinspis broineliae (Kerner), San Diego, February 23. 11)5i, on Bromeliad (G. Hill and R. .I. Buckner). It is hoped these colored photographs will help in identilying a few of our more common California tli- Dia.spis erIii?iorncti (BouchC). Norco, Riversidc Co., June 18, I 95 1. on Oproztia hatniltotrine (czictus) (R. M. Hawlhorne antl H. I.. aspidids as they are seen in the field. McKenzie). 1 2 Plate and the top row of plate include those di- Diuspis via?tznnitae (Wliitney), Magalia, Butte Co., October 30, aspidids beIonging to the tribe Aspidiotini; the remain- 1939,on Arctostaphylos SI). (riianzanita) (H. H. Keifer). der are referable to the tribe Diaspidini. The species Quadmspidiotus juglans-regiae (Comstock), Greenspot, San Ber- have not been arranged chronologically under each nardino Co., June 27, 1955, on Jirglaiis sp. (walnut) (G. M. tribe, but instead are assembled more for the purpose Harper). of eye appeal and beauty. Qctadrspidiottcs perrticiosrcs (Comstock), San I,eanclro, Alameda Co., May 26, 1954. on Priows sp. (plum) (E. K. Strobridge). The following list includes specific collection data Tor each photograph: Sv/ctu@idccs nlbtrs McKetiiie, Sorco, Riversitlc Co.. June 28, I yj 1. on Euplmrbin sub,narir/~rilla,-is(siiccrilent) (K. M. H;iwlttorttc ;tnd H. L. McKenrie). PLATE 1 .~lortid.iellnaicwatztii (Maskell), Poniona. Los Angeles Co., Deceni- PLATE 3 ber 26, 1953, on Citrus /inion (lemon) (H. L. McKenzic). Chio?fas/iissalicis-nigrae (Walsh), Alturas, Motloc Co., August ti, Aouidiella citrina (Coquillett), Reedley Area, Fresno Co., January, 1936, on Cornus sp. (dogwood). 1954, on Citrus sinensis (orange) (T. E. Corn). Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman), Santa Barbara, December 16, 1954. Aspidiot us liederae (Vallot), Sacramento, November. 1953, on on Citrus siiiensis (orange) (W. S. Cummiiigs). Hcdera helix (ivy) (R. Rollins). Z. Le,9idosaphes ulmi (Linnaeus), Sacramento, Novembcr 5, 1955, on Clirysor,iphalzrs Difasciculalus Ferris, Sacramento, November, I 953, Salix sp. (willow) (H. H. KeiCer). on Hedera helix (ivy) (R. Z. Rollins). Nilotaspis lialli (Green), Chico, Butte Go., May io, iyjo, on Pririrus Diaspidiotiu aizcyltcs (I'utnatn), Hemet, Riverside Co., June 18, amygdaliu (almond) (E. F. Fosen). 1954,on Primus armeniaca (apricot) (H. L. McKenzic). Parlatoria canwlliae (Comstock), Hickman, Stanislaus Co., Febru- Hemiber/esia degenerata (Leonardi), Sanger, Fresno Co., May 13, ary, 1954, on Camellia sp. tjrj'i, on Camellia sp. (J. C. Bedford). Parlatoria oleae (ColvPe), Madera Go., January 7, 1954, on Olea eicropaea (olive) (T. B. Gallion). HerrriIJerlessia Iataniac (Signoret), Orange Co., May 30, I 954, on Persea sp. (avocado) (D. Bishop). Parlntoria pitloslmri Maskell, Sari IXcgo, December 9, I 95.1, on 1~~i~di~iga.spi.~rossi (Maskell), Montecito, Santa Barbara Co., De- Pittosporiiw sp. (R. 1;. Wilkey). cember 6, 1~15.~.on Sequoia sorrrl~emirem(redwood) antl Arau- l'lieuaeaslJis pirri\olictc (Fitch), Crestline, San Bernardino Co., coria sp. (W. S. <:unintings). March $1. tjrj.1, on Pit/iis /Joirc/crosri (yellow pine) (C. I.. L)owti- ing). Nitcidaspis ca/i/ornicn (Coleman), Lake Gregory, Sari Bernardino Co., hlarcli 9. tgrj.1, on Pims ponderosa (yello\r pine) (G. L. ('/io.s@'s cuoiiyiui (Comstock), Sacratticitto, Novcmh '1, tc~5.1,ott 1)owtiing). Euonyiiius sp. (H. L. Rlclicitzic). CONTENTS List of coloredphotographs ............................................................ v Introduction .......................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments ................................................................... 1 Scope of study....................................................................... 2 Description and general biology ....................................................... 2 Collecting and preserving diaspidids .................................................. 3 Preparation of mounts ............................................................... 4 iiabit and morphological characters ...................................................... 5 h.lorphology ........................................................................... 8 Classification ........................................................................ 17 Subfamily Phoenicococcinae .......................................................... 19 Subfamily Diaspidinae ............................................................... 17 Tribe Diaspidini .................................................................... 20 Tribe Aspidiotini ................................................................... 20 Tribe Odonaspidini .................................................................. 21 Systematics ......................................................................... 21 Treatment of species ................................................................ 37 Tribe Aspidiotini ................................................................... 37 Tribe Diaspidini .................................................................... 87 Tribe Odonaspidini .................................................................. 163 Suhfamily Phenicococcinae ........................................................... 167 Distribution table ..................................................................... 163 Literature cited ....................................................................... 172 Host list ............................................................................. 173 Host index ........................................................................... 193 Index to genera. species. and higher categories ........................................... 203 EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS IN FIGURES Except for the first three figures which are purely morphological and which are explained independently, a standard system of labeling the illustrations has been employed. This system of labeling will be as follows: A. Antenna and cephalic margin of first stage. B. Habitat sketch. C. Antenna of adult female. D. Anterior spiracle of adult female. The anterior spiracle has been chosen for illustration because signific.ant differences, such as pore arrangement, occur with these rather than in the posterior pair. E. Pygidium of second-stage female. EE. General outline of second stage in those forms which are pupillarial. F. General features of adult female. G. Pygidium of adult female. H. Dorsal aspect of detail of pygidial margin of adult female. I. Ventral aspect of detail of pygidial margin of adult female. J. Outline of exuvium of first stage in a few forms. Unlettered figures of details are connected with their points of origin by guide lines and should be readily identifiable. INTRODUCTION One of the groups of insects most important to the establish this fact, it is only necessary to cite agriculturalist today is that family including the the activities of California red scale, Aonidiella creatures popularly known as the “armored scales” aurantii (Maskell), so destructive to citrus in or “diaspidids.” This study deals specifically California. with the scale insects belonging to the homopterous Some species are restricted to a single host, family Diaspididae. Unforiunately, they are very others to a single genus or family of host species, unattractive to the average entomologist, and even but many are extremely omnivorous and infest many more so to the agriculturalist; yet a knowledge of plants of unrelated groups. The diaspidids are each species, together with the best methods of generally distributed throughout the world wherever control, is an essential part of the education of suitable food plants are grown. It has been proven, every fruit grower. Furthermore, there is scarcely that though many genera are native to certain re- any tree or shrub that is not subject to their attack. gions they have been distributed in commerce to The minute size of these creatures, their wonder- other parts of the world. ful reproductive powers, and the difficulty of Carnes (1907)presented a treatise, The Coccidae destroying