197,901 research outputs found
Cothonaspis Hartig
No full textGenus Cothonaspis Hartig Cothonaspis Hartig, 1839 (1849) IN Germar, Zeitschr. für Ent. 2:186.— Weld, 1952, Cynipoidea 1905-1950, 242. Type: Cothonaspis pentatomus Hartig, designation by Foerster, 1869. Antenna of female 13-segmented; antennal segment 3 slightly shorter than 4; apical segments forming club. Prothorax broadly truncate. Scutellar cup large, ovate, with small pits at lateral margin, cup not reaching as far back as disc; scutellar disc with ridges radiating from cup to margin of rim, punctate-rugose. Wing pubescent, ciliate, radial cell closed; tergite 2 without a hairy ring.Published as part of Carl M. Yoshimoto, 1962, Hymenoptera: Eucoilinae (Cynipoidea), pp. 89-107 in Insects of Micronesia 19 (3) on page 105, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.26889
The restorative quality of work environments and its work-related outcomes.
No full textFornara, F., Bellini, D., Bonaiuto, M. Ramaci, T., Hartig, T. (2016). The ristorative quality of work environments and its work-related outcomes. Abstract of presentation at International Association People-environment Studies IAPS24 Lund/Alnarp 2016 “The human being at home, work and leisure. Sustainable use and development of indoor and outdoor spaces in late modern everyday life”. Lund, Sweden, 27 June – 1 July, 2016. Abstract pubbl. in AA.VV., International Association People-environment Studies IAPS24 Lund/Alnarp 2016 “The human being at home, work and leisure. Sustainable use and development of indoor and outdoor spaces in late modern everyday life”. Conference Abstracts. Lund, Sweden, 27 June – 1 July, 2016. Lund: Lund University and SLU (p. 145-146)
Aphis pineti Hartig G. L. & Hartig, T. 1834
No full text<i>Aphis pineti</i> Hartig G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834 <p> <i>Aphis pineti</i> Hartig, G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834: 29. <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 4 (field no. missing [6.04-6.07]).</p> <p> <i>Lachnus pineti</i> (Hartig G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834) (change of combination— Hartig 1839: 645, “ <i>Lachnus pineti n.</i> ”).</p> <p> <i>Cinara</i> (<i>Schizolachnus</i>) <i>pineti</i> (Fabricius, 1781) (senior primary homonym and synonym— Hartig, 1841: 368, “ <i>L. pineti</i> Fabr. ”).</p> <p> <i>Cinara pini</i> (Linnaeus, 1758) (senior synonym— Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976: 238). <b>Valid</b></p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> Four pinned apterae lacking specimen identifiers.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Hartig used the name <i>Lachnus pineti</i> in both Hartig (1839) and Hartig (1841), and in each included a reference to an earlier work, in which this species was given the name <i>Aphis pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig, 1834 and described only as having hairy tarsi. In Hartig (1839), he transferred the species to the genus <i>Lachnus</i> and used the notation “ <i>n.</i> [<i>nobis</i>]” acknowledging the authority of both himself and his father. At this time, Hartig recognized the species as synonymous with <i>Lachnus fasciatus</i> Burmeister, 1835 [= <i>Lachnus roboris</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)]. Later in Hartig (1841), he recognized these as <i>Lachnus pineti</i> [= <i>Cinara pineti</i>] (Fabricius, 1781), and in his collection the specimens are labelled as “ <i>Pineti</i> Fabr. ”. Interestingly, neither the earlier name <i>A. pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig or the homonymy with Fabricius’ name appear to have been acknowledged in more recent aphid taxonomic work. Börner (1952) did not treat Hartig’s name, but transferred <i>Aphis pineti</i> [= <i>Cinara pineti</i>] Fabricius, 1781 to the genus <i>Schizolachnus</i> Mordwilko, 1909. Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers (1976) recognized the synonymy of <i>Lachnus pineti</i> Hartig, 1839 with <i>Cinara pini</i> (Linnaeus, 1758). However, Hartig (1841) clearly distinguished between <i>Lachnus pini</i> [= <i>Cinara pini</i>] (Linnaeus, 1758) and <i>L. pineti</i> on the basis of setal characteristics of the tarsi, describing the latter as the rough-footed pine aphid in contrast to the former’s smooth feet. Thus, on the basis of Hartig’s work, the synonymy of <i>A. pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig with <i>C. pini</i> (Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers 1976) is likely to be incorrect.