A revision of the family Ameroseiidae (Acari, Mesostigmata), with some data on Slovak fauna
Author
Masan, Peter
Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 845 06 Bratislava, Slovakia
uzaepema@savba.sk
text
ZooKeys
2017
2017-09-29
704
1
228
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.704.13304
journal article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.704.13304
1313-2970-704-1
111A101E74054C408F51693957A64D97
CB39FF8EFFA2FF8CFFBFFFA9FF94FF8B
1149838
Sinoseius lobatus Bai, Gu & Fang, 1995
Plates 73
, 74
, 75
Sinoseius lobatus
Bai, Gu & Fang, 1995: 436.
Sinoseius pinnatus
Huhta & Karg, 2010: 335.
Syn. n.
Sinoseius pinnatus
. -
Fenďa
and
Lukas
2014
: 174.
Type depository.
Of
Sinoseius lobatus
- Institute of Endemic Disease Control, Ningxia Autonomous Region, Yinchuan, China; of
Sinoseius pinnatus
- Zoological Museum, University of Turku, Finland; Senckenberg Museum
fuer
Naturkunde,
Goerlitz
, Germany; Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Type locality and habitat.
Of
Sinoseius lobatus
- China, Ningxia Autonomous Region, Haiyuan County, on long-tailed dwarf hamster,
Cricetulus longicaudatus
(
Mammalia
,
Rodentia
,
Cricetidae
); of
Sinoseius pinnatus
- Finland, Parainen, Sunnaberg, bottom of straw shed.
Comparative material.
Finland
:
2 ♀♀
(ZMT: ACA.MES.FIN.3.654,
holotype
and
paratype
) -
10. 10. 1982
,
Parainen
,
Sunnaberg
, bottom of straw shed, leg.
P. T. Lehtinen
(labelled
Sinoseius pinnatus
)
.
Published and verified material from
Slovakia
.
Cierna
Hora Mts.:
Veľky
Folkmar Village,
Ruzin
Dam;
Veľky
Folkmar Village,
Veľka
Hoľa
Cave (
Fenďa and
Lukas
2014
, cited as
Sinoseius pinnatus
).
Remarks.
The first European finding of the genus
Sinoseius
was that of
Huhta and Karg (2010)
from Finland (bottom of straw shed and grass in garden of old farm).
Fenďa
and
Lukas
(2014)
found the species in a frozen nest of
Sitta europaea
Linnaeus, 1758 (
Aves
,
Passeriformes
), in a nest box, and in a soil sample from the dysphotic zone of a cave. I have compared the holotype and one paratype of
Sinoseius pinnatus
with the specimens reported from Slovakia by
Fenďa
and
Lukas
(2014)
, and found that they are clearly conspecific. According to
Huhta and Karg (2010)
,
Sinoseius lobatus
and
S. pinnatus
can be distinguished by the features presented as follows: in
S. lobatus
, dorsal setae "remarkably long", j5 = j5-j6, j6> j6-J2, tines of dorsal setae strong (depicted seven pairs of tines), anal shield distinctly wider than long (length/width = 2:3), corniculi bifid; in
S. pinnatus
, dorsal setae
"moderate"
, j5 = 2/3
x
j5-j6, j6 <j6-J2, tines of dorsal setae very thin (depicted up to 19 instead of 9-10 pairs of tines), anal shield only a little wider than long, corniculi distally trifid. It is clear that the distinctions made in the original descriptions and differential diagnosis of
S. pinnatus
by
Huhta and Karg (2010)
are based on characteristics that are misinterpreted (form of setae and corniculi) or vary considerably (relative length of dorsal setae, proportion of anal shield), and I do not hesitate to propose the synonymy of both mentioned species, although no types of
S. lobatus
were examined in this study. When compared the Slovak specimens of
Sinoseius
with quite adequate original illustrations of
S. lobatus
from China, it was not possible to find reliable distinguishing characters between them.