Mangoes of India

Mangoes from India
Draft Revised Import Policy
July 2004
Draft Revised Import Policy – Mangoes from India
Foreword
© Commonwealth of Australia 2004
This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in
unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use
within your organization. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
all other rights are reserved.
Requests for further authorization should be directed to the Commonwealth Copyright

Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601 or by email to
commonwealth.copyright@dcita.gov.au.
Page 3
CONTENTS
TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 7
TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. 12
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 14
PROPOSAL TO IMPORT FRESH MANGOES FROM INDIA .............................................................. 15
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 15
SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT QUARANTINE POLICY FOR IMPORTS OF FRESH MANGO FRUIT .............................. 16
THE FRESH MANGO INDUSTRY............................................................................................................. 21
THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................................................... 21

Export of mangoes from Australia ..................................................................................................... 22
THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN INDIA .................................................................................................................. 23
Mango production in India .................................................................................................................. 25
Export of mangoes from India ............................................................................................................ 27
PEST RISK ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................... 28
STAGE 1: INITIATION ................................................................................................................................... 28

STAGE 2: RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 28
Pest categorisation .............................................................................................................................. 28
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR QUARANTINE PESTS........................................................... 32
ARTHROPODS ............................................................................................................................................. 32
GROUP 1 – FRUIT FLIES.............................................................................................................................. 32
Introduction and spread potential ...................................................................................................... 36
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 39
Unrestricted risk estimate ................................................................................................................... 40
GROUP 2A – MANGO PULP WEEVIL ............................................................................................................ 40
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 43
GROUP 2B – MANGO SEED WEEVIL............................................................................................................ 44
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 47
GROUP 3A – ARMOURED SCALES .............................................................................................................. 48
Page 4

GROUP 3B – SOFT SCALES ........................................................................................................................ 55
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 60
GROUP 3C – MEALYBUGS .......................................................................................................................... 61
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 70
GROUP 3D – PLANT BUGS .......................................................................................................................... 71
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 75
GROUP 4A – RED-BANDED MANGO CATERPILLAR ..................................................................................... 76
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 79
GROUP 4B – HONEYDEW MOTH .................................................................................................................. 80
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 84
GROUP 4C – POMEGRANATE FRUIT BORER ............................................................................................... 85
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 87
GROUP 4D – COCOA TUSSOCK MOTH ........................................................................................................ 88
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 91
FUNGI .......................................................................................................................................................... 91
GROUP 5 – MANGO SCAB ........................................................................................................................... 91
Consequences...................................................................................................................................... 94
CONCLUSION: RISK ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................ 95
STAGE 3: PEST RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 100
RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND PHYTOSANITARY PROCEDURES...................................................... 101

[1] Pre-export vapour heat treatment (VHT) or hot water treatment (HWT) for the management
of fruit fly species ............................................................................................................................... 101
[1a] Vapour heat treatment (VHT) ................................................................................................... 102
Page 5
[1b] Hot water treatment (HWT)....................................................................................................... 102

[2] Designated pest free places of production or pest free production sites for the
management of mango pulp and mango seed weevils................................................................ 104
[3] Inspection and remedial action for other identified quarantine pests such as red-banded
mango caterpillar, mealybugs and scale insects........................................................................... 105
[4] Supporting operational systems to maintain and verify phytosanitary status...................... 106
DRAFT IMPORT CONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 111
IMPORT CONDITION 1. REGISTRATION OF EXPORT ORCHARDS ................................................................ 111

IMPORT CONDITION 2. PACKINGHOUSE REGISTRATION AND AUDITING OF PROCEDURES ........................ 112
IMPORT CONDITION 3. PRE-EXPORT VAPOUR HEAT TREATMENT ............................................................. 113
IMPORT CONDITION 4. PRE-EXPORT HOT WATER TREATMENT ................................................................. 114
IMPORT CONDITION 5. PEST FREE PLACES OF PRODUCTION OR PEST FREE PRODUCTION SITES FOR
MANGO PULP AND SEED WEEVILS ............................................................................................................. 114
IMPORT CONDITION 6. TARGETED PRE-EXPORT INSPECTION BY IMOA .................................................... 115
IMPORT CONDITION 7. PACKING AND LABELLING ...................................................................................... 116
IMPORT CONDITION 8. PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION BY IMOA.......................................................... 116
IMPORT CONDITION 9. STORAGE AND MOVEMENT .................................................................................... 117
IMPORT CONDITION 10. ON-ARRIVAL QUARANTINE CLEARANCE BY AQIS ................................................. 117
IMPORT CONDITION 11. AUDIT AND REVIEW OF POLICY............................................................................ 118
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 120
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 132
APPENDIX 1: PESTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANGOES (MANGIFERA INDICA L.) FROM INDIA ......................... 132
APPENDIX 2: POTENTIAL FOR ENTRY, ESTABLISHMENT OR SPREAD AND CONSEQUENCES .................... 237
APPENDIX 3: PESTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANGO (MANGIFERA INDICA L.) FROM THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES ............................................................................................................................................... 249
Page 6
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
TABLE 1 FRESH MANGO PRODUCTION (TONNES) BY STATE IN AUSTRALIA FROM 1990–2001 .................. 22
TABLE 2 MAJOR EXPORT MARKETS FOR AUSTRALIAN MANGOES (QUANTITY AND VALUE) ......................... 23
TABLE 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR MANGO VARIETIES GROWN IN INDIA ............................................... 24
TABLE 4 COMMERCIAL VARIETIES, STATES AND SEASONALITY OF INDIAN MANGOES ................................. 25
TABLE 5 MAJOR MANGO PRODUCTION STATES IN INDIA .............................................................................. 26
TABLE 6 QUARANTINE PESTS FOR MANGOES FROM INDIA ........................................................................... 30
TABLE 7 RESULTS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................... 96
TABLE 8 QUARANTINE PESTS FOR FRESH MANGO FRUIT FROM INDIA ASSESSED TO HAVE UNRESTRICTED
RISK ESTIMATES ABOVE AUSTRALIA’S ALOP ................................................................................ 99
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 MAP OF INDIA ................................................................................................................................. 26
Page 7
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALOP appropriate level of protection

APEDA Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export
Development Authority
AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
Area an officially defined country, part of a country or all
or parts of several countries
Biosecurity Australia a major operating group within the Australian
Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry
BPI Bureau of Plant Industry Manila
Contaminating pest a pest that is carried by a commodity and, in the case
of plants and plant products, does not infest those
plants or plant products
Control (of a pest) suppression, containment or eradication of a pest
population
DAFF Australian Government Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry
EDB ethylene dibromide
Endangered area an area where ecological factors favour the
establishment of a pest whose presence in the area
will result in economically important loss
Entry (of a pest) movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet
present, or present but not widely distributed and
being officially controlled
Establishment the perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest
within an area after entry
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations
Fresh not dried, deep-frozen or otherwise conserved
HWT hot water treatment
ICON AQIS Import Conditions database
IMOA Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of India
Introduction entry of a pest resulting in its establishment
Page 8
IPPC International Plant Protection Convention, as

deposited in 1951 with FAO in Rome and as
subsequently amended
IRA import risk analysis
ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
National Plant Protection
Organisation (NPPO) official service established by a government to
discharge the functions specified by the IPPC
Non-quarantine pest pest that is not a quarantine pest for an area
Official established, authorised or performed by a National
Plant Protection Organisation
Official control
(of a regulated pest) the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary
regulations and the application of mandatory
phytosanitary procedures with the objective of
eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for
the management of regulated non-quarantine pests
Pathway the ordered sequence of steps leading to an outcome,
or event
PBPM Plant Biosecurity Policy Memorandum
Pest any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal, or
pathogenic agent, injurious to plants or plant
products
Pest categorisation the process for determining whether a pest has or has
not the characteristics of a quarantine pest or those of
a regulated non-quarantine pest
Pest free area an area in which a specific pest does not occur as
demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which,
where appropriate, this condition is being officially
maintained
Pest free place of production place of production in which a specific pest does not
occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in
which, where appropriate, this condition is being
officially maintained for a defined period
Pest risk analysis the process of evaluating biological or other scientific
evidence to determine whether a pest should be
regulated and the strength of any phytosanitary
measures to be taken against it
Page 9
Pest risk assessment

(for quarantine pests) evaluation of the probability of the introduction and
spread of a pest and of the associated potential
economic consequences
Pest risk management
(for quarantine pests) evaluation and selection of options to reduce the risk
of introduction and spread of a pest
Phytosanitary measure any legislation, regulation or official procedure
having the purpose to prevent the introduction and/or
spread of quarantine pests
Phytosanitary regulation official rule to prevent the introduction and/or spread
of quarantine pests, by regulating the production,
movement or existence of commodities or other
articles, or the normal activity of persons, and by
establishing schemes for phytosanitary certification
PRA pest risk analysis
PRA area area in relation to which a pest risk analysis is
conducted
Quarantine pest a pest of potential economic importance to the area
endangered thereby and not yet present there, or
present but not widely distributed and being officially
controlled
RBMC red-banded mango caterpillar
Spread expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest
within an area
VHT vapour heat treatment
Page 10
Page 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) is

considering the importation of fresh mango fruit from India following a request from the
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) of
India in 2000. On 12 September 2003, Biosecurity Australia officially advised
stakeholders that India’s import access request would be considered as an extension of
existing policy.
Prior to 1996, India regularly exported fresh mango fruit to Australia with a mandatory on-
arrival fumigation treatment with ethylene dibromide (EDB) effective against certain
insect pests including fruit flies. Imports of mangoes from India were suspended in 1996 as
a result of the global phase-out in use of EDB on the basis of worker health and safety
concerns. Following the EDB phase-out, India was requested to propose equivalent
measures and provide appropriate efficacy data, which they subsequently provided.
Fresh mangoes are currently imported from Mexico and the Philippines (Guimaras Island)
based on existing quarantine policy developed by Biosecurity Australia. Biosecurity
Australia has considered the importation of fresh mango fruit from India under existing
policy for the importation of fresh mangoes from Mexico and the Philippines (Guimaras
Island).
This document presents a draft revised import policy for fresh mango fruit imports into
Australia from India.
Of the pests associated with fresh mango fruit in India, 32 pests (31 arthropods and one
pathogen) were determined to be quarantine pests for Australia.
Of these pests, 26 arthropods were assessed to have an unrestricted risk estimate above
Australia’s appropriate level of protection (ALOP) and risk management measures have
been proposed to mitigate the risk.
This draft revised import policy proposes that the risks associated with the importation of
fresh mango fruit from India can be reduced to a level acceptable to Australia, based on
Australia’s ALOP by applying a combination of risk management measures and
operational maintenance systems, specifically:
• Option of vapour heat treatment (VHT) or hot water treatment (HWT) for the
management of fruit fly species;
• Designated pest free places of production or production sites for the
management of Sternochetus frigidus (mango pulp weevil) and S. mangiferae
(mango seed weevil) (initially for the areas of Barabanki, Malihabad,
Saharanpur in the Lucknow region, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the areas of
Page 12
Navsari and Valsad in the State of Gujarat and the areas of Devgad, Kudal,
Malvan, Sawantwadi and Vengurla in the State of Maharashtra);
• Inspection and remedial action for other identified quarantine pests such as red-
banded mango caterpillar, mealybugs and scale insects; and
• Supporting operational systems to maintain and verify phytosanitary status.
Biosecurity Australia invites comments on the technical and economic feasibility of the
proposed risk management measures, in particular, comments are welcome on the
appropriateness of the measures and any alternative measures that stakeholders consider to
be equivalent in achieving the identified objectives.
Page 13
INTRODUCTION
Biosecurity Australia is responsible for developing quarantine policy for imports of plants,
plant products and other regulated articles, and for liasing with overseas National Plant
Protection Organisations (NPPOs) to determine their requirements for exports of
Australian plants and plant products.
Biosecurity Australia conducted a policy review for mangoes from India with reference to
existing quarantine policies and available measures for the mitigation of phytosanitary
risks posed by the relevant mango pest groups of quarantine concern to Australia.
Imports of mangoes into Australia from India were suspended in 1996 as a result of the
global phase-out in use of EDB on the basis of worker health and safety concerns.
Technically, India still had access for mangoes to Australia, provided equivalent measures
could be found to manage the phytosanitary risks previously addressed by the EDB
fumigation treatment.
Following categorisation of the pests associated with mangoes from India, a PRA was
completed on the quarantine pests for Australia. The likelihood of entry, establishment or
spread and associated potential consequences were assessed to arrive at unrestricted risk
estimates for relevant quarantine pests. Risk management was considered for those pests
with unrestricted risk estimates that were above Australia’s ALOP. Biosecurity Australia
has previously developed quarantine policy for managing quarantine pests associated with
the importation of fresh mangoes from Haiti, Mexico and the Philippines (Guimaras
Island).
This document includes the following sections:

• background to this review under extension of existing policy;
• a description of the scope of this review under extension of existing policy;
• an outline of current quarantine policy for the importation of fresh mangoes;
• the methodology and results of pest categorisation and risk assessment;
• risk management; and
• recommended quarantine conditions for the importation of fresh mangoes from
India into Australia.
Page 14
PROPOSAL TO IMPORT FRESH MANGOES FROM INDIA
BACKGROUND
Prior to 1996, fresh mangoes were regularly exported from India to Australia under import
conditions requiring mandatory on-arrival fumigation with EDB effective against certain
insect pests including fruit flies and certification that the mangoes were grown in areas free
of the mango weevil, Sternochetus frigidus.
Trade in mangoes was suspended in 1996 due to the global phase-out in use of EDB on the
basis of worker health and safety concerns, and the subsequent withdrawal of EDB as a
post-harvest disinfestation treatment in Australia. Technically, India still had access for
mangoes to Australia, provided equivalent measures could be found to manage the
phytosanitary risks previously addressed by the EDB fumigation treatment. India was
requested to propose equivalent measures and provide appropriate efficacy data, which
they subsequently provided.
In 2000, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority
(APEDA) of India requested access for Indian mangoes to Australia using vapour heat
treatment (VHT) for the disinfestation of fruit flies. APEDA, in collaboration with the
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of India (IMOA) has also provided updated pest
lists and reports in 2002 and 2003 on the efficacy of using VHT and hot water treatment
(HWT) for the disinfestation of fruit flies.
In response to the import access request for fresh mango fruit from India, Biosecurity
Australia released a Plant Biosecurity Policy Memorandum (PBPM) 2003/27 on 12
September 2003 advising stakeholders that Biosecurity Australia was considering India’s
request to resume trade in the importation of mangoes as an extension of existing policy.
Biosecurity Australia’s consideration of the resumption of trade will focus on equivalent
measures, as well as any other potential quarantine issues identified that are associated
with Indian mangoes proposed for importation into Australia.
The existing conditions for fresh mangoes cover importation from Haiti, Mexico and the
Philippines (Guimaras Island). Following a preliminary assessment, Biosecurity Australia
considered that the potential quarantine pests associated with mangoes from India do not
pose significantly different risks or require significantly different management measures
than those for which policy already exists. Biosecurity Australia therefore determined to
progress the access request as an extension of existing policy rather than proceed with an
IRA.
Page 15
SCOPE
In this draft revised import policy, Biosecurity Australia has considered the pests
associated with fresh mango fruit in India in accordance with ISPM #11 (2004) Pest Risk
Analysis for Quarantine Pests including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living
Modified Organisms.
Mango fruit is defined as fresh, mature fruit of Mangifera indica L. of the family
Anacardiaceae that has been cultivated, harvested, packed and transported to Australia
under commercial conditions from India. The major mango varieties covered in this review
are Alphonso, Banganpalli, Chausa, Dashehari, Kesar, Langra, Mallika, Neelum and
Totapuri.
AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT QUARANTINE POLICY FOR IMPORTS OF FRESH

MANGO FRUIT
International quarantine policy
The existing conditions for mangoes currently cover importation from Haiti, Mexico and
the Philippines (Guimaras Island). All imported consignments of mangoes are subject to
existing condition C6000 ‘General Import requirements for all fruits and vegetables’.
In addition to these general requirements, each country has specific import conditions.
Details of the importation requirements for fresh mango fruit are available on the AQIS
Import Condition database (ICON) at http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon. The specific import
conditions for each exporting country are summarised as follows:
Haiti
• Each consignment of mango fruit from Haiti must be accompanied by a USDA

Phytosanitary Certificate endorsed with the treatment details as follows:
“The fruit has been stored for not less than 14 consecutive days at 0°C ± 1°C.”
No Haitian Phytosanitary Certificates will be accepted.
If intended for import into Western Australia, consignments must be accompanied by a

Phytosanitary Certificate endorsed with the additional declaration:
“Mango seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) and Mango fruit weevil (S. frigidus)
have not been recorded in .................................(name of country).”
• Insects and contaminants must be treated, removed or destroyed using an AQIS

approved method.
Page 16
• Mango fruit are to be kept in cold storage, with the flesh temperature of the
fruit at 0ºC ± 1ºC for not less than 14 consecutive days.
Mexico
Fresh mango fruit imports from Mexico are subject to the following pre-shipment
requirements:
• Mangoes are subject to hot water treatment at an approved treatment location
and packing shed.
• Mangoes may only be imported through the airports and seaports of the United
States of America.
• The mangoes shall be exported under certification of the Director-General de
Sanitad Vegetal (DGSV) of Mexico.
• All packing sheds intended to be used for the grading, treatment and packing of
mangoes for Australia will be registered by DGSV.
• Only packing sheds with combined on-site packing and screened treatment
facilities may pack fruit for Australia. All activities within the sheds will be
subject to the supervision of DGSV officers.
• The fruit will be packed and treated prior to export under the supervision of an
authorised DGSV officer. Mangoes shall be treated with a hot water
submersion treatment in accordance with the following schedule:
1. Fruit pulp temperature must be 21°C or above prior to commencing treatment.
2. Fruit must be submerged at least 10 cm below the water surface.
3. Water must circulate constantly and be kept at 46°C throughout the treatment
period, with the following tolerances:
a. During the first five minutes of the treatment – temperatures may fall as low as
45.4°C provided the temperature is at least 46°C at the end of the five-minute
period.
b. For treatments lasting 65 to 70 minutes – temperatures may fall as low as
45.4°C for no more than 10 minutes.
c. For treatments lasting 90 minutes – temperatures may fall as low as 45.4°C for
no more than 15 minutes.
Fruit shape Fruit weight (grams) Dip time**

Rounded varieties* up to 500 grams 75 minutes
500 to 700 grams 90 minutes
701 to 900 grams 110 minutes
* varieties such as ‘Tommy Atkins’, ‘Kent’, ‘Hayden’ and ‘Keitt’.
Page 17
** the dip time must be extended for an additional 10 minutes if hydrocooling starts immediately
after the hot water immersion treatment.
• All consignments of treated mangoes destined for Australia must be certified
by the United States Authorities as being permitted to enter the USA.
• All consignments of mangoes destined for Australia shall be accompanied by a
Phytosanitary Certificate that has been issued and signed by an authorised
officer of DGSV. The Phytosanitary Certificate shall be endorsed with the
words:
“The product complies with the requirements of the agreement between AQIS and
DGSV concerning the export of mangoes to Australia.”
• The treatment details, packing shed registration numbers, fruit quantity, fruit
varieties, state of origin and van or shipping container door seal numbers are to
be inserted on the Phytosanitary Certificate.
• The fruit must be packed in approved export cartons stamped with a seal 5 x 8
cm or more to identify that the fruit is for Australia with the following
markings:
________________________________
MANGO DE EXPORTACION
A AUSTRALIA
TRATADO, SARH, MEXICO
________________________________
OR
________________________________
MANGO DE EXPORTACION
A AUSTRALIA
TRATADO, SAGAR, MEXICO
________________________________
Fresh mango fruit imports from Mexico are subject to the following requirements on
arrival into Australia:
• The fruit is to be inspected on arrival using a 600 fruit sample per packing shed
making up the consignment.
• The discovery of live quarantine pests in Australia will result in the destruction
or re-export of the shipment and suspension of permission for further imports
from Mexico. Any shipments in transit at the time of the suspension of the
agreement will be destroyed or re-exported on arrival in Australia.
• Quarantine pests of mangoes from Mexico include Anastrepha spp. and
Ceratitis capitata. If quarantine pests are detected on mangoes, AQIS Plant
Programs must be notified immediately.
Page 18
Guimaras Island, the Philippines
Australia has a Specific Commodity Understanding (SCU) with the Philippines, which
specifies that fresh mango fruit imported from the Philippines must be from Guimaras
Island only. State quarantine regulations currently prohibit the entry of Philippine mangoes
into the State of Western Australia. This matter is under negotiation between AQIS and the
Department of Agriculture Western Australia.
The current requirements for fresh mango fruit imports includes the following:
• Each consignment must be accompanied by a Phytosanitary Certificate

endorsed:
“Produced, treated and packed in accordance with the specific commodity

understanding between BPI and AQIS.”
AND
“Mangoes have been produced in Guimaras Island which has been subject to annual
surveys and found to be free of mango pulp weevil (MPW; Sternochetus frigidus) and
mango seed weevils (MSW; including S. mangiferae).”
AND either
“Shipped direct from the Philippines to Australia.”
OR
“Trans-shipped via Singapore.” (sealed containers only).
• In addition the following information must be entered onto the Phytosanitary

Certificate:
1. Specific treatment details in the treatment section (i.e. vapour heat treated at not
less than 46°C for at least 10 minutes).
2. The registered vapour heat treatment centre name in the additional information
section in the treatment section.
3. The container number and container seal number, or if the container cannot be
sealed (direct shipments only) the words “container not sealed by BPI”, must be
entered in the distinguishing marks and container numbers section.
4. The number of cartons for each lot in the consignment must be included within the
phytosanitary certificate to facilitate trace back if necessary.
5. A copy of the Vapour Heat Treatment (VHT) data logger records for each
respective treatment must be forwarded to AQIS with the Phytosanitary
Certification.
Page 19
Unsealed airfreight containers are permitted for direct shipments between the
Philippines and Australia only.
• The fruit must be packed in cartons that have had any openings either screened
with mesh no greater than 1.6 mm diameter or covered with tape to ensure that
any opening greater than 1.6 mm is closed. In addition, the cartons must be
sealed by BPI with BPI sticker/seal. All cartons must be marked “For
Australia” and labelled with a unique lot number that incorporates the date of
treatment.
• Currently only the following facilities are registered treatment facilities.

Importers must nominate the treatment facility on Import Permit Applications.
Facility Name Address

1 Philippine Far East Agro-Products, Rambutan Road, FTI Complex, Taguig, Metro
Inc. Manila
2 Diamond Star Agro-Product, Inc. Multi-purpose Building, FTI Complex, Taguig,
Metro Manila
3 Pelican Agro-Products, Inc. DBP Avenue cnr Sirloin Street, FTI Complex,
Taguig, Metro Manila
4 DHM Philippine Produce, Inc. FTI Complex, Manila
5 Hi-Las Marketing Corporation FTI Complex, Manila
• Insects and contaminants must be treated, removed or destroyed using an AQIS

approved method.
Page 20
THE FRESH MANGO INDUSTRY
THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA
Mangoes are grown mainly in tropical and subtropical regions. Queensland is the largest
mango growing state, producing over 80% of Australia’s crop (QFVG, 1997). Eighty
percent of the Queensland crop is produced around the areas of Bowen, Home Hill, Ayr
and the Atherton Tableland. The Atherton Tableland (Mareeba) is the second largest
mango growing region, accounting for about 25% of the national annual crop. Mangoes
are also grown locally around the Brisbane suburbs north to Bundaberg/Childers
(Australian Horticulture, 1995).
Mangoes are also grown in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and along the
northern coast of New South Wales. Approximately 15% of the national crop is grown in
the Northern Territory with the main growing areas in Darwin and Katherine. There is also
significant production in Carnarvon and the Kimberley area of Western Australia in
Kununurra.
The four main varieties of mango grown in Australia are Kensington Pride (commonly
known as Bowen Special), R2E2, Keitt and Palmer. The Kensington Pride variety accounts
for almost 80% of production in Queensland. In addition, relatively small numbers of fruit
are produced of other cultivars, such as Kent (originally from Florida) and the Nam Doc
Mai (originally from Thailand). These are grown in north Queensland, the Northern
Territory and Western Australia. Brooks and Haden are two other varieties grown in
Australia on a small scale. Approximately 50% of new plantings in Queensland in the last
five years consist of newer varieties such as Keitt, R2E2, Palmer and Nam Doc Mai
(Holmes, 1997).
Due to the wide geographical distribution of growing regions, combined with the use of
early and late maturing varieties, Australia is able to harvest mangoes for eight months of
the year from September to April. However, approximately 50% of Australian production
occurs in December. Kensington Pride is available from October to January and the R2E2
variety is available from December to January, while Keitt and Palmer varieties are
available from January to late March.
With the industry development that is taking place and the significant plantings of
mangoes over the last decade, Australian production is expected to increase. Fluctuations
in mango production occur between years due to irregular flowering (Australian
Horticulture, 1995). Australian mango production in 1998–99 decreased by 38.5% to
26,372 tonnes compared to 1997–98. Australian mango production in 1999–2000
increased from the previous season, which had been adversely affected by heavy rains and
flooding in Queensland, with the total harvest up by 44% to 38,071 tonnes (ABS, 2001).
Page 21
In 1998–99, 15% of the fresh produce was processed and in 1999–2000 it was 23%. The
gross value of Australian mango production for 1998–99 was $66.7M, down $14M from
1997–98. Queensland was the main producing state with 28,233 tonnes or 75% of the
national harvest (ABS, 2002). Mango production figures by state in Australia are presented
in Table 1.
Table 1 Fresh mango production (tonnes) by state in Australia from 1990–

2001
Season NSW NT QLD WA TOTAL

1990–91 331 1 003 10 303 281 11 918
1991–92 183 2 020 11 756 568 14 527
1992–93 139 4 211 26 084 566 31 000
1993–94 117 3 897 18 799 1 400 24 213
1994–95 – 5 530 30 612 1 575 37 717
1995–96 – 5 666 20 445 1 607 27 718
1996–97 273 2 668 28 366 1 095 32 402
1997–98 – – – – 36 567
1998–99 – – – – 26 372
1999–2000 – 5 244 30 770 1 922 38 071
2000–01 386 6 718 28 233 2 060 37 398
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001, 2002)
Western Australia has strict quarantine requirements for the interstate movement of
mangoes for pests such as mango seed weevil (MSW, Sternochetus mangiferae), which
has not been reported in the state. WA will only accept mangoes from production areas in
other Australian states that are free of MSW (e.g. Katherine in the Northern Territory). An
eastern state property wishing to export to WA must undergo sampling for two years prior
to the first consignment being permitted to cross the border to demonstrate property
freedom (Cook, 2001). Maintenance of property freedom is accepted on the basis of there
being no MSW infestation within 50 km of the property, and no detection in annual fruit
sampling or consignment sampling (WAQIS, 1999).
Export of mangoes from Australia
Export markets for mangoes are well established, and account for 10% of Australian
production. Due to the high cost of airfreight only a small quantity of fruit is currently
exported to neighbouring South-East Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore and
to Saudi Arabia. Major export markets for Australian mangoes are given in Table 2.
Several countries such as Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
require mangoes to be free of MSW as a condition of entry into those countries. The
phytosanitary protocol of area freedom for MSW is based on (i) annual surveys involving
Page 22
the cutting of random fruit samples to verify absence of MSW, and (ii) a mandatory 2%
fruit cutting random sample of each export consignment, to demonstrate freedom from
MSW. Currently, only Western Australia has area freedom for MSW. For all other areas
other than the Western Australia growing areas of Carnarvon, Swan, Kununurra and areas
north of Kununurra, a mandatory 2% destructive sample for MSW must be undertaken in
addition to normal inspection for phytosanitary certification.
Exports of Australian mangoes in 1998–99 were 2,735 tonnes, which were well below the
previous two years. In 1999–2000 exports were 3,226 tonnes, an increase by 491 tonnes
against the previous year.
Table 2 Major export markets for Australian mangoes (quantity and value)
Importing 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000

country
tonnes ($ 000) tonnes ($ 000) tonnes ($ 000) tonnes ($ 000)
Hong Kong 1 860 4 574 2 540 6 196 1 290 3 891 1 067 2 550
Singapore 1 122 2 926 950 2 526 852 2 677 1 107 2 628
Japan 211 1 298 197 1 873 156 1 598 469 3 674
Malaysia 276 548 155 445 68 251 136 290
Saudi Arabia 157 406 274 725 111 383 110 390
France 29 145 74 236 66 300 85 401
Lebanon 40 136 69 170 33 112 14 56
Brunei 21 83 16 62 8.8 34 4.2 13
United Arab 23 66 145 383 105 437 118 412
Emirates
Austria 10 57 0 0 – – – –
Qatar – – – – 12 49 23 93
Other 44 279 157 538 33 141 93 229
Total 3 793 10 518 4 577 13 127 2 735 9 873 3 226 10 736
THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN INDIA
In India, mangoes are grown in tropical and subtropical regions from sea level to an
altitude of 1500 m (i.e. from Cape Comorin to Himalayas). However, they are grown
commercially in areas up to 600 m altitude where the temperature rarely goes below 0ºC
(Negi, 2000), and grows best in temperatures around 27ºC.
There are nearly 1,000 cultivars or varieties in India. However only about 30 cultivars are
grown commercially (Anon., 2003). These include Dashehari, Langra, Chausa, Bombay
Green and Fazli in north India; Banganpalli, Totapuri, Neelum, Pairi, Suvarnarekha,
Mulgoa, Kalapady and Rumani in south India; Alphonso, Kesar, Mankurad, Fernandin and
Vanraj in western India; and Langra, Fazli, Chausa, Zardalu, Himsagar and Malda in
eastern India (Negi, 2000). Other important mango varieties include Amrapalli, Bangalora,
Page 23
Bombay, Gulab Khas, Kishen Bhog, Mallika and Samar Bahist Chausa (Anon., 2003).
Most of the Indian mango cultivars have specific ecogeographical requirements for
optimum growth and fruiting/yield. The general characteristics of major mango varieties
grown in India are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 Characteristics of major mango varieties grown in India
Variety Shape Flavour Flesh fibre Colour

Alphonso Ovate oblique, base Sweet; Fibre; less soft Medium thick/
obliquely flattened, characteristic yellow to orange
ventral shoulder aroma yellow
broader and higher
than dorsal
Banganpalli Oval; ventral shoulder Sweet; delightful Firm to meaty; Thin, smooth and
higher than dorsal flavour fibreless shining golden
yellow
Chausa Ovate to oval oblique Sweet; pleasant Fibreless; juicy Thick golden yellow
with oblong ventral aroma to light yellow
shoulder
Dashehari Oblong to oblong Very sweet Fibreless; juicy Thin, yellowish
oblique, erected green to yellow
shoulder
Kesar Oblong, flat shoulder Sweet; pleasant Fibreless Thin, smooth and
aroma golden yellow with
red blush on
shoulders
Langra Oval, rounded to slight Sweet; strong Low fibres; Thin, green to
flattened shoulder aroma moderate juicy lettuce green
Malda Ovate oblique, Sweet; pleasant Fibreless; Thick, primuline
flattened base flavour moderate juicy yellow
Neelum Ovate oblique, slightly Sweet delightful Fibreless; Medium thick,
extended moderate juicy saffron yellow
Suvarnarekha Ovate oblong, flat Sweet Medium fibre; Thick, reddish
shoulder firm yellow to light
cadmium with a
blush of jasper red
Totapuri Oblong, erected Less sweet; flat Fibre; juicy Thick, green,
shoulder with beak aroma yellow or
combination of both
colours
Source: Lal and Reddy (2002)
Indian mangoes are cultivated around February/early March, when the cold weather begins
to subside and the danger of destruction through frost disappears. Mango fruits mature in
3–4 months from flowering and the fruit colour changes from dark green to light green on
maturity. The fruits are harvested at the green mature stage in the morning hours. The
Alphonso variety from South India is an early season variety and comes to the market by
mid February. Its season is about two months until April/May. Mangoes grown in Uttar
Pradesh (i.e. Chausa, Dashehari and Langra) enter the market in April and their season
Page 24
lasts until July/August. Harvesting is normally started after a few fruits drop. It comes into
market early in May and remains in market until August/September. The important
commercial varieties, states and seasonality of mangoes in India are summarised in Table
4. Figure 1 shows the location of major mango production states on the map of India.
Table 4 Commercial varieties, states and seasonality of Indian mangoes
Variety States Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Alphonso Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat,
Karnataka, Maharashtra
Banganpalli Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Orissa, Tamil Nadu
Chausa Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh
Dashehari Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh
Kesar Gujarat, Maharashtra
Langra Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal
Neelum Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Kerala, Tamil Nadu
Suvarnarekha Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Maharashtra
Totapuri Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Kerala, Tamil Nadu
Source: Anon. (2004a) and APEDA (2000)
Mango production in India
Mangoes are mainly grown in the states of Andhra Pradesh (29%), Tamil Nadu (5%),
Karnataka (9%) in the south; Maharashtra (8.15%) and Gujarat (4.2%) in the west; Uttar
Pradesh (19%) in the north and Bihar (16%) in the east (Lal and Reddy, 2002). Other
growing states include Goa, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal, and partially
in Haryana, Orissa and Rajasthan (APEDA, 2000). The total area under mango cultivation
is estimated to be 1,283,030 hectares with an estimated annual production of 10,810,957
metric tonnes (MTs) (Lal and Reddy, 2002). The mango area and production figures for
major Indian states are shown in Table 5.
Page 25
Table 5 Major mango production states in India
State 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99

Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod.
(ha) (MT) (ha) (MT) (ha) (MT)
Andhra Pradesh 271.3 3 256.6 276.0 3314.3 252.1 2270.0
Bihar 151.7 910.4 153.2 1838.8 154.8 1858.0
Gujarat 52.8 288.9 52.8 288.9 57.6 382.5
Karnataka 116.4 1106.6 123.8 1176.4 123.8 1177.0
Maharashtra 65.4 196.4 65.4 65.4 110.0 196.0
Tamil Nadu 96.6 413.9 104.5 135.9 93.2 559.2
Uttaranchal – N/A – N/A 22.0 668.0
Uttar Pradesh 256.1 2418.7 258.6 1659.4 240.5 1775.0
TOTAL 1344.0 9881.0 1381.0 10156.0 1402.0 9782.0
Source: Lal and Reddy (2002)
Figure 1 Map of India
Source: Anon. (2004b)
Page 26
Export of mangoes from India
India is the largest producer of mangoes in the world, producing over 65% of total world
production (Patil and Patil, 1994). India exports fresh mangoes to over 50 countries (Patil
and Patil, 1994). The major importers of fresh Indian mangoes are Gulf countries such as
the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen. Other countries such as
Bangladesh, the United Kingdom (UK), France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands,
Spain, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China, Canada and the
United States are also important markets. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UK, Bahrain,
Qatar, Bangladesh, Singapore and Malaysia together account for 97.17% in total exports of
fresh mangoes from India (Patil and Patil, 1994). In 1999–2000, exports of fresh Indian
mangoes were 37,109.67 MT (Anon., 2004a), with a value of approximately US$20M (Lal
and Reddy, 2002).
Page 27
PEST RISK ANALYSIS
In accordance with the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure (ISPM) #11
(2004) Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests including Analysis of Environmental Risks
and Living Modified organisms, this pest risk analysis (PRA) comprises three interrelated
stages:
• Stage 1: initiation
• Stage 2: risk assessment
• Stage 3: risk management.
A qualitative detailed pest risk assessment was conducted for the quarantine pests
associated with mangoes from India. An outline of the methodology used for this review
is provided in the Biosecurity Australia publication Draft Guidelines for Import Risk
Analysis-September 2001.
STAGE 1: INITIATION
Initiation of this PRA followed the access request in 2000 for mango fruit from India into
Australia using vapour heat treatment (VHT) for the disinfestaion of fruit flies. Prior to
1996, fresh mangoes were regularly exported from India to Australia under an ethylene
dibromide (EDB) treatment and in 1996, trade in mangoes was suspended due to the global
phase-out in use of EDB on the basis of worker health and safety concerns.
The “PRA area” is defined in this PRA as Australia or in the case of regional quarantine
pests the “PRA area” is defined by the state of Australia that has regional freedom from
the pest. The ‘endangered area’ is defined as any area within Australia, where susceptible
hosts are present, and in which ecological factors favour the establishment of a pest that
might be introduced in association with mango fruit from India. The pathway is considered
to be fresh mango fruit, produced under commercial orchard production methods within
India.
STAGE 2: RISK ASSESSMENT
Pest categorisation
The process of pest categorisation is to determine which of the pests associated with
mango fruit from India meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest i.e. “A pest of
potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there,
or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (FAO, 1996).
Page 28
The quarantine pests of mango fruit from India have been determined through
consideration of relevant information on the pest status of mango fruit from India provided
by APEDA, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of India
(IMOA) and available information on the status of these pests in Australia (present or
absent, present but with restricted/limited distribution and under official control, present on
the pathway (mango fruit), potential for entry, establishment or spread and associated
consequences). These criteria are used to categorise and subsequently identify the
quarantine pests of mango fruit from India to Australia. Pests that do not meet the
definition of a quarantine pest are not considered further.
Appendix 1 lists the pests associated with mango fruit from India and their presence or
absence in Australia and whether the pest occurs on the pathway (mango fruit) under
consideration in this risk analysis.
Pests comprising 476 arthropods, 19 nematodes, 62 fungi, 5 bacteria, one virus and one
alga were identified as being possibly associated with mango production in India
(Appendix 1).
A number of pests listed in Appendix 1 are considered to be present in Australia but absent
from Western Australia (based on the evidence provided to Biosecurity Australia by the
Department of Agriculture Western Australia). Many of the pests associated with fresh
mangoes in India occur in Australia or are not present on the import pathway. These pests
a were not considered further in the risk assessment.
Of the 564 pests considered, 394 pests (358 arthropods, 7 nematodes, 28 fungi and 1 virus)
were either not present in Australia, or if present under official control and hence
considered further. Of these 394 pests that were considered further, 45 pests (42
arthropods and 3 fungi) were considered to be associated with the fresh mango fruit
pathway (Appendix 1).
Appendix 2 lists each pest absent from Australia (or part (s) of Australia) and with
potential for entry (considered to be associated with the fresh mango fruit pathway),
according to (a) its potential to establish or spread in Australia, and (b) its potential for
consequences. Categorisation of potential for establishment or spread and potential for
consequences was expressed using the terms ‘feasible’/’not feasible’ and ‘significant’/’not
significant’, respectively.
Of the 45 pests (42 arthropods and 3 fungi) associated with fresh mango fruit in India, 32
pests (31 arthropods and one pathogen) were assessed as having ‘feasible’ potential for
entry, establishment or spread in the PRA area and ‘significant’ potential for associated
consequences. These pests were considered to satisfy the IPPC criteria for a quarantine
pest (Appendix 2).
Page 29
A detailed pest risk assessment (PRA) was conducted for these 32 pests that were
categorised as quarantine pests to determine an unrestricted risk estimate for each pest.
Four sooty mould causing fungi (Capnodium mangiferae, Capnodium ramosum, Meliola
mangiferae and Tripospermum myrti) were identified as being on the pathway but are not
considered further for risk assessment as they are weak pathogens or secondary invaders
and are normally considered to be a cosmetic or aesthetic problem (Nameth et al., 2003).
For further comments refer to Appendix 1.
Summary of pest categorisation
Thirty two pests of mango fruit from India are considered to satisfy the IPPC criteria for a
quarantine pest and therefore require detailed risk assessment. These pests are listed in
Table 6. Six of the 32 quarantine pests listed in Table 6 have been assessed in the previous
import policy for mangoes from the Philippines (Guimaras Island), as indicated in the
footnote. All 32 quarantine pests have been categorised in this draft revised import policy
according to their status in Australia, presence on the pathway and potential for entry,
establishment or spread in the PRA area and associated consequences.
Table 6 Quarantine pests for mangoes from India
Scientific name Common name
ARTHROPODA
*Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret) [Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Cyanophyllum scale

*Aspidiotus nerii Bouché [Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Oleander scale
Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Fruit fly
Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Guava fruit fly
1
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Melon fly
Bactrocera diversa (Coquillett) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Three striped fruit fly
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Oriental fruit fly
Bactrocera tau (Walker) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Fruit fly
Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) [Diptera: Tephritidae] Peach fruit fly
Ceroplastes actiniformis Green [Hemiptera: Coccidae] Soft scale
*Coccus longulus (Douglas) [Hemiptera: Coccidae] Long soft scale
Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) [Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] Honeydew moth
1
Deanolis sublimbalis (Hampson) [Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] Red-banded mango
caterpillar
Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius) [Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae] Pomegranate fruit borer
Dysdercus koenigii (Fabricius) [Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae] Red cotton bug
Page 30
*Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Striped mealybug

*Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) [Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Greedy scale
*Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) [Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Mussel scale
*Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) [Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Glover’s scale
Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green) [Hemiptera: Coccidae] Mango shield scale
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Coconut mealybug
Orgyia postica (Walker) [Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae] Cocoa tussock moth
Planococcus ficus (Signoret) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Grapevine mealybug
Planococcus lilacinus1 (Cockerell) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Coffee mealybug
*Planococcus minor (Maskell) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Pacific mealybug
Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Downey snowline
mealybug
Rastrococcus invadens Williams [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Mealybug
Rastrococcus spinosus (Robinson) [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] Philippine mango
mealybug
Spilostethus pandurus (Scopoli) [Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae] Indian milkweed bug
Sternochetus frigidus1 (Fabricius) [Coleoptera: Curculionidae] Mango pulp weevil
*Sternochetus mangiferae1 (Fabricius) [Coleoptera: Curculionidae] Mango seed weevil
FUNGI
*Elsinoë mangiferae1 Bitancourt & Jenkins [Dothideales: Mango scab
Elsinoaceae]
1
Assessed under existing policy for mangoes from the Guimaras Island, the Philippines (refer Appendix 3).
* WA only – these species are quarantine pests for the State of Western Australia due to their absence from
this State.
The next section of the document comprises the detailed risk assessment for the 32
identified quarantine pests for mango fruit from India.
Page 31
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR QUARANTINE PESTS
A detailed risk assessment is presented here for each of the quarantine pests identified
through the process of pest categorisation. The risk assessment involved the estimation of
the level of unrestricted risk posed by each quarantine pest on mangoes from India by
combining likelihood estimates for entry, establishment and spread with the estimate of
associated potential consequences. The unrestricted risk estimates were then compared
with Australia’s appropriate level of protection (ALOP) to determine which quarantine
pests presented an unacceptable level of risk requiring the further consideration of risk
mitigation options.
Likelihood estimates for entry, establishment and spread and estimates of associated
potential consequences are supported by relevant biological information. . Where pests
shared similar biological characteristics, risk assessments were based on grouping of such
pests (e.g. fruit flies). The proposed risk management measures were also developed for
these groups.
In the context of the scope of this document, the risk assessments were conducted on the
basis of standard cultivation, harvesting and packing activities involved in the commercial
production of mango fruit i.e. in-field hygiene and management of pests (e.g. orchard
control program), cleaning and hygiene during packing, and commercial quality control
activities.
The groups are: fruit flies (7 species), weevils (2 species), armoured scales (5 species), soft
scales (3 species), mealybugs (8 species), plant bugs (2 species), lepidopterans (4 species)
and one pathogen.
ARTHROPODS
GROUP 1 – FRUIT FLIES
Fruit flies are serious pests of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and have the potential
to be of major economic importance. The fruit flies [Diptera: Tephritidae] examined in this
pest risk analysis are:
• Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor) – Fruit fly
• Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) – Guava fruit fly
• Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) – Melon fly
• Bactrocera diversa (Coquillett) – Three striped fruit fly
• Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) – Oriental fruit fly
Page 32
• Bactrocera tau (Walker) – Fruit fly

• Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) – Peach fruit fly.
Synonyms and changes in combination:
Bactrocera caryeae: Dacus caryeae Kapoor, Dacus poonensis Kapoor.
Bactrocera correcta: Chaetodacus correctus Bezzi; Dacus bangaloriensis Agarwal &

Kapoor; Dacus dutti Kapoor; Strumeta paratuberculatus Philip; Dacus correctus (Bezzi).
Bactrocera cucurbitae: Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett, 1899; Chaetodacus cucurbitae

(Coquillett); Dacus aureus Tseng & Chu; Dacus yuiliensis Tseng & Chu; Strumeta
cucurbitae (Coquillett); Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett).
Bactrocera diversa: Dacus diversus Coquillett; Dacus citronellae Kapoor & Katiyar,
Dacus quadrifidus Hendel.
Bactrocera dorsalis: Dacus dorsalis Hendel, 1912; Bactrocera conformis Doleschall, 1858
(preocc.); Bactrocera ferrugineus (Fabricius); Chaetodacus dorsalis (Hendel);
Chaetodacus ferrugineus (Fabricius); Chaetodacus ferrugineus dorsalis (Hendel);
Chaetodacus ferrugineus okinawanus Shiraki, 1933; Dacus ferrugineus Fabricius; Dacus
ferrugineus dorsalis Fabricius; Dacus ferrugineus var. dorsalis Fabricius; Dacus
ferrugineus okinawanus (Shiraki); Musca ferruginea Fabricius (preocc.); Musca
ferruginea Fabricius, 1794; Strumeta dorsalis (Hendel); Chaetodacus ferrugineus
(Fabricius); Strumeta ferrugineus (Fabricius).
Bactrocera tau: Dacus tau Walker; Bactrocera hageni (Hendel); Bactrocera (Zeugodacus)
tau (Walker); Dacus hageni (de Meijere); Chaetodacus tau (Walker); Dacus caudatus var.
nubilus (Hendel); Dacus nubilus (Hendel); Dasyneura tau (Walker); Zeugodacus nubilus
(Hendel).
Bactrocera zonata: Dasyneura zonatus Saunders, 1841; Dacus ferrugineus var.

mangiferae Cotes; Rivellia persicae Bigot; Chaetodacus zonatus (Saunders); Dacus
(Strumeta) zonatus (Saunders); Dacus mangiferae Cotes; Dacus persicae (Bigot); Dacus
zonatus (Saunders); Strumeta zonata (Saunders); Dasyneura zonata Saunders; Dacus
persicus (Biggott); Strumeta zonatus (Saunders).
Host(s):
Bactrocera caryeae: Mangifera indica (mango) (Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997).
Bactrocera correcta: Primary hosts are: Anacardium occidentale (cashew), Mangifera

indica (mango), Manilkara zapota (sapodilla), Mimusops elengi (Asian bulletwood),
Muntingia calabura (Jamaica cherry), Psidium guajava (guava), Syzygium samarangense
(Java apple), Terminalia catappa (Indian almond), Ziziphus jujuba (jujube) (CAB
International, 2003).
Page 33
Bactrocera cucurbitae: B. cucurbitae is a very serious pest of cucurbit crops. According to

Weems (1964) it has been recorded from over 125 plants, including members of families
other than Cucurbitaceae. However, many of those records were based on casual
observation of adults resting on plants or caught in traps set in non-host trees.
Hosts include: Carica papaya (papaya, pawpaw) (Tsuruta et al., 1997); Citrullus lanatus
(wild melon), Cucumis melo (melon) (Allwood et al., 1999); Cucurbita maxima (giant
pumpkin) (Tsuruta et al., 1997); Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin, squash), Lycopersicon
esculentum (tomato) (Allwood et al., 1999); Mangifera indica (mango) (CAB
International, 2003); Manilkara zapota (sapodilla), Phaseolus vulgaris (bean), Psidium
guajava (guava); Trichosanthes cucumerina (snake gourd) (Tsuruta et al., 1997); Vigna
unguiculata (cowpea) (Allwood et al., 1999).
Bactrocera diversa: Cucurbita maxima (giant pumpkin), Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin,

squash), Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd), Luffa acutangula (angled luffa), Luffa
aegyptiaca (smooth loofah), Ziziphus jujuba (jujube) (CAB International, 2003);
Mangifera indica (mango) (Srivastava, 1997).
Bactrocera dorsalis: B. dorsalis is a very serious pest of a wide variety of fruits and
vegetables (CAB International, 2003). Due to the confusion between B. dorsalis and
related species in the Oriental fruit fly species complex (some 52 species that are found in
the Oriental region, and a further 16 species native to Australasia), there are very few
published host records which definitely refer to true B. dorsalis (CAB International, 2003).
No host plant survey has yet been carried out to show which hosts are of particular
importance within the Asian range of true B. dorsalis.
Recorded commercial hosts are: Aegle marmelos (bael fruit), Anacardium occidentale
(cashew), Annona reticulata (bullock’s heart), Annona squamosa (sugar apple), Areca
catechu (betelnut palm), Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit), Artocarpus heterophyllus
(jackfruit), Capsicum annuum (bell pepper), Chrysophyllum cainito (caimito), Citrus
maxima (pummelo), Citrus reticulata (mandarin orange), Coffea arabica (arabica coffee),
Cucumis melo (melon), Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Dimocarpus longan (longan), Ficus
racemosa (cluster fig), Litchi chinensis (lychee), Malus pumila (apple), Mangifera foetida
(bachang mango), Mangifera indica (mango), Manilkara zapota (sapodilla), Mimusops
elengi (Asian bulletwood), Momordica charantia (bitter gourd), Muntingia calabura
(Jamaica cherry), Musa sp. (banana), Nephelium lappaceum (rambutan), Persea americana
(avocado), Prunus armeniaca (apricot), Prunus avium (gean), Prunus cerasus (sour
cherry), Prunus domestica (plum, prune), Prunus mume (Japanese apricot), Prunus persica
(peach), Psidium guajava (guava), Punica granatum (pomegranate), Pyrus communis
(pear), Syzygium aqueum (water apple), Syzygium aromaticum (clove), Syzygium cumini
(jambolan), Syzygium jambos (rose apple), Syzygium malaccense (Malay apple), Syzygium
samarangense (wax apple), Terminalia catappa (Indian almond), Ziziphus jujuba (jujube);
Ziziphus mauritiana (Chinese date) (Allwood et al., 1999; Tsuruta et al., 1997).
Page 34
Bactrocera tau: B. tau appears to show a preference for attacking the fruits of
Cucurbitaceae, but it has also been reared from the fruits of several other plant families
(CAB International, 2003). Due to the recent separation of previously confused species,
the host data given below were taken from a recently published host catalogue that was
largely based on a 1990s survey carried out in Thailand and Malaysia (Allwood et al.,
1999).
Hosts include: Cucumis melo (melon), Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Cucurbita maxima
(giant pumpkin), Luffa acutangula (angled luffa), Momordica charantia (balsam apple)
(CAB International, 2003); Mangifera indica (mango) (Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997).
Bactrocera zonata: Primary hosts are: Mangifera indica (mango), Prunus persica (peach),
Psidium guajava (guava) (CAB International, 2003). Other hosts include: Aegle marmelos
(bael tree), Annona squamosa (sugar apple), Careya arborea (slow match tree), Carica
papaya (papaya, pawpaw), Citrus sp., Cydonia oblonga (quince), Ficus carica (fig),
Grewia asiatica (phalsa), Luffa sp. (loofah), Malus pumila (apple), Momordica charantia
(balsam pear), Phoenix dactylifera (date-palm), Punica granatum (pomegranate),
Terminalia catappa (Indian almond) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit (Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997; Srivastava, 1997).
Distribution:
Bactrocera caryeae: India (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu (IIE, 1994a), Maharashtra (Carroll et
al., 2002)); Sri Lanka (IIE, 1994a).
Bactrocera correcta: India (Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,

Punjab, Tamil Nadu), Japan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United
States (CAB International, 2003). In India, this potential pest often occurs with serious
pest species such as B. dorsalis and B. zonata (Kapoor, 1989).
Bactrocera cucurbitae: B. cucurbitae is widely distributed in Asia, but also occurs in

Africa, North America and Oceania regions (CAB International, 2003). In Asia, B.
cucurbitae is recorded from Afghanistan (IIE, 1995a); Bangladesh (CAB International,
2003); Brunei Darussalam (Waterhouse, 1993); Cambodia (IIE, 1995a); China (CAB
International, 2003); India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,
Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) (CAB International, 2003;
IIE, 1995a); Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan,
Philippines, Saudi Arabia (CAB International, 2003); Singapore (IIE, 1995a); Sri Lanka,
Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam (CAB International, 2003). For a full
distribution listing, refer to CAB International (2003).
Bactrocera diversa: China, Sri Lanka, Thailand (CAB International, 2003); India (DPP,
2001).
Page 35
Bactrocera dorsalis: True B. dorsalis is restricted to mainland Asia (except the peninsula
of southern Thailand and West Malaysia), as well as Taiwan and its adventive population
in Hawaii (Drew and Hancock, 1994). CAB International (2003) also includes California
and Florida, USA, in the distribution because the fly is repeatedly trapped there in small
numbers. This species is a serious pest of a wide range of fruit crops in Taiwan, southern
Japan, China and in the northern areas of the Indian subcontinent (CAB International,
2003).
In Asia, B. dorsalis is recorded from Bangladesh (IIE, 1994b); Bhutan, Cambodia, China
(Drew and Hancock, 1994); Guam (Waterhouse, 1993); Laos, Myanmar (Drew and
Hancock, 1994); Nauru (Waterhouse, 1993); Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United
States (Hawaii) and Vietnam (Drew and Hancock, 1994).
Bactrocera tau: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (Fujian,

Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei, Hong Kong, Sichuan, Taiwan, Yunnan,
Zhejiang), India (Uttar Pradesh), Indonesia (Sumatra), Laos, Malaysia (Peninsular
Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak), Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam (CAB International,
2003).
Bactrocera zonata: Bangladesh, Egypt, India (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi,
Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal), Iran, Laos, Mauritius, Myanmar,
Oman, Pakistan, Réunion, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Arab Emirates,
Vietnam (CAB International, 2003).
NOTE: The listed fruit fly species are recognised as significant pests of mangoes in India.
Due to the recognised universal importance of Bactrocera dorsalis, it was used as the basis
for the risk assessment and development of proposed risk management measures for all
fruit fly species identified.
Introduction and spread potential
Probability of importation
The likelihood that fruit flies will arrive in Australia with the importation of fresh mangoes
from India: High.
• B. dorsalis is known to be associated with the mango fruit pathway. This
species infests mango fruits in the entire Asian-Pacific region (Srivastava,
1997). The dark puncture caused by the oviposition of an adult B. dorsalis fly is
not very conspicuous as its colour blends with the dark green colour of the fruit
(Srivastava, 1997). However, it is very clearly visible in some yellow and pale
brown mango varieties.
• Eggs are laid below the skin of the fruit (CAB International, 2003). Upon
Page 36
hatching, the larvae (maggots) feed on the pulp of the fruit for a few days. This
feeding damage causes a brown rotten patch to appear on the fruit surface and
the mesocarp becomes dirty brown.
• Fruit fly larvae can survive in picked fruit and are likely to be present in fruit
that is packed for export. As fruit fly eggs are laid internally, infested fruit are
not likely to be detected during sorting, packing and inspection procedures.
Inspection procedures carried out in the packing station are concerned primarily
with quality standards of fruit with regard to blemishes, bruising or damage to
the skin. Although all fruit are visually inspected, the procedures are not
specifically directed at the detection of internal pests that may be feeding under
the surface of the fruit.
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse would not
remove the eggs or larvae from under the fruit surface.
Probability of distribution
The likelihood that fruit flies will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or
disposal of fresh mangoes from India, to the endangered area: High.
• It is likely that fruit fly larvae of this spp. would survive storage and
transportation due to their ability to tolerate cold temperatures and the
availability of an ample food supply.
• The pests are likely to survive storage and transportation as adult females of
Bactrocera dorsalis are known to hibernate during the winter in India
(Srivastava, 1997). Adults of B. dorsalis occur throughout the year and live for
1-3 months depending on temperature (up to 12 months in cool conditions)
(Christenson and Foote, 1960).
• Fruit infested with eggs and larvae are likely be distributed throughout
Australia for retail sale. Adults, larvae and eggs are likely to be associated with
infested waste.
• Although damaged fruit are likely to be detected and removed from
consignments due to quality concerns, fruit flies have the capacity to complete
their development in discarded fruit and transfer to suitable hosts.
• Eggs can develop into larvae within stored fruit, at the point of sale or after
purchase by consumers.
• Larvae can develop into adult flies, which are strong flyers (Fletcher, 1989) and
able to move directly from fruit into the environment to find a suitable host.
Many Bactrocera spp. can fly 50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989).
Page 37
Probability of entry (importation × distribution)
The likelihood that fruit flies will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh mangoes from
India and be distributed in a viable state to the endangered area: High.
The overall probability of entry is determined by combining the likelihoods of importation

and of distribution using the matrix of ‘rules’ for combining descriptive likelihoods as
outlined in the Biosecurity Australia publication Guidelines for Import Risk Analysis,
September 2001.
Probability of establishment
The likelihood that fruit flies will establish based on a comparative assessment of factors
in the source and destination areas considered pertinent to the ability of the pest to survive
and propagate: High.
• For pests to establish and spread, a threshold limit must be reached. This
threshold limit is the smallest number of pests capable of establishing a colony.
One infested fruit is likely to contain many fruit fly larvae (e.g. clutch sizes of
3-30 eggs have been recorded for B. dorsalis (Fletcher, 1989)).
• Surviving female flies must be successful in locating suitable mating partners
and fruiting hosts to lay eggs. The mating behaviour of B. dorsalis requires that
males gather to form aggregations or leks (Shelly and Kaneshiro, 1991).
Females fly to such male aggregations to increase their chances of mating.
However, there will be a limited number of males available to form a lek,
therefore reducing the probability of a successful mating. Shelly (2001)
reported that B. dorsalis females were observed more frequently at larger leks
(of 18 males or more). There is a likelihood of many suitable hosts for fruit fly
species around the vicinity of the port of entry and other suburban areas around
Australia. B. carambolae and B. papayae are members of the B. dorsalis
complex of fruit flies (CAB International, 2003), and would have similar
mating behaviour to B. dorsalis.
• There have previously been exotic fruit fly incursions in Australia of species
from the Bactrocera dorsalis complex, which have been eradicated. B. papayae
was detected around Cairns, northern Queensland in 1995. It was eradicated
from Queensland by implementing an eradication programme using male
annihilation and protein bait spraying (SPC, 2002). This example demonstrates
that fruit fly species from the B. dorsalis complex can establish in Australia.
• Adults may live for many months and in laboratory studies, the potential
fecundity of females of B. dorsalis was well over 1000 eggs (Fletcher, 1989).
Page 38
Probability of spread
The likelihood that fruit flies will spread based on a comparative assessment of those
factors in the area of origin and in Australia considered pertinent to the expansion of the
geographical distribution of the pest: High.
• Fruit flies possess many characteristics that facilitate successful colonisation.
These include their high reproductive rate, longevity of adult flies, broad
environmental tolerances and host range of both commercial and wild species
which are widespread in Australia.
• The incidence of B. papayae in northern Australia in 1995 is indicative of the
ability of introduced fruit fly species from the Bactrocera dorsalis complex to
spread. Initially, the infested area covered 4,500 km² (Allwood, 1995), and was
centred around Cairns. The declared pest quarantine area later expanded to
78,000 km² of north Queensland, including urban areas, farms, rivers, coastline
and a large part of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (Cantrell et al., 2002).
B. dorsalis and other Bactrocera spp. would have a similar capacity to spread
in Australia due to their close biological relationship to B. papayae and their
wide host range.
Probability of entry, establishment or spread
The overall likelihood that fruit flies will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mangoes from India, be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish in that area
and subsequently spread within Australia: High.
The probability of entry, establishment or spread is determined by combining the

likelihoods of entry, of establishment and of spread using the matrix of ‘rules’ for
combining descriptive likelihoods as outlined in the Biosecurity Australia publication
Guidelines for Import Risk Analysis, September 2001.
Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of fruit flies: High.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health D ⎯ Fruit flies can cause direct harm to a wide range of plant hosts and are
estimated to have consequences of minor significance at the national level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ Fruit flies introduced into a new environment will compete for
the environment resources with native species. They are estimated to have consequences that
are unlikely to be discernible at the national level and of minor significance
at the local level.
Indirect consequences
Page 39
Eradication, control E ⎯ A control program would add considerably to the cost of production of
etc. the host fruit, costing between $200-900 per ha depending on the variety of
fruit produced and the time of harvest (Anon., 1991). In 1995, the B. papayae
(papaya fruit fly) eradication programme using male annihilation and protein
bait spraying cost AU$35 million (SPC, 2002). Fruit flies are estimated to
have significant consequences at the national level and highly significant
consequences at the regional level.
Domestic trade D ⎯ The presence of fruit flies in commercial production areas will have a
significant effect at the regional level due to any resulting interstate trade
restrictions on a wide range of commodities.
International trade D ⎯ Fruit flies are regarded as the most destructive horticultural pests in the
world. While they can cause considerable yield losses in orchards and
suburban backyards, the major consequence facing Australian horticultural
industries is the negative effect they have on gaining and maintaining export
markets. For example, when the papaya fruit fly outbreak occurred in north
Queensland, Australia experienced trade effects that affected the whole
country. In the first two months of the papaya fruit fly eradication campaign,
about $600,000 worth of exports were interrupted by Australian trade
partners (Cantrell et al., 2002). Within a week of the papaya fruit fly
outbreak being declared, Japan ceased imports of mangoes at a cost of about
$570,000, New Zealand interrupted its $30,000 banana trade and the
Solomon Islands completely stopped importing fruit and vegetables from
Queensland (Cantrell et al., 2002). Fruit flies are estimated to have
consequences of minor significance at the national level.
Environment A ⎯ Pesticides required to control fruit flies are estimated to have
consequences that are unlikely to be discernible at the national level and of
minor significance at the local level.
Unrestricted risk estimate
The unrestricted risk estimate as determined by combining the overall ‘probability of

entry, establishment or spread’ with the ‘consequences’ using the risk estimation matrix as
September 2001. High.
GROUP 2A – MANGO PULP WEEVIL
The mango pulp weevil (MPW) causes serious economic damage to mangoes in north-east
India (Srivastava, 1997). All Mangifera indica varieties and wild Mangifera species are
susceptible to MPW. In Indonesia, infestation may range from 30-80% or higher (CAB
International, 2003). The occurrence of many infested fruits considerably reduces the value
of the product. The pulp weevil [Coleoptera: Curculionidae] examined in this pest risk
analysis is:
• Sternochetus frigidus (Fabricius) – Mango pulp weevil.
Synonyms and changes in combination: Curculio frigidus Fabricius, 1787;

Cryptorrhynchus gravis Fabricius; Sternochetus gravis (Fabricius); Cryptorhynchus
frigidus (Fabricius); Acryptorrhynchus frigidus (Fabricius).
Page 40
Host(s): Mangifera foetida (bachang mango), Mangifera indica (mango), Mangifera

sylvatica (Nepal mango) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit/pod (CAB International, 2003).
Distribution: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar,

Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that Sternochetus frigidus will arrive in Australia with the importation of
fresh mangoes from India: High.
• S. frigidus lays eggs on mango fruits with a minimum diameter of 6 cm (De and
Pande, 1988). The newly hatched larva tunnels directly through the fruit pulp.
The larvae form a chamber adjacent to the kernel from which they tunnel into
the pulp. Pupation takes place in a brown cocoon, constructed of frass, within
these chambers. The weevils leave the ripe fruit through a hole in the peel.
Before they emerge, the fruit shows no outward sign of infestation (CAB
• This pest is likely to survive storage and transportation. Reproductively
immature adult weevils overwinter inside seeds or other protective places from
May until February in India (De and Pande, 1988). Around 58.5% of adults
hibernate in seeds (Srivastava, 1997). Adults found in fruits usually survive and
may assist in the dispersal of the pest (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that Sternochetus frigidus will be distributed as a result of the processing,
sale or disposal of fresh mangoes from India, to the endangered area: Moderate.
• The commodity is likely to be distributed throughout Australia for retail sale.
The intended use of the commodity is human consumption but waste material
would be generated (e.g. mango skin, seed).
• If adults and larvae were to survive storage and transport, they may enter the
environment in two ways: eggs may be discarded with mango skin, or adults
found in fruit may fly directly to a suitable host plant. Srivastava (1997) states
that although adults possess well-developed wings, they are very poor flyers
and can fly only 50-90 cm in a horizontal direction.
• Up to 30-50% of newly hatched larvae die if they come in contact with gum
laden tissues while they tunnel through the fruit pulp (CAB International,
2003). Up to 20% of the larvae die when the fruits are harvested, because they
Page 41
are unable to complete their development. Dry conditions affect young adults
adversely (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that Sternochetus frigidus will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in
fresh mango fruit, and be distributed to the endangered area: Moderate.