</p> <p> With respect to the synonymy of <i>A. pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig and <i>L. fasciatus</i> in Hartig (1839), the latter is currently recognized as a junior synonym of <i>L. roboris</i> despite different host associations for these taxa. <i>Lachnus fasciatus</i> like <i>A. pineti</i> was described from <i>Pinus sylvestris</i> (Hartig, 1841) whereas <i>L. roboris</i> occurs on <i>Quercus</i> and <i>Castanea</i> (Blackman & Eastop 2023). Interestingly, the synonymy of <i>L. fasciatus</i> with that of <i>L. roboris</i> was recognized by Burmeister (1839) himself on the basis of comparisons with illustrations of the latter in Curtis (1835). Burmeister (1835) described the wings of <i>L. fasciatus</i> as hyaline with a transverse band in the middle and tips broadly brown with a hyaline marginal point in agreement with the wing colour of <i>L. roboris</i>. In contrast, Kaltenbach (1843), while acknowledging its prior synonymy with <i>L. roboris,</i> continued to treat <i>L. fasciatus</i> as a distinct species, and noted morphological differences between the two species. He also treated <i>A. pineti</i> Fabricius as distinct, but unfortunately did not acknowledge Hartig’s (1841) synonymy of <i>A. pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig with this species. Later, Walker (1848) recognized <i>L. fasciatus</i> as a synonym of <i>C. costata</i> describing its wings as colourless, clouded with brown, and longer than its body. He also described <i>L. roboris</i> as having wings that are short and narrow, and dark brown in colour with three colourless bands (Walker 1848). These later treatments seems to suggest knowledge of differences in wing colour and morphology between <i>L. fasciatus</i> and <i>L. roboris</i> around the time of Hartig’s descriptions. Hartig’s <i>L. pineti</i> specimens, however, are distinct from his <i>C. costata</i> and <i>L. roboris</i> specimens, and might signal his justification for the synonymy of <i>A. pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig with <i>A. pineti</i> Fabricius. Still, without seeing Burmeister’s type specimens for <i>L. fasciatus</i> it is difficult to determine whether the conflict here stems from Hartig’s (1839) synonymy of <i>A. pineti</i> Hartig & Hartig with <i>L. fasciatus</i> or Burmeister’s (1839) synonymy of the latter with <i>L. roboris</i>. The discrepant host-association between <i>L. fasciatus</i> and <i>L. roboris</i> does seem to suggest that this synonymy may be incorrect.</p> <p> One plausible explanation could be that the synonymy of <i>L. fasciatus</i> and <i>L. roboris</i> in Burmeister (1839) was based on contradictory information in Curtis’ description of <i>L. roboris</i> which was accompanied by a description and illustrations clearly depicting the genus <i>Cinara</i> Curtis, 1835 (see Hottes, 1930b for discussion). However, Hartig also appears to have confused the identity of several of these species. For instance, his collection contains specimens labelled <i>L. pineti</i> (Fabricius) and <i>L. roboris</i> (Linnaeus), but neither of these is consistent with current usage. Hartig’s <i>L. pineti</i> specimens are too large for this species, and his <i>L. roboris</i> specimens lack this species’ distinctive forewing pigmentation. Instead, the forewings are dusky, brown throughout with dark pterostigma, as described in Hartig (1841). The identity of Hartig’s <i>A. pineti</i> specimens will need to be determined to confirm its synonymy with <i>C. pini</i> as is currently accepted or with <i>A. pineti</i> Fabricius as proposed by Hartig (1841). If neither synonymy is supported and there are no other available and potentially valid synonyms, a replacement name may be necessary to remove it from homonymy with <i>A. pineti</i> Fabricius (Article 60.2).</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on pages 99-100, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Aspidiotus flavus Hartig 1839
