Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T10:03:14.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxonomic Concepts in the Ascidae, with a Modified Setal Nomenclature for the Idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Evert E. Lindquist  and
G. Owen Evans
Evert E. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario
G. Owen Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London, England
Get access

Abstract

Generic and familial concepts of the Ascidae Voigts and Oudemans (= Blattisociidae Garman, Aceosejidae Baker and Wharton) are reviewed and modified from a world standpoint. The postembryonic developments of chaetotactic and external morphological features of the body and appendages are discussed. Twenty-two genera in three subfamilies are recognized, keyed, and defined: Arctoseius Thor, Iphidozercon Berlese, Xenoseius nov., and Zerconopsis Hull in the Arctoseiinae Evans; Cheiroseius Berlese and Platyseius Berlese in the Platyseiinae Evans; Aceodromus Muma, Antennoseius Berlese, Arctoseiodes Willmann, Asca Heyden, Blattisocius Keegan, Diseius nov., Gamasellodes Athias-Henriot, Hoploseius Berlese, Lasioseius Berlese, Leioseius Berlese, Melichares Hering, Neojordensia Evans, Proctolaelaps Berlese, Protogamasellus Karg, Rhinoseius Baker and Yunker, and Zercoseius Berlese in the Ascinae Voigts and Oudemans.Newly synonymized genera are Hyattella Krantz under Lasioseius, Mucroseius Lindquist and Orolaelaps DeLeon under Melichares, Garmaniella Westerboer under Proctolaelaps, and Tropicoseius Baker and Yunker under Rhinoseius. Genera removed from the Ascidae include Africoseius Krantz, Digamasellus Berlese, Laelaptoseius Womersley, and Zygoseius Berlese.

Modified systems of nomenclature based on holotrichous Gamasina are introduced and applied to setae on the dorsum of the idiosoma and on the venter of the opisthosoma.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 97 , Supplement S47 , 1965 , pp. 5 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1965

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

Athias-Henriot, C. 1957. Phytoseiidae et Aceosejidae (Acarina, Gamasina) d'Algérie. I. Genres Blattisocius Keegan, Iphiseius Berlese, Amblyseius Berlese, Phytoseius Ribaga, Phytoseiulus Evans. Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Afr. N. 48: 319–352.Google Scholar
Athias-Henriot, C. 1959. Phytoseiidae et Aceosejidae (Acarina, Gamasina) d'Algérie. III. Contribution aux Aceosejinae. Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Afr. N. 50: 158–195.Google Scholar
Athias-Henriot, C. 1960. Contribution aux Mésostigmates d'Algérie (Parasitiformes: Liroaspidae, Veigaiidae). Acarologia 2: 159–174.Google Scholar
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
Baker, E. W., and Wharton, G. W.. 1952. An Introduction to Acarology. Macmillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
Baker, E. W., and Yunker, C. E.. 1964. New blattisociid mites (Acarina: Mesostigmata) recovered from neotropical flowers and hummingbirds' nares. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 57: 103–126.Google Scholar
Balogh, J. 1938. Systematische Studien über eine neue Milbengattung: Willmannia gen. nov. Stud. Acar. 10. Zool. Anz. 123: 259–265.Google Scholar
Banks, N. 1914. Acarians from Brazil. Psyche 21: 160–162.Google Scholar
Berlese, A.1882–1892. Acari Myriopoda et Scorpiones hucusque in Italia Reperta. Ordo Mesostigmata (Gamasidae). Typis Seminarii, Padua.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1885. Acarorum systematis specimen. Boll. Soc. ent. ital. 17: 121–135.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1903. Acari nuovi. Manipulus I. Redia 1: 235–252.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1904. Acari nuovi. Manipulus II. Redia 1: 258–280.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1905. Acari nuovi. Materiali pel “Manipulus V”. Redia 2: 231–238.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1910. Brevi diagnosi di generi e specie nuovi di Acari. Redia 6: 346–388.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1913. Acarotheca Italica, Fasc. 1–2. M. Ricci, Firenze.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1914. Acari nuovi. Manipulus IX. Redia 10: 113–150.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1916. Centuria prima di Acari nuovi. Redia 12: 19–67.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1918. Centuria quarta di Acari nuovi. Redia 13: 115–192.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1923. Centuria sesta di Acari nuovi. Redia 15: 237–262.Google Scholar
