Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:14:33.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIGAMASELLUS BERLESE, 1905, AND DENDROLAELAPS HALBERT, 1915, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW TAXA OF DIGAMASELLIDAE (ACARINA: MESOSTIGMATA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Evert E. Lindquist
Evert E. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conceptual and nomenclatural problems of Digamasellus Berlese, 1905 and Dendrolaelaps Halbert, 1915 are reviewed. It is shown that Digamasellus punctum (Berlese, 1904) is conspecific with D. perpusillus Berlese, 1905, the type-species of Digamasellus Berlese, 1905 (new synonymy). Hence, the genus in which punctum is included must take the name Digamasellus.A new case is made for recognizing Digamasellus and Dendrolaelaps as distinct genera in the Digamasellidae. Two other genera of Digamasellidae are recognized, Dendroseius Karg, 1965 and a broadened concept of Longoseius Chant, 1961. Two new subgenera are proposed, Dendrolaelaspis in the genus Dendrolaelaps, and Longoseiulus in the genus Longoseius. Diagnoses, descriptions, and a key to these genera and subgenera of Digamasellidae, along with a comprehensive description of the family, are presented. The phylogenetic relationship of the Digamasellidae in the Rhodacaroidea, and some thoughts on phylogeny within the Digamasellidae are given.A second species of Digamasellus sensu stricto, D. australis, is described as new, and the female and male adults of the type-species of Longoseius, L. (L.) cuniculus Chant, are described for the first time. New combinations include: Dendrolaelaps (Dendrolaelaspis) orientalis (Bhattacharyya), Longoseius (Longoseiulus) longulus (Hirschmann), L. (L.) ornatus (Hirschmann), L. (L.) aberrans (Hirschmann), and L. (L.) brachypoda (Hurlbutt).The absence of the protonymphal seta, md, from the telotarsi of legs II to IV is noted as a singular deficiency in the leg setation of Longoseius cuniculus Chant. This seta is not known to be absent in any other species among the families of Gamasina.A paper published by Hirschmann while the present work was in press is considered in an addendum to this paper. The subgeneric name Dendrolaelaps (Tridendrolaelaps) Hirschmann, 1974 is an objective junior synonym of Digamasellus Berlese, 1905, and the latter also has priority over Dendrolaelaps Halbert, 1915 so long as both names are applied within the same genus. A lectotype is designated for the nominal species Digamasellus punctum (Berlese). The status of the subgenus Dendrolaelaps (Multidendrolaelaps) Hirschmann, 1974 is problematic, pending a more comprehensive diagnosis providing data sufficient to indicate whether this is a monophyletic group. The quadrisetus group is newly proposed for some of the species placed by Hirschmann in the armatus group of Multidendrolaelaps. Digamasellus badenhorsti (Ryke) is tentatively considered as the second known species of Dendroseius Karg. Hirschmann's opinion, that Longoseius Chant warrants no more than a species-group in Dendrolaelaps, is disputed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 107 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 1 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Athias-Henriot, C. 1961. Mésostigmates (Urop. excl.) édaphiques méditerranéens (Acaromorpha, Anactinotrichida) (collect. Prof. H. Franz et C. Athias-Henriot). Première Série. Acarologia 3: 381–509.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1892 (in 1882–1892). Acari Myriopoda et Scorpiones hucusque in Italia Reperta. Ordo Mesostigmata (Gamasidae). Typis Seminarii, Padua.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1904. Acari nuovi. Manipulus II. Redia 1: 258–280.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1905. Acari nuovi. Materiali per “Manipulus V”. Redia 2: 231–238.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1910. Acari nuovi. Manipulus V, Manipulus VI. Redia 6: 199–234.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1918. Centuria quarta di Acari nuovi. Redia 13: 115–192.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1920. Centuria quinta di Acari nuovi. Redia 14: 143–195.Google Scholar
Bernhard, F. 1963. Mesostigmata 1. Die Familie Ascaidae (Oudemans 1905) Bernhard nov. comb. Beitr. Syst. Okol. mitteleur. Acarina 2, Abschn. 3: 33–178.Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, S. K. 1969. Studies on Indian mites (Acarina: Mesostigmata). 7. Six species found under bark in North East Frontier Agency. Zool. Jb. Syst. 96: 69–80.Google Scholar
