PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH. 103(4), 2001, pp. 922-931 ON THE SUBGENUS CERATOPHYLLUS (CELEOPHILUS SMIT 1983), WITH A REDESCRIPTION OF ITS TWO SPECIES (SIPHON APTERA: CERATOPHYLLIDAE: CERATOPHYLLINAE) Robert E. Lewis and Glenn E. Haas (REL) 3906 Stone Brooke Circle, Ames, IA 50010-4174, U.S.A. (e-mail: relewis@ iastate.edu); (GEH) 557 California Street PMB#7, Boulder City, NV 89005-2796 Abstract. — The ceratophylline subgenus Celeophilus is redefined based upon collections of Ceratophyllus (Celeophilus) adustus Jordan 1932 and C. (C) zhovtyii Yemel'yanova and Goncharov 1966, collected from woodpecker nests in Alaska. The two species are redescribed, the diagnostic characters for both are illustrated, and their host preferences and distribution are discussed. Key Words: Ceratophyllus, {Celeophilus), redescription, host preferences, geographic distribution In his detailed study of the family Cer-atophyllidae, Smit (1983) attempted to bring more order to the genus Ceratophyl-lus Curtis 1832 by dividing it into six sub-genera. These included the nominate sub-genus and Amonopsyllus Wagner 1938, Celeophilus Smit 1983, Emmareus Smit 1983, Monopsyllus Kolenati 1857, and Rosickyiana Smit 1972. In North America, Amonopsyllus, Monopsyllus and Rosickyi-ana are each represented by single species. The first two are mainly parasites of squir-rels, and the latter is associated with mus-telids in the Arctic. The remaining three subgenera contain species that parasitize birds, and these are represented in North America by 22 species {Ceratophyllus [17], Celeophilus [2] and Emmareus [3]). While pulicologists may not agree on the status of some of these taxa, those belong-ing to Ceratophyllus and Emmareus are mostly well known and relatively easily identified, at least in the male sex. This has not been the case with the two species as-signed to Celeophilus. In addition to the holotype female of C. (C.) adustus, Smit examined one male and three females from the Haas Collection. It is not clear whether he was able to examine specimens of C (C.) zhovtyii, but we sus-pect not. In any case, beyond the illustra-tions in the original descriptions and Smit's (1983) figure 13 of the occipital setal row and figure 178 of the spermatheca and as-sociated ducts, both of C. (C.) adustus, no other illustrations exist. While the illustra-tions of the male clasper and st IX of C (C) zhovtyii seem accurate, the drawing of the apex of the male st VIII is not complete and does not show one of the diagnostic characters of the species. Finally, since the male of C. (C.) adustus has never been described, and the descrip-tion of C. (C.) zhovtyii was published in an obscure journal series generally unavailable to western workers, it seems appropriate to recharacterize the subgenus and redescribe the two species. Following is a review of the subgenus. Names of host birds are taken from the A.O.U. Checklist (1998) and Sibley and Monroe (1990).
BioStor