Bernhard, F. 1963. Mesostigmata 1. Beitr. Syst. Ökol. mitteleur. Acarina 2, Abschn. 1–3 and 5: 1–178, 451–804.Google Scholar
Canestrini, G., and Fanzago, F.. 1876. Nuovi Acari italiani. Atti Accad. sci. ven.-trent.-istr. 5: 99–111.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1961. A new genus and species of mite in the family Digamasellidae Evans (Acarina). Acarologia 3: 11–13.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1963. The subfamily Blattisocinae Garman (= Aceosejinae Evans) (Acarina: Blattisocidae Garman) (= Aceosejidae Baker and Wharton) in North America, with descriptions of new species. Cana d. J. Zool. 41: 243–305.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1965. Generic concepts in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Canad. Ent. 97: 351–374.Google Scholar
DeLeon, D. 1963. A new genus and twelve new species of mites from Mexico and southeast United States (Acarina: Blattisocidae). Fla Ent. 46: 197–207.Google Scholar
Dugès,, A. 1834. Recherches sur l'ordre des Acariens en général et la famille des Trombidiés en particulier. Ann. Sci. nat., Zool., Ser. 2, 1: 5–46.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1954. Some new and rare species of Acarina. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 123: 793–811.Google 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.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1958. A revision of the British Aceosejinae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 131: 177–229.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1963a. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acari: Mesostigmata). Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Zool. 10: 275–303.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1963b. The genus Neocypholaelaps Vitzthum (Acari: Mesostigmata). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 13, 6: 209–230.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1964. Some observations on the chaetotaxy of the pedipalps in the Mesostigmata (Acari). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 13, 6: 513–527.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O., and Browning, E.. 1956. British mites of the subfamily Macrochelinae Trägårdh (Gamasina — Macrochelidae). Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Zool. 4: 1–54.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O., and Hyatt, K. H.. 1960. A revision of the Platyseiinae (Mesostigmata: Aceosejidae) based on material in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Zool. 6: 27–101.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O., and Sheals, J. G.. 1959. Three new mesostigmatic mites associated with millepedes in Indonesia. Ent. Ber. 19: 107–111.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J. C. 1805. Systema Antliatorum. C. Reichard, Brunsvigae.Google Scholar
Fox, I. 1946. A new genus, Borinquolaelaps, and new species of mites from rats in Puerto Rico. J. Parasit. 32: 445–452.Google Scholar
Garman, P. 1948. Mite species from apple trees in Connecticut. Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta. 520. 27 pp.Google Scholar
Halbert, J. N. 1915. Clare Island Survey, Part 39. Acarinida. Section II. Terrestrial and marine Acarina. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 31: 45–136.Google Scholar
Halbert, J. N. 1923. Notes on Acari, with descriptions of new species. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 35: 363–392.Google Scholar
Hering, E. 1838. Die Kräzmilben der Thiere und einige verwandte Arten, nach eigenen Untersuchungen beschrieben. Verh. Kais. Leop.-Car. Akad. Naturf. 18: 573–624.Google Scholar
