Aphis pineti Hartig G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834

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), Zootaxa 5369 (1), pp. 89-116 : 99-100

Aphis pineti Hartig G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834

Aphis pineti Hartig, G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834: 29 . SYNTYPES: 4 (field no. missing [6.04-6.07]).

Lachnus pineti (Hartig G.L. & Hartig, T., 1834) (change of combination— Hartig 1839: 645, “ Lachnus pineti n. ”).

Cinara (Schizolachnus) pineti ( Fabricius, 1781) (senior primary homonym and synonym— Hartig, 1841: 368, “ L. pineti Fabr. ”).

Cinara pini ( Linnaeus, 1758) (senior synonym— Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976: 238). Valid

Specimens. Four pinned apterae lacking specimen identifiers.

Remarks. Hartig used the name Lachnus pineti 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 Aphis pineti Hartig & Hartig, 1834 and described only as having hairy tarsi. In Hartig (1839), he transferred the species to the genus Lachnus and used the notation “ n. [nobis]” acknowledging the authority of both himself and his father. At this time, Hartig recognized the species as synonymous with Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835 [= Lachnus roboris ( Linnaeus, 1758) ]. Later in Hartig (1841), he recognized these as Lachnus pineti [= Cinara pineti ] ( Fabricius, 1781), and in his collection the specimens are labelled as “ Pineti Fabr. ”. Interestingly, neither the earlier name A. pineti 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 Aphis pineti [= Cinara pineti ] Fabricius, 1781 to the genus Schizolachnus Mordwilko, 1909 . Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers (1976) recognized the synonymy of Lachnus pineti Hartig, 1839 with Cinara pini ( Linnaeus, 1758) . However, Hartig (1841) clearly distinguished between Lachnus pini [= Cinara pini ] ( Linnaeus, 1758) and L. pineti 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 A. pineti Hartig & Hartig with C. pini ( Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers 1976) is likely to be incorrect.

With respect to the synonymy of A. pineti Hartig & Hartig and L. fasciatus in Hartig (1839), the latter is currently recognized as a junior synonym of L. roboris despite different host associations for these taxa. Lachnus fasciatus like A. pineti was described from Pinus sylvestris ( Hartig, 1841) whereas L. roboris occurs on Quercus and Castanea ( Blackman & Eastop 2023) . Interestingly, the synonymy of L. fasciatus with that of L. roboris 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 L. fasciatus 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 L. roboris . In contrast, Kaltenbach (1843), while acknowledging its prior synonymy with L. roboris , continued to treat L. fasciatus as a distinct species, and noted morphological differences between the two species. He also treated A. pineti Fabricius as distinct, but unfortunately did not acknowledge Hartig’s (1841) synonymy of A. pineti Hartig & Hartig with this species. Later, Walker (1848) recognized L. fasciatus as a synonym of C. costata describing its wings as colourless, clouded with brown, and longer than its body. He also described L. roboris 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 L. fasciatus and L. roboris around the time of Hartig’s descriptions. Hartig’s L. pineti specimens, however, are distinct from his C. costata and L. roboris specimens, and might signal his justification for the synonymy of A. pineti Hartig & Hartig with A. pineti Fabricius. Still , without seeing Burmeister’s type specimens for L. fasciatus it is difficult to determine whether the conflict here stems from Hartig’s (1839) synonymy of A. pineti Hartig & Hartig with L. fasciatus or Burmeister’s (1839) synonymy of the latter with L. roboris . The discrepant host-association between L. fasciatus and L. roboris does seem to suggest that this synonymy may be incorrect.

One plausible explanation could be that the synonymy of L. fasciatus and L. roboris in Burmeister (1839) was based on contradictory information in Curtis’ description of L. roboris which was accompanied by a description and illustrations clearly depicting the genus Cinara 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 L. pineti (Fabricius) and L. roboris (Linnaeus) , but neither of these is consistent with current usage. Hartig’s L. pineti specimens are too large for this species, and his L. roboris 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 A. pineti specimens will need to be determined to confirm its synonymy with C. pini as is currently accepted or with A. pineti 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 A. pineti Fabricius (Article 60.2).