No full text<i>Aspidiotus flavus</i> Hartig, 1839 <p> <i>Aspidiotus flavus</i> Hartig, 1839: 642, ♁. <b>SYNTYPE</b>: 1 (895 [1.09]), <i>Pinus.</i></p> <p> <i>Coccus</i> (<i>Aspidiotus</i>) <i>flavus</i> (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Ratzeburg, 1844: 195).</p> <p> <i>Diaspide flavus</i> (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Signoret, 1868: 853).</p> <p> <i>Dynaspidiotus abietis</i> (Schrank, 1776) (senior synonym— Fernald, 1903: 251, “ <i>Aspidiotus abietis</i> (Schr.) ”). <b>Valid</b></p> <p> <i>Aspidiotus pini</i> Hartig, 1839: 642, ♀ (junior synonym— Danzig & Kerzhner, 1984: 102). <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 8 (893 [1.07]; 894 [1.08]; 379 [1.10]), <i>Pinus.</i></p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> One pointed on pin 893 and three on two points on pin 894 following the “ <i>Aspidiotus pini m.</i> ” labels. A single pointed adult male on pin 895 and four of unknown sex on a single point on pin 379, following the “ <i>flavus</i> <i>m.</i> ” label. Specimens 893-895 were collected from pine needles on June 15, 1836 in Hasenheide, Berlin, Germany. Specimen 379 was collected on May 15, 1836 in Tiergarten, Berlin, Germany.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> We suspect that specimen 379 has been incorrectly placed within the collection as it is in clear conflict with the description for <i>A. flavus</i> (see under <i>Aspidiotus pini</i> Hartig, 1839).</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 96, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Lachnus costatus Hartig 1839
No full text<i>Lachnus costatus</i> Hartig, 1839 <p> <i>Lachnus costatus</i> Hartig, 1839: 645. <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 6 (field no. missing [5.09, 5.11, 5.12]; 1245 [5.10]; 482 [5.13]), <i>Picea abies</i>.</p> <p> <i>Schizoneura costata</i> (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Hartig, 1841: 367).</p> <p> <i>Cinara costata</i> (Zetterstedt, 1828) (senior secondary homonym and synonym—Börner, 1952: 45, “ <i>Lachnus costata</i> (Zett. 1828) Wahlgr, 1939 ”). <b>Valid</b></p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> Six on five pins following the <i>Schizoneura costata</i> (Hartig, 1839) label, all in poor condition. All but one (1245) are apterae. Four are mounted on three points; one of these with a needle from its host plant also on the pin. Specimen 1245 collected from “Abiet” by Wilhelm Saxesen in 1839 and pinned. Specimen 482 collected alive from pine needles in Tiergarten, Berlin on June 7, 1833 and then pinned with host tissue.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Hartig (1841) identified <i>Picea abies</i> as the host, but an unlabelled <i>in situ</i> specimen in this series appears to be from a different host species. Hartig placed this species within the genus <i>Lachnus</i> in Hartig (1839) and then transferred it to the genus <i>Schizoneura</i> (Hartig 1841) on the basis of the shape of the wing and radial cell. Confirmation of the current synonymy with <i>Cinara costata</i> (Zetterstedt, 1828), recognized first by Börner (1952), is needed.</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 99, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Aphis calliptera Hartig 1841
No full text<i>Aphis calliptera</i> Hartig, 1841 <p> <i>Aphis callipterus</i> Hartig, 1841: 369. <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 3 (1100 [7.10]), <i>Betula</i>.</p> <p> <i>Calaphis callipterus</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination—Börner, 1952: 58).</p> <p> <i>Procalaphis callipterus</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Quednau, 1954: 23).</p> <p> <i>Callipterinella calliptera</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Higuchi, 1972: 56). <b>Valid</b></p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> Three pointed alates on a single pin (1100) collected from birch leaves on July 6, 1836.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> The entry from Hartig’s journal identifies these specimens as “ <i>Aphis genistae ”</i> (Table 2).</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Chermes sylvestris Hartig 1851
No full text<i>Chermes sylvestris</i> Hartig, 1851 <i>nomen nudum</i> <p> <i>Chermes sylvestris</i> Hartig, 1851: 67. <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 9 (208 [2.10]; no field numbers [3.13-3.15]), <i>Pinus</i>.</p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> Following the “ <i>Coccus sylvestris m.</i> ” label, an unknown number of specimens covered in wax mounted <i>in situ</i> on a card-mounted pine twig, an unknown number of specimens covered in wax mounted <i>in situ</i> on a card-mounted group of eight pine needle bundles, an unknown number of specimens covered in wax mounted <i>in situ</i> on a rectangular card at the bases of four pine needle bundles, an unknown number of immatures mounted on a rectangular card, and one pointed individual (208) collected on the May 12, 1833 from pine branches. Hartig’s notes indicate that it was a female laying eggs and associated with wax. He identified it as “ <i>Chermes</i> (<i>abietis</i> ?)” and has included a reference to a figure “19a” from an as yet unknown publication.