Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T04:44:18.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Note on the Coccidae of Palestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

F. S. Bodenheimer
F. S. Bodenheimer
Affiliation:
Entomologist, Pal. Zion. Ex. Agric. Exper. Stat., Tel Aviv (Palestine).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following lines may be regarded as a first additional note to a former paper of the author's (Zion. Organ. Agr. Expt. Sta., Bull. 1, July 1924). It contains 14 species not recorded in the first list, two of which are new to science. The numeration follows that of the former paper. I wish to tender my acknowledgements to Mr. W. J. Hall, Cairo, for determining some species of Diaspinae and to Mr. H. Aron for preparing the illustrations.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , October 1926 , pp. 189 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Mr. F. Laing, of the British Museum, kindly informs me that in one of the specimens that I have sent him he has found well-defined stigmatic spines which are very short and conical.

* I am indebted to Mr. Laing for the following remarks : “ The material is not mature, but certain characters are available for comment. So far as I can make out, there are but three pairs of cerarii, the two anterior to the last very weakly defined, and the two spines on each cerarius rather remote from each other. Single spines may mark the position of some of the other cerarii, but for practical purposes they must be regarded as non-existent. Though the body-spines are small, they appear to me to be somewhat lanceolate in shape.… The species should be placed in the genus Trionymus rather than in Pseudococcus.”