Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T07:43:55.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CATALOGUE OF THE GENERA OF THE HEMIPTEROUS FAMILY APHIDÆ, WITH THEIR TYPICAL SPECIES, TOGETHER WITH A LIST OF THE SPECIES DESCRIBED AS NEW FROM 1885 TO 1905

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. W. Kirkaldy
G. W. Kirkaldy
Affiliation:
Honolulu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now twenty years since the lamented Jules Lichtenstein published the first—and, unfortunately, last—part of his proposed monograph of the Aphidæ (a). This instalment contained a list, without references, of the genera and species known to Lichtenstein, but, as will be seen from the following pages, a large number of names was omitted and some were misapplied, so that a new list of genera should be useful, having reard to the interest and importance of the family.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 37 , Issue 12 , December 1905 , pp. 414 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1905

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

(a) “Les Pucerons. Monographie des Aphidiens,” pp. 1–188, Pls. I-IV (coloured). Montpellier, 1885.

(b) The probabale origin of the word “Aphis” does not allow of the forms Aphidinæ, etc.

(c) Kholodkovsky regards this as a syn. of No. 6.

(d) According to the Zool. Record (which gives a reference to P. E. S., Wash., II, 517, instead of | P. Ac., Wash., II, 517), Pergande regards 15, 16 and 17 as one genus; Kholodkovsky regards Pterocomma as a synonym if Chaitophorus.

(e) This is not recorded in “Zool. Record.” I have only a separately paged undated copy before me, and I am indebted to the “Rysskoye Entome. obosriniye,” III, 149 (1903), for the reference.

(f) I cannot trace this. Kholodkovsky (1898) in a Forestry paper issues (separately ? or perhaps in the Isviestiya S. Peterb. Liesn. Instit. ?), under the title “Obyasnityelny Katalog Kellyektsy tlyei (Aphidæ),” described it in an analytical table, but without mention of species (p. 6). It is omitted in the later 1902 paper.

(g) Kholodkovsky considers 25, 26 and 27 to be only one valid genus.

(h) Included by Kholodkovsky & Schouteden in their paper, but without reference—I cannot trace it.

(i) Kholodkovsky considers 36, 37, 38 and 39 to form one genus.

(k) Horvath considers 44 and 45 one genus.

(l) Kholodkovsky considers 48, 49, 50 and 51 a synonyms of 47.

(m) Kholodkovsky places this with 54.

(n) Spelt Ceratovacunna both in Zool. Records and Bericht der Entom., both of which give incorrect reference.