</p> <p> Also, beginning with the pin at the left of “ <i>Chermes sylvestris m.</i> ” label, an unknown number of specimens covered in wax mounted <i>in situ</i> on pine needles on 4 pins, with eight, four, eight, and two pine needles, respectively. We include the pin at the left of the label in this series since it is consistent with other specimens pinned in this series, whereas it is not consistent with Hartig’s <i>Chermes abietis</i> [= <i>Adelges abietis</i>] Linnaeus, 1758 series in which it is placed. The “ <i>Chermes sylvestris m.</i> ” label reads “M[Mitte].7.1842 Forstg.” Possibly identifying the date of collection as mid-July, 1842 and the location as Forstgarten, Braunschweig, Germany. No number labels are present to allow referral to Hartig’s notes for details on their collection.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> In Hartig (1851), “ <i>Chermes sylvestris m.</i> ” is listed with several other scale insect and aphid species as sucking insects that are injurious to pine, but is the only species identified as having been recently observed. No taxonomic description or definition is provided, other than to say that it frequently occurred on three year old seedlings in Forstgarten, Braunschweig, Germany. Both Hartig (1839) and (1841) are indicated as sources for this list of species (Hartig 1851, pg. 69). However, neither of these publications refer to “ <i>Chermes sylvestris m.</i> ” directly. Hartig (1839) did suggest that <i>C. strobus</i> and another related species on young pine trees may be distinct from the genus <i>Coccus.</i> For the latter, he provided the tentative name “ <i>C. pini</i> ?” and a brief description of the shape of its body and tibia relative to <i>C. strobus</i>. It is unclear whether the reference to Hartig (1839) in Hartig (1851) should be viewed as a proper indication, as the citation itself was attributed to his list of sucking insects and not specifically to the name <i>C. sylvestris</i>. Nor can it be determined whether “ <i>C. pini</i> ?” was among the taxa being referred to in Hartig (1839). Nevertheless, we believe that both his “ <i>C. pini</i> ?” and <i>C. sylvestris</i> are probably the same species now treated under the name <i>Pineus pini</i> (Goeze, 1778) (see the discussion below). Thus, since no description, definition, or indication, is provided for <i>C. sylvestris</i>, the name is unavailable and should be treated as a <i>nomen nudum</i> (Article 12.1). We are not aware of any mention of the name “ <i>Coccus sylvestris</i> ” in Hartig’s publications.</p> <p> We suspect that the specimens labelled “ <i>Coccus sylvestris m.</i> ” and “ <i>Chermes sylvestris m.</i> ” in Hartig’s collection are likely different forms of <i>P. pini</i> or <i>Pineus orientalis</i> (Dreyfus, 1888). <i>Pineus pini</i> and <i>P. orientalis</i> belong to a species complex with generations on <i>Pinus</i> that cannot be distinguished morphologically, the difference being that <i>P. pini</i> is anholocyclic on pine (most commonly on <i>Pinus sylvestris</i> in Europe) and <i>P. orientalis</i> is holocyclic, alternating between pine and spruce (Blackman & Eastop 2023). The <i>in situ</i> specimens in both locations in the box are settled on what is very likely <i>Pinus sylvestris,</i> the common 2-needle pine in central Europe. Therefore, it is likely that the specimens labelled “ <i>Coccus sylvestris m</i>.” are the wingless exules that settle on the bark and base of needle bundles, and the specimens labelled “ <i>Chermes sylvestris m.</i> ” are the winged form that can originate from pine or spruce that settle on the needles. Host alternation between pine and spruce in this species complex was not confirmed until later (Marchal 1913), and would not have been known to Hartig. Annand (1928) described a species <i>Pineus sylvestris</i> Annand, 1928 apparently without knowledge of Hartig’s previous mention of this species name.</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 104, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Tetraneura rugicornis Hartig 1841
No full text<i>Tetraneura rugicornis</i> Hartig, 1841 <i>nomen nudum</i> <p> <i>Tetraneura rugicornis</i> Hartig, 1841: 366 (<i>nomen nudum</i> —Remaudière & Remaudière, 1997: 236). <b>HOLOTYPE</b>: (874 [4.06]).</p> <p> <b>Specimen.</b> A single, very badly damaged, alate that is pinned through the thorax. The specimen was collected on June 21, 1836 from Forstgarten, Braunschweig, Germany.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> The hind wing venation of this specimen does not agree with the genus <i>Tetraneura</i> Hartig, 1841 which should have a single transverse vein.</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Aphis annulatus Hartig 1841
