ON THE STATUS OF CRYPTOCERUS LATREILLE 
AND CEPHALOTES LATREILLE (HYMEN- 
OPTERA: FORMICHLE) 
By Marion R. Smith 
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricul- 
tural Research Administration, United States 
Department of Agriculture 
Latreille, in Hist. Nat. Crust, and Ins., volume 3, 1802, 
included in the family “Formicaires” two genera, Form- 
ica Linnaeus and the new genus Cephalotes. Cephalotes 
was monobasic with Formica atrata Linnaeus the only 
included species (pp. 357-358). In volume 5, 1803, he 
again placed in ‘‘Formicaires’’ only the two genera hut 
to the group which he had called Cephalotes in 1802 he 
gave the name Cryptocerus (p. 311). Distinguishing 
characters were given but no species were mentioned by 
name. 
Fabricius, 1804, Systema Piezatorum, page 418, used 
the name Cryptocerus for atratus Linnaeus and 4 new 
species, including umbrqculatus ; and he cited Cephalotes 
Latreille in synonymy under Cryptocerus atratus. 
In 1810, Latreille (Consid. Gen. Crust. Arachn. Ins., 
p. 437) designated atratus Fabricius (= atratus Lin- 
naeus) as the type of Cryptocerus. Since atratus was 
available for type designation of Cryptocerus , this action 
by Latreille has fixed the matter beyond dispute. Crypto- 
cerus Latreille is thus an isogenotypic synonym of Ce- 
phalotes Latreille. The interpretation of Cryptocerus 
by subsequent authors who considered umbraculatus 
Fabricius as its type is erroneous, and a new generic 
name is needed for Cryptocerus of Emery (1915) and au- 
thors, not Latreille. 
On page 253 of his 1805 work Latreille says “Toutes 
les especes de cryptoceres, dont la fourmi atrata de Lin. 
et de Fab. est une, sont exotiques. Ces insectes ont un 
caractere tres remarquable, et qu’on ne trouve a aucun 
de cet ordre; c’est le premier article de leurs antennes 
qui est insere et loge de chaque cote, dans une rainure 
18 
