Valid Names Results

Steatococcus is now Crypticerya Cockerell, 1895 (Monophlebidae)

Nomenclatural History

• Icerya (Crypticerya) Cockerell 1895z: 15. Type species: Icerya rosae Riley & Howard by original designation . accepted valid name Notes: The genus Crypticerya has been originally established as subgenus, Icerya (Crypticerya) Cockerell, 1895z: 15 (type species: Icerya rosae Riley & Howard, 1890a, by original designation). It was elevated to genus Crypticerya by Cockerell (1899c: 4). Cockerell (1902q: 237) synonymized it with Palaeococcus Cockerell. Vayssiere (1926: 312) revived the genus Crypticerya. Unruh & Gullan (2008) recognized Crypticerya a valid genus and synonymized with it, the genera Proticerya Cockerell, 1895, and Steatococcus Ferris, 1921.
• Icerya (Proticerya) Cockerell 1895z: 15. Type species: Icerya rileyi cockerell by original designation . junior synonym (discovered by UnruhGu2008: 24)
• Proticerya Cockerell, 1895; Cockerell 1898m: 274. . change in status (level)
• Crypticerya Cockerell, 1895; Cockerell 1899n: 4. . change in status (level)
• Steatococcus Ferris 1921: 69. Type species: Palaeococcus morrilli Cockerell by original designation . junior synonym (discovered by UnruhGu2008: 24)
• Cryticerya Tao 1999: 2;. . misspelling of genus name

