Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:52:57.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRANSFER OF THE TARSOCHEYLIDAE TO THE HETEROSTIGMATA, AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE TARSONEMINA AND HETEROSTIGMATA TO LOWER HIERARCHIC STATUS IN THE PROSTIGMATA (ACARI)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

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

Abstract

The systematic status of the genus Tarsocheylus Berlese, 1904 and the position of the family Tarsocheylidae Atyeo and Baker, 1964 in the Prostigmata is reviewed. The family does not belong in either the Raphignathoidea or the Anystoidea but in its own superfamily, the Tarsocheyloidea, which is described for this purpose. In turn, this superfamily is placed alongside the Heterocheyloidea in the Heterostigmata.

Because the type-species of Tarsocheylus, T. paradoxus Berlese, 1904, is conspecific with Hoplocheylus discalis Atyeo and Baker, 1964 (new synonymy), the concept of Hoplocheylus Atyeo and Baker, 1964, which has remained until now as originally proposed, is the same as that of Tarsocheylus. However, a new case is made for recognizing these genera as mutually distinct, based on other morphological criteria. Tarsocheylus atomarius Berlese, 1913, the type-species of Hoplocheylus, is apparently conspecific with Hoplocheylus canadensis Marshall, 1966 (new synonymy) and perhaps with one or two other described species from North America. A third generic entity, represented by Hoplocheylus johnstoni Atyeo and Baker, 1964, is noted but not named or formally described. Hoplocheylus pickardi Smiley and Moser, 1968 is conspecific with H. similis Delfinado and Baker, 1974 (new synonymy).

Hemitarsocheylus Soliman and Zaher, 1975, which was described as a new genus in the Tarsocheylidae, is congeneric with Stigmocheylus Berlese, 1910 (new synonymy). This genus does not belong in the Tarsocheyloidea, but rather in the Anystoidea.

A list of character states found useful in recognizing groupings of species of Tarsocheylidae is presented. Based on the collection data with specimens representing described and undescribed species at hand, the known distribution of the Tarsocheylidae is extended to include Australia and western North America, and the second known instance of an association with passalid beetles is recorded.

From a phylogenetic standpoint, the Tarsocheyloidea and Heterocheyloidea are proposed as sister groups that together constitute a new suprafamilial taxon, the Tarsocheylina. In turn, the Tarsocheylina and Tarsonemina are proposed as sister groups, and both are described; together, they form the Heterostigmata.

The systematic and phylogenetic relationships of the Heterostigmata (including the Tarsonemina) to the Prostigmata and the Astigmata are reviewed. Not only should the Heterostigmata be retained in the Prostigmata but it should be lowered in hierarchic rank, such that it is a part of the Eleutherengona. The stock that gave rise to the Anystoidea and related superfamilies is shown to be ancestral to the Heterostigmata as well.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 23 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

