From 4884a6940fdb5489ed8d7515985a8b0e0d455b55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ggserver Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 09:41:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Add updates up until 2024-09-19 09:35:34 --- .../8F/42168F53FF843B13FE4AA8C7FA7A75FF.xml | 62 +- .../87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9A92FC414DED.xml | 72 +- .../87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9E2BFC6B494A.xml | 72 +- .../87/767187FEFFB3FF9BFE4C9CD8FD424EBA.xml | 74 +- .../87/767187FEFFB9FF91FE4C9838FD684C89.xml | 74 +- .../87/767187FEFFBBFF93FE4C9E58FAE749A4.xml | 74 +- .../87/767187FEFFBEFF96FE4C9F2CFC8D489D.xml | 72 +- .../38/B52D38629558FFE5FE17FA8BFB6DF8C4.xml | 90 -- .../38/B52D38629558FFF9FE17FA8BFD46FC67.xml | 1394 +++++++++++++++++ 9 files changed, 1648 insertions(+), 336 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFE5FE17FA8BFB6DF8C4.xml create mode 100644 data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFF9FE17FA8BFD46FC67.xml diff --git a/data/42/16/8F/42168F53FF843B13FE4AA8C7FA7A75FF.xml b/data/42/16/8F/42168F53FF843B13FE4AA8C7FA7A75FF.xml index a61b54bba8f..609e9413ddc 100644 --- a/data/42/16/8F/42168F53FF843B13FE4AA8C7FA7A75FF.xml +++ b/data/42/16/8F/42168F53FF843B13FE4AA8C7FA7A75FF.xml @@ -1,50 +1,50 @@ - - - -New records of the water mite genus Arrenurus Dugès, 1834 from South America (Acari: Hydrachnidia: Arrenuridae), with the description of five new species and one new subspecies + + + +New records of the water mite genus Arrenurus Dugès, 1834 from South America (Acari: Hydrachnidia: Arrenuridae), with the description of five new species and one new subspecies - - -Author + + +Author -Smit, Harry -Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P. O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands. +Smit, Harry +Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P. O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-04-29 + +2020 + +2020-04-29 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -371 -389 + +371 +389 -journal article -8262 -10.24349/acarologia/20204374 -32aba51d-7618-467b-9ffe-7f430d20bc7f -2107-7207 -4487883 +journal article +8262 +10.24349/acarologia/20204374 +32aba51d-7618-467b-9ffe-7f430d20bc7f +2107-7207 +4487883 - + Arrenurus surinamensis n. sp diff --git a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9A92FC414DED.xml b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9A92FC414DED.xml index 3cd7baccaa8..f0f182335a4 100644 --- a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9A92FC414DED.xml +++ b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9A92FC414DED.xml @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ - - - -Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) + + + +Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) - - -Author + + +Author -Kreiter, Serge +Kreiter, Serge - - -Author + + +Author -Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. -Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. +Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. +Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-05-11 + +2020 + +2020-05-11 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -449 -468 + +449 +468 -journal article -8256 -10.24349/acarologia/20204376 -0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d -2107-7207 -4488033 +journal article +8256 +10.24349/acarologia/20204376 +0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d +2107-7207 +4488033 @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Tribe -Phytoseiulini Chant & McMurtry +Phytoseiulini Chant & McMurtry @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Tribe - + Phytoseiulini Chant & McMurtry 2006a: 17 diff --git a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9E2BFC6B494A.xml b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9E2BFC6B494A.xml index 25ce5cc9d23..3fea43d25b7 100644 --- a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9E2BFC6B494A.xml +++ b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB0FF98FE4C9E2BFC6B494A.xml @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ - - - -Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) + + + +Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) - - -Author + + +Author -Kreiter, Serge +Kreiter, Serge - - -Author + + +Author -Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. -Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. +Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. +Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-05-11 + +2020 + +2020-05-11 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -449 -468 + +449 +468 -journal article -8256 -10.24349/acarologia/20204376 -0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d -2107-7207 -4488033 +journal article +8256 +10.24349/acarologia/20204376 +0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d +2107-7207 +4488033 @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Subtribe -Paraphytoseiina Chant & McMurtry +Paraphytoseiina Chant & McMurtry @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Subtribe - + Paraphytoseiina Chant & McMurtry 2003b: 211 diff --git a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB3FF9BFE4C9CD8FD424EBA.xml b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB3FF9BFE4C9CD8FD424EBA.xml index 79c29e64dbc..34876224210 100644 --- a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB3FF9BFE4C9CD8FD424EBA.xml +++ b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB3FF9BFE4C9CD8FD424EBA.xml @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ - - - -Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) + + + +Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) - - -Author + + +Author -Kreiter, Serge +Kreiter, Serge - - -Author + + +Author -Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. -Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. +Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. +Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-05-11 + +2020 + +2020-05-11 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -449 -468 + +449 +468 -journal article -8256 -10.24349/acarologia/20204376 -0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d -2107-7207 -4488033 +journal article +8256 +10.24349/acarologia/20204376 +0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d +2107-7207 +4488033 @@ -114,8 +114,8 @@ Moraes . - + Phytoseiulus longipes @@ -129,8 +129,10 @@ Moraes 1999 ). + + Phytoseiulus riegeli @@ -140,8 +142,8 @@ Moraes (synonymy according to Chant 1959 ). - + Phytoseiulus tardi diff --git a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB9FF91FE4C9838FD684C89.xml b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB9FF91FE4C9838FD684C89.xml index cbfa93362b2..dd224a54a83 100644 --- a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB9FF91FE4C9838FD684C89.xml +++ b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFB9FF91FE4C9838FD684C89.xml @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ - - - -Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) + + + +Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) - - -Author + + +Author -Kreiter, Serge +Kreiter, Serge - - -Author + + +Author -Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. -Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. +Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. +Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-05-11 + +2020 + +2020-05-11 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -449 -468 + +449 +468 -journal article -8256 -10.24349/acarologia/20204376 -0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d -2107-7207 -4488033 +journal article +8256 +10.24349/acarologia/20204376 +0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d +2107-7207 +4488033 @@ -149,8 +149,8 @@ Moraes . - + Phytoseius hawaiiensis @@ -163,8 +163,10 @@ Moraes & Evans 2011 ). + + Phytoseius huangi @@ -172,8 +174,8 @@ Moraes (synonymy according to Ehara 2002). - + diff --git a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBBFF93FE4C9E58FAE749A4.xml b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBBFF93FE4C9E58FAE749A4.xml index 4f8b9baac06..a6cd77e46ef 100644 --- a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBBFF93FE4C9E58FAE749A4.xml +++ b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBBFF93FE4C9E58FAE749A4.xml @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ - - - -Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) + + + +Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) - - -Author + + +Author -Kreiter, Serge +Kreiter, Serge - - -Author + + +Author -Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. -Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. +Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. +Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-05-11 + +2020 + +2020-05-11 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -449 -468 + +449 +468 -journal article -8256 -10.24349/acarologia/20204376 -0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d -2107-7207 -4488033 +journal article +8256 +10.24349/acarologia/20204376 +0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d +2107-7207 +4488033 @@ -58,14 +58,16 @@ Subfamily - + Typhlodromini Wainstein 1962: 26 -; +; + + Typhlodrominae diff --git a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBEFF96FE4C9F2CFC8D489D.xml b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBEFF96FE4C9F2CFC8D489D.xml