September 2001.
The likelihood that Sternochetus frigidus will establish based on a comparative assessment
of factors in the source and destination areas considered pertinent to the ability of the pest
to survive and propagate: High.
• The host range of S. frigidus is limited and is only known to include Mangifera
foetida, M. indica and M. sylvatica (CAB International, 2003).
• Sternochetus species (e.g. S. mangiferae) is already established in tropical and
subtropical parts of eastern Australia.
• Females lay about 75-180 eggs in 3 weeks, and if deprived of suitable fruits for
5 months, egg production drops to 3 eggs per day (De and Pande, 1988). The
female dies soon after oviposition (CAB International, 2003).
• MPW leave the ripe fruit through a hole in the mango peel. After 6 weeks, they
are fully mature and are able to mate (CAB International, 2003). Adults mate
repeatedly (Kalshoven and Laan, 1981).
• Srivastava (1997) reported that the duration of one complete life cycle varied
from 34-35 days. In Indonesia, development from egg to adult takes 5-7 weeks
(Kalshoven and Laan, 1981). The weevil has only one generation during the
fruit season (Kalshoven and Laan, 1981).
The likelihood that Sternochetus frigidus will spread based on a comparative assessment of
those factors in the area of origin and in Australia considered pertinent to the expansion of
the geographical distribution of the pest: Moderate.
• Tropical or subtropical environments of Australia would be suitable for the
spread of S. frigidus because other Sternochetus species are recorded from
these environments.
Page 42
• Adults found in the fruits usually survive and may assist in the dispersal of the
pest.
• Although adults possess well-developed wings, they are very poor flyers and
are only capable of flying 50-90 cm in a horizontal direction (Srivastava, 1997).
• Very few natural enemies are known (CAB International, 2003).
The overall likelihood that Sternochetus frigidus will enter Australia as a result of trade in
fresh mangoes from India, be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish in that
area and subsequently spread within Australia: Low.

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of mango pulp weevil: Moderate.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Sternochetus frigidus (mango pulp weevil, MPW) can cause significant
direct harm to mango production at the district level. MPW is estimated to
have consequences that are unlikely to be discernible at the national level and
of minor significance at the regional level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ There are no known direct consequences of this pest on other aspects of
the environment the environment. S. frigidus is estimated to have consequences that are
unlikely to be discernible at the national level and of minor significance at
the local level.
Eradication, control B ⎯ A control program would have to be implemented in infested orchards
etc. to reduce fruit damage and yield losses and this would increase production
costs. Imported mango fruit from countries where S. frigidus occurs is
subjected to a quarantine treatment.
Domestic trade C ⎯ The presence of mango pulp weevil in commercial production areas
may have a significant effect at the district level due to any resulting
interstate trade restrictions. MPW is estimated to have consequences which
at the regional level.
International trade D ⎯ Mango pulp weevil is regarded as a destructive pest of mango in
growing areas. Infestation does not cause increased fruit shedding
(Kalshoven and Laan, 1981). However, the occurrence of many infested
fruits considerably reduces the value of the product. In Indonesia, infestation
of 30-80% has been reported (CAB International, 2003). MPW has a limited
host range and is therefore unlikely to have a significant effect on
Page 43
international trade in plant commodities. MPW is estimated to have

consequences of minor significance at the national level.
Environment A ⎯ Although additional pesticide applications would be required to control
MPW on susceptible crops, this is not considered to have significant
consequences for the environment.

September 2001. Low.
GROUP 2B – MANGO SEED WEEVIL
The mango seed weevil (MSW) is one of the most serious and important pests of mango.
All mango cultivars are susceptible to MSW attack but no external symptoms of attack are
readily visible on infested fruits, apart from the brown hardened secretion remaining
attached to them at the sites of oviposition (CAB International, 2003). The seed weevil
[Coleoptera: Curculionidae] examined in this pest risk analysis is:
• *Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius, 1775) – Mango seed weevil.
Synonyms and changes in combination: Cryptorhynchus mangiferae Fabricius,

1775; Acryptorhynchus mangiferae (Fabricius); Curculio mangiferae (Fabricius);
Sternochetus ineffectus (Walker); Sternochetus olivieri Faust.
Host(s): Mangifera indica (mango) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit/pod, seed (CAB International, 2003); leaf, shoot
(CABI/EPPO, 1997).
Distribution: Australia (New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland),

Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Central African Republic, China (Hong Kong), Dominica,
Fiji, French Guiana, French Polynesia (Society Islands), Gabon, Ghana, Guadeloupe,
Guam, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia
(Peninsular, Sabah), Martinique, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, New
Caledonia, Nigeria, Réunion, Northern Mariana Islands, Pakistan, Seychelles, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, St Lucia, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, United States, United States Virgin Islands, Vietnam, Wallis and
Futuna Islands, Zambia (EPPO, 2002).
* This species is a quarantine pest for the State of Western Australia due to its absence from this State.
Page 44
The likelihood that Sternochetus mangiferae will arrive in Australia with the importation
of fresh mangoes from India: High.
• Females of S. mangiferae lay eggs singly on the skin of immature to ripe fruit
or sometimes on the stems; most eggs are laid on the sinus of the fruit (Shukla
et al., 1985). The adult female carves out a cavity on the fruit surface and
deposits an egg, which is immediately covered by a brown exudate produced by
the wound (Follett, 2002). Infested fruits are difficult to detect since usually no
damage is visible externally (Kalshoven and Laan, 1981).
• After hatching, the larvae burrow through the flesh and into the seed. As fruit
and seed develop, the tunnel and seed entry are completely obliterated so that in
time it is impossible to distinguish infested from non-infested seeds unless they
are cut open (Balock and Kozuma, 1964). Complete larval development usually
occurs within the maturing seed, but also very occasionally within the flesh
(Hansen et al., 1989). Larvae feed within the seed and pupate in the seed cavity
(Follett, 2002). The majority of infested seeds have one or two weevils, but
seeds containing 5 or more have been
• Adult weevils can live for more than two years when provided with fresh
mangoes and water (Follett, 2002).
The likelihood that S. mangiferae will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or
disposal of fresh mangoes from India, to the endangered area: High.
• This pest may enter the environment in two ways: eggs may be discarded with
mango skin, or larvae may be discarded with seed. Upon maturation, the adults
rapidly move out of the seeds and seek hiding places by crawling rather than
flying (Shukla and Tandon, 1985).
The likelihood that Sternochetus mangiferae will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in
fresh mango fruit, and be distributed to the endangered area: High.

Page 45
September 2001.
The likelihood that Sternochetus mangiferae will establish based on a comparative

assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered pertinent to the ability
of the pest to survive and propagate: High.
• S. mangiferae is already established in tropical and subtropical parts of eastern
Australia (i.e. New South Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland).
• The host range of S. mangiferae is limited to mango (Mangifera indica) (CAB
• Females may lay 15 eggs per day, with a maximum of almost 300 over a three
month period in the laboratory. Adults usually remain in the vicinity of the
parent tree until the following fruiting season (Jarvis, 1946). High infestations
appear every year in some locations, while low infestations appear in others
(Balock and Kozuma, 1964).
• MSW is univoltine (i.e. has one generation per year) (Follett, 2002).
The likelihood that Sternochetus mangiferae will spread based on a comparative

assessment of those factors in the area of origin and in Australia considered pertinent to the
expansion of the geographical distribution of the pest: Moderate.
• Tropical or subtropical environments of Western Australia would be suitable
for the spread of S. mangiferae because this pest is present in eastern Australia
(i.e. New South Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland).
• Adults are capable of surviving long unfavourable periods. During non-fruiting
periods, weevils diapause under loose bark on mango tree trunks and in branch
terminals or in crevices near mango trees. A few adults live through two
seasons with a diapause period between (Balock and Kozuma, 1964).
• The relevance of natural enemies in Australia is not known.
The overall likelihood that Sternochetus mangiferae will enter Australia as a result of trade
in fresh mangoes from India, be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish in
that area and subsequently spread within Australia: Moderate.

Page 46

Consequences
Consideration of the direct and indirect consequences of mango seed weevil: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil, MSW) can cause
significant direct harm to mango production at the district level. MSW is
estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be discernible at the
national level and of minor significance at the regional level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ There are no known direct consequences of this pest on other aspects of
the environment the environment. S. mangiferae is estimated to have consequences that are
the local level.
etc. to reduce fruit damage and yield losses and this would increase production
costs. Imported mango fruit from countries where S. mangiferae occurs can
be subjected to a quarantine treatment.
Domestic trade B ⎯ The presence of mango seed weevil in commercial production areas
may have a significant effect at the local level due to any resulting interstate
trade restrictions. MSW is estimated to have consequences which are
the district level.
International trade C ⎯ Mango seed weevil is regarded as a destructive pest of mango in
growing areas. No external symptoms of attack by seed weevil are readily
visible on infested fruits and yields are not significantly affected, since the
larvae usually feed entirely within the stone, very rarely in the pulp of the
fruit. Probably its greatest significance as a pest is to reduce the germination
capacity of seeds greatly and to interfere with the export of fruit, because of
quarantine restrictions imposed by importing countries. In India, all cultivars
are susceptible and levels of infestation vary between 48-87% (Bagle and
Prasad, 1985). MSW is estimated to have consequences which are unlikely to
be discernible at the national level and of minor significance at the regional
level.
mango seed weevil on susceptible crops, this is not considered to have
significant consequences for the environment.

Page 47
GROUP 3A – ARMOURED SCALES
Armoured or hard scales damage the host plant by sucking the plant sap through their
stylets. They do not produce honeydew, but their feeding can blemish fruit or cause leaf
drop (Smith et al., 1997). They can inject toxins into plant tissues and high populations can
reduce plant vigour or cause the death of trees (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975; Smith et
al., 1997). The armoured scales [Hemiptera: Diaspididae] examined in this pest risk
analysis are:
• *Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret, 1869) – Cyanophyllum scale
• *Aspidiotus nerii Bouché, 1833 – Oleander scale
• *Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock, 1881) – Camellia scale; greedy scale
• *Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman, 1869) – Mussel scale
• *Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard, 1869) – Glover’s scale.
Abgrallaspis cyanophylli: Aspidiotus cyanophylli Signoret, 1869; Fucaspis cyanophylli

(Signoret); Hemiberlesia cyanophylli (Signoret).
Aspidiotus nerii: Aspidiotus aloes Signoret; Aspidiotus limonii Signoret; Aspidiotus

genistae Westwood; Aspidiotus bouchei (Targioni Tozzetti); Aspidiotus affinis Targioni
Tozzetti; Aspidiotus caldesii Targioni Tozzetti; Aspidiotus denticulatus Targioni Tozzetti;
Aspidiotus villosus Targioni Tozzetti; Aspidiotus budleiae Signoret; Aspidiotus ceratoniae

Signoret; Aspidiotus cycadicola (Boisduval); Aspidiotus epidendri Signoret; Aspidiotus
ericae (Boisduval); Aspidiotus gnidii Signoret; Aspidiotus ilicis Signoret; Aspidiotus
myricinae Signoret; Aspidiotus ulicis Signoret; Aspidiotus uriesciae Signoret; Aspidiotus
lentisci Signoret; Aspidiotus capparis Signoret; Aspidiotus myrsinae Signoret; Aspidiotus
budlaei Maskell; Aspidiotus atherospermae Maskell; Aspidiotus oleae Colvée; Aspidiotus
corynocarpi Colvée; Aspidiotus oleastin Colvée; Aspidiotus offinis Comstock; Aspidiotus
sophorae Maskell; Aspidiotus carpodeti Maskell; Aspidiotus transpareus var. simillimus
Cockerell; Aspidiotus vagabundus Cockerell; Aspidiotus simillimus (Cockerell); Aspidiotus
transvaalensis Leonardi; Aspidiotus confusus Froggatt; Aspidiotus tasmaniae Green;
Aspidiotus viresciae Leonardi; Aspidiotus transpareus var. rectangulatus Lindinger;
Aspidiotus rectangulatus (Lindinger); Aspidiosus unipectinatus Ferris; Aspidiotus hederae
var. urenae Hall; Aspidiotus urenae (Hall); Octaspidiotus anthospermae Balachowsky;
Aspidiotus hederae Signoret; Aspidiotus hederae hederae Schmutterer; Aspidiotus hederae
ssp. unisexualis Schmutterer; Chermes aloes Boisduval; Chermes ericae Boisduval;
*These species are quarantine pests for the State of Western Australia due to their absence from this State.
Page 48
Chermes cycadicola Boisduval; Chermes genistae (Westwood); Chermes hederae

(Signoret); Chermes nerii Boisduval; Chermes osmanthi Ferris; Diaspis bouchei Targioni
Tozzetti; Octaspidiotus atherospermae (Maskell).
Hemiberlesia rapax: Aspidiotus rapax Comstock, 1881; Aspidiotus camelliae Signoret;

Aspidiotus convexus Comstock; Aspidiotus lucumae Cockerell; Aspidiotus tricolor
Cockerell; Hemiberlesia argentina Leonardi.
Lepidosaphes beckii: Coccus beckii Newman, 1869; Aspidiotus citricola Packard, 1869;
Coccus anguinis Boisduval; Mytilaspis flavescens Targioni Tozzetti; Mytilaspis citricola
(Packard); Mytilaspis citricola tasmaniae Maskell; Mytilaspis tasmaniae (Maskell);
Mytilaspis beckii (Newman); Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) beckii (Newman); Lepidosaphes
citricola (Packard); Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) beckii (Newman); Mytilaspis anguineus
(Boisduval); Mytilococcus piniformis; Mytilococcus beckii (Newman); Cornuaspis beckii
(Newman); Parlatoria beckii (Newman).
Lepidosaphes gloverii: Aspidiotus gloverii Packard, 1869; Mytilaspis gloverii (Packard);

Mytilaspis (Aspidiotus) gloverii (Packard); Mytiella sexspina Hoke; Coccus gloverii
(Packard); Mytilococcus gloverii (Packard); Opuntiaspis sexspina (Packard); Insulaspis
gloverii (Packard); Cornuaspis gloverii (Packard).
Host(s):
Abgrallaspis cyanophylli: Acalypha hispida (chenille plant), Annona squamosa (sugar

apple), Annona sp. (custard apple), Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit), Bauhinia sp.,
Barringtonia sp., Camellia sinensis (tea), Capsicum ovatum, Ceiba pentandra (kapok
tree), Cinnamomum verum (cinnamon), Clerodendrum sp., Coccoloba uvifera (Jamaican
kino, sea-grape), Cocos nucifera (coconut), Coffea arabica (arabica coffee), Coffea sp.
(coffee), Coleus sp., Cordyline fruticosa (palm lily), Dioscorea alata (greater yam),
Dioscorea spp. (yam), Elettaria cardamomum (cardamom), Eriobotrya japonica (loquat),
Eugenia sp., Ficus sp. (fig), Guettarda speciosa (beach gardenia), Hevea brasiliensis
(rubber tree), Hibiscus syriacus (rose-of-Sharon), Jatropha curcas (Barbados-nut, physic
nut), Macadamia tetraphylla (rough-shell Queensland nut), Mangifera indica (mango),
Manihot esculenta (cassava, tapioca), Musa × paradisiaca (banana), Musa sp. (banana),
Persea americana (avocado), Piper methysticum (kava kava), Plumeria rubra f. acutifolia
(Mexican frangipani, pagoda tree), Psidium guajava (guava), Swietenia macrophylla
(Honduras mahogany), Theobroma cacao (cocoa), Toona ciliata (Australian red cedar)
(Williams and Watson, 1988); Nerium sp. (oleander, rose laurel) (CAB International,
2003).
Aspidiotus nerii: A. nerii is a highly polyphagous insect that has been recorded on
hundreds of host species in over 100 plant families (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975). Its
many hosts include agricultural crops, palms, cut flowers and woody ornamentals (but not
conifers) (CAB International, 2003).
Page 49
Hosts include: Actinidia chinensis (Chinese gooseberry), Ananas comosus (pineapple),

Asparagus setaceus (climbing asparagus fern), Asplenium nidus (bird’s nest fern),
Ceratonia sp. (carob), Citrus sp., Cocos nucifera (coconut), Dianthus caryophyllus
(carnation), Diospyros sp. (ebony, persimmon), Hedera helix (ivy), Ilex aquifolium
(English holly), Juniperus sp. (juniper), Laurus nobilis (laurel, sweet bay), Magnolia sp.,
Mangifera indica (mango), Melia azedarach (chinaberry), Morus sp. (mulberry), Musa ×
paradisiaca (plantain), Nerium sp. (oleander, rose laurel), Olea sp. (olive), Pandanus sp.
(screwpine), Phoenix sp. (palm), Plumeria rubra f. acutifolia (Mexican frangipani, pagoda
tree), Prunus persica (peach), Pyrus communis (pear), Rosa sp. (rose), Simmondsia
chinensis (jojoba), Vitis vinifera (wine grape) (CAB International, 2003).
Hemiberlesia rapax: H. rapax is primarily found on the leaves and bark of woody
ornamentals representing over 117 genera (Davidson and Miller, 1990). Dekle (1976)
listed 92 hosts for this species.
Hosts include: Actinidia chinensis (Chinese gooseberry), Actinidia deliciosa (kiwi fruit),
Beilschmiedia tarairi, Carya illinoensis (pecan), Olea europaea subsp. europaea (olive),
Vaccinium sp. (blueberry) (CAB International, 2003); Mangifera indica (mango) (Butani,
1993).
Lepidosaphes beckii: Agave sisalana (sisal agave), Elaeagnus sp. (oleaster), Mangifera
indica (mango), Musa sp. (banana) (CAB International, 2003); Citrus aurantifolia (lime),
Citrus limon (lemon), Citrus maxima (pummelo, shaddock), Citrus × paradisi (grapefruit),
Citrus reticulata (mandarin orange, tangerine), Citrus sinensis (sweet orange), Hibiscus sp.
(Williams and Watson, 1988).
Lepidosaphes gloverii: L. gloverii attacks all citrus cultivars. According to Davidson and
Miller (1990), the host range of L. gloverii covers 8 plant families and 19 genera. Hosts
include: Alocasia macrorrhizos (giant taro), Carissa sp. (CAB International, 2003); Citrus
aurantifolia (lime), Citrus aurantium (sour orange), Citrus limon (lemon), Citrus maxima
(pummelo, shaddock), Citrus reticulata (mandarin orange, tangerine), Citrus sinensis
(sweet orange) (Williams and Watson, 1988); Codiaeum variegatum (croton), Erythrina
spp. (coral tree), Euonymus sp. (spindle tree), Fortunella sp. (kumquat), Mangifera indica
(mango), Poncirus sp. (bitter orange, trifoliate orange) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: For the listed armoured scales, the plant parts affected include
leaves, stem and fruit (CAB International, 2003; Srivastava, 1997).
Distribution:
Abgrallaspis cyanophylli: Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia (Tahiti) (Williams and
Watson, 1988); Georgia, India (Tamil Nadu) (CAB International, 2003); Kiribati, New
Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa (Williams and
Page 50
Watson, 1988). This species has also been recorded in Australia (New South Wales,
Queensland, Tasmania), but not in Western Australia (AICN, 2004).
Aspidiotus nerii: A. nerii has a worldwide distribution (DeBach and Rosen, 1991). In Asia,
A. nerii is recorded from China (CAB International, 2003); India (Butani, 1993); Iran,
Israel, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey (CAB International, 2003).
This species has also been recorded in Australia (New South Wales, Queensland,
Tasmania), but not in Western Australia (CAB International, 2003). For a full distribution
listing, refer to CAB International (2003).
Hemiberlesia rapax: H. rapax is thought to be native to Europe (Gill, 1997). It is now

found in Africa, Central and South America, Europe and southern Asia (CAB
International, 2003). In Asia, H. rapax is recorded from India (Arunachal Pradesh,
Meghalaya, West Bengal), Iran, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (CAB
International, 2003). This species has also been recorded in Australia (South Australia,
Tasmania, Victoria), but not in Western Australia (CAB International, 2003). For a full
distribution listing, refer to CAB International (2003).
Lepidosaphes beckii: L. beckii is documented as having a worldwide distribution (DeBach

and Rosen, 1991). It primarily infests citrus trees. In Asia, L. beckii is recorded from
Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India (Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur,
Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Laos, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand,
Turkey and Vietnam (CAB International, 2003; CIE, 1982). This species has also been
recorded in Australia (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001); Northern Territory (CAB International, 2003)), but not in Western
Australia (CAB International, 2003). For a full distribution listing, refer to CAB
International (2003).
Lepidosaphes gloverii: In Asia, L. gloverii is recorded from China, India (Bihar),

Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Democratic People’s Republic, Korea, Republic of,
Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey
(CAB International, 2003; CIE, 1962). This species has also been recorded in Australia
(New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria), but not in Western Australia (Ben-Dov et al.,
2001). For a full distribution listing, refer to CAB International (2003).
The likelihood that armoured scales will arrive in Australia with the importation of fresh
mangoes from India: High.
• Armoured scale species are frequently reported in mango orchards in India
Page 51
(DPP, 2001; Srivastava, 1997), and they are associated with mango fruit.
• First instar nymphs (or crawlers) are incapable of further movement once they
have settled and commenced feeding (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975), as
crawlers lose their legs at the first moult. Subsequent instars are sessile (CAB
• Armoured scales construct an external protective covering or ‘scale’, that
protects them against physical and chemical aggressions (Foldi, 1990). Without
this scale cover, the adult insect would die from desiccation.
• Armoured scales are likely to be difficult to remove during fruit cleaning,
sorting and packing, especially at low population levels due to this scale cover.
• Inspection procedures carried out in the packing station are concerned primarily
specifically directed at the detection of small arthropod pests present on the
fruit surface.
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse will not
completely remove all pests from the fruit surface. While armoured scales may
be affected by the washing solution, they are unlikely to be destroyed by it. The
physical properties of the scale cover (i.e. hardness and impermeability, provide
an effective barrier against contact toxicants (Foldi, 1990)).
• Armoured scales are likely to survive storage and transportation. L. beckii may
over-winter in the egg stage (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that armoured scales will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or
disposal of fresh mangoes from India, to the endangered area: Moderate.
• Adults and crawlers are likely to survive storage and transport and be
associated with infested waste. Armoured scales may enter the environment in
several ways: adults may be discarded with fruit, first instar nymphs (crawlers)
may be discarded with waste carton and liners, or crawlers can be blown by
wind currents or carried by other vectors (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975), from
mangoes at the point of sale or after purchase by consumers. Long-range
dispersal would require movement of adults and nymphs with infested host
material (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975). Shorter-range dispersal would occur
readily through the random movement of crawlers with wind currents, or
biological or mechanical vectors.
would be generated (e.g. mango skin).
Page 52
• Because armoured scales are polyphagous and all life stages survive in the
environment for some time, they could be transferred to a susceptible host.
• Dispersal of first-instar nymphs or crawlers is accomplished mainly by active
wandering and wind (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975). Birds, insects and other
animals, including humans may act as vectors (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975).
Subsequent instars are sessile. Adult males short-lived, winged and capable of
weak flight (CAB International, 2003). They lack functional mouthparts and
cannot feed. Longevity of this stage generally is limited to a few hours
(Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975).
The likelihood that armoured scales will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mango fruit, and be distributed to the endangered area: Moderate.

outlined in the Biosecurity Australia publication Guidelines for Improt Risk Analysis,
September 2001.
The likelihood that armoured scales will establish based on a comparative assessment of
factors in the source and destination areas considered pertinent to the ability of the pest to
survive and propagate: High.
• Armoured scales are polyphagous and host plants are common in Australia (e.g.
citrus and mango), particularly in the warmer subtropical and tropical regions
of Australia.
• Existing control programs (e.g. broad spectrum pesticide applications) may be
effective to control armoured scales on some hosts, but may not be effective on
hosts where specific integrated pest management programs are used.
• Reproduction can be either sexual or parthenogenetic (without fertilisation)
(CAB International, 2003). Adult females of A. nerii lay eggs under their scale
armour. Eggs hatch as crawlers (first instar nymphs), and leave the scale
armour when conditions are suitable (CAB International, 2003).
• Armoured scales have a moderate reproductive rate (e.g. A. nerii females
average a total of around 100-150 eggs per female (CAB International, 2003),
while each L. gloverii female lays about 200 eggs during her lifespan (CAB
International, 2003)). Armoured scales have 2-6 generations per year,
depending on the species and climatic conditions (i.e. temperature (Beardsley
and Gonzalez, 1975)). For example, on citrus in Queensland, L. beckii has 5-6
Page 53
generations per year, compared to 2-4 generations per year in New South Wales
(Smith et al., 1997). The life cycle from egg to adult on citrus can take 6-8
weeks for L. beckii and L. gloverii (Smith et al., 1997).
• Adult males are short-lived, winged and capable of weak flight (CAB
International, 2003). They lack functional mouthparts and cannot feed.
Longevity of this stage generally is limited to a few hours (Beardsley and
Gonzalez, 1975).
The likelihood that armoured scales will spread based on a comparative assessment of
the geographical distribution of the pest: High.
• Once second and then subsequent generations of armoured scales are
established on commercial, susceptible household and wild host plants, they are
likely to persist indefinitely and to spread progressively over time. This spread
would be assisted by wind dispersal, vectors and by the movement of infested
plant material (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975). It is very unlikely that
armoured scales would be contained by management practices or by regulation.
• Crawlers may be moved within and between plantations by the movement of
infested plant material, vectors and wind (Beardsley and Gonzalez, 1975).
The overall likelihood that armoured scales will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh
and subsequently spread within Australia: Moderate.

Guidelines for Improt Risk Analysis, September 2001.
Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of armoured scales: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Armoured scales can cause direct harm to a wide range of host plants,
affecting fruit quality and the whole plant health. These armoured scale
species are highly polyphagous and host plants are common in Australia (e.g.
Page 54
citrus, mango). Armoured scales are estimated to have consequences that are
the regional level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ Armoured scales introduced into a new environment will compete for
at the local level.
Eradication, control B ⎯ Programs to minimise the impact of these pests on host plants are likely
etc. to be costly and include pesticide applications and crop monitoring. Existing
control programs (e.g. broad spectrum pesticide applications) may be
effective to control armoured scales on some hosts, but may not be effective
on hosts where specific integrated pest management programs are used.
Armoured scales are estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be
discernible at the national level and of minor significance at the district level.
Domestic trade B ⎯ The presence of these pests in commercial production areas is likely to
have a significant effect at the local level due to any resulting interstate trade
restrictions on a wide range of commodities. These restrictions may lead to a
loss of markets, which in turn would be likely to require industry adjustment.
International trade C ⎯ The presence of these pests in commercial production areas of a range
of export commodities (e.g. citrus, mango) may have a significant effect at
the district level due to any limitations to access to overseas markets where
these pests are absent.
these pests on susceptible crops, this is not considered to have significant

GROUP 3B – SOFT SCALES
Soft scales damage host plants by sucking nutrients from plant parts, and excreting large
amounts of sugary honeydew onto fruit and leaves (Smith et al., 1997). The main
economic damage caused by soft scales is from the downgrading of fruit quality because
of sooty mould fungus growing on the honeydew (Smith et al., 1997). Heavy infestations
can reduce tree vigour and rates of photosynthesis.
The soft scales [Hemiptera: Coccidae] examined in this pest risk analysis are:
• Ceroplastes actiniformis Green, 1896 – Soft scale
• *Coccus longulus (Douglas, 1887) – Long soft scale
*This species is a quarantine pest for the State of Western Australia due to its absence from this State.
Page 55
• Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green, 1889) – Mango shield scale.
Ceroplastes actiniformis: Ceroplastes actiniformes (Green).
Coccus longulus: Lecanium longulum Douglas, 1887; Lecanium chirimoliae Maskell,

1890; Lecanium ficus Maskell, 1897; Coccus longulum (Douglas); Coccus ficus (Maskell);
Lecanium frontale Green, 1904; Coccus frontalis (Green); Coccus elongatus (incorrect
synonymy); Lecanium (Coccus) celtium Kuwana, 1909; Coccus celtium (Kuwana);
Lecanium (Coccus) longulus (Douglas); Lecanium wistariae Brain, 1920; Coccus
(Lecanium) longulus (Douglas); Lecanium kraunhianum Lindinger, 1928; Lecanium
(Coccus) frontale (Green); Coccus frontalis (Green); Coccus celticum (Kuwana);
Parthenolecanium wistaricola Borchsenius, 1957.
Milviscutulus mangiferae: Lecanium mangiferae Green, 1889; Coccus mangiferae

(Green); Lecanium psidii Green, 1904; Saissetia psidii (Green); Lecanium wardi
Newstead, 1922; Coccus wardi (Newstead); Lecanium desolatum Green, 1922; Lecanium
ixorae Green, 1922; Protopulvinaria mangiferae (Green); Coccus ixorae (Green); Coccus
kuraruensis Takahashi, 1939; Protopulvinaria ixorae (Green); Coccus desolatum (Green);
Kilifia mangiferae (Green); Udinia psidii (Green).
Host(s):
Ceroplastes actiniformis: Alstonia scholaris (devil tree), Annona montana (mountain

soursop), Areca catechu (betel palm, betelnut), Calophyllum inophyllum (Indian laurel,
laurelwood), Calophyllum sp., Canna sp., Cocos nucifera (coconut), Ficus carica (fig),
Ficus sp. (fig), Loranthus sp., Mangifera indica (mango), Phoenix canariensis (Canary
Island date palm), Phoenix dactylifera (date palm), Psidium guajava (guava), Saccharum
officinarum (sugarcane), Santalum album (white sandalwood), Sapium sp., Triadica
sebifera (Chinese tallowtree), Washingtonia filifera (California fan palm), Vitis vinifera
(wine grape) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Coccus longulus: C. longulus is highly polyphagous, attacking plants belonging to over

130 genera placed in 54 families including Annonaceae, Araceae, Euphorbiaceae,
Leguminosae, Malvaceae and Rutaceae (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Hosts include: Acacia spp. (wattle), Annona spp. (custard apple), Arachis hypogaea
(peanut), Areca catechu (betel palm, betelnut), Artocarpus spp. (breadfruit), Averrhoa
carambola (carambola, starfruit), Bougainvillea sp., Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea), Camellia
sp., Carica papaya (papaya, pawpaw), Casuarina equisetifolia (beach she-oak), Citrus
spp., Cocos nucifera (coconut), Codiaeum variegatum (garden croton), Coffea spp.
(coffee), Colocasia esculenta (taro), Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin, squash), Delonix regia
(peacock-flower), Ficus spp. (fig), Glycine max (soybean), Grevillea robusta (silky oak),
Gossypium herbaceum (Arabian cotton), Hibiscus spp., Inocarpus fagifer (Tahiti chestnut),
Page 56
Jatropha spp., Leucaena leucocephala (horse tamarind), Litchi chinensis (lychee),

Malpighia glabra (acerola), Mangifera indica (mango), Morus alba (white mulberry),
Musa sp. (banana), Myrtus communis (true myrtle), Persea americana (avocado), Pinus
caribaea (Caribbean pine), Psidium guajava (guava), Rosa sp. (rose), Saccharum
officinarum (sugarcane), Spathiphyllum spp., Tamarindus indica (tamarind), Theobroma
cacao (cocoa), Vitis vinifera (wine grape), Wisteria sp. (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Milviscutulus mangiferae: M. mangiferae is polyphagous, attacking plants belonging to

over 65 genera placed in 40 families including Anacardiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Moraceae,
Myrtaceae and Rutaceae (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Hosts include: Ananas sp. (pineapple), Artocarpus spp. (breadfruit), Bixa orellana
(annatto), Blighia sapida (akee), Carica papaya (papaya, pawpaw), Cinnamomum spp.
(camphor, cinnamon), Citrus spp., Cocos nucifera (coconut), Codiaeum variegatum
(garden croton), Eucalyptus sp. (eucalypt, gum tree), Ficus spp. (fig), Hibiscus sp., Ixora
coccinea (jungle geranium), Malpighia glabra (acerola), Mangifera indica (mango),
Persea americana (avocado), Pometia pinnata (Pacific lychee), Psidium guajava (guava),
Psychotria sp. (wild coffee), Schefflera sp., Strelitzia sp. (bird-of-paradise), Terminalia
spp. (tropical almond), Thevetia peruviana (lucky nut), Vanilla sp. (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Plant part(s) affected: For the listed soft scales, the plant parts affected include leaves
and fruit (Smith et al., 1997; Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997; USDA, 2001).
Distribution:
Ceroplastes actiniformis: Brazil, Egypt, India (Bihar, Goa, West Bengal), Indonesia (Java,
Sumatra), Israel, Spain (Canary Islands), Sri Lanka (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Coccus longulus: C. longulus is distributed in Asia, Europe, Africa, North, Central and
South America and Oceania regions. In Asia, C. longulus is recorded from China
(Taiwan), Cyprus, Egypt, Guam, India (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu),
Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Thailand
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001). This species has also been recorded in Australia (New South
Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia), but not in Western Australia
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001). For a full distribution listing, see Ben-Dov et al. (2001).
Milviscutulus mangiferae: Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brazil, China (Hong Kong,
Taiwan), Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, India (Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West
Bengal), Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Martinique,
Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines,
Puerto Rico, Réunion, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Tanzania (Zanzibar), Thailand, Tonga, United States (Florida, Hawaii, Texas), United
States Virgin Islands, Venezuela, Vietnam, Western Samoa (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Page 57
The likelihood that soft scales will arrive in Australia with the importation of fresh
• Soft scale species are frequently reported in mango orchards in India (DPP,
2001), and they are associated with mango fruit.
• Soft scales are usually sessile (i.e. the complete life cycle of the adult male or
female takes place at the settling site of the first instar nymph or crawler (Ben-
Dov, 1997)). However, the majority of species possess functional legs in all
instars and consequently several species exhibit considerable mobility between
various organs of the host plant in the course of their annual development (Ben-
Dov, 1997).
• Most species of coccids are individually minute and inconspicuous but are
often easily discovered when congregated in masses or when covered with the
waxy matter excreted from their bodies (Srivastava, 1997).
• Soft scales are likely to be difficult to remove during fruit cleaning, sorting and
packing, especially at low population levels.
fruit surface.
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse will not
totally remove all pests from the fruit surface. While soft scales may be
affected by the washing solution, they are unlikely to be destroyed by it. This is
particularly true of those adult females or nymphs that are protected by hard,
waxy secretions. However, soft scales secrete very little wax compared to
armoured scales (Mau and Kessing, 1992).
• Soft scales are likely to survive storage and transportation.
The likelihood that soft scales will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or
• Adults and crawlers are likely to survive storage and transport and be
associated with infested waste. Soft scales may enter the environment in several
ways: adults may be discarded with fruit, first instar nymphs (crawlers) may be
discarded with waste carton and liners, crawlers can be blown by wind currents
Page 58
over considerable distances (Greathead, 1997), or crawlers and gravid females

may be transferred by birds, human clothing and in the hair of mammals, from
mangoes at the point of sale or after purchase by consumers. Long-range
dispersal would require movement of adults and nymphs with infested
vegetative material. Shorter-range dispersal would occur readily through the
random movement of crawlers with wind currents, or biological or mechanical
vectors.
• Because soft scales are polyphagous and all life stages survive in the
environment for some time, they could be transferred to a susceptible host.
• Gravid females would need to be carried onto hosts by vectors such as people
or animals (Greathead, 1997). The first-instar is the main means of dispersal, by
active crawling and passive dispersal by wind and animals.
The likelihood that soft scales will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh mango
fruit, and be distributed to the endangered area: Moderate.

September 2001.
The likelihood that soft scales will establish based on a comparative assessment of factors
• Soft scales are highly polyphagous and host plants are common in Australia
(e.g. citrus and mango), particularly in the warmer subtropical and tropical
regions of Australia.
• Existing control programs (e.g. broad spectrum pesticide applications) may be
effective to control soft scales on some hosts, but may not be effective on hosts
where specific integrated pest management programs are used.
• Soft scales have a high reproductive rate (e.g. on citrus in Israel, Ceroplastes
floridensis produced 52-1329 eggs per female in the spring generation (Podoler
et al., 1981)). Coccus longulus has 4-6 generations per year on citrus (Smith et
al., 1997).
Page 59
• Reproduction for Coccus longulus occurs through parthenogenesis (without

fertilisation) and adult females give birth to live young (Mau and Kessing,
1992).
The likelihood that soft scales will spread based on a comparative assessment of those
• Coccus longulus has 4-6 generations per year on citrus (Smith et al., 1997).
Once second and then subsequent generations of soft scales are established on
commercial, susceptible household and wild host plants, they are likely to
persist indefinitely and to spread progressively over time. This spread would be
assisted by wind dispersal, vectors and by the movement of plant material
(Greathead, 1997). It is very unlikely that soft scales would be contained by
management practices or by regulation.
• Gravid females and crawlers may be moved within and between plantations by
birds, human clothing and in the hair of mammals (Greathead, 1997). Crawlers
can be dispersed by wind currents over considerable distances (Greathead,
1997).
The overall likelihood that soft scales will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of soft scales: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Soft scales can cause direct harm to a wide range of plant hosts,
affecting fruit quality and whole plant health. Fruit quality can be reduced by
the presence of secondary sooty mould. These soft scale species are highly
polyphagous and host plants are common in Australia (e.g. citrus, mango).
Soft scales are estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be
Page 60
discernible at the national level and of minor significance at the regional

level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ Soft scales introduced into a new environment will compete for
at the local level.
control programs (e.g. broad spectrum pesticide applications) may be
effective to control soft scales on some hosts, but may not be effective on
hosts where specific integrated pest management programs are used. Soft
scales are estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be discernible
at the national level and of minor significance at the district level.
restrictions on a wide range of commodities. These restrictions may lead to a
International trade C ⎯ The presence of these pests in commercial production areas of a range
of export commodities (e.g. citrus, mango) may have a significant effect at
the district level due to any limitations to access to overseas markets where
these pests are absent.

GROUP 3C – MEALYBUGS
Mealybugs injure the host plant by sucking sap through their tubular stylets, and excreting
large amounts of sugary honeydew onto fruit and leaves. Heavy infestations may damage
plants directly, while indirect damage may result from the ability of some mealybugs to
vector plant viruses. Sooty mould fungus growth on the honeydew can render the fruit
unmarketable and reduce the photosynthetic efficiency of leaves and cause leaf drop (CAB
International, 2003). Many mealybug species pose particularly serious problems to
agriculture when introduced into new areas of the world where their natural enemies are
not present (Miller et al., 2002).
Page 61
The mealybugs [Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] examined in this pest risk analysis are:
• *Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) – Striped mealybug
• Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) – Coconut mealybug
• Planococcus ficus (Signoret) – Grapevine mealybug
• Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) – Coffee mealybug
• *Planococcus minor (Maskell) – Pacific mealybug
• Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green) – Downey snowline mealybug
• Rastrococcus invadens Williams – Mealybug
• Rastrococcus spinosus (Robinson) – Philippine mango mealybug.
Ferrisia virgata: Dactylopius segregatus Cockerell, 1893; Dactylopius virgatus Cockerell,

1893; Dactylopius virgatus farinosus Cockerell, 1893; Dactylopius virgatus humilis
Cockerell, 1893; Dactylopius ceriferus Newstead, 1894; Dactylopius talini Green, 1896;
Dactylopius dasylirii Cockerell, 1896; Dactylopius setosus Hempel, 1900; Pseudococcus
virgatus (Cockerell); Dactylopius magnolicida King, 1902; Pseudococcus magnolicida
(King); Pseudococcus virgatus farinosus (Cockerell); Pseudococcus dasylirii (Cockerell);
Pseudococcus segregatus (Cockerell); Pseudococcus virgatus humilis (Cockerell);
Dactylopius virgatus madagascariensis Newstead, 1908; Pseudococcus marchali
Vayssière, 1912; Pseudococcus virgatus madagascariensis (Newstead); Pseudococcus

bicaudatus Keuchenius, 1915; Ferrisiana virgata (Cockerell); Heliococcus malvastrus
McDaniel, 1962; Ferrisiana setosus (Hempel).
Nipaecoccus nipae: Dactylopius nipae Maskell, 1893; Dactylopius pseudonipae Cockerell,

1897; Ripersia serrata Tinsley, 1900; Pseudococcus nipae (Maskell); Dactylopius dubia
Maxwell-Lefroy, 1903 (nomen nudum); Pseudococcus pseudonipae (Cockerell); Ceroputo
nipae (Maskell); Pseudococcus magnoliae Hambleton, 1935; Ripersia nipae (Maskell);
Nipaecoccus pseudonipae (Cockerell); Trechocorys nipae (Maskell).
Planococcus ficus: Dactylopius ficus Signoret, 1875; Dactylopius vitis Signoret, 1875;
Dactylopius subterraneus Hempel, 1901; Pseudococcus ficus (Signoret); Pseudococcus
vitis (Signoret); Coccus vitis Niedielski; Pseudococcus vitis Leonardi, 1920; Pseudococcus
citrioides Ferris, 1922; Pseudococcus vitis Bodenheimer, 1924; Coccus vitis Borchsenius,
1949; Planococcus citrioides (Ferris); Planococcus vitis (Signoret); Pseudococcus
praetermissus Ezzat, 1962 (nomen nudum).
*These species are quarantine pests for the State of Western Australia due to their absence from this State.
Page 62
Planococcus lilacinus: Pseudococcus lilacinus Cockerell, 1905; Pseudococcus tayabanus

Cockerell, 1905; Dactylopius crotonis Green, 1906 (nomen nudum); Dactylopius coffeae
Newstead, 1908; Pseudococcus coffeae (Newstead); Dactylopius crotonis Green, 1911;
Pseudococcus crotonis (Green); Pseudococcus deceptor Betrem, 1937; Tylococcus

mauritiensis Mamet, 1939; Planococcus crotonis (Green); Planococcus tayabanus
(Cockerell).
Planococcus minor: Dactylopius calceolariae minor Maskell, 1897; Pseudococcus

calceolariae minor (Maskell); Planococcus pacificus Cox, 1981.
Rastrococcus iceryoides: Phenacoccus iceryoides Green, 1908; Dactylopius

(Pseudococcus) obtusus Newstead; Phenacoccus obtusus (Newstead); Ceroputo iceryoides
(Green); Rastrococcus cappariae Avasthi & Shafee; Parlatoria iceryoides (Green).
Rastrococcus invadens: None known.
Rastrococcus spinosus: Phenacoccus spinosus Robinson, 1918; Puto spinosus (Robinson);

Ceroputo spinosus (Robinson).
Host(s):
Ferrisia virgata: F. virgata is one of the most highly polyphagous mealybugs known,
attacking plant species belonging to some 160 genera in over 70 families (Ben-Dov et al.,
2001; CAB International, 2003). Many of the host species belong to the Leguminosae and
Euphorbiaceae families. Among the hosts of economic importance are: Anacardium
occidentale (cashew), Ananas comosus (pineapple), Annona cherimola (custard apple),
Brassica oleracea (cauliflower), Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea), Citrus spp., Coffea spp.
(coffee), Corchorus sp. (jute), Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm), Glycine max
(soybean), Gossypium sp. (cotton), Litchi chinensis (lychee), Lycopersicon esculentum
(tomato), Mangifera indica (mango), Manihot esculenta (cassava, tapioca), Musa ×
paradisiaca (banana), Persea americana (avocado), Piper nigrum (black pepper), Psidium
guajava (guava), Solanum melongena (aubergine, eggplant), Theobroma cacao (cocoa)
and Vitis vinifera (wine grape) (CAB International, 2003).
Nipaecoccus nipae: N. nipae has an extensive host range, attacking over 80 genera of
plants belonging to 43 families including Annonaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae and Palmae
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001). It is recorded feeding on a wide range of economically important
plants, mostly fruit crops and ornamentals, and include: Ananas comosus (pineapple),
Annona muricata (soursop), Annona reticulata (bullock’s heart), Carica papaya (papaya,
pawpaw), Citrus sp., Cocos nucifera (coconut), Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm), Ficus
spp. (fig), Mangifera indica (mango), Musa sp. (banana), Persea americana (avocado),
Psidium guajava (guava), Theobroma cacao (cocoa) (CAB International, 2003). N. nipae
seems to prefer palms, such as species of Areca, Cocos, Kentia, Kentiopsis and Sabal
Page 63
(CAB International, 2003). In temperate regions in Europe and North America, N. nipae
often attacks ornamental palms grown under glass.
Planococcus ficus: Bambusa sp. (bamboo), Cydonia oblonga (quince), Dahlia sp.,
Dichrostachys cinerea subsp. cinerea (sickle bush), Ficus benjamini (Benjamin-tree),
Ficus carica (fig), Fraxinus sp. (ash), Juglans sp. (walnut), Malus domestica (apple),
Malus pumila (paradise apple), Mangifera indica (mango), Morus sp. (mulberry), Nerium
oleander (oleander), Persea americana (avocado), Phoenix dactylifera (date palm),
Platanus orientalis (Oriental plane), Prosopis farcta, Punica granatum (pomegranate),
Salix sp. (willow), Styrax officinalis (storax), Tephrosia purpurea (purple tephrosia),
Theobroma cacao (cocoa), Vitis vinifera (wine grape), Ziziphus spina-christi (Christ’s
thorn) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CAB International, 2003).
Planococcus lilacinus: The host range of P. lilacinus is extremely wide, attacking over 65
genera of plants within 35 families including Anacardiaceae, Asteraceae, Euphorbiaceae,
Fabaceae, Leguminosae and Rutaceae (Ben-Dov et al., 2001). Comprehensive lists of
alternative host plants may be found in Williams (1982), Cox (1989) and Ben-Dov et al.
(2001). P. lilacinus attacks Theobroma cacao (cocoa), Psidium guajava (guava), Coffea
spp. (coffee), Mangifera indica (mango) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001), and other tropical and
sub-tropical fruits and shade trees (IIE, 1995b).
Planococcus minor: P. minor has a wide host range, attacking over 180 genera of plants
belonging to 64 families including Mangifera indica (mango) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Rastrococcus iceryoides: R. iceryoides is one of the most polyphagous species of

Rastrococcus, occurring on plants belonging to diverse botanical families (CAB
International, 2003). It has been recorded attacking over 60 genera of plants belonging to
32 families including Mangifera indica (mango) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CAB
Rastrococcus invadens: R. invadens attacks plant species belonging to 48 genera in 27

families including Mangifera indica (mango) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CAB International,
2003). Agounké et al. (1988) listed 45 species of host plants from 22 families attacked by
R. invadens in West Africa, while Biassangama et al. (1991) listed 23 species from Central
Africa. Since then, a total of over 100 host-plant species have been found in Africa,
particularly where populations of this insect are abundant on the primary host, mango
(CAB International, 2003).
Rastrococcus spinosus: Anacardium occidentale (cashew), Antidesma nitidum, Artocarpus

altilis (breadfruit), Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit), Calophyllum sp., Citrus sp.,
Cocos nucifera (coconut), Ficus ampelas, Garcinia mangostana (mangosteen), Hevea
brasiliensis (rubber tree), Lansium domesticum (langsat), Mangifera indica (mango),
Mangifera odorata (kuwini), Nypa fruticans (mangrove palm, nipa palm), Plumeria
Page 64
robusta, Psidium guajava (guava), Syzygium aqueum (water apple), Tabernaemontana sp.
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Plant part(s) affected: For the listed mealybug species, the plant parts affected include
leaves and fruit (Bentley et al., 2003; CAB International, 2003; Peña and Mohyuddin,
1997; Srivastava, 1997; USDA, 2001).
Distribution:
Ferrisia virgata: F. virgata has spread to all zoogeographical regions, mainly in the
tropics, but often extends well into the temperate regions (CAB International, 2003). It is
widely distributed in Africa, Asia, North, Central and South America and Oceania regions.
Early geographical records of F. virgata need to be verified due to confusion with F.
malvastra (Ben-Dov, 1994).
In Asia, F. virgata is recorded from Bangladesh, British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei
Darussalam, Cambodia, China (Guangdong, Hong Kong, Taiwan) (CAB International,
2003); India (Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Kerala, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tripura (CAB
International, 2003); Assam, Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil
Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal (Ben-Dov et al., 2001)), Indonesia, Japan, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and Yemen (CAB International, 2003). This species has
also been recorded in Australia (Northern Territory, Queensland), but not in Western
Australia (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CAB International, 2003). For a full distribution listing,
refer to Ben-Dov et al. (2001) and CAB International (2003).
Nipaecoccus nipae: N. nipae is found in Asia, Africa, Europe, North, Central and South
America and Oceania (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CIE, 1966). There is a tentative record of N.
nipae in Australia (Williams, 1985). However, Ben-Dov et al. (2001) does not list this
species as being present in Australia. In northern and central Europe, N. nipae is found in
glasshouses, particularly in botanical gardens, and does not appear to occur in the open. It
is therefore recorded as occasionally present in this region.
In Asia, N. nipae is recorded from Bangladesh, China, Georgia (CAB International, 2003);
India (Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal) (CIE, 1966), Korea, Republic of, Pakistan,
Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam (CAB International, 2003). For a full distribution listing,
refer to Ben-Dov et al. (2001) and CAB International (2003).
Planococcus ficus: Afghanistan, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Dominican

Republic, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius,
Pakistan, Portugal, Sardinia, Saudi Arabia, Sicily, South Africa, Spain (Canary Islands),
Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United States (Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas),
Uruguay (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Page 65
Planococcus lilacinus: P. lilacinus occurs mainly in the Palaearctic, Malaysian, Oriental,

Australasian and Neotropical regions and is the dominant cocoa mealybug in Sri Lanka
and Java (Entwistle, 1972). Williams (1982) reports that the species was probably
introduced into the South Pacific from Southern Asia. According to Le Pelley (1968), the
species does not occur above 1000 m.
In Asia, P. lilacinus is recorded from Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China

(Taiwan), India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu), Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar,
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Yemen (CAB International, 2003). For a
full distribution listing, refer to CAB International (2003).
Planococcus minor: American Samoa, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia (New
South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia), Bangladesh, Bermuda,
Brazil, British Indian Ocean Territory, China (Taiwan), Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador (Galapagos Islands), Fiji, French Polynesia (Austral
Islands, Society Islands), Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
India (Karnataka), Indonesia (Irian Jaya, Kalimantan, Sumatra), Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius (Rodriques Island), Mexico, Myanmar, New Caledonia,
Niue, Papua New Guinea, Philippines (Luzon), Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Singapore,
Solomon Islands, Suriname, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United States Virgin
Islands, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Western Samoa (Ben-Dov et al., 2001; CAB International,
2003).
Rastrococcus iceryoides: Williams (1989) notes that R. iceryoides is known throughout

much of southern Asia and is one of the most widespread species of Rastrococcus. It is
distributed throughout the Indian region and Malaysia and has extended its range to East
Africa, where it was probably introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century (CAB
This species is present in Bangladesh, India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra
Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal), Indonesia,
Kenya, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania (Zanzibar) (Williams, 1989); China (Hong Kong)
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001); Malawi (Luhanga and Gwinner, 1993).
Rastrococcus invadens: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, China (Hong Kong), Congo, Gabon,
Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo,
Vietnam (Ben-Dov et al., 2001); Congo Democratic Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, India
(Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal), Nigeria, Sierra Leone (CABI/EPPO, 1998).
Page 66
Rastrococcus spinosus: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China (Taiwan), India, Indonesia

(Bali, Java, Sulawesi), Laos, Pakistan, Philippines (Luzon), Singapore, Sri Lanka, Vietnam
(Ben-Dov et al., 2001); Malaysia, Thailand (Waterhouse, 1993).
NOTE: The listed mealybug species are recognised as significant pests of mangoes in
India. Due to the recognised importance of Rastrococcus iceryoides, it was used as the
basis for the risk assessment and development of proposed risk management measures for
all mealybug species identified.
The likelihood that mealybugs will arrive in Australia with the importation of fresh
• Mealybugs are known to be associated with mango fruit in India (Srivastava,
1997). Later instar nymphs and adult females of Rastrococcus iceryoides
usually feed on the tender terminal shoots, inflorescences and fruits, while first
instar nymphs feed on the underside of leaves (Rawat and Jakhmola, 1970). In
severe infestations, all the tender shoots, inflorescences and fruits of mango are
infested by different stages of the pest (Rawat and Jakhmola, 1970).
• Mealybugs have limited mobility, are small (0.5-4 mm) and often
inconspicuous, but may be present in significant populations on fruit.
• Mealybugs are likely to be present on the surface of the fruit, and are likely to
be difficult to remove during cleaning, sorting and packing especially at low
population levels.
fruit surface.
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse may not
totally remove all pests from the fruit surface. While mealybugs may be
affected by the washing solution, they are unlikely to be destroyed by it. This is
particularly true of those adult females or nymphs that are protected by waxy
cocoons or coating/covering.
• The pests are likely to survive storage and transportation as adult females of R.
iceryoides are known to hibernate during the winter in India (Rawat and
Jakhmola, 1970). Mated adult females of R. iceryoides can live for 13-23 days
and unmated females can live for up to 80 days, while adult males live for only
Page 67
1-2 days (Rawat and Jakhmola, 1970). There is a high likelihood that viable
mealybugs present on the fruit would remain viable on arrival in Australia.
The likelihood that mealybugs will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or
• The pests are likely to survive storage and transportation as adult females of R.
iceryoides are known to hibernate during the winter in India (Rawat and
Jakhmola, 1970). Mated adult females of R. iceryoides can live for 13-23 days
and unmated females can live for up to 80 days, while adult males live for only
1-2 days (Rawat and Jakhmola, 1970). There is a high likelihood that viable
mealybugs present on the fruit would remain viable on arrival in Australia.
• Adults and nymphs are likely to be associated with infested waste. Mealybugs
can enter the environment in three ways: adults can be associated with
discarded mango skin, first instar nymphs (crawlers) may be discarded with
waste carton and liners, or crawlers can be blown by wind currents (Ben-Dov,
1994) or carried by other vectors, from mangoes at the point of sale or after
purchase by consumers. Long-range dispersal would require movement of
adults and nymphs on infested plant material (CAB International, 2003).
Shorter-range dispersal would occur readily through the random movement of
crawlers with wind currents, or biological or mechanical vectors (CAB
International, 2003). Because all stages of mealybugs survive in the
environment for some time, they could be transferred to a susceptible host
because they are highly polyphagous.
• Adult female mealybugs would need to be carried onto hosts by vectors such as
people or animals. Adult males of R. iceryoides are winged but fragile and
short-lived and do not persist for more than 1-2 days (Rawat and Jakhmola,
1970). The first-instar is the main means of dispersal, by active crawling and
passive dispersal by wind and animal agencies (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that mealybugs will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh mango
fruit, and be distributed to the endangered area: Moderate.

