CERALEURODICUS Hempel Ceraleurodicus Hempel, 1922a: 6. Type species Ceraleurodicus splendidus, by monotypy. Radialeurodicus Bondar, 1922: 74. Type species Radialeurodicus cinereus, by subsequent designation. [Synonymised by Costa Lima, 1928: 137.] Parudamoselis Visnya, 1941: 4–5. Type species Parudamoselis kesselyaki, by monotypy. [Synonymised by Mound & Halsey, 1978: 238.] DIAGNOSIS AND COMMENTS. Amongst the genera of Aleurodicinae found in Belize, Ceraleurodicus has hitherto been particularly unsatisfactorily defined. As interpreted here, Ceraleurodicus comprises species with the following characters that separate them from species here transferred to Nealeurodicus Hempel (1922b): normally 15 pairs of submarginal setae present, usually situated distant from puparial margin (Figs 67a, 67c, 82, 114) or, if setal bases closer to margin, setae only slightly extending beyond margin; with submarginal area planar, true margin almost smooth but submarginal sculpture giving appearance of laterally­contiguous teeth (Figs 67c, 82), sometimes also with an apparent second rank of teeth submarginally; usually displaying marked asymmetry in puparial outline (Figs 17, 18, 20, 114) and often also in compound pore provision (Figs 17–20, 114); usually with nine pairs of rays [these were termed “peripheral intersegmental ridges” by Shcherbakov, 2000] leading mesad from puparial margin (Figs 20, 114); some rays have fine marginal serrations apically (Figs 67c, 82) and finely spinulose apparent tracheal folds underlying them, ventrally. Additionally, the following characters are shared with those species here transferred to Nealeurodicus: with a single pair of submedian setae present on each thoracic segment, and usually also a cephalic pair; cicatrices absent from thorax (indicates absence of compound pores in third­instar); lingula normally included within the vasiform orifice (Figs 67b, 83). See also comments on Nealeurodicus, p. 53. The author was able to reassess the synonymy of Radialeurodicus with Ceraleurodicus, proposed by Costa Lima (1928), through the examination of original material loaned courtesy of MZUSP. Despite the poor condition of the mountant on a probable syntype slide of each species the puparia do, indeed, appear to belong to the same species. However, the adults are definitely not conspecific. Bondar’s drawing of the fore wing of R. cinereus (1923a: 16) clearly shows almost the whole wing to be fairly evenly pigmented, with an extremely unusual trilobulate apical margin, and a darker patch on each wing­margin lobe. Hempel did not illustrate C. splendidus at all, but described both fore and hind wings as being “densely spotted with both large and small, irregular, fuliginous [=sooty / smutty] spots”. Each author’s observations on the wings are confirmed to be accurate, and the adults therefore represent two distinct species. As has happened in other whitefly descriptions (see Martin, 2001), the adults of one (possibly even both) of these two species are unlikely to be correctly associated with the puparia. It will require the rearing of adults from fresh puparia to resolve this uncertainty.

Published as part of John H. Martin, 2004, Whiteflies of Belize (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Part 1 — introduction and account of the subfamily Aleurodicinae Quaintance & Baker, pp. 1-86 in Zootaxa 681 on page 34, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.158856