Valid Names Results
Cryptococcus Douglas, 1890 (
Cryptococcidae)
Nomenclatural History
- Cryptococcus
Douglas
1890a: 155.
Type species: Coccus fagi Baerensprung
by monotypy
.
(= Cryptococcus fagisuga, Lindinger )
accepted valid name
Remarks
- Systematics: Slide-mounted adult female with: hind pair of legs represented by small sclerotized protrusion; other legs reduced or absent; antennae reduced; anal ring forming broad plate with setae surrounding plate; macrotubular ducts present, except in one species; microtubular ducts (Miller & Miller, 1993). In Kozár, et al., 2013 Cryptococcus was placed in the family Cryptococcidae Kosztarab, 1967.
In a molecular study using 18S ribosomal DNA sequences of the type species, C. fagisuga Lindinger plus C. nudatus Brittin, C. williamsi Kosztarab & Hale and C. ulmi Tang & Hao, showed that the first three species fell within the Gondwanan clade of the “Eriococcidae” of Cook and Gullan (2004), but that C. ulmi did not but was closer to Cook and Gullan’s (2004) “BSE” clade. Since then, Nan et al. (2013) have confirmed these findings and transferred C. ulmi to a new genus (Macroporicoccus Nan & Wu).(Hodgson, 2020)
- Structure: Adult female rotund (Miller & Miller, 1993).
Adult females covered with fine, white, waxy secretion. Female oval, 0.5-1.0 mm; antenna normally 1 or 2, rarely 4 or 5 segmented; labium 3 segmented, basal segment without setae; legs absent, rarely reduced to unsegmented stubs; spiracles with sclerotized frame and a few associated quinquelocular pores; with a cluster pore plate below each hind spiracle; anal ring with 4 or 5 setae, rarely with pores; anal ring forming a broad plate surround by setae; macrotubular ducts present, except in one species; microtubular with simple pores, without cruciform pores; tubular ducts, normally two types on both surfaces. (Kozár, et al., 2013)
- Biology: Adult females in bark crevices of deciduous trees, covered with fine, white, waxy secretion or felt-like ovisac. Apparently with one yearly generation. (Kozár, et al., 2013)
- General Remarks: The type species Coccus fagi Baerensprung, 1849 is a junior primary homonym of Coccus fagi Sulzer, 1776. This genus was placed in a separate family (Cryptococcidae) by Kosztarab (1968), but the characters given as diagnostic of the family are typical of other legless adult female eriococcids. Diagnosis and illustration of the male in Hodgson, 2020.
Keys
- MillerSt2022: pp.11-12
(
Adult (F)
)
[Nearctic genera of Eriococcidae]
- Hender2007a: pp.3-4
(
Adult (F)
)
[Key to genera of Eriococcidae in New Zealand (adult females)
Modified from Henderson (2006)]
- Miller2005: pp.491
(
Adult (F)
)
[Genera of Eriococcidae of the Eastern U.S.]
- Koszta1996: pp.262
(
Adult (F)
)
[Cryptococcus species of Northeastern North America]
- TangHa1995: pp.427, 641
(
Adult (F)
)
[Cryptococcus species]
- MillerMi1993: pp.68
(
Adult (F)
)
[All species of U.S. Cryptococcus]
- MillerMi1993: pp.68
(
Adult (F)
)
[All species of U.S. Cryptococcus]
- Danzig1971d: pp.821
(
Adult (F)
)
[Key to genera of Eriococcidae]
- KosztaHa1968: pp.11
(
Adult (F)
)
[All described species of Cryptococcus]
- KosztaHa1968: pp.11
(
Adult (F)
)
[All described species of Cryptococcus]
Associated References
- AndersWuGr2010:
phylogeny, taxonomy, pp. 996
- Arnett1985:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 239
- Balach1942:
taxonomy, pp. 42
- Balach1948b:
taxonomy, pp. 254
- Beards1974:
taxonomy, pp. 325
- BoratyWi1964:
taxonomy, pp. 91
- Borchs1937:
taxonomy, pp. 40
- Borchs1949:
description, taxonomy, pp. 31, 42, 45, 370-371
- Borchs1958b:
taxonomy, pp. 772
- Cocker1894v:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 1050
- Cocker1896b:
taxonomy, pp. 324
- Cocker1899j:
taxonomy, pp. 263
- Cocker1899m:
taxonomy, pp. 279
- Cocker1902g:
taxonomy, pp. 114
- Danzig1964:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 632, 634
- Danzig1971d:
taxonomy, pp. 821
- Danzig1986a:
description, taxonomy, pp. 271-272
- Danzig1988:
taxonomy, pp. 707, 709
- Dougla1890a:
taxonomy, pp. 155
- Ferris1921b:
taxonomy, pp. 60
- Ferris1922b:
taxonomy, pp. 247
- Ferris1937:
taxonomy, pp. 5
- Ferris1955a:
description, distribution, taxonomy, pp. 83
- Ferris1957c:
taxonomy, pp. 85
- Gill1993:
taxonomy, pp. 153
- Green1915a:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 180
- Green1922b:
description, taxonomy, pp. 21
- Green1928:
description, taxonomy, pp. 9
- Hodgso2020:
diagnosis, taxonomy, pp. 102
- Hoy1962:
distribution, host, taxonomy, pp. 6, 12, 13, 21, 25
- Hoy1963:
catalog, taxonomy, pp. 53-54
- Koszta1968:
taxonomy, pp. 12
- Koszta1996:
description, distribution, taxonomy, pp. 225, 261, 262
- KosztaHa1968:
taxonomy, pp. 7
- KosztaKo1988F:
taxonomy, pp. 269
- Koteja1974:
structure, taxonomy, pp. 269, 275, 295, 300
- Koteja1974a:
taxonomy, pp. 249
- Koteja1974b:
taxonomy, pp. 78
- Kozar2009:
distribution, host, taxonomy, pp. 114
- KozarDr1998e:
catalog, distribution, taxonomy, pp. 167
- KozarKaKo2013:
description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy, pp. 594-607
- KozarKo2008a:
taxonomy, pp. 247-248
- KozarWa1985:
catalog, taxonomy, pp. 75
- Lindin1923:
taxonomy, pp. 140, 142, 146
- Lindin1932f:
taxonomy, pp. 188
- Lindin1937:
taxonomy, pp. 183, 187
- MacGil1921:
distribution, host, taxonomy, pp. 132, 147
- Miller1985b:
taxonomy, pp. 101
- Miller2005:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 491
- MillerGi2000:
catalog, taxonomy, pp. 83-84
- MillerMi1993:
description, taxonomy, pp. 68
- MillerSt2022:
key, taxonomy, pp. 11, 60
- MorrisMo1966:
taxonomy, pp. 50
- Newste1903:
description, taxonomy, pp. 214
- PooleGe1997:
distribution, pp. 354
- Schmut1952:
taxonomy, pp. 405, 406, 417
- Sulc1895a:
description, taxonomy, pp. 13, 22
- TangHa1995:
description, distribution, taxonomy, pp. 427
- Terezn1981:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 13, 46
- Terezn1982:
description, taxonomy, pp. 35-36
- Willia1985h:
distribution, host, taxonomy, pp. 352
- Wise1977:
distribution, taxonomy, pp. 96
- Xie1998:
taxonomy, pp. 101
- Zahrad1959a:
taxonomy, pp. 538
5 Species