September 2001.
Page 68
The likelihood that mealybugs will establish based on a comparative assessment of factors
• Mealybugs are highly polyphagous and host plants are common in Australia
(e.g. citrus, mango and pineapple), particularly in the warmer subtropical and
tropical regions of Australia.
• Mealybugs have a high reproductive rate. The reproductive strategy, and thus
persistence, of these pests is based largely on the longevity and fecundity of the
adult female, the mobility of the short-lived adult male and the ability of the
crawlers to disperse via crawling, vectors or wind and locate new hosts. For
example, R. iceryoides is known to reproduce sexually, and mating must occur
for viable eggs to be produced (Rawat and Jakhmola, 1970). On mango,
fecundity of R. iceryoides ranged from 450-585 eggs per female (Rawat and
Jakhmola, 1970).
• Unmated females of R. iceryoides live for up to 80 days while mated females
can live for 13-23 days (Rawat and Jakhmola, 1970). Adult males live for only
1-2 days and start copulation soon after their emergence (Rawat and Jakhmola,
1970). The first instar nymphs or ‘crawlers’ disperse by active crawling and
passive dispersal by wind and animal agencies to suitable feeding sites on new
or host plants (CAB International, 2003). Nymphs are active during the first
instar stage and can travel some distance to a new plant before their mobility
becomes limited for the remaining nymphal instars.
• Although mealybugs imported with fruit are likely to be at non-mobile stages,
they can be transported to suitable hosts by ants.
• Many mealybugs are considered invasive and have been introduced into new
areas and established (Miller et al., 2002). These mealybug species have shown
that they have the ability to establish after being introduced into new
environments. For example, P. lilacinus is native to the Afrotropical region
(Miller et al., 2002) and is now established in the Palaearctic, Malaysian,
Oriental, Australasian and Neotropical regions (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that mealybugs will spread based on a comparative assessment of those
• R. iceryoides is capable of completing 6-9 generations on mango (Rawat and
Jakhmola, 1970). Once second and then subsequent generations of mealybugs
are established on commercial, susceptible household and wild host plants,
Page 69
mealybugs are likely to persist indefinitely and to spread progressively over

time. This spread would be assisted by wind dispersal, vectors and by the
movement of plant material. It is very unlikely that mealybugs would be
contained by management practices or by regulation.
• Adults and nymphs of R. iceryoides can be moved within and between
plantations with the movement of infested plant material and animal vectors,
and crawlers can be dispersed onto other plants by wind and animals (CAB
• Insecticides do not generally provide adequate control of R. iceryoides because
of the waxy coating on the mealybug (CAB International, 2003). Heavily
infested branches may be pruned to control the pest, especially on the tender
branches before flowering begins. However, biological control using natural
enemies (i.e. predators and parasitoids) are commonly used to control R.
iceryoides in mango orchards in India (CAB International, 2003).
The overall likelihood that mealybugs will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of mealybugs: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Mealybugs can cause direct harm to a wide range of plant hosts (CAB
International, 2003). Fruit quality can be reduced by the presence of
secondary sooty mould. Mealybug are highly polyphagous and host plants
are common in Australia (e.g. citrus, mango, pineapple). Mealybugs are
Any other aspects of A ⎯ Mealybugs introduced into a new environment will compete for
at the local level.
Page 70
control programs can be effective for some hosts (e.g. broad spectrum
pesticide applications) but not all hosts (e.g. where specific integrated pest
management programs are used). Insecticides do not generally provide
adequate control of R. iceryoides owing to the waxy coating on the mealybug
(CAB International, 2003). Mealybugs are estimated to have consequences
that are unlikely to be discernible at the national level and of minor
significance at the district level.
restrictions on a wide range of commodities. These restrictions can lead to a
International trade C ⎯ The presence of these mealybugs in commercial production areas of a
wide range of commodities (e.g. citrus, mango, pineapple) could have a
significant effect at the local level due to any limitations to access to overseas
markets where these pests are absent. These pests are all associated with
citrus. Australia exports citrus fruit worth $40-60 million to the USA from
the Riverland-Sunraysia-Riverina (R-S-R) area. Extension of this area has
also been negotiated for the USA market. Consideration for export of citrus
from areas in Queensland and New South Wales to the USA market is also
underway.
Ferrisia virgata has been reported in the USA (Ben-Dov et al., 2001) and
therefore will not be likely to affect citrus trade with the USA if they became
established in Australia.
Planococcus lilacinus and Rastrococcus iceryoides, however, do not occur in
the continental USA (Miller et al., 2002) and, if it became established in the
R-S-R and other possible export areas in Australia, would complicate citrus
trade with the USA and might result in the reintroduction of fumigation for
unidentifiable mealybugs or the necessity for pest survey to verify freedom
from mealybugs in the export citrus orchards.

GROUP 3D – PLANT BUGS
Plant bugs injure a wide range of plants, from vegetables to trees. They damage the host
plant by sucking nutrients from plant parts using their stylets (Hori, 2000). This causes
injury to plant tissues, and can result in lesions at the feeding point, as well as tissue
malformations when they feed on young growing tissues (e.g. young fruits) (Hori, 2000).
During the feeding process, they may also transmit plant disease organisms, which
increases their damage potential. The plant bugs [Hemiptera: Lygaeidae, Pyrrhocoridae]
examined in this pest risk analysis are:
Page 71
• Dysdercus koenigii (Fabricius) – Red cotton bug

• Spilostethus pandurus (Scopoli) – Indian milkweed bug.
Dysdercus koenigii: Cimex koenigii.
Spilostethus pandurus: Cimex pandurus Scopoli, 1763; Lygaeus pandurus (Scopoli);

Lygaeus civilis; Spilostethus civilis; Spilostethus macilentus (Stål, 1874).
Host(s):
Dysdercus koenigii: Abelmoschus esculentus (okra), Alcea rosea (hollyhock), Gossypium

sp. (cotton), Hibiscus syriacus (rose-of-Sharon) (CAB International, 2003); Mangifera
indica (mango) (DPP, 2001).
Spilostethus pandurus: S. pandurus is highly polyphagous and is reported from 15 to 16

plant families (Sweet, 2000). Hosts include: Abelmoschus esculentus (okra), Arachis
hypogaea (peanut), Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea), Calotropis procera (Sodom’s milkweed),
Cicer arietinum (chickpea), Citrus sp., Corylus avellana (European hazel), Eleusine
coracana (finger millet), Gossypium spp. (cotton), Hibiscus sabdariffa (roselle), Ipomoea
batatas (sweet potato), Litchi chinensis (lychee), Luffa acutangula (angled luffa),
Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato), Mangifera indica (mango), Medicago sativa (alfalfa,
lucerne), Nicotiana spp. (tobacco), Pennisetum glaucum (pearl millet), Pistacia vera
(pistachio), Prunus armeniaca (apricot), Prunus persica (peach), Psidium guajava (guava),
Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane), Sapindus mukorossi (Chinese soapberry), Sesamum
indicum (sesame), Solanum melongena (aubergine, eggplant), Sorghum bicolor (sorghum),
Stachys affinis (Chinese artichoke), Syzygium cumini (jambolan), Vicia faba (broad bean),
Vigna mungo (black gram), Vitis vinifera (wine grape) (Sweet, 2000); Nerium oleander
(oleander) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit, inflorescence, leaf, stem (DPP, 2001).
Distribution:
Dysdercus koenigii: India (Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh), Pakistan (CAB

Spilostethus pandurus: Cyprus, France, India (Delhi, Rajasthan), Iran, Israel, Italy,
Lebanon, Morocco (CAB International, 2003); Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Ethiopia,
Somalia, Sudan (Gentry, 1965)
Page 72
The likelihood that plant bugs will arrive in Australia with the importation of fresh
mangoes from India: Very low.
• Both species are known to be associated with mango fruit in India (DPP, 2001).
However, Dysdercus koenigii is regarded as an important and damaging pest of
cotton rather than mango (Schaefer and Ahmad, 2000), while Spilostethus
pandurus feeds preferentially on members of the Asclepiadaceae such as
Calotropis (Sweet, 2000). S. pandurus sucks sap from the flower, fruits, the
epidermis of tender branches, shoot and leaves of broad bean and jamon
branches (Bhattacherjee, 1959), and had a devastating effect on the number of
fruit developing.
• D. koenigii lays eggs in soil litter (Kamble, 1971) or eggs are scattered on the
substrate (Ahmad and Mohammad, 1983), while females of S. pandurus lay
eggs in one or more clusters underneath fallen leaves or flowers (Sweet, 2000).
• Adults of D. koenigii are 11-15.5 mm in length; adults of S. pandurus are 12
mm. Both are large and easily visible.
• The adults fly away from fruit when disturbed.
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse would
remove all pests from the fruit surface.
The likelihood that plant bugs will be distributed as a result of the processing, sale or
• Adults and nymphs are likely to be associated with infested waste. Plant bugs
are likely to enter the environment in two ways: nymphs may be discarded with
mango skin, mature into adults and fly to a suitable host plant, or adults can fly
directly to suitable hosts.
The likelihood that plant bugs will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh mango
fruit, and be distributed to the endangered area: Very low.

September 2001.
Page 73
The likelihood that plant bugs will establish based on a comparative assessment of factors
and propagate: Moderate.
• Plant bugs can infest a moderate range of plants that include citrus, cotton,
lychee, mango, peach and sugarcane (DPP, 2001; Sweet, 2000). Plant bugs are
likely to survive and find suitable hosts, especially in the warmer subtropical
and tropical regions of Australia.
• Bhattacherjee (1959) reported that 50 to 60 eggs are laid per S. pandurus
female, with as many as 90 laid in one or more clusters underneath fallen leaves
or flowers. Thangavelu (1979) recorded 45 to 90 eggs with an exceptional case
of 130. Higher oviposition levels of 75-232 with an average of 150 has been
reported when S. pandurus is fed on Calotropis seeds (Mukhopadhyay, 1983).
• At temperature lower than 60°F there was no copulation or oviposition by S.
pandurus (Thangavelu, 1979).
• Average longevity of S. pandurus adults in captivity was 24-32 days in the
summer and 24-48 days in the winter (Bhattacherjee, 1959). Kugelberg (1973)
found the adults to live for about 3 months and some individuals survived for 7
months. These differences may be attributed to different geographic
populations or ecotypes.
• In southern India under warmer conditions, there are 6-7 overlapping
generations for S. pandurus (Thangavelu, 1979).
The likelihood that plant bugs will spread based on a comparative assessment of those
geographical distribution of the pest: Moderate.
• S. pandurus is capable of completing 6-7 overlapping generations in the
warmer conditions found in southern India (Thangavelu, 1979). Once second
and then subsequent generations of plant bugs are established on commercial,
susceptible household and wild host plants, plant bugs are likely to persist
indefinitely and to spread progressively over time. This spread would be
assisted by the movement of plant material and adult flight. It is very unlikely
that plant bugs would be contained by management practices or by regulation.
• Eggs and instars of D. koenigii are probably the most chemical-sensitive stages,
against which the least amount of pesticides might be used (Schaefer and
Ahmad, 2000). Several natural plant products have been tested for sterilising or
growth-inhibiting effects, but their potential is still being investigated. There
Page 74
are only a few reports of biological control, such as a spider, reduviid bug and
predaceous pyrrhocorid Antilochus coquebertii, preying on D. koenigii, a
helminth occasionally parasitising females, and a mite Hemipteroseius indicus
reducing populations of this red cotton bug (Schaefer and Ahmad, 2000).
• Bhattacherjee (1959) recommends the removal and destruction of reservoir
plant species, like Calotropis (milkweed) and Vernonia, and the use of long-
lasting contact insecticide to protect the crop plant from S. pandurus.
Insecticides such as methyl-parathion, methyl-demeton, phosphamidon,
dimethoate, malathion, carbaryl, endosulfan, chlordane, BHS, endrin and
toxaphene are effective against S. pandurus (Sweet, 2000).
The overall likelihood that plant bugs will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh
and subsequently spread within Australia: Very low.

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of plant bugs: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Plant bugs can cause direct harm to a moderate range of plant hosts. D.
koenigii can damage cotton by introducing fungi (Schaefer and Ahmad,
2000). Plant bugs are estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be
level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ Plant bugs introduced into a new environment will compete for
at the local level.
Eradication, control C ⎯ Programs to minimise the impact of these pests on host plants are likely
etc. to be costly and include pesticide applications and crop monitoring. A variety
of insecticides are effective against S. pandurus. However, the potential of
natural plant products in sterilising or inhibiting the growth of D. koenigii is
still being investigated. There are only a few reports of biological control of
D. koenigii. Plant bugs are estimated to have consequences that are unlikely
to be discernible at the national level and of minor significance at the district
level.
Page 75
restrictions on a wide range of commodities. These restrictions can lead to a
International trade C ⎯ The presence of these pests in commercial production areas of a wide
range of commodities (e.g. cotton, mango) is likely to have a significant
effect at the regional level due to any limitations to access to overseas
markets where these pests are absent.

September 2001. Negligible.
GROUP 4A – RED-BANDED MANGO CATERPILLAR
The red-banded mango caterpillar (RBMC) is recorded as a pest of mango fruit in India. It
has been described as a major pest in the Orissa region (Butani, 1979) and has previously
caused considerable damage to mango fruit in the Andhra Pradesh region (Zaheruddeen
and Sujatha, 1993). Larvae bore into both young and more mature fruits and feed on the
fruit pulp; later instar larvae feed on the seed (CAB International, 2003). The caterpillar
[Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] examined in this pest risk analysis is:
• Deanolis sublimbalis Snellen – Red-banded mango caterpillar.
Synonyms and changes in combination: Noorda albizonalis Hampson, 1903;

Deanolis albizonalis (Hampson); Autocharis albizonalis (Hampson).
Host(s): Cyperus rotundus (nut grass, purple nut sedge), Mangifera indica (mango),
Mangifera odorata (kuwini) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit (Srivastava, 1997; Zaheruddeen and Sujatha, 1993); seed
Distribution: D. sublimbalis is restricted to Asia and has been recorded in Brunei

Darussalam, India (Andhra Pradesh, Orissa), Indonesia (Java), Philippines and Thailand
Page 76
The likelihood that Deanolis sublimbalis will arrive in Australia with the importation of
fresh mango fruit from India: Moderate.
• D. sublimbalis is known to be associated with the mango fruit pathway (CAB
International, 2003). Eggs are laid in masses on the fruit apex and hatch in 3-4
days (Golez, 1991). Young larvae attack tender fruit at an early stage and start
boring at the distal end of the fruit (Srivastava, 1997). Larvae bore into both
young and more mature fruits and produce a small dot at the point of entry
(CAB International, 2003). The affected part heals up and a ring like a pale
brown patch is formed (CAB International, 2003; Srivastava, 1997). Larvae
begin by feeding on the fruit pulp and form a network of tunnels; later instar
larvae feed on the seed (CAB International, 2003). Up to eleven larvae have
been found in a single fruit (CAB International, 2003).
• An external sign of infestation is the presence of a liquid exudate from the
mouth of a tunnel chewed by the caterpillar through the skin (QDPIF, 2004).
The exudate trickles down to the tip of the fruit and accumulates. Although
almost clear when fresh, the liquid quickly darkens and shows up as a dark
streak on the skin leading to a dark spot, often about 1 cm in diameter, at the
fruit tip (QDPIF, 2004). Early signs of infestation may not be as easily seen and
could include small darkened boreholes on the fruit caused by entering larvae
(QDPIF, 2004).
• Damaged fruits may be secondarily attacked by fruit flies and various decaying
microorganisms. They fall from the tree prematurely even if apparently ripe
(Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997).
• Infested fruit can be detected by the presence of a dark brown ring and
caterpillar frass at the entry point (CAB International, 2003).
specifically directed at the detection of internal pests that may be feeding under
the surface of the fruit.
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse would not
remove the larvae from under the fruit surface.
• It is likely that RBMC larvae would survive storage and transportation due to
the availability of an ample food supply. Larvae take about two weeks to fully
develop and mature larvae pupate inside the fruit (CAB International, 2003).
Page 77
The likelihood that Deanolis sublimbalis will be distributed to the endangered area as a
result of the processing, sale or disposal of mango fruit from India: High.
• Although damaged fruit are likely to be detected and removed from
consignments due to quality concerns, RBMC larvae have the capacity to
complete their development in discarded fruit and transfer to suitable hosts.
• Larvae take about 14-20 days to complete their development (Peña and
Mohyuddin, 1997). Mature larvae can pupate inside the stored fruit, at the point
of sale or after purchase by consumers.
environment in two ways: larvae may be discarded with mango fruit, or adults
may fly directly to a suitable host plant.
The likelihood that Deanolis sublimbalis will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mango fruit from India, and be distributed to the endangered area: Moderate.

September 2001.
The likelihood that Deanolis sublimbalis will establish based on a comparative assessment
to survive and propagate: High.
• The host range of RBMC is limited and is only known to include Cyperus
rotundus, Mangifera indica and M. odorata (CAB International, 2003).
However, host plants such as mango (Mangifera indica) are present throughout
tropical and subtropical regions of Australia.
• Since 1990, RBMC has been detected on several Torres Strait Islands. RBMC
is now known to occur at several locations near the northern tip of Cape York
Peninsula, Queensland, after its detection in 2001 (QDPIF, 2004). A control
program and surveys are currently in place to eradicate RBMC from Cape York
Peninsula.
Page 78
• Conducive conditions for the establishment of RBMC may occur in some

mango production areas in Australia during the growing season.
• Infested fruit is likely to be discarded, therefore the pest may survive and might
find a suitable host nearby, especially in the warmer subtropical and tropical
regions of Australia where suitable hosts are grown.
• Adults can survive for 8-9 days (Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997). The life cycle is
completed in 28-41 days (Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997).
• In the absence of mango fruits, adults fail to reproduce in other parts of mango
or in other fruit species (Peña and Mohyuddin, 1997).
The likelihood that Deanolis sublimbalis will spread based on a comparative assessment of
the geographical distribution of the pest: High.
• Tropical or subtropical areas of Australia would be suitable for the spread of
RBMC because they are recorded from these environments.
• Adult moths are able to fly so are likely to spread to other host plants.
• No successful control methods have been recorded for this species (CAB
International, 2003). However, Golez (1991) reported that cyfluthrin and
deltamethrin were effective in controlling RBMC. Two species of egg
parasitoids (Trichogramma chilonis and T. chilotraeae) and one larval predator
species (Rhychium attrisimum) have been observed attacking immature stages
of RBMC in the Philippines (Golez, 1991).
The overall likelihood that Deanolis sublimbalis will enter Australia as a result of trade in
fresh mango fruit from India, be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish in
that area and subsequently spread within Australia: Moderate.

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of red-banded mango caterpillar: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Page 79
Plant life or health C ⎯ Deanolis sublimbalis can cause direct harm to mangoes at the district
level. In tropical parts of Asia, it causes commercial losses in the order of 10-
15% (QDPIF, 2004). RBMC is estimated to have consequences that are
the regional level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ There are no known consequences of this pest on other aspects of the
the environment environment.
Eradication, control C ⎯ A control program would need to be implemented in infested orchards
etc. to reduce fruit damage and yield losses, thereby increasing production costs.
A quarantine area has been established on Cape York Peninsula and Torres
Strait north of 13°45’S latitude by the Queensland Department of Primary
Industry to restrict the spread of RBMC (QDPIF, 2004). The Coen
Information and Inspection Centre is enforcing controls on mango fruit and
plant movements (QDPIF, 2004). Control of RBMC is difficult and has not
been successfully eradicated anywhere in the world (QDPIF, 2004). RBMC
is estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be discernible at the
Domestic trade C ⎯ The presence of this pest in commercial production areas is likely to
restriction on a wide range of commodities.
International trade C ⎯ The presence of this pest in commercial mango production areas is
likely to have a significant effect at the local level due to any limitations to
access to overseas markets where this pest is absent. RBMC is estimated to
have consequences that are unlikely to be discernible at the national level and
of minor significance at the regional level.
RBMC on susceptible crops, this is not considered to have significant

GROUP 4B – HONEYDEW MOTH
The honeydew moth is polyphagous and is often encountered on commercial crops such as
avocado, sorghum, maize, rice and mangoes (CAB International, 2003). It is an important
pest of citrus, grapes, loquats and pomegranates in the Mediterranean area (Balachowsky,
1972). The moth [Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] examined in this pest risk analysis is:
• Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) – Honeydew moth.
Synonyms and changes in combination: Ephestia gnidiella Millière, 1867; Albinia

casazzar Briosi; Albinia wockiana Briosi; Albinia gnidiella (Millière); Cryptoblabes
aliena Swezey; Cryptoblabes wockeana (Briosi).
Page 80
Host(s): Cryptoblabes gnidiella is polyphagous and able to use almost any plant, but it is
most often encountered on commercial crops (CAB International, 2003).
Hosts include: Allium sativum (garlic) (Swailem and Ismail, 1972); Annona muricata
(soursop) (CAB International, 2003); Azolla anabaena (azolla) (Sasmal and Kelshreshtha,
1978); Azolla pinnata (ferny azolla) (Takara, 1981); Citrus limon (lemon) (Sternlicht,
1979); Citrus sinensis (sweet orange) (Silva and Mexia, 1999); Coffea sp. (coffee) (CAB
International, 2003); Eleusine corana (ragi) (Singh and Singh, 1997); Eriobotrya japonica
(loquat) (Ascher et al., 1983); Ficus sp. (fig) (CAB International, 2003); Gossypium
hirsutum (cotton) (Swailem and Ismail, 1972); Macadamia ternifolia (smooth shell
macadamia nut) (Wysoki, 1986); Malus domestica (apple) (Carter, 1984); Mangifera
indica (mango) (CAB International, 2003); Mespilus sp. (medlar) (CAB International,
2003); Morus alba (mulberry) (CAB International, 2003); Musa sp. (banana) (Jager and
Daneel, 1999); Myrica faya (fayatree, firetree) (Duffy and Gardner, 1994); Oryza sativa
(rice) (Sasmal and Kulshreshtha, 1984); Osmanthus sp. (CAB International, 2003);
Panicum miliacem (millet panic) (Singh and Singh, 1997); Paspalum dilatatum (paspalum)
(Yehuda et al., 1991-1992); Pennisetum glaucum (pearl millet) (Kishore, 1991);
Pennisetum typhoideus (pearl millet) (Singh and Singh, 1997); Persea americana
(avocado) (Ascher et al., 1983); Phaseolus sp. (bean), Philodendron sp. (CAB
International, 2003); Prunus domestica (plum, prune), Prunus persica (peach), Punica
granatum (pomegranate) (Carter, 1984); Ricinus communis (castor bean), Saccharum
officinarum (sugarcane), Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper tree) (CAB
International, 2003); Solanum melongena (eggplant) (Swailem and Ismail, 1972); Sorghum
vulgare (sorghum) (Singh and Singh, 1995); Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) (Akanbi,
1973); Tarchardia lacca (Yunus and Ho, 1980); Vaccinium sp. (blueberry) (Molina,
1998); Vitis vinifera (grapevine) (Hashem et al., 1997); Zea mays (maize) (Swailem and
Ismail, 1972).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit, leaf, stem (CAB International, 2003).
Distribution: C. gnidiella is a cosmopolitan species in warm climates, unable to survive

winters in cooler temperate areas into which it may be imported with produce (CAB
International, 2003). Records from the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries (Denmark,
Finland, Norway and Sweden) and the United Kingdom are from interceptions on
imported material (Karsholt, 1996). In Asia, C. gnidiella is recorded in India (Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh), Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Thailand and Turkey (CAB
Page 81
The likelihood that Cryptoblabes gnidiella will arrive in Australia with the importation of
• C. gnidiella lays up to 100 eggs on fruit or foliage and these hatch in 4-7 days
(Carter, 1984). On citrus, larvae mainly attack the fruit, but also feed on the
foliage, bark and twigs (Liotta and Mineo, 1964). Larvae are often found in
association with infestations of other pests (e.g. on citrus with the mealybug
Planococcus citri (Carter, 1984)). This moth is attracted to honeydew excreted
by mealybugs (Swirski et al., 1980).
• Routine washing procedures undertaken within the packinghouse may remove
eggs and larvae from the fruit surface.
• However, this pest is likely to survive storage and transportation. C. gnidiella is
known to overwinter in Israeli avocado orchards on fresh or dry fruits
remaining on the trees or on leaves infested with Protopulvinaria pyriformis,
on the weed Paspalum dilatatum and on various other plants (Yehuda et al.,
1991-1992). Overwintering moths emerge during March and April and produce
a first generation that does not cause any damage to the crop. The fifth
generation, flying in October to November, establishes the overwintering
population (Yehuda et al., 1991-1992). On sorghum in India, this pest was
active from the end of March to November and overwintered in the pupal stage
with the onset of cold weather (Singh and Singh, 1995).
The likelihood that Cryptoblabes gnidiella will be distributed to the endangered area as a
result of the processing, sale or disposal of mango fruit from India: Moderate.
The likelihood that Cryptoblabes gnidiella will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in
fresh mango fruit from India, and be distributed to the endangered area: Low.
Page 82

September 2001.
The likelihood that Cryptoblabes gnidiella will establish based on a comparative

assessment of factors in the source and destination areas considered pertinent to the ability
of the pest to survive and propagate: High.
• C. gnidiella is polyphagous and host plants are common in Australia (e.g. citrus
and mango), particularly in the warmer subtropical and tropical regions of
Australia.
• C. gnidiella has a moderate reproductive rate. Under laboratory conditions, the
average fecundity is 105 eggs per female (Wysoki et al., 1993). Pre-oviposition
period lasts a full day after mating and then most of the eggs are laid during the
first night (Wysoki et al., 1993).
• Under laboratory conditions, both sexes mate only once a night (Wysoki et al.,
1993). Most females mate only once in their lifetime, a few mated 2-4 times,
whereas males mated up to 6 times. Insects that lived longer also mated more
times. A delay in mating results in egg fertility dropping from 91% to 73%
(Wysoki et al., 1993).
• On sorghum, the period from egg to adult is 27.63 days (Singh and Singh,
1995). Adults of both sexes are short-lived. Female longevity was 3.94 days
compared to 2.55 days for males (Singh and Singh, 1995). This species has 3-4
generations a year in southern Europe and up to 5 in North Africa (Carter,
1984). Singh and Singh (1995) reported 9 generations per year on sorghum in
India.
The likelihood that Cryptoblabes gnidiella will spread based on a comparative assessment
of those factors in the area of origin and in Australia considered pertinent to the expansion
of the geographical distribution of the pest: High.
• C. gnidiella has 3-4 generations a year in southern Europe and up to 5 in North
Africa (Carter, 1984). Singh and Singh (1995) reported 9 generations per year
on sorghum in India. Once second and then subsequent generations of C.
gnidiella are established on commercial, susceptible household and wild host
plants, they are likely to persist indefinitely and to spread progressively over
time. It is very unlikely that C. gnidiella would be contained by management
practices or by regulation.
Page 83
• Adult moths are able to fly so are likely to spread to other host plants.
• C. gnidiella larvae are highly susceptible to Bacillus thuringiensis, especially
the first and second instars (CAB International, 2003).
• Studies have been conducted on the use of natural enemies and parasitoids,
chemicals (insecticides and synthetic pyrethroids) and pheromones to control
this pest in orchards and crops (CAB International, 2003).
The overall likelihood that Cryptoblabes gnidiella will enter Australia as a result of trade
in fresh mango fruit from India, be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish
in that area and subsequently spread within Australia: Low.

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of honeydew moth: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Cryptoblabes gnidiella is polyphagous and host plants are common in
Australia (e.g. citrus, mango). This species is estimated to have consequences
that are unlikely to be discernible at the national level and of minor
significance at the regional level.
Eradication, control B ⎯ Programs to minimise the impact of this pest on host plants are likely to
etc. be costly and include pesticide applications and crop monitoring. A control
program would have to be implemented in infested orchards to reduce fruit
damage and yield losses, thereby increasing production costs. C. gnidiella is
national level and of minor significance at the district level.
Domestic trade B ⎯ The presence of this pest in commercial production areas is likely to
restriction on a wide range of commodities. These restrictions may lead to a
International trade B ⎯ The presence of this pest in commercial mango production areas is
access to overseas markets where this pest is absent.
Environment B ⎯ Although additional pesticide applications would be required to control
the honeydew moth on susceptible crops, this is not considered to have
Page 84
significant consequences for the environment.

September 2001. Very low.
GROUP 4C – POMEGRANATE FRUIT BORER
Pomegranate fruit borer larvae bore inside the fruit and feed internally (Srivastava, 1997).
The fruit borer [Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae] examined in this pest risk analysis is:
• Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius, 1793) – Pomegranate fruit borer.
Synonyms and changes in combination: Virachola isocrates (Fabricius).
Host(s): Eriobotrya japonica (loquat), Litchi chinensis (lychee), Malus domestica

(apple), Mangifera indica (mango), Manilkara zapota (sapota), Phyllanthus emblica
(aonla, emblic), Prunus domestica (plum), Psidium guajava (guava), Pyrus communis
(pear), Ziziphus jujuba (ber) (Srivastava, 1997).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit, stem (Srivastava, 1997).
Distribution: India (DPP, 2001; Srivastava, 1997).
The likelihood that Deudorix isocrates will arrive in Australia with the importation of
• D. isocrates lays a single egg on various parts of the shoots and the larva which
hatches out within 7-10 days bores inside the fruit (Srivastava, 1997).
• Infestation by this pest may result in rotting of fruit or premature fruit drop so
infested fruit are unlikely to be packed for export.
• Infested fruit can be detected by the presence of grassy material near the hole
(Srivastava, 1997).
• The presence of the larva on fruit can be easily discerned as the stout-bodied,
long larva is dark brown in colour (Srivastava, 1997).
• Although the signs of insect infestation on fruits can be detected, it is likely that
recently infested fruit would be exported as the larva can remain inside the
Page 85
fruit.
• The larvae of the borer in the shipment must survive for at least 15-16 days
before emerging from fruit to pupate upon arrival.
The likelihood that Deudorix isocrates will be distributed to the endangered area as a
result of the processing, sale or disposal of mango fruit from India: Moderate.
The likelihood that Deudorix isocrates will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mango fruit from India, and be distributed to the endangered area: Low.

September 2001.
The likelihood that Deudorix isocrates will establish based on a comparative assessment of
survive and propagate: High.
• D. isocrates is a polyphagous pest and infests fruit of apple, ber, litchi, guava,
loquat, mango, pear, plum, aonla and sapota.
• Adult longevity for males and females is 6.1 and 11.2 days respectively.
• In laboratory studies, the fecundity of females was 31.9±2.21 and 27.3±2.53 in
the first and second generations, respectively on aonla (Singh and Singh, 2001).
• On aonla, the longevity of males and females was 7.8±1.6 and 11.9±1.3 days,
respectively, in the first generation while in the second generation it was
6.8±0.98 and 11.3±0.40 days, respectively (Singh and Singh, 2001).
• Surviving female borers must then be successful in locating suitable mating
partners and fruiting hosts to lay eggs. The total life cycle is completed in 50
days.
Page 86
• Deudorix species (e.g. D. epijarbas) is already established in tropical and

subtropical parts of eastern Australia.
The likelihood that Deudorix isocrates will spread based on a comparative assessment of
spread of D. isocrates because other Deudorix species are recorded from these
environments.
• The adult moths are able to fly so are likely to spread to other host plants.
• This pest can be controlled by using biological control (i.e. hymenopteran
wasps as larval parasitoids) and chemical sprays such as phosphamidon,
phenthoate, fenthion, methamidophos and endosulfan (Srivastava, 1997).
The overall likelihood that Deudorix isocrates will enter Australia as a result of trade in
that area and subsequently spread within Australia: Low.

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of fruit borer: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Deudorix isocrates can cause direct harm to a wide range of plant
species and is estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be
level.
D. isocrates is estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be
Page 87
this fruit borer on susceptible crops, this is unlikely to affect the
environment.

GROUP 4D – COCOA TUSSOCK MOTH
The larvae of cocoa tussock moth cause serious damage to the young leaves of cacao in the
Philippines, both in nurseries and plantations. When very numerous they can cause total
defoliation, killing or stunting the tree (Sanchez and Laigo, 1968). The larvae also attack
fruits, especially mango, rendering them unsuitable for sale (Fasih et al., 1989). The
tussock moth [Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae] examined in this pest risk analysis is:
• Orgyia postica (Walker, 1855) – Cocoa tussock moth.
Synonyms and changes in combination: Lacida postica (Walker); Notolophus

australis posticus (Walker); Notolophus postica (Walker); Notolophus posticus (Walker);
Orgyia australis postica (Walker); Orgyia ceylanica Nietner, 1862; Orgyia ocularis
Moore; Orgyia posticus (Walker).
Host(s): Amherstia nobilis, Camellia sinensis (tea), Cinchona sp., Cinnamomum sp.
(camphor, cinnamon), Coffea sp. (coffee), Dimocarpus longan (longan), Durio zibethinus
(durian), Erythrina spp. (coral tree), Garcinia mangostana (mangosteen), Glycine max
(soybean), Hevea brasiliensis (rubber), Lablab purpureus (hyacinth bean), Leucaena
leucocephala (horse tamarind), Litchi chinensis (lychee), Malpighia punicifolia (Barbados
cherry tree), Mangifera indica (mango), Nephelium lappaceum (rambutan), Populus
deltoides (black poplar), Pyrus communis (pear), Ricinus communis (castor bean), Rosa sp.
(rose), Syzygium cumini (jambolan), Tamarix plumosus, Theobroma cacao (cocoa), Vigna
radiata (mung bean), Vitis vinifera (wine grape), Ziziphus jujuba (jujube), Orchidaceae
(orchid) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit, leaf, panicle, shoot (Fasih et al., 1989); stalk (Gupta &
Singh, 1986).
Page 88
Distribution: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos,

Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam (CAB
The likelihood that Orgyia postica will arrive in Australia with the importation of fresh
mango fruit from India: Moderate.
• Diapausing egg masses on female cocoons can be found amongst stored fruit
• Larvae of O. postica cause large scale defoliation of mango trees and in some
cases the fruits are also attacked and rendered unmarketable, so infested fruit
are unlikely to be packed for export.
• Larvae feed on stalks, skin and pulp of fruits and on new flushes of leaves
(Gupta and Singh, 1986). Damage to fruits is more severe in comparison to
leaves as larvae prefer to feed on the fruits (Gupta and Singh, 1986). Gupta and
Singh (1986) reported that up to 30% of trees in the Behat area of the
Saharanpur district were infested in late June to early July. The fruits, on their
stalk being damaged, drop from the tree prematurely and those left on the tree
with damaged skin and pulp lose their market value (Gupta and Singh, 1986).
• Larvae in the shipment must survive for at least 15-28 days to fully grow and
pupate in a cocoon on either leaves or stems.
The likelihood that Orgyia postica will be distributed to the endangered area as a result of
the processing, sale or disposal of mango fruit from India: Moderate.
• If eggs and larvae were to survive storage and transport, they may enter the
environment through discarded mango fruit.
The likelihood that Orgyia postica will arrive in Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mango fruit from India, and be distributed to the endangered area: Low.
Page 89

September 2001.
The likelihood that Orgyia postica will establish based on a comparative assessment of
survive and propagate: Moderate.
• O. postica is a polyphagous pest and infests a wide range of crops (Fasih et al.,
1989). Larvae prefer to feed on fruit .
• Females are flightless and cling to the exterior of their cocoons and call males
to them (Sanchez and Laigo, 1968). Oviposition is generally on the cocoon,
with up to 60% of eggs producing larvae (Sanchez and Laigo, 1968).
• Eggs hatch after about 5-6 days, and the resulting male larvae take 15-26 days
to become fully grown; the larger, female larvae take 15-28 days (Sanchez and
Laigo, 1968). The female and male pupal stages last 4-5 and 6-7 days,
respectively (Sanchez and Laigo, 1968).
The likelihood that Orgyia postica will spread based on a comparative assessment of those
geographical distribution of the pest: Moderate.
spread of O. postica because it is recorded from these environments.
• Female moths are flightless, but males are diurnal and able to fly, so are likely
to spread to other host plants.
• Nuclear polyhedrosis virus in the Philippines has been recorded to cause larval
mortality. Few parasitoids and pathogens are recorded as natural enemies of O.
postica (CAB International, 2003).
The overall likelihood that Orgyia postica will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mango fruit from India, be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish in that
area and subsequently spread within Australia: Low.

Page 90

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of cocoa tussock moth: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Orgyia postica can cause direct harm to a wide range of plant species
and is estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be discernible at
the national level and of minor significance at the regional level.
O. postica is estimated to have consequences that are unlikely to be
cocoa tussock moth on susceptible crops, this is unlikely to affect the
environment.

FUNGI
GROUP 5 – MANGO SCAB
Mango scab causes little economic damage if it is effectively controlled with chemicals.
Without chemical control, losses as high as 90% have been observed in one mango orchard
during an investigation in 1996-97 in Darwin, Australia (B.D. Condé, NT Department of
Page 91
Primary Industry and Fisheries, Darwin, Australia, unpublished data) (CAB International,
2003). The mango scab [Dothideales: Elsinoaceae] examined in this pest risk analysis is:
*Elsinoë mangiferae Bitancourt & Jenkins.
Synonyms and change in combination: Sphaceloma mangiferae [anamorph]

Bitancourt & Jenkins.
Host(s): Mangifera indica (mango) (CAB International, 2003).
Plant part(s) affected: Fruit/pod, inflorescence, leaf, growing points (CAB

Distribution: Australia (Northern Territory, Queensland), Brazil, Canada, China

(Taiwan), Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Nepal, Panama,
Philippines, Puerto Rico, United States (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that Elsinoë mangiferae will arrive in Australia with the importation of
fresh mango fruit from India: Low.
• The conidia of Elsinoë can only infect young tissue of the leaves, stem, flower,
fruit stalk and young fruit. Fruit is no longer susceptible after it reaches about
half size. Heavily affected fruits fall off the tree (CAB International, 2003).
• Lesions on the fruit of the cultivar Kensington Pride, which remain on the tree,
develop into light-brown scabs or scar tissue, either as small scabs or large,
irregular scar tissue when the lesions coalesce.
• The disease is controlled mostly through fungicide use.
• Due to the visible symptoms of the disease on the mature fruit which remain on
the tree, most infected fruit will be discarded during sorting although some fruit
with minor symptoms may not be observed and be exported.
The likelihood that Elsinoë mangiferae will be distributed as a result of the processing,
sale or disposal of mango fruit from India, to the endangered area: Moderate.
*This species is a quarantine pest for the State of Western Australia due to its absence from this State.
Page 92
• The pathogen is likely to survive storage and transportation but may progress to
visible lesions ranging from small black spots to small or large scarred areas
before distribution (CAB International, 2003).
The likelihood that Elsinoë mangiferae will enter Australia as a result of trade in fresh
mango fruit from India, and be distributed in a viable state to the endangered area: Low.

September 2001.
The likelihood that Elsinoë mangiferae will establish based on a comparative assessment
to survive and propagate: Moderate.
• The host range of E. mangiferae is limited to mango.
• Conducive conditions for the establishment of E. mangiferae may occur in
some production areas in Australia during the growing season. E. mangiferae
was recorded in Australia (in Northern Territory and Queensland). Active
lesions, characterised by pale brown growth of the conidiophores and conidia,
have only been found during wet weather (CAB International, 2003).
• Mango imports would generally be counter-seasonal to Australian mango
production.
• The skin of infected fruit is likely to be thrown into backyard compost heaps,
therefore the pathogen may survive and might find mango host nearby,
especially in the warmer subtropical and tropical regions of Australia where
mangoes are grown.
The likelihood that Elsinoë mangiferae will spread based on a comparative assessment of
spread of E. mangiferae if mango hosts were available.
• The pathogen requires rain splash and periods of free water to produce conidia
and for the germination of these conidia to produce new infections.
Page 93
• Under extremely wet and gusty conditions, but in a sheltered situation, the
disease was observed to spread 4.25 m (CAB International, 2003).
• Sexual stage of the fungus (ascospores) was only rarely found and asexual
conidia were responsible for the bulk of infections (CAB International, 2003).
The overall likelihood that Elsinoë mangiferae will enter Australia as a result of trade in
that area and subsequently spread within Australia: Low.

Consequences
Consequences (direct and indirect) of mango scab: Low.
Criterion Estimate
Direct consequences
Plant life or health C ⎯ Elsinoë mangiferae is likely to cause significant direct harm to mango
production at the district level.
Any other aspects of A ⎯ There are no known direct consequences of this pest on the natural or
the environment built environment, such as the physical environment or microorganisms but
their introduction into a new environment may lead to competition for
resources with native species. There are no known direct consequences of
this disease on human life, health or welfare.
Eradication, control B ⎯ Programs to minimise the impact of this disease on host plants are
etc. likely to be required and incur costs for fungicide sprays and additional crop
monitoring.
Domestic trade B ⎯ The presence of this disease in commercial production areas may have a
significant effect at the local level due to any resulting interstate trade
restrictions on mangoes.
International trade B ⎯ The presence of this disease in commercial production areas of mango
may have a significant effect at the local level due to any limitations to
Environment A ⎯ Although additional fungicide applications would be required to control
this disease on mango, this is unlikely to affect the environment.
Page 94

CONCLUSION: RISK ASSESSMENTS
Table 7 summarises the detailed risk assessments and provides unrestricted risk estimates
for the quarantine pests considered to be associated with fresh mangoes from India.
Five arthropods (Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Deudorix isocrates, Dysdercus koenigii, Orgyia

postica, Spilostethus pandurus) and one pathogen (Elsinoë mangiferae) were assessed to
have an unrestricted risk below Australia’s ALOP and do not require risk management
measures. The remaining 26 quarantine pests were assessed to have an unrestricted risk
estimate above Australia’s ALOP and require risk management measures.
Table 8 provides the final list of quarantine pests associated with fresh mangoes from India
that have been assessed to have unrestricted risk assessment above Australia’s ALOP, and
therefore require risk management measures. The proposed risk management measures are
described in the following section.
Page 95
Table 7 Results of the risk assessments
Probability of Overall
Probability of
Scientific name Common name Entry Establishment Spread entry, Consequences Unrestricted risk
establishment
and spread
ARTHROPODA
Coleoptera [beetles, weevils]
Sternochetus frigidus (Fabricius) Mango pulp weevil Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Low
*Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) Mango seed weevil High High Moderate Moderate Low Low
Diptera [flies]
Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor) Fruit fly High High High High High High
Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) Guava fruit fly High High High High High High
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) Melon fly High High High High High High
Bactrocera diversa (Coquillett) Three striped fruit fly High High High High High High
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) Oriental fruit fly High High High High High High
Bactrocera tau (Walker) Fruit fly High High High High High High
Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) Peach fruit fly High High High High High High
Hemiptera [aphids, leafhoppers, mealybugs, psyllids, scales, true bugs, whiteflies]
*Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret) Cyanophyllum scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
*Aspidiotus nerii Bouché Oleander scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Ceroplastes actiniformis Green Soft scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
*Coccus longulus (Douglas) Long soft scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Page 96
Probability of
establishment
and spread
Dysdercus koenigii (Fabricius) Red cotton bug Very low Moderate Moderate Very low Low Negligible
*Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) Striped mealybug Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
*Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) Greedy scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
*Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) Mussel scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
*Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) Glover’s scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green) Mango shield scale Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) Coconut mealybug Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Planococcus ficus (Signoret) Grapevine mealybug Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) Coffee mealybug Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
*Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pacific mealybug Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green) Downey snowline Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
mealybug
Rastrococcus invadens Williams Mealybug Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
Rastrococcus spinosus (Robinson) Philippine mango Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
mealybug
Spilostethus pandurus (Scopoli) Indian milkweed bug Very low Moderate Moderate Very low Low Negligible
Lepidoptera [butterflies, moths]
Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) Honeydew moth Low High High Low Low Very low
Deanolis sublimbalis Snellen Red-banded mango Moderate High High Moderate Low Low
caterpillar
Page 97
Probability of
establishment
and spread
Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius) Pomegranate fruit Low High Moderate Low Low Very low
borer
Orgyia postica (Walker) Cocoa tussock moth Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Very low
FUNGI
*Elsinoë mangiferae Bitancourt & Mango scab Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Very low
Jenkins
* WA only – this species is a quarantine pest for the State of Western Australia due to its absence from this State.
Page 98
Table 8 Quarantine pests for fresh mango fruit from India assessed to have
unrestricted risk estimates above Australia’s ALOP

ARTHROPODA
Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret) Cyanophyllum scale
Aspidiotus nerii Bouché Oleander scale
Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor) Fruit fly
Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) Guava fruit fly
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) Melon fly
Bactrocera diversa (Coquillett) Three striped fruit fly
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) Oriental fruit fly
Bactrocera tau (Walker) Fruit fly
Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) Peach fruit fly
Ceroplastes actiniformis Green Soft scale
Coccus longulus (Douglas) Long soft scale
Deanolis sublimbalis Snellen Red-banded mango caterpillar
Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) Striped mealybug
Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) Greedy scale
Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) Mussel scale
Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) Glover’s scale
Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green) Mango shield scale
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) Coconut mealybug
Planococcus ficus (Signoret) Grapevine mealybug
Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) Coffee mealybug
Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pacific mealybug
Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green) Downey snowline mealybug
Rastrococcus invadens Williams Mealybug
Rastrococcus spinosus (Robinson) Philippine mango mealybug
Sternochetus frigidus (Fabricius) Mango pulp weevil
Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) Mango seed weevil
Page 99
STAGE 3: PEST RISK MANAGEMENT
Pest risk management evaluates and selects options for measures to reduce the risk of
entry, establishment or spread of quarantine pests assessed to pose an unacceptable level of
risk to Australia via the importation of commercially produced mangoes from India (i.e.
produced under standard cultivation, harvesting and packing activities).
Biosecurity Australia considers that the risk management measures proposed below are
commensurate with the identified risks and invites comments on their technical and
economic feasibility. In particular, comments are welcome on the appropriateness of the
measures and any alternative measures that stakeholders consider to be equivalent in
achieving the identified objectives Note that Biosecurity Australia regards the measures
listed below to be consistent with, and equivalent to, the measures that are currently in
place for the importation of fresh mangoes from Mexico and the Philippines (Guimaras
Island).
The measures described below will form the basis of the import conditions for fresh
mango fruit from India.
There are 4 categories of measures proposed to mitigate the risks identified in the pest risk
assessment:
1. Pre-export vapour heat treatment (VHT) or hot water treatment (HWT) for the
management of fruit fly species;
2. Designated pest free places of production or production sites for the management of
Sternochetus frigidus (mango pulp weevil) and S. mangiferae (mango seed weevil);
3. Inspection and remedial action for other identified quarantine pests; and
4. Supporting operational systems to maintain and verify phytosanitary status
It is important to note that it is only appropriate for the unrestricted risk assessments to
take into account the minimum border procedures used by relevant government agencies
and not those measures approved by such agencies that are intended to mitigate risks
associated with the commodity itself. The minimum procedures include verifying that the
commodity is as described in the shipping documents and identifying external and internal
contaminations of containers and packaging. In order to have least trade restrictive
measures, the starting point for evaluation of the restricted risk management options first
considered the use of a 600-unit inspection in detecting quarantine pests requiring risk
management, and the subsequent remedial actions or treatments that might be applied if a
pest is intercepted.
Page 100
The standard AQIS sampling protocol requires inspection of 600 units, for quarantine pests
in systematically selected random samples per homogeneous consignment or lot. The unit
for mango is defined as one mango fruit. Biometrically, if no pests are detected by the
inspection, this sample size achieves a confidence level of 95% that not more than 0.5% of
the units in the consignment are infested/infected. The level of confidence depends on each
fruit in the consignment having about the same likelihood of being affected by a
quarantine pest and the inspection technique being able to reliably detect all quarantine
pests in the sample. If no live quarantine pests are detected in the sample, the consignment
is considered to be free from quarantine pests and would be released from quarantine.
Where a quarantine pest is intercepted in a sample, the remedial actions or treatments may
(depending on the location of the inspection) include:
• withdrawing the consignment from export to Australia;
• re-export of the consignment from Australia;
• destruction of the consignment; or
• treatment of the consignment to ensure that the pest is no longer viable.
It should be emphasised that inspection is not a measure that mitigates the risk of a pest. It
is the remedial actions or treatment that can be taken based on the results of the inspection
that would reduce a pest risk.
RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND PHYTOSANITARY PROCEDURES
[1] Pre-export vapour heat treatment (VHT) or hot water treatment (HWT) for
the management of fruit fly species
Fruit flies, Bactrocera caryeae, B. correcta, B. cucurbitae, B. diversa, B. dorsalis, B. tau

and B. zonata have been assessed as quarantine pests of high risk for mangoes from India
and therefore require measures to mitigate that risk.
Visual inspection alone is not considered to be an appropriate risk management option in

view of the level of risk identified and because clear visual signs of infestation
(particularly in recently infested fruit) may not be present. If infested fruit was not detected
at inspection, fruit flies may enter, establish and spread. Other measures that might be
applied to mitigate risks associated with fruit flies are either the use of disinfestation
treatments or by sourcing fruit from pest free areas.
In 2000, the APEDA of India proposed the use of VHT for the disinfestation of fruit flies.
APEDA, in collaboration with the IMOA also provided reports in 2002 and 2003 on the
efficacy of using VHT and HWT for the disinfestation of fruit flies.
Page 101
Biosecurity Australia therefore proposes the following phytosanitary risk management

options to mitigate the risk posed by fruit flies of quarantine concern associated with
mangoes from India: [1a] vapour heat treatment (VHT) or [1b] hot water treatment
(HWT).
Both measures are known to reduce the risk associated with the identified fruit fly species
of quarantine concern to an acceptable level due to the proven efficacy of the treatment.
Biosecurity Australia considers that this measure is appropriate to reduce the risk
associated with fruit flies to very low, which is below Australia’s ALOP.
[1a] Vapour heat treatment (VHT)
VHT efficacy trial data for fruit flies in mangoes was provided by India. Eggs and larvae
of Bactrocera dorsalis and B. cucurbitae (the two most heat tolerant species) were killed
when the mango fruit pulp temperature was maintained at 47.5°C for 20 minutes.
Biosecurity Australia accepts the use of VHT to mitigate the risk of fruit fly species of
quarantine concern associated with imported mango fruit from Guimaras Island
(Philippines). Australia also uses VHT to mitigate the risk of fruit flies for the export of
Australian mangoes to Japan.
It has been demonstrated that VHT adequately mitigates the risk posed by fruit fly species
of quarantine concern associated with mango fruit from India to a level that is below
Australia’s ALOP.
Biosecurity Australia proposes an option of a pre-export VHT of 47.5°C (fruit pulp

temperature) for 20 minutes for all mango varieties. Treatment time will be for a minimum
time of two hours, including the warming and cooling periods to bring the fruit pulp to
temperature. Treatment commences when the pulp core temperature of all monitored fruit
reaches, or is above, the required temperature and this temperature is maintained for the
required period.
Temperature values need to be recorded to standards agreed between the IMOA and
Biosecurity Australia/AQIS and monitored by the IMOA.
The phytosanitary security of the product must be maintained after the vapour heat
treatment to prevent reinfestation by fruit flies. Phytosanitary inspection of the treated fruit
would be conducted by IMOA and the details of the treatment included on the
Phytosanitary Certificate (see measure 4).
[1b] Hot water treatment (HWT)
India has developed and standardised an alternative heat disinfestation treatment for fruit
fly in mango fruit using hot water and has provided relevant efficacy data to Biosecurity
Australia. Eggs and larvae were killed when mango fruit were submerged in hot water at
Page 102
48°C for 60 minutes. This treatment is in commercial use in India and is the protocol
required for the export of Indian mangoes to China since 2003.
Hot water is used as an effective disinfestation treatment for certain fruit fly species in
certain fruits in international trade. Treatment schedules are generally specific to
particular combinations of pest species and commodity. For example, the USDA use
treatment schedule T102-a Hot water dip against Mediterranean fruit fly and Mexican fruit
fly in mangoes at a temperature of 115°F (46.1°C) for 65-110 minutes depending upon the
size (375-900g) and shape (flat, elongated vs rounded varieties) (USDA, 2004). The
literature indicates that the efficacy of the treatment is dependent upon the size and shape
of the mango fruit. Biosecurity Australia accepts this treatment against fruit flies for
mangoes from Mexico.
Biosecurity Australia proposes an option of a pre-export hot water treatment of 48°C or

above for 60 minutes. Mangoes would be treated with a hot water submersion treatment in
accordance with the following schedule:
1. Fruit pulp temperature would be 21°C or above prior to commencing treatment.
2. Fruit would be submerged at least 10 cm below the water surface.
3. Water would circulate constantly and be kept at 48°C throughout the treatment period,
with the following tolerances:
a) During the first five minutes of the treatment – temperatures may fall as low as
47.4°C provided the temperature is at least 48°C at the end of the five minute
period.
b) Temperatures may fall as low as 47.4°C for no more than 10 minutes.
4. The dip time must be extended for an additional 10 minutes if hydrocooling starts
immediately after the hot water immersion treatment.
Hot water treatment would be conducted in India in packinghouse facilities registered with
and audited by IMOA. Temperature values need to be recorded to standards agreed
between IMOA and Biosecurity Australia/AQIS and monitored by IMOA.
The phytosanitary security of the product would be maintained after hot water treatment to
prevent reinfestation by fruit flies. Phytosanitary inspection of the treated fruit would be
conducted by IMOA and the details of the treatment included on the Phytosanitary
Certificate (see measure 4).
Page 103
[2] Designated pest free places of production or pest free production sites
for the management of mango pulp and mango seed weevils
Sternochetus frigidus (mango pulp weevil, MPW) and S. mangiferae (mango seed weevil,
MSW) have been assessed to have an unrestricted risk estimate of low and therefore
measures are required to mitigate the risk.
The mango pulp and mango seed weevil enter the developing mango and feed internally
on the seed and/or pulp. As there are no clear visual signs of infestation, visual inspection
alone is not considered to be an appropriate risk management option. If infested fruit was
not detected at inspection, these weevils may enter, establish and spread in Australia.
The APEDA of India proposed the use of designated pest free places of production or pest
free production sites as a risk management measure for these internal feeding weevils and
sent survey data on pest free places of production or pest free production sites in 2003 and
2004. Biosecurity Australia therefore proposes this as a phytosanitary risk management
option for these pests.
The IMOA would be responsible for establishing, maintaining and verifying pest freedom
for MPW and MSW in “Pest free places of production and pest free production sites”, as
defined by the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM), Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), Publication No. 10 Requirements for the establishment of
pest free places of production and pest free production sites.
The IMOA would be responsible for the establishment of production area pest freedom by
verification of pest free places of production or pest free production sites by official
surveys and monitoring. Monitoring would involve field inspections and fruit cutting done
at least once during the growing season and before harvest. These monitoring surveys
would be conducted during each year of mango production for each pest free area before
consignments would be permitted for export to Australia. The results would be submitted
to Biosecurity Australia/AQIS before access can be considered.
The IMOA would maintain production area pest freedom and specify the measures in
place to prevent the introduction of the pest into the place of production or production site
or to destroy previously undetected infestations. The IMOA would advise Biosecurity
Australia/AQIS of the nominated orchards within the designated pest free places of
production/pest free production sites. The IMOA is required to notify Biosecurity
Australia/AQIS of any pest detected during routine monitoring and surveys conducted
during the production season.
Based on the survey data provided by the IMOA, for the 2004 season, designated pest free
areas have been established for the production areas of Barabanki, Malihabad, Saharanpur
in the Lucknow region, Uttar Pradesh, the areas of Navsari and Valsad in Gujarat and the
areas of Devgad, Kudal, Malvan, Sawantwadi and Vengurla in Maharashtra.
Page 104
The phytosanitary security of the product from these quarantine pests would be maintained
after harvest and phytosanitary inspection of the harvested fruit would be conducted by
IMOA (see measure 4). A Phytosanitary Certificate confirming that MPW and MSW are
not known to occur in the designated places of production or pest free production sites and
that the product is free from this pest would be issued by the IMOA.
The objective of the proposed measure is to ensure that fruit is sourced from designated
areas or a place of production where the pest is not known to be present nor likely to occur,
thus reducing the risk of the weevils being present in export consignments of mangoes
from India.
Biosecurity Australia considers that this measure, supported by measures 4a, c and e is
appropriate to reduce the risk associated with MPW and MSW to very low, which is below
Australia’s ALOP.
[3] Inspection and remedial action for other identified quarantine pests such
as red-banded mango caterpillar, mealybugs and scale insects
Deanolis sublimbalis (red-banded mango caterpillar, RBMC), mealybugs (Ferrisia

virgata, Nipaecoccus nipae, Planococcus ficus, P. lilacinus, P. minor, Rastrococcus
iceryoides, R. invadens, Rastrococcus spinosus) and scale insects (Abgrallaspis
cyanophylli, Aspidiotus nerii, Ceroplastes actiniformis, Coccus longulus, Hemiberlesia
rapax, Lepidosaphes beckii, L. gloverii, Milviscutulus mangiferae) were assessed to have
an unrestricted risk estimate of low, and measures are therefore required to mitigate that
risk.
Biosecurity Australia considers that targeted visual inspection for freedom from RBMC,
mealybugs and scale insects is an appropriate risk management measure in view of the
level of risk identified. If infested fruit was not inspected and detected, these pests may
enter, establish and spread. Inspection would need to be completed prior to vapour heat
treatment/hot water treatment.
Larvae of RBMC feed on the mango pulp and seed. Visual inspection is considered to be
an appropriate risk management option as infested fruit can be detected by the presence of
a dark brown ring and caterpillar frass at the entry point on the surface of the mango fruit.
Visual inspection for freedom from mealybugs and scale insects is considered to be an
appropriate risk management option for these pests because they are easily detected on the
surface of mango fruit.
This phytosanitary measure is based on the current risk management measures for
mangoes from the Philippines (Guimaras Island) and Mexico. Biosecurity Australia
considers that this measure is appropriate to reduce the risk associated with RBMC,
mealybugs and scale insects to very low, which is below Australia’s ALOP.
Page 105
[4] Supporting operational systems to maintain and verify phytosanitary

status
It is necessary to have a system of operational procedures in place to ensure that the

phytosanitary status fresh mangoes from India is maintained and verified during the
process of production and export to Australia. This is to ensure that the objectives of the
risk mitigation measures previously identified have been met and are being maintained.
Biosecurity Australia proposes a system for that purpose which is equivalent to the system
currently in place for the importation of fresh mangoes from Guimaras Island, the
Philippines.
Details of this system, or of an equivalent one, will be determined by agreement with the
IMOA. This is to ensure that requirements are appropriate to the circumstances of India for
fresh mango production and export.
The proposed system of operational procedures for the production and export of fresh
mangoes to Australia from India consists of:
4a. Registration of export orchards;
4b. Registration of packinghouses and auditing of procedures;
4c. Pre-export inspection and remedial action by IMOA;
4d. Packaging and labelling;
4e. Phytosanitary certification by IMOA;
4f. Specific conditions for storage and movement; and
4g. On-arrival phytosanitary inspection and clearance by AQIS.
[4a] Registration of export orchards
All mango fruit for export to Australia must be sourced from export orchards and growers
registered with IMOA. Copies of the registration records must be made available to AQIS
if requested. The IMOA is required to register all export orchards prior to commencement
of exports.
All export orchards are expected to produce mango fruit under standard commercial
cultivation, harvesting and packing activities.
The objective of this procedure is to ensure that orchards from which mangoes are sourced
can be identified. This is to allow trace back to individual orchards and growers in the
event of non-compliance. For example, if live pests are intercepted, the ability to identify a
specific orchard/grower allows the investigation and corrective action to be targeted rather
than applying to all possible orchards/growers.
Page 106
[4b] Registration of packinghouses and auditing of procedures
All packinghouses intending to export mango fruit to Australia need to be registered with
the IMOA.
Vapour heat treatment (VHT)/hot water treatment (HWT) for pre-export disinfestation of
fruit flies is to be done within the registered packinghouses/treatment facilities in India.
AQIS will only approve designated and identified VHT/HWT facilities that are registered
by the IMOA.
The targeted inspection for freedom from RBMC, mealybugs and scale insects would be
carried out within the registered packinghouses.
Packinghouses would be required to identify the individual orchard with a numbering

system and identify fruit from individual orchards by marking boxes or pallets (i.e. one
orchard per pallet) with the unique orchard number. The list of registered packinghouses
must be kept by IMOA and provided to AQIS if requested, with updates provided if
packinghouses are added or removed from the list.
Registration of packinghouses is to include an audit program conducted by AQIS in the

initial export season prior to the commencement of exports. After the initial season
approval of the registered treatment centres, AQIS will require the IMOA to audit the
facilities at the beginning of each season to ensure that packinghouses are suitably
equipped to carry out the specified phytosanitary treatments.
The objective of this procedure is to ensure that packinghouses at which the VHT/HWT
and inspections are conducted can be identified. This is to allow trace back to individual
packinghouses and orchards/growers in the event of non-compliance.
[4c] Pre-export inspection and remedial action by IMOA
The IMOA would inspect all consignments in accordance with official procedures for all
visually detectable quarantine pests and trash using sampling rates developed by the
IMOA in consultation with Biosecurity Australia/AQIS.
If actionable mealybugs, scale insects or RBMC are found during these inspections, then
remedial action must be taken as outlined in the ‘Introduction’ to this section.
Records of interceptions made during these inspections (live or dead quarantine pests, and
trash) would be maintained by IMOA and made available to Biosecurity Australia as
requested. This information will assist in future reviews of this import pathway and
consideration of the appropriateness of the phytosanitary measures that have been applied.
The objective of this procedure is to verify the effectiveness of orchard and packing house
controls and to ensure that mango fruit exported to Australia do not contain quarantine
Page 107
pests or trash, are clean of any extraneous organic material on the surface of the fruit, and
complies with packing and labelling requirements.
[4d] Packing and labelling
All packages of mangoes for export would be free from contaminated plant material
including trash and weed seeds and would meet Australia’s general import conditions for
fresh fruits and vegetables (C6000 General Requirements for All Fruit and Vegetables,
available at http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon/). Trash refers to soil, splinters, twigs, leaves and
other plant materials but excludes the mango calyx.
Inspected and treated fruits would be required to be packed in new boxes. The fruit should
be packed in boxes that have had any openings either screened with mesh or covered with
tape. Packing material would be synthetic or highly processed if of plant origin. No
unprocessed packing material of plant origin, such as straw, will be allowed. All wood
material used in packaging of mango fruit must comply with the AQIS conditions (e.g.
those in “Cargo containers: Quarantine aspects and procedures” (AQIS, 2003)).
All boxes would be labelled with the orchard registration number and packinghouse
registration number for the purposes of trace back in the event that this is necessary. The
pallets should be securely strapped only after phytosanitary inspection has been carried out
following mandatory post-harvest treatments. Palletised product is to be identified by
attaching a uniquely numbered pallet card to each pallet or part pallet to enable trace back
to registered orchards.
The objectives of this procedure are to ensure that:

• The mango fruit exported to Australia is not contaminated by weeds or trash.
• Unprocessed packing material (which may vector pests identified as not on the
pathway and pests not known to be associated with mango) is not imported
with the mango.
• The packaged mango fruit are labelled in such a way to identify the orchard and
packinghouse (see measures 4a, b).
[4e] Phytosanitary certification by IMOA
The IMOA would be required to issue a Phytosanitary Certificate for each consignment
upon completion of pre-export treatment and inspection. The objective of this procedure is
to provide formal documentation to AQIS verifying that the relevant measures have been
undertaken offshore. Each Phytosanitary Certificate would contain the following
information:
Page 108
Additional declarations
“The mangoes in this consignment have been produced in India in accordance with the
conditions governing entry of fresh mangoes to Australia and inspected and found to be
free of quarantine pests”.
AND
“Mangoes have been produced in [name of area, region and State] which is free of mango
pulp weevil (Sternochetus frigidus) and mango seed weevil (S. mangiferae).”
Distinguishing marks
The orchard registration number, packinghouse registration number, number of boxes per
consignment, and container and seal numbers (as appropriate); to ensure trace back to the
orchard in the event that this is necessary.
Treatments
Details of vapour heat treatment or hot water treatment (i.e. temperature, duration and
packing house/facility number), where relevant, must be included in the treatment section
on the Phytosanitary Certificate.
A consignment is the quantity of mango fruit covered by one Phytosanitary Certificate that
arrives at one port in one shipment. Consignments need to be shipped directly from one
port or city in India to a designated port or city in Australia.
[4f] Specific conditions for storage and movement
Packed product and packaging is to be protected from pest contamination during and after
packing, during storage and during movement between locations (e.g. packinghouse to
cool storage/depot, to inspection point, to export point).
Product for export to Australia that has been inspected and certified by the IMOA would
be maintained in secure conditions that will prevent mixing with fruit for export to other
destinations.
Security of the consignment is to be maintained until release from quarantine in Australia.
The objective of this procedure is to ensure that the phytosanitary status of the product is
maintained during storage and movement.
[4g] On-arrival phytosanitary inspection and clearance by AQIS
On arrival in Australia, each consignment would be inspected by AQIS. AQIS would

undertake a documentation compliance examination for consignment verification purposes
Page 109
at the port of entry in Australia prior to release from quarantine. Fruit from each
consignment would be randomly sampled for inspection. Such sampling methodology
would provide 95% confidence that there is not more than 0.5% infestation in a
consignment.
The objective of this procedure is to verify that the required measures have been
undertaken.
Action for non-complying lots
Where consignments are found to be non-compliant with import requirements at AQIS on-
arrival inspection due to the presence of live quarantine pests or trash, the importer will be
given the option to treat (if suitable treatments for the pests detected can be applied), re-
export or destroy the consignment.
If product continually fails inspection, Biosecurity Australia/AQIS reserves the right to

suspend the export program and conduct an audit of the fresh mango risk management
systems that are in place. The program will continue only once Biosecurity Australia/AQIS
is satisfied that appropriate corrective action has been taken.
Uncategorised pests
If an organism that is detected on mango from India that has not been categorised, it will
require assessment to determine its quarantine status and if phytosanitary action is
required. The detection of any significant pests of quarantine concern not already
identified in the analysis may result in the suspension of the trade while a review is
conducted to ensure that the existing measures continue to provide the appropriate level of
phytosanitary protection for Australia.
Page 110
DRAFT IMPORT CONDITIONS
The components of the draft import conditions are summarised in dot point format below.
The proposed risk management measure that links with each component is given in
brackets ( ).
Biosecurity Australia considers that the risk management measures identified in the
previous section, upon which these import conditions are based, are commensurate with
the identified risks and invites comments on their technical and economic feasibility. In
particular, comments are welcome on the appropriateness of the measures and associated
import conditions and any alternatives that stakeholders consider to be equivalent in
achieving the identified objectives. Note that Biosecurity Australia regards the import
conditions listed below to be consistent with, and equivalent to, those currently in place for
the importation of fresh mangoes from Mexico and the Philippines (Guimaras Island).
• Import Condition 1. Registration of export orchards (links with risk

management measure 4a)
• Import Condition 2. Packinghouse registration and auditing of procedures (4b)
• Import Condition 3. Pre-export vapour heat treatment for fruit flies (1a)
• Import Condition 4. Pre-export hot water treatment for fruit flies (1b)
• Import Condition 5. Pest free places of production or pest free production sites
for mango pulp and seed weevils (2, 4a, c, e)
• Import Condition 6. Targeted pre-export inspection by IMOA (3, 4c)
• Import Condition 7. Packing and labelling (4d)
• Import Condition 8. Phytosanitary certification by IMOA (4e)
• Import Condition 9. Storage and movement (4f)
• Import Condition 10. Targeted on-arrival quarantine inspection and clearance
by AQIS (3, 4g)
• Import Condition 11. Audit and review of policy.
IMPORT CONDITION 1. REGISTRATION OF EXPORT ORCHARDS
All mango fruit for export to Australia must be sourced from export orchards and growers
registered with IMOA. Copies of the registration records must be made available to AQIS
if requested. The IMOA is required to register all export orchards prior to commencement
of exports.
Page 111
All export orchards are expected to produce commercial mango fruit under standard
cultivation (including crop monitoring, integrated pest management, crop hygiene),
harvesting and packing activities.
IMPORT CONDITION 2. PACKINGHOUSE REGISTRATION AND AUDITING OF

PROCEDURES
All packinghouses intending to export mango fruit to Australia must be registered with the
IMOA.
Vapour heat treatment (VHT)/hot water treatment (HWT) for pre-export disinfestation is
to be conducted within the registered packinghouses/treatment facilities in India.
AQIS will only approve designated and identified VHT/HWT facilities that are registered
by IMOA. These facilities must be designed to prevent the entry of fruit flies into areas
where unpacked treated fruit is held. This will include a provision for treated fruit to be
discharged directly into insect proof and secure packing rooms.
The management of the treatment facility will be required to provide details of systems
that are in place to ensure isolation and segregation from other fruit throughout the
treatment, packing, storage and transport stages before exports commence. This will be
audited for compliance with AQIS requirements in the initial export season by AQIS
before exports will be permitted.
After the initial season approval of the registered treatment centres, AQIS will require
IMOA to audit the facilities at the beginning of each season to ensure that they comply
with AQIS requirements before registration is renewed. IMOA would then monitor the
treatment centres on an ongoing basis during their operational season to ensure continued
compliance with AQIS requirements. Reports of audits noting any non-conformities
together with appropriate corrective action will be submitted to AQIS.
IMOA officers will ensure the following:
• registered treatment facilities are maintained in a condition that will provide efficacy in
treatment programs
• all areas are hygienically maintained (cleaned daily of damaged, blemished, infested
fruit) the premises are maintained to exclude the entry of pests from outside and
between treated and untreated fruit
• all measurement instruments are regularly calibrated and records retained for
verification
• the movement of fruit from the time of arrival at the registered treatment centre through
to the time of export are recorded and
• the security of fruit is maintained at all times that fruit is on the premises.
Page 112
Should IMOA officers find that any one of the above requirements are not being
undertaken the registered facility will be suspended until corrective action has been
completed and AQIS agreement to the reinstatement obtained.
The targeted inspection for freedom from RBMC, mealybugs and scale insects is to be
carried out within the registered packinghouses.
Packinghouses will be required to identify the individual orchard with a numbering system
and identify fruit from individual orchards by marking boxes or pallets (i.e. one orchard
per pallet) with the unique orchard number. The list of registered packinghouses must be
kept by IMOA and provided to AQIS if requested, with updates provided if packinghouses
are added or removed from the list.
Registration of orchards and packinghouses is to include an audit program conducted by

the IMOA to ensure that orchards and packinghouses are suitably equipped to carry out the
specified control measures and phytosanitary treatments. An audit is to be conducted prior
to registration and then conducted at least annually.
IMPORT CONDITION 3. PRE-EXPORT VAPOUR HEAT TREATMENT
If vapour heat treatment is adopted by the IMOA for fruit fly disinfestation, the following
procedures must be followed:
Vapour heat treatment must be conducted in India in VHT facilities registered with, and
audited by IMOA, to ensure that they are suitably equipped to carry out the requirements
for VHT stipulated in this document. Mango fruit must be be treated at 47.5°C (pulp core
temperature) for 20 minutes.
Treatment time will be for a minimum of two hours, including the warming and cooling
periods to bring the fruit pulp to temperature. Treatment commences when the pulp core
temperature of all probe-monitored fruit reaches, or is above, the required temperature.
This temperature must be maintained for the required period.
Temperature values need to be recorded to a standard agreed between IMOA and

Biosecurity Australia/AQIS and monitored by IMOA.
The phytosanitary security of the product must be maintained after the vapour heat
treatment to prevent reinfestation by fruit flies. Phytosanitary inspection of the treated fruit
must be conducted by IMOA and the details of the treatment included on the Phytosanitary
Certificate.
Page 113
IMPORT CONDITION 4. PRE-EXPORT HOT WATER TREATMENT
If hot water treatment is adopted by the IMOA for fruit fly disinfestation, the following
procedures must be followed:
Mangoes must be treated with a hot water submersion treatment of 48°C or above for 60
minutes in accordance with the following schedule:
1. Fruit pulp temperature must be 21°C or above prior to commencing treatment.
2. Fruit must be submerged at least 10 cm below the water surface.
3. Water must circulate constantly and be kept at 48°C throughout the treatment period,
with the following tolerances:
a. During the first five minutes of the treatment – temperatures may fall as low as
45.4°C provided the temperature is at least 46°C at the end of the five minute
period.
b. For treatments lasting 65 to 70 minutes – temperatures may fall as low as 45.4°C
for no more than 10 minutes.
4. The dip time must be extended for an additional 10 minutes if hydrocooling starts
immediately after the hot water immersion treatment.
Hot water treatment must be conducted in India in packinghouse facilities registered with,
and audited by, IMOA. Temperature values need to be recorded to a standard agreed
between IMOA and Biosecurity Australia/AQIS and monitored by IMOA.
The phytosanitary security of the product must be maintained after the hot water treatment
to prevent reinfestation by fruit flies. Phytosanitary inspection of the treated fruit must be
conducted by IMOA and the details of the treatment included on the Phytosanitary
Certificate.
IMPORT CONDITION 5. PEST FREE PLACES OF PRODUCTION OR PEST

FREE PRODUCTION SITES FOR MANGO PULP AND SEED WEEVILS
The IMOA is responsible for establishing, maintaining and verifying pest freedom for
MPW and MSW in “Pest free places of production and pest free production sites”, as
defined by the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM), Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), Publication No. 10 Requirements for the establishment of
pest free places of production and pest free production sites.
The IMOA is responsible for the establishment of production area pest freedom by
verification of pest free places of production or pest free production sites by official
surveys and monitoring. Monitoring must involve field inspections and fruit cutting done
at least once during the growing season and before harvest. These monitoring surveys must
be conducted during each year of mango production for each pest free area before
Page 114
consignments will be permitted for export to Australia. The results must be submitted to
Biosecurity Australia/AQIS before access can be considered.
The IMOA must maintain production area pest freedom and specify the measures in place
to prevent the introduction of the pest into the place of production or production site or to
destroy previously undetected infestations. The IMOA must advise Biosecurity
Australia/AQIS of the nominated orchards within the designated pest free places of
production/pest free production sites. The IMOA must notify Biosecurity Australia/AQIS
of any pest detected during routine monitoring and surveys conducted during the
production season.
For the 2004 season, designated pest free areas have been established for the production
areas of Barabanki, Malihabad, Saharanpur in the Lucknow region, in the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
The phytosanitary security of the product from these quarantine pests must be maintained
after harvest. Phytosanitary inspection of the harvested fruit must be conducted by IMOA.
A Phytosanitary Certificate confirming that MPW and MSW are not known to occur in the
designated places of production or pest free production sites and that the product is free
from this pest would be issued by the IMOA.
IMPORT CONDITION 6. TARGETED PRE-EXPORT INSPECTION BY IMOA
The IMOA will inspect all consignments in accordance with official procedures for all
visually detectable quarantine pests and trash using sampling rates developed by the
IMOA in consultation with Biosecurity Australia/AQIS.
The inspection procedures will ensure that fresh mango fruit are free from all pests of
quarantine concern to Australia and are free from any contaminant plant material (leaves,
twigs, seed, etc.) and soil. The targeted inspection will ensure freedom from actionable
mealybugs, scale insects and RBMC. Inspection must be completed in packinghouses that
are registered with, and audited by, IMOA. Consignments that do not comply with the
above requirements will be rejected for export to Australia.
During inspection, the produce is to be examined directly with a lens or binocular

microscope. Any pests or debris may be brushed onto a white sheet of paper for inspection
under a lens or microscope.
Records of interceptions made during these inspections (live or dead quarantine pests, and
trash) are to be maintained by the IMOA and made available to Biosecurity Australia as
requested. This information will assist in future reviews of this import pathway and
consideration of the appropriateness of the phytosanitary measures that have been applied.
Page 115
IMPORT CONDITION 7. PACKING AND LABELLING
All packages of mangoes for export must be free from contaminated plant materials
including trash and weed seeds and must meet Australia’s general import conditions for
fresh fruits and vegetables (C6000 General Requirements for All Fruit and Vegetables,
available at http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon/). Trash refers to soil, splinters, twigs, leaves and
other plant materials but excludes the mango calyx.
Inspected and treated fruits will be required to be packed in new boxes. The fruit must be
packed in boxes that have had any openings either screened with mesh or covered with
tape. Packing material would be synthetic or highly processed if of plant origin. No
unprocessed packing material of plant origin, such as straw, will be allowed. All wood
material used in packaging of mango fruit must comply with the AQIS conditions (e.g.
those in “Cargo containers: Quarantine aspects and procedures” (AQIS, 2003)).
All boxes will be labelled with the orchard registration number and packinghouse
registration number for the purposes of trace back in the event that this is necessary. The
pallets should be securely strapped only after phytosanitary inspection has been carried out
following mandatory post-harvest treatments. Palletised product is to be identified by
attaching a uniquely numbered pallet card to each pallet or part pallet to enable trace back
to registered orchards.
IMPORT CONDITION 8. PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION BY IMOA
The IMOA is required to issue a Phytosanitary Certificate for each consignment upon
completion of pre-export treatment and inspection. Each Phytosanitary Certificate is to
contain the following information:
Additional declarations
“The mangoes in this consignment have been produced in India in accordance with the
conditions governing entry of fresh mangoes to Australia and inspected and found to be
free of quarantine pests”.
AND
“Mangoes have been produced in [name of area, region and State] which is free of mango
pulp weevil (Sternochetus frigidus) and mango seed weevil (S. mangiferae).”
Distinguishing marks
The orchard registration number, packinghouse registration number, number of boxes per
consignment, and container and seal numbers (as appropriate); to ensure trace back to the
orchard in the event that this is necessary.
Page 116
A consignment is the quantity of mango fruit covered by one Phytosanitary Certificate that
arrives at one port in one shipment. Consignments need to be either shipped directly from
one port or city in India to a designated port or city in Australia, or if transhipped, sealing
of containers must be maintained.
Treatments
Details of vapour heat treatment or hot water treatment (i.e. temperature, duration and
packing house/facility number), where relevant, must be included in the treatment section
on the Phytosanitary Certificate.
IMPORT CONDITION 9. STORAGE AND MOVEMENT
Packed product and packaging is to be protected from pest contamination during and after
packing, during storage and during movement between locations (e.g., packing house to
cool storage/depot, to inspection point, to export point).
Product for export to Australia that has been inspected and certified by the IMOA must be
maintained in secure conditions that will prevent mixing with fruit for export to other
destinations. This can be achieved through segregation of fruit for export to Australia in
separate storage facilities, netting or shrink-wrapping pallets in plastic, or by placing
sealed cartons in the low temperature cold storage before loading into a shipping container.
Alternatively, packed fruit can be directly transferred at the packinghouse into a shipping
container, which is to be sealed and not opened until the container reaches Australia.
Security of the consignment is to be maintained until release from quarantine in Australia.
IMPORT CONDITION 10. ON-ARRIVAL QUARANTINE CLEARANCE BY AQIS
On arrival, each consignment must be inspected by AQIS and documentation examined for
consignment verification purposes at the port of entry in Australia prior to release from
quarantine. Sampling methodology would provide 95% confidence that there is not more
than 0.5% infestation in a consignment.
An example of a sampling size for inspection of mangoes is given below. The unit is
defined as a single mango.
Consignment size (Units) Sample size (Units)

For ‘consignments’ of fruit of less than 1000 units either 450 units or 100% of consignment
(whichever is smaller)
For ‘consignments’ of fruit of greater than or equal 600 units
to 1000 units
Page 117
Action for non-complying lots
Where consignments are found to be non-compliant with import requirements at AQIS on-
arrival inspection, the importer will be given the option to treat (if suitable treatments for
the pests detected can be applied), re-export or destroy the consignment.
If product continually fails inspection, AQIS reserves the right to suspend the export
program and conduct an audit of the fresh mango risk management systems that are in
place. The program will continue only once Biosecurity/AQIS is satisfied that appropriate
corrective action has been taken.
Uncategorised pests
If an organism that is detected on mango from India has not been categorised, it will
require assessment to determine its quarantine status and if phytosanitary action is
required. The detection of any pests of quarantine concern not already identified in the
analysis may result in the suspension of the trade while a review is conducted to ensure
that the existing measures continue to provide the appropriate level of phytosanitary
protection for Australia.
IMPORT CONDITION 11. AUDIT AND REVIEW OF POLICY
Biosecurity Australia reserves the right to review the adopted policy at any time after
significant trade has occurred or where there is reason to believe that the phytosanitary
status of the exporting country has changed.
Page 118
Page 119
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this draft revised import policy are based on a comprehensive analysis of
relevant scientific literature and existing import requirements for fresh mangoes into
Australia.
Biosecurity Australia considers that the import conditions specified will provide an
appropriate level of protection against the pests identified in the risk assessment.
Page 120
REFERENCES
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2001). 7113.0. Agriculture, Australia, 1999–2000.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 132 pp.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2002). 7121.0. Agriculture Commodities, Australia,

2000–01. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 40 pp.
Agounké, D., Agricola, U. and Bokonon-Ganta, H.A. (1988). Rastrococcus invadens

Williams (Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae), a serious exotic pest of fruit trees and other
plants in West Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 78(4): 695-702.
Ahmad, I. and Mohammad, F.A. (1983). Biology and immature systematics of red cotton
stainer Dysdercus koenigii (Fabr.). (Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae) with a note on their
phylogenetic value. Bulletin of Zoology 1: 1-9.
AICN (Australian Insect Common Names) (2004). Version 1.40. 7 January 2004.
http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/index_no.htm
Akanbi, M.O. (1973). The major insect borers of mahogany – a review towards their
control – what step next? Research Paper Forest Series, Federal Department of
Forest Research, Nigeria, No. 16, 8 pp.
Allwood, A.L. (1995). Outbreak of papaya fruitfly in North Queensland, Australia. Ag-
Alert No. 14, 2 pp.
Allwood, A.L., Chinajariyawong, A., Drew, R.A.I., Hamacek, E.L., Hancock, D.L.,
Hengsawad, C., Jipanin, J.C., Jirasurat, M., Kong Krong, C., Kritsaneepaiboon, S.,
Leong, C.T.S. and Vijaysegaran, S. (1999). Host plant records for fruit flies
(Diptera: Tephritidae) in South East Asia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology,
Supplement 7: 1-92.
Anon. (1991). The impact of fruit flies on Australian Horticulture. Report to the
Honourable John Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Horticultural
Policy Council, April 1991.
Anon. (2003). Horticulture Resources – Mangoes in India.

http://www.horticultureworld.net/mango-india.htm#M
Anon. (2004a). Indian Food Industry Statistics. http://www.cifti.com/cifti/stats.htm
Anon. (2004b). Welcome to India. http://www.tourindia.com/htm/homepg1.htm
APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority)

(2000). Data requirements as outlined in Annex 3 of The AQIS Import Risk
Analysis Process Handbook provided by APEDA, 5 July 2000.
Page 121
AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) (2003). Cargo Containers:

Quarantine aspects and procedures.
http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/word/quarantine/border/cargo.
doc
Ascher, K.R.S., Eliyahu, M., Gurevitz, E. and Renneh, S. (1983). Rearing the honeydew
moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, and the effect of diflubenzuron on its eggs.
Phytoparasitica 11(3-4): 195-198.
Australian Horticulture (1995). The Australian Horticultural Statistics Handbook, 1995/96

edition. Sydney, NSW: Australian Horticultural Corporation.
Bagle, B.G. and Prasad, V.G. (1985). Studies on varietal incidence and control of stone
weevil, Sternochetus (=Crytorrhynchus) mangiferae Fabricius (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae). Indian Journal of Entomology 47(3): 362-364.
Balachowsky, A.S. (1972). Entomologie appliquée a l’agriculture. Tome II. Lépidoptères.

Deuxieme volume. Zygaenoidea Pyraloidea Noctuoidea. Paris, France: Masson et
Cie, pp. 1059-1634.
Balock, J.W. and Kozuma, T.T. (1964). Notes on the biology and economic importance of
the mango weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius), in Hawaii (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 18: 353-364.
Beardsley, .J.W. Jr and Gonzalez, R.H. (1975). The biology and ecology of armored
scales. Annual Review of Entomology 20: 47-73.
Ben-Dov, Y. (1994). A Systematic Catalogue of the Mealybugs of the World (Insecta:

Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with Data on
Geographical Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Importance.
Andover, UK: Intercept Limited, 686 pp.
Ben-Dov, Y. (1997). Diagnosis. In: Ben-Dov, Y. and Hodgson, C.J. (eds). Soft Scale
Insects. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Volume
7A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 3-4.
Ben-Dov, Y., Miller, D.R. and Gibson, G.A.P. (2001). ScaleNet.

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm
Bentley, W.J., Zalom, F.G., Granett, J., Smith, R.J., Varela, L.G. and Purcell, A.H. (2003).
UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Grape. UC ANR Publication 3448. Insects
and Mites. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302301911.html#REFERENCE
Bhattacherjee, N.S. (1959). Studies on Lygaeus pandurus Scopoli (Heteroptera:

Lygaeidae). 1. Bionomics, descriptions of the various stages, biology and control.
Indian Journal of Entomology 21: 259-272.
Page 122
Biassangama, A., Fabres, G. and Moussa, J.B. (1991). The presence in Congo of
Gyranusoidea tebygi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), parasitoid of Rastrococcus
invadens (Hom.: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France
96(2): 209-211. (In French).
Butani, D.K. (1979). Insects and Fruits. Delhi, India: Periodical Expert Book Agency, 415
pp.
Butani, D.K. (1993). Mango: Pest Problems. Delhi, India: Periodical Expert Book
Agency, 290 pp.
CAB International (2003). Crop Protection Compendium (2003 edition). Wallingford, UK:
CAB International.
CABI/EPPO (1997). Sternochetus mangiferae. In: Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott,
P.R. and Holderness, M. (eds). Quarantine Pests for Europe (second edition). Data
sheets on Quarantine Pests for the European Communities and for the European
and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International/EPPO, pp. 526-531.
CABI/EPPO (1998). Rastrococcus invadens Williams. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests,

Map No. 585. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 2 pp.
Cantrell, B., Chadwick, B. and Cahill, A. (2002). Fruit Fly Fighters: Eradication of the
papaya fruit fly. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 200 pp.
Carroll, L.E., White, I.M., Friedberg, A., Norrbom, A.L., Dallwitz, M.J. and Thompson,
F.C. (2002 onwards). Pest Fruit Flies of the World: Descriptions, Illustrations,
Identification, and Information Retrieval. Version: 8th August 2002.
http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/
Carter, D.J. (1984). Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with special reference to the British Isles.
Series Entomologica (Dordrecht) 31: 1-431.
Christenson, L.D. and Foote, R.H. (1960). Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of
Entomology 5: 171-192.
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1962). Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard).

Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No. 146. London, UK:
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 2 pp.
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1966). Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell).

Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No. 220. London, UK:
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 2 pp.
Page 123
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1982). Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman).

Distribution Maps of Pests, Map No. 49 (revised). London, UK: Commonwealth
Agricultural Bureaux, 3 pp.
Cook, D. (2001). An Economic Evaluation of Interstate Quarantine Protocols for Mangoes

Entering Western Australia. Agribusiness Review, Volume 9, Paper 3.
http://www.agribusiness.asn.au/Review/2001v9/Cook_2001_1/Cook_2001_1.htm#
WAQIS
Cox, J.M. (1989). The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).

Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology 58(1): 1-78.
Davidson, J.A. and Miller, D.R. (1990). Ornamental plants. In: Rosen, D. (ed.). Armored
Scale Insects. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests.
Volume 4B. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 603-632.
De, K. and Pande, Y.D. (1988). Bionomics and some behavioural aspects of the mango
stone weevil, Sternochetus gravis (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
Entomon 13(1): 17-24.
DeBach, P. and Rosen, D. (1991). Biological Control by Natural Enemies (second edition)
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 440 pp.
Dekle, G.W. (1976). Florida Armored Scale Insects. Arthropods of Florida and
Neighboring Land Areas. Volume 3. Gainesville, Florida, USA: Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 345
pp.
DPP (Directorate of Plant Protection, India) (2001). Pest list provided by the Directorate of
Plant Protection in India to Dr Sharan Singh on his visit to India. Directorate of
Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture, India.
Drew, R.A.I. and Hancock, D.L. (1994). The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies
(Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research,
Supplement 2: 1-68.
Duffy, B.K. and Gardner, D.E. (1994). Locally established Botrytis fruit rot of Myrica
faya, a noxious weed in Hawaii. Plant Disease 78(9): 919-923.
Entwistle, P.F. (1972). Pests of Cocoa. London, UK: Harlow, Longman, 779 pp.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) (2002). EPPO data
sheets. Sternochetus mangiferae.
ftp://server.oepp.eppo.fr/DATASHEETS/english/insects/e-crypma.doc
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1996). Guidelines for
Pest Risk Analysis. ISPM Publication No. 2, FAO, Rome.
Page 124
Fasih, M., Srivastava, R.P., Abbas, S.R. and Sharma, S. (1989). Outbreak of Orgyia
postica Walker (Lymantriidae: Lepidoptera), a new pest on mango in Uttar
Pradesh. Current Science 58(22): 1258-1260.
Fletcher, B.S. (1989). Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. In: Robinson, A.S. and
Hooper, G. (eds). Fruit Flies. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World
Crop Pests. Volume 3B. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp.
195-208.
Foldi, I. (1990). The scale cover. In: Rosen, D. (ed.). Armored Scale Insects. Their
Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Volume 4A.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 43-57.
Follett, P.A. (2002). Mango seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and premature fruit
drop in mangoes. Journal of Economic Entomology 95(2): 336-339.
Gentry, J.W. (1965). Crop Insects of Northeast Africa-Southwest Asia. Agriculture

Handbook No. 273. Washington, D.C., USA: United States Department of
Agriculture, 210 pp.
Gill, R.J. (1997). The Scale Insects of California. Part 3. The Armored Scales (Homoptera:
Diaspididae). Technical Series in Agricultural Biosystematics and Plant Pathology,
No. 3. Sacramento, USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture, 307 pp.
Golez, H.G. (1991). Bionomics and control of the mango seed borer, Noorda albizonalis
Hampson (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera). Acta Horticulturae 291: 418-424.
Greathead, D.J. (1997). Crawler behaviour and dispersal. In: Ben-Dov, Y. and Hodgson,
C.J. (eds). Soft Scale Insects. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World
Crop Pests. Volume 7A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp.
339-342.
Gupta, B.P. and Singh, Y.P. (1986). New record of Orgyia postica Walk. as a pest of
mango. Progressive Horticulture 18(3-4): 273.
Hashem, A.G., Tadros, A.W. and Abo-Sheasha, M.A. (1997). Monitoring the honeydew
moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella Mill. in citrus, mango and grapevine orchards
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Annals of Agricultural Science Cairo 42(1): 335-343.
Hansen, J.D., Armstrong, J.W. and Brown, S.S. (1989). The distribution and biological
observations of the mango weevil, Cryptorhynchus mangiferae (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae), in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 29:
31-39.
Holmes, R. (1997). Draft Crop Profile Brief, Mango. Ayr, Queensland: Queensland
Horticulture Institute.
Page 125
Hori, K. (2000). Possible causes of feeding disease symptoms resulting from the feeding of
phytophagous Heteroptera. In: Schaefer, C.W. and Panizzi, A.R. (eds). Heteroptera
of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 11-35.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1994a). Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor).

Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 550. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International, 2 pp.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1994b). Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel).

Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 109 (3rd revision). Wallingford,
UK: CAB International, 3 pp.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1995a). Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae

(Coquillett). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 64 (2nd revision).
Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 4 pp.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1995b). Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell).

Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 101 (1st revision). Wallingford, UK:
CAB International, 3 pp.
ISPM #11 (2004). International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure #11. Pest Risk
Analysis for Quarantine Pests including Analysis of Environmental Risks.
http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/ispm.jsp
Jager, K. de and Daneel, M.S. (1999). Protect banana bunches against pests with bags.
Neltropika Bulletin 305: 32-33.
Jarvis, H. (1946). Pests of the mango. Queensland Agricultural Journal 62: 10-14.
Kalshoven, L.G.E. and Laan, P.A. van der (reviser and translator) (1981). Pests of Crops
in Indonesia (revised). (Jakarta, Indonesia: Ichtiar Baru), 701 pp.
Kamble, S.T. (1971). Bionomics of Dysdercus koenigii (Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae).

Current Science 43: 159.
Kapoor, V.C. (1989). Indian sub-continent. In: Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. (eds). Fruit
Flies. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Volume 3A.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 59-62.
Karsholt, O. (1996). The Lepidoptera of Europe: A Distributional Checklist. Stenstrup,

Denmark: Apollo Books, 380 pp.
Kishore, P. (1991). Sources of resistance amongst world pearl millet, Pennisetum

typhoides (Burm.), germplasms to important insect pests. Journal of Entomological
Research 15(3): 212-217.
Page 126
Kugelberg, O. (1973). Notes on the rearing of Spilostethus pandurus (Heteroptera,

Lygaeidae) on sunflower seeds. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 16(4):
552-553.
Lal, B. and Reddy, O.R. (2002). Technical Report for Market access for Export of Indian
Mangoes (Mangifera indica) to Australia. Agricultural and Processed Food
Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine and Storage, India, 29 pp.
Le Pelley, R.H. (1968). Pests of Coffee. London and Harlow, UK: Longmans, Green and
Co. Ltd, 590 pp.
Liotta, G. and Mineo, G. (1964). La Cryptoblabes gnidiella Mill. o tignola rigata degli
agrumi (Lep., Pyralidae) osservazioni biologiche in Sicilia. Bollettino 1st
Entomologia Agraria e dell’Osservatorio di Fitopatologia di Palermo 5: 155-172.
(In Italian).
Luhanga, W.W. and Gwinner, J. (1993). Mango mealybug (Rastrococcus iceryoides) on

Mangifera indica in Malawi. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 41(2): 125-126.
Mau, R.F.L. and Kessing, J.L.M. (1992). Crop Knowledge Master. Coccus longulus
(Douglas). http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_neobre.htm
Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L. and Watson, G.L. (2002). Invasive species of mealybugs
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and their threat to U.S. agriculture. Proceedings of
the Entomological Society of Washington 104(4): 825-836.
Molina, J.M. (1998). Lepidoptera associated with blueberry cultivation in Western

Andalusia. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas 24(4): 763-772.
Mukhopadhyay, A. (1983). Some aspects of ecology of lygaeid bugs (Heteroptera: Insecta)

of the host plant madar and effect of the latter on the fecundity of Spilostethus
hospes (Fabr.). In: Proceedings of Symposium on Host. Environ. Zool. Surv., India,
pp. 91-101.
Nameth, S., Chatfield, J. and Shetlar, D. (2003). Sooty Molds on Trees and Shrubs. Ohio
State University Extension Fact Sheet. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/3000/3046.html
Negi, S.S. (2000). Mango production in India. In: Subhadrabandhu, S. and Pichakum, A.
(eds). Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Mango, Pattaya City,
Thailand, 6-9 April, 1999. Volume 1. Acta Horticulturae 509: 69-78.
Patil, H.N. and Patil, V.H. (1994). Export scenario of Indian mangoes. Agricultural
Situation in India 48(10): 729-736.
Page 127
Peña, J.E. and Mohyuddin, A.I. (1997). Insect pests. In: Litz, R.E. (ed.). The Mango:
Botany, Production and Uses. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 327-362.
Podoler, H., Dreishpoun, Y. and Rosen, D. (1981). Population dynamics of the Florida
wax scale, Ceroplastes floridensis (Homoptera: Coccidae) on citrus in Israel. 1. A
partial life table. Acta Oecologica, Oecologia Applicata 2(1): 81-91.
QDPIF (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries) (2004). Red-banded

mango caterpillar – A quarantine pest of mango. DPI Note, File No. APH0067.
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/health/4278.html
QFVG (1997). Mango Industry Profile. Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers,
Queensland.
http://www.qfvg.org.au/commit/queensland_mango_industry_profil.htm
Rawat, R.R. and Jakhmola, S.S. (1970). Bionomics of the mango-coccid (Rastrococcus
iceryoides Green; Homoptera: Coccidae). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
40(2): 140-144.
Sanchez, F.F. and Laigo, F.M. (1968). Notes on the cacao tussock moth, Orgyia australis
postica Walker (Lymantriidae, Lepidoptera). Philippine Entomologist 1(1): 67-71.
Sasmal, N. and Kulshreshtha, J.P. (1984). Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Mill.), a pest of ‘Azolla’
infests rice. Rice Research Newsletter 5(1-2): 2.
Schaefer, C.W. and Ahmad, I. (2000). Cotton stainers and their relatives (Pyrrhocoroidea:
Pyrrhocoridae and Largidae). In: Schaefer, C.W. and Panizzi, A.R. (eds).
Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp.
271-307.
Shelly, T.E. (2001). Lek size and female visitation in two species of tephritid fruit flies.
Animal Behaviour 62(1): 33-40.
Shelly, T.E. and Kaneshiro, K.Y. (1991). Lek behavior of the Oriental fruit fly, Dacus
dorsalis, in Hawaii (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 4(2): 235-
241.
Shukla, R.P. and Tandon, P.L. (1985). Bio-ecology and management of the mango weevil,
Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). International
Journal of Tropical Agriculture 3(4): 293-303.
Shukla, R.P., Tandon, P.L. and Suman, C.L. (1985). Intra-tree distribution of the eggs of
mango stone weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae). Entomon 10(3): 215-218.
Silva, E.B. and Mexia, A. (1999). The pest complex Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière)
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera:
Page 128
Pseudococcidae) on sweet orange groves (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) in Portugal:

Interspecific association. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas 25(1): 89-98.
Singh, S.B. and Singh, H.M. (2001). Biology of Deudorix isocrates on its new potential
host -- aonla (Emblica officinalis). Indian Journal of Entomology 63(1): 19-25.
Singh, Y.P. and Singh, D.K. (1995). Bionomics of Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millèr. a pest of
sorghum. Advances in Agricultural Research in India 3: 119-129.
Singh, Y.P. and Singh, D.K. (1997). Host plants, extent of damage and seasonal abundance
of earhead caterpillar Cryptoblabes gnidiella Millèr. Advances in Agricultural
Research in India 7: 133-137.
Smith, D., Beattie, G.A.C. and Broadley, R. (1997). Citrus Pests and their Natural
Enemies: Integrated Pest Management in Australia. Information Series QI97030.
Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
Horticultural Research and Development Corporation, 263 pp.
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community) (2002). Pacific Fruit Fly Web – Asian Papaya
Fruit Fly (Bactrocera papayae Drew and Hancock). 17 October, 2002.
http://www.spc.int/pacifly/Species_profiles/B_papayae.htm
Srivastava, R.P. (1997). Mango Insect Pest Management (first edition). Lucknow, India:
International Book Distributing Co., 272 pp.
Sternlicht, M. (1979). Improving control of the citrus flower moth, Prays citri, by mass
trapping of males. Alon Hanotea 34(3): 189-192.
Swailem, S.M. and Ismail, I.I. (1972). On the biology of the honey dew moth
Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Millière. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d’Egypte
56: 127-134.
Sweet II, M.H. (2000). Seed and chinch bugs (Lygaeoidea). In: Schaefer, C.W. and
Panizzi, A.R. (eds). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, Florida,
USA: CRC Press, pp. 143-264.
Swirski, E., Izhar, Y., Wysoki, M., Gurevitz, E. and Greenberg, S. (1980). Integrated
control of the long-tailed mealybug, Pseudococcus longispinus (Hom.:
Pseudococcidae), in avocado plantations in Israel. Entomophaga 25(4): 415-426.
Takara, J. (1981). Insect pests on Azolla pinnata at Bangkhen, Thailand. International Rice
Research Newsletter 6(4): 12-13.
Thangavelu, K. (1979). The pest status and biology of Spilostethus pandurus (Scopoli)
(Lygaeidae: Heteroptera). Entomon 4(2): 137-142.
Page 129
Tsuruta, K., White, I.M., Bandara, H.M.J., Rajapakse, H., Sundaraperuma, S.A.H.,
Kahawatta, S.B.M.U.C. and Rajapakse, G.B.J.P. (1997). A preliminary notes on
the host-plants of fruit flies of the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Sri Lanka.
Esakia 37: 149-160.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2001). Pest List – Plant pests associated
with Mangifera indica from India. United States Department of Agriculture.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2004). Treatment Manual. United

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/Treatment_Chapters.htm. As
updated 18 September 2003.
WAQIS (Western Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) (1999). Interstate

Quarantine WA: Operations Manual. Western Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service ‘Control Copy’, Agriculture Western Australia, South Perth.
Waterhouse, D.F. (1993). The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in
Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), 141 pp.
Weems, H.V. (1964). Melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Entomology Circular No. 29, 2 pp.
Williams, D.J. (1982). The distribution of the mealybug genus Planococcus (Hemiptera:
Pseudococcidae) in Melanesia, Polynesia and Kiribati. Bulletin of Entomological
Research 72(3): 441-455.
Williams, D.J. (1985). Australian Mealybugs. London, UK: British Museum (Natural
History), 431 pp.
Williams, D.J. (1989). The mealybug genus Rastrococcus Ferris (Hemiptera:

Pseudococcidae). Systematic Entomology 14(4): 433-486.
Williams, D.J. and Watson, G.W. (1988). The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific
Region. Part 1. The Armoured Scales (Diaspididae). Wallingford, UK: CAB
Wysoki, M. (1986). New records of Lepidopterous pests of macadamia in Israel.

Phytoparasitica 14(2): 147.
Wysoki, M., Yehuda, S.B. and Rosen, D. (1993). Reproductive behavior of the honeydew
moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 24(3):
217-224.
Page 130
Yehuda, S.B., Wysoki, M. and Rosen, D. (1991-1992). Phenology of the honeydew moth,
Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on avocado in Israel.
Israel Journal of Entomology 25-26: 149-160.
Yunus, A. and Ho, T.H. (1980). List of Economic Pests, Host Plants, Parasites and
Predators in West Malaysia (1920–1978). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of
Agriculture, Malaysia, 538 pp.
Zaheruddeen, S.M. and Sujatha, A. (1993). Record of Deanolis albizonalis (Hampson)

(Pyralidae: Odontinae) as mango fruit borer in Andhra Pradesh. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 90(3): 528.
Page 131
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: PESTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANGOES (MANGIFERA INDICA L.) FROM INDIA
Shaded text indicates the species was also considered under the same name or indicated synonym in the Philippines mango IRA.
Scientific name Common Order: Family Present in Present in Present on Consider

name(s) India Australia importation pathway further?
(fruit)
Arthropoda
Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret, 1869) Cyanophyllum scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem Yes (for WA
Diaspididae 1997) TAS (AICN, 2004) (Srivastava, 1997); bark only)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus cyanophylli Signoret; (Kessing & Mau, 1993)
Fucaspis cyanophylli (Signoret);
Hemiberlesia cyanophylli (Signoret)]
Acanthocoris scabrator (Fabricius) Coreid bug; squash Hemiptera: Coreidae Yes – (Koshy et al., No – (CAB No – branch, young or No
bug 1977) International, 2003) unripe fruit, leaf, stem (CAB
[Syn. = Coreus scabrator Fabricius; International, 2003);
Crinocerus scabripes Herr.-Sch.] inflorescence (DPP, 2001)
Acanthophorus serraticornis Olivier Longicorn beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – root, stem (Srivastava, No
stem borer Cerambycidae 1993) 1997)
Aceria mangiferae Sayed, 1946 Mango bud mite; rust Acarina: Eriophyidae Yes – (DPP, 2000) Yes – QLD No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
mite (Cunningham, (Cunningham, 1989)
[Syn. = Eriophyes mangiferae (Sayed)] 1989)
Achaea janata (Linnaeus, 1758) Castor oil looper; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – QLD (CAB No – fruit piercing No
croton caterpillar Noctuidae International, 2003) (Srivastava, 1997);
[Syn. = Ophiusa melicerta; Phalaena inflorescence, leaf (CAB
(Noctua) melicerta Drury; Noctua tigrina International, 2003)
Fabricius; Ophiusa ekeikei Bethune-
Baker; Catocala traversii Fereday;
Achaea melicerta; Ophiusa janata;
Phalaena (Geometra) janata Linnaeus]
Acherontia styx (Westwood, 1847) Indian death’s head Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (CAB International, No
hawkmoth Sphingidae 1996) 2003)
[Syn. = Acherontia atropos var. styx
(Westwood); Acherontia medusa Moore;
Page 132

(fruit)
Acherontia styx crathis Rothschild &
Jordan; Manduca styx (Westwood);
Sphinx styx Westwood]
Acrocercops cathedraea Meyrick Leafminer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Gracillariidae 1996) 1993)
Acrocercops isonoma Meyrick Leafminer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Acrocercops pentalocha Meyrick Leafminer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Acrocercops syngramma Meyrick, 1914 Cashew leafminer; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
mango leafminer Gracillariidae 1996) 1993)
[Syn. = Conopomorpha syngramma
(Meyrick)]
Acrocercops zygonoma Meyrick Leafminer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (DPP, 2001); No
Gracillariidae 1996) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
Adoretus bicaudatus Arrow Chafer beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Scarabaeidae
Adoretus lasiopygus Burmeister, 1855 Grapevine chafer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Scarabaeidae
Aeolesthes holosericea Fabricius, 1787 Cherry stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – bark, stem, wood No
Cerambycidae (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Pachydissus velutinus Thompson;
Pachydissus similus Gahan;
Neocerambyx holoseriecus (Cotes)]
Aeolothrips collaris Priesner, 1919 Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Mound, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
Aeolothripidae 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
Aetheomorpha suturata Jacoby Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Chrysomelidae
Page 133

(fruit)
Agrius convolvuli (Linnaeus, 1758) Sweet potato moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, shoot (CAB No
convolvulus Sphingidae QLD, SA, TAS, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Sphinx convolvuli Linnaeus; hawkmoth; sweet VIC, WA (CAB
Sphinx abadonna Fabricius; Herse potato hawkmoth International, 2003)
patatas Ménétriés (nomen nudum);
Sphinx roseafasciata Koch; Sphinx
pseudoconvolvuli Schaufuss; Protoparce
distans Butler; Protoparce orientalis
Butler; Sphinx batatae Christ; Sphinx
nigricans Cannaviello; Chaerocampa
convolvuli (Linnaeus); Herse convolvuli
(Linnaeus); Protoparce convolvuli
(Linnaeus)]
Alcidodes frenatus (Faust.) Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Aleurocanthus mangiferae Quaintance & Mango blackfly Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (Martin, 1999) No – leaf, shoot (DPP, 2000) No
Baker, 1917 Aleyrodidae
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby, 1915 Citrus blackfly; blue Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Martin, 1999) No – leaf (CAB International, No
grey fly; citrus spring Aleyrodidae 1993; IIE, 1995a) 2003)
[Syn. = Aleurocanthus punjabensis whitefly; spiny citrus
Corbett; Aleurocanthus woglumi var. whitefly
formosana Takahashi; Aleurodes
woglumi (Ashby)]
Aleurodicus dispersus Russell, 1965 Spiralling whitefly; Hemiptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – QLD (Martin, No – leaf (CAB International, No
coconut whitefly Aleyrodidae International, 2003) 1999) 2003)
Aleurothrixus floccosus (Maskell, 1895) Citrus whitefly; Hemiptera: Yes – (CAB No – (Martin, 1999) No – leaf (CAB International,
flocculent whitefly; Aleyrodidae International, 2003) 2003) No
[Syn. = Aleurodes floccosa Maskell; woolly whitefly
Aleyrodes horridus Hempel; Aleyrodes
howardi Quaintance; Aleurothrixus
horridus (Hempel); Aleurothrixus howardi
(Quaintance)]
Allassomyia tenuispatha (Kieffer, 1909) Gall midge; mango Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
midge Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
[Syn. = Oligotrophus tenuispatha Kieffer; 2001)
Amradiplosis tenuispatha (Kieffer);
Procontarinia tenuispatha (Kieffer)]
Altica caerulea (Olivier) Flea beetle; flower Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
eating beetle; jumping Chrysomelidae
[Syn. = Haltica caerulea Olivier] beetle
Page 134

(fruit)
Amaraemyia spp. Psyllid Hemiptera: Psyllidae Yes – (USDA, No No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
2001)
Amblyrrhinus poricollis Boheman Leaf cutter; weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
[Syn. = Amblyrhinus poricollis Schönherr]
Amrasca splendens Ghauri, 1967 Mango leaf hopper; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB No – flower, leaf (Dalvi & No
mango jassid Cicadellidae 1997) International, 2003) Dumbre, 1994)
Amritodus atkinsoni Lethierry, 1889 Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (CAB No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Cicadellidae International, 2003) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Idiocerus atkinsoni Lethierry;
Idiocerus quingnepunctatus Melichar;
Idiocerus atkinsoni (Lethierry); Idioscopus
atkinsoni Lethierry]
Amritodus brevistylus Viraktamath, 1976 Mango leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath, No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf No
Cicadellidae 1976) 2003) (USDA, 2001)
Amritodus mudigerensis Viraktamath, Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath, No – (Fletcher, No – leaf (Viraktamath, No
1976 Cicadellidae 1976) 2003) 1976)
Amsacta lactinea (Cramer) Red tiger moth; black Lepidoptera: Arctiidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
hairy caterpillar 1993) 1996)
[Syn. = Estigmene lactinea Cramer]
Anaphothrips sudanensis Trybom, 1911 Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – ACT, NSW, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
Thripidae 1997) NT, QLD (Mound, (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Euthrips flavicinctus Karny; 1996)
Anaphothrips speciosus Hood;
Anaphothrips flavicinctus (Karny);
Neophysopus flavicinctus (Karny)]
Anarsia epotias Meyrick Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Gelechiidae (Bhumannavar, 1996)
1990)
Anarsia lineatella Zeller Peach twig borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (DPP, 2001); No
Gelechiidae 1996) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Anarsia pruniella Clemens]
Anarsia melanoplecta Meyrick Shoot borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Gelechiidae 1996) stem (DPP, 2001); shoot
(Srivastava, 1997)
Anomala dussumieri (Blanchard, 1850) Chafer beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Scarabaeidae
Anomala varicolor Arrow, 1911 Chafer beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Scarabaeidae
[Syn. = Anomala varicolor (Gyllenhal)]
Page 135

(fruit)
Anoplolepis gracilipes (Smith, 1857) Crazy ant; long Hymenoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NT (Shattuck No – builds nest in foliage No
legged ant Formicidae 1997) & Barnett, 2001) (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Formica longipes Jerdon; Formica
gracilipes Smith; Formica trifasciata
Smith; Prenolepis gracilipes (Smith);
Plagiolepis gracilipes (Smith); Plagiolepis
longipes (Jerdon); Plagiolepis
(Anoplolpeis) longipes (Jerdon);
Anoplolepis longipes (Jerdon)]
Anoplophora versteegii (Ritsema) Longicorn beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
stem borer Cerambycidae 1997)
Antestiopsis cruciata (Fabricius) Indian coffee bug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Pentatomidae leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
[Syn. = Antestia cruciata Fabricius;
Antestictsis cruciata Fabricius]
Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell, 1879) California red scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB No
citrus red scale; Diaspididae 1997) QLD, SA, TAS, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus aurantii Maskell; orange scale; red VIC, WA (IIE,
Chrysomphalus aurantii (Maskell); scale 1996a)
Aspidiotus citri Comstock; Aonidiella citri
(Comstock); Aspidiotus coccineus
Gennadius; Aonidiella gennadi McKenzie;
Aonidia aurantii (Maskell);
Chrysomphalus citri (Comstock)]
Aonidiella citrina (Craw, 1890) Citrus yellow scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, SA, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB No
yellow scale Diaspididae 1993) VIC, WA International, 2003)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus citrinus Craw; (CABI/EPPO,
Chrysomphalus aurantii citrinus (Craw); 1997a)
Chrysomphalus citrinus (Craw)]
Aonidiella inornata McKenzie, 1938 Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Gupta & No No – leaf (Gupta & Singh, No
scale Diaspididae Singh, 1988a) 1988a)
Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead, 1894) Oriental red scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NT, QLD No – leaf (Peña & No
Oriental scale; Diaspididae 1997) (CAB International, Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus orientalis Newstead; Oriental yellow scale; 2003)
Aspidiotus osbeckiae Green; red scale
Evaspidiotus orientalis (Newstead);
Aspidiotus pedronis Green; Aspidiotus
taprobanus Green; Chrysomphalus
pedronis (Green); Aspidiotus
cocotiphagus Marlatt; Chrysomphalus
Page 136

(fruit)
orientalis (Newstead); Chrysomphalus
pedroniformis Cockerell & Robinson;
Furcaspis orientalis (Newstead);
Aonidiella taprobana (Green); Aonidiella
cocotiphagus (Marlatt)]
Aphis gossypii Glover, 1877 Cotton aphid; Hemiptera: Aphididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
betelvine aphid QLD, VIC, SA, stem (CAB International,
[Syn. = Aphis solanina Passerini; Aphis cucurbit aphid; green TAS, WA (CAB 2003)
circezandis Fitch; Aphis convolvulicola aphid; melon aphid International, 2003)
Ferrari; Aphis cucurbiti Buckton; Aphis
calendulicola Monell; Aphis oxalis
Macchiati; Aphis heliotropii Macchiati;
Aphis monardae Oestlund; Aphis citrulli
Ashmead; Aphis cucumeris Forbes; Aphis
lilicola Williams; Aphis minuta Wilson;
Aphis affinis var. gardeniae del Guercio;
Aphis ligustriella Theobald; Aphis parvus
Theobald; Aphis hederella Theobald;
Aphis helianthi del Guercio; Aphis
pomonella Theobald; Aphis tectonae van
der Goot; Toxoptera aurantii var. limonii
del Guercio; Aphis colocasiae
Matsumura; Aphis malvoides Das; Aphis
bauhiniae Theobald; Aphis ficus
Theobald; Aphis malvacearum van der
Goot; Aphis pruniella Theobald; Aphis
citri Ashmead ex Essig; Toxoptera leonuri
Takahashi; Aphis gossypii var. callicarpae
Takahashi; Aphis shirakii Takahashi;
Aphis bryophyllae Shinji; Aphis
commelinae Shinji; Aphis hibiscifoliae
Shinji; Aphis inugomae Shinji; Aphis
perillae Shinji; Aphis vitifoliae Shinji;
Aphis chloroides Nevsky; Aphis flava
Nevsky; Aphis gossypii var. lutea Nevsky;
Aphis gossypii var. obscura Nevsky;
Aphis gossypii var. viridula Nevsky; Aphis
tridacis Theobald; Doralina frangulae
(Kaltenbach); Doralis frangulae
(Kaltenbach); Cerosipha gossypii
Page 137

(fruit)
(Glover); Doralina gossypii (Glover);
Doralis gossypii (Glover)]
Aphis praeterita Walker, 1849 Aphid Hemiptera: Aphididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – inflorescence, leaf, No
stem (Butani, 1993)
[Syn. = Aphis diphaga Walker; Aphis
epilobiina Walker; Aphis epillobina]
Apoderus tranquebaricus Fabricius Leaf twisting weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Apsylla cistellata (Buckton, 1892) Mango shoot gall Hemiptera: Psyllidae Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (CAB No – bud, leaf, shoot, twig No
psylla; mango shoot International, 2003) (Srivastava, 1997);
[Syn. = Psylla cistellata Buckton] psyllid inflorescence (Peña &
Mohyuddin, 1997)
Araecerus suturalis Boheman Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No No
Anthribidae 1993)
Arytania obscura Crawford Psyllid Hemiptera: Psyllidae Yes – (Butani, No No No
1993)
Aspidiotus destructor Signoret, 1869 Coconut scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Gupta & Yes – NT (CIE, No – leaf (Peña & No
bourbon aspidiotus; Diaspididae Singh, 1988a) 1966a) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus transparens Green; bourbon scale;
Aspidiotus cocotis Newstead; Aspidiotus transparent scale
lataniae Green; Aspidiotus simillimus
translucens Fernald; Aspidiotus
translucens Cockerell & Robinson;
Aspidiotus vastatrix Leroy;
Temnaspidiotus destructor (Signoret)]
Aspidiotus nerii Bouché, 1833 Oleander scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem, whole Yes (for WA
aucuba scale; ivy Diaspididae 1993) TAS (CAB plant (CAB International, only)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus aloes Signoret; scale; white scale International, 2003) 2003)
Aspidiotus limonii Signoret; Aspidiotus
genistae Westwood; Aspidiotus bouchei
(Targioni Tozzetti); Aspidiotus affinis
Targioni Tozzetti; Aspidiotus caldesii
Targioni Tozzetti; Aspidiotus denticulatus
Targioni Tozzetti; Aspidiotus villosus
Targioni Tozzetti; Aspidiotus budleiae
Signoret; Aspidiotus ceratoniae Signoret;
Aspidiotus cycadicola (Boisduval);
Aspidiotus epidendri Signoret; Aspidiotus
ericae (Boisduval); Aspidiotus gnidii
Signoret; Aspidiotus ilicis Signoret;
Page 138

(fruit)
Aspidiotus myricinae Signoret; Aspidiotus
ulicis Signoret; Aspidiotus uriesciae
Signoret; Aspidiotus lentisci Signoret;
Aspidiotus capparis Signoret; Aspidiotus
myrsinae Signoret; Aspidiotus budlaei
Maskell; Aspidiotus atherospermae
Maskell; Aspidiotus oleae Colvée;
Aspidiotus corynocarpi Colvée;
Aspidiotus oleastin Colvée; Aspidiotus
offinis Comstock; Aspidiotus sophorae
Maskell; Aspidiotus carpodeti Maskell;
Aspidiotus transpareus var. simillimus
Cockerell; Aspidiotus vagabundus
Cockerell; Aspidiotus simillimus
(Cockerell); Aspidiotus transvaalensis
Leonardi; Aspidiotus confusus Froggatt;
Aspidiotus tasmaniae Green; Aspidiotus
viresciae Leonardi; Aspidiotus
transpareus var. rectangulatus Lindinger;
Aspidiotus rectangulatus (Lindinger);
Aspidiosus unipectinatus Ferris;
Aspidiotus hederae var. urenae Hall;
Aspidiotus urenae (Hall); Octaspidiotus
anthospermae Balachowsky; Aspidiotus
hederae Signoret; Aspidiotus hederae
hederae Schmutterer; Aspidiotus hederae
ssp. unisexualis Schmutterer; Chermes
aloes Boisduval; Chermes ericae
Boisduval; Chermes cycadicola
Boisduval; Chermes genistae
(Westwood); Chermes hederae
(Signoret); Chermes nerii Boisduval;
Chermes osmanthi Ferris; Diaspis
bouchei Targioni Tozzetti; Octaspidiotus
atherospermae (Maskell)]
Aspidolopha melanophthalma Lacordaire Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Chrysomelidae 1993)
Atmetonychus perigrinus Oliver Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Attacus atlas (Linnaeus, 1758) Atlas moth; giant Lepidoptera: Yes – (CAB No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (CAB International, No
Page 139

(fruit)
Indian silkworm; Saturniidae International, 2003) 1996) 2003)
[Syn. = Phalaena atlas Linnaeus; Attacus snake head moth
atlas sumatranus Fruhstorfer; Attacus
atlas baliensis Jurriaanse & Lindemans;
Attacus atlas chinensis Bouvier; Attacus
atlas gladiator Fruhstorfer; Attacus atlas
simalurana Watson; Attacus atlas
burmaensis Jurriaanse & Lindemans;
Phalaena arcuata vitrea Perry; Samia
atlas Kawada; Saturnia silhetica Helfer]
Aulacaspis martini Williams & Watson, Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
1988 scale Diaspididae al., 2001)
Aulacaspis rosae (Bouché, 1833) Mango snow scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – TAS (Ben- No – bark, root, stem (Ben- No
rosa scale; rose hard Diaspididae 1993) Dov et al., 2001) Dov et al., 2001); leaf
[Syn. = Aspidiotus rosae Bouché; scale; rose scale; (USDA, 2001)
Chermes rosae (Bouché); Diaspis rosae scurfy scale
(Bouché); Aulacaspis (Diaspis) rosae
(Bouché); Diaspis (Aulacaspis) rosae
(Bouché); Anamaspis rosae (Bouché)]
Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead, 1906 Mango scale; white Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – QLD Yes – fruit, leaf, twig No
mango scale Diaspididae 1993) (Cunningham, (Cunningham, 1989)
[Syn. = Aulacaspis (Diaspis) tubercularis 1989); WA
Newstead; Aulacaspis cinnamomi (Johnson & Parr,
Newstead; Aulacaspis tubercularis 1999)
(Newstead); Diaspis (Aulacaspis)
cinnamomi mangiferae Newstead;
Aulacaspis cinnamomi mangiferae
(Newstead); Diaspis mangiferae
(Newstead); Diaspis cinnamomi-
mangiferae (Newstead); Diaspis
(Aulacaspis) cinnamomi (Newstead);
Diaspis (Aulacaspis) tubercularis
(Newstead)]
Aulacaspis vitis (Green, 1896) Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
scale Diaspididae 1993) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Chionaspis vitis Green;
Trichomytilus vitis (Green); Phenacaspis
vitis (Green); Poliaspis vitis (Green);
Aulacaspis vitis (Green)]
Page 140