Heyden, G. von. 1826. Versuch einer systematischen Eintheilung der Acariden. Isis 18: 608–613.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1956. Kieferklauenform und Lebensweise freilebender Milben. Mikrokosmos 45: 252–254.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1957. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 1. Rumpfbehaarung und Rückenflächen. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 1, 1–20, I–V pp., 26 pl.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1959. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 2. Mundwerkzeuge und Hypostombestimmungstafeln. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 2, 1–23, I–II pp., 7 pl.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1962. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 5. Gamasiden. Acarologie, SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 5, 1–56 pp., 22 pl.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. M. 1948. The mites associated with stored food products. Minist. Agric. Fish. H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
Hull, J. E. 1918. Terrestrial Acari of the Tyne Province. Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb., N. Ser., 5: 13–88.Google Scholar
Hyatt, K. H. 1964. A collection of Mesostigmata (Acari) associated with Coleoptera and Hemiptera in Venezuela. Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Zool. 11: 465–509.Google Scholar
Karg, W. 1961. Ökologische Untersuchungen von edaphischen Gamasiden (Acarina, Parasitiformes). 2. Teil Pedobiologia 1: 77–98.Google 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
Keegan, H. L. 1944. On a new genus and species of parasitid mite. J. Parasit. 30: 181–183.Google Scholar
Koch, C. L. 1836. Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden. Heft 4. F. Pustet, Regensburg.Google Scholar
Koch, C. L. 1839. Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden. Heft 24. F. Pustet, Regensburg.Google Scholar
Koch, C. L. 1842–1843. Übersich des Arachnidensystems. Heft 3. C. H. Zeh'schen Buchhandlung, Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Kramer, P. 1876. Zur Naturgeschichte einiger Gattungen aus der Familie der Gamasiden. Arch. Naturgesch. 42: 46–105.Google Scholar
Krantz, G. W. 1962. Acari, free-living Mesostigmata. II. The family Accosejidae. Explor. Parc. natn. Garamba, Mission H. De Saeger, Fasc. 34. 30 pp.Google Scholar
Leonardi, G. 1899. Nuove species di Acari trovate a Portici. In G. Canestrini, Prospetto dell' Acarofauna Italiana 8: 922–928.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1961. Taxonomic and biological studies of mites of the genus Arctoseius Thor from Barrow, Alaska (Acarina: Aceosejidae). Hilgardia 30: 301–350.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1962. Mucroseius monochami, a new genus and species of mite (Acarina: Blattisocidae) symbiotic with sawyer beetles. Canad. Ent. 94: 972–980.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1963. A taxonomic review of the genus Hoploseius Berlese (Acarina: Blattisocidae). Canad. Ent. 95: 1175–1185.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. 1965. An unusual new species of Hoploseius Berlese (Acarina: Blattisociidae) from Mexico. Canad. Ent. 97: 1121–1131.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E., and Chant, D. A.. 1964. A redescription of Aceodromus Muma and its transfer to the Blattisociinae (Acarina: Blattisociidae). Canad. Ent. 96: 500–507.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E., and Hunter, P. E.. 1965. Some mites of the genus Proctolaelaps Berlese (Acarina: Blattisociidae) associated with forest insect pests. Canad. Ent. 97: 15–32.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, 10th ed. Salvii, L., Holmiae.Google Scholar
Mathys, G., and Tencalla, Y.. 1959. Note préliminaire sur la biologie et la valeur prédatrice de Proctolaelaps hypudaei Oudms. (Acarien, Mesostigmata, Aceosejidae). Annu. agric. Suisse 60: 645–654.Google Scholar