index 4a9fdecb4d8..f4284e47b63 100644 --- a/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBEFF96FE4C9F2CFC8D489D.xml +++ b/data/76/71/87/767187FEFFBEFF96FE4C9F2CFC8D489D.xml @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ - - - -Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) + + + +Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island (Acari: Mesostigmata) - - -Author + + +Author -Kreiter, Serge +Kreiter, Serge - - -Author + + +Author -Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. -Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. +Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. +Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), 7 Nadi El-Seid Street, Dokii, 12611 Giza, Egypt. -text - - -Acarologia +text + + +Acarologia - -2020 - -2020-05-11 + +2020 + +2020-05-11 - -60 + +60 - -2 + +2 - -449 -468 + +449 +468 -journal article -8256 -10.24349/acarologia/20204376 -0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d -2107-7207 -4488033 +journal article +8256 +10.24349/acarologia/20204376 +0e2179c4-a1e3-4a5a-be33-e4b9a094037d +2107-7207 +4488033 @@ -61,13 +61,14 @@ Wainstein - + Amblyseius ( Amblyseius ) + section @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ section ; + Euseius diff --git a/data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFE5FE17FA8BFB6DF8C4.xml b/data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFE5FE17FA8BFB6DF8C4.xml deleted file mode 100644 index 90ae09f7d7d..00000000000 --- a/data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFE5FE17FA8BFB6DF8C4.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ - - - -Two unusual new species of Caleremaeus (Acari: Oribatida) from eastern North America, with redescription of C. retractus and reevaluation of the genus - - - -Author - -Norton, Roy A. -State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, 13210, USA. - - - -Author - -Behan-Pelletier, Valerie M. -Invertebrate Biodiversity Program, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, K. W. Neatby Bldg., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. - -text - - -Acarologia - - -2020 - -2020-05-11 - - -60 - - -2 - - -398 -448 - - - -journal article -8260 -10.24349/acarologia/20204375 -1d0971e8-a0d9-4e39-921b-0de44a0a6e3c -2107-7207 -4487919 -393A73A9-253B-4A24-8635-C54C22326D10 - - - - - - - -Caleremaeus retractus -( -Banks, 1947 -) - - - - - - - - -Carabodoides retracta -Banks, 1947 - -; p. 123. [Nomen nudum in -Pearse 1946 -, p. 148] - -Caleremaeus retractus -( -Banks, 1947 -) - -; - -Marshall -et al. -1987 - -, p. 225 - - - - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFF9FE17FA8BFD46FC67.xml b/data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFF9FE17FA8BFD46FC67.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..8948df95282 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/B5/2D/38/B52D38629558FFF9FE17FA8BFD46FC67.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1394 @@ + + + +Two unusual new species of Caleremaeus (Acari: Oribatida) from eastern North America, with redescription of C. retractus and reevaluation of the genus + + + +Author + +Norton, Roy A. +State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, 13210, USA. + + + +Author + +Behan-Pelletier, Valerie M. +Invertebrate Biodiversity Program, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, K. W. Neatby Bldg., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. + +text + + +Acarologia + + +2020 + +2020-05-11 + + +60 + + +2 + + +398 +448 + + + +journal article +8260 +10.24349/acarologia/20204375 +1d0971e8-a0d9-4e39-921b-0de44a0a6e3c +2107-7207 +4487919 +393A73A9-253B-4A24-8635-C54C22326D10 + + + + + + + +Caleremaeus retractus +( +Banks, 1947 +) + + + + + + + + +Carabodoides retracta +Banks, 1947 + +; p. 123. [Nomen nudum in +Pearse 1946 +, p. 148] + +Caleremaeus retractus +( +Banks, 1947 +) + +; + +Marshall +et al. +1987 + +, p. 225 + + + + + +Etymology +— +Banks (1947) +presented no explanation of the species epithet, and there are + +no hints in his description. + +Marshall +et al. +(1987) + +treated ‘retracta’ as an adjective and emended the name accordingly. + + + + + +Type +locality + +— The +type +specimens (below) derived from a study of soil animals of the Duke Forest (Durham Co., +North Carolina +) by +Pearse (1946) +. The Duke Forest is somewhat fragmented and, since four different locations and habitats were studied, the exact origin of the +types +is unknown. + + +Type material +— +Banks (1947) +reported two specimens in the type series. The +holotype +(original designation as ‘type’) is a slide-mounted specimen in the arachnid collection of the MCZ. The label bears the following data in Banks’ handwriting: ‘Duke Forest N. Car.; #475; Pearse; + +Carabodoides retracta +Bks + +; 3018 +type +.’ The mite is broken by crushing but has an estimated total length of about +320 µm +. The second specimen is a +paratype +in the mite collection of the +USNM +. It is a gravid female, also broken, with an estimated original length of +340 µm +and with the following label data in Banks’ handwriting: ‘Duke Forest, N.C. 238, Pearse, Jan. + +Carabodoides retracta +Bks. + +Paratype +.’ The measurements contrast significantly with the ‘.55 to.6 mm’ reported by +Banks (1947) +. + + + +Other material examined +— Approximately 40 topotypic adults ( +24 females +, +10 males +, + +several undetermined) with the following data: +North Carolina +, Durham Co., Duke Forest (35° 58.9 +஥ +N, 78° 56.6 +஥ +W), +4-V-1979 +, L.J. Metz, col., from loblolly pine ( + +Pinus taeda +Linn. + +) and hardwood forest litter. Also available for study were 30 nymphs and more than +300 adults +from a nearby location that we consider near-topotypes: +North Carolina +, Durham Co., G.W. Hill Demonstration Forest (36°12.1 +஥ +N, 78°52.9 +஥ +W), 1973 (various dates), L.J. Metz col., from loblolly pine forest litter and upper soil. + + + + +Diagnosis +— + +Caleremaeus + +species with adults having total length +306–340 µm +. Prodorsum with well-developed distal cusps. Each cusp longer than wide, pair usually close together and basally-connected; tip pointed, oblique beyond insertion of seta +le +. Lamella well defined proximally, with variable development more anteriorly; tutorium well developed, enantiophysis +eA +present. Usually with single small pair of dorsosejugal tubercles. Notogastral setae small (most +11–14 µm +), inconspicuously barbed beyond basal cerotegument nodule. Epimeral groove 2 usually without bordering tubercles or knots; ventrosejugal groove with only enantiophysis +eS +. Female with five pairs of genital setae, male with 4–6. Leg femora each with porose area. +Nymphs +with bothridial seta elongate, nearly as long as prodorsum, squamose in distal half but without distinct head; gastronotic seta +h +1 +with length similar to that of +bs +, narrow, barbed throughout, pair closely parallel and distinctly bowed; exuvial scalps appearing reticulated in transmitted light. + + + + +Table 1 +Ontogeny of leg setae and solenidia in + +Caleremaeus + +species +1, 2 +. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
TrochanterFemurGenuTibiaTarsus
Leg I
Larva +- + +d, bv" + +(l), dσ + +(l), v', dφ +1 + +(ft), (tc), (p), (u), (a), s, (pv), (pl), e, ω +1 +
Protonymph +- + +- + +- + +- + +ω +2 +
Deutonymph +- + +(l) + +- + +φ +2 + +- +
Tritonymph +v' + +- + +v' + +v" + +(it) +
Adult +- + +- + +[ +d +lost] + +[ +d +lost] + +v', l" +
Leg II
Larva +- + +d, bv" + +(l), dσ + +l', v', dφ + +(ft), (tc), (p), (u), (a), s, (pv), ω +
Protonymph +- + +- + +- + +- + +- +
Deutonymph +- + +(l) + +- + +l" + +- +
Tritonymph +v' + +- + +- + +v" + +- +
Adult +- + +- + +[ +d +lost] + +[ +d +lost] + +l" +, ( +it +) +
Leg III
Larva +- + +d, ev' + +l’, dσ + +v', dφ + +(ft), (tc), (p), (u), (a), s, (pv) +
Protonymph +- + +- + +- + +- + +- +
Deutonymph +v', l’ + +l' + +- + +l' +3 + +- +
Tritonymph +- + +- + +- + +l' +3, +v" + +- +
Adult +- + +- + +[ +d +lost] + +[ +d +lost] + +it" +
Leg IV
Protonymph +- + +- + +- + +- + +ft", (p), (u), (pv) +
Deutonymph +- + +d, ev' + +d, l' + +v', dφ + +(瑣), a",⁳ +
Tritonymph +v' + +- + +- + +l', v" + +- +
Adult +- + +- + +- + +[ +d +lost] +-
+ + + +1 +Adult data are based on all studied species and populations, including + +C. monilipes + +from Sweden, Germany and Spain. Ontogenetic data are from + +C. arboricolus + + +n. sp. + +(topotypical population), + +C. retractus + +(near-topotypical population), a species in the ‘retractus group’ (New York population; see text), and + +C. monilipes + +(Norwegian population; see Seniczak and +Seniczak 2019 +and corrections in R12); from each population all instars were studied, except no larva was available from the + +C. retractus + +near-topotypical population. + + +2 +Setae (Roman letters) and solenidia ( +σ, φ, ω +) are shown where they are first added and are assumed present through the rest of ontogeny, unless noted in brackets. Setae in parentheses represent pseudosymmetrical pairs; dash indicates no addition; underline indicates solenidion is coupled to seta +d +, in same alveolus. + + +3 +Seta +l' +of tibia III is invariably deutonymphal in + +C. arboricolus + +, + +C. retractus + +and the ‘retractus group’ from New York. By contrast, in + +C. monilipes +l' + +first forms along with +v" +in the tritonymph, according to Seniczak and +Seniczak (2019) +; appropriately, +l' +is absent from both tibiae III of our single