Berlese's Primitive Oribatid Mites Author van der Hammen, L. text Zoologische Verhandelingen 1959 40 1 93 http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/148866 journal article ORI111 0DC6B575-3CB3-41C1-A3EC-850520AE4487 Nothrus C. L. Koch , 1836 Nothrus C. L. Koch, 1836, fasc. 2 (17, 18); 1842, vol. 3, p. 110. Angelia Berlese, 1885a, fasc. 17 (6); 1885c, p. 9; 1885a, p. 127; 1896a, fasc. 79 (8); 1896b, pp. 24, 26; 1913a, p. 58. C. L. Koch used the generic name Nothrus for the first time in 1836, when he described two species that are nowadays considered representatives of the genus Camisia von Heyden (1826). In 1842 Koch designated, however, Nothrus palustris (a species described by him in 1839) as type of the genus; this conception is generally accepted. Opinion 204 of the "Opinions and declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature" deals with Koch's designation of types. In the present case it will be necessary to submit an application to the Commission for the use of the Plenary Powers, because adoption of the rules would lead to instability and confusion; the possibility of this use is mentioned in the opinion in question. Berlese (1885a) divided the genus Camisia into two subgenera: Angelia Berlese , and Nothrus C. L. Koch ; he designated Angelia anauniensis as type of the first-mentioned subgenus, so that the identity with Nothrus (sensu C. L. Koch, 1842) is evident ( Nothrus sensu Berlese is a synonym of Camisia ). Berlese (1896a) considered Angelia a separate genus and mentioned Angelia palustris and A. sylvestris as types. Berlese (1913a) mentioned Nothrus palustris as type of Angelia , whilst he enumerated the following species: palustris C. L. Koch , anauniensis Canestrini & Fanzago , plus var., sylvestris Nicolet, quadripila Ewing (at the same time mentioned as representative of Nothrus (= Camisia ) 1), glabra Michael , and pulchella Berlese . With the exception of glabra , these species still belong to one genus. 1) A redescription of quadripila was given by Woolley (1955). In this study a comparison is made with other representatives of the genus; a related species ( Nothrus borussicus Sellnick ) was, however, omitted.