Binns, E. S. 1973. Digamasellus fallax Leitner (Mesostigmata: Digamasellidae) phoretic on mushroom sciarid flies. Acarologia 15: 10–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Chant, D. A. 1961. A new genus and species of mite in the family Digamasellidae Evans (Acarina). Acarologia 3: 11–13.Google Scholar
Costa, M. 1962. Mites from the nests of the mole-rat (Spalax ehrenbergi) in Israel. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 4: 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1957. An introduction to the British Mesostigmata (Acarina) with keys to families and genera. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 43: 203–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1963. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acari: Mesostigmata). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) 10: 275–303.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1964. Some observations on the chaetotaxy of the pedipalps in the Mesostigmata (Acari). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (13) 6: 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1969. Observations on the ontogenetic development of the chaetotaxy of the tarsi of legs II–IV in the Mesostigmata (Acari), pp. 195–200. Proc. 2nd int. Congr. Acarology (Sutton Bonington, England), 1967. Akad. Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
Halbert, J. N. 1915. Clare Island Survey, 39. Acarinida. Section II. Terrestrial and marine Acarina. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 31: 45–136.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 263 pp.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. Subcorticale Parasitiformes und die Gattung Digamasellus Berlese 1905. Dissert. Universität Erlangen 1951. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1954. Das Lückensystem der Bäume — ein wenig beachteter Lebensraum. Mikrokosmos 42: 246–248.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1957. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes, 1. Rumpfbehaarung und Rückenflächen. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 1, 1–20, I–V pp., 26 pl.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1960. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes, 3. Die Gattung Dendrolaelaps Halbert 1915. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 3, 1–27 pp., 28 pl.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1963. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes (Arach., Acari). Ent. Z. 73: 1–6.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1971. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes, 82–88. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 15, pp. 10–42.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. and Rühm, W.. 1955. Ein “Haustier” des Buchdruckers? Mikrokosmos 44: 234–236.Google Scholar
Hunter, P. E. 1970. Acarina: Mesostigmata: free-living mites of South Georgia and Heard Island. Pacif. Insects Monogr. 23. pp. 43–70.Google Scholar
Hurlbutt, H. W. 1967. Digamasellid mites associated with bark beetles and litter in North America. Acarologia 9: 479–534.Google Scholar
Hurlbutt, H. W. 1974. The Afrogamasellus Loots and Ryke and Afrodacarellus n. gen. (Acarina: Rhodacaridae) of Tanzania. Acarologia 15: 565–615.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnston, D. E. 1968. An atlas of Acari. I. The families of Parasitiformes and Opilioacariformes. Acarology Publications, Columbus, Ohio.110 pp.Google Scholar
Johnston, D. E. and Manischewitz, J. R.. 1973. Observations on the tarsal chaetotaxy in parasitic Gamasina (Acari). J. Parasit. 59: 183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karg, W. 1962. Zur Systematik und postembryonalen Entwicklung der Gamasiden (Acarina, Parasitiformes) landwirtschaftlich genutzter Böden. Mitt. zool. Mus. Berl. 38: 23–119.Google Scholar
Karg, W. 1965. Larvalsystematische und phylogenetische Untersuchung sowie Revision des Systems der Gamasina Leach, 1915 (Acarina, Parasitiformes). Mitt. zool. Mus. Berl. 41: 193–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karg, W. 1971. 59. Teil. Acari (Acarina), Milben. Unterordnung Anactinochaeta (Parasitiformes). Die freilebenden Gamasina (Gamasides), Raubmilben. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands. 475 pp.Google Scholar
Kinn, D. N. 1971. The life cycle and behavior of Cercoleipus coelonotus (Acarina: Mesostigmata) including a survey of phoretic mite associates of California Scolytidae. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 65: 1–66.Google Scholar
Lee, D. C. 1970. The Rhodacaridae (Acari: Mesostigmata); classification, external morphology and distribution of genera. Records S. Aust. Mus. 16: 1–219.Google Scholar