Remarks

• Systematics: The genus Crypticerya has been originally established as subgenus, Icerya (Crypticerya) Cockerell, 1895z: 15 (type species: Icerya rosae Riley & Howard, 1890a, by original designation). It was elevated to genus Crypticerya by Cockerell (1899m: 274). Cockerell (1902q: 237) synonymized it with Palaeococcus Cockerell. Vayssiere (1926: 312) revived the genus Crypticerya. Unruh & Gullan (2008) recognized Crypticerya a valid genus and synonymized with it, the genera Proticerya Cockerell, 1895, and Steatococcus Ferris, 1921. Gullan & Unruh (2008b) recognised 5 species groups in the species of Crypticerya as follows: 1. Crypticerya montserratensis group Seven species belong to this group: C. brasiliensis, C. flava, C. montserratensis, C. similis, C. subandina, C. zetekiand an undescribed species from Colombia. These seven species differ from other Crypticerya species by the presence of small multilocular pores with triangular, cruciform or star-shaped centre and 6-8 outer loculi on the ventral margin and mid-dorsal head and thorax. Crypticerya similis and C. zeteki are almost identical to each other and to C. brasiliensis, C. flava and C. montserratensis and differ by the number of ventral cicatrices (the undescribed species has 11-13, C. similis has seven, C. zeteki has five, the remaining three species have three cicatrices). Crypticerya brasiliensis, C. flava and C. montserratensis appear identical to one another and differ only by the size of the adult female (C. montserratensis and C. flava are smaller than C. brasiliensis), the length and density of the marginal long, hair-like setae (C. brasiliensis has fewer clusters of setae than C. montserratensis or C. flava) and the density of pores in the ovisac band (this feature might depend on the size of the adult female; C. flava has the least dense ovisac band). Morrison believed C. brasiliensis and C. montserratensis were probably identical (1928: 211), but we found them to be genetically distinct (Unruh & Gullan, 2008) and the two species look different in life (T. Kondo, UCD, pers. comm.). Crypticerya subandina differs greatly from the other species in this group as it has very sparse hair-like setae and sparsely scattered multilocular pores across all body segments. The pore types, however, are identical. 2. Crypticerya littoralis group Four Neotropical species belong to this informal group: C. littoralis, C. genistae, C. minima and C. palmeri. All of these species form an ovisac and the ovisac band has dense flagellate setae and pores with trilocular centre and 6-8 outer loculi. Crypticerya palmeri is easily distinguished from the other species in this group by the presence of a single cicatrix (the other three species have three cicatrices) and C. minima has a single pore type (trilocular centre) in the ovisac band and all other species have two types (bilocular and trilocular centre). Crypticerya littoralis and C. genistae look very similar and differ by the shape of the pores in the outer ovisac band and by the shape of the bases of the setae found in the ovisac band. Crypticerya littoralis and C. palmeri are found in Mexico, and C. genistae and C. minima probably are native to South America. Crypticerya genistae has been discovered recently as a pest in Florida (Hodges, 2006). 3. Crypticerya mexicana group Two described species, C. tuberculata and C. mexicana, and an undescribed Mexican species belong to this group. All species form an internal marsupium and the marsupial band of these species differ from other marsupium-forming Crypticerya species by the presence of dense hair-like setae and bilocular pores only (other species have pores with bilocular and trilocular centres). A distinctive feature of C. tuberculata is the presence of very elongate tubercles in dorsal longitudinal rows and around the margin. The undescribed Mexican species also has elongate tubercles, but differs from C. tuberculata and C. mexicana in other ways that will not be discussed here. Unfortunately, C. mexicana is very rare and we have only been able to examine a limited number of specimens, but the dorsal surface of C. mexicana is covered with very dense, short, robust setae, which is unlike any other Crypticerya species. 4. Crypticerya rileyi group This group includes five Nearctic species: C. colimensis, C. morrilli, C. rileyi, C. tabernicola and C. townsendi. The adult females of C. rileyi and C. colimensis form long ovisacs and the adult female of each of the remaining three species forms a marsupium. Crypticerya colimensis and C. rileyi have identical pores and setae that form the ovisac band, but differ by the number of cicatrices (C. colimensis has a single cicatrix, C. rileyi has three cicatrices). Crypticerya morrilli and C. tabernicola have similar derm pores, mostly with a bilocular centre, whereas C. townsendi has more pores with trilocular centres. These three species also differ by the shape of the marsupial band. Although the marsupial band of all three species forms a completely sclerotized circle as the adult female matures, the anterior edge of the marsupial band of C. tabernicola is formed by a very sparse row of multilocular pores, whereas the anterior edge of the band in C. townsendi is formed by 3 or 4 dense rows of pores and the anterior edge of the band in C. morrilli is formed by 3 or 4 dense rows with 2 submedial patches bare of pores and setae. These species are scattered in the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. 5. Crypticerya rosae group Three species of Crypticerya, C. abrahami, C. pimentae and C. rosae, differ from all other species because the adult females form neither an ovisac nor a marsupium. Adult females typically do not have elaborate waxy secretion on the dorsal surface and the derm is often very dark in colour and becomes very convex and sclerotized with age. These species are morphologically identical, but have a wide geographic range and are not genetically identical (Unruh & Gullan, 2008). Gavrilov-Zimin, 2018, resurrected the tribe Iceryini within the family Margarodidae to place the genus Crypticerya in relation to other genera that he felt belonged in a subfamily of Monophlebinae (Crypticerya , Echinicerya, Icerya and Steatococcus, which he considers a separate genus). He rejected the molecular evidence for the separation of Gigantococcus from Icerya in favor of a phylogenetic evaluation of reproductivde strategies in different "traditionally accepted genera." Based on his morphological definition of the separation of genera, he considered Steatococcus a genus separate from Crypticerya. Therefore, he reassigned several species in Crypticerya to the genus Steatococcus
• Structure: Adult female enclosed within a spherical test; mostly in groups on twigs and stems, each group usually with 2-10 individuals. Test hard but brittle, with surface rough, and with an orifice about 1 mm in diameter, in position of anal opening. Body broadly oval, almost circular, with derm membranous apart from anterior, which is strongly sclerotised, mainly on dorsum; this sclerotised zone includes antennae and eyespots and bears spines and a few setae; adjacent unsclerotised derm densely covered by spines, some multilocular pores and few slender setae. Antennae each a flat structure or a small tubercle bearing a group of setae of various sizes and, in C. brasiliensis, also with 2 circular sensilla. Mouthparts absent. Legs of reduced size, segments not discernable. (Foldi & Gullan, 2014)
• Biology: All stages live within a test on twigs or stems of the host plant; the adult female remains within the test to oviposit. (Foldi & Gullan, 2014)
• General Remarks: Definition and characters by Vayssiere (1926), Morrison (1928), Unruh & Gullan (2008), Unruh (2008) and by Foldi (2009, 2010).