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

Atyeo, W. T. and Baker, E. W.. 1964. TarsocheyIidae, a new family of prostigmatic mites (Acarina). Bull. Univ. Neb. St. Mus. 4: 243–256.Google Scholar
Baker, E. W. 1949. Pomerantziidae, a new family of prostigmatic mites. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 39: 269–271.Google Scholar
Baker, E. W. and Atyeo, W. T.. 1964. A review of the mites of the family Pseudocheylidae Oudemans, 1909 (Acarina, Prostigmata). Bull. Univ. Neb. St. Mus. 4: 257–272.Google Scholar
Baker, E. W. and Wharton, G. W.. 1952. An introduction to Acarology. Macmillan, New York. 465 pp.Google Scholar
Baker, E. W., Camin, J. H., Cunliffe, F., Woolley, T. A., and Yunker, C. E.. 1958. Guide to the families of mites. Contrib. No. 3, Inst. Acarology, Univ. Maryland. 242 pp.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1888. Acari Austro-Americani. Bull. Soc. ent. Ital. 20: 171–186.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1899. Gli acari agrarii. Puntata II. Riv. Patol. veg., Padova 7: 312–344.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1904. Acari nuovi. Manipulus III. Redia 2: 10–32, 2 pl.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1910. Acari nuovi. Manipoli V-VI. Redia 6: 199–234, 4 pl.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1913 a. Acarotheca Italica, Fasc. 1–2. M. Ricci, Firenze. 19 pp.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1913 b. Acari nuovi. Manipoli VII–VIII. Redia 9: 177–111, 8 pl.Google Scholar
Canestrini, G. and Fanzago, F.. 1877. Nuovi acari Italiani (seconda serie). Atti Soc. veneto-trent. Sci. nat. 5: 130–142.Google Scholar
Coineau, Y. 1974. Éléments pour une monographie morphologique, écologique et biologique des Caeculidae (Acariens). Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris (N.S., Ser. A, Zool.) 81: 1–300, 24 pl.Google Scholar
Cooreman, J. 1951. Notes et observations sur les acariens (IV). Bull. Inst. r. Sci. nat. Belg. 27: 11–12.Google Scholar
Cross, E. A. 1965. The generic relationships of the family Pyemotidae (Acarina, Trombidiformes). Univ. Kans. scient. Bull. 45: 29–275.Google Scholar
Cross, E. A. and Moser, J. C.. 1975. A new dimorphic species of Pyemotes and a key to previously described forms (Acarina: Tarsonemoidea). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 68: 723–732.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, F. 1955. A proposed classification of the trombidiforme mites (Acarina). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 57: 209–218.Google Scholar
Daniel, M. 1971. Podřád Sametkovci — Trombidiformes. Nadkohorta Roztočici — Tarsonemini. Nadkohorta Sametky — Prostigmata, pp. 357–422. In Daniel, M. and Černý, V. (Eds.), Klič zviřeny ČSSR, Vol. 4.Google Scholar
Delfinado, M. D. and Baker, E. W.. 1974. Terrestrial mites of New York (Acarina: Prostigmata), I—Tarsocheylidae, Paratydeidae, and Pseudocheylidae. Jl N.Y. ent. Soc. 82: 202–211.Google Scholar
Dubinin, V. B. 1954. Novaya klassifikatsiya per'evykh kleshchei nadsemeistva Analgesoidea i polozhenie ego v sisteme otryada Acariformes A. Zachv. 1952. Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR, (Ser. Biol.), 4: 59–75.Google Scholar
Dubinin, V. B. 1957. Novaya klassifikatsiya kleshchei nadsemeistv Cheyletoidea W. Dub. i Demodicoidea W. Dub. (Acariformes, Trombidiformes). Parazit. Sbornik, Zool. Inst., Akad. Nauk SSSR 17: 71–136.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O., Sheals, J. G., and Macfarlane, D.. 1961. The terrestrial Acari of the British Isles. Vol. 1. Introduction and biology, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London. Adlard & Son, Bartholomew Press, Dorking. 219 pp.Google Scholar
Grandjean, F. 1940. Les poils et les organes sensitifs portés par les pattes et le palpe chez les oribates. Deuxième partie. Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 65: 32–44.Google Scholar
Gurney, B. and Hussey, N. W.. 1967. Pygmephorus species (Acarina: Pyemotidae) associated with cultivated mushrooms. Acarologia 9: 353–358.Google Scholar