Leitner, E. 1949. Zur Kenntnis der Gattung Digamasellus Berlese 1905. Zbl. ges. Ent. 3: 51–62.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1965. An unusual new species of Hoploseius Berlese (Acarina: Blattisociidae) from Mexico. Can. Ent. 97: 1121–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. and Evans, G. O.. 1965. Taxonomic concepts in the Ascidae, with a modified setal nomenclature for the idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 47. 64 pp.Google Scholar
Loots, G. C. 1969. Notes on Rhodacarus Oudemans and its related genera with descriptions of new species from the Ethiopian Region. Museu do Dundo-Subsidios para o Estudo da Biologia na Lunda, Diamang Publ. Cult. No. 81. pp. 45–82.Google Scholar
McGraw, J. R. and Farrier, M. H.. 1969. Mites of the superfamily Parasitoidea (Acarina: Mesostigmata) associated with Dendroctonus and Ips (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Tech. Bull. N. Carol. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 192. 162 pp.Google Scholar
Moser, J. C. and Roton, L. M.. 1971. Mites associated with southern pine bark beetles in Allen Parish, Louisiana. Can. Ent. 103: 1775–1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robillard, J. 1971. A new species of Digamasellus (Acarina: Digamasellidae) from Louisiana. Can. Ent. 103: 1763–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryke, P. A. J. 1962. The subgenera Digamasellus Berl. and Euryparasitus Oudemans of the genus Cyrtolaelaps Berlese (Acarina: Rhodacaridae). J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 25: 88–115.Google Scholar
Schweizer, J. 1961. Die Landmilben der Schweiz (Mittelland, Jura und Alpen). Parasitiformes Reuter. Denkschr. Schweiz Naturf. Gesell. 84. 207 pp.Google Scholar
Sellnick, M. 1958. Untersuchungen über die “Bollnäser Krankheit” I. Milben aus landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben Nordschwedens. Swed. St. Pl. Protect. Inst. Contrib. 11(71): 9–59.Google Scholar
Sheals, J. G. 1956. Notes on a collection of soil Acari. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 92: 99–103.Google Scholar
Sheals, J. G. 1958. A revision of the British species of Rhodacarus Oudemans and Rhodacarellus Willmann (Acarina, Rhodacaridae). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13)1: 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soper, R. S. Jr., and Olson, R. E.. 1963. Survey of biota associated with Monochamus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Maine. Can. Ent. 95: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmann, C. 1934. Über eine eigenartige Milbenfauna im Küstengrundwasser der Kieler Bucht. Schr. naturw. Ver. Schlesw.-Holst. 20: 422–434.Google Scholar
Willmann, C. 1936. Neue Acari aus schlesischen Wiesenböden. Zool. Anz. 113: 273–290.Google Scholar
Willmann, C. 1951. Untersuchungen über die terrestrische Milbenfauna im pannonischen Klimagebiet Öster-reichs. Sber. Öst. Akad. Wiss. Math.-naturw. Kl., Abt. 1, 160: 91–176.Google Scholar
Womersley, H. 1954. Two new species of mites (Acarina: Mesostigmata: Ascaidae) associated with bark-boring beetles from South Australia. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 11: 113–116.Google Scholar

Additional References

Hirschmann, W. 1962. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes, 5. Gamasiden … Erstversuch der Aufstellung eines Gangsystems der Gamasiden aufgrund der Gnathosoma-Unterseite. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 5, pp. 1–56, pl. 1–21, 31–32.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1971. A fossil mite of the genus Dendrolaelaps (Acarina, Mesostigmata, Digamasellidae) found in amber from Chiapas, Mexico. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 63: 69–70.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1974. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 190. Die Gattung Dendrolaelaps Halbert 1915 Hirschmann nov. comb. Nova Subgenera Multidendrolaelaps, Tridendrolaelaps Hirschmann. Stadien von 4 neuen Dendrolaelaps- Arten. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 20, pp. 50–70.Google Scholar
McGraw, J. R. and Farrier, M. H.. 1973. Taxonomically useful parts of the insemination apparatus in females of Dendrolaelaps (Mesostigmata: Digamasellidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 66: 1075–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shcherbak, G. I. 1973. O novom diagnosticheskom priznake kleshchei roda Dendrolaelaps Halbert, 1915. Vest. Zool., Inst. Zool. Akad. Nauk Ukr. SSR, No. 4: 86–90.Google Scholar