Keys

• Watson2022: pp.320-321 ( Adult (F) ) [Monophlebidae in continental Africa]
• FoldiGu2014: pp.11 ( ) [Key to genera of Cryptokermesini]
• Foldi2010: pp.290 ( Adult (F) ) [Crypticerya species of the Mediterranean region]
• KondoUn2009: pp.94-95 ( Adult (F) ) [Crypticerya Species of South Anerica]
• Unruh2008: pp.8 ( Adult (F) ) [Species of Crypticerya in southeastern USA and Mexico]
• UnruhGu2008: pp.23-24 ( Adult (F) ) [Genera of Margarodidae - Iceryini]
• UnruhGu2008: pp.24 ( First instar ) [Genera of Margarodidae - Iceryini]
• UnruhGu2008b: pp.22-23 ( Adult (F) ) [Genera of Iceryini]
• UnruhGu2008b: pp.25-26 ( Adult (F) ) [Species of (Crypticerya]
• TangHa1995: pp.147 ( Adult (F) ) [Palearctic]
• WilliaWa1990: pp.15-16 ( Adult (F) ) [Margarodidae Genera of Tropical South pacific]
• Beards1966: pp.391 ( Adult (F) ) [Genera of Micronesia]
• Morris1928: pp.196-197 ( Immature (F) ) [Margarodidae]
• Vayssi1926: pp.258-259 ( Adult (F) ) [Margarodidae]
• Vayssi1923a: pp.428 ( Adult (F) ) [Monophlebinae]

Associated References

• Beards1966: taxonomy, pp. 397, 401
• BenDov2005a: catalog, taxonomy, pp. 154, 269-270
• Cocker1895z: description, taxonomy, pp. 15
• Cocker1899n: taxonomy, pp. 4
• Ferris1921: description, taxonomy, pp. 69
• Foldi2001a: taxonomy, pp. 198, 216
• Foldi2009: description, taxonomy, pp. 9
• Foldi2010: taxonomy, pp. 289-304
• FoldiGu2014: description, distribution, host, illustration, structure, taxonomy, pp. 11, 12-20
• Gill1993: description, taxonomy, pp. 35
• GullanSj2001: taxonomy, pp. 257-278
• Hempel1900a: taxonomy, pp. 370
• KondoUn2009: description, taxonomy, pp. 92-100
• KotejaPyVo2003: taxonomy, pp. 247
• Lindin1937: taxonomy, pp. 182, 196
• MartinLa2011: catalog, distribution, pp. 45
• Morris1928: description, taxonomy, pp. 196,197,200,201,208
• Morris1928: description, taxonomy, pp. 158,196,197,203,214
• MorrisMo1923: taxonomy, pp. 28
• MorrisMo1966: taxonomy, pp. 49, 188
• TangHa1995: description, taxonomy, pp. 147-148, 168
• TangHa1995: description, taxonomy, pp. 147, 168
• Tao1999: taxonomy, pp. 2
• Unruh2008: description, revision, taxonomy, pp. 1-42
• UnruhGu2005: taxonomy, pp. 133
• UnruhGu2008: description, molecular data, phylogeny, taxonomy, pp. 8-50
• Vayssi1923a: description, taxonomy, pp. 429
• Vayssi1926: description, taxonomy, pp. 258-259, 307
• Watson2022: diagnosis, key, taxonomy, pp. 320,332-333
• WilliaWa1990: description, taxonomy, pp. 16, 31-32

28 Species