Cryptopidae Kohlrausch, 1881
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F230F199-1C94-4E2E-9CE4-5F56212C015F |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4455397 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092D-FFE2-D71A-FF13-FF762C93DB3B |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Cryptopidae Kohlrausch, 1881 |
| status |
|
Family Cryptopidae Kohlrausch, 1881 View in CoL View at ENA
Synonyms. Cryptopsidae in Machado (1953: 83)
Diagnosis. Eyes absent. Labrum with a single median tooth (only in a few species of Cryptops (Cryptops) with two additional lateral teeth; Fig. 29 View FIGURES 26–32 ). Slender pretarsus of maxillae 2 not pectinate, more or less curved ( Figs 30, 31 View FIGURES 26–32 ), pointed (figs 3C, 6C in Ázara & Ferreira 2013) or lobe-shaped (fig. 69 in Verhoeff 1934). Maxillary pretarsus in most species is accompanied by a ventral projection (“flange” sensu Edgecombe & Bonato 2011, Figs 30, 31 View FIGURES 26–32 ) but never by accessory spine(s). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite in most species bilobed, with some long enlarged marginal setae ( Fig. 26 View FIGURES 26–32 ); rarely is this margin additionally chitinised or with short rounded projections (in Cryptops (Paracryptops) , Fig. 27 View FIGURES 26–32 ), but never with tooth-plates. Forcipular trochantero-prefemur never with process. Sternites never with paramedian sutures, but usually with “cruciform” sutures ( Fig. 32 View FIGURES 26–32 ), i.e. with well-developed transverse suture (sometimes with skeletal transverse ridge/thickening at its place) and with a single median longitudinal suture (more rarely sulcus) developed to varying degrees. 21 LBS; spiracles on macrosegments except for LBS 7; spiracles open, lacking flaps (fig. 4 A in Vahtera et al. 2012b). Ultimate LBS considerably shorter than the penultimate one; coxopleuron without a process. Tarsal articles of locomotory legs ( Fig. 26 View FIGURES 26–32 ) in most species fused in a solid tarsus (with or without visible traces of an articulation between them); legs lack both tibial and tarsal spurs. Relatively short ultimate legs ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 26–32 ) of “pocket knife” shape (sensu Schileyko 2009) forming a kind of clasping apparatus, their femur (not always), tibia and tarsus 1 in overwhelming majority of species with characteristic saw teeth, pretarsus not enlarged. Prefemur of the ultimate legs without processes (spinous ones or saw teeth), sometimes with short enlarged setae ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 26–32 ). Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393) also wrote: “Median cluster of sensilla coeloconica on clypeal part of epipharynx rhomboid, with lids covering the distal edge of the sensilla… Gizzard with stiff anteriorly-directed projections; projections without a distinct kink near their midlength”.
Number of subtaxa. 1 genus, 4 subgenera.
Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.
Range. All tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions.
Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 6), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 770), Lewis (2013: 1), Lewis (2016a: 575), Stojanović, Mitić & Makarov (2019: 21).
Edgecombe and Bonato (2011: 393) divided this family into two closely related genera— Cryptops and Paracryptops , and Vahtera et al. (2012a: 13) suggested (without formalizing; see below) the latter to be a synonym of the former; so at the moment this family is monotypic. According to both Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393) and Lewis (2016a: 575) the genus Cryptops comprises four subgenera: Cryptops (Cryptops) , Trigonocryptops Verhoeff, 1906, Haplocryptops Verhoeff, 1934 and Chromatanops Verhoeff, 1906 , but we regard the latter to be a synonym of Cryptops (Cryptops) (see below).
There is certain confusion concerning structure of the pretarsus of maxillae 2 in this family (i.e. in genus Cryptops ). Attems (1930: 7) only wrote that this structure is “schlank” (slim/slender) and gave a drawing (fig. 285) of a slightly[!] curved and apically pointed claw accompanied by a well-developed and apically rounded ventral projection. In 1934 Verhoeff, describing the new subgenus C. ( Haplocryptops ), noted two types of maxillary pretarsus in Cryptops (see below). Recent authors ( Edgecombe & Koch 2008: 883, Koch et al. 2010: 77, Edgecombe & Bonato 2011: 393) describe this pretarsus only as a “hook-like and flanged”, confirming these terms by corresponding drawings or SEMs ( Figs 30, 31 View FIGURES 26–32 ). We note, however, that this character is not stable in Cryptops , not even being subgenus-specific as five adults of C. (C.) caucasius Verhoef, 1934 (Rc 6430, 8004) and two adults of C. (C.) anomalans Newport, 1844 (Rc 7450) show this pretarsus to be slightly curved (i.e. not hooked), apically pointed and lacking any ventral projection (see also Remarks to C. ( Paracryptops ) below). Thus there should be at least four types of this pretarsus in Cryptopidae : 1. slightly curved, apically pointed, without ventral projection, 2. slightly curved, apically pointed, with ventral projection, 3. slightly curved, lobe-shaped, with ventral projection, 4. hooklike, with ventral projection.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.