(fruit)
Aulacophora foveicollis (Lucas, 1849) Red pumpkin beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
hamra beetle; red leaf Chrysomelidae International, 2003)
[Syn. = Allocophora foveicollis Lucas; beetle; red melon
Aulacophora africana (Weise); Galeruca beetle
foveicollis Lucas; Raphidopalpa
foveicollis Lucas; Rhaphidopalpa africana
Weise; Rhaphidopalpa foveicollis (Lucas)]
Aularches miliaris (Linnaeus, 1758) Spotted grasshopper; Orthoptera: Acrididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
spotted locust International, 2003)
[Syn. = Aularches punctatus; Aularches
scabiosus Fabricius]
Azteca schimperi Emery, 1893 Ant Hymenoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Shattuck & No – builds nest in foliage No
Formicidae 1997) Barnett, 2001) (Srivastava, 1997)
Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor) Fruit fly Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (IIE, 1994a) No – (IIE, 1994a) Yes – fruit (Peña & Yes
Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Dacus caryeae Kapoor, Dacus
poonensis Kapoor]
Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) Guava fruit fly Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (DPP, 2000; No – (CAB Yes – fruit (DPP, 2000; Yes
Kumar et al., 1994) International, 2003) Peña & Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Chaetodacus correctus Bezzi;
Dacus bangaloriensis Agarwal & Kapoor;
Dacus dutti Kapoor; Strumeta
paratuberculatus Philip; Dacus correctus
(Bezzi)]
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett, 1899) Melon fruit fly; melon Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (DPP, 2000; No – (IIE, 1995b) Yes – fruit (DPP, 2000; Yes
fly IIE, 1995b) Peña & Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett;
Dacus yuiliensis Tseng & Chu; Dacus
aureus Tseng & Chu; Chaetodacus
cucurbitae (Coquillett); Strumeta
cucurbitae Coquillett; Zeugodacus
cucurbitae (Coquillett); Bactrocera
(Zeugodacus) cucurbitae (Coquillett);
Dacus yayeyamanus]
Bactrocera diversa (Coquillett) Three striped fruit fly Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Carroll et al., Yes – fruit (Srivastava, Yes
2002) 1997)
[Syn. = Dacus diversus Coquillett; Dacus
citronellae Kapoor & Katiyar, Dacus
quadrifidus Hendel]
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912) Oriental fruit fly Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (DPP, 2000; No – (CAB Yes – fruit (Srivastava, Yes
Page 141

(fruit)
Srivastava, 1997) International, 2003) 1997)
[Syn. = Dacus dorsalis Hendel;
Bactrocera conformis Doleschall
(preocc.); Bactrocera ferrugineus
(Fabricius); Chaetodacus dorsalis
(Hendel); Chaetodacus ferrugineus
(Fabricius); Chaetodacus ferrugineus
dorsalis (Hendel); Chaetodacus
ferrugineus okinawanus Shiraki; Dacus
ferrugineus Fabricius; Dacus ferrugineus
var. dorsalis Fabricius; Dacus ferrugineus
dorsalis Fabricius; Dacus ferrugineus
okinawanus (Shiraki); Musca ferruginea
Fabricius (preocc.); Musca ferruginea
(Fabricius); Strumeta dorsalis (Hendel);
Chaetodacus ferrugineus (Fabricius);
Strumeta ferrugineus (Fabricius)]
Bactrocera tau (Walker) Fruit fly Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit (Peña & Yes
International, 2003) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Bactrocera hageni (Hendel);
Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau (Walker);
Dacus hageni (de Meijere); Chaetodacus
tau (Walker); Dacus caudatus var. nubilus
(Hendel); Dacus nubilus (Hendel);
Dasyneura tau (Walker); Dacus tau
Walker; Zeugodacus nubilus (Hendel)]
Bactrocera zonata (Saunders, 1841) Peach fruit fly; guava Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (DPP, 2000; No – (IIE, 1996b) Yes – fruit (DPP, 2000; Yes
fruit fly Srivastava, 1997) Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Dasyneura zonatus Saunders;
Dacus ferrugineus var. mangiferae Cotes;
Rivellia persicae Bigot; Chaetodacus
zonatus (Saunders); Dacus (Strumeta)
zonatus (Saunders); Dacus mangiferae
Cotes; Dacus persicae (Bigot); Dacus
zonatus (Saunders); Strumeta zonata
(Saunders); Dasyneura zonata Saunders;
Dacus persicus (Biggott); Strumeta
zonatus (Saunders)]
Bagrada hilaris (Burmeister, 1835) Painted bug; bagrada Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
bug; harlequin bug Pentatomidae International, 2003) leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
Page 142

(fruit)
[Syn. = Bagrada cruciferarum Kirkaldy;
Bagrada picta Fabricius]
Basitropis nitidicutis Jekel, 1855 Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
Anthribidae 2001)
Batocera numitor (Newman) Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Cerambycidae 1997)
Batocera roylei Hope, 1833 Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Cerambycidae 1997)
Batocera rubus (Linnaeus, 1758) Lateral-banded Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – bark (Peña & No
mango longhorn; Cerambycidae International, 2003) Mohyuddin, 1997); leaf,
[Syn. = Batocera albofasciata De Geer; mango root borer; stem, trunk (CAB
Batocera rubra (Linnaeus); Cerambyx rubber root borer International, 2003)
rubus Linnaeus; Batocera albomaculatus
Retz.]
Batocera rufomaculata (De Geer, 1775) Mango stem borer; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001; No – (CAB No – bark, branch, root, No
mango tree borer; Cerambycidae IIE, 1994b) International, 2003) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Cerambyx rufomaculata De Geer] tropical fig borer; 1997)
violin beetle
Batocera titana (Thompson) Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Cerambycidae 1993) 1997)
Belionota prasina (Thunberg, 1789) Mango buprestid; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – No – stem (Srivastava, No
stem borer Buprestidae (Hawkeswood, 1997)
[Syn. = Buprestis prasina Thunberg] 2002)
Biston suppressaria Guenée, 1858 Tea looper moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (Gupta & No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
looper caterpillar; Geometridae Singh, 1988b) 1996)
[Syn. = Buzura suppressaria (Guenée)] tung oil tree looper
Brevipalpus californicus (Banks, 1904) Citrus flat mite; bunch Acarina: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB No
mite; scarlet tea mite; Tenuipalpidae International, 2003) QLD, SA, VIC, WA International, 2003)
[Syn. = Tenuipalpus californicus Banks; red flat mite; silver (CAB International,
Brevipalpus australis Baker; Brevipalpus mite 2003)
browningi Baker; Brevipalpus confusis
Baker; Brevipalpus woglumi McGregor;
Hystripalpus californicus Mitrofanov &
Strunkova; Tenuipalpus australis Tucker;
Tenuipalpus vitis Womersley]
Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) False spider mite; Acarina: Yes – (CIE, 1970) Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – leaf, stem, whole plant No
passion vine mite; red Tenuipalpidae WA (AICN, 2004) (CAB International, 2003)
[Syn. = Tenuipalpus phoenicis Geijskes; and black flat mite;
Brevipalpus pseudocuneatus Baker; red crevice mite;
Brevipalpus yothersi Baker; Brevipalpus scarlet mite
Page 143

(fruit)
macbridei Baker; Brevipalpus papayensis
Baker]
Bruchus sp. Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, ? – Genus is No – overripe fruit (USDA, No
Bruchidae 2001) present in Australia 2001)
(AICN, 2004)
Busoniomimus manjunathi Viraktamath & Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Viraktamath, 1985 Cicadellidae & Viraktamath, 2003) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
1985)
Cadra cautella (Walker, 1863) Almond moth; dried Lepidoptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – (Nielsen et Yes – fruit, seed (CAB No
currant moth; fig Pyralidae International, 2003) al., 1996) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Pempelia cautella Walker; Cadra moth; tropical
defectella Walker; Ephestia passulella warehouse moth
Barrett; Cryptoblabes formosella Wileman
& South; Ephestia rotundatella Turati;
Ephestia pelopis Turner; Ephestia irakella
Amsel; Ephestia cautella (Walker);
Ephestia cahiritella Zeller; Etiella cautella
(Walker)]
Caliothrips impurus Priesner, 1928 Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (Patel et al., No – (Mound, No – leaf, root (Patel et al., No
Thripidae 1997) 1996) 1997)
Caliothrips indicus (Bagnall, 1913) Groundnut thrips; Thysanoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Mound, No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
black thrips; onion Thripidae 1996)
[Syn. = Heliothrips indicus Bagnall; thrips; pea thrips
Hercothrips indicus (Bagnall)]
Calophya brevicornis (Crawford, 1919) Gall psyllid; mango Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Burckhardt & No – leaf, stem (Srivastava, No
shoot gall psylla Calophyidae 1997) Basset, 2000) 1997)
[Syn. = Pauropsylla brevicornis Crawford;
Microceropsylla brevicornis (Crawford)]
Calophya maculata (Mathur, 1975) Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Dalvi et al., No – (Burckhardt & No No
Calophyidae 1992) Basset, 2000)
[Syn. = Pauropsylla maculata Mathur;
Microceropsylla maculata (Mathur)]
Calophya nigra Kuwayama, 1908 Mango psyllid Hemiptera: Yes – (Davli et al., No – (Burckhardt & No – leaf (Peña & No
Calophyidae 1992) Basset, 2000) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Calophya viridiscutellata
Kuwayama; Calophya viridis Kuwayama;
Pauropsylla nigra (Kuwayama);
Microceropsylla nigra (Crawford)]
Camponotus compressus (Fabricius, Ant Hymenoptera: Yes – (Kishun & No – (Shattuck & No – mechanical No
1787) Formicidae Chand, 1989) Barnett, 2001) transmission of
Page 144

(fruit)
Xanthomonas campestris
pv. mangiferaeindicae
(Kishun & Chand, 1989)
Camponotus sericeus (Fabricius, 1798) Ant Hymenoptera: Yes – (Kishun & No – (Shattuck & No – mechanical No
Formicidae Chand, 1989) Barnett, 2001) transmission of
[Syn. = Formica sericea Fabricius] Xanthomonas campestris
Camptorrhinus mangiferae Marshall Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Carpomyia vesuviana Costa, 1854 Ber fruit fly Diptera: Tephritidae Yes – (Grewal & No – (Evenhuis, No – ripening fruit (Grewal & No
Kapoor, 1986) 1996) Kapoor, 1986)
[Syn. = Orellia bucchichi Frauenfeld;
Carpomyia zizyphae Agarwal & Kapoor
1985; Carpomyia buchicchii Rondani;
Carpomyia bucchichi Frauenfeld]
Carpophilus dimidiatus (Fabricius, 1792) Corn sap beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (CAB No – leaf, overripe fruit No
dried fruit beetle; Nitidulidae International, 2003) (USDA, 2001)
[Syn. = Nitidula dimidata Fabricius] pineapple sap beetle;
souring beetle
Ceroplastes actiniformis Green, 1896 Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Ben-Dov, Yes – fruit (USDA, 2001); Yes
1997) 1993) leaf (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Ceroplastes actiniformes (Green)]
Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius, 1798) Indian wax scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, QLD, No – bark, branch, leaf, No
Indian white wax 1993) WA (CAB stem (CAB International,
[Syn. = Coccus ceriferus Fabricius; scale; Japanese wax International, 2003) 2003)
Coccus (Ceroplastes) chilensis Gray; scale
Ceroplastes australiae Walker; Columnea
cerifera (Fabricius); Columnea chilensis
(Gray); Ceroplastes ceriferus (Anderson);
Lacca alba Signoret (nomen nudum);
Ceroplastes ceriferus (Anderson);
Ceroplastes ceriferus (Anderson);
Ceroplastes vayssierei Mahdihassan;
Gascardia cerifera (Anderson);
Ceroplastes ceriferens (Fabricius);
Ceroplastes ceriferens (Fabricius);
Ceroplastes cerifera Gill]
Ceroplastes floridensis Comstock, 1881 Florida wax scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, QLD No – branch, leaf, stem No
1997) (CAB International, (CAB International, 2003)
Page 145

(fruit)
[Syn. = Ceroplastes vinsonii Signoret; 2003)
Ceroplastes floridensis Comstock;
Ceroplastes floridensis (Maskell);
Cerostegia floridensis (Comstock);
Paracerostegia floridensis (Comstock)]
Ceroplastes pseudoceriferus Green, 1935 Ceriferous wax scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov, No – bark, flower, root, No
horned wax scale 1993) 1993) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Ceroplastes ceriferus 1997)
(misidentification)]
Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, 1893 Pink wax scale; red Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, QLD Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB No
wax scale; ruby wax 1997) (CAB International, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Ceroplastes rubens minor scale 2003); NT, SA,
Maskell] VIC, WA (Qin &
Gullan, 1994); WA
(Johnson & Parr,
1999)
Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus, 1758) Fig wax scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (IIE, 1993a) Yes – NT (AICN, No – leaf (Peña & No
2004) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Coccus rusci Linnaeus; Coccus
caricae Fabricius; Coccus artemisiae
Rossi; Calypticus radiatus Costa;
Calypticus testudineus Costa; Coccus
hydatis Costa; Lecanium rusci
(Linnaeus); Lecanium radiatum (Costa);
Lecanium testudineum (Costa);
Columnea testudiniformis Targioni
Tozzetti; Columnea caricae (Fabricius);
Chermes caricae (Bernard); Columnea
testudinata Targioni Tozzetti; Calypticus
hydatis (Costa); Ceroplastes rusci
(Linnaeus); Lecanium artemisiae (Rossi);
Ceroplastes denudatus Cockerell;
Ceroplastes nerii Newstead; Coccus
caricae Bernard; Ceroplastes tenuitectus
Green; Ceroplastes rusci Borg]
Chaetocnema cognatata Baly Flea beetle Coleoptera: Alticidae Yes – (USDA, No No No
2001)
Chaetocnema concinnipennis Baly Flea beetle Coleoptera: Alticidae Yes – (USDA, No No No
2001)
Chalcoscelides castaneipars (Moore, Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Nielsen et al., No No
Page 146

(fruit)
1866) Limacodidae 2001) 1996)
[Syn. = Miresa castaneipars Moore; Altha

castaneipars Moore]
Cheromettia laleana Moore Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Limacodidae 1996)
[Syn. = Belippa laleana (Moore)]
Chlorida festiva (Linnaeus, 1758) Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – wood (Carrasco, 1978) No
Cerambycidae 2001)
Chlumetia alternans Moore Shoot borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence, shoot No
Noctuidae 1996) (USDA, 2001); leaf, stem
(Butani, 1993)
Chlumetia transversa (Walker, 1863) Mango shoot borer; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – inflorescence, leaf, No
mango shoot Noctuidae al., 1996) shoot (Srivastava, 1997);
[Syn. = Nachaba transversa Walker; caterpillar; mango tip stem (Butani, 1993)
Chlumetia guttivenris Walker; Ariola borer
corticea Snellen; Chlumetia guangxiensis
Wu & Zhu; Salagena transversa (Walker);
Sholumetia transversa (Walker)]
Chrysocoris patricius (Fabricius) Bug Hemiptera: Yes – (Kishun & No Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Pentatomidae Chand, 1989) leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus, Black scale; circular Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem No
1758) black scale; circular Diaspididae 1993) QLD, TAS (CAB (USDA, 2001)
purple scale; circular International,
[Syn. = Coccus aonidum Linnaeus; scale; citrus black 2003); WA (Woods,
Chrysomphalus ficus Ashmead; scale; Egyptian black 2001)
Aspidiotus aonidum (Linnaeus); scale; Florida red
Aonidiella ficorum Ashmead; Aspidiotus scale; purple scale;
(Chrysomphalus) aonidum (Linnaeus); red spotted scale
Aspidiotus (Chrysomphalus) ficus
(Ashmead); Aspidiotus ficorum Ashmead;
Aspidiotus ficus (Ashmead);
Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus)]
Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan, Spanish red scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – QLD (CAB No – leaf (Peña & No
1889) dictyosperm scale; Diaspididae 1993) International, 2003) Mohyuddin, 1997)
palm scale; red citrus
[Syn. = Aspidiotus dictyospermi Morgan; scale; western red
Aspidiotus (Chrysomphalus) dictyospermi scale
Page 147

(fruit)
(Morgan); Aspidiotus agrumicula De
Gregorio; Aspidiotus dictyospermi var.
arecae Newstead; Aspidiotus arecae
(Newstead); Aspidiotus dictyospermi var.
jamaicensis Cockerell; Aspidiotus
jamaicensis (Cockerell); Aspidiotus
mangiferae Cockerell; Chrysomphalus
arecae (Newstead); Chrysomphalus
castigatus Mamet; Chrysomphalus
dictyospermatis Lindinger;
Chrysomphalus jamaicensis (Cockerell);
Chrysomphalus mangiferae (Cockerell);
Chrysomphalus minor Berlese]
Chrysomphalus pinnulifer (Maskell, 1891) Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
scale Diaspididae 2001)
[Syn. = Diaspis pinnulifera Maskell]
Cisaberoptus kenyae Keifer Mango leaf mite; false Acarina: Eriophyidae Yes – (DPP, 2001; No – (Halliday, No – leaf (Rai et al., 1993) No
spider mite; gall mite; Rai et al., 1993) 1998)
mango leaf-coating
mite
Citripestis eutraphera (Meyrick) Fruit borer Lepidoptera: Yes – No – (Nielsen et al., No – premature dropping of No
Pyralidae (Bhumannavar, 1996) fruit (Bhumannavar, 1991a)
[Syn. = Philotroctis eutraphera Meyrick] 1991a; DPP, 2001)
Clitea picta Baly, 1877 Flea beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
Chrysomelidae 2001)
Clovia sp. Spittlebug Hemiptera: Yes – (Davli et al., No – (Fletcher, No No
Aphrophoridae 1992) 2003)
Coccus almoraensis Avasthi & Shafee, Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No No
1984 al., 2001) al., 2001)
Coccus colemani Kannan, 1918 Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No No
1993) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Coccus viridis colemani (Kannan);
Chloropulvinaria colemani (Kannan)]
Coccus discrepans (Green, 1904) Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
1993) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Lecanium discrepans Green;
Saissetia discrepans (Green)]
Page 148

(fruit)
Coccus formicarii (Green, 1896) Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
al., 2001) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Lecanium formicarii Green;
Lecanium globulosum Maskell; Lecanium
(Saissetia) formicarii (Green); Saissetia
formicarii (Green); Taiwansaissetia
formicarii (Green)]
Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 Brown soft scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, stem (CAB No
common shield scale; 1993) QLD, SA, TAS, WA International, 2003)
[Syn. = Calypticus laevis Costa; soft brown scale (CAB International,
Calypticus hesperidum (Linnaeus); 2003)
Lecanium hesperidum (Linnaeus);
Coccus patellaeformis Curtis; Chermes
lauri Boisduval; Lecanium angustatus
Signoret; Lecanium lauri (Boisduval);
Lecanium maculatum Signoret; Kermes
aurantj Alfonso; Lecanium alienum
Douglas; Lecanium depressum simulans
Douglas (nomen nudum); Lecanium
minimum Newstead; Lecanium assimile
amaryllidis Cockerell; Lecanium assimile
amaryllidis Cockerell (nomen nudum);
Lecanium terminaliae Cockerell;
Lecanium ceratoniae Gennadius;
Lecanium hesperidum lauri (Boisduval);
Lecanium nanum Cockerell; Lecanium
minimum pinicola Maskell; Lecanium
flaveolum Cockerell; Lecanium ventrale
Ehrhorn; Lecanium hesperidum alienum
(Douglas); Lecanium (Calymnatus)
hesperidum pacificum Kuwana; Coccus
angustatus (Signoret); Chermes aurantii
(Alfonso); Lecanium hesperidum
minimum (Newstead); Coccus
(Lecanium) minimus (Newstead); Coccus
flaveolus (Cockerell); Coccus patelliformis
(Curtis); Coccus hesperidum alienus
(Douglas); Coccus hesperidum lauri
(Boisduval); Coccus hesperidum pacificus
(Kuwana); Coccus maculatus (Signoret);
Page 149

(fruit)
Coccus minimus (Newstead); Coccus
minimus pinicola (Maskell); Coccus
nanus (Cockerell); Coccus terminaliae
(Cockerell); Coccus ventralis (Ehrhorn);
Eulecanium assimile amaryllidis
(Cockerell); Lecanium signiferum Green;
Lecanium punctuliferum Green; Saissetia
punctulifera (Green); Coccus signiferus
(Green); Lecanium hesperidum
(Linnaeus); Lecanium (Coccus)
hesperidum (Linnaeus); Coccus
(Lecanium) hesperidum (Linnaeus);
Coccus jungi Chen; Lecanium
mauritiense Mamet; Lecanium (Coccus)
hesperidum (Linnaeus); Lecanium
(Coccus) signiferum (Green); Coccus
mauritiensis (Mamet)]
Coccus kosztarabi Avasthi & Shafee, Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No No
1984 al., 2001) al., 2001)
Coccus latioperculatum (Green, 1922) Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
1993) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Lecanium latioperculatum Green;
Lecanium latioperculum (Green); Coccus
lateroperculatus (Green)]
Coccus longulus (Douglas, 1887) Long soft scale; long Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, leaf, twig (Smith Yes (for WA
brown scale; long al., 2001) QLD, SA (Ben-Dov et al., 1997) only)
[Syn. = Lecanium longulum Douglas; shell scale; long et al., 2001)
Lecanium chirimoliae Maskell; Lecanium shield scale
ficus Maskell; Coccus longulum
(Douglas); Coccus ficus (Maskell);
Lecanium frontale Green; Coccus
frontalis (Green); Coccus elongatus
(incorrect synonymy); Lecanium (Coccus)
celtium Kuwana; Coccus celtium
(Kuwana); Lecanium (Coccus) longulus
(Douglas); Lecanium wistariae Brain;
Coccus (Lecanium) longulus (Douglas);
Lecanium kraunhianum Lindinger;
Lecanium (Coccus) frontale (Green);
Coccus frontalis (Green); Coccus
Page 150

(fruit)
celticum (Kuwana); Parthenolecanium
wistaricola Borchsenius]
Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) Green coffee scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – QLD (Smith No – bud, leaf (Peña & No
green scale; green 1997) et al., 1997) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Lecanium viride Green; Lecanium shield scale; soft
(Trechocorys) hesperidum africanum green scale
Newstead (nomen nudum); Lecanium
(Coccus) viride (Green); Coccus viridis
bisexualis Köhler (nomen nudum);
Coccus viridis viridis Köhler (nomen
nudum); Eulecanium viridis (Green);
Lecanium viridis (Green)]
Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée, 1854) Castor seed Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – ACT, NSW, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB No
caterpillar; castor Pyralidae 1997) NT, QLD, SA, VIC International, 2003);
[Syn. = Astura punctiferalis Guenée; capsule borer; castor (AICN, 2004); WA inflorescence, seed, shoot
Deiopeia detracta (Walker); Botys borer; corn moth; (DAWA, 2003) (Srivastava, 1997)
nicippealis (Walker); Astura guttatalis peach pyralid moth;
(Walker); Dichocrocis punctiferalis shoot borer; yellow
(Guenée)] peach moth
Contarinia moringae (Mani, 1936) Gall midge Diptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
Cecidomyiidae 2001) 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
[Syn. = Stictodiplosis moringae Mani] 2001)
Coptosoma nazirae Atkinson Dwarf shield bug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Plataspidae leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki, 1909 Formosan Isoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – branch, trunk (Peña & No
subterranean termite; Rhinotermitidae 1997) Abbey, 1993) Mohyuddin, 1997); root,
[Syn. = Coptotermes formosae Holmgren; Oriental subterranean wood (Srivastava, 1997)
Coptotermes hongkongensis Oshima; termite
Cryptotermes hongkongensis Campbell;
Coptotermes intrudens Oshima; Termes
raffrayi Matsumura; Coptotermes remotus
Silvestri]
Coptotermes gestroi (Wasmann, 1896) Subterranean termite Isoptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Rhinotermitidae 1993) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
Coptotermes heimi (Wasmann, 1902) Termite Isoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Rhinotermitidae Abbey, 1993) 1993)
Corticarnia gibbosa Herbst Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
Chrysomelidae 2001)
Costalimaita ferruginea (Fabricius, 1801) Yellow eucalyptus Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
beetle Chrysomelidae 2001)
Page 151

(fruit)
[Syn. = Costalimaita ferruginea vulgata
(Fabricius); Colaspoides iglesiasi (Costa
Lima); Costalimaita ferruginea vulgata
Lefèvre; Costalimaita vulgata (Lefèvre);
Melinophora iglesiasi; Costalimaita
ferruginea (Klug)]
Cricula trifenestrata (Helfer, 1837) Mango hairy Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Singh, 1992) No
caterpillar; tea flush Saturniidae 1996)
[Syn. = Saturnia trifenestrata Helfer; worm; wild silk moth
Cricula trifenestrata javana (Watson);
Cricula trifenestrata kransi (Jurriaanse &
Lindemans); Cricula andrei]
Crinorrhinus crassirostris Faust Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (Patel et al., No No – leaf (Patel et al., 1997) No
Curculionidae 1997)
Crossotarsus saundersi Chapius, 1865 Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Platypodidae 1997)
Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière, 1867) Honeydew moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (CAB No – (Nielsen et al., Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB Yes
citrus pyralid; Pyralidae International, 2003) 1996) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Ephestia gnidiella Millière; Albinia christmasberry
casazzar Briosi; Albinia wockiana Briosi; webworm; earhead
Albinia gnidiella (Millière); Cryptoblabes caterpillar; rind-boring
aliena Swezey; Cryptoblabes wockeana orange moth
(Briosi)]
Cryptocephalus insubidus Suffrain Leaf beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Ramamurthy et No
Chrysomelidae al., 1982)
Cryptocephalus suillus Suffrain Leaf beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Ramamurthy et No
Chrysomelidae al., 1982)
Ctenomeristis ebriola Meyrick Mango caterpillar; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., Yes – fruit (DPP, 2001) Yes
mango fruit borer Pyralidae 1996)
Dasineura amaramanjarae Grover, 1965 Inflorescence gall Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
2001)
Dasineura citri Rao & Grover, 1960 Citrus blossom midge Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
2001)
Deanolis sublimbalis Snellen Red-banded mango Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – under official Yes – fruit (Srivastava, Yes
caterpillar; mango Pyralidae control in QLD 1997; Zaheruddeen &
[Syn. = Noorda albizonalis Hampson, seed borer; red (QDPIF, 2004) Sujatha, 1993)
1903; Deanolis albizonalis (Hampson); banded borer
Autocharis albizonalis (Hampson)]
Page 152

(fruit)
Deporaus marginatus (Pascoe, 1883) Mango leaf cutting Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – leaf, shoot (CAB No
weevil; mango leaf Curculionidae International, 2003) International, 2003); stem
[Syn. = Eugnamptus marginatus Pascoe; weevil; mango-funnel (Zaman & Maiti, 1994)
Deporaus marginellus Faust] rolling leaf weevil
Desmidophorus hebes Fabricius, 1781 Large black weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae International, 2003)
Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius, 1793) Pomegranate fruit Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., Yes – fruit (Srivastava, Yes
borer; anar caterpillar; Lycaenidae 1997) 1996) 1997)
[Syn. = Hesperia isocrates Fabricius; pomegranate butterfly
Virachola isocrates (Fabricius)]
Diapromorpha melanoppus Lacordaire Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Chrysomelidae 2001)
Diapromorpha pallens Olivier, 1808 Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (Zaman & No No – leaf, stem (Zaman & No
Chrysomelidae Maiti, 1994) Maiti, 1994)
Dictyophara sp. Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Dalvi et al., ? – Genus is No No
Dictyopharidae 1992) present in Australia
(Fletcher, 2003)
Dinoderus distinctus Lesne, 1897 False powder post Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
beetle Bostrichidae 1997)
Dorylus orientalis Westwood, 1835 Oriental army ant; Hymenoptera: Yes – (Menon & No – (Shattuck & No – builds nest in foliage No
brown ant; red ant Formicidae Srivastava, 1976) Barnett, 2001) (Srivastava, 1997)
Drosicha contrahens (Walker) Mango mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No Yes –fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Margarodidae leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) Mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Margarodidae International, 2003) leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
Drosicha mangiferae Green Giant mealybug; giant Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (CAB No – fruit peduncle (Tandon, No
mango mealybug; Margarodidae International, 2003) 1998); inflorescence, shoot
mango mealybug (Srivastava, 1997); leaf,
stem (Butani, 1993)
Affects fruit set and causes

fruit drop (Tandon, 1998).
Drosicha stebbingi (Green, 1903) Mango mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (CAB No – fruit peduncle, No
giant mealybug Margarodidae International, 2003) inflorescence, leaf, shoot
[Syn. = Monophlebus stebbingi Green; (Tandon, 1998)
Monophlebus stebbingi var. mangiferae
Page 153

(fruit)
Green; Monophlebus stebbingi var. Affects fruit set and causes
octocaudata Green; Drosicha fruit drop (Tandon, 1998).
octocaudata (Green)]
Dudua aprobola (Meyrick, 1886) Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – inflorescence No
Tortricidae al., 1996) (Verghese & Jayanthi,
[Syn. = Eccopsis aprobola Meyrick; 1999); leaf, stem (Butani,
Temnolopha metallota Lower; 1993); shoot (Srivastava,
Argyroploce aprobola (Meyrick); 1997)
Platypeplus aprobola (Meyrick)]
Dysdercus koenigii (Fabricius) Red cotton bug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Pyrrhocoridae International, 2003) leaf, stem (DPP, 2001);
[Syn. = Cimex koenigii] seed (Schaefer & Ahmad,
2000)
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893) Pineapple mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, leaf, root, stem, No
Pseudococcidae al., 2001) QLD, WA (CAB whole plant (CAB
[Syn. = Dactylopius brevipes Cockerell; International, 2003) International, 2003)
Pseudococcus brevipes (Cockerell);
Dactylopius (Pseudococcus) ananassae
Kuwana; Pseudococcus missionum
Cockerell; Pseudococcus palauensis
Kanda; Pseudococcus cannae Green;
Pseudococcus longirostralis James;
Pseudococcus pseudobrevipes Mamet]
Ectatorhinus adamsi Pascoe, 1872 Twig boring weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (Pathak et No No – twig (Pathak et al., No
Curculionidae al., 2000) 2000)
Epepeotes ficicola Fisher Longicorn beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Epepeotes luscos (Fabricius) Longicorn beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Erosomyia mangiferae (Felt, 1911) Mango blossom Diptera: Yes – (Abbas et al., No – (Evenhuis, No – bud, shoot, young fruit No
midge; mango blister Cecidomyiidae 1989; DPP, 2001) 1996) (CAB International, 2003);
[Syn. = Mangodiplosis mangiferae midge; mango gall inflorescence, leaf, stem
Tavares; Procystiphora mangiferae (Felt); midge; inflorescence (Butani, 1993)
Erosomyia indica Grover & Prasad] gall midge; mango
inflorescence midge;
mango midge
Page 154

(fruit)
Erosomyia margicola Dastan, 1980 Midge Diptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Evenhuis, No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Cecidomyiidae 1997) 1996)
Eublemma angulifera Moore Flower feeding Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence (Butani, No
caterpillar; small Noctuidae 1996) 1993)
shoot boring
caterpillar
Eublemma silicula Swinhoe Earhead caterpillar; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence (Butani, No
flower feeding Noctuidae 1996) 1993)
caterpillar
Eublemma versicolor Walker Flower webber Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence (DPP, No
Noctuidae 1996) 2000)
Eucalymnatus hempeli Costa Lima, 1923 Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (USDA, No – (Ben-Dov et No No
2001) al., 2001)
Eucalymnatus tessellatus (Signoret, Palm scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW (Ben- No – leaf (Peña & No
1873) tessellated scale 1993) Dov et al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Lecanium tessellatum Signoret;

Lecanium perforatum Newstead;
Lecanium tessellatum perforatum
(Newstead); Lecanium tessellatum
swainsonae Cockerell; Lecanium
(Eucalymnatus) tessellatum (Signoret);
Coccus tessellatum (Signoret);
Eucalymnatus perforatus (Newstead);
Page 155

(fruit)
Eucalymnatus tessellatus swainsonae
(Cockerell); Lecanium subtessellatum
Green; Eucalymnatus subtessellatus
(Green); Lecanium (Eucalymnatus)
tessellatum perforatum (Newstead);
Lecanium (Eucalymnatus) perforatum
(Newstead); Lecanium tessellatum
obsoletum Green]
Eucorynus crassicornis (Fabricius, 1801) Tephrosia seed Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
weevil Anthribidae 2001)
[Syn. = Araecerus crassicornis Fabricius;
Araeocerus crassicornis (Fabricius)]
Eucrostes sp. Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Verghese & ? – Genus is No – inflorescence No
Geometridae Jayanthi, 1999) present in Australia (Verghese & Jayanthi, 1999)
(Nielsen et al.,
1996)
Eudocima fullonia (Clerck, 1764) Fruit piercing moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, No – fruit piercing (CAB No
fruit sucking moth; Noctuidae QLD (CAB International, 2003;
[Syn. = Phalaena fullonia Clerck; orange-piercing moth International, 2003) Srivastava, 1997)
Phalaena Noctua phalonia (Linnaeus);
Phalaena Noctua fullonica (Linnaeus);
Noctua dioscoreae (Fabricius); Phalaena
pomona (Cramer); Ophideres obliteraus
(Walker); Eudocima dioscoreae
(Fabricius); Eudocima obliterans
(Walker); Eudocima phalonia (Linnaeus);
Eudocima pomona (Cramer); Ophideres
fullonia (Clerck); Ophideres fullonica
(Linnaeus); Othreis fullonia (Clerck);
Othreis fullonica (Linnaeus); Othreis
pomona Hübner; Phalaena (Attacus)
fullonica (Linnaeus)]
Eudocima homaena (Hübner, 1816) Fruit piercing moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Atwal, 1976) No – (Nielsen et al., No – fruit piercing (Atwal, No
Noctuidae 1996) 1976)
[Syn. = Othreis homaena Hübner;
Ophideres ancilla Cramer; Othreis ancilla
(Cramer)]
Eudocima materna (Linnaeus, 1767) Fruit piercing moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – fruit piercing No
fruit sucking moth Noctuidae al., 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Phalaena Noctua materna
Page 156

(fruit)
Linnaeus; Noctua hybrida (Fabricius);
Ophideres apta (Walker); Ophideres
chalcogramma (Walker); Argadesa
materna (Linnaeus); Eudocima apta
(Walker); Eudocima chalcogramma
(Walker); Eudocima hybrida (Fabricius);
Ophideres materna (Linnaeus); Othreis
materna (Linnaeus)]
Eupithecia sp. Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Singh et al., No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, shoot (Singh et No
Geometridae 1976) 1996) al., 1976)
Euproctis flava Bremer Oriental tussock moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Lymantriidae 1996)
Euproctis fraterna Moore Coffee hairy Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence No
caterpillar; plum hairy Lymantriidae 1996) (Verghese & Jayanthi,
caterpillar; tussock 1999); leaf (Butani, 1993)
caterpillar
Euproctis lunata Walker Castor hairy Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
caterpillar Lymantriidae 1996)
Euproctis scintillans (Walker, 1856) Tussock caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Lymantriidae 1997) 1996)
[Syn. = Somena scintillans Walker;
Porthesia scintillans (Walker); Nygmia
scintillans (Walker)]
Euproctis xanthosticha Hampson Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Lymantriidae 1996)
Euthalia aconthea garuda (Moore, 1858) Common baron Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Nymphalidae 1996)
[Syn. = Adolias garuda Moore; Euthalia
garuda (Moore)]
Euthalia nais (Forster, 1771) Baronet Lepidoptera: Yes – (Singh & No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Singh & No
Nymphalidae) Satyanarayana, 1996) Satyanarayana, 2000)
[Syn. = Papilio nais Forster; Symphaedra 2000)
alcandra Hübner; Symphaedra nais
(Forster)]
Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell, 1893) Striped mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NT, QLD Yes – fruit, leaf, shoot, stem Yes (for WA
grey mealybug; Pseudococcidae al., 2001) (CAB International, (CAB International, 2003) only)
[Syn. = Dactylopius segregatus Cockerell; spotted mealybug; 2003)
Dactylopius virgatus Cockerell; tailed coffee
Dactylopius virgatus farinosus Cockerell; mealybug; tailed
Dactylopius virgatus humilis Cockerell; mealybug; white-
Page 157

(fruit)
Dactylopius ceriferus Newstead; tailed mealybug
Dactylopius talini Green; Dactylopius
dasylirii Cockerell; Dactylopius setosus
Hempel; Pseudococcus virgatus
(Cockerell); Dactylopius magnolicida
King; Pseudococcus magnolicida (King);
Pseudococcus virgatus farinosus
(Cockerell); Pseudococcus dasylirii
(Cockerell); Pseudococcus segregatus
(Cockerell); Pseudococcus virgatus
humilis (Cockerell); Dactylopius virgatus
madagascariensis Newstead;
Pseudococcus marchali Vayssière;
Pseudococcus virgatus
madagascariensis (Newstead);
Pseudococcus bicaudatus Keuchenius;
Ferrisiana virgata (Cockerell);
Heliococcus malvastrus McDaniel;
Ferrisiana setosus (Hempel)]
Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni Tozzetti, 1867) Avocado scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, WA No – leaf (Peña & No
camellia scale; Diaspididae al., 2001) (Ben-Dov et al., Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Diaspis fioriniae Targioni Tozzetti; European fiorinia 2001)
Chermes arecae Boisduval; Fiorinia scale; fiorinia scale;
pellucida Targioni Tozzetti; Fiorinia palm fiorinia scale;
camelliae Comstock; Uhleria camelliae ridged scale
(Comstock); Uhleria fioriniae (Targioni
Tozzetti); Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni
Tozzetti); Fiorinia palmae Green;
Parlatoria fioriniae (Targioni Tozzetti);
Parlatoreopsis camelliae (Comstock)]
Flata spp. Mango hopper Hemiptera: Flatidae Yes – (Dalvi et al., No – (Fletcher, No No
1992) 2003)
Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande, Western flower thrips; Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, QLD, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
1895) alfalfa thrips; flower Thripidae 1997) SA, TAS, VIC, WA (Srivastava, 1997)
thrips; western grass (restricted) (CAB
[Syn. = Euthrips occidentalis Pergande; thrips International, 2003)
Frankliniella californica Moulton; Euthrips
helianthi Moulton; Euthrips tritici var.
californicus Moulton; Frankliniella tritici
var. moultoni Hood; Frankliniella
Page 158

(fruit)
canadensis Morgan; Frankliniella
claripennis Morgan; Frankliniella
occidentalis f. brunnescens Priesner;
Frankliniella occidentalis f. dubia
Priesner; Frankliniella nubila Treherne;
Frankliniella tritici maculata Priesner;
Frankliniella venusta Moulton;
Frankliniella conspicua Moulton;
Frankliniella chrysanthemi Kurosawa;
Frankliniella dahliae Moulton; Frankliniella
dianthi Moulton; Frankliniella syringae
Moulton; Frankliniella umbrosa Moulton;
Frankliniella helianthi (Moulton);
Frankliniella moultoni Hood; Frankliniella
trehernei Morgan]
Gastropacha pardale (Walker, 1855) Lappet moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Haseeb et No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Haseeb et al., No
Lasiocampidae al., 1998) 1996) 1998)
Gatesclarkeana erotias (Meyrick) Shoot borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Tortricidae 1996) 1993); shoot (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Argyroploce erotias Meyrick] 1997)
Geococcus coffeae Green, 1933 Coffee root mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NT (Williams, No – root (USDA, 2001) No
Pseudococcidae al., 2001) 1985)
Glenea multiguttata Guérin-Méneville Longicorn beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Greenidea mangiferae Takahashi, 1925 Aphid Hemiptera: Aphididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – inflorescence, leaf, No
stem (DPP, 2001)
Gryllus viator Kirby Grasshopper Orthoptera: Gryllidae Yes – (Butani, No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
1993)
Gynadrophthalma sp. Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
Chrysomelidae 2001)
Halys dentata (Fabricius) Bark bug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
Pentatomidae International, 2003) leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
[Syn. = Halys dentatus Fabricius]
Haplothrips ganglbaueri Schmutz, 1913 Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Mound, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
Phlaeothripidae 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Haplothrips ceylonicus var.
vernoniae]
Haplothrips tenuipennis Bagnall Black tea thrips; black Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Mound, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
thrips; cereal thrips Phlaeothripidae 1997) 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Haplothrips ceylonicus]
Page 159

(fruit)
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1805) Cotton bollworm; Lepidoptera: Yes – (IIE, 1993b) Yes – NSW, NT, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
African cotton Noctuidae QLD, WA (IIE, shoot, young fruit (CAB
[Syn. = Noctua armigera Hübner; Noctua bollworm; corn 1993b) International, 2003)
barbara (Fabricius) suppr.; Heliothis earworm; fruit borer;
conferta (Walker); Heliothis pulverosa gram pod borer; old
(Walker); Heliothis uniformis world bollworm;
(Wallengren); Heliothis fusca Cockerell; tobacco budworm;
Helicoverpa commoni Hardwick; Heliothis tomato grub
rama Bhattacherjee & Gupta; Heliothis
armigera (Hübner); Chloridea armigera
Hübner; Heliothis obsoleta auct.;
Helicoverpa obsoleta auct.; Chloridea
obsoleta]
Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis (Bouché, Greenhouse thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – ACT, NSW, Yes – fruit, leaf (CAB No
1833) Thripidae International, 2003) NT, QLD, SA, VIC, International, 2003); bud
WA (Mound, 1996) (Peña & Mohyuddin, 1997);
[Syn. = Thrips haemorrhoidalis Bouché; flower (Mound, 1996)
Heliothrips semiaureus Girault;
Dinurothrips rufiventris Girault; Heliothrips
ceylonicus; Heterothrips haemorrhoidalis
(Bouché); Heliothrips adonium Haliday;
Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis var.
abdominalis Reuter; Heliothrips
haemorrhoidalis var. ceylonicus Schmutz;
Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis var. andustior
Priesner; Heliothrips ceylonicus
(Schmutz)]
Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret, 1869) Latania scale; palm Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – QLD (CAB Yes – bark, fruit, leaf, stem, No
scale; grape vine Diaspididae 1997) International, twig (CAB International,
[Syn. = Aspidiotus lataniae Signoret; Aspidiotus; grape 2003); WA (Szito, 2003)
Aspidiotus cydoniae Cockerell; Aspidiotus vine scale 2001)
greenii Cockerell; Diaspidiotus lataniae
(Signoret); Euaspidiotus lataniae
(Signoret); Hemiberlesia cydoniae
(Cockerell); Hemiberlesia greenii
(Cockerell); Aspidiotus punicae Cockerell;
Aspidiotus tectus Ferris; Aspidiotus
aspleniae Ferris; Aspidiotus askleniae
Sasaki; Aspidiotus crawii Cockerell]
Hemiberlesia palmae (Cockerell, 1892) Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB No – bark, flower, root, No
Page 160

(fruit)
scale Diaspididae 1997) International, 2003) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Aspidiotus rapax var. palmae 1997)
Cockerell; Abragallaspis palmae
(Cockerell); Borchseniaspis palmae
(Cockerell); Aspidiotus palmae Morgan &
Cockerell]
Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock, 1881) Greedy scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – SA, TAS, Yes – bark, fruit, leaf, stem Yes (for WA
camellia scale Diaspididae 1993) VIC (CAB (CAB International, 2003) only)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus rapax Comstock; International, 2003)
Aspidiotus camelliae Signoret; Aspidiotus
convexus Comstock; Aspidiotus lucumae
Cockerell; Aspidiotus tricolor Cockerell;
Hemiberlesia argentina Leonardi]
Heterobostrychus aequalis (Waterhouse, False powderpost Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – stem (Srivastava, No
1884) beetle; kapok borer; Bostrichidae International, 2003) 1997)
lesser auger beetle
[Syn. = Bostrychus uncipennis Lesne,
1895]
Heterobostrychus hamatipennis Lesne, False powderpost Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
1895 beetle Bostrichidae 1997)
Heterobostrychus pileatus Lesne False powderpost Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
beetle Bostrichidae
Heterotermes indicola (Wasmann, 1902) Termite Isoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Rhinotermitidae Abbey, 1993) 1993)
Holotrichia consanguinea Blanchard Chafer beetle; white Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
grub Scarabaeidae International, 2003)
[Syn. = Lachnosterna consanguinea
Blanchard]
Holotrichia insularis Brenske Chafer beetle; white Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – root (Butani, 1993) No
grub Scarabaeidae 1993)
Holotrichia reynaudi Blanchard Chafer beetle; white Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
grub Scarabaeidae
Holotrichia serrata (Fabricius, 1787) Chafer beetle; cock Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (CAB No – leaf, root (CAB No
chafer; leaf chafer; Scarabaeidae 1993) International, 2003) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Melolontha serrata Fabricius; May or June beetle;
Lachnosterna serrata (Fabricius); white grub
Phyllophaga serrata (Fabricius)]
Homona coffearia (Nietner, 1861) Coffee tortrix; tea Lepidoptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (CAB International, No
flushworm; tea Tortricidae 2001) 1996) 2003)
[Syn. = Tortrix coffearia Nietner; tortricid; tea tortrix
Page 161

(fruit)
Capua coffearia (Nietner); Homona
fasciculana Walker; Homona menciana
(Walker); Godana simulana Walker;
Homona fimbriana Walker; Homona
socialis Meyrick]
Homona permutata Meyrick Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Tortricidae (Bhumannavar, 1996)
1991b)
Hypatima spathota (Meyrick, 1913) Shoot borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993; No
Gelechiidae 1996) Patel et al., 1997)
[Syn. = Chelasia spathota Meyrick]
Hypocryphalus eupholyphagus Beeson Shot-hole beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Scolytidae
Hypocryphalus mangiferae (Stebbing, Mango bark beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – branch, root, trunk No
1914) shoot gun perforator; Scolytidae International, 2003) (Peña & Mohyuddin, 1997);
shot-hole beetle leaf (DPP, 2001)
[Syn. = Cryphalus mangiferae Stebbing;
Dacryphalus mangiferae (Stebbing)]
Hypomeces squamosus (Fabricius, 1792) Green weevil; gold- Coleoptera: Yes – (CAB No – (CAB No – leaf, root (CAB No
dust beetle; gold-dust Curculionidae International, 2003) International, 2003) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Atemtonychus gossipi weevil
Matsumura; Atemtonychus peregrinus
Matsumura; Curculio pulverulentus
Fabricius; Curculio aurulentus Herbst;
Curculio orientalis Olivier]
Hypophrictis plana Meyrick Moth Lepidoptera: Tineidae Yes – (USDA, No – (Nielsen et al., No No
2001) 1996)
Hyposidra talaca (Walker, 1860) Black inch worm; inch Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – inflorescence (DPP, No
worm moth Geometridae al., 1996) 2001); leaf (USDA, 2001)
[Syn. = Lagyra talaca Walker; Lagyra
successaria (Walker); Chizala
deceptatura (Walker); Lagyra humiferata
(Walker); Lagyra rigusaria (Walker);
Lagyra bombycaria (Walker); Hyposidra
vampyraria Snellen; Lagyra myciterna
(Druce); Lagyra flaccida (Lucas);
Hyposidra khasiana Warren; Hyposidra
schistacea Warren; Hyposidra grisea
Warren; Hyposidra janiaria Guenée;
Hyposidra successaria Walker]
Page 162

(fruit)
Hypsopygia mauritialis (Boisduval, 1833) Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (USDA, Yes – (Nielsen et No – inflorescence (USDA, No
Pyralidae 2001) al., 1996) 2001)
[Syn. = Asopica mauritialis Boisduval;
Pyralis lucillalis (Walker); Pyralis regalis
(Walker); Pyralis ducalis (Walker);
Endotricha crobulus (Lucas); Hypsopygia
laticilialis Ragonot; Hypsopygia atralis
Caradja; Hypsopygia pfeifferi Amsel]
Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas, 1890) Egyptian fluted scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, stem (CAB No
Egyptian mealybug; Margarodidae International, 2003) QLD (CIE, 1966b) International, 2003)
breadfruit mealybug;
giant mealybug
Icerya minor Green Fluted scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – leaf, stem (USDA, No
Margarodidae 1993) 2001)
Icerya pulchra (Leonardi) Fluted scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (CAB No – leaf, stem (USDA, No
Margarodidae 1993) International, 2003) 2001)
[Syn. = Icerya pulcher Leonardi]
Icerya purchasi Maskell, 1879 Cottony cushion Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, QLD, No – leaf, shoot, stem (CAB No
scale; Australian bug; Margarodidae 1997) SA, TAS, VIC (CIE, International, 2003;
[Syn. = Pericerya purchasi (Maskell)] mealy scale; white 1971) Srivastava, 1997)
scale
Icerya seychellarum (Westwood, 1855) Seychelles scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, stem (CAB No
Okada cottony- Margarodidae International, 2003) QLD (CAB International, 2003)
[Syn. = Dorthesia seychellarum cushion scale; silvery International, 2003)
Westwood, 1855; Icerya okadae] cushion scale
Idioscopus anasuyae Viraktamath & Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath No No – inflorescence, leaf No
Viraktamath, 1985 Cicadellidae & Viraktamath, (USDA, 2001)
1985)
Idioscopus clypealis (Lethierry, 1889) Mango leafhopper; Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – QLD No – inflorescence, leaf, No
mango hopper Cicadellidae (Fletcher, 2000) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Idiocerus clypealis Lethierry;
Idiocerus nigroclypeatus Melichar; Affects fruit setting (CAB
Idiocerus nigroclypeatus Kirkaldy; International, 2003).
Idioscopus nigroclypealis; Idioscopus
nigroclypeatus (Melichar)]
Idioscopus decoratus Viraktamath, 1976 Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath, No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf No
Cicadellidae 1976) 2000) (USDA, 2001)
Idioscopus fasciolatus (Distant, 1908) Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Cicadellidae 1997) 2000) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
]Syn. = Idiocerus fasciolatus Distant]
Page 163

(fruit)
Idioscopus incertus (Baker, 1924) Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
[Syn. = Idiocerus incertus Baker;
Idiocerus maculatus Distant]
Idioscopus jayashriae Viraktamath & Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Viraktamath, 1985 Cicadellidae & Viraktamath, 2000) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
1985)
Idioscopus nagpurensis Pruthi, 1930 Mango leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Dalvi et al., No – (CAB No – flower, leaf (Dalvi & No
Cicadellidae 1992) International, 2003) Dumbre, 1994)
[Syn. = Idiocerus nagpurensis Pruthi]
Affects fruit setting (CAB
Idioscopus nitidulus (Walker, 1870) Mango brown Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NT, QLD No – inflorescence, leaf, No
leafhopper; mango Cicadellidae (Fletcher, 2000) shoot, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Idioscopus niveosparsus hopper 1997); stem (Butani, 1993)
(Lethierry); Idiocerus basilis Melichar;
Idiocerus niveosparsus (Lethierry); Affects fruit setting (CAB
Chunra niveosparsa (Lethierry); Chunra International, 2003).
niveosparsus (Lethierry); Chunrocerus
niveosparsus (Lethierry); Idiocerus
nitidulus Walker]
Idioscopus scutellatus (Distant, 1908) Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Fletcher, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
[Syn. = Idiocerus scutellatus Distant]
Idioscopus shillongensis Viraktamath, Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Viraktamath, No – (Fletcher, No No
1976 Cicadellidae 1976) 2000)
Idioscopus spectabilis Viraktamath, 1976 Leafhopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Rajak, No – (Fletcher, No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
Cicadellidae 1986) 2000)
Indarbela dea (Swinhoe) Bark borer; bark Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – bark, branch, stem No
eating caterpillar; Metarbelidae 1996) (CAB International, 2003);
[Syn. = Arbela dea Swinhoe; Lepidarbela litchi stem borer twig (DPP, 2000)
dea (Swinhoe)]
Indarbela quadrinotata (Walker, 1856) Bark brown borer; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – bark, branch, trunk No
bark borer; bark Metarbelidae 1996) (Srivastava, 1997); stem
[Syn. = Arbela quadrinotata Walker; caterpillar; bark (Butani, 1993)
Cossus abruptus Walker; Lepidarbela eating caterpillar;
quadrinotata Walker; Squamura bark miner; orange
quadrinotata Walker] stem borer; poplar
borer
Indarbela tetraonis (Moore) Orange shoot borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – bark (Srivastava, No
Page 164

(fruit)
Metarbelidae 1996) 1997); stem (Butani, 1993)
[Syn. = Arbela tetraonis Moore]
Indarbela theivora (Hampson) Bark eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – bark (Srivastava, No
Metarbelidae 1996) 1997); stem (Butani, 1993)
Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret, 1882) Black thread scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – SA (Ben-Dov No – leaf (Peña & No
black-thread scale; Diaspididae et al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Mytilaspis longirostris Signoret; black line scale
Ischnaspis filiformis Douglas; Mytilaspis
Ritzemae Bosi Leonardi; Lepidosaphes
ritsemabosi (Leonardi)]
Kerria lacca (Kerr, 1782) Lac insect Hemiptera: Kerriidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf, stem, twig (Butani No
1997) al., 2001) & Lele, 1976)
[Syn. = Coccus gummilaccae Goeze
(nomen nudum); Coccus lacca Kerr;
Coccus ficus Fabricius; Chermes lacca
(Kerr); Carteria lacca (Kerr); Tachardia
lacca (Kerr); Lakshadia indica
Mahdihassan; Laccifer lacca (Kerr)]
Ketumala sp. Mango hopper Hemiptera: Flatidae Yes – (Davli et al., No – (Fletcher, No No
1992) 2003)
Kilifia acuminata (Signoret, 1873) Acuminate scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (Peña & No
mango shield scale 1997) al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997); stem
[Syn. = Lecanium acuminatum Signoret; (USDA, 2001)
Coccus acuminatum (Signoret); Coccus
acuminatus (Signoret); Calymmata
acuminatum (Signoret); Protopulvinaria
acuminata (Signoret); Lecanium (Coccus)
acuminatum (Signoret); Platycoccus
acuminatus (Signoret); Habibius
acuminatus (Signoret)]
Labioproctus polei (Green) Mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No No
Margarodidae
Laelia sp. Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Bhole et al., ? – Genus is No No
Lymantriidae 1987) present in Australia
(Nielsen et al.,
1996)
Lamida carbonifera Meyrick Mango leaf webber Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Pyralidae 1997) 1996)
Lamida moncusalis Walker, 1859 Cashew leaf webber Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Page 165

(fruit)
[Syn. = Macalla moncusalis (Walker)]
Lamida sordidalis Hampson Leaf webber Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, shoot (Srivastava, No
Pyralidae 1997) 1996) 1997)
[Syn. = Spectrotrota sordidalis Hampson]
Lasioptera mangiflorae (Grover, 1968) Blossom midge Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
[Syn. = Meunieriella mangiflorae Grover] 2001)
Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman, 1869) Mussel scale; purple Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – branch, fruit, leaf, Yes (for WA
scale; citrus mussel Diaspididae al., 2001) SA, TAS, VIC (Ben- stem, whole plant (CAB only)
[Syn. = Coccus beckii Newman; scale; common Dov et al., 2001); International, 2003)
Aspidiotus citricola Packard; Coccus mussel scale; comma NT (CAB
anguinis Boisduval; Mytilaspis flavescens scale; orange scale International, 2003)
Targioni Tozzetti; Mytilaspis citricola
(Packard); Mytilaspis citricola tasmaniae
Maskell; Mytilaspis tasmaniae (Maskell);
Mytilaspis beckii (Newman); Mytilaspis
(Lepidosaphes) beckii (Newman);
Lepidosaphes citricola (Packard);
Lepidosaphes (Mytilaspis) beckii
(Newman); Mytilaspis anguineus
(Boisduval); Mytilococcus piniformis;
Mytilococcus beckii (Newman);
Cornuaspis beckii (Newman); Parlatoria
beckii (Newman)]
Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard, 1869) Glover’s scale; citrus Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB Yes (for WA
long scale; Glover Diaspididae 1993) VIC (Ben-Dov et International, 2003) only)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus gloverii Packard; scale; Glover’s al., 2001)
Mytilaspis gloverii (Packard); Mytilaspis mussel scale; long
(Aspidiotus) gloverii (Packard); Mytiella mussel scale; long
sexspina Hoke; Coccus gloverii scale; mussel-shell
(Packard); Mytilococcus gloverii scale
(Packard); Opuntiaspis sexspina
(Packard); Insulaspis gloverii (Packard);
Cornuaspis gloverii (Packard)]
Lepidosaphes mcgregori Banks, 1906 McGregor scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
Diaspididae 1997) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Insulaspis mcgregori (Banks)] 1997)
Page 166

(fruit)
Lepidosaphes pallidula (Williams, 1969) Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
scale Diaspididae al., 2001) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Mytilaspis pallida Green; 1997)
Mytilaspis gloverii pallida (Green);
Lepidosaphes pallida (Green);
Lepidosaphes pallidus (Green);
Lepidosaphes gloverii pallida (Green);
Mytilaspis (Lepidosaphes) pallida
(Green); Mytilococcus pallidus (Green);
Insulaspis pallida (Green); Insulaspis
pallidula Williams]
Lepidosaphes shikohabadensis Dutta, Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
1990 scale Diaspididae al., 2001) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
1997)
Lepidosaphes tapleyi Williams, 1960 Guava long scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf, stem (USDA, No
oyster scale Diaspididae 1993) al., 2001) 2001)
[Syn. = Insulaspis tapleyi (Williams)]
Lepropus lateralis (Fabricius, 1792) Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (Zaman & No – (CAB No – leaf, stem (Zaman & No
Curculionidae Maiti, 1994) International, 2003) Maiti, 1994)
[Syn. = Astycus lateralis Fabricius]
Leptocentrus obliquis Walker Tree hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Membracidae 1993
Leptocorisa acuta (Thunberg, 1783) Paddy bug; Asian rice Heteroptera: Alydidae Yes – (CAB Yes – QLD, NT No – leaf, seed (USDA, No
bug; rice bug; rice International, 2003) (AICN, 2004) 2001)
[Syn. = Cimex acutus Thunberg; Cimex earhead bug; rice
angustata Fabricius; Leptocorisa Gandhi bug; rice seed
varicornis (Fabricius); Leptocorisa flavida bug; slender rice bug
Guer.; Gerris varicornis Fabricius]
Leuronota minuta (Crawford) Psyllid Hemiptera: Psyllidae Yes – (Butani, No No No
1993)
Lindingaspis floridana Ferris Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No No – leaf (Peña & No
scale Diaspididae 1993) Mohyuddin, 1997)
Lindingaspis greeni Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No No No
Lindingaspis rossi (Maskell, 1891) Circular black scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – ACT, NSW, Yes – fruit, leaf (Charles & No
grey scale; Ross’s Diaspididae 1993) QLD, SA, TAS, Henderson, 2002)
Page 167

(fruit)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus rossi Maskell; black scale; rose VIC, WA (AICN,
Chrysomphalus rossi (Maskell); scale 2004)
Aspidiotus (Chrysomphalus) rossi
(Maskell)]
Luperomorpha weisi Jacoby Flea beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
Chrysomelidae 2001)
Lyctoxylon convixtor Lesne False powderpost Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Lyctus africanus Lesne, 1907 African powder-post Coleoptera: Lyctidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
beetle International, 2000)
Lyctus malayanus Lesne Powder-post beetle Coleoptera: Lyctidae Yes – (USDA, No No – stem (Butani, 1993)
2001)
Lymantria ampla (Walker, 1855) Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
[Syn. = Enome ampla Walker]
Lymantria beatrix Stoll Tussock moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Singh & No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Singh & Kumar, No
Lymantriidae Kumar, 1991) 1996) 1991)
[Syn. = Porthesia beatrix (Stoll)]
Lymantria marginata Walker Mango defoliator Lepidoptera: Yes – (Singh, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Lymantria mathura Moore, 1865 Rosy (pink) gypsy Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence, stem No
moth; rosy Russian Lymantriidae 1996) (DPP, 2001); leaf
gypsy moth (Srivastava, 1997)
Maacoccus bicruciatus (Green, 1904) Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
1993) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Lecanium bicruciatus Green;
Coccus bicruciatus (Green); Coccus
bicurciatus (Green); Sharanococcus
bicruciatus (Green)]
Maacoccus piperis namunakuli (Green, Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
1922) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Lecanium piperis namunakuli

Green; Coccus namunakuli (Green);
Coccus piperis namunakuli (Green);
Coccus piperis (Green); Lecanium piperis
(Green)]
Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green, 1908) Pink hibiscus Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NT, QLD, Yes – branch, fruit, No
mealybug; hirsutus Pseudococcidae al., 2001) SA, WA (CAB inflorescence, leaf, shoot,
[Syn. = Phenacoccus hirsutus Green; mealybug; pink International, 2003) stem, trunk, twig (CAB
Page 168

