Biology, images, analysis, design...
Aphids Find them How to ID AphidBlog
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important" (Sherlock Holmes)



Cryptomyzus korschelti

Woundwort aphid

On this page: Identification & Distribution  Other aphids on the same host 

Identification & Distribution:

Cryptomyzus korschelti apterae, on their secondary host, are pale greenish-yellow with a bright green median stripe and further green mottling over the dorsum. The dorsal body hairs are thick and capitate, much longer than the basal diameter of the third antennal segment, and arising from tuberculate bases (cf. Cryptomyzus stachydis where dorsal body hairs are mostly shorter than the basal diameter of the third antennal segment). The siphunculi are distinctly swollen on the distal half, and are 3.1-3.9 times the length of the cauda (cf. Cryptomyzus ribis  which has siphunculi 2.3-3.1 times the length of the cauda and Cryptomyzus galeopsidis  which has siphunculi 1.1-2.1 times the length of the cauda). The body length of Cryptomyzus korschelti apterae is 1.6-2.9 mm.

Their alatae (see second picture above) have a large trapezoid dorsal abdominal patch, and have 38-57 secondary rhinaria on antennal segment III, 5-27 on segment IV and 0-14 on segment 5.The clarified slide mounts below are of adult viviparous female Cryptomyzus korschelti : wingless, and winged.

Micrographs of clarified mounts  by permission of Roger Blackman, copyright AWP  all rights reserved.

The woundwort aphid host alternates from alpine currant (Ribes alpinum) to hedge woundwort (Stachys sylvatica). On currant they live beneath red or yellow leaf blister galls. Cryptomyzus korschelti is widespread in Britain and Europe eastward to central Asia.


Other aphids on same host:


Our particular thanks to Roger Blackman for images of his clarified slide mounts.

We have made provisional identifications from high resolution photos of living specimens, along with host plant identity. In the great majority of cases, identifications have been confirmed by microscopic examination of preserved specimens. We have used the keys and species accounts of Blackman & Eastop (1994)  and Blackman & Eastop (2006)  supplemented with Blackman (1974) , Stroyan (1977) , Stroyan (1984) , Blackman & Eastop (1984) , Heie (1980-1995) , Dixon & Thieme (2007)  and Blackman (2010) . We fully acknowledge these authors as the source for the (summarized) taxonomic information we have presented. Any errors in identification or information are ours alone, and we would be very grateful for any corrections. For assistance on the terms used for aphid morphology we suggest the figure  provided by Blackman & Eastop (2006).

Useful weblinks