Muma, M. H. 1961a. Subfamilies, genera, and species of Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Bull. Fla St. Mus., Biol. Sci. 5: 267–302.Google Scholar
Muma, M. H. 1961b. Mites associated with citrus in Florida. Bull. Univ. Fla Agric. Exp. Sta. 640. 39 pp.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, H. H. J. 1951. A taxonomic study of the Phytoseiinae (family Laelaptidae) predaceous upon Tetranychidae of economic importance. Zool. Verh. 12. 64 pp., 32 pl.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1902. New list of Dutch Acari, second part. Tijdschr. Ent. 45: 1–52.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1903. Acarologische Aanteekeningen, VI. Ent. Ber. 1: 83–88.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1929. Acarologische Aanteekeningen C. Ent. Ber. 8: 28–36.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1936. Kritisch Historisch Overzicht der Acarologie. Brill, E. J., Leiden. 3, Bd. A: xx + 430 pp.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1938. Nieuwe vondsten op het gebied der Systematiek en der Nomenclatuur der Acari. Tijdschr. Ent. 81: II–X.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1939. Neue Funde auf dem Gebiete der Systematik und der Nomenklatur der Acari. III. Zool. Anz. 126: 20–24.Google Scholar
Radford, C. D. 1950. Systematic check list of mite genera and type species. Un. int. Set. biol., Ser. C, Sec. Ent. 1: 1–252.Google Scholar
Ryke, P. A. J. 1954. Two new predatory mites (Acarina: Phytoseiinae) from Proteas in the Western Province. J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 17: 241–245.Google Scholar
Ryke, P. A. J. 1962a. The genus Antennoseius Berlese (Acarina: Rhodacaridae). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 13, 4: 657–663.Google Scholar
Ryke, P. A. J. 1962b. The subfamily Rhodacarinae with notes on a new subfamily Ologamasinae (Acarina: Rhodacaridae). Ent. Ber. 22: 155–162.Google Scholar
Sellnick, M. 1941. Einige Milbenarten C. L. Kochs. Zool. Anz. 133: 146–155.Google Scholar
Sellnick, M. 1944. Zercon C. L. Koch. Acari, Bl. Milbenk. 5: 30–41.Google Scholar
Thor, S. 1930. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der invertebraten Fauna von Svalbard. Skr. Svalb. og lshavet 27: 1–156.Google Scholar
Trägårdh, I. 1910. Acariden aus dem Sarekgebirge. Naturw. Untersuch. Sarekgeb., Bd. 4, Zool.: 375–586.Google Scholar
Trägårdh, I. 1946. Outlines of a new classification of the Mesostigmata (Acarina) based on comparative morphological data. Acta Univ. lund., K. fysiogr. Sällsk. Lund Handl., N. F., 57, No. 4. 37 pp.Google Scholar
Turk, F. A., and Turk, S. M.. 1952. Studies of Acari. 7th Series: Records and descriptions of mites new to the British fauna, together with short notes on the biology of sundry species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 12, 5: 475–506.Google Scholar
Vitzthum, H. 1925. Fauna sumatrensis. (Beitrag No. 5). Acarinae. Suppl. ent., Berl. 11: 1–79.Google Scholar
Vitzthum, H. 1929. 5. Ordnung: Milben, Acari. Tierwelt Mitteleur. 3, Lief. 3, Abt. 7.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 Kl. Ordn. Tierreichs 5, Abt. 4, Buch 5. 1011 pp. in 7 Lief.Google Scholar
Voigts, H., and Oudemans, A. C.. 1904. Neue Milben aus der Umgegend von Bremen. Zool. Anz. 27: 651–656.Google Scholar
Voigts, H., and Oudemans, A. C.. 1905. Zur Kenntnis der Milben-Fauna von Bremen. Abh. naturw. Ver. Bremen 18: 199–253.Google Scholar
Westerboer, I. 1963. Mesostigmata 1. Beitr. Syst. Ökol. mitteleur. Acarina 2, Abschn. 4–5: 179–804.Google Scholar
Willmann, C. 1938. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Acarofauna des Komitates Bars. Annls. hist.- nat. Mus. natn. hung., Zool. 31: 144–172.Google Scholar
Willmann, C. 1949. Das Genus Arctoseius Sig Thor 1930 (Acari). Abh. naturw. Ver. Bremen 32: 349–358.Google Scholar
Womersley, H. 1956. On some new Acarina-Mesostigmata from Australia, New Zealand and New Guinea. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 42: 505–599.Google Scholar
Womersley, H. 1960. A new genus and species Laelaptoseius novae-zelandiae from New Zealand (Acarina, Aceosejidae). Trans, roy. Soc. S. Aust. 83: 31–32.Google Scholar