(fruit)
Pseudococcus hibisci Hall (nomen mealybug International, 2003)
nudum); Phenacoccus quarternus
Ramakrishna Ayyar (nomen nudum);
Phenacoccus glomeratus Green;
Spilococcus perforatus De Lotto;
Paracoccus pasaniae Borchsenius;
Maconellicoccus perforatus (De Lotto);
Phenacoccus quarternus (nomen
nudum); Maconellicoccus pasaniae
(Borchsenius)]
Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas, Potato aphid; pink Hemiptera: Aphididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – ACT, NSW, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
1878) and green potato QLD, SA, TAS, stem (Butani, 1993)
aphid; tomato aphid VIC, WA (AICN,
[Syn. = Siphonophora euphorbiae 2004)
Thomas; Siphonophora asclepiadifolii
Thomas; Siphonophora euphorbicola
Thomas; Siphonophora cucurbitae
Middleton ex Thomas; Siphonophora
tulipae Monell; Siphonophora citrifolii
Ashmead; Siphonophora solanifolii
Ashmead; Nectarophora asclepiadis
Cowen; Nectarophora tabaci Pergande;
Nectarophora heleniella Cockerell;
Nectarophora lycopersici Clarke;
Macrosiphum cyparissiae var. cucurbitae
del Guercio; Macrosiphum euphorbiellum
Theobald; Macrosiphum koehleri Börner;
Macrosiphum solanifolii (Ashmead);
Illinoia solanifolii (Ashmead);
Macrosiphum amygdaloides;
Macrosiphum tabaci (Pergande);
Macrosiphum solani (Kittel)]
Macrotoma crenata Fabricius Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No No – branch, trunk (Peña & No
Cerambycidae 1997) Mohyuddin, 1997); stem
(Srivastava, 1997)
Mangaspis bangalorensis Takagi & Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Takagi et No No – bud, leaf, twig (Takagi No
Kondo, 1997 scale Diaspididae al., 1997) et al., 1997)
Maruca vitrata (Fabricius, 1787) bean pod borer; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – ACT, NSW, No – inflorescence (Butani, No
flower feeding Pyralidae NT, QLD, SA, TAS, 1993)
[Syn. = Phalaena vitrata Fabricius; caterpillar; legume VIC, WA (AICN,
Page 169

(fruit)
Crochiphora testulalis (Geyer); pod borer; lima bean 2004)
Hydrocampe aquitilis (Guérin-Méneville); pod borer; mung
Botys bifenestralis (Mabille); Maruca moth
testulalis (Geyer)]
Megalurothrips distalis (Karny, 1913) Blossom thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – No – (Mound, No – fruit drop, No
Thripidae (Ramasubbarao & 1996) inflorescence, leaf (CAB
[Syn. = Taeniothrips distalis Karny; Thammiraju, 1994) International, 2003)
Taeniothrips ditissimus Anantha. & Jagd.;
Physothrips brunneicarnis Bagnall;
Taeniothrips brunneicornis Hood;
Taeniothrips morosus Priesner;
Megalurothrips morosus Bhatti;
Taeniothrips infernalis Priesner;
Taeniothrips nigricornis Priesner]
Melanitis leda ismene (Cramer, 1775) Rice butterfly; rice Lepidoptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – (CAB No – leaf (CAB International, No
green-horned Nymphalidae International, 2003) International, 2003) 2003)
[Syn. = Papilio ismene Cramer; Melanitis caterpillar
determinata Butler]
Metaculus mangiferae (Attiah) Mango rust mite Acarina: Eriophyidae Yes – (Jeppson et No – (Halliday, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
al., 1975) 1998) (Abou-Awad, 1981; Jeppson
[Syn. = Vasates mangiferae Attiah] et al., 1975)
Micrapate simplicipennis Lesne False powderpost Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Microcerotermes beesoni Snyder Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Pradeep et No – (Watson & No – wood (Pradeep et al., No
al., 1998) Abbey, 1993) 1998)
[Syn. = Microcerotermes championi
Snyder; Microcerotermes lanceolatus
Mathur & Thapa]
Microtermes edentatus (Wasmann) Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Watson & No – branch, trunk (Peña & No
Abbey, 1993) Mohyuddin, 1997); root,
stem (Butani, 1993)
Microtermes obesi Holmgren Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Watson & No – branch, trunk (Peña & No
Abbey, 1993) Mohyuddin, 1997); root,
[Syn. = Odontotermes obesus Rambur; stem (Butani, 1993)
Microtermes anandi Holmgren;
Microtermes anandi f. curvignathus
Holmgren; Microcerotermes obesi
Holmgren; Neotermes obesi; Cyclotermes
obesus; Odontotermes assamensis;
Odontotermes flavomaculatus;
Page 170

(fruit)
Odontotermes vaishno; Termes obesi;
Termes obesus Rambur]
Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green, 1889) Mango shield scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et Yes – branch, fruit, leaf, Yes
mango soft scale 1993) al., 2001) trunk (Peña & Mohyuddin,
[Syn. = Lecanium mangiferae Green; 1997)
Coccus mangiferae (Green); Lecanium
psidii Green; Saissetia psidii (Green);
Lecanium wardi Newstead; Coccus wardi
(Newstead); Lecanium desolatum Green;
Lecanium ixorae Green; Protopulvinaria
mangiferae (Green); Coccus ixorae
(Green); Coccus kuraruensis Takahashi;
Protopulvinaria ixorae (Green); Coccus
desolatum (Green); Kilifia mangiferae
(Green); Udinia psidii (Green)]
Minthea rugicollis (Walker, 1858) Hairy powderpost Coleoptera: Lyctidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – QLD, SA No – stem (Srivastava, No
beetle (AICN, 2004) 1997)
[Syn. = Ditoma rugicollis Walker;
Lyctopholis rugicollis (Walker)]
Monolepta signata Olivier, 1808 Leaf beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Chrysomelidae
Monopis leuconeurella (Ragonot) Fruit borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., Yes – fruit (Ponnuswami, Yes
[Syn. = Hyalospila leuconeurella
Ragonot; Phycita leuconeurella Ragonot]
Morganella longispina (Morgan, 1889) Maskell scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB No – branch, bud, leaf, trunk No
plumose scale Diaspididae 1997) International, 2003) (Peña & Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus longispina Morgan;
Aspidiotus (Morganella) maskelli
Cockerell; Morganella maskelli
(Cockerell); Hemiberlesia longispina
(Morgan); Hemiberlesia maskelli
(Cockerell)]
Mycetaspis personata (Comstock) Masked scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB No – bark, flower, root, No
Diaspididae 1997) International, 2003) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Aspidiotus personatus Comstock; 1997)
Aonidiella personata (Comstock);
Chrysomphalus personatus (Comstock);
Mycetaspis personatus (Comstock)]
Myllocerus dentifer Fabricius, 1792 Weevil Coleoptera Yes – (Kishun & No No – mechanical No
Page 171

(fruit)
Chand, 1989) transmission of
Xanthomonas campestris
Myllocerus discolor Boheman Grey weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Curculionidae 1997) shoot (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Myllocerus discolor var.
variegatus Boheman]
Myllocerus laetivirens Marshall Plum ash weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No No – leaf, root (Srivastava, No
Curculionidae 1997) 1997)
Myllocerus sabulosus Marshall, 1916 Mango leaf weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Myllocerus undecimpustulatus Faust Cotton grey weevil; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
grey weevil Curculionidae
[Syn. = Myllocerus undecimpustulatus
maculosus Desbrochers des Loges;
Myllocerus maculosus Desbrochers]
Neocalacarus mangiferae Mite Acarina: Eriophyidae Yes – (USDA, Yes – (Knihinicki & No – leaf, stem (Jeppson et No
ChannaBasavanna 2001) Boczek, 2002) al., 1975)
Neoheegeria mangiferae (Priesner) Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Mound, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
Phlaeothripidae 1997) 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
Neoplatylecanium adersi (Newstead, Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
1917) 1993) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
1997)
[Syn. = Lecanium adersi Newstead;
Coccus adersi (Newstead);
Varshneococcus adersi (Newstead);
Lepidosaphes adersi (Newstead)]
Neotermes mangiferae Roonwal & Sen- Termite Isoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Sarma, 1960 Kalotermitidae 1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
Neotermes megaoculatus Roonwal & Termite Isoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Sen-Sarma, 1960 Kalotermitidae 1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
[Syn. = Neotermes megaoculatus

lakhimpuri Roonwal & Sen-Sarma;
Neotermes megaoculatus magnoculus
Roonwal & Sen-Sarma]
Nezara viridula (Linnaeus, 1758) Green vegetable bug; Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – ACT, NSW, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
green shield bug; Pentatomidae NT, QLD, SA, TAS, stem, young and overripe
[Syn. = Cimex viridulus Linnaeus; Cimex green stink bug; VIC, WA (AICN, fruit (CAB International,
Page 172

(fruit)
torquatus Fabricius; Cimex smaragdulus southern green stink 2004) 2003)
Fabricius; Rhaphigaster viridulus bug; tomato and bean
(Fabricius); Nezara viridula var. bug
smaragdula (Fabricius); Nezara viridula
var. torquata (Fabricius)]
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell, 1893) Coconut mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (CIE, 1966c) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, leaf, stem (CAB Yes
avocado mealybug; Pseudococcidae International, 2003) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Dactylopius nipae Maskell; kentia mealybug; nipa
Dactylopius pseudonipae Cockerell; mealybug; spiked
Ripersia serrata Tinsley; Pseudococcus mealybug;
nipae (Maskell); Dactylopius dubia sugarapple mealybug
Maxwell-Lefroy (nomen nudum);
Pseudococcus pseudonipae (Cockerell);
Ceroputo nipae (Maskell); Pseudococcus
magnoliae Hambleton; Ripersia nipae
(Maskell); Nipaecoccus pseudonipae
(Cockerell); Trechocorys nipae (Maskell)]
Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead, 1894) Spherical mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – QLD, NT No – leaf, stem, twig (CAB No
coffee mealybug; Pseudococcidae 1997) (Williams, 1985) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Dactylopius viridis Newstead; cotton mealybug;
Dactylopius vastator Maskell; globular mealybug;
Pseudococcus vastator (Maskell); karoo thorn
Pseudococcus viridis (Newstead); mealybug; Lebbeck
Dactylopius perniciosus Newstead & mealybug
Willcocks; Pseudococcus solitarius Brain;
Ripersia theae Rutherford; Pseudococcus
perniciosus Newstead; Pseudococcus
filamentosus corymbatus Green;
Trionymus sericeus James;
Pseudococcus theae (Rutherford);
Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell)]
Nodostoma dimidiatipes Jacoby Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
Chrysomelidae 2001)
Odontotermes assmuthi Holmgren Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
[Syn. = Termes assmuthi]
Odontotermes feae (Wasmann) Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
[Syn. = Termes feae Wasmann; feae
(Wasmann); Odontotermes indicus
Page 173

(fruit)
Thakur]
Odontotermes horni (Wasmann) Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Thakur, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (USDA, No
1981) Abbey, 1993) 2001)
[Syn. = Termes horni Wasmann; Termes
paradeniyae Holmgren; Odontotermes
horni var. hutsoni Kemner; Odontotermes
horni var. minor Kemner]
Odontotermes obesus (Rambur) Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (DPP, 2000; No – (Watson & No – branch, root, stem, No
Thakur, 1981) Abbey, 1993) trunk (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Cyclotermes obesus Rambur;
Odontotermes assamensis Holmgren;
Odontotermes flavomaculatus Holmgren;
Termes (Cyclotermes) orissae (Snyder);
Odontotermes obesus var. oculatus
Silvestri; Odontotermes vaishno Bose]
Odontotermes wallonensis (Wasmann) Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Veeresh et No – (Watson & No – branch, root, stem No
al., 1989) Abbey, 1993) (Srivastava, 1997); trunk
[Syn. = Odontotermes brunneus (Tandon & Srivastava, 1982)
kushwahai Roonwal & Bose]
Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille, 1802) Maji moto ant; weaver Hymenoptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Shattuck & No – builds nest in foliage No
ant Formicidae 1993) Barnett, 2001) (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Formica longinoda Latreille;
Oecophylla brevinodis André; Oecophylla
longinoda (Latreille)]
Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius, 1775) Green ant; red tree Hymenoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2000) Yes – NT, QLD, No – builds nest in foliage No
ant; tailor ant; weaver Formicidae WA (Shattuck & (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Formica smaragdina Fabricius; ant; yellow citrus ant Barnett, 2001)
Formica virescens Fabricius; Formica
viridis Kirby; Oecophylla subnitida]
Olene mendosa Hübner, 1823 Tussock caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (Zaman & Yes – (Nielsen et No – leaf (Zaman & Maiti, No
Lymantriidae Maiti, 1994) al., 1996) 1994)
[Syn. = Antipha basalis (Walker); Rilia
lanceolata (Walker); Nioda fusiformis
(Walker); Dasychira sawanta (Moore);
Dasychira basigera (Walker); Rilia
distinguenda (Walker); Dasychira basalis
(Walker); Rilia basivitta (Walker); Turriga
invasa (Walker); Orgyia mendosa
(Hübner); Dasychira mendosa (Hübner);
Dasychira mendosa basivitta (Hübner)]
Page 174

(fruit)
Olenecamptus bilobus (Fabricius, 1801) Round-head borer Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – (Storey, No – branch, leaf, shoot, No
Cerambycidae 1997) 1998-2002) stem (Srivastava, 1997)
Oliarus sp. Mango hopper Hemiptera: Cixiidae Yes – (Dalvi et al., No – (Fletcher, No No
1992) 2003)
Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner, 1861) Tea red spider mite; Acarina: Yes – (USDA, Yes – NSW, QLD No – leaf (Jeppson et al., No
red coffee mite; red Tetranychidae 2001) (Rand & Schicha, 1975)
[Syn. = Acarus coffeae Nietner; tea mite 1981); TAS
Tetranychus bioculatus Wood-Mason; (Gutierrez &
Metatetranychus bioculatus (Wood- Schicha, 1985)
Mason); Oligonychus bioculatus (Wood-
Mason); Oligonychus merwei Tucker;
Paratetranychus bioculatus (Wood-
Mason); Paratetranychus terminalis
Sayed]
Oligonychus mangiferus (Rahman & Mango red spider Acarina: Yes – (Zaman & Yes – (Halliday, No – leaf, stem (Zaman & No
Sapra, 1940) mite Tetranychidae Maiti, 1994) 1998) Maiti, 1994)
[Syn. = Paratetranychus mangiferus

Rahman & Sapra; Paratetranychus
insularis McGregor; Paratetranychus
terminalis Sayed; Oligonychus terminalis
(Sayed)]
Oligotrophus mangiferae Kieffer, 1909 Mango stem gall Diptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
midge Cecidomyiidae 1993) 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
2001)
Oncideres repandator Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Cerambycidae
Oraesia emarginata (Fabricius, 1794) Fruit piercing moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – fruit piercing (DPP, No
fruit sucking moth Noctuidae al., 1996) 2001)
[Syn. = Noctua emarginata Fabricius;
Oraesia metallescens Guenée; Oraesia
alliciens Walker; Oraesia tentans Walker;
Calpe emarginata (Fabricius); Calyptra
emarginata (Fabricius)]
Orgyia postica (Walker, 1885) Cocoa tussock moth; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001; No – (Nielsen et al., Yes – fruit, leaf, panicle, Yes
Oriental tussock Lymantriidae Fasih et al., 1989) 1996) shoot (Fasih et al., 1989);
[Syn. = Lacida postica (Walker); moth; small tussock stalk (Gupta & Singh, 1986)
Notolophus australis posticus (Walker); moth
Notolophus postica (Walker); Notolophus
posticus (Walker); Orgyia australis
Page 175

(fruit)
postica (Walker); Orgyia ceylanica
Nietner; Orgyia ocularis Moore; Orgyia
posticus (Walker)
Orseolia sp. Leaf gall midge Diptera: Yes – (Anon., No – (Evenhuis, No No
Cecidomyiidae 1967) 1996)
[Syn. = Dyodiplosis sp.]
Orthaga euadrusalis Walker Tent caterpillar; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf, shoot (Tandon & No
mango leaf webber Pyralidae 1996) Srivastava, 1982)
[Syn. = Orthaga acontialis (Walker)]
Orthaga exvinacea (Hampson, 1891) Mango leaf webber; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – inflorescence (CAB No
shoot webbing Pyralidae al., 1996) International, 2003); leaf,
[Syn. = Balanotis exvinacea Hampson] caterpillar shoot (DPP, 2000)
Orthaga mangiferae Mishra Leaf webber Lepidoptera: Yes – (Gupta & No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Pyralidae Rai, 1982) 1996)
Oryzaephilus mercator (Fauvel,. 1889) Merchant grain beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – ACT, NSW, No – seed/stored product No
Silvanidae International, 2003) NT, QLD, SA, VIC, pest (CAB International,
[Syn. = Silvanus mercator Fauvel; WA (AICN, 2004) 2003)
Silvanus gossypii]
Otinotus oneratus (Walker) Cow bug; tree hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf, stem (DPP, 2001) No
Membracidae
[Syn. = Otinotus lignicola]
Oxyrhachis serratus Ahmad & Abrar Bug Hemiptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – leaf, stem (USDA, No
Membracidae 2001) 2001)
Oxyrhachis tarandus (Fabricius) Tree hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Membracidae 1993)
Pagria sp. Leaf beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, ? – Genus is No No
Chrysomelidae 2001) present in Australia
(AICN, 2004)
Panonychus ulmi Koch European red spider Acarina: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, QLD, No – leaf (CAB International, No
[Syn. =Metatetranychus mali; mite Tetranychidae International, 2003) SA, TAS, VIC (CAB 2003)
Metatetranychus pilosus (Canestrini & International, 2003)
Fanzago); Oligonychus ulmi;
Paratetranychus pilosus occidentalis;
Paratetranychus ulmi; Tetranychus
pilosus; Tetranychus ulmi;
Paratetranychus pilosus (Canestrini &
Fanzago); Metatetranychus ulmi Koch]
Pantachaetothrips sp. Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (Patel et al., No – (Mound, No – leaf (Patel et al., 1997) No
Page 176

(fruit)
Thripidae 1997) 1996)
Parabostrychus elongata Lesne Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Paralecanium expansum (Green, 1896) Flat scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – QLD (Ben- Yes – fruit (DPP, 2001) Yes (for WA
Dov et al., 2001) only)
[Syn. = Lecanium expansum Green;
Lecanium (Paralecanium) expansum
(Green)]
Parasa lepida (Cramer, 1799) Nettle caterpillar; blue Lepidoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (CAB International, No
striped nettle grub; Limacodidae 1997) 1996) 2003)
[Syn. = Noctua lepida Cramer; Limacodes castor slug caterpillar;
graciosa Westwood; Neaera media green striped nettle
Walker; Nyssia latitascia Walker; Parasa grub; slug caterpillar
lepida lepidula Hering; Latoia lepida
(Cramer); Limacodes graciosa
Westwood; Neaera media Walker]
Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner, 1861) Nigra scale; black Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, stem (CAB No
coffee scale; hibiscus International, 2003) QLD, VIC, WA International, 2003)
[Syn. = Lecanium nigrum Nietner; shield scale; (CABI/EPPO,
Lecanium depressum Targioni Tozzetti; pomegranate scale 1997b)
Lecanium depressum simulans Douglas;
Lecanium begoniae Douglas; Lecanium
caudatum Green; Lecanium nigrum
begonia (Douglas); Lecanium nigrum
depressum (Douglas); Lecanium
(Saissetia) nigrum begoniae (Douglas);
Saissetia nigra (Nietner); Coccus nigrum
(Nietner); Saissetia nigra (Nietner);
Saissetia depressa (Targioni Tozzetti);
Lecanium (Saissetia) pseudonigrum
Kuwana; Lecanium (Saissetia)
sideroxylium Kuwana; Saissetia
pseudonigrum (Kuwana); Saissetia
sideroxylium (Kuwana); Saissetia
cuneiformis Leonardi; Lecanium
(Saissetia) signatum Newstead; Coccus
signatus (Newstead); Lecanium
(Saissetia) nigrum nitidum Newstead;
Saissetia perseae Brain; Saissetia
(Lecanium) nigra (Nietner); Saissetia
Page 177

(fruit)
nigrum depressum (Cockerell); Lecanium
(Saissetia) crassum Green; Saissetia
nigra depressa (Targioni Tozzetti);
Saissetia nigra depressa (Douglas);
Lecanium nigrum depressum (Targioni
Tozzetti); Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner);
Saissetia crassum (Green)]
Paratachardina theae Green, 1907 Scale insect Hemiptera: Kerriidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
al., 2001) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Tachardia decorella theae Green; 1997)
Tachardina theae (Green & Mann);
Laccifer theae (Green); Tachardina theae
(Green & Mann)]
Parlatoria camelliae Comstock, 1883 Camellia parlatoria Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (Peña & No
scale Diaspididae al., 2001) al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Parlatoria pergandii camelliae
Comstock; Parlatoria proteus virescens
Maskell; Parlatoria (Euparlatoria)
Pergandii camelliae (Comstock)]
Parlatoria cinerea Hadden, 1909 Apple parlatoria; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (Peña & No
tropical grey chaff Diaspididae 1993) al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Syngenaspis cinerea (Hadden); scale
Parlatoria pseudopyri Kuwana; Parlatoria
fluggeae brasiliensis Costa Lima;
Parlatoria brasiliensis (Costa Lima)]
Parlatoria crypta McKenzie, 1943 Mango white scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (Peña & No
Diaspididae al., 2001) al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Parlatoria crypta McKenzie;
Parlatoria morrisoni McKenzie; Parlatoria
sp. (?morrisoni)]
Parlatoria oleae (Colvée, 1880) Olive scale; olive Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – QLD (Ben- No – leaf (Peña & No
parlatoria scale; plum Diaspididae 1993) Dov et al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Diaspis oleae Colvée; Parlatoria scale
calianthina Berlese & Leonardi; Parlatoria
affinis Newstead; Parlatoria (Euparlatoria)
calianthina (Berlese & Leonardi); Diaspis
squamosus Newstead & Theobald;
Parlatoria cilianthina (Berlese &
Leonardi); Parlatoria judaica
Bodenheimer; Parlatoria iudaica
Page 178

(fruit)
Lindinger; Syngenaspis (Parlatorea)
oleae (Colvée); Parlatoria morrisoni
Bodenheimer]
Parlatoria pergandii Comstock, 1881 Chaff scale; black Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – (CAB No – leaf (Peña & No
parlatoria scale; Diaspididae 1993) International, 2003) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Parlatoria sinensis Maskell; chaffy scale;
Parlatoria proteus pergandei (Comstock); Pergande’s scale
Parlatoria pergandei (Comstock);
Parlatoria pergande (Comstock);
Parlatoria (Euparlatoria) pergandii
(Comstock); Parlatorea pergandei
(Comstock); Syngenaspis pergandei
(Comstock); Parlatoria pergandi
(Comstock); Parlatoreopsis pergandii
(Comstock)]
Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus Lindinger, Vanda orchid scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (Peña & No
1905 vanda scale Diaspididae 1993) al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Parlatoria mangiferae Marlatt;

Leucaspis mangiferae (Marlatt);
Genaparlatoria mangiferae (Marlatt);
Genaparlatoria pseudaspidiotus
(Lindinger); Aonidia pseudaspidiotus
(Lindinger); Parlatoria (Genaparlatoria)
pseudaspidiotus (Lindinger); Pinnaspis
pseudaspidiotus (Lindinger)]
Parthenolecanium persicae (Fabricius, European peach Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, QLD, No No
1776) scale; greater vine al., 2001) VIC (Ben-Dov et
scale; peach scale al., 2001)
[Syn. = Coccus persicorum Sulzer;
Chermes persicae Fabricius; Coccus
costatus Schrank; Coccus clematidis
Gmelin; Coccus berberidis Schrank;
Coccus persicae (Fabricius); Lecanium
persicae (Fabricius); Lecanium berberidis
(Schrank); Lecanium cymbiformis
Targioni Tozzetti; Lecanium
persicochilense Targioni Tozzetti;
Lecanium elongatum Signoret; Lecanium
genistae Signoret; Lecanium mori
Page 179

(fruit)
Signoret; Lecanium sarothamni Douglas;
Lecanium (Eulecanium) mori (Signoret);
Lecanium magnoliarum Cockerell;
Lecanium berberidis major Maskell;
Lecanium magnoliarum Cockerell;
Lecanium (Eulecanium) magnoliarum
(Cockerell); Lecanium (Eulecanium)
berberidis (Maskell); Coccus mori
(Signoret); Eulecanium magnoliarum
hortensiae Cockerell; Lecanium
(Eulecanium) persicae (Fabricius);
Coccus elongatus (Signoret); Coccus
genistae (Signoret); Eulecanium
berberidis major (Maskell); Eulecanium
cecconi Leonardi; Lecanium cecconi
(Leonardi); Lecanium persicae (Geoffroy);
Lecanium (Parthenolecanium) persicae
(Fabricius); Palaeolecanium costatum
(Schrank); Palaeolecanium persicae
(Fabricius); Lecanium (Eulecanium)
spinosum Brittin; Parthenolecanium
persicae (Fabricius); Lecanium persicae
goidanichi Kawecki; Parthenolecanium
thymi Danzig; Lecanium persicae
persicae (Fabricius); Parthenolecanium
persicae spinosum (Brittin)]
Peltotrachelus cognatus Marshall Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Peltotrachelus pubes Fabricius Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Penicillaria jocosatrix Guenée, 1952 Greater mango tip Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NT, QLD No – flower, leaf, shoot No
borer; large mango Noctuidae (CABI/EPPO, (Srivastava, 1997); fruit
[Syn. = Bombotelia jocosatrix (Guenée)] tipborer; mango shoot 2000b) stalk, young fruit
caterpillar; mango tip (Cunningham, 1989)
borer
Pericallia ricini (Fabricius, 1775) Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Arctiidae Yes – No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Chockalingam & No
(Chockalingam & 1996) Krishnan, 1984)
Krishnan, 1984)
Perina nuda (Fabricius, 1787) Clear-winged tussock Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
moth Lymantriidae 1996)
Page 180

(fruit)
Perissopneumon ferox Newstead Mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava & No No – leaf, shoot, stalk No
Margarodidae Verghese, 1985) (Srivastava, 1997); stem
(Srivastava & Verghese,
1985)
Pharsatia proxima Gahan Longicorn beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Phocoderma velutina (Kollar, 1844) Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Limacodidae 1996)
[Syn. = Natada velutina Kollar]
Phycita umbratelis Hampson Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (Anon., No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence (Anon., No
Pyralidae 2000) 1996) 2000)
Phyllotreta sp. Flea beetle Coleoptera: Alticidae Yes – (USDA, ? – Genus is No No
2001) present in Australia
(AICN, 2004)
Pinnaspis aspidistrae (Signoret, 1869) Aspidistra scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – SA, TAS No No
Brazilian snow-scale; Diaspididae 1993) (Ben-Dov et al.,
[Syn. = Chionaspis aspidistrae Signoret; fern scale; liriope 2001)
Chionaspis brasiliensis Signoret; scale
Chionaspis latus Cockerell;
Hemichionaspis aspidistrae (Signoret);
Hemichionaspis aspidistrae brasiliensis
(Signoret); Hemichionaspis aspidistrae
lata (Cockerell); Chionaspis (Pinnaspis)
aspidistrae (Signoret); Pinnaspis
(Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae (Signoret);
Pinnaspis brasiliensis (Signoret);
Pinnaspis ophiopogonis Takahashi;
Pinnaspis caricis Ferris]
Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley, 1899) Cotton white scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – SA (Ben-Dov No – branch, trunk (Morton, No
hibiscus snow scale; Diaspididae 1997) et al., 2001) 1987a); leaf (Peña &
[Syn. = Hemichionaspis minor strachani lesser snow scale; Mohyuddin, 1997)
Cooley; Hemichionaspis Marchali small snow scale
Cockerell; Hemichionaspis townsendi
Cockerell; Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis)
aspidistrae gossypii Newstead (nomen
nudum); Hemichionaspis aspidistrae
gossypii (Newstead); Hemichionaspis
proxima Leonardi; Hemichionaspis
(Pinnaspis) marchali (Cockerell);
Chionaspis (Pinnaspis) proxima
Page 181

(fruit)
(Leonardi); Pinnaspis minor strachani
(Cooley); Pinnaspis proxima (Leonardi);
Pinnaspis (Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae
gossypii (Newstead); Pinnaspis
temporaria Ferris; Pinnaspis aspidistrae
gossypii (Newstead); Pinnaspis gossypii
(Newstead); Pinnaspis marchali
(Cockerell); Hemichionaspis gossypii
(Newstead); Chionaspis
(Hemichionaspis) gossypii (Newstead);
Pinnaspis townsendi (Cockerell);
Chionaspis (Hemichionaspis) aspidistrae
(Newstead); Hemichionaspis strachani
(Cockerell)]
Planococcoides sp. nr. robustus Ezzat & Mango root mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Ben-Dov et No – root (Puttarudriah & No
McConnell, 1956 Pseudococcidae 2001) al., 2001) Eswaramurthy, 1976)
Planococcus citri (Risso, 1813) Citrus mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – bud, fruit, No
common mealybug; Pseudococcidae 1997) QLD, SA, TAS, inflorescence, leaf, root,
[Syn. = Dorthesia citri Risso; Coccus dompolan mealybug; VIC, WA stem (CAB International,
tuliparum Bouché; Coccus citri (Risso); grape mealybug (CABI/EPPO, 2003)
Dactylopius alaterni Signoret; Dactylopius 1999)
ceratoniae Signoret; Dactylopius citri
(Risso); Dactylopius citri (Boisduval);
Dactylopius cyperi Signoret; Dactylopius
robiniae Signoret; Dactylopius tuliparum
(Bouché); Lecanium phyllococcus
Ashmead; Dactylopius brevispinus
Targioni Tozzetti; Dactylopius destructor
Comstock; Dactylopius secretus Hempel;
Phenacoccus spiriferus Hempel;
Phenacoccus spiniferus (Hempel);
Pseudococcus citri (Risso);
Pseudococcus cyperi (Signoret);
Pseudococcus robiniae (Signoret);
Pseudococcus tuliparum (Bouché);
Pseudococcus alaterni (Signoret);
Pseudococcus ceratoniae (Signoret);
Pseudococcus citri coleorum Marchal;
Dactylopius (Trechocorys) citri (Risso);
Pseudococcus citri phenacocciformis
Page 182

(fruit)
Brain; Pseudo-Coccus citris (Risso);
Planococcus cubanensis Ezzat &
McConnell; Planococcus citricus Ezzat &
McConnell; Planococcus cucurbitae
Ezzat & McConnell; Pseudococcus
brevispinus (Targioni Tozzetti)]
Planococcus ficus (Signoret, 1875) Grapevine mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Ben-Dov et Yes – bark, bud, fruit, leaf, Yes
Mediterranean vine Pseudococcidae al., 2001) root, trunk (Bentley et al.,
[Syn. = Dactylopius ficus Signoret; mealybug; 2003)
Dactylopius vitis Signoret; Dactylopius subterranean vine
subterraneus Hempel; Pseudococcus mealybug; vine
ficus (Signoret); Pseudococcus vitis mealybug
(Signoret); Coccus vitis Niedielski;
Pseudococcus vitis Leonardi;
Pseudococcus citrioides Ferris;
Pseudococcus vitis Bodenheimer;
Coccus vitis Borchsenius; Planococcus
citrioides (Ferris); Planococcus vitis
(Signoret); Pseudococcus praetermissus
Ezzat (nomen nudum)]
Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell, 1905) Coffee mealybug; Hemiptera: Yes – (CAB No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
cacao mealybug; Pseudococcidae International, 2003) International, 2003) leaf, stem, whole plant (CAB
[Syn. = Pseudococcus lilacinus Cockerell; Oriental cacao International, 2003)
Pseudococcus tayabanus Cockerell; mealybug
Dactylopius crotonis Green (nomen
nudum); Dactylopius coffeae Newstead;
Pseudococcus coffeae (Newstead);
Dactylopius crotonis Green;
Pseudococcus crotonis (Green);
Pseudococcus deceptor Betrem;
Tylococcus mauritiensis Mamet;
Planococcus crotonis (Green);
Planococcus tayabanus (Cockerell)]
Planococcus minor (Maskell, 1897) Pacific mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit (USDA, 2001); Yes (for WA
Pseudococcidae al., 2001) QLD, SA (Ben-Dov leaf (Cox, 1981) only)
[Syn. = Dactylopius calceolariae minor et al., 2001)
Maskell; Pseudococcus calceolariae
minor (Maskell); Planococcus pacificus
Cox]
Platygryllus melanocephalus (Serville, Field cricket Orthoptera: Gryllidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Page 183

(fruit)
1839)
Platymycterus sjostedti Marshall Mango leaf weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Platypus solidus Walker, 1858 Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – bark, stem (Srivastava, No
Platypodidae 1997)
Plocaederus ferrugineus Linnaeus, 1758 Cashew stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – branch, root, stem, No
Cerambycidae 2001) trunk [of cashew] (Rai, 1983)
[Syn. = Cerambyx ferrugineus (Linnaeus)]
Plocaederus obesus Gahan, 1890 Cashew stem borer; Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB No – stem (CAB No
red cocoon-making Cerambycidae 1997) International, 2003) International, 2003)
longhorn
Plocaederus pedestris (White, 1853) Mango bark borer Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB No – stem (CAB No
Cerambycidae 1997) International, 2003) International, 2003); wood
(Srivastava, 1997)
Polistes spp. Paper wasp Hymenoptera: Yes – (Butani, ? – Genus is No No
Vespidae 1993) present in Australia
(AICN, 2004)
Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks, Broad mite; chilli mite; Acarina: Yes – (USDA, Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – bud, fruit, leaf, stem No
1904) citrus silver mite; jute Tarsonemidae 2001) WA (AICN, 2004) (CAB International, 2003)
white mite; rubber
[Syn. = Tarsonemus latus Banks; leaf mite; tropical
Hemitarsonemus latus (Banks); mite; yellow tea mite
Tarsonemus translucens Green;
Hemitarsonemus translucens (Green);
Polyphagotarsonemus translucens
(Green); Tarsonemus phaseoli]
Popillia sp. Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (Bhole et al., No No No
Scarabaeidae 1987)
Privesa sp. Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Davli et al., ? – Genus is No No
Ricaniidae 1992) present in Australia
(Fletcher, 2003)
Prococcus acutissimus (Green, 1896) Banana-shaped Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – leaf (Peña & No
scale; slender soft 1993) al., 2001) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Lecanium acutissimum Green; scale
Coccus acutissimus (Green)]
Procontarinia allahabadensis (Grover, Mango shoot gall Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
1962) midge Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
2001)
[Syn. = Amradiplosis allahabadensis
Grover; Amraemyia allahabadensis
Page 184

(fruit)
(Grover)]
Procontarinia amraemyia (Rao, 1950) Mango shoot gall Diptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Evenhuis, No – developing fruit (DPP, No
midge Cecidomyiidae 1997) 1996) 2000); inflorescence, leaf
[Syn. = Amraemyia amraemyia Rao; (USDA, 2001)
Amradiplosis amraemyia (Rao)]
Procontarinia brunneigallicola (Rao, Gall midge Diptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Evenhuis, No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
1950) Cecidomyiidae 1997) 1996)
[Syn. = Amraemyia brunneigallicola Rao;

Indodiplosis brunneigallicola]
Procontarinia echinogalliperda (Mani, Mango leaf gall midge Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
1947) Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
2001)
[Syn. = Amradiplosis echinogalliperda
Mani]
Procontarinia keshopurensis (Rao, 1952) Gall midge Diptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Evenhuis, No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Cecidomyiidae 1997 1996)
[Syn. = Amraemyia keshopurensis Rao;
Amradiplosis keshopurensis (Rao)]
Procontarinia mangiferae (Felt, 1916) Gall midge; leaf gall Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
midge; mango Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
[Syn. = Indodiplosis mangiferae Felt] blossom gall midge 2001)
Procontarinia mangifoliae (Grover, 1965) Leaf gall midge Diptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
Cecidomyiidae 1997) 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
[Syn. = Indodiplosis mangifoliae Grover] 2001)
Procontarinia matteina Kieffer & Cecconi, Leaf gall midge; leaf Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
1906 gall fly; mango leaf Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
gall midge 2001)
Procontarinia viridigallicola (Rao, 1950) Mango shoot gall Diptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Evenhuis, No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
midge Cecidomyiidae 1997) 1996)
[Syn. = Amraemyia viridigallicola Rao;
Amradiplosis viridigallicola (Rao)]
Procystiphora indica Grover & Prasad, Inflorescence gall Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
1966 midge Cecidomyiidae 1996) inflorescence, leaf (USDA,
2001)
Procystiphora mangiferae Felt, 1927 Inflorescence gall Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – immature fruit, No
[Syn. = Dasineura mangiferae Felt, 1927] 2001)
Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green, 1896) Trilobite scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (CAB No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
Diaspididae 1993) International, 2003)
Page 185

(fruit)
[Syn. = Aspidiotus trilobitiformis Green]
Pseudaulacaspis barberi (Green, 1908) Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
scale Diaspididae 1993) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Diaspis barberi Green; Aulacaspis 1997)
barberi (Green)]
Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley, False oleander scale; Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – NT, QLD Yes – fruit, leaf, stem, twig No
1897) Fullaway oleander Diaspididae 1993) (CAB International, (CAB International, 2003)
scale; magnolia white 2003); WA
[Syn. = Chionaspis cockerelli Cooley; scale; mango scale; (Johnson & Parr,
Chionaspis aucubae Cooley; Chionaspis oleander scale; oyster 1999)
dilatata Green; Phenacaspis natalensis scale
Cockerell; Phenacaspis aucubae
(Cooley); Phenacaspis cockerelli
(Cooley); Phenacaspis dilatata (Green);
Chionaspis (Phenacaspis) dilatata
(Green); Chionaspis candida Banks;
Chionaspis inday Banks; Phenacaspis
inday (Banks); Chionaspis (Phenacaspis)
natalensis (Cockerell); Aulacaspis dilatata
(Green); Aulacaspis natalensis
(Cockerell); Chionaspis (Phenacaspis)
dilatata (Green); Phenacaspis eugeniae
sandwicensis Fullaway; Trichomytilus
aucubae (Cooley); Trichomytilus
cockerelli (Cooley); Trichomytilus
dilatatus (Green); Trichomytilus inday
(Banks); Trichomytilus natalensis
(Cockerell); Chionaspis syringae
Borchsenius; Chionaspis hattorii Kanda;
Phenacaspis sandwicensis (Fullaway);
Chionaspis akebiae Takahashi;
Phenacaspis syringae (Borchsenius);
Phenacaspis akebiae (Takahashi);
Phenacaspis cockerelli sandwicensis
(Fullaway); Phenacaspis ferrisi Mamet;
Phenacaspis hattorii (Kanda)]
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Mulberry scale; peach Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, QLD No – branch, leaf, root, stem No
Tozzetti, 1886) scale; West Indian Diaspididae al., 2001) (Ben-Dov et al., (CAB International, 2003)
peach scale; West 2001)
[Syn. = Diaspis pentagona Targioni Indian scale; white
Page 186

(fruit)
Tozzetti; Diaspis Amygdali Tryon; Diaspis peach scale; white
lanatus Morgan & Cockerell; Diaspis plum scale; white
lanatus (Cockerell); Diaspis patelliformis scale
Sasaki; Aspidiotus vitiensis Maskell;
Diaspis lanata (Cockerell); Diaspis
gerannii Maskell (nomen nudum);
Aulacaspis (Diaspis) pentagona (Targioni
Tozzetti); Aulacaspis pentagona (Targioni
Tozzetti); Diaspis (Aulacaspis) pentagona
(Targioni Tozzetti); Sasakiaspis
pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti); Diaspis
rosae geranii (Maskell); Epidiaspis
vitiensis (Maskell); Aspidiotus lanatus
(Cockerell); Diaspis gerannii (Maskell);
Pseudaulacaspis pentaggona (Targioni
Tozzetti)]
Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni Long-tailed mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
Tozzetti, 1867) Pseudococcidae al., 2001) SA, TAS, VIC, WA leaf, stem (CAB
(CAB International, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Coccus adonidum Auctorum (not 2003)
Linnaeus); Pseudococcus adonidum
(Linnaeus); Coccus laurinus Boisduval;
Dactylopius longispinus Targioni Tozzetti;
Dactylopius adonidum (Linnaeus);
Dactylopius hoyae Signoret; Dactylopius
pteridis Signoret; Boisduvalia lauri
(Boisduval); Dactylopius longifilis
Comstock; Oudablis lauri (Boisduval);
Pseudococcus hoyae (Signoret);
Pseudococcus laurinus (Boisduval)]
Psoraleococcus sp. nr. multipori Pit scale Hemiptera: Yes – No No – branch, leaf, stem No
(Morrison) Lecanodiaspididae (Bhumannavar & (Bhumannavar & Jacob,
Jacob, 1989) 1989)
Pulvinaria avasthii Yousuf & Shafee, Pulvinaria scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
1988 al., 2001) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
1997)
Pulvinaria iceryi (Signoret, 1869) Pulvinaria scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
al., 2001) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Lecanium iceryi Guérin-Méneville 1997)
(nomen nudum); Lecanium iceryi Signoret
Page 187

(fruit)
(nomen nudum); Lecanium iceryi
Signoret; Lecanium gasteralphe Signoret
(nomen nudum); Pulvinaria gasteralphe
Signoret (nomen nudum); Pulvinaria
gasteralpha Signoret; Pulvinaria iceryi
(Signoret); Pulvinaria iceryi (Guérin-
Méneville); Pulvinaria lepida Brain;
Pulvinaria elongata durbanensis Munro &
Fouche (nomen nudum); Coccus iceryi
(Signoret); Saccharipulvinaria iceryi
(Signoret)]
Pulvinaria ixorae Green, 1909 Pulvinaria scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov, No – bark, flower, root, No
1993) 1993) stem, twig (Srivastava,
1997)
Pulvinaria polygonata Cockerell, 1905 Cottony citrus scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Gupta & Yes – QLD (Smith No – leaf, shoot, twig No
Singh, 1988a) et al., 1997) (Srivastava, 1997); stem
[Syn. = Pulvinaria cellulosa Green, 1909; (USDA, 2001)
Pulvinaria nerii Kanda; Chloropulvinaria
polygonata (Cockerell); Chloropulvinaria
polygonata (Green); Macropulvinaria
polygonata (Cockerell); Chloropulvinaria
nerii (Kanda)]
Pulvinaria psidii Maskell, 1893 Green shield scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, NT, No –inflorescence, leaf, No
guava mealy scale; 1993) QLD (CAB stem (CAB International,
[Syn. = Pulvinaria cupaniae Cockerell; guava pulvinaria; International, 2003) 2003)
Pulvinaria psidii philippina Cockerell; guava scale; mango
Pulvinaria darwiniensis Froggatt; scale
Lecanium vacuolatum Dash (nomen
nudum); Pulvinaria cussoniae Hall;
Pulvinaria gymnosporiae Hall;
Chloropulvinaria psidii (Maskell)]
Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, 1851 Sugarcane Hemiptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (CAB No – bark (Dubey et al., No
leafhopper; Lophopidae 2001) International, 2003) 1981); leaf (CAB
[Syn. = Fulgora pallida Donovan; Zamila sugarcane plant International, 2003)
perpusilla Walker; Dictyoptera pallida hopper; Indian
Stebbing; Pyrops perpusilla] sugarcane pyrilla
Pyroderces simplex Walsingham Flower eating Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence (DPP, No
caterpillar Cosmopterigidae 1996) 2001)
[Syn. = Anatrachyntis simplex
Walsingham; Anatrachyntis coriacella
Page 188

(fruit)
Snellen; Pyroderces coriacella (Snellen);
Pyroderces gossypiella Walsingham;
Sathrobrota coriacella (Snellen);
Sathrobrota simplex Walsingham;
Stagmatophora gossypiella Walsingham)]
Radionaspis indica (Marlatt, 1908) Mango scale Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
Diaspididae 1993) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Leucaspis indica Marlatt; 1997); branch, bud, leaf,
Suturaspis indica (Marlatt); Leucodiaspis trunk (Peña & Mohyuddin,
indica (Marlatt); Radiaspis indica 1997)
(Marlatt); Leucaspis (Radionaspis) indica
(Marlatt)]
Raoiella macfarlanei Pritchard & Baker False spider mite Acarina: Yes – (Butani, No – (Halliday, No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Tenuipalpidae 1993) 1998)
Rapala iarbus iarbus (Fabricius, 1787) Indian red flash Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Lycaenidae 1996)
[Syn. = Rapala ocerta Fruhstorfer; Rapala
ab. chondong Cowan; Papilio melampus
Stoll; Baspa melampus (Stoll); Rapala
melampus Cramer]
Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863) Slate flash Lepidoptera: Yes – (Johnson et No – (Nielsen et al., No – flower (Johnson et al., No
Lycaenidae al., 1980) 1996) 1980); leaf (Butani, 1993)
[Syn. = Deudorix manea Hewitson]
Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green, 1908) Downey snowline Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (CAB Yes – fruit, leaf, twig Yes
mealybug; mango Pseudococcidae 1997) International, 2003) (Srivastava, 1997);
[Syn. = Phenacoccus iceryoides Green; mealybug inflorescence, shoot (CAB
Dactylopius (Pseudococcus) obtusus International, 2003); stem
Newstead; Phenacoccus obtusus (DPP, 2001)
(Newstead); Ceroputo iceryoides (Green);
Rastrococcus cappariae Avasthi &
Shafee; Parlatoria iceryoides (Green)]
Rastrococcus invadens Williams, 1986 Mango mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – No – (CAB Yes – bud, fruit, leaf (Peña & Yes
Pseudococcidae (Narasimham & International, 2003) Mohyuddin, 1997); twig
Chacko, 1991) (Narasimham & Chacko,
1991)
Rastrococcus mangiferae (Green, 1896) Mango mealybug Hemiptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Williams, No – leaf, stem (DPP, 2001) No
Pseudococcidae 1997) 1985)
[Syn. = Pseudococcus mangiferae Green;
Phenacoccus mangiferae (Green);
Phenacoccus ballardi Newstead; Puto
Page 189

(fruit)
mangiferae (Green)]
Rastrococcus spinosus (Robinson, 1918) Philippine mango Hemiptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Williams, Yes – bud, fruit, leaf (Peña & Yes
mealybug Pseudococcidae 2001) 1985) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Phenacoccus spinosus Robinson;
Puto spinosus (Robinson); Ceroputo
spinosus (Robinson)]
Rathinda amor (Fabricius, 1775) Monkey puzzle Lepidoptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Nielsen et al., No No
Lycaenidae 2001) 1996)
[Syn. = Papilio amor Fabricius]
Rectosternum poriolle Faust Weevil Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Curculionidae
Retithrips syriacus (Mayet, 1890) Castor thrips; black Thysanoptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Mound, No – leaf (Peña & No
vine thrips Thripidae 2001) 1996) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Retithrips aegyptiacus Marchal;
Stylothrips bondari Morgan; Heliothrips
syriacus Mayet; Dictyothrips zanoniana
Del Guercio]
Rhabdophaga mangiferae Mani, 1938 Inflorescence gall Diptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Evenhuis, No – inflorescence (USDA, No
midge Cecidomyiidae 1996) 2001); leaf, stem (Butani,
1993)
Rhachisphora rutherfordi (Quaintance & Whitefly Hemiptera: Yes – (David & No – (Martin, 1999) No – leaf No
Baker) Aleyrodidae Regu, 1991)
Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood, 1919 Grapevine thrips; Thysanoptera: Yes – (IIE, 1993c) No – (Mound, No – leaf (Lee & Wen, 1982; No
cashew leaf thrips; Thripidae 1996) Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Rhipiphorothrips karna mango thrips; rose
Ramakrishnan] leaf thrips
Rhynchaenus mangiferae Marshall Mango flea weevil; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – bud, inflorescence, No
mango flower weevil; Curculionidae International, 2003) leaf, shoot (Srivastava,
[Syn. = Orchestes mangiferae] mango leaf weevil; 1997); young fruit (Singh &
mango leaf mining Misra, 1981)
weevil
Rhytidodera bowringi White Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Srivastava, No – branch, stem No
Cerambycidae 1997) 1997) (Srivastava, 1997)
Rhytidodera simulans White Mango branch borer; Coleoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No No – stem (Srivastava, No
mango shoot borer Cerambycidae 1997) 1997)
Ricania marginalis Walker, 1851 Mango hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (Davli et al., No – (Fletcher, No No
Ricaniidae 1992) 2003)
[Syn. = Ricania speculum Walker, 1851]
Saissetia coffeae (Walker, 1852) Hemispherical scale; Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Butani, Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, stem (CAB No
black olive scale; 1993) QLD, SA, TAS, International, 2003)
Page 190

(fruit)
[Syn. = Lecanium coffeae Walker; brown coffee scale; VIC, WA (CAB
Lecanium hemisphaericum Targioni brown shield scale; International, 2003)
Tozzetti; Chermes anthurii Boisduval; coffee helmet scale;
Chermes filicum Boisduval; Chermes helmet scale;
hibernaculorum Boisduval; Lecanium hemisphaerical scale;
hybernaculorum (Boisduval); Lecanium soft brown scale
filicum (Boisduval); Lecanium
hibernaculorum (Boisduval); Lecanium
beaumontiae Douglas; Lecanium
clypeatum Douglas; Lecanium
hemisphaericum hibernaculorum
(Boisduval); Lecanium (Saissetia)
beaumontiae (Douglas); Lecanium
(Saissetia) coffeae clypeatum (Douglas);
Lecanium (Saissetia) coffeae filicum
(Boisduval); Lecanium (Saissetia) coffeae
hibernacularum (Boisduval); Saissetia
beaumontiae (Douglas); Coccus coffeae
(Walker); Lecanium (Saissetia)
hemisphaericum (Targioni Tozzetti);
Lecanium (Saissetia) anthurii (Boisduval);
Lecanium (Saissetia) filicum (Boisduval);
Saissetia anthurii (Boisduval); Saissetia
filicum (Boisduval); Saissetia
hemisphaerica clypeata (Douglas);
Saissetia hemisphaerica hibernaculorum
(Boisduval); Saissetia (Lecanium)
hemisphaerica (Targioni Tozzetti);
Saissetia hemisphericum (Targioni
Tozzetti)]
Saissetia miranda (Cockerell & Parrott, Mexican black scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et No – (Ben-Dov et No No
1899) al., 2001) al., 2001)
[Syn. = Lecanium oleae mirandum

Cockerell & Parrott; Saissetia oleae
miranda (Cockerell & Parrott); Saissetia
oleae (misidentification)]
Saissetia oleae (Olivier, 1791) Black scale; black Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Ben-Dov et Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, stem (CAB No
shield scale; brown al., 2001) QLD, SA, TAS, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Coccus oleae Olivier; Coccus olive scale; citrus VIC, WA (CAB
Page 191

(fruit)
palmae Haworth; Coccus testudo Curtis; black scale; International, 2003)
Chermes cycadis Boisduval; Lecanium Mediterranean black
oleae (Bernard); Chermes oleae scale; olive soft scale;
(Bernard); Lecanium testudo (Curtis); olive scale
Lecanium palmae (Haworth); Bernardia
oleae (Bernard); Neobernardia oleae
(Olivier); Neobernardia oleae (Bernard);
Lecanium cycadis (Boisduval); Lecanium
oleae testudo (Curtis); Lecanium
(Saissetia) palmae (Haworth); Saissetia
oleae (Bernard); Coccus oleae (Bernard);
Saissetia oleae testudo (Curtis); Saissetia
palmae (Haworth); Saissetia obae
(Bernard); Lecanium oleae (Bernard);
Lecanium pumilum Brain; Saissetia
(Lecanium) oleae (Bernard); Saissetia
oleoe (Olivier); Parasaissetia oleae
(Olivier); Parasaissetia oleae (Bernard);
Coccus pumilum (Brain)]
Saissetia privigna De Lotto, 1965 Soft scale Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Ben-Dov et No – bark, flower, root, No
1997) al., 2001) stem, twig (Srivastava,
1997)
Salurnis marginellus Guérin-Méneville Mango hopper Hemiptera: Flatidae Yes – (Davli et al., No – (Fletcher, No No
1992) 2003)
Scelodonta strigicollis Motschulsky Grapevine flea beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
leaf beetle Chrysomelidae
Schistoceros anobiodes (Waterhouse) Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Scirpophaga excerptalis Walker, 1863 Sugarcane top borer; Lepidoptera: Yes – (Lewvanich, Yes – QLD No – leaf, stem (CAB No
sugarcane top moth Pyralidae 1981) (Lewvanich, 1981) International, 2003)
[Syn. = Chilo excerptalis Walker; borer; white top borer
Scirpophaga monostigma Zeller;
Tipanaea innotata (Walker); Scirpophaga
sericea Snellen; Scirpophaga ochroleuca
Meyrick; Scirpophaga butyrota Meyrick;
Tryporyza butyrota (Meyrick);
Scirpophaga intacta Snellen; Topeutis
rhodoproctalis (Hampson); Schoenobius
melanostigmus (Turner); Topeutis intacta
(Snellen); Scirpophaga rhodoproctalis
Page 192

(fruit)
(Hampson); Tryporyza intacta (Snellen);
Tryporyza nivella intacta Snellen;
Tryporyza monostigma; Tryporyza
rhodoproctalis]
Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, 1919 Strawberry thrips; Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – (Mound, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
castor thrips; chilli Thripidae 1997) 1996) shoot, young fruit (CAB
[Syn. = Neophysopus fragariae Girault] thrips; yellow tea International, 2003)
thrips
Scirtothrips mangiferae Priesner, 1932 Mango thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Mound, No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
Thripidae 1997) 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
Selenothrips rubrocinctus (Giard, 1901) Redbanded thrips; Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NT, QLD Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
red-banded thrips; Thripidae 1997) (Mound, 1996); WA leaf (CAB International,
[Syn. = Physopus rubrocinctus Giard; cacao thrips; cocoa (Johnson & Parr, 2003)
Brachyurothrips indicus Bagnall; thrips 1999)
Heliothrips (Selenothrips) decolor Karny;
Heliothrips (Selenothrips) mendex
Schmutz; Heliothrips rubrocinctus Giard]
Selepa celtis Moore, 1858 Aonla hairy caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Nielsen et No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
Noctuidae al., 1996)
[Syn. = Subrita curviferella (Walker);
Selepa celtisella Gaede; Plotheia celtis
(Moore)]
Semilaspidus mangiferae Takahashi Armoured scale; hard Hemiptera: Yes – (Butani, No No No
Sinoxylon anale Lesne, 1897 Auger beetle; powder Coleoptera: Yes – (Butani, Yes – NT, SA No – stem (Srivastava, No
post beetle; feather Bostrichidae 1993) (AICN, 2004) 1997)
[Syn. = Sinoxylon geminatum Schilsky] horned borer
Sinoxylon conigerum Gerstäcker, 1855 Conifer auger beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – branch, leaf, shoot, No
Bostrichidae International, 2003) stem, twig, wood (CAB
International, 2003)
Sinoxylon crassum Lesne, 1897 Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Sinoxylon dekhanense Lesne Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Sinoxylon indicum Lesne, 1897 Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Sinoxylon oleare Lesne Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Sinoxylon pygmaeum Lesne Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
Bostrichidae 2001)
Page 193

(fruit)
Sinoxylon sudanicum Lesne, 1895 Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Bostrichidae 1997)
Spilosoma obliqua (Walker, 1865) Common hairy Lepidoptera: Arctiidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
caterpillar; Bihar hairy 1996)
[Syn. = Diacrisia obliqua Walker; caterpillar; hairy jute
Spilarctia obliqua (Walker)] caterpillar; tiger moth
Spilostethus pandurus (Scopoli, 1763) Indian milkweed bug; Hemiptera: Lygaeidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes
dura plant bug; International, 2003) leaf, stem (DPP, 2001)
[Syn. = Cimex pandurus Scopoli; military bug; pistachio
Lygaeus pandurus (Scopoli); Lygaeus shoot-hole borer;
civilis; Spilostethus civilis; Spilostethus soldier bug
macilentus (Stål, 1874)]
Stathmopoda auriferella Walker Moth Lepidoptera: Yes – (USDA, No – (Nielsen et al., No – fruit apex and stalk No
Heliodinidae 2001) 1996) (Park et al., 1994)
[Syn. = Stathmopoda adulatrix Meyrick]
Stauropus alternus Walker, 1855 Crab caterpillar; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
lobster caterpillar; Notodontidae 1996)
[Syn. = Neostauropus alternus (Walker)] lobster moth
Sternochetus frigidus (Fabricius, 1787) Mango pulp weevil; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit (CAB Yes
mango flesh weevil; Curculionidae International, 2003) International, 2003;
[Syn. = Cryptorhynchus frigidus Fabricius; mango fruit weevil; Srivastava, 1997)
Acryptorhynchus frigidus (Fabricius); mango weevil;
Curculio frigidus (Fabricius); northern mango
Cryptorhynchus gravis Fabricius; weevil
Sternochetus gravis (Fabricius)]
Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius, Mango seed weevil; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, seed (CAB Yes (for WA
1775) mango nut weevil; Curculionidae QLD (AICN, 2004) International, 2003; only)
mango stone weevil; Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Cryptorhynchus mangiferae mango weevil Under official
Fabricius; Acryptorhynchus mangiferae control in WA
(Fabricius); Curculio mangiferae
(Fabricius); Sternochetus ineffectus
(Walker); Sternochetus olivieri Faust]
Sthenias grisator Fabricius Grapevine girdler; Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – branch, stem, trunk [of No
long-horned beetle Cerambycidae 2001) mulberry] (Butani, 1978)
Strepsicrates rhothia (Meyrick) Eucalyptus leafroller; Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Butani, 1993) No
guava leafroller Tortricidae 1996)
[Syn. = Eucosma rhothia Meyrick;
Spilonota rhothia (Meyrick)]
Stromatium barbatum (Fabricius, 1775) Kulsi teak borer; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – branch, stem, trunk No
Page 194

(fruit)
longicorn beetle Cerambycidae (Srivastava, 1997)
Stylotermes fletcheri (Holmgren, 1917) Termite Isoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Rhinotermitidae 1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
Tarbinskiellus portentosus (Lichtenstein, Rice field cricket; Orthoptera: Gryllidae Yes – (Butani, No – (CAB No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
1796) brown field cricket; 1993) International, 2003)
large brown cricket
[Syn. = Brachytrupes portentosus
Lichtenstein; Brachytrupes achatinus
(Stoll)]
Tegonotus mangiferae (Keifer) Mango leaf rust mite Acarina: Eriophyidae Yes – (Chakrabarti Yes – (Knihinicki & No – inflorescence (USDA, No
& Mondal, 1982) Boczek, 2002) 2001); leaf (Meyer, 1990)
[Syn. = Oxypleurites mangiferae]
Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, Carmine spider mite; Acarina: Yes – (Patel et al., Yes – (Halliday, No – leaf (Peña & No
1867) common spider mite; Tetranychidae 1997) 1998) Mohyuddin, 1997)
common red spider
[Syn. = Acarus cinnabarinus Boisduval; mite; red spider mite;
Tetranychus cucurbitacearum (Sayed); tropical red spider
Tetranychus telarius auct.; Eutetranychus mite
cinnabarinus (Boisduval); Eutetranychus
cucurbitacearum; Eutetranychus
dianthica; Tetranychus dianthica]
Tetranychus neocaledonicus (Andre, Vegetable spider mite Acarina: Yes – (USDA, Yes – NSW, QLD No – leaf (Sadana & No
1933) Tetranychidae 2001) (AICN, 2004) Chhabra, 1981)
[Syn. = Eotetranychus neocaledonicus

Andre; Tetranychus cucurbitae;
Tetranychus equatorius]
Thalassodes dissita (Walker, 1861) Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (Jadhav & No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Jadhav & Dalvi, No
Geometridae Dalvi, 1987) 1996) 1987)
Thalassodes quadraria Guenée, 1858 Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Geometridae 1996)
Thalassodes veraria Guenée, 1857 Leaf eating caterpillar Lepidoptera: Yes – (Zaman & Yes – (Nielsen et No – leaf (Srivastava, 1997) No
Geometridae Maiti, 1994) al., 1996)
Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan, 1913) Banana flower thrips; Thysanoptera: Yes – (Tandon & Yes – NT, QLD No – developing fruit, No
Hawaiian flower thrips Thripidae Srivastava, 1982) (Mound, 1996) inflorescence, leaf (CAB
[Syn. = Euthrips hawaiiensis Morgan; International, 2003)
Physothrips emersoni Girault; Thrips io
Girault; Thrips partirufus Girault;
Physothrips lacteicolor Girault;
Physothrips marii Girault; Physothrips
Page 195