Hammen, L. van der. 1970. Tarsonemoides limbatus nov. spec., and the systematic position of the Tarsonemida (Acarida). Zool. Verh., Leiden 108: 1–35.Google Scholar
Hammen, L. van der. 1972. A revised classification of the mites (Arachnidea, Acarida) with diagnoses, a key, and notes on phylogeny. Zool. Meded., Leiden 47: 273–292.Google Scholar
Hammen, L. van der. 1973. Classification and phylogeny of mites, pp. 275–282. Proc. 3rd int. Congr. Acarol. (Prague, 1971). Academia, Czech. Acad. Sci., Prague.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 263 pp.Google Scholar
Johnston, D. E. 1965. Comparative studies on the mouth-parts of the mites of the suborder Acaridei (Acari). Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Unpublished. 192 pp.Google Scholar
Knulle, W. 1959. Morphologische und Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum phylogenetischen System der Acari: Acariformes Zachv. II. Acaridiae: Acaridae. Mitt. zool. Mus. Berl. 35: 347–417.Google Scholar
Kramer, P. 1877. Grundzüge zur Systematik der Milben. Arch. Naturgesch. 43: 215–247.Google Scholar
Krantz, G. W. 1970. A manual of Acarology. Oregon St. Univ. Bookstores, Inc., Corvallis. 335 pp.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1972. A new species of Tarsonemus from stored grain (Acarina: Tarsonemidae). Can. Ent. 104: 1699–1708.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. and Kethley, J. B.. 1975. The systematic position of the Heterocheylidae Trägårdh (Acari: Acariformes: Prostigmata). Can. Ent. 107: 887–898.Google Scholar
Livshitz, I. Z. and Mitrofanov, V. I.. 1973. Novyi vid roda Hoplocheylus (Tarsocheylidae, Acariformes). Zool. Zh. 52: 1576–1577.Google Scholar
Mahunka, S. 1970. The scientific results of the Hungarian soil zoological expeditions to South America. 21. Acari: Tarsonemine species from Brazil. Acta Zool. hung. 16: 371–408.Google Scholar
Marshall, V. G. 1966. Une nouvelle espece d'acarien (Tarsocheylidae: Prostigmata) du sud-est du Canada. Acarologia 8: 45–48.Google Scholar
Moser, J. C. and Cross, E. A.. 1975. Phoretomorph: a new phoretic phase unique to the Pyemotidae (Acarina: Tarsonemoidea). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 68: 820–822.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1909. Über die bis jetzt genauer bekannten Thrombidium-larven und über eine neue Klassifikation der Prostigmata. Tijdschr. Ent. 52: 19–61.Google Scholar
Rack, G. 1972. Pyemotiden an Gramineen in schwedischen landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung von Siteroptes graminum (Reuter, 1900) (Acarina, Pyemotidae). Zool. Anz. 188: 157–174.Google Scholar
Rack, G. 1974. Neue und bekannte Milbenarten der Überfamilie Pygmephoroidea aus dem Saalkreis bei Halle (Acarina, Tarsonemida). Ent. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Hamburg 4: 499–521.Google Scholar
Radford, C. D. 1950. Systematic check list of mite genera and type species. Union int. Sci. biol. (Ser. C, Sec. Ent.), Vol. 1. 252 pp.Google Scholar
Sasa, M. 1965. Mites. An introduction to classification, bionomics and control of Acarina. (In Japanese.) Univ. Tokyo Press. 494 pp.Google Scholar
Smiley, R. L. and Moser, J. C.. 1968. New species of mites from pine. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 70: 307–317.Google Scholar
Soliman, Z. R. and Zaher, M. A.. 1975. Hemitarsocheylus a new genus from the family Tarsocheylidae with a description of a new species. Acarologia 17: 103–105.Google Scholar
Thor, S. 1911. Eine neue Acarinenfamilie (Teneriffidae) und zwei neue Gattungen, die eine von Teneriffia, die andre aus Paraguay. Zool. Anz. 38: 171–179.Google Scholar
Vainshtein, B. A. 1965. O sisteme vodyanykh kleshchei i ikh meste v podotryade Trombidiformes. Trudy, Inst. Biol. Vnutrennikh Vod, Akad. Nauk SSSR 8(11):66–83.Google Scholar
Vitzthum, H. 1931. 9. Ordnung der Arachnida: Acari=Milben. In Kükenthal, , Handb. Zool. 3, H. 2, Teil 3, Lief. 1. 160 pp.Google Scholar
Vitzthum, H. 1940–1943. Acarina. Bronn's K. Ordn. Tierreichs 5, Abt. 4, Buch 5. 1011 pp. in 7 Lief.Google Scholar