Valid Names Results

Ripersiella caesii (Schmutterer, 1956) (Rhizoecidae: Ripersiella)

Nomenclatural History

• Rhizoecus caesii Schmutterer 1956a: 516. Type data: GERMANY: Reingrafenstein, near Bad Munster am Stein, on Dianthus caesius. Holotype, female, Type depository: Wetlenberg: The Schmutterer Collection, Germany; accepted valid name Notes: The original description does not explicitly mention a holotype, as specified in Chapter 4, Article 16.4 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). There are 18 slides in the SDEI collection, but only one matches the collection and publication dates (collection data: 19.v.1955). Therefore, the type material consists of a single specimen, which Caballero, et al., (2026) designated as the Lectotype, as it is the sole representative of the original species description. Illustr.
• Ripersiella caesii (Schmutterer, 1956); Tang 1992: 65. change of combination
• Rhizoecus caesii Schmutterer, 1956; Ben-Dov 1994: 447. revived combination (previously published)
• Ripersiella caesii (Schmutterer, 1956); Kozár & Konczné Benedicty 2003: 236. revived combination (previously published)

Common Names

• carnation root mealybug KosztaKo1988F

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 1 | Genera: 1

Geographic Distribution

Keys

• CaballKaRa2026: pp.117 ( Adult (F) ) [Rhizoecidae species recorded in Germany]
• KozarKo2007: pp.386-390 ( Adult (F) ) [Ripersiella species of the world]
• KozarKo2004: pp.325-328 ( Adult (F) ) [Ripersiella species of the world]
• Tang1992: pp.65 ( Adult (F) ) [China]
• KosztaKo1988F: pp.141 ( Adult (F) ) [Central Europe]

Remarks

• Systematics: This species is easily differentiable from the remaining species recorded in Germany. It can be separated from Ripersiella hibisci (Kawai & Takagi, 1971) and Ri. aloes: by the distribution of the tubular ducts. While Ri. caesii has tubular ducts in the venter and dorsum in all segments, Ri. aloes lacks these in the dorsum and venter of the head and thorax, and Ri. hibisci lacks such tubular ducts. The main difference with Ri. halophila is the presence of bitubular ducts in the venter, while Ri. halophila has bitubular ducts restricted to the dorsum. (Caballero, et al., 2026)
• Structure: Slide-mounted adult female body oval-elongated, 1.7 ± 0.4 (1.3–2.5) [1.3] mm long and 1.0 ± 0.4 (0.7–1.6) [0.7] mm wide. Anal lobes slightly developed; dorsal surface with three fl agellate setae on each lobe, with three sizes. (Caballero, et al., 2026)
• Biology: Living on the roots of its host plant.
• General Remarks: Description and illustration of the adult female given by Schmutterer (1956a) and by Kozár & Konczné Benedicty (2007). Detailed redescription, photographs and illustration in Caballero, et al., 2026)

Illustrations

Citations