(fruit)
mjobergi darci Girault; Physothrips
hawaiiensis (Morgan); Physothrips
pallipes Bagnall; Taeniothrips hawaiiensis
(Morgan); Taeniothrips eriobotryae
Moulton; Taeniothrips pallipes var.
florinatus Priesner; Taeniothrips
rhodomytri Priesner; Thrips albipes
Bagnall; Thrips hawaiiensis form imitator
Priesner; Thrips nigriflava Schmutz;
Thrips pallipes Bagnall; Thrips sulphurea
Schmutz; Thrips versicolor Bagnall]
Thrips palmi Karny, 1925 Melon thrips; Oriental Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NT, QLD No – bud, inflorescence, leaf No
thrips; palm thrips; Thripidae 1997) (Mound, 1996) (Srivastava, 1997)
[Syn. = Chloethrips aureus southern yellow thrips
Ananthrakrishnan & Jagadish; Thrips
clarus Moulton; Thrips gossypicola
(Priesner); Thrips gracilis
Ananthrakrishnan & Jagadish; Thrips
leucadophilus Priesner; Thrips nilgiriensis
Ramakrishna]
Thrips subnudula (Karny, 1926) Thrips Thysanoptera: Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – QLD Yes – bud, leaf (Srivastava, No
Thripidae 1997) (Mound, 2003) 1997); inflorescence and
[Syn. = Ramaswamiahiella subnudula leaves of tamarind (Morton,
Karny] 1987b)
Thrips tabaci Lindeman, 1888 Onion thrips; cotton Thysanoptera: Yes – (CAB Yes – QLD, SA, No – inflorescence, leaf No
seedling thrips; potato Thripidae International, 2003) TAS, VIC, WA (CAB International, 2003)
[Syn. = Thrips seminiveus Girault; Thrips thrips; tobacco thrips (Mound, 1996)
shakespearei Girault; Thrips indigenus
Girault; Heliothrips tabaci (Lindeman);
Limothrips allii Gillette; Thrips allii Sirrine
& Lowe; Thrips hololeucus Bagnall;
Thrips bremnerii Moulton; Thrips dianthi
Moulton]
Thylacoptila paurosema Meyrick, 1885 Fruit borer Lepidoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (Nielsen et al., Yes – fruit (DPP, 2001) Yes
Pyralidae 1996)
[Syn. = Nephopteryx paurosema Meyrick]
Tirathaba mundella Walker, 1865 Oil palm bunch moth Lepidoptera: Yes – No – (Nielsen et al., No – inflorescence (CAB No
Pyralidae (Bhumannavar & 1996) International, 2003); young
[Syn. = Tirathaba fructivora Meyrick; Jacob, 1990) fruit (Srivastava, 1997)
Melissoblaptes fructivora (Meyrick);
Page 196

(fruit)
Melissoblaptes mundella (Walker); This species bores into
Mucialla fructivora (Meyrick); Mucialla Mangifera andamanica fruit
mundella (Walker); Thirataba mundella] after fruit set and causes
premature dropping of fruit
(Bhumannavar & Jacob,
1990; Srivastava, 1997).
Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de Black tea aphid; black Hemiptera: Aphididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, QLD, No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Fonscolombe, 1841 citrus aphid; black VIC, WA (CAB shoot (CAB International,
orange aphid; International, 2003) 2003); stem (Butani, 1993)
[Syn. = Aphis aurantii Boyer de camellia aphid; citrus
Fonscolombe; Aphis camelliae aphid; soursop aphid
Kaltenbach; Aphis coffeae Nietner;
Ceylonia theaecola Buckton; Aphis
alaterna del Guercio; Toxoptera
clematidis del Guercio; Toxoptera
theobromae Schouteden; Toxoptera
variegata del Guercio; Toxoptera
citrifoliae Maki; Toxoptera aphoides van
der Goot; Toxoptera djarani van der Goot;
Aphis papaveris var. buxi del Guercio;
Toxoptera coffeae subsp. thomensis
Seabra; Toxoptera schlingeri Tao;
Bucktonia theaecola (Buckton);
Toxoptera tarosiphum; Toxoptera
theaecola (Buckton); Toxoptera bradyi
Nietner; Toxoptera coffeae (Nietner)]
Toxoptera odinae (van der Goot, 1917) Mango aphid; brown Hemiptera: Aphididae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – inflorescence, leaf, No
aphid; sapium aphid International, 2003) shoot (Srivastava, 1997);
[Syn. = Longiunguis odinae (van der stem (Butani, 1993)
Goot; Aphis adivae Shiraki; Arimakia
araliae Matsumura; Arimakia taranbonis
Matsumura; Aphis somei Essig &
Kuwana; Longiunguis spathodeae van
der Goot; Aphis ficicola Takahashi; Aphis
mokulen Shinji; Aphis rutae Shinji;
Thomasia sansho Shinji; Longiunguis
hameliae Theobald]
Tricentrus bicolor Distant Common tree hopper Hemiptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf, stem (Butani, No
Membracidae 1993)
Trinervitermes biformis (Wasmann) Snouted harvester Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
Page 197

(fruit)
termite 1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
[Syn. = Eutermes heimi Wasmann;
Nasutitermes (Trinervitermes) longinotus
Snyder; Trinervitermes heimi (Wasmann)]
Trinervitermes rubidus (Hagen) Termite Isoptera: Termitidae Yes – (Srivastava, No – (Watson & No – root, stem (Butani, No
1997) Abbey, 1993) 1993)
Trioza jambolanae Crawford Psyllid Hemiptera: Psyllidae Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – leaf (USDA, 2001) No
Trogoxylon spinifrons Lesne Powder post beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
Bostrichidae 2001)
Tyrolichus casei Oudemans, 1910 Cheese mite Acarina: Yes – (Chakrabarti Yes – ACT, NSW, No – flower (Chakrabarti et No
et al., 1997) NT, QLD, SA, TAS, al., 1997)
[Syn. = Tyroglyphus casei (Oudemans; VIC, WA (AICN,
Tyrophagus casei (Oudemans)] 2004)
Tyrophagus longior (Gervais, 1844) Seed mite, cucumber Acarina: Acaridae Yes – Yes – TAS (AICN, No – rotting mango fruit No
mite; grain mite; (Mohanasundaram 2004) (Mohanasundaram &
grainstack mite & Parameswaran, Parameswaran, 1991)
1991)
Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood, 1871) Stellate scale; glassy Hemiptera: Coccidae Yes – (Srivastava, Yes – NT (Qin & No – leaf (Peña & No
star scale; glossy 1997) Gullan, 1994) Mohyuddin, 1997)
[Syn. = Vinsonia pulchella Signoret scale; glossy star
(nomen nudum); Coccus stellifer scale; star scale
Westwood; Vinsonia pulchella Signoret;
Ceroplastes stellifer (Westwood)]
Xyleborus affinis Eichhoff, 1867 Ambrosia beetle; shot Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
hole borer Scolytidae
[Syn. = Xyleborus sacchari Hopkins;
Xyleborus mascarensis Eichhoff]
Xyleborus andrewsi Blandford, 1896 Ambrosia beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
Scolytidae
[Syn. = Xyleborus persphenos Schedl;
Xyleborus isolatus Bright; Xyleborus
andrewesi]
Xyleborus perforans (Wollaston, 1857) Island pinhole borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, QLD No – bark, shoot, wood No
Scolytidae (CAB International, (CAB International, 2003);
[Syn. = Anodius denticulus Motschulsky; 2003) stem (Butani, 1993)
Anodius tuberculatus Motschulsky;
Bostrichus testaceus Walker; Tomicus
perforans (Wollaston); Xyleborus duponti
Montrouzier; Xyleborus kraatzi Eichhoff;
Xyleborus kraatzi philippinensis Eichhoff;
Page 198

(fruit)
Xyleborus immaturus Blackburn;
Xylopertha hirsutus Lea; Xyleborus
whitteni Beeson; Xyleborus criticus
Schedl]
Xylodectes ornatus (Lesne, 1897) Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
Bostrichidae 2001)
Xylopsocus capucinus (Fabricius, 1781) False powder-post Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No – stem (Butani, 1993) No
Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff, 1875) Chestnut beetle; Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – branch, stem, twig No
black coffee borer; Scolytidae International, 2003) (CAB International, 2003)
[Syn. = Xyleborus compactus Eichhoff; black coffee twig
Xyleborus morstatti Hagedorn; borer; black twig
Xylosandrus morstatti (Hagedorn)] borer; shot-hole
borer; tea stem borer
Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) Asian ambrosia Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB No – bark, branch, trunk, No
beetle; granulate Scolytidae International, 2003) twig, wood (Atkinson et al.,
[Syn. = Phloeotrogus crassiusculus ambrosia beetle 2000); stem (Butani, 1993)
Motschulsky; Xyleborus bengalensis
Stebbing; Xyleborus crassiusculus
(Motschulsky); Xyleborus ebriosus
Niisima; Xyleborus semiopacus Eichhoff;
Xyleborus semigranosus Blandford;
Dryocoetes bengalensis Stebbing;
Xyleborus mascarenus Hagedorn;
Xyleborus okoumeensis Schedl;
Xyleborus declivigranulatus Schedl;
Xylosandrus semigranosus (Blandford);
Xylosandrus semiopacus (Eichhoff)]
Xylothrips flavipes (Illiger, 1801) Beetle Coleoptera: Yes – (USDA, No No No
Bostrichidae 2001)
Xylotrechus smei Laporte & Gory Stem borer Coleoptera: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No No – stem (Srivastava, No
Cerambycidae 1997)
Nematoda
Aphelenchus avenae Bastian, 1865 Nematode Aphelenchida: Yes – (Reddy, Yes – NSW, NT, No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
Aphelenchidae 1975) QLD, SA, VIC
(McLeod et al.,
1994); WA (DAWA,
2003)
Basiria graminophila Siddiqi, 1959 Nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (Reddy, Yes – QLD No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
Page 199

(fruit)
Tylenchidae 1975) (McLeod et al.,
[Syn. = Tylenchus (Filenchus) 1994)
graminophilus (Siddiqi) Goodey, 1963]
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Criconema mangiferum Nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (Reddy, No – (DAWA, 2003; No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
Criconematidae 1975) McLeod et al.,
1994)
Criconema squamosum Nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (Reddy, No – (DAWA, 2003; No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
1994)
Criconemoides citri Citrus ring nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (Reddy, No – (DAWA, 2003; No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
1994)
Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb, 1893) Common spiral Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – root (CAB No
Sher, 1961 nematode; spiral Hoplolaimidae International, 2003) QLD, SA, VIC International, 2003)
nematode; Steiner’s (Khair, 1987); WA
[Syn. = Aphelenchus dubius var. spiral nematode (DAWA, 2003)
peruensis Steiner; Helicotylenchus
nannus Steiner; Helicotylenchus crenatus
Das; Helicotylenchus flatus Roman;
Helicotylenchus punicae Swarup & Sethi;
Helicotylenchus paraconcavus Rashid &
Khan; Tylenchus dihystera Cobb;
Tylenchus olaae Cobb; Tylenchus spiralis
Cassidy]
Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Cobb, Banana spiral Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – root (CAB No
1893) Golden, 1956 nematode; Cobb’s Hoplolaimidae International, 2003) QLD, SA (Khair, International, 2003)
spiral nematode; 1987); WA (DAWA,
[Syn. = Anguillulina multicincta (Cobb) T. spiral nematode 2003)
Goodey; Helicotylenchus iperoiguensis
(Carvalho) Andrássy; Rotylenchus
iperoiguensis Carvalho; Rotylenchus
multicinctus (Cobb) Filipjev; Tylenchus
multicinctus Cobb; Tylenchorhyncus
multicinctus (Cobb) Micoletzky]
Hemicriconemoides communis Edward & Nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (Reddy, Yes – QLD No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
Misra Criconematidae 1975) (McLeod et al.,
1994)
Page 200

(fruit)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi, Nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
1961 Criconematidae International, 2003; QLD (McLeod et
Reddy, 1975) al., 1994)
[Syn. = Hemicriconemoides birchfieldi
Edward et al.] Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Hoplolaimus indicus Sher, 1963 Lance nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB No – (CAB No – root (CAB No
Hoplolaimidae International, 2002) International, 2002) International, 2002)
[Syn. = Basirolaimus arachidis (Maharaju
& Das, 1982) Siddiqi, 1986; Basirolaimus
indicus (Sher, 1963) Shamsi, 1979;
Hoplolaimus arachidis Maharaju & Das,
1982]
Hoplolaimus seinhorsti Luc, 1958 Lance nematode Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NT, QLD, No – root (CAB No
Hoplolaimidae International, 2003) WA (McLeod et al., International, 2003)
[Syn. = Basirolaimus seinhorsti (Luc) 1994)
Shamsi; Hoplolaimus sheri Suryawanshi]
Hoplolaimus tylenchiformis Daday, 1905 Crown-headed lance Tylenchida: Yes – (Reddy, No – (McLeod et No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
nematode Hoplolaimidae 1975) al., 1994)
Longidorus brevicaudatus Schuurmans Nematode Dorylaimida: Yes – (Reddy, No – (McLeod et No – root (Reddy, 1975) No
Stekhoven, 1951 Longidoridae 1975) al., 1994)
Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White, Root-knot nematode; Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – root (CAB No
1919) Chitwood, 1949 root-knot eelworm; Meloidogynidae International, 2003) QLD, SA, TAS, International, 2003)
southern root-knot VIC, WA (CAB
[Syn. = Meloidogyne incognita acrita nematode International, 2003)
Chitwood; Meloidogyne acrita Chitwood;
Oxyuris incognita Kofoid & White]
Pratylenchus brachyurus (Godfrey, 1929) Meadow nematode; Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, No – root (CAB No
Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1941 Godfrey’s meadow Pratylenchidae International, 2003) QLD (Khair, 1987); International, 2003)
nematode; Godfrey’s WA (DAWA, 2003)
[Syn. = Anguillulina (Pratylenchus) root-lesion nematode;
brachyura (Godfrey) Goodey (W. root-lesion nematode;
Schneider); Anguillulina brachyura smooth-headed
(Godfrey), Goodey; Pratylenchus lesion nematode;
pratensis Thorne; Pratylenchus smooth headed
leiocephalus Steiner; Pratylenchus nematode; smooth-
steineri Lordello, Zamith & Boock; headed nematode
Tylenchus brachyurus Godfrey;
Page 201

(fruit)
Tylenchus (Chitinotylenchus) brachyurus
Godfrey (Filipjev)]
Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb, 1917) Cobb’s root-lesion Tylenchida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, QLD, No – root (CAB No
Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven, 1941 nematode; meadow Pratylenchidae International, 2003) VIC, SA, TAS International, 2003)
nematode; northern (Khair, 1987); WA
[Syn. = Pratylenchus gulosus (Kühn) root lesion nematode; (DAWA, 2003)
Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven; root-lesion nematode
Tylenchus penetrans Cobb; Tylenchus
gulosus Kühn (nomen oblitum)]
Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford & Reniform nematode; Tylenchida: Yes – (Khair, 1987; Yes – NT, QLD, No – root, soil (Reddy, 1975; No
Oliveira, 1940 kidney-shaped Hoplolaimidae Reddy, 1975) WA (McLeod et al., Saeed & Ashrafi, 1973)
nematode 1994)
[Syn. = Leiperotylenchus leiperi Das;
Rotylenchulus leiperi (Das) Loof &
Oostenbrunk; Rotylenchulus queirozi
(Lordello & Cesnik) Sher; Rotylenchulus
stakmani Husain & Khan; Spyrotylenchus
queirozi Lordello & Cesnik]
Xiphinema americanum Cobb, 1913 American dagger Dorylaimida: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW (CAB No – root, soil (Reddy, 1975; No
nematode; dagger Xiphinematidae International, 2003; International, Saeed & Ashrafi, 1973)
[Syn. = Tylencholaimus americanus nematode; tobacco Reddy, 1975) 2003); WA (DAWA,
(Cobb) Micoletzky; Xiphinema taylori ring spot nematode 2003)
Lamberti et al.; Xiphinema californicum
Lamberti & Bleve-Zaches]
Algae
Cephaleuros virescens Kunze Algal leaf spot; algal Trentepohliales: Yes – (Prakash & Yes – (Johnson & No – bark, leaf, twig (Rawal, No
spot of coffee; green Trentepohliaceae Singh, 1980) Hobman, 1982); NT 1998)
[Syn. = Cephaleuros mycoidea Karst; scurf; red rust (Pitkethley, 1998)
Cephaleuros parasiticus Karst;
Cephaleuros mycoidea Karst; Mycoidea
parasitica Cunn.]
Bacteria
Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg, 1835) Cohn, Soil rot Bacillales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – SA (CAB No – root (CAB No
1872 Bacillaceae International, 2003) International, 2003)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora Bacterial rot Enterobacteriales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, root, stem (CAB No
(Jones, 1901) Bergey, Harrison, Breed, Enterobacteriaceae QLD, TAS, VIC, International, 2003)
Page 202

(fruit)
Hammer & Huntoon, 1923 WA (CAB
International, 2003)
[Syn. = Aplanobacter cepivorus
(Delacroix) Elliot; Bacillus alliariae Omori;
Bacillus apii (Brizi) Migula; Bacillus
apiovorus Walmald; Bacillus aroideae
Townsend; Bacillus betivorus Takimoto;
Bacillus carotovorus Jones; Bacillus
carotovorus var. konjac; Bacillus
cepivorus Delacroix; Bacillus croci
Mizusawa; Bacillus dahliae Hori &
Bokura; Bacillus hyacinthi Migula;
Bacillus hyacinthi septicus Heinz; Bacillus
melonis Giddings; Bacillus oleraceae
Harrison; Bacillus omnivorus van Hall;
Bacillus papaveris Ayyar; Bacillus
solanisaprus Harrison; Bacterium alliariae
(Omori) Krasil’nikov; Bacterium apii Brizi;
Bacterium apiovorum (Wormald) Burgvits;
Bacterium aroideae (Townsend) Stapp;
Bacterium betivorum (Takimoto) Burgvits;
Bacterium carotovorum (Jones) Lehmann
& Neumann; Bacterium carotovorum var.
aroideae (Townsend) Heellmers &
Dowson; Bacterium cepae Passalacqua;
Bacterium cepivorum (Delacroix) Stapp;
Bacterium croci (Mizusawa) Burgvits;
Bacterium dahliae (Hori & Bokura)
Burgvits; Bacterium destructans (Potter)
Nakata, Nakajima & Takimoto; Bacterium
hyacinthi septicum (Heinz) Chester;
Bacterium melonis (Giddings) Lehmann &
Neumann; Bacterium nadsonii (Lobik)
Burgvits; Bacterium oleraceae (Harrison)
Burgvits; Bacterium omnivorum (van Hall)
Burgvits; Bacterium papaveris (Ayyar)
Burgvits; Bacterium solanisaprum
(Harrison) Lehmann & Neumann;
Chromobacterium cytolyticum (Chester)
Krasil’nikov; Chromobacterium papaveris
Page 203

(fruit)
(Ayyar) Krasil’notthoff; Erwinia alliariae
(Omori) Magrou; Erwinia aroideae
(Townsend) Bergey et al.; Erwinia
betivora (Takimoto) Magrou; Erwinia
carotovora f.sp. carotovora; Erwinia
carotovora var. carotovora; Erwinia
carotovora var. konjac Nakata; Erwinia
cepivora (Delacroix) Oishi; Erwinia croci
(Mizusawa) Magrou; Erwinia cytolytica
Chester; Erwinia dahliae; Erwinia
destructans (Potter) Oishi; Erwinia
hyacinthi septica (Heinz) Magrou; Erwinia
melonis (Giddings) Bergey et al.; Erwinia
oleraceae (Harrison) Bergey et al.;
Erwinia papaveris (Ayyar) Magrou;
Erwinia solanisapra (Harrison) Bergey et
al.; Pectobacterium aroideae (Townsend)
Waldee; Pectobacterium betivorum
(Takimoto) Patel & Kulkarni;
Pectobacterium carotovorum f.sp.
aroideae; Pectobacterium carotovorum
var. aroideae (Townsend) Dowson;
Pectobacterium cytolyticum (Chester)
Patel & Kulkarni; Pectobacterium delphinii
Waldee; Pectobacterium melonis
(Giddings) Waldee; Phytobacterium
destructans (Potter) Magrou & Prévot;
Phytomonas cepivora (Delacroix)
Magrou; Phytomonas destructans (Potter)
Bergey et al.; Proteus nadsonii Lobik;
Pseudomonas destructans Potter;
Erwinia carotovora pv. carotovora (Jones)
Bergey et al.; Erwinia carotovora var.
aroideae Volcani; Pectobacterium
carotovorum (Jones) Waldee]
Erwinia herbicola (Löhnis, 1911) Dye, Bacterial grapevine Enterobacteriales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NT, QLD No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
1964 blight; bacterial pin; Enterobacteriaceae (CAB International,
bacterial rice leaf 2003)
[Syn. = Bacterium herbicola Geilinger; blight; bacterial rot
Bacterium typhi-flavum Breed; Not in WA (DAWA,
Page 204

(fruit)
Corynebacterium beticola Abdou; 2003)
Enterobacter agglomerans (Beijerinck)
Ewing & Fife; Enterobacter agglomerans
pv. millettiae (Kawakami & Yoshida);
Erwinia herbicola pv. millettiae
(Kawakami & Yoshida) Goto et al. Erwinia
mangiferae (Doidge) Bergey et al.;
Erwinia millettiae (Kawakami & Yoshida)
Magrou; Erwinia lathyri (Manns &
Taubenhaus) Magrou; Erwinia vitivora
(Baccarini) du Plessis; Flavobacterium
herbicola (Löhnis) Mack; Flavobacterium
rhenanum (Migula) Bergey et al.;
Flavobacterium trifolii (Huss) Bergey et
al.; Kurthia baccarinii (Macchiati) Pribram;
Pantoea agglomerans (Beijerinck) Gavini
et al.; Pantoea agglomerans pv. millettiae
(Kawakami & Yoshida); Phytomonas
itoana (Tochinai) Magrou; Pseudomonas
herbicola (Löhnis) de’Rossi;
Pseudomonas itoana Tochinai;
Pseudomonas trifolii Huss; Xanthomonas
cosmosicola Rangaswami & Sanne
Gowda; Xanthomonas indica
Rangaswami, Prasad & Eswaran;
Xanthomonas itoana (Tochinai) Dowson;
Xanthomonas maydis Rangaswami,
Prasad & Eswaran; Xanthomonas
penniseti Rajagopalan & Rangaswami;
Xanthomonas tagetis Rangaswami &
Sanne Gowda; Xanthomonas oryzae
(Uyeda & Ishiyama) Dowson/Swings;
Xanthomonas rubrisorghi Rangaswami,
Prasad & Eswaran; Xanthomonas
translucens f.sp. oryzae; Xanthomonas
trifolii (Huss) James]
Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae van Bacterial canker or Pseudomonadales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
Hall, 1902 blast (stone and Pseudomonadaceae QLD, SA, TAS, leaf, root, seed, stem (CAB
pome fruits); bacterial VIC, WA (CAB International, 2003)
[Syn. = Bacillus cerasi (Griffin) Holland; black spot; bacterial International, 2003)
Page 205

(fruit)
Bacillus gummis (Comes) Trevisan; brown spot (beans);
Bacillus matthiolae (Briosi & Pavarino) bacterial eye spot;
Stapp; Bacillus spongiosus Aderhold & bacterial leaf spot;
Ruhland; Bacterium cerasi (Griffin) Elliott; bacterial sheath rot;
Bacterium cerasi var. prunicola; blast of citrus; blister
Bacterium citrarefaciens Lee; Bacterium spot of apple; peach-
citriputeale C.O. Smith; Bacterium tree short-life; pear
gummis Comes; Bacterium hibisci blossom blight;
Nakada & Takimoto; Bacterium holci apoplexy of apricots
Kendrick; Bacterium matthiolae Briosi &
Pavarino; Bacterium nectarophilum
Doidge; Bacterium prunicola (Wormald)
Burgvitz; Bacterium rimaefaciens
(Koning) Dowson; Bacterium spongiosum
(Aderhold & Ruhland) Elliott; Bacterium
syringae (van Hall) Smith; Bacterium
trifoliorum Jones, Williamson, Wolf &
McCulloch; Bacterium utiformica (Clara)
Burgvits; Bacterium vignae Gardner &
Kendrick; Bacterium vignae var.
leguminophilum (Burkholder) Burgvits;
Bacterium viridifaciens Tisdale &
Williams; Chlorobacter syringae (van
Hall) Patel & Kulkarni; Phytomonas cerasi
(Griffin) Bergey et al.; Phytomonas cerasi
var. prunicola (Wilson) Burkholder;
Phytomonas citrarefaciens (Lee) Bergey
et al.; Phytomonas citriputealis (Smith)
Bergey et al.; Phytomonas hibisci
(Nakada & Takomoto) Bergey et al.;
Phytomonas holci (Kendrick) Bergey et
al.; Phytomonas matthiolae (Briosi &
Pavarino) Bergey et al.; Phytomonas
nectarophila (Doidge) Bergey et al.;
Phytomonas prunicola Wormald;
Phytomonas rimaefaciens (Koning)
Dowson; Phytomonas spongiosa
(Aderhold & Ruhland) Magrou;
Phytomonas syringae (van Hall) Bergey
et al.; Phytomonas trifoliorum (Jones et
Page 206

(fruit)
al.) Burkholder; Phytomonas utiformica
(Clara) Clara; Phytomonas vignae
(Gardner & Kendrick) Bergey et al.;
Phytomonas vignae var. leguminophila
Burkholder; Phytomonas viridifaciens
(Tisdale & Williams) Bergey et al.;
Pseudomonas cerasi Griffin;
Pseudomonas cerasi f.sp. pyri;
Pseudomonas cerasi var. prunicola
Wilson; Pseudomonas cerasi var. pyri;
Pseudomonas citrarefaciens (Lee)
Stevens; Pseudomonas citriputealis
(Smith) Stevens; Pseudomonas hibisci
(Nakada & Takimoto) Stapp;
Pseudomonas matthiolae (Briosi &
Pavarino) Dowson; Pseudomonas
nectarophila (Doidge) Clara;
Pseudomonas prunicola Wormald;
Pseudomonas spongiosa (Aderhold &
Ruhland) Kolkwitz; Pseudomonas
syringae f.sp. prunicola (Wormald)
Dowson; Pseudomonas trifoliorum Jones
et al.; Pseudomonas utiformica Clara;
Pseudomonas vignae var. leguminophila
(Burkholder) Magrou & Prévot;
Pseudomonas viridifaciens Tisdale &
Williams; Pseudomonas vignae Gardner
& Kendrick; Pseudomonas oryzicola
Klement; Pseudomonas holci Kendrick;
Pseudomonas syringae van Hall;
Pseudomonas syringae pv. japonica
(Mukoo) Dye et al.]
Xanthomonas campestris pv. Bacterial black spot; Xanthomonadales: Yes – (Rawal, Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – branch, fruit, leaf, No
mangiferaeindicae (Patel, Moniz & bacterial canker; Xanthomonadaceae 1998) QLD (Bradbury, stalk (Shekhawat & Patel,
Kulkarni, 1948) Robbs, Ribeiro & Kimura, bacterial leaf spot; 1986); WA (Shivas, 1975); petiole, stem (Rawal,
1974 bacterial mango black 1989) 1998)
spot; bacterial mango
[Syn. = Pseudomonas mangiferae indicae rot; black spot; Mechanical transmission by
Patel; Erwinia mangiferae var. indicae mango canker insects (Kishun & Chand,
Stapp; Phytobacterium mangiferae 1989)
Page 207

(fruit)
indicae (Patel et al.) Robbs et al.;
Pseudomonas mangiferae-indicae Patel
et al.; Xanthomonas mangiferae indicae
(Patel et al.) Robbs & Ribeiro]
Fungi
Alternaria alternata (Fr.: Fr.) Keissler Alternaria leaf spot; Anamorphic fungi Yes – Yes – NT, QLD Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
black spot; fruit rot (Chattannavar et (CAB International, leaf, twig (Dodd et al., 1997)
[Syn. = Alternaria alternata f.sp. fragariae al., 1989) 2003); WA (DAWA,
Dingley; Alternaria alternata f.sp. 2003)
lycopersici Grogan et al.; Alternaria
fasciculata (Cooke & Ellis) L. Jones &
Grout; Alternaria tenuis Nees;
Macrosporium fasciculatum Cooke &
Ellis; Macrosporium maydis (Cooke &
Ellis)]
Alternaria tenuissima (Kunze ex Pers.) Alternaria leaf spot; Anamorphic fungi Yes – (CAB No – (CAB No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
Wiltshire tomato nail head spot International, 2003) International, 2003)
Aspergillus niger van Tieghem Aspergillus ear rot; Eurotiales: Yes – (CAB Yes – ACT, NSW, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
black mould; black Trichocomaceae International, 2003) NT, QLD, SA, VIC leaf, root, seed, stem (CAB
[Syn. = Aspergillus ficuum (Reichardt) mould rot (post (APPD, 2004); NT International, 2003)
Thom & Church; Aspergillus phoenicis harvest rot); collar rot; (Pitkethley, 1998);
(Corda) Thom; Sterigmatocystis niger fruit rot; kernel rot; WA (DAWA, 2003)
Tiegh.] onion black mould;
seed rot; stem-end rot
Aspergillus terreus Thom Stem end rot Eurotiales: Yes – (Patel et al., Yes – NSW (APPD, Yes – stem (Patel et al., No
Trichocomaceae 1985) 2004) 1985)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat. Bark canker; Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Rawal, Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
[anamorph] botrydiplodia rot; 1998) QLD, SA (APPD, leaf, root, seed, stem (CAB
dieback; brown pod 2004); WA (DAWA, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Botryodiplodia ananassae (Sacc.) rot of cocoa; diplodia 2003)
Petr.; Botryosphaeria rhodina (Cooke) pod rot; diplodia
Arx [teleomorph]; Botryodiplodia stem-end rot;
tubericola (Ellis & Everh.) Petr.; gummosis; leaf blight;
Botryodiplodia gossypii Ellis & Barthol.; post-harvest fruit rot;
Botryodiplodia elasticae Petch; stem end rot
Chaetodiplodia grisea Petch; Diplodia
Page 208

(fruit)
ananassae Sacc.; Diplodia cacaoicola
Henn.; Diplodia gossypina Cooke;
Diplodia natalensis Pole-Evans; Diplodia
theobromae (Pat.) W. Nowell;
Macrophomina vestita Prillinger &
Delacr.; Diplodia tubericola (Ellis &
Everh.) Taubenh.; Lasiodiplodia triflorae
B.B. Higgins; Lasiodiplodia tubericola
Ellis & Everh.; Lasiodiplodia theobromae
(Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl. [anamorph];
Physalospora rhodina (Berk. & M.A.
Curtis) Cooke [teleomorph]]
Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug.) Ces. & Fruit rot; almond Dothideales: Yes – (Prasad & Yes – NSW, QLD, No – inflorescence, leaf, No (fruit rot)
de Not. canker; apple bot rot; Botryosphaeriaceae Sinha, 1979) VIC (APPD, 2004) stem (Johnson et al., 1993b)
apple white rot; peach
Syn. = Botryosphaeria berengeriana de bark gummosis; This is a post-harvest
Not.; Dothiorella mali Ellis & Everh.; blackberry cane disease that affects mango
Dothiorella dominicana Petrak & Cif.] canker; blueberry fruit during storage (Johnson
gummosis disease; et al., 1993b).
stem-end rot
#
Capnodium mangiferae Cooke & Brown Brown pod rot; sooty Capnodiales: Yes – (Sharma & No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
mould of mango Capnodiaceae Badiyala, 1991) International, 2003) leaf (Sharma & Badiyala,
1991)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
#
Capnodium ramosum Cooke Sooty mould of Capnodiales: Yes – (Sharma & No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
mango Capnodiaceae Badiyala, 1991) International, 2003) leaf (Sharma & Badiyala,
1991)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Ceratocystis paradoxa (Dade) C. Moreau Base rot; black rot; Microascales: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, QLD No – leaf, root, seed, stem No (fruit rot)
[teleomorph] bulb rot; fruit rot; post- Ceratocystidaceae International, 2003) (CAB International, (CAB International, 2003)
harvest rot 2003)
[Syn. = Thielaviopsis paradoxa (De This is a post-harvest
Seynes) Höhn. [anamorph]; Not in WA (DAWA, disease (CAB International,
Ceratostomella paradoxa Dade 2003) 2003).
[teleomorph]; Chalara paradoxa (De
Seynes) Sacc. [anamorph];
Endoconidium fragrans E.G. Lacroix
[teleomorph]; Hughesiella euricoi Bat. &
Page 209

(fruit)
A.F. Vital [teleomorph]; Ophiostoma
paradoxa (Dade) Nannf. [teleomorph];
Sporoschisma paradoxum De Seynes
[teleomorph]; Stilbochalara dimorpha
Ferd. & Winge [teleomorph]; Thielaviopsis
ethacetica Went [teleomorph]]
Cercospora mangiferae indicae Munjal Cercospora leaf spot; Hyphomycetales: Yes – (Rawal, Not in WA (DAWA, No – leaf (Rawal, 1998) No
Lal & Chona mango leaf spot Dematiaceae 1998) 2003)
Cladosporium cladosporioides Black mould Dothideales: Yes – (Singh & Yes – (Johnson et Yes – flower, fruit (Johnson No
(Fresenius) de Vries Mycosphaerellaceae Kang, 1989) al., 1991); ACT, et al., 1991)
NSW, NT, QLD,
[Syn. = Cladosporium graminum; SA, TAS, VIC
Cladosporium herbarum Fr.; (APPD, 2004); WA
Cladosporium cladosporioides (Fres.) de (DAWA, 2003)
Vries; Mycosphaerella tassiana (de Not.)
Johanson; Mycosphaerella tulasnei
(Jacz.) Lindau; Mycosphaerella
schoenoprasi]
Colletotrichum acutatum Simmonds ex Strawberry black Mitosporic fungi Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
Simmonds spot; anemone leaf International, 2003) VIC (CAB leaf, stem (CAB
curl International, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Colletotrichum xanthii] 2003); WA (DAWA,
2003)
Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Anthracnose; Phyllachorales: Yes – (Sharma et Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
Penz. & Sacc. [anamorph] anthracnose tear- Phyllachoraceae al., 1994) QLD, WA (CAB leaf, twig (Rawal, 1998)
stain black spot of International, 2003)
[Syn. = Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) fruit; black tip
Spauld. & H. Schrenk [teleomorph]] disease; blossom
blight; brown blight (of
coffee and tea);
dieback (citrus); fruit
rot; leaf spot; ripe rot
of pepper; stem
canker; storage rot;
tear stain
Corticium rolfsii Curzi [teleomorph] Collar rot; damping- Stereales: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
off; sclerotium rot; wilt Corticiaceae International, 2003) QLD, SA, TAS, leaf, root, seed, stem (CAB
[Syn. = Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) C.C. Tu & and fruit rot VIC, WA (CAB International, 2003)
Kimbr. [teleomorph]; Botryobasidium International, 2003)
rolfsii (Saccardo) Venkat.; Corticium
Page 210

(fruit)
centrifugum (Lév.) Bresad.; Hypochnus
centrifugus (Lév.) Tul.; Pellicularia rolfsii
(Curzi) E. West [teleomorph]; Sclerotium
rolfsii var. rolfsii Saccardo; Sclerotium
rolfsii Sacc. [teleomorph]]
Corticium salmonicolor Berk. & Broome Pink disease; Stereales: Yes – (IMI, 1996) Yes – NSW, QLD No – bark, branch, trunk No
damping off; Corticiaceae (IMI, 1996) (Lim & Khoo, 1985); leaf,
[Syn. = Necator decretus Massee rubellosis; thread stem (CAB International,
[anamorph]; Botryobasidium salmonicolor blight Not in WA (DAWA, 2003)
(Berk. & Broome) Venkatar. [teleomorph]; 2003)
Corticium javanicum Zimm. [teleomorph];
Corticium zimmermanni Sacc. & Syd.
[teleomorph]; Erythricium salmonicolor
(Berk. & Broome) Burdsall [teleomorph];
Pellicularia salmonicolor (Berk. &
Broome) Dastur [teleomorph];
Phanerochaete salmonicolor (Berk. &
Broome) Jülich [teleomorph]]
Curvularia tuberculata P.C. Jain Blight disease; Dothideales: Yes – (Lele et al., Yes – QLD (APPD, No – leaf, shoot (Lele et al., No
curvularia blight; leaf Pleosporaceae 1981) 2004) 1981)
[Syn. = Cochliobolus tuberculatus Sivan.] spot
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Dothiorella mangiferae H. & P. Sydow Stem end rot; apple Anamorphic fungi Yes – (Pandey et Yes – QLD No – branch, shoot, twig No
and Butler branch wilt; blight; al., 1981) (CABI/EPPO, (Reckhaus & Adamou,
hendersonia rot; soft 2000a) 1987); inflorescence
[Syn. = Exosporina fawcetti Wilson; brown rot (Saaiman, 1997); leaf
Hendersonula toruloidea Nattrass; (Pandey et al., 1981)
Hendersonula creberrima Sydow; Torula
dimidiata Penz.; Scytalidium dimidiatum This is a post-harvest
[anamorph] (Penz.) B. Sutton & Dyko;; disease that affects mango
Fusicoccum parvum Pennycook & fruit (Saaiman, 1997).
Samuels; Nattrassia mangiferae (H.
Sydow & P. Sydow) B. Sutton & Dyko;
Natrassia mangiferae (Nattras) Sutton &
Dyko; Fusicoccum eucalypti;
Hendersonula cypria; Hendersonula
agathidis; Scytalidium lignicola]
Drechslera halodes (Drechs.) Leaf blight; leaf spot; Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Sawant & No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf (Sawant & Raut, No
Subramanian & P.C. Jain) target spot Raut, 1994) 1994)
Page 211

(fruit)
Not in WA (DAWA,
[Syn. = Helminthosporium halodes; 2003)
Setosphaeria rostrata K.J. Leonard;
Exserohilum rostratum (Drechs.) K.J.
Leonard & E.G. Suggs [anamorph]]
Elsinoë mangiferae Bitancourt & Jenkins Mango scab Dothideales: Yes – (CAB Yes – NT Yes – fruit, inflorescence, Yes (only
Elsinoaceae International, 2003) (Pitkethley, 1995); leaf, stem (CAB for WA)
[Syn. = Sphaceloma mangiferae QLD (CAB International, 2003)
Bitancourt & Jenkins [anamorph]] International, 2003)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans Bunchy top; flower Hypocreales: Yes – (Rawal, Yes – NSW (CAB No – inflorescence, leaf, No
Wollenw. & Reinking malformation of Hypocreaceae 1998) International, stem (Varma et al., 1974);
mango; maize 2003); WA (DAWA, shoot (Rawal, 1998)
[Syn. = Cephalosporium sacchari Butler; seedling blight; maize 2003)
Fusarium sacchari var. elongatum; wilt; mango
Fusarium subglutinans Nelson et al.; malformation;
Fusarium sacchari var. subglutinans pineapple eye rot;
(Wollenw. & Reinking) Nirenberg; pineapple fruit rot
Gibberella fujikuroi var. subglutinans pitch pine canker;
Edwards] sugarcane top rot
Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtendahl Mango malformation; Hypocreales: Yes – (Bhatnagar & Yes – NSW, QLD, Yes – fruit (Gafar et al., No
bunchy top Hypocreaceae Beniwal, 1977) SA, VIC, WA (CAB 1979); inflorescence,
[Syn. = Fusarium oxysporum var. International, 2003) panicle, panicle bearing
orthocerus] shoot (Bhatnagar & Beniwal,
1977)
Fusarium semitectum Berk. & Rav. Hypocreales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Sangalang No – (DPP, 2001) No
Hypocreaceae et al., 1995); NSW,
[Syn. = Fusarium pallidoroseum] QLD, SA, TAS
(APPD, 2004); WA
(DAWA, 2003)
Fusarium solani (Martius) Sacc. Dry root rot disease; Hypocreales: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, QLD, No – root, stem (CAB No
[anamorph] foot rot of peas and Hypocreaceae International, 2003) SA, TAS, VIC (CAB International, 2003)
beans; localized ring International,
[Syn. = Nectria haematococca (Wollenw.) rot of ginger; seedling 2003); WA (DAWA,
Gerlach [teleomorph]; Fusarium solani wilt dry rot of potato; 2003)
var. martii (Appel & Wollenw.) Wollenw.; seedling wilt; storage
Fusarium solani var. striatum (Sherbakov) rot of yam; sudden
Wollenw.] death syndrome of
Page 212

(fruit)
soyabean; tuber rot
Ganoderma applanatum (Pers.) Pat. Ornamentals white Ganodermatales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, QLD, No – (DPP, 2001) No
butt rot; pine root rot; Ganodermataceae SA, TAS, VIC
[Syn. = Fomes applanatus (Pers.) Wallr.; white shelf fungus; (APPD, 2004)
Polyporus applanatus (Pers.) Fr.] trees butt rot; white
rot; wood decay
Geotrichum candidum Link Fruit rot; full rot; post Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Badyal & Yes – (Wade & Yes – fruit (DPP, 2001) No
harvest fungi; soft rot; Sumbali, 1990) Morris, 1982);
[Syn. = Geotrichum candidum var. sour rot; yeasty rot NSW, QLD, TAS,
candidum Link; Oospora piricola Mangin; VIC (APPD, 2004);
Oospora mali Kidd & Beaumont; Oospora WA (DAWA, 2003)
lactis-parasitica Pritch. & Port.]
Gibberella zeae (Schwein.) Petch Cobweb disease; ear Hypocreales: Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
[teleomorph] rot of maize; fusarium Hypocreaceae International, 2003) QLD, SA, VIC, WA leaf, root, stem (CAB
root and stalk rot; (CAB International, International, 2003)
[Syn. = Fusarium graminearum Schwabe gibberella ear rot; 2003)
[anamorph]; Fusarium roseum f.sp. gibberella stalk rot;
cerealis; Fusarium roseum var. headblight of maize;
graminearum Fusarium roseum Link; malformation disease;
Gibberella saubinetii (Mont.) Sacc.; pink ear rot; red ear
Sphaeria zeae Schwein.; Gibbera rot; root rot of maize;
saubinettii Mont.] scab of maize; stalk
rot of maize
Gilbertella persicaria Gilbertella rot Dothideales: Yes – (Prasad & No – (APPD, 2004) Yes – fruit, inflorescence No (fruit rot)
Botryosphaeriaceae Sinha, 1979) (Prasad & Sinha, 1979)
This fungus primarily causes

disease of overripe fruit in
storage (Shane, 2003).
Guignardia mangiferae A.J. Roy Phyllosticta rot; Yes – (Prasad & No – (APPD, 2004) Yes – fruit; inflorescence No (fruit rot)
[teleomorph] phyllosticta leafspot; Sinha, 1979) (Prasad & Sinha, 1979);
fruit rot unripe fruit (Snowdon, 1990)
[Syn. = Phyllosticta anacardiacearum van
der Aa.]
Haplosporella beaumontiana Coelomycetes Yes – (Prakash & No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf, twig (Prakash & No
Raoof, 1985) Raoof, 1985)
Hexagonia discopoda Pat. & Har. Heart spongy rot; Polyporales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (APPD, 2004) No – (DPP, 2001) No
white sap Polyporaceae
Leptoxyphium fumago Sooty mould Capnodiales: Yes – (Prakash, No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf, stem (Prakash, No
Mitosporic 1991) 1991)
Page 213

(fruit)
[Syn. = Caldariomyces fumago] Capnodiaceae
Macrophoma mangiferae Hingorani & Leaf blight; lack rot; Yes – (DPP, 2001; No – (APPD, 2004) Yes – fruit, leaf, stem, twig Yes
Sharma macrophoma rot; Verma & Singh, (Rawal, 1998)
seedling blight 1996)
Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Charcoal rot; ashy Mitosporic fungi Yes – (CAB Yes – NSW, QLD, No – leaf, root, seed, stem No
Goidanich stem blight; ashy International, 2003) SA, TAS (CAB (CAB International, 2003)
stem decay; leaf International,
[Syn. = Macrophoma phaseolina Tassi; blight; leaf spot 2003); NT
Macrophoma phaseoli Maubl.; disease; root rot (Pitkethley, 1998)
Botryodiplodia phaseoli (Maubl.)
Thirumalachar; Macrophomina phaseoli
(Maubl.) S.F. Ashby; Macrophoma cajani
Syd. et al.; Macrophomina philippines
Petr.; Macrophoma corchori Sawada;
Rhizoctonia lamellifera Small; Dothiorella
cajani Syd. et al.; Sclerotium bataticola
Taubenhaus; Rhizoctonia bataticola
(Taubenhaus) E.J. Butler [anamorph]]
#
Meliola mangiferae Earle Black mildew; sooty Ascomycota: Yes – (Sharma & No – (APPD, 2004) Yes – branch, petiole (Lim & No
mould Meliolaceae Badiyala, 1991) Khoo, 1985); fruit, leaf
Not in WA (DAWA, (Sharma & Badiyala, 1991);
2003) inflorescence, stem (DPP,
2001)
Microxyphium columnatum Bat., Cif. & Sooty mould Yes – (Prakash, No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf, stem (Prakash, No
Nascim. 1991) 1991)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Nectria rigidiuscula Berk. & Broome Cushion gall disease; Hypocreales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence Yes
[teleomorph] die-back of cocoa; Nectriaceae International, 2003) (Prasad & Sinha, 1979);
green point gall; seed, stem (CAB
[Syn. = Calonectria rigidiuscula (Berk. & witches’ broom of International, 2003)
Broome) Sacc. [teleomorph]; Calonectria mango
lichenigena Speg. [teleomorph];
Calonectria eburnea Rehm [teleomorph];
Calonectria sulcata Starbäck
[teleomorph]; Calonectria tetraspora
(Seaver) Sacc. & Trotter [teleomorph];
Fusarium rigidiusculum W.C. Snyder &
H.N. Hansen [anamorph]; Fusarium
decemcellulare Brick [anamorph];
Page 214

(fruit)
Fusarium spicaria-colorantis Sacc. &
Trotter [anamorph]; Scoleconectria
tetraspora Seaver [teleomorph]; Spicaria
colorans De Jonge [anamorph]]
Nodulsisporium indicum Reddy & Leaf spot disease Hyphomycetes Yes – (Reddy & No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf (Reddy & Bilgrami, No
Bilgrami, 1972 Bilgrami, 1972) 1972)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Oidium mangiferae Berthet, 1914 Powdery mildew of Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Rawal, Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – flower, fruit, leaf, stalk No
mango 1998) QLD (APPD, 2004); (Rawal, 1998); panicle
WA (DAWA, 2003) (Ploetz & Prakash, 1997)
Penicillium crustosum Fruit rot Anamorphic fungi Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (Hocking et Yes – fruit (DPP, 2001) No (fruit rot)
al., 1988); ACT
(APPD, 2004)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Penicillium cyclopium Westling Blue mould rot; fruit Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Palejwala et Yes – cosmopolitan Yes – fruit (Palejwala et al., No
rot al., 1989) (CAB International, 1989)
[Syn. = Penicillium aurantiogriseum 2003)
Dierckx; Penicillium aurantiocandidum
Dierckx; Penicillium cyclopium var.
aurantiovirens (Biourge) Fassatiova;
Penicillium brunneoviolaceum Biourge;
Penicillium johanniolii Zaleski; Penicillium
lanoso-coeruleum Thom.; Penicillium
martensii Biourge; Penicillium polonicum
Zaleski; Penicillium puberulum Bainier;
Penicillium verrucosum var. cyclopium
(Westling) Samson, Stolk & Hadlock]
Pestalotiopsis glandicola (Castagne) Grey blight; pestalotia Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Ullasa & Yes – NSW (APPD, Yes – fruit, leaf (DPP, 2001; Yes
Steyaert leaf spot Rawal, 1989) 2004) Ullasa & Rawal, 1989)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Pestalotiopsis mangiferae (Henn.) Grey leaf spot of Mitosporic fungi Yes – (Verma et Yes – NT Yes – fruit, leaf (Lim & Khoo, No
Steyaert mango; grey blight; al., 1991) (Pitkethley, 1998); 1985)
pestalotia leaf spot WA (DAWA, 2003)
[Syn. = Pestalotia mangiferae P. Henn.;
Pestalotia funerea var. mangiferae]
Page 215

(fruit)
Pestalotiopsis versicolor (Spegazzini) Grey blight; pestalotia Mitosporic fungi Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, NT, Yes – fruit, leaf (DPP, 2001) No
Steyaert leaf spot QLD, VIC (APPD,
2004); WA (DAWA,
2003)
Phellinus conchatus (Pers.: Fr.) Quél Heart spongy rot; Aphyllophorales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (APPD, 2004) No – (DPP, 2001) No
white sap Polyporaceae
[Syn. = Phellinus salicinus Pers. sensu Not in WA (DAWA,
Bourdot & Galzin; Fomes salicinus 2003)
(Pers.); Polyporus salicinus (Pers.);
Fomes conchatus (Pers.); Fomes
conchatus (Pers.) Fr.; Pyropolyporus
conchatus (Pers.); Polyporus conchatus
(Pers.); Porodaedalea conchata (Pers.)]
Phellinus gilvus (Schweinitz: Fries) White pocket rot Aphyllophorales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – NSW, QLD, No – (DPP, 2001) No
Patouillard Polyporaceae VIC (APPD, 2004)
[Syn. = Polyporus gilvus Schw.] Not in WA (DAWA,

2003)
Phoma glomerata (Corda) Wollenweb & Apple leaf spot; Diaporthales: Yes – (Prakash & Yes – NSW, QLD, No – leaf (Prakash & Singh, No
Hochapfel grapevine blight; Valsaceae Singh, 1977) TAS, VIC (APPD, 1977)
phoma blight; wheat 2004); WA (DAWA,
[Syn. = Aposphaeria fibricola (Berk.) phoma spot 2003)
Sacc.; Coniothyrium glomerata Corda;
Phoma alternariacearum Brooks &
Searle; Phoma fibricola Berk.]
Phoma sorghina (Saccardo) Boerema, Leaf spot Diaporthales: Yes – (Prakash & Yes – NSW, NT, No – leaf, twig (Prakash & No
Dorenbosch & Van Kesteren Valsaceae Raoof, 1985) QLD, SA, VIC Raoof, 1985)
(APPD, 2004); WA
(DAWA, 2003)
Phomopsis mangiferae Ahmad Black fruit spot; stem Anamorphic fungi Yes – (IMI, 1995; Yes – NSW Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
end rot Laxminarayana & (Letham, 1995); stem (Johnson et al., 1993a)
Reddy, 1975) QLD (NCOF,
1997); WA (DAWA,
2003)
Phyllosticta mortonii Fairm. Leaf blight; leaf spot; Anamorphic fungi Yes – (Prajapati et No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf (Prajapati et al., No
phyllosticta leaf spot al., 1989) 1989)
Plenotrichella sp. Coelomycetes Yes – (Prakash & No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf, twig (Prakash & No
Polystictus persooni White pocket rot Passeriformes: Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (APPD, 2004) No – (DPP, 2001) No
Tyrannidae
Page 216

(fruit)
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Pseudocercospora mangiferae Cercospora leaf spot Anamorphic fungi Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (APPD, 2004) No – (DPP, 2001) No
[Syn. = Cercospora mangiferae] Not in WA (DAWA,

2003)
Rhinocladium corticum (Massee) Black banded No – (Narasimhudu No – (APPD, 2004) No – bark, branch, leaf No
disease; black bark et al., 1987) (Narasimhudu et al., 1987;
[Syn. = Peziotrichum corticolum (Massee) Not in WA (DAWA, Ploetz & Prakash, 1997)
Subramanian [teleomorph]] 2003)
Rhizopus arrhizus A. Fischer Fruit rot; barn rot; soft Mucorales: Yes – (Badyal & Yes – NSW, VIC Yes – fruit (Badyal & No (fruit rot)
rot Mucoraceae Sumbali, 1990) (APPD, 2004) Sumbali, 1990)
[Syn. = Rhizopus oryzae Went & Prinsen
Geerligs; Rhizopus maydis Bruderlein;
Rhizopus nodosus Namyslowski;
Rhizopus japonicus Vuillemin]
Robillarda sessilis (Saccardo) Saccardo Coelomycetes Yes – (Prakash & No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf, twig (Prakash & No
Schizophyllum alneum Schröter Sap rot; wood decay; Agaricales Yes – (DPP, 2001) No – (APPD, 2004) No – (DPP, 2001) No
wood rot
Not in WA (DAWA,
2003)
Sclerotium rolfsii var. delphinii (Welch) Sclerotium rot Anamorphic fungi Yes – (DPP, 2001) Not in WA (DAWA, No – (DPP, 2001) No
Boerema & Hamers 2003)
[Syn. = Sclerotium delphinii Welch]

Stagonospora sp. Anamorphic fungi Yes – (DPP, 2001) ? – Genus is No – leaf (DPP, 2001) No
present in Australia
(APPD, 2004)
Stigmina mangiferae (Koorders) M.B. Stigmina leaf spot; Deuteromycetes Yes – (Kakoti et al., Yes – (Hyde, No – leaf (Vecchietti & No
Ellis spot blotch 1998) 1992); QLD (APPD, Zapata, 1999)
2004); NT
[Syn. = Cercospora mangiferae Koorders] (Pitkethley, 1998)
Synchytrium macrosporum Karling, 1956 Chytridiales: Yes – (Sinha & No – (APPD, 2004) No – leaf (Sinha & Singh, No
Synchytriaceae Singh, 1995) 1995)
Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk Areolate leaf spot; Ceratobasidiales: Yes – (DPP, 2001) Yes – (CAB Yes – fruit, inflorescence, No
[teleomorph] bare patch (tulips, Ceratobasidiaceae International, leaf, root, seed, stem (CAB
cereals); basal stem 2003); NT International, 2003)
[Syn. = Rhizoctonia solani Kühn rot (soyabeans); (Pitkethley, 1998);
[anamorph]; Corticium areolatum black leg of sugar WA (DAWA, 2003)
Page 217

(fruit)
[teleomorph]; Corticium solani (Prillieux & beet; black scurf and
Delacroix) Bourdot & Galzin [teleomorph]; stem rot (potato);
Corticium vagum Berk. & Curt. black speck of potato;
[teleomorph]; Hypochnus aderholdii bottom rot (lettuce);
Kolosh. [teleomorph]; Hypochnus bordered rice sheath
cucumeris Frank [teleomorph]; spot; bulb rot
Hypochnus sasakii Shirai [teleomorph]; (ornamentals); collar
Hypochnus solani Prillieux & Delacroix rot; crater disease
[teleomorph]; Pellicularia filamentosa f. (cereals); crown and
sasakii (Pat.) Rogers [teleomorph]; root rot (sugar beet);
Pellicularia filamentosa (Pat.) Rogers crown bud rot
[teleomorph]; Rhizoctonia aderholdii (alfalfa); damping-off;
Kolosch [anamorph]; Rhizoctonia foot rot; fruit rot; leaf
microsclerotia [anamorph]; Moniliopsis blight (of rice); root
solani (Kühn) R.T. Moore; Sclerotium canker (alfalfa);
irregulare Miyake [anamorph]] sheath blight of rice;
stem canker (potato,
sweet potato); web
blight (legumes,
ornamentals); leaf
blight and tuber soft
rot (yam); leaf blight
(alfalfa, soyabeans,
rape, mustard); root
rot; sclerotial blight of
rice; sharp cereal
eyespot; spear tip
(wheat); stem blight
of rice; sore shin of
tobacco; stem rot;
seed rot (cotton,
lupins, peanuts);
seedling blight
(alfalfa, clover,
vegetables); wirestem
(cotton)
#
Tripospermum myrti (Lind) S. Hughes Sooty mould Anamorphic fungi Yes – (Prakash, No – (APPD, 2004) Yes – fruit (Prakash, 1991); No
1991) inflorescence, leaf, stem
[Syn. = Triposporium myrti] Not in WA (DAWA, (DPP, 2001)
2003)
Page 218