No full text<i>Aphis annulatus</i> Hartig, 1841 <p> <i>Aphis annulatus</i> Hartig, 1841: 369. <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 6 (1222 [7.18], 2 lost), <i>Quercus.</i></p> <p> <i>Callipterus</i> <i>annulatus</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Walker, 1858: 295).</p> <p> <i>Callipterinella annulata</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Baker, 1917: 427).</p> <p> <i>Myzocallis annulata</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Theobald, 1927: 348).</p> <p> <i>Tuberculoides annulatus</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination—Börner, 1952: 61).</p> <p> <i>Tuberculatus</i> (<i>Tuberculoides</i>) <i>annulatus</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976: 441). <b>Valid</b></p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> Six pointed on a single pin (1222). All present (four) are alates, collected in 1839 from oak (“Spitz-Eichen”).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Hartig’s journal entry indicates that the aphids were green and solitary, and collected together with “ <i>Phylloxera quercus</i> ”.</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 103, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
Schizoneura lanuginosa Hartig 1839
No full text<i>Schizoneura lanuginosa</i> Hartig, 1839 <p> <i>Schizoneura lanuginosa</i> Hartig, 1839: 645. <b>SYNTYPES</b>: 2 (Field no. missing [5.06, 5.07]; 1532 [5.03]; 1741 [5.02]), <i>Ulmus</i>. <i>Eriosoma lanuginosum</i> (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Baker, 1915: 16). <b>Valid</b></p> <p> <b>Specimens.</b> Found in abundance on September 15, 1836 in Tiergarten, Berlin, Germany. An alate (1532) was collected and mounted on a point. Another alate (specimen 1741) collected from Forstgarten, Braunschweig, Germany on October 20, 1836 and pinned. Six additional specimens and an elm gall are also present. Four of these are card-mounted together on a single pin with a white, handwritten label that reads “Blutlause <i>Schizoneura lanigera</i> ”. Next to these but left of Hartig’s standard label for <i>Schizoneura lanigera</i> [<i>= Eriosoma lanigerum</i>] (Hausmann, 1802), are two specimens pointed on separate pins. The first of these (1039) was collected July 17, 1833 from an elm gall. Hartig refers to this as “ <i>Chermes</i> ” in his journal entry. The second pin and the gall are unlabelled.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Specimens 1532 and 1741 are larger in size compared to the remaining specimens, and unlike the latter, or at least specimen 1039, were not clearly associated with elm at the time of collection.Also, while the wings of specimen 1532 are disfigured, those of specimen 1741 have venation that is inconsistent with <i>Eriosoma lanuginosum</i> (Hartig, 1839). Its forewings have unbranched medial veins and its hindwings have transverse veins that arise very close together and do not resemble Hartig’s own illustrations (Hartig 1841, Fig. 24). Instead, it appears to be a species of <i>Prociphilus</i>. Thus, these two specimens may not correspond to the <i>Schizoneura lanuginosa</i> Hartig, 1839 type specimens.</p> <p> Whether the six additional specimens belong to Hartig’s <i>S. lanuginosa</i> series or to his <i>S. lanigera</i> is to be determined. Their order within the Schmitt box suggests the former despite the handwritten <i>S. lanigera</i> label. At least one of these (1039) was collected from elm, the host of <i>E. lanuginosa</i>, and the gall pinned nearest to this specimen resembles an <i>E. lanuginosa</i> gall. If they instead correspond to Hartig’s <i>S. lanigera</i> series, the host record does not agree since this species has not been recorded from elm in Europe and Hartig (1841) only listed apple as its host.</p>Published as part of <i>Brunet, Bryan M. T., Raupach, Michael J., Rehage, Heinz-Otto, Havill, Nathan P. & Foottit, Robert G., 2023, Discovery of the primary aphid (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) and scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) type specimens from the collection of Theodor Hartig (1805 - 1880), pp. 89-116 in Zootaxa 5369 (1)</i> on page 98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5369.1.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10144745">http://zenodo.org/record/10144745</a>
- …