deutonymph from Sweden. + + + + + +Adult + + + +Figures 1–5 + + +Dimensions +— Total length of 20 measured topotypes +306–340 µm +(mean 324); maximum width +172–203 µm +(mean 189). Female (n = 10) length +323–340 µm +(mean 333), maximum width +191–203 µm +(mean 198); male (n = 10) length +306–328 µm +(mean 313), width 172–191 µm (mean 179). + + +Integument, setae +— Cerotegument excrescences mostly in form of near-spherical nodule with short, thick stalk (like unopened ‘button’ mushroom). Nodules relatively uniform in size according to location: largest on mid-notogaster, +4–6 µm +diameter ( +Fig. 2A, C, D +), often well-spaced; slightly smaller (~ +3 µm +) anteriorly and laterally on notogaster, densely packed, usually touching; smallest (~ +1–2 µm +) on prodorsum, venter and legs; basal cerotegument layer on venter microgranular between nodules. Most dorsal setae (except +bs +) short, inconspicuous, acuminate; basal third hyaline, smooth, penetrating distinct, usually shaded, cerotegument nodule; distal region pigmented, with minute barbs on outer curvature (e.g. +Figs 2G +, +3D +). Most ventral setae simple, nearly straight, without pigment or distinct cerotegument nodule. + + +Prodorsum +— Surface usually foveolate, with well-spaced circular depressions mostly +5–8 µm +diameter ( +Fig. 1A +), foveate in some ( +Fig. 2G +); tip of rostrum and subtriangular posteromedial region (with muscle sigilla) mostly smooth. With basally-connected pair of strongly projecting cusps ( +Fig. 2G +; +cu +), longer than wide, each bearing lamellar seta ( +le +) near tip; lateral margin of cusp distal to +le +insertion sharply oblique, forming pointed tip directed anteromedially at variable, often asymmetrical angle; paired tips often pincer-like, separated by only +2–8 µm +. Cusp pair usually appear connected basally, with U-shaped inner margin, separated by less than their length, rarely with wider separation ( +Fig. 2H +). Submarginal crest ( +smc +) extending beyond insertion of rostral seta ( +ro +), completely around front of rostrum (Figs 1B, 2J, I, 3G); cuticle scrobiculate immediately below crest. Rostral bulge ( +Fig. 2I, K, L +) conspicuous, with embossed pattern on ventral surface. Lamella well defined posteriorly (level of acetabulum I); with variable development more anteriorly, either extending onto base of cusps ( +Fig. 2H +) or (more commonly) effacing proximal to cusps ( +Figs 1A +, +2G +). Tutorium effacing anteriorly, well developed posteriorly to form anterior part of prodorsal enantiophysis +eA +( +Fig. 1B +); posterior tubercle of e +A +well-defined, conical, nearly touching tutorium. Short longitudinal ridge present laterally, between seta +ex +and acetabula I, II ( +Fig. 1B +). With single pair of small, rounded to subrectangular dorsosejugal tubercles, located at corners of smooth sigillar region ( +Fig. 1A +; +dt +); tubercle sometimes doubled or bilobed ( +Fig. 3 +B–C). Bothridial seta ( +bs +; ~ +55–60 µm +) projecting dorsolaterally, slightly curved just outside bothridium, remainder straight; squamose head comprising half its length, lightly pigmented, usually with acute tip; stalk smooth, unpigmented ( +Figs 1A +, +2E +). Posterior wall of bothridium with strong, conical, tooth-like tubercle directed at humeral process of notogaster, and second more medial tubercle, usually smaller ( +Figs 1A +, +3 +B–C). Seta +le +(~ +15 µm +; +Fig. 2G +) strongly curved medially, tips of pair overlapping or not according to form of cusps; +ro +(~ +15 µm +) curved anteroventrally, inserting on submarginal crest at level slightly posterior to +le +; seta +in +( +15–20 µm +; +Fig. 3G +) slightly curved or nearly straight, mutual distance 4–5 times length; seta +ex +(~ +15 µm +) inserted between bothridium and short lateral ridge. Setal vestige +exv +ventral or posteroventral to +ex +, nearly touching its alveolus. + + +Notogaster +— Length about 1.2 times width; usually evenly rounded posteriorly. Foveae mostly limited to transverse sulcus and to anterolateral region between setae +c +and +la +( +Fig. 3A +). Humeral process ( +hpr +) medium-sized ( +8–10 µm +long), tip usually not reaching bothridial tubercle across sejugal groove. Anterior margin (between +hpr +) irregular, with series of 4–12 small tubercles (up to +4 µm +long), weak knots, or slight bulges ( +Fig. 3 +A-C). Most setae with form of prodorsal setae noted above, +11–14 µm +; +h +1 +with same form, but usually slightly larger ( +12–18 µm +), medially curled, mutual distance of pair about equal to length; +p +2 +– +p +3 +smaller ( +6–8 µm +) and differently shaped, smooth, without pigment or basal cerotegument nodule ( +Fig. 3D +). Lyrifissures +ia +, +im +, +ip +relatively large ( +10–14 µm +; +Fig. 3B +), +ips +, +ih +smaller (~ +6 µm +). + + + +Figure 1 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, adult: A – dorsal view (legs mostly omitted); B – lateral view (gnathosoma, legs and anal, genital plates omitted); C – subcapitulum, ventral view (adoral lips and palps omitted); D – palp, abaxial view. Scale bars: 50 µm (A, B); 10 µm (C, D). + + + + +Figure 2 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, transmitted-light micrographs of near-topotypical adults: A – dorsolateral view; B – posterior view; C – cerotegument separated from notogaster, lateral view; D – same, dorsal view (face-on); E – bothridium and bothridial seta (head face-on); F – optical sections of bothridium; upper image focused fine circular striations of inner chamber, lower image on longitudinal striations of deepest part of inner chamber; G – anterior region of prodorsum, dorsal view (insert = enlargement of seta +le +, arrow to break in seta emphasizing surrounding cerotegument nodule); H – same, different specimen, showing cusp variation; I – anterior region of specimen in G, deeper focus showing rostral bulge and submarginal crest; J – prodorsum, dorsolateral view (gnathosoma removed; setae +le +and +ro +represented only by birefringent core); K – specimen in J, deeper focus on rostral bulge (arrowhead to transverse striae of embossed pattern on inner surface of rostral bulge; L – rostral region of dissected specimen, anterior view (black arrow to central ridge of embossed pattern on inner face of rostral bulge); M – parasagittal section of prodorsum and anterior hysterosoma (insert = enlarged base of rostral bulge and rostrophragma). Scale bars: 50 µm (A, B); 20 µm (J, M); 10 µm (E, G-I, K, L); 5 µm (C, D, F). + + + +Venter and lateral podosoma +— Foveate in acetabular region and lateral parts of coxisternum ( +Fig. 3F +), and usually in single transverse row behind smooth mentotectum; coxisternum without foveae centrally; with irregular muscle sigilla on inner face of cuticle. Laterosejugal enantiophysis ( +eL +) with strong conical to rounded tubercles. Epimeral groove 2 usually smooth. Enantiophysis +eS +variable in size, tubercles overlapping or not reaching each other; without other tubercles or knots along ventrosejugal groove. With strong, sculpted discidial ridge ( +dir +) posterior to acetabulum III and separate conical discidium +dis +() below it, near lateral end of epimeral border 3 ( +Fig. 1B +). Lateral coaptive ridges well-formed, connecting posterior tubercle of +eS +, discidium, and (usually) anterior tubercle of +e4 +( +Fig. 3F +). Epimeral setae acuminate to attenuate (~ +12–15 µm +). Aggenital enantiophysis ( +e4 +) strongly developed. Medial fossa of epimere IV often with small pair of projections on margin ( +Fig. 3F +). Anogenital region relatively smooth, but with inconspicuous fine striation in adanal region ( +Fig. 3E +). Apophysis of preanal organ slightly tapered to slightly expanded ( +Fig. 3F, H, I +). Females consistently with five pairs of genital setae; males variable, 4–6 (of +18 male +plates examined, nine with 4 setae, eight with 5, one with 6; asymmetrical in five of nine individuals). Anogenital setae acuminate; aggenitals and genitals ~ +6–7 µm +, anals ~ +5–6 µm +; adanals ~ +6–9 µm +( +ad +1 +longest). Lyrifissure +iad +~ +12 µm +( +Fig. 3E +). + + +Gnathosoma +— Subcapitulum smooth or with few scattered foveolae; hypostomal ( +h +, ~ +14 µm +) and genal ( +a +, +m +, ~ +15–18 µm +) setae attenuate. Chelicera ~ +80 µm +long, with 0–2 small spicules; setae +cha +(~ +22 µm +), +chb +(~ +15 µm +) attenuate, barbed. + + +Legs +( +Figs 4–5 +) — Femora I, II similar in form: with abrupt transition from proximal stalk to bulb, junction at nearly right-angle; femur I ~2.5, II ~2.0 times longer than high in lateral view, stalk occupying ~0.4 femoral length; stalk of femur II slightly broader than that of I. All femora with porose area, mostly on adaxial face of bulb. Tibia I with bulb markedly swollen, only ~1.2 times longer than high. Tarsus I abruptly tapered in distal half, but without distinct projecting mid-dorsal bulge. Tarsus II without noticeable proximal stalk, depth similar to that of tibia in lateral view. Seta +d +of femora short, flame-shaped, similar in structure to dorsal body setae (pigmented, barbed, with conspicuous cerotegument nodule at base; +Fig. 5D +). Seta +l +஥ +of genu and tibia I not conspicuously enlarged. + + + +Juveniles + + + +Figures 6–7 + +(Larva known only from exuvial scalp) + +Length (without setae) and maximum width of protonymph 230 x +98 µm +(n = 1); deutonymph 230–289 x +107–142 µm +(n = 9); tritonymph 284–353 x +147–181 µm +(n = 7). + + +Bothridial seta ( +Figs 6A +, +7H +) straight, elongated, nearly as long as prodorsum, gradually thickening distally but without distinct head, slightly lanceolate with angular tip; distinctly squamose in distal half. Setae +in +, +ex +, +le +minute, hardly extending beyond basal cerotegument nodule; +ro +about twice as long but inconspicuous, curved ventrad. Seta +le +inserted on weak tubercle, slightly longer than wide; +ro +inserted on truncate rostral projection appearing like anterior part of submarginal crest of adult ( +Figs 6B +, +7F +). Gastronotic region of larva (based on exuvial scalp; +Figs 6A +, +7 +B–C) with setae +c +1 +, +c +2 +, +la +, +lm +, +lp +minute (~ +3–4 µm +), smooth, acicular to nearly baculiform, hardly emerging from basal cerotegument nodule; dorsocentral setae closely paired (mutual distance +10–13 µm +), +da +(~ +8–9 µm +) and +dm +(~ +11–12 µm +) slightly arched, with strong barbs on outer curvature, +dp +(~ +24–26 µm +) weakly clavate, strongly squamose; +h +1 +similar to +dp +but shorter (~ +15–17 µm +). Setal pair +h +1 +closely parallel, greatly elongated, ~ +130–150 µm +in tritonymph (length relative to body length ~ +0.3 in +proto-, +0.4–0.5 in +deuto-, tritonymph); uniformly narrow except slightly tapered distally, with small but conspicuous barbs throughout. Nymphal seta +p +1 +subclavate seen face-on but slightly flattened and cupped, strongly squamose on upper curvature (~ +20 µm +in tritonymph); other gastronotic setae minute, simple, ( +4–8 µm +in tritonymph), hardly emerging from basal cerotegument nodule ( +Fig. 7 +I–K). Ventral setae simple, acuminate, without cerotegument nodule; in tritonymph, epimeral setae +6–9 µm +, genital and aggenital setae ~ +4 µm +, +ad +setae +6–7 µm +, +an +4–5 µm +. Genital seta ontogeny variable: deutonymph with two or three pairs, tritonymph with four or five, valves sometimes with asymmetrical complement. Lateral setae of legs generally short, inconspicuous; +l +′ of tibia I hardly reaching distally to end of segment ( +Fig. 7M +); seta +d +of tibia I with cilia and velumlike coating indistinct ( +Fig. 7L +). Exuvial scalps conspicuously reticulated due to fovea-like excavations on underside ( +Fig. 6 +A–B, 7A–C, E); seta +h +1 +consistently broken from nymphal exuviae. + + + + +Figure 3 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, transmitted-light micrographs of near-topotypical adults: A – anterior region of separated notogaster; B – right sejugal region, dorsal view; C – same, different specimen; D – notogastral setae, as labeled; E – adanal region and anal plate (no setae in focus); F – partial venter (setae seen only as alveolus due to focus limitations); G – rostrum and subcapitulum, ventral view; H – preanal organ and associated muscles (no clearing); I – two variants of same, with strong clearing; J – sagittal section of posterior hysterosoma. Scale bars: 20 µm (F); 10 µm (A-C, E, G, J); 5 µm (H, I); 2 µm (D). + + + + +Figure 4 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, legs of adult (abaxial aspect, trochanter omitted from I, II): A – leg I; B – leg II; C – leg IV. Scale bar: 20 µm. + + + + +Figure 5 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, transmitted-light micrographs of near-topotypical adults: A – legs I-IV, abaxial view (trochanters I, II not shown); B – trochanter and base of femur IV, mid-depth focus; C – same, deeper focus; D – partial leg III, with enlarged femoral seta +d +(upper left insert, arrow to basal cerotegument nodule) and tibial solenidion +φ +(upper right insert); E – left gena and rutellum, ventral view (removed from subcapitulum); F – chelicera, adaxial view; G – egg removed from oviduct. Scale bars: 20 µm (A, G); 10 µm (B-D, F); 5 µm (E). + + + + +Figure 6 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, juveniles: A – protonymph, dorsal view; B – deutonymph, lateral view, with smaller setae omitted from larval ( +SLa) +and protonymphal ( +SPn +) scalps. Dots indicate that seta is on exuvial scalp (one for larval, two for protonymphal). Scale bars: +50 µm +(B); +10 µm +(A). + + + + + +Comparisons + + + +Adults of + +Caleremaeus retractus + +are similar to those of + +C. monilipes + +( +cf +. +Weigmann 2006 +, Miko and +Travé 1996 +) and + +C. divisus + +in having a distinct lamella and tutorium and lamellar seta inserted on a strong cusp, traits that are absent from + +C. arboricolus + +and + +C. nasutus + +. According to the crude illustration of + +C. divisus + +, the cusp stops well short of the rostral margin, while reaching or surpassing it in + +C. monilipes + +and + +C. retractus + +; also, the anterior notogastral tubercles of + +C. divisus + +were drawn as far larger than those of other species, equal in size to the humeral process ( +Mihelčič 1952 +). + + +Adults of + +Caleremaeus retractus + +are distinguishable from those of + +C. monilipes +(Cm) + +by: (1) having a less sculptured prodorsum, including weakly-developed lamella (stronger in Cm); (2) having nearly erect setae +in +, the pair separated by 4–5 times setal length ( +in +slightly larger, curved mediad and separated by less than three times setal length in Cm); (3) lacking additional distinct knots or small tubercles along epimeral groove 2 and along the anterior edge of the sejugal groove between tubercle pair +Sa +(present in Cm); (4) having a modest humeral process that rarely reaches anteriorly to overlap bothridial tubercles (larger humeral process, overlapping with bothridial tubercle in Cm); (5) being smaller, with adult total length +306–340 µm +( +373–475 µm +in Cm). Nymphs are distinguishable by: (1) the narrow, elongate form and closely parallel orientation of setae +h + +1 +in + +nymphs (distinctly clavate and divergent in Cm; +Fig. 18C +); (2) having generally smaller, less conspicuous leg setae (generally larger in Cm; +cf. +setae +l +஥ +in +Figs 7M +, +18D +); having smooth, small, inconspicuous seta +ro +(larger, conspicuous, with several strong barbs, projecting distinctly forward beyond rostral margin in Cm; +Fig. 18D +, see also +Michael 1882 +). + + + +Possible species group + + + +As noted in the Introduction, morphometric and genetic evidence suggests that European records of + +Caleremaeus monilipes + +represent a complex of species ( + +Krisper +et al. +2017 + +) that ultimately may be considered the ‘monilipes’ species-group. The same may be true of the most similar North American species, + +C. retractus + +. + + +At an early stage of this study, we identified specimens of + +C. retractus + +from many locations in eastern North America, including the states of +Alabama +, +Arkansas +, +Florida +, +Georgia +, +Louisiana +, +Illinois +, +Indiana +, +Mississippi +, +New Hampshire +, +New York +, +Vermont +, +Virginia +and +West Virginia +, as well as the Canadian province of +Quebec +. Adults of these specimens are presently indistinguishable from those at the +type +location in +North Carolina +, except perhaps for a propensity of +New York +adults to have one or two small knots across epimeral groove 2 from seta +2a +( +Fig. 18E +). But juveniles suggest that more than one species is involved. In addition to the near-topotypical material from Durham Co., +North Carolina +, we have juveniles from +Florida +and from +New York +(Onondaga Co.). The +Florida +nymphs are identical to the near-topotypes, but +New York +juveniles are easily distinguished by their shorter, straighter pygidial setae ( + +Fig. 18G; +h + +), larger seta +l +஥ +on tibia and genu I, and tibia I seta +d +with more distinct barbs and + +1 + +velum-like coating. As with near-topotypes, setae +h +1 +of the +New York +population are adjacent, parallel and consistently broken from exuviae, unlike those of + +C. monilipes + +and + +C. arboricolus + +in which they are divergent and retained on exuviae. + + + +Figure 7 + +Caleremaeus retractus +(Banks) + +, transmitted-light micrographs of near-topotypical juveniles: A – protonymph, dorsal view (setae +h +1 +incomplete); B – same, lateral view of posterior hysterosoma; C – deutonymph, lateral view of hysterosoma; D – tritonymph, dorsal view (insert = right lamellar seta and cusp); E – same, lateral view of hysterosoma; F – tritonymph, ventral view of prodorsal margin and partial gnathosoma (upper right insert = enlarged seta +ro +); G – gastronotic cornicle of tritonymph (scalps removed); H – bothridial seta of deutonymph; I – gastronotal seta +lm +from tritonymph (arrow to basal cerotegument nodule); J – same, but seta +h +2 +; K – same, but seta +p +2 +; L – dorsodistal process of tibia I, tritonymph, distal to left ( +φ +1 +rising out of focus; insert = opposite side of seta +d +, showing faint barbs); M – tibia, genu and distal part of femur I from tritonymph, adaxial view; N – coupled seta +d +and solenidion on tibia II (distal to left). Dots in B, C, E indicate that labeled seta (or its insertion) is on exuvial scalp of larva (.), protonymph (..) or deutonymph (…). Scale bars: +50 µm +(D); +20 µm +(A-C, E); 10 µm (M); +5 µm +(F-H, L, N); +2 µm +(I-K). + + + +The differences could represent geographic variation in these setae, but without further knowledge of juveniles from other locations, and especially without genetic data, we have no basis for judgement. At present, we prefer to assign specimens with the adult traits of + +C. retractus + +to a ‘retractus’ species group unless juveniles are known and correspond with the near-topotypes. + + + + \ No newline at end of file