(fruit)
Viruses
Mango crinkle disease Mango crinkle Yes – (Prakash et No No No
disease al., 1985)
#
Sooty mould is the common name applied to several species of fungi that grow on honeydew secretions on plant parts and other surfaces (Laemmlen, 2003). Sucking insects are the
primary cause of sooty mould growth. Sooty moulds are normally considered to be a cosmetic or aesthetic problem (Nameth et al., 2003). They do not infect plants but grow on
surfaces where honeydew deposits accumulate and can indirectly damage the plant by coating the leaves. In extremely severe cases, it is possible for the black sooty growth to
block enough sunlight to interfere with photosynthesis (Nameth et al., 2003). Fruits or vegetables covered with sooty moulds are edible and can be removed with a solution of mild
soap and warm water wash (Laemmlen, 2003).
Acronyms:
ACT – Australian Capital Territory; NSW – New South Wales; NT – Northern Territory; QLD – Queensland; SA – South Australia; TAS – Tasmania; VIC – Victoria; WA –
Western Australia
Page 219
Draft Revised Import Policy – A review under extension of existing policy
References for Appendix 1
Abbas, S.R., Verghese, A. and Fasih, M. (1989). Studies on the mango inflorescence midge, Erosomyia indica Grover. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 231:
593-596.
Abou-Awad, B.A. (1981). Bionomics of the mango rust mite Metaculus mangiferae (Attiah) with description of immature stages (Eriophyoidea:
Eriophyidae). Acarologia 22(2): 151-155.
AICN (Australian Insect Common Names) (2002). Version 1.31. http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/index_no.htm
Anon. (1967). The Mango. Chapter 13 Insecta. Mites and other pests. ICAR.
Anon. (2000). Ikisan – Mango Pest Management. http://www.ikisan.com/links/ap_mangoPest%20Management.shtml#Leaf%20Webber
APPD (Australian Plant Pest Database) (2004). APPD – query form. 9 January 2004. http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/APPD/queryForm.asp
Atkinson, T.H., Foltz, J.L., Wilkinson, R.C. and Mizell, R.F. (2000). Feature Creatures. Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) (Insecta: Coleoptera:
Scolytidae). http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/trees/asian_ambrosia_beetle.htm
Atwal, A.S. (1976). Agricultural Pests of India and South-East Asia. Delhi, India: Kalyani Publishers, 502 pp.
Badyal, K. and Sumbali, G. (1990). Market diseases of mango. Indian Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 20(3): 281.
Ben-Dov, Y. (1993). A Systematic Catalogue of the Soft Scale Insects of the World (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) with Data on Geographical
Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Gainesville, Florida, USA: Sandhill Crane Press, 536 pp.
Ben-Dov, Y., Miller, D.R. and Gibson, G.A.P. (2001). ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm
Bentley, W.J., Zalom, F.G., Granett, J., Smith, R.J., Varela, L.G. and Purcell, A.H. (2003). UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Grape. UC ANR
Publication 3448. Insects and Mites. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302301911.html#REFERENCE
Bhatnagar, S.S. and Beniwal, S.P.S. (1977). Involvement of Fusarium oxysporum in causation of mango malformation. Plant Disease Reporter 61(10):
894-898.
Page 220
Bhole, S.D., Jadhav, V.S., Dumbre, R.B. and Dalvi, C.S. (1987). Seasonal incidence and chemical control of mango nursery pests in the Konkan
region. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 12(3): 387-388.
Bhumannavar, B.S. (1990). Further new records of insect pests on fruit crops in South Andaman. Journal of the Andaman Science Association 6(2):
122-126.
Bhumannavar, B.S. (1991a). Record of Citripestis eutraphera (Meyrick) (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) on Mangifera andamanica in India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 88(2): 299.
Bhumannavar, B.S. (1991b). New record of Homona permutata Meyrick (Tortricidae: Lepidoptera) on fruit crops from South Andaman. Entomon
16(4): 335-336.
Bhumannavar, B.S. and Jacob, T.K. (1989). Psoraleococcus nr. multipori (Morrison) on mango on an Andaman island. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin
37(3): 134.
Bhumannavar, B.S. and Jacob, T.K. (1990). Tirathaba mundella Walker (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) a new fruit borer of mango in south Andaman
(India). Entomon 15(3-4): 286-287.
Bradbury, J.F. (1986). Guide to Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Farnham Royal, Slough, UK: CAB International Mycological Institute, 332 pp.
Burckhardt, D. and Basset, Y. (2000). The jumping plant-lice (Hemiptera, Psylloidea) associated with Schinus (Anacardiaceae): systematics,
biogeography and host plant relationships. Journal of Natural History 34: 57-155.
Butani, D.K. (1978). Insect pests of fruit crops and their control: 25 – Mulberry. Pesticides 12(8): 53-59.
Butani, D.K. (1993). Mango: Pest Problems. Delhi, India: Periodical Expert Book Agency, 290 pp.
Butani, D.K. and Lele, V.C. (1976). Record of lac insect on grapevines in Rajasthan. Entomologists’ Newsletter 6(8-9): 50.
CAB International (2003). Crop Protection Compendium (2003 edition). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/home.asp
Page 221
CABI/EPPO (1997a). Aonidiella citrina (Coquillett). Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 349 (1st revision). Wallingford, UK: CAB
CABI/EPPO (1997b). Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner). Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 573. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 5 pp.
CABI/EPPO (1999). Planococcus citri (Risso). Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 43 (2nd revision). Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 8
pp.
CABI/EPPO (2000a). Nattrassia mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) B. Sutton & Dyko. Distribution Maps of Plant Diseases, Map No. 814. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International.
CABI/EPPO (2000b). Penicillaria jocosatrix Guenée. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 606. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 2 pp.
Carrasco, Z.F. (1978). South Peruvian cerambycids (Insecta: Coleoptera). Revista Peruana de Entomologia 21(1): 75-78. (In Spanish).
Carroll, L.E., White, I.M., Friedberg, A., Norrbom, A.L., Dallwitz, M.J. and Thompson, F.C. (2002 onwards). Pest Fruit Flies of the World:
Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification, and Information Retrieval. Version: 8th August 2002.
http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/
Chakrabarti, D.K., Kumar, R. and Kumar, S. (1997). Interaction among Fusarium moniliforme, Tyrolichus casei, and mangiferin as related to
malformation of Mangifera indica. Tropical Agriculture 74(4): 317-320.
Chakrabarti, S. and Mondal, S. (1982). Studies on the eriophyid mites (Acarina: Eriophyoidea) of India. XV. New genus, species and new records from
West Bengal. Oriental Insects 16(4): 519-525.
Charles, J.G. and Henderson, R.C. (2002). Catalogue of the exotic armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Diaspididae) in New Zealand.
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 32(4): 587-615.
Chattannavar, S.N., Reddy, B.M.R., Kulkarni, S. and Hegde, Y. (1989). Occurrence of leafspot of mango in Karnataka. Current Research – University
of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore 18(12): 176-177.
Chockalingam, S. and Krishnan, M. (1984). Influence of foliage age on food utilization in the final instar larva of a monophagous and a polyphagous
insect pest. Journal of Advanced Zoology 5(1): 1-9.
Page 222
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1966a). Aspidiotus destructor Signoret. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No.
218. London, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 2 pp.
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1966b). Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No.
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1966c). Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No.
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1970). Brevipalpus phoenicus (Geijskes). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No.
106 (revised). London, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 2 pp.
CIE (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology) (1971). Icerya purchasi Maskell. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map No. 51
(revised). London, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 3 pp.
Cox, J.M. (1981). Identification of Planococcus citri (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) and the description of a new species. Systematic Entomology 6(1):
47-53.
Cunningham, I.C. (1989). Pests: Mites. In: Bagshaw, J. (ed.). Mango Pests and Disorders. Information Series QI89007. Brisbane, Queensland:
Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, p. 19.
Dalvi, C.S. and Dumbre, R.B. (1994). Breeding and seasonal incidence of mango hoppers. Bulletin of Entomology New Delhi 35(1-2): 1-10.
Dalvi, C.S., Dumbre, R.B. and Khanvilkar, V.G. (1992). Natural enemies of mango hoppers. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 17(3);
514-515.
David, B.V. and Regu, K. (1991). A new record and description of Rachisphora rutherfordi (Quaintance & Baker) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) from
India. Journal of Insect Science 4(1): 69-70.
DAWA (Department of Agriculture Western Australia) (2003). Draft WA pest lists for arthropods, pathogens and nematodes. Provided by Department
of Agriculture Western Australia, August 2003.
Page 223
Dodd, J.C., Prusky, D. and Jeffries, P. (1997). Fruit Diseases. In: Litz, R.E. (ed.). The Mango: Botany, Production and Uses. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International, pp. 257-280.
DPP (Directorate of Plant Protection, India) (2000). Annexure IV – Pest List. Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of
Agriculture, India, 4 September 2000.
DPP (Directorate of Plant Protection, India) (2001). Pest list provided by the Directorate of Plant Protection in India to Dr Sharan Singh on his visit to
India. Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture, India.
Dubey, O.P., Gour, R.K. and Sharma, S.R. (1981). Occurrence of sugarcane leaf-hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker on mango tree, Mangifera indica L.
Agricultural Science Digest 1(2): 113.
Evenhuis, N.L. (1996). Welcome to the web version of the “Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions”.
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/aocat/
Fasih, M., Srivastava, R.P., Abbas, S.R. and Sharma, S. (1989). Outbreak of Orgyia postica Walker (Lymantriidae: Lepidoptera), a new pest on mango
in Uttar Pradesh. Current Science 58(22): 1258-1260.
Fletcher, M.J. (2000). Illustrated Key to the Economically Important Leafhoppers of Australia (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). 13 January 1999.
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/Hort/ascu/cicadell/ecokey0.htm
Fletcher, M.J. (2003). Identification Key and Checklists for the Planthoppers of Australia and New Zealand (Superfamily Fulgoroidea).
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/Hort/ascu/fulgor/fulg0.htm
Gafar, K., Abd-El-Monem, S. and Abd-El-Megid, M. (1979). Pathological studies on the phenomena of mango fruit dropping. Agricultural Research
Review 57(2): 11-17.
Grewal, J.S. and Kapoor, V.C. (1986). Bird damage and its effect on infestation by fruit-flies in various orchards in Ludhiana. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 56(5): 370-373.
Gupta, B.P. and Rai, K.M. (1982). Studies on Orthaga mangiferae Misra (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae) a serious pest of mango in Uttar Pradesh and its
control. Progressive Horticulture 14(4): 241-243.
Page 224
Gupta, B.P. and Singh, Y.P. (1986). New record of Orgyia postica Walk. as a pest of mango. Progressive Horticulture 18(3-4): 273.
Gupta, B.P. and Singh, Y.P. (1988a). Mango scale insects – occurrence in western Uttar Pradesh and their control. Progressive Horticulture 20(4):
357-361.
Gupta, B.P. and Singh, Y.P. (1988b). New record of Buzura (Biston) suppressaria (Guenée) (Geometridae: Lepidoptera) as a pest of mango and some
other fruit trees. Progressive Horticulture 20(3-4): 362-364.
Gutierrez, J. and Schicha, E. (1985). Notes on the occurrence of Oligonychus milleri (McGregor) and O. coffeae (Nietner) (Acari: Tetranychidae) in
Australia. Australian Entomological Magazine 12(3-4): 69-70.
Halliday, R.B. (1998). Mites of Australia: A Checklist and Bibliography. Monographs on Invertebrate Taxonomy. Volume 5. Collingwood, Australia:
CSIRO Publishing, 317 pp.
Haseeb, M., Abbas, S.R., Srivastava, R.P. and Sharma, S. (1998). Gastropacha pardale (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae): a new pest of mango. Insect
Environment 4(3): 75-76.
Hawkeswood, T.J. (2002). Notes on Belionota prasina (Thunberg, 1789) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) from Cebu Island, central Philippines, South-east
Asia. Spilopyra 2: 1-3.
Hocking, A.D., Holds, K. and Tobin, NF. (1988). Intoxication by tremorgenic mycotoxin (penitrem A) in a dog. Australian Veterinary Journal 65(3):
82-85.
Hyde, K.D. (1992). IMI Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria No. 1130. Stigmina mangiferae. Mycopathologia 119: 63-64.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1993a). Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 373 (1st revision).
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1993b). Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 15 (2nd revision).
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1993c). Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus Hood. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 539.
Page 225
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1994a). Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 550. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International, 2 pp.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1994b). Batocera rufomaculata (De Geer). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 542.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1995a). Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 91 (3rd revision).
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1995b). Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae (Coquillett). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No.
64 (2nd revision). Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 4 pp.
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1996a). Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, No. 2 (2nd revision).
IIE (International Institute of Entomology) (1996b). Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A, Map No. 125 (1st revision).
IMI (International Mycological Institute) (1995). Phomopsis mangiferae Ahmad. Distribution Maps of Plant Diseases, Map No. 681. Wallingford, UK:
CAB International.
IMI (International Mycological Institute) (1996). Corticium salmonicolor Berk. & Broome. Distribution Maps of Plant Diseases, Map No. 122 (edition
5). Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 4 pp.
Jadhav, V.S. and Dalvi, C.S. (1987). Bionomics of mango nursery leaf eating caterpillar. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 12(3): 384-
385.
Jeppson, L.R., Keifer, H.H. and Baker, E.W. (1975). Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. Berkeley, USA: University of California Press, 614 pp.
Johnson, G., Cooke, T., Mead, A., Johnson, G.I., Cooke, A.W. and Mead, A.J. (1993a). Infection and quiescence of mango stem-end rot pathogens.
Fourth International Mango Symposium, held at Miami, Florida, USA, 5-10 July, 1992. Acta Horticulturae 341: 329-336.
Johnson, G.I. and Hobman, F.R. (1982). Red rust (Cephaleuros virescens) on tea in Queensland. Australasian Plant Pathology 11(2): 16.
Page 226
Johnson, G.I., Mayers, P.E. and Cooke, A.W. Mango. In: Persley, D. (1993b). Diseases of Fruit Crops. Information Series QI92023. Brisbane,
Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, pp. 66-69.
Johnson, G.I., Mead, A.J., Cooke, A.W. and Dean, J.R. (1991). Mango stem end rot pathogens – infection levels between flowering and harvest.
Annals of Applied Biology 119(3): 465-473.
Johnson, J., Lethika, P., Visalakshi, A. and Nalinakumari, T. (1980). A lycaenid Rapala manea Hewitson as a new pest of mango in Kerala. Entomon
5(3): 171-172.
Johnson, P.R. and Parr, D. (1999). Mango growing in Western Australia. Bulletin No. 4348, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.
http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/agency/pubns/bulletin/b4348/
Kakoti, R.K., Saikia, U.N. and Lamar, D. (1998). Phytopathogenic fungi of north-east India IV. Annals of Agri-Bio Research 3(2): 207-210.
Kessing, J.L.M. and Mau, R.F.L. (1993). Crop Knowledge Master. Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret).
http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/a_cyanop.htm
Khair, G.T. (1987). List of Plant Parasitic Nematodes of Australia (third edition – revised 1986). Canberra, Australia:, Australian Government
Publishing Service, 156 pp.
Kishun, R. and Chand, R. (1989). Mechanical transmission of Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae through insects. Indian Journal of Plant
Pathology 7(2): 112-114.
Knihinicki, D.K. and Boczek, J. (2002). New eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from Australia. International Journal of Acarology 28(3): 241-
249.
Koshy, G., Visalakshy, A. and Nair, M.R.G.K. (1977). Biology of Acanthocoris scabrator Fabr., a pest of mango. Entomon 2(2): 145-147.
Kumar, S., Patel, C.B., Bhatt, R.I., Padhiar, B.V. and Patel, B.G. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative losses on some commercial varieties of mango
due to Bactrocera correctus Bezzi (Diptera: Tephritidae) in South Gujarat. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 2(1): 91-92.
Laemmlen, F.F. (2003). Sooty mold. UC ANR Publication 74108. University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74108.html
Page 227
Laxminarayana, P. and Reddy, S.M. (1975). A new post-harvest disease of mango. Indian Phytopathology 28(4): 529-530.
Lee, H.S. and Wen, H.C. (1982). Seasonal occurrence of and injury caused by thrips and their control on mangoes. Plant Protection Bulletin, Taiwan
24(3): 179-187. (In Chinese).
Lele, V.C., Singh, J., Rai, S.N. and Kandhari, J. (1981). Occurrence of a new blight disease of mango caused by Curvularia. Current Science 50(10):
464-465.
Letham, D. (1995). List of mango diseases submitted to AFFA by New South Wales Agriculture.
Lewvanich, A. (1981). A revision of the Old World species of Scirpophaga (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History),
Entomology 42(4): 185-298.
Lim, T.W. and Khoo, K.C. (1985). Diseases and Disorders of Mango in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Tropical Press SDN. BHD., 101 pp.
Martin, J.H. (1999). The whitefly fauna of Australia (Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodidae). A taxonomic account and identification guide. CSIRO Entomology
Technical Paper No. 38, 197 pp.
McLeod, R., Reay, F. and Smyth, J.F. (1994). Plant Nematodes of Australia Listed by Plant and by Genus. Orange, Australia: NSW Agriculture, 201
pp.
Menon, M.G.R. and Srivastava, M.L. (1976). Dorylus orientalis (Westwood) as a pest of mango fruits (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomologists’
Newsletter 6(1): 2.
Meyer, M.K.P.S. (1990). African Eriophyoidea: on some related genera: Neooxycenus Abou-Awad, Oxycenus Keifer, Neotegonotus Newkirk &
Keifer, Tegonotus Nalapa and Tegolophus Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae). Phytophylactica 22(4): 371-386.
Mohanasundaram, M. and Parameswaran, S. (1991). Record of four mites associated with decaying or rotting agricultural crops in Tamil Nadu.
Madras Agricultural Journal 78(1-4): 88.
Morton, J.F. (1987a). Mango. In: Fruits of Warm Climates. Miami Florida, USA: Julia F. Morton, pp. 221-239.
Morton, J.F. (1987b). Tamarind. In: Fruits of Warm Climates. Miami Florida, USA: Julia F. Morton, pp. 115-121.
Page 228
Mound, L.A. (1996). Thysanoptera. In: Wells, A. (ed.). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Volume 26. Psocoptera, Phthiraptera, Thysanoptera.
Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, pp. 249-332.
Mound, L.A. (2003). Personal communication. CSIRO Entomology, Australian National Insect Collection.
Nameth, S., Chatfield, J. and Shetlar, D. (2003). Sooty molds on trees and shrubs. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. The Ohio State
University, Columbus. http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/3000/3046.html
Narasimham, A.U. and Chacko, M.J. (1991). The distribution of some Rastrococcus spp. (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on mango in India. Bulletin of
Entomological Research 81(4): 445-448.
Narasimhudu, Y., Naidu, P.H., Chari, S.M. and Rao, P.V. (1987). Chemical control of black banded disease of mango. Indian Phytopathology 40(4):
564-565.
NCOF (National Collection of Fungi) (1997). National Collection of Fungi Database. New South Wales Agriculture, Queensland Department of
Primary Industries, Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Nielsen, E.S., Edwards, E.D. and Rangsi, T.V. (eds) (1996). Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia. Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera. Volume
4. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Australia, 529 pp.
Palejwala, V.A., Sattur, A.P. and Modi, V.V. (1989). Strategies for the control of post-harvest spoilage of mangoes by Penicillium cyclopium. Acta
Horticulturae (ISHS) 231: 688-696.
Pandey, R.S., Bhargava, S.N., Shukla, D.N. and Khati, D.V.S. (1981). A new leaf spot disease of mango. Plant Disease 65(5): 441-442.
Park, J.D., Park, I.J. and Han, K.P. (1994). Investigation of insect pests and injury characteristics of Stathmopoda auriferella (Walker) on kiwi fruit
tree. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology 33(3): 148-152. (In Korean).
Patel, J.G., Patel, S.T. and Patel, S.K. (1985). Occurrence of stem end rot of mango fruit in Gujarat. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal
11(1): 59-60.
Patel, J.R., Patel, M.B., Radadia, G.C., Shah, A.A. and Pandya, H.V. (1997). Insect pest management in mango nursery. Journal of Applied
Horticulture Navsari 3(1-2): 125-128.
Page 229
Pathak, K.A., Rao, K.R. and Kumar, D. (2000). Mango twig boring weevil, Ectatorhinus adamsi Pascoe (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a pest of mango
in Mizoram. Insect Environment 6(2): 77.
Peña, J.E. and Mohyuddin, A.I. (1997). Insect pests. In: Litz, R.E. (ed.). The Mango: Botany, Production and Uses. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International, pp. 327-362.
Pitkethley, R. (1995). Mango disease list submitted to AFFA by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Northern Territory.
Pitkethley, R. (1998). Host Pathogen Index of Plant Diseases in the Northern Territory. Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Northern
Territory, 152 pp.
Ploetz, R.C. and Prakash, O. (1997). Foliar, floral and soilborne diseases. In: Litz, R.E. (ed.). The Mango: Botany, Production and Uses. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International, pp. 281-325.
Ponnuswami, M.K. (1971). Hyalospilla leuconeurella, a new mango borer in Tiruchirapalli and its control. Plant Protection Bulletin, India 23(2): 38-
39.
Pradeep, S., Ayyar, K.S., Bhandari, R.S., Rana, S.S. and Joshi, M.C. (1998). Efficacy of neem seed extracts in the protection of Mangifera indica wood
against Microcerotermes beesoni Snyder (Isoptera: Termitidae) in laboratory. Annals of Forestry 6(1): 89-94.
Prajapati, K.S., Joshi, H.U., Vala, D.G. and Solanky, K.U. (1989). Efficacy of fungicides and screening of mango cultivars and hybrids for resistance
against Phyllosticta sp. causing leaf blight disease. Second International Symposium on Mango, Bangalore, India, 20-24 May, 1985. Acta
Horticulture (ISHS) 231: 522-527.
Prakash, O. (1991). Sooty mould disease of mango and its control. International Journal of Tropical Plant Diseases 9(2): 277-280.
Prakash, O. and Singh, U.N. (1977). Phoma blight – a new disease of mango (Mangifera indica). Plant Disease Reporter 61(5): 419-421.
Prakash, O. and Singh, U.N. (1980). Fungicidal control of red rust of mango. Indian Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 10(2): 175-176.
Prakash, O. and Raoof, M.A. (1985). New records of fungi on leaves and twigs of mango (Mangifera indica). Indian Journal of Plant Pathology 3(2):
243-244.
Page 230
Prakash, O., Raoof, M.A., Singh, B.P. and Srivastava, K.M. (1985). Some new maladies of mango (Mangifera indica) of unknown etiology. Indian
Journal of Plant Pathology 3(2): 245-251.
Prasad, S.S. and Sinha, A.K. (1979). Some new records of fungi on mango. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India, B 49(3): 117-118.
Puttarudriah, M. and Eswaramurthy (1976). Planococcoides sp. nr. robustus a mango root mealybug and its control. Current Research 5(12): 205-207.
Qin, T.K. and Gullan, P.J. (1994). Taxonomy of the wax scales (Hemiptera: Coccidae: Ceroplastinae) in Australia. Invertebrate Taxonomy 8(4): 923-
959.
QDPIF (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries) (2004). Red-banded mango caterpillar – A quarantine pest of mango. DPI Note.
Rai, P.S. (1983). Bionomics factor of cashew stem and root borer. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 8(3): 247-249.
Rai, R., Mukherjee, I.N. and Singh, J. (1993). Preliminary studies on mango leaf coating mite, Cisaberoptus kenyae Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae).
Entomon 18(3-4): 193-197.
Rajak, R. (1986). Pest and disease records in India. Quarterly Newsletter, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Asia and Pacific Plant
Protection Commission 29(3): 26-38.
Ramamurthy, V.V., Butani, D.K. and Ghai, S. (1982).Occurrence of Cryptocephalus spp. on mango leaves in India. Indian Journal of Entomology
44(4): 403-405.
Ramasubbarao, V. and Thammiraju, N.B. (1994). New record of blossom thrips Megalurothrips distalis on mango (Mangifera indica). Indian Journal
of Agricultural Sciences 64(6): 417-418.
Rand, J. and Schicha, E. (1981). The tea red spider mite, Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner) (Acari: Tetranychidae) as an avocado pest in Australia.
General and Applied Entomology 13: 9-10.
Rawal, R.D. (1998). Management of Fungal Diseases in Tropical Fruits. In: Arora, R.K. and Ramanatha Rao, V. (eds). Tropical Fruits in Asia:
Diversity, Maintenance, Conservation and Use. Proceedings of the IPGRI-ICAR-UFTANET Regional Training Course on the Conservation
Page 231
and Use of Germplasm of Tropical fruits in Asia held at Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, 18-31 May 1997, Bangalore, India. pp. 215-
234. http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/regions/apo/publications/tf_asia/chapter24.pdf
Reckhaus, P. and Adamou, I. (1987). Hendersonula dieback of mango in Niger. Plant Disease 71(11): 1045.
Reddy, D.B. (1975). Insects, other pests and diseases recorded in the Southeast Asia and Pacific region. Mango – Mangifera indica. Technical
Document, Plant Protection Committee for the Southeast Asia and Pacific Region. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), No. 96, 16 pp.
Reddy, S.M. and Bilgrami, K.S. (1972). Nodulsisporium indicum sp. nov. causing leaf spot disease of Mangifera indica Linn. Science and Culture
38(1): 41-42.
Sadana, G.L. and Chhabra, S.C. (1981). Tetranychus neocaledonicus (Tetranychidae: Acarina) infesting a new host plant. Science and Culture 47(5):
172-173.
Saeed, M. and Ashrafi, S.H. (1973). On the occurrence of some plant-parasitic nematodes with special reference to new hosts in West Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 16(3-4): 128-129.
Saaiman, W.C. (1997). Biology and control of Nattrassia mangiferae. In: Lavi, U., Degani, C., Gazit, S., Lahav, E., Pesis, E., Prusky, D., Tomer, E.
and Wysoki, M. (eds). Proceedings of the 5th International Mango Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1-6 September 1996. Volume 2. Acta
Horticulturae 455: 558-565.
Sangalang, A.E., Burgess, L.W., Backhouse, D., Duff, J. and Wurst, M. (1995). Mycogeography of Fusarium species in soils from tropical, arid and
Mediterranean regions of Australia. Mycological Research 99(5): 523-528.
Sawant, N.V. and Raut, S.P. (1994). Pathogenicity and chemical control of leaf blight of mango caused by Drechslera halodes – a new report. Journal
of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 19(3): 398-399.
Schaefer, C.W. and Ahmad, I. (2000). Cotton stainers and their relatives (Pyrrhocoroidea: Pyrrhocoridae and Largidae). In: Schaefer, C.W. and
Panizzi, A.R. (eds). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 271-307.
Page 232
Shane, B. (2003). New post harvest fungicide Scholar receives label for stone fruit. Fruit crop advisory team alert, Michigan State University, 18 (2):
www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_frt/F04-15-03.htm
Sharma, I.M. and Badiyala, S.D. (1991). Relative occurrence of sooty mould on mango varieties in Himachal Pradesh. Plant Disease Research 6(1):
71-74.
Sharma, I.M., Raj, H. and Kaul, J.L. (1994). Studies on post-harvest diseases of mango and chemical control of stem end rot and anthracnose. Indian
Phytopathology 47(2): 197-200.
Shattuck, S.O. and Barnett, N.J. (2001). Australian Ants Online. The Guide to the Australian Ant Fauna.
http://www.ento.csiro.au/science/ants/default.htm
Shekhawat, G.S. and Patel, P.N. (1975). Studies on bacterial canker of mango. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 82(3): 129-138.
Shivas, R.G. (1989). Fungal and bacterial diseases of plants in Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 72: 1-62.
Singh, G. (1989). Biology of two defoliator pests of mango under North Indian conditions. Second International Symposium on Mango, Bangalore,
India, 20-24 May, 1985. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 231: 625-628.
Singh, G. and Misra, P.N. (1981). Biology of mango leaf weevil, Rhynchaenus mangiferae Marshall (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 51(5): 334-339.
Singh, I. and Kang, M.S. (1989). New host records of some fungi from India. Plant Disease Research 4(2): 183.
Singh, R., Varma, A.N. and Lakra, R.K. (1976). Damage and control of Eupithecia sp. (Geometridae-Lepidoptera) a pest of mango in Haryana.
Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences 5(3-4): 172-176.
Singh, S.P. (1992). Frequent outbreaks of Cricula trifenestrata Helfer (Lepidoptera, Saturniidae) on mango. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 20(1):
114-115.
Singh, T.V.K. and Satyanarayana, J. (2000). Symphaedra nais (Forster): (Nymphalidae: Lepidoptera) a pest on mango. Insect Environment 6(2): 73.
Page 233
Singh, Y.P. and Kumar, V. (1991). Record of new larval parasitoids of Lymantria beatrix Stoll. (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 88(3): 463.
Sinha, J.N. and Singh, A.P. (1995). Some new host records from India. Indian Phytopathology 48(1): 111.
Smith, D., Beattie, G.A.C. and Broadley, R. (eds). (1997). Citrus Pests and their Natural Enemies: Integrated Pest Management in Australia.
Information Series QI97030. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Horticultural Research and Development
Corporation, 263 pp.
Snowdon, A.L. (1990). A Colour Atlas of Post-Harvest Diseases and Disorders of Fruits and Vegetables. Volume 1: General Introduction and Fruits.
London, UK: Wolfe Scientific Ltd, 302 pp.
Srivastava, R.P. (1997). Mango Insect Pest Management (first edition). Lucknow, India: International Book Distributing Co., 272 pp.
Srivastava, R.P. and Verghese, A. (1985). Record of a new mealy bug, Perissopneumon ferox Newstead (Margarodidae: Homoptera) on mango from
Uttar Pradesh, India. Entomon 10(2): 184.
Storey, R. (1998-2002). Australian Cerambycidae List (Longicorn Beetles). Chambers Wildlife Rainforest Lodges. http://rainforest-
australia.com/australian_cerambycidae.htm
Szito, A. (2001). Identification of Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) from bananas ex Carnarvon & Kununurra, Western
Australia. Personal communication, Department of Agriculture Western Australia.
Takagi, S., Fang, T., Yasar, B. and Kondo, T. (1997). Further forms for the Rugaspidiotini-problem (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Diaspididae). Insecta
Matsumurana 53: 81-116.
Tandon, P.L. (1998). Management of Insect Pests in Tropical Fruit Crops. In: Arora, R.K. and Ramanatha Rao, V. (eds). Tropical Fruits in Asia:
Diversity, Maintenance, Conservation and Use. Proceedings of the IPGRI-ICAR-UFTANET Regional Training Course on the Conservation
and Use of Germplasm of Tropical fruits in Asia held at Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, 18-31 May 1997, Bangalore, India. pp. 235-
245. http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/regions/apo/publications/tf_asia/chapter25.pdf
Tandon, P.L. and Srivastava, R.P. (1982). Note on new pests of mango in India. Science and Culture 48(2): 78-80.
Page 234
Thakur, M.L. (1981). Revision of the termite genus Odontotermes Holmgren (Isoptera: Termitidae: Macrotermitinae) from India. Indian Forest
Records, Entomology 14(2): 1-183.
Ullasa, B.A. and Rawal, R.D. (1989). Occurrence of a new post harvest disease of mango due to Pestalotiopsis glandicola. Second International
Symposium on Mango, Bangalore, India, 20-24 May, 1985. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 231: 540-543.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2001). Pest List – Plant pests associated with Mangifera indica from India. United States
Department of Agriculture.
Varma, A., Lele, V.C., Raychaudhuri, S.P., Ram, A. and Sang, A. (1974). Mango malformation: a fungal disease. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 79(3):
254-257.
Vecchietti, N.B. and Zapata, S.R. (1999). Leaf spot on mango caused by Stigmina mangiferae in the northwest of Argentina. Fitopatologia Brasileira
24(4): 575.
Veeresh, G.K., Rajagopal, D. and Kumar, N.G. (1989). Management of termites in mango orchard. Second International Symposium on Mango,
Bangalore, India, 20-24 May, 1985. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 231: 633-636.
Verghese, A. and Jayanthi, P.D.K. (1999). Lepidopteran pest complex on mango inflorescence. Insect Environment 5(2): 51-52.
Verma, K.S. and Singh, J. (1996). Perpetuation and management of Macrophoma mangiferae causing blight of mango. Indian Journal of Mycology
and Plant Pathology 26(1): 75-78.
Verma, K.S., Cheema, S.S., Kang, M.S. and Sharma, A.K. (1991). Hitherto unrecorded disease problems of mango from Punjab. Plant Disease
Research 6(2): 141-142.
Viraktamath, C.A. (1976). Four new species of idiocerine leafhoppers from India with a note on male Balocha astuta (Melichar) (Homoptera:
Cicadellidae: Idiocerinae). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences 10(2): 234-244.
Viraktamath, S. and Viraktamath, C.A. (1985). New species of Busoniomimus and Idioscopus (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Idiocerinae) breeding on
mango in South India. Entomon 10(4): 305-311.
Wade, N.L. and Morris, S.C. (1982). Causes and control of cantaloupe postharvest wastage in Australia. Plant Disease 66(7): 549-552.
Page 235
Watson, J.A.L. and Abbey, H.M. (1993). Atlas of Australian Termites. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Division of Entomology, 155 pp.
Williams, D.J. (1985). Australian Mealybugs. London, UK: British Museum (Natural History), 431 pp.
Woods, W. (2001). The distribution of Circular black scale Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus) in Western Australia. Personal communication,
Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.
Zaheruddeen, S.M. and Sujatha, A. (1993). Record of Deanolis albizonalis (Hampson) (Pyralidae: Odontinae) as mango fruit borer in Andhra Pradesh.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 90(3): 528.
Zaman, Z. and Maiti, B. (1994). Insects and mites infesting seedlings of mango in West Bengal. Environment and Ecology 12(3): 734-736.
Page 236
APPENDIX 2: POTENTIAL FOR ENTRY, ESTABLISHMENT OR SPREAD AND CONSEQUENCES
Scientific name Common Potential for entry1, establishment or spread in Potential for consequences Consider
name the PRA area further?
Feasible/ Comments Significant/ Comments
not feasible not significant
ARTHROPODS
Coleoptera [beetles, weevils]
Sternochetus frigidus Mango pulp Feasible This genus is present in Australia Significant Major economic importance in India Yes
(Fabricius) weevil (AICN, 2004). Susceptible hosts are (DPP, 2001). This species has the
[Coleoptera: Curculionidae] present in Australia (CAB International, potential to cause economic damage if
2003). introduced.
Sternochetus mangiferae Mango seed Feasible S. mangiferae is present in Australia Significant Major economic importance in India Yes
(Fabricius) weevil (New South Wales, Northern Territory, (DPP, 2001).
[Coleoptera: Curculionidae] Queensland) (AICN, 2004), but is under
official control in Western Australia.
Diptera [flies]
Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor) Fruit fly Feasible Susceptible hosts (e.g. mango) are Significant Primary economic impact would result Yes
[Diptera: Tephritidae] present in Australia. from quarantine restrictions imposed by
important domestic and foreign export
markets, rather than from direct yield
losses from infested fruit.
Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) Guava fruit fly Feasible Moderate host range (Allwood et al., Significant In India, B. correcta is one of the Yes
[Diptera: Tephritidae] 1999; Tsuruta et al., 1997). important fruit borers of guava and can
cause 80% damage (CAB International,
2003).
Bactrocera cucurbitae Melon fly Feasible Wide host range (Weems, 1964). Significant B. cucurbitae is a very serious pest of Yes
(Coquillett) cucurbit crops throughout its native
[Diptera: Tephritidae] range (tropical Asia) and in introduced
areas such as the Hawaiian Islands
(CAB International, 2003). Damage
levels can be anything up to 100% of
unprotected fruit (CAB International,
1
Association of the pest with the mango fruit pathway (see Appendix 1) was considered to be sufficient evidence of feasible potential for entry.
Page 237
2003).
Bactrocera diversa Three striped Feasible Susceptible hosts (e.g. mango) are Significant Primary economic impact would result Yes
(Coquillett) fruit fly present in Australia. from quarantine restrictions imposed by
[Diptera: Tephritidae] important domestic and foreign export
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) Oriental fruit fly Feasible Wide host range (Allwood et al., 1999; Significant Primary economic impact would result Yes
[Diptera: Tephritidae] Tsuruta et al., 1997). Dispersed by from quarantine restrictions imposed by
infected fruit and adult flight (Fletcher, important domestic and foreign export
1989). Strong flyer – adults can fly up to markets, rather than from direct yield
50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989). losses from infested fruit.
Bactrocera tau (Walker) Fruit fly Feasible Susceptible hosts (e.g. mango) are Significant Primary economic impact would result Yes
[Diptera: Tephritidae] present in Australia. from quarantine restrictions imposed by
important domestic and foreign export
Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) Peach fruit fly Feasible B. zonata is polyphagous (CAB Significant B. zonata is an important fruit fly pest Yes
[Diptera: Tephritidae] International, 2003). Susceptible hosts and causes severe damage to peach,
are present in Australia. guava and mango (CAB International,
2003).
Hemiptera [aphids, leafhoppers, mealybugs, psyllids, scales, true bugs, whiteflies]
Abgrallaspis cyanophylli Cyanophyllum Feasible A. cyanophylli is present in Australia Significant Considered to be a serious pest in Yes
(Signoret) scale (New South Wales, Queensland, Israel, USSR, USA (Florida) (Miller &
[Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Tasmania) (AICN, 2004). Davidson, 1990).
Antestiopsis cruciata Indian coffee bug Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Not significant Minor economic importance in India No
(Fabricius) Australia. (DPP, 2001).
[Hemiptera: Pentatomidae]
Aspidiotus nerii Bouché Oleander scale Feasible A. nerii is a highly polyphagous Significant A. nerii is usually only a minor or non- Yes
[Hemiptera: Diaspididae] (Beardsley & Gonzalez, 1975). Its many economic pest on most of its hosts
hosts include agricultural crops, palms, (DeBach & Rosen, 1991). However, it is
cut flowers and woody ornamentals (but particularly important where aesthetic
not conifers) (CAB International, 2003). value of the crop is high, for example in
This species is present in Australia cut flowers and ornamentals (Van
Di h t l 1998)
Page 238
(New South Wales, Queensland, Driesche et al., 1998).
Tasmania) (CAB International, 2003). In olive crops, the presence of a single
scale makes a fruit unmarketable.
Economic loss on table olives due to
damage to fruits and reduced oil yield
can be up to 70% (Alexandrakis &
Benassy, 1981; Flint, 1990). Quiroga et
al. (1991) reported that A. nerii was the
most severe pest of jojoba (Simmondsia
chinensis) fruits in northern and central
Chile.
Bagrada hilaris (Burmeister) Painted bug Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Not significant Minor economic importance in India No
[Hemiptera: Pentatomidae] Australia. (DPP, 2001). It is a pest of oilseeds and
vegetables in India (Panizzi et al.,
2000).
Ceroplastes actiniformis Soft scale Feasible Other species from this genus are Significant This species can infest a range of host Yes
Green present in Australia (CAB International, plants. Therefore, it has the potential to
[Hemiptera: Coccidae] 2003). Susceptible hosts are present in cause economic damage if introduced.
Australia (Ben-Dov et al., 2001).
Chrysocoris patricius Bug Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Not significant Minor economic importance in India No
(Fabricius) Australia. (DPP, 2001). Other species in this
[Hemiptera: Pentatomidae] genus are recorded as minor pests that
attack flowers, shoots and leaves of
host plants (Javahery et al., 2000).
Coccus longulus (Douglas) Long soft scale Feasible C. longulus is highly polyphagous (Ben- Significant This species can infest a wide range of Yes
[Hemiptera: Coccidae] Dov et al., 2001). host plants. Therefore, it has the
potential to cause economic damage if
introduced.
Coptosoma nazirae Atkinson Dwarf shield bug Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Not significant Minor economic importance in India No
[Hemiptera: Plataspidae] Australia. (DPP, 2001).
Drosicha contrahens (Walker) Mango mealybug Feasible Susceptible hosts (e.g. mango) are Not significant Limited information on this pest. Minor No
[Hemiptera: Margarodidae] present in Australia. economic importance in India (DPP,
2001).
Page 239
Drosicha dalbergiae (Green) Mealybug Feasible Susceptible hosts (e.g. mango) are Not significant Limited information on this pest No
[Hemiptera: Margarodidae] present in Australia. attacking mango. Minor economic
importance in India (DPP, 2001).
Dysdercus koenigii (Fabricius) Red cotton bug Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Significant D. koenigii is an important pest of cotton Yes
Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae Australia. in India and Pakistan (Schaefer &
Ahmad, 2000).
Pest of plants of economic importance
such as okra, eggplant and hollyhock,
and a minor pest of legumes, pigeon
pea and peanut (Schaefer & Ahmad,
2000).
Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) Striped mealybug Feasible F. virgata is one of the most highly Significant F. virgata is a known vector of cocoa Yes
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] polyphagous mealybugs known (CAB swollen shoot virus (CSSV) in West
International, 2003). Africa and cocoa Trinidad virus (CTV,
This species is present in Australia Diego Martin valley isolate) in Trinidad
(Northern Territory, Queensland) (CAB (Thorold, 1975).
International, 2003). This species is a pest of coffee, cotton,
cashew and kenaf, and is a major pest
of guava (CAB International, 2003).
Halys dentata (Fabricius) Bark bug Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Not significant Minor economic importance in India No
[Hemiptera: Pentatomidae] Australia. (DPP, 2001).
Hemiberlesia rapax Greedy scale Feasible Wide host range (Davidson & Miller, Significant H. rapax is a major pest of both fruit and Yes
(Comstock) 1990; Dekle, 1976). woody ornamental plants, primarily in
[Hemiptera: Diaspididae] H. rapax is a cosmopolitan species of the tropical and subtropical regions
tropical origin that is present in Australia (CAB International, 2003).
(South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria)
Lepidosaphes beckii Mussel scale Feasible L. beckii is present in Australia (New Significant One of the most important and serious Yes
(Newman) South Wales, Northern Territory, citrus pests in the world (Miller &
[Hemiptera: Diaspididae] Queensland, South Australia, Davidson, 1990; Williams & Watson,
Tasmania, Victoria) (Ben-Dov et al., 1988).
2001; CAB International, 2003).
Lepidosaphes gloverii Glover’s scale Feasible L. gloverii is present in Australia (New Significant Due to the introduction of parasitoids to Yes
(P k d) S th W l Q l d Vi t i ) t lL l ii l ti i
Page 240
(Packard) South Wales, Queensland, Victoria) control L. gloverii populations in many
[Hemiptera: Diaspididae] (Ben-Dov et al., 2001). countries, it is now of less importance
(CAB International, 2003). However, it
is still occasionally sufficiently serious a
pest to require control (CAB
Milviscutulus mangiferae Mango shield Feasible Polyphagous host range (Ben-Dov et Significant This species can infest a wide range of Yes
(Green) scale al., 2001) host plants. Therefore, it has the
[Hemiptera: Coccidae] potential to cause economic damage if
introduced.
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) Coconut Feasible N. nipae is polyphagous and has an Not significant N. nipae is generally of little economic Yes
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] mealybug extensive host range (Ben-Dov et al., importance, but it has become a pest of
2001). avocados and guavas in Hawaii,
Bermuda and Puerto Rico and
ornamental palms (CAB International,
2003).
The damage caused by N. nipae may
result in ornamental plants, fruit, cut
flowers and foliage losing their market
value (CAB International, 2003).
Paralecanium expansum Soft scale Feasible P. expansum is present in Australia Not significant Minor economic importance in India No
(Green) (Queensland) (Ben-Dov et al., 2001). (DPP, 2001).
[Hemiptera: Coccidae]
Planococcus ficus (Signoret) Grapevine Feasible Moderate host range. Susceptible hosts Significant This species can infest a range of host Yes
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] mealybug are present in Australia. plants. Therefore, it has the potential to
cause economic damage if introduced.
Planococcus lilacinus Coffee mealybug Feasible Extremely wide host range (CAB Significant P. lilacinus is a pest of cocoa Yes
(Cockerell) International, 2003). Susceptible hosts throughout the Oriental region and
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] are present in Australia. South Pacific area (CAB International,
2003). It also damages a wide variety of
economically important crops such as
coffee, tamarinds, custard apples,
coconuts, citrus, grapes, guavas and
mangoes (CAB International, 2003).
Page 241
Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pacific mealybug Feasible Wide host range (Ben-Dov et al., 2001). Significant This species can infest a range of host Yes
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] P. minor is present in Australia (New plants. Therefore, it has the potential to
South Wales, Northern Territory, cause economic damage if introduced.
Queensland, South Australia) (Ben-Dov
et al., 2001).
Rastrococcus iceryoides Downey snowline Feasible R. iceryoides is one of the most Significant Major economic importance in India Yes
(Green) mealybug polyphagous species of Rastrococcus, (DPP, 2001).
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] occurring on plants belonging to diverse R. iceryoides causes damage to
botanical families (CAB International, mangoes and citrus in India, as well as
2003). cotton and kapok (CAB International,
2003).
Rastrococcus invadens Mealybug Feasible Wide host range (Ben-Dov et al., 2001). Significant R. invadens does not seem to be of No
Williams great economic importance in India
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae] (CAB International, 2003). In fact, the
species had not been recognised and
was mistaken for R. spinosus, before it
was accidentally introduced into Africa
(Williams, 1986). However, wherever
this mealybug appeared in Africa it
became a pest of prime importance on
mango, sometimes on citrus, and on
many horticultural crops and shade
trees (Agounké et al., 1988; Ivbijaro et
al., 1992).
Rastrococcus spinosus Philippine mango Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Significant Major economic importance in India Yes
(Robinson) mealybug Australia. (DPP, 2001).
[Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae]
Spilostethus pandurus Indian milkweed Feasible Highly polyphagous (Sweet, 2000). Significant Yes
(Scopoli) bug Susceptible hosts are present in
[Hemiptera: Lygaeidae] Australia.
Lepidoptera [butterflies, moths]

Cryptoblabes gnidiella Honeydew moth Feasible C. gnidiella is polyphagous and able to Significant C. gnidiella is an important pest of Yes
(Millière) use almost any plant, but it is most citrus, grapes and pomegranates in the
ft t d i l M dit (CAB I t ti l
Page 242
[Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] often encountered on commercial crops Mediterranean area (CAB International,
(CAB International, 2003). 2003). It is most noted as a pest of
avocados in Israel, of Azolla, sorghum
and rice in India, and sporadically of
maize or other crops in any warm part
of the world (CAB International, 2003).
Losses caused by this pest are not
quantified in the literature, although in
Israel, combined losses of macadamia
nuts as a result of C. gnidiella,
Apomyelois ceratoniae and the tortricid
Cryptophlebia leucotreta amounted to
30% (Wysoki, 1986).
Ctenomeristis ebriola Meyrick Mango caterpillar Feasible Other species from this genus are Not significant Limited information on this pest. No
[Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] present in Australia (Nielsen et al.,
1996). Susceptible hosts are present in
Australia.
Deanolis sublimbalis Snellen Red-banded Feasible D. sublimbalis is present in Australia Significant D. sublimbalis has been described as a Yes
[Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] mango caterpillar (Queensland), but is under official major pest in Orissa, India (Butani,
control (QDPIF, 2004). 1979). This species is said to have
caused considerable damage in Andhra
Pradesh, India in recent years
(Zaheruddeen & Sujatha, 1993).
In tropical parts of Asia, it causes
commercial losses in the order of 10-
15% in mango (QDPIF, 2004).
Deudorix isocrates (Fabricius) Pomegranate Feasible Other species from this genus are Significant D. isocrates is a pest of apple, ber, Yes
[Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae] fruit borer present in Australia (Nielsen et al., litchi, guava, loquat, mango, pear, plum,
1996). Susceptible hosts are present in aonla, pomegranate and sapote in India
Australia. (Srivastava, 1997).
Monopis leuconeurella Fruit borer Feasible Other species from this genus are Not significant Limited information on this pest. Old No
(Ragonot) present in Australia (Nielsen et al., record of this pest on mango in India
[Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] 1996). Susceptible hosts are present in (Ponnuswami, 1971).
Australia.
Orgyia postica (Walker) Oriental tussock Feasible O. postica is a species of forests and Significant In Taiwan, O. postica is a major pest of Yes
th f t t hi h h d t d ll t lti t d i (Ch 1988)
Page 243
[Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae] moth forest-steppe which has adapted well to cultivated grapevines (Chang, 1988)
orchards and forest plantations (CAB and roses (Wang, 1982).
International, 2003). Larvae cause serious damage to young
Susceptible hosts are present in leaves of cacao in the Philippines, both
Australia. in nurseries and plantations (CAB
International, 2003). When very
numerous they can cause total
defoliation, killing or stunting the tree
(Sanchez & Laigo, 1968).
Thylacoptila paurosema Fruit borer Feasible Other species from this genus are Not significant Limited information on this pest. No
Meyrick present in Australia (Nielsen et al.,
[Lepidoptera: Pyralidae] 1996). Susceptible hosts are present in
Australia.
FUNGI
Elsinoë mangiferae Bitancourt Mango scab Feasible Limited host range. E. mangiferae is Significant Without chemical control, losses as high Yes
& Jenkins recorded in Australia (Northern Territory as 90% have been observed in one
[Dothideales: Elsinoaceae] and Queensland) (CAB International, orchard in Australia (Darwin) (CAB
2003). International, 2003).
Macrophoma mangiferae Leaf blight Feasible Limited host range. Not significant Mainly affects leaves and stems No
Hingorani & Sharma (Okigbo, 2001). Causes post harvest
[Mitosporic fungi] fruit rot in mango fruit (Prasad & Sinha,
1980).
Nectria rigidiuscula Berk. & Witches’ broom Feasible Susceptible hosts are present in Not significant The fungus is mostly a saprophyte living No
Broome [teleomorph] of mango Australia (CAB International, 2003). on dead bark. It may occasionally cause
[Hypocreales: Nectriaceae] fruit decay (CAB International, 2003).
Recorded only once on mango (Prasad
& Sinha, 1979).
References for Appendix 2
Agounké, D., Agricola, U. and Bokonon-Ganta, H.A. (1988). Rastrococcus invadens Williams (Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae), a serious exotic pest of
fruit trees and other plants in West Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 78(4): 695-702;
Page 244
AICN (Australian Insect Common Names) (2004). Version 1.40. http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/index_no.htm
Alexandrakis, V. and Benassy, C. (1981). Experiment in biological control on olive in Crete using Aphytis melinus De Bach (Hym. Aphelinidae),
parasite of Aspidiotus nerii Bouché (Hom. Diaspididae). Acta Oecologica, Oecologia Applicata 2(1):13-25. (In French).
Allwood, A.L., Chinajariyawong, A., Drew, R.A.I., Hamacek, E.L., Hancock, D.L., Hengsawad, C., Jipanin, J.C., Jirasurat, M., Kong Krong, C.,
Kritsaneepaiboon, S., Leong, C.T.S. and Vijaysegaran, S. (1999). Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in South East Asia.
The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 7: 1-92.
Beardsley, .J.W. Jr and Gonzalez, R.H. (1975). The biology and ecology of armored scales. Annual Review of Entomology 20: 47-73.
Ben-Dov, Y., Miller, D.R. and Gibson, G.A.P. (2001). ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm
Butani, D.K. (1979). Insects and Fruits. Delhi, India: Periodical Expert Book Agency, 415 pp.
CAB International (2003). Crop Protection Compendium (2003 edition). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Chang, C.P. (1988). The investigation on insect and other animal pests on grapevine and their seasonal occurrences in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of
Entomology 8(1): 39-49.
Davidson, J.A. and Miller, D.R. (1990). Ornamental plants. In: Rosen, D. (ed.). Armored Scale Insects. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control.
World Crop Pests. Volume 4B. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 603-632.
DeBach, P. and Rosen, D. (1991). Biological Control by Natural Enemies (second edition) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 440 pp.
Dekle, G.W. (1976). Florida Armored Scale Insects. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas. Volume 3. Gainesville, Florida, USA: Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 345 pp.
DPP (Directorate of Plant Protection, India) (2001). Pest list provided by the Directorate of Plant Protection in India to Dr Sharan Singh on his visit to
India. Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture, India.
Fletcher, B.S. (1989). Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. In: Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. (eds). Fruit Flies. Their Biology, Natural
Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Volume 3B. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 195-208.
Page 245
Flint, M.L. (1990). Pests of the Garden and Small Farm. A Grower’s Guide to Using Less Pesticide. Oakland, California, USA; Agriculture and
Natural Resources Publications, University of California, 276 pp.
Ivbijaro, M.F., Udensis, N., Ukwela, U.M. and Anno-Nyako, F.V. (1992). Geographical distribution and host range in Nigeria of the mango mealy bug,
Rastrococcus invadens Williams, a serious exotic pest of horticulture and other crops. Insect Science and its Application 13(3): 411-416.
Javahery, M., Schaefer, C.W. and Lattin, J.D. (2000). Shield bugs (Scutelleridae). In: Schaefer, C.W. and Panizzi, A.R. (eds). Heteroptera of Economic
Importance. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 475-503.
Miller, D.R. and Davidson, J.A. (1990). A list of the armored scale insect pests. In: Rosen, D. (ed.). Armored Scale Insects. Their Biology, Natural
Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Volume 4B. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 299-306.
Nielsen, E.S., Edwards, E.D. and Rangsi, T.V. (eds) (1996). Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia. Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera. Volume
4. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Australia, 529 pp.
Okigbo, R.N. (2001). Occurrence, pathogenicity and survival of Macrophoma mangiferae in leaves, branches and stems of mango (Mangifera indica
L.). Plant Protection Science 37(4): 138-144.
Panizzi, A.R., McPherson, J.E., James, D.G., Javahery, M. and McPherson, R.M. (2000). Stink bugs (Pentatomidae). In: Schaefer, C.W. and Panizzi,
A.R. (eds). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 421-474.
Ponnuswami, M.K. (1971). Hyalospilla leuconeurella, a new mango borer in Tiruchirapalli and its control. Plant Protection Bulletin, India 23(2): 38-
39.
Prasad, S.S. and Sinha, A.K. (1979). Some new records of fungi on mango. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India, B 49(3): 117-118.
Prasad, S.S. and Sinha, A.K. (1980). Macrophoma rot of mango in Bihar. National Academy Science Letters 3(12): 356.
QDPIF (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries) (2004). Red-banded mango caterpillar – A quarantine pest of mango. DPI Note.
Quiroga, D., Arretz, P. and Araya, J.E. (1991). Sucking insects damaging jojoba, Simmondsia chinesis (Link) Schneider, and their natural enemies, in
the North Central and Central regions of Chile. Crop Protection 10(6): 469-472.
Page 246
Sanchez, F.F. and Laigo, F.M. (1968). Notes on the cacao tussock moth, Orgyia australis postica Walker (Lymantriidae, Lepidoptera). Philippine
Entomologist 1(1): 67-71.
Schaefer, C.W. and Ahmad, I. (2000). Cotton stainers and their relatives (Pyrrhocoroidea: Pyrrhocoridae and Largidae). In: Schaefer, C.W. and
Panizzi, A.R. (eds). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 271-307.
Srivastava, R.P. (1997). Mango Insect Pest Management (first edition). Lucknow, India: International Book Distributing Co., 272 pp.
Sweet II, M.H. (2000). Seed and chinch bugs (Lygaeoidea). In: Schaefer, C.W. and Panizzi, A.R. (eds). Heteroptera of Economic Importance. Boca
Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 143-264.
Thorold, C.A. (1975). Diseases of Cocoa. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 423 pp.
Tsuruta, K., White, I.M., Bandara, H.M.J., Rajapakse, H., Sundaraperuma, S.A.H., Kahawatta, S.B.M.U.C. and Rajapakse, G.B.J.P. (1997). A
preliminary notes on the host-plants of fruit flies of the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Sri Lanka. Esakia 37: 149-160.
Van Driesche, R., Idione, K., Rose, M. and Bryan, M. (1998). Evaluation of the effectiveness of Chilocorus kuwanae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in
suppressing the euonymus scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae). Biological Control 12(1): 56-65.
Wang, C.L. (1982). Insect pests and their injury on rose. Journal of Agricultural Research of China 31(1): 97-101.
Weems, H.V. (1964). Melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Entomology Circular No. 29, 2 pp.
Williams, D.J. (1986). Rastrococcus invadens sp. n. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) introduced from the Oriental Region to West Africa and causing
damage to mango, citrus and other trees. Bulletin of Entomological Research 76(4): 695-699.
Williams, D.J. and Watson, G.W. (1988). The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region. Part 1. The Armoured Scales (Diaspididae).
Wysoki, M. (1986). New records of Lepidopterous pests of macadamia in Israel. Phytoparasitica 14(2): 147.
Page 247
Zaheruddeen, S.M. and Sujatha, A. (1993). Record of Deanolis albizonalis (Hampson) (Pyralidae: Odontinae) as mango fruit borer in Andhra Pradesh.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 90(3): 528.
Page 248
Draft Revised Import Policy – A review under extension of existing policy
APPENDIX 3: PESTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANGO (MANGIFERA INDICA L.)

FROM THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Species Common Present in Present Australian Present in Quarantine

Name Philippines in quarantine pathway managemen
Australia status1 t required1
Arthropods
Aleurocanthus citrus blackfly yes no Quarantine no

woglumi
Bactrocera melon fly yes no Quarantine yes yes
cucurbitae
Bactrocera fruit fly yes no Quarantine yes yes
occipitalis
Bactrocera Philippine yes no Quarantine yes yes
philippinensis fruit fly
Chlumetia brevisigna twig borer yes no Quarantine no
Chlumetia transversa twig borer yes no Quarantine no
Eudocima fullonia fruit piercing yes yes Non no

moth Quarantine
Helopeltis sp. mosquito bug yes no Quarantine no
Icerya seychellarum Seychelles yes yes Non yes

fluted scale Quarantine
Idioscopus clypealis mango yes no Quarantine no
leafhopper
Idioscopus nitidulus leafhopper yes yes - part Quarantine no
Mictis longicornis twig wilter yes no Quarantine no
Nephopterix sp. black borer yes no Quarantine yes yes
Niphonoclea albata twig borer yes no Quarantine no
Niphonoclea capito twig borer yes no Quarantine no
Noorda albizonalis red-banded yes no Quarantine yes yes

caterpillar
Orgyia postica Oriental yes no Quarantine no
tussock moth
Parasa lepida blue-striped yes no Quarantine no
nettle grub
Planococcus coffee yes no Quarantine yes yes
lilacinus mealybug
Saissetia coffeae helmet scale yes no Quarantine no
Sternochetus frigidus mango pulp yes no Quarantine yes yes

weevil
Sternochetus mango seed uncertain yes - part Quarantine yes yes
mangiferae weevil
“Quarantine pest” – According to the IPPC definition, a quarantine pest is “A pest of potential economic importance
to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially
controlled” (FAO, 1996).
Page 249

Thosea sp. slug yes no Quarantine no
caterpillar
Thosea sinensis slug yes no Quarantine no
caterpillar
Typhlocyba mango hopper yes no Quarantine no
nigrobilineata
Algae
Cephaleuros algal leaf spot yes yes Non no

virescens Quarantine
Bacteria
Xanthomonas bacterial yes yes Non yes

campestris pv. black spot Quarantine
mangiferaeindicae
Fungi
Alternaria alternata alternaria rot yes yes Non yes

Quarantine
Aspergillus niger black mould yes yes Non yes
Quarantine
Botrytis cinerea blossom yes yes Non yes
blight Quarantine
Colletotrichum anthracnose yes yes Non yes
gloeosporioides Quarantine
Cytosphaera stem end rot yes yes Non yes
mangiferae Quarantine
Dothiorella stem end rot yes yes Non yes
dominicana Quarantine
Dothiorella stem end rot yes yes Non yes
Elsinoe mangiferae mango scab yes yes - part Quarantine yes (low) yes
Erythricium pink disease yes yes Non no

salmonicolor Quarantine
Geotrichum sour rot yes yes Non yes
candidum Quarantine
Guignardia phyllosticta yes yes Non yes
mangiferae rot Quarantine
Lasiodiplodia stem end rot yes yes Non yes
theobromae Quarantine
Macrophoma grey leaf spot yes no Quarantine no
luzonensis
Macrophomina charcoal rot yes yes Non no
phaseolina Quarantine
Mucor circinelloides mucor rot yes yes Non yes
Quarantine
Nattrassia stem end rot yes yes Non yes
Page 250

Oidium mangiferae powdery yes yes Non no
mildew Quarantine
Penicillium spp. blue mould yes yes Non yes
Quarantine
Pestalotiopsis grey leaf spot yes yes Non yes
Phoma glomerata phoma rot yes yes Non no
Quarantine
Phoma sorghina phoma rot yes yes Non no
Quarantine
Phomopsis stem end rot yes yes Non yes
Phytophthora phytophthora yes yes Non yes
nicotianae var. rot Quarantine
parasitica
Phytophthora phytophthora yes yes Non no
palmivora rot Quarantine
Rhizopus arrhizus rhizopus rot yes yes Non yes
Quarantine
Rhizopus oryzae rhizopus rot yes yes Non yes
Quarantine
Rhizopus stolonifer transit rot yes yes Non yes
Quarantine
Stemphylium stemphylium yes yes Non yes
vesicarium rot Quarantine
Stigmina mangiferae stigmina rot yes yes Non no
Quarantine
Nematoda
Hemicriconemoides yes yes Non no

Page 251

Mangoes of India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mangoes of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mangoes from India

Draft Revised Import Policy

© Commonwealth of Australia 2004

Requests for further authorization should be directed to the Commonwealth Copyright

PROPOSAL TO IMPORT FRESH MANGOES FROM INDIA .............................................................. 15

THE FRESH MANGO INDUSTRY............................................................................................................. 21

THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................................................... 21

PEST RISK ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................... 28

STAGE 1: INITIATION ................................................................................................................................... 28

DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR QUARANTINE PESTS........................................................... 32

Unrestricted risk estimate ................................................................................................................... 55

STAGE 3: PEST RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 100

RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND PHYTOSANITARY PROCEDURES...................................................... 101

[1b] Hot water treatment (HWT)....................................................................................................... 102

DRAFT IMPORT CONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 111

IMPORT CONDITION 1. REGISTRATION OF EXPORT ORCHARDS ................................................................ 111

IMPORT CONDITION 3. PRE-EXPORT VAPOUR HEAT TREATMENT ............................................................. 113

IMPORT CONDITION 4. PRE-EXPORT HOT WATER TREATMENT ................................................................. 114

MANGO PULP AND SEED WEEVILS ............................................................................................................. 114

IMPORT CONDITION 6. TARGETED PRE-EXPORT INSPECTION BY IMOA .................................................... 115

IMPORT CONDITION 7. PACKING AND LABELLING ...................................................................................... 116

IMPORT CONDITION 8. PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION BY IMOA.......................................................... 116

IMPORT CONDITION 9. STORAGE AND MOVEMENT .................................................................................... 117

IMPORT CONDITION 10. ON-ARRIVAL QUARANTINE CLEARANCE BY AQIS ................................................. 117

IMPORT CONDITION 11. AUDIT AND REVIEW OF POLICY............................................................................ 118

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 120

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 132

PHILIPPINES ............................................................................................................................................... 249

TABLES AND FIGURES

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALOP appropriate level of protection

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention, as

Pest risk assessment

The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) is

This document includes the following sections:

PROPOSAL TO IMPORT FRESH MANGOES FROM INDIA

AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT QUARANTINE POLICY FOR IMPORTS OF FRESH

International quarantine policy

• Each consignment of mango fruit from Haiti must be accompanied by a USDA

No Haitian Phytosanitary Certificates will be accepted.

If intended for import into Western Australia, consignments must be accompanied by a

• Insects and contaminants must be treated, removed or destroyed using an AQIS

Fruit shape Fruit weight (grams) Dip time**

* varieties such as ‘Tommy Atkins’, ‘Kent’, ‘Hayden’ and ‘Keitt’.

Guimaras Island, the Philippines

• Each consignment must be accompanied by a Phytosanitary Certificate

“Produced, treated and packed in accordance with the specific commodity

“Shipped direct from the Philippines to Australia.”

“Trans-shipped via Singapore.” (sealed containers only).

• In addition the following information must be entered onto the Phytosanitary

• Currently only the following facilities are registered treatment facilities.

Facility Name Address

• Insects and contaminants must be treated, removed or destroyed using an AQIS

THE FRESH MANGO INDUSTRY

THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA

Table 1 Fresh mango production (tonnes) by state in Australia from 1990–

Season NSW NT QLD WA TOTAL

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001, 2002)

Export of mangoes from Australia

Importing 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000

THE MANGO INDUSTRY IN INDIA

Table 3 Characteristics of major mango varieties grown in India

Variety Shape Flavour Flesh fibre Colour